IRRI Rice Seminar Series

Shaobing Peng
Current position: Senior Crop Physiologist
Education and training
1983, B.S. in Agronomy, Huazhong Agriculture University, China
1986, M.S. in Agronomy, University of California, Davis, USA
1990, Ph.D. in Crop Physiology, Texas Tech University, USA
1991, PDF, University of Florida, USA
Work experience
1991-1993, Visiting Scientist, IRRI
1993-1997, Associate Crop Physiologist, IRRI
1997-2001, Crop Physiologist, IRRI
2001-present, Senior Crop Physiologist, IRRI
Career highlights
1996, The CGIAR Science Award for Promising Young Scientist
2004, Fellow, American Society of Agronomy
2005, Fellow, Crop Science Society of America
2005, The CGIAR Science Award for Outstanding Scientific Paper
Editorial Board: Field Crops Res., Crop Sci., and Plant Production Sci.
Two decades of crop physiology
research on irrigated rice at IRRI

Shaobing Peng
International Rice Research Institute

IRRI Thursday Seminar

2 December 2010, Los Baños, Philippines
 Definition of crop physiology

Crop Physiology studies plant processes to

understand the functioning of the plant at
crop level in its interaction with other plants
in the crop and with its environment.

(Paul C. Struik)
 Two faces of crop physiology

One looks towards agronomy

Improving the efficiency of water and fertilizer
management

The other looks towards plant breeding

Identifying and analyzing the processes which
limit the advance in crop yields

(Evans, 1992)
Twin pillars of CGIAR-supported research

Productivity
Plant breeding, crop improvement, yield
potential

Natural resource management

Resource use efficiency, crop management,
cultivation, farming system

(Mission and Objectives of CGIAR, 2004)

Road map: Research areas and objectives

Rice crop
physiology

High yield
and high
resource use
efficiency

Crop/resource Crop
management improvement
 Rice physiology
Photosynthesis, RUE, and leaf senescence
Transpiration and WUE
Nitrogen nutrition and metabolism
Grain filling and plant hormone
Lodging resistance
Crop modeling
QTL mapping of morpho-physiological traits
15 t/ha rice crop in Yunnan province
Climate change (night temperature and UV-B)
Crop and resource management

Real-time nitrogen management

Site-specific nutrient management
Sheath blight/healthy canopy management
AWD x N interaction
Crop establishment (direct seeding)
System of rice intensification (SRI)
Zero tillage and straw management
Control of golden snails
 Crop improvement

New plant type/ideotype

Hybrid rice
Aerobic rice
Grain yield of historical IRRI cultivars
Cold tolerance
Genotypic variation in NUE
Green super rice
 Research highlights
Rice leaf N nutrition and N management

High night temperature: a hidden stress

Yield decline in IR8 and possible causes

Yield stability of aerobic rice

Development of new plant type lines

Rice leaf N nutrition and N management
Chlorophyll meter

Leaf color chart

Effect of leaf thickness on SPAD readings

50
MT r2 = 0.74 MT r2 = 0.54
PI r2 = 0.84 PI r2 = 0.80
FL r2 = 0.58 FL r2 = 0.77
Pool r2 = 0.49 Pool r2 = 0.93
40
Ndw (g kg-1)

30

Pool y = 6.56 + 33.66x

20
20 30 40 50 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
SPAD SPAD/SLW

(Peng et al., 1993, Agron. J.)

 Effect of leaf thickness on LCC readings
8 8 8
PI r2 = 0.25 IRRI PI r2 = 0.39 ZAU UCD
PI+9d r2 = 0.39 PI+9d r2 = 0.46
LCC score

7 FL r2 = 0.76 7 FL
2
r = 0.65 7
Pool r2 = 0.46 Pool r2 = 0.46
6 6 6

5 5 5

4 4 4
PI r2 = 0.50
2
3 3 3 PI+9d r = 0.45
FL r2 = 0.73
2
Pool r = 0.46
2 2 2
20 25 30 35 40 20 25 30 35 40 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
0.17 0.17 0.17
PI
2
r = 0.81 IRRI PI r2 = 0.83 ZAU UCD
2
PI+9d r2 = 0.96 PI+9d r = 0.95
FL
2
r = 0.91 FL r2 = 0.88 0.14
0.14
LCC/SLW

0.14 2
Pool r2 = 0.84 Pool r = 0.89

0.11 0.11 0.11

0.08 0.08 0.08

PI r2 = 0.86
0.05 0.05 0.05 PI+9d r2 = 0.94
FL r2 = 0.93
Pool r2 = 0.88
0.02 0.02 0.02
20 25 30 35 40 20 25 30 35 40 20 25 30 35 40

Ndw (g kg-1)
(Yang et al., 2003, Agron. J.)
Changes in single leaf traits during crop growth
60
S L W (g m -2 )
55 SPAD
N d w (g k g - 1 )
50

45

40

35
Single leaf traits

30

25

20
10 20 30 40 50 60 70

2 .4
N a (g m -2 )
2 .0

1 .6

1 .2

0 .8
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
D a y s a fte r tr a n s p la n tin g

(Peng et al., 1996, FCR)

Fix-time N management using Kjeldahl N (%)
Growth stage Critical Adequate
value range
Midtillering 3.0 3.0-4.0
Maximum tillering 2.6 2.8-3.6
Panicle initiation 2.4 2.6-3.2
Leaf N %

(Mikkelsen, 1971)

Mid T
Max T

Flowering
PI
15 DAT

Days after transplanting (DAT)

Multiple Kjeldahl N% threshold values are needed for timing N

topdressing for a given cultivar.
Real-time N management using SPAD or LCC

Leaf N status

SPAD = 35 or LCC = 3.2

Na = 1.4 g m-2

Flowering
15 DAT

Days after transplanting (DAT)

A single SPAD or LCC value could be used as a threshold for

timing N topdressing for a given cultivar.
The site-specific nitrogen management approach

Climate Feed the plant need!

Crop need for
nitrogen

Indigenous N
nitrogen supply
Manure Inorganic
Irrigation water Crop residues fertilizer
Soil

(R.J. Buresh)
Determining N rate at each growth stage
Growth stage DAT % split N rate If SPAD
N appl. 1 Pre-plant 0 35% 50
N appl. 2 Midtillering 15-20 20% 30 ± 10 *
N appl. 3 PI 35-40 30% 40 ± 10 **
N appl. 4 Heading 55-65 15% (20) ***
Total 100% 100-160
* If SPAD > 36, apply 20 kg/ha; between 34 and 36, apply 30 kg/ha;
< 34, apply 40 kg/ha.
** If SPAD > 36, apply 30 kg/ha; between 34 and 36, apply 40 kg/ha;
< 34, apply 50 kg/ha.
*** In favorable season and If SPAD < 36, apply 20 kg/ha.
(Witt and Dobermann, 1996)
 IRRI-China collaboration on SSNM

Heilongjiang

Liaoning 2005
2008

2003
Jiangsu
Hubei
Zhejiang 1997
Hunan

Guangdong
2001
These seven provinces occupy 50% of rice planting
area in China
Research, demonstration, and
extension continuum
On-farm
field trials

On-farm Participatory
demonstration farmer
research

Large-scale
extension
 Key research findings
Relatively high indigenous N supply capacity compared
with other major rice-growing countries.
Yield response to N-fertilizer application is low (around
1.5 t/ha).
Most rice farmers apply excess N-fertilizer, especially at
early vegetative stage.
Yield reduction is often observed under excessive N
input due to great pest damage and lodging.
Improved N management such as SSNM increases both
grain yield and NUE.
Improved N management did not cause yield reduction
in subsequent rice crops.
(Peng et al., 2010, ASD)
SSNM technology has been officially evaluated
by an expert panel in China on June 25, 2005

On average, the fertilizer

for SSNM was 20-30%
lower than that of FFP.
Grain yield of SSNM was
5-8% greater than FFP.
High night temperature: a hidden stress
Annual mean temperature, 1979-2009, IRRI
32.0 25.0
2
y = 7.5 + 0.012x (r = 0.13) y = -61.8 + 0.043x (r2 = 0.74)
P > 0.05 P < 0.01
Maximum temperature (C)

Minimum temperature (C)

31.5 24.5

31.0 24.0

30.5 23.5

30.0 23.0

29.5 22.5

0.37ºC increase in 31 years 1.33ºC increase in 31 years

29.0 22.0
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Year Year

(IRRI Climate Unit)

Dry season temperature, 1979-2010, IRRI
32.0 24.5
y = 16.5 + 0.0068x (r2 = 0.01) y = -78.5 + 0.0507x (r2 = 0.55)
31.5 P > 0.05 24.0 P < 0.01
Maximum temperature (C)

Minimum temperature (C)

31.0 23.5

30.5 23.0

30.0 22.5

29.5 22.0

29.0 21.5

28.5 21.0

Dry season = Jan. - April 1.62ºC increase in 32 years

28.0 20.5
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Year Year

(IRRI Climate Unit)

Relationship between grain yield and climate
1992-2010 dry season, IRRI
10.0
2 2
y = -436.7 + 40.11x - 0.902x2 (r2 = 0.73) y = -9.4 + 1.71x - 0.0397x (r = 0.30)
Grain yield (tons ha )
-1

9.5

9.0

8.5

8.0

7.5

7.0

6.5
29.0 29.5 30.0 30.5 31.0 31.5 32.0 22.0 22.5 23.0 23.5 24.0 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Maximum temperature (C) Minimum temperature (C) Radiation (MJ m-2 day-1)

Update on Peng et al. 2004 (PNAS) with data from 7 more years
 Relationship between biomass and climate
1992-2010 dry season, IRRI
Aboveground biomass (g m )
-2

1900
y = 4691 - 131.5x (r2 = 0.76) y = -1511 + 323.8x - 8.108x2 (r2 = 0.26)
1850

1800

1750

1700

1650

1600

1550

1500
29.0 29.5 30.0 30.5 31.0 31.5 32.0 22.0 22.5 23.0 23.5 24.0 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Maximum temperature (C) Minimum temperature (C) Radiation (MJ m-2 day-1)

Update on Peng et al. 2004 (PNAS) with data from 7 more years

Biomass declined by about 10% for each one-degree

increase in growing-season minimum temperature
Critical night temperature and radiation for
grain yield, 1992-2006 dry season, IRRI
22 9.03
9.37 9.30
1998
1993 1997
21 9.31
Radiation (MJ m-2 d-1)

9.07
9.30 2003
7.72
20 1995
2004

9.58 9.55 9.11

19 1992 2002 1994
7.78
9.00 7.06
1996 2000
18
8.86 8.05
8.28
17
8.71
2005
1999
•
2006
7.77
2001

16
22.0 22.5 23.0 23.5 24.0
Minimum temperature
Yield decline in the last three dry seasons at IRRI
(A report sent on August 14, 2001)
Dry Season - IRRI Farm Dry Season - IRRI Farm
11
23 24.0
A
A B
22
10 IR72

Minimum temperature (C)

Grain yield (t ha )

9.6

Radiation (MJ m-2 day-1)

-1

9.4 23.5
21
9.1 9.1 9.0 9.0
9
20
8.4
8.1 23.0
8 7.8 19

7.1 18
7 22.5

17

6
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 16 22.0
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
Year Year Year
11 32.0 500
10.7
B 10.3 C D
9.9 31.5
10 Best entry
Maximum temperature (C)
9.7 400
Grain yield (t ha )

9.6
-1

9.3
9.0 31.0

Rainfall (mm)
IR65469-161-2-2-3-2-2

9 300
IR68284H
IR59682-132-1-1-2

IR68284H
IR60819-34-2-1

8.3 8.3 30.5

8
IR72

7.8 200
IR72

30.0
IR71622H
IR68284H

IR72

7 100
29.5

6
29.0 0
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
Year Year Year
(August 14, 2001)
Wet-season rice of nine major rice-growing states in
India as affected by Oct-Nov minimum temperature

Predominantly rainfed rice

Partial regression coefficient = -0.87

Most important factor: June-Sept rainfall (Auffhammer et al., 2006, PNAS)

Night temperature beyond 22°C reduces rice yield
Weekly transplanting 6 June – 24 August 2005
1.0

0.8
Grain yield (kg m-2)

0.6

0.4

0.2 Y=-0.049X2 + 2.418X – 29.22

R2=0.87

0.0
12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28

Minimum night temperature (oC)

Exp. Farm, IARI, New Delhi, India

(Nagarajan et al., 2010, AEE)
Impacts of temperature and radiation on yield
(Based on 227 farmer-managed fields from 6 countries)

(Welch et al., 2010, PNAS)

Wheat yield in Mexico as affected by climate

15-year historical data set (1988-2002) from two major wheat growing areas
Climatic parameters were averaged during January-April
Roughly 10% yield reduction for every 1˚C increase in Tmin
(Lobell et al., 2005, FCR)
Field chamber to night temperature study
Chamber experiment in the field, IRRI, 2007WS
Treat. Total DW Spikelets m-2 Grain yield
(g m-2) (x1000) (t ha-1)
IR72 IR8 IR72 IR8 IR72 IR8

Low T 1002 1124 26.9 20.5 5.12 4.64

High T 959 988 25.6 18.9 4.79 3.45

Ambient 1199 1317 31.8 23.4 5.67 4.73

Diff. (%) 5 14 5 8 7 35

IR8 was more sensitive to high night temperature than IR72

Varieties with tolerance to high night temperature
IRRI, 2009WS

N22 BRRI dhan29

Sensitive varieties
OM2517 IR62 had reduced sink
size and grain
filling percentage
Cigeulis MTU1010
under warm nights
IR22

Night temperature treatment: 43-114 DAT with 4.9 °C increase

Yield decline in IR8 and possible causes
Yield potential of inbreds stagnated at 10 t/ha
11

IR65469-161-2-2-3-2-2
10
IR72
Grain yield (t/ha)

IR50
IR59682-132-1-1-2
9 IR36
IR64
IR30 IR60

IR20
8
BPI76
IR26

IR8
7 y = -139 + 0.075x
r 2 = 0.73

6
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Year of release
(Peng et al., 2000, Crop Sci.)
Grain yield of IR8 grown in the late 60s and 1998
10

9 (1998 dry season)

(De Datta et al. 1968) IR72
IR8
Grain yield (t ha-1)
8

IR8
6 (1998 dry season)

3
0 50 100 150 200

N rate (kg ha-1)

(Peng et al., 1999, Crop Sci.)
Grain yield of IR8 and best cultivar in 1996-99

Cultivar 1996 DS 1997 DS 1998 DS 1999 DS

Best 9.9 a 9.7 a 9.1 a 8.1 a

IR8 8.4 b 8.7 a 7.2 b 7.9 a
Yield potential 10.0 10.2 9.5 8.3
IR8 seeds harvested in the dry
seasons of 1968 and 1998

IR8(GB) IR8(C)
 IR8(GB) IR8(C)
IR8(GB) IR8(C)

Nitrogen Response of IR8 Harvested in 1968 and 1998

Dry Season 2000, IRRI
9

Col 6 vs Col 7
8 Col 6 vs Col 10

Grain yield (t ha-1)

7

IR8(GB) IR8(C) 5

3
0 50 100 150 200
-1
N input (kg ha )
Grain yields of IR8 seeds from two sources

Cultivar 2000 DS 2001 DS 2002 DS 2003 DS

Best 8.1 a 7.8 a 9.6 a 10.2 a

IR8(GB) 8.1 a 7.6 a 8.4 b 8.7 b
IR8(C) 8.0 a 7.5 a 7.9 b 8.5 b
Yield potential 8.3 7.9 10.0 10.4
(Peng et al., 2010, FCR)
 Simple sequence repeat (SSR) analysis

Lanes 2-14 for RM151, among them, lanes 2-5 are IR8(GB), lanes 6-14 are IR8(C), lane 12 is
variant; Lanes 15-25 for RM320, among them, lanes 15-18 are IR8(GB), lanes 19-25 are
IR8(C), lanes 24 and 25 are variants; Lanes 26-35 for RM333, among them, lanes 26-29 are
IR8(GB), lanes 30-35 are IR8(C), lanes 30 and 35 are variants.

SSR detected variation in 12% of IR8(C) seedlings

and none in IR8(GB). Among the 12 used markers,
SSR detected variation marked by RM151, RM320,
and RM333
IR8 with and without SSR variation
IR8(C) IR8(C)
IR8(GB) with SSR without SSR
variation variation
 Leaf photosynthetic rate of IR8 from
difference sources
Seed Mid- Panicle Heading
source tillering initiation
(µmol CO2 m-2 s-1)
IR8(GB) 34.4 24.1 22.6
IR8(C) 34.5 22.8 21.8
IR8(C) with 35.0 23.8 21.2
SSR variation
Also no difference in plant height, panicle size, grain filling %, seed
weight, TDW, HI and grain yield.
Why did the grain yield of IR8 decrease?

× Biotic stresses (changes in biotypes of diseases

and insects)

 Abiotic stresses (changes in climate such as

nighttime temperature and in soil quality)

× Genetic changes in seeds (mutation)

 Implications of this study

Importance of “maintenance breeding”

Tolerance to abiotic stress also contribute to
“maintenance breeding”
Climate change may erode genetic gain in crop
improvement
Variety deterioration may not exist
Yield stability of aerobic rice
A medium-term experiment on aerobic rice
Yield difference between aerobic and flooded rice
8.5 80 8.5 80

Dry season Wet season Aerobic

Flooded
Difference
70 70

7.0 7.0

60 60

Difference (%)

Difference (%)
5.5 5.5
Yield (t/ha)

Yield (t/ha)
50 50

40 40
4.0 4.0

30 30

2.5 2.5

20 20

1.0 10 1.0 10
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year Year

Cultivar = Apo with N application

Biomass of flooded and aerobic rice in dry seasons
1800 1800
Aerobic
1500 Flooded 1500

1200 1200

900 900

600 600
Total biomass (g m-2)

300 300
2001DS 2003DS
0 0
10 25 40 55 70 85 100 115 10 25 40 55 70 85 100 115
1800 1800

1500 1500

1200 1200

900 900

600 600

300 300
2002DS 2004DS
0 0
10 25 40 55 70 85 100 115 10 25 40 55 70 85 100 115

Days after transplanting

Cultivar = Apo with N application

 1st aerobic rice

7th aerobic rice

Fallow Flooded rice

2004 DS
 1st aerobic rice

7th aerobic rice

Fallow Flooded rice

2004 DS
 1st Season 7th Season
Aerobic Rice Aerobic Rice

2004 DS
Yield decline of continuous aerobic rice
2004 dry season
Treatment 1st season 7th season Difference
+N 6.32 3.77 51%
-N 4.02 2.72 39%
Cultivar = Apo
(Peng et al., 2006, FCR)
Effect of oven heating on plant growth
in aerobic and flooded soils

Aerobic Flooded Flooded Aerobic

Oven heat Oven heat Zero input Zero input

Cultivar = Apo without fertilizer (11th-season aerobic soil)

Plant response to N sources supplied to
the untreated 11th-season aerobic soil

Oven heat Untreated

(NH4)2SO4 CO(NH2)2 NH4Cl NH4NO3 KNO3
Zero input Zero input

N rate = 1.2 g N Cultivar = Apo

(Nie et al., 2008, FCR)
Possible cause of yield decline in
continuous aerobic rice

N deficiency

N availability N uptake ability

Soil properties NH3 toxicity Nematode

Development of new plant type lines
 Development of new plant type at IRRI
1989 Identification of donors
1990 DS Hybridization
1990 WS F1 were grown
1991 DS F2 were grown
Dr. G.S. Khush
1991 WS Pedigree nursery IR65598-112-2

1994 DS First agronomic trial

Pros and cons of new plant type lines
Increased sink size
Improved lodging resistance
Reduced unproductive tillers

Poor grain filling

Low biomass production
Less compensation ability
Susceptible to diseases and insects
Difficult to thresh/poor germination
Poor grain quality
(Peng et al., 2008, FCR)
 Impact of IRRI’s NPT breeding
A few NPT lines have been released in Indonesia,
China, and Philippines.
IRRI NPT lines have been distributed through INGER
to more than 90 countries for evaluation.

Breeders in NARES have used NPT lines as parents

in their breeding program.

Stimulated by IRRI’s NPT work, China established a

nationwide mega project on the development of
“super” rice in 1996.
Is it possible to increase rice yield
potential by 15% in the tropics?
Panicle number per m2 = 275
Spikelets per panicle = 175
Grain filling percentage = 80%
1000-grain weight = 27 g

Grain yield = 275 x 175 x 0.8 x 27 = 1,039.5 g/m2

Grain yield = 1,039.5 / 0.9 / 100 = 11.55 t/ha
 Is it possible to increase rice yield
potential by 15% in the tropics?
Mean daily radiation = 18 MJ/m2
Crop growth duration in main field = 110 days
Mean light interception = 70%
Radiation use efficiency = 1.5 g/MJ
Harvest index = 50%

Grain yield = 18 x 110 x 0.7 x 1.5 x 0.5 = 1,039.5 g/m2

Grain yield = 1,039.5 / 0.9 / 100 = 11.55 t/ha
 New strategies
Follow Chinese experience in donor selection and
utilization of heterosis.
Emphasize more on the top three leaves and the
position of panicle within canopy.
Use multiple traits instead of single trait. Consider
compensation among various traits.
Impose selection pressure in early generations.
Develop measurable indicators to use in selection.
Expand and standardize multi-location yield trials.
Proposed plant traits for improvement
Early vigor, moderate tillering capacity, and thin
leaves at vegetative stages.
Taller plants, lower panicle height, thicker and
stronger stems.
Erect, thick, dark green, and V-shaped leaves, high
LAI, and delayed leaf senescence in late stages.
Large and compact panicles, heavy grain weight,
long grain filling duration.
Group I: Important and easy to measure
No. Trait Value
1 Panicles per m2 250-300
2 Spikelets per panicle 150-200
3 Spikelets per m2 45,000-55,000
4 Grain filling percentage >80%
5 Grain weight (oven dry) 26-28 mg
6 Panicle weight (oven dry) 4-5 g
7 Plant height 115-125 cm
8 Panicle height 60-70 cm
9 Crop growth duration 120-130 days
10 Stem thickness (4th internode) 6-8 mm
11 Light interception (seasonal mean) >70%
Group II: Important and not easy to measure
No. Trait Value
1 Total biomass (oven dry) >21 t/ha
2 Crop growth rate (seasonal mean) >19 g/m2/d
3 Leaf area index (maximum) 7-10
4 Leaf senescence (based on SPAD)* >80%
5 Leaf N concentration at flowering 2.5-3.0%
6 Radiation use efficiency >1.5 g/MJ
7 Harvest index >50%
8 Translocation efficiency* 20-30%
9 Grain filling duration (crop-based) 35-40 days
10 Lodging index* <100
11 Total N uptake 200-250 kg/ha
 SPAD at 21 d after flowering
Leaf senescence = 100 x
SPAD at flowering

Yield – (DWMA - DWFL)

Translocation efficiency = 100 x
Yield

Bending moment
Lodging index = 100 x
Breaking resistance
Group III: Less important and easy to measure
No. Trait Value
1 Leaf number 15-17
2 Leaf length at flowering (top 3) 45-50-50 cm
3 Leaf width at flowering 1.5-1.8 cm
4 Leaf shape at flowering 120-150°
5 Leaf erectness at flowering (top 3) 5-10-20°
6 Panicle length 26-30 cm
7 Number of primary branches 12-15
8 Number of secondary branches 22-30
9 Number of elongated internodes 5
10 Days to flowering 80-90 days
Group IV: Less important and not easy to measure
No. Trait Value
1 Leaf thickness (SLW at flowering) 55-60 g/m2
2 Maximum tiller number per m2 500-600
3 Productive tiller percentage 50-60%
4 Spikelets/panicle length (cm) 6-8
5 Spikelets on primary branches 60-80
6 Spikelets on secondary branches 90-120
7 High density grains >70%
8 Grain filling rate (maximum) >2.5 mg/day
9 Number of large vascular bundle 22-25
10 Early vigor (at 14 DAT) >1.5 tillers/plt
 Secondary plant traits

Secondary branches
= 2.0
Primary branches

Spikelets on primary branches

= 0.4
Total spikelets

Large vascular bundles

= 1.8
Primary branches
Lessons from “super” rice varieties
Poor nitrogen-fertilizer use efficiency because of its
tolerance to high nitrogen application.
Reduced early vigor as reflected by low rate of tiller and
leaf area production during early vegetative stage.
Poor compensatory ability to disease and insect damage
due to low tillering capacity.
Intensive crop management is required to demonstrate
yield advantage.
Scientific issues for increasing yield potential
How much room is left in plant type improvement for
achieving greater yield potential?

How much gain in yield potential is possible by delayed

leaf senescence and extended grain filling duration?

Which one is more limiting, source or sink? How to

quantify sink strength?

Can improvement in RUE through high photosynthetic

rate contribute to high yield potential?

What are the real impact of advanced molecular tech-

nology on breeding varieties with high yield potential?
Do we have a better chance this time?

Better understanding of high-yielding plant

traits and some successes in ideotype
breeding
Wide range of germplasm with target traits
become available as donor parents.
All target plant traits are quantifiable and
measurable.
Multi-location yield trials will be expanded
and standardized.
Better funding situation and more efforts of
breeding work.
 Regrets…
Good understanding on N nutrition but weak in carbon
assimilation and metabolism.
Focused on whole-plant physiology but had limited use
of molecular biology approaches.
Focused more in east Asia but had limited contribution
to south and southeast Asia.
Emphasized on favorable ecosystems but neglected
fragile ecosystems.
Not successful in the application of large project funds
such as climate change.
Never achieve grain yield over 11 t/ha at IRRI farm.
Future course of crop physiology research
on irrigated rice at IRRI
Continue to work with breeders in identifying plant type
traits that increase rice yield potential.
Study biological and genetic control of physiological
traits that determine the process of yield formation.
Establish high throughput and precision phenotyping
system for both field and lab studies.
Understand the mechanism of varietal adaptation to
climate change.
Explore strategies in increasing wet-season rice yield
with focus on shading tolerance.
Increase RUE by improving photosynthesis at canopy
and single-leaf levels and by suppressing respiration.
Some numbers to remember:

38 rice growing seasons

169 field experiments

6,995 days with IRRI …

 Director
General

Klaus George Robert Ronald Robert

Lampe Rothschild Havener Cantrell Zeigler

Deputy Director
General
(Research)

Kenneth Mohabub Ren To Phuc Achim

Fischer Hossain Wang Tuong Dobermann

Division
Head

Kenneth James Osamu To Phuc Bas

Cassman Hill Ito Tuong Bouman
 Collaborating IRRI scientists
CESD division PBGB division
K.G. Cassman G.S. Khush
R.J. Buresh S.S. Virmani
A. Dobermann P. Virk
B.S. Vergara F. Xie
B.A.M. Bouman J. Bennett
A. Ismail …
J.K. Ladha
J.E. Sheehy
C. Witt
…
 Crop Physiology Staff

Shaobing Peng Romeo Visperas Ma. Rebecca Laza Bermenito Punzalan Pauline Jasmin Jacinta Evangelista

Anicio Macahia Onofre Mendoza Maximo Pelagio Eduardo Tandang Siena Calibo

Rowena Noblejas Joel Evangelista Jenelyn Borgonia Yunbo Zhang Wanju Shi
 Former staff members
Alfredo "Fred" Bernardo Emma Fabian

Jovencita "Joven" Biker Felipe V. Garcia

Arlene Chavez Gaundencio "Toti" Indico

Florencio "Bindoy" Canobas Ramon Masajo

Ernesto "Ernie" Cuenca Efren Manimtim

Jenny Dagdag Arnel Sanico

Rodolfo "Rudy" delos Reyes Eduardo "Dodong" Suplac

Venus “Bing” Elec Nicanor "Nick" Turingan

Nelzo Ereful
 Thank you!

Crop Physiology and Production Center (CPPC)

College of Plant Science and Technology
Huazhong Agricultural University
Wuhan, Hubei 430070