Response of soybean lines to Soybean mosaic virus under drought stress

Authors

  • Wuye Ria Andayanie Department of Agrotechnology Faculty of Agriculture, Merdeka Madiun University
  • Praptiningsih Gamawati Adinurani Department of Agrotechnology Faculty of Agriculture, Merdeka Madiun University
  • Martin Lukito Department of Agrotechnology Faculty of Agriculture, Merdeka Madiun University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.23960/jhptt.12241-47

Keywords:

disease severity, dry season, Glycine max L. Merr, soil field capacity

Abstract

The aim of this study was to assess soybean lines response to infection of Soybean mosaic virus (SMV) under drought stress. The experiment was conducted at the glasshouse in factorial in Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) with four replications. The first factor is soybean lines with four soybean lines (GK/PI, GK/M8Grb, W/M, GK/LT) including one susceptible check variety i.e. Anjasmoro. The second factor is drought stress with three levels of soil water content (100, 75, and 50%) field capacity. Seven days after planting (DAP), plants were inoculated with sap from leaves SMV infected soybean. The result showed that drought stress levels had affected the percentage of seed weight loss in GK/L-T than in the Anjasmoro variety. The number of leaves was slowly decreased from 42 to 49 DAP. The level, duration, and frequency of drought stress affected more significant in the inhibition of the seed filling phase. The GK/L-T reaction was not detected in the presence of SMV and also the lowest of Absorbance ELISA Value. The seed yield (t/ha) of GK/L-T that was most superior and the lowest percentage of disease severity under drought stress.

References

Abdi H & Williams LJ. 2010. Newman-keuls test and tukey test. In: Salkind N (Ed.). Encyclopedia of Research Design. Thousand Oaks. pp. 1?11. Sage.

Andayanie WR, Santosa V, & Rahayu M. 2017. Resistance to Soybean mosaic virus with high yield on F7 soybean lines. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 19(2): 226–232. https://doi.org/10.17957/IJAB/15.0263

Andayanie WR, Ermawaty N, & Iswati R. 2018. Use tillage system and botanical herbicide of cashew nut shell extract on losses nutrient and organic matter in the sloping land. In: Jenie SNA, Dwiatmoko AA, & Fitriady MA (Eds.). Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Applied Chemistry 2018, AIP Conf. Proc. 2024. pp. 020018-1–020018-6. Research Center for Chemistry Indonesian Institute of Sciences, Banten.

Andayanie WR, Nuriana W, & Ermawaty N. 2019a. Bioactive compounds and their their antifeedant activity of cashew nut (Anacardium occidentale L.) shell extract against Bemisia tabaci, (Gennadius, 1889) (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae). Acta Agric. Slov. 113(2): 281–288. https://doi.org/10.14720/aas.2019.113.2.9

Andayanie WR, Adinurani PG, Nuriana W, & Ermawaty N. 2019b. The plant defence inducer activity of Anacardium occidentale Linn., Azadirachta indica A. Juss. and Zingiber officinale Rosc. extracts against Cowpea mild mottle virus infecting soybean. In: Arutanti O, Randy A, & Fitriadi MA (Eds.). Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Applied Chemistry. AIP Conf. Proc. 2019. pp. 020033-1–020033-8. Research Center for Chemistry Indonesian Institute of Sciences.

Andayanie WR & Ermawati N. 2019. Developmental effect of cashew nut shell extract against nymphal instar of silver leaf whitefly (Bemisia tabaci Genn.). The 2nd International Conference on Natural Resources and Life Science (NRLS). IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Enviromental Science 2019. 293: 012039. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/293/1/012039

Dong S, Jiang Y, Dong Y, Wang L, Wang W, Ma Z, Yan C, Ma C, & Liu L. 2019. A study on soybean responses to drought stress and rehydration. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 26(8): 2006–2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjbs.2019.08.005

Fathi A & Tari DB. 2016. Effect of drought stress and its mechanism in plants. Int. J. Life Sci. 10(1): 1–6.

Ghorbani MA, Shamshirband S, Haghi DZ, Azani A, Bonakdari H, & Ebtehaj I. 2017. Application of firefly algorithm-based support vector machines for prediction of field capacity and permanent wilting point. Soil Tillage Res. 172: 32–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2017.04.009

González R, Butkovi? A, Escaray FJ, Martínez-Latorre J, Melero Í, Pérez-Parets E, Gómez-Cadenas A, Carrasco P, & Elena SF. 2021. Plant virus evolution under strong drought conditions results in a transition from parasitism to mutualism. PNAS. 118(6): e2020990118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2020990118

Koenig R. 1981. Indirect ELISA methods for broad specificity detection of plant viruses. J. Gen. Virol. 55(1): 53–62. https://doi.org/10.1099/0022-1317-55-1-53

Liu F, Jensen CR, & Andersen MN. 2004. Drought stress effect on carbohydrate concentration in soybean leaves and pods during early reproductive development: its implication in altering pod set. Field Crops Res. 86(1): 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4290(03)00165-5

Li DH, Chen FJ, Li HY, Li W, & Guo JJ. 2018. The soybean GmRACK1 gene plays a role in drought tolerance at vegetative stages. Russ. J. Plant Physiol. 65: 541–552. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1021443718040155

Pour-Aboughadareh A, Mohammadi R, Etminan A, Shooshtari L, Maleki-Tabrizi N, & Poczai P. 2020. Effects of drought stress on some agronomic and morpho-physiological traits in durum wheat genotypes. Sustainability. 12(14): 5610. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145610

Sacita AS, June, T, & Impron. 2018. Soybean adaptation to water stress on vegetative and generative phases. Agrotech Journal. 3(2): 42–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.31327/atj.v3i2.843

Wijewardana C, Alsajri FA, Irby JT, Krutz LJ, Golden B, Henry WB, Gao W, & Reddy KR. 2019. Physiological assessment of water deficit in soybean using midday leaf water potential and spectral features. J. Plant Interact. 14(1): 533–543. https://doi.org/10.1080/17429145.2019.1662499

Xu P, Chen F, Mannas JP, Feldman T, Sumner LW, & Roossinck MJ. 2008. Virus infection improves drought tolerance. New Phytol. 180(4): 911–921. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2008.02627.x

Downloads

Published

2022-03-23
Read Counter : 95 times
PDF Download : 44 times