Napier grass (Cenchrus purpureus Schumach L.) is an important perennial forage native to Africa and now introduced and grown in many tropical and

subtropical countries. It is considered as a short-term drought tolerant forage, which is a useful trait in areas with low soil moisture during the dry season,

although it is recommended for planting in areas with rainfall >1,000 mm. In order to exploit the potential of this grass species for improved water use

efficiency (WUE), a field drought stress experiment was conducted with the objective to identify traits that underlie enhanced water use efficiency and to

select best performing genotypes that can thrive in low soil moisture areas.

Identification of Water Use Efficient Napier Grass Accessions Using Field Drought Stress

▪ Eighty four accessions from ILRI and EMBRAPA

collections of Napier grass were planted using a P-rep

design in four blocks in Bishoftu, Ethiopia.

▪ After establishment plants were exposed to

optimum water (OW) with 20% soil moisture or

water stress (WS) with 10% soil moisture during the

dry season.

▪ Agronomic and physiological data were collected at

every 8 weeks of re-growth.

METHODOLOGY

Fig. 1. Napier grass growing under optimum water (OW, left panel) and water stress (WS, right panel) conditions

▪ The study revealed significant differences between plants grown under optimum water andwater stress (Fig. 1).

▪ Significant genotypic differences were observed among genotypes for morphological andagronomic traits which suggests selection for improved forage performance will be efficient(Table 1.).

▪ Genotypes showed significant variation for total dry weight (Fig. 2) and enhanced water useefficiency (Fig. 3) implying that genotypes differ in economic use of water for increasedbiomass production under water limited conditions.

▪ Genotypes showed consistent performance for biomass dry weight and water use efficiencyobserved across dry season harvests, indicating promising Napier grass accessions could beidentified for low soil moisture areas forage production.

INTRODUCTION

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

1026

1435

5

1438

9

1498

2

1498

3

1498

4

1535

7

1574

3 (M

OT

T)

1662

1

1678

2

1678

3

1678

4

1678

5

1678

6

1678

7

1678

8

1678

9

1679

0

1679

1

1679

2

1679

3

1679

4

1679

5

1679

6

1679

7

1679

8

1679

9

1680

0

1680

1

1680

2

1680

3

1680

4

1680

5

1680

6

1680

7

1680

8

1680

9

1681

0

1681

1

1681

2

1681

3

1681

4

1681

5

1681

6

1681

7

1681

8

1681

9

1682

1

1682

2

1683

4

1683

5

1683

6

1683

7

1683

8

1683

9

1684

0

1690

2

1843

8

1844

8

1866

2

BA

GC

E 100

BA

GC

E 17

BA

GC

E 30

BA

GC

E 343

BA

GC

E 53

BA

GC

E 81

BA

GC

E 86

BA

GC

E 90

BA

GC

E 97

CN

PG

L 00-1-1

CN

PG

L 92-133-3

CN

PG

L 92-198-7

CN

PG

L 92-56-2

CN

PG

L 92-66-3

CN

PG

L 9279-2

CN

PG

L 93 -37

-5

CN

PG

L 93-01-1

CN

PG

L 93-04-2

CN

PG

L 93-18-2

CN

PG

L 94-13-1

CN

PG

L 96-21-1

CN

PG

L 96-23-1

CN

PG

L 96-27-3

PIO

NE

IR

O

TD

W( t/h

a)

OW WS

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1026143551438914982

1498314984

1535715743 (MOTT)

16621

16782

16783

16784

16785

16786

16787

16788

16789

16790

16791

16792

16793

16794

16795

16796

16797

16798

16799

16800

16801

16802

16803

16804

16805

16806

1680716808

1680916810

16811168121681316814

16815168161681716818

1681916821

1682216834

16835

16836

16837

16838

16839

16840

16902

18438

18448

18662

BAGCE 100

BAGCE 17

BAGCE 30

BAGCE 343

BAGCE 53

BAGCE 81

BAGCE 86

BAGCE 90

BAGCE 97

CNPGL 00-1-1

CNPGL 92-…

CNPGL 92-…

CNPGL 92-56-2

CNPGL 92-66-3

CNPGL 9279-2

CNPGL 93 -37-5

CNPGL 93-01-1CNPGL 93-04-2

CNPGL 93-18-2CNPGL 94-13-1

CNPGL 96-21-1CNPGL 96-23-1CNPGL 96-27-3PIONEIRO

WUE g/m3

OW WS

Fig. 2. Total dry weight of 84 Napier grass accessions averaged over four dry season harvests between OW/WS

Table 1. Summary ANOVA and coefficient of variationfor morphological and agronomic traits of four dry season harvests

Fig. 3. WUE of 84 Napier genotypes under OW/WS over four dry season harvests

Sources of

Variation PH LW TN TFW TDW WUE

Genotype 139.39*** 151.79*** 15293.4*** 51.08*** 4.74*** 25.26***

Treatment

(OW/WS) 3306.68** 857.3* 33433*** 3377.94** 308.73** 109.3**

Genotype X

Treatment 21.07* 19.69ns 3287.9*** 18.36*** 1.72* 7.93*

Range 1.67-60.33 3-35.33 0.67-264 0.02-36.74 0.04-17.42 0.05-27.24

Mean 12.11 19.01 82.52 3.89 1.2 2.75

GCV% 31.26 21.57 51.37 58.29 54.39 55.07

PCV% 51.64 30.74 63.14 69.84 71.49 72.35

PH = plant height; LW = Leaf width; LL = Leaf length; TFW = Total fresh weight; TDW = Total dry weight

WUE =Water use efficiency; *,**,*** = Significant level at 0.5% .0.1%and 0.001%, ns=Non significant

MAJOR FINDINGS

Ermias Habte:E.Habte@cgiar.org, Feed and Forage Development, International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. ilri.org

This research was supported by the "Cooperative Research Program for Agriculture Science & Technology Development (Project No. PJ012187)" , Rural Development Administration, Republic of Korea

Ermias Habte, Meki S. Muktar, Alemayehu T. Negawo, Ki-Won Lee and Chris S. Jones

RESULTS

This document is licensed for use under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence.Date Year. July,2019