ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Post anthesis stages moisture deficit stress and grain nutritionalquality in wheat genotypes

S. A. Mallick • Kousar Azaz • Moni Gupta •

S. K. Mondal • Sachin Gupta

Received: 13 March 2013 / Accepted: 25 February 2014 / Published online: 24 June 2014

� Indian Society for Plant Physiology 2014

Abstract Impact of post anthesis moisture stress imposed

for 10, 17 and 24 days on nutritional quality was investi-

gated in ten leading wheat varieties, viz., RSP-566, RSP-

561, PBW-396, HD-2687, C-306, PBW-175, RSP-81,

PBW-550, DBW-17 and WH-542. PBW-175 and RSP-561

were found highly drought stress tolerant genotypes, pos-

sessing highest values and lowest reduction in relative

water content under all duration of water stress. As an

impact on grain quality, a declining trend in starch levels

and raising trends in total protein and total sugar levels

were recorded with increasing intensity of moisture stress.

Under normal irrigated condition, both starch and total

protein contents were highest in HD-2687 and RSP-561,

whereas PBW-175 carried highest total sugar content with

low level of starch content. However, under moisture stress

condition drought sensitive HD-2687 and RSP-566 showed

higher increase in levels of total protein and sugar with

maximum decay in starch level under all moisture stress

conditions, whereas moisture stress tolerant RSP-561,

PBW-396 and PBW-175 were able to maintain highest

starch content with less increase in total protein and total

sugar levels.

Keywords Chlorophyll � Grain quality � Relative water

content � Superoxide dismutase � Water stress

Introduction

Bread wheat (Triticum aestivum) composed of about 70 %

starch and 8–12 % protein contents is used as best staple

food for energy and growth. Wheat products, viz., chapatti,

bread, biscuit are consumed all over the world by different

sections of the society, thus contributing immensely to

human nutrition worldwide. Therefore, an emphasis is

being given on wheat grain nutritional quality improve-

ment so as to meet the challenge of world malnutrition

(Agrawal and Gupta 2006). Beside nutrition, wheat gluten

protein, which constitutes about 80 % of the total protein,

is recognized as determinant factor for bread, chapatti and

biscuit making quality. Generally, grains comprising of

high protein content ([12 %) are considered good for

bread making, whereas those with 10–12 and \10 % pro-

tein are found to have good chapatti and biscuit making

quality, respectively (Stehno et al. 2008).

In the present global scenario, drought stress has become

unavoidable feature for cultivation of crops, including

wheat. Moisture stress affects normal metabolic processes

related to plant health and grain formation (Mallick et al.

2011). The effect would be havoc when drought is pro-

longed. Thus, besides nutritional quality of wheat grain,

production and productivity is also expected to be affected,

especially if the plant experiences drought stress during

grain filling stages. Grain starch (Zhang et al. 2010) and

S. A. Mallick (&) � K. Azaz � M. Gupta

Division of Biochemistry and Plant Physiology, Faculty of

Agriculture, Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences

and Technology-Jammu, Main Campus, Chatha,

Jammu 180009, J&K, India

e-mail: mallick.sam@rediffmail.com

S. K. Mondal

Division of Genetics and Plant Breeding, Faculty of Agriculture,

Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and

Technology-Jammu, Main Campus, Chatha,

Jammu 180009, J&K, India

S. Gupta

Division of Plant Pathology, Faculty of Agriculture, Sher-e-

Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology-

Jammu, Main Campus, Chatha, Jammu 180009, J&K, India

123

Ind J Plant Physiol. (April–June 2014) 19(2):107–110

DOI 10.1007/s40502-014-0083-x

gluten protein contents (Zhao et al. 2009) have been

reported to be affected under moisture stress conditions.

But a detail and systematic study of moisture stress on

grain quality at post anthesis is still awaited. The present

study was, therefore, undertaken to assess the impact of

post anthesis moisture stress on grain quality in terms of

starch, total protein and total sugar contents with respect to

stress tolerance efficacy of leading Indian wheat varieties.

It will help to understand the impact of water deficiency on

accumulation of starch and proteins during grain formation

process in context to drought tolerance potency of the

wheat genotypes exposed to moisture stress at grain filling

stages.

Materials and methods

Ten wheat varieties viz. RSP-566, RSP-561, PBW-396,

HD-2687, C-306, PBW-175, RSP-81, PBW-550, DBW-17

and WH-542 were raised in earthen pots (32 cm diame-

ter 9 28 cm depth) filled with 5.5 kg soil mix of sandy

loam soil and vermin-compost in 3:1 ratio, during winter

(rabi) season of 2010–2011, following recommended

package of practices (Anonymous 2007). Water stress was

imposed to plant for 10, 17 and 24 days from anthesis

(50 % flowering) by withholding irrigation water. How-

ever, normal irrigation continued before and after stress in

all the pots. Average soil moisture contents (SMCs) of 0,

10, 17 and 24 days stress treated pots and corresponding

leaf relative water content (RWC) were assayed to assess

intensities of moisture stress and evaluate drought stress

tolerance of wheat varieties. Harvested grains were dried

and ground to fine powder to analyze starch, total protein

and total sugar contents for assessing the impact of mois-

ture stresses at post anthesis on the grain nutritional quality

of different wheat genotypes.

The leaf RWC was measured as per Henderson and

Davies (1990). Total sugar of powdered grain sample was

extracted by treating with 80 % hot ethanol. Starch was

then extracted from sugar free flour sample by treating with

52 % perchloric acid at 0 �C. Both starch and sugar con-

tents were estimated by phenol–sulphuric acid method

(Dubois et al. 1956). Starch content was obtained by

multiplying the glucose value by a factor of 0.9. Total

protein content of grain sample was estimated by Micro-

Kjeldhal method (Sadasivam and Manickam 1992).

Results and discussion

The effect of different durations of post anthesis water

stress was studied on nutritional parameters of wheat

genotypes. SMC for control and 10, 17 and 24 days post-

anthesis water stress were observed to be 8.11, 3.64, 2.68

and 2.05 %, respectively. The reduction in soil moisture

under 10, 17 and 24 days post-anthesis water stress from

normal irrigation was 55.12, 66.95 and 74.72 %, respec-

tively (Table 1).

A perusal of results in Table 2 revealed that RWC

decreased in all the ten varieties under study in response to

water stress and the variations were proportional to the

duration/intensity of deficiency showing highest decline at

24 days of stress (SMC 2.05 %). RWC, under normal

irrigation, varied from 86.67 to 90.96 %, with highest and

lowest values in PBW-175 and WH-542 respectively.

Moisture stress induced decline in RWC ranged from 16.59

to 19.20, 28.40 to 33.88 and 44.35 to 49.13 % at 10, 17 and

24 days (SMC 3.64, 2.68 and 2.05 % respectively) dura-

tion, respectively. PBW-175 with RWC values of 75.37,

65.12 and 50.60 % at 10, 17 and 24 days, respectively,

revealed maximum water retention capacity in all the

moisture stress conditions. PBW-396, RSP-561 and C-306

were found at par with PBW-175, whereas other genotypes,

including HD-2687 and RSP-566 showed relatively more

loss of RWC with increasing intensities of moisture stress.

It was earlier reported that the relative leaf water content

was found higher in control than the plant under moisture

stress. Crops which appear to be drought tolerant main-

tained higher water potential in leaves during direct or

indirect moisture stress (Mahatma et al. 2007). In the

present study, PBW-175, RSP-561, PBW-396 and C-306

showed high RWC under all moisture stress conditions and

hence these genotypes can be considered to be drought

tolerant varieties. Among these PBW-175 and RSP-561,

showing highest leaf water retention under all stress con-

ditions were found to be most potential water stress tolerant

genotypes. However, the genotypes like HD-2687 and

RSP-566, which showed best performance under control

condition and exhibited maximum decline in RWC were

considered as low tolerant against moisture stress.

To investigate the effect of post anthesis water stress on

grain nutritional quality, grain starch, total protein and total

sugar compositions of mature grains were studied The data

Table 1 Average soil moisture content at different days of water

stress after anthesis

Stage of water

stress (DAA)

Average soil

moisture content (%)

Reduction in soil

moisture content

under water stress (%)

0 8.11 0.00

10 3.64 55.12

17 2.68 66.95

24 2.05 74.72

CD (0.5) 0.310

108 Ind J Plant Physiol. (April–June 2014) 19(2):107–110

123

in Table 3 revealed that grain starch level was highest in

HD-2687 (74.30 %) and RSP-561 (74.15 %) and lowest in

PBW-550 and PBW-175, whereas total protein (12.83 %)

and total sugar (5.80 %) were found highest in HD-2687

and PBW-175 under normal irrigation. However the level

of starch content declined with simultaneous increase in

protein and sugar levels in all the varieties under moisture

stress condition. The decline in starch content was lowest

in RSP-561 with reduction percents of 7.99, 20.09 and

28.19 % at 10, 17 and 24 days stress, respectively. PBW-

175 and PBW-396 also depicted similar trends. However,

HD-2687 and RSP-566 along with other water stress sen-

sitive genotypes (PBW-550, DBW-17 and WH-542)

showed greater decline in starch content, with maximum

loss being in HD-2687, i.e., 43.03 % (Table 3). On the

contrary, highest increase in total protein and sugar con-

tents was observed in sensitive genotypes, viz., HD-2687,

RSP-566, PBW-550, DBW-17, whereas the less increase in

total protein and sugar contents was observed in moisture

stress tolerant genotypes RSP-561, PBW-175 and PBW-

396. It has been reported earlier that moisture deficiency at

post anthesis reduced starch accumulation and also the

volume and surface area of b-type starch granules, leading

to reduction in grain yield and size of wheat grains. The

reduction in starch accumulation was found to be geneti-

cally varied (Zhang et al. 2010). Dysfunction of enzymes

of starch biosynthetic pathway under water stress lead to

slowdown of starch synthesis and fall of starch level in

grains (Balla et al. 2011). In the present study, variation of

starch, total protein and total sugar content among the

varieties under control and moisture stress condition was

controlled according to the inherent genetical makeup of

the genotypes. This may be the reason for lower decline in

starch content in RSP-561, PBW-175 and PBW-396 even

under prolonged moisture stress conditions (at 24 days,

SMC 2.05 %). Moisture stress susceptible genotypes, viz.

HD-2687 and RSP-566, though possessed very high starch

content under normal irrigation but could not sustain the

levels of increased stress and showed greater decline in

starch contents. Break down or inhibition of starch bio-

synthesis resulting in accumulation of unused sugars under

stress might be the cause of increase in total sugar levels in

grains (Xue et al. 2008). Increase in protein level might

possibly be due to stress induced biosynthesis of enzymes

involved in osmolytes synthesis and antioxidant enzymes

involved in scavenging of ROS under stress. Zhao et al.

(2009) has also reported that drought caused a significant

increase in protein content with concomitant reduction in

starch content in wheat grains. In the present study increase

in protein and sugar contents was higher in varieties, which

showed higher decrease in starch content (Table 3), and

hence corroborates the earlier findings. High protein con-

tent improves the wheat grain quality including bread/

chapatti making quality, while starch contributes in the

maintenance of grain texture, flour recovery, gas retention

and elasticity of flour, which are essential as bread and

chapatti making characteristics. A critical ratio of starch

and protein needs to be maintained for these qualities

(Stehno et al. 2008). RSP-561, which had high starch

(74.15 %) and protein (12.57 %) contents under normal

Table 2 Relative water content (RWC) of wheat cultivars under different periods of water stress at anthesis

Variety RWC (%)

Duration of water stress at anthesis (days)

0 10 17 24

RSP-566 90.24 74.10 (-17.89) 61.57 (-31.77) 46.67 (-48.30)

RSP-561 90.45 74.20 (-17.97) 63.25 (-30.07) 49.19 (-45.62)

PBW-396 90.58 73.45 (-18.91) 62.12 (-31.42) 47.68 (-47.36)

HD-2687 88.68 73.27 (-17.38) 60.16 (-31.73) 45.76 (-48.07)

C-306 88.12 72.15 (-18.12) 61.35 (-30.30) 47.26 (-46.70)

PBW-175 90.96 75.37 (-17.13) 65.12 (-28.40) 50.60 (-44.35)

RSP-81 89.16 72.56 (-18.62) 60.42 (-32.23) 47.29 (-46.96)

PBW-550 87.21 71.75 (-17.73) 59.51 (-31.76) 45.21 (-48.16)

DBW-17 88.85 71.71 (-19.20) 58.75 (-33.88) 45.20 (-49.13)

WH-542 86.67 72.29 (-16.59) 58.84 (-32.11) 45.93 (-47.00)

CD (0.5)

Variety 0.655

Water stress 0.657

Variety 9 water stress 1.451

Values in parentheses indicate percent decrease (-), highest and lowest values are marked by bold and underline, respectively

Ind J Plant Physiol. (April–June 2014) 19(2):107–110 109

123

irrigation and showed 7.99 % decline in starch content,

with a 11.46 % increase in protein content under 10 days

water stress (SMC 3.64 %) after anthesis can be considered

as most potential variety for cultivation under water stress

condition.

References

Agrawal, P. K., & Gupta, H. S. (2006). Enhancement of nutritional

quality of cereals using biotechnological options. In PS

Kendurkar, GP Srivastava, M Mohan and M Vajpeyi (Eds.).

Proceeding of ICPHT (pp. 48–58).

Anonymous. (2007). Annual Report. Department of Agriculture

Production, Jammu & Kashmir.

Balla, K., Rakszegi, M., Li, Z., Bekes, F., Bencze, S., & Veisz, O.

(2011). Quality of winter wheat in relation to heat and drought

shock after anthesis. Czech Journal of Food Sciences, 29(2),

117–128.

Dubois, M., Gilles, K. A., Hamilton, J. K., Rober, P. A., & Smith, F.

(1956). Colorimetric estimation of carbohydrates by phenol

sulphuric acid method. Analytical Chemistry, 28(3), 350–356.

Henderson, J. C., & Davies, F. T, Jr. (1990). Drought acclimation and

the morphology of mycorrhizal Rosa hybrid L.cv Ferdy. New

Phytologist, 175, 503.

Mahatma, M. K., Bhatnagar, R., Solanki, R. K., & Mittal, G. K.

(2007). Effect of seed soaking treatments on salt induced

biochemical contents and polypeptide pattern of wheat (Triticum

aestivum L.). Indian Journal of Agricultural Biochemistry, 20,

73–77.

Mallick, S. A., Gupta, M., Mondal, S. K., & Sinha, B. K. (2011).

Characterization of wheat (Triticum aestivum) genotypes on the

basis of metabolic changes associated with water stress. Indian

Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 81, 767–771.

Sadasivam, S., & Manickam, A. (1992). Estimation of nitrogen by

mico-kjeldahl. Biochemical methods for agricultural sciences

(pp. 34–37). Wiley Eastern Limited: New Delhi.

Stehno, Z., Dvoracek, V., & Dotlacil, L. (2008). Wheat protein

fractions in relation to grain quality characters of the cultivars.

In 11th International Wheat Genetics Symposium, Proceedings

2: 556.

Xue, G. P., Mclntyre, C. L., Colin, L. D., Donna, G., Herwaarden, A.

F., & Shoter, R. (2008). Molecular dissection of variation in

carbohydrates metabolism related to water soluble carbohydrate

accumulation in stems of wheat. Plant Physiology, 146(2),

441–454.

Zhang, T., Wang, Z., Yin, Y., Cai, R., Yan, S., & Li, W. (2010).

Starch content and granule size distribution in grains of wheat in

relation to post-anthesis water deficits. Journal of Agronomy and

Crop Science, 196(1), 1–8.

Zhao, C., He, M., Wang, Z., Wang, Y., & Lin, Q. (2009). Effect of

different water availability at post-anthesis stage on grain

nutrition and quality in strong gluten winter wheat. Comptes

Rendus Biologies, 332(8), 759–764.

Ta

ble

3C

han

ges

of

star

ch,

pro

tein

and

sug

arco

nte

nts

ing

rain

so

fw

hea

tv

arie

ties

un

der

var

iou

sd

ura

tio

no

fm

ois

ture

stre

ssat

anth

esis

Var

iety

Norm

alir

rigat

edD

ura

tion

of

wat

erst

ress

atan

thes

is(d

ays)

Sta

rch

(%)

Pro

tein

(%)

Sugar

(%)

10

17

24

Sta

rch

(%)

Pro

tein

(%)

Sugar

(%)

Sta

rch

(%)

Pro

tein

(%)

Sugar

(%)

Sta

rch

(%)

Pro

tein

(%)

Sugar

(%)

RS

P-5

66

72.3

311.5

84.0

160.0

0(-

17.0

5)

12.9

7(?

12.0

0)

4.5

7(?

13.9

7)

53.0

0(-

26.7

2)

14.9

4(?

29.0

2)

6.5

2(?

62.5

9)

45.3

3(-

37.3

3)

16.4

0(?

41.6

2)

6.7

2(?

67.5

8)

RS

P-5

61

74.1

512.5

74.0

368.2

2(-

7.9

9)

14.0

1(?

11.4

6)

5.0

0(?

24.0

7)

59.2

5(-

20.0

9)

15.1

8(?

20.7

6)

7.0

9(?

75.9

3)

53.2

5(-

28.1

9)

17.0

0(?

35.2

4)

7.6

5(?

89.8

3)

PB

W-3

96

70.9

510.7

13.3

466.5

7(-

6.1

7)

11.9

2(?

11.3

0)

4.3

0(?

28.7

4)

55.2

0(-

22.2

0)

13.2

0(?

23.2

5)

6.9

0(?

106.5

9)

50.9

7(-

28.1

6)

14.9

0(?

39.1

2)

7.5

7(?

126.6

5)

HD

-2687

74.3

012.8

33.0

058.7

9(-

20.8

7)

14.1

0(?

12.1

0)

4.9

1(?

63.6

7)

47.2

7(-

36.3

8)

15.3

0(?

19.2

5)

6.1

3(?

104.3

3)

42.3

3(-

43.0

3)

17.5

2(?

36.5

5)

6.8

0(?

126.6

8)

C-3

06

69.5

011.1

84.7

362.5

7(-

9.9

9)

12.5

8(?

12.5

0)

5.1

9(?

9.7

3)

54.8

0(-

21.1

5)

14.3

9(?

28.7

1)

6.8

0(?

43.9

6)

42.8

3(-

38.3

7)

16.0

1(?

43.2

0)

6.8

2(?

44.1

9)

PB

W-1

75

66.1

512.0

65.8

061.0

7(-

7.6

8)

13.5

1(?

12.0

2)

7.3

0(?

25.8

9)

55.0

0(-

16.8

6)

14.8

0(?

22.7

2)

8.6

6(?

49.3

1)

40.6

7(-

38.5

2)

16.6

0(?

37.6

5)

9.0

0(?

55.1

7)

RS

P-8

168.4

711.8

55.1

064.1

7(-

6.2

8)

12.9

9(?

9.6

2)

6.2

3(?

22.1

6)

54.0

0(-

21.1

3)

14.8

5(?

25.3

2)

7.5

0(?

47.0

6)

42.3

3(-

38.1

8)

16.0

5(?

35.4

4)

8.1

3(?

59.4

1)

PB

W-5

50

68.9

011.0

04.0

661.1

8(-

11.2

0)

12.3

5(?

12.2

7)

5.1

0(?

25.6

2)

54.7

1(-

20.6

0)

14.4

4(?

31.2

7)

6.9

0(?

69.9

5)

40.5

3(-

41.1

8)

16.4

0(?

49.0

9)

7.1

6(?

96.3

5)

DB

W-1

767.3

012.3

33.8

559.0

0(-

12.3

3)

13.8

5(?

12.3

2)

4.0

1(?

4.1

5)

53.0

7(-

21.1

4)

15.0

3(?

21.9

0)

4.3

2(?

12.2

1)

44.8

7(-

33.3

3)

17.0

0(?

37.4

1)

5.8

8(?

52.7

3)

WH

-542

66.1

711.7

24.0

058.8

3(-

11.0

9)

13.1

1(?

11.8

6)

4.7

2(?

18.0

0)

47.4

3(-

28.1

8)

14.5

2(?

23.0

9)

4.9

3(?

23.2

5)

43.0

0(-

35.0

2)

16.2

0(?

38.2

5)

5.9

7(?

49.2

5)

CD

(0.0

5)

Sta

rch

Pro

tein

Sugar

Var

iety

2.3

40.0

24

0.0

42

Wat

erst

ress

1.4

80.0

15

0.0

26

Var

iety

9w

ater

stre

ss4.6

80.0

48

0.0

84

Val

ues

inpar

enth

eses

indic

ate

the

per

cent

incr

ease

(?)/

dec

reas

e(-

),hig

hes

tan

dlo

wes

tval

ues

are

mar

ked

by

bold

and

under

line,

resp

ecti

vel

y

110 Ind J Plant Physiol. (April–June 2014) 19(2):107–110

123