Effect of Drought Stress on Water Use Efficiency and Its Components in Several Genotypes and Cultivars of Foxtail Millet (Setaria italica L.)

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

• M Khazaei ¹
• M Galavi ²
• M Dahmardeh ²
• S. M Moosavi-Nik ²
• Gh Zamani ¹
• N Mahdi-Nejad ²

¹ Birjand University

² Zabol University

10.22067/gsc.v16i1.59043

Abstract

Introduction
According to NASA reports about atmospheric earth conditions, in the 30 years later, 45 countries will face with severe droughts and Iran is in the fourth place in this list. Water shortage is one of the most important limiting factors of production that affects plants growth by changing physiological conditions. Using adapted plants is a proper strategy to deal with the effects of water shortage on the status of water restrictions. Foxtail millet is a C4 plant with good compatibility to dry areas and it has high water use efficiency. In medium stress partial stomata closure reduces transpiration more than photosynthesis in this plant and as a result, increase water use efficiency.
Materials and Methods
This experiment was carried out as split-plot layout based on randomized complete blocks design with four replications at the Agricultural Research Station, University of Birjand in 2014-2015. The main factor was drought stress in three levels including 100, 75 and 50 percent of plant water requirement (no stress as control, moderate stress and severe stress, respectively) and the sub-factor was millet genotype in three levels (including Bastan, KFM5 and KFM20). At four leaf stage, 75 plants per square meter were maintained and applied stress. Water use efficiency, evapotranspiration efficiency, harvest index for seed and ear, economic and biological yield were measured at maturity. . Data were analyzed with the SAS software ver 9.1 and the means were compared with Tukey’s test.
Results and Discussion
The results showed that water use efficiency (WUE) was significantly decreased with increasing the intensity of drought stress in all three genotypes but not evapotranspiration efficiency (ETE, ratio of total dry matter to water used). Bastan cultivar had higher water use efficiency in all stress levels and was more affected under moderate stress while it was less affected under severe stress (33 and 31 percent compared to the control, respectively). The evapotranspiration efficiency (ETE) was similar in all three genotypes and did not change under stress condition. The water use efficiency was different in two years but drought stress had a similar effect on its. The drought stress reduced seed yield through its impact on water use efficiency, harvest index and total dry matter within two years. The highest and lowest seed yield were observed in control (152 g m-2) and severe stress (171 g m-2), respectively. Significant genotypic variation was observed for WUE (ratio of grain yield to water used), and harvest index (HI, ratio of grain yield to total dry matter). Bastan cultivar had higher WUE than two other lines in well-watered (0.82 vs. 0.63 g kg−1) and drought (0.56 vs. 0.42 g kg−1) field conditions, due mainly to higher HI in well-watered (41.04 vs. 36.01 percent) and drought (26.2 vs.25.5 percent). Drought stress had not a similar effect on harvest index in three genotypes. At all stress levels, water use efficiency, harvest index and dry matter had a higher direct effect on seed yield, respectively. Also, the results showed that the negative correlation between seed yield and evapotranspiration was not significant.
Conclusions
Total dry matter was similar in the three genotypes but Bastan cultivar was better than the other lines and it is advisable to drought stress conditions due to higher water use efficiency and harvest index. As respects high crop water use efficiency is necessary for adaptation and resistance to drought stress and harvest index is an indicator of the amount of product to be used, WUE and HI can be used to identify suitable genotypes and cultivars for water shortages and drought conditions.

Keywords

• Dry matter
• Evapotranspiration efficiency
• Harvest index
• Seed yield

---

References

1. Alizadeh, O., Majidi, E., Nadian, H., Noor Mohammadi, Gh., and Amerian, M. 2007. Effects of drought stress and nitrogen rate on corn yield and components of yield. Journal of Agricultural Sciences Islamic Azad University 13 (23): 427-434. (in Persian).

2. Anjum, F., Yaseen, M., Rasul, E., Wahid, A., and Anjum, S. 2003. Water stress in barley, effect on chemical composition and chlorophyll content. Pakistan Journal of Agriculture Science 40: 45-49.

3. Azari, A., Mirzaei. M. R. 2012. Effect of sowing date on grain yield and yield components of Foxtail millet promising Lines. Seed and Plant Production Journal 1: 2-28.

4. Brunda, S. M., Kamatar, M. Y., Naveenkunar, K. L., and Hundekar, R. 2014. Study of genetic variability, heritability and genetic advance in foxtail millet in both rainy and post rainy season. IOSR Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary Science 7 (11): 34-37.

5. Cornic, G. 2000. Drought stress inhibits photosynthesis by decreasing stomata aperture not by affecting ATP synthetase. Treed in Plant Science 5 (5): 187-188.

6. Dai, H. P., Shan, C. J., Wei, A. H., Yang, T., Sa, W. Q., and Feng, B. L. 2012. Leaf senescence and photosynthesis in foxtail millet (Setaria italica L.) varieties exposed to drought conditions. Australian Journal of Crop Science 6 (2): 232-237.

7. Ehdaie, B., 1995. Variation in water-use efficiency and its components in wheat: II. Pot and field talic ent. Crop Sci.35:1617-1626.

8. Erfani, M., Alizadeh, O., and Miri, H. R. 2013. Physiological aspects of panicum under different water supply, weeding and growth regulators for competitive ability against weed. International Journal of Farming Allied Sciences 2: 1241-1254.

9. Gardner F. P., Brenet Pearce, R., and Mitchell, R. L. 2010. Physiology of crop plants. Scientific Publishes, Hainglaj Offset Printers, Jodhpur. (India). Pp: 327.

10. Hatfild, J. L., Saure, T. J., and Prueger, J. H. 2001. Managing soil to achieve greater water use efficiency: A review. Agronomy 93: 271-280.

11. Heidari-zooleh, H., Jahansooz, M. R., Yunusa, I., Hosseini, S. M. B., Chaichi, M. R., and Jafari, A. A. 2011. Effect of alternate irrigation on root-divided Foxtail Millet. Australian Journal of Crop Science 5: 205-213.

12. Hui-Ping, D. et al. 2012. Leaf senescence and photosynthesis in foxtail millet (Setaria italica L.) varieties exposed to drought conditions. Australian Journal of Crop Science 6 (2): 232-237.

13. Jaleel, C., Manivannan, P., Wahid, A., Farooq, M., Somasundaram, R., and Panneerselvam. 2009. Drought stress in plants: a review on morphological characteristics and pigments composition. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology 11: 100-105.

14. Kafi, M., Borzoee, A., Salehi, M., Kamandi, A., Masoumi, A., and Nabati, J. 2010. Physiology of Environmental Stress in Plant.Ferdowsi University of Mashhad publication. 502p. (in Persian).

15. Keshavars, L., Farahbakhsh, H., and Golkar, P. 2012. The effects of drought stress and absorbent polymer on morph-physiological traits of Pear Millet. International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences 3 (1): 148-154.

16. Keshavars, L., Farahbakhsh, H., and Golkar, P. 2013. Effects of different irrigation and superabsorbent levels on physio-morphological traits and forage yield of Millet. American-Eurasian Journal Agriculture and environment Science 13 (7): 1012-1018.

17. Khodabandloo, Sh., Sepehri, A., Ahmadvand, G., and Keshtkar, A. H. 2014. Effect of silicon on millet grain yield and water use efficiency under drought stress. Crops Improvement. 16 (2): 416-399.

18. Kumari, S. 1988. The effect of soil moisture stress on the development and yield of millet. Agronomy Journal 57: 480-487.

19. Lawlor, D. W., and Cornic, G. 2002. Photosynthetic carbon assimilation and associated metabolism in relation to water deficit in higher plant. Plant Cell and Environment 25 (2): 275-294.

20. Larcher, W. P. 1995. Physiological plant ecology. New York, USA. 506 p.

21. Maman, N., Lyon, D. J., Mason, S., Galusha, T. D., and Higgins, R. 2003. Pearl millet and grain sorghum yield response to water supply in Nebraska. Agronomy Journal 95: 1618-1624.

22. Prihar, S. S., and Stewart, B. A. 1991. Sorghum harvest index in relation to plant size, environment, and cultivar. Agronomy Journal 83: 603-608.

23. Seghatoleslami, M. J., Kafi, M., and Majidi, E. 2008. Effect of drought stress at different growth stages on yield and water use efficiency of five proso Millet. (Panicum milliaceum) genotypes. Pakistan Journal of Botany 40 (4): 1427-1432.

24. Seghatoleslami, M. J., Kafi, M., Majidi, E., Darvish, F., and Nourmohammadi, Gh. 2008. Effect of deficit irrigation on yield and water use efficiency of three millet species. Journal of Agricultural sciences Islamic Azad University 11 (4): 121-131.

25. Vadez, V., Hash, T., Binder, F., and Kholova, J. 2012. Phenotyping pearl millet for adaptation to drought. Plant Physiology 3: 158-169.

26. Yadav, O. P., and Bhatnagar, S. K. 2001. Evaluation of indices for identification of pearl millet cultivars adapted to stress and non-stress conditions. Field Crops Research 70 (3): 201-208.

27. Zhang, J., and Kirkham, M. B. 1995. Water relations of water-stressed, split-root C4 (Sorghum binocolor) and C3 (Helianthus annuus) plants. American Journal of Botany 82 (10): 1220-1229.