تأثیر سطوح مختلف خشکی در برخی صفات مورفولوژیک و فیزیولوژیک به‌منظور انتخاب متحمل‌ترین پایه انگور

نوع مقاله : پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی سابق کارشناسی ارشد فیزیولوژی و اصلاح درختان میوه دانشگاه تهران، کرج، ایران

2 استاد گروه مهندسی علوم باغبانی و فضای سبز، پردیس کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی دانشگاه تهران، کرج، ایران

چکیده

چکیده:
سابقه و هدف: خشکی یکی از مهم‌ترین عوامل محدودکننده تولید محصولات کشاورزی در دنیا به شمار می‌رود و تابعی از ژنوتیپ، دما، بارش و ظرفیت نگهداری آب خاک است. انگور به‌عنوان یکی از مهم‌ترین محصولات باغبانی در جهان و ایران است و تنش خشکی یکی از مهم‌ترین فاکتورهای محدودکننده رشد آن در مناطق مدیترانه‌ای می‌باشد. اعمال تیمار تنش خشکی در شرایط آزمایشگاهی و انتخاب ارقام بر اساس شرایط تنش، ازجمله روش‌های انتخاب ارقام متحمل به تنش خشکی می‌باشد که توسط سایر محققین نیز پیشنهادشده است. این پژوهش باهدف مقایسه پایه و ارقام متحمل معرفی‌شده توسط محققین، در شرایط تنش خشکی شدید و معرفی متحمل‌ترین انجام شد.
مواد و روش‌ها: این آزمایش با 15 تیمار شامل چهار رقم انگور غیر پیوندی (سمرقندی، یاقوتی، رطبی و چفته) و پایه پیوندی 110R که حاصل تلاقی (V. berlandieri * V. rupestris) و سه تیمار کم‌آبی (صفر) شاهد، 2- مگا پاسکال (تنش شدید) و 5/2- مگا پاسکال (تنش خیلی شدید) به‌صورت فاکتوریل در قالب طرح بلوک‌های کامل تصادفی اجرا شد. هر واحد آزمایشی شامل یک بوته دوساله انگور گلدانی بود. صفات اندازه‌گیری شده در این آزمایش شامل صفات مورفولوژی (تعداد برگ سالم، طول شاخه اصلی و فرعی، سطح برگ، وزن‌تر و خشک ساقه و برگ) و صفات فیزیولوژی (کلروفیل کل، نشت یونی، محتوای نسبی آب برگ و میزان مالون دی آلدهید، قندهای محلول، فنل، گلایسین بتائین و اسیدآمینه پرولین) بودند.
یافته‌ها: با افزایش شدت تنش خشکی اغلب صفات مورفولوژی مرتبط با رشد ظاهری انگور (سطح برگ، تعداد کل برگ، طول ریشه و وزن‌تر و خشک ساقه و ریشه) کاهش یافتند. برخی صفات فیزیولوژی (فنل، میزان کلروفیل کل و محتوای نسبی آب برگ) در مقایسه با شاهد (بدون تنش) کاهش یافتند در مقابل میزان نشت یونی، قند محلول، اسیدآمینه پرولین و گلایسین بتائین در شرایط تنش شدید و خیلی شدید افزایش یافتند. نتایج تجزیه واریانس نشان داد که اثر تنش خشکی بر تمامی صفات اندازه‌گیری شده به‌جز وزن خشک‌ریشه و تاج و میزان مالون دی آلدهید در پایه و ارقام متحمل این آزمایش معنی‌دار بود.
نتیجه‌گیری: براساس مقایسه میانگین صفات مورفولوژی و فیزیولوژی اندازه‌گیری شده پس از استانداردسازی، رقم چفته به‌عنوان متحمل‌ترین رقم در مقایسه با پایه و ارقام دیگر در شرایط تنش خشکی خیلی شدید معرفی می‌گردد و پس‌ازآن به ترتیب ارقام رطبی، سمرقندی و یاقوتی قرار گرفتند پایه 110R به دلیل عدم همسوئی بین شاخص‌های تحمل به تنش خشکی (مورفولوژی و فیزیولوژی) به‌عنوان ضعیف‌ترین پایه معرفی شد.
واژه‌های کلیدی: پرولین، نشت یونی، سطح برگ، مالون دی آلدهید، گلایسین بتائین

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Effects of Drought Stress Levels on Some Morphological and Physiological Traits to Select The Most Tolerant ones as a Rootstock

نویسندگان [English]

  • Pegah Bahrani 1
  • Ali Ebadi 2
  • Zabihollah Zamani 2
  • Mohammd Reza Fatahi moghadam 2
1 M.Sc. Graduate of Physiology and Breeding of Fruit Trees, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran,
2 Professor, Dept. of Horticulture and Landscape Engineering, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran
چکیده [English]

Abstract
Background and Purpose: One of the major limiting factors of agricultural production in the world is considered to be drought which is a function of Genotype, temperature, rain and water storage capacity of soil. Grape is one of the most important horticultural product in Iran and many other countries and drought stress is the most crucial growth limiting factor in Mediterranean regions. Enforcing drought stress treatments in lab work and selecting cultivars based on stress conditions is one of the methods to select drought tolerant cultivars which has been suggested by others. This project has been conducted in order to compare tolerant cultivars which were already introduced by others to introduce the most tolerant ones.
Materials and Methods: This research carried out with15 drought stress treatments including four ungrafted grapevine cultivars (Samarghandi, Yaghuti, Rotabi and Chafteh) and 110R rootstock (V. berlandieri x V. rupestris) and three water stress treatments; control (no stress),severe (-2 MPa) and high severe (-2.5 MPa) with three replications as factorial based on randomized block design. Each experiment contained a two-year-old potted grape plant. The measured traits included morphological traits (number of healthy leaves, main and minor branches length, wet and dry weight of root and crown) and physiological traits (total Chlorophyll, ion leakage, relative water content of leaf, Malondialdehyde, soluble sugars, phenol, Glycinbetain and Proline contents).
Results: Most of morphological traits, related to external growth of grape (leaf area, leaf number, root length and wet and dry weight of shoot and root) reduced by increasing the severity of drought stress. In comparison with control (no stress) some of the physiological traits (phenol, chlorophyll a and b and relative water content of leaf) decreased; however the ionic leakage, soluble sugar, proline and Glycinbetain increased in severe and high severe stress conditions. Results of analysis of variance showed that the effect of drought stress had significant effect on all measured traits except the dry weight of root and shoot and malondialehyde levels in rootstock and tolerant cultivars.
Conclusion: Comparison between average of morphological and physiological traits after standardizing showed that Chafte cultivar has been the most tolerant cultivar in high severe stress conditions in comparison with rootstock and other cultivars. Rotabi, Samarghandi and Yaghouti cultivars were placed in order after Chafte, respectively.. The 110R rootstock was realized as the weakest one because of nonalignment between drought stress tolerance indices.
Keyword :Proline, ion leakage , leaf area, Malondialdehyde, Glycinbetain

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • keyword :Proline
  • ion leakage
  • leaf area
  • Malondialdehyde
  • Glycinbetain

مراجع

1.Ahmad, P. and Sharma, S. 2010. Physiobiochmical attributes in two cultivars of mulberry (Morus alba L.) under NaHCO3 stress. Int. J. Plant Prod.4: 79-86.
2.Alizadeh, A. 2004. Collection and preliminary identification of local grapevine cultivars in west Azarbaijan. Plant Seed. 20: 1. 1-21. (In Persian)
3.Aran, M., Abedi, B., Tehranifar, A.and Parsa, M. 2017. Effects of drought stress on some morphological and physiological properties of three grapevine cultivars (Vitis vinifera L.).J. Hort. Sci. 31: 2. 315-326. (In Persian)
4.Basra, A.S. and Basra, R.K. 1997. Mechanisms of environmental stress resistance in plants. Harwood Academic, Amesterdam. The Netherlands. Pp: 1-43.
5.Bates, L.S., Waldren, R.P. and Teare,I.D. 1973. Rapid determination of free proline for water-stress studies. Plant Soil. 39: 1. 205-207.
6.Bradford, K.J. and Hsiao, T.C. 1982. Physiological responses to moderate water stress. In Physiological plant ecology II. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Pp: 263-324.
7.Coggan, M. 2002. Water measurement in soil and vines, Vineyard and Winery Management. May/June, Pp: 43-53.
8.Cramer, G.R., Ergul, A., Grimplet,J., Tillett, R.L., Tattersall, E.A.,Bohlman, M.C. and Quilici, D. 2007. Water and salinity stress in grapevines: early and late changes in transcriptand metabolite profiles. Fun. Interg. Genomic. 7: 2. 111-134.
9.Chalmers, Y.M., Kelly, G. and Krstic, M.P. 2003. Partial rootzone drying of Vitis vinifera cv. 'Shiraz' winegrapes in a semi-arid climate. In IV International Symposium on Irrigation of Horticultural Crops. 664: 133-138.
10.Delauney, A.J. and Verma, D.P.S. 1993. Proline biosynthesis and osmoregulation in plants. Plant. J. 4: 2. 215-223.
11.Ebadi, A. and Hadadinejhad, M.2014. Physiology-breeding and grape production. Tehran Univ. Press, 384p. (In Persian)
12.Esteban, M.A., Villanueva, M.J. and Lissarrague, J.R. 2001. Effect of irrigation on changes in the anthocyanin composition of the skin of cv Tempranillo (Vitis vinifera L) grape berries during ripening. J. Sci. Food Agric. 81: 4. 409-420.
13.Farooq, M., Hussain, M., Wahid, A. and Siddique, K.H.M. 2012. Drought stress in plants: an overview. In Plant responses to drought stress. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Pp: 1-33.
14.Flexas, J., Bota, J., Loreto, F., Cornic, G. and Sharkey, T.D. 2004. Diffusive and metabolic limitations to photosynthesis under drought and salinity in C3 plants. Plant Biol.6: 3. 269-279.
15.Ghaderi, N., Talaei, A.R., Ebadi, A.and Lesani, H. 2010. The effect of drought stress and irrigation on some physiological characteristics in Sahani, Farokhi and Bidaneh white grape cultivars. Iran. J. Hort. Sci. 41: 2. 179-188. (In Persian)
16.Ghaderi, N., Siosemardeh, A. and Shahoei, S. 2005. The effect of water stress on some physiological characteristics in Rasheh and Khoshnave grape cultivars In International Workshop on Advances in Grapevine and Wine Research. 754: 317-322.
17.Gómez-del-Campo, M., Ruiz, C. and Lissarrague, J.R. 2002. Effect of water stress on leaf area development, photosynthesis and productivity in Chardonnay and Airén grapevines. Am. J. Enol. Viticult. 53: 2. 138-143.
18.Grieve, C.M. and Grattan, S.R.1983. Rapid assay for determination of water soluble quaternary ammonium compounds. Plant Soil. 70: 2. 303-307.
19.Hadadinejad, M., Ebadi, A., Fatahi, R., Mousavi, A., Santesteban, L.G. and Nejatianc, M.A. 2013. The Effect of Drought Stress on Photosynthetic Traits and the Expression of Some Genesfor a Few Iranian Grapevine Candidate Rootstocks. In VI International Phylloxera Symposium. 1045: 133-138.
20.Hadadinejad, M., Ebadi, A., Fatahi Moghadam, M.R. and Nejatitan, M.A. 2013. Primary Morphological Screening of 698 Grapevine Genotypes to Select Drougth Tolerant Rootstocks. Iran. J. Hort. Sci. 42: 2. 193-207. (In Persian)
21.Heuer, B. 2003. Influence of exogenous application of proline and glycinebetaine on growth of salt-stressed tomato plants. Plant Sci. 165: 4. 693-699.
22.Higgins, S.S., Larsen, F.E., Bendel, R.B., Radamaker, G.K., Bassman, J.H., Bidlake, W.R. and Al Wir, A. 1992. Comparative gas exchange characteristics of potted, glasshouse-grown almond, apple, fig, grape, olive, peach and Asian pear. Sci. Hortic. 52: 4. 313-329.
23.Hsiao, T.C. 1973. Plant responses to water stress. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. 24: 1. 519-570.
24.Jalil Marandi, R., Hassani, A., Dolati Baneh, H. and Haji Taghiloo, R. 2011. Effect of Different Levels of Soil Moisture on the Morphological and Physiological Characteristics of Three Grape Cultivars (Vitis vinifera L.). Iran. J. Hort. Sci. 42: 1. 31-40. (In Persian)
25.Janick, J. 2001. Water relation and irrigation scheduling in grapevine. Horticultural-Reviews, 27: 190-360.
26.Johari-Pireivatlou, M. 2010. Effect of soil water stress on yield and proline content of four wheat lines. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 9: 1. 036-040.
27.Kadam, J.H., Tambe, T.B. and Tumbare, A.D. 2005. Effect of Irrigation Regimes on Grape Rootstocks for their Drought Tolerance. J. Maharashtra Agri Univ. 30: 1. 18-21.
28.Kliebenstein, D.J. 2004. Secondary metabolites and plant/environment interactions: a view through Arabidopsis thaliana tinged glasses. Plant Cell Environ. 27: 6. 675-684.
29.Kowitcharoen, L., Wongs-Aree, C., Setha, S., Komkhuntod, R., Srilaong, V. and Kondo, S. 2015. Changes in abscisic acid and antioxidant activity in sugar apples under drought conditions. Sci. Hortic. 193: 1-6.
30.Kumar, N., Pal, M., Singh, A., SaiRam, R.K. and Srivastava, G.C. 2010. Exogenous proline alleviates oxidative stress and increase vase life in rose (Rosa hybrida L. ‘Grand Gala’). Sci. Hortic. 127: 1. 79-85.
31.Lichtenthaler, H.K. 1987. Chlorophylls and carotenoids: pigments of photosynthetic biomembranes. Methods in enzymology, 148: 350-382.
32.Lotfii, M., Abbaszadeh, B. and Mirza, A. 2014. The effect of drought stress on morphology, proline content and soluble carbohydrates of tarragon (Artemisia dracunculus L.). Iranian J. Med. Aroma Plant. 30: 1. 19-29. (In Persian)
33.Lovisolo, C., Perrone, I., Carra, A., Ferrandino, A., Flexas, J., Medrano, H. and Schubert, A. 2010. Drought-induced changes in development and function of grapevine (Vitis spp.) organs and in their hydraulic and non-hydraulic interactions at the whole-plant level: a physiological and molecular update. Fun Plant Biol. 37: 2. 98-116.
34.Pellegrino, A., Lebon, E., Simmonneau, T. and Wery, J. 2005. Towards a simple indicator of water stress in grapevine (Vitis vinifra L.) based on the differential sensitivities of vegetative growth component. Aust. J. Grape Wine R. 11: 3. 306-315.
35.Pereira, J.S. and Chaves, M.M. 1995. Plant responses to drought under climate change in Mediterranean-type ecosystems. In Global change and Mediterranean-type ecosystems, Vol. 117. Springer Berlin.
36.Pinheiro, C., Passarinho, J.A. and Ricardo, C.P. 2004. Effect of drought and rewatering on the metabolism of Lupinus albus organs. J. Plant Physiol. 161: 11. 1203-1210.
37.Rasouli, V. and Golmohammadi, M. 2009. Evalution of drought stress tolerance in grapevine cultivars of Qazvin province. Seed Plant. 25: 1. 349-359.
38.Tafazali, A., Hekmati, J. and Firuzeh, P. 1992. Grape. Shiraz University Press, 343p. (In Persian)
39.Tardieu, F. 1996. Drought perception by plants Do cells of droughted plants experience water stress?. Plant Growth Reg., 202: 93-104.
40.Tattini, M., Remorini, D., Pinelli,P., Agati, G., Sarasini, E., Traversi, M.L. and Massai, R. 2006. Morpho-anatomical, physiological and biochemical adjustment in response rot ozone salinity stress and high solar radiation in two Mediteranean evergreen shrubs, Myrtus communis and Pistacia lentiscus. New Phytol. 170: 779-794.  
41.Toumi, I., M sehli, W., Bourgou, S., Jallouli, N., Bensalem-Fnayou, A., Ghorbel, A., and Mliki, A. 2007. Response of ungrafted and grafted grapevine cultivars and rootstocks (Vitis sp.) to water stress. J. Int. Sci. Vigne Vin. 41: 2. 85-93.
42.Tu, M., Wang, X., Feng, T., Sun, X., Wang, Y., Huang, L., Gao, M., Wang, Y. and Wang, X. 2016. Expression of a grape (Vitis vinifera) bZIP transcription factor, VlbZIP36, in Arabidopsis thaliana confers tolerance of drought stress during seed germination and seedling establishment. Plant Sci.252: 311-323.
43.Turner, N.C. 1981. Techniques and experimental approaches for the measurement of plant water status. Plant Soil. 58: 1-3. 339-366.
44.Saab, I.N. and Sharp, R.E. 1989.Non-hydraulic signals from maize roots in drying soil: inhibition of leaf elongation but not stomatal conductance. Planta. 179: 4. 466-474.
45.Sairam, R.K., Chandrasekhar, V. and Srivastava, G.C. 2001. Comparison of hexaploid and tetraploid wheat cultivars in their responses to water stress. Biol Plantarum. 44: 1. 89-94.
46.Sheligl, H.Q. 1986. Die verwertung orgngischer souren durch chlorella lincht. Planta. Pp: 47-51.
47.Singleton, V.L. and Rossi, J.A.1965. Colorimetry of total phenolics with phosphomolybdic-phosphotungstic acid reagents. Am. J. Enol Viticult.16: 3. 144-158.
48.Sofo, A., Dichio, B., Xiloyannis, C. and Masia, A. 2004. Effects of different irradiance levels on some antioxidant enzymes and on malondialdehyde content during rewatering in olive tree. Plant Sci. 166: 2. 293-302.
49.Sokhtsarai, R., Ebadi, A., Salami, S.AR. and Lesani, H. 2014. Analysis of morphological, physiological and molecular in Some grape varieties under drought stress. M.Sc. Thesis, College of Agriculture, University of Tehran, Iran, 140p. (In Persian)
50.Stewart, R.R. and Bewley, J.D. 1980. Lipid peroxidation associated with accelerated aging of soybean axes. Plant Physiol. 65: 2. 245-248.
51.Winkel, T. and Rambal, S. 1993. Influence of water stress on grapevines growing in the field: from leaf towhole-plant response. Fun. Plant Biol. 20: 2. 143-157.
52.Yordanov, I., Velikova, V. and Tsonev, T. 2000. Plant responses to drought, acclimation, and stress tolerance. Photosynthetica. 38: 2. 171-186.
پژوهش‌های تولید گیاهی
دوره 27، شماره 1
اردیبهشت 1399
صفحه 41-56

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار