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

Research Articles

Vol. 12 No. 4 (2025)

Effect of exogenous proline on drought stress tolerance in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cultivars

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.9266
Submitted
3 May 2025
Published
07-09-2025 — Updated on 01-10-2025
Versions

Abstract

Due to the scarcity of irrigation water and to achieve maximum benefit from the available irrigation water, this study investigated the impact of exogenous proline application on drought tolerance in three wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cultivars and evaluated their water use under stress conditions. A factorial field experiment was conducted using a split-split plot design with three factors at three levels each. The main plot factor was drought stress, with three levels: S1 (control) involved irrigation with 50 % of the available water between field capacity (FC) and wilting point
(WP); S2 represented mild drought with 30 % available water (70 % reduction); S3 represented severe drought with 10 % available water (90 % reduction). The second factor (subplot) was proline concentration: P1 (0 mg L-1), P2 (25 mg L-1) and P3 (50 mg L-1). The third factor (sub-subplot) was wheat cultivar: Ibaa 99, Adnaniyah and Sham 6. A 90 % reduction in available water significantly decreased vegetative and yield parameters, including plant height (58.53 cm), spikes per plant (3.98), seeds per spike (37.86), total yield (3.47 tons·ha-1), flag leaf area (25.75 cm²), chlorophyll
content and water use efficiency (1.6 kg grains m-3 water). The highest water use efficiency was recorded under 30 % available water, while the maximum grain yield (6.07 tons ha-1) was achieved under 50 % available water. Foliar application of 50 mg L-1 proline (P3) increased grain yield and improved water use efficiency to 1.61 kg grains m-3 water. Although interactions between drought stress and proline concentration were not statistically significant, Sham 6 consistently outperformed Ibaa 99 and Adnaniyah across most growth and yield parameters.

References

  1. 1. Olaposi OI, Joshua AI, Yusuf A. Development of nano irrigation system with clay diaphragm for reduced water loss in vegetable production in low income countries. Revista Espinhaço. 2017;6(1):21–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10311‑009‑0228‑8
  2. 2. Arab Organization for Agricultural Development. Annual report. 2001.
  3. 3. Mahmood YA, Dsilva J, King I, Foulkes MJ. Leaf photosynthetic traits and their associations with biomass and drought tolerance in amphidiploid wheat genes and ancestors. Eur J Agron. 2023;147:126840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2023.126840
  4. 4. Hadid ML, Ramadan MA, Elbeltagi HS, Ramadan AA, Elmetwally IM, Shalaby TA, et al. Modulation of the antioxidant defense system and nutrient content by proline higher yielding of wheat under water deficit. Notul Bot Horti Agrobot Cluj‑Napoca. 2023;51(3):13291. https://doi.org/10.15835/nbha51313291
  5. 5. Ramadan KMA, El‑Beltagi HS, El‑Mageed TAA, Saudy HS, Al‑Otaibi HH, Mahmoud MAA. The changes in various physio‑biochemical parameters and yield traits of faba bean due to humic acid plus 6‑benzylaminopurine application under deficit irrigation. Agronomy. 2023;13(5):1227. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13051227
  6. 6. Shaaban A, Abd El‑Mageed TA, Abd El‑Momen WR, Saudy HS, Al‑Elwany OAAI. The integrated application of phosphorous and zinc affects the physiological status, yield and quality of canola grown in phosphorus‑suffered deficiency saline soil. Gesunde Pflanzen. 2023;75(5):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10343‑023‑00843‑2
  7. 7. Shahin MG, Saudy HS, El‑Bially ME, Abd El‑Momen WR, El‑Gabry YA, Abd El‑Samad GA, et al. Physiological and agronomic responses and nutrient uptake of soybean genotypes cultivated under various sowing dates. J Soil Sci Plant Nutri. 2023;25(16):5145-58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42729‑023‑01389‑y
  8. 8. Al‑Obaidi BSJ. Stimulating Triticum aestivum L. to tolerate drought [Doctoral Thesis]. University of Baghdad, College of Agriculture, Iraq; 2015.
  9. 9. Mohammad AK, Kadhim FAH. The effect of water stress on yield and its components of genetic compositions of bread wheat. Iraqi J Agric Sci. 2017;48(3):729–39. https://doi.org/10.36103/ijas.v48i3.386
  10. 10. Noha D, Ahlam J. Water stress and its relationship to some morphological and physiological characteristics of wheat plants (Triticum spp.) [Master Thesis]. Mentouri Fraternity University Constantine 1, Faculty of Natural and Life Sciences, Algeria; 2019.
  11. 11. Shaima SSJ. The effect of proline acid and its role in reducing the negative effect of sodium chloride on the vegetative stage of wheat plants, [Master Thesis]. Mentouri Fraternity University Constantine 1, Faculty of Natural and Life Sciences, Algeria; 2019.
  12. 12. Laskari MGM, Ilias K, Ioannis G, Christos D. Water stress effects on the morphological, physiological characteristics of maize (Zea mays L.) and on environmental cost. Agronomy. 2022;12(10):2386. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12102386
  13. 13. Thanoon AA. The effect of irrigation scheduling using the CROPWAT program on water use efficiency, yield and its components of yellow corn (Zea mays L.) in semi‑arid areas. Al‑Rafidain Engin J. 2020;24(2):130–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.33899/rengj.2019.164329
  14. 14. Velazquez MS, Vetor CM, Carlos T, Delgado A, Acuiles CC, Suarez R. Effects of water deficit on radical apex elongation and solute accumulation in Zea mays L. Plant Physiol Biochem. 2022;96:29–37.
  15. 15. Altaf A, Gull S, Zhu M, Rasool G, Ibrahim MEH, Aleem M, et al. Study of the effect of PEG‑6000 imposed drought stress on wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cultivars using relative water content (RWC) and proline content analysis. Pak J Agric Sci. 2021;58(1):357–67. https://doi.org/10.21162/PAKJAS/21.953
  16. 16. Al‑Hamoudi MAA. Response of four wheat varieties (Triticum aestivum L.) to concentrations of added proline under different water stress levels [Master Thesis]. College of Science, University of Karbala, Iraq; 2011.
  17. 17. Zein AK. Rapid determination of soil moisture content by the microwave oven drying method. Sudan Engin Soc J. 2002;48(40):43–54. https://doi.org/10.36103/ijas.v54i4.1788
  18. 18. Allen RG, Pereira LS, Raes D, Smith M. Crop evapotranspiration guidelines for computing crop water requirements. FAO irrigation and drainage paper 56. FAO United Nations; 1998.
  19. 19. Kovda VA, Berg CV, Hangun RM. Drainage and salinity. FAO/UNESCO; 1973.
  20. 20. Steel RGD, Torrie JH. Principles and procedures of statistics (2nd ed.). McGraw‑Hill; 1980.
  21. 21. Nikolaeva MK, Maevskaya SN, Shugaev AG, Bukhov NG. Effect of drought on chlorophyll content and antioxidant enzyme activities in leaves of three wheat cultivars varying in productivity. Russian J Plant Physiol. 2020;67(1):87–95.
  22. 22. Saqr MT. Stress physiology. College of Agriculture, Mansoura University, Egypt; 2021.
  23. 23. Bushra A, Kiran AM, Shahzad T, Sanaullah M. Mitigation of drought stress in wheat through exogenous application of proline. J Anim Plant Sci. 2023;33(6):1392–401. https://doi.org/10.36899/JAPS.2023.6.0679
  24. 24. Biswas DK, Ma BL, Morrison MJ. Changes in leaf nitrogen and phosphorus, photosynthesis, respiration, growth and resource use efficiency of a rapeseed cultivar as affected by drought and high temperature. Can J Plant Sci. 2019;99(1):111–21. https://doi.org/10.1139/CJPS‑2018‑0023
  25. 25. El‑Hendawy BM, Al‑Suhaibani S, Elshafei N, Al‑Doss A, Al‑Ashkar A, Ahmed AE, et al. The genetic basis of spectral reflectance indices in drought‑stressed wheat. Acta Physiol Plant. 2016;38(10):227–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11738‑016‑2249‑9
  26. 26. Al‑Dumay BAH. Response of sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) to added proline concentrations under different levels of water stress on some physiological indicators. Karbala J Agric Sci. 2018;5(1):1–15.
  27. 27. Ibrahim ME, Abdel‑Aal SM, Seleiman MF, Khazaei H, Monneveux P. Effect of different water regimes on agronomical traits and irrigation efficiency in bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) grown in the Nile delta. Wheat Inf Serv. 2010;(109):P5–9.
  28. 28. Abdou SMM, Engel BA, Emam SM, El‑Latif KMA. Aqua crop model validation for simulation wheat productivity under water stress condition. Comm Soil Sci Plant Anal. 2022;53(3):281–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/00103624.2021.1992981
  29. 29. Saghouri EI, Kettani IR, Ferrahi MA, Nabloussi R, Ziri NB. Water stress effect on durum wheat (Triticum durum L.) advanced lines at flowering stage under controlled conditions. J Agric Food Res. 2023;14:100696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2023.100696
  30. 30. Alemayehut KM, Kassu T, Tsegaye G. Morphological, physiological, and biochemical characterization of drought‑tolerant wheat (Triticum spp.) varieties. Int J Agron. 2021;2021:8811749. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/8811749
  31. 31. Allah W, Iqra R, Atta MUD, Muhammad HBK, Tauqeer AY, Muhammad MJ, et al. Foliar application of putrescine alleviates terminal drought stress by modulating water status, membrane stability, and yield‑related traits in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Front Plant Sci. 2023;13:1000877. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.1000877
  32. 32. Mukhtar A, Ul‑Hassan F, Qadar G, Shaheen FA, Aslam MA. Response of proline accumulation in bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) under rainfed conditions. J Agric Meteorol. 2017;73(4):147–55. https://doi.org/10.2480/agrmet.D‑14‑00047
  33. 33. Jian‑Yong W, You CX, Feng‑Min L, Kadambot HMS, Neil CT. Effects of drought stress on morphophysiological traits, biochemical characteristics, yield, and yield components in different ploidy wheat: A meta‑analysis. Adv Agron. 2017;143:139–73. https://doi.org/10.1071/FP16082
  34. 34. Ramadan EA, El‑Shawadfy MA, Osama M, Mahmoud H. Field and modeling study for deficit irrigation strategy on roots volume and water productivity of wheat. J Water Land Dev. 2021;49:129–38. https://doi.org/10.24425/jwld.2021.49.15
  35. 35. Zhuo W, Fang S, Wu D, Wang L, Li M, Zhang J, et al. Integrating remotely sensed water stress factor with a crop growth model for winter wheat yield estimation in the North China plain during 2008–2018. Crop J. 2022;10(5):1470–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cj.2022.04.004
  36. 36. Xuejiao Z, Zhenwen Y, Yu S, Peng L. Differences in water consumption of wheat varieties are affected by root morphology characteristics and post‑anthesis root senescence. Front Plant Sci. 2022;12:813246. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.814658
  37. 37. Sinha R, Fritschi FB, Zandalinas SI, Mittler R. The impact of stress combination on reproductive processes in crops. Plant Sci. 2022;311:111007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plantsci.2021.111007

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.