How heat tolerant are our wheats?
How heat tolerant are our wheats?
Take home message
Many Australian wheat cultivars are heat tolerant. However, new materials developed from extensive diversity using field-based phenotyping and genomic selection show that the heat tolerance of Australian wheat can be significantly improved.
Aim
The work was conducted to improve the heat tolerance of Australian wheat. The research aimed to develop heat tolerant wheat germplasm, protocols for high-throughput field-based screening and molecular tools to assist commercial wheat breeders.
Introduction
Periods of extreme high-temperature, particularly short periods of heat shock, are a major threat to wheat yield and grain quality throughout much of the Australian wheat belt. Current projections of Australian climate change indicate that heat waves and temperature variability will become more frequent and more intense in the coming decades (CSIRO 2011, Climate Change in Australia. http://climatechangeinaustralia.com.au). It is vital that new wheat germplasm with improved high-temperature tolerance and molecular tags linked to this tolerance are developed and introduced into commercial breeding programs.
Genomic selection is a breeding method that requires a reference population of wheat lines that are phenotyped for the trait of interest and genotyped using many DNA markers distributed across the whole genome. Statistical methods are then used to estimate the effect of each DNA marker on the phenotype; the collection of all these DNA marker effects provides a prediction of genomic breeding value. This information can then be used to predict new plants that are only genotyped and do not have a phenotype. This allows early selection of plants/lines without phenotyping which decreases the breeding cycle leading to increased genetic gain.
What did we do?
A highly diverse set of agronomically adapted materials were assembled for phenotyping. These included thousands of new lines developed by the University of Sydney, including crosses with synthetic wheat, emmer wheat collected in warm areas, landraces, adapted germplasm with putative tolerance identified in hot wheat growing areas globally and Australian wheat cultivars and other sources of heat tolerance developed by others.
These materials were phenotyped for various traits including yield using a three-tiered strategy. Firstly, thousands of lines were evaluated in the field in replicated yield plots at Narrabri in northwestern NSW at different time of sowing. Later sown materials were exposed to greater heat stress. Subsets of materials, based on performance in the previous year and estimated genetic values, were sown at sites in Western Australia (Merredin and Cadoux) and Victoria (Horsham) at 2-3 times of sowing to assess the transferability of traits. Each year, high performing lines were retained from the previous year, intolerant materials removed, and new materials added. Materials identified as heat tolerant in times of sowing experiments were subsequently evaluated in the field using heat chambers set at 4˚C above the ambient temperature to induce heat shock during reproductive development and grain filling to confirm heat tolerance. Finally, those lines that maintained heat tolerance in the heat chambers were screened in temperature-controlled greenhouses to assess pollen viability under heat stress. Materials surviving all three stages of testing were considered highly heat tolerant.
All materials (>6,000 lines) phenotyped in time of sowing experiments were genotyped using a 90K SNP platform and these formed the reference population for genomic selection from which all DNA marker effects were estimated. A prediction equation was developed and used to calculate genomic estimated breeding values (GEBVs) on selection candidates which were genotyped but not phenotyped. A genomic selection model that incorporated environmental covariates (e.g. temperature, radiation, rainfall) directly was developed and improved. This allowed the prediction of line performance under high temperature conditions. Environmental covariates were defined for each plot and growth development phase (vegetative, flowering, and grain fill). An in-field validation of GEBV selected lines was then conducted by correlating GEBVs with field trial phenotypes. Various cycles of crosses were made among diverse lines with high GEBVs and progeny subsequently selected for high GEBV. These formed the basis of our new elite heat tolerant materials.
What did we find?
Extensive field-based phenotyping over a 6-year period identified lines with superior adaptation to terminal heat stress. Many of the superior materials had high yield under heat stress, low percentage screenings and high kernel weights. However, stay-green was not an advantage and only an intermediate level of glaucousness was linked to higher yield under stress (Tables 1 and 2). (Glaucous leaves are covered with a grey/blue or whiteish waxy coating that is easily rubbed off). Materials with a wide range of GEBVs were identified and recombined in crosses to produce new heat tolerant lines with higher heat tolerance than current cultivars (Figure 1). The prediction accuracy of genomic selection using models trained at Narrabri was assessed in other environments around Australia (Table 3). The predictions were moderate indicating that phenotyping in Narrabri was relevant nationally.
Table 1. Influence of stay-green on yield in early and late sowing (576 genotypes) at Narrabri
Time of sowing | Non-stay green | Stay-green | Probability |
---|---|---|---|
Main season | 5.585 a | 5.501 b | P<0.01 |
Late | 4.808 a | 4.657 b | P<0.001 |
Numbers of lines | 429 | 149 |
Means in rows followed by different letters are significantly different at the probability indicated
Table 2. Impact of Glaucousness on yield at early and late sowing (576 genotypes) at Narrabri
Glaucousness | |||
---|---|---|---|
Time of sowing | Low | Medium | High |
Main season | 5.683 a | 5.556 b | 5.560 b |
Late | 4.756 b | 4.804 a | 4.694 b |
Numbers of lines | 71 | 431 | 74 |
Means in rows followed by different letters are significantly different at P<0.05
Figure 1. Genomic estimated breeding values (GEBVs) for yield of a subset of the most heat tolerant breeding lines and Australian cultivars (approx. 7,000 genotypes). Main season and late sowing (For PBR status of varieties in graph please refer to Table 5)
The heat tolerance of lines selected from time of sowing experiments in the field was subsequently confirmed using field-based heat chambers. Both night and daytime temperatures were observed to reduce yield, increase screenings and reduce kernel weights (Table 4).
Table 3. Prediction accuracy of materials trained in Narrabri (2017 – 2020) and validated at Cadoux (WA), Horsham (VIC) and Merredin (WA) for grain yield
Environment | Early sowing | Late sowing |
---|---|---|
Cadoux 2017 | 0.31 | 0.17 |
Horsham 2017 | 0.47 | 0.59 |
Horsham 2018 | 0.40 | 0.38 |
Horsham 2019 | 0.22 | 0.14 |
Merredin 2018 | 0.50 | 0.26 |
Merredin 2019 | 0.36 | 0.13 |
Merredin 2020 | 0.38 | 0.20 |
Note: accuracy determined as the correlation between GEBV and yield (environmental covariates not included)
Table 4. Impact of day/night temperature (heat chambers; 20 genotypes)
| Yield (kg/ha) | % Screenings | 1000 grain weight (g) |
---|---|---|---|
Heat chamber (day, anthesis) | 2925 a | 3.423 b | 38.74 a |
No chamber (day, anthesis) | 3363 b | 2.369 c | 41.75 b |
Heat chamber (night, grain fill) | 2894 a | 4.134 a | 39.21 a |
No chamber (night, grain fill) | 3275 b | 3.034 b | 41.28 b |
Means in columns followed by different letters are significantly different
Lines that performed well in field-based heat chambers were then tested in the greenhouse and those lines with poorer pollen viability under high-temperature (35˚C/22˚C, day/night) and elevated CO2 (800 ppm) tended to have reduced seed set and lower yield (Figure 2). Control conditions were maintained at 22˚C/15˚C and 400 ppm CO2.
Figure 2. Relationship between pollen viability and grain yield at high CO2
Based on extensive testing in time of sowing experiments, using field-based heat chambers and under controlled glasshouse conditions, the Australian cultivars evaluated between 2016-2020 were rated for heat tolerance (Table 5). Different varieties arrive at heat tolerance in different ways, with some yielding well in the field but more susceptible to high temperature during pollen formation. The rating in Table 4 is indicative only and based on a number of different observations.
The varieties for which we have detailed knowledge of both their genetics (genotype) and behaviour in a range of environments (phenotype) have enabled us to link the field impact and plant behaviour with parts of the genome that code for specific traits. The process used to do this is called genome wide association analysis. This process has been used to identify a number of meta quantitative trait loci (meta-QTL’s) or locations on the genome that express as traits with varying levels of expression in different environments. This knowledge will assist wheat breeders to recombine this new diversity into new cultivars for all regions of Australia.
Table 5. Heat tolerance rating of Australian cultivars
Name | Field yield | Chamber yield | Thousand grain weight | Screenings | Pollen viability | Heat tolerance rating |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MACE | HIGH | HIGH | HIGH | MODERATE | MODERATE | T |
MUSTANG | HIGH | HIGH | MODERATE | LOW | MODERATE | T |
DART | HIGH | MODERATE | MODERATE | LOW | MODERATE | T |
SCOUT | HIGH | MODERATE | HIGH | MODERATE | HIGH | T |
SUNCHASER | HIGH | HIGH | LOW | LOW | MODERATE | T |
BORLAUG 100 | HIGH | HIGH | MODERATE | MT | ||
SCEPTER | HIGH | LOW | HIGH | MODERATE | MODERATE | MT |
VIXEN | HIGH | LOW | HIGH | HIGH | HIGH | MT |
CONDO | MODERATE | MODERATE | HIGH | LOW | HIGH | MT |
FLANKER | MODERATE | MODERATE | MODERATE | MODERATE | HIGH | MT |
LANCER | LOW | MODERATE | MODERATE | LOW | MODERATE | MT* |
HELLFIRE | HIGH | HIGH | HIGH | M | ||
RELIANT | HIGH | HIGH | MODERATE | M | ||
EMU ROCK | HIGH | LOW | HIGH | MODERATE | LOW | M |
SUNTOP | HIGH | LOW | MODERATE | MODERATE | MODERATE | M |
COOLAH | HIGH | MODERATE | LOW | MODERATE | LOW | M |
SUNTIME | MODERATE | MODERATE | HIGH | MODERATE | MODERATE | M |
CUTLASS | MODERATE | LOW | MODERATE | LOW | HIGH | M |
EGA GREGORY | MODERATE | HIGH | MODERATE | M | ||
LIVINGSTON | MODERATE | MODERATE | LOW | M | ||
MITCH | MODERATE | HIGH | MODERATE | M | ||
SPITFIRE | MODERATE | MODERATE | MODERATE | M | ||
SUNMATE | MODERATE | MODERATE | LOW | M | ||
SUNVALE | MODERATE | LOW | LOW | M | ||
BECKOM | MODERATE | LOW | LOW | M | ||
WYALKATCHEM | MODERATE | MODERATE | MODERATE | M | ||
PHANTOM | MODERATE | HIGH | LOW | HIGH | MODERATE | M |
VIKING | HIGH | LOW | LOW | LOW | MODERATE | MS |
SUNPRIME | MODERATE | LOW | MODERATE | MODERATE | LOW | MS |
SUNMAX | LOW | LOW | MODERATE | MODERATE | HIGH | MS* |
BUCHANAN | MODERATE | LOW | HIGH | S | ||
LINCOLN | MODERATE | HIGH | HIGH | S | ||
SUNZELL | MODERATE | LOW | HIGH | S | ||
TROJAN | MODERATE | MODERATE | MODERATE | HIGH | LOW | S |
COBRA | LOW | HIGH | HIGH | HIGH | LOW | S |
ZANZIBAR | LOW | HIGHI | LOW | HIGH | HIGH | S |
DEVIL | LOW | HIGH | LOW | HIGH | MODERATE | S |
CRUSADER | LOW | MODERATE | LOW | LOW | S | |
ORION | LOW | LOW | HIGH | S | ||
SUNGUARD | LOW | LOW | LOW | S | ||
VENTURA | LOW | MODERATE | MODERATE | S | ||
YITPI | LOW | MODERATE | HIGH | S |
*Late maturity confounded field-testing
Hear tolerance rating scale: T=Tolerant; M=Moderate; S=Susceptible
Conclusion
Some recent Australian cultivars combine both high yield and heat tolerance. However, new pre-breeding materials developed using genomic selection offer commercial wheat breeders’ new sources of diversity for both yield and heat tolerance that can be used to mitigate the effects of a warming environment. GEBVs and QTL linked to key traits will allow wheat breeders to integrate this new diversity into their existing genomic selection pipelines.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the funding support of the GRDC, the University of Sydney, Agriculture Victoria, Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development (DPRID) and the in-kind contributions of InterGrain and AGT.
Contact details
Richard Trethowan
Ph: 0400 320 558
Email: richard.trethowan@sydney.edu.au
Varieties displaying this symbol beside them are protected under the Plant Breeders Rights Act 1994.
GRDC Project Code: UOS1606-004RMX,