Advertisement

Agro-morphological characterization of 31 barley accessions after NaCl treatment

  • Z. BarhoumiEmail author
Original Paper
  • 32 Downloads

Abstract

The current study reported the agro-morphological evaluation of 31 barley accessions for salt tolerance at the maturity stage. Plant dry weight, tiller number, tiller length, spike number, spike length, awns length, grain number per row, grain number per spike, grain number per plant, grain weight, and thousand-kernel weight were determined after long-term salt treatments (0, 100, and 200 mM NaCl). Accessions, having different responses to salinity, were assessed through eleven agro-morphological traits. Agglomerative hierarchical classification showed three clusters. Among the tolerant cluster, Kebilli 2 and Tozeur 2 appeared the most promising accessions, and they showed the highest dry weights under control and saline conditions. Equally, they showed the most productive accessions in terms of spike number per plant, grain number per plant, and total grains weight per plant under control and salt conditions. Principal component analysis revealed that for the promising accessions, Kebilli 2 and Tozeur 2, the first both factorials explaining more than 72% of variance were related to plant dry weight, total grain weight, and spike and awn lengths. Therefore, Kebilli 2 and Tozeur 2 are highly recommended for culture in saline soils and use in hybridization programs to develop salinity-tolerant varieties.

Keywords

Barley accessions Agro-morphological characterization Salinity tolerance Screening 

Notes

Acknowledgment

This work was financially supported by NEPAD-NABnet (New partnership for Africans Development—North Africa Barley—net) project and the Tunisian ministry of higher education.

Supplementary material

13762_2018_2086_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (67 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (XLSX 67 kb)
13762_2018_2086_MOESM2_ESM.jpg (98 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (JPEG 97 kb)
13762_2018_2086_MOESM3_ESM.sav (3 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (SAV 3 kb)

References

  1. Ahmad P, Ashraf M, Younis M, Hu X, Kumar A, Akram NA, Al-Qurainy F (2012) Role of transgenic plants in agriculture and biopharming. Biotechnol Adv 30:524–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahmadizadeh M, Nori A, Shahbazi H, Habibpour M (2011) Effects of drought stress on some agronomic and morphological traits of durum wheat (Triticum durum Desf.) landraces under greenhouse condition. Afr J Biotechnol 10:14097–14107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Akram MS, Ashraf M, Akram NA (2009) Effectiveness of potassium sulfate in mitigating salt induced adverse effects on different physio-biochemical attributes in sun flower (Helianthus annuus L.). Flora 204:471–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ali Y, Aslam Z, Ashraf MY, Tahir GR (2004) Effect of salinity on chlorophyll concentration, leaf area, yield and yield components of rice genotypes grown under saline environment. Int J Environ Sci Technol 1:221–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baum M, Grando S, Ceccarelli S (2004) Localization of quantitative trait loci for dry land characters in barley by linkage mapping. Challenges and Strategies for Dryland Agriculture. CSSA Spec Publ 32:191–202Google Scholar
  6. Ben Naceur A, Chaabane R, El-Faleh M, Abdelly C, Ramla D, Nada A, Sakr M, Ben Naceur M (2013) Genetic diversity analysis of North Africa’s barley using SSR markers. J Genet Eng Biotechnol 10:13–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chamekh Z, Karmous C, Ayadi Sahli A, Hammami Z, Belhaj Fraj M, Benaissa N, Trifa Y, Slim-Amara H (2015) Stability analysis of yield component traits in 25 durum wheat (Triticum durum Desf.) genotypes under contrasting irrigation water salinity. Agric Water Manag 152:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen Z, Newman I, Zhou M, Mendham N, Zhang G, Shabala S (2005) Screening plants for salt tolerance by measuring K1 flux: a case study for barley. Plant Cell Environ 28:1230–1246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Falakboland Z, Zhou M, Zeng F, Kiani-Pouya A, Shabala L, Shabala S (2017) Plant ionic relation and whole-plant physiological responses to waterlogging, salinity and their combination in barley. Funct Plant Biol 44:941–953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. FAO (1999) FAO Yearbook Production 53Google Scholar
  11. Forster BP, Ellis RP, Thomas WTB, Newton AC, Tuberosa R, This D, El-Enein RA, Bahri MH, Ben-Salem M (2000) The development and application of molecular markers for abiotic stress tolerance in barley. J Exp Bot 51:19–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Francois LE, Maas EV (1994) Crop response and management on salt affected soils. In: Pessarakli N (ed) Handbook of plant and crop stress. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 149–180Google Scholar
  13. Girma BT, Mohammed Ali H, Gebeyaneh AA (2017) Effect of salinity on final growth stage of different rice (Oryza sativa L.) genotypes. Asian J Agric Res 11:1–9Google Scholar
  14. Harlan JR (1995) Barley. In: Smartt J, Simmonds NW (eds) Evolution of crop plants, 2nd edn. Longman, London, pp 140–147Google Scholar
  15. Harper JL, Lovell PH, Moore KG (1970) The shapes and sizes of seeds. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 1:327–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hasanuzzaman Md, Shabala L, Zhou M, Brodribb TJ, Corkrey R, Shabala S (2018) Factors determining stomatal and non-stomatal (residual) transpiration and their contribution towards salinity tolerance in contrasting barley genotypes. Environ Exp Bot 153:10–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hewitt EJ (1966) Sand and water culture methods used in the study of plant nutrition. Commonwealth Bureaux of Horticulture Plantation Crops, MaidstoneGoogle Scholar
  18. Hirasawa T, Sato K, Yamaguchi M, Narita R, Kodama A, Adachi S, Ookawa T, Sato K (2017) Differences in dry matter production, grain production, and photosynthetic rate in barley cultivars under long-term salinity. Plant Prod Sci 20:288–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Javid MG, Sorooshzadeh A, Moradi F, Sanavy SAMM, Allahdadi I (2011) The role of phytohormones in alleviating salt stress in crop plants. Aust J Crop Sci 5:726–734Google Scholar
  20. Karppinen S, Myllymaki O, Forssell P, Poutanen K (2003) Fructan content of rye and rye products. Cereal Chem 80:168–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Katerji N, Mastrorilli M, van Hoorn JW, Lahmer FZ, Hamdy A, Oweis T (2009) Durum wheat and barley productivity in saline-drought environments. Eur J Agron 31:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kizis D, Pages M (2002) Maize DRE-binding proteins DBF1 and DBF2 are involved in rab17 regulation through the drought responsive element in an ABA-dependent pathway. Plant J 30:679–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lin JL, Kiladis GN, Mapes BE, Weickmann KM, Sperber KR, Lin W, Wheeler MC, Schubert SD, Genio AD, Donner LJ, Emori S, Gueremy JF, Hourdin F, Rasch PJ, Roeckner E, Scinocca JF (2006) Tropical intra seasonal variability in 14 IPCC AR4 climate models. Part I: Convective signals. J Clim 19:2665–2690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lopez-Castaneda C, Richards RA (1994) Variation in temperate cereals in rainfed environments. III. Water use and water-use efficiency. Field Crops Res 39:85–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Maas EV, Poss JA (1989) Salt sensitivity of wheat at various growth stages. Irrig Sci 10:29–40Google Scholar
  26. Mano Y, Takeda K (1998) Genetic resources of salt tolerance in wild Hordeum species. Euphytica 103:137–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Marok M, Tarrago L, Ksas B, Henri P, Abrous-Belbachir O, Havaux M, Rey P (2013) A drought-sensitive barley variety displays oxidative stress and strongly increased contents in low-molecular weight antioxidant compounds during water deficit compared to a tolerant variety. J Plant Physiol 170:633–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Meng Y, Ren P, Ma X, Li B, Bao Q, Zhang H, Wang J, Bai J, Wang H (2016) GGEBiplot-based evaluation of yield performance of barley genotypes across different environments in China. J Agric Sci Technol 18:533–543Google Scholar
  29. Munns R, Tester M (2008) Mechanisms of salinity tolerance. Annu Rev Plant Biol 59:651–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nevo E, Chen G (2010) Drought and salt tolerances in wild relatives for wheat and barley improvement. Plant, Cell Environ 33:670–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Racotomalala R (2005) TANAGRA: a free software for research and academic purposes. In: Proceedings of EGC’2005, RNTI-E-3, vol 2, pp 697–702Google Scholar
  32. Richards RA (1992) Increasing salinity tolerance of grain crops: is it worthwhile? Plant Soil 146:89–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shakeri E, Emam Y, Tabatabaei SA, Sepaskhah AR (2017) Evaluation of grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.) lines/cultivars under salinity stress using tolerance indices. Int J Plant Prod 11:101–116Google Scholar
  34. Slavich PG, Read BJ, Cullis BR (1990) Yield response of barley germplasm to field variation in salinity quantified using the Em-38. Aust J Exp Agric 30:551–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tabatabaei S, Ehsanzadeh P (2016) Photosynthetic pigments, ionic and antioxidative behaviour of hulled tetraploid wheat in response to NaCl. Photosyntheica 54:340–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tester M, Davenport R (2003) Na+ tolerance and Na+ transport in higher plants. Ann Bot 91:503–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ward JH (1963) Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. J Am Stat Assoc 58:236–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zohary D, Hopf M (1988) Domestication of plants in the old world. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Islamic Azad University (IAU) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Biology DepartmentKing Khalid UniversityAbhaKingdom of Saudi Arabia
  2. 2.Laboratoire des Plantes Extrêmophiles, Centre de Biotechnologie de Borj-CedriaUniversité de Tunis El ManarHammam-LifTunisia

Personalised recommendations