Acta Physiologiae Plantarum

, Volume 35, Issue 2, pp 345–354 | Cite as

Reactions of Egyptian landraces of Hordeum vulgare and Sorghum bicolor to drought stress, evaluated by the OJIP fluorescence transient analysis

  • Christoph Jedmowski
  • Ahmed Ashoub
  • Wolfgang BrüggemannEmail author
Original Paper


Landraces of barley and of Sorghum bicolor from Egypt were evaluated for their tolerance to drought stress (DS) using the OJIP test of the chl fluorescence fast induction curve. Water was withheld from 4-week-old, pot-grown plants for 8–10 days, until the volumetric soil water content decreased from 30 to below 5 vol% and the leaves reached relative water contents of <60 %. The plants were rewatered and recovery measurements were taken 24 h later. Comparative studies of the most sensitive and the most tolerant lines of both cereals, as evaluated by their Performance Indices (PIabs), revealed a similar behavior in the sensitive lines, i.e., inhibiting effects of DS on PS II connectivity (occurrence of an L band), oxygen evolving complex (occurrence of a K band) and on the J step of the induction curves, associated with an inhibition of electron transport from Q A to Q B . These effects persisted or were even enhanced in the rewatered plants, which resulted in similar deviations of spider plots of the OJIP parameters in the sensitive lines of both species. In the most tolerant barley accession, drought effects on “early” events (i.e., L, K bands) were much smaller or negligible, and there was no pronounced effect on the J step. However, distinct increases of the I step occurred, pointing to inhibited electron flow to the intersystem electron carriers and beyond PS I. The most tolerant Sorghum line, in contrast, revealed nearly no effects of the DS and recovery treatment on the fluorescence induction curves and OJIP parameters.


Barley Chlorophyll fluorescence Drought stress Sorghum 





Drought stress(ed)




Performance index




Relative water content


Water holding capacity



This study was financially supported by the research funding programme “LOEWE—Landes-Offensive zur Entwicklung Wissenschaftlich-ökonomischer Exzellenz” of Hesse’s Ministry of Higher Education, Research, and the Arts.

Supplementary material

11738_2012_1077_MOESM1_ESM.docx (16 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 16 kb)
11738_2012_1077_MOESM2_ESM.docx (16 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 16 kb)


  1. Acar O, Türkan I, Özdemir F (2001) Superoxide dismutase and peroxidase activities in drought sensitive and resistant barley. Acta Physiol Plant 23:351–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashraf M, Foolad MR (2007) Roles of glycine betaine and proline in improving plant abiotic stress resistance. Environm Exp Bot 59:206–216. doi: 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2005.12.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beyel V, Brüggemann W (2005) Differential inhibition of photosynthesis during pre-flowering drought stress in Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench. genotypes with different senescence traits. Physiol Plant 124:249–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Edwards GE, Furbank RT, Hatch MD, Osmond CB (2001) What does it take to be C4? Lessons from the evolution of C4 photosynthesis. Plant Physiol 125:46–49PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Greenaway D, Hassan R, Reed GV (1994) An empirical analysis of comparative advantage in Egyptian agriculture. Appl Econom 26:649–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Lal A, Ku MSB, Edwards GE (1996) Analysis of inhibition of photosynthesis due to water stress in the C3 species Hordeum vulgare and Vicia faba: electron transport, CO2 fixation and carboxylation capacity. Photosynth Res 49:57–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ouakarroum A, Schansker G, Strasser RJ (2009) Drought stress effects on photosystem I content and photosystem II thermotolerance analyzed using Chl a fluorescence kinetics in barley varieties differing in their drought tolerance. Physiol Plant 137:188–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Oukarroum A, El Madidi S, Schansker G, Strasser RJ (2007) Probing the responses of barley cultivars (Hordeum vulgare L.) by chlorophyll a fluorescence OLKJIP under drought stress and re-watering. Environ Exp Bot 60:438–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Sarris AH (1985) Food security and agricultural production strategies under risk in Egypt. J Dev Econom 19:85–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Schansker G, Tóth S, Strasser RJ (2005) Methylviologen and dibromothymoquinone treatments of pea leaves reveal the role of photosystem I in the Chl a fluorescence rise OJIP. Biochim Biophys Acta 1706:250–261PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Shao R, Wang K, Shangguan Z (2010) Cytokinin-induced photosynthetic adaptability of Zea mays L. to drought stress associated with nitric oxide signal: probed by ESP spectroscopy and fast OJIP fluorescence rise. J Plant Physiol 167:472–479PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Smart RE, Bingham GE (1974) Rapid estimates of the relative water content. Plant Physiol 53:258–260PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Strasser RJ, Srivastava M, Tsimilli-Michael M (2000) The fluorescence transient as a tool to characterize and screen photosynthetic samples. In: Yunus M, Pathre U, Mohanty P (eds) Probing photosynthesis: mechanisms, regulation and adaption. Taylor & Francis, London, pp 445–483Google Scholar
  14. Strasser RJ, Tsimilli-Michael M, Srivastava A (2004) Analysis of the fluorescence transient. In: Papageorgiou GC, Govindjee (eds) Chlorophyll fluorescence: a signature of photosynthesis. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 321–362Google Scholar
  15. Strasser RJ, Tsimili-Michael M, Qiang S, Goltsev V (2010) Simultaneous in vivo recording of prompt and delayed fluorescence and 820-nm reflection changes during drying and after rehydration of the resurrection plant Haberlea rhodopensis. Biochim Biophys Acta 1797:1313–1326PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Thach LB, Shapcott A, Schmidt S, Critchley C (2007) The OJIP fast fluorescence rise characterizes Graptophyllum species and their stress responses. Photosynth Res 94:423–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Wingler A, Quick WP, Bungard RA, Bailey KJ, Lea PJ, Leegood RC (1999) The role of photorespiration during drought stress: an analysis utilizing barley mutants with reduced activities of photorespiratory enzymes. Plant Cell Environ 22:361–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Yan K, Chen P, Shao H, Zhao S, Zhang L, Zhang L, Xu S, Sun J (2011) Responses of photosynthesis and photosystem II to higher temperature and salt stress in Sorghum. J Agron Crop Sci. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-037X.2011.00498.x
  19. Yang WJ, Rich PJ, Axtell JD, Wood KV, Bonham CC, Ejeta G, Mickelbarth MV, Rhodes D (2003) Genotypic variation for glycinebetaine in Sorghum. Crop Sci 43:162–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Yordanov I, Goltsev V, Stefano D, Chernev P, Zaharieva I, Kirova M, Gecheva V, Strasser RJ (2008) Preservation of photosynthetic electron transport from senescence-induced inactivation in primary leaves after decapitation and defoliation of bean plants. J Plant Physiol 165:1954–1963PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Zivcak M, Brestic M, Olsovska K, Slamka P (2008) Performance Index as a sensitive indicator of water stress in Triticum aestivum L. Plant Soil Environ 54:133–139Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Franciszek Górski Institute of Plant Physiology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Kraków 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christoph Jedmowski
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ahmed Ashoub
    • 2
    • 3
  • Wolfgang Brüggemann
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Ecology, Evolution and DiversityUniversity of FrankfurtFrankfurtGermany
  2. 2.Biodiversity and Climate Research CentreSenckenberganlage 25FrankfurtGermany
  3. 3.Agricultural Genetic Engineering Research Institute (AGERI), ARCGizaEgypt

Personalised recommendations