Rice Science
  • 首页
  • 期刊介绍
  • 编委会
  • 学术伦理
  • 投稿指南
  • 期刊订阅
  • 联系我们
  • English

Rice Science ›› 2021, Vol. 28 ›› Issue (3): 279-288.DOI: 10.1016/j.rsci.2020.08.001

• • 上一篇    下一篇

  • 收稿日期:2020-02-10 接受日期:2020-08-06 出版日期:2021-05-28 发布日期:2021-05-28

RichHTML

PDF

可视化

0

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

. [J]. Rice Science, 2021, 28(3): 279-288.

使用本文

0
    /   推荐

导出引用管理器 EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

链接本文: http://www.ricesci.org/CN/10.1016/j.rsci.2020.08.001

               http://www.ricesci.org/CN/Y2021/V28/I3/279

图/表 9

Table 1 Genotyping of 11 improved lines with resistance to blast and bacteria leaf blight (BLB) and tolerance to drought.
Genotype Blast resistance gene BLB resistance gene Drought tolerance QTL
Pi9 Pi2 Piz Xa4 xa5 xa13 Xa21 qDTY2.2 qDTY3.2 qDTY12.1
RM6836 RM6836 RM6836/
RM8225
RM224 RM122/
RM13
Xa13prom/
RG136
RM21/
pTA248
RM236 RM520 RM511/
RM1261
Putra-1 (P)a + + + - - - - - - -
IRBB60 (B)a - - - + + + + - - -
MR219-PL-137 (D)a - - - - - - - + + +
PD14 + + + -,, - - - + + +
PD15 + + + - - - - + + +
PB12 + + + + + + + - - -
PB14 + + + + + + + - - -
PBD1 + + + + + + + + + +
PBD3 + + + + + + + + + +
PDB3 + + + + + + + + + +
DPB7 + + + + + + + + + +
DPB12 + + + + + + + - + +
DPB13 + + + + + + + + + +
DPB20 + + + + + + + + + +

Table 1 Genotyping of 11 improved lines with resistance to blast and bacteria leaf blight (BLB) and tolerance to drought.

Genotype Blast resistance gene BLB resistance gene Drought tolerance QTL
Pi9 Pi2 Piz Xa4 xa5 xa13 Xa21 qDTY2.2 qDTY3.2 qDTY12.1
RM6836 RM6836 RM6836/
RM8225
RM224 RM122/
RM13
Xa13prom/
RG136
RM21/
pTA248
RM236 RM520 RM511/
RM1261
Putra-1 (P)a + + + - - - - - - -
IRBB60 (B)a - - - + + + + - - -
MR219-PL-137 (D)a - - - - - - - + + +
PD14 + + + -,, - - - + + +
PD15 + + + - - - - + + +
PB12 + + + + + + + - - -
PB14 + + + + + + + - - -
PBD1 + + + + + + + + + +
PBD3 + + + + + + + + + +
PDB3 + + + + + + + + + +
DPB7 + + + + + + + + + +
DPB12 + + + + + + + - + +
DPB13 + + + + + + + + + +
DPB20 + + + + + + + + + +
Fig. S1. Phenotyping after inoculation.A, Seedlings of improved lines for clip inoculation to Xanthomonas oryzae.B, Scored resistant (R) and moderately resistant (MR) lines.C, Susceptible to Xoo variety of rice seedlings.D, Seedlings for inoculation to Magnaporthe grisea.E, Sprayed leaves with virulent blast pathogen concentration of 1.9 × 105 conidia/mL. F and G, Score of resistant (R) and moderately resistant (MR).H, Infected seedlings of susceptible variety (with no blast resistance).I, Water deficit stress at reproductive-stage drought stress on rice plants.

Fig. S1. Phenotyping after inoculation.A, Seedlings of improved lines for clip inoculation to Xanthomonas oryzae.B, Scored resistant (R) and moderately resistant (MR) lines.C, Susceptible to Xoo variety of rice seedlings.D, Seedlings for inoculation to Magnaporthe grisea.E, Sprayed leaves with virulent blast pathogen concentration of 1.9 × 105 conidia/mL. F and G, Score of resistant (R) and moderately resistant (MR).H, Infected seedlings of susceptible variety (with no blast resistance).I, Water deficit stress at reproductive-stage drought stress on rice plants.

Table S1. Methods of crossing for development of improved lines.
Crossing method Population code Lines developed Introgressed genotype
Single cross PD PD14, PD15 Putra-1 × MR219-PL-137
Single cross PB PB12, PB14 Putra-1 × IRBB60
Double cross PDB PDB3 Putra-1 × MR219-PL-137 × IRBB60
Three-way cross PBD PBD1, PBD3 Putra-1× IRBB60 × MR219-PL-137
Three-way reciprocal cross DPB DPB7, DPB12, DPB13, DPB20 MR219-PL-137 × Putra-1 × IRBB60

Table S1. Methods of crossing for development of improved lines.

Crossing method Population code Lines developed Introgressed genotype
Single cross PD PD14, PD15 Putra-1 × MR219-PL-137
Single cross PB PB12, PB14 Putra-1 × IRBB60
Double cross PDB PDB3 Putra-1 × MR219-PL-137 × IRBB60
Three-way cross PBD PBD1, PBD3 Putra-1× IRBB60 × MR219-PL-137
Three-way reciprocal cross DPB DPB7, DPB12, DPB13, DPB20 MR219-PL-137 × Putra-1 × IRBB60
Table 2 Traits of genotypes under reproductive-stage drought stress (RS), non-stress (NS) treatments and pool.
Genotype DTF (d) PH (cm) PL (cm)
NS RS Pool NS RS Pool NS RS Pool
P 89.0 ± 0.7 a NA NA 103.2 ± 1.1 c NA NA 25.0 ± 0.5 ab NA NA
D 88.0 ± 0.7 ab NA NA 100.3 ± 1.5 c NA NA 25.9 ± 0.3 ab NA NA
B 87.8 ± 0.7 a-c 96.6 ± 0.6 a 92.2 ± 1.5 a 103.6 ± 1.6 c 97.5 ± 3.7 a 100.6 ± 2.2 b 25.1 ± 0.1 b 20.7 ± 0.9 c 22.9 ± 0.9 c
PB12 87.6 ± 0.4 a-c NA NA 104.3 ± 2.3 c NA NA 24.9 ± 0.1 b NA NA
PB15 86.8 ± 0.7 a-d NA NA 102.6 ± 1.8 c NA NA 25.9 ± 0.4 ab NA NA
PD14 85.8 ± 0.5 b-d 91.8 ± 0.4 d 88.8 ± 1.0 de 102.6 ± 2.3 c 96.7 ± 4.1 a 99.6 ± 2.4 b 25.3 ± 0.4 b 23.7 ± 0.5 ab 24.5 ± 0.4 ab
PD15 87.4 ± 0.5 a-d 92.8 ± 0.5 cd 90.1 ± 1.0 b-d 104.5 ± 2.8 c 97.3 ± 4.0 a 100.9 ± 2.6 b 24.7 ± 0.4 b 22.6 ± 0.5 ab 23.6 ± 0.5 bc
PBD1 87.6 ± 0.5 a-c 94.0 ± 0.6 bc 90.8 ± 1.1 a-c 104.7 ± 2.4 c 100.5 ± 3.8 a 102.6 ± 2.3 ab 24.9 ± 0.6 b 22.1 ± 0.5 bc 23.5 ± 0.6 bc
PBD3 88.0 ± 0.5 ab 94.0 ± 0.5 bc 91.0 ± 1.0 ab 99.9 ± 0.3 c 96.2 ± 4.4 a 98.1 ± 2.7 b 22.9 ± 0.6 c 23.3 ± 0.5 ab 24.5 ± 0.4 ab
PDB3 87.4 ± 0.5 a-d 92.8 ± 0.4 cd 90.1 ± 1.0 b-d 104.1 ± 3.0 c 100.6 ± 4.3 a 102.3 ± 2.6 ab 24.9 ± 0.4 b 24.1 ± 0.4 a 24.5 ± 0.3 ab
DPB7 85.2 ± 1.7 d 91.8 ± 0.4 d 88.5 ± 1.4 e 113.4 ± 2.1 a 102.1 ± 4.3 a 107.8 ± 2.9 a 25.0 ± 0.5 b 24.0 ± 1.0 a 24.5 ± 0.5 ab
DPB12 86.0 ± 1.0 b-d 92.8 ± 0.6 cd 89.4 ± 1.3 c-e 106.1 ± 1.1 bc 99.7 ± 3.5 a 102.9 ± 2.0 ab 25.0 ± 0.4 b 23.4 ± 0.3 ab 24.2 ± 0.4 ab
DPB13 86.2 ± 0.9 b-d 93.0 ± 0.7 d 89.6 ± 1.3 b-e 103.6 ± 2.4 c 98.4 ± 3.7 a 101.0 ± 2.2 b 25.2 ± 0.4 b 23.4 ± 0.3 ab 24.3 ± 0.4 ab
DPB20 85.6 ± 1.0 cd 95.0 ± 0.7 b 90.3 ± 1.7 bc 112.3 ± 3.0 ab 96.3 ± 4.9 a 104.3 ± 3.8 ab 26.6 ± 0.2 a 23.7 ± 0.6 ab 25.2 ± 0.6 a
Mean 87.03 93.46 90.08 104.67 98.54 102.01 25.09 23.09 24.02
CV (%) 2.03 1.30 1.79 4.74 9.35 7.28 4.07 5.87 5.05
LSD 2.25 1.56 1.43 6.29 11.82 6.61 1.30 1.74 1.08
h2B (%) 66.27 88.09 75.05 28.63 20.22 76.52 31.13 74.83 4.76
Genotype ET TT FFG
NS RS Pool NS RS Pool NS RS Pool
P 10.2 ± 1.4 b-d NA NA 10.6 ± 1.6 b-e NA NA 172.8 ± 5.9 ab NA NA
D 13.6 ± 1.8 a NA NA 13.8 ± 1.7 a NA NA 168.4 ± 4.0 a-c NA NA
B 7.8 ± 1.3 de 9.0 ± 1.6 ab 8.4 ± 1.0 c 8.8 ± 1.0 de 9.6 ± 1.4 ab 9.2 ± 0.8 b/d 172.4 ± 9.3 ab 26.4 ± 2.9 c 99.4 d ± 24.8 e
PB12 9.4 ± 0.5 b-e NA NA 9.6 ± 0.5 c-e NA NA 177.6 ± 6.6 a NA NA
PB15 9.0 ± 1.1 c-e NA NA 9.2 ± 0.9 de NA NA 166.0 ± 5.8 a-d NA NA
PD14 10.6 ± 0.4 b-d 11.4 ± 1.2 a 11.0 ± 0.6 a 11.0 ± 0.5 a-d 11.4 ± 1.2 ab 11.2 ± 0.6 ab 178.4 ± 8.8 a 52.4 ± 2.3 ab 115.4 ± 21.4 a
PD15 9.6 ± 1.2 b-e 8.0 ± 1.4 b 8.8 ± 0.9 bc 11.0 ± 1.1 a-d 8.4 ± 1.2 b 9.7 ± 0.9 b-d 157.2 ± 1.2 cd 49.8 ± 5.2 ab 103.5 ± 18.1 cd
PBD1 11.0 ± 1.0 a-c 11.6 ± 0.5 a 11.3 ± 0.5 a 12.4 ± 1.5 a-c 11.6 ± 0.5 a 12.0 ± 0.8 a 170.6 ± 3.7 a-c 45.4 ± 2.8 b 108.0 ± 21.0 a-c
PBD3 12.0 ± 0.6 ab 10.6 ± 1.2 ab 11.3 ± 0.7 a 13.2 ± 0.9 ab 10.6 ± 1.2 ab 11.5 ± 0.8 ab 168.4 ± 2.7 a-c 59.4 ± 5.9 a 113.9 ± 18.4 ab
PDB3 11.2 ± 1.1 a-c 10.0 ± 1.3 ab 10.6 ± 0.8 ab 13.0 ± 1.1 ab 10.0 ± 1.3 ab 11.5 ± 1.0 ab 153.4 ± 2.0 d 48.2 ± 1.6 ab 100.8 ± 17.6 cd
DPB7 9.4 ± 0.5 b-e 11.8 ± 0.7 a 10.6 ± 0.6 ab 9.8 ± 0.5 c-e 11.8 ± 0.7 a 10.8 ± 0.5 a-c 161.4 ± 3.1 b-d 53.4 ± 3.8 ab 107.4 ± 18.2 a-d
DPB12 7.2 ± 0.6 e 9.2 ± 1.2 ab 8.2 ± 0.7 c 7.8 ± 0.5 e 9.4 ± 1.0 ab 8.6 ± 0.6 d 152.4 ± 1.7 d 52.2 ± 4.9 ab 102.3 ± 16.9 cd
DPB13 9.4 ± 0.5 c-e 10.2 ± 1.2 ab 9.8 ± 0.7 a-c 9.6 ± 0.6 c-e 11.4 ± 1.0 ab 10.5 ± 0.6 a-d 161.0 ± 3.2 b-d 43.8 ± 5.5 b 102.4 ± 19.8 cd
DPB20 9.0 ± 1.0 c-e 10.2 ± 1.1 ab 9.6 ± 0.7 a-c 9.2 ± 1.0 de 10.4 ± 1.0 ab 9.8 ± 0.7 b-d 165.8 ± 3.6 a-d 46.2 ± 4.0 b 106.0 ± 20.1 b-d
Mean 9.96 10.20 9.96 10.64 10.46 10.52 166.13 47.72 105.91
CV (%) 23.13 25.43 22.97 21.69 22.86 21.06 6.54 19.30 9.11
LSD 2.92 3.33 2.04 2.93 3.07 1.97 13.78 11.81 8.60
h2B (%) 72.11 52.61 14.31 76.02 52.09 7.79 74.06 81.94 0
Genotype HGW (g) GLWR GD (d)
NS RS Pool NS RS Pool NS RS Pool
P 2.41 ± 0.03 de NA NA 4.97 ± 0.07bc NA NA 117.4 ± 0.2 ab NA NA
D 2.47 ± 0.08 c-e NA NA 4.98 ± 0.11 b NA NA 117.4 ± 0.2 ab NA NA
B 2.35 ± 0.07 e 2.43 ± 0.06 a 2.39 ± 0.04 c 5.61 ± 0.23 a 4.42 ± 0.04 b 5.01 ± 0.23 a 116.8 ± 0.2 b 133.2 ± 1.2 b 125.0 ± 2.8 a
PB12 2.55 ± 0.03 a-c NA NA 4.96 ± 0.02 bc NA NA 118.2 ± 0.4 a NA NA
PB15 2.49 c-e NA NA 4.81 b-d NA NA 117.6 ab NA NA
PD14 2.55 ± 0.23 a-c 2.34 ± 0.03 a 2.44 ± 0.04 bc 4.86 ± 0.04 b-d 4.49 ± 0.04 b 4.67 ± 0.07 b 117.4 ± 0.5 ab 128.4 ± 0.2 b 122.9 ± 1.9 b
PD15 2.52 ± 0.02 a-d 2.40 ± 0.05 a 2.46 ± 0.03 a-c 4.86 ± 0.04 b-d 4.49 ± 0.02 b 4.67 ± 0.06 b 117.6 ± 0.5 ab 127.6 ± 0.5 b 122.6 ± 1.7 b
PBD1 2.63 ± 0.04 a 2.42 ± 0.05 a 2.52 ± 0.05 a 4.59 ± 0.04 b-d 4.51 ± 0.01 b 4.55 ± 0.03 bc 117.6 ± 0.4 ab 127.8 ± 0.4b 122.7 ± 1.7 b
PBD3 2.52 ± 0.04 a-d 2.38 ± 0.05 a 2.45 ± 0.04 a-c 4.63 ± 0.08 b-d 4.47 ± 0.04 b 4.55 ± 0.05 b 117.6 ± 0.5 ab 129.0 ± 0.5 b 123.3 ± 1.9 b
PDB3 2.47 ± 0.04 c-e 2.41 ± 0.03 a 2.44 ± 0.02 bc 4.53 ± 0.02 d 4.50 ± 0.02 b 4.51 ± 0.02 bc 117.0 ± 0.6 ab 127.8 ± 0.6 b 122.4 ± 1.8 b
DPB7 2.52 ± 0.06 a-d 2.32 ± 0.02 a 2.42 ± 0.05 bc 4.51 ± 0.04 cd 4.57 ± 0.03 ab 4.54 ± 0.02 bc 117.0 ± 0.7 ab 127.4 ± 0.5 ab 122.2 ± 1.8 b
DPB12 2.52 ± 0.03 a-d 2.35 ± 0.03 a 2.43 ± 0.04 bc 4.57 ± 0.04 cd 4.75 ± 0.20 a 4.66 ± 0.10 b 117.6 ± 0.9 ab 128.2 ± 0.4 a 122.9 ± 1.8 b
DPB13 2.60 ± 0.03 ab 2.39 ± 0.03 a 2.49 ± 0.04 ab 4.51 ± 0.04 d 4.57 ± 0.03 ab 4.54 ± 0.02 bc 117.0 ± 0.7 ab 128.2 ± 0.6 ab 122.6 ± 1.9 b
DPB20 2.56 ± 0.03 a-c 2.43 ± 0.02 a 2.50 ± 0.03 ab 4.08 ± 0.43 e 4.53 ± 0.05 b 4.31 ± 0.22 c 117.8 ± 0.4 ab 127.6 ± 0.7 b 122.7 ± 1.7 b
Mean 2.51 2.39 2.45 4.75 4.53 4.60 117.43 128.52 122.93
CV 3.83 3.75 3.67 6.63 3.50 5.99 0.88 1.09 1.03
LSD 0.12 0.11 0.08 0.40 0.20 0.25 1.31 1.80 1.12
h2B (%) 66.67 50.00 0 85.92 57.14 0 39.77 88.13 0

Table 2 Traits of genotypes under reproductive-stage drought stress (RS), non-stress (NS) treatments and pool.

Genotype DTF (d) PH (cm) PL (cm)
NS RS Pool NS RS Pool NS RS Pool
P 89.0 ± 0.7 a NA NA 103.2 ± 1.1 c NA NA 25.0 ± 0.5 ab NA NA
D 88.0 ± 0.7 ab NA NA 100.3 ± 1.5 c NA NA 25.9 ± 0.3 ab NA NA
B 87.8 ± 0.7 a-c 96.6 ± 0.6 a 92.2 ± 1.5 a 103.6 ± 1.6 c 97.5 ± 3.7 a 100.6 ± 2.2 b 25.1 ± 0.1 b 20.7 ± 0.9 c 22.9 ± 0.9 c
PB12 87.6 ± 0.4 a-c NA NA 104.3 ± 2.3 c NA NA 24.9 ± 0.1 b NA NA
PB15 86.8 ± 0.7 a-d NA NA 102.6 ± 1.8 c NA NA 25.9 ± 0.4 ab NA NA
PD14 85.8 ± 0.5 b-d 91.8 ± 0.4 d 88.8 ± 1.0 de 102.6 ± 2.3 c 96.7 ± 4.1 a 99.6 ± 2.4 b 25.3 ± 0.4 b 23.7 ± 0.5 ab 24.5 ± 0.4 ab
PD15 87.4 ± 0.5 a-d 92.8 ± 0.5 cd 90.1 ± 1.0 b-d 104.5 ± 2.8 c 97.3 ± 4.0 a 100.9 ± 2.6 b 24.7 ± 0.4 b 22.6 ± 0.5 ab 23.6 ± 0.5 bc
PBD1 87.6 ± 0.5 a-c 94.0 ± 0.6 bc 90.8 ± 1.1 a-c 104.7 ± 2.4 c 100.5 ± 3.8 a 102.6 ± 2.3 ab 24.9 ± 0.6 b 22.1 ± 0.5 bc 23.5 ± 0.6 bc
PBD3 88.0 ± 0.5 ab 94.0 ± 0.5 bc 91.0 ± 1.0 ab 99.9 ± 0.3 c 96.2 ± 4.4 a 98.1 ± 2.7 b 22.9 ± 0.6 c 23.3 ± 0.5 ab 24.5 ± 0.4 ab
PDB3 87.4 ± 0.5 a-d 92.8 ± 0.4 cd 90.1 ± 1.0 b-d 104.1 ± 3.0 c 100.6 ± 4.3 a 102.3 ± 2.6 ab 24.9 ± 0.4 b 24.1 ± 0.4 a 24.5 ± 0.3 ab
DPB7 85.2 ± 1.7 d 91.8 ± 0.4 d 88.5 ± 1.4 e 113.4 ± 2.1 a 102.1 ± 4.3 a 107.8 ± 2.9 a 25.0 ± 0.5 b 24.0 ± 1.0 a 24.5 ± 0.5 ab
DPB12 86.0 ± 1.0 b-d 92.8 ± 0.6 cd 89.4 ± 1.3 c-e 106.1 ± 1.1 bc 99.7 ± 3.5 a 102.9 ± 2.0 ab 25.0 ± 0.4 b 23.4 ± 0.3 ab 24.2 ± 0.4 ab
DPB13 86.2 ± 0.9 b-d 93.0 ± 0.7 d 89.6 ± 1.3 b-e 103.6 ± 2.4 c 98.4 ± 3.7 a 101.0 ± 2.2 b 25.2 ± 0.4 b 23.4 ± 0.3 ab 24.3 ± 0.4 ab
DPB20 85.6 ± 1.0 cd 95.0 ± 0.7 b 90.3 ± 1.7 bc 112.3 ± 3.0 ab 96.3 ± 4.9 a 104.3 ± 3.8 ab 26.6 ± 0.2 a 23.7 ± 0.6 ab 25.2 ± 0.6 a
Mean 87.03 93.46 90.08 104.67 98.54 102.01 25.09 23.09 24.02
CV (%) 2.03 1.30 1.79 4.74 9.35 7.28 4.07 5.87 5.05
LSD 2.25 1.56 1.43 6.29 11.82 6.61 1.30 1.74 1.08
h2B (%) 66.27 88.09 75.05 28.63 20.22 76.52 31.13 74.83 4.76
Genotype ET TT FFG
NS RS Pool NS RS Pool NS RS Pool
P 10.2 ± 1.4 b-d NA NA 10.6 ± 1.6 b-e NA NA 172.8 ± 5.9 ab NA NA
D 13.6 ± 1.8 a NA NA 13.8 ± 1.7 a NA NA 168.4 ± 4.0 a-c NA NA
B 7.8 ± 1.3 de 9.0 ± 1.6 ab 8.4 ± 1.0 c 8.8 ± 1.0 de 9.6 ± 1.4 ab 9.2 ± 0.8 b/d 172.4 ± 9.3 ab 26.4 ± 2.9 c 99.4 d ± 24.8 e
PB12 9.4 ± 0.5 b-e NA NA 9.6 ± 0.5 c-e NA NA 177.6 ± 6.6 a NA NA
PB15 9.0 ± 1.1 c-e NA NA 9.2 ± 0.9 de NA NA 166.0 ± 5.8 a-d NA NA
PD14 10.6 ± 0.4 b-d 11.4 ± 1.2 a 11.0 ± 0.6 a 11.0 ± 0.5 a-d 11.4 ± 1.2 ab 11.2 ± 0.6 ab 178.4 ± 8.8 a 52.4 ± 2.3 ab 115.4 ± 21.4 a
PD15 9.6 ± 1.2 b-e 8.0 ± 1.4 b 8.8 ± 0.9 bc 11.0 ± 1.1 a-d 8.4 ± 1.2 b 9.7 ± 0.9 b-d 157.2 ± 1.2 cd 49.8 ± 5.2 ab 103.5 ± 18.1 cd
PBD1 11.0 ± 1.0 a-c 11.6 ± 0.5 a 11.3 ± 0.5 a 12.4 ± 1.5 a-c 11.6 ± 0.5 a 12.0 ± 0.8 a 170.6 ± 3.7 a-c 45.4 ± 2.8 b 108.0 ± 21.0 a-c
PBD3 12.0 ± 0.6 ab 10.6 ± 1.2 ab 11.3 ± 0.7 a 13.2 ± 0.9 ab 10.6 ± 1.2 ab 11.5 ± 0.8 ab 168.4 ± 2.7 a-c 59.4 ± 5.9 a 113.9 ± 18.4 ab
PDB3 11.2 ± 1.1 a-c 10.0 ± 1.3 ab 10.6 ± 0.8 ab 13.0 ± 1.1 ab 10.0 ± 1.3 ab 11.5 ± 1.0 ab 153.4 ± 2.0 d 48.2 ± 1.6 ab 100.8 ± 17.6 cd
DPB7 9.4 ± 0.5 b-e 11.8 ± 0.7 a 10.6 ± 0.6 ab 9.8 ± 0.5 c-e 11.8 ± 0.7 a 10.8 ± 0.5 a-c 161.4 ± 3.1 b-d 53.4 ± 3.8 ab 107.4 ± 18.2 a-d
DPB12 7.2 ± 0.6 e 9.2 ± 1.2 ab 8.2 ± 0.7 c 7.8 ± 0.5 e 9.4 ± 1.0 ab 8.6 ± 0.6 d 152.4 ± 1.7 d 52.2 ± 4.9 ab 102.3 ± 16.9 cd
DPB13 9.4 ± 0.5 c-e 10.2 ± 1.2 ab 9.8 ± 0.7 a-c 9.6 ± 0.6 c-e 11.4 ± 1.0 ab 10.5 ± 0.6 a-d 161.0 ± 3.2 b-d 43.8 ± 5.5 b 102.4 ± 19.8 cd
DPB20 9.0 ± 1.0 c-e 10.2 ± 1.1 ab 9.6 ± 0.7 a-c 9.2 ± 1.0 de 10.4 ± 1.0 ab 9.8 ± 0.7 b-d 165.8 ± 3.6 a-d 46.2 ± 4.0 b 106.0 ± 20.1 b-d
Mean 9.96 10.20 9.96 10.64 10.46 10.52 166.13 47.72 105.91
CV (%) 23.13 25.43 22.97 21.69 22.86 21.06 6.54 19.30 9.11
LSD 2.92 3.33 2.04 2.93 3.07 1.97 13.78 11.81 8.60
h2B (%) 72.11 52.61 14.31 76.02 52.09 7.79 74.06 81.94 0
Genotype HGW (g) GLWR GD (d)
NS RS Pool NS RS Pool NS RS Pool
P 2.41 ± 0.03 de NA NA 4.97 ± 0.07bc NA NA 117.4 ± 0.2 ab NA NA
D 2.47 ± 0.08 c-e NA NA 4.98 ± 0.11 b NA NA 117.4 ± 0.2 ab NA NA
B 2.35 ± 0.07 e 2.43 ± 0.06 a 2.39 ± 0.04 c 5.61 ± 0.23 a 4.42 ± 0.04 b 5.01 ± 0.23 a 116.8 ± 0.2 b 133.2 ± 1.2 b 125.0 ± 2.8 a
PB12 2.55 ± 0.03 a-c NA NA 4.96 ± 0.02 bc NA NA 118.2 ± 0.4 a NA NA
PB15 2.49 c-e NA NA 4.81 b-d NA NA 117.6 ab NA NA
PD14 2.55 ± 0.23 a-c 2.34 ± 0.03 a 2.44 ± 0.04 bc 4.86 ± 0.04 b-d 4.49 ± 0.04 b 4.67 ± 0.07 b 117.4 ± 0.5 ab 128.4 ± 0.2 b 122.9 ± 1.9 b
PD15 2.52 ± 0.02 a-d 2.40 ± 0.05 a 2.46 ± 0.03 a-c 4.86 ± 0.04 b-d 4.49 ± 0.02 b 4.67 ± 0.06 b 117.6 ± 0.5 ab 127.6 ± 0.5 b 122.6 ± 1.7 b
PBD1 2.63 ± 0.04 a 2.42 ± 0.05 a 2.52 ± 0.05 a 4.59 ± 0.04 b-d 4.51 ± 0.01 b 4.55 ± 0.03 bc 117.6 ± 0.4 ab 127.8 ± 0.4b 122.7 ± 1.7 b
PBD3 2.52 ± 0.04 a-d 2.38 ± 0.05 a 2.45 ± 0.04 a-c 4.63 ± 0.08 b-d 4.47 ± 0.04 b 4.55 ± 0.05 b 117.6 ± 0.5 ab 129.0 ± 0.5 b 123.3 ± 1.9 b
PDB3 2.47 ± 0.04 c-e 2.41 ± 0.03 a 2.44 ± 0.02 bc 4.53 ± 0.02 d 4.50 ± 0.02 b 4.51 ± 0.02 bc 117.0 ± 0.6 ab 127.8 ± 0.6 b 122.4 ± 1.8 b
DPB7 2.52 ± 0.06 a-d 2.32 ± 0.02 a 2.42 ± 0.05 bc 4.51 ± 0.04 cd 4.57 ± 0.03 ab 4.54 ± 0.02 bc 117.0 ± 0.7 ab 127.4 ± 0.5 ab 122.2 ± 1.8 b
DPB12 2.52 ± 0.03 a-d 2.35 ± 0.03 a 2.43 ± 0.04 bc 4.57 ± 0.04 cd 4.75 ± 0.20 a 4.66 ± 0.10 b 117.6 ± 0.9 ab 128.2 ± 0.4 a 122.9 ± 1.8 b
DPB13 2.60 ± 0.03 ab 2.39 ± 0.03 a 2.49 ± 0.04 ab 4.51 ± 0.04 d 4.57 ± 0.03 ab 4.54 ± 0.02 bc 117.0 ± 0.7 ab 128.2 ± 0.6 ab 122.6 ± 1.9 b
DPB20 2.56 ± 0.03 a-c 2.43 ± 0.02 a 2.50 ± 0.03 ab 4.08 ± 0.43 e 4.53 ± 0.05 b 4.31 ± 0.22 c 117.8 ± 0.4 ab 127.6 ± 0.7 b 122.7 ± 1.7 b
Mean 2.51 2.39 2.45 4.75 4.53 4.60 117.43 128.52 122.93
CV 3.83 3.75 3.67 6.63 3.50 5.99 0.88 1.09 1.03
LSD 0.12 0.11 0.08 0.40 0.20 0.25 1.31 1.80 1.12
h2B (%) 66.67 50.00 0 85.92 57.14 0 39.77 88.13 0
Table S2. Polymorphic, linked and flanking markers of resistance genes and drought tolerance QTLs.
Genotype Marker Gene/QTL Chr. Annealing temperature (ºC) Repeat motif Expected base pair size (bp) Reference
IRBB60 RM224 Xa4 11 55 (AAG)8(AG)13 157 He et al, 2006; Tanweer et al, 2015
RM122 xa5 5 - (GA)7A(GA)2A(GA)11 227 Wu and Tanksley,1993; Khan et al, 2015
RM153 xa5 5 55 (GAA)9 201 Ashkani et al, 2011
RM13 xa5 5 55 (GA)6-(GA)16 141 Khan et al, 2015
RG136 Xa13Prom xa13 8 - - 246 Zhang et al, 1996
xa13 8 - - Chukwu et al, 2019; Akos et al, 2019b, c
RM21 Xa-21 11 55 (GA)18 157 Chen et al, 1997; Pradhan et al, 2015
pTA248 Xa-21 11 - - Ronald et al, 1992
Putra-1 RM8225 Piz 6 55 A11N(AAG)14 221 Miah et al, 2016; Akos et al, 2019b, c
RM6836 Piz, Pi2, Pi9 6 55 (TCT)14 240 Ashkani et al, 2011; Akos et al, 2019b, c
MR219-PL-137 RM236 qDTY2.2 2 55 (CT)18 174 Swamy et al, 2013; Shamsudin et al, 2016
RM276 qDTY2.2,3.1 6 55 (AG)8A3(GA)33 149 Shamsudin et al, 2016
RM511 qDTY12.1 12 55 (GAC)7 130 Mishra et al, 2013; Bernier et al, 2007; Shamsudin et al, 2016
RM520 qDTY3.2 3 55 (AG)10 247 Shamsudin et al, 2016
RM1261 qDTY12.1 12 50 (AG)16 167 Mishra et al, 2013; Bernier et al, 2007

Table S2. Polymorphic, linked and flanking markers of resistance genes and drought tolerance QTLs.

Genotype Marker Gene/QTL Chr. Annealing temperature (ºC) Repeat motif Expected base pair size (bp) Reference
IRBB60 RM224 Xa4 11 55 (AAG)8(AG)13 157 He et al, 2006; Tanweer et al, 2015
RM122 xa5 5 - (GA)7A(GA)2A(GA)11 227 Wu and Tanksley,1993; Khan et al, 2015
RM153 xa5 5 55 (GAA)9 201 Ashkani et al, 2011
RM13 xa5 5 55 (GA)6-(GA)16 141 Khan et al, 2015
RG136 Xa13Prom xa13 8 - - 246 Zhang et al, 1996
xa13 8 - - Chukwu et al, 2019; Akos et al, 2019b, c
RM21 Xa-21 11 55 (GA)18 157 Chen et al, 1997; Pradhan et al, 2015
pTA248 Xa-21 11 - - Ronald et al, 1992
Putra-1 RM8225 Piz 6 55 A11N(AAG)14 221 Miah et al, 2016; Akos et al, 2019b, c
RM6836 Piz, Pi2, Pi9 6 55 (TCT)14 240 Ashkani et al, 2011; Akos et al, 2019b, c
MR219-PL-137 RM236 qDTY2.2 2 55 (CT)18 174 Swamy et al, 2013; Shamsudin et al, 2016
RM276 qDTY2.2,3.1 6 55 (AG)8A3(GA)33 149 Shamsudin et al, 2016
RM511 qDTY12.1 12 55 (GAC)7 130 Mishra et al, 2013; Bernier et al, 2007; Shamsudin et al, 2016
RM520 qDTY3.2 3 55 (AG)10 247 Shamsudin et al, 2016
RM1261 qDTY12.1 12 50 (AG)16 167 Mishra et al, 2013; Bernier et al, 2007
Fig. 1. Clusting analysis of 14 rice genotypes using morphological and yield traits and principal component analysis (PCA).A, Dendrogram showing relationship among 14 rice genotypes using 9 morphological and yield traits.B, Dendrogram showing relationship among 10 rice genotypes using 9 morphological and yield traits.C, Three-dimensional plot of PCA showing relationships among 14 rice genotypes using morphological and yield traits.D, Three-dimensional plot of PCA showing relationships among 10 rice genotypes using morphological and yield traits.

Fig. 1. Clusting analysis of 14 rice genotypes using morphological and yield traits and principal component analysis (PCA).A, Dendrogram showing relationship among 14 rice genotypes using 9 morphological and yield traits.B, Dendrogram showing relationship among 10 rice genotypes using 9 morphological and yield traits.C, Three-dimensional plot of PCA showing relationships among 14 rice genotypes using morphological and yield traits.D, Three-dimensional plot of PCA showing relationships among 10 rice genotypes using morphological and yield traits.

Table 3 Correlation coefficients of nine traits under non-stress (NS), reproductive-stage drought stress (RS) and pool.
Trait Treatment DTF PH PL ET TT FFG HGW GLWR
PH NS -0.263*
RS -0.113
Pool -0.444**
PL NS -0.202 0.306**
RS -0.349* 0.040
Pool -0.611** 0.390**
ET NS 0.006 -0.073 -0.118
RS -0.128 0.026 0.065
Pool 0.065 -0.053 -0.120
TT NS 0.002 -0.120 -0.245* 0.925**
RS -0.111 0.030 0.053 0.982**
Pool -0.024 -0.041 -0.119 0.927**
FFG NS 0.004 -0.136 0.069 0.082 -0.008
RS -0.358* -0.064 0.248 0.153 0.111
Pool -0.873** 0.391** 0.568** -0.068 0.035
HGW NS -0.277* 0.071 0.069 0.015 -0.037 0.137
RS 0.269 -0.004s -0.187 -0.134 -0.133 -0.118
Pool -0.510** 0.246* 0.300** -0.010 0.013 0.563**
GLWR NS 0.342** -0.262* -0.118 0.011 0.008 0.092 -0.299
RS -0.217 0.086 0.172 0.073 0.071 0.203 -0.0004
Pool -0.094 -0.027 0.046 -0.032 0.017 0.204* -0.126
GD NS -0.014 0.138 0.054 0.112 0.040 0.233 0.176 -0.126
RS 0.590** -0.111 -0.532** -0.083 -0.061 -0.433* 0.138 -0.226
Pool 0.886** -0.412** -0.606** 0.097 -0.022 -0.951** -0.511** -0.227*

Table 3 Correlation coefficients of nine traits under non-stress (NS), reproductive-stage drought stress (RS) and pool.

Trait Treatment DTF PH PL ET TT FFG HGW GLWR
PH NS -0.263*
RS -0.113
Pool -0.444**
PL NS -0.202 0.306**
RS -0.349* 0.040
Pool -0.611** 0.390**
ET NS 0.006 -0.073 -0.118
RS -0.128 0.026 0.065
Pool 0.065 -0.053 -0.120
TT NS 0.002 -0.120 -0.245* 0.925**
RS -0.111 0.030 0.053 0.982**
Pool -0.024 -0.041 -0.119 0.927**
FFG NS 0.004 -0.136 0.069 0.082 -0.008
RS -0.358* -0.064 0.248 0.153 0.111
Pool -0.873** 0.391** 0.568** -0.068 0.035
HGW NS -0.277* 0.071 0.069 0.015 -0.037 0.137
RS 0.269 -0.004s -0.187 -0.134 -0.133 -0.118
Pool -0.510** 0.246* 0.300** -0.010 0.013 0.563**
GLWR NS 0.342** -0.262* -0.118 0.011 0.008 0.092 -0.299
RS -0.217 0.086 0.172 0.073 0.071 0.203 -0.0004
Pool -0.094 -0.027 0.046 -0.032 0.017 0.204* -0.126
GD NS -0.014 0.138 0.054 0.112 0.040 0.233 0.176 -0.126
RS 0.590** -0.111 -0.532** -0.083 -0.061 -0.433* 0.138 -0.226
Pool 0.886** -0.412** -0.606** 0.097 -0.022 -0.951** -0.511** -0.227*
Table S3. ANOVA for parameters of F4 single, F3 three-way and reciprocal, and F3 (DB) crosses showing level of significance for 3 and 11 parental and progeny (improved) lines under non-stress (NS) and reproductive-stage drought stress (RS) treatment.
Source DF DTF PH PL ET
NS RS NS RS NS RS NS RS NS RS
Replication 4 4 3.31ns 0.93ns 50.4ns 74.74ns 0.28ns 0.62ns 2.13ns 8.65ns
Genotype 13 9 6.15* 11.02** 73.9** 21.53ns 3.39* 5.47** 13.73ns 7.47ns
Error 52 36 3.13 1.49 24.6 84.94 1.04 1.84 5.31 6.73
Source TT FFG 100-GW GLW YM
NS RS NS RS NS RS NS RS NS RS
Replication 5.32ns 7.13ns 239.19ns 86.57ns 0.02ns 0.01ns 0.07ns 0.02ns 1.68ns 0.97ns
Genotype 16.90** 6.22ns 336.66* 384.90** 0.02** 0.01ns 0.61** 0.04ns 0.70ns 14.63**
Error 5.33 5.72 117.92 84.83 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.03 0.01 1.97

Table S3. ANOVA for parameters of F4 single, F3 three-way and reciprocal, and F3 (DB) crosses showing level of significance for 3 and 11 parental and progeny (improved) lines under non-stress (NS) and reproductive-stage drought stress (RS) treatment.

Source DF DTF PH PL ET
NS RS NS RS NS RS NS RS NS RS
Replication 4 4 3.31ns 0.93ns 50.4ns 74.74ns 0.28ns 0.62ns 2.13ns 8.65ns
Genotype 13 9 6.15* 11.02** 73.9** 21.53ns 3.39* 5.47** 13.73ns 7.47ns
Error 52 36 3.13 1.49 24.6 84.94 1.04 1.84 5.31 6.73
Source TT FFG 100-GW GLW YM
NS RS NS RS NS RS NS RS NS RS
Replication 5.32ns 7.13ns 239.19ns 86.57ns 0.02ns 0.01ns 0.07ns 0.02ns 1.68ns 0.97ns
Genotype 16.90** 6.22ns 336.66* 384.90** 0.02** 0.01ns 0.61** 0.04ns 0.70ns 14.63**
Error 5.33 5.72 117.92 84.83 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.03 0.01 1.97
Table S4. ANOVA for the parameters of F4 single, F3 three-way and reciprocal, and F3 double crosses generation showing interaction levels of significance.
Source of Var. DF DTF (cm) PH (cm) PL (cm) ET (no) TT (no) FFG (no) 100GW (g) GLW YM (days)
Replications 4 1.17ns 101.74ns 0.69ns 7.59ns 7.97ns 215.44ns 0.016ns 0.05ns 1.42ns
RS-TRT 1 1142.44** 1205.69** 86.49** 5.76ns 0.36ns 338607.61** 0.47** 0.51** 3124.81**
G 9 11.93** 72.66ns 5.27** 13.92** 13.57** 289.05** 0.02ns 0.32** 6.18**
RS-TRT×G 9 4.48ns 38.00ns 4.26** 4.98ns 9.74* 458.57** 0.02* 0.49** 9.08**
Error 76 2.59 55.15 1.47 5.23 4.91 93.16 0.01 0.08 1.6

Table S4. ANOVA for the parameters of F4 single, F3 three-way and reciprocal, and F3 double crosses generation showing interaction levels of significance.

Source of Var. DF DTF (cm) PH (cm) PL (cm) ET (no) TT (no) FFG (no) 100GW (g) GLW YM (days)
Replications 4 1.17ns 101.74ns 0.69ns 7.59ns 7.97ns 215.44ns 0.016ns 0.05ns 1.42ns
RS-TRT 1 1142.44** 1205.69** 86.49** 5.76ns 0.36ns 338607.61** 0.47** 0.51** 3124.81**
G 9 11.93** 72.66ns 5.27** 13.92** 13.57** 289.05** 0.02ns 0.32** 6.18**
RS-TRT×G 9 4.48ns 38.00ns 4.26** 4.98ns 9.74* 458.57** 0.02* 0.49** 9.08**
Error 76 2.59 55.15 1.47 5.23 4.91 93.16 0.01 0.08 1.6

参考文献 50

[1] Akos I S, Rafii M Y, Ismail M R, Ramlee S I, Shamsudin N A A, Ramli A B, Haliru B S, Muhammad I, Chukwu S C. 2019a. A review on gene pyramiding of agronomic, biotic and abiotic traits in rice variety development. Int J Appl Biol, 3(2): 65-96.
[2] Akos I S, Rafii M Y, Ismail, M R, Ramlee S I, Shamsudin N A A, Ramli A B, Jalloh M, Jamilu H, Swaray S. 2019b. Genetic inheritance of multiple traits of blast, bacteria leaf blight resistant and drought tolerant rice lines. Int J Appl Biol, 3(2): 1-35.
[3] Asghar A H, Rashid M, Ashraf M, Khan M H, Chaudhry Z. 2007. Improvement of basmati rice, against fungal infection through gene transfer technology. Pak J Bot, 39(4): 1277-1283.
[4] Ashkani S, Rafii M Y, Sariah M, Abdullah S N A, Rusli I, Harun A R, Latif M A. 2011. Analysis of simple sequence repeat markers linked with blast disease resistance genes in a segregating population of rice ( Oryza sativa). Genet Mol Res, 10(3): 1345-1355.
[5] Atlin G N, Lafitte H R, Tao D, Laza M, Amante M, Courtois B. 2006. Developing rice cultivars for high fertility upland systems in the Asian tropics. Field Crops Res, 97: 43-52.
[6] Baker J T, Allen Jr L H. 1993. Contrasting crop species responses to CO2 and temperature: Rice, soybean and citrus. Vegetation, 104: 239-260.
[7] Barnabas B, Jager K, Feher A. 2008. The effect of drought and heat stress on reproductive processes in cereals. Plant Cell Environ, 31: 11-38.
[8] Chang S Q, Chang T G, Song Q F, Zhu X G, Deng Q Y. 2016. Photosynthetic and agronomic traits of an elite hybrid rice Y-Liang-You 900 with a record-high yield. Field Crops Res, 187: 49-57.
[9] Cruz R T, O’Toole J C, Dingkuhn M, Yambao E B, Thangaraj M, de Datta S K. 1986. Shoot and root responses to water deficit in rainfed rice. Aust J Plant Physiol, 13: 567-575.
[10] Davatgar N, Weishabouri M R, Paskhah A R, Soltani A. 2009. Physiological and morphological responses of rice ( Oryza sativa L.) to varying water stress management strategies. Int J Plant Prod, 3: 19-32.
[11] Falconer D S. 1989. Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. New York, USA: Longman.
[12] Fitzgerald M A, McCouch S R, Hall R D. 2008. Not just a grain of rice: The quest for quality. Trends Plant Sci, 14(3): 133-139.
[13] Garrity D P, O’Toole J C. 1994. Screening rice for drought resistance at the reproductive phase. Field Crops Res, 39: 99-110.
[14] Geleta L F, Labuschagne M T, Viljoen C D. 2005. Genetic variability in pepper ( Capsicum annuum L.) estimated by morphological data and amplified fragment length polymorphism markers. Biodivers Conser, 14(10): 2361-2375.
[15] Guerra E P, Destro D, Miranda L A, Montalvan R. 1999. Parent selection for intercrossing in food types soybean through multivariate genetic divergence. Acta Sci Agron, 21(3): 429-437.
[16] Han L Z, Qiao Y L, Zhang S Y, Cao G L, Ye C R, Xu F R, Dai L Y, Ye J D, Koh H J. 2006. QTL analysis of some agronomic traits in rice under different growing environments. Agric Sci China, 5(1): 15-22.
[17] He Q, Li D B, Zhu Y S, Tan M P, Zhang D P, Lin X H. 2006. Fine mapping of Xa2, a bacterial blight resistance gene in rice. Mol Breeding, 17: 1-6.
[18] International Rice Research Institute (IRRI). 2014. Standard Evaluation System ( SES) for Rice. Manila, the Philippines: International rice research institute.
[19] Jia Y L, McAdams S A, Bryan G T, Hershay H P, Valent B. 2000. Direct interaction of resistance gene and avirulence gene products confers rice blast resistance. Embo J, 19: 4004-4014.
[20] Juraimi A S, Najib M Y M, Begum M, Anuar A R, Azmi M, Puteh A. 2009. Critical period of weed competition in direct seeded rice under saturated and flooded conditions. Pertanika J Trop Agric Sci, 32(2): 305-316.
[21] Khush G S. 2005. What will it take to feed 5.0 billion rice consumers in 2030. Plant Mol Biol, 59(1): 1-6.
[22] Kumar A, Dasgupta P, Kumar R. 2014. Emerging opportunities and challenges in rice production. Pop Kheti, 2(2): 6-11.
[23] Lafitte H R, Price A H, Courtois B. 2004. Yield response to water deficit in an upland rice mapping population: Associations among traits and genetic markers. Theor Appl Genet, 109: 1237-1246.
[24] Latif M A, Badsha M A, Tajul M I, Kabir M S, Rafii M Y, Mia M A T. 2011. Identification of genotypes resistant to blast, bacterial leaf blight, sheath blight and tungro and efficacy of seed treating fungicides against blast disease of rice. Sci Res Essays, 6(13): 2804-2811.
[25] Luo Y, Tang P S, Febellar N G, TeBeest D O. 1998. Risk analysis of yield losses caused by rice leaf blast associated with temperature changes above and below for five Asian countries. Agric Ecosyst Environ, 68(3): 197-205.
[26] Mashitah A B. 2018. Devlopment of weed competitive rice variety under water deficit conditions through marker assisted backcross breeding. [PhD Thesis]. Malaysia: Universiti Putra Malaysia.
[27] Mazid M S, Rafii M Y, Hanafi M M, Rahim H A, Shabanimofrad M, Latif M A. 2013. Agro-morphological characterization and assessment of variability, heritability, genetic advance and divergence in bacterial blight resistant rice genotypes. S Afr J Bot, 86: 15-22.
[28] Meena M L, Kumar N, Meena J K, Rai T. 2016. Genetic variability, heritability and genetic advances in chilli, Capsicum annuum. Biosci Biotechnol Res Commun, 9: 262-266.
[29] Miah G, Rafii M Y, Ismail M R, Puteh A B, Rahim H A, Latif M A. 2015. Recurrent parent genome recovery analysis in a marker- assisted backcrossing program of rice (Oryza sativa L.). C R Biol, 338(2): 83-94.
[30] Miah G, Rafii M Y, Ismail M R, Puteh A B, Rahim H A, Latiff M A. 2016. Marker-assisted introgression of broad-spectrum blast resistance genes into the cultivated MR219 rice variety. J Sci Food Agr, 97(9): 2810-2818.
[31] Miura K, Ashikari M, Matsuoka M. 2011. The role of QTLs in the breeding of high-yielding rice. Trends Plant Sci, 16: 319-326.
[32] Natraj Kumar P, Sujatha K, Laha G S, Srinivasa Rao K, Mishra B, Viraktamath B C, Hari Y, Reddy C S, Balachandran S M, Ram T, Sheshu Madhav M, Shobha Rani N, Neeraja C N, Ashok Reddy G, Shaik H, Sundaram R M. 2012. Identification and fine- mapping of Xa33, a novel gene for resistance to Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae. Phytopathology, 102(2): 222-228.
[33] Oladosu Y, Rafii M Y, Abdullah N, Abdul Malek A, Rahim H A, Hussin G, Abdul Latif M, Kareem I. 2014. Genetic variability and selection criteria in rice mutant lines as revealed by quantitative traits. Sci World J, 2014: 190531.
[34] Rajashekara H, Ellur R K, Khanna A, Nagarajan M, Krishnan S G, Singh A K, Sharma P, Sharma T R, Singh U D. 2014. Inheritance of blast resistance and its allelic relationship with five major R genes in a rice landrace ‘Vanasurya’. Ind Phytopathol, 67(4): 365-369.
[35] Ratner B. 2009. The correlation coefficient: Its values range between +1/-1, or do they? J Target Meas Anal Market, 17(2): 139-142.
[36] Ribot C, Hirsch J, Balzergue S, Tharreau D, Notteghem J L, Lebrun M H, Morel J B. 2008. Susceptibility of rice to the blast fungus, Magnaporthe grisea. J Plant Physiol, 165(1): 114-124.
[37] Ridzuan R, Rafii M Y, Yusoff M M, Ismail S I, Miah G, Usman M G. 2019. Genetic diversity analysis of selected Capsicum annuum genotypes based on morphophysiological, yield characteristics and their biochemical properties. J Sci Food Agr, 99: 269-280.
[38] Robinson H F, Comstock R E, Harvey P H. 1949. Genotypic and phenotypic correlation in corn and their implications in selection. Agron J, 43(6): 282-287.
[39] Serraj R, Kumar A, McNally K L, Slamet-Loedin I, Bruskiewich R, Mauleon R, Cairns J, Hijmans R J. 2009. Improvement of drought resistance in rice. Adv Agron, 103: 41-98.
[40] Shamsudin N A A, Swamy B P M, Ratnam W, Cruz M T S, Raman A, Kumar A. 2016. Marker assisted pyramiding of drought yield QTLs into a popular Malaysian rice cultivar, MR219. BMC Genet, 17: 30.
[41] Sikuku P A, Netondo G W, Musyimi D M, Onyango J C. 2010. Effects of water deficit on days to maturity and yield of three NERICA rainfed rice varieties. ARPN J Agric Biol Sci, 5(3): 1-9.
[42] Singh S, Amartalingam R, Wan Harun W S, Islam M T. 1996. Simulated impact of climate change on rice production in Peninsular Malaysia. UPM: Proceeding of National Conference on Climate Change: 41-49.
[43] Sukhla B. 2012. What is the importance of water for plants? Retrieved from . Accessed February 26, 2015.
[44] Sundaram R M, Chatterjee S, Olivia R, Laha G S, Cruz C V, Leach J E, Sonti R V. 2014. Update on bacteria blight of rice: Fourth international conference on bacterial blight. Rice, 7: 12.
[45] Taglea A G, Fujitaa D, Ebrona L A, Telebanco-Yanoriaa M J, Sasakia K, Shimarua T, Fukuta Y, Kobayashi N. 2016. Characterization of QTL for unique agronomic traits of new-plant-type rice varieties using introgression lines of IR64. Crop J, 4: 12-20.
[46] Tashiro T, Wardlaw I F. 1989. A comparison of the effect of high temperature on grain development in wheat and rice. Ann Bot, 64(1): 59-65.
[47] Yatung T, Dubey R K, Singh V, Upadhyay G. 2014. Genetic diversity of chilli ( Capsicum annum L.) genotypes of India based on morpho-chemical traits. Aust J Crop Sci, 8(1): 97-102.
[48] Zhai W X, Zhu L H. 1999. Rice bacterial blight resistance genes and their utilization in molecular breeding. Biotechnol Progr, 19(6): 9-15.
[49] Zhang G, Angeles E R, Abenes M L P, Khush G S, Huang N. 1996. RAPD and RFLP mapping of the bacterial blight resistance gene xa13 in rice. Theor Appl Genet, 93: 65-70.
[50] Zhang S Y, Tan G L, Ren G M, Li M R, Li Y Y, Lan P X, Gui F R, Wang H N, Zhu S S, Li F. 2015. Investigation of rice virus diseases and analysis of the molecular variation of RSV isolates in the main rice-growing areas of Yunnan Province from 2013 to 2014. Chin J Rice Sci, 29(5): 535-545. (in Chinese with English abstract)

相关文章 0

No related articles found!

编辑推荐

Metrics

阅读次数
全文


摘要

  • 摘要
  • 图/表
  • 参考文献
  • 相关文章
  • 编辑推荐
  • Metrics
回顶部
浙ICP备05004719号-15   公安备案号:33010302003355
版权所有 © 《Rice Science》编辑部
地址:浙江省杭州市体育场路359号 邮编:310006 电话:0571-63371017 E-mail:crrn@fy.hz.zn.cn; cjrs278@gmail.com
本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发
总访问量: 今日访问: 在线人数: