AOBPreview published online on August 15, 2008
Annals of Botany, doi:10.1093/aob/mcn137
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Review of Wheat Improvement for Waterlogging Tolerance in Australia and India: The Importance of Anaerobiosis and Element Toxicities Associated with Different Soils
1 Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia, South Perth, WA 6151, Australia
2 Central Soil Salinity Research Institute, Karnal, Haryana, India
3 Narendra Deva University of Agriculture and Technology, Faizabad, U.P. India
4 Directorate of Wheat Research, Karnal, Haryana, India
5 The University of Western Australia, Nedlands WA, Australia
6 Murdoch University, Murdoch, WA, Australia
* For correspondence. E-mail tsetter{at}agric.wa.gov.au
Received: 31 March 2008 Returned for revision: 20 May 2008 Accepted: 23 June 2008
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONACKNOWLEDGEMENTSLITERATURE CITED |
|---|
Background and Aims: The lack of knowledge about key traits in field environments is a major constraint to germplasm improvement and crop management because waterlogging-prone environments are highly diverse and complex, and the mechanisms of tolerance to waterlogging include a large range of traits. A model is proposed that waterlogging tolerance is a product of tolerance to anaerobiosis and high microelement concentrations. This is further evaluated with the aim of prioritizing traits required for waterlogging tolerance of wheat in the field.
Methods: Waterlogging tolerance mechanisms of wheat are evaluated in a range of diverse environments through a review of past research in Australia and India; this includes selected soils and plant data, including plant growth under waterlogged and drained conditions in different environments. Measurements focus on changes in redox potential and concentrations of diverse elements in soils and plants during waterlogging.
Key Results: (a) Waterlogging tolerance of wheat in one location often does not relate to another, and (b) element toxicities are often a major constraint in waterlogged environments. Important element toxicities in different soils during waterlogging include Mn, Fe, Na, Al and B. This is the first time that Al and B toxicities have been indicated for wheat in waterlogged soils in India. These results support and extend the well-known interactions of salinity/Na and waterlogging/hypoxia tolerance.
Conclusions: Diverse element toxicities (or deficiencies) that are exacerbated during waterlogging are proposed as a major reason why waterlogging tolerance at one site is often not replicated at another. Recommendations for germplasm improvement for waterlogging tolerance include use of inductively coupled plasma analyses of soils and plants.
Key words: Waterlogging, microelements, toxicity, redox potential, wheat, anaerobiosis
‘No grain is ever produced without water, but too much water tends to spoil the grain and inundation is as injurious to growth as dearth of water.’ Narada Smriti XI, 19; circa 3000 BC.
‘Waterlogging’ is defined as a condition of the soil where excess water limits gas diffusion; while ‘waterlogging tolerance’ is defined as survival or the maintenance of high growth rates, biomass accumulation or grain yield under waterlogging relative to non waterlogged (usually drained soil) conditions (Setter and Waters, 2003).
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONACKNOWLEDGEMENTSLITERATURE CITED |
|---|
Considerable research has been conducted on waterlogging tolerance of crops, yet little of this has involved controlled conditions in diverse environments, diverse soils, or with large germplasm sets. This lack of information under these conditions is probably not surprising because there is evidence that waterlogging-prone environments have considerable diversity and complexity. Diversity occurs in the timing, duration and severity of waterlogging stress (Setter and Waters, 2003) as well as the physical and chemical changes associated with waterlogged soils (Ponnamperuma, 1972, 1984; Marschner, 1984; Kirk et al., 2003); other diversity exists for abiotic factors associated with waterlogging-prone environments (Drew and Lynch, 1980; Laanbroek, 1990). These characteristics have led to many questions relevant to germplasm improvement which continue to be debated today, e.g. ‘Whether the principal cause of damage to the shoots of plants grown in waterlogged soil arises more from the production of toxic substances in the soil than from the oxygen deficiency experienced by roots has long been questioned’ (Drew, 1981).
The complexity of the waterlogging-prone environment would lead one to predict that waterlogging tolerance may be difficult to repeat in different soils or environments. For example, the wheat variety Ducula-4 was found to have one of the highest levels of tolerance after waterlogging for over 3 months in a soil at Obregon, Mexico (vanGinkel et al., 1992; Sayre et al., 1994). However, in Australia (Condon, 1999a, b; Setter, 2000) and in India (pers. obs.) it has not been possible to confirm the waterlogging tolerance of Ducula-4, with many local varieties out-performing this variety in drained and waterlogged conditions. In fact in some soils (Kaithal, India), Ducula-4 is one of the most waterlogging intolerant varieties relative to plants grown in drained soil (pers. obs.). When this genotype was first screened in Mexico it was probably in an environment free of additional constraints; growth was at high nutrition (up to 200 kg N ha–1; vanGinkel et al., 1994), high temperature, and water was available after waterlogging treatments in contrast to a dry finish in environments like Australia. Such waterlogging conditions in Mexico are clearly different from those in Australia and India.
McDonald et al. (2006) screened 17 wheat varieties in 11 different field locations in Western Australia with low, moderate or severe waterlogging under natural conditions, where grain yield was reduced by approx. 10, 25 and 65 %, respectively. What is particularly striking about this work is that, a variety that was one of the most waterlogging-tolerant varieties in one trial, was just as likely to be one of the most intolerant varieties in another trial. For example, the Australian variety Cascades was one of the best performing varieties under waterlogging in three trials with little or no yield reductions, and it was one of the worst performing varieties in three different trials with up to 73 % yield reductions relative to non (or less) waterlogged plants. A major constraint of waterlogging trials in natural rainfed environments is that the timing, duration and severity of waterlogging is often different in different trials, therefore making the varietal comparisons impossible to interpret, i.e. a variety may be tolerant to waterlogging at the germination and emergence stages, but it may not be tolerant at the vegetative or reproductive stages (Setter and Waters, 2003).
The diversity and complexity of waterlogging-prone environments also suggest that for each set of conditions, there could be different priorities for mechanisms of tolerance. There are extensive reviews on mechanisms of tolerance to waterlogging or flooding (Jackson and Drew, 1984; Armstrong et al., 1994) or specifically anoxia (Greenway and Gibbs, 2003; Gibbs and Greenway, 2003); with Setter and Waters (2003) presenting 22 mechanisms of tolerance spanning across phenology, morphology, nutrition (including deficiencies and toxicities), root metabolism, recovery and prevention of post-anoxic damage. The prioritization of so many mechanisms of tolerance to waterlogging can seem daunting, particularly for germplasm improvement programmes with massive germplasm sets and limited resources for screening. However, many of these mechanisms can be grouped according to the relevance for different stages of plant development, therefore providing a preliminary basis for prioritization.
Recent analyses of waterlogging-prone soils in Australia and India have indicated several factors that may contribute to the diverse effects of waterlogging on plant growth in different environments. N. P. S. Yaduvanshi et al. (unpubl. res.) evaluated changes in redox potentials and soil manganese (Mn) and iron (Fe) during waterlogging in four different soils. The Australian and Indian soils showed similar decreases in redox potentials with time after waterlogging at approx. 20 °C. However, as Australian soils are naturally waterlogged during winter at about 5–10 °C, there are generally much slower reductions in redox potentials in Australian than in Indian soils in the field. One of the most significant differences between the Australian and Indian soils is associated with changes in Mn and Fe during waterlogging; concentrations of DTPA-Mn and DTPA-Fe increased above critical toxicity concentrations in all soils. Two Indian soils tended to be 2–10 times higher in DTPA-Mn than three Australian soils; and Australian soils were up to 10 times higher in DTPA-Fe than the Indian soils. These increases were up to 10 and 60 times higher, respectively, than reported critical concentrations for wheat (N. P. S. Yaduvanshi et al., unpubl. res.).
