Chilean Coastal/Lowland Quinoa: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Catherine Yang and Version 3 by Catherine Yang.

Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) is a genetically diverse crop that has gained popularity in recent years due to its high nutritional content and ability to tolerate abiotic stresses such as salinity and drought. Genotypes representing the Chilean coastal lowland ecotype are of particular interest due to their insensitivity to photoperiod and their potential to be cultivated at different latitudes.

  • Chenopodium quinoa Willd.
  • field trial
  • drought tolerance
  • Coastal/lowlands ecotype

1. Introduction

Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) is a highly nutritious member of the Amaranthaceae, originating from the Andean region of Central and South America. Originally cultivated by the Incas during pre-Colombian times [1], quinoa became a staple food of the Incan Empire and is now considered an important food crop in many South American countries [2]. Quinoa grains are gluten free and highly nutritious, containing high-quality protein and all essential amino acids, vitamins, minerals and antioxidants (flavonoids and polyphenols) that contribute to the health-promoting effects of this food crop [3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. Additionally, the seeds exhibit a high content of unsaturated fatty acids (oleic, linoleic, and α-linolenic acids) and a close to optimal omega-6/omega-3 ratio, which support the oil quality of this crop [10]. On the other hand, the seeds accumulate saponins, commonly considered anti-nutritional factors due to their hemolytic, membranolytic, and fungitoxic activities [11]. In recent decades, quinoa has become a target of research worldwide due to its potential contribution to food security [2][12]. Quinoa is a genetically diverse crop that thrives in the heterogeneous environments of the Andean region from which it originated [13]. Quinoa genotypes, landraces and cultivars can be classified into five ecotypes, which exhibit wide ranges of adaptations to elevation, annual rainfall, soil fertility, temperature and photoperiod [2].

Quinoa is also known for its ability to grow in marginal environments and tolerate a range of adverse growth conditions, such as high salinity [14][15][16][17], heat [18] and drought [15][19][20]. Detailed studies of quinoa subjected to drought stress have been conducted, both in the field and in greenhouse experiments, providing insight into the key physiological adaptations of quinoa. Increased water use efficiency associated with abscisic acid (ABA)-induced stomatal closure [21][22][23][24] is a common strategy implemented by quinoa in response to drought stress. Leaf ABA concentration has been observed to accumulate in response to increased stress in the field, suggesting it is an important mechanism for drought tolerance in quinoa [21]. In addition to ABA signaling, hydraulic regulation through changes in turgor may play an equally important role in stomatal closure for certain quinoa varieties subject to water stress [25]. Another strategy is the induction of metabolic adaptations that improve tolerance to osmotic or water stress, and which involve an increased synthesis of osmoprotectants such as free amino acids, proline, and soluble sugars (glucose, trehalose), to enhance scavenging of reactive oxygen species and to protect plants from destructive oxidative reactions [26][27]. Reductions in photosynthetic rates and the efficiency of photosystem II have also been observed in quinoa plants in response to water deficit [24][28]. Strategies used to mitigate water deficit stress have been shown to differ between quinoa varieties depending on their geographical origin. In a study involving two quinoa varieties, Sun et al. [23] observed that the relatively slower growth rates and smaller leaf areas of varieties originating from adverse environments were more effective at tolerating drought stress compared to fast-growing varieties originating from nutrient-rich environments, due to reduced overall transpiration and water loss [23].

To date, most drought stress studies involving quinoa have focused on only a few bred varieties and seldom compare ecotypes or ecotype-derived self-pollinated progenies. The diversity of quinoa and the establishment of new breeding and improvement programs to develop new varieties better adapted to different environmental conditions remain largely unexplored [13][29][30][31]. To this end, unique germplasm collections representing local and regional biodiversity are of particular interest as a source of variation. One major consideration when selecting quinoa material for this study was the sensitivity of quinoa to photoperiod, as this trait can significantly limit quinoa adaptation and breeding efforts in high-latitude regions, such as Europe or North America [29][32]. Disruption to seed filling and maturation, resulting in continued vegetative growth and flowering, has been observed in photoperiod-sensitive lines grown in photoperiods of longer than 12 h [29][32]. Quinoa cultivars from the coastal lowland ecotype show an insensitivity to photoperiod, as they are adapted to the coastal conditions of southern Chile (latitudes up to ~40° S) and have already been used for European-bred cultivars from Denmark and the Netherlands [29][33][34]. Therefore, the researchers focused on the coastal lowland ecotype and selected lines from the INIA SeedBank collection (Chile), based on morphology and yield observed in the field and further developed in a breeding program run by INIA Chile.

The physiological characterization and classification of lines according to their tolerance to drought stress customarily involves destructive or laborious measurements of traits such as leaf water potential or photosynthesis and stomatal conductance. These methods are often time-consuming and difficult to apply on a large scale. Screening of genotypes for pre-breeding can be facilitated by using more high-throughput phenotyping methods to measure photosynthetic status, spectral reflectance and canopy temperature [35][36]. These methods, in particular vegetation indices based on spectral reflectance measurements, have recently begun to be applied in quinoa research on drought stress [37][38].

2. Morphological and Physiological Traits Associated with Yield under Reduced Irrigation in Chilean Coastal Lowland Quinoa

Tolerance of quinoa to abiotic stresses such drought, salinity, low soil fertility and frost has been well documented, making it a target crop for addressing future food security in the context of a climate crisis [13][19][20][31][39]. Studies have recorded significant yield deficits, especially under low soil water availability and high vapor pressure deficit, high temperatures and nitrogen deficiency [15][40][41][42][43][44]. Inability to attain the full yield potential has been attributed to sink limitations, while higher yields could be obtained in quinoa if reproductive partitioning is increased [45]. Chilean quinoa varieties from the coastal lowland ecotype have become the basis of most breeding programs aimed at production in temperate environments such as northern Europe, due to their photoperiod insensitivity [32][34]. A high-quality reference genome assembly [46] based on the sequencing of the Chilean coastal quinoa accession PI 614886 (also known as NSL 106399 and QQ74) will contribute significantly to deeper understanding of the genetic attributes of quinoa and to further improvement of future breeding programs. The CLS lines grown in this study all belonged to the coastal lowland ecotype and were selected based on their yield potential across different geographical locations and seasons, architectural traits, and broad adaptability to adverse environmental conditions.

