Advertisement

Euphytica

, 215:73 | Cite as

Prediction models and selection of agronomic and physiological traits for tolerance to water deficit in cassava

  • Priscila Patrícia dos Santos Silva
  • Massaine Bandeira e Sousa
  • Eder Jorge de OliveiraEmail author
Article
  • 76 Downloads

Abstract

The development of efficient and accurate strategies for evaluating and predicting the root yield of cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) can reduce the effort and time spent on phenotyping complex traits associated with productivity and abiotic stress. The objective of this study was to select phenotypic traits that are highly associated with fresh root yield (FRY) as well as to establish a prediction model of the performance of genotypes under water deficit conditions. A total of 49 cassava genotypes were evaluated in a complete randomized block design, with three replications and two water conditions: well-watered (control-WW) and water deficit. The physiological and agronomic traits were divided into three groups: Phys (all physiological traits); Phys + ShY (all physiological traits, with addition of shoot yield) and Phys + Agro (all physiological and agronomic traits). They were evaluated using six different predictive models: classification and regression trees, artificial neural network, support vector machines, extreme learning machine (ELM), generalized linear model with stepwise feature selection (GLMSS) and partial least squares (PLS). These same groups, but reduced to only the most important predictive traits, were also analyzed. The most important traits for predicting FRY were number of roots per plant, leaf area index, number of leaves measured in the eighth month, and shoot yield. The selection of the most important traits resulted in the best adjustment of the models, with GLMSS, ELM, and PLS being the models that presented the highest reliability of prediction according to the values of r2 > 0.75 with RMSE ranging from 0.49 to 0.51.

Keywords

Manihot esculenta Crantz Root yield Drought Agronomic performance 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado da Bahia (FAPESB), Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) and Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) for the financial assistance and scholarship support.

Supplementary material

10681_2019_2399_MOESM1_ESM.docx (27 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 26 kb)

References

  1. Abdullah SS, Malek MA, Abdullah NS, Kisi O, Yap KS (2015) Extreme learning machines: a new approach for prediction of reference evapotranspiration. J Hydrol 527:184–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adu MO, Asare PA, Asare-Bediako E, Amenorpe G, Ackah FK, Afutu E, Amoah MN, Yawson DO (2018) Characterising shoot and root system trait variability and contribution to genotypic variability in juvenile cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) plants. Heliyon 4:1–24Google Scholar
  3. Afonso AM, Ebell MH, Gonzales R, Stein J, Genton B, Senn N (2012) The use of classification and regression trees to predict the likelihood of seasonal influenza. Fam Pract 29:671–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aidar ST, Morgante CV, Chaves ARM, Costa Neto BP, Vitor AB, Martins DRPS, Silva R, Cruz JL, Oliveira EJ (2015) Características fisiológicas, produção total de raízes e de parte aérea em acessos de Manihot esculenta em condições de déficit hídrico. Rev Bras Geog Fis 8:685–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aina OO, Dixon AG, Akinrinde EA (2007) Effect of soil moisture stress on growth and yield of cassava in Nigeria. Pak J Biol Sci 10:3085–3090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Allah AAA, Ammar MH, Badawi AT (2010) Screening rice genotypes for drought resistance in Egypt. J Plant Breed Crop Sci 2:205–215Google Scholar
  7. Alves AAC, Setter TL (2004) Abscisic acid accumulation and osmotic adjustment in cassava under water deficit. Environ Exp Bot 51:259–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Andersen CM, Bro R (2010) Variable selection in regression—a tutorial. J Chemom 24:728–737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Avijala MF, Bhering LL, Peixoto LA, Cruz CD, Carneiro PCS, Cuambe CE, Zacarias A (2015) Evaluation of cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) genotypes reveals great genetic variability and potential selection gain. Aust J Crop Sci 9:940–947Google Scholar
  10. Bergantin RV, Yamauchi A, Pardales JR Jr, Bolatete DM Jr (2004) Screening cassava genotypes for resistance to water deficit during crop establishment. Philipp J Crop Sci 29:29–39Google Scholar
  11. Beyene Y, Semagn K, Mugo S, Tarekegne A, Babu R, Meisel B, Sehabiague P, Makumbi D, Magorokosho C, Oikeh S, Gakunga J, Vargas M, Olsen M, Prasanna BM, Banziger M, Crossa J (2015) Genetic gains in grain yield through genomic selection in eight bi-parental maize populations under drought stress. Crop Sci 55:154–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cabello R, Monneveux P, Bonierbale M, Khan MA (2014) Heritability of yield components under irrigated and drought conditions in andigenum potatoes. Am J Potato Res 91:492–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Campbell CL, Madden LV (1990) Introduction to plant disease epidemiology. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Ceballos H, Okogbenin E, Pérez JC, López-Valle LAB, Debouck D (2010) Cassava. In: Bradshaw J (ed) Root and tuber crops. Springer, New York, pp 53–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ceballos H, Ramirez J, Bellotti AC, Jarvis A, Alvarez E (2011) Adaptation of cassava to changing climates. In: Yadav SS, Redden RJ, Hatfield JL, Lotze-Campen H, Hall AE (eds) Crop adaptation to climate change. Wiley, New York, pp 411–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ceballos H, Kulakow P, Hershey C (2012) Cassava breeding: current status, bottlenecks and the potential of biotechnology tools. Trop Plant Biol 5:73–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chikoti PC, Shanahan P, Melis R (2016) Evaluation of cassava genotypes for resistance to cassava mosaic disease and agronomic traits. Am J Plant Sci 7:1122–1128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Christenson BS, Schapaugh WT, An N, Price KP, Prasad V, Fritz AK (2016) Predicting soybean relative maturity and seed yield using canopy reflectance. Crop Sci 56:625–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. CIAT (2017) International Center for Tropical Agriculture. http://ciat.cgiar.org/what-we-do/breeding-better-crops/rooting-for-cassava/. Accessed 12 Dec 2017
  20. Dan Z, Hu J, Zhou W, Yao G, Zhu R, Zhu Y, Huang W (2016) Metabolic prediction of important agronomic traits in hybrid rice (Oryza sativa L.). Sci Rep 6:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Deo RC, Şahin M (2015) Application of the extreme learning machine algorithm for the prediction of monthly effective drought index in eastern Australia. Atmos Res 153:512–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Duque LO, Setter TL (2013) Cassava response to water deficit in deep pots: root and shoot growth, ABA, and carbohydrate reserves in stems, leaves and storage roots. Trop Plant Biol 6:199–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. El-Sharkawy MA (2007) Physiological characteristics of cassava tolerance to prolonged drought in the tropics: implications for breeding cultivars adapted to seasonally dry and semiarid environments. J Plant Physiol 19:257–286Google Scholar
  24. El-Sharkawy MA (2012) Stress-tolerant cassava: the role of integrative ecophysiology-breeding research in crop improvement. Open J Soil Sci 2:162–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Embrapa Semiárido. Centro de Pesquisa Agropecuária do Trópico Semiárido. Dados meteorológicos de 2014. http://www.cpatsa.embrapa.br:8080/servicos/dadosmet/ceb-anual.html. Accessed 12 Dec 2017
  26. FAO. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2013) Save and grow: cassava a guide to sustainable production intensification. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i2929o.pdf. Accessed 12 Dec 2017
  27. FAO. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2016) Food outlook: biannual report on global food markets. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i6198e.pdf. Accessed 15 Jan 2018
  28. Farfan IDB, La Fuente GN, Murray SC, Isakeit T, Huang PC, Warburton M, Williams P, Windham GL, Kolomiets M (2015) Genome wide association study for drought, aflatoxin resistance, and important agronomic traits of maize hybrids in the sub-tropics. PLoS ONE 10:0117737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ferraro DO, Rivero DE, Ghersa CM (2009) An analysis of the factors that influence sugarcane yield in northern Argentina using classification and regression trees. Field Crops Res 112:149–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hansen PM, Jørgensen JR, Thomsen A (2002) Predicting grain yield and protein content in winter wheat and spring barley using repeated canopy reflectance measurements and partial least squares regression. J Agric Sci 139:307–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hinkossa A, Gebeyehu S, Zeleke H (2013) Generation mean analysis and heritability of drought resistance in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Afr J Agric Res 8:1319–1329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ji B, Sun Y, Yang S, Wan J (2007) Artificial neural networks for rice yield prediction in mountainous regions. J Agric Sci 145:249–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kaul M, Hill RL, Walthall C (2005) Artificial neural networks for corn and soybean yield prediction. Agric Syst 85:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kawano K, Fukuda WMG, Cenpukdee U (1987) Genetic and environmental effects on dry matter content of cassava root 1. Crop Sci 27:69–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Laban TF, Kizito EB, Baguma Y, Osiru D (2013) Evaluation of Ugandan cassava germplasm for drought tolerance. Int J Agric Crop Sci 5:212–226Google Scholar
  36. Lin WS, Yang CM, Kuo BJ (2012) Classifying cultivars of rice (Oryza sativa L.) based on corrected canopy reflectance spectra data using the orthogonal projections to latent structures (O-PLS) method. Chemometr Intell Lab Syst 115:25–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Liu J, Zheng Q, Ma Q, Gadidasu KK, Zhang P (2011) Cassava genetic transformation and its application in breeding. J Integr Plant Biol 53:552–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lopes MS, Reynolds MP, Jalal-Kamali MR, Moussa M, Feltaous Y, Tahir ISA, Barma N, Vargas M, Mannes Y, Baum M (2012) The yield correlations of selectable physiological traits in a population of advanced spring wheat lines grown in warm and drought environments. Field Crops Res 128:129–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mehmood T, Liland KH, Snipen L, Solve S (2012) A review of variable selection methods in partial least squares regression. Chemometr Intell Lab Syst 118:62–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mohammadi R, Heidari B, Haghparast R (2013) Traits associated with drought tolerance in spring durum wheat (Triticum turgidum L. var. durum) breeding lines from international germplasm. Crop Breed J 3:87–98Google Scholar
  41. Mohammadi K, Shamshirband S, Motamedi S, Petković D, Hashim R, Gocic M (2015) Extreme learning machine based prediction of daily dew point temperature. Comput Electron Agric 117:214–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Morante N, Sánchez T, Ceballos H, Calle F, Pérez JC, Egesi C, Cuambe CE, Escobar AF, Ortiz D, Chavez AL, Fregene M (2010) Tolerance to postharvest physiological deterioration in cassava roots. Crop Sci 50:1333–1338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mucherino A, Papajorgji P, Pardalos PM (2009) A survey of data mining techniques applied to agriculture. Oper Res 9:121–140Google Scholar
  44. Okogbenin E, Setter TL, Ferguson M, Mutegi R, Ceballos H, Olasanmi B, Fregene M (2013) Phenotypic approaches to drought in cassava: review. Front Physiol 4:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Olatunji SO, Selamat A, Abdulraheem A (2014) A hybrid model through the fusion of type-2 fuzzy logic systems and extreme learning machines for modelling permeability prediction. Inf Fusion 16:29–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Oliveira EJ, Aidar ST, Morgante CV, Chaves ARM, Cruz JL, Coelho Filho MA (2015) Genetic parameters for drought-tolerance in cassava. Pesqui Agropecu Bras 50:233–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Oliveira EJ, Morgante CV, Aidar ST, Chaves ARM, Antonio RP, Cruz JL, Coelho Filho MA (2017) Evaluation of cassava germplasm for drought tolerance under field conditions. Euphytica 213:188–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Park SJ, Hwang CS, Vlek PLG (2005) Comparison of adaptive techniques to predict crop yield response under varying soil and land management conditions. Agric Syst 85:59–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. R Core Team (2018) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/. Assessed 22 Feb 2018
  50. Richards RA (2006) Physiological traits used in the breeding of new cultivars for water-scarce environments. Agric Water Manag 80:197–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Richards RA, Rebetzke GJ, Condon AG, Van-Herwaarden AF (2002) Breeding opportunities for increasing the efficiency of water use and crop yield in temperate cereals. Crop Sci 42:111–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ruß G (2009) Data mining of agricultural yield data: a comparison of regression models. In: 9th industrial conference, vol 5633, pp 24–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Silva RS, Moura EF, Farias-Neto JT, Sampaio JE (2016) Genetic parameters and agronomic evaluation of cassava genotypes. Pesqui Agropecu Bras 51:834–841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tumuhimbise R, Shanahan P, Melis R, Kawuki R (2015) Genetic variation and association among factors influencing storage root bulking in cassava. J Agric Sci 153:1267–1280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Vaezi B, Bavei V, Shiran B (2010) Screening of barley genotypes for drought tolerance by agro-physiological traits in field condition. Afr J Agric Res 5:881–892Google Scholar
  56. Weber VS, Araus JL, Cairns JE, Sanchez C, Melchinger AE, Orsini E (2012) Prediction of grain yield using reflectance spectra of canopy and leaves in maize plants grown under different water regimes. Field Crops Res 128:82–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wold S, Sjöström M, Eriksson L (2001) PLS-regression: a basic tool of chemometrics. Chemometr Intell Lab Syst 58:109–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Yin Z, Feng Q, Yang L, Deo RC, Wen X, Si J, Xiao S (2017) Future projection with an extreme-learning machine and support vector regression of reference evapotranspiration in a mountainous inland watershed in north-west China. Water 9:880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zhao P, Liu P, Shao J, Li C, Wang B, Guo X, Yan B, Xia Y, Peng M (2015) Analysis of different strategies adapted by two cassava cultivars in response to drought stress: ensuring survival or continuing growth. J Exp Bot 66:1477–1488CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Priscila Patrícia dos Santos Silva
    • 1
  • Massaine Bandeira e Sousa
    • 1
  • Eder Jorge de Oliveira
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Universidade Federal do Recôncavo da BahiaCruz das AlmasBrazil
  2. 2.Embrapa Mandioca e FruticulturaCruz das AlmasBrazil

Personalised recommendations