Skip to main content
Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences logoLink to Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences
. 2019 Dec 17;27(7):1818–1823. doi: 10.1016/j.sjbs.2019.12.009

Assessment of grain yield indices in response to drought stress in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)

Hafiz Arslan Anwaar a, Rashida Perveen a, Muhammad Zeeshan Mansha b, Muhammad Abid a, Zahid Mahmood Sarwar c, Hafiz Muhammad Aatif b, Ummad ud din Umar a, Muhammad Sajid a, Hafiz Muhammad Usman Aslam d, Muhammad Mohsin Alam a, Muhammad Rizwan e, Rao Muhammad Ikram f, Suliman Mohammed Suliman Alghanem g, Abdul Rashid h,, Khalid Ali Khan i,j,k
PMCID: PMC7296489  PMID: 32565701

Abstract

Drought stress constricts crop production in the world. Increasing human population and predicted temperature increase owing to global warming will lead ruthless problems for agricultural production in near future. Hence, use of high yielding genotypes having drought tolerance and scrutinize of drought sensitive local cultivars for making them tolerant may be the proficient approaches to cope its detrimental outcomes. The current study was executed during 20015–2016 and 2016–2017 in field using randomized complete block design under factorial arrangements on 50 wheat genotypes for exploring their sensitivity and tolerance against drought. Some of the attributes of grain yield and drought tolerance indices were recorded. Grain yield showed negative correlations with tolerance index (TOL), drought index (DI) and stress susceptibility index (SSI) while positive correlation with mean productivity (MP) and geometric mean productivity (GMP) under drought condition. These findings depicted that tolerant genotypes could be chosen by high MP and GMP values and low SSI and TOL values. Based on the results, genotypes GA-02, Faisalabad-83, 9444, Sehar-06, Pirsabak-04 and Kohistan-97 were more tolerant and recognized as suitable for both normal and drought conditions. Genotypes of Chenab-00, Kohsar-95, Parwaz-94 and Kohenoor-83 confirmed more sensitive due to high grain yield loss under drought stress.

Keywords: Drought, Grain yield, Tolerance index, Tolerance

1. Introduction

Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) belongs to family Poaceae and is widely cultivated in the majority of the world regions. Wheat is a main staple food, is cultivated on 9.23-million-hectare area with the estimated production of 25.3 million metric tons with 2.74 metric tons/ha grain yield (USDA, 2017). A lot of constrains and challenges are facing in wheat production and yield in Pakistan as well as in the world. The food security is highly focused on obtaining more food to fulfil the needs of burgeoning population which can only be accomplished when the production of cereal crops is increased globally (Ahmed and Mustafa, 2017) and the prevention of stored grain commodities from insect losses (Ahmad et al., 2019).

The drought incidence and severity will certainly increase in coming future as a result of global warming that will direct towards a rigorous decline in overall production of food. Predicted temperature increase of 1.5–5.8 °C by 2100 will lead ruthless problems for agricultural production (Ansari et al., 2014, Field, 2012). At the same time progressively increasing human population that might achieve to nine billion in 2050, requires a surge in food supplies. Since desertification swells further by reason of constant trouncing of arable area the condition will be shattering and distressing more in the upcoming days (Solomon, 2007).

Use of high yielding genotypes having drought tolerance is an efficient approach to lessen its damaging effects. With declining resources of water and escalating intensity of drought, loss of yield is a dangerous alarm in these regions. However, attaining drought tolerance exclusively yield depended is complex due to its intricate heritability. Likewise, choosing genotypes having tolerant genes is a tricky task (Mitra, 2001). Alternatively, some statistical parameters as well as drought tolerance indices could be employed to compare the changes in grain yield in normal and drought conditions for the assortment of genotypes of high yields and drought tolerance (Yadav and Bhatnagar, 2001).

An index of tolerance index (TOL) was defined and pioneered by Rosielle and Hamblin (1981) as grain yield difference in normal (Yp) and drought (Ys) conditions which specified that drought sensitive genotypes show low values of this index. The index of mean productivity (MP) also defined by Rosielle and Hamblin (1981) is the average yield under drought stress (Ys) and normal (Yp) conditions. Fischer and Maurer (1978) projected the stress susceptibility index (SSI) explained that genotypes having the values of SSI less than one were tolerant.

Since Pakistan is the hub of wheat origin having plentiful germplasm of wheat. However, the majority of studies have engaged commercial wheat cultivars to study or develop their characters, but having very minute knowledge about drought tolerance of local cultivars. Thus, present research was executed to screen a number of Pakistani wheat germplasm by means of different indices and to select different drought tolerant and sensitive genotypes for further drought controlling programs.

2. Materials and methods

The study was performed in the field conditions at Research Boulevard of Department of Plant Pathology, Bahauddin Zakariya University (BZU) Multan. The experiments were executed in RCBD under factorial arrangements in sandy clay loam soil at BZU. The germplasm of 50 local genotypes/lines of wheat were collected from Gene Pool of lant breeding and genetics (PBG), University of Agriculture, Faisalabad (UAF) and Wheat Research Institute of Ayoub Agriculture Research Institute (AARI) for evaluating their sensitivity and tolerance against drought. Two plots with each 50 wheat genotypes were planted 1st week of December during 2015–16 and 2016–17 Rabi seasons with a density of 260 seeds m−2 to find out the drought sensitive and resistant wheat genotypes. Drought conditions were provided by skipping the irrigation at reproductive and grain filling stage of wheat in one plot in comparison of normal plot where no irrigation was skipped. 1000-grains weight (TGW), Productive tillers (PT), biological yield (BY), harvest index (HI), grain yield (GY), percent yield loss and different drought tolerance indices were precisely calculated. The observed data was analysed through software of Statistix 8.1 and means were compared by LSD test at probability level of 5%. Eqs. (1)–(6) were used for the assessment of drought indices, where Ys and Yp are grain yield in drought and normal conditions.

SI=1-Y¯sY¯p(FischerandMaurer,1978) (1)
SSI=1-YsYp/SI(FischerandMaurer,1978) (2)
TOL=Yp-Ys(RosielleandHamblin,1981) (3)
MP=Yp+Ys/2(RosielleandHamblin,1981) (4)
GMP=Yp×Ys(Fernandez,1992) (5)
DI=YsYp(Khakwanietal.,2011) (6)

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Impact of normal and drought conditions on grain yield

Results for grain yield during the 2015–2016 represented that the lowest and highest grain yields in genotypes Punjab-11 (211.7 g m−2) and Millat-11 (475.3 g m−2) under normal conditions. Genotype 9725 also gave significant high grain yield similar to Millat-11. Under stress conditions, 9444 (419.4 g m−2) and Hashim-10 (161.2 g m−2) depicted the highest and lowest yield respectively (Table 1). For the same season, genotypes Hashim-10 and Punjab-11 showed low yield and MH-97 and 9444 showed high yield in both drought and normal conditions. Genotypes Kohsar-95 and Parwaz-94 showed high yield under normal conditions but produced low grain yield in drought conditions. In the 2016–2017 season, the lowest and highest grain yield showed by Punjab-11 (202.4 g m−2) and Millat-11 (465.2 g m−2) in normal conditions, respectively. For the same season under drought conditions, genotypes Kohinoor-83 and Hashim-10 with 461.7 and 155.3 g m−2 ranked first and last, respectively.

Table 1.

Average yield components of 50 wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) genotypes under normal and drought conditions during the 2015–2016 and 2016–2017 growing seasons.

Genotypes TGW
PT
BY
2015/16
2016/17
2015/16
2016/17
2015/16
2016/17
N D N D N D N D N D N D
Pb-11 34.7 31.2 33.9 30.5 305 290 296 281 657.0 591.3 652.3 567.3
Gomal-08 37.0 34.1 36.3 33.2 334 317 327 311 817.3 735.6 811.7 717.3
Iqbal-00 37.2 35.7 36.8 34.8 345 328 337 319 850.3 765.3 848.7 740.7
Pak 81 38.9 36.2 38.3 35.4 360 342 351 336 894.3 804.9 889.0 793.3
Watan-92 35.9 33.3 35.7 32.9 311 295 304 287 689.3 620.4 684.0 604.7
Saher-06 40.4 37.6 40.2 36.7 374 356 366 347 1177.0 1059.3 1172.0 1031.3
9495 41.8 32.2 40.9 31.5 401 361 392 352 1235.7 1112.1 1227.7 1099.7
Pb-85 41.7 37.1 40.6 36.3 391 367 382 361 1280.7 1152.6 1272.3 1128.7
LU-26 37.8 33.6 36.3 33.1 337 317 327 309 812.7 731.4 805.7 717.7
Moomal-02 41.6 37.0 40.8 36.3 386 363 378 356 1220.0 1098.0 1213.3 1071.0
Kohistan-97 42.3 38.9 42.1 38.4 405 381 397 372 1272.0 1144.8 1265.7 1132.0
Fsd-83 42.0 38.6 40.8 37.9 405 380 396 373 1340.0 1206.0 1331.7 1198.0
Aas-11 38.9 35.8 38.3 34.7 344 323 336 316 973.7 876.3 961.7 849.0
Kohsar-95 41.1 31.3 40.6 30.6 371 330 362 321 1134.3 1020.9 1127.3 999.7
Fsd-08 40.5 36.0 40.0 35.3 373 362 366 356 1211.0 1089.9 1204.7 1064.0
Uqab-00 41.6 37.0 41.0 35.8 391 380 382 371 1251.7 1063.9 1241.0 1035.0
GA-02 37.7 33.5 37.0 32.9 340 330 332 322 919.0 781.2 909.3 756.3
Glaxy-13 38.7 34.4 37.9 33.7 353 343 345 336 1034.3 879.2 1026.7 845.0
Chakwal-50 42.3 39.8 41.6 39.1 410 397 401 390 1168.7 993.4 1159.3 963.0
Bhakhar-02 41.8 39.3 41.2 38.8 401 385 393 377 1271.3 1080.6 1259.7 1054.7
Pbw-222 43.2 40.6 42.3 39.7 425 408 417 401 1309.7 1113.2 1299.0 1094.7
MH-97 44.6 41.9 43.9 41.2 454 436 447 428 1306.7 1110.7 1297.3 1089.7
Fareed-06 42.2 38.8 41.8 38.0 410 394 403 386 1280.7 1088.6 1270.0 1064.7
Shaheen-94 42.6 39.1 41.8 38.1 406 390 398 383 1272.7 1081.8 1263.0 1063.0
Bathoor-08 40.8 37.6 39.9 36.8 383 368 376 359 1186.7 1008.7 1177.3 979.0
Pirsabak-04 44.5 41.0 43.5 40.0 448 430 338 422 1340.0 1139.0 1332.3 1115.7
Fsd-85 36.0 33.1 35.6 32.7 320 307 310 297 700.7 595.6 682.0 570.3
Shafaq-06 36.2 33.3 35.6 32.9 319 306 311 299 697.3 592.7 682.3 570.0
Kohinoor-83 44.8 33.6 43.7 33.3 447 393 439 386 1373.3 1167.3 1360.3 1133.3
Manthar-03 41.1 35.8 40.5 35.0 388 361 378 353 1230.0 1045.5 1218.7 1027.3
Lasani-06 41.3 35.9 40.6 35.5 385 358 377 351 1223.3 1039.8 1212.7 1016.0
9610 38.3 33.3 38.0 32.7 351 326 342 317 1020.3 867.3 1000.7 857.7
SH-02 41.5 36.1 40.7 35.3 409 381 402 373 1273.0 1082.1 1261.3 1066.7
Parsab-08 40.3 32.6 39.7 32.0 383 357 377 348 1216.7 1034.2 1209.0 1017.3
Anmol-91 41.3 33.4 40.7 32.7 386 359 378 351 1208.7 1027.4 1196.7 1003.0
Aas-02 38.3 31.0 37.6 30.2 348 324 341 318 1035.7 828.5 1024.7 816.0
Parwaz-94 41.2 30.9 40.6 30.1 380 330 372 322 1186.0 948.8 1167.7 923.7
9444 44.7 39.3 43.9 38.7 445 419 437 409 1343.3 1229.7 1323.0 1212.3
Inquilab-91 43.7 38.5 43.3 38.0 421 396 412 389 1324.3 1059.5 1315.3 1024.0
Potohar-73 42.3 37.2 41.9 36.5 397 373 389 366 1289.7 1031.7 1271.3 1013.3
Pict-62 42.2 36.7 41.7 36.0 392 369 386 362 1268.7 1014.9 1253.7 988.7
Wafaq-01 38.5 33.5 37.9 32.8 350 329 342 321 1020.3 816.3 998.0 796.7
AARI-11 42.2 36.7 41.5 36.0 401 377 393 369 1281.0 1024.8 1270.0 999.0
NARC-08 40.1 34.9 39.6 34.2 376 353 370 347 1190.0 952.0 1170.3 922.0
Chenab-00 44.6 34.4 43.8 33.8 447 398 439 390 1386.7 1109.3 1365.7 1096.3
Abadghar-93 42.0 39.5 41.8 38.9 392 372 387 366 1277.3 1021.9 1265.0 1002.0
9725 44.6 41.9 43.7 41.2 441 419 431 411 1393.3 1184.3 1368.0 1163.7
SH-95 38.5 36.2 37.9 35.3 350 333 442 322 1026.3 872.4 1007.0 853.3
Millat-11 44.8 42.1 43.7 40.6 444 422 436 413 1413.3 1201.3 1397.3 1177.0
Hashim-10 35.3 28.2 34.7 27.7 314 298 306 291 661.7 529.3 651.7 513.0

N = Normal condition, D = Drought condition, TGW = Thousand grain weight, PT = Productive tillers.

BY = Biological yield.

Based on following grain yield mean comparisons over 2 seasons (Table 2), categorised the wheat genotypes into four groups. The genotypes viz. 9725, Millat-11, Inqalab-91, 9444, Lasani-06, Manthar-03, Pirsabak-04, MH-97, Kohistan-97 and Faisalabad-83 expressed less grain yield losses or in other words high yield in both drought and normal conditions. Thus, arid and semi-arid regions are suitable for cultivation of these genotypes. In the second group the genotypes namely Hashim-10 and Punjab-11, Watan-92, GA-02, Faisalabad-85, Shafaq-06 and Aas-02 showed minimum yield in both normal and drought conditions. Chenab-00, Kohsar-95, Parwaz-94 and Kohenoor-83 genotypes of wheat expressed high yield in normal conditions but in drought conditions low yield was the outcome. Genotypes of this group confirmed high yield loss because of drought stress. Similarly, it was also witnessed that genotypes belong to this groups are most sensitive to drought. Likewise, the rest of the genotypes are included in the fourth group. Dorostkar et al. (2015) also reported the same type of four groups or clusters while evaluating and screening of 36 bread wheat genotypes for drought tolerance and sensitivity under normal and different stress regimes.

Table 2.

Average yield components of 50 wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) genotypes under normal and drought conditions during the 2015–2016 and 2016–2017 growing seasons.

Genotypes HI
GY
YR
MYR
2015/16
2016/17
2015/16
2016/17
2015/16 2016/17
N D N D N D N D
Pb-11 32.2 31.9 31.0 31.4 211.7 188.6 202.0 178.0 11.0 11.9 11.5
Gomal-08 33.7 33.4 32.7 32.8 275.7 245.7 265.7 235.0 10.9 11.5 11.2
Iqbal-00 32.8 28.2 31.5 28.1 278.0 216.7 267.3 208.0 22.5 22.2 22.3
Pak 81 32.7 32.3 31.6 31.5 292.3 260.0 280.7 250.3 11.1 10.8 11.0
Watan-92 32.3 30.0 31.4 29.1 223.0 186.0 214.7 176.0 16.6 18.0 17.3
Saher-06 30.1 29.9 29.5 29.9 355.0 318.0 345.7 308.3 10.7 10.8 10.7
9495 31.6 27.8 28.2 26.9 390.3 309.3 346.7 296.0 21.0 13.0 17.0
Pb-85 30.0 28.4 29.5 28.2 385.3 328.2 375.7 318.0 14.8 15.4 15.1
LU-26 37.8 36.0 36.9 35.1 306.6 262.6 297.0 252.0 14.4 15.2 14.8
Moomal-02 30.4 29.1 29.8 28.9 372.3 321.8 362.0 310.0 13.8 14.4 14.1
Kohistan-97 32.0 31.5 31.3 31.2 408.2 362.0 396.3 353.3 11.4 10.8 11.1
Fsd-83 32.1 32.0 31.2 31.3 425.5 385.4 415.3 375.3 9.9 9.6 9.8
Aas-11 32.3 30.5 31.7 30.4 314.1 267.1 305.0 258.0 15.0 15.4 15.2
Kohsar-95 31.3 24.1 30.7 23.6 354.6 246.8 345.7 236.0 30.7 31.7 31.2
Fsd-08 29.0 25.6 27.9 25.0 346.6 276.3 336.0 265.7 20.4 20.9 20.7
Uqab-00 32.1 31.5 31.8 31.4 402.5 335.1 394.7 325.0 16.7 17.7 17.2
GA-02 30.8 34.9 30.5 34.5 282.7 272.3 277.3 261.3 3.8 5.6 4.7
Glaxy-13 29.3 29.2 28.5 28.9 302.7 256.2 292.7 244.3 15.4 16.5 16.0
Chakwal-50 35.2 35.0 34.1 34.8 406.0 344.0 395.7 334.7 15.3 15.4 15.4
Bhakhar-02 30.8 29.4 30.3 29.3 391.7 317.9 382.0 309.3 18.9 19.0 18.9
Pbw-222 32.4 31.9 32.0 30.9 425.1 355.2 415.3 338.7 16.2 18.5 17.4
MH-97 36.3 36.2 35.3 35.5 468.9 398.1 458.0 387.0 15.2 15.5 15.3
Fareed-06 35.4 35.3 35.0 35.1 453.7 383.9 444.0 374.0 15.4 15.8 15.6
Shaheen-94 31.7 30.3 31.2 29.9 403.3 328.1 394.0 318.0 18.7 19.3 19.0
Bathoor-08 30.5 30.0 30.0 30.2 363.7 302.7 353.3 295.7 16.5 16.3 16.4
Pirsabak-04 34.8 34.7 34.1 34.6 465.2 395.6 454.0 386.0 15.1 15.0 15.1
Fsd-85 34.3 32.8 33.8 32.8 240.7 195.1 230.7 187.0 18.9 18.9 18.9
Shafaq-06 34.5 32.5 33.8 32.7 240.7 192.8 230.3 186.3 19.9 19.1 19.5
Kohinoor-83 34.3 28.1 33.9 28.2 471.2 328.1 461.7 319.3 30.4 30.8 30.6
Manthar-03 32.9 32.0 32.3 31.6 403.2 334.7 393.3 324.3 17.2 17.5 17.4
Lasani-06 32.9 31.9 32.3 31.9 401.8 332.8 391.3 323.7 17.5 17.3 17.4
9610 29.8 29.3 29.4 28.5 304.0 254.7 294.0 244.3 16.3 16.9 16.6
SH-02 31.7 28.1 31.2 27.6 403.3 304.2 393.3 294.0 24.6 25.2 24.9
Parsab-08 28.6 27.4 27.8 27.0 348.0 283.4 336.7 274.3 18.6 18.5 18.6
Anmol-91 32.2 31.9 31.5 31.8 387.7 328.2 376.7 319.3 15.4 15.2 15.3
Aas-02 28.6 28.0 27.8 27.2 296.0 231.3 284.7 222.0 21.9 22.0 21.9
Parwaz-94 31.2 26.9 30.9 26.5 371.2 255.9 361.0 245.0 31.3 32.1 31.7
9444 35.0 34.3 34.6 33.8 468.1 419.4 458.0 409.7 10.5 10.6 10.5
Inquilab-91 34.4 34.1 33.8 34.2 454.1 360.4 444.0 350.0 20.6 21.2 20.9
Potohar-73 31.3 30.9 31.1 30.5 402.7 318.1 395.3 309.3 21.0 21.8 21.4
Pict-62 32.7 32.8 32.4 33.0 414.7 332.9 406.7 326.0 19.7 19.8 19.8
Wafaq-01 31.1 30.5 31.0 29.8 317.0 249.0 309.0 237.3 21.4 23.2 22.3
AARI-11 31.3 28.9 30.7 28.8 400.7 296.5 390.0 287.3 26.0 26.3 26.2
NARC-08 29.7 27.0 29.4 26.9 354.3 257.6 344.0 248.0 27.4 27.9 27.6
Chenab-00 33.7 29.2 33.5 28.7 467.9 324.1 457.0 314.7 30.6 31.2 30.9
Abadghar-93 31.3 28.0 30.5 27.6 399.3 285.9 386.3 276.3 28.4 28.5 28.4
9725 33.8 32.5 33.7 32.4 471.2 384.3 461.7 376.7 18.3 18.4 18.3
SH-95 29.9 29.4 29.1 28.7 307.3 256.7 292.7 245.0 16.5 16.3 16.4
Millat-11 33.6 32.5 33.3 32.3 475.3 390.3 465.0 380.3 17.8 18.2 18.0
Hashim-10 34.0 30.5 33.0 30.3 224.7 161.2 215.0 155.3 28.2 27.7 28.0

N = Normal condition, D = Drought condition, HI = Harvest index, GY = Grain yield YR = Yield reduction MYR = Mean yield reduction.

Grain yield differences pointed out their differential tolerance and drought sensitivity which can be elucidated by loss in grain yield as an index. Chenab-00, Kohsar-95, Parwaz-94 and Kohinoor-83 showed highest grain yield reduction {(30.6% and 31.2%), (30.7% and 31.7%), (31.3% and 32.1%) and (30.4% and 30.8%)} that means these were highly sensitive to drought, while the lowest reduction (less sensitive or resistant) belonged to GA-02, 9444, Faisalabad-83 {(3.8% and 5.6%), (10.5% and 10.6%) and (9.9% and 9.6%)}, during first and second season, respectively (Table 2). Khakwani et al., 2012 reported significant loss in yield attributes when to evaluate the response of six wheat genotypes to different levels of drought stress and normal conditions regarding yield and yield components parameters. Bayoumi et al., 2008, Lopes and Reynolds, 2010 also reported the similar finding as difference in results may be because of the dissimilarities in experimental area circumstances.

3.2. Impact of normal and drought conditions on biological yield and its components

For estimation of the most and less drought affected wheat genotypes during 2015–2016 and 2016–2017 seasons, the analysed data of biological yield of wheat depicted a significant impact of terminal drought on the biological yield of different wheat genotypes. In normal water conditions, plants exhibited higher biological yield, while the imposed drought stress significantly reduced the biological yield. Under both normal and stress conditions, Hashim-10, Punjab-11, Watan-92, Faisalabad-85 and Shafaq-06 were the genotypes which showed low yield while the genotypes MH-97, 9444, Pirsabak-04, Faisalabad-83 and Punjab-85 showed high biological yield. Genotypes Pothohar-73, Kohsar-95 and Parwaz-94 showed high yield under normal conditions but produced low grain yield in drought conditions, thus higher biological yield loss was observed. The biological yield losses were presumably directed to ripening of photosynthetic portions prematurely which hampered photosynthesis and resultantly less grain yield. Same findings found by Pierivatolum et al. (2010) who considered the impact of drought stress on biological yield of 4 wheat genotypes and depicted that resistant genotypes showed greater biological and grain yield.

TGW, as an imperative yield contributing attribute with a pivotal character in restrictive yield potential, also decreased significantly with drought. Genotypes Kohenoor-83, Kohsar-95 and Parwaz-94 showed TGW under normal conditions but produced low grain yield in stress condition. Warrington et al. (1977) explicated that drought stress at flowering and grain filling stage may direct to yield reduction by falling TGW, and if it along with high temperature accelerates whole plant senescence and decreases BY and Harvest index. Number of PT is also a vital yield additive aspect for achieving higher yield as greater number of PT validate higher final yield. Plants formed more productive tillers in normal condition, while drought stress drastically reduced this trait.

Harvest Index is the competence of a genotype for translocation of assimilates in economically imperative part of crop. Under normal conditions, minimum values of harvest index (28.6, 27.8) were observed by the Parsab-08 as well as Aas-02 in 2015–2016 and 2016–2017 and maximum values (37.8 and 36.9) were found in LU-26, while in stress conditions, minimum and maximum values were observed in Kohsar-95 (24.1 and 23.6) and MH-97 (36.20 and 35.5) respectively. Harvest index decreased under drought conditions since both biological and grain yields decreased at different rates. Decrease in the value of harvest index possibly because of impact on yield and higher enhance in biological yield comparatively in grain yield. Same results were found by Khakwani et al., 2012 who reported significant loss in yield attributes of harvest index, biological yield and TGW on the same pattern when to evaluate the response of six wheat genotypes to different levels of drought stress and normal conditions.

3.3. Drought tolerance indices

The highest values of tolerance index (TOL) belonged to genotypes Chenab-00, Kohinoor-08, Parwaz-94, Abadghar-93, Kohsar-95 and AARI-11 having the values of 286.1, 285.5, 231.4, 223.4, 217.5, 206.9 respectively and the highest values of stress susceptibility index (SSI) belonged to genotypes Parwaz-94, Kohsar-95, Chenab-00, Kohinoor-08 and having the values of 1.7, 1.7, 1.7 and 1.6 respectively (Table 3). Under normal conditions, these genotypes showed high yield but low yield in drought conditions and thus were recognized as sensitive ones. Although these genotypes produced high yields, but for cultivation over wide range of areas these are not appropriate on account of their high losses of grain yield. It implies that choice on the bases of high TOL and SSI values would outcome low yielding and sensitive genotypes in drought conditions.

Table 3.

Influences under normal drought stress conditions on mean grain yields and drought indices for 50 wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) genotypes.

Genotypes Yp Ys TOL DI MP SSI GMP
Pb-11 413.7 366.6 47.1 0.89 390.1 0.6 389.4
Gomal-08 541.3 480.7 60.7 0.89 511.0 0.6 510.1
Iqbal-00 545.3 424.7 120.7 0.78 485.0 1.2 481.2
Pak 81 573.0 510.3 62.7 0.89 541.7 0.6 540.8
Watan-92 437.7 362.0 75.7 0.83 399.8 0.9 398.0
Saher-06 700.7 626.3 74.3 0.89 663.5 0.6 662.5
9495 737.0 605.3 131.7 0.82 671.2 1.0 667.9
Pb-85 761.0 646.2 114.8 0.85 703.6 0.8 701.2
LU-26 603.6 514.6 89.0 0.85 559.1 0.8 557.3
Moomal-02 734.3 631.8 102.5 0.86 683.1 0.7 681.1
Kohistan-97 804.5 715.3 89.2 0.89 759.9 0.6 758.6
Fsd-83 840.9 760.7 80.1 0.90 800.8 0.5 799.8
Aas-11 619.1 525.1 94.0 0.85 572.1 0.8 570.2
Kohsar-95 700.3 482.8 217.5 0.69 591.5 1.7 581.4
Fsd-08 682.6 542.0 140.6 0.79 612.3 1.1 608.2
Uqab-00 797.1 660.1 137.0 0.83 728.6 0.9 725.4
GA-02 560.0 533.6 26.4 0.95 546.8 0.3 546.7
Glaxy-13 595.3 500.6 94.8 0.84 548.0 0.9 545.9
Chakwal-50 801.6 678.7 123.0 0.85 740.2 0.8 737.6
Bhakhar-02 773.7 627.2 146.5 0.81 700.4 1.0 696.6
Pbw-222 840.4 693.9 146.5 0.83 767.2 0.9 763.7
MH-97 926.9 785.1 141.8 0.85 856.0 0.8 853.1
Fareed-06 897.7 757.9 139.8 0.84 827.8 0.8 824.8
Shaheen-94 797.3 646.1 151.3 0.81 721.7 1.0 717.7
Bathoor-08 717.0 598.4 118.6 0.83 657.7 0.9 655.0
Pirsabak-04 919.2 781.6 137.6 0.85 850.4 0.8 847.6
Fsd-85 471.3 382.1 89.2 0.81 426.7 1.0 424.4
Shafaq-06 471.0 379.2 91.8 0.81 425.1 1.0 422.6
Kohinoor-83 932.9 647.4 285.5 0.69 790.2 1.6 777.1
Manthar-03 796.5 659.1 137.4 0.83 727.8 0.9 724.5
Lasani-06 793.1 656.5 136.6 0.83 724.8 0.9 721.6
9610 598.0 499.0 99.0 0.83 548.5 0.9 546.3
SH-02 796.7 598.2 198.5 0.75 697.4 1.3 690.3
Parsab-08 684.7 557.8 126.9 0.81 621.2 1.0 618.0
Anmol-91 764.4 647.5 116.9 0.85 706.0 0.8 703.5
Aas-02 580.7 453.3 127.4 0.78 517.0 1.2 513.0
Parwaz-94 732.2 500.9 231.4 0.68 616.6 1.7 605.6
9444 926.1 829.1 97.0 0.90 877.6 0.6 876.2
Inquilab-91 898.1 710.4 187.6 0.79 804.3 1.1 798.8
Potohar-73 798.0 627.4 170.6 0.79 712.7 1.1 707.6
Pict-62 821.4 658.9 162.5 0.80 740.2 1.1 735.7
Wafaq-01 626.0 486.3 139.7 0.78 556.2 1.2 551.8
AARI-11 790.7 583.8 206.9 0.74 687.2 1.4 679.4
NARC-08 698.3 505.6 192.8 0.72 602.0 1.5 594.2
Chenab-00 924.9 638.8 286.1 0.69 781.9 1.7 768.7
Abadghar-93 785.7 562.2 223.4 0.72 674.0 1.5 664.6
9725 932.9 761.0 171.9 0.82 846.9 1.0 842.6
SH-95 600.0 501.7 98.3 0.84 550.9 0.9 548.7
Millat-11 940.3 770.7 169.7 0.82 855.5 1.0 851.3
Hashim-10 439.7 316.5 123.1 0.72 378.1 1.5 373.1

Yp = Yield under normal condition, Ys = Yield under drought condition, TOL = Tolerance index, DI = Drought index, MP = Mean productivity, GMP = Geometric mean productivity, SSI = Stress susceptibility index

The least values of tolerance index (TOL) belonged to genotypes GA-02 and Punjab-11 having value of 26.4 g m−2 and 47.1 g m−2. Dorostkar et al., 2015, Khakwani et al., 2011, Aghaei-Sarbarze et al., 2009, Rosielle and Hamblin, 1981 recommended that least values of TOL and SSI are related to least sensitivity to drought and choice exclusively on the bases of these indices directs high yielding genotypes under drought conditions. While TOL index illustrates the grain yield differences in normal (Yp) and drought (Ys) conditions.

3.4. Correlation analysis

There were positive significant correlations between Yp and all drought tolerance indices expect DI. For example, yield under non-stress conditions (Yp) showed a correlation of 0.981 with GMP, 0.985 with MP and 0.581 with TOL (Table 4). Ys was positively correlated with GMP (r = 0.983), MP (r = 0.979) but negatively correlated with SSI (r = −0.240). These correlations indicate that genotypes with higher MP and GMP are superior under stress conditions. These results are in agreement with those reported by Fernandez (1992) in bean and by Reynolds et al., 2007, Dorostkar et al., 2015 in wheat. All these studies inspected the selection criteria effectiveness for evaluating plant drought tolerance and reported that TOL, MP and GMP are more suitable to screen tolerance as they showed high positive correlation with grain yield under both drought and normal conditions. Positive significant correlation between GMP and MP and TOL in both drought and normal conditions shows that their effects are stronger than those of SSI and DI (Sio-Se Mardeh et al., 2006, Geravandi et al., 2010). There was a high correlation between MP and GMP (r = 0.999). Since GMP is calculated based on MP. So, high values of MP distinguish high-yielding drought tolerant wheat genotypes. Same results were attained by Fernandez, 1992, Farshadfar and Sutka, 2003, Khakwani et al., 2011. All these studies exhibited positive correlation between grain yield (both drought and normal conditions) and MP and GMP which recommend that these indices direct to high yielding tolerant genotypes under drought environments.

Table 4.

Correlation coefficients between yield under normal (Yp) and drought (Ys) conditions and drought tolerance indices.

DI GMP MP SSI TOL Yp
GMP 0.065
MP 0.044 0.999**
SSI −0.998** −0.066 −0.045
TOL −0.861** 0.415** 0.435** 0.861**
Yp −0.121 0.981** 0.985** 0.120 0.581**
Ys 0.239 0.983** 0.979** −0.240 0.246 0.931**
**

= Highly significant at p ≤ 0.01. Yp = yield under normal condition, Ys = Yield under drought condition, SSI = Stress susceptibility index, MP = Mean productivity, TOL = Tolerance index, DI = Drought index, GMP = Geometric mean productivity.

4. Conclusion

Employing drought tolerant and high yielding genotypes is the proficient way to diminish the drought effects. Assessment of genotypes using physiological and morphological characters under normal and drought conditions is suitable method for achieving this goal. In the present study, two irrigation regimes (normal and drought stress conditions) were used for the genotypes evaluation in combination with different drought indices like mean productivity (MP), stress susceptibility index (SSI), drought index (DI), geometric mean productivity (GMP) and tolerance index (TOL). Statistical analysis depicted that genotypes GA-02, Faisalabad-83, 9444, Sehar-06, Pirsabak-04 and Kohistan-97 were more tolerant and recognized as suitable for both normal and drought conditions on account of their low grain yield loss. Thus, they can be exploited to transmit tolerance genes to commercial genotypes in crossing nurseries. Genotypes of Chenab-00, Kohsar-95, Parwaz-94 and Kohenoor-83 confirmed more sensitive due to high grain yield loss under drought stress and, thus, can be exercised for further drought controlling programs.

Acknowledgements

Authors are thankful to Bahauddin Zakariya University (BZU), Multan and University of Agriculture, Faisalabad for providing laboratory facilities to conduct this research. Khalid Ali Khan extends his appreciation to the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Khalid University for support through research group program (R.G.P.1)-108/40.

Footnotes

Peer review under responsibility of King Saud University.

References

  1. Aghaei-Sarbarze R.M., Mohammadi R., Haghparast R., Rajabi R. Determination of drought tolerant genotypes in bread wheat. Electronic J. Crop Prod. 2009;2:1–23. [Google Scholar]
  2. Ahmad F., Iqbal N., Zaka S.M., Qureshi M.K., Saeed Q., Khan K.A., Ghramh H.A., Ansari M.J., Jaleel W., Aasim M., Awar M.B. Comparative insecticidal activity of different plant materials from six common plant species against Tribolium castaneum (Herbst) (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2019;26(7):1804–1808. doi: 10.1016/j.sjbs.2018.02.018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Ahmed H.G.M.D., Mustafa S. Designate the inheritance pattern of yield related indices in spring wheat. J. Agric. Basic Sci. 2017;2:50–57. [Google Scholar]
  4. Ansari M.J., Kumar R., Singh K., Dhaliwal H.S. Characterization and molecular mapping of a soft glume mutant in diploid wheat (Triticum monococcum L.) Cereal Res. Commun. 2014;42(2):209–217. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bayoumi T.Y., Eid M.H., Metwali E.M. Application of physiological and biochemical indices as a screening technique for drought tolerance in wheat genotypes. Afric. J. Biotechnol. 2008;7:14. [Google Scholar]
  6. Dorostkar S., Dadkhodaie A., Heidari B. Evaluation of grain yield indices in hexaploid wheat genotypes in response to drought stress. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2015;61:397–413. [Google Scholar]
  7. Farshadfar E., Sutka J. Multivariate analysis of drought tolerance in wheat substitution lines. Cereal Res. Commun. 2003;31(1–2):33–40. [Google Scholar]
  8. Fernandez G.C.J. Effective selection criteria for assessing plant stress tolerance. In: Kuo C.G., editor. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Adaptation of Vegetables and other Food Crops in Temperature and Water Stress. AVRDC Publication; Tainan, Taiwan. Shanhua: 1992. pp. 257–270. Chapter 25, 1992 Aug 13–16. [Google Scholar]
  9. Field C.B. IPCC, Cambridge University Press; UK: 2012. Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation: Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Fischer R.A., Maurer R. Drought resistance in spring wheat cultivars. I. Grain yield responses. Australian J. Agric. Res. 1978;29:897–912. doi: 10.1071/AR9780897. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Geravandi M., Farshadfar M., Kahrizi D. Evaluation of drought tolerance in bread wheat advanced genotypes in field and laboratory conditions. Seed Plant Improvement J. 2010;26:233–252. [Google Scholar]
  12. Khakwani A.A., Dennett M.D., Munir M. Drought tolerance screening of wheat varieties by inducing water stress conditions. Songklanakarin J. Sci. Technol. 2011;33:135–142. [Google Scholar]
  13. Khakwani A.A., Dennett M.D., Munir M., Abid M. Growth and yield response of wheat varieties to water stress at booting and anthesis stages of development. Pakistan Journal of Botany. 2012;44(3):879–886. [Google Scholar]
  14. Lopes M.S., Reynolds M.P. Partitioning of assimilates to deeper roots is associated with cooler canopies and increased yield under drought in wheat. Funct. Plant Biol. 2010;37:147–156. [Google Scholar]
  15. Mitra J. Genetics and genetic improvement of drought resistance in crop plants. Crop Sci. 2001;80:758–762. [Google Scholar]
  16. Pierivatolum J., Qasimov N., Maralian H. Effect of soil water stress on yield and proline content of four wheat lines. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2010;9:36–40. [Google Scholar]
  17. Reynolds M.P., Saint P.C., Saad A.S.I., Vargas M., Condon A.G. Evaluating potential genetic gains in wheat associated with stress-adaptive trait expression in elite genetic resources under drought and heat stress. Crop Sci. 2007;47:172–189. doi: 10.2135/cropsci2007.10.0022IPBS. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Rosielle A.A., Hamblin J. Theoretical aspects of selection for yield in stress and non-stress environment. Crop Sci. 1981;21:943–946. doi: 10.2135/cropsci1981.0011183X002100060033x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Sio-Se Mardeh A., Ahmadi A., Poustini K., Mohammadi V. Evaluation of drought resistance indices under various environmental conditions. Field Crops Res. 2006;98:222–229. [Google Scholar]
  20. Solomon S. Cambridge University Press; 2007. Climate change 2007-the Physical Science Basis: Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. [Google Scholar]
  21. USDA 2016-17. World Agriculture Production, United States Department of Agriculture, USA.
  22. Warrington I.J., Dunstone R., Green L.M. Temperature effects at three development stages on the yield of the wheat ear. Australian J. Agric. Res. 1977;28:11–27. doi: 10.1071/AR9770011. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Yadav O.P., Bhatnagar S.K. Evaluation of indices for identification of pearl millet cultivars adapted to stress and non-stress conditions. Field Crops Res. 2001;70:201–208. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES