Open access peer-reviewed chapter - ONLINE FIRST

Drought Stress: Manifestation and Mechanisms of Alleviation in Plants

Written By

Kousik Atta, Aditya Pratap Singh, Saju Adhikary, Subhasis Mondal and Sujaya Dewanjee

Submitted: December 13th, 2021 Reviewed: January 19th, 2022 Published: March 14th, 2022

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.102780

IntechOpen
Drought - Impacts and Management Edited by Murat Eyvaz

From the Edited Volume

Drought - Impacts and Management [Working Title]

Associate Prof. Murat Eyvaz, Dr. Ahmed Albahnasawi, MSc. Mesut Tekbaş and M.Sc. Ercan Gürbulak

Chapter metrics overview

50 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics

Abstract

Drought can be referred to as a meteorological period without significant rainfall and it is one of such major abiotic stresses that contributes to a huge reduction in crop yield throughout the world. Plant shows a broad range of physiological, morphological, and biochemical changes such as reduced photosynthetic accumulation, altered gene expression, etc. Under the drought stress which ultimately causes reduced growth as well as poor grain yield. Drought stressconditions trigger production of ROS, which disrupts the dynamic balance between ROS production and ROS scavenging systems and its accumulation depends on the intensity as well as duration of water stress, and it varies among species. A plant species that has a better inherited genetic response allowing it to rapidly deploy its antioxidant enzymatic and non-enzymatic defense system, can tolerate drought better than a plant species with a poor antioxidant defense system. Furthermore, enzyme and protein encoding drought specific genes have the ability to enhance drought tolerance. These two enzymatic and genetic engineering strategies are unique and vital tools, which can be used to help alleviate the world’s future problems related to energy, food, and environmental stresses, particularly drought. This chapter attempts to discuss developments in understanding effects of drought stress and underlying mechanisms in plants for its alleviation.

Keywords

  • ABA signaling
  • antioxidant
  • drought
  • ROS
  • stress

1. Introduction

Any inimical condition or substance that affects plant’s metabolism, growth and development is referred as stress. Basically, stress is an altered physiological condition caused by different living and non-living factors which disturb the equilibrium. Plants are frequently posed with a plethora of stress conditions such as drought, salinity, heat stress, low temperature, heavy metal toxicity, flooding and extremes of soil pH. Plants also face challenges from biotic factors like pathogens, insects etc. These types of abiotic and biotic factors limit plants growth and productivity. The non-living variable must impact the environment beyond its normal range of variation to unfavorably affect the population performance or individual physiology of the organism in a significant way.

Drought is a meteorological term and defined as a period without significant rainfall. Generally, drought stress occurs when the available soil-water becomes scanty and atmospheric conditions cause continuous loss of water by transpiration or evaporation. Water deficit is one of the major abiotic stresses, which adversely affects crop growth and yield. These changes are mainly associated with altered metabolic functions, one of those is either loss of or diminished synthesis of photosynthetic pigments, uptake and translocation of ion, carbohydrate biosynthesis, nutrient metabolism and synthesis of growth promoters. These changes in the metabolic functions and synthesis of photosynthetic pigments are closely related to biomass production in plant [1]. A common adverse effect of water stress on crop plants is the reduction in fresh and dry biomass [2]. Plant productivity under moisture stress is strongly associated with the processes of dry matter partitioning and temporal biomass distribution [3]. Previous study about different crop species faces huge yield reduction due to drought stress (Table 1). We have aimed to discuss the crops’ response and adaptive mechanisms to combat drought stress and also genetic interventions which may help developing cultivars suitable for water-scarce conditions.

CropYield reduction (%)References
Rice53–92[4]
Maize79–81[5]
Barley49–57[6]
Chickpea45–69[7]
Pigeonpea40–55[8]
Soybean46–71[9]
Sunflower60[10]
Potato13[11]
Canola30[12]
Cowpea55–65[13]
Wheat64.46[14]

Table 1.

Yield reduction owing to drought stress in different crops.

Advertisement

2. Physiological changes during drought stress

During drought, Water scarcity occurs generally because of absence of water in the soil. But Physiological drought caused both lack of water in the soil, and also occurs when excess water is present in the soil. Thus, physiological drought is a situation where the plant cannot receive water [15, 16]. The responses of plants to water stress are diverse and may involve the contribution of various defense mechanisms or modification of physiology, morphology, anatomy, biochemistry, as well as short and long-term developmental and growth related adaptation processes [17].

Physiological reactions to moisture stress provides some escape mechanisms to the water stress comprise physiological and morphological adaptations [18]. Decreased leaf area (Figure 1), reduced stomatal number and conductance, enlargement of root system, increased leaf thickness, and leaf folding to lessen evapotranspiration are strictly associated with an adaptive response [17, 19, 20, 21]. Plant growth and productivity decreased under moisture stress, which are caused by alterations in plantwater relations, CO2 assimilation reduction, membrane damage of affected tissues, cellular oxidative stress, and inhibition of enzymes activity.

Figure 1.

Effects of different levels of drought stress on ricebean seedlings.

Plants can alter water relations to continue cellular mechanisms under drought stress conditions. Plants show osmotic adjustment by accumulating and integrating compatible solutes likely, proline, sugars and free amino acids [22]. Maintenance of turgor pressure as well as cell volume at low water potential is facilitated by osmotic adjustment and is vital for metabolic functions. Osmotic adjustment also plays role in recovery of metabolic activities post drought stress [23]. Previously, there are lot of studies investigated which showed the recovery of photosynthesis from moisture stress in various crop species and also recovered from drought stress in terms of oxidative stress, membrane stability index and antioxidative mechanisms [16, 24]. Osmolytes also have a significant role in drought stress recovery.

Drought stress at higher intensity decreases the activities of photosynthetic enzymes as well as leaf chlorophyll content which ultimately hampers the process of photosynthesis [20, 25]. Chlorophyll a/bproportion and synthesis of leaf chlorophyll altered during drought stress. A lower content of chlorophyll (Figure 2), inactivation of key proteins linked to the photosynthesis process, and alteration of thylakoid membranes happen as a result of drought stress. The decline in chlorophyll content is due to over production of O2 and H2O2 production, which ultimately results significant chlorophyll degradation and lipid peroxidation. During drought stress, in stomata and mesophyll cell the CO2 conductance declined as the decrease in the photosynthetic process. The decrease in photosynthetic activity also may be because of the reduction of stomatal movement [27]. Rubisco activity greatly affected by the loss of CO2 uptake, similarly it decreases the activity of sucrose phosphate synthase, nitrate reductase and RuBP production [20, 28]. Decline in photosynthetic activity, loss of photosystem II photochemical efficiency, reduction in chlorophyll content and alteration in stomatal movement results the reduction in plant productivity. As a consequence of reduction in photosynthetic activity in drought stress, it dismantles the production of carbohydrate in various way likely prevents the transport of sucrose into sink organs and reduces the level of sucrose in leaves, which in turn limits reproductive development. The free sugars and different metabolites thereof support plant growth under drought, and take up osmolytic role and compatible solutes to mitigate the drastic effect of the stress [29, 30].

Figure 2.

Visual effects of drought stress in rice. Source: [26].

The relative leaf water content (RLWC) is an estimate of leaf’s hydration status relative to its maximal water holding capacity at full turgid state. The relative leaf water content (RLWC) is one of the reliable parameters to know the water status in plants and it decreases gradually with increases in the severity of drought stress conditions. The decline of RLWC as a response to osmotic stress was earlier reported by several investigators under different stress conditions [31, 32, 33, 34]. The physiological traits considered for evaluating drought stress tolerance include root trait characteristics (root length, root density, root biomass, root length density, delayed canopy wilting (DCW) and leaf pubescence density (LPD) [35], delayed leaf senescence (DLS) [36], and recovery ability after wilting (RAW) [37]. Drought stress drastically affects seed germination and decreases the speed of germination (Figure 3). Apart from these, stomatal conductance, chlorophyll content and use of carbon isotope discrimination are also effective screening methods for drought stress tolerance and has been used for some food legumes.

Figure 3.

Ricebean response to varying levels of PEG as drought induction agent.

Advertisement

3. Plants adaptive responses to drought stress

Plants have developed various adaptive mechanisms conferring tolerance to drought stress induced adversities through evolution [38]. Their survival strategies for drought stress can broadly be classified as escape, avoidance and tolerance. Hence, their drought stress response varies from molecular to plant level [39]. The mechanisms of plant escape, avoidance and tolerance (Figure 4) against drought stress are discussed as follows.

Figure 4.

Overall drought stress response in crop species.

3.1 Escape, avoidance and tolerance mechanisms

To escape the pernicious effects of drought stress on plant health and productivity, some plants utilize mechanisms involving shortening of the life cycle by rapid plant development, self-reproduction, and seasonal growth before the beginning of the drought season (Figure 4) [40]. Among all, early flowering is perhaps the best possible escape adaptive mechanism in plants [41]. However, this mechanism can connote a considerable reduction in the plant’s growing period compromising plant productivity in some cases [42].

In avoidance strategy, high plant water potential is maintained through transpiration loss reduction and the increased water uptake from well-established root systems [43]. Xeromorphic features such as the presence of hairy structure on leaves and cuticles in some cases do help to maintain high water potentials in plant tissues [44]. It is notable that overdevelopment of these structures may lead to reduced productivity and reduced decreased size of vegetative and reproductive parts [45]. On the contrary, an adaptive tolerance mechanism at the photosynthetic level involves reductions in the plant’s total leaf area and limited expansion of new leaves. Likewise, trichrome production on leaves is an attribute that enables the plant to tolerate water deficits in dry environments [46]. There is an increase in rate of light reflection in the leaf reducing the leaf temperature as well as trichomes provide additional layer of resistance to the water loss thereby reducing the rate of water loss through transpiration [47]. Changes in root system-size, density, length, proliferation, expansion and growth rate, constitute the preliminary strategy for drought-tolerant plants to cope against drought [48]. Osmotic adjustment, antioxidant defense mechanism, metabolic and biochemical dynamics of stomatal closure, solute accumulation and increment in root shoot ratio are other common strategies that aid to drought stress resilience [49].

Advertisement

4. Biochemical responses to drought

4.1 Oxidative damage

Drought stress triggers an array of biochemical mechanisms including fluidity of the plasma membranes, osmolytes production, lipid peroxidation, reactive oxygen species (ROS) generation, rigidity of the cellular membranes and activation of different enzymes which are involved in oxidative defense system [50, 51]. Previously, in various crop species ROS generation instigates significant damage to cellular components and also causing damages to lipid peroxidation, proteins [52]. The drought stress induced ROS generation had calamitous effects on lipid membrane and protein. Among all the ROS superoxide radical (O2•−), hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), singlet oxygen (1O2) and hydroxyl radical (OH) are mainly produced by enzymatic or non-enzymatic processes during photosynthesis (Figure 5). Their production occurs also in components of electron transport system in the mitochondria by partial reduction or oxidation of atmospheric oxygen [53]. In some current studies, it has been shown that ROS have dual role in plant biology; involvement in vital signaling processes and as toxic by-products of aerobic metabolism [53].

Figure 5.

Production of various ROS by energy transfer (or) sequential univalent reduction of ground state triplet oxygen.

4.2 Enzymatic and non-enzymatic antioxidants

There are several componentsutilized by plantsto cope up with oxidative stress, which are involved in ROS homeostasis modulation [54]. Plants produces various reactive oxygen species (ROS) continuously as bi-products of various metabolic pathways in different cellular compartments like chloroplast, mitochondria, and peroxisome. ROS have partially reduced forms of atmospheric oxygen and under normal conditions, their production in plant cells is balanced by their effective scavenging through enzymatic and non-enzymatic cascade (Figure 6). ROS can cause damage to different biomolecules namely DNA, proteins and lipids, and therefore by creating oxidative injury; it leads to a reduction in plant growth and development [56]. The equilibrium between the production and the scavenging of ROS may be perturbed by various stress factors. Thus, the disturbances of cellular homeostasis resulted in a sudden rise in intracellular levels of ROS leading to oxidative stress which in turn can cause substantial damage to cell structure and membrane integrity. To mask themselves from these toxic oxygen intermediates, plant cells contain both enzymatic and non-enzymatic components. Among them enzymatic antioxidantsare superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT), ascorbate peroxidase (APX), dehydroascorbate reductase (DHAR), monodehydroascorbate reductase (MDHAR) and ascorbate (AsA), glutathione (GSH), carotenoids, glycine betaine, proline, α-tocopherol and flavonoids are the non-enzymatic antioxidants [51, 57]. Hence, stress induced oxidative damage of ROSs can only be counteracted by increased level of enzymatic and nonenzymatic antioxidants [54].

