| Literature DB >> 18703496 |
Ali Izanloo1, Anthony G Condon, Peter Langridge, Mark Tester, Thorsten Schnurbusch.
Abstract
In the South Australian wheat belt, cyclic drought is a frequent event represented by intermittent periods of rainfall which can occur around anthesis and post-anthesis in wheat. Three South Australian bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cultivars, Excalibur, Kukri, and RAC875, were evaluated in one greenhouse and two growth-room experiments. In the first growth-room experiment, where plants were subjected to severe cyclic water-limiting conditions, RAC875 and Excalibur (drought-tolerant) showed significantly higher grain yield under cyclic water availability compared to Kukri (drought-susceptible), producing 44% and 18% more grain compared to Kukri, respectively. In the second growth-room experiment, where plants were subjected to a milder drought stress, the differences between cultivars were less pronounced, with only RAC875 showing significantly higher grain yield under the cyclic water treatment. Grain number per spike and the percentage of aborted tillers were the major components that affected yield under cyclic water stress. Excalibur and RAC875 adopted different morpho-physiological traits and mechanisms to reduce water stress. Excalibur was most responsive to cyclic water availability and showed the highest level of osmotic adjustment (OA), high stomatal conductance, lowest ABA content, and rapid recovery from stress under cyclic water stress. RAC875 was more conservative and restrained, with moderate OA, high leaf waxiness, high chlorophyll content, and slower recovery from stress. Within this germplasm, the capacity for osmotic adjustment was the main physiological attribute associated with tolerance under cyclic water stress which enabled plants to recover from water deficit.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2008 PMID: 18703496 PMCID: PMC2529232 DOI: 10.1093/jxb/ern199
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Exp Bot ISSN: 0022-0957 Impact factor: 6.992
Fig. 4.The linear regressions of osmotic potential (OP) and relative water content (RWC) in log scale. Relationship between RWCand OPfor flag leaves of Excalibur (a), Kukri (b), and RAC875 (c). The dashed line is the response of an ideal osmometer and the solid line is the actual fit for RWCversus OP. The vertical grey line is the logarithm of RWC=70%. There are two linear phases: in the first phase (α), there was little change in RWCas OPdeclined, while in the second phase (β), RWCdeclined linearly with OP. Three cultivars were grouped according to their response to high (a), low (b), and medium (c) osmotic adjustment (OA).
Environmental conditions at a representative field site in the target region of interest, and the mean temperature and relative humidity in the two growth rooms during the time of the two experiments (mean ±SE)
| The average temperature (°C) | Temperature and relative humidity (RH) in growth room (cyclic drought) in the field: Minnipa (1915–2004) | |||||||
| Month | Max/min | Temperature (°C) | Growth period | Day/night (12/12 h) | Temperature (°C) | RH (%) | ||
| Exp. I | Exp. II | Exp. I | Exp. II | |||||
| Jun–July | Max. | 16.4 | Weeks 1–4 | Day | 15.8±0.1 | 16.5±0.5 | 68.3±1.1 | 50.0±0.5 |
| Min. | 6.9 | Night | 3.7±0.2 | 6.0±0.3 | 82.2±1.3 | 83.9±0.1 | ||
| August | Max. | 17.3 | Weeks 5–8 | Day | 17.8±0.2 | 18.3±0.2 | 74.0±0.7 | 45.0±0.5 |
| Min. | 6.7 | Night | 5.8±0.2 | 7.5±0.3 | 81.1±0.4 | 72.3±0.4 | ||
| Sept–Oct | Max. | 22.3 | From week 9 to maturity | Day | 24.7±0.2 | 23.8±0.2 | 63.2±0.9 | 55.6±0.4 |
| Min. | 9.1 | Night | 9.6±0.1 | 9.5±0.3 | 78.7±0.7 | 81.4±0.8 | ||
| Average | Max. | 18.7 | Average | Day | 18.2±0.3 | 19.5±0.3 | 66.1±0.6 | 50.2±0.4 |
| Min. | 7.6 | Night | 7.4±0.2 | 7.7±0.3 | 81.6±0.6 | 79.2±0.5 | ||
Fig. 1.Schematic diagram of cyclic drought application and the time of trait measurements throughout the experiment. FC, field capacity; WP, wilting point; CC, chlorophyll content; CF, chlorophyll fluorescence; SC, stomatal conductance; ABA, abscisic acid, and WSC, water-soluble carbohydrates.
Fig. 2.The volumetric soil water content (Vw/V) during RW and WW treatments (data from the second experiment). Water stress was started from 53 DAP for Kukri and RAC875, while it was started from 61 DAP for Excalibur. To synchronize the time of watering, all cultivars were watered at 68 DAP. VSWC measurements were started 63 DAP. HT is the heading time.
Average water consumption during the plant growth period
| Treatments | WW | RW | ||||||||||||||||
| Experiments | I | II | Average I & II | Average I & II | I (Severe) | II (Mild) | ||||||||||||
| Traits | Excalibur | Kukri | RAC875 | Excalibur | Kukri | RAC875 | Excalibur | Kukri | RAC875 | Excalibur | Kukri | RAC875 | Excalibur | Kukri | RAC875 | Excalibur | Kukri | RAC875 |
| Water use before stress (l pot−1) | 2.9±0.2 | 2.8±0.3 | 2.8±0.3 | 4.5±0.4 | 3.4±0.1 | 3.8±0.1 | 3±0.2 | 2.8±0.2 | 3.1±0.3 | 5.1±0.2 | 3.2±0.1 | 3.3±0.1 | ||||||
| Water use during stress (l pot−1) | 13±0.3 | 12.4±0.1 | 11.5±0.3 | 12.0±0.3 | 13.6±0.4 | 11.3±0.5 | 7.1±0 | 5.8±0.2 | 6.0±0.3 | 7.0±0.2 | 6.4±0.1 | 6.0±0.1 | ||||||
| Total water used (l pot−1) | 15.9±0.5 | 15.1±0.4 | 14.3±0.5 | 16.5±0.6 | 17±0.5 | 15.1±0.6 | 10.3±0.2 | 8.6±0.2 | 9.1±0.5 | 12.1±0.4 | 9.6±0.1 | 9.3±0.1 | ||||||
| 3.8±0.1 | 4.2±0.1 | 4.2±0.1 | 5.3±0.2 | 6.3±0.1 | 7.2±0.6 | 3.3±0.1 | 3.7±0.2 | 3.8±0.2 | 5.5±0.2 | 6.4±0 | 6.4±0.1 | |||||||
Total amount of water applied to each pot during the plant growth before and during the water stress imposition and the estimated water use efficiency (WUE) are given (each value represents the mean ±SE).
WUE=Total biomass (g)/total water consumed (l).
Mean value of agronomic traits of Excalibur, Kukri, and RAC875 under controlled growth room conditions
| Treatments | WW | RW (cyclic drought) | |||||||||||
| Experiments | I | II | I. Severe stress | II. Mild stress | |||||||||
| Traits/Cultivar | Excalibur | Kukri | RAC875 | Excalibur | Kukri | RAC875 | Excalibur | Kukri | RAC875 | Excalibur | Kukri | RAC875 | |
| Heading time (DAP) | 80.3±0.8* | 75.8±1.5 | 79±0.4 | 86.8±0.3** | 68.8±0.5 | 71.9±0.4 | 80.6±0.4* | 77.6±0.9 | 78±0.6 | 84.5±0.1** | 69.1±1.1 | 73.3±1.1 | |
| Height | Plant height (cm) | 61±0.8 | 69.8±1.1* | 65.7±1.6 | 76.8±1.6 | 80.3±1.7** | 75.1±0.9 | 49.9±1.8 | 51.6±1.5 | 52.3±1.2 | 62.5±0.5 | 67.2±1.4* | 63.1±1.1 |
| Peduncle length (cm) | 20.3±0.7 | 30.8±0.8** | 24.5±1.8 | 26.7±0.6 | 40.8±0.7** | 33.6±0.5 | 15.9±0.7 | 19.4±0.6 | 18.5±0.3 | 19.5±0.7 | 31±0.7* | 23.2±0.5 | |
| Spike length (cm) | − | − | − | 11.3±0.2 | 11.7±0.3 | 11.7±0.1 | − | − | − | 13.1±0.1 | 11.2±0.2 | 11.5±0.1 | |
| Yield and its components | 20.7±0.8 | 21.3±0.8 | 19.9±1.5 | 27.7±1.6 | 34.9±1.9 | 31.5±1 | 4.5±0.2* | 3.5±0.6 | 6.5±0.8** | 11.9±1.2 | 17.8±0.8* | 20.3±0.3** | |
| Grain weight.spike−1 (g) | − | − | − | 5.6±0.2 | 5.5±0.3 | 6.2±0.1 | − | − | − | 7.3±0.3 | 5.8±0.2 | 7.9±0.5 | |
| Spikelet no. | − | − | − | 21.8±1.9 | 20.3±1.6 | 19.4±1.5 | − | − | − | 26.7±0.2** | 18.5±0.2 | 19±0.2 | |
| Grains/spike | 71.1±7.2 | 93.6±1.2 | 82.9±4.7 | 59±2.6 | 60.2±2.3 | 46.3±0.6 | 66.7±2.8** | 44.5±11.6 | 64.3±4.7** | 53.3±2.4 | 53.7±1.7 | 55.3±2.5 | |
| TGW (g) | 40±0.9 | 36.9±0.7 | 48.6±1.1 | 31.7±2 | 30.2±0.7 | 44.7±0.7 | 37±0.8 | 34.8±2.4 | 45.3±1.3 | 45.8±2.7 | 35.8±1.1 | 47.9±1.3 | |
| Tillers plant−1 | 8.5±0.5 | 6.9±0.1 | 5.6±0.3 | 8.5±0.4 | 8.8±0.4 | 7±0.2 | 8±0.4 | 7±0.3 | 4.8±0.3 | 4.9±0.2 | 5.3±0.1 | 3.6±0.1 | |
| Aborted tillers plant−1 | 1.3±0.5 | 0.8±0.2 | 0.6±0 | 0.2±0.1 | 0.1±0.1 | 0.2±0.2 | 6.2±0.3 | 4.5±0.2 | 2.6±0.4 | 2.1±0.4 | 0.9±0.4 | 0.2±0.1 | |
| Abortion (%) | 14.5±5.2 | 10.8±2.2 | 11.4±1.3 | 2.1±1.2 | 1±1 | 2.5±2.5 | 77.8±0.7 | 64.4±2 | 53.4±6.4 | 75.6±15.7 | 20.8±7.7 | 4.9±3.4 | |
| Biomass | Biomass (g.pot-1) | 59.6±1.7 | 64.2±1.6 | 59.9±2.6 | 90.5±3.1 | 111.2±3.8 | 112.3±4.8 | 33.7±1.7* | 32.1±0.5 | 34.6±0.8* | 66.9±2.5** | 61.9±1.4 | 58.1±1.4 |
| Root mass (g) | 5.6±0.5 | 7.9±0.3 | 6.7±0.3 | 10.8±0.3 | 10.7±1.1 | 9.4±0.5 | 6.5±0.2 | 6.1±0.4 | 6.4±0.2 | 12.6±0.9 | 7.6±0.3 | 7.1±0.4 | |
| Root/shoot ratio (%) | 10.8±0.8 | 13.97±0.3 | 12.67±0.4 | 11.95±0.53* | 9.61±0.8 | 8.4±0.2 | 23.98±1.1 | 23.5±2.1 | 22.9±0.5 | 17.8±0.97** | 12.3±0.6 | 12.2±0.91 | |
| 0.35±0.02 | 0.33±0.01 | 0.33±0.01 | 0.31±0.01 | 0.31±0.01 | 0.28±0.01 | 0.13±0.01 | 0.11±0.02 | 0.18±0.02 | 0.18±0.02 | 0.29±0.01 | 0.35±0.01 | ||
Booting, heading time, and anthesis (maturity-related traits), plant height, peduncle length, and spike length (height-related traits), grain yield, grain weight per spike, number of spikelets per spike, number of grains per spike, thousand grain weight, number of tillers per plant, the proportion of tiller abortion (yield and its components), above-ground biomass, root mass, root-to-shoot ratio, and harvest index for three cultivars grown under well-watered (WW) and re-watering (RW) treatments are given (each value represents the mean ±SE).
*,** Significant at P < 0.05 and P < 0.01.
Total biomass = shoot mass+root mass.
HI = GY/total biomass (shoot mass+root mass).
Leaf traits from Experiment I and II, where plants were subjected to well-watered (WW) and cyclic drought (RW) treatments
| Traits | WW | RW | ||||
| Excalibur | Kukri | RAC875 | Excalibur | Kukri | RAC875 | |
| ChlC (SPAD unit) | 49.1±1.7 | 51.1±0.4 | 57±0.7** | 54.8±1.7 | 54±0.9 | 61.7±1.4** |
| Waxiness (1–5) | 1.5±0.1 | 1.0 | 4.0±0.1** | 3.0±0.1* | 1.5±0.2 | 5.0±0.2** |
| Leaf rolling (1–5) | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 4.0±0.1** | 3.0±0.2 | 1.4±0.1 |
| Retained green leaves | 3.6±0.2* | 2.8±0.09 | 3.7±0.1* | 3.3±0.1* | 2.2±0.05 | 3.2±0.1* |
| 32.6±1.3 | 39.2±1.3** | 34.6±1.3 | 29.8±0.9** | 26.8±2.5** | 21.6±1.1 | |
| 243.6±12.4 | 250.1±11.8 | 234.1±11.8 | 258.9±9.4 | 231.4±7.7 | 209.9±8 | |
| 268.4±11.0 | 273.5±10.8 | 260.5±10.1 | 261.7±7.0** | 255.1±7.1* | 221.1±4.8 | |
| 15.6±1.5 | 14.9±1.4 | 16.7±1.6 | 15.1±1 | 16.9±1.0 | 21.8±1.3** | |
| 43.9±1.4 | 49.0±0.6** | 41.7±1.1 | 35.3±3.4 | 57.7±3.0** | 47.6±2.6 | |
Values for chlorophyll content (ChlC), leaf waxiness, leaf rolling, and the average number of green leaves on 95 DAP of Excalibur, Kukri, and RAC875 representing averages of combined Experiment I and Experiment II. Values for flag leaf area (FLA), specific leaf area (SLA), leaf dry matter content (LDMC), and leaf thickness (LT) were measured in Experiment I, while excised leaf water loss (ELWL) was measured in Experiment II (mean ±SE).
*,** Significant differences at P <0.05 and at P <0. 01 levels, respectively.
Predicted osmotic potential (OP) at 70% relative water content for the concentration effect and expressed sap osmotic potential
| Cultivars | Regression model for phase β ( | ||||
| Excalibur | 0.846 | –0.310 (–2.040) | –0.460 (–2.885) | 0.845 | |
| Kukri | 0.097 | –0.352 (–2.249) | –0.370 (–2.346) | 0.971 | |
| RAC875 | 0.364 | –0.312 (–2.052) | –0.383 (–2.416) | 0.896 |
Data in parenthesis are anti logarithmic values of OPs.
Fig. 3.Decrease in osmotic potential with successive water stress in Excalibur, Kukri, and RAC875.
Fig. 5.The average stomatal conductance of plants in Experiments I and II for the first and second days after re-watering. In Experiment I, measurements were done in one period, but in Experiment II three periods of measurements were performed (a). Leaf initial temperature differences (ITD) after re-watering (b). ITD was calculated by subtracting the temperature of the ambient air of the leaf temperature. Error bars are SE of means.
Fig. 6.Chlorophyll content and fluorescence (Fv/Fmratio) in Excalibur, Kukri, and RAC875 for Experiment II. The measurements were done on the same flag leaves during plant growth under and during the grain-filling period. The chlorophyll content under WW and RW treatments (a, b); large error bar on day 108 for RAC875 under RW treatment resulted from developing senescence in flag leaves. Fv/Fm under WW and RW treatments (c, d). Error bars are SE of means.
Fig. 7.Drought-related traits for Excalibur, Kukri, and RAC875 under WW and RW treatments in Experiment II. (a) Values for water-soluble stem carbohydrates (WSC); stem samples were taken 5 d after anthesis. (b) ABA concentration in floral tissue and xylem sap; when tissue was collected, plants/lines experienced severe water stress during RW treatment whereas plants under WW conditions remained unstressed. (c) Values for carbon isotope discrimination on grains, pos-harvest and (d) values for agronomic WUE for Excalibur, Kukri, and RAC875 under WW and RW treatments. Error bars are SE of means.