Crop Physiology : Applications for Genetic Improvement and Agronomy

544 Pages·2014·50.693 MB·English

by  Victor O Sadras, Daniel Calderini

CROP
PHYSIOLOGY
APPLICATIONS FOR
GENETIC IMPROVEMENT
AND AGRONOMY
SECOND EDITION
Edited by
Victor o. SadraS
SARDI, Adelaide, Australia
daniel F. calderini
Universidad Austral de Chile, Valdivia, Chile
AMSTERDAM • BOSTON • HEIDELBERG • LONDON • NEW YORK • OXFORD • PARIS
SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO • SINGAPORE • SYDNEY • TOKYO
Academic Press is an Imprint of Elsevier
Academic Press is an imprint of Elsevier
32 Jamestown Road, London NW1 7BY, UK
225 Wyman Street, Waltham, MA 02451, USA
525 B Street, Suite 1800, San Diego, CA 92101-4495, USA
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved
Cover Photo. Widespread use of plastic mulch in spring maize crops in the Loess Plateau (see Chapter 3). This
photo was previously published in Zhang, S., Sadras, V.O., Chen, X., Zhang, F., 2014. Water use efficiency of
dryland maize in the Loess Plateau of China in response to crop management. Field Crops Research 163, 55–63.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by
any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior written permission
of the publisher
Permissions may be sought directly from Elsevier’s Science & Technology Rights Department in Oxford, UK:
phone (+44) (0) 1865 843830; fax ( +44) (0) 1865 853333; email: [email protected]. Alternatively, visit
the Science and Technology Books website at www.elsevierdirect.com/rights for further information
Notice
No responsibility is assumed by the publisher for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a
matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products,
instructions or ideas contained in the material herein. Because of rapid advances in the medical sciences, in
particular, independent verification of diagnoses and drug dosages should be made
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress
ISBN : 978-0-12-4171046
For information on all Academic Press publications
visit our website at http://store.elsevier.com
Typeset by Thomson Digital
visit our website at www.thomsondigital.com
Printed and bound in United States of America
15 16 17 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
List of contributors
L. Gabriela Abeledo Department of Crop Luigi Cattivelli Consiglio per la Ricerca e la
Production, University of Buenos Aires, Buenos sperimentazione in Agricoltura – Genomics
Aires, Argentina Research Centre, Fiorenzuola d’Arda, Italy
Luis Aguirrezábal Unidad Integrada Balcarce Karine Chenu The University of Queensland,
(Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias, Universidad Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food
Nacional de Mar del Plata – Instituto Nacional de Innovation (QAAFI), Toowoomba, Queensland,
Tecnología Agropecuaria, Estación Experimental Australia
Balcarce, Balcarce, Argentina
Ignacio Ciampitti Kansas State University,
Fernando H. Andrade INTA-Universidad de Mar Department of Agronomy, USA
del Plata, CONICET, Argentina
C. Mariano Cossani CIMMYT (International Maize
Maria L. Appendino University of Buenos Aires, and Wheat Improvement Center), Mexico, DF,
Buenos Aires, Argentina Mexico
Senthold Asseng University of Florida, Pasquale De Vita Consiglio per la Ricerca e la
Gainesville, USA sperimentazione in Agricoltura – Cereal Research
Delfina Barabaschi Consiglio per la Ricerca Centre, Foggia, Italy
e la sperimentazione in Agricoltura – Genomics
Philippe Debaeke INRA, UMR1248 Agroécologie,
Research Centre, Fiorenzuola d’Arda, Italy
Innovations, Territoires, Castanet-Tolosan; INPT,
Lucas Borrás CONICET & University of Rosario, Université Toulouse, UMR1248 Agroécologie,
Rosario, Santa Fe, Argentina Innovations, Territoires, Toulouse, France
Grazia M. Borrelli Consiglio per la Ricerca e la Aixing Deng Institute of Crop Sciences, Chinese
sperimentazione in Agricoltura – Cereal Research Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing, China
Centre, Foggia, Italy
R. Ford Denison Department of Ecology, Evolution
Helen Bramley University of Western Australia, and Behavior, University of Minnesota, USA
Crawley, Australia
