Basic HTML Version
Rice Genomics and Genetics 2013, Vol.4, No.3, 9
-
13
http://rgg.sophiapublisher.com
7
Table 3 Percentage reduction in performance of Parents and BILS population under water-stress for physiological and productivity
related traits in pot experiment
Trait
Parent 1 (WAB-450)
Population mean
Parent 2 (Swarna)
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
Relative water content (%)
63.73
60.76
4.66
61.74
54.81
11.22
55.21
44.48
19.43
Chlorophyll content (SPAD reading)
42.85
37.65
12.14
41.12
36.04
12.35
42.05
34
19.14
Leaf
temperature
(
℃
)
24.85
27
-8.65
23.34
27.1
-16.11
22.65
27.9
-23.18
Leaf area (cm
2
)
15.5
12.72
17.94
18.06
15.51
14.12
15.52
13.61
12.31
Plant height (cm)
93
82.6
11.18
82.02
75.17
8.35
81.5
74.75
8.28
Number of tillers
12
8.5
29.17
17.79
16.23
8.77
17.5
15
14.29
Number of productive tillers
9.5
8
15.79
13.48
10.08
25.22
16
10.5
34.38
Grain number per plant
906
844
6.84
1251
709.1
43.32
1967
993.5
49.49
Grain weight per plant (g)
11
9.25
15.91
13.7
8.363
38.96
21
10.75
48.81
Spikelet fertility (%)
93.16
91.05
2.26
92.47
86.44
6.52
95.48
87.26
8.61
Harvest index (%)
42.15
39.78
5.62
42.55
37.67
11.47
45.67
38.06
16.66
Note: A: Unstressed; B: Stressed; C: Reduction (%)
Table 4 Top 20 BILs with least percentage reduction in performance for physiological and morphological traits under water-stress
in pot experiment
BILs No.
Relative water content (%)
Chlorophyll content (spad
meter reading)
Leave temperature (
℃
)
Leave area (cm
2
)
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
183
62.82
60.26
4.08
43
39.65
7.79
22.05
26.35
-19.50
16.5
13.6
17.58
190
63.73
60.76
4.66
42.85
37.65
12.14
24.85
27
-8.65
15.5
12.72
17.94
186
70.37
67.06
4.70
41.85
37.5
10.39
21.45
27.65
-28.90
18.5
15.65
15.41
77
60.6
57.71
4.77
42.65
34.5
19.11
23.55
27.6
-17.20
15.56
13.5
13.24
97
61.53
58.27
5.30
43.05
38.5
10.57
22.55
26.8
-18.85
15.26
13.28
12.98
16
77.83
73.09
6.09
36.8
34.7
5.71
24.45
28.4
-16.16
15.66
12.44
20.56
19
74.67
69.99
6.27
39.55
32.95
16.69
23.45
27.95
-19.19
16.89
14.73
12.79
2
70.36
65.94
6.28
47.45
38.5
18.86
23.4
29.2
-24.79
15.56
10.44
32.90
22
72.58
67.93
6.41
44.5
36.4
18.20
24.2
26.3
-8.68
19.74
16.92
14.29
15
70.45
65.93
6.42
41.6
35.5
14.66
21.75
29.35
-34.94
12.73
10.37
18.54
163
67.33
62.99
6.45
36.3
34
6.34
21.8
25.9
-18.81
17
13.62
19.88
5
73.73
68.89
6.56
44.75
36.75
17.88
26
32.2
-23.85
15.43
13.71
11.15
18
72.95
68.15
6.58
36.25
33.5
7.59
23.95
26.95
-12.53
17.77
13.64
23.24
104
52.21
48.74
6.65
40.4
35.35
12.50
24.3
28.65
-17.90
20.97
17.94
14.45
188
60.44
56.4
6.68
36.25
32.9
9.24
22.7
27.3
-20.26
20.78
17.59
15.35
192
60.42
56.36
6.72
37.2
34
8.60
22.9
27.7
-20.96
18.5
15.5
16.22
10
69.84
65.08
6.82
37.5
34.75
7.33
24.6
28.25
-14.84
17.58
16.3
7.28
108
50.95
47.44
6.89
37.15
33.5
9.83
23.6
25.5
-8.05
18.76
14.66
21.86
100
64.31
59.87
6.90
41.35
36.8
11.00
22.95
26.55
-15.69
18.34
16.5
10.03
159
52.08
48.41
7.05
42.4
34.65
18.28
24.15
27.55
-14.08
16.47
14.5
11.96
Note: A: Unstressed; B: Stressed; C: Reduction (%)
considered a typical symptom of oxidative stress and
may be the result of pigment photo-oxidation and
chlorophyll degradation. A decrease in the relative
water content (RWC) in response to drought stress
has been noted in wide variety of plants as reported
by Shakeel et al., (2011). RWC related to water
uptake by the roots as well as water loss by transpi-
reation (Shakeel et al., 2011). Identification of superior
drought tolerant rice genotypes is achievable through
genetic manipulation for these physiological traits.