Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T15:49:54.679Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

AGRO-PHYSIOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF DURUM WHEAT GENOTYPES UNDER DROUGHT CONDITIONS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 May 2018

REZA MOHAMMADI ,
ALIREZA ETMINAN  and
LIA SHOSHTARI
REZA MOHAMMADI*
Affiliation:
Dryland Agricultural Research Institute, Sararood branch, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Kermanshah, Iran
ALIREZA ETMINAN
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Breeding, Kermanshah Branch, Islamic Azad University, Kermanshah, Iran
LIA SHOSHTARI
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Breeding, Kermanshah Branch, Islamic Azad University, Kermanshah, Iran
*
§Corresponding author. Email: r.mohammadi@areeo.ac.ir
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Knowledge of agro-physiological traits associated with drought tolerance would be useful for developing breeding materials for drought-prone environments. This study was conducted (i) to estimate genetic variability among 25 durum wheat genotypes in response to drought based on grain yield and 15 agro-physiological traits in single and multi-year trials; and (ii) to compare genotypes on the basis of multiple investigated traits using genotype by trait (GT) biplot technique and then recommend possible selection strategies. We found large genetic differences among durum wheat genotypes for agro-physiological traits in response to drought stress within and between single years, which revealed good promise in their further exploitation for selection in durum wheat breeding program. High broad-sense heritability and expected genetic advance as percent of mean observed in plant height (90.8%; 52.7%), grain yield (53.6%, 23.5%) and relative water loss (47.2%, 41.3%), respectively, indicated a major role of additive gene action. The results showed that the performance of genotypes was influenced by the year. The traits with high consistence across years were heading date, plant height and peduncle length. The potential quantum efficiency of photosystem II (Fv/Fm) and thousand-kernel weight (TKW) were positively associated with grain yield, while heading date, plant height and canopy temperature (CT) were negatively associated with grain yield under the drought conditions. In conclusion, based on across-year analyses, Fv/Fm, TKW, heading date, plant height and CT are the most promising traits for indirect selection.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 55 , Issue 3 , June 2019 , pp. 484 - 499
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

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

Ackerly, D. D., Dudley, S. A., Sultan, S. E., Schmitt, J., Coleman, J. S., Linder, C. R., Sandquist, D. R., Geber, M. A., Evans, A. S., Dawson, T. E. and Lechowicz, M. J. (2000). The evolution of plant ecophysiological traits: Recent advances and future directions. Bioscience 50:979–995.10.1641/0006-3568(2000)050[0979:TEOPET]2.0.CO;2Google Scholar
Banziger, M., Edmeades, G. O., Beck, D. and Bellon, M. (2000). Breeding for Drought and Nitrogen Stress Tolerance in Maize: From Theory to Practice. Mexico, DF: CIMMYT.Google Scholar
Barnábas, B., Jäger, K. and Fehér, A. (2008). The effect of drought and heat stress on reproductive processes in cereals. Plant, Cell and Environment 31:11–38.Google Scholar
Barrs, H. D. (1968). Determination of water deficits in plant tissues. In Water Deficits and Plant Growth, 235–368 (Ed Kozolvski, T. T.). Academic Press.Google Scholar
Basu, S., Ramegowda, V., Kumar, A. and Pereira, A. (2016). Plant adaptation to drought stress. F1000Research, 5, F1000 Faculty Rev–1554.Google Scholar
Burton, G. W. and DeVane, E. H. (1953). Estimating heritability in tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea L.) from replicated clonal material. Agronomy Journal 45:478–481.10.2134/agronj1953.00021962004500100005xGoogle Scholar
Cattivelli, L., Delogu, G., Terzi, V. and Stanca, A. M. (1994). Progress in barley breeding. In Genetic Improvement of Field Crops, 95–181 (Ed Slafer, G. A.). New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.Google Scholar
Chaves, M. M., Pereira, J. S., Maroco, J., Rodrigues, M. L., Ricardo, C. P., Osório, M. L., Carvalho, I., Faria, T. and Pinheiro, C. (2002). How plants cope with water stress in the field. Photosynthesis and growth. Annals of Botany 89:907–916.Google Scholar
Elias, E. M. and Manthey, F. A. (2005). End products. In Durum Wheat Breeding. Current Approaches and Future Strategies, 63–86 ( Eds Royo, C., Nachit, M. N., Fonzo, N. Di, Araus, J. L., Pfeiffer, W. H. and Slafer, G. A.). New York: Food Academic Press, The Haworth Press.Google Scholar
Evans, L., Wardlaw, I. and Fischer, R. (1975). Wheat. In Crop Physiology: Some Case Histories, 101–150 ( Ed Evans, L.). UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, K.S., Fukai, S., Kumar, A., Leung, H. and Jongdee, B. (2011). Phenotyping rice for adaptation to drought. In Drought Phenotyping in Crops: From Theory to Practice: CGIAR Generation Challenge Program, 215–243 ( Eds Monneveux, P. and Ribaut, J. M.).Google Scholar
Fufa, H., Baenziger, P. S., Beecher, B. S., Graybosch, R. A., Eskridge, K. M. and Nelson, L. A. (2005). Genetic improvement trends in agronomic performances and end-use quality characteristics among hard red winter wheat cultivars in Nebraska. Euphytica 144:187–198.10.1007/s10681-005-5811-xGoogle Scholar
Gizaw, S. A., Garland-Campbell, K. and Carter, A. H. (2016). Use of spectral reflectance for indirect selection of yield potential and stability in Pacific Northwest winter wheat. Field Crops Research 196:199–206.10.1016/j.fcr.2016.06.022Google Scholar
Gonzalez, A. M., Monteagudo, A. B., Casquero, P. A., De Ron, A. M. and Santalla, M. (2006). Genetic variation and environmental effects on agronomical and commercial quality traits in the main European market classes of dry bean. Field Crops Research 95:336–347.Google Scholar
González-Ribot, G., Opazo, M., Silva, P. and Acevedo, E. (2017). Traits explaining durum wheat (Triticum turgidum spp. durum) yield in dry Chilean Mediterranean environments. Frontiers in Plant Science, 8:1781.Google Scholar
Gutierrez, M., Reynolds, M. P., Raun, W. R., Stone, M. L. and Klatt, A. R. (2012). Indirect selection for grain yield in spring bread wheat in diverse nurseries worldwide using parameters locally determined in north-west Mexico. Journal of Agricultural Science (Cambridge) 150:23–43.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, W. A. and Poorter, H. (2002). Avoiding bias in calculations of relative growth rate. Annals of Botany 90:37–42.Google Scholar
Johnson, H. W., Robinson, H. F. and Comstock, R. E. (1955). Estimates of genetic and environmental variability in soybean. Agronomy Journal 47:314–318.Google Scholar
Karamanos, A. J. and Papatheohari, A. Y. (1999). Assessment of drought resistance of crop genotypes by means of the Water Potential Index. Crop Science 39:1792–1797.Google Scholar
Lafitte, H. R., Blum, A. and Atlin, G. (2003). Using secondary traits to help identify drought tolerant genotypes. In Breeding Rice for Drought-Prone Environments, 38–39 (Eds Fischer, K. S., Lafitte, R., Fukai, S., Atlin, G. and Hardy, B.). Los Baños: IRRI.Google Scholar
McIntyre, C. L., Mathews, K. L., Rattey, A., Chapman, S. C., Drenth, J., Ghaderi, M. et al. (2010). Molecular detection of genomic regions associated with grain yield and yield-related components in an elite bread wheat cross evaluated under irrigated and rainfed conditions. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 120:527–541.Google Scholar
Mir, R. R., Mainassara, Z. A., Nese, S., Trethowan, R. and Varshney, R. K. (2012). Integrated genomics, physiology and breeding approaches for improving drought tolerance in crops. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 125:625–645.Google Scholar
Mohammadi, R., Sadeghzadeh, D., Armion, M. and Amri, A. (2011). Evaluation of durum wheat experimental lines under different climate and water regime conditions of Iran. Crop and Pasture Science 62:137–151.Google Scholar
Monneveux, P., Jing, R. and Misra, S. C. (2012). Phenotyping for drought adaptation in wheat using physiological traits. Frontiers in Physiology 3:00429.10.3389/fphys.2012.00429Google Scholar
Morris, C. F., Campbell, K. G. and King, G. E. (2004). Characterization of the end-use quality of soft wheat cultivars from the eastern and western U.S. germplasm pools. Plant Genetic Resource 2:59–69.Google Scholar
Murchie, E. H. and Lawson, T. (2013). Chlorophyll fluorescence analysis: A guide to good practice and understanding some new applications. Journal of Experimental Botany 64:3983–3998.Google Scholar
Pellegrino, A., Lebon, E., Voltz, M. and Werry, J. (2007). Relationships between plant and soil water status in vine (Vitis vinifera L.). Plant Soil 266:129–142.10.1007/s11104-005-0874-yGoogle Scholar
Peterson, D. M., Wesenberg, D. M., Burrup, D. E. and Erickson, C. A. (2005). Relationships among agronomic traits and g rain composition in oat genotypes grown in different environments. Crop Science 45:1249–1255.10.2135/cropsci2004.0063Google Scholar
Reynolds, M. P., Dreccer, F. and Trethowan, R. (2007). Drought-adaptive traits derived from wheat wild relatives and landraces. Journal of Experimental Botany 58:177–186.Google Scholar
Ristic, Z., Bukovnik, U. and Prasad, P. V. V. (2007). Correlation between heat stability of thylakoid membranes and loss of chlorophyll in winter wheat under heat stress. Crop Science 47:2067–2073.Google Scholar
Rubio, J., Cubero, J. I., Martin, L. M., Suso, M. J. and Flores, F. (2004). Biplot analysis of trait relations of white lupin in Spain. Euphytica 135:217–224.Google Scholar
Shavrukov, Y., Kurishbayev, A., Jatayev, S., Shvidchenko, V., Zotova, L., Koekemoer, F, de Groot, S., Soole, K. and Langridge, P. (2017). Early flowering as a drought escape mechanism in plants: How can it aid wheat production? Frontiers in Plant Science, 8:1950.Google Scholar
Shukla, S., Bhargava, A., Chatterjee, A., Srivastava, A. and Singh, S. P. (2006). Genotypic variability in vegetable amaranth (Amaranthus tricolor L.) for foliage yield and its contributing traits over successive cuttings and years. Euphytica 151:103–110.Google Scholar
Yan, W. (2001). GGEbiplot: A Windows application for graphical analysis of multi-environment trial data and other types of two-way data. Agronomy Journal 93:1111–1118.Google Scholar
Yan, W. and Frégeau-Reid, J. A. (2008). Breeding line selection based on multiple traits. Crop Science 48:417–423.10.2135/cropsci2007.05.0254Google Scholar
Yan, W. and Rajcan, I. R. (2002). Biplot analysis of test sites and trait relations of soybean in Ontario. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 42:11–20.Google Scholar
Yang, R. C., Jana, S. and Clarke, J. M. (1991). Phenotypic diversity and associations of some potentially drought responsive characters in durum wheat. Crop Science 31:1484–1491.Google Scholar
Zadoks, J. C., Chang, T. T. and Konzak, C. F. (1974). A decimal code for the grown stages of cereals. Weed Research 14:415–421.Google Scholar