Evaluation of Water Use Efficiency in Mungbean using the Inverted-Bottle Pot System-Crop Breeding, Genetics and Genomics-CSCIED科技核心评价数据库-手机版

Evaluation of Water Use Efficiency in Mungbean using the Inverted-Bottle Pot System

Evaluation of Water Use Efficiency in Mungbean using the Inverted-Bottle Pot System

ES评分 0 浏览量：172 下载量：0

DOI	10.20900/cbgg20240007
刊名	Crop Breeding, Genetics and Genomics CBGG
年，卷(期)	2024, 6(4)
作者	Yayue Zhong,Vijaya Singh,Mark Dieters,Kaye Basford,Yash Chauhan,Malcolm Hunter,Vivi Arief*,
作者单位	School of Agriculture and Food Sustainability, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia ; Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Queensland Government, Kingaroy, QLD 4610, Australia ;
摘要	Mungbean (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek) is a short-duration legume crop that is valuable for crop rotation. However, its yield potential is often limited by the water availability. Improving water use efficiency (WUE) in mungbean could increase mungbean production in water-limiting areas. Identifying genetic variability in mungbean for WUE is the first step to improving WUE and requires a fast and reliable screening method. This study evaluated twelve mungbean genotypes for WUE using Hunter’s inverted water bottle pot system (IBP) on two potting media (a potting mix of composting pine bark [UQ23] and Gatton vertosol soil). Morphology, agronomy, and physiology traits were measured and recorded, including six WUE traits. These WUE traits comprised a combination of two types of WUE (above-ground dry matter [WUEbio] and seed weight [WUEyield]) and three water consumption (total, before flowering, and after flowering [post]). Despite the difference in magnitude where plants in UQ23 used more water than in soil, the pattern of weekly water consumption was similar between these two potting media. The difference in water consumption among genotypes was observed after 46 DAS, and the peak water consumption occurred around flowering time (around 60 DAS). The variability due to the genotype-by-media interaction was very small (<10%) for most traits. The total and after-flowering WUE had large genotypic variance (>50%), similar heritability (0.6 for WUEbio and 0.8 for WUEyield), and strongly correlated ( The ranking of genotypes based on total WUE and after-flowering WUE was reasonably similar across the two potting media. However, the ranking based on WUEyield could differ from the ones based on WUEbio. Top genotypes in WUEyield (e.g., Berken) were only ranked in the middle in WUEbio, while top genotypes in WUEbio (e.g., King) were ranked lower in WUEyield. These results indicated that the size of the plants does not always correspond to seed weight. Therefore, WUEyield would be a better target trait than WUEbio to improve yield in mungbean. This study demonstrated the use of the IBP system to detect genotypic variability in WUE among mungbean genotypes under non-limiting water conditions for screening after-flowering WUE in mungbean.
Abstract	Mungbean (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek) is a short-duration legume crop that is valuable for crop rotation. However, its yield potential is often limited by the water availability. Improving water use efficiency (WUE) in mungbean could increase mungbean production in water-limiting areas. Identifying genetic variability in mungbean for WUE is the first step to improving WUE and requires a fast and reliable screening method. This study evaluated twelve mungbean genotypes for WUE using Hunter’s inverted water bottle pot system (IBP) on two potting media (a potting mix of composting pine bark [UQ23] and Gatton vertosol soil). Morphology, agronomy, and physiology traits were measured and recorded, including six WUE traits. These WUE traits comprised a combination of two types of WUE (above-ground dry matter [WUEbio] and seed weight [WUEyield]) and three water consumption (total, before flowering, and after flowering [post]). Despite the difference in magnitude where plants in UQ23 used more water than in soil, the pattern of weekly water consumption was similar between these two potting media. The difference in water consumption among genotypes was observed after 46 DAS, and the peak water consumption occurred around flowering time (around 60 DAS). The variability due to the genotype-by-media interaction was very small (<10%) for most traits. The total and after-flowering WUE had large genotypic variance (>50%), similar heritability (0.6 for WUEbio and 0.8 for WUEyield), and strongly correlated ( The ranking of genotypes based on total WUE and after-flowering WUE was reasonably similar across the two potting media. However, the ranking based on WUEyield could differ from the ones based on WUEbio. Top genotypes in WUEyield (e.g., Berken) were only ranked in the middle in WUEbio, while top genotypes in WUEbio (e.g., King) were ranked lower in WUEyield. These results indicated that the size of the plants does not always correspond to seed weight. Therefore, WUEyield would be a better target trait than WUEbio to improve yield in mungbean. This study demonstrated the use of the IBP system to detect genotypic variability in WUE among mungbean genotypes under non-limiting water conditions for screening after-flowering WUE in mungbean.
关键词	water use efficiency (WUE); mungbean; inverted-bottle pot system; crop breeding; screening
KeyWord	water use efficiency (WUE); mungbean; inverted-bottle pot system; crop breeding; screening
基金项目
页码	-

参考文献
相关文献

1.Hanjra MA, Qureshi ME. Global water crisis and future food security in an era of climate change. Food Policy. 2010;35(5):365-77.

2.Molden D, Oweis TY, Pasquale S, Kijne JW, Hanjra MA, Bindraban PS, et al. Pathways for increasing agricultural water productivity. In: Molden D, editor. Water for food, water for life: A comprehensive assessment of water management in agriculture. 7th ed. London (UK): International Water Management Institute; 2007. p. 279-310.

3.Foley JA, Ramankutty N, Brauman KA, Cassidy ES, Gerber JS, Johnston M, et al. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature. 2011;478(7369):337-42.

4.Nair R, Schreinemachers P. Global status and economic importance of mungbean. In: Nair R, Schafleitner R, Lee SH, editors. The mungbean genome. Cham (Switzerland): Springer; 2020. p. 1-8.

5.Shahrajabian MH, Sun W, Cheng Q. A short review of health benefits and nutritional values of mung bean in sustainable agriculture. Pol J Agron. 2019;(37):31-6.

6.Gong X, Dang K, Lv S, Zhao G, Tian L, Luo Y, et al. Interspecific root interactions and water-use efficiency of intercropped proso millet and mung bean. Eur J Agron. 2020;115:126034.

7.Sekamatte B, Ogenga-Latigo M, Russell-Smith A. Effects of maize–legume intercrops on termite damage to maize, activity of predatory ants and maize yields in Uganda. Crop Prot. 2003;22(1):87-93.

8.Hauggaard-Nielsen H, Jensen ES. Evaluating pea and barley cultivars for complementarity in intercropping at different levels of soil N availability. Field Crops Res. 2001;72(3):185-96.

9.Sharma S, Prasad R. Effects of sesbania green manuring and mungbean residue incorporation of productivity and nitrogen uptake of a rice-wheat cropping system. Bioresour Technol. 1999;67(2):171-5.

10.Blum A. Effective use of water (EUW) and not water-use efficiency (WUE) is the target of crop yield improvement under drought stress. Field Crops Res. 2009;112(2–3):119-23.

11.Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson Å, Chapin FS, Lambin EF, et al. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature. 2009;461(7263):472-5.

12.Jones HG. Monitoring plant and soil water status: established and novel methods revisited and their relevance to studies of drought tolerance. J Exp Bot. 2007;58(2):119-30.

13.Farquhar GD, von Caemmerer S, Berry JA. A biochemical model of photosynthetic CO2 assimilation in leaves of C3 species. Planta. 1980;149:78-90.

14.Young M, Wierenga P, Mancino C. Large weighing lysimeters for water use and deep percolation studies. Soil Sci. 1996;161(8):491-501.

15.Sołtysiak M, Rakoczy M. An overview of the experimental research use of lysimeters. Environ Socio-Econ Stud. 2019;7(2):49-56.

16.Fatichi S, Pappas C, Ivanov VY. Modelling plant–water interactions: An ecohydrological overview from the cell to the global scale. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Water. 2016;3(3):327-68.

17.Dawson TE, Siegwolf RTW. Using stable isotopes as indicators, tracers, and recorders of ecological change: some context and background. Terrestrial Ecol. 2007;1:1-18.

18.Burgess SS, Adams MA, Turner NC, Beverly CR, Ong CK, Khan AA, et al. An improved heat pulse method to measure low and reverse rates of sap flow in woody plants. Tree Physiol. 2001;21(9):589-98.

19.Hunter MN. Semi-automatic control of soil water in pot culture. Plant Soil. 1981;62:455-9.

20.Olsen J, Schaefer J, Hunter M, Edwards D, Galea V, Muller L. Response of capsicum (Capsicum annuum L.), sweet corn (Zea mays L.), and tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) to inoculation with vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizae. Aust J Agric Res. 1996;47(5):651-71.

21.Hunter MN. Role and use of controlled soil culture techniques in crop nutrition studies. In: Strong WM, editor. Crop nutrition and related topics relevant to Queensland. Brisbane (Australia): Queensland Department of Primary Industries; 1984. p. 105-26.

22.Jackson KJ. Adaptation of Guar (Cyamopsis Tetragonoloba
[L.] Taub.) in relation to Phosphorus management of cracking clay soils in Central Queensland. Brisbane (Australia): Division of Australian Environmental Studies; 1991.

23.Smith L, Smith MK, Tree D, O’keefe D, Galea V. Development of a small-plant bioassay to assess banana grown from tissue culture for consistent infection by Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cubense. Australas Plant Pathol. 2008;37:171-9.

24.O’Sullivan JN, Ernest J. Nutrient deficiencies in lesser yam (Dioscorea esculenta) characterized using constant–water table sand culture. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci. 2007;170(2):273-82.

25.Dodt M. Characterisation of root architectural responses of mungbean to water deficit
[dissertation]. Brisbane (Australia): Queensland University of Technology; 2017.

26.Geetika G, Collins M, Singh V, Hammer G, Mellor V, Smith M, et al. Canopy and reproductive development in mungbean (Vigna radiata). Crop Pasture Sci. 2022;73(10):1142-55.

27.Singh D, Collins M. Genotypic Variability in Response to Heat Stress and Post-Stress Compensatory Growth in Mungbean Plants (Vigna radiata
[L.] Wilczek). Crops. 2024;4(3):270-87.

28.Singh D, Bell M. Genotypic variability in architectural development of mungbean (Vigna radiata L.) root systems and physiological relationships with shoot growth dynamics. Front Plant Sci. 2021;12:725915.

29.Singh D, Singh B. Breeding for tolerance to abiotic stresses in mungbean. J Food Legumes. 2011;24(2):83-90.

30.Lawn R, Rebetzke G. Variation among Australian accessions of the wild mungbean (Vigna radiata ssp. sublobata) for agronomic, adaptive, or taxonomic interest traits. Aust J Agric Res. 2006;57(1):119-32.

31.Butler D, Cullis BR, Gilmour A, Gogel B. ASReml-R reference manual. Brisbane (Australia): The State of Queensland, Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries; 2009.

32.Mungomery V, Shorter R, Byth D. Genotype× environment interactions and environmental adaptation. I. Pattern analysis—application to soya bean populations. Aust J Agric Res. 1974;25(1):59-72.

33.Ward Jr JH. Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. J Am Stat Assoc. 1963;58(301):236-44.

34.Arief VN, DeLacy I, Basford K, Dieters M. Application of a dendrogram seriation algorithm to extract pattern from plant breeding data. Euphytica. 2017;213:1-11.

35.Gabriel KR. The biplot graphic display of matrices with application to principal component analysis. Biometrika. 1971;58:453-67.

36.Sheshshayee M, Bindumadhava H, Shankar A, Prasad T, Udayakumar M. Breeding strategies to exploit water use efficiency for crop improvement. J Plant Biol. 2003;30(2):253-68.

37.Briggs LJ, Shantz HLR. The water requirement of plants. Washington (US): US Government Printing Office; 1913.

38.Condon AG, Richards R, Rebetzke G, Farquhar G. Breeding for high water-use efficiency. J Exp Bot. 2004;55(407):2447-60.

39.Forster B, Till B, Ghanim A, Huynh H, Burstmayr H, Caligari P. Accelerated plant breeding. CABI Rev. 2015;2014:1-6. doi: 10.1079/PAVSNNR20149043

40.Trethowan RM, Van Ginkel M, Rajaram S. Progress in breeding wheat for yield and adaptation in global drought affected environments. Crop Sci. 2002;42(5):1441-6.

41.Jangpromma N, Thammasirirak S, Jaisil P, Songsri P. Effects of drought and recovery from drought stress on above ground and root growth, and water use efficiency in sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.). Aust J Crop Sci. 2012;6(8):1298-304.

42.Hasanuzzaman M, Nahar K, Alam MM, Roychowdhury R, Fujita M. Physiological, biochemical, and molecular mechanisms of heat stress tolerance in plants. Int J Mol Sci. 2013;14(5):9643-84.

引用本文

Yayue Zhong,Vijaya Singh,Mark Dieters,Kaye Basford,Yash Chauhan,Malcolm Hunter,Vivi Arief*. Evaluation of Water Use Efficiency in Mungbean using the Inverted-Bottle Pot System [J]. Crop Breeding, Genetics and Genomics. 2024; 6; (4). - .

文献评论

相关学者

相关机构