Variability in the concentration of mineral elements and phytochemical contents of cowpea genotypes for crop improvement

References

• Agbogidi OM, Egho EO. 2012. Evaluation of eight varieties of cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp] in Asaba agro-ecological environment, Delta State, Nigeria. Eur J Sustain Dev. 12:303–314.
   Google Scholar
• Ahenkora K, Adu Dapaah HK, Agyemang A. 1998. Selected nutritional components and sensory attributes of cowpea (Vigna unguicula [L.] Walp) leaves. Plant Foods Hum Nutr. 52:221–229.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Belane AK, Dakora FD. 2011. Levels of nutritionally-important trace elements and macronutrients in edible leaves and seed of 27 nodulated cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp.) genotypes grown in the Upper West Region of Ghana. Food Chem. 125:99–105.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bhattacharya A, Sood P, Citovsky V. 2010. The roles of plant phenolics in defence and communication during Agrobacterium and Rhizobium infection. Mol Plant Pathol. 11:705–719. doi:10.1111/j.1364-3703.2010.00625.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carnovale E, Marletta L, Marconi E, Brosio E. 1990. Nutritional and hydration properties in cowpea. In: Ng NQ, Monti LM, editors. Cowpea genetic resources. Ibadan: IITA; p. 111–118.
   Google Scholar
• Frota KMG, Filho RDS, Ribeiro VQ, Arêas JAG. 2014. Cowpea protein reduces LDL-cholesterol and apolipoprotein B concentrations, but does not improve biomarkers of inflammation or endothelial dysfunction in adults with moderate hypercholesterolemia. Nutr Hosp. 31:1611–1619.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerrano AS, Adebola PO, van Rensburg WS, Venter SL. 2015. Genetic variability and heritability estimates of nutritional composition in the leaves of selected cowpea genotypes [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.]. HortScience. 50:1435–1440.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerrano AS, van Rensburg WSJ, Adebola PO. 2017. Nutritional composition of immature pods in selected cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.) genotypes in South Africa. Aust J Crop Sci. 11:134–141.
   Google Scholar
• Gerrano AS, van Rensburg WSJ, Venter SL, Shargie NG, Amelework BA, Shimelis H, Labuschagne MT. 2019. Selection of cowpea genotypes based on grain mineral and total protein content. Acta Agric Scand B Plant Soil Sci. 62:155–166.
   Google Scholar
• Gerrano AS, van Rensburg WSJ, Mathew I, Shayanowako AIT, Bairu MW, Venter SL, Swart W, Mofokeng A, Mellem J, Labuschagne M. 2020. Genotype and genotype x environment interaction effects’ on the grain yield performance of cowpea genotypes in dryland farming system in South Africa. Euphytica. 216:80. doi:10.1007/s10681-020-02611-z.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Global Nutrition. 2017. Global nutrition report. [accessed 2019 Nov 12]. https://globalnutritionreport.org/reports/2017-global-nutrition-report/.
   Google Scholar
• Hair JF, Andrson JR, Tatham RE, Black WC. 1998. Multivariate data analysis. 5th ed. London: Prentice-Hall International, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Hauke J, Kossowski T. 2011. Comparison of values of Pearson’s and Spearman’s correlation coefficients on the same sets of data. Quastiones Geogr. 30:97–93.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson DE. 1998. Applied multivariate method for data analysis. Pacific Grove (CA): Duxbury Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lambot C. 2002. Industrial potential of cowpea. In: Fatokun CA, Tarawali PM, Singh PM, Kormawa M, Tarmo M, editors. Challenges and opportunities for enhancing sustainable cowpea production. Ibadan: International Institute of Tropical Agriculture; p. 367–375.
   Google Scholar
• Makkar HPS. 1999. Quantification of tannins in tree foliage: a laboratory manual for the FAO/IAEA co-ordinated research project on ‘use of nuclear and related techniques to develop simple tannin assay for predicting and improving the safety and efficiency of feeding ruminants on the tanniniferous tree foliage’. Vienna: Joint FAO/IAEA Division of Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture.
   Google Scholar
• Mbuma NW, Zhou MM, van der Merwe R. 2019. Comparing family with individual genotype breeding parameters for cane yield in sugarcane populations. S Afr J Plant Soil. 36:11–19.
   Google Scholar
• Mbuma NW, Gerrano AS, Lebaka N, Mofokeng A, Labuschagne M. 2020. The evaluation of a Southern African cowpea germplasm collection for seed yield and yield components. Crop Sci. doi:10.1002/csc2.20336.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mbuma NW, Zhou MM, van der Merwe R. 2020. Family by environment interactions for sugarcane yield and its components in South Africa. Crop Sci. doi:10.1002/csc2.20025.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ng NQ, Padulosi S. 1988. Cowpea genepool distribution and crop improvement. In: Ng NQ, Perrino P, Attere F, Zedan H, editors. Crop genetic resources of Africa. Vol. 2. p. 161–174. Rome: International Board for Plant Genetic Resources (IBPGR).
   Google Scholar
• Ng’uni D, Geleta M, Hofvander P, Fatih M, Bryngelsson T. 2012. Comparative genetic diversity and nutritional quality variation among some important southern African sorghum accessions [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench]. Aust J Crop Sci. 6:56–64.
   Google Scholar
• Padulosi S, Ng QN, Perrino P. 1997. Origin, taxonomy, and morphology of Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp. In: Singh BB, Raj M, editors. Advances in cowpea research. Ibadan, Nigeria: IITA; p. 1–12.
   Google Scholar
• SAS Institute. 2019. SAS/STAT user’s guide, version 9.2. Cary (NC): SAS Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Souza E, Sorrels ME. 1991. Relationships among 70 American oat germplasm. I. Cluster analysis using quantitative characters. Crop Sci. 31:599–605.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhishen J, Mengcheng T, Jianming W. 1999. The determination of flavonoid contents in mulberry and their scavenging effects on superoxide radicals. Food Chem. 64:555–559.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar