Current Status Of Breeding Tomatoes For Salt And Drought Tolerance

  • Majid R. Foolad


Salinity and drought are among the most challenging environmental constraints to crop productivity worldwide. The cultivated tomato, Lycopersicon esculentum Mill., is moderately sensitive to both of these stresses throughout its ontogeny, including during seed germination, seedling emergence, vegetative growth and reproduction. Limited variation exists within the cultivated tomato for abiotic stress tolerance, however, the related wild species of tomato is a rich source of genetic variation which can be used for crop improvement. During the past several decades this variation has been utilized for characterization of physiological and genetic bases of tolerance to different abiotic stresses, including salinity and drought. Abiotic stress tolerance is a complex phenomenon, controlled by more than one gene and influenced by uncontrollable environmental factors. Furthermore, tomato stress tolerance is a developmentally-regulated state-specific phenomenon, such that tolerance at one stage of plant development is independent of tolerance at other stages. This has been demonstrated by analysis of response and correlated response to selection as well as identification of quantitative trait loci (QTLs) conferring tolerance at different stages. Transgenic approaches also have been employed to gain a better understanding of the genetic and physiological bases of salt and, to a lesser degree, drought tolerance in tomato, and to develop transgenic plants with improved stress tolerance. However, despite considerable traditional genetics and physiological research as well as contemporary molecular marker and transgenic studies in tomato, there is yet no report of any commercial cultivar of tomato with salt or drought tolerance. To achieve this goal, cooperation among plant geneticists, physiologists, molecular biologists and breeders engaged in tomato stress tolerance is imperative. In this chapter, I review the recent progresses in genetics and breeding of salt and drought tolerance in tomato and discuss the prospects for developing commercial cultivars with stress tolerance


breeding drought stress drought tolerance gene mapping genetic engineering genetic transformation quantitative trait loci (QTL) salt stress salt tolerance transgenic plants 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abel GH, Mackenzie AJ (1963) Salt tolerance of soybean varieties (Glycine max L. Merrill) during germination and later growth. Crop Sci 3:159–161Google Scholar
  2. Adams P (1991) Effects of increasing the salinity of the nutrient solution with major nutrients or sodium chloride on the yield, quality and composition of tomatoes grown in rockwool. J Hort Sci 66:201–207Google Scholar
  3. Adams P, Ho LC (1992) The susceptibility of modern tomato cultivars to blossom-end rot in relation to salinity. J Hort Sci 67:827–839Google Scholar
  4. Apse MP, Aharon GS, Snedden WA, Blumwald E (1999) Salt tolerance conferred by overexpression of a vaculolar Na/H anitort in Arabidopsis. Science 285:1256–1258PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Apse MP, Blumwald E (2002) Engineering salt tolerance in plants. Curr Opin Biotech 13:146–150PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Arumuganathan K, Earle ED (1991) Nuclear DNA content of some important plant species. Plant Mol Biol Rep 9:208–218Google Scholar
  7. Ashraf M, McNeilly T (1988) Variability in salt tolerance of nine spring wheat cultivars. J Agron Crop Sci 160:14–21Google Scholar
  8. Asins MJ, Breto MP, Cambra M, Carbonell EA (1993a) Salt tolerance in Lycopersicon species. I. Character definition and changes in gene expression. Theor Appl Genet 86:737–743Google Scholar
  9. Asins MJ, Breto MP, Carbonell EA (1993b) Salt tolerance in Lycopersicon species. II. Genetic effects and a search for associated traits. Theor Appl Genet 86:769–774Google Scholar
  10. Bajaj S, Targolli J, Liu LF, Ho THD, Wu R (1999) Transgenic approaches to increase dehydration-stress tolerance in plants. Mol Breed 5:493–503Google Scholar
  11. Bartels D, Sunkar R (2005) Drought and salt tolerance in plants. Crit Rev Plant Sci 24:23–58Google Scholar
  12. Bliss FA, Platt-Aloia KA, Thomson WW (1986) Osmotic sensitivity in relation to salt sensitivity in germinating barley seeds. Plant Cell Environ 9:721–725Google Scholar
  13. Blum A (1988) Plant Breeding for Stress Environment. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  14. Bohnert HJ, Shen B (1999) Transformation and compatible solutes. Scientia Hort 78:237–260Google Scholar
  15. Bolarin MC, Fernandez FG, Cruz V, Cuartero J (1991) Salinity tolerance in four wild tomato species using vegetative yield-salinity response curves. J Am Soc Hort Sci 116:286–290Google Scholar
  16. Bolarin MC, Perez-Alfocea F, Cano EA, Estan MT, Caro M (1993) Growth, fruit yield, and ion concentration in tomato genotypes after pre- and post-emergence salt treatments. J Am Soc Hort Sci 118:655–660Google Scholar
  17. Boyer JS (1982) Plant Productivity and environment. Science 218:443–448PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Bradford KJ (1986) Manipulation of seed water relations via osmotic priming to improve germination under stress conditions. HortScience 21:1105–1112Google Scholar
  19. Bradford KJ (1995) Water relations in seed germination. In: Kigel J, Galili G (eds) Seed Development and Germination. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, pp 351–396Google Scholar
  20. Breto MP, Asins MJ, Carbonell EA (1993) Genetic variablility in Lycopersicon species and their genetic relationships. Theor Appl Genet 86:113–120Google Scholar
  21. Cano EA, Perez-Alfocea F, Moreno V, Caro M, Bolarin MC (1998) Evaluation of salt tolerance in cultivated and wild tomato species through in vitro shoot apex culture. Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Cult 53:19–26Google Scholar
  22. Caro M, Cruz V, Cuartero J, Estan MT, Bolarin MC (1991) Salinity tolerance of normal-fruited and cherry tomato cultivars. Plant and Soil 136:249–255Google Scholar
  23. Ceccarelli S, Grando S (1996) Drought as a challenge for the plant breeder. Plant Growth Regul 20:149–155Google Scholar
  24. Cherian S, Reddy MP, Ferreira RB (2006) Transgenic plants with improved dehydration-stress tolerance: progress and future prospects. Biol Plant 50:481–495Google Scholar
  25. Chinnusamy V, Jagendorf A, Zhu J-K (2005) Understanding and improving salt tolerance in plants. Crop Sci 45:437–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Choudhuri GN (1968) Effect of soil salinity on germination and survival of some steppe plants in Washington. Ecology 49:465–471Google Scholar
  27. Cohen A, Plant AL, Moses MS, Bray EA (1991) Organ-specific and environmentally regulated expression of two absicisic acid-induced genes of tomato. Plant Physiol 97:1367–1374PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Cook RE (1979) Patterns of juvenile morbidity and recruitment in plants. In: Solbrig OT, Jain S, Johnson GB, Raven PH (eds) Topics in plant population biology. Columbia University Press, Los Angeles, pp 207–301Google Scholar
  29. Cortina C, Culianez-Macia FA (2005) Tomato abiotic stress enhanced tolerance by trehalose biosynthesis. Plant Sci 169:75–82Google Scholar
  30. Cuartero J, Bolarin MC, Asins MJ, Moreno V (2006) Increasing salt tolerance in the tomato. J Exp Bot 57:1045–1058PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Cuartero J, Fernandez-Munoz R (1999) Tomato and salinity. Scientia Hort 78:83–125Google Scholar
  32. Cuartero J, Yeo AR, Flowers TJ (1992) Selection of donors for salt-tolerance in tomato using physiological traits. New Phytol 121:63–69Google Scholar
  33. Dahal P, Bradford KJ, Jones RA (1990) Effects of priming and endosperm integrity on seed germination rates of tomato genotypes: I. Germination at suboptimal temperature. J Expt Bot 41:1431–1440Google Scholar
  34. Dehan K, Tal M (1978) Salt tolerance in the wild relatives of the cultivated tomato: Responses of Solanum pennellii to high salinity. Irrig Sci 1:71–76Google Scholar
  35. Duvick DN (1986) Plant breeding: past achievement and expectations for the future. Econ Bot 40:289–294Google Scholar
  36. Epstein E, Norlyn JD, Rush DW, Kingsbury RW, Kelly DB, Gunningham GA, Wrona AF (1980) Saline culture of crops: A genetic approach. Science 210:399–404PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Esau K (1953) Plant Anatomy. John Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. FAOSTAT (2005) FAO Statistical Databases. Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations, Statistics DivisionGoogle Scholar
  39. Flowers TJ, Yeo AR (1988) Salinity and Rice: a physiological approach to breeding for resistance. The International congress of Plant Physiology, New Delhi, India, pp 953–959Google Scholar
  40. Flowers TJ, Yeo AR (1997) Breeding for salt resistance in plants. In: Jaiwal PK, Singh RP, Gulati A (eds) Strategies for improving salt tolerance in higher plants. Science Publishers, Inc., U.S.A., pp 247–264Google Scholar
  41. Foolad MR (1996a) Genetic analysis of salt tolerance during vegetative growth in tomato, Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. Plant Breed 115:245–250Google Scholar
  42. Foolad MR (1996b) Response to selection for salt tolerance during germination in tomato seed derived from P.I. 174263. J Am Soc Hort Sci 121:1006–1011Google Scholar
  43. Foolad MR (1997) Genetic basis of physiological traits related to salt tolerance in tomato, Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. Plant Breed 116:53–58Google Scholar
  44. Foolad MR (1999) Comparison of salt tolerance during seed germination and vegetative growth in tomato by QTL mapping. Genome 42:727–734Google Scholar
  45. Foolad MR (2004) Recent advances in genetics of salt tolerance in tomato. Plant Cell, Tiss Org Cult 76:101–119Google Scholar
  46. Foolad MR, Chen FQ (1998) RAPD markers associated with salt tolerance in an Interspecific cross of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum ∞ L. pennellii). Plant Cell Rep 17:306–312Google Scholar
  47. Foolad MR, Chen FQ (1999) RFLP mapping of QTLs conferring salt tolerance during vegetative stage in tomato. Theor Appl Genet 99:235–243Google Scholar
  48. Foolad MR, Chen FQ, Lin GY (1998) RFLP mapping of QTLs conferring salt tolerance during germination in an interspecific cross of tomato. Theor Appl Genet 97:1133–1144Google Scholar
  49. Foolad MR, Jones RA (1991) Genetic analysis of salt tolerance during germination in Lycopersicon. Theor Appl Genet 81:321–326Google Scholar
  50. Foolad MR, Jones RA (1992) Parent-offspring regression estimates of heritability for salt tolerance during germination in tomato. Crop Sci 32:439–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Foolad MR, Jones RA (1993) Mapping salt-tolerance genes in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) using trait-based marker analysis. Theor Appl Genet 87:184–192Google Scholar
  52. Foolad MR, Lin GY (1997a) Absence of a relationship between salt tolerance during germination and vegetative growth in tomato. Plant Breed 116:363–367Google Scholar
  53. Foolad MR, Lin GY (1997b) Genetic potential for salt tolerance during germination in Lycopersicon species. HortScience 32:296–300Google Scholar
  54. Foolad MR, Stoltz T, Dervinis C, Rodriguez RL, Jones RA (1997) Mapping QTLs conferring salt tolerance during germination in tomato by selective genotyping. Mol Breed 3:269–277Google Scholar
  55. Foolad MR, Subbiah P, Kramer C, Hargrave G, Lin GY (2003a) Genetic relationships among cold, salt and drought tolerance during seed germination in an interspecific cross of tomato. Euphytica 130:199–206Google Scholar
  56. Foolad MR, Zhang L, Subbiah P (2003b) Genetics of drought tolerance during seed germination in tomato: Inheritance and QTL mapping. Genome 46:536–545Google Scholar
  57. Foolad MR, Zhang LP, Lin GY (2001) Identification and validation of QTLs for salt tolerance during vegetative growth in tomato by selective genotyping. Genome 44:444-454PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Forster BP, Phillips MS, Miller TE, Baird E, Powell W (1990) Chromosome location of genes controlling tolerance to salt (NaCl) and vigor in Hordeum vulgare and H. chilense. Heredity 65:99–107Google Scholar
  59. Galston AW, Kaur-Sawhney R, Altabella T, Tiburcio AF (1997) Plant polyamines in reproductive activity and response to abiotic stress. Bot Acta 110:197–207Google Scholar
  60. Giovannucci E (1999) Tomatoes, tomato-based products, lycopene, and cancer; Review of the epidemiologic literature. J Natl Cancer Inst 91:317–331PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Greenway H, Munns R (1980) Mechanism of salt tolerance in non-halophytes. Ann Rev Plant Physiol 31:149–190Google Scholar
  62. Groot SPC, Karssen CM (1987) Gibberellins regulate seed germination in tomato by endosperm weakening: A study with gibberellin-deficient mutant. Planta 171:525–531Google Scholar
  63. Grover A, Sahi C, Sanan N, Grover A (1999) Taming abiotic stresses in plants through genetic engineering: current strategies and perspective. Plant Sci 143:101–111Google Scholar
  64. Grunberg K, Fernandez-Muñoz R, Cuartero J (1995) Growth, flowering, and quality and quantity of pollen of tomato plants grwon under salline conditions. Acta Hort 412:484–489Google Scholar
  65. Guerrier G (1996) Fluxes of Na+, K+ and Cl-, and osmotic adjustment in Lycopersicon pimpinellifolium and L. esculentum during short- and long-term exposures to NaCl. Physio Plant 97:583–591Google Scholar
  66. Haigh AH, Barlow EWR (1987) Water relations of tomato seed germination. Austral J Plant Physiol 14:485–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Hegarty TW (1978) The physiology of seed hydration and dehydration, and the relation between water stress and the control of germination: A review. Plant, Cell Environ 1:101–119Google Scholar
  68. Hsiao TC (1973) Plant responses to water stress. Annu Rev Plant Physiol 24:519–570.Google Scholar
  69. Hsiao TC, Bradford KJ (1983) Physiological consequences of cellualar water deficits. In: Taylor HM, Jordan WR, Sinclair TR (eds) Limitations to efficient water used in crop production. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wis., pp 227–Google Scholar
  70. Hsieh T-H, Lee J-T, Charng Y-Y, Chan M-T (2002) Tomato plants ectopically expressing Arabidopsis CBF1 show enhanced resistance to water deficit stress. Plant Physiol 130:618–626PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Johnson DW, Smith SE, Dobrenz AK (1992) Genetic and phenotypic relationships in response to NaCl at different developmental stages in alfalfa. Theor Appl Genet 83:833–838Google Scholar
  72. Johnson WC, Jackson LE, Ochoa O, Wijik Rv, Peleman J, Clair DAS, Michelmore RW (2000) Lettuce, a shallow-rooted crop, and Lactuca serriola, its wild progenitor, differ at QTL determining root architecture and deep soil water exploitation. Theor Appl Genet 101:1066–1073Google Scholar
  73. Jones RA (1986a) High salt-tolerance potential in Lycopersicon species during germination. Euphytica 35:576–582Google Scholar
  74. Jones RA (1986b) The development of salt-tolerant tomatoes: breeding strategies. Acta Hort 190:101–114Google Scholar
  75. Jones RA, Hashim M, El-Beltagy AS (1988) Developmental responsiveness of salt-tolerant and salt-sensitive genotypes of Lycopersicon. In: Whitehead E, Hutchison F, Timmeman B, Varazy R (eds) Arid Lands: Today and Tomorrow. Westview Press, Boulder, pp 765–772Google Scholar
  76. Jones RA, Qualset CO (1984) Breeding crops for environmental stress tolerance. In: Collins GB, Petolino JF (eds) Application of Genetic Engineering to Crop Improvement. Nijihoff/Junk, The Hague, pp 305–340Google Scholar
  77. Kahn TL, Fender SE, Bray EA, O’Connell MA (1993) Characterization of Expression of Drought- and Abscisic Acid-Regulated Tomato Genes in the Drought-Resistant Species Lycopersicon Pennellii. Plant Physiol 103:597–605PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. Kalloo G (1991) Breeding for environmental resistance in tomato. In: Kalloo G (ed) Genetic Improvement of Tomato. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, Germany, pp 153–165Google Scholar
  79. Kasuga M, Miura S, Shinozaki K, Yamaguchi-Shinozaki K (2004) A combination of the arabidopsis DREB1A gene and stress-inducible rd29A promoter improved drought- and low-temperature stress tolerance in tobacco by gene transfer. Plant Cell Physiol 45:346–350PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Kaufman MR (1969) Effects of water potential on germination of lettuce, sunflower, and citrus seeds. Can J Bot 47:1761–1764Google Scholar
  81. Kramer PJ (1980) Water Relations of Plants. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  82. Kramer PJ (1983) Water Relations of Plants. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  83. Lee J-T, Prasad V, Yang P-T, Wu J-F, Ho T-HD, Charng Y-Y, Chan M-T (2003) Expression of Arabidopsis CBF1 regulated by an ABA/stress inducible promoter in transgenic tomato confers stress tolerance without affecting yield. Plant, Cell Environ 26:1181–1190Google Scholar
  84. Lilius G, Holmberg N, Bulow L (1996) Enhanced NaCl stress tolerance in trangenic tobacco expressing bacterial choline dehydrogenase. Bio/technology 14:177–180Google Scholar
  85. Liptay A, Schopfer P (1983) Effect of water stress, seed coat restraint, and abscisic acid upon different germination capabilities of two tomato lines at low temperature. Plant Physiol 73:935–938PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. Ludlow MM, Muchow RC (1990) A critical evaluation of traits for improveing crop yields in water-limited environments. Adv Agron 43:107–153Google Scholar
  87. Lutfor-Rahman SM (1998) Eco-physiological study on tomato drought tolerance. Division of Environmental Science and Technology. Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan, p 80Google Scholar
  88. Lyon CB (1941) Responses of two species of tomatoes and the F1 generation to sodium sulphate in the nutrient medium. Bot Gaz 103:107–122Google Scholar
  89. Maas EV (1986) Salt tolerance of plants. Appl Agric Res 1:12–26Google Scholar
  90. Maas EV (1990) Crop salt tolerance. In: Tanji KK (ed) Agricultural salinity assessment and management. ASCE Mannuals and Reoprts on Engineering No. 71, New York, pp 262–304Google Scholar
  91. Mano Y, Takeda K (1997) Mapping quantitative trait loci for salt tolerance at germination and the seedling stage in barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). Euphytica 94:263–272Google Scholar
  92. Martin B, Nienhuis J, King G (1989) Restriction fragment length polymorphisms associated with water use efficiency in tomato. Science 243:1725–1728PubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. Martin B, Tauer CG, Lin RK (1999) Carbon isotope discrimination as a tool to improve water-use efficiency in tomato. Crop Sci 39:1775–1783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Martin B, Thorstenson YR (1988) Stabel carbon isotope composition (delta 13C), water use efficiency and biomass productivity of Lycopersicon esculentum, Lycopersicon pennellii, and the F1 hybrid. Plant Physiol 88:213–217PubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. McCormick S, Niedermeyer J, Fry J, Barnason A, Worsch R, Fraley R (1986) Leaf disk transformation of cultivated tomato (L. esculentum) using Agrobacterium tumifaciens. Plant Cell Rep 5:81–84Google Scholar
  96. Miller JC, Tanksley SD (1990) RFLP analysis of phylogenetic relationships and genetic variation in the genus Lycopersicon. Theor Appl Genet 80:437–448Google Scholar
  97. Mitchell JH, Siamhan D, Wamala MH, Risimeri JB, Chinyamakobvu E, Henderson SA, Fukai S (1998) The use of seedling leaf death score for evaluation of drought resistance of rice. Field Crops Res 55:129–139Google Scholar
  98. Monforte AJ, Asins MJ, Carbonell EA (1996) Salt tolerance in Lycopersicon species. IV. Efficiency of marker-assisted selection for salt tolerance improvement. Theor Appl Genet 93:765–772Google Scholar
  99. Monforte AJ, Asins MJ, Carbonell EA (1997) Salt tolerance in Lycopersicon species. V. Does genetic variability at quantitative trait loci affect their analysis? Theor Appl Genet 95:284–293Google Scholar
  100. Monforte AJ, Asins MJ, Carbonell EA (1999) Salt tolerance in Lycopersicon spp. VII. Pleiotropic action of genes controlling earliness on fruit yield. Theor Appl Genet 98:593–601Google Scholar
  101. Na JK (2005) Genetic approaches to improve drought tolerance of tomato and tobacco. Horticulture and Crop Science. The Ohio State University, Wooster, p 119Google Scholar
  102. Nguyen HT, Babu RC, Blum A (1997) Breeding for drought resistance in rice: Physiology and molecular genetics considerations. Crop Sci 37:1426–1434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Norlyn JD, Epstein E (1984) Variablility in salt tolrance of four Triticale line at germination and emergence. Crop science 24:1090–1092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Oh S-J, Song SI, Kim YS, Jang H-J, Kim S-Y, Kim M, Kim Y-K, Nahm BH, Kim J-K (2005) Arabidopsis CBF3/DREB1A and ABF3 in transgenic rice increased tolerance to abiotic stress without stunting growth. Plant Physiol 138:341–351PubMedGoogle Scholar
  105. Pearen JR, Pahl MD, Wolynetz MS, Hermesh R (1997) Association of salt tolerance at seedling emergence with adult plant performance in slender wheatgrass. Can J Plant Sci 77:81–89Google Scholar
  106. Perez-Alfocea F, Estan MT, Caro M, Bolarin MC (1993a) Response of tomato cultivars to salinity. Plant and Soil 150:203–211Google Scholar
  107. Perez-Alfocea F, Estan MT, Caro M, Guerrier g (1993b) Osmotic adjustment in Lycopersicon esculentum and L. pennellii under NaCl and polyethylene 6000 iso-osmotic stresses. Physiologia Plantarum 87:493–498Google Scholar
  108. Perez-Alfocea F, Guerrier G, Estan MT, Bolarin MC (1994) Comparative salt responses at cell and whole-plant levels of cultivated and wild tomato and their hybrid. J Hort Sci 69:639–644Google Scholar
  109. Phills BR, Peck NH, McDonald GE, Robinson RW (1979) Differential responses of Lycopersicon and Solanum species to salinity. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 104:349–352Google Scholar
  110. Pillay I, Beyl C (1990) Early responses of drought-resistant and -susceptible tomato plants subjected to water stress. J Plant Growth Regul 9:213–219Google Scholar
  111. Plant AL, Cohen A, Moses MS, Bray EA (1991) Nucleotide sequence and spatial expression pattern of drought- and ABA-induced gene for tomato. Plant physiol 97:900–906PubMedGoogle Scholar
  112. Quesada V, Garcia-Martinez S, Piqueras P, Ponce MR, Micol JL (2002) Genetic architecture of NaCl tolerance in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol 130:951–963PubMedGoogle Scholar
  113. Rana MK, Kalloo G (1989) Morphological attributes associated with the adaptation under water deficit conditions in tomato (L. esculentum Mill.).12th Eucarpia Congress 1989, Vortrage Pflanzenzucht, pp 23–27Google Scholar
  114. Rana MK, Kalloo G (1990) Evaluation of tomato genotypes under drought conditions (Abstr.). 23rd International Horticultre Congress, Firenze, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  115. Rathinasabapathi B (2000) Metabolic engineering for stres tolerance: Installing osmoprotectant synthesis pathways. Anna Bot 86:709–716Google Scholar
  116. Redmann RE (1974) Osmotic and specific ion effects on the germination of alfalfa. Can J Bot 52:803–808Google Scholar
  117. Ribaut JM, Jiang C, Gonzalez-de-Leon D, Edmeades GO, Hoisington DA (1997) Identification of quantitative trait loci under drought conditions in tropical maize. 2. Yield components and marker-assisted selection strategies. Theor Appl Genet 94:887–896Google Scholar
  118. Richards MA, Phills BR (1979) Evaluation of Lycopersicon species for drought tolerance (Abstr.). HortScience 14:121Google Scholar
  119. Richards RA (1983) Should selection for yield in saline regions be made on saline or non-saline soils? Euphytica 32:431–438Google Scholar
  120. Richards RA (1996) Defining selection criteria to improve yield under drought. Plant Growth Regul 20:157–166Google Scholar
  121. Richards RA, Dennett CW (1980) Variation in salt concentration in a wheat field. Soil and Water 44:8–9Google Scholar
  122. Rick CM (1973) Potential genetic resources in tomato species: clues from observation in native habitats. In: Srb AM (ed) Genes, Enzymes, and Populations. Plenum Press, New York, USA, pp 255–269Google Scholar
  123. Rick CM (1976a) Natural variability in wild species of Lycopersicon and its bearing on tomato breeding. Genet Agraria 30:249–259Google Scholar
  124. Rick CM (1976b) Tomato, Lycopersicon esculentum (Solanaceae). In: Simmonds NW (ed) Evolution of Crop Plants. Longman, London, UK, pp 268–273Google Scholar
  125. Rick CM (1978) The Tomato. Sci Amer 23:76–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Rick CM (1979a) Biosystematic studies in Lycopersicon and closely related species of Solanum. In: Hawkes JC, Lester RN, Skelding AD (eds) The Biology and Taxnomy of the Solanaceae. Academic Press, New York, USA, pp 667–678Google Scholar
  127. Rick CM (1979b) Potential improvement of tomatoes by controlled introgression of genes from wild speies. Proc Conf Broadening Genetic Base of Crops. Pudoc, Wageningen, pp 167–173Google Scholar
  128. Rick CM (1980) Tomato. Hybridization of Crop Plants. Am. Soc. Agron./Crop Sci. Soc. Am., Madison, WI, USA, pp 669–680Google Scholar
  129. Rick CM (1982) The potential of exotic germplasm for tomato improvement. In: Vasil IK, Scowcroft WR, Frey KJ (eds) Plant Improvement and Somatic Cell Genetics. Academic Press, New York, pp 1–28Google Scholar
  130. Rick CM, DeVerna JW, Chetelat RT, Stevens MA (1987) Potential contributions of wild crosses to improvement of processing tomatoes. Acta Hort 200:45–55Google Scholar
  131. Rick CM, Fobes JF (1975) Allozyme variation in the cultivated tomato and closely related species. Bul Torrey Bot Club 102:376–384Google Scholar
  132. Romero-Aranda R, Soria T, Cuartero J (2001) Tomato plant-water uptake and plant-water relationships under saline growth conditions. Plant Sci 160:265–272PubMedGoogle Scholar
  133. Rontein D, Basset G, Hanson AD (2002) Metabolic engineering of osmoprotectant accumulation in plants. Metabolic Engin 4:49–56Google Scholar
  134. Ross R, Lott N (2000) A climatology of recent extreme weather and climate events. U.S. Department of Commerce, Technical Report 2000–02, NOAA/NESDIS, National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, NCGoogle Scholar
  135. Rush DW, Epstein E (1976) Genotypic responses to salinity: differences between salt-sensitive and salt-tolerant genotypes of the tomato. Plant Physiol 57:162–166PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Rush DW, Epstein E (1981a) Breeding and selection for salt tolerance by the incorporation of wild germplasm into a domestic tomato. J Am Soc Hort Sci 106:699–704Google Scholar
  137. Rush DW, Epstein E (1981b) Comparative studies on the sodium, potassium, and chloride relations of a wild halophytic and domestic salt-sensitive tomato species. Plant Physiol 68:1308–1313Google Scholar
  138. Sacher RF, Staples RC, Robinson RW (1983) Ion regulation and response of tomato to sodium chloride: A homeostatic system. J Amer Soc Hort Sci 108:566–569Google Scholar
  139. Santa-Cruz A, Perez-Alfocea F, Caro M, Acosta M (1998) Polyamines as short-term salt tolerance traits in tomato. Plant Sci 138:9–16Google Scholar
  140. Saranga Y, Cahaner A, Zamir D, Marani A, Rudich J (1992) Breeding tomatoes for salt tolerance: Inheritance of salt tolerance and related traits in interspecific populations. Theor Appl Genet 84:390–396Google Scholar
  141. Saranga Y, Zamir D, Marani A, Rudich J (1991) Breeding tomatoes for salt tolerance: Field evaluation of Lycopersicon germplasm for yield and dry matter production. J Am Soc Hort Sci 116:1067–1071Google Scholar
  142. Saranga Y, Zamir D, Marani A, Rudich J (1993) Breeding tomatoes for salt tolerance: variation in ion concentration associated with response to salinity. J Am Soc Hort Sci 118:405–408Google Scholar
  143. Sarg SMH, Wyn-Jones RG, Omar FA (1993) Salt tolerance in the Edkawy tomato. In: Lieh H, Al-Masoom A (eds) Towards the rational use of high salinity tolerant plants. Kluwer Academin Publishers, The Netherlands, pp 177–184Google Scholar
  144. Schonfeld MA, Johnson RC, Carver BD, Mornhinweg DW (1988) Water relations in wheat as drought resistance indicators. Crop Sci 28:526–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. Seki M, Kamei A, Yamaguchi-Shinozakiz K, Shinozaki K (2003) Molecular responses to drought, salinity and frost: Common and different paths for plant protection. Curr Opin Biotech 14:194–199PubMedGoogle Scholar
  146. Serrano R, Culiañz-Macia FA, Moreno V (1999) Genetic engineering of salt and drought tolerance with yeast regulatory genes. Scientia Hort 78:261–269Google Scholar
  147. Shannon MC, Gronwald JW, Tal M (1987) Effects of salinity on growth and accumulation of organic and inorganic ions in cultivated and wild tomato species. J Am Soc Hort Sci 112:416–423Google Scholar
  148. Shen B, Jensen RG, Bohnert JJ (1997) Mannitol protects against oxidation by hydroxul radicals. Plant Physiol 115:527–532PubMedGoogle Scholar
  149. Shou H, Bordallo P, Wang K (2004) Expression of the Nicotiana protein kinase (NPK1) enhanced drought tolerance in transgenic maize. Exp Bot 55:1013–1019Google Scholar
  150. Stoner AK (1972) Merit, Red Rock and Potomac-tomato varieties adapted to mechanical harvesting. USDA Prod. Res. Rep.Google Scholar
  151. Subbiah P (2001) Genetic Investigation of Abiotic Stress Tolerance in Lycopersicon Species.Genetics. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, p 104Google Scholar
  152. Subudhi PK, Rosenow DT, Nguyen HT (2000) Quantitative trait loci for the stay green trait in sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench): consistency across genetic backgrounds and environments. Theor Appl Genet 101:733–741Google Scholar
  153. Tal M (1971) Salt tolerance in the wild relatives of the cultivated tomato: Responses of Lycopersicon esculentum, L. peruvianum, and L. esculentum minor to sodium chloride solution. Aust J Agric Res 22:631–638Google Scholar
  154. Tal M (1985) Genetics of salt tolerance in higher plants: Theoretical and practical considerations. Plant and Soil 89:199–226Google Scholar
  155. Tal M (1997) Wild germplasm for salt tolerance in plants. In: Jaiwal PK, Singh RP, Gulati A (eds) Strategies for improving salt tolerance in higher plants. Science Publishers, Inc., U.S.A., pp 291–320Google Scholar
  156. Tal M, Gavish U (1973) Salt tolerance in the wild relatives of the cultivated tomato: Water balance and abscisic acid in Lycopersicon esculentum and L. peruvianum under low and high salinity. Aust J Agric Res 24:353–361Google Scholar
  157. Tal M, Katz A, Heikin H, Dehan K (1979) Salt tolerance in the wild relatives of the cultivated tomato: proline accumulation in Lycopersicon esculentum Mill., L. peruvianum Mill., and Solanum pennellii Cor. treated with NaCl and polyethylene glycol. New Phytol 82:349–355Google Scholar
  158. Tal M, Shannon MC (1983) Salt tolerance in the wild relatives of the cultivated tomato: Responses of Lycopersicon esculentum, L. cheesmanii, L. peruvianum, Solanum pennellii and F1 hybrids to high salinity. Aust J Plant Physiol 10:109–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  159. Tanaka Y, Hibino T, Hayashi Y, Tanaka A, Kishitani S, Takabe T, Yokota S, Takabe T (1999) Salt tolerance of trangenci rice overexpressing yeast mitochondrial Mn-SOD in chloroplasts. Plant Science 148:131–138Google Scholar
  160. Tanji KK (1990) Nature and extent of agricultural salinity. In: Tangi KK (ed) Agricultural Salinity Assessment and Management. Am. Soc. Civil Engineers, New York, pp 1–13Google Scholar
  161. Thomas JC, Sepahi M, Arndall B, Bohnert HJ (1995) Enhancement of seed germination in high salinity by engineering mannitol expression in Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant Cell Envr 18:801–806Google Scholar
  162. Ungar IA (1978) Halophyte seed germination. The Bot Rev 44:233–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  163. USDA (2005) Agricultural statistics 2005. United State Department of Agtriculture, National Agricultural Staticstics ServiceGoogle Scholar
  164. van Ieperen W (1996) Effects of different day and night salinity levels on vegetative growth, yield and quality of tomato. J Hort Sci 71:99–111Google Scholar
  165. Wang W-X, Vinocur B, Altman A (2003) Plant responses to drought, salinity and extreme temperatures: towards genetic engineering for stress tolerance. Planta 218:1–14PubMedGoogle Scholar
  166. Warnock SJ (1988) A review of taxonomy and phylogeny of the genus Lycopersicon. HortScience 23:669–673Google Scholar
  167. Warren GF (1998) Spectacular increases in crop yields in the twentieth century. Weed Technol 12:752–760Google Scholar
  168. Wudiri BB, Henderson DW (1985) Effects of water stress on flowering and fruit set in processing tomatoes. Sci Hortic 27:189–198Google Scholar
  169. Xue Z-Y, Zhi D-Y, Xue G-P, Zhang H, Zhao Y-X, Xia G-M (2004) Enhanced salt tolerance of transgenic wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) expressing a vacuolar Na+/H+ antiporter gene with improved grain yields in saline soils in the field and a reduced level of leaf Na+. Plant Sci 167:849–859Google Scholar
  170. Yamaguchi T, Blumwald E (2005) Developing salt-tolerant crop plants: Challenges and opportunities. Trends Plant Sci 10:615–620PubMedGoogle Scholar
  171. Yeo AR, Flowers TJ (1990) Screening of rice (Oryza sativa L.) genotypes for physiological characters contributing to salinity resistance, and their relationship to overall performance. Theor Appl Genet 79:377–384Google Scholar
  172. Yin XY, Yang A-F, Zhang K-W, Zhang J-R (2004) Production and analysis oftransgenic maize with improved salt tolerance by the introduction of AtNHZ1 gene. Acta Bot Sin:854–861Google Scholar
  173. Younis AF, Hatata MA (1971) Studies on the effects of certain salts on germination, on growth of root, and on metabolism. I. Effects of chlorides and sulphates of sodium, potassium, and magnesium on germination of wheat grains. Plant and Soil 13:183–200Google Scholar
  174. Yu TT (1972) The genetics and physiology of water usage in Solanum pennellii Corr. and its hybrids with Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. University of Cal., DavisGoogle Scholar
  175. Zhang HX, Blumwald E (2001) Transgenic salt-tolerant tomato plants accumulate salt in foliage but not in fruit. Nature biotechnology 19:765–768PubMedGoogle Scholar
  176. Zhang HX, Hodson JN, Williams JP, Blumwald E (2001a) Engineering salt-tolerant Brassica plants: Characterization of yield and seed oil quality in transgenic plants with increased vacuolar sodium accumulation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:12832–12836Google Scholar
  177. Zhang J, Zheng HG, Aarti A, Pantuwan G, Nguyen TT, Tripathy JN, Sarial AK, Robin S, Babu RC, Nguyen BD, Sarkarung S, Blum A, Nguyen HT (2001b) Locating genomic regions associated with components of drought resistance in rice: comparative mapping within and a cross species. Theor Appl Genet 103:19–29Google Scholar
  178. Zhang JZ, Creelman RA, Zhu J-K (2004) From laboratory to field. Using information from Arabidopsis to engineer salt, cold, and drought tolerance in crops. Plant Physiol 135:615–621PubMedGoogle Scholar
  179. Zhu JK, Hasegawa PM, Bressan RA (1997) Molecular aspects of osmotic stress in plants. Crit Rev Plant Sci 16:253–277Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Majid R. Foolad
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of HorticultureThe Pennsylvania State University, University ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations