Effects of moisture limitation on yield and dry matter distribution between shoot and root of triticale (Triticosecale ×Wittmack) genotypes under controlled conditions

Document Type : Scientific - Research

Authors

• Hamid Reza Khazaei
• Ahmad Nezami
• Kurosh Shojaei- Noferest

Department of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, Faculty of Agriculture, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran

10.22067/jag.v2i1.7614

Abstract

A study was conducted to evaluate the effects of moisture limitation on yield and dry matter distribution between shoot and root of triticale genotypes. This study was performed using a factorial experiment based on completely randomized design with four replications, in Agricultural College of Ferdowsi University of Mashhad greenhouse during 2009. Treatments were two available soil water including irrigated after 50% and 75% depletion of moisture from root zoning (as a check and moisture limitation, respectively) and four triticale genotypes (ET-82-8, ET- 82-15, Et- 79-17 and Juanillo-92). Results showed that the significant (P>0.01) decrease in grain yield due the drought stress about 32 percent, but the effects of genotypes and interaction of moisture limitation and genotypes were not significant. Total above ground dry weight, leaf plus shoot and spikelet dry weight decreased with drought moisture limitation. Moisture limitation had significant (P> 0.01) decrease in root depth about 16 percent. Also genotypes and treatment's interactions had significant effects on root depth (P>0.05). Moisture limitation and genotypes showed significant effects (P>0.01) but interactions were not significant. About 46 percent decrease on root dry weight was due from moisture limitation. Experimental treatments and their interactions had significant effects on total root area. Genotypes and interactions were significant effects (P>0.01) on root/shoot ratio, but the effect of moisture limitation was not significant. Finally, results showed that while the ET-82-8had the better growth characters, its drought susceptibility index (DSI) was lower which indicate the lower susceptibility and high yield stability of this genotype under stress conditions.

Keywords

• Drought susceptibility index
• Root growth
• Root/Shoot ratio
• Sustainability

---

References

1- Ahmad, R., Qadir, S., Ahmad, N., and Hussain Shah, K. 2003. Yield potential and stability of nine wheat varieties under water stress conditions. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology 5(1): 7-9.

2- Bradford, K.J., and Hsiao, T.C. 1982. Physiological responses to moderate water stress. In: Lange, O.L., Nobel, P.S., Osmond, C.P., Ziegler, H. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Plant Physiology, New Series: Physiological Plant Ecology. II. Water Relations and Carbon Assimilation, Vol. 12B. Springer, Berlin.

3- Campuzano, G.E., Miralles amd, D.J., and Slafer, G.A. 2008. Genotypic variability and response to water stress of pre- and post-anthesis phases in triticale. European JournalAgronomy 28: 171–177.

4- Erekul, O., and Kohn, W. 2006. Effect of weather and soil conditions on yield components and bread-making quality of winter wheat (Triticum aestivun L.) and winter triticale (Triticosecale Wittm) varieties in North-East Germany. Journal of Agronnomy and Crops Science 192: 452–464.

5- Fettel, N.A. 1993. Yield Physiology of Triticale Under Water Deficit: a comparison with wheat. Armidal: Univ. of New England.

6- Fischer, R.A., and Maurer, R. 1978. Drought resistance in spring wheat cultivars. I. Grain yield responses. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 29: 897-912.

7- Garcia del Moral, L.F., Rharrabti,Y., Elhani, S., Martos, V., and Royo, C. 2005. Yield formation in mediterranean durum wheats under two contrasting water regimes based on path-coefficient analysis. Euphytica146: 203–212.

8- Giunta, F., Motzo, R., and Deidda, M. 1993. Effect of drought on yield and yield components of durum wheat and triticale in a Mediterranean environment. Field Crops Research 33: 399- 409.

9- Gowing, D.J.G., Davies, W.J., and Jones, H.G. 1990. A positive root sourced signal as an indicator of soil drying in apple. Malus×domestica Borkh. Journal of Experimental Botany 41:1535-1540

10- Gregory, P.J. 2006. Plant roots (Growth, Activity and Interaction with Soils), Blackwell Publishing Pp: 150-173.

