Banner
Current IssueEditorial BoardOnline First ArticlesArchive
Current IssueEditorial BoardOnline First ArticlesArchive

Research Article

volume 42 issue 2 (april 2019) : 162-167,   Doi: 10.18805/LR-438

Determination of morphological variability of different pisum genotypes using principal component analysis

F
Fatih Hanci
E
Esra Cebeci
1Erciyes University, Faculty of Agriculture, Kayseri, Turkey

  • Submitted29-06-2018|

  • Accepted06-09-2018|

  • First Online 15-11-2018|

  • doi 10.18805/LR-438

Cite article:- Hanci Fatih, Cebeci Esra (2018). Determination of morphological variability of different pisum genotypes using principal component analysis. Legume Research. 42(2): 162-167. doi: 10.18805/LR-438.

ABSTRACT

The aim of the study was to evaluate the variation among some Pisum genotypes using principal component analysis technique. The plant material covering wild pea accessions (Pisum fulvum L., P. abyssinicum L., P. sativum var. elatius), local varieties (P. sativum var. sativum L. and P. sativum var. arvense L.) and two commercial varieties were evaluated for 50 morphological traits. According to results, the first eleven principal component with Eigenvalues >1 contributed % 96.95 of the variability. The percentages of cumulative variation accounted for by each of the four principal component are 33.14%, 48.72%, 58.65%, and 66.88% respectively. Based on the principal coordinate analysis, five major groups were formed. In general, the diagram represented an obvious division between taxonomic groups except for P. sativum var. sativum and P. sativum var. arvense accessions.

REFERENCES

  1. Bhuvaneswari, S., Sharma, S. K., Punitha, P., Shashidhar, K.S., Naveenkumar, K.L. and Prakash, N. (2017). Evaluation of morphological diversity of field pea [Pisum sativum subsp. arvense (L.)] germplasm under sub-tropical climate of Manipur, Legume Research, 40: 215-223. 
  2. Davis, P.H. (1970). Pisum L. In: Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands, (ed. P. H. Davis). 3: 370–373. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.
  3. Esposito, M.A., Milanesi, L.A., Martin, E.A., Cravero, V.P., Lopez, A.F.S. and Cointry, E.L., (2007). Principal component analysis based on morphological characters in pea (Pisum sativum L.). Int J Plant Breed, 1: 135- 137.
  4. Ghixari, B., Vrapi, H., Hobdari, V. (2014). Morphological characterization of pea (Pisum sativum L.) genotypes stored in Albanian genebank. Albanian J Agric Sci (special edition).
  5. Govorov L.I. (1937). Pisum (N.I. Vavilov, E.V. Wulff), Flora of Cultivated Plants. IV. Grain Leguminosae. State Agricultural Publishing Company, Moscow, Leningrad. 231-336.
  6. Griffing, B. and Lindsstromm, E.W. (1954). A study of combining ability of corn inbred having proportion of corn belt germplasm, Agron J, 46: 545-552. 
  7. Hanci, F. and Gokce, A.F. (2016). Genetic diversity evaluations in Turkish onion (Allium cepa L.) genotypes: principal component analyses (PCA) for breeding strategies. Acta Hort. (ISHS) 1143:227-234.
  8. ITIS, Integrated Taxonomic Information System. (2017). Integrated Taxonomic Information System on-linedatabase. http://www.itis.gov. (accessed 26 January 2018).
  9. Jobson, D. (1991). Confidence regions for the mean variance set: An alternative approach to estimation risk. Rev Quant Finance Account, 1: 235–257.
  10. Jones, Q. (1984). A national plant germplasm system, in Conservation of crop germplasm an international perspective, Crop Science Society of America, 27– 33. 
  11. Kanwar, R. and Mehta, D.K. (2018). Survey, collection and seed morphometric characterization of French bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) landraces of Himachal Pradesh, Legume Reseach, 41: 333-341
  12. Kosterin O.E. and Bogdanova V.S. (2008). Relationship of wild and cultivated forms of Pisum L. as inferred from an analysis of three markers, of the plastid, mitochondrial and nuclear genomes. Genet Resour Crop Evol, 55: 735-755.
  13. Kupicha, F.K. (1981). Tribe 21, Vicieae. In: Advances in Legume Systematics, Polhill, R.M. and P.H. Raven (Eds.), Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. 377–381.
  14. Leilah, A.A. and Al-Khateeb, S.A. (2005). Statistical analysis of wheat yield under drought conditions. J Arid Environ, 61: 483-496.
  15. Maxted, N. and Ambrose M. (2001). Peas (Pisum L.) Plant Genetic Resources of Legumes in the Mediterranean. Kluwer Academic Publishers. The Netherlands. 
  16. Mohammadi, S.A. (2003). Analysis of genetic diversity in crop plants salient statistical tools and considerations. Crop science, 43: 1235. 
  17. Ouafi, L., Alane, F., Rahal-Bouziane and H., Abdelguerfi, A. (2016). Agro-morphological diversity within field pea (Pisum sativum L.) genotypes. Afr J Agric Res, 11: 4039-4047.
  18. Singh, S.R., Ahmed, N., Singh, D.B., Srivastva, K.K., Singh, R.K. and Mir, A. (2017). Genetic variability determination in garden pea (Pisum sativum L sub sp. hortense Asch. and Graebn.) by using the multivariate analysis, Legume Research, 40: 416-422.
  19. Shuaib, M., Alam, A., Zahir, A., Waqar, A., Taufiq, A. and Ikhtiar, K. (2007). Characterization of wheat varieties by seed storage protein electrophoresis. Afr J Biotechnol, 6: 497- 500.
  20. Umar, H.M.I., Ur-rehman, S., Bilal, M., Atif, S., Naqvi, H., Manzoor, S.A. et al. (2014). Evaluation of genetic diversity in pea (Pisum sativum) based on morpho-agronomic characteristics for yield and yield associated traits. J Biodivers Environ Sci, 4: 323-    328.
  21. Vershinin, A.V., Allnutt, T.R., Knox, M.R., Ambrose, M.J., Ellis, T.H.N. (2003). Transposable elements reveal the impact of introgression, rather than transposition, in Pisum diversity, evolution, and domestication. Mol Biol Evol, 20: 2067-2075.
  22. Yared, B.S. (2011). Genetic variability, correlation and path analysis studies in Ethiopian mustard (Brassica carinata A. Brun) genotypes. Int J Plant Breed Genet, 5: 328-338.
  23. Ziegel, E. (2002). Editor’ s report on Encyclopedia of Environmetrics, Vols. 1– 4, (A. El Shaarawi and W. Piegorsch, Technometrics,) 44: 408– 409. 
Published In
Legume Research
Article Metrics
Metrics Icon
0
Views
0
Citations
Reviewed By
Share Article
Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Research Article

    volume 42 issue 2 (april 2019) : 162-167,   Doi: 10.18805/LR-438

    Determination of morphological variability of different pisum genotypes using principal component analysis

    F
    Fatih Hanci
    E
    Esra Cebeci
    1Erciyes University, Faculty of Agriculture, Kayseri, Turkey

    • Submitted29-06-2018|

    • Accepted06-09-2018|

    • First Online 15-11-2018|

    • doi 10.18805/LR-438

    Cite article:- Hanci Fatih, Cebeci Esra (2018). Determination of morphological variability of different pisum genotypes using principal component analysis. Legume Research. 42(2): 162-167. doi: 10.18805/LR-438.

    ABSTRACT

    The aim of the study was to evaluate the variation among some Pisum genotypes using principal component analysis technique. The plant material covering wild pea accessions (Pisum fulvum L., P. abyssinicum L., P. sativum var. elatius), local varieties (P. sativum var. sativum L. and P. sativum var. arvense L.) and two commercial varieties were evaluated for 50 morphological traits. According to results, the first eleven principal component with Eigenvalues >1 contributed % 96.95 of the variability. The percentages of cumulative variation accounted for by each of the four principal component are 33.14%, 48.72%, 58.65%, and 66.88% respectively. Based on the principal coordinate analysis, five major groups were formed. In general, the diagram represented an obvious division between taxonomic groups except for P. sativum var. sativum and P. sativum var. arvense accessions.

    REFERENCES

    1. Bhuvaneswari, S., Sharma, S. K., Punitha, P., Shashidhar, K.S., Naveenkumar, K.L. and Prakash, N. (2017). Evaluation of morphological diversity of field pea [Pisum sativum subsp. arvense (L.)] germplasm under sub-tropical climate of Manipur, Legume Research, 40: 215-223. 
    2. Davis, P.H. (1970). Pisum L. In: Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands, (ed. P. H. Davis). 3: 370–373. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.
    3. Esposito, M.A., Milanesi, L.A., Martin, E.A., Cravero, V.P., Lopez, A.F.S. and Cointry, E.L., (2007). Principal component analysis based on morphological characters in pea (Pisum sativum L.). Int J Plant Breed, 1: 135- 137.
    4. Ghixari, B., Vrapi, H., Hobdari, V. (2014). Morphological characterization of pea (Pisum sativum L.) genotypes stored in Albanian genebank. Albanian J Agric Sci (special edition).
    5. Govorov L.I. (1937). Pisum (N.I. Vavilov, E.V. Wulff), Flora of Cultivated Plants. IV. Grain Leguminosae. State Agricultural Publishing Company, Moscow, Leningrad. 231-336.
    6. Griffing, B. and Lindsstromm, E.W. (1954). A study of combining ability of corn inbred having proportion of corn belt germplasm, Agron J, 46: 545-552. 
    7. Hanci, F. and Gokce, A.F. (2016). Genetic diversity evaluations in Turkish onion (Allium cepa L.) genotypes: principal component analyses (PCA) for breeding strategies. Acta Hort. (ISHS) 1143:227-234.
    8. ITIS, Integrated Taxonomic Information System. (2017). Integrated Taxonomic Information System on-linedatabase. http://www.itis.gov. (accessed 26 January 2018).
    9. Jobson, D. (1991). Confidence regions for the mean variance set: An alternative approach to estimation risk. Rev Quant Finance Account, 1: 235–257.
    10. Jones, Q. (1984). A national plant germplasm system, in Conservation of crop germplasm an international perspective, Crop Science Society of America, 27– 33. 
    11. Kanwar, R. and Mehta, D.K. (2018). Survey, collection and seed morphometric characterization of French bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) landraces of Himachal Pradesh, Legume Reseach, 41: 333-341
    12. Kosterin O.E. and Bogdanova V.S. (2008). Relationship of wild and cultivated forms of Pisum L. as inferred from an analysis of three markers, of the plastid, mitochondrial and nuclear genomes. Genet Resour Crop Evol, 55: 735-755.
    13. Kupicha, F.K. (1981). Tribe 21, Vicieae. In: Advances in Legume Systematics, Polhill, R.M. and P.H. Raven (Eds.), Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. 377–381.
    14. Leilah, A.A. and Al-Khateeb, S.A. (2005). Statistical analysis of wheat yield under drought conditions. J Arid Environ, 61: 483-496.
    15. Maxted, N. and Ambrose M. (2001). Peas (Pisum L.) Plant Genetic Resources of Legumes in the Mediterranean. Kluwer Academic Publishers. The Netherlands. 
    16. Mohammadi, S.A. (2003). Analysis of genetic diversity in crop plants salient statistical tools and considerations. Crop science, 43: 1235. 
    17. Ouafi, L., Alane, F., Rahal-Bouziane and H., Abdelguerfi, A. (2016). Agro-morphological diversity within field pea (Pisum sativum L.) genotypes. Afr J Agric Res, 11: 4039-4047.
    18. Singh, S.R., Ahmed, N., Singh, D.B., Srivastva, K.K., Singh, R.K. and Mir, A. (2017). Genetic variability determination in garden pea (Pisum sativum L sub sp. hortense Asch. and Graebn.) by using the multivariate analysis, Legume Research, 40: 416-422.
    19. Shuaib, M., Alam, A., Zahir, A., Waqar, A., Taufiq, A. and Ikhtiar, K. (2007). Characterization of wheat varieties by seed storage protein electrophoresis. Afr J Biotechnol, 6: 497- 500.
    20. Umar, H.M.I., Ur-rehman, S., Bilal, M., Atif, S., Naqvi, H., Manzoor, S.A. et al. (2014). Evaluation of genetic diversity in pea (Pisum sativum) based on morpho-agronomic characteristics for yield and yield associated traits. J Biodivers Environ Sci, 4: 323-    328.
    21. Vershinin, A.V., Allnutt, T.R., Knox, M.R., Ambrose, M.J., Ellis, T.H.N. (2003). Transposable elements reveal the impact of introgression, rather than transposition, in Pisum diversity, evolution, and domestication. Mol Biol Evol, 20: 2067-2075.
    22. Yared, B.S. (2011). Genetic variability, correlation and path analysis studies in Ethiopian mustard (Brassica carinata A. Brun) genotypes. Int J Plant Breed Genet, 5: 328-338.
    23. Ziegel, E. (2002). Editor’ s report on Encyclopedia of Environmetrics, Vols. 1– 4, (A. El Shaarawi and W. Piegorsch, Technometrics,) 44: 408– 409. 
    In this Article
      Contact us
      Follow us
      Published In
      Legume Research

      Editorial Board

      View all (0)