Back

Tillering structures the genetic variability of wheat vegetative growth and its plasticity under water deficit

Parent, B.; Leveau, S.; Giunta, F.; Luchaire, N.; Cabrera-Bosquet, L.; Beauchene, K.; Jezequel, S.; Motzo, R.; Martre, P.

2023-07-28 plant biology
10.1101/2023.07.26.550706 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Leaf expansion under drought drives the trade-off between water saving for later grain production and canopy photosynthesis. Fine-tuning leaf expansion could therefore become a target of genetic progress for drought-prone environments. However, its components (branching, leaf production and elongation) may have their own genetic variability and plasticity under drought, making hard to calibrate crop simulation models and specify breeding targets. In this study, we focused on the genetic diversity of bread wheat and durum wheat to determine the links and trade-offs between the underlying processes of leaf growth under drought and how it translates to leaf expansion at the whole plant and canopy level. For that, we used non-destructive imaging both in the field and controlled condition platforms to determine the dynamics of the components of shoot expansion and analyze their relative contribution to the genetic variability of whole-plant shoot expansion under drought. Results show that leaf expansion measured at plant level in controlled environment was associated with that measured at canopy level in the field, indicating that controlled phenotyping platforms can capture the genetic variability of growth in the field. Both whole-plant and canopy expansion were associated with tillering rate. In addition, the sensitivity of shoot growth and tillering to soil water deficit were correlated, indicating that both tillering ability and sensitivity to water deficit drive the genetic variability of shoot expansion. Overall, dissecting leaf expansion dynamics allowed determining the links between shoot expansion traits under drought, and provides key targets in phenotyping, modelling and breeding for drought environments.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Experimental Botany
219 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
39.4%
2
Plant, Cell & Environment
78 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
7.2%
3
Plant Physiology
238 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
6.7%
50% of probability mass above
4
Frontiers in Plant Science
256 papers in training set
Top 1%
6.2%
5
New Phytologist
346 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.3%
6
The Plant Journal
215 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.2%
7
Theoretical and Applied Genetics
49 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.2%
8
in silico Plants
27 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.2%
9
Physiologia Plantarum
39 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.4%
10
The Plant Genome
57 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.9%
11
Plant Direct
95 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
12
Environmental and Experimental Botany
12 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.1%
13
Tree Physiology
24 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.1%
14
Plant Stress
12 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.1%
15
The Plant Phenome Journal
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.0%
16
Plant Methods
42 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%
17
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 74%
0.8%
18
Plant Science
31 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
19
Quantitative Plant Biology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
20
BMC Plant Biology
57 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
21
Crop Science
18 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
22
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 61%
0.8%
23
Plant and Soil
18 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.6%