Figure 6.

ROS scavenging mechanism by antioxidant defense system in different stress conditions. Source: [55].

Advertisement

5. Molecular and genomic prospects for improvement of drought tolerance

Traditionally, there have been several efforts to develop drought-tolerant crop genotypes through usual breeding methods [58, 59]. In this method, two groups of plants with desirable traits are selected and crossed to obtain offsprings having new genetic arrangements [60]. Drought resistance is directly or indirectly incorporated in the crop species via genetic variability of traits and thus selection in breeding is ought to be useful. Important traits to target in plant breeding might include water-extraction efficiency, water-use efficiency, conductance of water, osmo-elastic adjustments and leaf area modulation [15]. Genetic data improves the efficiency of the breeding method. Polymorphisms based on molecular markers that occur naturally in the DNA like restriction fragment length polymorphisms (RFLPs), sequence characteristic amplified regions (SCARs), random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPDs), simple sequence repeats (SSRs), amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLPs), and others have been effectively utilized. The use of plant breeding methods has an enormous potential to accelerate drought-tolerant plant production and help drought management assist these plants [15].

Marker assisted selection (MAS) and genomic selection (GS) are the two well versed approaches of genomic assisted breeding. For the first approach, foremost step is to identify the molecular markers linked to the trait of interest so that selection can be performed in breeding programs. However, GS depends on progress of selection models based on genetic markers present on the whole genome and selection of genome estimated breeding values (GEBVs) in breeding populations through phenotyping of “training population”.

MAS utilizes molecular markers in identification of quantitative trait loci (QTL) or specific genes that are linked with the target trait and are used to identify the individual with desirable alleles (Figure 7) [61]. Through these methods, QTLs for the traits linked with drought resistance are identified in various crops i.e., rice, wheat, maize, sorghum, pearl millet, soybean and many other crops [62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67].

Figure 7.

Model for the role of signaling factors in stomatal closure and retrograde signaling during water stress. Source: [16].

Genomic selection utilizes all the markers available for a population of GEBVs and GS models are used for selection of elite lines without phenotyping [61]. Contrary to MAS, the information about QTLs is not the prerequisite for GS [68]. However, GS requires denser marker data than MAS. GS is being applied for breeding in maize tolerant to drought by the international maize and wheat improvement center (CIMMYT) [69]. Research efforts through this approach are progressing in other crops i.e., sugarcane, legumes and wheat [70, 71, 72].

Many studies have elucidated molecular responses in plants related to drought-induced transcription signaling pathways. In recent times, various stress-responsive genes and transcription factors having potential to mitigate drought-induced oxidative stress have been identified [73]. The TFs operate specific interaction with the cis-elements present in the genes’ promoter region and, stimulate the expression of stress-inducible genes of various signaling pathways upon binding [74, 75]. These TFs are categorized into different families based on their conserved motifs that code their DNA binding domain (DBD), viz., APETALA 2 (AP2)/ethylene-responsive element binding factor (ERF); dehydration-responsive element binding protein (DREB); no apical meristem/Arabidopsistranscription activation factor, cup-shaped cotyledon (NAC); related to abscisic acid insensitive (ABI3)/VIVIPAROUS 1 (VP1) (RAV); WRKY; auxin response factor (ARF); and SQUAMOSA-promoter binding protein (SBP). The DBDs of the AP2/ERF, DREB, NAC, SBP, and WRKY are named as per the names of their respective TFs family, whereas DBDs of ABI3/VP1 and ARF family of TFs are named as B3 family [76].

Biochemical and molecular factors involved in the induction of processes to alleviate the detrimental impacts of water stress include transcription, stress responsive genes like TaNAC69 (wheat), AP37 & OSNAC10 (rice), NF-YB2 (maize) and abscisic acid [16]. Transgenic expression of different stress responsive genes has been also utilized to confer increased tolerance to draught defecits. [77, 78]. The increased expression of these genes is frequently associated with a decreased plant growth rate and this could narrow down its practical use (Table 2) [79]. In this sense, genomic and related molecular tools could accentuate the genes that mitigate the stress effect so that efforts may help maintaining those genes in breeding programs [104]. Marker assisted breeding combined with traditional breeding as an integrated approach is the best approach for the improvement of the drought stress tolerance in plants. [105, 106].

Plant speciesGenesPathway involved/activatedFunctionReferences
Oryza sativaOsNAC5/6/9/10ABA responsive genesdrought avoidance[80, 81, 82, 83]
NAC1/5/022drought avoidance and activation of transcriptional regulation of various other genes[84]
bZIP23, ZFP252Not identifieddrought avoidance and activation of transcriptional regulation of various other genes[85, 86]
OsMYB2drought avoidance and activation of transcriptional regulation of various other genes[87]
DREB1F/DREB2A/EREBP1mediates dehydration-inducible transcriptionEnhanced ROS scavenging induced drought tolerance[88]
TriticumaestivumTaNAC69, NAC2ABA responsive genedrought avoidance and activation of transcriptional regulation of various other genes[89, 90]
TaPIMP1Not identifieddrought avoidance and activation of transcriptional regulation of various other genes[91]
DREB2/DREB3Overexpression causes strengthening of the antioxidant defense system in response to drought stress[92]
Arabidopsis thalianaNCED3ABA responsive genekey enzyme of ABA biosynthesis[93]
AtABCG25drought tolerance[94]
AHK1positive regulator of osmosensing and drought tolerance[95]
OSCA1membrane protein mediating osmotic stress responses[96]
Zat10Not identifieddrought avoidance and activation of transcriptional regulation of various other genes[97]
AREB1/ AREB2/ ABF3/ ABF4Induce drought tolerance by trifurcating feed forward pathway[98]
bZIP28stress sensor and transducer in ER stress signaling pathwayActivates brassinosteroid signaling and promotes acclimation to drought stress[99]
Zea maysbZIP17noninducible expression of multiple genes involved in cell growthInduced drought tolerance by promoting cell differentiation[100, 101]
SolanumtuberosumStMYB1R-1ABA responsive genedrought avoidance and activation of transcriptional regulation of various other genes[102]
GossypiumhirsutumSnRK2ABA responsive geneimparts cellular adaptation in response to dehydration stress.[103]

Table 2.

Transcription factors involved in drought stress response in various crop species.

Advertisement

6. Conclusion

Sustainable crop production to feed exponentially growing population is the major challenge to the scientific communities in the current global climate change scenario. Out of many productivity-limiting factors, drought stress is one of the most critical factor and of prime importance in the context of decreasing water availability for crop production. Water deficit leads to cellular damage and triggers an array of signaling pathways which in turn activate synthesis of gene transcripts associated with protective functions. In general, wilting occurs owing to physiological responses such as reduced turgor pressure, gaseous exchange, mineral assimilation and overall growth. The prominent result of these is reduced photosynthetic rate Many plant species are inherently equipped with drought tolerance mechanisms such as reduction in leaf area and canopy resistance. Both these mechanisms induce tolerance by cutting off excessive absorption of indecent light as a result of reduced surface area exposed to the incident radiations. In order to select for a tolerant genotype and/or traits conferring tolerance, robust phenotyping is a must. Marker assisted breeding to incorporate drought tolerance conferring quantitative trait loci (QTL) has proven to be effective and efficient. In addition, the knowledge generated by “OMICS” techniques (genomics, proteomics, transcriptomics, epigenomics and metabolomics) and transgenomics are potent and significant tools that would enable a researcher to develop an effective strategy for crop improvement programs in a less time-consuming cost-effective manner. So, an integrated approach will provide better understanding of mechanisms underlying drought stress and plants’ response to it, and help in developing genotypes for dry environments in order to reduce the threat to global food security.

Advertisement

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank to the co-authors for their valuable inputs.

Advertisement

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1. Jaleel CA, Manivannan PA, Wahid A, Farooq M, Al-Juburi HJ, Somasundaram RA, et al. Drought stress in plants: A review on morphological characteristics and pigments composition. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology. 2009;11(1):100-105
  2. 2. Farooq M, Wahid A, Kobayashi NS, Fujita DB, Basra SM. Plant drought stress: Effects, mechanisms and management. Sustainable Agriculture. 2009;29:153-188
  3. 3. Kage H, Kochler M, Stützel H. Root growth and dry matter partitioning of cauliflower under drought stress conditions: Measurement and simulation. European Journal of Agronomy. 2004;20(4):379-394
  4. 4. Lafitte HR, Yongsheng G, Yan S, Li ZK. Whole plant responses, key processes, and adaptation to drought stress: The case of rice. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2007;58(2):169-175
  5. 5. Monneveux P, Sanchez C, Beck D, Edmeades GO. Drought tolerance improvement in tropical maize source populations: Evidence of progress. Crop Science. 2006;46(1):180-191
  6. 6. Samarah NH. Effects of drought stress on growth and yield of barley. Agronomy for Sustainable Development. 2005;25(1):145-149
  7. 7. Nayyar H, Kaur S, Singh S, Upadhyaya HD. Differential sensitivity of Desi (small-seeded) and Kabuli (large-seeded) chickpea genotypes to water stress during seed filling: Effects on accumulation of seed reserves and yield. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 2006;86(13):2076-2082
  8. 8. Nam NH, Chauhan YS, Johansen C. Effect of timing of drought stress on growth and grain yield of extra-short-duration pigeonpea lines. The Journal of Agricultural Science. 2001;136(2):179-189
  9. 9. Samarah NH, Mullen RE, Cianzio SR, Scott P. Dehydrin-like proteins in soybean seeds in response to drought stress during seed filling. Crop Science. 2006;46(5):2141-2150
  10. 10. Mazaheri LH, Nouri F, Zare AH. Effects of the reduction of drought stress using supplementary irrigation for sunflower (Helianthus annuus) in dry farming conditions., Pajouheshva-Sazandegi. Agronomy and Horticulture. 2003;59:81-86
  11. 11. Kawakami J, Iwama K, Jitsuyama Y. Soil water stress and the growth and yield of potato plants grown from microtubers and conventional seed tubers. Field Crops Research. 2006;95(1):89-96
  12. 12. Sinaki JM, Heravan EM, Rad AHS, Noormohammadi G, Zarei G. The effects of water deficit during growth stages of canola (Brassica napusL.). American-Eurasian Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Sciences. 2007;2:417-422
  13. 13. Ogbonnaya CI, Sarr B, Brou C, Diouf O, Diop NN, Roy-Macauley H. Selection of cowpea genotypes in hydroponics, pots, and field for drought tolerance. Crop Science. 2003;43(3):1114-1120. DOI: 10.2135/cropsci2003.1114
  14. 14. Rizza F, Badeck FW, Cattivelli L, Lidestri O, Di Fonzo N, Stanca AM. Use of a water stress index to identify barley genotypes adapted to rainfed and irrigated conditions. Crop Science. 2004;44(6):2127-2137. DOI: 10.2135/cropsci2004.2127
  15. 15. Lisar SY, Motafakkerazad R, Hossain MM, Rahman IM. Causes, effects and responses. Water Stress. 2012;25(1):33
  16. 16. Osakabe Y, Yamaguchi-Shinozaki K, Shinozaki K, Tran LS. ABA control of plant macro-element membrane transport systems in response to water deficit and high salinity. New Phytologist. 2014;202(1):35-49. DOI: 10.1111/nph.12613
  17. 17. Abobatta WF. Drought adaptive mechanisms of plants—A review. Advances in Agriculture and Environmental Science. 2019;2(1):62-65. DOI: 10.30881/aaeoa.00021
  18. 18. Lamaoui M, Jemo M, Datla R, Bekkaoui F. Heat and drought stresses in crops and approaches for their mitigation. Frontiers in Chemistry. 2018;6:26. DOI: 10.3389/fchem.2018.00026
  19. 19. Earl HJ, Davis RF. Effect of drought stress on leaf and whole canopy radiation use efficiency and yield of maize. Agronomy Journal. 2003;95(3):688-696. DOI: 10.2134/agronj2003.6880
  20. 20. Anjum SA, Xie XY, Wang LC, Saleem MF, Man C, Lei W. Morphological, physiological and biochemical responses of plants to drought stress. African Journal of Agricultural Research. 2011;6(9):2026-2032. DOI: 10.5897/AJAR10.027
  21. 21. Gregorova Z, Kovacik J, Klejdus B, Maglovski M, Kuna R, Hauptvogel P, et al. Drought-induced responses of physiology, metabolites, and PR proteins in Triticumaestivum. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2015;63(37):8125-8133. DOI: 10.1021/acs.jafc.5b02951
  22. 22. Tatar Ö, Gevrek MN. Lipid peroxidation and water content of wheat. Asian Journal of Plant Sciences. 2008;7:409-412
  23. 23. Bennett D, Reynolds M, Mullan D, Izanloo A, Kuchel H, Langridge P, et al. Detection of two major grain yield QTL in bread wheat (Triticumaestivum L.) under heat, drought and high yield potential environments. Theoretical and Applied Genetics. 2012;125(7):1473-1485. DOI: 10.1007/s00122-012-1927-2
  24. 24. Atta K, Chettri P, Pal AK. Physiological and biochemical changes under salinity and drought stress in ricebean [vignaumbellata (thunb.) ohwi and ohashi] seedlings. IJECC. 2020;10(8):58-64. DOI: 10.9734/ijecc/2020/v10i830218
  25. 25. Alghabari F, Ihsan MZ, Hussain S, Aishia G, Daur I. Effect of Rht alleles on wheat grain yield and quality under high temperature and drought stress during booting and anthesis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2015;22(20):15506-15515. DOI: 10.1007/s11356-015-4724-z
  26. 26. Farooq M, Wahid A, Kobayashi NS, Fujita DB, Basra SM. Plant drought stress: Effects, mechanisms and management. Sustainable Agriculture. 2009;29:153-188. DOI: 10.1007/978-90-481-2666-8_12
  27. 27. Abid M, Ali S, Qi LK, Zahoor R, Tian Z, Jiang D, et al. Physiological and biochemical changes during drought and recovery periods at tillering and jointing stages in wheat (Triticumaestivum L.). Scientific Reports. 2018;8(1):1-5. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-21441-7
  28. 28. Singh J, Thakur JK. Photosynthesis and abiotic stress in plants. In: Biotic and Abiotic Stress Tolerance in Plants. Singapore: Springer; 2018. pp. 27-46. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-10-9029-5_2
  29. 29. Thalmann M, Santelia D. Starch as a determinant of plant fitness under abiotic stress. New Phytologist. 2017;214(3):943-951. DOI: 10.1111/nph.14491
  30. 30. Krasensky J, Jonak C. Drought, salt, and temperature stress-induced metabolic rearrangements and regulatory networks. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2012;63(4):1593-1608. DOI: 10.1093/jxb/err460
