Genetic differentiation analysis for the identification of complementary parental pools for sorghum hybrid breeding in Ethiopia
- 462 Downloads
The potential for exploiting heterosis for sorghum hybrid production in Ethiopia with improved local adaptation and farmers preferences has been investigated and populations suitable for initial hybrid development have been identified.
Hybrids in sorghum have demonstrated increased productivity and stability of performance in the developed world. In Ethiopia, the uptake of hybrid sorghum has been limited to date, primarily due to poor adaptation and absence of farmer’s preferred traits in existing hybrids. This study aimed to identify complementary parental pools to develop locally adapted hybrids, through an analysis of whole genome variability of 184 locally adapted genotypes and introduced hybrid parents (R and B). Genetic variability was assessed using genetic distance, model-based STRUCTURE analysis and pair-wise comparison of groups. We observed a high degree of genetic similarity between the Ethiopian improved inbred genotypes and a subset of landraces adapted to lowland agro-ecology with the introduced R lines. This coupled with the genetic differentiation from existing B lines, indicated that these locally adapted genotype groups are expected to have similar patterns of heterotic expression as observed between introduced R and B line pools. Additionally, the hybrids derived from these locally adapted genotypes will have the benefit of containing farmers preferred traits. The groups most divergent from introduced B lines were the Ethiopian landraces adapted to highland and intermediate agro-ecologies and a subset of lowland-adapted genotypes, indicating the potential for increased heterotic response of their hybrids. However, these groups were also differentiated from the R lines, and hence are different from the existing complementary heterotic pools. This suggests that although these groups could provide highly divergent parental pools, further research is required to investigate the extent of heterosis and their hybrid performance.
KeywordsCytoplasmic Male Sterility Genotype Group Polymorphic Information Content Hybrid Breeding Sorghum Genotype
The authors are thankful to AusAID (Australian Agency for International Development) for the financial support to undertake this research and sponsoring PhD scholarship to TTM and QAAFI (Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation) for research support.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Darvishzadeh R (2012) Phenotypic and molecular marker distance as a tool for prediction of and heterosis and F1 performance in sunflower (Helianthus annus L.) under well-watered and water stressed conditions. Aust J Crop Sci 6:732–738Google Scholar
- Desmae H (2007) Genetic diversity and variability in grain quality of sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench) landraces from North–Eastern Ethiopia. PhD thesis. University of QueenslandGoogle Scholar
- Duvick DN (1999) Heterosis: Feeding people and protecting natural resources. In: Coors JG, Pandey S (eds) The genetics and exploitation of heterosis in Crops. Madison, Wisconsin, USA, pp 19–29Google Scholar
- Gabriel K (2005) A study of heterotic relationships in sorghum. PhD Thesis. Texas A & M UniversityGoogle Scholar
- Ganapathy KN, Gomash SS, Rakshit S, Ambekar SS, Ghorade RB, Birdar BD, Saxena U, Patil JV (2012) Genetic diversity reveals utility of SSR markers in classifying parental lines and elite genotypes of sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench). Aust J Crop Sci 6:1486–1493Google Scholar
- Gebrekidan B (1980) Breeding and yield evaluation of hybrid sorghum and its production prospects in Ethiopia. Ethiopian J Agri Sci 2:101–114Google Scholar
- Larièpe A, Mangin B, Jasson S, Combes V, Dumas F, Jamin P, Lariagon C, Jolivot D, Madur D, Fievet J, Gallais A, Gubreuil P, Charcosset A, Moreau L (2012) The genetic basis of heterosis: multi parental quantitative trait loci mapping reveals contrasted level of apparent over dominance among traits of agronomic interest in maize (Zea mays L.). Genetics 190:795–811PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Miller JF (1999) Oilseeds and heterosis. In: Coors JG, Pandey S (eds) The genetics and exploitation of heterosis in Crops. Madison, Wisconsin, pp 399–404Google Scholar
- Parentoni SN, Magalahȃes JV, Pacheco CAP, Santos MX, Abadie T, Gama EEG, Guimarȃes PEO, Merelles WF, Lopes MA, Vsconcelos MJV, Paiva E (2001) Heterotic groups based on yield-specific combining ability data and phylogenetic relationship determined by RAPD markers for 28 tropical maize open pollinated varieties. Euphytica 121:197–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Perrier X, Floria A, Bonnet F (2003) Data analysis methods. In: Hamon P, Sequin, Perrier M, Glaszmann JC (eds) Genetic diversity of cultivated tropical plants. Enfield, Science Publishers. Montpellier, pp 43–76Google Scholar
- Qi X, Kimati J, Li Z, Jiang L, Cui Y, Liu B (2010) Heterosis analysis using AFLP markers revealed moderate correlations between specific combing ability and genetic distance in maize inbred lines. Afr J Biot 9:1568–1572Google Scholar
- Quinby JR, Karper RE (1954) Inheritance of height in sorghum. Agron J 46:211–216Google Scholar
- Rao SP, Reddy BVS, Nagaraj N, Upadhyaya HD (2014) Sorghum production for diversified uses. In: Wang YH, Upadhyaya HD, Kole C (eds) Genetics, genomics and breeding of Sorghum. CRC Press, FL, pp 1–27Google Scholar
- Reddy VG, Upadhyaya HD, Gowda CLL (2006) Current status of sorghum genetic resources at ICRISAT: their sharing and impacts. Int Sorghum Millets Newsl 47:9–13Google Scholar
- Reif JC, Hallauer AR, Melchinger AE (2005) Heterosis and heterotic pattern in maize. Maydica 50:215–223Google Scholar
- Sokal RR, Michener CD (1958) A statistical method for evaluating system relationship. University of Kansas. Science Bulletin. pp 1409–1438Google Scholar
- Windhausen VS, Atlin GN, Hickey JM, Crossa J, Jannink JL, Sorrells ME, Melchinger AE et al (2012) Effectiveness of genomic prediction of maize hybrid performance in different breeding populations and environments. G3• Genes/Genome/Genetics 2:1427–1436Google Scholar