Advertisement

Photosynthetica

, Volume 45, Issue 2, pp 280–287 | Cite as

Changes in response to drought stress of triticale and maize genotypes differing in drought tolerance

  • M. T. GrzesiakEmail author
  • A. Rzepka
  • T. Hura
  • K. Hura
  • A. Skoczowski
Article

Abstract

Direct effects and after-effects of soil drought for 7 and 14 d were examined on seedling dry matter, leaf water potential (ψ), leaf injury index (LI), and chlorophyll (Chl) content of drought (D) resistant and sensitive triticale and maize genotypes. D caused higher decrease in number of developed leaves and dry matter of shoots and roots in the sensitive genotypes than in the resistant ones. Soil D caused lower decrease of ψ in the triticale than maize leaves. Influence of D on the Chl b content was considerably lower than on the Chl a content. In triticale the most harmful D impact was observed for physiologically younger leaves, in maize for the older ones. A period of 7-d-long recovery was too short for a complete removal of an adverse influence of D.

Additional key words

dry matter partioning shoot to root ratio species differences water potential Zea 

Abbreviations

Chl

chlorophyll

D

drought

DM

dry matter

DR

recovery from drought

LI

leaf injury index

R

root

RGR

relative growth rate

S

shoot

ψ

leaf water potential

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ali, H.C.: Comparison of chlorophyll content and stomatal size of inbred lines and their hybrids of corn (Zea mays L.).-Z. Acker-Pflanzenbau 145: 166–170, 1977.Google Scholar
  2. Arnon, D.I.: Copper enzymes in isolated chloroplasts. Polyphenoloxidase in Beta vulgaris.-Plant Physiol. 24: 1–15, 1949.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Blum, A., Ebercon, A.: Cell membrane stability as a measure of drought and heat tolerance in wheat.-Crop Sci. 21: 43–47, 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boyer, J.S.: Plant productivity and environment.-Science 218: 443–448, 1982.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bukhov, N.G., Sabat, S.C., Mohanty, P.: Analysis of chlorophyll a fluorescence changes in weak light in heat treated Amaranthus chloroplasts.-Photosynth. Res. 23: 81–87, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chaves, M.M., Pereira, J.S., Maroco, J., Rodrigues, M.L., Ricardo, C.P.P., Osorio, L.M., Carvalho, I., Faria, T., Pinheiro, C.: How plants cope with water stress in the field. Photosynthesis and growth.-Ann. Bot. 89: 907–916, 2002.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Conroy, J.P., Virgona, J.M., Smillie, R.M., Barlow, E.W.: Influence of drought acclimation and CO2 enrichment on osmotic adjustment and chlorophyll a fluorescence of sunflower during drought.-Plant Physiol. 86: 1108–1115, 1988.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Day, T.A., Vogelmann, T.C.: Alternations in photosynthesis and pigment distributions in pea leaves following UV-B exposure.-Physiol. Plant. 94: 433–440, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fischer, R.A., Maurer, R.: Drought resistance in spring wheat cultivars. I Grain yield responses.-Aust. J. agr. Res. 29: 897–912, 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Grzesiak, M.T.: [Effect of Drought Stress on Photosynthetic Apparatus and Productivity of Triticale and Maize Genotypes Differing in Drought Tolerance.]-PhD. Thesis. Cracow Agricultural University, Cracow 2004. [In Polish.]Google Scholar
  11. Grzesiak, M.T., Grzesiak, S., Skoczowski, A.: Changes of leaf water potential and gas exchange during and after drought in triticale and maize genotypes differing in drought tolerance.-Photosynthetica 44: 561–568, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grzesiak, S.: Genotypic variation between maize (Zea mays L.) single cross hybrids in response to drought stress.-Acta Physiol. Plant. 23: 443–456, 2001.Google Scholar
  13. Grzesiak, S., de Barbaro, A., Filek, W.: Assimilation, translocation and accumulation of 14C in two maize (Zea mays L.) hybrids of different drought tolerance.-Photosynthetica 27: 385–393, 1992.Google Scholar
  14. Grzesiak, S., Grzesiak, M.T., Filek, W., Stabryła, J.: Evaluation of physiological screening tests for breeding drought resistant triticale (×Triticosecale Wittmack).-Acta Physiol. Plant. 25: 29–37, 2003.Google Scholar
  15. Haupt-Herting, S., Fock, H.P.: Oxygen exchange in relation to carbon assimilation in water-stressed leaves during photosynthesis.-Ann. Bot. 89: 851–859, 2002.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kriedemann, P.E., Downton, J.S.: Photosynthesis.-In: Paleg, L.G., Aspinall, D. (ed.): The Physiology and Biochemistry of Drought Resistance in Plants. Pp. 283–314. Academic Press, Sydney-New York-London-Toronto-San Francisco 1981.Google Scholar
  17. Květ, J., Ondok, J.P., Nečas, J., Jarvis, P.G.: Methods of growth analysis.-In: Šesták, Z., Čatský, J., Jarvis, P.G. (ed.): Plant Photosynthetic Production. Manual of Methods. Pp. 343–391. Dr W. Junk N.V. Publishers, The Hague 1971.Google Scholar
  18. Lawlor, D.W.: Limitation to photosynthesis in water-stressed leaves: Stomata vs. metabolism and the role of ATP.-Ann. Bot. 89: 871–885, 2002.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lawlor, D.W., Cornic, G.: Photosynthetic carbon assimilation and associated metabolism in relation to water deficits in higher plants.-Plant Cell Environ. 25: 275–294, 2002.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lorens, G.F., Bennett, J.M., Loggale, L.B.: Differences in drought resistance between two corn hybrids. II. Component analysis and growth rates.-Agron. J. 79: 808–813, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Martiniello, P., Lorenzoni, C.: Response of maize genotypes to drought tolerance tests.-Maydica 30: 361–370, 1985.Google Scholar
  22. Morgan, J.M.: Osmoregulation and water stress in higher plants.-Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. 35: 299–319, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Morgan, J.M.: Osmotic components and properties associated with genotypic differences in osmoregulation in wheat.-Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 19: 67–76, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Muller, J.E., Whitsitt, M.S.: Plant cellular response to water deficit.-Plant Growth Regul. 20: 41–46, 1996.Google Scholar
  25. Palta, J.P.: Stress interactions at the cellular and membrane levels.-HortScience 25: 1337–1381, 1990.Google Scholar
  26. Passioura, J.B., Condon, A.G., Richards, R.A.: Water deficits, the development of leaf area and crop productivity.-In: Smith, J.A.C., Griffiths, H. (ed.): Water Deficits. Plant Responses from Cell to Community. Pp. 253–264. BIOS Scientific Publ., Oxford 1993.Google Scholar
  27. Poljakoff-Mayber, A.: Ultrastuctural consequences of drought.-In: Paleg, L.G., Aspinall, D. (ed.): The Physiology and Biochemistry of Drought Resistance in Plants. Pp. 389–403. Academic Press, Sydney-New York-London-Toronto-San Francisco 1981.Google Scholar
  28. Richards, R.A.: Variation between and within species of rape-seed (Brassica campestris and B. napus) in response to drought stress. III. Physiological and physicochemical characters.-Aust. J. agr. Res. 29: 495–501, 1978.Google Scholar
  29. Riera, M., Valon, C., Fenzi, F., Giraudat, J., Leung, J.: The genetics of adaptive responses to drought stress: abscisic acid-dependent and abscisic acid-independent signalling components.-Physiol. Plant. 123: 111–119, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schweiger, J., Lang, M., Lichtenthaler, H.K.: Differences in fluorescence excitation spectra of leaves between stressed and non-stressed plants.-J. Plant Physiol. 148: 536–547, 1996.Google Scholar
  31. Šesták, Z., Šiffel, P.: Leaf-age related differences in chlorophyll fluorescence.-Photosynthetica 33: 347–369, 1997.Google Scholar
  32. Shangguan, Z., Shao, M., Dyckmans, J.: Interaction of osmotic adjustment and photosynthesis in winter wheat under soil drought.-J. Plant Physiol. 154: 753–758, 1999.Google Scholar
  33. Smirnoff, N., Colombe, S.V.: Drought influences the activity of enzymes of the chloroplast hydrogen peroxide scavenging system.-J. exp. Bot. 39: 1097–1108, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sullivan, C.Y., Eastin, J.D.: Plant physiological responses to water stress.-Agr. Meteorol. 14: 113–127, 1974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tang, A.C., Kawamitsu, Y., Kanechi, M., Boyer, J.S.: Photosynthetic oxygen evolution at low water potential in leaf discs lacking an epidermis.-Ann. Bot. 89: 861–870, 2002.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Trapani, N., Gentinetta, E.: Screening of maize genotypes using drought tolerance tests.-Maydica 29: 89–100, 1984.Google Scholar
  37. Vietor, D.M., Ariyanayagam, R.P., Musgrave, R.B.: Photosynthetic selection of Zea mays L. I. Plant age and leaf position effects and relationship between leaf and canopy rates.-Crop Sci. 17: 567–573, 1977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Winter, S.R., Musick, J.T., Porter K.B.: Evaluation of screening techniques for breeding drought resistant winter wheat.-Crop Sci. 28: 512–516, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zhang, J.-Y., Broeckling, C.D., Blancaflor, E.B., Sledge, M.K., Sumner, L.W., Wang, Z.-Y.: Overexpression of WXPI, a putative Medicago truncatula AP2 domain-containing transcription factor gene, increases cuticular wax accumulation and enhances drought tolerance in transgenic alfalfa (Medicago sativa).-Plant J. 42: 689–707, 2005.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Experimental Botany, ASCR 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. T. Grzesiak
    • 1
    Email author
  • A. Rzepka
    • 2
  • T. Hura
    • 1
  • K. Hura
    • 3
  • A. Skoczowski
    • 1
  1. 1.The Franciszek Górski Institute of Plant PhysiologyPolish Academy of SciencesCracowPoland
  2. 2.Department of Plant Physiology, Institute of BiologyPedagogical AcademyCracowPoland
  3. 3.Department of Plant PhysiologyCracow Agricultural UniversityCracowPoland

Personalised recommendations