Wheat is the second most produced and consumed cereal crop globally. In Ethiopia, however, its national average yield (2.97 t/ha) remains far below potential levels due to factors such as limited access to improved varieties, prevalence of diseases, recurrent drought, and suboptimal management practices. Moreover, there is limited information available in the current study areas on the performance of durum wheat genotypes under both biotic and abiotic stress conditions. Therefore, a field trial was conducted to evaluate and identify durum wheat genotypes with high‐yielding potential, resistance to major wheat rust diseases, and to estimate the presence of genetic variability among durum wheat genotypes, which were received from the Institute of Biodiversity Conservation. The experiment was conducted in two farmers’ fields located in the Sodo Zuria (Kokate) and Damote Gale (Ade Koysha) districts of the Wolaita zone during the 2020 main cropping season. A total of 36 durum wheat materials that comprised 34 genotypes, along with two standard checks, were used. The treatments were laid out in a simple lattice design (6 × 6) with two replications. Analysis of variance indicated that there was a significant difference among the test materials for most of the traits measured, except above‐ground biomass (AGB), total number of tillers per plant (TTPP), productive tiller per plant (PTPP), spike length (SL), and number of spikelets per spike (NSPLS) at Ade Koysha and number of seeds per spike (NSPS), TTPP, PTPP, NSPLS, and leaf rust (LR) at Kokate. The mean square values for the combined analysis of variance showed significant differences ( p ≤ 0.05) among treatments for the traits measured, except for NSPS and TTPP. The genetic variability analysis showed that genotypic coefficient of variation (GCV) ranged from 3% (days to maturity DM) to 53% (resistance to yellow rust), and phenotypic coefficient of variation (PCV) ranged from 4% (DM) to 95% (resistance to yellow rust). Out of the 14 quantitative traits across locations, thousand seed weights (TSWs) (60%, 31%) and grain yield (GY) (82%, 98%) showed a high value of broad‐sense heritability and high genetic advances, respectively. From the combined data, the correlation coefficient of GY showed highly significant positive phenotypic and genotypic correlation with TSW (0.52, 0.63) and harvest index (HI) (0.87, 0.96), respectively. The cluster analysis grouped the 34 durum wheat genotypes and the two checks into five clusters. The maximum inter‐cluster distance was observed between clusters I and V ( D 2 = 39.72), followed by clusters II and III ( D 2 = 38.82), and the minimum value was observed between clusters I and III ( D 2 = 20.9). The first four principal component analyses contributed about 74.8℅ of the total variation. GY, HI, productive tillers per plant, AGB, and plant height (PH) were the major traits that contributed most to the variation. The current study identified accessions 213037, 222450, 214348, 214606, and 222482 as the top five high‐yielders, along with resistance to wheat rust diseases. The study revealed significant variation among the tested durum wheat genotypes in terms of growth, yield, and resistance to major biotic and abiotic stresses. Several accessions exhibited superior performance in GY, drought tolerance, and disease resistance compared to the local checks. These promising genotypes demonstrated better adaptability to the agroecological conditions of the study areas, indicating their potential for further evaluation and possible release as improved varieties to enhance durum wheat production. Therefore, to increase durum wheat production for the research areas and comparable agroecologies, these accessions, despite not having been previously characterized, were chosen for confirmation through additional characterizations and evaluations.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Tariku Goa
Mesfin Kebede
Brikti Ferede
Advances in Agriculture
Biologie des Oiseaux et Aviculture
Wolaita Sodo University
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Goa et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/696c772aeb60fb80d1395687 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/aia/3310081