Free Standard AU & NZ Shipping For All Book Orders Over $80!
Register      Login
Crop and Pasture Science Crop and Pasture Science Society
Plant sciences, sustainable farming systems and food quality
Shopping Cart: ( empty )
You are here: Home > Journals > CP > AR07160
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Contents Vol 59(7)

Genotypic variation for drought stress response traits in soybean. II. Inter-relations between epidermal conductance, osmotic potential, relative water content, and plant survival

A. T. James A , R. J. Lawn B D and M. Cooper C
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

A Department of Agriculture, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Qld 4072; now CSIRO Plant Industry, Queensland Biosciences Precinct, 306 Carmody Rd, St Lucia, Qld 4067, Australia.

B Tropical Crop Science Unit, James Cook University, Townsville, Qld 4811, and CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, Davies Laboratory, Townsville, Qld 4814, Australia.

C Department of Agriculture, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Qld 4072; now Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc., PO Box 1004, Johnston, IA 50131, USA.

D Corresponding author. Email Robert.Lawn@jcu.edu.au

Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 59(7) 670-678 https://doi.org/10.1071/AR07160
Submitted: 19 April 2007  Accepted: 18 March 2008   Published: 3 July 2008

Abstract

As part of a project exploring the potential for using leaf physiological traits to improve drought tolerance in soybean, studies were conducted to explore whether epidermal conductance (ge), osmotic potential (π), and relative water content (RWC) influenced turgor maintenance and ultimately the survival of droughted plants. In a glasshouse study, plants of 8 soybean genotypes that showed different expression of the traits were grown in well watered soil-filled beds for 21 days and then exposed to terminal water deficit stress. The trends in each trait were then monitored periodically until plant death. Genotypic differences were observed in the rate of decline in RWC as the soil dried, in the temporal patterns of change in ge and π, in the duration of survival after watering ceased, and in the critical relative water content (RWCC) at which plants died. In general, ge became smaller and π became more negative as RWC declined and plants acclimated to the increasing stress. Genotypic differences in ge remained broadly consistent as RWC declined. In contrast, the genotypic rankings for π in stressed plants were poorly correlated with those for well watered plants, indicating differential genotypic capacity for osmotic adjustment (OA) in response to stress. Survival times among genotypes after stress commenced ranged from 27 to 41 days, while RWCC ranged from 49% down to 41%. The differences in survival time among the genotypes were able to be explained by genotypic differences in the rate of decline in RWC and in the RWCC, using a multiple linear regression relationship (R 2 = 0.94**). In turn, genotypic differences in the rate of decline in RWC were positively correlated (r = 0.75*) with ge at 70% RWC, and with OA over the drying period (r = 0.98**). In a second study in a controlled environment facility, leaf area retention at 90% soil water extraction was greatest in the one genotype that combined low ge, high OA, and low RWCC. Overall, the responses from the two studies were consistent with the hypothesis that turgor maintenance and ultimately leaf and plant survival of different genotypes during advanced stages of drought stress are enhanced by low ge, high OA capacity, and low RWCC.

Additional keywords: breeding, drought resistance, leaf survival, turgor maintenance, physiology.


Acknowledgments

The research reported here was supported by CSIRO, the Grains Research and Development Corporation, and the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research and was undertaken in partial fulfillment of the PhD degree awarded to ATJ by the University of Queensland in 2004.


References


Barrs HD, Weatherley PE (1962) A re-examination of the relative turgidity technique for estimating water deficit in leaves. Australian Journal of Biological Sciences 15, 413–428. open url image1

Cortes PM, Sinclair TR (1986) Water relations of field-grown soybean under drought. Crop Science 26, 993–998. open url image1

Flower DJ, Ludlow MM (1987) Variation among accessions of pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan) in osmotic adjustment and dehydration tolerance of leaves. Field Crops Research 17, 229–243.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Hufstetler VE, Boerma HR, Carter TE, Earl HJ (2007) Genotypic variation for three physiological traits affecting drought tolerance in soybean. Crop Science 47, 25–35.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

James AT (2004) Genotypic variation in soybean for drought stress response. PhD Thesis, University of Queensland, Australia.

James AT, Lawn RJ, Cooper M (2008) Genotypic variation for drought stress response traits in soybean. I. Variation in soybean and wild Glycine spp. for epidermal conductance, osmotic potential, and relative water content. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 59, 656–669. open url image1

Lawn RJ (1982) Response of four grain legumes to water stress in south-eastern Queensland. I. Physiological response mechanisms. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 33, 481–496.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Likoswe AA, Lawn RJ (2008) Response to terminal water deficit stress of cowpea, pigeonpea, and soybean in pure stand and in competition. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 59, 27–37.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Ludlow MM, Muchow RC (1990) A critical evaluation of traits for improving crop yields in water-limited environments. Advances in Agronomy 43, 107–153.
| Crossref |
open url image1

Meyer RF, Boyer JS (1972) Sensitivity of cell division and cell elongation to low water potentials in soybean hypocotyls. Planta 108, 77–87.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Morgan JM (1992) Adaptation to water deficits in three grain legume species. Mechanisms of turgor maintenance. Field Crops Research 29, 91–106.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Northcote KH (1971) ‘A factual key for the recognition of Australian soils.’ 3rd edn (Rellim Technical Publications: Glenside, S. Aust.)

Pajé M, Ludlow MM, Lawn RJ (1988) Variation among soybean (Glycine max L. Merr.) accessions in epidermal conductance of leaves. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 39, 363–373.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Sinclair TR, Ludlow MM (1985) Who taught plants thermodynamics? The unfulfilled potential of plant water potential. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 12, 213–217. open url image1

Sinclair TR, Ludlow MM (1986) Influence of soil water supply on the plant water balance of four tropical grain legumes. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 13, 329–341.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Singh BB , Matsui T (2002) Breeding cowpea varieties for drought tolerance. In ‘Challenges and opportunities for enhancing sustainable cowpea production’. (Eds CA Fatokun, SA Tarawali, BB Singh, PM Kormawa, M Tamo) pp. 287–300. (IITA: Ibadan, Nigeria)

Sionit N, Kramer PJ (1977) Effects of water stress during different stages of growth of soybean. Agronomy Journal 69, 274–278. open url image1

Sloane RJ, Patterson RP, Carter TE (1990) Field drought tolerance of a soybean plant introduction. Crop Science 30, 118–123. open url image1

Turner NC, Begg JE, Rawson HM, English SD, Hearn AB (1978) Agronomic and physiological responses of soybean and sorghum crops to water deficits. III. Components of leaf water potential, leaf conductance, 14CO2 photosynthesis and adaptation to water deficits. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 5, 179–194.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Willis AJ , Jefferies RL (1963) Investigations on the water relations of sand-dune plants under natural conditions. In ‘The water relations of plants’. (Eds AJ Rutter, FH Whitehead) pp. 169–189. (Blackwell: Oxford, UK)