Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2015) 4(11): 487-504
ISSN: 2319-7706 Volume 4 Number 11 (2015) pp. 487-504
http://www.ijcmas.com
Original Research Article
Diversity of Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (l.) Walp.) Landraces in
Central and Northern Benin
A. A. Gbaguidi1*, A. Adjatin1, A.Dansi1 and C. Agbangla2
1
Laboratory of Biotechnology, Genetic Resources and Plant and Animal Breeding (BIORAVE),
Faculty of Sciences and Technology of Dassa, Polytechnic University of Abomey,
BP 14, Dassa-Zoumè; Benin
2
Department of Genetic and Biotechnology, Faculty of Sciences and Technology (FAST),
University of Abomey-Calavi, 01 P.O.B 526, Cotonou, Benin
*Corresponding author
ABSTRACT
Keywords
Benin,
Cowpea,
Diversity,
Local varieties,
Morphological
Characterization
Cowpea, Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp. is an important legume crop well produced
and consumed in Benin, hence contributing to food security. To document its
diversity and associated traditional knowledge, a survey was conducted in cowpea
producing areas in both central and northern Benin as a complementary study to the
one earlier conducted in the southern region. Fifty-three (53) villages were
surveyed. Data were collected using participatory research tools and techniques. In
total and subject to synonymy, 96 varieties of cowpea have been identified. The
number of cultivated varieties varies significantly between villages and regions.
Zou and Collines regions have the highest diversity with an average of 5 6
varieties grown per village. The analysis of the distribution and extent showed a
very high rate of varieties being lost. The participatory evaluation revealed 30
varieties with good agronomic and culinary qualities. Accessions collected (124 in
total) were classified using the seeds morphological traits and 26 morphological
units were identified. Complete agromorphological and molecular characterization
are recommended for correct assessment of the diversity within the germplasm
assembled.
Introduction
tropical and subtropical regions. Its global
production is estimated at 5 249 571 tons of
which over 64% are produced in Africa
(Pottorff et al., 2012; FAOSTAT, 2013). In
Benin, cowpea occupies more than 7% of
the area planted (all crops put together) and
the production was estimated at 81152 tons
Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L) Walp) is a
tropical, annual herbaceous legume,
belonging to the Fabaceae family (Singh et
al., 1997). The genus Vigna consists of over
100
different
species,
with
great
morphological and ecological diversity
(Oyewale et al., 2014) widely found in the
487
Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2015) 4(11): 487-504
in 2011 (MAEP, 2012). Cowpea is rich in
protein, minerals and vitamins (Hall et al.,
2003) and constitutes an excellent
supplement to cereals and tubers widely
used as staple foods in sub-Saharan Africa
(Stoilova and Pereira, 2013). In addition,
cowpea is adapted to different ecological
zones and plays an important role in soil
fertility through symbiotic nitrogen fixation
and can be a food of choice for livestock due
to the quality of its foliage (Hall et al.,
2002). Unfortunately, several biotic and
abiotic factors reduce the growth and yield
of cowpea (Zannou et al., 2004). Poor soil,
drought, heat, acidity and stresses due to
crop rotation with cereals are among the
abiotic factors causing reduced yield of
cowpea (Singh and Ajeigbe, 2002). As for
biotic stresses, insects cause the most severe
damage and this may reach 100% yield loss
(Emechebe and Lagoke, 2002; Niba, 2011).
Benin has a rich diversity of cowpea that has
never been well assessed and extensively
collected (except the few samples studied by
Zannou et al., 2004), while many varieties
seem to be disappearing (Gbaguidi et al.,
2013). In addition, Benin cowpea is poorly
represented in the international collections
(Tinko and Singh, 2008). There is therefore
a need to collect, characterize and conserve
existing diversity. Integrating farmers
knowledge in crop breeding schemes is an
important step in the adoption of new
varieties. Farmers knowledge is also
important in the development of strategy for
sustainable management of plant genetic
resources (Touré et al., 2013). The aim of
the study was three-folds:
Classify the accessions collected using
seeds morphological traits.
Materials and Methods
Study area
The study was conducted in central and
northern Benin. The country is located in
West Africa between latitudes 6° 10 N and
12° 25 N and longitudes 0° 45 E and 3° 55 E
(Akoègninou et al., 2006). It is divided into
12 regions (total area of 112 622 km2) and 3
climatic zones, namely south, central and
north (Akoègninou et al., 2006). It includes
29 ethnic groups (Adjatin et al., 2012). In
order to cover the entire Benin, a survey was
conducted in the centre and in the north of
the country to complement that carried out
in the south (Gbaguidi et al., 2013). Central
Benin is a relatively humid agro-ecological
zone with two rainy seasons and an average
annual rainfall ranging from 1100 to 1400
mm / year (Yabi and Afouda, 2012). The
northern region is arid and semi-arid agroecological
zone
characterized
by
unpredictable and erratic rainfall of between
800 and 950 mm / year, with only one rainy
season. The average annual temperature
ranges from 26°C to 28°C and can
exceptionally reach 35 40°C (Adomou et
al., 2006).
Sites selection and data collection
For a comprehensive inventory and good
coverage of the study area, 53 villages
(Figure 1) located in different agroecological and ethnic zones were randomly
selected. Data were collected during the
survey of different areas through
participatory research tools and techniques
such as direct observation, group
discussions, individual interviews and field
visits using a questionnaire (Kombo et al.,
2012; Adjatin et al., 2012). In each village,
Examine the diversity, distribution and
extent of the different traditional
varieties of cowpea grown in central
and northern Benin,
Assess with producers the agronomic
and culinary performances of the
varieties inventoried
488
Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2015) 4(11): 487-504
local producers associations were involved
in the study to facilitate the organization of
meetings and data collection (Loko et al.,
2013). Prior to the meetings, farmers were
asked to provide in advance samples of
varieties of cowpea they grow or know.
Initially, they were asked to list the different
varieties of cowpea grown in their village.
The distribution and extent of these varieties
were evaluated using the Four Squares
analysis method (Kombo et al., 2012; Loko
et al., 2013). The participatory assessment
of the identified varieties was done in group
using important traits such as cooking
qualities and productivity, cycle, tolerance
to high soil moisture, drought, weeds, pests
and diseases, easiness of cooking, taste, and
suitability of the leaves as
vegetable
(Gbaguidi et al., 2013).
Figure.1 Benin Map showing the geographical locations of the villages surveyed
At each site and after the group discussion,
10-12 households were randomly selected
using the transect method (Gbaguidi et al.,
2013), for individual surveys following
Orobiyi et al., (2013). The data collected
using a semi-structured questionnaire was
related to diversity maintained at
households level and the sociodemographic
characteristics of the household.
Data analysis
Data were analyzed using descriptive
statistics
(frequencies,
percentages,
averages, etc.) to generate tables and figures
at different levels (zone diversity, villages,
households). The rate of variety loss (VDL)
or being disappearing at the villages level
was determined, according to Kombo et al.
(2012) using the formula VDL = [(RV k)/N x 100] where RV is the number of rare
varieties (cultivated by few households and
on small areas); k is the number of newly
introduced varieties; N is the total number of
varieties identified in the village.
The varieties available with the producers
were collected in paper bags and labelled
following Rao et al. (2006). Collected
varieties were classified on the basis of seed
coat color and appearance, shape, size and
color of the seeds eye (Ouédraogo et al.,
2010).
489
Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2015) 4(11): 487-504
The Shannon-Weaver diversity index (H)
was calculated for the study areas following
Shannon and Weaver (1948) using the
formula:
The number of varieties inventoried per
household varies in the study area from 1 to
10 (5 on average). The highest value (8) was
recorded in Assanlin in central Benin while
the lowest (one variety) was observed at
Sobou in Borgou. Across the study area, the
majority of the respondents (43.8%) grow 45 varieties. This trend is common
throughout the various production areas
(Figure 2).
( ) = - (ni/N) log (ni/N) where ni is the
number of varieties identified in the village
I; N are the total number identified in the
study area.
To classify the varieties identified based on
morphological characters of the seeds, these
were considered as variables (i.e. traits) and
coded by numbers. With the matrix hence
compiled, similarity between varieties was
calculated using the NTSYS-pc 2.2 software
(Rohlf, 2009) and the similarity matrix
obtained was used to construct a
dendrogram with the UPGMA method
(Swofford and Olsen, 1990) following
Dossou Aminon et al. (2015). Principal
component analysis (PCA) was also
performed using with Minitab software
(Minitab Release 14, Minitab Inc., State
College, PA, USA) to examine the
relationship between accessions and
morphological traits.
The only sociodemographic parameter
associated with the households surveyed that
appear to affect the decision of the
producers to exploit the varietal diversity of
cowpea is the planted area (Table 2). The
Pearson correlation analysis revealed that
the diversity maintained at the household
level was positively correlated (p <0.05)
with the area cultivated.
Distribution and extent of the varieties
and rate of diversity loss across villages
Despite the high diversity observed in some
villages, very few varieties are grown by
many households on large areas. For
example, in the regions of Zou and Collines
one variety out of the five varieties surveyed
is, on average, grown by many households
and on large area (Table 1). The distribution
and extent of varieties vary from one village
to another. Subject to synonymy, variety
Yanguipori for example is grown by few
households on large areas in the village of
Tora (Atacora) while it is cultivated by
many households on large areas at Yarikou.
In the study area, the highest rate (100%) of
diversity being loss was observed in the
village of Sobou (Borgou). Atacora appear
however as the area that has the lowest rate
of diversity loss. Villages like Pingou in
Atacora and Samali in Borgou have no
variety being lost (Table 1). Various causes
of diversity loss were listed by the producers
(Table 3). Among these, the most important
Results and Discussion
Cowpea diversity
A great diversity of cowpea (96 varieties)
was observed in the 53 villages surveyed.
The number of varieties varies across
villages and regions. Borgou-Alibori zone
showed low diversity with an average of 3.6
varieties (3 to 4 varieties) per village (Table
1). In Zou and Collines region, a great
varietal diversity is observed with 2 to 10
varieties per village and about 6 varieties in
average (Table 1). The Shannon Weaver
diversity index (H) in the study area is 2.23
bits. It varies from 2.7 bits in the regions of
Zou and Collines to 2.9 bits in AtacoraDonga.
490
Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2015) 4(11): 487-504
were low productivity (20.7% of responses),
the susceptibility to poor soils (18.4% of
responses), introduction of new varieties
(15.9% of responses), susceptibility to pests
and diseases (11.42% of responses),
difficulty of conservation (9.78%), enough
leaf production against few seeds (8.55% of
responses) (Table 3).
factorial plan defined by the axes 1 and 2
showed three classes (Figure 5). Class 1
cluster together the units 8, 9, 10, 11, 23, 24
and 25 characterized by a big size and the
absence of particular features in the
tegument. An average size and a rough
appearance characterize Class 2 which
consists of units 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 15, 16, 17,
18 and 19. As for class 3, it groups the units
12, 13, 14, 20, 21, 22 and 26 characterized
by the absence of particular character
(Figures 5 and 6).
