Effect of tillage systems on yield and its components of seven cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.) varieties and performing correlation, path and cluster analysis under Sulaimani condition

Dana Azad Abdulkhaleq1, Emad Omer Hama-Ali1 , Bestoon Omer Hama-Umin 1 , Fawzy Faidhullah Khorshid1

1 Crop Science Department , College of Agricultural Sciences ,University of Sulaimani , Sulaimani ,  Kurdistan Region, Iraq

Original: 21/11/2017, Revised: 12/12/2017, Accepted: 06/02/2018, Published online:

DOI Link: https://doi.org/10.17656/jzs.10666


This study was conducted during 2015 season at The Qlyasan Agricultural Research Station / College of Agricultural Sciences / University of Sulaimani. Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) with three replicates was used to study the effect of two tillage systems using (Mould board plow and Disc plow) on seven cowpea varieties (Vigna unguiculata L.) in term of agro-morphological characters and yield assessment. Mean comparisons were performed by the least significant difference test (L.S.D) at 1% and 5% levels of significance. Correlation and path coefficient analyses were performed to determine the degree of association of characters with yield and also among themselves and to detect the relative importance of the characters contributing to grain yield. Cluster analysis based on (UPMAG) was implemented to identify the genetic diversity of the genotypes. The results of this study confirm that plowing with mould board recorded the maximum values for all of the studied characters which indicate the effectiveness of this system compared to disc plow. Tropicana variety achieved the best values for most of the studied characters, while Ramshorn using mould board plow gave the highest values for the character root length and number of branches per plant respectively. Grain yield per plant were recorded highly significant positive correlations with Pod yield/plant, number of pods per plant, pod length with 0.978, 0.766, and 0.755 respectively, while significant positive correlation was noticed between grain yield per plant and  pod weight and 100-grain weight with  0.560 and 0.541 respectively. Maximum positive direct effect in grain yield recorded by pod yield per plant with 0.906, while maximum positive indirect effect in grain yield recorded by number of pods per plant via pod yield per plant with 0.771. Cluster analysis indicated three groups in both tillage systems depending on the agro-morphological data with a small differences because (American Cowpea) genotype was in first group in mould board plow and in second groups in disc plow tillage systems results indicated the presence of high variability between genotypes in both tillage systems.

  Key Words: Cowpea Genotypes, Grain yield, Correlation Analysis, Path Coefficient Analysis and Cluster Analysis.


 [1] Nwofia, G.E. ″Yield and yield components in vegetable cowpea on an ultisol‶, African Journal of Agricultural Research, Vol. (7), No. 28, pp. 4097-4103. (2012).

[2] Sahai, G., Malaviya D.R., and Singh U.P. ″Morphological traits association with fodder and seed yield in Vigna unguiculata (L)″. Journal of Environmental Biology, Vol. (34), pp. 139-145. (2013).

[3] Gonçalves, A., Goufo P.,  Barros A.,  Domínguez-Perles R.,  Trindade H.,  Rosa E.A., Ferreira L., and Rodrigues M. ″Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp), a renewed multipurpose crop for a more sustainable agrifood system: nutritional advantages and constraints″, Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, Vol. (96), No. 9, pp. 2941–2951. (2016). 

[4] Rangel, A., Domont G.B., Pedrosa C., Ferreira S.T. ″Functional properties of purified vicilins from cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) and pea (Pisum sativum) and cowpea protein isolate″, Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry, Vol. (51), pp. 5792–5797. (2003).

[5] Nagalakshmi, R.M., Usha Kumari R., and Boranayaka M.B. ″Assessment of genetic diversity in cowpea (Vigna unguiculata)″, Electronic Journal Plant Breeding, Vol. (1), No. 4, pp. 453-461. (2010).

[6] Nath, A. and Tajane P.A. ″Genetic diversity studies for seed yield in cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.]″, Int. Journal Plant Science, Vol. (9), No. 1, pp. 202-204. (2014).

[7] Garner, F.P., Pearce R.B., Mitchell R.L. “Physiology of Crop Plants”. Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA. (1985).

[8] McKenzie, B.A., Hill G.D. ″Intercepted radiation and yield of lentils (Lens culinaris Medik) in Canterbury, New Zealand″, Journal of Agricultural Science, Vol. (117), pp. 339-346. (1991).

[9] Kumar, R., Sangwan R.S., and Singh V.P. ″Correlation and path analysis of Cowpea″, Forage Research, Vol. (27), pp. 25-28. (2001).

[10] Erkut, P. and Artik C. ″Comparison of some cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.] genotypes from Turkey for seed yield and yield related characters″, Journal of Agronomy, Vol. (3), pp. 3:137-140. (2004).

[11] Kumawat, K.C. and Raje R.S. ″Association analysis in cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.]″, Journal Arid Legumes, Vol. (2), pp. 47-49. (2005).

[12] Singh, K.B., Mehndiratta P.D. ″Path analysis and selection indices in cowpea″, Indian Journal of Genetics and Plant Breeding, Vol. (30), pp. 471-475. (1970).

[13] Khan, B.A., Stoffella P.J. ″Yield components of cowpeas grown in two environments″, Crop Science, Vol. (25), pp. 179-182. (1985).

[14] Fernandez, G.C.J., and Miller J.C. Jr. ″Yield component analysis of five cowpea cultivars″. Journal of American Society of Horticultural Science, Vol. (110), No. 4, pp. 553-554. (1985).

[15] Aggarwal, V.S., Natare R.B., and Smithson J.B. ″The relationship among yield and other characters in vegetable cowpea and the effect of different trellis management on pod yield″, Tropicana Grain legume Bull., Vol. (25), pp. 8-14. (1982).

[16] Braithwaite, R.A.I. ″Bodie bean response to changes in plant density″, Agronomy Journal, Vol. (745), pp. 93-596. (1982).

[17] Megloire, N. “The genetic, morphological and physiological evaluation of African cowpea genotypes”, MSc. Thesis, University of Free State. (2005).

[18] Ajayi, A.T., and Adesoye A.I. ″Cluster analysis technique for assessing variability in cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp) accessions from Nigeria″, Ratarstvo i Povrtarstvo, Journal on Field and Vegetable Crops Research, Vol. (50), No. 2, pp. 1-7. (2013).

[19] Lal, R. “Soil and Micro-climate consideration for developing tillage systems in the tropics” In Lal R (Ed) Soil and Tillage Crop Production, Proceeding Series No. 2, International Institute for Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria. (1979).

[20] Aikins, S. H. M., and Afuakwa J. J. "Effect of four different tillage practices on cowpea performance", World Journal of Agricultural Sciences, Vol. (6), No. 6, pp.  644-651. (2010).

[21] Al-Rawi, K. M., and A. M. Khalafallah, “Design and Analysis of Agricultural Experiments”, College of Agriculture and Forestry, Mussel University. (1980).

[22] Sing, R.K., and Chaudhary B.D. “Biometrical Methods in Quantitative Genetic Analysis”, Revised Edition, Kalyani Publishers, Ludhiana, New Delhi, India. (1985).

[23] Dewey, D.R., and Lu K.H. ″A correlation and path-coefficient analysis of components of crested wheatgrass grain production″, Agronomy Journal, Vol. (51), pp. 515-518. (1959).

[24] STATISTIC, I. S. “IBM SPSS STATISTIC program, version 19 statistical software packages”. IBM Corporation, New York. (2011). 

[25] Selvi, R., Muthiah A.R., Maheswaran M., and Shanmugasundaram P. ″Genetic diversity in the genus Vigna based on morphological traits and isozyme markers″, Sabrao Journal of Breeding and Genetics, Vol. (35), No. 2, pp. 103-112. (2003).

[26] Nwofia, G. E., Okocha P.I., and Ene-Obong E.E. Evaluation of cowpea genotypes for yield and yield components in humid conditionJournal of Sustainable Agriculture and the Environment, Vol. (9), No. 1, pp. 32-41. (2007).

[27] Shimelis, H., and Shiringani R. Variance components and heritabilities of yield and agronomic traits among cowpea genotypes, Euphytica, Vol. (176) No. 3, pp. 383-389. (2010).

[28] El-Shaieny, A. A. H., Abdel-Ati Y.Y., El-Damarany A. M., and Rashwan A.M. Stability analysis of components characters in cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp)Journal of Horticulture and Forestry, Vol. (7), No. 28, pp. 7(2): 24-35. (2015).