Acta Physiologiae Plantarum

, Volume 28, Issue 2, pp 149–158

The effect of drought stress on chlorophyll fluorescence in Lolium-Festuca hybrids

  • Janusz Ko cielniak
  • Władysław Filek
  • Jolanta Biesaga-Ko cielniak
Article

Abstract

The effects of drought on photochemical efficiency of PSII in leaves of 22 hybrids of Festuca pratensis × Lolium multiflorum and Festuca pratensis × Lolium perenne and of Festuca pratensis cv. Skra were investigated. A significant decrease of electron transport efficiency (about 25%) in PSII (ΦPSII) was not found before 9 days of seedling growth in hydroponics with water potential (Ψw) equal to −0.8 MPa (simulated “soil drought”). The decrease of ΦPSII was similarly related to that of excitation energy capture by open PSII reaction centre (Fv’/Fm’) and also to the decrease of the proportion of oxidized to reduced QA (photochemical fluorescence quenching, qp). According to the drought prolongation, variation of all parameters of fluorescence between genotypes significantly increased. The seedlings of some genotypes were able to recover electron transport efficiency in PSII after increasing water potential in nutrient solution (removing the “soil drought”).

When plants grew in containers with soil and 4 genotypes with the highest sensitivity of electron transport to drought (S) as well as 4 genotypes with the highest tolerance (T) were compared 17 days after watering ceased, Ψw in leaves considerably decreased, but the differences between S and T genotypes were often not significant in this respect. The differences between S and T genotypes, as values of Fv/Fm were concerned, also appeared small (about 5%), similarly as that of Fv’/Fm’ (5%), qp (12%) and ΦPSII (about 15%).

Drought stress increased non-photochemical quenching of chlorophyll fluorescence (NPQ) 15 to 47% and this could protect the PSII reaction centres from damages because of energy excess. The increase of NPQ was not closely connected with drought resistance of plants because it was similar in some genotypes tolerant to dehydration as well as in sensitive ones.

The results of the experiments suggest that resources of genetic variability in Festulolium may be sufficient for revealing differences between genotypes on the basis of measurement of chlorophyll a fluorescence, as far as their tolerance to soil drought is concerned. As the tolerance of PSII against drought is high, the determinations of fluorescence should be performed rather under severe stress. Such methods seem to be useful for selection of genotypes with high drought tolerance as well as with the ability to at least partial repairing of PSII after drought.

Key words

breeding drought tolerance chlorophyll a fluorescence Festuca pratensis Lolium multiflorum Lolium perenne Festulolium 

List of abbreviations

S, T

sensitive and tolerant Festulolium hybrids, respectively

ΦPSII

quantum efficiency of PSII electron transport

qp

photochemical fluorescence quenching

Fv’/Fm’

efficiency of excitation energy capture by open PSII reaction centres

Fv/Fm

efficiency of excitation capture by open PSII in dark-adapted leaves

NPQ

non-photochemical quenching of chlorophyll fluorescence

PSII

photosystem II

QA

the primary stable electron acceptor of PSII

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Akmal M., Janssens M.J.J. 2004. Productivity and light use efficiency of perennial ryegrass with contrasting water and nitrogen supplies. Field Crops Res. 88: 143–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Araus J.L., Amaro T., Voltas J., Nakkoul H., Nachit M.M. 1998. Chlorophyll fluorescence as a criterion for grain yield in durum wheat under Mediterranean conditions. Field Crops Res. 55: 209–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bártak M., Nijs I., Impes I. 1996. The effect of long-term exposure of Lolium perenne L. plants to elevated CO2 and /or air temperature on quantum yield of photosystem 2 and net photosynthesis. Photosynthetica, 32(4): 549–562.Google Scholar
  4. Bártak, M., Nijs I., Impes I. 1998. The susceptibility of PSII of Lolium perenne to sudden fall in air temperature-response of plants grown in elevated CO2 and /or air temperature. Envir. Exp. Bot. 39: 85–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benveniste-Levkovitz P., Canaani O., Gromet-Elhanan Z., Atsmon D. 1993. Characterization of drought resistance in a wild relative of wheat, Triticum kotschyi. Photosynth. Res. 35: 149–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bresti M., Cornic G., Fryer M.J., Baker N.R. 1995. Does photorespiration protect the photosynthetic apparatus in French bean leaves from photoinhibition during drought stress? Planta 196: 450–457.Google Scholar
  7. Colom M.R., Vazzana C. 2003. Photosynthesis and PSII functionality of drought-resistant and drought-sensitive weeping lovegrass plants. Envir. Exp. Bot. 49: 135–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cornic G., Briantais J.M. 1991. Partitioning of photosynthetic electron flow between CO2 and O2 reduction in a C3 leaf (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) at different CO2 concentrations and during drought stress. Planta 183: 178–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cornic G. 1994. Drought stress and high light effects on leaf photosynthesis. In: Baker N.B., Bowyer J.R. (eds). Photoinhibition of photosynthesis: from molecular mechanisms to the field. Oxford, UK, Bios Scientific Publishers 297–313.Google Scholar
  10. Dib T.L., Monneveux Ph., Acevedo E., Nachit M.M. 1994. Evaluation of proline analysis and chlorophyll fluorescence quenching measurements as drought tolerance indicators in durum wheat (Triticum turgidum L. var. durum). Euphytica 79: 65–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Durand J.-L. Gastal F., Etchebest S., Bonnet A.-C., Ghesquière M. 1997. Interspecific variability of plant water status and leaf morphogenesis in temperate forage grasses under summer water deficit. Europ. J. Agron. 7: 99–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eickmeier W.G., Casper C., Osmond C.B. 1993. Chlorophyll fluorescence in the resurrection plant Selaginella lepidophylla and evidence for zeaxanthin-associated photoprotection. Planta 189: 30–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Erez M., Lannoye R. 1991. Quantification of physiological disorders in stressed plants. p. 414–433. In: E. Acevedo, A.P. Conesa, P. Monneveux, J.P. Srivastava (Eds). Physiology-Breeding of Winter Cereals for Stresses Mediterranean Environments. Montpellier, France, 3–6 July 1989. Colloques 55.Google Scholar
  14. Flagella Z., Campanile R.G., Ronga G., Stopelli M.C., Pastore D., De Caro A., Di Fonzo N. 1996. The maintenance of photosynthetic electron transport in relation to osmotic adjustment in durum wheat cultivars differing in drought resistance. Plant Sci. 118: 127–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Flagella Z., Pastore D., Campanile R.G., Di Fonzo N. 1994. Photochemical quenching of chlorophyll fluorescence and drought tolerance in different durum wheat (Triticum durum) cultivars. J. Agr. Sci. 122: 183–192.Google Scholar
  16. Flagella Z., Pastore D., Campanille R.G., Di Fonzo N. 1995. The quantum yield of photosynthetic electron transport evaluated by chlorophyll fluorescence is a probe of drought tolerance in durum wheat. J. Agric. Sci. Cambridge 125: 325–329.Google Scholar
  17. Flexas J., Briantais J-M., Cerovic Z., Medrano H., Moya I. 2000. Steady-state and maximum chlorophyll fluorescence responses to water stress in grapevine leaves: a new remote sensing system. Remote Sens. Environ. 73: 283–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Franca A., Loi A., Davies W.J. 1998. Selection annual ryegrass for adaptation to semi-arid condition. Eur. J. Agron. 9: 71–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Genty B., Briantais J-M., Baker N.R. 1989. The relationship between the quantum yield of photosynthetic electron transport and quenching of chlorophyll fluorescence. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 990: 87–92.Google Scholar
  20. Ghesquière M., Emilie J.-C., Jadas-Hècard J., Mousset C., Traineau R., Poisson C. 1996. First in vivo assessment of feeding value of Festulolim hybrids derived from Festuca arrundinacea var. glauscenscens and selection for palatability. Plant Breed. 115: 238–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Golding A.J., Johnson G.N. 2003. Down-regulation of linear and activation of cyclic electron transport during drought. Planta 218: 107–114.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Haupt-Herting S, Fock H.P. 2002. Oxygen exchange in relation to carbon assimilation in water-stressed leaves during photosynthesis. Ann. Bot. 89: 851–859.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Havaux M. 1992. Stress tolerance of photosystem II in vivo. Plant Physiol. 100: 424–432.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Havaux M., Ernez M., Lannoye R. 1988. Correlation between heat tolerance and drought tolerance in cereals demonstrated by rapid chlorophyll fluorescence tests. J. Plant Physiol. 133: 555–560.Google Scholar
  25. Havaux M., Lannoye R. 1985. In vivo chlorophyll fluorescence and delayed light emission as rapid technique for stress tolerance in crop plants. Z. Pflanzenzüchtung 95: 1–13.Google Scholar
  26. Hill J., Michaelson-Yates T.P.T. 1987. Effect of competition upon the productivity of white clover perennial ryegrass mixture: analysis of the interrelations between characters. Plant Breed. 98: 161–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hoagland, D.R. Arnon, D.I. 1938. The water-culture method for growing plants without soil. Univ.Calif.Exp. Sta. Cir. 347.Google Scholar
  28. Huang B., Fry J., Wang B. 1998. Water relations and canopy characteristics of tall fescue cultivars during and after drought stress. Hort. Science 33 (5): 837–840.Google Scholar
  29. Huang B., Gao H. 2000. Root physiological characteristics associated with drought resistance in tall fescue cultivars. Crop Sci. 40: 196–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Humhreys M., Thomas H. 1993. Improved drought resistance in introgression lines derived from Lolium multiglorum x Festuca arundinacea hybrids. Plant Breed. 111: 155–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Krause G.H., Weis F. 1991. Chlorophyll fluorescence and photosynthesis: the basic. Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol. 42: 313–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lichtenthaler H.K. 1988. In vivo chlorophyll fluorescence as a tool for stress detection in plants. In: Applications of Chlorophyll Fluorescence. H.K. Lichtenthaler (Ed). Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Kluwer Acad. Publ.: 129–142.Google Scholar
  33. Loggini B., Scartazza A., Brunoli E., Navari-Izzo F. 1999. Antioxidative defense system, pigment composition, and photosynthetic efficiency in two wheat cultivars subjected to drought. Plant Physiol. 119: 1091–1099.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lu C., Zhang J. 1998. Effects of water stress on photosynthesis, chlorophyll fluorescence and photoinhibition in wheat plants. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 25: 883–892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lu C., Zhang J. 1999. Effects of water stress on photosystem II photochemistry and its thermostability in wheat plants. J. Exp. Bot. 50: 1199–1206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nelson C.J., Asay K.H., Sleper D.A. 1977. Mechanisms of canopy development of tall fescue genotypes. Crop Sci. 17: 449–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nijs I., Teughels H., Blum H., Hendrey G., Impens I. 1996. Simulation of climate change with infrared heaters reduces the productivity of Lolium perenne L. in summer. Envir. Exp. Bot. 36 (5): 271–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Onillon B., Durand J.-L., Gastal F., Tournebize R. 1995. Drought effects on growth and carbon partitioning in a tall fescue sward grown at two rates of nitrogen fertilization. Eur. J. Agron. 4: 91–99.Google Scholar
  39. Osmond C.D. 1994. What is photoinhibition? Some insights from comparison of sun and shade plants. In: Baker N.R., Bowyer J.R. (eds.) Photoinhibition of photosynthesis. From molecular mechanisms to the field. Bios, Oxford: 1–24.Google Scholar
  40. Ourcival J.M., Methy M., Burgess R. 1992. Chlorophyll fluorescence analysis of genotypic variability of drought stress response of white clover (Trifolium repens) and perennial rye (Lolium perenne). Can. J. Bot. 70: 1556–1562.Google Scholar
  41. Schreiber U., Bigler W. 1987. Rapid assessment of stress effects on plant leaves by chlorophyll fluorescence measurements. In: Plant Response to Stress. J.D. Tenhunen, F.M. Catarino, O.L. Lange, C. Oechel (Eds). Berlin, Springer-Verlag: 27–53,Google Scholar
  42. Smirnoff N. 1993. The role of active oxygen in response of plants to water deficit and desiccation. New. Phytol. 125: 27–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tourneux C., Peltier G. 1995. Effect of water deficit on photosynthetic oxygen measuring using 18O2 and mass spectrometry in Solanum tuberosum L. leaf disc. Planta 195: 570–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. van Rensburg L., Krüger G.H.J. 1993. Differential inhibition of photosynthesis (in vivo and in vitro), and changes chlorophyll a fluorescence induction kinetics of four tobacco cultivars under drought stress. J. Plant Physiol. 141: 357–365.Google Scholar
  45. White R.H., Engelke M.C., Morton S.J., Ruemmele B.A. 1992. Competitive turgor maintenance in tall fescue. Crop Sci. 32: 251–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zwierzykowski Z., Tayyar R., Brunell M., Lukaszewski A.J. 1998. Genome recombination in intergeneric hybrids between tetraploid Festuca pratensis and Lolium multiflorum. J. Heredity 89 (4): 324–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zwierzykowski Z., Zwierzykowska E., Kosmala A., Łuczak M., Jok W. 2003. Genome recombination in early generations of Festuca pratensis × Lolium perenne hybrids. In: Z. Zwierzykowski, M. Surma and P. Kachlicki (eds.). Application of Novel Cytogenetic and Molecular Techniques. Institute of Plant Genetics, Polish Academy of Sciences Pozna : 63–69.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Department of Plant Physiology 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Janusz Ko cielniak
    • 1
  • Władysław Filek
    • 1
  • Jolanta Biesaga-Ko cielniak
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Plant PhysiologyAgricultural UniversityKrakowPoland
  2. 2.Institute of Plant PhysiologyPolish Academy of SciencesKrakowPoland

Personalised recommendations