Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of physiological screening tests for breeding drought resistant triticale (x Triticosecale wittmack)

  • Published:
Acta Physiologiae Plantarum Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Effects of soil drought on crop yield of 4 strains and 7 cultivars of spring triticale was investigated under field condition. The Drought Susceptibility Index (DSI) was evaluated in a two year experiment by the determination of grain loss in conditions of two soil moisture levels (drought-D and irrigated-IR). In the experiment response to drought was evaluated by different screening tests (leaf gaseous exchange, leaf water potential, chlorophyll content and fluorescence, leaf injury by drought and by simulated drought and heat temperature and water loss by excited leaf. The DSI values and the results of screening tests showed the genetic variation in the degree of drought tolerance. The values of DSI enabled the ranking of the tested triticale genotypes with respect to their drought tolerance and allow to divide them into three groups of drought susceptibility. Large differences among studied forms were observed also in changes of leaf water potential, fluorescence and leaf injury. For plants in vegetative stage of growth the tested breeding forms were easily separated into groups of different drought tolerance. Changes of ψ, Fv/Fm and LI as a screening tests were the most suitable techniques for estimation of degree of drought tolerance for triticale. Laboratory screening tests (leaf injury by simulated drought (LIDS) and high temperature (LIHT) and water loss (WL) of excited leaf conducted for nonstressed plants in most cases were significantly correlated with DSI. The statistically significant correlation between leaf water potential (ψ) was observed only with leaf fluorescence (Fv/Fm). Changes of Fv/Fm were significantly correlated with ψ, LI and LIHT for 50 °C. Index of leaf injury (LI) by soil drought were significantly correlated with Fv/Fm, LIDS (−1.0, −1.5 MPa), LIHT (45 and 50°C) and water loss (WL). The correlation coefficient between the tests LIDS and LIHT were most of the considered cases statistically significant which indicate that the mechanism of membranes injury resulted from simulated drought or high temperature were similar in triticale. Water loss (WL) of excited leaves was the most suitable test for screening drought tolerance in triticale population. Changes of gaseous exchange parameters were not useful as screening test in this research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

DSI:

Drought Susceptibility Index

K:

Hydrothermal index

CV:

coefficient of variation

P:

net photosynthesis rate

E:

transpiration rate

CO2int :

internal CO2 concentration

C:

stomatal conductance rate

Ψ:

leaf water potential

Fv/Fm:

maximal quantum yield of PS II (chlorophyll fluorescences)

Chl a+b:

chlrorophyll a+b content

LI:

leaf injury

LIDS :

leaf injury by simulated drought

LIHT :

leaf injury by high temperature

WL:

water loss excited leaves.

References

  • Bennett J.M. 1990. Problems associated with the measuring plant water status. HortSci., 25: 1551–1554.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blum A., B. Sinmena, O. Ziv 1980. An evaluation of seed and seedling drought tolerance screening tests in wheat. Euphytica 29: 727–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blum A. 1988. Plant breeding for stress environments. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouslama M., W.T. Schapauch 1984. Stress tolerance in soybean. I. Evaluation of three screening techniques for heat and drought tolerance. Crop Sci., 24: 933–937.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke J.M., T.N. Mc Caig 1982. Evaluation of techniques for screening for drought resistance in wheat. Crop Sci., 22: 503–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doorenbos J., W.O. Pruit 1977. Guidelines for predicting crop water requirements. FAO Irrigation and drainage paper. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome.

  • Doorenbos J., A.H. Kassam 1986. Yield response to water. FAO Irrigation and drainage paper. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome.

  • Dubey R.S. 1997. Photosynthesis in plant under stressful conditions. In: Pessarakli M. (ed) Handbook of Photosynthesis. Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York, Basel, Hong Kong. pp. 859–875

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans R.O., R.W. Skagss, R.E. Sneed 1990. Normalized crop susceptibility factors for corn and soybean to excess water stress. Transactions of the Am. Soc. of Agric. Eng. 33: 1153–1161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans R.O., R.W. Skagss, R.E. Sneed 1991. Stress day index models to predict corn and soybean relative yield under high water table conditions. Transactions of the Am. Soc. of Agric. Eng. 34: 1997–2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faraquhar G.D., S.C. Wong, J.R. Evans, K.T. Hubick 1993. Photosynthesis and gas exchange In: Jones H.G., Flowers T.J., Jones M.B. (eds). Plants under Stress. Cambridge University Press, New York, Melbourne. pp 47–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer R.A., R. Maurer 1978. Drought resistance in spring wheat cultivars. I. Grain yield responses. Aust. J. Agric. Res., 29: 897–912.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grzesiak S. 1990. Reaction to drought of inbreds and hybrids of maize (Zea mays L.) as evaluated in field and greenhouse experiments. Maydica, 35: 303–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grzesiak S., A. de Barbaro, W. Filek 1992. Assimilation, translocation and accumulation of 14C in two maize (Zea mays L.) hybrids of different drought tolerance. Photosynthetica, 27: 585–593.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Grzesiak, S., M. Iijima, Y. Kono, A. Yamauchi 1997. Differences in drought tolerance between cultivars of field bean and field pea. Morphological characteristic, germination and seedlings growth. Acta Physiol. Plant., 19: 339–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grzesiak S. 2001. Genotypic variation between maize (Zea mays L.) single cross hybrids in response to drought stress”. Acta Physiol. Plant., 23: 437–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall A.E. 1981. Adaptation of annual plants to drought in relation to improvements in cultivars. HortSci., 16: 37–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanson A.D., Ch.E. Nelson 1985. Water adaptation of crop to drought. In: Carlson P.S. (ed), The biology of crop productivity. Academic Press, New York, 79–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurd E.A. 1976. Plant breeding for drought resistance. In: Kozlowski T.T. (ed) Water deficit and plant growth. vol. 4. Academic Press. New York, 317–353.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, H.G. 1993. Drought tolerance and water-use efficiency. In: (eds) Smith J.A.C., Griffiths H. Water deficits plant responses from cell to community. Bios Scientific Publishers Limited, Oxford, 193–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson D.A., Brown R.W. 1977. Psychrometric analysis of turgor pressure responses: a possible technique for evaluating plant water stress resistance. Crop Sci. 17: 507–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kono Y., A. Yamauchi., N. Kawamura, J. Tatsumi 1987. Interspecific differences of the capacities of waterlogging and drought tolerances among summer cereals. Jpn. J. Crop Sci., 56: 115–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kpoghomou, B.K., V.T. Sapra, C.A. Beyl 1990. Screening for drought tolerance: Soybean germination and its relationship to seedling response. J. Agron. and Crop Sci., 164: 153–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levitt J. 1980. Responses of plants to environmental stresses. Academic Press. New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenthaler HK., 1987. Chlorophylls and carotenoids: pigments of photosynthetic biomembrans. Methods Enzymol. 148: 350–382.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lorens G.F., J.M. Bennett, L.B. Loggale 1987. Differences in drought resistance between two corn hybrids. II. Component analysis and growth rate. Agron. J. 79: 808–813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martiniello P., C. Lorenzoni 1985. Response of maize genotypes to drought tolerance tests. Maydica, 30: 361–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naylor R.E.S. and Su J. 1998. Plant development of triticale cv. Lesko at different sowing date. J. Agric. Sci. 130: 297–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oguist G., Wass R 1988. A portable, microprocessor operated instrument for measuring chlorophyll fluorescence kinetics in stress physiology. Physiol. Plant. 73: 211–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Passioura J.B., A.G. Condon, R.A. Richards 1993. Water deficits, the development of leaf area and crop productivity. In: Smith J.A.C., Griffiths H. (eds). Water deficits plant responses from cell to community. BIOS Scientific Publishers Limited, Oxford, 253–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards R.A. 1991. Crop improvement for temperate Australia: Future opportunities. Field Crop Res. 39: 141–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Royo C., Abaza M., Cantero C., Caldero A., Ramos J.M., and Garcia del Moral L.F. 1996. Likening between the effect of drought and terminal water-stress simulated by a senescing agent in Triticale. J. Agron. and Crop Sci. 176: 31–38.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Royo C., Abaza M., Blanco R. and Garcia del Moral L.F. 2000. Triticale grain growth and morphometry as affected by drought stress, late sowing and simulated drought stress. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 27: 1051–1059.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stanley C.D. 1990. Proper use and data interpretation for plant- and soil water status measuring instrumentation: introductory remarks. HortSci., 25: 1534.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan Ch. Y., W.N. Ross 1979. Selecting for drought and heat resistance in grain sorghum. In: Mussel H., Staples R. (eds). Stress physiology in crop plant. J. Wiley and Sons, New York, 263–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trapani N., E. Gentinetta 1984. Screening of maize genotypes using drought tolerance tests. Maydica, 29: 89–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner N.C. 1986. Adaptation to water deficits: a changing perspective. Austr. J. Plant Physiol., 13: 175–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter S.R., J.T. Musick, K.B. Porter 1988. Evaluation of screening techniques for breeding drought-resistant winter wheat., Crop Sci., 28: 512–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Franciszek Górski Department of Plant Physiology Polish Academy of Sciences, Podluzna 3, PL 30-239, Cracow, Poland

    Stanisław Grzesiak & Maciej T. Grzesiak

  2. Department of Plant Physiology Agricultural University of Cracow, Podluzna 3, PL 30-239, Cracow, Poland

    Władysław Filek

  3. Departament of Reclamation and Peat-Bogs Protection Agricultural University of Cracow, Av. A. Mickiewicza 24/28, PL 30-059, Cracow, Poland

    Joanna Stabryła

Authors
  1. Stanisław Grzesiak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maciej T. Grzesiak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Władysław Filek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Joanna Stabryła
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Grzesiak, S., Grzesiak, M.T., Filek, W. et al. Evaluation of physiological screening tests for breeding drought resistant triticale (x Triticosecale wittmack). Acta Physiol Plant 25, 29–37 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11738-003-0033-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11738-003-0033-0

Key words

Search

Navigation