Poster that presents the experiments, the main results and take home messages

Beauchêne, Katia

Collet, Clothilde

Declerck, Stephan

Doubell, Marcé

Draye, Xavier

Lamboeuf, Mickael

Legouis, Jacques

Manes, Yann

Martre, Pierre

Pecchioni, Nicola

Rincent, Renaud

Roumet, Pierre

Salon, Christophe

Symanczik, Sarah

Plants have evolved arrays of responses to abiotic constraints, many of which involve the root phenome. Presumably, these responses were shaped by natural selection to maximise adaptation and reproductive success. However, it is generally unclear whether this plasticity also contributes to improved agronomic performance of cultivated species under abiotic stress. In the context of the SolACE EU project, we monitored root growth and architecture of 250 bread wheat and 250 durum wheat genotypes in the 4PMI platform (rhizotubes) under combined low N and water and in the RootPhAir platform (aeroponics) under unconstrained conditions. Phenotypic plasticity in response to low N and water was estimated by comparing data from the two platforms. In parallel, conventional phenological and yield component variables were recorded for the same genotypes in replicated field trials involving control conditions vs combined low N and water. AMF colonisation data were also recorded on roots sampled in control conditions from one of the durum wheat trials. The genotypic effect (within each species) was significant for many variables and experiments. Root plasticity was predominant in the architectural data, as indicated by extremely low correlations between analogous variables in the two platforms. The root:shoot ratio was higher in 4PMI than in RootPhAir, which is consistent with the abiotic constraint present in the former. However, the genotypic variance for the root:shoot ratio was larger in RootPhAir than in 4PMI, as if the constraint in the latter was reducing the genotypic variability in root:shoot allocation. Field data were summarized by computing the rank of genotype responses to combined water and N deficits across the different trials, low ranks being assigned to generally sensitive genotypes. After assembling field and platform data, the sensitive genotypes in field trials tended to be those which have a low root allocation in RootPhAir (compared to 4PMI), while the tolerant genotypes in the field were those for which the root allocation in RootPhAir was close to that of 4PMI. Our interpretation is that the sensitive genotypes are able to reduce their root allocation when the root constraints are small, which makes them sensitive to soil-related constraints that would develop later during the crop cycle. Interestingly, the AMF data also points that the same genotypes are less keen to support the symbiotic association. Our results suggest that the ability to achieve a large root:shoot ratio is an important component of field crop tolerance to abiotic stress and call for reconsidering the value of architectural variables estimated in phenotyping platforms as direct predictors of crop tolerance

Clothilde Collet

Marcé Doubell

Mickael Lamboeuf

Renaud Rincent

Sarah Symanczik

Katia Beauchêne

Stephan Declerck

Jacques Legouis

Yann Manes

Pierre Martre

Nicola Pecchioni

Pierre Roumet

Christophe Salon

Xavier Draye

NEUROSURGERY ENTHUSIASTIC WOMEN SOCIETY

Does root plasticity contribute to crop tolerance to abiotic stresses?

Organic Eprints

Two large diversity panels of bread wheat [BW] (234genotypes) and durum wheat [DW] (250 genotypes) havebeen phenotyped and studied under various environments:1 RootPhAir [RPA]- High throughput root phenotyping in aeroponics.- 15 root traits for 15-day old seedlings.- Unconstrained conditions.2 4PMI- High throughput root phenotyping in rhizotubes.- 6 root traits for 15-day old seedlings.- Under combined low W &N supply.3 Pouch- 19 root traits for 5-day young seedlings.- Indicators of sensitivity to water stress for all traits.4 Field trials- Yield trait: Indicator of genotypic sensitivity to low W & N across 7 (BW) or 3 (DW) trials.- AMF trait: AMF colonization percentage (DW panel only, controlled conditions).- Unconstrained conditions and W and/or N deficits.A STUDY WITH COMBINED FIELD - PLATFORM EXPERIMENTSDOES ROOT PLASTICITY CONTRIBUTE TO CROP TOLERANCE TO ABIOTIC STRESSES?Web link: https://www.solace-eu.net This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 727247 (SolACE) Contact: clothilde.collet@uclouvain.beC. Collet1, M. Doubell1, M. Lamboeuf2, R. Rincent2, S. Symanczik3, K. Beauchêne4, S. Declerck1, J. Legouis2, Y. Manes5, P. Martre2, N. Pecchioni6, P. Roumet2, C. Salon2 And X. Draye1.1: UCLouvain, Belgium; 2: INRAE, France; 3: FiBL, Switzerland; 4:  Arvalis, France; 5: Syngenta, France, 6: CREA, Italy.1234p−value = 0.823p−value = 0.125BW DW100 200 300 0 10 20 30 400.20.40.6Weighted sum of ranks accross field trialsDiff R:S ratioΔR:S ratio [4PMI-RPA] 0.60.0.Yield sensitivity to field stress (relative scale)100 200 4030300 2010BW DRPA 4PMI (4PMI − RPA) RPA 4PMI (4PMI − RPA)0.00.51.0R:S ratio[ ] [ ]R:S ratioR:S ratiop−value = 0.823p−value = 0.125BW DW100 200 300 0 10 20 30 400.20.40.6Weighted sum of ranks accross field trialsDiff R:S ratiop−value = 0.823p−value = 0.125BW DW100 200 300 0 10 20 30 400.20.40.6Weighted sum of ranks accross field trialsDiff R:S ratiop−value = 0.823p−value = 0.125BW DW100 200 300 0 10 20 30 400.20.40.6Weighted sum of ranks accross field trialsDiff R:S ratiop−value = 0.823p−value = 0.125BW DW100 200 300 0 10 20 30 400.20.40.6Weighted sum of ranks accross field trialsDiff R:S ratioRPAPouch4PMIDPDDry_RDry_RS_ratioDry_SFresh_RFresh_RS_ratioFresh_SFSD_2LRD_2MedianDEMedianDLatMRL_middleNbE_valPERSRA_in_rad_valAMPL_3.5ARL_3.5TRL_3.5NB_ROOT_3.5S1_NB_3.5S2_NB_3.5CH_3.5GROWTH_HOUR_3.5P_GROWTH_3.5S1_GROWTH_3.5S2_GROWTH_3.5P_THETA_3.5S1_THETA_3.5S2_THETA_3.5P_LEN_3.5S1_LEN_3.5S2_LEN_3.5S1_AMPL_3.5S2_AMPL_3.5AMPL_SLOPEARL_SLOPETRL_SLOPENB_ROOT_SLOPES1_NB_SLOPES2_NB_SLOPECH_SLOPEGROWTH_HOUR_SLOPEP_GROWTH_SLOPES1_GROWTH_SLOPES2_GROWTH_SLOPEP_THETA_SLOPES1_THETA_SLOPES2_THETA_SLOPEP_LEN_SLOPES1_LEN_SLOPES2_LEN_SLOPES1_AMPL_SLOPES2_AMPL_SLOPE4PMI_RS_ratio4PMI_Dry_S4PMI_Dry_R4PMI_MRL4PMI_CH4PMI_SURF_PROJGWAM15_RANK_SUMGWAM15_RANK_SUM4PMI_SURF_PROJ4PMI_CH4PMI_MRL4PMI_Dry_R4PMI_Dry_S4PMI_RS_ratioS2_AMPL_SLOPES1_AMPL_SLOPES2_LEN_SLOPES1_LEN_SLOPEP_LEN_SLOPES2_THETA_SLOPES1_THETA_SLOPEP_THETA_SLOPES2_GROWTH_SLOPES1_GROWTH_SLOPEP_GROWTH_SLOPEGROWTH_HOUR_SLOPECH_SLOPES2_NB_SLOPES1_NB_SLOPENB_ROOT_SLOPETRL_SLOPEARL_SLOPEAMPL_SLOPES2_AMPL_3.5S1_AMPL_3.5S2_LEN_3.5S1_LEN_3.5P_LEN_3.5S2_THETA_3.5S1_THETA_3.5P_THETA_3.5S2_GROWTH_3.5S1_GROWTH_3.5P_GROWTH_3.5GROWTH_HOUR_3.5CH_3.5S2_NB_3.5S1_NB_3.5NB_ROOT_3.5TRL_3.5ARL_3.5AMPL_3.5SRA_in_rad_valPERNbE_valMRL_middleMedianDLatMedianDELRD_2FSD_2Fresh_SFresh_RS_ratioFresh_RDry_SDry_RS_ratioDry_RDPD−1.0−0.50.00.51.0Corr●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●DPDDry_RDry_RS_ratioDry_SFresh_RFresh_RS_ratioFresh_SFSD_2LRD_2MedianDEMedianDLatMRL_middleNbE_valPERSRA_in_rad_valAMPL_3.5ARL_3.5TRL_3.5NB_ROOT_3.5S1_NB_3.5S2_NB_3.5CH_3.5GROWTH_HOUR_3.5P_GROWTH_3.5S1_GROWTH_3.5S2_GROWTH_3.5P_THETA_3.5S1_THETA_3.5S2_THETA_3.5P_LEN_3.5S1_LEN_3.5S2_LEN_3.5S1_AMPL_3.5S2_AMPL_3.5AMPL_SLOPEARL_SLOPETRL_SLOPENB_ROOT_SLOPES1_NB_SLOPES2_NB_SLOPECH_SLOPEGROWTH_HOUR_SLOPEP_GROWTH_SLOPES1_GROWTH_SLOPES2_GROWTH_SLOPEP_THETA_SLOPES1_THETA_SLOPES2_THETA_SLOPEP_LEN_SLOPES1_LEN_SLOPES2_LEN_SLOPES1_AMPL_SLOPES2_AMPL_SLOPE4PMI_RS_ratio4PMI_Dry_S4PMI_Dry_R4PMI_MRL4PMI_CH4PMI_SURF_PROJGWAM15_RANK_SUMGWAM15_RANK_SUM4PMI_SURF_PROJ4PMI_CH4PMI_MRL4PMI_Dry_R4PMI_Dry_S4PMI_RS_ratioS2_AMPL_SLOPES1_AMPL_SLOPES2_LEN_SLOPES1_LEN_SLOPEP_LEN_SLOPES2_THETA_SLOPES1_THETA_SLOPEP_THETA_SLOPES2_GROWTH_SLOPES1_GROWTH_SLOPEP_GROWTH_SLOPEGROWTH_HOUR_SLOPECH_SLOPES2_NB_SLOPES1_NB_SLOPENB_ROOT_SLOPETRL_SLOPEARL_SLOPEAMPL_SLOPES2_AMPL_3.5S1_AMPL_3.5S2_LEN_3.5S1_LEN_3.5P_LEN_3.5S2_THETA_3.5S1_THETA_3.5P_THETA_3.5S2_GROWTH_3.5S1_GROWTH_3.5P_GROWTH_3.5GROWTH_HOUR_3.5CH_3.5S2_NB_3.5S1_NB_3.5NB_ROOT_3.5TRL_3.5ARL_3.5AMPL_3.5SRA_in_rad_valPERNbE_valMRL_middleMedianDLatMedianDELRD_2FSD_2Fresh_SFresh_RS_ratioFresh_RDry_SDry_RS_ratioDry_RDPD−1.0−0.50.00.51.0CorrFIG 4. EVOLUTION OF R:S RATIO AND DIFFERENCE BETWEEN4PMI & RPA OVER THE FIELD AMF COLONIZATION.FIG 2. DISTRIBITION OF R:S RATIO AND DIFFERENCE BETWEENRPA AND 4PMI PLATFORMS.p−value = 0.026 *p−value = 0.286p−value = 0.065 .  DW  0.250.500.7510 20 30 40 50Field AMF colonization [%]Plaform R:S ratio PlatformsRPA4PMI[4PMI − RPA]R:S ratio of 4PMI is higher than in RPA and has a larger genotypic variance10.50BW DWRPA 4PMI (4PMI − RPA) RPA 4PMI (4PMI − RPA)0.00.51.0R:S ratio[ ] [ ]R:S ratioR:S ratioR:S ratioRPAΔR:S ratio[4PMI-RPA]R:S ratio4PMIR:S ratioRPAΔR:S ratio[4PMI-RPA]R:S ratio4PMIBW DRPA 4PMI (4PMI − RPA) RPA 4PMI (4PMI − RPA)0.00.51.0R:S ratio[ ] [ ]R:S ratioR:S ratioGenetic correlations between variables measuredin the same platform are important but geneticcorrelations between variables measured indifferent platforms are negligible.Genotype by environment interactions aretherefore larger than the average genotypiceffect, which means that genotypic differencesare largely environment-specific.We can compare R:S ratio values of 4PMI ndRPA as it was measured in the same way.The R:S ratio and its genotypic variance arelarger in 4PMI than in RPA, which is consistentwith the lowW&N in the former.The genotypic variance of the stress response(ΔR:S ratio) is also large which confirms thatgenotypic differences are environment-specific.FIG 1. CORRELATION PLOT OF ALL VARIABLES MEASURED INTHE DIFFERENT PLATFORMS (DW).FIG 3. DIFFERENCE OF R:S RATIO BETWEEN 4PMI AND RPAPLAFORMS OVER THE YIELD SENSITIVITY TO FIELD STRESS- The amplitude f g netic variations is smaller than the effect of platform conditions. In addition, the ranking of the genotypes amoung platforms is notconserved. It is therefore unlikely that traits estimated in platforms would be close proxies of their field analogs.- The variance of the stress response in platforms suggests that root plasticity is genetically controlled, but the lack of correlations with yield sensitivityindicates that this plasticity may not support stress tolerance in the field.The sensitivity of the R:S ratio (ΔR:S ratio) toplatform conditions is independent from theyield sensitivity to field stress. Therefore, theplasticity of seedlings R:S ratio (estimated inplatform) does not seem to influence thecapacity to stand low W & N conditions in thefield.p−value = 0.026 *p−value = 0.286p−value = 0.065 .  DW  0.250.500.7510 20 30 40 50Field AMF colonization [%]Plaform R:S ratio PlatformsRPA4PMI[4PMI − RPA]R:S ratio of 4PMI is higher than in RPA and has a larger genotypic varianceField AMF colonization [%]10 20 40 50300.75.50.2p−value = 0.026 *p−value = 0.286p−value = 0.065 .  DW  0.250.500.7510 20 30 40 50Field AMF colonization [%]Plaform R:S ratio PlatformsRPA4PMI[4PMI − RPA]R:S ratio of 4PMI is higher than in RPA and has a larger genotypic variancePlaform R:S ratiop−value = 0.026 *p−value = 0.286p−value = 0.065 .  DW  0.250.500.7510 20 30 40 50Fiel  AMF colonization [%]Plaform R:S ratio PlatformsRPA4PMI[4PMI − RPA]R:S ratio of 4PMI is higher than in RPA and has a larger genotypic variancep−value = 0.026 *p−value = 0.286p−value = 0.065 . DW  0.250.500.7510 20 30 40 50Field AMF colonization [%]Plaform R:S ratio PlatformsRPA4PMI[4PMI − RPA]R:S ratio of 4PMI is higher than in RPA and has a larger genotypic varianceBW DWRPA 4PMI (4PMI − RPA) RPA 4PMI (4PMI − RPA)0.00.51.0R:S ratio[ ] [ ]R:S ratioR:S ratiop−value = 0.823p−value = 0.125BW DW100 200 300 0 1 20 30 400.20.40.6Weighted sum of ranks accross field trialsDiff R:S ratiop−value = 0.823p−value = 0.125BW DW100 200 300 0 10 20 30 400.20.40.6Weighted sum of ranks accross field trialsDiff R:S ratiop−value = 0.823p−value = 0.125BW DW100 200 300 0 10 20 30 400.20.40.6Weighted sum of ranks accross field trialsDiff R:S ratiop−value = 0.823p−value = 0.125BW DW100 200 300 0 10 20 30 400.20.40.6Weighted sum of ranks accross field trialsDiff R:S ratio R:S ratio [4PMI & RPA]ΔR:S ratio [4PMI-RPA]MAIN RESULTSInterestingly, DW genotypes with large R:S ratioin the RPA platform show a better tolerance tofield stress than the others (p-value <0.05, graphnot shown) and a higher AMF percentage ofcolonization in the field (p-value <0.05).TAKE HOME MESSAGES

https://orgprints.org/id/eprint/44801/1/ISRR-poster-20210521.pdf

Does root plasticity contribute to crop tolerance to abiotic stresses?

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

NEUROSURGERY ENTHUSIASTIC WOMEN SOCIETY

Organic Eprints