Summary
Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench is generally quite sensitive to salt and acid (high aluminium) soil stresses, but quite tolerant of drought stress. As with any stress phenomenon, intra-specific variability exists within the genus. In vitro cell selection and somaclonal variation offer an alternative to traditional breeding methodology for generating improved breeding lines for hybrid development. A field selection protocol was developed for the three soil stresses and inter-stress evaluations were conducted in an effort to find multiple, stress-tolerant genotypes. The acid soil-drought stress, super-tolerant selections were located by the R7 generation when exposed to a combined aluminium-drought stress field environment and when the regeneration population (number of regenerated lines from one callus source) was maintained at 15,000 plants or higher. A variant frequency of 0.1 to 0.2% for stress tolerance and acceptable agronomic traits among the surviving somaclones, provided an adequate number of phenotypes with desirable agronomic characteristics and a high level of soil stress tolerance. Subsequent research verified that the stress-tolerant regenerants had superior acid soil and drought stress tolerance to that of the donor parents, that their yield capabilities under stress were superior to their parents, and that their stress tolerance attributes were transferred in hybrid combinations. In vitro selection was not effective in increasing the number of field stress survivors. In fact, superior germplasms were developed from non-stressed callus or salt-stressed callus. In vitro selection reduced regeneration frequency and subsequent survival of plants under field stress. In vitro-stressed regenerants should be subjected only to non-stressed environments to maintain sufficient population numbers for field selection and thereafter should be subjected to stress environments during later (R5+) generations. The optimal strategy for the exploitation of somaclonal variation may be through short-term cell culture (< 12 months) with no attempt at in vitro selection.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Altman, D.W.,D.M. Stelly & D.M. Mitten, 1991. Quantitative trait variation inphenotypieally normal regenerants of cotton. In Vitro Cell Develop.Biol. 27p: 132–138.
Baillie, A.M.R.,B.G. Rossnagel&K.K.Kartha,1992. Field eval-uation of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) genotypesderived from tissue culture. Can. J. Plant Sci. 72: 725–733.
Bowley, S.R.,G.A. Kelly, K. Anandarajah, B.D. McKersie & T. Senaratna, 1993. Fieldevaluation following two cycles of back- cross transfer of somaticembryogenesis to commercial alfalfa germplasm. Can. J. Plant Sci. 73: 131–137.
Brandle, J.E.& B.L. Miki, 1993. Agronomic performance of sulfonylurea-resistanttransgenic fluecured tobacco grown under field conditions. Crop Sci. 33: 847–852.
Cassells, A.C.,M.L. Deadman, C.A. Brown & E. Griffin, 1991. Field resistance to lateblight (Phytophthora infestans (Mont.) De Bary) in potato(Solanumtuberosum L.) somaclonesassociated with instability and pleiotropic effects. Euphytica 56: 75–80.
Ceccarelli, S.& S. Grando, 1991a. Selection environment and envi-ronmental sensitivity inbarley. Euphytica 57: 157–167.
Ceccarelli, S.& S. Grando, 1991b. Environment of selection and type of germplasm inbarley breeding for low-yielding conditions. Euphytica 57: 207–219.
Chaleff, R.S.,1983. Isolation of agronomically useful mutants from plant cell cultures.Science 219: 676–682.
Davies, L.J.& D. Cohen, 1992. Phenotypic variation in somaclones of Paspalumdilatatum and their seedling offspring. Can. J. Plant Sci. 72: 773–784.
Duncan, R.R.,1991. Acid soil tolerance breeding in sorghum. Adv. Agron. (India) 1:71–79.
Duncan, R.R.,D.J. Isenhour, R.M. Waskom, D.R. Miller, M.W. Nabors, G.E. Hanning, K.M.Petersen & B.R. Wiseman, 1991a. Registration of GATCCP100 and GATCCP101fall armyworm resistant Hegari regenerants. Crop Sci. 31: 242–244.
Duncan, R.R.,R.M. Waskom, D.R. Miller, R.L. Voigt, G.E. Han-ning, D. Timm & M.W.Nabors, 1991 b. Registration of GAC102: acid soil tolerant Hegari regenerant.Crop Sci.31:1396–1397.
Duncan,R.R., R.M. Waskom, D.R. Miller & R.L. Voigt, 1991c. Fieldstress evaluation of tissue culture regenerated sorghums. In: Proc. Bien. GrainSorghum Res. & Utiliz. Conf. 17: 15–20.
Duncan, R.R.,R.M. Waskom, D.R. Miller, G.E. Hanning, D.A. Timm & M.W. Nabors,1992. Registration of GC103 and GC104 acid-soil tolerant Tx430 regenerants.Crop Sci.32:1076–1077.
Evans, D. A.,1989. Somaclonal variation: genetic basis and breeding applications. Genetics5: 46–50.
Evans, D.A. &W.R. Sharp, 1986. Applications of somaclonal vari-ation. Bio/Technology 4:528–532.
Foy, C.D., R.R.Duncan, R.M. Waskom & D.R. Miller, 1993. Tol-erance of sorghum genotypes toan acid, aluminium toxic Tatum subsoil. J. Plant Nutr. 16: 97–127.
Isenhour, D.J., R.R.Duncan, D.R. Miller, R.M. Waskom, G.E. Hanning, B.R. Wiseman & M.W. Nabors,1991. Resistance to leaf-feeding by the fall armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)in tissue culture derived sorghums. J. Econ. Entomol. 84: 680–684.
Jones, P.W.,1990. Disease resistance. In: P.J. Dix (Ed.). Plant Cell LineSelection, pp. 113–149. VCH Verlagsgesellschaft, Wein-heim.
Larkin, P.J.& W.R. Scowcroft, 1981. Somaclonal variation - a novel source ofvariability from cell cultures. Theor. Appl. Genet. 60: 197–214.
Lee, M., J.L. Geadelmann&R.L. Phillips, 1988. Agronomic evalu-ation of inbred lines derived from tissueculture of maize. Theor. Appl. Genet. 75: 841–849.
Linsmaier, E.M.& F. Skoog, 1965. Organic growth factor require-ments of tobacco tissuecultures. Physiol. Plant 18: 100–127.
MacKinnon, C., G.Gunderson & M.W. Nabors, 1987. High efficien-cy plant regeneration bysomatic embryogenesis from callus of mature embryo explants of bread wheat (Triticumaestivum) and grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor). In Vitro CellDevelop. Biol. 23: 443–448.
Maliga, P., 1984.Isolation and characterization of mutants in plant cell culture. Ann. Rev.Plant Physiol. 35: 519–542.
Matheson, S.L.,J. Nowak&N.L. MacLean, 1990. Selection of regenerative genotypes from highly productivecultivars of alfalfa. Euphytica 45: 105–112.
McHughen, A.& M. Swartz, 1984. A tissue-culture derived salt- tolerant line of flax(Linum usitatissimum). J. Plant Physiol. 117: 109–117.
Miller, F.R.,1984. Registration of RTx430 sorghum parental line. Crop Sci. 24: 1224.
Miller, D.R.,R.M. Waskom, M.A. Brick & P.L. Chapman, 1991. Transferring in vitrotechnology to the field. Biotechnology 9: 143–146.
Miller, D.R.,R.M. Waskom, R.R. Duncan, P.L. Chapman, M.A. Brick, G.E. Hanning, D.A. Timm & M.W.Nabors, 1992. Acid soil stress tolerance in tissue culture-derived sorghumlines. Crop Sci.32:324–327.
Milliken, G.A.& D.E. Johnson, 1984. Analysis of messy data. Vol. 1. Designed experiments.Van Nostrand Reinhold,NewYork.
Philips, R.L.,S.M. Kaeppler & V.M. Peschke, 1990. Do we under-stand somaclonal variation?In: H.J.J. Nijkamp, L.H.W. van der Plas & J. van Aartrijk (Eds).Progress in Plant Cell and Molecular Biology, pp. 131–141. Kluwer AcademicPublishers, Dordrecht.
Richards, R.A.,1983. Should selection for yield in saline regions be made on saline ornon-saline soils? Euphytica 32: 431–438.
Rosielle, A.A.& J. Hamblin, 1981. Theoretical aspects of selection for yield in stressand non-stress environments. Crop Sci. 21: 943–946.
Rowland, G.G., A.McHughen & C. McOnie, 1988. Field evaluation on nonsaline soils of asomaclonal variant of McGregor flax selected for salt tolerance in vitro.Can. J. Plant Sci.68:345–349.
Rowland, G.G., A.McHughen & R.S. Bhatty, 1989. Andro flax. Can. J. Plant Sci. 69:911–913.
Sanford, J.C.,N.F. Weeden & Y.S. Chyi, 1984. Regarding the nov-elty and breeding value ofprotoplast-derived variants of ‘Russet Burbank’ (Solanum tuberosum L.). Euphytica33: 709–715.
Sears, R.G., T.S.Cox & G.M. Paulsen, 1992. Registration of KS89WGRC9 stress-tolerant hardred winter wheat germplasm. Crop Sci. 32: 507.
Shoemaker, R.C.,L.A. Amberger, R.G. Palmer, L. Oglesby & J.P. Ranch, 1981. Effect of2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid concen-tration on somatic embryogenesis andheritable variation in soy-bean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.). In VitroCell Devel. Biol. 27 p.: 84–88.
Smith, R.H., R.R.Duncan & S. Bhaskaran, 1993. In vitro selection and somaclonalvariation for crop improvement. In: D.W. Buxton (Ed.). Proc. 1st Int’lCrop Sci.Congress,July 1992, Ames, 1A. Crop. Sci. Soc. America, Madison, WI pp. 629–632.
Timm, D.A., R.M.Waskom, D.R. Miller & M.W. Nabors, 1991. Greenhouse evaluation ofregenerated spring wheat for enhanced tolerance. Cereal Res. Commun. 19:451–457.
Ullrich, S.E.,J.M. Edmiston, A. Kleinhofs,D.A.Kudrna & M.E.H. Maatougui, 1991. Evaluation of somaclonal variation inbarley. Cereal Res. Commun. 19: 245–260.
Waskom, R.M.,D.R. Miller, G.E. Hanning, R.R. Duncan, R.L. Voigt & M.W.Nabors, 1990. Field evaluation of tissue-culture-derived sorghum for increasedtolerance to acid soils and drought stress. Can. J. Plant Sci. 70: 997–1004.
Wenzel, G., 1980. Thepotential and limits of classical genetics in plant breeding. In: F. Sala et al. (Eds). PlantCell Cultures: Results and Perspectives, pp. 33–47. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Wersuhn, G., T.Kalettka, R. Gienapp, G. Reinike & D. Schulz, 1994. Problemsposed by in vitro selection for aluminium-tolerance when usingcultivated plant cells. J. Plant Physiol. 143: 92–95.
Youssef, S.S., R.Morris, P.S. Baenziger & C.M. Papa, 1989. Cytoge-netic studies of progeniesfrom crosses between ‘Centurk’ wheat and its doubled haploids derived fromanther culture. Genome 32: 622–628.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1995 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Duncan, R.R., Waskom, R.M., Nabors, M.W. (1995). In vitro screening and field evaluation of tissue-culture-regenerated sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench) for soil stress tolerance. In: Cassells, A.C., Jones, P.W. (eds) The Methodology of Plant Genetic Manipulation: Criteria for Decision Making. Developments in Plant Breeding, vol 3. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-0357-2_46
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-0357-2_46
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-010-4159-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-0357-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive