Imposing and maintaining soil water deficits in drought studies in pots
- 112 Downloads
Pot studies are frequently used to study the influence of water deficits on plants and to screen genotypes for drought-resistance traits. Limited space and the need to screen large numbers of plants in rapid phenotyping platforms has led to the use of small pots for water-deficit studies. This paper reviews the influence of pot size, pot shape, soil medium, and the method of imposing water deficits on the development of soil water deficits, plant growth and function.
Small pot size limits plant growth as the small soil volume limits root extension and proliferation. High-frequency deficit irrigation results in uneven distribution of water in the soil with consequent effects on plant growth, root distribution, water and nutrient uptake, and root-shoot interactions. Cycles of slow drying followed by fully rewetting the soil result in a more even distribution of water and roots throughout the pot and responses to water deficits more similar to those in the field.
Small shallow pots and high-frequency deficit irrigation are inappropriate for inducing and maintaining water deficits, particularly when studying roots and root-shoot interactions. Large tall pots and cycles of drying and wetting better simulate water deficits encountered in the field and for identifying drought-resistant traits.
KeywordsPot size Pot shape Soil medium High-frequency deficit irrigation Drying-wetting cycles Root-shoot interaction
The author is grateful for the support of the Northwest Agricultural and Forestry University in Yangling, China, and the UWA Institute of Agriculture and UWA School of Agriculture and Environment at the University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia, for support to attend the International Symposium on Crop Roots and Rhizosphere Interactions in Yangling, China. Professor Hans Lambers is thanked for suggesting the topic for this paper and Drs Jairo Palta and Yinglong Chen for comments on the manuscript. Dr. Tao Wang, Dr. Yan-Lei Du, Dr. Jin He and Professor Feng-Min Li of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China are thanked for access to unpublished data.
- Anderson SM, Puertolas J, Dodd IC (2018) Does irrigation frequency affect stomatal response to soil drying? Acta Hortic 1197:18Google Scholar
- Granier C, Aguirrezabal L, Chennu K, Cookson SJ, Dauzat M, Hamard P, Thioux J-J, Rolland G, Bouchier-Combaud S, Lebaudy A, Muller B, Simonneau T, Tardieu F (2006) PHENOPSIS, an automated platform for reproducible phenotyping of plant responses to soil water deficit in Arabidopsis thaliana permitted the identification of an accession with low sensitivity to soil water deficit. New Phytol 169:623–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Guo YM, Samans B, Chen S, Kibret KB, Hatzig S, Turner NC, Nelson MN, Cowling WA, Snowdon RJ (2017) Drought-tolerant Brassica rapa shows rapid expression of gene networks for general stress responses and programmed cell death under simulated drought stress. Plant Mol Biol Report 35:416–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ismail AM, Hall AE, Bray EA (1994) Drought and pot size effects on transpiration efficiency and carbon isotope discrimination of cowpea accessions and hybrids. Aust J Plant Physiol 21:23–35Google Scholar
- Kramer PJ (1969) Plant and soil water relationships: a modern synthesis. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Parent B, Shahinnia F, Maphosa L, Berger B, Rabie H, Chalmers K, Kovalchuk A, Langridge P, Fleury D (2015) Combining field performance with controlled environment plant imaging to identify the genetic control of growth and transpiration underlying yield response to water-deficit stress in wheat. J Exp Bot 66:5481–5492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Slatyer RO (1967) Plant-water relationships. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Teare ID, Peet MM (eds) (1983) Crop-water relations. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Turner NC, Jones MM (1980) Turgor maintenance by osmotic adjustment: a review and evaluation. In: Turner NC, Kramer PJ (eds) Adaptation of plants to water and high temperature stress. Wiley, New York, pp 87–103Google Scholar
- Vadez V, Kholova J, Choudhary S, Zindy P, Terrier M, Krishnamurthy L, Kumar PR, Turner NC (2011) Responses to increased moisture stress and extremes: whole plant response to drought under climate change. In: Yadav SS, Redden RK, Hatfield JL, Lotze-Campen H, Hall AE (eds) Crop adaptation to climate change. Wiley/Blackwell, Chichester, pp 186–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wright GC (1997) Management of drought in peanuts – can crop modelling assist in long-term planning decisions? In: Cruickshank A, Cruickshank S, Fleming B (eds) Proceedings of the 2nd Australian Peanut Conference, Gold Coast, Queensland, July 1997. Department of Primary Industries, Brisbane, pp 26-29Google Scholar