Agronomic performances, disease reaction and
yield stability analysis of upland rice genotypes
in North west Ethiopia
Tadd...
Introduction
 Rice cultivation in Ethiopia is of a recent history as

compared to its utilization as a food crop
 Produc...
Introduction…
 Currently, upland rice is grown across a wide range of

environments in Ethiopia where it is subjected to ...
Introduction…
 Hence, it is very essential to study the nature and

magnitude of G x E interaction and stability of uplan...
Materials and Methods
Plant materials
Genotypes
WAB450-24-2-2-P33-HB
WAB880-SG6
WAB880-SG14
WAB880-SG37
WAB880-SG38
WAB880...
M & M-Sites
Woreta (11 58′ N;37 41′ E )
Metema(12o 54’ N; 36o 15’ E)
Pawe (11 9′ N ; 36 3′E )

- Woreta2008-E1
- Metema200...
Data collection and analysis
 Data collected on

- days to heading,
- days to maturity,
- panicle length(cm),
- plant hei...
Results
Table.1. AMMI analysis of variance
Source

Df

Sum of
Squares

Mean
Squares

Variation
Explained (%)

Total
Blocks...
Results…
Table.2. Mean grain yield (t ha-1) of 16 upland rice genotypes
Genotypes
G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
G6
G7
G8
G9
G10
G11
G12
G...
Results…
Table.3. Average diseases score (0-9) for 16 upland rice genotypes
Genotype
Leaf blast Panicle blast Brown spot B...
Results…
Stability and biplots

Plot of Gen & Env IPCA 2 scores v
ersus m
eans

E3

30
G8

20

E4

G2

IPCA scores

10
G5
...
Results…
Scatter plot (Total - 59.76%)

3

E
3

G8
G2

2

E
4
1

G5
G11

G3
G9G6
G1
G4
G16 E
6

0

G7
E
1

G15
E
2

G10

-...
Result…
Rank
ing biplot (Total - 59.76%)

1.5
1.0

E3

G8
G2

E4

0.5

G5

G11

G3
G9
G6
G1
G4
G16 E6

0.0

G7
E1

G15
E2
...
Farmers and Variety release committee
Conclusion


G7 (3.34 t ha-1) and G15 (3.50 t ha-1) significantly
out yielded the check. Moreover they showed nearly
immu...
Acknowledgements
 Africa Rice
 EIAR
 ARARI
Thank you very much!
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Th1_Agronomic performances, disease reaction and yield stability analysis of upland rice genotypes in North west Ethiopia

489 views
289 views

Published on

3rd Africa Rice Congress
Theme 1: climate resilient rice
Mini symposium: towards improved resistance to abiotic stresses
Author: Lakew et al

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
489
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
13
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Th1_Agronomic performances, disease reaction and yield stability analysis of upland rice genotypes in North west Ethiopia

  1. 1. Agronomic performances, disease reaction and yield stability analysis of upland rice genotypes in North west Ethiopia Taddesse Lakew1, SewagegnTariku1, Teferi Alem2 and Mulugeta Bitew3 1Adet Agricultural Research Centre, 2Gondar Agricultural Research Centre and 3Pawe Agricultural Research Centre E.mail: taddesse.lakew@yahoo.com
  2. 2. Introduction  Rice cultivation in Ethiopia is of a recent history as compared to its utilization as a food crop  Production and productivity is rising but quite low compared to other rice world - 1.8 t/ha (CSA, 2005) - 2.9 t/ha (CSA,2013)  Low productivity,mainly in upland,is attributed to: - lack of stable and high yielding varieties - terminal drought - low soil fertility - weeds and diseases (MoA, 2010)
  3. 3. Introduction…  Currently, upland rice is grown across a wide range of environments in Ethiopia where it is subjected to G x E interaction effects  The national rice program has been conducting MET primarily to identify high yielding varieties of broad adaptation  However, in the presence of GE interaction, genotypic means per se as criteria for selecting superior genotypes is not reliable and valid (Kang, 1990).
  4. 4. Introduction…  Hence, it is very essential to study the nature and magnitude of G x E interaction and stability of upland rice genotypes in Ethiopia Objective:  The present study was, therefore, undertaken to select high yielding, stable, early maturing and disease resistant upland rice genotypes following appropriate statistical analysis.
  5. 5. Materials and Methods Plant materials Genotypes WAB450-24-2-2-P33-HB WAB880-SG6 WAB880-SG14 WAB880-SG37 WAB880-SG38 WAB880-SG39 WAB880-SG02 WAB880-SG47 WAB880-SG35 WAB880-SG70 WAB880-1-32-1-1-P2-HB WAB880-1-38-13-1-1P1-HB WAB960-B-11A1-1 WAB910-B-14AB-1 WAB515-B-16A1-2 AD01(standard check) Code Source G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9 G10 G11 G12 G13 G14 G15 G16 Africarice Africarice Africarice Africarice Africarice Africarice Africarice Africarice Africarice Africarice Africarice Africarice Africarice Africarice Africarice Ethiopia • Design: RCBD of three reps • Seeding rate: 60 kg ha-1. • Plot size: 5 m 1.2 m with six rows for each entry. • Fertilizer : 46 kg N ha-1 and 46 kg P2O5 ha-1. • Weeding: three to four times depending on infestation level
  6. 6. M & M-Sites Woreta (11 58′ N;37 41′ E ) Metema(12o 54’ N; 36o 15’ E) Pawe (11 9′ N ; 36 3′E ) - Woreta2008-E1 - Metema2008-E2 - Pawe2008-E3 - Woreta2010-E4 - Metema2010-E5 - Pawe2010-E6 Fig.1. A map showing geographical areas of three test locations used to evaluated upland rice genotypes
  7. 7. Data collection and analysis  Data collected on - days to heading, - days to maturity, - panicle length(cm), - plant height(cm), - fertile tillers per plant, - filled grains per panicle, - grain yield(g/plot) - and 1000 seed weight(g) - Disease score (0-9) scale following SES(IRRI, 1996)  Statistical analysis -Grain yield and other agronomic parameters were subjected to analysis of variance using the SAS 2002 version.9.0 -Yield data were subjected to AMMI and GGE biplot analysis using genestat
  8. 8. Results Table.1. AMMI analysis of variance Source Df Sum of Squares Mean Squares Variation Explained (%) Total Blocks Treatments Genotypes Environments Interactions IPCA 1 IPCA 2 IPCA 3 IPCA 4 Residuals Error 287 12 95 15 5 75 19 17 15 13 11 180 305181921 39395722 198589499 23955182 104228646 70405671 40426920 15844038 8408183 4486977 1239553 67196699 1063352 3282977*** 2090416*** 1597012*** 20845729*** 938742*** 2127733*** 932002*** 560546NS 345152NS 112687NS 373315 12.06 52.48 35.45 57.42 22.50 11.94 6.37 1.76
  9. 9. Results… Table.2. Mean grain yield (t ha-1) of 16 upland rice genotypes Genotypes G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9 G10 G11 G12 G13 G14 G15 G16(check) Mean CV (%) LSD (5%) E1 2.71 3.16 4.27 4.15 2.54 3.36 4.28 3.69 3.57 4.21 1.49 1.03 3.87 4.81 3.55 3.07 3.36 17.5 0.98 E2 2.41 2.14 2.48 2.47 1.99 2.58 2.99 2.10 2.34 2.32 2.24 2.08 2.52 2.48 3.11 2.36 2.42 15.1 0.61 E3 3.34 4.46 3.95 3.24 3.52 3.64 3.34 4.04 3.63 3.34 3.78 2.49 2.99 2.76 4.09 3.13 3.48 20.5 1.19 E4 2.19 2.03 2.30 2.34 1.89 2.41 3.42 2.39 2.18 1.51 2.31 1.44 1.42 1.67 2.88 2.32 2.17 18.3 0.66 E5 2.11 1.68 2.46 2.25 1.58 2.32 2.34 1.40 2.30 2.33 2.23 2.44 2.91 2.46 3.03 2.29 2.26 22.65 0.83 E6 4.20 3.96 2.81 3.08 3.78 3.94 3.64 3.25 2.94 3.67 3.52 3.81 3.70 3.46 4.33 2.96 3.56 25.6 NS Mean 2.83 2.91 3.05 2.92 2.55 3.04 3.34 2.81 2.83 2.89 2.59 2.21 2.90 2.94 3.50 2.69 2.87 25.7 0.48
  10. 10. Results… Table.3. Average diseases score (0-9) for 16 upland rice genotypes Genotype Leaf blast Panicle blast Brown spot Bacterial leaf blight G1 3.0 1.0 2.7 2.0 G2 1.0 1.0 2.3 2.0 G3 1.6 1.0 2.0 1.6 G4 1.6 1.0 3.0 2.0 G5 1.6 1.0 2.7 2.0 G6 1.0 1.0 2.3 2.0 G7 0.4 1.0 2.0 1.3 G8 1.3 0.6 2.3 2.3 G9 3.0 2.3 2.7 2.0 G10 2.3 1.0 3.0 2.0 G11 2.6 2.3 3.0 2.0 G12 2.3 1.6 3.0 2.0 G13 1.0 1.0 2.3 2.0 G14 0.6 1.0 2.3 1.3 G15 0.5 0.2 1.3 1.2 G16(check) 2.3 2.3 3.0 2.0 Mean 1.6 1.2 2.5 1.9
  11. 11. Results… Stability and biplots Plot of Gen & Env IPCA 2 scores v ersus m eans E3 30 G8 20 E4 G2 IPCA scores 10 G5 G11 0 G3 G9 G7 G4 G16 G6 E1 G15 G1 G10 E2 -10 E6 G14 -20 G12 G13 E5 -30 20 00 25 20 20 50 25 70 30 00 35 20 30 50 Genoty & Env pe ironm ent m eans Fig.2. AMMI-1 biplot of main effects and interactions for grain yield (t ha-1). 35 70
  12. 12. Results… Scatter plot (Total - 59.76%) 3 E 3 G8 G2 2 E 4 1 G5 G11 G3 G9G6 G1 G4 G16 E 6 0 G7 E 1 G15 E 2 G10 -1 G14 -2 G12 E 5 G13 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 PC1 - 33.93% Fig.3. GGE biplot of 16 upland rice genotypes for grain yield based on which win where pattern 3 4
  13. 13. Result… Rank ing biplot (Total - 59.76%) 1.5 1.0 E3 G8 G2 E4 0.5 G5 G11 G3 G9 G6 G1 G4 G16 E6 0.0 G7 E1 G15 E2 G10 -0.5 G14 -1.0 G12 -1.0 E5 G13 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 PC1 - 33.93% G enotype scores E nvironm ent scores AE C Fig.4.GGE biplot for ranking of 16 upland rice genotypes based mean performance and stability 1.5
  14. 14. Farmers and Variety release committee
  15. 15. Conclusion  G7 (3.34 t ha-1) and G15 (3.50 t ha-1) significantly out yielded the check. Moreover they showed nearly immune reaction to major rice diseases  In AMMI biplot, G15, G7, G6 and G4 attained high mean yield coupled with smaller IPCA scores and hence less interaction with environments  GGE biplot also indicated G15, G7, G3, G4, G6 and G3 as relatively stable and high yielding genotypes  Farmers preferred G15 due its earliness, panicle length, and white caryopsis color. Variety release committee recommended for release in 2011 for broad production
  16. 16. Acknowledgements  Africa Rice  EIAR  ARARI
  17. 17. Thank you very much!

×