Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T12:39:04.215Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Benefits of participatory plant breeding (PPB) as exemplified by the first-ever officially released PPB-bred sweet potato cultivar

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2011

R. W. GIBSON ,
I. MPEMBE  and
R. O. M. MWANGA
R. W. GIBSON*
Affiliation:
Natural Resources Institute (NRI), University of Greenwich, Central Avenue, Chatham Maritime, Kent, ME4 4TB, UK
I. MPEMBE
Affiliation:
National Crops Resources Research Institute (NaCRRI), P.O. Box 7084, Kampala, Uganda
R. O. M. MWANGA
Affiliation:
National Crops Resources Research Institute (NaCRRI), P.O. Box 7084, Kampala, Uganda
*
*To whom all correspondence should be addressed. Email: r.w.gibson@gre.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

NASPOT 11 is a recently released sweet potato cultivar, bred by participatory plant breeding (PPB) in Uganda. It is already grown extensively by farmers who call it Tomulabula. In on-farm and on-station yield trials, Tomulabula yielded as well as the researcher-bred variety NASPOT 1 and sometimes more than the local landraces Dimbuka and New Kawogo, which have also been released. Farmers were asked to what extent Tomulabula, NASPOT 1 (the most popular station-bred cultivar in Uganda) and the local indigenously bred cultivar they were currently growing satisfied 52 attributes previously identified by farmers as beneficial in sweet potato. Those cultivars whose breeding involved farmers (Tomulabula and the local cultivar) were perceived mostly to satisfy a broad range of attributes (i.e. had few ‘Very Bad’ scores) while those which involved researchers (Tomulabula and NASPOT 1) were the most frequently rated as ‘Very Good’ for specific attributes. Instances were observed and accounts given of how Tomulabula is sold at a premium and how it had improved farmers’ lives. These outcomes are attributed to PPB combining the strengths of farmers and researchers. The involvement of the Ugandan National Sweetpotato Program (UNSP) ensures that planting material will be conserved and also available in adequate amounts for official distribution.

Type
Crops and Soils
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 149 , Issue 5 , October 2011 , pp. 625 - 632
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Almekinders, C. J. M., Thiele, G. & Danial, D. L. (2007). Can cultivars from participatory plant breeding improve seed provision to small-scale farmers. Euphytica 153, 363–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baidu-Forson, J. (1997). On-station farmers participatory varietal evaluation: a strategy for client-oriented breeding. Experimental Agriculture 33, 43–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banziger, M. & Cooper, M. (2001). Breeding for low input conditions and consequences for participatory plant breeding: examples from tropical maize and wheat. Euphytica 122, 503–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bashaasha, B., Mwanga, R. O. M., Ocitti P'obwoya, C. & Ewell, P. T. (1995). Sweetpotato in the Farming and Food Systems of Uganda: a Farm Survey Report. Nairobi, Kenya & Kampala, Uganda: International Potato Center & National Agricultural Research Organisation.Google Scholar
Belay, G. (2009). Does client-oriented plant breeding work? CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources 4, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bishaw, Z. & Turner, M. (2008). Linking participatory plant breeding to the seed supply system. Euphytica 163, 31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brennan, J. P. & Morris, M. L. (2001). Economic issues in assessing the role of physiology in wheat breeding programs. In Application of Physiology in Wheat Breeding (Eds Reynolds, M. P., Ortis-Monasterio, J. I. & McNab, A.), pp. 78–86. Mexico: CIMMYT.Google Scholar
Ceccarelli, S. (1994). Specific adaptation and breeding for marginal conditions. Euphytica 77, 205–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ceccarelli, S., Grando, S., Maatougui, M., Michael, M., Slash, M., Haghparast, R., Rahmanian, M., Taheri, A., Al-Yassin, A., Benbelkacem, A., Labdi, M., Mimoun, H. & Nachit, M. (2010). Plant breeding and climate changes. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 148, 627–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ceccarelli, S., Grando, S., Singh, M., Michael, M., Shikho, A., Al Issa, M., Al Saleh, A., Kaleonjy, G., Al Ghanem, S. M., Al Hassan, A. L., Dalla, H., Basha, S. & Basha, T. (2003). A methodological study on participatory barley breeding. II. Response to selection. Euphytica 133, 185–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawson, J. C., Murphy, K. M. & Jones, S. S. (2008). Decentralized selection and participatory approaches in plant breeding for low-input systems. Euphytica 160, 143–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Defoer, T., Kamara, A. & De Groote, H. (1997). Gender and variety selection: farmers’ assessment of local maize varieties in southern Mali. African Crop Science Journal 5, 65–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, R. W., Byamukama, E., Mpembe, I., Kayongo, J. & Mwanga, R. O. M. (2008). Working with farmer groups in Uganda to develop new sweet potato cultivars: decentralisation and building on traditional approaches. Euphytica 159, 217–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, R. W., Jeremiah, S. C., Aritua, V., Msabaha, R. P., Mpembe, I. & Ndunguru, J. (2000). Sweet potato virus disease in Sub-Saharan Africa: evidence that neglect of seedlings in the traditional farming system hinders the development of superior resistant landraces. Journal of Phytopathology 148, 441–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haugerud, A. & Collinson, M. P. (1990). Plants, genes and people: improving the relevance of plant breeding in Africa. Experimental Agriculture 26, 341–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joshi, K. D., Sthapit, B. R. & Witcombe, J. R. (2001). How narrowly adapted are the products of decentralised breeding? The spread of rice varieties from a participatory plant breeding programme in Nepal. Euphytica 122, 589–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manu-Aduening, J. A., Lamboll, R. I., Ampong Mensah, G., Lamptey, J. N., Moses, E., Dankyi, A. A. & Gibson, R. W. (2006). Development of superior cassava cultivars in Ghana by farmers and scientists: the process adopted, outcomes and contributions and changed roles of different stakeholders. Euphytica 150, 47–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGuire, S., Manicad, G. & Sperling, L. (2003). Technical and Institutional Issues in Participatory Plant Breeding – Done from a Perspective of Farmer Plant Breeding. A Global Analysis of Issues and Current Experience. PPB Monograph No 2. Columbia: Centro International de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT).Google Scholar
McGuire, S. J. (2008). Path-dependency in plant breeding: challenges facing participatory reforms in the Ethiopian Sorghum Improvement Program. Agricultural Systems 96, 139–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mwanga, R. O. M., Kigozi, B., Namakula, J., Mpembe, I., Niringiye, C., Tumwegamire, S., Gibson, R. W. & Yencho, G. C. (2010). Submission to the Variety Release Committee for Release of Sweetpotato Varieties 2009. Uganda: National Agricultural Research Organization (NARO).Google Scholar
Mwanga, R. O. M., Odongo, B., Turyamureeba, G., Alajo, A., Yencho, G. C., Gibson, R. W., Smit, N. E. J. M. & Carey, E. E. (2003). Release of six sweetpotato cultivars (‘NASPOT 1’ to ‘NASPOT 6’) in Uganda. Hortscience 38, 475–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pandey, S. & Rajatasereekul, S. (1999). Economics of plant breeding: the value of shorter breeding cycles for rice in Northeast Thailand. Field Crops Research 64, 187–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperling, L., Loevinsohn, M. E. & Ntabomvura, B. (1993). Rethinking the farmer's role in plant breeding: local bean experts and on-station selection in Rwanda. Experimental Agriculture 29, 509–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weltzien, E., Smith, M. E., Meitzner, L. S. & Sperling, L. (2003). Technical and Institutional Issues in Participatory Plant Breeding – from the Perspective of Formal Plant Breeding: a Global Analysis of Issues, Results and Current Experience. CGIAR Systemwide Program on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis for Technology Development and Institutional Innovation. PPB Monograph No 1. Cali, Columbia: Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT).Google Scholar
Witcombe, J. R., Joshi, A. & Goyal, S. N. (2003). Participatory plant breeding in maize: a case study from Gujurat, India. Euphytica 130, 413–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witcombe, J. R., Joshi, K. D., Gyawali, S., Musa, A. M., Johansen, C., Virk, D. S. & Sthapit, B. R. (2005). Participatory plant breeding is better described as highly client-oriented plant breeding. I. Four indicators of client-orientation in plant breeding. Experimental Agriculture 41, 299–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar