Comparison of crops raised with tissue culture vis-a-vis conventional seed tubers of potato
39 / 5
Authors
-
MURLIDHAR J. SADAWARTI
Central Potato Research Station, Gwalior-474006, Madhya Pradesh, India
Author
-
A.K. SOMANI
Central Potato Research Station, Gwalior-474006, Madhya Pradesh, India
Author
-
Y.P. SINGH
Central Potato Research Station, Gwalior-474006, Madhya Pradesh, India
Author
-
K.K. PANDEY
Central Potato Research Station, Gwalior-474006, Madhya Pradesh, India
Author
Keywords:
Health standard, hi-tech tubers, conventional tubers, seed potato, comparisonAbstract
An attempt was made to compare stage-III and stage-IV seed crops (conventional tubers) with their respective counterpart's generation-1 and generation-2 seed crops (tissue culture tubers) in Kufri Sindhuri, Kufri Lauvkar and Kufri Chandramukhi in factorial RBD replicated three times during 2010-11 and 2011-12. For morphological parameters, there were no significant differences among respective counterparts respectively. In case of yield parameters, generation-1 (8, 19,000) and generation- 2 (7, 42,000) recorded significantly higher tuber number over their respective counterpart stage-III (5, 96,000) and stage-IV (6, 53,000) respectively. For tuber weight (t/ha) there was no significant difference among the respective counterparts. ELISA testing results revealed that generation-1 (1.11%) and generation-2 (1.83%) recorded significantly lower disease percent over their respective counterpart's stage-III (3.33%) and stage-IV (4.33%). The hi-tech seed tubers were better than conventional seed tubers health wise and can be integrated with conventional system for breeder seed production.
Downloads
References
1. NAIK PS AND KARIHALOO JL (2007). Micro propagation for production of quality potato seed in Asia-pacific. Asia-Pacific Consortium on Agricultural Biotechnology (APCOAB) C/o ICRISAT, NASC Complex, Dev Prakash Shastri Marg, Pusa Campus, New Delhi-110012, INDIA.
2. NYENDE AB, SCHITTENHELM S, MIX-WAGNER G, GREEF MJ (2005). Yield and canopy development of field grown potato plants derived from synthetic seed, Euro J Agro 22: 175-84.
3. BRUNT AA (2001). The Main Viruses Infecting Potato Crops. In: Virus and Virus-like Diseases of Potatoes and Production of Seed-Potatoes (Ed. LOEBENSTEIN G et al.), pp: 65-7,Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands.
4. SINGH P, AGNIHOTRI RK, BHADURIA S, VAMIL R AND SHRAMA R (2008). Comparative study of potato cultivation through Micropropagation and conventional farming methods. Af J Biotech 11(48): 10882-7.
5. CLARK MF AND ADAMS AN (1977). Characteristics of the microplate method of enzyme linked immunosorbent assay for the detection of plant viruses. Gen Virol 34: 475-83.
6. KAWAKAMI J, IWAMA K AND JITUAYAMAY (2005). Effect of planting date on growth and yield of two potato cultivars grown from microtubers and conventional tubers. Pl Prod Sci 8(1): 74- 8.
7. KUMAR D, SINGH V, SINGH RP, SINGH BP AND NAIK PS (2007). Performance of in vitro plantlets for production of minitubers in vector free environment. Potato J 34(1-2): 131-2.
