Next Article in Journal
Substrate and Moisture Affect the Pupation Depth of the Corn Silk Flies Chaetopsis massyla and Euxesta eluta (Diptera: Ulidiidae)
Previous Article in Journal
The Effect of Cuelure on Attracting and Feeding Behavior in Zeugodacus tau (Walker) (Diptera: Tephritidae)
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Breeding Cultivars for Resistance to the African Sweetpotato Weevils, Cylas puncticollis and Cylas brunneus, in Uganda: A Review of the Current Progress

1
National Crops Resources Research Institute (NaCRRI), NARO, Kampala 999123, Uganda
2
Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA
3
International Potato Center, Kampala 999123, Uganda
4
Department of Agricultural Production, Makerere University, Kampala 999123, Uganda
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Insects 2023, 14(11), 837; https://doi.org/10.3390/insects14110837
Submission received: 31 August 2023 / Revised: 10 October 2023 / Accepted: 18 October 2023 / Published: 25 October 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Weevils (Coleoptera: Curculionoidea): Biology, Ecology and Behavior)

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Sweetpotato, a very important food and income security crop in Uganda, is severely damaged by African species of sweetpotato weevils, often causing unacceptable yield losses, particularly in susceptible varieties and areas that are prone to drought. The management of sweetpotato weevils is difficult due to their concealed feeding behavior. Various methods have been applied to manage sweetpotato weevils, including chemical methods, cultural practices, biological control, and host plant resistance, but with limited success so far. Host plant resistance could be an effective approach to managing sweetpotato weevils. As such, the National Crops Resources Research Institute has developed and released sweetpotato varieties that show varying levels of resistance for the farming community in Uganda and the sub-Saharan African region. Here, we review the progress that has been made so far towards developing sweetpotato weevil resistance and related research on weevil management in Uganda.

Abstract

In sub-Saharan Africa, sweetpotato weevils are the major pests of cultivated sweetpotato, causing estimated losses of between 60% and 100%, primarily during dry spells. The predominantly cryptic feeding behavior of Cylas spp. within their roots makes their control difficult, thus, host plant resistance is one of the most promising lines of protection against these pests. However, limited progress has been made in cultivar breeding for weevil resistance, partly due to the complex hexaploid genome of sweetpotato, which complicates conventional breeding, in addition to the limited number of genotypes with significant levels of resistance for use as sources of resistance. Pollen sterility, cross incompatibility, and poor seed set and germination in sweetpotato are also common challenges in improving weevil resistance. The accurate phenotyping of sweetpotato weevil resistance to enhance the efficiency of selection has been equally difficult. Genomics-assisted breeding, though in its infancy stages in sweetpotato, has a potential application in overcoming some of these barriers. However, it will require the development of more genomic infrastructure, particularly single-nucleotide polymorphism markers (SNPs) and robust next-generation sequencing platforms, together with relevant statistical procedures for analyses. With the recent advances in genomics, we anticipate that genomic breeding for sweetpotato weevil resistance will be expedited in the coming years. This review sheds light on Uganda’s efforts, to date, to breed against the Cylas puncticollis (Boheman) and Cylas brunneus (Fabricius) species of African sweetpotato weevil.

1. Introduction

Sweetpotato (Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam.) (2n = 6x = 90) is the third most important root crop globally after potato and cassava, with an estimated total global production of 88.7 million metric tons [1]. It is a major staple food in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), where it ranks as the second most important root crop after cassava. Africa is currently the second-largest sweetpotato-producing continent after Asia, with an estimated annual production of 28.6 million metric tons, accounting for 32% of its entire production worldwide [1]. This clonally propagated crop is part of the Convolvulaceae family, and it is the only species of the Ipomoea genus that is of economic importance [2].
Sweetpotato weevils (SPWs), Cylas spp., are the main pests that affect sweetpotatoes in Uganda and the SSA region, causing estimated yield losses that range from 60% to 100% [3,4,5], mainly during dry spells and under heavy infestations. C. puncticollis and C. brunneus are the predominant species occurring in Africa [3,6]. Adult Cylas spp. attack the leaves, stems, and storage roots of sweetpotatoes, whereas the larvae feed and grow within the storage roots and stems. This leads to poor-quality roots with an unacceptable smell and bitter taste due to the secretion of defense sesquiterpenes by the infested plants, which makes the roots unfit for human and livestock consumption [7,8]. It is reported in C. formicarius that the secretion of defense sesquiterpenes is due the formation of an ethylene dark brown necrotic layer within the sweetpotato storage root tissue as result of the injury caused by adult and larvae feeding [9].
The concealed feeding behavior of weevils within storage roots makes them quite challenging to control using methods such as chemical control. Host plant resistance, therefore, presents a more suitable alternative for the integrated pest management (IPM) of this pest. Sweetpotato breeding, however, remains a difficult task due to the large and complex nature of its genome, with additional limitations such as self and cross-incompatibility, limited flowering ability, and seed setting [10], which further complicate conventional breeding.
Attempts at breeding SPW-resistant cultivars have not yielded much to date, due to the lack of significant heritable resistance in the sweetpotato germplasms that have been examined previously [11,12]. However, some landraces with moderate resistance have previously been identified, and researchers are currently using these as parental materials in an effort to develop resistant varieties [13,14]. Sweetpotato was termed as an “orphan crop” with limited private investment in the development of its genomics infrastructure [15]. Genomic selection and marker-assisted selection stand out as promising options for developing SPW-resistant varieties in Uganda [14]. This review gives an insight into the progress that has been made so far in cultivar resistance breeding against the African sweetpotato weevils, C. puncticollis and C. brunneus, in Uganda. It also highlights aspects relating to the management and control of the two Cylas species.

2. Taxonomy and Geographical Distribution of Cylas Species

Sweetpotato weevils (Cylas spp.) belong to the Order Coleoptera, Brentidae family, and Cyladinae subfamily [16]. They are divided into three species; C. brunneus, C. puncticollis, and C. formicarius, which vary in physical characteristics such as body form, hind femoral length, and genitalia features, among others [3]. C. formicarius is typically an Asian species, but it also occurs in other tropical and sub-tropical parts of the world like Europe, North America, and Africa [17]. C. puncticollis and C. brunneus, however, are restricted to Africa [3,18]. They are the most prevalent and commonly reported SPW species on the continent [13,19,20,21]. C. puncticollis, in particular, is the most abundant in tropical Africa, reported in 24 African countries, including Uganda, Rwanda, Ghana, Nigeria, DR Congo, Kenya, Malawi, Cameroon, and Ethiopia [8,22].

3. Description and Life Cycle of Cylas Species

Adult females of the Cylas species usually lay their oval, yellowish eggs singly in sweetpotato roots or stems. They then seal the cavity with a fecal plug [23]. Cylas spp. usually prefer to lay their eggs within the roots, mostly near the roots’ crown. The egg stage lasts between 5 and 12 days, with C. puncticollis eggs maturing much quicker than those of C. brunneus [24]. The larvae of Cylas spp. are usually curved in shape and white in color, feeding and developing within the stems and roots of sweetpotato. The pupae are glabrous in shape, with those of C. puncticollis being relatively larger than those of C. brunneus [23] (Figure 1). Male and female adults of both Cylas species can be distinguished using the shapes of their distal antennal segments, notably filiform in males and club-like in females [16]. The two Cylas species differ in their morphology, coloration, and general development (Table 1).

4. Host Range and Dispersal of Cylas Species

Cylas spp. have a number of wild host plants, mainly other Ipomoea species. These include: morning glory (I. eriocarpa), beach morning glory (I. pes-caprae (L.)), water spinach (I. aquatic), wild potato vine (I. pandurate), and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum (L.)) [7,8]. However, the ideal host plant for C. puncticollis and C. brunneus is sweetpotato. In Uganda, the demand for additional hosts for weevil survival may not be as great, because most cropping systems allow for year-round sweetpotato production. Additionally, the weevil population growth rate on other Ipomoea species that are wild hosts may be very low, because they do not produce swollen roots that serve as oviposition sites. Both adult C. puncticollis and C. brunneus are usually dispersed by flying and crawling, with males being more agile and flying more than females. Most females are dispersed more through crawling than flying [7,23]. Long-distance dispersal, however, occurs mostly through the movement of infested sweetpotato storage roots and vines [8].

5. Damage Caused by Cylas Species

Adults injure the vines and leaves by feeding on the epidermis, scraping and creating oval patches, which may lead to a significant reduction in plant vigor and poor establishment in the case of early infestation [3]. Larvae usually damage the stem by feeding at the base, thereby affecting the vascular system, causing the vines to swell and eventually wilt or die [8]. However, the most significant damage is inflicted when weevils attack the underground storage roots. The feeding punctures that adults make on the exteriors of root surfaces are distinguishable from oviposition sites by their higher depth and the lack of a fecal plug [25]. Larval feeding and tunneling creates irregular galleries in the inner part of the root or stem, further damaging the plant (Figure 2). In response to this, the roots produce sesquiterpenes in self-defense, which give the roots an unacceptable odor and bitter taste, rendering them unsuitable for consumption either as food or animal feed [8,12]. The damage caused by Cylas spp. therefore affects the quantity, quality, and value of the sweetpotato storage roots produced. Under severe infestations in SSA, losses in commercial storage root yield of up to 60–100% have been documented [3,26].

6. Management and Control Strategies

Several measures have been proposed for the management, control, and eradication of SPWs. (Table 2). Because none of them are completely effective in the control of this elusive pest, an integrated pest management (IPM) approach is usually recommended. Control is made difficult because all immature developmental stages of Cylas spp. occur deep inside the storage roots and stems of the plant [8].

7. Mechanisms of Resistance of Sweetpotato to Cylas spp.

Different resistance mechanisms found existing in sweetpotato germplasms against SPWs have previously been reported, including antibiosis, antixenosis, and escape [46]. Other studies have demonstrated that SPW resistance is more than simply an escape mechanism through field phenology such as deep-rooting plants, but rather an active mechanism that is quantifiable and potentially manageable for breeding purposes [11,12,21]. Hydroxycinnamic acid (HCA) esters in the root latex and root surface (epidermal and peridermal tissues) of sweetpotatoes have been shown to deter the development of SPW larvae, reducing feeding damage and oviposition. The HCAs were identified as heptadecylcaffeic acid, hexadecylcaffeic acid, octadecylcaffeic, hexadecylcoumaric acid, octadecylcoumaric acid, and 5-0-caffeoylquinic acids from the Ugandan sweetpotato varieties “New Kawogo” and “Tanzania” [12,13,14]. These acids are a major group of phenolic compounds with bioactive properties that are produced by plants for protection against biotic and abiotic stress [47].

8. Progress in Breeding for Resistance to Cylas spp.

Progress in breeding for sweetpotato weevil resistance has been rather slow, owing to the complexity of the sweetpotato genome and the limited sources of genetic resistance to Cylas spp. [11,12]. Genetic studies in sweetpotato are limited by high levels of self and cross-incompatibility, limited flowering ability, high ploidy levels, and poor seed germination, as also observed in Taiwan [48]. Each successful cross usually leads to the production of less than three botanical seeds [49]. This presents a challenge for conventional breeding that solely relies on hybridization to produce genetic variability.
Nevertheless, the breeding program at the National Crops Resources Research Institute (NaCRRI) in Uganda has in the past, and to date, used conventional breeding and population improvement through recurrent mass selection for variety development in Uganda [50,51]. The phenotyping of SPW resistance was based on severity and incidence estimations. Sweetpotato severity was routinely assessed using standard protocols and a scale of 1–9 was employed where 1 = no damage; 3 = minor; 5 = moderate; 7 = heavy; and 9 = severe damage, with numbers in between representing intermediate ratings [52]. The incidence of sweetpotato weevil damage was measured as a percentage of the number of storage roots showing weevil damage symptoms to the total number of roots in a plot.
In the past, sweetpotato morphological traits such as vine vigor, ground cover, foliage weight, storage root stalk (neck length), storage root cortex thickness, storage root size, storage root shape, storage root formation (arrangement), root latex production, and dry matter content were documented to have a significant impact on enhancing SPW field resistance [43]. However, through a correlation and path coefficient analysis, neck length was identified as the key morphological SPW resistance predictor [53]. Clones with a long storage root neck length ensure the placement of storage roots deeper in the soil. This, in turn, helps to minimize the exposure of storage roots to SPW, thus reducing damage. This trait will be useful in selecting for SPW resistance among breeding clones during the early stages of breeding. This could be accomplished at a single location prior to advancing clones for multi-location tests and analyses of biochemical hydroxycinnamic acids, thereby minimizing research costs.
To date, the National Crops Resources Research Institute of the National Agricultural Research Organization (NARO) has released 29 sweetpotato varieties with varying levels of weevil resistance in Uganda [51,54,55]. All the 29 sweetpotato varieties that have been released in Uganda so far are either moderately resistant or susceptible to sweetpotato weevils (Table 3). Varieties like “New Kawogo”, which express a moderate resistance to Cylas spp., are currently deployed as parental material in SPW breeding and related studies in Uganda [12].

9. The Genetic and Biochemical Basis for Sweetpotato Weevil Resistance

The development of sweetpotato varieties with resistance to SPWs requires an understanding of the underlying biochemical and genetic mechanisms of resistance to this pest. Our understanding of the genetic and biochemical basis of resistance to SPWs has been improved in the past decade through a number of studies. Previous research conducted to determine the basis of weevil resistance in the Ugandan landrace, “New Kawogo”, to the African SPW C. puncticollis has revealed that resistance in this variety was not only active, but also quantifiable and manageable for breeding [12]. In another study, 134 sweetpotato cultivars and landraces were evaluated for weevil resistance. Some sweetpotato cultivars, including “New Kawogo”, expressed resistance to Cylas spp., while others such as “Tanzania” and “NASPOT1” turned out to be susceptible [21].
In order to identify the biochemical basis of resistance to SPWs, the performances of seven resistant varieties of sweetpotato were compared with three susceptible varieties in field trials and laboratory bioassays [13]. Using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) of root surface and epidermal extracts, significant variations in the concentrations of hexadecyl, heptadecyl, octadecyl, and quinic acid esters of caffeic and coumaric acid were exhibited, with higher concentrations of these compounds being correlated with SPW resistance. “New Kawogo” recorded the highest concentration of these compounds. It was, therefore, concluded that the selection of sweetpotato varieties with higher levels of HCAs, particularly in the storage root surface, would probably contribute to the development of resistance to SPWs. However, this would necessitate the screening of hundreds of breeding lines using freeze-dried samples of roots and analyses using LC-MS in order to achieve long-term population improvement. Developing such a chemotyping platform, though desirable, would be quite costly [14].
In a further effort to understand the segregation of HCA esters that confer resistance to SPWs, Anyanga et al. [11] quantified these chemicals among 287 progenies of a segregating bi-parental population of the “New Kawogo” × “Beauregard” (NKB) cross. Beauregard is a USA-released cultivar, highly susceptible to SPWs. The results revealed that HCA esters conferred resistance to SPWs and segregate in the F1, suggesting that they are controlled quantitatively, and thus might be useful as markers for resistance in sweetpotato breeding programs. The progeny that displayed more resistance to SPWs than “New Kawogo”, together with those that had higher concentrations of HCA esters, were selected as new candidates and are currently being utilized as parental genotypes in sweetpotato breeding.
Knowledge of the inheritance and heritability of resistance to African SPWs is also apparently still limited. Some studies have been conducted in the past to establish the heritability of SPW resistance, in which resistance to Cylas spp. was measured on the basis of the severity of weevil damage to field storage roots and total HCA ester concentrations [14]. A moderately high broad-sense heritability was estimated (H2 = 0.49). Another study revealed similar results (with H2 = 0.49) and further showed that additive effects contributed the most to SPW resistance and HCA concentration [56]. More recently, a narrow-sense heritability (h2 = 0.30) was reported for SPW resistance based on a relatively high population [45]. The adoption of modern experimental designs, such as row-column designs which use more replications for field phenotyping, will probably enable the estimation of higher heritability values for SPW resistance for future genomic analyses.
From these studies, the authors observed that 18 progeny exhibited positive transgressive segregation (performing better than the resistant parent “New Kawogo”, mean severity 2.1) for field-based SPW resistance, with mean severity scores below 2.1. For HCA-based resistance, two progeny outperformed the resistant parent “New Kawogo” (HCA concentration 282 ng/g) for total HCA concentration. This implied that SPW resistance was heritable and could be improved in populations through crossing.

10. Marker-Assisted Selection and Genomic Selection for SPW Resistance

The limited number of genomic resources has been a major bottleneck in breeding for SPW resistance. Over the years, sweetpotato genomic improvement has generally lagged behind other important crops such as maize [57], rice [58], and wheat [58]. This has been attributed to the scarcity of molecular markers to facilitate genetic analyses [59], the lack of appropriate specific statistical procedures due to its polyploid nature, and limited user-friendly computer software for implementing the statistical procedures for genetic analyses of important traits [15]. To maximize the success rate in developing sweetpotato varieties, genomic tools are critical [60], particularly since most traits in sweetpotato are quantitatively inherited [59,61].
Molecular markers have hardly been used in sweetpotato genetic research compared to other staple crops, yet they are critical in the genetic analysis of complex traits [59,62] and increase the efficiency of selection for low-heritability traits through marker-assisted selection (MAS) [59,62].
Sweetpotato weevil resistance, like most sweetpotato traits of agronomic and economic importance, is quantitative in nature, controlled by many genes and with a high environmental plasticity [49,57]. This has resulted in slow breeding progress through the use of conventional breeding approaches. Associating such a complex trait with genomic regions can be performed through QTL analyses [63]. However, there is currently a relatively low number of published simple sequence repeats (SSR) and single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNPs) markers for sweetpotato [14,57,64,65]. In the past, most molecular genetic studies in sweetpotato have been based on dominant markers that were easier to score [66,67,68], but with limited utility for sweetpotato improvement via MAS and genomic selection (GS), unlike SSRs and SNPs [14,69].
Some initial progress has been made in identifying SSR and SNP markers for use in breeding for SPW resistance. Yada et al. [70] conducted a study in which he examined the genetic diversity in the NKB population using SSR markers. The same population was later genotyped with these SSR markers to identify SPW resistance loci [14]. Five SSR markers were observed to be associated with field SPW severity, whereas seven were linked to HCA ester concentration. Three markers showed a significant association, suggesting their high potential for use in the development of SPW-resistant cultivars [14]. Four QTLs were later identified using next-generation sequencing (NGS) technology, explaining a total of 37.7% of the variation in SPW resistance and 15.9% of the variation in storage root HCA ester concentration in the NKB population [57].
Genomic selection stands out as a novel approach to accelerating genetic gains in sweetpotato [71]. In their pioneering work to explore the potential of genomic selection in sweetpotato, the predictive ability based on several factors was performed for simple traits and yield traits for a single population. Though the predictive ability was low for complex traits, the use of multi-trait models offered confidence for the better prediction of such traits [71]. In addition, studies on other polyploids like octaploid strawberry have reported a high accuracy for lower-heritability traits [72,73]. Despite the reports of lower heritability for insect pest resistance across crop species, the application of genomic prediction in maize showed a moderate to high predictive ability for fall army worm and maize weevil [74]. Therefore, the application of genomic selection for weevil resistance is feasible and can be achieved after optimizing the size, composition, structure, and phenotyping of the training population and assembling sufficient diversity in the population.

11. Genomic Resources for Sweetpotato Improvement

Through global collaborative research, the high-quality sequencing of the genomes of two diploid close relatives of sweetpotato, I. trifida and I. triloba, was successfully accomplished [75] and a genome sequence-based marker platform for sweetpotato improvement was developed. From these genome reference sequences, thousands of single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers have been developed and are being used for selecting key traits such as beta carotene content in breeding populations in Africa. Ipomoea trifida is the closest wild species to sweetpotato, as evidenced by a number of cytology and molecular studies [76,77,78,79]. Though it is the preferred reference for I. batatas, the I. triloba genome can also be used as a complementary reference sequence in sweetpotato breeding [75]. In 2017, the first sweetpotato reference genome was released by Yang et al. [80] using a haplotyping method. Nevertheless, there are still on-going efforts to develop a high-quality whole-genome sequence for hexaploid sweetpotato [75,80]. Once completed, this will facilitate genomic selection and enable the more efficient introgression of important traits such as SPW resistance through controlled crosses from genomics-based characterized parents carrying resistance alleles, ultimately leading to the development of sweetpotato varieties with desirable attributes.
The advances in DNA sequencing methods through NGS technology and bioinformatics resources over the past decade have also enabled large numbers of SNP markers to be developed and utilized in molecular breeding using different tools [75,80].

12. Genetic Transformation for Weevil Resistance

Research has been conducted in SSA to develop varieties that are resistant to SPWs through genetic transformation and crossing landraces with transgenic cultivars. One of the first transformations in sweetpotato was for weevil resistance. Agrobacterium-mediated transformation was used to introduce the delta endotoxin gene cry8Db, which was obtained from Bacillus thuringiensis, into the sweetpotato cultivar “KB1” [61]. This gene encodes a protein that is insecticidal and fatal to many insect larvae. A total of 21 lines were later regenerated from the calli that had been transformed. Upon testing, these lines later displayed a lower weevil infestation compared to those that were not transformed [81]. Agrobacterium-mediated transformation was also utilized to transform the Ugandan sweetpotato landrace “Kyebandula” by introducing the genes for the bacterial endotoxins cry7A1 and cry3Ca. Positive PCR findings purportedly showed that the procedure was successful. Nevertheless, the transformed calli were later unable to develop into whole plants [82].
Ekobu et al. [83] conducted an experiment in which they evaluated the toxicity of Cry proteins to C. puncticollis and C. brunneus. The three most active Bt Cry proteins with potential to confer resistance against C. puncticollis and C. brunneus were Cry7Aa1, cryET33-34, and Cry3Ca1 with an LC50 value (mg/mL diet) against the first instar C. puncticollis and second instar C. brunneus below 1 ppm. However, they were not effective against SPW larvae, a result partly attributed to the root tissue’s low level of Cry protein expression. Another study investigated the possibility of hybridizing transgenic and non-transgenic sweetpotatoes to produce transgenic offspring [40]. However, hybrid sweetpotato produced from the transgenic event did not exhibit any substantial variations in Cry protein expression. Transgenic sweetpotatoes that expressed Cry proteins did not exhibit the anticipated levels of C. puncticollis resistance, and a further evaluation of more transgenic events was recommended.
Recently, Anyanga et al. [84] studied the effect of combining the anti-feedant effects of HCA esters with the expression of Bt proteins in transformed plants. The study observed that, although resistance was naturally conferred by HCA acids and deterred oviposition by adults, these compounds were restricted to the roots and did not protect against the larvae, which feed in the cortex, causing the greatest damage. The authors evaluated the bioactivity of the Cry7Aa1 protein and HCA esters both individually and in combination for causing mortality against SPW larvae. Larval mortality proved to be higher when a combination of HCA esters and Bt protein was used under laboratory bioassay conditions. Further research was recommended to establish the effect of the combination under field conditions.

13. Future Prospects

Further research on genetic transformation and genome editing: The evaluation of more transgenic events carrying cry genes would increase the likelihood of successfully identifying those with a higher cry protein expression, which could potentially provide effective weevil control. Mitigating any existing constraints to genetic transformation could contribute to significant developments in the genetic enhancement of sweetpotato. The use of RNAi technology that has been tested on the African sweetpotato weevil species [85,86] offers future potential for managing this pest in Uganda. Nevertheless, it is time to apply modern approaches such as gene editing in sweetpotato for sweetpotato weevil management.
Improved phenotypic strategies and analytics: As sequencing and genotyping costs continue to drop, phenotyping has been highlighted as one of the most costly and major limitations to the precise mapping of traits in plant breeding [87]. Novel next-generation phenotyping platforms that facilitate the accurate, low-cost, and timely acquisition of phenotypic data [88] will need to be developed and utilized for enhancing the quality of the phenotypic data collected in Uganda and the region. High-throughput, near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy (NIRS) analyses of root chemistry composition, which have been implemented in many breeding programs [87], will need to be adopted and scaled out in the SSA region. Many imaging platforms and computer software have been developed for the automated screening of attributes such as root and leaf architecture, though most are currently not yet being utilized in sweetpotato research in the region [89,90,91]. Weevil severity in Uganda is presently still measured via visual assessments of damage symptoms on roots [92]. Additionally, the application of modern analytics is vital to maximizing phenotypic data outputs. For instance, the use of modern experimental designs, such as row-column designs, which cater for more replications for field phenotyping, and the analysis of data using mixed models would enhance the heritability values for genomic analyses.
Advances in plant bio-chemistry: Advances will need to be made in the use of plant biochemistry for revealing the basis of pest resistance in sweetpotato. Although plant biochemistry is now being used for screening for SPW resistance in Uganda breeding programs, low-cost analysis throughput platforms such as near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) are required, since wet chemistry platforms like liquid chromatography mass spectrometry (LC-MS) are still costly for chemical resistance profiling when several clones have to be screened at different breeding stages. The calibration of NIRS for the analysis of the total HCA ester concentrations in root samples would enhance the throughput screening of breeding materials for population improvement [14]. This could be plausible considering that a similar method, Fourier-infrared spectroscopy, has previously successfully been used for the quantification of the total HCA esters in forages [93].
Advances in genomics: It is currently more important than ever that more molecular markers, particularly SNPs, are identified through NGS platforms, since this would expedite genomic breeding for weevil resistance and other key traits in Uganda. This has been enabled by recent research advances such as the published genome sequence of diploid I. trifida, the closest relative and putative progenitor of sweetpotato [75]. Ultimately, the completion of the ongoing whole-genome sequencing of cultivated hexaploid sweetpotato in the near future will further enable the maximum exploitation of the genomics-assisted improvement of this crop in Uganda and the region.
Exploring the potential of heterosis based breeding: In the past, sweetpotato breeding has mainly relied on the ability of breeders to identify parental genotypes possessing desirable traits, and to combine these parents through hybridization schemes such as polycross and controlled cross nurseries [51,93,94,95]. Preliminary studies have, however, shown that there are better genetic gains from heterosis-based breeding compared to using polycross [94]. Nonetheless, the potential limitation of this approach is the high level of self and cross-incompatibilities in some of the diverse parental genotypes [96], in addition to seed set abortions.
Molecular methods are vital in sweetpotato improvement via heterosis. Genetic markers such as SNPs are important for diversity analyses of parental genotypes and for the selection of unrelated parents while constituting heterotic groups for use in population improvement [97]. Because of self-incompatibility and high levels of inbreeding depression in sweetpotato, heterotic groups are currently divided according to the long-term geographic adaptations of breeding parental genotypes such as the African, Asian, and South and North American heterotic groups [51]. The application of heterosis-based breeding, through selecting and genotyping the best-performing SPW-resistant clones and utilizing the superior unrelated parents for subsequent population improvement, would reduce the likelihood of recombining close parental genotypes, eventually leading to higher genetic gains.

14. Conclusions

Host plant resistance is a very promising approach for sweetpotato weevil management. However, attempts to develop resistant cultivars in Uganda have not yet yielded as much as anticipated. Some progress has nonetheless been made over the past decades, as evidenced by the moderately weevil-resistant varieties that are currently under production by farmers in Uganda and SSA. The underlying genetic and bio-chemical basis for resistance has been understood to some extent and molecular markers such as SNPs have been developed, though still not being fully utilized in breeding. More effort will be needed by sweetpotato breeders to develop additional markers for mapping sweetpotato weevil resistance to facilitate marker-assisted selection and genomic selection. With the ongoing sequencing of the hexaploid sweetpotato genome, we anticipate that genomics-assisted breeding for sweetpotato weevil resistance will be expedited in the coming years. Moreover, the global advancements in sweet potato phenomics and biochemistry will eventually bring forth cutting-edge approaches for sweetpotato improvement. This will eventually lead to accelerated genetic gains in breeding for resistance to sweetpotato weevils and other key traits in Uganda and the SSA region.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, I.M. and B.Y.; writing—original draft preparation, I.M. and P.M.; writing—review and editing, I.M., B.Y., D.M.C., B.M.O., R.T.S., M.O.A., F.O. and A.K., project administration, B.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) through the PEARL I: Biochemistry-Based Selection and Development of Nutrient Rich, Weevil Resistant Sweetpotato Varieties in Uganda Sweetpotato project (Contract ID: OPP1112515).

Data Availability Statement

The raw data sets of the reviewed papers in this article are available for public and can be accessed online at: https://sweetpotatobase.org/ (accessed on 4 October 2023).

Acknowledgments

The authors thank all the partners that have worked over the years in sweetpotato improvement in Uganda and SSA; International Potato Center (CIP), North Carolina State University (NCSU), and the National Crops Resources Research Institute for their contribution to the research reviewed in this paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. FAOSTAT Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. Statistical Database; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  2. Woolfe, J.A. Sweet Potato-Past and Present. In Sweet Potato: An Untapped Food Resource; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  3. Sorensen, K.A. Sweetpotato Insects: Identification, Biology and Management. In The Sweetpotato; Springer Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  4. Fuglie, K.O. Priorities for Sweetpotato Research in Developing Countries: Results of a Survey. HortScience 2007, 42, 1200–1206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Capinera, J. Sweetpotato Weevil; Department of Entomology and Nematology, University of Florida: Gainesville, FL, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  6. Stathers, T.E.; Rees, D.; Nyango, A.; Kiozya, H.; Mbilinyi, L.; Jeremiah, S.; Kabi, S.; Smit, N. Sweetpotato Infestation by Cylas Spp. in East Africa: II. Investigating the Role of Root Characteristics. Int. J. Pest Manag. 2003, 49, 141–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Musana, P.; Okonya, J.S.; Mujica, N.; Carhuapoma, P.; Kroschel, J. Sweetpotato Weevil, Cylas brunneus (Fabricius). In Pest Distribution and Risk Atlas for Africa. Potential Global and Regional Distribution and Abundance of Agricultural and Horticultural Pests and Associated Biocontrol Agents Under Current and Future Climates; Kroschel, J., Mujica, N., Carhuapoma, P., Sporleder, M., Eds.; International Potato Center (CIP): Lima, Peru, 2016; pp. 63–73. [Google Scholar]
  8. Okonya, J.S.; Mujica, N.; Carhuapoma, P.; Kroschel, J. Sweetpotato Weevil, Cylas puncticollis (Boheman 1883). In Pest Distribution and Risk Atlas for Africa. Potential Global and Regional Distribution and Abundance of Agricultural and Horticultural Pests and Associated Biocontrol Agents under Current and Future Climates; Kroschel, J., Mujica, N., Carhuapoma, P., Sporleder, M., Eds.; International Potato Center (CIP): Lima, Peru, 2016; pp. 54–63. [Google Scholar]
  9. Uritani, I.; Saito, T.; Honda, H.; Kim, W.K. Induction of Furano Terpenoids in Sweetpotato Roots by the Larval Components of the Sweetpotato Weevils. Agric. Biol. Chem. 1975, 1857–1862. [Google Scholar]
  10. Ssali, R.T.; Sseruwu, G.; Yada, B.; Ssemakula, G.; Wasonga, C.; Grüneberg, W.J.; Eyzaguirre, R.; Low, J.W.; Mwanga, R.O.M. Efficiency of the Polycross and Controlled Hybridization Methods in Sweetpotato Breeding in Uganda. J. Agric. Sci. 2019, 11, 123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Anyanga, M.O.; Yada, B.; Yencho, G.C.; Ssemakula, G.N.; Alajo, A.; Farman, D.I.; Mwanga, R.O.M.; Stevenson, P.C. Segregation of Hydroxycinnamic Acid Esters Mediating Sweetpotato Weevil Resistance in Storage Roots of Sweetpotato. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 1011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Stevenson, P.C.; Muyinza, H.; Hall, D.R.; Porter, E.A.; Farman, D.I.; Talwana, H.; Mwanga, R.O.M. Chemical Basis for Resistance in Sweetpotato Ipomoea Batatas to the Sweetpotato Weevil Cylas puncticollis. Pure Appl. Chem. 2009, 81, 141–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Anyanga, M.O.; Muyinza, H.; Talwana, H.; Hall, D.R.; Farman, D.I.; Ssemakula, G.N.; Mwanga, R.O.M.; Stevenson, P.C. Resistance to the Weevils Cylas puncticollis and Cylas brunneus Conferred by Sweetpotato Root Surface Compounds. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2013, 61, 8141–8147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Yada, B.; Alajo, A.; Ssemakula, G.N.; Brown-Guedira, G.; Otema, M.A.; Stevenson, P.C.; Mwanga, R.O.M.; Craig Yencho, G. Identification of Simple Sequence Repeat Markers for Sweetpotato Weevil Resistance. Euphytica 2017, 213, 129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Yada, B. Genetic Analysis of Agronomic Traits and Resistance to Sweetpotato Weevil and Sweet Potato Virus Disease in a Bi-Parental Sweetpotato Population. Ph.D. Thesis, North Carolina State University (NCSU), Raleigh, NC, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  16. Wolfe, G.W. The Origin and Dispersal of the Pest Species of Cylas with a Key to the Pest Species Groups of the World. In Sweet Potato Pest Management. A Global Perspective; Jansson, R.K., Raman, K.V., Eds.; Westview Press: Boulder, CO, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  17. Chalfant, R.; Jansson, R.; Dakshina, R.; Schalk, J. Ecology and Management of Sweetpotato Insects. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 1990, 35, 17–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ames, T.; Smit, N.E.J.M.; Braun, A.R.; O’Sullivan, J.N.; Skoglund, L.G. Sweetpotato: Major Pests, Diseases, and Nutritional Disorders; International Potato Center (CIP): Lima, Peru, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  19. Nderitu, J.; Sila, M.; Nyamasyo, G.; Kasina, M. Effectiveness of Entomopathogenic Nematodes against Sweet Potato Weevil (Cylas puncticollis Boheman (Coleoptera: Apionidae)] under Semi-Field Conditions in Kenya. J. Entomol. 2009, 6, 145–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Abidin, P.E. Sweetpotato Breeding for North Eastern Uganda: Farmer Varieties, Farmer-Articipatory Selection, and Stability of Performance. Ph.D. Thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  21. Muyinza, H.; Talwana, H.L.; Mwanga, R.O.M.; Stevenson, P.C. Sweetpotato Weevil (Cylas Spp.) Resistance in African Sweetpotato Germplasm. Int. J. Pest Manag. 2012, 58, 73–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Smit, N.E.J.M.; Matengo, L.O. Farmers’ Cultural Practices and Their Effects on Pest Control in Sweetpotato in South Nyanza, Kenya. Int. J. Pest Manag. 1995, 41, 2–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Smit, N. The Effect of the Indigenous Cultural Practices of In-Ground Storage and Piecemeal Harvesting of Sweet Potato on Yield and Quality Losses Caused by Sweet Potato Weevil in Uganda. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 1997, 64, 191–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Smit, N.E.J.M.; Van Huis, A. Biology of the African Sweetpotato Weevil Species Cylas puncticollis (Boheman) and C. Brunneus (Fabricius) (Coleoptera: Apionidae). Int. J. Trop. Insect Sci. 1998, 18, 93–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Stathers, T.; Namanda, S.; Mwanga, R.O.M.; Khissa, G.; Kapinga, R. Manual for Sweetpotato Integrated Production and Pest Management Farmer Field Schools in Sub-Saharan Africa; International Potato Center: Kampala, Uganda, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  26. Smit, N.E.J.M.; Downham, M.C.A.; Laboke, P.O.; Hall, D.R.; Odongo, B. Mass-Trapping Male Cylas Spp. with Sex Pheromones: A Potential IPM Component in Sweetpotato Production in Uganda. Crop Prot. 2001, 20, 643–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Talekar, N.S. Insect Factors in Breeding and Cultivation of Sweet Potato. In Sweet Potato Technology for the 21st Century; Hill, W., Bonsai, C., Loretan, P.A., Eds.; Tuskegee University: Tuskegee, AL, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  28. AVRDC Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center. Sweet Potato Breeding and Sweet Potato Entomology; Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center: Shanhua, Taiwan, 1987; pp. 163–198. [Google Scholar]
  29. Ebregt, E.; Struik, P.C.; Odongo, B.; Abidin, P.E. Pest Damage in Sweet Potato, Groundnut and Maize in North-Eastern Uganda with Special Reference to Damage by Millipedes (Diplopoda). J. Life Sci. 2005, 53, 49–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Otto, N.; Russel, M.; Eric, C. Sweetpotato Weevil. A Review of Recent Management Advances and Appraisal of Previous Research in Papua; 2006. [Google Scholar]
  31. Allard, G.B. Integrated Control of Arthropod Pests of Root Crops; Mid-term Report-November 1988–December 1989; CAB International Institute of Biological Control: Nairobi, Kenya, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  32. Hwang, J.S. Integrated Control of Sweetpotato Weevil, Cylas Formicarius Fabricius, with Sex Pheromone and Insecticide 2000.
  33. Bassey, E.E. Field Evaluation of Yield and Resistances of Local and Improved Sweet Potato (Ipomoea Batatas (L) Lam) Accessions to Cylas puncticollis and Meloidogyne Incognita in Southeastern Nigeria. Asian J. Agric. Sci. 2012, 4, 390–394. [Google Scholar]
