Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-swr86 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T00:55:29.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Exploitation of forage attribute-based variations in Sudan pearl millet [Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.] collections

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 August 2013

Sara A. Babiker ,
Mohammed A. M. Khair  and
Izzat S. A. Tahir
Sara A. Babiker*
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Corporation, PO Box 126, Wad Medani, Sudan
Mohammed A. M. Khair
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Corporation, PO Box 126, Wad Medani, Sudan
Izzat S. A. Tahir
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Corporation, PO Box 126, Wad Medani, Sudan
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: saraae2004@yahoo.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Triggered by the need to develop inter-seasonal, multi-cut cereal forage crops, this study aimed at the exploitation of phenotypic variations among the rich pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum L.) collections in Sudan for possible utilization in forage-type breeding programmes. A total of 100 pearl millet accessions were used in three field trials grown in rainy, winter and summer seasons (2008–2009) at the Gezira Research Station Farm and the Gezira University Experimental Farm. Wide diversity and highly significant differences in the total dry forage yield, days to harvest, plant height, number of tillers/plant and leaf/stem ratio were found among the accessions. At an 80% morphological similarity level, the 100 accessions of pearl millet were clustered into four main groups. In the rainy and winter seasons, 71 and 56% of the accessions produced forage yield of more than 5 t/ha, respectively. In contrast, 77% of the accessions produced less than 5 t/ha in the summer season. Among the top-ranking 25 accessions, two accessions (HSD 2190 and HSD 2236) were common in dry matter yield in the three seasons, whereas 11 accessions were identified in at least two seasons. The presence of such common accessions in more than one season is encouraging for growing pearl millet as a multi-cut crop for a longer period. These results indicated the possibility of the development of forage-suited varieties of pearl millet directly through further evaluation of those common accessions or indirectly through a crop breeding programme.

Keywords

dry matter yieldforage-type varietiespearl millet accessionsPennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Brphenotypic variation
Type
Research Article
Information
Plant Genetic Resources , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , April 2014 , pp. 83 - 90
Copyright
Copyright © NIAB 2013 

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

Ageeb, OAA (1977) Cereals Forage Crops. Annual Report, Hudeiba Research Station 1976/77. Wad Medani: Agricultural Research Corporation.Google Scholar
Akmal, M, Naeem, M, Nasim, S and Shakoor, A (2002) Performance of different pearl millet varieties under rainfed conditions. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Research 17: 351–354.Google Scholar
Babiker SA (2012) Exploitation of phenotypic, genotypic and quality related variations in Sudan pearl millet collection for the development of forage suited varieties. PhD Thesis, Sudan Academy of Sciences, Agricultural Research council, p. 105.Google Scholar
Bidinger, FR, Yadav, OP, Sharma, MM, van Oosterom, EJ and Yadav, YP (2003) Exploitation of heterosis for simultaneous improvement in both grain and stover yields of arid zone pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.). Field Crops Research 83: 13–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busso, CS, Devos, KM, Ross, G, Mortimore, M, Adams, WM, Ambrose, MJ, Alldrick, S and Gale, MD (2000) Genetic diversity within and among landraces of pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum) under farmer management in West Africa. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 47: 561–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, NJ (1974) Millets for grain and grazing. Queensland Agricultural Journal 100: 469–476.Google Scholar
Hoffman, GR, Maas, EM, Meyer, JI, Pritchard, TL and Lancoster, DR (1979) Salt tolerance of corn in Delta. California Agriculture 33: 11–12.Google Scholar
Idris, FM, Khair, MAM, Ahmed, AI and Babiker, SA (2008) Effect of nitrogen fertilizer and seed rate on the performance, forage yield and quality of pearl millet (Pennisetum americanum L. leeke). Sudan Journal of Agricultural Research 11: 61–67.Google Scholar
Kambal, AE (1983) Comparative performance of some varieties of sorghum, maize and pearl millet for forage production in different seasons. Sudan Agricultural Journal 10: 46–60.Google Scholar
Khair, MAM (1999) Principles of Forage Production. Training and Publication Administration. Wad Medani: Agricultural Research Corporation.Google Scholar
Khair MAM (2011) Messages to Upgrade the Production and Consecution of Forages in Sudan. Training and Publication Administration. Wad Medani: Agricultural Research Corporation (in Arabic).Google Scholar
Khair, MAM, Salih, SA, Elhag, FMA and Eltayeb, EI (2007) Dry matter yield and quality of some winter sown forage crop in the Sudan, Gezira. University of Khartoum Journal of Agricultural Sciences 15: 204–219.Google Scholar
Loumerem, M, Van Damme, P, Reheul, D and Behaeghe, T (2008) Collection and evaluation of pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum) germplasm from the arid regions of Tunisia. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 55: 1017–1028.Google Scholar
Miller, DA (1984) Forage Crops. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., p. 530.Google Scholar
Naeem, M, Chohan, MSM, Khan, AH and Salah-ud-Din, S (2002) Evaluation of different varieties of pearl millet for green fodder yield potential. Asian Journal of Plant Sciences 1: 326–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naeem, M, Chohan, MSM, Khan, AH and Salah-ud-Din, S (2003) Study of green fodder yield potential and its components of different pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum) varieties under irrigated conditions of Faisalabad. Asian Journal of Plant Sciences 2: 74–76.Google Scholar
Naeem, M, Qadir, G, Hussain, M, Nasim, S and Shakoor, A (1994) Yield potential of pearl millet cultivars under rainfed conditions of Pakistan. FLCG Newsletter 29: 2–3.Google Scholar
Reddy, N, Rao, K and Ahmed, I (2004) Geographical patterns of diversity in pearl millet germplasm from Yemen. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 51: 513–517.Google Scholar
Sedivec KKS, Schatz BG (1991) Pearl Millet: Forage Production in North Dakota – North Dakota State University. Extension Service. Carrington Research Center. http://lib.ndsu.nodak.edu/repository/bitstream/handle/10365/9395/R1016_1991.pdf?sequence = 1 (accessed 2 April 2013).Google Scholar
Skerman, PJ and Riveros, F (1990) Tropical Grasses. FAO Plant Production and Protection Series 23. Rome: FAO, p. 832.Google Scholar
Stapf, O and Hubbart, CE (1934) Gramineae. In: Prain, D (ed.) Flora of Tropical Africa, vol. 9. London: CAB, pp. 954–1070.Google Scholar
Upadhyaya, HD, Reddy, KN, Ahmed, MI, Dronavallia, N and Gowda, CLL (2012) Latitudinal variation and distribution of photoperiod and temperature sensitivity for flowering in the world collection of pearl millet germplasm at ICRISAT genebank. Plant Genetic Resources: Characterization and Utilization 10: 59–69.Google Scholar
Yadav, OP (2010) Drought response of pearl millet landrace-based populations and their crosses with elite composites. Field Crops Research 118: 51–56.Google Scholar
Yadav, OP and Bidinger, FR (2008) Dual-purpose landraces of pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum) as sources of high stover and grain yield for arid zone environments. Plant Genetic Resources: Characterization and Utilization 6: 73–78.Google Scholar
Yadav, OP and Rai, KN (2011) Hybridization of Indian landraces and African elite composites of pearl millet results in biomass and stover yield improvement under arid zone conditions. Crop Science 51: 1980–1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Babiker Supplementary Material

Table

Download Babiker Supplementary Material(File)
File 18.3 KB