International Journal of Plant Production 3 (4), October 2009

ISSN: 1735-6814 (Print), 1735-8043 (Online) GUASNR

This is a refereed journal and all articles are professionally screened and reviewed. www.ijpp.info

Physiological and morphological responses of rice (Oryza

sativa L.) to varying water stress management strategies
N. Davatgara, M.R. Neishabouria, A.R. Sepaskhahb,*, A. Soltanic
a
Soil Science Department, Tabriz University, Tabriz, Iran.
b
Irrigation Department, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran.
c
Agronomy Department, Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Gorgan, Iran.
*corresponding author; Email: [email protected]

Received 18 November 2008; Accepted after revision 25 June 2009; Published online September 2009

Abstract

Sustainability of rice production under limited water conditions is threatened by increasing

irrigation water scarcity. Therefore, physiological and morphological responses of rice to varying
water stress management strategies should be determined. The physiological and morphological
responses of a semi dwarf rice (Hashemi cultivar) to water stress intensities (mild and severe, i.e.,
short-duration of stress with early recovery and long-duration stress with late recovery, respectively)
and timing (mid-tillering, booting and 50% of flowering) were studied in a pot experiment. The
severe water stress at mid-tillering significantly (P<0.05) decreased plant height and the number of
panicle per hill and delayed flowering. The severe water stress at different growth stages caused
substantial yield losses by large percentage of unfilled grains. Root weight was highest under mild
water stress at 50% of flowering followed by severe water stress at mid-tillering. Relative
transpiration (RT) was not lowered until the thresholds of the fraction of transpirable soil water
(FTSW), plant available water (PAW) and soil water tension (h) reached to 0.46 (-), 0.9 (-) and 78.0
kPa, respectively. These values were approximately close to those obtained for the relative leaf
development rate (RL), as 0.44 (-), 0.91 (-) and 74.6 kPa, respectively. These results indicated that
transpiration and leaf development rates have the same sensitivity to water deficits. However, in the
mid-tillering, RL was more sensitive to water deficit than RT. The results of thresholds for RT
indicated that booting stage is more sensitive than other stages. It is concluded that water tension of
1500 kPa as considered for permanent wilting point is not suitable for rice. Therefore, PAW can not
be a suitable soil-water criteria for rice plants that are sensitive to water deficit. Furthermore, It is
concluded that Hashemi cultivar is very sensitive to mild and severe drought stress during
reproductive stage.

Keywords: Guilan province; Iran; Leaf development; Leaf rolling; Rice; Transpiration; Water stress

Introduction

About 75% of total rice production over the world comes from irrigated lowlands
(Guerra et al., 1998). Hashemi cultivar is a semi dwarf rice (Oryza sativa) and generally is
20 N. Davatgar et al. / International Journal of Plant Production (2009) 3(4): 19-32

cultivated in irrigated lowland paddy fields under continuous ponded condition in Guilan
province in Islamic Republic (I.R.) of Iran during the period of May to August. The
irrigation water requirements of these fields are relatively high due to high seepage and
percolation losses. Therefore, sustainability of rice production in this condition is
threatened by increasing irrigation water scarcity. The main reasons for irrigation water
scarcity are population growth, increasing urban and industrial demand for water, water
pollution, water resource depletion (Bouman and Tuong, 2001), climate change due to
increasing carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere (i.e., global warming) and
finally changes in precipitation and solar radiation distribution pattern (Soltani et al., 2001).
Drought may delay the phenological development of the rice plant (Inthapan and Fukai,
1988) and affect physiological processes like transpiration, photosynthesis, respiration and
translocation of assimilates to the grain (Turner, 1986). Plant processes that depend on cell
volume enhancement are particularly sensitive to water deficit. Leaf expansion and leaf gas
exchange rates are two such sensitive processes. At the plant level, reduced leaf area is
probably the obvious mechanism by which plants and crops restrict their water loss in
response to drought (Sadras and Milory, 1996).
Quantification of physiological and morphological responses of rice to water stress is
essential to predict the impact of soil and weather conditions on rice production using
process-based crop simulation models. Modeling plant responses to water deficit requires
not only an understanding but also quantitative relationships for the effects of water deficits
on leaf growth expansion and gas exchange rates (Sadras and Milory, 1996).
Modeling plant responses to water stress requires the proper definition of variables to
describe plant and soil water status. The use of soil water content to quantify plant
responses to water deficits has a two-fold quality, i.e., it is simple to monitor and it reflects
some apparent physiological mechanism. One of the frequently used variables is PAW, the
amount of soil water that is currently available for the plant, expressed as a proportion of
the maximum amount of plant available water that a soil can hold (Ritchie, 1981). Another
variable is the fraction of transpirable soil water (FTSW) defined by Sinclair and Ludlow
(1986). Wopereis et al., (1996) evaluated rice physiological and morphological responses to
water stress by soil water tension, h (kPa). The advantage of expressing water stress
responses as a function of soil-water tension is that it can be employed for any soil type
(Bouman et al., 2001). Plants react, in principle, to soil-water tension since the uptake of
water by the roots is governed by the difference in water potential in the roots and that in
the soil surrounding the roots. Wopereis et al., (1996) showed a decline of relative
transpiration (RT) of rice, if the soil water tension dropped below-200 kPa.
Much of the experimental evidence for a number of plants species and experimental
conditions have shown the consistent pattern of leaf gas exchange response to extractable
soil water (Rosenthal et al., 1987; Muchow and Sinclair, 1991) with exceptions in sandy
soils (Gollan et al., 1986; Rosenthal et al., 1987; Soltani et al., 2000). In this pattern, the
decrease in leaf gas exchange occurs at around 0.25 of the extractable soil water depletion.
Ritchie (1981) proposed that plant gas exchange is unaffected by soil dehydration until the
soil dries to less than 0.3 of the FTSW.
According to our knowledge, the effect of water stress on the physiological and
morphological responses of Hashemi cultivar has not been studied. The objectives of this
study were to determine the effects of varying water stress management strategies on water
N. Davatgar et al. / International Journal of Plant Production (2009) 3(4): 19-32 21

extraction pattern, soil water content of root zone and growth, yield and yield components
of pot-grown rice and their importance evaluation on rice crop performance under limited
water conditions.

Materials and Methods

Description of the plant establishment

This experiment was conducted in pots under shelter condition, since imposing water
stress in field-grown crops is difficult because of unpredictability of rainfall and possibility
of seepage from adjoining plots. This research was carried out in Rice Research Institute
located in Rasht, Guilan province, I.R. of Iran, during May-August, 2007.
Rice (Hashemi cultivar) was grown in polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pots with 20 cm
diameter and 25 cm height. Three 21-day old seedlings were planted in the center of each
pot. All pots were filled with saturated puddled clay soil with the following characteristics
on average: sand=12%, silt=42%, clay=46%, s=0.59 cm3 cm-3, field capacity=0.51 cm3
cm-3 and permanent wilting point=0.22 cm3 cm-3. The soil samples were taken from a
submerged field at the study area that was plowed and harrowed 8 days before use. Daily
weather data (temperature, relative humidity and solar radiation) were recorded at a
synoptic weather station located 80 meter distance from the experimental site.
A basal application equivalent to 150 kg N ha-1, 60 kg P ha-1 and 50 kg K ha-1, was
applied to each pot one day before transplanting (on August 20, 2007) in pots. Additional
50 kg N ha-1 and 25 kg K ha-1 were added at mid-tillering and panicle initiation stages.
During the experiments, occasional spraying of insecticides and fungicides against rice
pest (striped stem borer) and blast disease was carried out to avoid damages.

Intensity and timing of water stress

Water stress treatments were imposed by withholding water application at mid-tillering,

booting and 50% flowering stages as treatments A, B and S, respectively. For comparison,
a well-watered treatment (WW) was also included in the experiment as control treatment.
The experiment was laid out in completely randomized design (CRD), where each
treatment replicated 16 times.
Leaf rolling was occurred due to water stress implication. Leaf water status is usually
monitored by measuring the leaf water potential (Cabuslay et al., 2002). However, it is slow
and is not applicable for mass screening of cultivars. Leaf rolling score, LR, is considered
as an alternative way to show leaf water status. It is simply determined visually on the base
of the degree of leaf rolling and was found to be highly correlated with maintenance of leaf
water potential (O,Toole and Moya, 1987). Leaf rolling reduced canopy photosynthesis, and
it is also used to simulate the effect of drought stress on spikelet fertility (Bouman et al.,
2001).
The degree of leaf rolling from 0 to 5 was monitored as a stress intensity indicator. It
was determined based on a standard chart presented by OToole and Cruz (1980). Leaf
rolling factor of 1 indicates a first sign of leaf rolling, whereas score 5 means leaf has rolled
completely.
22 N. Davatgar et al. / International Journal of Plant Production (2009) 3(4): 19-32

The duration of stress was also varied in order to investigate responses and ability of the
rice plant to recover from different degrees of stress. In the short-duration treatments of
water stress (or mild stressed, early recovery: ER), stressed plants were recovered when
plants reached leaf rolling score 5. In the longduration treatment (or severe stressed, late
recovery: LR) plants were recovered when they were close to dying, i.e., leaf rolling score
of 5 and roughly 50% dead leaves. However, plant recovery was achieved by re-irrigating
the pots to bring the dried soil to saturation. After onset of the recovery period, plants were
kept well watered until maturity.

Experiment layout

Pots of the same treatment were concentrated in one block. Four blocks were used in
total. In each block, pots were placed side by side on a wooden tray of 10 cm height, with
no space in between, to prepare a 2020 cm planting density. To avoid any influence of pot
arrangement on plant growth, pots were rotated daily within the blocks. Each block was
surrounded by one row of border pots to make the experimental design similar to what is
obtained under field conditions. Border pots received the same treatment as the center pots
within a block, but they were not used for any measurement. A large number of replication,
i.e., 16, was used in each experiment to allow for periodic destructive sampling from plant.

Plant and soil sampling

Plants from the well-watered treatments were sampled every two weeks. Plants from the
stressed treatments were sampled at the start of the recovery and at final harvest. Four pots
per treatment were removed for each sampling. Plant components (i.e., green and dead
leaves, stems, roots, panicles and grains) were detached and oven-dried for 72 hours at
70C. Green leaf area was determined immediately after sampling, using a leaf area meter.
Leaf Area Index (LAI) was calculated based on 2020 cm spacing (Pirmoradian et al.,
2004). At harvest (August 21, 2007), yield component analysis was accomplished based on
four pots (four replications) per treatment. Plant height was determined from the ground
level to the tip of the tallest leaf; and for mature plants it was measured from ground level
to the tip of the tallest panicle by using a measuring stick. Height measurements were made
daily during the early stage of growth and weekly at the later stage. For all treatments, the
actual number of flowering panicles per pot was recorded daily. A visual estimate of the
degree of leaf rolling was made daily at midday based on a standard chart presented
O,Toole and Cruz (1980). Leaf rolling is usually associated with soil water deficits as an
effective mechanism to reduce transpiration losses.
Volumetric soil water contents were measured daily by TDR in pots with stressed plants
to determine the soil water status of the root-zone. Soil water contents in the well watered
pots were considered as saturated water content.

Actual and potential transpiration rates

In each pot, evaporation losses were minimized by polyethylene cover sheets on the soil
surface. All pots, both well-watered and stressed plants (except for border pots) were
N. Davatgar et al. / International Journal of Plant Production (2009) 3(4): 19-32 23

weighed every evening to estimate daily transpiration losses from the difference in pot
weight between successive days. Transpiration rate from the well-watered pots was
regarded as potential transpiration (Doorenbos and Pruitt, 1977).
Relative transpiration rates (RT) of stressed plants was measured as the ratio between
weight loss of stressed pots and that of well-watered pots (Sinclair and Ludlow, 1986).

Evaporative demand of the air

This experiment was conducted in pots which have no hole for drainage. However, the
standing water in pots was refreshed by frequent application of water to prevent CO2
accumulation. Thus, percolation rate is zero and evaporation demand met from the ponded
irrigation water and soil water. The evaporation demand of air was estimated from the
transpiration rate of the well-watered plants between 40 and 80 days after transplanting
(closed canopy condition). Atmospheric demand is a function of the solar radiation, wind,
humidity and air temperatures or sensible heat level (Shaw and Newman, 1985). During 40
to 80 days after transplanting, average daily minimum and maximum temperatures were
17.9 and 29oC, respectively. Average daily sun hours, maximum wind speed and relative
humidity were 11.1 h, 4.1 ms-1 and 79%, respectively, with an average transpiration rate of
9.8 mm day-1 during July 1 to August 10, 2007 (standard deviation, SD: 2.8 mm day-1).

Soil water status

Plant responses to water stress were related to soil water content measured in the pots
through daily weighting. The stress levels were expressed as a function of soil water
content. For each stress treatment, the fraction of transpirable soil water criterion, FTSW,
left in the soil on each day was calculated as follows (Soltani et al., 2000):
ATSW Wt W f
FTSW= = [1]
TTSW Wi W f
Where ATSW is the actual transpirable soil water determined for each pot as pot weight
at specific day (Wt) minus final pot weight (Wf), i.e., pot weight when daily transpiration
rate decreased to < 0.1 of well-watered plants; and TTSW is the total transpirable soil water
calculated for each treatment as the difference between initial and final pot weight (Wi and
Wf, respectively). The upper limit of FTSW is one and it declines with time as soil water
availability for transpiration declines.
The plant available water, PAW, described as follows (Ritchie, 1981):
a ll
PAW= [2]
ul ll
Where is volumetric soil water content and subscripts a, ul and ll denote actual,
upper limit (i.e., the water retained by saturated soil) and lower limit (i.e., the water retained
by soil at -1.5 MPa), respectively. The PAW criterion varies in the range of one to zero.
Relating the plant drought responses to volumetric soil-water content are risky and can
not be generalized because of the differences in soil-water retention characteristics between
different soil types. To make results more widely applicable, the volumetric soil water
contents were converted to soil-water tension, h (kPa), by soil-water retention curve. The
24 N. Davatgar et al. / International Journal of Plant Production (2009) 3(4): 19-32

soil-water retention characteristic was determined by using the pressure plate extractor
(Dane and Hopmans, 2002). To obtain uniform description of all the soil-water retention
curve, the volumetric soil water content, , in cm3 cm-3 as a function of soil-water materic
head, h in kPa, was described with the following equation (van Genuchten, 1980):
S r
( h) = r + [3]
[1+ (h) ] n m

Where subscripts r and s refer to residual and saturated values, and , n and m are curve
shape parameters. The values of , n and m (dimensionless) are 0.001 kPa-1, 2.485 (-) and
4.596 (-), respectively.
The plant response expressed as relative transpiration (RT) and relative leaf expansion
(RL) to soil water status, FTSW, PAW and h (kPa). They were evaluated using linear spline
models. The example application of this model for FTSW is shown as follow (Soltani et al.,
2000):
1 if FTSWi CT
RL or RT= [4]
1 (( FTSWi CT ) / ( A CT )) if FTSWi CT
Where FTSWi is the fraction of transpirable soil water on a specific day (i), A is the
FTSW when RL or RT reached to zero, CT is the critical threshold of FTSW demarcating
the two stages of the two-piece linear-spline model. In addition, CT can be accounted as the
upper limit of soil water criteria or the threshold for which the rate of the process in stressed
plants starts to diverge from a reference value. Similarly, Eq (4) was used for RT and RL
responses to PAW and h (kPa).

Results and Discussion

There were significant differences (P<0.01) between the effects of intensities of stress
(mild and sever) and timing (mid-tillering, booting and 50% of flowering) on plant growth
and yield components (Table 1).
Table 1. Analysis of variance for several plant and yield components.

Filled 1000-
Grain Unfilled Plant Root
Panicles grains grain Straw
Source d.f. yield grain height weight
(per hill) (per weight (g)
(g m-2) (%) (cm) (g)
panicle) (g)
Treatment 6 353.456*** 36.393*** 3455.764*** 5054.905*** 9.731* 848.143*** 353.456*** 296.228ns
Residual 21 14.458 5.337 348.663 316.502 2.302 39.095 14.458 119.696
total 27
ns
non significant.
***
Significant at 0.001 significance level in F-tests.
Significant at 0.05 significant level in F-test.

Plant height

Plant height was significantly reduced by severe water stress compared to the well-
watered plants (Table 2). In the severe water stress treatment (LR) plant height was
N. Davatgar et al. / International Journal of Plant Production (2009) 3(4): 19-32 25

significantly reduced at mid-tillering stage treatment (A), (121.5 cm). The decrease in
height might be either due to inhibition of cell elongation or cell division by severe water
stress. Plant height in mild water stress treatment (ER) did not decrease significantly at 0.05
level of probability (Table 2).

Table 2. Comparison of the means (four replicates) of plant and yield components under various treatments.

1000-
Grain Unfilled % Root
Panicles grain height Straw
Treatment yield of grain weight
(per hill) weight (cm) (g pot-1)
(g m-2) (per panicle) (g pot-1)
(g)
Well -watered
plant
WW 494a 21ab 8a 23.20a 164.8a 50.5bc 19.3bc
Stress at mid-
tillering (A)
AER 410.4a 25.5a 8a 23.40a 162.3ab 47.4b 17c
ALR 157c 16c 46.45b 23.06a 121.5c 28.3a 35.3ab

Stress at Booting
(B)
BER 234.4bc 20.25bc 65bc 19.77b 156.8ab 54.8c 27.8abc
BLR 209.2bc 18.3bc 85c 21.66ab 150 b 48.2b 22.9bc

Stress at 50% of
flowering (S)
SER 301.2b 20.5bc 81.4bc 21.3ab 158.8ab 57.4c 40.4a
SLR 204.3bc 22.5ab 92c 19.43b 150.5b 48.9b 22.2bc

Water stress induced at A: Mid-tillering; B: Booting; S: 50% of flowering.

ER: early recovery; LR: late recovery.
Common letters within each column do not differ significantly (P<0.05) according to Duncan,s test.

The number of panicles

The number of panicles per hill under mild water stress at mid-tillering was the highest
(25.5) (Table 2). It seems that mild water stress at mid-tillering affects assimilates
translocation from the most plant part to the panicles, via altering source-sink relationships.
The reduction in leaf cell expansion would decrease sink strength for vegetative growth and
lessen the competition with panicle growth for assimilates. Under severe water stress at
mid-tillering, the number of panicles per hill decreased significantly to 16 (Table 2).

Unfilled grain

The percentage of unfilled grain significantly increased with both intensity and
postponed water stress toward flowering stage (Table 2). This might be due to the fact that
water stress slowed down carbohydrate synthesis and / or weakened the sink strength at
reproductive stages and abortion of fertilized ovaries (Rahman et al., 2002). This result is in
agreement with those reported by Kumar et al. (2006) who showed that percentage of
unfilled grains were significantly higher in sites that were affected by drought at
reproductive stage. Water stress at flowering causes flower abortion, grain abscission and
increasing of percentage of unfilled grain (Hsiao et al., 1976).
26 N. Davatgar et al. / International Journal of Plant Production (2009) 3(4): 19-32

Grain yield

Grain yield significantly decreased by water stress imposed at three growth stages
except by mild water stress at mid-tillering (Table 2). Water stress during booting and 50%
of flowering produced similar effect, indicating high sensitivity of rice (Hashemi cultivar)
to water stress with any intensity (mild or sever) during the reproductive stage (panicle
initiation, booting and flowering) of growth. This effect might be due to decrease in
translocation of assimilates towards reproductive organs (Rahman et al., 2002).

Root weight

Root weight per pot was highest (40.4 g) under mild water stress at 50% of flowering
followed by severe stress at mid-tillering (35.3 g) comparatively with the well-water plants
(Table 2). In addition, root weight increased from 19.9 g pot-1 at the start of early recovery
from drought stress at 50% of flowering to 40.4 g pot-1 at harvest stage. O,Toole and Moya
(1981) reported that drought might induce more rapid root growth. Hsiao and Xu (2000)
reported that roots are capable of growing at low matric potential, down to -1.5 MPa and
even lower. The raising of root weight under water stress may be considered as the adaptive
mechanism that alleviates the water uptake reduction under drought condition as a result of
extra root growth. In this adaptive mechanism, assimilates accumulate and its partitioning
from leaves and stems to roots can renew root growth and resulted in exploration of more
soil volume which enable plant to obtain more soil water (Hsiao et al., 1976).
Carbohydrate partitioning between shoot and root under water stress is generally altered
in favour of the root biomass (O,Toole and Moya, 1981). When leaves stop expanding,
photosynthesis still continues and the level of reserve carbohydrates increases, which
makes more of them available for growth of the root system (van Keulen and Seligman,
1987).

Delay in flowering

Water stress decreased yield and increased the delay of 50% flowering (DEL in Table 3)
in day at mid-tillering and booting stages as compared to well-watered plants (Tables 2 and
3). Turner et al. (1986) showed that water deficit during the vegetative growth stage delays
flowering and it is negatively associated with grain yield (Kumar et al., 2006). Woperies et
al., (1996) showed that the delay in flowering was reduced if drought was induced at later
growth stages. Postponement of flowering in this study was in relative agreement with the
number of days between the date of zero leaf expansion and the date of recovery onset
(DIF, Table 3). Delay in flowering increased with increasing of DIF. Bouman et al. (2001)
indicate that, if the soil is too dry to produce new leaves, the rate of the crop growth and
development would be brought to a standstill as well.

Transpiration response to soil water stress

The behavior of combined relative transpiration (RT) data obtained in different water
stress treatments as a function of soil-water availability (FTSW, PAW and h) criteria are
N. Davatgar et al. / International Journal of Plant Production (2009) 3(4): 19-32 27

shown in Figure 1. The linear spline model provided good descriptions of the relationships
as indicated by high R2 values (Table 4). Variation of relative transpiration (RT) below and
above 1.0 at moist soil can be explained by micro- environmental variation in and between
experiments and error in estimating daily LAI values for well-watered and stressed plants
from a limited number of observations (Wopereis et al., 1996). Water stress affected
transpiration rates by closure of stomata and change in leaf morphology.
Table 3. Duration of water stress (Du), delay in dates of 50% flowering (DEL) under water deficit compared to
well-watered treatment, and the number moment of days between of zero leaf expansion to recovery (DIF). Data
are averages of at least 4 replicates.

DU DEL DIF
Treatment
day day day
Stress at Mid-tillering (A)
AER 11 2 4
ALR 22 23 15
Stress at Booting (B)
BER 11 3 7
BLR 16 3 11
Stress at 50% of Flowering (S)
SER 10 0 5
SLR 13 0 7
Water stress induced at A: Mid-tillering; B: Booting and S: 50% of flowering.
Er: early recovery; LR: late recovery.
Du: Duration of water stress (day); DEL: Delay in date of 50% flowering of drought treatments as compared to the
well-watered treatment (day) and DIF: the number of days between moment of zero leaf expansion and recovery
(day) for rice Hashemi cultivar.

Relative transpiration started to decrease from 1.0 with soil-water tension of about 78
kPa and approached 0.0 at around 185 kPa (Table 4, Figure 1. c). The upper limit of h for
relative transpiration was close to 70 kPa as reported by Bouman et al., (2001) but the
lower limit was much lower than 1500 kPa as reported by the same authors. These
threshold values are different from those reported in literature. Therefore, these values
should be determined for other local cultivars as well.
Relative transpiration (RT) did not decline until FTSW and PAW fell below around the
critical thresholds of about 0.46 and 0.9, respectively (Table 4). These critical thresholds
values were generally higher than those reported in literatures by Sadras and Milroy (1996).
The effect of drought timing on RT indicated that booting stage was the most sensitive to
water deficit and 50% of flowering being in the next place (Table 5). It is probably due to
the larger leaf and plant size and higher transpiration demand of the older plants.
Table 4. Estimates of parameters for rice (Hashemi cultivar) in relative transpiration (RT) and relative leaf
development (RL) response to the fraction of transpirable soil water (FTSW), plant available water (PAW) and
soil-water tension (h) using linear spline model.

FTSW PAW h (kPa)

A CT R2 A CT R2 A CT R2
RT 0 0.46 0.95 0.3 0.9 0.98 185 78 0.81
RL 0 0.44 0.98 0.24 0.91 0.90 180 74.6 0.95
A: is the criteria value when RL and RT reached to zero; CT: is the upper limit of soil-water criteria for which the
rate of the process in the stressed plants starts to diverge from a reference value.
28 N. Davatgar et al. / International Journal of Plant Production (2009) 3(4): 19-32

Table 5. The upper (UL) and lower limits (LL) of soil water availability criteria (FTSW, PAW and h) relative
transpiration (RT), and relative leaf development (RL) for occurring water stress at different growth stage.

RT RL
Growth stage FTSW1 PAW2 h(kPa)3 FTSW PAW h(kPa)
UL LL UL LL UL LL UL LL UL LL UL LL
Mid-tillering 0.48 0.0 0.44 0.0 73.5 171.6 0.98 0.44 0.91 0.24 73.6 185.0
Booting 0.73 0.0 0.81 0.31 45.0 205.0 Non determined
Flowering (50%) 0.51 0.0 0.86 0.0 63.7 191.0 Non determined
1
FTSW: Fraction of transpirable soil water
2
PAW: Plant available water.
3
h (kPa): Soil water tension.

Figure 1. Relative transpiration (RT) as a function of a) Fraction of transpirable soil water (FTSW), b) plant
available water (PAW), and c) soil-water tension (h) for Hashemi cultivar. The solid line is the fitted curve to the
observed data by the linear spline model.
N. Davatgar et al. / International Journal of Plant Production (2009) 3(4): 19-32 29

Leaf development response to soil water stress

Responses of relative leaf development (RL) to soil water stress criteria at mid-tillering
stage are shown in Figure 2. At this stage, the upper and lower limits of FTSW and PAW
for RL were higher than those for RT (Table 5). These results indicated that leaf area
development is considered to be more sensitive to water deficits than transpiration rate due
to inhibition of leaf cell expansion or division by water stress. Apparently, this is the
consequence of the critical role of the turgor in the leaf cells expansion process (Hsiao et
al., 1976). It significantly attributes to reduction in LAI by the effects of translocation via
altered source-sink relationships for assimilate. Further, closing of stomata and
photosynthesis inhibiting by the stress would be the second factors in this regard. Leaf area
development may be hampered due to leaf rolling and early senescence too (O,Toole and
Baldia, 1982). Large decline in leaf area under mild water stress is disadvantageous to
plants because it leads to reduced nutrient uptake, because of reduced transpiration
(O,Toole and De Datta, 1986). Reduced leaf area also decreases carbon assimilation per
unit land area (Schulze, 1986).

Figure 2. Relative leaf development (RL) as a function of a) fraction of transpiration soil water (FTSW), b) plant
available water (PAW), and c) soil-water tension (h) for Hashemi cultivar at mid-tillering stage. The solid line is
the regression fit to the data by the linear spline model.
30 N. Davatgar et al. / International Journal of Plant Production (2009) 3(4): 19-32

Monitoring leaf morphology vs. soil water stress

The results of relationship between leaf rolling (LR) score and the soil water criteria
(FTSW, PAW, and h) are given in Table 6. Leaf rolling started at soil- water tension around
31.3 kPa and it increased sharply at soil water tension of 154 kPa. These results are much
lower than those reported (200- 300 kPa for upper limit and 400- 1000 kPa for lower limit)
by Bouman et al., (2001). It indicates that Hashemi cultivar is very sensitive to water stress
and its threshold values are different from those reported in literature. Therefore, these
values should be determined for other local cultivars as well.
The upper and lower limits of soil-water criteria of zero leaf expansion (Table 6) were
compared to those of relative transpiration (Table 5). The upper limits of FTSW for zero
leaf expansion are close to the upper limits of relative transpiration at mid-tillering. The
threshold values of FTSW and PAW for zero leaf expansion were higher than that obtained
for relative transpiration. However, the threshold value for h (kPa) was lower for relative
transpiration.
The duration of severe water stress in different growth stages were high (22 day in mid-
tillering, 16 day in booting and 13 day in 50% of flowering). However, the observed soil-
water tension at the end of these stress periods is much lower (mid-tillering =134,
booting=153 and 50% of flowering =180 kPa) than that commonly defined for the
permanent wilting point, i.e., 1500 kPa. Thus, it seems that PAW can not be a suitable soil-
water availability criterion for rice plants that are very sensitive to water deficit. Sadras and
Milory (1996) indicated that PAWT, the threshold of PAW, vary widely. Sources of
variation in this threshold could be due to physiological process, plant factor, soil factor and
evaporative demand. However, the use of soil water tension, h, as a main index should be
used with precaution; because it is, only, on the base of thermodynamic characterization of
soil water and not on hydraulic conductivity of soils. In the clay soils, unsaturated hydraulic
conductivity might be low even at high soil water content. Thus, movement of water to
roots became slow and caused water stress on plant.
These results indicated that physiological and morphological responses for different rice
cultivars should be investigated under local conditions and and different soil textures.
Table 6. The upper (UL) and lower limits (LL) of soil water availability criteria (FTSW, PAW and h) for water
stress effects on zero leaf expansion and leaf rolling.

FTSW1 PAW2 h (kPa)3

UL LL UL LL UL LL
Leaf rolling 0.65 0.11 0.94 0.46 31.3 154
Zero leaf expansion 0.48 0.22 0.91 0.67 52.0 104
1
FTSW: Fraction of transpirable soil water.
2
PAW: Plant available water.
3
h (kPa): Soil water tension.

Conclusion

Experiment was carried out to investigate water-stress responses (intensity and timing)
of rice grown in puddle clay soil and determine the thresholds of rice plant physiological
and morphological responses during drying cycles, when plant responses were monitored as
the soil dried progressively in mid-tillering, booting and 50% of flowering growth stages.
The severe water stress at mid-tillering significantly decreased plant height, the number of
N. Davatgar et al. / International Journal of Plant Production (2009) 3(4): 19-32 31

panicles per hill and delayed flowering. The severe water stress at different growth stages
resulted to substantial yield losses, caused by large percentage of unfilled grains.
The number of panicles per hill under mild water stress at mid-tillering was highest but
their yields were not significantly different from well-watered plants. Root weight was
highest under mild water stress at 50% of flowering followed by severe water stress. The
thresholds of the fraction of transpirable soil water (FTSW), plant available water (PAM)
and soil water tension (h) for relative transpiration (RT) were approximately close to those
of relative leaf development (RL). These results indicated that RT and RL have the same
sensitivity to water deficits. However, at the mid-tillering, relative leaf development was
more sensitive than relative transpiration.
Most of the reduction in leaf area appears to be the consequence of slowed cell
expansion, the closing of stomata and inhibition of photosynthesis. The results of thresholds
for relative transpiration and relative leaf development at different growth stages indicated
that booting stage is more sensitive than other stages. It is concluded that water tension of
1500 kPa as considered for permanent wilting point is not suitable for rice. Therefore, PAW
can not be a suitable soil-water criteria for rice plants that are sensitive to water deficit.
Furthermore, It is concluded that Hashemi variety is very sensitive to mild and severe
drought stress during reproductive stage.

References

Bouman, B.A.M., Kropff, M.J., Tuong, T.P., Wopereis, M.C.S., Ten Berge, M.F.M., and Van Laar, H. H., 2001.
ORYZA 2000: Modeling Lowland Rice. IRRI. The Philippines, 235p.
Bouman, B.A.M., Tuong, T.P., 2001. Field water management to save water and increase its productivity in
irrigated rice. Agric. Water Manage. 49: 11-30.
Cabulsay, G.S., Ito, O., Alejar, A.A., 2002. Physiological evaluation of response of rice (Oryza sativa L.) to water
deficit. Plant Science. 163: 815-827.
Dane, J.M., Hopmans, J.W., 2002. Pressure plate extractor. Pp: 688-690. In: Dane, J.M., and Topp, G.C. (Eds.)
Methods of soil analysis. Part 4. Physical Method. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Book series. 5. Madison, Wisconsin,
USA.
Doorenbos, J., Pruitt, W.O., 1977. Guidelines for Predicting Crop Water Requirements. Irrigation and Drainage
Paper 24, (2nd ed.). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 156p.
Gollan, T., Passioura, J.B., Munns, R., 1986. Soil water status affects the stomatal conductance of fully turgid
wheat and sunflower leaves. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 13: 459-464.
Guerra, L.C., Bhuiyan, S.I., Tuong, T.P., Barker, R., 1998. Producing more rice with less water from irrigated
systems. SW / M Papers. IWMI / IRRI, Colombo, Srilanka, 24p.
Hsiao, T.C., Fereres, E., Acvedo, E., Henderson, W., 1976. Water stress and dynamics of growth and yield of crop
plants. Pp: 281-305. In: Lang, O.L., Kappan, L., and Schulz, E.D. (Eds.) Water and plant life. Problems and
modern approaches. Springer-verlog.
Hsiao, T.C., Xu, L.K., 2000. Sensitivity of growth of roots versus leaves to water stress: biophysical analysis and
relation to water transport. Exp. Bot. 51: 1595-1616.
Inthapan, P., Fukai, S., 1988. Growth and yield of rice cultivars under sprinkler irrigation in south-eastern
Queensland 2. Comparison with maize and grain sorghum under wet and dry conditions. Aust. J. Exp. Agric.
28: 243-248.
Kumar, R., Sarawgi, A.K., Ramos, C., Amarante, S.T., Ismail, A.M., Wade, W.J., 2006. Partioning of dry matter
during drought stress in rainfed lowland rice. Field Crops Res. 96: 455-465.
Muchow, R.C., Sinclair, T.R., 1991. Water deficit effects on maize yields modeled under current and "green
house" climates. Agron. J. 83: 1052-1059.
O,Toole, J.C., Cruz, R., 1980. Response of leaf water potential, stomatal resistance and leaf rolling to water stress.
Plant Physiol. 65: 428-432.
O,Toole, J.C., Moya, T. B., 1987. Genotypic variation in maintenance of leaf water potential in rice. Crop Sci. 18:
873-876.
32 N. Davatgar et al. / International Journal of Plant Production (2009) 3(4): 19-32

O,Toole, J.C., Moya, T.B., 1981. Water deficits and yield in upland rice. Field Crops Res. 4: 247-259.
O,Toole, J.C., Baldia, E.P., 1982. Water deficits and mineral uptake in rice. Science. 22: 1144-1150.
O,Toole, J.C., De Datta, S.K., 1986. Drought resistance in rainfed lowland rice, In: Progress in rainfed lowland
rice, International Rice Research Institute, Makati city, the Philippines.
Pirmoradian, N., Sepaskhah, A.R., Maftoun, M., 2004. Effects of water-saving irrigation and nitrogen fertilization
on yield and yield components of rice (Oryza sativa L.). Plant Prod. Sci. 7: 377-346.
Rahman, M.T., Islam, M.T., Islam, M.O., 2002. Effect of water stress at different growth stages on yield and yield
contributing characters of transplanted Aman rice. Pak. J. Biol. Sci. 5: 2. 169-172.
Ritchie, J.T., 1981. Water dynamics in the soil-plant-atmosphere system. Plant Soil. 58: 81-96.
Rosenthal, W.D., Arkin, G.F., Shouse, P.J., and Jordan, W.R., 1987. Water deficit effects on transpiration and leaf
growth. Agron. J. 79: 1019-1026.
Sadras, V.O., Milory, S.P., 1996. Soil-water thresholds for the responses of leaf expansion and gas exchange: A
review. Field Crops Res. 47: 253-266.
Schulze, E.D., 1986. Whole- plant responses to drought. Aust. J. Plant Physoil. 13: 873- 876.
Shaw, R.H., Newman, J.E., 1985. Weather stress in the corn crop National corn Handbook. Mishigan State
University, USA.
Sinclair, T.R., Ludlow, M.M., 1986. Influence of soil water supply on the plant water balance of four tropical
grain legumes. Aust. J. Plant Physoil. 13: 329-341.
Soltani, A., Zeinali, E., Galeshi, S., and Niari, N., 2001. Simulating G F D L predicted climate change impacts on
rice cropping in Iran J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 3: 81-40.
Soltani, A., Khooie, F.R., Ghassemi-Gloezani, K., Moghaddam, M., 2000. Thresholds for chickpea leaf expansion
and transpiration response to soil water deficit. Field Crops Res. 68: 205-210.
Tuner, N.C., 1986. Crop water deficits: decade of progress. Adv. Agron. 39: 1-51.
Turner, N.C., O,Toole, J.C., Cruz, R.T., Namuco, O.S., and Ahmad, S., 1986. Responses of seven diverse rice
cultivars to water deficits. I. Stress development, canopy temperature, leaf rolling and growth. Field Crops
Res. 13: 257-271.
van Genuchten, M.Th., 1980. A closed-form equation for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated
soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 44: 892-898.
van Keuken, Seligman, M.G., 1987. Simulation of water use, nitrogen and growth of a spring wheat crops.
Simulation Monographs. Wageningen. Netherlands. 310p.
Wopereis, M.S.C., Kropff, M.J., Maligaya, A.R., Tuong, T.P., 1996. Drought-stress responses of two lowland rice
cultivars to soil water status. Field Crop Res. 46: 21-39.