Effect of drought stress on water status, stability of cell membranes and yield in several cultivars Foxtail Millet (Setaria italica L.)

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

Abstract

Background and objectives: Water shortage is one of the most important limiting factors for crop production, that affected on growth by changing physiological conditions. Millet is an important plant to investigate the mechanisms of stress tolerance in plants which are relatively resistant to drought. The assimilation and dry matter production is high in this plant in dry conditions and its reason is the mechanism of condensed carbon dioxide. Chavez (2003) stated that the first plant response to stress is stomatal closure and the impact of drought on photosynthesis can be evaluated based on stomatal conductance (4,25). Relative water content is as well as an indicator of plant water status in stress conditions (22). Resistant varieties show high relative water content (27). Low electrolyte leakage indicates membrane integrity (22). electrolyte Leak and membrane lipid peroxidation are indexes of drought resistance (3).
Materials and methods: This study was carried out in Research greenhouses of Birjand University in 2014. A factorial arrangement of treatments based on randomized complete block design (Due to the lack of uniformity of light) with four replications was used .The studied factors were drought stress with three levels including 100, 75 and 50 percent of plant water requirement (non-stress, moderate and severe stress respectively) and millet cultivar with three levels (including Bastan, promising lines KFM5 and KFM20). Relative water content, stomatal conductance, electrolyte leakage was measured in 30 and 45 day after stress and yield in maturity.
Results: The results showed that relative water content (RWC) and stomatal conductance decreased as intensity and duration of drought stress increased in all three varieties. Membrane lipid peroxidation, permeability of membranes and electrolyte leakage increased and membrane stability decreased as intensity and duration of drought increased in all three cultivars. Drought stress reduced number of grains per panicle, seed weight and seed yield compared to control. The highest and lowest seed yield was observed in control and severe stress respectively in all three cultivars. All three variety or cultivar had similar status in stomatal conductance and leaf relative water content in 30 day after stress. Although among the varieties, Bastan had the highest stomatal conductance and was less affected under moderate and severe stress (50 and 33 percent respectively compared to control) in 45 day after stress but Bastan had an appropriate realative water content (0.43 and 0.41 respectively) and had not significantly different with other lines. The malondialdehyde content (MDA) was low in Bastan compared to other cultivars and the membrane lipid peroxidation was less affected by increasing drought stress indicating that the variety is of more potential to protect membrane integrity. Bastan indicated greater performance than the other lines, this performance was more drastically decrease compared to KFM20 line under stress treatments.
Conclusion: Bastan is better than the other lines and is advisable to drought stress conditions. Realative water content and stamatal conductance are mechanisms of adaptation and resistance to drought stress and Malondialdehyde is an indix of the amount of damage to the cell membrane that used in order to identify the susceptible and resistant variety to drought stress.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

.Alizadeh, O., Majidi, E., Nadian, H., Noor Mohammadi, G. and Amerian, M. 2007. Effects of
drought stress and nitrogen rate on corn yield and components of yield. J. Agric. Sci. Islamic
Azad Uni., 13: 23. 427-434. (In Persian)
2.Anjum, F., Yaseen, M., Rasul, E., Wahid, A. and Anjum, S. 2003.Water stress in barley,
effect on chemical composition ond chlorophyll content.Pakistan J. Agric. Sci., 40:45-49.
3.Bhushan, D., Pandey, A., Choudhary, M.K., Datta, A. and Chakrabotary, S. 2007.
Comparative Proteomics analysis of differentially expressed protein in chickpea extracellular
matrix during dehydration stress.Mol. Biol. Cell Proteomics, 6:1868-1884.
4. Chaves, M., Marco, J. and Pereira, J. 2003.Underestanding plant response to drought from
genes to the whole plant. Funct. Plant Biol., 30: 3.239-264.
5.Colom, M.R. and Vazzana, C. 2003. Photosynthesis and PSII functionality of droughtresistant
and drought-sensitive plants. Environ. Exp. Bot., 49: 2.135-144.
6.Dai, H.P., Gia, G.L., Feng, B.L., Qu, J.Q., Sun, S.M., Qin, X.W. and Ren, X.M. 2009.
Accumulation of source and starch content during the grain filling stage of Foxtail millet in
two cultural practice. J. Chin. Agric. Uni., 6: 37-40.
7.Dai, H.P., Gia, G.L., Lu, C., Wei, A.Z., Feng, B.L. and Zhang, S.Q. 2011a. Studies of
synergism between root system and leaves senescence in Broomcorn millet (panicum
miliaceum L.). J. Food, Agric. Environ. solutions., 9: 2.177-180.
8.Dai, H.P., Zhang, P.P., Lu, C., Gia, G.L., Song, H., Ren, X.M., Chen, J., Wei, A.Z., Feng,
B.L. and Zhang, S.Q. 2011b. Leaf senescence and reaction oxygen species metabolismof
Broomcorn millet under drought condition. Aust. J. Crop Sci., 5: 12.1655-1660.
9.Dai, H.P., Shan, C.J., Wei, A.H., Yang, T., Sa, W.Q. and Feng, B.L. 2012. Leaf senescence
and photosynthesis in foxtail millet (Setar iaitalica L) varieties exposed to drought
conditions. Aust. J. Crop Sci., 6: 2.232-237.
10.Dat, J., Vandenabeele, S. and Vranova, E. 2000. Dual action of the active oxygen species
during plant stress responses. Cell. Mol. Life Sci., 57: 779–795.
11.Davoodi, N., Seghatoleslami, M.J., Mousavi, S.Gh. and Azari-Nasrabad, A. 2013. The effect
of foliar application of nano-zinc oxide on yield and water use efficiency of foxtail millet in
drought stress conditions. Environ. Stresses Crop Sci., 6: 1. 46-37. (In Persian)
12.Flexas, J., Galmes, J., Ribas-Carbo, M. and Medrano, H. 2005. The effects of water stress on
plant respiration. Advances in Photosynthesis and Respiration. Netherland: Springer. Pp: 85-
94.
13.Gong, J., Zhao, A.F. and Huang, Y.M. 2006. Water relation, gas exchange, photochemical
efficiency and peroxidative stress of four plant species. Photosynthetica. 44: 3. 355-364.
14.Heidari-zooleh, H., Jahansooz, M.R. and Poostini, K. 2006. The effect of water deficit on
yield and water use efficiency of maize, sorghum and millet intercropping system. M.Sc.
thesis. University of Tehran. (In Persian)
15.Heidari-zooleh, H., Jahansooz, M.R., Yunusa, I., Hosseini, S.M.B., Chaichi, M.R. and Jafari,
A.A. 2011. Effect of alternate irrigation on root-divided Foxtail Millet. Aust. J. Crop Sci., 5:
205-213.
16.Hosseini Salekdeh, G.R., Mattew. Bennett, J. and Boyer, J. 2009. Conceptual framework for
drought phenotyping during molecular breeding. Trends Plant Sci., 14: 1360-1385.
17.Kafi, M., Borzoee, A., Salehi, M., Kamandi, A., Masoumi, A. and Nabati, J. 2010.
Physiology of Environmental Stress in Plants. Ferdowsi University of Mashhad publication.
502p. (In Persian)
18.Keshavars, L., Farahbakhsh, H. and Golkar, P. 2012. The effects of drought stress and
absorbent polymer on morph-physiological traits of Pear Millet. Int. Res. J. Appl.Basic Sci.,
3: 1.148-154.
19.Keshavars, L., Farahbakhsh, H. and Golkar, P. 2013. Effects of different irrigation and
superabsorbent levels on physio-morphological traits and forage yield of Millet. Am J.
Agric. Environ. Sci., 13: 7.1012-1018.
20.Khodabandloo, Sh., Sepehri, A., Ahmadvand, G. and Keshtkar, A.H. 2014. Effect of silicon
on millet grain yield and water use efficiency under drought stress. Crops Improv., 16:
2.416-399
21.Larcher, W.P. 1995. Physiological plant ecology. New York, USA., 506p.
22.Lata, C., Jha, Sarita., Sreenivasulu, N. and Prasad, M. 2011. Differential antioxidative
responses to dehydration-induced oxidative stress in core set of foxtail millet cultivars.
Protoplasma., 248: 8.817-828.
23.Mahalakshmi, V. and Bidinger, F.R. 1985. Flowering of pearl millet to water stress during
panicle development. Ann. App. Biol., 106: 3.571-578.
24.Maqsood, M. and Azam Ali, S.N. 2007. Effects of environmental stress on growth, radiation
use efficiency and yield of finger millet (Eleucin ecoracana). Pakistan J. Bot., 39: 2.463-474.
25.Medrano, H., Escalona, J.M. and Bota, J. 2002. Regulation of photosynthesis C3 plant in
response to progressive drought: stomata conductance as a reference parameter. Ann. Bot.,
89: 7. 895-905.
26.Mousavi, Gh., Mirhadi, M. and Saadat, A. 2011. Effect of deficit-irrigation and nitrogen
levels on yield and water of efficiency of sorghum and pearl millet (Pennisetum). J. Modern
Sci., 5: 101-114. (In Persian)
27.Nagy, Z., Tuba, Z., Zsoldos, F. and Erdei, L. 1995. CO2 exchange and water relation
rsponses of sorghum and maize during water stress. J. Plant Physiol., 145: 4.539-544.
28.Ritche, S.W. and Nguyen, H.T. 1990. Leaf water content and gas exchange parameters of
two wheat genotype differing in drought resistance. Crop Sci., 30: 105-111.
29.Schaffert, R.E., Albuquerque, P.E.P., Duarte, J.O., Garcia, J.O., Gomide, R.L., Guimares,
C.T., Magalhes, P.C., Magalhes, J.V. and Queiroz, V.A.V. 2011. Phenotyping sorghum for
adaptation to drought, Part II in Monneveux, P., and Ribaut, JM. (Eds), Drought phenotyping
in crops:from theory to practice. Generation Challenge Programme.
30.Seghatoleslami, M.J., Kafi, M., Majidi, E., Darvish, F. and Noormohamadi, Gh. 2007. The
effect of irrigation on yield and water use efficiency of three species of millet. J. Agric. Sci.,
11: 121-131.
31.Seghatoleslami, M.J., Kafi, M., Majidi, E., Noormohamadi, Gh. and Darvish, F. 2008. Effect
of drought stress in different growth stages on yield and water use efficiency five millet
genotypes. Sci. Techol. Agric. Nat. Resour., 11: 215-225. (In Persian)
32.Shiferaw, B. and Baker, D.A. 1996. An evaluation of drought screening techniques for
Eragrostis. Trop. Sci., 36: 74-85.
33.Sreenivasulu, N., Grimm, B., Wotus, U. and Weschke, W. 2000. Differential response of
antioxidant compounds to salinity stress in salt-tolerant and salt-sensitivity seedlings of
foxtail millet .Physiol. Plant, 109: 4.435-442.
34.Vitkauskaite, G. and Venskaityte, L. 2011. Differences between C3 (HordeumvulgareL.) and
C4 (PanicummiliaceumL.) plants with respect to their resistance to water deficit. Agric., 98:
4. 349-356.
35.Xoconstle-Cazares, B., Ramirez-Ortega, F.A., Flores-Lenes, L. and Ruiz-Medrano, R. 2010.
Drought tolerance in crop plants. Am. J. Plant Physiol, 5: 5. 214–256.
36.Zhang, J. and Kirkham, M.B. 1995. Water relations of water-stressed, split-root C4
(Sorghum binocolor) and C3 (Helianthus annuus) plants. Am. J. Bot., 82: 10.1220-1229.
Journal of Crop Production
Volume 10, Issue 3
January 2018
Pages 103-117

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics