Advertisement

Acta Physiologiae Plantarum

, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp 53–61 | Cite as

Evaluation of genus Cenchrus based on malondialdehyde, proline content, specific leaf area and carbon isotope discrimination for drought tolerance and divergence of species at DNA level

  • Amaresh ChandraEmail author
  • Archana Dubey
Original Paper

Abstract

Cenchrus (family Poaceae) is an important component of major grass covers of the world. Largely it is apomictic and both annual and perennial species exist in nature. Variations in contents of malondialdehyde, proline, specific leaf area and carbon isotope discrimination for drought tolerance were estimated among eight prominent species of Cenchrus. Simultaneously, genetic variations were also estimated by employing 187 RAPD primers. Of these, 23 primers did not react, 2 performed poorly and 7 produced many non-scorable bands and one primer yielded a single monomorphic band. Rest of the 154 primers generated one or more unambiguously scorable fragments. Twelve hundred and four of the 1,296 putative loci were polymorphic (93%) between at least one pair-wise comparisons among eight species. Dice coefficient and neighbor-joining algorithm analyses showed clustering patterns that fit with the known habitat of the species except perennial, C. myosuroides which formed a node between two annuals species. When these species were subjected to water stress tolerance test, a correlation (r = 0.612) between specific leaf area (SLA) and carbon isotope discrimination (CID) and difference in levels of drought tolerance based parameters among eight species were observed. Of the eight species investigated two annuals viz., C. biflorus and C. echinatus showed highest level of genetic similarity which was also evident from the similar levels of SLA, MDA, proline contents and carbon isotope discrimination values observed in these two species.

Keywords

Cenchrus CID Genetic relationship Polymorphic bands RAPD SLA 

Abbreviations

CID

Carbon isotope discrimination

MDA

Malondialdehyde

RAPD

Random amplified polymorphic DNA

SLA

Specific leaf area

TE

Transpiration efficiency

Notes

Acknowledgments

Authors are thankful to Director and Head of the Division for providing the necessary facilities to carry out the work. The seed of Cenchrus species provided by Mr. U.S. Mishra is duly acknowledged.

References

  1. Asalatha M, Reddy PV, Rao R (1999) Relationship of specific leaf area and carbon isotope discrimination with dry matter production and pod yield in groundnut genotype under moisture stress. Indian J Plant Physiol 4:161–166Google Scholar
  2. Barrs HD, Weatherley PE (1962) A re-examination of relative turgidity technique for estimating water deficit in leaves. Aust J Biol Sci 15:413–428Google Scholar
  3. Bates LS, Walbren RP, Teare TD (1973) Rapid determination of free proline water stress studies. Plant Soil 39:205–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown RH, Byrd GT (1997) Transpiration efficiency, specific leaf weight, and mineral concentration in peanut and pearl millet. Crop Sci 37:475–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chandra A, Saxena R, Roy AK, Pathak PS (2004) Estimation of genetic variation in Dichanthium annulatum genotypes by RAPD technique. Trop Grasslands 38:245–252Google Scholar
  6. Chandra A, Saxena R, Roy AK (2006) Polymorphism and genotype-specific markers for Dichanthium identified by random amplified polymorphic DNA. Genet Resour Crop Evol 53:1521–1529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chowdhury SR, Choudhuri MA (1985) Hydrogen peroxide metabolism as an index of water stress tolerance in jute. Physiol Plant 65:503–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clayton WD, Renvoize SA (1982) Cenchrus. In: Polhill RM (ed) Flora of tropical East Africa, Rotterdam, pp 691–695Google Scholar
  9. Das S, Rajgopal J, Bhatia S, Srivastava PS, Lakshmikumaran M (1999) Assessment of genetic variation within Brassica compestris cultivars using amplified fragment length polymorphism and random amplification of polymorphic DNA markers. J Biosci 24:433–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dhindsa RS, Matowe W (1981) Drought tolerance in two mosses: Correlated with enzymatic defence against lipid peroxidation. J Exp Bot 32:79–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dubey A (2004) Moisture stress induced biochemical changes in Cenchrus species. Ph.D. Thesis, Bundelkhand University, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  12. Dubey A, Chandra A (2004) Identification of primers for DNA fingerprints in genus Cenchrus. Range Manage Agrofor 25:36–40Google Scholar
  13. Farquhar GD, Bernhart D, Waines JG (1982) On the relationship between carbon isotope discrimination and the intercellular carbon dioxide concentrations in leaves. Aust J Plant Physiol 9:121–137Google Scholar
  14. Farquhar GD, Ehleringer JR, Hubick KT (1989) Carbon isotope discrimination and photosynthesis. Annu Rev Plant Physiol 40:388–397Google Scholar
  15. Greathead K, Sanford P, Cransberg L (1998) Perennial grasses for animal production in the high rainfall areas of Western Australia. Miscellaneous Publication no. 2/98, New South Wales, Agnote; Department of Primary Industries, QueenslandGoogle Scholar
  16. Hanson AD, Nelson CE, Everson EH (1977) Evolution of proline accumulation as an index of drought resistance using two contrasting barley cultivars. Crop Sci 17:720–726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heath RL, Packer L (1968) Photoperoxidation in isolated chloroplast. I. Kinetics and stoichiometry of fatty acids peroxidation. Arch Bioch Biophys 125:189–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Iqbal MJ, Aziz N, Saeed NA, Zafar Y, Malik KA (1997) Genetic diversity evaluation of some elite cotton varieties by RAPD analysis. Theor Appl Genet 94:139–144CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Johnson RC, Tieszen LL (1994) Variation for water use efficiency in alfalfa germplasm. Crop Sci 34:452–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Krishnamani MRS, Yopp JH, Myers O Jr (1984) Leaf solute leakage as a drought tolerance indicator in soybean. Phyton 44:43–49Google Scholar
  21. Levi A, Rowland IJ, Hartung J (1993) Production of reliable randomly amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) markers from DNA of woody plants. Hort Sci 28:1188–1190Google Scholar
  22. Millan T, Osuna F, Cobos S, Torres AM, Cukero JI (1996) Using RAPDs to study phylogenetic relationships in Rosa. Theor Appl Genet 92:273–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Padmesh P, Reji JV, Jinish Dhar M, Seeni S (2006) Estimation of genetic diversity in varieties of Mucuna pruriens using RAPD. Biol Plant 50:367–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pakniyat H, Powell W, Baird E, Handley LL, Robinson D, Scrimgeour CM, Nevo E, Hackett CA, Caligari PDS, Forster BP (1997) AFLP variation in wild barley (Hordeum spontaneum C. Koch) with reference to salt tolerance and associated ecogeography. Genome 40:332–341CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Pengelly BC, Hacker JB, Eagler DA (1992) The classification of a collection of buffer grasses and related species. Trop Grasslands 76:6–11Google Scholar
  26. Richards RA (1996) Defining selection criteria to improve yield under drought. Plant Growth Regul 20:157–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Saitou N, Nei M (1987) The neighbour-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenic tree. Mol Biol Evol 4:406–425PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Schwab KB, Heber U (1984) Thylakoid membrane stability in drought tolerant and drought sensitive plants. Planta 161:37–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Singh RK, Sharma RK, Singh AK, Singh VP, Singh NK, Tiwari SP, Mohapatra T (2004) Suitability of mapped sequence tagged microsatellites site markers for establishing distinctness, uniformity and stability in aromatic rice. Euphytica 135:135–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Thakur PS, Rai VK (1982) Effect of water stress on protein content in two (Zea mays) cultivars differing in drought resistance. Biol Plant 24:96–100Google Scholar
  31. Thormann CE, Ferreira ME, Camargo LEA, Tivang JG, Osborn TC (1994) Comparison of RFLP and RAPD markers to estimating genetic relationships within and among cruciferous species. Theor Appl Genet 88:973–980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Thumma BR, Naidu PB, Cameron DF, Bahnisch LM (1998) Transpiration efficiency and its relationship with carbon isotope discrimination under well watered and water–stressed conditions in Stylosanthes scabra. Aust J Agril Res 49:1039–1045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Virgona JM, Hubick KT, Rawson HM, Farquhar GD, Downes RW (1990) Genotypic variation in transpiration efficiency, carbon isotope discrimination and carbon allocation during early growth in sunflower. Aust J Plant Physiol 17:207–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Weeden NF, Hemmat M, Lawson DM, Lodhi M, Bell RL, Manganaris AG, Resch BI, Brown SK, Ye GN (1994) Development and application of molecular markers linkage map in woody fruit crops. Euphytica 77:71–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Williams JGK, Kubehk AR, Livak KI, Rafalski JA, Tingey SV (1990) DNA polymorphisms amplified by arbitrary primers are useful as genetic markers. Nucleic Acids Res 18:6531–6535PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wright GC, Rao RCN, Farquhar GD (1994) Water use efficiency and carbon isotope discrimination in peanuts under water deficit conditions. Crop Sci 34:92–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zhang Z, Kirkham MB (1994) Drought stress induced changes in activities of superoxide dismutase, catalase and peroxidase in wheat species. Plant Cell Physiol 35:785–791Google Scholar
  38. Zhang HY, Liu X.Z, He CS, Zheng (2005) Random amplified DNA polymorphism of Nicotiana tabacum L. cultivars. Biol Plant 49:605–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Franciszek Górski Institute of Plant Physiology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Kraków 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Crop Improvement DivisionIndian Grassland and Fodder Research InstituteJhansiIndia

Personalised recommendations