IJPBCS

International Journal of Plant Breeding and Crop Science

Vol. 5(2), pp. 453-462, December, 2018. © www.premierpublishers.org. ISSN: 2167-0449

Research Article

Variations Among Coffee (Coffea arabica L.) Genotypes

for Sensitivity to Drought Induced by Soil Drying at Early
stages of Growth in Ethiopia
Tesfaye Shimber Gessese
Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, P.O. Box 2003, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
E-mail: gessesetesfaye@yahoo.com; Tel: +251 911 945344,

In an attempt to screen Arabica coffee (Coffea arabica L.) genotypes for drought tolerance, an
experiment was carried out at Jima Agricultural Research Center. The experiment was conducted
in a rain shelter using 21 released varieties, two lowland materials and a promising genotype.
Twelve months old seedlings of each of the 24 varieties were subjected to two watering regimes
(water-stress by withholding irrigation and well-watered control) in a randomized complete block
design with three replications. It was observed that there were significant differences among the
cultivars for sensitivity to water deficit stress. Based on mean values of visual scoring and rate
of stress development, cultivar F-59, 7395xF-59, J-19, 7454, 754, 75227 and Geisha were identified
as more sensitive than 7487, 74110xF-59, 741, J-21, 744, 741xF-59, 74158, 77/85, 7395, F-35, 74148
and 74165, while 7440, 74140, 74110, 74112 and 8/85 were found to be relatively tolerant to the
imposed soil drying treatment. Therefore, it was concluded that coffee genotypes could be
grouped in to three categories (sensitive, moderately sensitive and relatively tolerant) based on
preliminary observations and visual assessments. However, this results should further be verified
with some morphological, physiological and biochemical studies both under field and nursery
conditions.

Key words: drought tolerance, leaf shed, recovery rate, stress score, survival rate

INTRODUCTION
Plants are frequently subjected to periods of water deficit
stress, which ultimately leads to reduced growth and
productivity by affecting various physiological and
biochemical processes. However, they have evolved
different strategies to cope with water deficits through
avoidance or postponement of dehydration or stress
tolerance (Turner, 1990; Pugnaire et al., 1999). In line with
this, there exist variations among species or between
genotypes within a species for acquiring different
physiological, morphological and biochemical strategies
for survival and even maintenance of some growth and
physiological processes under stressful conditions
(Kozlowski and Pallardy, 1997; Joshi, 1999). Hence, these
adaptive responses are not universal properties of plants
(Volkmar and Woodbury, 1995) and could be used as
selection criteria during screening genotypes for drought
tolerance (Sanchez et al., 1998; Tesfaye, 2005; Tesfaye
and Ismail, 2008, Tesfaye et al., 2013).
It has been reported that differences in rate of stress
development (leaf folding or degree of wilting) is commonly
used as an important criteria during screening of
genotypes for drought tolerance (Sloane et al., 1990;
Rosario et al., 1992; Lilley and Fukai, 1994).Such a leaf
movement, an adjustment of leaf angle or modification of
leaf orientation to reduce the interception of solar radiation
and, thus, decrease leaf temperature and water loss by
transpiration is regarded as one of the drought avoidance
mechanisms evolved in plants (Ludlow and Muchow,
1990; Pugnaire et al., 1999; Carr, 2001). On the other
hand, lower rate of stress development (less wilting
symptom and gradual leaf rolling or folding) as a result of
maintenance of turgor has been used as an important
criteria during screening genotypes, such as mungbean
(Vigna radiate) accessions (Rosario et al., 1992), soybean
plant introductions (Sloane et al., 1990; Carter and Rufty,
1992) and rice cultivars (Price et al., 1992; Lilley and Fukai,
1994) for drought tolerance. Similarly, stay-green under

Variations Among Coffee (Coffea arabica L.) Genotypes for Sensitivity to Drought Induced by Soil Drying at Early stages of Growth in Ethiopia
Tesfaye 454
water stress conditions have also been used as one of the
traits to select corn varieties for drought tolerance
(Kitbamroong and Chantachume, 1992). In general,
differences among genotypes for the rate of stress
development have been attributed to variations in osmotic
adjustment (OA) in leaves. In line with this, it has been
reported that maintenance of turgor by OA may reduce the
rate of leaf senescence (leaves stay green and delay
wilting) (Sloane et al., 1990; Carter and Rufty, 1992; Joshi,
1999), extend the life time of active tissues and, thus,
decrease abscission of leaves (Pugnaire et al., 1999) and
increase plant survival during water stress periods
(Meinzer et al., 1990; Maestri et al., 1995; Siamak et al.,
2012; Tesfaye, 2018).
Like other crop plants, Arabica coffee is sensitive to water
stress and its growth and yield potential is greatly affected
by seasonal drought (Tesfaye, 2005; Tesfaye et al., 2013;
Robel et al., 2018). Despite its economic importance in the
world market and in the national economy of some
developing countries like Ethiopia, productivity of the crop
is very low primarily because of periodic water deficit
stresses (Rena et al., 1994; Barros et al., 1997; Carr, 2001;
Tesfaye, 2005; Tesfaye et al., 2013). In fact, a number of
authors, including Yacob et al. (1996) and Kassahun et al.
(2008), have reported the existence of a large diversity
among the genotypes of Arabica coffee with regard to yield
potential, disease resistance and adaptation to different
growth conditions in its center of origin, Ethiopia. However,
the variability has not been studied and documented in
relation to drought tolerance. The major objective of this
study was, therefore, to determine differences between
known Arabica coffee cultivars for sensitivity to water
deficit stress based on visual assessment and to identify
those genotypes which could be used in further breeding
program for drought tolerance.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
An experiment was carried out at Jima Agricultural
Research Center (JARC), Ethiopia, with the objective of
preliminary screening of released and pipeline Arabica
coffee (Coffea arabica L.) genotypes for water deficit
stress tolerance based on visual assessment and
identifying those which are relatively tolerant or sensitive
to drought for future breeding program.
Plant Materials
The experiment was carried out in a rain shelter using
seedlings of 21 released Arabica coffee varieties, involving
16 improved selections or cultivars (741; 744; 7440; 7454;
7487; 74110; 74112; 74140; 74148; 74158; 74165; 754;
75227; Geisha; F-59; and F-35), three superior hybrids
(741x F-59; 74110x F-59 and 7395x F-59) and two lowland
materials (8/85 and 77/85) and a promising Arabica
genotype (7395). Two Catimore varieties (J-19 and J-
21(crosses between Arabica and Robusta coffees with
Variations Among Coffee (Coffea arabica L.) Genotypes for Sensitivity to Drought Induced by Soil Drying at Early stages of Growth in Ethiopia
75% Arabica and 25% Robusta genetic makeup)) were
also included in the studyas check materials, because
Robusta coffee is more adaptable to lowland stressful
conditions. Seedlings of the 24 genotypes were raised
from fresh seeds sown in standard polyethylene pots with
two-liter capacity. The pots were filled with a fine top soil
from the upper 10 cm depth of a forest floor. The soil was
well dried and sieved using a 5mm wire mesh prior to filling
in to the pots and sowing the coffee seeds. Both pre- and
post-emergence nursery management practices were
applied as per the recommendationand the seedlings were
maintained under partial shade with frequent watering
(Tesfaye et al., 2006) until they produced eight pairs of true
leaves. Then, they were evaluated and those with uniform
growth performance and healthy appearance were
selected and transferred from standard nursery beds to a
rain shelter. The seedlings were maintained with uniform
management for a month and, thereafter, subjected to
water stress treatments by withholding irrigation.
Treatments and Plot Arrangement
The seedlings of each genotype were subjected to two
watering regimes (water-stressed and well-watered
control). The well-watered plots were irrigated at three-day
intervals to maintain the soil moisture at field capacity,
while the water-stressed plots were devoid of irrigation.
The treatments were applied for three weeks to evaluate
variations among the genotypes for sensitivity to drought
as measured by frequent visual stress scoring and extent
of wilting during the stress period and rate of leaf shed and
survival at the end of the soil drying cycle. A randomized
complete block design with three replications was used for
the experiment. Each replication consisted of 48 plots (24
genotypes by two watering regimes) with 16 seedlings per
plot.
Stress Rating
Sensitivity of coffee genotypes to soil drying was assessed
visually at three-day-intervals after the first wilting
symptom was observed. The degree of leaf folding or
wilting was scored using 1 to 5 scale (Figure 1), with visual
scoring values of 1 indicating all leaves green and turgid,
2: most leaves still turgid except the youngest which show
leaf folding, 3: all leaves wilt and/or show leaf folding
(symptoms of senescence evident), 4: most leaves
(specially the older ones) turning pale green and showing
severe wilting or folding and 5: all leaves turning brown and
dry, mostly drooping (Rosario et al., 1992).
Each plant in a plot was assessed and the plot was given
a mean stress score value. Besides, the ability of plants to
recover during the night time and maintain leaf turgidity
early in the morning on the next day was also considered
in the evaluation. The proportion of plants affected by the
stress was determined by counting those exhibiting wilting
symptoms in each plot. Both seedling count and stress

1 2
Figure 1: Method of stress scoring and the corresponding 1-5 scale score values for visual assessment and screening
Arabica coffee genotypes for drought tolerance in a rain shelter.
rating were carried out at noon hours (between 12:00 and
13:00). Furthermore, days to complete (100%) wilting of
plants in a plot were also recorded for each water-stressed
plot (Tesfaye, 2005).
Rate of Survival and Leaf Shed
When the plants showed a severe wilting symptom (a
mean stress score value above 4.00), each water-stressed
plot was rewatered to determine differences among the
genotypes for rate of survival and extent of leaf fall (leaf
shedding) during the water stress period (21 days). Rate
of survival was determined 15 days after frequent
rewatering of the stressed plots by counting the number of
alive and dead plants per plot, while extent of leaf shedding
was calculated based on the average number of leaves
maintained by plants prior to and at the end of the water
stress treatment (Tesfaye, 2005).
Statistical Analysis
All the measured parameters were analyzed using the
statistical analysis system (SAS) statistical software (SAS
Institute Inc., Version 9.2) (SAS, 2009). Based on the
analysis of variance (ANOVA), statistical significance of
mean differences was determined by least significant
difference (LSD) test at 0.01 and 0.05 probability levels.
Variations Among Coffee (Coffea arabica L.) Genotypes for Sensitivity to Drought Induced by Soil Drying at Early stages of Growth in Ethiopia
Int. J. Plant Breed. Crop Sci. 455
3 4 5
RESULTS
Stress Score
Differences between coffee genotypes were highly
significant (P < 0.01) for sensitivity to water deficit stress,
as estimated by visual scoring of the degree of wilting or
leaf folding at noon hours during the soil drying period. The
extent of wilting was consistently higher (mean score
values of 3.31 - 3.35) in cultivar F- 59, 754, 7454, J-19,
Geisha and 7395xF-59. These cultivars also showed the
first wilting symptom during the stress period. In general,
mean stress score values indicated that cultivar J-19, F-
59, 7395xF-59, 754, 7454, Geisha and 75227 were more
sensitive to soil drying, but the degree of leaf folding
(wilting) was significantly lower (score values of 2.74 -
2.84) in cultivar 7440, 74140, 8/85, 74112 and 74110
(Table 1).
Percent Plants Wilting and Recovery
The proportion of seedlings showing wilting symptom at
noon hours highly significantly (P < 0.01) varied among the
genotypes. It was consistently higher (74 -76%) for cultivar
754 and 7454, but lower (37 - 43%) for 8/85, 74110 and
74112. Cultivar J-19, 754, F-59, Geishaand hybrid
7395xF-59 also exhibited higher rate of wilting (up to
Tesfaye 456

100%) as the water stress progressed. It was observed 74110, followed by 8/85 and 74112 (17 days). Water-
that mean value of extent of wilting was significantly lower stressed plants of the other coffee cultivars showed
in cultivar 8/85, J-21, 74140, 74110 and 74112 (37 - 48%) complete wilting symptoms between 14 and 16 days after
compared to cultivar 7454, J-19, 754, F-35 and F-59 withholding irrigation (Table 4).
(63.02 - 76.04%) (Table 2).
Rate of Survival and Leaf Shed
The proportion of plants recovering during the night time
(stress score value of 1.00 early in the morning) Rate of survival also highly significantly varied among the
significantly (P < 0.05) varied with cultivar specially on day coffee genotypes. It was observed that cultivar Geisha and
six and day 12 after withholding water, and progressively hybrid 741xF-59 exhibited higher survival rate (about
decreased with increasing time of water stress. It was 90%), despite higher values of mean stress score (3.17 -
observed that cultivar 74112 showed higher rate of 3.31)(Table 1) and percent plants wilting during the
recovery (75.59%), while mean rate of recovery during the drought period (61.46 - 62.50%) (Table 2). On the other
night time was significantly lower (27.53 - 34.53%) in 754, hand, the rate of survival was lower for cultivar 7454,
F-59 and 75227 (Table 3). 74110xF-59, 741, 7487, 74158, 74148 and 7395xF-59 (58
- 69%). Similarly, the rate of leaf shed was significantly
There was also a significant (P < 0.05) difference between lower (15 - 41%) for F-35, 74165, 8/85, 74148, 74112,
the cultivars for mean days to complete (100%) wilting 74110 and 74140, but it was higher (86.57 - 91.67%) for
(MDCW). Cultivar F-59, 7454 and 75227 had less MDCW 7395xF-59, F-59 and J-21 (Table 4).
(13 days), but it was significantly greater (18 days) for
Table 1: Mean stress score value for coffee cultivars under well-watered and water-stressed (WS) conditions on different
days from start of treatment application
Days from start of treatment
A. Cultivar
6 9 12 15 18 21 Mean
7395 1.33 bc 2.34 abc 3.02 a 3.21 abc 3.79 a-d 4.64 abc 3.06 a-e
F-59 2.18 ab 2.58 abc 2.88 abc 3.52 ab 3.99 a-d 4.75 ab 3.32 a
744 2.08 ab 2.42 abc 2.73 abc 3.06 bc 3.59 bcd 4.33 b-f 3.04 a-e
75227 2.08 ab 2.59 ab 2.95 ab 3.32 abc 3.91 a-d 4.66 abc 3.25 ab
741 2.09 ab 2.50 abc 2.84 abc 3.26 abc 3.63 a-d 4.43 a-f 3.13 a-e
7454 2.30 a 2.62 ab 3.08 a 3.28 abc 4.04 abc 4.58 a-e 3.32 a
7487 2.15 ab 2.50 abc 2.81 abc 3.36 abc 3.71 a-d 4.59 a-e 3.19 a-d
74158 2.17 ab 2.50 abc 2.76 abc 3.13 bc 3.67 a-d 4.33 b-f 3.09 a-e
74110xF-59 2.25 ab 2.54 abc 2.80 abc 3.17 abc 3.83 a-d 4.56 a-e 3.20 abc
741xF-59 2.16 ab 2.42 abc 2.85 abc 3.20 abc 3.77 a-d 4.61 a-d 3.17 a-d
7395xF-59 2.14 ab 2.56 abc 3.05 a 3.41 ab 4.05 ab 4.83 a 3.34 a
J-19 2.15 ab 2.66 ab 3.07 a 3.46 ab 4.10 a 4.66 abc 3.35 a
J-21 1.33 bc 2.54 abc 2.82 abc 3.37 ab 3.76 a-d 4.69 abc 3.09 a-e
Geisha 2.14 ab 2.47 abc 2.92 ab 3.66 a 3.89 a-d 4.77 ab 3.31 a
74110 1.33 bc 2.18 bc 2.43 c 2.84 c 3.55 cd 4.07 f 2.74 e
8/85 1.00 c 2.17 bc 2.68 abc 3.15 abc 3.53 d 4.05 f 2.76 e
77/85 1.33 bc 2.52 abc 3.05 a 3.44 ab 3.73 a-d 4.50 a-f 3.09 a-e
F-35 2.00 ab 2.31 abc 2.77 abc 3.22 abc 3.64 a-d 4.25 c-f 3.03 a-e
7440 1.00 c 2.18 bc 2.66 abc 3.31 abc 3.62 a-d 4.28 b-f 2.84 cde
74140 1.00 c 2.17 bc 2.51 bc 3.33 abc 3.57 bcd 4.20 c-f 2.80 de
754 2.47 a 2.82 a 3.06 a 3.45 ab 3.74 a-d 4.36 a-f 3.32 a
74165 1.33 bc 2.22 bc 2.86 abc 3.27 abc 3.54 d 4.11 ef 2.89 b-e
74148 2.00 ab 2.29 abc 2.69 abc 3.08 bc 3.64 a-d 4.43 a-f 3.02 a-e
74112 1.00 c 2.00 c 2.60 abc 3.25 abc 3.52 d 4.12 def 2.75 e
B. Watering
WS 1.79 a 2.42 a 2.83 a 3.28 a 3.74 a 4.45 a 3.09 a
WW 1.00 b 1.00 b 1.00 b 1.00 b 1.00 b 1.00 b 1.00 b
AxB ** ** ** ** ** ** **
Means followed by same letters with in a column of a treatment (A or B) are not significantly different at P = 0.05. Note: **
represents highly significant (P < 0.01) interaction between treatments (A and B) and stress intensity (extent of wilting)
was visually scored using 1 to 5 scale as shown in the materials and methods section.

Variations Among Coffee (Coffea arabica L.) Genotypes for Sensitivity to Drought Induced by Soil Drying at Early stages of Growth in Ethiopia
 Int. J. Plant Breed. Crop Sci. 457

Table 2: Mean percent plants wilting (PPW) at noon in coffee cultivars under well-watered (WW) and water stress (WS)
conditions
PPW x Days from start of treatment
A. Cultivar
6 9 12 15 Mean
7395 2.08 ef 33.33 c-f 89.58a-d 93.75 abc 54.69c-g
F-59 20.83 abc 54.17 a-e 81.25a-e 100.00 a 64.06a-e
744 16.67 a-e 47.92 a-f 68.75 b-f 91.67 bc 56.25c-g
75227 14.58 b-f 50.00 a-f 83.33a-e 91.67 bc 59.90b-f
741 10.42 c-f 45.83 a-f 79.17a-e 91.67 bc 56.77c-g
7454 29.08 ab 75.00 ab 95.83 a 95.83 ab 73.94 ab
7487 18.75 a-d 54.17a-e 85.42a-e 91.67 bc 62.50a-f
74158 8.33 c-f 31.25 c-f 70.83 a-f 93.75 bc 51.04d-h
74110xF-59 8.33 c-f 35.42 b-f 87.50a-d 93.75abc 56.25c-g
741xF-59 20.83abc 47.92 a-f 85.42a-e 91.67 bc 61.46a-f
7395xF-59 10.42 c-f 50.00 a-f 91.67abc 100.00 a 63.02a-f
J-19 18.75 a-d 58.33a-d 93.75 ab 100.00 a 67.71abc
J-21 4.17 def 14.58 ef 79.17 a-e 93.75 abc 47.92 fgh
Geisha 12.50 c-f 54.17a-e 83.33 a-e 100.00 a 62.50 a-f
74110 2.08 ef 19.07def 45.83 f 83.33 d 37.50 h
8/85 0.00 f 18.75 def 64.58 def 87.50 cd 42.71 gh
77/85 2.08 ef 45.83 a-f 89.58 a-d 97.92 ab 58.86 b-f
F-35 18.75 a-d 66.67 abc 83.33 a-e 93.75 abc 65.63 a-d
7440 0.00 f 27.08 c-f 81.25 a-e 91.67 bc 50.00 e-h
74140 0.00 f 12.50 f 66.67 c-f 91.67 bc 42.64 gh
754 31.25 a 77.08 a 95.83 a 100.00 a 76.04 a
74165 4.17 def 16.67 ef 81.25 a-e 93.75 abc 48.96 e-h
74148 12.50 c-f 29.17 c-f 77.08 a-e 93.75 abc 53.13 c-g
74112 0.00 f 22.92 def 60.42 ef 87.50 cd 42.71 gh
B. Watering
WS 11.11 a 41.16 a 80.03 a 93.75 a 56.51 a
WW 0.00 b 0.00 b 0.00 b 0.00 b 0.00 b
A*B ** ** ** ** **
Means followed by same letters with in a column of a treatment (A or B) are not significantly different at P = 0.05. Note:
** represents highly significant interaction between treatments (A and B).

Variations Among Coffee (Coffea arabica L.) Genotypes for Sensitivity to Drought Induced by Soil Drying at Early stages of Growth in Ethiopia
Tesfaye 458

Table 3: Mean percent plants recovering (PPR) during the night time in different coffee cultivars under well-watered (WW)
and water stress (WS) conditions
PPR x Days from start of treatment
A. Cultivar
6 9 12 15 Mean
7395 100.00 a 65.83 a 48.98 ab 14.58 a 57.35abc
F-59 73.33 ab 39.32 a 14.86 ab 6.25 a 33.44 bc
744 83.33 ab 48.48 a 37.44ab 18.75 a 47.00 abc
75227 77.78 ab 44.80 a 11.39 b 4.17 a 34.53 bc
741 95.83 a 42.22 a 27.68 ab 6.25 a 43.00 abc
7454 72.22 ab 47.97 a 23.75 ab 10.42 a 38.59 abc
7487 86.11 ab 54.80 a 20.95 ab 10.42 a 43.07 abc
74158 100.00 a 62.50 a 55.00 ab 18.75 a 59.06 abc
74110xF-59 61.11 ab 50.00 a 24.02 ab 18.75 a 38.47 abc
741xF-59 83.81 ab 78.39 a 29.29 ab 10.42 a 50.48 abc
7395xF-59 88.89 ab 50.60 a 9.05 b 2.08 a 37.65 abc
J-19 86.67 ab 38.69 a 23.45 ab 4.17 a 38.24 abc
J-21 83.33 ab 39.96 a 13.46 ab 10.42 a 36.80 abc
Geisha 72.22 ab 50.79 a 18.89 ab 2.08 a 36.00 abc
74110 100.00 a 80.95 a 60.21 ab 35.42 a 69.15 ab
8/85 100.00 a 77.78 a 49.69 ab 33.33 a 65.20 abc
77/85 100.00 a 41.67 a 29.76 ab 4.31 a 43.94 abc
F-35 100.00 a 78.85 a 37.91 ab 22.92 a 59.92 abc
7440 100.00 a 63.89 a 35.02 ab 10.42 a 52.33 abc
74140 100.00 a 66.67 a 62.42 ab 27.08 a 64.04 abc
754 37.22 b 31.90 a 27.29 ab 13.69 a 27.53 c
74165 100.00 a 72.22 a 62.29 ab 22.92 a 64.36 abc
74148 100.00 a 72.22 a 54.40 ab 15.14 a 60.44 abc
74112 100.00 a 100.00a 77.53 a 24.84 a 75.59 a
B. Watering
WS 87.58 b 58.35 b 35.61 b 14.48 b 49.01 b
WW 100.00 a 100.00 a 100.00 a 100.00a 100.00 a
AxB NS * * NS *
Means followed by same letters with in a column of a treatment (A or B) are not significantly different at P = 0.05. Note: *
represents significant and NS non-significant interaction between treatments (A and B).

Overall Sensitivity DISCUSSION

The overall performance of coffee genotypes was
evaluated based on differences in mean stress score,
percent plants wilting at noon and recovering during the
night time, mean days to complete wilting, rate of leaf shed
and rate of survival. Depending on their overall mean rank
positions, sensitivity of genotypes followed the order
7395xF-59 > 7454 > F-59 > J-19 > 75227 > 754 > 7487,
74110xF-59 > 741, Geisha> J-21 > 744 > 741xF-59 >
74158 > 77/85 > 7395 >7440 > F-35 > 74148 > 74140
>74165 > 74110 >74112 > 8/85. However, based on
significant differences for mean stress score value (Table
1), the genotypes were identified in to three categories:
sensitive, moderately sensitive and relatively tolerant to
water stress. Accordingly, cultivar F-59, 7395xF-59, J-19,
7454, 754, 75227 and Geisha were identified as more
sensitive than 7487, 74110xF-59, 741, J-21, 744, 741xF-
59, 74158, 77/85, 7395, F-35, 74148 and 74165, while
7440, 74140, 74110, 74112 and 8/85 were found to be
relatively tolerant to the imposed soil drying treatment.
As observed in this experiment, coffee cultivars
significantly varied for sensitivity to soil drying as evaluated
by their overall rank position for mean stress score value
(Table 1), rate of wilting (Table .2) and diurnal recovery
(Table 3), extent of leaf shedding and survival rate (Table
4). Such differences in mean rate of stress development
(leaf folding or degree of wilting) have also been
reportedfor various crops, including coffee (Tesfaye, 2005;
Robel et al., 2018),and commonly used as important
criterion during screening of genotypes for drought
tolerance (Sloane et al., 1990; Rosario et al., 1992; Lilley
and Fukai, 1994; Tesfaye and Ismail, 2008; Siamak et al.,
2012; Tesfaye et al., 2013).
Among the coffee cultivars, F-59, 7395xF-59, J-19, 7454,
754, Geisha and 75227 showed considerably higher mean
stress score values than did 8/85, 74140, 7440, 74110 and
74112. Similarly, leaf shedding, preceded by severe
folding, gradual change in color (symptom of senescence)

Variations Among Coffee (Coffea arabica L.) Genotypes for Sensitivity to Drought Induced by Soil Drying at Early stages of Growth in Ethiopia
 Int. J. Plant Breed. Crop Sci. 459

Table 4: Mean rate of leaf shed (RLS), rate of survival (RS) and mean days to complete wilting (MDCW) of plants of
different coffee cultivars under well-watered (WW) and water stress (WS) conditions
A. Cultivar RLS (%) RS (%) MDCW
7395 43.35 d-h 73.81 abc 14.00 ab
F-59 89.56 ab 76.98 abc 13.00 b
744 65.05 a-e 76.19 abc 15.00 ab
75227 63.59 a-f 72.22 abc 13.00 b
741 63.00 a-f 66.67 bc 14.00 ab
7454 82.59 a-d 68.26 bc 13.00 b
7487 54.63 a-h 63.49 bc 15.00 ab
74158 48.30 b-h 61.91 bc 15.00 ab
74110xF-59 58.33 a-g 66.67 bc 15.00 ab
741xF-59 54.13 a-h 89.69 a 14.00 ab
7395xF-59 91.67 a 58.73 c 14.00 ab
J-19 56.13 a-h 71.43 abc 14.00 ab
J-21 86.57 abc 73.02 abc 15.00 ab
Geisha 56.19 a-h 90.47 a 14.00 ab
74110 38.13 e-h 80.95 ab 18.00 a
8/85 22.56 fgh 80.95 ab 17.00 ab
77/85 46.71 c-h 80.95 ab 15.00 ab
F-35 15.13 h 79.37 ab 15.00 ab
7440 49.36 b-h 71.43 abc 16.00 ab
74140 41.11 e-h 76.19 abc 16.00 ab
754 49.04 b-h 78.57 ab 15.00 ab
74165 17.68 gh 76.19 abc 16.00 ab
74148 36.70 e-h 69.05 bc 16.00 ab
74112 37.88 e-h 76.19 abc 17.00 ab
B. watering
WS 52.81 a 74.14 b 14.96 a
WW 0.00 b 100.00 a 0.00 b
AxB ** ** **
Means followed by same letters with in a column of a treatment (A or B) are not significantly different at P = 0.05. Note:
** represents highly significant the interaction between treatments (A and B).
and drying of leaves as the stress progresses, was higher 1992), soybean plant introductions (Sloane et al., 1990;
(83% to 92%) for F-59, 7395xF-59, J-21 and 7454, but it Carter and Rufty, 1992) and rice cultivars (Price et al.,
was significantly lower (15% to 41%) for 74110, 74140, 1992; Lilley and Fukai, 1994) for drought tolerance.
74148, 74112, 8/85, 74165 and F-35. Similar results have Similarly, stay-green under water stress conditions has
been reported for different genotypes of both Arabica and also been used as one of the traits to select corn varieties
Robusta coffees, where signs of wilting were first observed (Kitbamroong and Chantachume, 1992) and different
four to five days after irrigation was suspended and coffee genotypes (Tesfaye, 2005; Tesfaye et al., 2013;
became severe as the period of soil drying was prolonged Robel et al., 2018) for drought tolerance.
(Maestri et al., 1995; Tesfaye and Ismail, 2008; Tesfaye et
al., 2013; Robel et al., 2018; Tesfaye, 2018). Leaf rolling In general, differences among genotypes for the rate of
or wilting and leaflet closure during periods of soil moisture stress development have been attributed to variations in
depletion have also been observed in peanut (Adam and osmotic adjustment (OA) in leaves. In line with this, it has
Barakbah, 1990) and rice cultivars (Lilley and Fukai, been reported that maintenance of turgor by OA may
1994). Such a leaf movement, an adjustment of leaf angle reduce the rate of leaf senescence (leaves stay green and
or modification of leaf orientation to reduce the interception delay wilting) (Sloane et al., 1990; Carter and Rufty, 1992;
of solar radiation and, thus, decrease leaf temperature and Joshi, 1999), extend the life time of active tissues and,
water loss by transpiration is regarded as one of the thus, decrease abscission of leaves (Pugnaire et al., 1999)
drought avoidance mechanisms evolved in plants (Ludlow and increase plant survival during water stress periods
and Muchow, 1990; Pugnaire et al., 1999; Carr, 2001). (Meinzer et al., 1990; Maestri et al., 1995; Siamak et al.,
2012; Tesfaye, 2018). The role of OA in water stress
On the other hand, lower rate of stress development (less tolerance has been reported for different crops, including
wilting symptom and gradual leaf rolling or folding) as a wheat (Alam, 1999), grapevines (Patakas et al., 2002),
result of maintenance of turgor has been used as an different fruit tree species (Arndt et al., 2000) and coffee
important criteria during screening genotypes, such as (Meinzer et al., 1990; Maestri et al., 1995; Tesfaye et al.,
mungbean (Vigna radiate) accessions (Rosario et al., 2013; Tesfaye, 2018). Hence, in the present study,
Variations Among Coffee (Coffea arabica L.) Genotypes for Sensitivity to Drought Induced by Soil Drying at Early stages of Growth in Ethiopia
Tesfaye 460
difference between the coffee cultivars for the rate of
wilting, leaf fall and survival under severe water deficit
stress condition might be associated with the ability of
genotypes to maintain their internal water status through
OA.
On the other hand, it has been reported that photo-
oxidative damages to the photosynthetic apparatus due to
severe drought stress may lead to death of cells (Lawlor,
1995; Smirnoff, 1995; Navari-Izzo and Rascio, 1999),
which could be reflected at the whole plant level by the
appearance of chlorotic or necrotic lesions on damaged
leaves (Karpinski et al., 1999) and subsequent leaf
shedding and loss of leaf area especially in more sensitive
genotypes (Smirnoff, 1995; Navari-Izzo and Rascio,
1999). Such a dehydration injury and leaf abscission has
been reported for drought-sensitive isohydric species of
woody angiosperms (Loewenstein and Pallardy, 1998a;
1998b) and Robusta coffee clones (Lima et al., 2002;
Tesfaye et al., 2013, 2015).
In the present study, the degree of leaf folding (wilting) was
significantly lower (score values of 2.74 - 2.84) in cultivar
7440, 74140, 8/85, 74112 and 74110 (Table 1). Some of
these cultivars, such as 74110, 8/85 and 74112, also
exhibited significantly lower rate of leaf shading (Table 4),
which could probably be an indication of tolerance or less
sensitivity to drought stress. In agreement with this finding,
it has been suggested that greater leaf retention capacity
and lower rate of leaf fall may be an important attribute
linked to drought tolerance and may have a positive impact
on crop yield under water stress conditions (Ludlow and
Muchow, 1990; Rosario et al., 1992; Lima et al., 2002).
Besides OA and reduced oxidative stress (Sloane et al.,
1990; Carter and Rufty, 1992; Joshi, 1999), increases in
root:shoot ratio and root volume, and reductions in total
leaf area and specific leaf area (SLA) (Lima et al., 2002;
Tesfaye, 2005; Tesfaye et al., 2013, 2015;Robel et al.,
2018; Tesfaye, 2018) might have also contributed to lower
rate of stress development and leaf shedding and higher
survival rate in some of the coffee cultivars tested in the
present study.
CONCLUSION
In general, it was observed that there were obvious
differences among Arabica coffee cultivars for sensitivity
to water stress. Based on mean values of visual stress
score, extent of leaf fall and rate of survival during the
drought period, overall sensitivity of the genotypes was
ranked in the order 7395xF-59 > 7454 > F-59 > J-19 >
75227 > 754 > 7487, 74110xF-59 > 741, Geisha> J-21 >
744 > 741xF-59 > 74158 > 77/85 > 7395 >7440 > F-35 >
74148 > 74140 >74165 > 74110 >74112 > 8/85.
Accordingly, the cultivars could be grouped in to three
distinct categories as sensitive, moderately sensitive and
relatively tolerant. Hence, based on clear and significant
Variations Among Coffee (Coffea arabica L.) Genotypes for Sensitivity to Drought Induced by Soil Drying at Early stages of Growth in Ethiopia
differences for mean rate of stress development (mean
stress score value), cultivar F-59, 7395xF-59, J-19, 7454,
754, 75227 and Geisha were identified as more sensitive
than 7487, 74110xF-59, 741, J-21, 744, 741xF-59, 74158,
77/85, 7395, F-35, 74148 and 74165, while 7440, 74140,
74110, 74112 and 8/85 were found to be relatively tolerant
to the imposed soil drying treatment. As discussed earlier,
such differences are commonly used in other crop species
for future breeding purposes to develop genotypes for
drought tolerance. Nevertheless responses of the coffee
cultivars to soil drying or drought should further be
investigated with a major focus on morphological
(vegetative growth and dry matter production and
partitioning among shoot and root parts), physiological
(plant water relations, gas exchange and accumulation of
inorganic solutes) and biochemical parameters
(production of osmoregulating organic compounds) to
come up with a more comprehensive conclusion and
recommendations, which could be used in future breeding
and selection program to develop varieties for drier coffee
growing areas of the country.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am thankful to the Jimma Agricultural Research Center
(JARC) for providing me with all the technical and
administrative supports and the Ethiopian Institute of
Agricultural Research (EIAR) for funding my research
work.
REFERENCES
Adam F, Barakbah SS. (1990). Response to Water stress
in Banana, peanut and Rice: A comparative study.
Transactions of Malaysian Soc. Plant Physiol. 1 (1990):
99-104.
Alam SM. (1999). Nutrient Uptake by Plants under Stress
Conditions. In: M.Pessarakli (ed.).Handbook of Plant
and Crop Stress. Second Ed., Revised and Expanded.
Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York. Pp.285-313.
Arndt SK, Wanek W, Clifford SC, Popp M. (2000).
Contrasting adaptations to drought stress in field-grown
Ziziphuns mauritiana and Prunus persica trees: water
relations, osmotic adjustment and carbon isotope
composition. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 27:
985-996.
Barros RS, da Mota SEJW Damatta FM, Maestri M.
(1997). Decline of vegetative growth in Coffea arabica
L. in relation to leaf temperature, water potential and
stomatal conductance. Field Crops Research 54: 65-
72.
Carr MKV. (2001). The Water Relations and Irrigation
Requirements of Coffee. Exp. Agric., 37: 1–36
Carter TE, Rufty TW. (1992). Soybean plant introduction
Exhibiting Drought and Aluminum Tolerance. In: Kuo
CG (Ed.), Adaptation of food crops to temperature and

water stress. Proceedings of an international
symposium, Taiwan, 13-18 August 1992. Asian
Vegetable Research and Development center
(AVRDC), Shanhua, Taiwan. Pp.335-346.
Joshi AK. (1999). Genetic factors affecting abiotic stress
tolerance in crop plants. In Handbook of Plant and Crop
Stress, ed. Pessarakli M., pp 795 – 826. New York:
Marcel Dekker.
Karpinski S, Reynolds H, Karpinska B, Wingsle G,
Creissen G, Mullineaux P. (1999). The role of hydrogen
peroxide and antioxidants in systemic acclimation to
photo-oxidative stress in Arabidopsis. In Plant
Responses to Environmental Stress, ed. Smallwood
MF, Calvert CM, Bowles DJ, pp 25 – 32. Oxford: BIOS
Scientific Publishers.
Kassahun Tesfaye, Tamiru Oljira, Kim Govers, Endashaw
Bekele, Thomas Borsch. (2008). Genetic Diversity and
Population Structure of Wild Coffea arabica
Populations in Ethiopia Using Molecular Markers. In:
Girma A, Bayetta B, Tesfaye S, Endale T, Taye K
(Eds.). Coffee Diversity and Knowledge, Proceedings
of a National Workshop: Four Decades of Coffee
Research and Development in Ethiopia. 14 – 17
August, 2007. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Pp. 35 - 44.
Kitbamroong C, Chantachume Y. (1992). Corn
improvement for Drought Tolerance. In: Kuo CG (Ed.),
Adaptation of food crops to temperature and water
stress. Proceedings of an international symposium.
Taiwan, 13-18 August 1992. Asian Vegetable
Research and Development Center (AVRDC),
Shanhua, Taiwan. Pp.354-359.
Kozlowski TT, Pallardy SG. (1997). Physiology of woody
plants. 2nd Edn. San Diego: Academic Press.
Lawlor DH. (1995). The effects of water deficit on
photosynthesis. In Environment and plant metabolism-
flexibility and acclimation, ed. N. Smirnoff, pp 129 –
156. Oxford: BIOS Scientific Publishers.
Lilley JM, Fukai S. (1994). Effect of timing and severity of
water deficit on four diverse rice cultivars II.
Physiological responses to soil water deficit. Field
Crops Research 37: 215 – 223.
Lima ALS, DaMatta FM, Pinheiro HA, Totola MR, Loureiro
ME. (2002). Photochemical responses and oxidative
stress in two clones of Coffea canephora under water
deficit conditions. Environmental and Experimental
Botany 47: 239-247.
Loewenstein NJ, Pallardy SG. (1998a). Drought tolerance,
xylem sap abscisic acid and stomatal conductance
during soil drying: a comparison of young plants of four
temperate deciduous angiosperms. Tree physiology
18: 421-430.
Loewenstein NJ, Pallardy SG. (1998b). Drought tolerance,
xylem sap abscisic acid and stomatal conductance
during soil drying: a comparison of canopy trees of
three temperate deciduous angiosperms. Tree
Physiology 18: 431-439.
Variations Among Coffee (Coffea arabica L.) Genotypes for Sensitivity to Drought Induced by Soil Drying at Early stages of Growth in Ethiopia
Int. J. Plant Breed. Crop Sci. 461
Ludlow MM, Muchow RC. (1990). A critical evaluation of
traits for improving crop yields in water-limited
environments. Advances in Agronomy 43: 107 – 153
Maestri M, Da Matta FM, Regazzi AJ, Barros RS. (1995).
Accumulation of proline and quaternary ammonium
compounds in mature leaves of water stressed coffee
plants (Coffea Arabica and C. canephora). J. Hort. Sci.
70: 229 – 233
Meinzer FC, Grantz DA, Goldstein G, Saliendra NZ.
(1990). Leaf water relations and maintenance of gas
exchange in coffee cultivars grown in drying soil.
PlantPhysiol. 94: 1781 – 1787.
Navari-Izzo F, Rascio N. (1999). Plant Response to Water-
Deficit Conditions. In Handbook of Plant and Crop
Stress, ed. M. Pessarakli, pp 231-270. New York:
Marcel Dekker.
Patakas A, Radoglou K, Noitsakis B. (2002). The role of
organic solute and ion accumulation in osmotic
adjustment in drought-stressed grapevines. Plant
science 00(2002)1-7 . Accessed June, 2002.
Price M, Jalaluddin Md, Dilday RH. (1992). Evaluation of
Rice Germplasm for Drought Tolerance. In: C.G. Kuo
(Ed.), Adaptation of food crops to temperature
andwater stress. Proceedings of an international
symposium, Taiwan, 13-18 August 1992. Asia
Vegetable Research and Development center
(AVRDC), Shanhua, Taiwan. Pp. 347-353.
Pugnaire FI, Serrano L, Pardos J. (1999). Constraints by
Water Stress on Plant Growth. In Handbook of Plant
and Crop Stress, ed. M.Pessarakli, pp 271-283. New
York: Marcel Dekker.
Rena AB, Barros RS, Maestri M, Sondahl MR. (1994).
Coffee. In Handbook of Environmental Physiology of
Fruit Crops, Vol. 2, Sub-Tropical and Tropical Crops,
ed. B. Schaffer and P.C. Andersen, pp 101 – 122. Boca
Raton, Florida: CRC Press.
Robel Admasu, Tesfaye Shimbir, Minda Tadesse, Addisu
Asefa. (2018). Growth Response of Hararghie Coffee
Accessions to Soil Moisture Stress at Seedling Stage
at Jimma, South West Ethiopia. Journal of Natural
Sciences Research. Vol.8, No.9: 57 - 65.
Rosario DA, Ocampo EM, Sumague AC, Paje MCM.
(1992). Adaptation of vegetable Legumes to drought
stress. In: Kuo CG (Ed.), Adaptation of food crops to
temperature and water stress. Proceedings of an
international symposium, Taiwan, 13-18 August 1992.
Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center
(AVRDC), Shanhua, Taiwan. Pp.360-371.
Sanchez FJ, Manazanares M, de Andres EF, Tenorio JL,
Ayerbe L. (1998). Turgor maintenance, osmotic
adjustment and soluble sugar and proline accumulation
in 49 pea cultivars in response to water stress. Field
Crops Research, 59:225-235.
Sloane RJ, Patterson RP, Carter TEJr. (1990). Field
drought tolerance of a soybean plant introduction. Crop
Sci. 30: 118 – 123.
Smirnoff N. (1995). Antioxidant systems and plant
response to the environment. In Environment and plant
Tesfaye 462
metabolism-flexibility and acclimation, ed. N. Smirnoff,
pp 217 – 243. Oxford: BIOS Scientific Publishers.
Siamak SB, Sariah M, Zakaria W, Sreeramanan S, Maziah
M. (2012). In vitro selection and characterization of
water stress tolerant lines among ethyl
methanesulphonate (EMS) induced variants of banana
(Musa spp., with AAA genome). Australian Journal of
Crop Science, 6(3):567–575.
Tesfaye SG. (2005). Growth, water relations, yield and
crop quality of Arabica coffee in response to water
stress and deficit irrigation. Ph.D. Dissertation,
University Putra Malaysia, Malaysia
Tesfaye S, Alemseged Y, Taye K, Endale T, Anteneh N.
(2006). Coffee seedling management and production
(Handbook, Amharic version). Ethiopian Agricultural
Research Organization, 2006. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
17 p.
Tesfaye S, Ismail MR. (2008). Variability among
indigenous Arabica coffees for drought tolerance under
controlled environment. In: Girma A, Bayetta B,
Tesfaye S, Endale T, Taye K. (Eds.). 2008. Coffee
Diversity and Knowledge. Proceedings of a National
Workshop: Four Decades of Coffee Research and
Development in Ethiopia. 14 – 17 August, 2007. Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia. Pp. 150 - 157.
Tesfaye SG, Ismail MR, Ramlan MF, Marziah M, Kausar
H. (2013). Effect of Soil Drying on Rate of Stress
Development, Leaf Gas Exchange and Proline
Accumulation in Robusta Coffee (Coffea canephora
Pierre Ex Froehner) Clones. Expl Agric. Cambridge
University Press 2013. Pp. 1 – 22.
Tesfaye SG , Ismail MR, Ramlan MF, Marziah M, Kausar
H, Hakim MA. (2015). Effect of water deficiency on
growth and dry matter yield of selected Robusta
coffee (Coffea canephora) clones in Malaysia. Journal
of Environmental Biology. Vol.36, No 5: PP. 1239-1245.
Tesfaye Shimber Gessese. (2018). Some Physiological
Variations Among Coffee (Coffea arabica L.) Genotypes for Sensitivity to Drought Induced by Soil Drying at Early stages of Growth in Ethiopia
Aspects of Drought Tolerance in Selected Arabica
Coffee (Coffea arabica L.) Genotypes as Evaluated by
Early Stage Response to Soil Drying. Inter J. Agri.
Biosci, 7(2): 81-90
Turner NC. (1990). Plant water relations and irrigation
management. Agric. Water Manage. 17: 59 – 73.
Volkmar KM, Woodbury W. (1995). Plant-water
Relationships. In Handbook of plant and crop
physiology, ed. Pessarakli M, pp 23-43. New York:
Marcel Decker, Inc.
Yacob E, Tesfaye SG, Alemseged Y, Taye K, Anteneh N,
Takele N, Mohammed AC, Bogale B. (1996). Advances
in coffee agronomy research in Ethiopia. In: Improving
Coffee Management Systems in Africa. Proceedings of
IACO workshop, 4 – 6 September, 1995, Kampala,
Uganda. The African Crop Science Society. Pp. 40 –
55.
Accepted 4 September 2018
Citation: Tesfaye SG (2018). Variations Among Coffee
(Coffea arabica L.) Genotypes for Sensitivity to Drought
Induced by Soil Drying at Early stages of Growth in
Ethiopia. International Journal of Plant Breeding and Crop
Science 5(2): 453-462.
Copyright: © 2018 Tesfaye. This is an open-access
article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original author and source are cited.