Presented by Imelda Kashaija, Vasiter Kesiime and Prossy Namugga (Kachwekano Zonal Agricultural Research and Development Institute (NARO- KAZARDI)) at the First Bio-Innovate Regional Scientific Conference, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 25-27 February 2013

1. Evaluation of Elite Potato Clones for
Drought Tolerance in Western
Uganda
Imelda Kashaija, Vasiter Kesiime and Prossy Namugga
Kachwekano Zonal Agricultural Research and Development
Institute (NARO- KAZARDI)
First Bio-Innovate Regional Scientific Conference
United Nations Conference Centre (UNCC-ECA)
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 25-27 February 2013

2. Introduction
• Potato, Solanum tuberosum L., is grown by
300,000 smallholder households in Uganda
• 689,000 tons on 101,000 hectares per year
• Major production areas are the highlands of
Southwestern, parts of Eastern and
Northwestern Uganda.
• Its cultivation has spread to non-traditional
areas in central Uganda

3. • Potato production is being affected by
fluctuation in precipitations in both timing and
amount,
• Increased temperatures reduce productivity.
• Drought prevents Potato from realizing full
genetic potential leading to harvest losses.
• In potato, water deficit leads to reduced yield
and tuber quality

4. Increase in temperature
greatly affected tuber
MUBUKU
quality and yield
KALEGYERE
MBARARA

5. • Substantial potato production is expanding
into locations at lower altitudes, where
drought is more common.
• Therefore drought stress mitigation
measures and coping mechanisms need to
be devised to face future challenges of
climate change

6. Objectives
• Identifying potato clones resilient to water
and heat stress
• Determining the effect of temperatures on the
performance of the selected clones.

7. Materials and Methods
Genetic materials
• A set of nine potato clones bred for drought
tolerance (393077.159, 396038.107, 396034.103,
396015.6, 396031.108, 391046.14, 395111.13,
395029.250 and 391691.96) were introduced
from CIP
• Varieties; Kachpot 1 (393382.44), Nakpot 5
(381471.18) and Victoria (381381.20) were used
as checks.

8. Materials and Methods
Screening
• Two consecutive seasons on- station
• One season on - farm
• In three sites with contrasting climatic
conditions; Kabale (2400masl), Mbarara
(1400masl) and Kasese (1000masl approx).

10. Materials and Methods
• For on-farm trials, farmer participation was
right away from planting and a group of 10
farmers (5 men and 5 women) was selected
• Farmer evaluation was done at flowering and
harvesting stages.
• Selection of best 3 clones with traits for
drought tolerance was based on agreed
criteria by the whole group.

11. M&M
Farmers evaluating
Elite clones at
Mbarara (Mwizii)
during
flowering, based on
vigour, resistance to
pests and diseases
and then plants with
many flowers,

12. M &M
Farmer participatory evaluation
• Farmer group from Kalengyere voted for
vigour, erect stems and resistance to disease
and pest attack especially late blight.
• While those in Kasese (Isule) selected basing
on vigour, green leaves and erect stems .

13. Data collection
Number of flowered plants, number of flowers, height to the 1st
leaf, number of stems, plant height, number of branches, number of
leaves, number of leaflets, petiole lleaflet length, leaflet
width, length and leaf area. number of leaves between the previous
5th and current 5th leaf (added leaves) .

14. Results
Farmer participatory evaluation
• Weak significant differences were observed among the farmers’
selection at Kalengyere and Isule, while there were highly
significant differences among clones selected by farmers in Mwizi
at flowering stage
MS
Source of Kalegyere Mwizi Isule
variation
Rep stratum 0.2 0.7 0.7
Clone 44* 98.5** 98.5*
Residual 15.4 6.4 6.4

15. Results
At harvesting stage, farmers in
• Kalengyere based selection on high yield with
many and big tubers, free from diseases and
pests, red coloured and round shaped tubers.
• Mwizi based on disease and pest attack, high
yielding (many large tubers).
• Isule based on tuber size and number, freedom
from pests and diseases.
• No significant differences observed among
genotypes from farmers’ selection at harvesting
stage both within and across sites.

16. Mean scores given to each clone at flowering and harvesting
Mean
Clone Kalegyere Mwizi Isule Multilocation
Flowering Harvesting
393077.159 14 9.5 1.5 7.3b 8.3
396038.107 2.5 0.0 4.0 2.3de 2.2
396034.103 6.0 3.5 10.5 1.7e 8.3
396015.6 0.0 0.5 1.0 2.7de 0.5
396031.108 7.5 2.0 4.0 3.7cde 4.5
391046.14 3.0 2.0 14.5 3.2de 6.5
395111.13 6.0 3.5 10.5 14.3a 6.7
395029.250 0.5 1.5 3.0 3.2bcde 1.7
391691.96 4.0 4.0 3.0 2.3de 3.7
393382.44 3.0 1.5 2.0 5.8bcd 2.2
381471.18 5.0 10.5 10 7.0bc 8.5
381381.20 9.0 11.0 1.0 5.3bcd 7.0

17. • Selection by farmers at flowering stage did not
necessarily march that done at harvesting stage, but was
somehow related.
• However, some consistence was observed with their
choices.
• Further evaluation and selection can lead to the release
of these clones as drought tolerant varieties since they
are already liked by famers.

18. Results
Clone performance: Yield
• Analysis of variance from the three on-station trials
revealed high significant differences at (p<.001) as
well as clone performance on-farm
On station
MS
Source of variation d.f Y/HA WT TNT
Rep stratum 1 4.34 3.5 122.7
Clone 11 48.95*** 39.7*** 13084.3***
SITE 2 1138*** 921.8*** 192865.4***
Clone.SITE 22 24.*** 19.*** 6780.4***
Residual 35 2.84 2.3 827.7
Total 71

19. Results
Clone performance on farm
MS
Source of variation d.f Y/HA WT TNT
Rep stratum 1 4.34 3.5 122.7
Clone 11 48.95*** 39.7*** 13084.3***
SITE 2 1138*** 921.8*** 192865.4***
Clone.SITE 22 24.*** 19.*** 6780.4***
Residual 35 2.84 2.3 827.7
Total 71

20. Performance of clones in different site
Clone KLG MBZD MUB MWONGYERA MWIZI ISULE MEAN
395111.13 22.39 10.22 7.06 38.9 4.8 14.6 16.3
393382.44 20.61 9.57 5.06 50.3 6.4 1.2 13.4
396031.108 15.72 13 3.39 38.3 3.5 5.8 13.8
381471.18 21.17 7.01 1.72 45.9 7.9 10.6 15.7
395029.25 17.83 5.91 3.5 24.9 6.4 4.2 10.2
396038.107 18.56 7.46 0.11 27.6 4.7 8.4 10.1
396034.103 16.39 5.28 3.61 27.1 1.6 6.3 10.4
393077.159 21.39 0.02 0.72 26.5 6.4 9.4 12.4
381381.20 14.23 4.61 2.56 24.9 6.4 8.5 10.2
391046.14 13.72 4.25 2.11 15.6 3.1 5.7 8.4
396016.6 6.82 5.33 2.78 24.3 1.9 3.7 6.5
391692.96 4.01 4.79 0.06 19.3 2.6 0.3 6.2
Mean 16.07 6.46 2.72 31.1 4.7 6.6

21. Results
• Of the twelve clones evaluated, six gave above 10t/ha implying
that they can be grown in the three agroecologies profitably.
• clones 395111.13 and 393382.44 gave fairly good results across
the three on-station sites meaning that further selection can
lead to varieties adopted to hotter areas.
• clones that were least affected vegetatively were the ones that
gave high yields (395111.13 and 393382.44) this implies that
they tolerent increased temperatures.
• The poor performance of 395111 .20 (Victoria) is un explained by
these results since it’s widely grown in most potato growing
areas in the country.

22. Results
• Kalegyere offers a homely environment for potato
growing and this explains the high yield obtained
both on station and on farm.
• Differential performance of clones at MBAZARDI
and Mubuku explains how the different clones
respond to drought in the two environments.
• With an increase in temperatures, yield and other
growth parameters were greatly reduced.

23. Growth Parameters
• Variation was observed for all the tested parameters at the six sites
• Clones showed significant differences in number of flowered plants, number of
flowers, number of leaves, number of stems, leaflets length, leaflets width and
leaf area.
• The interaction of clone and sites was significant only for plant height, number
of stems and number of leaves.
• Number of leaves was least reduced in clone 395111.13, 395029.250,
396038.107 and 396031.108. leaves were mostly reduced in clone 381381.20,
393077.159, 391046.14, and 396038.107.

24. Way Forward
• Final farmer participatory selection of
promising clones at flowering and harvesting
stages (2 seasons).
• Involve farmers and other private institutions
in selecting clones with good cooking and
processing quality ( chips and crisp)

25. Acknowledgement
• Funding Agency
• All partners

26. THANK YOU