Impact of planting dates on yield and pod quality traits of snap bean under short-temperate season climates

In e na ional Jou nal o Ho icul u al Science 2022, 28: 57-63. h ps://doi.o g/10.31421/ijhs/28/2022/11054 Impac o plan ing da es on yield and pod quali y ai s o snap bean unde sho - empe a e season clima es Rao, S. A. Ho icul u al P oduc ion and Sus ainable Food Sys ems, Ag icul u e and En i onmen , Assiniboine Communi y College, B andon, Mani oba, Canada Au ho o co espondence: [email protected] Summa y: Snap bean, a wa m-season c op, ha e low os ole ance. The op imal empe a u e o seed eme gence and plan g ow h is impo an . The e o e, app op ia e plan ing da es o adap ed a ie ies has pa amoun signi icance in imp o ing pod yield and quali y o snap bean unde sho cool season clima es. Th ee snap bean cul i a s plan ed a 3 di e en da es we e examined o e alua e he e ec s o plan ing da es on snap bean pod yield and quali y ai s in a 2-yea s udy in a sho season clima e in Mani oba, Canada. Resul s o his s udy showed ha h ee, wo weeks apa , plan ing da es had a non- signi ican e ec on ma ke ing yield o h ee di e en cul i a s es ed in his s udy. Plan ing da es showed signi ican e ec on un-ma ke able yield, pod esh weigh , pod leng h and o al soluble solids. Highe ma ke able and un-ma ke able yields along wi h longe pod leng h and soluble solids, in all h ee cul i a s, we e mo e p o ound when seeded a mid and la e plan ing da es. Snap bean g ew unde highe empe a u e and accumula ed mo e g owing deg ee days (GDD) when plan ed in mid June and ea ly July when compa ed o ea ly June plan ing. These esul s conclude ha ma ke able yields o snap bean we e no signi ican ly a ec ed by plan ing da es when seeded- wo weeks apa -in sho e g owing en i onmen s which allow comme cial and ma ke ga dene s, in no he n a eas wi h sho e g owing seasons o op imise plan ing snap bean, wi hou educing pod yield and quali y. Rao, S. A. (2022): Impac o plan ing da es on yield and pod quali y ai s o snap bean unde sho - empe a e season clima es. In e na ional Jou nal o Ho icul u al Science 28: 57-63. h ps://doi.o g/10.31421/ijhs/28/2022/11054 Key wo ds: Phaseolus ulga is L., ma ke able yields, un-ma ke able yields, empe a u es, no he n clima e In oduc ion Legumes a e an impo an componen in he die s o humans and a e consumed as d ied o g een beans. The legume c ops g own o human consump ion belong o he amily Fabaceae, o me ly known as Leguminosae. The mos commonly g own species a e he common bean (Phaseolus ulga is L.) and black-eyed peas (Vigna unguicula a L. Walp.). The common bean (Phaseolus ulga is L) is also conside ed one o he iches sou ces o p o ein (Baudoin & Maque , 1999), i amins and die a y ibe (Kelly & Sco , 1992), and a e known as snap bean, g een beans, F ench beans o s ing beans which a e widely used as a ege able, when ha es ed as imma u e pods, and is conside ed an impo an ood sou ce in many pa s o he wo ld (Richa dson, 2012). Common beans a e cul i a ed h oughou he wo ld and i s p oduc ion spans om 52°N o 32°S la i ude (Schoonho en & Voyses , 1991) unde a wide ange o en i onmen al condi ions. Common beans a e also known as ni ogen ixing c ops, wi h he abili y o ix soil ni ogen, he e o e minimizing ni ogen e ilize inpu s (Piha & Munns, 1987) and imp o ing soil condi ions (Nason & My old, 1992). By se ing as an al e na e o ino ganic ni ogen e ilize s, beans simul aneously help minimize he ad e se e ec o he excessi e use o chemicals on he en i onmen . Wo ld ege ables p oduc ion g ew as e be ween 2000 and 2019, as i wen up 65 pe cen , 446 million onnes o 1128 million onnes in 2019 (FAO, 2019). A o al o 2,847,976 me ic onne o ma ke able ege able p oduced in Canada, o which 76% (2,183,527 me ic onne) is om ield ege ables (S a is ic Canada, 2020). Wo ldwide 23.27 million me ic onnes o snap bean a e p oduced in 2020. In Canada, amongs he ield ege able c ops, snap bean anked 3 d in plan ed a ea (8,479 o o al 102,022 hec a es) wi h 59,892 MT o ma ke ed p oduc ion, and a m ga e alue o $38,279,000 CDN, accoun ing o 2% o o al $1,294,903,000 CDN a m ga e alue. Al hough, ce eal and oil seed c op p oduc ion domina e in Mani oba, ege ables c op con ibu e $32,588,000 CDN a m ga e alue o he o e all Canadian economy (S a is ic Canada 2020). App oxima ely 31,820 MT o snap bean we e impo ed as esh beans o edible consump ion in 2018, which is ~7.5% inc ease om he 2019-yea impo o 29,550 me ic ons (S a is ic Canada 2019). In Mani oba, snap bean is no p oduced in la ge ac eages, wi h only 146 ac es p oducing 94 onnes o ma ke able snap bean epo ed in 2018 and app oxima ely 150 es ima ed ac es o snap bean in 2019 (S a is ic Canada 2019). The Mani oba egion has a sho e and a colde empe a u e clima e ha ing a os - ee pe iod o 75 o 125-135 days. These sho e os - ee pe iods a e a majo es ic i e ac o o comme cial p oduc ion o many ield ege ables in his egion (Mani oba Ag icul u e 2020). Howe e , in Mani oba, cool-season ege ables and some wa m season c ops wi h sho e ma u i y can be g own and ha es ed as g een ege ables. E en wi h he sho e g owing season, Mani oba anked 6 h in ield ege able plan ed a ea, (1,506 hec a es), p oducing 20,515 me ic ons o ma ke able ield ege ables (S a is ic Canada 2020). 58 Rao, S. A. These snap beans, when g own o ha es imma u e pod when young and ende , ake 60-70 days om seed o ha es and can be g own in c opping sys ems like Mani oba, ei he as pa o c op di e si ica ion o ma ke ga dening. Soil empe a u e anging om 16 οC o 29 οC is equi ed o he op imum g ow h o snap bean; seeding below 10 οC will a ec ge mina ion, and seed may simply de e io a e in he soil (Nonnecke, 1989). Plan ing o beans in a sho e g owing egion may a ec plan g ow h and pod cha ac e is ics o beans and his has been he ocus o s udies in many in di e en egions o he wo ld. Ma lene e al. (2008) epo ed ha beans a e mo e sensi i e o en i onmen al s ess a ec ing yield, g ow h and pod ai s as compa ed o o he ield ege ables. F equency o high and low empe a u es, wa e de ici pe iods and ex ended p ecipi a ion due o he clima ic changes limi s he p oduc ion o ege ables in open ield condi ions (Abd Al- Shamma i e al., 2020; Nemeské i e al., 2015; Molná e al., 2015). A signi ican di e ence was epo ed (Nemeské i e al., 2018) in s oma al densi y on bo h lea su aces be ween he g een-podded and yellow-podded snap bean a ie ies, du ing lowe ing and pod de elopmen , unde wa e de iciency and concluded ha unde non-i iga ed condi ions, s oma al esis ance measu ed du ing lowe ing had a la ge e ec on he indi idual pod yield. O si e al. (2021) epo ed a iable lowe and pod abscission dynamics in di e en gene pools and geno ypes o common beans. Vega, Chapman & Hall (2001), epo ed ha changes o he managemen o plan ing season o cul i a always esul ed in co esponding changes in pod and seed numbe . P e ious s udies ca ied ou on snap bean plan ing season and o pla ing da es demons a e a p edominan in luence on yields and yield ela ed ai s when e alua ed in di e en g owing egions. This ac o has no been ully explo ed o snap bean p oduc ion in sho e os - ee pe iod g owing seasons. Hence, de e mining op imum plan ing da es o snap bean in a sho g owing en i onmen is aluable o p oduce s in hese egions o di e si y c op p oduc ion. In his s udy, he e ec o plan ing season on snap bean cul i a s was examined in condi ions ep esen a i e o Canadian p ai ie g owing a eas. Ma ke able yield pe plan can make he di e ence be ween being p o i able o no o hese g owe s. The objec i es o his snap bean expe imen a e o: 1) s udy he e ec o di e en plan ing da es on yield and pod quali y ai s o snap bean; 2) iden i y he op imum plan ing da es o snap bean unde Mani oba g owing condi ions. The esul s o his p ojec can posi i ely impac comme cial and ma ke ga den p oduce s by making snap bean a p o i able ho icul u al c op. Ma e ials and me hods Expe imen al si e and plan ma e ial The expe imen ook place in 2016 and 2017 a he Assiniboine Communi y College (ACC) Ho icul u al G ow Plo , B andon, Mani oba, Canada (49oN, 99oW). The a e age os - ee pe iod in his egion is 105-115 days. A e age annual accumula ed GDD o he B andon egion, ange om 950- 1050 and 450-550 a base empe a u es o 10 oC and 15 oC espec i ely (Mani oba Ag icul u e 2020). The a e age minimum and maximum empe a u es, ain all and g owing deg ee days (GDD) o he expe imen al loca ion and mon hs a e displayed in Table 1. Th ee locally g own snap bean cul i a s, “Pu ple Royal y” (PR), “Tende G een” (TG) and Gold Rush” (GR) we e chosen o ep esen a ange o snap bean a ie ies a ailable o he esh ma ke . The snap bean cul i a s we e seeded as ea ly plan ing (la e May), mid plan ing (mid-June) and la e plan ing (ea ly July) in each o 2016 and 2017 (Table 2). Local comme cial seed company p o ided he snap bean seeds used in his p ojec . Plan ing and e ilize applica ion The expe imen al ial was a andomized comple e block design wi h ou eplica ions. Fo bo h yea s o he s udy, he 422 m2 expe imen al a ea was p epa ed ollowed g owe s’ s anda d cul i a ion p ac ices o loosen and pul e ize he soil o seeding. Plo s we e 2.4 m wide and 3-m in leng h, wi h 4 ows spaced 60 cm and 20 cm be ween hills, o each cul i a wi hin each eplica ion and plan ing da e. The middle wo ows we e ha es ed o da a e alua ion and ou side wo ows we e gua d ows. Two seeds pe hill we e hand-plan ed in each ow and hinned a week a e ge mina ion o main ain uni o m plan popula ion. Plo s we e i iga ed as equi ed o minimize mois u e s ess and comme cial e ilize applied h ough d ip i iga ion ape- ow c op d ippe line–0.95 l h-1 (I i ec, F esno, CA. USA Inc.) o plan op imum g ow h in bo h expe imen al yea s. Plan s we e i iga ed 3 hou pe day, wice a week in sp ing whe eas in summe mon hs, plan s we e i iga ed h ee imes a week using an i iga ion ime and adjus ing o p e ious week ecei ed ain all Each plo ecei ed 200 ppm o ni ogen om a comme cial soluble e ilize blend o 18-9-18 was applied in ou applica ions (181 g pe applica ion) wi h injec o a io 1:100 using Dosa on (D125-Dosa on In e na ional, Inc., Clea wa e , FL USA) o a o al o 725 g o Ni ogen/93 m2/season. Disease and pes s we e con olled as pe usual g owing condi ions and weed con ol was ca ied manually as equi ed. Yield and yield componen s e alua ion Cul i a s Tende G een, Gold Rush and Pu ple Royal y pods we e ha es ed be o e eaching ma u i y, 2-3 weeks a e blooming, when pods we e leshy, ende and a ained g een, gold, and pu ple colo espec i ely o Pod ha es ing s a ed 60 days a e plan ing and con inued, wi h mul iple ha es ing, o h ee weeks. A ha es , o each cul i a , all pods sui able o comme cial ma ke ing we e weigh ed as ma ke able (disease ee and egula ly shaped) whe eas, pods, which a e mal o med, b oken, o e g own, wi h symp oms o pes and disease damage we e weighed as unma ke able yields. To al yields we e calcula ed as he sum o ma ke able and unma ke able pods. Pod esh weigh and leng h we e measu ed on 20 andom esh ma ke able pods pe plo . Pod wid h measu ed using HM. Clause aw p oduc gauge, a ed 1- 5, (1=5.75 mm, 2=7.34 mm, 3=8.33 mm, 4=9.52 mm and 5=10.71 mm) o USA Beans. Measu emen s om each ha es we e a e aged o e he season. To al soluble solid we e de e mined when he pods we e c ushed, and he e ac i e index on he exp essed juice was measu ed using an A ago PAL 3 (A ago USA Inc. Belle ue, WA USA) digi al e ac ome e ( anging 0-93%). Clima e Da a Acquisi ion and Da a Analysis Clima ic condi ions we e eco ded using A gus Ti an sys em e sion 718 (A gus, 2014) and om he B andon Me eo ological S a ion (ID: CA005010490). A Ti an WS2 wea he s a ion was Impac o plan ing da es on yield and pod quali y ai s o snap bean unde sho - empe a e season clima es 59 Table 2. Plan ing da es, empe a u es, o al ain all and g owing deg ee days (GDD) accumula ed om plan ing o snap beans un il las ha es da es. Yea Plan ing Season Plan ing da e yLas Ha es da e Tempe a u e οC To al ain all (mm) xG owing Deg ee Days (GDD) Max Min *A g Cumula i e GDD Di e ence in GDD om p e ious ha es 2016 Ea ly 27-May 09-Aug 23.8 11.9 19.9 257.8 563 NA Mid 15-Jun 28-Aug 23.7 12.1 17.9 277.3 567 4 La e 04-Jul 16-Sep 23.0 10.6 16.9 93.7 546 -21 2017 Ea ly 27-May 08-Aug 25.1 11.2 18.2 99.9 597 NA Mid 16-Jun 28-Aug 25.9 11.8 18.9 113.0 694 97 La e 01-Jul 16-Sep 25.0 10.9 18.0 135.1 625 -69 *=Season a e age; Min= Minimum; Max= maximum; A g= A e age; a=Base 10 οC y =Ha es s a ed a e 60 day o plan ing and con inued o h ee weeks Table 3. F a ios and e ec o plan ing da es on yields and pod quali y cha ac e is ics o snap bean cul i a s e alua ed du ing 2016 and 2017 (2 yea s A e age). Ma ke able yield (Kg ac e-1) Un-ma ke able yield (Kg ac e-1) Pod esh weigh (g) Pod leng h (cm) Pod wid h (1-5) Soluble solids °B ix Plan ing Da es Means Ea ly 4348a 871b 0.172b 13.03b 3.90a 4.66b Mid 5010a 1417a 0.188a 12.43b 3.84a 4.89a La e 5022a 1424a 0.169b 13.90a 3.86a 5.01a LSD 749 261 0.0156 0.613 0.168 0.149 Sou ce o Va ia ion Signi icance Yea * *** *** *** *** *** Va ie y ** NS *** NS *** NS Plan ing Da e NS *** * *** NS *** Yea x Va ie y NS NS NS NS * NS Yea x Plan ing Da e NS ** NS NS ** *** Va ie y x Plan ing Da e NS NS NS NS NS NS Yea x Va ie y x Plan ing Da e NS NS NS NS NS NS CV 23.1 31.2 13.1 6.9 6.4 4.5 *, **, *** ep esen s P=0.05, 0.01, 0.001 espec i ely and ns, no signi ican a-b=means wi hin a column ollowed by he same le e a e no signi ican ly di e en a P<0.05 acco ding o LSD. Table 1. Tempe a u es, o al ain all and g owing deg ee-days o he g owing season in B andon du ing 2016 and 2017. Mon h 2016 2017 Tempe a u e οC To al ain all (mm) xG owing Deg ee Days (GDD) Tempe a u e οC To al ain all (mm) G owing Deg ee Days (GDD) Max Min *A g Max Min *A g May 17.7 4.4 11.0 75.7 87 18.1 2.4 10.3 44.8 71.3 June 20.9 10.7 15.9 211.2 171.6 24.2 10.3 17.3 34.3 200.0 July 24.5 12.4 18.4 13.9 261.7 26.3 13.1 19.7 51.8 302.2 Augus 24.5 12.1 18.3 53.8 258.5 25.6 10.6 18.1 51.4 252.3 Sep embe 19.1 6.3 12.8 37.7 104 21.2 7.1 14.1 32.9 135.2 A g/ o al 21.3 9.2 15.3 392.3 882.8 23.1 8.7 15.9 215.2 961 * = Mon h a e age; Min= Minimum; Max= maximum; A g= A e age; x =Base 10 ο C 60 Rao, S. A. Table 4. Main e ec s (by yea and cul i a ) o plan ing da es on yields, pod cha ac e is ics o snap bean cul i a s. Yea / Plan ing Ma ke able yield (Kg ac e-1) Un-ma ke able yield (Kg ac e-1) Pod esh weigh (g) Pod leng h (cm) Pod wid h (1-5) Soluble solids oB ix PR1 T GR PR T GR PR T GR PR T GR PR T GR PR T GR 2016 Signi icance 0.70ns 0.61ns 0.35ns 0.33ns 0.20ns 0.01* 0.06* 0.97ns 0.33ns 0.53ns 0.14ns 0.01* 0.55ns 0.07ns 0.88ns 0.63ns 0.323ns 0.11* Means Ea ly 3702a 4689a 4791a 815a 818a 761b 0.14b 0.13a 0.19a 14.3a 13.3a 12.6b 3.5a 4.4a 3.2a 4.8a 4.7a 4.4b Mid 3354a 5461a 4211a 1034a 865a 953b 0.18a 0.13a 0.18a 13.7a 13.5a 12.7b 3.5a 4.3a 3.2a 4.7a 4.6a 4.7a La e 3459a 4572a 5267a 863a 1328a 1630a 0.15ab 0.13a 0.15a 14.4a 14.4a 14.1a 3.2a 4.0a 3.16a 4.6a 4.5a 4.5ab LSD 1019 2317 1651 350 677 513 0.028 0.049 0.058 1.52 1.22 0.89 0.73 0.41 0.38 0.57 0.34 0.32 2017 Signi icance 0.25ns 0.200ns 0.26ns 0.21ns 0.15ns 0.01* 0.06* 0.88ns 0.62* 0.14* 0.20ns 0.29ns 0.75ns 0.14ns 0.406ns 0.01** 0.01** 0.01* Means Ea ly 3738a 4900a 4269a 1361a 850a 617b 0.19ab 0.17a 0.18b 12.1b 12.6a 13.1a 4.1a 4.4a 3.5a 4.5b 4.6b 4.7b Mid 5259a 7493a 4282a 2006a 1976a 1666a 0.20a 0.18a 0.24a 11.9b 11.0a 11.6a 4.1a 4.2a 3.5a 4.9b 5.1a 5.1b La e 4949a 5991a 5894a 1459a 1650a 1608a 0.17b 0.17a 0.22ab 14.4a 13.3a 12.6a 4.2a 4.7a 3.7a 5.5a 5.1a 5.6a LSD 2101 3087 2518 856 1243 667 0.026 0.057 0.045 1.61 2.81 2.12 0.44 0.48 0.42 0.42 0.32 0.56 a-b=means wi hin a column ollowed by he same le e a e no signi ican ly di e en a P<0.05 acco ding o LSD. *, **, *** ep esen s P=0.05, 0.01, 0.001 espec i ely and ns, no signi ican . 1Cul i a s a e ‘Pu ple Royal y’ (PR), ‘Tende g een’ (T) and ‘Gold Rush’ (GR) Impac o plan ing da es on yield and pod quali y ai s o snap bean unde sho - empe a e season clima es 61 con igu ed wi h he A gus Ti an Con ol Sys em o eco d on- si e wea he in o ma ion o ou doo empe a u e (°C), ligh ene gy (W/m2), wind speed and wind di ec ion. The expe imen s we e a andomized comple e block design wi h ou eplica ions. Da a we e subjec ed o analyses o a iance (ANOVA) using CoS a e . 6.45 (Coho So wa e Bi mingham, U.K). Di e ences be ween ea men means we e de e mined using Fishe ’s leas signi ican di e ence a α = 5%. Resul s Ai empe a u e du ing he g owing seasons a e aged be ween 15.3 οC (2016) and 15.9 οC (2017) (Table 1). Fo ea ly, mid and la e plan ing da es, ai empe a u es a e aged 19.9 οC, 17.9 οC and 16.9 οC espec i ely in yea 2016, whe eas in 2017 ai empe a u e we e 18.2 οC, 18.9 οC, and 18.0 οC o ea ly, mid and la e plan ing da es espec i ely (Table 2). Mo e ain was ecei ed in ea ly (257.8 mm) and mid (277.3 mm) plan ings in yea 2016 compa ed o ea ly (99.9 mm) and mid (113 mm) plan ing in 2017. The la e plan ed c op ecei ed highe p ecipi a ion in 2017 when compa ed o he ea ly and mid plan ed c op. Highe ain all was eco ded in he mid and ea ly plan ed c ops compa ed o la e plan ing in 2016, whe eas yea 2017 ecei ed mo e ain all in ea ly and mid plan ing compa ed o la e plan ing (Table 2). The beans c op ecei ed mo e GDD in 2017 g owing season compa ed o yea 2016, wi h espec o each plan ing da es. C op accumula ed mo e GDD in ea ly and mid plan ing, 563 & 567 in 2016 and 597 & 694 in 2017, compa ed o la e plan ing, 546 & 625, in yea 2016 and 2017 espec i ely. Da a om he wo yea s was combined and was analysed o de e mine he impac o di e en plan ing da es, cul i a and in e ac ions on bean yields and pod quali y ai s (Table 3). Signi ican di e ences o he yields and pod quali y ai s we e eco ded o be ween yea s compa isons, whe eas a ie ies showed only signi ican di e ences o ma ke able yield, pod esh weigh and pod wid h. Di e en plan ings did no show any no iceable di e ence in ma ke able yield and pod wid h, howe e , beans plan ed on di e en da es showed signi ican di e ences o o he yield and quali y ai s examined in his p ojec . In e ac ion be ween yea x a ie y x plan ing da es was eco ded as non-signi ican o he yield and pod quali y ai s. Simila ly, a ie y x plan ing da es in e ac ion was non-signi ican o he yields and pod quali y ai s, sugges ing a ie y selec ion did no a ec yield and yield ela ed ai s when plan ed a di e en da es. Howe e , yea x sowing da e in e ac ion p esen ed no iceable di e ences in o al soluble solids, pod wid h and un-ma ke able yields. Ea ly, mid and la e plan ings had no e ec on ma ke able yields and pod wid h o any cul i a es ed in yea 2016 and 2017 (Table 3-4). In 2016, di e en plan ing da es a ec ed un- ma ke able yields, pod leng h and soluble solids o cul i a ‘Gold Rush’ bu no hose o ‘Pu ple Royal y’ and ‘Tende G een’. Whe eas, in 2017 un-ma ke able yields, pod esh weigh and soluble solids we e signi ican ly di e en wi h di e en plan ings o ‘Gold Rush’ cul i a , and he e was no e ec o plan ing da es on pod wid h. (Table 4). In 2016, Pod esh weigh di e ed signi ican ly o ‘Pu ple Royal y’ cul i a when plan ed on di e en da es, bu no hose o ‘Tende G een’ and ‘Gold Rush’. Pod esh weigh did no show signi ican di e ence o ‘Pu ple Royal y’ cul i a o any o he desc ibed seeding da es in 2017. All h ee cul i a s soluble solids we e a ec ed signi ican ly o pod p oduc ion in yea 2017 when seeded in ea ly, mid and la e plan ings. Whe eas in 2016 only ‘Gold Rush’ cul i a showed signi ican di e ence in soluble solids when plan ed a di e en da es (Table 4). Pod leng h showed signi ican di e ences wi h espec o plan ing da es o ‘Pu ple Royal y’ in 2017, whe eas, in 2016 no di e ence was ound o pod leng h o ‘Pu ple Royal y’ plan ed in di e en da es. In gene al, he e ec o plan ing da es o yield and pod ai s a ied wi h yea and cul i a . Discussions Tempe a u e equi emen s o a bean c op a ies du ing a ious s ages o i s li e cycle wi h a ying base empe a u e needed o g ow h a each de elopmen al s age. Kish & Ogle (1980) and Mullins & S aw (1999) e e enced 10 οC as he common used base empe a u e o es ima e he GDD a each de elopmen al g ow h s age o beans. In his s udy, he minimum empe a u es du ing ea ly, mid and la e plan ing anged om 10.6 οC o 12.1 οC (Table 2), which is abo e 10.0 οC whe e ge mina ion and blossoming may be a ec ed (Dickson & Boe ge , 1984) and could esul in unma ke able pods. Since he minimum empe a u e du ing p oduc ion s ages o beans emained abo e 10 οC, i did no signi ican ly a ec yields in plan ing da es in bo h expe imen al yea s (Table 2). To al ain all o 392.3 mm s a ing May h ough Sep embe in 2016 was highe compa ed o 215.2 mm in 2017. This di e ence was no able in he mon h o June wi h 211.2 mm, in 2016, compa ed o 34.3 mm ain all in 2017. Howe e , an e en dis ibu ion o ain all was obse ed in 2017 c opping yea compa ed o 2016, whe e he mon h o June ecei ed signi ican ly mo e p ecipi a ion han o he mon hs o g owing season in he same yea (Table 1-2). The cumula i e GDD we e highe in 2017, a each ea ly, mid and la e plan ing, compa ed o 2016. This may be due o high empe a u e inc easing GDD as epo ed by Ken e al. (2012). The esul s o his s udy e ealed signi ican a ia ions in yields and pod quali y ai s be ween each yea ’s e alua ion o each cul i a es ed. Ma ke able yield, pod esh weigh and pod wid h di e signi ican ly o cul i a s (Table 3-4), whe eas, un-ma ke able yield, pod esh weigh , pod leng h, and o al soluble solids we e ound be o signi ican ly di e en o h ee plan ing da es in 2 yea s combined pe o mance (Table 3). No di e ence in yields o any plan ing da e we e obse ed o he cul i a s in yea 2016. In 2017 mid and la e plan ings yielded highe ma ke able and un-ma ke able pods. O e s he wo yea s o he s udy, a e age yields, ma ke able and un-ma ke able yields we e eco ded highe in mid and la e plan ing han in he ea ly plan ing (Table 3). Howe e , no yields we e highe om one plan ing da e o e ano he , o cul i a s es ed in each indi idual yea . Cul i a s “Gold Rush and Pu ple Royal y” p oduced highe ma ke able pods in he ea ly plan ing compa ed o mid and la e plan ings in yea 2016, whe eas in 2017 all h ee cul i a s yielded highe ma ke able pods in mid and la e plan ing when compa ed wi h ea ly plan ing. This lowe yield in yea 2017, could be a ibu ed o lowe accumula ed GDD when seeded as an ea ly season c op when compa ed o mid and la e plan ings. Simila esul s o high bean yield om la e plan ing compa ed o ea ly plan ing we e eco ded by Jamil e al. (2017) while s udying he op imal plan ing da es o F ench beans. Al hough ma ke able and un- ma ke able yields we e no consis en among he cul i a s 62 Rao, S. A. es ed (Table 4), o e 2 yea s cul i a yield demons a es highe yield in mid and la e plan ings. Since each cul i a was es ing using he equal numbe o days om seeding o inal ha es , he yield a ia ions o di e en plan ing da es be ween cul i a s could be a ibu ed o cul i a cha ac e is ics. This is mo e e iden wi h cul i a ‘Pu ple Royal y’ which signi ican ly di e s in un-ma ke able yields in 2016 and 2017. O si e al. (2021) ound a iable lowe and pod abscission dynamics in di e en gene pools and geno ypes o common beans and eco ded ce ain bean cha ac e is ic o be highly signi ican in hei s udies, such as he amoun o days o begin lowe ing, he lowe ing pe iod, pe cen age o abo ed pods and numbe o ha es ed pods. This s udy did no show a consis en posi i e ela ionship be ween yields and pod quali y wi h espec o di e en plan ing da es. The e o e, he e is no consis en end o ha ing highe yields co esponding o pod wid h, leng h, esh weigh and soluble solids wi h espec o plan ing da es e alua ed in his 2-yea s udy. No consis signi icance was obse ed o any plan ing da e o e ano he in pod esh weigh , leng h, wid h and soluble solids e alua ed o all cul i a s when plan ed ea ly, mid and in la e in 2016 and 2017. Longe pod leng h was eco ded in la e plan ings o all h ee cul i a s in 2016, whe eas his end was only obse ed o ‘Pu ple Royal y’ and ‘Tende G een’ cul i a s in 2017. Bean pod wid h a ied in di e en plan ing da es in 2016 compa ed o 2017 whe e la e plan ing showed a la ge pod wid h in la e plan ing when compa ed o ea ly and mid plan ing. A simila end o g ea e soluble solid was eco ded in 2017 la e plan ing o all h ee cul i a s, whe eas his was no e iden in 2016. Compa ing he pod and seed cha ac e s wi h yields, Kimeu (2019) obse ed simila cohe ence be ween bean pod cha ac e s. In gene al, all h ee cul i a s s udied he e o e alua e, yield and pod cha ac e is ics, in ea ly, mid and la e plan ing da es, did no appea ed o ha e highe yields and pod quali y a ibu es o e any plan ing da e in any p oduc ion yea . These esul s a e consis ing wi h Spa ks e al. (2018) s udy in which no signi ican di e ences in yield we e obse ed o he wo plan ing da es o snap bean. Howe e , o he s udies including Ge achew e al. (2014, 2015) epo ed di e en plan ing da es did ha e a signi ican in luence on yield o g een beans. Conclusions The esul s om his s udy show ma ke able yields o snap bean we e no signi ican ly a ec ed by plan ing da es when seeded- wo weeks apa -in sho e g owing en i onmen s. Howe e , plan ing da es in luenced pod esh weigh , pod leng h and soluble solids, which sugges s ha seeding snap bean om mid o la e June could p oduce be e quali y pods. Fu he esea ch exploi ing ea lie plan ing da es is ecommended o de e mine he ea lies plan ing g owe s should use o plan snap beans in hei egion. Canadian P ai ies g owe s and simila clima ic a eas can use hese indings o g owing snap bean wi h be e yield and quali y. Acknowledgemen s The au ho s acknowledge he inancial suppo , o his p ojec , p o ided by Ag icul u e and Ag i-Food Canada and he Mani oba Minis y o Ag icul u e h ough he Canadian Ag icul u al Pa ne ship, a ede al p o incial e i o ial ini ia i e. Re e ences Abd Al-Shamma i, A. M., Abood, M. A., Hamdi, G. J. (2020): Imp o emen in p oduc ion, ui quali y and wa e use e iciency o h ee oma o cul i a s by olia applica ion o ecamin lowe ® unde wa e de ici condi ions. Jou nal o Cen al Eu opean Ag icul u e, 21(2): 379-385. DOI: /10.5513/JCEA01/21.2.2604. Ag icul u e and Ag i-Food Canada (2020): S a is ical O e iew o he Canadian Vege able Indus y 2019. Re ie ed om he Ag icul u e and Ag i-Food Canada websi e h ps://mul imedia.ag .gc.ca/pack/pd / eg_ epo _2019-ng.pd . A gus® Con ol Sys ems Limi ed. Publica ions (2014©): Whi e Rock, B i ish Columbia Canada. Baudoin, J. P., Maque , A. (1999): Imp o emen o p o ein and amino acid con en s in seeds o ood legumes. A case s udy in Phaseolus. Bio echnology Ag onomy Socie y o En i onmen , 3(4): 220-224. pp. Dickson, M. H., Boe ge , M. A. (1984): Eme gence, g ow h, and blossoming o bean (Phaseolus ulga is) a subop imal empe a u es. J. Ame . Soc. Ho . Sci. 109:257-260. pp. Egli, D. B. (1998): ‘Seed biology and he yield o g ain c ops.’ (CAB In e na ional. Walling o d, UK). Egli, D. B., B uening, W. P. (2006): Tempo al p ofiles o pod p oduc ion and pod se in soybean. Eu opean Jou nal o Ag onomy 24.11-18. doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2005.04.006. FAO (2021): Wo ld Food and Ag icul u e - S a is ical Yea book 2021. Rome. h ps://doi.o g/10.4060/cb4477en Ge achew, E., Tes aye, A., Mulualem, M. (2014): The e ec s o sowing da e and spacing o yield o g een bean (Phaseolus ulga is L.) a ie ies a Jimma, Sou hwes e n E hiopia. Sky Jou nal o Ag icul u al Resea ch 3(9): 174-180. pp. Ge achew, E., Mohammed, A., Tes aye, A. (2015): Impac o sowing da e and plan spacing on yield, quali y and disease incidence o snap bean (Phaseolus ulga is L.) a ie ies a Jimma sou hwes e n, E hiopia. Global Ad anced Resea ch Jou nal o Educa ional Resea ch and Re iews 4(5): 081-089. pp. Jamil, F. M., Kashem, M. A., Islam, A. K. M. M., Sa ka , M. A. (2017): Op imizing Sowing Da e o F ench bean Va ie ies unde Bangladesh Condi ion. Annual Resea ch & Re iew in Biology 21(3): 1-7. h ps://doi.o g/10.9734/ARRB/ 2017/38096. Jong, S. K., B ewbake J. L., Lee, C. H (1982): E ec s o sola adia ion on he pe o mance o maize in 41 successi e mon hly plan ings in Hawaii. C op Science 22. 13–18. pp. Kelly, J. F., Sco , M. K. (1992): The nu i ional alue o snap beans e sus o he ege ables, p. 23-46. In: Hen y, G. and W. Janssen (Tech. Eds.). CIAT P oceedings o an In e na ional Con e ence on Snap beans in he De eloping Wo ld held om 16 h o 20 h Oc obe 1989 in Cali, Colombia. Ken, M., Lopes, V., Wal e , R. (2012): G owing season expansion and ela ed changes in mon hly empe a u e and g owing deg ee days in he In e -Mon ane Dese o he San Luis Valley, Colo ado. Clima ic Change. 