Plant and Soil

, Volume 253, Issue 1, pp 201–218 | Cite as

Screening methods for salinity tolerance: a case study with tetraploid wheat

  • Rana Munns
  • Richard A. James


Fast and effective glasshouse screening techniques that could identify genetic variation in salinity tolerance were tested. The objective was to produce screening techniques for selecting salt-tolerant progeny in breeding programs in which genes for salinity tolerance have been introduced by either conventional breeding or genetic engineering. A set of previously unexplored tetraploid wheat genotypes, from five subspecies of Triticum turgidum, were used in a case study for developing and validating glasshouse screening techniques for selecting for physiologically based traits that confer salinity tolerance. Salinity tolerance was defined as genotypic differences in biomass production in saline versus non-saline conditions over prolonged periods, of 3–4 weeks. Short-term experiments (1 week) measuring either biomass or leaf elongation rates revealed large decreases in growth rate due to the osmotic effect of the salt, but little genotypic differences, although there were genotypic differences in long-term experiments. Specific traits were assessed. Na+ exclusion correlated well with salinity tolerance in the durum subspecies, and K+/Na+ discrimination correlated to a lesser degree. Both traits were environmentally robust, being independent of root temperature and factors that might influence transpiration rates such as light level. In the other four T. turgidum subspecies there was no correlation between salinity tolerance and Na+ accumulation or K+/Na+ discrimination, so other traits were examined. The trait of tolerance of high internal Na+ was assessed indirectly, by measuring chlorophyll retention. Five landraces were selected as maintaining green healthy leaves despite high levels of Na+ accumulation. Factors affecting field performance of genotypes selected by trait-based techniques are discussed.

durum wheat salinity Triticum turgidum 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aharon G S, Apse M P, Duan S, Hua X, Zhang H-X, Blumwald E 2003 Characterisation of a family of vacuolar Na+/H+ antiporters in Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant Soil 253, 245–256.Google Scholar
  2. Almansouri M, Kinet J-M and Lutts S 2001 Effect of salt and osmotic stresses on germination in durum wheat (Triticum durum Desf.). Plant Soil 231, 245–256.Google Scholar
  3. Asch F, Dingkuhn M, Dörffling K and Miezan K 2000 Leaf K/Na ratio predicts salinity induced yield loss in irrigated rice. Euphytica 113, 109–118.Google Scholar
  4. Ashraf M and McNeilly T 1988 Variability in salt tolerance of nine spring wheat cultivars. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 160, 14–21.Google Scholar
  5. Aslam M, Qureshi R H and Ahmed N 1993 A rapid screening technique for salt tolerance in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Plant Soil 150, 99–107.Google Scholar
  6. Chhipa B R and Lal P 1995 Na/K ratios as the basis of salt tolerance in wheat. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 46, 533–539.Google Scholar
  7. Cramer G R 2003 Differential effects of salinity on leaf elongation kinetics of three grass species. Plant Soil 253, 233–244.Google Scholar
  8. Damania A B 1991 The use of genetic resouces in breeding durum wheat. Plant Breed. Abstr. 61, 873–881.Google Scholar
  9. Dracup M 1993 Why does in vitro cell selection not improve the salt tolerance of plants? In Genetic Aspects of Plant Mineral Nutrition. Eds. PJ Randall, E Delhaize, RA Richards and R Munns. pp. 137–142. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  10. Dvorák J, Noaman M M, Goyal S and Gorham J 1994 Enhancement of the salt tolerance of Triticum turgidum L. by the Kna1 locus transferred from the Triticum aestivum L. chromosome 4D by homoeologous recombination. Theor. Appl. Gen. 87, 872–877.Google Scholar
  11. Flowers T J and Yeo A R 1986 Ion relations of plants under drought and salinity. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 13, 75–91.Google Scholar
  12. Flowers T J, Hajibagheri M A and Clipson N J W 1986 Halophytes. Q. Rev. Biol. 61, 313–337.Google Scholar
  13. Fortmeier R and Schubert S 1995 Salt tolerance of maize (Zea mays L.): the role of sodium exclusion. Plant Cell Environ. 18, 1041–1047.Google Scholar
  14. Francois L E, Maas E V, Donovan T J and Youngs V L 1986 Effect of salinity on grain yield and quality, vegetative growth, and germination of semi-dwarf and durum wheat. Agron. J. 78, 1053–1058.Google Scholar
  15. Garcia A, Senadhira D, Flowers T J and Yeo A R 1995 The effects of selection for sodium transport and of selection for agronomic characteristics upon salt resistance in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Theor. Appl. Gen. 90, 1106–1111.Google Scholar
  16. Gorham J, Hardy C, Wyn Jones R G, Joppa L R and Law C N 1987 Chromosomal location of a K/Na discrimination character in the D genome of wheat. Theor. Appl. Genet. 74, 584–588.Google Scholar
  17. Greenway H and Munns R 1980 Mechanisms of salt tolerance in nonhalophytes. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. 31, 149–190.Google Scholar
  18. Greenway H and Osmond C B 1972 Salt responses of enzymes from species differing in salt tolerance. Plant Physiol. 49, 256–259.Google Scholar
  19. Hollington P A 1998 Technological breakthroughs in screening/ breeding wheat varieties for salt tolerance. National Conference on 'Salinity management in agriculture'. CSSI Karnal, India, 2–5 December 1998.Google Scholar
  20. Husain S 2002 Physiology and genetics of salt tolerance in durum wheat. A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of the Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.Google Scholar
  21. James R A, Rivelli A R, Munns R and von Caemmerer S (2002) Factors affecting CO2 assimilation, leaf injury and growth in salt-stressed durum wheat. Funct. Plant Biol. 29, 1393–1403.Google Scholar
  22. Joshi Y C, Qadar A and Rana R S 1979 Differential sodium and potassium accumulation related to sodicity tolerance in wheat. Ind. J. Plant Physiol. 22, 226–230.Google Scholar
  23. Kingsbury R W and Epstein E 1984 Selection for salt-resistant spring wheat. Crop Sci 24, 310–14.Google Scholar
  24. Kurth E, Jensen A and Epstein E 1986 Resistance of fully imbibed tomato seeds to very high salinities. Plant Cell Environ. 9, 667–676.Google Scholar
  25. Maas E V and Grieve C M 1990 Spike and leaf development in salt-stressed wheat. Crop Sci. 30, 1309–1313.Google Scholar
  26. Malcolm C V, Lindley V A, O'Leary J W, Runciman H V and Barrett-Lennard E G 2003 Germination and establishment of halophyte shrubs in saline environments. Plant Soil 253, 171–185.Google Scholar
  27. Martin P K, Ambrose M J and Koebner R M D 1994 A wheat germplasm survey uncovers salt tolerance in genotypes not exposed to salt stress in the course of their selection. Aspects Appl. Biol. 39, 215–222.Google Scholar
  28. Miller D M 1987 Errors in the measurement of root pressure and exudation volume flow-rate caused by damage during the transfer of unsupported roots between solutions. Plant Physiol. 85, 164–166.Google Scholar
  29. Munns R 1993 Physiological processes limiting plant growth in saline soil: some dogmas and hypotheses. Plant Cell Environ. 16, 15–24.Google Scholar
  30. Munns R 2002 Comparative physiology of salt and water stress. Plant Cell Environ. 25, 239–250.Google Scholar
  31. Munns R and Richards R A 1998 Improving crop productivity in saline soils. In Productivity and Sustainability: Shaping the Future. Proc. 2nd Int. Crop Science Congress. Eds. V L Chopra, R B Singh and A Varma. pp. 453–464. Oxford and IBH Publishing, New Delhi.Google Scholar
  32. Munns R, Greenway H and Kirst G O 1983 Halotolerant eukaryotes. In Physiological Plant Ecology. III. Responses to the Chemical and Biological Environment. Eds. OL Lange, PS Nobel, CB Osmond and H Zeigler. pp. 59–135. Encycl. Plant Physiol., New Series, Vol. 12C. Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar
  33. Munns R, Schachtman D P and Condon A G 1995 The significance of a two-phase growth response to salinity in wheat and barley. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 22, 561–569.Google Scholar
  34. Munns R, Hare R A, James R A and Rebetzke G J 2000 Genetic variation for improving the salt tolerance of durum wheat. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 51, 69–74.Google Scholar
  35. Munns R, Husain S, Rivelli A R, James R A, Condon A G, Lindsay MP, Lagudah E S, Schachtman D and Hare RA 2002 Avenues for increasing salt tolerance of crops, and the role of physiologicallybased selection traits. Plant Soil 247, 93–105.Google Scholar
  36. Nicolas M E, Munns R, Samarakoon A B and Gifford R M 1993 Elevated CO2 improves the growth of wheat under salinity. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 20, 349–60.Google Scholar
  37. Noble C L and Rogers ME 1992 Arguments for the use of physiological criteria for improving the salt tolerance in crops. Plant Soil 146, 99–107.Google Scholar
  38. Norlyn J D and Epstein E 1982 Barley production: irrigation with seawater on coastal soil. In Biosaline Research: A look to the future. Ed. A. San Pietro. pp. 525–529. Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
  39. Norrish K and Hutton J T 1977 Plant analysis by X-ray spectrometry 1. Low atomic number elements, sodium to calcium. X-ray Spectrometry 6, 6–11.Google Scholar
  40. Rawson H M, Richards R A and Munns R 1988 An examination of selection criteria for salt-tolerance in wheat, barley and triticale genotypes. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 39, 759–772.Google Scholar
  41. Rengasamy P 2002 Transient salinity and subsoil constraints to dryland farming in Australian sodic soils: an overview. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 42, 351–361.Google Scholar
  42. Rebetzke G J, Read J J, Barbour M M, Condon A G and Rawson H M 2000 A hand-held porometer for rapid assessment of leaf conductance in wheat. Crop Sci. 40, 277–280.Google Scholar
  43. Reuter D J and Robertson J B (Eds.) 1986 Plant Analysis – An Interpretation Manual. Inkata Press, Melbourne.Google Scholar
  44. Richards R A 1983 Should selection for yield in saline regions be made on saline or non-saline soils? Euphytica 32, 431–438.Google Scholar
  45. Ridley A M, Christy B, Dunin F X, Haines P J, Wilson K F and Ellington A 2001 Lucerne in crop rotations on the Riverine Plains 1: The soil water balance. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 52, 279–293.Google Scholar
  46. Rivelli A R, James R A, Munns R and Condon A G 2002 Effect of salinity on water relations and growth of wheat genotypes with contrasting sodium uptake. Funct. Plant Biol. 29, 1065–1074.Google Scholar
  47. Rogers M E and Noble C L 1992 Variation in growth and ion accumulation between two selected populations of Trifolium repens L. differing in salt tolerance. Plant Soil 146, 131–136.Google Scholar
  48. Rogers M E, Noble C L, Halloran G M and Nicolas M E 1995 The effect of NaCl on the germination and early seedling growth of white clover (Trifolium repens L.) populations selected for high and low salinity tolerance. Seed Sci. Technol. 23, 277–287.Google Scholar
  49. Sayed H I 1985 Diversity of salt tolerance in a germplasm collection of wheat (Triticum spp.). Theor. Appl. Genet. 69, 651–657.Google Scholar
  50. Schachtman D P, Munns R and Whitecross M I 1991 Variation of sodium exclusion and salt tolerance in Triticum tauschii. Crop Sci. 31, 992–997.Google Scholar
  51. Schachtman D P, Lagudah E S and Munns R 1992 The expression of salt tolerance from Triticum tauschii in hexaploid wheat. Theor. Appl. Genet. 84, 714–719.Google Scholar
  52. Setter T M and Waters I 2003 Review of prospects for germplasm improvement for waterlogging tolerance in wheat, barley and oats. Plant Soil 253, 1–33.Google Scholar
  53. Shah S H, Gorham J, Forster B P and Wyn Jones R G 1987 Salt tolerance in the Triticeae: the contribution of the D genome to cation selectivity in hexaploid wheat. J. Exp. Bot. 38, 254–69.Google Scholar
  54. Shannon M C 1978 Testing salt tolerance variability among tall wheatgrass lines. Agron. J. 70, 719–722.Google Scholar
  55. Srivastava J P and Jana S 1984 Screening wheat and barley germplasm for salt tolerance. In Salinity Tolerance in Plants: Strategies for Crop Improvement. Ed. RC Staples and GH Toenniessen. pp. 273–283. Wiley, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  56. Tester M and Davenport R 2003 Na+ tolerance and Na+ transport in higher plants. Ann. Bot. 91, 503–527.Google Scholar
  57. Torres B C, Bingham F T and Oertli J 1974 Salt tolerance of Mexican wheat: II Relation to variable sodium chloride and length of growing season. Soil Sci. Amer. Proc. 38, 777–780.Google Scholar
  58. Weimberg R 1987 Solute adjustment in leaves of two species of wheat at two different stages of growth in response to salinity. Physiol Pant. 70, 381–388.Google Scholar
  59. Yeo AR and Flowers TJ 1983 Varietal differences in the toxicity of sodium ions in rice leaves. Physiol. Plant. 59, 189–195.Google Scholar
  60. Yeo A R and Flowers T J 1986 Salinity resistance in rice (Oryza sativa L.) and a pyramiding approach to breeding varieties for saline soils. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 13, 161–73.Google Scholar
  61. Yeo A R, Yeo M E, Flowers S A and Flowers T J 1990 Screening of rice (Oryza sativa L.) genotypes for physiological characters contributing to salinity resistance, and their relationship to overall performance. Theor. Appl. Gen. 79, 377–384.Google Scholar
  62. Zhu G Y, Kinet J-M, Lutts S 2001 Characterisation of rice (Oryza sativa L.) F3 populations selected for salt resistance. I. Physiological behaviour during vegetative growth. Euphytica 121, 25–263.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CSIRO Plant IndustryCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations