Measurement of transpiration restriction under high vapor pressure deficit for sorghum mapping population parents

  • Gunasekaran Karthika
  • Jana Kholova
  • Seeyedmajid Alimagham
  • Meenakshi Ganesan
  • Keerthi Chadalavada
  • Ranjitha Kumari
  • Vincent VadezEmail author
Original Article


Limiting transpiration rate under high vapor pressure deficit (VPD) and/or progressive soil drying conditions are soil water conservation mechanisms that can play an important drought-adaptive role if water is limiting to support crops at its full potential. In this study, these two important physiological mechanisms were measured on parental pairs of existing Recombinant Inbred Lines (RILs) of sorghum mapping populations; both in experiments run in the glasshouse and growth chambers, and outdoors. In controlled environmental conditions, the RIL1, RIL2, RIL6 and RIL8 showed contrasting transpiration response to increasing VPD. The difference in the soil moisture fractions of transpirable soil water threshold where transpiration initiated a decline were high in RIL1, RIL3 and RIL8 respectively. The exploration of the variation of the evapotranspiration response to VPD was also carried out in a high throughput phenotyping facility in which plants were grown similar to field density conditions. Under high VPD conditions, the RIL parental pairs showed usual transpiration peak during the midday period. At this time period, genotypic differences within parental pairs were observed in RIL1, RIL2, RIL6 and RIL8. The donor parent had lower transpiration than the recurrent parents during the midday/high VPD period. Also, we found variation among parental pairs in leaf area normalized with received radiation and measured plant architecture traits. Across studied genotypes, RIL1, RIL2 and RIL8 showed differences in the plant canopy architecture and the transpiration response to an increasing VPD. Collectively, these results open the opportunity to phenotype the RIL progenies of contrasting parents and genetically map the traits controlling plant water use. In turn, this can act as an important genetic resource for identification and incorporation of terminal drought tolerance components in marker-assisted breeding.


Transpiration Canopy Radiation Climate change High throughput phenotyping 


  1. Assefa, Y., Staggenborg, S. A., & Prasad, V. P. V. (2010). Grain sorghum water requirement and responses to drought stress: A review. Crop Management, 9(1), 0–0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blum, A. (2005). Drought resistance, water-use efficiency, and yield potential—Are they compatible, dissonant, or mutually exclusive? Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 56(11), 1159–1168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Choudhary, S., Mutava, R. N., Shekoofa, A., Sinclair, T. R., & Prasad, P. V. V. (2013). Is the stay-green trait in sorghum a result of transpiration sensitivity to either soil drying or vapor pressure deficit? Crop Science, Crop Science, 53(5), 2129–2134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Choudhary, S., Sinclair, T. R., Messina, C. D., & Cooper, M. (2014). Hydraulic conductance of maize hybrids differing in transpiration response to vapor pressure deficit. Crop Science, 54(3), 1147–1152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Devi, M. J., Sinclair, T. R., & Vadez, V. (2010). Genotypic variation in peanut for transpiration response to vapor pressure deficit. Crop Science, 50(1), 191–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fletcher, A. L., Sinclair, T. R., & Allen, L. H. (2007). Transpiration responses to vapor pressure deficit in well-watered ‘slow-wilting’ and commercial soybean. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 61, 145–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gholipoor, M., Prasad, P. V., Mutava, R. N., & Sinclair, T. R. (2010). Genetic variability of transpiration response to vapor pressure deficit among sorghum genotypes. Field Crops Research, 119(1), 85–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gholipoor, M., Sinclair, T. R., & Prasad, P. V. V. (2012). Genotypic variation within sorghum for transpiration response to drying soil. Plant and Soil, 357, 35–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gilbert, M. E., et al. (2011). Field confirmation of genetic variation in soybean transpiration response to vapor pressure deficit and photosynthetic compensation. Field Crops Research, 124, 85–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hash, C. T., Bhasker Raj, A. G., Lindup, S., Sharma, A., Beniwal, C. R., Folkertsma, R. T., et al. (2003). Opportunities for marker-assisted selection (MAS) to improve the feed quality of crop residues in pearl millet and sorghum. Field Crops Research, 84, 79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Haussmann, B. I., Mahalakshmi, V., Reddy, B. V., Seetharama, N., Hash, C. T., & Geiger, H. H. (2002). QTL mapping of stay-green in two sorghum recombinant inbred populations. Theoretical Applied Genetics, 106, 133–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kholova, J., Hash, C. T., Kakkera, A., Kocova, M., & Vadez, V. (2010). Constitutive water-conserving mechanisms are correlated with the terminal drought tolerance of pearl millet [Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.]. Journal of Experimental Botany, 61, 369–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kholová, J., Murugesan, T., Kaliamoorthy, S., Malayee, S., Baddam, R., Hammer, G. L., et al. (2014). Modelling the effect of plant water use traits on yield and stay-green expression in sorghum. Functional Plant Biology, 41(11), 1019–1034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Monteith, J. L., & Unsworth, M. H. (1990). Principles of Environmental Physics (2nd ed.). Elsevier, Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.Google Scholar
  15. Ritchie, J. T. (1981). Water dynamics in the soil–plant–atmosphere system. Plant and Soil, 58, 81–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Richards, R. A., & Passioura, J. B. (1989). A breeding program to reduce the diameter of the major xylem vessel in the seminal roots of wheat and its effect on grain-yield in rain-fed environments. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 40, 943–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Serraj, R., Hash, C. T., Rizvi, S. M. H., Sharma, A., Yadav, R. S., & Bidinger, F. R. (2015). Recent advances in marker-assisted selection for drought tolerance in pearl millet. Plant Production Science, 8, 334–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Shekoofa, A., Balota, M., & Sinclair, T. R. (2014). Limited-transpiration trait evaluated in growth chamber and field for sorghum genotypes. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 99, 175–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sinclair, T. R., Devi, J., Shekoofa, A., Choudhary, S., Sadok, W., Vadez, V., et al. (2017). Limited-transpiration response to high vapor pressure deficit in crop species. Plant Science, 260, 109–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sinclair, T. R., Hammer, G. L., & van Oosterom, E. J. (2005). Potential yield and water-use efficiency benefits in sorghum from limited maximum transpiration rate. Functional Plant Biology, 32(10), 945–952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sinclair, T. R., & Ludlow, M. M. (1986). Influence of soil water supply on the plant water balance of four tropical grain legumes. Functional Plant Biology, 13, 329–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sinclair, T. R., Messina, C. D., Beatty, A., & Samples, M. (2010). Assessment across the United States of the benefits of altered soybean drought traits. Agronomy Journal, 102(2), 475–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tuberosa, R., Giuliani, S., Parry, M. A. J., & Araus, J. L. (2007). Improving water use efficiency in Mediterranean agriculture: what limits the adoption of new technologies? Annals of Applied Biology, 150, 157–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Vadez, V., Kholova, J., Hummel, G., Zhokhavets, U., Gupta, S. K., & Hash, C. T. (2015). LeasyScan: a novel concept combining 3D imaging and lysimetry for high-throughput phenotyping of traits controlling plant water budget. Journal of Experimental Botany, 66, 5581–5593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Vadez, V., Kholova, J., Medina, S., Kakkera, A., & Anderberg, H. (2014). Transpiration efficiency: new insights into an old story. Journal of Experimental Botany, 65, 6141–6153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Vadez, V., Kholová, 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
  27. Vadez, V., & Sinclair, T. R. (2001). Leaf ureide degradation and N2 fixation tolerance to water deficit in soybean. Journal of Experimental Botany, 52, 153–159.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Witcombe, J. R., Virk, D. S., & Raj, A. G. B. (1998). Resource allocation and efficiency of the varietal testing system. In J. R. Witcombe, D. S. Virk, & J. Farrington (Eds.), Seeds of choice: Making the most of new varieties for small farmers (pp. 27–43). New Delhi: Oxford & IBH Publishing Co.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Xu, P., Moshelion, M., Wu, X. H., Halperin, O., Wang, B. G., Luo, J., et al. (2015). Natural variation and gene regulatory basis for the responses of asparagus beans to soil drought. Frontiers in Plant Science, 6, 891.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 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 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gunasekaran Karthika
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jana Kholova
    • 2
  • Seeyedmajid Alimagham
    • 3
  • Meenakshi Ganesan
    • 1
  • Keerthi Chadalavada
    • 2
    • 4
  • Ranjitha Kumari
    • 4
  • Vincent Vadez
    • 2
    • 5
    Email author
  1. 1.Centre for Plant Breeding and GeneticsTamil Nadu Agricultural UniversityCoimbatoreIndia
  2. 2.International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid TropicsHyderabadIndia
  3. 3.Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural ResourcesGorganIran
  4. 4.Department of BotanyBharatidasan UniversityTiruchirappalliIndia
  5. 5.Institut de Recherche pour le Development (IRD)Université de Montpellier, UMR DIADEMontpellier Cedex 5France

Personalised recommendations