4.6 Article

Differential Responses of Antioxidative Defence System to Long-Term Field Drought in Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Genotypes Differing in Drought Tolerance

Journal

JOURNAL OF AGRONOMY AND CROP SCIENCE
Volume 198, Issue 3, Pages 185-195

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-037X.2011.00497.x

Keywords

ascorbate; oxidative stress; rain fed; reactive oxygen species; water deficit; yield potential

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Drought is a severe abiotic stress and the major constraint on wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) productivity world wide. Deciphering the mechanisms of drought tolerance is a challenging task because of the complexity of drought responses, environmental factors and their interactions. The objective of this study was to evaluate the ability of the antioxidative defence system in imparting tolerance against drought-induced oxidative stress and yield loss in two wheat genotypes, when subjected to long-term field drought. Drought resulted in an increase in H2O2 accumulation and lipid peroxidation and decrease in ascorbate level in roots and leaves at different plant developmental stages. Drought-tolerant genotype having higher antioxidative enzymes activities, and ascorbate level was superior to that of sensitive genotype in maintaining lower H2O2 content and lipid peroxidation and higher growth, yield and yield components under water deficit. Various antioxidative enzymes showed positive correlation with ascorbate and negative with H2O2 content. In developing grains, antioxidative defence response was nearly similar among both the genotypes under control condition; however, sensitive genotype failed to modulate the activities of antioxidative enzymes according to the ROS rush under field drought. Poor capacity of the antioxidative defence system in vegetative and reproductive tissues of sensitive genotype seems to be responsible, at least partly, for reduced yield potential under water deficit.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available