Screening of Rice Cultivars for Morpho-Physiological Responses to Early-Season Soil Moisture Stress

doi:10.1016/j.rsci.2017.10.001

Abstract

Abstract:

The majority of rice (Oryza sativa L.) produced in the southern USA is drill-seeded and grown under upland-like conditions because permanent flooding is established after the four-leaf stage. Therefore, rice during the seedling growth stage will be subjected to variable soil moisture content. A greenhouse experiment was conducted to evaluate the performance of 15 rice cultivars commonly grown in Mississippi of USA under early-season soil moisture stress. Twenty morpho-physiological parameters of rice seedlings subjected to three different levels (100%, 66% and 33% field capacity) of soil moisture, from 10 to 30 d after sowing, were measured. Significant moisture stress × treatment interaction (P < 0.001) was observed for most of the parameters. Further, the total drought response index (TDRI) was developed to score the cultivars for drought tolerance with the variation from 26.88 to 36.21. Accordingly, the cultivars were classified into different groups of tolerance. The cultivars CL152 and CL142-AR were classified as the least and the most tolerant to drought based on TDRI and standard deviation, respectively. Even though both total root (R² = 0.98) or shoot (R² = 0.76) drought responses indices were positively correlated with TDRI, root traits were important in deriving the indices. Therefore, TDRI could be used to select cultivars for drought tolerance in a given environment and develop rice varieties with early-season drought tolerance. However, further research is needed to identify and characterize tolerance at other stages to assist breeding programs in rice.

Key words: drought, field capacity, morpho-physiological parameter, Oryza sativa, root, shoot, soil moisture content, total drought response index

Singh Bhupinder, Raja Reddy Kambham, Diaz Redoña Edilberto, Walker Timothy. Screening of Rice Cultivars for Morpho-Physiological Responses to Early-Season Soil Moisture Stress[J]. Rice Science, 2017, 24(6): 322-335.

Figures/Tables 10

References 45

[1]	Asch F, Dingkuhn M, Sow A, Audebert A.2005. Drought-induced changes in rooting patterns and assimilate partitioning between root and shoot in upland rice.Field Crops Res, 93: 223-236.
[2]	Boonjung H, Fukai S.1996. Effects of soil water deficit at different growth stages on rice growth and yield under upland conditions: 2. Phenology, biomass production, and yield.Field Crops Res, 48(1): 47-55.
[3]	Borrás L, Slafer G A, Otegui M E.2004. Seed dry weight response to source-sink manipulations in wheat, maize and soybean: A quantitative reappraisal.Field Crops Res, 86: 131-146.
[4]	Chastain D R, Snider J L, Collins G D, Perry C D, Whitaker J, Byrd S A.2014. Water deficit in field-grown Gossypium hirsutum primarily limits net photosynthesis by decreasing stomatal conductance, increasing photorespiration, and increasing the ratio of dark respiration to gross photosynthesis.J Plant Physiol, 171(17): 1576-1585.
[5]	Chu G, Wang Z Q, Zhang H, Yang J C, Zhang J H.2016. Agronomic and physiological performance of rice under integrative crop management.Agron J, 108(1): 117-128.
[6]	Farooq M, Wahid A, Kobayashi N, Fujita D, Basra S M A.2009. Plant drought stress: Effects, mechanisms and management.Agron Sust Dev, 29(1): 185-212.
[7]	Farooq M, Kobayashi N, Ito O, Wahid A, Serraj R.2010. Broader leaves result in better performance of indica rice under drought stress.J Plant Physiol, 167(13): 1066-1075.
[8]	Fleury D, Jefferies S, Kuchel H, Langridge P.2010. Genetic and genomic tools to improve drought tolerance in wheat.J Exp Bot, 61: 3211-3222.
[9]	Flexas J, Bota J, Escalona J M, Sampol B, Medrano H.2002. Effects of drought on photosynthesis in grapevines under field conditions: An evaluation of stomatal and mesophyll limitations.Funct Plant Biol, 29(4): 461-471.
[10]	Flexas J, Ribas-Carbó M, Bota J, Galmés J, Henkle M, Martínez- Cañellas S, Medrano H.2006. Decreased Rubisco activity during water stress is not induced by decreased relative water content but related to conditions of low stomatal conductance and chloroplast CO2 concentration.New Phytol, 172(1): 73-82.
[11]	Fukai S, Cooper M.1995. Development of drought-resistant cultivars using physiomorphological traits in rice.Field Crops Res, 40(2): 67-86.
[12]	Fukai S, Pantuwan G, Jongdee B, Cooper M.1999. Screening for drought resistance in rainfed lowland rice.Field Crops Res, 64: 61-74.
[13]	Gajanayake B, Reddy K R, Shankle M W, Arancibia R A.2013. Early-season soil moisture deficit reduces sweet potato storage root initiation and development.Hort Sci, 48: 1457-1462.
[14]	Grzesiak M T, Grzesiak S, Skoczowski A.2006. Changes of leaf water potential and gas exchange during and after drought in triticale and maize genotypes differing in drought tolerance.Photosynthetica, 44(4): 561-568.
[15]	Henry A, Wehler R, Grondin A, Franke R, Quintana M.2016. Environmental and physiological effects on grouping of drought- tolerant and susceptible rice varieties related to rice (Oryza sativa) root hydraulics under drought.Ann Bot, 118(4): 711-724.
[16]	IRRI.2014. Standard Evaluation System for Rice. 5th edn. Los Banos, the Philippines: International Rice Research Institute.
[17]	Islam R, Mukherjee A, Hossin M.2012. Effect of osmopriming on rice seed germination and seedling growth.J Bangl Agric Univ, 10(1): 15-20.
[18]	Jaleel C A, Gopi R, Sankar B, Gomathinayagam M, Panneerselvam R.2008. Differential responses in water use efficiency in two varieties of Catharanthus roseus under drought stress.Comptes Rendus Biol, 331(1): 42-47.
[19]	Jaleel C A, Manivannan P, Wahid A, Farooq M, Al-Juburi H J, Somasundaram R, Panneerselvam R.2009. Drought stress in plants: A review on morphological characteristics and pigments composition.Int J Agric Biol, 11(1): 100-105.
[20]	Kebede H, Fisher D K, Sui R, Reddy K N.2014. Irrigation methods and scheduling in the delta region of Mississippi: Current status and strategies to improve irrigation efficiency.Am J Plant Sci, 5: 2917-2928.
[21]	Kumar R, Sreenu K, Singh N, Jain N, Singh N K, Rai V.2015. Effect of drought stress on contrasting cultivars of rice.Int J Trop Agric, 33(2): 1559-1564.
[22]	Kumar V, Ladha J K.2011. Direct seeding of rice: Recent developments and future research needs.Adv Agron, 111: 297-413.
[23]	Lafitte H R, Li Z K, Vijayakumar C H M, Gao Y M, Shi Y, Xu J L, Fu B Y, Yu S B, Ali A J, Domingo J, Maghirang R, Torres R, Mackill D.2006. Improvement of rice drought tolerance through backcross breeding: Evaluation of donors and selection in drought nurseries.Field Crops Res, 97(1): 77-86.
[24]	Lipiec J, Doussan C, Nosalewicz A, Kondracka K.2013. Effect of drought and heat stresses on plant growth and yield: A review.Int Agrophys, 27(4): 463-477.
[25]	Long S P, Zhu X G, Naidu S L, Ort D R.2006. Can improvement in photosynthesis increase crop yields?Plant Cell Environ, 29(3): 315-330.
[26]	Manivannan P, Jaleel C A, Kishorekumar A, Sankar B, Somasundaram R, Sridharan R, Panneerselvam R.2007a. Changes in antioxidant metabolism of Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp. by propiconazole under water deficit stress.Colloid Surface B, 57(1): 69-74.
[27]	Manivannan P, Jaleel C A, Sankar B, Kishorekumar A, Somasundaram R, Lakshmanan G M A, Panneerselvam R.2007b. Growth, biochemical modifications and proline metabolism in Helianthus annuus L. as induced by drought stress.Colloids Surface B, 59(2): 141-149.
[28]	Massey J H, Walker T W, Anders M M, Smith M C, Avila L A.2014. Farmer adaptation of intermittent flooding using multiple- inlet rice irrigation in Mississippi.Agric Water Manage, 146: 297-304.
[29]	Nguyen H T, Babu R C, Blum A.1997. Breeding for drought resistance in rice: Physiology and molecular genetics considerations.Crop Sci, 37(5): 1426-1434.
[30]	Pandey V, Shukla A.2015. Acclimation and tolerance strategies of rice under drought stress.Rice Sci, 22(4): 147-161.
[31]	Parsons R, Sunley R J.2001. Nitrogen nutrition and the role of root-shoot nitrogen signalling particularly in symbiotic systems.J Exp Bot, 52(1): 435-443.
[32]	Rahman M T, Islam M T, Islam M O.2002. Effect of water stress at different growth stages on yield and yield contributing characters of transplanted Aman rice.Pak J Biol Sci, 5(2): 169-172.
[33]	Reddy A R, Chaitanya K V, Vivekanandan M.2004. Drought- induced responses of photosynthesis and antioxidant metabolism in higher plants.J Plant Physiol, 161(11): 1189-1202.
[34]	Redoña E D, Atwill R L, Corbin J L, Fitts P W, Lanford L S, Shaeffer S D, Walker T W.2015. Mississippi rice: Variety trials, 2014. Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station. Information Bulletin No. 491. Mississippi State University: 17.
[35]	Sacks M M, Silk W K, Burman P.1997. Effect of water stress on cortical cell division rates within the apical meristem of primary roots of maize.Plant Physiol, 114(2): 519-527.
[36]	Sarvestani Z T, Pirdashti H, Sanavy S A M M, Balouchi H.2008. Study of water stress effects in different growth stages on yield and yield components of different rice (Oryza sativa L.) cultivars.Pak J Biol Sci, 11(10): 1303-1309.
[37]	Singh B, Reddy K R, Redoña E D, Walker T.2017. Developing a screening tool for osmotic stress tolerance classification of rice cultivars based on in vitro seed germination.Crop Sci, 57(1): 387-394.
[38]	Singh V, van Oosterom E J, Jordan D R, Messina C D, Cooper M, Hammer G L.2010. Morphological and architectural development of root systems in sorghum and maize.Plant Soil, 333: 287-299.
[39]	Suralta R R, Inukai Y, Yamauchi A.2008. Genotypic variations in responses of lateral root development to transient moisture stresses in rice cultivars.Plant Prod Sci, 11(3): 324-335.
[40]	Todaka D, Shinozaki K, Yamaguchi-Shinozaki K.2015. Recent advances in the dissection of drought-stress regulatory networks and strategies for development of drought-tolerant transgenic rice plants.Front Plant Sci, 6: 84-104.
[41]	Vories E D, Tacker P L, Hogan R.2005. Multiple inlet approach to reduce water requirement for rice production.Appl Eng Agric, 21(4): 611-616.
[42]	Wijewardana C, Hock M, Henry B, Reddy K R.2015. Screening corn hybrids for cold tolerance using morphological traits for early-season seeding.Crop Sci, 55(2): 851-867.
[43]	Ye C, Argayoso M A, Redoña E D, Sierra S N, Laza M A, Dilla C J, Mo Y J, Thomson M J, Chin J, Delaviña C B, Diaz G Q, Hernandez J E.2012. Mapping QTL for heat tolerance at flowering stage in rice using SNP markers.Plant Breeding, 131(1): 33-41.
[44]	Yue B, Xue W Y, Xiong L Z, Yu X Q, Luo L J, Cui K H, Jin D M, Xing Y Z, Zhang Q F.2006. Genetic basis of drought resistance at reproductive stage in rice: Separation of drought tolerance from drought avoidance.Genetics, 172(2): 1213-1228.
[45]	Zhang M C, Duan L S, Zhai Z X, Li J M, Tian X L, Wang B M, He Z P, Li Z H.2004. Effects of plant growth regulators on water deficit-induced yield loss in soybean. In: Fischer T, Turner N, Angus J, McIntyre L, Robertson M, Borrell A, Lloyd D. Proceedings of the 4th International Crop Science Congress. Brisbane, Australia.

Cultivar	Year released / Origin	Yield ^a (kg/hm²)	Description
Cheniere	2003 / Louisiana	12 192	Long grain, short-season conventional variety, semi-dwarf, plant height of 96 cm
Cocodrie	1997 / Louisiana	12 004	Long grain, short-season conventional variety, semi-dwarf, excellent yield potential, plant height of 99 cm, good milling quality, high bran oil content
Lakast	2014 / Arkansas	13 407	Long grain, medium-maturing, conventional variety, plant height of 111 cm, good milling quality
Mermentau	2012 / Louisiana	11 943	Long grain, medium-maturing, conventional variety, plant height of 99 cm
Rex	2010 / Mississippi	12 279	Short-season conventional variety, semi-dwarf, plant height of 107 cm, long grain, high amylose content, excellent straw strength, good milling quality
CL111	2009 / BASF, Horizon Ag	12 325	Long grain, very short-season, Clearfield variety, plant height of 104 cm, ideal for early planting and ratoon cropping
CL142-AR	2009 / BASF, Horizon Ag	12 379	Long-grain, short-mid season, high yielding, Clearfield variety, good milling potential, plant height of 116 cm
CL151	2008 / BASF, Horizon Ag	13 567	Long-grain, mid-season, Clearfield variety, tolerant to Newpath herbicide, plant height of 102 cm
CL152	2011 / BASF, Horizon Ag	11 549	Long-grain, mid-season, Clearfield variety, plant height of 102 cm
XL753	2011 / RiceTec	14 782	Short-season, long-grain, proprietary hybrid, plant height of 109 cm, excellent milling yield potential
CLXL729	2006 / RiceTec	13 528	Short-season, long-grain, proprietary hybrid, plant height of 112 cm, excellent yielding potential, covered about 15 % of total Arkansas rice acreage in 2009
CLXL745	2007 / RiceTec	13 669	Short-season, long-grain, high yielding hybrid, plant height of 114 cm
RU1104122	Mississippi	12 306	High yielding variety, plant height of 104 cm, yields are similar to CL111, CL142-AR and CL151
RU1204122	Mississippi	11 592	Conventional variety, good yielding potential, plant height of 102 cm
RU1304154	Mississippi	12 057	Conventional variety, good yielding potential, plant height of 109 cm

Cultivar	Year released / Origin	Yield ^a (kg/hm²)	Description
Cheniere	2003 / Louisiana	12 192	Long grain, short-season conventional variety, semi-dwarf, plant height of 96 cm
Cocodrie	1997 / Louisiana	12 004	Long grain, short-season conventional variety, semi-dwarf, excellent yield potential, plant height of 99 cm, good milling quality, high bran oil content
Lakast	2014 / Arkansas	13 407	Long grain, medium-maturing, conventional variety, plant height of 111 cm, good milling quality
Mermentau	2012 / Louisiana	11 943	Long grain, medium-maturing, conventional variety, plant height of 99 cm
Rex	2010 / Mississippi	12 279	Short-season conventional variety, semi-dwarf, plant height of 107 cm, long grain, high amylose content, excellent straw strength, good milling quality
CL111	2009 / BASF, Horizon Ag	12 325	Long grain, very short-season, Clearfield variety, plant height of 104 cm, ideal for early planting and ratoon cropping
CL142-AR	2009 / BASF, Horizon Ag	12 379	Long-grain, short-mid season, high yielding, Clearfield variety, good milling potential, plant height of 116 cm
CL151	2008 / BASF, Horizon Ag	13 567	Long-grain, mid-season, Clearfield variety, tolerant to Newpath herbicide, plant height of 102 cm
CL152	2011 / BASF, Horizon Ag	11 549	Long-grain, mid-season, Clearfield variety, plant height of 102 cm
XL753	2011 / RiceTec	14 782	Short-season, long-grain, proprietary hybrid, plant height of 109 cm, excellent milling yield potential
CLXL729	2006 / RiceTec	13 528	Short-season, long-grain, proprietary hybrid, plant height of 112 cm, excellent yielding potential, covered about 15 % of total Arkansas rice acreage in 2009
CLXL745	2007 / RiceTec	13 669	Short-season, long-grain, high yielding hybrid, plant height of 114 cm
RU1104122	Mississippi	12 306	High yielding variety, plant height of 104 cm, yields are similar to CL111, CL142-AR and CL151
RU1204122	Mississippi	11 592	Conventional variety, good yielding potential, plant height of 102 cm
RU1304154	Mississippi	12 057	Conventional variety, good yielding potential, plant height of 109 cm

Source of variance	RL	RSA	RAD	RLPV	RV	RNT	RNF	RNC	RW	LRL	RN	PH	LN	TN	LA	LW	SW	R/S	F_v′/F_m′	SPAD
C (100% FC)	***	***	***	***	***	***	***	***	***	NS	***	**	***	***	***	***	***	**	NS	*
C (66% FC)	***	***	***	***	***	**	***	***	***	**	***	NS	***	***	***	***	***	NS	NS	***
C (33% FC)	***	***	**	***	***	**	***	**	***	NS	NS	***	***	***	*	***	NS	NS	*	***
T	***	***	***	***	***	**	***	***	***	***	***	***	***	***	***	***	***	***	*	NS
C × T	***	***	***	***	**	***	***	***	***	**	***	NS	***	***	***	***	***	NS	NS	NS

Source of variance	RL	RSA	RAD	RLPV	RV	RNT	RNF	RNC	RW	LRL	RN	PH	LN	TN	LA	LW	SW	R/S	F_v′/F_m′	SPAD
C (100% FC)	***	***	***	***	***	***	***	***	***	NS	***	**	***	***	***	***	***	**	NS	*
C (66% FC)	***	***	***	***	***	**	***	***	***	**	***	NS	***	***	***	***	***	NS	NS	***
C (33% FC)	***	***	**	***	***	**	***	**	***	NS	NS	***	***	***	*	***	NS	NS	*	***
T	***	***	***	***	***	**	***	***	***	***	***	***	***	***	***	***	***	***	*	NS
C × T	***	***	***	***	**	***	***	***	***	**	***	NS	***	***	***	***	***	NS	NS	NS

Classification	Cultivar	TDRI value
Low tolerant	CL152	26.88
(TDRI ≤ 30.10)	CLXL729	26.95
	XL753	27.42
	CLXL745	27.59
	Cocodrie	28.06
	RU1204122	28.97
	Lakast	29.85
Moderately tolerant	Cheniere	30.97
(30.10 < TDRI ≤ 33.32)	RU1304154	31.05
	CL111	32.62
	Mermentau	32.88
	Rex	33.06
High tolerant	RU1104122	34.54
(33.32 < TDRI ≤ 36.54)	CL151	35.82
	CL142-AR	36.21