Genetic Evaluation of Some Sudanese Faba Bean (Vicia Faba L.) Genotypes Under Terminal Heat Stress

GENETIC EVALUATION OF SOME SUDANESE FABA
BEAN (Vicia faba L.) GENOTYPES UNDER TERMINAL

HEAT STRESS
By
Ishraka Khamis Abuanja Issa
B.Sc. (Agric.) Honours
University of Juba
(1998)
Supervisor
Dr. Awadalla Abdalla Abdelmula
A thesis submitted to the University of Khartoum in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of Master of Science (Agric.)
Department of Agronomy
Faculty of Agriculture
University of Khartoum
August – 2005
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My praise and acknowledgements are due to my Almighty God who gave me

strong power and faith to accept all those obstacles which I faced during this study.
I am greatly indebted, and expressed my sincere thanks to my supervisor, Dr.
A. A. Abdelmula for his guidance, encouragements and patience throughout this
study.
My sincere thanks and acknowledgements are also due to Professor James G.
Odra of Juba University for his suggestions, valuable advices and unlimited help
throughout my research. Thanks to Professor Farouk A. Salih for his interest and
helpful advice too.
I am grateful to thank the Vice Chancellor Professor Joshua Otor of Upper
Nile University and the administration for financial support.
My special thanks go to Hudeiba Research Station for providing seeds.
My sincere thanks go to my colleagues; Gevan Ali and Esther Tiberio of
Upper Nile University for their encouragements and help. I thank my colleagues and
especially Salih O. Toto, Ghada Ahmed and Atifa Fadal AlMula for their constant
help and encouragement during this study.
I am deeply gratitude to the laborers of Department of Agronomy, University
of Khartoum who helped me from the beginning to the end of the experiments,
especially Musa, Ahmed, Mustafa, Paul, El-Sheikh, William and Merghani who
helped me during data collection.
My deep recognition and thanks to my family and parents Khamis Abuanja
Issa and Kherima Mohamed Faragalla for their patience, encouragement and constant
support. Finally, my special thanks, gratitude and words of appreciations are due to
my beloved darling for his patience, kind love, care, words of encouragement and
unlimited help throughout this work and forever, Amen.
i
DEDICATION
To my father, to my mother,
To my sisters and brothers,
To any member of
Abuanja's family,
To my beloved darling.
ii
DECLARATION
I, Ishraka Khamis Abuanja Issa, declare that this thesis is of my

own and has never been presented to any University for any degree
course.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pages
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i
DEDICATION ii
DECLARATION iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS iv
LIST OF TABLES viii
LIST OF FIGURES xii
ENGLISH ABSTRACT xiii
ARABIC ABSTRACT xv
CHAPTER ONE 1
INTRODUCTION 1
CHAPTER TWO 3
LITERATURE REVIEW 3
2.1 Biotic and Abiotic Stresses 3
2.1.1 Evaluation of heat stress on plants 3
2.1.2 Effect of high temperature on the plant 4
2.2 Effect of Sowing Date on Faba Beans 6
2.2.1 Effect of sowing date on the vegetative characters 6
2.2.2 Effect of sowing date on the reproductive characters 7
2.3 Heat Resistance 9
2.3.1 Heat avoidance mechanisms 10
2.3.2 Heat tolerance mechanisms 11
2.4 Phenotypic Variability in Faba Bean 12
2.5 Genetic Variability and Heritability 13
2.6 Interrelationships Between Characters 14
2.7 Yield Stability and Adaptation in Faba Beans 15
CHAPTER THREE 18
iv
MATERIALS AND METHODS 18
3.1 Experimental Site 18
3.2 Genetic Material 18
3.3 Simulation of the Treatments 18
3.4 Experimental Layout 20
3.5 Cultural Practices 20
3.5.1 Land preparation 20
3.5.2 Sowing 20
3.6 Data Collection 21
3.6.1 Vegetative characters 21
3.6.2 Reproductive characters 21
3.6.3 Traits for heat tolerance 22
3.7 Statistical Analysis 23
3.7.1 Analysis of variance 23
3.7.2 Phenotypic (б2ph) and genotypic (б2g) variances 28
3.7.3 Phenotypic (PCV) and genotypic (GCV) coefficients of variation 28
3.7.4 Heritability (h2) in broad sense 29
3.7.5 Genetic advance (GA) 30
3.7.6 Genotypic (rg) and phenotypic (rph) correlation coefficients 30
3.7.7 Stability analysis 31
CHAPTER FOUR 36
RESULTS 36
4.1 Environmental Conditions 36
4.2 Performance of Genotypes Over Years 37
4.3 Effect of Sowing Date on Vegetative and Reproductive Characters 37
4.3.1 Effect of sowing date on vegetative characters 41
4.3.2 Effect of sowing date on reproductive characters 45
4.4 Performance of Genotypes Under Heat Stress 56
4.4.1 Plant height (cm) 56
4.4.2 Pod-setting percentage (%) 58
4.4.3 100-seed weight (g) 60
v
4.4.4 Dry matter/plant (g) 61
4.4.5 Seed yield/plant (g) 62
4.5 Heat Tolerance 63
4.5.1 Genetic variability for heat tolerance parameters 63
4.5.2 Yield components variability 66
4.5.3 Genotypic coefficient of variation under three
sowing date treatments 68
4.5.3.1 Heat tolerance parameters 68
4.5.3.2 Yield components 70
4.5.4 Effect of sowing dates on estimates of heritability (h2) in broad
sense and genetic advance (GA) 70
4.5.4.1 Heat tolerance parameters 70
4.5.4.2 Yield components 70
4.5.5 Phenotypic correlation between different parameters of
heat tolerance 71
4.6 Phenotypic Variability 73
4.6.1 Phenotypic (б2ph), genotypic (б2g), experimental (б2e) and
genotypes x sowing dates interaction (б2gs) variances 73
4.6.2 Phenotypic (PCV) and genotypic (GCV) coefficients of variation 75
4.6.3 Heritability (h2) in broad sense and genetic advance GA) 77
4.6.4 Means of genotypes 79
4.7 Interrelationships Between the Traits 82
4.7.1 Correlation coefficients between the vegetative traits 82
4.7.2 Correlation coefficients of seed yield/plant with yield components 86
4.7.3 Correlation coefficients of seed yield/plant with vegetative traits 86
4.7.4 Correlation coefficients between yield components 86
4.8 Genotype x Environment Interaction 87
4.8.1 Stability estimates of genotypes 87
CHAPTER FIVE 92
DISCUSSION 92
5.1 The Aspects of Heat Stress and its Effects on Faba Bean Genotypes 92
vi
5.2 Effect of Terminal Heat Stress 93
5.3 Genetic Variability and Heritability for Heat Tolerance 96
5.3.1 Genotypic variability 96
2
5.3.2 Genotypic coefficient of variation (GCV), heritability (h ),
and genetic advance (GA) for heat tolerance parameters 97
2
5.3.3 Genotypic coefficient of variation (GCV), heritability (h ), and
genetic (GA) for yield components 97
5.4 Phenotypic Variability 98
5.4.1.1.1 Phenotypic (PCV) and genotypic (GCV) coefficients of variation
heritability (h2), and genetic advance (GA) 98
5.4.1.1 Response to selection 98
5.5 Phenotypic Relationships Between Traits 101
5.6 Genotype x Environment Interaction and Yield Stability 103
CHAPTER SIX 106

6.1 Conclusion 106
6.2 Recommendations 108
REFERENCES 109
APPENDICES 126
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: Code number, name and origin of the 22 genotypes of faba bean
evaluated for terminal heat stress at Shambat for two consecutive
years (2001/02-2002/03). 19
Table 3.2: Analysis of variance and the expected mean squares for split-plot
design for separate year. 24
Table 3.3: Outline of the combined analysis over two years (2001/02 and
2002/03) for the pooled data and the expected mean squares. 25
Table 3.4: Analysis of variance for heat tolerance parameters among the 22
genotypes of faba bean evaluated under three sowing dates (S1, S2 and
S3), and across two years (2001/02 and 2002/03) at Shambat.
26
Table 3.5: Combined ANOVA for yield stability of the 22 genotypes of faba
bean, across six macro-environments (NS1E 2001/02, HS2E 2001/02,
HS3E 2001/02, NS1E 2002/03, HS2E 2002/03 and HS3E 2002/03)
with three replications.
33
0
Table 4.1: Means of air temperature ( C) and relative humidity (%) for two years
(2001/02 and 2002/03) at Shambat.
36
Table 4.2: Means of the 22 genotypes of faba bean for some of traits averaged
over three dates of sowing (S1, S2 and S3) at Shambat for the two
years 2001/02 and 2002/03. 38
Table 4.3: Mean squares due to Treatments (T), Genotypes (G), and their
interactions (G x T) for some of the investigated traits in 22 genotypes
of faba bean, evaluated under three dates of sowing (S1, S2 and S3) for
two years (2001/02 and 2002/03) at Shambat. 39
Table 4.4: Mean squares from combined analysis due to Years (Y), Treatments
(T), Genotypes (G), and their interactions (T x Y; G x T and G x Y)
for different traits in 22 genotypes of faba bean, evaluated under three
dates of sowing (SI, S2 and S3) for two years (2001/02 and 2002/03) at
40
Shambat.
viii
Table 4.5: Means of vegetative characters of the 22 genotypes of faba bean,
evaluated under three dates of sowing (S1, S2 and S3) in the first year
(2001/02), at Shambat. 42

evaluated under three dates of sowing (S1, S2 and S3) in the second
year (2002/03), at Shambat. 43
evaluated under three dates of sowing (S1, S2 and S3) across two years
(2001/02 and 2002/03), at Shambat. 44
Table 4.8: Means of the 22 genotypes of faba bean for plant height (cm),
evaluated under three dates of sowing (S1, S2 and S3) averaged over
two years (2001/02 and 2002/03), at Shambat. 57
Table 4.9: Means of the 22 genotypes of faba bean for pod-setting percentage
(%), evaluated under three dates of sowing (S1, S2 and S3) averaged
over two years (2001/02 and 2002/03), at Shambat. 59
Table 4.10: Means of the 22 genotypes of faba bean for 100-seed weight (g),
Table 4.11: Means of the 22 genotypes of faba bean for dry matter/plant (g),
Table 4.12: Means of the 22 genotypes of faba bean for seed yield/plant (g),
Table 4.13: Variance components due to Genotypes (G) and the interaction of
Genotypes with Years (G x Y) of the 22 genotypes of faba bean for
heat tolerance parameters (Yp, Y, Y/Yp and SSI), across two years
(2001/02 and 2002/03). 64
Table 4.14: Means of heat tolerance parameters based on seed yield/plant, of the
22 genotypes of faba bean, evaluated under three dates of sowing (S1,
S2 and S3), for two years (2001/02 and 2002/03), at Shambat. 65
67
ix
Table 4.15: Mean squares from combined analysis of variance due to Genotypes
(G) and their interaction with Years (G x Y) for different yield
components, under different dates of sowing (S1, S2 and S3), at
Shambat.
Table 4.16: Estimates of genotypic coefficient of variation (GCV), heritability (h2)
in broad sense, and expected genetic advance (GA%) for heat
tolerance parameters and yield components determined in faba bean
under different sowing dates (S1, S2 and S3).
Table 4.17: Phenotypic correlation coefficients between different traits of heat
tolerance for the 22 genotypes of faba bean, averaged over two years
(2001/02 and 2002/03) across three dates of sowing (S1, S2 and S3), at
Shambat.
Table 4.18: Phenotypic (б2ph), genotypic (б2g), experimental (б2e) and genotypes
x sowing dates interaction (б2gs) variances for different traits in 22
genotypes of faba bean evaluated under three dates of sowing (S1, S2
and S3) for two consecutive years (2001/02 and 2002/03), at Shambat.
Table 4.19: Estimates of phenotypic (PCV) and genotypic (GCV) coefficients of
variation for different characters measured on 22 genotypes of faba
bean, evaluated under three dates of sowing (S1, S2 and S3) for two
years (2001/02 and 2002/03), at Shambat.
Table 4.20: Estimates of broad sense heritability (h2) and expected genetic
advance from selection (GA) measured on 22 genotypes of faba bean,
evaluated under three dates of sowing (S1, S2 and S3) for two
consecutive years (2001/02 and 2002/03), at Shambat.
Table 4.21: Phenotypic coefficients of correlation between different investigated
traits for the 22 genotypes of faba bean averaged over three dates of
sowing (S1, S2 and S3) in the first year (2001/ 02), at Shambat.
Table 4.22: Phenotypic coefficients of correlation between different investigated
traits for the 22 genotypes of faba bean averaged over three dates of
sowing (S1, S2 and S3) in the second year (2002/2003), at Shambat. 85
Table 4.23: Analysis of variance for regression of the 22 genotypes of faba bean,
evaluated in six macro-environments (NS1E 2001/02, HS2E 2001/02,
x 89
HS3E 2001/02, NS1E 2002/03, HS2E 2002/03 and HS3E 2002/3) sum
of squares (SS), mean squares (MQ) and variance components (var.
comp) for seed yield/plant averaged over three replications.
Table 4.24: Means and ranges of the 22 genotypes of faba bean across six macro-
environments, for coefficient of regression (bi), deviation mean
square (S-2d), variance (б2) and ecovalence (Wi) for seed yield/plant
(g).
Table 4.25: Estimates of stability parameters, regression coefficient (bi), mean
square deviation (S-2d), variance (б2), and ecovalence (Wi), for seed
yield/plant (g) in 22 genotypes of Vicia faba across six macro-
environments.
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Means of number of podded nodes/main stem of the 22 genotypes of

faba bean evaluated under three dates of sowing (S1, S2 and S3) for
two years (2001/02 and 2002/03) at Shambat. 47
Figure 2: Means of number of pods/plant of the 22 genotypes of faba bean
evaluated under three dates of sowing (S1, S2 and S3) for two years
(2001/02 and 2002/03) at Shambat. 48
Figure 3: Means of number of seeds/pod of the 22 genotypes of faba bean

(2001/02 and 2002/03) at Shambat. 48
Figure 4: Means of number of seeds/plant of the 22 genotypes of faba bean
(2001/02 and 2002/03) at Shambat. 49
Figure 5: Means of 100-seed weight (g) of the 22 genotypes of faba bean

(2001/02 and 2002/03) at Shambat. 50
Figure 6: Means of dry matter/plant (g) of the 22 genotypes of faba bean
(2001/02 and 2002/03) at Shambat. 51
Figure 7: Means of harvest index (%) of the 22 genotypes of faba bean
(2001/02 and 2002/03) at Shambat. 52
Figure 8: Means of seed yield/plant (g) of the 22 genotypes of faba bean
(2001/02 and 2002/03) at Shambat. 53
Figure 9: Means of seed yield (kg/ha) of the 22 genotypes of faba bean

(2001/02 and 2002/03) at Shambat. 54
xii
ABSTRACT
Heat stress is one of the abiotic stresses that affect and reduce yield
productivity of faba bean. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of twenty-
two faba bean (Vicia faba L.) genotypes under three different sowing dates for two
consecutive years (2001/02-2002/03) during the winter season, at Shambat (The
Experimental Farm of Faculty of Agriculture, University of Khartoum) to estimate
the amount of genetic variability and heritability for heat tolerance parameters (Yp,
Y, Y/Yp and SSI) in faba bean for different dates of sowing. Furthermore, the
correlation coefficients between yield, yield components and other vegetative traits
and yield stability were determined.
The sowing date treatments used were S1 (optimum), S2 (14 days), and S3 (28
days), the last two treatments were late sowing. Split-plot design was used with
three replications.
The induced heat stress by delaying the sowing date was greatly severe
enough to cause significant variations among the treatments with light effect under
treatment S2 (14 days).
Significant differences among the twenty-two genotypes of faba bean for
most of the traits were found. The genetic variability was low and non-significant
under non-stress condition (Yp) than under stress conditions (YS2 or YS3), which
reduced the heritability of heat tolerance parameters. The genotypes x years
interaction variance was significant under non-stress environment (Yp).
Heritability exhibited a wide range of variation, the highest heritability and
genetic advance was recorded for 100-seed weight under treatment S2. Therefore,
the genetic variability and heritability were reduced with increase in heat severity
when sowing date was delayed by 28 days (S3).
Some genotypes tolerate slight heat stress, but become susceptible under
severe heat stress and vice versa.
Significant positive phenotypic correlation coefficients were obtained for
seed yield/plant with its components: number of podded nodes/main stem and
number of pods/plant in both years. Such components were positively and highly
xiii
significantly correlated with each other and negatively and highly significantly
correlated with 100-seed weight in the second year. Also seed yield/plant was
positively and significantly correlated with dry matter/plant, harvest index and plant
height in both years. Positive and significant correlation of seed yield/plant with
100-seed weight in the first year and with pod-setting percentage and seed yield
(kg/ha) in the second year was observed.
Under slight heat stress (S2), genotype C.52/1/1/1 was highly stable, gave the
highest yield and moderately tolerant to heat stress, whereas under severe heat stress
(S3), genotypes C.52/1/1/1 and C.42 showed the highest yield, were highly stable and
moderately tolerant to terminal heat stress. Therefore, such genotypes are better
adapted to heat stress conditions and can be used to improve faba bean heat
tolerance.
xiv
‫ﻣﻠﺨﺺ اﻷﻃﺮوﺣﺔ‬
‫اﻹﺟﻬﺎد اﻟﺤﺮاري واﺣﺪ ﻣﻦ اﻹﺟﻬﺎدات اﻟﻼﺣﻴﻮﻳﺔ اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺆﺛﺮ وﺗﻨﻘﺺ اﻟﻘﺪرة اﻹﻧﺘﺎﺟﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻔﻮل اﻟﻤﺼﺮي‪.‬‬
‫هﺪﻓﺖ هﺬﻩ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ ﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ أداء ‪ ٢٢‬ﻃﺮازًا وراﺛﻴ ًﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺤﺼﻮل اﻟﻔﻮل اﻟﻤﺼﺮي ﻓﻲ اﻟﺴﻮدان ﺗﺤﺖ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ درﺟﺔ‬
‫اﻟﺤﺮارة ﻟﺜﻼﺛﺔ ﻓﺘﺮات ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻮﻋﺪ اﻟﺒﺰار ﻟﻤﺪة ﺳﻨﺘﻴﻦ )‪ (٠٣/٢٠٠٢ – ٠٢/٢٠٠١‬ﺧﻼل اﻟﻤﻮﺳﻢ اﻟﺸﺘﻮي ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺷﻤﺒﺎت )اﻟﻤﺰرﻋﺔ اﻟﺘﺠﺮﻳﺒﻴﺔ ﺑﻜﻠﻴﺔ اﻟﺰراﻋﺔ ‪ ،‬ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ اﻟﺨﺮﻃﻮم( وذﻟﻚ ﺑﻐﺮض ﺗﻘﺪﻳﺮ اﻟﺘﺒﺎﻳﻦ اﻟﻮراﺛﻲ ودرﺟﺔ‬
‫اﻟﺘﻮرﻳﺚ ﻟﻤﻘﺎﻳﻴﺲ ﺻﻔﺔ ﻣﻘﺎوﻣﺔ اﻹﺟﻬﺎد اﻟﺤﺮاري )‪ (SSI, Y/Yp, Y, Yp‬ﺗﺤﺖ ﻣﻌﺎﻣﻼت اﻹﺟﻬﺎد اﻟﺤﺮاري‬
‫اﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ‪ .‬أﻳﻀًﺎ اﻹرﺗﺒﺎﻃﺎت اﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ اﻹﻧﺘﺎﺟﻴﺔ وﻣﻜﻮﻧﺎﺗﻬﺎ ‪ ،‬وﺑﻌﺾ اﻟﺼﻔﺎت اﻟﺨﻀﺮﻳﺔ اﻷﺧﺮى وﻣﺪى ﺛﺒﺎت‬
‫وإﺳﺘﻤﺮار اﻹﻧﺘﺎﺟﻴﺔ ﻗﺪ ﺗﻢ ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪهﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﺘﺮات اﻟﺰراﻋﺔ اﻟﺘﻲ اﺳﺘﺨﺪﻣﺖ هﻲ‪ :‬اﻟﺰراﻋﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﻮﻋﺪ اﻟﻤﻨﺎﺳﺐ )‪ (S1‬اﻟﺰراﻋﺔ ﺑﺘﺄﺧﻴﺮ ‪ ١٤‬ﻳﻮﻣًﺎ ﻣﻦ‬
‫اﻟﺰراﻋﺔ اﻷوﻟﻰ )‪ (S2‬وزراﻋﺔ ﺑﺘﺄﺧﻴﺮ ‪ ٢٨‬ﻳﻮﻣًﺎ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺰراﻋﺔ اﻷوﻟﻰ )‪.(S3‬‬
‫ﺗﻢ إﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎل ﻧﻈﺎم اﻟﻘﻄﻊ اﻟﻤﻨﺸﻄﺮة ﺑﺜﻼث ﻣﻜﺮرات‪ .‬اﻹﺟﻬﺎد اﻟﺤﺮاري اﻟﻤﺤﺪث ﺑﺘﺄﺧﻴﺮ ﻣﻮﻋﺪ اﻟﺒﺰار آﺎن‬
‫آﺎﻓﻴًﺎ ﻟﺤﺪوث إﺧﺘﻼﻓﺎت ﻣﻌﻨﻮﻳﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ اﻟﻤﻌﺎﻣﻼت ﻣﻊ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﺿﺌﻴﻞ ﺗﺤﺖ اﻟﻤﻌﺎﻣﻠﺔ ‪ ١٤) S2‬ﻳﻮم ﺗﺄﺧﻴﺮ(‪ .‬اﻳﻀًﺎ وﺟﺪت‬
‫إﺧﺘﻼﻓﺎت ﻣﻌﻨﻮﻳﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ ‪ ٢٢‬ﻃﺮازًا وراﺛﻴًﺎ ﻟﻠﻔﻮل اﻟﻤﺼﺮي ﻟﻤﻌﻈﻢ اﻟﺼﻔﺎت اﻟﻤﺪروﺳﺔ‪ .‬اﻟﺘﺒﺎﻳﻦ اﻟﻮراﺛﻲ آﺎن أﻗﻞ‬
‫وﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﻌﻨﻮي ﺗﺤﺖ اﻟﻈﺮوف اﻟﻌﺎدﻳﺔ )‪ (Yp‬ﻣﻦ اﻟﺬي ﻗﻴﺲ ﺗﺤﺖ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ اﻹﺟﻬﺎد اﻟﺤﺮاري )‪ YS2‬أو ‪ (YS3‬ﻣﻤﺎ‬
‫أدى إﻟﻰ ﻧﻘﺼﺎن درﺟﺔ اﻟﺘﻮرﻳﺚ ﻟﻤﻘﺎﻳﻴﺲ اﻹﺟﻬﺎد اﻟﺤﺮاري‪ .‬ﻟﻜﻦ اﻟﺘﺪاﺧﻞ اﻟﺘﺒﺎﻳﻨﻲ ﻟﻠﻄﺮز اﻟﻮراﺛﻴﺔ ﻣﻊ اﻟﺴﻨﻴﻦ آﺎن‬
‫ﻣﻌﻨﻮﻳﺎ ﺗﺤﺖ اﻟﻈﺮوف اﻟﻌﺎدﻳﺔ )‪.(Yp‬‬
‫درﺟﺔ اﻟﺘﻮرﻳﺚ أﻇﻬﺮت ﻣﺪى واﺳﻌًﺎ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺘﺒﺎﻳﻨﺎت‪ .‬أﻋﻠﻰ درﺟﺔ اﻟﺘﻮرﻳﺚ واﻟﺘﻘﺪم اﻟﻮراﺛﻲ ﻣﻦ اﻹﻧﺘﺨﺎب‬
‫ﺳﺠﻠﺖ ﺑﻮاﺳﻄﺔ وزن اﻟﻤﺎﺋﺔ ﺣﺒﺔ ﺗﺤﺖ اﻟﻤﻌﺎﻣﻠﺔ ‪ .S2‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ وﺟﺪ أن اﻟﺘﺒﺎﻳﻦ اﻟﻮراﺛﻲ ودرﺟﺔ اﻟﺘﻮرﻳﺚ ﺗﻨﻘﺼﺎن ﻣﻊ‬
‫زﻳﺎدة وﻗﺴﺎوة اﻹﺟﻬﺎد اﻟﺤﺮاري‪ .‬وآﺎﻧﺎ أآﺜﺮ ﺗﺄﺛﺮًا ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﺘﺄﺧﺮ ﻣﻮﻋﺪ اﻟﺒﺰار ‪ ٢٨‬ﻳﻮﻣًﺎ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﻮﻋﺪ اﻟﻤﻨﺎﺳﺐ‪.‬‬
‫ﺑﻌﺾ اﻟﻄﺮز اﻟﻮراﺛﻴﺔ ﻗﺎوﻣﺖ اﻟﺤﺮارة ﻋﻨﺪ اﻟﺘﺄﺧﻴﺮ اﻟﻄﻔﻴﻒ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻮﻋﺪ اﻟﺒﺰار )‪ (S2‬وﺑﻌﺪ ذﻟﻚ أﺻﺒﺤﺖ‬
‫ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﻘﺎوﻣﺔ ﺗﺤﺖ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ اﻹﺟﻬﺎد اﻟﺤﺮاري اﻟﻘﺎﺳﻲ واﻟﻌﻜﺲ ﺻﺤﻴﺢ‪.‬‬
‫‪xv‬‬
‫درﺟﺔ اﻹرﺗﺒﺎﻃﺎت اﻟﻤﻈﻬﺮﻳﺔ اﻟﻤﻌﻨﻮﻳﺔ واﻟﻤﻮﺟﺒﺔ ﻗﺪ وﺟﺪت ﺑﻴﻦ اﻟﻐﻠﺔ اﻹﻧﺘﺎﺟﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻨﺒﺎت ﻣﻊ ﻣﻜﻮﻧﺎﺗﻬﺎ‪:‬‬
‫ﻋﺪد اﻟﻌﻘﺪ اﻟﻤﺜﻤﺮة ﻓﻲ اﻟﺴﺎق اﻟﺮﺋﻴﺴﻲ و ﻋﺪد اﻟﻘﺮون ﻓﻲ اﻟﻨﺒﺎت ﻓﻲ اﻟﺴﻨﺘﻴﻦ ﻣﻌ ًﺎ وهﺬﻩ اﻟﻤﻜﻮﻧﺎت آﺎﻧﺖ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻄﺔ‬
‫ارﺗﺒﺎﻃﺎ ﻣﻌﻨﻮﻳًﺎ ﻣﻮﺟﺒًﺎ ﻣﻊ ﺑﻌﻀﻬﺎ اﻟﺒﻌﺾ وﺳﺎﻟﺒًﺎ وﻣﻌﻨﻮﻳًﺎ ﻣﻊ وزن اﻟﻤﺎﺋﺔ ﺣﺒﺔ‪ .‬أﻳﻀًﺎ اﻟﻐﻠﺔ اﻹﻧﺘﺎﺟﻴﺔ آﺎﻧﺖ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻄﺔ‬
‫ارﺗﺒﺎﻃﺎ ﻣﻌﻨﻮﻳًﺎ ﻣﻮﺟﺒًﺎ ﻣﻊ اﻟﻤﺎدة اﻟﺠﺎﻓﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻨﺒﺎت‪ ،‬ﻣﻌﺪل اﻟﺤﺼﺎد وﻃﻮل اﻟﻨﺒﺎت ﻓﻲ اﻟﺴﻨﺘﻴﻦ‪ .‬آﻤﺎ وﺟﺪ ارﺗﺒﺎﻃﺎ‬
‫ﻣﻌﻨﻮﻳًﺎ ﻣﻮﺟﺒًﺎ ﻟﻠﻐﻠﺔ اﻹﻧﺘﺎﺟﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻨﺒﺎت ﻣﻊ وزن اﻟﻤﺎﺋﺔ ﺣﺒﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺴﻨﺔ اﻷوﻟﻰ وﻣﻊ اﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ اﻟﻤﺌﻮﻳﺔ ﻟﻌﻘﺪ اﻟﺜﻤﺎر‬
‫واﻟﻐﻠﺔ اﻹﻧﺘﺎﺟﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ وﺣﺪة اﻟﻤﺴﺎﺣﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺴﻨﺔ اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺗﺤﺖ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ اﻹﺟﻬﺎد اﻟﺤﺮاري اﻟﻄﻔﻴﻒ ﺑﺎﻟﻤﻌﺎﻣﻠﺔ )‪ (S2‬اﻟﻄﺮاز اﻟﻮراﺛﻲ ‪ C.52/1/1/1‬آﺎن أآﺜﺮ ﺛﺒﺎﺗًﺎ‬
‫وإﺳﺘﻘﺮارًا وذا إﻧﺘﺎﺟﻴﺔ ﻋﺎﻟﻴﺔ وﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ اﻟﻤﻘﺎوﻣﺔ ﻟﻺﺟﻬﺎد اﻟﺤﺮاري‪ .‬ﺑﻴﻨﻤﺎ ﺗﺤﺖ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ اﻹﺟﻬﺎد اﻟﺤﺮاري اﻟﻘﺎﺳﻲ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻤﻌﺎﻣﻠﺔ ‪ S3‬أﻇﻬﺮت اﻟﻄﺮز اﻟﻮ راﺛﻴﺔ ‪ C.52/1/1/1‬و ‪ C.42‬أﻋﻠﻰ اﻹﻧﺘﺎﺟﻴﺔ وآﺎﻧﺖ أآﺜﺮ ﺛﺒﺎﺗًﺎ وإﺳﺘﻘﺮارًا وذات‬
‫ﻣﻘﺎوﻣﺔ ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻄﺔ ﻟﻘﺴﺎوة اﻹﺟﻬﺎد اﻟﺤﺮاري‪ .‬ﻟﺬا ﻣﺜﻞ هﺬﻩ اﻟﻄﺮز اﻟﻮراﺛﻴﺔ ﺗﻌﺘﺒﺮ ﻣﻦ أﺣﺴﻦ اﻟﻄﺮاز ﻣﻼءﻣﺔ ﻟﻺﺟﻬﺎد‬
‫اﻟﺤﺮاري وﻳﻤﻜﻦ إﺳﺘﺨﺪاﻣﻬﺎ ﻟﺘﺤﺴﻴﻦ ﻣﻘﺎوﻣﺔ ﻣﺤﺼﻮل اﻟﻔﻮل اﻟﻤﺼﺮي ﻟﻺﺟﻬﺎد اﻟﺤﺮاري‪.‬‬
‫‪xvi‬‬
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Faba bean (Vicia faba L.) is one of the most important field crops in Sudan,
belonging to the wild pea genus (Vicia) of the leguminosae family. Faba beans have
different names depending upon their type. Small-seeded types (Vicia faba var.
minor) may be called tick bean or pigeon bean and are commonly used for animal
feed. Medium-size seeded types (Vicia faba var. equina) are called the horse bean,
whereas large-seeded types (Vicia faba var. major) may be called windsor bean or
broad bean and are more commonly used as a green vegetable or as a dry bean. Its
common name is “Foul Masri” in Sudan and Bakela in Ethiopia.
Faba bean is a diploid species, 2n = 12, deficient in sulphur–containing amino
acids, but relatively rich in lysine compared to other pulses.
There are different opinions on its origin, but according to Long et al. (1989),
faba bean originated from the far east, then from there it was spread along the coast
of North Africa to Ethiopia, China and India. Moreover, faba bean is widely spread
in temperate regions of the world, and also grown in North Europe and Latin
America.
The main producing countries for Vicia faba depending on acreage are
Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, U.K, Egypt, Ethiopia, China, Australia and Sudan (FAO,
2000).
Faba bean is one of the pulses grown as a cool-season crop in the Northern
part of the Sudan along the Nile on small holdings with lift irrigation. Most of the
Sudanese people especially those from low and middle scales are depending on faba
bean for breakfast and dinner as a main staple food, because it is an important source
of protein in the diet which can replace meat. Thus its consumption and prices are
steadily increasing.
The world production of faba bean was 3.3 million tonnes, which is reported
by FAO (2000). However, the world average grain yield/ha was 1399kg/ha (FAO,
2000). In Sudan the average grain yield/ha was 2517kg/ha (FAO, 2000).
Hardallou (1981) reported that the chemical composition of faba bean is rich
in protein. The air-dry seed contains 28% protein, 48% carbohydrates, 3.6% fats, 2%
glucose and 3.5% mineral salts. The cotyledons make up the bulk of storage tissue,
comprising about 84-88% of the seed dry weight with 11-14% as testa and only 0.6-
١
1.3% in the embryonic axis. Although Vicia faba is an important human diet in
Sudan, some varieties are cultivated as animal feed and its residues are useful for dry
fodder, and others are used as green manure and cover crops.
Most of the faba bean production in Sudan is restricted in Northern and Nile
States, which cover 60% and 36% of the cultivated land, respectively (Abdul Bari
and Nygaard, 1982). The average yield was 2.567ton/ha and 0.960ton/ha in the
Northern and Nile Statess, respectively. Due to the problems of irrigation water and
agricultural inputs in the North, there is a proposal of transferring faba bean
cultivation to Khartoum and Gezira, south of the traditional production areas, where
now it is produced in small areas.
Like some other crops, faba bean is subjected to many biotic and
abiotic stresses which reduce yield and affect yield stability. The
abiotic stresses such as drought and heat are the major constrains of
faba bean production. These abiotic stresses increase flower and pod
drop and seed abortion and consequently decrease the crop yield.
High-temperature stress has an adverse effect on faba bean
productivity. Therefore, delay of sowing date, which subjects the crop
to high temperature increased the number of flowers but decreased the
level of pods and seeds (Sekara et al., 2001). Delayed sowing date
affects yield and yield components significantly (Baldwin, 1982; Salih,
1985; Marcellos and Constable, 1986; Saghin, 1998; Hatam et al., 1999).
In Sudan, high temperature affects faba bean production and when we
go southwards from the northern region, the temperature increases, so
the selection of interest to heat-tolerant genotypes capable of surviving
under heat stress is very important for breeders. The present study
was conducted to meet the following objectives:
1. To evaluate the performance of 22 faba bean genotypes for terminal heat

stress.
2. To determine the genetic variability for heat tolerance in faba bean
genotypes.
3. To estimate heritability of yield and yield components under terminal heat
stress.
٢
4. To determine yield stability of faba bean genotypes under heat stress
conditions.
٣
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Biotic and Abiotic Stresses
Stress can be defined as any environmental factor potentially unfavourable to
living organisms (Levitt, 1972).
2.1.1 Evaluation of heat stress on plants

Generally, organisms are classified into three groups based on their response
to heat stress: (1) psychrophiles (Lovers of cold) that grow and develop in a
temperature range that includes chilling temperature (0o - 20oC). Any increase in
temperature above 15o - 20oC may be a heat stress for them. (2) Mesophiles (Lovers
of middle temperature) grow and develop at temperatures of about 10o to 30oC. Any
temperature higher than 35oC may induce heat stress for them. (3) Thermophiles
(Heat lovers) may grow and develop at temperatures between 30o and 100oC, only
temperatures above 45oC (Moderate Thermophiles) or much higher [Extreme
Thermophiles] are heat stress for them (Levitt, 1972). Therefore, a quantitative
evaluation of high-temperature stress had been defined as the number of degrees
above 15oC, as an approximate threshold of heat injury for the least heat-resistant
group (the psychrophiles). However, a species may be found with a threshold below
15oC. For example, the alga koliella tatrae grows optimally at 4oC and any long-
lasting temperature above 10oC is lethal (Hindak and Komarek, 1968).
The slow vaporization at normal temperatures is a possible cause of injuries,
but greater complexity is occurred at high than at low temperatures, since all the
reactions in the plant are already taken place rapidly, and a further rise in temperature
might easily disturb the balance, (Levitt, 1972). Because of these complicating
factors, the heat stress may produce direct or indirect stress injury as well as
secondary stress injury. Moreover, protein alteration was the most common
metabolic heat injury in biological systems (Levitt, 1980). However, protein
synthesis decreased and/or protein degradation increased as temperature increased
above 35oC (Ingram et al., 1986). It was found that at supra-optimal temperature a
special protein was produced and this protein was not found in non-stressed plants
٤
and it is called heat shock protein (HSP) (Altshuler and Mascarenhas, 1982). It was
found to be synthesized at optimum temperature above 38oC in most plants (Wu and
Wallner, 1984).
High temperature reduces yield even in the absence of water stress. This is
due to the fact that the rate of organ development is accelerated without an increase
in net photosynthesis (Bagga and Rawson, 1977) resulting in less assimilates to be
allocated to each organ and therefore, organs are smaller. Moreover, because
physiological development is also accelerated, the number and fertility of grain
bearing organs is reduced (Warrington et al., 1977). In addition to that, high
temperature accelerated leaf senescence and increased maintenance respiration (Vos,
1981). This influence of high-temperature stress on yield depends on the growth
stage during which the high temperature commences.
2.1.2 Effect of high-temperature on the plants

High temperature stress is one of the main constraints that affect or reduce
yield productivity of faba bean and legumes in general.
Midmore et al. (1984) reported that at high temperature, the rate of plant
development is increased, thus reducing the potential for biomass accumulation.
Studies done by Wardlaw et al. (1980) and Blum (1986) revealed genetic variability
in photosynthetic rate among wheat cultivars when exposed to high temperatures.
This variability was shown to be associated with a loss of chlorophyll and a change
in the a:b chlorophyll ratio, because of the premature leaf senescence (Al Khatib and
Paulsen, 1984; Harding et al., 1990). In addition, studies conducted by Delgado et
al. (1994) at CIMMYT showed genetic variability for photosynthetic rate under heat
stressed field condition.
Heat damage to the plasma membranes was estimated by using
conductometric measurement of solute leakage from cells (Blum and Ebercon,
1981), which showed genetic variability in membrane thermostability in various
field-grown crops.
Respiration is another process, which is affected by high temperatures. It
increases with increase in temperature leading eventually to carbon starvation
(Levitt, 1980) because assimilation cannot keep balance with respiratory losses.
٥
In faba bean, flower production depends more on weather conditions than on
cultural practices (Cervea and Taraue, 1969). Flower initiation in Vicia faba shows a
quantitative long-day response which may be accelerated by brief exposure to low
temperature, particularly when plants are grown in short days. Plant response to
flower initiation at low temperature is more rapid at 10oC than at 4oC; at
temperatures above 14oC and particularly above 23oC, a reaction inhibitory to flower
initiation occurs.
The responses of plants to temperature differ during different stages of
development. However, the vegetative growth was increased by high temperature
more than cool temperature, while lowering temperature during the flowering phase
was favourable. On the other hand, Abdalla and Fischbech (1978) reported that high
temperature at early stages of growth shortened the vegetative growth by accelerating
the start of flowering, which was consequently resulted in reduction in leaf area as
source of assimilates (Keatinge and Shaykewich, 1977). Moreover, high temperature
at early sowing resulted in poor crop establishment, due to the failure of seed
germination and emergence and/or reduced vigour by changing the normal
biochemical reaction during the germination process and seedling emergence
(Khalafalla, 1985). Also dry matter is a function of leaf area and growth duration
affected by high temperature. However, Tyurin and Sidorova (1982) working in
USSR reported that the flowering and grain filling phases varied more than
vegetative phase with high temperature. In addition, Skjelvag (1981) found that
increased temperature decreased dry matter per plant, whereas hot environment
(30oC) resulted in short stem and decreased the maturation period, which was due to
prevalence of quick plant growth (Abdalla and Fischbech, 1978). Nonetheless,
Schroeder (1984) found that high temperature reduced the number of stems/plant and
number of nodes/plant in controlled environments.
Pearcy et al. (1977) demonstrated that high temperature might disrupt
membrane function and structure. For example, the irreversible inhibition of
photosynthesis at high temperature was found to be due to the loss of photosystem II
activity and the loss of photophosphorylation (Raison et al., 1980), both of which are
membrane located. Chlorophyll organization in membranes was also changed due to
high temperature (Schreiber and Berry, 1977). It is suggested that the way
٦
membrane proteins are bound together may be responsible for the ability of proteins
to withstand heat stress (Martinek et al., 1977).
2.2 Effect of Sowing Date on Faba Beans

Using different sowing dates, so as to cope its effect on different stages of
plant growth, could simulate the study of the effect of heat stress on faba bean. The
sowing date then will be adjusted so as to escape the adverse growing conditions for
maximum utilization of the available natural resources to achieve the maximum
yields with minimum cost. Therefore, sowing date is a major production factor and
has a strong effect on both the green and dry matter yields of faba beans (Baldwin,
1980).
It was found that the optimum date of sowing is much affected by the
production site (Bond, 1979; Hawtin and Stewart, 1979; Zilliotto and Toniole, 1979;
Taha et al., 1982), and by other environmental factors and cultural practices. These
effects lead to modification in the environment or microclimate of the plant
especially with respect to temperature (Ageeb, 1979; Taha et al., 1982; Ageeb et al.,
1983).
2.2.1 Effect of sowing date on the vegetative characters

Late sowing reduces the number of flower-bearing nodes/stem but increased
the number of flowers/node with little effect on the percentage of flowers forming
mature pods (Shallaby and Mohamed, 1977; Barry and Storey, 1979). On the other
hand, Geraman (1969) suggested that bud, flower and young fruits shedding
percentage increased with delay in sowing date, which is due to high temperatures
and sunny weather (Ishag, 1973). A study by Sekara et al. (2001) showed that a
delay of sowing date increased the number of flowers. These interdependencies were
highly modified by meteorological condition during the vegetation period. A result
of Hatam et al. (1999) revealed a significant decrease in days to 50% flowering, days
to maturity and number of nodules per plant.
However, delayed sowing hastens the days to flowering and maturity,
because it reduces the period between flowering and leaf senescence (Pandey, 1981).
This is due to high temperatures at the end of the growing season (Salih and
٧
Khalafalla, 1982), forcing the crop to mature at a younger physiological age, and
exposing it to powdery mildew diseases and aphid infestation (Taha et al., 1982).
Also delayed sowing was shown by Salih and Khalafalla (1982) to result in
better plant stand, which is in line with the result of Ageeb (1977) with the highest
mean number of plants/m2 at 20 December sowing. Ageeb (1977) reported that the
mean plant height of faba bean varies with sowing date in a parabolic manner and the
tallest plants were obtained from 8 November sowing, while Salih (1979a) obtained
the tallest plants from 25 October sowing. On the other hand, Barry and Storey
(1979) reported in Ireland that delay in sowing in spring resulted in an increase in
plant height to the first flowering node. It was reported that number of branches per
plant was affected by delay in sowing dates, as it was first to increase and then
decrease late in the season (Abu Salih et al., 1973), but Shallaby and Mohamed
(1977) found that the number of branches/plant was not affected by the delayed
sowing.
Bochniarz et al. (1986) found that delayed sowing shortened the periods from
sowing to emergence and emergence to flowering but later stages were not affected.
On the other hand, Salih (1978a) claimed that plants from different sowing dates
took similar time to flower (between 40 and 47 days), but those sown earlier took
longer time to mature.
2.2.2 Effect of sowing dates on the reproductive characters

Salih and Khalafalla (1982) found that the effect of sowing date on grain
yield of faba bean and its components was highly significant with the exception of
the number of seeds/pod at Shendi, north of Khartoum, and number of seeds/pod and
100-seed weight at Shambat. Seed yields declined rapidly with delay in sowing date
(Baldwin, 1982; Marcellos and Constable, 1986; Loss and Siddique, 1996).
Therefore, an overall parabolic relationship may exist between sowing date and yield
per unit area (Abu Salih, 1971; Ageeb, 1977; Salih, 1978b, 1979a; Barry and Storey,
1979; Ageeb et al., 1983).
Hebblethwaite et al. (1991) reported that for each week’s delay in sowing
after the first week in March for spring beans, and the first week in October for
winter beans, yield decreased by 72 and 68kg/ha, respectively. Furthermore, Sekara
٨
et al. (2001) reported that a delay of sowing date decreased the level of pods and
seeds. Hatam et al. (1999) reported a significant decrease in nodule weight/plant,
number of pods/plant, number of seeds/pod, biological yield and grain yield, but 100-
seed weight was unaffected by sowing date. Also Saghin (1998) reported that 10
days delay in sowing date led to a significant decrease of yield and yield
components.
In Sudan, the faba beangrowing season is short, limited at both ends by high
temperature (Salih and Khalafalla, 1982). Low yield is resulted during earlier
sowing than the optimum date due to the prevalence of seedling root rot/wilt diseases
(Freigoun, 1980), which are enhanced by high temperatures and consequently
resulted in poor emergence and subject the crop to be attacked by Spedoptera sp.
(Taha et al., 1982). This leads to a serious reduction in plant stand (Salih, 1977).
Sowing of the crop within the optimum range appears to show better performance as
a result of longer vegetative and reproductive phases and better utilization of water
and nutrients (Ali and Ali, 1983). A delay in sowing date increases the rate of
powdery mildew diseases and aphid infestation in faba bean, causing a drastic
reduction in yield brought about through a decrease in number of pods/plant, number
of seeds/plant and reduced seed weight (Abu Salih et al., 1973; Salih, 1977; Salih,
1978a, b; Sjodin, 1978; Salih, 1979 a, b, 1980; Baldwin, 1980). Late sowing also
decreased number of seeds per plant and per unit area, although 1000-seed weight
was unaffected.
Loss and Siddique (1996) reported that with early times of sowing, dry matter
and green area production were rapid in winter and peak dry matter and peak green
area indices were significantly greater than when sowing was delayed. Straw yield
decreased with delay in sowing (Shallaby and Mohamed, 1978), and total dry matter
from the first two planting dates, July 30 and August 15 was more than double those
on the later dates, September 30 and October 15.
However, it was found that number of seeds/pod may increase linearly and
significantly (Barry and Storey, 1979; Salih, 1979b), in some cases very slightly
(Salih, 1979a) or may not be affected by delaying the sowing date (Abu Salih et al.,
1973; Baldwin, 1980). Moreover, pod-setting percentage is also reduced with delay
in sowing (Zeng, 1982) and pods retained per plant are controlled by leaves (as
٩
source of assimilates) and the point when seeds begin to develop (as a measure of the
partitioning factor within the plant) (Ishag, 1973).
2.3 Heat Resistance

The ability of a crop plant to withstand high temperatures depends on the
thermal adaptation of particular species, the duration of the exposure to high
temperature and the stage of growth (McWilliams, 1980). Therefore, every plant
species appears to have a definite temperature requirement for germination,
vegetative growth and flowering. For example, soybean will germinate in the
temperature of 10o – 40oC, but the maximum rates of emergence occur at 25o – 30oC
(Hatfied and Egli, 1974). Also in Lentil, 30 – 40% flower and pod drop is reported
(Chandra and Asthana, 1991), and period of rapid rise in temperature and termination
of rainfall affect the reproductive phase of winter-sown lentil (Silim and Saxena,
1989).
Generally, heat damage to the plant is caused by high temperatures ranging
between 40o and 55oC, which affect plant organs by limiting physiological processes
or by causing the death of the whole or part of the plant (Bannister, 1976). Sub-
lethal high temperatures may be more important in terms of crop performance during
exposure to high temperatures, which cause starvation and/or metabolic abnormality,
but not the death of the plants. Besides the flower or fruit damage by high
temperatures, deep-rooted perennial crops with greater evaporative cooling capacity
would be more tolerant than shallow rooted annual crops.
However, plant species that possess the characteristics of withstanding

abnormally high temperatures without being severely damaged are classified as heat
resistant. In general, the two main mechanisms responsible for heat resistance in
plants are avoidance and tolerance, which have been recognized by Levitt (1963) for
many years. Avoidance can be defined as the mechanisms, which prevent the
cytoplasm from being subjected to damage by high temperatures and maintaining
plants active above injury level, while, tolerance is defined as the ability of the crop
to live, survive and maintain all metabolic functions when the plant tissues are
actually at the high temperature (Bannister, 1976; Levitt, 1980).
١٠
2.3.1 Heat avoidance mechanisms
There are various means for plants to avoid heat damage. Some of these have
been extensively reviewed (Levitt, 1972; 1980). Such means are accomplished
through shortening of maturation period of developmental phases, alternation in the
rate and efficiency of biochemical processes as photosynthesis, respiration and
transpiration, or leaves may be oriented parallel to the incident radiation or may have
a high reflectivity and thus, reduce the amount of energy absorbed. However, few
plants can orient their leaves parallel to the solar radiation for part of the day, which
effectively reduces the radiation energy build-up in leaves (Parsons, 1979). For
example, by active leaf movements, stylo (Stylosathes humlis L.) orients its leaves
parallel to the incident radiation from the sun (Begg and Torsell, 1974). Similar
parahelionastic leaf movements have also been reported in beans (Dubetz, 1969).
The reflection coefficient of leaf surface is dependent upon its colour, moisture
conditions, leaf arrangement and the angle of the sun (Jen-hu-chang, 1968).
Generally, reflection increases with the visual brightness of the surface. For
example, desert vegetation with white or very hairy leaves has relatively high
reflectivity. This adaptation tends to reduce photosynthesis by reducing the input of
photosynthetically active radiation. At high air temperature (>40oC), the same effect
however enables the leaves to remain within the optimum temperature range for
photosynthesis (30o–35oC) without substantial loss of water (Ehleringer and Mooney,
1978), and the plant avoids heat injury.
Transpiration is another important phenomenon, which occurs in plants and
results in heat avoidance due to the water loss. It serves a useful function of
preventing excessively high leaf temperatures, which would otherwise have adverse
effects on other metabolic processes. Indeed, it was reported by many workers that
transpiration increases with increase in temperature at high soil water potentials,
which is due to the increase in water potential gradient between the plant and
surrounding air (Schulze et al., 1973; Sutcliffe, 1977). Transpiration efficiently
scatters the absorbed heat from the leaves and thereby prevents the leaves from
attaining high damaging temperatures or in small leaves by efficient convection and
thus maintains the leaves at a sub-lethal temperature. Therefore, the cooling effect of
transpiration would be of considerable benefit to plant growth and survival when
١١
high temperatures occur, provided that soil moisture is adequate. Sullivan (1972)
suggested that sorghum with deeper rooting systems than maize, for example, would
maintain partially open stomata during heat stress thereby allowing enough
transpiration cooling to avoid excessively high leaf temperatures. Also the other
mean of avoiding the effect of high temperature is that, the plant can be confined to
cool habitats, for example, water or shade (Levitt, 1972).
2.3.2 Heat tolerance mechanisms

Heat tolerance mechanisms are not clearly understood, but adaptation appears
to be related to the stability of protein structure (Levitt, 1980) and associated
membranes involved in metabolism at elevated temperatures (McWilliams, 1980).
These tolerance aspects involve the modifications in growth of vegetative and
reproductive attributes, alteration in shoot to root ratio and membrane
thermostability. Plants with efficient avoidance mechanisms may be less tolerant to
heat than those with limited avoidance, and heat tolerance has been shown to vary
with the amount of transpirative cooling that occurs (Levitt, 1972). Therefore, in
southern Spain, the heat tolerance of Mesophiles (with high transpiration rates)
varies between 44o and 50oC (Lange and Lange, 1963).
Heat tolerance can be estimated either by determining the duration at fixed
temperature at which 50% tissue injury occurs (Onwueme, 1979), which is called the
heat killing time or by determining the heat killing temperature, which is the
temperature at which 50% of the plants or plant tissue is injured at fixed time (Lange
and Lange, 1963; Levitt, 1980). Onwueme (1979) recorded differences in heat
tolerance between hardened and unhardened barley plants. This method has the
advantage of using intact plants, but its main disadvantage, however, is that the
actual temperature attained by the tissue has not been measured and may be far
below that of the surrounding air, because of the rapid transpiration at high
temperatures and low relative humidity usually employed (Levitt, 1972; 1980).
Another method of estimating heat tolerance is that the plant tissue is exposed
to selected temperature for a certain period and the relative heat tolerances among
genotypes are compared based on percentage of tissue injury (Martineau et al.,
1978). But, the most common explanation for heat injury in biological systems was
١٢
protein alteration reported by Levitt (1980). In addition, the heat tolerance can be
estimated by using the stress susceptibility index as a criterion for breeding
genotypes acclimatized to late planting conditions (Sarkar et al., 2001). They found
that early maturing wheat genotypes showed better performance under high
temperature stress conditions with less reduction in grain yield, and had relatively
higher grain filling rates with more tolerance to heat stress for most of the yield-
attributing characters (low stress susceptibility index values). It was concluded that
the protein synthesizing enzymes in heat-tolerant plants must be thermostable for
prevention of indirect injury and that the protoplasmic proteins and membrane
proteins must also be heat stable to prevent direct injury (Levitt, 1980). However, it
was found by Russian workers that high temperatures caused the hydrolysis of
complex proteins with accumulation of amino acids (Henckell, 1964). Later, they
proved that high temperature increased ammonia accumulation, which is toxic to
plants. Furthermore, they explained that in heat-tolerant plants, ammonia toxicity is
not possible because organic acids are formed, which possibly react with ammonia to
form harmless salts and amides.
Lin et al. (1984) stated that heat tolerance varied with species, genotypes and
different plant tissue. In addition, the age and temperature of the environment under
which the crop was grown have an influence on the degree of heat injury (Chen et
al., 1982). However, susceptible and heat-tolerant genotypes grown under cool
temperature 20o/50oC day/night did not differ in heat killing time, but at 35o/35oC
heat tolerance of leaves was lower at early stages and reached a level similar to fully
grown plants after 30 days growth. However, heat adaptability of both heat tolerant
and susceptible genotypes when grown at low temperature regime were not affected
by plant age, but plant age affected the adaptability upon subjection to high
temperature (Chen et al., 1982).
Odra (1985) concluded that it was not possible to study the rates of net
photosynthesis and dark respiration of detached leaves at temperatures beyond 40oC
because leaves quickly rolled and appeared dehydrated before steady rate of
photosynthesis could be measured. Leaves of previously droughted plants could not
also be used because they also appeared to dry out at temperatures of 30oC.
١٣
2.4 Phenotypic Variability in Faba Bean
Grain yield in faba bean is a multiplicative character in inheritance and is
determined by many components (Kambal, 1969; Ishag, 1973; Magyarosi and
Sjodin, 1976; El-Hosary, 1983). Thus many workers have reported considerable
phenotypic variation for a number of characters, for example (Abdalla, 1976; Bianco
et al., 1979; Porceddu et al., 1979) and the germplasm resources are still largely
unexploited.
Shallaby and Katta (1976) reported that there was a high variation within
cultivars of faba bean for number of seeds/pod, number of seeds/plant and number of
branches/plant. Salih and Mohamed (1992) evaluated 12 faba bean breeding lines
from the Sudanese collection, and they found that seed yields were significant in
both seasons, and the differences among lines were highly significant, which is
similar with the interaction of lines and seasons. In addition, Bakheit and Mahdy
(1988) over two seasons, showed that the interaction between accessions and years
were significant for plant height, pods/plant, seed yield/plant, seeds/pod and 100-
seed weight, except number of branches/plant. Also the phenotypic coefficient of
variation was higher than the genotypic one for all the characters, except for number
of seeds/pod.
2.5 Genetic Variability and Heritability

A wide genetic variation was found for number of pods, seed weight and seed
yield in a sample of 600 accessions from the Bari Vicia faba collection (Scarascia-
Mugnozza and De Pace, 1979). Moreover, Porceddu et al. (1979) found genetic
variability of seed yield and 1000-seed weight in 158 Italian accessions of Vicia faba
L.). Chapman (1981) listed the genetic variability within Vicia faba which was then
available to breeders. Recently, many workers reported results on genetic variability
in faba bean (Bianco et al., 1979; Salem, 1982; Polignano and Spagnolettizeuli,
1985). This great genetic variability in Vicia faba populations may partly be due to
the fact that its breeding system is intermediate between autogamy and allogamy
(Picard, 1979).
Bora et al. (1998) observed significant genotypic differences for all the traits
in 100 faba bean genotypes in both years. The level of genetic variability, as
١٤
estimated by variances and coefficients of variation, was high for plant height, pod-
bearing length, harvest index, fruiting branches per plant, pods/plant and seed yield/
plant. High heritability was followed by high genetic advance for the last three
characters, indicating scope for their improvement through selection.
The breeding objective of faba bean is to increase green and dry seed yield
and improve yield stability. Therefore, breeders are searching for the characters,
which are associated with yield, but are more highly heritable. However, it is known
that seed yield has low heritability because of the strong influence of environmental
effects (Lawes et al., 1983). Thus efforts were made to develop selection indices
based on other characters correlated with yield and having high heritability.
2.6 Interrelationship Between Characters
Positive correlation was reported for number of pods/plant with both number
of seeds/plant and total seed yield, which were themselves positively correlated with
each other (El–Murabaa et al., 1987). Also number of days to ripeness, number of
primary branches and green pod length and width were positively correlated with
100-seed weight.
Bora et al. (1998) reported a positive correlation of seed yield/plant with

plant height, pod bearing length, pods/plant and harvest index, while it was
negatively correlated with days to maturity both at genotypic and phenotypic level.
Bakheit and Mahdy (1988) reported that in both phenotypic and genotypic
correlations, the number of branches and number of pods/plant had a positive
correlation with seed yield/plant. Also number of branches/plant was positively
correlated with 100-seed weight and negatively correlated with plant height. Seed
yield/plant was negatively correlated with plant height also. Many workers (Yassin,
1973b; Abdalla, 1976; Bianco et al., 1979; De Pace, 1979; Vries, 1979; Aristarkhova
and Demina, 1980; Poulsen and Knudsen, 1980; Salem, 1982; Sindhu et al., 1985)
observed this result in faba bean, and Subhash et al. (2001) in chickpea.
Under stress environment, total above-ground biomass will typically show a

stronger association with yield than partition, i.e. harvest index (Reynolds et al.,
1994), while the situation is reversed under temperate environments, which cause the
١٥
assimilates to be yield limiting factor under stress than under temperate environments
(Sayre et al., 1997). For these reasons, stay-green is a trait that has been promoted
for heat and drought tolerance.
Marcellos (1987) stated that seed yield was positively correlated with
biomass and pod number, while it was not correlated with harvest index.
It was found that plant height, number of pods and flowers/plant, pod length
with exception of 1000-seed weight, were positively and significantly correlated with
seed yield (Mulat, 1998). The main criteria used for selection were a high number of
pods/plant, as this was found to be highly correlated with seed yield (Kambal, 1969;
Yassin, 1973b) and large or medium seed size. This last character is one of the most
stable in faba bean (Dantuma and Thompson, 1983), and thus increases in faba bean
yields are more likely to occur with larger seed size (Lawes et al., 1983). Larger
seed size is also a quality character that is preferred by consumers in the Sudan (Ali,
1983).
2.7 Yield Stability and Adaptation in Faba Beans
It was found that two single crosses were higher yielding, but were not only
as stable as any of the double cross hybrids (Eberhart and Russell, 1969). Whereas,
Lynch et al. (1973) evaluated all hybrids of maize in Ontario (Canada) he found that
among this selected group, single crosses out yielded the double crosses and were
equally stable. Thus yield stability is improved by increasing the degree of
heterozygosity mainly in allogamous but also in self-pollinating species (Becker,
1987).
Lima et al. (2000) used 100 soybean crosses to study the yield stability
through different sowing periods, which revealed that procedures of regression
analysis and minimum variance among sowing date means were efficient for
selecting lines stable over sowing dates. Therefore, it was possible to select stable
and high-yielding genotypes over all 4 sowing dates in all the crosses. No specific
cross was clearly better at producing stable genotypes.
١٦
In faba bean, yield stability can be improved by increasing levels of
heterogeneity and heterozygosity (Stelling et al., 1994). Inbred lines showed lowest
yield stability. Therefore, heterogeneity and heterozygosity are effectively important
for yield stability, but their importance differed depending on the population
structure (e.g. the highest yield stability was observed for hybrid’s blends and
synthetics). Generally, as reported by Stelling et al. (1994), the level of observed
effects of both diversity factors (hererogeneity and heterozygosity) on yield and yield
stability has affected by the genetic materials used in the study (e.g. adapted or exotic
germplasm, related or unrelated inbreds, and modified plant types).
Dantuma and Thompson (1983) reported that number of seeds/pod and 100-
seed weight were the most stable yield components in relation to environment. On
the other hand, number of podded nodes/plant and number of pods/podded node were
the least stable components (Thompson and Taylor, 1977). Moreover, for any given
cultivar, number of seeds/pod is relatively stable; it ranges from less than two in
some cultivars to about eight in others (Chapman, 1981).
In a study by Yassin (1973a), the mean differences between environments,

varieties and their interactions were highly significant. Partition of the varieties x
environment (into linear responses and deviations from linearity) showed that linear
responses were insignificant, while deviations from linearity were highly significant.
This lack of significance of linear responses does not rule out the possibility that
linear responses of some varieties may be significant (Perkins and Jinks, 1968). The
influence of environmental effects on mean seed yield of the varieties as a whole is
more important than the mean differences in yield between the varieties and by far
greater in importance than interactions of the varieties with the environment, which
indicated that variation from one environment to another may be the main factor that
determines most of the yield differences of the varieties in the different environments
(Yassin, 1973a). On the other hand, Finlay and Wilkinson (1963), and McEwen
(1970) emphasized the importance of seasonal variability on yield of barley and field
beans, respectively.
El-Murabaa et al. (1987) studied 12 cultivars of faba bean over three years,
and found significant interaction of sowing date and cultivars for days to flowering,
١٧
fresh harvest and ripeness, plant height, number of pods/plant and 100-seed weight.
Khorgade et al. (2000) studied sixteen genotypes of chickpea in India, and he found
that the linear component was significant for days to 50% flowering, number of
pods/plant and seed yield/plant, while the non-linear component was significant for
harvest index. Both linear and non-linear components were significant for 100-seed
weight.
Omer et al. (1999) evaluated phenotypic and genotypic stability performance

in faba bean for yield across environments. They showed that some genotypes were
stable and had a high mean performance, while other genotypes had different levels
of phenotypic and genotypic stability.
Bora et al. (1998) found significant differences due to genotype x

environment interaction for both days to first flowering and days to maturity.
Although both linear and non-linear components contributed to the genotype x
environment interaction, the linear component was more important.
١٨
CHAPTER THREE
MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1 Experimental Site

The data of this research experiment were collected from a study conducted
over two consecutive years (2001/02–2002/03) during the winter season, at Shambat
(The Experimental Farm of Faculty of Agriculture, University of Khartoum), which
is located 15o 40′ N. latitude and 32o 32′ E. longitude at an altitude of 380 metres
above sea level. The climate was described differently by Oliver (1965); Whiteman
(1971) and Adam (1975) as tropical, semi- desert or semi arid, respectively. The soil
consists of Nile alluvium and sandy clay soil. The average monthly temperatures
and relative humidities were recorded at Shambat Meteorological Observatory
Station during plant growth and development.
3.2 Genetic Material

The genetic material used in this study comprised a total of 22 genotypes of
faba bean (Vicia faba L.), which were obtained from Hudeiba Research Station
(HRS) of the Agricultural Research and Technology Corporation (ARTC), Ed-
Damer, Northern Sudan. Twenty genotypes are advanced breeding lines and two are
released varieties. Most of these genotypes originated in Northern region and their
pedigrees are given in Table 3.1.
3.3 Simulation of the Treatments

The heat stress was simulated at three different dates of sowing: S1, S2 and S3
with interval of 14 days. In the first year, the sowing dates, S1, S2 and S3 were on 14
November, 28 November and 12 December, respectively. While, in the second year,
they were on 5 November, 19 November and 3 December. The first sowing date was
considered as non-stress environment (NS1E) and the last two dates were considered
as heat stress environments (HS2E and HS3E), with terminal heat stress during the
last sowing date (HS3E).
١٩
Table 3.1: Code number, name and origin of the 22 genotypes of faba
bean evaluated for terminal heat stress at Shambat for two cosecutive
years (2001/02 – 2002/03).
Gen.Code No. Name Origin
1 P.M/1 Selection from Beladi Massiab
2 C.86 Local hybrid
3 C.34 Local hybrid Cross at Hudeiba
4 C.52/1/1/1 Local hybrid
5 C.28 Local hybrid
6 Daba1/1 Daba
7 F402/7 Egyptian
8 C.80/1 Local hybrid Cross at Hudeiba
9 C.36 Local hybrid
10 SuperL.85 Dongola
11 D.E.2 Dem El-Garrai
12 Bulk1/2 Bulk of cross at Hudeiba
13 C.22 Local hybrid Cross at Hudeiba
14 C.42/1/1/1 Local hybrid
15 BB25 Basabeer
16 Golid1 Golid
17 ZBF1/1 Zeidab
18 Berber1 Berber
19 Mass55 Mass selection from Hudeiba type
20 C.42 Local hybrid cross at Hudeiba
21 BB7 Ψ Basabeer [released variety]
22 H93 Ψ Hudeiba [released variety]
Ψ = Genotypes are included as check varieties
٢٠
3.4 Experimental Layout
The experiments were laid out in a split-plot design with three replications.
Each replication was divided into three main plots and each main plot was divided
into five subplots. Sowing dates were randomly assigned as main plots and
genotypes were randomized as subplots within the main plots.
3.5 Cultural Practices
3.5.1 Land preparation

The field was prepared using different procedures of land preparation starting
with land ploughing; using disc plough, then the land was left for two weeks under
sun dry. Thereafter, the land was harrowed using disc harrow, and then it was
leveled after four days. After two days from leveling, the land was ridged.
3.5.2 Sowing
The seeds were sown manually on both sides of the ridge at the rate of two
seeds per hole. The distance between ridges was 60 cm and three metres length,
whereas the distance between holes was 20 cm. Each genotype was grown as a
single row in the within five ridges. The two marginal ridges were planted with a
local cultivar, Super, which obtained from the market, as guard areas. All these
practices were taken place in the two seasons. The plants were irrigated equally at 7
– 10 days interval. The crop took a total of 16 irrigations during the growing period.
No fertilizer was added during both seasons and weeding was done every two weeks
after crop emergence till pod filling, using hand hoe. In the first year, plants were
sprayed with Folimat against aphids (Aphis fabae sp.), when it appeared in the field,
but due to the severity of the aphid infestation, the plants were sprayed again with
another insecticide called Perimore. In the second year, the plants were sprayed only
with Perimore immediately when aphids appeared in the field. Aphid and powdery
mildew infestations were greater on the crops sown late in the season.
٢١
3.6 Data Collection
During the two seasons, observations were taken on ten plants randomly
selected per each genotype in the subplot. Data recorded on the following vegetative
and reproductive characters.
3.6.1 Vegetative characters

1. Plant height (cm). This was measured, at maturity, from the ground level to the
tip of the plant.
2. Height to the first pod was measured in cm, at maturity, from the ground level to
the first node bearing a pod (s).
3. Pod length. This was measured at harvest in cm.
4. Number of reproductive branches per plant. This was counted at harvest.
5. Days to 50% flowering. These were recorded as days from sowing to date of
flowering when about 50% of the plants of the genotype bear at least one flower.
6. Days to 95% maturity. These were estimated as days from sowing to that day
when about 95% of the leaves in the row turned yellow and green pods became
black.
7. Pod-setting percentage. Ten plants from each row were selected randomly and
fifty double-flowered inflorescence of each genotype in each date of sowing was
tagged on the same day (i.e twenty nodes, each bearing at least 4-5 flowers were
tagged). Thus flower blooming on the same day, but borne on plant of different
stages of growth age were tagged. Then at maturity, data on number of pods set
were recorded.
3.6.2 Reproductive characters

1. Number of podded nodes per main stem. This was counted, at maturity, on the
sample before threshing.
2. Number of pods per plant. It was counted as the sum total of number of pods per
branch and number of pods per main stem.
3. Number of seeds per pod. This was calculated by dividing the total number of
seeds per plant (of the sample) by the total number of pods per plant.
٢٢
4. Number of seeds per plant. It was counted from the sample after threshing as, the
average of the number of seeds of the ten plants.
5. 100-seed weight (g). This was estimated by taking 100 seeds randomly from that
of the sample and then their weight was determined.
6. Dry matter per plant (g). This was also calculated as sum total of the weight of
straws of the sample and weight of the seeds, then divided by the number of
plants in the sample.
7. Harvest Index (HI) as percentage. It was calculated from the sample using the
following formula.
Weight of the seeds
×100
The total weight of the plant
8. Seed yield per plant (g). It was estimated by weighing the seeds of the sample
after threshing and divided by the number of plants per sample.
9. Seed yield per unit area (kg/ha). This was estimated from seed yield per subplot
( each genotype) plus the seed yield of the sample.
3.6.3 Traits for heat tolerance

1. Stress Susceptibility Index (SSI)
This was used to characterize the relative heat stress tolerance of the various
genotypes. It was calculated using the formula of Fischer and Maurer (1978), for
yield and yield components during both years.
SSI = (1 – Y/Yp)/D
Where:
Y = Mean yield or yield component of a genotype in a stress environment (S2 or S3).
Yp = Mean yield or yield component of a genotype in a non-stress environment
(S1)
D = Stress intensity = 1 – X/Xp
X = Mean Y of all genotypes in a stress environment (S2 or S3).
Xp = Mean Yp of all genotypes under non-stress environment (S1)
If S ≤ 0.50, it indicates that a genotype is a highly stress tolerant, S > 0.50 ≤ 1.00
moderately stress tolerant and S > 1.00 susceptible.
٢٣
The yield and yield components used were:
1. Seed yield/plant (g)

2. Number of podded nodes/main stem
3. Number of pods/plant
4. Number of seeds/pod
5. 100-seed weight (g)
6. Seed yield (kg/ha)
3.7 Statistical Analysis
The raw data of each parameter were collected and subjected to different
statistical analyses as follows:
3.7.1 Analysis of variance

The analysis of variance was carried out according to the procedures
described by Gomez and Gomez (1984) for split-plot design (Table 3.2) for each
year separately, and it had been run for all studied traits. Expected mean squares are
given in Table 3.2 also.
-Combined analysis of variance. This was done for the traits in which the mean
squares of errors were homogeneous. It was computed based on the description of
Gomez and Gomez (1984) on the split-plot design (Table 3.3).
In addition, the heat tolerance parameters also were tested using combined analysis
of variance in Table 3.4.
٢٤
Table 3.2: Analysis of variance and the expected mean squares for split-plot design for separate year.
df
Source of variation MS E.M.S
Replications r-1 = 2
M1
Sowing dates (S) s-1 = 2 M2
Error (a) (r-1)(s-1) = 4 M3
Genotypes (G) g-1 = 21 M4 б2e + r б2gs + rsб2g
Interaction (G x S) (g-1)(s-1) = 42 M5 б2e + r б2gs
Error (b) s(r-1)(g-1) =126 M6 б2e
Total rsg-1 = 197
Where:
r = number of replications.
s = number of sowing dates (main plots).
g = number of genotypes (subplots).
df = degree of freedom.
MS = Mean squares.
M1, M2, M3, M4, M5 and Mean squares for replications, sowing
M6 =
dates, error (a), genotypes, interaction
(G x S) and error (b), respectively.
б2e = variance due to experimental error.
б2gs = variance due to the interaction (G x S).
2
бg = genotypic variance.
٢٥
Table 3.3: Outline of the combined analysis over two years (2001/02 and
2002/03) for the pooled data and the expected mean squares.
Source of variation df MS E.M.S
Years (Y) y-1 = 1 M1
Rep. within year y(r-1) = 4 M2
Sowing dates (S) s-1 = 2 M3
(s-1)(y-1) = 2 M4
Interaction (S x Y)
Pooled error (a) y(r-1)(s-1) = 8 M5
Genotypes (G) g-1 = 21 M6 б2e + rб2gsy + rsб2gy +
ryб2gs + rsyб2g
Interaction (G x Y) (g-1)(y-1) = 21 M7 б2e + rб2gsy + rsб2gy
(G x S) (g-1)(s-1) = 42 M8 б2e + rб2gsy + ryб2gs
(G x S x Y) (g-1)(s-1)(y-1) =42 M9 б2e + rб2gs y
Pooled error (b) ys(r-1)(g-1) = 252 M10 б2e
Total yrsg-1 = 395
Where:
y = number of years.
r = number of replications within year.
s = number of sowing dates (main plots).
g = number of genotypes (subplots).
M1, M2, M3, M4, M5, M6, M7, M8, M9, M10 are mean squares for all sources
of variation.
б2e = variance due to pooled error.
б2gsy = variance due to the interaction of genotypes x sowing dates x years.
б2gs = variance due to the interaction of genotypes x sowing dates.
б2gy = variance due to the interaction of genotypes x years.
б2g = genotypic variance.
٢٦
Table 3.4: Analysis of variance for heat tolerance parameters among the 22 genotypes
of faba bean evaluated under different sowing dates (S1, S2 and S3), and across two
years (2001/02 and 2002/03) at Shambat.
df MS Expected mean squares
Source of Variation
Years (y-1) = 1 M1
Replications /Year y(r-1) = 4 M2
Genotypes (g-1) = 21 M3 σ2e + r σ2gy + ry σ2g
Genotypes x Years (g-1) (y-1) =21 M4 σ2e + r σ2gy
Pooled error y(r-1)(g-1) =84 M5 σ2e
Total yrg – 1 = 131
y= years , r = replications , g = genotypes.

2
σ g = genotypic variance.
σ2e = pooled error variance.
σ2gy = variance due to genotypes x years interaction.
M1, M2, M3. M4 and M5 are mean squares for all sources of variation.
٢٧
-Coefficient of variation:
The following formula was used to compute the coefficient of variation [C.V]
for each trait in both years, separately.
Meansquaresof error
C.V (%) = ×100
Grandmean
-Mean separation:
Least significant difference [LSD] was computed at 5% level of significance
for mean separation of genotypes based on the formula described by Gomez and
Gomez (1984) as:
LSDα = tα Xs-d
2s 2
But s- d =
r
Where:
t = t-value.
α = level of significance for the t-value.
s-d = Standard error of the mean difference.
s2 = average effective error MS.
According to Duncan’s Multiple Range Test (DMR – test), the mean comparison of
treatments was separated at 0.05 level of probability.
(rp )(sd )
Rp = for p = 2, 3, …,t.
2
Where:
t is the total number of treatments.
sd is the standard error of mean difference.

rp are the tabular values of the significance studentized ranges at 5% level of significance.
p is the distance in rank between the pairs of treatment means to be compared.
٢٨
٢٩
3.7.2 Phenotypic (б2ph) and genotypic (б2g) variances
These were estimated from the analysis of variance tables (single year and
combined analysis) as follows:
Phenotypic variance [б2ph] = б2g + б2e
Where:
б2g is the genotypic variance.
б2e is the variance due to experimental error.
Genotypic variance [б2g] = M4 – M5

rs
Where:
rs are numbers of replications and sowing dates, respectively.
M4 is the expected mean squares of genotypes.

M5 is the expected mean squares of genotypes x sowing dates interaction.
3.7.3 Phenotypic (PCV) and genotypic (GCV) coefficients of variation (%)

These were calculated as suggested by Burton (1952) and Burton and
DeVane (1953) as follows:
σ 2 ph
Phenotypic coefficient of variation [PCV%] = × 100
x
σ 2g
Genotypic coefficient of variation [GCV%] = × 100
x
Where:
б2ph = phenotypic variance.
x = grand mean.
٣٠
3.7.4 Heritability (h2), in broad sense
Estimation of heritability (h2) in broad sense was done for each character, in
each year separately, from the analysis of variance tables based on the formula of
Johnson et al. (1955) as:
genotypic variance
h2 = × 100
phenotypic variance
σ 2g
h2 = × 100
σ 2 ph
σ 2g
= ×100
σ 2 g + σ 2 gs / r + σ 2 e / rs
Where:

б2ph = phenotypic variance.
б2gs = variance due to genotypes x sowing dates interaction.
б2e = pooled error variance.
s = number of sowing dates.
Also heritability (h2) estimate on combined analysis of variance was done based on
the following formula.
σ 2g
h2 = × 100
σ 2 g + σ 2 gs / ry + σ 2 gy / rs + σ 2 gsy / r + σ 2 e / rsy
Where:
б2gs = genotypes x sowing dates variance.
б2gy = variance due to genotypes x years interaction.
б2gsy = genotypes x sowing dates x years interaction variance.
б2e = pooled error variance.
s = number of sowing dates.
٣١
y = number of years.
Estimate of h2 for heat tolerance parameters was based on ANOVA (Table 3.4) as:
σ2g
h2 = × 100
σ 2 g + σ 2 gy / r + σ 2 e / ry
3.7.5 Genetic advance (GA)
Estimation of genetic advance was done, using the following formula as
described by Robinson et al. (1949)
K.σ 2 g
GA =
σ 2 ph
Where:
K is the selection differential and equals 2.06 as defined by Lush (1949) for 5%
selection intensity.
б2g and б2ph are genotypic and phenotypic variances.
3.7.6 Genotypic (rg) and phenotypic (rph) correlation coefficients
Formula suggested by Miller et al. (1958) was used to determine the

genotypic and phenotypic correlation coefficients. Covariance analysis was carried
out between the different traits of the experiment, following the same procedure as in
the analysis of variance table. Genotypic and phenotypic covariances were
estimated, which then used to determine the genotypic and phenotypic correlation
coefficients between pairs of the different traits under study. These correlations
computed as follows:
σg1.2
Genotypic correlation coefficient (rg) =
(σ g1)(σ 2 g 2)
2
Where:
бg1.2 is the genotypic covariance between two traits 1 and 2.
б2g1 and б2g2 are genotypic variances for trait 1 and trait 2, respectively.
٣٢
σph1.2
Phenotypic correlation coefficient (rph) =
(σ 2 ph1)(σ 2 ph 2)
Where:
бph1.2 is the phenotypic covariance between two traits 1 and 2.
б2ph1 and б2ph2 are phenotypic variances for trait 1 and trait 2, respectively.
The computation of genotypic and phenotypic correlation coefficients was for all
possible pair wise combinations between the traits during both years, separately.
3.7.7 Stability analysis

One of the most important and desirable property of a genotype to be released
as a variety for a wide cultivation is yield stability in performance of various field
crops (Finlay and Wilkinson, 1963; Eberhart and Russell, 1966; Tai and Young,
1972; Faris et al., 1981). This stability analysis was performed for seed yield/plant
of the genotypes, which were tested under three different dates of sowing for two
years. These factors (years x sowing dates) were combined to form six macro-
environments (ME) to carry out stability analysis (Table 3.5) as suggested by
Eberhart and Russell (1966).
This yield stability analysis had been carried out in the case that, the variance due to
genotype x environment was significant. Therefore, the parameters used to estimate
yield stability were:
(i) The regression coefficient
This method was developed by Yates and Cochran (1938) and expended upon
by Finlay and Wilkinson (1963) and last by Eberhart and Russell (1966). Due to this
method, genotype means from individual environments are regressed on the
environmental means according to the underlying statistical model of Utz (1972).
٣٣
yij = µ + gi + βipj + dij + rj1 + eij1
Where:
yij is the mean yield of the i-th genotype in the j-th environment.
µ is the mean of all the genotypes over all the environments.
gi is the effect of the i-th genotype.
pj is the effect of the j-th environment.
βi is the regression coefficient of the i-th genotype on the environmental index, which
measures the response of this genotype to varying environment.
dij is the deviation from the regression.
rj1 is the effect of replication 1 in the j-th environment.
eij1 is the experimental error.
dij effects were considered as random variables with mean zero and variance б2d.
٣٤
Table 3.5: Combined ANOVA for yield stability of the 22 genotypes of faba bean,
across six macro-environments (NS1E 2001/02, HS2E 2001/02, HS3E 2001/02, NS1E
2002/03, HS2E 2002/03 and HS3E 2002/03) with three replications.
Source of variation df MQ F- E(MQ)

calculated
Environments e-1 MQ1 б2e + gб2r + rб2ge + grб2e
Replications/Env. e(r-1) MQ2 MQ2/MQ8 б2e + gб2r
Genotypes g-1 MQ3 MQ3/MQ4 б2e + rб2ge + erб2g
Genotypes x (g-1)(e-1) MQ4 MQ4/MQ8 б2e + rб2ge

environments
Regression. Geonotypes g-2 MQ5 MQ5/MQ7 б2e + rб2d + erб2g
Regression. Environments e-2 MQ6 MQ6/MQ7 б2e + rб2d +grб2e
Deviations from (g-2)(e-2) MQ7 MQ7/MQ8 б2e + rб2d

regression
Pooled error e(r-1)(g-1) MQ8 б2e
٣٥
Genotypes with regression coefficient b>1 are considered to be more adapted to
favourable environment, while those with regression coefficient b<1 are considered
to be more adapted to adverse environment.
Thus,
b = Σj Yij Ij /ΣjI2j
Where:
Σj Yij Ij is the sum of products and ΣjI2j is the sum of squares.
(ii) Mean square deviations (s-2d)
Mean square deviation from linear regression is one of the stability parameter
used, and its formula is as follows:
-2
s d=
∑σ j
2
ij
−
s 2a
(s − 2) r
Where:
Yi2 (∑ j Y ijI j )
∑ j σ 2ij = [∑ j Y 2ij − ]−
t ∑ j I 2j
And s2a = the estimate of pooled error.
Genotypes or environments, which reveal small values of s-2d are considered of

higher yield stability.
(iii) The variance
The other parameter used to determine yield stability was variance [б2] due to
deviations from regression for a genotype, which was calculated according to the
below formula.
٣٦
Yi2 (∑ j Y I j ) 2
∑σ 2
= [∑ j Y ij −
2
]−
ij
∑ j I 2j
ij
t
٣٧
Where:
ΣjY2ij – Y2i/t is the variance due to dependent variable.
(ΣjYij Ij)2 /Σj I2j is the variance due to regression because,
(ΣjYij Ij)2 = (ΣjYij Ij)(ΣjYij Ij)
Σj I2j Σj Ij2
= biΣj Yij Ij.
Genotype showing small variance across environments is said to be highly stable.
(iv) The ecovalence [Wi]
This is described by Wricke (1962), which measures the contribution of an

individual genotype to the genotype x environment components of variance. Its
formula is:
Wi = Σ (Yij – Yi – Yj + Y)2
Where:
Yij is the mean performance of the i-th genotype in the j-th environment.
Yi, Yj and Y are the marginal means of the i-th genotype, the j-th environment and
overall means, respectively (Becker and Le'on, 1988)
High stability is indicated by low value of Wi.
In general, a genotype with regression coefficient (b) equal to 1.0 and with mean
square deviations from regression (s-2d) equals to zero is the more stable one. But
genotype that did not meet both these qualifications would be considered unstable.
That is, genotypes with b = 1.0 and s-2d ≠ 0, or with b ≠ 1.0 and s-2d = 0 or with b ≠
1.0 and s-2d ≠ 0 would all be regarded unstable (Eberhart and Russell, 1966).
٣٨
٣٩
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS
4.1 Environmental Conditions
Data collected from the Meteorological Observatory Station on environmental

conditions revealed high variation in the amount of temperature and relative
humidity during the growing seasons (2001/02 and 2002/03) and between months
(November – April) within the same year (Table 4.1). However, in the first year the
highest (29.2oC) value of temperature was in April and the lowest (20.4oC) value was
in January. The highest (28.7%) value of relative humidity was in December and the
lowest (14.0%) value was in April. In the second year, the highest (31.3oC) value of
temperature was in April also, while the lowest (21.9oC) value was in December.
Meanwhile, the values of relative humidity were highest (30.0%) in November and
lowest (15.8%) in March. The average monthly temperatures during the growing
season were 25.7o and 26.1oC for the years 2001/02 and 2002/03, respectively. The
average monthly relative humidity was 22.9 and 21.9 percent for the years 2001/02
and 2002/03, respectively (Table 4.1).
Table 4.1: Means of air temperature (oC) and relative humidity (%) for two
years (2001/02 and 2002/03) at Shambat.
Month Temperature ( oC) Relative Humidity (%)
2001/02 2002/03 2001/02 2002/03
November 27.1 28.4 26.9 30.0
December 25.0 21.9 28.7 26.5
January 20.4 23.0 25.6 26.6
February 25.0 24.6 24.8 16.6
March 27.2 27.2 17.3 15.8
April 29.2 31.3 14.0 15.9
Mean 25.7 26.1 22.9 21.9
٤٠
4.2 Performance of Genotypes Over Years
The means of the 22 faba bean genotypes averaged over two years and three
dates of sowing exhibited significant variations for most of the investigated traits
(Table 4.2). The values of most of the investigated traits were higher in the second
year (2002/03) than in the first year (2001/02). For example, plant height ranged
from 81.7–93.5cm and seed yield (kg/ha) ranged from 2022–2806kg/ha, with
coefficients of variation 7.0% and 19.5%, respectively. Therefore, in comparing
these ranges, environment in the second year was more favorable than in the first
year. Traits such as days to 95% maturity, pod-setting percentage and number of
podded nodes/main stem gave high values in the first year than in the second year
(Table 4.2).
4.3 Effect of Sowing Date on Vegetative and Reproductive Characters
Significant differences (P ≤ 0.05) were exhibited between different sowing

dates for most of the characters under investigation in each year (Table 4.3).
However, in the first year highly significant (P ≤ 0.01) differences due to sowing
dates were observed on days to 50% flowering, 100-seed weight, dry matter/plant
and seed yield/plant, while in the second year they were recorded for characters such
as height to first podded node/ stem, number of reproductive branches/plant, days to
95% maturity and harvest index (Table 4.3). The result of combined analysis (Table
4.4) revealed highly significant differences due to sowing dates for most of the
investigated traits. The significant differences (P ≤ 0.05) were exhibited by traits,
namely; pod length, number of seeds/pod and seed yield per unit area (Table 4.4).
٤١
Table 4.2: Means of the 22 genotypes of faba bean for some of traits averaged over three dates of sowing (S1, S2 and S3) at Shambat, for the two years 2001/02 and 2002/03.
TRAITS 2001/02 2002/03 Means C.V% LSD 5%

1 Plant height (cm) 81.7 93.5 87.6 7.0 3.91**
2 Height to 1st podded node/stem (cm) 32.4 40.1 36.2 9.5 2.06**
3 Pod length (cm) 4.90 5.64 5.27 6.6 0.11**
4 No. of rep. branches/plant 1.21 1.27 1.24 23.8 0.09ns
5 Days to 50% flowering 37.9 39.6 38.8 4.9 2.08ns
6 Days to 95% maturity 105.8 98.8 102.3 2.3 1.83**
7 Pod-setting percentage (%) 10.1 9.0 9.6 16.8 0.85*
8 No. of podded nodes/main stem 5.11 4.11 4.61 13.8 0.49*
9 No. of pods/plant 11.0 8.95 9.97 17.2 1.40*
10 No. of seeds/pod 2.45 2.59 2.50 8.7 0.04*
11 No. of seeds/plant 26.6 23.2 24.9 19.1 2.66*
12 100-seed weight (g) 43.7 51.7 47.7 7.9 1.20**
13 Dry matter/plant (g) 21.9 26.1 24.0 18.0 2.15**
14 Harvest index (%) 0.49 0.44 0.46 9.0 0.05ns
15 Seed yield/plant (g) 11.0 11.6 11.3 18.9 0.91ns
16 Seed yield (kg/ha) 2022 2806 2414 19.5 219.6**
*, ** Are significant at the 5% and 1% probability level, respectively.
ns is non-significant difference (at 5% probability level).
For S1, S2 and S3, see Materials and Methods.
٤٢
Table 4.3: Mean squares due to Treatments (T), Genotypes (G), and their interactions (G x T) for some of the investigated traits
in 22 genotypes of faba bean, evaluated under three dates of sowing (S1, S2 and S3) for two years (2001/02 and 2002/03) at
Shambat.
TRAITS FIRST YEAR (2001/02) SECOND YEAR (2002/03)

T G G×T T G G×T
df = 2 df = 21 df = 42 df = 2 df =21 df = 42
Plant height (cm) 6767.7* 100.77** 33.897 ns 1842.59 ns 129.73** 46.936 ns
Height to 1st podded node/stem (cm) 339.04 ns 14.034 ns 15.113* 796.18** 39.999** 13.924 ns
Pod length (cm) 6.3837* 0.5195** 0.1678 ns 2.0978 ns
0.4510** 0.0823 ns
ns ns
No. of reproductive branches/plant 5.0229 0.1590 0.1035 ns 5.6790** 0.1560** 0.0658 ns
Days to 50% flowering 865.88** 3.6797 ns 4.3550 ns 73.015 ns 9.8114** 3.4067 ns
Days to 95% maturity 555.65* 9.9211* 5.9002ns 2038.1** 13.548** 8.4081 ns
Pod-setting percentage (%) 272.44* 11.846** 3.0035ns 43.468 ns 13.076** 2.1286 ns
No. of podded nodes/main stem 77.947* 1.8445** 0.4171 ns 17.840 ns
1.9236** 0.3294ns
No. of pods/plant 678.62* 7.4583** 3.2794 ns 292.20* 8.5281** 2.7182 ns
No. of seeds/pod 1.9708 ns 0.0459 ns 0.0523ns 0.0482 ns 0.1434** 0.0519 ns
No. of seeds/plant 4838.1* 42.009* 28.491 ns 2017.8* 93.050** 23.916 ns
ns
100-seed weight (g) 3075.9** 102.97** 20.181* 534.09 248.80** 19.186 ns
Dry matter/plant (g) 4528.6** 27.366** 15.191 ns 1768.6 ns 43.424* 24.893 ns
Harvest index (%) 0.3375* 0.0037** 0.0023* 0.1786** 0.0041** 0.0011 ns
Seed yield/plant (g) 1708.7** 9.0592** 4.9381 ns 751.46* 11.310** 6.5408 ns
Seed yield (kg/ha) 133609455* 230072 ns 155143 ns 37217825* 562755** 282887 ns
*, ** Are significant at the 0.05 and 0.01 probability levels, respectively.
ns is non-significant difference (at 0.05 probability level).
٤٣
Table 4.4: Mean squares from combined analysis due to Years (Y), Treatments (T), Genotypes (G), and their interactions (T x
Y; G x T and G x Y) for different traits in 22 genotypes of faba bean, evaluated under three dates of sowing (SI, S2 and S3) for
two years (2001/02 and 2002/03) at Shambat.
T TxY G GxT GxY

TRAITS Y
df = 1 df = 2 df = 2 df = 21 df = 42 df = 21
Plant height (cm) 13951** 4839.6 ns 3770.7 ns 149.02** 31.077ns 81.482**
Height to 1st podded node/stem (cm) 5960.2** 114.63 ns 1020.6** 37.839** 15.051 ns 16.193 ns
Pod length (cm) 54.628** 7.7453* 0.7362 ns 0.7387** 0.1034 ns 0.2318*
No. of reproductive branches/plant 0.3946 ns 9.5837** 1.1182 ns 0.2360** 0.0901 ns 0.0791 ns
Days to 50% flowering 285.09 ns 514.37** 424.52** 7.8288** 4.3342 ns 5.6623 ns
Days to 95% maturity 4928.3** 1701.4** 892.37** 14.476** 7.7702 ns 8.9934 ns
Pod-setting percentage (%) 108.73* 245.68** 70.232 ns 20.097** 2.2490 ns 4.8248*
No. of podded nodes/main stem 99.100* 84.931** 10.856 ns 3.0463** 0.4294 ns 0.7218*
No. of pods/plant 410.94* 924.56** 46.264ns 11.252** 3.5165 ns 4.7339*
No. of seeds/pod 3.2727** 1.2682* 0.7509ns 0.1190** 0.0464 ns 0.0704 ns
No. of seeds/ plant 1158.4* 6548.8** 307.07 ns 98.674** 30.738 ns 36.386*
100-seed weight (g) 6358.4** 3081.2** 528.79ns 297.05** 22.275* 54.726**
Dry matter/ plant (g) 1713.2** 5734.3** 562.87ns 39.671** 17.736 ns 31.119*
Harvest index (%) 0.2133 ns 0.4805** 0.0357ns 0.0050** 0.0016 ns 0.0028*
Seed yield/ plant (g) 33.014 ns 2345.1** 115.00 ns 11.080** 5.9627 ns 9.2890**
Seed yield (kg/ha) 60798976** 150156653* 20670627* 355681* 189488 ns 437146**
**, * = Significant at the 0.01 and 0.05 probability level, respectively.
٤٤
ns = Non- significant difference (at 0.05 probability level).
٤٥
4.3.1 Effect of sowing dates on vegetative characters
Generally, most of the characters showed variations between years in their
response to sowing dates. Values of most of the vegetative characters were higher in
the second year than in the first year due to the effect of the treatments S2 and S3.
The terminal heat stress (S3) greatly and significantly reduced the values of all
vegetative character (Tables 4.5–4.7), with some exceptions. In the first year, most
of the vegetative characters were slightly reduced in their values due to the effect of
treatment S2 compared to S1 as control (Table 4.5), whereas pod length was not
affected by treatment S2. But, when we compared treatment S3 with S1, the treatment
S3 decreased greatly the values of most of the characters, with exception of days to
50% flowering, which increased in its value (Table 4.5). While, in the second year,
the treatment S2 exhibited high increase in the values of some vegetative characters
with slight reduction in the values of others (Table 4.6).
In the first year, treatment S2 reduced days to 95% maturity significantly by
5%, but there was non-significant decrease in the values of other vegetative
characters (Table 4.5). Pod-setting percentage was significantly increased due to the
effect of treatment S2 (Table 4.5). In the second year, the effect due to treatment S2
on days to 95% maturity and pod-setting percentage was not significant. Induction of
heat stress by delaying the sowing date 28 days (S3) from the optimum date (S1)
greatly and significantly reduced pod length, days to 95% maturity and pod-setting
percentage by 11%, 3% and 25%, respectively, in the first year. Days to 50%
flowering were significantly increased due to the effect of treatment S3 (Table 4.5).
In the second year, however, treatment S3 significantly reduced the values of number
of reproductive branches/plant and days to 95% maturity by 32% and 11%,
respectively. Meanwhile, it significantly increased height to first podded node/stem
and non-significantly increased plant height (Table 4.6).
For the average of both years, treatment S3 significantly decreased the
vegetative characters, namely; plant height, pod length, number of reproductive
branches/plant, days to 95% maturity and pod-setting percentage by 11%, 7%, 24%,
7% and 21%, respectively. Height to first podded node/stem was non-significantly
increased, while days to 50% flowering was significantly increased (Table 4.7).
٤٦
Table 4.5: Means of vegetative characters of the 22 genotypes of faba bean, evaluated under three dates of sowing (S1, S2 and S3)
in the first year (2001/02), at Shambat.
Treatments
Vegetative characters S1 S2 S3
Means C.V %
Plant height (cm) 90.7a 83.5a 70.7a 81.7 32.5
Height to first podded node/stem (cm) 34.9a 30.7a 31.5a 32.4 32.3
Pod length (cm) 5.08a 5.08a 4.54b 4.90 18.0
No. of reproductive branches/plant 1.48a 1.22a 0.93a 1.21 68.6
Days to 50% flowering 35.9bc 35.8c 42.1a 37.9 17.4
Days to 95% maturity 108.8a 103.1c 105.6bc 105.8 5.6
Pod-setting percentage (%) 10.5b 11.9a 7.9c 10.1 9.0
* Means followed by the same letters are not significantly different at 5% probability level according to DMR – Test.
For S1, S2 and S3 see Materials and Methods.
٤٧
Table 4.6: Means of vegetative characters of the 22 genotypes of faba bean, evaluated under three dates of sowing
(S1, S2 and S3) in the second year (2002/03), at Shambat.
Treatments
Vegetative characters S1 S2 S3 Means C.V%
Plant height (cm) 90.5a 99.6a 90.5a 93.5 44.4
Height to first podded node/stem (cm) 36.3c 40.9b 43.2a 40.1 12.5
Pod length (cm) 5.69a 5.79a 5.45a 5.64 22.2
No. of reproductive branches/plant 1.39a 1.48a 0.94b 1.27 43.5
Days to 50% flowering 40.6a 38.5b 39.8ab 39.6 10.8
Days to 95% maturity 103.6a 100.1a 92.7b 98.8 9.2
Pod-setting percentage (%) 9.7a 9.3a 8.1a 9.0 69.3
* Means followed by the same letters are not significantly different at 5% probability level according to DMR-Test.
٤٨
Table 4.7: Means of vegetative characters of the 22 genotypes of faba bean, evaluated under three dates of sowing (S1, S2 and S3)
across two years (2001/02 and 2002/03), at Shambat.
Treatments
Vegetative characters S1 S2 S3 Means C.V%
Plant height (cm) 90.6 a 91.6 a 80.6 b 87.6 39.8
Height to first podded node/stem (cm) 35.6 a 35.8 a 37.3 a 36.2 22.6
Pod length (cm) 5.39 a 5.43 a 4.99 b 5.27 20.5
No. of reproductive branches/plant 1.43 a 1.35 a 0.93 b 1.24 56.9
Days to 50% flowering 38.2 b 37.1 b 41.0 a 38.8 14.3
Days to 95% maturity 106.2 a 101.6 b 99.1 c 102.3 7.5
Pod-setting percentage (%) 10.1 a 10.6 a 8.0 a 9.6 46.4
* Means followed by the same letters are not significantly different at 5% probability level according to DMR-Test.
For S1, S2 and S3, see Materials and Methods
٤٩
4.3.2 Effect of sowing dates on reproductive characters
In the separate year and the combined analysis (Figures 1-9), there were
significant differences between the effects of sowing date treatments on most of the
reproductive characters. For the average of both years, treatments S2 and S3
significantly reduced number of pods/plant; seed yield/plant and seed yield per unit
area (Figs. 2, 8 and 9). Number of seeds/plant was significantly reduced due to the
effect of treatment S3 (Fig. 4). In the first year, treatments S2 and S3 significantly
reduced dry matter/plant and seed yield per unit area (Figs. 6 and 9). Treatment S3
significantly reduced number of podded nodes/main stem, number of pods/plant,
100-seed weight, harvest index, seed yield/plant and seed yield per unit area (Figs. 1,
2, 6, 7, 8 and 9). In the second year, number of pods/plant, number of seeds/plant,
harvest index, seed yield/plant and seed yield per unit area were reduced due to the
effect of treatment S3 (Figs. 2, 4, 7, 8 and 9).
Number of podded nodes/main stem was not significantly reduced due to the
effect of treatment S2 in the first year, second year and their average (Fig. 1). For the
average of both years, treatment S2 significantly reduced number of pods/plant by
14%, although, in the first and second years, there were no significant reductions
(Fig. 2). Non-significant reductions were caused by treatment S2 for number of
seeds/pod in the first year, second year and their average (Fig. 3). The same result
was recorded for number of seeds/plant (Fig. 4) and 100-seed weight (Fig. 5). In the
first year, treatment S2 exhibited significant reduction for dry matter/plant by 25%,
whereas in the second year and for the average of both years, the reduction was not
significant (Fig. 6). For each year and their average, treatment S2 non-significantly
reduced harvest index (Fig. 7). However, treatment S2 significantly reduced seed
yield/plant by 17% for the average of both years, although the reduction was non-
significant in the first and second years (Fig. 8). Moreover, treatment S2 reduced
significantly seed yield (kg/ha) by 43% and 25% in the first year and the average, but
in the second year, the reduction was not significant (Fig. 9).
Treatment S3 resulted in significant decrease in the value of number of

podded nodes/main stem by 33% and 28% in the first year and the average,
respectively, while the reduction was non-significant in the second year (Fig. 1).
Number of pods/plant was significantly reduced due to the effect of treatment S3 by
٥٠
46%, 38% and 42% in the first year, second year and their average, respectively (Fig.
2). Moreover, treatment S3 resulted in non-significant reduction in the value of
number of seeds/pod in the first and second years and their average (Fig. 3). In
addition, treatment S3 significantly reduced number of seeds/plant by 49% in the first
year, 38% in the second year and 45% for their average (Fig. 4). In the first year,
100-seed weight was significantly reduced by 27%, whereas for the average it was
decreased by 18%. In the second year, the reduction was non-significant (Fig. 5).
Significant decrease was exhibited by treatment S3 for dry matter/plant in the first
year and for the average, which was 55% and 44%, respectively. In the second year
the reduction was non-significant (Fig. 6). However, harvest index was reduced
significantly by 25%, 20% and 22% due to the effect of treatment S3 in the first year,
second year and their average, respectively (Fig. 7). Also seed yield/plant was
reduced significantly due to the effect of treatment S3 by 64%, 45% and 55% in the
first year, second year and their average, respectively (Fig. 8). Treatment S3
significantly decreased seed yield (kg/ha) by 82% in the first year, 42% in the second
year and 62% for their average (Fig. 9).
٥١
7
6 a a
a
a
No. of podded nodes/main stem
5
a
a
4 b b
a
0
First year Second year Average
S1 S2 S3
Figure 1. Means of number of podded nodes/main stem of the 22 genotypes of faba bean evaluated
under three dates of sowing (S1, S2 and S3) for two years (2001/02 and 2002/03) at Shambat.
Means followed by the same letters are not significantly different at 5% probability level according to DMR-Test
٥٢
16
a
14
a
12 a
a b
10 a
No. of pods/plant
8 b
c
b
6
0
S1 S2 S3
Figure 2. Means of number of pods/plant of the 22 genotypes of faba bean evaluated under three dates
of sowing (S1, S2 and S3) for two years (2001/02 and 2002/03) at Shambat.
٥٣
2.7
a
a a
2.6 a a
a
2.5
a
a
No. of seeds/pod
2.4
2.3
a
2.2
2.1
2
S1 S2 S3
Figure 3. Means of number of seeds/pod of the 22 genotypes of faba bean evaluated under
three dates of sowing (S1, S2 and S3) for two years (2001/02 and 2002/03) at Shambat.
٤٩
40
35 a
a a
30
a
a
a
25
No. of seeds/plant
20
b b
b
15
10
0
S1 S2 S3
Figure 4. Means of number of seeds/plant of the 22 genotypes of faba bean evaluated under
three dates of sowing (S1, S2 and S3) for two years (2001/02 and 2002/03) at Shambat.
٥٠
60
a
a a
a a
a
50
a
b
40
b
100 - seed weight (g)
30
20
10
0
S1 S2 S3
Figure 5. Means of 100-seed weight (g) of the 22 genotypes of faba bean evaluated under three
dates of sowing (S1, S2 and S3) for two years (2001/02 and 2002/03) at Shambat.
٥١
35
a
30 a a a
a
25
b
Dry matter/plant (g)
a
20
b
15 c
10
0
S1 S2 S3
Figure 6. Means of dry matter/plant (g) of the 22 genotypes of faba bean evaluated under three
٥٢
0.6
a a a
a
0.5 a
a
b b b
0.4
Harvest index (%)
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
S1 S2 S3
Figure 7. Means of harvest index (%) of the 22 genotypes of faba bean evaluated under three
٥٣
18
16 a
a
a
14 a
b
a
12
Seed yield/plant (g)
10
8 b
c
6 b
0
S1 S2 S3
Figure 8. Means of seed yield/plant (g) of the 22 genotypes of faba bean evaluated under three
٥٤
٥٥
4000
a
3500 a a
a
3000
b
2500
Seed yield (kg/ha)
2000 b b
1500
c
1000
c
500
0
S1 S2 S3
Figure 9. Means of seed yield (kg/ha) of the 22 genotypes of faba bean evaluated under three
٥٦
4.4 Performance of Genotypes Under Heat Stress
The following traits were used to show the performance of genotypes under
different heat stresses.
4.4.1 Plant height (cm)

According to the result in Appendix 1 terminal heat stress (S3) caused
reductions of plant height in all genotypes in the first year, whereas in the second
year, there was an exception of some genotypes, namely; C.86, C.52/1/1/1, Daba1/1,
F402/7, D.E.2, Mass55, C.42 and BB7. For the average of both years, all genotypes
were reduced in height (Table 4.8). Generally, means of treatments S2 and S3 were
less than that of treatment S1 as control in the first year, while in the second year;
they were greater than the control (Appendix 1). The overall mean of S2 treatment
was greater than the control for the average of both years (Table 4.8).
The genotype that gave the highest value under terminal heat stress (S3) in the
first year was BB25 and the least value was given by Daba1/1. In the second year,
the highest value was given by genotype Mass55 and the lowest value was given by
genotype C.80/1 (Appendix 1). For the average of both years, genotype Mass55
gave the highest value, whereas the genotype C.80/1 gave the lowest value (Table
4.8).
٥٧
Table 4.8: Means of the 22 genotypes of faba bean for plant height (cm),
evaluated under three dates of sowing (S1, S2 and S3) averaged over two
Code No. Genotypes Treatments (2001/02 and 2002/03)

S1 S2 S3
1 91.5 95.3 80.8
P.M/1
2 C.86 91.2 94.6 84.5
3 C.34 85.2 86.9 76.5
4 C.52/1/1/1 87.3 93.1 80.2
5 C.28 85.5 89.1 76.6
6 Daba1/1 91.7 90.3 79.4
7 F402/7 87.8 89.6 82.5
8 C.80/1 85.4 89.8 72.5
9 C.36 87.8 87.6 78.7
10 SuperL.85 91.0 93.7 80.5
11 D.E.2 92.2 92.8 80.6
12 Bulk1/2 93.9 94.8 84.0
13 C.22 97.4 89.7 82.1
14 C.42/1/1/1 86.3 91.0 78.0
15 BB25 97.8 91.3 85.3
16 Golid1 93.0 90.7 75.5
17 ZBF1/1 88.9 91.6 78.9
18 Berber1 90.9 91.3 81.1
19 Mass55 91.6 94.6 87.4
20 C.42 88.5 86.0 81.0
21 BB7 94.8 97.1 87.1
22 H93 93.5 93.9 80.9
Means 90.6 91.6 80.6
٥٨
4.4.2 Pod-setting percentage (%)
In the first year and for the average of both years, terminal heat stress (S3)
reduced number of pod set for all genotypes (Appendix 2 and Table 4.9). In the
second year, all genotypes exhibited a reduction in the values of pod-setting
percentage, with rare exceptions of some genotypes such as SuperL.85 and C.42
(Appendix 2). The general mean of percentage of pod set for treatment S2 was
higher than that of treatment S1 (control) in the first year and for the average of both
years (Appendix 2 and Table 4.9).
Genotype that gave the highest pod-setting percentage under terminal heat
stress (S3) in the first year was C.52/1/1/1 and in the second year and for the average
of both years was P.M/1 (Appendix 2 and Table 4.9). The genotypes gave the least
percentage of pod set were C.80/1, C.86 and C.34, in the first year, second year and
the average of both years, respectively (Appendix 2 and Table 4.9).
٥٨
Table 4.9: Means of the 22 genotypes of faba bean for pod-setting percentage
(%), evaluated under three dates of sowing (S1, S2 and S3) averaged over two
S1 S2 S3
1 P.M/1 11.3 12.6 10.2
2 C.86 8.4 8.8 7.7
3 C.34 10.2 10.1 6.4
4 C.52/1/1/1 11.2 11.2 9.6
5 C.28 9.0 10.2 7.7
6 Daba1/1 10.0 10.6 7.9
7 F402/7 9.4 9.6 7.4
8 C.80/1 10.5 11.4 7.1
9 C.36 10.7 10.8 8.6
10 SuperL.85 9.4 10.9 8.6
11 D.E.2 11.6 12.6 7.8
12 Bulk1/2 11.7 13.2 9.3
13 C.22 9.9 10.0 7.7
14 C.42/1/1/1 8.0 8.4 7.1
15 BB25 9.4 9.9 6.9
16 Golid1 8.1 8.4 6.7
17 ZBF1/1 11.3 10.9 8.5
18 Berber1 9.7 9.8 7.5
19 Mass55 10.9 10.6 7.9
20 C.42 8.6 9.4 8.1
21 BB7 11.2 11.6 9.4
22 H93 11.3 12.2 8.3
Means 10.1 10.6 8.0
٥٩
4.4.3 100-seed weight (g)
The values of this trait were reduced for all genotypes under terminal heat
stress (S3) in the first year and the average of both years (Appendix 3 and Table
4.10). In the second year, there were exceptions of some genotypes such as Bulk1/2
and ZBF1/1 (Appendix 3).
C.42/1/1/1 genotype gave the highest value of 100-seed weight in the first
and second years and their average. The lowest values were given by genotypes
C.80/1 in the first year, P.M/1 in the second year and Berber1 for the average of both
years (Appendix 3 and Table 4.10).
Table 4.10: Means of the 22 genotypes of faba bean for 100-seed weight (g),
evaluated under three dates of sowing (S1, S2 and S3) averaged over two years
(2001/02 and 2002/03), at Shambat.

S1 S2 S3
1 P.M/1 49.4 45.9 36.3
2 C.86 59.6 57.0 47.8
3 C.34 49.8 46.0 39.6
4 C.52/1/1/1 50.8 47.9 42.0
5 C.28 50.6 49.9 43.0
6 Daba1/1 50.2 48.4 40.4
7 F402/7 53.7 48.2 43.9
8 C.80/1 49.8 46.0 36.5
9 C.36 52.8 45.8 41.1
10 SuperL.85 49.6 47.0 39.2
11 D.E.2 47.8 40.5 39.2
12 Bulk1/2 48.7 44.3 45.1
13 C.22 53.5 51.6 44.0
14 C.42/1/1/1 59.7 60.8 50.8
15 BB25 58.0 58.8 46.8
16 Golid1 57.5 56.2 46.2
17 ZBF1/1 47.8 45.6 43.0
18 Berber1 44.9 44.3 35.3
19 Mass55 50.6 49.1 45.4
20 C.42 53.0 52.0 43.4
21 BB7 48.5 46.9 42.9
22 H93 52.3 46.4 40.0
Means 51.8 49.0 42.4
٦٠
4.4.4 Dry matter/plant (g)
High-temperature stress depressed dry matter weight of all genotypes in both

years and their average (Appendix 4 and Table 4.11).
The genotypes which gave the highest values of dry matter/plant under
terminal heat stress (S3) were C.86 in the first year and the average of both years and
C.42 in the second year, while the lowest values in the first and second years and
their average were given by genotype C.80/1 (Appendix 4 and Table 4.11).
Table 4.11: Means of the 22 genotypes of faba bean for dry matter/plant (g),
(2001/02 and 2002/03), at Shambat.
Code No. Treatments (2001/02 and 2002/03)

Genotypes
S1 S2 S3
1 P.M/1 31.7 25.0 16.8
2 C.86 31.0 26.3 19.4
3 C.34 27.5 22.3 14.1
4 C.52/1/1/1 28.1 28.3 19.3
5 C.28 25.1 25.6 16.2
6 Daba1/1 30.2 25.2 15.4
7 F402/7 27.5 25.4 15.9
8 C.80/1 25.4 24.8 12.7
9 C.36 29.7 26.3 18.1
10 SuperL.85 26.3 27.2 16.1
11 D.E.2 28.8 23.6 15.2
12 Bulk1/2 31.9 25.8 17.8
13 C.22 34.0 24.8 18.3
14 C.42/1/1/1 27.3 27.3 17.2
15 BB25 34.8 27.9 17.5
16 Golid1 28.9 24.1 15.7
17 ZBF1/1 29.2 25.3 16.9
18 Berber1 33.0 24.7 15.4
19 Mass55 27.7 23.9 18.1
20 C.42 29.0 26.3 19.0
21 BB7 32.2 26.7 17.6
22 H93 33.2 26.7 16.0
Means 29.7 25.6 16.8
٦١
4.4.5 Seed yield/plant (g)
Seed yield/plant of all genotypes was reduced under terminal heat stress (S3)
during both years and their average. The highest seed yield/plant under terminal heat
stress (S3) were given by genotypes C.86 and C.52/1/1/1 in the first year, C.42 in the
second year and C.52/1/1/1 for the average of both years. The lowest seed
yield/plant in the first year and the average of both years was produced by genotype
C.80/1 and in the second year was obtained by genotype D.E.2 (Appendix 5 and
Table 4.12).
Table 4.12: Means of the 22 genotypes of faba bean for seed yield/plant (g),
(2001/02 and 2002/03), at Shambat.

S1 S2 S3
1 P.M/1 15.7 12.3 7.28
2 C.86 15.5 11.8 7.26
3 C.34 14.2 10.4 5.58
4 C.52/1/1/1 13.4 14.5 7.93
5 C.28 12.6 12.5 6.42
6 Daba1/1 15.6 12.1 6.38
7 F402/7 14.1 12.3 6.21
8 C.80/1 13.2 11.7 4.90
9 C.36 15.4 12.0 6.98
10 SuperL.85 13.2 13.9 6.93
11 D.E.2 14.3 11.0 5.74
12 Bulk1/2 17.0 13.7 7.46
13 C.22 17.0 11.6 7.39
14 C.42/1/1/1 13.3 13.1 7.16
15 BB25 16.7 12.8 6.26
16 Golid1 13.3 11.1 5.85
17 ZBF1/1 15.1 12.4 7.12
18 Berber1 16.5 11.2 5.49
19 Mass55 14.2 11.3 6.79
20 C.42 14.7 13.0 7.93
21 BB7 16.9 13.0 7.30
22 H93 16.6 13.6 6.51
Means 14.9 12.3 6.68
٦٢
4.5 Heat Tolerance
4.5.1 Genetic variability for heat tolerance parameters
Table 4.13 illustrates the combined analysis of heat tolerance to show the
genetic variability for different heat tolerance parameters. Significant (P≤ 0.05)
differences between genotypes were observed for YS3 parameter. However, other
heat tolerance parameters revealed non-significant differences between genotypes
(Table 4.13). Variation due to interaction of genotypes x years was non significant
for all heat tolerance parameters, except Yp parameter, which showed significant
differences (Table 4.13).
Means of heat tolerance parameters based on seed yield/plant of 22 genotypes

of Vicia faba are illustrated in Table 4.14. The treatment S2 reduced seed yield/plant
of most of the genotypes, but its effect is less than that of treatment S3, which gave
small values of seed yield/plant (Table 4.14).
Twenty-two genotypes performed differently due to different dates of

sowing. The highest (17.0g) value of seed yield potential/plant (Yp) was produced
by genotypes Bulk1/2 and C.22, whereas the lowest (12.6g) value of seed yield
potential/plant (Yp) was produced by genotype C.28. When the sowing was delayed
by 14 days (S2), seed yield/plant (YS2) ranged between 10.4g and 14.5g obtained by
genotypes C.34 and C.52/1/1/1, respectively (Table 4.14). Seed yield/plant ranged
from 4.90g for genotype C.80/1 to 7.93g for genotypes C.52/1/1/1 and C.42 when
sowing was delayed by 28 days (S3).
Measurement of heat tolerance by Y/Yp revealed high values of seed yield

under treatment S2 and low values obtained when genotypes subjected to treatment S3
(Table 4.14). The highest (1.08) value of Y/Yp under treatment S2 obtained by
genotype C.52/1/1/1. When, the genotypes were subjected to terminal heat stress
(S3), the highest (0.59) value of Y/Yp was also produced by genotype C.52/1/1/1
(Table 4.14).
Generally, stress susceptibility index (SSI) showed high values under

treatment S2 than under treatment S3 for most of genotypes. The lowest values of
SSI under treatments S2 and S3 were –0.34 and 0.74, which were obtained for
genotypes SuperL.85 and C.52/1/1/1, respectively (Table4.14).
٦٣
٦٤
Table 4.13: Variance components due to Genotypes (G) and the interaction of
Genotypes with Years (G x Y) of the 22 genotypes of faba bean for heat
tolerance parameters (Yp, Y, Y/Yp and SSI), across two years (2001/02 and
2002/03).
Heat tolerance parameters Variance components due to
G GxY
df = 21 df = 21
Yp S1 § -0.668 ns 2.311*
Y S2 0.345 ns 0.084ns
S3 0.285* 0.093 ns
Y/Yp S2 0.001ns 1.210ns
S3 0.002ns 0.372ns
SSI S2 0.042ns 0.457ns
S3 0.007ns -0.006ns
* = Significant at 0.05 probability level.
ns = Non – significant difference (at 0.05 probability level).
Yp, Y, Y/Yp and SSI are heat tolerance parameters.
§ = S1, S2 and S3 are sowing date treatments as in Materials and Methods.
٦٥
Table 4.14: Means of heat tolerance parameters based on seed yield/plant, of the 22 genotypes of faba bean, evaluated under
three dates of sowing (S1, S2 and S3), for two years (2001/02 and 2002/03), at Shambat.
Code No. Genotypes Y Y/Yp SSI
Yp
S2 S3 S2 S3 S2 S3
1 P.M/1 15.7 12.3 7.28 0.78 0.47 1.24 0.97
2 C.86 15.5 11.8 7.26 0.76 0.47 1.37 0.96
3 C.34 14.2 10.4 5.58 0.74 0.39 1.53 1.10
4 C.52/1/1/1 13.4 14.5 7.93 1.08 0.59 -0.47 0.74
5 C.28 12.6 12.5 6.42 0.99 0.51 0.06 0.89
6 Daba1/1 15.6 12.1 6.38 0.78 0.41 1.29 1.07
7 F402/7 14.1 12.3 6.21 0.87 0.44 0.74 1.01
8 C.80/1 13.2 11.7 4.90 0.89 0.37 0.65 1.14
9 C.36 15.4 12.0 6.98 0.78 0.45 1.26 0.99
10 SuperL.85 13.2 13.9 6.93 1.06 0.53 -0.34 0.86
11 D.E.2 14.3 11.0 5.74 0.77 0.40 1.33 1.09
12 Bulk1/2 17.0 13.7 7.46 0.81 0.44 1.12 1.02
13 C.22 17.0 11.6 7.39 0.68 0.43 1.83 1.03
14 C.42/1/1/1 13.3 13.1 7.16 0.99 0.54 0.08 0.83
15 BB25 16.7 12.8 6.26 0.77 0.38 1.33 1.13
16 Golid1 13.3 11.1 5.85 0.84 0.44 0.93 1.01
17 ZBF1/1 15.1 12.4 7.12 0.82 0.47 1.06 0.96
٦٦
18 Berber1 16.5 11.2 5.49 0.68 0.33 1.84 1.21
19 Mass55 14.2 11.3 6.79 0.79 0.48 1.19 0.95
20 C.42 14.7 13.0 7.93 0.88 0.54 0.68 0.84
21 BB7 16.9 13.0 7.30 0.77 0.43 1.31 1.03
22 H93 16.6 13.6 6.51 0.82 0.39 1.02 1.10
Means 14.9 12.3 6.68 0.83 0.45 0.96 0.99
Yp, Y, Y/Yp and SSI are heat tolerance parameters and S1, S2 and S3 are sowing date treatments as in Materials and Methods.
٦٧
The highest values under treatments S2 and S3 were 1.84 and 1.21, which were
obtained for genotype Berber1. Under the stress environment (S2) genotypes F402/7,
C.80/1, Golid1 and C.42 gave moderate values of SSI, whereas under terminal heat
stress (S3) ten genotypes; P.M/1, C.86, C.52/1/1/1, C.28, C.36, SuperL.85,
C.42/1/1/1, ZBF1/1, Mass55 and C.42 gave also moderate values of SSI (Table
4.14).
4.5.2 Yield components variability

Genotypic variability determined under the three sowing dates was highly
significant for most of yield components (Table 4.15). Variation due to genotypes x
years interaction was non-significant for yield components, with the exception of
100-seed weight under the three sowing date treatments, while seed yield per unit
area under treatments S1 and S3 showed significant differences (Table 4.15). The
degree of genetic variability for yield components varied according to different
sowing dates.
Number of podded nodes/main stem
Table 4.15 illustrates the combined analysis for this character, which showed
highly significant (P≤ 0.01) differences between genotypes under treatments S1 and
S2 and significant differences under treatment S3. The highest number of podded
nodes/main stem was 6.27 produced by genotype Bulk1/2 under treatment S1, 5.92
produced by genotype Bulk1/2 also under treatment S2 and 4.50 produced by
genotype P.M/1 under treatment S3.
Number of pods/plant
The differences between genotypes for this trait were significant (P≤ 0.05)
under treatments S2 and S3, whereas they were highly significant (P≤ 0.01) under
treatment S1 (Table 4.15). The highest number of pods/plant was 14.9 obtained for
genotype BB7 under treatment S1, 12.1 obtained for genotype Bulk1/2 under
treatment S2 and 8.67 obtained for genotype P.M/1 under treatment S3.
٦٨
٦٩
Table 4.15: Mean squares from combined analysis of variance due to Genotypes (G) and their interaction with Years (G x Y) for
different yield components, under different dates of sowing (S1, S2 and S3), at Shambat.
Yield components V. Comp df S1 S2 S3
No. of podded nodes/main stem G 21 1.733** 1.497** 0.753*
GxY 21 0.582ns 0.319ns 0.417ns
No. of pods/plant G 21 9.551** 5.358* 3.790*
GxY 21 4.857 ns 2.308 ns 2.412 ns
No. of seeds/pod G 21 0.085 ns 0.064 ns 0.053 ns
GxY 21 0.078 ns 0.054 ns 0.055 ns
100-seed weight (g) G 21 102.8** 157.9** 90.78**
GxY 21 27.16* 27.48* 30.96*
Seed yield (kg/ha) G 21 310335ns 244036 ns 168695**
GxY 21 735537* 116088 ns 99907*
*, ** Are significant at the 0.05 and 0.01 probability level, respectively.
٧٠
ns = Non-significant difference (at 0.05 probability level).
S1, S2 and S3 are sowing date treatments as in Materials and Methods.
٧١
Number of seeds/pod
The combined analysis for this character revealed non-significant differences

between genotypes (Table 4.15) estimated under three sowing dates. Genotypes
C.86 and Berber1 gave the highest (2.69) number of seeds/pod under treatment S1,
while under treatment S2, the highest (2.78) number was recorded for genotype
SuperL.85. Under treatment S3, genotype C.52/1/1/1 recorded the highest (2.55)
number of seeds/pod.
100-seed weight (g)
Variations between genotypes for this character were highly significant (P≤
0.01) under all three different sowing dates (Table 4.15). The highest 100-seed
weights under treatments S1, S2 and S3 were 59.7, 60.8 and 50.8g, respectively,
produced by genotype C.42/1/1/1, and the lowest (44.9, 40.5 and 35.3g) values were
recorded for genotypes Berber1, D.E.2 and Berber1 under treatments S1, S2 and S3,
respectively.
Seed yield (kg/ha)
Non-significant differences were exhibited between genotypes for this

character under treatments S1 and S2, whereas under treatment S3, the differences
were highly significant (P≤ 0.01) (Table 4.15). The highest (3921kg/ha) seed yield
per unit area was obtained for genotype C.80/1 under treatment S1. Under treatment
S2 genotype H93 gave the highest seed yield (2963kg/ha). The highest (1721kg/ha)
value for this trait under treatment S3 was produced by genotype BB7.
4.5.3 Genotypic coefficient of variation (GCV) under three sowing date

treatments
4.5.3.1 Heat tolerance parameters
Results of genotypic coefficient of variation are presented in Table 4.16 for

heat tolerance parameters and yield components. GCV was higher under treatment
٧٢
S3 than under treatment S2 for the all heat tolerance parameters. The highest (11.7%)
value of GCV was shown by parameter SSIS3.
٧٣
Table 4.16: Estimates of genotypic coefficient of variation (GCV), heritability (h2) in broad sense, and expected genetic
advance (GA%) for heat tolerance parameters and yield components determined in faba bean under different sowing
dates (S1, S2 and S3).
Parameters Sowing date treatments GCV (%) h2 (%) GA (%)

Seed yield/plant (Yp) S1 # # #
Y S2 4.77 31.7 2.68
S3 7.99 44.2 5.84
Y/Yp S2 4.14 # #
S3 9.63 # #
SSI S2 4.74 13.2 1.61
S3 11.7 39.2 7.58
No. of podded nodes/main stem S1 8.53 69.2 9.64
S2 8.85 76.6 10.5
S3 6.43 45.0 4.62
No. of pods/plant S1 7.21 50.7 5.84
S2 6.78 55.7 5.70
S3 6.77 37.0 4.20
No. of seeds/pod S1 1.33 0.68 0.07
S2 1.64 1.73 0.13
S3 # # #
٧٤
100-seed weight (g) S1 6.85 77.0 9.04
S2 9.51 85.0 14.4
S3 7.46 69.7 8.72
Seed yield (kg/ha) S1 # # #
S2 5.70 45.9 3.71
S3 8.33 44.2 6.30
# Means their variances are negative.
٧٥
4.5.3.2 Yield components
In general, genotypic coefficient of variation was higher under treatment S2
than under treatment S3 for most of yield components, with exception of seed yield
per unit area (Table 4.16). The highest value of GCV was recorded for 100-seed
weight under treatment S2. Other characters that showed high values of GCV were
number of podded nodes/main stem and number of pods/plant.
4.5.4 Effect of sowing dates on estimates of heritability (h2) in broad sense and
genetic advance (GA)
4.5.4.1 Heat tolerance parameters
Heritability estimates and genetic advance were illustrated in Table 4.16 for
heat tolerance parameters and yield components. Higher values of heritability
estimates were shown under treatment S3 than under treatment S2 for most of heat
tolerance parameters. Moreover, parameters SSIS3, YS3 and YS2 gave high values of
heritability estimates and genetic advance.
4.5.4.2 Yield components

Higher values of heritability estimates were shown under treatment S2 than
under treatment S3 for all yield components. Meanwhile, high estimates of genetic
advance from selection were exhibited under treatment S2 than under treatment S3 for
most of yield components, with exception of seed yield per unit area (Table 4.16).
Characters showed high values of heritability estimates (h2>60) under treatment S1
were number of podded nodes/main stem and 100-seed weight, whereas under
treatment S2 characters gave high values of heritability estimate were number of
podded nodes/main stem and 100-seed weight. Nonetheless, high values of
heritability estimate under treatment S3 were obtained by 100-seed weight (Table
4.16). The highest value of genetic advance from selection was revealed by number
of podded nodes/main stem under treatment S2, while high values of genetic advance
were attained by characters such as number of podded nodes/main stem, number of
pods/plant and 100-seed weight for all different sowing date treatments. In addition,
٧٦
high values of genetic advance were recorded for seed yield per unit area under
treatments S2 and S3 (Table 4.16).
4.5.5 Phenotypic correlation between different parameters of heat tolerance

Table 4.17 illustrates the phenotypic correlation coefficients between
different parameters of heat tolerance across three sowing dates. The coefficients of
correlation between different parameters of heat tolerance were highly significant,
except for the correlation between yield potential (Yp) and yield under stress
environments (YS2 and YS3), which was positive and non significant.
The correlation between YS3 and YS2/Yp was positive and non significant,
while between YS3 and SSIS2 was negative and non significant.
Yield potential (Yp) was negatively correlated with YS2/Yp and YS3/Yp and
positively correlated with SSIS2 and SSIS3.
The correlation for YS2 was positive and highly significant with YS3, YS2/Yp
and YS3/Yp and negatively and highly significant with SSIS2 and SSIS3. YS3 was
negatively correlated with SSIS2 and SSIS3.
Highly significant and negative correlations were obtained for YS2/Yp with
SSIS2 and SSIS3, and for YS3/Yp with SSIS3.
The correlation between YS2/Yp and SSIS2 was nearly unity (-0.999**).
SSIS2 was highly significant and positively correlated with SSIS3 (Table 4.17).
٧٧
Table 4.17: Phenotypic correlation coefficients between different traits of heat
tolerance for the 22 genotypes of faba bean, averaged over two years (2001/02
and 2002/03) across three dates of sowing (S1, S2 and S3), at Shambat.
TRAITS Yp YS2 YS3 YS2/Yp YS3/Yp SSIS2 SSIS3
Yp -
YS2 0.042ns -
YS3 0.226ns 0.628** -
YS2/Yp -0.723** 0.654** 0.259ns -
YS3/Yp -0.494* 0.549** 0.745** 0.752** -
SSIS2 0.723** -0.655** -0.259ns -0.999** 0.709** -
SSIS3 0.491* -0.548** -0.742** -0.720** -0.959** 0.751** -
*,** are significant at the 0.05 and 0.01 probability level, respectively.
ns is non-significant difference at 0.05 probability level
٧٨
4.6 Phenotypic Variability
4.6.1 Phenotypic (б2ph), genotypic (б2g), experimental (б2e) and genotypes x
sowing dates interaction (б2gs) variances
The results in Table 4.18 for phenotypic, genotypic, experimental and

genotypes x sowing dates interaction variances showed that most of the investigated
characters revealed higher phenotypic variance in the second year than in the first
year. The experimental variance was higher in the first year than in the second year.
During these two consecutive years, higher genotypic variance relative to

phenotypic variance were found for 100-seed weight by 60% in the second year and
38% in the first year, pod-setting percentage by 37% in the second year and 24% in
the first year. For number of podded nodes/main stem it was higher by 33% in the
second year and 27% in the first year. Also the same trend was recorded for height
to first podded node/stem by 17% and days to 50% flowering by 16% in the second
year (Table 4.18). The remained characters showed low genotypic variance, which is
due to the fact that most of the variations in these characters were environmental.
However, slightly higher estimates of variation due to interaction of

genotypes x sowing dates were recorded in the first year for the following characters:
height to first podded node/stem by 18%, harvest index by 16% and number of
seeds/pod by 15%. In the second year, they were obtained for characters such as
days to 95% maturity by 10% and seed yield/plant by 8% (Table 4.18).
٧٩
Table 4.18: Phenotypic (б2ph), genotypic (б2g), experimental (б2e) and genotypes x sowing dates interaction (б2gs) variances for
different traits in 22 genotypes of faba bean evaluated under three dates of sowing (S1, S2 and S3) for two consecutive years
(2001/02 and 2002/03), at Shambat.
TRAITS б2Ph б 2Ph б2g б2g б2e б2e б2gs б2gs

