Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Vol. 12 No. 2 (2025)

Assessing sugarcane clones' resilience to waterlogging stress and comprehending the physiological and morphological processes

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.6369
Submitted
27 November 2024
Published
10-05-2025 — Updated on 24-05-2025
Versions

Abstract

Waterlogging is a significant abiotic stressor that severely hampers sugarcane production
worldwide. To address this issue, experiments were conducted at the Sugarcane Research Station, Cuddalore, (TNAU), during 2022-2023 to evaluate the waterlogging tolerance of sugarcane clones.
The experiment followed a factorial completely randomized design (FCRD) with three replications.
Treatments included two water levels (control and waterlogging) and thirteen sugarcane clones or
varieties (Co 86032, C 2015 095, G 11035, C 2014 516, C 16338, C 30010, Co 15020, Co 62175, C
2015 021, Si 2014 047, CoC 13339, C 2015 006, CoG 7). After 70 days of seedling, plants were
subjected to 20 days of waterlogging. Waterlogging stress significantly reduced total dry matter
production, soluble protein, stomatal density, leaf area, above-ground fresh and dry weight, shoot
length, root length and SPAD values in all sugarcane clones compared to the control. Conversely,
the extent of aerenchyma and aerial roots increased. However, CoC 13339, C 16338, C 2014 516
and Co 62175 demonstrated superior waterlogging tolerance among the 13 sugarcane
clones/varieties. These sugarcane clones/varieties have more adventitious roots at the base of their
stems, which most likely made it easier for the plants to survive waterlogging.

References

  1. 1. Dwivedi RS. Saccharide sweet (SS) principles, classification and structural and functional details of ss sweeteners and plants. In: Alternative Sweet and Super sweet Principles: Natural Sweeteners and Plants. 2022:113–223. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-6350- 2_4
  2. 2. Zhao Y. Towards targeting multiple expression cassettes into a pre characterized genomic locus of sugarcane for predictable transgene performance [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Florida;. 2015.
  3. 3. Nair NV. Sugarcane agriculture in India: 100 years and beyond. In: Perspectives in Sugarcane Agriculture. Society of Sugarcane Research and Development, Sugarcane Breeding Institute, Coimbatore. 2013:9–23.
  4. 4. Kaur G, Singh G, Motavalli PP, Nelson KA, Orlowski JM, Golden BR. Impacts and management strategies for crop production in waterlogged or flooded soils: A review. Agro J. 2020;112:1475–501. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/link_gateway/2020AgrJ..112.1475K/doi:10.1002/agj2.20093
  5. 5. Zhou WG, Chen F, Meng YJ, Chandrasekaran U, Luo XF, Yang WY, Shu K. Plant waterlogging/flooding stress responses: From seed germination to maturation. Plant Phys Biochem. 2020;148:228–36. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.plaphy.2020.01.020
  6. 6. Herzog M, Striker GG, Colmer TD, Pedersen O. Mechanisms of waterlogging tolerance in wheat–a review of root and shoot physiology. Plant Cell Environ. 2016;39:1068–86. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/pce.12676
  7. 7. Yamauchi T, Colmer TD, Pedersen O, Nakazono M. Regulation of root traits for internal aeration and tolerance to soil waterlogging flooding stress. Plant Phys. 2020;176:1118–30.
  8. 8. Pan J, Sharif R, Xu X, Chen X. Mechanisms of waterlogging tolerance in plants: Research progress and prospects. Front Plant Sci. 2021;11:627–31.
  9. 9. Gomathi R, Gururaja RPN, Chandran K, Selvi A. Adaptive response of sugarcane to waterlogging stress: An overview. Sugar Tech. 2015;17:325–38. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s12355-014-0319-0
  10. 10. Manik SN, Pengilley G, Dean G, Field B, Shabala S, Zhou M. Soil and crop management practices to minimize the impact of waterlogging on crop productivity. Front Plant Sci.2019;10:140. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2019.00140
  11. 11. Zhang X, Shabala S, Koutoulis A, Shabala L, Johnson P, Hayes D, et al. Waterlogging tolerance in barley is associated with faster aerenchyma formation in adventitious roots. Plant and Soil. 2015;394:355–72. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43872207
  12. 12. Enkhbat G, Ryan MH, Foster KJ, Nichols PG, Kotula L, Hamblin A, et al. Large variation in waterlogging tolerance and recovery among the three subspecies of Trifolium subterraneum L. is related to root and shoot responses. Plant and Soil. 2021;464:467–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-021-04959-0
  13. 13. Pedersen O, Sauter M, Colmer TD, Nakazono M. Regulation of root adaptive anatomical and morphological traits during low soil oxygen. New Phytology. 2021;229:42–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.16375
  14. 14. Della Rovere F, Fattorini L, D’Angeli D, Veloccia A, Falasca G, Altamura MM. Auxin and cytokinin control formation of the quiescent centre in the adventitious root apex of Arabidopsis. Annals of Botany. 2013;112:1395–407. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mct215
  15. 15. Steffens B, Rasmussen A. The physiology of adventitious roots. Plant Phy. 2016;170:603–17. https://doi.org/ 10.1104/pp.15.01360
  16. 16. Striker GG, Colmer TD. Flooding tolerance of forage legumes. J Exp Botany. 2017;68:1851–72. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erw239
  17. 17. Lowry OH, Rosebrough NJ, Farr AL, Randall RJ. Protein measurement with the folin phenol reagent. J Bio Chem. 1951;193:265–75. PMID: 14907713
  18. 18. Gomathi R, GowriManohari N. Anaerobic proteins and enzymes in relation to flooding tolerance of sugarcane varieties. In: National Plant Physiology Conference Proceedings, Banaras Hindu University; 2010. p. 120.
  19. 19. Trought MCT, Drew MC. Wheat seedlings (Triticum aestivum L.) shoot and root growth in relation to changes in the concentrations of dissolved gases and solutes in the soil solution. Plant and Soil. 2010;54:77–94.
  20. 20. Pedó T, Koch F, Martinazzo EG. Physiological attributes, growth and expression of vigor in soybean seeds under soil waterlogging. African J Agri Res. 2015;10:3791–97. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJAR2015.9661
  21. 21. Prasanna YL, Rao GR. Effect of waterlogging on growth and seed yield in green gram genotypes. Int J Food Agri Vet Sci. 2014;4:124–28. http://www.cibtech.org/jfav.htm
  22. 22. Anee TI, Nahar K, Rahman A, Mahmud JA, Bhuiyan TF, Alam MU, et al. Oxidative damage and antioxidant defense in Sesamumindicum after different waterlogging durations. Plants. 2019;8(7):196. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants8070196
  23. 23. Saha RR, Ahmed F, Mokarroma N. Physiological and biochemical changes in waterlog-tolerant sesame genotypes. SAARC J Agri. 2016;14:31–45. https://doi.org/10.3329/sja.v14i2.31243
  24. 24. Amin M, Karim M, Khaliq Q, Islam M, Aktar S. Screening of mungbean genotypes for tolerance to waterlogging under field condition. Bangladesh J Agri Res. 2015;40:513–19. https://doi.org/10.3329/bjar.v40i3.25426
  25. 25. Avivi S, Slameto SS, Ramadhan RA. Physiological characters of sugarcane after flooding stress. Agri Agri Sci Procedia. 2016;9:31–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aaspro.2016.02.119
  26. 26. Kim KH, Cho MJ, Kim JM, Heo JH, Jeong JY, Juseok Lee , et al. Growth response and developing simple test method for waterlogging stress tolerance in soybean. J Crop Sci Biotech. 2019;22(4):371–78. https://doi.org//10.1007/s12892-019-0271-0
  27. 27. Ren BZ, Zhang JW, Li X, Fan X, Dong ST, Liu P, Zhao B. Effects of waterlogging on the yield and growth of summer maize under field conditions. Canadian J Plant Sci. 2014;94:23–31. https://doi.org/10.4141/cjps2013-175
  28. 28. Khan A, Tan DKY, Afridi MZ, HonghaiLuo , Shahbaz AT , Mir Ajab , Shah Fahad . Nitrogen fertility and abiotic stresses management in cotton crop: A review. Environ Sci Poll Res Int. 2017;24(17):14551–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-8920-x
  29. 29. Zhang X, Fan Y, Shabala S, Koutoulis , Shabala L, Johnson P, et al. A new major-effect QTL for waterlogging tolerance in wild barley (H. spontaneum). Theory and Appl Genet. 2017;130:1559–68. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s00122-017-2910-8
  30. 30. TianLixin, Li Jing, Bi Wenshuang, ZuoShiyu, Li Lijie, Li Wenlong, Sun Lei. Effects of waterlogging stress at different growth stages on the photosynthetic characteristics and grain yield of spring maize (Zea mays L.) Under field conditions. Agri Water Manage. 2019;218:250–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2019.03.054
  31. 31. Xu X, Ji J, Ma X, Xu Q, Qi X, Chen X. Comparative proteomic analysis provides insight into the key proteins involved in cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) adventitious root emergence under waterlogging stress. Front Plant Sci. 2016;7:1515.
  32. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.01515
  33. 32. Eysholdt-Derzsó E, Sauter M. Hypoxia and the group VII ethylene response transcription factor HRE2 promote adventitious root elongation in Arabidopsis. Plant Biology. 2019;21:103–08. https://doi.org/10.1111/plb.12873
  34. 33. Takahashi H, Yamauchi T, Colmer TD, Nakazono M. Aerenchyma formation in plants. In: Low-oxygen stress in plants. Springer Berlin/Heidelberg; 2014. p. 247–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-1254-0_13
  35. 34. Manik SMN, Quamruzzaman M, Livermore M, Zhao C, Johnson P, Hunt I, et al. Impacts of barley root cortical aerenchyma on growth, physiology, yield components and grain quality under field waterlogging conditions. Field Crops Res. 2022a;279:108461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2022.108461
  36. 35. Manik SMN, Quamruzzaman M, Zhao CC, Johnson P, Hunt I, Shabala S, Meixue Zhou. Genome-wide association study reveals marker trait associations (MTA) for waterlogging-triggered adventitious roots and aerenchyma formation in barley. IntJ Mol Sci.2022b;23:3341. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms23063341
  37. 36. Abiko T, Kotula L, Shiono K, Malik AI, Colmer TD, Nakazono M. Enhanced formation of aerenchyma and induction of a barrier to radial oxygen loss in adventitious roots of Zeanicaraguensis contribute to its waterlogging tolerance as compared with maize (Zea mays ssp. mays). Plant Cell and Environ. 2012;35:1618–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
  38. 3040.2012.02513.x
  39. 37. Rachmawati D, Retnaningrum E. Effect of high and long inundation on the growth of rice cultivars Sintanur and nitrogen dynamics of rhizobacteria. Ilmu-Ilmu Hayatidan Fisik. 2013;15:117–25.
  40. 38. Tiryakloglu M, Karanlik S, Arslan M. Response of bread wheat seedlings to waterlogging stress. Turkish J Agri Forestry. 2015;39:1407–24. https://doi.org/10.3906/tar-1407-124
  41. 39. Wu C, Zeng A, Chen P, Florez-Palacios, Liliana, Hummer W, et al. An effective field screening method for flood tolerance in soybean. Plant Breeding. 2017;136. https://doi.org//10.1111/pbr.12487
  42. 40. Mutava RN, Prince SJK, Syed NH, Song L, Valliyodan B, Chen W, Nguyen HT. Understanding abiotic stress tolerance mechanisms in soybean: a comparative evaluation of soybean response to drought and flooding stress. Plant Phys Biochem. 2015;86:109–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2014.11.010
  43. 41. Zhang S, Sun C, Cao H, Zhang Z. Leaf photosynthetic rate of tropical ferns is evolutionarily linked to water transport capacity. PLoS One. 2014;9:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0084682
  44. 42. Parman S. Kandungan protein danabutanaman alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) setelahpemupukanbiorisa. Bioma. 2017;9(2):38–44. https://doi.org/10.14710/bioma.9.2.38-44
  45. 43. Gilbert RA, Rainbolt CR, Morris DR, Bennett AC. Morphological responses of sugarcane to long-term flooding. Agro J. 2007;99(6):1622–28. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2007.0085

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.