Next Article in Journal
Genome-Wide Identification and Expression Analysis of the SWEET Gene Family in Annual Alfalfa (Medicago polymorpha)
Next Article in Special Issue
Characterization of CcTFL1 Governing Plant Architecture in Pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.)
Previous Article in Journal
1H-NMR Metabolomics Study after Foliar and Endo-Therapy Treatments of Xylella fastidiosa subsp. pauca Infected Olive Trees: Medium Time Monitoring of Field Experiments
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effect of Two Seeding Rates on Nitrogen Yield and Nitrogen Fixation of Winter and Spring Faba Bean
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 12
Issue 10
10.3390/plants12101947
plants-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Evaluation of Cowpea Landraces under a Mediterranean Climate

by
Efstathia Lazaridi
and
Penelope J. Bebeli
*
Laboratory of Plant Breeding and Biometry, Department of Crop Science, Agricultural University of Athens, Iera Odos 75, 11855 Athens, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2023, 12(10), 1947; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12101947
Submission received: 3 April 2023 / Revised: 5 May 2023 / Accepted: 8 May 2023 / Published: 10 May 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Breeding and Cultivation Management of Legumes)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.) yield is strongly influenced by environmental conditions. Average seed yield can decrease to a great extent when drought conditions occur, especially when they prevail during flowering and seed filling periods. Identifying genotypes presenting yield stability is one of the most important breeding goals. Local varieties or crop landraces are genetic resources that, despite exhibiting intermediate yield production capacity, present high yield stability in low-input cropping systems. The objective of this study was therefore to evaluate five selected cowpea landraces originated from different Greek islands under Mediterranean climatic conditions. A complete randomized block design with four replications was used during three consecutive cropping seasons. Many phenological and agronomic traits studied showed statistically significant genotype × experimental year interaction, while there was a strong experimental year effect. Among the landraces studied, local population VG23 from Kythira Island was the most productive under the experimental climatic and soil conditions, while local population VG2 from Lemnos Island was characterized by low seed productivity. Conclusively, our study showed that VG23 landrace is a promising genetic material to be used for seed yield improvement.

1. Introduction

Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.) seed and fresh pod yield is usually strongly influenced by prevailing environmental conditions, expressing significant environmental effects (E) and genotype × environment interactions (G × E) [1,2,3,4,5,6,7]. Average seed yield can especially be decreased when drought conditions occur during the flowering and seed filling periods [8,9,10]. Identification of genotypes expressing yield stability under different environments and throughout cropping seasons is considered one of the most important breeding goals [5,11], while yield is also recorded as the most desirable trait for farmers [12,13,14]. Many cowpea genotypes have been evaluated under diverse experimental environments for their seed yield, leading to the identification of promising breeding or genetic material [2,15,16,17,18,19,20]. However, yield is a complex and difficult trait to be directly improved, as it exhibits low heritability and pleiotropic effects [21]. Broad-sense heritability (H) for seed yield of cowpea ranges from 38.36% to 90.91% [22,23,24,25,26], while the genetic advance recorded in previous studies fluctuates from 4.55 to 8.25 [23,25].
Several plant morphological traits have been found to be positively associated with cowpea seed yield, such as plant height [27,28], number of inflorescences per plant [29,30,31], number of branches [29,32], pod length [2,27,30,33,34], number of pods per plant [2,27,28,31,33,34,35,36], number of seeds per plant [28], number of seeds per pod [2,27,29,30,31,33,36], pod weight [36], and hundred-seed weight [30,35]. In contrast, plant phenological traits’ associations with seed yield present inconsistency among studies, as days from sowing to flowering stage and to plant maturity have been either negatively [30,31,32,37] or positively related to seed yield [25,35]. Moreover, Gerrano et al. [38] did not observe any of the ten agronomic and morphological traits they studied, such as plant length, pod length, and number of pods per plant, to be significantly associated with seed yield (t ha−1) while evaluating twenty selected genotypes.
Currently, we are at a point at which the observed extreme climatic conditions may affect the stability of various crops yield globally [39,40,41]. The ability of a crop to produce consistent yields in different environments and under changing weather conditions therefore comes to the fore. Utilization of crop wild relatives (CWRs) in breeding could improve crop adaptability under adverse climate conditions. However, difficulties are faced regarding the introgression of genes from CWR into cultivated cowpea types due to incompatibility barriers [42]. On the other hand, landraces consist of genetic material with intermediate yield, production efficiency, and yield stability when they are cultivated in low-input cropping systems [43,44] and are easier to access and use in breeding for desirable traits compared to crop wild relatives. Therefore, they are important in terms of stable yield production [45,46] and of improving resistance to various abiotic stresses [47,48,49].
Cowpea cultivation in Southern Europe, including Mediterranean countries, starts in late spring (late April) and lasts until the beginning of autumn (early October) [1,50,51]. During the summer period, cowpea is confronted with water scarcity and high air temperatures, like in many other areas of the world [52,53], while in many cases, cultivation faces additional limiting soil factors [54]. In the countries around the Mediterranean basin, a remarkable number of cowpea landraces are still cultivated on a small scale by farmers mainly for their own use and consumption of either their young, tender pods or their seeds, which are rich in protein, carbohydrates, and nutrients [55,56]. These landraces could serve as important sources of adaptive traits and resistance to drought for the upcoming climatic changes [57,58,59,60].
The evaluation of cowpea landrace material originated from Southern European countries is considered limited in proportion to the number of local varieties that are available. The aim of this study was therefore to evaluate five selected cowpea landraces of Greek origin, with interesting morphological traits adapted to different microclimates with regards to their phenological characteristics and traits related to seed yield.

2. Results

2.1. Plant Phenological and Agronomical Traits

There was a statistically significant interaction among the accessions and the experimental years for all the phenological traits studied, with the exception of days from sowing till the appearance of mature pods, in 50% of the plants (DMAT) (Table 1). The accessions differed statistically significantly from each other regarding all three phenological characteristics studied, while statistically significant differences were observed among the experimental years (p ≤ 0.001).
Days from sowing to 50% flowering (DFL) during the first experimental year (2015) ranged from 60.67 days (VG2) to 68.67 days (VG3), during 2016 ranged from 60.17 days (VG23) to 75.17 days (VG3), and in the third experimental year (2017), they ranged from 63.67 days (VG23) to 80 days (IT97K-499-35). Overall, VG2 (Atsiki, Lemnos), VG4 (Marathi, Mykonos), and VG23 (Logothetianika, Kythira) showed earlier flowering than the rest of the accessions (Table 1). VG2 (Atsiki, Lemnos) required fewer days from sowing to 50% pod ripening (DMAT) than the other accessions, while VG20 (Mitilinioi, Samos) was the latest maturated one. Flowering duration (FDUR) lasted in 2015 from 58 (VG2) to 95.67 days (IT97K-499-35), in 2016 from 25.75 days (VG4) to 74.33 days (IT97K-499-35), and in 2017 from 81.33 days (VG2, VG3) to 89.66 days (IT97K-499-35) (Table 1). Of the three experimental years, flowering duration was statistically significantly reduced in the second experimental year (2016) (Table 1).
There was not a statistically significant interaction of accession x experimental year for the number of pods per plant, pod length, seed weight per plant, and number of seeds per plant (Table 2). Seed weight per plant did not differ statistically significantly among the three experimental years and the accessions, while pod length and hundred-seed weight did not differ statistically significantly among the experimental years (Table 2).
Plant height (PH) ranged from 25.08 cm (VG2) to 70.94 cm (VG23) in 2015, from 19.82 cm (VG2) to 41.44 cm (VG23) in 2016, and from 25.49 cm (IT97K-499-35) to 35.61 cm (VG3) in 2017 (Table 2). Average number of seeds per pod (SPOD) ranged from 5.27 (VG3) to 9.82 (VG23) in 2015, from 5.05 (VG4) to 14.39 (VG3) in 2016, and from 5.46 (VG4) to 7.79 (VG23) in 2017. Hundred-seed weight (100 SW) ranged from 14.05 g (VG2) to 22.49 g (VG4) in 2015, from 13.19 g (VG2) to 24.79 g (VG4) in 2016, and from 14.14 g (VG2) to 22.56 g (VG4) in 2017 (Table 2). Pod length (PODL) differed statistically significantly only among the accessions, with local population VG4 (Marathi, Mykonos) presenting the shortest mean pod length (9.55 cm) (Table 2). Number of pods per plant (NPOD) and number of seeds per plant (NSEED) differed only among the experimental years; during the second experimental year, these two traits compared to the other two experimental years showed lower averages (Table 2). Seed yield (kg ha−1) varied between 577.78 kg ha−1 (VG2-Atsiki, Lemnos) and 1058.33 kg ha−1 (VG23-Logothetianika, Kythira) in 2015, between 389.49 kg ha−1 (VG4-Marathi, Mykonos) and 690.47 kg ha−1 (VG23-Logothetianika, Kythira) in 2016, and between 683.19 kg ha−1 (VG2-Atsiki, Lemnos) and 1053.15 kg ha−1 (VG3-Alinda, Leros) in 2017 (Figure 1). However, seed yield (kg ha−1) did not differ statistically significantly among the accessions and the experimental years, while there was not a statistically significant interaction between accessions and experimental years.
Coefficients of variation (CV%) varied among experimental years for each trait under study (Table 3). Among the traits, days from sowing to 50% of flowering (9.47%) and days from sowing to 50% of pod ripening (9.54%) showed the lowest CV, while the CV for seed number per plant (68.75%) and seed yield (kg ha−1) (50.94%) were quite high (Table 3).
Among the accessions, a particularly high coefficient of variation (44.58%) was presented by the local population VG4 (Marathi, Mykonos) regarding flowering duration, by the VG23 (Logothetianika, Kythira) landrace (40.88%) regarding plant height, and by the local population VG3 (Alinda, Leros), which presented high CV for number of seeds per pod (52.50%), seed weight per plant (62.68%), number of seeds per plant (86.24%) and seed yield (kg ha−1) (62.70%) (Table 4).

2.2. Correlations among Studied Traits

Statistically very strong positive correlations were shown between number of pods and seed weight per plant (r = 0.830, p ≤ 0.001), number of pods and number of seeds per plant (r = 0.880, p ≤ 0.001), and number of pods and seed yield (kg ha−1) (r = 0.830, p ≤ 0.001) (Table 5). Strong positive correlations were observed between pod length and number of seeds per pod (r = 0.768, p ≤ 0.001) and between seed weight per plant and number of seeds per plant (r = 0.774, p ≤ 0.001). Pod length and number of seeds per plant were also positively correlated with seed yield (kg ha−1) with r = 0.534, p ≤ 0.001 and r = 0.774, p ≤ 0.001, respectively (Table 5).

2.3. Principal Component Analysis

Principal component analysis (PCA) was performed to reduce the dimensionality of the data, to study the contribution of each trait to the variability observed, as well as to illustrate the highest yield accessions. PCA showed that 79.88% of the total variation can be explained through the first three principal axes. Plant height, number of pods per plant, seed weight per plant, number of seeds per plant, and seed yield (kg ha−1) were related to the first principal component (PC1, 41.58%). Pod length and number of seeds per pod were related to the second principal component (PC2, 22.77%), while days from sowing to 50% of flowering, days from sowing to 50% of pods maturity, and flowering duration were related to the third principal component (PC3, 15.53%) (Table 6).
During the second experimental year, accessions presented shorter flowering duration, earlier pod maturity, lower number of pods per plant, lower number of seeds per plant, and lower seed yield (kg ha−1) than in the other two experimental years. Therefore, the accessions in the second experimental year (presented in green color) were grouped separately (second and third quadrant) from the two other experimental years through principal component analysis (PCA) (Figure 2).
Accessions in the experimental years 2015 and 2017 were grouped in the first, third, and fourth quadrants, with the highest yield accessions to be depicted in the first and fourth quadrants. Landraces VG3 and VG23 presented as the highest yield accessions during 2017 and 2015, respectively, while VG4 was the lowest yield accession in 2016 (Figure 2). Most accessions expressed similar values for every studied trait for each accession under the 2015 and 2017 experimental years and therefore were depicted at close distances, with the exception of local population VG3 (Alinda, Leros) and local population VG23 (Logothetianika, Kythira). Landrace VG2 (Atsiki, Lemnos) was among the least productive accessions in all three experimental years (Figure 2).

3. Discussion

The investigation and promotion of landrace cultivation have been increased in recent years due to the extreme weather changes observed [48] and the high adaptability that landraces often present. Landraces, due to the remarkable variability that they usually possess, represent important sources of tolerance to abiotic stresses [61] while at the same time enhance sustainable cropping systems [62]. Although cowpea is a summer cultivated species in Europe and is considered as a resistant plant species to drought [63], it is very sensitive to water scarcity and high air temperature prevalence during the stages of flowering, fruiting, and pod-filling [8,9,10].
The accessions evaluated were practically classified into two groups based on the days needed from sowing to achieve 50% of flowering. The first group contained the early flowering landraces named VG2 (Atsiki, Lemnos), VG4 (Marathi, Mykonos), and VG23 (Logothetianika, Kythira), while the second included the late flowering accessions named VG3 (Alinda, Leros) and VG20 (Mitilinioi, Samos) and the improved line IT97K-499-35. Cowpea genotypes with short biological cycles and short flowering times are able to avoid the water scarcity that often prevails in the area during the summer months [64], while genotypes with long biological cycles seem to cope better under high temperatures as they gradually enter flowering and podding stages [65,66]. Mixtures of early- and late-flowering genotypes could also be used, aiming to deal with the negative effect of combined drought and high temperature on seed production [67,68,69]. Therefore, cowpea landraces evaluated in our study are diverse and represent promising material for high-air-temperature and drought tolerance or avoidance. In particular, the local population VG2 from Atsiki, Lemnos which was characterized by early flowering, a relatively low coefficient of variation of flowering duration (CV = 22.54%), and a determinate growth habit could be suitable material for drought avoidance [70].
Coefficients of variation calculated in the present study for days from sowing to 50% flowering and fruit setting were CV = 9.47% and CV = 9.54%, respectively, and are considered relatively low. Comparatively, high coefficients of variation for Greek cowpea landraces have been previously reported by Perrino et al. [71] for traits such as flowering initiation (22.1%) and pod length (23%), while the eight landraces that they investigated were characterized by earlier flowering than the accessions included in our study. Our collection also showed greater or equal coefficients of variation for number of pods per plant, number of seeds per pod, plant height, pod length, and number of seeds per plant compared to collections consisting of improved lines [72,73]. Landraces therefore presented non-uniformity in terms of these traits in comparison to improved lines which are usually characterized by high uniformity [74]. This is an agreement with the definition of landraces that they mostly comprise heterogeneous genetic material [15].
Cowpea landraces from Southern European countries have also presented high CV for traits that are related to seed yield [59]. Lower CV was recorded overall in our study for plant height (38.36%), number of pods per plant (44.01%), number of seeds per plant (68.75%), and hundred-seed weight (18.65%) in comparison to the total CV recorded by Carvalho et al. [59]. Among the accessions, local population VG23 (Logothetianika, Kythira) showed great variation among the experimental years for its plant height. This fact is reasonable as this landrace has been previously characterized by high diversity regarding its growth habit [56], a trait that affects plant height and the differences observed might therefore be due to random sampling of seeds at sowing.
The average cowpea seed yield in Greece fluctuates from 1 to 3.5 t ha−1 [16]. The average seed yield achieved during our study ranged from 0.39–1.05 t ha−1 and was therefore lower than the average seed yield reported for Greek conditions. The observed seed yield values were also lower than the average seed yield of cowpea landraces reported in other countries, such as in Ethiopia (2.05 t ha−1) and Brazil (1.05 t ha−1) [75,76]. Statistically significant differences have been recorded for cowpea landraces originated from Southern European countries regarding their seed yield, which ranged from 0.66 g m−2 to 3.12 g m−2 among three experimental locations and two experimental years [1]. The average seed yield previously recorded for twenty-two cowpea landraces, including one variety and the breeding line IT97K-499-35, was also greater (107.76 g m−2) than that observed in our study [59]. The low yield production recorded in our experiment could be due to various abiotic factors’ effects [77].
All landraces under study did not differ statistically significantly from each other, nor compared to the improved line, regarding their seed yield (kg ha−1). This fact is probably due to the unfavorable field conditions, which led to the production of low seed yield and did not allow landraces’ potential to be unfolded in our study [78,79,80]. In particular, the seed yield of the VG2 landrace from Atsiki of Lemnos was low (0.56 t ha−1 on average). This yield coincides with the threshold of its average productivity in its natural environment, Lemnos, in which seed yield ranges from 500 to 1500 kg per hectare (0.5–1.5 t ha−1), with an average yield of 700 kg per hectare (0.7 t ha−1). However, in Lemnos Island, cowpea cultivation is conducted without irrigation [81].
In particular, the low recorded yield could be based on the high presence of calcium carbonate (CaCO3 = 34.6%) and high pH (7.87) that characterized the specific experimental field, as both are considered as main limiting factors for the development of cowpea plants [82]. Seed yield of accessions derived in the present experiment are similar to those (0.81 t ha−1 on average) produced under similar adverse soil conditions [82]. According to Goenaga et al. [82], in order for a cowpea genotype to be considered tolerant to high soil alkalinity, it must be capable of producing a seed yield greater than or equal to 1 t ha−1. In the present study, local populations tested produced seed yield below this limit and therefore cannot be considered resistant to high-alkalinity conditions.
VG2 was among the least productive accessions during all the three experimental years, while many of its plants presented extensive chlorosis during their vegetative development. The chlorotic symptoms were probably due to the adverse soil conditions, as in Lemnos Island, cowpea cultivation does not take place in alkaline soils [81]. Furthermore, cowpea coexists mainly with nitrogen-fixing bacteria of the genus Bradyrhizobium, which form slow-growing populations [83,84]. Rhizobia strains isolated from the area of Atsiki, Lemnos formed a distinct group differentiated from other isolations that were taken in various locations of Greece [83]. This fact shows a possible specialization and symbiosis of these specific rhizobial strains and the local population from Lemnos Island (VG2). The extensive chlorosis in plants of the local population VG2 from Lemnos was overcome in most cases during their introduction to the reproductive stage, which indicates that chlorosis could be due to an incomplete symbiosis with the existing nitrogen-fixing bacteria. Cultivation of VG2 landrace in other soil environments could be therefore difficult and could create implications for attempting its utilization in a breeding program.
Seed production was reduced in the second experimental year for all tested accessions, with the exception of VG3 (Alinda, Leros Island) (Figure 1). Lower seed production during the second cultivation year could be due to the higher minimum temperature recorded in comparison to the other two years, which has been reported to lead to increased flower abortion and yield losses [85]. Increased flower abortion and lower yield production were also observed in four out of the five evaluated cowpea cultivars while applying the higher of two temperature regimes (20–26–33 °C and 24.8–30.8–37.8 °C) [86].
Despite that, there were not statistically significant differences among the accessions regarding seed yield, VG23 (Logothetianika, Kythira Island) was a landrace that exceeded the seed yield production of IT97K-499-35 breeding line in each one of the three experimental years. VG23 also presented a high number of pods and seeds per plant as well as large pod length, which are traits that have been strongly and positively related to seed yield (Table 5). Therefore, VG23 was considered to be the most productive accession in the current soil and climatic conditions. The statistically significantly higher genetic diversity that has been previously recorded for the VG23 landrace [56] in comparison to twenty-two other cowpea landraces of a Greek origin could be the reason for its increased seed yield production efficiency during the three experimental years. On the other hand, local population VG2 (Atsiki, Lemnos Island), which has been previously found to be one of the most homogeneous landraces among twenty-three local populations studied with Greek origin [56], was characterized by lower productivity but also by higher stability in comparison to the other landraces regarding many of the traits studied (Table 4). However, VG2 landrace stability could be only due to the impact of the unfavorable soil conditions of the experimental location used. Landraces unfold their potential when they are cultivated per se in the regions where they have been adapted, and despite their low productivity in ex situ cultivation, they should be further evaluated on-farm in each one’s region of origin. Therefore, the performance, including both productivity and stability of the examined landraces of the present experiment, should also be assessed in their region of origin as well as in other soil and climatic environments [49,87,88,89,90], as different cowpea landraces were found to be better adapted to diverse environments [59].

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Plant Material and Experimental Design

The experiment was conducted in a field at Agricultural University of Athens (AUA) (37°59′10″ Ν, 23°42′29″ Ε, altitude 24 m), during the spring–summer cultivation period for three consecutive years: 2015, 2016, and 2017. Sowing took place on 22 May 2015, on 15 May 2016, and on 29 May 2017. Five cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.) landraces, named VG2 (Atsiki, Lemnos Island), VG3 (Alinda, Leros Island), VG4 (Marathi, Mykonos Island), VG20 (Mitilinioi, Samos Island), and VG23 (Logothetianika, Kythira Island), with origin from the Greek islands were evaluated (Figure 3).
Cowpea landraces were selected based on their interesting seed and pod morphological traits that were recorded through extensive characterization procedures [56]. The breeding line IT97K-499-35 originating from Nigeria was also used. A randomized complete block design (RCBD) with four replications was used. Each plot consisted of forty plants. Plant spacing between rows was 50 cm and spacing was 40 cm within each row.

4.2. Growth Conditions

The soil was sandy loam (SL) with a pH of 7.87 and a CaCO3 content of 34.6% at the depth of 25 cm (Supplementary Material S1). Plants were drip-irrigated and supplied with 1000 kg ha–1 of mineral fertilizer (NPK 11-15-15) as a base dressing. During the growing season, aphids were controlled by chemical means (Deltamethrin 2.5% w/v). Weeds were manually controlled. Monthly meteorological data throughout the three cultivation periods are presented in Figure 4.

4.3. Phenological and Yield Related Traits

Measurements of phenological and yield related traits were taken for ten central plants per plot. Phenological traits were recorded regarding days from sowing until 50% of the plants flowered (DFL), days from sowing to 50% pod maturity (DMAT), and flowering duration (FDUR), which was defined as the interval in days from the day of observation of the first open flower per plant to the observation of the last open flower per plant, including also the second flower flush that was recorded in some plants. Measurements related to yield included plant height (PH) (cm), number of pods per plant (NPOD), pod length (PODL) (cm), number of seeds per pod (SPOD), seed weight per plant (SEEDW) (g), number of seeds per plant (NSEED), and hundred-seed weight (100 SW) (g). Seed yield (SY) (kg ha−1) was then extrapolated from the total seed weight per plant.

4.4. Statistical Analysis

Residuals of all studied traits were subjected to normality tests and were checked for their homoscedasticity. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was therefore applied, followed by Tukey’s (HSD) (p ≤ 0.05) means comparison method using the statistical software Statgraphics Centurion XVII. Coefficients of variation (CV%) were also calculated for each trait per accession and for each trait per experimental year for all accessions. Correlations between traits (Pearson correlation coefficients) were also investigated using the statistical package STATISTICA 8.0. Finally, a principal component analysis (PCA) was performed, aiming to study the contribution of each trait to the variability observed as well as to illustrate the highest yield accessions during the three experimental years by using the SAS statistical program JMP-8.

