Host Plant Resistance is the most effective and economical management option for Fusarium wilt (Fusarium udum Butler) of pigeonpea (Figure 1) either alone or as a major component of IDM. The disease can cause yield losses of up to 100% in susceptible cultivars. ICRISAT has developed large numbers of high yielding wilt resistant lines by selecting them under high disease pressure in field screening. These resistant lines if found to possess stable resistance across locations, could be utilized in pigeonpea disease resistance breeding program.

1. Sep 2014
Advances in host plant resistance and identification of broad-based stable sources of resistance
to Fusarium wilt of pigeonpea
This work is undertaken as part of
M Sharmaa, R Telangrea, R Ghosha, DR Saxenab, YK Jainc, M Saifullad, DM Mahalingae and S Pandea
aInternational Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru, Telangana; bRAK College of Agriculture, JNKVV, Sehore, MP;
cZonal Agricultural Research Station, Khargone, MP; dUAS, GKVK, Bangalore, eAgricultural Research Station, Aland Road, Gulbarga, Karnataka.
Introduction
Host Plant Resistance is the most effective and economical management option for Fusarium wilt (Fusarium udum Butler) of pigeonpea (Figure 1) either alone or as a major component of IDM. The disease can cause yield losses of up to 100% in susceptible cultivars. ICRISAT has developed large numbers of high yielding wilt resistant lines by selecting them under high disease pressure in field screening. These resistant lines if found to possess stable resistance across locations, could be utilized in pigeonpea disease resistance breeding program.
Objectives
•
To identify new resistant genotypes to Fusarium wilt in pigeonpea.
•
To validate the stability of resistance through multi-location and multi-year evaluation.
Materials and methods
•
28 genotypes of varying maturity groups (181-252 days) and two susceptible check lines were evaluated for their resistance stability through ICAR–ICRISAT collaborative Pigeonpea Wilt Nursery under AICRP.
•
Nursery was evaluated in wilt sick plot at 9 locations in India during 2007/08 and 2008/09 (Table 1).
•
Each genotype was grown in two rows of 4 m with a spacing of 75 × 10 cm after every 4 test rows. Susceptible checks were planted after every 5 test rows.
•
Data on wilt incidence was recorded at seedling, flowering and maturity stage.
•
ANOVA was calculated using arc sine transformed cumulative percent disease incidence.
•
Genotype plus genotype × environment (GGE) model was used to identify the stability of resistance in multi-environment.
Results
•
The pooled ANOVA (Table 2) indicated significant effect of genotype, environment and genotype × environment.
•
The variability in wilt incidence with respect to genotypes was more at Kanpur followed by Khargone and Dholi (Table 3).
Table 1. Test environments for evaluation of genotypes to wilt.
Location
State
Environments
Latitude
Longitude
Altitude (m)
Agro-climatic zone
Akola
Maharashtra
Ak-07, Ak-08
20°42’
76°59’
282
PZ
Badnapur
Maharashtra
Bd-07, Bd-08
19°23’
75°43’
582
PZ
Bangalore
Karnataka
Bn-07, Bn-08
12°58’
77°35’
920
SZ
Dholi
Bihar
Dh-07, Dh-08
25°59’
85°35’
52.2
NEPZ
Gulbarga
Karnataka
Gu-07, Gu-08
17°19’
76°50’
454
SZ
Kanpur
Uttar Pradesh
Ka-07, Ka-08
26°26’
80°19’
126
NEPZ
Khargone
Madhya Pradesh
Kh-07, Kh-08
21°49’
75°36’
252
CZ
Patancheru
Andhra Pradesh
Pa-07, Pa-08
17°31’
78°15’
545
SZ
Sehore
Madhya Pradesh
Se-07, Se-08
23°11’
77°04’
457
CZ
•
Mean wilt incidence across nine locations ranged from
0.0 to 73.7% (Table 3).
•
Four genotypes ICPL 20109, ICPL 20096, ICPL 20115 and ICPL 20102 exhibited high resistance with the mean wilt incidence <5% across 8 locations. All the 28 genotypes were found resistant to wilt at three locations (Akola, Badnapur and Gulbarga).
•
GGE biplot analysis showed that Ka-07, Ka-08, Bd-07 and Bn-08 had longer vectors indicating best environments to discriminate genetic variability Kh-08, Kh-07, Dh-07 and Gu-07 had smaller vectors indicating less discriminative of genotypes (Figure 2).
Table 2. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for wilt incidence of pigeonpea genotypes evaluated at 9 locations
Source of variation
DF
SS
MS
P
Variation (%)*
Genotype
28
75749.312
2705.333
<.001
36.51
Environment
17
60838.63
3578.743
<.001
29.32
Genotype × Environment
476
70178.371
147.434
<.001
33.82
Error
522
717.585
1.375
Total
1043
207483.898
*Relative percentage contribution of each source of variation to the total variance
Table 3. Mean wilt incidence (%) of pigeonpea genotypes across nine locations of India evaluated during 2007/08 and 2008/09
S. No.
Entry
Akola
Badnapur
Bangalore
Dholi
Gulbarga
Kanpur
Khargoan
Patancheru
Sehore
Mean
1
ICP 9174
1.5
0.0
0.0
4.5
3.1
35.4
26.2
0.0
1.6
8.0
2
ICP 12749
4.3
5.1
26.8
9.8
4.4
69.8
33.1
14.4
17.2
20.5
3
ICP 14819
3.4
8.6
41.5
25.8
4.8
73.7
3.3
10.3
5.3
19.6
4
ICPL 20093
0.0
8.5
24.8
7.8
8.3
25.7
8.6
2.7
2.8
9.9
5
ICPL 20094
0.0
3.3
0.0
11.0
3.0
11.0
13.8
3.2
0.7
5.1
6
ICPL 20096
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.5
3.0
7.1
5.5
3.9
1.3
2.8
7
ICPL 20097
1.3
6.8
0.0
10.6
3.1
16.4
12.6
6.0
0.0
6.3
8
ICPL 20098
3.0
0.0
0.0
9.5
4.5
48.0
1.7
3.3
3.6
8.2
9
ICPL 20099
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.3
3.6
16.1
10.5
0.0
0.8
4.6
10
ICPL 20100
0.9
5.7
0.0
7.0
4.9
19.4
26.9
4.2
0.0
7.7
11
ICPL 20101
5.6
1.9
6.8
15.3
3.5
25.1
20.3
1.2
2.3
9.1
12
ICPL 20102
3.5
2.1
0.0
7.0
3.3
8.5
6.9
4.1
1.7
4.1
13
ICPL 20103
2.1
1.6
0.0
16.4
3.1
23.5
5.6
3.7
2.7
6.5
14
ICPL 20106
0.0
2.1
0.0
13.3
4.0
9.3
1.7
3.2
1.3
3.9
15
ICPL 20107
0.0
0.0
3.7
10.0
3.5
21.3
23.8
2.3
1.1
7.3
16
ICPL 20109
1.3
0.0
0.0
4.8
3.0
6.4
0.0
3.9
3.6
2.6
17
ICPL 20110
1.2
2.3
34.8
7.3
3.5
6.4
12.1
3.0
0.0
7.8
18
ICPL 20113
0.0
7.8
1.0
2.5
4.7
43.1
3.6
6.8
0.0
7.7
19
ICPL 20114
0.0
5.6
0.0
4.5
2.9
48.1
10.8
12.4
3.2
9.7
20
ICPL 20115
2.4
0.0
0.0
9.8
3.9
8.2
7.1
2.6
1.9
4.0
21
ICPL 20116
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.0
3.5
13.0
13.0
1.6
0.0
4.2
22
ICPL 20120
1.7
1.7
4.2
12.9
3.9
14.0
11.6
2.9
0.0
5.9
23
ICPL 20126
0.8
0.0
2.1
4.8
5.4
13.0
12.2
4.5
0.0
4.8
24
ICPL 20128
0.0
2.9
6.6
10.0
2.7
35.5
7.9
3.0
5.2
8.2
25
ICPL 20129
1.6
4.9
0.0
0.0
2.5
18.0
1.2
4.1
0.0
3.6
26
ICPL 20132
0.0
2.6
2.6
10.4
3.0
18.6
5.0
3.1
0.0
5.0
27
ICPL 20134
0.0
0.0
3.8
7.6
6.4
41.0
2.8
3.3
0.0
7.2
28
KPBR 80-2-4
0.0
1.3
0.0
2.3
5.4
54.2
8.7
2.4
0.0
8.3
29
ICP 2376
58.3
83.8
61.3
64.8
60.8
60.0
44.8
77.5
49.0
62.2
30
Local wilt sus. check
62.0
100.0
83.8
80.0
91.1
97.4
51.7
100.0
82.1
83.1
Mean
3.2
5.5
7.6
10.7
5.9
27.2
11.8
6.7
3.6
Figure 2. GGE biplot analysis based on wilt incidence of 28 genotypes of pigeonpea in multilocations.
Figure 1. Fusarium wilt symptoms.
Conclusion
•
Genotypes with stable and broad-based resistance to wilt identified.
•
Environments with most discriminating ability to wilt were also identified.
•
Application of GGE biplot facilitated the visual comparison and identification of stable genotypes in relation to the test environment.
•
The future work will be focused on incorporating these resistant genotypes into pigeonpea breeding program as well as incorporating the resistant genes into the new germplasm.