Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T01:47:52.552Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The use of a combination scoring index to improve durum productivity under drought stress

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2019

Reza Mohammadi Open the ORCID record for Reza Mohammadi [Opens in a new window]
Reza Mohammadi*
Affiliation:
Dryland Agricultural Research Institute, Sararood Branch, AREEO, P O Box: 67145-1164, Kermanshah, Iran
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Breeding for drought tolerance using novel genetic resources possessing relevant agronomic and adaptive traits is a key to enhance productivity and food security in wheat growing areas. Herein, the main objectives were (i) to use a combination scoring index (multiple scoring index, (MSI)) for selection of durum wheat genotypes under different drought stress intensities (SIs) (ii) to examine repeatability of the scoring index through bootstrap re-sample method, and (iii) to study the relationship of MSI with some drought-adaptive traits. Sixteen durum wheat genotypes were grown under rainfed and irrigated conditions during three cropping seasons (2012–2015), resulting in different drought SIs, that is, mild (SI < 0.3), moderate (0.3 < SI < 0.6), and severe (SI > 0.6). The average grain yields among test environments varied between 708 and 3631 kg ha−1. The validation of the methodology of scoring index was confirmed by the correlation coefficients between score indices and their original values across different drought SIs. According to MSI, the genotypes G16, G1, and G3 had the best combination of high productivity and high resilience to mild, moderate, and severe drought stress conditions, respectively. These results indicated that the ranking of genotypes varied among different drought SIs, which support the high potential of durum wheat for adaptation to different drought stress conditions. Based on the bootstrap samples, non-repeatable correlations were observed between the estimates of MSI from different levels of stress. The significant correlation between MSI with grain yield and 1000-kernel weight (TKW) under severe drought condition provides evidence that MSI ultimately be considered as a tool for effective selection of drought-tolerant genotypes. The MSI selected genotypes based on high productivity and resilience, to each level of drought SI, and favorable adaptive traits useful for breeding.

Keywords

Drought tolerance indicesDurum wheatGrain yieldResilienceScoring index
Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 56 , Issue 2 , April 2020 , pp. 161 - 170
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Calderini, D.F. and Slafer, G.A. (1998). Changes in yield and yield stability in wheat during the 20th Century. Field Crop Research 57, 335–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Del Pozo, A., Matus, I., Serret, M.D. and Araus, J.L. (2014). Agronomic and physiological traits associated with breeding advances of wheat under high-productive Mediterranean conditions. The case of Chile. Environmental and Experimental Botany 103, 180–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dodig, D., Zoric, M., Kandic, V., Perovic, D. and Surlan-Momirovic, G. (2012). Comparison of responses to drought stress of 100 wheat accessions and landraces to identify opportunities for improving wheat drought resistance. Plant Breed 131, 369–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Efron, B. and Tibshirani, R.J. (1993). An Introduction to the Bootstrap. New York: Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elias, E.M. and Manthey, F.A. (2005). End products. In Royo, C., Nachit, M.N., Di Fonzo, N., Araus, J.L., Pfeiffer, W.H. and Slafer, G.A. (eds), Durum Wheat Breeding. Current Approaches and Future Strategies. New York: Food Academic Press, The Haworth Press, pp. 63–86.Google Scholar
Engler, A. and Del Pozo, A. (2013). Assessing long and short run trends in cereal yields: the case of Chile between 1929–2009. Ciencia e Investigación Agraria 40, 397–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernandez, G.C. (1992). Effective selection criteria for assessing plant stress tolerance. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Adaptation of Vegetables and Other Food Crops in Temperature and Water Stress. Tainan, Taiwan: AVRDC, pp. 257–270.Google Scholar
Fischer, R.A. and Maurer, R. (1978). Drought resistance in spring wheat cultivars. I. Grain yield response. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 29, 897–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foulkes, M.J., Snape, J.W., Shearman, V.J., Reynolds, M.P., Gaju, O. and Sylverstar-Bradley, R. (2007). Genetic progress in yield potential in wheat: recent advances and future prospects. Journal of Agricultural Science 145, 17–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkesford, M., Araus, J., Park, R., Calderini, D., Miralles, D., Shen, T., Zhang, J. and Parry, M.A.J. (2013). Prospects of doubling global wheat yields. Food and Energy Security 2, 34–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lobell, D.B. and Gourdji, S.M. (2012). The influence of climate change on global crop productivity. Plant Physiology 160, 1686–1697.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mohammadi, R. (2016). Efficiency of yield-based drought tolerance indices to identify tolerant genotypes in durum wheat. Euphytica 211, 71–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohammadi, R. and Amri, A. (2013). Genotype x environment interaction and genetic improvement for yield and yield stability of rainfed durum wheat in Iran. Euphytica 192, 227–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohammadi, R., Haghparast, R., Amri, A. and Ceccarelli, S. (2010). Yield stability of rainfed durum wheat and GGE biplot analysis of multi-environment trials. Crop and Pasture Science 61, 92–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohammadi, R., Sadeghzadeh, D., Armion, M. and Amri, A. (2011). Evaluation of durum wheat experimental lines under different climate and water regime conditions of Iran. Crop and Pasture Science 62, 137–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monneveux, P., Jing, R. and Misra, S.C. (2012). Phenotyping for drought adaptation in wheat using physiological traits. Frontiers in Physiology 3, 00429.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mwadzingeni, L., Shimelis, H., Tesfay, S. and Tsilo, T.J. (2016). Screening of bread wheat genotypes for drought tolerance using phenotypic and proline analyses. Frontiers in Plant Science 7, 1276.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nazim Ud Dowla, M.A.N., Edwards, I., O’Hara, G. and WujunMa, S. (2018). Developing wheat for improved yield and adaptation under a changing climate: Optimization of a few key genes. Engineering 4 (4), 514–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nouri, A., Etminan, A., Teixeira da Silva, J.A. and Mohammadi, R. (2011). Assessment of yield, yield-related traits and drought tolerance of durum wheat genotypes (Triticum turjidum var. durum Desf.). Australian Journal of Crop Science 5, 8–16.Google Scholar
Ramirez-Vallejo, P. and Kelly, J.D. (1998). Traits related to drought resistance in common bean. Euphytica 99, 127–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosielle, A.A. and Hamblin, J. (1981). Theoretical aspects of selection for yield in stress and non-stress environments. Crop Science 21, 943–946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sánchez-García, M., Royo, C., Aparicio, N., Martín-Sánchez, A. and Álvaro, F. (2013). Genetic improvement of bread wheat yield and associated traits in Spain during the 20th century. Journal of Agricultural Science 151, 105–118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sio-Se-Mardeh, A., Ahmadi, A., Poustini, K. and Mohammadi, V. (2006). Evaluation of drought resistance indices under various environmental conditions. Field Crops Research 98, 222–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thiry, A.A., Chavez Dulanto, P.N., Reynolds, M.P. and Davies, W.J. (2016). How can we improve crop genotypes to increase stress resilience and productivity in a future climate? A new crop screening method based on productivity and resistance to abiotic stress. Journal of Experimental Botany 67, 5593–5603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Mohammadi supplementary material

Figure S1 and Tables S1-S3

Download Mohammadi supplementary material(File)
File 69.3 KB