4.5 Article

Stay-green quantitative trait loci's effects on water extraction, transpiration efficiency and seed yield depend on recipient parent background

期刊

FUNCTIONAL PLANT BIOLOGY
卷 38, 期 7, 页码 553-566

出版社

CSIRO PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1071/FP11073

关键词

genetic background; lysimeters; root; sorghum

资金

  1. Australian Council for International Agriculture Research [CIM-2007-120]
  2. Department of Biotechnology (DBT) from the Government of India

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A stay-green phenotype enhances the adaptation of sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench) to terminal drought, although the mechanisms leading to its expression remain unclear. Differences in tillering and leaf area at anthesis, transpiration efficiency (TE), water extraction, harvest index (HI) and yield under terminal drought and fully irrigated conditions were assessed in 29 introgression lines (IL) targeting stay-green quantitative trait loci (QTLs) Stg1, Stg2, Stg3, Stg4, StgA and StgB in an S35 background, and 16 IL targeting Stg1, Stg3, Stg4 and StgB in an R16 background. TE was increased by StgB in the R16 background, whereas there was no effect in the S35 background. Water extraction was increased by Stg1 in the S35 background but not in R16. StgB modified the proportion of water extracted before and after anthesis in the S35 background. While tillering and leaf area at anthesis were decreased by Stg1 and Stg3 in S35, there was no effect in R16. Yield data under fully irrigated conditions showed higher tiller grain yield in Stg1, Stg2 and Stg3 ILs. Although yield differences were mostly explained by HI variation, the yield variation unexplained by HI was closely related to TE in S35 (R-2 = 0.29) and R16 (R-2 = 0.72), and was closely related to total water extracted in S35 (R-2 = 0.41) but not in R16. These data indicate the potential for several stay-green QTLs to affect traits related to plant water use. However, these effects depend on the interaction between the genetic background and individual QTLs.

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