HAL Id: hal-02795616
https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-02795616
Submitted on 5 Jun 2020
HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- entific research documents, whether they are pub- lished or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.
L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.
Variability of the genetic response of tomato during soil drying and repeated cycles of water deficit and recovery
Julie Ripoll, Laurent Urban, Béatrice Brunel, Alain Goujon, Jean-Claude l’Hôtel, Mathilde Causse, Nadia Bertin
To cite this version:
Julie Ripoll, Laurent Urban, Béatrice Brunel, Alain Goujon, Jean-Claude l’Hôtel, et al.. Variability of the genetic response of tomato during soil drying and repeated cycles of water deficit and recovery.
Plant Biology Europe FESPB/EPSO Congress 2014, Jun 2014, Dublin, Ireland. �hal-02795616�
Ripoll Julie 1,2 , Urban Laurent 2 , Brunel Béatrice 1 , Goujon Alain 3 , L’Hôtel Jean-Claude 1 , Causse Mathilde 3 and Bertin Nadia 1
1. Plantes et Systèmes de Culture Horticoles (UR1115) - INRA PACA, 228 route de l’Aérodrome CS 40509, Domaine St Paul – Site Agroparc, 84914 Avignon cedex 9
2. Laboratoire de Physiologie des Fruits et Légumes (EA4279) - Université d’Avignon et des Pays du Vaucluse, 301 rue Baruch de Spinoza BP 21239, Site Agroparc, 84000 Avignon 3. Génétique et Amélioration des Fruits et Légumes (GAFL) - INRA PACA, Domaine Saint Maurice, 67 Allée des chênes, CS60094 F-84143 Montfavet cedex, France
E-mail : julie.ripoll@alumni.univ-avignon.fr
Results Introduction
In horticulture, controlled deficit irrigation may be a good alternative to reduce water use in the context of global climate change. Reduction of growth is one of the most current adaptive response to deficit irrigation for tomato (Chaves et al., 2003) but it can be partially compensated for during a recovery period (Xu et al., 2010). We tested here the potential of alternating periods of deficit irrigation (DI) of increasing intensity followed by recovery periods (RP), in order to test the hypothesis that a better quantification of plant response to water deficit during the reproductive period may help finding trade-off between plant growth and water saving. A kinetic drying treatment was performed in parallel to compare the responses of genotypes in more stressful conditions. The study investigated the 8 parents of the MAGIC TOM (Multi-Parent Advanced Generation Inter-Cross) population (Ranc, 2010).
References:
Chaves MM, Maroco JP, Pereira JS. 2003. Understanding plant responses to drought - from genes to the whole plant. Functional Plant Biology 30, 239-264.
Ranc N. (2010) Analyse du polymorphisme moléculaire de gènes de composantes de la qualité des fruits dans les ressources génétiques sauvages et cultivées de tomate ; recherche d’associations gènes/QTL, Académie de Montpellier, Ecole Nationale Supérieure Agronomique de Montpellier.
Scheirer C.J., Ray W.S. et Hare N., 1976. The analysis of ranked data derived from completely randomized factorial designs. Biometrics 32(2):429-434
Strasser, R. J., Srivastava, A., & Tsimilli-Michael, M. (2000). The fluorescence transient as a tool to characterize and screen photosynthetic samples. In M. Yunus, U. Pathre & P. Mohanty (Eds.), Probing Photosynthesis: Mechanism, Regulation and Adaptation, (pp. 445-483). London: Taylor and Francis .
Xu Z, Zhou G, Shimizu H. 2010. Plant responses to drought and rewatering. Plant Signaling & Behavior 5, 649-654.
The alternative treatment helped reducing the use of water by 25% compared to the control. This irrigation strategy might be interesting despite an average loss of 8% in terms of plant growth. On their whole the results suggest that accurately monitoring irrigation to maintain soil humidity above critical thresholds and selecting genotypes for their tolerance, may be a good strategy to reduce water input in horticultural crops.
Conclusion & Perspectives Materials & Methods
Plant Material: Cervil, Criollo, Ferum, LA0147, LA1420, Levovil, Plovdiv XXIVa and Stupicke Polni Rane (the 8 parents of the MAGIC TOM population). Plants were grown until the tenth truss.
Treatments were applied on reproductive plant:
Control plants: irrigation was based on plant evapotranspiration per day, measured twice daily
“Alternative treatment” (AT) (Figure 1): consisted of three 15-days periods of deficit irrigation (DI) of increasing intensity, interrupted by two 15-days periods of recovery (RP) - DI1 : -38% of water supply
- DI2 : -45% of water supply - DI3 : -55% of water supply
- RP: same irrigation as in control plants
“Kinetic drying”: no water was supplied to the plants until the permanent wilting point; realized in a climatic chamber in order to permit a slow and progressive soil drying on 4 genotypes (Cervil, Levovil, Plovdiv and LA1420) selected for their contrasted responses to water deficit in order to compare their response under extreme conditions
Fig. 1: Treatments scheduling of deficit irrigation (DI) and recovery periods (RP).
Kinetic drying was not represented on this figure because of the lack of visibility
Measurements:
Soil humidity was measured using a tensiometer (WCM Control, Grodan©)
Plant growth was assessed by multiplying leaf size by the number of leaves per plant at the end of each period of DI and recovery
Stem water potential was measured using a pressure chamber on bagged mature leaves (SAM Précis 2000 Gradignan, France)
The performance index (PI) (Strasser et al., 2000) was measured using a chlorophyll fluorimeter (Handy-PEA, Hansatech©)
To assess the long term effects of the alternative treatment we compared the areas under the curves for the parameters measured at the end of each DI and RP periods for stressed and control plants.
Statistical analysis on R 3.1.0:
The areas under the curve called “total AUDPC”, were compared using the H test (Scheirer-Ray- Hare, 1976) for non parametric data, completed by a multi-comparison test for details on differences between treatments.
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5
Water supply L.plant-1.day-1 Control
Irrigation
Deficit Irrigation
DI 1 mean -38% of supply
RP 1
no transition
DI 2 mean -45% of supply
RP 2
2 days of transition at-20%
RP 3
2 days of transition at-25%
DI 3 mean -55% of supply
Relationships between the parameters measured during the kinetic drying experiment
All genotypes responded in a similar way during “kinetic drying”
Plant water status decreased exponentially during soil drying, with a threshold around 20% soil moisture below which the plant water status declined rapidly.
This water status also caused a decline in the plant performance index, except for Cervil which seemed to be less sensitive
Below the threshold of - 0.2MPa predawn water potential, plant survival seemed to be endangered
Fig. 2 : Predawn water potential related to soil humidity during kinetic drying, and performance index related to predawn water potential, for
genotypes Cervil, Levovil, LA1420 and PlovdivXXIVa (each point is the mean of 6 repetitions, n=6)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
-2,0 -1,5 -1,0 -0,5 0,0
P er fo rma n ce in d ex in A .U .
Predawn water potential in Mpa
cervil la1420 levovil plovdiv
-1,8 -1,6 -1,4 -1,2 -1,0 -0,8 -0,6 -0,4 -0,2 0,0
0 20 40 60 80
P red a w n w a ter p o ten ti a l i n MP a
Soil humidity in %
cervil la1420 levovil plovdiv
Long term effects of the alternative treatment in comparison to control irrigation for the 8 genotypes
Ferum, Levovil and Cervil showed the most extreme responses to the "alternative treatment". Ferum and Levovil were the most sensitive to stress, whereas the growth of Cervil was not affected by stress.
AUDPC of predawn water potential for the 8 genotypes was on average 25% lower in the alternative treatment compared to the control
AUDPC of plant growth for the 8 genotypes was on average 8% lower in the alternative treatment than in the control
AUDPC of PI for the 8 genotypes was reduced by 20% in the alternative treatment compared to the control
Globally, water relationship, plant growth and photosynthetic machinery were negatively affected by the alternative treatment but some genotypes (Ferum and Levovil) were more sensitive.
Fig. 3 : Total AUDPC for predawn water potential, plant growth and performance
index for “AT“ and control plants (n=5)
Significant differences between treatments
-14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0
A rea u n d er t h e cu rv e in A .U .
Total AUDPC - Predawn water potential
Control AT
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000
A rea u n d er t h e cu rv e in A .U .
Total AUDPC - Plant growth
Control AT
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
A rea u n d er t h e cu rv e in A .U .
Total AUDPC - Performance index (PI)
Control AT
