Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T18:17:36.239Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of different physiological traits on grain yield in barley grown under irrigated and terminal water deficit conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2010

A. GONZÁLEZ ,
V. BERMEJO  and
B. S. GIMENO
A. GONZÁLEZ*
Affiliation:
IMIDRA, Apdo 127, 28800Alcalá de Henares, Spain
V. BERMEJO
Affiliation:
CIEMAT, Avda. Complutense 22, 28040Madrid, Spain
B. S. GIMENO
Affiliation:
CIEMAT, Avda. Complutense 22, 28040Madrid, Spain
*
*To whom all correspondence should be addressed. Email: agueda.gonzalez@madrid.org
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Drought is the main factor limiting the productivity of crops in Mediterranean areas. The introduction of physiological traits into crops that improve their tolerance to drought is necessary if yields under these conditions are to be efficiently improved. The effect of drought on different gas exchange variables, i.e. net photosynthesis (A), stomatal conductance (gs) and leaf chlorophyll concentration (Chl), and the relationship of these variables with yield were studied in 12 barley genotypes grown under irrigated and terminal drought conditions. The variable most sensitive to water deficit was gs (mean reduction 43% with respect to control conditions), followed by A (mean reduction 34%). The mean reduction of yield by terminal drought was 27%. A significant correlation was seen between these physiological traits and yield. The effect of water deficit on A, gs and Chl was smaller in the breeding lines than in the traditional varieties assayed, in agreement with the results found for yield. These results suggest a potential indirect selection of physiological characteristics in these breeding lines that allow greater tolerance to drought. The response of the different genotypes examined was not homogeneous across all the variables analysed. This variability is important in programmes aiming to obtain drought-tolerant genotypes via the optimization of traits such as those above.

Type
Crops and Soils
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 148 , Issue 3 , June 2010 , pp. 319 - 328
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Araus, J. L., Slafer, G. A., Reynolds, M. P. & Royo, C. (2002). Plant breeding and drought in C3 cereals: what should we breed for? Annals of Botany 89, 925–940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brennan, J. P., Condon, A. G., Van Ginkel, M. & Reynolds, M. P. (2007). An economic assessment of the use of physiological selection for stomatal aperture-related traits in the CIMMYT wheat breeding programme. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 145, 187–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cattivelli, L., Rizza, F., Badeck, F. W., Mazzucotelli, E., Mastrangelo, A. M., Francia, E., Marè, C., Tondelli, A. & Stanca, A. M. (2008). Drought tolerance improvement in crop plants: an integrated view from breeding to genomics. Field Crops Research 105, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandrasekar, V., Sairam, R. K. & Srivastava, G. C. (2000). Physiological and biochemical responses of hexaploid and tetraploid wheat to drought stress. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 185, 219–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Vita, P., Nicosia, O. L. D., Nigro, F., Platani, C., Riefolo, C., Di Fonzo, N. & Cattivelli, L. (2007). Breeding progress in morpho-physiological, agronomical and qualitative traits of durum wheat cultivars released in Italy during the 20th century. European Journal of Agronomy 26, 39–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ding, L., Wang, K. J., Jiang, G. M., Liu, M. Z., Niu, S. L. & Gao, L. M. (2005). Post-anthesis changes in photosynthetic traits of maize hybrids released in different years. Field Crops Research 93, 108–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dubey, R. S. (2005). Photosynthesis in plants under stressful conditions. In Handbook of Photosynthesis (Ed. Pessarakli, M.), pp. 717–737. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
El Hafid, R., Smith, D. H., Karrou, M. & Samir, K. (1998). Physiological attributes associated with early-season drought resistance in spring durum wheat cultivars. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 78, 227–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, R. A., Rees, D., Sayre, K. D., Lu, Z.-M., Condon, A. G. & Larque-Saavedra, A. (1998). Wheat yield progress associated with higher stomatal conductance and photosynthetic rate, and cooler canopies. Crop Science 38, 1467–1475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flexas, J., Bota, J., Loreto, F., Cornic, G. & Sharkey, T. D. (2004). Diffusive and metabolic limitations to photosynthesis under drought and salinity in C3 plants. Plant Biology 6, 269–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flexas, J. & Medrano, H. (2002). Drought-inhibition of photosynthesis in C3 plants: stomatal and non-stomatal limitations revisited. Annals of Botany 89, 183–189.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
González, A., Martín, I. & Ayerbe, L. (1999). Barley yield in water-stress conditions. The influence of precocity, osmotic adjustment and stomatal conductance. Field Crops Research 62, 23–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
González, A., Martín, I. & Ayerbe, L. (2007). Response of barley genotypes to terminal soil moisture stress: phenology, growth and yield. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 58, 29–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
González, A., Martín, I. & Ayerbe, L. (2008). Yield and osmotic adjustment capacity of barley under terminal water stress conditions. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 194, 81–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gummuluru, S., Hobbs, S. L. A. & Jana, S. (1989). Physiological responses of drought tolerant and drought susceptible durum wheat genotypes. Photosynthetica 23, 479–485.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez-Rodríguez, M., Reynolds, M. P. & Larque-Saavedra, A. (2000). Photosynthesis of wheat in a warm, irrigated environment. II. Traits associated with genetic gains in yield. Field Crops Research 66, 51–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamidou, F., Zombre, G. & Braconnier, S. (2007). Physiological and biochemical responses of cowpea genotypes to water stress under glasshouse and field conditions. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 193, 229–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heitholt, J. J., Johnson, R. C. & Ferris, D. M. (1991). Stomatal limitation to carbon dioxide assimilation in nitrogen and drought-stressed wheat. Crop Science 31, 135–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
INIA (Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Agrarias) (1977). El Encín: Suelo y Clima. Madrid, Spain: INIA, Ministerio de Agricultura Pesca y Alimentación.Google Scholar
Inskeep, W. P. & Bloom, P. R. (1985). Extinction coefficients of chlorophyll a and b in N,N-dimethylformamide and 80% acetone. Plant Physiology 77, 483–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labuschagne, M. T., Verhoeven, R. & Nkouanessi, M. (2008). Drought tolerance assessment of African cowpea accessions based on stomatal behaviour and cell membrane stability. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 146, 689–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, J. A. & LeCain, D. R. (1991). Leaf gas exchange and related leaf traits among 15 winter wheat genotypes. Crop Science 31, 443–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrison, M. J., Voldeng, H. D. & Cober, E. R. (1999). Physiological changes from 58 years of genetic improvement of short-season soybean cultivars in Canada. Agronomy Journal 91, 685–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munns, R. (2002). Comparative physiology of salt and water stress. Plant Cell and Environment 25, 239–250.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nayyar, H. & Walia, D. P. (2004). Genotypic variation in wheat in response to water stress and abscisic acid-induced accumulation of osmolytes in developing grains. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 190, 39–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nayyar, H., Kaur, S., Smita, , Singh, K. J., Dhir, K. K. & Bains, T. (2005). Water stress-induced injury to reproductive phase in chickpea: evaluation of stress sensitivity in wild and cultivated species in relation to abscisic acid and polyamines. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 191, 450–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Neill, P. M., Shanahan, J. F. & Schepers, J. S. (2006). Use of chlorophyll fluorescence assessments to differentiate corn hybrid response to variable water conditions. Crop Science 46, 681–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rahman, H. U. (2005). Genetic analysis of stomatal conductance in upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) under contrasting temperature regimes. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 143, 161–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, M. P., Balota, M., Delgado, M. I. B., Amani, I. & Fischer, R. A. (1994). Physiological and morphological traits associated with spring wheat yield under hot, irrigated conditions. Australian Journal Plant Physiology 21, 717–730.Google Scholar
Reynolds, M. P., Singh, R. P., Ibrahim, A., Ageeb, O. A. A., Larque-Saavedra, A. & Quick, J. S. (1998). Evaluating physiological traits to complement empirical selection for wheat in warm environments. Euphytica 100, 85–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, M. P., Rajaram, S. & Sayre, K. D. (1999). Physiological and genetic changes of irrigated wheat in the post-green revolution period and approaches for meeting projected global demand. Crop Science 39, 1611–1621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, M. P., Delgado, B. M. I., Gutiérrez-Rodríguez, M. & Larque-Saavedra, A. (2000). Photosynthesis of wheat in a warm, irrigated environment. I. Genetic diversity and crop productivity. Field Crops Research 66, 37–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, M. P., Hobbs, P. R. & Braun, H. J. (2007). Challenges to international wheat improvement. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 145, 223–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, R. A., Rebetzke, G. J., Condon, A. G. & van Herwaarden, A. F. (2002). Breeding opportunities for increasing the efficiency of water use and crop yield in temperate cereals. Crop Science 42, 111–121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ritchie, S. W., Nguyen, H. T. & Holaday, A. S. (1990). Leaf water content and gas-exchange parameters of two wheat genotypes differing in drought resistance. Crop Science 30, 105–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sayre, K. D., Rajaram, S. & Fischer, R. A. (1997). Yield potential progress in short bread wheats in Northwest Mexico. Crop Science 37, 36–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shangguan, Z., Shao, M. & Dyckmans, J. (1999). Interaction of osmotic adjustment and photosynthsis in winter wheat under soil drought. Journal of Plant Physiology 154, 753–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
StatSoft (1997). Statistica 5.1. Tusla, OK: StatSoft.Google Scholar
Tenga, A. Z., Marie, B. A. & Ormrod, P. D. (1989). Leaf greenness meter to assess ozone injury to tomato leaves. HortScience 24, 514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tenga, A. Z. & Ormrod, P. D. (1990). Diminished greenness of tomato leaves exposed to ozone and post-exposure recovery of greenness. Environmental Pollution 64, 29–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zadoks, J. C., Chang, T. T. & Kozak, C. F. (1974). A decimal code for the growth stages of cereals. Weed Research 14, 415–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar