انتخاب پایه های رویشی بادام متحمل به تنش آبی براساس نشانگرهای مرفولوژیکی

نوع مقاله : مقالات پژوهشی

نویسندگان

• علی اکبر شکوهیان ¹
• غلامحسین داوری نژاد ²
• علی تهرانی فر ²
• علی ایمانی ³
• علی رسول زاده ⁴

¹ دانشگاه محقق اردبیلی

² دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد

³ موسسه اصلاح و تهیه بذر و نهال کرج

⁴ محقق اردبیلی

https://doi.org/10.22067/jhorts4.v0i0.21422

چکیده

انتخاب پایه های بادام متحمل به تنش آبی به منظور تولید بهینه محصول در مناطق خشک و نیمه خشک اهمیت زیادی دارد. در راستای انتخاب پایه های جدید متحمل به کم آبی، اثر تنش آبی و ریز موجودات مفید (Effective microorganism (Em)) بر خصوصیات مرفولوژیکی پایه های رویشی بادام در طی سال های 91 -1389 در گروه علوم باغبانی دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد مورد بررسی قرار گرفت. آزمایش به صورت فاکتوریل در قالب طرح بلوک های کامل تصادفی با سه رژیم متفاوت آبیاری (کامل،33 و 66 درصد تخلیه آب قابل نگهداری) و دو سطح غلظت ریز موجودات مفید (Em) (محلول صفر ( شاهد) و یک درصد) و 4 فاکتور پایه (قلمه‌های ریشه‌دار شده پایه های رویشی GF677، دو هیبرید طبیعی انتخابی هلو× بادام (H1 و H2) و قلمه های ریشه‌دار شده ژنوتیپ جوین)، در 4 تکرار انجام شد. تجزیه واریانس نشان داد، بین سطوح پایه ها و آبیاری در تمام تیمارها مورد بررسی از نظر آماری در سطح احتمال یک درصد تفاوت معنی داری وجود دارد. نتایج حاکی از آن بود که سطوح ریز موجودات مفید در صفات سطح برگ، تعداد برگ، رشد سالیانه، وزن تر و خشک و حجم ریشه دارای تفاوت معنی داری در سطح احتمال یک درصد بوده و مقایسه میانگین ها نشان داد که مصرف Em باعث افزایش این صفات نسبت به شاهد شده است. با توجه به نتایج این پژوهش، از بین صفات مورد آزمایش، طول، وزن خشک و حجم ریشه نشانگرهای مناسبی، برای ارزیابی میزان تحمل به تنش آبی بادام و هیبرید طبیعیH1، پایه مقاوم به شرایط کم آبی تشخیص داده شد. تاثیر ریز موجودات مفید بر عوامل رشدی و زنده مانی نهال ها تابع نوع پایه بوده و تاثیر آن بر میزان مقاومت به تنش آبی نیز با خصوصیات ژنتیکی پایه متفاوت بود. با توجه به نتایج این تحقیق، هیبرید طبیعیH1، به عنوان یک پایه مقاوم به شرایط خشکی معرفی می شود.

کلیدواژه‌ها

• ریز موجودات مفید
• زنده مانی
• کم آبی
• هیبرید طبیعی

20.1001.1.20084730.1394.29.3.1.3

عنوان مقاله [English]

Selection of Almond Vegetative Rootstocks for Water Stress Tolerance Based on the Morphological Markers

نویسندگان [English]

• Ali Akbar Shokouhian ¹
• Gholamhossein Davarynejad ²
• Ali Tehranifar ²
• Ali Imani ³
• Ali Rasoulzadeh ⁴

¹ University of Mohaghegh Ardabili

² Ferdowsi University of Mashhad

³ Seed and Plant Improvement Institute (SPII), Karaj

⁴

چکیده [English]

Introduction: One of the microbiological preparations used for this study was Effective Microorganisms (EM), being a commercial mixture of photosynthesizing bacteria, Actinomycetes, lactic acid bacteria, yeasts and fermenting fungi. The microbiological composition of the EM concentrateincludesStreptomyces albus, Propioni bacterium freudenreichil, Streptococcus lactis, Aspergillus oryzae, Mucor hiemalis, Saccharomycescerevisiae and Candida utilis. Moreover, EM also contains an unspecified amount of Lactobacillus sp. Rhodo pseudomonas sp. and Streptomyces griseus. Effective Microorganisms have a positive effect on the decomposition of organic matter, limiting putrefaction, increasing nitrogen content in the root medium of plants, phosphorus, improving soil fertility and as a result contributing to the growth and development of the root systems of plants.
Selection of almond vegetative rootstocks for water stress tolerance is important for almond crop production in arid and semi-arid regions. The study of the eco-morphological characteristics that determine the success of a rootstock in a particular environment is a powerful tool for both agricultural management and breeding purposes. The aim of this work was to select the new rootstocks for water shortage tolerance, impact of water stress as well as Effective Microorganism (EM) on morphological characteristics of almond rootstocks.
Materials and Methods: In order to select the new rootstocks for water shortage tolerance, impact of water stress as well as EMonmorphologicalcharacteristics of almondrootstocks were studiedin thedepartment ofHorticulture, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, in 2011-2012. The experiment was carried out with four replications in a completely random blockdesign to study the effects of two concentrations of EM (0 and 1%), three irrigation levels (normal irrigation 100%-control-and irrigation after depletion of 33 and 66% of available water), and four almond rootstocks including GF677 and selected natural hybrid of peach × almond (H1and H2), and almond vegetative rootstock (local control).In this study,EMtreatments for 60 days before stress treatments were applied so that in each irrigation, EM solution to a concentration of one percent was given to half of the experiment pots. Other pots were irrigated equally with normal water. Stress levels were applied from July as follow: full irrigation, watering after unloading 33% and 66% soil moisture availability. In order to evaluate the performance, seedling survival, plant growth, number of leaves, leaf area, root fresh and dry weight and leaves and root length were measured.
Results and Discussion: Analysis of variance showed that between rootstock levels across all treatments were significantly differences at 0.01 level of probability. Comparison of means showed that the highest fresh and dry weight and leaf are awere observed forGF677and H1.Rootstockannualgrowth rate was also different. Most of the growth was related to the H1 Rootstocks. Thes urvival ratewas significantly different from the Rootstocks ofGF677,andH1showedthe highestpercentage of survival. The degree of adaptation to drought in varieties of almonds is different. The results showed that changes ingrowthparametersinGF677and H1were observed less often than other rootstocks. Because of strong roots,GF677and H1continue to attract more minerals under stress conditions.
Analysis of variance showed that the between irrigation levels for all treatments were significantly different at 0.01 level of probability. Comparison of means showed that among the study traits, the highest amount was obtained from complete irrigation, while irrigationat66 percenthad the least amount. Water stress may directly affect photosyn thesis, through leaf photochemicalprocessorindirectly,byclosing stomata, reducingleaf area and growth.
The results showed that the levels of(EM) on the leaf surface, leaf number, annual growth, root dry weight and volume were significantly different (p

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

• Effective Microorganisms
• Dehydration
• Natural hybrid
• Survival of rootstock

مراجع

1- Boland A. M., Mitchell P. D., Goodwin I. and Jerie P. H. 1994. The effect of soil volume on young tree growth and water-use. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science. 119: 1157–1162.

2- Camposeo S., and Palasciano M. 2011. "Effect of increasing climatic water deficit on some leaf and stomatal parameters of wild and cultivated almonds under Mediterranean conditions." Scientia Horticulturae. 127: 234-241.

3- Chalmers D. J., Mitchell P. D., and Heek L. V. 1981. Control of peach tree growth and productivity by regulated water supply, tree density, and summer pruning, Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science. 106: 307–312.

4- Fernandez R.T., Perry R.L., and Flore J. A. 1997a. Drought response of young apple trees onthree rootstocks: growth and development. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science. 122: 14-19.

5- Fernandez R. T., and Perry R. L. 1997b. Drought response of young apple trees on three rootstocks. II. Gas exchenge, chlorophyll fluorescence, water relations and leaf abscisic acid. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science., 122: 841-848.

6- Girona J., Marsal J., Cohen M., Mata M., and Miravete C. 1993. Physiological and yield response of almond (Prunus dulcis L.) to different irrigation regimes. Acta Horticulturae. 335: 389-398.

7- Goldhamer D. A., and Viveros M. 2000. Effects of pre harvest irrigation cut off durations and post harvest water deprivation on almond tree performance. Irrigation Science.19:125-131.

8- Gispert J. R., Vargas F. J. 2011. "Assessment of drought tolerance in almond varieties." Acta Horticulture. 912: 121-127.

9- Higa T. 2000. What is EM technology? EM World Journal. 1: 1-6.

10- Hsiao T. C. 1993. Growth and productivity of crops relation to water status .Acta Horticulturae. 335: 135-148.

11- Hu Y., and Schmidhalter U. 2005. Drought and salinity: A comparison of their effects on mineral nutrition of plants. Plant Nutrition. 168, 541-549.

12- Jagnow G., Hoflich G ., and Hoffmann H .1991. Inoculation of non symbiotic rhizospher bacteria, possibitites of increasing and stabilizing yield. Angew botonic. 65: 97-126.

13- Javadi T. 2003. The Effects of Water Stress on physiological and biochemical characteristics of 9 Asian pears genotypes (Pyrus serotiona Rehd). Thesis PhD, Department of Horticulture, Tarbiat Modarres University.

14- Khaliq A., Kaleem Abbasi M., and Hussain T. 2006. Effects of integrated use of organic and inorganic nutrient sources with effective microorganisms (EM) on seed cotton yield in Pakistan. Bioresource Technol. 97: 967-972.

15- Lim T.D., Pak T.W., and Jong C.B. 1999. Yields of Rice and Maize as Affected by Effective Microorganisms. Pp. 92-98. In: Senanayake, Y.D.A and U.R. Sangakkara, (eds.). Kyusei Nature Farming and Effective Microorganisms. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Kyusei Nature Farming and Effective Microorganisms for Agricultural and Environmental Sustainability. Bangkok,Thailand.

16- Manda T. H. E. 1995. Physiological techniques for evaluation and screening of drought tolerance in lowland tropical maize (Zea mays L.). M. Sc thesis. Dep. Plant.

17- Mohamed F .,Sahain M., Elham Z., Motty A., Mohamed H., and Shiekh El. 2007. Effect of Some Bio stimulant on Growth And fruiting Of Anna Apple Trees in Newly Reclaimed Areas. Research Journal of Agriculture and Biological Sciences.3(5): 422-429.

18- Mousavi S.A., Tary M., Mehnat cashe A.M., and Haqyqy B. 2009. Drought response of young seedling vegetative growth of five almond cultivars to water deficit. Seed and Plant Improvment Journal.25.4 (1), 551-567.

19- Nortes P. A., Pe´rez-Pastor A., Egea G., Conejero W., and Domingo R. 2005. Comparison of changes in stem diameter and water potential values for detecting water stress in young almond trees. Agricultural Water Management, 77 : 296–30

20- Paschoal A. D., Homma S. K. and Sanches A. B.1998. Effect of EM on Soil Quality, Fruit Quality and Yield of Orange Trees in a Brazilian Citrus Orchard. . Fourth international conference on Kyusei nature farming, Proc. Conf., Paris, France, 19–21 June 1995. p. 103–111.

21- Romuald G., and Kleibier T. 2010.Effect of effective microorganisms (EM) on nutrient contents in substrate and development and yielding of Rose (Rosa x hybrida) and Gerbera (Gerbera jamesonii) Ecological Chemistry and Engineering's. 17( 4).

22- Rouhi V., Samson R., Lemeur R. & Van Damme P. (2007). Photosynthetic gas exchange characteristics in three different almond species during drought stress and subsequent recovery. Environmental and Exprimental Botany, 59, 117-129.

23- Sanchez M. C., Sanchez M. J., Planes J., Alarcon J. J., and Torrecillas A. 1993. Seasonal changes in leaf water potential components in two almond cultivars Journal of Agricultural Science. 120: 347-351.

24- Sands R., and Mulligan, D. R. 1990. Water and nutrient dynamics and tree growth. Forest Ecology and Management. 30: 91–111.

25- Sardabi H., and Daneshvar H. A. 2006. "responses of cultivation and wild almonds to water stress. Acta Horticulturae. (ISHS) 726: 311-316.

26- Save R., Bill C., Domingo R., Ruiz-Sanchez M. C., and Torrecillas A. 1995. Some physiological and morphological charactristics of citrus plants for drought resistance. Plant Science.110: 167-172.

27- Seeley S. 1990. Hormonal transduction of environmental stresses. Hort Science .25: 1369-1376.

28- Sepaskhah A. R., and Maftoun M. 1981. Growth and chemical composition of pistachio seedlings as influenced by irrigation regimes and salinity levels of irrigation water. II: Chemical composition. Journal of Horticultural Sciences., 57: 469-476.

29- Shokouhian A. A., Davarynejad GH., Tehranifar A., Imani A., and Rasoulzadeh A. 2013. Evaluation of the Effects of Effective Microorganisms under Water Stress Conditions on Flower Buds Formation of two Almond Genotypes. Journal of Horticultural Science Vol. 27, ( 2 ), P. 217-226.

30- Shyrbany Q., Shur M., and Davarinezhad Gh.h. 2012. Evaluation Stomatal characteristics edible fig under Water Stress Conditions. iranian journal of horticultural science. 43 ( 2 ), P. 125-133.

31- Torrecillas A., Alarcon J. J., Domingo R., Planesa J., and Sanchez-Blanco M. J .1996. Strategies for drought resistance in leaves of two almond cultivars. Plant Science. 118: 135-143.

32- Torrecillas A., Galego R., Perez-Astor A., and Ruiz-Sanchez M. C. 1999. Gas exchange and water relations of young apricot plants under drought conditions. Journal of Agricultural Science. 132: 445-452.

33- Tsipouridis C., Thomidis. 2004. Rooting of ‘GF677’ (almond × peach hybrid) hardwood cuttings in relation to hydrogen hyperoxide, moisture content, oxygen concentration, temperature and pH of substrate. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture. 44(8) 801–806.

34- Treder W., Konopacki P., and Mika A. 1997. Duration of water stress and its influence on the growth of nursery apple trees planted in containers under plastic tunnel conditions. Acta Horticulturae. 449: 541-544.

35- Turner N. C. 1997. Further progress in crop water relations. Adv. Agron., 58: 293-338.

36- Van Loon C. D. 1981. Effect of water stress on potato growth, development and yield. The American Journal of Potato Research. 58: 51-69.

37- Wang R., Xu H.L and Mridha M.AU. 2000. Effect of Organic Fertilizer and EM Inoculation on Leaf Photosynthesis and Fruit Yield and Quality of Tomato Plants. Journal of Crop Production, 3(1):173-182.

38- Xu H.L. 2000. Effect of a Microbial Inoculant, and Organic Fertilizer, on the Growth, Photosynthesis and Yield of Sweet Com. Journalof Crop Production, 3(1): 183-214.

39- Yadollahi A., Arzany K., and Abady A.2009. Identification Morphological markers associated with drought tolerance in Almond (Prunus dulcis Mill). . iranian journal of horticultural science. 40 ( 1 ), P. 1-12.

40- Zaenudin S. 1995. Effective Microorganisms (EM4) technology in Indonesia. Proc. Of Second Conference of Effective Microorganisms. P.80-81.

41- Zamani Z., Taheri A., Vezvaei A., and Poustini K. 2002. Proline content and stomatal resistance of almond seedlings as affected by irrigation intervals. Acta Horticulturae. 491: 411-416.