Abstract

Biofuels provide a promising route of producing energy while reducing reliance on petroleum. Developing sustainable liquid fuel production from cellulosic feedstock is a major challenge and will require significant breeding efforts to maximize plant biomass production. Our approach to elucidating genes and genetic pathways that can be targeted for improving biomass production is to exploit the combination of genomic tools and genetic diversity in rice (Oryza sativa). In this study, we analyzed a diverse set of 20 recently resequenced rice varieties for variation in biomass traits at several different developmental stages. The traits included plant size and architecture, aboveground biomass, and underlying physiological processes. We found significant genetic variation among the 20 lines in all morphological and physiological traits. Although heritability estimates were significant for all traits, heritabilities were higher in traits relating to plant size and architecture than for physiological traits. Trait variation was largely explained by variety and breeding history (advanced versus landrace) but not by varietal groupings (indica, japonica, and aus). In the context of cellulosic biofuels development, cell wall composition varied significantly among varieties. Surprisingly, photosynthetic rates among the varieties were inversely correlated with biomass accumulation. Examining these data in an evolutionary context reveals that rice varieties have achieved high biomass production via independent developmental and physiological pathways, suggesting that there are multiple targets for biomass improvement. Future efforts to identify loci and networks underlying this functional variation will facilitate the improvement of biomass traits in other grasses being developed as energy crops.

Developing a sustainable biofuels program that makes significant contributions to our current and future national energy budget requires unprecedented inputs of biomass for energy conversion. At present, the U.S. fuel-ethanol industry produces its bioethanol from corn (Zea mays) grain; however, this is not considered a sustainable source of energy, as an increase in demand for corn-based ethanol will have significant land requirements, compete with food and feed industries, and reduce exports of animal products (Sun and Cheng, 2002; Elobeid et al., 2007). Because of these issues, liquid fuel production from plant lignocellulose is considered a better alternative and is being pursued from both agronomic and engineering perspectives.

Plants display a variety of architectures that encompass branching (tillering) patterns, plant height, arrangement and size of leaves, and structure of reproductive organs. Widespread adoption of wheat (Triticum aestivum) and rice (Oryza sativa) cultivars with altered plant architecture (semidwarf varieties) averted severe food shortages in the 1960s and was an essential component of the “Green Revolution” (Khush, 1999). Continued use of these semidwarf varieties in conjunction with higher rates of nitrogen application has resulted in doubled grain yields; these gains are due to increased allocation of resources to grain rather than vegetative tissues and also greater resistance to lodging in extreme weather events (Khush, 1999, 2001; Reinhardt and Kuhlemeier, 2002). In many ways, improvement of plants for both food and fuel or for dedicated biofuel feedstock purposes will require new breeding and selection emphases that are different from those targeted during the Green Revolution. Therefore, understanding the genetic and molecular processes that control key morphological and physiological processes will facilitate the breeding of high-biomass-yielding crops. Leaf traits, such as leaf thickness, size, and shape, leaf number, and orientation, are key factors influencing biomass formation (Yang and Hwa, 2008). In rice, erect leaves have a higher leaf area index that increases photosynthetic carbon assimilation rates through increased light capture and nitrogen use efficiency (Sinclair and Sheehy, 1999; Sakamoto et al., 2006). Leaves are the predominant photosynthetic organ and, thus, are critical targets for maximizing carbon assimilation by improving morphological traits and/or improving photosynthetic efficiency (Zhu et al., 2010).

Many nonfood crops, including perennial C4 rhizomatous grass species such as switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) and Miscanthus, have potential to serve as viable, long-term sources of energy. Rice shares patterns of growth and development (plant architecture, flowering and maturity timelines, and senescence patterns) and physiological processes (photosynthetic light reactions, assimilate partitioning, and secondary metabolism) with these other grasses. Unfortunately, many of these perennial grasses have very large genomes, and the genetic and genomic resources necessary to propel their development forward as biomass crops do not exist. Rice, in contrast, has all these tools readily available (Bush and Leach, 2007), and, despite large differences between genome size and chromosome number, gene content and order are well conserved among the grasses (Gale and Devos, 1998; Feuillet and Keller, 2002; Jannoo et al., 2007). In addition, available rice germplasm collections contain genetic and phenotypic variation accumulated over years of domestication and selection under very diverse environments (e.g. well watered, flooded, water limited; Leung et al., 2007). Thus, rice serves as an excellent model grass for biomass gene discovery, and that information can be transferred to the new energy crops (Bush and Leach, 2007). However, current understanding regarding the magnitude of genetic variation for biomass traits in all plants is limited, including the variability in rice.

Here, we investigate biomass variation in the OryzaSNP set (Table I), a collection 20 rice varieties that are genetically and agronomically diverse and that were resequenced for the purpose of identifying single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs; McNally et al., 2009). This diversity set contains varieties that are widely used in a number of international breeding programs and that are representative of the two major lineages, indica and japonica. The set also includes aus, deep water, and aromatic rice groups. The OryzaSNP set also can be divided into two varietal classes based on their breeding history and usage, advanced and landrace varieties. Landraces are varieties that have little modern breeding but have persisted over generations through farmer maintenance. Advanced varieties have complex breeding histories and are products of breeding programs that enhance specific and desirable traits. An interesting outcome of the OryzaSNP resequencing project was the detection of chromosomal regions introgressed from one varietal lineage into another, revealing the effects of rice’s long breeding history (McNally et al., 2009). Some introgressions contained genes responsible for important agronomic traits; given this, it has been hypothesized that other introgressed regions might contain additional traits important for agriculture. To capture and investigate the diversity represented in this collection (McNally et al., 2006, 2009), populations of recombinant inbred lines based on pairwise crosses of the 20 lines in the OryzaSNP set are being developed. These resources are valuable tools to assess the diversity of traits related to biomass accumulation.

Sample information on the 20 diverse rice lines of the OryzaSNP set used in this study

Table I.
Sample information on the 20 diverse rice lines of the OryzaSNP set used in this study
IRGCa Accession No.Variety NameCountry of OriginVarietal GroupbVariety Class
117283RayadaBangladeshausLandrace
117273N22IndiaausLandrace
117267FR13AIndiaausLandrace
117266DularIndiaausLandrace
117271Minghui 63ChinaindicaAdvanced
117280Zhenshan 97BChinaindicaAdvanced
117268IR64-21PhilippinesindicaAdvanced
117277Shan-Huang Zhan-2 (SHZ-2)ChinaindicaAdvanced
117278SwarnaIndiaindicaAdvanced
117281AswinaBangladeshindicaLandrace
117276Sadu-ChoKoreaindicaLandrace
117275PokkaliIndiaindicaLandrace
117279Tainung 67TaiwanjaponicaAdvanced
117274NipponbareJapanjaponicaAdvanced
117269Li-Jiang-Xin-Tuan-Hei-Gu (LTH)ChinajaponicaAdvanced
117270M202United StatesjaponicaAdvanced
117281CypressUnited StatesjaponicaAdvanced
117265Dom SufidIranjaponicaLandrace
117272MoroberekanGuineajaponicaLandrace
117264AzucenaPhilippinesjaponicaLandrace
IRGCa Accession No.Variety NameCountry of OriginVarietal GroupbVariety Class
117283RayadaBangladeshausLandrace
117273N22IndiaausLandrace
117267FR13AIndiaausLandrace
117266DularIndiaausLandrace
117271Minghui 63ChinaindicaAdvanced
117280Zhenshan 97BChinaindicaAdvanced
117268IR64-21PhilippinesindicaAdvanced
117277Shan-Huang Zhan-2 (SHZ-2)ChinaindicaAdvanced
117278SwarnaIndiaindicaAdvanced
117281AswinaBangladeshindicaLandrace
117276Sadu-ChoKoreaindicaLandrace
117275PokkaliIndiaindicaLandrace
117279Tainung 67TaiwanjaponicaAdvanced
117274NipponbareJapanjaponicaAdvanced
117269Li-Jiang-Xin-Tuan-Hei-Gu (LTH)ChinajaponicaAdvanced
117270M202United StatesjaponicaAdvanced
117281CypressUnited StatesjaponicaAdvanced
117265Dom SufidIranjaponicaLandrace
117272MoroberekanGuineajaponicaLandrace
117264AzucenaPhilippinesjaponicaLandrace
a

International Rice Genebank Collection.

b

Bayesian clustering predicted that the population was composed of three groups (McNally et al., 2009).

Table I.
Sample information on the 20 diverse rice lines of the OryzaSNP set used in this study
IRGCa Accession No.Variety NameCountry of OriginVarietal GroupbVariety Class
117283RayadaBangladeshausLandrace
117273N22IndiaausLandrace
117267FR13AIndiaausLandrace
117266DularIndiaausLandrace
117271Minghui 63ChinaindicaAdvanced
117280Zhenshan 97BChinaindicaAdvanced
117268IR64-21PhilippinesindicaAdvanced
117277Shan-Huang Zhan-2 (SHZ-2)ChinaindicaAdvanced
117278SwarnaIndiaindicaAdvanced
117281AswinaBangladeshindicaLandrace
117276Sadu-ChoKoreaindicaLandrace
117275PokkaliIndiaindicaLandrace
117279Tainung 67TaiwanjaponicaAdvanced
117274NipponbareJapanjaponicaAdvanced
117269Li-Jiang-Xin-Tuan-Hei-Gu (LTH)ChinajaponicaAdvanced
117270M202United StatesjaponicaAdvanced
117281CypressUnited StatesjaponicaAdvanced
117265Dom SufidIranjaponicaLandrace
117272MoroberekanGuineajaponicaLandrace
117264AzucenaPhilippinesjaponicaLandrace
IRGCa Accession No.Variety NameCountry of OriginVarietal GroupbVariety Class
117283RayadaBangladeshausLandrace
117273N22IndiaausLandrace
117267FR13AIndiaausLandrace
117266DularIndiaausLandrace
117271Minghui 63ChinaindicaAdvanced
117280Zhenshan 97BChinaindicaAdvanced
117268IR64-21PhilippinesindicaAdvanced
117277Shan-Huang Zhan-2 (SHZ-2)ChinaindicaAdvanced
117278SwarnaIndiaindicaAdvanced
117281AswinaBangladeshindicaLandrace
117276Sadu-ChoKoreaindicaLandrace
117275PokkaliIndiaindicaLandrace
117279Tainung 67TaiwanjaponicaAdvanced
117274NipponbareJapanjaponicaAdvanced
117269Li-Jiang-Xin-Tuan-Hei-Gu (LTH)ChinajaponicaAdvanced
117270M202United StatesjaponicaAdvanced
117281CypressUnited StatesjaponicaAdvanced
117265Dom SufidIranjaponicaLandrace
117272MoroberekanGuineajaponicaLandrace
117264AzucenaPhilippinesjaponicaLandrace
a

International Rice Genebank Collection.

b

Bayesian clustering predicted that the population was composed of three groups (McNally et al., 2009).

While breeding for seed yield may also select for biomass traits, the high-yielding dwarf varieties are examples where seed production and biomass are not invariably linked. Selection for high harvest index is expected to favor alleles that reduce vegetative biomass and favor grain yield. Although increased vegetative biomass per se has not been a target of standard grass crop breeding programs, selection for vigorous crop establishment in modern cultivation may have favored genes and alleles optimizing vegetative growth. A number of morphological traits (height, tiller number, dry biomass) are routinely measured to investigate disease resistance, drought tolerance, hybrid vigor, root traits, seedling characteristics, and yield (Albar et al., 1998; Hemamalini et al., 2000; Li et al., 2001; Xing et al., 2002; Courtois et al., 2003; Xu et al., 2004; Lian et al., 2005; Cui et al., 2008). Gas exchange has been compared in many rice studies to look for physiological differences, specifically in water use efficiency (WUE), nitrogen deficiency, and increasing atmospheric CO2 (Sage, 1994; Huang et al., 2004; Xu et al., 2009). However, no comprehensive investigation of biomass and underlying traits in diverse rice germplasm has been reported. To achieve maximal biomass production in the new energy crops, it is important to identify genes and genetic pathways that are critical to biomass yield, understand the selective forces that have shaped the frequencies of these genes in modern varieties, and determine which physiological and morphological traits lead to larger and denser plants. Using the diverse OryzaSNP set, we systematically assessed which of these traits contribute to biomass accumulation in greenhouse conditions. Here, we report the variation and heritability of key traits that significantly impact biomass and the genomic regions associated with this variation.

RESULTS

Large Natural Variation Exists in Biomass Traits in Rice

By growing the 20 OryzaSNP varieties in a common greenhouse, we show that they display many plant architectural and morphological differences that are predicted to underlie variation in biomass production (Fig. 1). We measured wet and dry biomass, harvest index, and percentage water content for all 20 varieties (Table II). The cell wall polymer composition (ratio of cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin) and ash content were determined for leaves and stems. We also measured a series of physiological traits related to growth and carbon capture, including leaf-area-based photosynthesis, transpiration, stomatal conductance, and WUE. Morphological traits assessed were leaf length and width, height, tiller diameter, tiller length, tiller number, and plant girth (Table II).

Diversity of morphological and physiological traits in the OryzaSNP set. Plants were photographed 100 d after sowing and are sorted by the weight of dry biomass at maturity (ordered highest to lowest from the left). Background color indicates varietal group, as described in Table I: red (indica), blue (japonica), and tan (aus).
Figure 1.

Diversity of morphological and physiological traits in the OryzaSNP set. Plants were photographed 100 d after sowing and are sorted by the weight of dry biomass at maturity (ordered highest to lowest from the left). Background color indicates varietal group, as described in Table I: red (indica), blue (japonica), and tan (aus).

Mean and heritability estimate trait values for the OryzaSNP collection

Table II.
Mean and heritability estimate trait values for the OryzaSNP collection
TraitAswinaAzucenaCypressDom SufidDularFR13IR64LTHM202Minghui 63MoroberekanN22NipponbarePokkaliRayadaSaduchoSHZ-2SwarnaTainung 67Zhanshen 97BH2
Photosynthesis (μmol CO2 m−2 s−1)23.016.823.918.619.916.819.621.027.817.023.118.223.415.219.220.219.521.322.222.00.17
Ci (μmol CO2 m−2 s−1)3163332853273063393222592943193123132913253283043173043093230.29
Transpiration (mmol water m−2 s−1)9.68.77.59.37.810.09.35.68.68.28.68.17.66.98.87.58.48.38.89.50.19
Stomatal conductance (mol water m−2 s−1)0.70.70.50.70.60.80.70.30.70.60.70.60.50.50.70.50.60.60.70.80.18
Instantaneous WUE (μmol CO2 m−2 s−1)/(mmol water m−2 s−1)2.41.93.42.02.71.72.13.93.32.22.82.43.42.22.32.82.42.72.62.30.33
Height (cm)12615411217314013210018011010413814010515211812410291109960.77
Tiller no.27213426263749232972164646306633494332210.51
Final tiller no.22238629323775303699255313931523512489102230.74
Tiller diameter (mm)6.99.65.35.35.35.25.66.15.76.08.74.94.88.84.65.45.44.85.55.20.90
Tiller length (cm)597953808054521226042777846753968574658430.84
Leaf length (cm)73886172687960666067787169857771585869540.88
Leaf width (cm)1.52.01.51.61.71.71.61.61.81.82.01.71.51.81.31.31.61.51.51.90.77
Girth (cm)23262322152223191730252133252021272528120.69
Wet biomass (g)2595253663983144904653863175374964786336403382695053745101240.53
Dry biomass (g)1252341471679224119712110123620418429436418198194172219320.74
Percentage water content0.520.550.600.580.710.510.580.690.680.560.590.620.530.430.470.640.620.540.570.740.60
Harvest indexa
 Leaf0.220.300.340.260.330.260.280.340.350.330.280.300.350.220.310.310.320.310.310.370.84
 Sheath0.290.280.280.270.310.330.300.260.290.290.330.270.310.230.310.250.300.310.290.290.42
 Stem0.490.410.390.460.370.410.430.400.350.380.390.430.340.550.380.440.380.380.410.340.66
 Seedb0.210.230.480.700.330.480.130.260.470.220.620.91
Stem
 Cellulose (%)26.118.730.723.223.531.719.133.122.323.422.920.216.518.223.830.927.128.523.330.80.58
 Hemicellulose (%)27.027.232.324.426.128.028.726.124.135.033.124.927.227.831.826.727.335.136.323.90.49
 Lignin (%)2.62.42.72.72.51.72.04.33.03.12.52.32.01.31.93.83.33.73.32.10.59
 Ash (%)13.610.810.64.57.711.96.414.911.98.13.59.15.05.015.913.312.310.95.015.20.56
 Soluble fiber (%)30.641.023.745.240.226.743.721.638.730.538.143.549.447.826.625.430.021.832.228.00.57
Leaf
 Cellulose (%)18.932.818.924.724.425.624.529.527.028.425.327.026.526.522.230.225.120.628.428.80.31
 Hemicellulose (%)28.531.326.932.432.825.736.131.029.736.236.130.434.834.830.627.024.632.136.226.10.53
 Lignin (%)1.42.01.04.64.62.24.84.44.13.84.32.62.12.12.32.52.62.23.84.40.36
 Ash (%)5.416.74.98.615.14.315.712.912.67.69.615.910.110.15.816.95.84.37.614.00.66
Soluble fiber (%)45.817.248.329.623.242.218.922.126.723.924.824.126.526.539.023.541.840.823.926.80.74
Intrinsic WUE (δ13C)−29.1−28.5−28.2−28.9−28.6−29.7−29.6−26.6−29.4−28.7−28.3−29.2−29.2−28.7−29.1−29.6−30.1−30.4−30.7−30.30.62
Days to flag leaf12695109731319583139119898973119164131660.96
Days to heading13911011983145110891451319520283124172145830.96
Days to full emergence172124124891651199516513511020789131197150890.98
Days to mature seed1811971811192421651392422151652521652152522421390.97
Days to cut down187181199181135205242165163242244165254240184165221254242139
TraitAswinaAzucenaCypressDom SufidDularFR13IR64LTHM202Minghui 63MoroberekanN22NipponbarePokkaliRayadaSaduchoSHZ-2SwarnaTainung 67Zhanshen 97BH2
Photosynthesis (μmol CO2 m−2 s−1)23.016.823.918.619.916.819.621.027.817.023.118.223.415.219.220.219.521.322.222.00.17
Ci (μmol CO2 m−2 s−1)3163332853273063393222592943193123132913253283043173043093230.29
Transpiration (mmol water m−2 s−1)9.68.77.59.37.810.09.35.68.68.28.68.17.66.98.87.58.48.38.89.50.19
Stomatal conductance (mol water m−2 s−1)0.70.70.50.70.60.80.70.30.70.60.70.60.50.50.70.50.60.60.70.80.18
Instantaneous WUE (μmol CO2 m−2 s−1)/(mmol water m−2 s−1)2.41.93.42.02.71.72.13.93.32.22.82.43.42.22.32.82.42.72.62.30.33
Height (cm)12615411217314013210018011010413814010515211812410291109960.77
Tiller no.27213426263749232972164646306633494332210.51
Final tiller no.22238629323775303699255313931523512489102230.74
Tiller diameter (mm)6.99.65.35.35.35.25.66.15.76.08.74.94.88.84.65.45.44.85.55.20.90
Tiller length (cm)597953808054521226042777846753968574658430.84
Leaf length (cm)73886172687960666067787169857771585869540.88
Leaf width (cm)1.52.01.51.61.71.71.61.61.81.82.01.71.51.81.31.31.61.51.51.90.77
Girth (cm)23262322152223191730252133252021272528120.69
Wet biomass (g)2595253663983144904653863175374964786336403382695053745101240.53
Dry biomass (g)1252341471679224119712110123620418429436418198194172219320.74
Percentage water content0.520.550.600.580.710.510.580.690.680.560.590.620.530.430.470.640.620.540.570.740.60
Harvest indexa
 Leaf0.220.300.340.260.330.260.280.340.350.330.280.300.350.220.310.310.320.310.310.370.84
 Sheath0.290.280.280.270.310.330.300.260.290.290.330.270.310.230.310.250.300.310.290.290.42
 Stem0.490.410.390.460.370.410.430.400.350.380.390.430.340.550.380.440.380.380.410.340.66
 Seedb0.210.230.480.700.330.480.130.260.470.220.620.91
Stem
 Cellulose (%)26.118.730.723.223.531.719.133.122.323.422.920.216.518.223.830.927.128.523.330.80.58
 Hemicellulose (%)27.027.232.324.426.128.028.726.124.135.033.124.927.227.831.826.727.335.136.323.90.49
 Lignin (%)2.62.42.72.72.51.72.04.33.03.12.52.32.01.31.93.83.33.73.32.10.59
 Ash (%)13.610.810.64.57.711.96.414.911.98.13.59.15.05.015.913.312.310.95.015.20.56
 Soluble fiber (%)30.641.023.745.240.226.743.721.638.730.538.143.549.447.826.625.430.021.832.228.00.57
Leaf
 Cellulose (%)18.932.818.924.724.425.624.529.527.028.425.327.026.526.522.230.225.120.628.428.80.31
 Hemicellulose (%)28.531.326.932.432.825.736.131.029.736.236.130.434.834.830.627.024.632.136.226.10.53
 Lignin (%)1.42.01.04.64.62.24.84.44.13.84.32.62.12.12.32.52.62.23.84.40.36
 Ash (%)5.416.74.98.615.14.315.712.912.67.69.615.910.110.15.816.95.84.37.614.00.66
Soluble fiber (%)45.817.248.329.623.242.218.922.126.723.924.824.126.526.539.023.541.840.823.926.80.74
Intrinsic WUE (δ13C)−29.1−28.5−28.2−28.9−28.6−29.7−29.6−26.6−29.4−28.7−28.3−29.2−29.2−28.7−29.1−29.6−30.1−30.4−30.7−30.30.62
Days to flag leaf12695109731319583139119898973119164131660.96
Days to heading13911011983145110891451319520283124172145830.96
Days to full emergence172124124891651199516513511020789131197150890.98
Days to mature seed1811971811192421651392422151652521652152522421390.97
Days to cut down187181199181135205242165163242244165254240184165221254242139
a

Harvest index for vegetative biomass (leaf, sheath, stem) = yield (leaf, sheath, stem)/total vegetative biomass. Grain harvest index = grain yield/(grain + vegetative biomass).

b

Dashes indicate plants that did not reproduce in our greenhouse.

Table II.
Mean and heritability estimate trait values for the OryzaSNP collection
TraitAswinaAzucenaCypressDom SufidDularFR13IR64LTHM202Minghui 63MoroberekanN22NipponbarePokkaliRayadaSaduchoSHZ-2SwarnaTainung 67Zhanshen 97BH2
Photosynthesis (μmol CO2 m−2 s−1)23.016.823.918.619.916.819.621.027.817.023.118.223.415.219.220.219.521.322.222.00.17
Ci (μmol CO2 m−2 s−1)3163332853273063393222592943193123132913253283043173043093230.29
Transpiration (mmol water m−2 s−1)9.68.77.59.37.810.09.35.68.68.28.68.17.66.98.87.58.48.38.89.50.19
Stomatal conductance (mol water m−2 s−1)0.70.70.50.70.60.80.70.30.70.60.70.60.50.50.70.50.60.60.70.80.18
Instantaneous WUE (μmol CO2 m−2 s−1)/(mmol water m−2 s−1)2.41.93.42.02.71.72.13.93.32.22.82.43.42.22.32.82.42.72.62.30.33
Height (cm)12615411217314013210018011010413814010515211812410291109960.77
Tiller no.27213426263749232972164646306633494332210.51
Final tiller no.22238629323775303699255313931523512489102230.74
Tiller diameter (mm)6.99.65.35.35.35.25.66.15.76.08.74.94.88.84.65.45.44.85.55.20.90
Tiller length (cm)597953808054521226042777846753968574658430.84
Leaf length (cm)73886172687960666067787169857771585869540.88
Leaf width (cm)1.52.01.51.61.71.71.61.61.81.82.01.71.51.81.31.31.61.51.51.90.77
Girth (cm)23262322152223191730252133252021272528120.69
Wet biomass (g)2595253663983144904653863175374964786336403382695053745101240.53
Dry biomass (g)1252341471679224119712110123620418429436418198194172219320.74
Percentage water content0.520.550.600.580.710.510.580.690.680.560.590.620.530.430.470.640.620.540.570.740.60
Harvest indexa
 Leaf0.220.300.340.260.330.260.280.340.350.330.280.300.350.220.310.310.320.310.310.370.84
 Sheath0.290.280.280.270.310.330.300.260.290.290.330.270.310.230.310.250.300.310.290.290.42
 Stem0.490.410.390.460.370.410.430.400.350.380.390.430.340.550.380.440.380.380.410.340.66
 Seedb0.210.230.480.700.330.480.130.260.470.220.620.91
Stem
 Cellulose (%)26.118.730.723.223.531.719.133.122.323.422.920.216.518.223.830.927.128.523.330.80.58
 Hemicellulose (%)27.027.232.324.426.128.028.726.124.135.033.124.927.227.831.826.727.335.136.323.90.49
 Lignin (%)2.62.42.72.72.51.72.04.33.03.12.52.32.01.31.93.83.33.73.32.10.59
 Ash (%)13.610.810.64.57.711.96.414.911.98.13.59.15.05.015.913.312.310.95.015.20.56
 Soluble fiber (%)30.641.023.745.240.226.743.721.638.730.538.143.549.447.826.625.430.021.832.228.00.57
Leaf
 Cellulose (%)18.932.818.924.724.425.624.529.527.028.425.327.026.526.522.230.225.120.628.428.80.31
 Hemicellulose (%)28.531.326.932.432.825.736.131.029.736.236.130.434.834.830.627.024.632.136.226.10.53
 Lignin (%)1.42.01.04.64.62.24.84.44.13.84.32.62.12.12.32.52.62.23.84.40.36
 Ash (%)5.416.74.98.615.14.315.712.912.67.69.615.910.110.15.816.95.84.37.614.00.66
Soluble fiber (%)45.817.248.329.623.242.218.922.126.723.924.824.126.526.539.023.541.840.823.926.80.74
Intrinsic WUE (δ13C)−29.1−28.5−28.2−28.9−28.6−29.7−29.6−26.6−29.4−28.7−28.3−29.2−29.2−28.7−29.1−29.6−30.1−30.4−30.7−30.30.62
Days to flag leaf12695109731319583139119898973119164131660.96
Days to heading13911011983145110891451319520283124172145830.96
Days to full emergence172124124891651199516513511020789131197150890.98
Days to mature seed1811971811192421651392422151652521652152522421390.97
Days to cut down187181199181135205242165163242244165254240184165221254242139
TraitAswinaAzucenaCypressDom SufidDularFR13IR64LTHM202Minghui 63MoroberekanN22NipponbarePokkaliRayadaSaduchoSHZ-2SwarnaTainung 67Zhanshen 97BH2
Photosynthesis (μmol CO2 m−2 s−1)23.016.823.918.619.916.819.621.027.817.023.118.223.415.219.220.219.521.322.222.00.17
Ci (μmol CO2 m−2 s−1)3163332853273063393222592943193123132913253283043173043093230.29
Transpiration (mmol water m−2 s−1)9.68.77.59.37.810.09.35.68.68.28.68.17.66.98.87.58.48.38.89.50.19
Stomatal conductance (mol water m−2 s−1)0.70.70.50.70.60.80.70.30.70.60.70.60.50.50.70.50.60.60.70.80.18
Instantaneous WUE (μmol CO2 m−2 s−1)/(mmol water m−2 s−1)2.41.93.42.02.71.72.13.93.32.22.82.43.42.22.32.82.42.72.62.30.33
Height (cm)12615411217314013210018011010413814010515211812410291109960.77
Tiller no.27213426263749232972164646306633494332210.51
Final tiller no.22238629323775303699255313931523512489102230.74
Tiller diameter (mm)6.99.65.35.35.35.25.66.15.76.08.74.94.88.84.65.45.44.85.55.20.90
Tiller length (cm)597953808054521226042777846753968574658430.84
Leaf length (cm)73886172687960666067787169857771585869540.88
Leaf width (cm)1.52.01.51.61.71.71.61.61.81.82.01.71.51.81.31.31.61.51.51.90.77
Girth (cm)23262322152223191730252133252021272528120.69
Wet biomass (g)2595253663983144904653863175374964786336403382695053745101240.53
Dry biomass (g)1252341471679224119712110123620418429436418198194172219320.74
Percentage water content0.520.550.600.580.710.510.580.690.680.560.590.620.530.430.470.640.620.540.570.740.60
Harvest indexa
 Leaf0.220.300.340.260.330.260.280.340.350.330.280.300.350.220.310.310.320.310.310.370.84
 Sheath0.290.280.280.270.310.330.300.260.290.290.330.270.310.230.310.250.300.310.290.290.42
 Stem0.490.410.390.460.370.410.430.400.350.380.390.430.340.550.380.440.380.380.410.340.66
 Seedb0.210.230.480.700.330.480.130.260.470.220.620.91
Stem
 Cellulose (%)26.118.730.723.223.531.719.133.122.323.422.920.216.518.223.830.927.128.523.330.80.58
 Hemicellulose (%)27.027.232.324.426.128.028.726.124.135.033.124.927.227.831.826.727.335.136.323.90.49
 Lignin (%)2.62.42.72.72.51.72.04.33.03.12.52.32.01.31.93.83.33.73.32.10.59
 Ash (%)13.610.810.64.57.711.96.414.911.98.13.59.15.05.015.913.312.310.95.015.20.56
 Soluble fiber (%)30.641.023.745.240.226.743.721.638.730.538.143.549.447.826.625.430.021.832.228.00.57
Leaf
 Cellulose (%)18.932.818.924.724.425.624.529.527.028.425.327.026.526.522.230.225.120.628.428.80.31
 Hemicellulose (%)28.531.326.932.432.825.736.131.029.736.236.130.434.834.830.627.024.632.136.226.10.53
 Lignin (%)1.42.01.04.64.62.24.84.44.13.84.32.62.12.12.32.52.62.23.84.40.36
 Ash (%)5.416.74.98.615.14.315.712.912.67.69.615.910.110.15.816.95.84.37.614.00.66
Soluble fiber (%)45.817.248.329.623.242.218.922.126.723.924.824.126.526.539.023.541.840.823.926.80.74
Intrinsic WUE (δ13C)−29.1−28.5−28.2−28.9−28.6−29.7−29.6−26.6−29.4−28.7−28.3−29.2−29.2−28.7−29.1−29.6−30.1−30.4−30.7−30.30.62
Days to flag leaf12695109731319583139119898973119164131660.96
Days to heading13911011983145110891451319520283124172145830.96
Days to full emergence172124124891651199516513511020789131197150890.98
Days to mature seed1811971811192421651392422151652521652152522421390.97
Days to cut down187181199181135205242165163242244165254240184165221254242139
a

Harvest index for vegetative biomass (leaf, sheath, stem) = yield (leaf, sheath, stem)/total vegetative biomass. Grain harvest index = grain yield/(grain + vegetative biomass).

b

Dashes indicate plants that did not reproduce in our greenhouse.

Both wet and dry biomass were measured to determine the percentage water content of biomass for each variety (Table II). Total percentage water content ranged between 43% and 74% of the wet biomass in the 20 rice varieties, revealing large genetic variation in leaf and stem water content (Table II). Overall biomass production also varied considerably. For example, the dry biomass yield of Pokkali was 11-fold higher than that of the smallest variety, Zhenshan 97B (Fig. 1).

Other morphological traits that might be involved in biomass accumulation also exhibited large trait variation across the 20 varieties. Leaf lengths ranged from 53.6 cm in the advanced variety Zhenshan 97B to 88.2 cm in the landrace Azucena. For all varieties, leaf width ranged between 1.3 and 2.0 cm, but the average was 1.6 cm. LTH, the tallest plant of all 20 lines (180 cm), was twice the height of the smallest plant, Swarna (90 cm). Tiller diameter of most varieties was approximately 5 mm, but three landraces (i.e. Moroberekan, Pokkali, and Azucena) had larger tiller diameters (8.7, 8.8, and 9.6 mm, respectively). Girth of plants was measured 2 cm above the soil line and ranged from 12 to 33 cm. We also observed several phenotypes that are unfavorable for agricultural development. For example, var Dular displayed severe lodging and high propensity for seed shattering in the greenhouse (Fig. 1).

The harvest index for vegetative biomass was determined using the mass of a specific tissue relative to total biomass (Table II). The 20 varieties vary in how they allocate biomass to leaves, sheaths, and stems (23%–37%, 23%–33%, and 34%–55% of the total biomass, respectively). In all but three varieties, stems constituted the largest component of total dry biomass. For these three varieties, dry biomass was split almost evenly among the three tissues. In Pokkali, the plant with the most biomass, approximately 55% of the weight is in the stems, with the remaining partitioned evenly between the leaves and sheaths.

Not all varieties reproduced and set seed in our greenhouse conditions, so a subset of 10 flowering varieties was analyzed for partitioning of resources between seed and biomass. The harvest index for seed (grain dry weight to total aboveground dry weight) ranged from 0.13 to 0.70. Not surprisingly, there was a strong negative relationship between harvest index and total dry biomass (r = −0.79993, P = 4.3 × 10−37).

Cell wall polymer composition among higher plants can differ substantially in quality and quantity (Pauly and Keegstra, 2008) and is an important consideration for bioenergy production. The amounts of cell wall structural polymers and ash content were determined for leaf and stem tissues gravimetrically after treatment with either neutral or acidic detergent. Cellulose, hemicellulose, lignin, ash, and soluble fiber content varied widely among the varieties. Cell wall polymers (cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin) constituted 45% to 67% of both the stem and leaf tissues. Lignin levels in these greenhouse-grown plants were low relative to reports from field-grown plants and ranged from 1.3% to 4.3% total dry weight. The remaining portion consists of proteins, nonstructural carbohydrates (starch and sugar), and ash. Ash levels ranged from about 4% to 16% of total dry weight in both leaves and stems.

Several physiological traits varied across the 20 varieties, including photosynthesis, instantaneous WUE, and carbon isotope ratio. Particularly notable was the large variation in leaf area-based photosynthetic rate across the 20 lines. The landrace Pokkali and the U.S. advanced var M202 had the lowest and highest rates, respectively, with Pokkali having half the photosynthetic rate of M202. Instantaneous WUE was measured on all plants during the vegetative stage, and integrated WUE across the growing season was determined from the carbon isotope ratio measured postharvest. Both integrated and instantaneous WUE measures predict that the advanced varieties Cypress and LTH have the highest WUE.

All morphological traits had higher heritabilities than those for physiological traits. Morphological traits (not including total biomass) were all greater than 0.50, with six out of seven being greater than 0.69 (Table II). Heritability estimates were relatively similar for stem structural polymer composition, ranging from approximately 0.5 to 0.6, but were highly variable for leaf polymer composition. Heritability estimates for fresh weights were lower than the corresponding dry material, indicating environmental contributions to variation in water content.

Traits Related to Biomass Covary

Among the 37 traits tested for genetic correlation with total biomass, final tiller number, girth, leaf length, individual tissue weights (leaves, sheaths, and stems), and days to maturity were the most positively correlated to final biomass (Fig. 2; Supplemental Table S1). Percentage water content and leaf area-based photosynthesis were negatively correlated to total biomass. Biomass of leaves, sheath, and stem tissues as well as total dry biomass were all positively correlated to leaf length and negatively correlated to lignin levels in the stems. Tiller diameter was negatively correlated to tiller number. Many of the physiological traits were correlated to each other, but only photosynthesis was significantly correlated to dry biomass.

Heat map showing Pearson’s correlation coefficients for biomass traits. Self-self correlations are identified in white. Significant correlations (−0.44 ≤ r ≥ 0.44) are colored either in red (positive) or blue (negative) hues, while correlations that were not significant are shown in gray. Numerical values are shown in Supplemental Table S1.
Figure 2.

Heat map showing Pearson’s correlation coefficients for biomass traits. Self-self correlations are identified in white. Significant correlations (−0.44 ≤ r ≥ 0.44) are colored either in red (positive) or blue (negative) hues, while correlations that were not significant are shown in gray. Numerical values are shown in Supplemental Table S1.

In cell wall fractions of stems (but not leaves), cellulose, lignin, and ash were negatively correlated to total dry biomass (Fig. 2; Supplemental Table S1). In contrast, hemicellulose was positively correlated to biomass in both stems and leaves. Quantities of cell wall polymers were often not correlated among tissue types; only the quantity of hemicellulose was correlated between leaves and stems. Comparison of cell wall components in leaves versus stems revealed different cellulose content and lignin content in each of these tissues. The lack of correlation between cell wall polymers in these two tissues suggests independent genetic regulation in the leaves and stems. Thus, for improvement of biomass traits, alteration of cellulose and lignin content could be targeted independently in leaves and stems.

As expected, wet and dry weights for partial tissue and total plant weight positively covaried across all of the growth and developmental stages. Biomass measures at each time point were also positively correlated to tiller number, plant girth, and hemicellulose levels in both stems and leaves. Leaf ash levels were negatively correlated to many growth stages as well as height and days to mature seed (Fig. 2; Supplemental Table S1).

Sources of Trait Variation Are Linked to Varietal Class and Genotype But Not to Varietal Grouping

The genetic makeup of modern rice varieties has been shaped through directed selection by breeders. The OryzaSNP set population can be divided into two varietal classes (advanced and landrace) and structured into three distinct clades (indica, japonica, and aus; McNally et al., 2009). We investigated these divisions within the 20 lines to identify potential sources of trait variation.

Trait values were compared between landrace and advanced varieties. Overall, landraces had lower water content than advanced lines (Table III). Morphological traits, such as plant height, final tiller number, tiller diameter, tiller length, and leaf length, also differed between landraces and advanced varieties. In general, landraces were taller, with longer leaves and stems, but only half as many tillers as advanced varieties. Because several varieties continue to tiller after the main tillers begin to senesce, we counted tiller number at two times, first at 135 d after sowing and again at maturity (as many as 252 d after sowing). This continual tillering phenotype is primarily seen in advanced varieties, which had twice as many tillers at maturity than at 135 d. In contrast, tiller numbers of landraces did not change between the two time points. Advanced varieties have an average grain harvest index of 0.46, while landraces average a harvest index of 0.30. The shift to higher harvest index in the advanced varieties reflects a shift of resources to seed versus vegetative development seen in all high-yielding grain crops. On average, the girth of landrace plants was smaller than in advanced varieties (Table III). Wet and dry biomass, the majority of the cell wall structural components, and carbon isotope ratio did not differ between landrace and advanced varieties.

Influence of varietal class (landrace and advanced) on biomass traits

Table III.
Influence of varietal class (landrace and advanced) on biomass traits

Mean ± se and P values for varietal classes for biomass traits are shown.

TraitAdvancedLandraceP
Photosynthesis (μmol CO2 m−2 s−1)20.4 ± 0.419.2 ± 0.40.041
Ci (μmol CO2 m−2 s−1)305.9 ± 3.1321.4 ± 1.6<0.0001
Transpiration (mmol water m−2 s−1)8.3 ± 0.28.9 ± 0.1230.0095
Stomatal conductance (mol water m−2 s−1)0.6 ± 0.020.7 ± 0.010.021
Instantaneous WUE (μmol CO2 m−2 s−1)/(mmol water m−2 s−1)2.6 ± 0.12.2 ± 0.050.0001
Height (cm)109.8 ± 3.2139.8 ± 2.2<0.0001
Tiller no.40.6 ± 2.830.8 ± 2.30.007
Final tiller no.80.0 ± 5.831.7 ± 1.9<0.0001
Tiller diameter (mm)5.4 ± 0.16.8 ± 0.2<0.0001
Tiller length (cm)57.5 ± 3.068.6 ± 2.10.0002
Leaf length (cm)62.1 ± 0.976.6 ± 1.2<0.0001
Leaf width (cm)1.6 ± 0.021.7 ± 0.030.1639
Girth (cm)23.7 ± 0.822.5 ± 0.60.0005
Percentage water content0.60 ± 0.0110.55 ± 0.0110.0037
Dry biomass (g)173.6 ± 10.6192.8 ± 11.70.4114
Harvest indexa leaf0.33 ± 0.0070.28 ± 0.009<0.0001
Sheath0.29 ± 0.0040.29 ± 0.0080.4998
Stem0.38 ± 0.0080.44 ± 0.0130.0004
Seed0.46 ± 0.020.30 ± 0.02<0.0001
Lignin (%)3.0 ± 0.22.4 ± 0.20.0221
TraitAdvancedLandraceP
Photosynthesis (μmol CO2 m−2 s−1)20.4 ± 0.419.2 ± 0.40.041
Ci (μmol CO2 m−2 s−1)305.9 ± 3.1321.4 ± 1.6<0.0001
Transpiration (mmol water m−2 s−1)8.3 ± 0.28.9 ± 0.1230.0095
Stomatal conductance (mol water m−2 s−1)0.6 ± 0.020.7 ± 0.010.021
Instantaneous WUE (μmol CO2 m−2 s−1)/(mmol water m−2 s−1)2.6 ± 0.12.2 ± 0.050.0001
Height (cm)109.8 ± 3.2139.8 ± 2.2<0.0001
Tiller no.40.6 ± 2.830.8 ± 2.30.007
Final tiller no.80.0 ± 5.831.7 ± 1.9<0.0001
Tiller diameter (mm)5.4 ± 0.16.8 ± 0.2<0.0001
Tiller length (cm)57.5 ± 3.068.6 ± 2.10.0002
Leaf length (cm)62.1 ± 0.976.6 ± 1.2<0.0001
Leaf width (cm)1.6 ± 0.021.7 ± 0.030.1639
Girth (cm)23.7 ± 0.822.5 ± 0.60.0005
Percentage water content0.60 ± 0.0110.55 ± 0.0110.0037
Dry biomass (g)173.6 ± 10.6192.8 ± 11.70.4114
Harvest indexa leaf0.33 ± 0.0070.28 ± 0.009<0.0001
Sheath0.29 ± 0.0040.29 ± 0.0080.4998
Stem0.38 ± 0.0080.44 ± 0.0130.0004
Seed0.46 ± 0.020.30 ± 0.02<0.0001
Lignin (%)3.0 ± 0.22.4 ± 0.20.0221
a

Harvest index for vegetative biomass (leaf, sheath, stem) = yield (leaf, sheath, stem)/total vegetative biomass. Grain harvest index = grain yield/(grain + vegetative biomass).

Table III.
Influence of varietal class (landrace and advanced) on biomass traits

Mean ± se and P values for varietal classes for biomass traits are shown.

TraitAdvancedLandraceP
Photosynthesis (μmol CO2 m−2 s−1)20.4 ± 0.419.2 ± 0.40.041
Ci (μmol CO2 m−2 s−1)305.9 ± 3.1321.4 ± 1.6<0.0001
Transpiration (mmol water m−2 s−1)8.3 ± 0.28.9 ± 0.1230.0095
Stomatal conductance (mol water m−2 s−1)0.6 ± 0.020.7 ± 0.010.021
Instantaneous WUE (μmol CO2 m−2 s−1)/(mmol water m−2 s−1)2.6 ± 0.12.2 ± 0.050.0001
Height (cm)109.8 ± 3.2139.8 ± 2.2<0.0001
Tiller no.40.6 ± 2.830.8 ± 2.30.007
Final tiller no.80.0 ± 5.831.7 ± 1.9<0.0001
Tiller diameter (mm)5.4 ± 0.16.8 ± 0.2<0.0001
Tiller length (cm)57.5 ± 3.068.6 ± 2.10.0002
Leaf length (cm)62.1 ± 0.976.6 ± 1.2<0.0001
Leaf width (cm)1.6 ± 0.021.7 ± 0.030.1639
Girth (cm)23.7 ± 0.822.5 ± 0.60.0005
Percentage water content0.60 ± 0.0110.55 ± 0.0110.0037
Dry biomass (g)173.6 ± 10.6192.8 ± 11.70.4114
Harvest indexa leaf0.33 ± 0.0070.28 ± 0.009<0.0001
Sheath0.29 ± 0.0040.29 ± 0.0080.4998
Stem0.38 ± 0.0080.44 ± 0.0130.0004
Seed0.46 ± 0.020.30 ± 0.02<0.0001
Lignin (%)3.0 ± 0.22.4 ± 0.20.0221
TraitAdvancedLandraceP
Photosynthesis (μmol CO2 m−2 s−1)20.4 ± 0.419.2 ± 0.40.041
Ci (μmol CO2 m−2 s−1)305.9 ± 3.1321.4 ± 1.6<0.0001
Transpiration (mmol water m−2 s−1)8.3 ± 0.28.9 ± 0.1230.0095
Stomatal conductance (mol water m−2 s−1)0.6 ± 0.020.7 ± 0.010.021
Instantaneous WUE (μmol CO2 m−2 s−1)/(mmol water m−2 s−1)2.6 ± 0.12.2 ± 0.050.0001
Height (cm)109.8 ± 3.2139.8 ± 2.2<0.0001
Tiller no.40.6 ± 2.830.8 ± 2.30.007
Final tiller no.80.0 ± 5.831.7 ± 1.9<0.0001
Tiller diameter (mm)5.4 ± 0.16.8 ± 0.2<0.0001
Tiller length (cm)57.5 ± 3.068.6 ± 2.10.0002
Leaf length (cm)62.1 ± 0.976.6 ± 1.2<0.0001
Leaf width (cm)1.6 ± 0.021.7 ± 0.030.1639
Girth (cm)23.7 ± 0.822.5 ± 0.60.0005
Percentage water content0.60 ± 0.0110.55 ± 0.0110.0037
Dry biomass (g)173.6 ± 10.6192.8 ± 11.70.4114
Harvest indexa leaf0.33 ± 0.0070.28 ± 0.009<0.0001
Sheath0.29 ± 0.0040.29 ± 0.0080.4998
Stem0.38 ± 0.0080.44 ± 0.0130.0004
Seed0.46 ± 0.020.30 ± 0.02<0.0001
Lignin (%)3.0 ± 0.22.4 ± 0.20.0221
a

Harvest index for vegetative biomass (leaf, sheath, stem) = yield (leaf, sheath, stem)/total vegetative biomass. Grain harvest index = grain yield/(grain + vegetative biomass).

Like biomass, many of the physiological traits differed between landraces and advanced varieties. Landrace varieties had lower rates of CO2 assimilation, increased transpiration via greater stomatal conductance, and a higher ratio of internal to atmospheric CO2 than advanced varieties. Landraces have slightly lower WUE than those seen in advanced varieties.

Using a nested ANOVA (genotype nested within clade), we calculated the relative contribution of genotype and clade to variation in measured traits. Genotype nested within clade was highly significant for all physiological traits and a subset of morphological traits (Table IV). In contrast, clade was only significant for photosynthetic assimilation, height, and tiller number and size.

Total amount of variation associated with clade and genotype by trait

Table IV.
Total amount of variation associated with clade and genotype by trait
TraitClade
Genotype
F RatioP<Percentage VarianceF RatioP<Percentage Variance
Photosynthesis16.69.7 × 10−0924.74.24.3 × 10−0628.2
Ci20.33.0 × 10−109.315.02.2 × 10−1965.2
Transpiration15.04.5 × 10−080.011.83.1 × 10−1668.2
Stomatal conductance6.92.8 × 10−040.012.11.6 × 10−1666.4
Instantaneous WUE31.04.6 × 10−1420.612.92.2 × 10−1754.3
Height140.24.5 × 10−2916.157.62.3 × 10−4276.7
Tiller no.20.54.0 × 10−0813.39.73.1 × 10−1450.4
Tiller diameter65.01.6 × 10−183.251.04.1 × 10−4086.8
Tiller length42.85.7 × 10−148.125.54.4 × 10−2876.0
Leaf length12.02.3 × 10−051.110.91.3 × 10−1563.6
Leaf width6.03.6 × 10−030.015.71.4 × 10−2070.7
Girth15.41.7 × 10−060.012.15.3 × 10−1769.4
Wet biomass3.14.9 × 10−020.07.81.0 × 10−1153.6
Dry biomass3.24.6 × 10−020.017.26.9 × 10−2274.0
TraitClade
Genotype
F RatioP<Percentage VarianceF RatioP<Percentage Variance
Photosynthesis16.69.7 × 10−0924.74.24.3 × 10−0628.2
Ci20.33.0 × 10−109.315.02.2 × 10−1965.2
Transpiration15.04.5 × 10−080.011.83.1 × 10−1668.2
Stomatal conductance6.92.8 × 10−040.012.11.6 × 10−1666.4
Instantaneous WUE31.04.6 × 10−1420.612.92.2 × 10−1754.3
Height140.24.5 × 10−2916.157.62.3 × 10−4276.7
Tiller no.20.54.0 × 10−0813.39.73.1 × 10−1450.4
Tiller diameter65.01.6 × 10−183.251.04.1 × 10−4086.8
Tiller length42.85.7 × 10−148.125.54.4 × 10−2876.0
Leaf length12.02.3 × 10−051.110.91.3 × 10−1563.6
Leaf width6.03.6 × 10−030.015.71.4 × 10−2070.7
Girth15.41.7 × 10−060.012.15.3 × 10−1769.4
Wet biomass3.14.9 × 10−020.07.81.0 × 10−1153.6
Dry biomass3.24.6 × 10−020.017.26.9 × 10−2274.0
Table IV.
Total amount of variation associated with clade and genotype by trait
TraitClade
Genotype
F RatioP<Percentage VarianceF RatioP<Percentage Variance
Photosynthesis16.69.7 × 10−0924.74.24.3 × 10−0628.2
Ci20.33.0 × 10−109.315.02.2 × 10−1965.2
Transpiration15.04.5 × 10−080.011.83.1 × 10−1668.2
Stomatal conductance6.92.8 × 10−040.012.11.6 × 10−1666.4
Instantaneous WUE31.04.6 × 10−1420.612.92.2 × 10−1754.3
Height140.24.5 × 10−2916.157.62.3 × 10−4276.7
Tiller no.20.54.0 × 10−0813.39.73.1 × 10−1450.4
Tiller diameter65.01.6 × 10−183.251.04.1 × 10−4086.8
Tiller length42.85.7 × 10−148.125.54.4 × 10−2876.0
Leaf length12.02.3 × 10−051.110.91.3 × 10−1563.6
Leaf width6.03.6 × 10−030.015.71.4 × 10−2070.7
Girth15.41.7 × 10−060.012.15.3 × 10−1769.4
Wet biomass3.14.9 × 10−020.07.81.0 × 10−1153.6
Dry biomass3.24.6 × 10−020.017.26.9 × 10−2274.0
TraitClade
Genotype
F RatioP<Percentage VarianceF RatioP<Percentage Variance
Photosynthesis16.69.7 × 10−0924.74.24.3 × 10−0628.2
Ci20.33.0 × 10−109.315.02.2 × 10−1965.2
Transpiration15.04.5 × 10−080.011.83.1 × 10−1668.2
Stomatal conductance6.92.8 × 10−040.012.11.6 × 10−1666.4
Instantaneous WUE31.04.6 × 10−1420.612.92.2 × 10−1754.3
Height140.24.5 × 10−2916.157.62.3 × 10−4276.7
Tiller no.20.54.0 × 10−0813.39.73.1 × 10−1450.4
Tiller diameter65.01.6 × 10−183.251.04.1 × 10−4086.8
Tiller length42.85.7 × 10−148.125.54.4 × 10−2876.0
Leaf length12.02.3 × 10−051.110.91.3 × 10−1563.6
Leaf width6.03.6 × 10−030.015.71.4 × 10−2070.7
Girth15.41.7 × 10−060.012.15.3 × 10−1769.4
Wet biomass3.14.9 × 10−020.07.81.0 × 10−1153.6
Dry biomass3.24.6 × 10−020.017.26.9 × 10−2274.0

Genome Introgressions Are Enriched for Biomass Traits

The genomes of the OryzaSNP varieties are mosaics, containing historical introgressions from multiple clades (McNally et al., 2009). For example, an indica variety may contain multiple introgressed regions from the japonica or aus clade. To determine if any biomass traits were associated with regions introgressed from indica, japonica, or aus, we used a single marker regression method (logarithm of the odds ratio [LOD] threshold of 2.0). We found three distinct introgression blocks from japonica correlated with carbon assimilation, CO2 internal partial pressure (Ci), or WUE based on a permutation-based LOD cutoff (α = 95% at 1,000 permutations; Table V; Supplemental Table S2). Several other aus and japonica introgressions were identified, but they were not significant after the permutation-based LOD cutoff (Supplemental Table S2). There were no introgressions from indica associated with phenotypes measured in this analysis.

Segments introgressed from japonica that are associated with biomass traits enriched for biomass-related QTLs

Table V.
Segments introgressed from japonica that are associated with biomass traits enriched for biomass-related QTLs
ChromosomeBlock StartaBlock SizeAssociated Biomass-Related TraitbNo. of QTLs Associated with Introgression Blocks
Biomass RelatedcNon Biomass Related
Mbkb
315.3300A, Ci, WUE4318
519.5200A, Ci, WUE2635
613.2100A, Ci, WUE3421
ChromosomeBlock StartaBlock SizeAssociated Biomass-Related TraitbNo. of QTLs Associated with Introgression Blocks
Biomass RelatedcNon Biomass Related
Mbkb
315.3300A, Ci, WUE4318
519.5200A, Ci, WUE2635
613.2100A, Ci, WUE3421
a

Introgressions significantly associated with biomass-related traits using a permutation-based LOD threshold (1,000 permutations, 95% α).

b

A, Carbon assimilation.

c

QTLs annotated as affecting anatomy, vigor, and yield from Gramene release 31.

Table V.
Segments introgressed from japonica that are associated with biomass traits enriched for biomass-related QTLs
ChromosomeBlock StartaBlock SizeAssociated Biomass-Related TraitbNo. of QTLs Associated with Introgression Blocks
Biomass RelatedcNon Biomass Related
Mbkb
315.3300A, Ci, WUE4318
519.5200A, Ci, WUE2635
613.2100A, Ci, WUE3421
ChromosomeBlock StartaBlock SizeAssociated Biomass-Related TraitbNo. of QTLs Associated with Introgression Blocks
Biomass RelatedcNon Biomass Related
Mbkb
315.3300A, Ci, WUE4318
519.5200A, Ci, WUE2635
613.2100A, Ci, WUE3421
a

Introgressions significantly associated with biomass-related traits using a permutation-based LOD threshold (1,000 permutations, 95% α).

b

A, Carbon assimilation.

c

QTLs annotated as affecting anatomy, vigor, and yield from Gramene release 31.

To determine if the introgressed regions identified above were enriched for biomass-related quantitative trait loci (QTLs), we used the QTL enrichment analysis method described by McNally et al. (2009). Indeed, QTLs that were biomass related (i.e. vigor, anatomy, and yield as curated in Gramene QTLs release 31; http://gramene.org) were enriched in 10 of 11 introgressed regions (Table V; Supplemental Table S2).

DISCUSSION

Targeted genetic improvement of new bioenergy feedstocks depends on identifying genetic variation in critical morphological, structural, and physiological traits. Here, we demonstrated substantial genetic variation for biomass traits in 20 diverse rice varieties, and, based on genetic correlations among these traits and total biomass, we determined that multiple routes can be used to achieve increased biomass. A powerful incentive for using rice as a model for studying biomass is that this information can easily be translated to emerging breeding programs of promising bioenergy grasses. Genetic loci can be identified in rice and subsequently targeted for biomass improvement in other grasses.

Among the 20 OryzaSNP varieties, variation in percentage water content ranged from 43% to 74% (Table II), and, significantly, varieties with the lowest percentage water content also had the highest total biomass. This result suggests that targeting reduced water content may be a selection regime to increase total biomass. In addition, varieties with reduced water content at harvest will have reduced transport and handling costs.

Another approach to increase biomass is to increase plant girth. Among the OryzaSNP set, plants with high biomass exhibited two contrasting phenotypes relative to girth. The first group had a large number of thin tillers, while the other displayed a small number of large-diameter tillers. Continuous tillering associated with high grain yield is characteristically selected for in advanced varieties. Indeed, these high-biomass varieties exhibited a large number of small tillers with high grain harvest index. In contrast, landrace varieties are characterized by “determinant” tillering and low grain yield and exhibit a small number of large-diameter tillers with low grain harvest index. For cellulosic biomass, selection for an increased number of thick tillers is warranted. Interestingly, no variety among the 20 exhibited a combination of high tiller number with large diameters.

Compared with efforts focused on downstream processing technologies, less has been invested in improving the profile of structural carbohydrates in cell walls of bioenergy crops. Most breeding efforts for biofuel feedstocks are focused on increased plant size (increased total biomass) or higher yields per acre (Ragauskas et al., 2006). However, to maximize the efficiency of energy conversion, future breeding efforts should also target cell wall composition optimized for various processing methods. For example, cell walls with high cellulose and low lignin may be preferred for fermentation but not for pyrolysis. In alfalfa (Medicago sativa) and poplar (Populus spp.), reducing carbon partitioned to lignin resulted in increased carbon partitioned to cellulose and, therefore, increased cellulose-lignin ratios (Hu et al., 1999; Chen and Dixon, 2007). The outcome of altering the cellulose-lignin ratios on final biomass can vary. In poplar, increased cellulose-lignin ratios led to increased plant size (Hu et al., 1999), whereas some mutations in alfalfa that increased cellulose-lignin ratios led to decreased plant size (Chen and Dixon, 2007). High cellulose-lignin ratios can lead to lodging problems (Pedersen et al., 2005). Across the 20 rice varieties, cell wall polymer composition varied, suggesting the potential for targeted improvement. We note that our lignin values, obtained from individual varieties grown in a greenhouse, were low (1.3%–4.3% total dry weight) compared with studies using field-grown mixtures of rice varieties (14% total dry weight; Jin and Chen, 2007), suggesting that environmental conditions may greatly influence lignin content.

In the 20 rice varieties, cell wall polymer composition in leaves differs from that measured in stems and, in general, wall polymer composition is not genetically correlated among tissue types. This suggests that the compositions of leaf and stem structural carbohydrates are under separate genetic control, and, based on complementary studies with maize and sorghum (Sorghum bicolor), this may be a common characteristic in monocots (Krakowsky et al., 2005, 2006; Murray et al., 2008). Like sorghum (Murray et al., 2008), most of the OryzaSNP varieties (17 out of 20) contain more biomass in their stems than in leaves. Together, these results emphasize that improvement strategies must take into consideration the differences in how stems and leaves contribute to total biomass as well as how changing cell wall composition may alter harvest indices for specific vegetative tissues. Based on the fact that stems make up the bulk of biomass, our whole-plant girth observation may point to a tractable field-based screen for increased biomass. However, field-based selection for carbohydrate structure in specific tissues would not be trivial, because wall polymer composition is under separate genetic control between leaves and stems.

As early as the 1980s, rice straw and hulls were recognized as the largest agricultural wastes in Asia, particularly in countries producing as many as three crops of rice per year (Ponnamperuma, 1984). For this reason, farmers burn stover in the fields. This is necessary because the natural rate of decomposition is not sufficient for turnover, and burning reduces plant pathogen pressure on subsequent crops (Ponnamperuma, 1984). Thus, despite its availability, rice stover has not been fully exploited as an energy feedstock. Likewise, rice hulls, which can make up to 20% of the total dry weight of a rice field, have not been widely used, although they are sometimes feedstock for energy production through gasification (Beagle, 1978; Lin et al., 1998).

The composition and quantity of cell wall components are primary factors determining whether or not a feedstock can be burned effectively for a particular application. For example, alkali metals, in combination with silica and sulfur, are primary factors responsible for clogging gasification equipment when heated at relatively low temperatures (Jenkins et al., 1998). Total ash content of grasses varies greatly, from less than 1% to greater than 15% (for review, see Pauly and Keegstra, 2008). In rice, the ash content is primarily composed of silica, the largest mineral component of perennial grasses (Samson et al., 2005; Jin and Chen, 2007). Silica content is influenced by soil type and water uptake as well as by genetic variation. For example, in our controlled conditions, we observed a wide range of ash content (4%–16%) in the OryzaSNP collection, suggesting noteworthy genetic variation in ash content. Apart from forage crops, few breeding efforts have targeted ash compositional changes in grass species. A long-term breeding effort would be necessary to change ash composition, and improvements would have to be balanced against negative effects, because silica is believed to help prevent animal herbivory (Salim and Saxena, 1992; Cotterill et al., 2007; Keeping et al., 2009).

On a global scale, the largest restriction to plant production is the availability of water; therefore, the ability of plants to use water efficiently is of great importance to agriculture (Boyer, 1982; Pennisi, 2008). We found significant differences in both instantaneous WUE and integrated WUE (δ13C) among the 20 lines, and both methods of measuring WUE predicted the same highly efficient varieties. However, varieties that were less efficient at water use did not rank the same between methods. WUE is calculated as the ratio of carbon assimilation to transpirational water loss, while δ13C is measured from the relative abundance of 13C in the tissue. Both WUE and δ13C are negative functions of Ci/Ca under constant atmospheric CO2 (Ca) and the vapor pressure difference between the inside of the leaf and ambient air, but the correlations between WUE and δ13C are never equal to 1 (Farquhar et al., 1989; Ehleringer and Monson, 1993; Araus et al., 2002). Differences in δ13C are due to photosynthetic capacity (A  max) and/or stomatal conductance. The genetic differences in A  max are partially explained by differences in carboxylation capacity or the regeneration of ribulose bisphosphate (Farquhar and von Caemmerer, 1981).

Substantial increases in productivity of major grain crops over the last 50 years have contributed significantly to the world’s ability to feed an increasing human population. This was achieved primarily through reducing plant size and reallocation of assimilated carbon to seed yield in conjunction with increased nitrogen fertilization. Because past breeding focused primarily on increasing photoassimilate partitioning to harvested tissues, little effort directly targeted improving photosynthesis, although new initiatives to improve photosynthetic rates are considered a frontier for grain and biomass yields (Hibberd and Covshoff, 2010; Zhu et al., 2010). However, simply increasing daytime carbon assimilation rates may not have the desired effect if enhancements are not coupled with positive changes in shoot architecture and carbon metabolism, such as decreasing rates of respiration. We found a negative correlation between photosynthetic CO2 assimilation rates and biomass accumulation in the OryzaSNP set. Although counterintuitive, this result is not unique to rice; strong negative correlations have been observed between photosynthetic rates and total leaf area in field-grown soybean (Glycine max; Hesketh et al., 1981) and among photosynthetic rates and leaf size in field-grown wheat and goatgrass (Aegilops spp.; Austin et al., 1982). Photosynthetic rates were also negatively correlated with biomass accumulation in greenhouse-grown common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium; Wassom et al., 2003). This suggests that multiple, semiindependent components contribute to carbon capture and allocation. One possibility is that respiration rates are substantially different among the OryzaSNP set. Further investigation is necessary to understand the negative relationship between photosynthetic rates and biomass accumulation in the OryzaSNP set.

Rice varieties are commonly grouped based on geographic distribution as well as plant and grain morphology. As early as 200 B.C.E., rice varieties in China were recorded as “hsien” and “keng,” and, in the late 1920s, Japanese scientists divided cultivated rice into two subspecies, “indica” and “japonica” (Kato et al., 1928; Chang et al., 1965). The indica (hsien) group was characterized as profusely tillering, tall-stature plants with light green leaves, while the japonica (keng) group was a medium tillering, short-stature plant with dark green leaves (Chang et al., 1965). Molecular and genetic methods support the phenotypic characteristics that differentiate various rice varieties, including indica and japonica, as well as landrace and advanced modern varieties (McNally et al., 2009; Zhao et al., 2010). In contrast to the above, examination of physiological and morphological traits associated with high biomass did not follow the same clade topology, suggesting that high biomass production may be achieved via multiple, independent developmental and physiological pathways. This supports our hypothesis that novel genetic loci with major effects on biomass yield have not been uncovered in traditional breeding programs.

One reason for selecting the 20 OryzaSNP varieties for detailed characterization was the potential to relate detailed phenotypic measurements to the high-density SNP data that are available for these varieties. The small sample size of the OryzaSNP varieties is not suitable for formal association mapping. However, as shown by McNally et al. (2009), it is possible to identify chromosomal regions that reflect the breeding history of key rice clades. In some instances, the distinct japonica, indica, and aus introgressions align well with known traits under strong selection in rice breeding (McNally et al., 2009). Using single marker regression analysis, we tested for significant effects of introgressions from japonica, indica, or aus on our measured phenotypes. Of 3,838 blocks tested, three chromosomal regions we identified had significant associations to photosynthetic assimilation and its correlated traits (e.g. Ci/Ca). It is not clear why significant associations were not detected for morphological traits or why there were no associations between indica introgressions and biomass traits, although lack of power is certainly a factor. To reduce false positives with this limited sample size, we used a conservative permutation-based LOD score as a threshold cutoff for calling associations. Interestingly, the identified regions were enriched with QTLs reported to be related to plant vigor, anatomy, and yield, providing promising leads for future studies. A limitation of this analysis is that introgressed regions were broadly categorized only into japonica, indica, and aus clades. Thus, each region carries heterogeneous genetic loci from diverse backgrounds rather than the unique chromosomal loci found in biparental mapping populations. Nonetheless, the results from this analysis suggest considerable benefits from detailed phenotyping of a small set of “founder varieties,” such that specific regions can be identified for validation using recombinant populations sharing those introgression regions.

CONCLUSION

Creating a successful program that makes significant contributions to the national energy budget requires unprecedented inputs of biomass for energy conversion. The data presented here identify physiological and morphological traits that vary with biomass across a broad spectrum of rice varieties. We identified a suite of traits in rice that have a substantial impact on “biomass” yield. Moreover, different varieties achieved high yields by employing unique combinations of different traits, supporting the hypothesis that multiple genetic loci contribute to overall productivity. Efforts are under way to exploit genomic tools in rice to identify loci responsible for the observed trait variation. Finally, the traits identified here exhibited a significant level of genetic variation, supporting the idea that they are good targets for traditional breeding to enhance yield in new energy crops.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Plant Materials

The OryzaSNP collection (Table I), a set 20 varieties, germplasm lines, and landraces that are genetically and agronomically diverse, was chosen to represent the biomass diversity found within rice (Oryza sativa; McNally et al., 2009). The complete OryzaSNP set was analyzed for biomass traits (July 2008–April 2009; n = 5) and for vegetative harvest index (leaf, sheath, and stems; January–October, 2009; n = 2). A subset of flowering varieties (Azucena, Dom Sufid, Dular, IR64, LTH, M202, Moroberekan, N22, Sadu-Cho, Tainung 67, and Zhenshan 97B) were used to determine grain harvest index (April–October 2008; n = 15).

Growth Conditions

Plants were grown in a greenhouse environment with controlled temperature and relative humidity (approximately 78°C and 55%) at Colorado State University. To standardize total irradiance levels across experiments, supplemental high-intensity discharge lighting was used to maintain a 16-h-light/8-h-dark photoperiod. Rice seeds were pregerminated in fungicide Maxim XL (Syngenta) for 3 d prior to planting in potting mixture (4:4:1 Canadian sphagnum peat:Pro-Mix BX:sand). Pro-Mix BX is a general purpose peat-based growing medium (Premier Horticulture). Greenhouse-grown rice plants were fertilized twice weekly with Peters Excel 15-5-15 Cal-Mag (Scotts), starting at 1 month of age at a rate of 300 mg L−1.

Trait Screening

Plant height was measured from the soil surface to the tip of the longest leaf. Height and tiller number were measured weekly from 6 weeks after germination to maturity. At maturity, tiller diameter and length were determined from five individual tillers and averaged. Tiller length was measured from the soil surface to the node of the most distant leaf. Tiller diameter was measured using a caliper. Leaf length and width were measured at least three times throughout the growing season, and the maximum measure is reported. Girth was measured 2 cm above the soil surface 135 d after sowing and at plant maturity.

All aboveground biomass was harvested, transferred to a paper bag, and then weighed. The samples were oven dried at 93°C until they achieved a constant weight. Percentage dry weight was calculated as dry weight divided by wet sample weight. To determine the allocation of aboveground biomass, plants were stripped into leaves, sheaths, and stems, and wet and dry weights were determined. Leaf harvest index was calculated by dividing the leaf dry yield value by the total vegetative plant weight. Sheath and stem harvest indices were calculated as above, substituting the appropriate tissue. Grain harvest index was calculated as the total grain dry weight divided by the total aboveground biomass weight (vegetative and grain weight).

For cell wall polymer determination, 5 g of leaves and stems for each plant was separately ground to produce a fine powder using a Braun Aromatic KSM 2 coffee grinder. Tissue powder was sent to the Soil and Forage Analysis Laboratory of the University of Wisconsin (Marshfield). The cell wall structural components were determined by using acid detergent fiber, lignin acid detergent fiber, and neutral detergent fiber procedures. Acid detergent fiber is the fiber portion of plants (cellulose and lignin), while neutral detergent fiber values are the acid detergent fiber fraction plus hemicelluloses.

Dried plant tissue was processed for carbon isotope analysis by randomly sampling dried leaves at maturity. Leaf sample (50 mg) from each individual was cut into 2-mm strips and then transferred into a 2-mL microfuge tube containing stainless-steel BBs. Tissue was ground to a fine powder by shaking for 5 min on a paint shaker. The resulting uniform powder was then subsampled, and 2 mg for each plant was analyzed. Samples were analyzed for δ13C at the University of California Davis Stable Isotope Facility. Isotope ratio data were provided as ratios relative to the Pee Dee Belemnite standard (PDB), where δ13C = (Rs/RPDB − 1) × 1,000 (Hubick et al., 1986).

Gas-Exchange Measurements

Gas-exchange measurements including CO2 fixation rate, stomatal conductance, transpiration rate, and Ci were obtained using a LI-6400 portable photosynthesis system (LI-COR) with a leaf chamber fluorometer cuvette. Short-term, intrinsic WUE was calculated from the corrected CO2 fixation rate and transpiration rate. Measurements were taken in the greenhouse on the youngest fully expanded leaf of each plant. The mid part of the selected leaf was enclosed in the leaf chamber, and the measurements were logged after stability was attained in the chamber. Measurements were taken under constant leaf temperature (20°C) and photosynthetic photon flux density (1,200 μmol m–2 s–1), and CO2 was maintained at 400 μmol mol−1. Five individuals per genotype were measured weekly in a stratified manner over the course of 2 d from 9 am to 4 pm for 6 weeks, while all the plants were in the vegetative stage. The plants were measured five times at each measurement session. We logged a total of 3,000 measurements from 100 individual plants. These data were checked for technical error, and then a mean for each plant each day was calculated. A general linear model was calculated with time as a covariate.

Statistical Analysis

For each trait, data were transformed to improve normality using a box-cox transformation. ANOVA was calculated using the statistical software package JMP V8.0 (SAS Institute). For evaluation of varietal group effects, all traits were analyzed in ANOVA, where varietal group was entered as the primary model effect and group nested within genotype were considered as fixed effects. To calculate the relative contributions of genotype and varietal groupings to the total variation in biomass traits, both varietal group and genotype nested within varietal group were considered random effects. The genetic correlation between traits is presented as Pearson’s correlation coefficients among genotype means. The estimation of broad-sense heritability for each trait is based on the resemblance among full sibs within each variety and was calculated from variance components obtained through mixed-model ANOVAs using restricted maximum likelihood with models including only variety, which was considered a random effect (Falconer and Mackay, 1996).

Introgression Analysis

To estimate the association of biomass-related traits with introgressed genome regions from indica, japonica, or aus origins, we used the single marker regression method, which is usually used to identify markers linked to QTLs (Collard et al., 2005). This method is suited to the OryzaSNP varieties because it does not require marker position information and does not assume linkage between markers. Previously, McNally et al. (2009) used SNP data from the 20 OryzaSNP varieties to define introgressed genome blocks of 100 kb from indica, japonica, or aus clades. For the analysis of phenotypes in this study, we generated three independent genotype data sets of the 20 varieties for each type of introgression (i.e. from indica, japonica, or aus; Supplemental Table S3). We illustrate the construction of the introgressed genotype data set using two indica varieties, SHZ-2 and Minghui 63, as an example. If, after comparing a chromosome 1 genome block of 100 kb from variety SHZ-2 with the other 19 OryzaSNP varieties, no introgressed indica segment was detected, then this SHZ-2 block would be scored as <nonintrogressed> (score = 3). In contrast, for the same genome block, if comparison of Minghui 63 with the other 19 OryzaSNP varieties shows an indica introgression, then the Minghui 63 100-kb block would be scored as <introgressed> (score = 1). These comparisons were repeated for contiguous 100-kb blocks on the whole genome (3,838 blocks in all) for each variety, and each introgression type was identified (Supplemental Table S3). A linear model was then fitted to each introgression block using the biomass trait data and the introgression score per 100-kb block, and the coefficient of determination (r  2) that explains the phenotypic variation attributed to the introgressed segment was determined. This marker regression analysis was implemented using the R/qtl package (Broman et al., 2003). Regions of introgression significantly associated with biomass-related traits were determined at an initial LOD threshold of 2.0. The permutation-based LOD threshold was also determined at 95% α for 1,000 permutations. Enrichment of Gramene-curated QTLs in introgressed segments with significant effect on biomass traits was determined by comparing for a higher frequency of occurrence of QTLs within these segments against the genome-wide occurrence of QTLs using a one-sided Fisher exact test (McNally et al., 2009).

Supplemental Data

The following materials are available in the online version of this article.

  • Supplemental Table S1. Pearson’s correlation coefficients among the total biomass traits measured.

  • Supplemental Table S2. LOD scores and r  2 values for biomass traits correlated to segments introgressed from aus and japonica.

  • Supplemental Table S3. Three independent genotype data sets of the 20 varieties for each type of introgression.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Bryant Mason and Emily Peachy for technical support.

LITERATURE CITED

Albar
L
 
Lorieux
M
 
Ahmadi
N
 
Rimbault
I
 
Pinel
A
 
Sy
AA
 
Fargette
D
 
Ghesquiere
A
(
1998
)
Genetic basis and mapping of the resistance to rice yellow mottle virus. I. QTLs identification and relationship between resistance and plant morphology
.
Theor Appl Genet
 
97
:
1145
1154

Araus
JL
 
Slafer
GA
 
Reynolds
MP
 
Royo
C
(
2002
)
Plant breeding and drought in C-3 cereals: what should we breed for?
 
Ann Bot (Lond)
 
89
:
925
940

Austin
RB
 
Morgan
CL
 
Ford
MA
(
1982
)
Flag leaf photosynthesis of Triticum aestivum and related diploid and tetraploid species
.
Ann Bot (Lond)
 
49
:
177
189

Beagle
EC
(
1978
)
Rice husk conversion to energy
.
FAO Agricultural Services Bulletin
 
37

Boyer
JS
(
1982
)
Plant productivity and environment
.
Science
 
218
:
443
448

Broman
KW
 
Wu
H
 
Sen
S
 
Churchill
GA
(
2003
)
R/qtl: QTL mapping in experimental crosses
.
Bioinformatics
 
19
:
889
890

Bush
DR
 
Leach
JE
(
2007
)
Translational genomics for bioenergy production: there’s room for more than one model
.
Plant Cell
 
19
:
2971
2973; author reply 2973

Chang
TT
 
Bardenas
EA
 
Del Rosario
AC
(
1965
)
The morphology and varietal characteristics of the rice plant
.
IRRI Tech Bull
 
4
:
1
40

Chen
F
 
Dixon
RA
(
2007
)
Lignin modification improves fermentable sugar yields for biofuel production
.
Nat Biotechnol
 
25
:
759
761

Collard
BCY
 
Jahufer
MZZ
 
Brouwer
JB
 
Pang
ECK
(
2005
)
An introduction to markers, quantitative trait loci (QTL) mapping and marker-assisted selection for crop improvement: the basic concepts
.
Euphytica
 
142
:
169
196

Cotterill
JV
 
Watkins
RW
 
Brennon
CB
 
Cowan
DP
(
2007
)
Boosting silica levels in wheat leaves reduces grazing by rabbits
.
Pest Manag Sci
 
63
:
247
253

Courtois
B
 
Shen
L
 
Petalcorin
W
 
Carandang
S
 
Mauleon
R
 
Li
Z
(
2003
)
Locating QTLs controlling constitutive root traits in the rice population IAC165 × CO39
.
Euphytica
 
134
:
335
345

Cui
KH
 
Huang
JL
 
Xing
YZ
 
Yu
SB
 
Xu
CG
 
Peng
SB
(
2008
)
Mapping QTLs for seedling characteristics under different water supply conditions in rice (Oryza sativa)
.
Physiol Plant
 
132
:
53
68

Ehleringer
JR
 
Monson
RK
(
1993
)
Evolutionary and ecological aspects of photosynthetic pathway variation
.
Annu Rev Ecol Syst
 
24
:
411
439

Elobeid
A
 
Tokgoz
S
 
Hart
C
(
2007
)
The ethanol outlook for Brazil and the United States and implications for livestock
.
Int Sugar J
 
109
:
174
177

Falconer
DS
 
Mackay
TFC
(
1996
)
Quantitative Genetics
, Ed 4.
Longman
,
Essex, UK

Farquhar
GD
 
Ehleringer
JR
 
Hubick
KT
(
1989
)
Carbon isotope discrimination and photosynthesis
.
Annu Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol
 
40
:
503
537

Farquhar
GD
 
von Caemmerer
S
(
1981
)
Electron transport limitations on the CO2 assimilation rate of Phaseolus vulgaris L
.
In
 
Akounoglou
G
,
ed
,
The Fifth International Congress on Photosynthesis, Vol 4
.
Bababan
,
Philadelphia
, pp
163
175

Feuillet
C
 
Keller
B
(
2002
)
Comparative genomics in the grass family: molecular characterization of grass genome structure and evolution
.
Ann Bot (Lond)
 
89
:
3
10

Gale
MD
 
Devos
KM
(
1998
)
Comparative genetics in the grasses
.
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
 
95
:
1971
1974

Hemamalini
GS
 
Shashidhar
HE
 
Hittalmani
S
(
2000
)
Molecular marker assisted tagging of morphological and physiological traits under two contrasting moisture regimes at peak vegetative stage in rice (Oryza sativa L.)
.
Euphytica
 
112
:
69
78

Hesketh
JD
 
Ogren
WL
 
Hageman
ME
 
Peters
DB
(
1981
)
Correlations among leaf CO2-exchange rates, areas and enzyme activities among soybean cultivars
.
Photosynth Res
 
2
:
21
30

Hibberd
JM
 
Covshoff
S
(
2010
)
The regulation of gene expression required for C4 photosynthesis
.
Annu Rev Plant Biol
 
61
:
181
207

Hu
WJ
 
Harding
SA
 
Lung
J
 
Popko
JL
 
Ralph
J
 
Stokke
DD
 
Tsai
CJ
 
Chiang
VL
(
1999
)
Repression of lignin biosynthesis promotes cellulose accumulation and growth in transgenic trees
.
Nat Biotechnol
 
17
:
808
812

Huang
ZA
 
Jiang
DA
 
Yang
Y
 
Sun
JW
 
Jin
SH
(
2004
)
Effects of nitrogen deficiency on gas exchange, chlorophyll fluorescence, and antioxidant enzymes in leaves of rice plants
.
Photosynthetica
 
42
:
357
364

Hubick
KT
 
Farquhar
GD
 
Shorter
R
(
1986
)
Correlation between water-use efficiency and carbon isotope discrimination in diverse peanut (Arachis) germplasm
.
Aust J Plant Physiol
 
13
:
803
816

Jannoo
N
 
Grivet
L
 
Chantret
N
 
Garsmeur
O
 
Glaszmann
JC
 
Arruda
P
 
D’Hont
A
(
2007
)
Orthologous comparison in a gene-rich region among grasses reveals stability in the sugarcane polyploid genome
.
Plant J
 
50
:
574
585

Jenkins
BM
 
Baxter
LL
 
Miles
TR
(
1998
)
Combustion properties of biomass
.
Fuel Process Technol
 
54
:
17
46

Jin
SY
 
Chen
HZ
(
2007
)
Near-infrared analysis of the chemical composition of rice straw
.
Ind Crops Prod
 
26
:
207
211

Kato
S
 
Kosaka
H
 
Hara
S
(
1928
)
On the affinity of rice varieties as shown by the fertility of hybrid plants
.
Bull Sci Facult Terkult Kyushu Imp Univ
 
3
:
132
147

Keeping
MG
 
Kvedarasa
OL
 
Bruton
AG
(
2009
)
Epidermal silicon in sugarcane: cultivar differences and role in resistance to sugarcane borer Eldana saccharina
.
Environ Exp Bot
 
66
:
54
60

Khush
GS
(
1999
)
Green revolution: preparing for the 21st century
.
Genome
 
42
:
646
655

Khush
GS
(
2001
)
Challenges for meeting the global food and nutrient needs in the new millennium
.
Proc Nutr Soc
 
60
:
15
26

Krakowsky
MD
 
Lee
M
 
Coors
JG
(
2005
)
Quantitative trait loci for cell-wall components in recombinant inbred lines of maize (Zea mays L.). I. Stalk tissue
.
Theor Appl Genet
 
111
:
337
346

Krakowsky
MD
 
Lee
M
 
Coors
JG
(
2006
)
Quantitative trait loci for cell wall components in recombinant inbred lines of maize (Zea mays L.). II. Leaf sheath tissue
.
Theor Appl Genet
 
112
:
717
726

Leung
H
 
McNally
KL
 
Mackill
D
(
2007
)
Rice
.
In
 
Weiner
MP
 
Gabriel
SB
 
Stephens
JC
,
eds
,
Genetic Variation: A Laboratory Manual
.
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
,
Cold Spring Harbor, NY
, pp
335
351

Li
ZK
 
Luo
LJ
 
Mei
HW
 
Wang
DL
 
Shu
QY
 
Tabien
R
 
Zhong
DB
 
Ying
CS
 
Stansel
JW
 
Khush
GS
 et al. (
2001
)
Overdominant epistatic loci are the primary genetic basis of inbreeding depression and heterosis in rice. I. Biomass and grain yield
.
Genetics
 
158
:
1737
1753

Lian
XM
 
Xing
YZ
 
Yan
H
 
Xu
CG
 
Li
XH
 
Zhang
QF
(
2005
)
QTLs for low nitrogen tolerance at seedling stage identified using a recombinant inbred line population derived from an elite rice hybrid
.
Theor Appl Genet
 
112
:
85
96

Lin
KS
 
Wang
HP
 
Lin
CJ
 
Juch
CI
(
1998
)
A process development for gasification of rice husk
.
Fuel Process Technol
 
55
:
185
192

McNally
KL
 
Bruskiewich
R
 
Mackill
D
 
Buell
CR
 
Leach
JE
 
Leung
H
(
2006
)
Sequencing multiple and diverse rice varieties: connecting whole-genome variation with phenotypes
.
Plant Physiol
 
141
:
26
31

McNally
KL
 
Childs
KL
 
Bohnert
R
 
Davidson
RM
 
Zhao
K
 
Ulat
VJ
 
Zeller
G
 
Clark
RM
 
Hoen
DR
 
Bureau
TE
 et al. (
2009
)
Genomewide SNP variation reveals relationships among landraces and modern varieties of rice
.
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
 
106
:
12273
12278

Murray
SC
 
Rooney
WL
 
Mitchell
SE
 
Sharma
A
 
Klein
PE
 
Mullet
JE
 
Kresovich
S
(
2008
)
Genetic improvement of sorghum as a biofuel feedstock. II. QTL for stem and leaf structural carbohydrates
.
Crop Sci
 
48
:
2180
2193

Pauly
M
 
Keegstra
K
(
2008
)
Cell-wall carbohydrates and their modification as a resource for biofuels
.
Plant J
 
54
:
559
568

Pedersen
JF
 
Vogel
KP
 
Funnell
DL
(
2005
)
Impact of reduced lignin on plant fitness
.
Crop Sci
 
45
:
812
819

Pennisi
E
(
2008
)
Plant genetics: the blue revolution, drop by drop, gene by gene
.
Science
 
320
:
171
173

Ponnamperuma
FN
(
1984
)
Straw as a source of nutrients for wetland rice
.
In
 
Organic Matter and Rice
.
International Rice Research Institute
,
Manila, Philippines
, pp
117
136

Ragauskas
AJ
 
Williams
CK
 
Davison
BH
 
Britovsek
G
 
Cairney
J
 
Eckert
CA
 
Frederick
WJ
Jr
 
Hallett
JP
 
Leak
DJ
 
Liotta
CL
 et al. (
2006
)
The path forward for biofuels and biomaterials
.
Science
 
311
:
484
489

Reinhardt
D
 
Kuhlemeier
C
(
2002
)
Plant architecture
.
EMBO Rep
 
3
:
846
851

Sage
RF
(
1994
)
Acclimation of photosynthesis to increasing atmospheric CO2: the gas exchange perspective
.
Photosynth Res
 
39
:
351
368

Sakamoto
T
 
Morinaka
Y
 
Ohnishi
T
 
Sunohara
H
 
Fujioka
S
 
Ueguchi-Tanaka
M
 
Mizutani
M
 
Sakata
K
 
Takatsuto
S
 
Yoshida
S
 et al. (
2006
)
Erect leaves caused by brassinosteroid deficiency increase biomass production and grain yield in rice
.
Nat Biotechnol
 
24
:
105
109

Salim
M
 
Saxena
RC
(
1992
)
Iron, silica, and aluminum stresses and varietal resistance in rice: effects on whitebacked planthopper
.
Crop Sci
 
32
:
212
219

Samson
R
 
Mani
S
 
Boddey
R
 
Sokhansanj
S
 
Quesada
D
 
Urquiaga
S
 
Reis
V
 
Lem
CH
(
2005
)
The potential of C4 perennial grasses for developing global BIOHEAT industry
.
CRC Crit Rev Plant Sci
 
24
:
461
495

Sinclair
TR
 
Sheehy
JE
(
1999
)
Erect leaves and photosynthesis in rice
.
Science
 
283
:
1455

Sun
Y
 
Cheng
JY
(
2002
)
Hydrolysis of lignocellulosic materials for ethanol production: a review
.
Bioresour Technol
 
83
:
1
11

Wassom
JJ
 
Knepp
AW
 
Tranel
PJ
 
Wax
LM
(
2003
)
Variability in photosynthetic rates and accumulated biomass among greenhouse-grown common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) accessions
.
Weed Technol
 
17
:
84
88

Xing
Z
 
Tan
F
 
Hua
P
 
Sun
L
 
Xu
G
 
Zhang
Q
(
2002
)
Characterization of the main effects, epistatic effects and their environmental interactions of QTLs on the genetic basis of yield traits in rice
.
Theor Appl Genet
 
105
:
248
257

Xu
CG
 
Li
XQ
 
Xue
Y
 
Huang
YW
 
Gao
J
 
Xing
YZ
(
2004
)
Comparison of quantitative trait loci controlling seedling characteristics at two seedling stages using rice recombinant inbred lines
.
Theor Appl Genet
 
109
:
640
647

Xu
YB
 
This
D
 
Pausch
RC
 
Vonhof
WM
 
Coburn
JR
 
Comstock
JP
 
McCouch
SR
(
2009
)
Leaf-level water use efficiency determined by carbon isotope discrimination in rice seedlings: genetic variation associated with population structure and QTL mapping
.
Theor Appl Genet
 
118
:
1065
1081

Yang
XC
 
Hwa
CM
(
2008
)
Genetic modification of plant architecture and variety improvement in rice
.
Heredity
 
101
:
396
404

Zhao
K
 
Wright
M
 
Kimball
J
 
Eizenga
G
 
McClung
A
 
Kovach
M
 
Tyagi
W
 
Ali
ML
 
Tung
CW
 
Reynolds
A
 et al. (
2010
)
Genomic diversity and introgression in O. sativa reveal the impact of domestication and breeding on the rice genome
.
PLoS ONE
 
5
:
e10780

Zhu
XG
 
Long
SP
 
Ort
DR
 
Eizenga
G
 
McClung
A
 
Kovach
M
 
Tyagi
W
 
Ali
ML
 
Tung
CW
 
Reynolds
A
 et al. (
2010
)
Improving photosynthetic efficiency for greater yield
.
Annu Rev Plant Biol
 
61
:
235
261

Author notes

1

This work was supported by a Colorado Center for Biorefining and Biofuels-Chevron fellowship (to C.E.J.), by the Colorado Agricultural Experiment Station (to J.K.M. and J.E.L.), and by grants from the U.S. Department of Agriculture-Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (grant no. 2008–35504–04852), the Office of Science (Biological and Environmental Research), the U.S. Department of Energy (grant no. DE–FG02–08ER64629), and Colorado State University’s Clean Energy Supercluster.

*

Corresponding author; e-mail [email protected].

The author responsible for distribution of materials integral to the findings presented in this article in accordance with the policy described in the Instructions for Authors (www.plantphysiol.org) is: Jan E. Leach ([email protected]).

[W]

The online version of this article contains Web-only data.

[OA]

Open Access articles can be viewed online without a subscription.

© The Author(s) 2011. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of American Society of Plant Biologists. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Supplementary data