RESUMEN
Introduction: Salinity is the abiotic obstacle that diminishes food production globally. Salinization causes by natural conditions, such as climate change, or human activities, e.g., irrigation and derange misuse. To cope with the salinity problem, improve the crop environment or utilize crop/wheat breeding (by phenotyping), specifically in spread field conditions. For example, about 33 % of the cropping area in Egypt is affected by salinity. Methods: Therefore, this study evaluated forty bread wheat genotypes under contrasting salinity field conditions across seasons 2019/20 and 2020/21 at Sakha research station in the north of Egypt. To identify the tolerance genotypes, performing physiological parameters, e.g., Fv/Fm, CCI, Na+, and K+, spectral reflectance indices (SRIs), such as NDVI, MCARI, and SR, and estimated salinity tolerance indices based on grain yield in non-saline soil and saline soil sites over the tested years. These traits (parameters) and grain yield are simultaneously performed for generating GYT biplots. Results: The results presented significant differences (P≤0.01) among the environments, genotypes, and their interaction for grain yield (GY) evaluated in the four environments. And the first season for traits, grain yield (GY), plant height (PH), harvest index (HI), chlorophyll content index (CCI), chlorophyll fluorescence parameter Fv/Fm, normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) in contrasting salinity environments. Additionally, significant differences were detected among environments, genotypes, and their interaction for grain yield along with spectral reflectance indices (SRIs), e.g., Blue/Green index (BIG2), curvature index (CI), normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI), Modified simple ratio (MSR). Relying on the genotype plus genotype by environment (GGE) approach, genotypes 34 and 1 are the best for salinity sites. Genotypes 1 and 29 are the best from the genotype by stress tolerance indices (GSTI) biplot and genotype 34. Genotype 1 is the best from the genotype by yield*trait (GYT) method with spectral reflectance indices. Discussion: Therefore, we can identify genotype 1 as salinity tolerant based on the results of GSTI and GYT of SRIs and recommend involvement in the salinity breeding program in salt-affected soils. In conclusion, spectral reflectance indices were efficiently identifying genotypic variance.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The main aim of this study was to improve fungal resistance in bread wheat via transgenesis. Transgenic wheat plants harboring barley chitinase (chi26) gene, driven by maize ubi promoter, were obtained using biolistic bombardment, whereas the herbicide resistance gene, bar, driven by the CaMV 35S promoter was used as a selectable marker. RESULTS: Molecular analysis confirmed the integration, copy number, and the level of expression of the chi26 gene in four independent transgenic events. Chitinase enzyme activity was detected using a standard enzymatic assay. The expression levels of chi26 gene in the different transgenic lines, compared to their respective controls, were determined using qRT-PCR. The transgene was silenced in some transgenic families across generations. Gene silencing in the present study seemed to be random and irreversible. The homozygous transgenic plants of T4, T5, T6, T8, and T9 generations were tested in the field for five growing seasons to evaluate their resistance against rusts and powdery mildew. The results indicated high chitinase activity at T0 and high transgene expression levels in few transgenic families. This resulted in high resistance against wheat rusts and powdery mildew under field conditions. It was indicated by proximate and chemical analyses that one of the transgenic families and the non-transgenic line were substantially equivalent. CONCLUSION: Transgenic wheat with barley chi26 was found to be resistant even after five generations under artificial fungal infection conditions. One transgenic line was proved to be substantially equivalent as compared to the non-transgenic control.
