Agronomic Performance of Cowpea Cultivars During the Second Cropping Season in Southwest Minas Gerais, Brazil
by
, , ,
Antônio Augusto Nogueira Franco
1,*, 
Ricardo Shigueru Okumura
2,
Letícia Priscilla Arantes
1,
Franciane Diniz Cogo
1,
Samy Pimenta
3
,
Daiane de Cinque Mariano
4,
Abner José de Carvalho
3,
Ana Carolina Petri Gonçalves
5 and
Marcos Vinicius Bohrer Monteiro Siqueira
5 1
Campus of Passos, State University of Minas Gerais, Passos 37902-092, Brazil
2
Campus of Parauapebas, University Federal Rural of the Amazon, Parauapebas 68515-000, Brazil
3
Campus of Janaúba, State University of Montes Claros, Janaúba 39440-000, Brazil
4
Department of Soils and Agricultural Engineering, University Federal of Mato Grosso, Cuiabá 78060-900, Brazil
5
Campus of Frutal, State University of Minas Gerais, Frutal 38200-000, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2025, 15(19), 2055; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15192055
Submission received: 25 June 2025
/
Revised: 28 August 2025
/
Accepted: 12 September 2025
/
Published: 30 September 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Crop Production)
Abstract
The cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.) is well adapted to high temperatures, water deficits and low fertility soils, being widely cultivated in regions less favorable to common beans. Its grains are rich in proteins, vitamins and minerals, representing an important food source and a promising alternative for producing protein at low cost, in a short space of time, given the precocity of its cycle. However, in the state of Minas Gerais there is only a recommendation for one cowpea cultivar, the Poços de Caldas cultivar. In addition to being quite old, it is no longer found in crop production fields. Our objective was to provide local farmers with new cultivar options that exhibit high yield potential, appropriate plant architecture for mechanized cultivation, and superior grain health and quality. The experiments were conducted in Passos city, Brazil, during the second cropping season of the 2021, 2022, and 2023 years. Ten commercial cowpea cultivars were assessed in a randomized block design with five replications, considering morphophysiological traits and phytotechnical yield components. Treatment effects were analyzed using the Scott-Knott test, a statistical method that compares treatments and identifies significant differences among them. The thousand-seed weight and grain index showed a positive correlation with grain yield. The least productive cultivars had the longest pods and, consequently, the highest number of grains per pod. The 2022 and 2023 years provided the most favorable morphophysiological conditions for cowpea cultivation, which significantly enhanced productivity. Among the tested cultivars, BRS Xique-Xique, BRS Novaera, BRS Tumucumaque, and BRS Pajeú were the most suitable for a second cropping season cultivation in the Southwest region of Minas Gerais, while BRS Marataoã, BRS Itaim, and BRS Rouxinol were the least. We emphasize the need for further studies to support the establishment and expansion of cowpea cultivation in this region.
1. Introduction
In Brazil, two groups of beans are cultivated: the common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) (Group I) and the cowpea, which originates from Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp. (Group II). Cowpea, also known as “feijão-macassar” or “feijão-de-corda”, is adapted to high temperatures, water deficits, and low-fertility soils, being widely cultivated in regions or seasons that are less favorable to common beans [1]. Its grains are rich in proteins, vitamins, and minerals [2], representing an important nutritional source for a significant part of the world population [3,4] as well as a promising alternative for low-cost protein production [5,6] in a short period, given the precocity of its cycle [7].
Cowpea cultivation is a traditional practice in the North and Northeast regions of Brazil, where it is generally carried out by small and medium-sized family farmers using low-technology methods [8,9]. However, the crop has been expanding to other regions of the country [10], particularly in areas within the Brazilian savanna (Cerrado biome) across the Midwest, North, Northeast, and Southeast regions. In these areas, cowpea is cultivated as a second crop by commercial farmers, with high-level technologies and production destined for export markets [11,12].
Brazil produces 692,000 tons of cowpeas on 1.28 million hectares. This means cowpeas account for 45% of the area cultivated with beans in the country, although they contribute to only 21% of total national bean production [13]. The state of Minas Gerais produces 8000 tons on 16,000 hectares (500 kg ha−1). This productivity is extremely low compared to the results obtained by Silva et al. [14] and Franco et al. [15], which reported yields of approximately 2500 kg ha−1 of cowpea in experiments conducted in the North and the South of the state, respectively, and even more when compared to over 3300 kg ha−1 obtained in other regions in Brazil [11].
The low productivity of cowpea in Minas Gerais is a pressing issue, likely associated with the limited adoption of modern agricultural technologies, such as advanced irrigation systems and precision farming techniques, as well as the lack of improved cultivars adapted to the region’s edaphoclimatic conditions. Currently, only one cowpea cultivar is officially recommended for cultivation in the state: the Poços de Caldas cultivar [15]. However, the cultivar is outdated and no longer found in commercial production fields. As a result, cowpea producers in Minas Gerais rely either on older cultivars, which generally have low yield potential and limited suitability for mechanized systems or on newer cultivars recommended for other regions of the country, which have not been evaluated under local growing conditions. Our research aimed to address these challenges by identifying and recommending new cultivars that combine high yield potential, suitable plant architecture for mechanized cultivation, and superior grain health and quality, potentially improving the productivity of cowpea cultivation in Minas Gerais.
Due to the interaction between genotype and environment, as well as the significant edaphoclimatic variability across Brazil, cultivars that perform exceptionally well in certain regions may not express the same potential elsewhere [1,6,16]. This highlights the importance of evaluating the agronomic performance of cowpea cultivars in a more localized and site-specific manner [7,11,17], allowing farmers to access genotypes better adapted to regional growing conditions [1,18].
Therefore, the agronomic performance of the ten main cowpea cultivars currently grown in Brazil was investigated in this study over three agricultural years under the edaphoclimatic conditions of the Southwest region of Minas Gerais. The aim was to identify and recommend new cultivars for local use that combine high yield potential, suitable plant architecture for mechanized cultivation, and superior grain health and quality.
2. Materials and Methods
The experiments were conducted at the selected Experimental Farm of the State University of Minas Gerais, located in Passos city (geographical coordinates: 20°45′00″ S latitude and 46°37′48″ W longitude), in the Southern and Southwestern mesoregion of the state of Minas Gerais, Brazil. The region is situated at an altitude of approximately 783 m, with an average annual temperature of 21.4 °C and an average annual precipitation of 1623 mm. According to Köppen, the climate is classified as Cwa, a humid subtropical climate with hot summers and dry winters [19].
The soil at the experimental site was classified as a eutrophic Red-Yellow Latosol [20] with a medium texture (clay: 310 g kg−1; silt: 127 g kg−1; sand: 563 g kg−1). These soil characteristics are significant as they influence the water retention capacity, nutrient availability, and root development of the plants. The main chemical characteristics of the soil at depths of 0–20 cm and 20–40 cm are presented in Table 1.
The experiments were conducted during the second cropping season in 2021 (sowing: 17 March 2021; harvesting: 21 July 2021), 2022 (sowing: 1 March 2022; harvesting: 10 June 2022), and 2023 (sowing: 2 March 2023; harvesting: 21 June 2023). Climatic data for the crop growth periods were obtained from the Climatological Station located at the Experimental Farm of the State University of Minas Gerais, Passos city, and are shown in Figure 1.
Evaluation of the ten commercial cowpea cultivars was conducted using randomized complete block design. The cultivars tested were BRS Xique-Xique, BRS Tumucumaque, BRS Novaera, BRS Imponente, BRS Marataoã, BRS Rouxinol, BRS Pajeú, BRS Itaim, BRS Cauamé, and BRS Guariba. Each experimental plot, consisting of five plant rows, each 5.0 m long and spaced 0.5 m apart, was carefully designed to provide a comprehensive evaluation. The three central rows, corresponding to a net plot area of 7.5 m2, were the focus of our evaluations.
Soil preparation was carried out using conventional tillage, consisting of one plowing and two harrowings. Subsequently, furrows spaced 0.50 m apart were opened using a mechanized furrower, and seeds were manually sown along the furrow at 20 cm apart to achieve a final stand of 10 plants per squared meter.
Fertilizer application was based on soil analysis and the recommendations provided by the Soil Fertility Commission of the State of Minas Gerais [21]. At planting, 70 kg ha−1 of P2O5 and 14 kg ha−1 of N (140 kg ha−1 of monoammonium phosphate fertilizer) were added. At top dressing, phenological stage V4 (third open compound leaf), 60 kg ha−1 of K2O (100 kg ha−1 of potassium chloride fertilizer) and 10 kg ha−1 of N (50 kg ha−1 of ammonium sulfate fertilizer) were added. Additionally, we meticulously adhered to established recommendations for cowpea cultivation [22] in implementing crop management practices and pest and disease control measures. Weeding was carried out manually using hoes between 20 and 35 days after sowing.
The morphophysiological characteristics evaluated at pre-harvest were size (plant architecture), lodging, cultivation value, and disease tolerance, as described in Table 2.
At harvest, the following phytotechnical yield-related characteristics were evaluated: pod length, number of grains per pod, grain index, thousand-seed weight (TSW), and grain yield. Pod length was determined as an average of 10 randomly selected pods per plot. The number of grains per pod was obtained by averaging the total number of grains from these 10 pods. The grain index was calculated as the ratio of the weight of grains from the 10 pods to the total weight of the same pods, with the moisture content adjusted to 13%. The TSW was estimated by weighing the average grain mass from the 10 pods on a precision balance and extrapolating the result to 1000 seeds. Grain yield for each cultivar was estimated based on the total grain production obtained from the net plot area, with moisture also adjusted to 13% and expressed in kg ha−1.
The robustness of our conclusions was ensured through a thorough statistical analysis. Residuals from the experiments were subjected to the Shapiro–Wilk test [23] (p > 0.01) and Levene’s test [24] (p > 0.01) to verify normality and homoscedasticity, respectively. Once the criteria were fulfilled in each experiment, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed (p < 0.05) [25] to determine if the ratio between residual mean squares was lower than 7:1 [26]. After confirming that all statistical assumptions were satisfied, a joint analysis of the data was conducted, including the year as a source of variation in the ANOVA model. The effects of cultivars and crop years were compared using the Scott-Knott test [27] at a 5% significance level. All statistical analyses were performed using the Sisvar software version 5.3 [28].
3. Results
The joint analysis of variance for the main factors, tested individually, revealed that both cultivar and year had statistically significant effects (p < 0.05) on all evaluated traits (Table 3). This does not only underscore the significance of our study but also sheds light on the intricate dynamics of cowpea cultivation. Moreover, the cultivar and year interaction also showed a significant dependency (p < 0.05) on most variables, except for grain index and disease incidence (Table 3).
The mean grain yield observed in the experiments across three agricultural years and the ten cultivars evaluated, was 1281 kg ha−1 (Table 3). In comparison, the national and state average yields for cowpeas in the 2023–2024 years were 540 and 500 kg ha−1, respectively [13], approximately 2.5 times lower than the overall average recorded in the present study. These results not only underscore the potential of the Southwest region of Minas Gerais for cowpea cultivation but also provide a ray of hope for agricultural diversification and potential incorporation into crop rotation systems.
In the morphophysiological evaluations, it was noted that the shorter and more upright the branches of the cultivars were, i.e., the less prostrate the size, the healthier and less lodged the plants tended to be, and consequently, the more suitable the cultivation value (Table 4). Overall, superiority was observed in the cultivars BRS Xique-Xique, BRS Novaera, and BRS Tumucumaque compared to all others regarding morphophysiological parameters. Inferiority was noted in the cultivars BRS Rouxinol, BRS Itaim, and BRS Marataoã (Table 4).
Regarding the phytotechnical characteristics of the yield components, the thousand-seed weight and grain index were positively correlated with productivity (Table 4 and Table 5). That is, in general, the cultivars with greater grain density and higher grain-to-pod ratio (grain index) were the most productive, and vice versa (Table 4 and Table 5). On the contrary, the number of grains per pod and pod length were negatively correlated to productivity (Table 5). The least productive cultivars were those with the most considerable pod lengths and, consequently, the highest number of grains per pod. Thus, a compensatory effect trend is evident, although the increase was not sufficient to match the productive yield (Table 5).
4. Discussion
From the information in Table 3, it can be inferred that there is a strong interaction between the different genotypes evaluated and the edaphoclimatic conditions prevailing during the second cropping season in the Southwest region of Minas Gerais. Similar variations in agronomic performance among cowpea cultivars have been reported in several studies conducted across Brazil [7,9,11,15,16,17,18].
Another noteworthy finding was that all the morphophysiological variables contributed directly to productivity. The cultivars that showed the highest average yields across the three years (Table 5—BRS Xique-Xique, BRS Novaera, BRS Tumucumaque, and BRS Pajeú) were those with the lowest scores for aerial part architecture, less lodging, healthier plants, and higher mean cultivation values (Table 4). Conversely, the less productive cultivars (Table 5—BRS Rouxinol, BRS Itaim, and BRS Marataoã) showed the poorest results for the morphophysiological characteristics (Table 4). This conclusion was drawn from a three-year study that involved cultivating and observing various cowpea cultivars in the Southwestern region of Minas Gerais.
Tomaz et al. [7], who investigated 12 cowpea genotypes across five environments in the state of Ceará, Brazil, reported results similar to those of this study. The authors observed that the number of pods per plant and the grain index showed the strongest correlations with yield. They also found negative correlations between grain yield and the variables pod length and number of grains per pod. According to Passos et al. [29], the characteristic number of pods per plant is linked to the morphophysiological traits of the cultivar, so that genotypes with a prostrate growth habit tend to produce more grains per pod than upright and semi-upright ones. This information corroborates the present study, as, in general, the cultivars with the highest number of grains per pod (Table 5) were those with the highest ratings for growth habit, that is, the most prostrate (Table 4).
The significant climatic variation, particularly in the distribution of rainfall and minimum temperatures (Figure 1), had a substantial influence on most morphophysiological and phytotechnical parameters throughout the study years. This underscores the crucial role of environmental factors in crop cultivation. The best morphophysiological parameters for cowpeas were recorded in the trials conducted in 2022 and 2023 (Table 4), which had a direct and pronounced effect on phytotechnical parameters (Table 5). The lowest grain densities, pod length, number of grains per pod, and consequently, the lowest productivity were observed in the 2021 s cropping season (Table 5). During this period, the highest rainfall irregularities and the lowest minimum temperatures were observed, resulting in a considerable advancement in the phenological cycle of cowpeas (Figure 1).
Over the three years of cultivation, it became clear that the Southwest region of Minas Gerais experiences highly irregular rainfall distribution, starting in the second half of May and limiting minimum temperatures from early June onward (Figure 1). This observation underscores the importance of strategic planning and the sowing of early-maturing cultivars during the first cropping season to ensure timely field availability. Climatic risk can compromise key phenological stages during the second cropping season, including flowering, pod formation, and grain filling. In our study, earlier sowing dates in 1 March 2022 and 2 March 2023 led to yield increases of 44% and 42%, respectively, compared to the 2021 sowing date (March 17) (Table 5). This highlights the significant role of early-maturing cultivars in mitigating the impact of climatic risks on crop productivity, providing a potential solution to environmental challenges.
Finally, the cultivars BRS Tumucumaque and BRS Imponente did not differ statistically in grain yield across the three cropping seasons. According to Borém et al. [30], broadly adapted genotypes exhibit predictable performance even under varying conditions, whereas specifically adapted genotypes take greater advantage of environmental variability. Therefore, to benefit from such productive stability, it is essential to understand and explore genotype × environment interactions [31,32]. This knowledge allows us to make more informed decisions about which cultivars to choose for specific environmental conditions, enhancing sense of control and knowledge in your decision-making process.
Therefore, the relationship between productivity, number of pods per plant, grain index, and thousand-seed weight, as revealed in our study, is not only essential but also inspiring to consider in cowpea genetic improvement programs and cultivar recommendation processes [7]. These findings are crucial for the advancement of cowpea cultivation. They should be of significant interest to researchers and agronomists in the field, motivating them to explore these insights further and apply them.
5. Conclusions
According to our results, the cowpea cultivars best suited for the second cropping season in the Southwest region of Minas Gerais are BRS Xique-Xique, BRS Novaera, BRS Tumucumaque, and BRS Pajeú. In contrast, the cultivars BRS Rouxinol, BRS Itaim, and BRS Marataoã are the least recommended for the second cropping season in this region. We believe that these findings can significantly contribute to decision-making process and ultimately improve crop productivity, underlining the potential impact of this research on agricultural practices.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, A.A.N.F., L.P.A. and F.D.C.; formal analysis, R.S.O., D.d.C.M. and M.V.B.M.S.; investigation, S.P., A.J.d.C. and A.C.P.G.; methodology, L.P.A., F.D.C., M.V.B.M.S. and A.C.P.G.; writing—original draft preparation, L.P.A., S.P., A.J.d.C. and A.C.P.G.; writing—review and editing, A.A.N.F., R.S.O. and D.d.C.M.; supervision, A.A.N.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This work was supported by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), grant number: 305228/2020-0.
Data Availability Statement
The data presented in this study are available upon request from the corresponding author.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the State University of Minas Gerais (UEMG) by Research Productivity Scholarship Program (PQ) and the financial support for publication (Edital PROPPG Nº 02/2025—PROPUBLIC/UEMG), National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES), and State University of Montes Claros (UNIMONTES) for the financial support provided for this work.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
- Gerrano, A.S.; Rensburg, W.S.J.V.; Mathew, I.; Shayanowako, A.I.T.; Bairu, M.W.; Venter, S.L.; Swart, W.; Mofokeng, A.; Mellem, J.; Labuschagne, M. Genotype and genotype x environment interaction effects on the grain yield performance of cowpea genotypes in dry land farming system in South Africa. Euphytica 2020, 216, 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jayathilake, C.; Visvanathan, R.; Deen, A.; Bangamuwage, R.; Jayawardana, B.C.; Nammi, S.; Liyanage, R. Cowpea: An overview on its nutritional facts and health benefits. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2018, 98, 4793–4806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kulkarni, K.P.; Tayade, R.; Asekova, S.; Song, J.T.; Shannon, J.G.; Lee, J.D. Harnessing the potential of forage legumes, alfalfa, soybean, and cowpea for sustainable agriculture and global food security. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 1314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Omomowo, O.I.; Babalola, O.O. Constraints and prospects of improving cowpea productivity to ensure food, nutritional security and environmental sustainability. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 751731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weng, Y.; Qin, J.; Eaton, S.; Yang, Y.; Ravelombola, W.S.; Shi, A. Evaluation of seed protein content in USDA cowpea germplasm. HortScience 2019, 54, 814–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Araújo, L.B.R.; Barroso Neto, A.M.; Bertini, C.H.C.M.; Lopes, L.S.; Gallao, M.I. Influence of the environment and production componentes on the protein contente of green cowpea grain. Rev. Cienc. Agron. 2021, 52, e20207251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tomaz, F.L.S.; Araújo, L.B.R.; Magalhães, C.H.C.; Vale, J.C.; Mano, A.R.O.; Rocha, M.M. Indication of cowpea cultivars for the production of dry grain in the state of Ceará. Rev. Cienc. Agron. 2022, 53, e20207802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silva, A.C.; Vasconcelos, P.L.R.; Melo, L.D.F.A.; Silva, V.S.G.; Melo Júnior, J.L.A.; Santana, M.B. Diagnóstico da produção de feijão-caupi no nordeste brasileiro. Rev. Univ. Vale Rio Verde 2018, 16, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Melo, L.F.; Pinheiro, M.S.; Matos, R.F.; Dovale, J.C.; Bertini, C.H.C.M. GGE biplot analysis to recommend cowpea cultivars for green grain production. Rev. Caatinga 2020, 33, 321–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Valeriano, T.T.B.; Borges, R.M.; Almeida, F.S.; Silva Neto, O.F.; Santana, M.J.; Silva, K.A. Desempenho agronômico de cultivares de feijão-caupi em função da densidade de plantas. Rev. Inova Ciênc. Tecnol. 2019, 5, 12–17. [Google Scholar]
- Alves, S.M.; Menezes Júnior, J.A.N.; Rocha, M.M.; Silva, K.J.D.; Olibone, D. Adaptability, stability, and agronomic performance of cowpea lines in Mato Grosso, Brazil. Rev. Bras. Ciênc. Agrár. 2020, 15, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soratto, R.P.; Matoso, A.O.; Gilabel, A.P.; Fernandes, F.M.; Schwalbert, R.A.; Ciampitti, I.A. Agronomic optimal plant density for semiupright cowpea as a second crop in southeastern Brazil. Crop Sci. 2020, 60, 2695–2708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- CONAB (Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento). Acompanhamento da Safra Brasileira de Grãos: 8º Levantamento, Safra 2024/2025. Available online: https://www.conab.gov.br/info-agro/safras (accessed on 27 May 2025).
- Silva, M.B.O.; Carvalho, A.J.; Rocha, M.M.; Batista, P.S.C.; Santos Júnior, P.V.; Oliveira, S.M. Desempenho agronómico de genótipos de feijão-caupi. Rev. Ciênc. Agrár. 2018, 41, 1059–1066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Franco, A.A.N.; Okumura, R.S.; Carvalho, A.J.; Rocha, M.M.; Ormond, A.T.S.; Cogo, F.D.; Queiroz, M.G.; Oliveira, S.M.; Mariano, D.C. Agronomic performance of cowpea cultivars in first crop in Southwest of Minas Gerais, Brazil. Cad. Pedagóg. 2024, 21, e5819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cruz, D.P.; Gravina, G.A.; Vivas, M.; Entringer, G.C.; Souza, Y.P.; Rocha, R.S.; Jaeggi, M.E.P.C.; Albuquerque, D.P.; Amaral Junior, A.T.; Gravina, L.M.; et al. Combined selection for adaptability, genotypic stability and cowpea yield from mixed models. Ciênc. Rural 2021, 51, e20200540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tatis, H.A.; Ayala, C.C.; Camach, M.E. Stability and phenotypic adaptability by AMMI analysis in cowpea beans (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.). Rev. Ciênc. Agron. 2021, 52, e20207304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abiriga, F.; Ongom, P.O.; Rubaihayo, P.R.; Edema, R.; Gibson, P.T.; Dramadri, I.; Orawu, M. Harnessing genotype-by-environment interaction to determine adaptability of advanced cowpea lines to multiple environments in Uganda. J. Plant Breed. Crop Sci. 2020, 12, 131–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alvares, C.A.; Stape, J.L.; Sentelhas, P.C.; Gonçalves, J.L.M.; Sparovek, G. Köppen’s climate classification map for Brazil. Meteorol. Z. 2013, 22, 711–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EMBRAPA (Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária). Sistema Brasileiro de Classificação de Solos; Embrapa: Brasília, Brazil, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- CFSEMG (Comissão de Fertilidade do Solo do Estado de Minas Gerais). 5ª Aproximação: Recomendações Para o Uso de Corretivos e Fertilizantes em Minas Gerais; SBCS: Viçosa, Brazil, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Vale, J.C.; Bertini, C.; Borém, A. Feijão-Caupi: Do Plantio à Colheita; UFV: Viçosa, Brazil, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Shapiro, S.S.; Wilk, M.B. An analysys of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika 1965, 52, 591–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Box, G.E.P. Non-normality and tests on variances. Biometrika 1953, 40, 318–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steel, R.G.D.; Torrie, J.H. Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A Biometrical Approach; McGraw-Hill Book Company: New York, NY, USA, 1960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Banzatto, D.A.; Kronka, S.N. Experimentação Agrícola; FUNEP: Jaboticabal, Brazil, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Scott, A.J.; Knott, M.A. A cluster analysis method for grouping means in the analysis of variance. Biometrics 1974, 30, 507–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferreira, D.F. Sisvar: A computer analysis system to fixed effects split plot type designs. Rev. Bras. Biom. 2019, 37, 529–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Passos, A.R.; Silva, S.A.; Cruz, P.J.; Jacinto, P.; Rocha, M.M.; Cruz, E.M.O.; Rocha, M.A.C.; Bahia, H.F.; Saldanha, R.B. Divergência genética em feijão-caupi. Bragantia 2007, 66, 579–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borém, A.; Miranda, G.V.; Fritsche Neto, R. Melhoramento de Plantas; UFV: Viçosa, Brazil, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Sousa, M.B.; Silva, K.J.D.; Rocha, M.M.; Menezes Júnior, J.A.N.; Lima, L.R.L. Genotype by environment interaction in cowpea lines using GGE Biplot method. Rev. Caatinga 2018, 31, 64–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pessoa, A.M.S.; Bertini, C.H.C.M.; Castro, E.B.L.; Freitas, L.M.; Araújo, L.B.R. Genetic parameters and selection indices of cowpea genotypes for green grain production. Rev. Caatinga 2023, 36, 310–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1.
Rainfall, maximum (TMax), and minimum (TMin) temperatures recorded during the second cropping season in 2021, 2022, and 2023 agricultural years.
Figure 1.
Rainfall, maximum (TMax), and minimum (TMin) temperatures recorded during the second cropping season in 2021, 2022, and 2023 agricultural years.
Table 1.
Results of the chemical analysis of soil samples collected from the experimental area at depths of 0–20 cm and 20–40 cm during the second cropping season of the 2021, 2022, and 2023.
Table 1.
Results of the chemical analysis of soil samples collected from the experimental area at depths of 0–20 cm and 20–40 cm during the second cropping season of the 2021, 2022, and 2023.
| Chemical Characteristics of Soil | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0–20 | 20–40 | 0–20 | 20–40 | 0–20 | 20–40 | |
| pH (CaCl2) | 6.3 | 6.4 | 5.5 | 6.1 | 5.3 | 5.4 |
| Organic matter (g dm−3) | 18 | 15 | 16 | 14 | 20 | 16 |
| P (mg dm−3), resin | 25 | 13 | 70 | 35 | 78 | 49 |
| K (mmolc dm−3), resin | 3.8 | 2.2 | 6.5 | 5.1 | 6.6 | 6.4 |
| Ca (mmolc dm−3), resin | 48 | 39 | 19 | 15 | 22 | 21 |
| Mg (mmolc dm−3), resin | 26 | 16 | 9 | 7 | 9 | 9 |
| S (mg dm−3), calcium phosphate | 4 | 8 | 7 | 11 | 5 | 5 |
| B (mg dm−3), hot water | 0.12 | 0.10 | 0.31 | 0.30 | 0.16 | 0.12 |
| Cu (mg dm−3), DPTA | 0.54 | 0.58 | 0.88 | 0.64 | 1.38 | 1.32 |
| Fe (mg dm−3), DPTA | 10 | 7 | 55 | 32 | 75 | 48 |
| Mn (mg dm−3), DPTA | 1.50 | 0.88 | 4.88 | 2.66 | 5.40 | 3.84 |
| Zn (mg dm−3), DPTA | 0.90 | 0.62 | 1.66 | 0.82 | 2.76 | 2.30 |
| Al+3 (mmolc dm−3), KCl 1 mol L−1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| H + Al (mmolc dm−3), SMP | 10 | 10 | 16 | 12 | 21 | 19 |
| Sum of bases (mmolc dm−3) | 78 | 57 | 34 | 27 | 37 | 36 |
| Base saturation (%) | 89 | 85 | 68 | 69 | 64 | 65 |
| Cation exchange capacity (mmolc dm−3) | 88 | 67 | 50 | 39 | 58 | 55 |
Table 2.
Scale for morphophysiological assessments (size, lodging, cultivation value, and disease tolerance) in cowpea cultivars.
Table 2.
Scale for morphophysiological assessments (size, lodging, cultivation value, and disease tolerance) in cowpea cultivars.
| Scale for Classifying the Size of Cowpea Plants | |
| 1 Erect | Short primary and secondary branches, with the insertion of secondary branches forming a right angle with the main branch |
| 2 Semi-erect | Short primary and secondary branches, with the insertion of secondary branches approximately perpendicular to the main branch. They generally do not touch the ground |
| 3 Semi prostrate | Medium-sized primary and secondary branches, with lower secondary branches touching the ground and tending to lean on vertical supports |
| 4 Prostate | Long primary and secondary branches, with lower secondary branches touching the ground and tending to lean on vertical supports |
| Scale for classifying the degree of lodging of cowpea plants | |
| 1 | No lodging or broken main branch |
| 2 | From 1 to 5% lodging or with a broken main branch |
| 3 | From 6 to 10% lodging or with a broken main branch |
| 4 | From 11 to 20% lodging or with a broken main branch |
| 5 | Above 20% lodging or with a broken main branch |
| Scale for classifying the cultivation value of cowpea plants | |
| 1 | Lines/cultivar without suitable characteristics for commercial cultivation |
| 2 | Plants with few suitable characteristics for commercial cultivation |
| 3 | Plants with most of the characteristics suitable for commercial cultivation |
| 4 | Plants with all the characteristics suitable for commercial cultivation |
| 5 | Plants with excellent characteristics for commercial cultivation |
Table 3.
Summary of analysis of variance, coefficient of variation (CV), and overall mean involving ten cowpea cultivars cultivated in three agricultural years for yield (the quantity of grains produced per unit area), thousand seed mass (the weight of a thousand seeds), pod length (the length of the pod), number of grains per pod (the average number of grains in a pod), grain index (the ratio of grain weight to pod weight), lodging (the tendency of the plant to fall over), size, diseases, and cultivation value (the overall suitability of the cultivar for cultivation).
Table 3.
Summary of analysis of variance, coefficient of variation (CV), and overall mean involving ten cowpea cultivars cultivated in three agricultural years for yield (the quantity of grains produced per unit area), thousand seed mass (the weight of a thousand seeds), pod length (the length of the pod), number of grains per pod (the average number of grains in a pod), grain index (the ratio of grain weight to pod weight), lodging (the tendency of the plant to fall over), size, diseases, and cultivation value (the overall suitability of the cultivar for cultivation).
| Source of Variation | DF | Mean Squares | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YIELD | TSM | PL | GP | GI | LOD | SIZE | DISEASES | CULT | ||
| Cultivars (C) | 9 | 2,062,625.8 * | 2196.04 * | 3.671 * | 3.321 * | 778.283 * | 2.303 * | 3.807 * | 1.603 * | 6.071 * |
| Years (Y) | 2 | 7,053,536.0 * | 1444.96 * | 37.491 * | 75.633 * | 99.624 * | 8.887 * | 3.440 * | 13.580 * | 3.660 * |
| C × Y | 18 | 190,235.8 * | 327.64 * | 1.983 * | 2.783 * | 11.848 ns | 0.916 * | 0.581 * | 0.499 ns | 0.482 * |
| Block | 4 | 171,388.4 ns | 252.90 ns | 0.705 ns | 2.065 ns | 22.094 ns | 0.290 ns | 1.517 * | 1.023 ns | 0.227 ns |
| Residue | 116 | 73,835.5 | 158.58 | 1.213 | 1.001 | 8.716 | 0.376 | 0.279 | 0.520 | 0.247 |
| Mean | 1280.7 | 163.8 | 16.8 | 10.3 | 70.3 | 2.4 | 3.0 | 6.6 | 2.7 | |
| CV (%) | 21.2 | 7.7 | 6.5 | 9.7 | 4.2 | 25.6 | 17.6 | 11.0 | 18.3 | |
* Significant (p < 0.05); ns—not significant (p > 0.05), by the F test.
Table 4.
Mean values of lodging (LODG), plant size, cultivation value (CULT), disease tolerance, and grain index (GI) for ten cowpea cultivars grown in the Southwest region of Minas Gerais during the second crop of the 2021, 2022, and 2023 seasons.
Table 4.
Mean values of lodging (LODG), plant size, cultivation value (CULT), disease tolerance, and grain index (GI) for ten cowpea cultivars grown in the Southwest region of Minas Gerais during the second crop of the 2021, 2022, and 2023 seasons.
| Cultivars | LOD | SIZE | CULT | Disease | GI | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | Mean | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | Mean | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | Mean | |||
| Xique-Xique | 1.8 Aa * | 2.4 Aa | 2.0 Aa | 2.1 A | 2.6 Aa | 2.8 Aa | 2.5 Aa | 2.6 A | 3.6 Aa | 3.6 Aa | 3.6 Aa | 3.6 A | 6.0 A | 70.6 B |
| Nova Era | 2.2 Ba | 2.2 Aa | 1.8 Aa | 2.1 A | 2.4 Aa | 2.6 Aa | 2.6 Aa | 2.5 A | 3.2 Aa | 3.4 Aa | 3.4 Aa | 3.3 A | 6.5 A | 70.5 A |
| Tumucumaque | 3.0 Bb | 2.4 Ab | 1.6 Aa | 2.3 A | 3.4 Bb | 1.8 Aa | 2.8 Ab | 2.7 A | 3.0 Aa | 3.6 Aa | 3.2 Aa | 3.3 A | 6.3 A | 70.0 A |
| Pajeú | 2.0 Aa | 3.2 Bb | 2.4 Ba | 2.5 B | 4.0 Cb | 2.7 Aa | 3.3 Ba | 3.3 B | 2.0 Bb | 3.4 Aa | 3.2 Aa | 2.9 B | 6.5 A | 68.3 C |
| Imponente | 2.4 Ba | 2.6 Aa | 2.4 Ba | 2.5 B | 3.0 Aa | 2.3 Aa | 3.0 Ba | 2.8 A | 2.8 Aa | 2.4 Ba | 2.8 Ba | 2.7 C | 7.0 B | 72.4 A |
| Guariba | 2.6 Ba | 3.4 Bb | 2.6 Ba | 2.9 B | 3.2 Bb | 2.4 Aa | 3.2 Bb | 2.9 A | 2.0 Bb | 2.8 Ba | 2.6 Ba | 2.5 C | 6.5 A | 72.6 A |
| Cauamé | 1.8 Aa | 2.6 Ab | 1.8 Aa | 2.1 A | 3.4 Ba | 2.8 Aa | 3.4 Ba | 3.2 B | 2.8 Ab | 3.6 Aa | 2.8 Bb | 3.1 B | 6.2 A | 70.8 B |
| Rouxinol | 1.8 Aa | 4.0 Bc | 3.0 Bb | 2.9 B | 4.0 Ca | 3.8 Ba | 3.6 Ba | 3.8 C | 1.8 Ba | 2.2 Ba | 2.2 Ca | 2.1 D | 6.8 B | 64.3 D |
| Itaim | 1.4 Aa | 2.6 Ab | 1.4 Aa | 1.8 A | 2.4 Aa | 2.4 Aa | 2.4 Aa | 2.4 A | 2.2 Ba | 2.6 Ba | 2.2 Ca | 2.3 D | 6.9 B | 72.9 A |
| Marataoã | 2.4 Ba | 3.4 Bb | 2.6 Ba | 2.8 B | 4.0 Ca | 3.6 Ba | 3.8 Ba | 3.8 C | 1.0 Cb | 2.2 Ba | 1.4 Db | 1.5 E | 6.9 B | 64.6 D |
| Mean | 2.1 a | 2.9 b | 2.2 a | 3.2 b | 2.7 a | 3.0 b | 2.4 c | 2.9 a | 2.7 b | Years | ||||
| 2021 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 6.9 B | 68.7 B |
| 2022 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 6.0 A | 71.4 A |
| 2023 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 6.8 A | 70.8 B |
* Means followed by distinct uppercase letters in column and lowercase in row, differ from each other (p > 0.05) by the Scott-Knott test.
Table 5.
Mean values of grain yield (YIELD), thousand seed mass (TSM), pod length (PL), and number of grains per pod (GP)of ten cowpea cultivars grown in Southwest Minas Gerais in the second crop of 2021, 2022, and 2023 years.
Table 5.