11- Grzesiak, M.T., Rzepka, A., Hura, T., Hura, K., and Skoczowski, A. 2007. Changes in response to drought stress of triticale and maize genotypes differing in drought tolerance. Photosynthetica 45 (2): 280-287.

12- Grzesiak, S., Grzesiak, M. T., Filek,W., and Stabryta, J. 2003. Evaluation of physiological screening tests for breeding drought resistant triticale (Triticosecale x Wittmack). Acta Physiologiae, Plantarum 25(1): 29-37.

13- Ivandic, V., Hackett, C.A., Zhang, Z.J., Staub, J.E., Nevo, E., Thomas, W.T.B., and Forster, B.P. 2000. Phenotipic responses of wild barley to experimentally imposed water stress. Journal of Experimental Botany 51 (353): 2021–2029.

14- Jones, H.G., and Jones, M.B. 1989. Introduction: some terminology and common mechanisms, in: H.G. Jones, T.J. Flowers, M.B. Jones (Eds.), Plants Under Stress, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1–10.

15- Kafi, M., Jafarnazhad, A., and Jami Al-ahmadi, M., 2005. Wheat: Ecology, Physiology and Yield Determination (Translated Book). Ferdowsi University of Mashhad Press. (In Persian)

16- Krenzer Jr., E.G., Nipp, T.L., and McNew, R.W. 1991.Winter wheat mainstem leaf appearance and tiller formation versus moisture treatment. Agron. J. 83, 663–667.

17- Mahajan, S., and Tuteja. N. 2005. Cold, salinity and drought stresses: an overview. Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics 444: 139–158.

18- McMaster, G.S., and Wilhelm, W.W. 2003. Simulating wheat and barley phonological responses to water and temperature stress. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 141: 129–147.

19- Naylor, R.E.L., and andSu, J. 1998. Plant development of triticale cv. Lasko at different sowing dates. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 130: 297-306.

20- Plaut, Z. 1989. Response of photosynthesis to water stress and salt stress: similarities and dissimilarities. In: Kreeb, K.H., Richter, H., Hinckley, T.M. (Eds.), Structural and Functional Responses to Environmental Stresses. SPB Academic Publishing, The Hague, the Netherlands, pp. 155–163.

21- Plaut, Z., Butow, B.J., Blumenthal, C.S. and Wrigley, C.W. 2004. Transport of dry matter into developing wheat kernels and its contribution to grain yield under post-anthesis water deficit and elevated temperature. Field Crops Research 86: 185–198

22- Robertson, M.J., and Giunta, F. 1994. Response of spring wheat exposed to pre- anthesis water stress. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 45: 19-35.

23- Royo, C., and Blanco, R. 1998. Use of potassium iodide to mimic drought stress in triticale. Field Crops Research 59: 201-212.

24- Sharif, S., Saffari, M., and Emam, Y. 2007. The effect of drought stress and Cycocel on barley yield (cv. Valfajr). Journal of Science and Technology of Agriculture and Natural Resource 10(4): 281-290.

25- Sharp, R.E. 2002. Interaction with ethylene: changing views on the role of abscisic acid in root and shoot growth responses to water stress. Plant, Cell and Environment 25: 211-222.

26- Sharp, R.E., and Davies, W.J. 1989. Regulation of growth and development of plants growing with a restricted supply of water. In: Jones H.G. Flowers T.L., Jones M.B. eds. Plants under stress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 71-93.

27- Sharp, R.E., and Lenoble, M.E. 2002. ABA, ethylene and the control of shoot and root growth under water stress. Journal of Experimental Botany 53: 33-37.

28- Slafer, G.A., and Rawson, H.M. 1994. Sensitivity of wheat phasic development to major environment factors: a re-examination of some assumptions made by physiologists and modelers. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 21:393-423.

29- Wyn J.R.G., and Gorham. J. 1983. Osmoregulation. In: Lange, O.L., Nobel, P.S., Osmond, C.P., 32- Ziegler, H. (Eds.), Physiological Plant Ecology. III. Encyclopedia of Plant Physiology, Vol.12, new edition. Springer, Berlin.