Phenotypic and genotypic characterization of salt-tolerant wheat genotypes
To determine limits of tolerance, provide information about genetic diversity, and explore potential as progenitors for a salt-tolerant wheat improvement program, we collected several landraces and genotypes reputed to be salt-tolerant. Salt tolerance was tested by irrigation with a diluted solution of seawater with 12 dS.m−1 electrical conductivity for two years. Phenotypic parameters of percent of emergence, days to flowering to spike emergence, and physiological maturity were not significantly affected. Leaf area was sensitive to salt stress and inhibited about 30%. Plant height was inhibited 30%, while spike length and number of grains per spike were not. Total yield of Shorawaki and Kharchia landraces confirmed their reputation as salt-tolerant. Cultivars Mepuchi, Pericu, Calafia, WH157, and SNH-1 were inhibited at a moderate level of tolerance; cultivars Cochimí, Lu26S, and KRL 1–4 were inhibited, as was the control cultivar Oasis by up to 50%. To amplify microsatellites from genomes A, B, and D, 33 pairs of primers were used. The microsatellite WMS169-6A was highly polymorphic, with 10 different alleles distinguishing the genotype set. Also, the short arm of chromosome 4D microsatellites were amplified and found to be monomorphic, which suggests highly conserved alleles. The other microsatellites had variable polymorphism. In total, 120 alleles were obtained and used to define genetic diversity. The resulting dendrogram showed that landraces Shorawaki and Kharchia are distantly grouped from all other cultivars, as well as the cultivar Chinese Spring. Strikingly, KRL1–4, a derivative of Kharchia, did not show a close relationship to its source. The geographic origin did not influence pair-wise combinations. However, pedigree did influence pair-wise combinations.
Keywordswheat salt tolerance microsatellites
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Díaz De León, J.L., Garibaldi-Meza, C. 1995. Potential practical application of in vitro culture of mature wheat embryos. Cereal Res. Commun. 23: 19–25.Google Scholar
- Díaz De León, J.L., Carrillo-Laguna, M., Rajaram, S., Mujeeb-Kazi, A. 1995. Rapid in vitro screening of salt tolerant wheats. Cereal Res. Commun. 23: 383–389.Google Scholar
- Díaz De León, J.L., Escoppinichi, R., Zavala-Fonseca, R., Mujeeb-Kazi, A. 2000a. A sea-water based salinity testing protocol and the performance of a tester set of accumulated wheat germplasm. Annu. Wheat Newsl. 46: 88–90.Google Scholar
- Díaz De León, J.L., Zavala-Fonseca, R. Escoppinichi, R., Mujeeb-Kazi, A. 2000b. Identification of four bread cultivars tolerant to salinity following sea water field evaluations as varietal candidates for Baja California, México. Annu. Wheat Newsl. 46: 90–91.Google Scholar
- Díaz De León, J.L., Escoppinichi, R., Molina, E., López-Cesati, J., Delgado, R., Mujeeb-Kazi, A. 2001. Salt tolerant bread wheat germplasm. Annu. Wheat Newsl. 47: 117–118.Google Scholar
- Díaz De León, J.L., Zavala-Fonseca, R., Escoppinichi, R., Mujeeb-Kazi, A. 2000. Identification of four bread cultivars tolerant to salinity following sea-water field evaluations as varietal candidates for Baja California, México. Annu. Wheat Newsl. 46: 90–91.Google Scholar
- Mujeeb-Kazi, A., Díaz De León, J.L. 2002. Conventional and alien genetic diversity for salt tolerant wheats: Focus on current status and new germplasm development. In: Ahmad, R., Malik, K.A. (eds.) Prospects for Saline Agriculture. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands. pp. 69–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Pritchard, D.J., Hollington, P.A., Davies, W.P., Gorham, J., Díaz De León, J.L., Mujeeb-Kazi, A. 2001. Synthetic hexaploid wheats (2n = 6x = 42, AABBDD) and their salt tolerance potential. Annu. Wheat Newsl. 47: 103–104.Google Scholar
- Pritchard, D.J., Hollington, P.A., Davies, W.P., Gorham J., Díaz De León, J.L., Mujeeb-Kazi, A. 2002. K+/Na+ discrimination in synthetic hexaploid wheat lines: Transfer of the trait for K+/Na+ discrimination for Aegilops tauschii to Triticum turgidum. Cereal Res. Commun. 30: 261–267.Google Scholar