Nitrate application induced a lower yield loss in rice under progressive drought stress

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-161475/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Nitrate application induced a lower yield loss in rice under progressive drought stress

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-161475/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

Rice plants were subjected to nitrate application and water disruption-induced drought treatments in a screen-house using pot culture, the urea application and flood treatments were used as controls. Nitrate (Ca(NO₃)₂) application significantly increased the ratio of NO₃⁻-N to NH₄⁺-N in the soil under both drought and flood treatments. Compared with urea application under flood treatment, both nitrate application and drought treatments caused yield losses. Under drought treatment, the yield loss of rice plant for nitrate application was 28.4% lower than that for urea application. The aboveground plant was smaller and more compact under nitrate application. Although nitrate application did not increase water uptake rate and xylem sap rate of the rice plant, nitrate application significantly stimulated the root growth of rice plant compared with urea application, especially under drought treatment, as indicated by higher root cap ratio, root biomass, root volume, root length, and density of lateral roots. Finally, the soil water potential decreased slower for nitrate application compared with urea application under drought treatment. The leaf water potential was higher for nitrate application compared with urea application under drought treatment. Our results indicated that rice plant developed a series of phenotypic adaptations to nitrate application and progressive drought, such as smaller and more compact aboveground plant, a less active but larger root system. These phenotypic adaptations made rice plant suffer less from the progressive drought stress resulting in a lower yield loss.

Plant Physiology and Morphology

Plant Molecular Biology and Genetics

rice

phenotypic adaptation

root

yield

Rice is one of the most important crops in Asia and consumes a large amount of irrigation water (Bouman. 2007). Increasing water shortage has threatened the sustainability of rice production (Davatgar et al. 2009). Drought stress caused by water shortage occurs frequently and becomes a major abiotic factor that restricts the plant growth and productivity (Sharp et al. 2004; Kano et al. 2011; Tran et al. 2014). Drought stress causes yield loss in the late growth stage of cereal crops (Liu et al. 2010). Lots of studies have been done to check the growth and physiological responses of rice to drought stress at early growth stage by subjecting rice to a simulated constant low water potential in solution or soil (Li et al. 2009; Gao et al. 2010; Yang et al. 2012; Ding et al. 2015). However, in the practical rice production, drought stress was often induced by a water disruption caused by water shortage or arid climate. For this water disruption-induced drought, the soil water potential was not constant but decreased over time, which was the progressive drought (Vrp et al. 2012). Studying the growth and physiological responses of rice to progressive drought stress at late growth stage is vital to understand the reason for the yield loss of rice in the practical production.

Rice exhibited a better performance under flooded environment with ammonium nutrition or nitrate-ammonium mixed nutrition because of its higher ammonium assimilation capacity than other rain-fed crops (Britto et al. 2001; Guo et al. 2007a). The ratio of nitrate to ammonium in the soil would increase from the flooded environment to the non-flooded environment (Guo et al. 2007a). Changes in soil N sources and water potential would influence the growth and yield formation of rice plants (Guo et al. 2007b; Guo et al. 2008). The integrated effect on rice growth and yield formation was highly dependent on the phenotypic adaptations of plant to soil N sources and water potential changes (Lin et al. 2005; Guo et al. 2007a; Guo et al. 2007b; Li et al. 2007; Guo et al. 2008; Li et al. 2009; Gao et al. 2010). Among the reported phenotypic adaptation, root traits have proved to be the most promising drought resistance traits (Lynch. 2007; Serraj et al. 2009; Vrp et al. 2011; Vrp et al. 2012). Maintaining the ability of rice to absorb water from soil under drought stress by accessing greater volumes of soil via deeper and more active root system was found to be an important way to improve rice drought resistance adaptability (Lilley and Fukai. 1994; Uga et al. 2013). Various results were observed about the effects of N sources on root growth of rice under drought stress. Some studies demonstrated that nitrate would stimulate root growth of rice under drought stress (Li et al. 2007; Li et al. 2008; Ogawa et al. 2014). However, other studies reported that nitrate would inhibit root growth and reduce root activity of rice under drought stress (Li et al. 2009; Gao et al. 2010; Yang et al. 2012; Ding et al. 2015). These various results are relative with different ways of N sources treatments. In the previous studies, commonly used method of studying the effect of N sources on rice growth was to subject the rice plants to ammonium or nitrate nutrient solutions for a period of time. However, in the paddy soil, the ammonium or nitrate nutrient changes were more complicated, and they have always been nitrate-ammonium mixed nutrition. What is more, in the practical rice production, the most commonly used N source fertilizer in the paddy soil was not ammonium, but urea [CO(NH₂)₂]. Besides, the effect of a short term ammonium or nitrate treatment on rice growth and yield formation is different from that of multiple ammonium or nitrate applications during the rice growth duration.

In this study, we maintained a certain amount of nitrate in the soil by applications of nitrate source fertilizer during the whole rice growth duration. The rice plants were subjected to two-stage water disruption-induced progressive drought after the flowering stage. We hypothesized that the nitrate application and drought stress would have integrated effects on rice growth and yield performance, which might be closely associated with a series of rice phenotypic adaptations under nitrate application. These phenotypic adaptations would affect the response of rice plant to the progressive drought and finally affect the yield performance. Therefore, this study aims to (1) investigate the phenotypic adaptations of rice plant to nitrate application and progressive drought (2) and to understand the combined impacts of these phenotypic adaptations on yield performance.

2.1 Experimental design

A pot experiment was conducted in a screen-house from June to October in 2013 at Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan City (29°58′N 113°53′E), Hubei Province, China. The treatments were laid out in a randomized block design with two water treatments (flood and drought) as the blocking factor and two N sources (nitrate and urea), replicated three times. We had 10 pots (10 samples) for each replication. The nitrate and urea source used in this study was Ca(NO₃)₂ and CO(NH₂)₂. The rice variety used in this study was Minghui63, a typical and elite indica rice, which was widely used in Asia for both production and breeding. Four ten-day-old seedlings were transplanted in each pot. Each pot (40 cm in diameter and 30 cm in height) was filled with 12 kg sieved and air-dried paddy soil. The background values of chemical properties of the soil were as follows: total N, 0.92 g kg^− 1; NO₃⁻-N, 5.14 mg kg^− 1; NH₄⁺-N, 2.11 mg kg^− 1; available phosphorus, 6.59 mg kg^− 1; available potassium, 122 mg kg^− 1; organic carbon, 13.15 g kg^− 1; pH, 6.47. For the drought treatment, approximately 3 cm water above the soil surface was maintained until the flowering stage. After the flowering stage, the water supply was suspended for 7 days and the soil was naturally dried. Regular amount of water was recovered at the 9 days after the flowering stage, and then the water supply was suspended again for 7 days. Then approximately 3 cm water above the soil surface was maintained until rice maturity. The soil water potential was recorded every two hours from 6:00 am to 8:00 pm every day through tensiometers (Jet Fill 2725, Soil Moisture Equipment Corp., Goleta, CA, USA) placed at 15 cm below the soil surface. For the flood treatment, approximately 3 cm water above the soil surface was maintained until the maturing stage. N fertilizer nitrate [(Ca(NO₃)₂] or urea [CO(NH₂)₂] was applied at a rate of 4 g N pot^− 1 with 50% at the basal stage, 20% at the mid-tillering stage and 30% at the panicle initiation stage, respectively. Phosphorus fertilizer (NaH₂PO₄) was applied at a rate of 2 g P₂O₅ pot^− 1 at the basal stage. Potassium fertilizer (KCl) was applied at a rate of 4 g K₂O pot^− 1 with 50% at the basal stage and 50% at the panicle initiation stage. Pests, weeds and diseases were strictly controlled during the growth season to avoid yield losses.

2.2 Data collection and analysis

At 16 days after the flowering stage, tiller number of the four plants per pot were counted and heights of the four plants per pot were measured. Leaf area of the 4 plants per pot was measured by a leaf area meter (Li-Cor 3100, LI-COR Inc., Lincoln, NE, USA). Leaf inclination was calculated from the angle between the leaf and horizontal direction, and the inclination of top three leaves of the four plants per pot were measured. SPAD values of 4 flag leaves per pot were measured using a chlorophyll meter (SPAD-502, Soil-Plant Analysis Development Section, Minolta Camera Co., Osaka, Japan). Water uptake rate was measured by weighing the pot between 9:00 am and 11:00 am. The pot was covered with two layers of plastic sheet to reduce water loss due to evaporation from the soil surface during the weighing process. Four flag leaves were sampled at midnight per pot and then cut into pieces, and leaf water potential was immediately determined using the dew point potentiometer (WP4C, Decagon Devices, USA). The plants per pot were de-topped at 2 cm above the base with a razor blade and then the xylem saps were collected using pre-weighed cotton balls from 7:00 pm to the next 7:00 pm. Xylem saps were collected and weighted. The xylem sap was normalized as xylem sap weight divided by the root fresh weight of the plant.

At 16 days after the flowering stage, rice roots of per pot were sampled and immersed in the water. The roots were separated gently using a tooth-pick to avoid injury before imaging. Morphological parameters (root volume, total root length and number of lateral roots) were measured using the LA1600 scanner (Regent Instruments, Sainte-Foy-Sillery-Cap-Rouge, QC, Canada) and WinRHIZO2008a software. The roots and aboveground plants were oven-dried at 70°C to determine the biomass. Root cap ratio was calculated as the root biomass divided by the aboveground plant biomass. Available N (NH₄⁺-N and NO₃⁻-N) in the soil was determined by FIAStar-5000 continuous-flow analyzer.

The aboveground plants in the pots were taken at the maturity stage. The sampled plants were dissected and oven-dried at 70°C to determine its biomass.

The panicles were threshed, and the filled spikelets were weighed as the grain yield. Differences in grain yields between urea application under flood treatment and other treatments were calculated. Yield loss was calculated as the yield difference divided by the grain yield for urea application under flood treatment.

Means were compared and grouped using analysis of variance by SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, USA), and the least significant difference (LSD) post-hoc test, respectively. Data were presented as the means ± standard deviation (n = 3).

3.1 Soil nutrient and water status

With nitrate application, the NO₃⁻-N in the soil was significantly higher than the NH₄⁺-N in the soil (Fig. 1). With urea application, the NH₄⁺-N in the soil was significantly higher than NO₃⁻-N in the soil (Fig. 1). The ratios of NO₃⁻-N to NH₄⁺-N in the soil were 3.85 and 0.43 for nitrate application and urea application under drought treatment, respectively (Fig. 1). And the ratios of NO₃⁻-N to NH₄⁺-N in the soil were 1.93 and 0.09 for nitrate application and urea application under flood treatment, respectively (Fig. 1). Daily mean soil water potential of drought treatment decreased rapidly once the water supply was suspended for both nitrate application and urea application during the two-stage drought treatment (Fig. 2). The daily mean soil water potentials for nitrate application decreased slower than those for urea application. The daily mean soil water potentials for nitrate application were 19.84% and 20.54% higher than those for urea application at the end of each stage of drought treatment, respectively.

3.2 Yield performance

Drought treatment significantly decreased the grain yield of rice plants (Table 1). Under flood treatment, the grain yield and biomass of the rice plants for nitrate application were lower than those for urea application. However, under drought treatment, grain yield for nitrate application was higher than that for urea application, and there was no significant difference in biomass between nitrate application and urea application. Drought treatment and nitrate application all brought yield losses when compared with urea application under flood treatment. It was interesting to note that, nitrate application induced a lower (28.4%) yield loss compared with urea application under drought treatment. Water treatment, N source and water treatment × N source all exerted significant influences on rice yield performance (Table 1).

Table 1

Yield performance for nitrate application and urea application under different water treatments.
Water treatment	N source	Grain yield (g pot^− 1)	Biomass (g pot^− 1)	Yield loss (%)
Drought	Nitrate	76.6 ± 3.1 c	214.7 ± 11.2 c	43.4 ± 1.6 b
	Urea	53.4 ± 2.8 d	225.6 ± 9.2 c	60.6 ± 1.2 a
Flood	Nitrate	106.6 ± 4.9 b	268.4 ± 8.7 b	21.3 ± 2.4 c
	Urea	135.4 ± 5.2 a	321.2 ± 12.5 a	--
Analysis of variance
Water treatment		**	**	**
N source		**	*	**
Water treatment × N source		**	*	**
Data are presented as the means ± standard deviation (n = 3). Lowercase letters indicate LSD (α = 0.05) grouping of means across different treatments. Means with the same letter are not significantly different. The * indicate a significant source of variation at α = 0.05 while ** at α = 0.01.

3.3 Aboveground plant traits

Nitrate application induced a small rice plant reflected by the significantly reduced leaf area, tillers and plant height under different water treatments (Table 2). Nitrate application also caused a lower leaf SPAD under flood treatment. But there was no significant difference in leaf SPAD between nitrate application and urea application under drought treatment. Water treatment, N source and water treatment × N source all exerted significant influences on the leaf area and leaf SPAD (Table 2). N source significantly affected the tillers and plant height (Table 2). Nitrate application significantly increased the leaf inclination of leaves at different phyllotaxis under different water treatments compared with urea application (Fig. 3), which meant the canopy of rice plant was more compact for nitrate application. The phenotypic differences for nitrate application and urea application under drought treatment were shown in Fig. S1. The leaf water potential was 23.23% higher for nitrate application under drought treatment compared with urea application (Fig. 4). Under flood treatment, there were no significant differences in leaf water potential between nitrate application and urea application.

Table 2

Agronomic traits for nitrate application and urea application under different water treatments.
Water treatment	N source	Leaf area (cm² pot^− 1)	SPAD	Tillers (pot^− 1)	Plant height (cm)
Drought	Nitrate	5614 ± 36 d	31.3 ± 0.6 c	55.4 ± 2.3 b	111.8 ± 4.6 b
	Urea	7736 ± 73 b	32.2 ± 0.2 c	74.1 ± 3.4 a	127.4 ± 3.3 a
Flood	Nitrate	6125 ± 65 c	34.1 ± 0.8 b	53.6 ± 3.2 b	113.6 ± 5.3 b
	Urea	8342 ± 53 a	37.3 ± 1.0 a	72.2 ± 4.6 a	128.1 ± 5.6 a
Analysis of variance
Water treatment		*	**	NS	NS
N source		**	*	**	*
Water treatment × N source		*	*	NS	NS
Data are presented as the means ± standard deviation (n = 3). Lowercase letters indicate LSD (α = 0.05) grouping of means across different treatments. Means with the same letter are not significantly different. The * indicate a significant source of variation at α = 0.05 while ** at α = 0.01. NS means not significant.

3.4 Root traits and activity

Nitrate application significantly stimulated the root growth of rice plants compared with urea application, especially under drought treatment, as indicated by the higher root cap ratio, root biomass, volume, length, and density of lateral roots (Table 3). The density of lateral roots had the largest increase (72.1%) for nitrate application among these rice root traits compared with urea application under drought treatment. Water treatment, N source and water treatment × N source all exerted significant influences on the root traits (Table 3). Water uptake rate and xylem sap rate for nitrate application were lower compared with urea application under different water treatments (Fig. 5). Drought treatment decreased the water uptake rate and xylem sap rate compared with flood treatment. The differences in water uptake rate and xylem sap rate between nitrate application and urea application under drought treatment were smaller than those under flood treatment.

Table 3

Root traits for nitrate application and urea application under different water treatments.
Water treatment	N source	Root cap ratio	Root biomass (g pot^− 1)	Root volume (cm³ pot^− 1)	Total root length (m)	Density of lateral roots (cm^− 1 of primary root)
Drought	Nitrate	0.26 ± 0.03 a	61.7 ± 2.2 a	497.2 ± 10.2 a	334.4 ± 8.6 a	10.5 ± 0.7 a
	Urea	0.17 ± 0.02 bc	44.4 ± 1.3 c	323.3 ± 9.4 c	225.5 ± 8.1 c	6.1 ± 0.4 c
Flood	Nitrate	0.22 ± 0.02 ab	50.8 ± 2.0 b	412.4 ± 6.6 b	297.7 ± 11.2 b	8.1 ± 0.4 b
	Urea	0.15 ± 0.01 c	42.2 ± 1.8 c	298.7 ± 9.7 c	194.1 ± 12.8 c	5.4 ± 0.2 c
Analysis of variance
Water treatment		*	*	*	*	**
N source		**	**	**	**	**
Water treatment × N source		*	*	*	**	**
Data are presented as the means ± standard deviation (n = 3). Lowercase letters indicate LSD (α = 0.05) grouping of means across different treatments. Means with the same letter are not significantly different. The * indicate a significant source of variation at α = 0.05 while ** at α = 0.01.

Rice is a typical ammonium-loving crop. Lots of studies had demonstrated that rice could grow better and gain higher yield under ammonium-source fertilizer application under conventional flood environment (Britto et al. 2001; Guo et al. 2007a; Tabuchi et al. 2007; Kronzucker et al. 2010). In our study, the rice also gained a higher grain yield under urea application compared with nitrate application under flood treatment (Table 1). However, under drought treatment, grain yield was higher for nitrate application compared with urea application. As biomass was invariable between nitrate and urea as sources of N under drought treatment, partitioning of dry matter appeared to contribute to higher grain yield when nitrate was used as a source of N (Table 1), which meant the nitrate application improved the assimilate productivity of the rice plant under drought treatment compared with urea application. This is mainly due to the interactions between N sources and water treatments.

Both N sources and soil water status would affect the root growth of the plant. In our study, after the two-stage progressive drought treatment, we found the rice plant had a larger root system for nitrate application compared with urea application (Table 3). Some studies also indicated that nitrate nutrition would stimulate root growth of the plant under different soil water status. For example, enriched supply of nitrate was found to promote the lateral root elongation (Zhang and Forde. 1998; Zhang and Forde. 2000). And Ogawa et al. (2014) and Li et al. (2007) found that some rice lines had higher root length and higher root biomass under nitrate nutrition than under ammonium nutrition. Besides, Li et al. (2008) reported that the nitrate-ammonium mixed nutrition increased the root length, root surface area and root density compared with ammonium nutrition. However, different results were found when scientists subjected rice seedlings to polyethylene glycol-induced drought stress using hydroponic culture. Gao et al. (2010) demonstrated that rice seedlings supplied with ammonium nutrition had increased numbers of root tips and a larger root surface area compared with nitrate nutrition. And Ding et al. (2015) found that drought stress decreased the root elongation rate in rice seedlings when they were supplied with nitrate nutrition. These results indicated that the effect of N sources on rice root phenotypic traits were different, which depending on the methods of N sources and water treatments. Although various effects of N sources on root phenotypic traits were observed, the consensus in previous studies was that the nitrate nutrition would decrease the root activity of rice plant compared with ammonium nutrition (Li et al. 2009; Gao et al. 2010; Yang et al. 2012; Ding et al. 2015). Rice is an ammonia-loving crop that easily absorbs ammonia-nitrogen, and nitrate will reduce its root activity. Recent studies showed that the regulation mechanism of ammonia and nitrate nitrogen on rice root activity is closely related to pH and microorganism in the rhizosphere (Chen et al. 2017; Oldroy et al. 2020). In our study, to get as close to the actual condition as possible, we set the water disruption-induced drought treatment using soil culture and took the urea application as the control. What is more, instead of a period N sources treatment, multiple nitrate and urea applications during the rice growth duration were proceed in our study. Consistent with the previous studies, the root activity of rice plant for nitrate application was lower compared with urea application in our study (Fig. 5). Our results indicated that the nitrate application in the paddy soil obviously stimulated root growth of the rice plant compared with urea application, but did not improve the root activity.

Compared with the various results of effects of N sources on root growth of rice plant in the previous studies, the effects of N sources on abovegroud plant growth were relatively consistent. All the previous evidences pointed that nitrate nutrition would inhibite the aboveground plant growth of rice compared with ammonium nutrition (Lin et al. 2005; Guo et al. 2007a; Li et al. 2009). Similar phenomena was observed in our study. Whether under flood or drought treatment, the aboveground rice plant for nitrate application was smaller compared with urea application (Table 2). Moreover, our results also showed that the aboveground plant was not only smaller but also more compact for nitrate application, which was reflected by the angle between the canopy leaves and the stem became smaller (Fig. 3). A smaller and more compact plant was proved to have lower water demand and transpiration (Kondo et al. 2004; Giuliani and Edwards. 2013). Our results further revealed the rice plant for nitrate application had higher leaf water potential after the two-stage progressive drought treatment.

Compared with solution, soil has a stronger buffering effect on fertilizer application (Nye. 1966; Mendoza. 1989). In our study, nitrate application significantly increased the concentration of NO₃⁻-N in the soil (Fig. 1). However, there was still a certain amount of NH₄⁺-N in the soil. Our result also showed that the drought treatment would also increase the ratio of NO₃⁻-N to NH₄⁺-N in the soil, which is the same as previous studies (Hartmann et al. 2013; Tran et al. 2015). The available N nutrition in the soil was a nitrate–ammonium mixed nutrition. Some studies had checked the effects of nitrate–ammonium mixed nutrition (different ratios of nitrate to ammonium) on rice plant. Other previous studies indicated that the rice plant usually grew better under nitrate–ammonium mixed nutrition than under sole nitrate nutrition (Guo et al. 2007a; Guo et al. 2008). In our study, we did not combine the nitrate and urea nutrition source by ratios. Therefore, investigating the combined effects of nitrate nitrogen and urea on rice plants under drought stress is an important direction of the next step. Beyond that, the nitrate used in our study was Ca(NO₃)₂, which could increase the Ca²⁺ concentration in the soil. The intracellular Ca²⁺ has been found to regulate the responses of the plant to drought stress (Sanders et al. 1999; Saijo et al. 2000). Therefore, we could not rule out the possibility that both N source and Ca²⁺ affected the plant growth under drought stress in our study. For the soil water status, though the water supply was suspended at the same time and lasted for the same time for nitrate application and urea application under drought treatment. The soil water potential decreased slower for nitrate application compared with urea applicattion (Fig. 2). These indicated that the plants for nitrate application and urea application under drought treatment were actually facing different ratios of NO₃⁻-N to NH₄⁺-N nutrition and different degrees of drought stresses.

According to ahead discussions, we combined our results and teased out the reasons for the lower yield loss of rice plant for nitrate application under drought treatment as follows. The nitrate application increased the ratio of NO₃⁻-N to NH₄⁺-N in the soil resulting in smaller and more compact aboveground plant and less active but larger root system compared with urea application. These phenotypic changes reduced the water demand and water uptake of the rice plant, leading to slower decrease of the soil water potential. The slower decrease of soil water potential meant the rice for nitrate application actually suffered a relatively lighter drought stress compared with the rice plant for urea application, and it also verified by the higher leaf water potential of the rice plant for nitrate application under drought treatment. Our results indicated that with nitrate application treatment, the plant developed a series of adaptive traits for a high ratio of NO₃⁻-N to NH₄⁺-N in the soil. In this sense, we inferred that nitrate application would improve the adaptability of rice to the changes in soil induced by drought treatment. In conclusion, the phenotypic adaptations to nitrate application made the rice plant suffered less from progressive drought stress resulting in a lower yield loss.

Declaration of competing interest

Authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

Author contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: JY, CCG and CML. Performed the experiments: JY, CCG and CML. Analyzed the data: JY, CB. Wrote the paper: CB, JY.

Declaration Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the State Key Special Program (No. 2018YFD0301304 and No. 2017YFD0301400), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 31701359), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (No.2662019QD049) and China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (No. 2017M612477).

Bouman BAM (2007) A conceptual framework for the improvement of crop water productivity at different spatial scales. Agric Syst 93:43–60
Britto DT, Siddiqi MY, Glass ADM, Kronzucker HJ (2001) Futile transmembrane NH₄⁺ cycling: A cellular hypothesis to explain ammonium toxicity in plants. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:4255–4258
Chen HF, Zhang Q, Cai HM, Zhou W, Xu FS (2018) H₂O₂ mediates nitrate-induced iron chlorosis by regulating iron homeostasis in rice. Plant Cell Environ 41:767–781
Davatgar N, Neishabouri MR, Sepaskhah AR, Soltani A (2009) Physiological and morphological responses of rice (Oryza sativa L.) to varying water stress management strategies. International Journal of Plant Production 3:19–32
Ding L, Gao C, Li Y, Li Y, Zhu Y, Xu G, Shen Q, Kaldenhoff R, Kai L, Guo S (2015) The enhanced drought tolerance of rice plants under ammonium is related to aquaporin (AQP). Plant Science An International Journal of Experimental Plant Biology 234:14–21
Gao Y, Yong L, Yang X, Li H, Shen Q, Guo S (2010) Ammonium nutrition increases water absorption in rice seedlings (Oryza sativa L.) under water stress. Plant Soil 331:193–201
Giuliani R, Edwards GE (2013) Coordination of Leaf Photosynthesis, Transpiration, and Structural Traits in Rice and Wild Relatives (Genus Oryza). Plant Physiol 162:1632
Guo S, Chen G, Zhou Y, Shen Q (2007a) Ammonium nutrition increases photosynthesis rate under water stress at early development stage of rice (Oryza sativa L.). Plant Soil 296:115–124
Guo S, Zhou Y, Li Y, Gao Y, Shen Q (2008) Effects of different Nitrogen forms and osmotic stress on water use efficiency of rice (Oryza sativa). Ann Appl Biol 153:127–134
Guo S, Zhou Y, Shen Q, Zhang F (2007b) Effect of Ammonium and Nitrate Nutrition On Some Physiological Processes in Higher Plants - Growth, Photosynthesis, Photorespiration, and Water Relations. Plant Biol 9:21–29
Hartmann AA, Barnard RL, Marhan S, Niklaus PA (2013) Effects of drought and N-fertilization on N cycling in two grassland soils. Oecologia 171:705
Kano M, Inukai Y, Kitano H, Yamauchi A (2011) Root plasticity as the key root trait for adaptation to various intensities of drought stress in rice. Plant Soil 342:117–128
Kondo M, Pablico PP, Aragones DV, Agbisit R (2004) Genotypic variations in carbon isotope discrimination, transpiration efficiency, and biomass production in rice as affected by soil water conditions and N. Plant Soil 267:165–177
Kronzucker HJ, Glass ADM, Siddiqi MY, Kirk GJD (2010) Comparative kinetic analysis of ammonium and nitrate acquisition by tropical lowland rice: implications for rice cultivation and yield potential. New Phytol 145:471–476
Li BZ, Wang SW, Feng HM, Xu GH (2008) Effects of Nitrogen Forms on Root Morphology and Phosphate Uptake in Rice. Chinese Journal of Rice Science 22:665–668
Li Y, Gao Y, Ding L, Shen Q, Guo S (2009) Ammonium enhances the tolerance of rice seedlings (Oryza sativa L.) to drought condition. Agric Water Manage 96:1746–1750
Li Y, Zhou Y, Guo S, Shen Q (2007) Effects of different N forms on root morphology and water absorption of lowland and upland rice plants. Chinese Journal of Rice Science 21:294–298
Lilley JM, Fukai S (1994) Effect of timing and severity of water deficit on four diverse rice cultivars I. Rooting pattern and soil water extraction. Field Crops Research 37:205–213
Lin S, Li J, Sattelmacher B, Brück H (2005) Response of Lowland and Aerobic Rice to Ammonium and Nitrate Supply During Early Growth Stages. J Plant Nutr 28:1495–1510
Liu G, Mei H, Liu H, Yu X, Zou G, Luo L (2010) Sensitivities of rice grain yield and other panicle characters to late-stage drought stress revealed by phenotypic correlation and QTL analysis. Mol Breed 25:603–613
Lynch J (2007) Roots of the second green revolution. Aust J Bot 55:493–512
Mendoza RE (1989) Different performances of soil phosphate tests for reflecting the effects of buffering capacity on uptake of native phosphate with time. Plant Soil 113:13–19
Nye PH (1966) The effect of the nutrient intensity and buffering power of a soil, and the absorbing power, size and root hairs of a root, on nutrient absorption by diffusion. Plant Soil 25:81–105
Ogawa S, Selvaraj MG, Fernando AJ, Lorieux M, Ishitani M, Mccouch S, Arbelaez JD (2014) N- and P-mediated seminal root elongation response in rice seedlings. Plant Soil 375:303–315
Oldroyd GED, Leyser O (2020) A plant’ s diet, surviving in a variable nutrient environment. Science 368:0196
Serraj R, Kumar A, Mcnally KL, Slametloedin I, Bruskiewich R, Mauleon R, Cairns J, Hijmans RJ (2009) Improvement of drought resistance in rice. Adv Agron 103:41–99
Sharp RE, Poroyko V, Hejlek LG, Spollen WG, Springer GK, Bohnert HJ, Nguyen HT (2004) Root growth maintenance during water deficits: physiology to functional genomics. J Exp Bot 55:2343
Tabuchi M, Abiko T, Yamaya T (2007) Assimilation of ammonium ions and reutilization of nitrogen in rice (Oryza sativa L.). J Exp Bot 58:2319–2327
Tran TT, Kano-Nakata M, Suralta RR, Menge D, Mitsuya S, Inukai Y, Yamauchi A (2015) Root plasticity and its functional roles were triggered by water deficit but not by the resulting changes in the forms of soil N in rice. Plant Soil 386:65–76
Tran TT, Kano-Nakata M, Takeda M, Menge D, Mitsuya S, Inukai Y, Yamauchi A (2014) Nitrogen application enhanced the expression of developmental plasticity of root systems triggered by mild drought stress in rice. Plant Soil 378:139–152
Uga Y, Sugimoto K, Ogawa S, Rane J, Ishitani M, Hara N, Kitomi Y, Inukai Y, Ono K, Kanno N, Inoue H, Takehisa H, Motoyama R, Nagamura Y, Wu JZ, Matsumoto T, Takai T, Okuno K, Yano M (2013) Control of root system architecture by DEEPER ROOTING 1 increases rice yield under drought conditions. Nat Genet 45:1097–1102
Vrp G, Henry A, Vadez V, Shashidhar HE, Serraj R (2012) Water uptake dynamics under progressive drought stress in diverse accessions of the OryzaSNP panel of rice (Oryza sativa). Funct Plant Biol 39:402–411
Vrp G, Henry A, Yamauchi A, Shashidhar HE, Serraj R (2011) Root biology and genetic improvement for drought avoidance in rice. Field Crops Research 122:1–13
Yang X, Li Y, Ren B, Ding L, Gao C, Shen Q, Guo S (2012) Drought-induced root aerenchyma formation restricts water uptake in rice seedlings supplied with nitrate. Plant Cell Physiol 53:495–504
Zhang H, Forde BG (1998) An Arabidopsis MADS box gene that controls nutrient-induced changes in root architecture. Science 279:407
Zhang H, Forde BG (2000) Regulation of Arabidopsis root development by nitrate availability. J Exp Bot 51:51

FigureS1.jpg
Fig. S1 Phenotypic difference for nitrate application and urea application under drought treatment.

Download PDF

Editor invited by journal
15 May, 2021
First submitted to journal
15 May, 2021

You are reading this latest preprint version

Nitrate application induced a lower yield loss in rice under progressive drought stress

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

1. Introduction

2. Materials And Methods

3. Results

4. Discussion

5. Conclusions

Declarations

References

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1