Premium
Commercially available plant growth regulators and promoters modify bulk tissue abscisic acid concentrations in spring barley, but not root growth and yield response to drought
Author(s) -
Bingham I.J.,
McCabe V.B.
Publication year - 2006
Publication title -
annals of applied biology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.677
H-Index - 80
eISSN - 1744-7348
pISSN - 0003-4746
DOI - 10.1111/j.1744-7348.2006.00093.x
Subject(s) - lysimeter , agronomy , biology , loam , sowing , biomass partitioning , irrigation , abscisic acid , soil water , horticulture , biomass (ecology) , ecology , biochemistry , gene
Field and lysimeter experiments were conducted in 2002 to investigate the effects of an antigibberellin growth regulator (Moddus, active ingredient trinexapac‐ethyl, Syngenta Crop Protection UK Ltd, Whittlesford, Cambridge, UK) and an auxin‐stimulating (Route, active ingredient zinc ammonium acetate, De Sangosse Ltd, Swaffham Bulbeck, Cambridge, UK) growth promoter on root growth, soil water extraction and the drought response of spring barley. The effects on root growth and distribution were investigated in the field. The effects on the drought response were studied in 1.2‐m‐deep lysimeters packed with a loamy sand subsoil and sandy loam topsoil. Lysimeters were located under a fixed rain shelter, and drought was imposed by withholding irrigation. In both field and lysimeter experiments, growth regulator/promoters were applied to cv. Optic at early tillering according to the manufacturers’ recommendations. After withholding irrigation from lysimeters at Zadoks growth stage (GS) 21 (37 days after sowing), 50% of the profile available water had been depleted by flag leaf emergence (GS 37/39; 62 days after sowing). Drought significantly reduced stem biomass at ear emergence (GS 59; 78 days after sowing) but not leaf or ear dry weight; this was before there was any significant reduction in leaf water potential or stomatal conductance to water vapour. The reduction in stem biomass may reflect a change in partitioning between shoot and root in response to soil drying. When averaged over growth regulator/promoter treatments, drought reduced grain yield by approximately 1 t ha −1 . This was associated with a reduction in both ears per m 2 and grains per ear. The mean grain weight was not reduced by drought, in spite of significant reductions in stomatal conductance and canopy lifespan post‐anthesis. Route, and to a lesser extent Moddus, significantly increased abscisic acid accumulation in the stem base of droughted plants, and there was some indication of a possible delay in stomatal closure in Route‐treated plants as the soil moisture deficit developed. However, there was no significant effect on the amount of soil water extracted or grain yield under drought. Similarly, in field experiments, neither Route nor Moddus significantly altered total root length, biomass or distribution. There is little evidence from these experiments or in the literature to support the use of antigibberellin or auxin‐simulating growth regulator/promoters to modify root growth and drought avoidance of spring barley.