Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T05:07:12.874Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Identification of yield contributing traits and genotypes to drought tolerance in finger millet (Eleusine coracana L. Gaertn.)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2023

Y. A. Nanja Reddy*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Physiology, *All India Coordinated Small Millet Improvement Project, University of Agricultural Sciences, GKVK, Bengaluru 560065, India
*
Author for correspondence: Y. A. Nanja Reddy, E-mail: yanreddy61@gmail.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Screening of germplasm for specific traits is a continuous pre-breeding process in deriving the drought-tolerant donors required for crop improvement. The study evaluated 17 medium-late duration finger millet genotypes under drought stress (DS) for 28 days during the reproductive stage to identify the traits and genotypes for drought tolerance using different statistical analysis. The photosynthetic rate (by 26.3%), stomatal conductance (by 26.4%), transpiration rate (by 24.8%) and grain yield (by 13.2%) were decreased and found sensitive to DS, but the leaf temperature was increased (4.7%). From the path analysis and multiple linear regression analysis, the mean ear weight and productive tillers were found to contribute to the grain yield significantly under well-watered conditions. While under DS conditions, the mean ear weight, productive tillers and threshing percentage equally contributed to grain yield. Based on the ranking of traits significantly contributing to grain yield, the genotype GE-4683 with a higher mean ear weight (10.65 g) was found superior to the popular variety, GPU-28. The Multiple linear regression equation predicts the possibility to increase the yield of GPU-28 under DS from the existing 360.0 to 459.5 g per square metre (by 29.1%) by the incorporation of three productive tillers instead of the existing two tillers per plant in the MLR equation. An additional 1.0 g of mean ear weight will be able to predict an increased grain yield from 360.0 to 392.0 gm−2, equivalent to 3.60 to 3.92 t/ha (by 9.4%).

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of NIAB

Introduction

Amongst the abiotic stresses, water deficit stress during crop growth is one of the major constraints for crop productivity under rainfed conditions in arid and semi-arid regions (Zougmore, Reference Zougmore, Bationo, Ngaradoum, Youl, Lompo and Fening2018; Krishna et al., Reference Krishna, Nanja Reddy and Ravi Kumar2021). Besides, in the changing climate scenario, the frequency of drought episodes is increasing and expected to increase further in the semi-arid regions of India and Africa with an irregular distribution of rainfall and a lesser number of rainy days during the monsoon season (Dash et al., Reference Dash, Kulkarni, Mohanty and Prasad2009; Anon, 2019; Jalihal et al., Reference Jalihal, Srinivasan and Chakraborty2019). With climate change, finger millet yield reduction of 3.6% (2021–2050) in India is projected (Rao et al., Reference Rao, Raju, Josily, Rao, Kumar, Rao, Swapna, Samba Siva, Meghana, Prabhakar and Singh2022). For such a climate change scenario of water deficit environments, finger millet is relatively most suitable with the advantage of suitability for delayed sowings, poor soils, intercropping and maintaining the biodiversity of crops (Pande et al., Reference Pande, Datta and Haider2016).

Millets include pearl millet, foxtail millet, proso millet, finger millet, kodo millet, little millet, barnyard millet, tef and brown-top millet. Of these, finger millet constitutes 12% of the global millet area and is cultivated in more than 25 countries in Africa and India (http://exploreit.icrisat.org/profile/smallmillets/187; Vetriventhan et al., Reference Vetriventhan, Upadhyaya, Dwivedi, Pattanashetti, Singh, Mohar and Upadhyaya2016). In 2018, the global total millet area was 33.49 m ha with a production of 31.74 m t, and in India, it was 9.22 m ha and 11.63 m t (http://fao.org). In 2019–20, the area of finger millet in India was 0.959 million hectares, with a higher productivity (1390 kg ha−1) than the major rainfed crops, sorghum (998 kg ha−1) and pearl millet (1237 kg ha−1); thus, finger millet is a suitable crop for rainfed areas (http://www.indiaagristat.com). Additionally, the finger millet grain is superior in protein, calcium, iron and fibre with a lower glycemic index than wheat and rice (Chandrashekar, Reference Chandrashekar2010; Hiremath et al., Reference Hiremath, Geetha, Vikram, Nanja Reddy, Joshi and Shivaleela2018; Nanja Reddy et al., Reference Nanja Reddy, Lavanyabai, Prabhakar, Ramamurthy, Chame Gowda, Shankar and Gowda2019a).

Finger millet, a C4 NAD-ME species (Ueno et al., Reference Ueno, Kawano, Wakayama and Takeda2006), is known for its drought tolerance over rice, wheat and maize, and yields relatively better where other major crops fail to yield substantially (Tadele, Reference Tadele, Shanker and Shanker2016). It is cultivated as a rainfed crop in >90% of the finger millet area (Davis et al., Reference Davis, Chhtre, Rao, Singh and De Fries2019) with intermittent rain-free periods during crop growth, and the drought stress (DS) decreases the grain yield. For instance, in India, a 16.4% reduction in total finger millet production was observed in 2018–19 as compared to 2017–18, because the contribution of production from Karnataka towards Indian production was decreased during 2018–19 (http://www.indiaagristat.com). The reduction in grain yield (22.3%) in Karnataka during 2018–19 has coincided with rainy days of only 10 as compared to 25 rainy days in 2017–18 between flowering and grain filling stage (Anon, 2019). In this context, utilization of available genetic resources for drought adaptation could be one of the easiest approaches to develop new genotypes suitable for rain-fed areas (Bharathi et al., Reference Bharathi, Veerabadhira, Gowda and Upadhyaya2013). Among the different crop growth stages, the reproductive period is most sensitive to DS (Maqsood and Ali, Reference Maqsood and Ali2007). Therefore, the objective of this study was to examine the performance of elite germplasm lines under DS for 28 days (18 days prior to flowering up to 10 days after flowering) for the identification of important traits contributing to grain yield and better genotypes than the popular variety, GPU-28.

Material and methods

Management of the experimental site and crops

A field experiment was conducted at the Project Coordinating Unit, All India Coordinated Small Millet Improvement Project, University of Agricultural Sciences, GKVK, Bengaluru, situated at latitude 12°58¹ North, longitude 77°35¹ East at an altitude of 930 metres above the mean sea level. The experiment was laid out in a split-plot design with control (WW: well-watered) and DS as main treatments, using 17 medium-late duration genotypes (75 to 80 days to 50% flowering) as sub treatments in three replications, and the treatments were imposed on the 54th day after sowing, DAS). Each plot had 3 rows of 3.0 metres length each. Direct seed sowing was done at a spacing of 30 cm between rows and 10 cm between plants on 17 August 2009. Thinning was performed twice within 15 days after sowing (DAS) to maintain a single seedling per hill. The organic matter in the form of farm yard manure (7.5 tonnes per hectare) was incorporated into the soil 15 days prior to sowing. The recommended dose of 50:40:25 NPK (kg ha−1) in the form of urea, single super phosphate, and muriate of potash was applied in a split dose. Half of the recommended dose of nitrogen and a full dose of P and K were given as basal doses at the time of sowing, and the remaining 50% N in the form of urea was applied as top dressing at 40 DAS. Manual weeding was undertaken twice within 30 days of transplanting.

Treatment imposition

Up to 54 days after sowing, the crop was raised normally as per the recommended package of practices, with no differences between the treatments. The crop was raised with weekly protective irrigation to a field capacity of approximately 25% soil moisture to meet the average evaporation demands of 4–5 mm/day. Irrigation was stopped on one set of plots from 54th to 82nd day after sowing, and this was known as DS treatment. Another set of plots were continued with irrigation, and this was called the well-watered (WW) treatment. The DS period lasted from 18 days before flowering to 10 days after flowering, and there was no rain during this time.

Data gathering and analysis

At the time of 50% flowering, the leaf area and dry matter were recorded. Destructive sampling was done by harvesting five plants continuously in a 0.5-meter row length (MRL) to record the leaf area and dry matter. For leaf area determination, randomly selected 15 leaves in each replication were measured for length × width × 0.75 (factor for leaf shape) to arrive at the sample leaf area, and such leaves were oven-dried at 70°C till the constant dry weight was reached. Then, total leaf area per 0.5 MRL was computed (leaf area of sample/dry weight of leaf sample) × total leaf dry weight per 0.5 MRL. The leaves plus stem with emerging ear-heads from 0.5 MRL were dried to a constant dry weight for calculating the dry matter at flowering (DMF). The gas exchange parameters, namely photosynthetic rate (Pn), stomatal conductance (gs), transpiration (T) and internal CO2 concentration (Ci), were measured in three randomly selected plants using an IRGA (LiCor-6400) between 11.00 AM and 11.45 AM during the DS period (18 and 19 days after DS imposition) in the second or third matured leaf from the apex in each plant. At crop maturity, yield and yield parameters were measured from the net plot area leaving the border plants, and values were converted to 1.0 m2 area. The dataset was statistically analysed for ANOVA in split-plot design, and path-analysis using OPSTAT (Sheoran et al., Reference Sheoran, Tonk, Kaushik, Hasija and Pannu1998). Furthermore, using Microsoft Excel Toolpak, stepwise multiple linear regressions (MLR) was performed to identify significant traits contributing to grain yield. In stepwise regression, non-significant parameters were eliminated one by one to obtain the significant traits contributing to grain yield. Considering significant parameters, genotypes were ranked for their drought tolerance. The possible yield improvement of popular Cv. GPU-28 was calculated using the MLR equation by incorporating the values of productive tillers or mean ear weight of superior genotypes into the MLR equation.

Results

The effect of DS on dry matter accumulation during flowering

DS for 18–20 days prior to flowering, significantly reduced the leaf area index (LAI by 8.8%), leaf area duration (LAD by 8.57%), and dry matter production (DMF by 9.5%). The mean DMF/LAD (an indirect measure of net assimilation rate) was not affected by DS (Table 1; Fig. 1). However, significant genotypic differences were observed for LAI, DM/LAD and DMF (Table 1). The germplasm accession, GE-4995, had higher LAI (3.80 in WW and 3.79 in DS), and DMF (1150 gm−2 in WW and 1005 gm−2 in DS) than the popular variety GPU-28 (LAI of 2.65 in WW and 2.56 in DS; DMF of 561 gm−2 in WW and 571 gm−2 in DS). The LAI had a significant positive relationship with DMF (r = 0.774** in WW and 0.699** in DS, data not shown). The DMF/LAD also showed a positive relationship with DMF (r = 0.513*; 0.462ns in WW and DS, respectively, data not shown), emphasizing the importance of source size followed by net assimilation rates on biomass production at flowering in finger millet.

Fig. 1. Effect of drought stress on physiological parameters and yield attributing traits in finger millet Legend: St. cond., Stomatal conductance; Pn, Photosynthetic rate; T, Transpiration rate; Grain yd., Grain yield; DMF, Dry matter at flowering; MEW, Mean ear weight; LAI, Leaf area index; LAD, Leaf area duration; TDM, Total dry matter at harvest; FL, Finger length; HI, Harvest index; PT, Productive tillers; Straw wt., Straw weight; Thresh %, Threshing percentage; LT, Leaf temperature and Ci, Internal CO2 concentration.

Table 1. Effect of drought stress on leaf area index, leaf area duration, DM/LAD, biomass at flowering and photosynthetic parameters in finger millet genotypes

Note: T, Treatment; G, Genotype; G @ T, Genotype at given treatment; T@G, Treatment at a given genotype; WW, Well watered; DS, Drought stress; %Red., Per cent reduction under drought stress over the WW condition; SEm ± , Standard error of mean; CD, Critical difference at 5% level of significance; CV (%), Coefficient of variation; LAI, Leaf area index; LAD, Leaf area duration (days) from sowing to flowering; DMF, Dry at flowering; Pn, Photosynthetic rate (uM m−2s−1); gs, (Stomatal conductance, Mol m−2s−1); Ci, Internal Co2 Conc. (ppm); T, Transpiration rate(mmol, m−2s−1); LT, Leaf temperature (°C).

Effect of DS on gas exchange parameters

The gas exchange parameters, namely the photosynthetic rate (Pn), stomatal conductance (gs) and transpiration rate (T), were decreased significantly due to DS, whereas the internal CO2 concentration was increased due to DS conditions (Ci; Table 1; Fig. 1). The Pn was high in Cv. GPU-28 and none of the genotypes were significantly superior to GPU-28, although the stomatal conductance and transpiration rates were significantly higher in GE-303, GE-1034 and GE-4683. The Pn was positively and significantly related to stomatal conductance (r = 0.751** in WW and r = 0.822** in DS, data not shown) and transpiration rate (r = 0.751** in WW and r = 0.893** in DS, data not shown). The DS significantly decreased the photosynthetic rate (26.3%), stomatal conductance (26.4%) and transpiration (24.8%) (Fig. 1), and the least affected traits due to DS were threshing per cent (1.2%) and DMF/LAD (0.4%). The mean leaf temperature (LT) was increased significantly, due to DS by 4.7%. However, a few genotypes, namely, GE-303, GE-144, GE-1013 and GE-27, maintained lower leaf temperatures by <1.5°C compared to that of the popular variety, GPU-28 (Table 1).

The effect of DS on yield attributes and grain yield

The mean grain yield and finger length decreased significantly due to DS (Table 2). The other associated yield attributes did not decrease significantly due to DS, but the genotypes differed significantly due to DS conditions (Table 2). The mean grain yield was decreased by 13.2%, followed by mean ear weight (MEW), dry matter production and other yield-associated parameters.

Table 2. Effect of drought stress on yield attributing traits and grain yield in finger millet genotypes

Note: T, Treatment; G, Genotype; G @ T, Genotype at given treatment; T@G, Treatment at a given genotype; WW, Well watered; DS, Drought stress; %Red., Per cent reduction under drought stress over the WW condition, SEm ± , Standard error of mean; CD, Critical difference at 5% level of significance, CV (%): Coefficient of variation.

Selection of genotypes for drought tolerance

The path effects showed that the productive tillers (PT; 1.556 in WW and 1.648 in DS) and mean ear weight (MEW; 1.531 in WW and 1.680 in DS) had a very high positive direct effect on grain yield (Table 3; Lenka and Mishra, Reference Lenka and Mishra1973). Threshing per cent showed a moderate effect on grain yield under DS conditions. Among the physiological traits, the LAI and leaf temperature had a positive, moderate direct effect on grain yield. The DMF, Pn and T showed a direct negative effect on grain yield (Table 3). The LT had a significant negative correlation with the grain yield under DS (r = −0.556*, Table 3). Multiple linear regression (MLR) revealed that only productive tillers (52.9%) and mean ear weight (47.1%) contributed significantly to grain yield in the WW condition (Table 4). In DS, productive tillers (36.3%), mean ear weight (35.6%) and threshing per cent (33.2%) contributed equally and significantly to grain yield. In addition, the LAI contributed positively by 8.6%, but the transpiration (−5.2%) and DMF (−8.6%) negatively influenced the grain yield under DS conditions. Based on the mean ranking of traits contributing significantly to the grain yield, GE-4683, GE-144, GE-1013 and the other five genotypes were found to be better than GPU-28 under WW conditions, while only two genotypes (GE-4683 and GE-4995) were found superior to GPU-28 in DS conditions (Table 5).

Table 3. Direct and indirect effects of physiological and yield attributing traits on grain yield in finger millet under WW and DS conditions

Note: WW, Well watered; DS, drought stress; LAI, Leaf area index; DMF, Dry matter at flowering; Pn, Photosynthetic rate; T, transpiration rate; LT, Leaf temperature; Str., Straw weight; PT, Productive tillers/m2, Th%, Threshing per cent; MEW, Mean ear weight; GY, Grain yield and r, Pearson's correlation coefficient. Diagonal bold values are direct effects.

Table 4. Stepwise regression analysis by physiological and yield attributes towards grain yield in finger millet under WW and DS conditions

MLR, Multiple linear equation (stepwise backward elimination method); Res, Residual effect; P, Probability; r = Multiple linear correlation coefficient; Act. and Est. GY are actual and estimated grain yield by the regression equation (g m2); x, independent traits contributing to grain yield and values in parentheses are per cent contribution by respective traits to grain yield.

Table 5. Performance (ranking) of finger millet genotypes under WW and DS condition

WW, Well watered; DS, drought stress; GE, refers to Germplasm Entry maintained at AICRP (Small Millets), UAS, GKVK, Bangalore, Karnataka, India, Rank value: was computed considering traits contributed towards grain yield significantly as given in Table 4 including grain yield, % Change: provides better or poor ranking performance as compared to popular variety, GPU-28. Data in bold letters represents the check variety, GPU-28.

Discussion

Effect of DS on physiological traits and yield attributes

Finger millet is an important millet crop in the changing climate scenario both as drought resilient and nutraceuticular crop. Crop improvement in rainfed finger millet has been through selection per se for yield and blast resistance as in case of development of a blast resistant variety, GPU-28 (Krishne Gowda et al., Reference Krishne Gowda, Nagaraja, Gowda, Krishnappa and Bharathi2009). For further improvement, trait specific selection along with yield would be appropriate as compared to yield per se (Nanja Reddy et al., Reference Nanja Reddy, Gowda and Gowda2021). In this direction, genetic resources play a key role in improving crop productivity. The available finger millet germplasm (10,507 Numbers) in India (Ceasar et al., Reference Ceasar, Maharajan, Ajeesh Krishna, Ramakrishnan, Victor Roch, Satish and Ignacimuthu2018) can be exploited for the development of superior varieties suitable for rainfed conditions. Finger millet being a rainfed crop it is likely to experience DS stress during its crop growth stage reduce the grain yield (Kandel et al., Reference Kandel, Dhami and Shrestha2019; Krishna et al., Reference Krishna, Nanja Reddy and Ravi Kumar2021). Reduction in grain yield depends on genotype, crop growth stage and duration of DS. Identification of genotypes with superior drought adaptation as compared to popular variety could be highly useful for future breeding programmes. The grain yield is the product of above-ground biomass and harvest index, that are complex and computed traits. Therefore, in the present study, emphasis was laid on independent traits comprising of the source size, biomass accumulation at flowering, assimilation rates, gas exchange traits at flowering and yield attributing traits towards grain yield under DS conditions.

Dry matter accumulation in finger millet by the time of flowering (DMF) has been reported to influence the biomass at harvest and grain yield positively under rainfed conditions but not exactly under the DS conditions (Nanja Reddy et al., Reference Nanja Reddy, Jayarame Gowda, Ashok, Krishne Gowda and Gowda2019b). Probably, higher the DMF, higher the accumulation of carbohydrates and then remobilization of stored carbohydrates from the stem towards grain could be high (van Herwaarden et al., Reference Van Herwaarden, Angus, Richards and Farquhar1998 in case of wheat), and it was reported to contribute to grain yield increase of up to 40% under DS condition as compared to only 10% under normal conditions (Yang et al., Reference Yang, Zhang, Huang, Zhu and Wang2000; Inoue et al., Reference Inoue, Inanaga, Sugimoto and El Siddig2004 in case of wheat). However, in the present study, it was not proved, as the finger millet is a C 4 species that has a hard and thick stem unlike the wheat or rice, C 3 species. Therefore, it is difficult to conclude the importance of DMF on grain yield in finger millet, and further studies are required in this context.

The decreased DMF due to DS (Fig. 1) was associated with significant decrease in source size (LAI). A similar reduction in leaf area due to DS has been reported (Krishna et al., Reference Krishna, Nanja Reddy and Ravi Kumar2021) and it could be a drought adaptation strategy to reduce the water loss under DS conditions. Such a reduction in source size due to DS could be due to decreased leaf expansion associated with lower water potential and subsequent reduction in cell division and cell expansion under rainfed drought situations (Shao et al., Reference Shao, Chu, Jaleel and Zhao2008; Farooq et al., Reference Farooq, Wahid, Kobayashi, Fujita and Barsa2009). Therefore, the reduced leaf area with higher leaf thickness would be appropriate strategy for a rainfed variety, instead of large leaf area (Sastry et al., Reference Sastry, Udayakumar and Vishwanath1982). The mean DM/LAD (net assimilation rate) was not affected by DS for 18 days (Table 1), as finger millet being a C 4 species maintain a higher carbon exchange rates (Uma, Reference Uma1987).

With respect to gas exchange traits, the photosynthetic rate (Pn) by leaf has been reported to have a positive influence on the grain yield of finger millet (Subramanyam, Reference Subramanyam2000; Nanja Reddy, Reference Nanja Reddy2020), in addition, the ear photosynthesis also contributes to yield up to 40% (Tieszen and Imamba, Reference Tieszen and Imbamba1978; Sashidhar et al., Reference Sashidhar, Prasad, Seetharam, Udaykumar and Sastry1984). The reduction in Pn under DS was due to decreased stomatal conductance and transpiration rate (Fig. 1; Mohanabharathi et al., Reference Mohanabharathi, Sritharan, Senthil and Ravikesavan2019; Nanja Reddy et al., Reference Nanja Reddy, Jayarame Gowda, Ashok and Krishne Gowda2020). The increased internal CO2 concentration (Ci) under DS condition could be due to decreased carboxylation, and hence CO2 got accumulated in mesophyll cells (Table 2; Maai et al., Reference Maai, Nishimura, Takisawa and Nakazaki2020). Although the Pn was sensitive to DS, it did not reflect on the biomass or grain yield (Table 3; Inoue et al., Reference Inoue, Inanaga, Sugimoto and El Siddig2004) suggesting that a DS for 18 to 20 days during the rainy season is not a constraint in finger millet.

Leaf temperature (LT) under DS has been recognized as an indicator of plant water status (Hirayama et al., Reference Hirayama, Wada and Nemoto2006). The increase in LT could go up to 5°C depending on the sensitivity of genotype (Ramya and Nanja Reddy, Reference Ramya and Nanja Reddy2018; Mohanabharathi et al., Reference Mohanabharathi, Sritharan, Senthil and Ravikesavan2019; Krishna et al., Reference Krishna, Nanja Reddy and Ravi Kumar2021). Higher leaf temperature affects the metabolic activity of the plant and therefore plant develops a strategy for increasing transpiration rate to lower the leaf temperature, which could be possible by higher water uptake through a deeper root system. In the present study, a significant increase in leaf temperature from 25.7 to 26.8°C by DS (Fig. 1), had a significant negative relationship with grain yield (r = −0.556**; Table 3; Ramya and Nanja Reddy, Reference Ramya and Nanja Reddy2018). Therefore, LT can serve as selection criterion for drought tolerance.

Cumulative effects of all physiological processes would determine the yield attributes and yield. Finger millet is a rainfed crop and the DS during critical crop growth stages, especially the reproductive phase reduces the grain yield considerably (Talwar et al., Reference Talwar, Shiwesh Kumar, Madhusudhana, Ganapathy, Swarna and Tonapi2020; Krishna et al., Reference Krishna, Nanja Reddy and Ravi Kumar2021). For instance, DS from 40 DAS till harvest in black soils decreased the yield to the up to 45% (Talwar et al., Reference Talwar, Shiwesh Kumar, Madhusudhana, Ganapathy, Swarna and Tonapi2020) due to a reduction in total biomass and harvest index. A reduction in grain yield by 36.1% was reported when DS was imposed from 35 to 42 DAS at a vegetative period in pot culture due to reduction in ear length and mean ear weight (Mohanabharathi et al., Reference Mohanabharathi, Sritharan, Senthil and Ravikesavan2019). Under field condition, 15 to 20 days of DS (with 3.5 to 4.5 mm PET per day) is not a significant limitation for grain yield (Nanja Reddy et al., Reference Nanja Reddy, Jayarame Gowda, Ashok and Krishne Gowda2020), in the present study, only 13.2% reduction in grain yield was observed with DS for 28 days during reproductive phase in the rainy season. The lower effect of DS in finger millet could be due to (1) under field condition, it takes 15 to 16 days to reach a 50% field capacity (Krishna and Nanja Reddy, Reference Krishna and Nanja Reddy2021), and the remaining 12 days of actual stress during flowering might not be a threshold duration for reducing the yield in the present study and (2) it could be due to higher recovery after stress alleviation. However, if the DS duration is longer (40 days) during the reproductive period under field condition, the tolerant genotypes show lesser yield reduction (14.5%) as compared to sensitive genotypes (44.8%; Suma, Reference Suma2014). These results suggest that although finger millet is a drought-resilient crop, DS decreases the grain yield depending on duration of the DS and; identification of drought tolerant lines could be a continuous process in crop improvement.

Selection of genotypes for drought tolerance

The reduction in grain yield due to DS (13.2%) was higher as compared to other yield attributing traits. Based on the path analysis and MLR, the most important yield contributing traits were productive tiller number per plant and mean ear weight under WW condition. While under DS condition, productive tillers, mean ear weight and threshing percentage were equally contributed to grain yield (Table 4; Nanja Reddy et al., Reference Nanja Reddy, Gowda and Gowda2021). The DS might affect the productive tiller by immature ear formation with poor grain filling (Ashok et al., Reference Ashok, Senthil, Sritharan, Punitha, Divya and Ravikesavan2018) and the reduction in mean ear weight could be due to decrease in finger number and finger length (Mohanabharathi et al., Reference Mohanabharathi, Sritharan, Senthil and Ravikesavan2019; Krishna et al., Reference Krishna, Nanja Reddy and Ravi Kumar2021). The productive tillers, mean ear weight and threshing percentage found to contribute significantly towards grain yield (by MLR) under DS conditions (Table 4). Under DS, the LAI was also found contributing trait towards grain yield. Considering these traits GE-4683 was found to be significantly superior to the popular cultivated variety, GPU-28. The Cv. GPU-28 was shown to adapt better to rainfed conditions with 2 to 3 dry spells of 10 to 15 days each (Srinivasa Reddy et al., Reference Srinivasa Reddy, Dixit, Loganandhan, Gowda, Sheeba, Mallikarjuna and Anitha2017). Future emphasis should be laid to increase the productive tillers or mean ear weight but care should be taken as these two parameters compensates with one another (Mujahid et al., Reference Mujahid Anjum, Nanja Reddy and Sheshshayee2020). The MLR predicts that, under DS condition, keeping all other traits constant, increase in the productive tiller number from 2 to 3 per plant has the potential to increase the grain yield of GPU-28 from 360.0 to 459.5 gm−2 (29.1%, 3.6 to 4.59 t/ha). With 1.0 g extra mean ear weight, the grain yield was estimated to increase from 360 to 392 gm−2 (9.4%, 3.60 to 3.92 t/ha). The management practices can be effective in manipulating the productive tillers, but the finger size is relatively genotype-dependent. Hence the better way of selection for higher grain yield under DS could be through the mean ear weight.

Conclusions

Although absolute grain yield under DS could be used as one of the important parameters in the identification of drought-tolerant lines, additional physiological traits would aid in precision and confirmative selection of stable genotypes. The root parameters were known to be important in drought adaptation, but the root growth will be almost ceased by the flowering time. Hence, the above ground parameters like gas exchange rates and yield attributes namely, productive tillers, mean ear weight and threshing percentage are important in determining the drought tolerance during the reproductive period. Finger millet has higher recovery after natural stress alleviation and it can sustain 2 to 3 dry spells of 10 to 15 days each with a minimal reduction in grain yield. Hence, finger millet is a relatively a drought adaptive and climate-resilient crop suitable to rainfed situations. However, crop improvement should be a continuous process as the frequencies of DS are increasing with changing climate for which identification of donor lines could be a continuum.

Acknowledgments

I hereby thank Dr P.S. Jagadish, Mr. E.G. Ashok, Dr Jayarame Gowda, Dr A. Nagaraja, Dr M. Krishnappa and Dr K.T. Krishne Gowda, AICSMIP, UAS, GKVK for their support in scientific interactions during the conduct of the experiment.

Author contribution

YANR formulated and conducted the experiment and; wrote the manuscript.

Financial support

Internal resources.

Conflict of interests

No conflict of interests regarding this publication.

Data

Transparent.

References

Ashok, S, Senthil, A, Sritharan, N, Punitha, S, Divya, K and Ravikesavan, R (2018) Yield potential of small millets under drought condition. Madras Agricultural Journal 105, 370372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bharathi, A, Veerabadhira, P, Gowda, CLL and Upadhyaya, HD (2013) Genetic variability and correlation analysis in global composite collection of finger millet (Eleusine coracana (L.) Gaertn). Madras Agriculture Journal 100, 277279.Google Scholar
Ceasar, SA, Maharajan, T, Ajeesh Krishna, TP, Ramakrishnan, M, Victor Roch, G, Satish, L and Ignacimuthu, S (2018) Finger millet [Eleusine coracana (L.) Gaertn.] improvement: Current status and future interventions of whole genome sequence. Frontiers in Plant Science 9, 116.Google Scholar
Chandrashekar, A (2010) Finger millet (Eleusine coracana). Advances in Food Nutrition Research 59, 215262.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dash, SK, Kulkarni, MA, Mohanty, UC and Prasad, K (2009) Changes in the characteristics of rain events in India. Journal of Geophysics Research 114, D10109: 1-12. doi:10.1029/2008JD010572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, KF, Chhtre, A, Rao, ND, Singh, D and De Fries, R (2019) Sensitivity of grain yields to historical climate variability in India. Environmental Research Letters 14, 064013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farooq, M, Wahid, A, Kobayashi, N, Fujita, D and Barsa, SMA (2009) Plant drought stress: effects, mechanisms and management. Agronomy Sustainable Development 29, 185212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirayama, M, Wada, Y and Nemoto, H (2006) Estimation of drought tolerance based on leaf temperature in upland rice breeding. Breeding Science 56, 4754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiremath, N, Geetha, K, Vikram, SR, Nanja Reddy, YA, Joshi, N and Shivaleela, HB (2018) Minerals content in finger millet [Eleusine coracana (L.) Gaertn.]: a future grain for nutritional security. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences 7, 34483455. Available at http://exploreit.icrisat.org/profile/smallmillets/187. http://fao.org/faostat/en#data/QCvisualize. http://www.indiaagristat.com/table/agriculture/sown-area-under-various-kharif-crops-india-2019–20/1373263.Google Scholar
Inoue, T, Inanaga, S, Sugimoto, Y and El Siddig, K (2004) Contribution of pre-anthesis assimilates and current photosynthesis to grain yield, and their relationships to drought resistance in wheat cultivars grown under different soil moisture. Photosynthetica 42, 99104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jalihal, C, Srinivasan, J and Chakraborty, A (2019) Modulation of Indian monsoon by water vapor and cloud feedback over the past 22,000 years. Available at https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-13754-6 www.nature.com/naturecommunications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kandel, M, Dhami, NB and Shrestha, J (2019) Phenotypic diversity of finger millet (Eleusine coracana (L.) Gaertn.) genotypes. Malaysian Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 3, 2026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krishna, SS and Nanja Reddy, YA (2021) Root growth pattern in finger millet under well-watered and drought stress condition: its relation to shoot mass production. Plant Physiology Reports 26, 393401. doi: 10.1007/s40502-021-00592-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krishna, SS, Nanja Reddy, YA and Ravi Kumar, RL (2021) Assessment of traits for grain yield under drought in finger millet. Plant Physiology Reports 26, 8494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krishne Gowda, KT, Nagaraja, A, Gowda, J, Krishnappa, M and Bharathi, S (2009) A success story of GPU-28- blast resistant, high yielding, popular variety of finger millet. PC Unit, AICSMIP, ICAR, UAS, GKVK, Bengaluru – 560065.Google Scholar
Lenka, D and Mishra, B (1973) Path coefficient analysis of yield in rice varieties. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 43, 376379.Google Scholar
Maai, E, Nishimura, K, Takisawa, R and Nakazaki, T (2020) Diurnal changes in chloroplast positioning and photosynthetic traits of C4 grass finger millet. Plant Production Science 4, 447489. doi: 10.1080/1343943X.2020.1758171.Google Scholar
Maqsood, M and Ali, ANA (2007) Effects of drought on growth, development, radiation use efficiency and yield of finger millet (Eleusine coracana). Pakistan Journal of Botany 39, 123134.Google Scholar
Mohanabharathi, M, Sritharan, N, Senthil, A and Ravikesavan, R (2019) Physiological studies for yield enhancement in finger millet under drought condition. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry 8, 33083312.Google Scholar
Mujahid Anjum, M, Nanja Reddy, YA and Sheshshayee, MS (2020) Optimum LAI for yield maximization of finger millet under irrigated conditions. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences 9, 15351547.Google Scholar
Nanja Reddy, YA (2020) Studies on photosynthetic rate, anatomical characters, and grain yield in finger millet genotypes. Current Journal of Applied Science and Technology 39, 3139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nanja Reddy, YA, Lavanyabai, T, Prabhakar, , Ramamurthy, V, Chame Gowda, TC, Shankar, AG and Gowda, MVC (2019a) Bench mark values for grain iron content in finger millet (Eleusine coracana (L.) Gaertn.). International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences 8, 502506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nanja Reddy, YA, Jayarame Gowda, , Ashok, EG, Krishne Gowda, KT and Gowda, MVC (2019b) Higher leaf area improves the productivity of finger millet (Eleusine coracana (L.) Gaertn.) under rainfed conditions. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences 8, 13691377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nanja Reddy, YA, Jayarame Gowda, , Ashok, EG and Krishne Gowda, KT (2020) Effect of moderate drought stress on photosynthetic rate and grain yield in finger millet genotypes. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences 9, 29512959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nanja Reddy, YA, Gowda, J and Gowda, KTK (2021) Approaches for enhancing grain yield of finger millet (Eleusine coracana). Plant Genetic Resources: Characterization and Utilization 19(3), 229237. doi: 10.1017/S1479262121000265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pande, A, Datta, S and Haider, ZA (2016) Endophytes of finger millet (Eleusine coracana L. Gaertn.). Indian Journal of Ecology 43, 665674.Google Scholar
Ramya, V and Nanja Reddy, A (2018) Leaf temperature: a screening trait for drought tolerance in finger millet. Mysore Journal Agricultural Sciences 52, 529535.Google Scholar
Rao, CAR, Raju, BMK, Josily, S, Rao, AVMS, Kumar, RN, Rao, MS, Swapna, N, Samba Siva, G, Meghana, YL, Prabhakar, M and Singh, VK (2022) Impact of climate change on productivity of food crops: a subnational level assessment for India. Environmental Research Communications 4, 095001.Google Scholar
Sashidhar, VR, Prasad, TG, Seetharam, A, Udaykumar, M and Sastry, KSK (1984) Ear photosynthesis in long glumed and normal glumed genotypes of finger millet (Eleusine coracana Gaertn.). Indian Journal of Plant Physiology 27, 104107.Google Scholar
Sastry, KSK, Udayakumar, M and Vishwanath, HR (1982) Desirable plant characteristics in genotypes of finger millet (Eleusine coracana (L.) Gaertn.) for rainfed conditions. Indian National Science Academy 48, 264270.Google Scholar
Shao, H, Chu, L, Jaleel, CA and Zhao, C (2008) Water-deficit stress-induced anatomical changes in higher plants. Comptes Rendus Biologies 331, 215225.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sheoran, OP, Tonk, DS, Kaushik, LS, Hasija, RC and Pannu, RS (1998) Statistical software package for agricultural research workers. Recent advances in information theory, statistics and computer applications. Department of Mathematics and Statistics, CCS HAU, Hisar, pp. 139143.Google Scholar
Srinivasa Reddy, DV, Dixit, S, Loganandhan, N, Gowda, M, Sheeba, S, Mallikarjuna, BO and Anitha, M (2017) Short and medium duration varieties of cereals and millets to mitigate monsoon vagaries in rainfed agriculture. Indian Journal of Ecology 44, 292297.Google Scholar
Subramanyam, D (2000) Genotypic variability in photosynthetic characters in finger millet. Photosynthetica 38, 105109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suma, LS (2014) Characterization of selected germplasm accessions for drought tolerance in finger millet (Eleusine coracana) (M.Sc. (Agri.) Thesis). University of Agricultural Sciences, Bengaluru.Google Scholar
Tadele, Z (2016) Drougzht adaptation in millets. In Shanker, AK and Shanker, C (eds), Abiotic and Biotic Stress in Plants—Recent Advances and Future Perspectives. London, UK: IntechOpen. pp. 640662.Google Scholar
Talwar, HS, Shiwesh Kumar, B, Madhusudhana, R, Ganapathy, KN, Swarna, R and Tonapi, VA (2020) Variations in drought tolerance components and their association with yield components in finger millet (Eleusine coracana). Functional Plant Biology 47, 659674.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tieszen, LL and Imbamba, SK (1978) Gas exchange of finger millet inflorescences. Crop Science 18, 495498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ueno, O, Kawano, Y, Wakayama, M and Takeda, T (2006) Leaf vascular systems in C3 and C4 grasses: a two-dimensional analysis. Annals of Botany 97, 611621.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Uma, MS (1987) Transpiration quotient and water use efficiency in different C3 and C4 species and its relationship with biomass and productivity under moisture stress conditions (MSc (Agri) thesis), Department of Crop Physiology, University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore, India.Google Scholar
Van Herwaarden, A, Angus, JF, Richards, RA and Farquhar, GD (1998) ‘Haying-off’, the negative grain yield response of dryland wheat to nitrogen fertiliser. II. Carbohydrate and protein dynamics. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 49, 10831093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vetriventhan, M, Upadhyaya, HD, Dwivedi, SL, Pattanashetti, SK and Singh, SK (2016) Finger and foxtail millets. In Mohar, S and Upadhyaya, HD (eds), Genetic and Genomic Resources for Grain Cereals Improvement. USA: Academic Press, Elsevier. pp. 291319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, J, Zhang, J, Huang, Z, Zhu, Q and Wang, L (2000) Remobilization of carbon reserves is improved by controlled soil drying during grain filling of wheat. Crop Science 40, 16451655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zougmore, R (2018) Promoting climate-smart agriculture through water and nutrient interactions options in semi-arid West Africa: a review of evidence and empirical analysis. In Bationo, A, Ngaradoum, D, Youl, S, Lompo, F and Fening, J (eds), Improving the Profitability, Sustainability and Efficiency of Nutrients Through Site Specific Fertilizer Recommendations in West Africa Agro- Ecosystems. Springer, pp. 249263. ISBN 978-3-319-58792-9Google Scholar
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Effect of drought stress on physiological parameters and yield attributing traits in finger millet Legend: St. cond., Stomatal conductance; Pn, Photosynthetic rate; T, Transpiration rate; Grain yd., Grain yield; DMF, Dry matter at flowering; MEW, Mean ear weight; LAI, Leaf area index; LAD, Leaf area duration; TDM, Total dry matter at harvest; FL, Finger length; HI, Harvest index; PT, Productive tillers; Straw wt., Straw weight; Thresh %, Threshing percentage; LT, Leaf temperature and Ci, Internal CO2 concentration.

Figure 1

Table 1. Effect of drought stress on leaf area index, leaf area duration, DM/LAD, biomass at flowering and photosynthetic parameters in finger millet genotypes

Figure 2

Table 2. Effect of drought stress on yield attributing traits and grain yield in finger millet genotypes

Figure 3

Table 3. Direct and indirect effects of physiological and yield attributing traits on grain yield in finger millet under WW and DS conditions

Figure 4

Table 4. Stepwise regression analysis by physiological and yield attributes towards grain yield in finger millet under WW and DS conditions

Figure 5

Table 5. Performance (ranking) of finger millet genotypes under WW and DS condition