INTRODUCTION

Although area under potato in the hills isless than 10% of the total area under potato inthe country, yet it is an important part ofpotato supply chain providing fresh potatoesat a time when they are not available in theplains. Amongst all the biotic and abioticfactors that limit potato production in thehills, late blight disease caused by Phytophthorainfestans is the most important limiting factorrestricting potato productivity to belownational average (6).

The late blight resistance breedingprogramme in India has led to thedevelopment and release of several resistantvarieties during 1963-1971 (2, 7). These varietiesincluding popular cv. Kufri Jyoti, possessingmajor R-genes derived from S. demissum,became susceptible to late blight in due courseof time owing to the development of matchingvirulences in the pathogen. Thus varietiesnamely, Kufri Giriraj (2) and Kufri Shailja (5)with horizontal resistance derived from S.andigena were developed and released for

KUFRI HIMALINI: A HIGH YIELDING, LATEBLIGHT RESISTANT POTATO VARIETY SUITABLE

FOR CULTIVATION IN INDIAN HILLST.A. Joseph1, B.P. Singh2, S.K. Kaushik3, Vinay Bhardwaj, S.K. Pandey3, S.V. Singh2,

J. Gopal, P.H. Singh3 and V.K. Gupta4

ABSTRACT : Kufri Himalini is a medium maturing potato variety suitable for cultivation in Indian hills. This variety can alsobe grown in north-central plains. It has a high level of resistance to late blight in foliage and moderate resistance in the tubers.It has medium sized, oval-oblong, white tubers with pale yellow flesh and excellent cooking quality. It yields higher thanvarieties Kufri Jyoti, Kufri Giriraj and Kufri Shailja, and also has better keeping quality. The cultivation of this variety mayprovide stability to potato cultivation in the hills where late blight disease is a recurring feature.

cultivation in the hills in 1998 and 2005,respectively.

The continued efforts to develop late blightresistant varieties led to selection of cloneSM/91-1515 that was released forcommercial cultivation under the name KufriHimalini in 2005. This paper describes thesalient features of this variety.

PEDIGREE

Kufri Himalini (SM/91-1515) is a selection(Fig. 1) from progeny of the cross I-1062 (CP2000) x bulk pollen (CP 2132, CP 2183, CP2175 and Kufri Pukhraj). The female parent I-1062 received from Mexico has white, oblongtubers with shallow eyes and mediummaturity. It also possesses late blight resistanceboth in foliage as well as in the tubers,immunity to wart and moderate resistance toPLRV (3). Although bulk pollen was used forattempting this cross but the clone SM/91-1515 could have originated from fertilizationwith one male parent only. Microsatelliteanalysis with multicopy markers namely,STIIKA, STINHW1, STU6SNRN and STM007

1 Central Potato Research Station, Muthorai-643 003, Tamil Nadu, India.2 Central Potato Research Institute Campus, Modipuram-250 110, Uttar Pradesh, India.3 Central Potato Research Institute, Shimla-171 001, Himachal Pradesh, India.4 Central Potato Research Station, Shillong-793 009, Meghalaya, India.

Potato J. 34 (3 - 4): 153-158, 2007

154

T.A. Joseph et al.

showed that CP 2132 (Tollocan) was the mostlikely paternal parent of this hybrid(unpublished). Tollocan was received fromPeru and possesses white, oblong tubers withmedium deep eyes and creamy flesh. It is anearly maturing genotype having moderateresistance to late blight. This genotype is alsoone of the parents of variety Jacqueline Leeknown to have strong foliar resistance to theUS-8 genotype of P. infestans which is highlypathogenic and its isolates are reported toovercome all known R-genes resistance (1).

SELECTION PROCEDURE

The cross was made in 1991 at the CentralPotato Research Station, Kufri (32N 77E,2501 m amsl). The seedling generation wasgrown in 1992 and screened under controlledenvironment at Shimla against the complexraces of P. infestans as per standard procedure(8). The selected clones were subjected to earlygeneration selections (F

1C

1-F

1C

4) and seed

multiplication at CPRS, Kufri. In the followingyears, SM/91-1515 was tested in replicatedyield trials (F

1C

5-F

1C

7) and under natural late

blight epiphytotic conditions at Kufri usingKufri Jyoti and Kufri Giriraj as controls. In2000, the hybrid was introduced in All IndiaCoordinated Research Project (Potato) formultilocation trials at hill centres. The hybridwas also evaluated in the north-western plainsat the Central Potato Research InstituteCampus, Modipuram (29N, 76E, 222 m amsl)during 2003 and 2004 for testing its

adaptability under short days of autumn cropand irrigated conditions.

The hybrid was recommended for releasein the 25th group meeting of potato workers ofAICRP (Potato) held at the Maharana PartapUniversity of Agriculture and Technology,Udaipur (Rajasthan) during 8-10 September2005 for cultivation in north-western andnorth-eastern hills of the country. It was finallyreleased and notified as variety KufriHimalini in 2006 by the Central Sub-Committee on Crop Standards, Notificationand Release of Varieties of Horticultural Crops,Department of Agriculture and Co-operation,Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India,New Delhi.

VARIETAL DESCRIPTION (Fig. 2)

Morphology

Habit Medium-tall, semi-erect, semi-compact, vigorous.

Stem Many, green with purple colour atbase, wings feebly developed.

Leaf Intermediate, dark green, leafletwidth medium, coalescence absent,glossy, folioles many, rachis green.

Flower Flowering profuse, floral stalkgreen, floral stalk-pedicelarticulation clearly visible andlocated above the middle, calyxgreen, corolla light purple andsemi-stellate, anthers yellow andnormally developed, pollen fertilityhigh, style longer than stamen andstigma round.

Tuber Size medium, oval-oblong, white,smooth, eyes shallow, normaleyebrows, flesh pale yellow.

Sprout Predominantly purple, white-greenat apex, shape conical, pubescenceof base high and tip closed.

Fig. 1. Pedigree of Kufri Himalini

CP 2000 (I-1062)x

Bulk PollenCP 2132 (Tollocan)CP 2175 (LT-5)CP 2183 (I-1039)Kufri Pukhraj

SM/91-1515(Kufri Himalini)

155

Kufri Himalini

Other attributes

Maturity Medium (110-120 days)

Specific 1.066gravity

Tuber dry 18.5 percent.matter

Keeping Good, better than Kufri Giriraj.quality Dormancy medium 10-11 weeks.

Cooking Good, like Kufri Jyoti, cooks wellquality in 30 min, floury texture, mild

flavour, free from after-cookingdiscolouration.

YIELD PERFORMANCE

In the field trials conducted at Kufri during1997-1999 (Table 1), Kufri Himalini yieldedon an average 395 q/ha compared to 267 and319 q/ha by the control varieties Kufri Jyotiand Kufri Giriraj, respectively. Its yield washigher than that of Kufri Jyoti by nearly 48%.

The yield performance of Kufri Himaliniat different locations in the AICRP (Potato)hill centres (120 days crop duration, rainfedcrop) is presented in Tables 2 and 3. KufriHimalini yielded significantly higher than therespective best controls (Table 2) at different

Flower Leaf Sprout

Crop Tubers

Fig. 2. Morphological features of Kufri Himalini

156

T.A. Joseph et al.

locations over the years. However, percentincrease over the controls varied from locationto location. The average of four years showedthat Kufri Himalini yielded about 56% higherthan Kufri Jyoti, about 15% higher than KufriGiriraj and about 16% higher than Kufri Shailjaat various locations (Table 3). On an average,Kufri Himalini could yield 270-290 q/ha undernormal conditions of crop growth in the hills.In sub-tropical plains at Modipuram, KufriHimalini produced about 10% higher yield

Table 1. Performance of Kufri Himalini at Kufri beforeintroduction into AICRP (P)

Hybrid/ Yield (q/ha) Late blightControl score*

1997 1998 1999 Aver- (meanage over

years)

Kufri Himalini 537 269 379 395 6.3Kufri Jyoti 368 177 257 267 1.7Kufri Giriraj - 288 351 319 6.0CD (P 0.05) 37 48 38

*Late blight score on 1-9 scale, 1 = susceptible, 9 = highlyresistant.

Table 2. Year-wise yield performance of Kufri Himalini in AICRP (P) trials in hills

Year Hybrid/best control Yield (q/ha)

Kufri Ooty Ranichauri Shillong

2002-03 Kufri Himalini 334 394 177 107Best Control* 221 (S) 546 (G) 202 (S) 140 (G)CD (P 0.05) 61 31 16 27

2003-04 Kufri Himalini 270 430 203 -Best Control 279 (S) 436 (S) 196 (S) -CD (P 0.05) 35 18 29 -

2004-05 Kufri Himalini 401 168 240 286Best Control 349 (G) 123 (G) 183 (S) 242 (J)CD (P 0.05) 50 17 25 59

2005-06 Kufri Himalini 143 313 - 337Best Control 103 (J) 244 (G) - 260 (J)CD (P 0.05) 26 16 - 33

*Best Control, J = Kufri Jyoti, G = Kufri Giriraj and S = Kufri Shailja.

Table 3. Mean performance of Kufri Himalini for yield and late blight score over years (2002-03 to 2005-06) in AICRP (P) trialsin hills

Hybrid/ Control Yield (q/ha) Late blight score*

Kufri Ooty Ranichauri Shillong Mean Kufri Ooty Ranichauri Shillong Mean

Kufri Himalini 287 326 206 243 266 6.3 5.5 4.7 4.3 5.2Kufri Jyoti 202 106 170 201 170 1.0 1.5 4.7 1.0 2.0Kufri Giriraj 211 331 177 200 230 5.2 5.5 5.0 1.7 4.3Kufri Shailja 231 325 194 166 229 5.2 5.2 4.3 1.7 4.1

*Late blight score on 1-9 scale, 1 = susceptible, 9 = highly resistant.

Table 4. Yield performance (q/ha) of Kufri Himalini in plainsat Modipuram

Hybrid/Control Yield (q/ha)

2003-04 2004-05 Mean

Kufri Himalini 398 398 398Kufri Jyoti 373 349 361Kufri Giriraj 365 361 363Kufri Bahar - 309 309CD (P 0.05) 42 46

than the controls Kufri Jyoti and Kufri Giriraj(Table 4) and about 28% higher yield than thelate blight susceptible variety Kufri Baharduring 2004-05.

DRY MATTER PRODUCTION

Kufri Himalini produced higher dry matter(18.5%) than the control Kufri Jyoti (17.0%)

157

Kufri Himalini

and was at par with Kufri Giriraj (18.4%). Therecently released cultivar Kufri Shailjaproduced the highest dry matter (19.1%) inthese multi-location trials.

LATE BLIGHT RESISTANCE

Kufri Himalini showed higher level ofresistance to late blight compared to KufriJyoti, Kufri Giriraj and Kufri Shailja (Table 3).The latter varieties had derived resistance fromS. andigena. In Kufri Himalini, cv. Tollocanwas used as one of the male parents of bulkedpollen. Tollocan was found to have durableresistance to late blight between 1960 and1999 (4). The authors also reported that thefield resistance in this cultivar is possiblyintrogressed from Mexican varieties, such asAmarilla de Puebla and Leona in additionto S. demissum. In the laboratory, KufriHimalini was found to have significantly highresistance to late blight (lesion area 1.27 cm2)than Kufri Jyoti (lesion area 5.85 cm2) bydetached leaf method.

The results of whole tuber method revealedthat the fungus was not able to penetrate andcause infection in tubers of Kufri Himalini,whereas tubers of Kufri Jyoti showedsusceptible reaction (lesion area 6.15 cm2).However, in tuber slice method, Kufri Himalinishowed moderate resistance (lesion area 5.33cm2 compared to 9.50 cm2 in Kufri Jyoti).

KEEPING QUALITY

The storage behaviour of Kufri Himaliniwas studied at room temperature immediatelyafter harvest upto 120 days duration atModipuram. Kufri Himalini had dormancyduration equal to that of Kufri Jyoti (83 days)but longer than those of Kufri Giriraj (68days) and Kufri Shailja (75 days). The totalweight loss in Kufri Himalini after 120 days ofstorage was lower (15.17%) than all the threecontrols, Kufri Jyoti (16.68%), Kufri Giriraj(24.01%) and Kufri Shailja (19.50%).

It is evident from these results that KufriHimalini is a high yielding, late blight resistantvariety having acceptable tuber characters withgood tuber dry matter and better keepingquality than cultivars Kufri Jyoti, Kufri Girirajand Kufri Shailja. It can be grown both in thehills and plains. The cultivation of this varietywill supplement the other varieties incombating late blight disease more effectivelyas these carry resistance genes from differentsources thereby limiting single or few races toattack the crop in one season.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Our sincere thanks are due to the Director,Project Coordinator, AICRP (P), and Head,Central Potato Research Station, Kufri forproviding facilities and encouragement duringthe course of development of this variety.Thanks are also due to the scientists ofcoordinated centres for facilities and help inevaluation.

LITERATURE CITED

1. Douches, D.S., K. Jastrzebski, J. Coombs, W.W. Kirk,K.J. Felcher, R. Hammerschmidt and R.W. Chase.2001. Jacqueline Lee: A late blight resistant tablestockvariety. Amer. J. Potato Res. 78: 413-19.

2. Gaur, P.C., P.S. Naik, S.K. Kaushik and S.K.Chakrabarti. 1999. Indian Potato Varieties. TechnicalBulletin No. 51. Central Potato Research Institute,Shimla, India. 38 p.

3. Gopal, J., R.K. Birhman and C.L. Khushu. 1992.Inventory of Potato Germplasm (Group Tuberosum)Collection. Technical Bulletin No. 36. Central PotatoResearch Institute, Shimla, India. 47 p.

4. Grunwald, N.J., M.H. Cadena, O.A.R. Covarrubias,A.P. Rivera, J.S. Niederhauser and W.E. Fry. 2002.Potato cultivars from the Mexican nationalprogramme: Sources and durability of resistanceagainst late blight. Phytopathology 92: 688-93.

5. Joseph, T.A., S.K. Kaushik, B.P. Singh, VinayBhardwaj, P.H. Singh, S.K. Pandey, S.M. PaulKhurana and Jai Gopal. 2006. Kufri Shailja: A lateblight resistant potato variety for Indian hills. PotatoJournal 33: 99-103.

158

T.A. Joseph et al.

6. Singh, B.P., S.K. Kaushik, P.H. Singh and T.A.Joseph. 2003. Potato late blight and its management.Indian Farming 53: 19-23.

7. Singh, B.P., T.A. Joseph and S.K. Kaushik. 1999.Breeding for disease resistance. In: Potato Late Blightin India. Tech. Bull. No. 27 (revised), pp. 55-69.Central Potato Research Institute, Shimla, India.

8. Singh, B.P., T.A. Joseph, S. Roy, H.C. Sharma andG.S. Shekhawat. 1997. Reliability of seedling test forselection of field resistance to late blight in potatogenotypes. Indian Phytopath. 50: 382-86.

MS Received: 11-07-2006