4.6 Article

Water use efficiency of sugar beet genotypes: A relationship between growth rates and water consumption

Journal

JOURNAL OF AGRONOMY AND CROP SCIENCE
Volume 208, Issue 1, Pages 28-39

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jac.12569

Keywords

abiotic stress; drought; sink; source; water supply; WUE

Categories

Funding

  1. KWS SAAT SE Co.
  2. KGaA

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study showed that early drought stress led to the most significant yield reductions, with water consumption being proportional to growth rate. Differences in water consumption and water use efficiency were observed among different sugar beet genotypes, but no genotype by water supply interaction was found.
Drought stress restricts sugar beet growth and yield formation. For the development of adapted varieties, reasons for high water demand in certain growth periods and for genotypic differences in water use efficiency (WUE) were investigated. In 2019 and 2020, different drought stress periods were simulated in pot trials in the greenhouse with four sugar beet genotypes by reducing the water supply to 50% of the water holding capacity. With unlimited water supply, water consumption developed in parallel to the growth rate. This indicates that water demand is driven by growth rate. Therefore, early drought stress in the period with highest growth rate caused strongest yield reductions, which could not be compensated later in the season. Unlike sugar yield, water consumption differed among genotypes, resulting in genotypic differences in WUE. However, no relevant genotype by water supply interaction occurred, giving no indication for drought tolerance of the genotypes with high WUE. WUE is rather determined by the sugar yield potential of a genotype than by water supply. Therefore, sugar beet genotypes should be selected for their sugar yield potential when breeding for environments with varying water supply.

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