Genetic variation in stem strength in field pea (Pisum sativum L.) and its association with compressed stem thickness
C. P. Beeck A C , J. Wroth A B and W. A. Cowling A BA School of Plant Biology, Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia.
B Canola Breeders Western Australia Pty Ltd, 15/219 Canning Highway, South Perth, WA 6151, Australia.
C Corresponding author. Email: cbeeck@cyllene.uwa.edu.au
Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 57(2) 193-199 https://doi.org/10.1071/AR05210
Submitted: 15 June 2005 Accepted: 16 November 2005 Published: 24 February 2006
Abstract
We assessed genetic variation in stem strength in field pea (Pisum sativum L.) using physical and biological measures in order to develop selection criteria for breeding programs. A diverse group of 6 pea genotypes was subjected to 2 levels of disease (ascochyta leaf and stem blight), high and low. Stem samples were tested for physical stem strength (load at breaking point and flexion) using a universal testing machine. Stem diameter and compressed stem thickness were measured as biological indicators of stem strength. The genotypes varied significantly in physical and biological measures of stem strength, and in resistance to ascochyta blight. Load at breaking point was strongly associated with compressed stem thickness but only weakly associated with stem diameter. Significant variation in compressed stem thickness was present among pea genotypes, supporting this as an inexpensive, reliable, and quantitative measure for use in the field. There was no variation in stem lignin content among genotypes. Ascochyta blight resistance and stem strength, as assessed by load, flexion, or compressed stem thickness, were independent traits (the main effects of disease level and genotype × disease level interactions for load, flexion, and compressed stem thickness were non-significant). Therefore, concurrent genetic gains in both ascochyta resistance and stem strength should be possible in the same pea breeding population.
Additional keywords: lodging, black spot.
Acknowledgments
We thank the Grains Research Development Corporation for funding this research, Eric Swartz for valuable training, advice, and assistance regarding the INSTRON machine, and the Medical Physics Department, Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, WA, for the use of their facilities. We also acknowledge statistical advice from Jane Speijers from the Department of Agriculture Western Australia, and helpful discussions with Principal Plant Breeder Dr Tanveer Khan of the same Department.
Ames N,
McElroy AR,
Akin DE, Lyon CE
(1995) Evaluation of stem strength of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) genotypes. Animal Feed Science and Technology 54, 267–274.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Armstrong EL
(2003) A growing future—realising the dream. ‘Field pea focus 2003’. Northam, Western Australia. (Eds K Regan, M Harries, I Pritchard)
pp. 28–31. (Pulse Australia: Edgecliff, NSW)
Armstrong EL, Pate JS
(1994) The field pea crop in S.W. Australia. II. Effects of contrasting morphology and environment on reproductive performance. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 45, 1363–1378.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Behroozi-Lar M, Rajabipoor A, Khazaei J
(2000) Tensile and bending strength of chickpea stems. ‘ASAE Annual International Meeting’. (ASAE: Madison, WI)
Crook MJ, Ennos AR
(1994) Stem and root characteristics associated with lodging resistance in four winter wheat cultivars. Journal of Agricultural Science 123, 167–174.
Csizmadia L
(1995) Possibilities to increase the standing ability in dry peas by breeding. Zoldsegtermesztesi Kutato Intezet Bulletinje 27, 27–36.
Dantuma G
(1983) Potential and actual yields of dried peas in north western Europe. ‘Perspectives for peas and lupins as protein crops’. (Eds R Thompson, R Casey)
pp. 165–168. (Martinus Nijhoff: The Hague)
Davies DR
(1977) Restructuring the pea plant. Science in Progress 64, 201–214.
Davies DR
(1995) Peas. ‘Evolution of crop plants’. (Eds J Smartt, NW Simmonds)
pp. 294–296. (Wiley: New York)
Dolinski R,
Tarkowski C, Bichta J
(1993) Variability and hereditability of some chosen mechanical properties and morphological features of hexaploid winter triticale stalk. Zeszyty Problemowe Postepow Nauk Rolniczych 399, 35–42.
Genstat (2003).
Heath MC, Hebblethwaite PD
(1984) A basis for improving the dried pea crop. Outlook on Agriculture 13, 195–202.
Holland MR,
Grace J, Hedley CL
(1991) Momentum absorption by dried pea crops I. Field measurements over and within varieties of differing leaf structure. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 54, 67–80.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Kemsley EK,
Swinhoe RR,
Smith AC,
McCann MC, Wang TL
(2004) Chemometrics can be applied to mechanical testing data to characterise stem toughness and stiffness in crop plants. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 84, 966–976.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
McPhee KE, Muehlbauer FJ
(1999) Stem strength in the core collection of Pisum germplasm. Pisum Genetics 31, 21–24.
Mohsenin, NN (1986).
Niklas, KJ (1992).
Pedersen JF, Toy JJ
(1999) Measurement of sorghum stalk strength using the Missouri-Modified Electronic Rind Penetrometer. Maydica 44, 155–158.
Rasband, W (2000).
Stelling D
(1989) Problems of breeding for improved standing ability in dried peas, Pisum sativum L. Journal Agronomy and Crop Science 163, 21–32.
White P
(2003) Gazing into the crystal ball: threats and opportunities. ‘Field pea focus 2003’. Northam, Western Australia (Eds K Regan, M Harries, I Pritchard)
pp. 24–27. (Pulse Australia: Edgecliff, NSW)