Microelement toxicities, predicted from soil analyses during waterlogging, have been substantiated by plant analyses for wheat grown in waterlogged soils in the USA (Ding and Musgrave, 1995; Musgrave and Ding, 1998) and Australia (Khabaz-Saberi et al., 2006). Ding and Musgrave (1995) found that Fe, Mn, phosphorus (P), potassium (K), sodium (Na) and sulfur (S) were affected in wheat grown in waterlogged river silt, and they subsequently used increases in the sum of Fe, Mn and P concentration in root samples as an indicator of waterlogging intolerance (r2 = 0·94; Musgrave and Ding, 1998). However, this correlation was taken across both drained and waterlogged treatments which showed clear clusters, while the relationship within waterlogging treatments alone was much lower for both the sum of elements (Musgrave and Ding, 1998) as well as when individual elements were evaluated (Ding and Musgrave, 1995).
Microelement increases were measured in wheat shoots of six wheat varieties during 49 d waterlogging in an acidic and neutral soil from Australia and in potting mix (Khabaz-Saberi et al., 2006). These data showed that the ranking of varieties changed in different soils, even though soils were all waterlogged at the same time (3 weeks after germination), the same duration (49 d), and identical climatic (temperature, irradiance and humidity) conditions. For plants grown in waterlogged acidic soil, shoot concentrations of Al, Mn and Fe increased by 2- to 10-fold relative to plants grown in drained soil, and they were above critical concentrations for toxicities.
One well-known interaction with soil elements during waterlogging occurs for salinity. There is clearly an interaction of salinity and anaerobiosis affecting Na concentrations in the shoots of wheat; shoot Na concentrations are approx. 2 times higher when plants are waterlogged relative to drained sand-culture conditions (Barrett-Lennard, 1986; see also review by Barrett-Lennard, 2003a). Among non-halophytes, tolerance to a combination of salinity and waterlogging is suggested to be greater in a waterlogging-tolerant plant like rice than in a waterlogging-intolerant plant like barley (Barrett-Lennard, 1986). However, these conclusions are based on published data where there are different treatment durations; comparisons of waterlogged sand (barley) versus solutions bubbled with nitrogen (rice); and different salt concentrations (0·5–125 and 2–80 mM for barley and rice, respectively). There are no published data clearly demonstrating salinity–waterlogging interactions affecting the growth of cereals, even though visual evidence for this is convincing (photo 3·5 of Barrett-Lennard, 2003b). Previously unpublished data are therefore presented here in support of evidence for such important interactions between waterlogging/hypoxia and salinity/NaCl (Discussion).
Setter et al. (2004) proposed that waterlogging tolerance is often a product of tolerance to anaerobiosis and to element toxicities, e.g. Mn, Fe, Na, Al and B, in different soils (Discussion). This hypothesis is based on the work of Barrett-Lennard (2003a), Khabaz-Saberi et al. (2006), McDonald et al. (2006) and other unpublished observations for wheat grown under anaerobic conditions and in waterlogging-prone environments in Australia and India. Experiments presented here provide further evidence in support of this hypothesis and highlight the complex diversity of waterlogging-prone environments.
|
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONACKNOWLEDGEMENTSLITERATURE CITED |
|---|
Germplasm used in screening trials in Australia and India included 37 wheat varieties (Triticum aestivum L), Hordeum marinum, and a doubled haploid population Ducula-4/2 * Brookton containing 197 genotypes.
Methods used in Australia
In Australia, plants were sown in 4-L pots in the target environment in the field at the approximate time of the field season (May/June each year) to assure the same temperature and irradiance conditions of plants grown under natural conditions (Fig. 1).
|
Pre-germinated seeds were sown in each pot (five plants per pot) at a depth of 2 cm with four replicates (pots) per genotype. Ten Western Australian soils or potting mix were used; soils were topsoils or subsoils from waterlogging-prone regions in Western Australia (Table 1). All these soils are sandy duplex soils except Mindarabin which is a grey clay; soil pH and selected elements in these soils, with and without waterlogging, are presented in Table 1. Microelements were determined based on exchangeable (Exch) or diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (DTPA)-extracted soils using inductively coupled plasma (ICP). DTPA-extracted soils enable microelement concentrations to be analysed in the same form/concentration as they exist during waterlogging. Melich No. 3 extractions are used for some microelements since this can be done in one soil extract, it highly correlates to DTPA extracts (r2 = 0·9; H. Khabaz-Saberi, unpubl. res.; cf. Allen and Walton, 2003), and reduces analyses cost and sample size. The minimum critical concentrations for toxicity in soils stated in Table 1 are based on published values for electrical conductivity (EC) (Maas and Hoffman, 1977; Shaw, 2005), boron (B) (Ponnamperuma et al., 1979; Bell, 2005), aluminium (Al) (Slattery et al., 2005), Mn (Slattery et al., 1995; Uren, 2005) and Fe (>30 mg kg–1: McFarlane, 2005; >35 mg kg–1: Malewar and Ismail, 1995).
|
Pots (holding approx. 4 kg soil; 25 cm high) were specially designed to minimize root escape by (a) placing drainage holes in a raised-up section at the bottom of the pot in the centre rather than the sides (see insert to Fig. 1); and (b) lining the inside of each pot with a piece of root mat (Source: Network Trading Co., NSW, Australia). Each pot was fertilized with optimum concentrations of nutrients at the following rates (µmol g–1 soil): NH4NO3, 4·46; KH2PO4, 0·44; K2SO4, 0·92; CaCl2.2H2O, MgSO4.7H2O, 0·09; ZnSO4.7H2O, 0·04; MnSO4.H2O, 0·07; CuSO4.5H2O, 0·024; H3BO3, 0·013; Na2MoO4.2H2O, 0·008. In preliminary experiments plants were fertilized with 0·5, 1, 2 and 4 times these nutrient concentrations and the selected levels shown here provided the optimum growth under drained conditions for all Australian soils (data not presented). All pots were watered to field capacity every second day and grown under drained conditions until 21 d after sowing, i.e. when leaf 3 was half emerged.
At 21 d after sowing, four replicate pots were used per variety for each waterlogged and drained treatment. For waterlogging treatments, one pot was placed into each of four replicate ponds (approx. 15 x 25 m) constructed in the field. Ponds were laser levelled and lined with a double layer of polyethylene plastic (200 µm thickness) to provide water depths to the soil surface of pots. Pots were completely randomized within each pond or drained blocks. After waterlogging treatments, shoot samples were collected, dried at 70 °C for 48 h, weighed and then sent to the Waite Analytical Services, University of Adelaide for element analyses by ICP. The minimum values for critical concentrations for element toxicities in wheat shoots or leaves as shown in the Results (dashed lines in Figs 5 and 6) have been published for Na (>0·8 %; Weir and Cresswell, 1994 as cited by Reuter et al., 1997), Al (>50 mg kg–1; Ma et al., 2003), B (>10–20 mg kg–1, Mortvedt, 1972; Ascher-Ellis et al., 2001), Mn (>100 mg kg–1; Singh and Rao, 1995; Reuter et al., 1997) and Fe (>100 mg kg–1; Reuter et al., 1997). Possible contamination of plant samples with soil was evaluated here by measurements of titanium in all samples (Cherney and Robinson, 1983; Cary et al., 1986; L. Palmer, pers. comm.). This was validated in preliminary experiments where soil (5, 10, 25 and 50 mg) was added to 1-g plant samples, i.e. at 0·5–5 % w/w. Any plant samples with titanium equivalent to 1 % or more soil contamination were deleted from the mean data for other elements.
Varieties were analysed for Al tolerance at DAFWA, South Perth, WA, by measurements of maximum root length. Varieties were exposed with or without 440uM AlCl3.6H20 (12 ppm) in aerated solution culture for 10 d at pH 4·1–4·2 (Raman et al., 2005). Plants were completely randomized, and data presented are means of three replicates of five plants.
Methods used in India
In India, waterlogging-tolerance trails were conducted with 10-L pots using alkaline sodic soil from the Central Soil Salinity Research Institute (CSSRI), Karnal, Haryana, India (Table 1). Five plants per pot were sown at the approximate time of the field season (November each year) to assure relevant temperature and irradiance conditions of plants grown under natural conditions. Plants were grown in a screenhouse until approx. 3 weeks when waterlogging treatments were imposed by saturating soils in each pot with water to approx 0–1 cm above the soil surface. Four replicate pots were used for each genotype for waterlogged and drained treatments.
Field plants in India were grown at the CSSRI Field Station in the same alkaline sodic soils as used for pots (Singh et al., 2006); or in alkaline sodic soils at the Narendra Deva University of Agriculture and Technology Field Station (NDUAT), Kumarganj, U.P. India (Table 1). Genotypes were evaluated in randomized block design with three replications per genotype. Plants were waterlogged for 10–15 d at 22 d after sowing at CSSRI and for 7–10 d at 22 d after sowing at NDUAT. These different times of waterlogging treatment were necessary to optimize discrimination between genotypes in these different field locations.
Redox potential measurements were made of soils in Australia and India using redox electrodes as described by Setter and Waters (2003) and N. P. S. Yaduvanshi et al. (unpubl. res.); and data from different soils were all standardized to pH 7 (Patrick et al., 1996). Electrodes were inserted vertically into soils, and measurements were taken at a depth of 5 cm. ICP analyses were made of whole intact plant shoots following nitric acid digestion in India at Central Research Institute for Dry Land Agriculture (CRIDA), Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India.
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONACKNOWLEDGEMENTSLITERATURE CITED |
|---|
Screening method development
Development of the waterlogging-tolerance screening method, using plants grown in pots which were waterlogged in ponds, was conducted in Western Australia for three seasons before a robust, reliable and efficient screening method was developed. This occurred because (a) there are large differences in waterlogging tolerance for different soils (this was not known; see below); (b) soils needed to be thoroughly mixed before filling pots so as to minimize variation within replicates; and (c) root escape from the bottom of pots reduced the adverse effects of waterlogging on plant growth and resulted in extremely variable shoot dry weights (data not presented; Fig. 1). The Australian soils used here were all selected from waterlogging-prone environments with low levels of salinity; however, they each had unique characteristics associated with pH, organic matter, and concentrations of other elements like Na, B, Al, Mn and Fe (Table 1).
Waterlogging tolerance and correlations between different environments or different soils
Typical shoot dry weights at the end of waterlogging or drainage treatments in an Australian soil are shown in Fig. 2 where 38 genotypes are ranked based on waterlogging tolerance, i.e. the relative weights of waterlogged and drained plants. This highlights that there is about a 2-fold difference in both biomass at the end of 49 d waterlogging and waterlogging tolerance for plants waterlogged in this soil and under these conditions (calculated from Fig. 2).
|
Reproducibility of the response to waterlogging in different experiments was measured by conducting two experiments in the same year, with the same genotypes, the same seed, the same soil, and same waterlogging treatments. This shows that there is a high correlation (r2 = 0·94) for shoot dry weight of plants of ten genotypes grown in drained and waterlogged conditions for 49 d (Fig. 3). There is an obvious clustering of points in these drained and waterlogged treatments which also occurs in other experiments. However, if waterlogging duration is reduced relative to that used here, it is likely that the points would have formed a continuous relationship. The r2 value for shoot dry weights in the waterlogging treatments alone for these two experiments is 0·56 (calculated from Fig. 3).
|
When waterlogging tolerance is compared based on randomly paired replicates of waterlogged and drained treatments, the correlations are reduced (r2 = 0·31) due to addition of variation resulting from drained plus waterlogged treatments together. In other experiments comparing the response to waterlogging for up to 16 varieties screened in different years, there is also a high correlation (r2 = 0·73) based on biomass at the end of waterlogging, as long as screening is conducted under the same conditions and in the same soil.
A two-way analysis of variance of data in Fig. 2 is shown in Table 2. For the combination of drained and waterlogged treatments, treatment effects explain 78 % of the variance and variety effects explain 16 % of the variance. Such results could be expected based on the severity of waterlogging treatments used here where there is a 50–75 % reduction in biomass. The variety x treatment effect is also significant (P < 0·001) which means that not all varieties performed in the same way, i.e. some are reduced more by waterlogging than others. However, only a small portion of the variation (4 %) is explained by this interaction, and it does not account for large effects overall.
|
In different soils, the correlations (r2) of 32 genotypes for waterlogging tolerance in three different Australian soils and potting mix were usually <0·1 (Table 3A). In these experiments plants were grown in pots and waterlogged at the same time (21 d after sowing) for the same duration (49 d) under identical climatic conditions. The correlations between different soils increased to 0·1–0·3 when measurements were based only on biomass at the end of waterlogging (Table 3B) rather than ‘waterlogging tolerance’ (Table 3A). Poor correlations were also observed between different soils with a doubled haploid population with 192 lines grown in South Stirlings (Warburton), Esperance and Katanning soils. Doubled haploid lines waterlogging for 49 d were reduced in biomass by 0–86 % in different lines; however, the correlations for waterlogging tolerance or for biomass at the end of waterlogging between any two soils ranged from only 0·03 to 0·06 and 0·00 to 0·09, respectively.
|
Waterlogging tolerance screening trials in India similarly showed little or no correlation between four different locations/soils based on biomass at the end of waterlogging, grain yields of plants exposed to waterlogging, or waterlogging tolerance calculated from either (relative) biomass or grain yields. These field trials were conducted on research stations with soil pH ranging from 7·2 to 10·4 across the wheatbelt region of northern India. When grain yields were compared for 187 Ducula-4/2 x Brookton doubled haploid lines exposed to waterlogging for 10–12 d, there was an approx. 3-fold range in grain yields at each of the four field locations; however, the correlations (r2) between any two out of four field locations ranged from only 0·00–0·02 (data not presented).
