18.06.2013 Views

Sorghum Diseases in India

Sorghum Diseases in India

Sorghum Diseases in India

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Table 2. Mean threshed gra<strong>in</strong> mold rat<strong>in</strong>g (TGMR) 1 Table 2. Mean threshed gra<strong>in</strong> mold rat<strong>in</strong>g (TGMR) , and physical characteristics of gra<strong>in</strong>s of four<br />

groups of advanced sorghum breed<strong>in</strong>g l<strong>in</strong>es, parental l<strong>in</strong>es, and improved controls evaluated at<br />

ICRISAT Center ra<strong>in</strong>y season 1985.<br />

1 Table 2. Mean threshed gra<strong>in</strong> mold rat<strong>in</strong>g (TGMR) , and physical characteristics of gra<strong>in</strong>s of four<br />

groups of advanced sorghum breed<strong>in</strong>g l<strong>in</strong>es, parental l<strong>in</strong>es, and improved controls evaluated at<br />

ICRISAT Center ra<strong>in</strong>y season 1985.<br />

1 , and physical characteristics of gra<strong>in</strong>s of four<br />

groups of advanced sorghum breed<strong>in</strong>g l<strong>in</strong>es, parental l<strong>in</strong>es, and improved controls evaluated at<br />

ICRISAT Center ra<strong>in</strong>y season 1985.<br />

Type of L<strong>in</strong>es Pericarp<br />

3<br />

Floaters (%)<br />

Dehull<strong>in</strong>g<br />

recovery Tann<strong>in</strong> Flavanselection<br />

(no.) color Testa 2 TGMR A B (%) 4<br />

(cat.eq) 5 4-ol<br />

GM-resistant 2 Brown + 2.3 52 56 75 1.53 3.19<br />

GM-resistant 7 Red - 2.3 23 29 84 0.12 4.57<br />

GM-resistant 5 White - •2.2 21 27 87 0.11 0.16<br />

GM-susoeptible 7 White - 5.0 63 76 64 0.25 0.01<br />

GM-susceptible 2 White - 5.0 78 87 56 0.10 0.00<br />

GM-resistant Brown/<br />

(parental l<strong>in</strong>es) 3 Red +/- 2.4 52 49 70 2.27 5.44<br />

GM-susceptible<br />

(controls) 5 White - 5.0 73 86 60 0.11 0.01<br />

SE - - - ±0.15 ±5.7 ±3.8 ±2.3 ±0.10 ±0.16<br />

1. TGMR = Threshed gra<strong>in</strong> mold rat<strong>in</strong>g on a 1 to 5 scale, where 1 = no mold, and 5 = 50% gra<strong>in</strong> surface area<br />

molded.<br />

2. Testa present (+); testa absent (-).<br />

3. Floater A = gra<strong>in</strong>s of a sample (%) that floated when submersed <strong>in</strong> a solution of NaNO3 NaNO3 NaNO3 NaNO3 NaNO3 NaNO3 NaNO3 NaNO3 (1.3 specific gravity).<br />

Floater B = gra<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> a sample (%) that floated <strong>in</strong> a 1.327 specific gravity solution of tetrachloro-ethylene and<br />

odorless kerosene.<br />

4. Percentage of whole gra<strong>in</strong>s recovered after dehull<strong>in</strong>g.<br />

5. Cat.eq = Catech<strong>in</strong> equivalent.<br />

50% flower<strong>in</strong>g, plant height, plant color, panicle<br />

type, absence or presence of the testa layer, and<br />

gra<strong>in</strong> mold resistance. We also determ<strong>in</strong>ed gra<strong>in</strong><br />

density (% floaters Of each F2 segregate derived<br />

from three crosses (IS 14384 x ICSV 1, IS 14384 x<br />

SPV 104, and IS SPV 104 x IS 14385) and the<br />

tann<strong>in</strong> content of each F2 segregate derived from<br />

one cross (IS 14384 x SPV 104). Frequency distribution<br />

plots of mold resistance of F2 segregates<br />

derived from IS 14384 x ICSV 1 and IS 14384 x<br />

SPV 104 crosses are shown <strong>in</strong> Figures 2 and 3,<br />

respectively; that of floaters (%) of similar<br />

crosses <strong>in</strong> Figures 4 and 5, respectively.<br />

Correlation coefficients between mold resistance<br />

and plant and gra<strong>in</strong> traits were determ<strong>in</strong>ed<br />

to identify plant or gra<strong>in</strong> traits significantly<br />

associated with mold resistance. In a few<br />

crosses, mold resistance and time to 50% flower<strong>in</strong>g<br />

were significantly correlated, <strong>in</strong>dicat<strong>in</strong>g that<br />

late-flower<strong>in</strong>g F2 segregates <strong>in</strong> these crosses tended<br />

to escape mold damage. For the majority<br />

of crosses/ however, correlation coefficients between<br />

mold resistance and time to 50% flower<strong>in</strong>g<br />

278<br />

were small and not significant. Also correlation<br />

coefficients between panicle type and mold resistance<br />

were low and <strong>in</strong>significant except <strong>in</strong> one<br />

cross (IS 14384 x SPV 104), <strong>in</strong>dicat<strong>in</strong>g that openpanicle<br />

types are not always associated with<br />

mold resistance. We observed several F2 segregates<br />

with open-panicle types severely molded.<br />

Correlation coefficients between mold resistance<br />

and floaters (%) and tann<strong>in</strong> are presented<br />

<strong>in</strong> Table 3. Mold resistance was highly correlated<br />

with floaters <strong>in</strong> all crosses except among browngra<strong>in</strong>ed<br />

F2 segregates derived from IS 14384 x<br />

ICSV 1. This confirms a previous observation<br />

(Glueck and Rooney 1980) that gra<strong>in</strong> hardness is<br />

associated with mold resistance. Tann<strong>in</strong> content<br />

was highly correlated with mold resistance<br />

among brown-gra<strong>in</strong>ed F2 segregates, confirm<strong>in</strong>g<br />

the observations of Harris and Burns (1970) that<br />

sorghum genotypes with high-tann<strong>in</strong> content<br />

resist gra<strong>in</strong> mold<strong>in</strong>g. Correlation coefficients<br />

between TGMR and floaters (%), dehull<strong>in</strong>g recovery<br />

(%), tann<strong>in</strong> and flavan-4-ol levels among<br />

white- and red-gra<strong>in</strong>ed mold-resistant ad-

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!