John Dimes Queensland Alliance for Agriculture
Timothy J. Brodribb University of Tasmania, and Food Innovation (QAAFI), The University of
Australia Queensland, Toowoomba, QLD, Australia
Daniel F. Calderini Universidad Austral de Chile, Jean-Louis Durand Institut National de la Recherche
Instituto de Produccion y Sanidad Vegetal, Agronomique (INRA), Lusignan, France
Valdivia, Chile
María Mercedes Echarte Unidad Integrada
Kenneth G. Cassman University of Nebraska, Balcarce (Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias,
Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, USA Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata – Instituto
Sebastián Castro Universidad de Mar del Plata, Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria, Estación
Argentina Experimental Balcarce, Balcarce, Argentina
vii
viii List of contributors
M.J. Foulkes University of Nottingham, School of Pierre Martre INRA, UMR1095 Genetics, Diversity
Biosciences, Nottingham, UK and Ecophysiology of Cereals, Clermont-Ferrand;
Blaise Pascal University, UMR1095 Genetics,
François Gastal Institut National de la Recherche
Diversity and Ecophysiology of Cereals, Aubière,
Agronomique (INRA), Lusignan, France
France
Patricio Grassini University of Nebraska,
Anna M. Mastrangelo Consiglio per la Ricerca e la
Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, USA
sperimentazione in Agricoltura – Cereal Research
Kaija Hakala MTT Agrifood Research Finland, Centre, Foggia, Italy
Plant Production, Jokioinen, Finland
Mario Mera Instituto de Investigaciones
Zhonghu He Institute of Crop Sciences, Agropecuarias (INIA); Universidad de La
Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Frontera, Temuco, Chile
Beijing; International Maize and Wheat
Daniel J. Miralles University of Buenos Aires,
Improvement Center (CIMMYT) China Office,
Buenos Aires, Argentina; IFEVA-CONICET,
Beijing, China
Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Meisha-Marika Holloway-Phillips Australian
Luigi Orrù Consiglio per la Ricerca e la
National University, Australia
sperimentazione in Agricoltura – Genomics
Natalia Izquierdo Unidad Integrada Balcarce Research Centre, Fiorenzuola d’Arda, Italy
(Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias, Universidad
Maria E. Otegui IFEVA-CONICET & University of
Nacional de Mar del Plata – Instituto Nacional de
Buenos Aires, Buenos Aries, Argentina
Tecnología Agropecuaria, Estación Experimental
Balcarce, Balcarce, Argentina Helen Ougham IBERS, Edward Llwyd Building,
Aberystwyth University, Ceredigion, UK
Hannu Känkänen MTT Agrifood Research
Finland, Plant Production, Jokioinen, Mohammed-Mahmoud Ould-Sidi Memmah
Finland INRA, UR1115, Plantes et Systèmes de Culture
Horticoles, Avignon, France
Adriana G. Kantolic University of Buenos Aires,
Buenos Aires, Argentina Pirjo Peltonen-Sainio MTT Agrifood Research
Finland, Plant Production, Jokioinen, Finland
Gilles Lemaire Institut National de la Recherche
Agronomique (INRA), Lusignan, France Gustavo Pereyra-Irujo Unidad Integrada Balcarce
(Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias, Universidad
Alberto León Advanta Seeds, Argentina Nacional de Mar del Plata – Instituto Nacional de
Tecnología Agropecuaria, Estación Experimental
X. Carolina Lizana Universidad Austral de Chile,
Balcarce, Balcarce, Argentina
Instituto de Produccion y Sanidad Vegetal,
Valdivia, Chile Ana C. Pontaroli INTA-Universidad de Mar del
Plata, CONICET, Argentina
Gaëtan Louarn Institut National de la Recherche
Agronomique (INRA), Lusignan, France Andries Potgieter Queensland Alliance for
Agriculture and Food Innovation (QAAFI), The
Delphine Luquet CIRAD, Department
University of Queensland, Toowoomba, QLD,
of Biological Systems, UMR1334
Australia
Genetic Improvement and Adaptation
of Mediterranean and Tropical Plants, Bénédicte Quilot-Turion INRA, UR1052 Genetics
Montpellier, France and Improvement of Fruit and Vegetables,
Avignon, France
Gustavo A. Maddonni IFEVA-CONICET &
University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aries, Ari Rajala MTT Agrifood Research Finland, Plant
Argentina Production, Jokioinen, Finland
List of contributors ix
M.P. Reynolds CIMMYT Wheat Program, Mexico Zhenwei Song Institute of Crop Sciences, Chinese
Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing, China
Daniel Rodriguez Queensland Alliance for
Agriculture and Food Innovation (QAAFI), The James E. Specht University of Nebraska,
University of Queensland, Toowoomba, QLD, Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, USA
Australia
Howard Thomas IBERS, Edward Llwyd Building,
Victor O. Sadras South Australian Research & Aberystwyth University, Ceredigion, UK
Development Institute, Waite Campus, Adelaide,
Matthijs Tollenaar Monsanto Company, USA
Australia
Gabriela Tranquilli Instituto de Recursos
Rodrigo G. Sala Monsanto, Argentina
Biológicos, INTA, Argentina
Roxana Savin Department of Crop and Forest
Enli Wang CSIRO, Australia
Sciences & AGROTECNIO (Center for Research
in Agrotechnology), University of Lleida, Lleida, Weijian Zhang Institute of Crop Sciences, Chinese
Spain Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing, China
Gustavo A. Slafer Department of Crop and Forest Chengyan Zheng Institute of Crop Sciences,
Sciences & AGROTECNIO (Center for Research Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences,
in Agrotechnology), University of Lleida, Lleida, Beijing, China
Spain; ICREA (Catalonian Institution for Research
and Advanced Studies) Yan Zhu Nanjing Agricultural University, China
Preface
In the most current and rigorous statistical et al., 2010). Finally, we can ask: so what? This
analysis of yield trends, Grassini et al. (2013) refers to agronomic relevance; following on our
found ‘widespread deceleration in the relative example, a certain genetic makeup, combined
rate of increase of average yields of the major with environmental and agronomic information,
cereal crops during the 1990–2010 period in allows the modeling of flowering time to inform
countries with greatest production of these agronomic and breeding applications. The so
crops, and strong evidence of yield plateaus or what question requires scaling up to the crop level
an abrupt drop in rate of yield gain in 44% of the where yield is defined, hence the importance in
cases which, together, account for 31% of total understanding crop-level processes.
global rice, wheat and maize production’. This In common with the first edition, the objective of
highlights the urgency to increase crop yield this book is to provide a contemporary appreciation
which, in turn, requires allocation of research of crop physiology as a mature scientific discipline.
and development resources where significant We want to show that crop physiology is relevant
returns are more likely in the next two decades. to agriculture. Progress in agriculture, however,
The time lag from innovation to adoption depends directly on progress in agronomy, plant
adds to this urgency (Hall and Richards, 2013). breeding, and their interaction. Hence crop
Whereas we cannot predict the discovery of the physiology can contribute to agriculture only to
unknown (Osmond, 1995), it is also evident, as the extent that it is meaningfully engaged with
expressed by Tony Fischer, that we cannot afford breeding and agronomy; this is the theme of
expensive distractions. this book. Eight chapters are updated versions
In scales from molecular to field, we can of the first edition and twelve chapters are new,
ask three types of questions (Sadras and collectively presenting original viewpoints on the
Richards, 2014). First, we can ask: how does carbon, nitrogen and water economy of crops,
it work? This elicits proximal, physiological plant hydraulics, biological nitrogen fixation,
answers that require scaling down from the and senescence; crop phenological development,
level where the question is asked; for example, quantitative environmental characterization,
to understand crop flowering patterns we need ideotypes and phenotyping; yield potential and
to consider the major photoperiod, earliness per grain quality; the role of biotechnology; the impact
se and vernalization genes and the epigenetic of climate change; and case studies of cropping
modulation of gene expression. Next, we can systems of China, Northern Europe, Africa and
ask why? In our example, why do cereals have South and North America.
a particular set of vernalization or photoperiod
responsive genes in the first place? This V.O. Sadras, Adelaide
elicits evolutionary explanations (e.g. Rhone D.F. Calderni, Valdivia
xi
xii Preface
References Rhone, B., Vitalis, R., Goldringer, I., Bonnin, I., 2010.
Evolution of flowering time in experimental wheat
Grassini, P., Eskridge, K.M., Cassman, K.G., 2013. populations: A comprehensive approach to detect
Distinguishing between yield advances and yield plateaus genetic signatures of natural selection. Evolution 64,
in historical crop production trends. Nat Commun. 4, 2110–2125.
Article 2918. Sadras, V.O., Richards, R.A., 2014. Improvement of crop
Hall, A.J., Richards, R.A., 2013. Prognosis for genetic yield in dry environments: benchmarks, levels of
improvement of yield potential and water-limited yield organisation and the role of nitrogen. J. Exp. Bot. 65,
of major grain crops. Field Crops Res. 143, 18–33. 1981–1995.
Osmond, C., 1995. Quintessential inefficiencies of plant
bioenergetics: Tales of two cultures. Aust. J. Plant Physiol.
22, 123–129.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to the fundamental contribution Genetic Improvement and Agronomy, especially to
of all the authors; those who updated their Nancy Maragioglio (Senior Acquisitions Editor
chapters through a detailed review of new of Academic Press) for her encouragement
information and those who wrote new chapters and support, and Carrie Bolger and Caroline
for the 2nd edition. We wish to express our Johnson for their professional advice.
gratitude to all of them for their willingness, Throughout the book, key concepts
knowledge and time. developed by the authors are supported with
We thank our host organizations, the South material previously published in several
Australian Research and Development Institute journals; we thank the publishers who permitted
and Universidad Austral de Chile, for their reproduction of their material.
support to this project. To Ana and Magda, for their love, support
We thank Elsevier for inviting us to produce and patience to the editors.
the 2nd edition of Crop Physiology. Application for
xiii
C H A P T E R
1
Crop physiology: applications for
breeding and agronomy
Victor O. Sadras1, Daniel F. Calderini2
1South Australian Research & Development Institute, Waite Campus, Adelaide, Australia
2Universidad Austral de Chile, Instituto de Produccion y Sanidad Vegetal, Chile
organization levels cut Nature at its joints ogy, glyphosate-resistant soybean, imidazoline-
W.C. Wimsatt resistant sunflower and Interfield® herbicide
that allow for soybean–sunflower intercropping
in high-tech production systems (Calviño and
Monzon, 2009). Cotton- and maize-based crop-
1 INTRODUCTION ping systems had to be redesigned to allow for
the deployment of transgenic crops expressing
The economic, social and environmental chal- Bt-proteins for the control of lepidopteran pests
lenges of global agriculture have been dissected (Carroll et al., 2012; Downes and Mahon, 2012;
thoroughly in the context of the urgent need to Head and Greenplate, 2012; Siegfried and
increase food production (Fischer et al., 2014). Hellmich, 2012).
Three complementary factors contribute directly Disciplines including crop physiology, genet-
to larger agricultural output: superior varieties, ics, entomology, pathology, edaphology, hydrol-
better agronomic practices for growing individ- ogy, climate science and so forth are one step
ual crops, and enhanced spatial and temporal removed from, and contribute to, agricultural
arrangement of the components of the farm- production only to the extent that they engage
ing system. Breeding, agronomy and farming with breeding, agronomy and farming system
systems are therefore the three disciplines with research. Whereas curiosity-driven research
direct impact on agricultural output. The syn- remains a legitimate motivation for science,
ergy between breeding and agronomy has been engagement with the proximate drivers of ag-
widely recognized (Evans, 2005; Fischer, 2009). ricultural production is essential for relevance.
Synergies between breeding, agronomy and Heinze (2012) highlighted how ‘scientific crea-
farming systems are also important. One ex- tivity springs from the fundamental tension
ample is the combination of no-till technol- between originality and scientific relevance’.
Crop Physiology. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-417104-6.00001-7
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved
1
2 1. Crop physiology: appliCations for breeding and agronomy
It could be argued that any good piece of sci- For agriculture, relevant levels of organization
ence will be relevant, sooner or later; the his- include molecule, organelle, cell, tissue, organ,
tory of science abounds on apparently irrel- individual, population and community; eco-
evant curiosities that supported transforming system, biome and biosphere are particularly
technologies many years after their discovery relevant to other aspects of agriculture such as
(Hellemans and Bunch, 1988). Owing to the biodiversity (Fig. 1.1).
pressing challenges of agricultural production Levels of organization have therefore dis-
on a global scale, however, a definition of rel- tinct components, sizes, rates, interactions,
evance must account for the short- to mid-term dynamics, methods and theories (Sadras and
challenges. In the design of more productive Richards, 2014). Consequently, a biotechnolo-
cropping systems, we need a sharp focus and gist working in crop improvement is in many
allocation of resources where larger impacts regards closer to a biotechnologist working in
in the next two decades are more likely; in the medicine than to the crop physiologist, whereas
terms of Tony Fischer, we cannot afford ‘expen- a crop physiologist is closer to an ecologist than
sive distractions’. The dual motivation of scien- to the plant biotechnologist; organization levels
tific insight and agricultural relevance is at the cut Nature at its joints (Wimsatt, 1976).
core of this book; to ensure relevance, insights In the hierarchy of biological organization
from crop physiology, genetics, modeling and from molecular to global (Fig. 1.1), we ask ques-
other disciplines are thus linked with breeding, tions at a given level (e.g. how do plants absorb
agronomy and/or farming systems. water from soil?), find answers at lower levels
(e.g. root and leaf morphology and physiology
down to the molecular structure of aquapor-
2 LEVELS OF ORGANIZATION ins) and seek for relevance at higher levels (e.g.
AND SCALABILITY implications for crop water management). The
crop level is therefore a reference for relevance
Biological sciences are the foundation of at lower organization levels (plant to molecular)
contemporary agriculture. Following Wimsatt and a platform for explanations at higher organ-
(1994), compositional levels of organization can ization levels (paddock to global).
be defined as hierarchical divisions of biologi- Sadras and Richards (2014) proposed an
cal entities ‘organized by part-whole relations in operational definition in the context of crop
which wholes at one level function as parts at the improvement: a trait scales up if it remains ag-
next (and all higher) levels’; furthermore, levels ronomically relevant at higher levels, and even-
‘are constituted by families of entities usually tually at the population level where yield is
of comparable size and dynamical properties, defined. They classified crop traits in three cat-
which characteristically interact primarily with egories: those that generally scale up (e.g. her-
one another’. Notwithstanding cross-level inter- bicide resistance), those that do not (e.g. grain
actions, this perspective emphasizes that mol- yield), and traits that might scale up provided
ecules interact mostly with molecules (Rietman they are considered in an integrated manner
et al., 2011) and plants with plants (Harper, 1977). with scientifically sound scaling assumptions,
This partially accounts for the compartmental- appropriate growing conditions and screening
ized theories and methods associated with each techniques (e.g. stay-green). Traits for which
level (Sadras and Richards, 2014). Rates of key scaling depends on higher-level interactions
processes decline from low to high levels, par- are challenging. The contrast between traits
tially because it takes longer for casual effects that scale up from molecular to crop level and
to propagate larger distances (Wimsatt, 1994). traits that do not, including many aspects of