Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-c52kr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T22:59:39.822Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT RISKS AND ZN FERTILIZATION NEEDS IN ZN BIOFORTIFICATION BREEDING IN LOWLAND RICE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2017

F.H.C. RUBIANES*
Affiliation:
Crop and Environmental Sciences Division, International Rice Research Institute, DAPO Box 7777, Metro Manila, Philippines
B.P. MALLIKARJUNA SWAMY
Affiliation:
Plant Breeding, Genetics, and Biotechnology Division, International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), DAPO Box 7777, Metro Manila, Philippines
S.E. JOHNSON-BEEBOUT
Affiliation:
Crop and Environmental Sciences Division, International Rice Research Institute, DAPO Box 7777, Metro Manila, Philippines
*
§Corresponding author: Email: F.rubianes@irri.org
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

As zinc (Zn) fertilizer and water management affect the expression of Zn-enriched grain traits in rice, we studied the effect of Zn fertilizer and water management on Zn uptake and grain yield of different biofortification breeding lines and the possible biases in selection for high grain Zn content. The first field experiment showed that longer duration genotypes had higher grain Zn uptake rate than shorter duration genotypes during grain filling. In the first greenhouse experiment, neither application of Zn fertilizer at mid-tillering nor application at flowering significantly increased the grain Zn concentration. In the second greenhouse experiment, application of alternate wetting and drying (AWD) significantly increased the available soil Zn and plant Zn uptake but not grain Zn concentration. Terminal drying (TD) did not increase the available soil Zn or grain Zn contents. The second field experiment confirmed that differences in TD were not important in understanding differences between genotypes. Zn application is not always necessary to breeding trials unless there is a severe Zn deficiency and there is no need to carefully regulate TD prior to harvest.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 
Figure 0

Table 1. List of genotypes used for each experiment.

Figure 1

Table 2. Background characterization of soil for greenhouse experiments 1 and 2 and field experiment 2. Values represent mean + standard deviation of three replicates.

Figure 2

Figure 1. Possible systematic bias favouring late-maturing genotypes in field experiment 1, shown by (a) DTPA-extractable soil Zn at each date throughout the grain-filling stages of all genotypes; the arrow marks the beginning of the terminal drying period, indicating that the early-maturing genotypes were flooded all the way through harvest at maturity. (b) Pearson's correlation between plant Zn uptake rate (grain) during the 21 days after flowering and genotype maturity. (c) Pearson's correlation between plant Zn uptake rate (grain) in the 21 days after flowering and DTPA-extractable soil Zn measured at maturity for each genotype. Error bars indicate + standard error. In (a), data points represent the mean of all plots sampled on a date, while in (b) and (c), data points represent the mean of three replicates per genotype.

Figure 3

Table 3. Grain yield and grain Zn concentration (brown rice) of four genotypes in greenhouse experiment 1.

Figure 4

Table 4. DTPA-extractable soil Zn throughout the season for greenhouse experiment 1. Within each genotype maturity group, means with the same letter are not significantly different (Tukey–Kramer, p < 0.05). Note that all soil samples were taken prior to Zn fertilization at each sampling time.

Figure 5

Figure 2. Plant Zn content at maturity (above-ground) in greenhouse experiment 1, showing each genotype and fertilizer-Zn treatment. The ANOVA of the sum of all above-ground plant parts showed significant (p < 0.01) effects of genotype, Zn treatment and their interaction. Columns with the same letter had no significant differences in above-ground plant Zn content (LSD, p < 0.05). The numbers inside the columns indicate the percent of total above-ground plant Zn in a plant part. Panicles included rachis, filled grains and unfilled grains. Z0 = no added Zn; Z1= 20 kg Zn ha−1 applied at mid-tillering stage; Z2 = 20 kg Zn ha−1 applied at flowering stage.

Figure 6

Table 5. Grain yield and grain Zn concentration (brown rice) in greenhouse experiment 2. Within a column, different letters represent significant differences (Tukey–Kramer, p < 0.05). The non-significant water treatment effect is not shown.

Figure 7

Table 6. DTPA-extractable soil Zn throughout the season for greenhouse experiment 2. Within a maturity group, main effect means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (Tukey–Kramer, p < 0.05).

Figure 8

Figure 3. Plant Zn content (above-ground) of each genotype and water treatment in greenhouse experiment 2, showing various plant tissues at different growth stages: (a) mid-tillering; (b) panicle initiation; (c) flowering. The ANOVA of the sum of plant parts within each growth stage showed significant (p < 0.001) effects of genotype, water treatment and their interaction. Within a growth stage, letters above columns indicate significant differences in total above-ground plant Zn content (LSD, p < 0.05). Panicles included rachis and unfilled grains. CF = continuous flooding; AWD = alternate wetting and drying.

Figure 9

Figure 4. Lack of correlation between plant Zn uptake rate (grain) and genotype maturity in field experiment 2. Data points represent the mean of three replicate plots per genotype. Z0 = no added Zn; Z1 = 10 kg Zn ha−1 applied at panicle initiation.

Supplementary material: File

Rubianes supplementary material

Tables S1-S2 and Figure S1

Download Rubianes supplementary material(File)
File 48.4 KB