Multilocation evaluation of chickpea germplasm and breeding lines for resistance to Ascochyta blight (*)

M.V. R*:I,~Y, K.B. SINC:&I and K.S . MALHO~I-KA

TntrrnaLlor>al Crop Kt,sr+~rch 1rlst~tut.r thr t h c Ycml-Arid l'ropire. (1C:KISA'I'I. I'aLarrchrru, A~tdhr i l Pradesh, India

Tnt.ernatlorral C r n t r r f i r Agr~cul tura l lit%search ~n the. Dry Areas ( I (>Al<UAl , Alt.ppo, Syrm

Summary. O n r hur3drc.d ninety-on'. chlckpra lines comprising 40 desl (I<:<'J and 31 kr~hul i (II ,C) g e m p l a s m a<-re>ssions and 120 kabuli l,rreding ( F L I P ) lines wer-c e.va1lli1tr.d f i r A s r o c h y f ~ ~ t,llght resislr~ncc. a t 48 disease-endemic- Locatnr,t~s in 20 countri-a in t h c pc.riod 1983- 1988. Though thc re was a considerable varitltlon In the reaction of t h e l ines :+cross scasc,ns and locat~<rns. 1 H linru irrclud~ng 11,C' 72. ILC 1x2. IL<: 201. 1I.C 202, ILC: 2:iHO. ILC 2956, TIK 3279, ILC :IRAR. ILC' 3870. 11,<'442 1 . FI,II'82-101C'. w1.TP83-46C:. FT.11'83-4SC. FI.11'83-72C. FT.IP8.1-97C. F1,IP 84-85C. F L I P 84-93C. and I<:<: :59:1Z show<.d rr.sist.anrv In :?0'% or m<,r t c ~ I ' L h c . loratic,ns c,r tes ts in which they were t-valuatrd. These rcsults sup~c . s t tha t t he kilbuli y ~ ~ r r n ~ l i t s r r l has hette-r rcsistr+nre toAscoch,ytrz hlight Lhan t , h ~ dc:si gr~rmplasm. Hasrd <,n the. rczcrtirrn of' six corrlrrlon lincs to hlight, the. 48 lorntions could be cntegorised in to 1 3 groups.

l*iassurato. V A I . C . Y , A , ~ < > ~ S . , ~ > I C F . L A H P . S I S ~ I ~ . , K Z A A ~ ~ ~ . ' A N ~ ~ ~ ~ < A ~ ~ N < , S I > > I < , + ; W M < > F - + ~ . A e: ! > r ~ N < - I ~ U < , I 1 8 1 Cr.:rn I N r > r v 1 5 ~ ~ r AMBII.:NTI,

E s t a t i ~ v;\l~aLatr~ In rt.slstc.rlzi* all'nrlLr;tcnrrsi di 191 l lnre di z~ccesxioni di grrrnc,plasrna (cc,rnprcndenti 40 "dcsi" e 31 "knhull") e di 120 Ilnec di incr<,c~ di C'rrr. ~n 48 itrnbrenti in c u ~ la mnlnttiil r isultn end-mica (appnr tencnt i a Z O F'nesi), nel pertodo 1983-l9X63. 1Tni1 scrlsihtlr vnrlazlonr di c<,mportamento cicl ~rlat .rrialr in valutazionr i. s tu ta riacontrala in ilccordo a l l ' i l r r lb~ent~ r all'c.poca stxgic,nale. tutt i lvi;~ 18 l in r r w,rnprendenti 1L<: 72, II,C: 182. 1LC 201, 1I.C: 2380, ILC Zl356,II.C 3279. TI.('BXH8,11.(' 3870, ILC 4421. l.'LIPXZ-I 91<'. FLIP 83-AM:, FLIP 8:I-49C'. E'LIT3R:i-72C. FLIPH:3-97C. l.'I,IP 84-8.5<-. %*LIP 84-$3:1<:. and ICC :i932 h i ~ r l n o rni~nil'cstato rrsisterlz;r alla mnluttia nel 50'*. <, plh, degli ilrrlbienti 1. dcx snggi dl valutazi<,nr.. Qurst~ rtsultirti ~ndt<.ar><r che il prrrrl<,plnsmw "ka t ,u l~ ' ponsir~ic~ un mipliort livello di rr.sistrnza +tll'irntrarnnst r lrpetto i l l gerrnc,l,lasma "des~" . 1 48 arnbtenti in rut la rn;+latt~ra rlsulta end.-mica, xulla hnse dt.llc. rrixzioni di ari h r ~ c c . comuni dl infr7ionc~. p<,ssonr, r.sscr.c. ca t a lopa t~ ~ r l 13 mupp i .

Introduction Ascochyta blight IAscochyta 7-ahiei (Pass . )

Lab.1 is the most important foliar disease of Chickpea (CLvc71. nriettncirr? L. ) . Though i t is reported from 31 countries (Nene rt al., 1989), i t i s particularly important in the Indian sub- continent and in thc countries around the Medi- ter ranean sea. <:hickpea in the lndian sub- continent i s grown mainly a s a rainf'cd crop in the post-rainy season (Winter and Spring) under

( ' 1 . J c , l r ~ l rontr~but>r>n ticrnl ICRISAI', P ik l i~r>chr~ru . India u n r l IC'AIiI>A. Alr.ppo, Svrin. Journal Article n. 1289.

receding soil moisture conditions. Thc occasional ra ins t h a t are usually received in the growing season a re beneficial in alleviating the drought stress, hu t they also bring in Ascochyta blight. I n t h e Mediterranean countries, chickpea is grown in thc Spring season after cessation of Winter raixls to escape from blight but invariably suffers fronl moist.ure and hea t stresses. Advancing sowing date from Spring to early Winter in- creases yield by 50%-100% provided Ascochyta blight is controlled (Hawtin and Singh, 1984). Hence the control of Ascochyta blight i s essend.la1 for increasing the yields of Chickpea either- in

the I n d ~ a n subcontinent or In t h e Medltclrranean reglon

The work on t h e use of host-plant resistance and funpcldes for t h e control of Ascochyta bllght h a s been recently revlewed (Nenr. and Reddy. 1987; Singh, 1987, S ~ n g h and Reddy, 1991) The progress in the past 60 years on the devt,lopment of resistant cultlvars was l lm~ted due to lack of h~gh-level and stablc. sources of rcslstance The presence of a large variablllty In the b l ~ g h t pathogen A rabrrr has also h1ndert.d t h e pro- grcss on reqistance breeding tVlr and Grewal, 1974, Reddy and Kabbabeh, 1985, Slngh, 1990) Though several effect~vc. fung~c ldes for iepd dresslng and f b l ~ a r appllration have bec.n Iden- tified, their a p p l ~ c a t ~ o n ~n s~lsceptit,le cultlvars 1s neither prnct~cal nor economical (Reddy and S ~ n g h , 1990) A large number of fc,llar sprays a r c nec.dc,d, and mo-t of the funglc~des effcact~ve for blight a t present are of contact type, m a k ~ n g them 1c.s~ useful for appl~c.+tlon durlrlg rains

Recently a few chickpea germplasms line- havrng h~gh-level and mutt]-locatlon reiistancc havc been Identified (Singh el a 1 , 1981, Keddy and Singh. 1984, Singh el a / , 1984, Slilgh iind Reddy, 1990) Uwng these, iourccs of r e i ~ s t a n c e In the hybrid~s:~tlon progr.,rmmtX, icveral h ~ g h y i e l d ~ i ~ g 11nc.s reaslitant to hllght were developed In the , ]o~nt ICARDA-TCRISAT Kabul] C7h1c.kpr,l Projckct Germplasm acre%slc>ns and brr~eding Iintxh found res1staiit a g a ~ n s t races prcavalent ~n Syrla were cvaluatcd intern,~tlonally through t h e C'l~~ckpea lntcrndtlonal Ascocliyta B l ~ g h t Nurso-y (CTABN) The rr.sults of mul t l loca t lo~~ c.\~aluatlon o f k a b u l ~ and di.61 germplaim acccs- sIon5 and the newly bred lines for resistance to bllght In t h ~ blight-endramlc counirlci durlng 1983-1989 a re reportcad In t h ~ i paper

Materials and methods The desi and kabuli germplasm accessions

t h a t were resistant to Ascochyta blight in the field evaluation o f t h e world collection of chick- pea germplasm a t TCARDA, Syria (Singh ef al.. 1981; Keddy and Singh, 1984; Singh and Reddy, 1990). and the newly blight-resistant kabuli lines a t ICARDA were included in t h e evaluation. Some of t h e germplasm accessions t h a t showed multi-location resistance in the earlier multi- location evaluation were also included (Singh et al., 1984). The evaluation was carried out between 1983 and 1989 through the Chickpea I n t e r n a t i o n a l A s c o c h y t a B l i g h t N u r s e r y

(CIARN). A prior circular was sent to patho- logists and breeders in the= blight endemic countries regarding the availability of' the trial and the nursery was supplied to those who re- quested for it. Any line t h a t was susceptible a t the majority of locations in any given year was excluded from the trial and new lines were ad- ded. Idincs showing resistance a t the majority of t h e locations were cont.inued in the trial for two to three more seasons. 7'hc seed of' the 1int.s included in CIAl3N was multiplied under blight- fi-~-e. conditions a t ICAKDA's principal rest-arch station at Tcl Hadya, Syria.

Tluring. a period of scvc.11 yc.ars ( 198:3-19HI-)), a total of' 191 lines comprising 40 desi t ICIZISAT Chickpea - 1 C C ) and :$1 kabuli t1ritcrnntional IAeg~ime Chickpea - 11,C ) gc.rrnp1asm accessions. and 120 breeding t Food Legume Improvement 1'7-r)gran~ - FLIP) lines were tt.st.e,d in 20 cotril- tric.s. Evaluation of'thcs lines for blight resist.ancc was carried c~u t in the field during the Winter season either under natural c.piphyt.otic condi- tions or by inoc~~lwting the llurscry with diseased dehris or spore, suspension o f ' t he Fungus mu1 ti- plied in the laborntury (lieddy and Singh, 1984; Singh <.( u / . , 1984). For e;lch line, :I 4 ni row was sown with 40 seeds in two replications. The inter- and inlra-row spacings Iirllowcd wrhre 45 and 10 em, rt,spectively. After cxvcry two test lines, a row of'known blight susccpt,ible cultivar 11,C 1929 or II,C: 2 6 3 was sown as a n indicator-cum-spreader row .

The lines were scored fbr blight severity using a 3-53 scale, where, 1 = f'ree from disease damage and 9 = plants killed tSingh <,/ a!., 1981). Thcx lines with 1-4 score were cat.cgorised a s resis- t an t ; 5 moderatcly resistant: and 6-9 suscc:ptihl~.. A line was considered resistant a t a location on1.y when i t was resistant in all the years in which i t was tested. When there was variation in thr. reaction of the line over the seasons, the highest disease score was considered. The evaluation a t any location or season was considered ef'fcctive only when the susceptible check cultivar showed susceptible reaction (6 or higher disease score) and da ta from only these locations were used f i r analysis.

Results Over a period of seven years (1983-1989), H 4

disease screening nurseries wcrs evaluated In 48 disease-endemic locations in 20 countries (Table I). The number of'ycars for which the trial

T ~ L E I. - Chlckpea kabul~ r ILC 1 and d e s ~ [ICC 1 germplasm accessions and kabull breeding lines IFLIP) e\ aluated for resistance to Ascochyta blight at 24 or more of locatlonq and the number of locat~ons and tests in t\hich they &ere resistant. 1983-1989 T-~BELLA I - Accesslu~lr dr gelnloplasnla dl Cece kabzrlr IILCI e desz (ICCi e llnee dl lncrocr kabrtll (FLIP/ ralutate per la reszstenza allhntrucnosz In 24 oprrr anlbzentr e nurnero dl locrrlrta e dl saggr lzer qua11 esse sono rlsultate resrstentl Perlodo 1983-1989

ILC 72 47 3 1 66 R9 6 5 73 FLIP h3-22C 31 13 I1 18 22 46

j n of location; S a m e nf - , 1 n lii locat~i>:i-.

Knmi n i

ILC 182 :3 1 1; 33 52 3:i 63 FLIP 8% lfiC 40 2 1 5 3 70 44 63 - -

ILC 2no 43 2 1 49 72 1.5 6 3 FLIP 89-17C 40 15 .'1 h 70 36 5 1

ILC 201 3 7 20 34 5 2 32 62 FLIP 8:3-1XC 4.3 2 1 49 50 44 63

ILC 202 47 3 2 68 89 5.5 62 FLIP 83-49C 28 13 46 39 2 3 59

ILC 2380 18 9 50 21 12 J i FLIP 83-72C 28 12 .13 39 22 5 6 - -

ILC 2506 38 17 45 59 34 56 FLIP 8:3-97C 28 1 1 5 0 39 25 64

ILC 29.56 3b 2 1 7;) 58 3 7 64 FLIP 84-22C 2.3 11 44 30 16 53 - -

i ~ n e r e s l ~ t a n t ' 1 tested reilstan: I re,.-iant ms!!'taxL line resistant

1 testrd re- sta ant ; , tPSted re., i tant re"stant

ILC 38.56 4-1 21 1 8 76 4 .? ,5 9 I;I>IP 84-i9C 2 i 12 44 3 8 22 58

1LC 3868 .t 6 24 52 8 3 i l 61 FLIP 84-8OC 28 11 39 39 22 56

ILC 3870 2 7 16 r, 9 42 2 i 64 'LIP n -1 -81~ 2 .s 12 4n 30 I T 57

ILC 442 1 45 2 4 4:3 82 5 3 65 FLIP 84-R3C 28 10 36 39 19 49

?

I

ILC 5928 2 8 1.3 46 39 23 .5 9 FLIP 84-R5C 25 13 .5 2 3 0 18 60

FLIP 81-70C 29 1.3 45 45 21 s t 7 FLIP 84-86C 2 S 10 40 30 15 50

FLIP 81-298C 31 1% :19 5 2 11 2 1 FLIP 84-87C 28 12 43 39 12 3 1

FLIP 82-IC 29 11 :j R 4 5 20 14 FLIP 84-91C 28 12 43 39 21 54

n of locnr~ons r;

FLIP 82-61C 29 11 3 8 4 5 LO 14 FI,IP 84-29C 28 15 51 39 15 38

n of location^

FLIP 82-74C 29 1 -1 48 45 2.j 56 FLIP 84-93C 28 14 50 39 24 62

FLIP 82-160(: 10 15 3 8 69 3 8 .i 5 FLIP 84-182C 28 12 43 39 2 1 54

FLIP 82-172C 25 9 36 30 14 17 ICC 3932 25 I4 56 40 23 58

FLIP 82- 186C 25 10 10 7 1) 1.5 50 ICC 6495 28 13 46 46 25 54

FLIP 82-191C 29 1.5 5 2 4 5 26 58 Susceptible check

FLIP 82-2-igC 29 12 4 1 45 19 42 ILC 1929 25 0 0 36 0 0

FLIP 83-7C 3 1 13 42 48 22 46 ILC 263 33 0 0 52 0 0

TABLE 11. -Chickpea kabuli (ILC) and desi (ICC) germplasm accessions and kabuli breeding lines ( F L I P ) withmulti-location resistance (resistance i n 50% or more o f t he locations and trials) t o Ascochyta blight (1983-1989). TABELLA 11. -Accessioni digermoplasma d i Cece kabuli (ILC) e desi 1ICCj e linee di incroci kabuli !FLIP) con resistenza in piu ambienti (50% e piu degli ambienti e &i saggil allhntracnosi (1983-19891.

Algeria

Bangladesh

Bulgaria

Cypms

E m t

France

Greece

India

I ran

Italy

Jordan

Lebanon

Pakistan

I Reaction to Ascoch?ta blight

Location

Khroub R 3 K T R R A W R R R N T R N T R R R R R R R

S e t ~ f R N T N T R N T R R R . C T R S T R R R R N T R N T

S e d ~ Be1 Abbes S N T T R N T T S S N T T N T T S S S S S N T

M3rnenslngh S S S R S R R R S S T S T N T N T N T N T N T S

Toshe\ o R S T T S X T R R R K T S N T T R R S T R N T

L m a R N T R R N T R R R N T R N T R R R R R R N T

G ~ z a S T T S T S T NT luT S T S T NT S T KT NT NT NT S

T a h n r R R N T R N T N T T R R S R T N T N T N T N T N T

Montboucher R N T T R h - T R R S S T S S T S T R R T S R

Montpell~er R R R R R R T T R R R N T N T S T N T N T h T T R

Lanssa S R R S T S S NT NT KT NT NT NT NT NT hT NT S

Ludh~ana- l i l ab i R R R R R R R S ? ' R R T R T T T R R

Ludh~ana-2rfieldi R R R R R R R S KT R T T R T T R R R

Fasa Fars T N T S R K T R S S A W S S T R S R R R R R

Basil~cata R R NT R NT NT R R R R R R KT NT NT NT NT NT

Tarqu ln~a R S R T N T R S S S S S S R R R R R l T

hlarou S T S S S S S S S S S T S S R R S R

Beqa'a R R N T R N T N T R R R R R R S T N T N T N T R

Terbol R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R

Dar Bouazza S N T S S N T S S S S T S N T S S S S S S N T

Douset R R R R T R R R R R T T h - T K T N T N T N T R

Marchouch R T R R R R T R R R R R N T N T N T N T N T R

Chaknal T N T T S N T T T S N T T N T S T S S T T S

Falsalabad-1 S S S S T S S S S S S S S S S S S S

Fa~salabad-2 S S S S N T S S S S S S S S S S S S S

ICC 3932

ILC i FLIP

72 j 1.2 1 201 ' zrw 1 m o j 2.56 1

32.9 / 3.m 1 3.70

.

$6 M.1 1 J:~ 1 l,c , fit

Pakistan Isla~nabad-1

Islamahad-2

Tarnab

Portugal Elvas

Spain Badqlr,z

Cordoba-1

Cordoha-2

Syria -4 tihab

Gelline

.Jahleh

J ind i res

Lattakia

Tel Hadya

Turkey A m a ~ y a

Ankara

Eskiseh~r

Izmir

Tunisia Bej a

Oued SI~ l iz

Tunis-l

Tunis-:!

USA Highmore

S. Dakota

n of localions tested 47 31 37 47 18 38 46 46 27 45 29 11 2E 28 2P 25 28 25

n, of locations resistant 31 17 20 32 9 21 24 4 16 21 15 21 13 13 14 1.3 14 14

n. of locations tolerant 7 8 8 4 7 9 1 0 4 3 5 6 9 4 1 4 6 3 1

c; of locations resistant 66 55 54 68 50 55 52 52 59 53 52 51 46 46 ,5O .52 30 56

7 of locations tolerant 15 26 22 9 39 24 22 9 11 11 21 22 14 14 14 24 11 4

la ' R = Res~stant ' 1-4 score on 1-9 scale'. T = Tolerant ' 5 score . S = Susceptible 6 - 9 score!. KT = Not tested

TABLK 111. - Grouping of the locat~ons based on the reaction of six chickpea genotypes toAsc.ochyta blight. T ~ E L L A 111. - Raggrzippamcnto deglz ambcentr srrLIa base dclla reazrone dz sez genotrp? d 7 Cere al l 'anfrac~~osr.

11,C 72

II,C' 202

ILC 2956

1LC' ,3279

ILC 3868

IIK' 4421

Group 1 ;- ( 2 1 lt,r;*tic,ns) I<hl.ouh. Setnl. Lzrx~:~ . 1 L l ~ , n t ~ , r l l ~ e ~ - . B~lailici+t+l, De.qil'ii. 7.~7-hol. I k ~ ~ t ~ r t , Marchr~nch. I l i ~ d t u o ~ . <'r,r-doha-2. Al Cihi~l,. C;r,ll>~lt.. . J ~ n d ~ r e s a , L a t t a k l a . Ar~k;~r . i t . Vmsnhnind-2. Izrr l t r , Dr.ja. Oucd Mell r . I I l y l ~ r r > c > r - < . . Group 2 L [ X iocntl<,nhl C21z;i. I . ; ~ r ~ u r i ~ . M;~,-ow. I)III. H V L I ~ L L H , I.ilitrnubud- I . lilnrnnhad-2, F;+~*;sl;~h;xrl-l. ' l lun~s-1 ; Group :I = 1 1 I r > c - a t > o n i Yldl R r l Ai,l,rs. C : r s ~ u p 4 = I I lorilttc~rzl M , v r ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ n g h . < : r < r u p 5 = ( 1 Ic~a;%t~r,r~ I Toshrvo; Group 6 = ( 3 1 ~ ~ r ; ~ t n r ~ n s I Tnhrlr. J n h l r h , Tt.1 1I;ldyix. Group 7 - I3 locatror~hi M ~ , n t h r ~ u r . h ~ ~ r . A l n i ~ i y i r , E s h ~ h l ~ ~ . l ~ ~ r . . Group H = (:i locatlo~ls,I,udhiirna-I. I,udh1ana-2. < ' c . r . d < , l r a - 1 . Group S = I2 locnttc,rxni Fas;r F;,,..;. ' l 'arq~nn~it : Group 1 0 = r % I<,r.;at~c,nsr <'l,akw,i~l. Tar .n i~h . C ; ~ O U ~ 11 = , I Ir,cutloxl) Elvaa , G n s u p 12 = I I lorntlur> 1 T u n ~ c ~ ; r - 2 . C : r c , u p 13 - 1 1 l o c t ~ t l < , ~ i r S < , u t h T);ll'c,li~ IC = RexmsL;+nt. S = S ~ ~ a c e p t i l , l r , NT - Xc,l l.'.st cd.

was conducted a t a location varied from one to five. At Tel Hadya in Syria and Terbol in Leba- non, the trial was conducted for five years. At Tarquinia in Italy, the tr ial was conducted Sor four years. At Elvas in Portugal, Islamabad and Tarnab in Pakistan; Izmir in Turkey; Jahleh and Lattakia in Syria; and Montboucher in France, the trial was conducted for threc years. At eight other locations t h e tr ial was conducted for two years and in the remaining 30 locations for only one year.

The number of lines evaluated a t a location ranged from 9 to 159. Except a t Gellinc in Syria where only 9 lines were evaluated, a t all other 47 locations. 41 or more lines werc: evaluated. The number ofl ines fbund resistant a t 21 location ranged from 0 to 147 Except a t Dar Bouazza in Morocco, a fi.w to several lines were found either resistant or moderately resistant a t all the other locations. Except a t Chakawal and E'aisalahad in Pakistan, and Tunis in Tunisia (where only lines with moderate resistance could be fbund), a t all other 44 locations, a few to several lines werc? resistant.

A relatively large numbcr of' lines were res- ist,ant in repeated tests a t 'rerbol in Lebanon followed by Tel Hadya and Lattakia in Syria, Tarquinia in Italy, and Izmir in Turkey. Very few lines were resistant a t Eskischir in Turkey and Marow in Jordan. Lines werc found res-

i s tant or ~nodcrntely resistant a t the other 30 locations in one .year. screening but they need confirmation.

The lir,es t h a t were tested a t 24 or rnc~re o f the 48 locations and thc number of trials and loca- tions in which they wcrc resistant a re given in Table I. Fourteen kabuli ge r~nplasm lines, 3 1 breeding lincs and two desi germplasm lines wore tested a t 24 or morc locat,ions and 20 of' these wcrc? resistant a t 50% or more 1oc:atir)ns and 35 in 50C% or more tests . Eighteen lines including I1,C 72, -182, -201. -202, -2:380, -2956, -3279, -3868, -3870, -4421, FLIP 82-191C, -8:3-46C, -83- 49C, -83-72C, -83-97C, -84-85C, -84-93C, and IC,C 2932 showed resistance in 502 or nlor-e of'the locat,ions, and can be considered with multi- location resistance. Tho kabuli germplasm lines, II,C 72 and II,C 202, showr?d rc.sistance at. thc maximum number of locations (31 and :12 out of 47 locations, respectivc~ly 1. These two lines also had the highest fi-equency of' resistance (73% ) .

Discussion As the chickpea lines evaluat.ed for blight

resistance a t multilocations included kabuli and desi germplasm accessions and newly bred kahu- li lines from ICARDA, i t provided a n opportunity to study their comparative performance against blight. The kabuli accessions performed well

across the locations for blight resistance ( 1 0 out of thc 31 accessions tested showed multilocation resistance) followed by the newly bred lines ( 7 out of120) and desi germplasm accessions ( 1 out of 40). These results further support the earlicr view tha t the kabuli gcrmplasm has higher resi- stance to Ascochyta blight than the desi gcrm- plasm (Heddy and Singh, 7 984).

Thr. rc:action of the lines varied greatly among locations (Table T I ). The populations of A. rabtc,i from chakwal and Faisalabad in Pakistan, Giza in Eg:ypt, Tunis in Tunisia, Sidi Be1 Abbes in Alger~a, and Dar Bouazza in Morocco appr?ared to be highly virulent as none of the lines tested were

resistant. Only a few lincs were resistant or tolerant against the isolates of the blight fungus a t Eskisehir in Turkey, Islamabad in Pakistan, Larissa in Greece, Marow in Jordan, Tarnab in Pakistan and Badajoz in Spain. At remaining locations, the number of lines resistant was larger.

Though inoculum level, temperature and relative humidity could have played a role in thc largc variation observed in t,he reaction of the lines to the disease across locations and seasons. the variation in the blight ~ a t h o z e n also contributed to it. Based on th-e rGactioG of six lines, ILC 72, ILC 202, ILC 2956, II,C 3279, ILC 3868, and ILC, 4421, which were tested a t most

TAI%I.F: IV. - Origin. pedigree and some morpho-agrononlic characters of chickpea kabuli iILC) and desi (ICC) gemplasm accessions and kabuli breeding lines (FLIP) with multi-location resistance to Ascoch.yta blight. TAHF~I,IA 1V. - Origzrzf. ~Iherogcnc!aLogico c, qunlchc. crrrczffere n~orfo-a.gronornico digc~rrrzo~pLa.sma di Cccc "kahu,Zi" t T T d C ) c "dc'si" IIC,'C,') e di linrc di inr.rc)c.i "habzrli " (FLIP) con rc.sistcrzzn rnnnifi~sfan frsi in n7oCti am hienti rxIi b?ztrr~crz~si .

I1,C 7%

I I X : I H2

Il.<. 201

T1.C' '202

IlA' 2:38O

T T ,C 2!).5ii

11A: :5279

IT.(-' :1x<ix

112<' :1x70

1LC' 4421

FI>II' 82- I 9 I i-

FLIP 83-46C

FI.IP X:3-49i'

ls'Llk' 8:+-72C>

F I .TI' 8:3-$37C

lq'L1k' 84-R5<'

F1,TT' 84-9:5C:

ICC' 3992

C;<.r-rnpl$~srr~ ncceahLon~ Vl .11 ' N C I , . ...- --

l><>l 4

T e r l l r r ~ t k ~ t r l s k l l 03 1

VYK :3Z

Wfi 32

P 9655

k 1481

Stenc,) I

Plcrvdl\ 8

S~nnl.'rwo :I

-

1L.C' 191 x I1.C' 496

ILC 72 x ILC 215

TI,C :327M Y J J , C 1 1 O H

11,C' 72 x ILC' 215

II,C'72x 11,<'21.5

l1.C. 72 x lI2C3 215

ILC 72 x IL<' 215

P-4630

L1 SSIt

C-SSR

L75SR

L'SSK

LJSSR

LJSSli

USSR

Liulg . ,r I , ,

Hulgnr ):a

LJSSIt

I < ' m I > A

TC'ARDA

I<'AKIDA

I C'AHYA

I C.Al%I>A

IC'ARI >A

1C'NiIIA

I r a n

I s < ~ ~ ~ m Y v ~ Or~gir,

SF. " 28

S I C 20

SS 26

SE 28

S S 2 0

S E 30

SE: 28

S S 26

SE 23

S S 1 $3

.s E 3 1

SE .1:1

S E 30

SE 34

S E 33

SI.: .3 6

SIC 35

SS 1 0

PI.,, ' I'en

Owl

Pen

P e a

PC&

P e n

Pca

T'e;,

Pya

Owl

Owl

Owl

Owl

O w 1

O w l

Owl

Angu1t.r

Orange

Yellow

Orange

Orange

Orangc

Orange

Orange

Yellow

Yellow

Yellow

Y ~ l l o w

F3e1ge

H e > g e

Orange

Orange

Oranye

Orangc

Black

L)IIYS LC, , ,

lcz I SF: = Scmi-t-rrct, SS - Srrrll-sprradlny. (1 , 1 I'cv t u n r i owl-shaped crcds nrc ctnssitird :>* k & i t ) u I t . and L L I I ~ L I I I I T ~ C S I

<> 5

Seed Day- L C ,

n t y .

Sr-cd col,,ur

100- t t n ~ h t Grcvwtlr cccd

I C T T I I h i l t l ~ t w1~1zht ( g l

-- - ~~

locations the 48 locations could be categorised into 13 groups (Table 111). There was nrr relation between the reaction of t h e lines a t a location and i ts geographic distribution. Fcrr example the reactions a t Faisalabad in Pakistan and Tunis in Tunisia were categorised into the same group (Table I11 1.

These lines were exposed to natural popula- tions of A. rahie i a t different locations. The populations a re different in space and can also change with time. The wmponcnts of pathogen populations could interact (cross protection) and the host pathogen system acts under diverse environmental conditions that, can affect dif- ferently the response of each chickpea genrrtype.

The present evaluation clearly brings out the fjct tha t a t present there a r e no germplasm rrr breeding lines with resistance to all thr- prcvai- ling populations ofA. rah i r i indicating the need fbr continued efforts to identify or develop bcttcr sources of resistance. Variability in A. ra hiei h a s been reported from most of the important chick- pea growing ctruntries such as India, Pakistan. Turkey, and Syria (Acikgoz, 1 9 8 3 ; Qureshi, 1986; Keddy and Kabbabeh, 198.5; Vir and Grewal, 1974: Singh, 1990). However, therc is a need for a more comprchcnsivc study under controlled conditions involving the isolates ofA. r a h i ~ i from all the chickpea growing countries t,o properly characterize the variability prescnt in the Sun- gus. Such inf'ormation is essential for developing a suitable breeding strategy. Furthermrrre, in absence of lines resistant across the locations, i t is suggested trr initiate a projcxt to pyramid gcncs for rcsistancc from the lines resistant among the 13 groups.

All the kabuli germplasm accessions with multi-location resistance originated either from the 1T.S.S.R. or Bulgaria (Table IV). They are all late matur ing (177-185 days to maturit,y), tall (50-75 crn plant canopy height), semi-erect or semi-spreading type with small (18.9-29.8 g 1 0 0 - sccd weight), and pea-shaped seed. The single desi germplasm accc:ssic,n t h a t showed multi- location resistance originated from 1 ran and had a black seed coat colour. The present st,udy helped in identifying some breeding lines of kabuli type with large, rann-head-shaped and beige-coloured seeds. The 1 OO-seed weight of the newly bred ( F L I P ) lines ranged fi-om C30.4 to 36.6 g with an average of 33.2 g compared to 24.6 g of' t h e germplasm accessions. These lincs will be easily accepted by the farmers and consumers in countries growing t h e kabuli type chickpea. Five of the seven newly developed FLIP lines t h a t showed multi-location resistance originated from ILC 72 a s one of t h e parents, indicating the JI,C 72 not only h a s multi-location resistance but also is a good general combiner.

Acknowledgements Wc thank Mr. G. Khalaf' for assistance in

seed preparation of' t he nursery and to Mr. S. Hajjar for compilation of results. We express our sincere grati tude to cooperators in 20 countries for evaluating chickpea lines for resistance to Ascor-h-vtn hlight.

Literature cited A<.lli<:<,v N.. 1 H H : I . An ~ n v c s t i g n l i < , n the s o ~ ~ r r ~ ~ s of'rc-sisturlce

a n d i n h c r ~ t a r r c e o f r-rsist,+~nce t o A.irorhyt*t hlight in C:htck- pc~;t.fl;er~B~iI~r~Z~r~n~Am.sfc~,~r,~o E,r,s/i /r,*u > 7 r ~ y r r r l c r r - r , Nr, 29 iIr> 'I'urkist>I.

F ~ A L V I ' I N (: <' a n d K.D. Slh<:tl. I 9 8 4 Prusprc tc nnd p<,tt.rltlal US wlr1tc.r. ur,wi n g c r l ' chi<.kpc.;t r r t t h e Mrdi l c , t - r . i x r l < , c l n r.<,yj<,n. T'ogrb 7- l f i . 777 - Ascc,ch).ta blight a r ~ d w ~ r l t e r s o w i n c c , l rh ickpt~ i r s I M <' . S,~xr. N A an<l K H SIN< . I , . c.ditors 1. M : ~ t . t i ~ ~ u s iX~h~,l 'fA>~-. W. J u n k T 'u l~ l i sh~~rs . T h c Iiagur. 'l'hr N<.Lt>t,r- l a n d s .

NI..,, Y.I.. a n d M.V. Rr i l r r~ . 1987. C7hirkpea dis',ascs nnd t h r i r c<rntrr,l. f'itg<,s 233-279. 777 : The. <:htr.kpe>r 1M.C SIYI . :N~ a n d K.U. R I V ~ : I ~ . rd i t r ,~-s ) C:Akl Ir~tc.rr i~l t ir,nal. W:>llingfc,r'd. <~)x<>r> O x 10X WE:. L J . K .

NI. .NG Y Id . . \' K. SIII . : ,~ . , ~ a n d S.13 S I ~ , \ I : ~ I , \ . 1989 A world list c ~ J ' c . t ~ ~ r k p ~ a l C , < . c , , . < , r r < , f , , , , , ? n I, I a n d p ~ g < ~ , > n j ~ ~ ; ~ I C ' c < , c r ? ~ r i 5

< ' c y c z , r t L. I SI,. I p ; ~ t hc,gcns IC'1IISArJ' J . r ~ ~ , - u n ~ t . s Pit1 h<,lug.> Prop-r-s R<-pc,r.L 7. pp . 1 9

QI~HI..HI S . H . , 1986 . I ' i~ihogenir . t , rhi~vi<,ur . <,rArcr,c.hytrr r - t r h r < , ~ ~sc , la tcs d ~ f f c r ~ n t n l l t i v a r . ~ < , f ' chlckpca in P n k ~ s t i l n Pagc.3 4:1-46. I?, Asr.,,c.hyta bl lght r r s i s t :+nr t~ I n chick- pea 1M.H. 1 1 + 1 ( ~ 1 1 1 \ 1 . U.A. MI 11, and M V. Iti,:t)l~>. ~ . d ~ t o t . i l I('AK1IA. Alc,ppr,. S y r i a .

Rk..~,r,\ M V. atrld K.H. S I N < : I I , 1984. l.:vitlui%t~~,n I){- uwrld col- lc.ctic,rl of cI>~ckpen g<.rrnpl;~sn, n t t c s s i o n s fhr ~ - c ~ s i s t s l ~ ~ c c . t<, Ascor.t~.yta l>l ichi . P/ . I ) , . - . 68, $ 3 0 ( ~ ) - 9 0 1

R I . T , I ~ M V. a n d S. KAI<I<,\I<I.:IL. 1 9 8 5 . I'itthogerl v:rrlahilitv in A.s<.r,<.lrz,/c~ r-of,,',i 1 7 , Svri;, ; ~ n d I,et>;lt>r,n. r'hv/<,z,rrl/, n~ccfit.. 24. 265-2fG

1<1.:111>\- M.V. rind K U . SIK<:I~ . 1 $ + 9 0 M a ~ ~ ~ ~ g e r n c ~ ~ i of Asr<)- c h y t a t , I~ght < , fch lckprn thrr ,ugh ~nl.c.grat~<,r, rrl'host ~rlilnt t o l r r : ~ n c c arid f o l ~ n r s p r : ~ ~ i l l g o f ' c h l ~ r ~ ~ t h ~ l ~ n ~ l 711d1a1l ?/

f ~ / < , , , f F ' r < , f , 7h'. f?S-G<>. SIN<;$L C;.. I$)!+O I d ~ ~ n L i l i c i ~ t i ~ r ~ a n d d r s ~ g ~ t ~ ~ t l o r ~ 01' p h ~ ~ 1 0 1 ~ ~ ~ c

rnc<,s <>l 'A . s<~ ,< - / z , v /< , r < , f > , ~ ~ I ~ I I n c i ~ ; ~ . I r z<? t< , , , F'Jz,\,?,>pc~/l~. 4:i. 48-52

S~ur; ir K.U., 1987 (:h><.kpt.a Urcc.ding. P a c r s 127-l t i2 I ? , : 'rhc. C:hirkj,r:a tM <'. Snxi, :~n a n d K . H S I N < : ~ I , t.d~t.or.sl. (CAB I r a - ternat ionil l . W ~ ~ l l l n g f o r d . O x < , r l O x 1 0 8 WE, 1J.K.

S , N < : H I< 13, G . C . H n \ v ~ . ~ r \ . Y.I. . NVKP. a n d M.V Rr.:r,~,x-. I 9 8 1 R e ~ ~ s L a n c r In C h i c k p e a s L o Asc~,<. / t , s t r , r . r , h r r . r j ' l r ~ r t l U , s . . 6.5. 586-5H7

SINC:H K.R. a n d M.V. H ~ : I > I ) Y , 1 9 9 0 . T ' H ~ ~ , < T I ~ s 01'1.<.s~str?nre nncl ~ u s c c p t i t ) i l i t y to races o f - A . s ~ - ~ ~ . / z . y / ~ r ~ C Z ~ Z C I Rm<>llg g t , r n ~ - pl;tsrr> acci.ssnr,ns itnil brcwding I ~ n < . s r , f ch~cky,c.;i $'I. I > r s . 74, 127-129.

Slh<;11 K.U. a n d M.V. RI..I,I,Y. 1 9 9 1 Advitrlct,s I r l disc;t*c. vr.- sIsL;%ncc h r e r d i n g i n ct i ickpeii .Ac/r~rt~~<.. & r o r t . . -15. 191 -222.

S IN<: I I K.U.. M.V. RI..I)I>Y a n d Y . L NISNL;. 1984. Internnti<,n; l l

In A.s< . r , c / t y l~ rohrrr the causa l orgi~nisrn of' $ram hliyht . I~z.rlirrn Plz.ytnpath., 97, 255-260.