Comparison of measurement methods of osmotic adjustment in rice cultivars

被引:94
|
作者
Babu, RC
Pathan, MS
Blum, A
Nguyen, HT
机构
[1] Agr Res Org, Volcani Ctr, IL-50250 Bet Dagan, Israel
[2] Texas Tech Univ, Dept Plant & Soil Sci, Plant Mol Genet Lab, Lubbock, TX 79409 USA
关键词
D O I
10.2135/cropsci1999.0011183X003900010024x
中图分类号
S3 [农学(农艺学)];
学科分类号
0901 ;
摘要
Osmotic adjustment (OA) is a major component of drought resistance. Four different methods for measuring OA in plants are in general use, but there is no information on the comparative performance of these methods. Two similar experiments were designed to evaluate the four methods for measuring OA in diverse indica and japonica cultivars of rice (Oryza sativa L.) subjected to a drying cycle in large pots in the greenhouse. The four methods were: (i) derivation of OA from regressions of leaf relative water content (RWC) on leaf osmotic potential (OP); (ii) estimation of OA from OP of stressed plants calculated to rehydrated state; (iii) estimation of OA from OP of stressed plants that have been rehydrated; and (iv) estimation (from data used in Method 1) of OA capacity by the sustained RWC at a given OP of -3.5 MPa. Method 1 was a priori considered as the best estimate. Under relatively mild atmospheric conditions and a slow development of water deficit (first experiment), mean OA over 12 cultivars was 0.89, 0.51, and 0.72 MPa by Methods 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Mean RWC at -3.5 MPa was 69.3%. Significant (P less than or equal to 0.05) variation in OA among cultivars was observed by all methods, up to a four-fold difference in OA among cultivars (0.35-1.51 MPa) by Method 1. Simple correlation for OA across 12 cultivars with Method 1 was significantly higher for Method 3 (r = 0.76; P = 0.04) and Method 4 (r = 0.87: P < 0.01) than for Method 2 (r = 054; P = 0.07). OA by Method 4 was better correlated with Method 3 (r = 0.80; P < 0.01) than with Method 2 (r = 0.67; P = 0.02). The coefficient of variation (CV) as a measure of error was greater for Method 1 (47%) and Method 2 (31%) than for Method 3 (21%) or 4 (24%), Both Methods 2 and 3 were less demanding on labor and plant materials than Methods 1 and 4. The results support the use of Method 3 (the "rehydration method") as a faster and an economical replacement for Method 1.
引用
收藏
页码:150 / 158
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Gas exchange, chlorophyll fluorescence, and osmotic adjustment in two mango cultivars under drought stress
    Elsheery, Nabil I.
    Cao, Kun-Fang
    ACTA PHYSIOLOGIAE PLANTARUM, 2008, 30 (06) : 769 - 777
  • [32] A COMPARISON OF DYNAMIC METHODS FOR OSMOTIC PRESSURE MEASUREMENTS
    BRUSS, DB
    STROSS, FH
    JOURNAL OF POLYMER SCIENCE PART A-GENERAL PAPERS, 1963, 1 (07): : 2439 - &
  • [33] Gas exchange, chlorophyll fluorescence, and osmotic adjustment in two mango cultivars under drought stress
    Nabil I. Elsheery
    Kun-Fang Cao
    Acta Physiologiae Plantarum, 2008, 30 : 769 - 777
  • [34] Response of photosynthetic performance, water relations and osmotic adjustment to salinity acclimation in two wheat cultivars
    Hanafey F. Maswada
    M. Djanaguiraman
    P. V. V. Prasad
    Acta Physiologiae Plantarum, 2018, 40
  • [35] Leaf sucrose and starch contents and osmotic adjustment in two tomato cultivars under water deficit
    Petzall, Cecily
    Castrillo, Marisol
    TROPICAL AGRICULTURE, 2005, 82 (1-2): : 59 - 67
  • [36] OSMOTIC ADJUSTMENT IN SORGHUM
    Newton, R. J.
    Balachandra, S.
    PLANT PHYSIOLOGY, 1983, 72 : 12 - 12
  • [37] COMPARISON OF MILLING CHARACTERISTICS OF HYBRID AND PURELINE RICE CULTIVARS
    Lanning, S. B.
    Siebenmorgen, T. J.
    APPLIED ENGINEERING IN AGRICULTURE, 2011, 27 (05) : 787 - 795
  • [38] RESPONSES OF 7 DIVERSE RICE CULTIVARS TO WATER DEFICITS .2. OSMOTIC ADJUSTMENT, LEAF ELASTICITY, LEAF EXTENSION, LEAF DEATH, STOMATAL CONDUCTANCE AND PHOTOSYNTHESIS
    TURNER, NC
    OTOOLE, JC
    CRUZ, RT
    YAMBAO, EB
    AHMAD, S
    NAMUCO, OS
    DINGKUHN, M
    FIELD CROPS RESEARCH, 1986, 13 (03) : 273 - 286
  • [39] On measurement error adjustment methods in Poisson regression
    Fung, KY
    Krewski, D
    ENVIRONMETRICS, 1999, 10 (02) : 213 - 224
  • [40] Risk Adjustment Methods in Quality Measurement Reply
    Braithwaite, R. Scott
    JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2018, 320 (15): : 1605 - 1605