The agronomic and physiological traits, drought tolerance indexes, principal component analysis and Ward`s method were applied to assess the differences among 20 wheat genotypes in response to drought. Statistically significant correlation was observed for measured traits. Drought susceptibility index (DSI), stress tolerance index (STI) and stress index (SI) were most useful to identify genotypes differing in their response to drought. Utility of the indexes was confirmed by physiological markers of drought tolerance i.e. membrane injury and leaf water status. Variation of the genotypes in biomass and grain yield during drought stress was also verified by clustering methods. Finally, integration of physiological and statistical methods presented in this work, allows to both, indicate that tolerance to drought in wheat has a common genetic background, and select the most diverse genotypes. Based on the results, we recommend a tool for breeders, useful to select the genotypes resistant and sensitive to drought.

A field study was performed on triticale, field bean, maize and amaranth, to find differences between studied species in physiological alterations resulting from progressive response as injuries and/or acclimation to long-term soil drought during various stages of plant development. The measurements of leaf water potential, electrolyte leakage, chlorophyll a fluorescence, leaf gas exchange and yield analysis were done. A special emphasis was given to the measurements of the blue, green, red and far-red fluorescence. Beside, different ratios of the four fluorescence bands (red/far-red: F 690 / F 740 , blue/red: F 440 /F 690 , blue/far-red: F 440 /F 740 and blue/ green: F 440 /F 520 ) were calculated. Based on both yield analysis and measurements of physiological processes it can be suggested that field bean and maize responded with better tolerance to the water deficit in soil due to the activation of photoprotective mechanism probably connected with synthesis of the phenolic compounds, which can play a role of photoprotectors in different stages of plant development. The photosynthetic apparatus of those two species scattered the excess of excitation energy more effectively, partially through its transfer to PS I. In this way, plants avoided irreversible and/or deep injuries to PS II. The observed changes in the red fluorescence emission and in the F v /F m for triticale and amaranth could have occurred due to serious and irreversible photoinhibitory injuries. Probably, field bean and maize acclimatized more effectively to soil drought through the development of effective mechanisms for utilising excitation energy in the photosynthetic conversion of light accompanied by the mechanism protecting the photosynthetic apparatus against the excess of this energy.

No abstract