4.7 Article

Field evaluation of upland rice lines selected for QTLs controlling root traits

Journal

FIELD CROPS RESEARCH
Volume 101, Issue 2, Pages 180-186

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.fcr.2006.11.002

Keywords

Eastern India; upland rice; drought; QTL; marker-assisted selection (MAS); roots; G x E; target environment

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A marker-assisted back-cross (MABC) programme was used to introgress four root quantitative trait loci (QTLs) from the tropical japonica rice variety Azucena into the Indian upland rice variety, Kalinga III. Previously we tested the products for root traits and reported that the introgressed QTL9 (on chromosome 9) significantly increased root length in the new genetic background. Here we describe field testing for agronomic traits in near-isogenic lines (NILs) that differ for introgressed QTLs. Four NILs were selected and characterised in replicated field experiments in eastern and western India over 3 years. They were tested by upland farmers in a target population of environments (TPE) in three states of eastern India, over 2 years. NILs out-performed Kalinga III for grain and straw yield and there was interaction between the genotypes and the environment (G x E). No effect was found for the root QTL9 on grain or straw yield, however, the presence of several introgressions significantly improved both traits. Some of this effect was due to introgression of Azucena alleles at non-target regions. Overall, the Azucena introgressions increased straw yield more than grain yield. While it has yet to be demonstrated whether this effect is due to improved root systems, this finding fits with the assumption that introgressed genes are involved in partitioning of biomass to the roots and stems, rather than to the grain. The NILs could replace Kalinga III for cultivation in medium upland environments in eastern India. (c) 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available