5. Conclusions

Promising variability was observed among the five landraces studied regarding their phenological and seed-yield-related traits. However, there were not statistically significant differences in terms of their seed yield (kg ha−1), a fact which is probably due to the unfavorable soil and climatic conditions that prevailed affecting the accessions’ performance and preventing them from unfolding their potential. Among the landraces, VG23 (Logothetianika, Kythira Island) was the most productive under the present soil and climate conditions, while the local population VG2 (Atsiki, Lemnos Island) was characterized by low seed productivity. Further evaluation in different environmental conditions is considered necessary, while VG23 could be utilized in a breeding program aiming to increase seed yield production.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/plants12101947/s1, Supplementary Material S1. Soil analysis performed at a depth of 0–25 cm. All the necessary Supplementary Material (S1) mentioned in the text of the manuscript are attached separately with the manuscript.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.L. and P.J.B.; methodology, E.L. and P.J.B.; validation, E.L. and P.J.B.; formal analysis, E.L.; investigation, E.L.; data curation, E.L.; writing—original draft preparation, E.L.; writing—review and editing, P.J.B.; visualization, E.L. and P.J.B.; supervision, P.J.B. supervised E.L.’s doctorate thesis and was in charge of overall coordination; project administration, P.J.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Timothy J. Close from University of California Riverside for providing the cowpea breeding line used in this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Martos-Fuentes, M.; Fernández, J.A.; Ochoa, J.; Carvalho, M.; Carnide, V.; Rosa, E.A.; Pereira, G.; Barcelos, C.; Bebeli, P.J.; Egea-Gilabert, C. Genotype by environment interactions in cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp.) grown in the Iberian Peninsula. Crop Pasture Sci. 2017, 68, 924–931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Mbuma, N.W.; Gerrano, A.S.; Lebaka, N.; Mofokeng, A.; Labuschagne, M. The evaluation of a southern African cowpea germplasm collection for seed yield and yield components. Crop Sci. 2020, 61, 466–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Nassir, A.L.; Olayiwola, M.O.; Olangunju, S.O.; Adewusi, K.M.; Jinabu, S.S. Genotype × environment analysis of cowpea grain production in the forest and derived savannah cultivation ecologies. Agro-Sci. 2021, 20, 20–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Goa, Y.; Mohhammed, H.; Worku, W.; Urage, E. Genotype by environment interaction and yield stability of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.) genotypes in moisture limited areas of Southern Ethiopia. Heliyon 2022, 8, e09013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Gumede, M.T.; Gerrano, A.S.; Modi, A.T.; Thungo, Z. Influence of genotype and environment on grain yield among cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.) genotypes under dry land farming system. Acta Agric. Scand.—B Soil Plant Sci. 2022, 72, 709–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Panchta, R.; Arya, S.; Singh, D.P.; Satral; Preeti; Kumar, R. Genetic variability and association studies in cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.] for seed yield and related traits. Forage Res. 2020, 46, 232–235. [Google Scholar]
  7. Rolim, R.R.; do Nascimento, N.F.F.; Nascimento, M.F.; de Araujo, H.F.P. Genotype x environment interaction and stability in landraces of cowpea under dryland conditions. Rev. Caatinga Mossoró 2023, 36, 339–348. [Google Scholar]
  8. Pejić, B.; Maĉkić, K.; Mikić, A.; Ćupina, B.; Pekşen, E.; Krstić, D.; Antanasović, S. Effect of water stress on the yield of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp.) in temperate climatic conditions. J. Cont. Agric. 2013, 62, 168–176. [Google Scholar]
  9. Toudou Daouda, A.K.; Sanoussi, A.; Maȃrouhi, I.M.; Falalou, H.; Yacoubou, B. Effect of water deficit at different stages of development on the yield components of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp.) genotypes. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2018, 17, 279–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Moreira, R.; Nunes, C.; Pais, I.; Semedo, J.; Guimarães, J.B.; Simões, F.; Veloso, M.M.; Scotti-Campos, P. How to Improve Already Improved Cowpea-Terminal Drought. Biol. Life Sci. Forum 2022, 11, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Yan, W.; Hunt, L.A.; Sheng, Q.; Szlavits, Z. Cultivar Evaluation and Mega-Environment Investigation Based on the GGE Biplot. Crop Sci. 2000, 40, 597–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Egbadzor, K.F.; Danquah, E.Y.; Ofori, K.; Yeboah, M.; Offei, S.K. Diversity in 118 Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.) accessions assessed with 16 morphological traits. Int. J. Plant Breed. Genet. 2014, 8, 13–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ishikawa, H.; Drabo, I.; Joseph, B.B.; Muranaka, S.; Fatokun, C.; Boukar, O. Characteristics of farmers’ selection criteria for cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) varieties differ between north and south regions of Burkina Faso. Exp. Agric. 2020, 56, 94–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Mohammed, S.B.; Dzidzienyo, D.K.; Umar, M.L.; Ishiyaku, M.F.; Tongoona, P.B.; Gracen, V. Appraisal of cowpea cropping systems and farmers’ perceptions of production constraints and preferences in the dry savannah areas of Nigeria. CABI Agric. Biosci. 2021, 2, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Casañas, F.; Simó, J.; Casals, J.; Prohens, J. Toward an Evolved Concept of Landrace. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Tavoularis, K. Average Crop Yields in Greece; Ministry of Rural Development and Food, Agricultural Policy and Documentation Directorate Department of Agricultural Statistics: Athens, Greece, 2012; pp. 1–11.
  17. Aliyu, A.M.; Lawal, O.O.; Wahab, A.A.; Ibrahim, U.Y. Evaluation of Advanced Breeding Lines of Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp.) for High Seed Yield under Farmers’ Field Conditions. Plant Breed. Biotech. 2019, 7, 12–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ajayi, A.T.; Gbadamosi, A.E. Genetic variability, character association and yield potentials of twenty five accessions of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp.). J. Pure Appl. Agric. 2020, 5, 1–16. [Google Scholar]
  19. Manivannan, N.; Bharathi Kumar, K.; Mahalingam, A.; Ramakrishnan, P. Stability analysis for seed yield in cowpea genotypes (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.). Electron. J. Plant Breed. 2019, 10, 1246–1249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Abdou, S. Evaluation of cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L) Walp.] lines for high grain and fodder yields in the dry season of Niger republic. Heliyon 2022, 8, e09147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Monteagudo, A.; Casas, A.M.; Cantalapiedra, C.P.; Contreras-Moreira, B.; Pilar Gracia, M.; Igartua, E. Harnessing novel diversity from landraces to improve an elite barley variety. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Shimelis, H.; Shiringani, R. Variance components and heritabilities of yield and agronomic traits among cowpea genotypes. Euphytica 2010, 176, 383–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Devi, S.M.; Jayamani, P. Genetic variability, heritability, genetic advance studies in cowpea germplasm [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.]. Electron. J. Plant Breed. 2018, 9, 476–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Mofokeng, M.A.; Mashilo, J.; Rantso, P.; Shimelis, H. Genetic variation and genetic advance in cowpea based on yield and yield-related traits. Acta Agric. Scand.—B Soil Plant Sci. 2020, 70, 381–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Araméndiz-Tatis, H.; Cardona-Ayala, C.; Espitia-Camacho, M. Heritability, genetic gain, and correlations in cowpea beans (Vigna unguiculata [L.] (Walp.). Rev. Colomb. Cienc. Hortic. 2021, 15, e12321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Singh, A.; Singh, M.K.; Arya, M.; Jaiswal, A.; Tripathi, K.; Chaturvedi, S.K. Assessment of genetic variability among agro-morphological traits in cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.) in the Bundelkhand region of Uttar Pradesh. J. Pharm. Innov. 2022, 11, 689–695. [Google Scholar]
  27. Gerrano, A.S.; van Rensburg, W.S.J.; Kutu, F.R. Agronomic evaluation and identification of potential cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp.) genotypes in South Africa. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. B—Soil Plant Sci. 2019, 69, 295–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ceritoğlu, M.; Erman, M. Determination of Some Agronomic Traits and Their Correlation with Yield Components in Cowpea. SJAFS 2020, 34, 154–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Meena, H.K.; Krishna, R.K.; Bhuri, S. Character Associations between Seed Yield and Its Components Traits in Cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.]. Indian J. Agric. Res. 2015, 49, 567–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Walle, T.; Mekbib, F.; Amsalu, B.; Gedil, M. Genetic Diversity of Ethiopian Cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L) Walp.] Genotypes Using Multivariate Analyses. Ethiop. J. Agric. Sci. 2019, 29, 89–104. [Google Scholar]
  31. Edematie, V.E.; Fatokun, C.; Boukar, O.; Adetimirin, V.O.; Kumar, P.L. Inheritance of Pod Length and Other Yield Components in Two Cowpea and Yard-Long Bean Crosses. Agronomy 2021, 11, 682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kouam, E.B.; Ngompe-Deffo, T.; Anoumma, M.; Pasquet, R.S. Preliminary study on character associations, phenotypic and genotypic divergence for yield and related quantitative traits among cowpea landraces (Vigna unguiculata) from the Western Highland Region of Cameroon. Open Agric. 2018, 3, 84–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Nkhoma, N.; Shimelis, H.; Laing, M.D.; Shayanowako, A.; Mathew, I. Assessing the genetic diversity of cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.] germplasm collections using phenotypic traits and SNP markers. BMC Genet. 2020, 21, 110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Sharma, A.; Mishra, S.P.; Gour, L. Heritable relationship and variability of yield and yield determinants in cow pea. Int. J. Chem. Stud. 2019, 7, 3605–3611. [Google Scholar]
  35. Putri, P.H.; Nugrahaeni, N. Cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.] Yield Variance and Supported Character. In Advances in Biological Sciences Research vo. 14., Proceedings of the 3rd KOBI Congress, International and National Conferences, Bengkulu, Indonesia, 24–25 November 2020; Springer Nature: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; Volume 14, pp. 65–71. [Google Scholar]
  36. Owusu, E.Y.; Karikari, B.; Kusi, F.; Haruna, M.; Amoah, R.A.; Attamah, P.; Adazebra, G.; Sie, E.K.; Issahaku, M. Genetic variability, heritability and correlation analysis among maturity and yield traits in Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L) Walp.) in Northern Ghana. Heliyon 2021, 7, e07890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Tyagi, P.C.; Nirmal, K.; Agarwal, M.C. Genetic variability and association of component characters for seed yield in cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.]. Legume Res. 2000, 23, 92–96. [Google Scholar]
  38. Gerrano, A.S.; Thungo, Z.G.; Mavengahama, S. Phenotypic description of elite cowpea (Vigna ungiculata L. Walp.) genotypes grown in drought-prone environments using agronomic traits. Heliyon 2022, 8, e08855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Adhikari, U.; Nejadhashemi, A.P.; Woznicki, S.A. Climate change and eastern Africa: A review of impact on major crops. Food Energy Secur. 2015, 4, 110–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ferrero, R.; Lima, M.; Gonzalez-Andujar, J.L. Crop production structure and stability under climate change in South America. Ann. Appl. Biol. 2017, 172, 65–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Warsame, A.A.; Sheik-Ali, I.A.; Jama, O.M.; Hassan, A.A.; Barre, G.M. Assessing the effects of climate change and political instability on sorghum production: Empirical evidence from Somalia. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 360, 131893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kapazoglou, A.; Gerakari, M.; Lazaridi, E.; Kleftogianni, K.; Sarri, E.; Tani, E.; Bebeli, P.J. Crop Wild Relatives: A Valuable Source of Tolerance to Various Abiotic Stresses. Plants 2023, 12, 328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Zeven, A.C. Landraces: A review of definitions and classifications. Euphytica 1998, 104, 127–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ficiciyan, A.; Loos, J.; Sievers-Glotzbach, S.; Tscharntke, T. More than Yield: Ecosystem Services of Traditional versus Modern Crop Varieties Revisited. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Bocci, R.; Bussi, B.; Petitti, M.; Franciolini, R.; Altavilla, V.; Galluzzi, G.; Di Luzio, P.; Migliorini, P.; Spagnolo, S.; Floriddia, R.; et al. Yield, yield stability and farmers’ preferences of evolutionary populations of bread wheat: A dynamic solution to climate change. Eur. J. Agron. 2020, 121, 126156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Hadou El Hadj, D.; Tellah, S.; Goumeida, K.; Aitouakli, S.; Tifest, C.; Ammi, N.; Ratet, P.; Pulvento, C.; Sellami, M.H. Evaluation of Adaptability of Different Faba Bean Landraces under Mediterranean Field Conditions of Central-Northern Algeria. Agronomy 2022, 12, 1660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Al-Abdallat, A.M.; Karadsheh, A.; Hadadd, N.I.; Akash, M.W.; Ceccarelli, S.; Baum, M.; Hasan, M.; Jighly, A.; Abu Elenein, J.M. Assessment of genetic diversity and yield performance in Jordanian barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) landraces grown under Rainfed conditions. BMC Plant Biol. 2017, 17, 191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Marone, D.; Russo, M.A.; Mores, A.; Ficco, D.B.M.; Laidò, G.; Mastrangelo, A.M.; Borrelli, G.M. Importance of Landraces in Cereal Breeding for Stress Tolerance. Plants 2021, 10, 1267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Sari, G.N.; Saptadi, D.; Kuswanto, K. The Yield Stability and Adaptability of Bambara Groundnut at Three Locations. AGRIVITA J. Agric. Sci. 2022, 44, 130–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Carvalho, M.; Bebeli, P.J.; Pereira, G.; Castro, I.; Egea-Gillabert, C.; Matos, M.; Lazaridi, E.; Duarte, I.; Lino-Neto, T.; Ntatsi, G.; et al. European cowpea landraces for a more sustainable agriculture system and novel foods. JSFA 2017, 97, 4399–4407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Lazaridi, E.; Ntatsi, G.; Fernández, J.A.; Karapanos, I.; Carnide, V.; Savvas, D.; Bebeli, P.J. Phenotypic diversity and evaluation of fresh pods of cowpea landraces from Southern Europe. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2017, 97, 4326–4333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Rivas, R.; Falcão, H.M.; Ribeiro, R.V.; Machado, E.C.; Pimentel, C.; Santos, M.G. Drought tolerance in cowpea species is driven by less sensitivity of leaf gas exchange to water deficit and rapid recovery of photosynthesis after rehydration. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2016, 103, 101–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Gnankambary, K.; Sawadogo, N.; Diéni, Z.; Batieno, T.B.J.; Tinegré, J.B.D.S.; Sawadogo, M.; Quédraogo, T.J. Assessment of Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.) Mutant Lines for Drought Tolerance. Hindawi Int. J. Agron. 2020, 2020, 8823498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Lazaridi, E.; Bebeli, P.J. Cowpea constraints and breeding in Europe. Plants 2023, 12, 1339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. de Souza, C.L.C.; de Almeida Lopez, A.C.; Gomes, R.L.F.; de Moura Rocha, M.; Silva, E.M. Variability and correlations in cowpea populations for green-grain production. CBAB 2007, 7, 262–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Lazaridi, E.; Ntatsi, G.; Savvas, D.; Bebeli, P.J. Diversity in cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.) local populations from Greece. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 2016, 64, 1529–1551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Bertoldo, J.G.; Coimbra, J.L.M.; Guidolin, A.F.; de Andrade, L.R.B.; Nodari, R.O. Agronomic potential of genebank landrace elite accessions for common bean genetic breeding. Sci. Agric. 2014, 71, 120–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Hedge, V.S.; Mishra, S.K. Landraces of cowpea, Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp., as potential sources of genes for unique characters in breeding. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 2009, 56, 615–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Carvalho, M.; Carnide, V.; Sobreira, C.; Castro, I.; Coutinho, J.; Barros, A.; Rosa, E. Cowpea Immature Pods and Grains Evaluation: An Opportunity for Different Food Sources. Plants 2022, 11, 2079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Santos, R.; Carvalho, M.; Rosa, E.; Carnide, V.; Castro, I. Root and Agro-Morphological Traits Performance in Cowpea under Drought Stress. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Dwivedi, S.L.; Ceccarelli, S.; Blair, M.W.; Upadhyaya, H.D.; Are, A.K.; Ortiz, R. Landrace Germplasm for Improving Yield and Abiotic Stress Adaptation. Trends Plant Sci. 2016, 21, 31–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Caproni, L.; Raggi, L.; Ceccarelli, S.; Negri, V.; Carboni, A. In-Depth Characterization of Common Bean Diversity Discloses Its Breeding Potential for Sustainable Agriculture. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Dadson, R.B.; Hashem, F.M.; Javaid, I.; Joshi, J.; Allen, A.L.; Devine, T.E. Effect of Water Stress on the Yield of Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp.) Genotypes in the Delmarva Region of the United States. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 2005, 191, 210–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. IPCC Climate Change. Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Pachauri, R.K., Reisinger, A., Eds.; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2007; p. 104. [Google Scholar]
  65. Ehlers, J.D.; Hall, A.E. Heat tolerance of contrasting cowpea lines in short and long days. Field Crop Res. 1998, 55, 11–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Hall, A.E. Phenotyping cowpeas for adaptation to drought. Front. Physiol. 2012, 3, 155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Reis, E.R.; Drinkwater, L.E. Cultivar mixtures: A meta-analysis of the effect of intraspecific diversity on crop yield. Ecological Applications. ESA 2017, 28, 62–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Tratwal, A.; Bocianowski, J. Cultivar mixtures as part of integrated protection of spring barley. JPDP 2018, 125, 41–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Wuest, S.E.; Reter, R.; Niklaus, P.A. Ecological and evolutionary approaches to improving crop variety mixtures. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2021, 5, 1068–1077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Belko, N.; Cisse, N.; Diop, N.N.; Zombre, G.; Thiaw, S.; Muranaka, S.; Ehlers, J.D. Selection for post-flowering drought resistance in short and medium duration Cowpeas using stress tolerance indices. Crop Sci. 2014, 54, 25–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Perrino, P.; Laghetti, G.; Spagnoletti Zeuli, P.L.; Monti, L.M. Diversification of cowpea in the Mediterranean and other centres of cultivation. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 1993, 40, 121–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Manggoel, W.; Uguru, M.I.; Ndam, O.N.; Dasbak, M.A. Genetic variability, correlation and path coefficient analysis of some yield components of ten cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.] accessions. J. Plant Breed. Crop Sci. 2012, 4, 80–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Ajayi, A.T.; Adekola, M.O.; Taiwo, B.H.; Azuh, V.O. Character expression and differences in yield potential of ten genotypes of Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.). Int. J. Plant Res. 2014, 4, 63–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Gepts, P. A comparison between crop domestication, classical plant breeding and genetic engineering. Crop Sci. 2002, 42, 1780–1790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. de Freitas, T.G.G.; Silva, P.S.L.; Dovale, J.C.; Silva, I.N.; da Silva, E.M. Grain yield and path analysis in the evaluation of cowpea landraces. Rev. Caatinga Mossoró. 2019, 32, 302–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Kindie, Y.; Tesso, B.; Amsalu, B. Genotype X Environment Interaction and Yield Stability in Early- Maturing Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.) Landraces in Ethiopia. Adv. Agric. 2021, 2021, 3786945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Horn, L.N.; Shimelis, H. Production constraints and breeding approaches for cowpea improvement for drought prone agro-ecologies in Sub-Saharan Africa. Ann. Agric. Sci. 2020, 65, 83–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Terzopoulos, P.J. Collection, Registration and Evaluation of Genetic Material Established in Our Country in the Species Vicia faba L. Ph.D. Thesis, Agricultural University of Athens, Athens, Greece, 2002. (In Greek). [Google Scholar]
  79. Ullah, H.; Subthain, H.; Khalil, I.H.; Khan, W.U.; Jamal, Y.; Alam, M. Stress selection indices an acceptable tool to screen superior wheat genotypes under irrigated and rain-fed conditions. Pak. J. Bot. 2014, 46, 627–638. [Google Scholar]
  80. Ghaed-rahimi, L.; Heidari, B.; Dadkhodaie, A. Construction and efficiency of selection indices in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) under drought stress and well-irrigated conditions. Plant Breed. Biotechnol. 2017, 5, 78–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Bebeli, P.J.; Thanopoulos, R. The Plant Wealth of Lemnos Island—A Source of Prosperity for Local Society; MedINA: Athens, Greece, 2020; pp. 81, 193. (In Greek) [Google Scholar]
  82. Goenaga, R.; Gillaspie, A.G., Jr.; Quiles, A. Field Screening of Cowpea Genotypes for Alkaline Soil Tolerance. Hort. Sci. 2010, 45, 1639–1642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Tampakaki, A.P.; Fotiadis, C.T.; Ntatsi, G.; Savvas, D. Phylogenetic multilocus sequence analysis of indigenous slow-growing rhizobia nodulating cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.) in Greece. Syst. Appl. Microbiol. 2017, 40, 179–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. da Costa, E.M.; de Carvalho, T.S.; Guimarães, A.A.; Leão, A.C.R.; Cruz, L.M.; de Baura, V.A.; Lebbe, L.; Willems, A.; de Souza Moreira, F.M. Classification of the inoculant strain of cowpea UFLA03-84 and of other strains from soils of the Amazon region as Bradyrhizobium viridifuturi (symbiovar tropici). Braz. J. Microbiol. 2019, 50, 335–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Angelotti, F.; Barbosa, L.G.; Barros, J.R.A.; Santos, C.A.F. Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) development under different temperatures and carbon dioxide concentrations. Rev. Pesqui. Agropecu. Trop. 2020, 50, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Barros, J.R.A.; Guimarães, M.J.M.; e Silva, R.M.; Rêgo, M.T.C.; de Melo, N.F.; de Melo Chaves, A.R.; Angelloti, F. Selection of cowpea cultivars for high temperature tolerance: Physiological, biochemical and yield aspects. Physiol. Mol. Biol. Plants 2021, 27, 29–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Herawati, R.; Lestaru, A.P.; Nurmegawati; Ganefianti, D.W.; Romeida, A. Comparative study on the stability and adaptability of different models to develop a high-yield inbred line from landrace rice varieties. Ann. Agric. Sci. 2021, 66, 184–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Mahdy, R.E.; Ashehri, D.; Alatawi, H.A.; Al-Amrah, H.; Mahdy, E.E. Direct and Indirect Selection for Grain Yield and Grain Weight in Late Generations of Bread Wheat under Drought Stress and Normal Irrigation Environments. Plants 2022, 11, 1604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Yousefi, B.; Tbaei-Aghdaei, S.R.; Assareh, M.H.; Darvish, F. Evaluation of Stability Parameters for Discrimination of Stable, Adaptable and High Flower Yielding Landraces of Rosa damascena. J. Agr. Sci. Tech. 2011, 13, 99–110. [Google Scholar]
  90. Abdelghany, A.M.; Zhang, S.; Azam, M.; Shaibu, A.S.; Feng, Y.; Qi, J.; Li, J.; Li, Y.; Tian, Y.; Hong, H.; et al. Exploring the Phenotypic Stability of Soybean Seed Compositions Using Multi-Trait Stability Index Approach. Agronomy 2021, 11, 2200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Plants 12 01947 g001 550
Figure 1. Seed yield (kg ha−1) for each accession and each experimental year. Seed yield for each accession for the three consecutive experimental years (2015, 2016, 2017) is presented in orange, green, and blue, respectively.
Figure 1. Seed yield (kg ha−1) for each accession and each experimental year. Seed yield for each accession for the three consecutive experimental years (2015, 2016, 2017) is presented in orange, green, and blue, respectively.
Plants 12 01947 g001
Plants 12 01947 g002 550
Figure 2. Classification of accessions through principal component analysis (PCA) and diagrammatic representation of the eigenvectors of studied traits. DFL: days from sowing to 50% flowering, FDUR: flowering duration, DMAT: days from sowing to 50% pod maturity, PH: plant height, NPOD: number of pods per plant, PODL: pod length, SPOD: number of seeds per pod, SEEDW: seed weight, NSEED: number of seeds per plant, 100 SW: hundred-seed weight. Accessions are presented with different symbols, while experimental years are indicated by different colors (2015: red, 2016: green, and 2017: blue).
Figure 2. Classification of accessions through principal component analysis (PCA) and diagrammatic representation of the eigenvectors of studied traits. DFL: days from sowing to 50% flowering, FDUR: flowering duration, DMAT: days from sowing to 50% pod maturity, PH: plant height, NPOD: number of pods per plant, PODL: pod length, SPOD: number of seeds per pod, SEEDW: seed weight, NSEED: number of seeds per plant, 100 SW: hundred-seed weight. Accessions are presented with different symbols, while experimental years are indicated by different colors (2015: red, 2016: green, and 2017: blue).
Plants 12 01947 g002
Plants 12 01947 g003 550
Figure 3. Accession codes, collection sites, and islands of cowpea landraces evaluated.
Figure 3. Accession codes, collection sites, and islands of cowpea landraces evaluated.
Plants 12 01947 g003
Plants 12 01947 g004 550
Figure 4. Mean, max, and min monthly air temperature (°C) and rainfall (mm) during the three consecutive experimental years (2015, 2016, and 2017).
Figure 4. Mean, max, and min monthly air temperature (°C) and rainfall (mm) during the three consecutive experimental years (2015, 2016, and 2017).
Plants 12 01947 g004
Table
Table 1. Days from sowing until 50% of the plants flowered (DFL), days from sowing to 50% pod maturity (DMAT), and flowering duration (FDUR) for each accession and experimental year. Means ± SE in columns with different letters are statistically significantly different according to Tukey’s HSD means comparison method.
Table 1. Days from sowing until 50% of the plants flowered (DFL), days from sowing to 50% pod maturity (DMAT), and flowering duration (FDUR) for each accession and experimental year. Means ± SE in columns with different letters are statistically significantly different according to Tukey’s HSD means comparison method.
Experimental
Year		AccessionDFLDMATFDUR
2015IT97K-499-3568.00 ± 2.00 b–f83.66 ± 1.3395.67 ± 0.88 a
VG260.67 ± 2.60 f80.33 ± 3.1858.00 ± 1.73 ef
VG368.67 ± 0.88 b–f94.00 ± 2.0864.67 ± 0.66 d
VG462.33 ± 1.76 de85.00 ± 2.0861.67 ± 2.40 de
VG2067.33 ± 2.33 b–f96.67 ± 2.4063.00 ± 4.51 e
VG2362.33 ± 1.20 de91.67 ± 9.1758.67 ± 1.20 ef
2016IT97K-499-3572.67 ± 1.45 a–d87.00 ± 4.0474.33 ± 0.33 cd
VG264.58 ± 1.53 c–f76.25 ± 2.2550.00 ± 1.00 fg
VG375.17 ± 1.59 ab85.42 ± 1.4241.67 ± 2.85 gh
VG460.50 ± 0.76 f76.25 ± 3.7825.75 ± 2.27 i
VG2075.08 ± 1.58 ab86.33 ± 2.3345.33 ± 1.45 gh
VG2360.17 ± 1.30 f75.17 ± 2.4638.00 ± 1.00 h
2017IT97K-499-3580.00 ± 1.73 a98.33 ± 2.7389.66 ± 3.28 ab
VG265.33 ± 0.67 b–f90.00 ± 2.0081.33 ± 0.88 bc
VG374.00 ± 2.31 abc95.00 ± 2.5281.33 ± 0.88 bc
VG464.67 ± 3.28 c–f90.33 ± 2.9183.00 ± 2.65 bc
VG2071.33 ± 2.40 a–e92.00 ± 1.1584.00 ± 1.73 bc
VG2363.67 ± 2.19 def84.33 ± 1.2082.00 ± 2.00 bc
Main effects
201564.88 ± 1.01 b88.56 ± 2.05 a66.94 ± 3.26 b
201668.03 ± 1.65 a81.07 ± 1.60 b45.85 ± 3.63 c
201769.84 ± 1.62 a91.67 ± 1.30 a83.83 ± 0.99 a
IT97K-499-3573.56 ± 1.95 a89.67 ± 2.66 ab86.55 ± 3.33 a
VG263.53 ± 1.15 b82.19 ± 2.40 b63.11 ± 4.74 b
VG372.61 ± 1.31 a91.47 ± 1.83 a63.11 ± 6.05 b
VG462.50 ± 1.25 b83.86 ± 2.54 ab56.81 ± 8.44 c
VG2071.25 ± 1.55 a91.67 ± 1.81 a64.11 ± 5.77 b
VG2362.06 ± 0.96 b83.72 ± 3.65 ab59.56 ± 6.40 bc
Statistical Significance
Experimental Year*********
Accession********
Exp. Year × Accession*ns***
ns: non-significant, *: significant at the 0.05 level, **: significant at the 0.01 level, ***: significant at the 0.001 level.
Table
Table 2. Plant height (PH), number of pods per plant (NPOD), pod length (PODL), number of seeds per pod (SPOD), seed weight per plant (SEEDW), number of seeds per plant (NSEED), and hundred-seed weight (100 SW) for each accession and experimental year. Means ± SE in columns with different letters are significantly different according to Tukey’s HSD means comparison method.
Table 2. Plant height (PH), number of pods per plant (NPOD), pod length (PODL), number of seeds per pod (SPOD), seed weight per plant (SEEDW), number of seeds per plant (NSEED), and hundred-seed weight (100 SW) for each accession and experimental year. Means ± SE in columns with different letters are significantly different according to Tukey’s HSD means comparison method.
Experimental
Year		AccessionPH (cm)NPODPODL (cm)SPODSEEDW (g)NSEED100 SW (g)
2015IT97K-499-3534.39 ± 8.11 b–d19.58 ± 6.7212.20 ± 0.519.23 ± 1.63 a–c14.94 ± 4.00129.27 ± 48.6415.96 ± 0.07 cd
VG225.08 ± 3.41 b–d14.78 ± 2.189.31 ± 0.705.61 ± 0.59 c11.56 ± 2.7888.17 ± 17.2814.05 ± 0.42 de
VG345.33 ± 6.85 b12.31 ± 1.2310.59 ± 0.145.27 ± 0.19 c12.38 ± 2.1163.06 ± 7.2818.76 ± 0.94 b
VG437.08 ± 2.80 b–d16.75 ± 2.8411.81 ± 0.178.14 ± 0.76 a–c17.36 ± 2.38143.58 ± 29.0722.49 ± 0.55 a
VG2026.49 ± 0.99 b–d13.50 ± 3.5312.50 ± 0.556.70 ± 0.34 bc14.95 ± 4.8493.33 ± 29.6015.97 ± 0.85 cd
VG2370.94 ± 3.40 a18.56 ± 0.7514.48 ± 0.179.82 ± 0.40 a–c21.17 ± 2.18171.67 ± 12.5117.20 ± 0.36 bc
2016IT97K-499-3522.96 ± 3.22 cd8.83 ± 1.5215.20 ± 0.9312.65 ± 0.32 ab10.42 ± 1.6034.84 ± 0.9115.74 ± 0.26 c–e
VG219.82 ± 0.93 d12.81 ± 1.528.98 ± 3.318.07 ± 2.78 a–c8.15 ± 1.0052.10 ± 8.7413.19 ± 0.72 e
VG327.70 ± 5.68 b–d12.81 ± 0.698.98 ± 3.3114.39 ± 0.98 a13.05 ± 4.9328.21 ± 5.7515.39 ± 0.19 c–e
VG423.92 ± 0.74 cd7.89 ± 0.935.33 ± 1.685.05 ± 1.65 c7.79 ± 1.4344.08 ± 8.5224.79 ± 1.19 a
VG2029.13 ± 2.30 b–d8.69 ± 3.0515.97 ± 4.0511.01 ± 1.03 a–c13.46 ± 5.4326.59 ± 4.7916.68 ± 0.70 b–d
VG2341.44 ± 6.80 b–d9.92 ± 2.8915.73 ± 3.5310.67 ± 1.52 a–c13.81 ± 4.8330.70 ± 47117.14 ± 0.40 bc
2017IT97K-499-3525.49 ± 1.57 b–d15.72 ± 2.2113.71 ± 0.967.59 ± 0.46 bc14.54 ± 2.89108.28 ± 22.3715.95 ± 0.17 c–e
VG229.48 ± 3.58 b–d10.97 ± 1.6411.78 ± 0.195.87 ± 0.13 c13.66 ± 1.7259.47 ± 8.0314.14 ± 0.16 de
VG335.61 ± 1.21 b21.32 ± 6.8412.42 ± 1.616.56 ± 1.66 bc21.06 ± 8.59132.49 ± 51.0919.03 ± 0.14 b
VG435.12 ± 1.57 b–d13.62 ± 4.0011.52 ± 2.085.46 ± 1.82 c13.84 ± 8.1882.47 ± 46.2722.56 ± 0.08 a
VG2032.60 ± 1.85 b–d15.71 ± 2.8512.13 ± 1.406.54 ± 1.03 bc14.15 ± 2.6197.54 ± 25.9915.12 ± 0.18 c–e
VG2330.61 ± 3.58 b–d13.66 ± 4.0513.48 ± 1.087.79 ± 1.00 bc18.40 ± 6.38103.71 ± 40.9615.76 ± 0.12 c–e
Main effects
201539.89 ± 4.11a15.91 ± 1.35 a11.81 ± 0.427.46 ± 0.50 b15.39 ± 1.35114.85 ± 13.03 a17.41 ± 0.68
201627.50 ± 2.17b9.92 ± 0.85 b13.25 ± 1.5310.31 ± 0.91 a11.11 ± 1.4036.08 ± 3.07 b17.16 ± 0.91
201731.49 ± 1.18b15.17 ± 1.57 a12.51 ± 0.506.63 ± 0.45 b15.94 ± 2.0997.33 ± 13.43 a17.09 ± 0.70
IT97K-499-3527.62 ± 3.09bc14.71 ± 2.6113.70 ± 0.60 a9.82 ± 0.90 a13.30 ± 1.6690.80 ± 21.0715.88 ± 0.10 c
VG224.79 ± 2.01c12.85 ± 0.9810.02 ± 1.07 a6.51 ± 0.91 bc11.12 ± 1.2766.58 ± 8.1813.80 ± 0.29 d
VG336.21 ± 3.64b15.01 ± 2.6713.76 ± 1.64 a8.74 ± 1.53 a–c15.50 ± 3.2474.58 ± 21.4417.73 ± 0.65 b
VG432.04 ± 2.26bc12.75 ± 1.949.55 ± 1.31 b6.22 ± 0.89 c13.00 ± 2.86102.02 ± 23.8523.28 ± 0.53 a
VG2029.41 ± 1.26bc12.63 ± 1.8913.53 ± 1.39 a8.08 ± 0.85 a–c14.19 ± 2.2472.49 ± 16.2215.92 ± 0.39 c
VG2347.66 ± 6.50a14.04 ± 1.9214.56 ± 1.12 a9.43 ± 0.69 ab17.79 ± 2.6290.04 ± 21.5616.70 ± 0.28 bc
Statistical Significance
Experimental Year****ns***ns***ns
Accession***ns**nsns***
Exp. Year × Accession***nsns*nsns**
ns: non-significant, *: significant at the 0.05 level, **: significant at the 0.01 level, ***: significant at the 0.001 level.
Table
Table 3. Coefficients of variability (CV%) per experimental year and for the total of the three years for each trait for all the studied accessions.
Table 3. Coefficients of variability (CV%) per experimental year and for the total of the three years for each trait for all the studied accessions.
Experimental YearDFLFDURDMATPHNPODPODLSPODSEEDWNSEED100 SWSY
20156.60%20.68%9.84%43.68%36.03%14.99%28.57%37.17%48.12%16.65%37.18%
201610.26%33.63%8.38%33.49%36.52%48.92%37.61%53.74%36.06%22.54%53.75%
20179.85%5.03%6.01%15.95%43.85%17.13%28.95%55.65%58.53%17.30%55.65%
Total CV%9.47%30.11%9.54%38.36%44.01%32.24%38.84%50.93%68.75%18.65%50.94%
DFL: days to 50% flowering from sowing, FDUR: flowering duration, DMAT: days to 50% pod maturity from sowing, PH: plant height, NPOD: number of pods per plant, PODL: pod length, SPOD: number of seeds per pod, SEEDW: seed weight per plant, NSEED: number of seeds per plant, 100 SW: hundred-seed weight, SY: seed yield.
Table
Table 4. Coefficients of variation (CV%) for each trait and accession.
Table 4. Coefficients of variation (CV%) for each trait and accession.
AccessionDFLFDURDMATPHNPODPODLSPODSEEDWNSEED100 SWSY
IT97K-499-357.96%11.53%8.89%33.56%53.33%13.11%27.37%37.49%69.61%1.87%37.50%
VG25.43%22.54%8.75%24.36%22.88%32.10%41.91%34.31%36.85%6.26%34.32%
VG35.42%28.78%6.02%30.13%53.43%35.80%52.50%62.68%86.24%10.98%62.70%
VG46.01%44.58%9.10%21.16%45.60%41.13%42.75%65.99%71.83%6.90%65.99%
VG206.52%27.02%5.93%12.85%44.81%30.81%31.55%47.40%67.14%7.40%47.40%
VG234.64%32.22%13.08%40.88%40.95%22.99%21.83%44.23%70.13%5.12%44.22%
DFL: days to 50% flowering from sowing, FDUR: flowering duration, DMAT: days to 50% pod maturity from sowing, PH: plant height, NPOD: number of pods per plant, PODL: pod length, SPOD: number of seeds per pod, SEEDW: seed weight per plant, NSEED: number of seeds per plant, 100 SW: hundred-seed weight, SY: seed yield.
Table
Table 5. Correlations between the studied traits according to Pearson correlation coefficients.
Table 5. Correlations between the studied traits according to Pearson correlation coefficients.
TraitDFLDMATPHNPODPODLSPODSEEDWNSEED100 SWSY
DFL0.3510.512−0.2620.0750.3490.2990.126−0.036−0.2510.126
FDUR 0.5060.0040.3480.048−0.2020.2090.386−0.2240.209
DMAT 0.1910.2050.228−0.1100.2650.244−0.0240.265
PH 0.3530.232−0.0020.3770.4210.1580.377
NPOD 0.250−0.0010.8300.880−0.0110.830
PODL 0.7680.5400.080−0.2820.534
SPOD 0.240−0.080−0.2810.240
SEEDW 0.7740.0441.000
NSEED 0.1030.774
100 SW 0.044
DFL: days to 50% flowering from sowing, FDUR: flowering duration, DMAT: days to 50% pod maturity from sowing, PH: plant height, NPOD: number of pods per plant, PODL: pod length, SPOD: number of seeds per pod, SEEDW: seed weight per plant, NSEED: number of seeds per plant, 100 SW: hundred-seed weight, SY: seed yield. Statistical significance at the levels of ≤0.05, ≤0.01, and ≤0.001.
Table
Table 6. Variation explained by each axis, contribution of each trait under study to the total diversity. Bold shows the axis to which each trait mainly contributed.
Table 6. Variation explained by each axis, contribution of each trait under study to the total diversity. Bold shows the axis to which each trait mainly contributed.
TraitPC1 (41.58%)PC2 (22.77%)PC3 (15.53%)
Days to 50% flowering−0.1170.4330.767
Flowering duration0.363−0.2070.780
Days to 50% pod maturation0.415−0.0080.728
Plant height0.7990.125−0.315
Number of pods per plant0.776−0.2340.355
Pod length0.2260.9300.194
Number of seeds per pod−0.0580.933−0.100
Seed weight per plant0.9390.1560.173
Number of seeds per plant0.864−0.3240.190
Hundred-seed weight0.181−0.399−0.430
Seed yield (kg ha−1)0.9390.1560.173
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lazaridi, E.; Bebeli, P.J. Evaluation of Cowpea Landraces under a Mediterranean Climate. Plants 2023, 12, 1947. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12101947

AMA Style

Lazaridi E, Bebeli PJ. Evaluation of Cowpea Landraces under a Mediterranean Climate. Plants. 2023; 12(10):1947. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12101947

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lazaridi, Efstathia, and Penelope J. Bebeli. 2023. "Evaluation of Cowpea Landraces under a Mediterranean Climate" Plants 12, no. 10: 1947. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12101947

APA Style

Lazaridi, E., & Bebeli, P. J. (2023). Evaluation of Cowpea Landraces under a Mediterranean Climate. Plants, 12(10), 1947. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12101947

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop