https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9021-2650
Figures
Abstract
Mungbean (Vigna radiata L.) is an important food grain legume, but its production capacity is threatened by global warming, which can intensify plant stress and limit future production. Identifying new variation of key root traits in mungbean will provide the basis for breeding lines with effective root characteristics for improved water uptake to mitigate heat and drought stress. The AVRDC mungbean mini core collection consisting of 296 genotypes was screened under modified semi-hydroponic screening conditions to determine the variation for fourteen root-related traits. The AVRDC mungbean mini core collection displayed wide variations for the primary root length, total surface area, and total root length, and based on agglomerative hierarchical clustering eight homogeneous groups displaying different root traits could be identified. Germplasm with potentially favorable root traits has been identified for further studies to identify the donor genotypes for breeding cultivars with enhanced adaptation to water-deficit stress and other stress conditions.
Citation: Aski MS, Rai N, Reddy VRP, Gayacharan, Dikshit HK, Mishra GP, et al. (2021) Assessment of root phenotypes in mungbean mini-core collection (MMC) from the World Vegetable Center (AVRDC) Taiwan. PLoS ONE 16(3): e0247810. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247810
Editor: Dorin Gupta, University of Melbourne, AUSTRALIA
Received: August 3, 2020; Accepted: February 16, 2021; Published: March 4, 2021
Copyright: © 2021 Aski et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Worldwide, mungbean or green gram (Vigna radiata) is being cultivated on nearly 7 million hectares area [1]. Among six Asiatic Vigna species, Vigna radiata is the most widely distributed species [2]. It is a major grain legume and cash crop which is widely cultivated in South, East, and South East Asia and is also increasingly grown in South America and sub-Saharan Africa. It fits in many intense cropping systems due to its photo-insensitivity and short duration nature. Mungbean is rich in easily digestible proteins, carbohydrates, fibers, minerals, vitamins, antioxidants, and other phytonutrients [3–5], thus can be used as a potential crop for the mitigation of malnutrition [6]. Mungbean is consumed as grain e.g. in dhal, as a sprout, or in various other countless preparations. The yield potential of mungbean is about 2 tonnes per hectare, while average productivity is nearly 0.5 tonnes per hectare. The large yield gap is primarily due to their cultivation on marginal land, suboptimal crop management, and abiotic and biotic stresses [7–9].
Mungbean, in comparison to other pulse crops, is relatively heat and drought tolerant, but their production is still affected by severe abiotic stresses, such as low or high temperatures [10], insufficient or excessive water [11, 12], high salinity [10], low soil fertility [13] and polluted heavy metal-containing soils [14, 15] and ultraviolet-B (UV-B) radiation [16].
Mungbean is mainly grown in three seasons in the Asian continent which is spring (February/March), summer (March/April) and kharif (June/July). Erratic water supply during these months exposes the seedlings to water stress when grown in rainfed conditions. Scarcity of water imposes stress at any plant stage [17]. Yields in tropical and subtropical countries such as India, Pakistan, and Ethiopia, will decline due to an expected higher incidence of water deficits [18]. The expansion of the global drought-restrained zone is threatening the overall mungbean crop production [19]. Insufficient availability of water on its own is more critical than any other environmental trigger for the growth of mungbean [20]. Water scarcity during the seedling stage hinders the establishment of healthy seedlings and limits overall yield. Drought produces many devastating effects on plants by disrupting various plant activities, such as carbon assimilation, reduced turgor, enhanced oxidative damage, and modifications in leaf gas exchange, resulting in a reduction in yield [21]. Better water supply for plants is critical for boosting crop production despite water shortages [22].
Root system architecture is seen as the main factor for efficient water absorption and therefore for maintaining productivity in conditions of drought [23]. Root features are commonly known as the root system architecture (RSA), which refers to the form of the roots and their physical space. With its ability to obtain more water from the soil, a deeper and more proliferative RSA is also capable of avoiding water deficit conditions.
Roots begin to spread into deeper soil layers as plants encounter water deficit stress [24, 25]. The root diameter and distribution of root conductivity-regulating metaxyl vessels are also documented to provide drought tolerance in food grain legumes [26]. Thicker roots prefer to penetrate deeper into soil layers [27].
The key determinants of proliferative rooting are the initiation and elongation of the lateral root, which usually refers to the sum of the lateral root, root volume, root surface, and root length density. Proliferative and deeper roots have increased capacity for water absorption in water-deficient soils [28, 29]. The ideal root phenotypes under water deficit situations, in food grain legumes, include root surface area [30], root length [31], deeper and proliferative roots [32, 33] in soybean (Glycine max L.), root diameter in cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.) [34], root length in pea (Pisum sativum L.) [35], basal root angle in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) [36], and rooting depth, root surface area, root length density [37] and proliferative & deeper roots [38, 39] in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Other crops that have benefited from ideal root phenotypes like proliferative and deep root traits under drought tolerance include rice (Oryza sativa) [40, 41], maize (Zea mays) [42, 43], barley (Hordeum vulgare) [44], and wheat (Tritcum aestivum) [45, 46].
Changing the root system architecture can improve desirable agronomic attributes such as yield, drought tolerance, and tolerance to nutrient deficiencies [47–49], and incorrect phenotyping and small mapping population sizes hinder the use of genomics to improve root characteristics in breeding programs [50]. To translate current physiological and genetic breakthroughs into improvements of yield and productivity especially in dry ecosystems, precise phenotyping and evaluation of root-related traits are vitally important. An effective approach for increasing adaptation to edaphic stress is the selection and breeding of cultivars with root systems that more effectively use nutrients and water than current varieties [51].
To examine root features, several phenotyping techniques were documented, particularly hydroponic systems utilizing growth bags (or germination sheet) [52–54], agar-plate and aeroponic systems [55], soil rhizotrons [56–58], deep column methods [59], transparent containers [60], PVC pipes (columns) and glass-walled rhizoboxes filled with soil, but these methods are costly, require considerable labor and a large area for phenotyping larger genotype sets [61–63]. The unique semi-hydroponic phenotyping system [64] was established to assess the heterogeneity of the root trait in the narrow-leaf lupin (Lupinus angustifolius L.) core set [65, 66]. The same technique was used for root phenotyping in chickpea [67], maize, and barley [68]. This unique semi-hydroponic technique was modified to suit the purpose to screen the AVRDC mungbean mini-core collection for root traits.
The use of digital imaging and software tools for root image analysis is an innovative and efficient way to accurately assess root traits [69–71]. Several software programs are available to extract two-dimensional root morphology traits. This varies from the manual root label DART [70], commercially available software and semi-automated root analysis tool WinRhizoTM (Regent Instruments, Québec, Canada) (Pro, 2004) and EzRhizo [72], freely usable, fully integrated and automated SmartRoot [73] software for small root systems.
The World Vegetable Center (WorldVeg) has established a mungbean mini-core set, which represents a large proportion of the diversity available for this species in the WorldVeg gene bank [74] This resource comprises a major genetic resource for identifying new traits for future use in breeding programs. Characterizing the genotypic variability of the biodiverse accessions of the AVRDC mungbean mini-core collection for variation of root characteristics is the first step for identifying root traits for use in breeding more water and nutrient-use efficient varieties. The present study determined the genotypic variation of root characteristics in the AVRDC mungbean mini-core collection using a modified semi-hydroponic system and resulted in the grouping of the germplasm based on key root traits.
Materials and methods
Experimental materials and growth conditions
Plant material for this analysis included the WorldVeg mini-core collection of 296 genotypes [74] collected from 18 countries around the globe. The seeds were procured from the National Plant Genetic Resources Bureau (NBPGR), New Delhi (S1 Table). The obtained seed was multiplied in the field during the 2018 rainy season at the Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) in New Delhi (Latitude 28° 38’ 31.9236" N and Longitude 77° 9’ 16.434"). The climate-controlled growth chamber [CONVIRON, Canada, PGW 36 with a growth area of 3.3 m2 (36 ft2)] at the National Phytotron Facility (NPF) in IARI, New Delhi, India was used for experiments. The studies were performed between September 2019 and December 2019. The day/night temperature of 30/18°C, 12 h photoperiod, and 90% relative humidity were maintained in the growth chamber. Seeds were surface-sterilized for 3 minutes in 0.1% HgCl2 and then rinsed in double-distilled water before being kept for germination in a modified semi-hydroponics system.
Modified semi-hydroponic system
To suit the experimental purpose, the semi-hydroponic technique [64] has been modified. Our fundamental goal was to screen larger germplasm sets for a shorter time. This was accomplished by changing the bin size with smaller plastic trays and germination stands, resulting in a 26 cm long germination stand with 12 cm width and 8 cm height (specifically created by Bio-Link Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi). The size of the plastic tray was 51 cm in length, 43 cm in width, and 13 cm in height (Tarson products Pvt. Ltd.). Germination paper (SGPK-145; GSM with the creepy surface was obtained from Bio-Link Pvt. Ltd New Delhi) with a size of 14 x 8 cm was used. Two equally cut germination paper sizes (length 14 cm x height 10 cm) were positioned in each germination cell to accommodate seeds for germination. Eight liters of double distilled water were used to moisten the germination paper stand in the plastic tray. For each accession, 10 seeds were used for germination in each germination cell. In each germination stand, 12 germplasm accessions were housed (Fig 1). Three germination stands were placed in each plastic tray, to grow thirty-six mungbean accessions. A total of 9 plastic trays, each containing 36 accessions, covered 296 AVRDC mungbean mini-core collection entries. Due to hard seeds produced during seed multiplication in the field, we were at risk of poor germination. To prevent variable germination rate, uniform 10 seeds were used for germination [75]. Three uniform, healthy seedlings were selected from the emerging seedlings as three technical replicates after 20 days.
Semi-hydroponic phenotyping platform (a) growth chamber (b) plastic tray (c) germination stand and paper setup (d) germinating mungbean seeds in semi-hydroponic phenotyping platform (e) seedling grown for 18 days (f) root system of two contrasting genotypes grown for 18 days.
Each tray was filled with 8 liters of modified Hoagland solution when cotyledon leaves were developed. The basic nutrient solution consisted of 0.92 mM K2SO4, 1 mM MgSO4, 5 mM urea, 0.75 mM CaCl2.2H2O, 0.04 mM Fe-EDTA) and micronutrients (0.62 μM CuSO4), 0.6 μM ZnSO4, 2.4 μM H3BO3, 0.6 μM Na2MoO4 and 0.9 μM MnSO4 [76]. The pH of the nutrient solution was maintained at 6.0 with 1 M HCl or 1 M KOH for adjustment. The solution in the trays was replaced on alternating days and the entire system was periodically aerated by small aquarium air pumps (SOBOTM TM, 5W, 2-way air pump with 2 nozzles, 4.2 W, and 2 x 5.5 L, output power).
Root scanning for image capture
To capture root images, twenty days old seedlings were used. The intact root system was harvested from each plant and carefully spread, without overlapping roots, over a scanning tray of a root scanner (EPSONTM V700). TIFF-format grayscale quality images were analyzed by WinRhizoTM (Pro version 2016; Regent Instrument Inc., Quebec, Canada). Setup parameters: image resolution of 400 dpi, manual dark root on white background, scanner calibration, 8-bit depth, image resolution of 4395 x 6125 pixels, 0 mm focal length. Roots are distributed in a 30 x 40 x 2 cm acrylic tray with a volume of 700 ml water. Manually, the debris was separated from the sample roots by suspension in a beaker containing water. The trash-free clean roots were used for scanning.
Root image analysis
Total root length (TRL), total surface area (TSA), primary root length (PRL), total root volume (TRV), root average diameter (RAD), total root tips (TRT), total root forks (TRF), and total root crossings (TRC)were the major root traits analyzed by the WinRhizoTM software. PRL was measured manually through a steel measurement scale (EISCO-GROZTM).
The WinRhizoTM provided main and additional data to classify total root length (TRL), total root volume (TRV), total root surface area (TSA), and total root tips (TRT) into five classes of root diameter intervals: class1: (0–0.5 mm), class 2: (0.5–1.0 mm), class 3: (1.0–1.5 mm), class 4: (1.5–2.0 mm) and class 5: (>2.0 mm) [77–79]. In every class, the root traits were calculated as a proportion of the total trait [68]. The details of each tested trait are given in Table 1. Biomass related traits like root dry weight (RDW) (mg), shoot dry weight (SDW) (mg), and total dry weight (TDW) (mg) were determined using a digital weighing balance (CitizenTM, CX 265) on three biological replicates after air-forced drying in an oven at 70°C for 72 h.
Statistical analysis
The data were subjected to descriptive and summary statistics like mean, standard deviation, skewness, kurtosis, coefficient of variation, and Pearson’s correlation by STAR (Statistical Tool for Agricultural Research) 2.1.0 software [80]. Principal component analysis (PCA), frequency distribution, and normal curve fitting were performed using PAST 4.03 software [81].
Three distinct classes of the AVRDC mungbean mini-core accessions were categorised based on standard deviation (SD) and mean (): (i) ≤
–SD, (small trait value) (ii) (≥
– SD) to (≤
+ SD), (average trait value) and (iii) ≥
+ SD (high trait value) [82, 83]. For every root character the H’, Shannon-Weaver diversity index [84–86] was determined using the formula:
In which,
- pi is the proportion of individuals belonging to the ith class
- s is the total number of accessions.
Results
Phenotypic variation
The AVRDC mungbean mini-core collection displayed distinct phenotypic differences of the traits under investigation when grown in the modified semi-hydroponic system. The coefficient of variation of the traits observed was greater than 30% (Table 2). The root characteristics exhibiting high variation were PRL, TSA, TRL, TRF, and LPV. Trait PRL ranged from 133.38 cm (EC 862594) to 1.96 cm (IC 616154) and TRL ranged from 60.35 cm (EC 862670) to 0.79 cm (EC 862662). Only minor differences were found for TSA (16.26 cm2 for IC 616276 to 1.04 cm2 for EC 862662), ARD (1.74 cm for EC 862653 and 0.39 cm for IC616115) and TRV (0.19 cm3 for EC 862645 to 0.01 cm3 for IC 616114) (Tables 2 and S2).
The frequency distribution of most root and biomass traits was skewed towards a smaller trait value, except for PRL and TPA, which showed a near-normal distribution (Fig 2). Fine roots (less than 1 mm) made up the bulk of the root system in all genotypes, while accessions originating in Australia had the highest proportion of roots with a diameter of 1.00–1.5 mm (Fig 3).
Correlation among root traits
All root traits were positively correlated with each other, except for ARD, which was negatively correlated with the other traits. The biomass traits RDW, SDW, TDW, and RSR did not show any association with root traits. While RDW showed positive association with other biomass traits like SDW and TDW (Fig 4).
(A: PRL, B: TPA, C: TSA, D: TRL, E: ARD, F: LPV, G: TRV, H: TRT, I: TRF, J: TRC, K: RDW, L: SDW, M: TDW, N: RSR).
Principal components analysis for root and shoot trait variability
Fourteen characteristics were used in the PCA and 95.61 percent of the total variation was captured by three principal components (PCs) with eigenvalues > 1. For TRL, SDW, RDW, and TDW, PC1 accounted for 64.93 percent of the variability. PC2 accounted for 26.34% of the variability contributed by PRL, LPV, TRF, and TRT (Table 3). Biplots (Fig 5A and 5B) display the distribution of genotypes based on PCA regression scores, indicating the relative distance between the AVRDC mungbean mini-core accessions based on the combination of root trait values. 95.61 percent of the variability was expressed by loading plots. The PC1 vs PC2 biplot showed 14 genotypes as outliers (Fig 5A) and 21 genotypes were classified as outliers in the PC1 vs PC 3 biplot (Fig 5B). PCA loading scores showed that the characteristics TDW>SDW>RDW>PRL are major contributors with the magnitude of their contribution to PC1 in decreasing order, while PRL>TRT>TRF>TRL>LPV are contributing characteristics in PC 2 (Table 4).
Biplots and outliers in comparison between a) Principle Component 1 vs. Principle Component 2. Biplots and outliers in comparison between b) Principle Component 1 vs. Principle Component 3. (Where A: PRL, B: TPA, C: TSA, D: TRL, E: ARD, F: LPV, G: TRV, H: TRT, I: TRF, J: TRC, K: RDW, L: SDW, M: TDW, N: RSR).
Diversity pattern and grouping by trait performance
The mungbean genotypes were classified into 3 groups, namely low, medium, and high trait diversity (Table 4). Most genotypes belonged to the medium group for all traits. The traits PRL, ARD, TRT, TRC, RDW, SDW, and RSR had a relatively large proportion of genotypes in the high trait value (≥ +SD) category, while for TPA, TRL, LPV, TRF, and TDW a greater number of genotypes were in the low trait value (≤
–SD) category.
H’- Shannon-Weaver diversity index
Using the Shannon-Weaver diversity index (H’), the phenotypic diversity among the characters was compared. A high H’ defined balanced frequency groups for a character and high diversity, while a low H’ suggested an unbalanced frequency for a trait and low diversity. H’ values for the traits were distinct and ranged from 0.37 to 0.96 between the genotypes (Table 4). Root traits including TSA, TRL, LPV, and TRF were more diverse than TRT, ARD, and TRC. For most of the characteristics, the diversity indices were above 0.5, suggesting the existence of sufficient heterogeneity. However, total root tips (0.36) and total root crossings (0.37) showed unbalanced frequency and lacked diversity.
Diversity of the AVRDC mungbean mini-core collection based on root traits
Among the mini-core accessions, an agglomerative hierarchical clustering (AHC) dendrogram showed significant trait diversity (Fig 6). Entries were divided into eight clusters by cluster analysis. With 135 entries, cluster VI was the largest, and with just one entry from Iran, cluster VIII was the smallest (IC 862636). Clusters VII (78 entries) and V (55 entries) were the second and third-largest clusters. The second and third smallest clusters are Clusters IV (2 entries of Indian origin) and III (4 entries, two of Indian origin and one each from the Philippines and Australia).
Clusters C-I(pink), C-II(brown), C-III(blue), C-IV(violet), C-V(grey), C-VI(red), C-VII(green) and C-VIII(yellow). (A separate picture file was uploaded for dendrogram).
Discussion
Across both breeding programs and scientific research, the quest for root characteristics has intensified, offering improvement in the acquisition of resources and tolerance to abiotic stress including heat and drought stress, especially in resource-poor environments. Advancement was delayed due to problems in effective and accurate root trait phenotyping in large germplasm panels [49, 50, 87]. In the AVRDC mungbean mini-core collection of 296 genotypes, the use of a modified semi-hydroponic phenotyping system saved time and space for phenotyping and provided access to a substantial variation of root traits.
The novel method of semi-hydroponic phenotyping [64] has been modified to screen and explore the genetic variation of different root characters at the early vegetative stage of the AVRDC mungbean mini-core collection (Tables 2 and S1). Previously, the semi-hydroponic phenotyping platform provided quality data for the wild narrow-leaf lupin [65], core collections of lupin [66], and chickpea [67] to assess the genetic basis of variation in root characteristics.
The mungbean root system is similar to those of other dicotyledonous species including Arabidopsis, Medicago, and other legumes like chickpea and develops through consecutive branch/lateral root orders from a primary root that emerges from the embryo [88]. The volume and size of lateral branches/roots is an important contributor to the growth and development of food grain legumes [89].
Depth of rooting and density of root branches are essential architectural features that directly affect water and nutrients acquisition in the soil strata [90]. The PRL of the deep-rooting genotype EC862594 was more than twice as high as the average value of the whole germplasm set and genotype EC862670 had a more than 3-fold TRL than the average, corroborating the trait diversity present in the AVRDC mungbean mini-core collection (S2 Table). Another aspect that affects deep rooting is root penetrability and root thickness or root diameter [91]. The thicker roots prefer to go deeper into the soil to obtain water from deeper soil layers [27]. Research shows that in chickpea there is a strong association between the prolific root system and the development of grain in terminal drought situations [38]. In the case of total surface area, the best genotype IC616276 only had about 20% more TSA than the average. This suggests that the TSA exhibited lower variations in the AVRDC mungbean mini-core collection (Tables 5 and S2).
Proliferative rooting is primarily characterized by the initiation and elongation of lateral roots, which usually refers to the number of the lateral root, the root length density (RLD), and the root volume and the root surface area. Proliferative roots have a considerably large water absorption potential in water deficit soils. In environments with water scarcity, lines with higher RLD showed improved yield and drought-tolerance-related performance [92].
Mungbean is predominantly cultivated on soils with residual moisture from previous rainy seasons. Terminal drought stress, especially at the end of the growing season, is a major constraint restricting the yield of mungbean [8, 10, 93]. The mungbean genotypes with longer primary roots and larger total surface area could perform better in terms of water and nutrient acquisition, especially when water and nutrients are heterogeneously distributed across different soil levels. This research identified deeper rooting genotypes, like EC862594, IC616203, IC616109, IC616184, and EC862589 (S2 Table), that could access water from deeper soil layers whenever the topsoil dries up later during the season.
The root morphology traits vary from species to species and also between different genotypes of a species [65, 93, 94]. Root architectural features such as TSA, TRL, ARD, PRL, and TRV were responsible for most of the observed root trait variability at the seedling level. Correlation studies showed a positive correlation among TRL, PRL, TPA, TRV, TSA, TRT, and TRF. The stated traits also exhibited a negative correlation with the average root diameter (ARD). The selection of higher ARD values would negatively affect the root traits mentioned above. Plants with smaller root diameter and a specific root length of fine roots are found to be better suited to dry conditions [95]. The root surface area and root length are mainly influenced by the root diameter [96].
Water and nutrient uptake capability are determined by root architecture. In the early stages, genotypes with vigorous root growth (TRL and TSA) take up water and minerals more effectively and have better seedling establishment [97], resulting in increased photosynthetic ability, a higher output of biomass, and a higher survival rate under stressful conditions. The root number and TRL [98, 99] are positively correlated with yield and biomass.
Our analysis showed that among the diameter classes large parts of the mungbean root system consist of a variety of very fine and fine roots in diameters between 0.5 and 2.0 mm. The absorption of water and nutrients, the involvement of very fine and fine roots are well established [64, 100, 101]. In the root system, a high percentage of fine roots contributes to an improvement in TSA for the acquisition of more water and nutrients and helps plants to cope with stress [102].
The root to shoot ratio (RSR) is also used to predict the distribution of biomass among roots and shoots [103]. In rice seedlings, the water deficit situation raises the root-to-shoot ratio by altering enzymatic activity and carbohydrate balancing [104]. EC862602, EC862588, and IC616169 are genotypes identified with higher RSR values (Tables 5 and S2). In the phosphorus efficiency studies, higher ratios of root to shoots are often labeled as index traits because of the improvement in root biomass and the large deep root system required to extract more nutrients [105, 106].
The Cluster II, VI, and VIII genotypes are candidates for crossing programs to produce successful root trait recombinants such as PRL, TSA, TRL, TPA, and TRT. The cross-combinations (EC 862594 (C-II) x IC 616154(C-VI), TSA (IC 616154(C-II) x EC 862622(C-VI), TRL (EC 862670(C-VII) x EC 862662(C-VI), TPA(IC 15252(C-VII) x IC 616154(C-VI)) will help increase PRL. For TSA and TRV, genotypes in clusters V and III are diverse (Fig 3). The rate of absorption of nutrients is dependent on the TSA and TRV [107, 108]. The root traits TSA, TRL, and TRV were the target traits for mungbean to increase the efficiency of nutrient use (especially phosphorus) at the seedling stage [109]. Increasing nitrogen efficiency in maize, the RDW and TRL played an important role [110]. IC 862615, EC 862617, IC616200, and IC616150 were identified with having higher RDW (Tables 5 and S2). In the case of finger millet, the starvation reaction to phosphorus is mitigated by increased TRL and root hair count and length [111].
A thorough understanding of the multiple associations between root traits [112] is needed for the proper use of root traits in crop breeding. To demonstrate the relationship and diversity of the characteristics and relative homogeneous grouping of genotypes based on root traits, our research examined principal component analysis, hierarchical clustering, Pearson’s correlation, and Shanon-Weaver diversity indices. The variations contained in the AVRDC mungbean mini-core collection for PRL, TSA, TPA, TRT, and TRF have the potential for mungbean improvement programs and genotype categorization in high trait value, medium trait value, and low trait value classes based on mean and SD facilitates the selection of breeding materials [113, 114].
The Shannon-Weaver diversity index (H’) showed phenotypic diversity among the root characteristics, where low H’ values stand for unbalanced frequency distribution and lack of trait diversity [115], while high H’ means high genetic diversity in traits [116]. In the AVRDC mungbean mini-core collection, root characteristics i.e., TRL, TSA, LPV, and TRF had a relatively high level of H’ (>0.9) showing high diversity for these characteristics. The high H’ value and the positive correlation of these characteristics with PRL and TPA showed that these characteristics are appropriate at the seedling stage to improve water and nutrient uptake efficiency in mungbean. Besides, variations in ARD, TRV, and TRT would also be useful in stressful environments to increase nutrient productivity and crop yields [117].
The genetic and molecular basis of the root system architecture and its plasticity in drought conditions has been documented in major legumes. QTLs for root surface area [30] and root length [31] in soybean, root diameter in cowpea [34], root length in pea [35], basal root angle in common bean [36], and rooting depth, root surface area and root length density in chickpea [37] and root surface area, lateral root number and specific root length [118] in lentil have been reported. For other essential crops such as Rice [119, 120], durum wheat [121], barley [122, 123], maize [124], sorghum [125], pearl millet [126], finger millet [111], and cotton [127] very significant progress has been made in the understanding and use of root traits in breeding programs. The ideal root architectural ideotype for abiotic stress tolerance for optimized nutrient and water acquisition and even coining the phrase ’ …steep, cheap and deep …’ [128] i.e. steep (root angle) [129], cheap (metabolic costs) [130] and deep (root architectural arrangements) [46, 131]. There is ample evidence that the entries chosen on the basis of semi-hydroponics or hydroponics are also successful in soil and field experiments [132–135].
Mungbean genotypes identified in this experiment with such a wide variety of root properties could be used for subsequent studies in greenhouses and on-field assessment. Finally, the development of mapping population, use of molecular markers technology, root simulations, and gene mapping to develop germplasm with improved root traits for better tolerance to water deficit and harsh conditions.
Supporting information
S1 Table. Passport data of the AVRDC mungbean mini core collection.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247810.s001
(DOCX)
S2 Table. Mean scores of the AVRDC mungbean mini core collection for fourteen root traits.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247810.s002
(DOCX)
References
- 1. Madhavan Nair R, Pandey AK, WAR AR, Hanumantharao B, Shwe T, Alam AK, et al. Biotic and abiotic constraints in mungbean production-progress in genetic improvement. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2019;10:1340. pmid:31736995
- 2. Pandiyan M, Senthil N, Packiaraj D, Gupta S, Nadarajan N, Pandian RT, et al. Characterisation and evaluation of 646 greengram (Vigna radiata) genotypes for constituting core collection. Wudpecker Journal of Agricultural Research. 2012;1(8):294–301.
- 3. Mubarak AE. Nutritional composition and antinutritional factors of mung bean seeds (Phaseolus aureus) as affected by some home traditional processes. Food chemistry. 2005 Mar 1;89(4):489–95.
- 4. Itoh T, Garcia RN, Adachi M, Maruyama Y, Tecson-Mendoza EM, Mikami B, et al. Structure of 8Sα globulin, the major seed storage protein of mungbean. Acta Crystallographica Section D: Biological Crystallography. 2006 Jul 1;62(7):824–32.
- 5. Kane-Potaka J. Pulses are a Smart Food and important for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Pulses Handbook 2016. 2016:93–7.
- 6. Ganesan K, Xu B. A critical review on phytochemical profile and health promoting effects of mungbean (Vigna radiata). Food Science and Human Wellness. 2018 Mar 1;7(1):11–33.
- 7. Dhingra KK, Dhillon MS, Grewal DS, Sharma K. Performance of maize and mungbean intercropping in different planting patterns and row orientations. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 1991 Jun 1;36(2):207–12.
- 8. Singh DP, Singh BB. Breeding for tolerance to abiotic stresses in mungbean. Journal of food legumes. 2011;24(2):83–90.
- 9. Sehrawat N, Jaiwal PK, Yadav M, Bhat KV, Sairam RK. Salinity stress restraining mungbean (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek) production: gateway for genetic improvement. International Journal of Agriculture and Crop Sciences. 2013 Sep 1;6(9):505.
- 10. Hanumantha Rao B, Nair RM, Nayyar H. Salinity and high temperature tolerance in mungbean [Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek] from a physiological perspective. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2016 Jun 29;7:957. pmid:27446183
- 11. Ranawake AL, Dahanayaka N, Amarasingha UG, Rodrigo WD, Rodrigo UT. Effect of water stress on growth and yield of mung bean (Vigna radiata L). Tropical agricultural research and extension. 2011;14(4):76–9.
- 12.
Douglas C, Pratap A, Rao BH, Manu B, Dubey S, Singh P, et al. Breeding Progress and Future Challenges: Abiotic Stresses. InThe Mungbean Genome 2020 (pp. 81–96). Springer, Cham.
- 13. Varma D, Meena RS, Kumar S. Response of mungbean to fertility and lime levels under soil acidity in an alley cropping system of Vindhyan Region, India. Int J Chem Stud. 2017;5(4):1558–60.
- 14. Ashraf R, Ali TA. Effect of heavy metals on soil microbial community and mung beans seed germination. Pakistan Journal of Botany. 2007 Apr 1;39(2):629.
- 15. Singh S, Parihar P, Singh R, Singh VP, Prasad SM. Heavy metal tolerance in plants: role of transcriptomics, proteomics, metabolomics, and ionomics. Frontiers in plant science. 2016 Feb 8;6:1143. pmid:26904030
- 16. Choudhary KK, Agrawal SB. Cultivar specificity of tropical mung bean (Vigna radiata L.) to elevated ultraviolet-B: Changes in antioxidative defense system, nitrogen metabolism and accumulation of jasmonic and salicylic acids. Environmental and Experimental Botany. 2014 Mar 1;99:122–32.
- 17. Thangavel P, Anandan A, Eswaran R. AMMI analysis to comprehend genotype-by-environment (GE) interactions in rainfed grown mungbean (’Vigna radiata’.). Australian Journal of Crop Science. 2011;5(13):1767.
- 18.
Andrews M, Hodge S. Climate change, a challenge for cool season grain legume crop production. InClimate change and management of cool season grain legume crops 2010 (pp. 1–9). Springer, Dordrecht.
- 19. Postel SL. Entering an era of water scarcity: the challenges ahead. Ecological applications. 2000 Aug;10(4):941–8.
- 20. Kramer PJ, Boyer JS, Carlson WC. Water relations of plants and soils. Forest Science. 1997;43(1):151–2.
- 21.
Farooq M, Hussain M, Wahid A, Siddique KH. Drought stress in plants: an overview. In Plant responses to drought stress 2012 (pp. 1–33). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
- 22. Passioura JB. Roots and drought resistance. Agricultural water management. 1983 Sep 1;7(1–3):265–80.
- 23. Gaur PM, Krishnamurthy L, Kashiwagi J. Improving drought-avoidance root traits in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)-current status of research at ICRISAT. Plant Production Science. 2008 Jan 1;11(1):3–11.
- 24. Wu Y, Spollen WG, Sharp RE, Hetherington PR, Fry SC. Root growth maintenance at low water potentials (increased activity of xyloglucan endotransglycosylase and its possible regulation by abscisic acid). Plant Physiology. 1994 Oct 1;106(2):607–15. pmid:12232354
- 25. Hoogenboom G, Peterson CM, Huck MG. Shoot growth rate of soybean as affected by drought stress 1. Agronomy Journal. 1987 Jul;79(4):598–607.
- 26. Purushothaman R, Krishnamurthy L, Upadhyaya HD, Vadez V, Varshney RK. Genotypic variation in soil water use and root distribution and their implications for drought tolerance in chickpea. Functional Plant Biology. 2017 Jan 30;44(2):235–52. pmid:32480560
- 27. Zheng HG, Babu Md RC, Pathan MS, Ali L, Huang N, et al. Quantitative trait loci for root-penetration ability and root thickness in rice: comparison of genetic backgrounds. Genome. 2000 Feb 1;43(1):53–61. pmid:10701113
- 28.
Blum A. Drought resistance and its improvement. InPlant breeding for water-limited environments 2011 (pp. 53–152). Springer, New York, NY.
- 29. Fenta BA, Beebe SE, Kunert KJ, Burridge JD, Barlow KM, Lynch JP, et al. Field phenotyping of soybean roots for drought stress tolerance. Agronomy. 2014 Sep;4(3):418–35.
- 30. Abdel-Haleem H, Lee GJ, Boerma RH. Identification of QTL for increased fibrous roots in soybean. Theoretical and applied genetics. 2011 Mar 1;122(5):935–46. pmid:21165732
- 31. Prince SJ, Song L, Qiu D, dos Santos JV, Chai C, Joshi T, et al. Genetic variants in root architecture-related genes in a Glycine soja accession, a potential resource to improve cultivated soybean. BMC genomics. 2015 Dec 1;16(1):132.
- 32. Pantalone VR, Rebetzke GJ, Burton JW, Carter TE Jr. Phenotypic evaluation of root traits in soybean and applicability to plant breeding. Crop Science. 1996 Mar;36(2):456–9.
- 33.
Sadok W, Sinclair TR. Crops yield increase under water-limited conditions: review of recent physiological advances for soybean genetic improvement. InAdvances in agronomy 2011 Jan 1 (Vol. 113, pp. v–vii). Academic Press.
- 34. Burridge JD, Schneider HM, Huynh BL, Roberts PA, Bucksch A, Lynch JP. Genome-wide association mapping and agronomic impact of cowpea root architecture. Theoretical and Applied Genetics. 2017 Feb 1;130(2):419–31. pmid:27864597
- 35. Fondevilla S, Fernández-Aparicio M, Satovic Z, Emeran AA, Torres AM, Moreno MT, et al. Identification of quantitative trait loci for specific mechanisms of resistance to Orobanche crenata Forsk. in pea (Pisum sativum L.). Molecular breeding. 2010 Feb 1;25(2):259–72.
- 36. Liao H, Yan X, Rubio G, Beebe SE, Blair MW, Lynch JP. Genetic mapping of basal root gravitropism and phosphorus acquisition efficiency in common bean. Functional Plant Biology. 2004 Nov 15;31(10):959–70. pmid:32688964
- 37. Jaganathan D, Thudi M, Kale S, Azam S, Roorkiwal M, Gaur PM, et al. Genotyping-by-sequencing based intra-specific genetic map refines a ‘‘QTL-hotspot” region for drought tolerance in chickpea. Molecular Genetics and Genomics. 2015 Apr 1;290(2):559–71. pmid:25344290
- 38. Varshney RK, Gaur PM, Chamarthi SK, Krishnamurthy L, Tripathi S, Kashiwagi J, et al. Fast-track introgression of “QTL-hotspot” for root traits and other drought tolerance traits in JG 11, an elite and leading variety of chickpea. The Plant Genome. 2013 Nov;6(3):1–9
- 39. Chen Y, Ghanem ME, Siddique KH. 2017. Characterising root trait variability in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) germplasm. Journal of Experimental Botany 68, 1987–1999. pmid:28338728
- 40. Bernier J, Kumar A, Venuprasad R, Spaner D, Verulkar S, Mandal NP, et al. Characterization of the effect of a QTL for drought resistance in rice, qtl12. 1, over a range of environments in the Philippines and eastern India. Euphytica. 2009 Mar 1;166(2):207–17.
- 41. Uga Y, Sugimoto K, Ogawa S, Rane J, Ishitani M, Hara N, et al. Control of root system architecture by DEEPER ROOTING 1 increases rice yield under drought conditions. Nature genetics. 2013 Sep;45(9):1097–102. pmid:23913002
- 42. Landi P, Giuliani S, Salvi S, Ferri M, Tuberosa R, Sanguineti MC. Characterization of root-yield-1.06, a major constitutive QTL for root and agronomic traits in maize across water regimes. Journal of experimental botany. 2010 Aug 1;61(13):3553–62. pmid:20627896
- 43. Hund A, Reimer R, Messmer R. A consensus map of QTLs controlling the root length of maize. Plant and Soil. 2011 Jul 1;344(1–2):143–58.
- 44. Forster BP, Thomas WT, Chloupek O. Genetic controls of barley root systems and their associations with plant performance. Aspects Appl. Biol. 2005;73:199–204.
- 45. Manschadi AM, Christopher J, deVoil P, Hammer GL. The role of root architectural traits in adaptation of wheat to water-limited environments. Functional plant biology. 2006 Sep 22;33(9):823–37. pmid:32689293
- 46. Wasson AP, Richards RA, Chatrath R, Misra SC, Prasad SS, Rebetzke GJ, et al. Traits and selection strategies to improve root systems and water uptake in water-limited wheat crops. Journal of experimental botany. 2012 May 1;63(9):3485–98. pmid:22553286
- 47. Tuberosa R, Sanguineti MC, Landi P, Giuliani MM, Salvi S, Conti S. Identification of QTLs for root characteristics in maize grown in hydroponics and analysis of their overlap with QTLs for grain yield in the field at two water regimes. Plant molecular biology. 2002 Mar 1;48(5–6):697–712. pmid:11999844
- 48. Beebe SE, Rojas-Pierce M, Yan X, Blair MW, Pedraza F, Munoz F, et al. Quantitative trait loci for root architecture traits correlated with phosphorus acquisition in common bean. Crop Science. 2006 Jan;46(1):413–23.
- 49. Ghanem ME, Hichri I, Smigocki AC, Albacete A, Fauconnier ML, Diatloff E, et al. Root-targeted biotechnology to mediate hormonal signalling and improve crop stress tolerance. Plant cell reports. 2011 May 1;30(5):807–23. pmid:21298270
- 50. de Dorlodot S, Forster B, Pagès L, Price A, Tuberosa R, Draye X. Root system architecture: opportunities and constraints for genetic improvement of crops. Trends in plant science. 2007 Oct 1;12(10):474–81. pmid:17822944
- 51. Siddique KH, Regan KL, Tennant D, Thomson BD. Water use and water use efficiency of cool season grain legumes in low rainfall Mediterranean-type environments. European Journal of Agronomy. 2001 Dec 1;15(4):267–80.
- 52. Wasson AP, Chiu GS, Zwart AB, Binns TR. Differentiating wheat genotypes by Bayesian hierarchical nonlinear mixed modeling of wheat root density. Frontiers in plant science. 2017 Mar 2;8:282. pmid:28303148
- 53. Atkinson JA, Wingen LU, Griffiths M, Pound MP, Gaju O, Foulkes MJ, et al. Phenotyping pipeline reveals major seedling root growth QTL in hexaploid wheat. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2015 Apr 1;66(8):2283–92. pmid:25740921
- 54. Bonser AM, Lynch J, Snapp S. Effect of phosphorus deficiency on growth angle of basal roots in Phaseolus vulgaris. New Phytologist. 1996 Feb;132(2):281–8. pmid:11541132
- 55. Liao H, Yan X, Rubio G, Beebe SE, Blair MW, Lynch JP. Genetic mapping of basal root gravitropism and phosphorus acquisition efficiency in common bean. Functional Plant Biology. 2004 Nov 15;31(10):959–70. pmid:32688964
- 56. Gregory PJ, Bengough AG, Grinev D, Schmidt S, Thomas WB, Wojciechowski T, et al. Root phenomics of crops: opportunities and challenges. Functional Plant Biology. 2009 Nov 26;36(11):922–9. pmid:32688703
- 57. Manschadi AM, Hammer GL, Christopher JT, Devoil P. Genotypic variation in seedling root architectural traits and implications for drought adaptation in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Plant and soil. 2008 Feb 1;303(1–2):115–29.
- 58. Wu J, Wu Q, Pagès L, Yuan Y, Zhang X, Du M, et al. RhizoChamber-Monitor: a robotic platform and software enabling characterization of root growth. Plant methods. 2018 Dec;14(1):1–5. pmid:29930694
- 59. Wiese AH, Riemenschneider DE, Ronald S Jr. An inexpensive rhizotron design for two-dimensional, horizontal root growth measurements. Tree Planters’ Notes. 51: 40–46. 2005;51.
- 60. Narayanan S, Mohan A, Gill KS, Prasad PV. Variability of root traits in spring wheat germplasm. PLoS One. 2014 Jun 19;9(6):e100317. pmid:24945438
- 61. Richard CA, Hickey LT, Fletcher S, Jennings R, Chenu K, Christopher JT. High-throughput phenotyping of seminal root traits in wheat. Plant Methods. 2015 Dec;11(1):1–1. pmid:25649124
- 62. Palta JA, Fillery IR, Rebetzke GJ. Restricted-tillering wheat does not lead to greater investment in roots and early nitrogen uptake. Field Crops Research. 2007 Oct 1;104(1–3):52–9.
- 63. Figueroa-Bustos V, Palta JA, Chen Y, Siddique KH. Characterization of root and shoot traits in wheat cultivars with putative differences in root system size. Agronomy. 2018 Jul;8(7):109.
- 64. Chen YL, Dunbabin VM, Diggle AJ, Siddique KH, Rengel Z. Development of a novel semi-hydroponic phenotyping system for studying root architecture. Functional Plant Biology. 2011 May 23;38(5):355–63. pmid:32480892
- 65. Chen YL, Dunbabin VM, Diggle AJ, Siddique KH, Rengel Z. Assessing variability in root traits of wild Lupinus angustifolius germplasm: basis for modelling root system structure. Plant and Soil. 2012 May 1;354(1–2):141–55.
- 66. Chen Y, Shan F, Nelson MN, Siddique KH, Rengel Z. Root trait diversity, molecular marker diversity, and trait-marker associations in a core collection of Lupinus angustifolius. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2016 Jun 1;67(12):3683–97. pmid:27049020
- 67. Chen Y, Ghanem ME, Siddique KH. Characterising root trait variability in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) germplasm. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2017 Apr 1;68(8):1987–99. pmid:28338728
- 68. Qiao S, Fang Y, Wu A, Xu B, Zhang S, Deng X, et al. Dissecting root trait variability in maize genotypes using the semi-hydroponic phenotyping platform. Plant and Soil. 2019 Jun 15;439(1–2):75–90.
- 69. Wang L, Uilecan IV, Assadi AH, Kozmik CA, Spalding EP. HYPOTrace: image analysis software for measuring hypocotyl growth and shape demonstrated on Arabidopsis seedlings undergoing photomorphogenesis. Plant physiology. 2009 Apr 1;149(4):1632–7. pmid:19211697
- 70. Le Bot J, Serra V, Fabre J, Draye X, Adamowicz S, Pagès L. DART: a software to analyse root system architecture and development from captured images. Plant and Soil. 2010 Jan 1;326(1–2):261–73.
- 71. Zeng G, Birchfield ST, Wells CE. Automatic discrimination of fine roots in minirhizotron images. New Phytologist. 2008 Jan;177(2):549–57. pmid:18042202
- 72. Armengaud P, Zambaux K, Hills A, Sulpice R, Pattison RJ, Blatt MR, et al. EZ-Rhizo: integrated software for the fast and accurate measurement of root system architecture. The Plant Journal. 2009 Mar;57(5):945–56. pmid:19000163
- 73. Lobet G, Pagès L, Draye X. A novel image-analysis toolbox enabling quantitative analysis of root system architecture. Plant physiology. 2011 Sep 1;157(1):29–39. pmid:21771915
- 74. Schafleitner R, Nair RM, Rathore A, Wang YW, Lin CY, Chu SH, et al. The AVRDC–The World Vegetable Center mungbean (Vigna radiata) core and mini core collections. BMC genomics. 2015 Dec 1;16(1):344. pmid:25925106
- 75. Paul D, Chakrabarty SK, Dikshit HK, Singh Y. Variation for hardseededness and related seed physical parameters in mung bean [Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek]. Indian J. Genet. 2018 Aug 1;78(3):333–41.
- 76. Sivasakthi K, Tharanya M, Kholová J, Wangari Muriuki R, Thirunalasundari T, Vadez V. Chickpea genotypes contrasting for vigor and canopy conductance also differ in their dependence on different water transport pathways. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2017 Sep 26;8:1663. pmid:29085377
- 77. Powers SE, Thavarajah D. Checking Agriculture’s Pulse: Field Pea (Pisum Sativum L.), Sustainability, and Phosphorus Use Efficiency. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2019;10:1489. pmid:31803218
- 78. Krishnapriya V, Pandey R. Root exudation index: screening organic acid exudation and phosphorus acquisition efficiency in soybean genotypes. Crop and Pasture Science. 2016 Oct 26;67(10):1096–109.
- 79. Leiser WL, Rattunde HF, Weltzien E, Haussmann BI. Phosphorus uptake and use efficiency of diverse West and Central African sorghum genotypes under field conditions in Mali. Plant and soil. 2014 Apr 1;377(1–2):383–94.
- 80. Gulles AA, Bartolome VI, Morantte RIZA, Nora LA. Randomization and analysis of data using STAR (Statistical Tool for Agricultural Research). Philippine Journal of Crop Science (Philippines). 2014; 39 (1): 137.
- 81. Hammer Ø, Harper DA, Ryan PD. PAST: Paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontologia electronica. 2001 Jun 22;4(1):9.
- 82. Abdel-Ghani AH, Kumar B, Reyes-Matamoros J, Gonzalez-Portilla PJ, Jansen C, San Martin JP, et al. Genotypic variation and relationships between seedling and adult plant traits in maize (Zea mays L.) inbred lines grown under contrasting nitrogen levels. Euphytica. 2013 Jan 1;189(1):123–33.
- 83.
Zar JH. Biostatistical analysis. Pearson Education India; 1999.
- 84.
CE S. Weiner W. The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana, Illinois, USA: University of Illinois Press. 1963:117–8.
- 85. Hutcheson K. A test for comparing diversities based on the Shannon formula. Journal of theoretical Biology. 1970 Oct;29(1):151–4. pmid:5493290
- 86. Wu H, Guo J, Wang C, Li K, Zhang X, Yang Z, et al. An effective screening method and a reliable screening trait for salt tolerance of Brassica napus at the germination stage. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2019 Apr 26;10:530. pmid:31105727
- 87.
Chen YL, Djalovic I, Rengel Z. Phenotyping for root traits. InPhenomics in crop plants: trends, options and limitations 2015 (pp. 101–128). Springer, New Delhi.
- 88. Sorin C, Bussell JD, Camus I, Ljung K, Kowalczyk M, Geiss G, et al. Auxin and light control of adventitious rooting in Arabidopsis require ARGONAUTE1. The Plant Cell. 2005 May 1;17(5):1343–59. pmid:15829601
- 89. Dubrovsky JG, Gambetta GA, Hernández-Barrera A, Shishkova S, González I. Lateral root initiation in Arabidopsis: developmental window, spatial patterning, density and predictability. Annals of botany. 2006 May 1;97(5):903–15. pmid:16390845
- 90. Lynch JP, Wojciechowski T. Opportunities and challenges in the subsoil: pathways to deeper rooted crops. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2015 Apr 1;66(8):2199–210. pmid:25582451
- 91. Ye H, Roorkiwal M, Valliyodan B, Zhou L, Chen P, Varshney RK, et al. Genetic diversity of root system architecture in response to drought stress in grain legumes. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2018 Jun 6;69(13):3267–77. pmid:29522207
- 92. Sharma L, Priya M, Bindumadhava H, Nair RM, Nayyar H. Influence of high temperature stress on growth, phenology and yield performance of mungbean [Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek] under managed growth conditions. Scientia Horticulturae. 2016 Dec 14; 213:379–91.
- 93. Clements JC, White PF, Buirchell BJ. The root morphology of Lupinus angustifolius in relation to other Lupinus species. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research. 1993;44(6):1367–75.
- 94. Brück H, Sattelmacher B, Payne WA. Varietal differences in shoot and rooting parameters of pearl millet on sandy soils in Niger. Plant and soil. 2003 Apr 1;251(1):175–85.
- 95. Henry A, Cal AJ, Batoto TC, Torres RO, Serraj R. Root attributes affecting water uptake of rice (Oryza sativa) under drought. Journal of experimental botany. 2012 Aug 1;63(13):4751–63. pmid:22791828
- 96. Wang Y, Thorup-Kristensen K, Jensen LS, Magid J. Vigorous root growth is a better indicator of early nutrient uptake than root hair traits in spring wheat grown under low fertility. Frontiers in plant science. 2016 Jun 16;7:865. pmid:27379145
- 97. Xie Q, Fernando KM, Mayes S, Sparkes DL. Identifying seedling root architectural traits associated with yield and yield components in wheat. Annals of botany. 2017 May 1;119(7):1115–29. pmid:28200109
- 98. Liu K, He A, Ye C, Liu S, Lu J, Gao M, et al. Root morphological traits and spatial distribution under different nitrogen treatments and their relationship with grain yield in super hybrid rice. Scientific reports. 2018 Jan 9;8(1):1–9 pmid:29311619
- 99. Zobel RW, Waisel Y. A plant root system architectural taxonomy: a framework for root nomenclature. Plant Biosystems. 2010 Jun 1;144(2):507–12.
- 100. Liu L, Gan Y, Bueckert R, Van Rees K, Warkentin T. Fine root distributions in oilseed and pulse crops. Crop Science. 2010 Jan 1;50(1):222–6.
- 101. Arif MR, Islam MT, Robin AH. Salinity stress alters root morphology and root hair traits in Brassica Napus. Plants. 2019 Jul;8(7):192. pmid:31252515
- 102. Poorter H, Niklas KJ, Reich PB, Oleksyn J, Poot P, Mommer L. Biomass allocation to leaves, stems and roots: meta-analyses of interspecific variation and environmental control. New Phytologist. 2012 Jan;193(1):30–50. pmid:22085245
- 103. Xu W, Cui K, Xu A, Nie L, Huang J, Peng S. Drought stress condition increases root to shoot ratio via alteration of carbohydrate partitioning and enzymatic activity in rice seedlings. Acta physiologiae plantarum. 2015 Feb 1;37(2):9.
- 104. Swinnen J. Rhizodeposition and turnover of root-derived organic material in barley and wheat under conventional and integrated management. Agriculture, ecosystems & environment. 1994 Nov 1;51(1–2):115–28.
- 105. Nielsen KL, Eshel A, Lynch JP. The effect of phosphorus availability on the carbon economy of contrasting common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) genotypes. Journal of experimental botany. 2001 Feb 1;52(355):329–39. pmid:11283178
- 106. Imada S, Yamanaka N, Tamai S. Water table depth affects Populus alba fine root growth and whole plant biomass. Functional Ecology. 2008 Dec;22(6):1018–26.
- 107. Zhang LT, Li J, Rong TZ, Gao SB, Wu FK, Xu J, et al. Large-scale screening maize germplasm for low-phosphorus tolerance using multiple selection criteria. Euphytica. 2014 Jun 1;197(3):435–46.
- 108. Pandey R, Meena SK, Krishnapriya V, Ahmad A, Kishora N. Root carboxylate exudation capacity under phosphorus stress does not improve grain yield in green gram. Plant cell reports. 2014 Jun 1;33(6):919–28. pmid:24493254
- 109. Reddy VR, Aski M, Mishra GP, Dikshit HK, Singh A, Pandey R, et al. Genetic variation for root architectural traits in response to phosphorus deficiency in mungbean at the seedling stage. PLoS ONE 15(6): e0221008. pmid:32525951
- 110. Torres LG, Caixeta DG, Rezende WM, Schuster A, Azevedo CF, e Silva FF, et al. Genotypic variation and relationships among traits for root morphology in a panel of tropical maize inbred lines under contrasting nitrogen levels. Euphytica. 2019 Mar 1;215(3):51.
- 111. Ramakrishnan M, Ceasar SA, Vinod KK, Duraipandiyan V, Krishna TA, Upadhyaya HD, et al. Identification of putative QTLs for seedling stage phosphorus starvation response in finger millet (Eleusine coracana L. Gaertn.) by association mapping and cross species synteny analysis. PloS one. 2017;12(8). pmid:28820887
- 112. Phung NT, Mai CD, Hoang GT, Truong HT, Lavarenne J, Gonin M, et al. Genome-wide association mapping for root traits in a panel of rice accessions from Vietnam. BMC plant biology. 2016 Dec 1;16(1):64.
- 113. Li R, Zeng Y, Xu J, Wang Q, Wu F, Cao M, et al. Genetic variation for maize root architecture in response to drought stress at the seedling stage. Breeding science. 2015;65(4):298–307. pmid:26366112
- 114.
Zar JH. Biostatistical analysis, 5th edn Practice Hall. New Jersey. 2010:944
- 115. Rathinavel K. Exploration of genetic diversity for qualitative traits among the extant upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) varieties and parental lines. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. App. Sci. 2017;6(8):2407–21.
- 116. Yadav RK, Gautam S, Palikhey E, Joshi BK, Ghimire KH, Gurung R, et al. Agro-morphological diversity of Nepalese naked barley landraces. Agriculture & Food Security. 2018 Dec 1;7(1):86.
- 117. Fageria NK, Baligar VC, Li YC. The role of nutrient efficient plants in improving crop yields in the twenty first century. Journal of plant nutrition. 2008 May 30;31(6):1121–57.
- 118. Idrissi O, Udupa SM, De Keyser E, McGee RJ, Coyne CJ, Saha GC, et al. Identification of quantitative trait loci controlling root and shoot traits associated with drought tolerance in a lentil (Lens culinaris Medik.) recombinant inbred line population. Frontiers in plant science. 2016 Aug 23;7:1174. pmid:27602034
- 119. Courtois B, Audebert A, Dardou A, Roques S, Ghneim-Herrera T, Droc G, et al. Genome-wide association mapping of root traits in a japonica rice panel. PloS one. 2013; 8(11).
- 120. Henry A. IRRI’s drought stress research in rice with emphasis on roots: accomplishments over the last 50 years. Plant Root. 2013; 7:92–106
- 121. Sanguineti MC, Li S, Maccaferri M, Corneti S, Rotondo F, Chiari T, et al. Genetic dissection of seminal root architecture in elite durum wheat germplasm. Annals of Applied Biology. 2007 Dec;151(3):291–305.
- 122. Ahmad Naz A, Ehl A, Pillen K, Léon J. Validation for root-related quantitative trait locus effects of wild origin in the cultivated background of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). Plant Breeding. 2012 Jun; 131(3):392–8.
- 123. Arifuzzaman M, Sayed MA, Muzammil S, Pillen K, Schumann H, Naz AA, et al. Detection and validation of novel QTL for shoot and root traits in barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). Molecular breeding. 2014 Oct 1; 34(3):1373–87.
- 124. Manavalan LP, Musket T, Nguyen HT. Natural genetic variation for root traits among diversity lines of maize (Zea mays L.). Maydica. 2012 Sep 18;56(1).
- 125. Fakrudin B, Kavil SP, Girma Y, Arun SS, Dadakhalandar D, Gurusiddesh BH, et al. Molecular mapping of genomic regions harbouring QTLs for root and yield traits in sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench). Physiology and molecular biology of plants. 2013 Jul 1;19(3):409–19. pmid:24431509
- 126. Passot S, Gnacko F, Moukouanga D, Lucas M, Guyomarc’h S, Ortega BM, et al. Characterization of pearl millet root architecture and anatomy reveals three types of lateral roots. Frontiers in plant science. 2016 Jun 13;7:829. pmid:27379124
- 127. Riaz M, Farooq J, Sakhawat G, Mahmood A, Sadiq MA, Yaseen M. Genotypic variability for root/shoot parameters under water stress in some advanced lines of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Genet. Mol. Res. 2013 Feb 27;12(1):552–61. pmid:23512672
- 128. Lynch JP. Steep, cheap and deep: an ideotype to optimize water and N acquisition by maize root systems. Annals of botany. 2013 Jul 1;112(2):347–57. pmid:23328767
- 129.
Singh V, van Oosterom E, Jordan D, Hammer G. Genotypic variability for nodal root angle in Sorghum and its implications on potential water extraction. Proceedings of the 1st Australian Summer Grains Conference, Gold Coast, Australia, 21st Edited paper.– 24th June 2010, 21–24.
- 130. Chimungu JG, Brown KM, Lynch JP. Reduced root cortical cell file number improves drought tolerance in maize. Plant Physiology. 2014 Dec 1;166(4):1943–55. pmid:25355868
- 131. Comas L, Becker S, Cruz VM, Byrne PF, Dierig DA. Root traits contributing to plant productivity under drought. Frontiers in plant science. 2013 Nov 5;4:442. pmid:24204374
- 132. Chen YL, Dunbabin VM, Postma JA, Diggle AJ, Palta JA, Lynch JP, et al. Phenotypic variability and modelling of root structure of wild Lupinus angustifolius genotypes. Plant and Soil. 2011 Nov;348(1):345–64.
- 133. Baier AC, Somers DJ, Gusiafson JP. Aluminium tolerance in wheat: correlating hydroponic evaluations with field and soil performances. Plant Breeding. 1995 Aug;114(4):291–6.
- 134. Gahoonia TS, Nielsen NE. Barley genotypes with long root hairs sustain high grain yields in low-P field. Plant and Soil. 2004 May;262(1):55–62.
- 135. Tavakkoli E, Fatehi F, Rengasamy P, McDonald GK. A comparison of hydroponic and soil-based screening methods to identify salt tolerance in the field in barley. Journal of experimental botany. 2012 Jun 13;63(10):3853–67. pmid:22442423