Evaluation of Wild Potato Germplasm for Tuber Starch Content and Nitrogen Utilization Efficiency
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Results
2.1. Variation of Tuber Starch Contents in Wild Potato Germplasm after Greenhouse Cultivation
2.2. Dry Yield of Shoots, Roots and Root-DM:Shoot-DM Ratio in the N Experiments
2.3. N Uptake, N Partitioning and N Efficiency Parameters in the N Experiments
3. Discussion
4. Materials and Methods
4.1. Plant Material
4.2. Evaluation of Tuber Starch Contents
4.3. Plant Material and Experimental Setup of N Experiments
4.4. Laboratory Analyses and Calculations
4.4.1. Tuber Starch Contents
4.4.2. Yield, Nitrogen Uptake and Stress Indices
4.5. Statistical Analyses
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Kaur, B.; Ariffin, F.; Bhat, R.; Karim, A.A. Progress in starch modification in the last decade. Food Hydrocoll. 2012, 26, 398–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tomasik, P. Specific physical and chemical properties of potato starch. Invited Review. Food 2009, 3, 45–56. [Google Scholar]
- Robertson, T.M.; Alzaabi, A.Z.; Robertson, M.D.; Fielding, B.A. Starchy carbohydrates in a healthy diet: The role of the humble potato. Review. Nutrients 2018, 10, 1764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Bruns, H. Landessortenversuch Stärkekartoffeln (Variety Trials Starch Potatoes). Chamber of Agriculture Lower Saxony, Meppen. 2015. Available online: https://docplayer.org/48527547-Landessortenversuch-staerkekartoffeln-2015.html (accessed on 7 May 2020).
- Koch, M.; Naumann, M.; Pawelzik, E.; Gransee, A.; Thiel, H. The importance of nutrient management for potato production. Part I: Plant nutrition and yield. Potato Res. 2019, 63, 97–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zebarth, B.J.; Rosen, C.J. Research perspective on nitrogen BMP development for potato. Am. J. Potato Res. 2007, 84, 3–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ebúrneo, J.M.; Garcia, E.L.; Santos, T.P.R.; de Souza, E.D.F.C.; Soratto, R.P.; Fernandes, A.M.; Leonel, M. Influence of nitrogen fertilization on the characteristics of potato starch. Aust. J. Crop. Sci. 2018, 12, 365–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maltas, A.; Dupuis, B.; Sinaj, S. Yield and quality response of two potato cultivars to nitrogen fertilization. Potato. Res. 2018, 61, 97–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muleta, H.D.; Aga, M.C. Role of nitrogen on potato production: A review. J. Plant Sci. 2019, 7, 36–42. [Google Scholar]
- Schum, A.; Jansen, G. Physiological response to nitrogen deficiency stress of in vitro grown potato genotypes. Acta Hortic. 2012, 961, 465–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fixen, P.E.; Bruulsema, T.W. Potato management challenges created by phosphorus chemistry and plant roots. Am. J. Potato Res. 2014, 91, 121–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kelling, K.A.; Rosen, C.J.; Stark, J.C.; Essah, S.Y.C. Potato phosphorus management and utilization for today and tomorrow. Am. J. Potato Res. 2014, 91, 199–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iwama, K. Physiology of the potato: New insights into root system and repercussion for crop management. Potato Res. 2008, 51, 333–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davenport, J.R.; Milburn, P.H.; Rosen, C.J.; Thornton, R.E. Environmental impacts of potato nutrient management. Am. J. Potato Res. 2005, 82, 321–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xie, X.; Li, X.-Q.; Zebarth, B.J.; Niu, S.; Tang, R.; Tai, H.H.; Bizimungu, B.; Wu, W.; Haroon, M. Rapid screening of potato cultivars tolerant to nitrogen deficiency using a hydroponic system. Am. J. Potato Res. 2018, 95, 157–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schum, A.; Meise, P.; Jansen, G.; Seddig, S.; Ordon, F. Evaluation of nitrogen efficiency associated traits of starch potato cultivars under in vitro conditions. Plant Cell Tiss. Organ. Cult. 2017, 130, 651–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schum, A.; Jansen, G. In vitro method for early evaluation of nitrogen use efficiency associated traits in potato. J. Appl. Bot. Food Qual. 2014, 87, 256–264. [Google Scholar]
- Zebarth, B.J.; Tai, G.; Tarn, R.; de Jong, H.; Milburn, P.H. Nitrogen use efficiency characteristics of commercial potato cultivars. Can. J. Plant Sci. 2003, 84, 589–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meise, P.; Seddig, S.; Uptmoor, R.; Ordon, F.; Schum, A. Impact of nitrogen supply on leaf water relations and physiological traits in a set of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) cultivars under drought stress. J. Agro. Crop Sci. 2018, 204, 359–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meise, P.; Seddig, S.; Uptmoor, R.; Ordon, F.; Schum, A. Assessment of yield and yield components of starch potato cultivars (Solanum tuberosum L.) under nitrogen deficiency and drought stress conditions. Potato Res 2019, 62, 193–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tiemens-Hulscher, M.; Lammerts van Bueren, E.T.; Struik, P.C. Identification of genotypic variation for nitrogen responses in potato (Solanum tuberosum) under low nitrogen input circumstances. In Proceedings of the 1st International IFOAM-conference on Organic Animal and Plant Breeding, Santa Fe, NM, USA, 25–28 August 2009; International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movement: Bonn, Germany, 2009; pp. 354–361. [Google Scholar]
- Errebhi, M.; Rosen, C.J.; Lauer, F.I.; Martin, M.W.; Bamberg, J.B.; Birong, D.E. Screening of exotic potato germplasm for nitrogen uptake and biomass production. Am. J. Potato Res. 1998, 75, 93–100. [Google Scholar]
- Errebhi, M.; Rosen, C.J.; Lauer, F.I.; Martin, M.W.; Bamberg, J.B. Evaluation of tuber-bearing Solanum species for nitrogen use efficiency and biomass partitioning. Am. J. Potato Res. 1999, 76, 143–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zebarth, B.J.; Tarn, T.R.; de Jong, H.; Murphy, A. Nitrogen use efficiency characteristics of Andigena and Diploid Potato Selections. Am. J. Potato Res. 2008, 85, 210–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jansen, G.; Flamme, W.; Schüler, K.; Vandrey, M. Tuber and starch quality of wild and cultivated potato species and cultivars. Potato Res. 2001, 44, 137–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khiutti, A.; Spooner, D.M.; Jansky, S.H.; Halterman, D.A. Testing taxonomic predictivity of foliar and tuber resistance to Phytophthora infestans in wild relatives of potato. Phytopathology 2015, 105, 1198–1205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- López, M.; Riegel, R.; Lizana, C.; Behn, A. Identification of virus and nematode resistance genes in the Chilota Potato Genebank of the Universidad Austral de Chile. Chilean J. Agric. Res. 2015, 75, 320–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bachmann-Pfabe, S.; Hammann, T.; Kruse, J.; Dehmer, K.J. Screening of wild potato genetic resources for combined resistance to late blight on tubers and pale potato cyst nematodes. Euphytica 2019, 215, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodewald, J.; Trognitz, B. Solanum resistance genes against Phytophthora infestans and their corresponding avirulence genes. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2013, 14, 740–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dalamu, B.V.; Umamaheshwari, R.; Sharma, R.; Kaushik, S.K.; Joseph, T.A.; Singh, B.P.; Gebhardt, C. Potato cyst nematode (PCN) resistance: Genes, genotypes and markers—An update. SABRAO J. Breed. Genet. 2012, 44, 202–228. [Google Scholar]
- Schönhals, E.M. Identifying novel diagnostic SNP markers for potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) tuber starch and yield by association mapping. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany, 25 May 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Bombik, A.; Rymuza, K.; Olszewski, T. Variation and correlation of starch potato utility features and tuber quality traits. Acta Agrophys. 2019, 26, 29–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Christensen, C.T.; Zotarelli, L.; Haynes, K.G.; Colee, J. Rooting characteristics of Solanum chacoense and Solanum tuberosum in vitro. Am. J. Potato Res. 2017, 94, 588–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khrais, T.; Leclerc, Y.; Donnelly, D.J. Relative salinity tolerance of potato cultivars assessed by in vitro screening. Am. J. Potato Res. 1998, 75, 207–2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khan, M.A.; Munive, S.; Bonbierbale, M. Early generation in vitro assay to identify potato populations and clones tolerant to heat. Plant Cell Tiss. Organ. Cult. 2016, 121, 45–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lammerts van Bueren, E.T.; Struik, P.C. Diverse concepts of breeding for nitrogen use efficiency. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2017, 37, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cambui, C.A.; Svennerstam, H.; Gruffman, L.; Nordin, A.; Ganeteg, U.; Näsholm, T. Patterns of plant biomass partitioning depend on nitrogen source. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e19211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Zhao, Z.; He, K.; Feng, Z.; Li, Y.; Chang, L.; Zhang, X.; Xu, S.; Liu, J.; Xue, J. Evaluation of yield-based low nitrogen tolerance indices for screening maize (Zea mays L.) inbred lines. Agronomy 2019, 9, 240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fischer, R.A.; Maurer, R. Drought resistance in spring what cultivars. 1. Grain yield responses. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 1978, 29, 897–912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jansky, S. Breeding for disease resistance in potato. In Plant Breeding Reviews, 1st ed.; Janick, J., Ed.; Wiley Online Library: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010; Volume 33, pp. 69–155. [Google Scholar]
- Zhao, Q.; Zhao, B.; Zhang, Q.; Yu, B.; Cheng, L.; Jin, R.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, J.; Wang, D.; Zhang, F. Screening for chip-processing potato line from introgression of wild species germplasm with post-harvest storage and chip qualities. Am. J. Potato Res. 2013, 90, 425–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lambert, E.S.; Pinto, C.A.B.P. Agronomic performance of potato interspecific hybrids. Crop Breed. Appl. Biot. 2002, 2, 179–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leisner, C.P.; Hamilton, J.P.; Crisovan, E.; Manrique-Carpintero, N.C.; Marand, A.P.; Newton, L.; Pham, G.M.; Jiang, J.; Douches, D.S.; Jansky, S.; et al. Genome sequence of M6, a diploid inbred clone of the high-glycoalkaloid-producing tuber-bearing potato species Solanum chacoense, reveals residual heterozygosity. Plant J. 2018, 94, 562–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bethke, P.C.; Haltermann, D.A.; Jansky, S. Are we getting better at using wild potato species in light of new tools? Crop Sci. 2017, 57, 1241–1258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hawkes, J.G. The potato. Evolution, Biodiversity and Genetic Resources, 1st ed.; Belhaven Press: London, UK, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Murashige, T.; Skoog, F. A revised medium for rapid growth and bio essays with tobacco tissue cultures. Physiol. Plant. 1962, 15, 473–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lunden, A.P. Undersokelser overforholdet mellom poteternes specifikke vekt og deres torrstoff—og stivelsesindhold [Studies on the relation between the specific gravity of potatoes and their content of dry matter and starch]. Forsk Forsok i Landbr. Res. Nor. Agric. 1956, 7, 81–107. [Google Scholar]
- Fernandez, G.C.J. Effective selection criteria for assessing stress tolerance. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Adaptation of Vegetables and other Food Crops in Temperature and Water Stress, Tainan, Taiwan, 13–18 August 1992; Kuo, C.G., Ed.; Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center: Tainan, Taiwan, 1992; pp. 257–270. [Google Scholar]
- R Development Core Team. A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Available online: http://www.R-project.org/ (accessed on 15 June 2016).
- Fox, J. RmcdrMisc: R commander miscellaneous functions. R package version 1.0-5, 2016. Available online: https://rdrr.io/cran/RcmdrMisc/ (accessed on 11 September 2019).
- Bates, D.; Maechler, M.; Bolker, B.; Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 2015, 67, 1–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fox, J.; Weisberg, S. An {R} Companion to Applied Regression, 3rd ed.; Sage: Thousand Oaks, LA, USA, 2019; Available online: https://r-forge.r-project.org/projects/car/ (accessed on 13 June 2019).
- Lenth, R.V. The R package lsmeans. J. Stat. Softw. 2016, 69, 1–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hothorn, T.; Bretz, F.; Westfall, P. Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biometrical J. 2008, 50, 346–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Arend, D.; Junker, A.; Scholz, U.; Schüler, D.; Wylie, J.; Lange, M. PGP repository: A plant phenomics and genomics data publication infrastructure. Database 2016, 2016, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Accession GLKS | Solanum- Species | No. Genotypes | Starch Content (% of FM) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | Min | Max | CV % | |||
30211 | S. commersonii | 13 | 30.0 | 26.4 | 33.3 | 8.60 |
30916 | S. chacoense | 20 | 26.8 | 19.5 | 31.6 | 11.5 |
31595 | S. pinnatisectum | 15 | 26.8 | 18.9 | 30.6 | 11.5 |
30475 | S. jamesii | 17 | 25.7 | 12.7 | 32.6 | 18.7 |
30177 | S. chacoense | 20 | 24.8 | 15.4 | 31.4 | 16.6 |
30159 | S. chacoense | 19 | 24.3 | 19.0 | 30.9 | 12.0 |
30154 | S. chacoense | 20 | 23.2 | 11.0 | 31.8 | 17.9 |
30160 | S. chacoense | 19 | 23.2 | 15.8 | 32.7 | 16.8 |
31600 | S. pinnatisectum | 18 | 23.2 | 13.0 | 36.6 | 24.7 |
30156 | S. chacoense | 20 | 23.1 | 15.3 | 29.1 | 17.6 |
30191 | S. chacoense | 20 | 22.5 | 15.6 | 28.2 | 15.7 |
30197 | S. chacoense | 19 | 22.5 | 17.9 | 28.0 | 13.8 |
30181 | S. chacoense | 20 | 22.3 | 15.4 | 29.8 | 19.9 |
30995 | S. chacoense | 18 | 22.1 | 15.6 | 29.0 | 17.1 |
31025 | S. chacoense | 20 | 21.6 | 18.6 | 25.9 | 11.7 |
31610 | S. pinnatisectum | 19 | 21.5 | 14.7 | 31.9 | 24.2 |
30665 | S. chacoense | 19 | 21.1 | 13.0 | 27.2 | 16.0 |
30135 | S. chacoense | 20 | 20.4 | 13.8 | 33.0 | 23.9 |
31602 | S. pinnatisectum | 16 | 20.1 | 12.6 | 26.2 | 19.6 |
30688 | S. microdontum | 20 | 20.0 | 14.1 | 26.2 | 16.6 |
30148 | S. chacoense | 18 | 19.7 | 11.0 | 25.9 | 23.2 |
31605 | S. pinnatisectum | 7 | 19.6 | 16.1 | 22.7 | 11.4 |
30134 | S. chacoense | 20 | 19.3 | 14.0 | 25.6 | 18.0 |
32852 | S. hondelmannii | 18 | 19.2 | 13.7 | 24.4 | 17.2 |
31583 | S. tarijense | 19 | 16.9 | 13.5 | 20.7 | 11.8 |
34995 | S. tuberosum subsp. andigena | 16 | 16.6 | 12.6 | 21.6 | 17.9 |
30944 | S. sparsipilum | 20 | 16.0 | 11.4 | 22.2 | 18.8 |
31559 | S. stenotomum | 16 | 14.2 | 7.1 | 22.4 | 23.0 |
Accession | Genotype | Solanum- Species | Starch Content (% of FM) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
GLKS | No. | 2013 | 2014 | Mean | |
30135 | 05 | S. chacoense | 28.0 | 25.3 | 26.7 |
30135 | 19 | S. chacoense | 33.0 | 29.8 | 31.4 |
30154 | 09 | S. chacoense | 31.8 | 25.2 | 28.5 |
30156 | 16 | S. chacoense | 29.1 | 26.7 | 27.9 |
