| Literature DB >> 30842474 |
Xiaolong Yang1, Benfu Wang1, Liang Chen1, Ping Li2,3, Cougui Cao4,5.
Abstract
Seasonal drought is a major threat to rice production. However, the sensitivity of rice to drought stress (DS) at different growth periods remains unclear. The objective of this study was to reveal the different impacts of DS at the flowering stage on rice physiological traits, grain yield, and quality. Field experiments were conducted with two rice cultivars, Yangliangyou 6 (YLY6) and Hanyou 113 (HY113) under two water treatments (traditional flooding (CK) and DS at flowering stage) in 2013 and 2014. Compared with CK, grain yield (GY) under DS was significantly reduced by 23.2% for YLY6 and 24.0% for HY113 while instantaneous water use efficiency (IWUE) was significantly increased by 39% for YLY6 and 37% for HY113, respectively. All physiological traits were significantly decreased under DS and physiological activities did not revert to normal levels at grain filling stage. There was no significant effect on the appearance and nutritional quality except for the significant increase in chalky kernel and chalkiness under DS. Our data suggest that drought stress at flowering stage has a strong influence on rice physiological traits and yield. Stronger recovery capability contributes to maintaining relatively high grain production, which could be a great target for the breeder in developing drought-tolerant rice cultivars.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30842474 PMCID: PMC6403352 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-40161-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Mean temperature, maximum temperature, minimum temperature, sunshine and precipitation per month during the whole growing season of rice across two years (2013–2014) in Wuhan, China.
| Year | Month | Average temperature (°C) | Maximum temperature (°C) | Minimum temperature (°C) | Precipitation (mm per month) | Sunshine (h per month) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2013 | May | 23.0 | 34.0 | 15.0 | 206 | 146 |
| Jun | 26.3 | 38.1 | 18.3 | 205 | 207 | |
| Jul | 30.6 | 38.0 | 23.6 | 479 | 280 | |
| Aug | 31.1 | 40.4 | 23.9 | 25.3 | 233 | |
| Sep | 23.7 | 34.1 | 14.3 | 201 | 149 | |
| Oct | 20.2 | 31.8 | 9.8 | 3.80 | 235 | |
| Mean | 25.8 | 36.1 | 17.5 | 187 | 208 | |
| 2014 | May | 22.1 | 32.1 | 13.8 | 163 | 157 |
| Jun | 26.0 | 33.8 | 21.9 | 46 | 113 | |
| Jul | 27.6 | 37.6 | 20.8 | 134 | 181 | |
| Aug | 26.2 | 37.0 | 20.5 | 115 | 115 | |
| Sep | 24.5 | 33.8 | 17.8 | 64 | 133 | |
| Oct | 20.3 | 30.4 | 13.1 | 144 | 206 | |
| Mean | 24.4 | 34.1 | 18.0 | 111 | 151 |
Analysis of variance (F-values) for GY, grain components and some physiological traits of rice among years, varieties and treatments.
| Source of variation | df | GY | SPN | FG | CH | LWP | ALTG | Pn | Gs | Tr | IWUE | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year (Y) | 1 | 0.08 ns | 0.05 ns | 0.02 ns | 20.5** | 748** | 12.6** | 1.52 ns | 4.20 ns | 8.38* | 2.19 ns | 5.01* |
| Varieties (V) | 1 | 3.33 ns | 12.2** | 5.81* | 248** | 227** | 68.5** | 1.56 ns | 1.09 ns | 63.0** | 28.5** | 100** |
| Treatment (T) | 1 | 352** | 137** | 159** | 230** | 469** | 574** | 142** | 176** | 509** | 119** | 1.13 ns |
| Y × V | 1 | 19.9** | 0.79 ns | 3.40 ns | 9.21 ns | 319** | 83.5** | 2.01 ns | 0.37 ns | 22.7** | 3.82 ns | 1.68 ns |
| Y × T | 1 | 15.5** | 0.15 ns | 10.6** | 14.9** | 80.5** | 75.8** | 0.16 ns | 1.26 ns | 0.08 ns | 2.42 ns | 19.0** |
| V × T | 1 | 1.95 ns | 1.66 ns | 0.50 ns | 52.0** | 9.83** | 45.8** | 0.37 ns | 4.52 ns | 3.47 ns | 0.29 ns | 3.13 ns |
Grain yield, GY; Spikelets per panicle, SPN; Filled grains, FG; Chalkiness, CH; Leaf water potential, LWP; Air-leave temperature gap, ALTG; Net photosynthetic, Pn,; Stomatal conductance, Gs; Instantaneous water use efficiency, IWUE; Carbon isotope discrimination, Δ.
*Significant at the 0.05 probability level.
**Significant at the 0.01 probability level.
GY and yield components of two rice cultivars of YLY6 and HY113 under DS at flowering stage in 2013 and 2014.
| Year | Varieties | Treatment | SPN | EP (×103 m−2) | FG (%) | TGW (g) | GY (t.ha−1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YLY6 | CK | 164 a | 43.5 a | 75.5 a | 26.2 a | 10.45 a | |
| 2013 | DS | 139 b | 34.5 b | 61.2 b | 25.7 a | 8.03 b | |
| HY113 | CK | 180 a | 43.3 a | 85.3 a | 27.1 a | 10.65 a | |
| DS | 144 b | 35.1 b | 67.4 b | 26.8 a | 8.09 b | ||
| Mean | 156 | 39.1 | 72.4 | 26.5 | 9.31 | ||
| YLY6 | CK | 166 a | 40.9 a | 77.8 a | 26.3 a | 10.35 a | |
| 2014 | DS | 131 b | 29.4 b | 63.4 b | 25.8 a | 9.12 b | |
| HY113 | CK | 178 a | 43.4 a | 74.8 a | 27.1 a | 10.06 a | |
| DS | 139 b | 32.9 b | 61.7 b | 27.2 a | 8.39 b | ||
| Mean | 153 | 36.7 | 69.4 | 26.6 | 9.48 |
Different letters indicate statistical significance according to LSD (P = 0.05). TGW and GY are expressed at 14% moisture content.
Milling and appearance quality of two rice cultivars of YLY6 and HY113 under DS during flowering stage in 2013 and 2014.
| Year | Varieties | Treatment | BRR (%) | MRR (%) | HRR (%) | CHK (%) | CH (%) | GS (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YLY6 | CK | 79.4 a | 69.3 a | 59.9 a | 15.1 d | 4.10 c | 2.90 a | |
| 2013 | DS | 79.9 a | 69.9 a | 62.6 a | 25.5 c | 8.40 b | 2.90 a | |
| HY113 | CK | 77.7 a | 66.6 a | 53.4 b | 37.0 b | 9.00 b | 2.90 a | |
| DS | 77.8 a | 66.0 a | 50.2 b | 58.9 a | 15.6 a | 2.90 a | ||
| YLY6 | CK | 82.1 a | 71.7 a | 67.6 a | 15.1 d | 5.63 c | 2.83 b | |
| 2014 | DS | 81.1 a | 70.9 a | 67.3 a | 24.9 c | 8.07 ab | 2.77 b | |
| HY113 | CK | 81.4 a | 71.0 a | 59.8 b | 30.0 b | 7.97 ab | 3.00 a | |
| DS | 80.8 a | 70.3 a | 59.1 b | 44.0 a | 14.2 a | 3.00 a |
Different letters indicate statistical significance according to LSD (P = 0.05).
Nutritional quality of two rice cultivars of YLY6 and HY113 under DS at flowering stage in 2013 and 2014.
| Year | Varieties | Treatment | Protein content (%) | Amylose content (%) | Alkali spreading value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YLY6 | CK | 11.0 a | 16.9 a | 7.23 a | |
| 2013 | DS | 11.1 a | 17.1 a | 7.30 a | |
| HY113 | CK | 8.77 b | 16.8 a | 7.17 a | |
| DS | 8.70 b | 17.1 a | 7.17 a | ||
| YLY6 | CK | 10.5 a | 17.1 a | 7.13 a | |
| 2014 | DS | 10.7 a | 17.1 a | 7.20 a | |
| HY113 | CK | 8.40 b | 16.7 a | 7.13 a | |
| DS | 8.47 b | 16.7 a | 7.00 a |
Different letters indicate statistical significance according to LSD (P = 0.05).
Figure 1Pn (A), Gs (B), Tr (C) of two rice cultivars of YLY6 and HY113 under DS at flowering stage in 2013 and 2014. CK indicates traditional flooding cultivation and DS is drought stress at the flowering stage. The different letters in different columns under each cultivar are significantly different at the P = 0.05 level. Vertical bars represent standard errors.
Figure 2LWP of leaves of two rice cultivars of YLY6 and HY113 under DS at flowering stage in 2013 and 2014. CK indicates traditional flooding cultivation and DS is drought stress at the flowering stage. The different letters in different columns under each cultivar are significantly different at the P = 0.05 level. Vertical bars represent standard errors.
Figure 3ALTG of two rice cultivars of YLY6 and HY113 under DS at flowering stage in 2013 and 2014. CK indicates traditional flooding cultivation and DS is drought stress at the flowering stage. The different letters in different columns under each cultivar are significantly different at the P = 0.05 level. Vertical bars represent standard errors.
Figure 4The IWUE of two rice cultivars of YLY6 and HY113 under DS at flowering stage in 2013 and 2014. CK indicates traditional flooding cultivation and DS is drought stress at the flowering stage. The different letters in different columns under each cultivar are significantly different at the P = 0.05 level. Vertical bars represent standard errors.
Figure 5The Δ of two rice cultivars of YLY6 and HY113 under DS at flowering stage in 2014. CK indicates traditional flooding cultivation and DS is drought stress at the flowering stage. The different letters in different columns under each cultivar are significantly different at the P = 0.05 level. Vertical bars represent standard errors.
The dynamic of LWP, ALTG and photosynthetic traits of YLY6 and HY113 at flowering stage in 2014.
| Varieties | Treatment | LWP (Mpa) | ALTG (°C) | Pn (umol.m−2.s−1) | Gs (mmol. m−2.s−1) | Tr (mmol. m−2.s−1) | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BDS | DS | ARD2 | ARD 20 | BDS | DS | ARD2 | ARD 20 | BDS | DS | ARD2 | ARD 20 | BDS | DS | ARD2 | ARD 20 | BDS | DS | ARD2 | ARD 20 | ||
| YLY6 | CK | −0.58a | −0.53a | −0.49a | −0.62a | 2.57a | 4.40a | 2.37a | 0.90a | 22.7a | 22.3a | 22.8a | 15.5a | 0.62a | 0.69a | 0.55a | 0.18a | 8.42a | 11.9a | 9.15a | 4.64a |
| DS | −0.63a | −0.81b | −0.54a | −0.84b | 2.53a | 1.60b | 1.60b | 0.50b | 22.6a | 18.1b | 21.4a | 11.9b | 0.62a | 0.35b | 0.57a | 0.12 b | 8.30a | 7.07b | 8.09b | 3.40b | |
| HY113 | CK | −095a | 0.84a | −0.77a | −0.81a | 4.20a | 4.13a | 3.23 a | 1.27a | 21.5a | 22.4a | 23.4a | 15.6a | 0.55a | 0.64a | 0.65a | 0.33 a | 6.77a | 11.4a | 9.64a | 6.22a |
| DS | −0.99a | −1.16b | −0.66a | −1.02b | 4.07 a | 2.37b | 1.67 b | 1.15a | 21.3a | 17.8b | 21.5a | 8.42b | 0.53a | 0.36b | 0.55b | 0.17b | 6.37a | 6.44b | 6.50b | 5.26a | |
Before drought stress, BDS; Drought stress, DS; After 2 days of rehydration, ARD 2; After 20 days of rehydration, ARD 20; Photosynthetic, Pn; Stomatal conductance, Gs; Ttranspiration rate, Tr. Different letters indicate statistical significance according to LSD (P = 0.05).
Correlations among the physiological traits of YLY6 and HY113 under drought stress at flowering stage across two years.
| GY | SPN | FG | CH | LWP | ALTG | Pn | Gs | IWUE | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SPN | 0.717** | ||||||||
| FG | 0.787** | 0.855** | |||||||
| CH | −0.581* | −0.322 | −0.409 | ||||||
| LWP | 0.567* | 0.252 | 0.370 | −0.561* | |||||
| ALTG | 0.599* | 0.678** | 0.770** | −0.235 | −0.078 | ||||
| Pn | 0.729** | 0.777** | 0.737** | −0.625** | 0.297 | 0.661** | |||
| Gs | 0.785** | 0.698** | 0.734** | −0.535* | 0.614* | 0.497* | 0.733** | ||
| IWUE | −0.722** | −0.618* | −0.623* | 0.832** | −0.487* | −0.467* | −0.755** | −0.747** | |
| Δ | 0.225 | −0.175 | 0.078 | −0.620** | 0.324 | −0.007 | 0.192 | 0.126 | −0.314 |
*Significant at the 0.05 probability level.
**Significant at the 0.01 probability level.
Figure 6Principal component analysis of target traits. Grain yield, GY; Spikelets per panicle, SPN; Filled grains, FG; Chalkiness, CH; Leaf water potential, LWP; Air-leave temperature gap, ALTG; Net photosynthetic, Pn,; Stomatal conductance, Gs; Instantaneous water use efficiency, IWUE; Carbon isotope discrimination, Δ; HY113-drought stress (●); HY113-traditional flooding (◯); YLY6-drought stress (▼); YLY6- traditional flooding (∇).