Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8kt4b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-30T05:54:09.676Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

REVEALING DROUGHT-RESISTANCE AND PRODUCTIVE PATTERNS IN SUGARCANE GENOTYPES BY EVALUATING BOTH PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSES AND STALK YIELD

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2013

R. V. RIBEIRO ,
R. S. MACHADO ,
E. C. MACHADO ,
D. F. S. P. MACHADO ,
J. R. MAGALHÃES FILHO  and
M. G. A. LANDELL
R. V. RIBEIRO*
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Plant Physiology ‘Coaracy M. Franco’, Center for Research and Development in Ecophysiology and Biophysics, Agronomic Institute (IAC), P.O. Box 28, 13012-970, Campinas SP, Brazil
R. S. MACHADO
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Plant Physiology ‘Coaracy M. Franco’, Center for Research and Development in Ecophysiology and Biophysics, Agronomic Institute (IAC), P.O. Box 28, 13012-970, Campinas SP, Brazil
E. C. MACHADO
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Plant Physiology ‘Coaracy M. Franco’, Center for Research and Development in Ecophysiology and Biophysics, Agronomic Institute (IAC), P.O. Box 28, 13012-970, Campinas SP, Brazil
D. F. S. P. MACHADO
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Plant Physiology ‘Coaracy M. Franco’, Center for Research and Development in Ecophysiology and Biophysics, Agronomic Institute (IAC), P.O. Box 28, 13012-970, Campinas SP, Brazil
J. R. MAGALHÃES FILHO
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Plant Physiology ‘Coaracy M. Franco’, Center for Research and Development in Ecophysiology and Biophysics, Agronomic Institute (IAC), P.O. Box 28, 13012-970, Campinas SP, Brazil
M. G. A. LANDELL
Affiliation:
Center for Technological Research of Sugarcane, IAC, P.O. Box 206, 14001-970, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil
*
§Corresponding author. Email: rvribe@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

This study was conducted to investigate the physiological response of sugarcane genotypes to drought and its consequence for stalk yield. Sugarcane genotypes IACSP94-2094, IACSP96-2042 and SP87-365 were subjected to water deficit during the initial growth phase by withholding water. Resistance and sensitivity patterns were defined by the impact of drought on the stalk yield and content of soluble solids in the stalk juice. IACSP94-2094 and SP87-365 were considered drought-resistant genotypes, as the stalk dry matter production and yield of soluble solids were not reduced by the water deficit. Although drought caused reductions in leaf gas exchange in all the genotypes, IACSP96-2042 was most affected when considering the cumulative reduction in photosynthesis throughout the experimental period. This photosynthetic impairment of IACSP96-2042 was related to both non-stomatal and stomatal limitations, whereas photosynthesis in SP87-365 and IACSP94-2094 were only stomatally limited under drought. In general, a reduced photosynthetic sensitivity to water deficit was an important physiological trait for dry matter production in sugarcane plants, and the concentrations of soluble carbohydrates, sucrose, starch and proline in the leaves did not reveal consistent differences between the patterns of resistance and sensitivity. Even though IACSP96-2042 was severely affected by water shortage, this genotype presented a similar stalk yield under drought and the highest stalk yield under well-watered conditions when compared to the other genotypes. This response to variable water conditions is interesting for regions with seasonal drought, whereas the pattern of drought resistance is more appropriate for regions in which drought occurs for long periods during the crop season. Our findings are also discussed from the point of view that increases in sugarcane yield and sustainable agriculture may be reached by choosing the best genotype for each specific environmental condition.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 49 , Issue 2 , April 2013 , pp. 212 - 224
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013

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

Amaral, L. I. V., Costa, P. M. F., Aidar, M. P. M., Gaspar, M. and Buckeridge, M. S. (2007). Novo método enzimático rápido e sensível de extração e dosagem de amido em materiais vegetais. Hoehnea 34:425–431.Google Scholar
Bates, L. S., Waldren, R. P. and Teare, I. D. (1973). Rapid determination of free proline for water-stress studies. Plant and Soil 39:205–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bieleski, R. L. and Turner, A. (1966). Separation and estimation of amino acids in crude plant extracts by thin-layer electrophoresis and chromatography. Analytical Biochemistry 17:278–293.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chaves, M. M., Flexas, J. and Pinheiro, C. (2008). Photosynthesis under drought and salt stress: regulation mechanisms from whole plant to cell. Annals of Botany 103:551–560.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dubois, M., Gilles, K. A., Hamilton, J. K., Rebers, P. A. and Smith, F. (1956). Colorimetric method for determination of sugars and related substances. Analytical Chemistry 28:350–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flexas, J., Ribas-Carbo, M., Bota, J., Galmés, J., Henkle, M., Martinez-Canellas, S. and Medrano, H. (2006). Decreased Rubisco activity during water stress is not induced by decreased relative water content but related to conditions of low stomatal conductance and chloroplast CO2 concentration. New Phytologist 172:73–82.Google Scholar
Ghannoum, O., Conroy, J. P., Driscoll, S. P., Paul, M. J., Foyer, C. H. and Lawlor, D. W. (2003). Nonstomatal limitations are responsible for drought-induced photosynthetic inhibition in four C4 species. New Phytologist 159:599–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hattori, T. and Morita, S. (2010). Energy crops for sustainable bioethanol production: which, where and how? Plant Production Science 13:221–234.Google Scholar
Horton, P., Ruban, A. V. and Walters, R. G. (1996). Regulation of light harvesting in green plants. Annual Review of Plant Physiology and Plant Molecular Biology 47:655–684.Google Scholar
Inman-Bamber, N. G. (2004). Sugarcane water stress criteria for irrigation and drying off. Field Crops Research 89:107–122.Google Scholar
Inman-Bamber, N. G., Bonnett, G. D., Smith, D. M. and Thorburn, P. J. (2005). Sugarcane physiology: integration from cell to crop to advance sugarcane production. Field Crops Research 92:115–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inman-Bamber, N. G. and De Jager, J. M. (1986). Effect of water stress on growth, leaf resistance and canopy temperature in field-grown sugarcane. Proceedings of the South African Sugar Technologists Association 60:156–161.Google Scholar
Inman-Bamber, N. G. and Smith, D. M. (2005). Water relations in sugarcane and response to water deficits. Field Crops Research 92:185–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landell, M. G. A., Campana, M. P., Figueiredo, P., Silva, M. A., Vasconcelos, A. C. M., Bidoia, M. A. P., Xavier, M. A., Dinardo-Miranda, L. L., Prado, H., Rossetto, R., Santos, A. S., Cavichioli, J. C., Martins, A. L. M., Kanthack, R. A. D., Gallo, P. B., Veiga Filho, A. A. and Silva, D. N. (2004). Variedades de cana-de-açúcar para o Centro-Sul do Brasil: 14° liberação do Programa Cana IAC (1959–2004). Campinas: IAC.Google Scholar
Landell, M. G. A., Campana, M. P., Figueiredo, P., Vasconcelos, A. C. M., Xavier, M. A., Bidoia, M. A. P., Prado, H., Silva, M. A., Dinardo-Miranda, L. L., Santos, A. S., Perecin, D., Rossetto, R., Silva, D. N., Martins, A. L. M., Gallo, P. B., Kanthack, R. A. D., Cavichioli, J. C., Veiga Filho, A. A., Anjos, I. A., Azania, C. A. M., Pinto, L. R. and Souza, S. A. C. D. (2005). Variedades de cana-de-açúcar para o Centro-Sul do Brasil: 15° liberação do Programa Cana IAC (1959–2005). Campinas: IACGoogle Scholar
Lawlor, D. W. and Tezara, W. (2009). Causes of decreased photosynthetic rate and metabolic capacity in water-deficient leaf cells: a critical evaluation of mechanisms and integration of processes. Annals of Botany 103:561–579.Google Scholar
Lee, B. R., Jin, Y. L., Jung, W. J., Avice, J. C., Morvan-Bertrand, A., Ourry, A., Park, C. W. and Kim, T. H. (2008). Water-deficit accumulates sugars by starch degradation – not by de novo synthesis – in white clover leaves (Trifolium repens). Physiologia Plantarum 134:403–411.Google Scholar
Machado, R. S., Ribeiro, R. V., Marchiori, P. E. R., Machado, D. F. S. P., Machado, E. C. and Landell, M. G. A. (2009). Respostas biométricas e fisiológicas ao deficit hídrico em cana-de-açúcar em diferentes fases fenológicas. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira 44:1575–1582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCormick, A. J., Cramer, M. D. and Watt, D. A. (2008). Changes in photosynthetic rates and gene expression if leaves during a source-sink perturbation in sugarcane. Annals of Botany 101:89–102.Google Scholar
Molinari, H. B. C., Marur, C. J., Daros, E., Campos, M. K. F., Carvalho, J. F. R. P., Bespalho Filho, J. C., Pereira, L. F. P. and Vieira, L. G. E. (2007). Evaluation of the stress-inducible production of proline in transgenic sugarcane (Saccharum spp.): osmotic adjustment, chlorophyll fluorescence and oxidative stress. Physiologia Plantarum 130:218–229.Google Scholar
Rolim, G. S., Camargo, M. B. P., Lania, D. G. and Moraes, J. F. L. (2007). Classificação climática de Köppen e de Thornthwaite e sua aplicabilidade na determinação de zonas agroclimáticas para o estado de São Paulo. Bragantia 66:711–720.Google Scholar
Smit, M. A. and Singels, A. (2006). The response of sugarcane canopy development to water stress. Field Crops Research 98:91–97.Google Scholar
van Handel, E. (1968). Direct microdetermination of sucrose. Analytical Biochemistry 22:280–283.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yordanov, I., Velikova, V. and Tsonev, T. (2003). Plant responses to drought and stress tolerance. Bulgarian Journal of Plant Physiology Special Issue:187–206.Google Scholar
Zhang, S. Z., Yang, B. P., Feng, C. L., Chen, R. K., Luo, J. P., Cai, W. W. and Liu, F. H. (2006). Expression of the Grifola frondosa trehalose synthase gene and improvement of drought-tolerance in sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.). Journal of Integrative Plant Biology 48:453–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar