Abstract
Understanding the mechanisms of physiological response in plants is crucial to building sustainable agriculture, especially under the current worldwide climate and environmental crises. Thus, plants that successfully acclimate to stress can decrease growth under stressful conditions. Brachypodium, an undomesticated grass species with close evolutionary relationships to wheat and barley, is a promising model organism of crop research. It can grow under various conditions and possess specific adaptations or tolerance mechanisms. Hence, it promises to greatly accelerate the process of gene discovery in the grasses and to serve as bridges in the exploration of panicoid and pooid grasses, arguably two of the most important clades of plants from a food security perspective. Brachypodium could hence efficaciously acclimate to the drought, salinity, cold, heat, and nutrient stress variations by reversible hypo (hyper)-activation of specific genes or sustaining transcription states as well as by reducing growth and osmotic adjustment. Nonetheless, B. stacei and B. hybridum have more plasticity and more adaptiveness than B. distachyon to abiotic stress. This review will describe advancements in knowledge of the physiological and metabolic adjustments that are needed for abiotic stress tolerance.
Reference31 articles.
1. FAO. The State of Food and Agriculture. Climate change, agriculture and food security, Italy; 2016. Available from: https://www.fao.org/publications/sofa/sofa2016
2. United Nations New York, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. World Population Prospects 2019; 2019. Available from: https://population.un.org/wpp/Publications/Files/WPP2019_Highlights.pdf
3. FAO. L’état de l’insécurité alimentaire dans le monde, Rome; 2009. Available from: https://www.fao.org/3/i0876f/i0876f.pdf
4. FAO. 2011. FAOSTAT Online Database. Available from: http://faostat.fao.org/. [Accessed December 2011]
5. Verelst B. Managing inequality: The political ecology of a small-scale fishery, Mweru Luapula, Zambia. Journal of Political Ecology. 2013;20:14-36