Root system architecture and seed weight relations in forage pea (<i>Pisum sativum</i> ssp. <i>arvense</i> L. Poir.)

Acikbas, Semih; Ozyazici, Mehmet Arif; Bektas, Harun

doi:10.1590/0103-8478cr20210032

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

crop production • Cienc. Rural 52 (6) • 2022 • https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-8478cr20210032 copy

Root system architecture and seed weight relations in forage pea (Pisum sativum ssp. arvense L. Poir.)

Arquitetura do sistema radicular e relações de peso de sementes em ervilha forrageira (Pisum sativum ssp. arvense L. Poir.)

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT:

Forage pea (Pisum sativum ssp. arvense (L.) Poir.) is an important legume crop for fresh and dry herbage production with high input costs as irrigation and fertilization. Selection and breeding of accessions for improved drought tolerance, water, and mineral uptake efficiency become a necessity, rather than a choice. This study evaluated a set of forage pea accessions for the seedling root system architecture diversity and seed reserve utilization, under controlled conditions. Eight cultivars and an elite breeding line were evaluated for the first time in a plexiglass system. The number and lengths of the roots in each depth zone (0, 5, 10, 15+ cm) were evaluated and significant diversity was identified. The cultivar Livioletta had the highest number of roots and total root length. There was a significant correlation between seed weight, seed reserve utilization ratio, and root system vigor. Accessions with the highest seed reserve utilization had the highest total root length and numbers. Seedling root system vigor seems to be effective in predicting the fate of the accessions through maturity. The results suggested a possibility of “seedling root selection” for forage crop breeding.

Key words:
root length; seed reserve utilization; forage pea; root architecture; lateral root

Universidade Federal de Santa Maria Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Centro de Ciências Rurais , 97105-900 Santa Maria RS Brazil , Tel.: +55 55 3220-8698 , Fax: +55 55 3220-8695 - Santa Maria - RS - Brazil
E-mail: cienciarural@mail.ufsm.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] E-mail: semihacikbas@siirt.edu.tr. ^*Corresponding author

Abbreviation	Trait Name	Related references
NLR	number of lateral roots	MIA et al., 1996MIA, M. W. et al. Root system structure of six food legume species: Inter and Intraspecific variations. Japanese Journal of Crop Science, v.65, n.1, p.131-140, 1996. Available from: <Available from: https://doi.org/10.1626/jcs.65.131 >. Accessed: Jan. 12, 2021. doi: 10.1626/jcs.65.131. https://doi.org/10.1626/jcs.65.131... ; CERITOGLU et al., 2020CERITOGLU, M. et al. Root system variation of pulse crops at early vegetative stage. Notulae Botanicae Horti Agrobotanici Cluj-Napoca, v.48, n.4, p.2182-2197, 2020. Available from: <Available from: https://doi.org/10.15835/nbha48412054 >. Accessed: Jan. 05, 2021. doi: 10.15835/nbha48412054. https://doi.org/10.15835/nbha48412054...
TRL	total root length	CHEN et al., 2017CHEN, Y. et al. Characterizing root trait variability in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) germplasm. Journal of Experimental Botany, v.68, n.8, p.1987-1999, 2017. Available from: <Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erw368 > Accessed: Jan 07, 2021. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erw368. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erw368...
TLRL	total lateral root length	MIA et al., 1996MIA, M. W. et al. Root system structure of six food legume species: Inter and Intraspecific variations. Japanese Journal of Crop Science, v.65, n.1, p.131-140, 1996. Available from: <Available from: https://doi.org/10.1626/jcs.65.131 >. Accessed: Jan. 12, 2021. doi: 10.1626/jcs.65.131. https://doi.org/10.1626/jcs.65.131... ; YE et al., 2018YE, H. et al. Genetic diversity of root system architecture in response to drought stress in grain legumes. Journal of Experimental Botany, v.69, n.13, p.3267-3277, 2018. Available from: <Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/ery082%20 >. Accessed: Jan. 01, 2021. doi: 10.1093/jxb/ery082. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/ery082%20...
TapRL	taproot length	KASHIWAGI et al., 2015KASHIWAGI, J. et al. Scope for improvement of yield under drought through the root traits in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Field Crops Research, v.170, p.47-54, 2015. Available from: <Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2014.10.003 >. Accessed: Dec. 31, 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2014.10.003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2014.10.00...
aTRL	average total root length	MERRILL et al., 2002MERRILL, S. D. et al. Root length growth of eight crop species in haplustoll soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal, v.66, n.3, p.913, 2002. Available from: <Available from: https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.2136/sssaj2002.9130 >. Accessed: Jan. 05, 2021. doi: 10.2136/sssaj2002.9130. https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/d...
aLRL	average lateral root length
SWB	dry seed weight before sowing	QIU et al., 1994QIU, J. et al. Seedling growth as affected by seed weight in common vetch. Agronomy Journal, v.86 p.251-255, 1994. Available from: <Available from: https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1994.00021962008600020008x >. Accessed: Jul. 10, 2021. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1994.00021...
SWE SRU	dry seed weight at the end of the study seed reserve utilization
0-5 RN	total number of roots at 0-5	ORMAN-LIGEZA et al., 2014ORMAN-LIGEZA, B. et al. Root system architecture. In: Morte A, Varma A (Eds), Root Engineering: Basic and Applied Concepts. Springer Heidelberg, New York. 2014. Available from: <Available from: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-54276-3_3 >. Accessed: Jan. 11, 2021. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.100... ; CHEN et al., 2017CHEN, Y. et al. Characterizing root trait variability in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) germplasm. Journal of Experimental Botany, v.68, n.8, p.1987-1999, 2017. Available from: <Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erw368 > Accessed: Jan 07, 2021. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erw368. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erw368... ; CERITOGLU et al., 2020CERITOGLU, M. et al. Root system variation of pulse crops at early vegetative stage. Notulae Botanicae Horti Agrobotanici Cluj-Napoca, v.48, n.4, p.2182-2197, 2020. Available from: <Available from: https://doi.org/10.15835/nbha48412054 >. Accessed: Jan. 05, 2021. doi: 10.15835/nbha48412054. https://doi.org/10.15835/nbha48412054...
5-10 RN	total number of roots at 5-10
10-15 RN	total number of roots at 10-15
15+ RN	total number of roots at 15+
0-5 RL	total lengths of roots at 0-5
5-10 RL	total lengths of roots at 5-10
10-15 RL	total lengths of roots at 10-15
15+ RL	total lengths of roots at 15+

Accessions	NLR	TRL (cm)	TLRL (cm)	TapRL (cm)
EK-1 (Elite line)	19.39 de	86.24 c	58.47 c	27.77 b
GAP Pembesi	50.50 b	136.92 b	116.41 b	20.50 de
Gölyazı	30.75 c	85.33 c	61.28 c	24.00 bcd
Kirazlı	33.21 c	97.94 c	73.02 c	24.92 bc
Livioletta	62.07 a	169.77 a	136.34 a	33.45 a
Özkaynak	10.64 f	39.79 e	20.01 e	19.81 e
Taşkent	20.08 de	60.26 d	41.65 d	18.61 e
Ulubatlı	15.07 ef	61.44 d	39.29 d	22.15 cde
Ürünlü	22.07 d	93.47 c	65.81 c	27.66 b

Average	29.31	92.35	68.03	24.32
LSD	6.236^**	18.078^**	16.326^**	4.088^**
F value for the year effect	0.001	1.13	1.56	0.28

Accessions	aTRL (cm)	aLRL (cm)	SWB (g)	SWE (g)	SRU (%)
EK-1 (Elite line)	4.31 a	3.05 a	0.215 a	0.110 a	48.8
GAP Pembesi	2.75 b	2.39 bc	0.206 ab	0.047 b	77.2
Gölyazı	3.07 b	2.26 bc	0.153 de	0.050 b	67.3
Kirazlı	2.89 b	2.21 bc	0.169 cd	0.052 b	69.2
Livioletta	2.77 b	2.24 bc	0.166 cd	0.036 b	78.3
Özkaynak	3.89 a	2.26 bc	0.125 e	0.056 b	55.2
Taşkent	2.90 b	2.00 c	0.133 e	0.056 b	57.9
Ulubatlı	3.90 a	2.65 ab	0.186 bc	0.120 a	35.5
Ürünlü	4.20 a	3.08 a	0.183 c	0.091 a	50.3
Average	3.41	2.46	0.171	0.069	59.97
LSD	0.664^**	0.598^*	0.022^*	0.035^*
F value for the year effect	1.32	6.18	-	-	-

Accessions	0-5 cm RN	0-5 cm RL	5-10 cm RN	5-10 cm RL	10-15 cm RN	10-15 cm RL	15+ cm RN	15+ cm RL
EK-1 (Elite line)	8.52 c	31.48 cd	5.92 d	19.59 bc	3.74 bc	6.26 b	1.21 b	1.09 b
GAP Pembesi	22.07 a	63.86 a	19.07 a	38.02 a	8.21 a	12.96 a	1.14 b	1.57 b
Gölyazı	13.75 b	36.20 bcd	10.00 bc	16.30 bc	5.08 b	6.67 b	1.92 b	2.11 b
Kirazlı	15.83 b	45.43 b	12.27 b	22.48 b	3.97 bc	4.16 bc	1.14 b	0.96 b
Livioletta	24.79 a	75.05 a	18.57 a	38.21 a	9.86 a	14.19 a	8.86 a	8.90 a
Özkaynak	7.29 c	16.48 e	2.71 e	2.56 d	0.50 d	0.35 c	0.14 b	0.04 b
Taşkent	10.29 c	25.66 de	7.55 cd	12.76 c	2.25 cd	3.23 bc	0.00^µ	0.00^µ
Ulubatlı	8.50 c	25.35 de	5.14 de	11.98 c	1.43 cd	1.96 bc	0.00^µ	0.00^µ
Ürünlü	9.43 c	37.70 bc	6.57 d	19.45 bc	4.00 bc	6.69 b	2.07 b	1.98 b
Average	13.39	39.69	9.76	20.15	4.34	6.27	1.83	1.85
LSD	3.192^**	11.438^**	3.096^**	8.701^**	2.641^**	5.434^**	3.415^**	4.465^*
F value for the year effect	0.016	0.93	1.75	0.11	0.24	2.23	3.57	3.44

	TapRL	0-5 cm RN	10-15 cm RN	15+ cm RN	5-10 cm RN	0-5 cm RL	10-15 cm RL	15+ cm RL	5-10 cm RL	NLR	TLRL	SWB
0-5 cm RN	0.13
10-15 cm RN	0.43	0.31
15+ cm RN	0.49	-0.03	0.47
5-10 cm RN	0.31	0.68	0.54	0.17
0-5 cm RL	0.29	0.70	0.26	0.04	0.45
10-15 cm RL	0.36	0.27	0.90	0.30	0.41	0.28
15+ cm RL	0.43	-0.04	0.43	0.97	0.15	0.02	0.27
5-10 cm RL	0.43	0.50	0.51	0.18	0.84	0.47	0.51	0.15
LRN	0.46	0.72	0.78	0.52	0.86	0.53	0.63	0.48	0.73
LRL	0.49	0.65	0.65	0.33	0.72	0.81	0.67	0.30	0.82	0.82
SWB	0.24	0.18	0.19	0.10	0.06	0.35	0.26	0.09	0.25	0.18	0.38
SWE	-0.17	-0.28	-0.34	-0.12	-0.46	-0.25	-0.28	-0.10	-0.39	-0.42	-0.38	0.51