Browse > Article

Changes in Physiological Characteristics of Barley Genotypes under Drought Stress  

이변우 (서울대학교 식물생산과학부)
부금동 (서울대학교 식물생산과학부)
백남천 (서울대학교 식물생산과학부)
김정곤 (농촌진흥청 작물시험장)
Publication Information
KOREAN JOURNAL OF CROP SCIENCE / v.48, no.6, 2003 , pp. 506-515 More about this Journal
Abstract
Six barley varieties that showed different degree of drought tolerance were grown with and without drought stress treatment (control), and investigated for the temporal changes in growth and several physiological traits after drought treatment. Soil water potential was -0.05 ㎫ at the initial stage of drought treatment and dropped to -0.29 ㎫ at 19 days after withholding irrigation. Soil water potential (SWP) maintained at -0.05 ㎫ in the control. The dry weight (DW) under the drought treatment were reduced compared to the control as follows: Dicktoo-S (short awn), 69% ; Dicktoo-L (long awn), 70%; Dicktoo-T (tetra), 86%; Dongbori-1, 69%; Suwonssalbori-365, 55% and Tapgolbori, ,37%. Dicktoo lines and Dongbori-1 were more tolerant than Suwonssalbori-365 and Tapgolbori. Leaf relative water contents (RWC) and leaf water potential (LWP) decreased obviously under the drought condition, the decrease being greater especially in the less drought-tolerant barley genotypes. Dongbori-1 and Dicktoo-L in drought treatment showed net photosynthesis of 38% and 17% compared to the control, respectively, and the other four genotypes much lower photosynthesis of 1.1% to 7.0%. Stomatal conductance, mesophyll conductance, and the photochemical efficiency (Fv/Fm) of PS II were reduced by drought treatment, the reduction being greater in drought-sensitive genotypes. The drought-tolerant genotypes had greater osmotic adjustment (OA) capacity under water stress. Thus, the decrease of RWC and LWP was lower and the turgor pressure conservation capacity was higher under water stress in drought-tolerant genotypes. Drought-tolerant genotypes showed less decrease of photosynthesis because stomatal conductance, mesophyll conductance and the ratio (Fv/Fm) of the variable to maximal fluorescence of drought-resistant genotype was decreased less in the drought stress condition. In conclusion, the drought-tolerant genotypes had better water conservation capacity through efficient OA, and this led to the lower decrease of photosynthesis and growth in water stress condition.
Keywords
barley; drought stress; water potential; relative water content; osmotic adjustment; photosynthesis; stomatal conductance; mesophyll conductance; chlorophyll fluorescence;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Choi, W. Y., Y. W. Kwon, and J. H. Park. 1997. Grain yield and PhySiological responses of water stress at reproductive stage in barley.Korean J.Crop. Sci. 42(3): 263-269
2 Crowe, J. H., L. M. Crowe, J. F. Carpenter, et al. 1988. Interaction of sugars with membranes[J]. Biochimica et. Biophysica Acta Membranes Reviews. 947 : 367-384   DOI
3 Slatyer, R. O. 1973. Plant response to climatic factors. Unesco Paris.184
4 Hsiao, T. C. 1973. Plant response to water stress. Annual Review ofPlant Physiology. 24 : 519-570   DOI   ScienceOn
5 Farquhar, G. D. and R. A. Richards. 1984. Isotopic composition ofplant carbon correlates with water use efficiency of wheat genotypes. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 11 : 539-552   DOI
6 Goudriaan, J. and H. H. van Laar. 1994. Modelling potential cropgrowth processes textbook with exercises. Klumwer AcademicPublishers. 152-160
7 Costa, F. M. G., A. T. Pham Thi, C. Pimentel, R. O. Pereyra Rossiello,Y. Zuily-Fodil, and D. Laffray. 2000. DiHerences in growth andwater relations among Phaseolus vulgaris cultivars in response toinduced drought stress. Environ. Exp. Bot. 43 : 227-237   DOI   ScienceOn
8 Hsiao, T. C., J. C. O'Toole, E. B. Yambao, and N. C. Turner. 1984.Influence of osmotic adjustment n leaf rolling and tissue death inrice (Oryza sativa L.). Plant Physiol. 75 : 338-341   DOI   ScienceOn
9 Li, D. Q., Y. Q. Zhang, Q. Zou, and B. S. Cheng. 1992. Effect of soilwater stress on water status, Photosynthesis and yield of wheat with drought resistance. Journal of Shandong Agricultural University. 23(2): 125-130
10 Wu, Y. Y., D. Q. Li, S. J. Zhao, and Q. Zou. 1999. Osmotic adjustmentand photosynthesis of wheat leaves under soil water stress. Acta.Agro. SINICA. 25(6): 752-758
11 Park, M. E. 1995. The effect of soil moisture stress on the growth of barley and grain quality. Korean J. Soc. Soil. Sci. Fert. 28(2): 165-175
12 Ludlow, M. M. 1980. Adaptive significance of stomatal responses towater stress, In: Turner, N.C., P. J. Kramer(EDs). Adaptation ofplants to water and high temperature stress. Wiley, New York. 123-138
13 Wilson, J. R., M. J. Fisher, E. D. Schulze, G. R. Dolby, and M. M. Ludlow. 1979. Comparison between pressure-volume and dewpoint-hygrometry techniques for determining the water relationscharacteristics of grass and legume leaves. Occologia. 41 : 77-88   DOI
14 Keim, D. L. and W. E. Kronstad. 1981. Drought response of winterwheat cultivars grown under field stress conditions. Crop Sci. 21 :11-15   DOI
15 Brestic, M., G. Cornic, M. J. Fryer, and N. R. Baker. 1995. Does Photorespiration protect the photosynthetic apparatus in French beanleaves from photoinhibition during drought stress. Planta. 196 :450-457
16 Kramer, P. J. 1983. Water relations of plants. Academic Press. 404492
17 Agueda, G., M. Isaura, and A. Luis. 1999. Barley yield in water stressconditions. The influence of precocity, osmotic adjustment andstomatal conductance. Field Crops Research. 62 : 23-34   DOI   ScienceOn
18 Boyer, J. S. 1970. Leaf enlargement and metabolic rates in corn, Soybean, and sunflower at various leaf water potentials. Plant Physiol.26 : 233-235