2001/02 2002/03 2001/02 2002/03 2001/02 2002/03 2001/02 2002/03
Plant height (cm) 35.20 58.52 7.431 9.200 24.70 50.51 3.066 -1.191
Height to first podded node/stem (cm) 11.10 17.18 -0.120 2.897 9.276 14.46 1.946 -0.179
Pod length (cm) 0.177 0.148 0.039 0.041 0.123 0.119 0.015 -0.012
No. of reproductive branches/plant 0.106 0.083 0.006 0.010 0.098 0.076 0.002 -0.004
Days to 50% flowering 3.763 4.345 -0.075 0.712 3.580 3.747 0.258 -0.113
Days to 95% maturity 5.907 7.424 0.447 0.571 5.241 6.075 0.220 0.778
Pod-setting percentage (%) 4.104 3.279 0.983 1.216 3.181 2.029 -0.059 0.033
No. of podded nodes/main stem 0.585 0.540 0.159 0.177 0.432 0.379 -0.005 -0.017
No. of pods/plant 3.667 3.360 0.464 0.646 3.165 2.713 0.038 0.002
No. of seeds/pod 0.039 0.068 -0.001 0.010 0.034 0.061 0.006 -0.003
No. of seeds/plant 26.44 30.44 1.502 7.682 23.17 22.18 1.775 0.580
100- seed weight (g) 24.12 42.77 9.199 25.51 12.28 16.29 2.633 0.967
Dry matter/plant (g) 15.35 26.30 1.353 2.059 13.40 23.91 0.598 0.328
Harvest index (%) 0.002 0.002 0.0002 0.0003 0.0014 0.002 0.0003 -0.0003
Seed yield/plant (g) 4.812 6.110 0.458 0.530 4.062 5.100 0.292 0.480
Seed yield (kg/ha) 212876 477631 8325.4 31097 229254 212758 -24704 23377
٨٠
4.6.2 Phenotypic (PCV) and genotypic (GCV) coefficients of variation
Table 4.19 presents the estimates of phenotypic and genotypic coefficients of

variation. In both years, phenotypic coefficient of variation was higher than the
genotypic coefficient of variation, for all studied characters. Most of the characters
exhibited higher phenotypic coefficient of variation in the second year than in the
first year, with some exceptions (Table 4.19). The highest values of phenotypic
coefficient of variation in the first and second years were 26.89% and 24.63%
recorded for the characters number of reproductive branches/plant and seed yield
(kg/ha), whereas the lowest values were 2.30% and 2.76% recorded for the character
days to 95% maturity in the first and second year, respectively (Table 4.19). The
highest estimates of genotypic coefficient of variation were 9.81% and 12.25%
obtained for pod-setting percentage in the first and second year, respectively. The
lowest values of genotypic coefficient of variation were 0.63% and 0.77% recorded
for days to 95% maturity in the first and second year, respectively (Table 4.19).
٨١
Table 4.19: Estimates of phenotypic (PCV) and genotypic (GCV) coefficients of variation for different characters measured on
22 genotypes of faba bean, evaluated under three dates of sowing (S1, S2 and S3) for two years (2001/02 and 2002/03), at
Shambat.
PCV ( %) GCV (%)
Characters 2001/02 2002/03 2001/02 2002/03
Plant height (cm) 7.27 8.18 3.34 3.24
Height to first podded node/stem (cm) 10.29 10.33 # 4.24
Pod length (cm) 8.58 6.82 4.03 3.59
No. of reproductive branches/plant 26.89 22.64 6.40 7.88
Days to 50% flowering 5.11 5.26 # 2.13
Days to 95% maturity 2.30 2.76 0.63 0.77
Pod-setting percentage (%) 20.06 20.12 9.81 12.25
No. of podded nodes/main stem 14.97 17.87 7.80 10.24
No. of pods/plant 17.44 20.48 6.20 8.98
No. of seeds/pod 8.27 10.08 # 3.89
No. of seeds/plant 19.32 23.78 4.60 11.95
100-seed weight (g) 11.24 12.64 6.94 9.77
Dry matter/plant (g) 17.86 19.66 5.30 5.50
Harvest index (%) 8.90 10.16 2.89 4.15
Seed yield/plant (g) 19.91 21.31 6.14 6.28
Seed yield (kg/ha) 22.81 24.63 4.51 6.29
# indicates the uncalculated values due to their negative variances.
٨٢
٨٣
4.6.3 Heritability (h2) in broad sense and genetic advance (GA)
Generally, heritability estimates (Table 4.20) exhibited a great variation for

the different investigated traits. Higher values of heritability were estimated in the
second year than in the first year for most of the studied characters, except plant
height, days to 95% maturity, dry matter/plant and seed yield/plant (Table 4.20).
However, in both years the highest values of heritability estimates were 80% and
92% obtained for 100-seed weight, while the lowest values were 32.2% recorded for
number of seeds/plant in the first year and 38% recorded for days to 95% maturity in
the second year. Estimated high values of heritability (h2>70%) in both years were
observed for characters such as pod-setting percentage and number of podded
nodes/main stem, whereas low values (h2<50%) were found for days to 95%
maturity, dry matter/plant, seed yield/plant and seed yield (kg/ha) (Table 4.20).
The estimation of the expected genetic advance from selection is presented in

Table 4.20, which showed slight variation between characters under study. The
estimated genetic advance as percentage of the mean was higher in the second year
than in the first year, with rare exceptions. The highest values of genetic advance
were 9.89% and 15.5% obtained for pod-setting percentage and 100-seed weight in
the first and second year, respectively, while the lowest value in the first year was
0.36% and in the second year was 0.44% recorded for days to 95% maturity (Table
4.20).
٨٤
Table 4.20: Estimates of broad sense heritability (h2) and expected genetic advance from selection (GA) measured on 22
genotypes of faba bean, evaluated under three dates of sowing (S1, S2 and S3) for two consecutive years (2001/02 and 2002/03), at
Shambat.
Parameters h2(%) GA (%)
2001/02 2002/03 2001/02 2002/03
Plant height (cm) 66.4 63.8 3.16 2.65
Height to first podded node/stem (cm) # 65.2 # 3.59
Pod length (cm) 67.7 82.0 3.93 3.92
No. of reproductive branches/plant 34.4 58.8 3.30 5.75
Days to 50% flowering # 65.3 # 1.77
Days to 95% maturity 40.6 38.0 0.36 0.44
Pod-setting percentage (%) 74.7 83.7 9.89 15.4
No. of podded nodes/main stem 77.4 83.2 8.36 12.1
No. of pods/plant 56.0 68.1 4.55 8.11
No. of seeds/pod # 63.8 # 3.10
No. of seeds/plant 32.2 74.3 2.26 12.4
100-seed weight (g) 80.4 92.3 8.83 15.5
Dry matter/plant (g) 44.5 42.7 3.24 3.17
Harvest index (%) 40.0 75.0 1.87 3.05
Seed yield/plant (g) 45.5 42.2 3.90 3.81
Seed yield (kg/ha) 32.6 49.7 1.84 3.30
# indicates the uncalculated values because of their negative variances.
٨٥
4.6.4 Means of genotypes
I- Vegetative traits
Plant height (cm)
The general means of genotypes for this character were 81.7cm in the first
year, 93.5cm in the second year and 87.6cm for the average of both years. In the first
year, plant height ranged from 87.3cm for genotype Bulk1/2 to 76.6cm for genotype
C.36 (Appendix 6). In the second year, the range was from 99.8cm for genotype
BB7 to 85.6cm for genotype Golid1 (Appendix 7). For the average of both years it
ranged from 93.0cm for genotype BB7 to 82.6cm for genotype C.80/1 (Appendix 8).
Pod length (cm)
The general means of genotypes for this trait were 4.90cm in the first year,
5.64cm in the second year and 5.27cm for the average of both years. Pod length
ranged from 5.27cm to 4.41cm for genotypes C.42/1/1/1 and Berber1, respectively,
in the first year (Appendix 6). In the second year, the range was from 5.97cm for
genotype C.36 to 5.09cm for genotype C.42/1/1/1 (Appendix 7). For the average of
both years, it ranged from 5.68cm for genotype C.42/1/1/1 to 4.96cm for genotypes
D.E.2 and Bulk1/2 (Appendix 8).
Number of reproductive branches/plant
The overall means of genotypes for this character were 1.21, 1.27 and 1.24 in
the first year, second year and for their average, respectively. The genotype C.42
recorded the highest values for this character in the first year, second year and for the
average of both years, which were 1.48, 1.54 and 1.51, respectively (Appendices 6, 7
and 8), whereas, the lowest values were 0.94, 1.06 and 1.00 recorded for genotype
Bulk1/2 for separate year and their average, respectively (Appendices 6, 7 and 8).
Days to 50% flowering
The general means of genotypes for this trait were 37.9 days in the first year,
39.6 days in the second year and 38.8 days for the average of both years. The
٧٩
earliest flowering genotypes were C.86 (36.6 days) in the first year, C.80/1 and
Bulk1/2 (38.2 days) in the second year and C.52/1/1/1 (37.7 days) for the average of
both years (Appendices 6, 7 and 8). The latest flowering genotypes were C.28 (39.3
days) in the first year (Appendix 6), D.E.2 (41.8 days) in the second year (Appendix
7) and BB25 (40.2 days) for the average of both years (Appendix 8).
Days to 95% maturity
The overall means of genotypes for this character were 105.8 days in the first
year, 98.8 days in the second year and 102.3 days for the average of both years. The
earliest maturing genotypes were P.M/1 (103.9 days) in the first year, C.80/1 (97.3
days) in the second year and ZBF/1/1 (100.9 days) for the average of both years
(Appendices 6, 7 and 8). The latest maturing genotypes were BB25 and Golid1
(107.6 days), BB25 (101.2 days), and BB25 (104.4 days), in the first year, second
year and for their average, respectively (Appendices 6, 7 and 8).
Pod-setting percentage (%)
The general means of genotypes for this trait were 10.1%, 9.0% and 9.6% in
the first year, second year and their average, respectively. Highest pod-setting
percentages in the first year, second year and for the average of both years were
presented by genotypes, C.52/1/1/1 (12.2%), Bulk1/2 (11.5%) and P.M/1 and
Bulk1/2 (11.4%), respectively (Appendices 6, 7 and 8). However, the lowest
percentages of pods set were 8.2% for genotype Golid1 in the first year, 6.7% for
genotype C.86 in the second year and 7.7% for genotype Golid1 for the average of
both years (Appendices 6, 7 and 8).
II Reproductive traits
Number of podded nodes/main stem
The general means of genotypes for this character were 5.11, 4.11 and 4.61 in
the first year, second year and their average, respectively. However, in the first year,
the highest number of podded nodes/main stem was 5.97 for genotype C.52/1/1/1
٨٠
and the lowest one was 4.44 for genotype C.42 (Appendix 9). In the second year, the
highest number was 4.92 and the lowest one was 3.62 recorded for genotypes
Bulk1/2 and C.34, respectively (Appendix 10). For the average of both years, the
genotype Bulk1/2 gave the highest number (5.37), while the genotype C.42/1/1/1
gave the lowest number (3.96) for this trait (Appendix 11).
٨١
Number of pods/plant
The overall means of genotypes for this trait were 11.0 in the first year, 8.95
in the second year and 9.97 for the average of both years. Genotype BB7 gave the
highest number of pods/plant in the first year and for the average of both years,
which were 12.6 and 11.4, respectively (Appendices 9 and 11). The highest value in
the second year was 10.5 attained by genotype Bulk1/2 (Appendix 10). The lowest
values were 9.16 for genotype C.80/1 in the first year, 6.59 for genotype C.86 in the
second year and 8.64 for genotype C.34 for the average of both years (Appendices 9,
10 and 11).
Number of seeds/pod
The general means of genotypes for this character in the first year, second
year and for the average of both years were 2.40, 2.59 and 2.50, respectively.
Amongst the 22 genotypes of faba bean, genotype C.34 gave the highest numbers of
seeds/pod, which was 2.53 and 2.62 in the first year and for the average of both
years, respectively (Appendices 9 and 11). The highest number of seeds/pod in the
second year was 2.75 recorded for genotypes SuperL.85 and Berber1 (Appendix 10).
Moreover, the lowest values were 2.23 for genotype Golid1 in the first year, 2.25 for
genotype C.42/1/1/1 in the second year and 2.29 for genotype Golid1 for the average
of both years (Appendices 9, 10 and 11).
100-seed weight (g)
The overall means of genotypes for this trait in separate year and for the
average of both years were 43.7, 51.7 and 47.7g, respectively. However, amongst
the 22 genotypes of faba bean, genotype C.42/1/1/1 gave the highest 100-seed weight
(50.1g) in the first year, (64.0g) in the second year and (57.1g) for the average of
both years (Appendices 9, 10 and 11). Genotype Berber1 gave lightest weights in
the first year and for the average of both years, which were 37.5 and 41.5g,
respectively (Appendices 9 and 11). In the second year, the lightest weight was
44.4g produced by genotype D.E.2 (Appendix 10).
Seed yield/plant (g)
٨٢
The overall means of genotypes for this trait were 11.0g in the first year,
11.6g in the second year and 11.3g for the average of both years. The genotype
Bulk1/2 gave the highest seed yield/plant in the second year and for the average of
both years, which were 13.0 and 12.7g, respectively (Appendices 10 and 11). The
highest seed yield/plant in the first year was 13.3g produced by genotype C.86
(Appendix 9), whereas the lowest seed yield/plant were 9.04g produced by genotype
C.80/1, 9.47g produced by genotype D.E.2 and 9.96g produced by genotype C.80/1
in the first year, second year and for the average of both years, respectively
(Appendices 9, 10 and 11).
Seed yield (kg/ha)
The general means of genotypes for this character were 2022, 2806 and
2414kg/ha in the first year, second year and for the average of both years,
respectively. Amongst the 22 genotypes, genotype H93 produced the highest values
of this trait in the first year and for the average of both years, which were 2255 and
2680kg/ha (Appendices 9 and 11). The highest seed yield (kg/ha) in the second year
was 3218kg/ha produced by genotype BB7 (Appendix 10). The lowest seed yield
(kg/ha) were 1805kg/ha produced by genotype C.28 in the first year, 2254kg/ha
produced by genotype C.86 in the second year and 2114kg/ha produced by genotype
C.86 also for the average of both years (Appendices 9, 10 and 11).
4.7 Interrelationships Between the Traits
The phenotypic correlation coefficients between all the different

combinations of the investigated traits are presented in Tables 4.21 and 4.22 for the
years 2001/02 and 2002/03, respectively. These observed correlation coefficients
between the different traits are grouped as follows:
4.7.1 Correlation coefficients between the vegetative traits

The phenotypic relationships between vegetative traits were more or less
similar in both years. Most of the vegetative traits showed negative and non-
٨٣
significant relationships with each other in the first and second year. Plant hieght
exhibited positive and significant correlation with height to first podded node/stem in
both years. In the first year, vegetative traits which showed positive and significant
relationship with each other, are height to first podded node/stem with pod length
(Table 4.21). The same trend was found for plant height with pod-setting
percentage, height to first podded node/stem with days to 95% maturity and pod
length with number of reproductive branches/plant in the second year (Table 4.22).
Meanwhile, height to first podded node/stem was positively and highly significantly
correlated with days to 50% flowering, and same trend was observed for days to 50%
flowering with days to 95% maturity in the second year (Table 4.22). In the first
year, negative and significant phenotypic correlation coefficients were observed for
height to first podded node/stem and number of reproductive branches/plant with
pod-setting percentage, while the relationship was negative and highly significant for
days to 95% maturity with pod-setting percentage (Table 4.21). The same trend was
found for pod length with pod-setting percentage in the second year (Tabla 4.22)
٨٤
Table 4.21: Phenotypic coefficients of correlation between different investigated traits for the 22
genotypes of faba bean averaged over three dates of sowing (S1, S2 and S3) in the first year
(2001/ 02), at Shambat.
TRAITS PH HFPN/ PL NRB/ DFP DNFP PSP NPN/M NP/Plt NS/P NS/Plt HSW DM/Plt HI SY/Pl
(cm) S (cm) (cm) Plt F M (%) S (g) (g) (%) t
(g)
PH (cm) -
HFPN/S (cm) .510* -
PL (cm) .249 .469* -
NRB/Plt -.071 .409 .379 -
DFPF -.195 .280 -.094 .047 -
DNFPM .284 .347 .038 .324 .272 -
PSP (%) -.060 -.439* -.399 -.495* -.317 -.626** -
NPN/MS .273 -.271 -.265 -.388 .436* -.541** .873** -
NP/Plt .285 -.065 -.244 .143 -.415 -.298 .588** .795** -
NS/P -.069 .016 .065 -.469* -.052 -.322 .197 .111 -.156 -
NS/Plt .263 -.124 -.282 -.073 -.407 -.393 .616** .816** .926** .183 -
HSW (g) .392 .639** .840** .435* -.049 .287 -.540** -.283 -.167 -.075 -.236 -
DM/Plt (g) .691** .545** .466* .372 -.361 .130 -.062 .292 .508* -.078 .448* .663** -
HI (%) -.026 -.176 -.004 -.217 -.379 -.620** .577** .673** .548** .282 .619** .003 .187 -
SY/Plt (g) .540** .359 .294 .149 -.418 -.134 .198 .521* .647** .190 .684** .480* .875** .582** -
٨٤
SY (kg/ha) .156 .287 .102 .230 -.150 .099 -.051 -.017 .142 -.039 .091 .281 .412 .057 .338
*,** are significant at the 5% and 1% probability level, respectively.

PH = Plant height (cm), HFPN/S = height to first podded node/stem (cm), PL = pod length (cm),
NRB/Plt = number of reproductive branches/plant, DFPF = days to 50% flowering, DNFPM = days
to 95% maturity, PSP = pod-setting percentage (%), NPN/MS = number of podded nodes/main stem,
NP/Plt = number of pods/plant, NS/P = number of seeds/pod, NS/Plt = number of seeds/plant, HSW
= 100-seed weight (g), DM/Plt = dry matter/plant (g), HI = harvest index (%), SY/Plt.= seed
yield/plant (g), SY (kg/ha) = seed yield (kg/ha).
٨٥
Table 4.22: Phenotypic coefficients of correlation between different investigated traits for the 22
genotypes of faba bean averaged over three dates of sowing (S1, S2 and S3) in the second year
(2002/2003), at Shambat.
TRAITS PH HFPN/ PL NRB/Plt DFPF DNFP PSP NPN/M NP/Plt NS/P NS/Plt HSW DM/ HI SY/Pl
(cm) S (cm) (cm) M (%) S (g) Plt (g) (%) t (g)
PH (cm) -
HFPN/S (cm) .499* -
PL (cm) -.185 -.048 -
NRB/Plt -.326 -.019 .528* -
DFPF .138 .629** -.030 .057 -
DNFPM .330 .533* .272 .087 .557** -
PSP (%) .478* -.282 -.601** -.415 -.294 -.309 -
NPN/MS .545** -.279 -.542** -.408 -.337 -.308 .968** -
NP/Plt .445* -.269 -.474* -.080 -.368 -.336 .902** .896** -
NS/P .391 .197 -.422 -.071 -.021 -.127 .367 .336 .440* -
NS/Plt .495* -.148 -.513* -.081 -.316 -.312 .845** .832** .954** .685** -
HSW (g) -.246 .043 .789** .273 -.038 .308 -.662** -.578** -.629** -.697** -.722** -
DM/Plt (g) .590** .049 .234 .262 -.187 .149 .364 .459* .594** .311 .595** .028 -
HI (%) -.131 -.582** -0.389 -.075 -.555** -.687** .621** .599** .639** .199 .590** -.435* .071 -
SY/Plt (g) .456* -.224 0.004 .175 -.377 -.178 .642** .691** .828** .349 .796** -.210 .863** .529* -
SY (kg/ha) .174 -.321 -0.142 -.010 -.471* -.407 .547** .583** .617** .006 .501* -.308 .308 .470* .505*
٨٦
*,** are significant at the 5% and 1% probability level, respectively.
For the abbreviations see the key in Table 4.21.
٨٧
4.7.2 Correlation coefficients of seed yield/plant with yield components
Seed yield/plant was positive and significantly correlated with number of
podded nodes/main stem and number of pods/plant in both years. Significant and
positive correlation coefficients were revealed for seed yield/plant with 100-seed
weight in the first year, and with seed yield (kg/ha) in the second year (Tables 4.21
and 4.22).
Non-significant and positive phenotypic correlation of seed yield/plant with

yield components was exhibited with number of seeds/pod in both years, as well as
with seed yield (kg/ha) in the first year (Tables 4.21 and 4.22).
4.7.3 Correlation coefficients of seed yield/plant with vegetative traits

Seed yield/plant showed positive and highly significant relationship with dry
matter/plant in both years, while, the same trend was found with plant height and
harvest index in the first year and with pod-setting percentage in the second year.
Significant and positive phenotypic correlation was found for seed yield/plant with
plant height and harvest index in the second year (Tables 4.21 and 4.22).
Non-significant and positive phenotypic correlation coefficients were found

for seed yield/plant with pod length and number of reproductive branches/plant in
both years and with height to first podded node/stem and pod-setting percentage in
the first year as well (Tables 4.21 and 4.22).
4.7.4 Correlation coefficients between yield components
In both years, highly significant and positive phenotypic correlations were

exhibited for number of podded nodes/main stem with number of pods/plant (Tables
4.21 and 4.22). Also number of pods/plant was positively and highly significantly
correlated with seed yield (kg/ha) in the second year. In addition to that, most of the
traits showed significant and positive correlation with each other in the second year.
Negative and highly significant phenotypic correlations were shown for

number of podded nodes/main stem, number of pods/plant and number of seeds/pod
with 100-seed weight in the second year (Table 4.22).
٨٦
Non-significant and positive phenotypic correlations were exhibited for
number of podded nodes/main stem with number of seeds/pod in both years, as well
as for number of pods/plant and 100-seed weight with seed yield (kg/ha). Similar
trend was observed for number of seeds/pod with seed yield (kg/ha) in the second
year (Tables 4.21 and 4.22).
4.8 Genotype x Environment Interaction
4.8.1 Stability estimates of genotypes
Table 4.23 illustrates the analysis of variance for seed yield/plant of 22

genotypes of faba bean across six macro-environments (ME). Accordingly, the
environmental effect was great and highly significant, which was giving reasons for
further estimates of other stability parameters. However, significant variation was
found for genotypes x macro-environments (G x ME), and the variation between
genotypes was highly significant.
The regression of genotype means from the individual environments on the

environmental mean was not significant (Table 4.23).
However, the regression response of genotypes for seed yield/plant to

environments was linear, therefore, on average the slope of regression (bi) was 1.00
(Table 4.24). Mean seed yield/plant and various stability parameters are given in
Table 4.25. Among the genotypes, the regression coefficient (bi) ranged from 0.74
for genotype C.52/1/1/1 to 1.29 for genotype Berber1. Low values of regression
coefficient (b<1) were given by genotypes C.42/1/1/1, C.28, SuperL.85, Mass55 and
C.42 (Table 4.25).
Based on the mean square deviation (s-2d), the highest yield stability (0.19)
was observed for genotype Golid1 and the lowest yield stability (7.94) was shown
for genotype C.86 (Table 4.24). Genotypes P.M/1, D.E.2, C.52/1/1/1, C.22,
SuperL.85, C.36 and C.42/1/1/1 exhibited relatively high values of mean square
deviation from regression. The low values were exhibited by genotypes BB25, BB7,
C.42, C.34, Bulk1/2 and Mass55 (Table 4.25).
Among genotypes the range of variance (б2) across the environments was
rather wide (10.7 – 26.5). The mean of variance was 17.063 (Table 4.24). Similar to
٨٧
regression coefficient, the lowest (10.7) value of stability parameter (б2) was given
by genotype C.52/1/1/1 and the highest (26.5) value was given by genotype Berber1
(Table 4.25). Moreover, genotypes Mass55, C.42, C.42/1/1/1, C.28, Golid1 and
SuperL.85 recorded stable yield with low values of variance (Table 4.25).
According to the result in Table 4.24, the mean of ecovalence (Wi) was
2.052. Its values ranged from 0.24 to 6.37 for genotypes Golid1 and C.86,
respectively, which is similar to mean square deviation from regression. Genotypes
P.M/1, C.52/1/1/1, D.E.2, Berber1, C.42/1/1/1 and SuperL.85 were of high values of
ecovalence, whereas genotypes C.34, C.42, BB7, Bulk1/2 and Mass55 were of low
values (Table 4.25).
٨٨
Table 4.23: Analysis of variance for regression of the 22 genotypes of faba bean,
evaluated in six macro-environments (NS1E 2001/02, HS2E 2001/02, HS3E
2001/02, NS1E 2002/03, HS2E 2002/03 and HS3E 2002/3) sum of squares (SS),
mean squares (MQ) and variance components (var. comp) for seed yield/plant
averaged over three replications.
Source of variation df SS MQ Variance

components
Environments 5 4953.3 990.66 14.13**
Replications/Env. 12 689.19 57.43 2.402**
Genotypes 21 232.69 11.08 0. 257**
Env. (Linear) 1 5.99 5.99 0.93ns
Gen. x Env. 105 677.18 6.45 0.623*
Regr. Genotypes 20 99.66 4.98 -0.107ns
4 19.44 4.86 -0.031 ns
Regr.
Environments
Devs. From regr. 80 552.09 6.90 0.773*
Pooled error 252 1154.4 4.581
Total 395 7706.7
**,* are significants at the 1% and 5% probability level, respectively.

ns, not significant at 5% probability level.
NS1E 2001/02, HS2E 2001/02, HS3E 2001/02, NS1E 2002/03, HS2E 2002/03 and
HS3E 2002/3, are a combination of two years and three sowing dates.
٨٩
Table 4.24: Means and ranges of the 22 genotypes of faba bean across six
macro-environments, for coefficient of regression (bi), deviation mean square
(S-2d), variance (б2) and ecovalence (Wi) for seed yield/plant (g).
Stability Parameters Mean Range

bi 1.000 0.74 – 1.29
s-2d 2.166 0.19 – 7.94
б2 17.063 10.7 – 26.5
Wi 2.052 0.24 – 6.37
٩٠
Table 4.25: Estimates of stability parameters, regression coefficient (bi), mean
square deviation (S-2d), variance (б2), and ecovalence (Wi), for seed yield/plant
(g) in 22 genotypes of Vicia faba across six macro-environments.
Code No. Genotypes Mean (g) bi s-2d б2 Wi

1 P.M/1 11.7 0.91 7.33 18.2 6.00
2 C.86 11.5 0.96 7.94 20.3 6.37
3 C.34 10.1 1.00 0.47 15.3 0.38
4 C.52/1/1/1 11.9 0.74 3.10 10.7 3.48
5 C.28 10.5 0.84 1.78 12.0 1.80
6 Daba1/1 11.4 1.15 1.32 20.9 1.40
7 F402/7 10.9 1.01 1.25 16.2 1.00
8 C.80/1 10.0 1.04 1.33 17.2 1.08
9 C.36 11.4 0.99 2.57 16.9 2.05
10 SuperL.85 11.3 0.85 2.74 13.1 2.53
11 D.E.2 10.3 1.05 3.62 19.4 2.93
12 Bulk1/2 12.7 1.12 0.58 19.3 0.68
13 C.22 12.0 1.10 2.83 20.5 2.41
14 C.42/1/1/1 11.2 0.80 2.57 11.6 2.67
15 BB25 11.9 1.26 0.36 24.0 1.27
16 Golid1 10.1 0.92 0.19 13.0 0.24
17 ZBF1/1 11.5 0.95 1.75 14.9 1.44
18 Berber1 11.1 1.29 2.01 26.5 2.85
19 Mass55 10.8 0.85 0.70 11.4 0.91
20 C.42 11.9 0.86 0.45 11.4 0.66
21 BB7 12.4 1.15 0.43 20.1 0.67
22 H93 12.2 1.18 2.33 22.6 2.33
Six macro-environments (combinations of 2 years x 3 treatments), see Materials and

Methods.
٩١
CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION
5.1 The Aspects of Heat Stress and its Effects on Faba Bean Genotypes
The geographical distribution of crop plants is determined by temperature,
which affects their growth and productivity. The optimum temperatures for the cool-
season food legumes range between 10º C and 30º C (Saxena, 1979). Thus
temperatures falling outside the optimum range cause stress. Efforts to improve
tolerance to sub- or supra-optimal temperatures in cool-season food legumes have
been limited, which may be due to the fact that crop damage and yield losses
associated with temperature stress are often subtle and thus ignored. Little attention
has been given by the breeders to the study of the physiology and breeding is
lacking.
The artificially induced terminal heat stress in the present study was severe
enough to cause a tremendous reduction in yield of 64%, 45% and 55% of faba bean
genotypes in the first year, second year and their average, respectively. Therefore,
different years also showed a significant variation in the yield of faba bean and other
characters as temperature increased at the end of the growing season. This is in
agreement with the report of Salih and Khalafalla (1982). This may be due to the
fact that although the average monthly temperature in the second year was slightly
higher than in the first year, genotypes performed better in the second year, because
the cool-winter season was more or less regular in the second year than in the first
year. Irregular winter season in the first year reduced the vegetative growth stage of
faba bean genotypes, which limited the flowering stage, thereafter, prolonged the
days to 95% maturity. These significant differences might have caused the reduction
in plant height and seed yield in the first year. This result is in line with that of
Midmore et al. (1984).
The terminal heat stress caused by the delayed sowing date resulted in a
detrimental effects on faba bean genotypes. It increased the rate of aphid infestation
and powdery mildew diseases and led to the reduction in seed yield of the studied
genotypes of faba bean. Similar results were reported by Taha et al. (1982). The
high temperature occurring in the late stages of plant growth caused a highly
٩٢
significant reductions in many vegetative traits in the first year, which caused high
reduction in yield. This is due to the fact that at high temperature the rate of net
photosynthesis is reduced , and therefore, less assimilates are transferred for the grain
filling (Bagga and Rawson, 1977).
In this study, some genotypes performed better than others, which may be
due to their different heat tolerance mechanisms such as stomata adjustment, leaf
rolling and/or they may have high transpiration rate to avoid that latent heat of
radiation, interception or increasing the reflected portion of radiation. Similar results
were also reported by Ahmed (1989) in faba bean. Moreover, genotypes which gave
the highest values of pods-set in the two years under terminal heat stress indicate that
the stage of the crop also contributes to tolerance, because tolerant genotypes had
more inflorescence under heat stress, which led to more pods-set. The same result
was also found by Chandra and Asthana (1993) in lentil. On the other hand, Chandra
and Asthana (1988) reported that the number of pods set per inflorescence decreased
with the increase in air temperature.
High reduction in the weight of dry matter/plant of all genotypes in both
years and their average indicates that the rate of plant development is accelerated due
to high temperature, and thus reducing the potential for biomass accumulation.
These findings are in line with that reported by Midmore et al. (1984). This
reduction in the biomass accumulation is the result of less assimilates to be deposited
in the grain as a consequences of less available time for photosynthesis (Al Khatib
and Paulsen, 1984; Harding at al., 1990). On the other hand, the genotypes which
showed high values of dry matter/plant in both years and their average also attained
high values of seed yield/plant, for example, genotype C.42 gave the highest values
of these two traits in the second year. This may be due to stronger association of
total above ground biomass with yield than partitioning (i.e. harvest index). This is
in line with the result of Sayre et al.(1997).
5.2 Effect of Terminal Heat Stress

