Dear Kristina,

In soybean, we just use "lodging" in the literature. If I had to choose between the two that you are asking, it would definitely be "lodging resistance".

Hope this helps.

Kind regards,

Istvan Rajcan

University of Guelph

When I think of lodging resistance, I expect to see plants that do not lodge.

When I think of lodging tolerance, I expect to see plants that have lodged, but somehow still produce a harvestable yield.

It is common in plant pathology to use the term disease resistance. It always comes with a score. So, if one uses a scale from 1 to 10 with one being highly resistant and anything below 5 being susceptible, it allows for a comparison. The plants do not have to be all scored as 1 to carry an advantage by being completely resistant.  Resistance is not black and white. Complete resistance is referred to as immunity. If I were a farmer, I would plant a variety that has a disease score of 2 more readily than one that has a score of 9. So, it is not the case of just full resistance vs. fully susceptible or full lodging vs. no lodging at all.

Most soybean breeders use a lodging score scale from 1 to 5 with 1 being upright and 5 being prostrate as has been well documented in the literature. The same principle applies there. I would pick a variety that has a lodging score of 1.5 over the one with 4.5 at any time. To avoid the confusion, we just say 'lodging score'  (or simply 'lodging') and leave it to people to interpret it as resistance or tolerance as they please. It's just a parameter for agronomic performance in our case.

Tolerance implies the crop can tolerate lodging, that is, despite lodging it can more or less maintain yield.  Not necessarily true.

Resistance means it resists lodging so in case it did lodge there is no guarantee of yield compensation from the (lodged and) remaining plants.

Susceptible or resistant are more appropriate terms.

In industry, a scoring system is used to rank the traits, let us say, on a 1-10 scale, where 1 is the worst and 10 is the best.  A variety with a score of, let us say, 3 will lodge readily upon experiencing abiotic or biotic stresses and the one with a score of 9 would almost never lodge. 

The attached files contain some relevant information that you might find useful.

Lodging resistance is appropriate word and widely used in literature.

Thank you for the very informative answers and debate. Exactly because of the annology I asked what is more suitable as resistance/susceptibility is prefered for biotic stress and tolerance for abiotic...

Therefore lodging index / score seems the least confusing as it indeed describes "only" a parameter of agronomic performance . 

Lodging tolerance is more appropriate with large domain!

lodging scoring is usually associated with cereals. and I think the score ranging  from 1 to 5 is more appropriate. and lodging is scored usually after the anthesis and till maturity in cereals. it could be used with term resistance or tolerance, with resistance means there is no lodging at all, ie no plant is affected, however, with tolerance means that some of the plants have been affected adversely and others are not.

Not sure there is any basis for use of tolerance per Dr. Dhugga's answer above.  Many biotic and abiotic stresses can induce lodging, wind, snow, rain or disease, insect or plant population. If you want to discuss wind tolerance as measured by lodging  score following a wind event that might work.  If you do not know the combination of factors leading to lodging I would stick to resistance. 

The two terminologies denote different level of selection pressure and can be used depending on your selection objectives and the genetics behind the traits you are selecting for. For example, in case of simply inherited traits that are controlled by few major genes- 'resistance' would be more practical (i.e., where you can recover completely resistant types) and for those traits with complex genetics (i.e., where completely resistant types are very rare or practically non-existent or difficult to recover) tolerance terminology is more appropriate. There is no universal rule for using these two terminologies. In plant diseases both are used, sometimes interchangeably. For lodging scores, I prefer 'resistance' (wheat). But again, it depends on the severity of stress you are scoring against.   

Lodging tolerance seems more appropriate in plants.

Lodging tolerance seems more appropriate term

The term lodging resistance is more appropriate if You are talking about  trait of plant grown in different environment and under different scientific farming measures. The erected stem of plant conected to anatomical, morfological and physiological traits colntrolled by genes.  

Lodging tolerance is more appropriate since this trait is quantitative and accumulative .

The lodging tolerance is not appropriate if we talking about erect stem of plant, while lodging resistance is appropriate as a results of interaction erect plant with environmental factor. Also, lodging resistance we can accept because, different stel cell, tissue of stem, and stem as organs is material wich resistance to lodging...etc...

I would like to have (root or stalk-stem as stiff stalk) resistant plant for easy harvest.

However, I can have salt or herbicide or drought (dry period) tolerant plant since it can grow and yield.

Dear Kristina,

You did not write for what purpose you need it (something about the type of plants and experiment). It is way, why the debate is thus a broad and fruitful.

The term tolerance is usually used as reaction to growing regime, effect to biotic and abiotic properties of environment. Resistance is "a type of tolerance", usually associated only with plants/animals invading by pathogen (fungus, a virus ....). This is the successful body response against a disease or a decrease of the disease (e.g. upright growth). The both are opposites of the lodging susceptibility. In some cases (mostly about animal) it can talk about immunity.

Shoot lodging is connected with various diseases and with light, nitrogen level and irradiation. Shoot lodging is more often research when plants are attacked by diseases. It is way, why lodging resistance is more frequent in the literature than lodging tolerance.

In general, the term lodging tolerance is broader than the term lodging resistance.

You do not do a mistake, if you use lodging tolerance. It depends on the type of experiment and research.

I thank you for your interesting question.

Best regard, Bozena

The term lodging resistance is more appropriate if You are talking about  trait of plant grown in different environment and under different scientific farming measures. At the genotypes which characterized lodging resistance, sometimes the lodging can be caused, in high density of crops, by enormous Nitrogen nutrition, water supply. The erected stem of plant conected to anatomical, morfological and physiological traits colntrolled by genes.

Since this trait is a quantitative and accumulative, the term tolerant is more common and suitable.

I have been working on white oats with emphasis on morphological, chemical, anatomical characteristics regarding lodging resistance

I find the term "resistance" in the vast majority of articles ...

Just say "reaction to stem or root lodging in percentage related to stiff stalk or root penetration".