Next Article in Journal
Binding and Docking Interactions of NO, CO and O2 in Heme Proteins as Probed by Density Functional Theory
Previous Article in Journal
Liquid Crystals in Tribology
Previous Article in Special Issue
Trehalose Metabolism: From Osmoprotection to Signaling
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Chromosomal Location of Traits Associated with Wheat Seedling Water and Phosphorus Use Efficiency under Different Water and Phosphorus Stresses

1
Center for Agricultural Resources Research, Institute of Genetic and Developmental Biology, CAS, Shijiazhuang, 050021, China
2
State Key Laboratory of Soil Erosion and Dryland Farming on the Loess Plateau, Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Yangling 712100, China
3
Coconut Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Tropical Agricultural Sciences, Wenchang, Hainan 571339, China
4
Yantai Institute of Coastal Zone Research for Sustainable Development, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Yantai 264003, China
5
Institute of Life Sciences, Qingdao University of Science& Technology, Qingdao266042, China
6
Biology Department, Shangqiu Normal University, Shangqiu 476000, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
#
Current address: Coconut Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Tropical Agricultural Sciences, Wenchang, Hainan 571339, China.
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2009, 10(9), 4116-4136; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms10094116
Submission received: 26 July 2009 / Revised: 27 August 2009 / Accepted: 31 August 2009 / Published: 18 September 2009
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biotic and Abiotic Stress)

Abstract

:
The objective of this study was to locate chromosomes for improving water and phosphorus-deficiency tolerance of wheat at the seedling stage. A set of Chinese Spring-Egyptian Red wheat substitution lines and their parent Chinese Spring (recipient) and Egyptian Red (donor) cultivars were measured to determine the chromosomal locations of genes controlling water use efficiency (WUE) and phosphorus use efficiency (PUE) under different water and phosphorus conditions. The results underlined that chromosomes 1A, 7A, 7B, and 3A showed higher leaf water use efficiency (WUEl = Pn/Tr; Pn = photosynthetic rate; Tr = transpiration rate) under W-P (Hoagland solution with 1/2P), -W-P (Hoagland solution with 1/2P and 10% PEG). Chromosomes 7A, 3D, 2B, 3B, and 4B may carry genes for positive effects on individual plant water use efficiency (WUEp = biomass/TWC; TWC = total water consumption) under WP (Hoagland solution), W-P and -W-P treatment. Chromosomes 7A and 7D carry genes for PUE enhancement under WP, -WP (Hoagland solution with 10% PEG) and W-P treatment. Chromosome 7A possibly has genes for controlling WUE and PUE simultaneously, which indicates that WUE and PUE may share the same genetic background. Phenotypic and genetic analysis of the investigated traits showed that photosynthetic rate (Pn) and transpiration rate (Tr), Tr and WUEl showed significant positive and negative correlations under WP, W-P, -WP and -W-P, W-P, -WP treatments, respectively. Dry mass (DM), WUEP, PUT (phosphorus uptake) all showed significant positive correlation under WP, W-P and -WP treatment. PUE and phosphorus uptake (PUT = P uptake per plant) showed significant negative correlation under the four treatments. The results might provide useful information for improving WUE and PUE in wheat genetics.

1. Introduction

Drought stress is the most important and common environmental issues which limits agricultural production and decreases the efficiency of dry lands [13]. Irrigation is commonly applied to alleviate water deficiency, but with the increasing worldwide water resource crisis, no more water can be used for irrigation.
Fertilizer is the second important element for enhancing crop yield. Phosphorus is often considered the most limiting nutrient for plant growth in soils, especially in dry land [4,5]. The main reason may be the lower phosphorus use efficiency (PUE) of crops, although total phosphorus (P) in the soil may be high, it is often present in unavailable forms or in forms that are only available outside of rhizosphere [6,7], meanwhile, large amounts of P fertilizer and poorly managed irrigation systems may lead to P accumulation and pollution of surface and ground waters. To obtain available P from soil, one method is by adding P fertilizer in soil, the second method is by planting high PUE crop varieties [8,9].
In most arid and semi-arid areas, there is more poor land with water and nutrient stress, nutrient absorption cannot be maximized under water stress conditions, and poor nutrients also greatly limit crop water use efficiency (WUE) and yield. Therefore, wheat cultivars with high WUE and PUE are becoming a prerequisite for lowering production costs [1014]. However, the definition of WUE and PUE differs according to the context in which it is considered, and it is variously defined by agronomists, experts of plant physiology, irrigation engineers and economists. WUE has been defined as the leaf WUE (leaf photosynthetic rate per transpiration rate), whole plant WUE (the ratio of aboveground biomass or dry matter per unit area, and water use by crop); yield WUE (crop grain per unit area, to the transpiration loss from the crop) [15]. P use efficiency (PUE) was classified as shoot (SPUE) or whole plant (WPUE) efficiency, shoot P uptake per plant (SPUT, value of shoot dry weight × total shoot P concentration) and shoot P use efficiency (SPUE, shoot dry weight produced by unit SPUT); whole plant P uptake per plant (WPUT, value of whole plant dry weight × total whole plant P concentration) and whole plant P use efficiency (WPUE, whole plant dry weight produced by unit WPUT) [1618].
To make progress towards this objective, many studies related to WUE and nutrient use efficiency and their interactions have been done at both the physiological and molecular levels. The variable WUE and nutrient use efficiency of different crops or varieties under different water and nutrient level have been studied [1922], and these reports showed that water and nutrient uptake are two physiological processes that interact with each other. There has also been much research done on the chromosomal location of these traits in different studies. Morgan used 21 cultivar substitution lines of Chinese Spring/Red Egyptian to locate a single recessive gene for high osmoregulation on chromosome 7A of Chinese Spring [23]. Chromosomes 3A, 3D, 4A and 4D carry genes with increased Pn in Lophopyrum elongatum (Host) A.L(o)ve in Chinese Spring background [24]. The genes associated with high leaf water use efficiency (WUEl) were located on chromosomes 5A and 5D when the substitute line Chinese Spring-Egyptian Red was the tested material [25]. An effect of 1BL.1RS on drought tolerance was detected. ‘Mv5791-1B.1R’ and the sister line ‘Mv5791-1B.1B’ of rye were investigated, and the results showed that 1RS translocation line could increase HI and WUE under drought conditions [26]. The Pavon 1RS translocation lines had larger root biomass than Pavon 76 bread wheat and could absorb more water–nitrogen solution [27].
The substitution lines derived from the triticale ‘Presto’ and ‘Rhino’ cultivars were tested in hydroponic culture for nitrogen and phosphorus uptake and utilization efficiency. The nitrogen utilization efficiency (NUE) was significantly increased in all substitution lines with the exception of 1D(1R) ones, phosphorus utilizations were generally significantly positive only in the lines 2D(2R) and 6D(6R) [28]. Chromosomes 1D, 2D, 2B, 3A, 3D, 4A, 4B, 6A, 6B, 7D and 7A were associated with drought tolerance of Synthetic 6x in substitution lines of Chinese Spring (CS)-Synthetic 6x [29]. These results indicated that WUE and NUE may share the same genetic background at a molecular level. It is possible to improve drought and nutrient-deficiency tolerance of wheat through genetic approaches [30].
Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), one of the most important crops in the world, is mainly cultivated in arid and semi-arid areas, and always suffers from water and nutrient deficiency [3133]. Therefore, understanding the genetic control of P-deficiency tolerance and drought resistant is very important to provide strategies for development of higher water and nutrient-efficient cultivars. To our knowledge, there is a little information about the simultaneous chromosomal location concerning WUE and PUE in wheat under different treatments. In this study, the substitution lines derived from Chinese Spring and Egyptian Red were selected to locate genes associated with WUE and PUE on the specific chromosomes under different water and nutrient conditions with the following objectives: (i) to understand the differences of location results of PUE and WUE under different treatments; (ii) to assess the chromosomes simultaneously associated with WUE and PUE; (iii) to determine the relationships between traits; (iiii) to provide information useful for genetically improving WUE and PUE in wheat.

2. Results and Discussion

2.1. Chromosomal location of the genes associated with Pn (photosynthetic rate) and Tr (transpiration rate)

Pn and Tr values of the considered substitution lines for every treatment are shown in Table 1. Most genotypes showed higher Pn and Tr under WP treatment, a slight decrease under -WP conditions and greatly reduced values under W-P, -W-P treatment.
Under WP (control) treatment, all the A genome and chromosomes 7D, 3D, 6D, 7B, 5D, 6B, 2D, 4D, 1B showed significantly increased Pn compared to the two parents, and the parent CS had the lowest Pn among all the tested materials. Chromosomes 7A, 4A, 1A, 2A, 6A, 3A, 5A, 6D, 4D, 7D, 1D, 5D showed significantly higher Tr, but chromosomes 5B and 3B showed lower Tr than that of the two parents.
Under -WP treatment, chromosomes 7A, 6A, 3A, 5A, 4A, 6D, 7D, 2D, 2A, 3D, 4D had significant increased Pn than that of the two parents, chromosomes 5B, 4B, and 2B had a little lower Pn value compared with the two parental strains. Chromosomes 7A, 1A, 3A, 6A, 5A, 5D, 6D, 2D, 4A, 7D, 2A showed significant increased Tr and chromosomes 5B, 2B, and 4B had lower Tr than that of two parents.
Under W-P conditions, the parent ER showed the highest Pn value, and chromosomes 6A, 4D, 6D, 7D, 7A showed significantly increased Pn compared to CS and chromosome 3B showed a significantly decreased Pn compared to the two parents. Chromosomes 4D, 3D, 2D, 1D had significantly increased Tr compared to the two parents, while chromosomes 7B, 1A, and 6B showed lower Tr than that of the two parents, but only showed significant difference with ER.
Under -W-P treatment, chromosomes 7A, 7D, and 2A showed increased Pn compared with the two parents, and chromosomes 1B, 3D, 4D, 5B, 1D, 3B, 4B, 5D showed significantly decreased Pn compared with the two parents. Chromosomes 2D, 1D, 4A, 6D, 5D had significantly increased Tr and chromosomes 1B, 6B, 4B, 5B, 1A, 3A, 3B, 2B, 7B, 5A, 7A showed significantly decreased Tr compared with the parents. As shown in Table 1, genes with positive effects on Pn and Tr were mainly located on the A and D genome, and genes with negative effects on Pn and Tr on the B genome under different water and P stress conditions.

2.2. Chromosomal location of the genes associated with WUEl (Leaf water use efficiency) effects

It can be seen from Table 2 most genotypes showed greater WUEl under -WP conditions. Under WP condition, chromosomes 3B, 6B, 1B, 7B, 3D, and 2B may carry genes with positive effects and chromosome 1A with negative effects on WUEl, because they had higher and lower WUEl than that of two parents, respectively. But WUEl of chromosomes 3B, 6B, 1B, 7B, 3D, and 2B showed a significant difference for CS, and WUEl of chromosome 1A showed a significant difference for ER.
Under -WP treatment, chromosomes 4D, 6B, and 2B had higher and chromosomes 1A, 5D, 5B, 2D, 7A, 3A, 4B, 6D, 1B, 5A, 1D, 2A, 6A, and 3D had lower WUEl than that of the two parents, respectively. Only the value of WUEl on chromosomes 1A and 5D showed any significant differences compared to the two parents.
Under W-P condition, chromosomes 4A, 7A, 1A, 6A, 7B, 6B, and 3A had higher and chromosomes 3D, 5D, 2D, 3B, 4D,1D, 6D,1B, 7D, 4B, 5A, and 2B had lower WUEl than that of the two parents.
Only chromosomes 4A, 7A, 1A,3D, 5D, 2D, 3B, 4D,1D, 6D,1B, 7D showed significant differences compared to the two parents.
Under -W-P treatment, the higher WUEl and lower WUEl were observed on chromosomes 2A, 1A, 6B, 7A, 7D, 3A, 7B, 6A, 4B, 2B, 3B, 5A and 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D, 5D, 6D, 4A than that of the two parents, respectively. These substitute lines of chromosomes 2A, 1A, 6B, 7A, 7D, 3A, 7B, 6A, 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D, 5D showed significant differences for both parents.

2.3. Chromosomal location of the genes associated with DM (dry mass) TWC (total water consumption)

Most genotypes showed high DM under WP treatments. Higher TWC values were found under WP (control) or W-P treatments (Table 3).
Under WP conditions, chromosomes 5A, 3D, and 4B had higher DM than that of the two parents. Chromosomes 1B, 7B, 1A, 1D, and 6A showed lower DW than that of the two parents, but only showed significant difference with one parent CS or ER. The two parents showed significantly higher TWC than all the other genotypes except 5B.
Under -WP conditions, chromosome 7D showed higher DM, and chromosomes 2D, 1A, and 7B showed lower DM than that of the two parents, but only showed a significant difference with one parent CS or ER, respectively. Higher TWC values were found on chromosomes 6D, 3D, and 4D and lower TWC on chromosomes 7B, 3A, 5A, 1D, 1B, 5D, 1A, 4A, 2D, 6B, 7A, 2A, 2B, 3B, 4B, 7D and 6A compared with the two parents, but only the values of TWC on chromosomes 7B, 3A, 5A, 1D and1B showed any significant differences compared with both parents simultaneously.
Under W-P conditions, chromosomes 1A, 7A, 2B, 3D, 4D, 3B, 7D and 6B were found to have higher DM and lower one was seen on chromosomes 2A, 5D, 4A, 7B, 6A, 1B, and 1D than that of the two parents, and only the DM values on chromosomes 1A and 7A showed any significant differences with the two parents. Chromosomes 5A, 1D, 6D, 4D, 7A, 7D, 2B, 3D, 6A and 1A had positive effect and chromosomes 5B, 5D, 1B and 3A negative effect on TWC, respectively, but only the values of TWC on chromosomes 5A, 1D, 6D, 4D and 7A had any significant difference with the two parents.
Under -W-P treatment, chromosomes 3D, 2B, 1D, 2A, 3B, 7A, 2D, 5A, 6A, 1A and 4B had higher DM than the two parents. Chromosomes 5D and 5B showed lower DM than the two parents; chromosomes 3A, 4D, 6B, 1B, 2D, 6D, 3B, 1D, 7A, 5D, 2B, 5B, 6A, 7B, 3D, and 7D had higher and chromosomes 4B, 2A, 4A, and 5A had lower TWC values than the two parents, respectively. None showed significant differences except the values for chromosomes 3A, 4D, and 6B.

2.4. Chromosomal location of the genes associated with WUEp (Individual plant water use efficiency)

WUEp is calculated as the ratio between total plant dry mass (including roots) weight and total water use amount during the treatment period (planting to harvest) [34]. It can be observed from Table 4 that the higher WUEp of most genotypes were observed under -WP or -W-P treatment. Most genotypes showed lower WUEp under W-P treatment.
Under WP (control) treatment, chromosomes 5A, 7A, 6B, 4B, 3D, 6D, 7D, 2B, 3B, 4D, 3A, 2A, 2D, 5D, 5B and 4A had greater WUEp and only chromosome 5A showed a significantly higher value than that of the two parents, while chromosome 1B had a little lower value than that of the two parents.
Under -WP conditions, only chromosomes 7D and 2D simultaneously possessed higher and lower WUEp than that of the two parents, respectively.
Under W-P treatment, higher and lower WUEp were observed on chromosomes 1A, 4B, 7A, 2B, 3D, 6B, 3B, 2D, 4D and 1D, 2A, 4A, 5A, 7B, 6A, 5D, 6D than that of the two parents, respectively. Only chromosome 1A had a significantly higher value than that of the two parents.
Under -W-P conditions, when compared with the two parents, higher WUEp were observed on chromosomes 3D, 2A, 2B, 4B, 1D, 5A, 3B, 6A, 1A and 7A and lower values on chromosomes 5D and 5B; only the value of WUEp on chromosomes 3D and 2A had any significant difference for the two parents.

2.5. Chromosomal location of the genes associated with PUT (phosphorus uptake) and PUE (phosphorus use efficiency)

PUT and PUE are two important indexes for measuring the phosphorus utilization capability. The definition and calculation have been described in the literature [17,18,35,36]. PUT and PUE of substitution lines under different conditions are shown in Table 5. All genotypes showed the highest PUT under WP (control) treatment and decreased under the other three stress conditions. However, the lowest value of PUE was observed under WP (control) treatment, except for 2D and the highest ones were found under W-P or -W-P treatments.
Under WP (control) treatment, chromosomes 3D, 5A, 3B, 5B and 6D showed higher and chromosomes 7B, 1A showed lower PUT than that of the two parents, and only the values of PUT on chromosome 3D, 5A and 3B showed any significant difference with the two parents. Chromosomes 7A, 2D, 7D, 4B, 5D and 7B might carry genes with positive effects on PUE, and chromosomes 3B, 2A, 1B, 3D, 3A, 6D, 5B, 4A, 4D, 6A, 1D, 5A, 2B and 6B might carry genes with negative effects on PUE compared with the two parents. However, only the values of PUE on chromosome 7A showed a significant difference compared with the two parents.
Under -WP treatment, chromosome 3B showed higher PUT than that of the two parents, but was significant different only for CS. Chromosomes 1A, 1D and 2A showed lower PUT than that of the two parents and only showed significant difference for ER. Chromosomes 1A, 2A, 1D, 2B, 7A, 7D, 5D, 6D, 6A, 3D, 4A, 3A and 6B were found with higher and chromosomes 2D,1B, 3B, 7B, and 4B with lower PUE than that of the two parents, respectively, but only the values of PUE on chromosomes 1A, 2A, 1D and 2D were significantly different for the two parents.
Under W-P conditions, chromosomes 5A, 1A, 6B, 4B, 2B, 4D, 5B and 3A might carry genes for PUT improvement; whereas 2A, 1B, 1D, 7D, 5D and 3D carry suppressor genes for PUT; but only chromosomes 5A and 1A had a significant difference compared with the two parents. Higher PUE were obtain from chromosomes 3D, 7A, 7D, 1B, 1D, 3B, 2A, 6D and lower ones were located on chromosomes 5A, 5B, 3A, 6B and 4A, respectively; only the value of PUE on chromosomes 3D, 7A, 7D, 1B, 1D, 5A and 5B showed a significant difference compared to the two parents.
Under -W-P treatment, all substitution lines showed higher PUT than that of the two parents except 5D, but only the value of PUT on chromosomes 4D, 3D showed a significant difference compared to the two parents; chromosome 5D had a lower PUT value than that of ER. The highest PUE was observed on ER, chromosomes 4D, 7B, 3D, 5D, 7D, 5A, 3A, 5B, 4A, 3B, 6B, 7A, 4B, 2B and 6A showed significant lower PUE than that of the two parents.

2.6. Relationship between WUEl WUEp and PUE and related traits under different treatments

It can be seen from Table 6, that the phenotypic and genetic correlations between Pn and Tr were showed extremely significant positively correlation under WP (control), W-P, -WP treatment. Phenotypic correlations between Tr and WUEl also showed significant or extremely significant negatively correlation under -W-P, W-P, -WP treatment. Genetic correlation between Tr and WUEl showed extremely significant positive correlation under the four treatments.
Phenotypic and genetic correlation among DM, WUEP and PUT all showed significant or extremely significant positively correlation under WP (control), W-P, and -WP treatments. There were significant or extremely significant and negative correlations between PUE and PUT under the four treatments.

3.1. Plant material and experimental design

Twenty-one substitution lines derived from the wheat varieties Chinese Spring and Egyptian Red, and their parents were used in this experiment. The parents were initially chosen for their differences in drought tolerance. The donor parent Egyptian Red, is a drought-tolerant wheat variety, whereas the recipient parent Chinese Spring, is a drought-sensitive variety. These substitution lines were often used to locate genes for major agriculture characteristics [23,25]. Chinese Spring was identified as a low phosphorus uptake variety [37], but the phosphorus uptake of Egyptian Red was not identified.
These materials were kindly provided by Dr Richard Richards (CSIRO Plant Industry, Australia). Uniform seeds were sterilized in 0.1% HgCl2 about 15 min, and rinsed for three times in distilled water. Seed germination was carried out in an incubator for two days and then they were transferred to plastic pots containing vermiculite. Seedlings were selected at the one-leaf stage and then they were cultured in triangular flasks. The triangular flasks were sealed with sealing film to prevent evaporation and wrapped with black plastic film to keep the roots in the dark. About a week after transplanting, the experiments were initiated on March 20, 2007, and for six weeks after the treatment application measurements were taken. The second repeated experiments were begun on March 27, 2007. All treatments were like in the first experiment. During the experiment period, the growth chamber had a day temperature range was 25–27 ºC and the night temperature range was 20–22 ºC, the relative humidity range was 60–70%. Artificial lighting (fluorescent tubes with 400 PFD) were used for seedling growth (14 h day/10 h night cycle, respectively).
The planting design was a randomized complete block with three replicates and six seedlings in each bottle. Two water regimes (W) and two phosphate treatment (P) was used. Four experimental treatments were conducted as: WP and W-P, which was control treatment (Hoagland solution) and P stress treatment (Hoagland solution with 1/2 P) respectively; While -WP, and -W-P which was osmotic treatment (Hoagland solution with 10% PEG), and osmotic and P stress treatment (Hoagland solution with 10% PEG and 1/2P), respectively. Culture solutions were changed once every 3–5 days during the growth period. The bottle positions were randomly switched every so often to decrease the differences in microclimates. Three seedling plants per bottle were randomly selected for measuring the investigated traits.

3.2. Determination of WUE and PUE

3.2.1. Leaf water use efficiency (WUEl)

At wheat seedlings with six leaves, newly fully expanded leaves (the second leaf from the top) were selected for investigating leaf photosynthetic rate (Pn) and transpiration rate (Tr) with a portable photosynthesis system (LI-6400, Li-Cor, Lincoln, NE, USA). Nine leaves were measured for every treatment. Leaf water use efficiency (WUEl) was determined by Pn/Tr [38,39].

3.2.2. Individual plant water use efficiency (WUEp)

After measuring WUEl, plant samples from three plants were collected from each bottle, then oven-dried at 80 ºC to constant weight and weighed with an analytical balance. The amount of water used during the plant growth period was determined by measuring water volume in bottle during the exchange of solution. WUEp is calculated as the ratio between total plant dry mass (including roots) weight and total water use amount [34].

3.2.3. PUT (phosphorus uptake) and PUE (phosphorus use efficiency)

The dried samples were milled and subsequently digested with concentrated H2SO4 and H2O2 for determining total P using the molybdate-blue colorimetric method. The calculation of PUT and PUE has been described in the literature [35,36].

3.3. Statistical analyses

Statistical analysis was performed using the SPSS 13.0 software. Duncan’s multiple range tests was employed for mean separation of each variable of investigated traits (photosynthetic rates, transpiration rates, leaf water use efficiency, dry mass, total water consumption, individual plant water use efficiency, phosphorous uptake, phosphorous use efficiency) among lines. Statistical difference in investigated traits under different treatments was assessed using one-way analysis of variance.

4. Conclusions

In this experiment, a set of Chinese Spring-Egyptian Red wheat substitution lines were used to locate the genes conferring WUEl, WUEp, PUE improvement or suppression on specific chromosomes at the seedling stage. Although the two parents were originally chosen because of their large differences in drought tolerance (Egyptian Red and Chinese Spring are drought tolerant and drought sensitive varieties, respectively), large differences between the two parents were also observed for the investigated traits. Egyptian Red showed greater WUEl (except for W-P treatment) (Table 2), WUEp (Table 4), and PUT (Table 5) than Chinese Spring under all four treatments. However, Chinese Spring had higher PUE than that of Egyptian Red under WP, -WP and W-P treatment (Table 5).This might be a reflection of the fact that Egyptian Red is more tolerant to water and phosphorous deficiency than Chinese Spring.
It can be seen from Table 1 that Pn and Tr were more reduced by P stress than water stress. This is consistent with the results of [4042], in which plant growth and Pn were limited by P deficiency and moderate water stress had no significant effects on these traits. It is also reported that plants may show reduced Tr and increased WUEl to adapt to the stress condition [43]. Chromosomes 7D and 7A showed significantly increased Pn compared with CS under the four treatments. Chromosomes 6D, 4D, 6A and chromosome 2A showed higher Pn under WP, -WP, W-P treatment and WP, -WP, -W-P treatment, respectively; these chromosomes all showed significant increased Pn compared with CS. It may indicated that chromosomes 7D, 7A, 6D, 4D, 6A,2A may carry genes with positive effects on Pn. Chromosomes 5B and 3B carry genes with negative effects on Pn. A genome and chromosomes 3A, 3D, 4A and 4D were also reported to carry genes with increase Pn [24,25,44]. It seemed that genes with positive effects on Tr were carried by chromosomes 5D, 6D, 2D, 1D and 4A. The lower Tr values were mostly on the B genome.
From Table 2, most genotypes showed greater WUEl under -WP conditions. The main reason due to the lower Tr rather than greater photosynthetic capacity, because Tr were greatly reduced under water stress condition. WUEl on chromosomes 6B and 2 B were observed had higher value than two parents under WP (control), -WP and -W-P conditions. Chromosomes 1A, 7A, 7B and 3A also showed higher WUEl under W-P, -W-P treatment, which indicated these chromosomes might carry genes associated with WUEl improvement. While chromosomes 1D, 2D, 3D and 5D may carry genes with negative effects on WUEl because they showed lower WUEl than two parents under -WP, W-P, -W-P conditions. Chromosome 1A of wheat is also reported may carry genes involved in WUEl. [45], but observation differs from that in [25] that genes controlling water use efficiency were probably located on chromosomes 5A and 5D, which indicated that different location results may be obtained for different growth periods.
It could be seen from Table 3 that most genotypes had the highest DM under control treatment. TWC did no significant differences between control and W-P treatment, but was greatly reduced under PEG stress. Chromosomes 3D and 7D showed higher DM than the two parents under W-P, -W-P, WP and -WP, W-P treatments, respectively; chromosomes 1A, 7A, 2B, 3B and chromosomes 5A, 4B showed higher DM under W-P,-W-P and WP, -W-P treatments, respectively, which indicated that these chromosomes possibly carried genes for positive effects on DM, while chromosome 7B might carry genes with negative effects on DM, because it had lower values than the two parents under WP (control), W-P and -WP conditions. The results were consistent with suggestions that chromosomes 1A, 3D, and 5A carried genes with positive effects on DM [46]. Chromosomes 4D, 6D and 3D had higher TWC under -WP, W-P, -W-P treatments, this suggested that chromosome 4D, 6D and 3D possible carry genes increased TWC. Chromosomes 5D, 1B, 3A and chromosomes 4B, 2A, 4A and 5A may have deduced to be involved in reduced TWC because they showed lower values under WP (control), -WP, W-P and WP (control), -WP, and -W-P, respectively. This result was consistent with the finding of a previous study that chromosomes 2A, 3A, 4B and 5A may carry genes related to TWC [45].
As it shown from Table 4, most genotypes that showed the highest WUEp under -WP treatment were partially due to the lower TWC. The other studies also showed that WUEp was greater in stressed treatments than in the well irrigated control [47,48]. Chromosomes 7A, 3D, 2B, 3B and 4B might carry genes for positive effects on WUEp, because they showed increased WUEp under WP (control), W-P, and -W-P conditions (Table 4). This confirmed earlier observations that QTLs on chromosome 3B, 3D, 4A, 5B, 6D and 7A was vital for WUEp when the recombinant inbred line (RIL) population (W7984 × Opata85) was used as material [44]. Chromosome 3D of wheat was also reported to carry genes with strong positive effects on vegetative WUEp [49]. Genes for decreased WUEp might be carried by chromosome 5D because it showed lower WUEp under W-P and -W-P treatments.
All substitute lines and their parents had the highest PUT and lowest PUE under WP (control) conditions (Table 5). For most substitute lines, water stress and nutrient stress all decreased PUT but to different degrees, and PUT was more reduced by P deficiency than water stress. On the contrary, P-deficiency induced a significant enhancement of PUE. Our findings are also consistent with [5052], who reported that PUE were increased but there was decreased PUT under P deficiency. This result also confirmed former observation that decreasing water and nutrient supply decreased N, P and k uptake efficiency of different wheat species [31]. As Table 5 shows, genes with positive effects on PUT might be carried by chromosome 3B and chromosomes 5A, 5B because they showed increased PUT under WP (control), -WP, -W-P treatments and WP (control), W-P, -W-P treatments, respectively. The previous studies also revealed that the genes related to PUT had been located on chromosome 5A under P deficiency [16,18]. Chromosomes 7A, 7D carry genes for PUE improvement because they showed higher values than the two parents under WP, -WP and W-P conditions. Chromosomes 1B, 3B and chromosomes 4A, 3A, 5A, 5B, 6B showed lower PUE than that of the two parents under WP, -WP, -W-P and WP, W-P, -W-P treatments, respectively. Thus these chromosomes might carry genes with negative effects on PUE. This response was further confirmed by the results of [53,54], who found that chromosome 7A might carry gene(s) that could make wheat resistant to P deficiency, while chromosomes 1B and 3A might carry unfavorable gene(s) for this trait. It is also reported that chromosome 7A is closely related with PUE in wheat [23].
It can be seen from Table 6, WUEl were mainly determined by Tr, because these two traits are closed correlated. The significant phenotypic and genetic positive correlations were found among DM, WUEP and PUT. Therefore, DM may be as a good indicator for higher PUT and WUEp and also showed that water and phosphorus utilization was a related inheritance. The above results support the observations of location result from Tables 15, that these three traits have many similar location results under same treatment.
In conclusion, our results showed that chromosome 7A of substitution line were found to carry genes for increase in wheat WUEl, WUEp and PUE. Other studies also showed that chromosome 7A may carry genes for adapting to stressful environments [29,55]. Therefore, chromosome 7A should be further studied and some of the important genes on this chromosome might be cloned and transferred by molecular genetic techniques. Gene locations on chromosomes of the investigated traits were not completely similar under different experimental conditions [5659], this indicated that genetic mechanism(s) of WUE and PUE are highly complex. Thus, the chromosomal location of these traits in other growth periods and under different field conditions needs further study and we anticipate that very interesting data could be achieved through more verify, repeat experiments.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful for National 863 Water Saving of Important Item (2006AA100201), China National Science and Technology Uphold Plan (2006BAD29B02), Important Item of Chinese Academy of Sciences (KSCX1-YW-09-07), One Hundred-Talent Plan of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Specialized Initiation Foundation for Excellent Ph.D. Dissertation of Chinese Academy of Sciences, and The Open Foundation of State Key Laboratory of Soil Erosion and Dryland Farming on the Loess Plateau (10501-194).

Abbreviations:

CS
Chinese Spring
ER
Egyptian Red
WUE
water use efficiency
PUE
phosphorus use efficiency
WUEl
leaf water use efficiency
WUEp
individual plant water use efficiency
Pn
net photosynthetic rate
Tr
transpiration rate
DM
dry mass
PUT
phosphorus uptake
TWC
total water consumption
PEG
polyethylene glycol
WP
Hoagland solution
W-P
Hoagland solution with 1/2P
-WP
Hoagland solution with 10% PEG
-W-P
Hoagland solution with 1/2P and 10% PEG

References and Notes

  1. Soltani, A; Khooie, FR; Ghassemi-Golezani, K; Moghaddam, M. A simulation study of chickpea crop response to limited irrigation in a semiarid environment. Agric. Water Manag 2001, 49, 73–80. [Google Scholar]
  2. Zhang, ZB; Shao, HB; Xu, P; Chu, LY; Lu, ZH; Tian, JY. On evolution and perspectives of bio-watersaving. Colloid. Surface. B 2007, 55, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  3. Tseira, M; Irit, AC. The effectiveness of the protection of riparian landscapes in Israel. Land Use Policy 2009, 26, 911–918. [Google Scholar]
  4. Jain, A; Vasconcelos, MJ; Raghothama, KG; Sahi, SV. Molecular mechanisms of plant adaptation to phosphate deficiency. Plant Breeding Rev 2007, 29, 359–419. [Google Scholar]
  5. Fageria, NK; Baligar, VC; Li, YC. The role of nutrient efficient plants in improving crop yields in the twenty first century. J. Plant Nutr 2008, 31, 1121–1157. [Google Scholar]
  6. Feng, K; Lu, HM; Sheng, HJ; Wang, XL; Mao, J. Effect of organic ligands on biological availability of inorganic phosphorus in soils. Pedosphere 2004, 14, 85–92. [Google Scholar]
  7. Lynch, JP. Roots of the second green revolution. Aust. J. Bot 2007, 55, 493–512. [Google Scholar]
  8. Manning, DAC. Phosphate minerals, environmental pollution and sustainable agriculture. Elements 2008, 4, 105–108. [Google Scholar]
  9. White, PJ; Hammond, JP. The sources of phosphorus in the waters of Great Britain. J. Environ. Qual 2009, 38, 13–26. [Google Scholar]
  10. Manske, GGB; Ortiz-Monasterio, JI; van Ginkel, M; Gonzalez, RM; Fischer, RA; Rajaram, S; Vlek, PLG. Importance of P uptake efficiency versus P utilization for wheat yield in acid and calcareous soils in Mexico. Eur. J. Agron 2001, 14, 261–274. [Google Scholar]
  11. Richards, RA; Rebetzke, GJ; Condon, AG; van Herwaarden, FV. Breeding opportunities for increasing the efficiency of water use and crop yield in temperate cereals. Crop Sci 2002, 42, 111–121. [Google Scholar]
  12. Condon, AG; Richards, RA; Rebetzke, GJ; Farquhar, GD. Breeding for high water-use efficiency. J. Exp. Bot 2004, 55, 2447–2460. [Google Scholar]
  13. Liu, CH; Zhang, KW; Zhang, JR; Dong, ST. Morphological and physiological characteristics of P- efficient maize hybrid to stress of phosphorus deficiency. Plant Nutr. Fert. Sci 2006, 12, 327–333. [Google Scholar]
  14. Wang, FH; He, ZH; Sayre, K; Li, SD; Si, JS; Feng, B; Kong, LG. Wheat cropping systems and technologies in China. Field Crops Res 2009, 111, 181–188. [Google Scholar]
  15. Shi, JZ; Wang, TD; Li, LY. Experimental study and mathematical simulation of water use efficiency in wheat leaves affected by some environmental factors. Acta Bot. Sin 1994, 36, 940–946. [Google Scholar]
  16. Cao, WD; Jia, JZ; Jin, JY. Identification and interaction analysis of QTL for phosphorus use efficiency in wheat. Plant Nutr. Fertil. Sci 2001, 7, 285–292. [Google Scholar]
  17. Hammond, JP; Broadley, MR; White, PJ; King, GJ; Bowen, HC; Hayden, R; Meacham, MC; Mead, A; Overs, T; Spracklen, WP; Greenwood, DJ. Shoot yield drives phosphorus use efficiency in Brassica oleracea and correlates with root architecture traits. J. Exp. Bot 2009, 60, 1953–1968. [Google Scholar]
  18. Su, JY; Zheng, Q; Li, HW; Li, B; Jing, RL; Tong, YP; Li, ZS. Detection of QTLs for phosphorus use efficiency in relation to agronomic performance of wheat grown under phosphorus sufficient and limited conditions. Plant Sci 2009, 176, 824–836. [Google Scholar]
  19. Gorny, AG; Garczynski, S. Genotypic and nutrition-dependent variation in water use efficiency and photosynthetic activity of leaves in winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). J. Appl. Genet 2002, 43, 145–160. [Google Scholar]
  20. Sardans, J; Roda, F; Penuelas, J. Effects of water and a nutrient pulse supply on Rosmarinus officinalis growth, nutrient content and flowering in the field. J. Exp. Bot 2005, 53, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  21. Zhang, HW; Huang, Y; Ye, XS; Xu, FS. Evaluation of phosphorus efficiency in rapeseed (Brassica napus L.) recombinant inbred lines at seedling stage. Acta Agronom. Sin 2008, 34, 2152–2159. [Google Scholar]
  22. Alkama, N; Bi Bolou, EB; Vailhe, H; Roger, L; Ounane, SM; Drevon, JJ. Genotypic variability in Puse efficiency for symbiotic nitrogen fixation is associated with variation of proton efflux in cowpea rhizosphere. Soil Biol Biochem.
  23. Morgan, JM. A gene controlling differences in osmoregulation in wheat. Aust. J. Plant Physiol 1991, 18, 249–572. [Google Scholar]
  24. Peng, YY; Peng, ZS; Song, HX. Chromosomal location of the genes associated with photosynthesis of Lophopyrum elongatum (Host) A. Love in chinese spring background. Sci. Agric. Sin 2005, 38, 2182–2188. [Google Scholar]
  25. Zhang, J; Zhang, ZB; Xie, HM; Dong, BD; Hu, MY; Xu, P. Chromosomal positioning of the genes of water use efficiency and concerned physiological traits in wheat leaves. Acta Bot. Boreal.-Occident. Sin 2005, 25, 1521–1527. [Google Scholar]
  26. Hoffmann, B. Alteration of drought tolerance of winter wheat caused by translocation of rye chromosome segment 1RS. Cereal Res. Comm 2008, 36, 269–278. [Google Scholar]
  27. Ehdaie, B; Waines, JG. Larger root system increases water—nitrogen uptake and grain yield in bread wheat. In International Wheat Genetics Symposium, 11th ed; Sydney University Press: Sydney, Australia, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  28. Oracka, T; Lapinski, B. Nitrogen and phosphorus uptake and utilization efficiency in D(R) substitution lines of hexaploid triticale. Plant Breed 2006, 125, 221–224. [Google Scholar]
  29. Bai, ZY; Li, CD; Feng, LX; Sun, HC. Chromosomal location for drought tolerance as measured by cell membrane stability of common wheat cv. synthetic 6x. Acta Agric. Boreal-Sinica 2007, 22, 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  30. Cao, HX; Zhang, ZB; Xu, P; Chu, LY; Shao, HB; Lu, ZH; Liu, JH. Mutual physiological genetic mechanism of plant high water use efficiency and nutrition use efficiency. Colloid. Surface. B 2007, 57, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  31. Huang, ML; Deng, XP; Zhao, YZ; Zhou, SL; Inanaga, S; Yamada, S; Tanaka, K. Water and nutrient use efficiency in diploid, tetraploid and hexaploid wheats. J. Integr. Plant Biol 2007, 49, 706–715. [Google Scholar]
  32. Zhao, H; Zhang, ZB; Shao, HB; Xu, P; Foulkes, MJ. Genetic correlation and path analysis of transpiration efficiency for wheat flag leaves. Environ. Exp. Bot 2008, 64, 128–134. [Google Scholar]
  33. Zhang, HJ; Gan, YT; Huang, GB; Zhao, WZ; Li, FM. Postharvest residual soil nutrients and yield of spring wheat under water deficit in arid northwest China. Agri. Water Manag 2009, 96, 1045–1051. [Google Scholar]
  34. Radin, JM. Effects of N fertility on plant water relation and stromatal responses to water stress in irrigated cotton. Crop Sci 1985, 25, 110–115. [Google Scholar]
  35. Kitson, RE; Melon, MG. Colormetric determination of phosphorus as molybdovanado phosphoric acid. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res 1944, 16, 379–383. [Google Scholar]
  36. Harrington, RA; Fownes, JH; Vitousek, PM. Production and resource use efficiencies in N- and P-limited tropical forests: A comparison of responses to long-term fertilization. Ecosystems 2001, 4, 646–657. [Google Scholar]
  37. Yang, GH; Su, JY; Li, B; Liu, JZ; Li, M; Xiao, YM; Li, JY; Tong, YP; Li, ZS. Identification and characterization of phosphorus use efficiency in a doubled haploid population of Chinese Spring × Lovrin No. 10. Acta Bot. Sin 2004, 46, 302–310. [Google Scholar]
  38. Hamid, A; Agata, W; Kawamitsu, Y. Photosynthesis, transpiration and water use efficiency in four cultivars of mungbean. Photosynthetica 1990, 24, 96–101. [Google Scholar]
  39. Nijs, I; Ferris, R; Blum, H. Stomatal regulation in a changing climate: A field study using free air temperature increase (FATI) and free air CO2 enrichment. Plant Cell Environ 1997, 20, 1041–1050. [Google Scholar]
  40. Rodriguez, D; Andrade, FH; Goudriaan, J. Does assimilate supply limit leaf expansion in wheat grown in the field under low phosphorus availability. Field Crops Res 2000, 67, 227–238. [Google Scholar]
  41. Chen, JZ; Lv, GA; He, YQ. Effects of soil water status on gas exchange of peanut and early rice leaves. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol 2005, 16, 105–110. [Google Scholar]
  42. Akram, MS; Ashraf, M; Akram, NA. Effectiveness of potassium sulfate in mitigating salt-induced adverse effects on different physio-biochemical attributes in sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.). Flora–Morph Distrib Funct Ecol Plants 2009. [Google Scholar]
  43. Zhang, J; Zhang, ZB; Xie, HM; Dong, BD; Hu, MY; Xu, P. The relationship between water use efficiency and related physiological traits in wheat leaves. Acta. Agron. Sin 2005, 31, 1593–1599. [Google Scholar]
  44. Zhang, ZB; Shan, L; Xu, Q. Background analysis of genes controlling water use efficiency of Triticum. Acta Genet. Sin 2000, 3, 240–246. [Google Scholar]
  45. Zhang, ZB; Xu, P. Reviewed on study of wheat QTLs. Dev. Res. Techno. World 2002, 24, 52–58. [Google Scholar]
  46. Ehdaie, B; Waines, JG. Chromosomal location of genes influencing plant characters and evapotranspiration efficiency in bread wheat. Euphytica 1997, 96, 363–375. [Google Scholar]
  47. Lu, J; Okawa, T; Hirasaw, T. The effect of irrigation regimes on the water use, dry matter production and physiological responses of paddy rice. Plant Soil 2000, 223, 207–216. [Google Scholar]
  48. Spreera, W; Naglea, M; Neidhartb, S; Carleb, R; Ongprasertc, S; Muller, J. Effect of regulated deficit irrigation and partial root zone drying on the quality of mango fruits (Mangifera indica L., cv. ‘Chok Anan’). Agric. Water Manage 2007, 88, 173–180. [Google Scholar]
  49. Gorny, AG. Effects of d-genome substitutions on the water use efficiency and response of the ‘Langdon’ durum wheat (Triticum turgidum L. var. durum) to reduced nitrogen nutrition. Cereal Res Comm 1999, 27, 83–90. [Google Scholar]
  50. Yao, QL; Yang, KC; Pan, GT; Rong, TZ. The effects of low phosphorus stress on morphological and physiological characteristics of maize (Zea mays L.) Landraces. Agr. Sci. China 2007, 6, 559–566. [Google Scholar]
  51. Pan, XW; Li, WB; Zhang, QY; Li, YH; Liu, MS. Assessment on phosphorus efficiency characteristics of soybean genotypes in phosphorus-deficient soils. Agri. Sci. China 2008, 7, 958–969. [Google Scholar]
  52. Yong, FL; An, CL; Xing, HW; Abdul, KC. Relationship between leaf acid phosphatase activity and either P nutritional status or P efficiency in rice. Pak. J. Bot 2009, 41, 109–119. [Google Scholar]
  53. Li, YJ; Liu, JZ; Li, B; Li, JY; Li, ZS. Chromosomal control of the tolerance to soil phosphorus deficiency in genome of common wheat. Chin. J. Genet 1999, 26, 529–538. [Google Scholar]
  54. Su, JY; Xiao, YM; Li, M; Liu, QY; Li, B; Tong, YP; Jia, JZ; Li, ZS. Mapping QTLs for phosphorus-deficiency tolerance at wheat seedling stage. Plant Soil 2006, 281, 25–36. [Google Scholar]
  55. Morgan, JM; Tan, MK. Chromosomal location of a wheat osomregulation gene using RFLP analysis. Aust. J. Plant Physiol 1996, 23, 803–806. [Google Scholar]
  56. Qian, XQ; Shen, QR; Wang, JJ; Bai, YC; Yang, JC; Zhou, MY. Nitrogen nutrition characteristics of rice in simulating water stress condition. J. Nanjing Agricult. Univ 2003, 26, 9–12. [Google Scholar]
  57. Cao, Q; Hu, QH; Khan, S; Wang, ZJ; Lin, AJ. Wheat phytotoxicity from arsenic and cadmium separately and together in solution culture and in a calcareous soil. J. Hazard. Mater 2007, 148, 377–382. [Google Scholar]
  58. Bahava, N; Ebadi, A; Tobeh, A; Jamaati-e-Somarin, S. Effects of nitrogen application on growth of irrigated Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) under drought stress in hydroponics condition. Res. J. Environment. Sci 2009, 3, 448–455. [Google Scholar]
  59. Massa, D; Mattson, NS; Liethc, H. An empirical model to simulate sodium absorption in roses growing in a hydroponic system. Scient. Horticult 2008, 118, 228–235. [Google Scholar]
Table 1. Photosynthetic rate (Pn) and transpiration rate (Tr) of the wheat substitution lines under different conditions (data are means ± SD of three replicates).
Table 1. Photosynthetic rate (Pn) and transpiration rate (Tr) of the wheat substitution lines under different conditions (data are means ± SD of three replicates).
GenotypesPn (μmol·m2·s−1)
WP-WPW-P-W-P

1A5.2 ± 0.8AB3.8 ± 0.8a1.4 ± 0.1B3.1 ± 0.03
2A6.8 ± 0.4AB5.2 ± 1.1Ab1.4 ± 0.4B3.9 ± 0.5
3A7.9 ± 1.2AB6.9 ± 1.2AB1.7 ± 0.2B2.7 ± 1.1
4A9.5 ± 0.6AB5.8 ± 0.2AB2.1 ± 0.5B3.5 ± 0.04
5A7.2 ± 0.6AB6.3 ± 0.4AB1.9 ± 1.0B2.2 ± 0.03b
6A7.9 ± 0.03AB8.1 ± 1.4AB3.8 ± 0.9A3.5 ± 0.2
7A8.9 ± 0.3AB8.8 ± 0.8AB2.7 ± 0.4a4.7 ± 0.8A
1B4.4 ± 0.6Ab3.9 ± 1.11.9 ± 0.7B0.6 ± 0.AB
2B2.5 ± 0.42.2 ± 0.41.8 ± 0.9B1.9 ± 0.5B
3B1.4 ± 0.12.5 ± 1.00.4 ± 0.1aB1.5 ± 0.3aB
4B2.0 ± 0.31.7 ± 0.011.7 ± 1.0B1.6 ± 0.1aB
5B1.8 ± 0.21.1 ± 0.21.7 ± 0.8B1.1 ± 0.5AB
6B4.5 ± 1.0Ab4.2 ± 0.71.4 ± 0.3B2.4 ± 0.02
7B4.6 ± 1.0Ab4.5 ± 0.2a1.0 ± 0.1B2.5 ± 0.9
1D4.3 ± 0.5A4 ± 0.3a2.2 ± 0.4B1.3 ± 0.5AB
2D4.5 ± 0.7Ab5.2 ± 0.6Ab1.7 ± 0.7B2.1 ± 0.2b
3D5.9 ± 2.1AB4.7 ± 0.9ab1.8 ± 0.3B0.7 ± 0.1AB
4D4.4 ± 0.4Ab4.7 ± 1.3ab3.4 ± 0.6AB0.9 ± 0.3AB
5D4.6 ± 0.3Ab4.4 ± 1a1.2 ± 0.2B1.8 ± 0.3aB
6D5.8 ± 0.3AB5.8 ± 1AB2.9 ± 0.7AB2.9 ± 1
7D6.3 ± 0.9AB5.8 ± 0.4AB2.9 ± 0.4AB4.4 ± 0.6a
CS1.3 ± 0.5b2.4 ± 0.11.5 ± 0.3B2.9 ± 0.4
ER2.8 ± 0.2a2.6 ± 0.024.7 ± 0.7A3.5 ± 0.5

GenotypesTr (mmol·m2·s−1)
WP-WPW-P-W-P

1A4.0 ± 0.7AB3.4 ± 0.4AB0.4 ± 0.04B0.7 ± 0.04AB
2A3.9 ± 0.9AB1.9 ± 0.1ab0.5 ± 0.07B0.8 ± 0.2AB
3A3.8 ± 0.2AB3.0 ± 0.4AB0.5 ± 0.1B0.7 ± 0.1AB
4A5.2 ± 1AB2.0 ± 0.03aB0.5 ± 0.02B2.5 ± 0.01AB
5A3.1 ± 0.7AB2.7 ± 0.9AB0.9 ± 0.2B1.1 ± 0.1aB
6A3.9 ± 0.7A2.9 ± 0.8AB1.2 ± 0.2aB1.2 ± 0.01b
7A5.1 ± 1.1AB4.2 ± 0.06AB0.7 ± 0.1B1.1 ± 0.2aB
1B1.5 ± 0.21.7 ± 0.4b1.3 ± 0.01ab0.4 ± 0.04AB
2B1.1 ± 0.40.6 ± 0.20.8 ± 0.1B0.8 ± 0.3AB
3B0.5 ± 0.071.0 ± 0.30.5 ± 0.03B0.8 ± 0.2AB
4B1.2 ± 0.40.7 ± 0.021.0 ± 0.04B0.6 ± 0.06AB
5B0.8 ± 0.020.6 ± 0.20.6 ± 0.1B0.6 ± 0.1AB
6B1.5 ± 0.21.3 ± 0.70.4 ± 0.1B0.5 ± 0.01AB
7B1.7 ± 0.31.6 ± 0.20.3 ± 0.1B0.8 ± 0.3AB
1D2.6 ± 0.2Ab1.7 ± 0.32.9 ± 0.8AB2.8 ± 0.3AB
2D2.0 ± 0.1a2.3 ± 0.4AB2.9 ± 0.8AB4.2 ± 0.7AB
3D2.3 ± 0.08a1.7 ± 0.23.4 ± 0.06AB1.2 ± 0.05B
4D3.0 ± 0.9AB1.3 ± 0.44.4 ± 0.5AB1.3 ± 0.4b
5D2.4 ± 0.2Ab2.5 ± 0.8AB2.1 ± 0.4A2.4 ± 0.4Ab
6D3.0 ± 0.3AB2.4 ± 0.4AB2.3 ± 0.7A2.4 ± 0.2Ab
7D2.9 ± 0.4AB1.9 ± 0.3ab1.9 ± 0.6A1.2 ± 0.4b
CS0.9 ± 0.20.9 ± 0.20.5 ± 0.03B1.7 ± 0.6
ER1.2 ± 0.0040.8 ± 0.22.0 ± 0.5A1.9 ± 0.3
Note: Letters A and a indicate a significantly different results than the parent China Spring at P = 0.01 and P = 0.05, respectively; Letters B and b indicate a significantly different result than the parent Egyptian Red at P = 0.01 and P = 0.05, respectively.
Table 2. Leaf water use efficiency (WUEl) of the wheat substitution lines under different conditions (data are means ± SD of three replicates).
Table 2. Leaf water use efficiency (WUEl) of the wheat substitution lines under different conditions (data are means ± SD of three replicates).
GenotypesWUEl (μmol·mmol−1)
WP-WPW-P-W-P
1A1.3 ± 0.05B1.1 ± 0.1AB3.7 ± 0.4aB4.8 ± 0.02AB
2A1.8 ± 0.32.8 ± 0.82.9 ± 0.44.8 ± 0.8AB
3A2.1 ± 0.4a2.3 ± 0.073.2 ± 0.43.7 ± 0.5AB
4A1.9 ± 0.52.9 ± 0.044.0 ± 0.2AB1.4 ± 0.01
5A2.3 ± 0.3a2.4 ± 0.72.0 ± 0.32.0 ± 0.2
6A2.1 ± 0.42.8 ± 0.33.4 ± 1b2.8 ± 0.2AB
7A1.8 ± 0.32.3 ± 0.23.7 ± 0.2aB4.1 ± 0.4AB
1B2.9 ± 0.04A2.4 ± 0.031.5 ± 0.5Ab1.7 ± 0.6
2B2.5 ± 0.6A3.4 ± 0.32.3 ± 0.32.4 ± 0.a
3B2.9 ± 0.1A2.5 ± 0.30.7 ± 0.2AB2.0 ± 0.4
4B1.7 ± 0.42.4 ± 0.061.7 ± 1A2.5 ± 0.4a
5B2.2 ± 0.2a2.1 ± 0.3b2.7 ± 11.7 ± 0.6
6B2.9 ± 0.3A3.5 ± 1.23.2 ± 0.44.3 ± 0.02AB
7B2.7 ± 0.1A2.9 ± 0.33.3 ± 0.33.1 ± 0.3AB
1D1.6 ± 0.1b2.4 ± 0.50.8 ± 0.1AB0.5 ± 0.1AB
2D2.3 ± 0.3a2.3 ± 0.1b0.6 ± 0.3AB0.5 ± 0.05AB
3D2.6 ± 1A2.8 ± 0.20.5 ± 0.1AB0.6 ± 0.01AB
4D1.5 ± 0.3b3.6 ± 0.010.8 ± 0.04AB0.7 ± 0.2AB
5D1.9 ± 0.21.7 ± 0.6aB0.6 ± 0.1AB0.7 ± 0.1AB
6D1.9 ± 0.32.4 ± 0.061.3 ± 0.4AB1.2 ± 0.5
7D2.2 ± 0.02a3.1 ± 0.31.6 ± 0.8Ab3.5 ± 0.6AB
CS1.4 ± 0.2B2.9 ± 0.62.9 ± 0.61.7 ± 0.3
ER2.4 ± 0.2A3.3 ± 0.92.4 ± 0.31.9 ± 0.6
Note: A and a indicate a significantly different performance than the parent China Spring at P = 0.01 and P = 0.05, respectively; B and b indicate a significantly different performance than the parent Egyptian Red at P = 0.01 and P = 0.05, respectively.
Table 3. DM (dry mass), TWC (total water consumption) of the wheat substitution lines under different conditions (data are means ± SD of three replicates).
Table 3. DM (dry mass), TWC (total water consumption) of the wheat substitution lines under different conditions (data are means ± SD of three replicates).
GenotypesDM (g/plant)
WP-WPW-P-W-P

1A0.13 ± 0.03B0.1 ± 0.008B0.26 ± 0.1AB0.14 ± 0.01
2A0.16 ± 0.003b0.15 ± 0.01b0.11 ± 0.010.17 ± 0.007a
3A0.19 ± 0.0060.15 ± 0.02b0.15 ± 0.010.11 ± 0.08
4A0.19 ± 0.0010.15 ± 0.01b0.11 ± 0.0070.11 ± 0.01
5A0.29 ± 0.03A0.17 ± 0.0070.16 ± 0.010.15 ± 0.05
6A0.14 ± 0.01B0.13 ± 0.03b0.14 ± 0.020.15 ± 0.03
7A0.24 ± 0.07a0.18 ± 0.010.22 ± 0.04Ab0.16 ± 0.01a
1B0.11 ± 0.03B0.16 ± 0.0040.14 ± 0.020.13 ± 0.01
2B0.22 ± 0.040.17 ± 0.020.21 ± 0.05a0.19 ± 0.03A
3B0.21 ± 0.030.19 ± 0.02a0.18 ± 0.020.17 ± 0.06a
4B0.25 ± 0.02A0.16 ± 0.110.19 ± 0.020.14 ± 0.04
5B0.24 ± 0.05a0.14 ± 0.02b0.15 ± 0.0040.07 ± 0.006
6B0.22 ± 0.010.13 ± 0.03b0.17 ± 0.030.1 ± 0.02
7B0.12 ± 0.03B0.10 ± 0.05B0.13 ± 0.0060.1 ± 0.04
1D0.13 ± 0.03B0.14 ± 0.04b0.15 ± 0.0070.17 ± 0.03a
2D0.19 ± 0.030.09 ± 0.02B0.16 ± 0.030.15 ± 0.008a
3D0.25 ± 0.07A0.22 ± 0.03A0.2 ± 0.030.2 ± 0.007A
4D0.21 ± 0.010.16 ± 0.030.19 ± 0.020.12 ± 0.03
5D0.19 ± 0.030.18 ± 0.020.12 ± 0.030.05 ± 0.01b
6D0.22 ± 0.020.15 ± 0.05b0.16 ± 0.010.11 ± 0.07
7D0.23 ± 0.02a0.24 ± 0.07A0.18 ± 0.030.1 ± 0.05
CS0.15 ± 0.06b0.12 ± 0.02B0.15 ± 0.030.08 ± 0.03
ER0.24 ± 0.04a0.23 ± 0.01A0.16 ± 0.010.13 ± 0.04

GenotypesTWC (g/plant)
WP-WPW-P-W-P

1A91.7 ± 10.2AB58.7 ± 5.3b103.6 ± 6.360.9 ± 1.3
2A85.2 ± 0.04AB61.9 ± 6.498.8 ± 7.859.0 ± 5.4
3A95.8 ± 0.03AB55.2 ± 7.7aB95.6 ± 8.877.8 ± 2.9AB
4A108.5 ± 5.5AB59.8 ± 1.9b103.4 ± 0.259.8 ± 3.8
5A93.8 ± 4.4AB57.4 ± 1.9ab137 ± 0.1AB60.5 ± 4.6
6A97.0 ± 0.8AB66.6 ± 1.3104.9 ± 5.465.7 ± 5.2
7A96.3 ± 0.7AB62.0 ± 3.5118.0 ± 6.1AB69.7 ± 1.4
1B108.8 ± 8.3AB58.4 ± 1.5ab95.4 ± 0.172.6 ± 1.8b
2B100.6 ± 0.6AB62.2 ± 4.3110.1 ± 0.5b67.4 ± 6.1
3B100.9 ± 6.6AB63.7 ± 0.399.5 ± 0.0671.3 ± 6.7b
4B105.4 ± 3.8AB64.4 ± 6.498.6 ± 0.153.4 ± 5.5
5B128.1 ± 9.869.4 ± 1.290.7 ± 0.08a67.2 ± 2.7
6B93.6 ± 9.3AB61.4 ± 6.898.5 ± 7.673.2 ± 8.2aB
7B86.5 ± 0.1AB51.8 ± 8.1AB100.1 ± 0.565.6 ± 6.8
1D101.2 ± 5.8AB58.1 ± 9.1ab128.9 ± 7.8AB70.2 ± 3.8
2D103.4 ± 5.3AB61.2 ± 0.798.1 ± 8.272.4 ± 3.8b
3D109.2 ± 4.4AB74.5 ± 0.3108.3 ± 2.8b65.4 ± 5.9
4D102.4 ± 4.5AB73.3 ± 6.9118.6 ± 0.2AB75.8 ± 6.6aB
5D105.9 ± 11.1AB58.9 ± 0.4b90.9 ± 4.8a68.4 ± 4.6
6D97.5 ± 4.5AB80.9 ± 6a124.1 ± 4.0AB71.9 ± 1.1b
7D102.5 ± 3.2AB65.9 ± 9.5110.1 ± 8.9b64.6 ± 8.7
CS128.7 ± 8.268.8 ± 4.2103.4 ± 5.062.5 ± 0.8
ER139.5 ± 0.1a70.8 ± 0.296.9 ± 0.7860.6 ± 7.2
Note: A and a indicate a significantly different performance than the parent China Spring at P = 0.01 and P = 0.05, respectively; B and b indicate a significantly different performance than the parent Egyptian Red at P = 0.01 and P = 0.05, respectively.
Table 4. Individual plant water use efficiency (WUEp) of the wheat substitution lines under different conditions. (Data are means ± SD of three replications).
Table 4. Individual plant water use efficiency (WUEp) of the wheat substitution lines under different conditions. (Data are means ± SD of three replications).
GenotypesTreatment: WUEp (mg/g)
WP-WPW-P-W-P
1A1.4 ± 0.051.7 ± 0.3B2.5 ± 0.3AB2.3 ± 0.3A
2A1.9 ± 0.032.5 ± 0.4ab1.1 ± 0.032.9 ± 0.3bA
3A1.9 ± 0.062.8 ± 0.03A1.6 ± 0.011.4 ± 0.1b
4A1.7 ± 0.32.5 ± 0.3ab1.1 ± 0.071.9 ± 0.1
5A3.1 ± 0.2AB3 ± 0.02A1.2 ± 0.072.4 ± 0.4A
6A1.4 ± 0.61.9 ± 0.5B1.3 ± 0.012.3 ± 0.02A
7A2.5 ± 0.7A2.9 ± 0.4A1.9 ± 0.82.2 ± 0.2A
1B1 ± 0.72.7 ± 0.1A1.5 ± 0.21.8 ± 0.2
2B2.2 ± 0.4a2.8 ± 0.5A1.9 ± 0.52.8 ± 0.6A
3B2.1 ± 0.4a3 ± 0.4A1.8 ± 0.22.4 ± 0.2A
4B2.4 ± 0.3a2.5 ± 0.3ab1.9 ± 0.2a2.7 ± 0.4A
5B1.8 ± 0.61.9 ± 0.3B1.6 ± 0.041.0 ± 0.05B
6B2.4 ± 0.8a2.1 ± 0.04B1.8 ± 0.011.3 ± 0.5b
7B1.4 ± 0.31.9 ± 0.3B1.3 ± 0.31.6 ± 0.07
1D1.3 ± 0.32.4 ± 0.3aB1.1 ± 0.012.4 ± 0.1A
2D1.8 ± 0.21.5 ± 0.3B1.7 ± 0.12.1 ± 0.4A
3D2.3 ± 0.6a2.9 ± 0.4A1.8 ± 0.32.9 ± 0.4bA
4D2 ± 0.22.1 ± 0.01B1.6 ± 0.071.6 ± 0.05
5D1.8 ± 0.73.1 ± 0.4A1.3 ± 0.40.7 ± 0.1B
6D2.3 ± 0.09a1.9 ± 0.3B1.3 ± 0.21.5 ± 0.7b
7D2.3 ± 0.3a3.6 ± 0.4A1.6 ± 0.011.6 ± 0.08
CS1.2 ± 0.041.7 ± 0.4B1.4 ± 0.011.2 ± 0.3B
ER1.7 ± 0.33.3 ± 0.2A1.6 ± 0.12.2 ± 0.2A
Note: A and a indicate significantly different performance than the parent China Spring at P = 0.01 and P = 0.05, respectively; B and b indicate a significantly different performance than the parent Egyptian Red at P = 0.01 and P = 0.05, respectively.
Table 5. PUT (phosphorous uptake) and PUE (phosphorous use efficiency) of the wheat substitution lines under different conditions (data are means ± SD of three replicates).
Table 5. PUT (phosphorous uptake) and PUE (phosphorous use efficiency) of the wheat substitution lines under different conditions (data are means ± SD of three replicates).
GenotypesPUT (mg/plant)

WP-WPW-P-W-P

1A3.72 ± 0.2B1.35 ± 0.02B3.28 ± 0.9Ab1.11 ± 0.07
2A6.89 ± 0.4A2.21 ± 0.2B1.32 ± 0.1b1.5 ± 0.05
3A7.03 ± 0.02A3.08 ± 0.05B2.49 ± 0.51.51 ± 0.7
4A6.88 ± 0.15A3.00 ± 0.09B1.89 ± 0.31.43 ± 0.05
5A9.69 ± 0.17AB3.71 ± 0.7B3.31 ± 0.4Ab2.07 ± 0.6ab
6A4.71 ± 1.47B2.48 ± 0.3B1.88 ± 0.21.57 ± 0.4
7A5.48 ± 1.32b3.17 ± 0.2B1.94 ± 0.31.75 ± 0.1
1B4.79 ± 0.83B4.84 ± 0.7A1.35 ± 0.09b1.29 ± 0.1
2B7.18 ± 0.27A2.84 ± 0.2B2.72 ± 0.7a2.00 ± 0.3a
3B9.42 ± 0.83Ab5.71 ± 0.7A2.04 ± 0.11.99 ± 0.9a
4B6.34 ± 0.62a4.00 ± 0.1ab2.73 ± 0.4a1.6 ± 0.3
5B8.67 ± 0.03A2.97 ± 0.6B2.55 ± 0.30.93 ± 0.1
6B7.17 ± 0.01A2.62 ± 0.5B2.79 ± 0.7a1.12 ± 0.4
7B3.29 ± 0.5B2.69 ± 0.9B1.84 ± 0.21.87 ± 0.9a
1D4.51 ± 0.5B2.06 ± 0.5B1.61 ± 0.021.48 ± 0.3
2D4.65 ± 1.4B3.12 ± 1.6B2.28 ± 0.51.52 ± 0.004
3D10.09 ± 1.1AB4.29 ± 0.1A1.71 ± 0.33.24 ± 0.02AB
4D7.08 ± 0.3a3.51 ± 0.5B2.69 ± 0.4a4.18 ± 0.4AB
5D5.21 ± 0.6a3.27 ± 0.2B1.67 ± 0.30.75 ± 0.2
6D8.21 ± 0.2A2.80 ± 0.7B1.93 ± 0.20.85 ± 0.5
7D5.84 ± 1.2a4.20 ± 1.6A1.62 ± 0.31.63 ± 0.8
CS4.39 ± 0.8B2.41 ± 0.2B1.79 ± 0.40.69 ± 0.3
ER7.30 ± 0.08A5.54 ± 0.4A2.28 ± 0.30.86 ± 0.3

GenotypesPUE (g/g)

WP-WPW-P-W-P

1A34.1 ± 3.574.5 ± 2.4AB78.6 ± 0.5b123.5 ± 1.3AB
2A23.6 ± 0.9ab68.9 ± 1.0AB85.3 ± 1.9B112.5 ± 3.2B
3A26.5 ± 0.449.4 ± 2.761.5 ± 6.5A72.9 ± 0.4AB
4A27.5 ± 0.449.5 ± 2.762.9 ± 6.0A77.4 ± 7.2AB
5A30.4 ± 1.246.8 ± 3.448.0 ± 2.8AB69.9 ± 4AB
6A29.5 ± 3.352.3 ± 2.972.1 ± 2.894.4 ± 6.1AB
7A43.1 ± 1.4ab58.1 ± 0.4b116.0 ± 4.2AB88.6 ± 0.9AB
1B23.8 ± 0.9ab32.7 ± 2.9a104.0 ± 4.2AB103.1 ± 2.6B
2B30.5 ± 2.560.6 ± 5.6B76.1 ± 1.493.9 ± 5.1AB
3B22.3 ± 0.5ab33.9 ± 0.1a86.3 ± 2.2B84.1 ± 7.3AB
4B39.5 ± 0.439.8 ± 4.669.8 ± 3.6A89.8 ± 6.1AB
5B27.3 ± 2.946.1 ± 1.357.1 ± 5.3AB73.9 ± 2.8AB
6B30.9 ± 0.749.0 ± 1.562.6 ± 6.1A85.1 ± 6.4AB
7B36.5 ± 1.638.3 ± 2.169.8 ± 3.6A54.4 ± 5.3AB
1D29.7 ± 1.466.4 ± 2.1AB89.9 ± 3.5aB114.7 ± 2.3B
2D41.1 ± 3.128.5 ± 4.2Ab72.3 ± 2.7a101.4 ± 5B
3D25.1 ± 2.3a51.3 ± 3.2116.0 ± 1.4AB60.2 ± 1.6AB
4D28.9 ± 0.344.3 ± 1.372.5 ± 2.7a28.7 ± 3.9AB
5D37.5 ± 3.956.3 ± 5.1b71.0 ± 3.263.6 ± 3.8AB
6D26.9 ± 0.153.6 ± 1.885.2 ± 1.8B126.4 ± 8.7AB
7D39.5 ± 3.156.9 ± 1.8b107.9 ± 5.6AB64.2 ± 3.3AB
CS34.2 ± 3.248.1 ± 5.380.9 ± 0.3B109.4 ± 5.1B
ER33.3 ± 2.741.6 ± 2.768.6 ± 4.0A152.7 ± 4.8A
Note: A and a indicate a significant difference with the parent China Spring at P = 0.01 and P = 0.05, respectively; B and b indicate a significant difference with the parent Egyptian Red at P = 0.01 and P = 0.05, respectively.
Table 6. Significance compare between phenotypic correlation and genetic correlation between WUEl, WUEp, PUE and related traits.
Table 6. Significance compare between phenotypic correlation and genetic correlation between WUEl, WUEp, PUE and related traits.
TreatmentPhenotypic Correlation Genetic Correlation
WPPnTrWUElDMTWCWUEpPUTPnTrWUElDMTWCWUE.pPUT
Tr**Tr**
WUElWUEL-**
DMDM
TWC-*-*TWC-*-*
WUEp**WUEP**
PUT****PUT****
PUE-*PUE-*-**

-WPPnTrWUElDMTWCWUEpPUTPnTrWUElDMTWCWUE.pPUT
Tr**Tr**
WUEl-*WUEl-**
DMDM*
TWCTWC**
WUEp**WUEP**
PUT****PUT-*****
PUE-**PUE*-**

W-PPnTrWUElDMTWCWUEpPUTPnTrWUElDMTWCWUE.pPUT
Tr*Tr**
WUEl-**WUEl-**
DMDM
TWCTWC
WUEp**WUEP**
PUT***PUT***
PUE-**PUE-**

-W-PPnTrWUElDMTWCWUEpPUTPnTrWUElDMTWCWUE.pPUT
TrTr
WUEl**-**WUEl**-**
DMDM
TWCTWC-*
WUEp**WUEP**-*
PUT*PUT-*
PUE-**PUE-**
Note: ** and * indicated positive correlation is significant at 0.01, 0.05 probability level, respectively;
–** and –* indicated negative correlation is significant at 0.01, 0.05 probability level, respectively.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Cao, H.-X.; Zhang, Z.-B.; Sun, C.-X.; Shao, H.-B.; Song, W.-Y.; Xu, P. Chromosomal Location of Traits Associated with Wheat Seedling Water and Phosphorus Use Efficiency under Different Water and Phosphorus Stresses. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2009, 10, 4116-4136. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms10094116

AMA Style

Cao H-X, Zhang Z-B, Sun C-X, Shao H-B, Song W-Y, Xu P. Chromosomal Location of Traits Associated with Wheat Seedling Water and Phosphorus Use Efficiency under Different Water and Phosphorus Stresses. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2009; 10(9):4116-4136. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms10094116

Chicago/Turabian Style

Cao, Hong-Xing, Zheng-Bin Zhang, Cheng-Xu Sun, Hong-Bo Shao, Wei-Yi Song, and Ping Xu. 2009. "Chromosomal Location of Traits Associated with Wheat Seedling Water and Phosphorus Use Efficiency under Different Water and Phosphorus Stresses" International Journal of Molecular Sciences 10, no. 9: 4116-4136. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms10094116

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop