Advertisement

Euphytica

, 215:163 | Cite as

Physiological aspects of inter-specific gene introgression to improve drought tolerance in safflower

  • Soheila Espanani
  • Mohammad Mahdi MajidiEmail author
  • Ghodratollah Saeidi
  • Hossein Alaei
Article
  • 4 Downloads

Abstract

Wild introgression may play an important role to improve drought tolerance of safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.). Response of populations derived from inter-specific hybridization to drought stress in terms of physiological traits and the possibility of selection of superior lines are poorly understood in safflower. Inter-specific hybridizations were performed to produce three populations of TP (C. tinctorius × C. palaestinus), PO (C. palaestinus × C. oxyacanthus), and TO (C. tinctorius × C. oxyacanthus). In total, a number of 189 lines derived from hybridization along with their parents were evaluated in the field in F3 (2015), F4 (2016) and F5 (2017) generations under normal and drought stress conditions. The results indicated that under drought stress condition, C. tinctorius and C. palaestinus had higher malondialdehyde and proline content, while the highest relative water content was belonged to C. oxyacanthus. Consequently, various inter-specific populations behaved differently to decrease the effect of drought stress. TP and TO with C. tinctorius as their common parent, had higher seed yield and seed yield component than PO population. TP population was the most tolerant population due to its highest stress tolerance index, while TO population showed the highest seed yield stability under deficit irrigation. The results indicated that gene introgression from wild relatives into cultivated safflower gene pool increased genetic variation and provided the chance of selection of superior drought tolerant genotypes for future breeding programs.

Keywords

Drought Inter-specific populations Safflower Wild relative 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Iran National Science Foundation (INSF) to support this work.

Supplementary material

10681_2019_2477_MOESM1_ESM.docx (129 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 128 kb)

References

  1. Abbasi AR, Sarvestani R, Mohammadi B, Baghery A (2014) Drought stress-induced changes at physiological and biochemical levels in some common vetch (Vicia sativa L.). Genotypes. J Agric Sci Technol 16:505–516Google Scholar
  2. Allen RG, Pereira LS, Raes D, Smith M (1998) Crop evapotranspiration: guidelines for computing crop water requirements. Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 56. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  3. Araus JL, Slafer GA, Reynolds MP, Royo C (2002) Plant breeding and water relations in C3 cereals: what should we breed for? Ann Bot 89:925–940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ashri A, Efron Y (1964) Inheritance studies with fertile interspecific hybrids of three Carthamus L. species. Crop Sci 4:510–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ashri A, Knowles PF (1960) Cytogenetics of safflower (Carthamus L.) species and their hybrids. Agron J 52:11–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bänziger M, Edmeades GO, Beck D, Bellon M (2000) Breeding for drought and nitrogen stress tolerance in maize. CIMMYT, MexicoGoogle Scholar
  7. Bassiri A (1977) Identification and polymorphism of cultivars and wild ecotypes of safflower based on isoenzyme patterns. Euphytica 26:709–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blum A (2011) Plant breeding for water limited environments. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bos I, Caligari P (2007) Selection methods in plant breeding, 2nd edn. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  10. Boudry P, Mörchen M, Saumitou-Laprade P, Vernet P, Van Dijk H (1993) The origin and evolution of weed beets: consequences for the breeding and release of herbicide-resistant transgenic sugar beets. Theor Appl Genet 87:471–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bouslama M, Schapaugh WT (1984) Stress tolerance in soybean. Part 1: evaluation of three screening techniques for heat and drought tolerance. Crop Sci 24:933–937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bowles VG, Mayerhofer R, Davis C, Good AG, Hall JC (2010) A Phylogenetic investigation of Carthamus combining sequence and microsatellite data. Plant Syst Evol 287:85–97.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00606-010-0292-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chapman MA, Burke JM (2007) DNA sequence diversity and the origin of cultivated safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.; Asteraceae). BMC Plant Biol 7:60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Coşge B, Gürbüz B, Kiralan M (2007) Oil content and fatty acid composition of some Safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.) varieties sown in spring and winter. Int J Nat Eng Sci 1(3):11–15Google Scholar
  15. Dajue L, Mundel HH (1996) Safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.). Promoting the conservation and use of underutilized and neglected crops. Monogr. 7. Institut fur Pflanzengenetik and Kulturpflanzenzuchtung (IPK), Gatersleben. Germany and International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, RomeGoogle Scholar
  16. Deshpande RB (1952) Wild safflower (Carthamus oxyacanthus Bieb.) a possible oilseed crop for the desert and arid regions. Indian J Genet Plant Breed 12:10–14Google Scholar
  17. Ebrahimi F, Majidi MM, Arzani A, Mohammadi-Nejad Gh (2016) Oil and seed yield stability in a worldwide collection of safflower under arid environments of Iran. Euphytica 212:131–144.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-016-1779-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ebrahimiyan M, Majidi MM, Mirlohi A, Gheysari A (2012) Drought tolerance indices in a tall fescue population and its polycross progenies. Crop Pasture Sci 63:360–369.  https://doi.org/10.1071/CP11279 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ebrahimiyan M, Majidi MM, Mirlohi A, Noroozi A (2013) Physiological traits related to drought tolerance in tall fescue. Euphytica 190:401–414.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-012-0808-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Espanani S, Majidi MM, Saeidi G, Alaei H, Rezaei V (2019) Wide hybridization and introgression breeding in safflower: effectiveness of different selection methods. Plant Breed.  https://doi.org/10.1111/pbr.12713 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Falconer DS, Mackay TFC (1996) Introduction to quantitative genetics. Longman, HarlowGoogle Scholar
  22. Fernandez GCJ (1992) Effective selection criteria for assessing plant stress tolerance. In: Proceeding of symposium. Taiwan, 13–16 Aug. Chapter 25, pp 257–270Google Scholar
  23. Garcıa-Valenzuela X, Garcıa-Moya E, Rascon-Cruz Q, Herrera-Estrella L, Aguado-Santacruz GA (2005) Chlorophyll accumulation is enhanced by osmotic stress in graminaceous chlorophyllic cells. Plant Physiol 162:650–661.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jplph.2004.09.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jain M, Mathur G, Koul S, Sarin NB (2001) Ameliorative effects of proline on salt stress induced lipid peroxidation in cell lines of groundnut (Arachis hypogea L.). Plant Cell Rep 20:463–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jiang Y, Huang B (2001) Drought and heat stress injury to two cool-season turfgrasses in relation to antioxidant metabolism and lipid peroxidation contribution. Crop Sci 41:436–442.  https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2001.412436x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kearsy MJ, Pooni HS (1996) The genetical analysis of quantitative traits. Chapman & Hall Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Knowles P, Ashri A (1995) Safflower: Carthamus tinctorius (Compositae). In: Smartt J, Simmonds NW (eds) Evolution of crop plants. Longman, Harlow, pp 47–50Google Scholar
  28. Lafitte R, Blum A, Atlin G (2003) Using secondary traits to help identify drought tolerant genotypes. In: Fischer KS, Lafitte R, Fukai S, Atlin G, Hardy B (eds) Breeding rice for drought-prone environments. The International Rice Research Institute, Los Banos, pp 37–48Google Scholar
  29. Li J, Cang Z, Jiao F, Bai X, Zhang D, Zhai R (2015) Influence of drought stress on photosynthetic characteristics and protective enzymes of potato at seedling stage. J Saudi Soc Agr Sci 1–7Google Scholar
  30. Majidi MM, Zadhoush S (2014) Molecular and morphological variation in a world-wide collection of safflower. Crop Sci 54:2109–2119.  https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2013.12.0850 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Majidi MM, Mirlohi A, Amini F (2009) Genetic variation, heritability and correlations of agro-morphological traits in tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea Schreb.). Euphytica 167:323–331.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-009-9887-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Majidi MM, Tavakoli V, Mirlohi A, Sabzalian MR (2011) Wild safflower species (Carthamus oxyacanthus Bieb.): a possible source of drought tolerance for arid environments. Aust J Crop Sci 5:1055–1063Google Scholar
  33. Nazari M, Mirlohi A, Majidi MM (2016) Effects of drought stress on oil characteristics of carthamus species. J Am Oil Chem Soc 94:247–256.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11746-016-2938-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nguyen HT, Sleper DA (1983) Genetic variability of seed yield and productive characters in tall fescue. Crop Sci 23:621–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Origin (2009) OriginLab Corporation, www.OriginLab.com. Northampton, MA, USA
  36. Panetsos CA, Baker H (1967) The origin of variation in “wild” Raphanus sativus in California. Genetica 38:243–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pearl SA, Burke JM (2014) Genetic diversity in Carthamus tinctorius (Asteraceae; safflower), an underutilized oilseed crop. Am J Bot 101:1640–1650.  https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.1400079 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Royo C, García del Moral LF, Slafer G, Nachit MM, Araus JL (2005) Selection tools for improving yield-associated physiological traits. In: Royo C, Nachit MN, Di Fonzo N, Araus JL, Pfeiffer WH, Slafer GA (eds) Durum wheat breeding: current approaches and future strategies. Haworth Press, New York, pp 56–598Google Scholar
  39. Sabzalian MR, Saeidi G, Mirlohi A (2008) Oil content and fatty acid composition in seeds of three safflower species. J Am Oil Chem Soc 85:717–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. SAS (2002) SAS institute SAS/STAT users guide. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NCGoogle Scholar
  41. Smirnoff N (1995) Antioxidant systems and plant response to the environment. In: Smirnoff N (ed) Environment and plant metabolism: flexibility and acclimation. Bios Scientific Publishers, Oxford, pp 217–243Google Scholar
  42. Tian S, Mao X, Zhang H, Chen S, Zhai C, Yang S, Jing R (2013) Cloning and characterization of TaSnRK2.3, a novel SnRK2 gene in common wheat. J Exp Bot 64:2063–2080.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/ert072 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Yang J, Zhang J, Wang Z, Zhu Q, Liu L (2001) Water deficit–induced senescence and its relationship to the remobilization of pre- stored carbon in wheat during grain filling. Agron J l93:196–206.  https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2001.931196x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Yari P, Keshtkar AH, Sepehri A (2014) Evaluation of water stress effect on growth and yield of spring safflower. Plant Prod Technol 4:101–117Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, College of AgricultureIsfahan University of TechnologyIsfahanIran

Personalised recommendations