SlideShare a Scribd company logo
Screening and Selection of Drought-Tolerant Groundnut Varieties Based on Yield Performance
IJPBCS
Screening and Selection of Drought-Tolerant Groundnut
Varieties Based on Yield Performance
*1Oppong-Sekyere, D., 2Akromah, R., 3Kena, A.W., 4Larweh, V and 5Ozias-Akins, P.
1Department of Ecological Agriculture, Bolgatanga Polytechnic, P.O. Box 767, Bolgatanga, Ghana
2,3Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, KNUST-Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi,
Ghana
4CSIR-Crops Research Institute, Kumasi, Ghana
5University of Georgia, National Environmentally Sound Production Agriculture Laboratory (NESPAL), Coastal Plain
Experiment Station, 2356 Rainwater Road Tifton, Georgia, USA 31794
Drought is the most important abiotic limitation to groundnut production in Northern Ghana.
Drought, during the pod-filling stages is even more devastating. The current study was
conducted to screen groundnut varieties, for drought-tolerance based on yield and other traits.
Evaluation of groundnut genotypes was under two environments/water regimes; well-watered
and water-stressed. ANOVA was run for Quantitative data. Means were separated by l.s.d. at
95% confidence level. Correlation analyses were performed using SPSS. Combined analysis of
variance was computed for the groundnuts across water regimes. Dendrograms were
generated using yield data and based on Euclidean distance. Scoring and ranking was used to
assess disease incidence on a scale of 1-5. Results indicate that end-of-season drought caused
pod yield reduction that varied across genotypes. The Drought Tolerance Index ranged from
0.53 (Kpanieli) to 2.40 (Agric-Manipinta). The highest yielding genotypes under water-stressed
condition were Sinkara (582g/plot), Nkatie-sari (512g/plot), Ndogba (470g/plot), Chaco-pag
(400g/plot) and Oboshie (381g/plot) and Chinese (local) (340g/plot). Farmers’ selected Sinkara,
Ndogba, Chinese, Nkatie-sari, Agric-Manipinta and Chaco-pag based on pod yield and biomass
production. Sinkara (0.8798), Sokan-donworor (0.8739), Kpach-Isah (0.8318) and Kpanieli
(0.8016) recorded very high mean pod harvest index values, while Ndogba recorded the lowest
(0.2252). Combined analysis of variance for pod yield among all the genotypes indicate that the
groundnuts performed differently in both water regimes due to the significant interaction effect
observed between water regimes and genotypes. Information generated from this study can be
used to develop new groundnut varieties that combine higher yield and drought tolerant traits.
Keywords: Constraints, drought, end-of-season, environments, genotypes, tolerance
INTRODUCTION
Drought, especially during the pod-filling stages of
groundnut growth is a major production constraint,
particularly in the three Northern Regions of Ghana. This
therefore causes a significant pod yield reduction and its
subsequent reduction in productivity. Groundnut is grown
widely under rainfed conditions in the semi-arid tropics,
where drought stress is extensive and unavoidable. The
yield of groundnut in the Northern Ghana, which doubles
as the major producer, is frequently severely limited by
drought arising from unpredictable rainfall, high
evaporative demands and production on low water holding
capacity soils.
There is also the problem of the relatively shorter seasons
for growth of most crops in these semi-arid tropics in
comparison with the savannah environments; this has a
negative effect on the proper growth, maturity and yield of
groundnuts. Notwithstanding, early maturing groundnut
varieties with improved yield are essential for several agro-
*Corresponding Author: Daniel Oppong-Sekyere,
Department of Ecological Agriculture, Bolgatanga
Polytechnic, P.O. Box 767, Bolgatanga, Ghana. Email:
danieloppongsekyere@yahoo.com
International Journal of Plant Breeding and Crop Science
Vol. 5(3), pp. 463-473, December, 2018. © www.premierpublishers.org. ISSN: 2167-0449
Research Article
Screening and Selection of Drought-Tolerant Groundnut Varieties Based on Yield Performance
Oppong-Sekyere et al. 464
ecological environments of the semi-arid regions of
Ghana, in particular, and the West Africa sub-region, in
general. There is lack of and/or inadequate information
regarding the genetic variability for drought-tolerant
groundnut varieties.
An important objective in any groundnut improvement
programme has always included breeding for cultivars that
are better able to use less water to produce significant
amount of yield. Drought tolerance for late maturity
varieties of groundnut would be very advantageous.
According to research (Jongrungklang et al., 2008),
drought affects chlorophyll content and hinders plants’
ability and capacity to photosynthesize (Arunyanark et al.,
2010). An important drought tolerance mechanism in
groundnuts is the capacity to maintain chlorophyll density
under conditions of water shortage Arunyanark et al.,
2010; Wunna et al., 2009). Superior yield performance
under moisture stress conditions is an important and
reliable index of drought tolerance (Varshney et al, 2006).
The objective of this research was to evaluate and select
drought - tolerant groundnut varieties based on yield (the
Drought Tolerance Index, DTI) and performance for other
traits.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
i. Source of genetic materials
Sixteen (16) local and improved groundnut genotypes
(Appendix 1) were screened in two water regimes or
environments; Well-Watered and Water-Stressed (less-
watered) in the 2016 minor season for drought tolerance.
ii. Experimental Site, Field Operations
Groundnut sowing was done on Saturday, 16th January,
2016 at Botanga Irrigation Fields, in the Northern Region
of Ghana (in the dry season with temperature around
42°C).
Botanga irrigation scheme is located in the Northern
Region of Ghana, in the Tolon-Kumbungu district; it lies
between latitude 9° 30” and 9° 35” N and longitude 1° 20”
and 1° 04” W. The cropping area is divided into two, upland
and lowland, the upland is free draining soil and plots are
designed for furrow irrigation. The upland area is for
vegetables production and the lowland for rice production
because of the nature of the soil that is heavily textured
and irrigated by flooding (Abdul-Ganiyu et al., 2012). The
irrigation system is an earth-filled dam of 12 m in height
with a crest level of 5.00 m. The irrigation system has
potential area of 570 ha and all the areas have been
developed (Abdul-Ganiyu et al., 2012).
The total annual rainfall in the area is around 1,300 mm,
which normally begins in March, reaches a peak in
September and then drops sharply in November (Abdul-
Ganiyu et al., 2012). Thereafter, there is a long dry period
from December to the end of February, during which only
negligible amounts of rain are received. Mean monthly
temperatures remain high throughout the year only falling
around 26oC in August in Botanga. March and April are the
hottest months recording nearly 40 oC (Abdul- Ganiyu et
al., 2012).
iii. Planting Operations, Screening and Evaluations in
Well-Watered and Water-Stressed Environments
The crop was grown on ridges in a two-row plot system, 2
m long, observing a spacing of 50 cm between rows and
20 cm between plants (Arunyanark et al., 2010).
Groundnut seeds were hand planted in two environments;
well-watered and water-stressed conditions. The balanced
α- lattice design (10 x 10) was adopted, and replicated four
times. Each plot measured 0.5 m by 2 m (1 m2) with each
block containing ten (10) varieties. The distance between
the two water regimes (well-watered and water-stressed)
was 5 m, while another 5 m was kept between replications.
The trial was surrounded by two border rows.
Surface irrigation: A watering can be used to apply water
during the experiment.
iv. Drought Score and Assessment: Visual Ratings
and Phenotypic Evaluation
Groundnut plants which showed symptoms of drought
beginning from 75 DAP were recorded (Table 7). Severity
of drought incidence was scored on a scale of 1 – 5, where
1= no symptoms (< 25% of drought; Highly Tolerant), 2=
slight symptoms (25-50% of crop foliage affected;
Tolerant), 3 = moderate symptoms (50-75% of crop foliage
affected; Moderately Tolerant), 4 = severe symptoms
(>75% of crop foliage affected; Susceptible to drought),
and 5 = very severe symptoms (about 100% of crop foliage
affected; Highly Susceptible to drought) (Table 7)
(Nageswara and Nigam, 2003).
v. Irrigation Management for Well-Watered and
Water-Stressed Environments
The experiment was carried out between January and
June, 2016; that is the most critical month with high
temperature during the day, with an average of 40oC. After
sowing, the well-watered plots were irrigated fully two
times a day until harvest stage.
For the water-stressed environment, the crops were
irrigated twice a week up to when 50% plants flowered (30
Days After Planting, DAP). After that, the plants were
irrigated twice a day until pod filling time. The plants were
exposed gradually to end-of-season drought from the pod-
filling (50 DAP) until maturity. At 50 DAP, which
corresponded with peg penetration and pod filling, drought
stress was imposed for 14 days and irrigation was
resumed at the 15th day (http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh). Then
drought stress was imposed for 10 days, followed by
irrigation. After that, drought stress was imposed for 7 days
followed by irrigation up to harvest (Figure 1).
Screening and Selection of Drought-Tolerant Groundnut Varieties Based on Yield Performance
Int. J. Plant Breed. Crop Sci. 465
*D: Days, *WS: Water-Stressed, *DAS: Days after
Sowing, 14 D: 14 days, 10 D: 10 days, 7 D: 7 days
Figure 1: Drought stress imposition and irrigation
frequencies (Adapted from; Mamadou, Coulibaly
Adama, PhD. Thesis, 2013; http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh)
vi. Data Collection
The following yield and yield components data were
collected for both environment 1 (well-watered) and
environment 2 (water-stressed) regimes.
 Biomass Weight (Bio, g): Above ground biomass
(Haulm Weight) was calculated from ten (10) plants
selected randomly from all the treatments. Haulm
weight was taken by weighing the harvest using a Top
Pan Balance after 3 weeks air drying.
 Pod Yield (PY): Pod yield was determined from
10 plants selected randomly from all the treatments
after air and sun drying to constant weight for two
weeks.
 Pod Weight: Fresh weight of filled pods from ten
plants selected at random from all the treatments was
taken; the pods were sun and/or air dried to constant
moisture content and their dry weights recorded.
 Seed Weight: Pods selected from ten (10) plants
at random from all the treatments were shelled by
hand at moisture level of about 10% to 13% and seed
weights recorded.
 100 Seed Weight: Hundred (100) seeds were
selected at random and counted and weighed per
each selected treatment. Percent seed moisture were
taken using a Protimeter moisture metre. All weights
were taken using Camry electronic balance.
 Harvest index (HI): HI was calculated by using
the following formula:
HI =
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑟𝑦 𝑝𝑜𝑑 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 (𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑜𝑚𝑖𝑐 𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑),(𝑔)
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐵𝑖𝑜𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 (ℎ𝑎𝑢𝑙𝑚) 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡,(𝑔)
(Girdthai et al., 2010a) (www.fao.org/docrep/004/Y3655E/
y3655e07.hmt).
 Shelling Percentage (%S): Shelling percentage was
calculated using the following formula: %S = Seed
Weight (g) / Dry Pod Weight and expressed in
percentage: - (Seed Dry Weight / Pod Dry Weight) x
100.
 Drought Tolerance Index (DTI): DTI was calculated
for each trait as the ratio of the trait (e.g. pod yield)
under Water-Stress (WS) treatment to that under Well-
Watered (WW) condition as suggested by Nautiyal et
al. (2002b).
vii. Statistical Analysis
Combined analysis of variance was computed for the
groundnut entries across water regimes (Gomez and
Gomez, 1984) for yield and yield components data using
STATA pc software version 12.0. Correlation analysis was
performed for yield parameters across water regimes.
SPSS pc software, version 22 was used to generate a
dendrogram for the groundnut accessions as per on pod
yields and based on Euclidian distance.
RESULTS
Selection Criteria for Drought-Tolerant Varieties
The mean performance of sixteen (16) groundnut
genotypes for the traits measured under both well-watered
and water-stressed regimes is shown in Table 1.
The best six drought tolerant genotypes were selected
based on the following criteria:
(i) The highest yielding genotype under Water-
Stressed condition; Sinkara (local) (582g/plot),
Nkatie-sari (SARI) (512g/plot), Ndogba (local)
(470g/plot), Chaco-pag (local) (400g/plot) and
Oboshie (CRI) (381g/plot) and Chinese (local)
(340g/plot)
(ii) The highest yielding genotype under Well-Watered
condition; Sinkara (Local) (600g/plot), Nkatie-sari
(SARI) (589g/plot), Ndogba (local) (567g/plot), Chaco-
pag (local) (562g/plot), Sokan-donworor (local)
(363g/plot) and Chinese (local) (321g/plot).
(iii) The least yield difference between stressed and
non-stressed conditions; Yenyawoso (CRI) (13),
Sinkara (local) (18), Chinese (local) (19), F-Mix (SARI)
(22), Obolo (CRI) (22) and Simpelgu (local) (38).
(iv) The Drought Tolerance Index (DTI) (Higher DTI
indicates genotype is drought tolerant) Nautiyal et
al. (2002b): Agric-Manipinta (Local) (2.40), Sumnut-23
(SARI) (2.36), Kpach-Isah (local) (1.56), Oboshie
(CRI) (1.41), Sumnut-22 (SARI) (1.20), and Chinese
(local) (1.06).
(v) Farmers’ preferred varieties: Sinkara (local),
Ndogba (local), Chinese (local), Nkatie-sari (SARI),
Agric-Manipinta (local) and Chaco-pag (local).
(vi) Days to maturity (early maturity); Chinese (local),
Ndogba (local), Kpach-Isah (local), Simpelgu (local),
Yenyawoso (CRI).
Varying degrees of significance was observed among the
means of the various groundnut varieties, particularly pod,
seed and biomass yields, as well as Harvest Index and
Shelling percentage (Table 1).
Screening and Selection of Drought-Tolerant Groundnut Varieties Based on Yield Performance
Oppong-Sekyere et al. 466
Table 1: Pod yield of entries under drought stress (WS) and their performance under well-watered (WW) conditions and their
respective drought tolerance indices
No. Variety PodYield underWell-
Watered (WW),
(g/plot)
PodYield under
Water-Stressed
(WS), (g/plot)
LeastPod Yield(g)
difference =
(WW-WS)
Drought
Tolerance Index
(DTI)= WS/WW
1 Nkatie-Sari (SARI)e
589c 512 77 0.87
2 Chaco-pag (Local)e
562c 400 162 0.71
3 F-Mix (SARI) 102a 80 22 0.78
4 Sinkara (Local)a, b, d, e
600c 582 18 0.97
5 Agric-Manipinta (Local)c
125a 300 175 2.40
6 Ndogba (Local)e
567c 470 97 0.83
7 Sumnut-23 (SARI) 106a 250 144 2.36
8 Sokan-Donworor (Local) 363bcd 322 41 0.89
9 Sumnut-22 (SARI) 250abc 300 50 1.20
10 Chinese (Local)e
321bcd 340 19 1.06
11 Yenyawoso (CRI) 282abc 295 13 1.05
12 Simpelgu (Local) 270abc 232 38 0.86
13 Oboshie (CRI) 270abc 381 111 1.41
14 Kpach-Isah (Local) 109a 170 61 1.56
15 Kpanieli (SARI) 192b 101 91 0.53
16 Obolo (CRI) 200b 222 22 1.11
NB: Higher DTI indicates genotype is drought tolerant
a: best high yielding genotype(s) under WW, b: best high yielding genotype(s) under WS, c: genotype(s) with the highest DTI, d: Entries
selected based on the least yield difference between WW & WS, e: Entries selected based on good performance for all traits
WW: Well Water, WS: Water stress, DTI: Drought Tolerance Index, ‘Chinese’ = ‘China’
Means sharing a letter in the group label are not significantly different at the 5% level.
Table 2: Mean Performance of yield and yield components of entries under Well-Watered (WW) and Water-Stressed (WS)
(drought) Environments
No.
Entry
Days to
Maturity
(DM),
days
Biomass
Weight
(Bio), g/plot
Pod Yield
(PY), g/plot
Pod
Weight
(PWt.), g
Seed
Weight
(SWt.), g
100 Seed
Weight
(SW100), g
Harvest Index
(HI)
Shelling
Percentage
(%S)
WW WS WW WS WW WS WW WS WW WS WW WS WW WS
1
NkatieSari
(SARI)
100-115
911ef 608 589c 512 186abc 172 57abc 61 33abc 34 0.2042abc 0.2829 30.65abc
35.47
2
Chaco-pag
(Local)
100-115
568cdef 585 562c 400 106a 110 63abc 64 37abc 28 0.1866ab 0.1880 59.43d 58.18
3 F-Mix (SARI) 100-115 481a 488 102a 80 196abc 200 59abc 64 29ac 31 0.4075c 0.4098 30.10abc 32.00
4 Sinkara (Local) 100-115 650f 670 600c 582 193abc 199 57abc 60 55bd 57 0.2969abc 0.2970 29.53ab 30.15
5
Agric-Manipinta
(Local)
100-115
495ab 530 125a 300 170abc 155 33c 56 25abcd 48 0.3434bc 0.2925 19.41ab 36.13
6 Ndogba (Local) 85-90 853def 1361 567c 470 222bc 240 89e 92 35abcd 37 0.2603abc 0.1763 40.09abcd 38.33
7
Sumnut-23
(SARI)
100-115
439ab 684 106a 250 161ab 99 69abd 68 33abcd 55 0.3667abc 0.1447 42.86cd 68.69
8
SokanDonworor
(Local)
100-115
784bcdef 540 363bcd 322 177abc 180 63abc 65 24c 25 0.1250ab 0.1317 35.59abcd 36.11
9
Sumnut-22
(SARI)
100-115
881abcd 831 250abc 300 180abc 186 69abde 72 43abcd 37 0.2043abc 0.2238 38.33abcd 38.71
10 Chinese (Local) 85-90 964abcde 1222 321bcd 340 247c 250 41c 48 34abcd 36 0.2257abc 0.3300 16.60b 19.20
11
Yenyawoso
(CRI)
85-90
864abcd 778 282abc 295 188abc 196 71ade 76 56d 62 0.2043abc 0.2238 37.77abcd 38.78
12
Simpelgu
(Local)
85-90
564abc 595 270abc 232 148abc 162 67abd 72 44abcd 47 0.2624abc 0.2723 45.27acd 44.44
13 Oboshie (CRI) 100-115 684abcde 708 270abc 381 173abc 203 86de 89 52abd 54 0.2529abc 0.2867 49.71acd 43.84
14
Kpach-Isah
(Local)
85-90
953ab 970 109a 170 170abc 205 71ade 74 43abcd 45 0.1784ab 0.2113 41.76abcd 36.10
15 Kpanieli (SARI) 100-115 721ab 649 192b 101 211abc 192 61abc 56 41abcd 32 0.2926abc 0.2958 28.91ab 29.17
16 Obolo (CRI) 100-115 1856ab 1868 200b 222 132abc 246 48bc 56 49abd 51 0.0711a 0.1317 36.36ab 22.76
WW; Well-Watered environment, WS; Water-Stressed environment; Means sharing a letter in the group label are not significantly
different at the 5% level.
Screening and Selection of Drought-Tolerant Groundnut Varieties Based on Yield Performance
Int. J. Plant Breed. Crop Sci. 467
Ranking of Groundnut Genotypes by Clustering based
on Mean Performance for yield and yield components
of entries under (WW) and (WS) (drought)
Environments
Based on pod yield and performance for other traits under
well-watered (WW) and water-stressed (WS) (end-of-
season drought) conditions (Tables 1 and 2), the
groundnut genotypes were used to generate a
dendrogram (Figure 2).
At a relative rescaled Euclidian distance of 15, two major
cluster groups; clusters I (the biggest cluster of 12
varieties) and II (the smallest with 4 accessions) were
produced. Groundnut genotypes were clustered into
groups based on the selection criteria for drought-tolerant
varieties described previously.
Six drought tolerant groundnut varieties (Chinese,
Sumnut-22, Agric-Manipinta, Sumnut-23, Oboshie and
Kpach-Isah, all hypogaea varieties except Oboshie and
Kpach-Isah), were clustered under cluster group ‘I’ based
on varieties with higher drought tolerance index (DTI)
(Figure 2).
Cluster group I contained two sub-clusters; Ia (comprising
3 of the drought tolerant varieties; Sumnut-22, Obolo and
Chinese) and Ib (with 3 other drought tolerant varieties;
Agric-Manipinta, Sumnut-23 and Kpach-Isah) (Figure 2).
Per the selection criteria for drought tolerance (Section
4.5.1), four (Nkatie-sari, Ndogba, Chaco-pag and Sinkara)
out of the six groundnut varieties that qualified among the
best drought-tolerant groundnut varieties clustered under
the second cluster group II. These four mentioned
groundnut varieties and ‘Oboshie’ and ‘Chinese’ varieties
(in cluster group Ia) were the highest yielding groundnut
genotypes under water-stressed (drought) condition and
among varieties preferred by farmers (Figure 2).
Figure 2: Dendrogram of groundnut accessions generated by SPSS vs22 pc software, based on Euclidian distance as per pod yield
and performance for other traits, for both Well-Watered (WW) and Water-Stressed (WS) Environments (From top: Clusters A and B).
A
B
I
II
Ia
Ib
Screening and Selection of Drought-Tolerant Groundnut Varieties Based on Yield Performance
Oppong-Sekyere et al. 468
Correlation Analysis of Yield and Yield Components
for Groundnut Accessions under well-watered (WW)
and water-stressed (WS) Environmental Conditions
Results of general correlation analysis of pod yields for
well-watered (WW) and water-stressed (WS)
environments (Table 3) indicated a significant (F ≤ 0.05)
and positive association between pod yield under WW and
that under WS condition (r = 0.8684), but a significant (F ≤
0.05) and negative relations with Drought Tolerance Index
at r = -0.093 (Table 3). Least pod yield difference also
recorded a significant (F ≤ 0.05) and positive relationship
with DTI at r = 0.5026 (Table 3).
Correlation Analysis under Well-Watered (WW)
Environment
Results of the correlation analysis for pod yield under well-
watered (WW) environment (Table 4) indicated significant
and negative association was observed between pod yield
and harvest index (r = -0.77) at a significant value of p =
0.001. There was significant and negative correlation
between pod weight and shelling percentage (r = -0.68) at
p = 0.004 significant value. Significant and positive
relationship was obtained between seed weight and
shelling percentage (r = 0.69) at a significant value of p =
0.003.
Correlation Analysis under water-stressed (WS)
Environment
Correlation analysis for yield and yield components for
water-stressed (WS) environmental condition, on the other
hand, indicated a significant and positive association
between pod yield and pod weight (r = 0.67) at p = 0.004.
Significant and negative relationship was observed
between pod weight and shelling percentage (-0.85) at p =
0.000 significance (Table 3).
Table 3: General Correlation Analysis of Pod Yields for
WW and WS Environments
*p < 0.05
Table 4: Correlation Analysis of Yield and Yield Components for Well-Watered Environment
Pod yield Biomass Pod weight Seed weight 100 seed weight Harvest index
Biomass 0.01 (0.969)
Pod weight -0.07 (0.794) 0.06 (0.826)
Seed weight -0.15 (0.579) 0.17 (0.519) -0.003 (0.990)
100 seed weight 0.32 (0.227) 0.11 (0.690) -0.12 (0.660) 0.34 (0.203)
Harvest index -0.77 (0.001)* -0.26 (0.332) 0.30 (0.259) -0.02 (0.928) -0.25 (0.354)
Shelling percent -0.10 (0.724) 0.17 (0.541) -0.68 (0.004)* 0.69 (0.003)* 0.30 (0.252) -0.24 (0.364)
Significant at *p ≤ 0.05, *Figures in brackets ‘( )’ are Significant values.
Table 5: Correlation Analysis of Yield and Yield Components for Water-Stressed Environments
Pod yield Biomass Pod weight Seed weight 100 seed weight Harvest index
Biomass 0.01 (0.960)
Pod weight 0.67 (0.004)* 0.005 (0.987)
Seed weight 0.02 (0.955) 0.16 (0.546) 0.04 (0.873)
100 seed weight 0.17 (0.531) 0.12 (0.663) 0.02 (0.935) 0.23 (0.394)
Harvest index -0.39 (0.133) -0.12 (0.649) 0.19 (0.492) -0.25 (0.358) -0.08 (0.762)
Shelling percent -0.42 (0.106) 0.06 (0.822) -0.85 (0.000)* 0.40 (0.122) 0.13 (0.621) -0.39 (0.140)
Significant at *p ≤ 0.05, *Figures in brackets ‘( )’ are Significant values.
Participatory Varietal Selection (PVS) by Farmers;
Selection of Best Groundnut Genotypes under both
Well-Watered and Water-Stressed Environments
Pod yield and biomass production were the major criteria
considered by farmers in the selection of the best
groundnut genotypes since they added to the economic
value of the variety. Farmers indicated that groundnut
varieties with high biomass could be a good source of
animal feed (fodder).
Under Well-Watered environment, the farmers’
preferences were Sinkara (Local), Chaco-pag (local) and
Nkatie-sari (SARI).
Under Water-Stressed environment, the best genotypes
selected by farmers were Ndogba (local), Chinese (local)
and Obolo (CRI).
Effect of Drought on pod yield
The groundnut genotype, Sinkara (local) recorded the
highest pod yield (600 g/10plants) under both well watered
and water-stressed (end-of-season drought) environments
(Table 1 and 2).
Pod yield
(WW)
Pod yield
(WS)
Least pod
yield
DTI
Pod yield
(WW)
-
Pod yield
(WS)
0.8684* -
Least pod
yield
-0.0174 0.0993 -
DTI -0.093* -0.0752 0.5026* -
Screening and Selection of Drought-Tolerant Groundnut Varieties Based on Yield Performance
Int. J. Plant Breed. Crop Sci. 469
Figure 3: Pod yield performances under both Well-Watered (WW) and Water-Stressed (WS) environments
*Means may be significantly different from each other at F ≤ 0.05
Groundnut genotypes including Nkatie-sari, Ndogba,
Chaco-pag, Sokan-donworor and Chinese performed well
under both water regimes. Genotypes with least yield
difference included Yenyawoso, Sinkara, and Chinese
(Table 1).
Based on the selection criteria defined previously, the six
best drought tolerant genotypes were Sinkara (local),
Ndogba (local), Chinese (local), Chaco-pag (local),
Nkatie-sari (SARI) and Agric-Manipinta (local).
The Drought Tolerance Index (DTI) ranged from 0.53 to
2.40 for all the genotypes screened (Table 1). Agric-
Manipinta (local) had the highest DTI (2.40) whereas the
lowest DTI was recorded by Kpanieli (0.53). Agric-
Manipinta (local) was therefore the most drought tolerant
genotype followed by Sumnut-23 (SARI), Kpach-Isah
(local), Oboshie, Sumnut-22 (SARI), Obolo (CRI), Chinese
(local) and Yenyawoso (CRI) (Table 1). Interestingly, most
of these groundnut genotypes that recorded higher DTI did
not record exceptionally high pod yield figures (Table 2).
General pod yield performances for the groundnuts
evaluated are shown in Figure 3.
Results of Combined Correlation Analysis for Well-
Watered and Water-Stressed Environments
Results of the combined correlation analysis for yield and
yield components under the two water regimes (WW and
WS) (Table 6) indicated a negative and significant (F ≤
0.05) association between pod yield and the following
traits; biomass (r = - 0.2874), seed weight (-0.5256) and
shelling percentage (-0.4070) but a positive and significant
(F ≤ 0.05) relationship with harvest index (r = 0.3935).
Biomass produced significant (F ≤ 0.05) and positive
correlation with seed weight (r = 0.2910) and 100 seed
weight (r = 0.3129) but negative and significant (F ≤ 0.05)
association with harvest index (-0.4347). Pod weight
correlated positively and significantly (F ≤ 0.05) with 100
seed weight but produced a significant (F ≤ 0.05) and
negative association with shelling percentage (-0.5119).
Association between seed weight and 100 seed weight
was significant (F ≤ 0.05) and positive at r = 0.7982, similar
with shelling percentage (r = 0.6993), but negative with
harvest index (r = -0.6515). The association between
hundred seed weight and harvest index was significant (F
≤ 0.05) and negative (r = -0.6559), but positive with
shelling percentage (r = 0.4444). Harvest index and
shelling percentage were negatively and significantly (F ≤
0.05) correlated at r = -0.4279 (Table 6).
Table 6: Combined Correlation Analysis for groundnuts based on yield and its related traits
Pod yield Biomass Pod weight Seed weight 100seed weight Harvest Index Shelling %
Pod yield -
Biomass -0.2874* -
Pod weight -0.0792 0.1719 -
Seed weight -0.5256* 0.2910* 0.1623 -
100 seed weight -0.4541* 0.3129* 0.2973* 0.7982* -
Harvest Index 0.3935* -0.4347* -0.2665 -0.6515* -0.6559* -
Shelling % -0.4070* 0.2413 -0.5119* 0.6993* 0.4444* -0.4279* -
Significant at *p ≤ 0.05
0
200400600
Agric-M
anipinta
(Local)
C
haco-pag
(Local)
C
hinese
(Local)
F-M
ix
(SAR
I)
Kpach-Isah
(Local)
Kpanieli(SAR
I)
N
dogba
(Local)
N
katieSari(SAR
I)
O
bolo
(C
R
I)
O
boshie
(C
R
I)
Sim
pelgu
(Local)
Sinkara
(Local)
Sokan
D
onw
oror(Local)
Sum
nut-22
(SAR
I)
Sum
nut-23
(SAR
I)
Yenyaw
oso
(C
R
I)
Genotypes
Source: Field Survey
Pod yield under well watered conditions Pod yield under water stressed conditions
Screening and Selection of Drought-Tolerant Groundnut Varieties Based on Yield Performance
Oppong-Sekyere et al. 470
Mean Drought Score Based on Visual Rating
Assessment
Drought Score and Assessment: Visual Ratings and
Phenotypic Evaluation
According to the field visual/phenotypic drought
identification and scoring, and based on the above criteria,
the following average drought scores (Table 7), were
recorded among the groundnut varieties;
(i) Eight highly tolerant varieties were observed (Nkatie-
sari, Chaco-pag, F-Mix, Agric-Manipinta, Sumnut-23,
Sokan-donworor, Sumnut-22 and Kpanieli).
(ii) Three (3) tolerant varieties were observed (Sinkara,
Ndogba and Chinese).
(iii) Two (2) moderately tolerant varieties were recorded;
Yenyawoso and Kpach-Isah.
(iv) Three (3) drought-susceptible varieties were
recorded among the groundnuts, as per the criteria
defined above; Simpelgu, Oboshie and Obolo (Table
7).
Table 7: Mean drought Score based on phenotypic/visual
ratings
No. Variety Rep.1 Rep.2 Rep.3 Rep.4 Average
1 NkatieSari
(SARI)
1 1 1 2 1
2 Chaco-pag
(Landrace)
1 1 1 1 1
3 F-Mix (SARI) 1 1 1 1 1
4 Sinkara
(Landrace)
1 3 1 2 2
5 Agric-
Manipinta
(Landrace)
1 1 1 1 1
6 Ndogba
(Landrace)
3 1 4 1 2
7 Sumnut-23
(SARI)
1 1 1 1 1
8 SokanDonwo
ror
(Landrace)
1 1 1 1 1
9 Sumnut-22
(SARI)
1 1 1 1 1
10 Chinese
(Landrace)
2 2 3 2 2
11 Yenyawoso
(CRI)
3 3 4 3 3
12 Simpelgu
(Landrace)
4 3 4 3 4
13 Oboshie
(CRI)
5 4 4 3 4
14 Kpach-Isah
(Landrace)
3 3 4 3 3
15 Kpanieli
(SARI)
1 1 1 1 1
16 Obolo (CRI) 4 4 3 4 4
Drought Score (Scale: 1-5): Key: 1: Highly Tolerant, 2:
Tolerant, 3: Moderately Tolerant, 4: Susceptible, 5: Highly
Susceptible.
DISCUSSION
General performance for drought tolerance
Based on the following measurement criteria for drought
tolerance; (i) yield performance under water-stressed
environment, (ii) yield performance under well-watered
environment, (iii) least yield difference between stressed
and non-stressed conditions, (iv) the Drought Tolerance
Index (DTI), (v) end-of-season drought tolerance, (vi)
farmer’s preferred varieties, and (vii) date of maturity (early
maturity), some promising groundnut varieties with good
performance for pod yield under drought stress included;
Sinkara (landrace). The Drought Tolerance Index (DTI)
(Higher DTI indicates genotype is drought tolerant)
(Nautiyal et al., 2002b); Agric-Manipinta (landrace) (2.40),
Sumnut-23 (SARI) (2.36), Kpach-Isah (landrace) (1.56),
Oboshie (CRI) (1.41), Sumnut-22 (SARI) (1.20), and
Chinese (landrace) (1.06) varieties were also identified.
Farmers selected Sinkara (landrace), Ndogba (landrace),
Chinese (landrace), Nkatie-sari (SARI), Agric-Manipinta
(landrace), Obolo (CRI) and Chaco-pag (landrace) based
on performance for pod yield and biomass production
under both water regimes (well-watered and water-
stressed) due to their economic value added to the variety,
such as oil content and biomass. Abdullah et al. (2007)
reported 18 – 24 pods per plant in a similar study in
groundnuts. Virk et al. (2005) reported that groundnut
varieties differ significantly in the number of pods per plant.
Reddy et al. (2003b) and Camberling and Diop (1999),
have reported varying average yields in most regions of
Africa and Asia particularly in the major season. The
selected genotypes by the farmers are among the drought
tolerant varieties identified in this study. Therefore,
farmers' involvement in this study was very useful because
it enabled the breeder/researcher to take farmers'
preferred traits into consideration. Farmers were very
happy to be involved in the selection of parental lines.
In this study, end-of-season drought caused pod yield
reduction that varied from genotype to genotype. However,
certain genotypes showed least pod yield difference in
both water regimes. The varieties Yenyawoso, Sinkara,
and Chinese that showed least pod yield difference can be
used by farmers in the short time as drought tolerant
varieties prior to improvement of their popular varieties
identified through the PRA study.
Based on the selection criteria defined, the six best
drought tolerant genotypes identified in the study were
Sinkara (landrace), Ndogba (landrace), Chinese
(landrace), Chaco-pag (landrace), Nkatie-sari (SARI) and
Agric-Manipinta (landrace). The Drought Tolerance Index
(DTI) ranged from 0.53 to 2.40 for all the groundnut
genotypes screened. Agric-Manipinta (landrace) had the
highest DTI (2.40) whereas the lowest DTI was recorded
by Kpanieli (0.53). Most of these groundnut genotypes that
recorded higher DTI did not record remarkably high pod
yield values.
Screening and Selection of Drought-Tolerant Groundnut Varieties Based on Yield Performance
Int. J. Plant Breed. Crop Sci. 471
Phenotypic (visual rating) assessments of drought in the
current study based on drought symptoms at 75 DAP
revealed a confirmation of drought tolerance in the
groundnut genotypes identified, thus, eight highly tolerant
varieties; Nkatie-sari, Chaco-pag, F-Mix, Agric-Manipinta,
Sumnut-23, Sokan-donworor, Sumnut-22 and Kpanieli
were identified. Also, three tolerant varieties; Sinkara,
Ndogba and Chinese were identified and two moderately
tolerant varieties were identified; Yenyawoso and Kpach-
Isah.
Research Institutions such as CSIR-CRI and CSIR-SARI
have developed some drought and disease tolerant
varieties, but these have unfortunately not yet reached the
farmers and seed companies (Adu-Dapaah et al., 2007).
Farmers’ selected their preferred groundnut varieties
based on their earliness, drought and disease tolerance
and their potential for high-yielding and biomass
production, but selection of a preferred variety is only one
part of the success story. In order for these improved
varieties to reach a large number of farmers, various
recognized actors such as registered seed companies,
Research Institutes, Ministry of Food and Agriculture
(MoFA), must ensure that certified breeder seeds are
available to licensed seed companies to produce
subsequent classes of seed at very affordable prices for
farmers.
CONCLUSION
The present study showed that, end-of-season drought
caused significant decline in groundnut pod yield varying
from genotype to genotype. However, most of the
genotypes showed significant potential for drought
tolerance based on pod yield and performance for other
characteristics. These promising groundnut genotypes
could be used as parental lines to develop drought-tolerant
varieties. Groundnut genotypes that showed least pod
yield difference in both water regimes could as well be
adopted by farmers in the short term as drought-tolerant
cultivars while they wait upon breeders to improve upon
their popular groundnut varieties (landraces). Farmers
preferred groundnut cultivars which come with traits such
as high pod yield, high oil content and biomass (animal
fodder), due to the extra economic value it adds to the
crop.
REFERENCES
Abdullah, T., Rahmianna A. A., Hardaningsih, S and Rozi,
F. (2007). Increasing Groundnut Yield on Dry Land
Alfisols in Indonesia. Journal of SAT Agricultural
Research, 5(1).
Abdul-Ganiyu, S., Amaanatu, M. K and Korese, J. K.
(2012) Water Use Efficiency and Productivity for Rice
(Oryza Sativa) in the Botanga Irrigation Scheme of
Northern Region of Ghana. Agricultural Science
Research Journal, 2(7): 362–368.
Adu-Dapaah, H. K., Asumadu, H., Lamptey, J. N. L.,
Haleegoah, J and Asafo-Adjei, B. (2007). Farmer
Participation in Groundnut Varietal Selection. African
Crop Science Conference Proceedings, 8: 1435 –
1439.
Arunyanark, A., Jogloya, S., Wongkaewb, S.,
Akkasaenga, C., Vorasoota, N., Kesmalaa, T and
Patanothaia, A. (2010). Heritability of Aflatoxin
Resistance Traits and Correlation with Drought
Tolerance Traits in Peanut. Field Crops Research, 117,
258-264.
Camberlin, P and Diop, M. (1999). Inter-relationships
between Groundnut Yields in Senegal, Inter Annual
Rainfall Variability and Sea Surface Temperatures.
Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 63, 163-181.
Girdthai, T., Jogloy, S., Vorasoot, N., Akkasaeng, C.,
Wongkaew, S., Holbrook, C. C and Patanothai, A.
(2010a). Heritability of and Genotypic Correlations
between, Aflatoxin Traits and Physiological Traits for
Drought Tolerance under End-of-season Drought in
Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Field Crops Research,
118, 169-176.
Girdthai, T., Jogloy, S., Vorasoot, N., Akkasaeng, C.,
Wongkaew, S., Holbrook, C. C and Patanothai, A.
(2010b). Associations between Physiological Traits for
Drought Tolerance and Aflatoxin Contamination in
Peanut Genotypes under Terminal Drought. Plant
Breeding,129, 693-699.
Gomez, K. A and Gomez, A. A. (1984). Statistical
Procedures for Agricultural Research. John Wiley &
Sons, New York. 45p.
Jongrungklang, N., Toomsan, B., Vorasoot, N., Jogloy S.,
Kesmala, T and Patanothai, A. (2008). Identification of
Peanut Genotypes with High Water-Use Efficiency
under Drought Stress Conditions from Peanut
Germplasm of Diverse Origins. Asian Journal of Plant
Sciences, 7, 628-638.
Nageswara, R. R. C and Nigam, S. N. (2003). Genetic
Options for Drought Management in Groundnut. In:
Management of Agricultural Drought - Agronomic and
Genetic Options. Science Publishers, Inc, 123-141.
Nautiyal, P. C. (2002a). Groundnut: Post-harvest
Operations. Mejia, D. (Ed) ICAR (National Research
Center for Groundnut). Pp 16.
Nautiyal, P. C., Nageswara, R. R. C and Joshi, Y. C.
(2002b). Moisture Deficit–Induced Changes in Leaf
Water Content, Leaf Carbon Exchange Rate and
Biomass Production in Groundnut Cultivars Differing in
Specific Leaf Area. Field Crops Research, 74, 67-79.
Reddy, T.Y., Reddy V.R and Anbumozhi, V. (2003a).
Physiological Responses of Groundnut (Arachis
hypogea L.) to Drought Stress and its Amelioration: A
Critical Review. Plant Growth Regulation, 41: 75-88.
Reddy, T.Y., Reddy V.R and Anbumozhi, V. (2003b).
Physiological Responses of groundnut (Arachis
hypogaea L.) to Drought Stress and its Amelioration: A
Review. Acta Agronomica Hungarica, 51: 205-227.
Varshney, R.K., Hoisington, D.A and Tyagi, A.K. (2006).
Advances in Cereal Genomics and Applications in Crop
Screening and Selection of Drought-Tolerant Groundnut Varieties Based on Yield Performance
Oppong-Sekyere et al. 472
Breeding. Trends Biotechnol. 2006; 24:490 - 499.
Virk, A.S., Kaul, J.N., Bhangoo, B.S and Singh, A. (2005).
Influence of Planting Techniques and Plant Population
on Biology and Pod productivity of Summer Groundnut
varieties. Research on crops, 6(1): 173 – 174.
Accepted 7 November 2018
Citation: Oppong-Sekyere D., Akromah R., Kena A.W.,
Larweh V., Ozias-Akins P. (2018). Screening and
Selection of Drought-Tolerant Groundnut Varieties Based
on Yield Performance. International Journal of Plant
Breeding and Crop Science 5(3): 463-473.
Copyright: © 2018 Oppong-Sekyere et al. This is an
open-access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original author and source are cited.
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Source, Sub-species, Days to Maturity and Phenotypic Characteristics of Groundnut Genotypes
Studied
№. Genotype *Sub-
Species
Source Days to
Maturity,
days
Phenotypic Characteristics and Other Trait
Drought
Characteristics
Early Leaf
Spot
disease
Late Leaf
Spot
disease
Oil Content and Other
Traits
1 Nkatie-sari Hypogaea
(Virginia)
CSIR-
SARI,
Ghana
100-115
(110)
Tolerant Highly
Tolerant
Highly
Tolerant
Oil Content: 46%, Seed
Colour: Light tan testa
colour
2 Chaco – pag Fastigiata Landrace,
Ghana
100-115 Tolerant Moderately
Tolerant
Moderately
Tolerant
Seed colour: Red
3 F – mix Hypogaea
(Spanish)
CSIR-
SARI,
Ghana
100-115
(120)
Tolerant Highly
Tolerant
Highly
Tolerant
Oil Content: 49%
Seed colour: Tan with
red/brown shades
Av. Yield: 2500kg/ha
Highly Tolerant to
Rosette and Rust
4 Sinkara Hypogaea
(Spanish)
Landrace,
Ghana
100-115
(120)
Tolerant Tolerant Tolerant Oil Content: 45%
Seed colour: Red
Yield Potential: 2.2t/ha
5 Agric-
Manipinta
Hypogaea
(Spanish)
Landrace,
Ghana
100-115
(110-120)
Tolerant Tolerant Tolerant Oil Content: 47%
Seed colour: red teste
High yield potential
6 Ndogba Fastigiata Landrace,
Ghana
85-90 Moderately
Tolerant
Moderately
Susceptible
Moderately
Susceptible
Seed colour: Tan red
7 Sumnut – 23 Hypogaea CSIR-
SARI,
Ghana
100-115 Tolerant Moderately
Tolerant
Moderately
Tolerant
Seed colour: tan red
Rosette disease
Tolerant
8 Sokan-
donworor
Fastigiata Landrace,
Ghana
100-115 Tolerant Moderately
Susceptible
Moderately
Susceptible
Seed colour: Red to
whitish
9 Sumnut – 22 Hypogaea CSIR-
SARI,
Ghana
100-115
(110-120)
Tolerant Moderately
Tolerant
Moderately
Tolerant
Seed colour: Tan red
Rosette disease
Tolerant
Screening and Selection of Drought-Tolerant Groundnut Varieties Based on Yield Performance
Int. J. Plant Breed. Crop Sci. 473
Appendix 1 continue:
№. Genotype *Sub-
Species
Source Days to
Maturity,
days
Phenotypic Characteristics and Other Trait
Drought
Characteristics
Early Leaf
Spot
disease
Late Leaf
Spot
disease
Oil Content and Other
Traits
10 Chinese Hypogaea
(Spanish)
Landrace,
Ghana
85-90
(100)
Tolerant Susceptible Susceptible Oil Content: 35%
Early maturing
Use: Soup and
Confectionery
11 Yenyawoso Fastigiata
(Spanish)
CSIR-CRI,
Ghana
85-90
(90)
Moderately
Susceptible
Moderately
Susceptible
Moderately
Susceptible
Oil content: 50%
Resistant to Rust
Seed colour: Dark red
Yield Potential:
2700kg/ha
Days to 50% flowering:
23DAP
12 Simpelgu Fastigiata Landrace,
Ghana
85-90 Tolerant Moderately
Susceptible
Moderately
Susceptible
Seed colour: Deep red
13 Oboshie Fastigiata
(Spanish)
CSIR-CRI,
Ghana
100-115
(105-110)
Moderately
Susceptible
Moderately
Susceptible
Moderately
Susceptible
Oil Content: 46.49%
Seed Colour: Brown
Days to 50% flowering:
26
Shelling %: 67
Good flavour, sweet
taste (Confectionery)
Yield: 2.6tons/ha
Days to Flowering:
26DAP
Shelling%: 67%
Growth Habit: Semi-
erect
14 Kpach –
Isah
Fastigiata Landrace,
Ghana
85-90 Tolerant Moderately
Susceptible
Moderately
Susceptible
Seed colour: Light red
15 Kpanieli Hypogaea
(Spanish)
CSIR-
SARI,
Ghana
100-115
(120)
Tolerant Tolerant Tolerant Oil Content: 51%
Yield Potential: 2.5t/ha
Seed colour: red testa
16 Obolo Fastigiata
(Spanish)
CRI,
Ghana
SARI
100-115
(105-110)
Moderately
Susceptible
Moderately
Susceptible
Moderately
Susceptible
Seed colour: Brown
Days to 50% flowering:
25
Shelling %: 70
Has sweet taste and
flavour (Confectionery)
*Sub-species, *Oil content and other traits; were obtained from CSIR-SARI, CRI and MoFA published data
CSIR-Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, SARI – Savanna Agriculture Research Institute, Ghana, CRI – Crops
Research Institute, MoFA-Ministry of Food and Agriculture, ‘Landrace’- Farmers’ popular locally adapted variety

More Related Content

PDF
Mulching and Irrigation Practices on Cocoa Seedling Survival and Field Establ...
PDF
HortTechnology Vol 97 pg 97-105
PDF
Evaluating the performance of improved sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas L. Lam) ...
PDF
Quality of Snap Bean (Phaseolus Vulgaris L.) as influenced by N and P Fertili...
PDF
2 ijhaf dec-2017-3-effect of biochar issued from
PDF
Nodulation, Growth and Yield Response of Five Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Wa...
PDF
Yield response of intercropped maize (zea mays l.) and okra (abelmoschus escu...
PDF
Evaluation of mixture productivity and economic profit of inter
Mulching and Irrigation Practices on Cocoa Seedling Survival and Field Establ...
HortTechnology Vol 97 pg 97-105
Evaluating the performance of improved sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas L. Lam) ...
Quality of Snap Bean (Phaseolus Vulgaris L.) as influenced by N and P Fertili...
2 ijhaf dec-2017-3-effect of biochar issued from
Nodulation, Growth and Yield Response of Five Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Wa...
Yield response of intercropped maize (zea mays l.) and okra (abelmoschus escu...
Evaluation of mixture productivity and economic profit of inter

What's hot (20)

PDF
Effect of sowing year and seedbed type on yield and yield component in bambar...
PDF
Effect of regulated deficit irrigation on growth and yield of sorghum
PDF
Interactive Effects of Stream Sizes and Furrow Geometry on Furrow Irrigation ...
PDF
Isolation Of Salmonella Gallinarum From Poultry Droppings In Jos Metropolis, ...
PDF
The effect of np fertlizer rates on the yield and yield
PDF
Growth and Yield Responses of Pigeonpea to Variable Phosphorus Application Ra...
PDF
Evaluation of Different Growing Substrates on Lettuce (Lactuca sativa) under ...
PDF
Vegetative propagation of anonidium mannii (oliver) engler &amp; diels (annon...
PDF
Microclimate Modification Using Eco-Friendly Nets & Floating Row Covers Impro...
PDF
Jabs 0910 213
PDF
The effect of np fertlizer rates on the yield and yield components of ginger ...
PDF
ANALYSIS OF GRAIN YIELD AND AGRONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS IN DROUGHT-TOLERANT MAI...
PDF
Effect of partial rootzone drying technique on yield and yield components of ...
PDF
Effects of Tillage methods on some soil physical properties, growth and yield...
PPTX
Ppt agri.engg362 (bablu)
PDF
4. HortFlora Full PDF Vol 1(4) Oct-Dec 2012
PPTX
Application of paclobutrazol in fruit culture potential, panacea or poison
PDF
Hydrological and physical changes of soils under cocoa plantations of differe...
PDF
Stem Height and Yield Response of Four Potato Varieties to Planting Density a...
PDF
Effect of foliar application of water soluble fertilizer on growth, yield and...
Effect of sowing year and seedbed type on yield and yield component in bambar...
Effect of regulated deficit irrigation on growth and yield of sorghum
Interactive Effects of Stream Sizes and Furrow Geometry on Furrow Irrigation ...
Isolation Of Salmonella Gallinarum From Poultry Droppings In Jos Metropolis, ...
The effect of np fertlizer rates on the yield and yield
Growth and Yield Responses of Pigeonpea to Variable Phosphorus Application Ra...
Evaluation of Different Growing Substrates on Lettuce (Lactuca sativa) under ...
Vegetative propagation of anonidium mannii (oliver) engler &amp; diels (annon...
Microclimate Modification Using Eco-Friendly Nets & Floating Row Covers Impro...
Jabs 0910 213
The effect of np fertlizer rates on the yield and yield components of ginger ...
ANALYSIS OF GRAIN YIELD AND AGRONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS IN DROUGHT-TOLERANT MAI...
Effect of partial rootzone drying technique on yield and yield components of ...
Effects of Tillage methods on some soil physical properties, growth and yield...
Ppt agri.engg362 (bablu)
4. HortFlora Full PDF Vol 1(4) Oct-Dec 2012
Application of paclobutrazol in fruit culture potential, panacea or poison
Hydrological and physical changes of soils under cocoa plantations of differe...
Stem Height and Yield Response of Four Potato Varieties to Planting Density a...
Effect of foliar application of water soluble fertilizer on growth, yield and...
Ad

Similar to Screening and Selection of Drought-Tolerant Groundnut Varieties Based on Yield Performance (20)

PDF
Lowland rice water stress management in Ghana
PDF
Growth comparison of Banana cv. Mchare (Huti Green) under full and deficit ir...
PDF
Heat and water stress tolerance of bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea L. Ve...
PDF
Agro physiological characteristics of qpm genotypes as influenced by irrigati...
PDF
Growth and yield of 12 accessions of Pawpaw (Carica papaya L.) as influenced ...
PDF
Rice (Oryza sativa L.) establishment methods under irrigated and rain-fed low...
PDF
Effects of drip irrigation frequency and depth on soil hydro-physical propert...
PDF
The Effects of Using Magnetic Treatment Brackish Water in Irrigation on the Y...
PDF
Ijciet 10 01_097
PDF
YIELD PERFORMANCE AND ADAPTATION OF EARLY AND INTERMEDIATE DROUGHT-TOLERANT M...
PPT
1603 - Improving Food Production for Health in a Water-constrained World - Ag...
PDF
Assessment of the Relative Suitability of Three Different Soils for Dry Seaso...
PDF
Smallholder Banana Farming Systems and Climate Variability: Understanding the...
PDF
Effect of storage methods of cassava planting materials on establishment and ...
PDF
Effect of storage methods of cassava planting materials on establishment and ...
PDF
Effect of storage methods of cassava planting materials on establishment and ...
PDF
Yield of Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) as Influenced by Planting Date and Plan...
PDF
Effect of partial rootzone drying technique on growth performance of sorghum
PDF
Project abstract 2
PDF
Combined influence of sowing dates and fertilization on phenology and growth ...
Lowland rice water stress management in Ghana
Growth comparison of Banana cv. Mchare (Huti Green) under full and deficit ir...
Heat and water stress tolerance of bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea L. Ve...
Agro physiological characteristics of qpm genotypes as influenced by irrigati...
Growth and yield of 12 accessions of Pawpaw (Carica papaya L.) as influenced ...
Rice (Oryza sativa L.) establishment methods under irrigated and rain-fed low...
Effects of drip irrigation frequency and depth on soil hydro-physical propert...
The Effects of Using Magnetic Treatment Brackish Water in Irrigation on the Y...
Ijciet 10 01_097
YIELD PERFORMANCE AND ADAPTATION OF EARLY AND INTERMEDIATE DROUGHT-TOLERANT M...
1603 - Improving Food Production for Health in a Water-constrained World - Ag...
Assessment of the Relative Suitability of Three Different Soils for Dry Seaso...
Smallholder Banana Farming Systems and Climate Variability: Understanding the...
Effect of storage methods of cassava planting materials on establishment and ...
Effect of storage methods of cassava planting materials on establishment and ...
Effect of storage methods of cassava planting materials on establishment and ...
Yield of Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) as Influenced by Planting Date and Plan...
Effect of partial rootzone drying technique on growth performance of sorghum
Project abstract 2
Combined influence of sowing dates and fertilization on phenology and growth ...
Ad

More from Premier Publishers (20)

PDF
Evaluation of Agro-morphological Performances of Hybrid Varieties of Chili Pe...
PDF
An Empirical Approach for the Variation in Capital Market Price Changes
PDF
Influence of Nitrogen and Spacing on Growth and Yield of Chia (Salvia hispani...
PDF
Enhancing Social Capital During the Pandemic: A Case of the Rural Women in Bu...
PDF
Impact of Provision of Litigation Supports through Forensic Investigations on...
PDF
Improving the Efficiency of Ratio Estimators by Calibration Weightings
PDF
Urban Liveability in the Context of Sustainable Development: A Perspective fr...
PDF
Transcript Level of Genes Involved in “Rebaudioside A” Biosynthesis Pathway u...
PDF
Multivariate Analysis of Tea (Camellia sinensis (L.) O. Kuntze) Clones on Mor...
PDF
Causes, Consequences and Remedies of Juvenile Delinquency in the Context of S...
PDF
The Knowledge of and Attitude to and Beliefs about Causes and Treatments of M...
PDF
Effect of Phosphorus and Zinc on the Growth, Nodulation and Yield of Soybean ...
PDF
Influence of Harvest Stage on Yield and Yield Components of Orange Fleshed Sw...
PDF
Performance evaluation of upland rice (Oryza sativa L.) and variability study...
PDF
Response of Hot Pepper (Capsicum Annuum L.) to Deficit Irrigation in Bennatse...
PDF
Harnessing the Power of Agricultural Waste: A Study of Sabo Market, Ikorodu, ...
PDF
Influence of Conferences and Job Rotation on Job Productivity of Library Staf...
PDF
Scanning Electron Microscopic Structure and Composition of Urinary Calculi of...
PDF
Gentrification and its Effects on Minority Communities – A Comparative Case S...
PDF
Oil and Fatty Acid Composition Analysis of Ethiopian Mustard (Brasicacarinata...
Evaluation of Agro-morphological Performances of Hybrid Varieties of Chili Pe...
An Empirical Approach for the Variation in Capital Market Price Changes
Influence of Nitrogen and Spacing on Growth and Yield of Chia (Salvia hispani...
Enhancing Social Capital During the Pandemic: A Case of the Rural Women in Bu...
Impact of Provision of Litigation Supports through Forensic Investigations on...
Improving the Efficiency of Ratio Estimators by Calibration Weightings
Urban Liveability in the Context of Sustainable Development: A Perspective fr...
Transcript Level of Genes Involved in “Rebaudioside A” Biosynthesis Pathway u...
Multivariate Analysis of Tea (Camellia sinensis (L.) O. Kuntze) Clones on Mor...
Causes, Consequences and Remedies of Juvenile Delinquency in the Context of S...
The Knowledge of and Attitude to and Beliefs about Causes and Treatments of M...
Effect of Phosphorus and Zinc on the Growth, Nodulation and Yield of Soybean ...
Influence of Harvest Stage on Yield and Yield Components of Orange Fleshed Sw...
Performance evaluation of upland rice (Oryza sativa L.) and variability study...
Response of Hot Pepper (Capsicum Annuum L.) to Deficit Irrigation in Bennatse...
Harnessing the Power of Agricultural Waste: A Study of Sabo Market, Ikorodu, ...
Influence of Conferences and Job Rotation on Job Productivity of Library Staf...
Scanning Electron Microscopic Structure and Composition of Urinary Calculi of...
Gentrification and its Effects on Minority Communities – A Comparative Case S...
Oil and Fatty Acid Composition Analysis of Ethiopian Mustard (Brasicacarinata...

Recently uploaded (20)

PPTX
Final Presentation General Medicine 03-08-2024.pptx
PPTX
Final Presentation General Medicine 03-08-2024.pptx
PDF
RMMM.pdf make it easy to upload and study
PDF
Practical Manual AGRO-233 Principles and Practices of Natural Farming
PPTX
1st Inaugural Professorial Lecture held on 19th February 2020 (Governance and...
PPTX
Tissue processing ( HISTOPATHOLOGICAL TECHNIQUE
PPTX
History, Philosophy and sociology of education (1).pptx
DOC
Soft-furnishing-By-Architect-A.F.M.Mohiuddin-Akhand.doc
PDF
LDMMIA Reiki Yoga Finals Review Spring Summer
PDF
A GUIDE TO GENETICS FOR UNDERGRADUATE MEDICAL STUDENTS
PDF
Black Hat USA 2025 - Micro ICS Summit - ICS/OT Threat Landscape
PDF
Paper A Mock Exam 9_ Attempt review.pdf.
PDF
Trump Administration's workforce development strategy
PDF
RTP_AR_KS1_Tutor's Guide_English [FOR REPRODUCTION].pdf
PDF
medical_surgical_nursing_10th_edition_ignatavicius_TEST_BANK_pdf.pdf
PDF
1_English_Language_Set_2.pdf probationary
PPTX
Introduction-to-Literarature-and-Literary-Studies-week-Prelim-coverage.pptx
PDF
Supply Chain Operations Speaking Notes -ICLT Program
PPTX
202450812 BayCHI UCSC-SV 20250812 v17.pptx
PPTX
Digestion and Absorption of Carbohydrates, Proteina and Fats
Final Presentation General Medicine 03-08-2024.pptx
Final Presentation General Medicine 03-08-2024.pptx
RMMM.pdf make it easy to upload and study
Practical Manual AGRO-233 Principles and Practices of Natural Farming
1st Inaugural Professorial Lecture held on 19th February 2020 (Governance and...
Tissue processing ( HISTOPATHOLOGICAL TECHNIQUE
History, Philosophy and sociology of education (1).pptx
Soft-furnishing-By-Architect-A.F.M.Mohiuddin-Akhand.doc
LDMMIA Reiki Yoga Finals Review Spring Summer
A GUIDE TO GENETICS FOR UNDERGRADUATE MEDICAL STUDENTS
Black Hat USA 2025 - Micro ICS Summit - ICS/OT Threat Landscape
Paper A Mock Exam 9_ Attempt review.pdf.
Trump Administration's workforce development strategy
RTP_AR_KS1_Tutor's Guide_English [FOR REPRODUCTION].pdf
medical_surgical_nursing_10th_edition_ignatavicius_TEST_BANK_pdf.pdf
1_English_Language_Set_2.pdf probationary
Introduction-to-Literarature-and-Literary-Studies-week-Prelim-coverage.pptx
Supply Chain Operations Speaking Notes -ICLT Program
202450812 BayCHI UCSC-SV 20250812 v17.pptx
Digestion and Absorption of Carbohydrates, Proteina and Fats

Screening and Selection of Drought-Tolerant Groundnut Varieties Based on Yield Performance

  • 1. Screening and Selection of Drought-Tolerant Groundnut Varieties Based on Yield Performance IJPBCS Screening and Selection of Drought-Tolerant Groundnut Varieties Based on Yield Performance *1Oppong-Sekyere, D., 2Akromah, R., 3Kena, A.W., 4Larweh, V and 5Ozias-Akins, P. 1Department of Ecological Agriculture, Bolgatanga Polytechnic, P.O. Box 767, Bolgatanga, Ghana 2,3Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, KNUST-Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana 4CSIR-Crops Research Institute, Kumasi, Ghana 5University of Georgia, National Environmentally Sound Production Agriculture Laboratory (NESPAL), Coastal Plain Experiment Station, 2356 Rainwater Road Tifton, Georgia, USA 31794 Drought is the most important abiotic limitation to groundnut production in Northern Ghana. Drought, during the pod-filling stages is even more devastating. The current study was conducted to screen groundnut varieties, for drought-tolerance based on yield and other traits. Evaluation of groundnut genotypes was under two environments/water regimes; well-watered and water-stressed. ANOVA was run for Quantitative data. Means were separated by l.s.d. at 95% confidence level. Correlation analyses were performed using SPSS. Combined analysis of variance was computed for the groundnuts across water regimes. Dendrograms were generated using yield data and based on Euclidean distance. Scoring and ranking was used to assess disease incidence on a scale of 1-5. Results indicate that end-of-season drought caused pod yield reduction that varied across genotypes. The Drought Tolerance Index ranged from 0.53 (Kpanieli) to 2.40 (Agric-Manipinta). The highest yielding genotypes under water-stressed condition were Sinkara (582g/plot), Nkatie-sari (512g/plot), Ndogba (470g/plot), Chaco-pag (400g/plot) and Oboshie (381g/plot) and Chinese (local) (340g/plot). Farmers’ selected Sinkara, Ndogba, Chinese, Nkatie-sari, Agric-Manipinta and Chaco-pag based on pod yield and biomass production. Sinkara (0.8798), Sokan-donworor (0.8739), Kpach-Isah (0.8318) and Kpanieli (0.8016) recorded very high mean pod harvest index values, while Ndogba recorded the lowest (0.2252). Combined analysis of variance for pod yield among all the genotypes indicate that the groundnuts performed differently in both water regimes due to the significant interaction effect observed between water regimes and genotypes. Information generated from this study can be used to develop new groundnut varieties that combine higher yield and drought tolerant traits. Keywords: Constraints, drought, end-of-season, environments, genotypes, tolerance INTRODUCTION Drought, especially during the pod-filling stages of groundnut growth is a major production constraint, particularly in the three Northern Regions of Ghana. This therefore causes a significant pod yield reduction and its subsequent reduction in productivity. Groundnut is grown widely under rainfed conditions in the semi-arid tropics, where drought stress is extensive and unavoidable. The yield of groundnut in the Northern Ghana, which doubles as the major producer, is frequently severely limited by drought arising from unpredictable rainfall, high evaporative demands and production on low water holding capacity soils. There is also the problem of the relatively shorter seasons for growth of most crops in these semi-arid tropics in comparison with the savannah environments; this has a negative effect on the proper growth, maturity and yield of groundnuts. Notwithstanding, early maturing groundnut varieties with improved yield are essential for several agro- *Corresponding Author: Daniel Oppong-Sekyere, Department of Ecological Agriculture, Bolgatanga Polytechnic, P.O. Box 767, Bolgatanga, Ghana. Email: danieloppongsekyere@yahoo.com International Journal of Plant Breeding and Crop Science Vol. 5(3), pp. 463-473, December, 2018. © www.premierpublishers.org. ISSN: 2167-0449 Research Article
  • 2. Screening and Selection of Drought-Tolerant Groundnut Varieties Based on Yield Performance Oppong-Sekyere et al. 464 ecological environments of the semi-arid regions of Ghana, in particular, and the West Africa sub-region, in general. There is lack of and/or inadequate information regarding the genetic variability for drought-tolerant groundnut varieties. An important objective in any groundnut improvement programme has always included breeding for cultivars that are better able to use less water to produce significant amount of yield. Drought tolerance for late maturity varieties of groundnut would be very advantageous. According to research (Jongrungklang et al., 2008), drought affects chlorophyll content and hinders plants’ ability and capacity to photosynthesize (Arunyanark et al., 2010). An important drought tolerance mechanism in groundnuts is the capacity to maintain chlorophyll density under conditions of water shortage Arunyanark et al., 2010; Wunna et al., 2009). Superior yield performance under moisture stress conditions is an important and reliable index of drought tolerance (Varshney et al, 2006). The objective of this research was to evaluate and select drought - tolerant groundnut varieties based on yield (the Drought Tolerance Index, DTI) and performance for other traits. MATERIALS AND METHODS i. Source of genetic materials Sixteen (16) local and improved groundnut genotypes (Appendix 1) were screened in two water regimes or environments; Well-Watered and Water-Stressed (less- watered) in the 2016 minor season for drought tolerance. ii. Experimental Site, Field Operations Groundnut sowing was done on Saturday, 16th January, 2016 at Botanga Irrigation Fields, in the Northern Region of Ghana (in the dry season with temperature around 42°C). Botanga irrigation scheme is located in the Northern Region of Ghana, in the Tolon-Kumbungu district; it lies between latitude 9° 30” and 9° 35” N and longitude 1° 20” and 1° 04” W. The cropping area is divided into two, upland and lowland, the upland is free draining soil and plots are designed for furrow irrigation. The upland area is for vegetables production and the lowland for rice production because of the nature of the soil that is heavily textured and irrigated by flooding (Abdul-Ganiyu et al., 2012). The irrigation system is an earth-filled dam of 12 m in height with a crest level of 5.00 m. The irrigation system has potential area of 570 ha and all the areas have been developed (Abdul-Ganiyu et al., 2012). The total annual rainfall in the area is around 1,300 mm, which normally begins in March, reaches a peak in September and then drops sharply in November (Abdul- Ganiyu et al., 2012). Thereafter, there is a long dry period from December to the end of February, during which only negligible amounts of rain are received. Mean monthly temperatures remain high throughout the year only falling around 26oC in August in Botanga. March and April are the hottest months recording nearly 40 oC (Abdul- Ganiyu et al., 2012). iii. Planting Operations, Screening and Evaluations in Well-Watered and Water-Stressed Environments The crop was grown on ridges in a two-row plot system, 2 m long, observing a spacing of 50 cm between rows and 20 cm between plants (Arunyanark et al., 2010). Groundnut seeds were hand planted in two environments; well-watered and water-stressed conditions. The balanced α- lattice design (10 x 10) was adopted, and replicated four times. Each plot measured 0.5 m by 2 m (1 m2) with each block containing ten (10) varieties. The distance between the two water regimes (well-watered and water-stressed) was 5 m, while another 5 m was kept between replications. The trial was surrounded by two border rows. Surface irrigation: A watering can be used to apply water during the experiment. iv. Drought Score and Assessment: Visual Ratings and Phenotypic Evaluation Groundnut plants which showed symptoms of drought beginning from 75 DAP were recorded (Table 7). Severity of drought incidence was scored on a scale of 1 – 5, where 1= no symptoms (< 25% of drought; Highly Tolerant), 2= slight symptoms (25-50% of crop foliage affected; Tolerant), 3 = moderate symptoms (50-75% of crop foliage affected; Moderately Tolerant), 4 = severe symptoms (>75% of crop foliage affected; Susceptible to drought), and 5 = very severe symptoms (about 100% of crop foliage affected; Highly Susceptible to drought) (Table 7) (Nageswara and Nigam, 2003). v. Irrigation Management for Well-Watered and Water-Stressed Environments The experiment was carried out between January and June, 2016; that is the most critical month with high temperature during the day, with an average of 40oC. After sowing, the well-watered plots were irrigated fully two times a day until harvest stage. For the water-stressed environment, the crops were irrigated twice a week up to when 50% plants flowered (30 Days After Planting, DAP). After that, the plants were irrigated twice a day until pod filling time. The plants were exposed gradually to end-of-season drought from the pod- filling (50 DAP) until maturity. At 50 DAP, which corresponded with peg penetration and pod filling, drought stress was imposed for 14 days and irrigation was resumed at the 15th day (http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh). Then drought stress was imposed for 10 days, followed by irrigation. After that, drought stress was imposed for 7 days followed by irrigation up to harvest (Figure 1).
  • 3. Screening and Selection of Drought-Tolerant Groundnut Varieties Based on Yield Performance Int. J. Plant Breed. Crop Sci. 465 *D: Days, *WS: Water-Stressed, *DAS: Days after Sowing, 14 D: 14 days, 10 D: 10 days, 7 D: 7 days Figure 1: Drought stress imposition and irrigation frequencies (Adapted from; Mamadou, Coulibaly Adama, PhD. Thesis, 2013; http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh) vi. Data Collection The following yield and yield components data were collected for both environment 1 (well-watered) and environment 2 (water-stressed) regimes.  Biomass Weight (Bio, g): Above ground biomass (Haulm Weight) was calculated from ten (10) plants selected randomly from all the treatments. Haulm weight was taken by weighing the harvest using a Top Pan Balance after 3 weeks air drying.  Pod Yield (PY): Pod yield was determined from 10 plants selected randomly from all the treatments after air and sun drying to constant weight for two weeks.  Pod Weight: Fresh weight of filled pods from ten plants selected at random from all the treatments was taken; the pods were sun and/or air dried to constant moisture content and their dry weights recorded.  Seed Weight: Pods selected from ten (10) plants at random from all the treatments were shelled by hand at moisture level of about 10% to 13% and seed weights recorded.  100 Seed Weight: Hundred (100) seeds were selected at random and counted and weighed per each selected treatment. Percent seed moisture were taken using a Protimeter moisture metre. All weights were taken using Camry electronic balance.  Harvest index (HI): HI was calculated by using the following formula: HI = 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑟𝑦 𝑝𝑜𝑑 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 (𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑜𝑚𝑖𝑐 𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑),(𝑔) 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐵𝑖𝑜𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 (ℎ𝑎𝑢𝑙𝑚) 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡,(𝑔) (Girdthai et al., 2010a) (www.fao.org/docrep/004/Y3655E/ y3655e07.hmt).  Shelling Percentage (%S): Shelling percentage was calculated using the following formula: %S = Seed Weight (g) / Dry Pod Weight and expressed in percentage: - (Seed Dry Weight / Pod Dry Weight) x 100.  Drought Tolerance Index (DTI): DTI was calculated for each trait as the ratio of the trait (e.g. pod yield) under Water-Stress (WS) treatment to that under Well- Watered (WW) condition as suggested by Nautiyal et al. (2002b). vii. Statistical Analysis Combined analysis of variance was computed for the groundnut entries across water regimes (Gomez and Gomez, 1984) for yield and yield components data using STATA pc software version 12.0. Correlation analysis was performed for yield parameters across water regimes. SPSS pc software, version 22 was used to generate a dendrogram for the groundnut accessions as per on pod yields and based on Euclidian distance. RESULTS Selection Criteria for Drought-Tolerant Varieties The mean performance of sixteen (16) groundnut genotypes for the traits measured under both well-watered and water-stressed regimes is shown in Table 1. The best six drought tolerant genotypes were selected based on the following criteria: (i) The highest yielding genotype under Water- Stressed condition; Sinkara (local) (582g/plot), Nkatie-sari (SARI) (512g/plot), Ndogba (local) (470g/plot), Chaco-pag (local) (400g/plot) and Oboshie (CRI) (381g/plot) and Chinese (local) (340g/plot) (ii) The highest yielding genotype under Well-Watered condition; Sinkara (Local) (600g/plot), Nkatie-sari (SARI) (589g/plot), Ndogba (local) (567g/plot), Chaco- pag (local) (562g/plot), Sokan-donworor (local) (363g/plot) and Chinese (local) (321g/plot). (iii) The least yield difference between stressed and non-stressed conditions; Yenyawoso (CRI) (13), Sinkara (local) (18), Chinese (local) (19), F-Mix (SARI) (22), Obolo (CRI) (22) and Simpelgu (local) (38). (iv) The Drought Tolerance Index (DTI) (Higher DTI indicates genotype is drought tolerant) Nautiyal et al. (2002b): Agric-Manipinta (Local) (2.40), Sumnut-23 (SARI) (2.36), Kpach-Isah (local) (1.56), Oboshie (CRI) (1.41), Sumnut-22 (SARI) (1.20), and Chinese (local) (1.06). (v) Farmers’ preferred varieties: Sinkara (local), Ndogba (local), Chinese (local), Nkatie-sari (SARI), Agric-Manipinta (local) and Chaco-pag (local). (vi) Days to maturity (early maturity); Chinese (local), Ndogba (local), Kpach-Isah (local), Simpelgu (local), Yenyawoso (CRI). Varying degrees of significance was observed among the means of the various groundnut varieties, particularly pod, seed and biomass yields, as well as Harvest Index and Shelling percentage (Table 1).
  • 4. Screening and Selection of Drought-Tolerant Groundnut Varieties Based on Yield Performance Oppong-Sekyere et al. 466 Table 1: Pod yield of entries under drought stress (WS) and their performance under well-watered (WW) conditions and their respective drought tolerance indices No. Variety PodYield underWell- Watered (WW), (g/plot) PodYield under Water-Stressed (WS), (g/plot) LeastPod Yield(g) difference = (WW-WS) Drought Tolerance Index (DTI)= WS/WW 1 Nkatie-Sari (SARI)e 589c 512 77 0.87 2 Chaco-pag (Local)e 562c 400 162 0.71 3 F-Mix (SARI) 102a 80 22 0.78 4 Sinkara (Local)a, b, d, e 600c 582 18 0.97 5 Agric-Manipinta (Local)c 125a 300 175 2.40 6 Ndogba (Local)e 567c 470 97 0.83 7 Sumnut-23 (SARI) 106a 250 144 2.36 8 Sokan-Donworor (Local) 363bcd 322 41 0.89 9 Sumnut-22 (SARI) 250abc 300 50 1.20 10 Chinese (Local)e 321bcd 340 19 1.06 11 Yenyawoso (CRI) 282abc 295 13 1.05 12 Simpelgu (Local) 270abc 232 38 0.86 13 Oboshie (CRI) 270abc 381 111 1.41 14 Kpach-Isah (Local) 109a 170 61 1.56 15 Kpanieli (SARI) 192b 101 91 0.53 16 Obolo (CRI) 200b 222 22 1.11 NB: Higher DTI indicates genotype is drought tolerant a: best high yielding genotype(s) under WW, b: best high yielding genotype(s) under WS, c: genotype(s) with the highest DTI, d: Entries selected based on the least yield difference between WW & WS, e: Entries selected based on good performance for all traits WW: Well Water, WS: Water stress, DTI: Drought Tolerance Index, ‘Chinese’ = ‘China’ Means sharing a letter in the group label are not significantly different at the 5% level. Table 2: Mean Performance of yield and yield components of entries under Well-Watered (WW) and Water-Stressed (WS) (drought) Environments No. Entry Days to Maturity (DM), days Biomass Weight (Bio), g/plot Pod Yield (PY), g/plot Pod Weight (PWt.), g Seed Weight (SWt.), g 100 Seed Weight (SW100), g Harvest Index (HI) Shelling Percentage (%S) WW WS WW WS WW WS WW WS WW WS WW WS WW WS 1 NkatieSari (SARI) 100-115 911ef 608 589c 512 186abc 172 57abc 61 33abc 34 0.2042abc 0.2829 30.65abc 35.47 2 Chaco-pag (Local) 100-115 568cdef 585 562c 400 106a 110 63abc 64 37abc 28 0.1866ab 0.1880 59.43d 58.18 3 F-Mix (SARI) 100-115 481a 488 102a 80 196abc 200 59abc 64 29ac 31 0.4075c 0.4098 30.10abc 32.00 4 Sinkara (Local) 100-115 650f 670 600c 582 193abc 199 57abc 60 55bd 57 0.2969abc 0.2970 29.53ab 30.15 5 Agric-Manipinta (Local) 100-115 495ab 530 125a 300 170abc 155 33c 56 25abcd 48 0.3434bc 0.2925 19.41ab 36.13 6 Ndogba (Local) 85-90 853def 1361 567c 470 222bc 240 89e 92 35abcd 37 0.2603abc 0.1763 40.09abcd 38.33 7 Sumnut-23 (SARI) 100-115 439ab 684 106a 250 161ab 99 69abd 68 33abcd 55 0.3667abc 0.1447 42.86cd 68.69 8 SokanDonworor (Local) 100-115 784bcdef 540 363bcd 322 177abc 180 63abc 65 24c 25 0.1250ab 0.1317 35.59abcd 36.11 9 Sumnut-22 (SARI) 100-115 881abcd 831 250abc 300 180abc 186 69abde 72 43abcd 37 0.2043abc 0.2238 38.33abcd 38.71 10 Chinese (Local) 85-90 964abcde 1222 321bcd 340 247c 250 41c 48 34abcd 36 0.2257abc 0.3300 16.60b 19.20 11 Yenyawoso (CRI) 85-90 864abcd 778 282abc 295 188abc 196 71ade 76 56d 62 0.2043abc 0.2238 37.77abcd 38.78 12 Simpelgu (Local) 85-90 564abc 595 270abc 232 148abc 162 67abd 72 44abcd 47 0.2624abc 0.2723 45.27acd 44.44 13 Oboshie (CRI) 100-115 684abcde 708 270abc 381 173abc 203 86de 89 52abd 54 0.2529abc 0.2867 49.71acd 43.84 14 Kpach-Isah (Local) 85-90 953ab 970 109a 170 170abc 205 71ade 74 43abcd 45 0.1784ab 0.2113 41.76abcd 36.10 15 Kpanieli (SARI) 100-115 721ab 649 192b 101 211abc 192 61abc 56 41abcd 32 0.2926abc 0.2958 28.91ab 29.17 16 Obolo (CRI) 100-115 1856ab 1868 200b 222 132abc 246 48bc 56 49abd 51 0.0711a 0.1317 36.36ab 22.76 WW; Well-Watered environment, WS; Water-Stressed environment; Means sharing a letter in the group label are not significantly different at the 5% level.
  • 5. Screening and Selection of Drought-Tolerant Groundnut Varieties Based on Yield Performance Int. J. Plant Breed. Crop Sci. 467 Ranking of Groundnut Genotypes by Clustering based on Mean Performance for yield and yield components of entries under (WW) and (WS) (drought) Environments Based on pod yield and performance for other traits under well-watered (WW) and water-stressed (WS) (end-of- season drought) conditions (Tables 1 and 2), the groundnut genotypes were used to generate a dendrogram (Figure 2). At a relative rescaled Euclidian distance of 15, two major cluster groups; clusters I (the biggest cluster of 12 varieties) and II (the smallest with 4 accessions) were produced. Groundnut genotypes were clustered into groups based on the selection criteria for drought-tolerant varieties described previously. Six drought tolerant groundnut varieties (Chinese, Sumnut-22, Agric-Manipinta, Sumnut-23, Oboshie and Kpach-Isah, all hypogaea varieties except Oboshie and Kpach-Isah), were clustered under cluster group ‘I’ based on varieties with higher drought tolerance index (DTI) (Figure 2). Cluster group I contained two sub-clusters; Ia (comprising 3 of the drought tolerant varieties; Sumnut-22, Obolo and Chinese) and Ib (with 3 other drought tolerant varieties; Agric-Manipinta, Sumnut-23 and Kpach-Isah) (Figure 2). Per the selection criteria for drought tolerance (Section 4.5.1), four (Nkatie-sari, Ndogba, Chaco-pag and Sinkara) out of the six groundnut varieties that qualified among the best drought-tolerant groundnut varieties clustered under the second cluster group II. These four mentioned groundnut varieties and ‘Oboshie’ and ‘Chinese’ varieties (in cluster group Ia) were the highest yielding groundnut genotypes under water-stressed (drought) condition and among varieties preferred by farmers (Figure 2). Figure 2: Dendrogram of groundnut accessions generated by SPSS vs22 pc software, based on Euclidian distance as per pod yield and performance for other traits, for both Well-Watered (WW) and Water-Stressed (WS) Environments (From top: Clusters A and B). A B I II Ia Ib
  • 6. Screening and Selection of Drought-Tolerant Groundnut Varieties Based on Yield Performance Oppong-Sekyere et al. 468 Correlation Analysis of Yield and Yield Components for Groundnut Accessions under well-watered (WW) and water-stressed (WS) Environmental Conditions Results of general correlation analysis of pod yields for well-watered (WW) and water-stressed (WS) environments (Table 3) indicated a significant (F ≤ 0.05) and positive association between pod yield under WW and that under WS condition (r = 0.8684), but a significant (F ≤ 0.05) and negative relations with Drought Tolerance Index at r = -0.093 (Table 3). Least pod yield difference also recorded a significant (F ≤ 0.05) and positive relationship with DTI at r = 0.5026 (Table 3). Correlation Analysis under Well-Watered (WW) Environment Results of the correlation analysis for pod yield under well- watered (WW) environment (Table 4) indicated significant and negative association was observed between pod yield and harvest index (r = -0.77) at a significant value of p = 0.001. There was significant and negative correlation between pod weight and shelling percentage (r = -0.68) at p = 0.004 significant value. Significant and positive relationship was obtained between seed weight and shelling percentage (r = 0.69) at a significant value of p = 0.003. Correlation Analysis under water-stressed (WS) Environment Correlation analysis for yield and yield components for water-stressed (WS) environmental condition, on the other hand, indicated a significant and positive association between pod yield and pod weight (r = 0.67) at p = 0.004. Significant and negative relationship was observed between pod weight and shelling percentage (-0.85) at p = 0.000 significance (Table 3). Table 3: General Correlation Analysis of Pod Yields for WW and WS Environments *p < 0.05 Table 4: Correlation Analysis of Yield and Yield Components for Well-Watered Environment Pod yield Biomass Pod weight Seed weight 100 seed weight Harvest index Biomass 0.01 (0.969) Pod weight -0.07 (0.794) 0.06 (0.826) Seed weight -0.15 (0.579) 0.17 (0.519) -0.003 (0.990) 100 seed weight 0.32 (0.227) 0.11 (0.690) -0.12 (0.660) 0.34 (0.203) Harvest index -0.77 (0.001)* -0.26 (0.332) 0.30 (0.259) -0.02 (0.928) -0.25 (0.354) Shelling percent -0.10 (0.724) 0.17 (0.541) -0.68 (0.004)* 0.69 (0.003)* 0.30 (0.252) -0.24 (0.364) Significant at *p ≤ 0.05, *Figures in brackets ‘( )’ are Significant values. Table 5: Correlation Analysis of Yield and Yield Components for Water-Stressed Environments Pod yield Biomass Pod weight Seed weight 100 seed weight Harvest index Biomass 0.01 (0.960) Pod weight 0.67 (0.004)* 0.005 (0.987) Seed weight 0.02 (0.955) 0.16 (0.546) 0.04 (0.873) 100 seed weight 0.17 (0.531) 0.12 (0.663) 0.02 (0.935) 0.23 (0.394) Harvest index -0.39 (0.133) -0.12 (0.649) 0.19 (0.492) -0.25 (0.358) -0.08 (0.762) Shelling percent -0.42 (0.106) 0.06 (0.822) -0.85 (0.000)* 0.40 (0.122) 0.13 (0.621) -0.39 (0.140) Significant at *p ≤ 0.05, *Figures in brackets ‘( )’ are Significant values. Participatory Varietal Selection (PVS) by Farmers; Selection of Best Groundnut Genotypes under both Well-Watered and Water-Stressed Environments Pod yield and biomass production were the major criteria considered by farmers in the selection of the best groundnut genotypes since they added to the economic value of the variety. Farmers indicated that groundnut varieties with high biomass could be a good source of animal feed (fodder). Under Well-Watered environment, the farmers’ preferences were Sinkara (Local), Chaco-pag (local) and Nkatie-sari (SARI). Under Water-Stressed environment, the best genotypes selected by farmers were Ndogba (local), Chinese (local) and Obolo (CRI). Effect of Drought on pod yield The groundnut genotype, Sinkara (local) recorded the highest pod yield (600 g/10plants) under both well watered and water-stressed (end-of-season drought) environments (Table 1 and 2). Pod yield (WW) Pod yield (WS) Least pod yield DTI Pod yield (WW) - Pod yield (WS) 0.8684* - Least pod yield -0.0174 0.0993 - DTI -0.093* -0.0752 0.5026* -
  • 7. Screening and Selection of Drought-Tolerant Groundnut Varieties Based on Yield Performance Int. J. Plant Breed. Crop Sci. 469 Figure 3: Pod yield performances under both Well-Watered (WW) and Water-Stressed (WS) environments *Means may be significantly different from each other at F ≤ 0.05 Groundnut genotypes including Nkatie-sari, Ndogba, Chaco-pag, Sokan-donworor and Chinese performed well under both water regimes. Genotypes with least yield difference included Yenyawoso, Sinkara, and Chinese (Table 1). Based on the selection criteria defined previously, the six best drought tolerant genotypes were Sinkara (local), Ndogba (local), Chinese (local), Chaco-pag (local), Nkatie-sari (SARI) and Agric-Manipinta (local). The Drought Tolerance Index (DTI) ranged from 0.53 to 2.40 for all the genotypes screened (Table 1). Agric- Manipinta (local) had the highest DTI (2.40) whereas the lowest DTI was recorded by Kpanieli (0.53). Agric- Manipinta (local) was therefore the most drought tolerant genotype followed by Sumnut-23 (SARI), Kpach-Isah (local), Oboshie, Sumnut-22 (SARI), Obolo (CRI), Chinese (local) and Yenyawoso (CRI) (Table 1). Interestingly, most of these groundnut genotypes that recorded higher DTI did not record exceptionally high pod yield figures (Table 2). General pod yield performances for the groundnuts evaluated are shown in Figure 3. Results of Combined Correlation Analysis for Well- Watered and Water-Stressed Environments Results of the combined correlation analysis for yield and yield components under the two water regimes (WW and WS) (Table 6) indicated a negative and significant (F ≤ 0.05) association between pod yield and the following traits; biomass (r = - 0.2874), seed weight (-0.5256) and shelling percentage (-0.4070) but a positive and significant (F ≤ 0.05) relationship with harvest index (r = 0.3935). Biomass produced significant (F ≤ 0.05) and positive correlation with seed weight (r = 0.2910) and 100 seed weight (r = 0.3129) but negative and significant (F ≤ 0.05) association with harvest index (-0.4347). Pod weight correlated positively and significantly (F ≤ 0.05) with 100 seed weight but produced a significant (F ≤ 0.05) and negative association with shelling percentage (-0.5119). Association between seed weight and 100 seed weight was significant (F ≤ 0.05) and positive at r = 0.7982, similar with shelling percentage (r = 0.6993), but negative with harvest index (r = -0.6515). The association between hundred seed weight and harvest index was significant (F ≤ 0.05) and negative (r = -0.6559), but positive with shelling percentage (r = 0.4444). Harvest index and shelling percentage were negatively and significantly (F ≤ 0.05) correlated at r = -0.4279 (Table 6). Table 6: Combined Correlation Analysis for groundnuts based on yield and its related traits Pod yield Biomass Pod weight Seed weight 100seed weight Harvest Index Shelling % Pod yield - Biomass -0.2874* - Pod weight -0.0792 0.1719 - Seed weight -0.5256* 0.2910* 0.1623 - 100 seed weight -0.4541* 0.3129* 0.2973* 0.7982* - Harvest Index 0.3935* -0.4347* -0.2665 -0.6515* -0.6559* - Shelling % -0.4070* 0.2413 -0.5119* 0.6993* 0.4444* -0.4279* - Significant at *p ≤ 0.05 0 200400600 Agric-M anipinta (Local) C haco-pag (Local) C hinese (Local) F-M ix (SAR I) Kpach-Isah (Local) Kpanieli(SAR I) N dogba (Local) N katieSari(SAR I) O bolo (C R I) O boshie (C R I) Sim pelgu (Local) Sinkara (Local) Sokan D onw oror(Local) Sum nut-22 (SAR I) Sum nut-23 (SAR I) Yenyaw oso (C R I) Genotypes Source: Field Survey Pod yield under well watered conditions Pod yield under water stressed conditions
  • 8. Screening and Selection of Drought-Tolerant Groundnut Varieties Based on Yield Performance Oppong-Sekyere et al. 470 Mean Drought Score Based on Visual Rating Assessment Drought Score and Assessment: Visual Ratings and Phenotypic Evaluation According to the field visual/phenotypic drought identification and scoring, and based on the above criteria, the following average drought scores (Table 7), were recorded among the groundnut varieties; (i) Eight highly tolerant varieties were observed (Nkatie- sari, Chaco-pag, F-Mix, Agric-Manipinta, Sumnut-23, Sokan-donworor, Sumnut-22 and Kpanieli). (ii) Three (3) tolerant varieties were observed (Sinkara, Ndogba and Chinese). (iii) Two (2) moderately tolerant varieties were recorded; Yenyawoso and Kpach-Isah. (iv) Three (3) drought-susceptible varieties were recorded among the groundnuts, as per the criteria defined above; Simpelgu, Oboshie and Obolo (Table 7). Table 7: Mean drought Score based on phenotypic/visual ratings No. Variety Rep.1 Rep.2 Rep.3 Rep.4 Average 1 NkatieSari (SARI) 1 1 1 2 1 2 Chaco-pag (Landrace) 1 1 1 1 1 3 F-Mix (SARI) 1 1 1 1 1 4 Sinkara (Landrace) 1 3 1 2 2 5 Agric- Manipinta (Landrace) 1 1 1 1 1 6 Ndogba (Landrace) 3 1 4 1 2 7 Sumnut-23 (SARI) 1 1 1 1 1 8 SokanDonwo ror (Landrace) 1 1 1 1 1 9 Sumnut-22 (SARI) 1 1 1 1 1 10 Chinese (Landrace) 2 2 3 2 2 11 Yenyawoso (CRI) 3 3 4 3 3 12 Simpelgu (Landrace) 4 3 4 3 4 13 Oboshie (CRI) 5 4 4 3 4 14 Kpach-Isah (Landrace) 3 3 4 3 3 15 Kpanieli (SARI) 1 1 1 1 1 16 Obolo (CRI) 4 4 3 4 4 Drought Score (Scale: 1-5): Key: 1: Highly Tolerant, 2: Tolerant, 3: Moderately Tolerant, 4: Susceptible, 5: Highly Susceptible. DISCUSSION General performance for drought tolerance Based on the following measurement criteria for drought tolerance; (i) yield performance under water-stressed environment, (ii) yield performance under well-watered environment, (iii) least yield difference between stressed and non-stressed conditions, (iv) the Drought Tolerance Index (DTI), (v) end-of-season drought tolerance, (vi) farmer’s preferred varieties, and (vii) date of maturity (early maturity), some promising groundnut varieties with good performance for pod yield under drought stress included; Sinkara (landrace). The Drought Tolerance Index (DTI) (Higher DTI indicates genotype is drought tolerant) (Nautiyal et al., 2002b); Agric-Manipinta (landrace) (2.40), Sumnut-23 (SARI) (2.36), Kpach-Isah (landrace) (1.56), Oboshie (CRI) (1.41), Sumnut-22 (SARI) (1.20), and Chinese (landrace) (1.06) varieties were also identified. Farmers selected Sinkara (landrace), Ndogba (landrace), Chinese (landrace), Nkatie-sari (SARI), Agric-Manipinta (landrace), Obolo (CRI) and Chaco-pag (landrace) based on performance for pod yield and biomass production under both water regimes (well-watered and water- stressed) due to their economic value added to the variety, such as oil content and biomass. Abdullah et al. (2007) reported 18 – 24 pods per plant in a similar study in groundnuts. Virk et al. (2005) reported that groundnut varieties differ significantly in the number of pods per plant. Reddy et al. (2003b) and Camberling and Diop (1999), have reported varying average yields in most regions of Africa and Asia particularly in the major season. The selected genotypes by the farmers are among the drought tolerant varieties identified in this study. Therefore, farmers' involvement in this study was very useful because it enabled the breeder/researcher to take farmers' preferred traits into consideration. Farmers were very happy to be involved in the selection of parental lines. In this study, end-of-season drought caused pod yield reduction that varied from genotype to genotype. However, certain genotypes showed least pod yield difference in both water regimes. The varieties Yenyawoso, Sinkara, and Chinese that showed least pod yield difference can be used by farmers in the short time as drought tolerant varieties prior to improvement of their popular varieties identified through the PRA study. Based on the selection criteria defined, the six best drought tolerant genotypes identified in the study were Sinkara (landrace), Ndogba (landrace), Chinese (landrace), Chaco-pag (landrace), Nkatie-sari (SARI) and Agric-Manipinta (landrace). The Drought Tolerance Index (DTI) ranged from 0.53 to 2.40 for all the groundnut genotypes screened. Agric-Manipinta (landrace) had the highest DTI (2.40) whereas the lowest DTI was recorded by Kpanieli (0.53). Most of these groundnut genotypes that recorded higher DTI did not record remarkably high pod yield values.
  • 9. Screening and Selection of Drought-Tolerant Groundnut Varieties Based on Yield Performance Int. J. Plant Breed. Crop Sci. 471 Phenotypic (visual rating) assessments of drought in the current study based on drought symptoms at 75 DAP revealed a confirmation of drought tolerance in the groundnut genotypes identified, thus, eight highly tolerant varieties; Nkatie-sari, Chaco-pag, F-Mix, Agric-Manipinta, Sumnut-23, Sokan-donworor, Sumnut-22 and Kpanieli were identified. Also, three tolerant varieties; Sinkara, Ndogba and Chinese were identified and two moderately tolerant varieties were identified; Yenyawoso and Kpach- Isah. Research Institutions such as CSIR-CRI and CSIR-SARI have developed some drought and disease tolerant varieties, but these have unfortunately not yet reached the farmers and seed companies (Adu-Dapaah et al., 2007). Farmers’ selected their preferred groundnut varieties based on their earliness, drought and disease tolerance and their potential for high-yielding and biomass production, but selection of a preferred variety is only one part of the success story. In order for these improved varieties to reach a large number of farmers, various recognized actors such as registered seed companies, Research Institutes, Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MoFA), must ensure that certified breeder seeds are available to licensed seed companies to produce subsequent classes of seed at very affordable prices for farmers. CONCLUSION The present study showed that, end-of-season drought caused significant decline in groundnut pod yield varying from genotype to genotype. However, most of the genotypes showed significant potential for drought tolerance based on pod yield and performance for other characteristics. These promising groundnut genotypes could be used as parental lines to develop drought-tolerant varieties. Groundnut genotypes that showed least pod yield difference in both water regimes could as well be adopted by farmers in the short term as drought-tolerant cultivars while they wait upon breeders to improve upon their popular groundnut varieties (landraces). Farmers preferred groundnut cultivars which come with traits such as high pod yield, high oil content and biomass (animal fodder), due to the extra economic value it adds to the crop. REFERENCES Abdullah, T., Rahmianna A. A., Hardaningsih, S and Rozi, F. (2007). Increasing Groundnut Yield on Dry Land Alfisols in Indonesia. Journal of SAT Agricultural Research, 5(1). Abdul-Ganiyu, S., Amaanatu, M. K and Korese, J. K. (2012) Water Use Efficiency and Productivity for Rice (Oryza Sativa) in the Botanga Irrigation Scheme of Northern Region of Ghana. Agricultural Science Research Journal, 2(7): 362–368. Adu-Dapaah, H. K., Asumadu, H., Lamptey, J. N. L., Haleegoah, J and Asafo-Adjei, B. (2007). Farmer Participation in Groundnut Varietal Selection. African Crop Science Conference Proceedings, 8: 1435 – 1439. Arunyanark, A., Jogloya, S., Wongkaewb, S., Akkasaenga, C., Vorasoota, N., Kesmalaa, T and Patanothaia, A. (2010). Heritability of Aflatoxin Resistance Traits and Correlation with Drought Tolerance Traits in Peanut. Field Crops Research, 117, 258-264. Camberlin, P and Diop, M. (1999). Inter-relationships between Groundnut Yields in Senegal, Inter Annual Rainfall Variability and Sea Surface Temperatures. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 63, 163-181. Girdthai, T., Jogloy, S., Vorasoot, N., Akkasaeng, C., Wongkaew, S., Holbrook, C. C and Patanothai, A. (2010a). Heritability of and Genotypic Correlations between, Aflatoxin Traits and Physiological Traits for Drought Tolerance under End-of-season Drought in Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Field Crops Research, 118, 169-176. Girdthai, T., Jogloy, S., Vorasoot, N., Akkasaeng, C., Wongkaew, S., Holbrook, C. C and Patanothai, A. (2010b). Associations between Physiological Traits for Drought Tolerance and Aflatoxin Contamination in Peanut Genotypes under Terminal Drought. Plant Breeding,129, 693-699. Gomez, K. A and Gomez, A. A. (1984). Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. John Wiley & Sons, New York. 45p. Jongrungklang, N., Toomsan, B., Vorasoot, N., Jogloy S., Kesmala, T and Patanothai, A. (2008). Identification of Peanut Genotypes with High Water-Use Efficiency under Drought Stress Conditions from Peanut Germplasm of Diverse Origins. Asian Journal of Plant Sciences, 7, 628-638. Nageswara, R. R. C and Nigam, S. N. (2003). Genetic Options for Drought Management in Groundnut. In: Management of Agricultural Drought - Agronomic and Genetic Options. Science Publishers, Inc, 123-141. Nautiyal, P. C. (2002a). Groundnut: Post-harvest Operations. Mejia, D. (Ed) ICAR (National Research Center for Groundnut). Pp 16. Nautiyal, P. C., Nageswara, R. R. C and Joshi, Y. C. (2002b). Moisture Deficit–Induced Changes in Leaf Water Content, Leaf Carbon Exchange Rate and Biomass Production in Groundnut Cultivars Differing in Specific Leaf Area. Field Crops Research, 74, 67-79. Reddy, T.Y., Reddy V.R and Anbumozhi, V. (2003a). Physiological Responses of Groundnut (Arachis hypogea L.) to Drought Stress and its Amelioration: A Critical Review. Plant Growth Regulation, 41: 75-88. Reddy, T.Y., Reddy V.R and Anbumozhi, V. (2003b). Physiological Responses of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) to Drought Stress and its Amelioration: A Review. Acta Agronomica Hungarica, 51: 205-227. Varshney, R.K., Hoisington, D.A and Tyagi, A.K. (2006). Advances in Cereal Genomics and Applications in Crop
  • 10. Screening and Selection of Drought-Tolerant Groundnut Varieties Based on Yield Performance Oppong-Sekyere et al. 472 Breeding. Trends Biotechnol. 2006; 24:490 - 499. Virk, A.S., Kaul, J.N., Bhangoo, B.S and Singh, A. (2005). Influence of Planting Techniques and Plant Population on Biology and Pod productivity of Summer Groundnut varieties. Research on crops, 6(1): 173 – 174. Accepted 7 November 2018 Citation: Oppong-Sekyere D., Akromah R., Kena A.W., Larweh V., Ozias-Akins P. (2018). Screening and Selection of Drought-Tolerant Groundnut Varieties Based on Yield Performance. International Journal of Plant Breeding and Crop Science 5(3): 463-473. Copyright: © 2018 Oppong-Sekyere et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are cited. APPENDICES Appendix 1: Source, Sub-species, Days to Maturity and Phenotypic Characteristics of Groundnut Genotypes Studied №. Genotype *Sub- Species Source Days to Maturity, days Phenotypic Characteristics and Other Trait Drought Characteristics Early Leaf Spot disease Late Leaf Spot disease Oil Content and Other Traits 1 Nkatie-sari Hypogaea (Virginia) CSIR- SARI, Ghana 100-115 (110) Tolerant Highly Tolerant Highly Tolerant Oil Content: 46%, Seed Colour: Light tan testa colour 2 Chaco – pag Fastigiata Landrace, Ghana 100-115 Tolerant Moderately Tolerant Moderately Tolerant Seed colour: Red 3 F – mix Hypogaea (Spanish) CSIR- SARI, Ghana 100-115 (120) Tolerant Highly Tolerant Highly Tolerant Oil Content: 49% Seed colour: Tan with red/brown shades Av. Yield: 2500kg/ha Highly Tolerant to Rosette and Rust 4 Sinkara Hypogaea (Spanish) Landrace, Ghana 100-115 (120) Tolerant Tolerant Tolerant Oil Content: 45% Seed colour: Red Yield Potential: 2.2t/ha 5 Agric- Manipinta Hypogaea (Spanish) Landrace, Ghana 100-115 (110-120) Tolerant Tolerant Tolerant Oil Content: 47% Seed colour: red teste High yield potential 6 Ndogba Fastigiata Landrace, Ghana 85-90 Moderately Tolerant Moderately Susceptible Moderately Susceptible Seed colour: Tan red 7 Sumnut – 23 Hypogaea CSIR- SARI, Ghana 100-115 Tolerant Moderately Tolerant Moderately Tolerant Seed colour: tan red Rosette disease Tolerant 8 Sokan- donworor Fastigiata Landrace, Ghana 100-115 Tolerant Moderately Susceptible Moderately Susceptible Seed colour: Red to whitish 9 Sumnut – 22 Hypogaea CSIR- SARI, Ghana 100-115 (110-120) Tolerant Moderately Tolerant Moderately Tolerant Seed colour: Tan red Rosette disease Tolerant
  • 11. Screening and Selection of Drought-Tolerant Groundnut Varieties Based on Yield Performance Int. J. Plant Breed. Crop Sci. 473 Appendix 1 continue: №. Genotype *Sub- Species Source Days to Maturity, days Phenotypic Characteristics and Other Trait Drought Characteristics Early Leaf Spot disease Late Leaf Spot disease Oil Content and Other Traits 10 Chinese Hypogaea (Spanish) Landrace, Ghana 85-90 (100) Tolerant Susceptible Susceptible Oil Content: 35% Early maturing Use: Soup and Confectionery 11 Yenyawoso Fastigiata (Spanish) CSIR-CRI, Ghana 85-90 (90) Moderately Susceptible Moderately Susceptible Moderately Susceptible Oil content: 50% Resistant to Rust Seed colour: Dark red Yield Potential: 2700kg/ha Days to 50% flowering: 23DAP 12 Simpelgu Fastigiata Landrace, Ghana 85-90 Tolerant Moderately Susceptible Moderately Susceptible Seed colour: Deep red 13 Oboshie Fastigiata (Spanish) CSIR-CRI, Ghana 100-115 (105-110) Moderately Susceptible Moderately Susceptible Moderately Susceptible Oil Content: 46.49% Seed Colour: Brown Days to 50% flowering: 26 Shelling %: 67 Good flavour, sweet taste (Confectionery) Yield: 2.6tons/ha Days to Flowering: 26DAP Shelling%: 67% Growth Habit: Semi- erect 14 Kpach – Isah Fastigiata Landrace, Ghana 85-90 Tolerant Moderately Susceptible Moderately Susceptible Seed colour: Light red 15 Kpanieli Hypogaea (Spanish) CSIR- SARI, Ghana 100-115 (120) Tolerant Tolerant Tolerant Oil Content: 51% Yield Potential: 2.5t/ha Seed colour: red testa 16 Obolo Fastigiata (Spanish) CRI, Ghana SARI 100-115 (105-110) Moderately Susceptible Moderately Susceptible Moderately Susceptible Seed colour: Brown Days to 50% flowering: 25 Shelling %: 70 Has sweet taste and flavour (Confectionery) *Sub-species, *Oil content and other traits; were obtained from CSIR-SARI, CRI and MoFA published data CSIR-Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, SARI – Savanna Agriculture Research Institute, Ghana, CRI – Crops Research Institute, MoFA-Ministry of Food and Agriculture, ‘Landrace’- Farmers’ popular locally adapted variety