reprint yohannes

8/2/2019 Reprint Yohannes

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/reprint-yohannes 1/8

Journal of the

Drylands

The College of Dryland Agriculture and Natural Resources (CoDANR)Mekelle University

P.O.Box 231, Mekelle, EthiopiaTel +251-348-400610, +251-344-409015; Fax 251-04-409304

www.mu.edu.etEmail: [email protected]

Volume 3 Issue 2, December 2010

Reprint

INDEXED BY AFRICAN JOURNALS ONLINE

www.ajol.inf o

http://www.mu.edu.et/

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.ajol.info/




http://www.mu.edu.et/



GUIDELINES FOR AUTHORS

All manuscripts should be presented with 2.5 cm margins and pages numbered on the bottom right hand side. All text, including quotations,references, figure legends, tables and captions, should be 1.5-spaced, with a double carriage return between paragraphs. Do not formatparagraphs with ‘space before’ or ‘space after’. Wherever possible the use of indents and tabs should be avoided.

The title, abstract, text, acknowledgments, references, tables, captions to figures, and figures should each begin on a new page. It is notnecessary to start each section of the text (Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion and Conclusion) on a new page.

Use the heading, subheading, font, and paragraph styles appropriate for the publication you intend to submit your article to. For the Journal,styles are shown in the templates for the article. Here are the main ones:

• TITLE OF DOCUMENT: (cap lock) in 12-Pt Times New RomanHEADING (cap lock) in 12-Pt Times New RomanSubheading (title case) in 12-Pt Times New RomanFirst Paragraph In 12-Pt Times New Roman...

Use bullets (only the rounded black dot) to list points that are complete sentences, as shown throughout this document. Exception:use numbered points if you want to refer subsequently to one or more of the points by number. For example:

o Use a numbered list for items that could stand alone as paragraphs.o Do not try to include two or more paragraphs under one number.o Somewhere in the article you would have to refer to one or more of these numbered points.

Otherwise you would list them with bullets.Italics and Bold

• Use italics for emphasis and bold for strong emphasis. Avoid italic bold , which does not always show up as bold in some browsers.• Use italics in expressions such as the term whatever, and for listing descriptors of a scale.

Put the title of a paper, book, or journal in italics in the body of the text. In the reference list, titles of papers are in normal case. Putheadings in BOLD UPPER CASE.

• Put subheadings in Bold Title Case.• Put sub-subheadings in Plain Title Case.

Reference list

Give page numbers in full (i.e. 566–570, not 566–70). Put the place of publication ahead of the publisher when referring to books. Writeeditions as ‘(2nd ed.)’. Where there is only one Editor use ‘(Ed.)’ but do not use a full stop after ‘(Eds)’. Insert a comma after the publisher'sname followed by pp. before page numbers when referring to books, e.g.:

• Apley A and Solomon L (1982): Apley's System of Orthopaedics and Fractures (6th ed.) London: Butterworth Scientific, pp.306– 307.

Note the use of colons, commas, full stops and abbreviations in the following examples:

• Hockings J (1985): The effect of chest physiotherapy on artificially ventilated patients. Proceedings of the National Conferenceof the Australian Physiotherapy Association. Brisbane, pp. 316–325.

• Leng G, Ernst E and Fowler B (1997): Exercise for intermittent claudication. The Cochrane Library, Issue 2. Oxford: UpdateSoftware.

References to web sites should state when the site was accessed:

• International Committee of Science Journal Editors. Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Science Journals.http://www.icmje.org [Accessed February 6, 2004].

• Use the name/date system in the text. List should be full of details of the publication in a reference list at the end of the article.

SUBMISSION

The corresponding author should retain a copy of these documents.

By mail

Send the original plus three paper copies of the manuscript, a signed Copyright Release form and (for multiple authored manuscripts)Statement of Authorship form to:

The Managing Editor, Journal of the Drylands, College of Dryland Agriculture and Natural Resources, P. O Box 231, Fax 251-04-409304Tel +251-348-400610; Email: [email protected], Mekelle University, Mekelle, Ethiopia

Subscription Rates

Subscription rates for a year (two issues), including airmail area as follows:

Local Foreign

Institution 100 Birr US$ 50Individual 25 Birr (Single issue 15 Birr) US$ 20

All business correspondences about subscriptions, single copies, change of address and claims for missing issues should be sent to theaddress given above.

----------------






Copyright © Journal of the Drylands 2010ISSN 1817-3322

208

JOURNAL OF THE DRYLANDS 3(2): 208-213, 2010

Genotypic and Phenotypic Correlations of Root Yield and other Traits of Orange-

Fleshed Sweet Potatoes [ Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam.]

Yohannes Gedamu1*, Getachew Belay2 and Nigussie Dechassa3

Yohannes Gedamu, Getachew Belay and Nigussie Dechassa. 2010. Genotypic and Phenotypic Correlations of

Root Yield and other Traits of Orange-Fleshed Sweet Potatoes [Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam.]. Journal of theDrylands 3(2): 208-213

Twelve orange-fleshed sweet potato genotypes were evaluated at four environments at Jari and Sirinka in north

and south Wollo zones, respectively, during the 2006/2007 cropping season. The objective of the study was to

estimate the phenotypic and genotypic correlations among different traits. The experiments were laid out in RCBDwith three replications. The plot size used was 4 x 3 m2 with 100 x 30 cm2 inter- and intra-row spacing. Data were

collected on 15 storage root yield and yield-related traits. Genotypic correlation analysis indicated that root

diameter, and average storage root weight were positively but non-significantly associated with total storage rootyield (0.891 and 0.614, respectively). On the contrary, root dry matter content and root length were negatively

correlated with total storage root yield (-0.833 and -0.791, respectively). On the other hand, phenotypic correlation

analysis showed highly significant association between root diameter and storage yield (0.738), and significantcorrelation between average root weight and total storage root yield (0.612). total storage root yield was also

significantly and negatively associated with root length (-0.622) and root dry matter content (-0.681) Therefore,

these yield components should receive due attention during varietal selection.

Key words: genotypic correlation, phenotypic correlation, sweet potato,

1 Department of Dryland Crops and Horticultural Sciences, Mekelle University, Ethiopia.2 Debre Zeit Agricultural Research Center, Debre-Zeit, Ethiopia3 Department of Plant Sciences, Haramaya University, P.O.Box 138, Dire Dawa, Ethiopia*Corresponding author: Email: [email protected] , P.O.Box 1255, Mekelle, Ethiopia

Received July 24, 2010, Accepted November 15, 2010.

INTRODUCTION

Sweet potato [ Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam.],

belongs to the Convolvulaceae family. It is grown

in tropical and sub-tropical regions under

different agro-geographic conditions, but most of it is produced on marginal soils in low-input

subsistence farming systems (Manrique and

Hermann, 2000; Gruneberg et al., 2005).Globally,

sweet potato is the seventh most important food

crop after wheat, rice, maize, potato, barley, and

cassava and fifth on the list of developing

countries’ most valuable food crops (Woolfe,

1992). It is also the second most important

tropical staple root crop, preceded only by

cassava (Gruneberg et al., 2005).

Sweet potato and other root crops are

considered by many to be inferior or “poverty

food” (Purcell et al., 1989); however, being

cultivated in more than 100 countries (Woolfe,1992), with over 135 million metric tonnes

produced annually (Purcell et al., 1989), sweet

potato is an extremely important, versatile, and

underutilized food crop in many parts of the

world including East Africa. One of the major

contributions, which sweet potatoes could make

to the health and welfare of humankind is that of

supplying carotenoid vitamin A precursors.

Vitamin A deficiency is one of the major health

problems, which some developing countries face

at the present time.

Sweet potato is cultivated in Ethiopia

mostly for human consumption and as animal

feed. It ranks third after Enset [Ensete

ventricosum (Welw.) Cheesman] and potato(Solanum tuberosum L.) as the most important

root crops produced in the country. Sweet potato

was produced on 34,027 ha of land throughout the

country in 2002 cropping season; the major

producing region being SNNPR followed by

Oromia (9,558 ha) and Benishangul-Gumuz (248

ha) Regional States (CSA, 2003).

Correlations of characteristics among yield,

its components, and other economical traits is

important for making selection in breeding

program. Correlation coefficient analysis

measures the mutual relationship between various

plant characteristics and determines the

component characters on which selection can bebased for improvement in yield. Knowledge of

interrelationships between different traits is

important in breeding for direct and indirect

selection of characters that are not easily

measured and those with low heritability (Patil et

al., 1981).

Selection for storage root yield, which is a

polygenic trait, often leads to changes in other

characters. Hence knowledge of the relation that

exists between storage root yield and other






209

characters and also interrelationships among

various characters is necessary to be able to

design appropriate selection criteria in sweet

potato breeding (Engida et al., 2006). Therefore,

the objective of this paper was to estimate the

phenotypic and genotypic correlations among

different traits

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Study Area

The trial was carried out at two locations, Sirinka

and Jari. Additional environments within these

two locations were created by applying 80 kg/ha

nitrogen fertilizer to create a total of four

environment (Manrique and Hermann, 2000;

Gruneberg et al., 2005). 11 orange-fleshed sweet

potato genotypes and one standard check (Koka-

12) were used for this experiment

Experimental Design and ProceduresThe trials were laid out in randomized complete

block design (RCBD) with three replications. Plot

size was 4m x 3m with spacing of 1m x 0.3m

between and within the ridges, respectively as

recommended by Ambacha (2000). At eachlocation, the trials with and without N-application

were planted side by side.

Supplemental irrigation was applied in order

to facilitate establishment of planting materials.

Half of the N-fertilizer (80 kg/ha nitrogen) was

applied at planting as side dress and the remaining

was applied one month after planting at the two

environments. Among the four ridges only the

two central ridges (2m x 3m) were used for data

collection. Except for the differences in nitrogen

fertilization all cultural practices were the same

for all the four environments.

Data Collected15 traits were collected during the experiment.

These traits were Root length (cm); Root diameter

(cm); Plant height (cm); Internode length (cm);

Internode diameter (mm); Leaf area (cm2); Above

ground fresh biomass (t/ha); Root dry matter

content (%); Average storage root weight (g);

Marketable storage root number/plot; Marketable

storage root yield (t/ha); Unmarketable storage

root number/plot; Unmarketable storage root

yield (t/ha); Total storage root number/plot and

Total storage root yield (t/ha).

Data Analyses

Phenotypic and genotypic correlation coefficients

between the parameters were calculated from the

variance and covariance components of combined

Analysis of Variance using SPAR statistical

software. The phenotypic correlation coefficients

were tested for their significance with tabulated r-

values at g-2 degrees of freedom, where g is the

number of genotypes (Singh and Chaudhary,

2001). The genotypic correlation coefficient was

tested with the following formula forwarded by

Robertson (1959),

xyg

xy

r

g

SE

r t

where,

xygr SE =22

2

2

1

y x

g

hh

r xy

where,

rgxy = genotypic correlation coefficient

between character x and y

xygr SE : Standard error of genotypic

correlation coefficient between

character x and y2

xh : Heritability for character x

2

yh Heritability for character y

The calculated absolute t-value was tested against

the tabulated t-value at g-2 d.f. for genotypic

correlation coefficients where g is the number of

genotypes.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Correlation of Total Storage Root Yield with

other Yield Component TraitsYield, in general, is a complex polygenic trait and

difficult to improve directly. Estimating its

genotypic and phenotypic correlation coefficients

with yield related traits is important to utilize the

available variability through selection. Root

weight is of primary importance, and thus

associations with it are of particular interest

(Jones, 1970).

Genotypic CorrelationOut of 14 traits, total storage root yield had

significant genotypic correlation with only

unmarketable storage root yield (UNSRY) (Table

1). However, it had positive association with half

of the traits considered in this study and the

positive correlation was observed with most of

root related traits such as root diameter, average

root weight, marketable root number and yield,

unmarketable root number and yield as well as

total root number. The negative association was

observed between total storage root yield and

above ground plant parts and two root relatedtraits (root length and dry matter content of the

root).

As observed in Table 1, total storage root

yield (t/ha) had strong significant positive

association with unmarketable storage root yield

(t/ha). Such strong association between total andunmarketable root yield was also observed by

Tesfaye (2006).

Among non-significant positive associations,

the correlation of total storage root yield with root




210

diameter, marketable storage root yield and

average storage root weight need to be mentioned

here because of their relative large magnitude of

genotypic correlation coefficients. The positive

association between total storage root yield and

root diameter was the largest among the non-

significant positive correlations. Different authors

also indicated the positive association betweenthese traits (Naskar et al, 1986; Chandria and

Tiwaria, 1987; Islam et al., 2002; Engida et al.,

2006; Tesfaye, 2006). However, most of them

identified significant positive association between

these two traits which clashed with the present

observation. The possible reason for such conflict

might be due to the use of either the standard r-

table or t-table suggested by (Robertson, 1959)

for testing the significance of the genotypic

correlation coefficients. They employed the r-

table while we used the t-table for testing

genotypic correlation coefficients. Whatever the

case may be, the result obtained indicated that

simultaneous selection of these two traits is

possible without affecting each other.

In addition, relative strong non-significant

positive association was observed between totalstorage root yield and marketable root yield

(0.651) followed by the association between total

storage root yield and average storage root weight

(0.614) (Table 1). Engida et al. (2006) and

Tesfaye (2006) obtained positive association

between total storage root yield and marketable

storage root yield which supported the present

result. Moreover, Chandria and Tiwari (1987) and

Islam et al. (2002) on sweet potato and Baye

(2002) on potato found out the positive


average storage root weight that was in agreementwith the present result.

As mentioned above, total storage root yield

had negative association with some root related

traits (Table 1). These associations were large in

magnitude even if they were statistically

insignificant. The largest negative association

existed between total storage root yield and dry-

matter content of the root (-0.833). It was

followed by the negative correlation between root

length and total storage root yield (-0.791). Such

negative association of dry-matter content of the

root with total storage root yield was obtained on

experiments conducted by Kamalam et al. (1977)

and Engida et al. (2006). As indicated in theprevious paragraph, their results showed highly

significant negative association while ours was

non-significant. Naskar et al. (1986) also

identified the negative association between total

storage root yield and root length on sweet potato.

Selection of genotypes for high dry-matter

content of the root and root length would result in

lower total storage root yield because of their

negative association existed between them.

Among above ground traits, the correlation

coefficient of leaf area and above ground fresh

biomass with total storage root yield was large

and negative (-0.61and-0.631, respectively).

Phenotypic Level

Table 1 also shows the phenotypic correlationcoefficients of total storage root yield with

different traits. Most of the correlation

coefficients were smaller than the corresponding

genotypic correlation coefficients. This indicated

that most of the association existed between total

storage root yield and other traits were controlled

by genetic factor. Unlike the corresponding

genotypic correlation, significant to highly

significant correlation coefficients were

calculated between total storage root yield and

other six traits. Among these four traits were

positively associated with total storage root yield.

Highly significant and positive association was

existed between total storage root yield and

unmarketable storage root yield (0.874). This trait

also showed significant positive association at

genotypic level (0.908). Similarly, total storage

root yield had highly significant positive

association with root diameter (0.738). However,

its genotypic counterpart was not significant

though the genotypic correlation coefficient was

larger than the phenotypic (Table 1). Islam et al.

(2002), Engida et al. (2006) and Tesfaye (2006),

showed in their separate experiments the presence

of significant association between total storage

root yield and root diameter at phenotypic level.

Both traits had larger genotypic correlation

coefficient than the phenotypic one indicating that

their association with total storage root yield was

controlled by genetic factors. Moreover, due to

their highly significant positive association with

total storage root yield, improvement in one of

these traits could result in the improvement of

total storage root yield in positive direction.

In addition to those highly significant

positive associations, total storage root yield also

had significant and positive association withmarketable storage root yield and average storage

root weight. The existence of significant


average storage root weight was confirmed by

several authors (Chandra and Tiwari, 1987; Islam

et al., 2002; Engida et al., 2006; Tesfaye, 2006).



Copyright © Journal of the Drylands 2010

ISSN 1817-3322211

Table 1. Genotypic (above diagonal) and Phenotypic (blow diagonal) correlation coefficients of 15 traits in orange-fleshed sweet potato genotypes grown with and without N-fertilizer

at Jari and Sirinka, 2006.

RL RD PH INL IND LA AGFB DM ARW MKSRN MKSRY UNSRN UNSRY TSRN TSRY

RL -0.819 0.631 0.364 -0.364 0.434 0.148 0.446 -0.281 -0.491 -0.539 -0.583 -0.705 -0.605 -0.791

RD -0.556 -0.315 -0.383 0.343 -0.484 -0.066 -0.719 0.768 0.207 0.487 -0.029 0.861 0.035 0.891

PH 0.547 -0.245 0.722 -0.229 0.374 0.433 0.376 -0.083 -0.159 -0.066 -0.601 -0.477 -0.526 -0.405

INL 0.346 -0.303 0.583* -0.018 0.738 0.483 0.41 -0.473 0.095 0.013 -0.175 -0.584 -0.114 -0.455

IND -0.258 0.291 -0.156 0.047 0.332 0.715 -0.261 -0.019 -0.151 -0.037 0.058 -0.103 0.004 -0.097

LA 0.322 -0.312 0.327 0.546 0.313 0.564 0.333 -0.658 0.01 -0.037 -0.011 -0.753 -0.006 -0.61

AGFB 0.125 -0.022 0.39 0.369 0.585* 0.462 0.307 -0.277 -0.304 -0.246 -0.329 -0.664 -0.349 -0.631

DM 0.391 -0.49 0.347 0.343 -0.213 0.238 0.263 -0.658 -0.202 -0.501 -0.069 -0.779 -0.112 -0.833

ARW -0.236 0.649* -0.061 -0.344 0.004 -0.49 -0.2 -0.568 -0.382 -0.038 -0.508 0.799 -0.515 0.614

MKSRN -0.34 0.183 -0.099 0.137 -0.099 0.028 -0.144 -0.135 -0.27 0.929* 0.618 0.057 0.776 0.449

MKSRY -0.35 0.418 0.009 0.077 0.02 0.034 -0.05 -0.363 0.06 0.857** 0.363 0.274 0.552 0.651

UNSRN -0.446 -0.038 -0.489 -0.124 0.078 0.008 -0.206 -0.052 -0.495 0.432 0.215 0.098 0.975** 0.236

UNSRY -0.586* 0.694* -0.414 -0.433 -0.062 -0.568 -0.487 -0.655* 0.763** 0.04 0.223 0.115 0.095 0.908*

TSRN -0.474 0.024 -0.436 -0.062 0.034 0.015 -0.215 -0.084 -0.493 0.662* 0.438 0.962** 0.108 0.315

TSRY -0.622* 0.738** -0.312 -0.292 -0.037 -0.417 -0.397 -0.681* 0.612* 0.457 0.668* 0.195 0.874** 0.301

*: significant at α = 0.05; **: highly significant at α = 0.01

RL: Root length (cm); RD: Root diameter (cm); PH: Plant height (cm); INL: Internode length (cm); IND: Internode diameter (mm); LA: Leaf area (cm2); AGFB: Above ground fresh b iomass

(t/ha); DM: Root dry matter content (%); ARW: Average storage root weight (g); MKSRN: Marketable storage root number/plot; MKSRY: Marketable storage root yield (t/ha); UNSRN:

Unmarketable storage root number/plot; UNSRY: Unmarketable storage root yield (t/ha); TSRN: Total storage root number/plot; TSRY: Total storage root yield (t/ha).




ISSN 1817-3322212

On the other hand, root length had negative

and significant correlation with total storage root

yield at phenotypic level. In addition, dry-matter

content of the root was significantly and negatively

correlated with total storage root yield. Their

genotypic counterpart was also negative, though

non-significant, and had large magnitude than theirphenotypic values. The present result was in

agreement with the result obtained by Islam et al.

(2002). They indicated the presence of negative

and highly significant associations between dry-

matter content of the root and total storage root

yield. Therefore, these traits could not be improved

with total storage root yield in positive direction

since selection higher values of these traits would

lead to reduced total storage root yield. Moreover,

their association with total storage root yield was

controlled by genetic factor.

Table 1 also shows that most of the positive

phenotypic correlation coefficients of total storage

root yield with other traits were significant. On the

contrary, among negative correlations only two

traits had significant association with total storage

root yield. The rest were non-significant and small

in magnitude.

CONCLUSIONS

Total storage root yield had significant positive

genotypic correlation with unmarketable storage

root yield. The result indicated that the possibility

of improving these traits in positive direction.

However, the association of other traits with totalstorage root yield was insignificant. On the other

hand, total storage root yield showed highly

significant positive phenotypic correlation with

unmarketable storage root yield and root diameter.

It was also positively and significantly correlated

with average storage root weight and marketable

storage root yield. Besides, it was also negatively

and significantly associated with root dry-matter

content and root length. Unmarketable storage root

yield and root diameter have to receive great

emphasis during sweet potato variety selection.

Moreover, marketable storage root yield andaverage storage root weight also need some

attention during selection. On the other hand, root

dry-matter content and root length were negatively

correlated and we have to be cautious during

selection since they would cause negative effect on

the improvement of the total storage root yield.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors would like to acknowledge staffs of

Sirinka Agricultural Research Center particularly

who worked in Horticulture Research Program of

the center.

REFERENCES

Ambacha Olika., 2000. Influence of nitrogen andphosphorus on yield, yield related and some

quality traits of two sweet potato ( Ipomoea

batatas L.) cultivars. An MSc Thesis Presented

to the School of Graduate Studies of Alemaya

University. 124p.

Baye Berihun, 2002. Variability and associations

among tuber yield and related traits in potato.An MSc Thesis Presented to the School of

Graduate Studies of Alemaya University. 61p.

Chandra , A. and J.P. Tiwari, 1987. Productivity

potential of sweet potato Ipomoea batatas Poir.

J. Root Crops 13(2): 95-101

CSA (Central Statistical Authority), 2003.

Ethiopian Agricultural Sample Enumeration,2001/02 (1994) Result for Amhara Region.

Statistical report on Area of Production of

Crops. Part II B. May 2003

Engida T., E.V. Devakara Sastry and Nigussie D.,

2006. Correlation and path analysis in sweet

potato and their implications for clonal

selection. Journal of Agronomy

5(3): 391-395.

Gruneberg, K. Manrique, D. Zhang, and M.

Hermann, 2005. Genotype-by-environment

interactions for a diverse set of sweetpotato

clones evaluated across varying

eco-geographic conditions in Peru. Crop Sci.

45:2160-2171Islam, M.J., M.Z. Haque, U.K. Majumder, M.M.

Haque and M.F. Hossain, 2002. Growth and

yield potential of nine selected genotypes of

sweet potato. Pakistan Journal of Biological

Sciences 5(5): 537-538.

Jones, A., 1970. Phenotypic, genotypic and

environmental correlations in sweet potatoes.

J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 95(3): 326-330.

Kamalam, P., R.S. Biradar, N. Hrishi and P.G.

Rajendran., 1977. Path analysis and correlation

studies in sweet potato ( Ipomoea batatas

Lam.). J. Root Crops 3(1): 5-11.

Manrique, K. and M. Hermann, 2000. Effect of G x

E interaction on root yield and beta-carotenecontent of selected Sweetpotato ( Ipomoea

batatas (L) Lam.) varieties and breeding

clones. CIP Program Report 1999-2000:

Research on Sweetpotato. 281-287pp.

Naskar, S.K., C.D. Ravindran and G. Srinivasan.

1986. Correlation and path analysis in sweet

potato. J. Root Crops 12 (1): 33-35.

Patil, V.D., V.G. Makane and P.R. Chopde. 1981.

Genetic variability and character association in

intervarietal crosses of linseed. Indian Journal




ISSN 1817-3322213

of Agricultural Science

51: 631-633.

Purcell, A.E., W.M. Walter, Jr., and L.G. Wilson,

1989. Sweet potatoes. pp. 285-304.

In: N.A. Michael Eskin (ed.). Quality and

Preservation of Vegetables. CRC Press, Inc.,

Boca Raton, Florida.

Robertson, A., 1959. The sampling variance of thegenetic correlation coefficient. Biometrics

15:469-485

Tesfaye Tadesse, 2006. Evaluation of root yield

and carotene content of orange-fleshed sweet

potato clones across locations in Southern

region of Ethiopia. An MSc Thesis presented

to School of Graduate Studies of University of

Hawassa. 78p.

Woolfe, J.A., 1992. Sweet Potato: An Untapped

Food Resource. Cambridge, UK,(In collaboration with the international PotatoCenter, Lima, Peru). 643 p.

reprint yohannes

Documents