Pearl Millet Mapping Population Parents: Performance and Selection Under Salt Stress Across Environments Varying in Evaporative Demand

  • Sunita Choudhary
  • Vincent Vadez
  • C. Tom Hash
  • P. B. Kavi Kishor
Research Article
  • 20 Downloads

Abstract

It is vital to screen the germplasm of crop plants for salt stress tolerance so as to utilize them in breeding programs. Accordingly, in the present study, twenty diverse inbred lines, parents of mapping populations of pearl millet were chosen to determine the phenotypic contrasts for seed yield, which can open the way for developing salt tolerance QTLs. Parents were grown in two summer seasons (late and early) with VPD ≥ 2 kPa, and one rainy season with VPD < 2 kPa, during flowering and grain filling under saline (150 and 200 mM) and non-saline (0 mM) conditions. Salinity delayed flowering time by a fortnight in the summer seasons but only 5–6 days in the low VPD rainy season. Salinity decreased grain yield by 86% in late-summer and 80% in early-summer, but less than 70% in rainy season. GY penalty was higher than vegetative biomass under saline conditions especially in summer season when the evaporative demand was very high. It appears that reproduction and grain filling are sensitive to high temperature that can compound the effect of salinity and high VPD. GY of inbreds under salinity was not better in comparison with non-saline conditions. DOF and grain density (thousand grain weight) were found as important correlated traits under salinity. Also, GY was affected significantly if VPD increased during flowering time.

Keywords

Salt stress Vapor pressure deficit Pearl millet Mapping population inbred parents 

Abbreviations

DAS

Days after sowing

DOF

Days of flowering

TGW

Thousand grain weight

GY

Grain yield

PW

Panicle weight

QTL

Quantitative trait loci

VPD

Vapor pressure deficit

h2

Broad sense heritability

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the partial funding support from the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) Fund. PBK is thankful to the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, New Delhi, for awarding Emeritus Fellowship.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest for publication of this manuscript.

Supplementary material

40011_2017_933_MOESM1_ESM.docx (17 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 17 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Rengasamy P (2002) World salinization with emphasis in Australia. J Exp Bot 57:1017–1023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Maas EV (1993) Testing crops for salinity tolerance. In: Maranville JW, Baligar BV, Duncan RR, Yohe JM (eds) Proceedings of workshop on adaptation of plants to soil stresses, 1–4 August 1993. INTSORMIL. Pub. No. 94-2, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE, pp 234–247Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pushpavalli R, Krishnamurthy L, Thudi M, Gaur PM, Rao MV, Siddique KHM, Colmer TD, Turner NC, Varshney RK, Vadez V (2015) Two key genomic regions harbour QTLs for salinity tolerance in ICCV 2 × JG 11 derived chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) recombinant inbred lines. BMC Plant Biol 15:124–138CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lang NT, Buu BC, Ismail A (2008) Molecular mapping and marker-assisted selection for salt tolerance in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Omonrice 16:50–56Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Subba Rao MV, Kusuma Kumari P, Manga V, Sarada Mani N (2007) Molecular markers for screening salinity response in sorghum. Indian J Biotechnol 6:271–273Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vadez V, Krishnamurthy L, Serraj R, Gaur PM, Upadhyaya HD, Hoisington DA, Varshney RK, Turner NC, Siddique KHM (2007) Large variation in salinity tolerance in chickpea is explained by differences in sensitivity at the reproductive stage. Field Crops Res 104:123–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vadez V, Krishnamurthy L, Thudi M, Anuradha C, Colmer TD, Turner NC, Siddique KHM, Gaur PM, Varshney RK (2012) Assessment of ICCV 2 × JG 62 chickpea progenies shows sensitivity of reproduction to salt stress and reveals QTL for seed yield and yield components. Mol Breed 30:9–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gholipoor M, Choudhary S, Sinclair TR, Messina Carlos D, Cooper M (2013) Transpiration response of maize hybrids to atmospheric vapor pressure deficit. J Crop Sci Agron 199:155–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gholipoor M, Prasad PVV, Mutava RN, Sinclair TR (2010) Genetic variability of transpiration response to vapor pressure deficit among sorghum genotypes. Field Crops Res 119:85–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kholova J, Hash CT, Lava Kumar P, Yadav RS, Kocova M, Vadez V (2010) Terminal drought-tolerant pearl millet [Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.] have high leaf ABA and limit transpiration at high vapour pressure deficit. J Exp Bot 61:1431–1440CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Burton GW (1981) Registration of pearl millet inbreds Tift 23DBE, Tift 23DAE and Tift 756 (PL 9 to PL 11). Crop Sci 21:317–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hash CT, Witcombe JR (1994) Pearl millet mapping populations at ICRISAT. In: Witcombe JR, Duncan RR (eds) Use of molecular markers in sorghum and pearl millet breeding for developing countries. Proceedings of an ODA Plant Sciences Research Programme Conference, 29th March–1st April 1993, Norwich, UK. Overseas Development Administration, London, UK, pp 69–75Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Talukdar BS, Prakash Babu PP, Rao AM, Ramakrishna C, Witcombe JR, King SB, Hash CT (1998) Registration of ICMP 85410: dwarf, downy mildew resistant, restorer parental line of pearl millet. Crop Sci 38:904–905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Burton GW (1969) Registration of pearl millet inbreds Tift 23B1, Tift 23A1, Tift 23DB1 and Tift 23BA1 (Reg. Nos. PL 1, PL 2, PL 3 and PL 4). Crop Sci 9:397Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Singh SD, Wilson J.P, Navi SS, Talukdar BS, Hess DE, Reddy KN (1997) Screening techniques and sources of resistance to downy mildew and rust of pearl millet. Information Bulletin No 48. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Anand Kumar K, Rai KN, Andrews DJ, Talukdar BS, Singh SD, Rao AS, Babu PP, Reddy BP (1995) Registration of ICMP 451 parental line of pearl millet. Crop Sci 35:605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kolesnikova-Allen MA (2001) Mapping new quantitative trait loci (QTL) for downy mildew resistance in pearl millet (Ph.D. dissertation). University of Moscow, Moscow, Russia, 266 ppGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Appadurai R, Raveendran TS, Nagarajan C (1982) A new male-sterility system in pearl millet. Indian J Agric Sci 52:832–834Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yadav RS, Hash CT, Bidinger FR, Devos KM, Howarth CJ (2004) Genomic regions associated with grain yield and aspects of post-flowering drought tolerance in pearl millet across stress environments and tester background. Euphytica 136:265–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Appa Rao S, Mengesha MH, Reddy CR (1986) New sources of dwarfing genes in pearl millet (Pennisetum americanum). Theor Appl Genet 73:170–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Burton GW (1977) Registration of Gahi 3 pearl millet (Reg. No. 40). Crop Sci 17:345–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Burton GW (1980) Registration of pearl millet inbred Tift 383 and Tifleaf 1 pearl millet (Reg. PL 8 and Reg. No. 60). Crop Sci 20:293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fussell LK, Pearson CJ, Norman MJT (1979) Effect of temperature during various growth stages on grain development and yield of Pennisetum americanum. J Exp Bot 31:621–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Norman MJT, Pearson CJ, Searle PGE (1995) The ecology of tropical food crops. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 164–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rao SA, McNeilly T (1999) Genetic basis of variation for salt tolerance in maize (Zea mays L.). Euphytica 108:145–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Akbar M, Yabuno T, Nakao S (1972) Breeding for saline resistant varieties of rice: I. Variability for salt tolerance in some rice varieties. Jpn J Breed 22:277–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lakshmana D, Biradar BD, Ravi Kumar RL (2009) Genetic variability studies for quantitative traits in a pool of restorers and maintainers lines of pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum L.). Karnataka J Agric Sci 22:881–882Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Beggi F, Falalou H, Buerkert A, Vadez V (2015) Tolerant pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.) varieties to low soil P have higher transpiration efficiency and lower flowering delay than sensitive ones. Plant Soil 389:89–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Dewey PR (1962) Breeding crested wheatgrass for salt tolerance. Crop Sci 2:403–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Flowers TJ (2004) Improving crop salt tolerance. J Exp Bot 55:307–331CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The National Academy of Sciences, India 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sunita Choudhary
    • 1
  • Vincent Vadez
    • 1
  • C. Tom Hash
    • 1
  • P. B. Kavi Kishor
    • 2
  1. 1.International Crop Research Institute for Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT)Patancheru, HyderabadIndia
  2. 2.Department of GeneticsOsmania UniversityHyderabadIndia

Personalised recommendations