Cereal Research Communications

, Volume 39, Issue 1, pp 32–43 | Cite as

The flexibility of wheat and barley genomes under salinity stress and honeycomb evaluation

  • C. G. IpsilandisEmail author
  • B. Vafias
  • V. Greveniotis
  • L. Giakalis
  • P. N. Deligeorgidis


The aim of this study was to find genetic variability within established cultivars of barley, bread and durum wheat, after applying salinity stress for five years. Bread wheat varieties Irnerio, Generoso and Yecora, together with durum wheat varieties Mexicali81, Simeto and Bob, and barley varieties Athinais and Cannon were used. For this purpose, certified seed of the above-mentioned varieties was sown in pots containing a mixture of soils salinized by different quantities of salt. Following a certain experimental scheme that produced progressively new treatments at the same or higher salinity level and after five cycles of evaluation, there were formed new seed partitions for final evaluation under honeycomb designs. The results showed that wheat and barley genomes are quite flexible, allowing selection within variety for certain agronomic performance. Salt stress proved to be a serious stress for the health of evaluated plants (for all species) and thus, we were not able to discover genotypes exhibiting salt tolerance. Seed germination and plant yield declined rapidly at higher concentrations of salt. In spite of this, comparing two-year honeycomb experimental data, these stress conditions resulted indirectly to drought tolerance (due to the flexibility of genomes for species used), confirmed from additional data after evaluation of barley varieties in pots. The genetic mechanism for such phenotypic behavior remains to be studied.


salinity tolerance genome flexibility bread durum wheat barley honeycomb 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Autrique, E., Nachit, M.M., Monneveux, P., Tanksley, S., Sorrells, M.E. 1996. Genetic diversity of durum wheat based on RFLPs, morphophysiological traits and coefficient of parentage. Crop Sci. 36:735–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baâci, S.A., Ekiz, H., Yilmaz, A. 2003. Determination of the salt tolerance of some barley genotypes and the characteristics affecting tolerance. Turk. J. Agric. For. 27:253–260.Google Scholar
  3. Bregitzer, P., Tonks, D. 2003. Inheritance and expression of transgenes in barley. Crop Sci. 43:4–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Byth, D.E., Weber, C.R. 1968. Effects of genetic heterogeneity within two soybean populations. I. Variability within environments and stability across environments. Crop Sci. 8:44–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Colmer, T.D., Flowers, T.J., Munns, R. 2006. Use of wild relatives to improve salt tolerance in wheat. J. Exp. Bot. 57:1059–1078.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. El-Hendawy, S.E., Hu, Y., Yakout, G.M., Awad, A.M., Hafiz, S.E., Schmidhalter, U. 2005a. Evaluating salt tolerance of wheat genotypes using multiple parameters. European J. Agron. 22:243–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. El-Hendawy, S.E., Hu, Y., Schmidhalter, U. 2005b. Growth, ion content, gas exchange, and water relations of wheat genotypes differing in salt tolerances. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 56:123–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Farah, M.A., Anter, I.M. 1978. Salt tolerance of eight varieties of rice. Agric. Res. Rev. 56:9–15.Google Scholar
  9. Fasoula, D.A. 1990. Correlations between auto-, allo- and nil-competition and their implications in plant breeding. Euphytica 50:57–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fasoula, V.A., Fasoula, D.A. 2000. Honeycomb breeding: Principles and applications. Plant Breed. Rev. 18:177–250.Google Scholar
  11. Fasoulas, A.C. 1988. The Honeycomb Methodology of Plant Breeding. A. Altidjis Publ., Thessaloniki, GR-54006, pp. 1–168.Google Scholar
  12. Fasoulas, A.C. 1993. Principles of Crop Breeding. A.C. Fasoulas, P.O. Box 19555, Thessaloniki, GR-54006, pp. 1–128.Google Scholar
  13. Fasoulas, A.C. 2000. Building up resistance to Verticillium wilt in cotton through honeycomb breeding. In: Gillham, F.M. (ed.), New Frontiers in Cotton Research. Proceedings of the 2nd World Cotton Research Conference. 1998, September 6–12. Athens, Greece, pp. 120–124.Google Scholar
  14. Fasoulas, A.C., Fasoula, V.A. 1995. Honeycomb selection designs. Plant Breed. Rev. 13:87–138.Google Scholar
  15. Fehr, W.R. 1987. Principles of Cultivar Development. Vol. 1. Macmillan Publ. Co., New York, USA.Google Scholar
  16. Frederic, J.R., Bauer, P.J. 1999. Physiological and numerical components of wheat yield. In: Satorre, E.H., Slafer, G.A. (eds), Wheat-ecology and Physiology of Yield Determination. Food Products Press, New York, NY, USA, pp. 45–84.Google Scholar
  17. Gethi, J.G., Labate, J.A., Lamkey, K.R., Smith, M.E., Kresovich, S. 2002. SSR variation in important U.S. maize inbred lines. Crop Sci. 42:951–957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gordon, I.L., Byth, D.E. 1972. Comparisons among strains of the tobacco cultivar Hicks illustrating variability within a single cultivar. Qld. J. Agric. Anim. Sci. 29:255–264.Google Scholar
  19. Huang, S., Spielmeyer, W., Lagudah, E.S., James, R.A., Platten, J.D., Dennis, E.S., Munns, R. 2006. A sodium transporter (HKT7) is a candidate for Nax1, a gene for salt tolerance in durum wheat. Plant Physiol. 142:1718–1727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hussain, N., Khan, G.D., Tahir, M., Mujeeb, F., Arshad Ullah, M., Ahmad, A. 2002. Salinity and waterlogging interaction in wheat. Asian J. of Plant Sci. 1:15–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ipsilandis, C.G., Koutsika-Sotiriou, M. 2000. The combining ability of recombinant S-lines developed from an F2 maize population. J. Agric. Sci., Cambridge 134:191–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ipsilandis, C.G., Deligeorgidis, P.N., Giakalis, L., Koutsika, M., Papadopoulou, A. Xanthopoulos, V. 2005. Breeding for homozygotic superiority and stability in maize without losing combining ability. Asian J. of Plant Sci. 4:499–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kingsbury, R.W., Epstein, E. 1984. Selection for salt-resistant spring wheat. Crop Sci. 24:310–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mahmood, A. 2009. A new rapid and simple method of screening wheat plants at early stage of growth for salinity tolerance. Pak. J. Bot. 41:255–262.Google Scholar
  25. Mass, E.V., Hoffman, G.J. 1975. Crop Salt Tolerance — Current Assessment. ASCE Specialty Conference, 13–15 August, 1975. Irrigation and Drainage Division. US Salinity Laboratory, ARS. USDA. Riverside, California, USA, p. 42.Google Scholar
  26. Munns, R., James, R.A. 2003. Screening methods for salinity tolerance: a case study with tetraploid wheat. Plant and Soil 253:201–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Plaut, Z., Butow, B.J., Blumenthal, C.S., Wrigley, C.W. 2003. Transport of dry matter into developing wheat kernels and its contribution to grain yield under post-anthesis water deficit and elevated temperature. Field Crops Res. 86:185–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Prabhakarand Nair, K.P., Khulbe, N.C. 1990. Differential response of wheat and barley genotypes to substrate-induced salinity under North Indian conditions. Experimental Agriculture 26:221–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rawson, H.M., Richards, R.A., Munns, R. 1988. An examination of selection criteria for salt tolerance in wheat, barley and triticale genotypes. Australian J. of Agricult. Res. 39:759–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sabot, F., Guyot, R., Wicker, T., Chantret, N., Laubin, B., Chalhoub, B., Leroy, P., Sourdille, P., Bernard, M. 2005. Updating of transposable element annotations from large wheat genomic sequences reveals diverse activities and gene associations. Molecular Genetics and Genomics 274:119–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sanaullah, M. 2000. Physiological Characterization of Salt Tolerance in Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) and Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). PhD Thesis, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan, pp. 1–251.Google Scholar
  32. Sayed, H.I. 1985. Diversity of salt tolerance in germplasm collection of wheat (Triticum spp.). Theor. Appl. Genet. 69:651–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shannon, M.C. 1997. Adaptation of plants to salinity. Advances in Agronomy 60:75–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shavrukov, Y., Langridge, P., Tester, M. 2009. Salinity tolerance and sodium exclusion in genus Triticum. Breeding. Science 59:671–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Snedecor, G.W., Cochran, W.G. 1980. Statistical Methods. 7th edition. The Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, USA.Google Scholar
  36. Suprunova, T., Krugman, T., Distelfeld, A., Fahima, T., Nevo, E., Korol, A. 2007. Identification of a novel gene (Hsdr4) involved in water-stress tolerance in wild barley. Plant Mol. Biol. 64:17–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Thalji, T., Shalaldeh, G. 2007. Screening wheat and barley genotypes for salinity resistance. J. of Agron. 6:75–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tokatlidis, I.S. 2000. Variation within maize lines and hybrids in the absence of competition and relation between hybrid potential yield per plant with line traits. J. Agric. Sci. 134:391–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tokatlidis, I.S., Koutsika-Sotiriou, M., Fasoulas, A.C. 2001. The development of population independent maize hybrids. Maydica 46:21–25.Google Scholar
  40. Tokatlidis, I.S., Xynias, I.N., Tsialtas, J.T., Papadopoulos, I.I. 2006. Single-plant selection at ultra-low density to improve stability of a bread wheat cultivar. Crop Sci. 46:90–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tokatlidis, I.S., Tsialtas, J.T., Xynias, I.N., Tamoutsidis, E., Irakli, M. 2004. Variation within a bread wheat cultivar for grain yield, protein content, carbon isotope discrimination and ash content. Field Crops Res. 86:33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Traka-Mavrona, E., Georgakis, D., Koutsika-Sotiriou, M. 2004. Improvement in the stability and yield performance of a snap bean cultivar. J. Vegetable Crop Prod. 9:19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Traka-Mavrona, E., Georgakis, D., Koutsika-Sotiriou, M., Pritsa, T. 2000. An integrated approach of breeding and maintaining an elite cultivar of snap bean. Agron. J. 92:1020–1026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zhang, Y.X., Gentzbittel, L., Vear, F., Nicolas, P. 1995. Assessment of inter- and intra-inbred line variability in sunflower (Helianthus annuus) by RFLPs. Genome 38:1040–1048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. G. Ipsilandis
    • 1
    Email author
  • B. Vafias
    • 1
  • V. Greveniotis
    • 2
  • L. Giakalis
    • 2
  • P. N. Deligeorgidis
    • 2
  1. 1.Technological Education Institute of LarissaLarissaGreece
  2. 2.Department of Plant ProductionTechnological Education Institution of W. Macedonia - Branch of FlorinaFlorinaGreece

Personalised recommendations