| Literature DB >> 34203591 |
Talles de Oliveira Santos1, Antônio Teixeira do Amaral Junior1, Rosimeire Barboza Bispo1, Valter Jário de Lima1, Samuel Henrique Kamphorst1, Jhean Torres Leite1, Divino Rosa Dos Santos Júnior1, Pedro Henrique Araújo Diniz Santos1, Uéliton Alves de Oliveira1, Kátia Fabiane Medeiros Schmitt1, Eliemar Campostrini1, Monique Moreira Moulin2, Alexandre Pio Viana1, Geraldo de Amaral Gravina3, Caio Cezar Guedes Corrêa1, Gabriel Moreno Bernardo Gonçalves1.
Abstract
Drought is a common abiotic stress in tropical and subtropical regions that limits the growth and development of agricultural crops, mainly impacting grain yield. Acting through plant breeding is the most viable alternative for obtaining genotypes more tolerant of environments with stress. This work aims to select popcorn genotypes for environments with drought and to identify discriminating traits for the evaluation of drought tolerance in popcorn germplasm. Fifteen Latin American populations of popcorn were evaluated in water stress (WS) and well-watered (WW) conditions. The evaluated traits were based in morpho-agronomic, physiological and radicular descriptors. Data were submitted to individual and joint ANOVA and GT Biplot analysis. Variability was detected between populations for all traits in both conditions. The drought caused a reduction of 30.61% and 3.5% in grain yield and popping expansion, respectively. Based in GT biplot analysis, 880POP was the most stable in WS and WW, being indicated as a promising population for cultivation in environments with water limitation. This study is going to allow the establishment of a collection of great importance to maize germplasm and to provide information to facilitate the process of selection in breeding programs focused on drought tolerance.Entities:
Keywords: drought; genetic resources; gt biplot; multivariate analysis; water stress
Year: 2021 PMID: 34203591 PMCID: PMC8232228 DOI: 10.3390/plants10061211
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plants (Basel) ISSN: 2223-7747
Summary of individual and joint ANOVA, means, standard deviations and coefficient of variation (CV%) of morpho-agronomic, physiological and root traits of 15 populations of popcorn evaluated under water stress (WS) and well-watered (WW) conditions.
| Trait | Water Regime (A) | Mean Squares | Mean ± SD | CV (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Genotype (G) | G × A | ||||
| (DF = 14) | (DF = 14) | ||||
| SPAD | WW | 73.84 ns | 109.19 ** | 33.25 ± 6.44 | 19.35 |
| WS | 159.92 ** | 28.02 ± 5.49 | 19.60 | ||
| PH | WW | 1074.06 ** | 192.25 ns | 181.55 ± 12.43 | 6.85 |
| WS | 888.84 ** | 163.48 ± 9.32 | 5.70 | ||
| TL | WW | 7.63 ** | 4.58 ** | 12.04 ± 0.42 | 3.51 |
| WS | 8.20 ** | 11.95 ± 0.58 | 4.88 | ||
| NTB | WW | 14.26 ** | 7.33 ** | 19.31 ± 2.06 | 5.97 |
| WS | 9.74 ** | 16.02 ± 1.15 | 12.85 | ||
| EL | WW | 4.56 ** | 2.55 ** | 12.79 ± 0.86 | 6.73 |
| WS | 5.62 ** | 11.30 ± 1.02 | 8.99 | ||
| NRG | WW | 4.28 ** | 1.43 ns | 13.24 ± 0.94 | 7.07 |
| WS | 4.79 ns | 12.64 ± 1.59 | 12.58 | ||
| NGR | WW | 22.16 ** | 28.22 * | 27.41 ± 2.84 | 10.36 |
| WS | 60.97 ** | 23.24 ± 4.10 | 17.63 | ||
| 100GW | WW | 12.33 ** | 2.01 ns | 15.99 ± 1.33 | 8.29 |
| WS | 25.49 ** | 15.07 ± 1.15 | 7.65 | ||
| GY | WW | 1,776,800.80 ** | 288,045.29 ** | 2684.28 ± 349.06 | 13.00 |
| WS | 760,443.71 ** | 1862.62 ± 254.88 | 13.68 | ||
| PE | WW | 207.50 ** | 5.48 ns | 20.87 ± 2.04 | 9.77 |
| WS | 166.59 ** | 20.14 ± 1.63 | 8.08 | ||
| DM | WW | 8706.63 ** | 3392.40 ** | 201.69 ± 32.48 | 16.11 |
| WS | 6384.97 ** | 191.49 ± 32.07 | 16.75 | ||
| SRA | WW | 147.95 ** | 1.12 ns | 61.24 ± 2.64 | 4.32 |
| WS | 139.86 ** | 60.87 ± 2.38 | 3.90 | ||
| CRA | WW | 49.34 ns | 10.73 ns | 68.76 ± 6.69 | 9.73 |
| WS | 93.51 ** | 67.71 ± 2.44 | 3.60 | ||
| NSR | WW | 16.47 ** | 1.10 ns | 12.96 ± 0.99 | 7.62 |
| WS | 14.80 ** | 13.20 ± 1.93 | 14.65 | ||
| NCR | WW | 60.90 ** | 2.53 ns | 20.16 ± 0.78 | 3.88 |
| WS | 55.45 ** | 19.91 ± 1.50 | 7.51 | ||
| DCR | WW | 0.93 ** | 1.54 ** | 4.32 ± 0.27 | 6.25 |
| WS | 2.34 ** | 5.20 ± 0.31 | 5.87 | ||
SPAD—relative chlorophyll content; PH—plant height (cm); TL—tassel length (cm); NTB—number of tassel branches; EL—ear length (cm); NRG—number of rows of grains (un); NGR—number of grains per row (un); 100GW—100 grains weight (g); GY—grain yield (Kg ha−1); PE—popping expansion (g mL−1); DM—shoot dry matter (g); SRA—support root angle (°); CRA—crown root angle (°); NSR—number of support roots (un); NCR—number of crown roots (un); e DRC—density of crown roots. * and ** indicate significance and ns indicate not significant, at 5 and 1% of probability, respectively, by Test F.
Figure 1Biplot “which-won-where” graph for (A) water stress (WS) and; (B) well-watered (WW) conditions. 100GW—100 grains wight; GY—grain yield; PH—plant height; DM—shoot dry matter; NGR—Number of grains per row; EL—ear length; PE—popping expansion; SPAD—relative chlorophyll content; (-) signal indicating negative values.
Figure 2Biplot “mean vs. stability” graph for (A) water stress (WS) and; (B) well-watered (WW) conditions. 100GW—100 grains wight; GY—grain yield; PH—plant height; DM—shoot dry matter; NGR—Number of grains per row; EL—ear length; PE—popping expansion; SPAD—relative chlorophyll content; (-) signal indicating negative values.
Figure 3Biplot “discriminativeness vs. representativeness” graph for (A) water stress (WS) and; (B) well-watered (WW) conditions. 100GW—100 grains wight; GY—grain yield; PH—plant height; DM—shoot dry matter; NGR—Number of grains per row; EL—ear length; PE—popping expansion; SPAD—relative chlorophyll content; (-) signal indicating negative values.
Figure 4Biplot “ranking genotypes” graph for (A) water stress (WS) and; (B) well-watered (WW) conditions. 100GW—100 grains wight; GY—grain yield; PH—plant height; DM—shoot dry matter; NGR—Number of grains per row; EL—ear length; PE—popping expansion; SPAD—relative chlorophyll content; (-) signal indicating negative values.
Information about accession ID, origin, donor institution and climate adaptation of the fifteen Latin-American populations used in the experiment.
| Accession ID | Origin | Donor Institution | Climate Adaptation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 288POP | Guaraciaba/SC, Brazil | - | Subtropical |
| 2 | 574POP | Guaraciaba/SC, Brazil | - | Subtropical |
| 3 | 880POP | Guaraciaba/SC, Brazil | - | Subtropical |
| 4 | ARZM13050 | Argentina, Brazil | CIMMYT | Temperate/Tropical |
| 5 | BARÃOUFV | Viçosa/MG, Brazil | UFV | Temperate/Tropical |
| 6 | BOYA462 | Colombia | CIMMYT | Temperate/Tropical |
| 7 | BOZM260 | Bolívia | CIMMYT | Temperate/Tropical |
| 8 | BRS Angela | Sete Lagoas/MG, Brazil | Embrapa | Tropical |
| 9 | CHZM13134 | Chile | CIMMYT | Temperate/Tropical |
| 10 | ISLA | Paraná | ISLA S/A | Temperate/Tropical |
| 11 | PARA172 | Paraguay | CIMMYT | Temperate/Tropical |
| 12 | UNB2-C0 | Campos dos Goytacazes/RJ, Brazil | UENF | Tropical |
| 13 | UNB2-C6 | Campos dos Goytacazes/RJ, Brazil | UENF | Tropical |
| 14 | UNB2-C8 | Campos dos Goytacazes/RJ, Brazil | UENF | Tropical |
| 15 | URUG298A | Uruguay | CIMMYT | Temperate/Tropical |
RJ—Rio de Janeiro; MG—Minas Gerais; SC—Santa Catarina; UFV—Universidade Federal de Viçosa; CIMMYT—International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center; UENF—Universidade Estadual do Norte Fluminense.
Figure 5Values on days after sowing of temperature (°C), relative humidity (RH—%) and photosynthetically active radiation (PAR—µmol m−2s−1) throughout the growing period of the experiment with 15 popcorn populations under water stress (WS) and well-watered (WW) conditions; ; (-) signal indicating negative values.
Weekly precipitation and irrigation (mm) applied in the well-watered (WW) and under water stress (WS) conditions.
| Weeks after Sowing | Rainfall | Amount of Water (mm) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Well-Watered | Water Stress | ||||
| Irrigation | Total | Irrigation | Total | ||
| 1 | 17.00 | 7.21 | 23.20 | 6.20 | 23.20 |
| 2 | 6.00 | 10.97 | 16.97 | 10.24 | 16.24 |
| 3 | 0.00 | 10.13 | 10.13 | 9.86 | 9.86 |
| 4 | 10.60 | 10.72 | 21.32 | 10.27 | 20.87 |
| 5 | 5.20 | 8.35 | 13.55 | 8.43 | 13.63 |
| 6 | 2.00 | 11.60 | 13.60 | 12.18 | 14.18 |
| 7 | 0.00 | 12.94 | 12.94 | 12.12 | 12.12 |
| 8 | 0.00 | 10.86 | 10.86 | - | 0.00 |
| 9 | 0.00 | 18.79 | 18.79 | - | 0.00 |
| 10 | 0.00 | 18.95 | 18.95 | - | 0.00 |
| 11 | 30.80 | 1.14 | 31.94 | - | 30.80 |
| 12 | 0.00 | 16.73 | 16.73 | - | 0.00 |
| 13 | 0.00 | 14.00 | 14.00 | - | 0.00 |
| 14 | 65.00 | 2.00 | 67.00 | - | 65.00 |
| 15 | 0.00 | 13.50 | 13.50 | - | 0.00 |
| 16 | 9.20 | 10.00 | 19.20 | - | 9.20 |
| 17 | 2.40 | 10.00 | 12.40 | - | 2.40 |
| Total | 148.20 | 187.89 | 335.08 | 69.30 | 217.50 |
Figure 6Soil water potential (−MPa) of the experiment with 15 popcorn populations under water stress (WS) and well-watered (WW) conditions.