Participatory evaluation of the identified
varieties
Subject to synonymy, 96 cowpea varieties
were identified and evaluated: 46 varieties
have good productivity, 17 are tolerant to
excessive rain, 21 are tolerant to drought, 61
are early mature and 35 are resistant to
storage insects (Figure 3). For other
evaluation variables (tolerance to weeds,
disease resistance, insect resistance in the
field, tolerance to any type of soil, easiness
of cooking, taste, quality of the leaves as
vegetables) widely varying numbers of
varieties were obtained (Figure 3). Varieties
Katoumondè, Yanguipori and Towa showed
performance for at least 10 out of the 12
parameters evaluated while 20% of the
varieties indicated performance for less than
three parameters (Table 4).
Classification
of
cultivated in Benin
cowpea
Our study revealed that there is a great
diversity of cowpea in central and northern
Benin with varying importance depending
on villages, agro-ecological zones and ethnic
groups. Similar results were found in
Burkina Faso (Ouédraogo et al., 2010) and
in southern Benin (Gbaguidi et al., 2013). In
the traditional agriculture, different names
can be given to one variety or much variety
can have the same name, as it was the case
with yam (Loko et al., 2013) and fonio
(Dansi et al., 2010). This could lead to an
overestimation or underestimation of the
diversity of cowpea in the study area. It is
therefore
important
to
conduct
morphological
and
molecular
characterizations to detect duplicates and
establish equivalence between the names as
it was the case with cowpea in Kenya
(Kuruma et al., 2008).
varieties
The classification of accessions of cowpea
(124) collected throughout Benin, based on
morphological descriptors of seeds grouped
accessions into 26 morphological units
(Figure 4 and Table 5). The principal
components analysis of the morphological
units identifies revealed that the first two
axes explain 54.9% of the total variance.
Axis 1 associated with particular traits of the
tegument explains 33.5% of the total
variation while axis 2 associated with the
tegument color explains 21.4% of the total
variation. The projection of accessions in the
The distribution and extent analysis of the
varieties of cowpea at the village level
indicates that few varieties are produced by
many households on large areas. This
observation is not specific to cowpea since
similar results have been reported on other
crops such as cassava (Kombo et al., 2012.),
yams (Baco et al., 2004; Tamiru et al., 2008;
Loko et al., 2013), fonio (Dansi et al.,
2010), sorghum (Missihoun et al., 2012) and
even on cowpea (Baco et al., 2008,
Gbaguidi et al., 2013). According to Loko et
491
Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2015) 4(11): 487-504
al. (2013), this is explained by the fact that
production efforts at the village level focus
on a small number of economically
profitable varieties (high yield, tolerance to
pests and diseases and good culinary
technological characteristics, good market
value). It appears in addition to the analysis
of the distribution and extent that many
varieties are being abandoned in many
villages with a high rate of loss of diversity.
Therefore, it is necessary to develop
sustainable conservation strategies to
preserve the existing diversity.
2013). Villages of Gblakandji and
Ouèdèmin in central Benin fulfill these
conditions. The nil rate of loss of varietal
diversity recorded in some villages such as
Pingou and Samali does not mean better
preservation of diversity. It is explained by
the fact that these villages have already
abandoned since the unattractive varieties
only to maintain those that fit their needs or
which are better suited to soil and climatic
conditions of their areas. Similar results
were reported on yam in Togo (Dansi et al.,
2013). Among the factors influencing the
diversity of this legume, the most important
are of biotic and abiotic nature. Of these,
low yield, susceptibility to poor soil and
attack of pests and diseases are generally the
most important.
For on-farm conservation, villages with a lot
of varieties, a low rate of loss of diversity
and a significant number of varieties per
household are the best to select (Loko et al.,
Table.1 Distribution and extent of the varieties and rate of diversity loss in selected villages
Villages
Guiguisso
Pingou
Namoutchaga
Tchalinga
TchanhounKossi
Tinyenti
Mean (20)
Sobou
Samali
Fombahoui
Kénoukpanou
Kokiborou
Madékali
Mean (16)
Assanlin
Gblakandji
Gbaffo
Houngomè
Kpataba
Ouèdèmè
Mean (17)
TNV
Distribution and extent
PV
LFV
RV
Atacora-Donga
4
2
1
1
6
2
3
1
7
3
1
3
2
0
1
1
3
1
1
1
4
0
2
2
4,6
2
1,13
1,46
Borgou-Alibora
1
0
0
1
2
0
1
1
3
1
0
2
5
2
1
2
4
1
2
1
4
1
1
2
3,6
1,11
0,71
1,83
Zou-Colline
10
2
1
7
8
1
3
4
6
2
2
2
2
1
0
1
3
2
0
1
7
3
2
2
5,52
1,58
1,17
2,76
NVA
VDL
1
0
2
1
1
1
1
25
0
28,57
50
33,33
25
21,73
1
0
1
2
1
1
1,2
100
0
33,33
40
25
25
35,27
5
3
2
1
1
1
1,94
50
37,5
33,33
50
33,33
14,28
35,14
TNV: Total number of varieties in village; PV: Popular varieties; LFV: Leff frequent varieties; RV: Rare
varieties; NVA: number of varieties abandoned in the past; RDL: rate of diversity loss (%)
492
Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2015) 4(11): 487-504
Table.2 Socio demographic factors affecting the maintenance of cowpea varietal diversity at
households
Parameter
Correlation
Age
r = -0,009
P = 0,843
Labour size
r = 0,027
P = 0,541
Cultivated area
r = 0,200***
P = 0,000
Size of the household
r = 0,031
P = 0,487
Level of education
r = -0,021
P = 0,633
R: correlation; P: Probability; ***= Significant with 1% of probability level respectively
Table.3 Reasons for diversity loss and their relative importance in the study zone
Reasons
Percentage of
response (%)
Low productivity
20.7
Susceptibility to poor soil
18.4
Introduction of new performing varieties
15.9
Susceptibility to pests and diseases
11.42
Difficulty of conservation
9.78
Product of enough of leaves but few seeds
8.55
Impossibility of mixed-farming
8.3
Difficult shelling
5.68
Late cooking
1.27
493
Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2015) 4(11): 487-504
Table.4 Agronomic and quality performances of the cowpea varieties of
Northern and Central Benin
Names of
varieties
Adjahicoun
Atchaifonon
Catché godonou
Katché
Kpolobè
Mahunan
Malanville sui
Mata
Matakanawa
Sounansoé
Suipika
Yawo
Ayigbo
Amatè
Bligoé
Hohlominsigbéna
Kpoglokoui
Glétossèyi
Tinperga
Coronapika
Kakéé
Tinperga
Yanguicorona
Iyégué doudou
Viyèyèfokpa
Yancorona
Yangao
Towa
Yanguipori
Katoumondè
Collection
sites
Lanta
Kpoguè
Guiguisso
Guiguisso
Kpamalango
u
Hougomè
Wèdèmin
Gomparou
Managasso
Madékali
Kpanu
Kori
Gouroubéri
Lanta
Kpogbé
Sékalé
Wèdèmin
Bohunto
Houngomè
Blakandji
Tchaeta
Kouarfa
Managasso
Tchaéta
Kouarfa
Sékalé
Tévèdji
Kouarfa
Gouroubéri
Kpamalango
u
Kouarfa
Namoutchag
a
Number of
quality
Traits of Performances
6
6
6
Pro, Rfi, Ats, Rst, Got, Qlv
Pro, Tdr, Ear, Rac, Got, Qlv
Pro, Ter, Tdr, Ats, Rst, Qlv
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Pro, Ter, Tdr, Ats, Ear, Rst
Twe, Rdi, Rfi, Ear, Rac, Got
Ter, Tdr, Twe, Ear, Rst, Qlv
Pro, Ter, Ats, Ear, Rst, Qlv
Pro, Ter, Ats, Ear, Rac, Qlv
Pro, Ter, Ats, Ear, got, Qlv
Ter, Rdi, Ear, Rst, Got, Qlv
Pro, Ats, Ear, Rac, Got, Qlv
Twe, Rdi, Ats, Rst, Rac, Qlv
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
Pro, Ter, Ats, Ear, Rac, Got, Qlv
Tdr, Twe, Ats, Rst, Rac, Got, Qlv
Pro, Twe, Rdi, Rst, Rac, Got, Qlv
Pro, Ter, Rdi, Rfi, Ats, Ear, Rst
Ter, Tdr, Ear, Rst, Rac, Got, Qlv
Pro, Tdr, Rdi, Rfi, Ats, Ear, Rac
Pro, Ter, Tdr, Twe, Rdi, Rfi, Ats
Pro, Tdr, Twe, Rdi, Rfi, Rac, Got, Qlv
Tdr, Twe, Rdi, Rfi, Ats, Ear, Rst, Qlv
Pro, Ter, Tdr, Twe, Rdi, Rfi, Ats, Rst
Pro, Tdr, Twe, Rdi, Rfi, Rac, Got, Qlv
Ter, Tdr, Twe, Rfi, Ats, Ear, Rst, Rac, Qlv
Pro, Ter, Tdr, Twe, Rdi, Rfi, Ear, Got, Qlv
Pro, Tdr, Twe, Rdi, Rfi, Rst, Rac, got, Qlv
Pro, Ter, Tdr, Twe, Rfi, Ats, Ear, Rst, Rac
10
10
Pro, Ter, Tdr, Twe, Rdi, Rfi, Ats, Rac, Got, Qlv
Pro, Ter, Tdr, Twe, Rdi, Rfi, Ats, Rac, Got, Qlv
11
Pro, Ter, Tdr, Ats, Twe, Rdi, Rfi, Ats, Ear, Rst, Rac, Got
NB: Pro: Productivity, Ter: Tolerance to excess Rain, Tdr Tolerance to drought, Twe: Tolerance to weeds, Rdi:
resistance to diseases; Rfi: Resistance to field insects; Ats: adaptability to all types of soil; Ear: Earliness; Rst:
Resistance to storage insects; Rac: Rapidity of cooking; Got: Good taste, Qlv: Quality of the leaves as vegetable.
494
Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2015) 4(11): 487-504
Table.5 Characteristics of the Cowpea morphological units in Benin
Units
Number
Varieties
Seed color
U1
34
Atchaifonon, Ayankoko, Baguédou, Barisui, Coronapika,
Entonlmon, Essèlablakpoa, Etounpea, Ewafoufou,
Hohlominkéaslé, Hohlominsigbéna, Itoupea, Katoupiene,
Mata, Matakanawa, Matasekalé, Noriwonca, Talabaou,
Tawa, Tiperga, Tinperga, Tinpoaga, Toupouacossi,
Tounpouaga, Tounpoa, Tinpoua, Towa, Yandaha,
Yandahou, Yanguicorona, Yanporoka, Yanguipori,
Wlétchivé, Yanguiporii, Wlétchiaton,
White
U2
7
Tchètoko, Mahunan, Glétossèyi, Wanawawé, Wankoun,
Encarder, Kaki
U3
3
U4
Size
Appearance
Seed form
Black
Average
Rough
Little lengthened
-
Pink
Black
Average
Rough
Little lengthened
-
Tiforga
White
Black
Average
Rough
Little lengthened
black Point
4
Tounpépiarque, Samahangui, Tinforganou, Eyou soi
White
Black
Average
Rough
Little lengthened
Stain black
U5
14
Blagbinnin, Mimikouali, Icouaré, Azayu, Atoupeperené,
Atchawé, Kassagbèbla, Tounbopessi, Yawo, Yangao,
Djagaou, Suipika, Burkina, Amatè
White
Red
Average
Rough
Little lengthened
-
U6
2
Touncalaou, Katoumondè
White
Red
Average
Rough
Little lengthened
Stain pink
U7
4
Tinwinga, Tinyirma, Tihiman
White
Red
Average
Rough
Little lengthened
Stain red at
the base
U8
2
Bagomaboro, Tola, Bagoma, Bagoumabori, Malanville
sui
White
Red
Big
Rough
Little lengthened
-
U9
1
Dougourikouaré
White
Black
Big
Rough
Little lengthened
-
U10
1
Viyèyèfokpa
Red
Black
petit
Rough
Little lengthened
-
U11
1
Assoban'dé
White
Black
petit
Rough
Rounded
-
U12
2
Gbaminya, Kplobè
Pink clair
Pink
Average
Rough
Little lengthened
-
U13
2
Sakaoga, Adologbo
Pink
Pink
Average
Rough
Little lengthened
-
U14
2
2 couleurA, 2 couleurB
Pink yellow
Pink
Average
Rough
Little lengthened
-
495
Eye Color
Particular
feature
Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2015) 4(11): 487-504
U15
12
Elizabeth, Kpodjiguèguè, Abobo, Sèwé, Natindji,
Yanguibitiri, Nigéria, Katché, Iyégué doudou, Catché
godonou, Suiwonka, Narétchagué
Violet
Black
Average
Rough
Little lengthened
Small black
point
U16
1
Doungoudi Ibi
Cendre
Black
Average
Rough
Little lengthened
-
U17
3
Djoké, Yanbodo, Gbolékpomin
Pink
Black
Average
Rough
Little lengthened
Stain purple
U18
4
Wandamin, Sounansoa, Tipepiega, Yancorona
White
Black
Average
Rough
lengthened
Stain black
at the base
U19
3
TinforgaTapoga, Toungouléssibou, Touanbissi
White
Black
Average
Rough
lengthened
U20
7
Issatouréni, Safoto, Satigui, Ayikoun vovo, Damadami,
Hounyi, Kpèyikoun
Rouge
Red
Average
Smooth
Little lengthened
-
U21
5
Takpessouwè, Adjahicoun, Eguiogogo, Vohunvo, Ejè
Black
Average
Smooth
lengthened
-
Units
Number
Varieties
Size
Appearance
Seed form
U22
U23
U24
U25
U26
2
1
4
2
1
Kpoglokoui, Ayigbo
Koyan
Kakéé, Bligoé, Egbanmonlou, Séwlévo
Toutouagui, Itoutantouani
Ewa oloy
Average
Big
petit
petit
Big
Smooth
Smooth
Smooth
Smooth
Rough
lengthened
lengthened
lengthened
lengthened
lengthened
Particular
feature
-
Pink
Seed color
Pink
White
White
Yellow
Pink
496
Eye Color
Black
Red
Red
Blanc
Pink
Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2015) 4(11): 487-504
Figure.2 Diversity of cowpea maintained at household level in Northern and Central Benin
a) Atacora-Donga
b) Borgou-Alibori
C) Zou-Colline
497
Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2015) 4(11): 487-504
Figure.3 Number of varieties identified per evaluation traits
Figure.4 UPGMA dendrogram showing the classification of the varieties of Cowpea
498
Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2015) 4(11): 487-504
Figure.5 Classification of the morphological units of Cowpea
Figure.6 Cowpea morphotypes within the germplasm analysed
To cope with the drop in yields of some
varieties, producers make use of new
improved varieties introduced or not.
Supposedly new varieties offering better
returns are partly responsible for diversity
loss. According to Mbabwine et al. (2008),
the introduction of new high yielding
varieties led to the abandonment and
extinction of old varieties. This is widely
known on yams in Côte d'Ivoire with the
499
Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2015) 4(11): 487-504
improved variety Florido of Dioscorea alata
introduced in Caribbean (Stessens, 2002).
To prevent such a situation in Benin,
complementary conservation strategies
(Watson, 2001; Nevo, 1998) are required.
with fonio (Adoukonou-Sagbadja et al.,
2006, Dansi et al., 2010), Cassava (Kombo
et al., 2012), traditional leafy vegetables
(Dansi et al., 2008; Adeoti et al., 2009) and
even in cowpea in southern Benin (Gbaguidi
et al., 2013). Even within the morphological
units formed from the seed traits, varieties
may differ. Agromorphological and
molecular characterization are needed to
clarify the synonyms and establish
equivalences between the indigenous names
for the purposes of research and
development as was the case in Algeria
(Ghalmi et al., 2010), Kenya (Kuruma et al.,
2008) and Burkina Faso (Ouédraogo et al.,
2010).
Participatory evaluation showed significant
variability within varieties of cowpea in the
study area. The performance criteria vary
widely from one variety to another, and
some of them like Katoumondè, Yanguipori,
Towa and Viyèyèfokpa (Table 4) that
showed performance for 9-11 criteria among
the 12 used, could be considered as elite
varieties. This diversity indicates the
existence of a good genetic base that can be
used for varietal improvement. According to
many authors (Hajjar et al. 2008, Cattivelli
et al. 2008) genetic diversity is the key to
the success of a plant breeding program.
Very few varieties are tolerant or resistant to
diseases, insects and storage fields. It is the
same for abiotic factors such as excessive
rain, drought and poor soil. The same trend
was observed in southern Benin (Gbaguidi
et al. 2013). In the current context of climate
change (Bertrand et al., 2012; Charrier et
al., 2012; Kouressy et al., 2008), which are
becoming more and more perceptible in the
north, center and even in the south, efforts
should be made to strengthen the study area
with many more varieties tolerant to these
biotic and abiotic factors for the wee being
of both producers and consumers.
In conclusion, this exploration and
collection revealed, subject to synonymy
and agromorphological and molecular
characterization that central and northern
Benin are have a wide diversity of cowpea
important loss of varietal diversity is
observed in the villages surveyed as was the
case in southern Benin. Moreover, the
participatory evaluation revealed the
existence of some good performing varieties
that can be source of interesting genes for
breeding. All this should be confirmed or
denied by an agromorphological and
molecular characterization to obtain a
reliable and usable collection by breeding
programs.
Reference
A classification of varieties identified in the
study area based on the seeds morphological
features generated 26 morphotypes or
morphological units. This result indicates
the existence of duplicates within the
collection established. As pointed out by
many authors (Mekbib, 2007, Tamiru et al.,
2008, Otoo et al., 2009), indigenous names
for the varieties vary greatly from one
village to another, from one ethnic area to
another and sometimes between villages
within the same ethnic area as is the case
Adéoti, K., Dansi, A., Ahoton, L. 2009.
Selection of sites for the in situ
conservation of four traditional leafy
vegetables (Ceratotheca sesamoides,
Sesamum
radiatum,
Acmella
uliginosa and Justicia tenella)
consumed in Benin. Int. J. Biol.
Chem. Sci., 3(6): 1357 1374.
Adjatin, A., Dansi, A., Eze, C.S., Assogba,
P., Dossou-Aminon, I., Akpagana,
500
Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2015) 4(11): 487-504
K., Akoégninou, A., Sanni, A. 2012.
Ethnobotanical investigation and
diversity of Gbolo (Crassocephalum
rubens (Juss. ex Jacq.) S. Moore and
Crassocephalum
crepidioides
(Benth.) S. Moore), a traditional
leafy vegetable under domestication
in Benin. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol.,
59(8): 1867 1881.
Adomou, A.C., Sinsin, B., van der Maesen,
L.J.G. 2006. Phytosociological and
chorological
approaches
to
Phytogeography: A study at mesoscale in Benin. Syst. Geogr. Plants,
76: 155 178.
Adoukonou-Sagbadja Hubert, Dansi, A.,
Vodouhè, R., Akpagana, K. 2006.
Indigenous
Knowledge
and
traditionnal conservation of fonio
millet (Digitaria exilis, Digitaria
iburua) in Togo. Biodiv. Conserv.,
15: 2379 2395.
Akoègninou, A., van der Burg, W.J., van der
Maesen,
L.J.G.
2006.
Flore
Analytique du Bénin, Backhuys
Publishers, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Baco, M.N., Biaou, G., Pham, J.L., Lescure,
J.P. 2008. Facteurs géographiques et
sociaux de la diversité des ignames
cultivées au Nord Bénin. Cahiers
Agricult., 17(2): 172 177.
Baco, M.N., Tostain, S., Mongbo, R.L.,
Dainou, O., Agbangla, C. 2004.
Gestion dynamique de la diversité
variétale des ignames cultivées
(Dioscorea
cayenensisD.
rotundata) dans la commune de
Sinendé au Nord Bénin. Plant
Genetic Resour. Newslett., 139:
1824.
Bertrand, B., Montagnon, C., Georget, F.,
Charmetant, P., Etienne, H. 2012.
Création et diffusion de variétés de
caféiers
Arabica:
Quelles
innovations variétales ? Cahiers
Agricult., 21(2-3): 77 88.
Cattivelli, L., Rizza, F., Badeck, F.W.,
Mazzucotelli, E., Mastrangelo, A.M.,
Francia, E., Marè, C., Tondelli, A.,
Michele Stanca, A. 2008. Drought
tolerance improvement in crop
plants: An integrated view from
breeding to genomics. Field Crops
Res., 105 (1 2): 1 14.
Charrier, A., Bertrand, B., Lashermes, P.
2012. Des évolutions marquantes
pour le café en ce début de XXIe
siècle Cah Agric., 21(8): 2 3.
Dansi, A., Adjatin, A., AdoukonouSagbadja,
H.,
Faladé,
V.,
Yedomonhan, H., Odou, D.,
Dossou, B. 2008. Traditional leafy
vegetables and their use in the Benin
Republic. Genetic Resour. Crop
Evol., 55: 1239 1256.
Dansi, A., Adoukonou-Sagbadja, H.,
Vodouhé, R. 2010. Diversity,
conservation and related wild species
of Fonio millet (Digitaria spp.) in the
northwest of Benin. Genet. Resour.
Crop Evol., 57: 827 839.
Dansi, A., Dantsey-Barry, H., DossouAminon, I., N'Kpenu, E.K., Agré,
A.P., Sunu, Y.D., Kombaté, K.,
Loko, Y.L., Dansi, M., Assogba, P.,
Vodouhè, R. 2013. Varietal diversity
and genetic erosion of cultivated
yams (Dioscorea cayenensis Poir D. rotundata Lam complex and D.
alata L.) in Togo. Int. J. Biodiv.
Conserv., 5(4): 223 239.
Emechebe, A.M., Lagoke, S.T.O. 2002.
Recent advances in research on
cowpea diseases. In: Fatokun, C.A.,
Tarawali, S.A.,
Singh,
B.B.,
Kormawa, P.M., Tamo, M. (Eds)
Challenges and opportunities for
enhancing
sustainable
cowpea
production. Proceedings of the
World Cowpea Conference III held
at the International Institute of
Tropical Agriculture (IITA), Ibadan,
501
Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2015) 4(11): 487-504
Nigeria. IITA, Ibadan Nigeria. Pp.
94 123.
FAOSTAT, 2013. Agricultural production,
crop primary database. Food and
Agricultural Organization of the
United
Nations,
Rome.
http://faostat.fao.org/faostat
Gbaguidi, A.A., Dansi, A., Loko, L.Y.,
Dansi, M., Sanni, A. 2013. Diversity
and agronomic performances of the
cowpea (Vigna unguiculata Walp.)
landraces in Southern Benin. Int.
Res. J. Agricult. Sci. Soil Sci., 3(4):
121 133.
Ghalmi, N., Malice, M., Jacquemin, J.M.,
Ounane, S.M., Mekliche, L.,
Baudoin, J.P. 2010. Morphological
and molecular diversity within
Algerian cowpea (Vigna unguiculata
(L.) Walp.) landraces. Genet.
Resour. Crop Evol., 57: 371 386.
Hajjar, R., Jarvis, D.I., Gemmill-Herren, B.
2008. The utility of crop genetic
diversity in maintaining ecosystem
services. Agricult. Ecosyst. Environ.,
123(4): 261 270.
Hall, A.E., Cisse, N., Thiaw, S., Elawad,
H.O.A., Ehlers, J.D., Ismail, A.,
Fery, R., Roberts, P., Kitch, L.W.,
Murdock, L.L., Boukar, O., Phillips,
R.D., McWatters, K.H. 2003.
Development of cowpea cultivars
and germplasm by the Bean/Cowpea
CRSP. Field Crops Res., 82: 103
134.
Hall, A.E., Ismail, A.M., Ehlers, J.D.,
Marfo, K.O., Cisse, N., Thiaw, S.,
Close, T.J. 2002. Breeding cowpea
for tolerance to temperature extreams
and adaptaion to drought. In:
Fatokun, C.A., Tarawali, S.A.,
Singh, B.B., Kormawa, P.M., Tamo,
M.
(Eds),
Challenges
and
opportunities
for
enhancing
sustainable cowpea production. Intl
Inst Tropical Agric, Ibadan Nigeria.
Pp. 14 21.
Kombo, G.R., Dansi, A., Loko, L.Y.,
Orkwor, G.C., Vodouhe, R.,
Assogba, P., Magema, J.M. 2012.
Diversity of cassava (Manihot
esculenta Crantz) cultivars and its
management in the department of
Bouenza in the Republic of Congo.
Genet.
Resour.
Crop
Evol.,
59(8):1789 1803
Kouressy, M., Traoré, S., Vaksmann, M.,
Grum, M., Maikano, I., Soumaré,
M., Traoré, P.S., Bazile, D.,
Dingkuhn, M., Sidibé, A. 2008.
Adaptation des sorghos du Mali à la
variabilité
climatique.
Cahiers
Agricult., 17(2): 95 100.
Kuruma, R.W., Kiplagat, O., Ateka, E.,
Owuoche, G. 2008. genetic diversity
of Kenyan cowpea accessions based
on morphological and microsatellite
markers. Est African Agricultural. 8
Pp.
Loko, Y.L., Dansi, A., Linsoussi, C., Tamo,
M., Vodouhè, R., Akoegninou, A.,
Sanni, A. 2013. Current status and
spatial analysis of Guinea yam
(Dioscorea cayenensis Lam. -D.
rotundata Poir. complex) diversity in
Benin. Int. Res. J. Agricult. Sci. Soil
Sci., 3(7): 219 238.
Mbabwine, Y., Sabiiti, E.N., Kiambi, D.,
Mulumba, J.W. 2008. Erosion
génétique éco géographique, gestion
des semences et conservation des
ressources phytogénétiques dans les
hautes de Kabale, Ouganda. Plant
Genet. Resour., 156: 33 41.
Mekbib, F. 2007. Infra-specific folk
taxonomy in sorghum (Sorghum
bicolor (L.) Moench) in Ethiopia:
folk nomenclature, classification,
and criteria. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed.,
3(38).
502
Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2015) 4(11): 487-504
Ministère de l Agriculture de l Elevage et de
la Pêche, 2012. Données statistiques
des spéculations au Bénin.
Missihoun,
A.A.,
Agbangla,
C.,
Adoukonou-Sagbadja,
H.,
Ahanhanzo, C., Vodouhè, R. 2012.
Gestion traditionnelle et statut des
ressources génétiques du sorgho
(Sorghum bicolor L. Moench) au
Nord-Ouest du Bénin. Int. J. Biol.
Chem. Sci., 6(3): 1003 1018.
Nevo Eviatar, 1998. Genetic diversity in
wild cereals: regional and local
studies and their bearing on
conservation ex situ and in situ
Genet. Resour. Crop Evol., 45(4):
355 370.
Ng, N.O., Monti, L.M. 1990. Cowpea
genetic resources. International
Institute of Tropical Agriculture
IITA. Amarin Printing Group Co.
Ltd. 200 Pp.
Niba, S.A. 2011. Arthropod assemblage
dynamics on cowpea (Vigna
unguiculata L. Walp) in a
subtropical agro-ecosystem, South
Africa. Afr. J. Res., 6(4): 1009 1015.
Orobiyi, A., Dansi, A., Assogba, P., Loko,
L.Y., Dansi, M., Vodouhè, R.,
Akouègninou, A., Sanni, A. 2013.
Chili (Capsicum annuum L.) in
southern
Benin:
production
constraints,
varietal
diversity,
preference criteria and participatory
evaluation. Int. Res. J. Agricult. Sci.
Soil Sci., 3(4): 107 120.
Otoo, E., Akromah, R., KololesnikovaAllen, M., Asiedu, R. 2009. Ethnobotany
and
morphological
characterisation of the yam pona
complex in Ghana. Afr. Crop Sci.
Conf. Proc., 9: 407 414.
Ouedraogo, J.T., Sawadogo, M., Tignegre,
J-B., Drabo, I, Balma, D. 2010.
Caractérisation agro-morphologique
et moléculaire de cultivars locaux de
niébé (Vigna unguiculata) du
Burkina Faso, Cameroon. J. Exp.
Biol., 06(01): 31 40.
Oyewale, R.O., Bello, L.Y., Idowu, G.A.,
Ibrahim, H.M., Isah, A.S. 2014. Rate
of insecticide formulations on the
damage assessment, yield and yield
components of cowpea. Int. J. Curr.
Microbiol. App. Sci., 3(2): 841 850
Pottorff, M., Ehlers, D.J., Fatokun, C.,
Roberts, A.P., Close, T.J. 2012. Leaf
morphology in Cowpea [Vigna
unguiculata (L.) Walp]: QTL
analysis, physical mapping and
identifying a candidate gene using
synteny with model legume species.
BMC Genomics, 13: 234.
Rao, N.K., Hanson, J., Dulloo, M.E., Ghosh,
K., Nowell, D., Larinde, M. 2006.
Manuel de manipulation des
semences dans les banques de gènes.
Manuels pour les banques de gènes
No. 8. Bioversity International,
Rome, Italie.
Rohlf, F.J. 2009. NTSYSpc: numerical
taxonomy system. ver. 2.21c. Exeter
Software. Setauket, New York.
Shannon, C.E., Weaver, W. 1948. A
mathematical
theory
of
communication. Bell. Syst. Technol.
J., 27: 379 423.
Singh, B.B., Mohan Raj, D.R., Dashiell,
Jackai, K.E., L.E.N. 1997. Advances
in cowpea research. IITA, Ibadan,
Nigeria and JIRCA, Japan.
Stessens, J. 2002. Analyse technique et
économique des systèmes de
production agricole au nord de la
Côte d Ivoire Thèse de Doctorat No.
530 à la Faculté des Sciences
Biologiques Appliquées de la
KULeuven. 302 Pp.
Stoilova, T., Pereira, G. 2013. Assessment
of the genetic diversity in a
germplasm collection of cowpea
(Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.) using
503
Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2015) 4(11): 487-504
morphological traits,
Afr. J.
Agricult. Res., 8(2): 208 215.
Swofford, D.L., Olsen, G.J. 1990.
Phylogeny reconstruction. In: Hillis,
D.M., Moritz, C. (Eds) Molecular
systematic. Sinauer Associates,
Sunderland, Mass.
Tamiru, M., Becker, H.C., Maass, B.L.
2008. Diversity, distribution and
management of yam landraces
(Dioscorea spp.) in Southern
Ethiopia. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol.,
55: 115 131
Timko, M.P., Singh, B.B. 2008. Cowpea, a
multifunctional legume. In: More,
P.H., Ming, (Eds), Genomics of
tropical crop plants, Vol. 1. Springer
New York. Pp. 227 258.
Watson, J.W., Eyzaguirre, P.B. (Eds), 2002.
Proceedings
of
the
Second
International
Home
Gardens
Workshop: Contribution of home
gardens to in situ conservation of
plant genetic resources in farming
systems, Witzenhausen, Federal
Republic of Germany. International
Plant Genetic Resources Institute,
Rome. 192 Pp.
Yabi, I., Afouda, F. 2012. Extreme rainfall
years in Benin (West Africa).
Quaternary Int., 262: 39 43.
Zannou, A., Ahanchédé, A., Struik, P.C.,
Richards, P., Zoundjihékpon, J.,
Tossou, R., Goodhue, S. 2004. Yam
and cowpea diversity management
by farmers in the guinea-sudan
transition zone of Benin, NJAS
Wageningen. J. Life Sci., 52(3-4):
393 420.
504