Abstract
Context
Drought and extreme heat at flowering are common stresses limiting the yield of summer crops. Adaptation to these stresses could be increased by sowing summer crops early in late winter or early spring, to avoid overlap of drought and heat with critical crop stages around flowering. Though little is known about the effects of cold weather on root growth, water use and final grain yield in sorghum.
Objective
This study aims to explore the effects of cold conditions in early sowing sorghum on crop and root growth and function (i.e., water use), and final grain yield.
Methods
Two years of field experiments were conducted in the Darling and Eastern Downs region of Qld, Australia. Each trial consisted of three times of sowing (late winter, spring, and summer), two levels of irrigation (i.e., rainfed and supplementary irrigated), four plant population densities (3, 6, 9 and 12 pl m−2), and six commercial sorghum hybrids. Roots and shoots were sampled at the flag leaf stage on three times of sowing, two levels of irrigation, and three replications, for a single hybrid and a single plant population density (9 pl m−2). Crop water use and functional root traits were derived from consecutive electromagnetic induction (EMI) surveys around flowering. At maturity crop biomass, yield and yield components were determined across all treatments.
Results
The combinations of seasons, times of sowing and levels of irrigation created large variations in growth conditions that affected the growth and production of the crops. Early sowing increased yield by transferring water use from vegetative to reproductive stages and increasing grain numbers in tillers. Cold temperatures in the early sowing times tended to produce smaller crops with smaller rooting systems, smaller root-to-shoot ratios, and larger average root diameters. Total root length and root length density increased with increasing pre-flowering mean air temperatures up to 20 °C. Linear relationships were observed between an EMI derived index of root activity and the empirically determined values of root length density (cm cm−3) at flowering.
Conclusions
Sowing sorghum, a summer crop, early in late winter or spring transferred water use from vegetative stages to flowering and post-flowering stages increasing crop water use later in the season. Root length and root length density were reduced by pre-flowering mean temperatures lower than 20 °C, indicating a need to increase cold tolerance for early sowing. The higher grain numbers in early sown crops were related to higher grain numbers in tillers. The EMI derived index of root activity has a potential in the development of high throughput root phenotyping applications.
Highlights
-
Sorghum sown early into cooler than recommended soils will reduce root and vegetative growth and transfer water use from vegetative to reproductive stages mitigating terminal water stresses, and increasing water use efficiency.
-
Electromagnetic induction technology has a great potential for high throughput root phenotyping applications.
-
To adapt to warmer climates, there is a need for sorghum breeders to include cold tolerance as a target.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench) is a major dryland crop across Australia’s northern grains region, where droughts and extreme heat are common abiotic stresses that limit grain yield (Clarke et al. 2019; Rodriguez et al. 2024). Across the region, and for conventional sorghum sowing times i.e., spring and summer, there is a high likelihood of heat stress events at flowering (Singh et al. 2017). Even though heat stress affects multiple physiological processes e.g., photosynthesis, respiration, and transpiration, the most yield sensitive phase in sorghum is around a narrow window i.e., 10–15 days centred at flowering (Prasad et al. 2015; Singh et al. 2015). A short duration of high-temperature episodes coinciding with this window, will cause pollen damage (flattened and collapsed pollen) leading to reduced pollen viability and pollen germination on the stigmatic surface (Singh et al. 2015; Prasad et al. 2017). This causes fertilization failures and reduced seed set resulting in lower grain numbers and grain yield (Prasad et al. 2008; Nguyen et al. 2013; Singh et al. 2015). Terminal drought stresses after flowering may also affect grain filling by reducing grain weight and quality (Muchow et al. 1994; Barnabás et al. 2008; Impa et al. 2019).
Ongoing climate change is increasing global surface temperatures and the frequency and intensity of extreme heat and drought events (IPCC 2021). In addition to irrigation and conservation agriculture practices, pathways to increase adaptation to heat and drought stress include improved genetic tolerance and agronomic avoidance (Fitter and Hay 2012; Reynolds et al. 2016; Prasad et al. 2017; Jagadish 2020). Genetic tolerance to heat stress has been shown for both, the threshold at which pollen viability starts to be affected, and the response of pollen viability to increases in temperature above that threshold (Singh et al. 2015). In-silico assessments of the likely benefits of genetic tolerance to heat stress have shown yield gains between 5 and 8% and 13–17% under baseline and climate change projections, respectively (Singh et al. 2014). Clearly, in the long haul, plant breeding should be able to contribute to crop adaptation in warmer and drier environments (Nguyen et al. 2013), though in the meantime, agronomy might be used to avoid the likelihood of heat stress damage. Agronomy practices such as early sowing (in late winter or spring), could advance flowering dates so that the overlap between times of the year of a high likelihood of the stresses and sensitive crop stages are avoided (Chiluwal et al. 2018; Rodriguez et al. 2024). Ealy-sowing sorghum will develop during periods of the year of lower atmospheric demand, and flower before yield-limiting summer heat waves, reducing the impact of heat and terminal water stresses (Raymundo et al. 2021; Rodriguez et al. 2024). However, sowing sorghum into soil temperatures lower than 16 °C will slow the rate of metabolic activation enzymes in the seed (Patanè et al. 2021), leading to poor emergence and seedling establishment, and reduced plant stands and growth rate (Forbes et al. 1987; Yu et al. 2004; Kapanigowda et al. 2013; Rutayisire et al. 2021). Chilling temperatures after crop emergence can also reduce rates of photosynthesis and shoot and root growth (Wang et al. 2008; Kapanigowda et al. 2013; Ortiz et al. 2017). A poorly developed root system might limit access to soil water and nutrients (Aroca et al. 2001), further reducing crop growth and production. Here we present results from a two-season field experiment in which we aim to i) answer whether sowing sorghum early i.e., in late winter or spring affects crop and root growth and function (i.e., water use), and final yield, and ii) study the relationships between ambient temperature, root traits, root function, shoot biomass, yield, and yield components.
