The study, consisting of two independent experiments, was conducted to evaluate the role of seed priming with ascorbic acid (AsA) in drought resistance of wheat. In the first experiment, seeds of wheat cultivars Mairaj‐2008 and Lasani‐2008 were either soaked in aerated water (hydropriming) for 10 h or not soaked (control). In the second experiment, seeds of same wheat cultivars were soaked in aerated (2 mm) AsA solution (osmopriming) or water (hydropriming) for 10 h. In both experiments, seeds were sown in plastic pots (10 kg) maintained at 70 % and 35 % of water‐holding capacity designated as well watered and drought stressed, respectively. Both experiments were laid out in a completely randomized design with six replications. Drought caused delayed and erratic emergence and disturbed the plant water relations, chlorophyll contents and membranes because of oxidative damage; however, root length in cultivar Lasani‐2008 was increased under drought. Hydropriming significantly improved the seedling emergence and early growth under drought and well‐watered conditions; however, improvement was substantially higher from osmopriming with AsA. Similarly, osmopriming with AsA significantly improved the leaf emergence and elongation, leaf area, specific leaf area, chlorophyll contents, root length and seedling dry weight. Owing to increase in proline accumulation, phenolics and AsA, by seed priming with AsA, plant water status was improved with simultaneous decrease in oxidative damages. These improved the leaf emergence and elongation, and shoot and root growth under drought. However, there was no difference between the cultivars in this regard. In conclusion, osmopriming with AsA improved the drought resistance of wheat owing to proline accumulation and antioxidant action of AsA and phenolics, leading to tissue water maintenance, membrane stability, and better and uniform seedling stand and growth.
Worldwide rice productivity is being threatened by increased endeavours of drought stress. Among the visible symptoms of drought stress, hampered water relations and disrupted cellular membrane functions are the most important. Exogenous use of polyamines (PAs), salicylic acid (SA), brassinosteroids (BRs), glycinebetaine (GB) and nitrous oxide (NO) can induce abiotic stresses tolerance in many crops. In this time course study, we appraised the comparative role of all these substances to improve the drought tolerance in rice (Oryza sativa L.) cultivar Super‐Basmati. Plants were subjected to drought stress at four leaf stage (4 weeks after emergence) by maintaining soil moisture at 50 % of field capacity. Pre‐optimized concentrations of GB (150 mg l−1), SA (100 mg l−1), NO (100 μmol l−1 sodium nitroprusside as NO donor), BR (0.01 μm 24‐epibrassinolide) and spermine (Spm; 10 μm) were foliar sprayed at five‐leaf stage (5 weeks after emergence). There were two controls both receiving no foliar spray, viz. well watered (CK1) and drought stressed (CK2). There was substantial reduction in allometric response of rice, gas exchange and water relation attributes by drought stress. While drought stress enhanced the H2O2, malondialdehyde (MDA) and relative membrane permeability, foliar spray of all the chemicals improved growth possibly because of the improved carbon assimilation, enhanced synthesis of metabolites and maintenance of tissue water status. Simultaneous reduction in H2O2 and MDA production was also noted in the plants treated with these substances. Drought tolerance was sturdily associated with the greater tissue water potential, increased synthesis of metabolites and enhanced capacity of antioxidant system. Of all the chemicals, foliar spray with Spm was the most effective followed by BR.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.