  34. Jansson, R.K. Biological Control of Cylas Spp. In Sweet Potato Pest Management: A Global Perspective; Jansson, R.K., Raman, K.V., Eds.; Westview Press Inc.: Boulder, CO, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  35. Ondiaka, S.; Maniania, N.K.; Nyamasyo, G.H.N.; Nderitu, J.H. Virulence of the Entomopathogenic Fungi Beauveria Bassiana and Metarhizium Anisopliae to Sweet Potato Weevil Cylas Puncticollis and Effects on Fecundity and Egg Viability. Ann. Appl. Biol. 2008, 153, 41–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kaya, H.K. Soil Ecology. In Entomopathogenic Nematodes in Biological Control; Gaugler, R., Kaya, H.K., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  37. Kaur, S. Molecular Approaches towards Development of Novel Bacillus thuringiensis Biopesticides. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2000, 16, 781–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Lacey, L.A.; Frutos, R.; Kaya, H.K.; Vail, P. Insect Pathogens as Biological Control Agents: Do They Have a Future? Biol. Control 2001, 21, 230–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Rukarwa, R.J.; Prentice, K.; Ormachea, M.; Kreuze, J.F.; Tovar, J.; Mukasa, S.B.; Ssemakula, G.; Mwanga, R.O.M.; Ghislain, M. Evaluation of Bioassays for Testing Bt Sweetpotato Events against Sweetpotato Weevils. Afr. Crop Sci. J. 2013, 21, 235–244. [Google Scholar]
  40. Kreuze, K.F.; Valkonen, J.P.T.; Ghislain, M. Genetic Engineering. In The Sweetpotato; Loebenstein, G., Thottappilly, G., Eds.; Springer Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  41. Ikegawa, Y.; Kawamura, F.; Sadoyama, Y.; Kinjo, K.; Haraguchi, D.; Honma, A.; Himuro, C.; Matsuyama, T. Eradication of Sweetpotato Weevil, Cylas Formicarius, from Tsuken Island, Okinawa, Japan, under Transient Invasion of Males. J. Appl. Entomol. 2022, 146, 850–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Himuro, C.; Kohama, T.; Matsuyama, T.; Sadoyama, Y.; Kawamura, F.; Honma, A.; Ikegawa, Y.; Haraguchi, D. First Case of Successful Eradication of the Sweet Potato Weevil, Cylas Formicarius (Fabricius), Using the Sterile Insect Technique. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0267728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Stathers, T.E.; Rees, D.; Kabi, S.; Mbilinyi, L.; Smit, N.; Kiozya, H.; Jeremiah, S.; Nyango, A.; Jeffries, D. Sweetpotato Infestation by Cylas Spp. in East Africa: I. Cultivar Differences in Field Infestation and the Role of Plant Factors. Int. J. Pest Manag. 2003, 49, 131–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Skoglund, L.G.; Smit, N.E. Major Diseases and Pests of Sweetpotato in Eastern Africa; International Potato Center (CIP): Lima, Peru, 1994; p. 67. [Google Scholar]
  45. Mugisa, I.; Karungi, J.; Musana, P.; Odama, R.; Alajo, A.; Chelangat, D.M.; Anyanga, M.O.; Oloka, B.M.; Gonçalves dos Santos, I.; Talwana, H.; et al. Combining Ability and Heritability Analysis of Sweetpotato Weevil Resistance, Root Yield, and Dry Matter Content in Sweetpotato. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 956936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Magira, P. Evaluation of Sweetpotato Clones from International Potato Center (CIP) for Resistance to the Sweetpotato Weevils, Cylas puncticollis and C. Brunneus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Master’s Thesis, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  47. Heleno, S.A.; Martins, A.; Queiroz, M.J.R.P.; Ferreira, I.C.F.R. Bioactivity of Phenolic Acids: Metabolites versus Parent Compounds: A Review. Food Chem. 2015, 173, 501–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Lin, K.H.; Lai, Y.C.; Chang, K.Y.; Chen, Y.F.; Hwang, S.Y.; Lo, H.F. Improving Breeding Efficiency for Quality and Yield of Sweetpotato. Bot. Stud. 2007, 48, 283–292. [Google Scholar]
  49. Cervantes-Flores, J.C.; Sosinski, B.; Pecota, K.V.; Mwanga, R.O.M.; Catignani, G.L.; Truong, V.D.; Watkins, R.H.; Ulmer, M.R.; Yencho, G.C. Identification of Quantitative Trait Loci for Dry-Matter, Starch, and β-Carotene Content in Sweetpotato. Mol. Breed. 2011, 28, 201–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Grüneberg, W.J.; Mwanga, R.O.M.; Andrade, M.; Dapaah, H. Sweetpotato Breeding. In Unleashing the Potential of Sweetpotato in Sub-Saharan Africa: Current Challenges and Way Forward; Andrade, M., Barker, I., Cole, D., Dapaah, H., Elliott, H., Fuentes, S., Gruneberg, W.J., Kapinga, R., Kroschel, J., Labarta, R., et al., Eds.; CIP SSA: Nairobi, Kenya, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  51. Mwanga, R.; Odongo, B.; Niringiye, C.; Kapinga, R.; Tumwegamire, S.; Abidin, P.; Carey, E.; Lemaga, B.; Nsumba, J.; Zhang, D. Sweetpotato Selection Releases: Lessons Learnt from Uganda. Afr. Crop Sci. J. 2010, 15, 11–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Grüneberg, W.J.; Eyzaguirre, R.; Espinoza, J.; Mwanga, R.O.M.; Andrade, M.; Dapaah, H.; Tumwegamire, S.; Agili, S.; Ndingo-Chipungu, F.P.; Attaluri, S.; et al. Procedures for the Evaluation of Sweetpotato Trials; International Potato Center (CIP): Lima, Peru, 2019; ISBN 978-92-9060-522-5. [Google Scholar]
  53. Osaru, F.; Karungi, J.; Odama, R.; Chelangat, D.M.; Musana, P.; Otema, M.A.; Oloka, B.; Gibson, P.; Edema, R.; Ssali, R.T.; et al. Identification of the Key Morphological Sweetpotato Weevil Resistance Predictors in Ugandan Sweetpotato Genotypes Using Correlation and Path-coefficient Analysis. Crop Sci. 2023, 63, 1126–1138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Mwanga, R.O.M.; Odongo, B.; Niringiye, C.; Alajo, A.; Kigozi, B.; Makumbi, R.; Lugwana, E.; Namukula, J.; Mpembe, I.; Kapinga, R.; et al. ‘NASPOT 7’, ‘NASPOT 8’, ‘NASPOT 9 O’, ‘NASPOT 10 O’, and ‘Dimbuka-Bukulula’ Sweetpotato. HortScience 2009, 44, 828–832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Mwanga, R.O.M.; Odongo, B.; p’Obwoya, C.O.; Gibson, R.W.; Smit, N.E.J.M.; Carey, E.E. Release of Five Sweetpotato Cultivars in Uganda. HortScience 2001, 36, 385–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Oloka, B.M. Genetic Linkage Map Construction and QTL Analysis of Important Pest and Agronomic Traits in Two Bi-Parental Sweetpotato SNP Mapping Populations. Ph.D. Thesis, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  57. Gaffney, J.; Schussler, J.; Löffler, C.; Cai, W.; Paszkiewicz, S.; Messina, C.; Groeteke, J.; Keaschall, J.; Cooper, M. Industry-Scale Evaluation of Maize Hybrids Selected for Increased Yield in Drought-Stress Conditions of the US Corn Belt. Crop Sci. 2015, 55, 1608–1618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Larkin, D.L.; Lozada, D.N.; Mason, R.E. Genomic Selection—Considerations for Successful Implementation in Wheat Breeding Programs. Agronomy 2019, 9, 479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Chang, K.; Lo, H.; Lai, Y.; Yao, P.; Lin, K.; Hwang, S. Identification of Quantitative Trait Loci Associated with Yield-Related Traits in Sweetpotato (Ipomoea Batatas). Bot. Stud. 2009, 50, 43–50. [Google Scholar]
  60. Mwanga, R.O.M.; Ghislain, M.; Kreuze, J.; Ssemakula, G.N.; Yencho, C. Exploiting the Use of Biotechnology in Sweet Potato for Improved Nutrition and Food Security: Progress and Future Outlook. In Proceedings of the International Conference on AgroBiotechnology, Biosafety and Seed Systems in Developing Countries, Kampala, Uganda, 8–11 March 2011; pp. 25–31. [Google Scholar]
  61. Cervantes-Flores, J.C.; Yencho, G.C.; Kriegner, A.; Pecota, K.V.; Faulk, M.A.; Mwanga, R.O.M.; Sosinski, B. Development of a Genetic Linkage Map and Identification of Homologous Linkage Groups in Sweetpotato Using Multiple-Dose AFLP Markers. Mol. Breed. 2008, 21, 511–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Collard, B.C.Y.; Mackill, D.J. Marker-Assisted Selection: An Approach for Precision Plant Breeding in the Twenty-First Century. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 2008, 363, 557–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Buteler, M.I.; Jarret, R.L.; LaBonte, D.R. Sequence Characterization of Microsatellites in Diploid and Polyploid Ipomoea. Theor. Appl. Genet. 1999, 99, 123–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Hu, J.; Nakatani, M.; Mizuno, K.; Fujimura, T. Development and Characterization of Microsatellite Markers in Sweetpotato. Breed. Sci. 2004, 54, 177–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Zhang, D.P.; Cervantes, J.; Huamán, Z.; Ghislain, M. Assessing Genetic Diversity of Sweetpotato (Ipomoea Batatas (L) Lam) Varieties from Tropical America Using AFLP. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 2000, 47, 659–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Nakayama, H.; Tanaka, M.; Takahata, Y.; Matsui, K.; Iwahori, H.; Sano, Z.; Yoshinaga, M. Development of AFLP-Derived SCAR Markers Associated with Resistance to Two Races of Southern Root-Knot Nematode in Sweetpotato. Euphytica 2012, 188, 175–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Kriegner, A.; Cervantes, J.C.; Burg, K.; Mwanga, R.O.M.; Zhang, D. A Genetic Linkage Map of Sweetpotato [Ipomoea Batatas (L.) Lam.] Based on AFLP Markers. Mol. Breed. 2003, 11, 169–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Oloka, B.M.; Da Silva Pereira, G.; Amankwaah, V.A.; Mollinari, M.; Pecota, K.V.; Yada, B.; Olukolu, B.A.; Zeng, Z.-B.; Craig Yencho, G. Discovery of a Major QTL for Root-Knot Nematode (Meloidogyne Incognita) Resistance in Cultivated Sweetpotato (Ipomoea Batatas). Theor. Appl. Genet. 2021, 134, 1945–1955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Yada, B.; Brown-Guedira, G.; Alajo, A.; Ssemakula, G.N.; Mwanga, R.O.M.; Yencho, G.C. Simple Sequence Repeat Marker Analysis of Genetic Diversity among Progeny of a Biparental Mapping Population of Sweetpotato. HortScience 2015, 50, 1143–1147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Gemenet, D.C.; Lindqvist-Kreuze, H.; De Boeck, B.; da Silva Pereira, G.; Mollinari, M.; Zeng, Z.B.; Craig Yencho, G.; Campos, H. Sequencing Depth and Genotype Quality: Accuracy and Breeding Operation Considerations for Genomic Selection Applications in Autopolyploid Crops. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2020, 133, 3345–3363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Mahadevaiah, C.; Appunu, C.; Aitken, K.; Suresha, G.S.; Vignesh, P.; Mahadeva Swamy, H.K.; Valarmathi, R.; Hemaprabha, G.; Alagarasan, G.; Ram, B. Genomic Selection in Sugarcane: Current Status and Future Prospects. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 708233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Gezan, S.A.; Osorio, L.F.; Verma, S.; Whitaker, V.M. An Experimental Validation of Genomic Selection in Octoploid Strawberry. Hortic. Res. 2017, 4, 16070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Badji, A.; Machida, L.; Kwemoi, D.B.; Kumi, F.; Okii, D.; Mwila, N.; Agbahoungba, S.; Ibanda, A.; Bararyenya, A.; Nghituwamhata, S.N.; et al. Factors Influencing Genomic Prediction Accuracies of Tropical Maize Resistance to Fall Armyworm and Weevils. Plants 2020, 10, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Wu, S.; Lau, K.H.; Cao, Q.; Hamilton, J.P.; Sun, H.; Zhou, C.; Eserman, L.; Gemenet, D.C.; Olukolu, B.A.; Wang, H.; et al. Genome Sequences of Two Diploid Wild Relatives of Cultivated Sweetpotato Reveal Targets for Genetic Improvement. Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 4580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Komaki, K.; Regima, H.N.; Katayama, K.; Tamiya, S. Morphological and RAPD Pattern Variations in Sweetpotato and Its Closely Related Species. Breed. Sci. 1998, 48, 281–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Huang, J.C.; Sun, M. Genetic Diversity and Relationships of Sweetpotato and Its Wild Relatives in Ipomoea Series Batatas (Convolvulaceae) as Revealed by Inter-Simple Sequence Repeat (ISSR) and Restriction Analysis of Chloroplast DNA. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2000, 100, 1050–1060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Srisuwan, S.; Sihachakr, D.; Siljak-Yakovlev, S. The Origin and Evolution of Sweet Potato (Ipomoea Batatas Lam.) and Its Wild Relatives through the Cytogenetic Approaches. Plant Sci. 2006, 171, 424–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Roullier, C.; Duputié, A.; Wennekes, P.; Benoit, L.; Fernández Bringas, V.M.; Rossel, G.; Tay, D.; McKey, D.; Lebot, V. Disentangling the Origins of Cultivated Sweet Potato (Ipomoea Batatas (L.) Lam.). PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e62707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Yang, J.; Moeinzadeh, M.-H.; Kuhl, H.; Helmuth, J.; Xiao, P.; Haas, S.; Liu, G.; Zheng, J.; Sun, Z.; Fan, W.; et al. Haplotype-Resolved Sweet Potato Genome Traces Back Its Hexaploidization History. Nat. Plants 2017, 3, 696–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Ngoc, P.B.; Lan, V.T.; Trang, T.T.; Thuong, N.H.; Ngoc, L.T.; Ha, C.H.; Binh, L.T. Agrobacterium-Mediated Transformation of Cry8db Gene in Vietnam Sweet Potato Cultivar. JLS 2015, 10, 262–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Sefasi, A.; Ssemakula, G.; Ghislain, M.; Prentice, K.; Kiggundu, A.; Mwanga, R.O.M. Transient Expression of β -Glucoronidase in Recalcitrant Ugandan Sweetpotato and Putative Transformation with Two Cry Genes. Afr. Crop Sci. J. 2014, 22, 215–227. [Google Scholar]
  82. Ekobu, M.; Solera, M.; Kyamanywa, S.; Mwanga, R.O.M.; Odongo, B.; Ghislain, M.; Moar, W.J. Toxicity of Seven Bacillus thuringiensis Cry Proteins Against Cylas puncticollis and Cylas brunneus (Coleoptera: Brentidae) Using a Novel Artificial Diet. J. Econ. Entomol. 2010, 103, 1493–1502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Anyanga, M.O.; Farman, D.I.; Ssemakula, G.N.; Mwanga, R.O.M.; Stevenson, P.C. Effects of Hydroxycinnamic Acid Esters on Sweetpotato Weevil Feeding and Oviposition and Interactions with Bacillus thuringiensis Proteins. J. Pest Sci. 2021, 94, 783–794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Prentice, K.; Pertry, I.; Christiaens, O.; Bauters, L.; Bailey, A.; Niblett, C.; Ghislain, M.; Gheysen, G.; Smagghe, G. Transcriptome Analysis and Systemic RNAi Response in the African Sweetpotato Weevil (Cylas puncticollis, Coleoptera, Brentidae). PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0115336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Christiaens, O.; Prentice, K.; Pertry, I.; Ghislain, M.; Bailey, A.; Niblett, C.; Gheysen, G.; Smagghe, G. RNA Interference: A Promising Biopesticide Strategy against the African Sweetpotato Weevil Cylas brunneus. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 38836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Cobb, J.N.; DeClerck, G.; Greenberg, A.; Clark, R.; McCouch, S. Next-Generation Phenotyping: Requirements and Strategies for Enhancing Our Understanding of Genotype–Phenotype Relationships and Its Relevance to Crop Improvement. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2013, 126, 867–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Cabrera-Bosquet, L.; Crossa, J.; Von Zitzewitz, J.; Serret, M.D.; Luis Araus, J. High-Throughput Phenotyping and Genomic Selection: The Frontiers of Crop Breeding ConvergeF: High-Throughput Phenotyping and Genomic Selection. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 2012, 54, 312–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Armengaud, P.; Zambaux, K.; Hills, A.; Sulpice, R.; Pattison, R.J.; Blatt, M.R.; Amtmann, A. EZ-Rhizo: Integrated Software for the Fast and Accurate Measurement of Root System Architecture. Plant J. 2009, 57, 945–956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Backhaus, A.; Kuwabara, A.; Bauch, M.; Monk, N.; Sanguinetti, G.; Fleming, A. LEAFPROCESSOR: A New Leaf Phenotyping Tool Using Contour Bending Energy and Shape Cluster Analysis. New Phytol. 2010, 187, 251–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Clark, R.T.; MacCurdy, R.B.; Jung, J.K.; Shaff, J.E.; McCouch, S.R.; Aneshansley, D.J.; Kochian, L.V. Three-Dimensional Root Phenotyping with a Novel Imaging and Software Platform. Plant Physiol. 2011, 156, 455–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Yada, B.; Tukamuhabwa, P.; Alajo, A.; Mwanga, R.O.M. Field Evaluation of Ugandan Sweetpotato Germplasm for Yield, Dry Matter and Disease Resistance. South Afr. J. Plant Soil 2011, 28, 142–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Allison, G.G.; Thain, S.C.; Morris, P.; Morris, C.; Hawkins, S.; Hauck, B.; Barraclough, T.; Yates, N.; Shield, I.; Bridgwater, A.V.; et al. Quantification of Hydroxycinnamic Acids and Lignin in Perennial Forage and Energy Grasses by Fourier-Transform Infrared Spectroscopy and Partial Least Squares Regression. Bioresour. Technol. 2009, 100, 1252–1261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Yencho, G.C.; Pecota, K.V.; Schultheis, J.R.; VanEsbroeck, Z.-P.; Holmes, G.J.; Little, B.E.; Thornton, A.C.; Truong, V.-D. ‘Covington’ Sweetpotato. HortScience 2008, 43, 1911–1914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Grüneberg, W.J.; Ma, D.; Mwanga, R.O.M.; Carey, E.E.; Huamani, K.; Diaz, F.; Eyzaguirre, R.; Guaf, E.; Jusuf, M.; Karuniawan, A.; et al. Advances in Sweetpotato Breeding from 1992 to 2012. In Potato and Sweetpotato in Africa: Transforming the Value Chains for Food and Nutrition Security; Low, J., Nyongesa, M., Quinn, S., Parker, M., Eds.; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2015; pp. 3–68. ISBN 978-1-78064-420-2. [Google Scholar]
  95. Mugisa, I.; Karungi, J.; Musana, P.; Odama, R.; Anyanga, M.O.; Edema, R.; Gibson, P.; Ssali, R.T.; Campos, H.; Oloka, B.M.; et al. Heterotic Gains, Transgressive Segregation and Fitness Cost of Sweetpotato Weevil Resistance Expression in a Partial Diallel Cross of Sweetpotato. Euphytica 2023, 219, 110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Gurmu, F.; Hussein, S.; Laing, M. Self-and Cross Incompatibilities in Sweetpotato and Their Implications on Breeding. Aust. J. Crop Sci. 2013, 7, 2074–2078. [Google Scholar]
  97. Buteler, M.I.; LaBonte, D.R.; Jarret, R.L.; Macchiavelli, R.E. Microsatellite-Based Paternity Analysis in Polyploidy Sweetpotato. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 2002, 127, 392–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Growth stages of the two African sweetpotato weevil species, C. puncticollis ((A)—egg; (B)—larvae; (C)—pupa; and (D)—adult) and C. brunneus ((E)—egg; (F)—larvae; (G)—pupa; and (H)—adult).
Figure 1. Growth stages of the two African sweetpotato weevil species, C. puncticollis ((A)—egg; (B)—larvae; (C)—pupa; and (D)—adult) and C. brunneus ((E)—egg; (F)—larvae; (G)—pupa; and (H)—adult).
Insects 14 00837 g001
Figure 2. Sweetpotato storage roots shortly after harvest: (A)—clean (no weevil damage) and (B)—weevil-infested (visible damage).
Figure 2. Sweetpotato storage roots shortly after harvest: (A)—clean (no weevil damage) and (B)—weevil-infested (visible damage).
Insects 14 00837 g002
Table 1. A comparison between Cylas puncticollis and Cylas brunneus [7,8,16].
Table 1. A comparison between Cylas puncticollis and Cylas brunneus [7,8,16].
TraitC. puncticollisC. brunneus
MorphologyEggs: 0.45 × 0.30 mm2 (average size)0.7 × 0.5 mm2 (average size)
Larvae: 5–10 mm long7–8 mm in length
Pupae: 6–7 mm long, creamy-white cuticle4–5 mm long, white in color
Adults: 5–8 mm long, eyes narrowly parted5–7 mm long, eyes widely separated
Male: 6.9–6.7 mm long, filiform antennal5.7–5.5 mm long, filiform antennal
Female: 7.2–6.8 mm long, club-like antennal5.7–5.5 mm long, club-like antennal
OvipositionFemales take 2–24 days before laying eggsFemales start laying eggs a day or so after becoming sexually active
DevelopmentTakes place between 17.5–35 °CIs possible between 17.5–32 °C
Coloration of adultsInitially creamy white, but later change to gray and blackTurn from creamy white to brown and finally black with reddish brown thorax
Host rangeHas a wider host range including morning glory, cotton, sesame, and maizeHas a smaller host range including morning glory and water spinach
DistributionReported in 24 African countriesRecorded in 9 African countries
DispersionAdults can fly for longer distances (up to 120 m)Adults fly for short distances (up to 80 m)
Table 2. An overview of the management and control strategies for Cylas species.
Table 2. An overview of the management and control strategies for Cylas species.
Cultural Practices
These practices contribute towards the reduction in weevil populations either by making sweetpotato plants less accessible to weevils or by preventing the weevil population from increasing to harmful levels [23]. They include using clean planting material, crop rotation [27], hilling up and mulching, the removal of alternate crops and wild host plants, field sanitation [25,28], the use of barrier crops, intercropping, the planting of new crop away from weevil-infested fields, timely or early planting and harvesting before onset of the dry season [22,29], and flooding [30]. Cultural interventions are most effective when weevil populations are low; they are less successful during extended droughts, which typically result in population peaks [23].
Chemical Practices
Insecticides as foliar sprays control weevils to some extent [31,32]. They can reduce the populations of adult weevils, but may not adequately control immature larvae due to their cryptic nature [3]. Dipping plant material into a synthetic pesticide prior to planting can delay pest invasion for a number of months [25]. Insecticides are expensive and at times inaccessible to growers in SSA, making their use impractical and unsustainable [33].
Biological
Natural enemies such as ants, maggots, and wasps attack weevils, but most seem to be ineffective at suppressing SPW populations under field conditions [23,34]. Entomopathogenic fungi such as Beauveria bassiana have successfully been used to control SPWs in combination with other control methods. They cause a reduction in feeding ability, fecundity, and egg viability in C. puncticollis [35]. Entomopathogenic nematodes like Steinernema carpocapsae and Heterorhabditis bacteriophora have shown potential for the practical biological suppression of Cylas spp., but are not readily available, and small-scale farmers may not have the required purchasing power [19,36]. Bacteria such as Bacillus thuringiensis Berliner (Bt) have been developed to confer inherent pest resistance against SPWs [37,38]. Bt sweetpotato events against SPWs have previously been tested in SSA, but with minimal success, though transgenic plants expressing Bt cry genes are in use in some countries outside the region [39,40]. A combination of the male annihilation technique (MAT) and the sterile insect technique (SIT) appears to be quite effective in the management of Cylas spp. They were successfully used in Japan to eradicate C. formicarius over a wide area [41,42].
Host Plant Resistance
This approach is a major line of defense against SPWs. It involves the use of resistant or tolerant clones. Various investigations have been carried out in the past to comprehend the mechanisms of SPW resistance, and efforts have been made to develop SPW-resistant varieties [11,12,13,43]. Sweetpotato landraces and varieties were found to be highly heterogeneous in their susceptibility to field infestations by weevils [21]. Deep-rooting and early-maturing varieties were less prone to infection than shallow-rooted and late-maturing types [44]. The low heritability of the weevil-resistant trait coupled with the limited number of varieties that exhibit high levels of SPW resistance have contributed to the slow progress in developing weevil-resistant cultivars in SSA through conventional breeding [12,45]. There are further ongoing efforts to develop clones with significant levels of resistance using genomic tools.
Table 3. Reaction of sweetpotato varieties released in Uganda to Cylas spp.
Table 3. Reaction of sweetpotato varieties released in Uganda to Cylas spp.
Year of ReleaseVarietya Reaction to SPWs
1995“Bwanjule”MR
“New Kawogo”MR
“Sowola”MR
“Tanzania”S
“Wagabolige”MR
“Tororo 3”MR
1999NASPOT 1S
NASPOT 2S
NASPOT 3MR
NASPOT 4MR
NASPOT 5MR
NASPOT 6MR
2004“Ejumula”S
SPK004 (Kakamega)S
2007NASPOT 7S
NASPOT 8S
NASPOT 9 OS
NASPOT 10 OS
“Dimbuka Bukulula”S
2010NASPOT 11S
2013NASPOT 12 OS
NASPOT 13 OS
2017NAROSPOT 1MR
NAROSPOT 2S
NAROSPOT 3S
NAROSPOT 4S
NAROSPOT 5S
2023NAROSPOT 6MR
NAROSPOT 7 OMR
a, level of resistance of sweetpotato varieties to sweetpotato weevil infestation in the field, S, Susceptible (mean sweetpotato weevil severity of 6–9); MR, moderately resistant (mean sweetpotato weevil severity of 3–5); and R, resistant (mean sweetpotato weevil severity of 1–2).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yada, B.; Musana, P.; Chelangat, D.M.; Osaru, F.; Anyanga, M.O.; Katungisa, A.; Oloka, B.M.; Ssali, R.T.; Mugisa, I. Breeding Cultivars for Resistance to the African Sweetpotato Weevils, Cylas puncticollis and Cylas brunneus, in Uganda: A Review of the Current Progress. Insects 2023, 14, 837. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects14110837

AMA Style

Yada B, Musana P, Chelangat DM, Osaru F, Anyanga MO, Katungisa A, Oloka BM, Ssali RT, Mugisa I. Breeding Cultivars for Resistance to the African Sweetpotato Weevils, Cylas puncticollis and Cylas brunneus, in Uganda: A Review of the Current Progress. Insects. 2023; 14(11):837. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects14110837

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yada, Benard, Paul Musana, Doreen M. Chelangat, Florence Osaru, Milton O. Anyanga, Arnold Katungisa, Bonny M. Oloka, Reuben T. Ssali, and Immaculate Mugisa. 2023. "Breeding Cultivars for Resistance to the African Sweetpotato Weevils, Cylas puncticollis and Cylas brunneus, in Uganda: A Review of the Current Progress" Insects 14, no. 11: 837. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects14110837

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop