Tewodros Mulualem, Getachew Etanna, Neim Semman
Tewodros Mulualem*, Getachew Etanna, Neim Semman
Jimma Agricultural Research Center, Department of Horticultural Crops, P.O. Box 192, Jimma, Ethiopia.
Volume - 14,
Issue - 4,
Year - 2022
A multi-locational evaluation trial of six white fleshed sweet potato genotypes was conducted in four locations during 2019 and 2020 cropping seasons. The objective of this study was to determine the magnitude of genotype by environment interaction (GEI) for storage root yield and yield-related traits of sweet potato genotypes and to assess the adaptability and stability of sweet potato genotypes in different production environments in southwest Ethiopia. Six genotypes were evaluated across eight diverse environments using a randomized complete block design (RCBD) with three replications. Data were collected on yield and yield components in all tested locations. The results showed highly significant difference (p<0.01) for genotype effect, environmental affect and environment by genotype interaction (GEI) for all the traits studied. The analysis also revealed that the magnitude of the mean square of environment was higher than those of the genotype and GEI for all the traits studied indicating the uniqueness of the tested environments. The genotypes Hawassa-83, and Tula were identified both high mean root yield and high stability, closest to the ideal genotype for root performance and consistency of performance across environments. This study provides valuable information that could be utilized in a breeding program to ameliorate genotypes of sweet potato in Ethiopia.
Cite this article:
Tewodros Mulualem, Getachew Etanna, Neim Semman. Evaluation of White fleshed sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas (L) Lam) Genotypes in different agro-ecologies of Southwest Ethiopia. Research Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry. 2022; 14(4):240-6. doi: 10.52711/0975-4385.2022.00042
Tewodros Mulualem, Getachew Etanna, Neim Semman. Evaluation of White fleshed sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas (L) Lam) Genotypes in different agro-ecologies of Southwest Ethiopia. Research Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry. 2022; 14(4):240-6. doi: 10.52711/0975-4385.2022.00042 Available on: https://rjpponline.org/AbstractView.aspx?PID=2022-14-4-3
1. Afuape, S. O., Okocha, P. I., and Njoku, D. 2011. Multivariate assessment of the agro-morphological variability and yield components among sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam) landraces. Afr. J. Plant Sci. 5, 123–132. doi: 10.9734/AJEA/2014/5827
2. Aina, O., Dixon, A., and Akinrinde, E. 2007. Additive main effects and multiplicative interaction (AMMI) analysis for yield of cassava in Nigeria. Journal of biological sciences, 7(5), 796-800.
3. Central statistics Agency (CSA). 2015. The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Central Statistical Agency Agricultural Sample Survey 2017/ Volume I: Report On Area And Production of Major Crops
4. Emmanuel C. E, Solomon O. A, Samuel C. C and Benjamin E. U. 2021. Genotype × Environment Interaction and Stability Analysis for Root Yield in Sweet Potato [Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam]. Front. Agron. 3:665564, 1-15.
5. Fekadu Gurmu, Bililign Mekonen, Yitages Kuma. 2019. Performance and stability study of newly bred Orange fleshed sweet potato genotypes in Ethiopia. Proceedings of the National Conference on Crop Improvement and Management Research. October 10-12, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
6. Fekadu, G, Hussein, S. and, Laing M, 2017. Genotype-by-environment interaction and stability of sweet potato genotypes for root dry matter, β-carotene and fresh root yield. Open Agriculture,2: 473–485. Doi:10.1515/opag-2017-0052
7. Gauch, H. G,2013. “A Simple Protocol for AMMI Analysis of yield trials.” Crop Science 53:1860–1869. DOI:10.2135/cropsci2013.04.0241.
8. Getachew Etana, Derebew Belew and Tewodros Mulualem .2020. Blended fertilizer effect on quality of orange fleshed sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas (L) Lam) varieties. Journal of Biol. Che. Research, 37(2):72-86.
9. Gruneberg W.J., Manrique K., Zhang D., Hermann M., 2005. G x E interaction for a diverse set of sweetpotato genotypes evaluated across varying ecogeographic conditions in Peru, Crop Science, 45, 2160-2171
10. Ngailo, S., Shimelis, H., Sibiya, J., Mtunda, K., and Mashilo, J. 2019. Genotypeby environment interaction of newly-developed sweet potato genotypes for storage root yield, yield-related traits and resistance to sweet potato virus disease. Heliyon 5:e01448. doi: 10.1016 /j.heliyon.2019.e01448
11. Madawal, S. I., Madarakhandi, T. B. S., and Narasannavar, A. 2015. Genetic variability study in sweetpotato (Ipomoea batatas L.) genotypes. Int. J. Trop Agric. 33, 279–282.
12. Payne R.W., Murray D.A., Harding S.A., Baird D.B., Soutar D.M.,2011. GenStat for Windows (14th Edition) Introduction, VSN
13. Sabri, R. S., Rafii, M. Y., Ismail, M. R., Yusuff, O., Chukwu, S. C., and Hasan, N. 2020. Assessment of agro-morphologic performance, genetic parameters and clustering pattern of newly developed blast resistant rice lines tested in four environments. Agronomy 10:1098. doi: 10.3390/agronomy10081098
14. SAS Institute Inc, Version 9.0, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, 2000
15. Steel, R and Torrie, J. 1980. Principle and procedures of statistics a Biometrical Approach. 2nd ed. Mc Graw-Hill, Inc.pp471-473.
16. Tofu A., Anshebo T., Tsegaye E., Tadesse T. 2007. Summary of progress on orange-fleshed sweet potato research and development in Ethiopia, In: Proceedings of the 13th International Society for Tropical Root Crops (ISTRC) Symposium, Arusha, Tanzania, 9-15, November, 2003. ISTRC, Arusha, 2007, 728 - 731
17. Yan, W, M.S Kang, B.Ma ,S,Woods and P.L Cornelius, 2007. “GGE bi-plot Vs. AMMI analysis of genotype-by-environment data.” Crop Science, 47: 643–653.DOI:10.2135/cropsci2006.06.0374.
18. Yan W and Thinker N. 2006. An Integrated Biplot Analysis System for Displaying, Interpreting, and Exploring Genotype Environment Interaction. Crop Sci. 45:1004–1016
19. Yahaya, S. U., Saad, A.M., Mohammed, S. G., and Afuafe, S. O.2015. Growth and yield components of sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas L.) and their relationships with root yield. Am. J. Exp. Agric. 9, 1–7. doi: 10.9734/AJEA/2015/20078