GRM2011: Improving groundnut productivity in Africa
•
0 likes•360 views
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (7)
Similar to GRM2011: Improving groundnut productivity in Africa
Similar to GRM2011: Improving groundnut productivity in Africa (20)
More from CGIAR Generation Challenge Programme
More from CGIAR Generation Challenge Programme (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
GRM2011: Improving groundnut productivity in Africa
- 1. TLI- Objective 1: Improve groundnut productivity for marginal environments from Sub-Saharan Africa Brief update – Important areas of progress EMBRAPA- UGA – ICRISAT – ISRA-Senegal – Malawi Nat. Prog. – Tanzania Nat. Prog Hyderabad 25 Sept 2011
- 2. Update on groundnut objective Perspectives for using synthetics Current progress on drought
- 3. Sources of disease resistance: Rust : ICGV 02194, ICG 11426, ICGV 01276, ICGV 02286, and ICG 02446 Rosette : ICG 14705, ICG 13099, ICG 9449, and ICG 15405 ELS : ICG 6022, ICG 405, ICG 14466, ICG 6057, ICG 9449 and ICG 12509; ICG 6703; ICG 10036, ICG 10384, and ICG 11219 Diversity Sources of drought “tolerance”: 0 50 100 150 200 Podyield(gm-2) 50 most contrasting lines 0 100 200 300 400 Podyield(gm-2) 50 most contrasting lines Water stress Irrigated Tolerant Sensitive
- 4. Consensus map of cultivated groundnut with drought related QTLs Gautami et al. 2011; MS under review
- 5. ICG721 ICGV91114ICGV02022ICGS44 ICG8751 ICGV97182ChalimbanaICG4729 ICG14482 ICG11088 ICG2772 ICG8106 ICG721 ICGV91114ICGV02022ICGS44 ICG8751 ICGV97182ChalimbanaICG4729 ICG14482 ICG11088 ICG2772 ICG721 0.69 1 t-FMPV ICGV91114 0.75 0.83 2 t-FMPV Fleur11 0.71 0.83 0.88 0.81 0.33 0.79 0.71 0.65 0.67 0.65 0.63 0.73 3 t-FMPV ICR48 0.48 0.6 0.69 0.69 0.79 0.52 0.75 0.58 0.75 0.75 0.83 0.48 4 t-FMPV 55437 0.75 0.79 0.96 0.81 0.65 0.73 0.85 0.63 0.65 0.67 0.67 0.79 5 t-germplasmICGS44 0.69 0.85 0.83 0.69 6 t-germplasmICG8751 0.63 0.67 0.71 0.71 0.83 7 t-germplasmICGV97182 0.71 0.69 0.75 0.48 0.6 0.75 8 t-germplasmICGV01232 0.71 0.69 0.75 0.52 0.56 0.75 0.56 0.83 0.54 0.4 0.5 0.79 9 t-germplasmICGV02189 0.73 0.6 0.83 0.52 0.63 0.71 0.4 0.75 0.48 0.31 0.58 0.75 10 t-germplasmICG434 0.75 0.75 0.79 0.65 0.52 0.81 0.52 0.79 0.5 0.48 0.52 0.88 11 s-FMPV ICGVSM87003 0.69 0.71 0.75 0.63 0.65 0.63 0.54 0.71 0.52 0.46 0.56 0.71 12 s-FMPV JL24 0.58 0.79 0.54 0.75 0.83 0.79 0.75 0.88 0.71 0.63 0.67 0.79 13 s-FMPV CG7 0.75 0.77 0.83 0.54 0.63 0.73 0.58 0.75 0.42 0.5 0.48 0.79 14 s-germplasmICG2772 0.63 0.65 0.75 0.65 0.79 0.29 0.71 0.44 0.83 0.77 0.83 15 s-germplasmICG11862 0.75 0.58 0.79 0.6 0.6 0.69 0.48 0.79 0.54 0.4 0.56 0.79 16 s-germplasmICG1834 0.63 0.67 0.88 0.83 0.83 0.54 0.88 0.58 0.79 0.88 0.88 0.54 17 s-germplasmICG5286 0.63 0.69 0.79 0.54 0.69 0.83 0.44 0.83 0.5 0.42 0.58 0.77 18 s-germplasmICGV99001 0.69 0.52 0.73 0.56 0.79 0.52 0.58 0.65 0.63 0.58 0.75 0.56 19 s-germplasmICG4598 0.73 0.81 0.58 0.75 0.79 0.65 0.83 0.67 0.88 0.85 0.75 0.63 20 s-germplasmICG13787 0.6 0.75 0.88 0.69 0.5 0.73 0.63 0.71 0.67 0.56 0.69 0.77 Green: Tolerant Yellow: Sensitive 22 crosses made Development of new crosses for drought Some of the lines used for developing SNPs
- 6. Rust: Three populations (JL24 x ICGV 94114, ICGV 93437 x ICGV 94114 and ICGV 93437 x 95342) are being phenotyped at F5 as well as bulking up seed for second season phenotyping at F6. ELS: Two populations (ICGV-SM 95714 x Robut 33-1, ICGV-SM 95714 x ICGV 93437). Rosette: Three populations (Chalimbana x ICGV-SM 90704, CG7 x ICGV-SM 90704 and JL 24 x ICGV-SM 90704) were one generation behind. These will be advanced through two generations and phenotyped at F6 in Dec – April 2012. RILs populations for disease resistance ready for genotyping / phenotyping
- 7. Marker-assisted introgression of rust resistance QTL Post Rainy 2008-09 Rainy 2010 Post Rainy 2010-11 Rainy 2011 Rainy 2009 Post Rainy 2009-10 BC1F1 × GPBD 4 F1 BC2F1 BC2F2 BC2F3 Selfing BC3F1 BC3F2 RP RP RP Backcrossing ICGV91114 (RP) × × × (Crosses were made between GPBD 4 with ICGV 91114) Backcrossing Backcrossing SelfingSelfing GPBD4 is a cultivated lines with earlier introgression from diploid Cardenasii
- 9. 1 3 5 7 9 hoehnei duranensis benensis stenosperma kempff-Mercadoi stenosperma kuhlmannii ipaensis cardenasii magna valida stenosperma decora stenosperma duranensis duranensis batizogaea stenosperma duranensis duranensis duranensis duranensis stenosperma villosa duranensis hoehnei stenosperma kuhlmannii duranensis duranensis chiquitana duranensis duranensis duranensis duranensis duranensis duranensis kretschmeri duranensis duranensis duranensis duranensis monticola duranensis duranensis duranensis duranensis duranensis duranensis duranensis duranensis duranensis duranensis duranensis duranensis duranensis duranensis duranensis duranensis duranensis duranensis duranensis cardenasii cardenasii stenosperma duranensis duranensis duranensis monticola duranensis duranensis batizogaea monticola monticola TMV2 Score of most resistant germplasm (AABB) hoehnei duranensis benensis stenosperma kempff-Mercadoi stenosperma kuhlmannii ipaensis cardenasii magna valida stenosperma decora stenosperma duranensis duranensis batizogaea stenosperma Late leaf spot scoring (1, resist – 9, suscept.) in 74 AA and BB Almost absolute resistance available in diploid From Pande et al., 2001
- 10. Unlocking the genetic diversity: Amphidiploid production Anf3 = (A. batizocoi K9484 x A. stenosperma V10309)4x Anf4 = (A. batizocoi K9484 x A. duranensis SeSn2848)4x Anf5 = (A. batizocoi K9484 x A. duranensis V14167)4x Anf6 = (A. ipaensis KG30076 x A. villosa V12812)4x Anf7 = (A. gregoryi V6389 x A stenosperma V10309)4x EMBRAPA ICRISAT
- 11. Runner-886 AiAd LLS damage Limited LLS damage Poor agronomic traits pod types unsuitable BC Introgression of LLS resistance from synthetics - Starting point From Soraya Leal-Bertioli Runner 886 Synthetic Ai x Ad
