Water stress and climate change adaptation: From trait dissection to yield V Vadez – J Kholova K Aparna, K Siva Sakhti, M Tharanya, S Medina, Srikanth Malayee, Sudhakarreddy P, S Choudhary, R Baddam, S Dharani, S Deshpande, R Srivastava, CT Hash ICRISAT NGGIBCI meeting – India 20 Feb 2015
40
Embed
2015. V. Vadez. Water stress and climate change adaptation. From trait dissection to yield
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Water stress and climate change adaptation:
From trait dissection to yield
V Vadez – J Kholova
K Aparna, K Siva Sakhti, M Tharanya, S Medina, Srikanth Malayee, Sudhakarreddy P, S Choudhary, R Baddam, S Dharani, S
Deshpande, R Srivastava, CT Hash
ICRISAT
NGGIBCI meeting – India 20 Feb 2015
Few things on CC / Drought
What we learnt
Trait dissection & mechanisms
Trait assessment for breeding
Linking the pieces with crop simulation
Grain Yield
Grain Number Grain Size & N
Biomass RADN
TE T RUE Rint
vpd
kl LAI SLN Roots
k
T N LNo
A >A
APSIM Generic Crop Template, from Graeme Hammer
Yield and determinants
Yield is not a trait Phenotyping to focus on the “building blocks”
FTSW
0.00.20.40.60.81.0
No
rma
lize
d t
ran
sp
ira
tio
n
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
Stage I
Stage II
Stage III
No stress until >60% soil water is depleted
How plant manage water when there is water is critical
Typical response of plant to water deficit
Soil water
Tran
sp
irati
on
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Maxim
um
VP
D (
kPa)
Sahelian Center (Niger)
Patancheru
Vapor pressure deficit (VPD) in the SAT
High VPD – Variable conditions Effect on plant water balance
What is a “drought tolerant” plant?
A plant with: • enough water to fill up grains • no more water after grain filling
Hypotheses: • Tap more water?
• Save/manage water/WUE ?
Focus on “building blocks” of plant water budget / use
Few things on CC / Drought
What we learnt
Trait dissection & mechanisms
Trait assessment for breeding
Linking the pieces with crop simulation
Water extraction at key times
Zaman-Allah et al 2011 Borrell et al 2014 Vadez et al 2013
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
21 28 35 42 49 56 63 70 77 84 91 98
Wate
r u
sed
(kg
pl-1
)
Days after sowing
Sensitive
Tolerant
Vegetative Reprod/ Grain fill
Conductance Canopy area
Canopy T°C Staygreen
Less water extraction at vegetative stage, more for grain filling
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
0 1 2 3 4
WU
(kg
pla
nt-
1 w
eek
-1)
Weeks after booting
ICMH01029
ICMH01040
ICMH01046
PRLT2/89-33
Vadez et al 2013 – Plant Soil
H77/833-2
ICMH02042
Terminal drought sensitive
Terminal drought tolerant
Tolerant: less WU at vegetative stage, more for reproduction & grain filling
Water extraction pattern (WS) in pearl millet
Flowering
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Sta
yg
ree
n s
co
re
Water uptake in week 3 after booting
Stress1 R2 = 0.76**
Stress 2 R2 = 0.79**
Relationship Water extraction vs Staygreen
Staygreen = water available during grain fill
R² = 0.7108
0
4
8
12
16
20
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Gra
in Y
ield
(g
pla
nt-1
)
Early stress
Water uptake in week 3 after booting
More post-anthesis water use, more yield
Relationship Water extraction vs Yield
40 kg grain mm-1
Why different patterns of water use even if no stress ?
Difference in canopy size (tillering, leaf size,
leaf number, LER, etc…
Difference in canopy conductance
Terminal drought sensitive
Terminal drought tolerant
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
0.04
0.045
0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50
VPD (kPa)
H77/2 833-2
PRLT-2/89-33
Tran
sp
irati
on
(g
cm
-2 h
-1)
Kholova et al 2010
2 mechanisms of water saving: •Low Tr at low VPD •Further restriction of Tr at high VPD
Transpiration response to VPD in pearl millet
0.000
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.010
0.012
0.014
0.62 1.05 1.58 2.01 2.43 3.05 3.45
Tran
spir
atio
n (
g p
l-1 c
m-2
)
VPD (kPa)
VPD-insensitive
VPD-sensitive
Transpiration response to VPD in Sorghum 1 - Germplasm
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
152 Germplasm
Tran
sp
irati
on
Eff
icie
ncy (
TE)
10 lowest TE are all VPD-Insensitive
10 highest TE are all VPD-sensitive
High TE lines limit transpiration at high VPD
Why are VPD-sensitive lines so interesting?
Staygreen ILs (Stg3 – Stg B) are VPD-sensitive
0.0000
0.0020
0.0040
0.0060
0.0080
0.0100
0.0120
9 11 13 15 17
Tran
sp
irati
on
(g
cm
-2 h
-1)
Time of the day (h)
stg1
stg3
stg4
stgB
R16
B35
Recurrent R16
Stg3
StgB
Transpiration response to VPD in Sorghum 2 - Introgression lines in R16
0.000
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.010
0.012
10.00 11.30 13.00 14.30
Tran
spir
atio
n r
ate
(g
cm-2
h-1
)
Time of the day
stg1
stg3
stg4
stgB
stgB
S35
B35
Recurrent S35
Stg3
StgB
Transpiration response to VPD in Sorghum 3 - Introgression lines in S35
No effect of Stg QTL in a different background
What mechanisms??
Hydraulic differences in the roots ??
Tran
sp
irati
on
VPD
Apoplast
(Structural)
Symplast
(AQP, …)
Water pathways in the root cylinder
Two pathways have different hydraulic conductance
Hypothesis: Aquaporin control plant water loss ?
Follow-up of transpiration before/after inhibition
VPD - insensitive
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
No
rm
alized
tran
sp
irati
on
Time(mins)
Apoplast & symplast inhibition
Symplastic inhibition
Apoplastic inhibition
Genetic differences in water transport pathways
VPD-sensitive
VPD-insensitive
VPD-sensitive
Any difference in aquaporin expression In sorghum contrasting for VPD response??
Collaborators: F. Chaumont (Univ. Louvain) G. Hammer / A. Borrell / G McLean / E van Oosterom (Univ. Queensland) B Sine / N Belko / Ndiaga Cisse (CERAAS) C Messina, Anand Pandravada (Pioneer) Hanna Anderberg (Lund Univ.)
Donors: B&MG Foundation GCP ACIAR DFID CRPs
Technicians / Data analyst: Srikanth Malayee Rekha Badham M Anjaiah N Pentaiah
Students: M Tharanya S Sakthi S Medina M Diancoumba
Colleagues: KK Sharma / T Shah / F Hamidou HD Upadhyaya / Bhasker Raj