Response of Yellow Quality Protein Maize Inbred Lines to Drought stress at Seedling Stage

This study seeks to evaluate the response of 17 yellow Quality Protein Maize (QPM) inbred line seedlings to drought stress (DS), using different morphophysiological traits (plant height (PH), chlorophyll content (CC), stem diameter (SD), proline content (Pro), photochemical efficiency of photosystem...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Nyasha E. Chiuta, Charles S. Mutengwa
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: MDPI AG 2018-12-01
Series:Agronomy
Subjects:
QPM
Online Access:https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4395/8/12/287
id doaj-46799be07aae43719615a62e93106320
record_format Article
spelling doaj-46799be07aae43719615a62e931063202021-04-02T07:49:38ZengMDPI AGAgronomy2073-43952018-12-0181228710.3390/agronomy8120287agronomy8120287Response of Yellow Quality Protein Maize Inbred Lines to Drought stress at Seedling StageNyasha E. Chiuta0Charles S. Mutengwa1Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Science and Agriculture, University of Fort Hare, Private Bag X1314, Alice 5700, Eastern Cape, South AfricaDepartment of Agronomy, Faculty of Science and Agriculture, University of Fort Hare, Private Bag X1314, Alice 5700, Eastern Cape, South AfricaThis study seeks to evaluate the response of 17 yellow Quality Protein Maize (QPM) inbred line seedlings to drought stress (DS), using different morphophysiological traits (plant height (PH), chlorophyll content (CC), stem diameter (SD), proline content (Pro), photochemical efficiency of photosystem II (PS II), canopy temperature (CT) and substomatal carbon dioxide concentration (C<i>i</i>). The experiment was laid out in a randomized complete block design (RCBD) and replicated three times in a growth chamber. The seedlings were exposed to DS treatment by growing them at 20% field capacity. The control/well-watered (WW) treatments were kept at 80% field capacity throughout the experiment. Highly significant differences (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001) were observed for PH, SD, and Pro across environments. On the other hand, significant differences (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.05) were observed for CC and PS II, while DS had no significant effects on C<i>i</i> and CT. Proline content increased under DS compared to WW conditions. Inbred lines L34, L7, L5, L2, L16, and L6 had approximately equal or more Pro than the drought tolerant check (ZM1523). As such, these lines were regarded as drought tolerant. Taking all measured parameters into consideration, L7 performed notably better than the other inbred lines under DS.https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4395/8/12/287drought stressmorphophysiological traitsprolineQPMtolerant
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Nyasha E. Chiuta
Charles S. Mutengwa
spellingShingle Nyasha E. Chiuta
Charles S. Mutengwa
Response of Yellow Quality Protein Maize Inbred Lines to Drought stress at Seedling Stage
Agronomy
drought stress
morphophysiological traits
proline
QPM
tolerant
author_facet Nyasha E. Chiuta
Charles S. Mutengwa
author_sort Nyasha E. Chiuta
title Response of Yellow Quality Protein Maize Inbred Lines to Drought stress at Seedling Stage
title_short Response of Yellow Quality Protein Maize Inbred Lines to Drought stress at Seedling Stage
title_full Response of Yellow Quality Protein Maize Inbred Lines to Drought stress at Seedling Stage
title_fullStr Response of Yellow Quality Protein Maize Inbred Lines to Drought stress at Seedling Stage
title_full_unstemmed Response of Yellow Quality Protein Maize Inbred Lines to Drought stress at Seedling Stage
title_sort response of yellow quality protein maize inbred lines to drought stress at seedling stage
publisher MDPI AG
series Agronomy
issn 2073-4395
publishDate 2018-12-01
description This study seeks to evaluate the response of 17 yellow Quality Protein Maize (QPM) inbred line seedlings to drought stress (DS), using different morphophysiological traits (plant height (PH), chlorophyll content (CC), stem diameter (SD), proline content (Pro), photochemical efficiency of photosystem II (PS II), canopy temperature (CT) and substomatal carbon dioxide concentration (C<i>i</i>). The experiment was laid out in a randomized complete block design (RCBD) and replicated three times in a growth chamber. The seedlings were exposed to DS treatment by growing them at 20% field capacity. The control/well-watered (WW) treatments were kept at 80% field capacity throughout the experiment. Highly significant differences (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001) were observed for PH, SD, and Pro across environments. On the other hand, significant differences (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.05) were observed for CC and PS II, while DS had no significant effects on C<i>i</i> and CT. Proline content increased under DS compared to WW conditions. Inbred lines L34, L7, L5, L2, L16, and L6 had approximately equal or more Pro than the drought tolerant check (ZM1523). As such, these lines were regarded as drought tolerant. Taking all measured parameters into consideration, L7 performed notably better than the other inbred lines under DS.
topic drought stress
morphophysiological traits
proline
QPM
tolerant
url https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4395/8/12/287
work_keys_str_mv AT nyashaechiuta responseofyellowqualityproteinmaizeinbredlinestodroughtstressatseedlingstage
AT charlessmutengwa responseofyellowqualityproteinmaizeinbredlinestodroughtstressatseedlingstage
_version_ 1724170774515810304