Evaluation of stress resistant sweetpotato varieties and their low cost micro-propagation: Ethiopian experience

Evaluation of stress resistant Sweetpotato Evaluation of stress resistant Sweetpotato Varieties and their Low cost Micro-Varieties and their Low cost Micro-propagation: Ethiopian Experiencepropagation: Ethiopian Experience

Emana Getu, Tileye Feyissa and Addisu NegaEmana Getu, Tileye Feyissa and Addisu Nega

Addis Ababa University, College of Natural Addis Ababa University, College of Natural Sciences Sciences

First Bio-Innovate Regional Scientific ConferenceUnited Nations Conference Centre (UNCC-ECA)

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 25-27 February 2013

IntroductionIntroduction

ObjectivesObjectives

Materials and Methods Materials and Methods

1. Sweet potato varietal screening against drought and sweetpotato weevil

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

Materials and Methods 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 Materials and Methods 2. Low Cost Micropropagation of Sweetpotato Low Cost Micropropagation of Sweetpotato• Four varieties of sweetpotato namely Four varieties of sweetpotato namely Awassa-83 Awassa-83

and Beletech and Beletech from HARC, andfrom HARC, and Adu Adu and and BarkumiBarkumie e from Haramaya University were collected and from Haramaya University were collected and used as a stock source for used as a stock source for micropropagation.micropropagation.

• For low cost micro-propagation study, so far For low cost micro-propagation study, so far BeletechBeletech and and Awassa-83Awassa-83 were used were used

Materials and Methods Materials and Methods

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 by SPw

Yield (t/ha)

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

MediaMedia Height (cm)Height (cm) NNoo Shoot/Node Shoot/Node FW (g)FW (g) DW(g)DW(g)

M1M1 6.6±0.2586.6±0.258a a 2.90±0.4752.90±0.475a a 1.52±0.0971.52±0.097a a 0.1373±0.0100.1373±0.010aa

M2M2 6.7±0.3416.7±0.341ab ab 2.97±0.1952.97±0.195ab ab 1.44±0.1081.44±0.108ab ab 0.1230±0.0080.1230±0.008abab

M3M3 5.9±0.2545.9±0.254abcabc 2.63±0.2062.63±0.206abc abc 1.28±0.1001.28±0.100abc abc 0.1109±0.0090.1109±0.009bcbc

M4M4 6.5±0.3096.5±0.309acd acd 2.96±0.2002.96±0.200abcd abcd 1.36±0.1371.36±0.137abcd abcd 0.1248±0.0120.1248±0.012abcdabcd

M5M5 5.7±0.3435.7±0.343bcde bcde 2.50±0.1782.50±0.178abcde abcde 1.32±0.0861.32±0.086abcde abcde 0.1120±0.0070.1120±0.007bcdebcde

M6M6 5.7±0.2575.7±0.257bcdef bcdef 2.27±0.2092.27±0.209abcdef abcdef 1.18±0.0641.18±0.064abcdef abcdef 0.1055±0.0050.1055±0.005bcdefbcdef

M7M7 5.8±0.2805.8±0.280bcdefbcdef 2.67±0.1752.67±0.175abcdef abcdef 1.42±0.0841.42±0.084abcdef abcdef 0.1270±0.0070.1270±0.007bcdefbcdef

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 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.Awassa- 83 variety grown on different low cost medium, values given as mean ± SE.

MediaMedia Height (cm)Height (cm) NNoo Shoot/Node Shoot/Node FW (g)FW (g) DW(g)DW(g)

M1M1 7.4±0.3627.4±0.362a a 2.83±0.4242.83±0.424aa 1.69±0.1401.69±0.140aa 0.1480±0.0120.1480±0.012aa

M2M2 6.9±0.4066.9±0.406ab ab 2.73±0.1592.73±0.159abab 1.58±0.1141.58±0.114abab 0.1393±0.0100.1393±0.010abab

M3M3 5.6±0.3925.6±0.392c c 2.23±0.1642.23±0.164abcabc 1.45±0.1171.45±0.117abcabc 0.1226±0.0090.1226±0.009abcabc

M4M4 5.8±0.3265.8±0.326cd cd 2.90±0.1542.90±0.154abcdabcd 1.51±0.1191.51±0.119abcdabcd 0.1260±0.0090.1260±0.009abcdabcd

M5M5 5.8±0.3175.8±0.317cde cde 2.43±0.2072.43±0.207abcdeabcde 1.40±0.0941.40±0.094abcdeabcde 0.1161±0.0080.1161±0.008bcdebcde

M6M6 5.5±0.3385.5±0.338cde cde 2.43±0.1232.43±0.123abcdefabcdef 1.19±0.1021.19±0.102cdecde 0.1052±0.0080.1052±0.008cdefcdef

M7M7 6.5±0.3426.5±0.342abcde abcde 2.70±0.1742.70±0.174abcdefabcdef 1.53±0.1041.53±0.104abcde abcde 0.1218±0.0080.1218±0.008abcdefabcdef

Means within each column connected by the same superscript (a-f) are not significantly Means within each column connected by the same superscript (a-f) are not significantly different at 5% probability level different at 5% probability level

Cost analysis of the substituted low cost mediumCost analysis of the substituted low cost medium

Component of Component of

the mediathe mediaCost/Kg, L Cost/Kg, L

(Birr)(Birr)Conc./L (%, w/v)Conc./L (%, w/v) Cost/L (Birr)Cost/L (Birr) Cost reductions Cost reductions

compared to the compared to the

standard (%)standard (%)

AgarAgar 27002700 0.80.8 2121 00

StarchStarch 300300 66 1818 14.314.3

Cassava flourCassava flour 1010 88 0.800.80 96.296.2

Lab. SucroseLab. Sucrose 640640 33 19.2019.20 00

Table sugarTable sugar 14.5014.50 33 0.440.44 9797

ddHddH22OO 55 55 00

Rain WaterRain Water 00 00 100100

Table 5. Comparative costs of culture medium componentsTable 5. Comparative costs of culture medium components

Use of rain water instead of ddHUse of rain water instead of ddH22O; the substitution of laboratory grade sucrose with table O; the substitution of laboratory grade sucrose with table

sugar; Substitution of gelling agents with cassava flour and starch alone reduced the cost of sugar; Substitution of gelling agents with cassava flour and starch alone reduced the cost of the media by 100, 97, 96.2, 14.4% respectively.the media by 100, 97, 96.2, 14.4% respectively.

Fig. 1. Comparative costs of culture medium Fig. 1. Comparative costs of culture medium with various substituted components.with various substituted components.

Totally substituted medium M7 Totally substituted medium M7 (rain water instead of ddH(rain water instead of ddH22O; table sugar as carbon O; table sugar as carbon

source and starch as a gelling agent) source and starch as a gelling agent) reduced the total cost of the medium by 59.2% and reduced the total cost of the medium by 59.2% and

totally substituted medium M6 totally substituted medium M6 (rain water instead of ddH(rain water instead of ddH22O; table sugar as carbon O; table sugar as carbon

source and cassava flour as a gelling agent) source and cassava flour as a gelling agent) reduced the total cost of the medium by 97.3%.reduced the total cost of the medium by 97.3%.

MediumMedium

Conclusion and Conclusion and RecommendationRecommendation

ConclusionConclusion• 6 varieties in southern Ethiopia 6 varieties in southern Ethiopia

and 4 varieties from eastern and 4 varieties from eastern Ethiopia were found to be Ethiopia were found to be resistant to stresses resistant to stresses

• For all the parameter measured, For all the parameter measured, the plantlets obtained on all low the plantlets obtained on all low cost media showed a good cost media showed a good growth performance.growth performance.

• The low cost media was The low cost media was especially good for the number especially good for the number of shoots/ node.of shoots/ node.

RecommendationRecommendation

• The best varieties should The best varieties should go through national go through national Variety release system and Variety release system and be released be released

• Agronomic performance Agronomic performance of sweetpotato derived of sweetpotato derived from low cost micro-from low cost micro-propagation should be propagation should be tested.tested.

Acknowledgment

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

Thank you for your Attention!

Thank you very much!