| Literature DB >> 24594687 |
Xiling Zou1, Chengwei Hu1, Liu Zeng1, Yong Cheng1, Mingyue Xu1, Xuekun Zhang1.
Abstract
Waterlogging tolerance is typically evaluated at a specific development stage, with an implicit assumption that differences in waterlogging tolerance expressed in these systems will result in improved yield performance in fields. It is necessary to examine these criteria in fields. In the present study, three experiments were conducted to screen waterlogging tolerance in 25 rapeseed (Brassica napus L.) varieties at different developmental stages, such as seedling establishment stage and seedling stage at controlled environment, and maturity stage in the fields. The assessments for physiological parameters at three growth stages suggest that there were difference of waterlogging tolerance at all the development stages, providing an important basis for further development of breeding more tolerant materials. The results indicated that flash waterlogging restricts plant growth and growth is still restored after removal of the stress. Correlation analysis between waterlogging tolerance coefficient (WTC) of yield and other traits revealed that there was consistency in waterlogging tolerance of the genotypes until maturity, and good tolerance at seedling establishment stage and seedling stage can guarantee tolerance in later stages. The waterlogging-tolerant plants could be selected using some specific traits at any stage, and selections would be more effective at the seedling establishment stage. Thus, our study provides a method for screening waterlogging tolerance, which would enable the suitable basis for initial selection of a large number of germplasm or breeding populations for waterlogging tolerance and help for verifying their potential utility in crop-improvement.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24594687 PMCID: PMC3940661 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0089731
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Correlation coefficients (r) between pairs of yield related traits under control.
| Ph | Bh | Msl | Pb | Tb | Sqms | Sqb | Sqp | Ssq | Rl | Yield | |
|
| 1 | 0.701*** | 0.212 | 0.530** | 0.481* | 0.471* | 0.562** | 0.5750** | −0.159 | −0.158 | 0.486** |
|
| 1 | −0.173 | 0.157 | −0.010 | 0.077 | 0.080 | 0.137 | 0.101 | 0.066 | 0.326 | |
|
| 1 | −0.159 | 0.011 | 0.298 | 0.049 | 0.042 | −0.243 | 0.077 | −0.159 | ||
|
| 1 | 0.915*** | 0.437* | 0.868*** | 0.761*** | −0.003 | −0.358 | 0.382 | |||
|
| 1 | 0.4960* | 0.891*** | 0.681*** | −0.221 | −0.388 | 0.315 | ||||
|
| 1 | 0.707*** | 0.729*** | −0.223 | −0.224 | 0.552** | |||||
|
| 1 | 0.914*** | −0.088 | −0.367 | 0.485* | ||||||
|
| 1 | 0.042 | −0.283 | 0.557** | |||||||
|
| 1 | 0.005 | 0.145 | ||||||||
|
| 1 | −0.209 | |||||||||
|
| 1 |
Correlation coefficients (r) between pairs of yield related traits after waterlogging.
| Ph | Bh | Msl | Pb | Tb | Sqms | Sqb | Sqp | Ssq | Rl | Yield | Sn | |
|
| 1 | 0.943*** | 0.932*** | 0.500*** | 0.897*** | 0.986*** | 0.760*** | 0.922*** | 0.940*** | 0.938*** | 0.853*** | 0.879*** |
|
| 1 | 0.939*** | 0.934*** | 0.882*** | 0.938*** | 0.785*** | 0.913*** | 0.795*** | 0.849*** | 0.804*** | 0.823*** | |
|
| 1 | 0.853*** | 0.795*** | 0.926*** | 0.690*** | 0.852*** | 0.806*** | 0.879*** | 0.767*** | 0.796*** | ||
|
| 1 | 0.974*** | 0.919*** | 0.903*** | 0.971*** | 0.826*** | 0.826*** | 0.817*** | 0.819*** | |||
|
| 1 | 0.871*** | 0.879*** | 0.934*** | 0.807*** | 0.801*** | 0.798*** | 0.781*** | ||||
|
| 1 | 0.757*** | 0.927*** | 0.937*** | 0.936*** | 0.867*** | 0.868*** | |||||
|
| 1 | 0.946*** | 0.615** | 0.598*** | 0.739*** | 0.610*** | ||||||
|
| 1 | 0.814*** | 0.802*** | 0.854*** | 0.778*** | |||||||
|
| 1 | 0.953*** | 0.828*** | 0.813*** | ||||||||
|
| 1 | 0.772*** | 0.816*** | |||||||||
|
| 1 | 0.600** | ||||||||||
|
| 1 |
Correlation coefficients (r) between pairs of WTC of yield related traits.
| Ph | Bh | Msl | Pb | Tb | Sqms | Sqb | Sqp | Ssq | Rl | Sr | Yield | |
|
| 1 | 0.926 | 0.946 | 0.904 | 0.858 | 0.982 | 0.777 | 0.897 | 0.924 | 0.960 | 0.871 | 0.871 |
|
| 1 | 0.949 | 0.846 | 0.772 | 0.902 | 0.715 | 0.819 | 0.754 | 0.860 | 0.811 | 0.729 | |
|
| 1 | 0.810 | 0.744 | 0.901 | 0.704 | 0.815 | 0.815 | 0.911 | 0.793 | 0.773 | ||
|
| 1 | 0.970 | 0.930 | 0.908 | 0.947 | 0.819 | 0.845 | 0.792 | 0.855 | |||
|
| 1 | 0.878 | 0.849 | 0.895 | 0.836 | 0.821 | 0.748 | 0.850 | ||||
|
| 1 | 0.834 | 0.940 | 0.905 | 0.934 | 0.843 | 0.893 | |||||
|
| 1 | 0.962 | 0.657 | 0.678 | 0.580** | 0.859 | ||||||
|
| 1 | 0.800 | 0.820 | 0.706 | 0.933 | |||||||
|
| 1 | 0.929 | 0.833 | 0.868 | ||||||||
|
| 1 | 0.840 | 0.818 | |||||||||
|
| 1 | 0.620 | ||||||||||
|
| 1 |
*** Significant at 0.05, 0.01 and 0.001 levels, respectively (n = 23).
Correlation coefficients (r) between pairs of traits of seedlings at seedling establishment stage under control and waterlogging.
| Control | Treatment | Waterlogging Tolerance Index | ||||||||||
| RL | SL | FL | FW | RL | SL | FL | FW | RL | SL | FL | FW | |
|
| 1 | −0.15 | 0.91 | −0.05 | 1 | 0.50 | 0.96 | 0.35 | 1 | 0.38 | 0.99 | 0.78 |
|
| 1 | 0.27 | 0.40 | 1 | 0.72 | 0.23 | 1 | 0.45 | 0.51 | |||
|
| 1 | 0.12 | 1 | 0.35 | 1 | 0.78 | ||||||
|
| 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||
*, **, and *** Significant at 0.05, 0.01 and 0.001 levels, respectively (n = 23).
Correlation coefficients (r) between pairs of traits of seedlings at seedling stage under control.
| RL | SL | FL | RW | SW | FL | |
|
| 1 | 0.04 | 0.84 | 0.55 | −0.18 | −0.03 |
|
| 1 | 0.57 | 0.18 | 0.61 | 0.58 | |
|
| 1 | 0.55 | 0.18 | 0.29 | ||
|
| 1 | 0.36 | 0.55 | |||
|
| 1 | 0.98 | ||||
|
| 1 |
*** Significant at 0.05, 0.01 and 0.001 levels, respectively (n = 23).
Correlation coefficients (r) between pairs of traits of seedlings at seedling stage under waterlogging.
| RL | SL | FL | RW | SW | FL | |
|
| 1 | −0.05 | 0.73 | 0.54 | −0.04 | 0.09 |
|
| 1 | 0.65 | 0.27 | 0.62 | 0.59 | |
|
| 1 | 0.59 | 0.39 | 0.47 | ||
|
| 1 | 0.53 | 0.69 | |||
|
| 1 | 0.98 | ||||
|
| 1 |
*, **, and *** Significant at 0.05, 0.01 and 0.001 levels, respectively (n = 23).
Correlation coefficients (r) between WTC of pairs of traits of seedlings at seedling stage after waterlogging.
| RL | SL | FL | RW | SW | FL | |
|
| 1 | 0.34 | 0.95 | 0.29 | 0.01 | 0.15 |
|
| 1 | 0.60 | −0.18 | −0.26 | −0.22 | |
|
| 1 | 0.18 | −0.07 | 0.07 | ||
|
| 1 | 0.66 | 0.88 | |||
|
| 1 | 0.93 | ||||
|
| 1 |
**, and *** Significant at 0.01 and 0.001 levels, respectively (n = 23).
Figure 1The effect of waterlogging on morphological traits of GH01 and ZS9 in field conditions.
A: GH01 control and treated plants; B: GH01 control and treated roots; C: ZS9 control and treated roots; D: ZS9 control and treated plants.
Figure 2The effect of waterlogging on seedlings of 9981 at the seedling establishment stage.
Yellow bars = 1.0 cm.
Figure 3The adventitious roots of ZS12 induced by waterlogging at seedling stage.
Red bars = 1.0 cm.
Figure 4The effect of waterlogging on seedlings of B108 at the seedling stage.