  31. 31. Chen C, Xie Z, Liu X. Dynamic transformation of the substances of osmotic adjustment in winter wheat under iso-osmotic salt and drought stresses. Bulletin of Botanical Research. 2009;29(6):708-713
  32. 32. Jyoti B, Yadav SK. Comparative study on biochemical parameters and antioxidant enzymes in a drought tolerant and a sensitive variety of horsegram (Macrotylomauniflorum) under drought stress. American Journal of Plant Physiology. 2012;7(1):17-29
  33. 33. Petrović G, Jovičić D, Nikolić Z, Tamindžić G, Ignjatov M, Milošević D, et al. Comparative study of drought and salt stress effects on germination and seedling growth of pea. Genetika-Belgrade. 2016;48(1):373-381
  34. 34. Babu K, Rosaiah G. A study on germination and seedling growth of Blcakgram (Vigna mungo L. Hepper) germplasm against Polyethylene glycol 6000 stress. IOSR Journal of Pharmacy and Biological Sciences (IOSR-JPBS). 2017;12:90-98
  35. 35. Du W, Wang M, Fu S, Yu D. Mapping QTLs for seed yield and drought susceptibility index in soybean (Glycine max L.) across different environments. Journal of Genetics and Genomics. 2009;36(12):721-731. DOI: 10.1016/S1673-8527(08)60165-4
  36. 36. Hall AE, Ismail AM, Ehlers JD, Marfo KO, Cisse N, Thiaw S, et al. Breeding cowpea for tolerance to temperature extremes and adaptation to drought. In: Challenges and Opportunities for Enhancing Sustainable Cowpea Production. Ibadan, Nigeria: International Institute of Tropical Agriculture; 2002. pp. 14-21
  37. 37. Toker C, Canci H, Yildirim TO. Evaluation of perennial wild Cicer species for drought resistance. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution. 2007;54(8):1781-1786. DOI: 10.1007/s10722-006-9197-y
  38. 38. Batool T, Ali S, Seleiman MF, Naveed NH, Ali A, Ahmed K, et al. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria alleviates drought stress in potato in response to suppressive oxidative stress and antioxidant enzymes activities. Scientific Reports. 2020;10(1):1-9. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-73489-z
  39. 39. Galindo A, Collado-González J, Griñán I, Corell M, Centeno A, Martín-Palomo MJ, et al. Deficit irrigation and emerging fruit crops as a strategy to save water in Mediterranean semiarid agrosystems. Agricultural Water Management. 2018;202:311-324. DOI: 10.1016/j.agwat.2017.08.015
  40. 40. Álvarez S, Rodríguez P, Broetto F, Sánchez-Blanco MJ. Long term responses and adaptive strategies of Pistacialentiscus under moderate and severe deficit irrigation and salinity: Osmotic and elastic adjustment, growth, ion uptake and photosynthetic activity. Agricultural Water Management. 2018;202:253-262. DOI: 10.1016/j.agwat.2018.01.006
  41. 41. Tekle AT, Alemu MA. Drought tolerance mechanisms in field crops. World Journal of Biology and Medical Sciences. 2016;3(2):15-39
  42. 42. Blum A. Plant water relations, plant stress and plant production. In: Plant Breeding for Water-Limited Environments. New York: Springer; 2011. pp. 11-52. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4419-7491-4_2
  43. 43. Dobra J, Motyka V, Dobrev P, Malbeck J, Prasil IT, Haisel D, et al. Comparison of hormonal responses to heat, drought and combined stress in tobacco plants with elevated proline content. Journal of Plant Physiology. 2010;167(16):1360-1370. DOI: 10.1016/j.jplph.2010.05.013
  44. 44. Boulard T, Roy JC, Pouillard JB, Fatnassi H, Grisey A. Modelling of micrometeorology, canopy transpiration and photosynthesis in a closed greenhouse using computational fluid dynamics. Biosystems Engineering. 2017;158:110-133
  45. 45. Wasaya A, Zhang X, Fang Q, Yan Z. Root phenotyping for drought tolerance: A review. Agronomy. 2018;8(11):241. DOI: 10.3390/agronomy8110241
  46. 46. Zhang F, Wang P, Zou YN, Wu QS, Kuča K. Effects of mycorrhizal fungi on root-hair growth and hormone levels of taproot and lateral roots in trifoliate orange under drought stress. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science. 2019;65(9):1316-1330. DOI: 10.1080/03650340.2018.1563780
  47. 47. Tiwari P, Srivastava D, Chauhan AS, Indoliya Y, Singh PK, Tiwari S, et al. Root system architecture, physiological analysis and dynamic transcriptomics unravel the drought-responsive traits in rice genotypes. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 2021;207:111252. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2020.111252
  48. 48. Tzortzakis N, Chrysargyris A, Aziz A. Adaptive response of a native mediterranean grapevine cultivar upon short-term exposure to drought and heat stress in the context of climate change. Agronomy. 2020;10(2):249
  49. 49. López-Galiano MJ, García-Robles I, González-Hernández AI, Camañes G, Vicedo B, Real MD, et al. Expression of miR159 is altered in tomato plants undergoing drought stress. Plants. 2019;8(7):201
  50. 50. Qi J, Song CP, Wang B, Zhou J, Kangasjärvi J, Zhu JK, et al. Reactive oxygen species signaling and stomatal movement in plant responses to drought stress and pathogen attack. Journal of Integrative Plant Biology. 2018;60(9):805-826. DOI: 10.1111/jipb.12654
  51. 51. Roychowdhury R, Khan MH, Choudhury S. Physiological and molecular responses for metalloid stress in rice—A Comprehensive Overview. Advances in Rice Research for Abiotic Stress Tolerance. 2019;1:341-369. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-814332-2.00016-2
  52. 52. Sapna H, Ashwini N, Ramesh S, Nataraja KN. Assessment of DNA methylation pattern under drought stress using methylation-sensitive randomly amplified polymorphism analysis in rice. Plant Genetic Resources. 2020;18(4):222-230. DOI: 10.1017/S1479262120000234
  53. 53. Mittler R. ROS are good. Trends in Plant Science. 2017;22:11-19
  54. 54. Rai KK, Rai N, Rai SP. Salicylic acid and nitric oxide alleviate high temperature induced oxidative damage in Lablab purpureus L plants by regulating bio-physical processes and DNA methylation. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry. 2018;128:72-88. DOI: 10.1016/j.plaphy.2018.04.023
  55. 55. Ullah A, Sun H, Yang X, Zhang X. A novel cotton WRKY gene, GhWRKY6-like, improves salt tolerance by activating the ABA signaling pathway and scavenging of reactive oxygen species. Physiologiaplantarum. 2018;162(4):439-454. DOI: 10.1111/ppl.12651
  56. 56. Hernández-Jiménez MJ, Lucas MM, de Felipe MR. Antioxidant defence and damage in senescing lupin nodules. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry. 2002;40(6-8):645-657. DOI: 10.1016/S0981-9428(02)01422-5
  57. 57. Hasanuzzaman MI, Roychowdhury RA, Karmakar JO, Dey NA, Nahar KA, Fujita MA. Recent advances in biotechnology and genomic approaches for abiotic stress tolerance in crop plants. In: Genomics and Proteomics: Concepts, Technologies and Applications. Burlington, Canada: Apple Academic Press; 2015. pp. 333-366
  58. 58. Nezhadahmadi A, Prodhan ZH, Faruq G. Drought tolerance in wheat. The Scientific World Journal. 2013;2013:12. DOI: 10.1155/2013/610721
  59. 59. Rana RM, Rehman SU, Ahmed J, Bilal M. A comprehensive overview of recent advances in drought stress tolerance research in wheat (Triticumaestivum L.). Asian Journal of Agriculture and Biology. 2013;1(1):29-37
  60. 60. Khan MA, Iqbal M, Jameel M, Nazeer W, Shakir S, Aslam MT, et al. Potentials of molecular based breeding to enhance drought tolerance in wheat (Triticumaestivum L.). African Journal of Biotechnology. 2011;10(55):11340-11344
  61. 61. Varshney RK, Terauchi R, McCouch SR. Harvesting the promising fruits of genomics: Applying genome sequencing technologies to crop breeding. PLoS Biology. 2014;12(6):e1001883. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001883. 100
  62. 62. Morris GP, Ramu P, Deshpande SP, Hash CT, Shah T, Upadhyaya HD, et al. Population genomic and genome-wide association studies of agroclimatic traits in sorghum. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2013;110(2):453-458. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1215985110.104
  63. 63. Kollers S, Rodemann B, Ling J, Korzun V, Ebmeyer E, Argillier O, et al. Whole genome association mapping of Fusarium head blight resistance in European winter wheat (Triticumaestivum L.). PLoS One. 2013;8(2):e57500. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0057500
  64. 64. Brown PJ, Upadyayula N, Mahone GS, Tian F, Bradbury PJ, Myles S, et al. Distinct genetic architectures for male and female inflorescence traits of maize. PLoS Genetics. 2011;7(11):e1002383. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1002383. 102
  65. 65. Huang X, Wei X, Sang T, Zhao Q, Feng Q, Zhao Y, et al. Genome-wide association studies of 14 agronomic traits in rice landraces. Nature Genetics. 2010;42(11):961-967. DOI: 10.1038/ng.695. 103
  66. 66. Bidinger FR, Nepolean T, Hash CT, Yadav RS, Howarth CJ. Quantitative trait loci for grain yield in pearl millet under variable postflowering moisture conditions. Crop Science. 2007;47(3):969-980. DOI: 10.2135/cropsci2006.07.0465. 106
  67. 67. Wang B, Ekblom R, Bunikis I, Siitari H, Höglund J. Whole genome sequencing of the black grouse (Tetraotetrix): Reference guided assembly suggests faster-Z and MHC evolution. BMC Genomics. 2014;15(1):1-3. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2164-15-180. 105
  68. 68. Nakaya A, Isobe SN. Will genomic selection be a practical method for plant breeding? Annals of Botany. 2012;110(6):1303-1316. DOI: 10.1093/aob/mcs109. 107
  69. 69. Crossa J, Perez P, Hickey J, Burgueno J, Ornella L, Cerón-Rojas J, et al. Genomic prediction in CIMMYT maize and wheat breeding programs. Heredity. 2014;112(1):48-60. DOI: 10.1038/hdy.2013.16. 109
  70. 70. Gouy M, Rousselle Y, Bastianelli D, Lecomte P, Bonnal L, Roques D, et al. Experimental assessment of the accuracy of genomic selection in sugarcane. Theoretical and Applied Genetics. 2013;126(10):2575-2586. DOI: 10.1007/s00122-013-2156-z. 110
  71. 71. Varshney RK, Mohan SM, Gaur PM, Gangarao NV, Pandey MK, Bohra A, et al. Achievements and prospects of genomics-assisted breeding in three legume crops of the semi-arid tropics. Biotechnology Advances. 2013;31(8):1120-1134. DOI: 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2013.01.001. 111
  72. 72. Rutkoski JE, Heffner EL, Sorrells ME. Genomic selection for durable stem rust resistance in wheat. Euphytica. 2011;179(1):161-173. DOI: 10.1007/s10681-010-0301-1. 112
  73. 73. Kudo M, Kidokoro S, Yoshida T, Mizoi J, Todaka D, Fernie AR, et al. Double overexpression of DREB and PIF transcription factors improves drought stress tolerance and cell elongation in transgenic plants. Plant Biotechnology Journal. 2017;15(4):458-471. DOI: 10.1111/pbi.12644
  74. 74. Anumalla M, Roychowdhury R, Geda CK, Bharathkumar S, Goutam KD, Mohandev TS. Mechanism of stress signal transduction and involvement of stress inducible transcription factors and genes in response to abiotic stresses in plant. International Journal of Recent Scientific Research. 2016;7(8):12754-12771
  75. 75. Joshi R, Wani SH, Singh B, Bohra A, Dar ZA, Lone AA, et al. Transcription factors and plants response to drought stress: Current understanding and future directions. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2016;7:1029. DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2016.01029
  76. 76. Kidokoro S, Watanabe K, Ohori T, Moriwaki T, Maruyama K, Mizoi J, et al. Soybean DREB 1/CBF-type transcription factors function in heat and drought as well as cold stress-responsive gene expression. The Plant Journal. 2015;81(3):505-518. DOI: 10.1111/tpj.12746
  77. 77. Rai KK, Rai AC. Recent transgenic approaches for stress tolerance in crop plants. In: Sustainable Agriculture in the Era of Climate Change. Cham: Springer; 2020. pp. 533-556. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-45669-6_23
  78. 78. Liu Y, Liu X, Wang X, Gao K, Qi W, Ren H, et al. Heterologous expression of heat stress-responsive AtPLC9 confers heat tolerance in transgenic rice. BMC Plant Biology. 2020;20(1):1-1. DOI: 10.1186/s12870-020-02709-5. 115
  79. 79. Hussain HA, Hussain S, Khaliq A, Ashraf U, Anjum SA, Men S, et al. Chilling and drought stresses in crop plants: Implications, cross talk, and potential management opportunities. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2018;9:393. DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2018.00393. 116
  80. 80. Nakashima K, Yamaguchi-Shinozaki K, Shinozaki K. The transcriptional regulatory network in the drought response and its crosstalk in abiotic stress responses including drought, cold, and heat. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2014;5:170. DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2014.00170. 118
  81. 81. Jeong JS, Kim YS, Baek KH, Jung H, Ha SH, Do Choi Y, et al. Root-specific expression of OsNAC10 improves drought tolerance and grain yield in rice under field drought conditions. Plant Physiology. 2010;153(1):185-197. DOI: 10.1104/pp.110.154773
  82. 82. Redillas MC, Jeong JS, Kim YS, Jung H, Bang SW, Choi YD, et al. The overexpression of OsNAC9 alters the root architecture of rice plants enhancing drought resistance and grain yield under field conditions. Plant Biotechnology Journal. 2012;10(7):792-805. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-7652.2012.00697.x
  83. 83. Jeong JS, Kim YS, Redillas MC, Jang G, Jung H, Bang SW, et al. OsNAC5 overexpression enlarges root diameter in rice plants leading to enhanced drought tolerance and increased grain yield in the field. Plant Biotechnology Journal. 2013;11(1):101-114. DOI: 10.1111/pbi.12011
  84. 84. Saad AS, Li X, Li HP, Huang T, Gao CS, Guo MW, et al. A rice stress-responsive NAC gene enhances tolerance of transgenic wheat to drought and salt stresses. Plant Science. 2013;203:33-40. DOI: 10.1016/j.plantsci.2012.12.016
  85. 85. De Schutter K, Tsaneva M, Kulkarni SR, Rougé P, Vandepoele K, Van Damme EJ. Evolutionary relationships and expression analysis of EUL domain proteins in rice (Oryzasativa). Rice. 2017;10(1):1-9. DOI: 10.1186/s12284-017-0164-3
  86. 86. Xu P, Chen F, Mannas JP, Feldman T, Sumner LW, Roossinck MJ. Virus infection improves drought tolerance. New Phytologist. 2008;180(4):911-921
  87. 87. Yang A, Dai X, Zhang WH. A R2R3-type MYB gene, OsMYB2, is involved in salt, cold, and dehydration tolerance in rice. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2012;63(7):2541-2556. DOI: 10.1093/jxb/err431
  88. 88. Xiong H, Yu J, Li J, Wang X, Liu P, Zhang H, et al. Natural variation of OsLG3 controls drought stress tolerance in rice by inducing ROS scavenging. Plant Physiology. 2017;178(1):451-467. DOI: 10.1104/pp.17.01492
  89. 89. Xue GP, Way HM, Richardson T, Drenth J, Joyce PA, McIntyre CL. Overexpression of TaNAC69 leads to enhanced transcript levels of stress up-regulated genes and dehydration tolerance in bread wheat. Molecular Plant. 2011;4(4):697-712. DOI: 10.1093/mp/ssr013
  90. 90. Gahlaut V, Jaiswal V, Kumar A, Gupta PK. Transcription factors involved in drought tolerance and their possible role in developing drought tolerant cultivars with emphasis on wheat (Triticumaestivum L.). Theoretical and Applied Genetics. 2016;129(11):2019-2042. DOI: 10.1007/s00122-016-2794-z
  91. 91. Zhang Z, Liu X, Wang X, Zhou M, Zhou X, Ye X, et al. An R2R3 MYB transcription factor in wheat, Ta PIMP 1, mediates host resistance to Bipolarissorokiniana and drought stresses through regulation of defense-and stress-related genes. New Phytologist. 2012;196(4):1155-1170. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2012.04353.x
  92. 92. Wani SH, Tripathi P, Zaid A, Challa GS, Kumar A, Kumar V, et al. Transcriptional regulation of osmotic stress tolerance in wheat (Triticumaestivum L.). Plant Molecular Biology. 2018;97(6):469-487. DOI: 10.1007/s11103-018-0761-6
  93. 93. Takahashi T, Murano T, Ishikawa A. SOBIR1 and AGB1 independently contribute to nonhost resistance to Pyriculariaoryzae (syn. Magnaportheoryzae) in Arabidopsis thaliana. Bioscience, Biotechnology, and Biochemistry. 2018;82(11):1922-1930. DOI: 10.1080/09168451.2018.1498727
  94. 94. Yoo CY, Pence HE, Jin JB, Miura K, Gosney MJ, Hasegawa PM, et al. The Arabidopsis GTL1 transcription factor regulates water use efficiency and drought tolerance by modulating stomatal density via transrepression of SDD1. The Plant Cell. 2010;22(12):4128-4141
  95. 95. Tran LS, Urao T, Qin F, Maruyama K, Kakimoto T, Shinozaki K, et al. Functional analysis of AHK1/ATHK1 and cytokinin receptor histidine kinases in response to abscisic acid, drought, and salt stress in Arabidopsis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2007;104(51):20623-20628. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0706547105
  96. 96. Yuan F, Yang H, Xue Y, Kong D, Ye R, Li C, et al. OSCA1 mediates osmotic-stress-evoked Ca 2+ increases vital for osmosensing in Arabidopsis. Nature. 2014;514(7522):367-371. DOI: 10.1038/nature13593
  97. 97. Xiao BZ, Chen X, Xiang CB, Tang N, Zhang QF, Xiong LZ. Evaluation of seven function-known candidate genes for their effects on improving drought resistance of transgenic rice under field conditions. Molecular Plant. 2009;2(1):73-83. DOI: 10.1093/mp/ssn068
  98. 98. Sakuraba Y, Kim YS, Han SH, Lee BD, Paek NC. The Arabidopsis transcription factor NAC016 promotes drought stress responses by repressing AREB1 transcription through a trifurcate feed-forward regulatory loop involving NAP. The Plant Cell. 2015;27(6):1771-1787. DOI: 10.1105/tpc.15.00222
  99. 99. Kataoka R, Takahashi M, Suzuki N. Coordination between bZIP28 and HSFA2 in the regulation of heat response signals in Arabidopsis. Plant Signaling & Behavior. 2017;12(11):e1376159. DOI: 10.1080/15592324.2017.1376159
  100. 100. Zhan J, Li G, Ryu CH, Ma C, Zhang S, Lloyd A, et al. Opaque-2 regulates a complex gene network associated with cell differentiation and storage functions of maize endosperm. The Plant Cell. 2018;30(10):2425-2446. DOI: 10.1105/tpc.18.00392
  101. 101. Kim J-S, Yamaguchi-Shinozaki K, Shinozaki K. ER-anchored transcription factors bZIP17 and bZIP28 regulate root elongation. Plant Physiology. 2018;176(3):2221-2230. DOI: 10.1104/pp.17.01414
  102. 102. Shin D, Moon SJ, Han S, Kim BG, Park SR, Lee SK, et al. Expression of StMYB1R-1, a novel potato single MYB-like domain transcription factor, increases drought tolerance. Plant Physiology. 2011;155(1):421-432. DOI: 10.1104/pp.110.163634
  103. 103. Kulik A, Wawer I, Krzywińska E, Bucholc M, Dobrowolska G. SnRK2 protein kinases—Key regulators of plant response to abiotic stresses. Omics: A Journal of Integrative Biology. 2011;15(12):859-872. DOI: 10.1089/omi.2011.0091
  104. 104. Medina S, Vicente R, Amador A, Araus JL. Interactive effects of elevated [CO2] and water stress on physiological traits and gene expression during vegetative growth in four durum wheat genotypes. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2016;7:1738. DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2016.01738. 117
  105. 105. Bhatnagar-Mathur P, Vadez V, Sharma KK. Transgenic approaches for abiotic stress tolerance in plants: Retrospect and prospects. Plant Cell Reports. 2008;27(3):411-424. DOI: 10.1007/s00299-007-0474-9. 119
  106. 106. Cho EK, Hong CB. Over-expression of tobacco NtHSP70-1 contributes to drought-stress tolerance in plants. Plant Cell Reports. 2006;25(4):349-358. DOI: 10.1007/s00299-005-0093-2. 120

Written By

Kousik Atta, Aditya Pratap Singh, Saju Adhikary, Subhasis Mondal and Sujaya Dewanjee

Submitted: December 13th, 2021 Reviewed: January 19th, 2022 Published: March 14th, 2022