ADAPTABILITY OF SPRING WHEAT VARIETIES AND LINES TO THE ARTIFICIAL OSMOTIC, SALT AND ACID STRESS FACTORS DURING THE EARLY STAGES OF ONTOGENY

Н.В. Давыдова, Л.А. Марченкова, О.В. Павлова, Р.Ф. Чавдарь, Т.Г. Орлова, А.В. Широколава

Abstract


The article presents experimental data on the adaptability of spring wheat varieties and lines evaluated by their responses to dehydration, acidification and plant hypoxia during their seedlings phase. Artificially modeled stress backgrounds used were high sucrose, sodium chloride (NaCl) and aluminum sulfate [Al2(SO4)3], as well as prolonged seeds drowning. The responses of samples were assessed by their growing rates in comparison with control (distilled water) upon dehydration by sucrose and upon hypoxia, by sprouts length upon salination, and by roots length upon acidification. Percentages of experimental results vs. respective controls were calculated. Different levels of depression of the above indicators (depending on stress factors implemented), as well as different abilities to tolerate stress factors were found. Differences between varieties in their rea to stress factors were identified. Depending on variety, the indicators varied within 34-85 % for drought tolerance, 17-58 % for salinity tolerance, 41-84 % for acid tolerance, and 18-72 % for flooding tolerance. It was determined that anaerobic and salt stresses are the most harmful to the spring wheat plants. According to the combined tolerance index “I” 46% varieties with a broad adaptability spectrum to stressors were chosen. Especially valuable for selection are the varieties Zlata, Liza, Ester, Agata and Radmira due to the combination of economically important traits featured by them: high productivity, high yield, plasticity, and tolerance to adverse environmental factors and diseases. Those varieties may be used in environmentally different regions to create new spring wheat varieties with combinations of positive traits.

Keywords


spring wheat, variety, line, stress factors, dehydration, salinization, acidification, flooding, tolerance index, adaptability.


Как процитировать материал

References


Крупнов ВА. Засуха и селекция пшеницы: системный подход. Сельскохозяйственная биология. 2011;(1):12-23.

Белецкая ЕК., Остаплюк ЕД. Оценка устойчивости озимых культур к вымоканию и ледяной корке. В кн.: Диагностика устойчивости растений к стрессовым воздействиям. Методическое руководство. Л.; 1988. С. 182-6.

Удовенко ГВ. Солеустойчивость культурных растений. Научные труды ВАСХНИЛ. Ленинград: Колос; 1977.

Ярусов СС, Соколов МФ. Обменная кислотность в почвах и ее токсичность. В кн.: Сборник памяти Д.Н. Прянишникова. М.; 1950. С. 37-50.

Zhu J- K. Salt and drought stress signal transduction in plants. Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2002;53:247-73.

Удовенко ГВ. Устойчивость растений к абиотическим стрессам. Физиологические основы селекции растений. 1995;2(2):293-352.

Кожушко НН. Оценка засухоустойчивости полевых культур. В кн.: Диагностика устойчивости растений к стрессовым воздействиям. Методическое руководство. Л., 1988. C.10-24.

Семушкина ГВ, Хазова ГВ, Удовенко ГВ. Применение анализа изменения ростовых процессов для диагностики солеустойчивости растений. В кн.: Методы оценки устойчивости растений к неблагоприятным факторам среды. Л.: Колос; 1976. С. 85.

Лисицын ЕМ. Методика лабораторной оценки алюмоустойчивости зерновых культур. Доклады РАСХН. 2003;(3):5-7.

Белецкая ЕК, Остаплюк ЕД. Оценка устойчивости озимых культур к вымоканию и ледяной корке. В кн.: Диагностика устойчивости растений к стрессовым воздействиям. Методическое руководство. Л.: 1988. С. 182-6.

Марченкова ЛА, Давыдова НВ, Чавдарь РФ, Орлова ТГ, Казаченко АО, Грачева АВ, Широколава АВ. Оценка адаптивности сортов и линий яровой пшеницы на фоне искусственно моделируемых стрессов. Вестник Алтайского государственного аграрного университета. 2017; (5):9-15. References

Krupnov VA. Drought vs wheat selection: a systemic approach. Selskokhoziaystvennaya Biologiya. 2011;(1):12-23. (In Russ.)

Beletskaya EK, Ostapliuk ED. Evaluation of winter cultures tolerance to soaking and ice crust. In: Diagnostika Ustoychivosti Rasteniy k Stressovym Vozdeystviyam. Metodicheskoye Rukovodstovo Diagnostics of Plant Tolerance to Stressful Influences. Methodological Guide. Leningrad; 1988; P. 182-6. (In Russ.)

Udovenko GV. Soleustoychivost Kulturnykh Rasteniy. Nauchnye Trudy VASKhNIL Salt Tolerance of Crops. Leningrad: Kolos; 1977. (In Russ.)

Yarusov SS, Sokolov MF. Exchangeable Acidity in Soils and Its Toxicity. In: Sbornik Pamiaty D.N. Pryanishnikova. – Moscow; 1950. P. 37-50. (In Russ.)

Zhu J.- K. Salt and drought stress signal transduction in plants. Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2002;53:247-73.

Udovenko G.V. Plant resistance to abiotic stresses. Fiziologicheskiye Osnovy Selektsii Rasteniy. 1995;(2): 293-352. (In Russ.)

Kozhushko NN. Evaluation of drought resistance of field crops. In: Diagnostika Ustoychivosti Rasteniy k Stressovym Vozdeystviyam. Metodicheskoye Rukovodstvo Diagnostics of Plant Tolerance to Stressful Influences. Methodological Guide. Leningrad; 1988. P. 10-24. (In Russ.)

Semushkina GV, Khazova GV, Udovenko GV. Implementation of growth process variation analysis for plant salt tolerance diagnostics. In: Metody Otsenki Ustoychivosti Rasteniy k Neblagopriyatnym Faktoram Sredy Methods of Evaluation of Plant Tolerance to Unfavorable Environmental Factors. Leningad: Kolos; 1976. P. 85. (In Russ.)

Lysitsyn EM. Methodology for laboratory assessment of aluminum resistance of grain crops. Doklady RASKhN. 2003;(3): 5-7. (In Russ.)

Marchenkova LA, Davydova NV, Chavdar RF, Orlova TG, Kazachenko AO, Gracheva AV, Shirokolava AV. Evaluation of the adaptability of varieties and lines of spring wheat against the background of artificially simulated stresses. Vestnik Altayskogo Gosudsarstvennogo Agrarnogo Univessiteta. 2017; (5):9-15. (In Russ.)




© ФОНД НАУЧНЫХ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЙ "XXI ВЕК"