Effects of Drought Stress on Canola (Brassica napus L.) Genotypes Yield and Yield Components

پژوهشهای زراعی ایران

Article 9, Volume 15, Issue 4 - Serial Number 48, January 2018, Pages 914-924   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/gsc.v15i4.58356

Authors

R Khani¹; A. R Sadeghi Bakhtvari¹; B Pasban Eslam²; V Sarabi^{* 1}

¹Azarbaijan Shahid Madani University

²Research Center for Agriculture and Natural Resources of East Azarbaijan, Tabriz-Iran

Abstract

Introduction
Canola (Brassica napus L.) genotypes with wide adaptability to environmental conditions could play a major role in Iran’s oilseed crop production. Selection of high performing genotypes is very important for developing canola cultivation. Water stress can reduce crop yield by affecting both source and sink for assimilation. Canola yield depends on genotype and environmental conditions and response of genotypes to environmental factors. Canola genotypes response to stress depends on the developmental stage and the events occurring prior to and during flowering stage. Resistance to water stress is divided to avoidance and tolerance. Some species are tolerable against water stress. In a while, other species respond ending life cycle, falling leaves and other reactions into water stress. Therefore, investigation of canola genotypes response to water stress in phenological growth stages can be valuable in order to determine resistant or tolerant genotypes.
Materials and Methods
In order to study the effect of drought stress on canola genotypes yield and its components, an experiment was conducted in 2013-2014 as a split plot based on randomized complete block design with three replications at the research farm, Agricultural and Natural Resources Research Center of East-Azarbaijan, Tabriz-Iran. Three levels of drought stress were considered as main plot (No-stress, stress at the flowering and pod setting growth stages) and 18 canola genotypes including HW113, RS12, Karaj1, KR18, L73, L72, HW101, L146, L210, L183, SW101, L5, L201, HW118, KR4, Karaj2, Karaj3 and KS7 as subplots. Flood irrigation was scheduled at 50% field capacity, 30 and 30% field capacity for no-stress, stress at the flowering and pod setting growth stages, respectively; i.e. soil moisture capacity was maintained at 30% by irrigating to 100% field capacity when available moisture reached 30% in drought stress treatments. An ANOVA was conducted using the PROC-GLM procedure in SAS ver. 9.2 and Minitab ver. 17 to test for normality. Means were separated using Fishers Least Significant Difference (LSD) set at a 0.05 significance level.
Results and Discussion
As expected, canola genotypes showed different responses to availability of water at flowering and pod setting growth stages. Results indicated that drought stress at flowering and pod setting growth stages had severe influence on canola genotypes yield and its components. L72, L146, L183, L210 and Karaj 2 genotypes tend to produce higher yields compared to other genotypes in no-stress conditions. Hence, these genotypes are suitable for planting in irrigated lands or place that enough precipitation downfall especially in their phenological growth stages. In contrast, these genotypes are not suitable for planting in arid or semi-arid regions like Iran, because the yields reduced severely in drought stress conditions. However, KR18, HW101, SW101 and Karaj3 genotypes could not produce as same yield as L72, L146, L183, L210 and Karaj2 genotypes in no-stress condition, they had minimum yield loss in susceptible phenological growth stages especially flowering growth stage compared to other genotypes. L183 genotype could produce yield similar to tolerant genotypes, but its yield loss was high in comparison with no stress condition.
Conclusions
Based on our findings in this study, KR18, HW101, SW101 and Karaj3 can be considered the best among other 18 genotypes in the selection of genotypes tolerant to drought stress occurring in flowering and pod setting stages. However, this study must be repeated in other climates and different drought stress conditions to acknowledge what we achieved in this research. After that, decision can be made about planting these genotypes tolerant in arid and semi-arid regions. In this regard, we can also do more comprehensive works can be done on breeding of these genotypes, because water crisis will be the future challenge in Iran.

Keywords

Flowering; Oil crops; Phenological stages; pod setting; Yield loss

References

1. Aliari, H., Shekari, F., and Shekari, F. 2000. Oil Seeds: Cultivation and Physiology. Amidi Press, Tabriz, Iran. (in Persian).

2. Basra, A. S., and Basra, R. K. 1997. Mechanism of environmental stress resistance in plants. Harwood Academic Publishers, Netherlands.

3. Betran, F. J., Beck, D., Banziger, M., and Edmeades, G. O. 2003. Genetic analysis of inbred and hybrid grain yield under stress and nonstress environments in tropical maize. Crop Science 43: 807-817.

4. Blum, A. 2005. Drought resistance, water-use efficiency, and yield potential- are they compatible, dissonant, or mutually exclusive? Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 56: 1159-1168.

5. Carcova, J., Maddonni, G. A., and Ghersa, C. M. 1998. Crop water stress index of three maize hybrids grown in soils with different quality. Field Crops Research 55: 165-174.

6. Ceccarelli, S., and Grando, S. 1991. Selection environment and environmental sensitivity in barley. Euphytica 57: 157-167.

7. Chaghakaboodi, Z., Zebarjadi, A. R., and Kahrizi, D. 2012. Evaluation of rapeseed genotypes response to drought stress via callus culture. Agricultural Biotechnology 10 (2): 49-57. (in Persian with English abstract).

8. Cornic, G. 2000. Drought stress inhibits photosynthesis by decreasing stomatal aperture – not by affecting at synthesis. Trends in Plant Science 5 (5): 187-188.

9. Debaeke, P., and Aboudrare, A. 2004. Adaptation of crop management to water-limited environments. European Journal of Agronomy 21: 433-446.

10. Diepenbrock, W. 2000. Yield analysis of winter oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.): A review. Field Crops Research 67: 35-49.

11. Faraji, A., Latifi, N., Soltani, A., and Shirani Rad, A. 2009. Seed yield and water use efficiency of canola (Brassica napus L.) as affected by high temperature stress and supplemental irrigation. Agricultural Water Management 96: 132-140.

12. Fathi, G., Moradi-Telavat, M. R., and Naderi Arefi, A. 2010. Rapeseed Physiology. Shahid Chamran University Press, Ahvaz, Iran. (in Persian).

13. Fernandez, G. C. J. 1992. Effective selection criteria for assessing plant stress tolerance. PP 257-270. Proceedings of the International Symposium on “Adaptation of Vegetables and other Food Crops in Temperature and Water Stress”, 13-16 August, Taiwan.

14. Khan, M. A., Ashraf, M. Y., Mujtaba, S. M., Shirazi, M. U., Khan, M. A., Shereen A., Mumtaz, S., Aqil Siddiqui, M., and Murtaza Kaleri, G. 2010. Evaluation of high yielding canola type Brassica genotypes/mutants for drought tolerance using physiological indices as screening tool. Pakistan Journal of Botany 42: 3807-3816.

15. Koocheki, A., Yazdansepas, A., and Nikkhah, H. R. 2006. Effect of terminal drought on grain yield and some morphological traits in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) genotypes. Iranian Journal of Crop Science 8: 14-29. (in Persian with English abstract).

16. Krogman, K. K., and Hobbs, E. H. 1975. Yield and morphological response of rape (Brassica campestris L. cv. Span) to irrigation and fertilizer treatments. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 55: 903-909.

17. Kumar, A., and Singh, D. P. 1998. Use of physiological indices as a screening technique for drought tolerance in oilseed Brassica species. Annals of Botany 81: 413-420.

18. Ma, Q., Niknam, S. R., and Turner, D. 2006. Response of osmotic adjustment and seed yield of Brassica napus and B. juncea to soil water deficit at different growth stages. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 57: 221-226.

19. Monajem, S., Ahmadi, A., and Mohammadi, V. 2011. Effects of drought stress in reproductive stages on photoassimilates partitioning of rapeseed (Brassica napus). Electronic Journal of Crop Production 3 (3): 163-178. (in Persian with English abstract).

20. Moradshahi, A., Salehi Eskandari, B., and Kholdebarin, B. 2004. Some physiological responses of canola (Brassica napus L.) to water deficit stress under laboratory conditions. Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transaction A 28 (A1): 43-50.

21. Pasban Eslam, B. 2009. Evaluation of physiological indices, yield and its components as screening techniques for water deficit tolerance in oilseed rape cultivars. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology 11: 413-422.

22. Pasban Eslam, B., Shakiba, M. R., Neishabori, M. R., Moghaddam, M., and Ahmadi, M. R. 2000. Effects of water stress on quality and quantity characteristics of rapeseed. Iranian Journal of Agricultural Science 10: 75-85. (in Persian with English abstract).

23. Pourdad, S., Alizadeh, K., Azizineghad, R., Shariati, A., Eskandari, M., Khiavi, M., and Nabati, E. 2008. Study on drought resistance in spring safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.) in different locations. Journal of Water and Soil Science (Journal of Science and Technology of Agriculture and Natural Resources) 12: 403-415. (in Persian with English abstract).

24. Rajaram, S., and van Ginkle, M. 2001. Mexico 50 years of international wheat breeding. PP 579-604 in A. P. Bonjean and W. J. Angus eds. The world wheat book: A history of wheat breeding. Lavoisier Publication, Paris, France.

25. Rathjen, A. J. 1994. The biological basis of genotype × environment interaction: its definition and management. Proceedings of the Seventh Assembly of the Wheat Breeding Society of Australia, Adelaide, Australia.

26. Sheykh, F., Tourchi, M., Valizadeh, M., Shakiba M. R., and Pasban Eslam, B. 2005. Drought resistance evaluation in spring rapeseed cultivars. Journal of Agricultural Science 15 (1): 163-174. (in Persian with English abstract).

27. Simane, B., Struik, P. C., Nachit, M. M., and Peacock, J. M. 1993. Ontogenetic analysis of yield components and yield stability of durum wheat in water-limited environments. Euphytica 71: 211-219.

28. Sinaki, J. M., Majidi Heravan, E., Shirani Rad, A. H., Noormohammadi, G., and Zarei, H. 2007. The effects of water deficit during growth stages of canola (Brassica napus L.). American-Eurasian Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Science 2: 417-422.

29. Singh, D. P., Singh, P., Ashok, K., and Sharma, C. 1985. Transpirational cooling as a screening technique for drought tolerance in oil seed brassicas. Annals of Botany 56: 815-820.

30. Sio-Se Mardeh, P., Sadeghi, F., Kanouni, H., Bahramnejad, B., and Gholami, S. 2014. Effect of drought stress on physiological traits, grain yield and its components in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) genotypes. Iranian Journal of Crop Science 16 (2): 91-108. (in Persian with English abstract).

31. Walton, G., Mendham, N., Robertson, M., and Potter, T. 1999. Phenology, physiology and agronomy. Chapter 3. PP 9–14 in P. A. Salisbury, T. Potter, G. McDonald, and A. G. Green eds. Canola in Australia: the first thirty years (Organizing Committee of the 10th International Rapeseed Congress: Canberra).

32. Wright, P. R., Morgan, J. M., and Jessop, R. S. 1996. Comparative adaptation of canola (Brassica napus) and Indian mustard (B. juncea) to soil water deficits: Plant water relations and growth. Field Crops Research 49 (1): 51-64.

33. Xiao, Y. N., Li, X. H., George, M. L., Li, M. S., Zhang, S. H., and Zheng, Y. L. 2005. Quantitative trait locus analysis of drought tolerance and yield in maize in China. Plant Molecular Biology Reporter 23: 155-165.