Drought is the most limiting abiotic stress in finger millet production. Very little has been done to explore resistance in the crop. Finger millet is reported to have special mechanisms for drought resistance which some varieties possess. Drought tolerant lines will yield relatively well when water is scarce but do not lose the ability to yield well in good seasons. A number of agronomic traits; seedling vigor, days to flowering (DAF), plant height, umber of productive tillers, amount of chaff (threshability) and grain yield have been used to assess drought tolerance in finger millet.

1. Feb
2017
Screening for drought tolerance in finger millet germplasm
Henry Ojulong1
, P Sheunda1
, E Letayo2
, L Nyaligwa2
, J Kibuka1
, D Otwani1
and E Manyasa1
Introduction
• Drought is the most limiting abiotic stress in finger millet production
• Very little has been done to explore resistance in the crop.
• Finger millet is reported to have special mechanisms for drought resistance which
some varieties possess.
• Drought tolerant lines will yield relatively well when water is scarce but do not lose
the ability to yield well in good seasons (Fleury et al. 2010)
• A number of agronomic traits; seedling vigor, days to flowering (DAF), plant height,
number of productive tillers, amount of chaff (threshability) and grain yield have
been used to assess drought tolerance in finger millet (Neshamba, 2010).
Material and Methods
• 29 promising drought tolerant genotypes selected from the previous drought trials
and an improved drought tolerant check (U15) were tested in replicated trials at
KALRO-Kiboko & KALRO-Kampi ya Mawe, Kenya and DRD-Miwaleni, Tanzania during
the 2015 long rains and agronomic data taken.
• Supplementary irrigation was given at Kiboko and Miwaleni until 50% flowering
Results
Kiboko
• Accessions with least DAF: IE 2957 (46), IE 3104 (48) & IE 501 (49). Check=68
• Highest yielder: IE 6013 (2.0 t/ha), IE 593 (2.0 t/ha), IE 501 (2.1), IE 2187
(2.2 t/ha). Check =1.0 t/ha)
Kampi ya Mawe
• Accessions with least DAF: IE 2323 (57), IE 3104 (57), IE 5736 (59). Check=66
• Highest yielders: IE 5845 (0.5 t/ha), IE 5165 (0.5 t/ha), IE 546 (0.5 t/ha) & IEFV 0009
(1.0 t/ha). Check = 0.3 t/ha
Miwaleni
• Accessions with least DAF: IE 501 (47), IE 2957 (47 & IE 593 (48)
• Highest yielders KNE 741 (2.6 t/ha), IE 571 (2.8 t/ha) & IE 2187 (3.4 t/ha); Check
(2.0 t/ha)
Combined analysis
• Highest yielders: IE 595 (1.45 t/ha), IE 501 (1.48 t/ha), IEFV 0090, IE 2187 (2.02 t/ha).
Check= (1.1 t/ha)
• Least DAF: IE 501 (52), IE 3104 (52), IE 2323 (53) & IE 2957 (53). Check (64)
• Highest biomass IE 6013 (3.33 t/ha), IEFV 0090 (3.27 t/ha) & IE 5165 (2.99 t/ha)
• Accessions U15, IEFV 0090 & IEFV 0094 were resistant to lodging.
1
International Crops Research Institute for Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) Box 39063-00623, Nairobi-Kenya;
2
Department of Research and Development, Tanzania
About ICRISAT: www.icrisat.org
ICRISAT’s scientific information: http://EXPLOREit.icrisat.org
Table 1. Means of agronomic traits of the best 10 yielders and a check across three
locations.
Variety
Seedling
vigor
Days to
flowering
Plant
height
Productive
tillers
Lodged
Plants
Biomass
(t/ha)
Grain
Yield
(t/ha)
1000
Seed
Weight
IE 2187 2 59 65 6 3 2.82 2.02 2.30
IEFV 0090 2 66 72 3 0 3.27 1.50 2.03
IE 501 2 52 53 7 2 1.96 1.48 2.42
IE 593 2 54 58 4 3 2.00 1.45 2.47
IE 2030 2 56 53 7 3 2.51 1.43 2.35
IE 5791 1 61 68 3 3 2.52 1.37 1.93
IE 5165 2 61 65 2 1 2.99 1.37 2.15
IE 5812 1 62 66 3 1 2.56 1.35 2.40
IE 546 2 57 60 7 2 2.56 1.34 2.17
KNE 741 2 57 78 2 4 1.88 1.32 2.08
U 15 2 64 70 2 0 2.82 1.10 1.98
Mean 2 59 64 4 3 2.39 1.23 2.21
F pr. - <001 <001 <001 <001 <001 0.006 <001
l.s.d. - 2.75 6.00 1.04 0.80 0.80 1.20 0.37
cv% - 5.00 10.00 38.30 35.70 35.70 41.8 17.90
Table 2. ANOVA table for the different agronomic traits evaluated on 30 genotypes.
Mean squares
Source of
variation
Days to
flowering Plant height
Productive
tillers
Lodged
plants Biomass
Seed
weight
Grain
yield
Rep 25.4 91.5 16.2*** 2.6 0.7* 0.7* 0.3
Genotype (G) 154*** 611.2*** 27.1*** 116*** 2.4*** 0.4** 0.6**
Location (L) 1361*** 8763*** 28.3*** 131*** 83.0*** 8.1*** 48.4***
G x L 18.6*** 55.7 3.4* 12.6 0.8 0.3* 0.4*
Residual 8.7 41.5 2.2 11.4 0.7 0.2 1.6
CV 5.0 10.0 38.3 60.0 35.7 17.9 41.8
Table 3. Principle component coefficient of the various traits with principles of the
various yield related traits.
Eigen loadings
Traits PC 1 PC 2 PC 3 PC 4 PC 5
Seedling_vigor 0.292 0.385 0.550 -0.465 0.216
Agronomic score 0.446 -0.078 0.012 0.175 -0.479
Days to Flowering -0.459 0.180 0.073 -0.031 0.023
Plant Height -0.447 -0.163 -0.241 -0.005 -0.176
Productive tillers 0.403 0.276 -0.162 0.476 -0.148
No of lodged plants 0.248 -0.494 -0.088 0.197 0.733
Biomass -0.250 0.494 0.187 0.626 0.287
1000 Seed weight 0.141 0.472 -0.752 -0.309 0.227
Eigen value 3.97 2.00 0.71 0.47 0.43
Percent total variance 49.68 24.96 8.91 5.87 5.38
Cumulative Variance 49.68 74.64 83.55 89.42 94.80
Principal component analysis
• First three PCs explained most variation
(83.6%) (Table 3)
• On PC1 variability contributed most by
Agronomic score (0.446), productive tillers
(0.403), days to flowering (-0.459) & plant
height (-447)
• PC 2: Above ground biomass (0.494) and
number of lodged plants (-0.447)
• PC 3: 1000 Seed weight (-0.752) & plant
vigor (0.550)
Principal component analysis
• Kiboko and KYM ideal for selection for
drought tolerance
• Entries performed best at Kiboko and
least at Miwaleni
• Best genotypes for Kiboko: IE6013,
IE501 & IE593
• Best for KYM: IEFV 0009, IE 2323,
IE 5845 & IE 2957
ANOVA
• Genotype and Location were
highly significant for all the traits
assessed (table 2).
• G x L were highly significant
(P<001) for days to flowering and
significant (P=0.05) for number
of productive tillers, seed weight
and grain yield
• Location was the main source of
variation in all the traits
Conclusion
• Finger millet varieties have previously been selected purely for yield traits
and blast. However, ample variability exists within the germplasm to select for
drought tolerance
• KALRO Kiboko and KALRO-Kampi ya Mawe are ideal sites for terminal
drought screen under supplementary irrigation and sole natural precipitation
respectively
• Genotypes should be tested in their specific drought prone locations due to
the high location influence
• Agronomic score, number of productive tillers, maturity period, plant height,
number of lodged plants above ground biomass and seed size are suitable as
secondary traits for drought screening
• Drought tolerant accessions have been identified for potential release and
drought tolerant breeding population has been initiatedDrought susceptible Drought resistant
• Best for KYM: KNE 5791 & KNE 741
• Most stable genotypes across the locations: IE 5791, KNE 741, IE 546, IE 6176, IE
5165, IE 5736, IE 5733 & IE 5635
• Best across locations: IE 6013, IE 5635, IE 5845, IE 2957
Short growth duration enables escapes
of end of season (terminal) stress.
Genotype ranking across locations
based on yield.
HOPE