GRM2011: Improving groundnut productivity in Africa
22
TLI- Objective 1: Improve groundnut productivity for marginal environments from Sub-Saharan Africa Brief update – Important areas of progress EMBRAPA- UGA – ICRISAT – ISRA-Senegal – Malawi Nat. Prog. – Tanzania Nat. Prog Hyderabad 25 Sept 2011
-
Upload
cgiar-generation-challenge-programme -
Category
Technology
-
view
127 -
download
1
Transcript of GRM2011: Improving groundnut productivity in Africa
TLI- Objective 1: Improve groundnut
productivity for marginal environments
from Sub-Saharan Africa
Brief update – Important areas of progress
EMBRAPA- UGA – ICRISAT – ISRA-Senegal – Malawi Nat.
Prog. – Tanzania Nat. Prog
Hyderabad 25 Sept 2011
Update on groundnut objective
Perspectives for using synthetics
Current progress on drought
Sources of disease resistance:
Rust : ICGV 02194, ICG 11426, ICGV 01276, ICGV 02286, and ICG 02446
Rosette : ICG 14705, ICG 13099, ICG 9449, and ICG 15405
ELS : ICG 6022, ICG 405, ICG 14466, ICG 6057, ICG 9449 and ICG 12509; ICG 6703; ICG
10036, ICG 10384, and ICG 11219
Diversity
Sources of drought “tolerance”:
0
50
100
150
200
Po
d y
ield
(g
m-2
)
50 most contrasting lines 0
100
200
300
400
Po
d y
ield
(g
m-2
)
50 most contrasting lines
Water stress Irrigated
Tolerant
Sensitive
Consensus map of cultivated groundnut with
drought related QTLs
Gautami et al. 2011;
MS under review
ICG721 ICGV91114ICGV02022ICGS44 ICG8751 ICGV97182ChalimbanaICG4729 ICG14482 ICG11088 ICG2772
ICG8106 ICG721 ICGV91114ICGV02022ICGS44 ICG8751 ICGV97182ChalimbanaICG4729 ICG14482 ICG11088 ICG2772
ICG721 0.69
1 t-FMPV ICGV91114 0.75 0.83
2 t-FMPV Fleur11 0.71 0.83 0.88 0.81 0.33 0.79 0.71 0.65 0.67 0.65 0.63 0.73
3 t-FMPV ICR48 0.48 0.6 0.69 0.69 0.79 0.52 0.75 0.58 0.75 0.75 0.83 0.48
4 t-FMPV 55437 0.75 0.79 0.96 0.81 0.65 0.73 0.85 0.63 0.65 0.67 0.67 0.79
5 t-germplasmICGS44 0.69 0.85 0.83 0.69
6 t-germplasmICG8751 0.63 0.67 0.71 0.71 0.83
7 t-germplasmICGV97182 0.71 0.69 0.75 0.48 0.6 0.75
8 t-germplasmICGV01232 0.71 0.69 0.75 0.52 0.56 0.75 0.56 0.83 0.54 0.4 0.5 0.79
9 t-germplasmICGV02189 0.73 0.6 0.83 0.52 0.63 0.71 0.4 0.75 0.48 0.31 0.58 0.75
10 t-germplasmICG434 0.75 0.75 0.79 0.65 0.52 0.81 0.52 0.79 0.5 0.48 0.52 0.88
11 s-FMPV ICGVSM87003 0.69 0.71 0.75 0.63 0.65 0.63 0.54 0.71 0.52 0.46 0.56 0.71
12 s-FMPV JL24 0.58 0.79 0.54 0.75 0.83 0.79 0.75 0.88 0.71 0.63 0.67 0.79
13 s-FMPV CG7 0.75 0.77 0.83 0.54 0.63 0.73 0.58 0.75 0.42 0.5 0.48 0.79
14 s-germplasmICG2772 0.63 0.65 0.75 0.65 0.79 0.29 0.71 0.44 0.83 0.77 0.83
15 s-germplasmICG11862 0.75 0.58 0.79 0.6 0.6 0.69 0.48 0.79 0.54 0.4 0.56 0.79
16 s-germplasmICG1834 0.63 0.67 0.88 0.83 0.83 0.54 0.88 0.58 0.79 0.88 0.88 0.54
17 s-germplasmICG5286 0.63 0.69 0.79 0.54 0.69 0.83 0.44 0.83 0.5 0.42 0.58 0.77
18 s-germplasmICGV99001 0.69 0.52 0.73 0.56 0.79 0.52 0.58 0.65 0.63 0.58 0.75 0.56
19 s-germplasmICG4598 0.73 0.81 0.58 0.75 0.79 0.65 0.83 0.67 0.88 0.85 0.75 0.63
20 s-germplasmICG13787 0.6 0.75 0.88 0.69 0.5 0.73 0.63 0.71 0.67 0.56 0.69 0.77
Green: Tolerant
Yellow: Sensitive
22 crosses made
Development of new crosses for drought
Some of the lines used for developing SNPs
Rust: Three populations (JL24 x ICGV 94114, ICGV 93437 x
ICGV 94114 and ICGV 93437 x 95342) are being phenotyped at
F5 as well as bulking up seed for second season phenotyping at
F6.
ELS: Two populations (ICGV-SM 95714 x Robut 33-1, ICGV-SM
95714 x ICGV 93437).
Rosette: Three populations (Chalimbana x ICGV-SM 90704,
CG7 x ICGV-SM 90704 and JL 24 x ICGV-SM 90704) were one
generation behind. These will be advanced through two
generations and phenotyped at F6 in Dec – April 2012.
RILs populations for disease resistance
ready for genotyping / phenotyping
Marker-assisted introgression of rust resistance QTL
Post Rainy
2008-09
Rainy 2010
Post Rainy
2010-11
Rainy 2011
Rainy 2009
Post Rainy
2009-10
BC1F1
×
GPBD 4
F1
BC2F1
BC2F2
BC2F3
Selfing
BC3F1
BC3F2
RP
RP
RP
Backcrossing
ICGV91114
(RP)
×
×
×
(Crosses were made between
GPBD 4 with ICGV 91114)
Backcrossing
Backcrossing
Selfing Selfing
GPBD4 is a cultivated
lines with earlier
introgression from
diploid Cardenasii
Perspective with synthetics
1
3
5
7
9 h
oeh
nei
du
ran
en
sis
ben
en
sis
ste
no
sp
erm
a
kem
pff
-Merc
ad
oi
ste
no
sp
erm
a
ku
hlm
an
nii
ipaen
sis
card
en
asii
mag
na
valid
a
ste
no
sp
erm
a
deco
ra
ste
no
sp
erm
a
du
ran
en
sis
du
ran
en
sis
bati
zo
gaea
ste
no
sp
erm
a
du
ran
en
sis
du
ran
en
sis
du
ran
en
sis
du
ran
en
sis
ste
no
sp
erm
a
villo
sa
du
ran
en
sis
ho
eh
nei
ste
no
sp
erm
a
ku
hlm
an
nii
du
ran
en
sis
du
ran
en
sis
ch
iqu
itan
a
du
ran
en
sis
du
ran
en
sis
du
ran
en
sis
du
ran
en
sis
du
ran
en
sis
du
ran
en
sis
kre
tsch
meri
du
ran
en
sis
du
ran
en
sis
du
ran
en
sis
du
ran
en
sis
mo
nti
co
la
du
ran
en
sis
du
ran
en
sis
du
ran
en
sis
du
ran
en
sis
du
ran
en
sis
du
ran
en
sis
du
ran
en
sis
du
ran
en
sis
du
ran
en
sis
du
ran
en
sis
du
ran
en
sis
du
ran
en
sis
du
ran
en
sis
du
ran
en
sis
du
ran
en
sis
du
ran
en
sis
du
ran
en
sis
du
ran
en
sis
du
ran
en
sis
card
en
asii
card
en
asii
ste
no
sp
erm
a
du
ran
en
sis
du
ran
en
sis
du
ran
en
sis
mo
nti
co
la
du
ran
en
sis
du
ran
en
sis
bati
zo
gaea
mo
nti
co
la
mo
nti
co
la
TM
V2
Score of most resistant germplasm (AABB)
hoehnei
duranensis
benensis
stenosperma
kempff-Mercadoi
stenosperma
kuhlmannii
ipaensis
cardenasii
magna
valida
stenosperma
decora
stenosperma
duranensis
duranensis
batizogaea
stenosperma
Late leaf spot scoring (1, resist – 9, suscept.) in 74 AA and BB
Almost absolute
resistance available
in diploid
From Pande et al., 2001
Unlocking the genetic diversity: Amphidiploid production
Anf3 = (A. batizocoi K9484 x A. stenosperma V10309)4x
Anf4 = (A. batizocoi K9484 x A. duranensis SeSn2848)4x
Anf5 = (A. batizocoi K9484 x A. duranensis V14167)4x
Anf6 = (A. ipaensis KG30076 x A. villosa V12812)4x
Anf7 = (A. gregoryi V6389 x A stenosperma V10309)4x
EMBRAPA ICRISAT
Runner-886 AiAd
LLS damage Limited LLS damage
Poor agronomic traits
pod types unsuitable
BC Introgression of LLS resistance from synthetics
-
Starting point
From Soraya Leal-Bertioli
Runner 886 Synthetic Ai x Ad
10 BC1 F2 seeds from each planted in field 2008/2009
Selection for LLS resistance and agronomic traits
23 BC1F3 lines from 14 original BC1
selected and tested for LLS in the field
42 BC1 confirmed with SSR markers.
12 lines from 4 original BC1
being tested in field trials at two
locations
BC Introgression of LLS resistance from synthetics
-
Introgression scheme
BC1-111-10-461 Runner-886
BC Introgression of LLS resistance from synthetics
-
Proof of concept
LLS damage Resistance /
Good agronomic traits
pod types recovered
From Soraya Leal-Bertioli
CSSLs development: MAB from BC1 to BC4F3
Ai x Ad into Fleur 11
Fleur11 (A) AiAd (B) Heterozyg. (H) B or H Missing
601792101702502581893216929107961061226173302402241281319377132208552425226126525451200136149509746221190109918319219839220225140244168156901251287113823421566111262152146118183187708112314101851772482492615101126102
Chr 1 Chr 2 Chr 3 Chr 4 Chr 5 Chr 6 Chr 7 Chr 8 Chr 9 Chr 10 Chr 11 Chr 12 Chr 13 Chr 14 Chr 15 Chr 16 Chr 17 Chr 18Chr 19Chr 20
Legend: A B Genotype 3 Genotype 4 Heterozygote Missing data
Daniel Fonceka
BC1F1 46 -> 22 plants
BC2F1 192-> 50 plants
BC3F1 565-> 80 plants
BC4F1 769-> 83 plants
BC4F2 1180-> 140 plants
BC4F3
1200-> 122 plants
Minimum tiling path
70 plants
122 lines sent to India, Niger, Malawi
Progress in “drought tolerance”
Good integration
Glasshouse – Lysimeters - Field
Getting away from
single trait approach
Comparison
to other species (Obj5)
41
82
119
242
228
107
120 108
246
109
244
110
241
111
239 112
237 113
235
114
233
115
1
116
3
117
5
118 7
229
9
11
121
13
122
15
123
17
124
19
125 21
126
23
127
25
128 27
129
29
130
31 131
33
132
35
133
37
134
39
135
231 136
43 137
45
138
47
139
49
140
51
141
53
142
55 143
57 144
59 145 61
146
63
147
65
148
67 149
69
150
71
151 73
152
75
153
77
154
79
155
81
156
83
157 85
158
87 159
89
160
91
161
93
162
95
163
97 164
99
165
101
166 103 167
105
168
247
169
243
170
238
171
234
172 2
173
6
174 10
175
14
176
18
177
22
178
26
179
30 180
34
181
38 182
42
183 46
184
50
185
54
186
58
187 62
188
66 189
70
190
74
191
78
192
230
193
86
194
90
195
94
196
98 197 102
198 106
199
240
200
232
201
8
202
16
203
24
204
32
205
40
206
48
207
56
208
64
209
72
210
80
211
88
212
96
213
104
214
236
215 12
216 28
217 44
218 60
219
76 220 92
221
245
222
20
223 52
224
84
4
36
68
100
225
226
227
Patancheru2 Patancheru1
Sadore1
Sadore2
PC
2
Genotype scores
Environment scores Mega-Environments
41
82
119
242
228
107
120 108
246
109
244
110
241
111
239 112
237 113
235
114
233
115
1
116
3
117
5
118 7
229
9
11
121
13
122
15
123
17
124
19
125 21
126
23
127
25
128 27
129
29
130
31 131
33
132
35
133
37
134
39
135
231 136
43 137
45
138
47
139
49
140
51
141
53
142
55 143
57 144
59 145 61
146
63
147
65
148
67 149
69
150
71
151 73
152
75
153
77
154
79
155
81
156
83
157 85
158
87 159
89
160
91
161
93
162
95
163
97 164
99
165
101
166 103 167
105
168
247
169
243
170
238
171
234
172 2
173
6
174 10
175
14
176
18
177
22
178
26
179
30 180
34
181
38 182
42
183 46
184
50
185
54
186
58
187 62
188
66 189
70
190
74
191
78
192
230
193
86
194
90
195
94
196
98 197 102
198 106
199
240
200
232
201
8
202
16
203
24
204
32
205
40
206
48
207
56
208
64
209
72
210
80
211
88
212
96
213
104
214
236
215 12
216 28
217 44
218 60
219
76 220 92
221
245
222
20
223 52
224
84
4
36
68
100
225
226
227
Patancheru2 Patancheru1
Sadore1
Sadore2
PC
2
PC1
Genotype scores
Mega-Environments
GGE by-plots
Analysis of drought trials across environments
R² = 0.27
0
40
80
120
160
200
0 50 100 150 200 P
od
yie
ld W
ate
r s
tre
ss
20
09
(g
m-2
) Pod yield Water stress 2008 (g m-2)
India
R² = 0.0002
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 50 100 150 200
Po
d y
ield
Wa
ter
str
es
s 2
00
9 (
g m
-2)
Pod Yield Water stress 2008 (g m-2)
Niger
Need to take care of high G x Y under drought
(MARS / GWS) Hamidou et al – Field Crops Res.
R2 = 0.320.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00
Re
lati
ve H
arve
st i
nd
ex
Leaf weight
DS 1
R² = 0.790.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00
Re
lati
ve h
arve
st in
de
x
Leaf weight
DS 2
R2 = 0.53
-0.20
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00
Re
lati
ve H
arve
st i
nd
ex
Leaf weight
DS 3To
lera
nc
e in
de
x
Leaf weight
Lines with smaller
canopy better adapted
to intermittent stress
Mild stress
(35% less yield)
Medium stress
(50% less yield)
Severe stress
(70% less yield)
Relationship between leaf area and tolerance index
Ratnakumar & Vadez
– Funct. Pl. Biol.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Leaf
are
a (
cm
2)
DS
Most contrasting lines for leaf area
Genotype
ICG 8106
ICGV 02038
ICG 2106
ICG 3584
ICG 3140
ICG 4750
ICGV 02022
ICG 4729
ICG 11088
ICG 12697
ICG 8567
ICG 434
ICGV 02189
ICGV 95377
ICGV SM87003
ICGV 02271
ICG 1834
Fleur 11
ICG 12879
Genotype
ICG 2772
ICGV 97182
ICGV 00350
ICGV 02266
ICG 10010
ICG 12235
ICG 15287
ICG 13787
ICG 9961
Chalimbana
ICG 4598
ICG 8760
ICG 2777
ICG 11862
ICG 12000
47-10
ICG 5286
ICG 5663
Does this work in the field?
15 out of 18 top most tolerant have lower leaf area
14 out of 18 top most sensitive have higher leaf area
Leaf area (LA) under drought in the field
in 50 most contrasting lines
Arrows indicates Re-watering
Profile of water use from flowering to maturity
WW-Sensitive
WW-Tolerant
Tolerant lines develop a smaller canopy
WS
Ratnakumar & Vadez – Funct. Pl. Biol.
Thank you
0.000
0.010
0.020
0.030
0.040
0.050
0.060
0.070
0.080
08
:00
09
:00
10
:00
11
:00
12
:00
13
:00
14
:00
15
:00
16
:00
17
:00
18
:00
19
:00
Lea
f co
nd
ucta
nce (
gH
2O
cm
-2h
-1)
Time of the day (H)
LSD ICG 11862 ICG 12235
ICG 13787 ICG 4598 ICGV 12000
ICGV 02189 ICGV 02266 ICGV 11088
ICGV 97182 ICGV 97183
A
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
08
:00
09
:00
10
:00
11
:00
12
:00
13
:00
14
:00
15
:00
16
:00
17
:00
18
:00
19
:00
Leaf
con
du
cta
nce (
gH
2O
cm
-2h
-1)
Time of the day (H)
LSD Bambey-21 IT82E-18
IT97K-556-6 KVX-525 UC-CB46
IT84S-2049 IT93K-503-1 IT93K-693-2
Mouride Suvita 2
B
Groundnut Cowpea
From Issa Faye and Nouhoun Belko
