Hostname: page-component-f554764f5-sl7kg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-18T20:01:27.392Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Evaluation of Western Ethiopian Sorghum Landraces for Resistance to Striga hermonthica (Delile) Benth

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 March 2025

Minyahil Kebede Earecho*
Affiliation:
Researcher, Department Plant Protection Research, Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, Assosa Agricultural Research Center, Assosa, Benishangul Gumuz, Ethiopia
Esubalew Nebiyu
Affiliation:
Researcher, Department Plant Protection Research, Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, Assosa Agricultural Research Center, Assosa, Benishangul Gumuz, Ethiopia
*
Corressponding author: Minyahil Kebede Earecho; Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Purple witchweed is a hemiparasitic plant that significantly affects sorghum yields in semiarid regions. It also affects crops such as corn, millets, and rice. Developing purple witchweed-resistant sorghum varieties is an essential element in integrated purple witchweed management. This study evaluated the response of 48 sorghum genotypes to purple witchweed grown both in pots and in field conditions. Resistant varieties (Berhan and Framida) and susceptible varieties (Assosa-1, Adukara, and ETSL102967) were used as controls. The findings revealed substantial variability among the sorghum landraces in their response to purple witchweed. Purple witchweed density was less when seeds were grown with early maturing sorghum genotypes, while late-maturing genotypes were more susceptible to the weed. Notably, the ETSL102969 landrace showed strong resistance, comparable to that of Berhan. Additionally, the ETSL102970 landrace demonstrated superior resistance to purple witchweed compared to Framida. Based on these results, ETSL102969 and ETSL102970 are recommended as valuable sources of resistance for breeding programs aiming to improve sorghum resistance against purple witchweed in Ethiopia.

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Weed Science Society of America

Introduction

Purple witchweed is a hemiparasitic flowering weed belonging to the Orbanchaceae family (Matusova et al. Reference Matusova, Rani, Verstappen, Franssen, Beale and Bouwmeester2005; Mohamed and Musselman Reference Mohamed, Musselman and Labrada2008). It is globally widespread and damaging (Ejeta and Gressel Reference Ejeta and Gressel2007; Oswald Reference Oswald2005; Parker Reference Parker2009), and is particularly prevalent in sub-Saharan Africa (Gethi and Smith Reference Gethi and Smith2004; Mohamed and Musselman Reference Mohamed, Musselman and Labrada2008; Rodenburg et al. Reference Rodenburg, Demont, Zwart and Bastiaans2016). Purple witchweed severely affects production of sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench], corn (Zea mays L.), millets [Eleusine coracana Gaertn. and Cenchrus americanus (L.) Morrone], tef [Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter], rice (Oryza sativa L.), and even sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) (Addisu and Feleke Reference Addisu and Feleke2021; Atera and Itoh Reference Atera and Itoh2011; Atera et al. Reference Atera, Itoh, Azuma and Ishii2012; Kountche et al. Reference Kountche, Al-Babili and Haussmann2016; Parker Reference Parker2012; Spallek et al. Reference Spallek, Mutuku and Shirasu2013). The weed drastically reduces agricultural productivity for small-scale subsistence farmers in sub-Saharan Africa, including Ethiopia, and is considered the most devastating biological barrier to cereal production (Omanya et al. Reference Omanya, Haussmann, Hess, Reddy, Kayentao, Welz and Geiger2004).

Several studies have highlighted the widespread infestation of purple witchweed in Ethiopia. Gebreslasie et al. (Reference Gebreslasie, Tessema, Hamza and Nigussie2016) reported moderate to severe infestation throughout Tigray. Degebasa et al. (Reference Degebasa, Tessema, Bekeko and Belete2022) found it to be the dominant species in eastern and western Hararghe, Oromia. In Benishangul Gumuz, purple witchweed poses a significant challenge to sorghum production across almost all districts. The impact on sorghum production in Ethiopia is significant and widespread. Yield losses due to purple witchweed infestation range from 65% to 100% (Bayable and Marcantonio Reference Bayable and Di Marcantonio2013; Ejeta et al., Reference Ejeta, Babiker and Butler1993; Haussmann et al. Reference Haussmann, Hess, Welz and Geiger2000; Degebasa et al. Reference Degebasa, Tessema, Bekeko and Belete2022; Tesso et al. Reference Tesso, Gutema, Derassa and Gebisa2007). In Benishangul Gumuz, purple witchweed is the primary factor affecting sorghum production (Mesfin and Girma Reference Mesfin and Girma2022). The detrimental effects extend beyond Ethiopia to other countries in eastern and West Africa (Ejeta and Gressel Reference Ejeta and Gressel2007). These points underscore the necessity of developing effective strategies to manage and control purple witchweed to mitigate its devastating impact on sorghum production in the Benishangul Gumuz region and other affected areas in Ethiopia. The use of resistant crop varieties has been proposed as a practical and cost-effective long-term strategy for managing purple witchweed (Hearne Reference Hearne2009; Mandumbu et al. Reference Mandumbu, Mutengwa, Mabasa and Mwenje2019). Therefore, this study aimed to identify sorghum genotypes that are resistant to purple witchweed.

Materials and Methods

Plant Materials

The sorghum genotypes in this study were selected from landraces collected from farmers’ fields in Ethiopia, specifically in Benishangul Gumuz and some parts of western Oromia regions. The study included 49 genotypes and four released varieties (Table 1). Resistant checks, Berhan and Framida, were obtained from the Melkassa Agricultural Research Center. The use of check varieties allowed for effective assessment of resistance to purple witchweed. Purple witchweed seeds used in this study were collected over 3 yr (2019 to 2021) from heavily infested sorghum fields in various districts of Assosa Zone, including Bambasi, Abramo, and Ura. The seeds were stored in glass jars and kept in the dark at room temperature until needed for the trials.

Table 1. Sources of 49 sorghum genotypes used in the study.a

a Abbreviations: AmR, Amhara Region/Ethiopia; AsARC, Assosa Agricultural Research Center; BGR, Benishangul Gumuz Region/Ethiopia; ETSL, Ethiopian sorghum landrace; MARC, Melkassa Agricultural Research Center/Ethiopia; OrR, Oromia Region/Ethiopia; S/N, serial number.

For the pot trials, 48 sorghum genotypes were used, including both susceptible and resistant checks. Assosa-1 and Adukara served as the susceptible checks, while Berhan was the resistant check. From these initial tests, 33 genotypes were selected for further evaluation in a specially designed purple witchweed sick plot at the Assosa Agricultural Research Center. This phase included another resistant check, Framida. To validate the pot and sick plot trials, seven sorghum genotypes, including resistant checks Berhan and Framida and promising resistant landraces ETSL102969, ETSL102970, and ETSL102975, alongside susceptible checks Assosa-1 and ETSL102957, were evaluated in farmers’ fields at three locations in Assosa, Benishangul Gumuz Region.

Study Sites, Trial Design, and Procedures

The trials were established at the Assosa Agricultural Research Center located between 10.0432°N and 34.5687°E, 1,553 m asl, in the Assosa Zone of the Benishangul Gumuz Region. The area receives a mean annual rainfall of 1,177 mm and has a mean temperature of 26.8 C.

The pot trials were laid out in a randomized complete block design with two replications in 2020 and 2021 under Lath-house conditions (temperature, 21–28 C; 12-h light/dark photoperiod; watered twice per week). A mix of sand, peat, and compost (1:3:1 volume/volume) filled 96 round plastic pots with a diameter of 27 cm at the top, 22 cm at the bottom, and height of 28.5 cm. Each pot received 4 mg of purple witchweed seeds, which were covered with a thin layer of soil mix (up to 5 cm depth). After a 10-d preconditioning period for the purple witchweed seeds, six sorghum seeds of each genotype were sown and later thinned to three plants per pot. The pots were not fertilized to enhance purple witchweed emergence.

In 2022, 33 sorghum genotypes were evaluated in purple witchweed sick plots at the center. The site was plowed twice with a tractor, and furrows spaced 70 cm apart were prepared with a furrow maker. The trial was laid out in a randomized complete block design with two replications. Furrows within each plot (2 m × 1.40 m) were uniformly infested with purple witchweed seeds collected during the 2021 cropping season. These seeds were covered with a thin soil layer and preconditioned for 10 d. Sorghum genotypes were then sown in the furrows at a rate of 10 kg ha−1. Aside from purple witchweed, other weeds were hand-weeded as observed, and recommended fertilization such as 100 kg ha−1 NPS (19 kg nitrogen, 38 kg P2O5, and 7 kg sulfur) at sowing and 50 kg ha−1 urea after thinning was followed.

For validation, a trial was designed in a randomized complete block design with three replications, using farmers’ fields as replications. Seven selected sorghum genotype were tested using plot sizes of 4.20 m × 4.05 m for each genotype. Weeds, except purple witchweed, were manually removed, and recommended fertilization was followed.

Data Collection and Analysis

Data were collected on both sorghum and purple witchweed parameters. For sorghum, the data included days to 50% anthesis, days to maturity, plant height, number of leaves, biomass, and dry matter (grams per pot). For purple witchweed, recorded data included emerged purple witchweed height and count at weekly intervals from the 7th to 12th week after crop emergence (WACE). Additionally, we measured purple witchweed biomass and dry matter.

To determine the maximum aboveground purple witchweed, we followed the methods suggested by Rodenburg et al. (2006). The area under purple witchweed number progress curve (ASNPC) was calculated as suggested by (Haussmann et al., Reference Haussmann, Hess, Reddy, Welz and Geiger2012) as follows:

(1) $$ASNPC = \mathop \sum \nolimits_{i = 0}^{n - 1} ({{{Y_i} + {Y_{\left( {i + 1} \right)}}} \over 2})\left( {{t_{\left( {i + 1} \right)}} - {t_i}} \right)$$

where n is the number of purple witchweed recording dates, Y i is the purple witchweed count at the i th assessment date, and t i is the number of days after sowing at the i th assessment date.

ANOVA was carried out using the lmer() package in R software (R Core Team 2023), where sorghum genotypes were the fixed effect, while years, replication, and errors were random effects. Residual analysis was performed using the shapiro.test package to ensure the normal distribution of residuals. The randomized complete block design model used was as follows:

(2) $${Y_{ij}} = \mu + {\alpha _i} + \;{\beta _j} + {\varepsilon _{ij}}$$

where, Y ij is the observed value for the experimental unit in the j th replication (r) assigned to the i th genotype, j = 1, 2… r and i = 1, 2,.., µ is the overall mean, α is the effect due to the i th treatment, β is the effect due to the j th block, and ε ij is the error term, where error terms are independent observations from an approximately normal distribution with mean equal to zero and constant variance σ 2 ε .

An independent sample t-test assessed the significant differences in the performance of various sorghum genotypes against purple witchweed. Treatment means were separated using Tukey’s HSD procedure at a 5% probability level. Additionally, sorghum genotypes were hierarchically clustered based on the number of purple witchweed plants that emerged per sorghum plant using the Euclidean distance matrix. Ward’s linkage method was utilized with MINITAB software version 14.

Results and Discussion

Response of Sorghum Landraces to Purple Witchweed

Pot Trial

The mean number of emerged purple witchweed plants per pot across all sorghum genotypes was 12.13, and the mean number of purple witchweed plant per sorghum plant was 4.04 (Table 2). This indicates there was an adequate level of infestation to determine the resistance of sorghum genotypes to purple witchweed.

Table 2. Response of sorghum landraces to artificially infested purple witchweed grown in pots at Assosa, Benishangul Gumuz, Ethiopia.a,b,c

a Abbreviations: CV, coefficient of variation; MSD, minimum significant difference; WACE, weeks after crop emergence.

b Means within the same column followed by the same letter are not statistically different according to Tukey’s MSD (α = 0.05).

c Purple witchweed plants were counted at 12 wk after crop emergence. Experiments were conducted in 2020–2021.

The pot experiment results showed a highly significant difference (P < 0.0001) in the response of sorghum landraces to purple witchweed infestation (Table 2). The average number of emerged purple witchweed plants per pot ranged from 0.25 for the Berhan variety (resistant check) to 29.75 for the ETSL102973 landrace. Similarly, the number of purple witchweed plants per sorghum plant ranged from 0.08 for Berhan to 9.92 for ETSL102973. These findings suggest that more purple witchweed plants emerged from the pots that contained ETSL102973 sorghum seeds compared with pots that contained Berhan seeds, indicating its susceptibility to purple witchweed (Table 2 and Figure 1). On the other hand, fewer purple witchweed plants emerged in pots with sorghum landraces ETSL102969 and ETSL102970 compared to other landraces (Table 2; Figure 2).

Figure 1. Top five sorghum genotypes with lowest emerged purple witchweed count per sorghum plant from 2020 to 2022 at Assosa, Benishangul Gumuz, Ethiopia. Error bars indicate standard error of uncertainty in the average number of purple witchweed plants per sorghum plant. Tukey’s minimum significant difference = 1.02.

Figure 2. Reaction of sorghum genotypes to area under purple witchweed number progress curve (ASNPC) at Assosa, Benishangul Gumuz, Ethiopia

Purple Witchweed Sick-Plot Trial

The purple witchweed sick-plot experiment revealed significant variation (P < 0.05) among sorghum landraces in the mean number of emerged purple witchweed plants per plot at 12 WACE. Purple witchweed emergence per plot varied depending on the sorghum genotype that was also planted, ranging from 3.0 for Berhan and ETSL102969 to 148.5 for ETSL102944. Similarly, the number of emerged purple witchweed plants per sorghum plant ranged from 0.22 for ETSL102966 to 5.48 for ETSL102954 (Table 3; Figure 1). The results indicated that purple witchweed emergence (3.0 per plot) was lowest in pots with the resistant check Berhan and sorghum landrace ETSL102969. Purple witchweed emergence was also lower in pots with sorghum landraces ETSL102970, ETSL102975, ETSL19001, and ETSL100053than in the sick-plot trial with the resistant check variety Framida. These results are consistent with the findings from previous pot trials (Tables 2 and 3).

Table 3. Response of sorghum landraces to purple witchweed in an artificially infested sick plot in 2022 at Assosa, Benishangul Gumuz, Ethiopia.a,b

a Abbreviations: CV, coefficient of variation; MSD, minimum significant difference.

b Means within the same column followed by the same letter are not statistically different according to Tukey’s MSD (α = 0.05).

The study showed that the resistant sorghum genotypesmature early, with maturity periods of 125 d for Berhan, 142 d for ETSL102970, and 144 d for ETSL102969 (Table 3). This finding aligns with reports by Ayana et al. (Reference Ayana, Bantte and Tadesse2019), that early maturing sorghum genotypes show resistance to purple witchweed. Franke et al. (Reference Franke, Ellis-Jones, Tarawali, Schulz, Hussaini, Kureh, White, Chikoye, Douthwaite, Oyewole and Olanrewaju2006) also found that earlier maturing sorghum genotypes responded positively to purple witchweed stress. Additionally, the purple witchweed-resistant sorghum genotypes in this study ranged in height from 102 cm for ETSL102969 to 140 cm for Berhan. They also had fewer leaves per plant, ranging from four for ETSL102969 to six for Berhan (Table 3).

Figure 2 illustrates those genotypes ETSL102970, Berhan, and ETSL102969 had lower ASNPC values than other genotypes, indicating slower or less severe emergence of purple witchweed in these resistant sorghum genotypes. The cluster analysis grouped these genotypes into one group (Figure 3). Conversely, genotypes ETSL102957 and ETSL102944 exhibited higher ASNPC values, suggesting a higher incidence and more rapid emergence of purple witchweed around these susceptible genotypes. The resistant checks Berhan and Framida also demonstrated low ASNPC values, confirming their resistance to purple witchweed infestation. These findings further support the potential resistance of sorghum genotypes Berhan, ETSL102969, and ETSL102970 to purple witchweed infestation in Assosa, Benishangul Gumuz Region (Figures 1 and 3).

Figure 3. Cluster analysis showing the relationship among sorghum genotypes for their resistance to purple witchweed at Assosa, Ethiopia.

Validation Trials in Purple Witchweed Hot-Spot Farmer’s Fields

As illustrated in Table 4, the validation trial confirmed that the fewest purple witchweed plants per plot emerged among the resistant check Berhan and the sorghum landrace ETSL102969. Additionally, fewer purple witchweed plants grew among the sorghum landrace ETSL102970 compared to the resistant check Framida. The number of purple witchweed plants per sorghum plant was also low among Berhan, ETSL102969, and ETSL102970 plants. Conversely, the largest number of purple witchweed plants grew among the susceptible checks ETSL102957 and Assosa-1. These findings indicate that Berhan, ETSL102969, and ETSL102970 exhibit strong resistance against purple witchweed infestation. Overall, this validation trial confirmed that ETSL102969 and ETSL102970 sorghum landraces have comparable or superior resistance to purple witchweed compared with resistant checks Berhan and Framida.

Table 4. Validation of purple witchweed-resistant sorghum landraces in farmers’ fields in 2023 at Assosa, Benishangul Gumuz, Ethiopia.a,b

a Abbreviations: CV, coefficient of variation; MSD, minimum significant difference.

b Means within the same column followed by the same letter are not statistically different according to Tukey’s MSD (α = 0.05).

Furthermore, the promising sorghum landraces ETSL102969 and ETSL102970 demonstrated higher yields than the resistant checks in the validation trial. The larger seed size and white seed color of sorghum landrace ETSL102969 are particularly desirable traits among local farmers (Alemu et al. Reference Alemu, Begna and Bekele2024; Legesse et al. Reference Legesse, Demelash and Seyoum2019). These traits are beneficial for breeding programs because they can be combined with the purple witchweed resistance trait to develop sorghum varieties with both resistance and preferred seed characteristics. Incorporating these traits into breeding programs increases the likelihood of obtaining F-generations with both white color and large seed size, along with resistance to purple witchweed. This approach will not only benefit farmers but also improve productivity and enhance market value for sorghum in the region.

Practical Implication

This research reveals that Berhan, ETSL102969, and ETSL102970 showed strong resistance against purple witchweed. Additionally, the white seed color and large seed size of ETSL102969; a trait highly preferred by farmers, make this genotype more suitable for the breeding program aimed at developing purple witchweed-resistant and locally preferred sorghum varieties to improve yields and food security in regions plagued with purple witchweed. Genotypes such as Berhan, ETSL102969, and ETSL102970, when incorporated into breeding programs, could lead to more robust and resistant sorghum crops, thereby benefiting farmers in purple witchweed-affected regions.

Acknowledgments

We thank staff members of the Assosa Agricultural Research Center for providing a vehicle for collecting purple witchweed seeds, and for helping with field work.

Funding

Funding for this research was provided by the Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research.

Competing Interests

The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest.

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Charles Geddes, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

References

Addisu, S, Feleke, G (2021) Distribution and importance of Striga hermonthica on tef [Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) trotter] in Tigray regional state of Ethiopia: a preliminary survey. Int J Agric Biosci 10:6973 Google Scholar
Alemu, H, Begna, F, Bekele, D (2024) Improved sorghum technologies are vital in ensuring food security: The case of Benishangul Gumuz Region, Ethiopia. World J Food Sci Technol 8(4):126133 Google Scholar
Atera, E, Itoh, K (2011) Evaluation of ecologies and severity of Striga weed on rice in sub-Saharan Africa. Agric Biol J N Am 2:752760 Google Scholar
Atera, EA, Itoh, K, Azuma, T, Ishii, T (2012) Farmers’ perspectives on the biotic constraint of Striga hermonthica and its control in western Kenya. Weed Biol Manag 12:5362 Google Scholar
Ayana, TT, Bantte, K, Tadesse, T (2019) Evaluation of Ethiopian sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench] landraces: low germination stimulant genotypes for Striga hermonthica resistance under field condition. Adv Crop Sci Technol 7:444 Google Scholar
Bayable, D, Di Marcantonio, F (2013) Analysis of incentives and disincentives for sorghum in Ethiopia. MAFAP Technical Notes Series. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Google Scholar
Degebasa, L, Tessema, T, Bekeko, Z, Belete, K (2022) Prevalence and socioeconomic impact of Striga (Striga hermonthica) in sorghum producing areas of east and west Hararghe zones, Oromia, Ethiopia. Int J Agron 2022(1):8402280.Google Scholar
Ejeta, G, Babiker, A, Butler, L (1993) New approaches to the control of Striga Research at Purdue University. West Lafayette, IN: Agricultural Experiment Station, Purdue University.Google Scholar
Ejeta, G, Gressel, J (2007) Integrating new technologies for Striga control: towards ending the witch-hunt. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.Google Scholar
Franke, AC, Ellis-Jones, J, Tarawali, G, Schulz, S, Hussaini, MA, Kureh, I, White, R, Chikoye, D, Douthwaite, B, Oyewole, BD, Olanrewaju, AS (2006) Evaluating and scaling-up integrated Striga hermonthica control technologies among farmers in northern Nigeria. Crop Prot 25:868–78Google Scholar
Gebreslasie, A, Tessema, T, Hamza, I, Nigussie, D (2016) Abundance and distribution of Striga (Striga hermonthica (Del.) Benth.) infestation in selected sorghum (Sorghum bicolour L. Moench) growing areas of Tigray Region, Ethiopia. Afr J Agric Res 11:46744682 Google Scholar
Gethi, JG, Smith, ME (2004) Genetic responses of single crosses of maize to Striga hermonthica (Del.) Benth and Striga asiatica (L.) Kuntze. Crop Sci 44:20682077 Google Scholar
Haussmann, BIG, Hess, DE, Reddy, BVS, Welz, G, Geiger, HH (2012). Analysis of resistance to Striga hermonthica in diallel crosses of sorghum. Euphytica 116:3340 Google Scholar
Haussmann, BIG, Hess, DE, Welz, HG, Geiger, HH (2000) Improved methodologies for breeding striga-resistant sorghums. Field Crop Res 66:195211 Google Scholar
Hearne, SJ (2009) Control—the Striga conundrum. Pest Manag Sci 65:603614 Google Scholar
Kountche, BA, Al-Babili, S, Haussmann, BI (2016) Striga: a persistent problem on millets. Pages 173203 in Biotic Stress Resistance in Millets. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press Google Scholar
Legesse, T, Demelash, H, Seyoum, A (2019) Participatory variety selection for enhanced promotion and adoption of improved sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L) Moench] varieties for the humid lowland of Assosa Zone, Western Ethiopia. Sci Res Rev 12:104 Google Scholar
Mandumbu, R, Mutengwa, C, Mabasa, S, Mwenje, E (2019) Challenges to the exploitation of host plant resistance for Striga management in cereals and legumes by farmers in sub-Saharan Africa: a review. Acta Agric Scand Sect B 69:8288 Google Scholar
Matusova, R, Rani, K, Verstappen, FWA, Franssen, MCR, Beale, MH, Bouwmeester, HJ (2005) The strigolactone germination stimulants of the plant-parasitic Striga and Orobanche spp. are derived from the carotenoid pathway. Plant Physiol 139:920934 Google Scholar
Mesfin, AH, Girma, F (2022) Understanding sorghum farming system and its implication for future research strategies in humid agro-ecologies in Western Ethiopia. J Agric Food Res 10:111 Google Scholar
Mohamed, KI, Musselman, LJ (2008) Evolution and taxonomy of agronomically important Striga and Orobanche species. Pages 714 in Progress on Farmer Training in Parasitic Weed Management, Labrada, R ed. Rome: Food and Agriculture of the United Nations Plant Production and Protection Division Google Scholar
Omanya, GO, Haussmann, BIG, Hess, DE, Reddy, BVS, Kayentao, M, Welz, HG, Geiger, HH (2004) Utility of indirect and direct selection traits for improving Striga resistance in two sorghum recombinant inbred populations. Field Crop Res 89:237252 Google Scholar
Oswald, A (2005) Striga control technologies and their dissemination. Crop Prot 24:333342 Google Scholar
Parker, C (2009) Observations on the current status of Orobanche and Striga problems worldwide. Pest Manag Sci 65:453459 Google Scholar
Parker, C (2012) Parasitic weeds: a world challenge. Weed Sci 60:269276 Google Scholar
R Core Team 2023. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing,Google Scholar
Rodenburg, J, Demont, M, Zwart, SJ, Bastiaans, L (2016) Parasitic weed incidence and related economic losses in rice in Africa. Agric Ecosyst Environ 235:306317 Google Scholar
Spallek, T, Mutuku, M, Shirasu, K (2013) The genus Striga: a witch profile. Mol Plant Pathol 14:861869 Google Scholar
Tesso, T, Gutema, Z, Derassa, A, Gebisa, E (2007) An integrated Striga management option offers effective control of Striga in Ethiopia. Singapore: World Scientific Google Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1. Sources of 49 sorghum genotypes used in the study.a

Figure 1

Table 2. Response of sorghum landraces to artificially infested purple witchweed grown in pots at Assosa, Benishangul Gumuz, Ethiopia.a,b,c

Figure 2

Figure 1. Top five sorghum genotypes with lowest emerged purple witchweed count per sorghum plant from 2020 to 2022 at Assosa, Benishangul Gumuz, Ethiopia. Error bars indicate standard error of uncertainty in the average number of purple witchweed plants per sorghum plant. Tukey’s minimum significant difference = 1.02.

Figure 3

Figure 2. Reaction of sorghum genotypes to area under purple witchweed number progress curve (ASNPC) at Assosa, Benishangul Gumuz, Ethiopia

Figure 4

Table 3. Response of sorghum landraces to purple witchweed in an artificially infested sick plot in 2022 at Assosa, Benishangul Gumuz, Ethiopia.a,b

Figure 5

Figure 3. Cluster analysis showing the relationship among sorghum genotypes for their resistance to purple witchweed at Assosa, Ethiopia.

Figure 6

Table 4. Validation of purple witchweed-resistant sorghum landraces in farmers’ fields in 2023 at Assosa, Benishangul Gumuz, Ethiopia.a,b