Rice Science ›› 2017, Vol. 24 ›› Issue (2): 73-84.DOI: 10.1016/j.rsci.2016.08.008
• Orginal Article • Previous Articles Next Articles
R. Kuanar Sandhya, Ray Anuprita, K. Sethi Santosh, Chattopadhyay Krishnendu, K. Sarkar Ramani()
Received:
2016-02-01
Accepted:
2016-08-23
Online:
2017-02-10
Published:
2016-12-28
R. Kuanar Sandhya, Ray Anuprita, K. Sethi Santosh, Chattopadhyay Krishnendu, K. Sarkar Ramani. Physiological Basis of Stagnant Flooding Tolerance in Rice[J]. Rice Science, 2017, 24(2): 73-84.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
Accession | Tiller number per square metre | Panicle length (cm) | Panicle number per square metre | Panicle weight (g/m2) | Grain yield (g/m2) | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C | SF | SF/C | C | SF | SF/C | C | SF | SF/C | C | SF | SF/C | C | SF | SF/C | |||||
AC85 | 189 bc | 160 ab | 0.85 | 22.5 d | 21.5 bc | 0.95 | 179 bA | 149 abA | 0.83 | 423 bc | 400 ab | 0.94 | 325 c | 315 ab | 0.97 | ||||
AC443 | 219 a | 164 ab | 0.75 | 24.2 c | 23.9 a | 0.99 | 184 bA | 155 abA | 0.84 | 530 ab | 431 ab | 0.81 | 451 ab | 367 ab | 0.82 | ||||
AC729 | 192 bc | 127 bc | 0.66 | 25.7 b | 23.6 ab | 0.92 | 187 abA | 118 cdB | 0.63 | 482 ab | 270 c | 0.56 | 360 bc | 216 c | 0.60 | ||||
AC736 | 162 d | 135 bc | 0.83 | 24.4 bc | 23.7 a | 0.97 | 154 cA | 115 cdB | 0.75 | 331 d | 253 c | 0.76 | 234 d | 195 c | 0.83 | ||||
AC813 | 191 bc | 167 ab | 0.87 | 22.0 d | 20.2 cd | 0.92 | 183 bA | 165 abA | 0.90 | 536 ab | 351 b | 0.65 | 479 a | 274 bc | 0.57 | ||||
AC931 | 180 bcd | 131 bc | 0.73 | 24.8 b | 23.7 a | 0.95 | 168 bcA | 123 cdB | 0.73 | 459 bc | 329 bc | 0.72 | 394 b | 285 b | 0.72 | ||||
AC1125A | 213 ab | 171 ab | 0.80 | 21.2 e | 19.5 d | 0.92 | 213 aA | 170 aB | 0.73 | 417 bc | 300 bc | 0.72 | 386 bc | 245 bc | 0.63 | ||||
AC1781 | 194 ab | 177 a | 0.91 | 24.1 bc | 23.3 a | 0.97 | 187 abA | 168 abA | 0.90 | 468 b | 380 ab | 0.81 | 393 bc | 303 b | 0.77 | ||||
AC1996 | 187 bcd | 145 bc | 0.78 | 23.4 cd | 21.2 b | 0.90 | 185 bA | 143 bB | 0.77 | 444 bc | 323 bc | 0.73 | 381 bc | 260 b | 0.68 | ||||
AC34259 | 217 a | 167 ab | 0.77 | 23.6 cd | 22.0 b | 0.93 | 212 aA | 170 aB | 0.80 | 481 ab | 377 ab | 0.78 | 366 bc | 259 bc | 0.71 | ||||
AC34280 | 172 bcd | 146 bc | 0.85 | 24.9 bc | 23.7 a | 0.95 | 171 bA | 139 cdA | 0.81 | 514 ab | 456 a | 0.89 | 412 ab | 373 a | 0.90 | ||||
AC39293 | 179 bcd | 155 ab | 0.87 | 27.7 a | 24.0 a | 0.87 | 179 bcA | 146 abA | 0.81 | 483 ab | 334 bc | 0.69 | 383 bc | 270 bc | 0.70 | ||||
AC39416A | 174 bcd | 155 ab | 0.89 | 24.4 bc | 23.0 ab | 0.94 | 161 bcA | 145 abA | 0.90 | 278 d | 276 bc | 0.99 | 214 d | 213 c | 0.99 | ||||
Sabita | 168 cd | 149 b | 0.89 | 25.3 bc | 23.1 a | 0.91 | 166 bcA | 138 cdA | 0.83 | 413 bc | 339 bc | 0.82 | 306 c | 269 bc | 0.88 | ||||
Savitri-Sub1 | 198 ab | 120 c | 0.61 | 23.1 cd | 22.3 b | 0.96 | 193 abA | 114 dB | 0.59 | 511 ab | 336 bc | 0.66 | 448 ab | 285 b | 0.64 | ||||
FR13A | 202 ab | 129 bc | 0.64 | 23.1 cd | 21.5 bc | 0.93 | 194 abA | 127 cdB | 0.65 | 555 a | 413 ab | 0.74 | 452 ab | 331 ab | 0.73 | ||||
Genotype (G) | 25 | 1.3 | 26 | 80 | 68 | ||||||||||||||
Treatment (T) | 9 | 0.5 | 9 | 28 | 24 | ||||||||||||||
G × T | ns | ns | 37 | ns | ns | ||||||||||||||
C, Control (no flooding); SF, Stagnant flooding; ns, No significance. Values in the same column followed by different lowercase letters and values in the same line followed by different uppercase letters are significantly different at the 0.05 level (F-test). |
Table 1 Yield and yield attributes under control and medium depth (about 50 cm) stagnant flooding.
Accession | Tiller number per square metre | Panicle length (cm) | Panicle number per square metre | Panicle weight (g/m2) | Grain yield (g/m2) | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C | SF | SF/C | C | SF | SF/C | C | SF | SF/C | C | SF | SF/C | C | SF | SF/C | |||||
AC85 | 189 bc | 160 ab | 0.85 | 22.5 d | 21.5 bc | 0.95 | 179 bA | 149 abA | 0.83 | 423 bc | 400 ab | 0.94 | 325 c | 315 ab | 0.97 | ||||
AC443 | 219 a | 164 ab | 0.75 | 24.2 c | 23.9 a | 0.99 | 184 bA | 155 abA | 0.84 | 530 ab | 431 ab | 0.81 | 451 ab | 367 ab | 0.82 | ||||
AC729 | 192 bc | 127 bc | 0.66 | 25.7 b | 23.6 ab | 0.92 | 187 abA | 118 cdB | 0.63 | 482 ab | 270 c | 0.56 | 360 bc | 216 c | 0.60 | ||||
AC736 | 162 d | 135 bc | 0.83 | 24.4 bc | 23.7 a | 0.97 | 154 cA | 115 cdB | 0.75 | 331 d | 253 c | 0.76 | 234 d | 195 c | 0.83 | ||||
AC813 | 191 bc | 167 ab | 0.87 | 22.0 d | 20.2 cd | 0.92 | 183 bA | 165 abA | 0.90 | 536 ab | 351 b | 0.65 | 479 a | 274 bc | 0.57 | ||||
AC931 | 180 bcd | 131 bc | 0.73 | 24.8 b | 23.7 a | 0.95 | 168 bcA | 123 cdB | 0.73 | 459 bc | 329 bc | 0.72 | 394 b | 285 b | 0.72 | ||||
AC1125A | 213 ab | 171 ab | 0.80 | 21.2 e | 19.5 d | 0.92 | 213 aA | 170 aB | 0.73 | 417 bc | 300 bc | 0.72 | 386 bc | 245 bc | 0.63 | ||||
AC1781 | 194 ab | 177 a | 0.91 | 24.1 bc | 23.3 a | 0.97 | 187 abA | 168 abA | 0.90 | 468 b | 380 ab | 0.81 | 393 bc | 303 b | 0.77 | ||||
AC1996 | 187 bcd | 145 bc | 0.78 | 23.4 cd | 21.2 b | 0.90 | 185 bA | 143 bB | 0.77 | 444 bc | 323 bc | 0.73 | 381 bc | 260 b | 0.68 | ||||
AC34259 | 217 a | 167 ab | 0.77 | 23.6 cd | 22.0 b | 0.93 | 212 aA | 170 aB | 0.80 | 481 ab | 377 ab | 0.78 | 366 bc | 259 bc | 0.71 | ||||
AC34280 | 172 bcd | 146 bc | 0.85 | 24.9 bc | 23.7 a | 0.95 | 171 bA | 139 cdA | 0.81 | 514 ab | 456 a | 0.89 | 412 ab | 373 a | 0.90 | ||||
AC39293 | 179 bcd | 155 ab | 0.87 | 27.7 a | 24.0 a | 0.87 | 179 bcA | 146 abA | 0.81 | 483 ab | 334 bc | 0.69 | 383 bc | 270 bc | 0.70 | ||||
AC39416A | 174 bcd | 155 ab | 0.89 | 24.4 bc | 23.0 ab | 0.94 | 161 bcA | 145 abA | 0.90 | 278 d | 276 bc | 0.99 | 214 d | 213 c | 0.99 | ||||
Sabita | 168 cd | 149 b | 0.89 | 25.3 bc | 23.1 a | 0.91 | 166 bcA | 138 cdA | 0.83 | 413 bc | 339 bc | 0.82 | 306 c | 269 bc | 0.88 | ||||
Savitri-Sub1 | 198 ab | 120 c | 0.61 | 23.1 cd | 22.3 b | 0.96 | 193 abA | 114 dB | 0.59 | 511 ab | 336 bc | 0.66 | 448 ab | 285 b | 0.64 | ||||
FR13A | 202 ab | 129 bc | 0.64 | 23.1 cd | 21.5 bc | 0.93 | 194 abA | 127 cdB | 0.65 | 555 a | 413 ab | 0.74 | 452 ab | 331 ab | 0.73 | ||||
Genotype (G) | 25 | 1.3 | 26 | 80 | 68 | ||||||||||||||
Treatment (T) | 9 | 0.5 | 9 | 28 | 24 | ||||||||||||||
G × T | ns | ns | 37 | ns | ns | ||||||||||||||
C, Control (no flooding); SF, Stagnant flooding; ns, No significance. Values in the same column followed by different lowercase letters and values in the same line followed by different uppercase letters are significantly different at the 0.05 level (F-test). |
Accession | Plant height (cm) | Seed-setting rate (%) | Single panicle weight (g) | Harvest index | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C | SF | SF/C | C | SF | SF/C | C | SF | SF/C | C | SF | SF/C | ||||
AC85 | 171 cB | 199 bA | 1.16 | 74 cdA | 75 bA | 1.01 | 2.35 cA | 2.68 bA | 1.14 | 0.33 cdA | 0.28 bcB | 0.85 | |||
AC443 | 172 cB | 190 cA | 1.10 | 75 cA | 78 abA | 1.04 | 2.86 abA | 2.77 bA | 0.97 | 0.41 aA | 0.31 abB | 0.76 | |||
AC729 | 179 bA | 184 cA | 1.03 | 73 cdA | 70 cA | 0.96 | 2.55 bcA | 2.28 cdA | 0.89 | 0.30 dA | 0.23 dB | 0.77 | |||
AC736 | 186 aB | 200 bA | 1.07 | 71 dA | 66 dB | 0.92 | 2.16 cdA | 2.19 cdA | 1.01 | 0.23 fA | 0.20 eA | 0.87 | |||
AC813 | 173 bcB | 196 bcA | 1.13 | 88 aA | 68 cdB | 0.77 | 2.93 abA | 2.11 dB | 0.72 | 0.36 bcA | 0.26 cB | 0.72 | |||
AC931 | 179 bB | 200 bA | 1.12 | 85 aA | 79 abB | 0.93 | 2.73 abA | 2.69 bcA | 0.98 | 0.29 dA | 0.25 cdB | 0.86 | |||
AC1125A | 151 eB | 174 dA | 1.15 | 73 cdA | 71 cA | 0.97 | 1.93 dA | 1.78 eA | 0.92 | 0.30 dA | 0.25 cdB | 0.83 | |||
AC1781 | 170 cB | 186 cA | 1.09 | 76 cA | 73 bcA | 0.96 | 2.49 bcA | 2.26 cdA | 0.91 | 0.33 cdA | 0.27 bcB | 0.82 | |||
AC1996 | 158 dA | 162 eA | 1.02 | 76 cA | 64 dB | 0.84 | 2.33 cA | 2.28 cdA | 0.98 | 0.34 cA | 0.32 aA | 0.94 | |||
AC34259 | 170 cB | 186 cA | 1.09 | 68 dA | 68 cdA | 1.00 | 2.26 cA | 2.20 cdA | 0.97 | 0.31 dA | 0.26 cB | 0.84 | |||
AC34280 | 173 bcB | 204 aA | 1.18 | 78 bcA | 78 abA | 1.00 | 2.99 aA | 3.26 aA | 1.09 | 0.37 bA | 0.29 bB | 0.78 | |||
AC39293 | 177 bcB | 187 cA | 1.06 | 75 cA | 71 cA | 0.95 | 2.68 bA | 2.32 cA | 0.86 | 0.33 cdA | 0.26 cB | 0.79 | |||
AC39416A | 170 cB | 208 aA | 1.22 | 69 dA | 65 dA | 0.94 | 1.72 dA | 1.96 deA | 1.14 | 0.23 fA | 0.25 cdA | 1.09 | |||
Sabita | 167 cB | 188 cA | 1.12 | 63 eA | 64 dA | 1.01 | 2.50 bcA | 2.47 cA | 0.99 | 0.26 eA | 0.24 cdA | 0.92 | |||
Savitri-Sub1 | 123 fB | 132 fA | 1.07 | 85 aA | 76 bB | 0.89 | 2.65 bA | 2.98 abA | 1.12 | 0.37 bA | 0.31 abB | 0.84 | |||
FR13A | 151 eB | 171 dA | 1.13 | 80 bA | 81 aA | 1.01 | 2.85 abA | 3.20 aA | 1.12 | 0.32 cdA | 0.30 abB | 0.94 | |||
Genotype (G) | 6 | 3 | 0.28 | 0.02 | |||||||||||
Treatment (T) | 2 | 1 | ns | 0.01 | |||||||||||
G × T | 9 | 4 | 0.43 | 0.03 | |||||||||||
C, Control (no flooding); SF, Stagnant flooding; ns, No significance. Values in the same column followed by different lowercase letters and values in the same line followed by different uppercase letters are sighnificantly different at the 0.05 level (F-test). |
Table 2 Changes of some yield attributes due to medium depth (about 50 cm) stagnant flooding.
Accession | Plant height (cm) | Seed-setting rate (%) | Single panicle weight (g) | Harvest index | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C | SF | SF/C | C | SF | SF/C | C | SF | SF/C | C | SF | SF/C | ||||
AC85 | 171 cB | 199 bA | 1.16 | 74 cdA | 75 bA | 1.01 | 2.35 cA | 2.68 bA | 1.14 | 0.33 cdA | 0.28 bcB | 0.85 | |||
AC443 | 172 cB | 190 cA | 1.10 | 75 cA | 78 abA | 1.04 | 2.86 abA | 2.77 bA | 0.97 | 0.41 aA | 0.31 abB | 0.76 | |||
AC729 | 179 bA | 184 cA | 1.03 | 73 cdA | 70 cA | 0.96 | 2.55 bcA | 2.28 cdA | 0.89 | 0.30 dA | 0.23 dB | 0.77 | |||
AC736 | 186 aB | 200 bA | 1.07 | 71 dA | 66 dB | 0.92 | 2.16 cdA | 2.19 cdA | 1.01 | 0.23 fA | 0.20 eA | 0.87 | |||
AC813 | 173 bcB | 196 bcA | 1.13 | 88 aA | 68 cdB | 0.77 | 2.93 abA | 2.11 dB | 0.72 | 0.36 bcA | 0.26 cB | 0.72 | |||
AC931 | 179 bB | 200 bA | 1.12 | 85 aA | 79 abB | 0.93 | 2.73 abA | 2.69 bcA | 0.98 | 0.29 dA | 0.25 cdB | 0.86 | |||
AC1125A | 151 eB | 174 dA | 1.15 | 73 cdA | 71 cA | 0.97 | 1.93 dA | 1.78 eA | 0.92 | 0.30 dA | 0.25 cdB | 0.83 | |||
AC1781 | 170 cB | 186 cA | 1.09 | 76 cA | 73 bcA | 0.96 | 2.49 bcA | 2.26 cdA | 0.91 | 0.33 cdA | 0.27 bcB | 0.82 | |||
AC1996 | 158 dA | 162 eA | 1.02 | 76 cA | 64 dB | 0.84 | 2.33 cA | 2.28 cdA | 0.98 | 0.34 cA | 0.32 aA | 0.94 | |||
AC34259 | 170 cB | 186 cA | 1.09 | 68 dA | 68 cdA | 1.00 | 2.26 cA | 2.20 cdA | 0.97 | 0.31 dA | 0.26 cB | 0.84 | |||
AC34280 | 173 bcB | 204 aA | 1.18 | 78 bcA | 78 abA | 1.00 | 2.99 aA | 3.26 aA | 1.09 | 0.37 bA | 0.29 bB | 0.78 | |||
AC39293 | 177 bcB | 187 cA | 1.06 | 75 cA | 71 cA | 0.95 | 2.68 bA | 2.32 cA | 0.86 | 0.33 cdA | 0.26 cB | 0.79 | |||
AC39416A | 170 cB | 208 aA | 1.22 | 69 dA | 65 dA | 0.94 | 1.72 dA | 1.96 deA | 1.14 | 0.23 fA | 0.25 cdA | 1.09 | |||
Sabita | 167 cB | 188 cA | 1.12 | 63 eA | 64 dA | 1.01 | 2.50 bcA | 2.47 cA | 0.99 | 0.26 eA | 0.24 cdA | 0.92 | |||
Savitri-Sub1 | 123 fB | 132 fA | 1.07 | 85 aA | 76 bB | 0.89 | 2.65 bA | 2.98 abA | 1.12 | 0.37 bA | 0.31 abB | 0.84 | |||
FR13A | 151 eB | 171 dA | 1.13 | 80 bA | 81 aA | 1.01 | 2.85 abA | 3.20 aA | 1.12 | 0.32 cdA | 0.30 abB | 0.94 | |||
Genotype (G) | 6 | 3 | 0.28 | 0.02 | |||||||||||
Treatment (T) | 2 | 1 | ns | 0.01 | |||||||||||
G × T | 9 | 4 | 0.43 | 0.03 | |||||||||||
C, Control (no flooding); SF, Stagnant flooding; ns, No significance. Values in the same column followed by different lowercase letters and values in the same line followed by different uppercase letters are sighnificantly different at the 0.05 level (F-test). |
Fig. 1. Increases of plant height (A) and dry weight (C) during the initial 30 d of stagnant flooding and changes in plant height (B) and dry weight (D) under stagnant flooding compared to control. Bar represents standard deviation of the mean value (n = 3).
Fig. 2. Leaf area (A), leaf dry weight (B) and culm dry weight (C) after 30 and 60 d of stagnant flooding at the flowering stage, and ratio of leaf area (D), leaf dry weight (E) and change in culm dry weight (F) under stagnant flooding compared to control. D1, D2 and D3 respectively represent after 30 and 60 d of stagnant flooding and at the 50% flowering stage. Bar represents standard deviation of the mean value (n = 3).
Fig. 3. Area of aerenchyma gas space per tiller after 30 d of stagnant flooding (A), root oxidase activity after 30 and 60 d of stagnant flooding at the flowering stage (B), and increase of area of aerenchyma gas space (C) and ratio of root oxidase activities at flowering stage (D) under stagnant flooding compared to control.D1, D2 and D3 respectively represent after 30 and 60 d of stagnant flooding and at the 50% flowering stage. Bar represents standard deviation of the mean value (n = 3).
Fig. 4. Cross section of main culm shows the area of aerenchyma gas spaces of 16 rice varieties under control and stagnant flooding after 30 d. 1, AC85; 2, AC443; 3, AC729; 4, AC736; 5, AC813; 6, AC931; 7, AC1125A; 8, AC1781; 9, AC1996; 10, AC34259; 11, AC34280; 12, AC39293; 13, AC39416A; 14, Sabita; 15, Savitri-Sub1; 16, FR13A.
Parameter | DWI | PH | LA | LDW | CDW | TN | AAGS | ---RO | SSR | SPDW | --PL | -PN | -PDW | -HI | -GY |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PHI | 0.053 | -0.110 | 0.289 | 0.138 | 0.522 | -0.032 | -0.162 | -0.070 | -0.070 | -0.373 | -0.219 | -0.098 | -0.169 | -0.086 | -0.166 |
DWI | -0.039 | 0.449+ | 0.305 | 0.040 | -0.298 | -0.058 | -0.118 | -0.132 | -0.333 | -0.286 | -0.335 | -0.001 | -0.015 | -0.044 | |
PH | 0.236 | 0.207 | 0.351 | -0.382 | -0.015 | -0.616* | -0.242 | -0.395 | -0.220 | -0.452+ | -0.720** | -0.323 | -0.599* | ||
LA | 0.802*** | 0.580* | -0.676** | -0.294 | -0.402 | -0.104 | -0.175 | -0.012 | -0.593* | -0.326 | -0.205 | -0.426+ | |||
LDW | 0.495+ | -0.655** | -0.223 | -0.299 | -0.173 | -0.171 | -0.211 | -0.703** | -0.402 | -0.065 | -0.429+ | ||||
CDW | -0.262 | -0.039 | -0.277 | -0.369 | -0.261 | -0.486+ | -0.290 | -0.462+ | -0.313 | -0.520* | |||||
TN | -0.329 | -0.352 | -0.054 | -0.240 | -0.133 | -0.876*** | -0.550* | -0.075 | -0.481+ | ||||||
AAGS | -0.058 | -0.143 | -0.194 | -0.359 | -0.118 | -0.278 | -0.341 | -0.350 | |||||||
RO | -0.345 | -0.087 | -0.184 | -0.477+ | -0.450+ | -0.069 | -0.431+ | ||||||||
SSR | -0.444+ | -0.253 | -0.044 | -0.415 | -0.048 | -0.502* | |||||||||
SPDW | -0.369 | -0.270 | -0.606* | -0.613* | -0.655** | ||||||||||
PL | -0.043 | -0.330 | -0.080 | -0.349 | |||||||||||
PN | -0.579* | -0.016 | -0.446+ | ||||||||||||
PDW | -0.509* | -0.931*** | |||||||||||||
HI | -0.490+ | ||||||||||||||
PHI, Increase of plant height; DWI, Increase of dry weight; PH, Plant height; LA, Leaf area; LDW, Leaf dry weight; CDW, Culm dry weight; TN, Tiller number per square metre; AAGS, Area of aerenchyma gas space; RO, Root oxidase activity; SSR, Seed-setting rate; SPDW, Single panicle dry weight; PL, Panicle length; PN, Panicle number per square metre; PDW, Panicle dry weight; HI, Harvest index; GY, Grain yield. +, *, ** and *** represent significance at P < 0.10 (0.426), P < 0.05 (0.497), P < 0.01 (0.623) and P < 0.001 (0.742) (F-test), respectively. |
Table 3 Correlation coefficients (r value) among different parametres based on stability index.
Parameter | DWI | PH | LA | LDW | CDW | TN | AAGS | ---RO | SSR | SPDW | --PL | -PN | -PDW | -HI | -GY |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PHI | 0.053 | -0.110 | 0.289 | 0.138 | 0.522 | -0.032 | -0.162 | -0.070 | -0.070 | -0.373 | -0.219 | -0.098 | -0.169 | -0.086 | -0.166 |
DWI | -0.039 | 0.449+ | 0.305 | 0.040 | -0.298 | -0.058 | -0.118 | -0.132 | -0.333 | -0.286 | -0.335 | -0.001 | -0.015 | -0.044 | |
PH | 0.236 | 0.207 | 0.351 | -0.382 | -0.015 | -0.616* | -0.242 | -0.395 | -0.220 | -0.452+ | -0.720** | -0.323 | -0.599* | ||
LA | 0.802*** | 0.580* | -0.676** | -0.294 | -0.402 | -0.104 | -0.175 | -0.012 | -0.593* | -0.326 | -0.205 | -0.426+ | |||
LDW | 0.495+ | -0.655** | -0.223 | -0.299 | -0.173 | -0.171 | -0.211 | -0.703** | -0.402 | -0.065 | -0.429+ | ||||
CDW | -0.262 | -0.039 | -0.277 | -0.369 | -0.261 | -0.486+ | -0.290 | -0.462+ | -0.313 | -0.520* | |||||
TN | -0.329 | -0.352 | -0.054 | -0.240 | -0.133 | -0.876*** | -0.550* | -0.075 | -0.481+ | ||||||
AAGS | -0.058 | -0.143 | -0.194 | -0.359 | -0.118 | -0.278 | -0.341 | -0.350 | |||||||
RO | -0.345 | -0.087 | -0.184 | -0.477+ | -0.450+ | -0.069 | -0.431+ | ||||||||
SSR | -0.444+ | -0.253 | -0.044 | -0.415 | -0.048 | -0.502* | |||||||||
SPDW | -0.369 | -0.270 | -0.606* | -0.613* | -0.655** | ||||||||||
PL | -0.043 | -0.330 | -0.080 | -0.349 | |||||||||||
PN | -0.579* | -0.016 | -0.446+ | ||||||||||||
PDW | -0.509* | -0.931*** | |||||||||||||
HI | -0.490+ | ||||||||||||||
PHI, Increase of plant height; DWI, Increase of dry weight; PH, Plant height; LA, Leaf area; LDW, Leaf dry weight; CDW, Culm dry weight; TN, Tiller number per square metre; AAGS, Area of aerenchyma gas space; RO, Root oxidase activity; SSR, Seed-setting rate; SPDW, Single panicle dry weight; PL, Panicle length; PN, Panicle number per square metre; PDW, Panicle dry weight; HI, Harvest index; GY, Grain yield. +, *, ** and *** represent significance at P < 0.10 (0.426), P < 0.05 (0.497), P < 0.01 (0.623) and P < 0.001 (0.742) (F-test), respectively. |
Fig. 5. Diversity of 16 rice varieties on the basis of various phenotypic traits by principal component analysis under control (A) and stagnant flooding (B).1, AC85; 2, AC443; 3, AC729; 4, AC736; 5, AC813; 6, AC931; 7, AC1125A; 8, AC1781; 9, AC1996; 10, AC34259; 11, AC34280; 12, AC39293; 13, AC39416A; 14, Sabita; 15, Savitri-Sub1; 16, FR13A.
1 | Bailey-Serres J, Voesenek L A C J.2010. Life in the balance: A signaling network controlling survival of flooding.Curr Opin Plant Biol, 13(5): 489-494. |
2 | Colmer T D.2003. Aerenchyma and an inducible barrier toradial oxygen loss facilitate root aeration in upland, paddy and deep-water rice (Oryza sativa L.).Ann Bot, 91: 301-309. |
3 | Colmer T D, Voesenek L A C J.2009. Flooding tolerance: Suites of plant traits in variable environments.Func Plant Biol, 36(8): 665-681. |
4 | Colmer T D, Armstrong W, Greenway H, Ismail A M, Kirk G J D, Atwell B J.2014. Physiological mechanisms in flooding tolerance of rice: Transient complete submergence and prolonged standing water.Prog Bot, 75: 255-307. |
5 | Dar M H, Janvry A D, Emerick K, Raitzer D, Sadoulet E.2013. Flood-tolerant rice reduces yield variability and raises expected yield, differentially benefitting socially disadvantaged groups.Sci Rep, 3: 1-8. |
6 | Das K K, Sarkar R K, Ismail A M.2005. Elongation ability and non-structural carbohydrate levels in relation to submergence tolerance in rice.Plant Sci, 168(1): 131-136. |
7 | Das K K, Panda D, Sarkar R K, Reddy J N, Ismail A M.2009. Submergence tolerance in relation to variable floodwater conditions in rice.Environ Exp Bot, 66(3): 425-434. |
8 | El Sharkawi H M, Sherif A, Zahoor A, Faridullah, Yamamoto S, Endo T.2009. Methane emission and its relations with plant parametres and dissolved oxygen in different rice genotypes.J Food Agric Environ, 7(2): 463-470. |
9 | Guei R G, Sanni K A, Abamu F J, Fawole I.2005. Genetic diversity of rice (Oryza sativa L.).Agron Afr, 5: 17-28. |
10 | Jackson M B, Colmer T D.2005. Response and adaptation by plants to flooding stress.Ann Bot, 96(4): 501-505. |
11 | Kato Y, Collard B C Y, Septiningsih E M, Ismail A M.2014. Physiological analyses of traits associated with tolerance of long-term partial submergence in rice. AoB PLANTS, 6: plu058. |
12 | Luo F L, Nagel K A, Scharr H, Zeng B, Schurr U, Matsubara S.2011. Recovery dynamics of growth, photosynthesis and carbohydrate accumulation after de-submergence: A comparison between two wetland plants showing escape and quiescence strategies.Ann Bot, 107(1): 49-63. |
13 | Luo F L, Chen Y, Huang L, Wang A, Zhang M X, Yu F H.2014. Shifting effects of physiological integration on performance of a clonal plant during submergence and de-submergence.Ann Bot, 113(7): 1265-1274. |
14 | Neeraja C N, Maghirang-Rodriguez R, Pamplona A, Heuer S, Collard B C, Septiningsih E M, Vergara G, Sanchez D, Xu K, Ismail A M, Mackill D J.2007. A marker-assisted backcross approach for developing submergence-tolerance rice cultivars.Theor App Genet, 115(6): 767-776. |
15 | Ota Y.1970. Diagnostic methods for measurement of root activity in rice plant.Jpn Agric Res Quart, 5: 1-6. |
16 | Sarkar R K, Bhattacharjee B.2011. Rice genotypes with Sub1 QTL differ in submergence tolerance, elongation ability during sub- mergence, and re-generation growth at re-emergence.Rice, 5: 7. |
17 | Sarkar R K, Das S.2003. Yield of rainfed lowland rice with medium water depth under anaerobic direct seeding and transplanting.Trop Sci, 43(4): 192-198. |
18 | Sarkar R K, De R N, Reddy J N, Ramakrishnayya G.1996. Studies on the submergence tolerance mechanism in relation to carbohydrate, chlorophyll and specific leaf weight in rice (Oryza sativa L.).J Plant Physiol, 149(5): 623-625. |
19 | Sarkar R K, Reddy J N, Sharma S G, Ismail A M.2006. Physiological basis of submergence tolerance in rice and implications for crop improvement.Curr Sci, 91: 899-906. |
20 | Sarkar R K, Panda D.2009. Distinction and characterisation of submergence tolerant and sensitive rice cultivars, probed by the fluorescence OJIP rise kinetics.Funct Plant Biol, 36(3): 222-233. |
21 | Sarkar R K, Panda D, Reddy J N, Patnaik S S C, Mackill D J, Ismail A M.2009a. Performance of submergence tolerant rice (Oryza sativa) genotypes carrying the Sub1 quantitative trait locus under stressed and non-stressed natural field conditions.Ind J Agric Sci, 79: 876-883. |
22 | Sarkar R K, Reddy J N, Das K K, Ram P C, Singh P N, Mazid M A, Sommut W, Pane H, Sharma S G, Ismail A M.2009b. Biophysical constraints in flood-prone ecosystems: Impacts and prospects for enhancing and sustaining productivity. In: Haefele S M, Ismail A M. Natural Resource Management for Poverty Reduction and Environmental Sustainability in Fragile Rice-Based Systems. Manila, the Philippines: International Rice Research Institute: 67-81. |
23 | Singh D P, Sarkar R K.2014. Distinction and characterization of salinity tolerant and sensitive rice cultivars as probed by the chlorophyll fluorescence characteristics and growth parametres.Funct Plant Biol, 41(7): 727-736. |
24 | Singh S, Bhattacharjee D P.1988. Effect of waterlogging on yield and yield attributes in late high yielding rice varieties.Oryza, 25: 315-318. |
25 | Singh S, Mackill D J, Ismail A M.2009. Responses of SUB1 rice introgression lines to submergence in the field: Yield and grain quality.Field Crops Res, 113(1): 12-23. |
26 | Sugai K, Goto Y, Saito M, Nishiyama I.1999. Effects of stepwise raising of the water level on tiller growth in rice plants (Oryza sativa L.).Jpn J Crop Sci, 68: 390-395. |
27 | Vergara G V, Nugraha Y, Esguerra M Q, Mackill D J, Ismail A M.2014. Variation in tolerance of rice to long-term stagnant flooding that submerges most of the shoot will aid in breeding tolerant cultivars. AoB PLANTS, 6: plu055. |
28 | Visser E J W, Pieril R.2007. Inhibition of root elongation by ethylene in wetland and non-wetland plant species and the impact of longitudinal ventilation.Plant Cell Environ, 30(1): 31-38. |
29 | Voesenek L A C J, Bailey-Serres J.2013. Flooding tolerance: O2 sensing and survival strategies.Curr Opin Plant Biol, 16(5): 647-653. |
30 | Voesenek L A C J, Bailey-Serres J.2015. Flood adaptive traits and processes: An overview.New Phytol, 206(1): 57-73. |
31 | Wassmann R, Jagadish S V K, Heuer S, Ismail A, Redona E, Serraj R, Singh R K, Howell G, Pathak H, Sumfleth K.2009. Climate change affecting rice production: The physiological and agronomic basis for possible adaptation strategies.Adv Agron, 101: 59-122. |
32 | Wei W L, Li D H, Wang L H, Ding X, Zhang Y X, Gao Y, Zhang X R.2013. Morpho-anatomical and physiological responses to water- logging of sesame (Sesamum indicum L.).Plant Sci, 208: 102-111. |
33 | World Bank.2008. Climate Change Impacts in Drought and Flood Affected Areas: Case Studies in India. Report No. 43946: 1-162. |
34 | Yin D M, Chen S M, Chen F D, Guan Z Y, Fang W M.2010. Morpho- anatomical and physiological responses of two dendranthema species to waterlogging.Environ Exp Bot, 68(2): 122-130. |
[1] | Prathap V, Suresh KUMAR, Nand Lal MEENA, Chirag MAHESHWARI, Monika DALAL, Aruna TYAGI. Phosphorus Starvation Tolerance in Rice Through a Combined Physiological, Biochemical and Proteome Analysis [J]. Rice Science, 2023, 30(6): 8-. |
[2] | Serena REGGI, Elisabetta ONELLI, Alessandra MOSCATELLI, Nadia STROPPA, Matteo Dell’ANNO, Kiril PERFANOV, Luciana ROSSI. Seed-Specific Expression of Apolipoprotein A-IMilano Dimer in Rice Engineered Lines [J]. Rice Science, 2023, 30(6): 6-. |
[3] | Sundus ZAFAR, XU Jianlong. Recent Advances to Enhance Nutritional Quality of Rice [J]. Rice Science, 2023, 30(6): 4-. |
[4] | Kankunlanach KHAMPUANG, Nanthana CHAIWONG, Atilla YAZICI, Baris DEMIRER, Ismail CAKMAK, Chanakan PROM-U-THAI. Effect of Sulfur Fertilization on Productivity and Grain Zinc Yield of Rice Grown under Low and Adequate Soil Zinc Applications [J]. Rice Science, 2023, 30(6): 9-. |
[5] | FAN Fengfeng, CAI Meng, LUO Xiong, LIU Manman, YUAN Huanran, CHENG Mingxing, Ayaz AHMAD, LI Nengwu, LI Shaoqing. Novel QTLs from Wild Rice Oryza longistaminata Confer Rice Strong Tolerance to High Temperature at Seedling Stage [J]. Rice Science, 2023, 30(6): 14-. |
[6] | LIN Shaodan, YAO Yue, LI Jiayi, LI Xiaobin, MA Jie, WENG Haiyong, CHENG Zuxin, YE Dapeng. Application of UAV-Based Imaging and Deep Learning in Assessment of Rice Blast Resistance [J]. Rice Science, 2023, 30(6): 10-. |
[7] | Md. Forshed DEWAN, Md. AHIDUZZAMAN, Md. Nahidul ISLAM, Habibul Bari SHOZIB. Potential Benefits of Bioactive Compounds of Traditional Rice Grown in South and South-East Asia: A Review [J]. Rice Science, 2023, 30(6): 5-. |
[8] | Raja CHAKRABORTY, Pratap KALITA, Saikat SEN. Phenolic Profile, Antioxidant, Antihyperlipidemic and Cardiac Risk Preventive Effect of Chakhao Poireiton (A Pigmented Black Rice) in High-Fat High-Sugar induced Rats [J]. Rice Science, 2023, 30(6): 11-. |
[9] | LI Qianlong, FENG Qi, WANG Heqin, KANG Yunhai, ZHANG Conghe, DU Ming, ZHANG Yunhu, WANG Hui, CHEN Jinjie, HAN Bin, FANG Yu, WANG Ahong. Genome-Wide Dissection of Quan 9311A Breeding Process and Application Advantages [J]. Rice Science, 2023, 30(6): 7-. |
[10] | JI Dongling, XIAO Wenhui, SUN Zhiwei, LIU Lijun, GU Junfei, ZHANG Hao, Tom Matthew HARRISON, LIU Ke, WANG Zhiqin, WANG Weilu, YANG Jianchang. Translocation and Distribution of Carbon-Nitrogen in Relation to Rice Yield and Grain Quality as Affected by High Temperature at Early Panicle Initiation Stage [J]. Rice Science, 2023, 30(6): 12-. |
[11] | Nazaratul Ashifa Abdullah Salim, Norlida Mat Daud, Julieta Griboff, Abdul Rahim Harun. Elemental Assessments in Paddy Soil for Geographical Traceability of Rice from Peninsular Malaysia [J]. Rice Science, 2023, 30(5): 486-498. |
[12] | Ammara Latif, Sun Ying, Pu Cuixia, Noman Ali. Rice Curled Its Leaves Either Adaxially or Abaxially to Combat Drought Stress [J]. Rice Science, 2023, 30(5): 405-416. |
[13] | Liu Qiao, Qiu Linlin, Hua Yangguang, Li Jing, Pang Bo, Zhai Yufeng, Wang Dekai. LHD3 Encoding a J-Domain Protein Controls Heading Date in Rice [J]. Rice Science, 2023, 30(5): 437-448. |
[14] | Lu Xuedan, Li Fan, Xiao Yunhua, Wang Feng, Zhang Guilian, Deng Huabing, Tang Wenbang. Grain Shape Genes: Shaping the Future of Rice Breeding [J]. Rice Science, 2023, 30(5): 379-404. |
[15] | Zhang Guomei, Li Han, Liu Shanshan, Zhou Xuming, Lu Mingyang, Tang Liang, Sun Lihua. Water Extract of Rice False Smut Balls Activates Nrf2/HO-1 and Apoptosis Pathways, Causing Liver Injury [J]. Rice Science, 2023, 30(5): 473-485. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||