Improving the green mass quality with the help of heterosis breeding

The most reliable and effective way to improve both productivity and quality of green mass is the use of heterosis breeding. The purpose of the current work was to study the heterosis effect of green mass quality indicators in sorghum-Sudan hybrids developed based on cytoplasmic male sterility. The object of the study was the sorghum-Sudan hybrids developed by the Agricultural Research Center “Donskoy”. Dry matter productivity varied among the hybrids within 746-1202 g/m² . The highest values have been observed in the combinations with the CMS-line ‘APV-1115’ (1045 g/m² ). The heterosis effect on the dry matter productivity was found in all hybrids. Four hybrids ‘APV-1115 x Kudesnitsa’, ‘APV-1115 x ChT-22’, ‘Dzhetta x ChT-2’, ‘APV-1115 x Svetloplenchataya 4’ have significantly exceeded the standard in terms of dry matter productivity by 184-270 g/m² with high rates of hypothetical (38.1-64.1%), true (93.2-142.0%) and competitive (19.8-28.9%) heterosis. Digestible protein yield has ranged from 49 to 84 g/m² . Among the hybrids, the greatest heterosis effect was identified in the hybrids ‘Demetra x Svetloplenchataya 4’ (H_hyp.=43.4%, H_true.=125.4%), ‘Dzhetta x Yaktik’ (H_hyp.=70.5%, H_true.=142.3%), ‘APV-1115 x Kudestitsa’ (H_hyp.=72.8%, H_true.=108.9%), ‘APV-1115 x Svetloplenchataya 2’ (H_hyp.=81.0%, H_true.=118.4%), ‘APV1115 x ChT-22’ (H_hyp.=103.3%, H_true.=118.4%). In the course of the study, there has been found that according to the content of crude protein, ash, oil, fiber and nitrogen-free extractive substances (NES), the most hybrids possessed partial or incomplete dominance of large values. However, to obtain even a slight heterosis according to the content of protein, fiber, and NES content, at least one parent had to have high trait values. Based on the complex of the heterotic effect according to the green mass quality indicators, there have been identified such hybrids as ‘Dzhetta x Yaktik’, which exceeded the large parental form in terms of dry matter (H_true.=10.5%) and oil (H_true.=14.4%); ‘Dzhetta x ChSS’ which exceeded the large parental form in terms of dry matter and crude protein (H_true.=14.3 and 1.3%); ‘Demetra x Svetloplenchataya 4’ which exceeded the large parental form in terms of crude protein, dry matter, and ash (H_true.=3.8; 5.9 and 6.4%, respectively). In general, the data obtained have indicated the prospects of using cytoplasmic male sterility in breeding not only for productivity, but also for quality.

1. Zeru Y., Chang J., Genetic Diversity and Estimation of Heterosis of Sorghum (Sorghum Bicolor L. Moench) Varieties and their Hybrids for Grain Yield and other Traits at, Baoding, Hebei Province, China, International Journal of Agriculture Innovations and Research, 2020, No. 8, pp. 2319–2473.

2. Shkodina E.P., Balun O.V., Kapustin S.I., Volodin A.B., Kapustin A.S., Agroecological testing of sugar sorghum, sudanese grass and sorghum-sudanese hybrids in the natural conditions of the Novgorod region, Indo American journal of pharmaceutical science, 2019, Vol. 6, No. 7, pp. 13810–13815, DOI: 10.30766/2072-9081.2021.22.4.531-541.

3. Shishova E.A., Kovtunov V.V., Kovtunova N.A., Zernovoe hozjajstvo Rossii, 2020, No. 4 (70), pp. 65–68, DOI: 10.31367/2079-8725-2020-70-4-65-68. (In Russ.)

4. Kapustin S.I., Volodin A.B., Kapustin A.S., Tavricheskij vestnik agrarnoj nauki, 2022, No. 3 (31), pp. 76– 84. (In Russ.)

5. Pleskachev Ju.N., Laptina Ju.A., Gichenkova O.G., Kulikova N.A., Agrarnyj nauchnyj zhurnal, 2021, No. 8, pp. 28–32, DOI: 10.28983/asj.y2021i8pp28-33. (In Russ.)

6. Kovtunova N.A., Kovtunov V.V., Shishova E.A., Vestnik rossijskoj sel’skohozjajstvennoj nauki, 2016, No. 3, pp. 39–41. (In Russ.)

7. Tariq, Abdus, Akram, Zahid, Shabbir, Ghulam [et al.], Character association and inheritance studies of different sorghum genotypes for fodder yield and quality under irrigated and rainfed conditions, African Journal of Biotechnology, 2012, 11 (38), DOI: 10.5897/AJB11.2561.

8. Abreha K.B., Enyew M., Carlsson A.S., Vetukuri R.R., Feyissa T., Motlhaodi T., Geleta M., Sorghum in dryland: morphological, physiological, and molecular responses of sorghum under drought stress. Planta, 2021, Vol. 255, DOI: 10.1007/s00425-021-03799-7.

9. Sedukova G.V., Kristova N.V., Podoljak S.L., Zemledelie i selekcija v Belarusi, 2022, No. 58, pp. 249– 255. (In Russ.)

10. Somegowdaab K., Vemula A., Naravula J., Prasad G., Rayaprolu L., Rathore A., Blümmel M., Deshpande S.P., Evaluation of fodder yield and fodder quality in sorghum and its interaction with grain yield under diferent water availability regimes, Current Plant Biology, 2021, Vol. 25, 100191, DOI: 10.1016/j.cpb.2020.100191.

11. L. Perrier, L. Rouan, S. Jafuel [et al.] Plasticity of Sorghum Stem Biomass Accumulation in Response to Water Defcit: A Multiscale Analysis from Internode Tissue to Plant Level / L. Perrier, L. Rouan, S. Jafuel [et al.], Plant Sci, 2017, No.8, pp. 1516, DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2017.01516.

12. Alabushev A.V., Kovtunova N.A., Kovtunov V.V., Romanjukin A.E., Shishova E.A., Agrarnaja nauka Evro-Severo-Vostoka, 2019, T. 20, No. 4, pp. 343–350, DOI: 10.30766/2072-9081.2019.20.4.343-350. (In Russ.)

13. Lima M.H.M., Pires D.A.d.A., Moura M.M.A., Costa R.F., Rodrigues J.A.S., Alves K.A., Nutritional characteristics of Sorghum hybrids hay (Sorghum sudanense vs. Sorghum bicolor), Acta Scientiarum. Animal Sciences, 2017, No. 39 (3), pp. 229–234, DOI: 10.4025/actascianimsci.v39i3.32524.

14. Dronova T.N., Burceva N.I., Oroshaemoe zemledelie, 2019, No. 3, pp. 30–33, DOI: 10.35809/2618-8279-2019-3-8. (In Russ.)

15. Kibal’nik O.P., Vestnik NGAU, 2019, No. 2 (51), pp. 15–24, DOI: 10.31677/2072-6724-2019-51-2-15-24. (In Russ.)

16. Vasil’chenko S.A., Metlina G.V., Kovtunov V.V., Zernovoe hozjajstvo Rossii, 2022, T. 14, No. 4, pp. 91– 96, DOI: 10.31367/2079-8725-2022-82-4-91-96. (In Russ.)

17. Golubinova I., Naydenova Y., Enchev S., Kikindonov T., Ilieva A., Marinov-Serafmov P., Biochemical Evaluation of Forage Quality from Mutant Forms Sudan Grass (Sorghum sudanense (Piper) Stapf.), Journal of Ecology and Environment Sciences, 2016, Vol. XV, No. 4, pp. 44–51.