In order to more fully evaluate the effects of different soils on waterlogging tolerance, ten soils were compared under identical temperature and irradiance conditions, with identical timing and duration of waterlogging, using plants grown in pots exposed to drained and waterlogged conditions in the field at Katanning, Western Australia. The response of these two varieties, grown in waterlogged soil for 49 d ranged from 82 % reductions in biomass at the end of waterlogging in the acidic South Stirlings (Howards) soil to a significant improvement in growth in a waterlogged acidic subsoil from Katanning (Table 4). In this experiment, the correlation between shoot and root dry weights for these ten different soils and potting mix was (r2 = 0·94) for both varieties. In comparison, in the analysis of 38 varieties in Fig 2, the correlation between shoot and root dry weights after waterlogging in one soil had an r2 = 0·66.
|
All soils, including potting mix, were reduced in redox potentials during waterlogging with most soils being below the 350 mV level associated with anoxia (Marschner, 1984) within 5–15 d (Fig. 4). At the end of waterlogging treatments, soils had fallen to redox potentials of –25 to –225 mV (Fig. 4). In contrast, drained soils remained at redox potentials of 500–600 mV throughout the experimental period (data not presented). At the end of 49 d of waterlogging treatments, soils were drained, and the redox potentials slowly increased except when there was rain during 52–55 d after waterlogging. Similar changes in redox potentials during waterlogging were observed in another year with four soils including potting mix.
|
Element toxicities in shoots of plants grown in soils during waterlogging
Soils from target environments exposed to waterlogging in Western Australia and potting mix were used to evaluate changes in microelement concentrations of plant shoots during waterlogging using three varieties (Fig. 5). All varieties in waterlogged Katanning soil had shoot concentrations of Mn, Fe and Al that were above the critical concentrations for toxicity (see Discussion); plants in waterlogged Esperance soil were high in Fe and Al; plants in waterlogged South Stirlings (Warburton) soil were high in Fe only; and one variety in waterlogged potting mix was high in Al (Fig. 5). In comparison, all varieties grown in these three soils under drained conditions (Camm, Fig. 5C) were usually below the critical levels for toxicity; however, in potting mix two varieties were marginally high in Mn and Al (Camm and Cascades, Fig. 5A and C).
|
Element toxicities were also pronounced in shoots of wheat exposed to waterlogging for only 12 d in two Indian soils at pH 8·2 and 9·4 (Fig. 6). There were usually only small increases in shoot Mn during waterlogging relative to drained plants (44 ± 28 mg kg–1 shoot dry weight for waterlogged plants averaged across both soils), and these were usually below critical concentrations for toxicity (100 mg kg–1 shoot dry weight). However, shoot Fe was high in both drained and waterlogged plants, and it increased to 440 ± 146 and 612 ± 237 mg kg–1 (averaged across eight varieties) during waterlogging at pH 8·2 and 9·4, respectively. These shoot concentrations are 4–6 times higher than critical concentrations for toxicity. These same varieties showed significant increases in shoot Al and B concentrations during waterlogging in soil at pH 8·2, and these were 2- to 5-fold above critical concentrations for toxicity at 50 and 10 mg kg–1, respectively (Fig. 6A and B). When the varieties were grown at pH 9·4, plants exposed to both drained and waterlogged conditions had similar high shoot concentrations of B and Al, and these were up to 5-fold above critical concentrations for toxicity (Fig. 6A and B). Concentrations of Na in the youngest three blades were also above critical concentrations for toxicity in waterlogged soil at pH 9·2, and also in drained soil at this pH (Fig. 6C).
|
Genetic diversity for tolerance to Al under aerated conditions
The genetic diversity of Australian and Indian wheat varieties for tolerance to high Al concentrations was evaluated using aerated solution culture. This showed a 3- to 4-fold genetic diversity for Al tolerance, with varieties like HD2009 and Ducula-4 having low Al tolerance, and varieties like Westonia and KRL 19 having high Al tolerance (Fig. 7). The correlation (r2) between root lengths in solutions without Al (–Al; control) and solutions at high Al was only 17 %.
|
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONACKNOWLEDGEMENTSLITERATURE CITED |
|---|
Experiments presented here focus on waterlogging tolerance of wheat based on large germplasm sets (varieties and a doubled haploid population) evaluated in the field or in soils from waterlogged target environments that have been screened in the field in Australia and India. There are two key messages from this and earlier published research: (1) the waterlogging tolerance (ranking) and biomass production of wheat varieties under waterlogging is highly dependent on the environment and specifically the soil (see Introduction); and (2) waterlogging tolerance is not exclusively associated with differences in anaerobic conditions of soils, but rather is a product of anaerobic conditions and the traits associated with individual soils, such as elements and especially microelement toxicities (and possibility deficiencies) which are often exacerbated during waterlogging.
Data in Table 1 can be used to predict that element toxicities might occur in many of the soils used here based on critical concentrations for several elements and EC. These data suggest that Indian soils could be affected by high EC/salinity, and possibly by B, Mn and Fe toxicities, especially during waterlogging (Table 1). In comparison, the Australian soils could be affected by widespread Al and Fe toxicities, with some potential Mn toxicities (Table 1).
Minimum critical concentrations for toxicity based on soil analyses listed in Table 1 are at best only a general risk assessment for potential toxicities. For example, the concentration of total soluble Al may not be a suitable soil test because it does not consider the activity and form of the soluble Al which can be largely affected by soil conductivity (Carr et al., 1991; Carr and Ritchie, 1993; Barton and Carr, 1993). In drained alkaline sodic soils (pH 
9·0) there are also large increases in shoot Al and reductions in plant growth when soils contain >0·8 mg kg–1 of anionic Al [Al(OH)4–; Ma et al., 2003; cf. 2–4 mg kg–1 critical concentrations in Table 1]. Similarly for B, there are significant differences in critical concentrations for toxicity of soil soluble B for wheat that range from 27 to 53 mg kg–1 in alkaline saline soils in Australia (Nuttall et al., 2006; cf. 3 mg kg–1 critical concentrations in Table 1). There can also be large seasonal variations where concentrations of ions like Mn and Al may vary by 7- to 9-fold (for acid soils in Australia; Slattery and Ronnfeldt, 1992). Finally, any interpretation of data on soil analyses and potential critical concentrations would have to be considered in relation to soil pH (see discussions by Marschner, 1984; Atwell et al., 1999).
Data based on plant analyses demonstrate that waterlogging in Australian and Indian soils results in significant increases in shoot concentrations of Mn, Fe, Na, B and Al above critical concentrations for toxicity. Values for Al toxicity in shoots cited here of 50 mg kg–1 shoot dry weight are 2–3 times higher than those where reduced growth occurred for wheat in sodic alkaline soils used by Ma et al. (2003) (14–21 mg kg–1) because there were unknown effects of bicarbonate for the soils used here.
Increases in shoot Al, Mn, Fe and Na above toxicity concentrations have been shown for wheat waterlogged in another acidic Australian soil from Holly Siding (Khabaz-Saberi et al., 2006; waterlogged for 49 d). In this soil, the correlation between shoot Al concentration and biomass at the end of waterlogging was r = –0·92. In the experiments presented here and experiments of Khabaz-Saberi et al. (2006) there were little or no increases in shoot B during waterlogging.
The Australian soils used here were specifically selected to have little or no salinity (see EC and Na values, Table 1) thus minimizing the interactions of waterlogging and salinity known to occur for wheat (Introduction). This is different from plants waterlogged in the Indian soils where leaves were above critical concentrations for Na toxicities (Results and Fig. 6C).
