Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8kt4b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-30T03:57:30.077Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DROUGHT TOLERANCE IN MULBERRY (MORUS SPP.): A PHYSIOLOGICAL APPROACH WITH INSIGHTS INTO GROWTH DYNAMICS AND LEAF YIELD PRODUCTION

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 August 2010

ANIRBAN GUHA ,
GIRISH KUMAR RASINENI  and
ATTIPALLI RAMACHANDRA REDDY
ANIRBAN GUHA
Affiliation:
Photosynthesis and Plant Stress Biology Laboratory, Department of Plant Sciences, School of Life Sciences, University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad 500046, India
GIRISH KUMAR RASINENI
Affiliation:
Photosynthesis and Plant Stress Biology Laboratory, Department of Plant Sciences, School of Life Sciences, University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad 500046, India
ATTIPALLI RAMACHANDRA REDDY*
Affiliation:
Photosynthesis and Plant Stress Biology Laboratory, Department of Plant Sciences, School of Life Sciences, University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad 500046, India
*
†Corresponding author: arrsl@uohyd.ernet.in
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The present study documents critical analysis of drought-induced physiological responses in mulberry (Morus spp.) with insights into growth dynamics and leaf productivity. The study was performed for two years in a two-phase experimental design combining both field (experiment no. 1) and glasshouse (experiment no. 2) observations. In field assays, we surveyed 15 mulberry genotypes under two irrigation regimes: well-watered (20 to 24 irrigations in each growing season) and water-limited (irrigated once in a fortnight in each growing season). The genotypes were assessed for variation in key leaf gas exchange characteristics: net photosynthetic rates (Pn), stomatal conductance of CO2 (gs), transpiration rates (E) and instantaneous water use efficiency (WUEi). Leaf yield/plant was considered to determine the tolerance index (TI). Drought stress severely down-regulated leaf-level physiological variables in the susceptible genotypes resulting in poor leaf yield. However, genotypes S-13 and V-1 performed better in terms of leaf gas exchange and proved their superiority over other genotypes in drought tolerance. Conversely, genotypes DD and Bogurai were highly susceptible to drought. Under glasshouse conditions, the combined leaf gas exchange/chlorophyll a fluorescence measurements further dissected out stomatal and non-stomatal restrictions to Pn. As internal/ambient CO2 ratio (Ci/Ca) decreased concurrently with gs in non-irrigated stands, it appeared that greater stomatal limitation to Pn was associated with decreased photo-assimilation and leaf yield production. Further, higher leaf temperature (TL) (>35 °C) and down-regulation of maximum quantum yield of photosystem II (Fv/Fm) were apparent in the susceptible compared to the tolerant genotypes, which indicated chronic photoinhibition due to photo-inactivation of photosystem II centres in the susceptible genotypes. Drought-induced trade-offs in biomass allocation were also highlighted. Overall, our results suggest that greater rooting vigour and leaf hydration status, minimal stomatal inhibition and stabilized photochemistry might play major roles in maintaining higher Pn and associated gas exchange functions in drought-tolerant mulberry genotypes under water stress conditions. The higher leaf yield production in tolerant than susceptible genotypes can be attributed to minimal plasticity in foliar gas exchange traits and better quantitative growth characteristics under low water regimes.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 46 , Issue 4 , October 2010 , pp. 471 - 488
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

Bernacchi, C. J., Portis, A. R., Nakano, H., von Caemmerer, S. and Long, S. P. (2002). Temperature response of mesophyll conductance. Implications for the determination of Rubisco enzyme kinetics and for limitations to photosynthesis in vivo. Plant Physiology 130: 1992–1998.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Biasiolo, M., Da Canal, M. T. and Tornadore, N. (2004). Micromorphological characterization of ten mulberry cultivars (Morus spp.). Economic Botany 58: 639–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckley, T. N., Mott, K. A. and Farquhar, G. D. (2003). A hydromechanical and biochemical model of stomatal conductance. Plant Cell & Environment 26: 1767–1785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burdett, A. N. (1979). A nondestructive method for measuring the volume of intact plant parts. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 9: 120–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castillo, F. J. (1996). Antioxidative protection in the inducible CAM plant Sedum album L. following the imposition of severe water stress and recovery. Oecologia 107: 469–477.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chaitanya, K. V., Masilamani, S. and Reddy, A. R. (2002). Photosynthetic rates and biomass productivity in four mulberry cultivars. In 2nd International Congress of Plant Physiology, 8–12 January, New Delhi.Google Scholar
Chaitanya, K. V., Jutur, P. P., Sundar, D. and Reddy, A. R. (2003). Water stress effects on photosynthesis in different mulberry cultivars. Plant Growth Regulation 40: 75–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaturvedi, H. K. and Sarkar, A. (2000). Optimum size and shape of the plot for mulberry experiments. Indian Journal of Sericulture 39: 66–69.Google Scholar
Dandin, S. B., Jayaswal, J. and Giridhar, K. (2003). Mulberry cultivation. In Handbook of Sericulture Technologies, 31–45 (Eds Dandin, S. B., Jayaswal, J. and Giridhar, K.), CSB, Bangalore, India.Google Scholar
Dias, P. C., Araujo, W. L., Moraes, G. A. B. K., Barros, R. S. and DaMatta, F. M. (2007). Morphological and physiological responses of two coffee progenies to soil water availability. Journal of Plant Physiology 164: 1639–1647.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flexas, J., Bota, J., Escalona, J. M., Sampol, B. and Medrano, H. (2002). Effects of drought on photosynthesis in grapevines under field conditions: an evaluation of stomatal and mesophyll limitations. Functional Plant Biology 29: 461–471.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Genty, B., Briantais, J. M. and Baker, N. (1989). The relationship between the quantum yield of photosynthetic electron transport and quenching of chlorophyll fluorescence. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 900: 87–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grassi, G. and Magnani, F. (2005). Stomatal, mesophyll conductance and biochemical limitations to photosynthesis as affected by drought and leaf ontogeny in ash and oak trees. Plant Cell & Environment 28: 834–849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gomes, F. P., Oliva, M. A., Mielke, M. S., Almeida, A-A. F. de., Leite, H. G. and Aquino, L. A. (2007). Photosynthetic limitations in leaves of young Brazilian Green Dwarf coconut (Cocos nucifera L. ‘nana’) palm under well-watered conditions or recovering from drought stress. Environmental and Experimental Botany 62: 195–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, R. (1982). Plant Growth Curves: The Functional Approach to Plant Growth Analysis, London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Kotresha, D., Prabhakar, R. A., Srinivas, N. and Vidyasagar, G. M. (2007). Antioxidative response to drought and high temperature stress in selected mulberry genotypes. Physiology and Molecular Biology of Plants. 13: 57–63.Google Scholar
Lakshmanan, S. (2007). Growth trends in mulberry silk production in India - An economic analysis. Financing Agriculture 39: 28–30.Google Scholar
Machado, S., Bynum, E. D., Archer, T. L. Jr., Lascano, R. J., Wilson, L. T., Bordovsky, J., Segarra, E., Bronson, K., Nesmith, D. M., and Xu, W. (2002). Spatial and temporal variability of corn growth and grain yield: implications for site-specific farming. Crop Science 42:1564–1576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medrano, H., Escalona, J. M., Bota, J., Gulías, J. and Flexas, J. (2002). Regulation of photosynthesis of C3 plants in response to progressive drought: stomatal conductance as a reference parameter. Annals of Botany 89: 895–905.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mott, K. A. and Buckley, T. N. (2000). Patchy stomatal conductance: emergent collective behaviour of stomata. Trends in Plant Science 5: 258–262.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nagakura, J., Shigenaga, H., Akama, A. and Takahashi, M. (2004). Growth and transpiration of Japanese cedar (Cryptomeria japonica) and Hinoki cypress (Chamaecyparis obtuse) seedlings in response to soil water content. Tree Physiology 24: 1203–1208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikolopoulos, D., Liakopoulos, G., Drossopoulos, I. and Karabourniotis, G. (2002). The relationship between anatomy and photosynthetic performance of heteroboric leaves. Plant Physiology 129: 235–243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ohnishi, N., Allakhverdiev, S. I., Takahashi, S., Higashi, S., Watanabe, M., Nishiyama, Y. and Murata, N. (2005). Two-step mechanism of photo damage to photosystem II: step 1 occurs at the oxygen-evolving complex and step 2 occurs at the photochemical reaction center. Biochemistry 44: 8494–8499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramanjulu, S., Sreenivasalu, N., Giridara, K. S. and Sudhakar, C. (1998). Photosynthetic characteristics in mulberry during water stress and rewatering. Photosynthetica 35: 259–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramanjulu, S. and Sudhakar, C. (1997). Drought tolerance is partly related to amino acid accumulation and ammonia assimilation: A comparative study in two mulberry genotypes differing in drought sensitivity. Journal of Plant Physiology 150: 345–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritchie, S. W., Nguyen, H. T. and 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
Said, E. and Hugh, J. E. (2005). Physiological limitations to photosynthetic carbon assimilation in cotton under water stress. Crop Science 45: 2374–2382.Google Scholar
Salvucci, M. E. and Crafts-Brandner, S. J. (2004). Inhibition of photosynthesis by heat stress: the activation state of Rubisco as a limiting factor in photosynthesis. Physiologia Plantarum 120: 179–186.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sayar, R., Khemira, H., Kameli, A. and Mosbahi, M. (2008). Physiological tests as predictive appreciation for drought tolerance in durum wheat (Triticum durum Desf.). Agronomy Research 6: 79–90.Google Scholar
Susheelamma, B. N. and Dandin, S. B. (2006). Improvement for qualitative traits and leaf productivity in mulberry (Morus spp.) and its effect on bivoltine cocoon production. Advance in Plant Science 19: 23–28.Google Scholar
Susheelamma, B. N., Jolly, M. S., Giridhar, K. and Sengupta, K. (1990). Evaluation of germplasm genotypes for the drought resistance in mulberry. Sericologia 30: 327–340.Google Scholar
Szira, F., Bálint, A. F., Börner, A. and Galiba, G. (2008). Evaluation of drought-related traits and screening methods at different developmental stages in spring barley. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 194: 334–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tardieu, F. (2005). Plant tolerance to water deficit: physical limits and possibilities for progress. Comptes Rendus Geoscience 337: 57–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terashima, I., Wong, S.-C., Osmond, C. B. and Farquhar, G. D. (1988). Characterisation of non-uniform photosynthesis induced by abscisic acid in leaves having different mesophyll anatomies. Plant and Cell Physiology 29: 385–394.Google Scholar
Thimmanaik, S., Giridara, K. S., Jyothshna, K. G. and Suryanarayan, N. (2002). Photosynthesis and the enzymes of photosynthetic carbon reduction cycle in mulberry during water stress and recovery. Photosynthetica 40: 233–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zlatev, Z. S. and Yordanov, I. T. (2004). Effects of soil drought on photosynthesis and chlorophyll fluorescence in bean plants. Bulgarian Journal of Plant Physiology 30: 3–18.Google Scholar