Responses of Lowland, Upland and Aerobic Rice Genotypes to Water Limitation During Different Phases

doi:10.1016/j.rsci.2020.05.009

Abstract

Abstract:

Rice yield reduction due to water limitation depends on its severity and duration and on the phenological stage of its occurrence. We exposed three contrasting rice genotypes, IR64, UPLRi7 and Apo (adapted to lowland, upland and aerobic conditions, respectively), to three water regimes (puddle, 100% and 60% field capacity) in pots during the vegetative (GSI), flowering (GSII) and grain filling (GSIII) stages. Stress at all the three stages significantly reduced yield especially in lowland genotype IR64. Effect of water limitation was more severe at GSII than at the other two stages. Stress at GSI stage reduced both source activity (leaf area and photosynthetic rate) and sink capacity (tiller number or panicle number per pot). When stress was imposed at GSII, spikelet fertility was most affected in all the three genotypes. In both GSII and GSIII, although leaf area was constant in all the three water regimes, estimated relative whole-plant photosynthesis was strongly associated with yield reduction. Reduced photosynthesis due to stress at any given stage was found to have direct impact on yield. Compared to the other genotypes, Apo had deeper roots and maintained a better water relation, thus, higher carbon gain and spikelet viability, and ultimately, higher biomass and productivity under water-limited conditions. Therefore, screening for these stage-dependent adaptive mechanisms is crucial in breeding for sustained rice production under water limitation.

Key words: water limitation, phenology, upland, aerobic, Oryza sativa, yield

Vijayaraghavareddy Preethi, Xinyou Yin, C. Struik Paul, Makarla Udayakumar, Sreeman Sheshshayee. Responses of Lowland, Upland and Aerobic Rice Genotypes to Water Limitation During Different Phases[J]. Rice Science, 2020, 27(4): 345-354.

Figures/Tables 8

Fig. 1. Effects of water limitation on various physiological characteristics of three contrasting genotypes.A, Relative water content (RWC) at the vegetative stage (GSI). B, Photosynthetic rate (A) at GSI. C, Stomatal conductance (gs) at GSI. D, RWC at the flowering stage (GSII). E, A at GSII. F, gs at GSII. G, RWC at the grain filling stage (GSIII). H, A at GSIII. I, Stomatal conductance (gs) at GSIII.FC, Field capacity. Data indicate Mean ± SE (n = 5). * and ** indicate significant differences from puddle at the 0.05 and 0.01 levels within genotypes, respectively.

Supplemental Fig. 1. Effect water limitation on SPAD value at GSI, GSII and GSIII in rice genotypes.Water limitation effect on SPAD value in lowland IR64, upland UPL Ri7 and aerobic Apo genotypes due to stress at (a) GSI, (b) GSII and (c) GSIII stage. Error bars indicates the standard error of mean. *Significantly different from puddle P ≤ 0.05 and ** P ≤ 0.01 level within genotype.

Table 1 Effects of water limitation on total leaf area (TLA, cm2/plant) and total biomass (TBM, g/plant).

Stage	TLA in IR64			TLA in UPLRi7			TLA in Apo
Stage	Puddle	100% FC	60% FC	Puddle	100% FC	60% FC	Puddle	100% FC	60% FC
GSI	2431.7	2 110.7**	1 026.8**	1 839.6	1 396.5**	965.5**	1 977.4	2 019.7	1 240.5**
GSII	2221.9	2 151.8	2 197.6	2 155.9	2 033.4	2 076.6	2 067.9	2 079.7	1 947.5
GSIII	2410.6	2 463.0	2 384.3	1 779.4	1 747.6	1 706.0	1 913.4	1 957.4	1 903.4
Stage	TBM in IR64			TBM in UPLRi7			TBM in Apo
Stage	Puddle	100% FC	60% FC	Puddle	100% FC	60% FC	Puddle	100% FC	60% FC
GSI	35.38	29.43**	20.47**	31.25	25.18**	20.05**	32.87	24.63**	19.95**
GSII	39.52	37.43	34.97*	33.19	32.45	30.63	36.68	35.94	34.85
GSIII	34.87	32.89	28.59*	33.83	32.28	29.72*	36.06	35.58	32.6

Supplemental Table 1. Effect of water limitation on total plant height, number of tillers and stem weight.

Stage	Plant height (cm)						Number of tillers						Stem weight (g/plant)
	IR64		UPLRi7		Apo		IR64		UPLRi7		Apo		IR64		UPLRi7		Apo
	100% FC	60% FC	100% FC	60% FC	100% FC	60% FC	100% FC	60% FC	100% FC	60% FC	100% FC	60% FC	100% FC	60% FC	100% FC	60% FC	100% FC	60% FC
GSI	15.9	35.0	10.1	25.4	22.1	29.1	15.5	29.3	12.0	25.3	15.4	12.6	13.8	43.2	10.1	7.8	16.5	32.4
GSII	1.1	4.3	4.7	8.4	7.4	5.2	2.9	2.9	3.8	2.5	1.4	2.9	4.7	4.2	6.8	13.2	-0.8	1.2
GSIII	5.4	6.2	6.0	9.0	1.3	2.2	2.9	5.5	-1.2	5.0	2.9	1.4	15.8	19.4	7.5	13.9	6.8	11.2

Table 2 Yield for the three contrasting genotypes at different growth stages and stress treatments. g/plant

Stage	IR64			UPLRi7			Apo
Stage	Puddle	100% FC	60% FC	Puddle	100% FC	60% FC	Puddle	100% FC	60% FC
GSI	29.24	24.54 (16.1)*	18.97 (35.1)**	20.36	16.76 (17.7)*	13.90 (31.7)**	28.59	26.86 (6.0)	23.94 (16.2)*
GSII	27.20	19.24 (29.2)**	13.40 (50.7)**	19.06	15.18 (20.3)**	10.27 (46.1)**	26.56	21.95 (17.4)*	16.91 (36.3)**
GSIII	27.90	22.91 (16.6)*	16.03 (41.6)**	16.80	14.20 (15.4)*	11.36 (32.4)**	26.72	25.42 (4.8)	24.10 (9.8)*

Fig. 2. Effects of stress on spikelet fertility and root length among the genotypes.A, Spikelet fertility at vegetative stage. B, Spikelet fertility at flowering stage. C, Spikelet fertility at grain filling stage. D, Root length at vegetative stage. E, Root length at at flowering stage. F, Root length at at grain filling stage.FC, Field capacity. Data indicate Mean ± SE (n = 5). * and ** indicate significant differences from puddle at the 0.05 and 0.01 levels within genotypes, respectively.

Supplemental Fig. 2. Effect water limitation on root weight (RW) at GSI, GSII and GSIII in rice genotypes.Water limitation impact on root weight in lowland IR64, upland UPLRi7 and aerobic Apo genotypes due to stress at (a) GSI, (b) GSII and (c) GSIII stage. Error bars indicates the standard error of mean. *Significantly different from puddle at P ≤ 0.05 and ** P ≤ 0.01 level within genotype.

Fig. 3. Linear regression among reductions in several traits.A, Linear regression of reductions in assimilation rate (A) and yield. B, Linear regression of reductions in total leaf area (TLA) and yield. C, Linear regression of reductions in computed A and yield. D, Linear regression of reductions in assimilation rate (A) and spikelet fertility (SF).GSI, Vegetative stage; GSII, Flowering stage; GSIII, Grain filling stage.Reduction in yield over puddle was calculated for the means under 100% and 60% field capacity. ** indicates significance at the 0.01 level.

References 35

[1]	Babitha K C, Vemanna R S, Nataraja K N, Udayakumar M. 2015. Overexpression of EcbHLH57 transcription factor from Eleusine coracana L. in tobacco confers tolerance to salt, oxidative and drought stress. PLoS One, 10(9): e0137098.
[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]	Bouman B. 2009. How much water does rice use? Managment, 69: 115-133.
[4]	Bouman B A M, Tuong T P. 2001. Field water management to save water and increase its productivity in irrigated lowland rice. Agric Water Manag, 49(1): 11-30.
[5]	Çakir R. 2004. Effect of water stress at different development stages on vegetative and reproductive growth of corn. Field Crops Res, 89(1): 1-16.
[6]	Dharmappa P M, Doddaraju P, Malagondanahalli M V, Rangappa R B, Mallikarjuna N M, Rajendrareddy S H, Ramanjinappa R, Mavinahalli R P, Prasad T G, Udayakumar M, Sheshshayee S M. 2019. Introgression of root and water use efficiency traits enhances water productivity: An evidence for physiological breeding in rice ( Oryza sativa L.). Rice, 12(1): 14.
[7]	IRRI.1997. Rice Almanac. 2nd edn. Los Banos, the Philippines: International Rice Research Institute.
[8]	Jagadish K S V, Kavi Kishor P B, Bahuguna R N, von Wiren N, Sreenivasulu N. 2015. Staying alive or going to die during terminal senescence: An enigma surrounding yield stability. Front Plant Sci, 6: 1070.
[9]	Jin Y, Yang H X, Wei Z, Ma H, Ge X C. 2013. Rice male development under drought stress: Phenotypic changes and stage-dependent transcriptomic reprogramming. Mol Plant, 6(5): 1630-1645.
[10]	Kadam N N, Yin X, Bindraban P S, Struik P C, Jagadish K S. 2015. Does morphological and anatomical plasticity during the vegetative stage make wheat more tolerant of water deficit stress than rice? Plant Physiol, 167(4): 1389-1401.
[11]	Kadiyala M D M, Mylavarapu R S, Li Y C, Reddy G B, Reddy M D. 2012. Impact of aerobic rice cultivation on growth, yield, and water productivity of rice-maize rotation in semiarid tropics. Agron J, 104(6): 1757-1765.
[12]	Madani A, Shirani-Rad A, Pazoki A, Nourmohammadi G, Zarghami R, Mokhtassi-Bidgoli A. 2010. The impact of source or sink limitations on yield formation of winter wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.) due to post-anthesis water and nitrogen deficiencies. Plant Soil Environ, 56(5): 218-227.
[13]	Mackill D J, Khush G S. 2018. IR64: A high-quality and high- yielding mega variety. Rice, 11(1): 18.
[14]	Nguyen H T, Babu R C, Blum A. 1997. Breeding for drought resistance in rice: Physiology and molecular genetics consideration. Crop Sci, 37(5): 1426-1434.
[15]	Nishimura S, Yonemura S, Sawamoto T, Shirato Y, Akiyama H, Sudo S, Yagi K. 2008. Effect of land use change from paddy rice cultivation to upland crop cultivation on soil carbon budget of a cropland in Japan. Agric Ecosyst Environ, 125: 9-20.
[16]	O’Toole J C, Hsiao T C, Namuco O S. 1984. Panicle water relations during water stress. Plant Sci Lett, 33(2): 137-143.
[17]	Ouyang W J, Struik P C, Yin X Y, Yang J C. 2017. Stomatal conductance, mesophyll conductance, and transpiration efficiency in relation to leaf anatomy in rice and wheat genotypes under drought. J Exp Bot, 68(18): 5191-5205.
[18]	Praba M L, Cairns J E, Babu R C, Lafitte H R. 2009. Identification of physiological traits underlying cultivar differences in drought tolerance in rice and wheat. J Agron Crop Sci, 195(1): 30-46.
[19]	Raju B R, Narayanaswamy B R, Mohankumar M V, Sumanth K K, Rajanna M P, Mohanraju B, Udayakumar M, Sheshshayee M S. 2014. Root traits and cellular level tolerance hold the key in maintaining higher spikelet fertility of rice under water limited conditions. Funct Plant Biol, 41(9): 930-939.
[20]	Ramu V S, Swetha T N, Sheela S H, Babitha C K, Rohini S, Reddy M K, Tuteja N, Reddy C P, Prasad T G, Udayakumar M. 2016. Simultaneous expression of regulatory genes associated with specific drought-adaptive traits improves drought adaptation in peanut. Plant Biotechnol J, 14(3): 1008-1020.
[21]	Roitsch T. 1999. Source-sink regulation by sugar and stress. Curr Opin Plant Biol, 2(3): 198-206.
[22]	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.) genotypes. Pak J Biol Sci, 11(10): 1303-1309.
[23]	Selote D S, Khanna-Chopra R. 2004. Drought-induced spikelet sterility is associated with an inefficient antioxidant defence in rice panicles. Physiol Plant, 121(3): 462-471.
[24]	Serraj R, Sinclair T R, Purcell L C. 1999. Symbiotic N2 ﬁxation response to drought. J Exp Bot, 50(331): 143-155.
[25]	Sheshshayee M S, Bindumadhava H, Shankar A G, Prasad T G, Udayakumar M. 2003. Breeding strategies to exploit water use efficiency for crop improvement. J Plant Biol, 30(2): 253-268.
[26]	Sheshshayee M S, Vijayaraghavareddy P, Sreevathsa R, Rajendrareddy S, Arakesh S, Bharti P, Dharmappa P, Soolanayakanahally R. 2018. Introgression of physiological traits for a comprehensive improvement of drought adaptation in crop plants. Front Chem, 10(6): 92.
[27]	Shi W J, Li X, Schmidt R C, Struik P C, Yin X Y, Jagadish S V K. 2018. Pollen germination and in vivo fertilization in response to high-temperature during flowering in hybrid and inbred rice. Plant Cell Environ, 41(6): 1287-1297.
[28]	Turk K J, Hall A E, Asbell C W. 1980. Drought adaptation of cowpea: I. Influence of drought on seed yield. Agron J, 72(3): 413-420.
[29]	Udayakumar M, Rao R C N, Wright G C, Ramaswamy G C, Ashok R S, Gangadhar G C, Hussain I S A. 1998. Measurement of transpiration efficiency in field conditions. Plant Physiol Biochem, 1: 69-75.
[30]	Uphoff N, Kassam A, Harwood R. 2010. SRI as a methodology for raising crop and water productivity: Productive adaptations in rice agronomy and irrigation water management. Paddy Water Environ, 9(1): 3-11.
[31]	Vijayaraghavareddy P, Vanitha P, Vemanna R, Sheshshayee M S, Makarla U. 2017. Quantification of membrane damage/cell death using Evan’s blue staining technique. Bio-Protocol, 7(16): e2519.
[32]	Yang J C, Huang D F, Duan H, Tan G L, Zhang J H. 2009. Alternate wetting and moderate soil drying increases grain yield and reduces cadmium accumulation in rice grains. J Sci Food Agric, 89(10): 1728-1736.
[33]	Yang X L, Wang B F, Chen L, Li P, Cao C G. 2019. The different influences of drought stress at the flowering stage on rice physiological traits, grain yield, and quality. Sci Rep, 9(1): 3742.
[34]	Zeigler R S, Puckridge D W. 1995. Improving sustainable productivity in rice-based rainfed lowland systems of South and Southeast Asia. GeoJournal, 35(3): 307-324.
[35]	Zhang J Y, Broeckling C D, Sumner L W, Wang Z Y. 2007. Heterologous expression of two Medicago truncatula putative ERF transcription factor genes, WXP1 and WXP2, in Arabidopsis led to increased leaf wax accumulation and improved drought tolerance, but differential response in freezing tolerance. Plant Mol Biol, 64(3): 265-278.