4.7 Article

Seedling root architecture and its relationship with seed yield across diverse environments in Phaseolus vulgaris

期刊

FIELD CROPS RESEARCH
卷 237, 期 -, 页码 53-64

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.fcr.2019.04.012

关键词

Root architecture; Phenotyping; Common bean; Drought stress; Soil fertility; Gene Pool

类别

资金

  1. Howard G Buffett Foundation
  2. National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Hatch project [4582]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Seedling root phenotypes may have important impacts on fitness and are more easily measured than mature root phenotypes. We phenotyped the roots of 577 genotypes of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris), representing the bulk of the genetic diversity for recent cultivars and landraces in this species. Root architectural phenotypes of seedlings germinated for nine days were compared to root architectural phenotypes in the field as well as seed yield across 51 environments with an array of abiotic stresses including drought, nutrient deficiency, and heat, as well as non-stress conditions. We observed repeatability ranging from 0.52-0.57 for measures of root phenotypes in seedlings, significant variation in root phene states between gene pools and races, relationships between seedling and field phenotypes, and varying correlations between seedling root phenes and seed yield under a variety of environmental conditions. Seed yield was significantly related to seedling basal root number in 22% of environments, seedling adventitious root abundance in 35% of environments, and seedling taproot length in 12% of environments. Cluster analysis grouped genotypes by their aggregated seedling root phenotype, and variation in seed yield among these clusters under non-stress, drought, and low fertility conditions was observed. These results highlight the existence and influence of integrated root phenotypes for adaptation to edaphic stress, and suggest root phenes have value as breeding targets under real-world conditions.

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

4.7
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