Advertisement

Barley pp 127-151 | Cite as

Methods for the Simple and Reliable Assessment of Barley Sensitivity to Abiotic Stresses During Early Development

  • Agata Daszkowska-GolecEmail author
  • Anna Skubacz
  • Marzena Kurowska
  • Michał Słota
  • Dorota Swiergolik
  • Iwona Szarejko
Protocol
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 1900)

Abstract

Physiological assays that facilitate screening for various types of responses to abiotic stresses are well established for model plants such as Arabidopsis; however, there is a need to optimize similar tests for cereal crops, including barley. We have developed a set of stress assays to characterize the response of different barley lines during two stages of development—seed germination and seedling growth. The assays presented, including the response to osmotic, salt, oxidative stresses, and exogenously applied abscisic acid, can be used for forward screening of populations after mutagenesis as well as for phenotyping of already isolated mutants, cultivars, or breeding lines. As well as protocols for stress treatments, we also provide methods for plant stress response evaluation, such as chlorophyll a fluorescence (ChlF) and image analysis.

Key words

Abiotic stresses Drought stress Salt stress Osmotic stress Oxidative stress Seed germination Seedling development High-resolution imaging Barley Assays 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the European Regional Development Fund through the Innovative Economy for Poland 2007–2013, project WND-POIG.01.03.01-00-101/08 POLAPGEN-BD “Biotechnological tools for breeding cereals with increased resistance to drought,” task 22; National Science Centre, Poland, project SONATA 2015/19/D/NZ1/03441.

References

  1. 1.
    Nakashima K, Yamaguchi-Shinozaki K (2013) ABA signaling in stress-response and seed development. Plant Cell Rep 32:959–970.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00299-013-1418-1CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Almeida DM, Almadanim MC, Lourenço T, Abreu IA, Saibo NJ, Oliveira MM (2016) Screening for abiotic stress tolerance in rice: salt, cold, and drought. Methods Mol Biol 1398:155–182.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3356-3_14CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dilukshi F, Schroeder DF (2016) Role of ABA in Arabidopsis salt, drought, and desiccation tolerance. Abiotic and biotic stress in plants—recent advances and future perspectives. Dr. Arun Shanker (Ed.), InTech, Rijeka. doi:  https://doi.org/10.5772/61957Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Munns R, James RA, Läuchli A (2006) Approaches to increasing the salt tolerance of wheat and other cereals. J Exp Bot 57:1025–1043.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erj100CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Munns R (2005) Genes and salt tolerance: bringing them together. New Phytol 167:645–663.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2005.01487.xCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Munns R, James R, Sirault X, Furbank R, Jones H (2010) New phenotyping methods for screening wheat and barley for beneficial responses to water deficit. J Exp Bot 61:3499–3507.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erq199CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Peleg Z, Apse M, Blumwald E (2011) Engineering salinity and water-stress tolerance in crop plants: getting closer to the field. Adv Bot Res 57:405–443.  https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-387692-8.00012-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tavakkoli E, Rengasamy P, McDonald G (2010) The response of barley to salinity stress differs between hydroponic and soil systems. Funct Plant Biol 37:621–633.  https://doi.org/10.1071/FP09202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Del Río LA (2015) ROS and RNS in plant physiology: an overview. J Exp Bot 66:2827–2837.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erv099CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cornic G, Bukhov NG, Wiese C, Bligny R, Heber U (2000) Flexible coupling between light-dependent electron and vectorial proton transport in illuminated leaves of C3 plants. Role of photosystem I-dependent proton pumping. Planta 210:468–477.  https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00008154CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yoshimura K, Miyao K, Gaber A, Takeda T, Kanaboshi H, Miyasaka H, Shigeoka S (2004) Enhancement of stress tolerance in transgenic tobacco plants overexpressing Chlamydomonas glutathione peroxidase in chloroplasts or cytosol. Plant J 37:21–33.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-313X.2003.01930.xCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bienert GP, Schjoerring JK, Jahn TP (2006) Membrane transport of hydrogen peroxide. Biochim Biophys Acta 1758:994–1003.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbamem.2006.02.015CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Thordal-Christensen H, Zhang Z, Wei Y (1997) Subcellular localization of H2O2 in plants. H2O2 accumulation in papillae and hypersensitive response during barley-powdery mildew interaction. Plant J 11:1187–1194.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-313X.1997.11061187.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Velikova V, Yordanov I, Edreva A (2000) Oxidative stress and some antioxidant systems in acid rain-treated bean plants. Protective role of exogenous polyamines. Plant Sci 151:59–66.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9452(99)00197-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bresson J, Vasseur F, Dauzat M, Koch G, Granier C, Vile D (2015) Quantifying spatial heterogeneity of chlorophyll fluorescence during plant growth and in response to water stress. Plant Methods 11:23.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13007-015-0067-5CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Filek M, Łabanowska M, Kościelniak J, Biesaga-Kościelniak J, Kurdziel M, Szarejko I, Hartikainen H (2015) Characterization of barley leaf tolerance to drought stress by chlorophyll fluorescence and electron paramagnetic resonance studies. J Agron Crop Sci 201:228–240.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jac.12063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kalaji HM, Bosa K, Kościelniak J, Żuk-Gołaszewska K (2011) Effects of salt stress on Photosystem II efficiency and CO2 assimilation of two Syrian barley landraces. Environ Exp Bot 73:64–72.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2010.10.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Oukarroum A, El Madidi S, Strasser RJ (2016) Differential heat sensitivity index in barley cultivars (Hordeum vulgare L.) monitored by chlorophyll a fluorescence OKJIP. Plant Physiol Biochem 105:102–108.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2016.04.015CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zivčák M, Brestič M, Olšovská K Slamka P (2008) Performance index as a sensitive indicator of water stress in Triticum aestivum L. Plant Soil Environ 54:133–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kalaji HM, Oukarroum A, Alexandrov V, Kouzmanova M, Brestic M, Zivcak M et al (2014) Identification of nutrient deficiency in maize and tomato plants by in vivo chlorophyll a fluorescence measurements. Plant Physiol Biochem 81:16–25.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2014.03.029CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Woo HR, Kim JH, Nam HG, Lim PO (2004) The delayed leaf senescence mutants of Arabidopsis, ore1, ore3, and ore9 are tolerant to oxidative stress. Plant Cell Physiol 45:923–932.  https://doi.org/10.1093/pcp/pch110CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kacienė G, Žaltauskaitė J, Milčė E, Juknys R (2015) Role of oxidative stress on growth responses of spring barley exposed to different environmental stressors. J Plant Ecol 8:605–616.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jpe/rtv026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rasband WS (1997–2015) ImageJ. U. S. National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/. Accessed 31 Oct 2016
  24. 24.
    Walter A, Scharr H, Gilmer F, Zierer R, Nagel KA, Ernst M, Wiese A, Virnich O, Christ MM, Uhlig B, Jünger S, Schurr U (2007) Dynamics of seedling growth acclimation towards altered light conditions can be quantified via GROWSCREEN: a setup and procedure designed for rapid optical phenotyping of different plant species. New Phytol 174:447–455.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.02002.xCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Slota M, Maluszynski M, Szarejko I (2016) An automated, cost-effective and scalable, flood-and-drain based root phenotyping system for cereals. Plant Methods 12:34.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13007-016-0135-5CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Agata Daszkowska-Golec
    • 1
    Email author
  • Anna Skubacz
    • 1
  • Marzena Kurowska
    • 1
  • Michał Słota
    • 1
  • Dorota Swiergolik
    • 1
  • Iwona Szarejko
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Genetics, Faculty of Biology and Environmental ProtectionUniversity of Silesia in KatowiceKatowicePoland

Personalised recommendations