Advertisement

Indian Journal of Plant Physiology

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 796–809 | Cite as

Reproductive fitness in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) under drought stress is associated with root length and volume

  • P. A. Sofi
  • M. Djanaguiraman
  • K. H. M. Siddique
  • P. V. V. Prasad
Original Article
  • 57 Downloads

Abstract

Common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) is an important grain legume crop, and drought stress during its reproductive stages affects flowering and pod-filling process. Mitigating drought stress requires the selection of resilient varieties that withstand drought stress. We hypothesized that drought affects the root system of common bean leading to decreased reproductive success, and a relationship exists between root traits and reproductive success. Objectives are to (1) quantify the effects of drought stress on root and shoot traits and pod set percentage in common bean, and (2) assess whether root traits had a relationship with reproductive success under drought. Seedling root traits were studied in solid agar medium. To understand the influence of drought on the root system of adult plants, the lines were grown in 150-cm columns for 48 days under full irrigation or withholding water for 41 days. Root angles ranged from 32.8° to 60.6°, with Pinto and Lariat having the narrowest (32.8°) and widest (60.6°) root angles, respectively. Drought stress decreased rooting depth (14%), root biomass (29%), total root length (35%), volume (41%), pod set percentage (53%), and pod weight (43%). However, the root: shoot ratio (70%) and Fo/Fm ratio were (13%) increased in response to drought stress compared to control. A positive relationship between root volume and total root length with pod set percentage (r2 ≥ 0.80) and pod weight plant−1 (r2 ≥ 0.35) was observed. The study identified the genotypes Topaz and Matterhorn as drought tolerant and susceptible, respectively. Topaz had a wider root angle, higher root biomass, root: shoot ratio, total root length, and volume along with higher pod set percentage and pod weight under drought compared to other genotypes. Hence, these traits can be included in the common bean drought stress breeding program.

Keywords

Common bean Drought stress Root architecture Thylakoid membrane damage 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are thankful for the financial support provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture through a Norman Borlaug Fellowship, and the Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS. The author (M.D) thanks Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, India, for permitting him to perform postdoctoral research at Kansas State University. Mention of trademark or proprietary product does not constitute a guarantee or warranty of the product by Kansas State University and does not imply its approval to the exclusion of other products, which may also be suitable. This publication is Contribution No. 18-136-J from the Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station.

References

  1. Abenavoli, M. R., Leone, M., Sunseri, F., Bacchi, M., & Sorgona, A. (2016). Root phenotyping for drought tolerance in bean landraces from Calabria (Italy). Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 202, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahmed, S., Nawata, E., Hosokawa, M., Domae, Y., & Sakuratani, T. (2002). Alterations in photosynthesis and some antioxidant enzymatic activities of mung bean subjected to waterlogging. Plant Science, 163, 117–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ambachew, D., Mekbib, F., Asfaw, A., Beebe, S. E., & Blair, M. W. (2015). Trait associations in common bean genotypes grown under drought stress and field infestation by BSM bean fly. Crop Journal, 3, 305–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Asch, F., Dingkuhn, M., Sow, A., & Audebert, A. (2005). Drought-induced changes in rooting patterns and assimilate partitioning between root and shoot in upland rice. Field Crop Research, 93, 223–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Asfaw, A., Almekinders, C., Blair, M. W., & Struik, P. (2012). Participatory approach in common bean breeding for drought tolerance for southern Ethiopia. Plant Breeding, 131, 125–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Asfaw, A., & Blair, M. W. (2014). Quantification of drought tolerance in Ethiopian common bean varieties. Agricultural Sciences, 5, 124–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beebe, S. E., Rao, I. M., Blair, M. W., & Acosta-Gallegos, J. A. (2011). Phenotyping common beans for adaptation to drought. In: J. M. Ribaut & P. Monneveux (Eds.), Drought phenotyping in crops: From theory to practice. CGIAR Generation Challenge Programme, Texcoco, Mexico (pp. 311–334).Google Scholar
  8. Beebe, S. E., Rao, I. M., Blair, M. W., & Acosta-Gallegos, J. A. (2013). Phenotyping common beans for adaptation to drought. Frontiers in Physiology, 4, 35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Beebe, S. E., Rao, I. M., Cajiao, C., & Grajales, M. (2008). Selection for drought resistance in common bean also improves yield in phosphorus limited and favorable environments. Crop Science, 48, 582–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bengough, G., McKenzie, B. M., Hallett, P. D., & Valentine, T. (2011). Root elongation, water stress, and mechanical impedance: A review of limiting stresses and beneficial root tip traits. Journal of Experimental Botany, 62, 59–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bingham, I. J. (2001). Soil root canopy interactions. Annals of Applied Biology, 138, 243–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bishopp, A., & Lynch, J. P. (2015). The hidden half of crop yields. Nature Plants, 1, 8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Black, C. A. (1965). Methods of soil analysis: Part I: Physical and mineralogical properties. Madison: American Society of Agronomy.Google Scholar
  14. Blair, M., Gonzales, L. F., Kimani, P. M., & Butare, L. (2010). Genetic diversity, inter-gene pool introgression and nutritional quality of common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) from central Africa. Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 121, 237–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Broughton, W. J., Hernandez, G., Blair, M. W., Beebe, S. E., Gepts, P., & Vanderleyden, J. (2003). Beans (Phaseolus spp.) model food legumes. Plant and Soil, 252, 55–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Burridge, J., Jochua, C. N., Bucksch, A., & Lynch, J. P. (2016). Legume shovelomics: High-throughput phenotyping of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) and cowpea (Vigna unguiculata subsp., unguiculata) root architecture in the field. Field Crops Research, 192, 21–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dardanelli, J. L., Bachmeier, O. A., Serono, R., & Gil, R. (1997). Rooting depth and soil water extraction patterns of different crops in a silty loam Haplustoll. Field Crops Research, 54, 29–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Darkwa, K., Ambachew, D., Mohammed, H., Asfaw, A., & Blair, M. W. (2015). Evaluation of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) genotypes for drought stress adaptation in Ethiopia. Crop Journal, 4, 367–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Djanaguiraman, M., Boyle, D. L., Welti, R., Jagadish, S. V. K., & Prasad, P. V. V. (2018). Decreased photosynthetic rate under high temperature in wheat is due to lipid desaturation, oxidation, acylation, and damage of organelles. BMC Plant Biology, 18, 55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Djanaguiraman, M., & Prasad, P. V. V. (2010). Ethylene production under high temperature stress causes premature leaf senescence in soybean. Functional Plant Biology, 37, 1071–1084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Eissenstat, D. M. (1992). Costs and benefits of constructing roots of small diameter. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 15, 663–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fang, X., Turner, N. C., Yan, G., Li, F., & Siddique, K. H. M. (2010). Flower numbers, pod production, pollen viability, and pistil function are reduced and flower and pod abortion increased in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) under terminal drought. Journal of Experimental Botany, 61, 335–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Farooq, M., Gogoi, N., Barthakur, S., Baroowa, B., Bharadwaj, N., Alghamdi, S. S., et al. (2016). Drought stress in grain legumes during reproduction and grain filling. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 203, 81–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Govindjee, (2004). Chlorophyll a fluorescence: A bit of basics and history. In G. C. Papageorgiou & Govindgee (Eds.), Chlorophyll a fluorescence: A signature of photosynthesis (pp. 1–41). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Hall, A. E. (2004). Comparative ecophysiology of cowpea, common bean, and peanut. In H. T. Nguyen & A. Blum (Eds.), Physiology and biotechnology integration for plant breeding (pp. 271–325). New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
  26. Henry, A., Cal, A. J., Batoto, T. C., Torres, R. O., & Serraj, R. (2012). Root attributes affecting water uptake of rice (Oryza sativa) under drought. Journal of Experimental Botany, 63, 4751–4763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hernandez, E., Vilagrosa, A., Luis, V. C., Llorca, M., Chirino, E., & Vallejo, V. R. (2009). Root hydraulic conductance, gas exchange and leaf water potential in seedlings of Pistacia lentiscus L. and Quercus suber L. grown under different fertilization and light regimes. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 67, 269–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ho, M. D., Rosas, J., Brown, K. M., & Lynch, J. P. (2005). Root architectural tradeoffs for water and phosphorus acquisition. Functional Plant Biology, 32, 737–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Huang, B., & Eissenstat, D. M. (2000). Linking hydraulic conductivity to anatomy in plants that vary in specific root length. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science, 125, 260–264.Google Scholar
  30. Hund, A., Ruta, N., & Liedgens, M. (2009). Rooting depth and water use efficiency of tropical maize inbred lines, differing in drought tolerance. Plant and Soil, 318, 311–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. IPCC. (2014). Climate Change 2014: Synthesis report. In R. Pachauri & L. Meyer (Eds.), Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland (p. 151).Google Scholar
  32. Jin, K., Shen, J., Ashton, R. W., White, R. P., Dodd, I. C., Parry, M. A. J., et al. (2015). Wheat root growth responses to horizontal stratification of fertiliser in a water-limited environment. Plant and Soil, 386, 77–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jongrungklang, N., Toomsan, B., Vorasoot, N., Jogloy, S., Boote, K. J., Hoogenboom, G., et al. (2012). Classification of root distribution patterns and their contributions to yield in peanut genotypes under mid-season drought stress. Field Crops Research, 127, 181–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kakani, V. G., Reddy, K. R., Koti, S., Wallace, T. P., Prasad, P. V. V., Reddy, V. R., et al. (2005). Differences in in vitro pollen germination and pollen tube growth of cotton cultivars in response to high temperature. Annals of Botany, 96, 59–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kirkegaard, J. A., Lilley, J. M., Howe, G. N., & Graham, J. M. (2007). Impact of subsoil water use on wheat yield. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 58, 303–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lasley, A. L. (2013). Evaluation of root traits associated with drought tolerance in dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). M.Sc. Thesis submitted to Department of Crop Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, USA.Google Scholar
  37. Lawlor, D. W., & Cornic, G. (2002). Photosynthetic carbon assimilation and associated metabolism in relation to water deficits in higher plants. Plant, Cell and Environment, 25, 275–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Leport, L., Turner, N. C., Davies, S. L., & Siddique, K. H. M. (2006). Variation in pod production and abortion among chickpea cultivars under terminal drought. European Journal of Agronomy, 24, 236–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Liu, G., Frescher, G. T., Pan, X., Cornelissen, J. H. C., Li, H., & Dong, M. (2010). Coordinated variation in leaf and root traits across multiple spatial scales in Chinese semi-arid and arid ecosystems. New Phytologist, 188, 543–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ludlow, M. M., & Muchow, R. C. (1990). A critical evaluation of traits for improving crop yields in water-limited environments. Advances in Agronomy, 43, 107–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lynch, J. P. (2013). Steep, cheap and deep: An ideotype to optimize water and N acquisition by maize root systems. Annals of Botany, 112, 347–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lynch, J. P., & Brown, K. M. (2001). Topsoil foraging-an architectural adaptation of plants to low phosphorus availability. Plant and Soil, 237, 225–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lynch, J. P., & Ho, M. D. (2005). Rhizoeconomics: Carbon costs of phosphorus acquisition. Plant and Soil, 269, 45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Manschadi, A. M., Hammer, G. L., Christopher, J. T., & de Voil, P. (2008). Genotypic variation in seedling root architectural traits and implications for drought adaptation in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Plant and Soil, 303, 115–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McPhee, K. (2005). Variation for seedling root architecture in the core collection of pea germplasm. Crop Science, 45, 1758–1763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Miguel, M. S., Widrig, A., Vieira, R. F., Brown, K. M., & Lynch, J. P. (2013). Basal root whorl number: A modulator of phosphorus acquisition in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Annals of Botany, 112, 973–982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Munoz-Perea, C. G., Teran, H., Allen, R. G., Wright, J. L., Westermann, D. T., & Singh, S. P. (2006). Selection for drought resistance in dry bean landraces and cultivars. Crop Science, 46, 2111–2120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nielsen, K. L., Eshel, A., & Lynch, J. P. (2001). The effect of phosphorus availability on the carbon economy of contrasting common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) genotypes. Journal of Experimental Botany, 52, 329–339.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Paez-Garcia, A., Motes, C. M., Scheible, W. R., Chen, R., Blancaflor, E. B., & Monteros, M. J. (2015). Root traits and phenotyping strategies for plant improvement. Plants, 4, 334–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Palta, J. A., Chen, X., Milroy, S. P., Rebetzke, G. J., Dreccer, M. F., & Watt, M. (2011). Large root systems: Are they useful in adapting wheat to dry environments? Functional Plant Biology, 38, 347–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Polania, J., Poschenrieder, C., Rao, I., Beebe, S., & Ryser, P. (2017). Root traits and their potential links to plant ideotypes to improve drought resistance in common bean. Theoretical and Experimental Plant Physiology, 29, 143–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Polania, J., Rao, I. M., Beebe, S., & Garcia, R. (2009). Root development and distribution under drought stress in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) in a soil tube system. Agronomia Colombiana, 27, 25–32.Google Scholar
  53. Prasad, P. V. V., Djanaguiraman, M., Jagadish, S. V. K., & Ciampitti, I. A. (2018). Drought and high temperature stress and traits associated with tolerance. In: I. Ciampitti & P. V. V. Prasad (Eds.), Sorghum: State of the Art and Future Perspectives, Agronomy Monograph (Vol. 58). Madison, WI, USA: ASA and CSSA.Google Scholar
  54. Prasad, P. V. V., Staggenborg, S. A., & Ristic, Z. (2008). Impact of drought and heat stress on physiological, growth and yield process. In: L. H. Ahuja & S. A. Saseendran (Eds.), Modeling Water Stress Effects on Plant Growth Processes. Advances in Agricultural Systems Modeling 1, 301–355.Google Scholar
  55. Price, A. H., Cairns, J. E., Horton, P., Jones, H. G., & Griffiths, H. (2002). Linking drought-resistance mechanisms to drought avoidance in upland rice using a QTL approach: Progress and new opportunities to integrate stomatal and mesophyll responses. Journal of Experimental Botany, 53, 989–1004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Purushothaman, R., Krishnamurthy, L., Upadhyaya, H. D., Vadez, V., & Varshney, R. K. (2017). Root traits confer grain yield advantages under terminal drought in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Field Crop Research, 201, 146–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ramirez-Vallejo, P., & Kelly, J. D. (1998). Traits related to drought resistance in common bean. Euphytica, 99, 127–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rao, I. M., Beebe, S. E., Polania, J., Grajales, M., Cajiao, C., & Ricaurte, J. (2017). Evidence for genotypic differences among elite lines of common bean in their ability to remobilize photosynthate to increase yield under drought. Journal of Agricultural Science, 155, 857–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ratnakumar, P., & Vadez, V. (2011). Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea) genotypes tolerant to intermittent drought maintain a high harvest index and have small leaf canopy under stress. Functional Plant Biology, 38, 1016–1023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rehman, K., Sofi, P. A., Nida, Y., & Bhat, M. A. (2015). Evaluation of common bean for root traits in relation to drought tolerance. Trends in Biosciences, 8, 6859–6865.Google Scholar
  61. SAS Institute. (2003). SAS Users Guide. Version 9.1. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.Google Scholar
  62. Schoppach, R. M., Wauthelet, D., Jeanguenin, L., & Sadok, W. (2013). Conservative water use under high evaporative demand associated with smaller root metaxylem and limited trans-membrane water transport in wheat. Functional Plant Biology, 41, 257–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Shen, X. Y., & Webster, B. D. (1986). Effects of water stress on pollen of Phaseolus vulgaris L. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science, 111, 807–810.Google Scholar
  64. Singh, S. P. (2001). Broadening the genetic base of common bean cultivars: A review. Crop Science, 41, 1659–1675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sofi, P. A., Rehman, K., & Bhat, M. A. (2017). Relative water content, cell membrane stability and DAB assay in relation to reduction in yield components and resource remobilization under water stress in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Journal of Research, SKUAST-J, 19, 132–140.Google Scholar
  66. Souza, T. C., Magalhaes, P. C., Castro, E. M., Duarte, V. P., & Lavinsky, A. O. (2016). Corn root morphoanatomy at different development stages and yield under water stress. Pesquisa Agropecuaria Brasileira, 15, 330–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Takahashi, N., Yamazaki, Y., Kobayashi, A., Higashitani, A., & Takahashi, H. (2003). Hydrotropism interacts with gravitropism by degrading amyloplasts in seedling roots of Arabidopsis and radish. Plant Physiology, 132, 805–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Uga, Y., Okuno, K., & Yano, M. (2011). Dro1, a major QTL involved in deep rooting of rice under upland field conditions. Journal of Experimental Botany, 62, 2485–2494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Urrea, C. A., Yonts, C. D., Lyon, D. J., & Koehler, A. E. (2009). Selection for drought tolerance in dry bean derived from the Mesoamerican gene pool in western Nebraska. Crop Science, 49, 2005–2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Vach, F., Adamec, F., Valenta, J., & Vacha, M. (2007). Spatial location of photosystem pigment-protein complexes in thylakoid membranes of chloroplasts of Pisum sativum studied by chlorophyll fluorescence. Journal of Luminescence, 122–123, 301–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Vadez, V. (2014). Root hydraulics: The forgotten side of roots in drought adaptation. Field Crop Research, 165, 15–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Vadez, V., Kholova, J., Yadav, R. S., & Hash, C. T. (2013). Small temporal differences in water uptake among varieties of pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.) are critical for grain yield under terminal drought. Plant and Soil, 371, 447–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wachsman, G., Sparks, E. E., & Benfey, P. N. (2015). Genes and networks regulating root anatomy and architecture. New Phytologist, 208, 26–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Welch, R. M., House, W. A., Beebe, S., & Cheng, Z. (2000). Genetic selection for enhanced bioavailable levels of iron in bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) seeds. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 48, 3576–3580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wortmann, C. S., Kirkby, R. A., Eledu, C. A., & Allen, D. J. (1998). Atlas of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) production in Africa (p. 131). Cali: CIAT.Google Scholar
  76. Xu, W., Cui, K., Xu, A., Nie, L., Hunag, J., & Peng, S. (2015). Drought stress condition increases root to shoot ratio via alteration of carbohydrate partitioning and enzymatic activity in rice. Acta Physiologiae Plantarum, 37, 9.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11738-014-1760-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Zaman-Allah, M., Jenkinson, D. M., & Vadez, V. (2011). A conservative pattern of water use, rather than deep or profuse rooting, is critical for the terminal drought tolerance of chickpea. Journal of Experimental Botany, 62, 4239–4252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Society for Plant Physiology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Plant Breeding and GeneticsSKUAST-KashmirWaduraIndia
  2. 2.Department of AgronomyKansas State UniversityManhattanUSA
  3. 3.The UWA Institute of AgricultureThe University of Western Australia PerthCrawleyAustralia
  4. 4.Department of Crop PhysiologyTamil Nadu Agricultural UniversityCoimbatoreIndia

Personalised recommendations