Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T12:37:49.417Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Screening barnyard millet germplasm against grain smut (Ustilago panici-frumentacei Brefeld)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 July 2009

Arun Gupta ,
Deeksha Joshi ,
Vinay Mahajan  and
H. S. Gupta
Arun Gupta*
Affiliation:
Vivekananda Parvatiya Krishi Anusandhan Sansthan (ICAR), Almora, Uttarakhand 263 601, India
Deeksha Joshi
Affiliation:
Vivekananda Parvatiya Krishi Anusandhan Sansthan (ICAR), Almora, Uttarakhand 263 601, India
Vinay Mahajan
Affiliation:
Vivekananda Parvatiya Krishi Anusandhan Sansthan (ICAR), Almora, Uttarakhand 263 601, India
H. S. Gupta
Affiliation:
Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012, India
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: arung66@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Barnyard millet accessions (257) were inoculated with grain smut spores at anthesis stage during 2003. Seed produced on inoculated ear heads was sown in 2005 and resulting plants evaluated for ten morphological traits and grain smut incidence. The accessions were grouped into seven groups based on origin. The lowest mean grain smut incidence was recorded for advance breeding lines, while highest mean value was observed for Uttarakhand group. Genes determining grain yield and susceptibility to grain smut were at most loosely linked as evidenced by non-significant correlations between grain smut incidence and grain yield in six out of seven groups as well as whole collection. Smut resistance along with grain yield in barnyard millet can be enhanced by adopting proper breeding strategy; therefore, in segregating generations, selection should be carried out for both characters simultaneously.

Keywords

barnyard milletdisease resistanceEchinochloa frumentaceagenetic resourcesgrain smut
Type
Short Communication
Information
Plant Genetic Resources , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , April 2010 , pp. 52 - 54
Copyright
Copyright © NIAB 2009

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

Anonymous (2001) Annual Report 2000–2001. All India Coordinated Small Millet Improvement Project (ICAR), Bangalore.Google Scholar
Bandyopadhyay, BB (1999) Genotypic differences in relation to climatic adaptation of two cultivated barnyard millet at Garhwal hills. Indian Journal of Genetics and Plant Breeding 59: 105–108.Google Scholar
De Wet, JMJ, Rao, KEP, Mangesha, MH and Brink, DE (1983) Domestication of sawa millet (Echinochloa colona). Economic Botany 37: 283–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IPGRI (1983) Echinochloa millet descriptors. Available at www.bioversityinternational.org/fileadmin/bioversity/publications/pdfs/394.pdf.Google Scholar
Joshi, LM, Singh, DV and Srivastva, KD (1988) Manual of Wheat Diseases. New Delhi, India: Malhotra Publisher.Google Scholar
Nagaraja, A and Mantur, SG (2008) Evaluation of barnyard millet entries for grain smut resistance and yield. Mysore Journal of Agricultural Sciences 42: 375–377.Google Scholar
Skovmand, B, Wilcoxson, RD and Heiner, RE (1977) Genetic and environmental variability in wheat characteristics reported to be involved in morphological resistance to wheat stem rust. Euphytica 26: 123–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snijders, CHA (1990) Response to selection in F2 generation of winter wheat for resistance to head blight caused by Fusarium culmorum. Euphytica 55: 163–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar