Next Article in Journal
Three Major Causes of Metabolic Retinal Degenerations and Three Ways to Avoid Them
Previous Article in Journal
SGLT2 Inhibitors: A New Therapeutical Strategy to Improve Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Chronic Kidney Diseases
Previous Article in Special Issue
Utilizing Genomics to Characterize the Common Oat Gene Pool—The Story of More Than a Century of Polish Breeding
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJMS
Volume 24
Issue 10
10.3390/ijms24108736
ijms-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

QTL Mapping of Agronomic and Physiological Traits at the Seedling and Maturity Stages under Different Nitrogen Treatments in Barley

by
Zhaoyong Zeng
1,†,
Shiyun Song
2,†,
Jian Ma
1,
Deyi Hu
2,
Yinggang Xu
2,
Yao Hou
2,
Chengjun He
2,
Xiaoyan Tang
2,
Ting Lan
2,
Jian Zeng
2,
Xuesong Gao
2 and
Guangdeng Chen
2,*
1
Triticeae Research Institute, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu 611130, China
2
College of Resources, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu 611130, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24(10), 8736; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms24108736
Submission received: 11 April 2023 / Revised: 3 May 2023 / Accepted: 11 May 2023 / Published: 13 May 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Genetics and Genomics-Based Crop Improvement and Breeding)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Nitrogen (N) stress seriously constrains barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) production globally by influencing its growth and development. In this study, we used a recombinant inbred line (RIL) population of 121 crosses between the variety Baudin and the wild barley accession CN4027 to detect QTL for 27 traits at the seedling stage in hydroponic culture trials and 12 traits at the maturity stage in field trials both under two N treatments, aiming to uncover favorable alleles for N tolerance in wild barley. In total, eight stable QTL and seven QTL clusters were detected. Among them, the stable QTL Qtgw.sau-2H located in a 0.46 cM interval on the chromosome arm 2HL was a novel QTL specific for low N. Notably, Clusters C4 and C7 contained QTL for traits at both the seedling and maturity stages. In addition, four stable QTLs in Cluster C4 were identified. Furthermore, a gene (HORVU2Hr1G080990.1) related to grain protein in the interval of Qtgw.sau-2H was predicted. Correlation analysis and QTL mapping showed that different N treatments significantly affected agronomic and physiological traits at the seedling and maturity stages. These results provide valuable information for understanding N tolerance as well as breeding and utilizing the loci of interest in barley.

1. Introduction

Nitrogen (N) is one of the indispensable nutrient elements for plant growth and development [1]. The increase in crop yield depends mainly on the application of N fertilizer [2]. Over the past 40 years, the doubling of global grain production has been closely related to the surge in N application rates [3]. Excessive application of N fertilizer will decrease N use efficiency (NUE) and cause a series of environmental problems [4], such as global acidification, the destruction of stratospheric ozone and the eutrophication of water bodies [5]. As global soil waterlogging is expected to increase under the future climate, this will further lead to more N losses [6]. With the decrease in global planting area and the increase in food demand, cultivating crops with a high NUE plays a very important role in reducing the amount of N fertilizer applied and increasing grain yield (GY) [7].
Low N (LN) stress is a compound trait with a complex genetic basis. Many agronomic and physiological traits are involved in the response to LN stress in crops [8,9]. N deficiency will result in numerous adverse effects on the growth and development of crops. For example, it can phenotypically decrease plant height (PH), dry matter biomass and leaf area [10] and severely affect the root system’s architecture and yield-related traits [11]. It can also physiologically reduce the N content and a series of enzyme activities in the leaves [12]. However, some studies have shown that there are great differences in LN tolerance among different crop genotypes [13,14], which may provide a theoretical basis for breeding LN-tolerant cultivars.
QTL for agronomic and physiological traits have been mapped in several crops under N stress, including wheat [15,16,17,18,19], barley [20,21,22,23,24,25,26], maize [27,28,29] and rice [30,31]. For example, Saal et al. [20] detected 82 QTL for yield-related traits in two N treatments and six environments. Hoffmann et al. [22] located 58 QTL and identified beneficial wild barley alleles that improved the performance of several traits in response to different N treatments. Schnaithmann and Pillen [26] detected 65 QTL for 15 traits under different N treatments on seven chromosomes. Kindu et al. [25] detected 41 QTL on seven chromosomes for 18 traits in different treatments. Although some QTL for agronomic and physiological traits were identified, few of them were stably expressed, meaning that they were hard to utilize in breeding. More QTL for N tolerance under realistic barren soil conditions should be detected for marker-assisted selection (MAS) breeding.
Compared with other crops, barley is one of the earliest domesticated plants. It can grow under a wider range of conditions, especially under various stresses [32]. With the development of modern breeding and intensive farming, the genetic diversity of cultivated barley varieties has been reduced and many excellent alleles have been lost [33]. As a result, many cultivated barley varieties are sensitive to a variety of abiotic and biotic stress environments. Wild barley can maintain normal growth and productivity in soils with poor fertility. It has a rich genetic diversity and can provide excellent genes for breeding barley, thereby breaking the bottleneck of genetic improvement [34]. For example, Schmalenbach et al. [35] reported that 1000-grain weight (TGW) increased when wild barley alleles (Hsp) were introgressed into spring barley. Wild barley is generally better adapted to poor soil fertility. Therefore, we can assume that wild barley may contain some unique N tolerance genes. In this study, 39 agronomic and physiological traits were measured in a population of 121 recombinant inbred lines derived from the variety Baudin and the wild barley accession CN4027 in a hydroponic culture trial with low N (LN) and normal N (NN) treatments in a single timeframe, and in field trials with N deficiency (LN) and N sufficiency (NN) over two growing seasons, with the aim of uncovering favorable alleles for N stress tolerance in wild barley.

2. Results

2.1. Phenotypic Performance

For T1, 27 traits were investigated in total. Of these, 21 were root-related traits, including total root length (TRL, cm/plant), total root surface area (TRS, cm2/plant), total root volume (TRV, cm3/plant), average root diameter (ARD, cm/plant), total root tip number (TRTN), adventitious root length (ARL, cm/plant), adventitious root surface area (ARSA, cm2/plant), adventitious root volume (ARV, cm3/plant), adventitious root tip number (ARTN), lateral root length (LRL, cm/plant), lateral root surface area (LRSA, cm2/plant), lateral root volume (LRV, cm3/plant) and lateral root tip number (LRTN). The adventitious root length percentage (ARLP, ARL/TRL × 100%), adventitious root surface area percentage (ARSAP, ARSA/TRS × 100%), adventitious root volume percentage (ARVP, ARV/TRV × 100%), adventitious root tip number percentage (ARTNP, ARTN/TRTN × 100%), lateral root length percentage (LRLP, LRL/TRL × 100%), lateral root surface area percentage (LRSAP, LRSA/TRS × 100%), lateral root volume percentage (LRVP, LRV/TRV × 100%) and lateral root tip number percentage (LRTNP, LRTN/TRTN × 100%) were measured using the methods described by Ranoarisoa et al. [36].
Six growth-related traits, including shoot dry matter weight (SDW, g/plant) and root dry matter weight (RDW, g/plant), were measured using a 1/10,000 electronic balance. The dry root–shoot ratio (RSA, RDW/SDW) and total dry matter weight (TDW, SDW + RDW) were calculated. PH (cm/plant) was measured with a ruler. Leaf number (Ln) was recorded by counting the number of leaves longer than 2 cm 30 days after planting. The average values from three plants under LN and NN for each line were used for the following analyses.
For T1, the values for all phenotype traits except Ln were significantly influenced by different N treatments (Table 1). The SDW, RDW, TDW, PH, TRV, ARL and ARSA of CN4027 were significantly higher (p < 0.01) than those of Baudin at LN, whereas ARTN and ARTNP were significantly lower (p < 0.01). The TRL and ARTN of Baudin were significantly higher than CN4027 under NN (p < 0.01). There were no significant differences in RSA, Ln, TRS, ARD, LRL, LRSA, LRV, ARV, LRTN, LRLP, ARLP, LRSAP, ARSAP, LRVP, ARVP and LRTNP under the two N treatments. The coefficient of variation for the growth-related traits and root-related traits between the two N treatments ranged from 0.45 to 51.83% (Table 1). Among the RILs, transgressive segregation was observed for all traits (Table 1), indicating that they are typical quantitative traits.
For T2 and T3, 12 traits were evaluated, including five agronomic traits, namely PH, spike length (SL), awn length (AL, cm), growth period (GP) and lodging resistance (LDR), according to the Agricultural Industry Standards of the People’s Republic of China (NY/T 1301-2007). Seven yield-related traits were investigated, including grain number per spike (GN), spike number per plant (SN), GY, straw dry weight per plant (StDW), TGW (GY/GN*1000), aboveground dry weight per plant (ADW, GY + StDW) and harvest index (HI, GY/ADW). The average values of the three replications under the two different N treatments for each line were used for the following analyses. For T2 and T3, the phenotypic values for the Baudin, CN4027 and their RILs showed significant differences in most of the 12 investigated traits (Table 2). CN4027 had a significantly higher PH, AL, LDR, StDW, and ADW than Baudin under the two different N treatments, whereas SL, GP, GN, TGW, GY and HI were significantly lower (p < 0.01). The SN of CN4027 was significantly higher than that of Baudin under LN (p < 0.01). The coefficient of variation ranged from 1.77 to 56.85% for all traits. Among the RILs, transgressive segregation was also observed for all traits (Table 2).

2.2. Correlation Analysis between Investigated Traits

For T1, the correlations between growth- and root-related phenotypic traits under the two N treatments are presented in Table 3. Spearman’s correlations for growth- and root-related traits ranged from −0.17 to 0.98. Growth-related traits were significantly and positively correlated with all root-related traits under the NN treatment except for ARD, TRV and ARSA (p < 0.05). Under the LN treatment, significant and positive correlations were detected between root-related traits and both SDW and Ln (p < 0.01). TDW and PH were partly correlated with root-related traits (p < 0.05). However, RDW and RSR were not significantly correlated with root-related traits.
For T2 and T3, correlations between phenotypic agronomic traits and yield-related traits were listed in Table 4. Spearman’s correlation coefficient ranged from −0.81 to 0.92 (Table 4). Significant correlations were detected among each of the agronomic traits and most of the yield-related traits under both N conditions (p < 0.05). Under the LN treatment, agronomic traits, including SL, AL and LDR, were significantly and positively correlated with all the yield-related traits except StDW (Table 4). Under the NN treatment, SN, GN and TGW had significant positive correlations with SL, AL, LDR and GP (p < 0.05). Significant and positive correlations were detected for GY with PH, SL, AL and LDR and for StDW with PH, AL, LDR and GP (p < 0.05). ADW was significantly and positively correlated with all agronomic traits (p < 0.05). Consistently, significant and positive correlations were detected between HI and SL and between AL and GP (p < 0.01). Significant and negative correlations were detected between HI and both PH and LDR (p < 0.01) under the two N treatments at T2 and T3.

2.3. QTL for Seedling Traits

Twenty-one QTL for 27 traits, individually explaining 14.20–34.60% of the phenotypic variation rate (PVE) with a LOD value of 2.72–7.37, were detected. These were located on four chromosomes: 3H (9QTL), 5H (1), 6H (10) and 7H (1) (Figure 1 and Table 5). Positive alleles of 12 QTL were from CN4027, as well as 9 from Baudin. Interestingly, only Qph.sau-3H for PH, explaining 14.5–34.6% of the PVE, was detected under both LN and NN conditions, and its positive allele was derived from CN4027. Other QTL were detected under either the LN or NN treatment.

2.4. QTL for Maturity Traits

Thirty-two QTL for 12 maturity traits were detected and mapped on seven chromosomes (Figure 1 and Table 5): 1H (three QTL), 2H (seven), 3H (14), 4H (three), 5H (one), 6H (two) and 7H (two). They explained 12.10–62.20% of the PVE, with the LOD values ranging between 3.05 and 24.45.
In total, 16 QTL for yield-related traits were detected, and the PVE explained by them ranged from 11.70% to 57.30% (Figure 1 and Table 5). The positive alleles of nine traits were contributed by Baudin, and those of the remaining seven traits were from CN4027. Of these, Qgn.sau-3H was detected on chromosome 3H, which explained 22.20% to 57.30% of the PVE under both N treatments in both T2 and T3. Qtgw.sau-2H was detected under LN in both T2 and T3, suggesting that it belongs to an LN-specific QTL. It explained up to 19.40% of the PVE, with a LOD value of 5.29. The positive allele of this trait was from CN4027. Qgy.sau-3H, which is located on 3H, was identified under both the LN and NN treatments in T2 and T3, explaining 19.30–37.50% of the PVE. Qhi.sau-3H was detected under all four N treatments, with a PVE of 35.90–50.50%.
For agronomic traits, 16 QTL were detected. The PVE explained by them was between 11.50% and 62.20% (Figure 1 and Table 5). The positive alleles of six traits were from Baudin, and 10 were from CN4027. Qph.sau-3H was detected under both N treatments in T2 and T3 and had the largest PVE (62.20%), with a LOD value of 24.45. Its positive allele was from CN4027. Qal.sau-3H was mapped to chromosome 3H under both N treatments in both trials conducted, explaining 12.3% to 30.10% of the PVE. Qldr.sau-3H was detected under four treatments and explained up to 35.80% of the PVE, with a LOD value of 11.27. Qgp.sau-3H was detected under the two different N treatments in T3 but only under the NN treatment in T2. with a PVE of 24.70% and a LOD value of 7.21. Its positive allele was derived from Baudin.

2.5. QTL Clusters

The QTL for different traits cluster together in a given interval, which is usually pleiotropic and important [37]. In this study, seven QTL clusters (C1–C7) were mapped to three chromosomes (2H, 3H and 6H). More than three QTL for each cluster were co-located (Table S3). These clusters could be classified into three types: those detected only at the seedling stage (Type I, including C2, C5 and C6) or the maturity stage (Type II, including C1 and C3), and those detected simultaneously at the seedling and maturity stages (Type III, including C4 and C7). Among them, Type I contained QTL only for root-related traits at the seedling stage. Notably, four LN-specific QTL for LPLP, LRSAP, ARSAP and ARLP were located in the region of 15.21–34.83 cM on chromosome 6H in C6. Type II contained QTL for both agronomic traits and yield-related traits at maturity. Four stable QTL (Qgn.sau-3H, Qgy.sau-3H, Qhi.sau-3H and Qal.sau-3H) in C3 were detected under four treatments and had higher PVE values (more than 12.30%). Type III contained QTL for traits at both seedling and maturity. Three of the 10 QTL in C4 were stable, namely Qph.sau-3H, Qldr.sau-3H and Qgp.sau-3H. They could be detected under all treatments and individually explained 12.30–62.20% of the PVE. In C7, QTL for LRLP and ARLP at the seedling stage and for TGW at maturity were co-located in the region of 58.84–66.07 cM on chromosome 6H.

3. Discussion

It has been shown that a limited N supply constrains crop production globally by influencing the crops’ growth and development [20,38]. For example, N deficiency can decrease barley yield, shorten the growth period and also decrease total biomass, the N content of organs and a series of enzyme activities [39,40,41]. Due to the complexity of physiological phenotypic characteristics, there is no standard evaluation index for a crop’s tolerance to LN stress. In this study, 39 traits under two N treatments at the seedling and maturity stages were measured to further evaluate the indexes of N tolerance in barley. Correlation analysis showed that different N treatments strongly affected the correlations among different types of traits at the seedling and maturity stages. In addition, the seven QTL clusters identified in this study provided strong evidence that the genetic mechanisms of growth-related traits, root-related traits, agronomic traits and yield-related traits in barley were closely related under different N treatments. In conclusion, the correlation analysis and QTL mapping showed that there was a close relationship between the four N tolerance evaluation indexes in barley under the different N treatments.
Under LN stress, plants may adopt different strategies to cope with the change in N [42]. In comparison with cultivated barley, wild barley has wider genetic diversity and is better adapted to N deficiency [43]. Identification of the resources of wild barley with higher tolerance to LN will provide excellent genetic material for improving LN tolerance in barley and other cereal crops [42]. QTL analysis suggested that the major Qtgw.sau-2H was stably expressed under only the LN treatment and the positive allele was from wild barley (CN4027). We speculate that it is an LN-sensitive QTL and has the potential for breeding to develop barley varieties with LN tolerance.
Roots, as the most important organ for N absorption, can adapt to changes in the N supply by changing their morphology over time [44]. In this study, Baudin had a larger LRLP and LRSAP, while CN4027 had a larger ARLP and ARSAP under LN. Thus, the characterization and aggregation of LN-specific QTL in different varieties may be helpful for breeding high-NUE varieties [45]. Remarkably, there was a co-localized region for root-related traits under LN. Qlrlp.sau-6H.1, Qarlp.sau-6H.1, Qlrsap.sau-6H and Qarsap.sau-6H were co-located between bpb-3665654 and bpb-5256842 on chromosome arm 6HS, indicating that the favorable alleles for this region may increase N absorption capacity by changing root systems and root phenotypes. Eight stably expressed QTL for traits identified at maturity under more than three treatments were obtained in this study. To confirm whether the newly identified QTL were novel loci, we compared their physical intervals with previously reported QTL through anchoring their flanking markers on barley using BLASTn analyses against the Morex genome database. Qgy.sau-3H, Qhi.sau-3H, Qgn.sau-3H and Qal.sau-3H were mapped in the interval between 16.54 and 435.82 Mb on chromosome 3H. This interval overlapped with QTL for GY on 3H (345.20 Mbp) [46], with QTL for AL [47] and a QTL hotspot for yield-related traits [48]. In addition, Qph.sau-3H, Qldr.sau-3H and Qgp.sau-3H were identified in the interval between 473.84 and 528.17 Mb on chromosome arm 3HL, which overlapped with the sdw1/denso genes for PH [49,50]. These results suggested that they may not be novel loci.
An LN-specific Qtgw.sau-2H for TGW was located in a 0.46 cM interval and physically mapped between 524.23 and 524.63 Mbp on chromosome arm 2HL. Few QTL-controlling TGW have been reported on chromosome 2H. For example, Wang et al. [48] identified some QTL for grain length, grain width, grain length–width ratio, TGW, grain area, grain perimeter, grain diameter, grain roundness and factor form density between 647.83 and 653.98 Mbp on chromosome arm 2HL. Wang et al. [51] detected qTgw2-1 and qTgw2-2 for TGW on 2HL, which were close to the morphological marker Vrs1 (690.31 Mbp). These previously reported QTL were unlikely to be allelic to the Qtgw.sau-2H locus identified in this study, suggesting that Qtgw.sau-2H might be a novel locus.
In the present study, Qtgw.sau-2H was located between the markers bpb3927777 and bpb3396835. Only one candidate gene was predicted in this region (Table S4). The co-located intervals for Qgy.sau-3H, Qhi.sau-3H, Qgn.sau-3H and Qal.sau-3H were located between the markers bpb6282426 and bpb3264570; there were eight candidate genes in this region. The intervals for Qph.sau-3H, Qldr.sau-3H and Qgp.sau-3H were co-located between markers bpb3433483 and bpb3257096; there were 12 candidate genes in this interval (Table S4). Among these were candidate genes in each interval for the QTL. For example, HORVU2Hr1G080990.1 encodes a seed storage 2S albumin superfamily protein. A large amount of Seed storage 2S albumin superfamily protein is synthesized at the late stage of seed development [52,53]. The protein content and the degradation rate of stored protein are closely related to seed vigor [54]. HORVU3Hr1G091720.2 encodes a NAC domain-containing protein, and it plays a regulatory role in the growth and development of millet [55]. HORVU3Hr1G091460.10 encodes an SET domain-containing protein that has been reported to play a role in nutrient regulation under abiotic stresses [56]. HORVU3Hr1G061710.1 and HORVU3Hr1G089840.1 encode an L-asparaginase that has been reported to affect NUE and GY in Arabidopsis [57,58]. HORVU3Hr1G063180.1 encodes glutamate dehydrogenase 2, which has been reported to improve NUE traits [23]. HORVU3Hr1G066050.1 and HORVU3Hr1G093310.2 encode the transcription factor basic helix-loop-helix 62 (bHLH62), which has been reported to participate in the transport of NH4+ [59].
N stress in the soil is becoming a huge problem for crop production around the world. It is urgent to develop crop cultivars with strong LN tolerance for coping with the problem. A wild barley allele introgression of S42IL-119 was associated with a 20% increase in TKW under LN conditions [26]. Quan et al. [60] showed that soluble acid invertase, MYB and NAC transcription factors, ethylene biosynthesis and oxygen species play an important role in the LN tolerance of barley. Meanwhile, agronomic and physiological traits are often used as indicators of plants’ tolerance to LN stress [61,62,63]. In this study, eight stable QTL were identified that were related to agronomic and physiological traits, which provide clues for developing barley with LN tolerance.
QTL clusters containing stable QTL are particularly important [64]. In this study, two QTL clusters (C3 and C4) contained stable QTL. C3 on chromosome 3H contained four stable QTL (Qgn.sau-3H, Qgy.sau-3H, Qhi.sau-3H and Qal.sau-3H). The most important cluster, C4 on chromosome 3H, included 3 and 7 QTL for seedling and maturity traits, respectively. Interestingly, Qph.sau-3H and Qldr.sau-3H were co-localized between the markers bpb3433483 and bpb3257096, which showed the existence of a close genetic relationship between PH and LDR [65]. The markers in these two QTL clusters should be helpful for marker-assisted selection in barley breeding programs under LN stress. The QTL clusters could provide important information for selecting genotypes with better early vigor and N uptake efficiency.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Plant Materials

An F8 RIL population, including 121 lines, was constructed using the single-seed descent method from the cross between the barley cultivar Baudin and the wild accession CN4027 [66]. Baudin is a high-yielding variety that can adapt to longer seasons and regions with moderate rainfall; CN4027 is a wild barley genotype.

4.2. Hydroponic Trial

A hydroponic trial (T1) was adopted at the seedling stage with two N concentrations provided using Ca(NO3)2·4H2O at 2 mmol·L−1 (NN) and 0.5 mmol·L−1 (LN) [22]. Twenty seeds with a similar size from each line in the BC population were selected and disinfected with 10% H2O2 for 5 min, then cleaned with distilled water and germinated at 25 °C and 60% humidity. Three seedlings from each line with consistent growth were transferred to a plastic tank (60 × 40 × 15 cm3) containing Hoagland nutrient solution (Table S1) at the two-leaf stage. The nutrient solution was changed every 5 days, and ventilation was conducted every 2 h. The pH of the nutrient solution was adjusted to 5.5–6.0 with 0.1 mol·L−1 HCl or NaOH. Each treatment was repeated three times.
T1 was conducted in the rainproof greenhouse facilities of the Chengdu Campus of Sichuan Agricultural University from September to November in 2019. After transplantation, the samples were collected after being treated with different N concentrations for 30 days. The samples were washed with tap water, moistened with distilled water and then dried with absorbent paper. Epson Expression 10,000 XL was used for collecting images of the roots. Win RHIZO-Pro V2007d (Regent Instruments Inc., Quebec, QC, Canada) was used to analyze the root-related traits. The Ln was calculated for leaves measuring more than 0.2 cm at harvest. PH was measured from the base of the plant to the top. The shoot and root tissues were packed in bags and placed in an oven for deactivation at 105 °C for 30 min and dried at 75 °C until they had a constant weight. The RDW (g/plant) and SDW (g/plant) were measured using a 1/10,000 electronic balance. The dry root–shoot ratio (DRS, RDW/SDW) and TDW (RDW + SDW) were calculated.

4.3. Field Trials

The field trials were conducted using a split-plot design with the N treatments (normal N (NN) and no N (LN)) as the main plot and the genotypes as the subplots. The two main plots were separated by a trench 60 cm deep. Pure N at 150 kg·hm−2, with the N source being urea (N, 46%), was adopted as the normal N treatment. In both trials, pure phosphorus (P2O5 75 kg·hm−2), superphosphate (P2O5, 12%), pure potassium (K2O 75 kg hm−2) and potassium chloride (K2O, 60%) were applied. The trials were conducted at Shifang and Deyang in Sichuan Province during the growing seasons of 2020–2021 (T2) and 2021–2022 (T3). These two experiment fields belong to the mid-latitude of the subtropical humid climate zone. The type of soil in the experimental field is paddy soil, and the basic physical and chemical properties of soil before planting are shown in Table S2. Each line was planted as a single seed in two rows 0.8 m in length, with 6 cm between plants within a row and 20 cm between the rows. Each row was treated as a replicate, and each treatment was repeated three times. The fields were managed by conventional practices for barley production. We collected the aerial parts of five plants with similar growth conditions for each of the three repetitions at the mature stage, then numbered and bagged them. We then rinsed the samples with distilled water and finally dried them with absorbent paper. The straw dry weight per plant and spike weight was measured using an electronic balance after the straw and spike tissues had been deactivated at 105 °C for half an hour and then dried to a constant weight at 75 °C.

4.4. QTL Mapping and Statistical Analysis

The genetic linkage map reported in an earlier study [57] was used for mapping the QTL. Spearman’s correlation coefficients among traits at seedling and maturity stages were calculated using SPSS 22.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Excel (2016) was used for drawing the charts. Interval mapping in MapQTL5.0 was used for mapping the QTL with LOD > 2.5 at the seedling stage and LOD > 3.0 at maturity according to the standards of previous studies [19,58], and MapChart2.0 software was used for map construction. QTL were named following the recommendations of the International Rules of Genetic Nomenclature (http://wheat.pw.usda.gov/ggpages/wgc/98/Intro.htm (accessed on 15 April 2022)).

5. Conclusions

In our study, we identified eight stable QTL for agronomic and physiological traits, including GN, TGW, GY, HI, PH, AL, LDR and GP under different N treatments. Thirty-five QTL formed seven QTL clusters on chromosomes 2H, 3H and 6H. Additionally, we evaluated the relationships among growth-related traits and root-related traits, agronomic traits and yield-related traits. A novel stable LN-specific QTL for TGW was identified on chromosome 2H under the LN treatments. A predicted gene (HORVU2Hr1G080990.1) in the Qtgw.sau-2H interval may be valuable for subsequent fine mapping of candidate genes. These results provide valuable information for understanding N tolerance as well as breeding and utilizing the loci of interest in barley.

Supplementary Materials

The supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ijms24108736/s1.

Author Contributions

Z.Z. participated in drafting this manuscript. S.S. performed the entire study. J.M. guided the study and revised the manuscript. D.H., Y.X., Y.H. and C.H. carried out measurements of the phenotypes and data analysis. X.T., T.L., J.Z. and X.G. carried out the analyses of the QTL and revised the manuscript. G.C. designed the experiments, guided the entire study, participated in analyzing data, and wrote and extensively revised this manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31971944) and Sichuan Province’s Science Foundation for Distinguished Young Scholars (2022JDJQ0006). We thank the anonymous referees for critically reading and revising this manuscript.

Data Availability Statement

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

  1. Duncan, E.G.; O’Sullivan, C.A.; Roper, M.M.; Biggs, J.S.; Peoples, M.B. Influence of co-application of nitrogen with phosphorus, potassium and sulphur on the apparent efficiency of nitrogen fertiliser use, grain yield and protein content of wheat: Review. Field Crops Res. 2018, 226, 56–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Jemal, K.; Aliyi, M. Growth and Yield Response of Food Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) Varieties to Nitrogen Fertilizer Rates Inkofele District, Southeastern Oromia. J. Aquac. Res. Dev. 2021, 12, 645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Wang, Y.; Lu, Y. Evaluating the potential health and economic effects of nitrogen fertilizer application in grain production systems of China. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 264, 121635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Senthilvel, S.; Vinod, K.K.; Malarvizhi, P.; Maheswaran, M. QTL and QTL× environment effects on agronomic and nitrogen acquisition traits in rice. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 2008, 50, 1108–1117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Gruber, N.; Galloway, J.N. An Earth-system perspective of the global nitrogen cycle. Nature 2008, 451, 293–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Liu, K.; Harrison, M.T.; Yan, H.; Liu, D.L.; Meinke, H.; Hoogenboom, G.; Wang, B.; Peng, B.; Guan, K.; Jaegermeyr, J. Silver lining to a climate crisis in multiple prospects for alleviating crop waterlogging under future climates. Nat. Commun. 2023, 14, 765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Edae, E.A.; Byrne, P.F.; Haley, S.D.; Lopes, M.S.; Reynolds, M.P. Genome-wide association mapping of yield and yield components of spring wheat under contrasting moisture regimes. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2014, 127, 791–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Ranjan, R.; Yadav, R. Genetics of root traits influencing nitrogen use efficiency under varied nitrogen level in spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Cereal Res. Commun. 2022, 50, 755–765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Gallais, A.; Hirel, B. An approach to the genetics of nitrogen use efficiency in maize. J. Exp. Bot. 2004, 55, 295–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Dordas, C.A.; Sioulas, C. Safflower yield, chlorophyll content, photosynthesis, and water use efficiency response to nitrogen fertilization under rainfed conditions. Ind. Crops Prod. 2008, 27, 75–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Yue, S.; Meng, Q.; Zhao, R.; Ye, Y.; Zhang, F.; Cui, Z.; Chen, X. Change in Nitrogen Requirement with Increasing Grain Yield for Winter Wheat. Agron. J. 2012, 104, 1687–1693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Medici, L.O.; Azevedo, R.A.; Smith, R.J.; Lea, P.J. The influence of nitrogen supply on antioxidant enzymes in plant roots. Funct. Plant Biol. 2004, 31, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Decouard, B.; Bailly, M.; Rigault, M.; Marmagne, A.; Arkoun, M.; Soulay, F.; Caïus, J.; Paysant-Le Roux, C.; Louahlia, S.; Jacquard, C. Genotypic variation of nitrogen use efficiency and amino acid metabolism in barley. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 12, 807798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Halstead, M.; Morrissy, C.; Fisk, S.; Fox, G.; Hayes, P.; Carrijo, D. Barley grain protein is influenced by genotype, environment, and nitrogen management and is the major driver of malting quality. Crop Sci. 2023, 63, 115–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Sun, J.-J.; Guo, Y.; Zhang, G.-Z.; Gao, M.-G.; Zhang, G.-H.; Kong, F.-M.; Zhao, Y.; Li, S.-S. QTL mapping for seedling traits under different nitrogen forms in wheat. Euphytica 2013, 191, 317–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Cui, F.; Fan, X.; Zhao, C.; Zhang, W.; Chen, M.; Ji, J.; Li, J. A novel genetic map of wheat: Utility for mapping QTL for yield under different nitrogen treatments. BMC Genet. 2014, 15, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Cui, F.; Fan, X.; Chen, M.; Zhang, N.; Zhao, C.; Zhang, W.; Han, J.; Ji, J.; Zhao, X.; Yang, L.; et al. QTL detection for wheat kernel size and quality and the responses of these traits to low nitrogen stress. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2016, 129, 469–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Charmet, G.; Robert, N.; Branlard, G.; Linossier, L.; Martre, P.; Triboi, E. Genetic analysis of dry matter and nitrogen accumulation and protein composition in wheat kernels. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2005, 111, 540–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Saini, D.K.; Chopra, Y.; Pal, N.; Chahal, A.; Srivastava, P.; Gupta, P.K. Meta-QTLs, ortho-MQTLs and candidate genes for nitrogen use efficiency and root system architecture in bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Physiol. Mol. Biol. Plants 2021, 27, 2245–2267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Saal, B.; von Korff, M.; Léon, J.; Pillen, K. Advanced-backcross QTL analysis in spring barley: IV. Localization of QTL × nitrogen interaction effects for yield-related traits. Euphytica 2011, 177, 223–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Laperche, A.; Devienne-Barret, F.; Maury, O.; Le Gouis, J.; Ney, B. A simplified conceptual model of carbon/nitrogen functioning for QTL analysis of winter wheat adaptation to nitrogen deficiency. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2006, 113, 1131–1146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Hoffmann, A.; Maurer, A.; Pillen, K. Detection of nitrogen deficiency QTL in juvenile wild barley introgression linesgrowing in a hydroponic system. BMC Genet. 2012, 13, 88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. Han, M.; Wong, J.; Su, T.; Beatty, P.H.; Good, A.G. Identification of Nitrogen Use Efficiency Genes in Barley: Searching for QTLs Controlling Complex Physiological Traits. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 1587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Mickelson, S.; See, D.; Meyer, F.D.; Garner, J.P.; Foster, C.R.; Blake, T.K.; Fischer, A.M. Mapping of QTL associated with nitrogen storage and remobilization in barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) leaves. J. Exp. Bot. 2003, 54, 801–812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Kindu, G.A.; Tang, J.; Yin, X.; Struik, P.C. Quantitative trait locus analysis of nitrogen use efficiency in barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). Euphytica 2014, 199, 207–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Schnaithmann, F.; Pillen, K. Detection of exotic QTLs controlling nitrogen stress tolerance among wild barley introgression lines. Euphytica 2013, 189, 67–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Pestsova, E.; Lichtblau, D.; Wever, C.; Presterl, T.; Bolduan, T.; Ouzunova, M.; Westhoff, P. QTL mapping of seedling root traits associated with nitrogen and water use efficiency in maize. Euphytica 2016, 209, 585–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Liu, X.; Yuan, Y.; Martinez, C.; Babu, R.; Suarez, E.A.; Zhang, X.; Neiff, N.; Trachsel, S. Identification of QTL for early vigor and leaf senescence across two tropical maize doubled haploid populations under nitrogen deficient conditions. Euphytica 2020, 216, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Jansen, C.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, H.; Gonzalez-Portilla, P.J.; Lauter, N.; Kumar, B.; Trucillo-Silva, I.; Martin, J.P.S.; Lee, M.; Simcox, K.; et al. Genetic and agronomic assessment of cob traits in corn under low and normal nitrogen management conditions. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2015, 128, 1231–1242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Wei, D.; Cui, K.; Ye, G.; Pan, J.; Xiang, J.; Huang, J.; Nie, L. QTL mapping for nitrogen-use efficiency and nitrogen-deficiency tolerance traits in rice. Plant Soil 2012, 359, 281–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Nguyen, H.T.T.; Dang, D.T.; Van Pham, C.; Bertin, P. QTL mapping for nitrogen use efficiency and related physiological and agronomical traits during the vegetative phase in rice under hydroponics. Euphytica 2016, 212, 473–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Sharma, K.; Kumar, A.; Verma, S. Variations in physiological traits as screening tool for drought tolerance in barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). Indian J. Plant Physiol. 2016, 21, 93–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ellis, R.P.; Forster, B.P.; Robinson, D.; Handley, L.; Gordon, D.C.; Russell, J.R.; Powell, W. Wild barley: A source of genes for crop improvement in the 21st century? J. Exp. Bot. 2000, 51, 9–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Zeng, J.; He, X.; Quan, X.; Cai, S.; Han, Y.; Nadira, U.A.; Zhang, G. Identification of the proteins associated with low potassium tolerance in cultivated and Tibetan wild barley. J. Proteom. 2015, 126, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Schmalenbach, I.; Körber, N.; Pillen, K. Selecting a set of wild barley introgression lines and verification of QTL effects for resistance to powdery mildew and leaf rust. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2008, 117, 1093–1106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Ranoarisoa, M.P.; Morel, C.; Andriamananjara, A.; Jourdan, C.; Bernard, L.; Becquer, T.; Rabeharisoa, L.; Rahajaharilaza, K.; Plassard, C.; Blanchart, E. Effects of a bacterivorous nematode on rice 32P uptake and root architecture in a high P-sorbing ferrallitic soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2018, 122, 39–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Luo, Q.; Hu, P.; Yang, G.; Li, H.; Liu, L.; Wang, Z.; Li, B.; Li, Z.; Zheng, Q. Mapping QTL for seedling morphological and physiological traits under normal and salt treatments in a RIL wheat population. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2021, 134, 2991–3011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Kaur, K.; Singh, H. Studies on yield, chlorophyll content and nitrogen uptake of barley varieties as influenced by levels and time of nitrogen application. Progress. Agric. 2012, 12, 386–391. [Google Scholar]
  39. Paunovic, A.; Madic, M.; Knezevic, D.; Bokan, N. Sowing Density and Nitrogen Fertilization Influences on Yield Components of Barley. Cereal Res. Commun. 2007, 35, 901–904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Végh, K.R.; Rajkai, K. Root Growth and Nitrogen Use Efficiency of Spring Barley in Drying Soil. Cereal Res. Commun. 2006, 34, 267–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Gao, R.; Guo, G.; Xu, H.; Chen, Z.; Li, Y.; Lu, R.; Liu, C.; Chen, J. Enhancement of root architecture and nitrate transporter gene expression improves plant growth and nitrogen uptake under long-term low-nitrogen stress in barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) seedlings. Plant Growth Regul. 2021, 95, 343–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Lezhneva, L.; Kiba, T.; Feria-Bourrellier, A.B.; Lafouge, F.; Boutet-Mercey, S.; Zoufan, P.; Sakakibara, H.; Daniel-Vedele, F.; Krapp, A. The Arabidopsis nitrate transporter NRT 2.5 plays a role in nitrate acquisition and remobilization in nitrogen-starved plants. Plant J. 2014, 80, 230–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Baek, H.; Beharav, A.; Nevo, E. Ecological-genomic diversity of microsatellites in wild barley, Hordeum spontaneum, populations in Jordan. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2003, 106, 397–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Mora, F.; Quitral, Y.A.; Matus, I.; Russell, J.; Waugh, R.; del Pozo, A. SNP-Based QTL Mapping of 15 Complex Traits in Barley under Rain-Fed and Well-Watered Conditions by a Mixed Modeling Approach. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Gyenis, L.; Yun, S.J.; Smith, K.P.; Steffenson, B.J.; Bossolini, E.; Sanguineti, M.C.; Muehlbauer, G.J. Genetic architecture of quantitative trait loci associated with morphological and agronomic trait differences in a wild by cultivated barley cross. Genome 2007, 50, 714–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Wang, Q.; Sun, G.; Ren, X.; Du, B.; Cheng, Y.; Wang, Y.; Li, C.; Sun, D. Dissecting the Genetic Basis of Grain Size and Weight in Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) by QTL and Comparative Genetic Analyses. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  47. Kuczyńska, A.; Surma, M.; Adamski, T.; Mikołajczak, K.; Krystkowiak, K.; Ogrodowicz, P. Effects of the semi-dwarfing sdw1/denso gene in barley. J. Appl. Genet. 2013, 54, 381–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Kandemir, N.; Saygili, İ.; Sönmezoğlu, Ö.A.; Yildirim, A. Evaluation of barley semi-dwarf allele sdw1. d in a near isogenic line. Euphytica 2022, 218, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Wang, J.; Sun, G.; Ren, X.; Li, C.; Liu, L.; Wang, Q.; Du, B.; Sun, D. QTL underlying some agronomic traits in barley detected by SNP markers. BMC Genet. 2016, 17, 103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Sun, X.; Sun, Y.; Li, Y.; Wu, Q.; Wang, L. Identification and Characterization of the Seed Storage Proteins and Related Genes of Cannabis sativa L. Front. Nutr. 2021, 8, 297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Guéguen, J.; Popineau, Y.; Anisimova, I.N.; Fido, R.J.; Tatham, A.S. Functionality of the 2S Albumin Seed Storage Proteins from Sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.). J. Agric. Food Chem. 1996, 44, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Archana, A.; Verma, P.; Pandey, N. Impact of inadequate concentration of boron in seed storage proteins content in oilseed crops. Grain Seed Proteins Func. Lond. Intechopen Cap. 2021, 11, 175–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Walch-Liu, P.; Ivanov, I.I.; Filleur, S.; Gan, Y.; Remans, T.; Forde, B.G. Nitrogen Regulation of Root Branching. Ann. Bot. 2005, 97, 875–881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Cui, F.; Zhang, N.; Fan, X.L.; Zhang, W.; Zhao, C.H.; Yang, L.J.; Pan, R.Q.; Chen, M.; Han, J.; Zhao, X.Q.; et al. Utilization of a Wheat660K SNP array-derived high-density genetic map for high-resolution mapping of a major QTL for kernel number. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 3788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  55. Uauy, C.; Distelfeld, A.; Fahima, T.; Blechl, A.; Dubcovsky, J. A NAC gene regulating senescence improves grain protein, zinc, and iron content in wheat. Science 2006, 314, 1298–1301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  56. Nadeem, F.; Ahmad, Z.; Ul Hassan, M.; Wang, R.; Diao, X.; Li, X. Adaptation of foxtail millet (Setaria italica L.) to abiotic stresses: A special perspective of responses to nitrogen and phosphate limitations. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Patra, A.; Sharma, V.; Purakayastha, T.; Barman, M.; Kumar, S.; Chakraborty, D.; Chobhe, K.A.; Nath, D. Effect of integrated nutrient management in rice on nitrogen availability, L-asparaginase and L-glutaminase activity in acidic soil. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. App. Sci. 2017, 6, 3777–3783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Islam, S.; Zhang, J.; Zhao, Y.; She, M.; Ma, W. Genetic regulation of the traits contributing to wheat nitrogen use efficiency. Plant Sci. 2021, 303, 110759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Chiasson, D.M.; Loughlin, P.C.; Mazurkiewicz, D.; Mohammadidehcheshmeh, M.; Fedorova, E.E.; Okamoto, M.; McLean, E.; Glass, A.D.; Smith, S.E.; Bisseling, T. Soybean SAT1 (Symbiotic Ammonium Transporter 1) encodes a bHLH transcription factor involved in nodule growth and NH4+ transport. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014, 111, 4814–4819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Quan, X.; Zeng, J.; Ye, L.; Chen, G.; Han, Z.; Shah, J.M.; Zhang, G. Transcriptome profiling analysis for two Tibetan wild barley genotypes in responses to low nitrogen. BMC Plant Biol. 2016, 16, 116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Broadley, M.R.; Bowen, H.C.; Cotterill, H.L.; Hammond, J.P.; Meacham, M.C.; Mead, A.; White, P.J. Phylogenetic variation in the shoot mineral concentration of angiosperms. J. Exp. Bot. 2004, 55, 321–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Hermans, C.; Hammond, J.P.; White, P.J.; Verbruggen, N. How do plants respond to nutrient shortage by biomass allocation? Trends Plant Sci. 2006, 11, 610–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Zahn, S.; Koblenz, B.; Christen, O.; Pillen, K.; Maurer, A. Evaluation of wild barley introgression lines for agronomic traits related to nitrogen fertilization. Euphytica 2020, 216, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Yuan, Y.; Gao, M.; Zhang, M.; Zheng, H.; Zhou, X.; Guo, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Kong, F.; Li, S. QTL mapping for phosphorus efficiency and morphological traits at seedling and maturity stages in wheat. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  65. Madić, M.; Knežević, D.; Paunović, A.; Đurović, D. Plant height and internode length as components of lodging resistance in barley. Acta Agric. Serbica 2016, 21, 99–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Gao, S.-Q.; Chen, G.-D.; Hu, D.-Y.; Zhang, X.-Z.; Li, T.-X.; Liu, S.-H.; Liu, C.-J. A major quantitative trait locus controlling phosphorus utilization efficiency under different phytate-P conditions at vegetative stage in barley. J. Integr. Agric. 2018, 17, 285–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Ijms 24 08736 g001 550
Figure 1. Quantitative trait loci (QTL) for agronomic and physiological traits identified at the seedling and maturity stages in the RIL population. Blue represents QTL conferring growth-related traits; green represents QTL conferring root-related traits; red represents QTL conferring yield-related traits; purple represents QTL conferring agronomic traits. 1H, chromosome 1H; 2H, chromosome 2H; 3H, chromosome 3H; 4H, chromosome 4H; 5H, chromosome 5H; 6H, chromosome 6H; 7H, chromosome 7H.
Figure 1. Quantitative trait loci (QTL) for agronomic and physiological traits identified at the seedling and maturity stages in the RIL population. Blue represents QTL conferring growth-related traits; green represents QTL conferring root-related traits; red represents QTL conferring yield-related traits; purple represents QTL conferring agronomic traits. 1H, chromosome 1H; 2H, chromosome 2H; 3H, chromosome 3H; 4H, chromosome 4H; 5H, chromosome 5H; 6H, chromosome 6H; 7H, chromosome 7H.
Ijms 24 08736 g001
Table
Table 1. Variations in the traits evaluated in the RIL population and their parents at seedling stage.
Table 1. Variations in the traits evaluated in the RIL population and their parents at seedling stage.
TypesTraitTreatmentT1
ParentsRIL Population
BaudinCN4027RangeMean ± SDCV(%)
Growth-related traitsSDWLN0.030.06 **0.02–0.120.07 ± 0.0233.62
NN0.060.080.03–0.150.10 ± 0.0328.20
RDWLN0.020.04 **0.01–0.070.03 ± 0.0140.66
NN0.020.020.01–0.040.02 ± 0.0133.10
TDWLN0.040.10 **0.02–0.170.10 ± 0.0333.62
NN0.080.100.03–0.190.12 ± 0.0428.50
RSALN51.7259.0220.00–90.7246.06 ± 11.5225.01
NN30.1624.0514.13–38.0924.75 ± 4.4317.88
PHLN22.1034.30 **12.10–46.8033.60 ± 6.6019.74
NN36.6036.5025.40–52.2038.70 ± 5.3013.80
LnLN4.004.003.00–6.004.00 ± 1.0025.00
NN5.004.004.00–8.005.00 ± 1.0020.00
Root-related traitsTRLLN409.50681.1057.50–1703.60837.50 ± 368.2043.97
NN231.10434.80 **125.00–911.50476.20 ± 181.4038.09
TRSLN32.9058.205.70–134.9063.80 ± 28.1044.09
NN20.8037.3010.70–71.2042.30 ± 15.0035.45
ARDLN0.310.310.23–0.410.28 ± 0.028.42
NN0.350.320.28–0.420.34 ± 0.037.91
TRVLN0.340.61 **0.10–1.410.61 ± 0.2845.38
NN0.260.420.11–0.870.49 ± 0.1734.54
TRTNLN871.00932.00122.00–3251.001339.00 ± 647.0048.28
NN270.00489.00 **163.00–1442.00670.00 ± 275.0041.09
LRLLN307.90438.0044.50–1290.00625.70 ± 279.6044.68
NN166.00306.6085.50–660.10315.50 ± 132.2041.91
ARLLN101.60243.10 **13.10–591.40211.70 ± 105.3049.73
NN65.10128.2025.00–321.50160.70 ± 62.4038.81
LRSALN17.1020.902.50–60.7030.70 ± 13.1042.68
NN8.6015.705.00–32.4016.40 ± 6.5039.56
ARSALN15.8037.30 **3.20–90.5033.10 ± 17.2051.83
NN12.2021.604.00–50.1026.00 ± 9.7037.21
LRVLN0.090.100.01–0.270.14 ± 0.0641.02
NN0.040.070.03–0.150.08 ± 0.0338.07
ARVLN0.250.510.07–1.220.47 ± 0.2348.99
NN0.220.340.07–0.730.41 ± 0.1536.06
LRTNLN859.00928.00118.00–3232.001326.00 ± 643.0048.49
NN263.00474.00160.00–1420.00658.00 ± 273.0041.52
ARTNLN12.00 **4.001.00–30.0013.00 ± 6.0046.57
NN7.0015.00 **3.00–26.0012.00 ± 5.0041.17
LRLPLN75.2064.3059.20–88.0075.30 ± 6.308.33
NN71.8070.5051.70–80.4065.80 ± 6.7010.19
ARLPLN24.8035.7013.40–41.6024.80 ± 6.3025.29
NN28.2029.5019.60–48.3034.20 ± 6.7019.60
LRSAPLN52.0035.9017.70–70.4049.80 ± 9.1018.35
NN41.2042.2024.00–62.7038.80 ± 7.0018.14
ARSAPLN4864.129.60–82.3050.20 ± 9.1018.18
NN58.857.837.30–76.0061.20 ± 7.0011.52
LRVPLN26.715.911.10–42.2024.90 ± 6.7026.72
NN15.417.710.20–31.1016.80 ± 4.7027.82
ARVPLN73.384.157.80–88.9075.10 ± 6.708.85
NN84.682.362.70–91.8083.10 ± 5.006.07
LRTNPLN98.699.697.40–99.5098.90 ± 0.400.45
NN97.496.994.90–99.5097.90 ± 0.900.94
ARTNPLN1.4 **0.40.30–2.601.10 ± 0.5046.80
NN23.10.50–5.102.10 ± 0.9044.86
LN, low nitrogen; NN, normal nitrogen; CV, coefficient of variation; SDW, shoot dry matter weight; RDW, root dry matter weight; TDW, total dry matter weight; RSA, root–shoot ratio; PH, plant height; Ln, leaf number; TRL, total root length; TRV, total root volume; ARD, average root diameter; TRTN, total root tip number; ARL, adventitious root length; ARSA, adventitious root surface area; ARV, adventitious root volume; ARTN, adventitious root tip number; ARLP, adventitious root length percentage; ARSAP, adventitious root surface area percentage; ARVP, adventitious root volume percentage; ARTNP, adventitious root tip number percentage; T, Trial. ** Mean significant difference at p < 0.01.
Table
Table 2. Variations of traits evaluated in the RIL population and their parents at maturity.
Table 2. Variations of traits evaluated in the RIL population and their parents at maturity.
TypesTraitTreatmentT2T3
ParentsRIL PopulationParentsRIL Population
BaudinCN4027RangeMean ± SDCV(%)BaudinCN4027RangeMean ± SDCV(%)
Agronomic traitsPHLN61.26104.77 **52.08–126.8386.54 ± 19.5422.5855.06103.24 **56.00–130.3085.55 ± 18.1021.16
NN72.95112.3 **64.24–132.7097.74 ± 18.7319.1670.15119.60 **66.63–133.0595.76 ± 18.2719.08
SLLN9.95 **8.554.33–12.278.88 ± 1.5117.009.10 **7.524.50–13.038.57 ± 1.0312.02
NN10.58 **9.757.14–12.9510.06 ± 1.1211.139.63 **8.555.42–10.868.14 ± 1.0613.02
ALLN7.987.685.16–13.548.82 ± 1.7820.189.2811.32 **1.14–13.189.60 ± 1.5416.04
NN9.5212.4 **5.80–16.3210.06 ± 1.7317.208.9810.68 **6.55–14.6010.02 ± 1.5515.47
LDRLN1.674.33 **1.00–5.003.66 ± 0.7420.221.335.00 **1.00–5.002.73 ± 0.6925.27
NN1.674.67 **1.00–5.003.08 ± 0.7524.351.674.67 **1.00–5.002.85 ± 0.8529.82
GPLN174.33 **165.33159.00–178.33168.69 ± 2.981.77168.33 **162.67159.33–179.00165.54 ± 5.283.19
NN176.67 **168.67162.67–181.33170.96 ± 3.432.01174.33 **167.33162.00–180.67168.18 ± 4.902.91
Yield-related traitsSNLN8.6716.44 **6.56–28.2214.76 ± 4.8432.787.5618.00 **3.56–27.5612.12 ± 4.6138.02
NN19.8920.225.00–46.3318.44 ± 7.6241.3120.1121.334.00–33.5615.44 ± 5.9538.51
GNLN22.44 **7.443.67–25.1114.72 ± 5.3036.0121.89 **6.781.89–36.3313.67 ± 5.5140.31
NN21.00 **11.564.78–55.8916.03 ± 6.6441.4317.78 **9.222.89–41.6714.54 ± 6.5845.27
TGWLN47.52 **35.2323.84–53.5837.09 ± 5.7115.3945.78 **26.7025.08–51.3036.95 ± 4.5012.17
NN47.00 **26.3026.52–53.2239.06 ± 5.6114.3533.45 **29.0819.34–48.6234.39 ± 5.6016.28
GYLN8.41 **4.141.35–26.347.94 ± 4.1952.777.39 **2.970.50–19.646.07 ± 3.4556.85
NN20.19 **6.531.43–33.4111.71 ± 6.1452.4311.89 **5.581.26–17.717.57 ± 4.1755.14
HINN0.56 **0.230.12–0.760.39 ± 0.1332.520.57 **0.160.09–0.700.41 ± 0.1331.83
NN0.60 **0.230.12–0.730.43 ± 0.1227.990.52 **0.150.10–0.610.38 ± 0.1232.02
StDWLN5.6515.60 **2.02–20.608.65 ± 4.1748.265.6515.60 **2.02–20.608.65 ± 4.1748.26
NN10.9631.10 **1.92–34.7212.12 ± 5.9649.1910.9631.10 **1.92–34.7212.12 ± 5.9649.19
ADWLN13.0418.57 **2.52–37.4914.74 ± 6.4643.8613.0418.57 **2.52–37.4914.74 ± 6.4643.86
NN22.8636.69 **3.58–49.9319.70 ± 8.5643.4722.8636.69 **3.58–49.9319.70 ± 8.5643.47
LN, no applied nitrogen; NN, normal nitrogen; CV, coefficient of variation; PH, plant height; SL, spike length; AL, awn length; LDR, lodging resistance; GP, growth period; SN, spike number per plant; GN, grain number per spike; TGW, 1000-grain weight; GY, grain yield; HI, harvest index; StDW, straw dry weight per plant; ADW, aboveground dry weight per plant; T, trial. ** Mean significant difference at p < 0.01.
Table
Table 3. Correlations between growth- and root-related traits in the RIL population at the seedling stage.
Table 3. Correlations between growth- and root-related traits in the RIL population at the seedling stage.
TrialTraitsTreatmentsTRLTRSARDTRVTRTNLRLLRSALRVLRTNARLARSAARVARTN
T1SDWLN0.30 **0.63 **0.62 **0.65 **0.67 **0.46 **0.40 **0.370 **0.67 **0.73 **0.67 **0.61 **0.57 **
NN0.97 **0.98 **0.92 **0.98 **0.93 **0.94 **0.95 **0.95 **0.93 **0.96 **0.97 **0.98 **0.92 **
RDWLN−0.12−0.07−0.13−0.13−0.06−0.10−0.14−0.08−0.06−0.10−0.08−0.13−0.11
NN0.73 **0.72 **0.70 **0.70 **0.72 **0.73 **0.72 **0.72 **0.73 **0.74 **0.72 **0.71 **0.73 **
RSRLN−0.11−0.11−0.16−0.16−0.12−0.17−0.13−0.07−0.12−0.15−0.14−0.16−0.15
NN0.59 **0.58 **0.61 **0.60 **0.60 **0.60 **0.60 **0.61 **0.60 **0.63 **0.60 **0.60 **0.62 **
TDWLN0.030.24 *0.180.190.27 *0.130.070.110.26 *0.26 *0.25 *0.180.18
NN0.78 **0.79 **0.75 **0.77 **0.77 **0.77 **0.77 **0.77 **0.77 **0.79 **0.78 **0.77 **0.77 **
PHLN0.210.51 **0.30 **0.33 **0.33 **0.38 **0.34 **0.35 **0.33 **0.37 **0.26 *0.23 *0.28 **
NN0.51 **0.53 **0.48 **0.52 **0.47 **0.48 **0.49 **0.50 **0.47 **0.52 **0.53 **0.52 **0.49 **
LnLN0.40 **0.71 **0.57 **0.66 **0.79 **0.54 **0.53 **0.57 **0.79 **0.61 **0.68 **0.63 **0.52 **
NN0.25 *0.22 *0.210.200.28 *0.25 *0.22 *0.23 *0.28 *0.23 *0.190.21 *0.27 *
LN, low nitrogen; NN, normal nitrogen; SDW, shoot dry matter weight; RDW, root dry matter weight; RSR, root–shoot ratio; TDW, total dry matter weight; PH, plant height; Ln, leaf number; TRL, total root length; TRS, total root surface area; ARD, average root diameter; TRV, total root volume; TRTN, total root tip number; LPL, lateral root length; LRSA, lateral root surface area; LRV, lateral root volume; LRTN, lateral root tip number; ARL, adventitious root length; ARSA, adventitious root surface area; ARV, adventitious root volume; ARTN, adventitious root tip number; T, trial. * and ** mean significant differences at p < 0.05 and 0.01, respectively.
Table
Table 4. Correlations among agronomic traits and yield-related traits in the RIL population at maturity.
Table 4. Correlations among agronomic traits and yield-related traits in the RIL population at maturity.
TrialsTraitsTreatmentsSNGNTGWGYStDWADWHI
T2PHLN0.54 **−0.26 **−0.23 *0.38 **0.20 *0.22 *−0.29 **
NN0.120.070.110.19 *0.38 **0.23 *−0.57 **
SLLN0.67 **0.27 **0.56 **0.67 **0.100.21 *0.57 **
NN0.63 **0.50 **0.74 **0.53 **0.65 **0.66 **0.63 **
ALLN0.92 **−0.73 **0.38 **0.82 **0.92 **0.92 **0.32 **
NN0.80 **0.67 **0.88 **0.70 **0.80 **0.79 **0.55 **
LDRLN0.39 **0.37 **0.45 **0.33 **0.41 **0.36 **−0.26 **
NN0.62 **0.47 **0.49 **0.57 **0.66 **0.66 **−0.27 **
GPLN0.82 **−0.63 **0.27 **0.73 **0.81 **0.84 **0.24 **
NN0.27 **0.28 **0.39 **0.120.23 *0.23 *0.71 **
T3PHLN0.46 **−0.34 **0.110.61 **0.29 **0.24 *−0.40 **
NN0.08−0.11−0.180.17 *0.26 **0.34 **−0.51 **
SLLN0.67 **0.39 **0.39 **0.59 **0.170.24 *0.32 **
NN0.20 *0.40 **0.65 **0.34 **0.060.19 *0.61 **
ALLN0.44 **−0.81 **0.46 **0.34 **0.20 *0.26 **0.25 **
NN0.29 **0.55 **0.72 **0.21 *0.24 *0.32 **0.55 **
LDRLN0.67 **0.33 **0.35 **0.63 **0.50 **0.44 **−0.21 *
NN0.45 **0.20 *0.49 **0.49 **0.43 **0.52 **−0.37 **
GPLN0.50 **−0.73 **0.21 *0.60 **0.48 **0.36 **0.29 **
NN0.24 **0.18 *0.31 **−0.080.24 **0.16 *0.22 *
LN, no applied nitrogen; NN, normal applied nitrogen; PH, plant height; SL, spike length; AL, awn length; LDR; lodging resistance; GP, growth period; SN, spike number per plant; GN, grain number per spike; TGW, 1000-grain weight; GY, grain yield; StDW, straw dry weight per plant; ADW, aboveground dry weight per plant; HI, harvest index; T, trial. * and **, mean significant difference at p < 0.05 and 0.01.
Table
Table 5. Quantitative trait loci (QTL) for agronomic and physiological traits identified at the seedling and maturity stages.
Table 5. Quantitative trait loci (QTL) for agronomic and physiological traits identified at the seedling and maturity stages.
TypesTraitQTLChr.TreatmentMarker IntervalLODPVE (%)Origin
Growth-related traitsRSAQrsa.sau-6H6HT1LNbpb3268931–bpb62731073.3916.10Baudin
SDWQsdw.sau-3H3HT1NNbpb3264976–bpb32641114.4222.50CN4027
TDWQtdw.sau-3H3HT1NNbpb3264976–bpb32634034.3522.20CN4027
PHQph.sau-3H3HT1LNbpb3264976–bpb32570963.0214.50CN4027
T1NN 7.3734.60CN4027
Root-related traitsARDQard.sau-5H5HT1NNbpb6270670–bpb62773502.8014.90Baudin
LRSAQlrsa.sau-6H6HT1NNbpb3266659–bpb41730022.7414.60CN4027
LRVQlrv.sau-6H6HT1NNbpb3266659–bpb41730022.7214.50CN4027
ARTNQartn.sau-7H7HT1LNbpb3267045–bpb62824252.9414.20Baudin
Qartn.sau-6H6HT1NNbpb3266659–bpb39109093.0216.20CN4027
LRLPQlrlp.sau-6H.16HT1LNbpb3665654–bpb52568424.2819.90Baudin
Qlrlp.sau-6H.26HT1NNbpb3276265–bpb32575173.7420.10Baudin
Qlrlp.sau-3H3HT1NNbpb3271241–bpb40065315.0325.10Baudin
ARLPQarlp.sau-6H.16HT1LNbpb3665654–bpb52568424.2819.90CN4027
Qarlp.sau-6H.26HT1NNbpb3276265–bpb32575173.7420.10CN4027
Qarlp.sau-3H3HT1NNbpb3271241–bpb40065315.0325.10CN4027
LRSAPQlrsap.sau-6H6HT1LNbpb3665654–bpb52568423.9718.60Baudin
Qlrsap.sau-3H3HT1NNbpb3271241–bpb40065315.2326.00Baudin
ARSAPQarsap.sau-6H6HT1LNbpb3665654–bpb52568423.9718.60CN4027
Qarsap.sau-3H3HT1NNbpb3271241–bpb40065315.2326.00CN4027
LRVPQlrvp.sau-3H3HT1NNbpb3271241–bpb39179573.8920.10Baudin
ARVPQarvp.sau-3H3HT1NNbpb3271241–bpb39179573.8920.10CN4027
Yield-related traitsSNQsn.sau-3H3HT2NNbpb3264782–bpb33962384.9117.80Baudin
GNQgn.sau-3H3HT2LNbpb3664665–bpb326457018.9157.30Baudin
T3LN 8.6529.30Baudin
T2NN 6.2022.20Baudin
T3NN 8.5229.20Baudin
TGWQtgw.sau-2H2HT2LNbpb3927777–bpb33968353.5713.80CN4027
T3LN 5.2919.40CN4027
Qtgw.sau-3H3HT3NNbpb3258653–bpb40001553.7814.10CN4027
Qtgw.sau-4H.14HT2LNbpb4793481–bpb62815813.3712.90Baudin
Qtgw.sau-4H.24HT2LNbpb3927328–bpb41905483.5513.60Baudin
Qtgw.sau-6H6HT2NNbpb3271375–bpb32577755.5119.60Baudin
GYQgy.sau-2H2HT2LNbpb6281721–bpb45953304.2515.60CN4027
Qgy.sau-3H3HT2LNbpb3664665–bpb32645709.5833.10Baudin
T3LN 5.4119.30Baudin
T2NN 11.4037.50Baudin
T3NN 7.6226.50Baudin
StDWQstdw.sau-2H2HT3LNbpb3274205–bpb34295423.8614.30CN4027
Qstdw.sau-3H3HT3LNbpb3433483–bpb32570963.4913.10CN4027
T3NN 5.6220.30CN4027
TDWQadw.sau-3H.13HT2NNbpb3263863–bpb33962385.7021.00Baudin
Qadw.sau-3H.23HT3NNbpb3258653–bpb32634033.8514.50CN4027
HIQhi.sau-2H.12HT3-Nbpb3911226–bpb45953304.4216.20CN4027
T3NN 3.0511.70CN4027
Qhi.sau-2H.22HT3LNbpb3927777–bpb33968353.5413.30Baudin
Qhi.sau-3H3HT2LNbpb6282426–bpb326457017.3950.50Baudin
T3LN 12.5340.60Baudin
T2NN 12.1538.30Baudin
T3NN 10.8535.90Baudin
Agronomic traitsPHQph.sau-3H3HT2LNbpb3433483–bpb325709622.6259.40CN4027
T3LN 17.7350.30CN4027
T2NN 20.1153.80CN4027
T3NN 24.4562.20CN4027
Qph.sau-5H5HT3LNbpb3255731–bpb32703373.6913.70CN4027
Qph.sau-7H7HT3NNbpb4186071–bpb32760003.9514.50CN4027
SLQsl.sau-1H1HT3NNbpb3264968–bpb32651963.2412.10CN4027
Qsl.sau-2H2HT2LNbpb6272661–bpb45953304.6016.30CN4027
T2NN 4.8417.00CN4027
Qsl.sau-3H.13HT2LNbpb3263863–bpb39120564.7516.80Baudin
Qsl.sau-3H.23HT2LNbpb3263664–bpb39874453.3112.50Baudin
Qsl.sau-6H6HT3LNbpb3270443–bpb41852883.2712.10Baudin
ALQal.sau-3H3HT2LNbpb3664665–bpb32645709.1930.10CN4027
T3LN 3.3012.30CN4027
T2NN 5.9120.30CN4027
T3NN 7.9626.80CN4027
Qal.sau-7H7HT3LNbpb4190923–bpb32741133.1111.50Baudin
T3NN 3.5913.10Baudin
LDRQldr.sau-3H3HT2LNbpb4169758–bpb32570966.2821.60CN4027
T3LN 11.2735.80CN4027
T2NN 8.2427.30CN4027
T3NN 9.7832.00CN4027
GPQgp.sau-1H.11HT3LNbpb3265422–bpb32676693.5212.90CN4027
Qgp.sau-1H.21HT3LNbpb3662472–bpb39303193.8314.00CN4027
Qgp.sau-2H2HT2NNbpb3986375–bpb40113973.9414.00Baudin
Qgp.sau-3H3HT3LNbpb3433483–bpb62833373.9214.30Baudin
T2NN 4.8417.00Baudin
T3NN 7.2124.70Baudin
Qgp.sau-4H4HT3LNbpb3264616–bpb32577703.2111.90CN4027
LN, low nitrogen; NN, normal nitrogen; LOD, logarithm of odds; PVE, phenotype variance explained; RSA, root–shoot ratio; SDW, shoot dry matter weight; TDW, total dry matter weight; PH, plant height; ARD, average root diameter; LRSA, lateral root surface area; LRV, lateral root volume; ARTN, adventitious root tip number; LRLP, lateral root length percentage; ARLP, adventitious root length percentage; ARSAP, adventitious root surface area percentage; LRVP, lateral root volume percentage; ARVP, adventitious root volume percentage; SN, spike number per plant; GN, grain number per spike; TGW, 1000-grain weight; GY, grain yield; StDW, straw dry weight per plant; ADW, aboveground dry weight per plant; HI, harvest index; PH, plant height; SL, spike length; LDR, lodging resistance; GP, growth period; T, trial.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zeng, Z.; Song, S.; Ma, J.; Hu, D.; Xu, Y.; Hou, Y.; He, C.; Tang, X.; Lan, T.; Zeng, J.; et al. QTL Mapping of Agronomic and Physiological Traits at the Seedling and Maturity Stages under Different Nitrogen Treatments in Barley. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24, 8736. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms24108736

AMA Style

Zeng Z, Song S, Ma J, Hu D, Xu Y, Hou Y, He C, Tang X, Lan T, Zeng J, et al. QTL Mapping of Agronomic and Physiological Traits at the Seedling and Maturity Stages under Different Nitrogen Treatments in Barley. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2023; 24(10):8736. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms24108736

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zeng, Zhaoyong, Shiyun Song, Jian Ma, Deyi Hu, Yinggang Xu, Yao Hou, Chengjun He, Xiaoyan Tang, Ting Lan, Jian Zeng, and et al. 2023. "QTL Mapping of Agronomic and Physiological Traits at the Seedling and Maturity Stages under Different Nitrogen Treatments in Barley" International Journal of Molecular Sciences 24, no. 10: 8736. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms24108736

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop