ICRISAT Archival Report 2006 - The seedlings of success in the ...

Milestone C.5.1.8: Foxtail core set evaluated for resistance to blast disease (RPT/RS/HDU/CLLG, 2012)
Milestone C.5.1.9: Identification and evaluation of trait specific germplasm in finger millet and foxtail millet
core collections (CLLG/HDU, 2008)
Finger millet: We evaluated 20 finger millet accessions with four control cultivars in a replicated trial. IEs
2340, 3194, 3790, 4974, and 6142 (116.7 – 188.3 cm) were significantly taller than the tallest control PR 2 and
can be a source for feed and fodder. IEs 2498 and 4974 (56.7 – 61.7 mm) had wider inflorescence than the
widest control RAU 8 ((55.0 mm). IEs 2498, 2683, and 2983 (10.7 – 11.3) have greater width of the longest
finger than the best control PR 202 (10.00 mm). IEs 2498, 2578, 2887, 2903, and 4974 (11.1 – 13.4 g 1000 seed
weight) had significantly greater seed size than the large seeded control RAU 8 (8.6 g). IEs 94, 2578, 3790,
3802, 4974, and 6236 (2.01 – 2.61 t ha -1 ) were good for grain yield.
Foxtail millet: We evaluated 20 foxtail millet accessions with four control cultivars in a replicated trial. 11
accessions (38 – 45 days) flowered significantly earlier than the earliest control ISe 375 (56 days). ISes 1258
and 1658 (38 days) were the earliest accessions. ISes 769 and 1434 (159.3 – 161.3 cm) were significantly taller
than the tallest control Ise 1541 (146.7 cm). ISes 1433 and 1434 (3.0) had significantly greater number of basal
tillers than all the four controls (1.0-2.0). ). ISes 1433 and 1434 (234.7 – 239.3 mm) had significantly greater
inflorescence length than all the four controls (131.7 – 198.7 mm). ISe 1434 (2.06 t ha -1 )) had significantly
greater grain yield than all the four controls (0.81 – 1.53 t ha -1 ).
CLL Gowda and HD Upadhyaya
Activity C.5.2: Evaluate mini core and/or reference sets for important abiotic stresses
Milestone C.5.2.1: Groundnut, pigeonpea and chickpea mini-core sets screened for salinity tolerance
(VV/LK/HDU/CLLG/PMG/RKV/KBS, 2007)
Chickpea screening: The screening that was performed in 2004-05 was repeated in 2005-06. We had a good
agreement between the yield under salinity data of the two years (R 2 = 0.40). There was over a 6-fold range of
variations in seed yield under salinity, indicating that this range of variations would be more suitable for
breeding salinity tolerant lines. From the 2 consecutive trials, the most contrasting genotypes were selected and
used to develop crosses, in relation with the chickpea breeding group. To select the contrasting genotypes, we
also tried to match the phenology of the parents used. We tried also to select parents with good yield potential
under control conditions, knowing that yield potential explains a part of the performances under salinity. From
the two years of trial, about 55 entries were dispatched to UWA (Australia) in the frame of the COGGO-funded
project. Purpose is to test them for salinity in the Australian conditions. The mini-core collection of chickpea has
also been sent to 2 locations in India (PAU, Ludhiana, Punjab and CSSRI, Karnal, Haryana), in collaboration
with Dr Sandhu (PAU) and Dr RK Gautham (CSSRI), for field testing. Data from the 2004-05 were presented at
the Australian Society of Agronomy meeting (Perth 10-14 Sept 06) and are being published in Field Crop
Research.
V Vadez, L Krishnamurthy, HD Upadhyaya, CLL Gowda,
PM Gaur and RK Varshney
Groundnut screening: The groundnut screening for salinity tolerance from 2005 was repeated at same time in
2006 (Sowing in April) and under the same conditions. This time, we cultivated plants under saline and control
conditions until maturity and could therefore assess the yield. The range of variation for pod yield under salinity
was about 6-7-fold between the most and the least tolerant genotypes. A list of tolerant and sensitive genotype
from that screening is available on request. From that screening, we would be able to select the most promising
for field-testing in Orissa in 2007-08. Unlike previous finding in chickpea, we found no relation between pod
yield under salinity and pod yield under control, meaning that salinity tolerance for pod yield production under
salinity was not related to the yield potential of groundnut. We found a modest relation between the ratio of pod
yield (pod yield salinity / pod yield control) and the ratio of shoot biomass at maturity. This indicated that,
although genotypes able to develop relatively more biomass under salinity were somewhat more likely to
achieve a better relative pod yield, the screening for salinity tolerance is more reliable if based on the assessment
of pod yield under salinity. Compare to control, the number of pod per plant was reduced by about 50%. Pod
weight under salinity was further reduced under salinity, being only 30% of that under control. This result
showed that not only the success of the reproductive process under salinity (proxied by the number of pods) was
a key to high yield, but also the ability of plant to fill up these pods. A repeat of that screening is on going; from
70