| Literature DB >> 32917934 |
Gapili Naoura1, Yves Emendack2, Nébié Baloua3, Kirsten Vom Brocke4,5, Mahamat Alhabib Hassan1, Nerbewende Sawadogo6, Amos Doyam Nodjasse1, Reoungal Djinodji1, Gilles Trouche4,5, Haydee Echevarria Laza7.
Abstract
Sweet sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench) is an important crop in Chad that plays an economic role in the countryside were stalks are produced mainly for human consumption without any processing. Unfortunately, very little information exists on its genetic diversity and brix content. Studies performed in 2014 and 2015 showed that there were significant variations (p < 0.001) for all assessed quantitative traits. Potential grain yield (0.12-1.67 t ha-1), days to 50% flowering (68.3-126.3 days), and plant height (128.9-298.3 cm) were among traits that exhibited broader variability. Brix content range from 5.5 to 16.7% across accessions, was positively correlated to stalk diameter and plant height, but negatively correlated to moisture content in fresh stalk and potential grain yield. Fresh stalk yield range from 16.8 to 115.7 Mg ha-1, with a mean value of 58.3 Mg ha-1 across accession. Moisture content in fresh stalk range from 33.7 to 74.4% but was negatively correlated to fresh stalk yield. Potential sugar yield range from 0.5 to 5.3 Mg ha-1 across accession with an average of 2.2 Mg ha-1. Theoretical ethanol yield range from 279.5 to 3,101.2 L ha-1 across accession with an average of 1,266.3 L ha-1 which is significantly higher than values reported under similar semiarid conditions. Overall, grain yields were comparatively low. However, two accessions had grain yield of more than 1.5 t ha-1; which is greater than the average 1.0 t ha-1 for local grain sorghum varieties in Chad. These could have multi-purpose uses; grains, sugar and bioenergy production.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32917934 PMCID: PMC7486407 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-71506-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.996
Rainfall, regional distribution, and origins of sweet sorghum accessions used in study.
| Regions | Departments | Number of villages | Number of accessions | Annual rainfall (mm) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2015 | 2014 | ||||
| Logone Occ | Lac Houé | 1 | 1 | 951 | 1,100 |
| Dodjé | 2 | 6 | 1,278 | 1,077 | |
| Ngourkosso | 2 | 2 | 905 | 934 | |
| Logone Ori | Mont de Lam | 3 | 11 | 1639 | 1,281 |
| Kou Est | 1 | 4 | 1,432 | 1,298 | |
| Kou Ouest | 2 | 4 | 1,229 | 920 | |
| Nya-Pendé | 3 | 10 | 1,428 | 1,159 | |
| Pendé | 2 | 10 | 1,240 | 951 | |
| Mandoul | Mandoul Occ | 2 | 4 | 914 | 881 |
| Mandoul Ori | 4 | 8 | 1,014 | 851 | |
| Mayo-Kebbi E | Mayo Boneye | ||||
| Mayo-Kebbi W | Mayo Dallah | 5 | 11 | 1,006 | 860 |
| Lac Léré | 3 | 3 | 778 | 896 | |
| Moyen Chari | Barh Kôh | 1,157 | 1,062 | ||
| Tandjilé | Tandjilé W | 1 | 3 | 1,017 | 896 |
| Tandjilé E | 8 | 16 | 1,069 | 925 | |
| CHAD | 41 | 105 | |||
| ICRISAT | 5 | ||||
| TOTAL | 110 | ||||
Figure 1Season rainfall distribution measured during the 2014 and 2015 sweet sorghum growing season at the ITRAD Research Centre in Bébédjia, Chad.
Modeling for the qualitative characteristics of sweet sorghum in semi-arid Chad.
| Characteristics | Modality | Frequency (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Color of seedling | Green | 64.2 |
| Violet | 35.7 | |
| Vigor of seedling | Excellent | 7.3 |
| Good | 21.2 | |
| Fair | 32.9 | |
| Weak | 31.4 | |
| Poor | 7.3 | |
| Color of leaf midrib | Green | 69.7 |
| White | 29.5 | |
| Black | 11.8 | |
| Yellow | 0.2 | |
| Glume color | Straw | 80.9 |
| Red | 7.3 | |
| Seed color | Red | 84.5 |
| White | 15.5 | |
| Vitreousity | Floury | 69.7 |
| Vitreous | 30.3 | |
| Panicle | Loose | 51.9 |
| Semi-compact | 32.6 | |
| Compact | 15.5 | |
| Botanical race | 64.6 | |
| 35.4 | ||
| Glume hairiness | Minimal | 55.8 |
| Partial | 36.4 | |
| Hairy | 7.8 | |
| Grain dimple | Absent | 52.7 |
| Present | 47.3 |
Variance of agronomic characteristics of Chadian sweet sorghum accessions.
| Characteristics | Minima | Maxima | Average | CV (%) | F-value | H2 (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PHT (cm) | 128.9 | 298.3 | 232.2 ± 47.9 | 20.6 | 17.1*** | 94.9 |
| SDI (cm) | 1.0 | 2.2 | 1.73 ± 0.3 | 17.9 | 5.7*** | 83.9 |
| PLW (cm) | 5.4 | 11.4 | 8.2 ± 1.1 | 13.3 | 4.4*** | 81.0 |
| PAW (cm) | 4.7 | 13.0 | 7.4 ± 1.4 | 31.7 | 2.3*** | 58.6 |
| INL (cm) | 14.4 | 34.9 | 21.6 ± 3.8 | 36.2 | 9.2*** | 90.2 |
| PLL (cm) | 46.0 | 83.3 | 68.3 ± 7.1 | 55.9 | 3.3*** | 74.4 |
| PAL (cm) | 10.9 | 35.9 | 24.8 ± 4.6 | 45.4 | 8.9*** | 90.2 |
| NIN | 4.9 | 16.2 | 10.3 ± 3.2 | 43.5 | 15.1*** | 94.5 |
| NHD (days) | 68.3 | 126.3 | 94.2 ± 15.2 | 16.0 | 19.8*** | 95.5 |
| NFW (days) | 68.3 | 126.3 | 95.1 ± 15.1 | 16.0 | 20.3*** | 95.6 |
| PWT (g) | 160.0 | 1,266.7 | 502.7 ± 215.8 | 42.9 | 2.4*** | 61.5 |
| PGW (g) | 60.0 | 833.3 | 272.4 ± 136.7 | 50.2 | 2.7*** | 64.8 |
| PYI (t ha−1) | 0.1 | 1.67 | 0.54 ± 0.27 | 50.2 | 2.7*** | 64.8 |
| TGW (g) | 12.7 | 33.3 | 21.39 ± 4.31 | 20.2 | – | – |
| FSW (g) | 116.7 | 783.3 | 403.8 ± 150 | 37.1 | 4.6*** | 79.8 |
| DSW (g) | 44.3 | 511.1 | 217.3 ± 101.9 | 46.9 | 5.0*** | 82.1 |
***Indicates significance at p < 0.001, CV; coefficient of variation, H2; heritability, PHT; plant height, SDI; stalk diameter, PLW; perultimate leaf width, PAW; panicle width, INL; internode length, PLL; perultimate leaf length, PAL; panicle length, NIN; number of internodes, NHD; number of days to heading, NFW; number of days to flowering, PWT; panicle weight, PGW; panicle grain weight, PYI; potential yield, TGW; 1,000-grain weight, FSW; fresh stalk weight, DSW; field dried stalk weight.
Analysis of variance of twelve characteristics determining sugar and ethanol production in 105 accessions of semi-arid Chadian sweet sorghum.
| Characteristics | Minima | Maxima | Average | CV (%) | F-value | H2 (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MFS (%) | 33.7 | 74.4 | 48.7 ± 8.7 | 30.3 | 2.3*** | 57.6 |
| FSY (Mg ha−1) | 16.7 | 115.7 | 58.3 ± 22.1 | 38.0 | 4.6*** | 79.8 |
| DSY (Mg ha−1) | 6.5 | 75.5 | 31.3 ± 14.7 | 47.1 | 5.0*** | 82.1 |
| JCY (Mg ha−1) | 7.3 | 43.0 | 23.6 ± 7.7 | 32.7 | 2.4*** | 59.6 |
| CSY (Mg ha−1) | 0.6 | 5.9 | 2.5 ± 1.1 | 43.4 | 4.0*** | 75.7 |
| SGY (Mg ha−1) | 0.5 | 5.3 | 2.2 ± 1.0 | 44.5 | 4.2*** | 76.7 |
| SCJ (g kg−1) | 41.3 | 125.0 | 89.7 ± 18 | 20.1 | 86.8*** | 98.8 |
| y (%) | 4.1 | 13.1 | 9.3 ± 1.9 | 20.6 | 86.8*** | 98.8 |
| TEY (L ha−1) | 279.5 | 3,101.2 | 1,266.3 ± 563 | 44.5 | 4.2*** | 76.7 |
| Brix (%) | 5.5 | 16.7 | 11.9 ± 2.4 | 19.8 | 86.8*** | 98.8 |
***Indicates significance at p < 0.001, CV; Coefficient of variation, MFS; moisture content of fresh stalk, FSY; fresh stalk yield, DSY; field dried stalk yield, CSY; conservative sugar yield, JCY; juice yield, SGY; sugar yield, SCJ; sugar concentration of juice, TEY; Theoretical ethanol yield, y; total soluble sugar. ± standard error.
Correlation coefficient for agro-morphological and phenotypic characteristics of 105 semi-arid Chadian sweet sorghum accessions.
| Traits | PHT | PLL | PAL | NFW | SDI | NIN | Brix | FSY | DSY | JCY | SGY | TEY | MFS | TGW |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PLL | 0.48*** | |||||||||||||
| PAL | 0.72*** | 0.44 | ||||||||||||
| NFW | 0.70*** | 0.50 | 0.32 | |||||||||||
| SDI | 0.65*** | 0.59 | 0.41 | 0.81 | ||||||||||
| NIN | 0.82*** | 0.49 | 0.45 | 0.92 | 0.86 | |||||||||
| Brix | 0.50*** | 0.14 | 0.32 | 0.37 | 0.37 | 0.43 | ||||||||
| FSY | 0.76*** | 0.50 | 0.45 | 0.79 | 0.81 | 0.81 | 0.52 | |||||||
| DSY | 0.78*** | 0.52 | 0.42 | 0.82 | 0.82 | 0.85 | 0.54 | 0.97 | ||||||
| JCY | 0.64*** | 0.40 | 0.44 | 0.63 | 0.69 | 0.65 | 0.46 | 0.92 | 0.80 | |||||
| SGY | 0.65*** | 0.31 | 0.43 | 0.60 | 0.66 | 0.64 | 0.75 | 0.88 | 0.80 | 0.92 | ||||
| TEY | 0.65*** | 0.31 | 0.43 | 0.60 | 0.66 | 0.64 | 0.75 | 0.88 | 0.80 | 0.92 | 1.00 | |||
| MFS | − 0.73*** | − 0.54 | − 0.37 | − 0.73 | − 0.64 | − 0.77 | − 0.47 | − 0.68 | − 0.80 | − 0.39 | − 0.45 | − 0.45 | ||
| TGW | − 0.34*** | − 0.14 | − 0.12 | − 0.31 | − 0.21 | − 0.31 | − 0.20 | − 0.34 | − 0.33 | − 0.29 | − 0.27 | − 0.27 | 0.32 | |
| PYI | − 0.24 | 0.09 | − 0.23 | − 0.03 | 0.06 | − 0.06 | − 0.26 | − 0.20 | − 0.17 | − 0.23 | − 0.24 | − 0.24 | 0.19 | 0.30 |
*,**,*** Significance at p < 0.05, p < 0.01, p < 0.001; PHT: plant height; PLL: perultimate leaf length; PAL: panicle length; NFW: number of days to flowering; SDI: stem diameter; NIN: number of internodes; FSY: fresh stalk yield; DSY: field dried stalk yield; JY: juice yield; SY: sugar yield; TEY: theoretical ethanol yield, MFS: moisture content in fresh stalk; TGW: 1,000-grain weight; PYI: potential yield.
Figure 2Clustering of 110 sweet sorghum accessions into 4 groups using the standardized squared Euclidean distance of Ward’s hierarchical clustering method.
Distances of Mahalanobis and statistical significant of Fisher.
| Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Group 2 | 14.0*** | ||
| Group 3 | 49.7*** | 12.2*** | |
| Group 4 | 117.5*** | 52.5*** | 15.7** |
**,***indicates significance at p < 0.01 and p < 0.001 respectively.
Comparison of agro-morphological and phenotypic traits of four groups of Chadian sweet sorghum derived from Ward’s hierarchical clustering.
| Characteristics | Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 3 | Group 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PHT (cm) | 213.9 ± 46 | 230.7 ± 47.7 | 251.5 ± 42.0 | 295.3 ± 1.6 |
| PLL (cm) | 68 ± 6.9 | 66.9 ± 7.4 | 70.7 ± 6.1 | 75.3 ± 1.8 |
| PLW (cm) | 7.8 ± 1.0 | 8.1 ± 1.2 | 8.7 ± 0.9 | 8.9 ± 0.7 |
| PAL (cm) | 24.5 ± 3.9 | 23.9 ± 3.9 | 26.4 ± 5.9 | 30.5 ± 4 |
| PAW (cm) | 6.9 ± 1.5 | 7.4 ± 1.4 | 7.9 ± 1.4 | 7.9 ± 0.5 |
| INL (cm) | 22.39 ± 4.1 | 21.2 ± 3.5 | 21.4 ± 4.2 | 21.9 ± 3.2 |
| NFW (days) | 88.2 ± 11.2 | 94.2 ± 15.8 | 103.4 ± 13.7 | 109.3 ± 8 |
| FSW (g) | 223.6 ± 53.9 | 403.7 ± 46.0 | 583.3 ± 63.5 | 777.8 ± 7.9 |
| Brix (%) | 10.7 ± 2.7 | 11.64 ± 1.8 | 13.7 ± 1.7 | 15.2 ± 2.1 |
| Number of accessions | 31 | 50 | 27 | 2 |
PHT: plant height; PLL: perultimate leaf length; PLW: perultimate leaf width; PAL: panicle length; PAW: panicle width; INL: internode length; NFW: number of days to flowering; FSW: fresh stalk weight. ± standard error.
Regional distribution of the accessions of Chadian sweet sorghum following Ward’s hierarchical clustering into four major groups.
| Regions | Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 3 | Group 4 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tandjilé | 9 | 8 | 2 | 0 | 19 |
| Mayo Kebbi Est | 3 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 7 |
| Mayo Kebbi Ouest | 4 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 14 |
| Logone Oriental | 10 | 13 | 14 | 2 | 39 |
| Logone Occidental | 3 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 9 |
| Mandoul | 2 | 6 | 4 | 0 | 12 |
| Moyen Chari | 0 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 5 |
| Accession from ICRISAT | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| Total | 31 | 50 | 27 | 2 | 110 |
Compositional characteristics of 10 promising genotypes of Chadian sweet sorghum compared to ICRISAT checks (IS: 23,541, 23,574, 23,525, 23,536, and F60).
| Accessions Name | Brix | FSY | DSY | JCY | CSY | SGY | SCJ | y | TEY |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Ecotype #) | (%) | (Mg ha−1) | (g kg−1) | (%) | (L ha−1) | ||||
| "Balnda" (66) | 16.7 | 80.0 | 32.8 | 42.6 | 5.9 | 5.3 | 166.7 | 13.1 | 3,101.2 |
| "Sian Guebeuh" (21) | 15.0 | 104.3 | 57.8 | 41.4 | 5.2 | 4.7 | 150.0 | 11.8 | 2,712.2 |
| "Var137" (137) | 15.7 | 97.8 | 54.2 | 39.0 | 5.1 | 4.6 | 156.7 | 12.3 | 2,669.5 |
| "Zimikay" (72) | 13.7 | 115.7 | 67.0 | 43.0 | 5.0 | 4.4 | 136.7 | 10.7 | 2,570.0 |
| "Chian Woua" (46) | 16.7 | 114.1 | 75.5 | 34.7 | 4.8 | 4.3 | 166.7 | 13.1 | 2,530.5 |
| "Kadbal" (80) | 14.3 | 96.0 | 52.9 | 38.2 | 4.6 | 4.1 | 143.3 | 11.3 | 2,393.1 |
| "Kad bel hym" (81) | 15.3 | 82.5 | 47.2 | 31.5 | 4.1 | 3.6 | 153.3 | 12.1 | 2,111.0 |
| "Kad Nda" (82) | 15.3 | 80.5 | 46.3 | 30.5 | 3.9 | 3.5 | 153.3 | 12.1 | 2047.2 |
| "Bagnadé" (64) | 15.7 | 77.6 | 44.3 | 29.7 | 3.9 | 3.5 | 156.7 | 12.3 | 2036.1 |
| "Syan Teigne" (130) | 16.0 | 91.1 | 58.7 | 29.1 | 3.9 | 3.5 | 160.0 | 12.6 | 2032.6 |
| IS23541 | 14.1 | 71.4 | 40.4 | 27.4 | 3.3 | 2.9 | 141.1 | 11.1 | 1695.0 |
| IS23574 | 9.7 | 66.5 | 38.8 | 23.8 | 2.0 | 1.7 | 96.7 | 7.5 | 1,004.8 |
| F60 | 11.7 | 55.4 | 31.8 | 20.6 | 2.1 | 1.8 | 116.7 | 9.1 | 1,049.3 |
| IS23525 | 11.9 | 52.6 | 30.5 | 19.3 | 2.0 | 1.7 | 118.9 | 9.3 | 997.2 |
| IS23536 | 13.7 | 51.7 | 32.2 | 17.2 | 2.0 | 1.8 | 136.7 | 10.7 | 1,025.0 |
FSY: fresh stalk yield; DSY: field dried stalk yield; JY: is a juice yield; CSY: conservative sugar yield; SY: sugar yield; SCJ: sugar concentration of juice; y: total soluble sugar; TEY: theoretical ethanol yield.