




































 

 

 
141 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

SOURCES OF RESISTANCE TO STEM RUST (Puccinia graminis f. sp. tritici) IN 
IMPROVED DURUM WHEAT (Triticum turgidum l.) VARIETIES OF ETHIOPIA   

 

 

 Mequanint 
Andualem 
Mekonnen1+ 

 Merkuz Abera 
Admasu2 

 Netsanet Bacha 
Hei3 

 
 

1Adet Agricultural Research Center, Ethiopia. 

 
2Bahir Dar University College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, 
Ethiopia. 

 
3Ambo Plant Protection Research Center, Ambo, Ethiopia. 

 
 

(+ Corresponding author) 

 ABSTRACT 
 
Article History 
Received: 6 September 2019 
Revised: 8 October 2019 
Accepted: 12 November 2019 
Published: 18 December 2019 
 

Keywords 
Stem rust  
Resistance 
Durum wheat cultivars 
Seedling stage 
Adult stage 
Parameters. 
 

 
Stem rust disease caused by Puccinia graminis f. sp. tritici (Eriks and E. Henn) possess 
the greatest threat to global wheat production due to continuously producing new races 
that can attack previously resistant varieties. This investigation was therefore 
conducted under greenhouse and field conditions by evaluating durum wheat (Triticum 
turgidum L.) cultivars along with a susceptible check for their resistance to stem rust 
during the 2017 main cropping season. Greenhouse evaluation was conducted at Ambo 
for race TTTTF. The field experiment was undertaken at Adet and Debre-Tabor in a 
randomized complete block design (RCBD) with three replications. The spreader row 
Morocco was inoculated with a virulent race (TTTTF) at stem elongation. Field 
resistance at the adult plant stage was assessed through final disease severity (FRS), 
coefficient of infection (CI), and area under disease progressive curve (AUDPC). Durum 
wheat cultivars Mettaya and Oda were found to be resistant both at the seedling and 
post seedling stages suggesting resistance confer by a major gene. Whereas Bakalcha, 

Lelisso, Ilani and Yerer showed low disease severities ˂30 with lower AUDPC values 

(˂500) and CI (˂20) and were identified to have a good level of field resistance for stem 
rust population present at Adet and Debre-Tabor. High correlation coefficients were 
observed between stem rust resistance parameters. Among the cultivars having a good 
level of resistance Lelisso, Bichena and Bakalcha produce high yields with heavy kernel 
weight in both locations. The resistance cultivars identified from the present study can 
be used for further wheat improvement programs.  
 

Contribution/Originality: This study is one of the very few studies which have investigated the sources of 

resistance to stem rust (Puccinia graminis f. sp. tritici) in improved durum wheat (Triticum turgidum l.) varieties of 

Ethiopia.  

 

1. INTRODUCTION 

Wheat is the most important food grain for billions of people worldwide, being cultivated on 17% of the world 

cultivated land [1]. It covers around 30% of global grain production and 44% of cereals used as food [2]. Of the 

wheat species, durum wheat (Triticum turgidum subsp. durum, 2n=4x=28, AABB) is the second most cultivated 

species after common wheat (Triticum aestivum L, 2n=6x=42, AABBDD) [3]. It represents 12% of the total global 

Current Research in Agricultural Sciences 
2019 Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 141-156 
ISSN(e): 2312-6418 
ISSN(p): 2313-3716 
DOI: 10.18488/journal.68.2019.62.141.156 
© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

 
 
 

 
 
 
 

 

 
 
 
 

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8294-2354
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8917-0599
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8066-8558
https://www.doi.org/10.18488/journal.68.2019.62.141.156


Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 6(2): 141-156 

 

 
142 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

wheat production [4]. Globally, the total area covered by durum wheat is estimated at 17 million hectares (ha) [5]. 

 In Ethiopia, two types of wheat (bread and durum wheat) are cultivated under rain-fed conditions [6]. Among 

cultivated land, 1.7 million hectares are covered by wheat with a production of 4.23 million tons [7]. In-country 

level there is no recent statistical data on the proportion of durum wheat to the total wheat area; however, it is 

estimated to constitute about 20% of the total wheat area [8].  

In Ethiopia, the actual mean wheat yield is around 2.5 t/ha [7] which is by far below the world's average. The 

low wheat yield in Ethiopia could be attributed to biotic and abiotic factors [9]. Amongst biotic factor stem rust of 

wheat caused by the fungus Puccinia graminis f.sp. tritici (pgt) is the most destructive disease [10]; which can cause 

up to 100% yield loss if a susceptible cultivar is grown under a favorable environment [11]. 

Various management options are available to minimize losses caused by stem rust including cultural, biological, 

and chemical methods [11]. Fungicides remain an option for emergency control but, their large-scale use by small 

farmers is neither feasible nor economical. Recently stem rust management most likely lies in the cultivation of 

resistant wheat varieties [12] which is the most economical and environmentally friendly management strategy to 

control the disease. Starting from the middle of  1950s, stem rust resistance genes were identified within common 

wheat and wild relatives [13] and successfully deployed in commercial wheat cultivars worldwide. However, 

resistant varieties with acceptable levels of disease resistance often rapidly succumb to the disease soon after release 

due to the continuous evolution of new races [14]. For instance the evolution of race TTKSK (Ug99) and it's 

variant in 1999 attack approximately 90 % of the world‟s contemporary wheat cultivars [15] with yield losses of 

more than 71% in experimental fields [16]. Similarly, a sever localized stem rust epidemic was reported in the 

southern parts of the country during 2013/2014 cropping season after large scales production of cultivar Digalu on 

farmer‟s field [17]. The primary cause of the epidemic was race TKTTF (Digelu race) [17]. 

The East African highlands in general and Ethiopian highlands, in particular, are considered as a hot spot area 

for the development of stem rust [18]. Studies in the country reported that most previously identified samples 

indicate high virulence diversity with different virulence profiles within the Pgt population present in Ethiopia [18-

21]. According to Olivera, et al. [17] only 7 cultivars were resistant at the seedling stage for race TTKSK and 

TKTTF from all the released 66 Ethiopian bread wheat cultivars. Thus, all these may show that there was a 

potential danger of resistance breakdown in existed wheat cultivars. Therefore, evaluation of durum wheat varieties 

against stem rust races at both growth stages was mandatory to identify cultivars having durable resistance and 

simultaneously to remove susceptible cultivars from production. Hence the present study was designed to identify 

durum wheat cultivars resistant to wheat stem rust and draw possible recommendations for further wheat 

improvement research and development interventions related to stem rust resistance. 

 

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS 

2.1. Seedling Resistance Test 

Twenty four improved durum wheat varieties Table 2 were evaluated against virulent stem rust races TTTTF 

(Ug99) for their resistance at the seedling stage at Ambo Plant Protection Research Center (APPRC) in 2017/18. 

Five seeds of each of the durum wheat cultivars, along with the susceptible check cultivar McNair were raised in 5 

cm diameter plastic pots separately. A complete randomized design (CRD) with two replications was used. 

Seedlings were inoculated at 2–3 leaf stage with the spores of the virulent race adjusted to 4mg spores per 1ml 

lightweight mineral oil (Soltrol 170) suspension using a spore inoculator. Thereafter inoculated plants were 

moistened with fine droplets of distilled water by using atomizer after twenty minutes of inoculation and placed in 

dew chamber for 18 hrs in darkness at 18-22 0C and 98–100% relative humidity. Upon removal from the dew 

chamber, seedlings were exposed to 3 hr of fluorescent light to dry dew on the leaves. Following this, inoculated 

plants were transferred to greenhouse benches where the temperatures were kept between 18 and 25°C and the 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 6(2): 141-156 

 

 
143 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

relative humidity at 60-70% for 14 days [22]. Data on infection types Table 1 were recorded 14 days after 

inoculation from leaves using 0-4 scale [23]. 
 
 

Table-1. Major infection type classes for stem rust. 
*Infection type Host response Symptoms 

0 Immune No visible uredia 
0; Very resistant Hypersensitive flecks 
1 Resistant Small uredia with necrosis 
2 Resistant to moderately 

Resistant 
Small to medium sized uredia with green islands and 
surrounded by necrosis or chlorosis 

3 
 

Moderately resistant/ 
moderately susceptible 

Medium sized uredia with or without 
Chlorosis 

4 Susceptible Large uredia without chlorosis 
X Resistant Heterogeneous, similarly distributed over the leaves 

Note: Infection types based on Stakman, et al. [23] scale for seedling resistance. 

 

2.2. Field Experiment 

The experiment was conducted at Adet and Debre-Tabor agricultural research stations, where wheat is 

commonly grown. Adet is found at an altitude of 2240m above sea level. The station receives an annual mean 

rainfall of 869 mm with an average annual temperature of 18.56. Whereas another research site Debre -Tabore is 

found 2591m above sea level and receives an average annual rainfall of 1102.7mm with 15.48oc average annual 

temperature. 

A total of twenty-four durum wheat cultivars Table 2 collected from different agricultural research centers 

along with susceptible check Arendeto were laid in a randomized complete block design (RCBD) with three 

replications. Each plot had a size of 1.5 m long and 1 m width containing five rows with a spacing of 20 cm. The 

spacing between plots and reps were 40 cm, and 1.5 m, respectively. The recommended seeding rate of 150kg/ha 

was used for both locations. Recommended fertilizer rate 138/46 kg, N/P2O5 for Debre-Tabor and 92/46 kg 

N/P2O5 for Adet were applied. Weeds were managed through hand weeding. Seeds of all genotypes were planted 

15 days after the regular sowing date to expose plants to a suitable environment of rust incidence and development. 

Universally susceptible Morocco was planted as border rows of experimental plots 7 days before the test varieties 

to facilitate rust epidemic. Plants in the spreader rows were inoculated with urediniospores of virulent race 

maintained at the Ambo Plant Protection Research Center. A water suspension of these stem rust urediniospores 

was inoculated onto spreader rows using an ultralow volume sprayer to generate fine mist. This took place twice 

when the spreader row reaches stem elongation.  

Ten plants per plot were randomly tagged from the central rows and disease severity was assessed four times 

at every 10 days interval on the tagged plants, based on modified Cobbs' scale where 0% = immune and 100% = 

completely susceptible [24]. Terminal severity was score at near maturity stage of the crop.  

The disease severities recorded at different time were utilized for the calculation of AUDPC for each cultivar 

using the formula below [25, 26]: 

AUDPC=  

Where, xi is the cumulative disease severity expressed as a proportion at the ith observation; ti is the time (days 

after planting) at the ith observation and n is total number of observations. 

Coefficients of Infection (CI) were calculated by taking into account the severity of stem rust of the cultivars 

and their infection response [22]. The reaction type was record according to the description of Roelfs, et al. [27].  

The scores were converted into coefficients of infection by multiplying the percentage severity and a constant 

assigned for host response: where immune = 0.0, R= 0.2, MR= 0.4, MR-MS = 0.6, MS = 0.8, MS-S = 0.9 and S= 

1.0.  



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 6(2): 141-156 

 

 
144 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

The disease severity observations recorded at 10 days interval were regressed over time and the apparent 

infection rates or the coefficient of the regression line for each plot was calculated [28].  

Inf-rate = ln [X/ (100 - X)] 

Where X is average coefficient infection plotted against time in days [28]. 
 

Table-2. Description of durum wheat cultivars used for the study. 

S/N Cultivar Released by Released year 

1 Utuba DZARC 2015 
2 Bichena DZARC 1995 
3 Mangudo SARC 2012 
4 Mekuye DZARC 2012 
5 Toltu SARC 2010 
6 Hitosa DZARC 2009 
7 Denbi DZARC 2009 
8 Werer DZARC 2009 

9 Tati SARC 2009 
10 Filakit SRARC 2007 
11 Obsa SARC 2006 
12 Ejersa SARC 2005 
13 Bakalcha SARC 2005 
14 Kokate AWARC 2005 
15 Malefia SRARC 2005 
16 Oda SARC 2004 
17 Ilani SARC 2004 
18 Megenagna ADARC 2004 
19 Mosobo ADARC 2004 

20 Mettaya ADARC 2004 
21 Selam ADARC 2004 
22 Yerer DZARC 2002 
23 Lelisso SARC 2002 
24 Ude DZARC 2002 
25 Arendeto Susceptible check  

Note:  Minstry of Agriculture (MoA) [29]. 

 

2.3. Data Analysis 

Green house evaluation was analyzed by using descriptive statistics. All the data generated from field 

experiments were subjected to ANOVA following the procedure described by Gomez and Gomez [30] for one 

factor complete randomized block design (RCBD) using the PROC GLM procedure of SAS 9.2 statistical software 

[31] to determine significant differences among cultivars. Duncan multiple range test was used to compare the 

significant means. Correlation was done using SPSS software [32] version 16 to determine the relationship 

between disease parameters. 

 

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 

3.1. Results of Seedling Reaction  

The greenhouse experiment revealed that the tested durum wheat cultivars differed in their reaction to the 

stem rust isolates of TTTTF Table 3. Of the 24 Ethiopian durum wheat cultivars, no complete resistance “0” was 

observed. However, 17 cultivars exhibiting resistant (IT‟s of “;”, “1”, “2” or combinations), to isolates of race 

TTTTF. Three cultivars (Mangudo, Obsa and Ejersa) showed susceptible infection types (3-) for the tested race. 

The susceptible infection types (3-, 3+) of the check Arendato and McNair indicates effectiveness of inoculation. 

While, some cultivars including Hitosa, Denbi, Tati and Mosobo were noted having a heterogeneous reaction “x”.  

The low infection types scored on most of the cultivars against these races could be due to the presence of one 

or more major Sr-genes. This result is in agreement with Ogutu, et al. [33] who reported cultivars that exhibited 

low infection types at seedling stage could be either due to one or more of the Sr-genes or a combination that had 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 6(2): 141-156 

 

 
145 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

similar infection type pattern towards the races. Major gene resistance/seedling resistance can offer complete 

protection and significant economic benefits to farmers [34]. Therefore these cultivars can be used as sources of 

stem rust resistance when the aim of the breeding program is for major gene. However, stem rust resistance at the 

seedling stage may not be indicative of the reaction at the adult plant stage because some genes are effective only at 

specific growth stages Ogutu, et al. [33] and cultivars that exhibited high infection type may display minor gene 

resistance at adult plant stage [34]. Therefore, combining seedling resistance with adult plant resistance in the field 

will provide valuable indications to select resistance cultivars. 

 

3.2. Field Experiment  

3.2.1. Categories of Cultivars Based on Seedling and Adult Plant Reaction 

Based on infection types observed at seedling and adult plant stages cultivars were categorized into four groups 

according to Safavi and Afshari [35] as follows: The first group included two cultivars (Oda and Mettaya)  that 

were resistant to stem rust both at the seedling and post seedling stages. This group most probably carried a major 

gene(s) that were effective against all the pathotypes present in the test site. Low disease development on the tested 

cultivars in each location presenting evidence that seedling resistance was effective under field conditions as these 

cultivars displayed significantly low FRS [36]. Cultivars with R genes are not durable in agriculture because of 

new virulent race would arise that overcame single resistance genes in race-specific resistance varieties [37]. 

The second group included five cultivars (Obsa, Ejersa, Mangudo, Denbi and Mosobo) which had susceptible 

and mixed reactions to stem rust at the seedling stage but moderately resistant to intermediate (MR or MRMS) or 

moderately susceptible (MS) at the adult plant stage on both locations. This result is in agreement with [36] 

cultivars susceptible at the seedling stage expressed different levels of slow rusting in field tests. This kind of 

resistance in some cultivars cannot alter with variability in climatic conditions coupled with pathogen population 

variability. Slow rusting through many gene resistances was assumed to be more durable as compared to resistance 

conditioned by single major resistance genes [37]. 

The third group included only susceptible check Arendeto that was susceptible to stem rust both at the 

seedling and adult plant stages (MSS or S). This group lacked effective race-specific and non-race-specific resistance 

gene(s) towards the race(s) populations present at the test site.  

The fourth group comprises 17 cultivars (Kokate, Toltu, Lelisso, Ude, Yerer, Selam, Megenagna, Ilani, 

Bakalcha, Denbi, Werer, Tati, Filakit, Mekuye, Utuba, Malefia and Bichena) that were resistant at the seedling 

stage but MR/MRMS to MSS/S at the adult plant stage. Some of these cultivars including Malefia may lack adult 

plant resistance genes. In accordance with this Fekadu, et al. [38] reported durum wheat varieties Kilinto and 

Gerardo were resistant at the seedling stage but were susceptible at the adult stage. However, cultivars that 

exhibited resistance at the seedling stage but MR/MRMS field reaction with statistically low stem rust disease 

severities have a possibility of containing other stem rust resistance genes in their background that are responsible 

for reduced disease severity [39].  

According to Singh, et al. [40] cultivars with compatible host-pathogen interaction may possess field 

resistance. Therefore, low disease development with high infection response on the tested cultivars in each location 

presenting evidence that the presence of partial resistance in addition to race specific resistance. In harmony with 

this Figlan, et al. [41] reported of the tested Kenyan cultivar (Paka) carry the APR Sr2 gene with race specific 

resistance gene which exhibited resistance reaction at seedling stage but high infection response at adult stage. 

Generally, according to Chen, et al. [42] the resistance confers at field conditions may provide either due to race-

specific or race nonspecific and /or combination of both resistance. However, it is difficult to distinguish race 

nonspecific resistance from the resistance conferred by genes of race-nonspecific nature based on the adult plant 

infection type. Therefore, evaluating cultivars by using parameters such as disease severity, area under disease 

progress curve or the measurement of apparent infection rates and coefficients of infection values is important. 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 6(2): 141-156 

 

 
146 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

3.2.2 Final Rust Severity 

Results of ANOVA for final rust severity showed a highly significant difference at p<0.01 among the tested 

Ethiopian commercial durum wheat cultivars evaluated at Adet and Debre-Tabor. The highest mean final stem rust 

severities were recorded on cultivar Malefia 72.5 % and susceptible check Arendeto (71.0%) at Debre-Tabor and 

Adet respectively but terminal severity did not exceed 30% on cultivar Bakalcha, Lelisso, Ilani, Mettaya, Oda, Yerer 

and Bichena at both locations. Diverse field reactions ranging from resistance (R) to moderately resistant (MR) and 

moderately resistance to moderately susceptible (MR-MS) to susceptible (S) responses were observed. According to 

Herrera-Foessel, et al. [43]; Hei [44] variation in levels of resistance could be attributed to differences in the 

number of resistance genes present and mode of gene action. Besides, variation in final stem rust severity suggested 

that the genotypes had diverse genetic backgrounds [45]. 

Final rust severity represents the cumulative result of all resistance factors during the progress of epidemics 

[46]. Terminal severity is a measure of the disease potential under existing environmental conditions Roelfs, et al. 

[27]. Previously, Ali, et al. [47]; Safavi, et al. [48]; Saleem, et al. [49] and Hei [50] also used final rust severity to 

assess partial resistance behavior of wheat cultivars and lines. Similarly, based on FRS the tested cultivars were 

grouped into three groups of high, moderate and low levels of partial resistance having 1-30%, 31-50% and 51-70% 

of FRS respectively.  

In the present study, all the cultivars except malefia tested at Debre-Tabor showed disease severities of up to 

30%; whereas at Adet only seven cultivars (Bakalcha, Lelisso, Ilani, Mettaya, Oda, Yerer and Bichena) displayed up 

to 30% FRS Table 3. Of these Yerer and Bichena showed resistance reaction at seedling stage but compatible host 

pathogen interaction at adult plant stage Table 3. According to Singh, et al. [40]; Nzuve, et al. [39] cultivars that 

display compatible final infection response may possess slow rusting. Therefore, the cultivars that displayed up to 

30% FRS may possess highly effective race-nonspecific resistance genes with race specific resistance gene effective 

towards race TTTTF.   

At Adet fourteen cultivars (Selam, Filakit, Mangudo, Ude, Megenagna, Ejersa, Mekuye, Werer, Kokate, 

Mosobo, Toltu, Obsa, Denbi and Utuba) displayed FRS of 31-50% with compatible host pathogen interaction at 

adult plant stage. Therefore, cultivars displayed a moderate level of severity with the absence of hypersensitive 

flecks at seedling stage may suggest that miner gene resistance confer a moderate level of field resistance. In the 

remaining four cultivars (Hitosa, Tati, Malefia and susceptible check Arendeto) the final disease severities (FRS) 

observed was more than 50%.  

In fact, cultivars that grouped under a high level of field resistance at Debre-Tabor were grouped under 

moderate and low levels of field resistance at Adet. This is because varieties that are resistant to stem rust in one 

year or one location may be susceptible in another year or location depending upon the virulence of the 

pathogen [51]. Variability in the host response could be attributed to the variability in the resistance expression 

due to pathogen population variability, coupled with variability in climatic conditions Ali, et al. [47]. Strange [52] 

suggests that temperature may have significant effects on the expression of resistance genes. The gene Sr6, is 

effective at lower temperatures less than 20°C but ineffective at 24-27°C. Similarly, the gene Sr10 and Sr12 is 

effective at lower temperatures; whereas the gene Sr14 is effective under high temperature and high light conditions 

[53]. In addition virulence capacity of pathogen affected by temperature changes [27]. 

 

 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 6(2): 141-156 

 

 
147 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

Table-3. Seedling reaction, adult plant response, FRS, CI, AUDPC and Inf-rate of durum wheat cultivars to stem rust at both locations. 

Variety 
Seedling reaction Adet Debre-Tabore 

TTTTF FRS FR CI AUDPC Inf-rate FRS FR CI AUDPC Inf-rate 

Utuba 2+ 49.33ab MS 39.47abcd 791.5abc 0.148 abcd 5.07fe MR 2.03ghij 57.0hij 0.048cdefg 

Bichena ;2-c 21.30de S 21.33efgh 318.7de 0.114 defg 2.33 hg MRMS 1.40hij 33.3jk 0.024gh 

Mangudo 3- 36.60abcd MRMS 22.00bcdefg 529.5cd 0.139 bcde 2.33hg MRMS 1.40hij 31.7ik 0.031gh 

Mekuye 2 40.30abcd MRMS 24.20abed 618.3cbd 0.138 bcde 10.00cde MRMS 6.00ef 166.0cdef 0.047cdefg 

Toltu 2+ 44.60abc MS 35.73abcde 681.3abc 0.155 abc 9.50cde MSS 8.55cde 168.2cdef 0.051bcdefg 

Hitosa ;2+3- 55.60abc MSS 50.10abc 894.3abc 0.159 abc 16.83bc MSS 15.15c 263.2cd 0.048cdefg 

Denbi 2+3- 48.00abc MRMS 28.80abcdef 646.8bc 0.151 abcd 11.20cd MS 8.96cde 181.7cdef 0.045cdefg 

Werer 2 40.30abcd MR 16.13defgh 566.2bcd 0.146 abcd 8.17cde MS 6.54efgh 117.8fg 0.077bcd 

Tati 2+3- 62.00ab MSS 55.80ab 743abc 0.180 a 11.50cd S 11.50dc 224.2cde 0.067bcde 

Filakit 2 32.60bcd MSS 29.40bcdefg 505.7bcd 0.127 defg 3.67fg MRMS 2.20fghij 41.7ijk 0.026gh 

Obsa 3- 46.30abc MRMS 27.80abcdef 724.5abc 0.158 abc 15.67c MS 12.54cd 300.0c 0.044defg 

Ejersa 3- 40.00abcd MRMS 16.00bcdefg 567.5bcd 0.143 abcd 9.33cde MS 7.46de 161.0cdef 0.065bcdef 

Bakalcha ;1+ 8.40g MS 6.72i 98.7g 0.067 h 4.67ef MR 1.87fghij 64.7ghi 0.028gh 

Kokate 2+ 41.00abcd MSS 36.90abcde 649.3b 0.137 bcde 8.33cde MS 6.66efghi 137.3def 0.048cdefg 

Malefia 2- 62.60efg S 62.67a 1040.5ab 0.167 ab 72.50a S 72.50a 1275.8a 0.113a 

Oda ;1+ 14.60efg MR 11.73ghi 235.5ef 0.103 efgh 2.33hg R 2.33j 31.7jk 0.031gh 

Ilani 2 10.10fg MRMS 6.06i 161.8ef 0.096 fgh 2.33hg MR 0.93ij 33.3jk 0.024gh 

Megenagna 2c 39.30abcd MS 31.47abcde 645.3bc 0.135 abcde 7.07def MS 5.66efghi 119.0fg 0.054bcdefg 

Mosobo 2+3- 42.30abcd MS 33.87abcdef 622.7bcd 0.136 bcde 11.33dc MS 9.06cde 136.7def 0.077bc 

Mettaya 2- 14.00ef MR 8.40hi 232.3ef 0.097 fgh 2.33gh R 0.47j 31.7jk 0.031gh 

Selam ;1+ 31.30dc MS 25.07bcdefgh 455.7cd 0.124 cdef 6.83edf MSS 6.15efg 117.5efg 0.042efg 

Yerer 2- 15.00ef MS 12.00fghi 209ef 0.103 efgh 6.40edf MS 5.12efghij 116.3fgh 0.032fgh 

Lelisso ;1+ 9.30fg MRMS 5.60i 142.2fg 0.083 hg 1.00h MR 0.40j 25.0k 0.000h 

Ude 2 38.30abcd S 38.33abcdef 506.8bcd 0.146 abcd 12.83cd MS 10.26cde 161.8def 0.067bcde 

Arendeto 3- 71.00a S 56.80abc 1369.7a 0.172 ab 30.00b MSS 27.00b 585.0b 0.082b 

McNair 3+ 

          Sig. level 
 

** 
 

** ** ** ** 
 

** ** ** 
CV(%) 

 
10.3 

 
15.25 6.15 14.6 16.8 

 
18.5 7.67 35.7 

ITs of 1, 2 = resistant and 3, 4 = susceptible. Positive (+) = larger uredinia than the normal size; Negative (-) = smaller uredinia than the normal size; FR= Field reaction; MR= moderately resistant; MS = moderately 
susceptible; MRMS = moderately resistant to moderately susceptible; MS-S = moderately susceptible to susceptible; S= susceptible; FRS= final rust severity; CI= coefficient of infection; AUDPC = area under disease 
progress curve and Inf-rate = infection rate; ** represent highly significance difference at P < 0.01; Means with the same letter(s) within a column are statistically similar at p=0.01. 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 6(2): 141-156 

 

 
148 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

3.2.3. Coefficient of Infection (CI) Value 

The data on disease severity and host reaction were combined to calculate the coefficient of infection (CI) [54]. 

Results of ANOVA for coefficient of infection showed a highly significant difference at p<0.01 among the tested 

Ethiopian commercial durum wheat cultivars at both locations. This shows that the presence of diversity among 

tested cultivars along with the environment. Based on CI value [47] classified cultivars in three groups; i.e 

cultivars having 0–20, 21–40, and 41–60 CI values were considered as holding high, moderate, and low levels of 

partial resistance, respectively. In the present study, all the test cultivars except Arendeto and Malefia showed CI 

values between 0 and 20 at Debre-Tabor; whereas at Adet eight cultivars (Mettay, Oda, Lelisso, Ilani, Bakalcha, 

Yerer, Ejersa and Werer) exhibited CI values in between 0 and 20 Table 3 and were designated as having a high 

level of adult plant resistance for stem rust population present at prescribed area. 

Thirteen cultivars (Bichena, Mangudo, Mekuye, Selam, Obsa, Denbi, Filakit, Megenagna, Mosobo, Toltu, 

Kokate, Ude and Utuba) displayed CI values of 21–40 and marked as possessing a moderate level of adult plant 

resistance for stem rust population present at Adet. While two cultivars Hitosa and Tati showed CI values raged 

from 41to 60 Table 3 and marked as the final group having a low level of adult plant resistance. However, cultivars 

Malefia and Arendeto were noted having CI values greater than 60 in both locations and were grouped as 

susceptible. As indicated by Safavi, et al. [48] CI values greater than 60 recorded on the susceptible check shows 

that disease pressure was considerably sufficient in the season. Previously, Draz, et al. [55] reported the presence of 

different level of partial resistance among tested cultivar. The CI data obtained from combination of final rust 

severity and field reaction recording on 25 cultivars are shown in Table 3.   

 

3.2.4. Area under Disease Progress Curve (AUDPC) 

Data pertaining AUDPC values of durum wheat cultivars is given in (Table 3). Analysis of variance result 

showed highly significance difference at p<0.01 between cultivars in AUDPC value at both locations. At Adet the 

highest AUDPC value was recorded on Arendeto (1369.7); whereas at Debre-Tabor the highest AUDPC value was 

noted on Malefia (1275.8). However, cultivar Bakalcha (98.7) and Lelisso (25) were better in reducing mean 

AUDPC value at Adet and Debre-Tabor respectively. According to Ali, et al. [47] and Saleem, et al. [49] 

cultivars with AUDPC values of 1–500, 500–800, and 800–1100 were categorized as possessing high, moderate, and 

low levels of partial resistance respectively. The tested cultivars were categorized into three distinct groups for 

partial resistance, based on their AUDPC values. At Debre-Tabor all the cultivars except Arendato and Malefia 

showed AUDPC value less than 300; whereas at Adet eight cultivars (Bakalcha, Lelisso, Ilani, Yerer, Bichena, Oda, 

Mettaya and Selam) showed AUDPC value up to 500 Table 3 were grouped as having a high level of partial 

resistance. 

Correspondingly, at Adet, fourteen durum wheat cultivars exhibiting AUDPC values ranging from 500 to 800 

were grouped as moderately level of partial resistance, which included Filakit, Ude, Mangudo, Werer, Ejersa, 

Mekuye, Mosobo, Megenagna, Denbi, Kokate, Toltu, Obsa, Tati and Utuba. While cultivar Hitosa and Malefia 

showed 894.3 and 1040.5 Table 3 and marked as having a low level of adult plant resistance. Likewise cultivar 

Arendato showed AUDPC value greater than 1100 at Adet and considered as susceptible to stem rust 

population present in the area. Previously, Denbel, et al. [56] confirmed cultivar Arendato was susceptible to 

Ug99 variants.  

AUDPC is a good indicator of adult plant resistance under field conditions [57]. It is directly related with 

level of resistance and yield loss [58]. In quantitative resistance, where differences in level of resistance are 

usually less distinct, measuring disease progress is important for understanding plant–pathogen interaction 

[59]. Furthermore, AUDPC in particular is the result of all factors that influence disease development such as 

differences in environmental conditions, varieties and population of the pathogen [40]. Varieties that had low 

AUDPC and FRS may have a good level of adult plant resistance [57]. Therefore, selection of cultivars having 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 6(2): 141-156 

 

 
149 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

low AUDPC with terminal disease scores is normally accepted for practical purposes where the aim is to utilize 

slow rusting resistance as one of the stem rust management mechanisms [60].  

 

3.2.5. Apparent Infection Rate 

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for apparent infection rate showed a highly significant difference at p<0.01 

among tested cultivars at both environments. At Adet the fastest disease multiplication was noted on Tati (0.180) 

followed by Arendeto with 0.172 infection rates; whereas at Debre-Tabor the maximum rate of disease development 

(0.113) was noted on cultivar Malefia followed by Arendato (0.082). Cultivar Lelisso showed a constant disease 

severity, thus showed no disease increase per unit time with an inf-rate of 0 at Debre-Tabor. On the other hand, 

Bakalcha exhibited slow rate of disease development (0.067) at Adet Table 3.  

Plants differ in their ability to either reduce or increase the rate of disease development for a particular 

pathogen [61]. Rate of disease development can be quantified through regressing several observations (logit x) of a 

disease symptom over time [62]. Meanwhile, the progress of disease symptoms is parallel to the progress of 

inoculum production. Therefore pathologists use “Inf-rate‟‟ to measure the aggressiveness of pathogen or the 

resistance/susceptibility range of the host [63]. However, there is no clear information to categorize cultivars 

based on infection rate. 

The present study evaluate cultivars based on FRS, CI and AUDPC value results infection rate of less than 

0.12 had a better level of partial resistance. Cultivars with a moderate level of partial resistance, with regard to 

other parameters, had infection rates ranging from 0.126 to 0.16. In contrast to this Safavi, et al. [48] reported 

cultivars having infection rate of (0-0.057) and (0.065-0.086) ranked as high and moderate level of partial resistance. 

Additionally, Safavi and Afshari [35] reported cultivars having infection rates less than 0.09 comprise better level 

of partial resistance. Therefore, it lacks consistency. In spite of its importance to quantify the rate of disease 

development on the cultivars tested using infection rate to estimate partial resistance seemed unreliable when 

compared with FRS, CI and AUDPC because it could not identify different levels of partial resistance among the 

tested cultivar. Similarly, Hei [50] and Ali, et al. [64] reported infection rate doesn‟t yield consistent estimation for 

their study. 

 

3.2.6. Correlation between Slow Rusting Parameters of Wheat Stem Rust 

During this investigation, attempts were made to elucidate the relationship between field-based slow rusting 

parameters. The Pearson correlation coefficient analysis showed highly significant and positive correlation 

coefficients between the disease parameters in both locations Table 4. A positive and highly significant correlations 

of FRS with AUDPC (r = 0.959), CI (r = 0.896) and Inf rate (0.909) were found at Adet. Significant and positive 

correlation coefficients of 0.986, 0.994 and 0.668 were also observed between FRS and AUDPC, CI and Inf rate at 

Debre-Tabor respectively.  

The highest correlation coefficient was between final rust severity and AUDPC in both locations (r = 0.959) at 

Adet and (r=0.986) Debre-Tabor. This indicating that cultivars that were severely infected showed higher AUDPC 

values [58]. This positive correlation was in agreement with the results of other researchers on cereal-rust 

pathosystems [35, 48, 50, 65]. Averagely the lowest r- value was obtained between infection rate and other 

parameters Table 4. This indicates that diminishing of disease progress rate over time with expanding of rust 

disease. This can be due to less availability of healthy plant tissue for additional infections [66]. 

 

 

 

 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 6(2): 141-156 

 

 
150 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

Table-4. Pearson correlation coefficient of pair-wise relationships between slow rusting parameters for stem rust of wheat 
evaluated over two locations.  

Parameter Adet Debre-Tabor 

FRS AUDPC CI FRS AUDPC CI 

AUDPC 0.959**   0.986**   
CI 0.896** 0.881**  0.994** 0.975**  

Inf-rate 0.909** 0.837** 0.793** 0.668** 0.620** 0.649** 
Note: FRS = final rust severity; AUDPC = relative area under disease progress curve; Inf-rate = infection rate; CI - coefficients of infection; **. 
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). 

 

Furthermore, highly significant and positive correlation coefficients observed between FRS, CI and AUDPC 

suggested, these parameters were reliable estimators in assessing partial or slow rusting resistance of different 

cultivars to wheat rust diseases. These epidemiological parameters give a dependable rate of disease increase and 

are related with components of partial resistance like low receptivity, longer latent period and smaller pustules 

[67].  

Therefore, selection of cultivars based on lower values of final disease score, coefficient of infection and 

AUDPC provides a sound basis for identifying cultivars having durable resistance. Accordingly, wheat cultivars 

Bakalcha, Lelisso, Ilani, Yerer, Mettaya, Oda and Bichena showed AUDPC values below 500, final disease scores of 

less than 30 and CI between 0-20 with varied field responses (R to MS) in both locations. All these cultivars were 

posed resistance at the time of seedling reaction test towards race TTTTF. Therefore, the cultivars that had 

seedling stage resistance with a lower value of epidemiological parameters suggesting a possibility to reflect 

adequate and durable resistance. Wang, et al. [57] explained that durable resistance achieve through combining 

major resistance genes and APR genes and added the adult plant resistance (APR) is of major importance in 

breeding for an efficient genetic control strategy. 

 

3.2.7. Thousand Grain Weight 

Thousand kernel weight is an important component of yield mostly affected by stem rust. The analysis of 

variance showed highly significant variability at p<0.01 among cultivars evaluated for production of 1000 grain 

weight.  

The heavier 1000 grain weight was obtained at Debre-Tabor by the cultivar Lelisso (39.8g) followed by Selam 

(37.9g) and Ude (34.4g). On the other hand at Adet Kokate yields a maximum 1000-grain weight of 35.9 g followed 

by Lelisso (34.5g).  

In fact, cultivar Arendeto and Malefia displayed higher severity resulting in lowest 1000-grain weight 

production among tested cultivar on both locations Table 5. The reduction in TKW for susceptible Arendeto and 

Malefia might be due to the effect of the disease on the size and mass of the seed. Nzuve, et al. [39] also observed 

that the susceptible check ‟CACUKE” used in their study showed the least TKW. Asmmawy, et al. [68] reported 

an average loss in 1000 kernel weight by stem rust ranged from 2.03 % to 6.71 %. 

 

3.2.8. Grain Yield 

There was a highly significant difference at P < 0.01 between entries for grain yield. From the beginning, it 

should be underlined that the variances in grain yield among the entries could be clarified not only by differences in 

the levels of disease attack but also in the yield potential of the varieties. 

At Adet, the highest grain yield (4.13 t ha-1) was obtained from cultivar Selam. However, the yields obtained 

from Bichena (4.07 t ha-1), Megenagna (4.04 t ha-1), Kokate (4.03 t ha-1) and Lelisso (3.96 t ha-1) were not 

significantly different from Selam. The lowest grain yield was produced by cultivar Malefia (1.8 t ha-1) followed by 

Arendeto, Ejersa, Yerer and Mettaya with 2.33, 2.72, 2.93 and 2.97 t ha-1 grain yields respectively. Cultivars Lelisso 

and Selam produce highest yield at Debre-Tabor with 3.53 and 3.1 t ha-1 respectively while the lowest grain yield 

was harvested from cultivar Arendeto (0.58) and Malefia (1.15) t ha-1 Table 5.  



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 6(2): 141-156 

 

 
151 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

The result revealed that the ranking of the cultivars for grain yield partially disagree with ranking for 

resistance specifically at Adet. For example, the disease severity recorded on cultivar Tati was 62% at Adet but the 

yield obtained from cultivar Tati was higher (3.82 t ha-1) than some cultivar that had disease severities less than 

15% such as Yerer, Oda and Ilani Table 5. This may confirm that stem rust severity difference alone could not cause 

variation in yield among the cultivars [44].  

Cultivars might also differ in their genetic yield potential and may express differently in different 

environments. In the present study yields of the tested cultivars were lower at Debre-Tabor while their yields were 

high at Adet. This indicated that environment affected the expression of the cultivars‟ genetic potential. The study 

of Hamam and Khaled [69] and Mohammadi, et al. [70] indicated that grain yield of wheat varieties largely 

depend on climatic conditions. Cultivar Selam clearly demonstrates the effect of environment on the expression of 

the genetic yield potential of a cultivar as its grain yield declined from 4.13 t ha-1 at Adet to 3.1 t ha-1 at Debre-

Tabor. 

 
Table-5. Mean values of thousand kernel weights (TKW) and grain yield for 25 durum wheat cultivars at a different location. 

Cultivar Adet Debre-Tabor 

GY(t ha-1) TKW(g) GY(t ha-1) TKW(g) 

Utuba 3.58abcd 29.5bcdef 1.71f 26.30efghi 

Bichena 4.07a 33.4abc 2.58bc 35.17abc 

Mangudo 3.36abcde 32.7abcd 1.93def 25.27fghj 

Mekuye 3.34abcde 31abcde 2.59bc 32.50bcde 

Toltu 3.09abcde 23ghi 1.78ef 20.53jk 

Hitosa 3.56abcd 26fgh 2.36cde 22.60hjk 

Denbi 3.10abcde 26.3efgh 2.69bc 28.27defgh 

Werer 3.65abcd 27.2efg 2.55bcd 35.63abc 

Tati 3.82abc 24.7fghi 1.81ef 24.90fghj 

Filakit 3.62abcd 30.4bcde 2.32cdef 23.27ghj 

Obsa 3.17abcde 21.4hij 1.82ef 21.60jk 

Ejersa 2.72def 23.7ghi 2.17cdef 25.27fghj 

Bakalcha 3.63abcd 29.6bcdef 2.67bc 32.43bcde 

Kokate 4.03ab 35.9a 2.74bc 33.87abcd 

Malefia 1.80f 20.6ij 1.15g 16.70k 

Oda 3.47abcd 28defg 2.33cdef 27.67defgh 

Ilani 3.44abcd 29.1cdef 2.55bcd 27.10efgh 

Megenagna 4.04ab 32.6abcd 2.55bcd 30.07cdef 

Mosobo 3.79abcd 33.6abc 2.46cd 31.53bcdef 

Mettaya 2.97bcde 26.8efg 2.50bcd 29.60cdefg 

Selam 4.13a 31.3abcde 3.10ab 37.97ab 

Yerer 2.93cde 25fghi 2.27cdef 27.33defgh 

Lelisso 3.96abc 34.5ab 3.53a 39.80a 

Ude 3.53abcd 34.4abc 2.44cd 32.13bcde 

Arendeto 2.33ef 17.9j 0.58h 10.83l 

Level of significance ** ** ** ** 
CV% 16.0 9.7 14.04 12.3 

Note:  ** represent highly significance difference at P < 0.01; Means within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different at 
p=0.01;, TKW= thousand kernels weights and GY=grain yield. 

 

Among the identified resistance cultivars Lelisso, Bichena and Bakalcha had the highest yield in both locations 

Table 5. Their comparatively better yields make them recommended as a resistance cultivars and stem rust 

resistance donor parent in wheat breeding programs. Conversely, cultivars Malefia had lowest yield with poor 

genetic resistance in both locations. The combined extent of poor genetic resistance with low yield could probably 

suggest that stem rust disease reduced the grain yield of durum wheat cultivar. However, there was no protected 

check plot established for each genotype to obtain information to calculate yield loss. 

 

 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 6(2): 141-156 

 

 
152 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

4. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS  

In the study, seventeen durum wheat cultivars were resistant and three cultivars were susceptible to stem rust 

race TTTTF at the seedling stage. Cultivar Mettaya and Oda were supposed to confer major gene resistance. 

Correspondingly, at Adet Bkalcha, Lelisso, Ilani, Yerer and Bichena identified as having high level of field 

resistance.  

Durum wheat cultivars Selam, Filakit, Mangudo, Ude, Megenagna, Ejersa, Mekuye, Werer, Kokate, Mosobo, 

Toltu, Obsa, Denbi and Utuba had moderate level of partial resistance while, Hitosa and Tati grouped under low 

level of partial resistance. However, all of the durum wheat cultivars except Malefia and Arendeto were grouped 

under a high level of partial resistance for the stem rust population present at Debre-Tabor. The correlations 

among the epidemiological parameters were highly significant. Among the identified resistance cultivars 

comparatively better TKW and grain yields were produced by Lelisso, Bichena and Bakalcha. Most of cultivars 

identified as having high and moderate level of field resistance also had resistant reaction at the seedling stage 

indicating that they possess major gene resistance towards race TTTTF.  

Therefore they can be used as sources of stem rust resistance when the aim of the breeding program is for 

major gene. However, these cultivars should be assessed for stem rust population on different locations by including 

other growing seasons to account for stability over years and locations before approval. This could be followed by 

inheritance studies coupled with marker assisted selection to establish the identity of these genes conditioning the 

resistance among these cultivars. 

 

Funding: This study was full funded by Amhara regional agricultural research institute (ARARI). 
Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.  
Acknowledgement: All authors contributed equally to the conception and design of the study. 

 

REFERENCES 

[1] B. Carter, "The importance of wheat quality," Agricultural Horizons, Cooperating Agencies: Washington State 

University, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and Eastern Washington Counties.Cooperative2002. 

[2] S. K. Khanzada, A. Raza, S. Ahmad, I. Korejo, and Z. Imran, "Release of chonte# 1 in Afghanistan: Future threat to 

sustainable wheat production in the region," Pakistan Journal of Phytopathology, vol. 24, pp. 82-84, 2012. 

[3] D. Kahrizi, K. Cheghamirza, M. Kakaei, R. Mohammadi, and A. Ebadi, "Heritability and genetic gain of some 

morphophysiological variables of durum wheat (Triticum turgidum var. durum)," African Journal of Biotechnology, vol. 

9, pp. 4687-4691, 2010. 

[4] U. J. D., P. J. B., D. K. H., and R. K. H., "Development of identification keys on the basis of plant morphological 

character in wheat," AGRES- Int. e-J, vol. 4, pp. 290-300, 2015. 

[5] M. Maccaferri, M. A. Cane, M. C. Sanguineti, S. Salvi, M. C. Colalongo, A. Massi, F. Clarke, R. Knox, C. J. Pozniak, 

and J. M. Clarke, "A consensus framework map of durum wheat (Triticum durum Desf.) suitable for linkage 

disequilibrium analysis and genome-wide association mapping," BMC Genomics, vol. 15, pp. 1-21, 2014.Available at: 

https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-15-873. 

[6] W. Denbel and A. Badebo, "Valuable sources of resistance in the Ethiopian durum wheat landraces to Ug33 and other 

stem rust races," International Journal of Agronomy and Plant Production, vol. 3, pp. 191-195, 2012. 

[7] C. Central Statistical Agency, Agricultural sample survey 2015/2016 volume I. report on area and production of crops (private 

peasant holdings, Meher season). Statistical bulletin vol. 584. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Central Statistical Agency, 2016. 

[8] A. Badebo, B. Abeyo, and V. Akulumuka, "Wheat research and development in the eastern and central Africa: past, 

present and future outlook. In:  Wandera F., Akulumuka V., Maina J., Otiang J., Mubiru J. F., Mbugua D., and Muinga 

R. (Eds.), Regional specialization for enhanced agricultural productivity and transformation," in Proceedings of the 

Eastern Africa Agricultural Productivity Program End-of-Phase One Project Conference and Exhibition. [ASARECA] 

Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa, 2015, pp. 60-70. 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 6(2): 141-156 

 

 
153 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

[9] N. k. Margaret, "Analysis of farmer preferences for wheat variety traits in Ethiopia: A gender-responsive study," MSc 

Thesis, Cornell University, 2013. 

[10] M. V. Ginkel, G. Gebeyehu, and T. Tesemma, "Stripe, stem, and leaf rust races in major wheat-producing areas in 

Ethiopia," IAR Newsletter of Agricultural Research, vol. 3, pp. 6-8, 1989. 

[11] D. Hodson, "Localized stem rust epidemic in Southern Ethiopia extreme caution and vigilance needed in East Africa 

and Middle East region. A global wheat rust monitoring system. Internet source." Retrieved: 

http://rusttracker.cimmyt.org/? p=5473 [Accessed 25 October 2017], 2013. 

[12] R. P. Singh, J. Huerta-Espino, and A. P. Roelfs, The wheat rusts. In: Bread wheat: Improvement and production, Curtis, B.C., 

S. Rajaram and H.G. Macpherson (Eds.). Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization, 2002. 

[13] O. E. L., "Broadening the wheat gene pool for stem rust resistance through genomic-assisted introgressions from 

Aegilops tauschii," Doctoral Dissertation, Kansas State University, USA, 2012. 

[14] R. P. Singh, "Pros and cons of utilizing major, race-specific resistance genes versus partial resistance in breeding rust 

resistant wheat," in In Proceedings, Borlaug Global Rust Initiative, 2012 Technical Workshop, September 1-4, Beijing, China: 

Oral presentations. Borlaug Global Rust Initiative, 2012, pp. 57-65. 

[15] R. P. Singh, D. P. Hodson, J. Huerta-Espino, Y. Jin, P. Njau, R. Wanyera, S. A. Herrera-Foessel, and R. W. Ward, 

"Will stem rust destroy the world's wheat crop?," Advances in Agronomy, vol. 98, pp. 271-309, 2008.Available at: 

https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2113(08)00205-8. 

[16] CIMMYT, Sounding the alarm on global stem rust. An assessment of race Ug99 in Kenya and Ethiopia and the potential for 

impact in neighboring regions and beyond. Outbreak in Eastern Africa. 29 May 2005. Mexico: CIMMYT, 2005. 

[17] P. Olivera, M. Newcomb, L. J. Szabo, M. Rouse, J. Johnson, S. Gale, D. G. Luster, D. Hodson, J. A. Cox, and L. Burgin, 

"Phenotypic and genotypic characterization of race TKTTF of Puccinia graminis f. sp. tritici that caused a wheat stem 

rust epidemic in southern Ethiopia in 2013–14," Phytopathology, vol. 105, pp. 917-928, 2015. 

[18] T. Abebe, G. Woldeab, and W. Dawit, "Distribution and physiologic races of wheat stem rust in Tigray, Ethiopia," 

Journal of Plant Pathology and Microbiology, vol. 3, pp. 1-6, 2012. 

[19] B. Admassu and E. Fekadu, "Physiological races and virulence diversity of Puccinia graminis f. sp. tritici on wheat in 

Ethiopia," Phytopathologia Mediterranea, vol. 44, pp. 313-318, 2005. 

[20] E. Hailu, G. Woldaeb, W. Denbel, W. Alemu, T. Abebe, and A. Mekonnen, "Distribution of stem rust (Puccinia 

graminis f. sp. tritici) Races in Ethiopia," Plant, vol. 3, pp. 15-19, 2015. 

[21] B. Admassu, V. Lind, W. Friedt, and F. Ordon, "Virulence analysis of Puccinia graminis f. sp. tritici populations in 

Ethiopia with special consideration of Ug99," Plant Pathology, vol. 58, pp. 362-369, 2009. 

[22] R. W. Stubbs, J. M. Prestcott, E. E. Saari, and H. J. Dubin, Cereal disease methodology manual vol. 46. Mexico: 

CIMMYT, 1986. 

[23] E. C. Stakman, D. M. Stewart, and W. Q. Loegering, Identification of physiologic races of Puccinia graminis var.tritici vol. 

617: USDA. Agricultural Research Service. E, 1962. 

[24] R. F. Peterson, A. B. Campbell, and A. E. Hannah, "A diagrammatic scale for estimating rust intensity on leaves and 

stems of cereals," Canadian Journal of Research, vol. 26, pp. 496-500, 1948. 

[25] R. D. Wilcoxson, B. Skovmand, and A. H. Atif, "Evaluation of wheat cultivars for ability to retard development of stem 

rust," Annals of Applied Biology, vol. 80, pp. 275-281, 1975.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-

7348.1975.tb01633.x. 

[26] C. L. Campbell and L. V. Madden, Introduction to plant disease epidemiology. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1990. 

[27] A. P. Roelfs, R. P. Singh, and E. E. Saari, Rust diseases of wheat: Concepts and methods of disease management. Mexico, D.F.: 

Cimmyt, 1992. 

[28] J. E. VanderPlank, Disease resistance in plants. New York: Academic Press, 1968. 

[29] Minstry of Agriculture (MoA), "Plant variety release, protection and seed quality control directorate. Issue No. 18. 

Addis Abeba, Ethiopia," 2016. 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 6(2): 141-156 

 

 
154 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

[30] K. A. Gomez and A. A. Gomez, Statistical procedure for agricultural research, 2nd ed. New York, USA: A Wiley 

Interscience Publications, 1984. 

[31] I. SAS, SAS/STAT software [computer program], Version 9.2. Cary, NC, USA: SAS Institute. Inc, 2008. 

[32] SPSS, SPSS  for windows, version 16.0. Chicago: SPSS Inc, 2007. 

[33] E. A. Ogutu, M. K. Charimbu, and P. N. Njau, "Evaluation of stem rust (Puccinia graminis f. sp tritici) seedling 

resistance in Kenyan bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Mutant lines," World, vol. 5, pp. 279-283, 2017. 

[34] D. Cheruiyot, P. P. O. Ojwang, P. N. Njau, P. F. Arama, and S. Bhavani, "Evaluation of advanced wheat (Triticum 

aestivum L.) lines for stem rust (Puccinia graminis f. sp. tritici) resistance and yield," International Journal of Agronomy 

and Agricultural Research, vol. 6, pp. 57-70, 2015. 

[35] S. Safavi and F. Afshari, "A seven-year assessment of resistance durability to yellow rust in some wheat cultivars in 

Ardabil province, Iran," Journal of Crop Protection, vol. 6, pp. 409-421, 2017. 

[36] S. J. A. Shah, S. Hussain, M. Ahmad, and M. Ibrahim, "Characterization of slow rusting resistance against Puccinia 

striiformis f. sp. tritici in candidate and released bread wheat cultivars of Pakistan," Journal of Plant Pathology & 

Microbiology, vol. 5, pp. 1-9, 2014. 

[37] J. G. Ellis, E. S. Lagudah, W. Spielmeyer, and P. N. Dodds, "The past, present and future of breeding rust resistant 

wheat," Frontiers in Plant Science, vol. 5, p. 641, 2014.Available at: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2014.00641. 

[38] E. Fekadu, B. Admassu, and Z. Kassaye, "Seedling and adult plant resistance in Ethiopian wheat varieties to local 

Puccinia graminis isolates," in In Proceedings of the 12th Regional Wheat Workshop for Eastern, Central and Southern Africa, 

2004, p. 86. 

[39] F. Nzuve, S. Bhavani, G. Tusiime, P. Njau, and R. Wanyera, "Evaluation of bread wheat for both seedling and adult 

plant resistance to stem rust," African Journal of Plant Science, vol. 6, pp. 426-432, 2012.Available at: 

https://doi.org/10.5897/ajps12.135. 

[40] R. P. Singh, J. HUERTA-ESPINO, and H. M. William, "Genetics and breeding for durable resistance to leaf and stripe 

rusts in wheat," Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, vol. 29, pp. 121-127, 2005. 

[41] S. Figlan, T. Baloyi, T. Hlongoane, T. Terefe, H. Shimelis, and T. Tsilo, "Adult plant resistance of selected Kenyan 

wheat cultivars to leaf rust and stem rust diseases," Cereal Research Communications, vol. 45, pp. 68-82, 2017.Available 

at: https://doi.org/10.1556/0806.44.2016.052. 

[42] X. Chen, M. Moore, E. A. Milus, D. L. Long, R. F. Line, D. Marshall, and L. Jackson, "Wheat stripe rust epidemics and 

races of Puccinia striiformis f. sp. tritici in the United States in 2000," Plant Disease, vol. 86, pp. 39-46, 2002.Available 

at: https://doi.org/10.1094/pdis.2002.86.1.39. 

[43] S. Herrera-Foessel, R. Singh, J. Huerta-Espino, J. Crossa, A. Djurle, and J. Yuen, "Evaluation of slow rusting 

resistance components to leaf rust in CIMMYT durum wheats," Euphytica, vol. 155, pp. 361-369, 2007.Available at: 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-006-9337-7. 

[44] N. B. Hei, "Genetic analysis of stem rust resistance among Ethiopian grown wheat lines," Doctoral Dissertation, 

University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa, 2014. 

[45] M. Akello, F. Nzuve, F. Olubayo, G. Macharia, and J. Muthomi, "Identification of resistance sources to wheat stem rust 

from introduced genotypes in Kenya," Journal of Agricultural Science, vol. 9, pp. 73-87, 2017.Available at: 

https://doi.org/10.5539/jas.v9n2p73. 

[46] J. T. Parlevliet and O. A. Van, "Partial resistance of barley to leaf rust, Puccinia hordei. II. Relationship between field 

trials, micro plot tests and latent period," Euphytica, vol. 24, pp. 293-303, 1975. 

[47] S. Ali, H. Rahman, S. J. A. Shah, and S. Shah, "Assessment of field resistance using host-pathogen interaction 

phenotype for wheat yellow rust," African Crop Science Journal, vol. 17, pp. 213-221, 2009. 

[48] S. A. Safavi, A. B. Ahari, F. Afshari, and M. Arzanlou, "Slow rusting resistance in Iranian barley cultivars to Puccinia 

striiformis f. sp. hordei," Journal of Plant Protection Research, vol. 53, pp. 5-11, 2013.Available at: 

https://doi.org/10.2478/jppr-2013-0001. 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 6(2): 141-156 

 

 
155 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

[49] K. Saleem, H. M. I. Arshad, S. Shokat, and B. M. Atta, "Appraisal of wheat germplasm for adult plant resistance against 

stripe rust," Journal of Plant Protection Research, vol. 55, pp. 405-414, 2015.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1515/jppr-

2015-0055. 

[50] N. B. Hei, "Evaluation of wheat cultivars for slow rusting resistance to leaf rust (Puccinia trticina Eriks) in Ethiopia," 

African Journal of Plant Science, vol. 11, pp. 23-29, 2017.Available at: https://doi.org/10.5897/ajps2016.1450. 

[51] A. Hailu, G. Woldeab, W. Dawit, and E. Hailu, "distribution of wheat stem rust (Puccinia Graminis F. Sp. Tritici) in 

West and Southwest Shewa Zones and identification of its phsiological races," Advances in Crop Science and Technology, 

vol. 3, pp. 1-10, 2015.Available at: https://doi.org/10.4172/2329-8863.1000189. 

[52] R. N. Strange, Introduction to plant pathology. New York, USA: John Wiley and Sons, 2006. 

[53] R. A. McIntosh, C. R. Wellings, and R. F. Park, Wheat rusts: An atlas of resistance genes. East Melbourne, Australia: Csiro 

Publishing, 1995. 

[54] A. K. Pathan and R. F. Park, "Evaluation of seedling and adult plant resistance to leaf rust in European wheat 

cultivars," Euphytica, vol. 149, pp. 327-342, 2006.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-005-9081-4. 

[55] I. S. Draz, M. S. Abou-Elseoud, A.-E. M. Kamara, O. A.-E. Alaa-Eldein, and A. F. El-Bebany, "Screening of wheat 

genotypes for leaf rust resistance along with grain yield," Annals of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 60, pp. 29-39, 

2015.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aoas.2015.01.001. 

[56] W. Denbel, A. Badebo, and T. Alemu, "Evaluation of Ethiopian commercial wheat cultivars for resistance to stem rust 

of wheat race „UG99‟," International Journal of Agronomy and Plant Production, vol. 4, pp. 15-24, 2013. 

[57] Z. Wang, L. Li, Z. He, X. Duan, Y. Zhou, X. Chen, M. Lillemo, R. Singh, H. Wang, and X. Xia, "Seedling and adult 

plant resistance to powdery mildew in Chinese bread wheat cultivars and lines," Plant Disease, vol. 89, pp. 457-463, 

2005.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1094/pd-89-0457. 

[58] T. Taye, C. Fininsa, and G. Woldeab, "Yield variability of bread wheat under wheat stem rust pressure at bore field 

condition of Southern Oromia," Journal of Agricultural Science and Food Technology, vol. 1, pp. 11-15, 2015. 

[59] I. Simko and H.-P. Piepho, "The area under the disease progress stairs: Calculation, advantage, and application," 

Phytopathology, vol. 102, pp. 381-389, 2012.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1094/phyto-07-11-0216. 

[60] D. M. Gebreyohannes, "Evaluation of bread wheat genotypes (Triticum aestivum) for slow rusting resistance to stem 

rust, yield and yield related traits," Doctoral Dissertation, Alemaya University of Agriculture, (AUA), 2003. 

[61] A. G. N., Plant pathology, 5th ed. University of Florida. United States of America: Department of Plant Pathology, 

2005. 

[62] J. E. Van Derplank, Plant diseases epidemic and control. New York, USA: Academic Press, 1963. 

[63] P. A. Arneson, "Plant disease epidemiology. The plant health instructor." Retrieved: 

https://www.apsnet.org/edcenter/disimpactmngmnt/topc/EpidemiologyTemporal/Pages/default.aspx. [Accessed 4 

November 2017], 2001. 

[64] S. Ali, S. Shah, and K. Maqbool, "Field-based assessment of partial resistance to yellow rust in wheat germplasm," 

Journal of Agriculture & Rural Development, vol. 6, pp. 99-106, 2008.Available at: 

https://doi.org/10.3329/jard.v6i1.1663. 

[65] T. Abrham and B. Alemayehu, "Evaluation of bread wheat (Tritium aestivum L.) varieties for rust resistance at 

Wolaita Zone, Southern Ethiopia," Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare, vol. 4, pp. 17-22, 2014. 

[66] J. Freedman and D. R. Mackenzie, Disease progress curves, their mathematical description and analysis to formulate predictors 

for loss equations. In. Teng PS (Ed.), Crop loss assessment and pest management. Lucknow, India: International Book 

Distributing Co, 1992. 

[67] M. McNeil, R. Kota, E. Paux, D. Dunn, R. McLean, C. Feuillet, D. Li, X. Kong, E. Lagudah, and J. Zhang, "BAC-

derived markers for assaying the stem rust resistance gene, Sr2, in wheat breeding programs," Molecular Breeding, vol. 

22, pp. 15-24, 2008.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11032-007-9152-4. 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 6(2): 141-156 

 

 
156 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

[68] M. Asmmawy, W. El-Orabey, M. Nazim, and A. Shahin, "Effect of stem rust infectıon on graın yıeld and yıeld 

components of some wheat cultıvars in Egypt," Science Journal Plant Pathol, vol. 2, pp. 171-178, 2013. 

[69] K. Hamam and A. Khaled, "Stability of wheat genotypes under different environments and their evaluation under 

sowing dates and nitrogen fertilizer levels," Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, vol. 3, pp. 206-217, 2009. 

[70] R. Mohammadi, M. Armion, D. Sadeghzadeh, A. Amri, and M. Nachit, "Analysis of genotype-by-environment 

interaction for agronomic traits of durum wheat in Iran," Plant Production Science, vol. 14, pp. 15-21, 2011.Available at: 

https://doi.org/10.1626/pps.14.15. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Views and opinions expressed in this article are the views and opinions of the author(s), Current Research in Agricultural Sciences shall not be responsible or 
answerable for any loss, damage or liability etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content. 

 


