Comparative assessment of screening techniques under pot and field conditions for waterlogging tolerance in maize (Zea mays L.) inbreds
Main Article Content
Abstract
Waterlogging (WL) stress is a major limitation to maize productivity and the development of efficient and reliable screening methods is essential for breeding WL-resilient hybrids. The present study compared pot and field-based screening approaches to evaluate their effectiveness and complementarity in assessing WL tolerance. For this, 154 F2:3 lines derived from WL tolerance and WL susceptible crosses were evaluated in waterlogged pots and the field for six days. WL treatment was given at V3-5 stage in the pot experiment and the knee height stage in the field experiment. In the pot experiment, root and shoot parameters were recorded to capture early-stage physiological responses, while in the field; yield and yield-related traits were assessed. Results indicated that pot screening was more resource-efficient, less time-consuming, and effective in rapidly differentiating genotypes based on root and shoot traits. In contrast, field screening, though more labor-intensive, provided realistic insights into genotypic performance under actual stress environments. Both approaches showed consistent trends across genotypes, confirming the effectiveness of pot-based screening for field performance. The study highlights the complementary benefits of these methods and emphasizes the advantage of combining them to strengthen breeding strategies. Such approaches are vital for developing climate-resilient maize hybrids and sustaining productivity in waterlogged environments.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
Acquaah G (2009) Principles of plant genetics and breeding.John Wiley & Sons.
Bouranis DL, Chorianopoulou SN, Kollias C and Protonotarios V (2003) Root architecture and water uptake in response to waterlogging stress.Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science 166: 223-234.
Gambrell RP and Patrick Jr WH (1978) Center for Wetland Resources Louisiana State University Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803.Plant Life in Anaerobic Environments: 375.
Guo H, Zhang J and Yao W (2018) Impact of waterlogging on plant growth and physiological characteristics in crops: a review. Journal of Agricultural Science 10: 60-70.
Hsiao TC and Bradford KJ (1983) Physiological consequences of cellular water deficits. Limitations to efficient water use in crop production: 227-265.
Kramer PJ and Boyer JS (1995) Water relations of plants and soils.Academic Press.
Kumar A, Ghosh M and Singh AK (2021) Genotypic variation in yield potential and stress tolerance in maize under waterlogged conditions. Field Crops Research 258: 107965.
Liu C, Chen G and Zhao C (2019) Waterlogging tolerance and yield performance of rice genotypes in response to different planting practices. Rice Science26: 154-162.
Liu YZ, Bin T, Zheng YL, Xu SZ and Qiu FZ (2010) Screening methods for waterlogging tolerance at maize (Zea mays L.) seedling stage. Agricultural Sciences in China 9: 362-369.
Lone AA and Warsi MZK (2009) Response of maize (Zea mays L.) to excess soil moisture (ESM) tolerance at different stages of life cycle.Botany Research International 2: 211-217.
Lopes CM, Santos TP, Monteiro A, Rodrigues ML, Costa JM and Chaves MM (2011) Combining cover cropping with deficit irrigation in a Mediterranean low vigor vineyard. Scientia Horticulturae 129: 603-612.
Loveleen K (2018) Fine mapping of quantitative trait loci associated with waterlogging stress tolerance in maize (Zea mays L.). Doctoral dissertation, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana.
Mano Y, Muraki M, Fujimori M, Takamizo T and Kindiger B (2005) Identification of QTL controlling adventitious root formation during flooding conditions in teosinte (Zea mays ssp. huehuetenangensis) seedlings. Euphytica 142: 33-42.
O'Toole JC and Bland WL (1987) Genotypic variation in crop response to waterlogging: a review. Field Crops Research 17: 77-89.
Ranjan R, Yadav R, Jain N, Sinha N, Bainsla N K, Gaikwad K B, and Kumar, M (2021). Epistatic QTLsPlay a major role in nitrogen use efficiency and its component traits in indian spring wheat. Agriculture, 11(11), 1149.
Ranjan R, Yadav R, Kumar A and Mandal, S. N (2019). Contributing traits for nitrogen use efficiency in selected wheat genotypes and corollary between screening methodologies. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B—Soil & Plant Science, 69(7), 588-595.
Ranjan R, Yadav R, Gaikwad K, Kumar M, Kumar N, Babu P, Pandey R and Joshi, A.K (2021). Genetic variability for root traits and its role in adaptation under conservation agriculture in spring wheat. Indian Journal of Genetics and Plant Breeding, 81(01), pp.24-33.
Ren B, Zhang J, Li X, Fan X, Dong S, Liu P and Zhao B (2014) Effects of waterlogging on the yield and growth of summer maize under field conditions.Canadian Journal of Plant Science 94: 23-31.
Rich SM and Watt M (2013) Soil conditions and cereal root system architecture: review and considerations for linking Darwin and Weaver. Journal of Experimental Botany 64: 1193-1208.
Sandhu, S. K., Un-Nisa, W., &Ranjan, R. (2021).Breeding for waterlogging tolerance in tropical maize. Agricultural Research Journal, 58(5).
Sandhu, S., Ranjan, R., &Sharda, R. (2023). Root plasticity: an effective selection technique for identification of drought tolerant maize (Zea mays L.) inbred lines. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 5501.
Setter TL, Waters I, Sharma SK, Singh KN, Kulshreshtha N, Yaduvanshi NPS and Cakir M (2009). Review of wheat improvement for waterlogging tolerance in Australia and India: the importance of anaerobiosis and element toxicities associated with different soils. Annals of Botany 103: 221-235.
Shabala S, Shabala L, Barcelo J and Poschenrieder C (2014) Membrane transporters mediating root signalling and adaptive responses to oxygen deprivation and soil flooding. Plant, Cell and Environment 37: 2216-2233.
Silva AM, Santos JR and Santos MR (2021) Effects of waterlogging on root physiology and crop yield: A review. Agricultural Water Management 245: 106678.
Tao Y, Liu Q and Zhang J (2018) The role of plant height in stress tolerance and yield in crops under waterlogging. Field Crops Research 220: 131-140.
Wajhat-Un-Nisa, Sandhu, S., Ranjan, and Sharda, R (2023). Root plasticity: an effective selection technique for identification of drought tolerant maize (Zea mays L.) inbred lines. Scientific Report 13, 5501. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-31523-w
Wu W, Wang S, Chen H, Song Y, Zhang L, Peng RC and Li J (2018) Optimal nitrogen regimes compensate for the impacts of seedlings subjected to waterlogging stress in summer maize. PLoS One 13: e0206210.
Wu Y and Cosgrove DJ (2000) Adaptation of roots to low water potentials by changes in cell wall extensibility and cell wall proteins.Journal of Experimental Botany 51: 1543-1553.
Zaidi PH and Singh NN (2001) Effect of water logging on growth, biochemical compositions and reproduction in maize (Zea mays L.).
Zaidi PH, Rafique S and Singh NN (2003) Response of maize (Zea mays L.) genotypes to excess soil moisture stress: morpho-physiological effects and basis of tolerance. European Journal of Agronomy 19: 383-399.
Zaidi PH, Rafique S, Rai PK, Singh NN and Srinivasan G (2004) Tolerance to excess moisture in maize (Zea mays L.): susceptible crop stages and identification of tolerant genotypes. Field Crops Research 90: 189-202.
Zhang X, Zhang H and Li Y (2019) The role of shoot biomass in improving yield potential under waterlogging stress. Agronomy Journal 111: 1334-1342.
Zhao J, Gu J and Wang S (2020) Effects of waterlogging on reproductive traits and yield in soybean: implications for breeding. Field Crops Research 251: 107777.
Zou X, Hu C, Zeng L, Cheng Y, Xu M, et al. (2014) A Comparison of Screening Methods to Identify Waterlogging Tolerance in the Field in Brassica napus L. during Plant Ontogeny. PLoS One, 9(3): e89731. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0089731