Eco-physiological response to water stress of drought-tolerant and drought-sensitive tomato genotypes

References

• AllenSE. 1989. Chemical analysis of ecological materials. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publication.
   Google Scholar
• AlseekhS, OfnerI, PlebanT, TripodiP, Di DatoF, CammareriM, et al. 2013. Resolution by recombination: Breaking up Solanum pennellii introgressions. Trends Plant Sci.18(10): 536–538.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BarbagalloRN, Di SilvestroI, PatanèC. 2012. Yield, physicochemical traits, antioxidant pattern, polyphenol oxidase activity and total visual quality of field-grown processing tomato cv. Brigade as affected by water stress in Mediterranean climate. J Sci Food Agric.93: 1449–1457.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ClayesH, InzèD. 2013. The agony of choice: How plants balance growth and survival under water-limiting conditions. Plant Physiol.162: 1768–1779.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CornelissenJ, LavorelS, GarnierE, DíazS, BuchmannN, GurvichD, et al. 2003. Handbook of protocols for standardised and easy measurements of plant functional traits worldwide. Austral J Bot.51: 335–380.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EaslonHM, RichardsJH. 2009. Drought response in self-compatible species of tomato (solanaceae). Am J Bot.96: 605–611.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EnnajehM, VadelAM, KhemiraH. 2009. Osmoregulation and osmoprotecion in the leaf cells of two olive cultivars subjected to severe water deficit. Acta Physiol Plant31: 711–721.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EshedY, ZamirD. 1995. An introgression line population of Lycopersicon pennellii in the cultivated tomato enables the identification and fine mapping of yield-associated QTL. Genetics141: 1147–1162.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FridmanE, PlebanT, ZamirD. 2000. A recombination hotspot delimits a wild-species quantitative trait locus for tomato sugar content to 484 bp within an invertase gene. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA97(9): 4718–4723.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• GargN, ManchandaG. 2009. ROS generation in plants: Boon or bane?Plant Biosyst.143(1): 81–96.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• GongP, ZhangJ, LiH, YangC, ZhangC, ZhangX, et al. 2010. Transcriptional profiles of drought-responsive genes in modulating signal transduction and biochemical pathways in tomato. J Exp Bot.61(13): 3563–3575.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• GulíasJ, FlexasJ, MusM, CifreJ, LefiE, MedranoH. 2003. Relationship between maximum leaf photosyntesis, nitrogen content and specific leaf area in balearic and non-endemic Mediterranean species. Ann Bot.92: 215–222.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HuntR, CornelissenJHC. 1997. Components of relative growth rate and their interrelations in 59 temperate plant species. New Phytol.135: 395–417.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LawlorDW. 2013. Genetic engineering to improve plant performance under drought: Physiological evaluation of achievements, limitations and possibilities. J Exp Bot.64: 83–108.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LichtenthalerHL. 1987. Chlorophylls and carotenoids: Pigments of photosynthetic biomembranes. Methods Enzymol.148: 350–382.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LippmanZB, SemelY, ZamirD. 2007. An integrated view of quantitative trait variation using tomato interspecific introgression lines. Curr Opin Genet Dev.17(6): 545–552.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MaxwellK, JohnsonGN. 2000. Chlorophyll fuorescence – A practical guide. J. Exp. Bot.51: 659–668.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MishraKB, IannaconeR, PetrozzaA, MishraA, ArmentanoN, La VecchiaG, et al. 2012. Engineered drought tolerance in tomato plants is reflected in chlorophyll fluorescence emission. Plant Sci.182: 79–86.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• PoorterL, BongersF. 2006. Leaf traits are good predictors of plant performance across 53 rain forest species. Ecology87: 1733–1743.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• PoorterH, De JongR. 1999. A comparison of specific leaf area, chemical composition and leaf construction costs of field plants from 15 habitats differing in productivity. New Phytol.143: 163–176.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• RawlsWJ, BrakensiekDL. 1989. Estimation of soil water retention and hydraulic properties. In: Morel-SeytouxHJ, editor. Unsaturated flow in hydrologic modeling: Theory and practice. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. pp. 275–300.
   Google Scholar
• RyserP, UrbasP. 2000. Ecological significance of leaf life span among Central European grass species. Oikos91: 41–50.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanchez-RodriguezE, del Mar Rubio-WilhelmiM, BlascoB, LeyvaR, RomeroL, RuizJM. 2012. Antioxidant response resides in the shoot in reciprocal grafts of drought-tolerant and drought-sensitive cultivars in tomato under water stress. Plant Sci.188–189: 86–96.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanchez-RodriguezE, MorenoDA, FerreresF, del Mar Rubio-WilhelmiM, RuizJM. 2011. Differential responses of five cherry tomato varieties to water stress: Changes on phenolic metabolites and related enzymes. Phytochemistry72: 723–729.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SatoS, TabataS, HirakawaH, AsamizuE, ShirasawaK, IsobeS, et al. 2012. The tomato genome sequence provides insights into fleshy fruit evolution. Nature485: 635–641.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SingletonVL, RossiJA. 1965. Colorimetry of total phenolics with phosphomolybdic-phosphotungstic acid reagents. Am J Enol Viticult.16: 144–158.
   Google Scholar
• TanksleySD, McCouchSR. 1997. Seed banks and molecular maps: Unlocking genetic potential from the wild. Science277: 1063–1066.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vasco M, De Stefano R, Di Matteo A, Punzo B, Molisso M, Lotti C, et al. 2011. Candidate genes controlling fruit quality in a tomato introgression line tolerant to water deficit. Joint Meeting AGI-SIBV-SIGA, 19–22 September 2011, Cittadella di Assisi (Italy); pp. 6A.48.
   Google Scholar
• VitaleL, ArenaC, CarilloP, Di TommasiP, MesolellaB, NaccaF, et al 2011. Gas exchange and leaf metabolism of irrigated maize at different growth stages. Plant Biosyst.145(2): 485–494.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• XuZ, ZhouG, ShimizuH. 2010. Plant response to drought and rewatering. Plant Signal Behav.5: 649–654.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar