Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xm8r8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-22T18:49:05.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

YIELD STABILITY ANALYSIS OF LATE BLIGHT RESISTANT POTATO SELECTIONS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2008

J. M. K. MULEMA ,
E. ADIPALA ,
O. M. OLANYA  and
W. WAGOIRE
J. M. K. MULEMA
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, Makerere University, P.O. Box 7062 Kampala, Uganda
E. ADIPALA
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, Makerere University, P.O. Box 7062 Kampala, Uganda
O. M. OLANYA*
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, University of Maine, New England Plant, Soil and Water Lab, Orono, ME 04469, USA
W. WAGOIRE
Affiliation:
Kachwekano Agricultural Research and Development Centre, P.O. Box 421 Kabale, Uganda
*
‡Corresponding author: modesto.olanya@ars.usda.gov
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Potato is an important source of food and income in the highlands of East Africa. Identification of superior genotypes for improved agronomic characteristics will enhance tuber yield. Seven promising clones from population B potato selections (quantitative resistance to late blight) obtained from the International Potato Center, two genotypes from population A (qualitative resistance) and three control cultivars were evaluated for three cropping seasons at four locations in western Uganda in order to determine performance and yield stability. The additive main effects and multiplicative interactive (AMMI) model was used for the analysis. The analysis of variance of yield data for genotypes × locations, genotypes × seasons and genotypes × locations × seasons was significant (p < 0.05) showing the variable response of genotypes and the need for stability analysis. The AMMI statistical model showed that the most stable genotypes were 392618.250 (B5) and 392127.270 (B6) (high yield) and 392618.256 (B1), 391049.255 (B2) and 392127.256 (B7) (low yield) and had negligible interactions with the environments. Across environments, the ranking of genotypes for tuber yield was not consistent. The clones 381471.18 (A2), 387121.4 (A1) and cultivar Victoria had high average yields, but these yields were below average in a few environments. Selective deployment of cultivars can improve tuber yield in the highland tropics.

Note: Mention of trade names or commercial products in this publication is solely for the purpose of providing specific information and does not imply recommendation for endorsement by the US Department of Agriculture, Makerere University or Kachwekano Agricultural Research and Development Center.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 44 , Issue 2 , April 2008 , pp. 145 - 155
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Abalo, G., Hakiza, J. J., Kakuhenzire, M. R., El-Bedewy, R. and Adipala, E. (2001). Agronomic performance of twelve elite potato genotypes in southwestern Uganda. African Crop Science Journal 9:17–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, M., Delacy, I. H. and Basford, K. E. (1996). Relationships among analytical methods used to analyze genotype adaptation in multi-environment trials. In Plant Adaptation and Crop Improvement, 193–224. (Eds Cooper, M. and Hammer, G. L.), Wallingford, UK: CABI.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crossa, J., Gauch, H. G. and Zobel, R. W. (1990). Additive main effects and mulitiplicative interactions of two international maize cultivars. Crop Science 30:493–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, A. G. O. and Nukenine, E. N. (1997). Statistical analysis of cassava yield trials with the additive main effects and multiplicative interactions (AMMI) model. African Journal of Root and Tuber Crops 3:46–50.Google Scholar
Eberhart, S. A. and Russell, W. A. (1966). Stability parameters for comparing varieties. Crop Science 6:36–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gauch, H. G. (1989). Matmodel Version 2.0; AMMI and related analysis for two-way data matrices. Microcomputer Power, New York.Google Scholar
Gauch, H. G. and Zobel, R. W. (1990). AMMI analysis of yield trials. Additive main Effects and multiplicative interaction analysis of two international maize cultivar trials. Crop Science 30:493–500.Google Scholar
Hakiza, J. J., Kakuhenzire, R. M., Mukalazi, J., Kindanemariam, H. M., Adipala, E., Kankwatsa, P. and Sengooba, T. (1999). Evaluation of population B genotypes for late blight resistance and assessment of their agronomic characters in Uganda. In Proceedings of the Global Initiative on Late Blight Conference. 16–19 March 1999, Quito, Equador, 119.Google Scholar
Kakuhenzire, R., Hakiza, J. J., Mukalazi, J., Turyamureeba, G., Kanzikwera, R., Alacho, F., Kidanemariam, H.M. and Sikka, L. (1999). New potato varieties released in Uganda. African Crop Science Conference Proceedings 4:61–65.Google Scholar
Landeo, A. Gastelo, Forbes, G., Zapata, J. L. and Flores, F.G. (1995). Breeding for horizontal resistance to late blight in potato free of R genes. In Phytophthora infestans, 268–274. (Dowley, L. J., Bannon, E., Cooke, L. R., Keane, T. and O' Sullivan, E.). Dublin: EAPR, Boole Press.Google Scholar
Low, J. W. (1997). Potato in southwestern Uganda. Threats to sustainable production. African Crop Science Journal 5:295–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lung'aho, C., Nderitu, S. K. N., Kabira, J. N., El-Bedewy, R., Olanya, O. M. and Walingo, A. (2006). Yield performance and release of late blight tolerant potato varieties in Kenya. Journal of Agronomy 5: 57–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, R. J., Jamieson, P. D., Wilson, D. R., and Francis, G. S. (1992). Effects of soil moisture deficits on yield and quality of Russet Burbank potatoes. New Zealand Journal Crop Horticultural Science 20:1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulema, J. M. K., Olanya, O. M., Adipala, E. and Wagoire, W. (2004). Stability of late blight resistance in population B potato clones. Potato Research 47:11–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olanya, O.M., Ojiambo, P.S. and Nyankanga, R.O. (2006). Dynamics of development of late blight (Phytophthora infestans) in potato, and comparative resistance of cultivars in the highland tropics. Canadian Journal of Plant Pathology 28:84–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS Institute, 1995. SAS User's Guide Statistics. SAS Institute, Cary, N.C., USA.Google Scholar
Steyn, P. J., Visser, A. F., Smith, M. F. and Schoeman, J. L. (1993). AMMI analysis of potato cultivar yield trials. South African Journal of Plant and Soil 10:28–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar