BIBLIOGRAPHY GAPAD, MARY JANE D....
BIBLIOGRAPHY
GAPAD,
MARY
JANE
D. APRIL 2010. Agromophological Evaluation and
Correlation Analysis in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection. Benguet State
University, La Trinidad, Benguet.
Adviser: Leoncia L. Tandang, Ph. D.
ABSTRACT
Highly significant differences were observed on plant height at 35 DAP, diameter
of the stem, pod length, width, and diameter, number of pods per plant, pod height,
number of seed per pod, pod beak length, weight of marketable and non-marketable pods,
number of marketable and non-marketable pods, total yield per plot and per hectare
among the eight bush snap bean collection evaluated.
Significant differences among the eight bush snap bean evaluated were noted on
days from emergence to last flowering. Greencrop, BBL 274, Landmark and Contender
were the best entries in terms of pod length, stem diameter, number of branches and
marketable fresh pod yield.
Highly significant positive correlation coefficients were noted between pod length
and pod width; number of pods per plant and number of marketable pods; and weight of
marketable fresh pods and the total yield per plot and per hectare.
Significant positive correlation coefficients were found between plant height at 35
DAP and the weight of marketable pods, and total yield per plot and per hectare.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Bibliography…...…………………………………………………………... . i
Abstract…………………………………………………………………….. . i
Table of Contents…………………………………………………………... . ii
INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………. . 1
REVIEW OF LITERATURE……………………………………………… . 4
MATERIALS AND METHODS…………………………………………... . 10
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION…………………………………………… . 16
Maturity……………………………………………………………... 16
Color and Number of Leaves………………………………………..
18
Plant Height………………………………………………………... . 18
Diameter of the Stem………………………………………………..
18
Number of Branches………………………………………………...
19
Pod Length, Width, and Diameter……………………………………
19
Pod Height and Number of Pods per Plant…………………………..
20
Pod Beak Orientation, Length, and
Number of Seeds per Pod…………………………………………...
22
Reaction to Pod Borer and Bean Rust………………………………. 23
Fresh Pod Yield………………………………………………......... . 24
Correlation Coefficient among Characters Measured in Nine
Bush Snap bean varieties…………………………………………… 26
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS …………… 28
LITERATURE CITED……………………………………………………... 30
APPENDICES……………………………………………………………… 32
ii
1
INTRODUCTION
Snap bean is one of the most important legumes for human consumption in the
world. It is an important source of proteins, minerals and vitamins. It is the source of
dietary protein in many Latin American countries (Somasegaran and Hoben, 1994).
Because of nutritional importance, production of vegetable legumes must be increased by
using good a variety to meet the demand of the increasing population.
Snap beans are either climbing or bush type. It is marketed as processed or fresh.
For the processing market, varieties with white seeds are used to avoid discoloration of
the processed product. Snap beans thrive in warm, frost-free areas, but excessive heat can
limit growth. Pest problems for snap beans are similar to pest of dry beans. However, pest
pressure may be less extensive in snap beans when the crop is harvested earlier (USDA,
1995).
Snap bean is a commonly cultivated crop in the Philippines where subsistence
farmers are abundant. It has been declared as high priority crop by the Philippine
government in the 1980’s. It is cultivated in traditional farming systems in contrast to the
intensive cultivation including semi-mechanized harvesting in North America and
Europe. The principal cropping systems adopted by the farmers of the snap bean
production are either monoculture in small landholdings or complex multi-cropping
systems common to most of the developing tropical countries (Padua, 1997).
Furthermore, snap bean is the most important species of the genus Phaseolus in
terms of number of varieties available and area devoted to its cultivation worldwide. It
becomes an important food crop not only in parts of Africa and Asia but also in Europe,
America and the Pacific islands.
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
2
The choice of an appropriate variety is one of the important factors in the
successful production of beans because planting the variety that is not adapted to the
environment condition will only result to a waste of resources such as money, time and
labor so the necessity of selecting adaptable varieties is important.
Considering strong competition in local and worldwide market, selection of
quality produce is an important step in the farm planning process. Selection of varieties is
crucial for the level of success in crop production since the major objective in plant
breeding is high yield. Yield is a complex entity and its ultimate expression depends upon
the interplay of several characters. This includes land race, genetic variation that exists
between individuals. It includes also of having risen from a homozygous parent in a
previous generation selection within this mixture of pure line is effective.
Many snap bean growers have gained valuable knowledge and experiences about
proper management in growing snap beans. However, the production is still far from
sufficient. The farmer’s knowledge on morphological traits associated with quality yield
can help him in selecting high yielding varieties to plant. In addition, the identification of
important yield components influencing yield and selection of superior genotypes are
necessary in starting an effective breeding program (Consolacion, et al., 2002).
This study was done to:
1. evaluate the agro-morphological characteristics of bush snap bean germplasm
collection in Benguet;
2. determine the best accession of bush snap bean under La Trinidad condition;
and
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
3
3. determine the relationship of the different agro-morphological characteristics of
bush snap bean in La Trinidad Benguet.
This was conducted at Benguet State University-Institute of Plant Breeding
Highland Crops Research Station in BSU La Trinidad, Benguet from November 2009 to
February 2010.
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
4
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Genetic Resources
Germplasms are the sources of resistance to several biotic and abiotic stresses.
Several research inputs have been directed toward bean germplasm. These were collected
from their centers of origin and evaluated to meet the demands of the plant breeders.
Germplasm are evaluated by germplasm botanist or breeders for the selection of
genotypes for the sources of resistance and other desirable agronomic traits (Maiti, 1997).
Parker in 2000 stated that plant breeder, geneticists, and biotechnologies are
concerned about preserving and cataloguing invaluable resource for the future. Genes to
incorporate traits like disease resistance and salt tolerance into tomorrow’s crop plants
will come from this vast germplasm pool. Some plants will be selected from this
germplasm pool for cropping in the future for new uses or products, and to meet the need
for crops that are adopted to adverse environments. Plants and plant products for
tomorrow will come from the untapped germplasm pool that exists today only if its
importance is recognized and preserved. In agriculture the main emphasis is still on
increased food production with breeding programs to develop high-yielding strains
especially those yielding more protein.
Characterization
Morphological characterization is done to identify morphotypes. A morphotype is
a group of plants showing morphological similarities apparently of the same phenotype,
but not necessarily of the same genetic constitution. Thus, molecular characterization can
follow to identify genotypes. At this stage, a curator has an efficient collection with a
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
5
minimum duplicates consequently; the collection is smaller than the original one. Studies
on genetic diversity and evaluation such as agronomic characters, nutrition and reaction
to biotic and abiotic factors can be carried out on this kind of material. Once that this has
been achieved a core collection that is basic sample of germplasm collection representing
the wide range of diversity in terms of morphology, geographical coverage and genes can
be established (Fontanetti, et al., 2002 as cited by Atam, 2009).
Usually high heritable morphological characters are employed for the purpose of
characterization. It includes a sufficient number of traits that are useful in eliminating
duplicates. It is important in establishing the identity of a variety and assessing its
agronomic utilization potential. It is also important in the field of agriculture for breeders,
researchers and producers to further evaluate the characteristics of the existing varieties,
species and progenies adapted to cold and warm condition.
Furthermore, Consolacion, et al., (2002) stated that farmers’ knowledge on
morphological trait associated with quality yield can help him in selecting high yielding
varieties to plant. Moreover, the identification of important yield components influencing
yield and selection of superior genotypes are necessary in starting an effective breeding
program.
Varietal Evaluation
The importance of having a varietal evaluation is to observe performance
character such as yield, earliness in maturity, vigor and it’s resistant to pest and diseases,
because different varieties have wide range of different in plant size, and yield
performance (Work and Carew, 1995). Some variety produce exceptionally well under
one set of condition and become worthless under other conditions. The researchers
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
6
further said that the maturity period of the different varieties tested under highland
condition was longer in days or months compared to maturity period of crops planted in
warm places.
Success in evaluation is ultimately measured in terms of acceptability of the
variety that passed the evaluation process to users of the variety. A farmer may initially
accept a new variety because it suits his farming practice and he finds it to be better
yielding than his traditional variety, but how many stop growing if he finds that traders
are not willing to buy it (Rasco and Amante, 1994). Verification trials are essential to
determine whether a technology is suitable to the agro-climatic conditions and socio-
economic needs of particular production area and weather a technology needs further
research for is ready for application or adoption.
Remoquillo (2003) cited that further evaluation of those desirable traits into one
type requires information on genetic variability, genetic correlations between traits and
their heritabilities. The combined inputs of breeders and physiologist in obtaining needed
information and in continued selection of these traits should enhance the breeding
processes for increasing yield.
The number of branches is an important factor contributing to yield in snap bean.
Theoretically, the more the branches, the greater the yield. The position or orientation of
branches is also an important morphological characteristic. The upright or vertical
position is considered ideal because it enables branches to intercept more solar radiation
or sunlight necessary in photosynthesis (PCARRD, 1989).
In evaluating the same number of varieties but different types, Dagson (2000)
found varying performances. Stringless Valentine produced the highest initial and final
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
7
plant height, while Hab 63, Torrent, and Stringless Valentine produced the highest
marketable pods per plot. Hab 63, Stringless Valintine, Torrent, and BBL-274 produced
the highest total fresh pod yield per plot. All varieties studied however, were found
resistant to pod borer and bean rust except Hab 323.
Annogue (1997) also found out that among the eleven lines of garden peas
evaluated, CGP 18 produced the highest yield per plant and per hectare. It was also the
earliest to mature and produced the number of pods per plant.
Paganas (2005) reported the result of her study in the evaluation of commercially
grown garden pea varieties. Among the five varieties, CGP 39 and Kalantao had the
highest number of pods per plant. In Addition, Chinese White, CGP 39 and 89-001
produced more seeds than the other varieties. She also found out that Kalantao had the
highest yield per plot and per hectare followed by CGP 39.
Bay-an (2000) also evaluated six varieties of garden pea namely 89-011, CDG,
CGP 18-A,Chinese, Taichung, and Trinidad in Atok, Benguet. Among the six varieties
evaluated, CGP 18-A was the earliest to produce flower and early to mature. However,
Trinidad produced the highest yield per plot and per hectare.
Correlation Analysis
Phenotypic and genotypic correlation and heritability are required to select
potential parents carrying desired traits. This is frequently suggested for incorporation of
physiological and morphological traits into new cultivars. Parental selection and normal
agronomic evaluation approach incorporate the desired traits into one variety. This is
depending also upon the heritability of the trait and its genetic correlation with yield
(Hayward et al., 1993).
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
8
Golmirzhai and Serquen (1992) cited that correlation between seedlings and
vegetative progeny have much good breeding materials if selection were exerted at the
seedling stage rather than on the vegetative progeny. Many seedlings have to be
evaluated to select the desirable genotypes. This problem increases the need for field
space, manual labor and facilities. For some characters, like resistance to some diseases,
the initial evaluations are done at the seedling stage. When undesirable genotypes are
discarded, thus requires the planting of fewer genotypes in the field.
In addition, breeders could use descriptors as references for exploiting new traits
that are desirable and related to yield of the crop. Characters and traits should be
identified to be correlated with yield and later, improvement could be done (Tad-awan,
and Ballas, 2007).
Jose (2004) found out significant differences among the varieties of bush snap
bean characterized and evaluated in terms of almost all the parameters measured. There
was significant correlation among the characters measured in bush sanp bean varieties
such as days from emergence to harvesting, internodes length, number of branches to pod
width indicates that they can be used a selection index for associated character and yield.
Morphological Traits Associated with
Yield in Other Crops
Among the correlation coefficients worked out by Annogue in 1997 in garden
pea, total yield was found to be significantly correlated to the number of pods. The
number of nodes at first flowering and last harvesting were significantly correlated to
final height, maturity and flowering. In addition, plant height was significantly correlated
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
9
to flowering and first harvesting and flowering was significantly correlated to number of
days to first harvesting.
Positive correlation has been reported between lodging resistance and yield while
the numbers of pods per plant and seeds per pod were only phenotypically correlated by
Sumarno in 1986 as cited by Consolacion (2001) using international yield testing data of
20 soybean cultivars planted at 73 locations. He also found some positive and negative
correlations between yield and days to flowering, days to maturity, plant height, lodging
resistance, number of plants, pod length, and seed weight. The type (positive or negative)
of correalation was depended on the location.
Based on the study conducted by Lomadeo in 2005 in corn, he found out that
there was positive and significant correlation coefficient of yield to other characters like
leaf length, leaf width and leaf area. These characters could be used as selection indices
when selecting for high yielding varieties of corn.
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
10
MATERIALS AND METHODS
An experimental area of 190 m2 was thoroughly prepared and divided into three
blocks; each block consisted of 30 plots measuring 1m x 5m including border plots. The
experiment was laid out using Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) with three
replications.
The following germplasm collection entries that were obtained from BSU-IPB
Highland Crops Research Station (BSU-IPB HCRS) at BSU served as treatments:
TREATMENT
ENTRIES
V1
Hab 63
V2
BBL 274
V3
Torrent
V4
Landmark
V5
Hab 323
V6
Green Crop
V7
Contender
V8
Hab 19
Snap bean seeds were sown at two seeds per hill in a double row plot at a
distance of 20 cm between hills and 25 cm between rows. All the necessary cultural
management practices for production of snap beans such as fertilization, irrigation,
weeding, and hilling-up and pest control were employed.
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
11
Data Gathered
1. Number of days from sowing to emergence. This was obtained by counting the
number of days from sowing to emergence.
2. Number of days from emergence to first flowering. This was obtained by
counting the number of days from emergence to first flowering.
3. Number of days from emergence to last flowering. This was obtained by
counting the number of days from emergence to last flowering.
4. Number of days from flowering to pod setting. This was obtained by counting
the number of days from flowering until the pods will be fully developed.
5. Number of days from emergence to first harvesting. This was obtained by
counting the number of days from emergence to first harvesting.
6. Number of days from emergence to last harvesting. This was obtained by
counting the number of days from emergence to last harvesting.
7. Number of leaves per plant. This was obtained by counting the number of
leaves of 10 sample plants per replication.
8. Plant height at 35 DAP (cm). This was measured from the base of the plant at
ground level to the tip of the youngest shoot using meter stick at 35 days after planting
(DAP).
9. Diameter of the stem (cm). This was measured at the midportion of the stem
using vernier caliper at 35 DAP.
10. Number of branches. This was obtained by counting the branches of the plants
one week before harvesting.
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
12
11. Final plant height (cm). This was measured from the base of the plant to the
tip of the plant using meter stick during last harvesting.
12. Pod length (cm). This was obtained by measuring the base to the tip of the pod
of 10 random sample pods per entry per replication.
13. Pod width (cm). This was obtained by measuring the broadest part of the pod
of 10 random sample pods per entry per treatment.
14. Pod Diameter. This was obtained by measuring the middle portion of the pod
of 10 random sample pods per entry per treatment using vernier caliper.
15. Number of pod per plant. This was obtained by getting the number of pods per
plant.
16. Pod height within the canopy. This was obtained by measuring the height of
the pod within the canopy.
17. Location of pods in the plant. This was obtained by observing the location of
the pod in the plant if they are either above the canopy, within the canopy or below the
canopy.
18. Number of seed per pod. This was obtained by counting the number of seeds
per pod from five (5) sample pods per treatment.
19. Weight and number of marketable fresh pods per plot (kg/m2). This was
obtained by counting and weighing the marketable pods per plot. Marketable pods are
smooth, straight and no infestation of pod borer and no infection of insects.
20. Weight and number of non- marketable fresh pods per plot (kg/m2). This was
obtained by counting and weighing the non-marketable pods per plot. Non-marketable
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
13
pods are rough, curled, infested with pod borer, infected with rust, small sizes and
damaged pods.
21. Total yield per plot (kg/5m2). This was obtained by getting the total number
and weight of marketable and non-marketable pods per plot.
22. Computed yield per hectare. This was computed based on the total yield per
plot as follows:
Total
Yield
(ton/ha) = Yield/Plot (kg/5m2) x 2
Where: 2 is a factor that will be used to convert yield per plot (kg/5m2) to yield
per hectare in (ton/ha) assuming 1 ha effective area.
23. Reaction to Pest and Diseases
a. Reaction to pod borer. This was obtained using the following rating
scale used by Tandang et al (2008):
Scale Description
Rating
1 no infestations/plot
highly resistant
2 1-25% of the total plant/plot are infested mildly resistant
3 25-50% of the total plant/plot are infested moderately resistant
4 51-75% of the total plant/plot are infested susceptible
5 76-100% of the total plant/plot are infested very susceptible
b. Reaction to bean rust. This was obtained using the following rating
scale used by Tandang et al (2008):
Scale Description
Rating
1 no infestations/plot
highly resistant
2
1-25% of the total plant/plot are infected
moderately resistant
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
14
3 25-50% of the total plant/plot are infected
resistant
4 51-75% of the total plant/plot are infected
susceptible
5 76-100% of the total plant/plot are infected
very susceptible
24. Qualitative characters
a. Leaf color. This was recorded when plants are at their maximum vegetative
growth about 35 DAP using the Royal Horticultural Society Color Chart (RHSCC).
b. Flower color. This was recorded by visually looking at the flowers when they
were fully opened using the RHSCC.
c. Pod color. This was recorded as green, light green, yellow, dark green and other
when the pods were fully developed.
d. Pod shape. This was recorded as flat or round.
e. Pod straightness. This was recorded whether they are straight or curve.
f. Pod stringiness. This was recorded during harvest and recorded when the green
pods were stringy or stringless; pods are stringy if there is pod suture string when
snapped and stringless when there are no pod sutures.
g. Pod waxiness. This was recorded by observing the presence or absence of wax
in the pods.
h. Pod beak length (cm). This was obtained by measuring the beak of the pod of
10 random sample pods per entry per treatment.
i. Pod beak position. This was obtained by observing the position of the beak
either marginal or non-marginal.
j. Pod beak orientation. This was obtained by observing the orientation of the pod
beak either upward, straight or downward.
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
15
Analysis of Data
All quantitative data were analyzed using the Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for
Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) with three replications. The significance of
differences among treatment means was tested using the Duncan’s Multiple Range Test
(DMRT).
Correlation Coefficient Analysis was determined among quantitative characters
using correlation coefficient analysis. Correlation coefficient analysis was done between
any of the characters measured and between characters and yield. The coefficient of
correlation (r) was estimated using the following formula:
r = Spxy
(SSx) (SSy)
Where: y and x are the 2 variables (characters)
Spxy- the sum of cross products of x and y
SSx- the sum of square of variable x
SSy- the sum of square variable y
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
16
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Maturity
Majority of the entries emerged within 7 days after sowing (DAS). Greencrop and
Hab 19 emerged one day later while Contender was the latest to emerge within 9 DAS
(Table 1). Majority of the entries evaluated produced the first flower within 28 days after
emergence (DAE). BBL 274 was the latest to flower at 31 DAE. Contender was the
earliest to produce flowers at 60 DAE. All other varieties took two to four days later to
last flowering.
Bush snap bean entries took eight to ten days from flowering to pod setting (Table
1).
Contender was the earliest to reach first harvesting at 56 DAE. Greencrop and
Hab 19 were harvested one day later while the other entries were harvested three to four
days later.Contender was also the earliest to reach last harvesting at 73 DAE. Greencrop
and Hab 19 followed one day later. All the other entries took 77 DAE to last harvesting.
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
17
Table 1. Days from sowing to emergence, from emergence to first flowering, to last flowering, to first and to last harvesting,
and flowering to pod setting
DAYS FROM EMERGENCE TO
DAYS FROM
FIRST
LAST
FIRST
LAST
DAYS FROM
SOWING
FLOWERING
FLOWERING
HARVESTING
HARVESTING
FLOWERING TO
ENTRY
TO
POD SETTING
EMERGENCE
Hab 63
7
28
64 b
60 77 8
BBL 274
7
31
63 b 60 77 10
Torrent
7
30
64 b
60
77
9
Landmark
7
30
63 b
60
77
9
Hab 323
7
28
63 b
60
77
9
Greencrop
8
28
62 ab
57
74
9
Contender
9
28
60 a
56
73
9
Hab 19
8
30
62 ab
57
74
9
CV%
2.12
*Means with the same letter are not significant different at 5% level by DMRT
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
18
Color and Number of Leaves
Landmark and Contender had light green leaves while the other entries had green
leaves.The number of leaves per plant among the eight varieties of bush snap bean
evaluated were statistically similar. Number of leaves ranged from 11 to 14 leaves per
plant at 77 days after sowing.
Plant Height
Highly significant differences in plant height at 35 DAP were observed among the
eight varieties of bush snap bean evaluated (Table 2). Torrent and Greencrop were the
tallest at 26.63 cm and 26.10 cm respectively. On the other hand, Hab 19 was the shortest
with a height of 16.03 cm. It was observed that entries with tallest plant height have also
the highest pod height from the ground.
The plant height at 84 DAP was observed to be statistically similar among the
eight varieties of bush snap bean (Table 2). It ranged from 34.22 to 40.57 cm.
Diameter of the Stem
Table 2 also shows highly significant differences in stem diameter among the
entries of bush snap bean evaluated. Torrent, Landmark, and Greencrop had the widest
stems while Hab 63 had the narrowest stems. The observed differences in stem diameter
among the entries of bush snap indicated their differential adaptability to local condition.
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
19
Table 2. Plant height and stem diameter of eight bush snap bean entries
PLANT HEIGHT (cm)
STEM DIAMETER
ENTRY
(cm)
35 DAP 84 DAP
Hab 63
23.48ab 40.57 0.42d
BBL 274
18.27cd
36.95
0.49ab
Torrent
26.63a
38.75
0.52a
Landmark
17.15d
38.15
0.52a
Hab 323
21.00bc 38.67 0.43d
Greencrop
26.10a
38.28
0.51a
Contender
21.60bc 37.78
0.48abc
Hab 19
16.03d
34.22
0.45bcd
CV %
9.16
11.43
4.70
*Means of the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level of DMRT
Number of Branches
All bush snap bean entries studied had five branches per plant except for Torrent
which had four branches per plant.
Pod Length, Width, and Diameter
The eight bush snap bean entries evaluated had round and green pods except for
Greencrop which had flat and light green pods. All of them had slightly curved and
stringless pods and were not waxy.
Highly significant differences were noted on pod length among the eight entries
tested. Greencrop had the longest pod of about 20 cm (Table 3). Torrent had about 17 cm
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
20
pod which was comparable with the pod length of BBL 274 and Contender. Hab 19
registered the shortest pod of about 14 cm.
Similarly, Greencrop had the widest pods. It was followed by the pods of
Contender and Torrent with about 10 cm. Hab 19 and Hab 63 developed the narrowest
pods (Table 3). This implies that entries with widest pod may have high weight of
marketable pods.
In terms of pod diameter, Greencrop had the smallest diameter among the eight
bush snap bean evaluated while Torrent had the biggest diameter (Table 3). The
differences in pod diameter were attributed to genetic make-up of the varieties.
Pod Height and Number of Pods per Plant
The pods of all entries evaluated were located within the canopy. The pod height
from the ground of the different entries differed significantly (Table 4). Entries
Greencrop and Torrent had the highest pod height together with the pods of Hab 63. On
the other hand, the pods of Hab 19 were located at the lowest part within the plant
from the ground level. This implies that entries which had the highest pod height may
have long pods.
The number of pods per plant differed significantly among the eight bush snap
bean enties studied. Hab 323 and BBL274 had the highest number of pods per plant.
They were comparable with the number of pods per plant of Hab 63, Greencrop and
Landmark. Hab 19 also recorded the least number of pods per plant. It was observed that
entries with the highest number of pods per plant also have the highest number of
marketable pods.
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
21
Table 3. Pod Length, width and diameter of bush snap bean varieties.
POD
ENTRY
LENGTH (cm) WIDTH (mm) DIAMETER (cm)
Hab 63
14.78cd 7.77c
0.65ab
BBL 274
16.14bc 8.30c 0.62b
Torrent 16.94b 9.50b 0.72a
Landmark 15.21cd 8.10c
0.68ab
Hab 323
14.18d 7.70c 0.63b
Greencrop 19.73a 11.50a 0.51c
Contender
16.04bc 9.90b
0.65ab
Hab 19
13.83d 7.60c
0.65ab
CV %
5.19
5.72
6.87
*Means with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level of DMRT
Table 4. Pod height and number of pods per plant
ENTRY
POD HEIGHT FROM THE
NUMBER OF PODS PER
GROUND (cm)
PLANT
Hab 63
32.68ab
16.57ab
BBL 274
29.78bc 16.69a
Torrent 35.30a
13.75bc
Landmark
30.23bc
15.02abc
Hab 323
31.77a 17.08a
Greencrop 35.60a
15.66abc
Contender
30.62bc 13.07c
Hab 19
28.12c
9.39cd
CV %
6.19
10.53
*Means with the same letter are not significant different at 5% level by DMRT
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
22
Pod Beak Orientation and Length and
Number of Seeds per Pod
The pods of all the eight bush snap bean entries had marginal beak which were
mostly oriented upward. Only Hab 63, Hab 323 and Hab 19 had pods with downward
beak orientation.
Pod beak length differed significantly among the entries grown. The longest beak
was recorded from the pods of Contender, Torrent and Greencrop (Table 5). The other
entries had comparatively shorter pod beak that ranged from 7.63 to 9.47 mm.
The number of seeds per pod significantly differed among the eight varieties
evaluated (Table 5). Hab 19 had the highest number of seeds per pod which was
comparable with the number of seeds of Hab 63, Grencrop and Hab 323 with more
than six seeds per pod. The pods of Torrent and Contender had the fewest seeds per
pod. It was observed that small seeded varieties have high number of seeds per pod.
Table 5. Pod beak orientation and length and number of seeds per pod of eight bush snap
bean entries
POD BEAK
NUMBER OF
ENTRY
ORIENTATION LENGTH (cm) SEEDS PER POD
Hab 63
Downward
8.23b 6.60ab
BBL 274
Upward
9.27b 5.93bc
Torrent Upward
12.27a
5.40c
Landmark Upward 9.47b 5.93bc
Hab 323
Downward
7.77b 6.33ab
Greencrop Upward 11.77a 6.40ab
Contender Upward 12.47a 5.27c
Hab 19
Downward
7.63b 6.67a
CV %
13.78
6.34
*Means with same letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
23
Reaction to Pod Borer and Bean Rust
All the bush snap bean entries exhibited mild resistance to pod borer under natural
field condition except for Torrent which showed moderate resistance to the insect.
The entries of bush snap bean studied showed high resistance to bean rust except
for Torrent, Greencrop and Hab 19 which exhibited mild resistance to bean rust (Table
6).
Table 6. Reaction to pod borer and bean rust
ENTRY
REACTION TO
POD BORER BEAN RUST
Hab 63
Mild resistance
Highly resistance
BBL 274
Mild resistance
Highly resistance
Torrent
Moderately resistance Mild resistance
Landmark
Mild resistance
Highly resistance
Hab 323
Mild resistance
Highly resistance
Greencrop
Mild resistance
Mild resistance
Contender Mild
resistance
Highly resistance
Hab 19
Mild resistance
Mild resistance
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
24
Fresh Pod Yield
BBL 274 significantly produced the highest number of marketable pods per plot.
It was comparable with the number of pods per plot of the majority of the entries tested.
The number of non-marketable pods per plot also differed significantly among the
entries evaluated. Hab 323 had the highest number at 215 while Torrent had 51 non-
marketable pods per plot.
Highly significant differences were observed on the weight of marketable pods
per 5m2 plots. Greencrop had significantly the highest weight of marketable pods per plot
at 10.38 kg yield per 5m2 while Hab 19 produced the lowest weight of marketable fresh
pods at 4.51 kg per 5m2 plot (Table 7).
Both Greencrop and Hab 323 registered the highest non-marketable yield
per plot while Contender had the least non-marketable yield of 0.56 kg/5m2. The results
show that entries with the highest number of pods per plant, long and wide pod will
contribute to higher yields.
Highly significant differences were observed on the total yield per plot and per
hectare of the eight entries of bush snap bean tested (Table 7). Greencrop significantly
had the highest yield per plot and per hectare. Hab 19 had the lowest total yield of 5.45
kg/5m2 and 10.89 ton/ha. All other entries studied had comparable total fresh pod yield
that ranged from 16-18 ton/ha. The results show that bush snap bean can produced 5 to
20 tons per hectare as reported by HARRDEC in 1989.
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
25
Table 7. Number and weight of marketable and non-marketable pods.
ENTRY
NUMBER OF
WEIGHT OF (kg/5m2)
MARKETABLE
NON-
MARKETABLE NON-
MARKETABLE
MARKETABLE
Hab 63
1495ab 162b 6.73b 1.03ab
BBL 274
1567a 102cd 8.07b 1.00ab
Torrent 1323ab 51d 7.98b 0.63bc
Landmark 1415ab 87cd 8.25b 0.86bc
Hab 323
1493ab 215a 7.22b 1.33a
Greencrop 1448ab 118bc 10.38a 1.33a
Contender 1242b 65cd 8.23b 0.56c
Hab 19
845c 95cd 4.51c 0.93abc
CV
% 11.96 27.09 12.89 22.20
*Means with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Table 8. Total yield per plot and per hectare of the eight bush snap bean varieties.
ENTRY YIELD
PER PLOT (kg/5m2) PER HECTARE (ton/ha)
Hab 63
7.77b 15.53b
BBL 274
9.09b 18.17b
Torrent 8.62b 17.23b
Landmark 9.11b 18.23b
Hab 323
8.55b 17.11b
Greencrop 11.72a 23.43a
Contender 8.80b 17.60b
Hab 19
5.45c 10.89c
CV %
11.79
11.79
*Means with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
26
Correlation Coefficient among Characters
Measured in Bush Snap Bean
Plant height at 35 DAP was significantly and positively correlated to the weight
of marketable pods (WMP) total yield per plot (TYP) and per hectare (TYH).This
indicates that highest plant height have more yield.
Stem diameter was positively correlated to pod diameter and weight of non-
marketable pods. This indicates that entries with bigger stem diameter will have bigger
pod diameter and higher non-marketable pods.
As indicated in Table 9, pod length was highly significant and positively
correlated with pod width. This indicates that a variety of bush snap bean with longer
pods will also have wider pods.
Highly significant and positive correlation coefficient was noted on the number of
pods per plant (PN) and the number of marketable pods (NMP). This indicates that
entries with highest number of pods per plant would have high number of marketable
pods.
Highly significant and positive correlation coefficient was noted in the weight of
marketable fresh pods and total yield per plot and per hectare (Table 9). This means that
varieties with high weight of marketable pods would have a high total yield per plot and
per hectare.
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
27
Table 9. Correlation Coefficient analysis between other characters measured in eight snap bean varieties
PH35
SD
NB
PHLH
PL
PW
PD
PN
PH
NS
PBL
WMP
WNP
NMP
NNP
TY
TYH
PH35
1.00
SD
0.366
1.00
NB
0.245
0.731
1.00
PHLH
0.488
0.044
0.084
1.00
PL
0.282
0.138
0.211
0.286
1.00
PW 0.459 0.231
0.237 0.451
0.721** 1.00
PD 0.225 0.628*
0.111
0.458
0.425
0.639
1.00
PN
0.171
0.024
0.031
0.036
0.153
0.170
0.043
1.00
PH
0.420
0.062
0.226
0.019
0.518
0.497
0.231
0.166
1.00
NS
0.065
0.178
0.085
0.286
0.189
0.065
0.099
0.098
0.569
1.00
PBL
0.303
0.265
0.012
0.379
0.101
0.069
0.005
0.167
0.406
0.302
1.00
WMP
0.597*
0.252
0.017
0.323
0.277
0.477
0.463
0.520
0.326
0.294
0.062
1.00
WNP
0.561* 0.568*
0.568* 0.013 0.127 0.083 0.062 0.195 0.271 0.237 0.127 0.034 1.00
NMP 0.168
0.165 0.016 0.003 0.118 0.156 0.039
0.983**
0.218 0.151 0.157 0.524 0.231 1.00
NNP 0.028
0.310 0.241 0.201 0.145 0.135 0.011 0.158 0.322 0.306 0.011 0.151 0.185 0.339 1.00
TY
0.697*
0.310 0.112 0.311 0.242 0.480 0.437 0.546 0.374 0.236 0.086
0.978**
0.243 0.555 0.185 1.00
TYH
0.697*
0.310 0.112 0.311 0.242 0.480 0.437 0.546 0.374 0.236 0.086
0.978**
0.243 0.555 0.185 1.00 1.00
*-significant
**- highly significant
Legend:
PH35 plant height at 35 DAP
NS Number of seed per pod
SD Stem diameter
PBL Pod beak length
NB Number of branches
WMP Weight of marketable pods
PHLH Plant height during last harvest
WNP Weight of non-marketable pods
PL Pod length
NMP Number of marketable pods
PD Pod diameter
NNP Number of non-marketable pods
PW Pod width
TY Total yield per plot
PN Number of pods per plant
TYH Total yield per hectare
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
28
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Summary
Among the varieties of bush snap bean studied, highly significant differences
were observed on plant height at 35 DAP, diameter of the stem, pod length, pod width,
pod diameter, number of pods per plant, pod height, number of seeds per pod, pod beak
length, weight of marketable pods and non-marketable pods, number of marketable and
non-marketable pods, total yield per plot and computed yield per hectare.
Significant differences were noted on days from emergence to last flowering.
Number of leaves per plant, number of branches per plant, plant height during the last
harvest, reaction to pod borer and bean rust were not significantly different. Greencrop
produced the highest weight of marketable and total yield per plot and per hectare. BBL
274 had the highest number of marketable pods per plot.
BBL 274 also had the highest number of leaves. Torrent was the tallest entry at 35
DAP with four branches. Torrent and Landmark had the widest stems. Hab 63 was the
tallest entry at 84 DAP. Bush snap bean had light green to green pods. Greencrop had the
longest and widest pod, and had the tallest pod height. Torrent had the highest pod
diameter. Hab 323 had the highest number of pods per plant. Contender had the longest
pod beak and Hab 19 had the highest number of seeds per pod.
Highly significant and positive correlations were noted between pod length and
pod width and weight of marketable pods per plot and total yield per plot and per hectare.
Significant positive correlations were found between plant height at 35 DAP and
the weight of marketable pods per plot and total yield per plot and per hectare; stem
diameter and pod diameter and weight of non-marketable pods; and number of branches
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
29
and weight of non-marketable pods. All other correlation coefficient computed among the
parameters measured was not significant.
Conclusion
Among the eight varieties studied, Greencrop, BBL 274, Landmark, and
Contender are the best performing entries based on pod length, stem diameter, number of
branches, weight and number of marketable pods and total yield per plot and per hectare.
The highly significant correlation coefficient among the characters measured such
as pod width and pod length, number of pods per plant and number of marketable pods;
weight of marketable pods to the total yield per plot and per hectare; plant height at 35
DAP and weight of marketable pods and total yield per plot per hectare; stem diameter
and pod diameter and weight of non-marketable pods; number of pods per plant and
number of non-marketable pods; and number of branches and weight of non-marketable
pods indicated that they can be used as selection indices for associated characters and
yield.
Recommendation
BBL 274, Greencrop, Contender, Torrent, and Hab 323 are the entries highly
recommended for production in La Trinidad Benguet. They performed well in terms of
marketable and total fresh pod yield, pod length, number of branches, plant height at 35
DAP and pod height.
Among the characters considered in this study, plant height at 35 DAP, number
and weight of marketable pods per plot could be used as selection indices for selecting
high yielding entries of bush snap bean.
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
30
LITERATURE CITED
ANNOGUE, W. D.1997. Evaluation and correlation coefficient analysis of eleven
promising lines of garden pea (Pisum sativum L.). BS Thesis. BSU, La Trinidad,
Benguet. Pp. 1-23.
ATAM, I. R. 2009. Morphological Characterization of Castor Bean Plant (Ricinus
communis L.) Collected in Benguet Provence. BS Thesis. BSU, La Trinidad,
Benguet. P. 5.
BAY-AN, N. B. 2000. Performed and acceptability of promising garden pea in Atok,
Benguet. BS Thesis. BSU, La Trinidad, Benguet. P.16.
CONSOLACION, C. C. 2001. Varietal evaluation and Correlation Coefficient analysis in
ten Chrysanthemum varieties. BS Thesis. Benguet State University, La Trinidad,
Benguet. Pp. 4-6.
CONSOLACION, C. C., TANDANG, L. L. and ALEJANDRO, Y. D. 2002. Correlation
Coefficient Analysis between Quality Yield and other Characteristics in
Chrysanthemum (Dendrathema grandiflora T. Zveler). Horticulture. 37:1
DAGSON, M. B. 2000. Performances and acceptability of six varieties of Bush snap
beans under La Trinidad Conditions. B. S. Thesis, Benguet State University, La
Trinidad, Benguet. P. 26.
GOLMIRZHAI, A. and F. SERQUEN. 1992. Correlation between early and late growth
characteristics in an improve TPS population. HortScience Juornal. P. 27.
HAYWARD, M. D., N. O. BOSMARK and I. ROMAGOSA. 1993. Plant Breeding
Principles and Prospects. Mediterranensium Nationam Agraria Univorsitas:
Chapman and Hall. Pp 451-496.
JOSE, M.C. 2004. Varietal Characterization, Evaluation and Correlation Study in Bush
Snap Bean. BS Thesis. Benguet State University La Trinidad, Benguet.Pp. 1-2,
40-41.
LOMADEO, A. O. 2005. Yield and other characteristics of glutinous corn under La
Condition. B. S. Thesis. BSU, La Trinidad, Benguet. Pp. 9-10, 36.
MAITI, R. 1997. Phaseolus spp. Bean Science. United States of America. Science
Publishers, Inc. Pp. 6-8.
PADUA, D. P. 1997. The Role of Plant-Rhizobial Genotypes in Biological Nitrogen
Fixation in Common Bean, Phaseolus vulgaris L. Unpub Thesis (Ph. D.).
University Gent. Pp. 1, 8-9.
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
31
PAGANAS, A. M. 2005. Characterization and evaluation of commercially grown garden
pea varieties in Benguet. BS Thesis. BSU, La Trinidad, Benguet. P. 24
PARKER, R. 2000. Introduction to Plant Science. Delmar Publishers. Pp. 27-28.
PCARRD. 1989. Snap bean technoguide for the highlands. La Trinidad, Benguet State
University. 1st Ed. Pp 1-5.
RASCO, ET. JR. and V. D. AMANTE. 1994. Sweet potato variety evaluation. Vol. 1.
Southeast Asian Program for potato research and development. Pp. 42-43.
REMOQUILLO, J. E. 2003. Morphological diversity and yield performances of different
corn accessions collected from different sources. B. S. Thesis. BSU, La Trinidad
Benguet. Pp. 5-6.
SOMASEGARAN, P. and H. J HOBEN. 1994. Handbook for Rhizobia. Springer- Verlag
New York, Inc. Pp. 165-166.
TAD-AWAN, B. A. and M.B. BALAS. 2007. Correlation of Agronomic Characters in
Potato Accessions Grown Organically. Agronomy. 56: 2.
TANDANG, L. L. KIMEU, A. M. AMLOS, B. A. BAGTILA, J.G. KEBASEN, B.B. and
G.R. MAGHIRANG. 2008. Development and Evaluation of Snap bean (Phaseolu
s vulgaris) Cultivars for the Philippine Highands. A paper presented during the
2009 Agency In-House Review at Benguet State University, La Trinidad
Benguet. P. 20.
USDA. 1995. Fresh-Market Snap Bean: An Economic Assesment of the Feasibility of
Providing Multiple-Peril Crop Insurance. Accessed at
http://www.rma.usda.gov/pilots/feasible/PDF/snapbean.pdf.
WORK, D. and J. CAREW. 1995. Producing vegetable crops. The Interstate Printers and
Publishers, Inc. Printed in the United States of America. P. 238.
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
32
APPENDICES
Appendix Table 1. Number of days from sowing to emergence
REPLICATION
ENTRIES I
II III TOTAL
MEAN
Hab 63
7
7
7
21
7
BBL 274
7
7
7
21
7
Torrent
7
7
7
21
7
Landmark
7
7
7
21
7
Hab 323
7
7
7
21
7
Greencrop
8
8
8
24
8
Contender
9
9
9
27
9
Hab 19
8
8
8
24
8
TOTAL 60 60 60 180 60
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
33
Appendix Table 2. Number of days from emergence to first flowering
REPLICATION
ENTRIES I
II
III
TOTAL MEAN
Hab
63 28 28 28 84 28
BBL 274
31
31
31
93
31
Torrent
30
30
30
90
30
Landmark
30 30 30 90 30
Hab
323 28 28 28 84 28
Greencrop
28 28 28 84 28
Contender
28 28 28 84 28
Hab
19 30 30 30 90 30
TOTAL
233 233 233 699 233
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
34
Appendix Table 3. Number of days from emergence to last flowering
REPLICATION
ENTRIES
I II
TOTAL
III
MEAN
Hab
63 62 65 65 192
64.00
BBL
274
62 62 65 189
63.00
Torrent
62
65
65
192
64.00
Landmark
62
65
62
189
63.00
Hab 323
62
62
65
189
63.00
Greencrop
61
61
64
186
62.00
Contender
59
60
60
179
59.67
Hab 19
61
64
61
186
62.00
TOTAL 491 504 507 1502
500.67
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
OF
SQUARES
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
SQUARES
0.05 0.01
Replication 2
18.083 9.042
Treatment 7 41.167 5.881 3.35* 2.77
4.29
Error
14
24.583
1.756
TOTAL 23 83.833
16.679
*-Significant Coefficient of Variation = 2.12%
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
35
Appendix Table 4. Number of days from flowering to pod setting
REPLICATION
ENTRIES
I II
TOTAL
III
MEAN
Hab
63 8 8 8 24 8
BBL
274
10 10 10 30 10
Torrent
9
9
9
27
9
Landmark
9
9
9
27
9
Hab 323
9
9
9
27
9
Greencrop
9
9
9
27
9
Contender
9
9
9
27
9
Hab 19
9
9
9
27
9
TOTAL 72 72 72 216 72
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
36
Appendix Table 5. Number of days from emergence to first harvesting
REPLICATION
ENTRIES
I II
TOTAL
III
MEAN
Hab
63 60 60 60 180 60
BBL
274
60 60 60 180 60
Torrent
60
60
60
180
60
Landmark
60
60
60
180
60
Hab 323
60
60
60
180
60
Greencrop
57
57
57
171
57
Contender
56
56
56
168
56
Hab 19
57
57
57
171
57
TOTAL 470 470 470 1410 470
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
37
Appendix Table 6. Number of days from emergence to last harvesting
REPLICATION
ENTRIES
I II
TOTAL
III
MEAN
Hab
63 77 77 77 231 77
BBL
274
77 77 77 231 77
Torrent
77
77
77
231
77
Landmark
77
77
77
231
77
Hab 323
77
77
77
231
77
Greencrop
74
74
74
222
74
Contender
73
73
73
219
73
Hab 19
74
74
74
222
74
TOTAL 606 606 606 1818 606
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
38
Appendix Table 7. Number of leaves per plant.
REPLICATION
ENTRIES
I II
TOTAL
III
MEAN
Hab
63 12 11 14 37
12.33
BBL
274
13 15 13 41
13.67
Torrent
10
11
12
33
11.00
Landmark
11
12
14
37
12.33
Hab 323
11
13
13
37
12.33
Greencrop
9
12
13
34
11.33
Contender
11
13
15
39
13.00
Hab 19
11
15
14
40
13.33
TOTAL 88 102 108 298 99.32
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
OF
SQUARES
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
SQUARES
0.05 0.01
Replication 2
26.333 13.167
Treatment 7 17.833 2.548 2.28ns
2.77 4.29
Error 14
15.667
1.119
TOTAL 23 59.833
16.834
ns – Not Significant Coefficient of Variation = 8.52%
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
39
Appendix Table 8. Plant Height at 35 DAP (cm)
REPLICATION
ENTRIES
I II
TOTAL
III
MEAN
Hab
63 25.75 23 21.70
70.45
23.48
BBL
274
17.75 21 16.05
54.80
18.27
Torrent
23.45
30
26.45
79.90
26.63
Landmark
17.95
15.90
17.60
51.45
17.15
Hab 323
21.35
21.35
20.30
63
21
Greencrop
24.05
28.20
26.05
78.30
26.10
Contender
20.25
21.45
23.10
64.80
21.60
Hab 19
17.05
17
14.05
48.10
16.03
TOTAL 167.60 177.90 165.30 510.80 170.26
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
OF
SQUARES
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
SQUARES
0.05 0.01
Replication 2
11.256 5.628
Treatment 7 331.772
47.396 12.47**
2.77 4.29
Error 14
53.201
3.800
TOTAL 23 396.228
56.824
** – Highly Significant Coefficient of Variation = 9.16%
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
40
Appendix Table 9. Diameter of the Stem (cm)
REPLICATION
ENTRIES
I II
TOTAL
III
MEAN
Hab
63 0.42 0.43 0.40 1.25 0.42
BBL
274 0.52 0.50 0.46 1.48 0.49
Torrent
0.49
0.54
0.52
1.55
0.52
Landmark
0.52
0.54
0.50
1.56
0.52
Hab 323
0.42
0.42
0.44
1.28
0.43
Greencrop
0.49
0.52
0.52
1.53
0.51
Contender
0.46
0.48
0.50
1.44
0.48
Hab 19
0.42
0.50
0.44
1.36
0.45
TOTAL 3.74 3.93 3.78 11.45 3.82
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
OF
SQUARES
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
SQUARES
0.05 0.01
Replication 2
0.003
0.001
Treatment 7
0.035
0.005
9.84**
2.77 4.29
Error 14
0.007
0.001
TOTAL 23
0.044
0.007
** – Highly Significant Coefficient of Variation = 4.70%
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
41
Appendix Table 10. Number of Branches per plant
REPLICATION
ENTRIES
I II
TOTAL
III
MEAN
Hab
63 5 5 5 15
5.00
BBL
274
5 5 5 15
5.00
Torrent
4
5
4
13
4.33
Landmark
5
4
5
14
4.67
Hab 323
5
5
5
15
5.00
Greencrop
5
5
5
15
5.00
Contender
6
5
5
16
5.33
Hab 19
5
5
5
15
5.00
TOTAL 40 39 39 118
39.33
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
OF
SQUARES
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
SQUARES
0.05 0.01
Replication 2
0.083 0.042
Treatment 7 1.833 0.262 1.91ns
2.77 4.29
Error 14
1.917
0.137
TOTAL 23 3.833 0.441
ns – Not Significant Coefficient of Variation = 7.53%
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
42
Appendix Table 11. Plant height during the last harvest (cm)
REPLICATION
ENTRIES
I II
TOTAL
III
MEAN
Hab
63 37.20 36.75 47.75 121.70 40.57
BBL
274 35.20 36.85 38.8 110.85 36.95
Torrent
39.25
37.65
39.35
116.25
38.75
Landmark
35.25
42.85
36.35
114.45
38.15
Hab 323
33.40
36.60
46.00
116.00
38.67
Greencrop
40.90
37.75
36.20
114.85
38.28
Contender
36.10
44.10
33.15
113.35
37.78
Hab 19
32.70
37.45
32.50
102.65
34.22
TOTAL 290.00 310.00 310.10 910.10 303.37
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
OF
SQUARES
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
SQUARES
0.05 0.01
Replication 2
33.501 16.750
Treatment 7 69.331 9.904 0.52ns
2.77 4.29
Error 14
263.217
18.801
TOTAL 23 366.050
45.455
ns – Not Significant Coefficient of Variation = 7.53%
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
43
Appendix Table 12. Pod Length (cm)
REPLICATION
ENTRIES
I II
TOTAL
III
MEAN
Hab
63 15.27 14.80 14.28 44.35 14.78
BBL
274 14.94 17.48 15.99 48.41 16.14
Torrent
16.50
17.20
17.11
50.81
16.94
Landmark
15.29
14.44
15.90
45.63
15.21
Hab 323
14.66
13.96
13.91
42.53
14.18
Greencrop
20.90
18.53
19.77
59.20
19.73
Contender
16.55
15.22
16.34
48.11
16.04
Hab 19
13.32
14.14
14.04
41.50
13.83
TOTAL 127.43 125.77 127.34 380.54 126.85
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
OF
SQUARES
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
SQUARES
0.05 0.01
Replication 2
0.218 0.109
Treatment 7 74.377 10.625 15.69**
2.77 4.29
Error 14
9.481
0.677
TOTAL 23 84.076
11.411
** – Highly Significant Coefficient of Variation = 5.19%
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
44
Appendix Table 13. Pod width (cm)
REPLICATION
ENTRIES
I II
TOTAL
III
MEAN
Hab 63
8.3
8.1
6.9
23.3
7.77
BBL 274
8.0
8.7
8.2
24.9
8.3
Torrent
9.3
10.0
9.3
28.6
9.5
Landmark
9.0
7.3
8.0
24.3
8.1
Hab 323
8.1
7.7
7.3
23.1
7.7
Greencrop
12.2
11.0
11.4
34.6
11.5
Contender
9.8
9.9
10.1
29.8
9.9
Hab 19
7.5
7.8
7.4
22.7
7.6
TOTAL
72.2
70.5
68.6
211.3
70.4
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
OF
SQUARES
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
SQUARES
0.05 0.01
Replication 2
0.810 0.405
Treatment 7 41.453 5.922 23.31**
2.77 4.29
Error 14
3.556
0.254
TOTAL 23 45.819
6.581
** – Highly Significant Coefficient of Variation = 5.72%
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
45
Appendix Table 14. Pod diameter (cm)
REPLICATION
ENTRIES
I II
TOTAL
III
MEAN
Hab
63 0.69 0.66 0.61 1.96 0.65
BBL
274 0.55 0.64 0.68 1.87 0.62
Torrent
0.76
0.70
0.69
2.15
0.72
Landmark
0.71
0.61
0.71
2.03
0.68
Hab 323
0.67
0.60
0.62
1.89
0.63
Greencrop
0.51
0.50
0.53
1.54
0.51
Contender
0.61
0.64
0.70
1.95
0.65
Hab 19
0.64
0.63
0.69
1.96
0.65
TOTAL 5.14 4.98 5.23 15.35 5.11
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
OF
SQUARES
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
SQUARES
0.05 0.01
Replication 2
0.004 0.002
Treatment 7 0.072 0.010 5.36** 2.77 4.29
Error 14
0.027
0.002
TOTAL 23 0.103 0.014
** – Highly Significant Coefficient of Variation = 6.87%
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
46
Appendix Table 15. Number of pods per plant
REPLICATION
ENTRIES
I II
TOTAL
III
MEAN
Hab
63 17.76 17.28 14.68 49.72 16.57
BBL
274 18.82 16.41 14.84 50.07 16.69
Torrent
14.51
14.61
12.12
41.24
13.75
Landmark
15.48
15.26
14.31
45.05
15.02
Hab 323
15.81
18.84
16.58
51.23
17.08
Greencrop
15.76
16.86
14.36
46.98
15.66
Contender
10.89
14.19
14.13
39.21
13.07
Hab 19
7.76
13.08
7.34
28.18
9.39
TOTAL 116.79 126.53 108.36 351 117.23
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
OF
SQUARES
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
SQUARES
0.05 0.01
Replication 2
20.670 10.335
Treatment 7 137.547
19.650 8.26** 2.77 4.29
Error 14
33.314
2.380
TOTAL 23 191.531
32.365
** – Highly Significant Coefficient of Variation = 10.53%
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
47
Appendix Table 16. Pod height (cm)
REPLICATION
ENTRIES
I II
TOTAL
III
MEAN
Hab
63 33.70 32.75 31.60 98.05 32.68
BBL
274 29.65 34.60 25.10 89.35 29.78
Torrent
34.75
35.50
35.65
105.90
35.30
Landmark
32.15
27.90
30.65
90.70
30.23
Hab 323
29.55
34.25
31.50
95.30
31.77
Greencrop
36.80
35.75
34.25
106.80
35.60
Contender
29.00
32.85
30.00
91.85
30.62
Hab 19
28.30
30.25
25.80
84.35
28.12
TOTAL 253.90 263.85 244.55 762.30 254.10
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
OF
SQUARES
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
SQUARES
0.05 0.01
Replication 2
28.496
14.248
Treatment 7
141.896
20.271 5.22**
2.77 4.29
Error 14
54.327
3.880
TOTAL 23
224.720 38.399
** – Highly Significant Coefficient of Variation = 6.19%
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
48
Appendix Table 17. Number of seed per pod
REPLICATION
ENTRIES
I II
TOTAL
III
MEAN
Hab 63
6.6
6.2
7.0
19.8
6.60
BBL 274
5.6
6.4
5.8
17.8
5.93
Torrent
5.6
4.6
6.0
16.2
5.40
Landmark
6.2
5.8
5.8
17.8
5.93
Hab 323
6.0
6.4
6.6
19.0
6.33
Greencrop
6.4
6.4
6.4
19.2
6.40
Contender
5.4
5.0
5.4
15.8
5.27
Hab 19
6.4
7.0
6.6
20.0
6.67
TOTAL
48.2
47.8
49.6
145.6
48.53
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
OF
SQUARES
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
SQUARES
0.05 0.01
Replication 2
0.223 0.112
Treatment 7 5.840 0.834 5.64** 2.77 4.29
Error 14
2.070
0.148
TOTAL 23 8.133 1.094
** – Highly Significant Coefficient of Variation = 6.34%
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
49
Appendix Table 18. Pod beak length (mm)
REPLICATION
ENTRIES
I II
TOTAL
III
MEAN
Hab
63 6.7 8.9 9.1 24.7 8.23
BBL 274
9.6
10.7
7.5
27.8
9.27
Torrent
13.5
12.1
11.2
36.8
12.27
Landmark
10.4
8.9
9.1
28.4
9.47
Hab 323
7.3
8.4
7.6
23.3
7.77
Greencrop
14.3
12.3
8.7
35.3
11.77
Contender
11.5
13.8
12.1
37.4
12.47
Hab 19
7.1
8.2
7.6
22.9
7.63
TOTAL
80.4
83.3
72.9
236.4
78.88
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
OF
SQUARES
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
SQUARES
0.05 0.01
Replication 2
7.201 3.600
Treatment 7 86.145 12.306 6.66** 2.77 4.29
Error 14
25.853
1.847
TOTAL 23 119.198
17.753
** – Highly Significant Coefficient of Variation = 13.78%
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
50
Appendix Table 19. Weight of marketable fresh pods per plot (kg/5m2)
REPLICATION
ENTRIES
I II
TOTAL
III
MEAN
Hab
63 7.91 6.61 5.68 20.20 6.73
BBL
274 8.13 8.74 7.39 24.26 8.07
Torrent
7.70
9.28
6.97
23.95
7.98
Landmark
7.66
7.48
9.60
24.74
8.25
Hab 323
7.70
7.42
6.54
21.66
7.22
Greencrop
10.09
10.62
10.44
31.15
10.38
Contender
6.55
9.30
8.85
24.70
8.23
Hab 19
4.11
5.68
3.75
13.54
4.51
TOTAL 59.85 65.13 59.22 184.20 61.37
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
OF
SQUARES
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
SQUARES
0.05 0.01
Replication 2
2.728 1.364
Treatment 7 58.069 8.296 8.46** 2.77 4.29
Error 14
13.721
0.980
TOTAL 23 74.518
10.640
** – Highly Significant Coefficient of Variation = 12.89%
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
51
Appendix Table 20. Weight of Non-marketable fresh pods per plot (kg/5m2)
REPLICATION
ENTRIES
I II
TOTAL
III
MEAN
Hab
63 1.1 0.8 1.2 3.1 1.03
BBL
274 0.9 1.0 1.1 3.0 1.00
Torrent
0.4
0.8
0.7
1.9
0.63
Landmark
1.1
0.6
0.9
2.6
0.86
Hab 323
1.0
1.3
1.7
4.0
1.33
Greencrop
1.0
1.6
1.4
4.0
1.33
Contender
0.6
0.4
0.7
1.7
0.56
Hab 19
0.9
1.0
0.9
2.8
0.93
TOTAL 7.0 7.5 8.6 23.1
92.81
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
OF
SQUARES
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
SQUARES
0.05 0.01
Replication 2
0.167 0.084
Treatment 7 1.670 0.239 5.22** 2.77 4.29
Error 14
0.639
0.046
TOTAL 23 2.476 0.369
** – Highly Significant Coefficient of Variation = 22.20%
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
52
Appendix Table 21. Number of marketable fresh pods per plot (kg/5m2)
REPLICATION
ENTRIES
I II
TOTAL
III
MEAN
Hab
63 1654 1509 1323 4486 1495
BBL
274 1757 1562 1381 4700 1567
Torrent
1406
1420
1144
3970
1323
Landmark
1447
1450
1347
4244
1415
Hab 323
1318
1725
1435
4478
1493
Greencrop
1455
1560
1328
4343
1448
Contender
1021
1366
1338
3725
1242
Hab 19
654
1226
654
2534
845
TOTAL 10702 11818 9950 32480 10828
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREE
SUM
MEAN OF
COMPUTED F
TABULATED
VARIANCE
OF
OF
SQUARES
F
FREEDOM
SQUARES
0.05 0.01
Replication 2 220554.333
110277.167
Treatment 7
1109582.000
158511.714
6.05**
2.77 4.29
Error 14
366799.000
26199.929
TOTAL 23
1696935.333
294988.810
** – Highly Significant Coefficient of Variation = 11.96%
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
53
Appendix Table 22. Number of Non-marketable fresh pods per plot (kg/5m2)
REPLICATION
ENTRIES
I II
TOTAL
III
MEAN
Hab
63 122 219 145 486 162
BBL
274
125 79 103 307 102
Torrent
45
41
68
154
51
Landmark
101
76
84
261
87
Hab 323
263
159
223
645
215
Greencrop
121
126
108
355
118
Contender
68
53
75
196
65
Hab 19
122
82
80
284
95
TOTAL 967 835 886 2688 895
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
OF
SQUARES
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
SQUARES
0.05 0.01
Replication 2 1107.750
553.875
Treatment 7 60078.667
8582.667
9.32** 2.77 4.29
Error 14
12891.583
920.827
TOTAL 23
74078.000
10057.369
** – Highly Significant Coefficient of Variation = 27.09%
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
54
Appendix Table 23. Total yield per plot (kg/5m2)
REPLICATION
ENTRIES
I II
TOTAL
III
MEAN
Hab
63 9.01 7.41 6.88 23.30 7.77
BBL
274 9.03 9.74 8.49 27.26 9.09
Torrent
8.10
10.08
7.67
25.85
8.62
Landmark
8.76
8.08
10.50
27.34
9.11
Hab 323
8.70
8.72
8.24
25.66
8.55
Greencrop
11.09
12.22
11.84
35.15
11.72
Contender
7.15
9.70
9.55
26.40
8.80
Hab 19
5.01
6.68
4.65
16.34
5.45
TOTAL 66.85 72.63 67.82 207.30 69.11
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
OF
SQUARES
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
SQUARES
0.05 0.01
Replication 2
2.395 1.198
Treatment 7 62.649 8.950 8.63** 2.77 4.29
Error 14
14.520
1.037
TOTAL 23 79.565
11.185
** – Highly Significant Coefficient of Variation = 11.79%
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
55
Appendix Table 24. Computed yield per hectare (t/ha)
REPLICATION
ENTRIES
I II
TOTAL
III
MEAN
Hab
63 18.02 14.82 13.76 46.60 15.53
BBL
274 18.06 19.48 16.98 54.52 18.17
Torrent
16.20
20.16
15.34
51.70
17.23
Landmark
17.52
16.16
21.00
54.68
18.23
Hab 323
17.40
17.44
16.48
51.32
17.11
Greencrop
22.18
24.44
23.68
70.30
23.43
Contender
14.30
19.40
19.10
52.80
17.60
Hab 19
10.02
13.36
9.30
32.68
10.89
TOTAL 133.70 145.26 135.64 414.60 138.19
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
OF
SQUARES
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
SQUARES
0.05 0.01
Replication 2
2.395 1.198
Treatment 7 62.649 8.950 8.63** 2.77 4.29
Error 14
14.520
1.037
TOTAL 23 79.565
11.185
** – Highly Significant Coefficient of Variation = 11.79%
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
56
Appendix Table 25. Reaction to pod borer
REPLICATION
ENTRIES
I II
TOTAL
III
MEAN
Hab
63 2 2 2 6
2.00
BBL
274
2 2 2 6
2.00
Torrent
3
3
2
8
2.67
Landmark
2
2
2
6
2.00
Hab 323
2
2
2
6
2.00
Greencrop
2
2
2
6
2.00
Contender
2
3
2
7
2.33
Hab 19
2
2
2
6
2.00
TOTAL 17 18 16 51
17.00
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
OF
SQUARES
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
SQUARES
0.05 0.01
Replication 2
0.250 0.125
Treatment 7 1.292 0.185 2.38 ns
2.77 4.29
Error 14
1.083
0.077
TOTAL 23 2.625 0.387
ns –Not Significant Coefficient of Variation = 13.09%
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
57
Appendix Table 26. Reaction to bean rust
REPLICATION
ENTRIES
I II
TOTAL
III
MEAN
Hab
63 1 2 1 4
1.33
BBL
274
1 1 1 3
1.00
Torrent
2
1
2
5
1.67
Landmark
1
1
2
4
1.33
Hab 323
1
1
1
3
1.00
Greencrop
1
3
1
5
1.67
Contender
1
1
2
4
1.33
Hab 19
2
2
2
6
2.00
TOTAL 10 12 12 34
11.33
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
OF
SQUARES
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
SQUARES
0.05 0.01
Replication 2
0.333 0.167
Treatment 7 2.500 0.357 1.0ns
2.77 4.29
Error 14
5.000
0.357
TOTAL 23 7.833 0.881
ns
–Not
Significant
Coefficient of Variation = 16.07%
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
GAPAD,
MARY
JANE
D. APRIL 2010. Agromophological Evaluation and
Correlation Analysis in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection. Benguet State
University, La Trinidad, Benguet.
Adviser: Leoncia L. Tandang, Ph. D.
ABSTRACT
Highly significant differences were observed on plant height at 35 DAP, diameter
of the stem, pod length, width, and diameter, number of pods per plant, pod height,
number of seed per pod, pod beak length, weight of marketable and non-marketable pods,
number of marketable and non-marketable pods, total yield per plot and per hectare
among the eight bush snap bean collection evaluated.
Significant differences among the eight bush snap bean evaluated were noted on
days from emergence to last flowering. Greencrop, BBL 274, Landmark and Contender
were the best entries in terms of pod length, stem diameter, number of branches and
marketable fresh pod yield.
Highly significant positive correlation coefficients were noted between pod length
and pod width; number of pods per plant and number of marketable pods; and weight of
marketable fresh pods and the total yield per plot and per hectare.
Significant positive correlation coefficients were found between plant height at 35
DAP and the weight of marketable pods, and total yield per plot and per hectare.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Bibliography…...…………………………………………………………... . i
Abstract…………………………………………………………………….. . i
Table of Contents…………………………………………………………... . ii
INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………. . 1
REVIEW OF LITERATURE……………………………………………… . 4
MATERIALS AND METHODS…………………………………………... . 10
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION…………………………………………… . 16
Maturity……………………………………………………………... 16
Color and Number of Leaves………………………………………..
18
Plant Height………………………………………………………... . 18
Diameter of the Stem………………………………………………..
18
Number of Branches………………………………………………...
19
Pod Length, Width, and Diameter……………………………………
19
Pod Height and Number of Pods per Plant…………………………..
20
Pod Beak Orientation, Length, and
Number of Seeds per Pod…………………………………………...
22
Reaction to Pod Borer and Bean Rust………………………………. 23
Fresh Pod Yield………………………………………………......... . 24
Correlation Coefficient among Characters Measured in Nine
Bush Snap bean varieties…………………………………………… 26
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS …………… 28
LITERATURE CITED……………………………………………………... 30
APPENDICES……………………………………………………………… 32
ii
1
INTRODUCTION
Snap bean is one of the most important legumes for human consumption in the
world. It is an important source of proteins, minerals and vitamins. It is the source of
dietary protein in many Latin American countries (Somasegaran and Hoben, 1994).
Because of nutritional importance, production of vegetable legumes must be increased by
using good a variety to meet the demand of the increasing population.
Snap beans are either climbing or bush type. It is marketed as processed or fresh.
For the processing market, varieties with white seeds are used to avoid discoloration of
the processed product. Snap beans thrive in warm, frost-free areas, but excessive heat can
limit growth. Pest problems for snap beans are similar to pest of dry beans. However, pest
pressure may be less extensive in snap beans when the crop is harvested earlier (USDA,
1995).
Snap bean is a commonly cultivated crop in the Philippines where subsistence
farmers are abundant. It has been declared as high priority crop by the Philippine
government in the 1980’s. It is cultivated in traditional farming systems in contrast to the
intensive cultivation including semi-mechanized harvesting in North America and
Europe. The principal cropping systems adopted by the farmers of the snap bean
production are either monoculture in small landholdings or complex multi-cropping
systems common to most of the developing tropical countries (Padua, 1997).
Furthermore, snap bean is the most important species of the genus Phaseolus in
terms of number of varieties available and area devoted to its cultivation worldwide. It
becomes an important food crop not only in parts of Africa and Asia but also in Europe,
America and the Pacific islands.
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
2
The choice of an appropriate variety is one of the important factors in the
successful production of beans because planting the variety that is not adapted to the
environment condition will only result to a waste of resources such as money, time and
labor so the necessity of selecting adaptable varieties is important.
Considering strong competition in local and worldwide market, selection of
quality produce is an important step in the farm planning process. Selection of varieties is
crucial for the level of success in crop production since the major objective in plant
breeding is high yield. Yield is a complex entity and its ultimate expression depends upon
the interplay of several characters. This includes land race, genetic variation that exists
between individuals. It includes also of having risen from a homozygous parent in a
previous generation selection within this mixture of pure line is effective.
Many snap bean growers have gained valuable knowledge and experiences about
proper management in growing snap beans. However, the production is still far from
sufficient. The farmer’s knowledge on morphological traits associated with quality yield
can help him in selecting high yielding varieties to plant. In addition, the identification of
important yield components influencing yield and selection of superior genotypes are
necessary in starting an effective breeding program (Consolacion, et al., 2002).
This study was done to:
1. evaluate the agro-morphological characteristics of bush snap bean germplasm
collection in Benguet;
2. determine the best accession of bush snap bean under La Trinidad condition;
and
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
3
3. determine the relationship of the different agro-morphological characteristics of
bush snap bean in La Trinidad Benguet.
This was conducted at Benguet State University-Institute of Plant Breeding
Highland Crops Research Station in BSU La Trinidad, Benguet from November 2009 to
February 2010.
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
4
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Genetic Resources
Germplasms are the sources of resistance to several biotic and abiotic stresses.
Several research inputs have been directed toward bean germplasm. These were collected
from their centers of origin and evaluated to meet the demands of the plant breeders.
Germplasm are evaluated by germplasm botanist or breeders for the selection of
genotypes for the sources of resistance and other desirable agronomic traits (Maiti, 1997).
Parker in 2000 stated that plant breeder, geneticists, and biotechnologies are
concerned about preserving and cataloguing invaluable resource for the future. Genes to
incorporate traits like disease resistance and salt tolerance into tomorrow’s crop plants
will come from this vast germplasm pool. Some plants will be selected from this
germplasm pool for cropping in the future for new uses or products, and to meet the need
for crops that are adopted to adverse environments. Plants and plant products for
tomorrow will come from the untapped germplasm pool that exists today only if its
importance is recognized and preserved. In agriculture the main emphasis is still on
increased food production with breeding programs to develop high-yielding strains
especially those yielding more protein.
Characterization
Morphological characterization is done to identify morphotypes. A morphotype is
a group of plants showing morphological similarities apparently of the same phenotype,
but not necessarily of the same genetic constitution. Thus, molecular characterization can
follow to identify genotypes. At this stage, a curator has an efficient collection with a
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
5
minimum duplicates consequently; the collection is smaller than the original one. Studies
on genetic diversity and evaluation such as agronomic characters, nutrition and reaction
to biotic and abiotic factors can be carried out on this kind of material. Once that this has
been achieved a core collection that is basic sample of germplasm collection representing
the wide range of diversity in terms of morphology, geographical coverage and genes can
be established (Fontanetti, et al., 2002 as cited by Atam, 2009).
Usually high heritable morphological characters are employed for the purpose of
characterization. It includes a sufficient number of traits that are useful in eliminating
duplicates. It is important in establishing the identity of a variety and assessing its
agronomic utilization potential. It is also important in the field of agriculture for breeders,
researchers and producers to further evaluate the characteristics of the existing varieties,
species and progenies adapted to cold and warm condition.
Furthermore, Consolacion, et al., (2002) stated that farmers’ knowledge on
morphological trait associated with quality yield can help him in selecting high yielding
varieties to plant. Moreover, the identification of important yield components influencing
yield and selection of superior genotypes are necessary in starting an effective breeding
program.
Varietal Evaluation
The importance of having a varietal evaluation is to observe performance
character such as yield, earliness in maturity, vigor and it’s resistant to pest and diseases,
because different varieties have wide range of different in plant size, and yield
performance (Work and Carew, 1995). Some variety produce exceptionally well under
one set of condition and become worthless under other conditions. The researchers
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
6
further said that the maturity period of the different varieties tested under highland
condition was longer in days or months compared to maturity period of crops planted in
warm places.
Success in evaluation is ultimately measured in terms of acceptability of the
variety that passed the evaluation process to users of the variety. A farmer may initially
accept a new variety because it suits his farming practice and he finds it to be better
yielding than his traditional variety, but how many stop growing if he finds that traders
are not willing to buy it (Rasco and Amante, 1994). Verification trials are essential to
determine whether a technology is suitable to the agro-climatic conditions and socio-
economic needs of particular production area and weather a technology needs further
research for is ready for application or adoption.
Remoquillo (2003) cited that further evaluation of those desirable traits into one
type requires information on genetic variability, genetic correlations between traits and
their heritabilities. The combined inputs of breeders and physiologist in obtaining needed
information and in continued selection of these traits should enhance the breeding
processes for increasing yield.
The number of branches is an important factor contributing to yield in snap bean.
Theoretically, the more the branches, the greater the yield. The position or orientation of
branches is also an important morphological characteristic. The upright or vertical
position is considered ideal because it enables branches to intercept more solar radiation
or sunlight necessary in photosynthesis (PCARRD, 1989).
In evaluating the same number of varieties but different types, Dagson (2000)
found varying performances. Stringless Valentine produced the highest initial and final
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
7
plant height, while Hab 63, Torrent, and Stringless Valentine produced the highest
marketable pods per plot. Hab 63, Stringless Valintine, Torrent, and BBL-274 produced
the highest total fresh pod yield per plot. All varieties studied however, were found
resistant to pod borer and bean rust except Hab 323.
Annogue (1997) also found out that among the eleven lines of garden peas
evaluated, CGP 18 produced the highest yield per plant and per hectare. It was also the
earliest to mature and produced the number of pods per plant.
Paganas (2005) reported the result of her study in the evaluation of commercially
grown garden pea varieties. Among the five varieties, CGP 39 and Kalantao had the
highest number of pods per plant. In Addition, Chinese White, CGP 39 and 89-001
produced more seeds than the other varieties. She also found out that Kalantao had the
highest yield per plot and per hectare followed by CGP 39.
Bay-an (2000) also evaluated six varieties of garden pea namely 89-011, CDG,
CGP 18-A,Chinese, Taichung, and Trinidad in Atok, Benguet. Among the six varieties
evaluated, CGP 18-A was the earliest to produce flower and early to mature. However,
Trinidad produced the highest yield per plot and per hectare.
Correlation Analysis
Phenotypic and genotypic correlation and heritability are required to select
potential parents carrying desired traits. This is frequently suggested for incorporation of
physiological and morphological traits into new cultivars. Parental selection and normal
agronomic evaluation approach incorporate the desired traits into one variety. This is
depending also upon the heritability of the trait and its genetic correlation with yield
(Hayward et al., 1993).
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
8
Golmirzhai and Serquen (1992) cited that correlation between seedlings and
vegetative progeny have much good breeding materials if selection were exerted at the
seedling stage rather than on the vegetative progeny. Many seedlings have to be
evaluated to select the desirable genotypes. This problem increases the need for field
space, manual labor and facilities. For some characters, like resistance to some diseases,
the initial evaluations are done at the seedling stage. When undesirable genotypes are
discarded, thus requires the planting of fewer genotypes in the field.
In addition, breeders could use descriptors as references for exploiting new traits
that are desirable and related to yield of the crop. Characters and traits should be
identified to be correlated with yield and later, improvement could be done (Tad-awan,
and Ballas, 2007).
Jose (2004) found out significant differences among the varieties of bush snap
bean characterized and evaluated in terms of almost all the parameters measured. There
was significant correlation among the characters measured in bush sanp bean varieties
such as days from emergence to harvesting, internodes length, number of branches to pod
width indicates that they can be used a selection index for associated character and yield.
Morphological Traits Associated with
Yield in Other Crops
Among the correlation coefficients worked out by Annogue in 1997 in garden
pea, total yield was found to be significantly correlated to the number of pods. The
number of nodes at first flowering and last harvesting were significantly correlated to
final height, maturity and flowering. In addition, plant height was significantly correlated
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
9
to flowering and first harvesting and flowering was significantly correlated to number of
days to first harvesting.
Positive correlation has been reported between lodging resistance and yield while
the numbers of pods per plant and seeds per pod were only phenotypically correlated by
Sumarno in 1986 as cited by Consolacion (2001) using international yield testing data of
20 soybean cultivars planted at 73 locations. He also found some positive and negative
correlations between yield and days to flowering, days to maturity, plant height, lodging
resistance, number of plants, pod length, and seed weight. The type (positive or negative)
of correalation was depended on the location.
Based on the study conducted by Lomadeo in 2005 in corn, he found out that
there was positive and significant correlation coefficient of yield to other characters like
leaf length, leaf width and leaf area. These characters could be used as selection indices
when selecting for high yielding varieties of corn.
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
10
MATERIALS AND METHODS
An experimental area of 190 m2 was thoroughly prepared and divided into three
blocks; each block consisted of 30 plots measuring 1m x 5m including border plots. The
experiment was laid out using Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) with three
replications.
The following germplasm collection entries that were obtained from BSU-IPB
Highland Crops Research Station (BSU-IPB HCRS) at BSU served as treatments:
TREATMENT
ENTRIES
V1
Hab 63
V2
BBL 274
V3
Torrent
V4
Landmark
V5
Hab 323
V6
Green Crop
V7
Contender
V8
Hab 19
Snap bean seeds were sown at two seeds per hill in a double row plot at a
distance of 20 cm between hills and 25 cm between rows. All the necessary cultural
management practices for production of snap beans such as fertilization, irrigation,
weeding, and hilling-up and pest control were employed.
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
11
Data Gathered
1. Number of days from sowing to emergence. This was obtained by counting the
number of days from sowing to emergence.
2. Number of days from emergence to first flowering. This was obtained by
counting the number of days from emergence to first flowering.
3. Number of days from emergence to last flowering. This was obtained by
counting the number of days from emergence to last flowering.
4. Number of days from flowering to pod setting. This was obtained by counting
the number of days from flowering until the pods will be fully developed.
5. Number of days from emergence to first harvesting. This was obtained by
counting the number of days from emergence to first harvesting.
6. Number of days from emergence to last harvesting. This was obtained by
counting the number of days from emergence to last harvesting.
7. Number of leaves per plant. This was obtained by counting the number of
leaves of 10 sample plants per replication.
8. Plant height at 35 DAP (cm). This was measured from the base of the plant at
ground level to the tip of the youngest shoot using meter stick at 35 days after planting
(DAP).
9. Diameter of the stem (cm). This was measured at the midportion of the stem
using vernier caliper at 35 DAP.
10. Number of branches. This was obtained by counting the branches of the plants
one week before harvesting.
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
12
11. Final plant height (cm). This was measured from the base of the plant to the
tip of the plant using meter stick during last harvesting.
12. Pod length (cm). This was obtained by measuring the base to the tip of the pod
of 10 random sample pods per entry per replication.
13. Pod width (cm). This was obtained by measuring the broadest part of the pod
of 10 random sample pods per entry per treatment.
14. Pod Diameter. This was obtained by measuring the middle portion of the pod
of 10 random sample pods per entry per treatment using vernier caliper.
15. Number of pod per plant. This was obtained by getting the number of pods per
plant.
16. Pod height within the canopy. This was obtained by measuring the height of
the pod within the canopy.
17. Location of pods in the plant. This was obtained by observing the location of
the pod in the plant if they are either above the canopy, within the canopy or below the
canopy.
18. Number of seed per pod. This was obtained by counting the number of seeds
per pod from five (5) sample pods per treatment.
19. Weight and number of marketable fresh pods per plot (kg/m2). This was
obtained by counting and weighing the marketable pods per plot. Marketable pods are
smooth, straight and no infestation of pod borer and no infection of insects.
20. Weight and number of non- marketable fresh pods per plot (kg/m2). This was
obtained by counting and weighing the non-marketable pods per plot. Non-marketable
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
13
pods are rough, curled, infested with pod borer, infected with rust, small sizes and
damaged pods.
21. Total yield per plot (kg/5m2). This was obtained by getting the total number
and weight of marketable and non-marketable pods per plot.
22. Computed yield per hectare. This was computed based on the total yield per
plot as follows:
Total
Yield
(ton/ha) = Yield/Plot (kg/5m2) x 2
Where: 2 is a factor that will be used to convert yield per plot (kg/5m2) to yield
per hectare in (ton/ha) assuming 1 ha effective area.
23. Reaction to Pest and Diseases
a. Reaction to pod borer. This was obtained using the following rating
scale used by Tandang et al (2008):
Scale Description
Rating
1 no infestations/plot
highly resistant
2 1-25% of the total plant/plot are infested mildly resistant
3 25-50% of the total plant/plot are infested moderately resistant
4 51-75% of the total plant/plot are infested susceptible
5 76-100% of the total plant/plot are infested very susceptible
b. Reaction to bean rust. This was obtained using the following rating
scale used by Tandang et al (2008):
Scale Description
Rating
1 no infestations/plot
highly resistant
2
1-25% of the total plant/plot are infected
moderately resistant
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
14
3 25-50% of the total plant/plot are infected
resistant
4 51-75% of the total plant/plot are infected
susceptible
5 76-100% of the total plant/plot are infected
very susceptible
24. Qualitative characters
a. Leaf color. This was recorded when plants are at their maximum vegetative
growth about 35 DAP using the Royal Horticultural Society Color Chart (RHSCC).
b. Flower color. This was recorded by visually looking at the flowers when they
were fully opened using the RHSCC.
c. Pod color. This was recorded as green, light green, yellow, dark green and other
when the pods were fully developed.
d. Pod shape. This was recorded as flat or round.
e. Pod straightness. This was recorded whether they are straight or curve.
f. Pod stringiness. This was recorded during harvest and recorded when the green
pods were stringy or stringless; pods are stringy if there is pod suture string when
snapped and stringless when there are no pod sutures.
g. Pod waxiness. This was recorded by observing the presence or absence of wax
in the pods.
h. Pod beak length (cm). This was obtained by measuring the beak of the pod of
10 random sample pods per entry per treatment.
i. Pod beak position. This was obtained by observing the position of the beak
either marginal or non-marginal.
j. Pod beak orientation. This was obtained by observing the orientation of the pod
beak either upward, straight or downward.
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
15
Analysis of Data
All quantitative data were analyzed using the Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for
Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) with three replications. The significance of
differences among treatment means was tested using the Duncan’s Multiple Range Test
(DMRT).
Correlation Coefficient Analysis was determined among quantitative characters
using correlation coefficient analysis. Correlation coefficient analysis was done between
any of the characters measured and between characters and yield. The coefficient of
correlation (r) was estimated using the following formula:
r = Spxy
(SSx) (SSy)
Where: y and x are the 2 variables (characters)
Spxy- the sum of cross products of x and y
SSx- the sum of square of variable x
SSy- the sum of square variable y
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
16
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Maturity
Majority of the entries emerged within 7 days after sowing (DAS). Greencrop and
Hab 19 emerged one day later while Contender was the latest to emerge within 9 DAS
(Table 1). Majority of the entries evaluated produced the first flower within 28 days after
emergence (DAE). BBL 274 was the latest to flower at 31 DAE. Contender was the
earliest to produce flowers at 60 DAE. All other varieties took two to four days later to
last flowering.
Bush snap bean entries took eight to ten days from flowering to pod setting (Table
1).
Contender was the earliest to reach first harvesting at 56 DAE. Greencrop and
Hab 19 were harvested one day later while the other entries were harvested three to four
days later.Contender was also the earliest to reach last harvesting at 73 DAE. Greencrop
and Hab 19 followed one day later. All the other entries took 77 DAE to last harvesting.
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
17
Table 1. Days from sowing to emergence, from emergence to first flowering, to last flowering, to first and to last harvesting,
and flowering to pod setting
DAYS FROM EMERGENCE TO
DAYS FROM
FIRST
LAST
FIRST
LAST
DAYS FROM
SOWING
FLOWERING
FLOWERING
HARVESTING
HARVESTING
FLOWERING TO
ENTRY
TO
POD SETTING
EMERGENCE
Hab 63
7
28
64 b
60 77 8
BBL 274
7
31
63 b 60 77 10
Torrent
7
30
64 b
60
77
9
Landmark
7
30
63 b
60
77
9
Hab 323
7
28
63 b
60
77
9
Greencrop
8
28
62 ab
57
74
9
Contender
9
28
60 a
56
73
9
Hab 19
8
30
62 ab
57
74
9
CV%
2.12
*Means with the same letter are not significant different at 5% level by DMRT
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
18
Color and Number of Leaves
Landmark and Contender had light green leaves while the other entries had green
leaves.The number of leaves per plant among the eight varieties of bush snap bean
evaluated were statistically similar. Number of leaves ranged from 11 to 14 leaves per
plant at 77 days after sowing.
Plant Height
Highly significant differences in plant height at 35 DAP were observed among the
eight varieties of bush snap bean evaluated (Table 2). Torrent and Greencrop were the
tallest at 26.63 cm and 26.10 cm respectively. On the other hand, Hab 19 was the shortest
with a height of 16.03 cm. It was observed that entries with tallest plant height have also
the highest pod height from the ground.
The plant height at 84 DAP was observed to be statistically similar among the
eight varieties of bush snap bean (Table 2). It ranged from 34.22 to 40.57 cm.
Diameter of the Stem
Table 2 also shows highly significant differences in stem diameter among the
entries of bush snap bean evaluated. Torrent, Landmark, and Greencrop had the widest
stems while Hab 63 had the narrowest stems. The observed differences in stem diameter
among the entries of bush snap indicated their differential adaptability to local condition.
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
19
Table 2. Plant height and stem diameter of eight bush snap bean entries
PLANT HEIGHT (cm)
STEM DIAMETER
ENTRY
(cm)
35 DAP 84 DAP
Hab 63
23.48ab 40.57 0.42d
BBL 274
18.27cd
36.95
0.49ab
Torrent
26.63a
38.75
0.52a
Landmark
17.15d
38.15
0.52a
Hab 323
21.00bc 38.67 0.43d
Greencrop
26.10a
38.28
0.51a
Contender
21.60bc 37.78
0.48abc
Hab 19
16.03d
34.22
0.45bcd
CV %
9.16
11.43
4.70
*Means of the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level of DMRT
Number of Branches
All bush snap bean entries studied had five branches per plant except for Torrent
which had four branches per plant.
Pod Length, Width, and Diameter
The eight bush snap bean entries evaluated had round and green pods except for
Greencrop which had flat and light green pods. All of them had slightly curved and
stringless pods and were not waxy.
Highly significant differences were noted on pod length among the eight entries
tested. Greencrop had the longest pod of about 20 cm (Table 3). Torrent had about 17 cm
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
20
pod which was comparable with the pod length of BBL 274 and Contender. Hab 19
registered the shortest pod of about 14 cm.
Similarly, Greencrop had the widest pods. It was followed by the pods of
Contender and Torrent with about 10 cm. Hab 19 and Hab 63 developed the narrowest
pods (Table 3). This implies that entries with widest pod may have high weight of
marketable pods.
In terms of pod diameter, Greencrop had the smallest diameter among the eight
bush snap bean evaluated while Torrent had the biggest diameter (Table 3). The
differences in pod diameter were attributed to genetic make-up of the varieties.
Pod Height and Number of Pods per Plant
The pods of all entries evaluated were located within the canopy. The pod height
from the ground of the different entries differed significantly (Table 4). Entries
Greencrop and Torrent had the highest pod height together with the pods of Hab 63. On
the other hand, the pods of Hab 19 were located at the lowest part within the plant
from the ground level. This implies that entries which had the highest pod height may
have long pods.
The number of pods per plant differed significantly among the eight bush snap
bean enties studied. Hab 323 and BBL274 had the highest number of pods per plant.
They were comparable with the number of pods per plant of Hab 63, Greencrop and
Landmark. Hab 19 also recorded the least number of pods per plant. It was observed that
entries with the highest number of pods per plant also have the highest number of
marketable pods.
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
21
Table 3. Pod Length, width and diameter of bush snap bean varieties.
POD
ENTRY
LENGTH (cm) WIDTH (mm) DIAMETER (cm)
Hab 63
14.78cd 7.77c
0.65ab
BBL 274
16.14bc 8.30c 0.62b
Torrent 16.94b 9.50b 0.72a
Landmark 15.21cd 8.10c
0.68ab
Hab 323
14.18d 7.70c 0.63b
Greencrop 19.73a 11.50a 0.51c
Contender
16.04bc 9.90b
0.65ab
Hab 19
13.83d 7.60c
0.65ab
CV %
5.19
5.72
6.87
*Means with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level of DMRT
Table 4. Pod height and number of pods per plant
ENTRY
POD HEIGHT FROM THE
NUMBER OF PODS PER
GROUND (cm)
PLANT
Hab 63
32.68ab
16.57ab
BBL 274
29.78bc 16.69a
Torrent 35.30a
13.75bc
Landmark
30.23bc
15.02abc
Hab 323
31.77a 17.08a
Greencrop 35.60a
15.66abc
Contender
30.62bc 13.07c
Hab 19
28.12c
9.39cd
CV %
6.19
10.53
*Means with the same letter are not significant different at 5% level by DMRT
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
22
Pod Beak Orientation and Length and
Number of Seeds per Pod
The pods of all the eight bush snap bean entries had marginal beak which were
mostly oriented upward. Only Hab 63, Hab 323 and Hab 19 had pods with downward
beak orientation.
Pod beak length differed significantly among the entries grown. The longest beak
was recorded from the pods of Contender, Torrent and Greencrop (Table 5). The other
entries had comparatively shorter pod beak that ranged from 7.63 to 9.47 mm.
The number of seeds per pod significantly differed among the eight varieties
evaluated (Table 5). Hab 19 had the highest number of seeds per pod which was
comparable with the number of seeds of Hab 63, Grencrop and Hab 323 with more
than six seeds per pod. The pods of Torrent and Contender had the fewest seeds per
pod. It was observed that small seeded varieties have high number of seeds per pod.
Table 5. Pod beak orientation and length and number of seeds per pod of eight bush snap
bean entries
POD BEAK
NUMBER OF
ENTRY
ORIENTATION LENGTH (cm) SEEDS PER POD
Hab 63
Downward
8.23b 6.60ab
BBL 274
Upward
9.27b 5.93bc
Torrent Upward
12.27a
5.40c
Landmark Upward 9.47b 5.93bc
Hab 323
Downward
7.77b 6.33ab
Greencrop Upward 11.77a 6.40ab
Contender Upward 12.47a 5.27c
Hab 19
Downward
7.63b 6.67a
CV %
13.78
6.34
*Means with same letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
23
Reaction to Pod Borer and Bean Rust
All the bush snap bean entries exhibited mild resistance to pod borer under natural
field condition except for Torrent which showed moderate resistance to the insect.
The entries of bush snap bean studied showed high resistance to bean rust except
for Torrent, Greencrop and Hab 19 which exhibited mild resistance to bean rust (Table
6).
Table 6. Reaction to pod borer and bean rust
ENTRY
REACTION TO
POD BORER BEAN RUST
Hab 63
Mild resistance
Highly resistance
BBL 274
Mild resistance
Highly resistance
Torrent
Moderately resistance Mild resistance
Landmark
Mild resistance
Highly resistance
Hab 323
Mild resistance
Highly resistance
Greencrop
Mild resistance
Mild resistance
Contender Mild
resistance
Highly resistance
Hab 19
Mild resistance
Mild resistance
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
24
Fresh Pod Yield
BBL 274 significantly produced the highest number of marketable pods per plot.
It was comparable with the number of pods per plot of the majority of the entries tested.
The number of non-marketable pods per plot also differed significantly among the
entries evaluated. Hab 323 had the highest number at 215 while Torrent had 51 non-
marketable pods per plot.
Highly significant differences were observed on the weight of marketable pods
per 5m2 plots. Greencrop had significantly the highest weight of marketable pods per plot
at 10.38 kg yield per 5m2 while Hab 19 produced the lowest weight of marketable fresh
pods at 4.51 kg per 5m2 plot (Table 7).
Both Greencrop and Hab 323 registered the highest non-marketable yield
per plot while Contender had the least non-marketable yield of 0.56 kg/5m2. The results
show that entries with the highest number of pods per plant, long and wide pod will
contribute to higher yields.
Highly significant differences were observed on the total yield per plot and per
hectare of the eight entries of bush snap bean tested (Table 7). Greencrop significantly
had the highest yield per plot and per hectare. Hab 19 had the lowest total yield of 5.45
kg/5m2 and 10.89 ton/ha. All other entries studied had comparable total fresh pod yield
that ranged from 16-18 ton/ha. The results show that bush snap bean can produced 5 to
20 tons per hectare as reported by HARRDEC in 1989.
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
25
Table 7. Number and weight of marketable and non-marketable pods.
ENTRY
NUMBER OF
WEIGHT OF (kg/5m2)
MARKETABLE
NON-
MARKETABLE NON-
MARKETABLE
MARKETABLE
Hab 63
1495ab 162b 6.73b 1.03ab
BBL 274
1567a 102cd 8.07b 1.00ab
Torrent 1323ab 51d 7.98b 0.63bc
Landmark 1415ab 87cd 8.25b 0.86bc
Hab 323
1493ab 215a 7.22b 1.33a
Greencrop 1448ab 118bc 10.38a 1.33a
Contender 1242b 65cd 8.23b 0.56c
Hab 19
845c 95cd 4.51c 0.93abc
CV
% 11.96 27.09 12.89 22.20
*Means with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Table 8. Total yield per plot and per hectare of the eight bush snap bean varieties.
ENTRY YIELD
PER PLOT (kg/5m2) PER HECTARE (ton/ha)
Hab 63
7.77b 15.53b
BBL 274
9.09b 18.17b
Torrent 8.62b 17.23b
Landmark 9.11b 18.23b
Hab 323
8.55b 17.11b
Greencrop 11.72a 23.43a
Contender 8.80b 17.60b
Hab 19
5.45c 10.89c
CV %
11.79
11.79
*Means with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
26
Correlation Coefficient among Characters
Measured in Bush Snap Bean
Plant height at 35 DAP was significantly and positively correlated to the weight
of marketable pods (WMP) total yield per plot (TYP) and per hectare (TYH).This
indicates that highest plant height have more yield.
Stem diameter was positively correlated to pod diameter and weight of non-
marketable pods. This indicates that entries with bigger stem diameter will have bigger
pod diameter and higher non-marketable pods.
As indicated in Table 9, pod length was highly significant and positively
correlated with pod width. This indicates that a variety of bush snap bean with longer
pods will also have wider pods.
Highly significant and positive correlation coefficient was noted on the number of
pods per plant (PN) and the number of marketable pods (NMP). This indicates that
entries with highest number of pods per plant would have high number of marketable
pods.
Highly significant and positive correlation coefficient was noted in the weight of
marketable fresh pods and total yield per plot and per hectare (Table 9). This means that
varieties with high weight of marketable pods would have a high total yield per plot and
per hectare.
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
27
Table 9. Correlation Coefficient analysis between other characters measured in eight snap bean varieties
PH35
SD
NB
PHLH
PL
PW
PD
PN
PH
NS
PBL
WMP
WNP
NMP
NNP
TY
TYH
PH35
1.00
SD
0.366
1.00
NB
0.245
0.731
1.00
PHLH
0.488
0.044
0.084
1.00
PL
0.282
0.138
0.211
0.286
1.00
PW 0.459 0.231
0.237 0.451
0.721** 1.00
PD 0.225 0.628*
0.111
0.458
0.425
0.639
1.00
PN
0.171
0.024
0.031
0.036
0.153
0.170
0.043
1.00
PH
0.420
0.062
0.226
0.019
0.518
0.497
0.231
0.166
1.00
NS
0.065
0.178
0.085
0.286
0.189
0.065
0.099
0.098
0.569
1.00
PBL
0.303
0.265
0.012
0.379
0.101
0.069
0.005
0.167
0.406
0.302
1.00
WMP
0.597*
0.252
0.017
0.323
0.277
0.477
0.463
0.520
0.326
0.294
0.062
1.00
WNP
0.561* 0.568*
0.568* 0.013 0.127 0.083 0.062 0.195 0.271 0.237 0.127 0.034 1.00
NMP 0.168
0.165 0.016 0.003 0.118 0.156 0.039
0.983**
0.218 0.151 0.157 0.524 0.231 1.00
NNP 0.028
0.310 0.241 0.201 0.145 0.135 0.011 0.158 0.322 0.306 0.011 0.151 0.185 0.339 1.00
TY
0.697*
0.310 0.112 0.311 0.242 0.480 0.437 0.546 0.374 0.236 0.086
0.978**
0.243 0.555 0.185 1.00
TYH
0.697*
0.310 0.112 0.311 0.242 0.480 0.437 0.546 0.374 0.236 0.086
0.978**
0.243 0.555 0.185 1.00 1.00
*-significant
**- highly significant
Legend:
PH35 plant height at 35 DAP
NS Number of seed per pod
SD Stem diameter
PBL Pod beak length
NB Number of branches
WMP Weight of marketable pods
PHLH Plant height during last harvest
WNP Weight of non-marketable pods
PL Pod length
NMP Number of marketable pods
PD Pod diameter
NNP Number of non-marketable pods
PW Pod width
TY Total yield per plot
PN Number of pods per plant
TYH Total yield per hectare
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
28
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Summary
Among the varieties of bush snap bean studied, highly significant differences
were observed on plant height at 35 DAP, diameter of the stem, pod length, pod width,
pod diameter, number of pods per plant, pod height, number of seeds per pod, pod beak
length, weight of marketable pods and non-marketable pods, number of marketable and
non-marketable pods, total yield per plot and computed yield per hectare.
Significant differences were noted on days from emergence to last flowering.
Number of leaves per plant, number of branches per plant, plant height during the last
harvest, reaction to pod borer and bean rust were not significantly different. Greencrop
produced the highest weight of marketable and total yield per plot and per hectare. BBL
274 had the highest number of marketable pods per plot.
BBL 274 also had the highest number of leaves. Torrent was the tallest entry at 35
DAP with four branches. Torrent and Landmark had the widest stems. Hab 63 was the
tallest entry at 84 DAP. Bush snap bean had light green to green pods. Greencrop had the
longest and widest pod, and had the tallest pod height. Torrent had the highest pod
diameter. Hab 323 had the highest number of pods per plant. Contender had the longest
pod beak and Hab 19 had the highest number of seeds per pod.
Highly significant and positive correlations were noted between pod length and
pod width and weight of marketable pods per plot and total yield per plot and per hectare.
Significant positive correlations were found between plant height at 35 DAP and
the weight of marketable pods per plot and total yield per plot and per hectare; stem
diameter and pod diameter and weight of non-marketable pods; and number of branches
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
29
and weight of non-marketable pods. All other correlation coefficient computed among the
parameters measured was not significant.
Conclusion
Among the eight varieties studied, Greencrop, BBL 274, Landmark, and
Contender are the best performing entries based on pod length, stem diameter, number of
branches, weight and number of marketable pods and total yield per plot and per hectare.
The highly significant correlation coefficient among the characters measured such
as pod width and pod length, number of pods per plant and number of marketable pods;
weight of marketable pods to the total yield per plot and per hectare; plant height at 35
DAP and weight of marketable pods and total yield per plot per hectare; stem diameter
and pod diameter and weight of non-marketable pods; number of pods per plant and
number of non-marketable pods; and number of branches and weight of non-marketable
pods indicated that they can be used as selection indices for associated characters and
yield.
Recommendation
BBL 274, Greencrop, Contender, Torrent, and Hab 323 are the entries highly
recommended for production in La Trinidad Benguet. They performed well in terms of
marketable and total fresh pod yield, pod length, number of branches, plant height at 35
DAP and pod height.
Among the characters considered in this study, plant height at 35 DAP, number
and weight of marketable pods per plot could be used as selection indices for selecting
high yielding entries of bush snap bean.
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
30
LITERATURE CITED
ANNOGUE, W. D.1997. Evaluation and correlation coefficient analysis of eleven
promising lines of garden pea (Pisum sativum L.). BS Thesis. BSU, La Trinidad,
Benguet. Pp. 1-23.
ATAM, I. R. 2009. Morphological Characterization of Castor Bean Plant (Ricinus
communis L.) Collected in Benguet Provence. BS Thesis. BSU, La Trinidad,
Benguet. P. 5.
BAY-AN, N. B. 2000. Performed and acceptability of promising garden pea in Atok,
Benguet. BS Thesis. BSU, La Trinidad, Benguet. P.16.
CONSOLACION, C. C. 2001. Varietal evaluation and Correlation Coefficient analysis in
ten Chrysanthemum varieties. BS Thesis. Benguet State University, La Trinidad,
Benguet. Pp. 4-6.
CONSOLACION, C. C., TANDANG, L. L. and ALEJANDRO, Y. D. 2002. Correlation
Coefficient Analysis between Quality Yield and other Characteristics in
Chrysanthemum (Dendrathema grandiflora T. Zveler). Horticulture. 37:1
DAGSON, M. B. 2000. Performances and acceptability of six varieties of Bush snap
beans under La Trinidad Conditions. B. S. Thesis, Benguet State University, La
Trinidad, Benguet. P. 26.
GOLMIRZHAI, A. and F. SERQUEN. 1992. Correlation between early and late growth
characteristics in an improve TPS population. HortScience Juornal. P. 27.
HAYWARD, M. D., N. O. BOSMARK and I. ROMAGOSA. 1993. Plant Breeding
Principles and Prospects. Mediterranensium Nationam Agraria Univorsitas:
Chapman and Hall. Pp 451-496.
JOSE, M.C. 2004. Varietal Characterization, Evaluation and Correlation Study in Bush
Snap Bean. BS Thesis. Benguet State University La Trinidad, Benguet.Pp. 1-2,
40-41.
LOMADEO, A. O. 2005. Yield and other characteristics of glutinous corn under La
Condition. B. S. Thesis. BSU, La Trinidad, Benguet. Pp. 9-10, 36.
MAITI, R. 1997. Phaseolus spp. Bean Science. United States of America. Science
Publishers, Inc. Pp. 6-8.
PADUA, D. P. 1997. The Role of Plant-Rhizobial Genotypes in Biological Nitrogen
Fixation in Common Bean, Phaseolus vulgaris L. Unpub Thesis (Ph. D.).
University Gent. Pp. 1, 8-9.
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
31
PAGANAS, A. M. 2005. Characterization and evaluation of commercially grown garden
pea varieties in Benguet. BS Thesis. BSU, La Trinidad, Benguet. P. 24
PARKER, R. 2000. Introduction to Plant Science. Delmar Publishers. Pp. 27-28.
PCARRD. 1989. Snap bean technoguide for the highlands. La Trinidad, Benguet State
University. 1st Ed. Pp 1-5.
RASCO, ET. JR. and V. D. AMANTE. 1994. Sweet potato variety evaluation. Vol. 1.
Southeast Asian Program for potato research and development. Pp. 42-43.
REMOQUILLO, J. E. 2003. Morphological diversity and yield performances of different
corn accessions collected from different sources. B. S. Thesis. BSU, La Trinidad
Benguet. Pp. 5-6.
SOMASEGARAN, P. and H. J HOBEN. 1994. Handbook for Rhizobia. Springer- Verlag
New York, Inc. Pp. 165-166.
TAD-AWAN, B. A. and M.B. BALAS. 2007. Correlation of Agronomic Characters in
Potato Accessions Grown Organically. Agronomy. 56: 2.
TANDANG, L. L. KIMEU, A. M. AMLOS, B. A. BAGTILA, J.G. KEBASEN, B.B. and
G.R. MAGHIRANG. 2008. Development and Evaluation of Snap bean (Phaseolu
s vulgaris) Cultivars for the Philippine Highands. A paper presented during the
2009 Agency In-House Review at Benguet State University, La Trinidad
Benguet. P. 20.
USDA. 1995. Fresh-Market Snap Bean: An Economic Assesment of the Feasibility of
Providing Multiple-Peril Crop Insurance. Accessed at
http://www.rma.usda.gov/pilots/feasible/PDF/snapbean.pdf.
WORK, D. and J. CAREW. 1995. Producing vegetable crops. The Interstate Printers and
Publishers, Inc. Printed in the United States of America. P. 238.
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
32
APPENDICES
Appendix Table 1. Number of days from sowing to emergence
REPLICATION
ENTRIES I
II III TOTAL
MEAN
Hab 63
7
7
7
21
7
BBL 274
7
7
7
21
7
Torrent
7
7
7
21
7
Landmark
7
7
7
21
7
Hab 323
7
7
7
21
7
Greencrop
8
8
8
24
8
Contender
9
9
9
27
9
Hab 19
8
8
8
24
8
TOTAL 60 60 60 180 60
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
33
Appendix Table 2. Number of days from emergence to first flowering
REPLICATION
ENTRIES I
II
III
TOTAL MEAN
Hab
63 28 28 28 84 28
BBL 274
31
31
31
93
31
Torrent
30
30
30
90
30
Landmark
30 30 30 90 30
Hab
323 28 28 28 84 28
Greencrop
28 28 28 84 28
Contender
28 28 28 84 28
Hab
19 30 30 30 90 30
TOTAL
233 233 233 699 233
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
34
Appendix Table 3. Number of days from emergence to last flowering
REPLICATION
ENTRIES
I II
TOTAL
III
MEAN
Hab
63 62 65 65 192
64.00
BBL
274
62 62 65 189
63.00
Torrent
62
65
65
192
64.00
Landmark
62
65
62
189
63.00
Hab 323
62
62
65
189
63.00
Greencrop
61
61
64
186
62.00
Contender
59
60
60
179
59.67
Hab 19
61
64
61
186
62.00
TOTAL 491 504 507 1502
500.67
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
OF
SQUARES
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
SQUARES
0.05 0.01
Replication 2
18.083 9.042
Treatment 7 41.167 5.881 3.35* 2.77
4.29
Error
14
24.583
1.756
TOTAL 23 83.833
16.679
*-Significant Coefficient of Variation = 2.12%
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
35
Appendix Table 4. Number of days from flowering to pod setting
REPLICATION
ENTRIES
I II
TOTAL
III
MEAN
Hab
63 8 8 8 24 8
BBL
274
10 10 10 30 10
Torrent
9
9
9
27
9
Landmark
9
9
9
27
9
Hab 323
9
9
9
27
9
Greencrop
9
9
9
27
9
Contender
9
9
9
27
9
Hab 19
9
9
9
27
9
TOTAL 72 72 72 216 72
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
36
Appendix Table 5. Number of days from emergence to first harvesting
REPLICATION
ENTRIES
I II
TOTAL
III
MEAN
Hab
63 60 60 60 180 60
BBL
274
60 60 60 180 60
Torrent
60
60
60
180
60
Landmark
60
60
60
180
60
Hab 323
60
60
60
180
60
Greencrop
57
57
57
171
57
Contender
56
56
56
168
56
Hab 19
57
57
57
171
57
TOTAL 470 470 470 1410 470
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
37
Appendix Table 6. Number of days from emergence to last harvesting
REPLICATION
ENTRIES
I II
TOTAL
III
MEAN
Hab
63 77 77 77 231 77
BBL
274
77 77 77 231 77
Torrent
77
77
77
231
77
Landmark
77
77
77
231
77
Hab 323
77
77
77
231
77
Greencrop
74
74
74
222
74
Contender
73
73
73
219
73
Hab 19
74
74
74
222
74
TOTAL 606 606 606 1818 606
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
38
Appendix Table 7. Number of leaves per plant.
REPLICATION
ENTRIES
I II
TOTAL
III
MEAN
Hab
63 12 11 14 37
12.33
BBL
274
13 15 13 41
13.67
Torrent
10
11
12
33
11.00
Landmark
11
12
14
37
12.33
Hab 323
11
13
13
37
12.33
Greencrop
9
12
13
34
11.33
Contender
11
13
15
39
13.00
Hab 19
11
15
14
40
13.33
TOTAL 88 102 108 298 99.32
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
OF
SQUARES
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
SQUARES
0.05 0.01
Replication 2
26.333 13.167
Treatment 7 17.833 2.548 2.28ns
2.77 4.29
Error 14
15.667
1.119
TOTAL 23 59.833
16.834
ns – Not Significant Coefficient of Variation = 8.52%
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
39
Appendix Table 8. Plant Height at 35 DAP (cm)
REPLICATION
ENTRIES
I II
TOTAL
III
MEAN
Hab
63 25.75 23 21.70
70.45
23.48
BBL
274
17.75 21 16.05
54.80
18.27
Torrent
23.45
30
26.45
79.90
26.63
Landmark
17.95
15.90
17.60
51.45
17.15
Hab 323
21.35
21.35
20.30
63
21
Greencrop
24.05
28.20
26.05
78.30
26.10
Contender
20.25
21.45
23.10
64.80
21.60
Hab 19
17.05
17
14.05
48.10
16.03
TOTAL 167.60 177.90 165.30 510.80 170.26
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
OF
SQUARES
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
SQUARES
0.05 0.01
Replication 2
11.256 5.628
Treatment 7 331.772
47.396 12.47**
2.77 4.29
Error 14
53.201
3.800
TOTAL 23 396.228
56.824
** – Highly Significant Coefficient of Variation = 9.16%
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
40
Appendix Table 9. Diameter of the Stem (cm)
REPLICATION
ENTRIES
I II
TOTAL
III
MEAN
Hab
63 0.42 0.43 0.40 1.25 0.42
BBL
274 0.52 0.50 0.46 1.48 0.49
Torrent
0.49
0.54
0.52
1.55
0.52
Landmark
0.52
0.54
0.50
1.56
0.52
Hab 323
0.42
0.42
0.44
1.28
0.43
Greencrop
0.49
0.52
0.52
1.53
0.51
Contender
0.46
0.48
0.50
1.44
0.48
Hab 19
0.42
0.50
0.44
1.36
0.45
TOTAL 3.74 3.93 3.78 11.45 3.82
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
OF
SQUARES
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
SQUARES
0.05 0.01
Replication 2
0.003
0.001
Treatment 7
0.035
0.005
9.84**
2.77 4.29
Error 14
0.007
0.001
TOTAL 23
0.044
0.007
** – Highly Significant Coefficient of Variation = 4.70%
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
41
Appendix Table 10. Number of Branches per plant
REPLICATION
ENTRIES
I II
TOTAL
III
MEAN
Hab
63 5 5 5 15
5.00
BBL
274
5 5 5 15
5.00
Torrent
4
5
4
13
4.33
Landmark
5
4
5
14
4.67
Hab 323
5
5
5
15
5.00
Greencrop
5
5
5
15
5.00
Contender
6
5
5
16
5.33
Hab 19
5
5
5
15
5.00
TOTAL 40 39 39 118
39.33
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
OF
SQUARES
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
SQUARES
0.05 0.01
Replication 2
0.083 0.042
Treatment 7 1.833 0.262 1.91ns
2.77 4.29
Error 14
1.917
0.137
TOTAL 23 3.833 0.441
ns – Not Significant Coefficient of Variation = 7.53%
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
42
Appendix Table 11. Plant height during the last harvest (cm)
REPLICATION
ENTRIES
I II
TOTAL
III
MEAN
Hab
63 37.20 36.75 47.75 121.70 40.57
BBL
274 35.20 36.85 38.8 110.85 36.95
Torrent
39.25
37.65
39.35
116.25
38.75
Landmark
35.25
42.85
36.35
114.45
38.15
Hab 323
33.40
36.60
46.00
116.00
38.67
Greencrop
40.90
37.75
36.20
114.85
38.28
Contender
36.10
44.10
33.15
113.35
37.78
Hab 19
32.70
37.45
32.50
102.65
34.22
TOTAL 290.00 310.00 310.10 910.10 303.37
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
OF
SQUARES
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
SQUARES
0.05 0.01
Replication 2
33.501 16.750
Treatment 7 69.331 9.904 0.52ns
2.77 4.29
Error 14
263.217
18.801
TOTAL 23 366.050
45.455
ns – Not Significant Coefficient of Variation = 7.53%
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
43
Appendix Table 12. Pod Length (cm)
REPLICATION
ENTRIES
I II
TOTAL
III
MEAN
Hab
63 15.27 14.80 14.28 44.35 14.78
BBL
274 14.94 17.48 15.99 48.41 16.14
Torrent
16.50
17.20
17.11
50.81
16.94
Landmark
15.29
14.44
15.90
45.63
15.21
Hab 323
14.66
13.96
13.91
42.53
14.18
Greencrop
20.90
18.53
19.77
59.20
19.73
Contender
16.55
15.22
16.34
48.11
16.04
Hab 19
13.32
14.14
14.04
41.50
13.83
TOTAL 127.43 125.77 127.34 380.54 126.85
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
OF
SQUARES
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
SQUARES
0.05 0.01
Replication 2
0.218 0.109
Treatment 7 74.377 10.625 15.69**
2.77 4.29
Error 14
9.481
0.677
TOTAL 23 84.076
11.411
** – Highly Significant Coefficient of Variation = 5.19%
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
44
Appendix Table 13. Pod width (cm)
REPLICATION
ENTRIES
I II
TOTAL
III
MEAN
Hab 63
8.3
8.1
6.9
23.3
7.77
BBL 274
8.0
8.7
8.2
24.9
8.3
Torrent
9.3
10.0
9.3
28.6
9.5
Landmark
9.0
7.3
8.0
24.3
8.1
Hab 323
8.1
7.7
7.3
23.1
7.7
Greencrop
12.2
11.0
11.4
34.6
11.5
Contender
9.8
9.9
10.1
29.8
9.9
Hab 19
7.5
7.8
7.4
22.7
7.6
TOTAL
72.2
70.5
68.6
211.3
70.4
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
OF
SQUARES
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
SQUARES
0.05 0.01
Replication 2
0.810 0.405
Treatment 7 41.453 5.922 23.31**
2.77 4.29
Error 14
3.556
0.254
TOTAL 23 45.819
6.581
** – Highly Significant Coefficient of Variation = 5.72%
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
45
Appendix Table 14. Pod diameter (cm)
REPLICATION
ENTRIES
I II
TOTAL
III
MEAN
Hab
63 0.69 0.66 0.61 1.96 0.65
BBL
274 0.55 0.64 0.68 1.87 0.62
Torrent
0.76
0.70
0.69
2.15
0.72
Landmark
0.71
0.61
0.71
2.03
0.68
Hab 323
0.67
0.60
0.62
1.89
0.63
Greencrop
0.51
0.50
0.53
1.54
0.51
Contender
0.61
0.64
0.70
1.95
0.65
Hab 19
0.64
0.63
0.69
1.96
0.65
TOTAL 5.14 4.98 5.23 15.35 5.11
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
OF
SQUARES
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
SQUARES
0.05 0.01
Replication 2
0.004 0.002
Treatment 7 0.072 0.010 5.36** 2.77 4.29
Error 14
0.027
0.002
TOTAL 23 0.103 0.014
** – Highly Significant Coefficient of Variation = 6.87%
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
46
Appendix Table 15. Number of pods per plant
REPLICATION
ENTRIES
I II
TOTAL
III
MEAN
Hab
63 17.76 17.28 14.68 49.72 16.57
BBL
274 18.82 16.41 14.84 50.07 16.69
Torrent
14.51
14.61
12.12
41.24
13.75
Landmark
15.48
15.26
14.31
45.05
15.02
Hab 323
15.81
18.84
16.58
51.23
17.08
Greencrop
15.76
16.86
14.36
46.98
15.66
Contender
10.89
14.19
14.13
39.21
13.07
Hab 19
7.76
13.08
7.34
28.18
9.39
TOTAL 116.79 126.53 108.36 351 117.23
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
OF
SQUARES
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
SQUARES
0.05 0.01
Replication 2
20.670 10.335
Treatment 7 137.547
19.650 8.26** 2.77 4.29
Error 14
33.314
2.380
TOTAL 23 191.531
32.365
** – Highly Significant Coefficient of Variation = 10.53%
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
47
Appendix Table 16. Pod height (cm)
REPLICATION
ENTRIES
I II
TOTAL
III
MEAN
Hab
63 33.70 32.75 31.60 98.05 32.68
BBL
274 29.65 34.60 25.10 89.35 29.78
Torrent
34.75
35.50
35.65
105.90
35.30
Landmark
32.15
27.90
30.65
90.70
30.23
Hab 323
29.55
34.25
31.50
95.30
31.77
Greencrop
36.80
35.75
34.25
106.80
35.60
Contender
29.00
32.85
30.00
91.85
30.62
Hab 19
28.30
30.25
25.80
84.35
28.12
TOTAL 253.90 263.85 244.55 762.30 254.10
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
OF
SQUARES
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
SQUARES
0.05 0.01
Replication 2
28.496
14.248
Treatment 7
141.896
20.271 5.22**
2.77 4.29
Error 14
54.327
3.880
TOTAL 23
224.720 38.399
** – Highly Significant Coefficient of Variation = 6.19%
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
48
Appendix Table 17. Number of seed per pod
REPLICATION
ENTRIES
I II
TOTAL
III
MEAN
Hab 63
6.6
6.2
7.0
19.8
6.60
BBL 274
5.6
6.4
5.8
17.8
5.93
Torrent
5.6
4.6
6.0
16.2
5.40
Landmark
6.2
5.8
5.8
17.8
5.93
Hab 323
6.0
6.4
6.6
19.0
6.33
Greencrop
6.4
6.4
6.4
19.2
6.40
Contender
5.4
5.0
5.4
15.8
5.27
Hab 19
6.4
7.0
6.6
20.0
6.67
TOTAL
48.2
47.8
49.6
145.6
48.53
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
OF
SQUARES
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
SQUARES
0.05 0.01
Replication 2
0.223 0.112
Treatment 7 5.840 0.834 5.64** 2.77 4.29
Error 14
2.070
0.148
TOTAL 23 8.133 1.094
** – Highly Significant Coefficient of Variation = 6.34%
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
49
Appendix Table 18. Pod beak length (mm)
REPLICATION
ENTRIES
I II
TOTAL
III
MEAN
Hab
63 6.7 8.9 9.1 24.7 8.23
BBL 274
9.6
10.7
7.5
27.8
9.27
Torrent
13.5
12.1
11.2
36.8
12.27
Landmark
10.4
8.9
9.1
28.4
9.47
Hab 323
7.3
8.4
7.6
23.3
7.77
Greencrop
14.3
12.3
8.7
35.3
11.77
Contender
11.5
13.8
12.1
37.4
12.47
Hab 19
7.1
8.2
7.6
22.9
7.63
TOTAL
80.4
83.3
72.9
236.4
78.88
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
OF
SQUARES
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
SQUARES
0.05 0.01
Replication 2
7.201 3.600
Treatment 7 86.145 12.306 6.66** 2.77 4.29
Error 14
25.853
1.847
TOTAL 23 119.198
17.753
** – Highly Significant Coefficient of Variation = 13.78%
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
50
Appendix Table 19. Weight of marketable fresh pods per plot (kg/5m2)
REPLICATION
ENTRIES
I II
TOTAL
III
MEAN
Hab
63 7.91 6.61 5.68 20.20 6.73
BBL
274 8.13 8.74 7.39 24.26 8.07
Torrent
7.70
9.28
6.97
23.95
7.98
Landmark
7.66
7.48
9.60
24.74
8.25
Hab 323
7.70
7.42
6.54
21.66
7.22
Greencrop
10.09
10.62
10.44
31.15
10.38
Contender
6.55
9.30
8.85
24.70
8.23
Hab 19
4.11
5.68
3.75
13.54
4.51
TOTAL 59.85 65.13 59.22 184.20 61.37
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
OF
SQUARES
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
SQUARES
0.05 0.01
Replication 2
2.728 1.364
Treatment 7 58.069 8.296 8.46** 2.77 4.29
Error 14
13.721
0.980
TOTAL 23 74.518
10.640
** – Highly Significant Coefficient of Variation = 12.89%
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
51
Appendix Table 20. Weight of Non-marketable fresh pods per plot (kg/5m2)
REPLICATION
ENTRIES
I II
TOTAL
III
MEAN
Hab
63 1.1 0.8 1.2 3.1 1.03
BBL
274 0.9 1.0 1.1 3.0 1.00
Torrent
0.4
0.8
0.7
1.9
0.63
Landmark
1.1
0.6
0.9
2.6
0.86
Hab 323
1.0
1.3
1.7
4.0
1.33
Greencrop
1.0
1.6
1.4
4.0
1.33
Contender
0.6
0.4
0.7
1.7
0.56
Hab 19
0.9
1.0
0.9
2.8
0.93
TOTAL 7.0 7.5 8.6 23.1
92.81
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
OF
SQUARES
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
SQUARES
0.05 0.01
Replication 2
0.167 0.084
Treatment 7 1.670 0.239 5.22** 2.77 4.29
Error 14
0.639
0.046
TOTAL 23 2.476 0.369
** – Highly Significant Coefficient of Variation = 22.20%
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
52
Appendix Table 21. Number of marketable fresh pods per plot (kg/5m2)
REPLICATION
ENTRIES
I II
TOTAL
III
MEAN
Hab
63 1654 1509 1323 4486 1495
BBL
274 1757 1562 1381 4700 1567
Torrent
1406
1420
1144
3970
1323
Landmark
1447
1450
1347
4244
1415
Hab 323
1318
1725
1435
4478
1493
Greencrop
1455
1560
1328
4343
1448
Contender
1021
1366
1338
3725
1242
Hab 19
654
1226
654
2534
845
TOTAL 10702 11818 9950 32480 10828
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREE
SUM
MEAN OF
COMPUTED F
TABULATED
VARIANCE
OF
OF
SQUARES
F
FREEDOM
SQUARES
0.05 0.01
Replication 2 220554.333
110277.167
Treatment 7
1109582.000
158511.714
6.05**
2.77 4.29
Error 14
366799.000
26199.929
TOTAL 23
1696935.333
294988.810
** – Highly Significant Coefficient of Variation = 11.96%
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
53
Appendix Table 22. Number of Non-marketable fresh pods per plot (kg/5m2)
REPLICATION
ENTRIES
I II
TOTAL
III
MEAN
Hab
63 122 219 145 486 162
BBL
274
125 79 103 307 102
Torrent
45
41
68
154
51
Landmark
101
76
84
261
87
Hab 323
263
159
223
645
215
Greencrop
121
126
108
355
118
Contender
68
53
75
196
65
Hab 19
122
82
80
284
95
TOTAL 967 835 886 2688 895
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
OF
SQUARES
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
SQUARES
0.05 0.01
Replication 2 1107.750
553.875
Treatment 7 60078.667
8582.667
9.32** 2.77 4.29
Error 14
12891.583
920.827
TOTAL 23
74078.000
10057.369
** – Highly Significant Coefficient of Variation = 27.09%
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
54
Appendix Table 23. Total yield per plot (kg/5m2)
REPLICATION
ENTRIES
I II
TOTAL
III
MEAN
Hab
63 9.01 7.41 6.88 23.30 7.77
BBL
274 9.03 9.74 8.49 27.26 9.09
Torrent
8.10
10.08
7.67
25.85
8.62
Landmark
8.76
8.08
10.50
27.34
9.11
Hab 323
8.70
8.72
8.24
25.66
8.55
Greencrop
11.09
12.22
11.84
35.15
11.72
Contender
7.15
9.70
9.55
26.40
8.80
Hab 19
5.01
6.68
4.65
16.34
5.45
TOTAL 66.85 72.63 67.82 207.30 69.11
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
OF
SQUARES
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
SQUARES
0.05 0.01
Replication 2
2.395 1.198
Treatment 7 62.649 8.950 8.63** 2.77 4.29
Error 14
14.520
1.037
TOTAL 23 79.565
11.185
** – Highly Significant Coefficient of Variation = 11.79%
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
55
Appendix Table 24. Computed yield per hectare (t/ha)
REPLICATION
ENTRIES
I II
TOTAL
III
MEAN
Hab
63 18.02 14.82 13.76 46.60 15.53
BBL
274 18.06 19.48 16.98 54.52 18.17
Torrent
16.20
20.16
15.34
51.70
17.23
Landmark
17.52
16.16
21.00
54.68
18.23
Hab 323
17.40
17.44
16.48
51.32
17.11
Greencrop
22.18
24.44
23.68
70.30
23.43
Contender
14.30
19.40
19.10
52.80
17.60
Hab 19
10.02
13.36
9.30
32.68
10.89
TOTAL 133.70 145.26 135.64 414.60 138.19
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
OF
SQUARES
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
SQUARES
0.05 0.01
Replication 2
2.395 1.198
Treatment 7 62.649 8.950 8.63** 2.77 4.29
Error 14
14.520
1.037
TOTAL 23 79.565
11.185
** – Highly Significant Coefficient of Variation = 11.79%
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
56
Appendix Table 25. Reaction to pod borer
REPLICATION
ENTRIES
I II
TOTAL
III
MEAN
Hab
63 2 2 2 6
2.00
BBL
274
2 2 2 6
2.00
Torrent
3
3
2
8
2.67
Landmark
2
2
2
6
2.00
Hab 323
2
2
2
6
2.00
Greencrop
2
2
2
6
2.00
Contender
2
3
2
7
2.33
Hab 19
2
2
2
6
2.00
TOTAL 17 18 16 51
17.00
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
OF
SQUARES
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
SQUARES
0.05 0.01
Replication 2
0.250 0.125
Treatment 7 1.292 0.185 2.38 ns
2.77 4.29
Error 14
1.083
0.077
TOTAL 23 2.625 0.387
ns –Not Significant Coefficient of Variation = 13.09%
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
57
Appendix Table 26. Reaction to bean rust
REPLICATION
ENTRIES
I II
TOTAL
III
MEAN
Hab
63 1 2 1 4
1.33
BBL
274
1 1 1 3
1.00
Torrent
2
1
2
5
1.67
Landmark
1
1
2
4
1.33
Hab 323
1
1
1
3
1.00
Greencrop
1
3
1
5
1.67
Contender
1
1
2
4
1.33
Hab 19
2
2
2
6
2.00
TOTAL 10 12 12 34
11.33
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
OF
SQUARES
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
SQUARES
0.05 0.01
Replication 2
0.333 0.167
Treatment 7 2.500 0.357 1.0ns
2.77 4.29
Error 14
5.000
0.357
TOTAL 23 7.833 0.881
ns
–Not
Significant
Coefficient of Variation = 16.07%
Agromophological Evaluation and Correlation Analysis
in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection / Mary Jane D. Gapad. 2010
Document Outline
- Agromophological Evaluation and
Correlation Analysis in Bush Snap Bean Germplasm Collection
- BIBLIOGRAPHY
- ABSTRACT
- TABLE OF CONTENTS
- INTRODUCTION
- REVIEW OF LITERATURE
- MATERIALS AND METHODS
- RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
- SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
- LITERATURE CITED
- APPENDICES