30159 | 05 | S. chacoense | 30.9 | 36.9 | 33.9 |
30160 | 13 | S. chacoense | 29.5 | 26.2 | 27.9 |
30160 | 15 | S. chacoense | 32.7 | - | 32.7 |
30177 | 01 | S. chacoense | 24.2 | 29.0 | 26.6 |
30177 | 02 | S. chacoense | 30.9 | 27.3 | 29.1 |
30177 | 15 | S. chacoense | 30.1 | 26.0 | 28.1 |
30177 | 17 | S. chacoense | 28.3 | 32.0 | 30.2 |
30177 | 20 | S. chacoense | 31.4 | - | 31.4 |
30181 | 06 | S. chacoense | 28.6 | - | 28.6 |
30181 | 18 | S. chacoense | 29.8 | 26.2 | 28.0 |
30688 | 04 | S. microdontum | 26.2 | 31.8 | 29.0 |
30688 | 12 | S. microdontum | 25.3 | 23.9 | 24.6 |
30916 | 08 | S. chacoense | 31.6 | 29.7 | 30.7 |
30995 | 18 | S. chacoense | 29.0 | 28.7 | 28.9 |
31559 | 11 | S. stenotomum | 15.2 | 11.4 | 13.3 |
31559 | 14 | S. stenotomum | 22.1 | 16.6 | 19.4 |
31600 | 10 | S. pinnatisectum | 36.6 | 31.1 | 33.9 |
34995 | 18 | S. tuberosum subsp. andigena | 18.0 | 22.6 | 20.3 |
Trait | Total SSQ | Genotype | Treatment | Genotype × Treatment | Residuals | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SSQ | % | Sign. | SSQ | % | Sign. | SSQ | % | Sign. | SSQ | % | ||
DM shoot mg vessel−1 | 3,164,366 | 2,167,098 | 68.5 | *** | 697,852 | 22.1 | *** | 113,436 | 3.58 | *** | 185,980 | 5.88 |
DM root mg vessel−1 | 1,229,096 | 777,076 | 62.9 | *** | 260,060 | 21.1 | *** | 134,179 | 10.9 | *** | 63,202 | 5.12 |
N uptake shoot a | 77.24 | 3.03 | 3.93 | *** | 71.54 | 92.6 | *** | 1.15 | 1.49 | *** | 1.51 | 1.95 |
N uptake root a | 66.63 | 17.72 | 28.0 | *** | 40.00 | 62.8 | *** | 3.40 | 5.33 | *** | 2.54 | 3.99 |
N uptake total a | 68.96 | 2.93 | 4.25 | *** | 64.08 | 92.9 | *** | 0.87 | 1.26 | *** | 1.08 | 1.56 |
NutE a | 43.57 | 9.20 | 21.1 | *** | 32.56 | 74.7 | *** | 0.79 | 1.82 | *** | 1.01 | 2.32 |
Root-DM:Shoot-DM ratio a | 31.26 | 21.15 | 67.7 | *** | 1.87 | 6.00 | *** | 4.81 | 15.4 | *** | 3.43 | 11.0 |
Root-N:Shoot-N ratio a | 30.69 | 18.29 | 59.6 | *** | 4.56 | 14.9 | *** | 4.15 | 13.5 | *** | 3.69 | 12.0 |
Genotype | Solanum- Species | Shoot DM | Root DM | Shoot N | Root N | N Uptake Total | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Control | Reduced | p | Control | Reduced | p | Control | Reduced | p | Control | Reduced | p | Control | Reduced | p | ||
30135_05 | S. chacoense | 552 a | 462 a | ** | 135 b | 51.7 b | *** | 19.5 b | 7.58 a | *** | 3.01 b | 0.85 b | *** | 22.5 b | 8.48 b | *** |
30135_19 | S. chacoense | 604 a | 411 a | *** | 177 b | 78.0 b | *** | 24.6 a | 6.79 b | *** | 5.43 a | 1.40 b | *** | 30.1 a | 8.20 b | *** |
30154_09 | S. chacoense | 496 a | 431 a | * | 304 a | 143 a | *** | 20.0 b | 6.57 b | *** | 6.54 b | 2.21 a | *** | 26.5 a | 8.78 b | *** |
30156_16 | S. chacoense | 575 a | 459 a | *** | 240 a | 159 a | *** | 23.8 a | 6.47 b | *** | 4.61 a | 2.20 a | *** | 28.5 a | 8.67 b | *** |
30159_05 | S. chacoense | 528 a | 371 b | *** | 192 b | 133 a | *** | 20.7 b | 5.72 b | *** | 4.86 a | 2.22 a | *** | 25.6 b | 7.95 b | *** |
30160_13 | S. chacoense | 600 a | 506 a | ** | 337 b | 151 a | *** | 19.3 b | 6.30 b | *** | 7.52 b | 2.40 a | *** | 26.8 a | 8.73 b | *** |
30160_15 | S. chacoense | 652 b | 513 a | *** | 277 a | 204 b | *** | 24.4 a | 6.31 b | *** | 6.86 b | 3.11 b | *** | 31.3 a | 9.43 a | *** |
30177_01 | S. chacoense | 436 b | 311 b | *** | 250 a | 153 a | *** | 19.7 b | 5.07 b | *** | 5.91 b | 2.45 a | *** | 25.7 b | 7.58 b | *** |
30177_02 | S. chacoense | 495 a | 297 b | *** | 157 b | 62.5 b | *** | 22.2 a | 5.99 b | *** | 6.17 b | 2.43 a | *** | 28.3 a | 8.44 b | *** |
30177_15 | S. chacoense | 620 a | 485 a | *** | 226 a | 203 b | ns | 24.7 a | 6.95 b | *** | 4.56 a | 2.66 b | *** | 29.2 a | 9.61 a | *** |
30177_17 | S. chacoense | 280 b | 196 b | ** | 156 b | 74.5 b | *** | 17.3 b | 5.19 b | *** | 4.55 a | 1.76 a | *** | 22.1 b | 6.96 b | *** |
30177_20 | S. chacoense | 682 b | 549 b | *** | 318 b | 219 b | *** | 25.5 a | 6.85 b | *** | 5.00 a | 2.99 b | *** | 30.6 a | 9.96 a | *** |
30181_06 | S. chacoense | 680 b | 508 a | *** | 291 a | 117 a | *** | 23.0 a | 7.45 b | *** | 5.29 a | 1.85 a | *** | 28.3 a | 9.84 b | *** |
30181_18 | S. chacoense | 397 b | 335 b | * | 76.0 b | 61.5 b | ns | 18.8 b | 6.99 b | *** | 3.43 a | 1.35 b | *** | 22.3 b | 8.35 b | *** |
30688_04 | S. microdontum | 491 b | 377 b | *** | 128 b | 118 a | ns | 23.5 a | 7.17 b | *** | 4.50 a | 2.08 a | *** | 28.1 a | 9.27 b | *** |
30688_12 | S. microdontum | 497 a | 384 a | *** | 139 b | 116 a | ns | 24.2 a | 6.58 b | *** | 4.07 a | 2.05 a | *** | 28.2 a | 8.64 b | *** |
30916_08 | S. chacoense | 536 a | 403 a | *** | 160 b | 104 b | ** | 22.8 a | 5.80 b | *** | 3.65 a | 1.83 a | *** | 26.4 a | 7.64 b | *** |
30995_18 | S. chacoense | 458 b | 306 b | *** | 103 b | 51.5 b | ** | 22.5 a | 5.84 b | *** | 2.87 b | 1.04 b | *** | 25.4 b | 6.90 b | *** |
31559_11 | S. stenotomum | 498 a | 266 b | *** | 195 b | 95.0 b | *** | 23.6 a | 6.40 b | *** | 4.59 a | 1.51 a | *** | 28.2 a | 7.91 b | *** |
31559_14 | S. stenotomum | 408 b | 323 b | ** | 77.3 b | 89.7 b | ns | 22.6 a | 7.01 b | *** | 3.19 b | 1.34 b | *** | 25.8 b | 8.36 b | *** |
31600_10 | S. pinnatisectum | 214 b | 156 b | * | 30.0 b | 40.7 b | ns | 11.3 b | 5.49 b | *** | 1.48 b | 1.44 a | ns | 12.8 b | 6.93 b | *** |
34995_18 | S. tuberosum subsp. andigena | 403 b | 313 b | ** | 173 b | 118 a | ** | 23.1 a | 6.56 b | *** | 5.37 a | 1.79 a | *** | 28.5 a | 8.39 b | *** |
Eurobravo | S. tuberosum subsp. tuberosum | 452 b | 400 a | ns | 157 b | 102 b | ** | 22.6 a | 7.48 a | *** | 4.70 a | 1.68 a | *** | 27.3 a | 9.17 b | *** |
Kiebitz | S. tuberosum subsp. tuberosum | 302 b | 268 b | ns | 66.0 b | 50.2 b | ns | 19.9 b | 7.58 a | *** | 2.96 b | 0.97 b | *** | 22.9 b | 8.56 b | *** |
Maxi | S. tuberosum subsp. tuberosum | 456 b | 374 b | * | 164 b | 95.0 b | *** | 23.6 a | 7.74 a | *** | 4.00 a | 1.38 b | *** | 27.6 a | 9.12 b | *** |
Tomba | S. tuberosum subsp. tuberosum | 567 a | 452 a | *** | 270 a | 153 a | *** | 27.1 a | 9.34 a | *** | 4.31 a | 1.91 a | *** | 31.4 a | 11.3 a | *** |
mean | 496 | 381 | 185 | 115 | 21.9 | 6.66 | 4.59 | 1.88 | 26.6 | 8.56 |
Genotype | Solanum- Species | Root-DM:Shoot-DM Ratio | Root-N:Shoot-N Ratio | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Control | Reduced | p | Control | Reduced | p | ||
30135_05 | S. chacoense | 0.25 b | 0.10 b | *** | 0.15 a | 0.11 b | * |
30135_19 | S. chacoense | 0.29 b | 0.19 b | *** | 0.22 a | 0.21 a | ns |
30154_09 | S. chacoense | 0.61 a | 0.33 a | *** | 0.33 b | 0.34 b | ns |
30156_16 | S. chacoense | 0.42 a | 0.35 a | ns | 0.19 a | 0.34 b | *** |
30159_05 | S. chacoense | 0.36 a | 0.36 a | ns | 0.23 b | 0.39 b | *** |
30160_13 | S. chacoense | 0.55 a | 0.30 a | *** | 0.39 b | 0.38 b | ns |
30160_15 | S. chacoense | 0.42 a | 0.40 a | ns | 0.28 b | 0.49 b | *** |
30177_01 | S. chacoense | 0.57 a | 0.48 b | ns | 0.30 b | 0.48 b | *** |
30177_02 | S. chacoense | 0.32 b | 0.20 b | *** | 0.28 b | 0.41 b | ** |
30177_15 | S. chacoense | 0.36 a | 0.42 a | ns | 0.19 a | 0.38 b | *** |
30177_17 | S. chacoense | 0.56 a | 0.37 a | *** | 0.26 b | 0.34 b | * |
30177_20 | S. chacoense | 0.46 a | 0.40 a | ns | 0.20 a | 0.44 b | *** |
30181_06 | S. chacoense | 0.43 a | 0.23 b | *** | 0.23 b | 0.25 a | ns |
30181_18 | S. chacoense | 0.18 b | 0.18 b | ns | 0.18 a | 0.19 a | ns |
30688_04 | S. microdontum | 0.26 b | 0.31 a | ns | 0.19 a | 0.29 b | ** |
30688_12 | S. microdontum | 0.28 b | 0.30 a | ns | 0.17 a | 0.31 b | *** |
30916_08 | S. chacoense | 0.30 b | 0.26 a | ns | 0.16 a | 0.32 b | *** |
30995_18 | S. chacoense | 0.22 b | 0.17 b | * | 0.13 a | 0.18 a | * |
31559_11 | S. stenotomum | 0.39 a | 0.36 a | ns | 0.19 a | 0.24 a | ns |
31559_14 | S. stenotomum | 0.19 b | 0.27 a | * | 0.14 a | 0.19 a | * |
31600_10 | S. pinnatisectum | 0.14 b | 0.26 a | *** | 0.13 a | 0.26 a | *** |
34995_18 | S. tuberosum subsp. andigena | 0.43 a | 0.38 a | ns | 0.23 b | 0.27 a | ns |
Eurobravo | S. tuberosum subsp. tuberosum | 0.35 a | 0.26 a | * | 0.21 a | 0.22 a | ns |
Kiebitz | S. tuberosum subsp. tuberosum | 0.22 b | 0.19 b | ns | 0.15 a | 0.13 b | ns |
Maxi | S. tuberosum subsp. tuberosum | 0.36 a | 0.25 a | * | 0.17 a | 0.18 a | ns |
Tomba | S. tuberosum subsp. tuberosum | 0.47 a | 0.34 a | * | 0.16 a | 0.20 a | * |
mean | 0.36 | 0.29 | 0.21 | 0.29 |
GLKS-Accession | Solanum-Species, Ploidy, EBN ^ | Series * | Origin ° |
---|---|---|---|
30211 | S. commersonii Dunal (2x, 1) | COM | URY |
30475 | S. jamesii Torrey (2x, 1) | PIN | USA |
31595, 31600, 31602, 31605, 31610 | S. pinnatisectum Dunal (2x, 1) | PIN | MEX |
31559 | S. stenotomum Juz. and Bukasov (2x, 2) | TUBc | BOL |
34995 | S. tuberosum subsp. andigena Hawkes (4x, 4) | TUBc | UNK |
32852 | S. hondelmannii Hawkes and Hjerting (2x, na) | TUBw | BOL |
30688 | S. microdontum Bitter (2x, 3x, 2) | TUBw | ARG |
30944 | S. sparsipilum (Bitt.) Juz. and Bukasov (2x, 2) | TUBw | BOL |
30134, 30135, 30148, 30154, 30156, 30159, 30160, 30177, 30181, 30191, 30197, 30665, 30916, 30995, 31025 | S. chacoense Bitter (2x, 2) | YNG | ARG |
31583 | S. tarijense Hawkes (2x, 2) | YNG | UNK |
Chemical | Unit | Control | Reduced | Nutrients | Control | Reduced |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NH4NO3 | g/L | 0.825 | 0.206 | N | 0.420 | 0.105 |
KNO3 | g/L | 0.950 | 0.238 | K | 0.784 | 0.784 |
KCl | g/L | 0.701 | 1.226 | Cl | 0.545 | 0.795 |
CaCl2 × 6H2O | g/L | 0.655 | Ca | 0.120 | ||
MgSO4 × 7H2O | g/L | 0.370 | Mg | 0.036 | ||
KH2PO4 | g/L | 0.170 | P | 0.039 | ||
FeSO4 × 7H2O | g/L | 0.028 | Fe | 0.006 | ||
Na × EDTA | g/L | 0.037 | ||||
MnSO4 × H2O | mg/L | 17.10 | Mn | 5.558 | ||
ZnSO4 × 7 H2O | mg/L | 8.600 | Zn | 1.955 | ||
H3BO3 | mg/L | 6.200 | B | 1.084 | ||
CuSO4 × 5 H2O | mg/L | 0.025 | Cu | 0.006 | ||
CoCl2 × 6H2O | mg/L | 0.025 | Co | 0.012 | ||
Na2MoO4 × 2H2O | mg/L | 0.250 | Mo | 0.119 | ||
Organic stock sol. | mL/L | 1.0 | S | 0.056 | ||
Sucrose | g/L | 30 |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Bachmann-Pfabe, S.; Dehmer, K.J. Evaluation of Wild Potato Germplasm for Tuber Starch Content and Nitrogen Utilization Efficiency. Plants 2020, 9, 833. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants9070833
Bachmann-Pfabe S, Dehmer KJ. Evaluation of Wild Potato Germplasm for Tuber Starch Content and Nitrogen Utilization Efficiency. Plants. 2020; 9(7):833. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants9070833
Chicago/Turabian StyleBachmann-Pfabe, Silvia, and Klaus J. Dehmer. 2020. "Evaluation of Wild Potato Germplasm for Tuber Starch Content and Nitrogen Utilization Efficiency" Plants 9, no. 7: 833. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants9070833