In quinoa, the flowering and grain-filling stages are considered the most critical for yield determination and the most sensitive to stress, including drought and high temperatures [18][42][44][47][48]. Indeterminate grain development in a complex panicle structure coupled with uneven grain filling lies at the basis of this sensitivity [42]. Stress induced by reduced irrigation was well established at the flowering and seed filling stages in the field trial and resulted in significant reductions in yield for the majority of CLS lines, but not in cv Regalona. Lower individual seed weight and a shift in seed size distribution from larger to smaller seeds were also observed. Individual seed weight and seed size were consistently among the smallest in cv Regalona, but total seed number may have compensated for this, as yield in cv Regalona was, on average, similar to the CLS lines. Grain number was the major component in grain yield determination, while grain weight showed a weak to strongly negative association with grain number across a multi-environmental evaluation for grain yield and its physiological determinants [49]. Nevertheless, seed size is an important commercial trait in quinoa [50] and breeding potential is considered to exist for both seed number and seed size [29][30][51][52]. The CLS lines showed potential in field performance for both yield and seed size, even though coastal lowland lines are characterized by a seed caliber under 2 mm. Indeed, fully irrigated (FI) plants yielded 3.24 t ha−1 on average, which decreased to 2.45 t ha−1 in reduced irrigation (RI) conditions. Nevertheless, in southern Mediterranean conditions the total seed yield ranged from 0.70 t ha−1 to 3.25 t ha−1, even across seasons [53]. Considering recent reports from arid regions, quinoa Q26 produced the highest seed yield in Bastam, Iran (1.29 t ha−1 on average), which was not significantly different from Q29 (1.24 t ha−1), while in Damghan, the highest seed yield was achieved in Q26 (1.19 t ha−1) [54]. Another report from an arid growing site in China recorded the 1000 seed weight differences for two seasons (2.12–2.03 g) when soil matric potential decreased (−55 kPa SMP), which was significantly lower than under −15 kPa SMP (2.28–2.21 g), well below the averages of 1000 seed weight determined [55].

Yield was maintained under RI in CLS-1 and CLS-2 as well as in cv Regalona, and was relatively sustained in CLS-9 despite the reduced water supply. Higher yields were recorded for both CLS-2 and CLS-9 compared to cv Regalona, which was similar in yield to CLS-1. High yields were achieved using different strategies for leaf relative water content, stem water potential, biomass and seed number and size. This response was similar to observations in the cv. Illpa and Rainbow, which used different strategies in the face of water deficit stress to prevent decreases in grain yield and quality under drought conditions [25]. At the visible inflorescence stage, CLS-2 had one of the largest recorded leaf biomasses, but also suffered the largest reduction in shoot biomass in response to the reduced water supply. High yields in CLS-2 were achieved with medium to large seeds on a short, compact panicle. In cv Regalona, a larger proportion of smaller caliber seeds was produced on a relatively short panicle. CLS-1 produced a higher proportion of large seeds on a long panicle, but overall seed size was lessened by reduced irrigation. Notably, CLS-1 seeds took a longer time to reach the doughy stage of seed maturation, whereas the overall shortest seed maturation time was recorded for the relatively small seeds of cv Regalona. Variation in grain weight was found to be strongly correlated with the rate of grain filling, and weakly or not associated with grain-filling duration [42][47], but this was not observed in the trial. CLS-9 was high yielding, mainly in terms of seed number, as it had a larger proportion of small seeds on a short panicle, like the phenotypic observations of cv Regalona. Notably, the TI1 suggested higher rates of transpiration under FI conditions for CLS-2, CLS-9 and cv Regalona.

CLS-7 had one of the highest proportions of large seeds recorded for both FI and RI treatments, although these were less numerous overall and were produced on a small panicle. Yield was, on average, severely reduced in CLS-5. Plants were short compared to other lines at the visible inflorescence stage, which was partially compensated for by a large panicle at harvest, although a lower proportion of small seeds compared to other lines was observed. CLS-8 already showed reduced stem and leaf biomasses under conditions of RI at the visible inflorescence stage. These effects were more pronounced compared to corresponding observation in cv Regalona. At harvest, CLS-8 plant height was low compared to other CLS lines, despite having a large panicle in both FI and RI treatments. On average, the lowest 1000 seed weight was recorded for CLS-8 and CLS-6, but overall seed yield was not consistently reduced in plots compared to FI. CLS-6 produced a fair yield in terms of seed numbers, but with a higher proportion of small (less than 1.7 mm caliber) seeds. CLS-8 was considered drought tolerant per se, which, according to the TI1, may have been related to very sensitive stomatal closure. Finally, CLS-3 exhibited tall plants both at the visible inflorescence stage and at harvest. While vegetative biomass was not reduced, inflorescences were smaller under RI and yield was reduced mainly due to a reduction in seed number, as CLS-3 produced the overall highest proportion of large seeds and had the heaviest 1000 seed weight. For the CLS lines, plant height at harvest was not correlated with yield, whereas lines with the tallest plants under RI, CLS-3, CLS-7, and CLS-1 and CLS-5 produced the highest proportion of large seeds under both FI and RI conditions (R2 of 39%). Lines that showed the highest average yields, CLS-6 and CLS-9, generally had a higher proportion of smaller seeds, with the exception of CLS-2, which produced medium to large seeds.

Correlations between traits measured at the visible inflorescence stage and those measured at harvest were weak overall, most likely due to the small number of measurements per line taken at the visible inflorescence stage and the environmental conditions between flowering and harvest that affect plant physiology and, consequently, seed maturation. Nevertheless, these correlations may give indications about the influence of reduced irrigation from the branching to the visible inflorescence stage on the final yield and seed weight, and about the potential to predict agronomical traits from morphological and physiological traits measured earlier in the growing season. Between 15 and 35% of the variation in plant height at harvest and 5 to 16% of the variation in yield could be explained by shoot biomass measured at the visible inflorescence stage. The PCA analysis also confirmed a relationship between shoot morphology traits at the onset of flowering and yield. Among the physiological traits, leaf relative water content, stem water potential and the TI1 showed significant positive correlations with yield, indicating that these traits contribute to effects of reduced irrigation on yield. Moreover, a significant correlation was found between the TI1 and stem and leaf water potential (R2 of 0.49 and 0.39 respectively), supporting the value of thermal infrared imaging for detecting differences in water use behavior among genotypes.

Plant drought response mechanisms have been reported in quinoa and include reduced growth [23][43], stomatal closure associated with abscisic acid and hydraulic signaling [22][25][56][57][58], changes in peroxisome abundance as a cellular sensor [42], the accumulation of osmoprotectants, antioxidant defense and membrane stabilization [19][20][26][27], and elevated recovery capacities of PSII and PSI photochemical activities after re-watering [59]. Understanding how the physiological mechanisms employed by quinoa in response to drought as well as specific strategies implemented by different genotypes influence the final yield is crucial for both crop management and breeding. Better comprehension of genotype by environment (G × E) interactions and the optimization of irrigation for a specific crop’s needs or to address an irrigation deficit [19][25][29][41] will lead to improved crop management (M) and higher-yielding harvests, improving G × E × M interactions. Nevertheless, the researchers were unable to make clear distinctions between quinoa lines employing profligate or conservative water-use strategies [60] using the data collected in this trial via more traditional methods, as the frequency and number of measurements were relatively low. Canopy temperature and vegetation indices collected using handheld, ground-based or remote sensors could distinguish irrigated from non-irrigated treatments in a study by Sankaran et al. [38]. A significant relationship between water availability and canopy temperature was also detected for a selection of quinoa genotypes grown under different water regimes in the Brazilian Cerrado region [44]. The researchers therefore included thermal infrared and hyperspectral imaging to determine whether these systems could deliver proxies for water use, photosynthetic activity or yield, or otherwise reveal differences between lines that may or may not have been observed using standard methods [36][61][62][63][64][65][66].

Both imaging techniques were fast and delivered data with a high temporal resolution and an increased frequency for a potentially better comparison of physiological responses between genotypes and treatments. The Huasco experimental center located in the southern Atacama Desert provided the ideal environmental conditions for this field trial. This was especially apparent for the measuring period at the visible inflorescence stage, where stable conditions coupled with high light intensity and clear skies throughout the day were ideal for applying imaging techniques. In addition, all measuring days had similar diurnal temperature and vapor pressure deficit profiles. The main factor that influenced plants differently was included in the trial itself as the treatment, namely soil water content. The observed responses to acute water deficit and irrigation (re-watering) in the measurement of stem and leaf water potential were also seen in the thermal and vegetation indices as the measurement day had a significant effect.

Further valuable information on the sensitivity of physiological processes to soil water content in the different CLS lines could have been obtained by means of diurnal imaging. With regard to the methodology to obtain the thermal indices, the researchers were fortunate to observe wet leaves (dew) until quite late in the morning, when other environmental conditions (air temperature, radiation, VPD) were already at or close to the maximum values for the day. Covering leaves with petroleum jelly to obtain dry reference temperatures is not ideal, albeit a commonly used method. A more pragmatic approach would be to image a black reference target that adapts quickly to the prevailing environmental conditions, such as a thin sheet of aluminum [67]. An even, black reference surface can be reliably selected with automated image processing procedures. Data obtained from diurnal measurements before and after irrigation, as well as visible loss of turgor, may also help in setting thresholds on indices similar to the upper and lower baselines used in thermal imaging for irrigation scheduling [68].

In both the vegetation indices and the analysis of selected wavelengths, differences between lines were larger than treatment effects. The latter may have been influenced by the measurement days, as these included times of acute water deficit stress and recovery from stress after irrigation. Overall, the mean reflection in the green wavelengths was substantially decreased in RI conditions for most lines, except CLS-2, CLS-4 and CLS-7. Lower green reflection has been previously described in maize under conditions of drought stress [69]. This means that leaves appear darker green, which may be related to a higher concentration of chlorophyll in reduced mesophyll cell volumes and an accumulation of protective pigments [70]. Higher mean NIR reflection has been attributed to a decreased leaf water content and leaf thickness [69][71], and was observed in CLS-5, CLS-6 and CLS-7 in the RI treatment. The blue and green regions of the spectrum contributed the most in distinguishing genotypes, whereas the effect of the measurement day was most clearly observed in the red, red-edge and NIR region of the spectrum. The time interval since the last irrigation event may therefore have influenced these wavelength regions. Vegetation indices that consist of these wavelengths were the most effective in showing the measurement day effect or distinguishing lines. They included MCARI2, RGI, RGRI and G, consisting of green and red wavelengths, followed by WCI (green, red and NIR), CRI2 (blue, green and red-edge) and BRI (blue and green). CLS-7 and CLS-3 differed from many of the other lines in the FI treatment, whereas they were preceded by CLS-2 and CLS-4 in the RI treatment. The reasons that CLS-3 and CLS-7 strongly differ from each other, the other CLS lines and cv Regalona, based on spectral reflectance, are currently unknown. Nevertheless, both produced the highest proportion of large seeds and the highest 1000 seed weight.

The two water-related VIs could consistently detect differences between FI and RI plots. For the WBI, this was the case in CLS-1, CLS-6 and CLS-7, and for WCI in CLS-3, CLS-7, CLS-8 and CLS-9. No treatment effect was found for the WBI in CLS-2, CLS-5 and CLS-8. The WBI is based on the extent of the water-sensitive depression between 900 nm and 970 nm in the NIR [72], whereas the WCI includes wavelengths in the green, red and NIR regions [69]. In a study by Hinojosa et al. [37] using a handheld multispectral radiometer, the NDVI was suggested as a proxy for yield in quinoa. The researchers could not confirm this result because no consistent relationship was found between the highest yielding CLS lines and their respective NDVI values. The researchers did observe the highest gNDVI under FI conditions for CLS-4, which is known for its dark green leaves and red pigmentation. A similar observation was noted in Hinojosa et al. [37] for a genotype with red shoot coloration. Here, the gNDVI for CLS-4 was high because of a particularly low reflectance in green wavelengths compared to the other CLS lines and cv Regalona.

No correspondence was found between the classification of lines according to the DTI and YTI and the clustering of lines in the PCA of VIs. In addition, no significant correlation with yield was found for any of the VIs. The majority of significant correlations were observed for morphological and physiological traits, with VIs including blue and red wavelengths correlating with morphological traits and stem and leaf water potential, and those calculated using green wavelengths correlating with leaf relative water content. The PCs mainly consisted of VIs that were originally developed to detect differences in chlorophyll fluorescence and photosynthesis. Potentially, lines CLS-3 and CLS-7 differ from the other lines in these traits. On the other hand, these VIs are also correlated with stem and leaf water potential as the latter has been associated with wavelengths in the red region [69]. Hyperspectral imaging has a great potential in estimating traits contributing to yield and in distinguishing genotypes along these traits, rather than providing proxies for yield itself or distinguishing genotypes based on yield.

Summary and Future Directions

  • Significant correlations were detected between morphological and physiological traits measured at the onset of flowering and at harvest.
  • Lines CLS-1, CLS-2 and CLS-9 performed best when faced with a 50% reduction in irrigation, had a good seed productivity and showed a high phenotypic plasticity that can be exploited in hyper-arid regions cultivation.
  • Imaging techniques show good potential for high-throughput phenotyping of quinoa in future studies. Additional data from larger field trials will be needed to improve the quantitative evaluation of quinoa genotypic responses and their relationship to specific traits of interest, including productivity and physiological traits.

References

  1. National Research Council. Lost Crops of the Incas: Little-Known Plants of the Andes with Promise for Worldwide Cultivation; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1989; ISBN 978-0-309-04264-2.National Research Council. Lost Crops of the Incas: Little-Known Plants of the Andes with Promise for Worldwide Cultivation; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1989; ISBN 978-0-309-04264-2. [Google Scholar]
  2. Bazile, D.; Jacobsen, S.-E.; Verniau, A. The global expansion of quinoa: Trends and limits. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 850.Bazile, D.; Jacobsen, S.-E.; Verniau, A. The global expansion of quinoa: Trends and limits. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Abugoch James, L.E. Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.): Composition, chemistry, nutritional, and functional properties. Adv. Food Nutr. Res. 2009, 58, 1–31.Abugoch James, L.E. Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.): Composition, chemistry, nutritional, and functional properties. Adv. Food Nutr. Res. 2009, 58, 1–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Gordillo-Bastidas, E.; Díaz-Rizzolo, D.A.; Roura, E.; Massanés, T.; Gomis, R. Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd), from nutritional value to potential health benefits: An integrative review. J. Nutr. Food Sci. 2016, 6, 497.Gordillo-Bastidas, E.; Díaz-Rizzolo, D.A.; Roura, E.; Massanés, T.; Gomis, R. Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd), from nutritional value to potential health benefits: An integrative review. J. Nutr. Food Sci. 2016, 6, 497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Lutz, M.; Martínez, A.; Martínez, E.A. Daidzein and genistein contents in seeds of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) from local ecotypes grown in arid chile. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2013, 49, 117–121.Lutz, M.; Martínez, A.; Martínez, E.A. Daidzein and genistein contents in seeds of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) from local ecotypes grown in arid chile. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2013, 49, 117–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Paśko, P.; Zagrodzki, P.; Bartoń, H.; Chłopicka, J.; Gorinstein, S. Effect of quinoa seeds (Chenopodium quinoa) in diet on some biochemical parameters and essential elements in blood of high fructose-fed rats. Plant Food. Hum. Nutr. 2010, 65, 333–338.Paśko, P.; Zagrodzki, P.; Bartoń, H.; Chłopicka, J.; Gorinstein, S. Effect of quinoa seeds (Chenopodium quinoa) in diet on some biochemical parameters and essential elements in blood of high fructose-fed rats. Plant Food. Hum. Nutr. 2010, 65, 333–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Vega-Gálvez, A.; Miranda, M.; Vergara, J.; Uribe, E.; Puente, L.; Martínez, E.A. Nutrition facts and functional potential of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.), an ancient andean grain: A review. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2010, 90, 2541–2547.Vega-Gálvez, A.; Miranda, M.; Vergara, J.; Uribe, E.; Puente, L.; Martínez, E.A. Nutrition facts and functional potential of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.), an ancient andean grain: A review. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2010, 90, 2541–2547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Antognoni, F.; Potente, G.; Biondi, S.; Mandrioli, R.; Marincich, L.; Ruiz, K.B. Free and conjugated phenolic profiles and antioxidant activity in quinoa seeds and their relationship with genotype and environment. Plants 2021, 10, 1046.
  9. Miranda, M.; Vega-Gálvez, A.; Uribe, E.; López, J.; Martínez, E.; Rodríguez, M.J.; Quispe, I.; Di Scala, K. Physico-chemical analysis, antioxidant capacity and vitamins of six ecotypes of chilean quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd). Proc. Food Sci. 2011, 1, 1439–1446.
  10. Navruz-Varli, S.; Sanlier, N. Nutritional and health benefits of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). J. Cereal Sci. 2016, 69, 371–376.Navruz-Varli, S.; Sanlier, N. Nutritional and health benefits of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). J. Cereal Sci. 2016, 69, 371–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Santis, G.D.; Maddaluno, C.; D’Ambrosio, T.; Rascio, A.; Rinaldi, M.; Troisi, J. Characterisation of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) accessions for the saponin content in mediterranean environment. Ital. J. Agron. 2016, 11, 277–281.Santis, G.D.; Maddaluno, C.; D’Ambrosio, T.; Rascio, A.; Rinaldi, M.; Troisi, J. Characterisation of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) accessions for the saponin content in mediterranean environment. Ital. J. Agron. 2016, 11, 277–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. FAO; CIRAD. State of the Art Report of Quinoa in the World in 2013; Bazile, D., Bertero, D., Nieto, C., Eds.; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2015; ISBN 978-92-5-108558-5. FAO; CIRAD. State of the Art Report of Quinoa in the World in 2013; Bazile, D., Bertero, D., Nieto, C., Eds.; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2015; ISBN 978-92-5-108558-5. [Google Scholar]
  13. Zurita-Silva, A.; Fuentes, F.; Zamora, P.; Jacobsen, S.-E.; Schwember, A.R. Breeding quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.): Potential and perspectives. Mol. Breed. 2014, 34, 13–30.
  14. Hariadi, Y.; Marandon, K.; Tian, Y.; Jacobsen, S.-E.; Shabala, S. Ionic and osmotic relations in quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) plants grown at various salinity levels. J. Exp. Bot. 2011, 62, 185–193. Hariadi, Y.; Marandon, K.; Tian, Y.; Jacobsen, S.-E.; Shabala, S. Ionic and osmotic relations in quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) plants grown at various salinity levels. J. Exp. Bot. 2011, 62, 185–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Razzaghi, F.; Ahmadi, S.H.; Jacobsen, S.-E.; Jensen, C.R.; Andersen, M.N. Effects of salinity and soil–drying on radiation use efficiency, water productivity and yield of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). J. Agron. Crop Sci. 2012, 198, 173–184.
  16. Ruiz-Carrasco, K.; Antognoni, F.; Coulibaly, A.K.; Lizardi, S.; Covarrubias, A.; Martínez, E.A.; Molina-Montenegro, M.A.; Biondi, S.; Zurita-Silva, A. Variation in salinity tolerance of four lowland genotypes of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) as assessed by growth, physiological traits, and sodium transporter gene expression. Plant Physiol. Bioch. 2011, 49, 1333–1341.
  17. Aly, A.A.; Al-Barakah, F.N.; El-Mahrouky, M.A. Salinity stress promote drought tolerance of Chenopodium quinoa Willd. Commun. Soil Sci. Plan. 2018, 49, 1331–1343. Aly, A.A.; Al-Barakah, F.N.; El-Mahrouky, M.A. Salinity stress promote drought tolerance of Chenopodium quinoa Willd. Commun. Soil Sci. Plan. 2018, 49, 1331–1343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Eustis, A.; Murphy, K.M.; Barrios-Masias, F.H. Leaf gas exchange performance of ten quinoa genotypes under a simulated Heat wave. Plants 2020, 9, 81.
  19. Hinojosa, L.; González, J.A.; Barrios-Masias, F.H.; Fuentes, F.; Murphy, K.M. Quinoa abiotic stress responses: A review. Plants 2018, 7, 106. Hinojosa, L.; González, J.A.; Barrios-Masias, F.H.; Fuentes, F.; Murphy, K.M. Quinoa abiotic stress responses: A review. Plants 2018, 7, 106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Morales, A.; Zurita-Silva, A.; Maldonado, J.; Silva, H. Transcriptional responses of chilean quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) under water deficit conditions uncovers aba-independent expression patterns. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 216. Morales, A.; Zurita-Silva, A.; Maldonado, J.; Silva, H. Transcriptional responses of chilean quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) under water deficit conditions uncovers aba-independent expression patterns. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Cocozza, C.; Pulvento, C.; Lavini, A.; Riccardi, M.; d’Andria, R.; Tognetti, R. Effects of increasing salinity stress and decreasing water availability on ecophysiological traits of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) grown in a mediterranean-type agroecosystem. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 2013, 199, 229–240.
  22. Jacobsen, S.-E.; Liu, F.; Jensen, C.R. Does root-sourced ABA play a role for regulation of stomata under drought in quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). Sci. Hortic 2009, 122, 281–287. Jacobsen, S.-E.; Liu, F.; Jensen, C.R. Does root-sourced ABA play a role for regulation of stomata under drought in quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). Sci. Hortic 2009, 122, 281–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Sun, Y.; Liu, F.; Bendevis, M.; Shabala, S.; Jacobsen, S.-E. Sensitivity of two quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) varieties to progressive drought stress. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 2014, 200, 12–23. Sun, Y.; Liu, F.; Bendevis, M.; Shabala, S.; Jacobsen, S.-E. Sensitivity of two quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) varieties to progressive drought stress. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 2014, 200, 12–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Yang, A.; Akhtar, S.S.; Amjad, M.; Iqbal, S.; Jacobsen, S.-E. Growth and physiological responses of quinoa to drought and temperature stress. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 2016, 202, 445–453. Yang, A.; Akhtar, S.S.; Amjad, M.; Iqbal, S.; Jacobsen, S.-E. Growth and physiological responses of quinoa to drought and temperature stress. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 2016, 202, 445–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Gámez, A.L.; Soba, D.; Zamarreño, Á.M.; García-Mina, J.M.; Aranjuelo, I.; Morales, F. Effect of water stress during grain filling on yield, quality and physiological traits of illpa and rainbow quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) cultivars. Plants 2019, 8, 173. Gámez, A.L.; Soba, D.; Zamarreño, Á.M.; García-Mina, J.M.; Aranjuelo, I.; Morales, F. Effect of water stress during grain filling on yield, quality and physiological traits of illpa and rainbow quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) cultivars. Plants 2019, 8, 173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Szabados, L.; Savouré, A. Proline: A multifunctional amino acid. Trends Plant Sci. 2010, 15, 89–97. Szabados, L.; Savouré, A. Proline: A multifunctional amino acid. Trends Plant Sci. 2010, 15, 89–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Sadak, M.S.; El-Bassiouny, H.M.S.; Dawood, M.G. Role of trehalose on antioxidant defense system and some osmolytes of quinoa plants under water deficit. Bull. Natl. Res. Cent. 2019, 43, 5. Sadak, M.S.; El-Bassiouny, H.M.S.; Dawood, M.G. Role of trehalose on antioxidant defense system and some osmolytes of quinoa plants under water deficit. Bull. Natl. Res. Cent. 2019, 43, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Garcia-Parra, M.; Stechauner-Rohringer, R.; Roa-Acosta, D.; Ortiz-González, D.; Ramirez-Correa, J.; Plazas-Leguizamón, N.; Colmenares-Cruz, A. Chlorophyll fluorescence and its relationship with physiological stress in Chenopodium quinoa Willd. Not. Bot. Horti Agrobo. 2020, 48, 1742–1755.
  29. Jacobsen, S.-E. The scope for adaptation of quinoa in northern latitudes of Europe. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 2017, 203, 603–613.
  30. Murphy, K.M.; Matanguihan, J.B.; Fuentes, F.F.; Gómez-Pando, L.R.; Jellen, E.N.; Maughan, P.J.; Jarvis, D.E. Quinoa breeding and genomics. In Plant Breeding Reviews; Goldman, I., Ed.; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2018; Volume 42, pp. 257–320. ISBN 978-1-119-52135-8. Murphy, K.M.; Matanguihan, J.B.; Fuentes, F.F.; Gómez-Pando, L.R.; Jellen, E.N.; Maughan, P.J.; Jarvis, D.E. Quinoa breeding and genomics. In Plant Breeding Reviews; Goldman, I., Ed.; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2018; Volume 42, pp. 257–320. ISBN 978-1-119-52135-8. [Google Scholar]
  31. Ruiz, K.B.; Biondi, S.; Oses, R.; Acuña-Rodríguez, I.S.; Antognoni, F.; Martinez-Mosqueira, E.A.; Coulibaly, A.; Canahua-Murillo, A.; Pinto, M.; Zurita-Silva, A.; et al. Quinoa biodiversity and sustainability for food security under climate change. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2014, 34, 349–359. Ruiz, K.B.; Biondi, S.; Oses, R.; Acuña-Rodríguez, I.S.; Antognoni, F.; Martinez-Mosqueira, E.A.; Coulibaly, A.; Canahua-Murillo, A.; Pinto, M.; Zurita-Silva, A.; et al. Quinoa biodiversity and sustainability for food security under climate change. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2014, 34, 349–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Bertero, H.D.; King, R.W.; Hall, A.J. Photoperiod-sensitive development phases in quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). Field Crop. Res. 1999, 60, 231–243. Bertero, H.D.; King, R.W.; Hall, A.J. Photoperiod-sensitive development phases in quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). Field Crop. Res. 1999, 60, 231–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Galwey, N.W. The potential of quinoa as a multi-purpose crop for agricultural diversification: A review. Ind. Crop. Prod. 1992, 1, 101–106. Galwey, N.W. The potential of quinoa as a multi-purpose crop for agricultural diversification: A review. Ind. Crop. Prod. 1992, 1, 101–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Jacobsen, S.-E. Adaptation of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) to northern european agriculture: Studies on developmental pattern. Euphytica 1997, 96, 41–48. Jacobsen, S.-E. Adaptation of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) to northern european agriculture: Studies on developmental pattern. Euphytica 1997, 96, 41–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Araus, J.L.; Cairns, J.E. Field high-throughput phenotyping: The new crop breeding frontier. Trends Plant Sci. 2014, 19, 52–61. Araus, J.L.; Cairns, J.E. Field high-throughput phenotyping: The new crop breeding frontier. Trends Plant Sci. 2014, 19, 52–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Watt, M.; Fiorani, F.; Usadel, B.; Rascher, U.; Muller, O.; Schurr, U. Phenotyping: New windows into the plant for breeders. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2020, 71, 689–712. Watt, M.; Fiorani, F.; Usadel, B.; Rascher, U.; Muller, O.; Schurr, U. Phenotyping: New windows into the plant for breeders. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2020, 71, 689–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Hinojosa, L.; Kumar, N.; Gill, K.S.; Murphy, K.M. Spectral reflectance indices and physiological parameters in quinoa under contrasting irrigation regimes. Crop Sci. 2019, 59, 1927–1944. Hinojosa, L.; Kumar, N.; Gill, K.S.; Murphy, K.M. Spectral reflectance indices and physiological parameters in quinoa under contrasting irrigation regimes. Crop Sci. 2019, 59, 1927–1944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Sankaran, S.; Espinoza, C.Z.; Hinojosa, L.; Ma, X.; Murphy, K. High-throughput field phenotyping to assess irrigation treatment effects in quinoa. Agrosyst. Geosci. Environ. 2019, 2, 180063.
  39. Razzaghi, F.; Ahmadi, S.H.; Adolf, V.I.; Jensen, C.R.; Jacobsen, S.-E.; Andersen, M.N. Water relations and transpiration of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) under salinity and soil drying. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 2011, 197, 348–360.
  40. Bascuñán-Godoy, L.; Sanhueza, C.; Pinto, K.; Cifuentes, L.; Reguera, M.; Briones, V.; Zurita-Silva, A.; Álvarez, R.; Morales, A.; Silva, H. Nitrogen physiology of contrasting genotypes of Chenopodium quinoa Willd. (Amaranthaceae). Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 17524. Bascuñán-Godoy, L.; Sanhueza, C.; Pinto, K.; Cifuentes, L.; Reguera, M.; Briones, V.; Zurita-Silva, A.; Álvarez, R.; Morales, A.; Silva, H. Nitrogen physiology of contrasting genotypes of Chenopodium quinoa Willd. (Amaranthaceae). Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 17524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Bertero, H.D. Chapter 7—Quinoa. In Crop Physiology Case Histories for Major Crops; Sadras, V.O., Calderini, D.F., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2021; pp. 250–281. ISBN 978-0-12-819194-1.
  42. Hinojosa, L.; Sanad, M.N.M.E.; Jarvis, D.E.; Steel, P.; Murphy, K.; Smertenko, A. Impact of heat and drought stress on peroxisome proliferation in quinoa. Plant J. 2019, 99, 1144–1158. Hinojosa, L.; Sanad, M.N.M.E.; Jarvis, D.E.; Steel, P.; Murphy, K.; Smertenko, A. Impact of heat and drought stress on peroxisome proliferation in quinoa. Plant J. 2019, 99, 1144–1158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Miranda-Apodaca, J.; Agirresarobe, A.; Martínez-Goñi, X.S.; Yoldi-Achalandabaso, A.; Pérez-López, U. N metabolism performance in Chenopodium quinoa subjected to drought or salt stress conditions. Plant Physiol. Bioch. 2020, 155, 725–734. Miranda-Apodaca, J.; Agirresarobe, A.; Martínez-Goñi, X.S.; Yoldi-Achalandabaso, A.; Pérez-López, U. N metabolism performance in Chenopodium quinoa subjected to drought or salt stress conditions. Plant Physiol. Bioch. 2020, 155, 725–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. da Silva, P.C.; Ribeiro Junior, W.Q.; Ramos, M.L.G.; Celestino, S.M.C.; Silva, A.D.N.; Casari, R.A.D.C.N.; Santana, C.C.; de Lima, C.A.; Williams, T.C.R.; Vinson, C.C. Quinoa for the brazilian cerrado: Agronomic characteristics of elite genotypes under different water regimes. Plants 2021, 10, 1591.
  45. Gómez, M.B.; Castro, P.A.; Mignone, C.; Bertero, H.D.; Gómez, M.B.; Castro, P.A.; Mignone, C.; Bertero, H.D. Can yield potential be increased by manipulation of reproductive partitioning in quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa)? Evidence from gibberellic acid synthesis inhibition using paclobutrazol. Funct. Plant Biol. 2011, 38, 420–430.
  46. Jarvis, D.E.; Ho, Y.S.; Lightfoot, D.J.; Schmöckel, S.M.; Li, B.; Borm, T.J.A.; Ohyanagi, H.; Mineta, K.; Michell, C.T.; Saber, N.; et al. The genome of Chenopodium quinoa. Nature 2017, 542, 307–312.
  47. Bertero, H.D.; Ruiz, R.A. Determination of seed number in sea level quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) cultivars. Eur. J. Agron. 2008, 28, 186–194.
  48. Geerts, S.; Raes, D.; Garcia, M.; Taboada, C.; Miranda, R.; Cusicanqui, J.; Mhizha, T.; Vacher, J. Modeling the potential for closing quinoa yield gaps under varying water availability in the bolivian altiplano. Agr. Water Manag. 2009, 96, 1652–1658.
  49. Curti, R.N.; de la Vega, A.J.; Andrade, A.J.; Bramardi, S.J.; Bertero, H.D. Multi-environmental evaluation for grain yield and its physiological determinants of quinoa genotypes across northwest argentina. Field Crop. Res. 2014, 166, 46–57.
  50. Bertero, H.D.; de la Vega, A.J.; Correa, G.; Jacobsen, S.E.; Mujica, A. Genotype and genotype-by-environment interaction effects for grain yield and grain size of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) as revealed by pattern analysis of international multi-environment trials. Field Crop. Res. 2004, 89, 299–318.
  51. Gomez-Pando, L. Quinoa Breeding. In Quinoa: Improvement and Sustainable Production; Murphy, K., Matanguihan, J., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2015; pp. 87–108. ISBN 978-1-118-62804-1. Gomez-Pando, L. Quinoa Breeding. In Quinoa: Improvement and Sustainable Production; Murphy, K., Matanguihan, J., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2015; pp. 87–108. ISBN 978-1-118-62804-1. [Google Scholar]
  52. Zurita-Silva, A.; Jacobsen, S.-E.; Razzaghi, F.; Alvarez-Flores, R.; Ruiz, K.B.; Morales, A.; Silva, H. Quinoa drought responses and adaptation. Chapter 2.4. In FAO & CIRAD. State of the Art Report on Quinoa around the World in 2013; Bazile, D., Bertero, D., Nieto, C., Eds.; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2015; pp. 157–171.
  53. Granado-Rodríguez, S.; Aparicio, N.; Matías, J.; Pérez-Romero, L.F.; Maestro, I.; Gracés, I.; Pedroche, J.J.; Haros, C.M.; Fernandez-Garcia, N.; Navarro del Hierro, J.; et al. Studying the impact of different field environmental conditions on seed quality of quinoa: The case of three different years changing seed nutritional traits in Southern Europe. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 854.
  54. Nadali, F.; Asghari, H.R.; Abbasdokht, H.; Dorostkar, V.; Bagheri, M. Improved quinoa growth, physiological response, and yield by hydropriming under drought stress conditions. Gesunde Pflanz. 2021, 73, 53–66.
  55. Wang, X.; Vignjevic, M.; Jiang, D.; Jacobsen, S.; Wollenweber, B. Improved tolerance to drought stress after anthesis due to priming before anthesis in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) var. Vinjett. J. Exp. Bot. 2014, 65, 6441–6456.
  56. González, J.A.; Bruno, M.; Valoy, M.; Prado, F.E. Genotypic variation of gas exchange parameters and leaf stable carbon and nitrogen isotopes in ten quinoa cultivars grown under drought. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 2011, 197, 81–93.González, J.A.; Bruno, M.; Valoy, M.; Prado, F.E. Genotypic variation of gas exchange parameters and leaf stable carbon and nitrogen isotopes in ten quinoa cultivars grown under drought. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 2011, 197, 81–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Raney, J.A.; Reynolds, D.J.; Elzinga, D.B.; Page, J.; Udall, J.A.; Jellen, E.N.; Bonfacio, A.; Fairbanks, D.J.; Maughan, P.J. Transcriptome analysis of drought induced stress in Chenopodium quinoa. AJPS 2014, 5, 338–357.
  58. Razzaghi, F.; Jacobsen, S.-E.; Jensen, C.R.; Andersen, M.N. Ionic and photosynthetic homeostasis in quinoa challenged by salinity and drought—Mechanisms of tolerance. Funct. Plant Biol. 2015, 42, 136–148.
  59. Manaa, A.; Goussi, R.; Derbali, W.; Cantamessa, S.; Essemine, J.; Barbato, R. Photosynthetic performance of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) after exposure to a gradual drought stress followed by a recovery period. Biochim. Biophys. Acta (BBA)-Bioenerg. 2021, 1862, 148383.
  60. Blessing, C.H.; Mariette, A.; Kaloki, P.; Bramley, H. Profligate and conservative: Water use strategies in grain legumes. J. Exp. Bot. 2018, 69, 349–369.
  61. Kim, D.M.; Zhang, H.; Zhou, H.; Du, T.; Wu, Q.; Mockler, T.C.; Berezin, M.Y. Highly sensitive image-derived indices of water-stressed plants using hyperspectral imaging in SWIR and histogram analysis. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 15919. Kim, D.M.; Zhang, H.; Zhou, H.; Du, T.; Wu, Q.; Mockler, T.C.; Berezin, M.Y. Highly sensitive image-derived indices of water-stressed plants using hyperspectral imaging in SWIR and histogram analysis. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 15919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Maes, W.H.; Steppe, K. Estimating evapotranspiration and drought stress with ground-based thermal remote sensing in agriculture: A review. J. Exp. Bot. 2012, 63, 4671–4712. Maes, W.H.; Steppe, K. Estimating evapotranspiration and drought stress with ground-based thermal remote sensing in agriculture: A review. J. Exp. Bot. 2012, 63, 4671–4712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Perich, G.; Hund, A.; Anderegg, J.; Roth, L.; Boer, M.P.; Walter, A.; Liebisch, F.; Aasen, H. Assessment of multi-image unmanned aerial vehicle based high-throughput field phenotyping of canopy temperature. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 150. Perich, G.; Hund, A.; Anderegg, J.; Roth, L.; Boer, M.P.; Walter, A.; Liebisch, F.; Aasen, H. Assessment of multi-image unmanned aerial vehicle based high-throughput field phenotyping of canopy temperature. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Yendrek, C.R.; Tomaz, T.; Montes, C.M.; Cao, Y.; Morse, A.M.; Brown, P.J.; McIntyre, L.M.; Leakey, A.D.B.; Ainsworth, E.A. High-throughput phenotyping of maize leaf physiological and biochemical traits using hyperspectral reflectance. Plant Physiol. 2017, 173, 614–626. Yendrek, C.R.; Tomaz, T.; Montes, C.M.; Cao, Y.; Morse, A.M.; Brown, P.J.; McIntyre, L.M.; Leakey, A.D.B.; Ainsworth, E.A. High-throughput phenotyping of maize leaf physiological and biochemical traits using hyperspectral reflectance. Plant Physiol. 2017, 173, 614–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Zarco-Tejada, P.J.; González-Dugo, V.; Williams, L.E.; Suárez, L.; Berni, J.A.J.; Goldhamer, D.; Fereres, E. A PRI-based water stress index combining structural and chlorophyll effects: Assessment using diurnal narrow-band airborne imagery and the CWSI thermal index. Remote Sens. Environ. 2013, 138, 38–50. Zarco-Tejada, P.J.; González-Dugo, V.; Williams, L.E.; Suárez, L.; Berni, J.A.J.; Goldhamer, D.; Fereres, E. A PRI-based water stress index combining structural and chlorophyll effects: Assessment using diurnal narrow-band airborne imagery and the CWSI thermal index. Remote Sens. Environ. 2013, 138, 38–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Zhang, X.; He, Y. Rapid estimation of seed yield using hyperspectral images of oilseed rape leaves. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2013, 42, 416–420.
  67. Vialet-Chabrand, S.; Lawson, T. Thermography methods to assess stomatal behaviour in a dynamic environment. J. Exp. Bot. 2020, 71, 2329–2338.
  68. Payero, J.O.; Irmak, S. Variable upper and lower crop water stress index baselines for corn and soybean. Irrig. Sci. 2006, 25, 21–32.
  69. Mertens, S.; Verbraeken, L.; Sprenger, H.; Demuynck, K.; Maleux, K.; Cannoot, B.; Deblock, J.; Maere, S.; Nelissen, H.; Bonaventure, G.; et al. Proximal hyperspectral imaging detects diurnal and drought-induced changes in maize physiology. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 240.
  70. Peñuelas, J.; Gamon, J.A.; Fredeen, A.L.; Merino, J.; Field, C.B. Reflectance indices associated with physiological changes in nitrogen- and water-limited sunflower leaves. Remote Sens. Environ. 1994, 48, 135–146.
  71. Neilson, E.H.; Edwards, A.M.; Blomstedt, C.K.; Berger, B.; Møller, B.L.; Gleadow, R.M. Utilization of a high-throughput shoot imaging system to examine the dynamic phenotypic responses of a C4 cereal crop plant to nitrogen and water deficiency over time. J. Exp. Bot. 2015, 66, 1817–1832.
  72. Peñuelas, J.; Filella, I.; Biel, C.; Serrano, L.; Save, R. The reflectance at the 950–970 nm region as an indicator of plant water status. Int. J. Remote Sens. 1993, 14, 1887–1905.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Video Production Service
Feedback