Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Seedling Shoot and Root Growth Responses among Soybean (Glycine max) Genotypes to Drought Stress

Written By

Obed J. Mwenye, Leon Van Rensburg, Angeline Van Biljon and Rouxlene Van der Merwe

Submitted: 05 April 2018 Reviewed: 23 August 2018 Published: 05 November 2018

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.81101

From the Edited Volume

Soybean - Biomass, Yield and Productivity

Edited by Minobu Kasai

Chapter metrics overview

1,546 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics

Abstract

Drought stress is a major limiting factor in soybean production in South Africa. The development of soybean varieties with enhanced tolerance to soil waterlimited induced stress (WLIS) is one sustainable way to deal with drought. Root traits have shown strong potential for improvement of drought tolerance through breeding. The objectives of this study were to evaluate seedling shoot- and root growth responses under WLIS in order to study root morphology as a mechanism to cope with drought stress and to determine if there were genotypic differences in shoot- and root morphology between drought tolerant and -sensitive soybean genotypes. Seedlings of three drought tolerant and one sensitive genotype were subjected to soil WLIS in deep-root-pots for 21 days. Results suggested significant genotypic differences for shoot length, number of leaves, tap root length and root-to-shoot length ratio. Soybean tolerant genotypes were associated with moderate shoot biomass, deep rooting abilities and maintained a large root-to-shoot ratio under WLIS conditions. In contrast, the sensitive genotype was associated with a reduced root-to-shoot ratio and shallower root system. Soybean genotypes showed varying seedling root growth responses to soil WLIS, while shoot biomass characteristics were similar.

Keywords

  • root
  • drought
  • tolerance
  • selection
  • soybean

1. Introduction

Soybean (Glycine max L. Merrill) is the world’s leading economic oilseed crop [1]. It is the largest source of vegetable oil and protein in the world [2] and a primary source of protein in the livestock feed industry in South Africa [3]. Soybean production in South Africa is limited by inadequate rainfall and soil water-limited-induced-stress (WLIS) which characterises most production regions [3, 4], consequently affecting the livestock industry and food security of the country [5].

Direct selection for morphological and physiological parameters related to soil WLIS tolerance has been used in developing drought tolerant soybean cultivars [6]. Drought tolerant mechanisms in soybean have been closely associated with the rooting system and/or rooting pattern [7, 8]. The response of root traits to the immediate effects of soil WLIS determines the soybean plants’ defence to drought [7, 9]. This is because the root system is responsible for exploring and acquisition of all the water the plant requires from the soil [10]. Plants sense water shortage around their roots and respond instantaneously by sending chemical signals to shoots to initiate various adaptive responses to soil WLIS [11].

Genetic variation for consultative ability and phenotypic plasticity in root growth patterns have been reported in soybean [12, 13]. Although root traits have shown strong potential in breeding for drought tolerance in soybean [6], the laborious and difficult procedure involved to phenotype roots without breaking the tap root is a big setback [14]. However, a “deep-pot” root screening method, which facilitates removal of the root system with minimal damage and evaluation of the soybean root architecture, has been developed [9]. This screening method facilitates root evaluation efficiently at seedling stage. The present study was conducted with the aim of discriminating drought tolerant and –sensitive genotypes through root- and shoot morphology. Specific objectives were to determine the responses of seedling shoot- and root length, dry matter and root length density among soybean genotypes grown under soil WLIS using the “deep-pot” method. Study using the same four PANNAR SEED® (Pty) LTD soybean cultivars, under similar experimental conditions as at the University of Free State, South Africa has not been done before.

Advertisement

2. Materials and methods

2.1 Plant material and trial site

Glasshouse trials were conducted in duplicate (trial 1 from 06/09/2014 to 07/10/2014 and trial 2 from 06/11/2014 to 08/12/2014) at the Department of Soil, Crop and Climate Sciences of the University of the Free State, South Africa in the summer season. The plant material used included three drought tolerant genotypes (BL1, BL4 and CV2) and one susceptible genotype (CV3) obtained from the PANNAR SEED® (PTY) LTD breeding programme (Table 1). The plant materials in the study are grouped in the medium quick (5.7), medium (6.7) and medium late (7.0–7.4) maturity groups (Table 1) [15].

GenotypeGrowth habitMaturity groupDrought sensitivity
BL1Determinate6.7Tolerant
BL4Indeterminate7.4Tolerant
CV2Indeterminate7.0Tolerant
CV3Determinate5.7Sensitive

Table 1.

Soybean genotypes used in the study and their levels of drought sensitivity.

Maturity group (length of the growing season of a cultivar, mostly determined by day length and temperatures): 5.7 = medium quick, 6.7 = medium, 7.0 &7.4 = medium late.

Glasshouse trials were conducted in deep transparent polythene pots (10 cm diameter and 110 cm length) according to [9] with modifications. Polythene pots were placed in polyvinyl chloride (PVC) tubes (10 cm diameter and 10 cm length) for support and the pots were filled with soil, leaving a 5 cm space at the top (Figure 1). Soil used was an aridic ustothent soil (Bainsvlei 2300) with a reddish brown colour and a fine sandy texture, and contained 8–14% clay and 2–4% silt [16]. Pots were fully saturated with water and left to drain. After seven days, three seeds from each genotype were sown in the pots.

Figure 1.

“Deep-pot” system used for screening shoot- and root morphology of four soybean seedling genotypes grown under water-limited-induced-stress conditions for 21 days from sowing.

2.2 Experimental layout and data collection

The pots were laid out in a randomised complete block design with six replications. After germination, seedlings were thinned to one per pot. For the first 12 days after sowing, plants were watered daily with 100 ml of water to ensure strong seedlings, thereafter soil WLIS was induced by irrigating 100 ml every third day. Twenty-one days after sowing (Figure 1), shoot length (SL) (cm), was measured from the soil contact point to the tip of the plant and number of trifoliate leaves was counted. Shoot dry weight (biomass) (g) was recorded after drying the shoots in the glasshouse at room temperature for 72 hours.

For root measurements, the polythene pots were carefully taken from the PVC tubes and cut longitudinally in order to safely isolate the whole root system from the soil. Tap root length (TRL) was measured on intact roots from the soil contact point to the tip. Total root dry weight (root biomass) (g) was recorded after separating the roots from the soil by washing the samples on a 0.5 mm sieve. The root samples were then dried at room temperature, weighed and root biomass determined. After recording tap root length, shoot and root biomass, all roots including tap root and primary roots were cut into 10 cm sections, corresponding to the actual depths from the tubes. For root length density, root samples in the 10 cm sections were counted using a modified infra-red root counter [17] and were converted into root length per soil layer using a standard curve generated from standard samples and actual root length. Mass of the total root per layer was used to calculate the root weight density per layer.

2.3 Data analysis

Data was statistically analysed using GenStat Release 18 statistical package [18]. A combined analysis of variance (ANOVA) (Table 2) was conducted for the duplicated trials on the data collected to partition the different sources of variation. Means were separated using least significant difference (LSD) test (Table 2).

Source of variationShoot length (cm)No. of trifoliate leavesShoot dry weight (g)Tap root length (cm)Root dry weight (g)TRL/SLRDW/SDW
Replication2.381.020.0770.700.030.390.01
Trial (T)1.021.021.56**78.700.51**0.220.01
Genotype (G)40.34**7.74**0.111552.60**0.024.76*0.02
G×T12.561.740.0553.500.041.530.02
Residual10.801.070.13170.500.021.280.01
CV%18.8026.8023.7016.3023.6024.0024.70

Table 2.

Combined analysis of variance showing mean square values for shoot- and root traits of soybean seedlings under water-limited-induced stress at 21 days after sowing.

*, **, significant at P < 0.05, P < 0.01, respectively. CV = coefficient of variation, TRL/SL = tap root length to shoot length ratio, RDW/SDW = root dry weight to shoot dry weight ratio, G×T = genotype by trial interaction.

Advertisement

3. Results

3.1 Response of shoot and root traits

Significant genotype differences were observed for shoot length (p < 0.01), number of leaves (p < 0.01), tap root length (p < 0.01) and root-to-shoot length ratio (TRL/SL) (p < 0.05) (Table 2). Trial effects were significant for shoot and root dry weight (p < 0.01). No significant genotype by treatment (G×T) interaction effects were observed for any of the traits measured (Table 2).

This suggested that genotypes responded the same between the two trials for all traits studied. Tolerant genotypes BL1 and BL4 grouped together for shoot length (both large), while the other tolerant genotype CV2 grouped with the sensitive genotype CV3 (Table 3). This, together with shoot dry weight (non-significant genotype effects), indicated that the sensitive genotype CV3 generally showed a good shoot biomass and was not different from the tolerant genotypes, especially BL4 and CV2 (Table 3).

Source of variationShoot length (cm)No. of trifoliate leavesShoot dry weight (g)Tap root length (cm)Root dry weight (g)TRL/SLRDW/SDW
BL119.58a4.42a1.5580.10b0.604.22bc0.40
BL418.12ab3.08b1.5995.50a0.695.37a0.45
CV215.25c3.25b1.3775.30bc0.675.13ab0.49
CV3*16.96bc4.67a1.5068.80c0.674.13c0.45
Mean17.333.851.5079.900.664.710.45
LSD0.052.720.860.2910.820.130.940.09

Table 3.

Combined mean values for shoot- and root characteristics of soybean seedlings under water-limited-induced stress conditions at 21 days after sowing.

Drought sensitive genotype. TRL/SL = tap root length to shoot length ratio, RDW/SDW = root dry weight to shoot dry weight ratio, LSD = least significant difference. Means followed by the same letter of the alphabet in the column are not significantly different.


The three tolerant genotypes (BL1, BL4 and CV2) ranked in the top three positions for both tap root length and TRL/SL ratio, while the drought sensitive genotype (CV3) ranked last (Table 3). This suggested that the drought sensitive genotype developed a shorter tap root (as indicated in Figure 2) or had a reduced root elongation rate compared to the tolerant genotypes due to the soil WLIS. In Figure 2 it is evident that the three tolerant genotypes had longer root systems than the sensitive genotype (CV3).

Figure 2.

Root lengths of four soybean seedling genotypes with CV3 as the sensitive genotype under soil water-limited-induced-stress conditions at 21 days after sowing.

The root architecture system under soil WLIS was investigated by determining the distribution of the root length density (cm cm−3) and dry matter (root weight density) (mg cm−3) through the soil profile (Figures 3 and 4). Results showed that the root systems of all four cultivars were mostly contained in the top 0–40 cm soil profile (Figures 3 and 4). There were no marked differences in root distribution among the tolerant genotypes (BL1, BL4 and CV2) (Figures 3 and 4). The tolerant genotypes’ roots explored the whole soil profile to the deepest part (Figures 3 and 4). On the other hand, it was evident that the sensitive genotype (CV3) had the same root distribution (root length density and dry matter) like the tolerant genotypes in the top 0–90 cm soil profile (Figures 3 and 4). However, the sensitive genotype’s roots could not explore the deeper profile beyond the 90 cm depth mark (Figures 3 and 4). This suggested that the tolerant genotypes, unlike the sensitive one, could endure the soil WLIS by exploring moisture trapped in the deep soil profiles.

Figure 3.

Root length density (cm cm−3) distribution with depth for four soybean seedlings grown under soil water-limited-induced stress conditions for duplicate trials: (A) trial 1 and (B) trial 2.

Figure 4.

Root weight density (mg cm−3) distribution with depth for four soybean seedlings grown under soil water-limited-induced stress conditions for duplicate trials: (A) trial 1 and (B) trial 2.

Advertisement

4. Discussion

Drought stress tended to increase biomass partitioning to the roots. This was demonstrated by the increase in the tap root length to shoot length ratio (TRL/SL) especially among the tolerant soybean genotypes (Figures 3 and 4). Similar trends were reported by [19] using a deep-rooted pot system with 24 soybean cultivars including exotic plant introductions (PI) lines in where it was suggested that TRL/SL determines the effective proportion of the roots supporting the above ground shoots. This is significant for survival under soil WLIS conditions. The large tap root length to shoot length ratio observed for the drought tolerant genotypes might have translated to the ability of the tolerant cultivars to access and get more edaphic resources per unit of the above ground shoot [20, 21]. A large TRL/SL suggests a large root surface area per unit of shoot length and this significantly increases the capacity of the tolerant genotypes to efficiently absorb and utilise soil water per unit dry matter [10]. The drought sensitive soybean genotype indicated to have a lower ability to penetrate the deeper soil (Table 3).

The seedling genotypic variation observed between drought tolerant and –sensitive genotypes for root and shoot traits, in response to soil WLIS (Table 3) agrees with results of [7, 11, 22, 23]. Drought tolerant soybean genotypes were associated with a deep-rooting phenotype and a large root-to-shoot ratio (length and/or mass), unlike the drought sensitive soybean genotypes (Table 3). Thus, drought tolerant genotypes tend to demonstrate a phenomenon called “balanced growth”, whereby plants respond to drought by stimulating or maintaining root growth while effectively reducing shoot growth [24]. Increases in root versus shoot growth under drought conditions enhance the genotype’s drought coping ability due to increased root-to-leaf surface ratio, continued production of new root tips, and enhancement of plant capacity for acquiring water to support existing shoots [14]. The observed shift in allometry under drought stress and the ability of the tolerant genotypes to grow roots according to the distribution of available soil water thus increase the productivity of tolerant genotypes under soil WLIS conditions. This has been attributed to the action of ethylene and abscisic acid in the tolerant soybean genotypes [25, 26] and is triggered by soil WLIS conditions.

Advertisement

5. Conclusions and recommendations

Soybean genotypes showed varying seedling shoot- and root morphology in response to soil WLIS conditions. The tolerant and sensitive genotypes did not differ much for shoot- and root biomass but significant differences were observed for shoot length, tap root length and tap root length to shoot length ratio. Drought tolerant genotypes showed deep rooting ability and larger root-to-shoot ratios compared to the drought sensitive genotype. Consequently, the drought tolerant genotypes increased biomass partitioning to the roots as a coping mechanism to soil WLIS. The “deep-pot” system was effectively used to phenotype the roots of soybean seedlings in a non-destructive manner. The system showed potential to differentiate between drought tolerant and -sensitive genotypes at seedling growth stage. However, in future studies more genotypes and more root traits need to be analysed in order to efficiently classify genotypes as drought tolerant or drought sensitive.

Advertisement

Acknowledgments

National Research Foundation (NRF), South Africa, for research funding.

The University of the Free State, Strategic Academic Cluster: Technologies for sustainable crop industries in semi-arid regions programme for the study scholarship bursary and for research funding.

PANNAR® Seed (PTY) LTD breeding programme, in Greytown, South Africa for the plant materials used in the study.

References

  1. 1. Tidke SA, Ramakrishna D, Kiran S, Kosturkova S, Ravishankar GA. Nutraceutical potential of soybean: Review. Asian Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2015;7:22-32
  2. 2. Corner T, Paschal EH, Barbero A, Johnson F. The challenges and potential for future agronomic traits in soybeans. AgBioforum. 2004;7:47-50
  3. 3. Dlamini TS, Tsabalala P, Mutengwa T. Soybeans production in South Africa. Oilseeds and fats, crops and lipids: Oil crops and supply chain in Africa. 2014;21:1-11. DOI: 10.1051/ocl/2013047
  4. 4. Kobraei S, Shamsi K, Rasekhi B. Soybean production under water deficit conditions. Annals of Biological Research. 2011;2:423-434
  5. 5. Ngaka MJ. Drought preparedness, impact and response. A case of the Eastern Cape and Free State provinces of South Africa. Journal of Disaster Risk Studies. 2012;4:1-10
  6. 6. Manavalan LP, Guttikonda SK, Tran LS, Nguyen HT. Physiological and molecular approaches to improve drought resistance in soybean. Plant Cell Physiology. 2009;50:1260-1276
  7. 7. Fenta BA, Beebe SE, Kunert KJ, Burridge J, Barlow KM, Lynch JP, et al. Field phenotyping of soybean roots for drought stress tolerance. Agronomy. 2014;4:418-435
  8. 8. Nguyen BAT, Nguyen QT, Hoang XL, Thao NP, Tran LSP. Evaluation of drought tolerance of the Vietnamese soybean cultivars provides potential resources for soybean production and genetic engineering. BioMed Research International. 2014;2014:809736. DOI: 10.1155/2014/809736 [Accessed: 27/07/2017]
  9. 9. Manavalan LP, Guttikonda SK, Nguyen VT, Shannon JG, Nguyen HT. Evaluation of diverse soybean germplasm for root growth and architecture. Plant and Soil. 2010;330:503-514
  10. 10. Malamy J. Intrinsic and environmental response pathways that regulate root system architecture. Plant Cell and Environment. 2005;28:67-77
  11. 11. Hossain MM, Liu X, Qi X, Lam HM, Zhang J. Differences between soybean genotypes in physiological response to sequential soil drying and rewetting. The Crop Journal. 2014;2:366-380
  12. 12. Manavalan LP, Musket T, Nguyen HT. Natural genetic variation for root traits among diversity lines of maize (Zea mays L.). Maydica. 2011;56:1707. (Advance Access publication 2011)
  13. 13. Mastuo N, Takahashi M, Fukami K, Tsuchiya S, Tasaka K. Root growth of two soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] cultivars grown under different groundwater level conditions. Plant Production Science. 2013;16:374-382
  14. 14. Cosmas LH, Becker SR, Cruz VMV, Byrne PF, Dierg DA. Root traits contributing to plant conductivity under drought. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2013;4:1-19
  15. 15. Soybeans production guide. Pannar Seed (Pty). Soybeans Production Guide for South Africa. 2006. http://www.pannar.com/assets/documents/soybeans.pdf. [Accessed: 20/08/2018]
  16. 16. Soil Classification Working Group. Soil classification, a taxonomic system for South Africa. Memoirs on the Agricultural Natural Resources of South Africa No. 15. Pretoria: Department of Agricultural Development; 1991. pp. 257
  17. 17. Rowse HR, Phillips DA. An instrument for estimating the total length of root in sample. Journal of Applied Ecology. 1974;11:309-314
  18. 18. VSN Internatiomal. Gensta® 18th Edition PC/Windows XP.Copyright 2015. VSN International Ltd; 2015. https://www.vsni.co.uk/software/genstat[Accessed: 20/08/2018]
  19. 19. Manavalan LP, Guttikonda SK, Nguyen VT, Shannon JG, Nguyen HT. Evaluation of diverse soybean germplasm for root growth and architecture. Plant and Soil. 2010;330:503-514
  20. 20. Beebe SE, Rao IM, Blair MW, Acosta-Gallegos JA. Phenotyping common beans for adaptation to drought. Frontiers in Physiology. 2013;4:1-20. DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2013.00035
  21. 21. Okogbenin E, Setter TL, Ferguson M, Mutegi R, Ceballos H, Olasanmi B, et al. Phenotypic approaches to drought in cassava: Review. Frontiers in Physiology. 2013;4:1-15
  22. 22. Creelman RA, Mason HS, Bensen RJ, Boyer JS, Mullet JE. Water deficit and abscisic acid cause differential inhibition of shoot versus root growth in soybean seedlings. Plant Physiology. 1990;92:205-214
  23. 23. Hsiao TC, Xu LK. Sensitivity of growth of roots versus leaves to water stress: Biophysical analysis and relation to water transport. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2000;51:1595-1616
  24. 24. Bloom AJ, Chapin FS, Mooney HA. Resource limitation in plants—An economic analogy. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 1985;16:363-392
  25. 25. Sharp RE, LeNoble ME. ABA, ethylene and the control of shoot and root growth under water stress. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2002;53:33-37
  26. 26. Tseng IC, Hong CY, Yu SM, Ho TTD. Abscisic acid- and stress-induced highly proline-rich glycoproteins regulate root growth in rice. Plant Physiology. 2013;163:118-134

Written By

Obed J. Mwenye, Leon Van Rensburg, Angeline Van Biljon and Rouxlene Van der Merwe

Submitted: 05 April 2018 Reviewed: 23 August 2018 Published: 05 November 2018