Phenotyping Horticultural Crops for Abiotic Stress Tolerance

  • Nadipynayakanahally Krishnamurthy Srinivasa Rao
  • Ramanna Hunashikatti Laxman


Plants’ growth and development is dependent on the environmental conditions, and they require optimum conditions not only at critical phenological stages but during the entire growth cycle. Crops must be grown in optimum environmental conditions to attain highest genetic yield potential, which is seldom attained due to occurrence of abiotic stresses at critical stages in field conditions. The adverse impacts of abiotic stresses have always challenged the farmers and scientists alike to devise adaptation strategies to overcome adverse impacts and sustain productivity. Plants, through constant and complex interaction between genotype and environment, have developed inherent ability to survive adverse environmental conditions. To unravel this, extensive efforts have been made to characterize crop plants through screening for abiotic stress tolerance and elucidate the biochemical and physiological mechanisms imparting such tolerance. Modern biology has attempted to understand how genotypes manifest to specific phenotypic characteristics, and efforts are also underway in development of cultivars with useful characteristics. The assessment of phenotype from genotype of a plant poses many difficulties due to contribution of large number of genes to the plant’s phenotype under various environmental conditions. However, the concerted efforts by scientists have enabled to identify traits for large-scale screening of germplasm both under controlled and field conditions. Plant phenotyping requires the availability of a diverse germplasm, and the simulation of a target environment that crop is expected to experience under field conditions. The simulated environment needs to be dynamic or constant depending on the need. Temporal and spatial changes during the crop growth also need to be kept in mind. Ultimately, the phenotyping efforts need to comprehensively encompass the traits desired to overcome the adverse effects of abiotic stresses under field conditions. Now, phenotyping has been taken to new level using high-throughput phenotyping combining imaging and information technologies. The phenotyping options available for abiotic stress tolerance for horticultural crops are discussed here.


Abiotic Stress Stomatal Conductance Critical Stage Abiotic Stress Tolerance Horticultural Crop 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Aazami MA, Torabi M, Jalili E (2010) In vitro response of promising tomato genotypes for tolerance to osmotic stress. Afr J Biotech 9(26):4014–4017Google Scholar
  2. Ashraf MY, Ashraf M, Sarwar G (2005) Response of okra (Hibiscus esculentus) to drought and salinity stresses. In: Dris R (ed) Vegetables: growing environment and mineral nutrition. WFL Publisher, Helsinki, pp 166–177Google Scholar
  3. Bananuka JA, Rubaihayo PR, Tenywa MM (1999) Reactions of Musa genotypes to drought stress. Afr Crop Sci J 7(4):333–339Google Scholar
  4. Blum A, Mayer J, Gozlan G (1982) Infrared thermal sensing of plant canopies as a screening technique for dehydration avoidance in wheat. Field Crop Res 5:137–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bramley H, Turner DW, Tyerman SD, Turner NC (2007) Water flow in the roots of crop species: the influence of root structure, aquaporin activity, and waterlogging. Adv Agron 96:133–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chai TT, Fadzillah NM, Kusnan M, Mahmood M (2005) Water stress-induced oxidative damage and antioxidant responses in micropropagated banana plantlets. Biol Plant 49(1):153–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chandrashekar N, Ravishankar KV, Laxman RH, Rekha A, Swarupa V (2012) Physiological and biochemical changes during moisture stress in banana. Asian J Bio Sci 7(1):1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chaves MM, Maroco JP, Pereira JS (2003) Understanding plant response to drought: from genes to the whole plant. Funct Plant Biol 30:239–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chaves MM, Oliveira MM (2004) Mechanisms underlying plant resilience to water deficits: prospects for water-saving agriculture. J Exp Bot 55(407):2365–2384PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cocuron JC, Lerouxel O, Drakakaki G, Alonso AP, Liepman AH, Keegstra K, Raikhel N, Wilkerson CG (2007) A gene from the cellulose synthase-like C family encodes a β-1,4 glucan synthase. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:8550–8555PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Condon AG, Richards RA, Rebetzke GJ, Farquhar GD (2002) Improving intrinsic water-use efficiency and crop yield. Crop Sci 42:122–131PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Condon AG, Richards RA, Rebetzke GJ, Farquhar GD (2004) Breeding for high water-use efficiency. J Exp Bot 55:2447–2460PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cramer GR (2010) Abiotic stress & plant responses from the whole vine to the genes. Aust J Grape Wine Res 16:86–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ekanayake IJ, Ortiz R, Vuylsteke DR (1998) Leaf stomatal conductance and stomatal morphology of Musa germplasm. Euphytica 99(3):221–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. El Tohamy W, Schnitzler WH, El Behairy U, Singer SM (1999) Effect of long-term drought stress on growth and yield of bean plants (Phaseolus vulgaris L). Angewandte-Botanik 73(5/6):173–177Google Scholar
  16. Fitter AH, Hay RKM (2002) Environmental physiology of plants, 3rd edn. Academic, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  17. Furbank TR, Tester M (2011) Phenomics – technologies to relieve the phenotyping bottleneck. Trends Plant Sci 16(12):635–644PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gibberd MR, Walker RR, Blackmore DH, Condon AG (2001) Transpiration efficiency and carbon-isotope discrimination of grapevines grown under well-watered conditions in either glasshouse or vineyard. Aust J Grape Wine Res 7(3):110–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grant OM, Chaves MM, Jones HG (2006) Optimizing thermal imaging as a technique for detecting stomatal closure induced by drought stress under greenhouse conditions. Physiol Plant 127:507–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grant OM, Tronina L, Jones HG, Chaves MM (2007) Exploring thermal imaging variables for the detection of stress responses in grapevine under different irrigation regimes. J Expl Bot 58:815–825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grzesiak S, Grzesiak M, Hura T (1999) Effects of soil drought during the vegetative phase of seedling growth on the uptake of 14CO2 and the accumulation and translocation of 14C in cultivars of field bean (Vicia faba L. Var. minor) and field pea (Pisum sativum L.) of different drought tolerance. J Agron Crop Sci 183(3):183–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gutierrez M, Reynolds MP, Raun WR, Stone ML, Klatt AR (2010) Spectral water indices for assessing yield in elite bread wheat genotypes grown under well irrigated, water defi cit stress, and high temperature conditions. Crop Sci 50:197–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hammer GL, Sinclair TR, Chapman SC, van Oosterom E (2004) On systems thinking, systems biology, and the in silico plant. Plant Physiol 134:909–911PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hazra P, Ansary SH, Dutta AK, Balacheva E, Atanassova B (2009) Breeding tomato tolerant to high temperature stress. Acta Hortic 830:241–248Google Scholar
  25. Indian Horticulture Data base (2010) National horticulture board. Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Government of IndiaGoogle Scholar
  26. IPCC (2007) The physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the inter governmental panel on climate change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, J., Chen, M. Manning, Z, Chen, M., Marquis, K. B, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK/New York, p 996Google Scholar
  27. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2008) Climate change and water. In: Bates BC, Kundzewicz ZW, Wu S, Palutikof JP (eds) IPCC technical paper VI of the secretariat. IPCC, Geneva, pp 1–210Google Scholar
  28. Izanloo A, Condon AG, Langridge P, Tester M, Schnurbusch T (2008) Different mechanisms of adaptation to cyclic water stress in two South Australian bread wheat cultivars. J Exp Bot 59:3327–3346PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kahn TL, Fender SE, Bray EA, O’ Connell MA (1993) Characterization of expression of drought- and abscisic acid-regulated tomato genes in the drought-resistant species Lycopersicon pennellii. Plant Physiol 103(2):597–605PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Kulkarni M, Deshpande U (2007) Gradient in vitro testing of tomato (Solanum lycopersicon) genotypes by inducing water deficit: a new approach to screen germplasm for drought tolerance. Asian J Plant Sci 6(6):934–940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kumar G, Krishnaprasad BT, Savitha M, Gopalakrishna R, Mukhopadhyay K, Ramamohan G (1999) Enhanced expression of heat shock proteins in thermotolerant lines of sunflower and their progenies selected on the basis of temperature induction response (TIR). Theor Appl Genet 99:359–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Leinonen I, Grant OM, Tagliavia CPP, Chaves MM, Jones HG (2006) Estimating stomatal conductance with thermal imagery. Plant Cell Environ 29:1508–1518PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Martin B, Tauer CG, Lin RK (1999) Carbon isotope discrimination as a tool to improve water-use efficiency in tomato. Crop Sci 39(6):1775–1783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mittler R, Blumwald E (2010) Genetic engineering for modern agriculture: challenges and perspectives. Annu Rev Plant Biol 61:443–462PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pimentel C, Laffray D, Louguet P (1999) Intrinsic water use efficiency at the pollination stage as a parameter for drought tolerance selection in Phaseolus vulgaris. Physiol Plant 106(2):184–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rahman LSM, Nawata E, Sakuratani T (1998) Effects of water stress on yield and related morphological characters among tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) cultivars. Thai-J Agric Sci 31(1):60–78Google Scholar
  37. Rahman LSM, Mackay WA, Nawata E, Sakuratani T, Uddin MASM, Quebedeaux B (2004) Superoxide dismutase and stress tolerance of four tomato cultivars. Hortic Sci 39:983–986Google Scholar
  38. Rascher U, Agati G, Alonso L, Cecchi G, Champagne S, Colombo R, Damm A, Daumard F, de Miguel E, Fernandez G, Franch B, Franke J, Gerbig C, Gioli B, Gómez JA, Goulas Y, Guanter L, Gutiérrez-De-La-Cámara Ó, Hamdi K, Hostert P, Jiménez M, Kosvancova M, Lognoli D, Meroni M, Miglietta F, Moersch A, MorenoJ MI, Neininger B, Okujeni A, Ounis A, Palombi L, Raimondi V, Schickling A, Sobrino JA, Stellmes M, Toci G, Toscano P, Udelhoven T, van der Linden S, Zaldei A (2009) CEFLES2: the remote sensing component to quantify photosynthetic efficiency from the leaf to the region by measuring sun-induced fluorescence in the oxygen absorption bands. Biogeosciences 6:1181–1198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rao NKS, Bhatt RM (1992) Responses of tomato to moisture stress: plant water balance and yield. Plant Physiol Biochem 19(1):36–41Google Scholar
  40. Rascher U, Nedbal L (2006) Dynamics of photosynthesis in fluctuating light – commentary. Curr Opin Plant Biol 9:671–678PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ravishankar KV, Rekha A, Laxman RH, Savitha G, Swarupa V (2011) Gene expression analysis in leaves of ‘Bee Hee Kela’, a drought-tolerant musa balbisiana genotype from Northeast India. Acta Hortic 897:279–280Google Scholar
  42. Reddy AR, Chaitanya KV, Munusamy V (2004) Drought-induced responses of photosynthesis and antioxidant metabolism in higher plants. J Plant Physiol 161:1189–1202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Richards RA, Rebetzke GJ, Watt M, Condon AG et al (2010) Breeding for improved water productivity in temperate cereals: phenotyping, quantitative trait loci, markers and the selection environment. Funct Plant Biol 37:85–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sadras V (2002) Interaction between rainfall and nitrogen fertilisation of wheat in environments prone to terminal drought: economic and environmental risk analysis. Field Crop Res 77:201–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schauer N, Semel Y, Roessner U, Gur A, Balbo I, Carrari F, Pleban T, Perez-Melis A, Bruedigam C, Kopka J, Willmitzer L, Zamir D, Fernie AR (2006) Comprehensive metabolic profiling and phenotyping of interspecific introgression lines for tomato improvement. Nat Biotechnol 24:447–454PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schilmiller AL, Shi F, Kim J, Charbonneau AL, Holmes D, Jones AD, Last RL (2010) Mass spectrometry reveals widespread diversity in trichome specialized metabolites of tomato chromosomal substitution lines. Plant J 62:391–403PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schurr U, Walter A, Rascher U (2006) Functional dynamics of plant growth and photosynthesis – from steady-state to dynamics – from homogeneity to heterogeneity. Plant Cell Environ 29:340–352PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Senthil Kumar M, Udayakumar M (2004) Development of thermotolerant tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) lines: an approach based on mutagenesis. J Plant Biol 31:139–48Google Scholar
  49. Shinozaki K, Yamaguchi-Shinozaki K (2007) Gene networks involved in drought stress response and tolerance. J Exp Bot 58:221–227PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Srikanthbabu V, Kumar G, Krishnaprasad BT, Gopalakrishna R, Savitha M, Udayakumar M (2002) Identification of pea genotypes with enhanced thermotolerance using temperature induction response (TIR) technique. J Plant Physiol 159:535–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Srinivasa Rao NK (1996) Management of heat, moisture, and other physical factors of tomatoes and chilies in India. In: Proceedings of the phase I final workshop of the South Asian vegetable research Network held from 23–28 January 1996, Kathmandu, pp 339–356Google Scholar
  52. Tardieu F, Muller B, Reymond M (2003) Leaf growth regulation under drought: combining ecophysiological modelling, QTL analysis and search for mechanisms. J Exp Bot 54:18–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tardieu F, Reymond M, Muller B, Granier C, Simonneau T, Sadok W, Welcker C (2005) Linking physiological and genetic analyses of the control of leaf growth under changing environmental conditions. Aust J Agric Res 56:937–946CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tuberosa R (2011) Phenotyping drought-stressed crops: key concepts, issues and approaches. In: Monneeveux Philippe, Jean Marcel Ribaut (eds) Drought phenotyping in crops:from theory to practice, CGIAR Generation Challenge Programme, TexcocoGoogle Scholar
  55. Upreti KK, Murti GSR (1999) Effect of polyamines on the changes in endogenous hormones in pea under water stress conditions. Indian J Plant Physiol 4(1):1–5Google Scholar
  56. Ustin S, Gamon JA (2010) Remote sensing of plant functional types. New Phytol 186:795–816PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zhang Jie1, Jiang X, Li T, Yang Z (2012) Effect of ­moderately-high temperature stress on photosynthesis and carbohydrate metabolism in tomato (Lycopersico esculentum L.) leaves. Afr J Agric Res 7(3):487–492Google Scholar
  58. Zheng BY, Shi LJ, Ma YT, Deng QY, Li BG, Guo Y (2008) Comparison of architecture among different cultivars of hybrid rice using a spatial light model based on 3-D digitising. Func Plant Biol 35:900–910CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nadipynayakanahally Krishnamurthy Srinivasa Rao
    • 1
  • Ramanna Hunashikatti Laxman
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Plant Physiology and BiochemistryIndian Institute of Horticultural ResearchBangaloreIndia

Personalised recommendations