4.5 Article

Heat and drought stress on durum wheat: Responses of genotypes, yield, and quality parameters

期刊

JOURNAL OF CEREAL SCIENCE
卷 57, 期 3, 页码 398-404

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcs.2013.01.005

关键词

Drought and heat stress; Durum wheat; Flour yellowness; Gluten strength

资金

  1. State-Sponsored Postgraduates Study Abroad Program of the China Scholarship Council
  2. Main Direction Program of Knowledge Innovation of Chinese Academy of Sciences [KSCX3-EW-N-02-2]
  3. Twelfth Five-Year National Key Technology Research and Development Program [2011BAD35B03]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Heat and/or drought stress during cultivation are likely to affect the processing quality of durum wheat (Triticum turgidum L ssp. durum). This work examined the effects of drought and heat stress conditions on grain yield and quality parameters of nine durum wheat varieties, grown during two years (2008-09 and 2009-10). Generally, G and E showed main effects on all the parameters whereas the effects of G x E were relatively small. More precipitation in Y09-10 may account for the large differences in parameters observed between crop cycles (Y08-09 and Y09-10). Combined results of the two crop cycles showed that flour protein content (FP) and SDS sedimentation volume (SDSS) increased under both stress conditions, but not significantly. In contrast the gluten strength-related parameters lactic acid retention capacity (LARC) and mixograph peak time (MPT) increased and decreased significantly under drought and heat stress, respectively. Drought and heat stress drastically reduced grain yield (Y) but significantly enhanced flour yellowness (FY). LARC and the swelling index of glutenin (SIG) could be alternative tests to screen for gluten strength. Genotypes and qualtiy parameters performed differently to drought and heat stress, which justifies screening durum wheat for both yield and quality traits under these two abiotic stress conditions. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据