Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorOzimati, Alfred A.
dc.contributor.authorEsuma, Williams
dc.contributor.authorAlicai, Titus
dc.contributor.authorJannink, Jean-Luc
dc.contributor.authorEgesi, Chiedozie
dc.contributor.authorKawuki, Robert
dc.date.accessioned2022-02-15T21:10:00Z
dc.date.available2022-02-15T21:10:00Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.identifier.citationOzimati, A. A., Esuma, W., Alicai, T., Jannink, J. L., Egesi, C., & Kawuki, R. (2021). Outlook of Cassava Brown Streak Disease Assessment: Perspectives of the Screening Methods of Breeders and Pathologists. Frontiers in plant science, 12. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2021.648436en_US
dc.identifier.other10.3389/fpls.2021.648436
dc.identifier.urihttps://nru.uncst.go.ug/xmlui/handle/123456789/2164
dc.description.abstractCassava production and productivity in Eastern, Central, and Southern Africa are ravaged by cassava brown streak disease (CBSD), causing yield losses of up to 100% when susceptible varieties are grown. Efforts to develop CBSD-resistant clones are underway. However, the methods for screening CBSD resistance currently vary between breeders and pathologists, with the limited empirical data to support their choices. In this study, we used the empirical CBSD foliar and root necrosis data from two breeding populations, termed cycle zero (C0) and cycle one (C1), to assess and compare the effectiveness of the CBSD screeningmethods of breeders vs. pathologists. On the one hand, the estimates of broad-sense heritability (H2) for the CBSD root necrosis assessment of breeder ranged from 0.15 to 0.87, while for the assessment method of pathologists, H2 varied from 0.00 to 0.71 in C0 clones. On the other hand, the marker-based heritability estimates (h2) for C0 ranged from 0.00 to 0.70 for the assessment method of breeders and from 0.00 to 0.63 for the assessment method of pathologists. For cycle one (C1) population, where both foliar and root necrosis data were analyzed for clones assessed at clonal evaluation trials (CETs) and advanced yield trials (AYTs), H2 varied from 0.10 to 0.59 for the assessment method of breeders, while the H2 values ranged from 0.09 to 0.35 for the CBSD computation method of pathologists. In general, higher correlations were recorded for foliar severity from the assessment method of breeders (r = 0.4, p ≤ 0.01 for CBSD3s and r = 0.37, p ≤ 0.01 for CBSD6s) in C1 clones evaluated at both clonal and advanced breeding stages than from the approach of pathologists. Ranking of top 10 C1 clones by their indexed best linear unbiased predictors (BLUPs) for CBSD foliar and root necrosis showed four overlapping clones between clonal and advanced selection stages for themethod of breeders;meanwhile, only a clone featured in both clonal and advanced selection stages from the CBSD assessment method of pathologists. Overall, the CBSD assessment method of breeders was more effective than the assessment method of pathologists, and thus, it justifies its continued use in CBSD resistance breeding.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherFrontiers in plant scienceen_US
dc.subjectCassavaen_US
dc.subjectResistanceen_US
dc.subjectBreeder’s, pathologist’sen_US
dc.subjectCassava brown streak diseaseen_US
dc.titleOutlook of Cassava Brown Streak Disease Assessment: Perspectives of the Screening Methods of Breeders and Pathologistsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record