4.0 Article

Screening Methods for Waterlogging Tolerance at Maize (Zea mays L.) Seedling Stage

Journal

AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES IN CHINA
Volume 9, Issue 3, Pages 362-369

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S1671-2927(09)60105-X

Keywords

maize (Zea mays L.); waterlogging tolerance; screening method; selection criteria

Funding

  1. Natural Science Foundation of Hubei Province, China [2008CDB079]
  2. National High Technology Research and Development Program of China [2006AA100103]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Waterlogging strongly affects agronomic performance of maize (Zea mays L.). In order to investigate the suitable selection criteria of waterflooding tolerant genotypes, and identify the most susceptible stage and the best continuous treatment time to waterlogging, 20 common maize inbred lines were subjected to successive artificial waterflooding at seedling stage, and waterlogging tolerance coefficient (WTC) was used to screen waterflooding tolerant genotypes. In addition, peroxidase (POD) activities and malondialdehyde (MDA) contents were measured for 6 of 20 lines. The results showed that the second leaf stage (V2) was the most susceptible stage, and 6 d after waterflooding was the best continuous treatment time. Dry weight (DW) of both shoots and roots of all lines were significantly reduced at 6 d time-point of waterlogging, compared to control. POD activities and MDA contents were negatively and significantly correlated, and the correlation coefficient was -0.9686 (P<0.0001). According to the results, WTC of shoot DW can be used for practical screening as a suitable index, which is significantly different from control and waterlogged plants happened 6 d earlier. Furthermore, leaf chlorosis, MDA content and POD activities could also be used as reference index for material screening. The implications of the results for waterlogging-tolerant material screening and waterlogging-tolerant breeding have been discussed in maize.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available