Materials and methods
Field trials
Field trials were conducted at a commercial farm in Nangwee, Qld Australia (27°34′2.73″ S, 151°18′34.36″ E) during the 2019/20 and 2020/21 Southern Hemisphere summer growing seasons. The climate in the region is semi-arid subtropical with an average of 621 mm rainfall per annum and mean annual maximum and minimum temperatures of 27.0 °C and 12.0 °C, respectively (Bureau of Meteorology 2023). Each season the trial covered an area of ~3.2 ha (82 m × 384 m) of a uniform black, self-mulching cracking clay, characterized as a Vertosol soil (Isbell 2016), with a clay content larger than 60%.
The trials included the factorial combination of three times of sowing (TOS, referred to as late winter, spring and summer), two levels of irrigation i.e., rainfed and supplementary irrigated, four plant population densities (3, 6, 9 and 12 pl m−2) and six commercial hybrids coded as A (A66), B (Agitator), C (Cracka), D (HGS114), E (MR Buster) and F (Sentinel). Each season, there were 432 plots with each 4 m wide (4 rows) × 10 m long. The factorial combination of times of sowing, target plant populations and hybrids were randomised to each individual plots within each trial using a split-plot design, with time of sowing and irrigation as main plots. Further details of the experiment layout can be found elsewhere (Zhao et al. 2022). In 2019/20, crops were sown on 14 August, 11 September and 10 October. In 2020/21, crops were sown on 11 September, 6 October, and 5 November, respectively. Even though sowing was targeted to take place on soil temperatures ranging between 13 °C (low) and above 16 °C (recommended) at sowing depth, this was not always possible due to wet weather conditions. The supplementary irrigation treatment was imposed by laying drip irrigation pipes along each row after sowing. The objective of the supplementary irrigation treatment was to create additional growing environments, though water availability was limiting during the first season. Crops were fertilised following commercial sorghum production practices of the region and were kept free of weeds, pests and diseases.
An automatic weather station and soil temperature probe were installed before sowing to monitor daily minimum and maximum temperature, soil temperature at seed depth, total radiation, and rainfall. The normalised photo-thermal quotient (NPTq) was calculated using daily climatic records during flowering period (Rodriguez and Sadras 2007). Initial plant available water (PAW) was measured gravimetrically at each time of sowing (one core per replicate down to 1.5 m).
Measures of root growth and function
Time-lapse EMI surveys were conducted to infer spatiotemporal variability of the plant available water (PAW, mm) and crop water use (mm) across all plots and throughout the growing season in both seasons. A DUALEM-21S (Dualem Inc., Milton, ON, Canada) instrument was used to collect soil apparent electrical conductivity (ECa), which is a function of soil moisture content. The instrument was towed 3 m to the right of a four-wheel all-terrain vehicle that traversed the field along the transect in the middle of each plot. In the first season fewer EMI surveys were taken, though during the second season surveys were conducted at fortnightly intervals. A detailed description of the method used to calibrate ECa to PAW in this study is in Zhao et al. (2022). The crop water use down to 1.5 m was determined between every two consecutive EMI surveys using Eq. 1:
where ΔS (mm) is the change of PAW in the 0–1.5 m soil profile between the two consecutive EMI surveys, P is precipitation (mm) and I is irrigation (mm). Here runoff was ignored as the site was flat and in-season rainfall amount was less than the minimum required for runoff reported in the same area (Connolly et al. 2002). Deep drainage was not considered because the soil is black Vertosols with a soil profile deeper than 2 m and negligible in-season changes of soil water content at the depth below 1.5 m were observed in Zhao et al. (2022). Crop water use was divided into pre-flowering, post-flowering, and total crop water use. Water use efficiency (WUE, kg mm−1) was calculated as the ratio between grain yield (kg ha−1) and total crop water use (mm). The approach for calculating WUE is simple (de Wit 1958; Passioura 1983; Passioura and Angus 2010), but it helps us focus on a wide range of physiological and morphological attributes of possible significance to this research.
In addition, in the 2020/21 growing season, a root activity factor was calculated at around flowering to represent the presence and activity in each studied soil depth as in Zhao et al. (2022) (Eq. 2). Briefly, Eq. 2 assumes that water use from an ith soil layer can be represented by the plant available water (mm) of that ith soil layer, a term representing the size of the canopy, and a factor termed as root activity factor (Ri) (Eq. 2). Another assumption is that given the large volume of soil surveyed, all treatments were affected by the same environmental conditions, and as all plots are measured within a small-time window (~2hs), therefore, changes in atmospheric demand can be expected to be small. The root activity factor was then calculated for the 0.3–0.5 m, 0.5–0.8 m, 0.8-1 m, 1–1.3 m, and 1.3–1.5 m soil layers.
In Eq. 2, the Root activity factor ith can be considered as a functional proxy for root presence and activity in the ith layer; Water use is the change in water content (mm) in the ith soil layer between the two consecutive EMI surveys around flowering and permanent crop wilting point; Plant water availability is the plant available water (mm) in the ith layer at the start of the measurement period; and canopy size as main determinant of crop water demand. The Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) was used as a proxy of canopy size. In this study, NDVI around flowering for each plot was derived from satellite images from PlanetScope (Planet Labs Inc 2020).
Root and shoot growth
The industry standard genotype (i.e., E, MR Buster) at one plant population density (9 pl m−2) was selected to conduct roots and shoots sampling. The sampling was conducted at the flag-leaf stage for three times of sowing, the two irrigation levels and three replications, resulting in 18 plots sampled at each season. The shoots of twelve plants per plot were sampled and oven-dried at 65 °C until constant weight. After sampling the shoots, the root system was sampled using a narrow tubular soil auger (44 mm diameter) down to a soil depth of 2.1 m. At each sampled plot, six cores were taken, two taken in the row and four in the interrow (Fig. S1). Each core was cut into eight depths of 0–0.3, 0.3–0.5, 0.5–0.8, 0.8–1, 1–1.3, 1.3–1.5, 1.5–1.8 and 1.8–2.1 m. Corresponding depths of the six cores from each plot were bulked to give eight composite samples per plot, one from each depth. The samples were then soaked in water with a softening agent. The solution was then rinsed over a sieve in a root washing facility and the roots were collected with tweezers and stored in a 60–70% ethanol solution at 5 °C. The root samples were then scanned using a digital scanner (Epson Expression XL 10000) with a resolution of 400 dpi. The scanned root images were analysed using the WinRHIZO® software, Regent Instruments Inc., Quebec, Canada (Trachsel et al. 2011). The root length (cm), average root diameter (cm), root surface area (cm2), and root volume (cm3) at each depth were calculated from WinRHIZO as in Rose (2017) and converted to per core basis. The root length density (cm cm−3) and specific root length (cm g−1) at each depth were calculated by considering the sample soil volume and root dry weights.
The total root length, total root surface area, total root dry weight, and total root volume at plot level were then calculated by summing the corresponding root traits across the soil profile (0–2.1 m). The average root diameter at plot level was determined from the total root length and total root volume. Similarly, a plot level average root length density (cm cm−3), average specific root length (cm g−1), and the root length to shoot dry weight ratio (cm g−1) were calculated.
Dry matter production, yield, and yield components
Yield and biomass data were measured on samples taken at physiological maturity from eight plants in the central rows of each plot; areas showing uniform plant density were selected. Each sample was oven dried to a constant weight at 65 °C to determine the above-ground biomass. Panicles were then separated and threshed to determine yield components including grain number (grains m−2), grain weight (g per 1000 grains), and grain yield (t ha−1). Seed set (%) was calculated for a period of 10–15 days around anthesis as in Singh et al. (2017). Yield components were partitioned into main stems and tillers. The harvest index was estimated as the ratio of grain yield to total biomass.
Statistical analysis
Root traits were analysed using a linear mixed model (LMM) framework for each season at both plot and across depths levels. At the plot level, the LMMs included fixed effects for TOS, irrigation, and the interaction between TOS and irrigation. Replicate was included as random effects.
Across depths, the LMMs were used to test the effects of TOS, irrigation, depth, and their interactions on root traits. The residual variance model was upgraded in stages, to test for heterogeneity of residual variance between depth intervals, as well as residual correlation models across depth intervals. The most parsimonious model for each measure was selected using the Akaike Information Criterion (Akaike 1998). Moreover, the values of root traits (i.e., root length, root surface area, root dry weight and root volume) were weighted on a “per 10 cm” basis to account for the differing widths of the depths.
Grain yield and its components (i.e., grain number and grain weight) and water use (i.e., pre-flowering, post-flowering, total crop water use and WUE) were also tested with LMMs. The season, TOS, irrigation, plant population density, and genotype levels and their interactions were used as fixed factors and season×replication interactions were taken as random. Separate residual variances were fitted for each season by a separate scaled column×row variance structure.
All LMMs were fitted using the ‘ASReml-R’ statistical package (Butler et al. 2017), whereby variance components were estimated using residual maximum likelihood (Patterson and Thompson 1971) in R (R Core Team 2022). The fixed effects were tested using Wald tests (Kenward and Roger 1997), and Empirical Best Linear Unbiased Estimates (eBLUEs) were generated from the models for significant effects. Significant differences between pairs of treatments were determined using Fisher’s least significant difference (LSD) (Welham et al. 2014), and all significances were assessed at the 5% level. The estimated means of each studied root and shoot traits were presented at the significant interaction levels.
To explore the environmental effects of TOS on root growth, root function (i.e., crop water use), yield components and harvest index, a principal component analysis (PCA) was performed including environmental covariates (Table 1) based on the ‘stats’ package in R. Conditional inference trees and random forest models were performed to untangle the G × E × M effects on yield in R using ‘partykit’ (Hothorn and Zeileis 2015) and ‘randomForest’ (Breiman 2001) packages. In addition, the relationships between plot level root traits and pre-flowering mean air temperature and between WUE and yield components were also fitted with JMP@, Version 17 software (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, 1989–2023), based on the least squares function.
Results
The effects of early sowing on the avoidance of heat stresses around flowering are described in full in our previous articles that used results from a multi-environment (n = 33) network of GxExM trials and includes the sites in this manuscript (Rodriguez et al. 2024; Mumford et al. 2023). In this manuscript we focus on the effects of early sowing of sorghum on crop and root growth and function (i.e., water use), and final grain yield.
Environments, yield, and yield components
The combination of season, TOS and supplementary irrigation exposed the crop to a highly diverse range of growing conditions (Table 1). In the first season, soil temperatures for the late winter sown crop were well below the recommended 16 °C at sowing depth, though in the second season they were close to 16 °C. The early sown crops were also exposed to chilling ambient temperatures (<15 °C) between emergence to flowering.
There was a significant (p < 0.002) five-way interaction on grain yield between season, time of sowing, irrigation, plant population density and hybrid (Table S1). We used conditional inference trees and random forests on G, E and M variables, to further untangle these interactions. Figure 1a and b show that total plant available water, a measure of heat stress around flowering i.e., Seed set (%), and hybrid were the most important variables yields classifying grain yields within the whole data set (both seasons together). The highest yields were obtained with values of total plant available water higher than 340 mm, and values of seed set higher than 88%. Higher yields were also associated to hybrids A, B and D, while plant population was the least important variable (Fig. 1b).
In both seasons, spring sown sorghum had larger or similar yields than the late winter sown crop, and the summer sown crop always had the lowest yields (Fig. 2a). Grain yields were associated to grain numbers, with the late winter and spring sown crops having a larger contribution of grain numbers from tillers (Fig. 2b and Fig. S2).
Root traits
Differences between treatments on root traits were affected by the contrasting environmental conditions between both seasons of trials (Table S2). However, from the collective analysis, the wide range of environmental conditions across seasons and times of sowing, allowed to develop functional relationships between environmental co-variates (Table 1) and the studied traits (Fig. 3). In the drier and cooler 2019/20 season, the late winter sown crop had a significantly smaller rooting system, i.e., smaller total root length (P < 0.001), total root surface area (P = 0.014), root length density (P < 0.001) and shoot dry weight (P = 0.03) (Fig. 3). Conversely, the roots of the late winter sown crop were significantly thicker (P < 0.001, Fig. 3d). Compared to spring and summer sown crops, late winter crops were smaller (Fig. 3f), particularly under dryland conditions. Similarly, late winter crops had a smaller total root length to shoot dry weight ratio (P < 0.001, Fig. 3e). In the wetter and warmer 2020/21 season, the value of the root traits was generally larger than in 2019/20, although there were no significant differences between treatments (Table S2).
Figure 4 and 5, and Tables S2 and S3, show root traits (eBLUEs) from the LMM for the Depth×TOS or Depth×TOS × Irrigation interactions. In 2019/20, the cold conditions of the winter sown crop led to a significantly smaller root length (P = 0.002, Fig. 4a) and root length density (P = 0.009, Fig. 4b) at each soil depth. Whereas the opposite was true for the average diameter (P = 0.047, Fig. 4c) in which late winter sown sorghum significantly increased the average root diameter in the 0–0.8 m soil profile. This was also the case for the root volume (P = 0.026, Fig. 4d), especially in dryland treatments. In contrast, late winter sowing reduced the surface area (Fig. 5a), root dry weight (Fig. 5b), and specific root length (Fig. 5c) across the soil profile, though differences between TOS were not significant.
The warmer and wetter conditions during the second season of trials, reduced the differences between sowing times, though as in the first season summer sown sorghum had a significantly larger root dry weights in the topsoil (P < 0.001, Fig. 5e, and Table S3). In the second season, there were no significant effects of TOS, irrigation, or their interactions with depth observed for the other root traits (Fig. 4e-h, Fig. 5d and f, and Table S3).
Irrespective of the contrasting time of sowing, the root activity factor (R) calculated using eq. 2 was linearly related to the measured root length density (RLD) (Fig. 6), this is, the larger the root length density the larger the root activity factor. Figure 6 also shows that for similar values of root length density, the dryland plots had a larger values root activity than the supplementary irrigated plots. In the dryland plots, the relationship did not hold for the topsoil layer (0.3–0.5 m) as in the top layers the main limiting factor to water uptake was plant available water.
Plant available water (PAW) and water use
Plant available water was highly contrasting between the two seasons and three times of sowing. (Table 1). Across both seasons winter and spring sown crops tended to have less pre-flowering water use and larger post-flowering water use than the summer sown crops (Figs. 7 and 8). Even though similar values of total plant available water across times of sowing i.e., within the dryland and irrigated treatments in the first season (Fig. 7c), during both seasons the values of water use efficiency were larger for the winter and spring sown crops comparing to the corresponding summer sown crops (Fig. 7d and h).
Particularly during the second, wetter season, larger PAW values were observed for the early sowing crops at flowering stage (Fig. S3). For example, in 2020/21 the irrigated late winter sowing had 272 mm PAW at flowering compared to the summer sown crop (211 mm). During the second season lower plant populations (3 and 6 pl m−2) showed larger values of plant available water at flowering displaying a difference of up to 61 mm compared to higher populations and left more water in the soil profile by maturity, particularly in the early sown crops.
Relationships between root traits, water use, yield components, and environments
In both seasons (Fig. 8), PC1 explained ~45% of variations in the dataset, which was largely attributed to differences in root traits and environmental conditions, while PC2 was primarily associated to yield and yield components, shoot biomass, and crop water use. In general, the larger yield and harvest index values of the early sown crops were associated to a higher value of post-flowering water use resulting in higher water use efficiency values (WUE). Figure 8 also shows an association between the root length, root weight, root surface area, root length density, and specific root length, in the summer sown crop with mean temperature and solar radiation.
Irrespective of the season, there were positive linear relationships between WUE and the total grain number (Fig. 9a). As expected, different relationships were observed between the irrigated and dryland treatments. The larger values of WUE in the early sown crops were also associated to a larger grain number contribution from tillers (Fig. 9b), and a larger fraction of water use after flowering (Fig. 9c).
As shown in Fig. 8, root traits were related to the temperature environment. Figure 9d and e, show that root length and root length density responded positively to increasing pre-flowering mean air temperatures ranging between 16 and 20 °C, but there was little further response above 20 °C. In addition, in the first cooler season, the late winter sown sorghum crops had thicker roots. Irrespective of the season or irrigation treatment, the mean root diameter fitted quadratic relationships with pre-flowering mean air temperatures, with the smallest values observed at around 20 °C (Fig. 9f).
Discussion
Common strategies for adapting summer crops to heat stress during flowering include: (i) genetically improving the tolerance to high temperatures, and/or modifying flowering dynamics so that pollination can take place at cooler times of the day, and (ii) using agronomic practices to avoid the overlap between heat stresses and the flowering by simply advancing sowing dates (Jagadish 2020; Prasad et al. 2017; Reynolds et al. 2016). Though this requires sowing sorghum, a summer crop, early during late winter or early spring, at soil and air temperatures lower than optimum.
In this study we explored the effects of cold weather in early sowing sorghum, on crop and root growth and function i.e., water use, and final grain yield. We showed that sowing early in late winter or spring, increased yield and water use efficiency through an increase in harvest index as a result of larger grain numbers, primarily in tillers. In general terms, root length and root length density responded positively to increasing pre-flowering mean air temperatures ranging between 16 and 20 °C, but there was little further response above 20 °C.
The linear relationships observed between an EMI derived index of root activity and the empirically determined values of root length density (cm cm−3) show potential to be used in the development of high throughput functional root phenotyping applications.
Soil water dynamics and crop yield
Crop production in terminal water stress and hot environments is primarily determined by the interactions between crop phenology, seed set, and water use dynamics before and after flowering (Siddique et al. 2001; Nguyen et al. 2013). In these environments, using genotypes that show stay-green phenotypes (Borrell et al. 2000), wide or skip row configurations and low plant populations (Whish et al. 2005), can transfer water use from vegetative to reproductive stages stabilising grain yields (Clarke et al. 2019; Carcedo et al. 2021). While avoiding air temperatures higher than 33 °C during a 10–15-day window around flowering (Singh et al. 2017) will reduce seed set losses due to pollen sterility (Prasad et al. 2017). Most of these principles are relevant when summer grain crops are sown early in late winter or in early spring. Our results agree with these results to show that earlier sowing tended to reduce pre-flowering water use, particularly in the dryland treatments (Figs. 7 and 8). The relatively larger availability of soil water during reproductive stages (Fig. S3), the lower total water use (Fig. 7), the larger grain yield contribution from tillers (Fig. S2i), and larger grain yields (Fig. 2), resulted in higher values of water-use efficiency for the early sown crops (Fig. 7d, h). Higher values of seed set (%) i.e., cooler temperatures around flowering, were also associated to higher yields (Fig. 1a), seed set was also an important variable associated to grain yield in the random forest analysis (Fig. 1b).
In the long term, breeding can be expected to contribute to improving genetic tolerance to heat stresses (Singh et al. 2014), though in the meantime, early sowing can play an important role in improving crop adaptation to present and future climates before well-adapted cultivars are available (Munaro et al. 2020). However, sorghum is sensitive to cold temperatures (Rooney 2004) requiring soil bed temperatures higher than 18 °C for germination and seedling establishment (Shroyer et al. 1998; Ostmeyer et al. 2020). In this and previous studies (Ostmeyer et al. 2020), cold soil temperatures and chilling temperatures significantly limited root growth and development in early sown crops, indicating that to increase sorghum adaptation to heat stress breeding should seriously consider breeding cold tolerance traits during crop germination, emergence, and vegetative stages. Recent studies have identified promising candidate genes putatively conferring germination (Upadhyaya et al. 2016), seedling emergence and survival (Parra-Londono et al. 2018), and seedling vigour. Traits related to the capacity of tissues to maintain photosynthetic capacity in cold conditions (Moghimi et al. 2019; Vennapusa et al. 2021). Related studies suggest that under cold stress the development of the root system determines the success or failure seedling establishment (Enns et al. 2006; Farooq et al. 2009).
Root growth and function
Our results showed that sowing sorghum into a soil temperature lower than 16 °C produced thicker roots, and significantly reduced total root length, root length density and root volume. In Fig. 9d, e, f, we show that root length and root length density were both correlated with pre-flowering mean air temperatures. Both traits followed a typical temperature response curve in which the root length increased with the increasing temperature to an optimal temperature of 20 °C (Kaspar and Bland 1992). Temperature differences between seasons help explain the lack of statistically significant differences on root traits between times of sowing during the second season of trials. Though the continuous range of temperatures 16–23 °C allowed us to explore the relationships more functionally between root traits and environmental conditions. In general, cold soil temperatures are known to limit root growth and branching by reducing the availability of sugars to the roots (Kaspar and Bland 1992; Nagel et al. 2009), and increase the mean diameter of roots (Miyasaka and Grunes 1990; Farooq et al. 2009; Hassan et al. 2021; Zhou et al. 2021). In sorghum, known effects of cold soil temperatures and chilling stresses early in the season include impaired metabolism and photosynthesis, carbon assimilation, and stomatal control (Abbas 2012; Bekele et al. 2014; Casto et al. 2021). Low temperatures in the root meristems can also be expected to affect the production of growth hormones, and or reduce the uptake of nutrients such as potassium and phosphorus (Koevoets et al. 2016; Zhou et al. 2022).
Here, the root activity factor (Zhao et al. 2022) was not calculated during the first season of trials due the lack of enough EMI surveys around flowering. Though during the second season of trials, the calculated root activity factor was closely related to root length density (RLD) across most of the soil profiles, for the three times of sowing and two soil water treatments. The decline in RLD with soil depth was previously related to a lack of time for the rooting system to explore deeper soil layers (Robertson et al. 1993). Irrespective of the time of sowing, the larger the RLD the larger the values of the root activity factor (Fig. 6). Figure 6 shows that different linear relationships were evident for the irrigated and dryland treatments. For the same value of RLD, dryland plots had larger values of the root activity factor than the irrigated plots, while in the top layer of the dryland plots root activity was limited by water supply irrespective of the presence of roots. The differences in slope between the dryland and irrigated treatments might be related to a stress adaptation e.g., an increase in root hair and length, or in root hydraulic conductivity in water-limited environment (Calleja-Cabrera et al. 2020; Schneider 2022). The linear relationship between RLD, and its consistency between times of sowing highlight the opportunity to use EMI techniques to develop high throughput functional root phenotyping tools for breeding and agronomy. So far, high throughput phenotyping of rooting systems in the field has been a bottleneck for breeding to select for root traits that increase crop fitness to specific environments (Atkinson et al. 2019; Tracy et al. 2020). Presently most of the root phenotyping approaches are conducted under costly and laborious trials run under controlled conditions (Atkinson et al. 2019). These may involve growing plants in pots, tubes, root chambers or lysimeters on artificial media (Clark et al. 2011; Singh et al. 2012; van Dusschoten et al. 2016; Menamo et al. 2023). These approaches ignore the presence of intraspecific competition, plant density and the dynamics of water supply and demand on root structure and root function (Tracy et al. 2020). Many of these studies have been used to characterise the rooting system during seedling or early vegetative stages (Watt et al. 2013; Joshi et al. 2017; Menamo et al. 2023) and have related poorly to the same root traits latter in the season around flowering or during grain filling in the field (Watt et al. 2013; Tracy et al. 2020). This mismatch can be explained by the presence of plasticities in root traits (Schneider and Lynch 2020; Zhao et al. 2024). This is the capacity of a single genotype to express alternative phenotypes when grown in different environments (Schneider 2022). The EMI approach (Zhao et al. 2022), and the results in this manuscript, present a functional, quick, and affordable approach for field root phenotyping that is likely to overcome most of the limitations mentioned above.
Conclusion
Sowing sorghum, a summer crop, early in late winter or spring transferred water use from vegetative to reproductive stages mitigating terminal water stresses, and increasing water use efficiency. The higher grain numbers in early sown crops were related to higher grain numbers in tillers. Root length and root length density were reduced by pre-flowering mean temperatures lower than 20 °C. The relationship between the root activity factor and root length density highlights an opportunity to develop high-throughput functional root phenotyping tools for breeding and agronomy.
Data availability
The data is available upon request to the corresponding author and approval from the funding body (GRDC).
References
Abbas SM (2012) Effects of low temperature and selenium application on growth and the physiological changes in sorghum seedlings. J Stress Physiol Biochem 8(1):268–286
Akaike H (1998) Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In: Selected papers of hirotugu akaike. Springer, New York, pp 199–213
Aroca R, Tognoni F, Irigoyen JJ, Sánchez-Díaz M, Pardossi A (2001) Different root low temperature response of two maize genotypes differing in chilling sensitivity. Plant Physiol Biochem 39(12):1067–1073
Atkinson JA, Pound MP, Bennett MJ, Wells DM (2019) Uncovering the hidden half of plants using new advances in root phenotyping. Curr Opin Biotechnol 55:1–8
Barnabás B, Jäger K, Fehér A (2008) The effect of drought and heat stress on reproductive processes in cereals. Plant Cell Environ 31(1):11–38
Bekele WA, Fiedler K, Shiringani A, Schnaubelt D, Windpassinger S, Uptmoor R et al (2014) Unravelling the genetic complexity of sorghum seedling development under low-temperature conditions. Plant Cell Environ 37(3):707–723
Borrell AK, Hammer GL, Henzell RG (2000) Does maintaining green leaf area in Sorghum improve yield under drought? II. Dry matter production and yield. Crop Sci 40:1037–1048
Breiman L (2001) Random forests. Mach Learn 45:5–32 https://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~breiman/RandomForests/
Bureau of Meteorology (2023) Climate data online. Bureau of Meteorology, Nangwee. Available online at: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/. Accessed 15 Jan 2023
Butler DG, Cullis BR, Gilmour AR, Gogel BG, Thompson R (2017) ASReml-R reference manual version 4. VSN International Ltd, Hemel Hempstead
Calleja-Cabrera J, Boter M, Oñate-Sánchez L, Pernas M (2020) Root growth adaptation to climate change in crops. Front Plant Sci 11:544
Carcedo AJ, Cejas E, Gambin BL (2021) Adapting sorghum sowing date and genotype maturity to seasonal rainfall variation in a temperate region. In Silico Plants 3(1):diab007
Casto AL, Murphy KM, Gehan MA (2021) Coping with cold: Sorghum cold stress from germination to maturity. Crop Sci 61:3894–3907
Chiluwal A, Bheemanahalli R, Perumal R, Asebedo AR, Bashir E, Lamsal A, ..., Jagadish SK (2018) Integrated aerial and destructive phenotyping differentiates chilling stress tolerance during early seedling growth in sorghum. Field Crop Res 227:1–10
Clark RT, MacCurdy RB, Jung JK, Shaff JE, McCouch SR, Aneshansley DJ, Kochian LV (2011) Three-dimensional root phenotyping with a novel imaging and software platform. Plant Physiol 156(2):455–465
Clarke SJ, McLean J, George-Jaeggli B, McLean G, De Voil P, Eyre JX, Rodriguez D (2019) Understanding the diversity in yield potential and stability among commercial sorghum hybrids can inform crop designs. Field Crop Res 230:84–97
Connolly RD, Bell M, Huth N, Freebairn DM, Thomas G (2002) Simulating infiltration and the water balance in cropping systems with APSIM-SWIM. Soil Res 40(2):221–242
de Wit CT (1958) Transpiration and crop yields. Volume 64 of Agricultural research report / Netherlands Volume 59 of Mededeling (Instituut voor Biologisch en Scheikundig Onderzoek va Landbouwgewasses) Verslagen van landbouwkundige onderzoekingen. Inst Biol Chem Res Field Crops Herbage
Enns LC, McCully ME, Canny MJ (2006) Branch roots of young maize seedlings, their production, growth, and phloem supply from the primary root. Funct Plant Biol 33(4):391–399
Farooq M, Aziz T, Wahid A, Lee DJ, Siddique KH (2009) Chilling tolerance in maize: agronomic and physiological approaches. Crop Pasture Sci 60(6):501–516
Fitter AH, Hay RK (2012) Environmental physiology of plants. Academic press, Cambridge
Forbes GA, Ziv O, Frederiksen RA (1987) Resistance in sorghum to seedling disease caused by Pythium arrhenomanes. Plant Dis 71(2):145–148
Hassan MA, Xiang C, Farooq M, Muhammad N, Yan Z, Hui X, Jincai L (2021) Cold stress in wheat: plant acclimation responses and management strategies. Front Plant Sci 12:676884
Hothorn T, Zeileis A (2015) Partykit: a modular toolkit for recursive partytioning in R. J Mach Learn Res 16:3905–3909. https://jmlr.org/papers/v16/hothorn15a.html
Impa SM, Perumal R, Bean SR, Sunoj VSJ, Jagadish SVK (2019) Water deficit and heat stress induced alterations in grain physico-chemical characteristics and micronutrient composition in field grown grain sorghum. J Cereal Sci 86:124–131
IPCC (2021) Climate change 2021: the physical science basis. In: Masson-Delmotte V, Zhai P, Pirani A, Connors SL, Péan C, Berger S, Caud N, Chen Y, Goldfarb L, Gomis MI, Huang M, Leitzell K, Lonnoy E, Matthews JBR, Maycock TK, Waterfield T, Yelekçi O, Yu R, Zhou B (eds) Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Isbell R (2016) The Australian soil classification. CSIRO publishing, Clayton
Jagadish SVK (2020) Heat stress during flowering in cereals – effects and adaptation strategies. New Phytol 226:1567–1572
Joshi DC, Singh V, Hunt C, Mace E, van Oosterom E, Sulman R et al (2017) Development of a phenotyping platform for high throughput screening of nodal root angle in sorghum. Plant Methods 13(1):1–12
Kapanigowda MH, Perumal R, Aiken RM, Herald TJ, Bean SR, Little CR (2013) Analyses of sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench] lines and hybrids in response to early-season planting and cool conditions. Can J Plant Sci 93(5):773–784
Kaspar TC, Bland WL (1992) Soil temperature and root growth. Soil Sci 154:290–290
Kenward MG, Roger JH (1997) Small sample inference for fixed effects from restricted maximum likelihood. Biom 53:983–997
Koevoets IT, Venema JH, Elzenga JTM, Testerink C (2016) Roots withstanding their environment: exploiting root system architecture responses to abiotic stress to improve crop tolerance. Front Plant Sci 7:1335
Menamo T, Borrell AK, Mace E, Jordan DR, Tao Y, Hunt C, Kassahun B (2023) Genetic dissection of root architecture in Ethiopian sorghum landraces. Theor Appl Genet 136(10):209
Miyasaka SC, Grunes DL (1990) Root temperature and calcium level effects on winter wheat forage: I. Shoot and root growth. Agron J 82(2):236–242
Moghimi N, Desai JS, Bheemanahalli R, Impa SM, Vennapusa AR, Sebela D et al (2019) New candidate loci and marker genes on chromosome 7 for improved chilling tolerance in sorghum. J Exp Bot 70(12):3357–3371
Muchow RC, Hammer GL, Vanderlip RL (1994) Assessing climatic risk to sorghum production in water-limited subtropical environments II. Effects of planting date, soil water at planting, and cultivar phenology. Field Crop Res 36(3):235–246
Mumford MH, Forknall CR, Rodriguez D, Eyre JX, Kelly AM (2023) Incorporating environmental covariates to explore genotype× environment× management (G× E× M) interactions: A one-stage predictive model. Field Crops Research 304:109133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2023.109133
Munaro LB, Hefley TJ, DeWolf E, Haley S, Fritz AK, Zhang G et al (2020) Exploring long-term variety performance trials to improve environment-specific genotype× management recommendations: a case-study for winter wheat. Field Crop Res 255:107848
Nagel KA, Kastenholz B, Jahnke S, Van Dusschoten D, Aach T, Mühlich M et al (2009) Temperature responses of roots: impact on growth, root system architecture and implications for phenotyping. Funct Plant Biol 36(11):947–959
Nguyen CT, Singh V, van Oosterom EJ, Chapman SC, Jordan DR, Hammer GL (2013) Genetic variability in high temperature effects on seed-set in sorghum. Funct Plant Biol 40(5):439–448
Ortiz D, Hu J, Salas Fernandez MG (2017) Genetic architecture of photosynthesis in Sorghum bicolor under non-stress and cold stress conditions. J Exp Bot 68(16):4545–4557
Ostmeyer T, Bheemanahalli R, Srikanthan D, Bean S, Peiris KH, Madasamy P et al (2020) Quantifying the agronomic performance of new grain sorghum hybrids for enhanced early-stage chilling tolerance. Field Crop Res 258:107955
Parra-Londono S, Fiedler K, Kavka M, Samans B, Wieckhorst S, Zacharias A, Uptmoor R (2018) Genetic dissection of early-season cold tolerance in sorghum: genome-wide association studies for seedling emergence and survival under field and controlled environment conditions. Theor Appl Genet 131(3):581–595
Passioura JB (1983) Roots and drought resistance. Agric Water Manag 7:265–280
Passioura JB, Angus JF (2010) Improving productivity of crops in water-limited environments. Adv Agron 106:37–75
Patanè C, Cosentino SL, Cavallaro V, Saita A (2021) Screening for cold tolerance during germination within sweet and Fiber sorghums [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench] for energy biomass. Agronomy 11(4):620
Patterson HD, Thompson R (1971) Recovery of inter-block information when block sizes are unequal. Biometrika 58(3):545–554
Planet Labs Inc (2020) Planet Imagery and Archive. [web page]: https://www.planet.com/products/planet-imagery/. Accessed 29 Jul 2021
Prasad PV, Pisipati SR, Mutava RN, Tuinstra MR (2008) Sensitivity of grain sorghum to high temperature stress during reproductive development. Crop Sci 48(5):1911–1917
Prasad PVV, Djanaguiraman M, Perumal R, Ciampitti IA (2015) Impact of high temperature stress on floret fertility and individual grain weight of grain sorghum: sensitive stages and thresholds for temperature and duration. Front Plant Sci 6:820
Prasad PV, Bheemanahalli R, Jagadish SK (2017) Field crops and the fear of heat stress—opportunities, challenges and future directions. Field Crop Res 200:114–121
R Core Team (2022) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/
Raymundo R, Sexton-Bowser S, Ciampitti IA, Morris GP (2021) Crop modeling defines opportunities and challenges for drought escape, water capture, and yield increase using chilling-tolerant sorghum. Plant direct 5(9):e349
Reynolds MP, Quilligan E, Aggarwal PK, Bansal KC, Cavalieri AJ, Chapman SC et al (2016) An integrated approach to maintaining cereal productivity under climate change. Glob Food Secur 8:9–18
Robertson MJ, Fukai S, Ludlow MM, Hammer GL (1993) Water extraction by grain sorghum in a sub-humid environment. I. Analysis of the water extraction pattern. Field Crops Res 33:81–97
Rodriguez D, Sadras VO (2007) The limit to wheat water-use efficiency in eastern Australia. I.* Gradients in the radiation environment and atmospheric demand. Aust J Agric Res 58(4):287–302
Rodriguez D, Serafin L, de Voil P, Mumford M, Zhao D, Aisthorpe D, Auer J, Broad I, Eyre J, Hellyer M (2024) Agronomic adaptations to heat stress: Sowing summer crops early in late winter. bioRxiv [Preprint]. 2023 August 14 [cited 2024 April 3]. Available from: https://doi.org/10.31220/agriRxiv.2024.00243
Rooney WL (2004) Sorghum improvement-integrating traditional and new technology to produce improved genotypes. Adv Agron 83(10.1016):S0065–S2113
Rose L (2017) Pitfalls in root trait calculations: how ignoring diameter heterogeneity can lead to overestimation of functional traits. Front Plant Sci 8:898
Rutayisire A, Lubadde G, Mukayiranga A, Edema R (2021) Response of Sorghum to cold stress at early developmental stage. Int J Agron 2021:1–10
Schneider HM (2022) Characterization, costs, cues and future perspectives of phenotypic plasticity. Ann Bot 130(2):131–148
Schneider HM, Lynch JP (2020) Should root plasticity be a crop breeding target? Front Plant Sci 11:546
Shroyer J, Kok H, Fjell D, Whitney D, Rogers HD, Alam M, Jardine D, Leroy Brooks H (1998) Fertilizer requirements, irrigation, major sorghum diseases and major sorghum insects. Grain sorghum production handbook. In: Kansas State University Publications, pp 12–21. www.oznet.ksu.edu. Accessed 28 Jan 2023
Siddique KHM, Regan KL, Tennant D, Thomson BD (2001) Water use and water use efficiency of cool season grain legumes in low rainfall Mediterranean-type environments. Eur J Agron 15:267–280
Singh V, van Oosterom EJ, Jordan DR, Hammer GL (2012) Genetic control of nodal root angle in sorghum and its implications on water extraction. Eur J Agron 42:3–10
Singh P, Nedumaran S, Traore PCS, Boote KJ, Rattunde HFW, Prasad PV et al (2014) Quantifying potential benefits of drought and heat tolerance in rainy season sorghum for adapting to climate change. Agric For Meteorol 185:37–48
Singh V, Nguyen CT, van Oosterom EJ, Chapman SC, Jordan DR, Hammer GL (2015) Sorghum genotypes differ in high temperature responses for seed set. Field Crop Res 171:32–40
Singh V, Nguyen CT, McLean G, Chapman SC, Zheng B, van Oosterom EJ, Hammer GL (2017) Quantifying high temperature risks and their potential effects on sorghum production in Australia. Field Crop Res 211:77–88
Trachsel S, Kaeppler SM, Brown KM, Lynch JP (2011) Shovelomics: high throughput phenotyping of maize (Zea mays L.) root architecture in the field. Plant Soil 341(1):75–87
Tracy SR, Nagel KA, Postma JA, Fassbender H, Wasson A, Watt M (2020) Crop improvement from phenotyping roots: highlights reveal expanding opportunities. Trends Plant Sci 25(1):105–118
Upadhyaya HD, Wang YH, Sastry DV, Dwivedi SL, Prasad PV, Burrell AM et al (2016) Association mapping of germinability and seedling vigor in sorghum under controlled low-temperature conditions. Genome 59(2):137–145
van Dusschoten D, Metzner R, Kochs J, Postma JA, Pflugfelder D, Bühler J, ..., Jahnke S (2016) Quantitative 3D analysis of plant roots growing in soil using magnetic resonance imaging. Plant Physiol 170(3):1176–1188
Vennapusa AR, Assefa Y, Sebela D, Somayanda I, Perumal R, Riechers DE, ..., Jagadish SK (2021) Safeners improve early-stage chilling-stress tolerance in sorghum. J Agron Crop Sci 207(4):705–716
Wang D, Portis AR Jr, Moose SP, Long SP (2008) Cool C4 photosynthesis: pyruvate pi dikinase expression and activity corresponds to the exceptional cold tolerance of carbon assimilation in Miscanthus× giganteus. Plant Physiol 148(1):557–567
Watt M, Moosavi S, Cunningham SC, Kirkegaard JA, Rebetzke GJ, Richards RA (2013) A rapid, controlled-environment seedling root screen for wheat correlates well with rooting depths at vegetative, but not reproductive, stages at two field sites. Ann Bot 112(2):447–455
Welham SJ, Gezan SA, Clark SJ, Mead A (2014) Statistical methods in biology: design and analysis of experiments and regression. CRC Press, Boca Raton
Whish J, Butler G, Castor M, Cawthray S, Broad I, Carberry P, Hammer G, McLean G, Routley R, Yeates S (2005) Modelling the effects of row configuration on sorghum yield reliability in North-Eastern Australia. Crop Pasture Sci 56:11–23
Yu J, Tuinstra MR, Claassen MM, Gordon WB, Witt MD (2004) Analysis of cold tolerance in sorghum under controlled environment conditions. Field Crop Res 85(1):21–30
Zhao D, Eyre JX, Wilkus E, de Voil P, Broad I, Rodriguez D (2022) 3D characterization of crop water use and the rooting system in field agronomic research. Comput Electron Agric 202:107409
Zhao D, de Voil P, Sadras V, Palta J, Rodriguez D (2024) Root phenotypic plasticity: agronomic, breeding and modelling implications. Research Square [Preprint]. August 12, 2023 [cited 2024 Jan 15]. Available from: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4120028/v1
Zhou Y, Sommer ML, Hochholdinger F (2021) Cold response and tolerance in cereal roots. J Exp Bot 72(21):7474–7481
Zhou X, Muhammad I, Lan H, Xia C (2022) Recent advances in the analysis of cold tolerance in maize. Front Plant Sci 13:866034
Acknowledgments
This work is funded by the Australian Grains Research and Development Corporation project (GRDC UOQ1906-010RTX).
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Dongxue Zhao: Conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, writing - original draft, writing - review & editing; Daniel Rodriguez: Project leadership, conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, writing & editing; Peter deVoil: Data management, review & editing; Bethany Rognoni: statistical data analysis & editing; Erin Wilkus, Joseph X Eyre and Ian Broad contributed by running field experiments, collecting field data and editing the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no known competing interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Additional information
Responsible Editor: Martin Weih.
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
ESM 1
(DOCX 825 kb)
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Zhao, D., deVoil, P., Rognoni, B.G. et al. Sowing summer grain crops early in late winter or spring: effects on root growth, water use, and yield. Plant Soil (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-024-06648-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-024-06648-0