| Literature DB >> 32010160 |
Dilip K Biswas1, Bruce Coulman1, Bill Biligetu1, Yong-Bi Fu2.
Abstract
Breeding forage crops for high yields of digestible biomass along with improved resource-use efficiency and wide adaptation is essential to meet future challenges in forage production imposed by growing demand, declining resources, and changing climate. Bromegrasses (Bromus spp.) are economically important forage species in the temperate regions of world, but genetic gain in forage yield of bromegrass is relatively low. In particular, limited breeding efforts have been made in improving abiotic stress tolerance and resource-use efficiency. We conducted a literature review on bromegrass breeding achievements and challenges, global climate change impacts on bromegrass species, and explored the feasibility of applying high-throughput imaging phenotyping techniques and genomic selection for further advances in forage yield and quality selection. Overall genetic gain in forage yield of bromegrass has been low, but genetic improvement in forage yield of smooth bromegrass (Bromus inermis Leyss) is somewhat higher than that of meadow bromegrass (Bromus riparius Rehm). This low genetic gain in bromegrass yield is due to a few factors such as its genetic complexity, lack of long-term breeding effort, and inadequate plant adaptation to changing climate. Studies examining the impacts of global climate change on bromegrass species show that global warming, heat stress, and drought have negative effects on forage yield. A number of useful physiological traits have been identified for genetic improvement to minimize yield loss. Available reports suggest that high-throughput imaging phenotyping techniques, including visual and infrared thermal imaging, imaging hyperspectral spectroscopy, and imaging chlorophyll fluorescence, are capable of capturing images of morphological, physiological, and biochemical traits related to plant growth, yield, and adaptation to abiotic stresses at different scales of organization. The more complex traits such as photosynthetic radiation-use efficiency, water-use efficiency, and nitrogen-use efficiency can be effectively assessed by utilizing combinations of imaging hyperspectral spectroscopy, infrared thermal imaging, and imaging chlorophyll fluorescence techniques in a breeding program. Genomic selection has been applied in the breeding of forage species and the applications show its potential in high ploidy, outcrossing species like bromegrass to improve the accuracy of parental selection and improve genetic gain. Together, these new technologies hold promise for improved genetic gain and wide adaptation in future bromegrass breeding.Entities:
Keywords: abiotic stress; bromegrass species; climate change; crop adaptation; forage yield and quality; global warming; resource-use efficiency
Year: 2020 PMID: 32010160 PMCID: PMC6974688 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2019.01673
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 5.753
Figure 1Associations between dry matter yields (DMY) of smooth (SB) and meadow (MB) bromegrass cultivars and their year of release in Canada. Yield of each cultivar has been averaged from multi-year yield trials conducted in the prairie provinces of Canada published in the Western Forage Test Reports (2000–2014) in western Canada. The common checks for SB and MB were Carlton and Fleet, respectively. DMY (SB) = −3,534 + 1.84 × year of release, d.f. = 7, r2 = 0.47, P = 0.059, DMY (MB) = −356 + 0.23 × year of release, d.f. = 3, r2 = 0.41, P = 0.360.
List of bromegrass cultivars with their characteristics and year of release in Canada.
| Year of release | Cultivar | Characteristics | Developer |
|---|---|---|---|
| (a) Smooth bromegrass | |||
| 1936 | Parkland | L.E. Kirk and T.M. Stevenson | |
| 1961 | Carlton | High forage and seed yield | R.P. Knowles |
| 1973 | Magna | R.P. Knowles | |
| 1975 | Tempo | W. Childers | |
| 1983 | Signal | R.P. Knowles | |
| 1983 | Bravo | ||
| 1990 | Radisson | Good forage yield and quality | J. Surprenant and R.P. Knowles |
| 2001 | AC Rocket | R. Michaud | |
| 2014 | AAC Royal | ||
| (b) Meadow bromegrass | |||
| 1987 | Fleet | High seed yield and quality | R.P. Knowles |
| 1987 | Paddock | Early maturity | R.P. Knowles |
| 2009 | Armada | High seed and forage yield | B. Coulman |
| 2009 | Admiral | High vigor and fall greenness | B. Coulman |
| 2016 | AAC Maximus | High forage yield | B. Coulman |
| (c) Hybrid bromegrass | |||
| 2000 | AC Knowles | Dual-purpose, high yield, good regrowth, and fall greenness | B. Coulman |
| 2003 | AC Success | Dual-purpose, high yield, good regrowth, and early spring growth | B. Coulman |
| 2018 | AAC Torque | Dual-purpose and high forage yield | B. Coulman and B. Biligetu |
List of bromegrass cultivars with their characteristics and year of release in the United States.
| Year of release | Cultivar | Characteristics | Developer |
|---|---|---|---|
| (a) Smooth bromegrass | |||
| 1942 | Lincoln | High yield | L.C. Newell |
| 1943 | Manchar | ||
| 1950 | Lyon | L.C. Newell | |
| 1950 | Lancaster | L.C. Newell | |
| 1951 | Homesteader | J.G. Ross | |
| 1955 | Saratoga | ||
| 1962 | Baylor | ||
| 1973 | Barton | ||
| 1976 | Beacon | ||
| 1978 | Rebound | High regrowth yield and rapid recovery | J.G. Ross |
| 1979 | Cottonwood | ||
| 1979 | Jubilee | ||
| 1989 | York | High regrowth yield and rapid recovery | |
| 1990 | Badger | ||
| 1995 | Alpha | High survival rate and persistence | |
| 2014 | Newell | High yield and forage digestibility | K.P. Vogel |
| (b) Meadow bromegrass | |||
| 1966 | Regar | ||
| 2000 | Montana | ||
| 2001 | MacBeth | ||
| 2004 | Cache | High yield, persistence and regrowth | K.V. Jensen |
| 2015 | Arsenal | High seedling emergence, yield, and forage quality | K.V. Jensen |
| (c) Hybrid bromegrass | |||
| 1965 | Polar | Superior cold tolerance | |
Figure 2Spectra of different imaging sensors used for high-throughput imaging plant phenotyping. VIS, visual; FLU, fluorescence; Hyper, hyperspectral; NIR, near-infrared; IR, infrared.
List of desirable traits with the potential to improve bromegrass adaptation to changing environment and heat stress.
| Desirable trait | Effects | Level of adaptation |
|---|---|---|
| (a) Changing environment | ||
| Plant phenological development | Delay in flowering to maintain active vegetative growth | Plant/crop |
| Delayed leaf senescence | Increase growing season and productivity by maintain active leaf area | Molecular |
| (b) Heat stress | ||
| Deeper root | Extract soil water from deeper root zone | Organ |
| Cooler canopy | Maintain photosynthetic activity and productivity | Organ |
| Higher stomatal conductance | Enhance transpiration cooling | Organ |
| Higher carotenoids | Increase photoprotection of photosystem 2 by quenching of chlorophyll triplet states and scavenging of both superoxide and hydroxyl radicals | Molecular |
| Higher antioxidants | Increase detoxification of reactive oxygen species | Molecular |
| Rubisco activase | Protect thylakoid associated protein synthesis machinery against heat inactivation | Molecular |
| Higher radiation-use efficiency | Increase conversion of light energy and CO2 into biomass | Plant/crop/molecular |
The physiological traits and their effects on crop plants are summarized from the reports published elsewhere (Reynolds and Trethowan, 2007; Reynolds et al., 2009; Reynolds et al., 2015).
List of desirable traits for improving bromegrass adaptation to drought stress.
| Desirable trait | Effects | Level of adaptation |
|---|---|---|
| Phenological development | Match drought conditions to crop stages that are relatively drought tolerant | Plant/crop |
| Deeper root | Extract soil moisture from deeper root zone | Organ |
| Higher stomatal regulation | Reduce water loss through transpiration | Organ |
| Leaf rolling | Reduce radiation load and transpiration | Organ |
| Higher wax deposition | Reduce radiation load by reflecting and non-stomatal water loss | Molecular |
| Delayed leaf senescence | Maintain photosynthetic activity and productivity | Molecular |
| Higher osmotic adjustment | Maintain leaf turgor and membrane stability | Molecular |
| Higher carotenoids | Increase thermal dissipation | Molecular |
| Higher antioxidant capacity | Increase detoxification of reactive oxygen species | Molecular |
| Higher rubisco specificity | Increase carboxylation capacity under low CO2 concentration when stomata are partially closed | Molecular |
| Higher water-use efficiency | Maintain photosynthetic productivity with minimum soil water used | Plant/crop/molecular |
The physiological traits and their effects on crop plants are summarized from the reports published elsewhere (Reynolds and Trethowan, 2007; Reynolds et al., 2009; Reynolds et al., 2015).
Figure 3An illustration of major steps in the application of multispectral camera to phenotype cotton canopy cover/yield in the field (adopted from Xu et al., 2019).
Published applications of high-throughput imaging phenotyping techniques to crop genetic improvement.
| Traits | Crop | Study objectives | Number of accession | Imaging sensor | Imaging environment | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Plant height, canopy cover, vegetation index, flowering time | Cotton | Phenotypic analysis of breeding materials | 240 | Visual, near-infrared (octocopter) | F |
|
| Biomass, green leaf area, chlorophyll content | Rice | GWAS study for natural variation | 529 | Hyperspectral | CE |
|
| Growth, chlorophyll content/senescence | Rice | Dissection of genetic architecture of temporal salinity response | 373 | Visual, fluorescence | CE |
|
| Green leaf area | Bread wheat | GWAS study for grain yield | 4368 | Hyperspectral (Clipper aircraft) | F |
|
| Grain yield, vegetation index, canopy temperature | Maize | Phenotyping for foliar diseases tolerance | 25 | Visual, infrared | F |
|
F, field; CE, controlled environment.
Published applications of genomic selection techniques to crop genetic improvement.
| Traits predicted | Crop | Population | Size of training population | Markers | Statistical model | Prediction accuracy | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Biomass, feed quality | Perennial ryegrass | HSP | 364 | 1670 | BLUP | 0.10–0.59 |
|
| Grain yield, green leaf area | Bread wheat | FSF | 613 | 9285 | BLUP | 0.56–0.62 |
|
| Stem NDF digestibility, leaf protein content | Alfalfa | HSP | 154 | 8,494 | BLUP, BayesB, and Bayesian Lasso | 0.3.0–.0.4.0 |
|
| Plant height, flowering date, plant regrowth | Alfalfa | G | 288 | 44,757 | BayesA, BayesB, and BayesC | 0.51–0.65 |
|
| Days to heading (DH), herbage accumulation (HA) | Perennial ryegrass | HSP | 517 | 1.02 ×105 | BLUP and GBLUP | 0.40–0.52 (DH) 0.07–0.43 (HA) |
|
HSP, half-sib progeny; FSF, full-sib family; G, genotype.