Response of Winter Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) Genotypes to Water Withhold at Tillering Stage, Concerning Physiological and Root Traits Under Greenhouse Conditions

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Department of Plant Breeding and Biotechnology, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Tabriz

2 Department of Plant Breeding and Biotechnology,, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Tabriz

3 Dept . of Plant Breeding and Biotechnology, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Tabriz,

4 Department of Plant Ecophysiology, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Tabriz

5 Cereal Research Department, Seed and Plant Improvement Institute, Karaj

Abstract

Background and Objective:  Knowledge of the role of roots and physiological traits in response to water-deficit stress can help breeders in choosing appropriate approaches for producing tolerant cultivars. This study aimed to investigate physiological traits and root characteristics in winter barley genotypes under water-deficit stress and normal conditions.
 
Materials and Methods: The experiment was conducted in a factorial arrangement based on a randomized complete block design with two replications. Water deficit stress (full irrigation and water deficit stress with irrigation interruption at tillering stage) and 28 winter barley genotypes constituted the factors studied. After 14 days of water deficit stress, root dry weight, root volume, shoot dry weight, root to shoot dry weight ratio, leaf relative water content, osmotic potential, leaf temperature, leaf chlorophyll index, and proline content were measured. After analysis of variance and comparison of means, cluster analysis was performed on the standardized data using Ward's method and Euclidean distance measure, under normal and water deficit stress conditions. Additionally, a sequential path analysis of traits affecting biomass (dry weight of aerial part) under normal and water-deficit stress conditions was conducted using structural equation modeling.
 
Results: There were significant differences between the genotypes concerning all traits except leaf temperature. The genotype by irrigation interaction was significant for all traits except leaf temperature. The Ward clustering method resulted in four clusters at both normal and water-deficit-stress conditions. The favorable genotypes were included in groups in both conditions. The results of hierarchical path analysis of traits related to the shoot dry weight under normal conditions showed that the direct effects of root dry weight and root volume on shoot dry weight were positive and significant and the direct effects of leaf chlorophyll index, proline, and osmotic potential on this characteristic were negative and significant. At the water-deficit-stress conditions, root volume and leaf chlorophyll index had positive and significant direct effects on shoot dry weight and proline, and root dry weight and osmotic potential had negative and significant direct effects on this trait.
 
Conclusion: The barley genotypes with the codes of EC83-5, EC83-17, EC81-13, EC79-18, and A2C84-14 had a higher mean concerning most root and physiological characteristics at both normal and drought stress conditions, which can be considered as suitable genotypes for both conditions.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Abdelaal KAA, Attia KA, Alamery SF, El-Afry MM, Ghazy AI, Tantawy DS, Al-Doss AA, El-Shawy ESE, M. Abu-Elsaoud A and Hafez YM. 2020. Exogenous application of proline and salicylic acid can mitigate the injurious impacts of drought stress on barley plants associated with physiological and histological characters. Sustainability, 12(5): 1736. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12051736
Afshari-Behbahanizadeh S, Akbari GA, Shahbazi M and Alahdadi I. 2014. Relations between barley root traits and osmotic adjustment under terminal drought stress. Journal of Agricultural Science, 6(7): 112-119. https://doi.org/10.5539/jas.v6n7p112
Ahmed IM, Dai H, Zheng W, Cao F, Zhang G, Sun D and Wu F.  2013. Genotypic differences in physiological characteristics in the tolerance to drought and salinity combined stress between Tibetan wild and cultivated barley. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, 63: 49-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2012.11.004
Amini S, Ghobadi C and Yamchi A. 2015. Proline accumulation and osmotic stress: an overview of P5CS gene in plants. Journal of Plant Molecular Breeding, 3(2): 44-55. https://doi.org/10.22058/JPMB.2015.17022
Amtmann A, Bennett MJ and Henry A. 2022. Root phenotypes for the future. Plant, Cell & Environment, 45(3): 595–601. https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.14269
Atta BM, Mahmood T and Trethowan RM. 2013. Relationship between root morphology and grain yield of wheat in north-western NSW, Australia. Australian Journal of Crop Science, 7(13): 2108-2115.
Barrs HD and Weatherley PE. 1962. A re-examination of the relative turgidity technique for estimating water deficits in leaves. Australian Journal of Biological Sciences, 15(3): 413-428. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/BI9620413
Basal H, Bebeli P, Smith CW and Thaxton P. 2003. Root growth parameters of converted race stocks of upland cotton and two BC2F2 populations. Crop Science, 43(6): 1983-1988. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2003.1983
Blum A, Mayer J and Gozlan G. 1982. Infrared thermal sensing of plant canopies as a screening technique for dehydration avoidance in wheat. Field Crops Research, 5: 137-146. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-4290(82)90014-4
Carter Jr JE and Patterson RP. 1985. Use of relative water content as a selection tool for drought tolerance in soybean. In: Agronomy Abstracts, CSA, Madison, WI, USA, p. 77.
Chimenti CA, Pearson J and Hall AJ. 2002. Osmotic adjustment and yield maintenance under drought in sunflower. Field Crops Research, 75(2-3): 235-246. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4290(02)00029-1
Farooq M, Wahid A, Kobayashi N, Fujita D and Basra SMA. 2009. Plant drought stress: effects, mechanisms and management. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 29(1): 185-212. https://doi.org/10.1051/agro:2008021
Ferioun M, Srhiouar N, Bouhraoua S, El Ghachtouli N and Louahlia S. 2023. Physiological and biochemical changes in Moroccan barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) cultivars submitted to drought stress. Heliyon, 9(2): e13643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13643
Gupta A, Rico-Medina A and Caño-Delgado AI. 2020. The physiology of plant responses to drought. Science, 368(6488): 266-269. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaz7614
Hebbache H, Benkherbache N, Mefti M and Bouchakour M. 2021. Effect of water deficit stress on physiological traits of some Algerian barley genotypes. Journal of Central European Agriculture, 22(2): 295-304. https://doi.org/10.5513/JCEA01/22.2.3073
Hosseini Salekdeh G, Reynolds M, Bennett J and Boyer J. 2009. Conceptual framework for drought phenotyping during molecular breeding. Trends in Plant Science, 14(9): 488-496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2009.07.007
Istanbuli T, Baum M, Touchan H and Hamwieh A. 2020. Evaluation of morpho-physiological traits under drought stress conditions in barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). Photosynthetica, 58(4): 1059-1067. https://doi.org/10.32615/ps.2020.041
James RA, Rivelli AR, Munns R and von Caemmerer S. 2002. Factors affecting CO2 assimilation, leaf injury and growth in salt-stressed durum wheat. Functional Plant Biology, 29(12): 1393-1403. https://doi.org/10.1071/FP02069
Klaus A, Marcon C and Hochholdinger F. 2024. Spatiotemporal transcriptomic plasticity in barley roots: unravelling water deficit responses in distinct root zones. BMC Genomics, 25: 79. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-024-10002-0
Kramer-Walter KR, Bellingham PJ, Millar TR, Smissen RD, Richardson SJ and Laughlin DC. 2016. Root traits are multidimensional: specific root length is independent from root tissue density and the plant economic spectrum. Journal of Ecology, 104(5): 1299-1310. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12562
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Liang X, Zhang L, Natarajan SK and Becker DF. 2013. Proline mechanisms of stress survival. Antioxidants & Redox Signaling, 19(9): 998-1011. https://doi.org/10.1089/ars.2012.5074
Liu H-S, Li F-M and Xu H. 2004. Deficiency of water can enhance root respiration rate of drought-sensitive but not drought-tolerant spring wheat. Agricultural Water Management, 64(1): 41-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-3774(03)00143-4
Maqbool S, Hassan MA, Xia X, York LM, Rasheed A and He Z. 2022. Root system architecture in cereals: progress, challenges and perspective. The Plant Journal, 110(1): 23-42. https://doi.org/10.1111/tpj.15669
McManus MT, Bieleski RL, Caradus JR and Barker DJ. 2000. Pinitol accumulation in mature leaves of white clover in response to a water deficit. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 43(1): 11-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0098-8472(99)00041-6
Moghaieb REA, Saneoka H and Fujita K. 2004. Effect of salinity on osmotic adjustment, glycinebetaine accumulation and the betaine aldehyde dehydrogenase gene expression in two halophytic plants, Salicornia europaea and Suaeda maritima. Plant Science, 166(5): 1345-1349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plantsci.2004.01.016
Moualeu-Ngangué D, Dolch C, Schneider M, Léon J, Uptmoor R and Stützel H. 2020. Physiological and morphological responses of different spring barley genotypes to water deficit and associated QTLs. PLoS One, 15(8): e0237834. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237834
MSTAT-C. 1991. A Software program for the design, management and analysis of agronomic research experiments. Michigan State University, East Lansing, USA.
Naghavi MR, Moghaddam M, Toorchi M and Shakiba MR. 2016. Evaluation of spring wheat cultivars for physiological, morphological and agronomic traits under drought stress. Journal of Crop Breeding, 8(18): 64-77. (In Persian with English abstract). ‎ https://doi.org/1010.29252/jcb.8.18.64
Palta JA, Chen X, Milroy SP, Rebetzke GJ, Dreccer MF and Watt M. 2011. Large root systems: are they useful in adapting wheat to dry environments? Functional Plant Biology, 38(5): 347-354. https://doi.org/10.1071/FP11031
Reinert S, Kortz A, Léon J and Naz AA. 2016. Genome-wide association mapping in the global diversity set reveals new QTL controlling root system and related shoot variation in barley. Frontiers in Plant Science, 7: 1061. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.01061
Reynolds MP, Singh RP, Ibrahim A, Ageeb OAA, Larqué-Saavedra A and Quick JS. 1998. Evaluating physiological traits to complement empirical selection for wheat in warm environments. Euphytica, 100: 85-94. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018355906553
Saeidi M and Abdoli M. 2015. Effect of drought stress during grain filling on yield and its components, gas exchange variables, and some physiological traits of wheat cultivars. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 17(4): 885-898.
Sayed OH. 2003. Chlorophyll fluorescence as a tool in cereal crop research. Photosynthetica, 41(3): 321-330. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:PHOT.0000015454.36367.e2
Shaban M, Mansourifar S, Ghobadi M and Ashrafi Parchin R. 2012. Effect of drought stress and starter nitrogen fertilizer on root characteristics and seed yield of four chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) genotypes. Seed and Plant Production, 27(4): 451-470. (In Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22092/SPPJ.2017.110448
Shahbandeh M. 2023. World barley production from 2008/2009 to 2022/2023. https://www.statista.com/statistics/271973/world-barley-production-since-2008/
Shanazari M, Golkar P and Mirmohammady Maibody AM. 2018. Effects of drought stress on some agronomic and bio-physiological traits of Trititicum aestivum, Triticale, and Tritipyrum genotypes. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science, 64(14): 2005-2018. https://doi.org/10.1080/03650340.2018.1472377
Siddiqui MN, Léon J, Naz AA and Ballvora A. 2021. Genetics and genomics of root system variation in adaptation to drought stress in cereal crops. Journal of Experimental Botany, 72(4): 1007-1019. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/eraa487  
Středa T, Dostál V, Horáková V and Chloupek O. 2012. Effective use of water by wheat varieties with different root system sizes in rain-fed experiments in Central Europe. Agricultural Water Management, 104: 203-209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2011.12.018
Taiz L and Zeiger E. 2002. Plant physiology. 3rd edition. Sinauer Associates, Inc. Publishers, Sunderland, MA, USA.
Vaezi B, Bavei V and Shiran B. 2010. Screening of barley genotypes for drought tolerance by agro-physiological traits in field condition. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 5(9): 881-892. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJAR09.294
Valifard M, Moradshahi A and Kholdebarin B. 2012. Biochemical and physiological responses of two wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cultivars to drought stress applied at seedling stage. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 14(7): 1567-1578.
Volkmar KM. 1997. Water stressed nodal roots of wheat: effects on leaf growth. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology, 24(1): 49-56. https://doi.org/10.1071/PP96063
Wasson AP, Richards RA, Chatrath R, Misra SC, Sai Prasad SV, Rebetzke GJ, Kirkegaard JA, Christopher J and Watt M. 2012. Traits and selection strategies to improve root systems and water uptake in water-limited wheat crops. Journal of Experimental Botany, 63(9): 3485-3498. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/ers111
Zhang Z, Guo L, Sun H, Wu J, Liu L, Wang J, Wang B, Wang Q, Sun Z and Li D. 2023. Melatonin increases drought resistance through regulating the fine root and root hair morphology of wheat revealed with RhizoPot. Agronomy, 13(7): 1881. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13071881
 
Journal of Agricultural Science and Sustainable Production
Volume 35, Issue 2
July 2025
Pages 249-263

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics