The Physiological Basis of Drought Tolerance in Crop Plants: A Scenario-Dependent Probabilistic Approach

Literature Cited

1. Åaström KJ, Murray RM. 1.  2003. Analysis and Design of Feedback Systems: An Introduction for Scientists and Engineers Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press http://www.cds.caltech.edu/∼murray/amwiki/index.php/Main_Page
2. Alvarez Prado S, Cabrera-Bosquet L, Grau A, Coupel-Ledru A, Millet EJ. 2.  et al. 2018. Phenomics allows identification of genomic regions affecting maize stomatal conductance with conditional effects of water deficit and evaporative demand. Plant Cell Environ 41:314–26 [Google Scholar]
3. Angeles G, Bond B, Boyer JS, Brodribb T, Brooks JR. 3.  et al. 2004. The cohesion–tension theory. New Phytol 163:451–52 [Google Scholar]
4. Araus JL, Cairns JE. 4.  2014. Field high-throughput phenotyping: the new crop breeding frontier. Trends Plant Sci 19:52–61 [Google Scholar]
5. Bao Y, Aggarwal P, Robbins NE, Sturrock CJ, Thompson MC. 5.  et al. 2014. Plant roots use a patterning mechanism to position lateral root branches toward available water. PNAS 111:9319–24 [Google Scholar]
6. Bläsing OE, Gibon Y, Günther M, Höhne M, Morcuende R. 6.  et al. 2005. Sugars and circadian regulation make major contributions to the global regulation of diurnal gene expression in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 17:3257–81 [Google Scholar]
7. Blum A.7.  2014. Genomics for drought resistance—getting down to earth. Funct. Plant Biol. 41:1191–98 [Google Scholar]
8. Blum A.8.  2017. Osmotic adjustment is a prime drought stress adaptive engine in support of plant production. Plant Cell Environ 40:4–10 [Google Scholar]
9. Bogeat-Triboulot MB, Brosché M, Renaut J, Jouve L, Le Thiec D. 9.  et al. 2007. Gradual soil water depletion results in reversible changes of gene expression, protein profiles, ecophysiology, and growth performance in Populus euphratica, a poplar growing in arid regions. Plant Physiol 143:876–92 [Google Scholar]
10. Bolaños J, Edmeades GO. 10.  1993. Eight cycles of selection for drought tolerance in lowland tropical maize. II. Responses in reproductive behavior. Field Crop. Res. 31:253–68 [Google Scholar]
11. Bolaños J, Edmeades GO, Martinez L. 11.  1993. Eight cycles of selection for drought tolerance in lowland tropical maize. III. Responses in drought-adaptive physiological and morphological traits. Field Crop. Res. 31:269–86 [Google Scholar]
12. Borel C, Frey A, Marion-Poll A, Tardieu F, Simonneau T. 12.  2001. Does engineering abscisic acid biosynthesis in Nicotiana plumbaginifolia modify stomatal response to drought?. Plant Cell Environ 24:477–89 [Google Scholar]
13. Borland AM, Griffiths H, Hartwell J, Smith JAC. 13.  2009. Exploiting the potential of plants with crassulacean acid metabolism for bioenergy production on marginal lands. J. Exp. Bot. 60:2879–96 [Google Scholar]
14. Borrell AK, Mullet JE, George-Jaeggli B, van Oosterom EJ, Hammer GL. 14.  et al. 2014. Drought adaptation of stay-green sorghum is associated with canopy development, leaf anatomy, root growth, and water uptake. J. Exp. Bot. 65:6251–63 [Google Scholar]
15. Borrell AK, van Oosterom EJ, Mullet JE, George-Jaeggli B, Jordan DR. 15.  et al. 2014. Stay-green alleles individually enhance grain yield in sorghum under drought by modifying canopy development and water uptake patterns. New Phytol 203:817–30 [Google Scholar]
16. Bouchabké O, Tardieu F, Simonneau T. 16.  2006. Leaf growth and turgor in growing cells of maize (Zea mays L.) respond to evaporative demand under moderate irrigation but not in water-saturated soil. Plant Cell Environ 29:1138–48 [Google Scholar]
17. Boyle MG, Boyer JS, Morgan PW. 17.  1991. Stem infusion of liquid culture medium prevents reproductive failure of maize at low water potential. Crop Sci 31:1246–52 [Google Scholar]
18. Bray EA.18.  1997. Plant responses to water deficit. Trends Plant Sci 2:48–54 [Google Scholar]
19. Bray EA.19.  2004. Genes commonly regulated by water-deficit stress in Arabidopsis thaliana. J. Exp. Bot 55:2331–41 [Google Scholar]
20. Brodribb TJ, McAdam SAM. 20.  2011. Passive origins of stomatal control in vascular plants. Science 331:582–85 [Google Scholar]
21. Buitenwerf R, Rose L, Higgins SI. 21.  2015. Three decades of multi-dimensional change in global leaf phenology. Nat. Clim. Change 5:364–68 [Google Scholar]
22. Cabrera-Bosquet L, Fournier C, Brichet N, Welcker C, Suard B, Tardieu F. 22.  2016. High-throughput estimation of incident light, light interception and radiation-use efficiency of thousands of plants in a phenotyping platform. New Phytol 212:269–81 [Google Scholar]
23. Caldeira CF, Bosio M, Parent B, Jeanguenin L, Chaumont F, Tardieu F. 23.  2014. A hydraulic model is compatible with rapid changes in leaf elongation under fluctuating evaporative demand and soil water status. Plant Physiol 164:1718–30 [Google Scholar]
24. Caldeira CF, Jeanguenin L, Chaumont F, Tardieu F. 24.  2014. Circadian rhythms of hydraulic conductance and growth are enhanced by drought and improve plant performance. Nat. Commun. 5:5365 [Google Scholar]
25. Calderini DF, Reynolds MP, Slafer GA. 25.  1999. Genetic gains in wheat yield and associated physiological changes during the twentieth century. Wheat: Ecology and Physiology of Yield Determination EH Satorre, GA Slafer 351–77 New York: Food Products Press [Google Scholar]
26. Campos H, Cooper A, Habben JE, Edmeades GO, Schussler JR. 26.  2004. Improving drought tolerance in maize: a view from industry. Field Crop. Res. 90:19–34 [Google Scholar]
27. Carminati A, Passioura JB, Zarebanadkouki M, Ahmed MA, Ryan PR. 27.  et al. 2017. Root hairs enable high transpiration rates in drying soils. New Phytol 216:771–81Examines how root hairs and mucigels can affect the hydraulic conductance at the soil root interface by using original phenotyping and a physical approach. [Google Scholar]
28. Carrão H, Naumann G, Barbosa P. 28.  2016. Mapping global patterns of drought risk: an empirical framework based on sub-national estimates of hazard, exposure and vulnerability. Glob. Environ. Change 39:108–24 [Google Scholar]
29. Castiglioni P, Warner D, Bensen RJ, Anstrom DC, Harrison J. 29.  et al. 2008. Bacterial RNA chaperones confer abiotic stress tolerance in plants and improved grain yield in maize under water-limited conditions. Plant Physiol 147:446–55 [Google Scholar]
30. Chapman S, Cooper M, Podlich D, Hammer G. 30.  2003. Evaluating plant breeding strategies by simulating gene action and dryland environment effects. Agron. J. 95:99–113Serves as the first clear demonstration that context dependency of traits largely affects breeding programs based on yield. [Google Scholar]
31. Chaumont F, Tyerman SD. 31.  2014. Aquaporins: highly regulated channels controlling plant water relations. Plant Physiol 164:1600–18 [Google Scholar]
32. Chaves MM, Maroco JP, Pereira JS. 32.  2003. Understanding plant responses to drought—from genes to the whole plant. Funct. Plant Biol. 30:239–64 [Google Scholar]
33. Chazen O, Neumann PM. 33.  1994. Hydraulic signals from the roots and rapid cell-wall hardening in growing maize (Zea mays L.) leaves are primary responses to polyethylene glycol-induced water deficits. Plant Physiol 104:1385–92 [Google Scholar]
34. Chen J, Chang SX, Anyia AO. 34.  2011. Gene discovery in cereals through quantitative trait loci and expression analysis in water-use efficiency measured by carbon isotope discrimination. Plant Cell Environ 34:2009–23 [Google Scholar]
35. Chen X, Zhang J, Chen Y, Li Q, Chen F. 35.  et al. 2014. Changes in root size and distribution in relation to nitrogen accumulation during maize breeding in China. Plant Soil 374:121–30 [Google Scholar]
36. Chenu K, Chapman SC, Tardieu F, McLean G, Welcker C, Hammer GL. 36.  2009. Simulating the yield impacts of organ-level quantitative trait loci associated with drought response in maize: a “gene-to-phenotype” modeling approach. Genetics 183:1507–23 [Google Scholar]
37. Chenu K, Deihimfard R, Chapman SC. 37.  2013. Large-scale characterization of drought pattern: a continent-wide modelling approach applied to the Australian wheatbelt—spatial and temporal trends. New Phytol 198:801–20 [Google Scholar]
38. Christmann A, Weiler EW, Steudle E, Grill E. 38.  2007. A hydraulic signal in root-to-shoot signalling of water shortage. Plant J 52:167–74 [Google Scholar]
39. Cochard H, Venisse JS, Barigah TS, Brunel N, Herbette S. 39.  et al. 2007. Putative role of aquaporins in variable hydraulic conductance of leaves in response to light. Plant Physiol 143:122–33 [Google Scholar]
40. Condon AG, Richards RA, Rebetzke GJ, Farquhar GD. 40.  2004. Breeding for high water-use efficiency. J. Exp. Bot. 55:2447–60 [Google Scholar]
41. Coupel-Ledru A, Lebon É, Christophe A, Doligez A, Cabrera-Bosquet L. 41.  et al. 2014. Genetic variation in a grapevine progeny (Vitis vinifera L. cvs Grenache×Syrah) reveals inconsistencies between maintenance of daytime leaf water potential and response of transpiration rate under drought. J. Exp. Bot. 65:6205–18 [Google Scholar]
42. Coupel-Ledru A, Lebon É, Christophe A, Gallo A, Gago P. 42.  et al. 2016. Reduced nighttime transpiration is a relevant breeding target for high water-use efficiency in grapevine. PNAS 113:8963–68 [Google Scholar]
43. Cutler SR, Rodriguez PL, Finkelstein RR, Abrams SR. 43.  2010. Abscisic acid: emergence of a core signaling network. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 61:651–79 [Google Scholar]
44. Davies WJ, Kudoyarova G, Hartung W. 44.  2005. Long-distance ABA signaling and its relation to other signaling pathways in the detection of soil drying and the mediation of the plant's response to drought. J. Plant Growth Regul. 24:285–95 [Google Scholar]
45. de Dorlodot S, Forster B, Pagès L, Price A, Tuberosa R, Draye X. 45.  2007. Root system architecture: opportunities and constraints for genetic improvement of crops. Trends Plant Sci 12:474–81 [Google Scholar]
46. Denmead OT, Shaw RH. 46.  1960. Effects of soil moisture stress at different stages of growth on development and yield of corn. Agron. J. 52:272–74 [Google Scholar]
47. Dietrich D, Pang L, Kobayashi A, Fozard JA, Boudolf V. 47.  et al. 2017. Root hydrotropism is controlled via a cortex-specific growth mechanism. Nat. Plants 3:17057 [Google Scholar]
48. Duvick DN.48.  2005. The contribution of breeding to yield advances in maize (Zea mays L.). Adv. Agron. 86:83–145 [Google Scholar]
49. Ehlert C, Maurel C, Tardieu F, Simonneau T. 49.  2009. Aquaporin-mediated reduction in maize root hydraulic conductivity impacts cell turgor and leaf elongation even without changing transpiration. Plant Physiol 150:1093–104 [Google Scholar]
50. Flexas J, Bota J, Loreto F, Cornic G, Sharkey TD. 50.  2004. Diffusive and metabolic limitations to photosynthesis under drought and salinity in C₃ plants. Plant Biol 6:269–79 [Google Scholar]
51. Franks PJ.51.  2013. Passive and active stomatal control: either or both?. New Phytol 198:325–27 [Google Scholar]
52. Frensch J, Hsiao TC. 52.  1994. Transient responses of cell turgor and growth of maize roots as affected by changes in water potential. Plant Physiol 104:247–54 [Google Scholar]
53. George-Jaeggli B, Mortlock MY, Borrell AK. 53.  2017. Bigger is not always better: Reducing leaf area helps stay-green sorghum use soil water more slowly. Environ. Exp. Bot. 138:119–29 [Google Scholar]
54. Grondin A, Rodrigues O, Verdoucq L, Merlot S, Leonhardt N, Maurel C. 54.  2015. Aquaporins contribute to ABA-triggered stomatal closure through OST1-mediated phosphorylation. Plant Cell 27:1945–54 [Google Scholar]
55. Guilioni L, Wery J, Tardieu F. 55.  1997. Heat stress-induced abortion of buds and flowers in pea: Is sensitivity linked to organ age or to relations between reproductive organs?. Ann. Bot. 80:159–68 [Google Scholar]
56. Hammer GL, Van Oosterom E, McLean G, Chapman SC, Broad I. 56.  et al. 2010. Adapting APSIM to model the physiology and genetics of complex adaptive traits in field crops. J. Exp. Bot. 61:2185–202 [Google Scholar]
57. Harrison MT, Tardieu F, Dong Z, Messina CD, Hammer GL. 57.  2014. Characterizing drought stress and trait influence on maize yield under current and future conditions. Glob. Change Biol. 20:867–78 [Google Scholar]
58. Henry A, Cal AJ, Batoto TC, Torres RO, Serraj R. 58.  2012. Root attributes affecting water uptake of rice (Oryza sativa) under drought. J. Exp. Bot. 63:4751–63 [Google Scholar]
59. Hose E, Steudle E, Hartung W. 59.  2000. Abscisic acid and hydraulic conductivity of maize roots: a study using cell- and root-pressure probes. Planta 211:874–82 [Google Scholar]
60. Hsiao TC.60.  1973. Plant responses to water stress. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. 24:519–70 [Google Scholar]
61. Hsiao TC, Acevedo E, Henderson DW. 61.  1970. Maize leaf elongation: continuous measurements and close dependence on plant water status. Science 168:590–91 [Google Scholar]
62. Huang D, Wu W, Abrams SR, Cutler AJ. 62.  2008. The relationship of drought-related gene expression in Arabidopsis thaliana to hormonal and environmental factors. J. Exp. Bot. 59:2991–3007 [Google Scholar]
63. Hummel I, Pantin F, Sulpice R, Piques M, Rolland G. 63.  et al. 2010. Arabidopsis plants acclimate to water deficit at low cost through changes of carbon usage: an integrated perspective using growth, metabolite, enzyme, and gene expression analysis. Plant Physiol 154:357–72 [Google Scholar]
64. Hussain A, Ghaudhry MR, Wajad A, Ahmed A, Rafiq M. 64.  et al. 2004. Influence of water stress on growth, yield and radiation use efficiency of various wheat cultivars. Intl. J. Agric. Biol. 6:1074–79 [Google Scholar]
65. Ingram J, Bartels D. 65.  1996. The molecular basis of dehydration tolerance in plants. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol. 47:377–403 [Google Scholar]
66. 66. IPCC (Intergov. Panel Clim. Change) 2014. Summary for policymakers. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change CB Field, VR Barros, DJ Dokken, KJ Mach, MD Mastrandrea et al. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press32 pp [Google Scholar]
67. Jongdee B, Fukai S, Cooper M. 67.  2002. Leaf water potential and osmotic adjustment as physiological traits to improve drought tolerance in rice. Field Crop. Res. 76:153–63 [Google Scholar]
68. Kollist H, Nuhkat M, Roelfsema MRG. 68.  2014. Closing gaps: linking elements that control stomatal movement. New Phytol 203:44–62 [Google Scholar]
69. Kouressy M, Dingkuhn M, Vaksmann M, Heinemann AB. 69.  2008. Adaptation to diverse semi-arid environments of sorghum genotypes having different plant type and sensitivity to photoperiod. Agric. Forest Meteorol. 148:357–71 [Google Scholar]
70. Lacube S, Fournier C, Palaffre C, Millet EJ, Tardieu F, Parent B. 70.  2017. Distinct controls of leaf widening and elongation by light and evaporative demand in maize. Plant Cell Environ 40:2017–28 [Google Scholar]
71. Lambers H, Atkin OK, Millenaar FF. 71.  2002. Respiratory patterns in roots in relation to their functioning. Plant Roots: The Hidden Half Y Waisel, A Eshel, K Kafkaki 782–838 New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc. , 3rd ed..
72. Landi P, Giuliani S, Salvi S, Ferri M, Tuberosa R, Sanguineti MC. 72.  2010. Characterization of root-yield-1.06, a major constitutive QTL for root and agronomic traits in maize across water regimes. J. Exp. Bot. 61:3553–62 [Google Scholar]
73. Lawson T, Blatt MR. 73.  2014. Stomatal size, speed, and responsiveness impact on photosynthesis and water use efficiency. Plant Physiol 164:1556–70 [Google Scholar]
74. Lens F, Picon-Cochard C, Delmas CEL, Signarbieux C, Buttler A. 74.  et al. 2016. Herbaceous angiosperms are not more vulnerable to drought-induced embolism than angiosperm trees. Plant Physiol 172:661–67 [Google Scholar]
75. Lobell DB, Roberts MJ, Schlenker W, Braun N, Little BB. 75.  et al. 2014. Greater sensitivity to drought accompanies maize yield increase in the U.S. Midwest. Science 344:516–19 [Google Scholar]
76. Lobell DB, Schlenker W, Costa-Roberts J. 76.  2011. Climate trends and global crop production since 1980. Science 333:616–20 [Google Scholar]
77. Lobet G, Couvreur V, Meunier F, Javaux M, Draye X. 77.  2014. Plant water uptake in drying soils. Plant Physiol 164:1619–27 [Google Scholar]
78. Lynch JP.78.  2013. Steep, cheap and deep: an ideotype to optimize water and N acquisition by maize root systems. Ann. Bot. 112:347–57 [Google Scholar]
79. Maccaferri M, Sanguineti MC, Corneti S, Ortega JLA, Ben Salem M. 79.  et al. 2008. Quantitative trait loci for grain yield and adaptation of durum wheat (Triticum durum Desf.) across a wide range of water availability. Genetics 178:489–511 [Google Scholar]
80. Manschadi AM, Hammer GL, Christopher JT, deVoil P. 80.  2008. Genotypic variation in seedling root architectural traits and implications for drought adaptation in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Plant Soil 303:115–29 [Google Scholar]
81. Martre P, Cochard H, Durand J-L. 81.  2001. Hydraulic architecture and water flow in growing grass tillers (Festuca arundinacea Schreb.). Plant Cell Environ 24:65–76 [Google Scholar]
82. Maurel C, Verdoucq L, Luu D-T, Santoni V. 82.  2008. Plant aquaporins: membrane channels with multiple integrated functions. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 59:595–624 [Google Scholar]
83. McDowell NG.83.  2011. Mechanisms linking drought, hydraulics, carbon metabolism, and vegetation mortality. Plant Physiol 155:1051–59 [Google Scholar]
84. Messina CD, Sinclair TR, Hammer GL, Curan D, Thompson J. 84.  et al. 2015. Limited-transpiration trait may increase maize drought tolerance in the US corn belt. Agron. J. 107:1978–86 [Google Scholar]
85. Millet EJ, Welcker C, Kruijer W, Negro S, Coupel-Ledru A. 85.  et al. 2016. Genome-wide analysis of yield in Europe: Allelic effects vary with drought and heat scenarios. Plant Physiol 172:749–64Estimates allelic effects at quantitative trait loci of yield in tens of fields as a function of environmental scenarios. [Google Scholar]
86. Miralles DJ, Slafer GA. 86.  1997. Radiation interception and radiation use efficiency of near-isogenic wheat lines with different height. Euphytica 97:201–8 [Google Scholar]
87. Monteith JL.87.  1977. Climate and the efficiency of crop production in Britain. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 281:277–94 [Google Scholar]
88. Mott KA, Parkhurst DF. 88.  1991. Stomatal responses to humidity in air and helox. Plant Cell Environ 14:509–15 [Google Scholar]
89. Muller B, Bourdais G, Reidy B, Bencivenni C, Massonneau A. 89.  et al. 2007. Association of specific expansins with growth in maize leaves is maintained under environmental, genetic, and developmental sources of variation. Plant Physiol 143:278–90 [Google Scholar]
90. Muller B, Pantin F, Genard M, Turc O, Freixes S. 90.  et al. 2011. Water deficits uncouple growth from photosynthesis, increase C content, and modify the relationships between C and growth in sink organs. J. Exp. Bot. 62:1715–29 [Google Scholar]
91. Munns R.91.  1988. Why measure osmotic adjustment. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 15:717–26 [Google Scholar]
92. Nambara E, Marion-Poll A. 92.  2005. Abscisic acid biosynthesis and catabolism. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 56:165–85 [Google Scholar]
93. Nobel PS.93.  1991. Achievable productivities of certain CAM plants: basis for high values compared with C₃ and C₄ plants. New Phytol 119:183–205 [Google Scholar]
94. Noctor G, Mhamdi A, Foyer CH. 94.  2014. The roles of reactive oxygen metabolism in drought: not so cut and dried. Plant Physiol 164:1636–48 [Google Scholar]
95. Nuccio ML, Wu J, Mowers R, Zhou HP, Meghji M. 95.  et al. 2015. Expression of trehalose-6-phosphate phosphatase in maize ears improves yield in well-watered and drought conditions. Nat. Biotechnol. 33:862–69 [Google Scholar]
96. Oury V, Caldeira CF, Prodhomme D, Pichon JP, Gibon Y. 96.  et al. 2016. Is change in ovary carbon status a cause or a consequence of maize ovary abortion in water deficit during flowering?. Plant Physiol 171:997–1008 [Google Scholar]
97. Oury V, Tardieu F, Turc O. 97.  2016. Ovary apical abortion under water deficit is caused by changes in sequential development of ovaries and in silk growth rate in maize. Plant Physiol 171:986–96 [Google Scholar]
98. Pantin F, Monnet F, Jannaud D, Costa JM, Renaud J. 98.  et al. 2013. The dual effect of abscisic acid on stomata. New Phytol 197:65–72 [Google Scholar]
99. Pantin F, Simonneau T, Rolland G, Dauzat M, Muller B. 99.  2011. Control of leaf expansion: a developmental switch from metabolics to hydraulics. Plant Physiol 156:803–15 [Google Scholar]
100. Parent B, Bonneau J, Maphosa L, Kovalchuk A, Langridge P, Fleury D. 100.  2017. Quantifying wheat sensitivities to environmental constraints to dissect genotype×environment interactions in the field. Plant Physiol 174:1669–82Disentangles the effects of environmental conditions upon yield in tens of field experiments and estimates allelic effects at one quantitative trait locus of yield as a function of temperature. [Google Scholar]
101. Parent B, Hachez C, Redondo E, Simonneau T, Chaumont F, Tardieu F. 101.  2009. Drought and abscisic acid effects on aquaporin content translate into changes in hydraulic conductivity and leaf growth rate: a trans-scale approach. Plant Physiol 149:2000–12 [Google Scholar]
102. Parent B, Tardieu F. 102.  2014. Can current crop models be used in the phenotyping era for predicting the genetic variability of yield of plants subjected to drought or high temperature?. J. Exp. Bot. 65:6179–89 [Google Scholar]
103. Passioura JB.103.  1977. Grain yield, harvest index, and water use of wheat. J. Aust. Inst. Agric. Sci. 43:117–20 [Google Scholar]
104. Poorter H, Niklas KJ, Reich PB, Oleksyn J, Poot P, Mommer L. 104.  2012. Biomass allocation to leaves, stems and roots: meta-analyses of interspecific variation and environmental control. New Phytol 193:30–50 [Google Scholar]
105. Purushothaman R, Krishnamurthy L, Upadhyaya HD, Vadez V, Varshney RK. 105.  2017. Genotypic variation in soil water use and root distribution and their implications for drought tolerance in chickpea. Funct. Plant Biol. 44:235–52 [Google Scholar]
106. Rebetzke GJ, Condon AG, Richards RA, Farquhar GD. 106.  2002. Selection for reduced carbon isotope discrimination increases aerial biomass and grain yield of rainfed bread wheat. Crop Sci 42:739–45 [Google Scholar]
107. Reidsma P, Ewert F, Lansink AO, Leemans R. 107.  2010. Adaptation to climate change and climate variability in European agriculture: the importance of farm level responses. Eur. J. Agron. 32:91–102 [Google Scholar]
108. Reynolds M, Langridge P. 108.  2016. Physiological breeding. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 31:162–71 [Google Scholar]
109. Richards RA, Passioura JB. 109.  1989. A breeding program to reduce the diameter of the major xylem vessel in the seminal roots of wheat and its effect on grain yield in rain-fed environments. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 40:943–50 [Google Scholar]
110. Rivero RM, Gimeno J, Van Deynze A, Walia H, Blumwald E. 110.  2010. Enhanced cytokinin synthesis in tobacco plants expressing PSARK::IPT prevents the degradation of photosynthetic protein complexes during drought. Plant Cell Physiol 51:1929–41 [Google Scholar]
111. Rosenthal DM, Stiller V, Sperry JS, Donovan LA. 111.  2010. Contrasting drought tolerance strategies in two desert annuals of hybrid origin. J. Exp. Bot. 61:2769–78 [Google Scholar]
112. Sadras VO, Richards RA. 112.  2014. Improvement of crop yield in dry environments: benchmarks, levels of organisation and the role of nitrogen. J. Exp. Bot. 65:1981–95 [Google Scholar]
113. Saini HS, Sedgley M, Aspinall D. 113.  1984. Developmental anatomy in wheat of male sterility induced by heat stress, water deficit or abscisic acid. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 11:243–53 [Google Scholar]
114. Schwartz N, Carminati A, Javaux M. 114.  2016. The impact of mucilage on root water uptake—a numerical study. Water Resour. Res. 52:264–77 [Google Scholar]
115. Sebastian J, Yee MC, Viana WG, Rellan-Alvarez R, Feldman M. 115.  et al. 2016. Grasses suppress shoot-borne roots to conserve water during drought. PNAS 113:8861–66 [Google Scholar]
116. Seki M, Umezawa T, Urano K, Shinozaki K. 116.  2007. Regulatory metabolic networks in drought stress responses. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 10:296–302 [Google Scholar]
117. Sharp RE, Hsiao TC, Silk WK. 117.  1990. Growth of the maize primary root at low water potentials. II. Role of growth and deposition of hexose and potassium in osmotic adjustment. Plant Physiol 93:1337–46 [Google Scholar]
118. Shatil-Cohen A, Attia Z, Moshelion M. 118.  2011. Bundle-sheath cell regulation of xylem-mesophyll water transport via aquaporins under drought stress: a target of xylem-borne ABA?. Plant J 67:72–80 [Google Scholar]
119. Sheffield J, Wood EF, Roderick ML. 119.  2012. Little change in global drought over the past 60 years. Nature 491:435–38 [Google Scholar]
120. Sinclair TR, Purcell LC, Sneller CH. 120.  2004. Crop transformation and the challenge to increase yield potential. Trends Plant Sci 9:70–75 [Google Scholar]
121. Skirycz A, Vandenbroucke K, Clauw P, Maleux K, De Meyer B. 121.  et al. 2011. Survival and growth of Arabidopsis plants given limited water are not equal. Nat. Biotechnol. 29:212–14 [Google Scholar]
122. Spollen WG, Sharp RE. 122.  1991. Spatial distribution of turgor and root growth at low water potentials. Plant Physiol 96:438–43 [Google Scholar]
123. Sun FB, Roderick ML, Farquhar GD. 123.  2012. Changes in the variability of global land precipitation. Geophys. Res. Lett. 39:L19402 [Google Scholar]
124. Sussmilch FC, Brodribb TJ, McAdam SAM. 124.  2017. What are the evolutionary origins of stomatal responses to abscisic acid in land plants?. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 59:240–60 [Google Scholar]
125. Sutka M, Li GW, Boudet J, Boursiac Y, Doumas P, Maurel C. 125.  2011. Natural variation of root hydraulics in Arabidopsis grown in normal and salt-stressed conditions. Plant Physiol 155:1264–76 [Google Scholar]
126. Tang A-C, Boyer JS. 126.  2002. Growth-induced water potentials and the growth of maize leaves. J. Exp. Bot. 53:489–503 [Google Scholar]
127. Tardieu F.127.  2012. Any trait or trait-related allele can confer drought tolerance: Just design the right drought scenario. J. Exp. Bot. 63:25–31 [Google Scholar]
128. Tardieu F.128.  2016. Too many partners in root–shoot signals. Does hydraulics qualify as the only signal that feeds back over time for reliable stomatal control?. New Phytol 212:802–4 [Google Scholar]
129. Tardieu F, Cabrera-Bosquet L, Pridmore T, Bennett M. 129.  2017. Plant phenomics, from sensors to knowledge. Curr. Biol. 27:R770–83 [Google Scholar]
130. Tardieu F, Parent B. 130.  2017. Predictable ‘meta-mechanisms’ emerge from feedbacks between transpiration and plant growth and cannot be simply deduced from short-term mechanisms. Plant Cell Environ 40:846–57 [Google Scholar]
131. Tardieu F, Parent B, Caldeira CF, Welcker C. 131.  2014. Genetic and physiological controls of growth under water deficit. Plant Physiol 164:1628–35 [Google Scholar]
132. Tardieu F, Simonneau T. 132.  1998. Variability among species of stomatal control under fluctuating soil water status and evaporative demand: modelling isohydric and anisohydric behaviours. J. Exp. Bot. 49:419–32 [Google Scholar]
133. Tardieu F, Simonneau T, Parent B. 133.  2015. Modelling the coordination of the controls of stomatal aperture, transpiration, leaf growth, and abscisic acid: update and extension of the Tardieu-Davies model. J. Exp. Bot. 66:2227–37 [Google Scholar]
134. Tardieu F, Tuberosa R. 134.  2010. Dissection and modelling of abiotic stress tolerance in plants. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 13:206–12 [Google Scholar]
135. Technow F, Messina CD, Totir LR, Cooper M. 135.  2015. Integrating crop growth models with whole genome prediction through approximate Bayesian computation. PLOS ONE 10:e0130855 [Google Scholar]
136. Tester M, Langridge P. 136.  2010. Breeding technologies to increase crop production in a changing world. Science 327:818–22 [Google Scholar]
137. Thomas H, Ougham H. 137.  2014. The stay-green trait. J. Exp. Bot. 65:3889–900 [Google Scholar]
138. Thompson AJ, Andrews J, Mulholland BJ, McKee JMT, Hilton HW. 138.  et al. 2007. Overproduction of abscisic acid in tomato increases transpiration efficiency and root hydraulic conductivity and influences leaf expansion. Plant Physiol 143:1905–17 [Google Scholar]
139. Tisne S, Schmalenbach I, Reymond M, Dauzat M, Pervent M. 139.  et al. 2010. Keep on growing under drought: genetic and developmental bases of the response of rosette area using a recombinant inbred line population. Plant Cell Environ 33:1875–87 [Google Scholar]
140. Todaka D, Zhao Y, Yoshida T, Kudo M, Kidokoro S. 140.  et al. 2017. Temporal and spatial changes in gene expression, metabolite accumulation and phytohormone content in rice seedlings grown under drought stress conditions. Plant J 90:61–78 [Google Scholar]
141. Turc O, Bouteillé M, Fuad-Hassan A, Welcker C, Tardieu F. 141.  2016. The growth of vegetative and reproductive structures (leaves and silks) respond similarly to hydraulic cues in maize. New Phytol 212:377–88 [Google Scholar]
142. Uga Y, Sugimoto K, Ogawa S, Rane J, Ishitani M. 142.  et al. 2013. Control of root system architecture by DEEPER ROOTING 1 increases rice yield under drought conditions. Nat. Genet. 45:1097–102 [Google Scholar]
143. Vadez V, Kholova J, Medina S, Kakkera A, Anderberg H. 143.  2014. Transpiration efficiency: new insights into an old story. J. Exp. Bot. 65:6141–53 [Google Scholar]
144. Vadez V, Soltani A, Sinclair TR. 144.  2013. Crop simulation analysis of phenological adaptation of chickpea to different latitudes of India. Field Crop. Res. 146:1–9Analyzes via simulation studies in different environmental scenarios the comparative advantages of genotypes bred in two locations in India, with marked differences in duration of two phenological stages. [Google Scholar]
145. van Oosterom EJ, Yang ZJ, Zhang FL, Deifel KS, Cooper M. 145.  et al. 2016. Hybrid variation for root system efficiency in maize: potential links to drought adaptation. Funct. Plant Biol. 43:502–11Estimates the costs and benefits of large root systems under water deficit and introduces a novel efficiency term of water gained per unit cost of carbon invested in roots. [Google Scholar]
146. Vandeleur RK, Sullivan W, Athman A, Jordans C, Gilliham M. 146.  et al. 2014. Rapid shoot-to-root signalling regulates root hydraulic conductance via aquaporins. Plant Cell Environ 37:520–38 [Google Scholar]
147. Vargas M, van Eeuwijk FA, Crossa J, Ribaut J-M. 147.  2006. Mapping QTLs and QTL×environment interaction for CIMMYT maize drought stress program using factorial regression and partial least squares methods. Theor. Appl. Genet. 112:1009–23 [Google Scholar]
148. Vinocur B, Altman A. 148.  2005. Recent advances in engineering plant tolerance to abiotic stress: achievements and limitations. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 16:123–32 [Google Scholar]
149. Visentin I, Vitali M, Ferrero M, Zhang YX, Ruyter-Spira C. 149.  et al. 2016. Low levels of strigolactones in roots as a component of the systemic signal of drought stress in tomato. New Phytol 212:954–63 [Google Scholar]
150. Waines JG, Ehdaie B. 150.  2007. Domestication and crop physiology: roots of green-revolution wheat. Ann. Bot. 100:991–98 [Google Scholar]
151. Welcker C, Sadok W, Dignat G, Renault M, Salvi S. 151.  et al. 2011. A common genetic determinism for sensitivities to soil water deficit and evaporative demand: meta-analysis of quantitative trait loci and introgression lines of maize. Plant Physiol 157:718–29 [Google Scholar]
152. Wheeler T, von Braun J. 152.  2013. Climate change impacts on global food security. Science 341:508–13 [Google Scholar]
153. Winter K, Garcia M, Holtum JAM. 153.  2011. Drought-stress-induced up-regulation of CAM in seedlings of a tropical cactus, Opuntia elatior, operating predominantly in the C₃ mode. J. Exp. Bot. 62:4037–42 [Google Scholar]
154. Wu YJ, Sharp RE, Durachko DM, Cosgrove DJ. 154.  1996. Growth maintenance of the maize primary root at low water potentials involves increases in cell-wall extension properties, expansin activity, and wall susceptibility to expansins. Plant Physiol 111:765–72 [Google Scholar]