Molecular Breeding

, Volume 30, Issue 3, pp 1337–1353 | Cite as

Water saving traits co-map with a major terminal drought tolerance quantitative trait locus in pearl millet [Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.]

  • Jana Kholová
  • T. Nepolean
  • C. Tom Hash
  • A. Supriya
  • V. Rajaram
  • S. Senthilvel
  • Aparna Kakkera
  • Rattan Yadav
  • Vincent Vadez


Low transpiration rates in pearl millet under fully irrigated conditions decrease plant water use at vegetative stage and then increase the water availability during grain filling and finally the terminal drought tolerance. Hundred and thirteen recombinant inbred lines developed from a cross between H77/833-2 and PRLT2/89-33 (terminal drought-sensitive × tolerant genotype) were evaluated to map transpiration rate (Tr, a proxy for canopy conductance), organ weights, leaf area and thickness and to study their interactions. Transpiration rate was increased by two H77/833-2 and two PRLT2/89-33 alleles on linkage group (LG) 2, whose importance depended on the vapor pressure deficit. The two H77/833-2 and one PRLT2/89-33 alleles co-mapped to a previously identified major terminal drought tolerance quantitative trait locus (QTL), although in a much smaller genetic interval. The other Tr allele from H77/833-2 also enhanced biomass dry weight and co-located with a formerly identified stover and tillering QTL. Leaf characteristics were linked to two loci on LG7. Plant water use was increased and decreased by different loci combinations for Tr, tillering and leaf characteristics, whose respective importance depended on the environmental conditions. Therefore, different alleles influence plant water use and have close interactions with one another and with the environment, so that different ideotypes for plant water use exist or could be designed from specific allele combinations conferring particular physiological characteristics for specific adaptation to a range of terminal drought conditions.


Transpiration rate (Tr) Vapor pressure deficit (VPD) Leaf development Drought Genotype-by-environment interaction (G × E) QTL interaction 



The senior author was supported by a grant from DFID-BBSRC, Research Contract BB/F004133/1.

Supplementary material

11032_2012_9720_MOESM1_ESM.doc (538 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 538 kb)


  1. Banziger M, Cooper M (2001) Breeding for low input conditions and consequences for participatory plant breeding examples from tropical maize and wheat. Euphytica 122(3):503–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bidinger FR, Hash CT (2004) Pearl millet. In: Nguyen HT, Blum A (eds) Physiology and biotechnology integration for plant breeding. New York, Marcel Dekker, pp 225–270Google Scholar
  3. Bidinger FR, Mahalakshimi V, Durga Prasada Rao G (1987) Assessment of drought resistance in pearl millet [Pennisetum americanum (L.) Leeke]: II. Estimation of genotype response to stress. Aust J Agric Res 38:49–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bidinger FR, Nepolean T, Hash CT, Yadav RS, Howarth CJ (2007) Identification of QTLs for grain yield of pearl millet [Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.] in environments with variable moisture during grain filling. Crop Sci 47(3):969–980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blum A, Mayer J, Golan G (1988) The effect of grain number (sink size) on source activity and its water-relations in wheat. J Exp Bot 39:106–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. CoSTAT, version 6.204 (2009) CoHort software, Monterey, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  7. Devi MJ, Sinclair TR, Vadez V (2010) Genotypic variation in peanut for transpiration response to vapor pressure deficit. Crop Sci 50:191–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fussell LK, Bidinger FR, Bieler P (1991) Crop physiology and breeding for drought tolerance: research and development. Field Crops Res 27:183–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. GenSTAT software (version 12) (2011) Clarendon Press, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  10. Gholipoor M, Vara Prasad PV, Mutava RN, Sinclair TR (2010) Genetic variability of transpiration response to vapour pressure deficit among sorghum genotypes. Field Crops Res 119(1):85–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hackett CA, Broadfoot LB (2003) Effects of genotyping errors, missing values and segregation distortion in molecular marker data on the construction of linkage maps. Heredity 90:33–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hammer GL (2006) Pathways to prosperity: breaking the yield barrier in sorghum. J Austr Inst Agric Sci Technol 19:16–22Google Scholar
  13. Hammer GL, Butler D, Muchow RC, Meinke H (1996) Integrating physiological understanding and plant breeding via crop modelling and optimisation. In: Cooper M, Hammer GL (eds) Plant adaptation and crop improvement. CAB International, ICRISAT and IRRI, Wallingford, pp 419–441Google Scholar
  14. Hash CT, Yadav RS, Cavan GP, Howarth CJ, Liu H, Xiaoquan Q, Sharma A, Kolesnikova-Allen MA, Bidinger FR, Witcombe JR (1999) Marker-assisted backcrossing to improve terminal drought tolerance in pearl millet. In: Ribaut J-M, Poland D (eds) Proceedings of a strategic planning workshop on molecular approaches for the genetic improvement of cereals for stable production in water-limited environments, June 21–25, CIMMIT, El Batan, Mexico, CIMMIT Mexico, D.F. Mexico, pp 114–119Google Scholar
  15. Isobe S, Nakaya A, Tabata S (2007) Genotype matrix mapping. Searching for quantitative trait loci interactions in genetic variation in complex traits. DNA Res 14:217–225PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jones ES, Liu CJ, Gale MD, Hash CT, Withcombe JR (1995) Mapping quantitative trait loci for downy mildew resistance in pearl millet. Theor Appl Genet 91:448–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kholová J, Hash CT, Kakkera A, Kočová M, Vadez V (2010a) Constitutive water conserving mechanisms are correlated with the terminal drought tolerance of pearl millet [Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.]. J Exp Bot 61(2):369–377PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kholová J, Hash CT, Lava Kumar P, Yadav SR, Kočová M, Vadez V (2010b) Terminal drought-tolerant pearl millet [Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.] have high leaf ABA and limit transpiration at high vapor pressure deficit. J Exp Bot 61(5):1431–1440PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kholová J, Zindy P, Hash CT, Kočová M, Vadez V (2010c) Genotypes contrasting for terminal drought tolerance also contrast for the developmental pattern of water use in varying environmental conditions. In: Australian summer grain conference, 21–24. July, Gold Coast, Australia. 2010. Book of abstracts 7 (Peer-reviewed and accepted conference publication)Google Scholar
  20. Kim HK, Luquet D, van Oosterom EJ, Dingkuhn M, Hammer GL (2010a) Regulation of tillering in sorghum: genetic effects. Ann Bot 106:69–78. doi: 10.1093/aob/mcq080 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kim HK, van Oosterom EJ, Dingkuhn M, Luquet D, Hammer GL (2010b) Regulation of tillering in sorghum: environmental effects. Ann Bot 106:57–67. doi: 10.1093/aob/mcq079 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Liu CJ, Witcombe JR, Pittaway TS, Nash M, Hash CT, Busso CS, Gale MD (1994) An RFLP-based genetic map in pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum). Theor Appl Genet 89:481–487Google Scholar
  23. Ludlow MM, Muchow RC (1990) A critical evaluation of traits for improving crop yields in water-limited environments. Adv Agron 43:107–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mahalakshmi V, Bidinger FR, Raju DS (1987) Effect of timing of water deficit in pearl millet [Pennisetum americanum (L.) Leeke]. Field Crops Res 15(3–4):327–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Masle J, Gilmore SR, Farquhar GD (2005) The ERECTA gene regulates plant transpiration efficiency in Arabidopsis. Nature 436:860–870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McKay JK, Richards JH, Nemali KS, Sen S, Mitchell-Olds T, Sandra Boles S, Stahl EA, Wayne T, Juenger TE (2008) Genetics of drought adaptation in Arabidopsis thaliana. II. QTL analysis of a new mapping population, KAS-1 X TSU-1. Evolution 62–12:3014–3026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nepolean T (2002) Identification of QTLs for yield and its component traits, and downy mildew (Sclerospora graminicola [Sacc.] J. Schrot.) resistance in pearl millet [Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br. PhD Thesis, Centre for plant breeding and genetics. Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore—641 003Google Scholar
  28. Nepolean T, Blümmel A, BhaskerRaj AG, Rajaram V, Sentilvel S, Hash CT (2006) QTLs controlling yield and stover quality traits in pearl millet. eSAT Open Access J 2(1):4Google Scholar
  29. Poncet V, Martel E, Allouis S, Devos KM, Lamy F, Sarr A, Robert T (2002) Comparative analysis of QTLs affecting domestication traits between two domesticated × wild pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum L., Poaceae) crosses. Theor Appl Genet 104:965–975PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Qi X, Pittaway TS, Lindup S, Liu H, Wateran E, Padi FK, Hash CT, Zhu J, Gale MD, Devos KM (2004) An integrated genetic map and new set of simple sequence repeat markers for pearl millet, Pennisetum glaucum. Theor Appl Genet 109:1485–1493PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ravi K, Vadez V, Isobe S, Mir RR, Guo Y, Nigam SN, Gowda MVC, Radhakrishnan T, Bertioli DJ, Knapp SJ, Varshney RK (2010) Identification of several small main-effect QTLs and a large number of epistatic QTLs for drought tolerance related traits in groundnut (Arachis hypogea L.). Theor Appl Genet 122:1119–1132. doi: 10.1007/s00122-010-1517-0 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Reymond M, Muller B, Leonardi A, Charcosset A, Tardieu F (2003) Combining quantitative trait loci analysis and an ecophysiological model to analyze the genetic variability of the responses of maize leaf growth to temperature and water deficit. Plant Physiol 131:664–675PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. R software (version 2.11.1) R Development Core Team (2007) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna.
  34. SAS, version 9.2 (2009) SAS Institute Inc. Cary, NC, USAGoogle Scholar
  35. Semagn K, Bjornstad A, Ndjiondjop MN (2006) Principles, requirements and prospects of genetic mapping in plants. Afr J of Biotechnol 5:2569–2587Google Scholar
  36. Serraj R, Hash CT, Rizvi SMH, Sharma A, Yadav RS, Bidinger FR (2005) Recent advances in marker-assisted selection for drought tolerance in pearl millet. Plant Prod Sci 8:334–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sinclair TR, Purcell LC, Sneller CH (2004) Crop transformation and the challenge to increase yield potential. Trends Plant Sci 9:70–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stegmeier WD, Andrews DJ, Rai KN, Hash CT (1998) Pearl millet parental lines 843A and 843B. International Sorghum Millet Newslett 39:129–130Google Scholar
  39. Supriya A, Senthilvel S, Nepolean T, Eshwar K, Rajaram V, Shaw R, Hash CT, Kilian A, Yadav RC, Narasu ML (2011) Development of a molecular linkage map of pearl millet integrating DArT and SSR markers. Theor Appl Genet 123:239–250PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tardieu F, Reymond M, Hamard P, Granier C, Muller B (2000) Spatial distributions of expansion rate, cell division rate and cell size in maize leaves: a synthesis of effect of soil water status, evaporative demand and temperature. J Exp Bot 51:1505–1514PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tsuge T, Tsukaya H, Uchimiya H (1996) Two independent and polarized processes of cell elongation regulate leaf blade expansion in Arabidopsis thaliana (L.) Heynh. Development 122:1589–1600PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Tsukaya H (2005) Leaf shape: genetic controls and environmental factors. Int J of Dev Biol 49:547–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tuberosa R, Salvi S (2007) Genomics approaches to improve drought tolerance in crops. Trends Plant Sci 11:412–415Google Scholar
  44. Utz HF, Melchinger AE (1996) PLABQTL: a program for composite interval mapping of QTL. Inst. Plant Breed., Seed Sci., Pop. Genet., Univ. of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  45. Vadez V, Warkentin T, Asseng S, Ratnakumar P, Rao KPC, Gaur PM, Munier-Jolain N, Larmure A, Voisin AS, Sharma HC, Krishnamurthy L, Zaman-Allah M (2012) Adapting grain legumes to climatic changes: major issues to tackle. Agron Sust Dev 32:31–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Yadav RS, Hash CT, Bidinger FR, Cavan GP, Howart CJ (2002) Quantitative trait loci associated with traits determining grain and stover yield in pearl millet under terminad drought-stress conditions. Theor Appl Genet 104:67–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Yadav RS, Bidinger FR, Hash CT, Yadav YP, Yadav OP, Bhatnagar SK, Howarth CJ (2003) Mapping and characterization of QTL × E interactions for traits determining grain and stover yield in pearl millet. Theor Appl Genet 106:512–520PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Yadav RS, Hash CT, Bidinger FR, Devos KM, Howarth CJ (2004) Genomic regions associated with grain yield and aspects of post-flowering drought tolerance in pearl millet across stress environments and testers background. Euphytica 136:265–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zaman-Allah M, Jenkinson DM, Vadez V (2011) A conservative pattern of water use, rather than deep or profuse rooting, is critical for the terminal drought tolerance of chickpea. J Exp Bot 62:4239–4252PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jana Kholová
    • 1
  • T. Nepolean
    • 2
  • C. Tom Hash
    • 1
  • A. Supriya
    • 1
    • 4
  • V. Rajaram
    • 1
  • S. Senthilvel
    • 1
  • Aparna Kakkera
    • 1
  • Rattan Yadav
    • 3
  • Vincent Vadez
    • 1
  1. 1.International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT)PatancheruIndia
  2. 2.Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI)New DelhiIndia
  3. 3.Institute of Biological, Environmental and Rural SciencesAberystwyth UniversityGogerddan, AberystwythUK
  4. 4.Department of Biotechnology and Molecular Biology, College of Basic Sciences and HumanitiesChaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural UniversityHisarIndia

Personalised recommendations