| Literature DB >> 24279832 |
Maria-Camila Rebolledo1, Michael Dingkuhn, Anne Clément-Vidal, Lauriane Rouan, Delphine Luquet.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Early vigour (biomass accumulation) is a useful but complex trait in rainfed rice (Oryza sativa L). Little is known on trade-offs with drought tolerance. This study explored the relevance of (sugar) metabolic and morphogenetic traits to describe the genetic diversity of rice early vigour and its phenotypic plasticity under drought conditions. A greenhouse experiment was conducted to characterize on a panel of 43 rice genotypes plant morphogenesis and sugar concentration in expanded (source) and expanding (sink) leaves.Entities:
Year: 2012 PMID: 24279832 PMCID: PMC4883731 DOI: 10.1186/1939-8433-5-22
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Rice (N Y) ISSN: 1939-8425 Impact factor: 4.783
Figure 1Factorial plans with the two principal components representing morphogenetic and metabolic (sugar) variables averaged on two replications for 43 rice genotypes under well watered conditions (a) and in response to water limited conditions (b). Variance explained by each dimension is shown as a percentage of total variance (indicated in axis legend). Each variable is represented by a vector connecting the origin to the variable coordinates. Coordinates correspond to the correlation coefficients between variables and dimensions 1 and 2.
Spearman correlation matrix for average morphogenetic and metabolic variables measured at the end of the experiment under well watered conditions
| SINKSTAC | SOURSUCC | SINKSUCC | SOURHEXC | SINKHEXC | LDIMC | DRgioC | NBLC | NBTC | LSENC | ROLC | SDWC | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SOURSTAC | 0.52*** | 0.23 | 0.21 | 0.17 | 0.29 | 0.35** | −0.37** | −0.39*** | −0.24 | −0.04 | −0.08 | 0.01 |
| SINKSTAC | 0.08 | 0.47*** | 0.16 | 0.41*** | 0.42*** | −0.12 | −0.2 | −0.16 | −0.21 | −0.05 | 0.22 | |
| SOURSUCC | 0.22 | 0.02 | 0.00 | −0.03 | 0.29** | 0.32** | 0.31** | −0.33** | −0.29 | 0.27 | ||
| SINKSUCC | 0.11 | 0.38*** | −0.07 | 0.02 | −0.06 | −0.04 | 0.02 | −0.25 | 0.06 | |||
| SOURHEXC | −0.03 | 0.33** | −0.24 | −0.34** | −0.35** | 0.04 | 0.32** | 0.06 | ||||
| SINKHEXC | 0.05 | −0.14 | −0.04 | 0.01 | 0.07 | −0.12 | 0.20 | |||||
| LDIMC | −0.43*** | −0.29 | −0.22 | −0.08 | 0.21 | 0.14 | ||||||
| DRgioC | 0.78*** | 0.67*** | −0.06 | 0.07 | 0.39*** | |||||||
| NBLC | 0.92*** | −0.16 | 0.05 | 0.57*** | ||||||||
| NBTC | −0.19 | 0.04 | 0.64*** | |||||||||
| LSENC | 0.28 | −0.08 | ||||||||||
| ROLC | 0.19 |
Considering 43 varieties, 2 replicates; significance levels are indicated with ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05.
Average, standard deviation (sd), minimum (min) and maximum (max) values for variables calculated under well watered (control) and drought conditions
| Variables | Well watered treatment | Drought Treatment | Stress effect | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Average | Sd | Min | Max | Average | Sd | Min | Max | ΔDC/C | |||
|
|
| 1.43E-02 | 3.33E-03 | 7.99E-03 | 1.66E-02 | 1.35E-02 | 3.10E-03 | 8.30E-03 | 2.00E-02 | −0.06 | G*, T. |
|
| 0.34 | 0.128 | 0.15 | 0.64 | 0.389 | 0.157 | 0.14 | 0.56 | 0.12 | G**,T** | |
|
| 0.18 | 0.59 | 0 | 3 | 4.18 | 2.28 | 0 | 9 | 0.96 | G*, T*** | |
|
| 1.56E-05 | 6.52E-06 | 7.80E-06 | 1.68E-05 | 1.26E-05 | 4.49E-06 | 4.84E-06 | 2.43E-05 | −0.19 | G ns,T*** | |
|
| 4.85E-05 | 2.82E-05 | 2.18E-05 | 8.54E-05 | 4.72E-05 | 2.65E-05 | 1.55E-05 | 1.06E-04 | −0.03 | G***, Tns | |
|
| 5.11 | 1.68 | 1.81 | 6.74 | 4.485 | 1.457 | 2.23 | 8.23 | −0.12 | G***,T** | |
|
| 1.41E-04 | 5.92E-05 | 7.67E-05 | 2.22E-04 | 1.35E-04 | 5.74E-05 | 7.91E-05 | 2.84E-04 | −0.04 | G***,Tns | |
|
|
| 13.42 | 7.53 | 5.49 | 32.36 | 33.55 | 16.17 | 1.72 | 14.48 | 1.50 | G***,T*** |
|
| 78.77 | 19.76 | 46.05 | 110.27 | 77.69 | 20.93 | 37.1 | 109.61 | −0.01 | G**, Tns | |
|
| 48.10 | 50.32 | 0.36 | 97.17 | 21.96 | 35.38 | 5.01 | 124.11 | −0.54 | Gns, T*** | |
|
| 78.92 | 44.05 | 27.2 | 89.97 | 102.85 | 36.92 | 5.84 | 74.09 | 0.30 | G*, T*** | |
|
| 76.30 | 24.28 | 53.7 | 134.04 | 100.31 | 24.60 | 23.83 | 119.73 | 0.31 | Gns,T*** | |
|
| 79.95 | 31.30 | 26.42 | 129.62 | 74.87 | 31.87 | 36.62 | 128.24 | −0.06 | G***,Tns | |
|
|
| 9.94 | 2.99 | 5.00 | 19.00 | Gns | |||||
Averages on 43 varieties and 2 replicates for morphogenetic and metabolic variables. Stress effect is noted ΔDC/C (corresponding response to drought of the variable on the same line in the table) and expresses the relative variation from stress to control plant). P-values *** < 0.001; ** < 0.01; * < 0.05,. < 0.1, ns, no significant; ANOVA results are presented with respective significances for G (Genotype) or T (Treatment) effects. Genotype differences for the number of days during the stress period was tested with a one way ANOVA on the number of days from stress onset (FTSW 1) and the end of stress (FTSW0.2).
Partial spearman correlation matrix among morphogenetic or metabolic variables measured at the end of the experiment under well watered conditions and calculated response variables
| Variables | Control morphogenetic variables | Control metabolic variables | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SDWc | NBTc | LDIMc | NBLc | DRonsetc | SOURSUCc | SOURSTAc | SINKHEXc | SOURHEXc | ||
| Response morphogenetic variables | DRonset ΔDC/C | −0.38*** | −0.46*** | 0.34** | −0.53*** | −0.61*** | −0.28 | 0.24 | 0.02 | 0.25 |
| LSEN ΔDC/C | 0.18 | 0.06 | 0.09 | 0.04 | −0.04 | 0.10 | 0.03 | 0.05 | −0.09 | |
| LDIM ΔDC/C | −0.53*** | −0.18 | −0.40*** | −0.20 | −0.16 | 0.03 | 0.15 | −0.20 | 0.22 | |
| NBT ΔDC/C | −0.42*** | −0.48*** | −0.01 | −0.42*** | −0.15 | −0.22 | 0.22 | −0.12 | 0.20 | |
| NBL ΔDC/C | −0.49*** | −0.35** | −0.13 | −0.35** | −0.09 | −0.17 | 0.22 | −0.07 | 0.08 | |
| SDW ΔDC/C | −0.59*** | −0.20 | −0.20 | −0.17 | −0.05 | −0.08 | 0.11 | −0.27 | −0.08 | |
| Response metabolic variables | SOURSUC ΔDC/C | −0.08 | 0.24 | −0.51*** | 0.23 | 0.32** | −0.28 | −0.08 | −0.02 | −0.43*** |
| SOURSTA ΔDC/C | 0.01 | 0.30 | −0.32** | 0.32** | 0.39** | 0.05 | −0.48*** | −0.15 | −0.29 | |
| SOURHEX ΔDC/C | 0.07 | 0.20 | 0.05 | 0.22 | 0.13 | 0.07 | 0.10 | −0.18 | −0.62*** | |
| SINKSUC ΔDC/C | −0.01 | 0.12 | −0.16 | 0.15 | 0.18 | −0.12 | −0.20 | −0.26 | −0.33** | |
| SINKSTA ΔDC/C | −0.01 | 0.05 | −0.23 | 0.09 | 0.04 | −0.04 | −0.51*** | −0.29 | −0.01 | |
| SINKHEX ΔDC/C | 0.09 | 0.03 | 0.22 | 0.02 | 0.10 | −0.03 | −0.11 | −0.59*** | −0.03 | |
Average for each of the 43 varieties with 2 replicates; ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.05.
Partial Spearman correlation matrix among morphogenetic and metabolic response variables
| Variables | LDIM ΔDC/C | NBT ΔDC/C | NBL ΔDC/C | SDW ΔDC/C | LSEN ΔDC/C | ROL ΔDC/C | SOURSUC ΔDC/C | SOURSTA ΔDC/C | SOURHEX ΔDC/C | SINKSUC ΔDC/C | SINKSTA ΔDC/C | SINKHEX ΔDC/C |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DRonset ΔDC/C | 0.06 | 0.31** | 0.25 | 0.20 | −0.15 | 0.10 | −0.18 | −0.18 | −0.24 | −0.29 | −0.15 | −0.07 |
| LDIM ΔDC/C | 0.25 | 0.48*** | 0.72*** | −0.02 | 0.15 | 0.27 | −0.10 | 0.11 | 0.21 | −0.04 | 0.00 | |
| NBT ΔDC/C | 0.76*** | 0.63*** | −0.02 | 0.19 | −0.02 | −0.39*** | −0.04 | −0.23 | −0.34** | −0.04 | ||
| NBL ΔDC/C | 0.76*** | −0.15 | −0.02 | 0.14 | −0.13 | 0.06 | −0.13 | −0.35** | −0.08 | |||
| SDW ΔDC/C | −0.25 | 0.14 | 0.14 | −0.10 | 0.09 | 0.03 | −0.24 | 0.02 | ||||
| LSEN ΔDC/C | −0.15 | −0.07 | −0.13 | −0.03 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.10 | |||||
| ROL ΔDC/C | −0.13 | −0.31** | 0.15 | 0.03 | −0.26 | 0.06 | ||||||
| SOURSUC ΔDC/C | 0.36*** | 0.15 | 0.42 | 0.04 | −0.06 | |||||||
| SOURSTA ΔDC/C | 0.00 | 0.21 | 0.24 | 0.12 | ||||||||
| SOURHEX ΔDC/C | 0.22 | −0.17 | 0.38** | |||||||||
| SINKSUC ΔDC/C | 0.42*** | 0.25 | ||||||||||
| SINKSTA ΔDC/C | 0.06 |
Average calculated for each of the 43 varieties with 2 replicates ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.05.
Figure 2Simultaneous representations of principal component map and hierarchical genotype clustering. Factorial plan is represented with the first two dimensions of nine, defined based on average variables (detailed in Table7) on two replicates for each of the 43 rice genotypes studied. Dimension 1 is significantly (p < 0.01) and positively correlated to (in decreasing effect order): SDW ΔDC/C, NBL ΔDC/C, NBT ΔDC/C, DRonset ΔDC/C, and SOURSTAc and negatively to: SDWc, NBLc, NBTc, DRonsetc, SOURSTA ΔDC/C, SINKHEX ΔDC/C. Dimension 2 is significantly (p < 0.01) and positively correlated to (in decreasing effect order): SOURSUC ΔDC/C, SINKSUC ΔDC/C, SINKSTA ΔDC/C, DRonset ΔDC/C, SOURSTA ΔDC/C, SDW ΔDC/Cand negatively to: SINKSTAc, SINKHEXc, LDIMc, SOURHEXc, SOURSTAc, SINKSUCc. Resulting genotype clusters are delimited with dashed lines. Black squares represent the center of gravity for each cluster ( i.e. highest nodes of the hierarchical clustering). Since clusters were defined base on nine dimensions, two varieties close together can be in the same cluster or not (if they differ on dimensions apart from 1 & 2).
Description of the 43 genotypes studied and classification according to clusters defined in this study
| Germplasm name | Genetic group | Origin | Improved/Traditional | Cluster |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Azucena | Tjap | Philippines | T | 2 |
| Iac 165 | Tjap | Brazil | I | 2 |
| IR64 | Indica | Philippines | I | 1 |
| Moroberekan | Tjap | Guinea | T | 2 |
| IAC 25 | Tjap | Brazil | I | 2 |
| IR72967-12-2-3 | Indica | Philippines | I | 3 |
| Ketan menah | Tjap | Indonesia | T | 2 |
| Kindang patong | Tjap | Philippines | T | 3 |
| OS 6 | Tjap | Zaire | T | 2 |
| Early mutant iac 165 | Tjap | Brazil | I | 3 |
| M202 | Tempjap | USA | I | 2 |
| N22 | Aus | India | T | 1 |
| Tequing | Indica | China | I | 1 |
| Bico branco | Tjap | Brazil | T | 1 |
| Cha phu ma | Tjap | Thailand | T | 2 |
| Cirad 394 | Tjap | Madagascar | I | 1 |
| Cirad 488 | Tjap | Madagascar | I | 1 |
| Apo | indica | Philippines | I | 1 |
| CT13582-15-5-M | Tjap | Colombia | I | 3 |
| Cuba 65 | Tjap | Cuba | T | 2 |
| Dourado agulha | Tjap | Brazil | T | 2 |
| Dourado precoce | Tjap | Brazil | T | 2 |
| Fossa hv | Tjap | Burkina fasso | T | 1 |
| Gotak gatik | Tjap | Indonesia | T | 1 |
| ASD 1 | Indica | India | T | 1 |
| IR71525-19-1-1 | Tjap | Philippines | I | 3 |
| Basmati 370 | Aro | India | T | 1 |
| Bulu pandak | Tjap | Indonesia | T | 3 |
| Dom sofid | Aro | Iran | T | 3 |
| Jao haw | Tjap | Thailand | T | 3 |
| Kendinga 5 h | Tjap | Malaysia | T | 3 |
| Fandrapotsy 104 | Indica | Madagascar | T | 2 |
| Maintimolotsy 1226 | Tjap | Madagascar | T | 3 |
| Khao dam | Tjap | Laos | T | 2 |
| Padi boenar | Tjap | Indonesia | T | 3 |
| Padi rotan | Tjap | Indonesia | T | 3 |
| Peh pi nuo | Tjap | China | T | 2 |
| Pratao | Indica | Brazil | T | 1 |
| Primavera | Tjap | Brazil | I | 1 |
| Reket maun | Tjap | Indonesia | T | 3 |
| Vietnam2 | Tjap | Vietnam | T | 1 |
| Vietnam3 | Tjap | Vietnam | T | 3 |
| Yunlu 7 | Tjap | China | I | 2 |
Genetic groups defined according to Glaszmann et al. (1984) (Tjap : Tropical Japonica, Indica, Aus, TempJap: Temperate Japonica and Aro: Aromatic cultivars), Seed origin, general classification (Improved: I or Traditional: T).
Summary of the clustering analysis with average values and standard deviations (sd) for each variable in each cluster
| Cluster 1 | Cluster 2 | Cluster 3 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Genotypes distant from the center | IR64, Cirad 488, Bicobranco | Azucena, IAC 25, Dourado Aguila | Early mutant IAC 165, DomSofid, IR729679 | ||||||
| Number of individuals | 14 | 15 | 14 | ||||||
| Constitutive variables measure of early vigor | |||||||||
| Average | Sd | Average | Sd | Average | Sd | ||||
| SDWc | 1.80E-05 | 3.35E-06 | a+ | 1.71E-05 | 2.95E-06 | a+ | 1.24E-05 | 1.71E-06 | b− |
| LDIMc | 4.62 | 1.08 | b− | 6.21 | 0.96 | a+ | 4.78 | 1.04 | b− |
| DRc | 1.65E-02 | 1.21E-03 | b+ | 1.05E-02 | 1.04E-03 | a− | 1.55E-02 | 1.44E-03 | ab |
| NBTc | 6.30E-05 | 1.88E-05 | b+ | 4.19E-05 | 1.01E-05 | a− | 4.01E-05 | 1.45E-05 | a− |
| NBLc | 1.73E-04 | 4.21E-05 | b+ | 1.26E-04 | 2.19E-05 | a− | 1.23E-04 | 2.71E-05 | a− |
| SOURSTAc | 33.46 | 22.75 | b− | 64.48 | 24.01 | a+ | 55.43 | 24.14 | abns |
| SOURSUCc | 78.44 | 10.38 | ans | 81.71 | 14.08 | ans | 79.84 | 12.22 | ans |
| SOURHEXc | 10.66 | 3.98 | b− | 16.40 | 6.70 | a+ | 13.75 | 4.71 | abns |
| SINKHEXc | 68.75 | 33.39 | ans | 92.70 | 23.56 | ans | 76.24 | 25.65 | ans |
| SINKSTAc | 69.90 | 23.22 | b− | 96.02 | 18.68 | a+ | 75.18 | 19.13 | b− |
| SINKSUCc | 65.88 | 18.00 | b− | 85.50 | 12.56 | a+ | 77.44 | 15.40 | abns |
| ROLc | 0.29 | 0.52 | ans | 0.23 | 0.40 | ans | 0.07 | 0.17 | ans |
| LSENc | 0.35 | 0.10 | ans | 0.33 | 0.09 | ans | 0.33 | 0.07 | ans |
| Drought Response variables | |||||||||
| Average | Sd | Average | Sd | Average | Sd | ||||
| SDWdc/c | −0.19 | 0.19 | a− | −0.24 | 0.20 | a− | 0.18 | 0.25 | b+ |
| LDIMdc/c | −0.11 | 0.16 | abns | −0.22 | 0.14 | a− | 0.23 | 0.64 | b+ |
| Dronsetdc/c | −0.13 | 0.16 | b− | 0.07 | 0.19 | a+ | 0.00 | 0.12 | abns |
| NBTdc/c | −0.11 | 0.22 | a− | 0.02 | 0.32 | a− | 0.47 | 0.53 | b+ |
| NBLdc/c | −0.09 | 0.18 | a− | −0.09 | 0.16 | a− | 0.15 | 0.16 | b+ |
| SOURSTAdc/c | −0.36 | 0.51 | b+ | −0.76 | 0.23 | a− | −0.69 | 0.21 | a− |
| SOURSUCdc/c | 0.11 | 0.19 | b+ | −0.15 | 0.12 | a− | 0.04 | 0.22 | b+ |
| SINKSUCdc/c | 0.79 | 0.61 | b+ | 0.18 | 0.22 | a− | 0.38 | 0.29 | a− |
| ROLd | 3.71 | 2.02 | ans | 4.67 | 1.71 | ans | 4.11 | 1.53 | ans |
| LSENdc/c | 0.29 | 0.42 | ans | 0.26 | 0.40 | ans | 0.23 | 0.34 | ans |
| Drought Kinetics | |||||||||
| Average | Sd | Average | Sd | Average | Sd | ||||
| Number of days from stress onset to FSW 0.2 | 10.32 | 1.78 | ans | 10.23 | 2.51 | ans | 9.25 | 1.68 | ans |
Summary of morphogenetic and metabolic variables and units performed in this study (dw: dry weight, PT: photothermal time Eq. 3 )
| Variables | Unit | Measured variables at the end of the experiment | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Morphogenetic | DRgio | Leaves.°C d−1 | Leaf appearance rate from germination date to final sampling |
| DRonset | Leaf appearance rate from stress onset to final sampling | ||
| LDIML | cm2 .leaf rank | Last ligulated leaf area on the main stem normalized by leaf rank | |
| NBT | tillers. PT | Total tiller number on plant normalized by PT | |
| NBL | ligulated leaves. PT | Total ligulated leaf number on plant normalized by PT | |
| SDW | g. PT | Shoot Dry weight normalized by PT | |
| LSEN | % death tissue | Average of the percentage of dead leaf tissue of ligulated leaves on the main stem | |
| ROL | rolling index | Rolling index after treatment normalized by PT | |
| Metabolic | SINKHEX | mg.g−1dw | Metabolite concentration in the hidden, expanding (sink) leaves of the main stem |
| SINKSTA | mgGLU.g−1dw | ||
| SINKSUC | mg.g−1dw | ||
| SOURHEX | mg.g−1dw | Metabolite concentration in the two last ligulated (source) leaves of the main stem | |
| SOURSTA | mgGLU.g−1dw | ||
| SOURSUC | mg.g−1dw | ||
Figure 3Bar plots and standard error of mean values for each cluster (1, 2 or 3 in abcissa) for morphogenetic variables (not normalized by photo-thermal time or leaf rank) and starch concentration in source leaves. Black bars represent means for well watered and grey bars for water deficit conditions. Capital letters show the result of a paired t-test for differences between treatments within each cluster at 95% (family-wise confidence level). Small letters represent the result of a Tuckey multiple comparisons of means among clusters within treatments at 95% confidence level.