Open Access is an initiative that aims to make scientific research freely available to all. To date our community has made over 100 million downloads. It’s based on principles of collaboration, unobstructed discovery, and, most importantly, scientific progression. As PhD students, we found it difficult to access the research we needed, so we decided to create a new Open Access publisher that levels the playing field for scientists across the world. How? By making research easy to access, and puts the academic needs of the researchers before the business interests of publishers.
We are a community of more than 103,000 authors and editors from 3,291 institutions spanning 160 countries, including Nobel Prize winners and some of the world’s most-cited researchers. Publishing on IntechOpen allows authors to earn citations and find new collaborators, meaning more people see your work not only from your own field of study, but from other related fields too.
To purchase hard copies of this book, please contact the representative in India:
CBS Publishers & Distributors Pvt. Ltd.
www.cbspd.com
|
customercare@cbspd.com
Legume crops are universally applicable for human and animal food and sustenance because of their relatively high protein and essential amino acid content. Furthermore, they have been linked to sustainable agriculture, noting their ability to bind to atmospheric nitrogen-fixing bacteria. Despite this, several technical limitations of leguminous crops keep their world production far behind that of cereals. This chapter of the book focuses on current developments in breeding and biotechnology of major legume crops. Conventional breeding has primarily set out to recover a number of vegetative and reproductive traits that are associated with different heritability values, which reflect how susceptible each character is to genetic improvement. In conclusion, legume breeding programs using classical breeding methods and biotechnological tools face a promising boost for further application of knowledge and information that may boost their overall production. In plant breeding, the development of improved crop varieties is limited by very long periods of cultivation. Therefore, to increase crop breeding efficiency, they are using new strategies such as high-throughput phenotyping and molecular breeding tools. In this chapter, recent findings on various aspects of crop improvement, plant breeding practices, to explain the development of conventional and molecular techniques.
Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding, Lovely Professional University, Punjab, India
Suhel Mehandi
Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding, Lovely Professional University, Punjab, India
Harmeet S. Janeja
Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding, Lovely Professional University, Punjab, India
*Address all correspondence to: prakashsatya056@gmail.com
1. Introduction
Legumes are of particular nutritional and economic importance forming part of the diet of millions of people worldwide. Legume seeds in human nutrition are important cause of proteins and peptides, carbohydrates and dietary fibers, and a high-quality source of some micronutrients such as vitamins, fatty acids, folic acid and minerals that have significant health benefits [1].
Different approaches have been used to cut down the period of plant reproductive cycles. Innovative techniques developed in this decade, such as genomic selection, high-throughput plant phenotyping and modern speed breeding, have been shown to speed up plant breeding. Plant genetic engineering also played a precious role in developing crops with desirable quality related traits using gene transformation [2, 3].
Conventional breeding techniques are not adequate for plant genome augmentation to develop new plant varieties. To overcome this hindrance in plant breeding methods, molecular markers have been used for the assortment of superior hybrid lines. Improving plant phenotype for an exact desirable trait involves the artificial selection and breeding of this given trait by the plant breeder. Breeders always promote to use crops with shorter reproductive phase, which permit the production of a number of generations in a single year as well as help in crop rotation generally wheat rice cropping system. In this cropping system summer mung benefited as one extra crop in a year as well as also get better the soil health [4]. Plant breeding combined with genome studies increases the quality of breeding practices and saves time [5]. Research interest in genetically engineered crops has been increasing in legume crops given the fundamental need to ensure food security for the growing whole human population [6].
The use of molecular and conventional plant breeding techniques for many legume crops, as well as the use of genome editing methods, modify and improve required desired plant phenotypes. Moreover, the latent association between these approaches used to formulate the future strategy for crop variety/ hybrid development will also be explored.
2.1 Germplasm conservation and plant genetic diversity
Prebreeding performance as phenotypic and genetic appraisal of germplasm collections are2 key functions of a breeding program to obtain basic information about the genetic relationships1 amongst accessions, inheritance patterns of some important traits and to select lines for subsequent1 crossing cycles [7]. In this regard, the characterization of germplasm banks of legume crops1 worldwide has been crucial for the development of agriculture because they are the reservoirs of1 genetic diversity [8].
The genetic resources of other legume species are also a primary locus of genes associated with biotic and abiotic resistance and agronomic traits of value to breeders. 1 The genetic diversity of legume species has been described, which has been extremely useful for separating major collections of germplasm1 and genetically identifying different sets of parental lines used in breeding cycles/stages [8, 9, 10, 11]. The germplasm of major legume species has shown similar values when they were1 analyzed using micro-satellites (SSRs) markers. This is not surprising because most of the legumes are highly self-pollinate with low and very low out-crossing rate values except pigeon pea [12]. Thus, they1 have tended to display low to moderate genetic variability at intra-population and intra-group. However, most of their inherited variability is spread amongst populations or groups of accessions,1 which is very prominent for breeding purposes.
The technology makes it possible to insert genetic material from unusual sources. It is now possible to insert genetic material from species, families and even kingdoms that may not previously have been sources of genetic material for a specific species, and even to insert custom-engineered genes which do not exist in nature. As a result, we can create what could be considered synthetic life forms, something that cannot be done through conventional breeding (Figure 1).
Figure 1.
Comparing conventional breeding and genetic engineering. https://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/agricultural_biotechnology/download/
2.2 Characterization of legumes
The legume genotypes have showed significant differences on morphological and phenological1 traits such as pod curvature, days to flowering, hypocotyl color, growth habit, number of nodes, number of flower buds and hundred or thousand seed weight, which is significant for legume breeding [13].
They indicated that traditional breeding approaches have been particularly successful in improving monogenic traits, such as color, size, texture, appearance of some traits, although they are less specific and slow when it comes to quantitative traits, which are controlled by many genes. Are strongly influenced by the environment and are influenced by the environment and genetic interactions [14, 15].
Recent advances in the field of pulsed genomics deserve attention, for example, the discovery of genome-wide genetic markers, high-throughput genotyping and various sequencing platforms, high-density gene linkage1/QTL mapping, and most importantly, whole-genome sequence access. With the genome sequence in hand, there is considerable potential for using whole genome methods for trait mapping1 using correlation studies and selecting desirable genotypes through genomic selection. It is anticipated that GAB will accelerate progress in pulse/legume breeding, leading to rapid expansion of varieties with high yield, high stress tolerance and broad genetic base [16, 17].
3.2 Genetic engineering in legumes
The consequences that may result in the release of Genetically Modified crops (GM crops) in agriculture are a matter of ongoing debate [18]. However, it is logical to technically evaluate the risks1 of utilizing GM crops relative to their benefits and evaluate them with the conventional methods of1 genetic improvement [19]. The most successful case of public information is glyphosate resistant1 transgenic soybean [20], which has been commercializedc for over 20 years [21], and it is1 undoubtedly the most important genetic modification in soybeans [22].
Genetic engineering opens the door for plant breeders to bring together useful genes from a1 variety in one plant [23]. The development of glyphosate resistant variety utilized the CP4 gene from1 Agrobacterium spp., which encodes a glyphosate-resistant form of EPSPS, initially introduced in1 soybean [20].
Although gene flow is a legitimate concern of GM soybean [24], trans genes frequently represent gain of function, which might release wild relatives from constraints that limit their fitness1 [25, 26, 27]. This was a major breakthrough because no practical resistance to BGMV was known in1 common bean genotypes.
3.3 Modern legume breeding tools
There are many modern breeding tools are available that can speed up the legume breeding1 programme. The Arabidopsis plant model has allowed the study of metabolic and physiological1 processes during plant growth and in responses to biotic and abiotic stress through genome-wide gene expression analysis [28, 29, 30].
In parallel, the major version of the complete common bean genome sequence was recently published [31] and the chickpea genome sequence is also available in “The Cool Season 1 Food Legume Genome Database” [32]. References to legume genomes have also opened the door to feature 1 RNA sequencing approaches to conduct global transcriptomic profiling studies and discover new genes and ESTs [33, 34, 35]. Much effort has been made to compare genomes between model plant species and legume crops to correctly translate the information obtained [36].
These traits and their beneficial alleles can be introgressed in breeding lines through conventional1 genetic improvement in an easy manner, however, the application of MAS significantly reduces the1 time taken to select for resistant lines [37, 38, 39].
3.3.1 Abiotic stress breeding
Stress by low and towering temperatures in legumes can harshly affect plant growth, limiting1 yields and restricting the manufacture of certain regions and in specific periods of the season [40, 41]. Most of legume crops are full-grown in arid to semi-arid climate regions in India, and some countries1 in Africa [42, 43, 44, 45].
3.3.2 Breeding for biotic stress
A large wealth of advances in genomic resources of legumes are associated to such as (1) Insects1 [46], (2) Fungi [47, 48, 49, 50], (4) Bacteria [51, 52], Virus [53, 54] and Nematodes [55] (Tables 1 and 2).
Crops
Varieties
Release year
ICAR Institute/ SAUs/ Organization centre
Salient features
Chickpea
Pant Kabuli chana-1
2010
Pantnagar
Irrigated condition, semi spreading, late mature, large seeded, medium height.
Gujarat Junagadh gram 3
2010
Junagarh
Rainfed area, medium plant height, semi erect yellow large seeded, early maturity, resistant to wilt and stunt.
MNK 1
2011
Gulbarga
Irrigated area, erect plant, seeds are milky white, extra-large seed.
Raj Vijay Kabuli gram 201
2011
Sehore
Irrigated, desi type, early maturity, resistant to wilt.
HK 4
2012
Hisar
Irrigated area, large seeds and white color, resistant reaction against wilt.
JSC 55
2012
Sehore
Late sowing, suitable for sown under irrigated and late sowing condition, resistant to wilt, dry root rot and collar rot.
GLK 28127
2013
Ludhiana
Irrigated condition, large old seeded variety, tolerant to drought and wilt, good rooting quality.
NBeG 3
2013
Nandyal
Irrigated condition, long seed old variety, tolerant to drought and wilt and good rooting quality.
WCGK 2000-2016
2015
Modipuram
Irrigated condition, long seeds, white color, resistant to fusarium wilt.
Birsa chana 3
2015
BAO, Jharkhand
Normal sown condition, old type, tolerant to gram pod borer, resistant to wilt disease, shattering and lodging.
GNG 2144
2016
Sri Ganganagar
Irrigated late sown condition, old and medium bold seeded, tolerant to fusarium wilt disease.
CSJ 515
2016
Durgapura
Irrigated area, resistant to dry root rot, wilt and collar rot, tolerant to Ascochyta blight.
Indira chana 1
2017
IGKV, Raipur
Rainfed and irrigated area, erect plant, resistant to wilt, primary branches.
Meera
2017
ARS, Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan)
Irrigated condition, tolerant to fusarium wilt.
Pusa 3043
2018
IARI, Pusa (New Delhi)
Timely sown, escaping terminal drought, heat and stresses, resistant to wilt, tolerant to dry root rot, collar rot, stunt, Ascochyta blight.
GNG 2207
2018
ARS, Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan)
Timely sown, moderately resistant to fusarium wilt.
IPC 2006-77
2019
ICAR-IIPR Kanpur (U.P)
Late sown under rice fallow, moderately resistant to wilt, dry root rot and stunt.
Haryana Chana No 7
2019
CCS HAU, Hisar (Haryana)
Late sown irrigated, tolerant to Helicoverpa armigera.
Pusa Chickpea 10,216
2020
ICAR-IIPR Kanpur (U.P)
Timely sown rainfed, First Marker Assisted Backcross variety of chickpea in India, drought tolerant.
Pusa Parvati
2020
ICAR-IIPR Kanpur (U.P)
Timely sown irrigated, highly resistant to wilt, dry root rot and stunt.
Kota Kabuli Channa-2
2021
AU, Kota-ARS, (Rajasthan)
Timely sown, resistant to wilt, dry root rot and collar rot, moderately resistant to stunt disease.
Pusa Chickpea 20,211
2021
ICAR-IARI & ICRISAT
Rice-based cropping systems, moderately resistant to dry root rot, collar rot, pod borer and stunt.
Pigeon pea
TS 3R
2010
ARS Gulbarga
Indeterminate growth, semispreading, white and bold seeded, resistant to fusarium wilt.
PKV, Tara
2011
PDKV, Akola
Indeterminate growth, semi spreading and tolerant to pod borer & pod fly.
Rajeev Lochan
2011
IGKV, Raipur
Resistant to wilt & sterility mosaic disease.
WRG-65
2012
ARS, Warangal
Indeterminate growth, spreading medium, resistant to wilt, tolerant to pod borer.
Phule T 0012
2012
MPKV, Rahuri
Resistant to fusarium wilt and tolerant to pod borer and pod fly.
ICPH 2671
2013
RAK College Sehore
Indeterminate growth, medium mature, tolerant to wilt and sterility mosaic.
BRG 4
2014
UAS, Bangalore
Indeterminate growth, semi determinate, suitable for normal and delayed sowings.
IPA 203
2014
IIPR, Kanpur
Resistant to sterility mosaic disease, tolerant to fusarium wilt.
PRG 176
2015
RARS, Palem
Indeterminate growth, suitable to low rainfall conditions.
ICPH 2740
2015
ICRISAT
Indeterminate growth, semi spreading, resistant to sterility mosaic and wilt.
GRG 881
2016
ARS Gulbarga
Indeterminate growth, semi spreading, resistant to fusarium wilt, moderately resistant to sterility mosaic disease.
CORG 8
2016
TNAU Coimbatore
Indeterminate growth, bold seeded, resistant to sterility mosaic disease, tolerant to Helicoverpa armigera and Maruca vitrata.
LRG 52
2017
RARS, Lam
Indeterminate growth, semi spreading, dark purple pods, brown and large seeded and moderately resistant to wilt.
BRG 3
2018
UAS Bangalore
Intermediate growth, semi spreading, red flowers, mottled seed, resistant to wilt.
GT 104 (NPMK 15-05)
2018
NAU Navsari
Intermediate growth, semi spreading, long pods cream color.
WRGE – 93
2019
SAU, Warangal
Moderately resistant to wilt.
MPV-106
2020
MSSC, Akola
Moderately resistance to wilt diseases, resistant level for sterility mosaic is at par with resistant check variety.
IPH 15-03
2020
IIPR, Kanpur
Resistant to fusarium wilt, moderately resistant to Phytophthora blight.
LRG 133-33
2021
RARS, Lam, Guntur
Disease reaction at natural field conditions, resistant to wilt.
Soyabean
NRC-77
2010
DSR, Indore
Resistant to charcoal rot, Rhizoctonia root rot.
RKS-24
2011
AAU, Kota, Rajasthan
Moderately resistant to bacterial pustule, collar rot and YMV, moderately resistant to girdle beetle, stem fly and defoliators.
GC-00209-4-1-1
2011
UAS, Bangalore
Vegetable type.
DSb-1
2012
UAS, Dharwad
Better germination, resistant to rust, tolerant pod shattering.
SL 744
2012
PAU, Ludhiana
Timely sown irrigated areas, resistant to yellow mosaic virus and soybean mosaic virus.
PS-19
2013
GBPUA&T Pantnagar
Resistant to major foliar diseases, bacterial pustule and rhizoctonia aerial blight.
MACS-1188
2013
ARI, Pune
High oil content, early maturity, resistant to pod, shattering and Rhizoctonia aerial blight, bacterial pustules, charcoal rot, stem fly, pod borer, leaf folder, leaf minor and defoliators.
JS-20-34
2014
JNKVV, Jabalpur
Resistant to charcoal rot, girdle beetle and stem fly.
MAUS-2 (Pooja)
2014
VNMW Krishi Vidyapeeth, Parbhani
Resistant to bacterial pustule and leafspots, leaf miner, stem fly and blue beetle.
KPS-344
2015
RRS, MPKV, Sangli
Tolerant to rust, resistant to stem fly, pod borer and leaf roller.
Pusa 12
2015
IARI, New Delhi
Resistant to YMV, Rhizoctonia aerial blight and bacterial pustules.
JS 20-69
2016
JNKVV Jabalpur
Resistant to YMV, charcoal rot, bacterial pustules, Alternaria leaf spot, pod blight, Indian bud blight, Target leaf spot.
VL Bhat 201
2016
VPKAS, Almorah
Highly resistant to frog eye leaf spot, target leaf spot and moderately resistant to pod blight, highly resistant to girdle beetle, moderately resistant to stem fly.
Raj Soya-24
2017
RVSKVV, Sehore
Resistant to YMV.
Pant Soya 21
2017
GBPUA&T Pantnagar
Resistant to Yellow Mosaic Virus (YMV), SMV & bacterial pustule, tolerant to Rhizoctonia Aerial Blight.
CG Soya-1
2018
IGKV, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
Resistant to Indian bud blight, Rhizoctonia aerial blight, Myrothecium leaf spot and bacterial pustule disease, moderately resistant to pod blight.
JS 20-98
2018
JNKVV Jabalpur
Resistant against most dreadful disease i.e., charcoal rot, blight, bacterial pustules, leaf spots and insect pests.
KSD 726
2019
RRS, MPKV Sangli
Resistant to rust, purple seed stain disease, moderately resistance to Stem fly and defoliators.
VL Soya 89
2019
VPKAS, Almorah
Moderate resistance against frog eye leaf spot and pod blight diseases, moderate resistance against Chauliops and resistant against defoliators.
Pant Soybean 25
2020
GBPUA&T Pantnagar
Resistant to bacterial pustule & BLB, moderately resistance to RAB, BS & FLS.
Pant Soybean 26
2020
GBPUA&T Pantnagar
Resistant to bacterial pustule & BLB, moderately resistance to RAB.
Mungbean
Pairy Mung
2010
IGKV, Raipur
Rabi season, tolerant to YMV, resistant to powdery mildew.
SML 832
2010
PAU, Ludhiana
Spring and Summer term, tolerant to thrips.
DGGV 2
2012
UAS, Dharwad
Kharif season, resistant to shattering of pods and suitable for mechanical harvesting.
Shalimar Mung 2
2013
Srinagar centre, SKUASTA
Early maturing, resistant to Cercospora leaf spot, moderate resistant to aphid.
CO. (Gg) 8
2013
TNAU, Coimbatore
Rainfed area, resistant to YMV.
SGC 16
2014
RARS, Shilongani, AAU, Assam
Resistant to CLS and YMV.
BGS 9 (Somnath)
2014
UAS, Raichur
Moderately resistant to PM, bold seed and long pod.
Pant Mung 8 (PM 9-6)
2016
GBPUAT, Pantnagar
Resistant to MYMV, CLS and PM.
RMG 975
2016
RARI, Durgapura
Kharif season, moderately tolerant to MYMV and root knot nematode.
PUSA 1371
2017
IARI, New Delhi.
Kharif season, multiple resistant to MYMV, resistant to root rot, web blight and Anthracnose.
DDG-1
2017
UAS, Dharwad
Kharif season, resistant to powdery mildew.
Varsa
2018
IIPR, Kanpur
Kharif season, resistant to MYMV and powdery mildew.
PKV AKM 4
2018
IIPR, Kanpur
Spring and Kharif season, resistant to MYMV, green attractive and medium-large seed.
VBN 4
2019
NPRC, Vamban
Suitable for all season, moderately resistant to MYMV, ULCV and PM diseases.
Pant M 9
2019
GBPUA&T, Pantnagar
Suitable for Spring and Kharif seasons, resistant to MYMV.
KM- 2342
2020
CSAU&T, KANPUR
Suitable for Kharif seasons, resistant to MYMV.
IPM 312-20
2020
IIPR, Kanpur
Suitable for Spring seasons, moderately resistance to Anthracnose and powdery mildew, resistance to MYMV.
Field Pea
Aman (IPF 5-19)
2010
IIPR, Kanpur
Resistant to PM disease, tolerant to rust, moderately resistance to pod borer and stem fly.
Gomati
2010
ICAR, Reas. Compl., Agartala
Tolerant to pod borer and stem fly, tolerant to M. incognita and M. Javanica.
IPF 4-9
2011
IIPR, Kanpur
Resistant to PM disease, moderately resistant to rust, pod borer and stem fly.
VL Matar 47
2011
VPKAS, NWPZ/ Uttarakhand
Resistant to wilt, rust and powdery mildew.
HFP-529
2012
CCS HAU, Hisar
Resistant to rust, PM, Ascochyta blight, mod. Resistant to PB, aphids, leaf miner and stem fly, dwarf type.
Salimar pea 1
2013
Srinagar centre, SKUAST
Resistant to powdery mildew, moderately resistant to rust, pod borer, high protein content.
IPFD 10-12
2014
IIPR, Kanpur
Resistant to powdery mildew, dwarf type, green dry seeds.
HFP 715
2014
CCS HAU
Resistant to powdery mildew, dwarf type plant.
Punjab-89
2015
PAU, Punjab
Resistant to rust.
Pant pea 155
2016
GBPUA&T, Pantnagar
Resistant to rust and powdery mildew diseases, tolerant to pod borer pest, dwarf type.
IPFD-6-3
2016
IIPR, Kanpur
Resistant to powdery mildew, moderately resistant to rust, tendril type.
Pant pea 250
2017
GBPUAT, Pantnagar
Resistant to powdery mildew, moderately resistant to rust, Ascochyta blight and root rot diseases.
Pant pea 243
2017
GBPUAT, Pantnagar
Moderately resistant to powdery mildew, rust, Ascochyta blight and root rot diseases.
IPFD 2014-2
2018
IIPR, Kanpur
Dwarf and early vigor, resistant to pod borer, aphid, leaf miner & nematode.
TRCP 9
2018
ICAR res. Complex Agartala
Resistant to rust, root knot and rust, dwarf type.
Kota Matar 1
2020
AU, Borkhera (Kota)
Moderately resistant against powdery mildew, rust and root knot nematodes, ss incidence of pod borer.
IPFD 12-8 (Aakash)
2020
IIPR, Kanpur
Resistant to powdery mildew and rust disease, moderately resistant to pod borer.
Pant Pea 250
2021
CCS, HAU
Resistant to powdery mildew, Ascochyta blight and root rot and moderately resistant to rust.
HFP 1428
2021
CCS, HAU
Resistant to powdery mildew, Ascochyta blight and root rot and moderately resistant to rust.
Table 1.
Central & State released varieties of Pulses in India.
The importance of legume crops for the agriculture and the environment is considered1 ancestral; however, the invention and the breeding constraints have led to their current lower relative1 significance compared to cereals. Currently, we are witness and significant boost of legume crops-associated research where abundant studies from conventional breeding to advanced genomics, are1 being carried out and published to address and overcome the various constraints faced by the1 production of legumes. Conventional breeding has made significant contributions to legume genetic1 development, especially by developing lines with superior monogenetic traits such as resistance to1 fungi and insects. Considering the accumulation of published information, it is feasible to forecast1 similar achievements for lentil crop in the near future. MAS in legumes have also shaped opportunity1 for the use of pyramiding approaches and the introgression of quantitative traits for resistance of1 certain diseases.
Furthermore, the dominant entry of legumes to the genomics period has endorsed their breeding programs to adopt new biotechnological and bioinformatics tools such as GWAS, which are hopeful in augment the effectiveness and efficiency of modern breeding techniques.
Legume breeding programs may also consider food superiority parameters as important traits to expand materials of high nutritional and commercial value, meeting the needs of both consumers and the food industry.
The application of genetic modification in legumes shows remarkable progress as reflected in the two successful cases discussed in this article. As the effects of GM crops are still well thought out and public acceptance is not well established, editing tools appear to be more appropriate. Scientist must develop the alternative tools of GM crop.
The strong efforts to accelerate and augment legume breeding and their current global production status show great potential to increase their relative importance in the alimentation and the nourishment of the world population. Presently, cereals exceed pulses as well as legumes 6.7 times in harvested area and 6.0 times in production.
This manufacture boost states a precedent and shows actual possibilities of increasing legume crops production to unexpected levels by genetic advances and improved cultivars, linked to advances in farming technology and agronomic practices.
Authors highly thank the department of genetics and plant breeding, School of Agriculture, Lovely professional University, Phagwara, Jalandhar Punjab (India) for providing all necessary facilities to write this book chapter.
1.Singh NP, Pratap A. Food legumes for nutritional security and health benefits. In: Singh U, Praharaj SC, Singh SS, Singh PN, editors. Biofortification of Food Crops. New Delhi: Springer; 2011. pp. 41-50
2.Majid A, Parray GA, Wani SH, Kordostami M, Sofi NR, Waza SA, et al. Genome editing and its necessity in agriculture. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2017;6:5435-5443
3.Mujjassim NE, Mallik M, Rathod NKK, Nitesh SD. Cisgenesis and intragenesis a new tool for conventional plant breeding: A review. Journal of Pharmacognition Phytochemistry. 2019;8:2485-2489
4.Mehandi S, Singh IP, Bohra A, Singh CM. Multivariate analysis in green gram [Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek]. Legume Research. 2015;38(6):758-762
5.Doust A, Diao X. Plant genetics and genomics: Crops and models. Genetics Genome Setaria Series. 2017;19:377
6.Godwin ID, Rutkoski J, Varshney RK, Hickey LT. Technological perspectives for plant breeding. Theoretical and Applied Genetics. 2019;132:555-557. DOI: 10.1007/s00122-019-03321-4
7.Ranalli P, Cubero JI. Bases for genetic improvement of grain legumes. Field Crops Research. 1997;53:69-82
8.Smýkal P, Coyne CJ, Ambrose MJ, et al. Legume crops phylogeny and genetic diversity for science and breeding. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences. 2015;34:43-104
9.Kumar J, Choudhary AK, Solanki RK, Pratap A. Towards marker-assisted selection in pulses: a review. Plant Breeding. 2011;130:297-313
10.Malik SR, Shabbir G, Zubir M, Iqbal SM, Ali A. Genetic diversity analysis of morpho-genetic traits in Desi chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). International Journal of Agriculture. 2014;16:956-960
11.Rubiales D, Fondevilla S, Chen W, Gentzbittel L, Higgins TJV, Castillejo MA, et al. Achievements and challenges in legume breeding for pest and disease resistance. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences. 2015;34:195-236
12.Pratap A, Kumar J, editors. Biology and Breeding of Food Legumes. Hyderabad: CABI International; 2011. p. 405
13.Okii D, Tukamuhabwa P, Odong T, Namayanja A, Mukabaranga J, Paparu P, et al. Morphological diversity of tropical common bean germplasm. African Crop Science Journal. 2014a;22:59-67
14.Kumar S, Ali M. GE interaction and its breeding implications in pulses. Bottomline. 2006;56:31-36
15.Piepho H, Mohring J. Computing heritability and selection response from unbalanced plant breeding trials. Genetics. 2007;177:1881-1888
16.Gupta PK, Rustgi S, Kulwal PL. Linkage disequilibrium and association studies in higher plants: present status and future prospects. Plant Molecular Biology. 2005;57:461-485
17.Flint F. Mapping quantitative traits and strategies to find quantitative trait genes. Methods. 2011;53:163-174
18.Sanchez MA, Parrott WA. Characterization of scientific studies usually cited as evidence of adverse effects of GM food/feed. Plant Biotechnology Journal. 2017;15(10):1227-1234
19.Schwember AR. An update on genetically modified crops. CiencInvestigAgrar. 2008;35:231-250
20.Padgette SR, Kolacz KH, Delannay X, Re DB, LaVallee BJ, Tinius CN, et al. Development, identification, and characterization of a glyphosate-tolerant soybean line. Crop Science. 1995;35:1451-1461
21.James C. 20th anniversary (1996 to 2015) of the global commercialization of biotech crops and biotech crop highlights in 2015. ISAAA briefs no 51. The international service for the acquisition of agri-biotech applications, Ithaca, NY, USA. 2015. Available from: http://www. isaaa.org /resources/ publications/briefs/51/ default.asp [Accessed 20 June 2016]
22.Arruda SCC, Barbosa HS, Azevedo RA, Arruda MAZ. Comparative studies focusing on transgenic through cp4EPSPS gene and non-transgenic soybean plants: an analysis of protein species and enzymes. Journal of Proteomics. 2013. DOI: 10.1016/j.jprot.2013.05.039
23.Slater A, Scott NW, Fowler MR. Plant Biotechnology: The Genetic Manipulation of Plants. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003
24.Duke SO. Taking stock of herbicide-resistant crops ten years after introduction. Pest Management Science. 2005;61:211-218
25.Stewart CN et al. Transgene introgression form genetically modified crops to their wild relatives. Nature Reviews. Genetics. 2003;4:806-817
26.Aragao FJL, Faria JC. First transgenic geminivirus-resistant plant in the field. Nature Biotechnology. 2009;27:1086-1088
27.Aragao FLJ, Nogueria OPL, Tinocoa MLP, Faria JC. Molecular characterization of the first commercial transgenic common bean immune to the Bean golden mosaic virus. Journal of Biotechnology. 2013;166:42-50
28.Scheible WR, Morcuende R, Czechowski T, et al. Genome-wide reprogramming of primary and secondary metabolism, protein synthesis, cellular growth processes, and the regulatory infrastructure of Arabidopsis in response to nitrogen. Plant Physiology. 2004;136:2483-2499
29.Dijk VK, Ding Y, Malkaram S, Riethoven JJM, Liu R, Yang J, et al. Dynamic changes in genome-wide histone H3 lysine 4 methylation patterns in response to dehydration stress in Arabidopsis thaliana. BMC Plant Biology. 2010;10:1-12
30.Gupta PK, Kumar J, Mir RR, Kumar A. Marker assisted selection as a component of conventional plant breeding. Plant Breeding Review. 2010;33:145-217
31.Schmutz J, McClean PE, Mamidi S, et al. A reference genome for common bean and genome-wide analysis of dual domestications. Nature Genetics. 2014;46:707-713
32.Main D, Cheng CH, Ficklin SP, Sanad M, Jung S, Lee T, et al. The cool season food legume database: an integrated resource for basic, translational and applied research. In: International Plant and Animal Genome Conference. San Diego, CA, USA; 2014
33.Yang SS, Tu ZJ, Cheung F, Xu WW, Lamb JFS, Jung HJG, et al. Using RNA-Seq for gene identification, polymorphism detection and transcript profiling in two alfalfa genotypes with divergent cell wall composition in stems. BMC Genomics. 2011;3:56-64. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2164-12-199
34.Jones SI, Vodkin LO. Using RNA-Seq to profile soybean seed development from fertilization to maturity. PLoS One. 2013;5:72-85. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0059270
35.Singh VK, Garg R, Jain M. A global view of transcriptome dynamics during flower development in chickpea by deep sequencing. Plant Biotechnology Journal. 2013;11:691-701
36.Zhu H, Choi HK, Cook DR, Shoemaker RC. Bridging model and crop legumes through comparative genomics. Plant Physiology. 2005;137:1189-1196
37.Cruz-Izquierdo S, Avila CM, Satovic Z, Palomino C, Gutierrez N, Ellwood SR, et al. Comparative genomics to bridge Vicia faba with model and closely-related legume species: stability of QTLs for flowering and yield-related traits. Theoretical Application Genetics. 2012;125:1767-1782
38.Castro P, Rubio J, Madrid E, Fernández-Romero MD, Millán T, Gil J. Efficiency of marker-assisted selection for Ascochyta blight in chickpea. The Journal of Agricultural Science. 2015;153:56-67
39.Varshney RK, Thudi M, Nayak SN, Gaur PM, Kashiwagi J, Krishnamurthy L, et al. Genetic dissection of drought tolerance in chickpea (C. arietinum L.). Theoretical Application Genetic. 2014;127:445-462
40.Gusta LV, Wisniewski M. Understanding plant cold hardiness: An opinion. Physiologia Plantarum. 2013;147:4-14
41.Klein A, Houtin H, Rond C, Marget P, Jacquin F, Boucherot K, et al. QTL analysis of frost damage in pea suggests different mechanisms involved in frost tolerance. Theoretical Application Genetics. 2014;127:1319-1330
42.Rubio MC, Bustos-Sanmamed P, Clemente MR, Becana M. Effects of salt stress on the expression of antioxidant genes and proteins in the model legume Lotus japonicus. The New Phytologist. 2009;181:851-859
43.Golldack D, Li C, Mohan H, Probst N. Tolerance to drought and salt stress in plants: Unraveling the signaling networks. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2014;3:112-119. DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2014.00151
44.Abid G, Muhovski Y, Mingeot D, Watillon B, Toussaint A, Mergeai G, et al. Identification and characterization of drought stress responsive genes in faba bean (V. faba L.) by suppression subtractive hybridization. Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture. 2014;121:367-379
45.Yang W, Wang M, Yue A, Wu J, Li S, Li G, et al. QTLs and epistasis for drought-tolerant physiological index in soybean (Glycine max L.) across different environments. Caryologia. 2014;67:72-78
46.Huynh BL, Ehlers JD, Ndeve A, Wanamaker S, Lucas MR, Close TJ, et al. Genetic mapping and legume synteny of aphid resistance in African cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp.) grown in California. Molecular Breeding. 2015;2:432-439. DOI: 10.1007/s11032-015-0254-0
47.Carrillo E, Satovic Z, Aubert G, Boucherot K, Rubiales D, Fondevilla S. Identification of quantitative trait loci and candidate genes for specific cellular resistance responses against Didymellapinodes in pea. Plant Cell Reports. 2014;33:1133-1145
48.Anderson J, Akond M, Kassem MA, Meksem K, Kantartzi SK. Quantitative trait loci underlying resistance to sudden death syndrome (SDS) in MD96–5722 by ‘Spencer’ recombinant inbred line population of soybean. 3 Biotech. 2014;4:65-71. DOI: 10.1007/s13205-014-0211-3
49.Patil BS, Ravikumar RL, Bhat JS, Soregaon CD. Molecular mapping of QTLs for resistance to early and late Fusarium wilt in chickpea. Czech Journal of Genetics and Plant Breeding. 2014;50:171-176
50.Pottorff MO, Li GJ, Ehlers JD. Genetic mapping, synteny, and physical location of two loci for Fusarium oxysporum f. sptracheiphilum race 4 resistance in cowpea [V. unguiculata (L.) Walp]. Molecular Breeding. 2014;33:779-791
51.Agbicodo EM, Fatokun CA, Bandyopadhyay R, Wydra K, Diop NN, Muchero W, et al. Identification of markers associated with bacterial blight resistance loci in cowpea [V. unguiculata (L.) Walp.]. Euphytica. 2010;175:215-226
52.Trabanco N, Asensio-Manzanera MC, Pérez-Vega E, Ibeas A, Campa A, Ferreira JJ. Identification of quantitative trait loci involved in the response of common bean to Pseudomonas syringaepv. Molecular Breeding. 2014;33:577-558
53.Blair MW, Rodriguez LM, Pedraza F, Morales F, Beebe S. Genetic mapping of the bean golden yellow mosaic geminivirus resistance gene bgm-1 and linkage with potyvirus resistance in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Theoretical Applications Genetics. 2007;114:261-271
54.Hema M, Sreenivasulu P, Patil BL, Kumar PL, Reddy DVR. Tropical food legumes: virus diseases of economic importance and their control. Advances in Virus Research. 2014;90:431-505
55.Abdelmajid KM, Ramos L, Hyten D, Bond J, Bendahmane A, Arelli PR, et al. Quantitative trait loci (QTL) that underlie scn resistance in soybean [G. max (L.) Merr.] PI438489B by ‘Hamilton’ recombinant inbred line (RIL) population. Atlas Journal of Plant Biology. 2014;1:29-38
56.Santra DK, Tekeoglu M, Ratnaparkhe M, Kaiser JW, M. F. J. Identification and Mapping of QTLs Conferring Resistance to Ascochyta Blight in Chickpea. Crop Science. 2000;40:1606-1612
57.Paul PJ, Samineni S, Thudi M, Sajja SB, Rathore A, Das RR, et al. Molecular mapping of QTLs for heat tolerance in chickpea. International Journal of Molecular Science. 2018;19:2166
58.Jha UC, Nayyar H, Palakarthi R, Jha R, Valluri V, Bajaj P, et al. Major QTLs and potential candidate genes for heat stress tolerance identified in Chickpea (C. arietinum L.). Frontier in Plant Science. 2021;12:655103
59.Kumawat G, Raje RS, Bhutani S, Pal JK, Mithra ASVCR, Gaikwad K, et al. Molecular mapping of QTLs for plant type and earliness traits in pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan L. Millsp.). BMC Genetics. 2012;13:84
60.Bohra A, Saxena RK, Gnanesh BN, Saxena KB, Byregowda M, Rathore A, et al. An intra-specific consensus genetic map of pigeon pea [C. cajan (L.) Millspaugh] derived from six mapping populations. Theoretical Applications Genetics. 2012;125:1325-1338
61.Gnanesh BN, Bohra A, Sharma M, Byregowda M, Pande S, Wesley V, et al. Genetic mapping and quantitative trait locus analysis of resistance to sterility mosaic disease in pigeon pea [C. cajan (L.) Millsp.]. Field Crops Research. 2011;123:53-61
62.Mir RR, Saxena RK, Saxena KB, Upadhyaya HD, Kilian A, Cook DR, et al. Whole-genome scanning for mapping determinacy in pigeon pea (Cajanus spp.). Plant Breeding. 2013;132:472-478
63.Sexena RK, Singh VK, Kale SM, Tathineni R, Parupalli S, Kumar V, et al. (2017) Construction of genotyping-by-sequencing based high-density genetic maps and QTL mapping for fusarium wilt resistance in Pigeonpea. Scientific Reports. 2017;7:1911
64.Han Y, Li D, Zhu D, Li H, Li X, Teng W, et al. QTL analysis of soybean seed weight across multi-genetic backgrounds and environments. Theoretical and Applied Genetics. 2012;2012(125):671-683
65.Khan AN, Githiri MS, Benitez ER, Abe J, Kawasakis S, Hayashi T, et al. QTL analysis of cleistogamy in soybean. Journal of Biotechnology. 2008;117(4):479-487
66.Lamlom SF, Zhang Y, Su B, Wu H, Zhang X, Fu J, et al. Map-based cloning of a novel QTL qBN-1 influencing branch number in soybean (G. max L.). The Crop Journal. 2020;2020:793-801
67.Ren H, Han J, Wang X, Zhang B, Gao H, Hong H, et al. QTL mapping of drought tolerance traits in soybean with SLAF sequencing. The crop Journal. 2020;2020(8):977-989
68.Cornelious B, Chen P, Chen Y, de Leon N, Shannon JG, Wang D. Identification of QTLs underlying water-logging tolerance in soybean. Molecular Breeding. 2005;2005(16):103-112
69.Mathivathana MK, Murukarthick J, Karthikeyan A, Jang W, Dhasarathan M, Jagadeeshselvam N, et al. Journal of Applied Genetics. 2019:56-62. DOI: 10.1007/s13353-019-00506-x
70.Mei L, Cheng XZ, Wang SH, Wang LX, Liu CY, Sun L, et al. Relationship between bruchid resistance and seed mass in mungbean based on QTL analysis. Genome. 2009;52:589-596
71.Kajonphol T, Chontira SC, Somta P, Toojinda T, Srinives P. SSR map construction and quantitative traits loci (QTL) identification of Major agronomic traits in mungbean (V. radiata L.). SABRAO Journal of Breeding and Genetics. 2012;44(1):71-86
72.Ubayasena L, Bett K, An BT, Vijayan P, Warkentin T. Genetic control and QTL analysis of cotyledon bleaching resistance in green field pea (Pisum sativum L.). Genome. 2010;53(5):346-359
73.Mahini RA, Kumar A, Elias EM, Fiedler JD, Porter LD, McPhee KE. Analysis and Identification of QTL for Resistance to Sclerotinia sclerotiorum in Pea (P. sativum L.). Frontiers in Genetics. 2020;11:587968. DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2020.587968
74.Garcia RL, Prats E, Fondevilla S, Satovic Z, Rubiales D. Quantitative trait loci associated to drought adaptation in pea (P. sativum L.). Plant Molecular Biology Reporter. 2015;33:1768-1778. DOI: 10.1007/s11105-015-0872-z
75.Jha AB, Gali KK, Taran B, Warkentin TD. Fine mapping of QTLs for ascochyta blight resistance in pea using heterogeneous inbred families. Frontier in Plant Science. 2017:118-126. DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2017.00765
76.Vange T, Moses OE. Studies on genetic characteristics of pigeon pea germplasm at Otobi, Benue state of Nigeria. WJAS. 2009;5:714-719
Written By
Satya Prakash, Suhel Mehandi and Harmeet S. Janeja
Submitted: 27 June 2022Reviewed: 16 December 2022Published: 04 March 2023
Open access peer-reviewed chapter
