Acta Physiologiae Plantarum

, Volume 35, Issue 11, pp 3201–3211 | Cite as

Morphophysiology, morphoanatomy, and grain yield under field conditions for two maize hybrids with contrasting response to drought stress

  • T. Corrêa de Souza
  • E. Mauro de Castro
  • P. César Magalhães
  • L. De Oliveira Lino
  • E. Trindade Alves
  • P. Emílio Pereira de Albuquerque
Original Paper
First Online:
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:

Abstract

In the northern region of the state of Minas Gerais, lack of rainfall limits crop production in the field, which is possible only with irrigation. Agricultural and physiological practices have been intensively searched to overcome drought effects and consequently increase production. In this context, the objective of this study was to characterize morphophysiological and morphoanatomical changes and evaluate the attributes of grain yield under field conditions in two hybrids contrasting for drought tolerance. The experiment was carried out for 2 years (2010 and 2011) and the water deficit was imposed by stopping irrigation for 22 days at the pre-flowering stage. At the end of the stress treatment, leaf and root anatomy and morphophysiological characteristics (leaf water potential, chlorophyll content, percentage of dry leaves, leaf area, stomatal conductance, chlorophyll fluorescence, and anthesis-silking interval) were evaluated. For a better interpretation of tolerance of the hybrids in the evaluated characteristics, an index was used stress index. Hybrid DKB 390 (tolerant) surpassed hybrid BRS 1030 (sensitive) in grain yield. Furthermore, it presented lower percentage of dry leaves, higher flowering synchronization, higher stomatal conductance, and higher Fv/Fm relationship. In the root, DKB 390 showed higher amount of aerenchyma in the cortex, an increase of exodermis width, and numerous metaxylem with smaller diameter. In the leaf, it presented higher number of stomata and smaller distance between the vascular bundles in the leaf blade. The study concluded that significant morphophysiological and morphoanatomical changes, which are related to drought tolerance, occurred in DKB 390, leading to a higher yield in the field.

Keywords

Zea mays L. Water stress Leaf anatomy Root anatomy Stomatal conductance Harvest index 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Capes for the scholarship; Centro Nacional de Pesquisa de Milho e Sorgo, Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG), and Laboratório de Anatomia Vegetal da Universidade Federal de Lavras for providing the facilities and materials that made this research possible.

References

  1. Alvarez JM, Rocha JF, Machado SR (2008) Bulliform cells in Loudetiopsis chrysothrix (Nees) Conert and Tristachya leiostachya Nees (Poaceae): structure in relation to function. Braz Arch Biol Technol 51:113–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Araus JL, Sánchez C, Edmeades GO (2011) Phenotyping maize for adaptation to drought. In: Monneveux P, Ribaut J-M (eds) Drought phenotyping in crops: from theory to practice. CGIAR Generation Challenge Programme, Texcoco, pp 263–283Google Scholar
  3. Arnon DI (1949) Copper enzymes in isolated chloroplasts. Polyphenoloxidase in Beta vulgaris. Plant Physiol 24:1–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Asharaf M (2010) Inducing drought tolerance in plants: recent advances. Biotechnol Adv 28:199–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Badu-Apraku B, Fakorede MAB, Oyekunle M, Akinwale RO (2011) Selection of extra-early maize inbreds under low N and drought at flowering and grain-filling for hybrid production. Maydica 56:29–42Google Scholar
  6. Baker NR, Rosenqvist E (2004) Applications of chlorophyll fluorescence can improve crop production strategies: an examination of future possibilities. J Exp Bot 55:1607–1621PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Betrán FJ, Beck D, Bänziger M, Edmeades GO (2003) Genetic analysis of inbred and hybrid grain yield under stress and nonstress environments in tropical maize. Crop Sci 43:807–817CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Borrás L, Slafer GA, Otegui ME (2004) Seed dry weight response to source-sink manipulations in wheat, maize and soybean: quantitative reappraisal. Field Crop Res 86:131–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carlesso R, Peiter MX, Petry MT, Woschick D (1997) Grain sorghum responses under water deficits on different growth stages. Cienc Rural 27:211–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dubey L, Prasanna BM, Hossain F, Verma DK, Ramesh B (2010) Phenotypic evaluation of a set selected exotic maize inbred lines for drought stress tolerance. Indian J Genet Plant Breed 70:355–362Google Scholar
  11. Duvick DN (2005) The contribution of breeding to yield advances in maize (Zea mays L.). Adv Agron 86:83–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Edmeades GO, Bolanos J, Elinge A, Ribaut J-M, Banziger M, Westgate ME (2000) The role and regulation of the anthesis-silking interval in maize. In: Westgate ME, Boote KJ (eds) Physiology and modeling Kernel set in Maize. CSSAo, Madison, pp 43–73Google Scholar
  13. Edreira JIR, Carpici EB, Sammarro D, Otegui ME (2011) Heat stress effects around flowering on kernel set of temperature and tropical maize hybrids. Field Crop Res 123:62–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ennajeh M, Vadel AM, Cochard H, Khemira H (2010) Comparative impacts of water stress on the leaf anatomy of a drought-resistant and a drought-sensitive olive cultivar. J Hortic Sci Biotechnol 85:289–294Google Scholar
  15. Enstone DE, Peterson A, Ma F (2003) Root endodermis and exodermis: structure, function, and responses to the environment. J Plant Growth Regul 21:335–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Farooq M, Wahid A, Kokayashi N, Fujita D, Basra SMA (2009) Plant drought stress: effects, mechanisms and management. Agron Sustain Dev 29:185–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gong C-M, Bai J, Deng J-M, Wang G-X, Liu X-P (2011) Leaf anatomy and photosynthetic carbon metabolic characteristics in Phragmites communis in different soil water availability. Plant Ecol 212:675–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gowda VRP, Henry A, Yamauchi A, Shashidhar HE, Serraj R (2011) Root biology and genetic improvement for drought avoidance in rice. Field Crop Res 122:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grzesiak MT, Filek W, Hura T, Kocurek M, Pilarski J (2010) Leaf optical properties during and after drought stress in triticale and maize genotypes differing in drought tolerance. Acta Physiol Plant 32:433–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hao Z-F, Li X-H, Su Z-J, Xie C-X, Li M-S, Liang X-L, Weng J-F, Zhang D-G, Li L, Zhang S-H (2011) A proposed selection criterion for drought resistance across multiple environments in maize. Breed Sci 61:101–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jones HG, Serraj R, Loveys BR, Xiong L, Wheaton A, Price A (2009) Thermal infrared imaging of crop canopies for the remote diagnosis and quantification of plant responses to water stress in the field. Funct Plant Biol 36:978–989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Karuppanapandian T, Moon J-C, Kim C, Manoharan K, Kim W (2011) Reactive oxygen species in plants: their generation, signal transduction, and scavenging mechanisms. Aust J Crop Sci 5:709–725Google Scholar
  23. Kutschera U, Pieruschka R, Berry JA (2010) Leaf development, gas exchange characteristics, and photorespiratory activity in maize seedlings. Photosynthetica 48:617–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lenochová Z, Soukup A, Votrubová O (2009) Aerenchyma formation in maize roots. Biol Plant 53:263–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Li Y, Sperry JS, Shao M (2009) Hydraulic conductance and vulnerability to cavitation in corn (Zea mays L.) hybrids of differing drought resistance. Environ Exp Bot 66:341–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lopes MS, Araus JL, Van Heerden PDR, Foyer CH (2011) Enhancing drought tolerance in C4 crops. J Exp Bot 62:3135–3153PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Makbui S, Guler NS, Durmus N, Guven S (2011) Changes in anatomical and physiological parameters of soybean under drought stress. Turk J Bot 35:369–377Google Scholar
  28. Makumbi D, Betrán F, Banziger M, Ribaut J-M (2011) Combining ability, heterosis and genetic diversity in tropical maize (Zea mays L.) under stress and non-stress conditions. Euphytica 180:143–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Martins AO (2012) Genetic and physiological inferences of drought tolerance in maize. Thesis, Universidade Estadual Norte Fluminense Darcy RibeiroGoogle Scholar
  30. Monneveux P, Sanchez C, Beck D, Edmeades GO (2006) Drought tolerance improvement in tropical maize source populations: evidence of progress. Crop Sci 46:180–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Moussa HR, Abdel-Aziz SM (2008) Comparative response of drought tolerant and sensitive maize genotypes to water stress. Aust J Crop Sci 1:31–36Google Scholar
  32. Mutava RN, Prasad PVV, Tuinstra MR, Kofoid KD, Yu J (2011) Characterization of sorghum genotypes for traits related to drought tolerance. Field Crop Res 123:10–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Peña-Valdivia CB, Sánchez-Urdaneta AB, Trejo C, Aguirre RR, Cárdenas SE (2005) Root anatomy of drought sensitive and tolerant maize (Zea mays L.) seedlings under different water potentials. Cereal Res Commun 33:705–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Poorter L, Bongers F (2006) Leaf traits are good predictors of plant performance across 53 rain forest species. Ecol 87:1733–1743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Postma JA, Lynch JP (2011) Root cortical aerenchyma enhances the growth of maize on soils with suboptimal availability of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. Plant Physiol 156:1190–1201PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pradhan GP, Prasad PVV, Fritz AK, Kirkham MB, Gill BS (2012) Effects of drought and high temperature stress on synthetic hexaploid wheat. Funct Plant Biol 39:190–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sage RF (2004) The evolution of C4 photosynthesis. New Phytol 161:341–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shao H, Chu L, Jaleel CA, Zhao C (2008) Water-deficit stress induced anatomical changes in higher plants. C R Biol 331:215–225PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Smit MA, Singels A (2006) The response of sugarcane canopy development to water stress. Field Crop Res 98:91–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Souza TC, Castro EM, Pereira FJ, Parentoni SN, Magalhães PC (2009) Morpho-anatomical characterization of root in recurrent selection cycles for flood tolerance of maize (Zea mays L.). Plant Soil Environ 55:504–510Google Scholar
  41. Souza TC, Magalhães PC, Pereira FP, Castro EM, Silva Junior JM, Parentoni SN (2010) Leaf plasticity in successive selection cycles of ‘Saracura’ maize in response to periodic soil flooding. Pesqui Agropecu Bras 45:16–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Souza TC, Magalhães PC, Pereira FJ, Castro EM, Parentoni SN (2011) Morpho-physiology and maize grain yield under periodic soil flooding in successive selection cycles. Acta Physiol Plant 33:1877–1885CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Souza TC, Magalhães PC, Castro EM, Albuquerque PEP, Marabesi AM (2013) The influence of ABA on water relation, photosynthesis parameters, and chlorophyll fluorescence under drought conditions in two maize hybrids with contrasting drought resistance. Acta Physiol Plant 35:515–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tollenaar M (1992) Is low density a stress in maize? Maydica 37:305–311Google Scholar
  45. Vitale L, Di Tommasi P, Arena C, Fierro A, Santo AV, Magliulo V (2007) Effects of water stress on gas exchange of field grown Zea mays L. in Southern Italy: an analysis at canopy and leaf level. Acta Physiol Plant 29:317–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zhu J, Brown KM, Lynch JP (2010) Root cortical aerenchyma improves the drought tolerance of maize (Zea mays L.). Plant Cell Environ 33:740–749PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Franciszek Górski Institute of Plant Physiology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Kraków 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. Corrêa de Souza
    • 1
  • E. Mauro de Castro
    • 1
  • P. César Magalhães
    • 2
  • L. De Oliveira Lino
    • 1
  • E. Trindade Alves
    • 1
  • P. Emílio Pereira de Albuquerque
    • 2
  1. 1.Departamento de Biologia,Setor de Fisiologia VegetalUniversidade Federal de LavrasLavrasBrazil
  2. 2.Centro Nacional de Pesquisa de Milho e SorgoSete LagoasBrazil

Personalised recommendations