Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-x5cpj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-25T08:33:13.504Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Exploitation of diversity within farmers' durum wheat varieties enhanced the chance of selecting productive, stable and adaptable new varieties to the local climatic conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2019

Dejene K. Mengistu ,
Afewerki Y. Kiros ,
Jemal N. Mohammed ,
Yemane Tsehaye  and
Carlo Fadda
Dejene K. Mengistu*
Affiliation:
Mekelle University Department of Dryland Crop and Horticultural Sciences, Mekelle, Ethiopia Bioversity International, ILRI Campus, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Afewerki Y. Kiros
Affiliation:
Mekelle University Department of Dryland Crop and Horticultural Sciences, Mekelle, Ethiopia
Jemal N. Mohammed
Affiliation:
Mekelle University Department of Dryland Crop and Horticultural Sciences, Mekelle, Ethiopia
Yemane Tsehaye
Affiliation:
Mekelle University Department of Dryland Crop and Horticultural Sciences, Mekelle, Ethiopia
Carlo Fadda
Affiliation:
Bioversity International, ILRI Campus, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: d.mengistu@cgiar.org; dejenekmh@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Variety selection from locally adapted crops is the major climate change adaptation strategy of farming communities. There are several justifications for re-thinking for the sustainable use of crop biodiversity in our breeding programs. Thirty-one durum wheat farmers' varieties (FVs), together with five improved check varieties, were characterized in Tigray during 2014 and 2015 main cropping seasons. The genotype effect explained most of the variations in measured traits, which enabled us to identify superior and stable genotypes for wider adaptation as well varieties with more local adaptation. The genotypes and test locations imposed a highly significant (P < 0.001) effect on both phenological and quantitative traits. A yield advantage of 14.3% was obtained from top performer FV over top performer improved variety, Asassa. Of the tested FVs, 27.8% were superior for grain yield (GY) than improved varieties and 19.4% of these superior FVs were more stable and adaptable than the improved varieties. Besides giving higher GY with spatial stability, they qualify for industrial requirements with high-grain protein (>13%) and gluten (>33%) contents. FVs such as G10, G16, G21, G22 and G30 have wider adaptability and are suitable for production in all tested areas. As outcome of this study, two superior FVs, G10 (208304) and G30 (8208), were nationally released for commercial production for their productivity, stability and grain quality. Utilizing the diverse durum wheat FVs can effectively improve productivity and adaptability. Wheat breeders need to revisit these resources to improve adaptation of wheat production to the changing climatic conditions.

Keywords

adaptationclimate changedurum wheatfarmer varietyproductivity
Type
Research Article
Information
Plant Genetic Resources , Volume 17 , Issue 5 , October 2019 , pp. 401 - 411
Copyright
Copyright © NIAB 2019 

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

Al-Abdallat, A, Karadsheh, A, Hadadd, N, Akash, M, Ceccarelli, S, Baum, M, Hasan, M, Jighly, J and Abu Elenein, J (2017) Assessment of genetic diversity and yield performance in Jordanian barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) FVs grown under Rainfed conditions. BMC Plant Biology 17: 191.Google Scholar
Atlin, G, Cairns, J and Biswanath, D (2017) Raprid breeding and varietal replacement are critical to adaptation of cropping systems in the developing world to climate change. Global Food Security 12: 31–37.Google Scholar
Badu-Apraku, B, Fakorede, M, Menkir, A and Sanogo, D (2012) Conduct and Management of Maize Field Trials. Ibadan, Nigeria: International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, IITA, p. 59.Google Scholar
Blum, A and Pñuel, Y (1990) Physiological attributes associated with drought resistance of wheat cultivars in a Mediterranean environment. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 41: 799–810.Google Scholar
Brush, S (1995) In-situ conservation of FVs in centers of crop diversity. Crop Science 35: 346–354.Google Scholar
Cairns, J, Hellin, J, Sonder, K, Araus, J, MacRobert, J, Thierfelder, C and Prasanna, B (2013) Adapting maize production to climate change in sub-Saharan Africa. Food Security 5: 345–360.Google Scholar
Ceccarelli, S (2012) Plant Breeding with Farmers: A Technical Manual. Aleppo, Syria: ICARDA.Google Scholar
Challinor, A, Koehler, A, Ramirez-Villegas, J, Whitfield, S and Das, B (2016) Current warming will reduce yields unless maize breeding and seed systems adapt immediately. Nature Climate Change 6: 954–960..Google Scholar
CSA (2017) Agricultural sample survey 2016/2017 (2009 E.C.): area and production of major crops (private peasant holdings, Meher season). Report Volume I. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.Google Scholar
Grando, S, Baum, M, Ceccarelli, S, Goodchild, A, Jaby El-Haramein, F, Jahoor, A and Backes, G (2005) QTL for straw quality characteristics identified in recombinant inbred lines of Hordeum vulgare x H.spontaneum cross in a Mediterranean environment. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 110: 688–695.Google Scholar
Harlan, J (1969) Ethiopia: a center of diversity. Economic Botany 23: 309–314.Google Scholar
Institute of Biodiversity conservation (IBC) (2008) Ethiopia: Second Country Report on the State of PGRFA to FAO. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Available at http://www.pgrfa.org.Google Scholar
Kidane, Y, Hailemariam, B, Mengistu, D, Fadda, C, Pè, M and Dell'Acqua, M (2017) Genome-Wide association study of septoria tritici blotch resistance in Ethiopian Durum Wheat FVs. Frontiers of Plant Science 8: 1586. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2017.01586.Google Scholar
Lado, B, Barrios, P, Quincke, M, Silva, P and Gutiérrez, L (2016) Modeling Genotype × Environment interaction for genomic selection with unbalanced data from a wheat breeding program. Crop Science 56: 2165–2179.Google Scholar
Lopes, M, El-Basyoni, I, Baenziger, P, Singh, S, Royo, C, Ozbek, K, Aktas, H, Ozer, E, Ozdemir, F, Manickavelu, A, Ban, T and Vikram, P (2015) Exploiting genetic diversity from FVs in wheat breeding for adaptation to climate change. Journal of Experimental Botany 66: 3477–3486.Google Scholar
Mancini, C, Kidane, Y, Mengistu, D, Pè, M, Fadda, C, Dell'Acqua, M and Melfa and Workaye Farmer Community (2017) Joining smallholder farmers’ traditional knowledge with metric traits to select better varieties of Ethiopian wheat. Scientific Reports 7: 9120.Google Scholar
Mengistu, D and Pè, M (2016) Revisiting the ignored Ethiopian durum wheat (Triticum turgidum var. durum) FVs for genetic diversity exploitation in future wheat breeding programs. Journal of Plant Breeding and Crop Science 8: 45–59.Google Scholar
Mengistu, D, Yosef, G, Catellani, M, Frascaroli, E, Fadda, C, Pè, M and Dell'Acqua, M (2016) High-density molecular characterization and association mapping in Ethiopian durum wheat FVs reveals high diversity and potential for wheat breeding. Journal of Plant Biotechnology 14: 1800–1812.Google Scholar
Mengistu, D, Yosef, G, Fadda, C and Pè, M (2018) Genetic diversity in Ethiopian Durum Wheat (Triticum turgidum var durum) inferred from phenotypic variations. Plant Genetic Resources 16: 39–49.Google Scholar
Mohammadi, R and Amri, A (2011) Genotype x environment interaction for durum wheat grain yield and selection for drought tolerance in irrigated and droughted environments in Iran. Journal of Crop Science and Biotechnology 14: 265–274.Google Scholar
Mohammadi, R, Sadeghzadeh, B, Ahmadi, H, Bahrami, N and Amri, A (2015) Field evaluation of durum wheat FVs for prevailing abiotic and biotic stresses in highland rainfed regions of Iran. The Crop Journal 3: 423–433.Google Scholar
Negassa, M (1984) Estimates of phenotypic diversity and breeding potential in Ethiopian wheat. Herditas 104: 41–48.Google Scholar
Nelson, K (2013) Analysis of Farmer Preferences for Wheat Variety Traits in Ethiopia: A Gender-Responsive Study. MSc Thesis, Cornell University, USA. p. 117.Google Scholar
Pajoro, A, Verhage, L and Immink, R (2016) Plasticity versus adaptation of ambient–temperature flowering response. Trends in Plant Science 21: 6–8.Google Scholar
Payne, W, Murray, D, Harding, S, Baird, D and Soutar, D (2015) Introduction to Genstat® for WindowsTM (18th Edition). VSN International, 2 Amberside, Wood Lane, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire HP2 4TP, UK.Google Scholar
Rodriguez, M, Rau, D, Papa, R and Attene, G (2008) Genotype by environment interactions in barley (Hordeum vulgare L.): different responses of FVs, recombinant inbred lines and varieties to Mediterranean environment. Euphytica 163: 231–247.Google Scholar
Statista (2017) Global wheat yield per hectare from 2010/2011 to 2025/2026. https://www.statista.com/statistics/237912/global-top-wheat-producing-countries. Accessed on 10/7/2018.Google Scholar
Vavilov, N (1951) The origin, variation, immunity and breeding of cultivated crops. Chronicles Botany 13: 1–36.Google Scholar
Williams, R, O'Brien, L and Eagles, H (2008) The influences of genotype, environment, and genotype × environment interaction on wheat quality. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 59: 95–111.Google Scholar
Witcombe, J,Joshi, A, Joshi, K and Sthapit, B (1996) Farmer participatory crop improvement. I. Varietal selection and breeding methods and their impact on biodiversity. Experimental Agriculture 32: 445–460.Google Scholar
Zadoks, J, Chang, T and Konzak, C (1974) A decimal code for the growth stage of cereals. Weed Research 14: 415–421.Google Scholar
Zegeye, T, Taye, G, Tanner, D, Verkuijl, H, Agidie, A and Mwangi, W (2001) Adoption of improved bread wheat varieties and inorganic fertilizer by small-scale farmers in Yelmana Densa and Farta districts of Northwestern Ethiopia. EARO and CIMMYT. Mexico, D.F.Google Scholar
Zeven, A (1998) Landraces: a review of definitions and classifications. Euphytica 104: 127–139.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Mengistu et al. supplementary material

Tables S1-S2 and Figures S1-S5

Download Mengistu et al. supplementary material(File)
File 256.8 KB