The terminal heat stress in this study, greatly and severely affected the
vegetative and reproductive traits. The significant effect of the sowing dates in the
first year which was more than in the second year, indicates that the effect of sowing
٩٣
date is dependent on the other prevailing conditions. This may be due to the fact that
the optimum date of sowing is much affected by the production site and by other
environmental factors and cultural practices. These findings also were reported by
many workers (Bond, 1979; Hawtin and Stewart, 1979; Zilliotto and Toniole, 1979;
Taha et al., 1982). The reproductive characters were more affected by the delayed
sowing date than vegetative characters. This indicates that reproductive characters
depend on the vegetative characters, for example, days to flowering and days to
maturity and because any delay in sowing date of Vicia faba hastens the days to
flowering and maturity by shortening the period between flowering and leaf
senescence due to high temperatures at the end of the growing season. These results
are in line with that reported by Pandey (1981), and Salih and Khalafalla (1982).
The non-significant differences among the sowing dates in this study, for
plant height and height to first podded node/stem may be due to other factors rather
than delayed sowing date. On the other hand, Hatam et al. (1999) reported an
increase in plant height due to a delay in sowing date. Moreover, the effect of slight
delay (S2) in sowing date was not severe enough to cause injury to the genotypes
under study, because the optimum date of sowing of faba bean at Shambat (Central
Sudan) depends on the onset of winter, which fluctuates from season to another and
even within the season from month to another. Therefore, in the second year, the
values of some characters when sowing was slightly delayed (S2) exceeded the
values due to the effect of optimum sowing date (S1), as control.
On the other hand, the significant reduction in the values of most of the
vegetative traits due to the effect of terminal heat stress (S3) in the two years
indicates that this treatment (S3) was severe enough to cause an injury to the
genotypes. This could be attributed mainly to high temperature during the vegetation
period, that checked growth and led to the development of small, short stemmed crop
with few branches and pods near to the ground. The significant increase in the value
of days to 50% flowering due to the effect of terminal heat stress (S3) in the first year
is in contrast with the result of Pandey (1981). Plant from different sowing dates
took similar time to flower (between 35 and 42 days), but those sown earlier took
longer time to mature, which is also reported by Salih (1978a). The significant
٩٤
reduction in pod-setting percentage due to the effect of terminal heat stress (S3) in the
first year and the average is in accordance with the report of Zeng (1982).
The significant differences between sowing date treatments for most of yield
components in both years and their average indicate that any delay in sowing date
affects yield components and this can be taken into consideration during breeding
programme. This significant effect of sowing dates was also shown by many other
workers (Abu Salih et al., 1973; Salih, 1977; Salih, 1978a, b; Sjodin, 1978; Salih,
1979a, b, 1980; Baldwin, 1980; Saghin, 1998; Hatam et al., 1999; Sekara et al.,
2001).
The non-significant reduction in the number of seeds/pod due to delay in
sowing dates (S2 and S3) was also reported by Salih and Khalafalla (1982) for
number of seeds/pod at Shendi, north of Khartoum, and for number of seeds/pod and
100-seed weight at Shambat.
The fluctuation in the effect of delaying sowing dates (S2 and S3) on yield
components from year to another had been reflected in the results of the interaction
of genotypes x sowing dates, which was non significant for most of yield
components, but the genotypes x years interaction was significant.
There were no significant differences between treatments S1 and S2 for seed
yield/plant in the first and second years, and for seed yield (kg/ha) in the second year.
This indicates that slight delay in sowing date would be possible. This reduction in
yield was attributed mainly to the reduction in yield components, which are strongly
correlated with yield such as number of podded nodes/main stem and number of
pods/plant. Bakheit and Mahdy (1988) and Bora et al. (1998) reported a strong
correlation of seed yield/plant with pods/plant. Due to 14 days delay in sowing date
(S2) after the first week and the second week in November, yield was decreased by
6% and 43% in the second year and in the first year, respectively, whereas due to
delay of sowing by 28 days (S3), yield was reduced by 42% and 82% in the second
and the first year, respectively. Such reduction also was reported by Hebblethwaite
et al. (1991) who found that for each week’s delay in sowing date after the first week
in March for spring beans and the first week in October for winter beans, yield
decreased by 72 and 68kg/ha, respectively. High reduction in yield either per plant
or per unit area is also been recorded by other workers (Salih and Khalafalla, 1982;
٩٥
Marcellos and Constable, 1986; Loss and Siddique, 1996; Saghin, 1998; Hatam et
al., 1999), in common bean, and Macas et al.(2000) in wheat. Therefore, there is a
parabolic relationship between sowing date and crop yield as recorded also by Ageeb
(1977), Salih (1978b, 1979a), Barry and Storey (1979) and Ageeb et al. (1983).
5.3 Genetic Variability and Heritability for Heat Tolerance

5.3.1 Genetic variability
Heat stress in this study was severe enough to create tremendous reduction in
yield/plant by 17% and 55% for 14 days (S2) and 28 days (S3) delay in optimum
sowing date, respectively. The low genetic variability expressed under non-stress
environment (Yp) compared to stress environments (YS2 and YS3), may be due to
the fact that the variation between genotypes expressed differently according to the
environment. This resulted in reduction of the heritability estimates for heat
tolerance parameters. However, the significant differences observed in this study
between genotypes for YS3 parameter indicates the response of genotypes to terminal
heat stress and genotypes which gave high values under such conditions can be
considered as tolerant ones and more stable. However, high stability is associated
with poor/moderate yielding genotypes that were not tolerant to heat stress as found
by Chopra and Viswanathan (1999) in wheat.
McWilliams (1980) stated that the ability of a crop plant to withstand high
temperature depends on the thermal adaptation of particular species, the duration of
exposure to high temperature and the stage of growth. Therefore, the lowest grain
yield produced by genotypes under heat stress was obtained when sowing was
delayed by 28 days (S3) from the optimum.
The higher values of stress susceptibility index (SSI) exhibited by the
genotypes when sowing was delayed by 14 days than a delay of 28 days could be
attributed to the fact that during this period (14 days), the genotypes were more
susceptible to heat stress. Therefore, genotypes which gave the least values of SSI
such as C.52/1/1/1, C.28, SuperL.85 and C.42/1/1/1 when sowing was delayed by 14
days can be considered as heat tolerant-genotypes, but when subjected to terminal
heat stress (S3) they become moderately tolerant according to the formula of Fischer
and Maurer (1978), while genotypes such as P.M/1, C.86, C.36 and ZBF/1/1 were
٩٦
susceptible under slight delay (S2), and become moderately tolerant to heat stress
under terminal heat stress (S3). This showed that tolerance to heat stress in faba bean
varied with the incidance of heat, and also its severity. Lin et al. (1984) indicated
that heat tolerance varied with species, genotypes and different plant tissues.
Resistant or moderately tolerant genotypes under terminal heat stress had produced
moderate grain yield potential. Similar findings have been reported by many
workers (Fischer and Maurer, 1978; Bruckner and Frohberg, 1987; Ehdaie et al.,
1988; Bansal and Sinha, 1991; Chopra and Viswanathan, 1999). Moreover, the plant
age and temperature of the environment under which the crop was grown have an
influence on the degree of heat injury (Chen et al., 1982).
5.3.2 Genotypic coefficient of variation (GCV), heritability (h2) and genetic

advance (GA) for heat tolerance parameters
The higher values of GCV, h2 and GA when sowing was delayed by 28 days
(S3) compared to a delay of 14 days (S2) indicate that under severe high temperature
genotypes exhibited high genetic variability and consequently high h2 estimates and
GA. On the other hand, the low values of GCV, h2 and GA for most of heat
tolerance parameters indicate the low genetic variability. The highest values of GCV
and GA for the parameter SSIS3 and low values of h2 may be due to the fact that high
GCV does not always lead to high heritability. Lower values of GCV, h2 and GA
under non-stress environment than under stress environments may be due to low
genetic variability under non-stress environment and lack of correlation between
yield under non-stress environment (Yp) and yield under stress environments (YS2
and YS3) and the alleles that control the expression of yield under stress conditions
are different from those controlling yield under non-stress conditions. Similar
findings were reported by Rosielle and Hamblin (1981) and Ceccarelli (1987).
5.3.3 Genotypic coefficient of variation (GCV), heritability (h2) and genetic

advance (GA) for yield components
In this study, the higher estimates of genotypic coefficient of variation,
heritability and genetic advance for yield components under treatment S2 than under
treatment S3 indicate that the estimation of genetic variability depends on the severity
٩٧
of heat stress. The same result was recorded by Chopra and Viswanathan (1999) in
wheat. Since grain yield depends upon its components such as total grains/m2 and
grain weight, it is equally important how the total number of grains is achieved under
stress (Fischer, 1979; Aggarwal and Sinha, 1987). Therefore, the yield stability can
be analyzed through its components. Many workers suggested the use of direct
selection under stress conditions and they referred this to the existing differences
between the alleles controlling the expression of yield under stress from those
controlling yield under non-stress conditions (Simmonds, 1991; Ceccarelli et al.,
1992).
5.4 Phenotypic Variability

Any successful breeding programme depends on the magnitude and nature of
the variability. The genotypes used in this study revealed a vast range of variation
for most of the investigated traits. This high phenotypic variability also was
recorded by Abdelmula (1992) and Abdalla (1993) in faba bean.
In this study, for most of the traits, there was a greater genetic variance than
the variance due to the interaction of genotypes with treatments and genotypes with
years. This resulted in high estimates of heritability of the investigated traits.
Greater differences among genotypes in the second year than in the first year indicate
variable effect of years on the phenotypic variability.
5.4.1 Phenotypic (PCV) and genotypic (GCV) coefficients of variation, heritability

(h2) and genetic advance (GA)
5.4.1.1 Response to selection

The response to selection of quantitative characters is directly proportional to
the estimates of its genotypic coefficient of variation, heritability and genetic
advance (Jarwar et al., 1998). The higher phenotypic coefficient of variation than
the genotypic one for all the characters under study over two years is also reported by
Bakheit and Mahdy (1988) in faba bean and Rajanna et al. (2000) in soybean. The
high values of GCV, which were recorded for pod-setting percentage, number of
podded nodes/main stem, number of pods/plant, number of seeds/plant and 100-seed
weight were also found by El-Hosary (1983) for number of pods/plant and by
٩٨
Abdelmula (1992) for number of pods/stem. The lowest values of GCV for days to
95% maturity in both years were also recorded by Abdalla (1993). Moreover,
Bakheit and Mahdy (1988) reported high genotypic coefficient of variation for plant
height, pod bearing length, harvest index, reproductive branches/plant, pods/plant
and seed yield/plant. Considerable genetic variability was also reported by many
workers (Bianco et al., 1979; Scarascia- Mugnozza and De Pace, 1979; Porceddu et
al., 1979; Chapman, 1981; Salem, 1982; Polignano and Spagnolettizeuli, 1985) in
faba bean, and Rajanna et al. (2000) in soybean. This wide genetic variability in
faba bean is an indication that its breeding system is intermediate between autogamy
and allogamy (Picard, 1979).
In this study, heritability estimates were higher in the second year than in the
first year for most of the investigated characters, with the exception of plant height,
days to 95% maturity, dry matter/plant and seed yield/plant. This could be attributed
to high genetic variability between the studied materials for such characters in the
second year, and because of the differences in environmental factors between the two
seasons. As suggested by Falconer (1980), variable conditions reduce heritability,
while uniform conditions increase it. The high estimates of heritability , which
resulted for number of podded nodes/main stem, number of pods/plant, number of
seeds/plant and 100-seed weight in this work were also attained by Abdelmula
(1992), which shows that these characters are highly genetically controlled and less
affected by environments.
Low heritability estimates were found by Bakheit and Mahdy (1988) for plant
height, number of branches/plant, 100-seed weight, seed yield/plant and number of
pods/plant. These findings also were observed in this work.
The highest values of the expected genetic advance from selection were
recorded for number of seeds/pod in both years, which indicates that character with
high genetic advance also has high heritability. But due to the fluctuations in the
amount of phenotypic coefficient of variation, genotypic coefficient of variation,
heritability and genetic advance, which indicate that heritability estimate itself does
not provide indication of the amount of genetic progress that could result from
selection, it is not necessary that high heritability leads to high genetic gain. This is
because heritability estimates the magnitude of genetic variance to the total
٩٩
phenotypic variance, but does not estimate the amount of genetic variability. This
evidence is due to the lack of association between genotypic coefficient of variation
and heritability in this study. Similar findings have bean found by Ahmed (1985) in
sesame. It was found also that heritability had no relationship with genetic advance.
Moreover, broad sense heritability estimates the proportion of phenotypic variance
due to total genetic variance of which only the additive portion is heritable.
However, high heritability values coupled with high genetic gain as in this study
proves that variation is attributable to high degree of additive genetic effects and
selection would be effective for such traits, whereas high heritability estimates
coupled with low genetic gain indicates that variation can be attributed to little
genetic variability and/or that the greater portion of the genetic variability is due to
non-heritable variation, which is due to dominance and epistatic interactions. Thus
for such traits selection will not be effective. Therefore, such coupling of high
heritability and low genetic gain from selection is attributed to predominance of non-
additive genetic variance only (Johnson et al., 1955).
For some characters in this study, high phenotypic coefficient of variability
was associated with high genotypic coefficient of variability and with high genetic
gain such as in pod-setting percentage, number of podded nodes/main stem and
number of seeds/plant. This indicates that there was a considerable genetic
variability and that the phenotype of an individual was a good indicator of its
genotype. Thus to improve such characters mass selection would be effective.
These findings are in accordance with the result and conclusion of Rajanna et al.
(2000) in soybean.
The overall means of some of the investigated characters were similar over
two years. These similarities are an indication of the stability of these characters
over environments. However, traits which showed high variations in the overall
means over the two years are considered as the least stable ones. This may be due to
the interaction of genotypes with years. These findings are in agreement with the
report of Yassin (1973a) and Dantuma and Thompson (1983) that the variability in
the estimated values of traits is attributed to genetic and environmental factors.
١٠٠
5.5 Phenotypic Relationships Between Traits
As reported by many workers, yield is a complex character in inheritance and
depends on several components (Kambal, 1969; Ishag, 1973; Magyarosi and Sjodin,
1976; El-Hosary, 1983). Therefore, crop improvement can not be achieved by
intensifying selection for one or few of these components while disregarding others.
Thus determination of the degree of association between those related traits is very
essential for the effectiveness of selection for yield improvement. The close
phenotypic association between the characters could be attributed to the effects of
genes as well as the effects of environment as suggested by Falconer (1980).
The differences observed in the estimates of the phenotypic correlation
coefficients in the two years may be due to the fact that estimates of the phenotypic
correlation are dependent on the environmental correlation. Similar conclusions
were also reported by Falconer (1980) to explain the changes in the estimates of
genotypic correlation coefficients between seasons. In addition, Falconer (1980)
attributed the variation in the signs of phenotypic correlation coefficients between
certain traits to the fact that the genetic and environmental sources of variation affect
these traits through different physiological mechanisms.
The significant positive phenotypic association of plant height with height to
first podded node/stem in the first and second years in this study, may be attributed
to the increase in the stem internodes.
In this study, the negative and significant phenotypic correlation coefficients between the vegetative traits
such as height to first podded node/stem, number of reproductive branches/plant and days to 95% flowering with pod-
setting percentage in the first year and for pod length with pod-setting percentage in the second year are an indication
that early maturing genotypes produced short stemmed plants due to the reduction in the internodes length with more
pods and few branches/plant, and also may be due to the competition between these traits for assimilates during their
development. This finding is also reported by Adams (1967).
The different associations of seed yield/plant with its components observed in

the present study, with some exceptions, were in agreement with the findings
observed by other workers (Kambal, 1969; Ishag, 1973; Magyarosi and Sjodin, 1976;
Mahmoud et al., 1978; Huang et al., 1983; Neal and McVetty, 1984; Marcellos,
1987; Ricciardi, 1987; Bakheit and Mahdy, 1988).
The positive and highly significant phenotypic coefficients of correlation in
both years between seed yield/plant and number of podded nodes/main stem, number
of pods/plant, number of seeds/plant and dry matter/plant in this work is expected,
which is in line with the results of Mahmoud et al. (1978), Habetinek et al., and
١٠١
Huang et al. (1983), Neal and McVetty (1984), Ricciardi (1987), Marcellos (1987),
Bakheit and Mahdy (1988), Abdelmula (1992), Bora et al. (1998), and Mulat (1998)
in faba bean, and Subhash et al. (2001) in chick pea. These significant close
associations between seed yield/plant and these components could be attributed to
the effects of genes as well as the effects of environments as suggested by Falconer
(1980), and these components could be good criteria for selection.
In the present study, positive and significant phenotypic correlation of seed
yield/plant with 100-seed weight in the first year is also reported by Bakheit and
Mahdy (1988).
The positive and non-significant correlation for seed yield/plant with number
of seeds/pod in both years is also found by Neal and McVetty (1984) and Abdelmula
(1992).
The positive and highly significant correlation coefficients for seed
yield/plant with plant height and harvest index in both years and with pod-setting
percentage in the second year are in agreement with the findings reported by Bora et
al. (1998). This indicates that these characters could be used as criteria during
selection for heat tolerance and yield improvement.
In both years, the highly significant and positive phenotypic correlation of
number of podded nodes/main stem, number of pods/plant, number of seeds/plant
and seed yield (kg/ha) with each other could be attributed to pleiotropy or genetic
linkage, as stated by Yassin (1973b) or may be due to developmentally induced
relationship between these components, which are only indirectly the consequences
of gene action (Adams, 1967). Such findings are also found by Abdelmula et al.
(1993). These components should be considered as selection criteria for high
yielding genotypes due to their strong association with seed yield/plant.
In the present study, negative and highly significant phenotypic relationship
for number of podded nodes/main stem, number of pods/plant, number of seeds/pod
and number of seeds/plant with 100-seed weight in the second year may be due to the
compensatory phenomenon in faba bean between yield components during plant
development. Similar results and conclusion are also reported by many workers
(Kambal, 1969; Yassin, 1973b; Magyarosi and Sjodin, 1976; Mahmoud et al., 1978;
Neal and McVetty, 1984; Katiyar and Singh, 1990; Abdelmula, 1992; Abdelmula et
١٠٢
al., 1993). However, it can be concluded that seed yield is sensitive to delayed
sowing and the breeders should consider yield components during selection for high
yielding genotypes because of their positive correlation with yield.
5.6 Genotype x Environment Interaction and Yield Stability

For a plant breeder to improve varieties for high yield, genotypes x
environments interaction is of great importance, and it becomes a serious limitation
in most plant breeding programmes engaged in improvement of quantitative
characters, like grain yield (Eberhart and Russell, 1966; Gautam et al., 1986).
The estimation of genotypes x environments interaction components vary
considerably with different characters in the same crop (George et al., 1966). It was
found that yield of faba bean fluctuates widely from season to season as well as from
farm to farm, and the effects of years are of more consequence than the effects of
locations on yield stability (Hebblethwaite et al., 1977; Lawes et al., 1983).
In this study, for most of traits highly significant variations were found due to
environments and genotypes, whereas the variations for genotypes x macro-
environments interactions were non significant, but for seed yield/plant the variations
for genotypes x macro-environments interactions were significant. Similar findings
were reported by Omer et al. (1999) in faba bean. This may be due to low genetic
variability between the studied genotypes, because they were developed in same
locality, or may be due to the fact that the variations due to environmental factors
between macro-environments were small.
Dantuma and Thompson (1983) reported that number of seeds/pod and 100-
seed weight were the more stable yield components in relation to changes in
environment, whereas Thompson and Taylor (1977) stated that number of podded
nodes/plant and number of pods/podded nodes were the least stable components.
Thus the significant variation due to the interaction of genotypes x environments for
seed yield/plant in this work may be due to the complexity of this trait as it depends
on its components.
Yassin (1973a) reported highly significant differences between environments,
varieties and their interactions. Partitioning of the varieties x environments
interaction (into linear responses and deviations from linearity) revealed that linear
١٠٣
responses were insignificant, but the deviations from linearity were highly
significant. Such findings were found in this study as that linear responses were non
significant and the deviations from linearity were significant. This lack of
significance of linear responses does not rule out the possibility that linear responses
of some varieties may be significant (Perkins and Jinks, 1968).
In this work, the large environments mean squares for seed yield/plant
showed that the influence of environmental factors on mean seed yield of the
genotypes as whole was more important than the mean differences in yield between
the genotypes and by far greater in importance than interaction of the genotypes with
the environments indicating that variation from one environment to another may be
the main factor that determines most of the yield differences of the genotypes in the
different environments. This is in agreement with the report of Yassin (1973a).
Polignano et al. (1989) stated that in faba bean, the heterogeneous
populations are more stable than the homogeneous ones. Faba bean however, has
proved to possess relatively low yield stability in comparison with cereals or even
dry peas (Hawtin and Hebblethwaite, 1983; Ebmeyer, 1987). Thus an important
factor influencing the performance of genotypes was variability in the environment,
which has long been recognized by Singh and Bejiga (1990). Therefore, selection
for tolerance to environmental stress is one of the ways suggested for improving
yield stability (Bond, 1987; Bruns and Stelling, 1992).
-Stability and heat tolerance

In this study, the highly stable genotypes produced moderate grain yield and
were moderately tolerant under terminal heat stress. Genotype C.52/1/1/1 exhibited
the highest seed yield/plant (14.5g), was more adapted to unfavourable
environments (S2), highly stable and moderately tolerant based on high value of
YS2/Yp and low value of SSIS2. Similarly, under treatment S3, genotypes C.52/1/1/1
and C.42 showed the highest seed yield/plant (7.93g), adapted to unfavourable
environment, highly stable and moderately heat tolerant based on high value of
YS3/Yp and low value of SSIS3. These results indicate close association between
high yield stability, adaptation to unfavourable environments, and moderate heat
tolerance connected with high grain yield. This is in accordance with the conclusion
١٠٤
of Chopra and Viswanathan (1999) in wheat. Therefore, genotypes with such
characteristics (high yield under heat stress and high yield stability) are better
adapted to heat stress and could be used to improve faba bean yield under terminal
heat stress.
١٠٥
CHAPTER SIX
6.1 Conclusion
Based on the results obtained in this study, it could be concluded that:
1- Delayed sowing date caused a paramount reduction in seed yield of faba
bean, due to the terminal heat stress, indicating the sensitivity of faba bean to
heat stress.
2- The genetic variability among the studied material was low, which reduced
the heritability estimates and genetic advance under non-stress conditions.
3- Low genetic variability under non-stress environments (Yp) than under stress
environments (YS2 and YS3) indicates that alleles that control the expression
of yield under non-stress environments are different from those controlling
yield under stress environments.
4- Yield components which exhibited high values of genotypic coefficient of
variation, heritability and genetic advance under terminal heat stress such as
100-seed weight are very important and hence can be considered as potential
for improvement of seed weight under heat stress conditions.
5- Pod-setting percentage and pods/plant expressed positive correlation with
seed yield/plant. Therefore, genotypes which gave high percentage of pods
set per plant under terminal heat stress could be put into consideration for
yield improvement.
6- Some genotypes showed high values of YS/Yp and low values of SSI
parameters which are important for yield improvement under stress
conditions.
7- Characters which had high estimates of phenotypic coefficient of variation
and high genotypic coefficient of variation and associated with high genetic
advance could be used during breeding programme.
8- Because seed yield/plant exhibited low heritability and genetic advance, the
indirect selection for its components assumes importance. Characters such as
number of podded nodes/main stem, number of pods/plant and 100-seed
weight proved to be the more important yield components.
١٠٦
9- Genotypes which were highly or moderately tolerant to heat stress showed
high yield stability under heat stress environment.
10- Genotypes C.52/1/1/1, SuperL.85 and Bulk1/2 gave higher values of seed
yield/plant than the genotypes BB7 and H93 (check varieties) under slight
delay in sowing date (S2). The genotypes C.52/1/1/1 and SuperL.85 were
more adapted to unfavourable environment, more stable and highly tolerant to
heat stress, while the genotype Bulk1/2 was more adapted to favourable
environment, more stable but susceptible to heat stress. Furthermore,
genotype C.42/1/1/1 gave higher seed yield/plant than the genotype BB7 and
was more adapted to unfavourable environment, more stable and highly
tolerant to heat stress.
11- Genotypes C.52/1/1/1, Bulk1/2, C.22 and C.42 exhibited higher seed
yield/plant than the genotypes H93 and BB7 under terminal heat stress (S3).
12- Genotypes Bulk1/2 and BB7 gave high yield potential/plant (Yp) and high
yield under heat stress conditions (S2 and S3), but not tolerant to heat stress
due to high values of SSI, while genotype H93 gave high yield potential/plant
(Yp) and high yield when sowing was delayed by 14 days (S2) and genotype
C.22 gave the highest yield potential/plant and high yield when sowing was
delayed by 28 days (S3), but they were not tolerant to heat stress due to high
values of SSI.
13- Genotypes C.52/1/1/1, C.42 and C.42/1/1/1 produced moderate values of
yield potential/plant and higher yields under heat stress conditions (S2 and S3)
and were highly tolerant to heat stress, whereas genotype SuperL.85
produced low value of yield potential/plant (Yp) and high yield when sowing
was delayed by 14 days (S2) and highly tolerant to heat stress due to high
values of Y/Yp and low values of SSI .
١٠٧
6.2 Recommendations
1. These studied genotypes should be examined over years and locations with
long termination period of heat so as to expose the different stages of plant
growth to high temperatures.
2. Yield components such as number of podded nodes/main stem, number of
pods/plant and 100-seed weight, which showed close association with seed
yield/plant could be used as selection criteria and yield indicators if special
consideration is given to those traits, which were negatively correlated with
each other. Also vegetative traits which revealed positive correlation with
yield should be considered.
3. Characters which gave high heritability and genetic advance such as pod-
setting percentage, number of podded nodes/main stem and 100-seed weight
could be used as selection criteria for developing high yield genotypes under
heat stress conditions.
4. High or moderate yielding genotypes (C.52/1/1/1, C.42 and C.42/1/1/1) under
non-stress conditions (Yp) and under stress conditions (S2 and S3), highly or
moderately tolerant to heat stress could be used as genetic material for yield
improvement under terminal heat stress, with special consideration to the
susceptible ones (Bulk1/2 and BB7). Genotypes such as P.M/1 and C.86
which were susceptible to heat stress under slight delay in sowing date (S2)
and become highly or moderately tolerant under terminal heat stress (S3)
should be considered for breeding programme.
١٠٨
REFERENCES
Abdalla, I. E. (1993). Genetic Variability, Correlations and Genotype x

Environment Interaction in Faba Bean (Vicia faba L.). M.Sc. Thesis,
University of Khartoum.
Abdalla, M. M. F. (1976). Natural variability and selection in some local and exotic
populations of field bean (Vicia faba L.). Zeitschrift fuer
Pflanzenzuechtung, 76: 334 – 343.
Abdalla, M. M. F. and G. Fischbech. (1978). Growth and fertility of five stocks of

field beans grown under three temperature regimes, and the effect of natural
water stress on seed index of a collection of (Vicia faba L.). J. Agronomy
and Crop Sci., 147: 81-91.
Abdelmula, A. A. (1992). Path Analysis and Selection Indices in Faba Bean (Vicia
faba L.). M.Sc. Thesis, University of Khartoum.
Abdelmula, A. A.; A. H. Abdalla and F. A. Salih. (1993). Phenotypic and genotypic

correlations of some characters in faba bean (Vicia faba L.). U.K. J. of
Agric. Sci., 1 (1): 20-30.
Abdul Bari, S. and D. Nygaard. (1982). A farm survey on faba bean production in
the Northern and Nile Provinces in Sudan (1979-80) crop season. FABIS
Newsletter, 5: 12-13.
Abu Salih, H. S. (1971). Effect of sowing date on incidence of Broad Bean Mosaic
Virus and yield of Foul Masri. Ann. Rep. Hudeiba Res. Stn. 1970/71, pp.
31.
Abu Salih, H. S.; H. M. Ishag and S. A. Siddig. (1973). Effect of sowing date on
incidence of Sudanese Broad Bean Mosaic Virus in, and yield of, Vicia
faba. Ann. App. Biology, 74: 371-378.
Adam, A. I. (1975). Semi Detailed Soil Survey and Land Capacity Classification of
Northeast Khartoum. Soil Survey Department. Ministry of Agric. Sudan.
١٠٩
Adams, M. W. (1967). Basis of yield component compensation in crop plant with
special reference to the field bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Crop Science, 7:
505-510.
Ageeb, O. A. A. (1977). The effect of watering interval and sowing date on plant
survival and grain yield of faba bean. Hudeiba Research Station, Annual
Report 1976/77, Ed-Damer, Sudan.
Ageeb, O. A. A. (1979). The effect of sowing date and watering interval on the grain
yield of broad bean. FABIS Newsletter, 1: 22.
Ageeb, O. A. A.; F. A. Salih and M. S. Farah. (1983). The effects of sowing date,
watering regime and mulching on yield of faba beans. Report on Backup
Research Agronomy for New Areas – Sudan (1982/83) Cropping Season
ICARDA/IFAD, pp. 6-7.
Aggarwal, P. K. and S. K. Sinha. (1987). Performance of wheat and triticale

varieties in a variable soil water environment. IV. Yield components and
their association with grain yield. Field Crops Res., 17: 45-53.
Ahmed, M. E. (1985). Genetic Studies in Sesame (Sesamum indicum L.). M.Sc.

Thesis, University of Khartoum.
Ahmed, M. E. M. (1989). Responses of Faba Bean to Water and Heat Stress. M.Sc.
Thesis, University of Khartoum.
Ali, A. E. (1983). Nutritional studies in Sudan. Pages 140-144 in Faba Bean in the
Nile Valley. First phase of ICARDA/IFAD Nile Valley project (M. C.
Saxena and R. A. Stewart, eds.). Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. The Hague,
The Netherlands.
Ali, A. E. and A. M. Ali. (1983). Effect of sowing date and plant population on seed
quality of faba bean. FABIS Newsletter, 7: 31 – 32.
Al Khatib, K. and G. M. Paulsen. (1984). Mode of high-temperature injury to wheat

during grain development. Plant Physiol., 61: 363-368.
Altshuler, M. and J. P. Mascarenhas. (1982). Heat shock protein and effects of heat
shock in plants. Plant Mol. Biol., 1: 103-115.
١١٠
Aristarkhova, M. L. and R. B. Demina. (1980). Intravarietal variability and
correlation of characters in broad beans exemplified by the variety
Kuzminskie. Byul. NTI UNII Zernobobi. Krupyan. Kul’ture (1979), 24: 60
– 63.
١١١
Bagga, A. K. and H. M. Rawson. (1977). Contrasting responses of morphological
similar wheat cultivars to temperatures appropriate to warm temperature
climates with hot summer. A study in controlled environment. Aust. J.
Plant Physiol., 4: 877 – 887.
Bakheit, B. R. and E. E. Mahdy. (1988). Variation, correlations and path coefficient

analysis for some characters in collections of Faba Bean (Vicia faba L.).
FABIS Newsletter, 20: 9-11.
Baldwin, B. (1980). Time of sowing- a major factor influencing yields of Vicia

faba in South Australia. FABIS Newsletter, 2: 9.
Baldwin, B. (1982). Effect of sowing date on faba beans. FABIS Newsletter, 2:39.
Bannister, P. (1976). Introduction to Physiological Plant Ecology. Blackwell

Scientific Publications, Oxford.
Bansal, K. C. and S. K. Sinha. (1991). Assessment of drought resistance in 20

accessions of Triticum aestivum and related species. I. Total dry matter and
grain yield stability. Euphytica, 56: 7-14.
Barry, P. and T. S. Storey. (1979). Influence of some cultural practices on the yield
development and quality of field beans (Vicia faba L.). Ir, J. Agric. Res.,
18: 77-88.
Becker, H. C. (1987). Möglichkeiten Zur züchterischen verbesserung der

Ertragssicherheit bei Getreide. Habilitationsschrft Universitait Hohenheim,
April 1987.
Becker, H. C. and J. Le´on. (1988). Stability analysis in plant breeding. Plant

Breeding, 101: 1-23.
Begg, J. E. and B. W. R. Torsell. (1974). Diphotonastic and Parahelionastic Leaf

Movements in Stylosanthes humulis. Roy. Soc. New Zealand.
Bianco, V. V.; G. Damato; V. Miccolis; G. Polignano; E. Porceddue and G. Scippa.

(1979). Variation in a collection of Vicia faba L. and correlations among
agronomically important characters. In: Some Current Research on Vicia
faba in Western Europe (D. A. Bond; G. A. Scarascia – Mugnozza and M.
١١٢
H. Poulsen eds.). Pub. ECC, Eur 6244 EN Luxembourg pp. 217-250. Cited
in: The Faba Bean (P. D. Hebblethwaite ed.), Butterworths, London. Pp.
155.
Blum, A. (1986). The effect of heat stress on wheat leaf and spike photosynthesis. J.
Exp. Bot. 37: 111-118.
Blum, A. and A. Ebercon. (1981). Cell membrane stability as a measure of drought

and heat tolerance in wheat. Crop Sci., 21: 43-47.
Bochniarz, J.; M. Cegielski; F. L. Chodulska; A. Kawalec and W. Lenartowicz.

(1986). Development and yields of faba bean (Vicia faba L. minor Harz) as
related to sowing date. Plant Production Journal,Poland, 87: 79-96.
Bond, D. A. (1979). Breeding work on Vicia faba in U.K. Ibid, 1: 5-6.
Bond, D. A. (1987). Recent developments in breeding field beans (Vicia faba L.).
Plant Breeding, 99: 1-26.
Bora, G. C.; S. N. Gupta; Y. S. Tomer; S. Sultan-Singh and Singh. (1998). Genetic

variability, correlation and path analysis in faba bean (Vicia faba L.).
Indian J. Agric. Sci., 68(4): 212-214.
Bruckner, P. L. and R. C. Frohberg. (1987). Stress tolerance and adaptation in spring

wheat. Crop Sci.., 27: 31-36.
Bruns, S. and D. Stelling. (1992). Genotypic variability of the sensitivity of the

spring sown faba bean (Vicia faba L.) to late sowing. p. 89-90. In:
Proceedings of First European Conference on Grain Legumes, 1-3 June
1992, Angers, France.
Burton, G. W. (1952). Quantitative inheritance in grasses. Proc. 6th Int. Grassal

Congr. 1: 227-283.
Burton, G. W. and E. M. DeVane. (1953). Estimating heritability in tall fescue

(Eescue arundianceae L.) from replicated clonal material. Agronomy
Journal, 45: 478-481.
Ceccarelli, S. (1987). Yield potential and drought tolerance of segregating

population of barley in contrasting environments. Euphytica, 36: 265-273.
١١٣
Ceccarelli, S.; S. Grando and J. Hamblin. (1992). Relationships between barley
grain yield measured in low- and high-yielding environments. Euphytica,
64: 49-85.
Cervea, S. and V. Taraue. (1969). Contribution to the study of flower and fruit
biology in V. faba L., variety equina and variety minor. Comule. Botany,
11: 57-63. In F.C. Abstract (1971) 24: 293.
Chandra, S. and A. N. Asthana (1988). Pod set in inflorescences with three flowers
in lenlit. LENS Newsletter, 15(2): 22-24.
Chandra, S. and A. N. Asthana. (1991). Podding behaviour of two widely adapted

lentil varieties. Indian J. of Pulses Research.
Chandra, S. and A. N. Asthana. (1993). Screening for tolerance to terminal heat

stress in lentil. LENS Newsletter, 20(1): 33-35.
Chapman, G. P. (1981). Genetic variation within Vicia faba. FABIS (June) 3: 12.
Chen, H. H.; Z. Y. Shen and P. H. Li. (1982). Adaptability of crop plants to high
temperature stress. Crop Sci., 22: 719-725.
Chopra, R. K. and C. Viswanathan. (1999). Evaluation of heat stress tolerance in

irrigated environment of T. aestivum and related species. I. Stability in yield
and yield components. Euphytica, 106: 169-180.
Dantuma, G. and R. Thompson. (1983). Whole-crop physiology and yield

components. Page 143-158. In: The Faba Bean. A Basis for Improvement.
(P. D. Hebblethwaite ed.). Bulterworths, London, England.
De Pace, C. (1979). Characteristics with significant correlation to seed yield in

broad bean population grown in Southern Italy. Pages 293-302. In:
Proceedings of the EEC Programme of Coordination of Research on Plant
Proteins Seminar (D. A. Bond; G. T. Scarascia – Mugnozza and M. H.
Poulsen eds.). 27–29 April 1978, Bari, Italy. Commission of the European
Communities Publisher, Luxembourg.
Delgado, B. M. I.; M. P. Reynolds; A. Larque-Saavedra and T. S. Nava. (1994).

Genetic diversity for photosynthesis in wheat under heat stressed
١١٤
environments and its relationship to productivity. Wheat Special Report No.
30. Mexico, D.F, CIMMYT.
Dubetz, S. (1969). An unusual pholonastism induced by drought in Phaseolus

vulgaris. Can. J. Bot. 47: 1640-1641.
Eberhart, S. A. and W. A. Russell. (1966). Stability parameters for comparing

varieties. Crop Sci., 6: 36-40.
Eberhart, S. A. and W. A Russell. (1969). Yield and stability for a 10 line diallel of
single-cross and double-cross maize hybrids. Crop Sci., 9: 357-361.
Ebmeyer, E. (1987). Zur Bedeutung der Ertragssicherheit in der Züchtung von

Ackerbohne. Vortr. Pflanzenzüchtg. 12: 168-179.
Ehdaie, B.; J. G. Waines and A. E. Hall. (1988). Differential responses of landrace

and improved spring wheat genotypes to stress environment. Crop Sci., 28:
838-842.
Ehleringer, J. R. and H. E. Mooney. (1978). Modifications of solar radiation,

absorption patterns and implications for carbon gain at the leaf level. In: On
the Economy of Plant Form and Function (T. J. Givnish ed.). Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
El-Hosary, A. A. (1983). Genetical studies on field beans (Vicia faba L.). Yield and
yield components. Egyptian Society of Crop Sciences, Cairo, 2: 95-108.
El-Murabaa, A. I.; A. M. Butt; S. A. Abdul – Aal and K. B. Salem. (1987). Effect of

cultivar and planting date on faba bean (Vicia faba L.) performance. III.
Interaction of planting date x cultivars and correlation between characters.
Assiut J. Agric. Sci., 18: 4, 215-232.
Falconer, D. S. (1980). Introduction to Quantitative Genetics, 2nd.Ed., Long man,

London.
FAO (2000). Production Year Book, Vol. 54, FAO, Rome.
Faris, M. A.; M. R. A. de Aranjo and M. de A. Lira. (1981). Yield stability of forage

sorghum in Northeastern Brazil. Crop Sci., 21: 132-134.
١١٥
Finlay, K. W. and G. N. Wilkinson. (1963). The analysis of adaptation in plant
breeding program. Aust. J. Agric. Res., 14: 742-754.
Fischer, R. A. (1979). Growth and water-limitation to dry land wheat yield in

Australia: A Physiological Frame Work. J. Agric. Res., 29: 89-91.
Fischer, R. A. and R. Maurer. (1978). Drought resistance in spring wheat cultivars.

I. Grain yield responses. Aust. J. Agric. Res., 29: 897-912.
Freigoun, S. O. (1980). Effect of sowing date and water interval on the incidence of
wilt and root-rot diseases in faba beans. FABIS Newsletter, 2: 41.
١١٦
Gautam, P. L.; D. K. Garg; Sohan Pal; S. K. Malik and V. P. Manglik. (1986).
Genotype x environment interactions and crop improvement. A review In:
Genetic and Crop Improvement. (P. K. Gupta and J. R. Bahl eds.) pp. 179-
192. Subhash BAZAR, MEERUT. Printed and published by Hirdesh
Kumar Rastogi for Rastogi and Company.
George, H. L.; E. Laing; G. Heyne and T. L. Water. (1966). Estimates of variety x

environment interaction in yield tests of three small grains and their
significance on the breeding programs. Crop Sci., 6: 135-139.
Geraman, J. (1969). Development effects of low temperature influencing the

germination and taking up of beans. Sborisk Provozne E. Konomicke
Faculty Vysoke Skolyzemedelske, Vceskych Bodejovicich, 7:11-17, Field
Crops Abstract (1972), 25: 513.
Gomez, K. A. and A. A. Gomez. (1984). Statistical Procedures for Agricultural

Research. Second edition, John Willey and Sons (ed.), New York.
Habetinek, J.; M. Ruzickova and J. Soucek. (1983). Variability of characteristics in,

and correlations between various cultivars of horse beans (Vicia faba L.).
Faba Bean Abstracts 3(1): 2-2.
Hardallou, E. T. (1981). The chemical composition of the faba bean seed. FABIS, 3:
27-34.
Harding, S. A.; J. A. Guikema and G. M. Paulsen. (1990). Photosynthetic decline

from high-temperature stress during maturation of wheat. I. Interaction with
senescence process. Plant Physiol., 92: 648-653.
Hatam, M.; K. M. Khattak and Amanullah. (1999). Effect of sowing date and
sowing geometry on growth and yield of faba bean (Vicia faba L.). FABIS
Newsletter 1999, No. 42: 26-28.
Hatfied, J. L. and D. E. Egli. (1974). Effect of the temperature on the rate of soybean
hypocotyls elongation and field emergence. Crop Sci., 14: 423-426.
Hawtin, G. C. and P. D. Hebblethwaite. (1983). Background history of faba bean

production. P. 3-22. In: P. D. Hebblethwaite and G. C. Hawtin (eds.). The
Faba Bean (Vicia faba L.), London, Butterworths.
١١٧
Hawtin, H. and R. Stewart. (1979). The development, production and problems of
faba beans (Vicia faba L.) in Asia and North Africa. FABIS Newsletter, 1:
7.
Hebblethwaite, P. D.; G. R. Batts and F. R. Kantar. (1991). Influence of sowing

date, irrigation, plant growth regulator use and flower colour on yield of
faba beans (Vicia faba L.). Aspects of Applied Biol., 27: 77-84.
Hebblethwaite, P. D.; J. Ingram; R. K. Scott and T. J. Elliot. (1977). Some factors

influencing yield variation in faba bean (Vicia faba L.). In: R. Thompson
(ed). Proceedings on production, processing and utilization of the field bean
(Vicia faba L.). p. 20-27. Bulletin No.15, Scottish Horticultural Research
Institute, Invergowrie. Cited in The Faba Bean, pp. 49. (P. D.
Hebblethwaite ed.). Butterworths, London.
Henckell, P. A. (1964). Physiology of plants under drought. Ann. Rev. Plant

Physiol., 27: 485-505.
Hindak, F. and J. Komarek. (1968). Cultivation of the cryosestonic alga Koliella

tatrae (Kol) Hind. Biol. Plant, 10: 95-97.
Huang, W. T.; F. O. Li,; X. Y. Jiang and H. Y. Li. (1983). Correlation and path
coefficient analysis of characters in Vicia faba L. Hereditas, China, 5(3):
21-23.
Ingram, B. L.; P. G. Webb and R. H. Biggs. (1986). Interaction of exposure time and
temperature on thermostability and protein content of excised Illicium
parviflorum roots. Plant and Soil, 96: 69-76.
Ishag, H. M. (1973). Physiology of seed yield in faba beans (Vicia faba L.). 1. Yield
and yield components. J. Agric. Sci. (Camb.), 80: 181-189.
Jarwar, A. D.; A. Hammed Ansari, and M. I. Lashari. (1998). Genetic analysis of

some quantitative characters in sesame. Sesame and Safflower Newsletter,
13: 43-38.
Jen-hu Chang. (1968). Climate and Agriculture. An Ecological Survey. Aldine

publ. Co., Chicago.
١١٨
Johnson, H. W.; H. F. Robinson and R. E. Comstock. (1955). Estimates of genetic
and environmental variability in soybeans. Agronomy Journal, 47: 314-318.
Kambal, A. E. (1969). Components of yield in field beans (Vicia faba L.). J. Agric.
Sci. (Camb.), 72: 359-363.
Katiyar, R. P. and A. K. Singh. (1990). Path coefficient studies for yield and yield
components in faba bean (Vicia faba L.). FABIS, 26: 3-5.
Keatinge, J. D. H. and C. F. Shaykewich. (1977). Effects of the physical

environment on the growth and yield of field beans (Vicia faba) var. minor
in Canadian Prairie. J. Agric. Sci. (Camb.), 89: 349-353.
Khalafalla, A. M. (1985). Effect of sowing date, ridge direction, plant orientation

and population on faba bean grain yield. FABIS Newsletter, 12: 11-12.
Khorgade, P. W; V. B. Rathi; M. N. Narkhede and B. A. Sakhare. (2000). Genotype

x environment interaction and stability parameters in chickpea. Annals of
Plant Physiology 2000, 14(1): 32-35. Abstract 2002/03.
Lange, O. L. and R. Lange. (1963). Untersuchungen Uber Blattemperaturen,

Transpiration and Helzerisistenz and pflanzen Mediterranean Standorte
(Costa Brava spanien). Flora (Jena) 153: 387-425.
Lawes, D. A.; D. A. Bond and M. H. Pousen. (1983). Classification, origin, breeding

methods and objectives. P. 23-76. In: (P. D. Hebblethwaite ed.). The Faba
Bean (Vicia faba L.). A Basis for Improvement. Butterworths, London,
England.
Levitt, J. (1963). Hardiness and survival of plants at extremes. A uniform system

for measuring resistance and its two components. In: Environmental
Control of Plant Growth (L. T. Evans ed.) Pp. 351-362. A Proceeding of a
Symposium Held at Camberra, Australia, 1962.
Levitt, J. (1972). Response of Plants to Environmental Stresses. Physiological

Ecology. (T. T. Kozlowski ed.) Pp. 229-445, Academic Press, New York.
١١٩
Levitt, J. (1980). Response of Plants to Environmental Stresses. Chilling, Freezing
and High Temperature Stress. I. New York, NY, USA, Academic Press. 497
pp.
Lima, W. F.; J. F. F. de. Toledo; C. A. A. Arias; M. F. de. Oliveira; M. F. de.

Oliveira and J. F. F. de. Toledo. (2000). Stability of soybean yield through
different sowing periods. American Journal, 35 (11): 2181-2189.
Lin, C. Y.; J. K. Roberts and J. L. Key. (1984). Acquisition of thermotolerance in

soybean seedlings. Plant Physiol., 74: 152-160.
Long, J.; L. H. X. Lin; X. Duan and H. Duan. (1989). Food legume crops. P. 23-25.
In: (Milly Yau ed.). Faba Bean in China. State of the art Review. Special
Study Report 1993, ICARDA, Syria.
Loss, S. P. and K. H. M. Siddique. (1996). Adaptation of faba bean to Mediterranean

environments of Western Australia. Proceedings of the 8th Australian
Agronomy Conference, Toowoomba.
Lush, J. L. (1949). Animal Breeding Plans. Ames. Iowa: the collegiate press. Ed. 3.
1949.
Lynch, P. J.; R. B. Hunter and L. W. Kannenberg. (1973). Relative performance of

single cross, three-way cross and double cross corn hybrids recommended in
Ontario, 1968-1972. Can. J. Plant Sci., 53: 805-810.
Macas, B.; M. C. Gomes; A. S. Dais; J. Coutinho; C. Royo (ed.); M. M. Nachit (ed)

and N. di Fonzo (ed.). (2000). The tolerance of durum wheat to high
temperatures during grain filling. Conference paper, Journal, Portugal, 40:
257-261.
Magyarosi, T. and J. Sjodin. (1976). Investigations of yield and yield components in

field bean (Vicia faba L.) varieties with different ripening time. Zeits chrift
fur Pflanzenzutchg, 77: 133-144.
Mahmoud, S. A.; Y. El- Hyatemy and F. M. El-Rayes. (1978). Correlation and path
coefficient analysis of yield components and chemical composition in broad
bean (Vicia faba L.). Agric. Res. Review (Egypt), 56(8): 117-125.
١٢٠
Marcellos, H. (1987). Relationships between seed yield and plant trials and the
constancy of harvest index in faba bean (Vicia faba L.) FABIS Newsletter,
18: 27-29.
Marcellos, H. and G. A. Constable. (1986). Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 26: 492-496.
Martinek, K.; Klibanov, A. M.; Goldmacher, V. S. and Berezin, I. V. (1977). The

principles of enzyme stabilization. 1. Increase in thermostability of
enzymes covalently bound to a complementary surface of a polymer support
in multipoint fashion. Biochem. Biophys. Acta, 485: 1-12.
Martinueau, J. R.; J. E. Specht; J. H. Williams and C. Y. Sullivan. (1978).

Temperature tolerance in soybeans. I. Evaluation of a technique for
assessing cell membrane thermostability. Crop Sci., 19: 75-78.
McEwen, J. (1970). Fertilizer nitrogen and growth regulators for field beans (Vicia
faba L.). II. The effects of large dressing of fertilizer nitrogen, single and
split applications and growth regulators. J. Agric. Sci. (Camb.), 74: 67-72.
McWilliams, J. R. (1980). Adaptation to high temperature stress. In: Adaptation of

Plants to H20 and High Temperature Stress (N. C. Turner and P. J. Kramer
eds.) pp. 444-447. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Midmore, D. J.; P. M. Cartwright and R. A. Fischer. (1984). Wheat in tropical

environments. II. Crop growth and grain yield. Field Crops Res., 8: 207-
227.
Miller, P. A.; J. C. Williams; H. F. Robinson and R. E. Comstock. (1958).

Estimation of genotypic and environmental variances and covariance in
upland cotton and their implications in selection. Agro. J., 6: 126-131.
Mulat, G. (1998). Variation among Ethiopian faba bean landraces for seed yield and
agro-morphological characters. FABIS Newsletter, 41: 5-8.
Neal, J. R. and P. B. E. McVetty. (1984). Yield structure of faba beans (Vicia faba
L.) grown in Manitoba. Field Crops Res., 8: 349-360.
Odra, J. G. (1985). Physiological Investigations of Drought and Heat Resistance in

Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.) Moench. Ph.D Dissertation of Agricultural
١٢١
Biology, University of Newcastle Upon Tyne, Britain. P. 18-22 and 173-
202.
Oliver, J. (1965). The climate of Khartoum province. Sudan Notes and Records, 46:
90-129.
Omer, M. A.; A. M. Abdel–Hakim and M. M. El-Hady. (1999). Stability parameters

for faba bean (Vicia faba L.) genotypes as criteria for response to
environmental conditions. Food Legume Research Section, Field Crop
Research Institute, Giza, ARC, Egypt. Annuals of Agric. Sci. (Cairo), 1999,
44 (1): 173-188.
Onwueme, C. (1979). Rapid plant conserving estimation of heat tolerance in plants.

Agric. Sci., 92: 527-536.
Pandey, R. K. (1981). Time of sowing as a major factor for higher seed yield of faba
beans in Northern India. Ibid, 3: 43-44.
Parsons, L. G. (1979). Breeding for drought resistance. What plant characteristics

impart resistance. Hort. Sci. 14: 590-592.
Pearcy, R. W.; J. A. Berry and D. C. Fork. (1977). Effect of growth temperature on

the thermal stability of the photosynthetic apparatus of Atriplex lentiformist
(Torr.) Wats. Plant Physiol., 59: 873-878.
Perkins, Jean M. and J. L. Jinks. (1968). Environmental and genotype–

environmental components of variability. III. Multiple lines and crosses.
Heredity, 23: 339-56.
Picard, J. (1979). Some reflections on problems and prospects in Vicia faba L. In:
Some Current Research on Vicia faba in Western Europe, pp. 23-33. (D. A
Bond; G. T. Scarascia – Mugnozza and M. H. Poulsen eds.). ECC
Publication EUR 6244. Cited in The Faba Bean, pp. 49 (P. D.
Hebblethwaite ed.). Buttterworths, London.
Polignano, G. B. and P. L. Spagnolettizeuli. (1985). Variation and covariation in

(Vicia faba L.) populations of Mediterranean origins. Euphytica, 34: 659-
668.
١٢٢
Polignano, G. B.; P. Uggenti and P. Perrino. (1989). Pattern analysis and genotypic-
environment interactions in faba bean (Vicia faba L.) populations.
Euphytica, 49(3): 223-227.
Porceddu, E.; V. V. Bianco; G. Damato; V. Miccolis and G. B. Polignano. (1979).

Variability of some agronomical characters in 158 Italian accessions of
Vicia faba L. In: Some Current Research on Vicia faba in Western Europe.
PP. 251-265. (D. A. Bond; G. T. Scarascia – Mugnozza and M. H. Poulsen
eds.). Pub. EEC, EUR 6244. Cited in Faba Bean Improvement, pp. 19 (G.
Hawtin and C. Webb eds.).
Poulsen, M. H and J. C. N. Knudsen. (1980). Breeding for small seeds per pod in
Vicia faba. FABIS Newsletter, 2: 26-28.
١٢٣
Raison, J. K.; J. A. Berry; P. A. Armond and C. S. Pike. (1980). Membrane
properties in relation to the adaptation of plants to temperature stress. In:
Adaptation of Plants to H20 and High Temperature Stress. (N. C. Turner
and P. J. Kramer eds.) Pp. 261-275. John Wiley and Sons. New York,
Chichester, Brisbane, Toronto.
Rajanna, M. P.; S. R. Viswanatha; R. S. Kulkarni, and S. Ramesh. (2000). Genetic

variability in soybean (Glycine max L.) Merrill. Crop Research, Hisar,
Abstract 2000, 20(1): 108-112.
Reynolds, M. P.; E. Acevedo; K. D. Sayre and R. A. Fischer. (1994). Yield potential

in modern wheat varieties: association with a less competitive ideotype.
Field Crops Res., 37: 149-160.
Ricciardi, L. (1987). Variability of biological and agronomic characters in

accessions of Vicia faba L. Faba Bean Abstracts, 7(1): 1-1.
Robinson, H. F.; R. E. Comstock, and P. H. Harvey. (1949). Estimation of

heritability and degree of dominance in corn. Agro. J., 41: 353-359.
Rosielle, A. A. and J. Hamblin. (1981). Theoretical aspects of selection for yield in

stress and non-stress environments. Crop Sci., 21: 943-946.
Saghin, G. (1998). The influence of sowing time on horse bean (Vicia faba L.) var.
major grown under conditions of Obcinile Bucovinei. J. Plant Production,
Field Crops, 31: 3-4, 103-110.
Salem, S. A. (1982). Variation and correlation among agronomic characters in a

collection of faba bean (Vicia faba L.). J. Agric. Sci. (Camb.), 99(3): 541-
545
Salih, F. A. (1977). Foul Masri sowing date variety experiment. Ann. Rep. Hudeiba
Res. Stn. 1976/77, pp. 37.
Salih, F. A. (1978a). Broad bean variety sowing dates experiment. Ibid, 1977/78, pp.
43
Salih, F. A. (1978b). Seed size/sowing date experiment. Ibid, 1977/78, pp. 45.
١٢٤
Salih, F. A. (1979a). Broad bean variety sowing date experiment. Ibid, 1978/79, pp.
41.
Salih, F. A. (1979b). Broad bean seed size and sowing date experiment. Ibid,
1978/79, pp. 43.
Salih, F. A. (1980). Faba bean sowing date, seed rate and seed size experiment.
Ibid, 1979/80, pp. 34-35.
Salih, F. A. (1985). Varietal performance of faba bean under two different watering
intervals. FABIS Newsletter, 13: 16-17.
Salih, F. A. and A. Khalafalla. (1982). Influence of sowing date on the performance

of four faba bean varieties at different locations in Sudan. Ibid. 5: 18-19.
Salih, F. A. and M. B. Mohamed. (1992). Shambat 75, a faba bean cultivars for El-
Rahad area of Sudan. FABIS Newsletter, 30: 17-19.
Sarkar, C. K. G.; P. S. L. Srivastava and P. S. Deshmukh. (2001). Grain growth rate

and heat susceptibility index: traits for breeding genotypes tolerant to high
temperature stress in bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Indian J.
Genetics and Plant Breeding, Abstract 2001, 61(3): 209-212.
Saxena, M. C. (1979). Some agronomic and physiological aspects of the important

food legume crops in West Asia. In: G. C. Hawtin and G. L. Chancellor
(eds). Food Legume Improvement and Development. Aleppo, Syria:
ICARDA.
Sayre, K. D.; S. Rajaram and R. A. Fischer. (1997). Yield potential progress in short
bread wheat in Northwest Mexico. Crop Sci., 37: 36-42.
Scarascia – Mugnozza, G. T. and C. De Pace. (1979). Concepts and goals for Vicia
faba breeding in Mediterranean environments. Monographie di Genetica
Agraria, 4: 217-244.
Schreiber, U. and J. A. Berry. (1977). Heat induced changes of chlorophyll

flourescence in intact leaves correlated with change of photosynthetic
apparatus. Planta, 136: 233-238.
١٢٥
Schroeder, P. (1984). Influence of temperature and light intensity on growth of faba
bean varieties (Vicia faba L.). J. Agronomy and Crop Sci., (1984). 153 (2):
136-147.
Schulze, E. D.; D. L. Lange; L. Kappen; U. Buschbom and M. Evanari. (1973).

Stomatal responses to changes in temperature at increasing water stress.
Planta, 110: 29-42.
Sekara, A.; M. Poniedzialek; J. Ciura and E. Jedrszozyk. (2001). The effect of

meteorological factors upon flowering and pod setting of faba bean (Vicia
faba L.) at different sowing times. In: Biological and agro technical aspects
of vegetable crops management. Proceedings of a Conference, Skierniewice
Poland, 21-22 June 2001. Vegetable Crop Res. Bulletin 2001, 54(1): 65-68.
Shallaby, T. A. and Y. S. Katta. (1976). Path coefficient analysis of seed yield and
some agronomic characters in field beans (Vicia faba L.). J. Agric. Res.
(Egypt), 2(2): 70-79.
Shallaby, Y. Y. and L. K. Mohamed. (1977). Field bean flowering characters as

influenced by some environmental factors. Egypt. J. Agro., 2: 169-177.
Shallaby, Y. Y. and L. K. Mohamed. (1978). Variations in growth analysis of field

beans due to plant density and phosphatic fertilizer at different planting
dates. Ibid, 3: 1-11.
Silim, S. N. and M. C. Saxena. (1989). Effect of terminal heat and drought stresses
in lentil. Pages 165-169. In: Food Legume Improvement Program, Ann.
Rep. ICARDA, Aleppo, Syria.
Simmonds, N. W. (1991). Selection for local adaptation in plant breeding program.

Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 82: 363-367.
Sindhu, J. S.; O. P. Singh and K. P. Singh. (1985). Component analysis of the

factors determining grain yield in faba bean (Vicia faba L.). FABIS
Newsletter, 13: 3-5.
Singh, K. B. and G. Bejiga. (1990). Analysis of stability for some characters in

Kabuli chickpea. Euphytica, 49(3): 223-227.
١٢٦
Sjodin, J. (1978). Influence of different yield components on the productivity of
food legumes. In: Technology for Increasing Food Production (T. C.
Holmes Editor). FAO, Rome, Italy. Pp. 615-619.
Skjelvag, A. O. (1981). Effect of climatic factors on the growth and development of

field bean (Vicia faba L.) var. minor. I. Phenology, height growth and yield
in phytotrone experiment. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica (1981). 31 (4):
538-571. In Faba Bean Abstract. (1982). 2(3): PP. 33.
Stelling, D.; E. Ebmeyer and W. Link. (1994). Yield stability in faba bean (Vicia
faba L.). 2. Effects of heterozygosity and heterogeneity. Plant Breeding,
112: 30-39.
Subhash, C.; Ram Kumar; Ram Dhari; S.Chander; K. Ram and D. Ram. (2001).
Association of seed yield and its attributes under different environments in
chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). National J. Plant Improvement, India,
Abstract 2001, 3: 107-112.
Sullivan, C. Y. (1972). Mechanisms of heat and drought resistance in grain sorghum

and methods of measurement. In: Sorghum in Seventies. (N. G. P. Roa and
L. R. House eds.) Pp. 246-263. Oxford and IBH Publishing Comp. New
Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta.
Sutcliffe, J. (1977). Plant and Temperature. The Institute of Biology Studies.

Arnold Edwards.
Taha, M. B.; F. A. Salih; A. Khalafalla and G. El-Sarrag. (1982). Agronomy

Research in Sudan. In: Faba Bean in The Nile Valley. (M. C. Saxena and R.
A. Stewart eds.), ICARDA/IFAD.
Tai, G. C. C. and D. A. Young. (1972). Genotypic stability analysis of eight potato

varieties tested in a series of ten trials. Am. Potato J., 49: 138-150.
Telaye, A. (1988). Some important phenological correlations of wello faba bean

(Vicia faba L.) germplasm. FABIS Newsletter, 22: 10-16.
Thompson, R. and H. Taylor. (1977). Yield components, cultivar, sowing date and
density in field beans (Vicia faba L.). Ann. Appl. Biol., 86: 313-320.
١٢٧
Tyurin, Yu. S. and V. F. Sidorova. (1982). Breeding fodder broad beans for
earliness. Selektsiyai Semenovodstvo USSR. (1982). 4: 11-12. Faba Bean
Abstract 1985. 5(3): pp. 34.
Utz, H. F. (1972). Die Zerlegung der Genotypes x Umwelt Interaktionen. EDV in

Medizen und Biolgie, 2: 52-59.
Vos, J. (1981). Effect of temperature and nitrogen supply on post-floral growth of

wheat, measurements and simulations. Agric. Res. Rep. No. 911, PUDOC,
Wageningen, The Netherlands.
١٢٨
Vries, A. P. de. (1979). In search of characters to be used for indirect selection on
grain and protein yield in Vicia faba L. Pages 324-341. In: Some Current
Research on Vicia faba in Western Europe: Proceedings of the EEC
Programme of Coordination of Research on Plant Proteins Seminar (D. A.
Bond, G. T. Scarascia- Mugnozza and M. H. Poulsen eds.) 27-29 April
1978, Bari, Italy. Commission of the European Communities Publisher.
Luxembourg.
Wardlaw, J. F.; I. Sofield and P. M. Cartwright. (1980). Factors limiting the rate of
dry matter accumulation in the grain of wheat grown at high temperature.
Aust. J. Plant Physiol., 7: 387-400.
Warrington, I. J.; R. L. Dunstone and L. M. Green. (1977). Temperature effects at

three development stages on the yield of the wheat ear. Aust. J. Agric. Res.,
28: 11-27.
Whiteman, A. J. (1971). The Geology of the Sudan Republic. Oxford Clamendon

Press.
Wricke, G. (1962). Über eine Methode zur Erfassung der ökologischen Streubreite
in Feldversuchen. Z. Pflanzenzüchtg. 47: 92-96.
Wu, M. T. and S. J. Wallner. (1984). Heat stress responses in cultural plant cells.
Plant Physiol., 75: 778-780.
Yassin, T. E. (1973a). Analysis of yield stability in field beans (Vicia faba L.) in the
Northern Province of the Sudan. J. Agric. Sci. (Camb.) (1973), 80: 119-124.
Yassin, T. E. (1973b). Genotypic and phenotypic variances and correlations in faba

bean (Vicia faba L.). J. Agric. Sci. (Camb.), 81: 445-448.
Yates, F. and W. G. Cochran. (1938). The analysis of groups of experiments. J.

Agric. Sci., 28: 556-580.
Zeng, C. C. (1982). Investigation of flowering and pod setting on different V. faba

cultivars. Guangdong Nongyekexue, 2: 31-32. Field Crops Abstract (1983)
36: 470.
Zilliotto, V. and L. Toniole. (1979). Field trials on time of sowing field beans (Vicia
faba var. minor) and Broad Beans (Vicia faba var. major) at Padova in 1976
and 1977. In: Some Current Research on Vicia faba in Western Europe, p.
189 – 216. (D. A. Bond, G. T. Scarascia – Mugnozza and M. H. Poulsen
eds). Commission of the European Communities.
١٢٩
١٣٠
Appendix 1: Means of the 22 gnotypes of faba bean for plant height (cm), evaluated under three dates of sowing (S1, S2 and S3)
during two years (2001/02) and (2002/03), at Shambat.
Code No. Genotypes Treatments (2001/02) Treatments (2002/03)

S1 S2 S3 S1 S2 S3
1
P.M/1 85.4 85.4 69.5 97.7 105.1 92.1
2 C.86 95.9 85.5 71.7 86.4 103.6 97.4
3 C.34 85.4 78.2 68.3 85.0 95.5 84.7
4 C.52/1/1/1 89.2 82.0 69.4 85.4 104.3 91.0
5 C.28 85.7 76.3 68.8 85.4 101.9 84.3
6 Daba1/1 97.2 83.1 65.7 86.1 97.4 93.0
7 F402/7 90.6 84.0 70.1 85.0 95.3 94.8
8 C.80/1 86.3 85.0 65.8 84.4 94.6 79.2
9 C.36 83.7 75.1 71.1 91.8 100.0 86.2
10 SuperL.85 91.2 80.5 71.9 90.8 106.9 89.1
11 D.E.2 93.7 85.7 66.7 90.7 99.9 94.5
12 Bulk1/2 94.4 91.6 76.1 93.4 98.0 92.0
13 C.22 97.9 82.0 71.1 96.8 97.5 93.1
14 C.42/1/1/1 86.8 84.1 72.6 85.8 97.9 83.5
15 BB25 96.7 83.0 77.8 98.9 99.5 92.8
16 Golid1 98.3 92.1 71.1 87.6 89.3 79.9
17 ZBF1/1 85.0 80.6 70.4 92.8 102.6 87.3
18 Berber1 88.5 79.8 68.9 93.4 102.9 93.2
19 Mass55 91.8 91.7 73.9 91.5 97.5 100.8
20 C.42 88.3 77.3 69.1 88.7 94.7 92.9
21 BB7 94.8 85.9 77.8 94.8 108.2 96.3
22 H93 89.5 88.5 68.5 97.5 99.3 93.2
Means 90.7 83.5 70.7 90.5 99.6 90.5
١٣١
Appendix 2: Means of the 22 genotypes of faba bean for pod-setting percentage (%), evaluated under three dates of sowing (S1,
S2 and S3) during two years (2001/02) and (2002/03), at Shambat.
Treatments (2001/02) Treatments (2002/03)

Code No. Genotypes
S1 S2 S3 S1 S2 S3
1 P.M/1 10.7 15.7 9.4 11.9 9.5 11.0
2 C.86 9.5 11.1 9.1 7.3 6.4 6.4
3 C.34 11.1 11.6 6.3 9.2 8.5 6.6
4 C.52/1/1/1 12.1 13.5 11.1 10.3 9.0 8.1
5 C.28 10.5 11.9 7.1 7.5 8.5 8.3
6 Daba1/1 9.2 11.7 7.9 10.8 9.5 8.0
7 F402/7 10.2 10.8 7.3 8.7 8.5 7.4
8 C.80/1 10.3 13.3 5.5 10.6 9.5 8.7
9 C.36 12.3 11.5 10.3 9.1 10.2 6.9
10 SuperL.85 10.6 12.1 8.2 8.2 9.8 9.1
11 D.E.2 12.3 14.7 8.1 10.9 10.4 7.5
12 Bulk1/2 11.3 13.5 9.0 12.0 12.9 9.6
13 C.22 9.7 11.1 6.9 10.1 8.9 8.5
14 C.42/1/1/1 9.1 9.0 7.5 6.9 7.8 6.7
15 BB25 9.9 10.6 7.2 8.9 9.2 6.5
16 Golid1 8.3 9.4 6.7 7.8 7.4 6.7
17 ZBF1/1 11.4 12.7 7.1 11.1 9.1 9.8
18 Berber1 9.7 10.3 7.3 9.8 9.4 7.7
19 Mass55 10.8 12.0 8.1 11.1 9.1 7.8
20 C.42 8.2 10.2 6.8 9.0 8.7 9.5
21 BB7 10.6 12.5 9.5 11.8 10.7 9.3
22 H93 12.1 13.1 7.5 10.6 11.3 9.1
Means 10.5 11.9 7.9 9.7 9.3 8.1
١٣٢
Appendix 3: Means of the 22 genotypes of faba bean for 100-seed weight (g), evaluated under three dates of sowing (S1, S2 and
S3) during two years (2001/02) and (2002/03), at Shambat.
Code No. Genotypes Treatments (2001/02) Treatments (2002/03

S1 S2 S3 S1 S2 S3
1 P.M/1 45.7 41.8 33.0 53.1 50.0 39.7
2 C.86 52.2 52.0 41.2 67.0 62.0 54.3
3 C.34 48.5 43.3 36.5 51.1 48.8 42.7
4 C.52/1/1/1 49.5 44.4 33.9 52.0 51.3 50.0
5 C.28 49.1 49.2 39.9 52.0 50.7 46.0
6 Daba1/1 50.4 46.7 33.4 50.0 50.0 47.3
7 F402/7 54.4 44.0 38.2 53.0 52.3 49.7
8 C.80/1 45.8 42.3 28.0 53.7 49.7 45.1
9 C.36 46.9 39.3 31.5 58.7 52.3 50.7
10 SuperL.85 49.3 43.7 36.3 49.9 50.3 42.0
11 D.E.2 48.0 38.1 35.7 47.7 43.0 42.7
12 Bulk1/2 46.4 41.3 37.5 51.0 47.3 52.7
13 C.22 53.0 47.3 35.3 54.0 56.0 52.7
14 C.42/1/1/1 53.6 52.6 44.1 65.7 69.0 57.4
15 BB25 52.6 54.9 37.2 63.3 62.7 56.3
16 Golid1 53.7 50.7 36.5 61.3 61.7 56.0
17 ZBF1/1 46.5 41.8 36.3 49.0 49.3 49.7
18 Berber1 41.2 41.6 29.7 48.6 47.0 41.0
19 Mass55 47.9 50.5 39.5 53.3 47.8 51.3
20 C.42 50.8 53.1 37.1 55.2 51.0 49.7
21 BB7 47.4 44.5 39.4 49.7 49.3 46.3
22 H93 50.6 44.2 33.4 53.9 48.7 46.7
Means 49.3 45.8 36.1 54.2 52.3 48.6
١٣٣
Appendix 4: Means of the 22 genotypes of faba bean for dry matter/plant (g), evaluated under three dates of sowing (S1, S2 and S3)
during two years (2001/02) and (2002/03), at Shambat.
Code No. Genotypes Treatments (2001/02 ) Treatments (2002/03)

S1 S2 S3 S1 S2 S3
1 P.M/1 24.9 23.5 14.3 38.5 26.6 19.3
2 C.86 36.4 24.2 16.8 25.7 28.5 22.0
3 C.34 27.9 19.4 11.5 27.1 25.2 16.8
4 C.52/1/1/1 26.8 23.9 15.7 29.5 32.6 22.9
5 C.28 27.4 21.1 13.8 22.9 30.0 18.6
6 Daba1/1 32.6 21.1 10.5 27.8 29.3 20.3
7 F402/7 29.9 20.3 13.7 25.1 30.4 18.2
8 C.80/1 23.3 22.3 9.20 27.5 27.3 16.2
9 C.36 26.6 19.2 13.9 32.8 33.4 22.2
10 SuperL.85 26.2 22.6 13.7 26.5 31.8 18.5
11 D.E.2 33.8 21.6 12.8 23.7 25.6 17.6
12 Bulk1/2 30.2 23.7 14.4 33.6 27.9 21.2
13 C.22 32.9 24.3 13.4 35.0 25.3 23.3
14 C.42/1/1/1 30.5 25.0 15.8 24.1 29.5 18.7
15 BB25 35.4 23.3 13.9 34.3 32.4 21.2
16 Golid1 33.8 21.8 12.4 24.0 26.4 18.9
17 ZBF1/1 27.2 23.0 13.3 31.2 27.7 20.6
18 Berber1 30.6 19.9 9.92 35.4 29.5 21.0
19 Mass55 27.9 23.1 14.9 27.5 24.8 21.4
20 C.42 29.0 22.2 14.1 29.0 30.4 23.9
21 BB7 34.5 22.5 14.2 29.9 30.8 20.9
١٣٤
22 H93 31.6 25.5 13.0 34.7 28.2 19.0
Means 30.0 22.4 13.4 29.4 28.8 20.1
١٣٥
Appendix 5: Means of the 22 genotypes of faba bean for seed yield/plant (g), evaluated under three dates of sowing (S1, S2 and
S3) during two years (2001/02) and (2002/03), at Shambat.
Code No. Genotypes Treatments (2001/02 ) Treatments (2002/03)

S1 S2 S3 S1 S2 S3
1 P.M/1 12.7 12.9 6.27 18.6 11.6 8.30
2 C.86 19.4 13.0 7.62 11.6 10.6 6.90
3 C.34 14.5 9.98 4.72 13.8 10.8 6.43
4 C.52/1/1/1 14.1 13.2 7.62 12.6 15.8 8.23
5 C.28 14.4 11.7 5.31 10.9 13.3 7.53
6 Daba1/1 17.8 11.1 4.53 13.4 13.1 8.23
7 F402/7 15.7 10.6 5.21 12.5 14.0 7.20
8 C.80/1 12.8 11.2 3.16 13.7 12.3 6.63
9 C.36 14.9 9.68 5.89 15.9 14.3 8.07
10 SuperL.85 14.0 12.7 6.00 12.3 15.2 7.87
11 D.E.2 17.6 10.8 5.24 11.0 11.2 6.23
12 Bulk1/2 17.1 13.9 6.23 16.8 13.4 8.70
13 C.22 17.4 12.2 5.41 16.7 11.0 9.37
14 C.42/1/1/1 15.4 13.5 6.72 11.2 12.7 7.60
15 BB25 18.0 11.7 5.13 15.4 13.9 7.40
16 Golid1 14.4 10.5 4.54 12.1 11.7 7.17
17 ZBF1/1 14.1 11.8 5.41 16.2 12.9 8.83
18 Berber1 16.4 9.89 3.46 16.6 12.5 7.53
19 Mass55 14.7 11.6 6.55 13.7 10.9 7.03
20 C.42 15.1 12.2 6.23 14.3 13.8 9.63
21 BB7 18.3 12.2 6.07 15.4 13.8 8.53
22 H93 15.6 14.1 5.25 17.6 13.2 7.77
Means 15.7 11.8 5.57 14.2 12.8 7.78
١٣٢
Appendix 6: Means of vegetative traits of the 22 genotypes faba bean evaluated
under three different sowing dates (S1, S2 and S3) in the year 2001/02 at Shambat.
Code Genotypes PH HFPN/S PL NRB/P DFPF DNFPM PSP

No.
1 P.M/1 80.08 31.09 4.98 1.19 37.56 103.89 11.9
2 C.86 84.36 32.76 5.16 1.33 36.56 105.33 9.9
3 C.34 77.33 31.66 4.86 1.00 38.00 105.44 9.7
4 C.52/1/1/1 80.18 30.46 4.82 1.06 37.00 104.33 12.2
5 C.28 76.93 32.12 4.94 1.21 39.33 105.56 9.8
6 Daba1/1 82.01 33.00 5.10 1.14 38.00 105.56 9.6
7 F402/7 81.58 32.23 5.25 1.22 37.67 105.44 9.4
8 C.80/1 79.03 29.98 4.55 1.01 38.00 107.00 9.7
9 C.36 76.64 31.52 4.61 1.23 38.11 106.33 11.4
10 Super L.85 81.21 32.30 4.99 1.19 38.89 104.33 10.3
11 D.E.2 82.04 33.20 4.68 1.30 38.00 105.78 11.7
12 Bulk1/2 87.34 32.84 4.53 0.94 38.00 105.67 11.3
13 C.22 83.67 34.67 4.85 1.31 38.33 106.44 9.2
14 C.42/1/1/1 81.14 33.16 5.27 1.39 37.67 107.00 8.6
15 BB25 85.82 34.40 5.26 1.26 39.00 107.56 9.2
16 Golid1 87.18 33.31 5.07 1.32 38.00 107.56 8.2
17 ZBF/1/1 78.67 31.84 4.88 1.29 37.56 105.11 10.4
18 Berber1 79.07 31.33 4.41 1.29 38.56 106.44 9.1
19 Mass55 85.79 34.28 5.00 1.09 37.78 105.78 10.3
20 C.42 78.22 33.23 4.97 1.48 38.00 106.33 8.4
21 BB7 86.18 31.07 4.84 1.19 37.22 106.89 10.8
22 H93 82.14 31.59 4.79 1.12 37.44 104.22 10.9
Mean 81.66 32.37 4.90 1.21 37.94 105.82 10.1
LSD 5% 4.64 2.84 0.33 0.29 1.77 2.14 1.67
C.V% 6.09 9.41 7.15 25.8 4.99 2.16 17.66
Key:
PH = Plant height (cm), HFPN/S = Height to first podded node/stem (cm), PL = Pod
Length (cm), NRB/P = Number of reproductive branches/plant, DFPF = Days to
50% flowering, DNFPM = Days to 95% maturity, PSP = Pod-setting percentage.
١٣٣
١٣٤
Appendix 7: Means of vegetative traits of 22 faba bean genotypes evaluated
under three different sowing dates (S1, S2 and S3) in the year 2002/03 at
Shambat.

No.
1 P.M/1 98.31 38.51 5.79 1.14 39.33 99.33 10.8
2 C.86 95.81 43.67 5.93 1.19 40.56 101.00 6.7
3 C.34 88.39 40.12 5.38 1.26 41.56 98.00 8.1
4 C.52/1/1/1 93.58 39.70 5.50 1.27 38.44 97.67 9.1
5 C.28 90.54 40.22 5.76 1.23 39.11 97.44 8.1
6 Daba1/1 92.19 41.94 5.56 1.24 40.44 97.89 9.4
7 F402/7 91.70 37.93 5.73 1.22 38.89 98.44 8.2
8 C.80/1 86.08 35.23 5.57 1.34 38.22 97.33 9.6
9 C.36 92.67 38.08 5.97 1.46 39.67 99.22 8.7
10 SuperL.85 95.62 43.13 5.53 1.43 40.11 99.89 9.0
11 D.E.2 95.01 42.13 5.25 1.09 41.78 100.44 9.6
12 Bulk1/2 94.47 37.08 5.39 1.06 38.22 98.44 11.5
13 C.22 95.79 42.40 5.74 1.31 40.11 99.00 9.1
14 C.42/1/1/1 89.08 39.11 5.09 1.37 38.89 98.33 7.1
15 BB25 97.07 42.30 5.96 1.39 41.44 101.22 8.2
16 Golid1 85.59 39.17 5.77 1.33 39.67 99.89 7.3
17 ZBF /1/1 94.22 39.69 5.54 1.31 39.22 96.67 10.0
18 Berber1 96.49 42.17 5.54 1.40 39.00 99.89 9.0
19 Mass55 96.59 41.02 5.43 1.09 39.33 97.67 9.3
20 C.42 92.10 38.69 5.81 1.54 39.67 98.11 9.0
21 BB7 99.80 40.60 5.42 1.17 40.00 98.89 10.6
22 H93 96.69 39.83 5.48 1.11 38.33 98.00 10.3
Mean 93.54 40.12 5.64 1.27 39.64 98.76 9.0
LSD 5% 6.63 3.55 0.32 0.26 1.81 2.30 1.33
C.V% 7.5 9.5 6.1 21.7 4.9 2.5 15.8
For the abbreviations, see the Key in Appendix 6.
١٣٥
Appendix 8: Means of vegetative traits of 22 faba bean genotypes averaged over
three different sowing dates (S1, S2, and S3) treatments across two years
(2001/02 and 2002/03) at Shambat.

No.
1 P.M/1 89.19 34.80 5.38 1.17 38.44 101.61 11.4
2 C.86 90.08 38.21 5.54 1.26 38.56 103.17 8.3
3 C.34 82.86 35.89 5.12 1.13 39.78 101.72 8.9
4 C.52/1/1/1 86.88 35.08 5.16 1.16 37.72 101.00 10.7
5 C.28 83.74 36.17 5.35 1.22 39.22 101.50 9.0
6 Daba1/1 87.10 37.47 5.33 1.19 39.22 101.72 9.5
7 F402/7 86.64 35.08 5.49 1.22 38.28 101.94 8.8
8 C.80/1 82.56 32.61 5.06 1.18 38.11 102.17 9.6
9 C.36 84.66 34.80 5.29 1.34 38.89 102.78 10.0
10 SuperL.85 88.42 37.72 5.26 1.31 39.50 102.11 9.7
11 D.E.2 88.53 37.67 4.96 1.19 39.89 103.11 10.7
12 Bulk1/2 90.91 34.96 4.96 1.00 38.11 102.06 11.4
13 C.22 89.73 38.53 5.30 1.31 39.22 102.72 9.2
14 C.42/1/1/1 85.11 36.13 5.68 1.38 38.28 102.67 7.8
15 BB25 91.44 38.35 5.61 1.32 40.22 104.39 8.7
16 Golid1 86.38 36.24 5.42 1.33 38.83 103.72 7.7
17 ZBF/1/1 86.44 35.77 5.21 1.30 38.39 100.89 10.2
18 Berber1 87.78 36.75 4.98 1.34 38.78 103.17 9.0
19 Mass55 91.19 37.65 5.22 1.09 38.56 101.72 9.8
20 C.42 85.16 35.96 5.39 1.51 38.83 102.22 8.7
21 BB7 92.99 35.83 5.13 1.18 38.61 102.89 10.7
22 H93 89.42 35.71 5.14 1.12 37.89 101.11 10.6
Mean 87.60 36.24 5.27 1.24 38.79 102.29 9.6
LSD 5% 6.26 2.79 0.33 0.19 1.65 2.08 1.52
C.V% 7.00 9.51 6.6 23.79 4.93 2.33 16.8
For the abbreviations, see the key in Appendix 6.
١٣٦
Appendix 9: Means of reproductive traits of 22 faba bean genotypes evaluated under three different sowing dates (S1, S2 and S3)
in the year 2001/02 at Shambat.
Code No. Genotypes NPN/MS NP/Plt NS/P NS/Plt HSW DM/Plt HI SY/Plt SY(kg/ha)
1 P.M/1 5.80 11.84 2.39 28.28 40.14 20.90 0.51 10.64 1621.4
2 C.86 5.48 12.08 2.50 30.21 48.46 25.76 0.50 13.33 1974.7
3 C.34 4.97 9.17 2.53 23.64 42.78 19.58 0.48 9.73 1994.7
4 C.52/1/1/1 5.97 11.79 2.44 28.71 42.60 22.11 0.52 11.63 2249.2
5 C.28 5.02 10.46 2.34 24.79 46.08 20.77 0.49 10.45 1805.1
6 Daba 1/1 4.92 10.50 2.52 26.84 43.52 21.42 0.49 11.14 2109.0
7 F402/7 4.62 10.08 2.39 24.06 45.52 21.30 0.48 10.50 1833.3
8 C.80/1 4.72 9.16 2.41 22.89 38.70 18.25 0.46 9.04 1820.3
9 C.36 5.19 11.50 2.40 27.68 39.24 19.91 0.49 10.14 2075.9
10 SuperL.85 5.17 10.80 2.47 26.87 43.11 20.84 0.51 10.91 2121.0
11 D.E.2 5.39 11.77 2.37 27.19 40.57 22.72 0.48 11.21 2188.0
12 Bulk1/2 5.82 11.96 2.45 30.01 41.74 22.75 0.52 12.42 1879.0
13 C.22 5.08 11.39 2.37 27.13 45.20 23.50 0.48 11.67 2114.9
14 C.42/1/1/1 4.61 10.42 2.39 24.93 50.13 23.76 0.49 11.87 2206.2
15 BB25 4.79 10.33 2.46 25.70 48.26 24.20 0.46 11.62 2052.8
16 Golid1 4.62 10.24 2.23 23.34 46.96 22.68 0.45 9.80 2084.9
17 ZBF/1/1 5.14 11.31 2.38 27.14 41.52 21.17 0.48 10.43 1984.7
18 Berber1 4.71 11.34 2.40 28.04 37.50 20.12 0.46 9.92 1904.2
19 Mass55 5.20 10.60 2.46 25.53 45.97 21.96 0.49 10.97 2026.8
20 C.42 4.44 10.73 2.32 24.94 46.99 21.78 0.50 11.17 2129.3
21 BB7 5.72 12.64 2.32 29.63 43.76 23.75 0.50 12.18 2062.0
22 H93 5.40 11.56 2.36 28.10 42.71 23.27 0.49 11.63 2254.9
Mean 5.11 10.98 2.40 26.62 43.70 21.93 0.49 11.02 2022.4
LSD 5% 0.61 1.66 0.17 4.49 3.27 3.42 0.04 1.88 446.9
C.V% 12.86 16.20 7.67 18.08 8.02 16.69 7.64 18.29 23.68
KEY: NPN/MS = Number of podded nodes/main stem, NP/Plt = Number of pods/plant, NS/P = Number of seeds/pod, NS/Plt = Number of
seeds/plant, HSW = 100-seed weight (g), DM/Plt = Dry matter/plant (g), HI = Harvest index, SY/Plt = Seed yield/plant (g), SY (kg/ha) = Seed
yield (kg/ha).
١٣٧
Appendix 10: Means of reproductive traits of 22 faba bean genotypes evaluated under three different sowing dates (S1,
S2 and S3) in the year 2002/03 at Shambat.
Code
Genotypes NPN/MS NP/Plt NS/Plt HSW DM/Plt HI SY/Plt SY(kg/ha)
No. NS/P
1 P.M/1 4.80 9.76 2.69 26.38 47.58 28.11 0.45 12.82 3148.6
2 C.86 3.26 6.59 2.64 17.39 61.11 25.39 0.38 9.69 2253.9
3 C.34 3.62 8.11 2.72 22.17 47.51 23.04 0.44 10.37 2477.6
4 C.52/1/1/1 4.40 9.52 2.70 25.87 51.11 28.36 0.46 12.21 2784.4
5 C.28 3.67 8.16 2.66 21.57 49.54 23.81 0.44 10.60 2727.3
6 Daba1/1 4.11 9.20 2.61 23.79 49.11 25.80 0.44 11.57 2945.8
7 F402/7 3.90 8.29 2.56 20.92 51.67 24.57 0.45 11.22 2579.6
8 C.80/1 4.22 9.13 2.48 22.50 49.49 23.64 0.46 10.88 3143.8
9 C.36 4.02 9.43 2.60 24.56 53.89 29.46 0.43 12.73 2839.1
10 SuperL.85 3.98 9.03 2.75 24.96 47.41 25.63 0.46 11.78 2583.4
11 D.E.2 4.16 8.63 2.53 21.66 44.44 22.30 0.42 9.47 2504.4
12 Bulk1/2 4.92 10.47 2.60 27.44 50.34 27.57 0.47 12.99 2605.0
13 C.22 4.21 9.21 2.53 23.31 54.24 27.87 0.44 12.36 2916.7
14 C.42/1/1/1 3.30 7.47 2.25 16.84 64.03 24.09 0.43 10.48 2751.3
15 BB25 3.91 8.46 2.41 20.42 60.78 29.28 0.41 12.23 2609.8
16 Golid1 3.49 7.53 2.35 17.57 59.67 23.12 0.44 10.33 2813.6
17 ZBF/1/1 4.47 9.99 2.65 26.61 49.33 26.49 0.47 12.63 2905.6
18 Berber1 4.01 9.88 2.75 27.11 45.54 28.64 0.42 12.20 3035.2
19 Mass55 4.43 8.71 2.51 21.90 50.81 24.57 0.43 10.54 2990.4
20 C.42 4.16 9.34 2.64 24.72 51.94 27.78 0.45 12.58 2794.4
21 BB7 4.80 10.19 2.61 26.63 48.44 27.20 0.46 12.59 3217.9
22 H93 4.57 9.74 2.65 26.11 49.76 27.30 0.47 12.86 3105.1
Mean 4.11 8.95 2.59 23.20 51.72 26.09 0.44 11.60 2806.0
LSD 5% 0.57 1.54 0.23 4.39 3.76 4.56 0.04 2.11 430.30
C.V% 14.98 18.4 9.5 20.3 7.8 18.7 10.2 19.5 16.4
١٣٨
Appendix 11: Means of reproductive traits of 22 faba bean genotypes averaged over three different sowing dates (S1,
S2 and S3), and across two years (2001/02 and 2002/03) at Shambat.
Code Genotypes NPN/MS NP/Plt NS/P NS/Plt HSW DM/Plt HI SY/Plt SY(kg/ha)
No.
1 P.M/1 5.30 10.80 2.54 27.33 43.86 24.51 0.48 11.73 2385.0
2 C.86 4.37 9.33 2.57 23.80 54.78 25.57 0.44 11.51 2114.3
3 C.34 4.11 8.64 2.62 22.91 45.14 21.31 0.46 10.05 2236.1
4 C.52/1/1/1 5.18 10.66 2.57 27.29 46.86 25.24 0.49 11.92 2516.8
5 C.28 4.34 9.31 2.50 23.18 47.81 22.29 0.46 10.52 2266.2
6 Daba1/1 4.52 9.85 2.56 25.32 46.32 23.61 0.47 11.35 2527.4
7 F402/7 4.26 9.18 2.48 22.49 48.59 22.93 0.46 10.86 2206.4
8 C.80/1 4.47 9.14 2.45 22.69 44.09 20.95 0.46 9.96 2482.0
9 C.36 4.61 10.47 2.50 26.12 46.57 24.68 0.46 11.44 2457.5
10 SuperL.85 4.57 9.92 2.61 25.91 45.26 23.24 0.48 11.35 2352.2
11 D.E.2 4.77 10.20 2.45 24.42 42.51 22.51 0.45 10.34 2346.2
12 Bulk1/2 5.37 11.21 2.53 28.73 46.04 25.16 0.49 12.70 2242.0
13 C.22 4.64 10.30 2.45 25.22 49.72 25.68 0.46 12.01 2515.8
14 C.42/1/1/1 3.96 8.94 2.32 20.89 57.08 23.93 0.46 11.18 2478.8
15 BB25 4.35 9.39 2.44 23.06 54.52 26.74 0.43 11.93 2331.3
16 Golid1 4.06 8.89 2.29 20.46 53.31 22.90 0.44 10.07 2449.2
17 ZBF/1/1 4.81 10.65 2.51 26.88 45.43 23.83 0.47 11.53 2445.1
18 Berber1 4.36 10.61 2.57 27.58 41.52 24.38 0.44 11.06 2469.7
19 Mass55 4.82 9.66 2.48 23.72 48.39 23.26 0.46 10.76 2508.6
20 C.42 4.30 10.04 2.48 24.83 49.47 24.78 0.48 11.87 2461.9
21 BB7 5.26 11.42 2.46 28.13 46.10 25.47 0.48 12.39 2639.9
22 H93 4.98 10.65 2.50 27.11 46.23 25.29 0.48 12.24 2680.0
Mean 4.61 9.97 2.50 24.91 47.71 24.01 0.46 11.31 2414.2
LSD 5% 0.59 1.51 0.18 4.18 5.13 3.87 0.04 2.11 458.32
C.V% 13.81 17.2 8.72 19.11 7.92 17.99 8.96 18.92 19.47
١٣٩
١٤٠
١٤١

Genetic Evaluation of Some Sudanese Faba Bean (Vicia Faba L.) Genotypes Under Terminal Heat Stress

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Genetic Evaluation of Some Sudanese Faba Bean (Vicia Faba L.) Genotypes Under Terminal Heat Stress

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

GENETIC EVALUATION OF SOME SUDANESE FABA

BEAN (Vicia faba L.) GENOTYPES UNDER TERMINAL

A thesis submitted to the University of Khartoum in partial fulfillment of

the requirements for the degree of Master of Science (Agric.)

My praise and acknowledgements are due to my Almighty God who gave me

I, Ishraka Khamis Abuanja Issa, declare that this thesis is of my

CHAPTER SIX 106

Table 4.6: Means of vegetative characters of the 22 genotypes of faba bean,

Figure 1: Means of number of podded nodes/main stem of the 22 genotypes of

Figure 3: Means of number of seeds/pod of the 22 genotypes of faba bean

Figure 5: Means of 100-seed weight (g) of the 22 genotypes of faba bean

Figure 9: Means of seed yield (kg/ha) of the 22 genotypes of faba bean

‫وإﺳﺘﻤﺮار اﻹﻧﺘﺎﺟﻴﺔ ﻗﺪ ﺗﻢ ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪهﺎ‪.‬‬

‫اﻟﺰراﻋﺔ اﻷوﻟﻰ )‪ (S2‬وزراﻋﺔ ﺑﺘﺄﺧﻴﺮ ‪ ٢٨‬ﻳﻮﻣًﺎ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺰراﻋﺔ اﻷوﻟﻰ )‪.(S3‬‬

‫ﻣﻌﻨﻮﻳﺎ ﺗﺤﺖ اﻟﻈﺮوف اﻟﻌﺎدﻳﺔ )‪.(Yp‬‬

‫ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﻘﺎوﻣﺔ ﺗﺤﺖ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ اﻹﺟﻬﺎد اﻟﺤﺮاري اﻟﻘﺎﺳﻲ واﻟﻌﻜﺲ ﺻﺤﻴﺢ‪.‬‬

‫واﻟﻐﻠﺔ اﻹﻧﺘﺎﺟﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ وﺣﺪة اﻟﻤﺴﺎﺣﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺴﻨﺔ اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪.‬‬

1. To evaluate the performance of 22 faba bean genotypes for terminal heat

2.1.1 Evaluation of heat stress on plants

2.1.2 Effect of high-temperature on the plants

2.2 Effect of Sowing Date on Faba Beans

2.2.1 Effect of sowing date on the vegetative characters

2.2.2 Effect of sowing dates on the reproductive characters

2.3 Heat Resistance

However, plant species that possess the characteristics of withstanding

2.3.2 Heat tolerance mechanisms

2.5 Genetic Variability and Heritability

2.6 Interrelationship Between Characters

Bora et al. (1998) reported a positive correlation of seed yield/plant with

Under stress environment, total above-ground biomass will typically show a

2.7 Yield Stability and Adaptation in Faba Beans

In a study by Yassin (1973a), the mean differences between environments,

Omer et al. (1999) evaluated phenotypic and genotypic stability performance

Bora et al. (1998) found significant differences due to genotype x

3.1 Experimental Site

3.2 Genetic Material

3.3 Simulation of the Treatments

Ψ = Genotypes are included as check varieties

3.5 Cultural Practices

3.5.1 Land preparation

3.6.1 Vegetative characters

3.6.2 Reproductive characters

3.6.3 Traits for heat tolerance

1. Seed yield/plant (g)

3.7 Statistical Analysis

3.7.1 Analysis of variance

Replications /Year y(r-1) = 4 M2

Genotypes (g-1) = 21 M3 σ2e + r σ2gy + ry σ2g

Genotypes x Years (g-1) (y-1) =21 M4 σ2e + r σ2gy

Pooled error y(r-1)(g-1) =84 M5 σ2e

Total yrg – 1 = 131

y= years , r = replications , g = genotypes.

t is the total number of treatments.

sd is the standard error of mean difference.

Phenotypic variance [б2ph] = б2g + б2e

Genotypic variance [б2g] = M4 – M5

M4 is the expected mean squares of genotypes.

3.7.3 Phenotypic (PCV) and genotypic (GCV) coefficients of variation (%)

б2g = genotypic variance.

б2g and б2ph are genotypic and phenotypic variances.

3.7.6 Genotypic (rg) and phenotypic (rph) correlation coefficients

Formula suggested by Miller et al. (1958) was used to determine the

бg1.2 is the genotypic covariance between two traits 1 and 2.

бph1.2 is the phenotypic covariance between two traits 1 and 2.

No. of podded nodes/main stem G 21 1.733 1.497 0.753*