Evaluation of stress resistant Sweetpotato
Varieties and their Low cost Micro-
propagation: Ethiopian Experience
Emana Getu, Tileye Feyissa and Addisu Nega
Addis Ababa University, College of Natural
Sciences
First Bio-Innovate Regional Scientific Conference
United Nations Conference Centre (UNCC-ECA)
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 25-27 February 2013

Introduction

Objectives

Materials and Methods
1. Sweet potato varietal screening against
drought and sweetpotato weevil
• Twenty one varieties in southern Ethiopia
and nineteen varieties in eastern Ethiopia
were screened against drought and
sweetpotato weevil under field conditions
(at two sites in each region ) for two
seasons.

Materials and Methods
• The varieties tested were:
• Southern Ethiopia (PIPI, Kudade, Kero, Koka12, Koka6,
Boreda, Damota, Resisto, Eujumula, Temesgen, Dubo,
Ukerewe, Mayai, Orodollo, Beletch, Belela, Kulfo, Awassa83,
Guntute and Tulla)
• Eastern Ethiopia (Berkume, TIS 8250-7, Cuba-1, CN-1753-17, Korojo-2,
Korojo, Bekale-A, Bukariso, Bekale-B, TIS-9465-2, TIS9465-2, TIS-9068-8,
TIS-8250-1, Awassa-83, TIS-70357-5, CN-1752-9, TIS-9065-1, TIS8441-3
and TIS82/0602-11)
• Design used: RCBD with Replications
• Plot size: 6m X 2m
• Data collected: Stand count, Dry weight, Weevil density, tubers infested
by weevils, yield, etc.

Participatory evaluation

Participatory evaluation

Materials and Methods
2. Low Cost Micropropagation of Sweetpotato
• Four varieties of sweetpotato namely Awassa-83
and Beletech from HARC, and Adu and Barkumie
from Haramaya University were collected and
used as a stock source for micropropagation.
• For low cost micro-propagation study, so far
Beletech and Awassa-83 were used

Materials and Methods

Materials and Methods

Micro-propgation

Micro-propagation

Results and Discussion

Table 1. Performance of sweetpotato varieties
evaluated at Humbo
Varieties Sc (%) FE (1-5 scale) EE (1-5 scale) % tubers infested Yield (t/ha)
by SPw
Awassa-83 50±2.3a 1 1 5.00±0.20a 6.43±0.12a
Belela 50±2.3a 3 3 45.00±2.10b 4.17±0.01b
Beletch 65±3.2a 1 1 8.00±0.31a 6.35±0.12a
Kulfo 25±0.8b 1 1 3.00±0.11a 7.640.23a
Resisto 20±0.6b 1 1 6.50±0.28a 8.61±0.33a
Temesgen 65±3.2a 1 1 4.80±0.20a 7.35±0.34a
Tulla 40±1.8ab 1 1 9.70±0.4a 6.25±0.12a
Ordolo 0±0c - - - -
Falha 5±0.03c - - - -

Table 2. Performance of sweetpotato varieties
evaluated at Babile
Varieties Sc (%) FE (1-5 scale) EE (1-5 scale) Yield (t/ha)
Berkume 100.00±7a 2 2 12.44±0.8a
Tis-8250-7 100.00±7a 5 3 2.22±0.2d
Cuba-1 100.00±7a 3 5 7.97±0.5b
CN-1753-17 98.33±6.5a 5 3 4.47±0.3c
Korojo-2 98.33±6.5a 3 5 5.33±0.4c
CN-1753-14 95.00±5.8a 3 3 1.33±0.1d
Korojo 93.33±5.3a 5 5 1.11±0.1d
Bekale-A 95.00±5.8a 5 5 2.48±0.2d
Bukariso 98.33±6a 4 3 5.92±0.4c
Bekale-b 95.00±5.8a 4 3 2.56±0.2d
Tis-9465-2 98.33±a6 2 2 9.56±0.7a
Tis-9068-8 65.00±32b 4 3 3.81±0.2d
Tis-8250-1 93.04±5.7a 1 2 10.74±0.7a
Awassa-83 95.00±5.8a 3 2 5.22±0.4c
Tis-70357-5 100.00±7a 2 3 10.44±0.7a
CN-1752-9 100.00±7a 1 1 12.14±0.8a
Tis-9065-1 100.00±7a 3 2 7.33±0.5b
Tis-8441-3 88.21±5.6ab 5 5 2.44±0.2d
Tis-82/0602-11 98.33±6b 5 4 3.22±0.2d

Tab 3. Height, number off shoots /node, fresh and dry weight of shoots of 5 weeks
old Beletech variety grown on different low cost media, values given as mean ± SE
Media Height (cm) No Shoot/Node FW (g) DW(g)
M1 6.6±0.258a 2.90±0.475a 1.52±0.097a 0.1373±0.010a
M2 6.7±0.341ab 2.97±0.195ab 1.44±0.108ab 0.1230±0.008ab
M3 5.9±0.254abc 2.63±0.206abc 1.28±0.100abc 0.1109±0.009bc
M4 6.5±0.309acd 2.96±0.200abcd 1.36±0.137abcd 0.1248±0.012abcd
M5 5.7±0.343bcde 2.50±0.178abcde 1.32±0.086abcde 0.1120±0.007bcde
M6 5.7±0.257bcdef 2.27±0.209abcdef 1.18±0.064abcdef 0.1055±0.005bcdef
M7 5.8±0.280bcdef 2.67±0.175abcdef 1.42±0.084abcdef 0.1270±0.007bcdef
Means followed by the same letter (s) within a column are not significantly dfferent from
each other at 5% (LSD) .

Table 4.Height, number of shoots per node, fresh and dry weight of shoots of 5 weeks old
Awassa- 83 variety grown on different low cost medium, values given as mean ± SE.
Media Height (cm) No Shoot/Node FW (g) DW(g)
M1 7.4±0.362a 2.83±0.424a 1.69±0.140a 0.1480±0.012a
M2 6.9±0.406ab 2.73±0.159ab 1.58±0.114ab 0.1393±0.010ab
M3 5.6±0.392c 2.23±0.164abc 1.45±0.117abc 0.1226±0.009abc
M4 5.8±0.326cd 2.90±0.154abcd 1.51±0.119abcd 0.1260±0.009abcd
M5 5.8±0.317cde 2.43±0.207abcde 1.40±0.094abcde 0.1161±0.008bcde
M6 5.5±0.338cde 2.43±0.123abcdef 1.19±0.102cde 0.1052±0.008cdef
M7 6.5±0.342abcde 2.70±0.174abcdef 1.53±0.104abcde 0.1218±0.008abcdef
Means within each column connected by the same superscript (a-f) are not significantly
different at 5% probability level

Cost analysis of the substituted low cost medium
Table 5. Comparative costs of culture medium components
Component of Cost/Kg, L Conc./L (%, w/v) Cost/L (Birr) Cost reductions
the media (Birr) compared to the
standard (%)
Agar 2700 0.8 21 0
Starch 300 6 18 14.3
Cassava flour 10 8 0.80 96.2
Lab. Sucrose 640 3 19.20 0
Table sugar 14.50 3 0.44 97
ddH2O 5 5 0
Rain Water 0 0 100
Use of rain water instead of ddH2O; the substitution of laboratory grade sucrose with table
sugar; Substitution of gelling agents with cassava flour and starch alone reduced the cost of

Fig. 1. Comparative costs of culture medium
with various substituted components.
Medium
 Totally substituted medium M7 (rain water instead of ddH2O; table sugar as carbon
source and starch as a gelling agent) reduced the total cost of the medium by 59.2% and
 totally substituted medium M6 (rain water instead of ddH2O; table sugar as carbon

Conclusion and
Recommendation
Conclusion Recommendation
• 6 varieties in southern Ethiopia • The best varieties should
and 4 varieties from eastern go through national
Ethiopia were found to be
resistant to stresses
Variety release system and
• For all the parameter
be released
measured, the plantlets • Agronomic performance
obtained on all low cost media of sweetpotato derived
showed a good growth from low cost micro-
performance.
propagation should be
• The low cost media was
especially good for the number tested.
of shoots/ node.

Acknowledgment
• We are very much grateful to Bio-Innovate for
funding and Addis Ababa University for
hosting the project

Thank you very much!
Thank you for your Attention!