Advertisement

Plant Cell Reports

, Volume 26, Issue 5, pp 693–700 | Cite as

In vitro screening of potato against water-stress mediated through sorbitol and polyethylene glycol

  • Jai Gopal
  • Kazuto Iwama
Biotic and Abiotic Stress

Abstract

With the objective to develop a practical and effective method of screening potato for drought tolerance, shoot and root growth in microtuber-derived plantlets was studied in vitro in three genotypes with known root mass production under field conditions. Different levels of water-stress were induced using five concentrations of either sorbitol or polyethylene glycol (PEG) in MS medium. Water potential of various media ranged from −0.80 MPa to −2.05 MPa. Water-stress in culture adversely affected plantlet growth, and genotypes differed for their responses. Genotype IWA-1 was less affected than IWA-3 and IWA-5. At the same level of water potential, sorbitol had lower adverse effect than PEG; the latter being sticky. Genotype × sorbitol and genotype × PEG interactions were significant. At 0.2 M sorbitol and 0.003 M PEG, IWA-1 had significantly more roots with higher total root length, root volume, as well as root-dry weight than those of IWA-3 and IWA-5, whereas the latter two genotypes were at par for all these characters. This pattern was similar to the reported pattern of these genotypes for root-dry weight under field conditions. It is concluded that in vitro screening of potato under specific and limited water-stress conditions may provide a system for effectively differentiating the genotypes for their expected root mass production under field conditions.

Keywords

Drought tolerance In vitro rooting Micropropagation Solanum tuberosum 

Abbreviations

PEG

Polyethylene glycol

MS

Murashige and Skoog (1962)

Notes

Acknowledgments

Dr. Jai Gopal is thankful to the Japan Society for Promotion of Science (JSPS) for the award of Invitation Fellowship, and to the Research Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan for inviting him as Visiting Professor. We are thankful to Dr. Y. Jitsuyama for help in arranging the facilities, and to Mr. Suita, Ms. Dunia, and Mrs. Katayama for their kind help in undertaking this study. We are also thankful to Mr. Noboru Ohnishi of Kirin Brewery Co. Ltd., Japan for supplying the microtubers.

References

  1. Alasdon AA, Knutson KW, Wilkinson JC (1988) Relationship between microtuber and minitubers production and yield characteristics of six potato cultivars. Am Potato J 65:468 (abst)Google Scholar
  2. Almansouri M, Kinet JM, Lutts S (2001) Effect of salt and osmotic stresses on germination in durum wheat (Triticum durum) Desf . Plant Soil 231:243–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ashraf M (1994) Breeding for salinity tolerance in plants. CRC Crit Rev Plant Sci 13:17–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boyer JS, Knipling EB (1965). Isopiestic technique for measuring leaf water potential with a thermocouple psychrometer. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 54:1044–1051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carpita N, Sabularse D, Montezinos D, Delmer DP (1979) Determination of the pore size of cell walls of living plant cells. Science 205:1144–1147CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Deblonde PMK, Ledent JF (2001) Effects of moderate drought conditions on green leaf number, stem height, leaf length and tuber yield of potato cultivars. Eur J Agron 14:31–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Djilianov D, Prinsen E, Oden S, Onckelen H van, Muller J (2003) Nodulation under salt stress of alfalfa lines obtained after in vitro selection for osmotic tolerance. Plant Sci 165:887–894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Donnelly DJ, Coleman WK, Coleman SE (2003) Potato microtuber production and performance: a review. Am J Potato Res 80:103–115Google Scholar
  9. Erusha KS, Shearman RC, Roirdan TP, Wit LA (2002) Kentucky bluegrass cultivar root and top growth responses when grown in hydroponics. Crop Sci. 42:848–852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Espinoza NO, Estrada R, Silva-Rodriguez D, Tovar P, Lizarraga R, Dodds JH (1986) The potato: a model crop plant for tissue culture. Outlook Agric 15:21–26Google Scholar
  11. Gopal J, Minocha JL (1998) Effectiveness of in vitro selection for agronomic characters in potato. Euphytica 103:67–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gopal J, Minocha JL, Dhaliwal HS (1998) Microtuberization in potato (Solanum tuberosum L.). Plant Cell Rep 17:794–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gopal J, Chamail A, Sarkar D (2002) Slow-growth in vitro conservation of potato germplasm at normal propagation temperature. Potato Res 45:203–213Google Scholar
  14. Gopal, J., Chamail A, Sarkar D (2005) Use of microtubers for slow-growth in-vitro conservation of potato germplasm. Plant Genet Resour Newsl 141:56–60Google Scholar
  15. Hohl M, Schopfer P (1991) Water relations of growing maize coleoptiles. Comparison between mannitol and polyethylene glycol 6000 as external osmotica for adjusting turgor pressure. Plant Physiol 95:716–722PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Ingram KT, Bueno FD, Namuco OS, Yambao EB, Beyrouty CA (1994) Rice root traits for drought resistance and their genetic variation. In: Kirk GJD (ed) Rice roots: nutrient and water use. IRRI, Manila, Philippines, pp 67–77Google Scholar
  17. Iwama K (1998) Development of nodal and lateral roots in potato under field conditions. J Fac Agri Hokkaido Univ 68:33–44Google Scholar
  18. Iwama K, Yamaguchi J (2006) Abiotic stresses. In: Gopal J, Khurana SM Paul (eds) Handbook of potato production, improvement and postharvest management. Food Product Press, New York, pp 231–278Google Scholar
  19. Iwama K, Isoda A, Gotoh K, Nishibe S (1981) Relations between root system and tuber yield in the hybrid population of the potato plants. Jpn J Crop Sci 50:233–238Google Scholar
  20. Iwama K, Nakaseko K, Gotoh K, Nishibe Y (1982) Studies on the root system in potato plants. In: Hooker WJ (ed) Research for potato in the year 2000. International Potato Center, Lima, Peru, pp 102–104Google Scholar
  21. Iwama K, Hasegawa T, Nakaseko K (1999) New potato lines with high productivity and drought tolerance. In: Horie H, Geng S, Amano T, Inamura T, Shiraiwa T (eds) Proceedings of the international symposium on world food security and crop production technologies for tomorrow, Kyoto, Japan, pp 189–193Google Scholar
  22. Khrais T, Leclerc Y, Donnelly DJ (1998) Relative salinity tolerance of potato cultivars assessed by in vitro screening. Am J Potato Res 75:207–210Google Scholar
  23. Lahlou O, Ledent JF (2005) Root mass and depth, stolons and roots formed on stolons in four cultivars of potato under water stress. Eur J Agron 22:159–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ledbetter CA, Palmquist DE, Peterson SJ (1998) Germination and net in vitro growth of peach, almond and peach-almond hybrid embryos in response to mannitol inclusion in the nutrient medium. Euphytica 103:243–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lentini Z, Earle ED (1991) In vitro tuberization of potato clones from different maturity groups. Plant Cell Rep 9:691–695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lynch DR, Tai GCC (1989) Yield and yield component response of eight potato genotypes to water stress. Crop Sci 29:1207–1211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Morpurgo R (1991) Correlation between potato clones grown in vivo and in vitro under sodium chloride stress conditions. Plant Breed 107:80–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Munns R (1993) Physiological processes limiting plant growth in saline soils: some dogmas and hypotheses. Plant Cell Environ 16:15–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Munns R, Pearson CJ (1974) Effects of water deficit on translocation of carbohydrate in Solanum tuberosum. Aus J Plant Physiol 1:529–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Murashige T, Skoog F (1962) A revised medium for rapid growth and bioassay with tobacco tissue cultures. Physiol Plant 15:473–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ng SYV, Ekanayake IJ (1997) Screening cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) for polyethylene glycol mediated osmotic stress in vitro. J Root Crops 23:15–18Google Scholar
  32. Platt HW (Bud) (1992a) Cultivar response to fusarium storage rot as affected by two methods of seed origin propagation; clonal selections and in vitro culture. Am J Potato Res 69:179–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Platt HW (Bud) (1992b) Potato cultivar response to late blight as affected by clonal selections and in vitro culture. Am J Potato Res 69:187–193Google Scholar
  34. Plaut Z, Federman E (1985) A simple procedure to overcome polyethylene glycol toxicity on whole plants. Plant Physiol 79:559–561PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Punia MS, Jain A (2002) In vitro selection for drought tolerance in sunflower (Helianthus annus L.). Nat J Plant Improv 4:27–30Google Scholar
  36. Ranalli P, Ruaro BG, Delre P, Dicandilo M, Mandilino G (1994) Microtuber and minitubers production and field performance compared with normal tubers. Potato Res 37:383–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Roca WM, Bryan JE, Roca MR (1979) Tissue culture for international transfer of potato genetic resources. Am Potato J 55:1–10Google Scholar
  38. Rossouw FT, Waghmarae J (1995) The effect of drought on growth and yield of two South African potato cultivars. S Afr J Sci 91:149–150Google Scholar
  39. Tal M (1994) In vitro selection for salt tolerance in crop plants: theoretical and practical considerations. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol 30:175–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Termaat A, Munns R (1986) Use of concentrated macronutrient solutions to separate osmotic from NaCl-specific effects on plant growth. Aust J Plant Physiol 13:509–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tewary PK, Sharma A, Raghunath MK, Sarkar A (2000) In vitro response of promising mulberry (Morus sp.) genotypes for tolerance to salt and osmotic stresses. Plant Growth Regul 30:17–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tourneux C, Devaux A, Camacho MR, Mamani P, Ledent JF (2003) Effects of water shortage on six potato genotypes in the highlands of Bolivia (I): morphological parameters, growth and yield. Agronomie 23:169–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Verslues PE, Ober ES, Sharp RE (1998) Root growth and oxygen relations at low water potentials. Impact of oxygen availability in polyethylene glycol solutions. Plant Physiol 116:1403–1412PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ye X, Du L, Xu H, Xin Z (2002) Root characters of several wheat genotypes. J Triticeae Crops 22:43–46Google Scholar
  45. Zhang Y, Donnelly DJ (1997) In vitro bioassays for salinity tolerance screening of potato. Potato Res 40:285–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Crop Science Laboratory, Research Faculty of AgricultureHokkaido UniversitySapporoJapan
  2. 2.Division of Crop ImprovementCentral Potato Research InstituteShimlaIndia

Personalised recommendations