Volume 6, Issue 1, March 2020, Page: 7-16
Diversity Analysis and Identification of Promising Powdery Mildew Resistance Genotypes in Field Pea (Pisum sativum L.)
Kedir Yimam Assen, High Land Pulse Improvement Division, Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, Kulumsa Agricultural Research Center, Asella, Ethiopia
Received: Feb. 25, 2020;       Accepted: Mar. 9, 2020;       Published: May 15, 2020
DOI: 10.11648/j.ajbes.20200601.12      View  268      Downloads  91
Abstract
In the present study, seventy-one field pea gene pools including three released varieties were evaluated in an augmented block design for assessing genetic divergence and level of resistance to powdery mildew for exploitation in a breeding program aimed at improving yield potential of field pea by using cluster and principal component analysis. Among the 10 studied traits, four (Eigenvalue >1.0) contributed more than 68.45% variability among the materials. Cluster analysis grouped the 71 field pea genotypes into seven distinct classes. The genetic divergence between all possible pairs of clusters were highly significant (P<0.01). The inter-cluster D2 value ranged from 311.63 to 2850.61 indicated that the evaluated gene pools were highly divergent. The genetically more divergent materials present in cluster five and six as indicated by inter-cluster distance value (2850.61). Selecting genotypes of these clusters and crossing them probably provide promising recombinants and better sergeants for future breeding program. Considerable variation was also found for resistance against the powdery mildew diseases. Out of the total 71 genotypes 12 were resistant, 29 were moderately resistant, 25 were moderately susceptible and 5 were susceptible to powdery mildew disease. Among 12 resistant genotypes; GPHA-9 and GPHA-19 were high yielder and GPHA-29, GPHA-48, GPHA-45 and GPHA-42 genotypes were found to be high yielding among 29 moderately resistant genotypes. The resistant genotypes identified could be exploited directly and/or may be transferred through hybridization to high yielding disease susceptible genotypes after checking their yield and disease stability in a number of locations and seasons for more confirmation with the present finding, since the present result was from one location and one season (year) data.
Keywords
Cluster, Diversity, Pisum sativum, Powdery Mildew, Principal Component, Resistance
To cite this article
Kedir Yimam Assen, Diversity Analysis and Identification of Promising Powdery Mildew Resistance Genotypes in Field Pea (Pisum sativum L.), American Journal of Biological and Environmental Statistics. Vol. 6, No. 1, 2020, pp. 7-16. doi: 10.11648/j.ajbes.20200601.12
Copyright
Copyright © 2020 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Reference
[1]
Adisu T and Ermiyas T (2017). Grain Yield and Yield Components of Field Pea (Pisum sativumL.): As influenced by Ascochyta Blight (Mycosphaerella pinodes) Disease in the Highlands of Bale, Oromia. American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology and Sciences (ASRJETS), 35 (1): 15-24.
[2]
Ajmal I, Shahen S, Mohammad N Abdul G (2017). Morphological Characterization and Selection for High Yielding and Powdery Mildew Resistant Pea (Pisum Sativum L.). Sains Malaysiana 46 (10): 1727–34.
[3]
Ateet M, Bhupendra B, Raju PA, Sagar GC, Swati S (2015). Efficacy assessment of treatment methods against powdery mildew disease of pea (Pisum sativum L.) caused by Erysiphe pisi var. pisi. World Journal of Agricultural Research, 3 (6): 185-191.
[4]
Aysh FM (2013). Inheritance and association of quantitative characteristics in Syrian landraces of garden peas (Pisum sativum L.). An International Journal of Life Sciences 2 (3): 198-203.
[5]
Bhattacharjee R, Dey U (2014). An overview of fungal and bacterial bio pesticides to control plant pathogens/disease/. African Journal of Microbial Research 8 (17): 1749-1762.
[6]
CSA (Central Statistical Authority). 2018. Agricultural sample survey 2009/10. Report on area and production of major crops private peasant holdings, Meher Season. Addis Ababa. Statistical Bulletin no. 586. Volume 1.
[7]
Eklund M, Von PR, Dayteg C, Henriksson T, Weibull P, Ceplitis A, Isaac P, Tuvesson, S (2005). Microsatellite markers for powdery mildew resistance in pea (Pisum sativum L.). Hereditas 142: 86-91.
[8]
FAOSTAT (2017). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Available online at http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC/visualize.
[9]
Fondevilla S. Rubiales D (2012). Powdery mildew control in pea. A review. Agronony and sustainable. development. 32: 401-409.
[10]
Ghafoor A, Mcphee K. (2012). Marker assisted selection (MAS) for developing powdery mildew resistant pea cultivars. Euphytica 186: 593-607.
[11]
Little TM and Hills FJ (1978). Agricultural Experimentation, Design and Analysis. pp. 162 - 163. John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York.
[12]
Mahbub MM, Rahman MM, Hossain MS, Nahar L, Shirazy BJ. 2016. Morphophysiological Variation in Soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merrill). American-Eurasian Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Sciences 16 (2): 234-238.
[13]
Messiaen CM, Seif AA, Jarso M, Keneni GA (2006). Pisum sativum L. internet record from PROTA4U. In: Brink M, Belay G (Eds.), PROTA: Plant Resources of Tropical Africa, Wageningen, Netherlands.
[14]
Million F (2012). Variablity, Heriatablity and Associattion of Some Morpho-Agronomic Traits in Field Pea (Pisium Sativum L.) Genotypes. Pakistan Journal of Bilogical Science 15 (80); 358-366.
[15]
Mussa J, Tezera W, Gemechu K (2006). Review of field pea (Pisum sativum L.) genetics and breeding research in Ethiopia: A review. In. Kemal A, Gemechu K, Seid A, Malhotra R, Beniwal S (Eds.), Food and Forage Legumes of Ethiopia: Progress and Prospects. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, pp. 67-79.
[16]
Mussa J, Dereje G, Gemechu K (2009). Procedures of Field Pea Improvement through Hybridization. Technical Manual No. 22, Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research. p 12.
[17]
Nigussie T, Seid A, Derje G, Tesfaye B, Chemeda F, Adane A, Abiy T, Fekede A, Kiros M (2008). Review of Research on Diseases Food Legumes. Abraham Tadesse (Eds). Increasing crop production through improved plant protection. (1): 85-124.
[18]
Nisar M, Ghafoor A, Khan MR, Qureshi AS (2006). Screening of Pisum sativum L. germplasm against Erysiphe pisi. Botany 48 (2): 33-37.
[19]
Rahman MM, Syed M, Akter A, Alam MM, Ahsan MM. 2014. Genetic Variability, Correlation and Path Coefficient Analysis of Morphological Traits in Transplanted Aman Rice (Oryza sativa L.). American-Eurasian Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Science 14 (5): 387-391.
[20]
Sahile S, Ahmed S, Fininsa C, Abang M and Sakhuja PK (2008). Survey of chocolate spot (Botrytis fabae) disease of faba bean (Vicia faba L.) and assessment of factors influencing disease epidemics in northern Ethiopia. Crop Protection, 27: 1457-1463.
[21]
Singh RK, Chaudhary BD (1999). Biometrical Methods in Quantitative Genetics Analysis. Kalyani publishers, New Delhi. Pp 318.
[22]
Teshome E, and Tegegn A (2017). Comparative Study of Powdery Mildew (Erysiphe polygoni) Disease Severity and Its Effect on Yield and Yield Components of Field Pea (Pisum sativum L.) in the Southeastern Oromia, Ethiopia. Journal of Plant Pathol ogy and Microbiology, 8: 410. doi: 10.4172/2157-7471.1000410.
[23]
Tomooka N. 1991. Genetic diversity and landrace differentiation of mungbean, Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek, and evaluation of its wild relatives (the subgenus Ceratotropis) as breeding materials. Technical bulletin of the Tropical Agriculture Research Center.
Browse journals by subject