114. DOI:10.1007/s10584-012-0448-y. Kimeu, A. M. (2019): E alua ion and Pe o mance o Di e en Bush Snap Beans (Phaseolus ulga is L.) Va ie ies unde O ganic Fa ming Sys em in La T inidad, Bengue . Impac o plan ing da es on yield and pod quali y ai s o snap bean unde sho - empe a e season clima es 63 Moun ain Jou nal o Science and In e disciplina y Resea ch. 79(2): 67-74. pp. Kish, A. J., Ogle, W. L. (1980): Imp o ing he hea uni sys em in p edic ing ma u i y da e o snap beans. Ho Science 15:140-141. pp. Mani oba Minis y o Ag icul u e (2020): Ag icul u al Clima e o Mani oba. Online. h ps://www.go .mb.ca/ ag icul u e/wea he /clima e-o -mb.h ml Ma lene, P. B., Fe nández, G., Ma ía, A., Míguez, R., Paula, A., Ped ei a, R., Miguel, A., Ma a, S. F. (2008): E ec s o plan ing season and plan cul i a on g ow h, de elopmen , and pod p oduc ion in snap bean (Phaseolus ulga is L.). Aus alian Jou nal o Ag icul u al Resea ch 59(12): 1121-1129. pp. Molná , K., Rácz, Cs., Dö ényi-Nagy, T., Bakó, K., Nemeské i, E., Nagy, J., Dobos, A. Cs. (2015): A csemegekuko ica (Zea mays L. con a . saccha a a) e mésének és ízhasznosí ásának ál ozása el é ő ízellá o ság melle .[Changes o he yield and wa e use e iciency o swee maize (Zea mays L. con a . saccha a a) in di e en wa e supply condi ions] Nö ény e melés, 64(2): 73- 90. pp. Mullins, C. A., S aw, R. A. (1999): De e mining op imum ma u i y o bush Romano beans o machine ha es . Ho Technology 9:448–451. pp. Nason, G. E., My old, D. D. (1992): Ni ogen e ilize s: Fa es and en i onmen al e ec s in o es s. p. 67-81. In Fo es Fe iliza ion: Sus aining and Imp o ing Nu i ion and g ow h o Wes e n Fo es s (H.N. Chappell, G.F. Wee man, and R.E. Mille , eds.). Ins i u e o Fo es Resou ces Con ib. 73. College o Fo es Resou ces, Uni . o Washing on, Sea le, WA. Nemeské i, E., Molná , K., Pék, Z., Helyes, L. (2018): E ec o wa e supply on wa e use ela ed physiological ai s and yield o snap beans in d y seasons. I iga ion Science, 36(3): 143-158. pp. DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s00271-018-0571-2. Nemeské i, E., Molná , K., Vígh, R., Nagy, J., Dobos, A. (2015): Rela ionships be ween s oma al beha iou , spec al ai s and wa e use and p oduc i i y o g een peas (Pisum sa i um L.) in d y seasons Ac a Physiologiae Plan a um 37(2): 1-16. DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s11738-015-1776-0 Nonnecke, R. (1989): Vege ables P oduc ion. Van No and Reinhold. New Yo k, USA. O si, N., Mo aes, C., La a-Fio eze, A. C. da C., Fio eze, S. L. (2021): Dynamics o abscission o ep oduc i e s uc u es in common bean access. Re is a de Ciências Ag o e e iná ias. 20(1): 10-18. pp. DOI: 10.5965/223811712012021010. Pandy, R. K., He ea, W. A. T., Pendle on, J. W. (1984): D ough s ess o g ain legumes unde i iga ion g adien . Yield and yield componen s. Ag onomy Jou nal 76. 549–553. Piha, M. I., Munns, D. N. (1987): Ni ogen ixa ion po en ial o beans (Phaseolus ulga is L.) compa ed wi h o he g ain legumes unde con olled condi ions. Plan and Soil, 98: 169182. Richa dson, K. (2012): E alua ion o ou g een bean a ie ies (Phaseolus ulga is L.) o pes and disease ole ance. In: Glads one Road Ag icul u al Cen e C op Resea ch Repo No. 7, Depa men o Ag icul u e Nassau, Bahamas. Spa ks, E., Khan, V., Ankumah, R., Cu ing on, J. E., Ellison, N., Hun e , G., X. J., Moo e, J. (2018): The E ec o Two Plan ing Da es and Me hods on Snap Bean (Phaseolus ulga is) P oduc ion in a Tunnel House. P o essional Ag icul u al Wo ke s Jou nal 5(2): 5. p. S a is ics Canada (2020): Table 32-10-0365-01. A ea, p oduc ion and a m ga e alue o ma ke ed ege ables. DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.25318/3210036501-eng. S a is ics Canada CATSNET June (2019): Canada's esh ege able impo s by commodi y. DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.25318/3210036501-eng. Schoonho en, A., an Voyses , O. (1991): Common Beans: Resea ch o C op Imp o emen . CIAT, Cali, Colombia. Vega, D. A. J, Chapman, S. C., Hall A. J. (2001): Geno ype by en i onmen in e ac ion and indi ec selec ion o yield in sun lowe . Two-mode pa e n analysis o oil and biomass yield ac oss en i onmen s in A gen ina. Field C ops Resea ch 72, 17–38. doi: 10.1016/S0378-4290 (01)00162-9.