Comparative response of a hulled and a free-threshing tetraploid wheat to plant growth promoting bacteria and saline irrigation water

Original Article


Given the potential of wild and semi-domesticated varieties of crop plants as genetic sources of stress tolerance-related traits, along with a capability of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) in promoting plant growth under adverse environmental conditions, response of a hulled tetraploid wheat, in comparison to a durum cultivar, to saline water at the presence of three PGPR strains was examined in a field study. Changes in some physiological attributes including chlorophyll (chl) a, b, and total chl (chl-tot), proline, soluble carbohydrates, Na+ and K+ concentrations, Na+/K+ and grain yield and its attributes, dry mass and harvest index in “Joneghan” as a hulled tetraploid wheat and “Yavaroos” as a durum wheat cultivar were studied using a 3-replicate split-plot randomized complete block experiment. Irrigation water salt levels (control, 100 and 200 mM of NaCl) were chosen as main plots, and the two tetraploid wheat genotypes and three PGPR strains (550, 57, and UW3) and bacteria-free control were considered as subplots. The 200 mM salt level led to significant decreases in chl-a, chl-b, chl-tot, LAI, K+, grain yield/m2, grains/spike, spikes/m2, grains/m2, 1000-grain weight, dry mass, and harvest index; however, it led to significant increases in Na+, Na+/K+, proline, and soluble carbohydrate contents of the two tetraploid wheat types. Salinity adversely affected the latter traits in the two types of tetraploid wheat in, almost, a same manner and proportion, except for dry mass and harvest index, proving that the hulled tetraploid wheat is not notably different from the durum wheat in its response to the saline water. Bacterial strains effects on the above-mentioned traits varied with salt level. Strain UW3 appeared to leave mitigative effects at 200 mM and strain 550 did not seem potent to ameliorate the salt stress even at the 100 mM NaCl level. From the data obtained in the present study, we can conclude that the PGPR efficacy in mitigating salt stress in tetraploid wheat is salt level and bacterial strain specific. The “Joneghan” hulled tetraploid wheat was out-performed by the “Yavaroos” durum wheat, though its yield penalty due to saline water did not appear to differ from that of the latter durum genotype.


Hulled wheat Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria Salinity 



Thje financial support for conducting this experiment has been provided by the Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran. The authors are greatly thankful to Professor Bernard Glick (Department of Biology, University of Waterloo, Canada) and Dr. Hossien Ali Alikhani (Faculty of Agriculture, University of Tehran, Iran) for providing the bacterial strains.


  1. Abdel-Aal ESM, Sosulski FW, Hucl P (1998a) Origins, characteristics, and potentials of ancient wheats. Cereal Food World 43:708–715Google Scholar
  2. Abdel-Aal ESM, Sosulski FW, Hucl P (1998b) Food uses for ancient wheats. Cereal Food World 43:763–766Google Scholar
  3. Ashraf M, Harris PJC (2004) Potential biochemical indicators of salinity tolerance in plants. Plant Sci 166:3–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Azizpour K, Shakiba MR, KhosKholghsima NA et al (2010) Physiological response of spring durum wheat genotypes to salinity. J Plant Nutr 33:859–873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bamakhramah HS, Halloran GM, Wilson JH (1984) Components of yield in diploid, tetraploid and hexaploid wheats (Triticum spp.). Ann Bot-London 54:51–60Google Scholar
  6. Barreto Figueiredo do Vale M, Seldin L, Araujo FF, Lima Ramos Mariano de R (2010) Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria: fundamentals and applications. In: Maheshwari DK (ed) Plant growth and health promoting bacteria. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 21–43Google Scholar
  7. Bates LS, Waldran RP, Teare ID (1973) Rapid determination of free proline for water studies. Plant Soil 39:205–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bazrafshan AH, Ehsanzadeh P (2014) Growth, photosynthesis and ion balance of sesame (Sesamum indicum L.) genotypes in response to NaCl concentration in hydroponic solutions. Photosynthetica 52:134–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bhandal IS, Malik CP (1988) Potassium estimation, uptake, and its role in the physiology and metabolism of flowering plants. Int Rev Cytol 110:205–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Debez A, Ben Hamed K, Grignon C et al (2004) Salinity effects on germination, growth, and seed production of the halophyte Cakile maritima. Plant Soil 262:179–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Delauney AJ, Verma P (1993) Proline biosynthesis and osmoregulation in plants. Plant J 4:215–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dubois M, Gilles KA, Hamilton JK, Rebers PA, Smith F (1956) Colorimetric method for determination of sugars and related substances. Anal Chem 28(3):350–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Egamberdieva D, Jabborova D, Wirth S (2013) Alleviation of salt stress in legumes by co-inoculation with Pseudomonas and Rhizobium. In: Arora NK (ed) Plant Microbe Symbiosis: Fundamentals and Advances. Springer, India, pp 291–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ehsanzadeh P, Sabagh Nekoonam M, Nouri Azhar J et al (2009) Growth, chlorophyll, and cation concentration of tetraploid wheat on a solution high in sodium chloride salt: hulled versus free-threshing genotypes. J Plant Nutr 32:58–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Evans LT, Dunstone RL (1970) Some physiological aspects of evolution in wheat. Aust J Biol Sci 23:725–741Google Scholar
  16. Fageria NK, Baligar VC, Clark RB (2006) Physiology of Crop Production. Food Products Press, NYGoogle Scholar
  17. FAO (2000) Land Resource Potential and Constraints at Regional and Country Levels. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  18. Gaju O, Reynolds MP, Sparkes DL, Mayes S, Ribas-Vargas G, Crossa J, Foulkes MJ (2014) Relationships between physiological traits, grain number and yield potential in a wheat DH population of large spike phenotype. Field Crop Res 164:126–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Genc Y, McDonald GK, Tester M (2007) Reassessment of tissue Na+ concentration as a criterion for salinity tolerance in bread wheat. Plant Cell Environ 30:1486–1498CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Giacintucci V, Guardeño L, Puig A, Hernando I, Sacchetti G, Pittia P (2014) Composition, protein contents, and microstructural characterization of grains and flours of emmer wheats (Triticum turgidum ssp. dicoccum) of the Central Italy type. Czech J Food Sci 32:115–121Google Scholar
  21. Gilbert GA, Gadush MV, Wilson C, Madore MA (1998) Amino acid accumulation in sink and source tissues of Coleus blumei Benth. during salinity stress. J Exp Bot 49(318):107–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Glick BR, Karaturovíc D, Newell P (1995) A novel procedure for rapid isolation of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria. Can J Microbiol 41:533–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gorham J, Hardy C, Wyn Jones RG et al (1987) Chromosomal location of a K/Na discrimination character in the D genome of wheat. Theor Appl Genet 74:584–588CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Hucl P, Baker J (1987) A study of ancestral and modern Canadian spring wheats. Can J Plant Sci 67:87–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kiani-Pouya A, Rasouli F (2014) The potential of leaf chlorophyll content to screen bread-wheat genotypes in saline condition. Photosynthetica 52:288–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kramer PJ, Boyer JS (1995) Water relation of plants and soils. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Li G, Wan S, Zhou J et al (2010) Leaf chlorophyll fluorescence, hyperspectral reflectance, pigments content, malondialdehyde and proline accumulation responses of castor bean (Ricinus communis L.) seedlings to salt stress levels. Ind Crop Prod 31:13–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lichtenthaler HK, Buschmann C (2001) Chlorophylls and carotenoids: measurement and characterization by UV-VIS spectroscopy. In: current protocols in food analytical chemistry. F4.2.1–F4.2.6Google Scholar
  29. Marti J, Slafer G (2014) Bread and durum wheat yields under a wide range of environmental conditions. Field Crop Res 156:258–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Misra N, Dwivedi UN (2004) Genotypic difference in salinity tolerance of green gram cultivars. Plant Sci 166:1135–1142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mohamed HI, Gomaa EZ (2012) Effect of plant growth promoting Bacillus subtilis and Pseudomonas fluorescens on growth and pigment composition of radish plants (Raphanus sativus) under NaCl stress. Photosynthetica 50:263–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Munns R (2002) Comparative physiology of salt and water stress. Plant Cell Environ 25:239–250CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Munns R, Tester M (2008) Mechanisms of salinity tolerance. Annu Rev Plant Biol 59:651–681CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Nabti E, Sahnoune M, Ghoul M, Fischer D, Hofmann A, Rothballer M, Schmid M, Hartmann A (2010) Restoration of growth of durum wheat (Triticum durum var. waha) under saline conditions due to inoculation with the rhizosphere bacterium Azospirillum brasilense NH and extracts of the marine alga Ulva lactuca. J Plant Growth Regul 29:6–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nadeem SM, Zahir ZA, Naveed M, Arshad M (2007) Preliminary investigations on inducing salt tolerance in maize through inoculation with rhizobacteria containing ACC deaminase activity. Can J Microbiol 53:1141–1149CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Naz I, Bano I (2010) Biochemical, molecular characterization and growth promoting effects of phosphate solubilising Pseudomonas sp. isolated from weeds grown in salt range of Pakistan. Plant Soil 334:199–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pagnotta MA, Mondini L, Codianni P, Fares C (2009) Agronomical, quality, and molecular characterization of twenty Italian emmer wheat (Triticum dicoccon) accessions. Genet Resour Crop Evol 56:299–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Parvaiz A, Satyawati S (2008) Salt stress and phyto-biochemical responses of plants—a review. Plant Soil Environ 54:89–99Google Scholar
  39. Pereg L, Mcmillan M (2015) Scoping the potential uses of beneficial microorganisms for increasing productivity in cotton cropping systems. Soil Biol Biochem 80:349–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Potters G, Pasternak TP, Guisez Y, Palme KJ, Jansen MAK (2007) Stress-induced morphogenic responses: growing out of trouble? Trends Plant Sci 12:98–105CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Potters G, Pasternak TP, Guisez Y, Palme KJ, Jansen MAK (2009) Different stresses, similar morphogenic responses: integrating a plethora of pathways. Plant Cell Environ 32:158–169CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Pourazari F, Vico G, Ehsanzadeh P, Weih P (2015) Contrasting growth pattern and nitrogen economy in hulled and free threshing wheat. Can J Plant Sci 95(5):851–860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Richards RA, Dennett CW, Qualset CO, Epstein E, Norlyn JD, Winslow MD (1987) Variation in yield of grain and biomass in wheat, barley, and triticale in a salt-affected field. Field Crop Res 15:277–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sadras VO, Slafer GA (2012) Environmental modulation of yield components in cereals: heritabilities reveal a hierarchy of phenotypic plasticities. Field Crop Res 127:215–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Santos CV (2004) Regulation of chlorophyll biosynthesis and degradation by salt stress in sunflower leaves. Sci Hortic 103:93–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Shabala S, Munns R (2012) Salinity stress: physiological constraints and adaptive mechanisms. In: Shabala S (ed) Plant stress physiology. CAB International, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Singh AK, Dubey RS (1995) Changes in chlorophyll a and b contents and activities of photosystems I and II in rice seedlings induced by NaCl. Photosynthetica 31:489–499Google Scholar
  48. Slafer GA, Savin R, Sadras VO (2014) Coarse and fine regulation of wheat yield components in response to genotype and environment. Field Crop Res 157:71–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sun J, Jia YX, Guo SR, Li J, Shu S (2010) Resistance of spinach plants to seawater stress is correlated with higher activity of xanthophyll cycle and better maintenance of chlorophyll metabolism. Photosynthetica 48:567–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tewari S, Arora NK (2014) Multifunctional exopolysaccharides from Pseudomonas aeruginosa PF23 involved in plant growth stimulation, biocontrol and stress amelioration in sunflower under saline conditions. Curr Micribiol 69:484–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tian Z, Jing Q, Dai T, Jiang D, Cao W (2011) Effects of genetic improvements on grain yield and agronomic traits of winter wheat in the Yangtze River Basin of China. Field Crop Res 124:417–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Troccoli A, Codianni P (2005) appropriate seeding rate for einkorn, emmer, and spelt grown under rain fed condition in southern Italy. Eur J Agron 22(3):293–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zahir AZ, Ghani U, Naveed M, Nadeem SM, Asghar HN (2009) Comparative effectiveness of Pseudomonas and Serratia sp. containing ACC-deaminase for improving growth and yield of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) under salt-stressed conditions. Arch Microbiol 191:415–424CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Franciszek Górski Institute of Plant Physiology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Kraków 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Agronomy and Plant BreedingCollege of Agriculture, Isfahan University of TechnologyIsfahanIran

Personalised recommendations