Advertisement
Advertisement

More Related Content

Similar to Adaptation of SAT crops to water limitation and climate change(20)

Advertisement

More from ICRISAT(20)

Advertisement

Adaptation of SAT crops to water limitation and climate change

  1. Adaptation of SAT crops To water limitation And climate change Vincent Vadez – Jana Kholova ICRISAT CSSA – ASA – SSSA meeting – Long Beach 2-5 Nov 2014
  2. Today’s presentation Basic considerations on CC / Drought Transpiration response to VPD Possible mechanisms Aquaporin gene expression Modelling effects on yield
  3. Maximum temperature in the SAT Hypothetic Temperature threshold 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec MaximumT°C 1983-HQ 1992-HQ 2001-HQ 2012-HQ 1983-ISC 1990-ISC 1998-ISC Headquarter Sahelian Center T°C rarely crosses critical limits for SAT crops
  4. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec MaximumVPD Sahelian Center Headquarter Vapor pressure deficit (VPD) in the SAT Prevalent high VPD Effect on plant water balance VPD threshold
  5. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 21 28 35 42 49 56 63 70 77 84 91 98 Waterused(kgpl-1) Days after sowing Water extraction at key times Less water extraction at vegetative stage, more for grain filling Zaman-Allah et al 2011 See Borrell et al 2014 See Vadez et al 2013 Sensitive Tolerant Trait dissection Vegetative Reprod/ Grain fill Conductance Canopy area
  6. Terminal drought sensitive Terminal drought tolerant 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 VPD (kPa) H77/2 833-2 PRLT-2/89-33 Transpiration(gcm-2h-1) From Kholova et al 2010b 2 mechanisms of water saving: •Low Tr at low VPD •Further restriction of Tr at high VPD Transpiration response to high VPD – Pearl millet
  7. Transpiration response to high VPD - Peanut
  8. Mouride IfVPD<2.09,TR=0.0083(VPD)–0.002 IfVPD≥ 2.09,TR=0.0013(VPD)+0.015 R²=0.97 B UC-CB46 TR=0.0119(VPD)-0.0016 R²=0.97 D Transpiration response to VPD - cowpea Tolerant lines have a breakpoint (water saving) Tolerant Sensitive Belko et al – 2012 (Plant Biology)
  9. Staygreen ILs (Stg3 – Stg B) are VPD-sensitive 0.0000 0.0020 0.0040 0.0060 0.0080 0.0100 0.0120 9 11 13 15 17 Transpiration(gcm-2h-1) Time of the day (h) stg1 stg3 stg4 stgB R16 B35 Recurrent R16 Stg3 StgB Transpiration response to VPD in Sorghum 1 - Introgression lines
  10. 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.012 0.014 0.62 1.05 1.58 2.01 2.43 3.05 3.45 Transpiration(gpl-1cm-2) VPD (kPa) VPD-insensitive VPD-sensitive Transpiration response to VPD in Sorghum 2 - Germplasm
  11. 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 152 Germplasm tested TE 10 lowest TE are all VPD-Insensitive 10 highest TE are all VPD-sensitive High TE lines limit transpiration at high VPD Why are VPD-sensitive sorghum so interesting?
  12. Vapor Pressure Deficit (VPD, in kPa) Transpirationrate(gcm-2h-1) 0.0 2.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 A – Insensitive to VPD – High rate at low VPD B – Sensitive to VPD – High rate at low VPD C – Sensitive to VPD – Low rate at low VPD D – Insensitive to VPD – Low rate at low/high VPD Main types of Tr response to VPD Water use difference Leaf conductance differences = water Vadez et al 2013 – FPB in press
  13. 4 replications RH & T hourly recording Weighing: 7-11am = low VPD 11am-15pm = high VPD 8” pots re-saturated every day soil evaporation minimized with plastic beads How to phenotype at large scale?
  14. Capacity: 4,800 plots Throughput: 2,400 plots/hour Traits: LA, Height, Leaf angle, … LeasyScan at ICRISAT Leaf canopy area and conductance
  15. Canopy Scanning + plant transpiration = live water budget Leaf canopy conductance Load Cells
  16. Possible mechanisms?? ??? Hydraulic Possibly located in the roots
  17. Apoplastic Pathway (Structural) Symplastic Pathway (AQP) Water pathways in the root cylinder Two pathways have different hydraulic conductance Hypothesis: Aquaporin control plant water loss ? ????
  18. Apoplastic path inhibition: H-Ferrocyanide +CuSO4 Symplast path inhibition: AgNO3,
  19. Follow-up of transpiration before/after inhibition
  20. 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 Normalizedtranspiration Time Apoplast & symplast inhibition at low VPD Apoplastic & Symplastic inhibition Symplastic inhibition Apoplastic inhibition Apoplastic transport predominant Low VPD small differences/effects VPD-sensitive VPD - insensitive
  21. VPD - insensitive 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 Normalizedtranspiration Time(mins) Apoplast & symplast inhibition at high VPD Symplastic inhibition Apoplastic inhibition Apoplastic transport less predominant High VPD larger differences/effects VPD-sensitive
  22. VPD-insensitive VPD-sensitive Any difference in aquaporin expression In sorghum contrasting for VPD response?? 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018 0.62 1.05 1.58 2.01 2.43 3.05 3.45 Transpiration(gpl-1cm-2) VPD (kPa)
  23. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Low TE High TE HighVPD/LowVPD PIP1;1 PIP1;2 PIP1;3 PIP1;4 PIP2;1 PIP2;2 PIP2;4 PIP2;5 PIP2;6 PIP2;7 PIP2;8 PIP2;9 PIP2;10 PIP relative expression (High VPD/Low VPD) VPD – insensitive line increases expression of PIP2 PIP2;6 PIP2;9 PIP2;7 VPD-Insensitive VPD-Sensitive
  24. grain yield gain (low TR) -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 original yield (kg/ha) yieldgain(kg/ha) 1 postflowering 2 flowering 3 postflowering-relieved 4 no stress 5 preflowering Original yield (kg ha-1) 0 Yield increase (kg/ha) with transpiration sensitivity to high VPD: Rabi sorghum Yieldincrease
  25. -1 0 +33 Crop modelling used to predict trait effects 15-30% yield increase at high latitudes % yield increase with transpiration sensitivity to high VPD: Peanut
  26. Lysimetric evaluation Transpiration in pots 0.000 0.004 0.008 0.012 0.016 0.020 0.62 1.05 1.58 2.01 2.43 3.05 3.45 Transpiration (gcm-2h-1) VPD Low TE High TE 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Low TE High TE TE grain yield gain (low TR) -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 original yield (kg/ha) yieldgain(kg/ha) 1 postflowering 2 flowering 3 postflowering-relieved 4 no stress 5 preflowering Original yield (kg ha-1) 0 AQP gene expression Modeling of Tr restriction effect on yield
  27. The VPD response lead to higher TE It is itself related to differences in AQP gene expression Major yield increase possible across crops Breeding (donors identified) Harness genetics – Phenotyping (new platform) In Summary…
  28. Thank you Collaborators: F. Chaumont (Univ. Louvain) G. Hammer / A. Borrell / G McLean / E van Oosterom (Univ. Queensland) B Sine / N Belko / Ndiaga Cisse (CERAAS) C Messina (Pioneer) Donors: B&MG Foundation GCP ACIAR DFID ICRISAT Technicians / Data analyst: Srikanth Malayee Rekha Badham M Anjaiah N Pentaiah Students: M Tharanya S Sakthi T Rajini Colleagues: KK Sharma / T Shah / F Hamidou HD Upadhyaya / R Srivastava / Bhasker Raj SP Deshpande / PM Gaur
Advertisement