Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T04:08:31.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Diversity and geographical gaps in Cajanus scarabaeoides (L.) Thou. germplasm conserved at the ICRISAT genebank

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2011

H. D. Upadhyaya ,
K. N. Reddy ,
R. P. S. Pundir ,
Sube Singh ,
C. L. L. Gowda  and
M. Irshad Ahmed
H. D. Upadhyaya*
Affiliation:
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Genetic Resources, Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh502 324, India
K. N. Reddy
Affiliation:
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Genetic Resources, Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh502 324, India
R. P. S. Pundir
Affiliation:
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Genetic Resources, Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh502 324, India
Sube Singh
Affiliation:
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Genetic Resources, Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh502 324, India
C. L. L. Gowda
Affiliation:
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Genetic Resources, Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh502 324, India
M. Irshad Ahmed
Affiliation:
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Genetic Resources, Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh502 324, India
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Crop wild relatives are important components of agro-ecosystems as potential gene contributors for crop improvement programmes. Cajanus scarabaeoides (L.) Thou., a pigeonpea wild relative is crossable with cultivated pigeonpea and possesses several beneficial traits. Hundred accessions conserved at the ICRISAT genebank were characterized for 13 quantitative and ten qualitative traits to assess the diversity in the collection. Highly significant genotypic variance for leaflet length, days to 5% maturity, seeds per pod, 100-seed weight, seed protein content and trichome density and length was observed. All C. scarabaeoides accessions used in the present study are the best sources for extra early ( < 80 d to 50% flowering) and early maturity (80–100 d to 50% flowering). Eight accessions (ICP 15692, ICP 15696, ICP 15698, ICP 15699, ICP 15712, ICP 15719, ICP 15732 and ICP 15758) and the control ICP 15695 have produced more than 92% healthy pods per plant and higher number of seed per pod (4–6 seeds). Accessions in cluster 2, 3 and 4 with low mean values for days to 50% flowering were found as the best sources for early flowering and maturity. Accessions in cluster 2 and 3 for seeds per pod and cluster 2 for healthy pods per plant were found as promising sources for use in crop improvement. Mean diversity over all clusters was highest (H= 0.57 ± 0.01) for seeds per pod and lowest for days to 50% flowering (0.48 ± 0.02). Significant negative correlation between pods per raceme and healthy pods per plant ( − 0.213) indicated high pod damage in racemes having more pods. Trichome length had highly significant negative association with healthy pods per plant ( − 0.293). The probability map generated using FloraMap, a GIS tool, revealed the occurrence of C. scarabaeoides quite close to the origin and dispersal of pigeonpea. The probability (>75%) map identified a total of 118 provinces covering 790 districts in Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam as geographical gaps in the collection. Complete passport data including location coordinates should be collected while collecting the germplasm to analyze the spatial aspects of species distribution.

Keywords

characterizationdiversitygenetic resourcesgeographical gapgermplasmwild relatives
Type
Research Article
Information
Plant Genetic Resources , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , April 2013 , pp. 3 - 14
Copyright
Copyright © NIAB 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Burle, ML, Cordeiro, CMT, Fonseca, JR, de Melo, MP, de Belem das Neves Alves, R and Abadie, T (2003) Characterization of germplasm according to environmental conditions at the collecting site using GIS-two case studies from Brazil. Plant Genetic Resources Newsletter 135: 1–11.Google Scholar
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations(2008) Climate Change and Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture. Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
Food and Agriculture Organization(2007) http://www/FAO.ORG/FAOSTAT database.Google Scholar
Food and Agriculture Organization(2009) http://www/FAO.ORG/FAOSTAT database.Google Scholar
Hernandez, PA, Graham, CH, Master, LL and Albert, DL (2006) The effect of sample size and species characteristics on performance of different species distribution modeling methods. Ecography 29: 773–785.Google Scholar
IBPGR and ICRISAT(1993) Descriptors for Pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.]. Rome/Patancheru: IBPGR/ICRISAT, p. 31.Google Scholar
ICRISAT (International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics)(1978) Annual Report 1977/78. Patancheru: ICRISAT, p. 295.Google Scholar
Jones, PG and Gladkov, A (1999) FloraMap: a Computer tool for predicting the distribution of plants and other organisms in the wild. Version 1. In: Jones, AL (ed.) CIAT, CD-ROM Series. Cali, Colombia: Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical.Google Scholar
Kameswara Rao, N, Reddy, LJ and Bramel, PJ (2003) Potential of wild species for genetic enhancement of some semi-arid food crops. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 50: 707–721.Google Scholar
Keuls, M (1952) The use of the “Studentized range” in connection with an analysis of variance. Euphytica 1: 112–122.Google Scholar
Lenne, JM and David, W (1991) Plant diseases and the use of wild germplasm. Annual Review of Phytopathology 29: 35–63.Google Scholar
Levene, H (1960) Robust tests for equality of variances. In: Olkin, I (ed.) Contributions to Probability and Statistics: Essays in Honor of Harold Hotelling. Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 278–292.Google Scholar
MS Encarta® Interactive World Atlas(2000) 1995–1999 Microsoft Corporation. Redmond, WA: One Microsoft Way, pp. 98052–106399.Google Scholar
Newman, D (1939) The distribution of range in samples from a normal population expressed in terms of an independent estimate of standard deviation. Biometrika 31: 20–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, HD and Thompson, R (1971) Recovery of inter-block information when block sizes are unequal. Biometrica 58: 545–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pundir, RPS and Singh, RB (1985) Crossability relationships among Cajanus, Atylosia and Rhynchosia species and detection of crossing barriers. Euphytica 34: 303–308.Google Scholar
Reddy, LJ, Bramel, P, Saxena, KB, Ortiz, R (2000) Utilization of wild species in pigeonpea improvement at ICRISAT. Poster presented In: International Conference on Science and Technology for Managing Plant Genetic Diversity in the 21st Century, Kaula Lumpur, Malaysia, 12–16 June, 2000.Google Scholar
Saxena, KB and Kumar, RV (2003) Development of a cytoplasmic nuclear male-sterility system in pigeonpea using C. scarabaeoides (L.) Thouars. Indian Journal of Genetics and Plant Breeding 63: 225–229.Google Scholar
Saxena, KB, Singh, L, Reddy, MV, Singh, U, Lateef, SS, Sharma, SB and Remanandan, P (1990) Intra species variation in Atylosia scarabaeoides (L.) Benth, a wild relative of pigeonpea (Cajuns cajan (L.) Millsp.). Euphytica 49: 185–191.Google Scholar
Shannon, CE and Weaver, W (1949) The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Sharma, SB, Remanandan, P and McDonald, D (1993) Resistance to Meloidogyne javanica and Rotylenchulus reniformis in wild relatives of pigeonpea. Journal of Nematology 25: 824–829.Google ScholarPubMed
Sharma, HC (2006) Wild Relatives of Pigeonpea as Sources of Resistance to Cotton Bollworm/Legume Pod Borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner). http://www.icrisat.org/text/research/grep/homepage/grephomepage/archives/wild.htm.Google Scholar
Sharma, HC, Green, PWC, Stevenson, PC and Simmonds, MJ (2001) “What makes it so tasty for the pests?' Identification of Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) feeding stimulants and location of their production on the pod surface of pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.]. Competitive Research Facility (CRF) Project R7029C Final Technical Report, p. 85.Google Scholar
Singh, AK, Singh, N, Singh, SP, Singh, NB and Smartt, J (2005) Pigeonpea. In: Dhillon, BSet al. (eds) Plant Genetic Resources: Food Grains. New Delhi: Narosa Publishing House, pp. 222–237.Google Scholar
Snedecor, GW and Cochran, WG (1980) Statistical Methods. 7th edn.Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Srivastava, N, Vadez, V, Upadhyaya, HD and Saxena, KB (2006) Screening for intra and inter specific variability for salinity tolerance in pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan) and its related species. Journal of SAT Agricultural Research 2 (ejournal.Icrisat.org), p.12.Google Scholar
Stolton, S, Maxted, N, Ford-Lyod, B, Kell, SP and Dudley, N (2006) Food Stores: Using Protected Areas to Secure Crop Genetic Diversity. WWF Arguments for Protection Series. Gland: WWF.Google Scholar
Tikka, SBS, Parmer, LD and Chauhan, RM (1997) First record of cytoplasmic-genic male sterility system in pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan (L.) Millisp.) through wide hybridization. Gujarat Agriculture University Research Journal 22: 160–162.Google Scholar
Upadhyaya, HD (2006) Improving pigeonpea with the wild. SAT Trends Newsletter 62: 1, http://icrisat:8080/satrends/jan2006.htm.Google Scholar
Upadhyaya, HD and Gowda, CLL (2009) Managing and Enhancing the Use of Germplasm – Strategies and Methodologies. Technical Manual no. 10. Patancheru: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics.Google Scholar
van der Maesen, LJG (1980a) Wild pigeonpeas in Africa. IBPGR/FAO Plant Genetic Resources Newsletter 40: 8–10.Google Scholar
van der Maesen, LJG (1980b) India is the native home of the pigeonpea. In: Arends, JC, Boelema, G, de Groot, CT and Leeuwenberg, AJM (eds) Liber Gratulatorius in Honorem HCD de Wit. Landbouwhogeschool Miscellaneous Paper no. 19. Wageningen: H. Veenam and BV Zonen, pp. 257–262.Google Scholar
van der Maesen, LJG (1986) Cajanus DC and Atylosia W&A (Leguminosae). Agricultural University Wageningen Papers 85-4 (1985). Wageningen: Agricultural University, p. 225.Google Scholar
van der Maesen, LJG (1990) Pigeonpea: origin, history, evolution and taxonomy. In: Nene, YL, Hall, SD and Shiela, VK (eds) The Pigeonpea. Wallingford: CAB International, pp. 44–87.Google Scholar
van der Maesen, LJG, Remanandan, P, Kameshwara Rao, N and Pundir, RPS (1984) Occurrence of Cajaninae in the Indian subcontinent. Burma and Thailand. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society 82: 498–500.Google Scholar
Ward, JH (1963) Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. Journal of American Statistical Association 58: 236.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Upadhyaya Supplementary Table

Table S1. Correlations between mean latitudes of collection sites and degree of sensitivity of germplasm accessions to temperature and photoperiod

Download Upadhyaya Supplementary Table(File)
File 48.1 KB