Upload
ilri
View
198
Download
7
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Presented by Emana Getu, Tileye Feyissa and Addisu Nega (Addis Ababa University, College of Natural Sciences) at the First Bio-Innovate Regional Scientific Conference, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 25-27 February 2013
Citation preview
Evaluation of stress resistant Sweetpotato Evaluation of stress resistant Sweetpotato Varieties and their Low cost Micro-Varieties and their Low cost Micro-propagation: Ethiopian Experiencepropagation: Ethiopian Experience
Emana Getu, Tileye Feyissa and Addisu NegaEmana Getu, Tileye Feyissa and Addisu Nega
Addis Ababa University, College of Natural Addis Ababa University, College of Natural Sciences Sciences
First Bio-Innovate Regional Scientific ConferenceUnited Nations Conference Centre (UNCC-ECA)
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 25-27 February 2013
IntroductionIntroduction
ObjectivesObjectives
Materials and Methods Materials and Methods
1. Sweet potato varietal screening against drought and sweetpotato weevil
• Twenty one varieties in southern Ethiopia Twenty one varieties in southern Ethiopia and nineteen varieties in eastern Ethiopia and nineteen varieties in eastern Ethiopia were screened against drought and were screened against drought and sweetpotato weevil under field conditions sweetpotato weevil under field conditions (at two sites in each region ) for two (at two sites in each region ) for two seasons. seasons.
Materials and Methods Materials and Methods
• The varieties tested were:• Southern Ethiopia (PIPI, Kudade, Kero, Koka12, Koka6,
Boreda, Damota, Resisto, Eujumula, Temesgen, Dubo, Ukerewe, Mayai, Orodollo, Beletch, Belela, Kulfo, Awassa83, Guntute and Tulla)
• Eastern Ethiopia (Berkume, TIS 8250-7, Cuba-1, CN-1753-17, Korojo-2, Korojo, Bekale-A, Bukariso, Bekale-B, TIS-9465-2, TIS9465-2, TIS-9068-8, TIS-8250-1, Awassa-83, TIS-70357-5, CN-1752-9, TIS-9065-1, TIS8441-3 and TIS82/0602-11)
• Design used: RCBD with Replications• Plot size: 6m X 2m• Data collected: Stand count, Dry weight, Weevil density, tubers infested
by weevils, yield, etc.
Participatory evaluation
Participatory evaluation
Materials and Methods Materials and Methods 2. Low Cost Micropropagation of Sweetpotato Low Cost Micropropagation of Sweetpotato• Four varieties of sweetpotato namely Four varieties of sweetpotato namely Awassa-83 Awassa-83
and Beletech and Beletech from HARC, andfrom HARC, and Adu Adu and and BarkumiBarkumie e from Haramaya University were collected and from Haramaya University were collected and used as a stock source for used as a stock source for micropropagation.micropropagation.
• For low cost micro-propagation study, so far For low cost micro-propagation study, so far BeletechBeletech and and Awassa-83Awassa-83 were used were used
Materials and Methods Materials and Methods
Materials and Methods Materials and Methods
Micro-propgation
Micro-propagation
Results and Discussion
Table 1. Performance of sweetpotato varieties evaluated at Humbo
Varieties Sc (%) FE (1-5 scale) EE (1-5 scale) % tubers infested by SPw
Yield (t/ha)
Awassa-83 50±2.3a 1 1 5.00±0.20a 6.43±0.12a
Belela 50±2.3a 3 3 45.00±2.10b 4.17±0.01b
Beletch 65±3.2a 1 1 8.00±0.31a 6.35±0.12a
Kulfo 25±0.8b 1 1 3.00±0.11a 7.640.23a
Resisto 20±0.6b 1 1 6.50±0.28a 8.61±0.33a
Temesgen 65±3.2a 1 1 4.80±0.20a 7.35±0.34a
Tulla 40±1.8ab 1 1 9.70±0.4a 6.25±0.12a
Ordolo 0±0c - - - -
Falha 5±0.03c - - - -
Table 2. Performance of sweetpotato varieties evaluated at Babile
Varieties Sc (%) FE (1-5 scale) EE (1-5 scale) Yield (t/ha)
Berkume 100.00±7a 2 2 12.44±0.8a
Tis-8250-7 100.00±7a 5 3 2.22±0.2d
Cuba-1 100.00±7a 3 5 7.97±0.5b
CN-1753-17 98.33±6.5a 5 3 4.47±0.3c
Korojo-2 98.33±6.5a 3 5 5.33±0.4c
CN-1753-14 95.00±5.8a 3 3 1.33±0.1d
Korojo 93.33±5.3a 5 5 1.11±0.1d
Bekale-A 95.00±5.8a 5 5 2.48±0.2d
Bukariso 98.33±6a 4 3 5.92±0.4c
Bekale-b 95.00±5.8a 4 3 2.56±0.2d
Tis-9465-2 98.33±a6 2 2 9.56±0.7a
Tis-9068-8 65.00±32b 4 3 3.81±0.2d
Tis-8250-1 93.04±5.7a 1 2 10.74±0.7a
Awassa-83 95.00±5.8a 3 2 5.22±0.4c
Tis-70357-5 100.00±7a 2 3 10.44±0.7a
CN-1752-9 100.00±7a 1 1 12.14±0.8a
Tis-9065-1 100.00±7a 3 2 7.33±0.5b
Tis-8441-3 88.21±5.6ab 5 5 2.44±0.2d
Tis-82/0602-11 98.33±6b 5 4 3.22±0.2d
Tab 3. Height, number off shoots /node, fresh and dry weight of shoots of 5 weeks old Beletech variety grown on different low cost media, values given as mean ± SE
MediaMedia Height (cm)Height (cm) NNoo Shoot/Node Shoot/Node FW (g)FW (g) DW(g)DW(g)
M1M1 6.6±0.2586.6±0.258a a 2.90±0.4752.90±0.475a a 1.52±0.0971.52±0.097a a 0.1373±0.0100.1373±0.010aa
M2M2 6.7±0.3416.7±0.341ab ab 2.97±0.1952.97±0.195ab ab 1.44±0.1081.44±0.108ab ab 0.1230±0.0080.1230±0.008abab
M3M3 5.9±0.2545.9±0.254abcabc 2.63±0.2062.63±0.206abc abc 1.28±0.1001.28±0.100abc abc 0.1109±0.0090.1109±0.009bcbc
M4M4 6.5±0.3096.5±0.309acd acd 2.96±0.2002.96±0.200abcd abcd 1.36±0.1371.36±0.137abcd abcd 0.1248±0.0120.1248±0.012abcdabcd
M5M5 5.7±0.3435.7±0.343bcde bcde 2.50±0.1782.50±0.178abcde abcde 1.32±0.0861.32±0.086abcde abcde 0.1120±0.0070.1120±0.007bcdebcde
M6M6 5.7±0.2575.7±0.257bcdef bcdef 2.27±0.2092.27±0.209abcdef abcdef 1.18±0.0641.18±0.064abcdef abcdef 0.1055±0.0050.1055±0.005bcdefbcdef
M7M7 5.8±0.2805.8±0.280bcdefbcdef 2.67±0.1752.67±0.175abcdef abcdef 1.42±0.0841.42±0.084abcdef abcdef 0.1270±0.0070.1270±0.007bcdefbcdef
Means followed by the same letter (s) within a column are not significantly dfferent from each other at 5% (LSD) .
Table 4.Height, number of shoots per node, fresh and dry weight of shoots of 5 weeks old Table 4.Height, number of shoots per node, fresh and dry weight of shoots of 5 weeks old Awassa- 83 variety grown on different low cost medium, values given as mean ± SE.Awassa- 83 variety grown on different low cost medium, values given as mean ± SE.
MediaMedia Height (cm)Height (cm) NNoo Shoot/Node Shoot/Node FW (g)FW (g) DW(g)DW(g)
M1M1 7.4±0.3627.4±0.362a a 2.83±0.4242.83±0.424aa 1.69±0.1401.69±0.140aa 0.1480±0.0120.1480±0.012aa
M2M2 6.9±0.4066.9±0.406ab ab 2.73±0.1592.73±0.159abab 1.58±0.1141.58±0.114abab 0.1393±0.0100.1393±0.010abab
M3M3 5.6±0.3925.6±0.392c c 2.23±0.1642.23±0.164abcabc 1.45±0.1171.45±0.117abcabc 0.1226±0.0090.1226±0.009abcabc
M4M4 5.8±0.3265.8±0.326cd cd 2.90±0.1542.90±0.154abcdabcd 1.51±0.1191.51±0.119abcdabcd 0.1260±0.0090.1260±0.009abcdabcd
M5M5 5.8±0.3175.8±0.317cde cde 2.43±0.2072.43±0.207abcdeabcde 1.40±0.0941.40±0.094abcdeabcde 0.1161±0.0080.1161±0.008bcdebcde
M6M6 5.5±0.3385.5±0.338cde cde 2.43±0.1232.43±0.123abcdefabcdef 1.19±0.1021.19±0.102cdecde 0.1052±0.0080.1052±0.008cdefcdef
M7M7 6.5±0.3426.5±0.342abcde abcde 2.70±0.1742.70±0.174abcdefabcdef 1.53±0.1041.53±0.104abcde abcde 0.1218±0.0080.1218±0.008abcdefabcdef
Means within each column connected by the same superscript (a-f) are not significantly Means within each column connected by the same superscript (a-f) are not significantly different at 5% probability level different at 5% probability level
Cost analysis of the substituted low cost mediumCost analysis of the substituted low cost medium
Component of Component of
the mediathe mediaCost/Kg, L Cost/Kg, L
(Birr)(Birr)Conc./L (%, w/v)Conc./L (%, w/v) Cost/L (Birr)Cost/L (Birr) Cost reductions Cost reductions
compared to the compared to the
standard (%)standard (%)
AgarAgar 27002700 0.80.8 2121 00
StarchStarch 300300 66 1818 14.314.3
Cassava flourCassava flour 1010 88 0.800.80 96.296.2
Lab. SucroseLab. Sucrose 640640 33 19.2019.20 00
Table sugarTable sugar 14.5014.50 33 0.440.44 9797
ddHddH22OO 55 55 00
Rain WaterRain Water 00 00 100100
Table 5. Comparative costs of culture medium componentsTable 5. Comparative costs of culture medium components
Use of rain water instead of ddHUse of rain water instead of ddH22O; the substitution of laboratory grade sucrose with table O; the substitution of laboratory grade sucrose with table
sugar; Substitution of gelling agents with cassava flour and starch alone reduced the cost of sugar; Substitution of gelling agents with cassava flour and starch alone reduced the cost of the media by 100, 97, 96.2, 14.4% respectively.the media by 100, 97, 96.2, 14.4% respectively.
Fig. 1. Comparative costs of culture medium Fig. 1. Comparative costs of culture medium with various substituted components.with various substituted components.
Totally substituted medium M7 Totally substituted medium M7 (rain water instead of ddH(rain water instead of ddH22O; table sugar as carbon O; table sugar as carbon
source and starch as a gelling agent) source and starch as a gelling agent) reduced the total cost of the medium by 59.2% and reduced the total cost of the medium by 59.2% and
totally substituted medium M6 totally substituted medium M6 (rain water instead of ddH(rain water instead of ddH22O; table sugar as carbon O; table sugar as carbon
source and cassava flour as a gelling agent) source and cassava flour as a gelling agent) reduced the total cost of the medium by 97.3%.reduced the total cost of the medium by 97.3%.
MediumMedium
Conclusion and Conclusion and RecommendationRecommendation
ConclusionConclusion• 6 varieties in southern Ethiopia 6 varieties in southern Ethiopia
and 4 varieties from eastern and 4 varieties from eastern Ethiopia were found to be Ethiopia were found to be resistant to stresses resistant to stresses
• For all the parameter measured, For all the parameter measured, the plantlets obtained on all low the plantlets obtained on all low cost media showed a good cost media showed a good growth performance.growth performance.
• The low cost media was The low cost media was especially good for the number especially good for the number of shoots/ node.of shoots/ node.
RecommendationRecommendation
• The best varieties should The best varieties should go through national go through national Variety release system and Variety release system and be released be released
• Agronomic performance Agronomic performance of sweetpotato derived of sweetpotato derived from low cost micro-from low cost micro-propagation should be propagation should be tested.tested.
Acknowledgment
• We are very much grateful to Bio-Innovate for funding and Addis Ababa University for hosting the project
Thank you for your Attention!
Thank you very much!