In summary, there are ten observations supporting the adverse effects of element toxicities in wheat in waterlogged soils in Australia and India.
- Redox potential measurements which fall rapidly in these soils (Ponnamperuma, 1972, 1984; Kirk et al., 2003; N. P. S. Yaduvanshi et al., unpubl. res.; Fig. 4) can be used to predict potential toxicities due to Mn, Fe and S (Marschner, 1984).
- Soil analyses (Table 1) and particularly DTPA extracts for Mn and Fe in waterlogged soils confirm these increased levels (Ponnamperuma, 1972, 1984; Sparrow and Uren, 1987; Kirk et al., 2003; N. P. S. Yaduvanshi et al., unpubl. res.; Table 1).
- Plant analyses (ICP) are above critical concentrations for Mn, Fe, Na, B and Al based on published data and data presented here (see Table 5).
- Published information from toxicities for other crops grown in the region.
- Recent findings of high Al concentrations in alkaline soils at these pH values (e.g. Ma et al., 2003; Rengasamy, 2004).
- High microelement (Al) tolerance occurring in wheat from India and Australia selected for waterlogging prone areas but not for microelement tolerance (Fig. 7).
- Elimination or minimizing adverse effects of waterlogging by elimination of soil microelements using potting mix (Khabaz-Saberi et al., 2006; Table 4).
- Microelement indicator varieties and near-isogenic lines for B and Al which show differential growth in some of these soils when waterlogged but not when drained (Setter et al., 2006).
- The observation that waterlogging effects can be minimized by changing pH to neutrality; that some wheat varieties also grow better in waterlogged alkaline soil than in drained soil (pers. obs. in both India and Australia) is consistent with waterlogging changing soil pH towards neutrality (Ponnamperuma, 1972, 1984) and thus minimizing microelement concentrations or effects (Marschner, 1984; Atwell et al., 1999).
- Findings of high concentrations of microelements (Fe and Mn) on roots of wheat grown in waterlogged soils (Musgrave and Ding, 1998; see Results) or by simple visual examination of the orange iron oxide precipitates on wheat roots (Musgrave and Ding, 1998) or rice roots of plants grown in these same soils during waterlogging (pers. obs.).
|
A working hypothesis to explain why such diverse microelements affect plant growth was originally presented by Setter et al. (2004) (Fig. 8). Results presented here indicate that tolerance to waterlogging in soil is a product of tolerance to anaerobiosis and high microelement concentrations (toxicities and perhaps deficiencies) which are associated with different soils. Waterlogging may affect microelement concentrations in soils directly by changes in soil redox potentials; or it may affect plant roots through either changes in energy (ATP) supply or membrane integrity. Similar effects on roots have been used to explain salinity and waterlogging interactions (Barrett-Lennard, 2003a). The influence of element toxicities specifically affecting growth is supported by diverse effects of waterlogging on growth in different soils or potting mix (Table 4), even though there are similar effects on redox potentials and the timing when soils would be anoxic after waterlogging, i.e. <350 mV at pH 7 as per Marschner (1984) (see also Fig. 4).
|
Earlier experiments conducted by E. G. Barrett-Lennard et al. (unpubl. res.; cf. Barrett-Lennard et al., 1999) demonstrate an interaction of hypoxia and salinity for wheat grown at up to 120 mM NaCl. It is not easy to confirm such interactions based on short-term treatment periods of
30 d, therefore data presented here are based on 33 d of hypoxia and salinity treatments followed by 13 d of recovery under aerated conditions (Fig. 9). At 0 mM NaCl, the shoot dry weight under hypoxia is approx. 50 % of aerated plants over the recovery period; however, at intermediate NaCl concentrations (20 mM NaCl) hypoxia reduced shoot dry weights to 0 % of aerated plants, i.e. plants died (as supported by visual observations). The dashed line in Fig. 9 shows the predicted shoot dry weights assuming there is no NaCl–hypoxia interaction based on the relative reductions of aerated plants at high NaCl. This line is substantially higher than what is measured under hypoxia with 20–120 mM NaCl, therefore confirming a NaCl–hypoxia interaction. Ethanol-insoluble dry weight is used in these analyses so as to eliminate any possible effect of the accumulation of salts affecting the dry-weight measurements.
|
It is this interaction of salinity/NaCl and waterlogging/hypoxia that is proposed here to be similar to a wide range of other element toxicities which can be exacerbated by waterlogging or hypoxia. Key elements identified in this research relevant to toxicities during waterlogging in Australian and Indian soils include Al, Fe, Mn, Na and B. This is consistent with a large amount of published literature on waterlogging tolerance of cereals in diverse soils (Table 5). B and Na toxicities have often been highlighted as constraints in sodic soils (Sakal and Singh, 1995; Bell, 2005), and B toxicity has long been known to affect production of other crops in India due to high concentrations of B in groundwater used for irrigation (Sakal and Singh, 1995). However this is the first time that data have indicated that B toxicity affects wheat production, and that this is exacerbated in some soils during waterlogging. Whether Al toxicity also affects crops in these areas is less certain but the possibility is supported by recent findings of Al toxicity in highly alkaline sodic soils in Australia (Ma et al., 2003; Rengasamy, 2004; authors' unpubl. res.).
Other mechanisms of tolerance during waterlogging
It is highly likely that there are exceptions to the interactions of elements and anaerobiosis proposed here for wheat during waterlogging in some environments or soils. This may occur especially in neutral soils or in soils where there are little or no background element constraints. For example, preliminary ICP analyses data from India using plants grown in one waterlogged neutral soil indicate little support for element toxicities during waterlogging (pers. obs.). In this case one would expect a strong correlation between aerenchyma development and waterlogging tolerance; however, this did not occur for plants in waterlogged neutral soil (Rane et al., 2007). Some support for exceptions for element toxicities always being involved during waterlogging come from observations of positive relationships between tolerance to stagnant agar and waterlogging in a soil from Katanning, Western Australia (r2 = 0·89 for 11 varieties; D. E. Goggin et al., unpubl. res.).
Phytotoxins are known to affect a large number of native plants grown in long-term waterlogged environments, since phytotoxins accumulate at redox potentials lower than where anoxia occurs (about 350 mV) or where Mn2+ and Fe2+ accumulate (about 350–450 and 150 mV, respectively, all at pH 7; Marschner, 1984). It would be easy to characterize wheat genotypes for tolerance to phytotoxins based on the pioneering work in this area in the UK (Armstrong et al., 1996a, b; Armstrong and Armstrong, 1999, 2001, 2005). As far as is known there is no published information on tolerance of a range of wheat varieties to phytotoxins. This is an important area for further work since phytotoxins are likely to be important in a wide range of soils during long-term waterlogging, i.e. either with or without element toxicity problems.
Priorities for future research
Research on element toxicities during waterlogging is the greatest priority for further work on waterlogging tolerance. First, even though the potential for element toxicities is clearly shown from soil data presented here, there is still no conclusive evidence that specific elements, or combinations of element toxicities, affect the tolerance and ranking of varieties exposed to waterlogging in particular soils. This remains a priority for further research. Secondly, the soil critical concentrations for element toxicities that have been used here extensively to highlight the potential impact on crop growth during waterlogging are based on plant growth under aerated conditions, e.g. Reuter et al. (1997). A top priority therefore is to determine whether soil critical concentrations for element toxicities are substantially lower for conditions where plants are waterlogged; this is the subject of continuing research. There appears to be no published information in support of this for any element, although this would seem likely for at least Na (see Fig. 9).
Thirdly, the finding of high Al in shoots of wheat grown in drained and waterlogged sodic soils in India (Fig. 6A) requires confirmation and is particularly important, because it specifically relates to mechanisms of improvement for waterlogging tolerance. Such effects are consistent with research highlighting high concentrations of total soluble Al [as Al(OH)4– at high pH] and Al toxicity in sodic alkaline soils in Australia (Ma et al., 2003; Rengasamy, 2004). This may also be an explanation for why reported waterlogging tolerant varieties like Ducula-4 do not express tolerance in some soils of India or Australia (Introduction), since Ducula-4 is highly intolerant to Al even under aerated conditions (Fig. 7). If confirmed, the findings of Al toxicity as a major constraint to crop production in sodic soils of India could be substantial since (a) between 5·7 Mha (in the Indo-Gangetic Plain only) to 6·9 Mha of soils are affected by sodic alkaline conditions in India (total areas across India; from tables 5 and 6, respectively, of Bhargava and Kumar, 2004), and these soils are highly prone to waterlogging; and (b) germplasm improvement for Al tolerance is based on simple screening protocols (Raman et al., 2005) with high heritability (Lafever and Campbell, 1978). Preliminary experiments support that indicator varieties for microelement toxicities could also be a cost effective alternative to extensive ICP analyses for plants and soils in these areas (see discussion by Setter et al., 2006).
Fourthly, this project has focused on element toxicities during waterlogging, yet there are also well-known examples of microelement deficiencies affecting plant, animal and human health in these Indian soils (Samra, 2006). There are also examples of microelement deficiencies including B associated with intolerance to waterlogging (see review by Jackson and Drew, 1984). Through a simple, comprehensive evaluation of the crop mineral status using ICP, both toxicities and deficiencies can be readily identified and then prioritized for either germplasm improvement or soil management approaches. Such approaches are especially important for identifying potential mechanisms of improvement for waterlogging tolerance.
Finally, with the confirmation of microelement toxicities during waterlogging based on plant tissue analyses in crops like wheat (Ding and Musgrave, 1995; Huang et al., 1995; Khabaz-Saberi et al., 2006) this work supports a priority to pyramid genes for multiple microelement tolerance. Such information will also affect the approaches for molecular improvements for waterlogging tolerance to extend from a focus on anaerobiosis (Dennis et al., 2000) to now include element toxicities. Recent approaches to develop molecular markers for waterlogging tolerance confirm that different QTLs exist for a doubled haploid wheat population exposed to waterlogging in different soils (Cakir et al., 2005). Nevertheless, in wheat (a) there is clear genetic diversity for waterlogging tolerance, e.g. Fig. 2; (b) waterlogging tolerance is often highly heritable in the field or different soils (Cai et al., 1996; Boru et al., 2001; Collaku and Harrison, 2005; Singh et al., 2006); and (c) there are often single or dominant additive genes involved in tolerance to element toxicities, e.g. for B (Moody et al., 1993; Campbell et al., 1994) and for Al (reviewed by Raman et al., 2005). Transcription factors might also be involved in any response of crops to waterlogging where multiple or complex mechanisms of tolerance are required.
Recent research on the Sub1A gene for submergence tolerance in rice supports the possible involvement of transcription factors (Fukao et al., 2006; Xu et al., 2006) in tolerance of plants to excess water. Submergence tolerance is a highly complex trait involving tolerance to multiple gas diffusion limitations (including anaerobiosis), limited light, and factors interacting with growth and phenology (Setter et al., 1997); however, a single transcription factor (ethylene-response factor-like gene; Sub1A) controls this complex response in indica rice varieties (Fukao et al., 2006; Xu et al., 2006; Perata and Voesneck, 2007). Whether such factors may be involved in tolerance of temperate cereals and other crops exposed to waterlogged soils remains the subject of continued research.
|
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONACKNOWLEDGEMENTSLITERATURE CITED |
|---|
Special thanks go to staff at the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) particularly Drs M. Rai, J. S. Samra, S. Nagarajan, N. K. Tyagi, Gurbachan Singh and B. Mishra for their support. Thanks to Dr Lyndon Palmer, HarvestPlus Capacity Building Project, University of Adelaide, for discussions on use of titanium for assessing soil contamination for plant ICP analyses. Thanks also to Drs/Profs W. and J. Armstrong, M. Jackson and T. D. Colmer who have provided advice and support during research. Thanks for the many recommendations on an early draft of the manuscript from Prof. Hank Greenway; for unpublished data used in Fig. 9 and stimulating discussions on NaCl–hypoxia interactions from Dr Ed Barrett-Lennard; and for discussions on microelements and salinity from Dr Pichu Rengasamy. Funding support is gratefully acknowledged from the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR; Project CS1/1996/025), the Molecular Plant Breeding Cooperative Research Centre (MPBCRC; Project 3·2·01c) and the Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC; Projects DAW 292 and UWA340).
|
LITERATURE CITED |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONACKNOWLEDGEMENTSLITERATURE CITED |
|---|
-
Allen D, Walton K. Mehlich 3 – a new comprehensive soil test. Crop Updates 2003. Conference. (2003) www.agric.wa.gov.au/content/fcp/cropupdates2003_farmsystems.pdf.
Armstrong J, Armstrong W. Phragmites die-back: toxic effects of propionic, butyric and caproic acids in relation to pH. New Phytologist (1999) 142:201–217.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Armstrong J, Armstrong W. An overview of the effects of phytotoxins on Phragmites australis in relation to die-back. Aquatic Botany (2001) 69:251–268.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Armstrong J, Armstrong W. Rice: sulfide-induced barriers to root radial oxygen loss, Fe2+ and water uptake, and lateral root emergence. Annals of Botany (2005) 96:625–638.
Armstrong J, Afreen-Zobayed F, Armstrong W. Phragmites die-back: sulphide- and acetic acid-induced bud and root death, lignifications, and blockages within aeration and vascular systems. New Phytologist (1996) 134:601–614.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Armstrong J, Armstrong W, Wu Z, Afreen-Zobayed F. A role for phytotoxins in the Phragmites die-back syndrome. Folia Geobotanica et Phytotaxonomica (1996) 31:127–142.[Medline]
Armstrong W, Brändle R, Jackson MB. Mechanisms of flood tolerance in plants. Acta Botanica Neerlandica (1994) 43:307–358.[Web of Science]
Ascher-Ellis JS, Graham RD, Hollamby GJ, Paull J, Davies P, Huang C, et al. Micronutrients. In: Application of physiology in wheat breeding—Reynolds MP, Ortiz-Monasterio JI, McNab A, eds. (2001) México: International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT). 219–240.
Atwell BJ, Kriedemann PE, Turnbull CGN. Plants in action – adaptation in nature, performance in cultivation. (1999) South Yarra, Victoria: Macmillan Education Australia.
Bandyopadhyay BK, Sen HS. Effect of excess soil water conditions for a short period on growth and nutrition of crops on coastal saline soil. Journal of the Indian Society of Soil Science (1992) 40:823–827.
Barrett-Lennard EG. Effects of waterlogging on the growth and NaCl uptake by vascular plants under saline conditions. Reclamation and Revegetation Research (1986) 5:245–261.
Barrett-Lennard EG. The interaction between waterlogging and salinity in higher plants: causes, consequences and implications. Plant and Soil (2003) 253:35–54.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Barrett-Lennard EG. Saltland pastures in Australia: a practical guide (2003) 2nd edn. Western Australia: Land, Water and Wool Sustainable Grazing on Saline Lands Sub-program. ISBN 1-920860-07-X.
Barrett-Lennard EG, van Ratingen P, Mathie MH. The developing pattern of damage in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) due to the combined stresses of salinity and hypoxia: experiments under controlled conditions suggest a method for plant selection. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research (1999) 50:129–36.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Barton L, Carr S. The aluminium quick test (1993) Western Australia Department of Agriculture. Technotes. Agdex 533. No. 1/93.
Bell R. Boron. In: Soil analysis: an interpretation manual—Peverill KI, Sparrow LA, Reuter DJ, eds. (2005) Collingwood, Victoria: CSIRO Publishing. 309–317.
Bhargava GP, Kumar R. Genesis, characteristics and extent of sodic soils of the Indo-Gangetic plain. (2004) International Conference on Sustainable Management of Sodic Lands, 9–14 February 2004. 15–22.
Bjerre GK, Schierup H-H. Influence of waterlogging on availability and uptake of heavy metals by oat grown in different soils. Plant and Soil (1985) 88:45–56.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Boru G, vanGinkel M, Kronstad WE, Boersma L. Expression and inheritance of tolerance to waterlogging stress in wheat. Euphytica (2001) 117:91–98.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Cai SB, Cao Y, Fang XW. Studies on the variability and combining ability of waterlogging tolerance in common wheat. Jiangsu Journal of Agricultural Science (1996) 12:1–5.
Çakir M, Appels R, Waters I, Verbyla A, Drake-Brockman F, Carter M, et al. (2005) Mapping QTLs for waterlogging in wheat. 13th International Plant and Animal Genome Conference, 15–19 January 2005: San Diego, CA.
Campbell TA, Rathjen T, Jefferies SP. Breeding wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) for tolerance to boron toxicity. In: Proceedings of the 7th Assembly of the Wheat Breeding Society of Australia—Paull JG, Dundass IS, Shepherd KW, Hollamby GJ, eds. (1994) Australia: Wheat Breeding Society of. 111–114.
Carr SJ, Ritchie GSP. Al toxicity of wheat grown in acidic subsoils in relation to soil solution properties and exchangeable cations. Australian Journal of Soil Research (1993) 31:583–96.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Carr SJ, Ritchie GSP, Porter WM. A soil test for aluminium toxicity in acidic subsoils of yellow earths in Western Australia. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research (1991) 42:857–892.
Cary EE, Grunes DL, Bohman VR, Sanchirico CA. Titanium determination for correction of plant sample contamination by soil. Agronomy Journal (1986) 78:933–936.
Cherney H, Robinson DL. A comparison of plant digestion methods for identifying soil contamination of plant tissue by Ti analyses. Agronomy Journal (1983) 75:145–147.
Collaku A, Harrison SA. Heritability of waterlogging tolerance in wheat. Crop Science (2005) 45:722–727.
Condon AG. Assessing potential sources of improved waterlogging tolerance in bread wheat. (1999) Australian Plant Breeding Conference, April 1999: Adelaide. 19–23.
Condon AG. Waterlogging tolerant wheats for the Western Region. GRDC Final Report – CSQ3 (1999).
Dennis ES, Dolferus R, Ellis M, Rahman M, Wu Y, Hoeren FU, et al. Molecular strategies for improving waterlogging tolerance in plants. Journal of Experimental Botany (2000) 51:89–97.
Ding N, Musgrave ME. Relationship between mineral coating on roots and yield performance of wheat under waterlogging stress. Journal of Experimental Botany (1995) 46:939–945.
Drew MC. Plant responses to anaerobic conditions in soil and solution culture. In: Commentaries in plant science—Smith H, ed. (1981) Vol. 2. Oxford: Pergamon Press. 209–223.
Drew MC, Lynch JM. Soil anaerobiosis, microorganisms and root function. Annual Review of Phytopathology (1980) 18:37–66.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Fukao T, Xu K, Ronald PC, Bailey-Serres J. A variable cluster of ethylene-responsive-like factors regulates metabolic and developmental acclimation responses to submergence in rice. The Plant Cell (2006) 18. 2021–2034.
Gibbs J, Greenway H. Mechanisms of anoxia tolerance in plants. I. Growth, survival and anaerobic catabolism. Functional Plant Biology (2003) 30:1–47.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Greenway H, Gibbs J. Mechanisms of anoxia tolerance in plants. II. Energy requirements for maintenance and energy distribution to essential processes. Functional Plant Biology (2003) 30:999–1036.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Huang B, Johnson JW, NeSmith DS, Bridges DC. Nutrient accumulation and distribution of wheat genotypes in response to waterlogging and nutrient supply. Plant and Soil (1995) 173:47–54.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Jackson MB, Drew MC. Effects of flooding on growth and metabolism of herbaceous plants. In: Flooding and plant growth—Kozlowski TT, ed. (1984) New York, NY: Academic Press. 47–128.
Khabaz-Saberi H, Setter TL, Waters I. Waterlogging induces high to toxic concentrations of iron, aluminium and manganese in wheat varieties on acidic soil. Journal of Plant Nutrition (2006) 29:899–912.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Kirk GJD, Solivas JL, Alberto MC. Effects of flooding and redox conditions on solute diffusion in soil. European Journal of Soil Science (2003) 54:617–624.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Lafever HN, Campbell LG. Inheritance of aluminium tolerance in wheat. Canadian Journal of Genetics and Cytology (1978) 20:355–364.[Web of Science]
Laanbroek HJ. Bacterial cycling of minerals that affect plant growth in waterlogged soils: a review. Aquatic Botany (1990) 38:109–125.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
McDonald G, Setter TL, Waters I, Tugwell R. Screening for waterlogging tolerance of wheat in the field in Western Australia. (2006) Proceedings of the 13th Australian Society of Agronomy Conference, 10–14 September 2006: Perth, Western Australia. Web site: http://www.regional.org.au/au/asa/2006/concurrent/environment/4676_mcdonaldg.htm#TopOfPage.
McFarlane JD. Soil analysis: an interpretation manual—Peverill KI, Sparrow LA, Reuter DJ, eds. (2005) Collingwood, Victoria: CSIRO Publishing. 295–301. Iron.
Ma G, Rengasamy P, Rathjen AJ. Phototoxicity of aluminium to wheat plants in high pH solutions. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture (2003) 43:497–501.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Maas EV, Hoffman GJ. Crop salt tolerance – current assessment. Journal of the Irrigation and Drainage Division. Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers (1977) 103:115–130.
Malewar GU, Ismail S. Iron research and agricultural production. In: Micronutrient research and agricultural production—Tandon HLS, ed. (1995) New Delhi: India Fertiliser Development and Consultation Organisation. 57–82.
Marschner H. Mineral nutrition in higher plants (1984) London: Academic Press.
Moody DB, Rathjen AJ, Cartwright B. Yield evaluation of a gene for boron tolerance using backcross-derived lines. In: Genetic aspects of plant mineral nutrition—Randall PJ, Delhaize E, Richards RA, Munns R, eds. (1993) Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 363–366.
Mortvedt JJ. Micronutrients in agriculture (1972) Madison WI: Soil Science Society of America. Book Series No. 4.
Musgrave ME, Ding N. Evaluating wheat cultivars for waterlogging tolerance. Crop Science (1998) 38:90–97.
Nuttall JG, Armstrong RD, Connor DJ. Early growth of wheat is more sensitive to salinity than boron at levels encountered in alkaline soils of south-eastern Australia. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture (2006) 46:1507–1514.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Patrick WH, Gamdrell RP, Faulker SP. Redox measurements of soils. In: Methods of soil analysis. Part 3. Chemical methods—Bartels JM, ed. (1996) Madison, WI: Soil Science Society of America. 1255–1273. Book series no 5.
Perata P, Voesenek LACJ. Submergence tolerance in rice requires Sub1A, an ethylene-response-factor-like gene. Trends in Plant Science (2007) 12(2):43–46.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Ponnamperuma FN. The chemistry of submerged soils. Advances in Agronomy (1972) 24:29–96.[CrossRef]
Ponnamperuma FN. Effects of flooding on soils. In: Flooding and plant growth—Kozlowski TT, ed. (1984) London: Academic Press. 9–45.
Ponnamperuma FN, Lantin RS, Cayton MTC. Boron toxicity in rice soils. International Rice Research Newsletter No. 4 (1979) 8.
Raman H, Zhang K, Cakir M, Appels M, Garvin DF, Maron LG, et al. Molecular characterization and mapping of ALMT1, the aluminium-tolerance gene of bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Genome (2005) 48:781–791.[Medline]
Rane J, Niwas R, Shoran J, Colmer TD, Setter TL, Waters I, et al. Waterlogging tolerance in wheat (T. aestivum L.): genetic variation in aerenchyma and association with growth and yield (2007) Matsushima, Japan: International Society of Plant Anaerobiosis. 19–23.
Rengasamy P. Combating subsoil constraints in sodic soils. (2004) International Conference of Sustainable Management of Sodic Lands, 9–14 February 2004. 39–40.
Reuter DJ, Edwards DG, Wilhelm NS. Temperate and tropical crops. In: Plant analysis: an interpretation manual—Reuter DJ, Robinson JB, eds. (1997) Collingwood, Australia: CSIRO Publishing. 81–284.
Sakal R, Singh AP. Boron research and agricultural production. In: Micronutrient research and agricultural production.—Tandon HLS, ed. (1995) India: Fertiliser Development and Consultation Organisation. 1–31.
Samra JS. Heavy metals in soils and waters: issues of phyto-remediation and geo-remediation. (2006) Karnal, India: Foundation day lecture delivered at Central Soil Salinity Research Institute. on 1 March 2006.
Sayre KD, van Ginkel M, Rajaram S, Ortiz-Monasterio I. Tolerance to water-logging losses in spring bread wheat: effect of time of onset on expression. In: Annual Wheat Newsletter (1994) Colorado State University. 165–171. No. 40.
Setter TL. Farming systems for waterlogging prone sandplain soils of the South Coast (2000) Final report to the Grains Research and Development Corporation on project DAW 292.
Setter TL, Waters I. Review of prospects for germplasm improvement for waterlogging tolerance in wheat barley and oats. Plant and Soil (2003) 253:1–34.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Setter TL, Ellis M, Laureles EV, Ella ES, Senadhira D, Mishra SB, et al. Physiology and genetics of submergence tolerance in rice. Annals of Botany (1997) 79:67–77.
Setter TL, Waters I, Khabaz-Saberi H, McDonald G, Biddulph B. Screening for waterlogging tolerance of crop plants. (2004) 8th Conference of the International Society for Plant Anaerobiosis. 20–24 September 2004: Perth, Western Australia.
Setter TL, Khabaz-Saberi H, Waters I, Singh KN, Kulshreshtha N, Sharma SK, et al. Review of waterlogging tolerance in wheat in India: involvement of element/microelement toxicities, relevance to yield plateau and opportunities for crop management. In: International Symposium on Balanced Fertilization.—Benbi DK, Brar MS, Bansal SK, eds. (2006) Ludhiana: Punjab Agricultural University. 513–520. Ludhiana, India; 22–25 November 2006. International Potash Institute and Dept of Soils.
Sharma DP, Swarup A. Effect of short-term flooding on growth, yield and mineral composition of wheat on sodic soil under field conditions. Plant and Soil (1988) 107:137–143.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Shaw RJ. Soil salinity: electrical conductivity and chloride. In: Soil analysis: an interpretation manual—Peverill KI, Sparrow LA, Reuter DJ, eds. (2005) Collingwood, Victoria: CSIRO Publishing. 129–145.
Singh KN, Kulshreshtha N, Kumar V, Setter TL. Genetic variability of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) lines for grain yield and component characters grown under sodic and waterlogged conditions. Indian Journal of Agricultural Science (2006) 76:414–419.
Singh MV, Rao AS. Manganese research and agricultural production. In: Micronutrient research and agricultural production—Tandon HLS, ed. (1995) 82–114.
Slattery WJ, Ronnfeldt GR. Seasonal variation of pH, aluminium, and manganese in acid soils from north-eastern Victoria. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture (1992) 32:1105–1112.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Slattery WJ, Morrison GR, Coventry DR. Liming effects on soil exchangeable and soil solution cations of four soil types in north-eastern Victoria. Australian Journal of Soil Research (1995) 33:277–295.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Slattery WJ, Conyers MK, Aitken RL. Soil pH, aluminium, manganese and lime requirement. In: Soil analysis: an interpretation manual—Peverill KI, Sparrow LA, Reuter DJ, eds. (2005) Collingwood, Victoria: CSIRO Publishing. 103–128.
Sparrow LA, Uren NC. The role of manganese toxicity in crop yellowing on seasonally waterlogged and strongly acidic soils in north-eastern Victoria. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture (1987) 27:303–307.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Swarup A, Sharma DP. Influence of top-dressed nitrogen in alleviating adverse effects of flooding on growth and yield of wheat in a sodic soil. Field Crops Research (1993) 35:93–100.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Uren NC. Manganese. In: Soil analysis: an interpretation manual—Peverill KI, Sparrow LA, Reuter DJ, eds. (2005) Collingwood, Victoria: CSIRO Publishing. 287–294.
vanGinkel M, Rajaram S, Thijssen M. Waterlogging in wheat: germplasm evaluation and methodology development. (1992) The Seventh Wheat Workshop for Eastern, Central and Southern Africa, 16–19 September 1991: Nakuru, Kenya. 115–124.
Weir RG, Cresswell GC. Plant nutrient disorders. 4. Pastures and field crops (1994) Melbourne: Inkata.
Xu K, Xu X, Fukao T, Canlas P, Maghirang-Rodriguez R, Heuer S, et al. Sub1A is an ethylene-response-factor-like gene that confers submergence tolerance to rice. Nature (2006) 442:705–708.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  M. B. Jackson, K. Ishizawa, and O. Ito Evolution and mechanisms of plant tolerance to flooding stress Ann. Bot., January 1, 2009; 103(2): 137 - 142. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||