Exploitation of forage attribute-based variations in Sudan pearl millet [Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.] collections

Abstract

Triggered by the need to develop inter-seasonal, multi-cut cereal forage crops, this study aimed at the exploitation of phenotypic variations among the rich pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum L.) collections in Sudan for possible utilization in forage-type breeding programmes. A total of 100 pearl millet accessions were used in three field trials grown in rainy, winter and summer seasons (2008–2009) at the Gezira Research Station Farm and the Gezira University Experimental Farm. Wide diversity and highly significant differences in the total dry forage yield, days to harvest, plant height, number of tillers/plant and leaf/stem ratio were found among the accessions. At an 80% morphological similarity level, the 100 accessions of pearl millet were clustered into four main groups. In the rainy and winter seasons, 71 and 56% of the accessions produced forage yield of more than 5 t/ha, respectively. In contrast, 77% of the accessions produced less than 5 t/ha in the summer season. Among the top-ranking 25 accessions, two accessions (HSD 2190 and HSD 2236) were common in dry matter yield in the three seasons, whereas 11 accessions were identified in at least two seasons. The presence of such common accessions in more than one season is encouraging for growing pearl millet as a multi-cut crop for a longer period. These results indicated the possibility of the development of forage-suited varieties of pearl millet directly through further evaluation of those common accessions or indirectly through a crop breeding programme.

Multi-Locational Evaluation of Forage-Suited Selected Sudan Pearl Millet [Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.] Accessions Identified High-Yielding and Stable Genotypes in Irrigated, Arid Environments

“…The pearl millet genotypes used in this study were provided by the Agricultural Plant Genetic Resources for Research and Conservation Centre (APGRC) of the Agricultural Research Corporation (ARC), Sudan. Two hundred pearl millet accessions, mostly collected from the Darfur and Kordofan regions of Sudan, were evaluated, and one hundred of them were selected for having glabrous (non-hairy) leaves [25,26,29]. Twenty-five genotypes were identified as top-ranking for their yield.…”

“…Days to 50% flowering (DF) were recorded as the number of days from sowing to a stage when 50% of plants in the plot reached flowering. When each genotype reached the 85% flowering stage, data were collected on plant height (cm), number of culms m −2 , leaf-to-stem ratio, stem girth (cm), and fresh forage yield (t/ha), as previously described [25]. Briefly, the number of culms m −2 (CLM) was recorded as the average number of culms of three counts per square meter in each plot.…”

“…Differential fresh matter yield [25], forage quality [26], and genetic diversity [27,28] among the pearl millet genotypes were evident. However, not even a single forage pearl millet variety has been developed in Sudan.…”

Understanding Heterosis, Genetic Effects, and Genome Wide Associations for Forage Quantity and Quality Traits in Multi-Cut Pearl Millet

“…For instance, at present the world has feed shortage of about 911 million tons and would require 1,148 million tons feed by 2030 (Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO], 2002). To alleviate the feed shortage in these regions, further exploitation of pearl millet could be one of the promising solutions as it is well adapted to the arid and semi-arid regions with several other benefits, such as high tillering potential and quick regenerative ability assuring the possibility of multi-cutting, which allows the year-round supply of green/dry forage (Babiker et al, 2014). The results from the multi-location trials conducted during the summer season under the All India Coordinated Forage Project showed pearl millet varieties had higher green forage yield (GFY: 38 t ha −1 ) and crude protein (CP: 9%) in comparison with sorghum (33 t ha −1 Abbreviations: SCH, single cross hybrid; TCH, top cross hybrid; SCP, single cross parent; TCP, top cross parent; PH, plant height; GFY, green forage yield; TGFY, total green forage yield; DFY, dry forage yield; TDFY, total dry forage yield; NIRS, near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy; SCP, crude protein; NDF, neutral detergent fiber; ADF, acid detergent fiber; ADL, acid detergent lignin; ME, metabolizable energy; IVOMD, in vitro organic matter digestibility; FC, first cut; SC, second cut; BP, better parent; BPH, better parent heterosis; CH, check hybrid; SH, standard heterosis; OPV, open pollinated variety; SCA, specific combining ability; GCA, general combining ability; GBS, genotyping by sequencing; PCR, polymerase chain reaction; MAF, minor allele frequency; SNP, single nucleotide polymorphism; PCA, principal component analysis; BLUP, best linear unbiased predictors; TASSEL, Trait Analysis by aSSociation, Evolution and Linkage; GAPIT, Genome Association and Prediction Integrated Tool; MLMM, multi-locus mixed model; QQ, quantile-quantile; MAS, marker assisted selection; QTL, quantitative trait loci; CMS, cytoplasmic male sterility; IVDMD, in vitro dry matter digestibility; ICRISAT, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics; TNAU, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University; PR, predictability ratio; ANOVA, analysis of variance.…”

“…For instance, at present the world has feed shortage of about 911 million tons and would require 1,148 million tons feed by 2030 ( Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO], 2002 ). To alleviate the feed shortage in these regions, further exploitation of pearl millet could be one of the promising solutions as it is well adapted to the arid and semi-arid regions with several other benefits, such as high tillering potential and quick regenerative ability assuring the possibility of multi-cutting, which allows the year-round supply of green/dry forage ( Babiker et al, 2014 ). The results from the multi-location trials conducted during the summer season under the All India Coordinated Forage Project showed pearl millet varieties had higher green forage yield (GFY: 38 t ha –1 ) and crude protein (CP: 9%) in comparison with sorghum (33 t ha –1 and 6%) and maize (31 t ha –1 and 5.5%) varieties in single cut ( Rai et al, 2004 ).…”