Mean values of grain yield (YIELD), thousand seed mass (TSM), pod length (PL), and number of grains per pod (GP)of ten cowpea cultivars grown in Southwest Minas Gerais in the second crop of 2021, 2022, and 2023 years.
| Cultivars | YIELD | TSM | PL | GP | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | Mean | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | Mean | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | Mean | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | Mean | |
| kg ha−1 | g | cm | unit | |||||||||||||
| Xique-Xiq | 1666 Ab * | 2036 Aa | 2267 Aa | 1990 A | 147 Bb | 177 Aa | 160 Bb | 161 B | 16.1 Aa | 17.5 Aa | 17.3 Ba | 17.0 A | 9.1 Aa | 10.3 Ba | 10.1 Ba | 9.8 B |
| Nova Era | 1167 Bb | 1889 Aa | 1778 Ba | 1611 B | 174 Aa | 174 Aa | 180 Aa | 176 A | 15.1 Bb | 16.7 Aa | 16.4 Ba | 16.1 B | 9.3 Ab | 10.1 Bb | 11.1 Ba | 10.2 B |
| Tumucu. | 1286 Ba | 1538 Ba | 1667 Ba | 1497 B | 177 Aa | 161 Ba | 177 Aa | 172 A | 16.8 Aa | 16.7 Aa | 17.4 Ba | 17.0 A | 9.2 Ab | 10.9 Ba | 10.1 Ba | 10.1 B |
| Pajeú | 570 Cb | 1658 Aa | 1889 Ba | 1372 B | 131 Bb | 158 Ba | 154 Ba | 148 C | 15.8 Bb | 16.5 Ab | 18.5 Aa | 17.0 A | 8.9 Ac | 10.3 Bb | 12.4 Aa | 10.5 A |
| Imponente | 1061 Ba | 1424 Ba | 1298 Ca | 1261 C | 171 Ab | 191 Aa | 175 Ab | 179 A | 16.6 Ab | 17.7 Aa | 18.5 Aa | 17.6 A | 9.4 Aa | 10.4 Ba | 10.5 Ba | 10.1 B |
| Guariba | 735 Cb | 1497 Ba | 1461 Ca | 1231 C | 172 Aa | 176 Aa | 172 Aa | 173 A | 15.5 Ba | 16.3 Aa | 16.5 Ba | 16.1 B | 8.2 Ab | 10.1 Ba | 10.7 Ba | 9.7 B |
| Cauamé | 781 Cb | 1512 Ba | 1388 Ca | 1227 C | 142 Ba | 159 Ba | 155 Ba | 149 C | 16.8 Aa | 17.2 Aa | 17.2 Ba | 17.1 A | 9.4 Aa | 10.3 Ba | 11.0 Ba | 10.2 B |
| Rouxinol | 397 Db | 1346 Ba | 1234 Ca | 992 D | 139 Ba | 157 Ba | 152 Ba | 152 C | 15.9 Ab | 18.2 Aa | 17.9 Aa | 17.4 A | 9.3 Ab | 12.1 Aa | 12.4 Aa | 11.3 A |
| Itaim | 622 Cb | 1148 Ba | 1108 Ca | 959 D | 166 Aa | 167 Ba | 179 Aa | 171 A | 15.1 Bb | 17.3 Aa | 17.8 Aa | 16.7 A | 8.4 Ab | 12.1 Aa | 11.6 Aa | 10.7 A |
| Marataoã | 196 Dc | 1190 Ba | 612 Db | 666 E | 153 Ba | 149 Ba | 155 Ba | 152 C | 15.0 Bb | 16.2 Ab | 18.3 Aa | 16.5 B | 8.1 Ab | 11.3 Aa | 12.6 Aa | 10.7 A |
| Mean | 848 b | 1524 a | 1470 a | 157 b | 167 a | 166 a | 15.9 c | 17.0 b | 17.6 a | 8.9 c | 10.8 b | 11.2 a | ||||
* Means followed by distinct uppercase letters in column and lowercase in row, differ from each other at p < 0.05 by the Scott-Knott test.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Franco, A.A.N.; Okumura, R.S.; Arantes, L.P.; Cogo, F.D.; Pimenta, S.; Mariano, D.d.C.; Carvalho, A.J.d.; Gonçalves, A.C.P.; Siqueira, M.V.B.M. Agronomic Performance of Cowpea Cultivars During the Second Cropping Season in Southwest Minas Gerais, Brazil. Agriculture 2025, 15, 2055. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15192055
AMA Style
Franco AAN, Okumura RS, Arantes LP, Cogo FD, Pimenta S, Mariano DdC, Carvalho AJd, Gonçalves ACP, Siqueira MVBM. Agronomic Performance of Cowpea Cultivars During the Second Cropping Season in Southwest Minas Gerais, Brazil. Agriculture. 2025; 15(19):2055. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15192055
Chicago/Turabian StyleFranco, Antônio Augusto Nogueira, Ricardo Shigueru Okumura, Letícia Priscilla Arantes, Franciane Diniz Cogo, Samy Pimenta, Daiane de Cinque Mariano, Abner José de Carvalho, Ana Carolina Petri Gonçalves, and Marcos Vinicius Bohrer Monteiro Siqueira. 2025. "Agronomic Performance of Cowpea Cultivars During the Second Cropping Season in Southwest Minas Gerais, Brazil" Agriculture 15, no. 19: 2055. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15192055
APA StyleFranco, A. A. N., Okumura, R. S., Arantes, L. P., Cogo, F. D., Pimenta, S., Mariano, D. d. C., Carvalho, A. J. d., Gonçalves, A. C. P., & Siqueira, M. V. B. M. (2025). Agronomic Performance of Cowpea Cultivars During the Second Cropping Season in Southwest Minas Gerais, Brazil. Agriculture, 15(19), 2055. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15192055
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