- 12. 10 BC1 F2 seeds from each planted in field 2008/2009 Selection for LLS resistance and agronomic traits 23 BC1F3 lines from 14 original BC1 selected and tested for LLS in the field 42 BC1 confirmed with SSR markers. 12 lines from 4 original BC1 being tested in field trials at two locations BC Introgression of LLS resistance from synthetics - Introgression scheme
- 13. BC1-111-10-461Runner-886 BC Introgression of LLS resistance from synthetics - Proof of concept LLS damage Resistance / Good agronomic traits pod types recovered From Soraya Leal-Bertioli
- 14. CSSLs development: MAB from BC1 to BC4F3 Ai x Ad into Fleur 11 Fleur11 (A) AiAd (B) Heterozyg. (H) B or H Missing 60 179 210 170 250 258 189 32 169 29 107 96 106 122 6 173 30 240 224 128 131 93 77 132 208 55 24 252 261 265 254 51 200 136 149 50 97 46 221 190 109 91 83 192 198 39 220 225 140 244 168 156 90 125 1 2 8 71 138 234 215 66 111 262 152 146 118 183 187 70 81 123 14 10 185 177 248 249 26 15 101 126 102 Chr 1 Chr 2 Chr 3 Chr 4 Chr 5 Chr 6 Chr 7 Chr 8 Chr 9 Chr 10 Chr 11 Chr 12 Chr 13 Chr 14 Chr 15 Chr 16 Chr 17 Chr 18Chr 19Chr 20 Legend: A B Genotype 3 Genotype 4 Heterozygote Missing data Daniel Fonceka BC1F1 46 -> 22 plants BC2F1 192-> 50 plants BC3F1 565-> 80 plants BC4F1 769-> 83 plants BC4F2 1180-> 140 plants BC4F3 1200-> 122 plants Minimum tiling path 70 plants 122 lines sent to India, Niger, Malawi
- 15. Progress in “drought tolerance”
- 16. Good integration Glasshouse – Lysimeters - Field Getting away from single trait approach Comparison to other species (Obj5)
- 17. 41 82 119 242 228 107 120 108 246 109 244 110 241 111 239 112 237113 235 114 233 115 1 116 3 117 5 1187 229 9 11 121 13 122 15 123 17 124 19 12521 126 23 127 25 128 27 129 29 130 31 131 33 132 35 133 37 134 39 135 231 136 43 137 45 138 47 139 49 140 51 141 53 142 55 143 57 144 59 145 61 146 63 147 65 148 67 149 69 150 71 151 73 152 75 153 77 154 79 155 81 156 83 157 85 158 87 159 89 160 91 161 93 162 95 163 97164 99 165 101 166 103167 105 168 247 169 243 170 238 171 234 172 2 173 6 174 10 175 14 176 18 177 22 178 26 179 30 180 34 181 38 182 42 183 46 184 50 185 54 186 58 187 62 188 66 189 70 190 74 191 78 192 230 193 86 194 90 195 94 196 98 197 102 198106 199 240 200 232 201 8 202 16 203 24 204 32 205 40 206 48 207 56 208 64 209 72 210 80 211 88 212 96 213 104 214 236 215 12 216 28 21744 218 60 219 76 220 92 221 245 222 20 22352 224 84 4 36 68 100 225 226 227 Patancheru2 Patancheru1 Sadore1 Sadore2 PC2 Genotype scores Environment scores Mega-Environments 41 82 119 242 228 107 120 108 246 109 244 110 241 111 239 112 237113 235 114 233 115 1 116 3 117 5 1187 229 9 11 121 13 122 15 123 17 124 19 12521 126 23 127 25 128 27 129 29 130 31 131 33 132 35 133 37 134 39 135 231 136 43 137 45 138 47 139 49 140 51 141 53 142 55 143 57 144 59 145 61 146 63 147 65 148 67 149 69 150 71 151 73 152 75 153 77 154 79 155 81 156 83 157 85 158 87 159 89 160 91 161 93 162 95 163 97164 99 165 101 166 103167 105 168 247 169 243 170 238 171 234 172 2 173 6 174 10 175 14 176 18 177 22 178 26 179 30 180 34 181 38 182 42 183 46 184 50 185 54 186 58 187 62 188 66 189 70 190 74 191 78 192 230 193 86 194 90 195 94 196 98 197 102 198106 199 240 200 232 201 8 202 16 203 24 204 32 205 40 206 48 207 56 208 64 209 72 210 80 211 88 212 96 213 104 214 236 215 12 216 28 21744 218 60 219 76 220 92 221 245 222 20 22352 224 84 4 36 68 100 225 226 227 Patancheru2 Patancheru1 Sadore1 Sadore2 PC2 PC1 Genotype scores Mega-Environments GGE by-plots Analysis of drought trials across environments R² = 0.27 0 40 80 120 160 200 0 50 100 150 200PodyieldWater stress2009(gm-2) Pod yield Water stress 2008 (g m-2) India R² = 0.0002 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 PodyieldWater stress2009(gm-2) Pod Yield Water stress 2008 (g m-2) Niger Need to take care of high G x Y under drought (MARS / GWS) Hamidou et al – Field Crops Res.
- 18. R2 = 0.32 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 RelativeHarvestindex Leafweight DS 1 R² = 0.79 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 Relativeharvestindex Leafweight DS 2 R2 = 0.53 -0.20 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 RelativeHarvestindex Leafweight DS 3 Toleranceindex Leaf weight Lines with smaller canopy better adapted to intermittent stress Mild stress (35% less yield) Medium stress (50% less yield) Severe stress (70% less yield) Relationship between leaf area and tolerance index Ratnakumar & Vadez – Funct. Pl. Biol.
- 19. 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Leafarea(cm2)DS Most contrasting lines for leaf area Genotype ICG 8106 ICGV 02038 ICG 2106 ICG 3584 ICG 3140 ICG 4750 ICGV 02022 ICG 4729 ICG 11088 ICG 12697 ICG 8567 ICG 434 ICGV 02189 ICGV 95377 ICGV SM87003 ICGV 02271 ICG 1834 Fleur 11 ICG 12879 Genotype ICG 2772 ICGV 97182 ICGV 00350 ICGV 02266 ICG 10010 ICG 12235 ICG 15287 ICG 13787 ICG 9961 Chalimbana ICG 4598 ICG 8760 ICG 2777 ICG 11862 ICG 12000 47-10 ICG 5286 ICG 5663 Does this work in the field? 15 out of 18 top most tolerant have lower leaf area 14 out of 18 top most sensitive have higher leaf area Leaf area (LA) under drought in the field in 50 most contrasting lines
- 20. Arrows indicates Re-watering Profile of water use from flowering to maturity WW-Sensitive WW-Tolerant Tolerant lines develop a smaller canopy WS Ratnakumar & Vadez – Funct. Pl. Biol.
- 21. Thank you
- 22. 0.000 0.010 0.020 0.030 0.040 0.050 0.060 0.070 0.080 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 Leafconductance(gH2Ocm-2h-1) Time of the day (H) LSD ICG 11862 ICG 12235 ICG 13787 ICG 4598 ICGV 12000 ICGV 02189 ICGV 02266 ICGV 11088 ICGV 97182 ICGV 97183 A 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 Leafconductance(gH2Ocm-2h-1) Time of the day (H) LSD Bambey-21 IT82E-18 IT97K-556-6 KVX-525 UC-CB46 IT84S-2049 IT93K-503-1 IT93K-693-2 Mouride Suvita 2 B Groundnut Cowpea From Issa Faye and Nouhoun Belko