ارزیابی تحمل برخی از ارقام انگور نسبت به تنش خشکی با استفاده از مطالعات فیزیولوژیکی و بیوشیمیایی

نوع مقاله : مقالات پژوهشی

نویسندگان

• شیما سروری ¹
• احمد اصغرزاده ²
• علی مرجانی ³
• ملیحه صمدی کاظمی ⁴

¹ دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد بجنورد، گروه باغبانی، خراسان شمالی، ایران

² دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد شیروان، گروه باغبانی، خراسان شمالی، ایران

³ دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد بجنورد، گروه زراعت ، خراسان شمالی، ایران

⁴ دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد بجنورد، گروه شیمی، خراسان شمالی، ایران

https://doi.org/10.22067/jhs.2021.67767.1004

چکیده

تنش خشکی یکی از مهم­ترین فاکتورهای غیر زیستی محدود کننده رشد و نمو و تولید محصول در گیاهان باغی است. به منظور بررسی اثر قطع آبیاری بر صفات فیزیولوژیکی و بیوشیمیایی ارقام مختلف انگور، آزمایشی دو ساله طی سال­های 1397 تا 1399، به صورت فاکتوریل در قالب طرح پایه کاملاً تصادفی و در سه تکرار در گلخانه تحقیقاتی دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد بجنورد اجرا شد. فاکتور اول شامل تیمار آبیاری در دو سطح (ظرفیت مزرعه­ای و تنش خشکی 15 روزه) و فاکتور دوم شامل 18 رقم انگور (’کلاهداری‘،’کج انگور‘،’ فخری ‘،’ سفید بریان ‘،’دیوانه‘، ’صاحبی‘، ’لعل‘،’سیاه شیره‘،’شیرگی‘،’گرمه‘،’خلیلی‘،’کج­انگور سنجری‘،’کشمشی‘،’قره­قات‘،’مسکه‘،’عسگری‘’ فلیم سیدلس ‘و ’بیدانه سفید‘) بود. نتایج نشان داد که تنش خشکی باعث افزایش معنی دار مقدار نشت الکترولیت (29/62)، فعالیت آنزیم­های پراکسیداز (056/0کاتال در میلی­لیتر) و کاتالاز (92/0کاتال در میلی‌لیتر) و کاهش غلظت محتوای نسبی آب برگ (95/61 درصد)، میزان نسبی کلروفیل (85/16)، کلروفیل a (45/3 میلی‌گرم بر گرم وزن تر برگ)، کلروفیل b (12/1 میلی‌گرم بر گرم وزن تر برگ) و کارتنوئید (84/2 میلی‌گرم بر گرم وزن تر برگ) گردید. ارقام مورد مطالعه بر اساس صفات مورد بررسی به سه گروه متحمل (بیدانه سفید، گرمه، مسکه، فلیم سیدلس، فخری، خلیلی و دیوانه)، نیمه مقاوم (کلاهداری، سفید بریان، صاحبی، لعل، شیرگی، کج انگور سنجری و عسگری) و حساس به خشکی (سیاه، قره قات، کج انگور و کشمشی) تقسیم­بندی شدند. رقم بیدانه سفید در بین ارقام مورد مطالعه، با داشتن بالاترین میزان محتوای نسبی آب برگ (81/77 درصد)، میزان نسبی کلروفیل (62/28)، کارتنوئید (81/4 میلی‌گرم برگرم وزن تر برگ) و کمترین میزان نشت الکترولیت (5/31)، و رقم گرمه با بالاترین میزان کلروفیل a (64/6 میلی‌گرم بر گرم وزن تر برگ)، کلروفیل b (12/2 میلی‌گرم بر گرم وزن تر برگ) و آنزیم­های پراکسیداز (0618/0 کاتال در میلی­لیتر) و کاتالاز ( 959/0کاتال در میلی­لیتر) جزء متحمل­ترین ارقام بودند. با توجه به نتایج این مطالعه به­نظر می­رسد که رقم بیدانه سفید مقاومت بیشتری نسبت به تنش خشکی دارد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

• آنزیم‌های آنتی اکسیدان
• انگور
• تنش خشکی
• کلروفیل
• نشت الکترولیت

20.1001.1.20084730.1401.36.2.4.3

موضوعات

• میوه کاری

عنوان مقاله [English]

Evaluation of Drought Stress Tolerance among some of Grape Cultivars Using Physiological and Biochemical Studies

نویسندگان [English]

• Shima Sorori ¹
• Ahmad Asgharzade ²
• Ali Marjani ³
• Malihe Samadi ⁴

¹ Islamic Azad University, Bojnourd Branch, Department of Horticulture, North Khorasan, Iran

² Islamic Azad University, Shirvan Branch, Department of Horticulture, North Khorasan, Iran

³ Islamic Azad University, Bojnourd Branch, Department of Agronomy, North Khorasan, Iran

⁴ Islamic Azad University, Bojnourd Branch, Department of Chemistry, North Khorasan, Iran

چکیده [English]

Introduction
 Drought is one of the most important environmental stresses. It limits crop production in the world and has adverse impacts on growth of plants and their metabolic processes. By changing some of the metabolic processes, drought stress changes the behaviour of plants and, eventually, makes them resistant to some stresses. Given the water crisis in Iran, and since most of the available water is used in the agriculture sector, there is a need to change the current cropping pattern. The substitution of low-water-use for high-water-use plants could be an important water management strategy. Every physiological and biochemical factor involved in water conservation in plants is an effective factor in introducing tolerant varieties.
Materials and Methods
The required chemicals ( 80% acetone, 95% ethanol, ninhydrin, glacial acetic acid, benzene, proline, pure glucose, anthrone, sulfuric acid, potassium phosphate, polyvinylpyrrolidone [PVP], EDTA, hydrogen peroxide and guaiacol) were purchased from the Merck Company. This study was carried out in the spring and summer of 2019 in the Research Greenhouse of Islamic Azad University of Bojnourd. The rooted cuttings of 18 dominant grape varieties in the region (Kolahdari, KajAngoor, Fakhri, sefid Beryan, Divaneh, Sahebi, La’l, Siyah, Shiregi, Garmeh, Khalili, SanjariKajAngoor, Keshmeshi, Ghareghat, Maskeh, Asgari, Flame Seedless and White Seedless) were planted in plastic pots with a diameter of 35 cm and a height of 40 cm. The soil was a mixture of blown sand, leaf litter, and garden soil in the 1:1:1 ratio. Before the experiment, all pots were irrigated to reach field capacity.
The factorial experiment was conducted using completely randomized design with three replications. The first factor was irrigation cessation (15-day drought stress) and control (irrigation to field capacity level). The second factor was variety (18 varieties).
To apply the stress condition, irrigation cessation continued until leaf wilting signs were appeared. Based on previous experience, the duration of tolerance to drought stress was approximately 2 weeks. During the experiment, the minimum and maximum greenhouse temperatures were, respectively, 18.5 °C and 34 °C and natural light was used.
Results and Discussion
 The results of analysis variance showed that drought stress significantly increased the amount of electrolyte leakage (6.29), and activities of peroxidase (0.056 katal per ml) and catalase (0.92 katal per ml). It also decreased leaf relative water content (61.95%), relative chlorophyll content (16.85) and contents of chlorophyll a (3.45 mg/g), chlorophyll b (1.12 mg/g) and carotenoids (2.84 mg/g).
Grape varieties respond differently to drought stress and, in general, water scarcity reduces their leaf RWC and chlorophyll contents. According to Schutz and  Fangmier (2001), a decrease in chlorophyll content under stress conditions is because of an increase in the production of oxygen radicals in the cell. These free radicals can cause peroxidation and decomposition of the pigments. The intensity and greenness of the leaves reduce with decreasing the chlorophyll concentration and accelerating the process of aging.Reduced greenness of the leaves under long-term stress conditions may be partially due to reduced nitrogen flow into the tissues and changing activities of such enzymes as nitrate reductase. Since nitrogen is a constituent of a chlorophyll molecule, its deficiency in plants may slow down the formation of chlorophyll. Lawlor and Cornic (2002) showed the effectiveness of carotenoid, as an auxiliary pigment, in protecting thylakoid membranes and preventing chlorophyll photo-oxidation. Drought stress increases the activity of the peroxidase and catalase enzymes in both drought-sensitive and -resistant varieties; however, the activity of antioxidative enzymes is significantly higher in the stress-resistant varieties.
The studied cultivars were divided into the three groups include of tolerant (White Seedless, Garmeh, Maskeh, Flame Seedless, Fakhri, Khalili and Divaneh), semi-susceptible (Kolahdari, Sefid Beryan, Sahebi, Laal, Shiregi, Kaj Angoor Sanjari and Asgari) and sensitive (Siah, Ghare-Ghat, Kaj Angoor Sanjari and Keshmeshi) cultivars to drought stress. Among the studied cultivars, White Seedless had the highest levels of relative leaf water (77.81%), relative chlorophyll content (28.62), carotenoids (4.81 mg/g) and the lowest amount of electrolyte leakage (31.5) and Garmeh the highest chlorophyll a (6.64 mg/g) and chlorophyll b (2.12 mg/g) contents and peroxidase (0.0618 katal per ml) and catalase activities (0.959 katal per ml).
Conclusion
 The grape plant adaptation to drought stress is the result of changes in many morphological, physiological, and biochemical mechanisms, which cause changes in the rate of electrolyte leakage, leaf RWC, proline content, soluble solids, speed of photosynthesis, enzymatic activities, etc. The results showed that the white seedless variety had the highest leaf RWC, relative chlorophyll content, carotenoid content, and the lowest electrolyte leakage. Besides, Garmeh variety with the highest chlorophyll a and b, peroxidase, and catalase contents is amongst the most resistant varieties.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

• Antioxidant enzymes
• Chlorophyll
• Drought Stress
• Electrolyte leakage
• Grapes

مراجع

1. Abdalla M.M., and El-Khoshiban N.H. 2007. The influence of water stress on growth, relative water content, photosynthetic pigments, some metabolic and hormonal contents of two Triticium aestivum cultivars. Journal of Applied Sciences Research 3(12): 2062-2074
2. Ahmadi A., and Ceiocemardeh A. 2005. Effect of drought stress on soluble carbohydrate, chlorophyll and Proline in four adopted wheat cultivars with various climate of Iran. Iranian Journal Agriculture Science 35: 753-763.
3. Anjum N.A., Umar S., and Chan M.T. 2010. Ascorbate-Glutathione Pathway and Stress Tolerance in Plants. Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg London New York. 462p. https://doi.org/1007/978-90-481-9404-9.
4. Anjum S.A., Xie X.Y., Farooq M., Wang L.C., Xue L.L., Shahbaz M., and Salhab J. 2011a. Effect of exogenous methyl jasmonate on growth, gas exchange and chlorophyll contents of soybean subjected to drought. African Journal of Biotechnology 10: 9640–9646. https://doi.org/5897/AJB10.2641.
5. Aran M., Abedi B., Tehranifar A., and Parsa M. 2017. Investigation of the effect of drought stress on some morphological and physiological characteristics of three grape cultivars. Scientific Journal of Horticultural Sciences 31(2): 315-326. (In Persian). https://doi.org/22067/jhorts4.v0i0.53495.
6. Arazmjo A., Heidari M., and Ghanbari A. 2010. The effect of water stress and three sources of fertilizers on flower yield, physiological parameters and nutrient uptake in chamomile (Matricaria chamomilla). Iran. J. Med. Arom. Plants 25(4): 482-494. (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.22092/IJMAPR.2010.7131.
7. Arji A., Arzani K., and Ebrahimzadeh H.2004. Quantitative study of proline and soluble sugarin5varieties of olive under drought stress. Iranian Journal of Biology 16(4): 85-92. (In Persian)
8. Arnon D.T. 1949. Copper enzymes in isolation chloroplast phenoloxidase in Beta vulgaris. Plant Physiology 24: 15-1. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.24.1.1.
9. Asadi W., Rasouli M., Gholami M., and Maleki M. 2017. Study of some morphological and physiological traits of four varieties grapes (Vitis vinifera) under water stress. Iranian Journal of Horticultural Science 48(4): 977-990. (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.22059/IJHS.2017.237072.1279.
10. Azizi H., Jalilimarandi R., Hasani A., and Dolati bane H. 2009. Effect of drought stress on some morphological and physiological characters of three grapevine cultivar. In: Proceedings of 6^th Iranian Horticultural Science Congress 12-15 July, University of Gilan, Rasht, Iran, pp 527.
11. Azooz M.M. 2009. Salt stress mitigation by seed priming with salicylic acid in two faba bean genotypes differing in salt tolerance. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology 11: 343-350. http://www.fspublishers.org.
12. Baby J., and Jini D. 2011. Development of salt stress tolerance plants by gene manipulation of antioxidant enzymes. Asian Journal of Agricultural Research 5: 17-27. https://doi.org/3923/ajar.2011.17.27.
13. Bahrani P., Ebadi A., Zamani Z., and Fatahimoghadam M. 2020. Influence of different drought levels on some morphological and physiological traits in order to select the most tolerant grape rootstock. Journal of Plant Production Research 27(1): 41-56. (In Persian)
14. Barrsu H.D., and Weatherley P.E. 1962. A re-examination of the relative turgidity technique for estimating water deficits in leaves. Australian Journal of Biological Sciences 15: 413-428. https://doi.org/10.1071/BI9620413.
15. Bianchi D., Grossi D., Tincani T.G., Di Lorenzo G.S., Brancadoro L., and Ustioni L. 2018. Multi-parameter characterization of water stress tolerance in Vitis hybrids for new rootstock selection. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry 132: 333-340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2018.09.018.
16. Bradford K.J., and Nonogaki H. 2007. Seed Development, Dormancy and Germination. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 389P.
17. Dat J., Vandenabeele S., Vranova E., Van Montagu M., Inze D., and Van Breusegem F. 2000. Dual action of active oxygen species during plant stress responses. Cellular Molecular of Life Science 57: 779-795. https://doi.org/10.1007/s000180050041.
18. Dhindsa R.S., Plumb-Dhinds D., and Thorpe T.A. 1981. Leaf senescence correlated with increased levels of membrane permeability and lipid peroxidation and decreased levels of superoxide dismutase and catalase. Journal Exp. Bot. 32: 93-101. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/32.1.93.
19. Finger F.L., Puschmann R., and Barros R.S. 1995. Effects of water loss on respiration, ethylene production and ripening of banana fruit. Revista Brasileira De Fisiologia Vegtal 7: 115-118.
20. Gapinska M., Skodowska M., and Gabara B. 2008. Effect of short and long-term salinity on the activities of antioxidative enzymes and lipid peroxidation in tomato roots. Acta Physiology Plant 30: 11-18. https://doi.org/1007/s11738-007-0072-z.
21. Ghaderi N., Siosemardeh A., and Shahoei S. 2006. The effect of water stress on some physiological characterstics in Rashe and Khoshnove grape cultivars. Acta Horticulturae 754: 317-322. https://doi.org/17660/ActaHortic.2007.754.41.
22. Ghaderi N., Talaei A., Ebadi A., and Lesani H. 2009. Effect of water stress on some Physiological characters of five grapevine cultivars and evaluation of genetic diversity of them in Kurdistan province. Ph.D. Thesis. Faculty of Horticulture. University of Tehran, Iran. (In Persian)
23. Ghaderi, N., Talaei, A. R., Ebadi, A. & Lesani, H. 2010. Study of some physiological characteristics in ‘Sahani’, ‘Bidane-sefid’ and ‎‘Farkhii’ grapes during drought stress and their subsequent recovery. PhD Studies Dissertation, University of Tehran, Department of Horticulture. (In Persian) DOR:1001.1.2008482.1389.41.2.9.5.
24. Ghaderi N., Talaie A.R., Ebadi A., and Lessani H. 2011. The Physiological response of three Iranian grape cultivars to progressive drought stress. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology 13: 601-610. DOR:1001.1.16807073.2011.13.4.4.3.
25. Ghasemzadeh A. andJaafar H. Z. E. 2013. Interactive effect of salicylic acid on some physiological features and antioxidant enzymes activity in ginger (Zingiber officinale Roscoe). Molecules 18: 5965-5979. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules18055965.
26. Ghorbani Javid M., Moradi F., Akbari Gh.A., and Allahdadi I. 2006. The role of some metabolites on the osmotic adjustment mechanism in annual cutleaf medic [Medicago laciniata (L.) Mill] under drought stress. Iranian Journal Crop Science 8(2): 90-105. (In Persian with English abstract). com/p636869.
27. Habibi G., and Hajiboland R. 2011. Comparison of water stress and UV radiation effects on the induction of CAM and antioxidative defense in the succulent Rosularia elymaitica (Crassulaceae). Acta Biology Cracov BotANY 53(1): 7-15. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10182-011-0020-5.
28. M., Ebadi. A., Fatahimoghadam. M.R., and Nejatian M.A. 2013. Primary morphological screening of 698 grape genotypes based on drought tolerance for base selection. Iranian Journal of Horticultural Sciences 44(2): 193-207. (In Persian) https://doi.org/10.22059/IJHS.2013.35052.
29. JaliliMarandi R. 2010. Environmental stress physiology and resistance mechanisms in plants garden (fruit trees, vegetables, ornamental plants and medicinal plants). PressSID, West Azarbaijan. Iran.
30. Kocheva K., and Georgive G. 2003. Evaluation of the reaction of two contrasting Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) Cultivars in response to osmotic stress with PEG6000. Journal Plant Physiology 290-294.
31. Lawlor D.W., and Cornic G. 2002. Photosynthetic carbon assimilation and associated metabolism in relation to water deficits in higher plants. Plant, Cell and Environment 25: 275–294. https://doi.org/1046/j.0016-8025.2001.00814.x.
32. Lum M.S., Hanafi M.M., Rafii Y.M., and Akmar A.S.N. 2014. Effect of Drought Stress on Growth, Proline and Antioxidant Enzyme Activities of Upland Rice. Journal of Animal & Plant Sciences 24(5): 1487-1493.
33. Mafakheri A., Siosemardeh A., Bahramnejad B., Struik P.C., and Sohrabi Y. 2011. Effect of drought stress and subsequent recovery on protein, carbohydrate contents, catalase and peroxidase activities in three chickpea (Cicer arietinum) cultivars. Australian Journal of Crop Science 5(10): 1255-1260.
34. Mhamdi A., Queval G., Chaouch S., Vanderauwera S., Breusegem F.V., and Noctor G. 2010. Catalase function in plants: a focus on Arabidopsis mutants as stress-mimic models. Journal of Experimental Botany 61: 4107-4320. https://doi.org/1093/jxb/erq282.
35. Mittler R. 2002. Oxidative stress, antioxidants and stress tolerance. Trends in Plant Science 7: 405-410. https://doi.org/1016/s1360-1385(02)02312-9.
36. Mirjalili A. 2004. Plants in a stressful environment. Nourbakhsh Publishing, p. 230.
37. Mittler R., Vanderauwera S., Gollery M., and Breusegem F.V. 2004. Reactive oxygen gene network of plants. Trends in Plant Science 9: 490-498. https://doi.org/1016/j.tplants.2004.08.009.
38. Moradi B., Ehteshamnia A., and Momiuvand H. 2018. Effect of drought stress on some morphological characteristics of two seedless white and seedless red grape cultivars. Sixth Scientific Research Congress on Development and Promotion of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources in Iran.
39. Nayyar H., and Gupta D. 2006. Differential sensitivity of C₃ and C₄ plants to water deficit stress: Association with oxidative stress and antioxidants. Environment Experimental Botony 58: 106-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2005.06.021.
40. Pettygrove G.S., Wick C.M., Williams J.F., Scardaci S.C., Brandon D.M., and Hill J.E. 1994. Monitoring rice nitrogen status with a chlorophyll meter. Agronomy fact sheet. Series 199: 4-3.
41. Plewa M.J., Smith S.R., and Wanger E.D. 1991. Diethyldithiocarbamate suppresses the plant activation of aromatic amines into mutagens by inhibiting tobacco cell peroxidase. Mutat. Research 247:57-64. https://doi.org/1016/0027-5107(91)90033-k.
42. Rabiei V. 2003. Evaluation of response psychological and morphological of grape varieties to drought stress. MSc thesis, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran (In Persian)
43. Rasoli V., and Golmohamadi M. 2009. Evaluation of drought tolerance of grape cultivars in Qazvin province. Seed and Plant Breeding Magazine (Seedlings and Seeds). 1-25(2): 349-359. (In Persian)
44. Sairam R.K., Rao K.V., and Srivastava G.C. 2002. Differential response of wheat genotypes to long term salinity stress in relation to oxidative stress, antioxidant activity and osmolyte concentration. Plant Science 163: 1037–1046. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9452(02)00278-9.
45. Sanchez-Rodrıguez E., Rubio-Wilhelmi M., Cervilla L.M., Blasco B., Rios J.J., Rosales M.A., Romero L., and Ruiz J.M. 2010. Genotypic differences in some physiological parameters symptomatic for oxidative stress under moderate drought in tomato plants. Plant Science 178: 30–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plantsci.2009.10.001.
46. Schutz H., and Fangmier E. 2001. Growth and yield responses of spring Wheat (Triticum aestivum cv. Minaret) to elevated CO₂ and water limitation. Environmental Pollution 114: 187-194. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0269-7491(00)00215-3.
47. Siemens J.A., and Zwiazek J.J. 2003. Effects of water deficit stress and recovery on the root water relations of trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides) seedlings, Plant Science 165: 113-120. https://doi.org/1016/S0168-9452(03)00149-3.
48. Sinclair, T. R., and M.M. Ludlow. 1985. Who thought plant thermodynamics the unfulfilled potential of plant water potential? Australia. Journal Plant Physiology 33: 312-317. https://doi.org/10.1071/PP9850213.
49. 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 Science 166(2): 293-302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plantsci.2003.09.018.
50. Spaeth, S.C., H.C. Randau, T.R. Sinclair and J.S. Vendeland. 1984. Stability of soybean harvest index. Agronomy Journal 76: 482-486. https://doi.org/2134/agronj1984.00021962007600030028x.
51. Turkan, I. 2011. Plant responses to drought and salinity stress, Development in a post- Genomic era. Advances in Botanical Research. 593p.
52. Wang W. B., Kim, Y. H., Lee, H. S., Kim, K. Y., Deng, X. P. and Kwak, S. S. 2009. Analysis of antioxidant enzyme activity during germination of alfalfa under salt and drought stresses. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry 47: 570–577. https://doi.org/1016/j.plaphy.2009.02.009.
53. Xiao X., Xu X., and Yang F. 2008. Adaptive responses to progressive drought stress in two Populus cothayana Silva Fennica 42: 705-719. https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.224.
54. Yordanov V., and Tsoev T. 2000. Plant responses to drought, acclimation and stress tolerance. Photosynthica 38: 171-186. https://doi.org/1023/A:1007201411474