4.5 Article

Modelling concept of lettuce breeding for nutrient efficiency

期刊

EUPHYTICA
卷 199, 期 1-2, 页码 167-181

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10681-014-1198-x

关键词

Drought stress; Modelling concept; Nitrogen use efficiency; Organic; Root growth; Resource capture

资金

  1. Top Institute Green Genetics [2CFD024RP]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Modern lettuce cultivars are bred for use under high levels of input of water and nutrients, and therefore less adapted to low-input or organic conditions in which nitrate availability varies over time and within the soil profile. To create robust cultivars it is necessary to assess which traits contribute to optimal resource capture and maximum resource use efficiency. We therefore revisited earlier published results on root growth, resource capture and resource use efficiency of lettuce exposed to localized drought and nitrate shortage in a pot experiment. Root growth in a soil profile with localized resource shortage depended on the resource that was in short supply. We conceptualized a model describing nitrogen uptake and use efficiency. We also investigated the genetic variation among 148 cultivars in resource capture over time and soil depth and in resource use efficiency in four (two locations x two planting dates) field experiments. Cultivars proved to be highly diverse in their ability to capture and use resources. This ability, however, was strongly affected by other sources of variance, stressing the need for an eco-physiological model capable of reducing the residual variance and improving the expression and evaluation of cultivar differences in relation to both resource capture and use efficiency in lettuce. We showed that genetic variation was best expressed under limiting conditions. To improve the conceptualized model further we identified issues requiring further analysis, e.g., the physiological reasons why certain cultivars are capable of quickly responding to changes in the environment to maintain optimal resource capture.

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