Waterlogging at tillering affects spike and spikelet formation in wheat

Abstract

Waterlogging stress is one of the limiting factors influencing wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) production. Wheat tolerance to waterlogging is related to the duration of the waterlogging event, the crop development stage in which waterlogging occurs, and the sensitivity of genotype. In this paper we investigated the impact of eight waterlogging durations (from 0 to 60 days) imposed at 3-leaf and 4-leaf growth stages (~30 and 40 days after sowing) on grain yield, grain yield components, straw and root dry weight and nitrogen concentration of grain, straw, and roots of two cultivars of wheat. The results showed that of the two cultivars, one (cv. Blasco) was tolerant to waterlogging and the other (cv. Aquilante) was sensitive, thus confirming that there are high genotypic differences in terms of tolerance to waterlogging in wheat. The sensitive cultivar showed a significant reduction in grain yield and straw and root dry weight only when waterlogging was prolonged for more than 20 days. Waterlogging depressed the grain yield of the sensitive cultivar, slowing tiller formation and consequently preventing many culms from producing spikes. It slowed down spikelet formation, consequently reducing the number of spikelets per spike, and reduced floret formation per spikelet, thus reducing the number of kernels per spike.

Waterlogging differentially affects yield and its components in wheat, barley, rapeseed and field pea depending on the timing of occurrence

“…70%-80% of controls during tillering) (Herzog, Striker, Colmer, & Pedersen, 2016;de San Celedonio, Abeledo, & Miralles, 2014). Also, the effect of waterlogging on the components of yield differs between these two cereals: in wheat, waterlogging mostly reduces the grain number per spike (due to a lesser spikelet fertility), whereas in barley it constrains the number of spikes per plant (Arduini, Orlandi, Pampana, & Masoni, 2016;de San Celedonio et al, 2014). Similarly, waterlogging affects seed production differentially along the life cycle in rapeseed.…”

“…In summary, wheat would have better chances of producing an acceptable grain production with transient waterlogging of up to two weeks in either early or late plant stages; barley and rapeseed can generate acceptable yield if waterlogged early but are susceptible to yield loss if waterlogging occurs during the reproductive stage; and field pea is not suitable for areas prone to waterlogging. Lastly, it should be noted that genotypic variation for waterlogging tolerance can exist within each species (e.g Arduini et al, 2016, Collaku & Harrison, 2002Masoni et al, 2016, Pang et al, 2004. Xu et al, 2018 for rapeseed;…”

Effects of waterlogging stress on plant-pathogen interaction between <i>Fusarium poae</i> and wheat/ barley

“…GW, an important determinant of milling quality, was reduced by W treatments depending on S and Fusarium presence. Unlike, Arduini et al (2016) showed that the mean kernel weight in two wheat cultivars evaluated was not affected by waterlogging.…”

“…One of the most common abiotic stress factors that affects crops is waterlogging, which is responsible for losses representing 15-20% of the total area sown to wheat each year worldwide (Setter & Waters, 2003). This environmental event takes place when water excess saturates the soil by inadequate soil drainage or high rainfall resulting in anoxic and hypoxia within roots with consequences in the shoots (Arduini, Orlandi, Pampana, & Masoni, 2016;Herzog, Striker, Colmer, & Pedersen, 2016). Huang, Johnson, Nesmith, and Bridges (1994) evaluated several wheat genotypes under hypoxia and observed that the reduction of O2 enhances the aerenchyma formation in roots to improve the internal O2 diffusion in plants as a mechanism for hypoxia tolerance.…”

Identifying the Critical Stage Near Anthesis for Waterlogging on Wheat Yield and Its Components in the Yangtze River Basin, China

“…Moreover, Dickin et al [10] considered that vigorous growth after waterlogging conducted at the seedling stage eliminated the damages and that the final yield was not negatively affected. However, it has also been suggested that a full recovery is not possible, due to a reduction in the establishment of large-spikes [25,26]. These results suggest that the degree of recovery after waterlogging profoundly affected the potential of yield loss.…”