Effect Of Water Stresson Trend Changesof Leaf Proline, Total Soluble Sugars, Relative Water Content and Soluble Protein of Two Species of Pot Marigold

Document Type : Research Article


Shahid Chamran Universityof Ahvaz


Background and objectives: Water stress is one of the most important environmental stresses in agriculture and urban landscape management. Water stress has been defined as the induction of turgor pressure below the maximal potential pressure. Previous studieshave showed that drought had been negative effects on morphological, physiological and biochemical characteristics of plants. Changes in protein expression, accumulation, and synthesis have been observed in many plant species as a result of plant exposure to drought stress during growth plants. The maintenance of plant water potential during water deficit is essential for continued growth and can be achieved by osmotic adjustment mechanisms resulting from the accumulation of compatible solutes such as proline in the cytoplasm. Proline acts as a "compatible solute", i.e. one that can accumulate to high concentrations in the cell cytoplasm without interfering with cellular structure or metabolism. Proline has a protective action which prevents membrane damage and protein denaturation during water stress. Accumulation of sugars in different parts of plants is enhanced in response to the variety of environmental stresses. Marigold(Tagetesspp.) is a genus of annual or perennial, belonging to the Asteraceaefamily, that is used as a marginal flower in the landscape.Due to the fact that drought stress is one of the most important problems especially in the agricultural industry and also in the landscape, it is necessary to study the damaging effects of drought stress on plant characteristics. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the effect of different levels of water stress on physiological and biochemical characteristics of two types of pot marigold.
Materials and Methods: A research was conducted in order to investigate the effect of different levels of water deficit (100 as control, 75 and 50 percent of potential evapotranspiration (ETcrop)) on trend changes of leaf proline, total soluble sugars, relative water content and soluble protein changes in two species of pot marigold (French and African) as a factorial experiment based on a randomized complete block design with three replications. In this experiment, two species of pot marigold seeds (African and French) were planted in the trays including cocopeat. Then seedlings were transplanted to pots with 19 × 16 cm dimensions. After transplanting, the seedlings were irrigated well for 3 weeks. Then plants were irrigated with 100%, 75% and 50% ETcrop. Parameters such as leaf proline and total carbohydrates content, leaf relative water content were measured three times at intervals of once every 21 days but the amount of soluble proteins was measured one time in 63 days after treatment. Data analysis was performed using MSTATC software and mean comparison was done by Duncan's multiple range test at 5% and 1% probability.
Results: The results showed that leaf proline and total soluble sugars increased with incrementin levels of water deficit and the trend changes of leaf traits were increased with the passing of time. So that, in 43 days after water stress treatment, leaf proline content had an increase of 3 or 4 times in 50% Etcrop irrigation treatment compared with the control and 75% Etcrop irrigation treatment, respectively. The highest levels of leaf proline (119.28 mg per gram of fresh weight) and total soluble sugars content (1.8 mg per gram of fresh weight) was related to 50% ETc treatment. The amount of leaf total soluble sugars was also higher in African species compared with French species. The results showed that the leaf soluble proteins and relative water content decreased with reducingirrigation, so that the lowest amount of relative water content (57.9%) and soluble protein (31.57mg per g fresh weight) were obtained in 50% ETc treatment.
Conclusion: When the plants were exposed to progressive drought stress, changes appeared earlier in relative water content, whereas later effects in the levels of free proline, total soluble sugar, total soluble protein. The results showed that irrigation had significant effects on all evaluated parameters such as leaf proline, total soluble sugers, RWC and soluble proteins. Our findings also showed that there was no significant difference between control treatment and 75% ETcrop treatment in the measured indices and it's importancfor optimal management of water in landscape couldbe considered. Finally, it can be expected that African species is better than French species for planting in landscape.


1- Ahmadi A., and Sio-Se Mardeh A. 2004. The effect of water stress on soluble carbohydrates, chlorophyll and proline contents of four Iranian wheat cultivars under different moisture regims. Iranian Journal of Agricultural Science, 35(3): 753-763 (in Persian).
2- Araji A. 2003. Effects of drought stress on physiological, morphological and biochemical characteristics some olive varieties. Treatise Faculty of Agriculture. Tarbiat Modarres University, 213 p. (in Persian).
3- Arazmjo A., Heidari M., and Ghorbani A. 2010. The effect of water stress and three sources of fertilizers on flower yield, physiological parameters and nutrient uptake in chamomile (Matricaria chamomilla L.). Iranian Journal of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants, 25(4):482-494 (in Persian).
4- Bacelar E. A., Santaos D. L., Moutinho-Pereira J. M., Lopes J. I., Goncalves B. C., Ferreira T. C., and Correia, C. M. 2007. Physiological behavior, oxidative damage and antioxidative protection of olive trees grown under different irrigation regimes. Plant and Soil, 292(1-2):1-2.
5- Bates L. s., Waldren R. P., and Treare I. D. 1973. Rapid determination of freproline for water stress studies. Plant and Soil, 39(1): 205-207.
6- Ben Ahmed C.B., Rouina B.B., Sensoy S., Boukhris M., and Abdallah FB. 2009. Changes in gas exchange, proline accumulation and antioxidative enzyme activities in three olive cultivars under contrasting water availability regimes. Environmental and experimental botany, 67(2):345-52.
7- Bewley j D., and Larsen K. M. 1982. Differences in the responses to water stress if growing and nongrowing regions of maize mesocotyls, protein synthesis on total, free and membrane bound polyribosome fractions. journal of Experimental Botany, 33(3):406-415.
8- Blum A. 1996. Crop responses to drought and the interpretation of adaptation. Plant Growth Regulation, 20(2): 135-148.
9- Boyer J. S. 1970. Leaf enlargement and metabolic rates in corn, soybean and sunflower at various leaf potentials. Plant Physiology, 46(2): 233-235.
10- Bradford M. M. 1976. A rapid and sensitive method for the quantification of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein-dye binding. Analytical Biochemistry, 72(1-2): 248-254.
11- Castrillo M., and Calcargo A. M. 1989. Effects of water stress and rewatering on ribolose-I, 5- bisphosphat carboxylase activity, and chlorophyll and protein contents in two cultivars of tomato. Journal of Horticultural sciences, 64(6):717-724.
12- Dasgupta J., and Bewley J. D. 1984.Variation in protein synthesis in different regions of greening leaves of barley seedlings and effects of imposed water stress. Journal of Experimental Botany, 35(10):1450-1459.
13- De Kankova K., Luxova M., Gasparikova O., and Kolarovic L. 2004. Response of Maize Plants to Water stress. Biologia, 13:151 - 155.
14- Ghasemi-Ghahsare M., and Kafi M. 2010. Scientific and practical potting. , Volume I, Tenth Edition, p. 55. (in Farsi).
15- Ghorbanly M., and Niakan M. 2005. Effects of drought Stress on the content of soluble sugars, protein, proline, compound of phenolic and nitrate reductase activity Gorgan 3 of Soybean. Journal of Tarbiat Moalem, 5: 537-549 (in Persian).
16- Hanson A. D., and Hitz W. D. 1982. Metabolic responses of mezophytes to plant water deficit. Annual Review of Plant Physiology. 33(1):163-203.
17- Hekmati j. 2011. Seasonal flowers (flowers outdoors). Iran Agricultural Science. (in Persian).
18- Hendry G. (1993). Evolutionary origins and natural functions of fructanc. New Phytologist,123:,3-14 (in Persian).
19- Iturriaga G., Gaff D.F., and Zentella R. 2000. New desiccation tolerant plants, including grass, in the central high– lands of Mexico, accumulate trehalose. Australian Journal of Botany, 48(2): 153–158.
20- Iuchi S., KobaYashi S., Yamaguchi–Shinozaki K., and Shinozaki K. 2000. A stress-inducible gene for 9-cisepoxycarotenoid dioxygenase involved in abscisic acid biosynthesis under water stress in drought–tolerant cowpea. Plant Physiology, 123(2): 553–562.
21- Kamali M., Goldani m., and Farzaneh A. 2012. The effect of that different irrigation levels on growth parameters and photosynthesis and hydrogen peroxide in Amaranthus tricolor. Journal of Soil and Water (Agricultural Science and Technology), 26:318-309. (in Persian).
22- Kameli A., and Losel D. M. 1995. Contribution of sugars and other solutes to osmotic adjustment in wheat leaves under water stress. Journal of Plant Physiology, 145(3): 366 - 367.
23- Khaleghi A., Arzani K., moalemi N., and Barzegar M. 2014. To study the Effect of kaolin on fluorescence and chlorophyll content Olive leaf seedlings (olea europaea L.) Journal of Plant Production .Journal of Agriculture, 37 (2): 139-127. (in Persian).
24- Khorshidi M., Rahimzadeh b., Yarhadi M., and Noormohammadi, GH. 2002. The Effects of drought stress on the growth of potato varieties. Iranian Journal of Crop Sciences, 4(1): 59-48. (in Persian).
25- kuchaki A., Hosseini M., and Nasiri mahalati M. 1993. The relationship between water and land in crops (translation). published by Mashhad ACECR. 560 p. (in Persian).
26- Perez-Lopez U., Robredo A., Lacuesta M., Mena-Petite A., and Munoz-Rueda A. 2009. The impact of salt stress on the water status of barley plants is partially mitigated by elevated CO 2. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 66(3):463-70.
27- Lowlor D. W., Cornic G. (2002). Photosynthetic carbon assimilation and associated metabolism in relation to water deficits in higher plants. Plant Cell and Environment, 25(2): 275-294.
28- Mahmoud Nyamymnd M., Farsi M., Marashi H., and Ebadi P. 2012. Study the physiological responses to stress four species of tomato. Journal of Horticultural Science (Agricultural Science and Technology), 26(4): 416-409. (in Persian).
29- Martin M., Micell F., Morgan J. A., Scalet M., and Zerbi G. 1993. Synthesis of osmotically active substance in winter wheat leaves as related to drought resistance of different genotypes. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 171(3): 176 - 184.
30- Moaveni P. 2011. Effects of drought stress on antioxidant enzymes and proline in sorghum. Quarterly Journal of Crop Ecophysiology. (1):24-30. (in Persian).
31- Monakhova O. F., Chernyadev I. I. 2002. Protective role of kartolin-4 in wheat plants exposed to soil drought. Applied Biochemistry and Microbiology, 38(4): 373-380.
32- Niknam, V., Razavi, N., Ebrahimzadeh, H., and Sharifizadeh, B. 2006. Effect of NaCl on biomass, protein and proline contents and antioxidant enzymes in seedlings and calii of two Trigonella Species. Biologia Plantarum. 50 (4): 591-596.
33- Nilson E. T., and Orcutt D. M. 1996. Physiology of Plant under stress (Abiotic factors). Abiotic factors. Physiology of plants under stress. Abiotic factors. New York. Pp. 322-36.
34- Ouvrard O., Cellier F., Ferrare K., Tousch v., Lamaze T., Du J.M., and Casse-Delbart F. 1996. Identification and expression of water stress- and abscisc acid-regulated genes in a drought-tolerant sunflower genotype. Plant Molcular Biology, 31(4): 819-829.
35- Pagter M., Bragato C., and Brix H. 2005. Tolerance and physiological responses of phragmites australis to water deficit. Aquatic Botany, 81(4):285-299.
36- Rai V. K., Singh P.G., Thakur S., and Banyal S. 1983. Protein and amino acid relationship during water stress in relation to drought resistance. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry. 10: 161-167.
37- Ritchie S. W., Nguyen H. T., and Haloday A.S. 1990. Leaf water content and gas exchange parameters of two wheat genotype differing in drought resistance. Crop science, 30(1):105-111.
38- Shariat A. Asareh M. H. 2006. The effect of stress on the plant pigments, proline, soluble sugars and growth parameters Eucalyptus species. Research and development. 149: 78-139. (in Persian).
39- Sheligl H.Q. 1986. Die verwertung orgngischer souren durch chlorella lincht. Planta Journal,47-51
40- Valadabady S. A. A., Shiranirad H. and Farahani A. 2010. Effects of selenium on the eco-physiology of zeolite and drought resistance varieties of rapeseed plants. (in Persian).
41- Valentovic P., Luxova M., Kolarovic L., and Gasparikova O. 2006. Effect of osmotic stress on compatible solutes content, membrane stability and water relation in two maize cultivars. Plant Soil Environment journal, 52 (4): 186 – 191.