بررسی تاثیر تنش خشکی بر برخی ویژگی‌های مورفولوژیکی و فیزیولوژیکی سه رقم انگور (.Vitis vinifera L)

نوع مقاله : مقالات پژوهشی

نویسندگان

• مهدی آران
• بهرام عابدی
• علی تهرانی فر
• مهدی پارسا

دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد

https://doi.org/10.22067/jhorts4.v0i0.53495

چکیده

به‌منظور بررسی تاثیر تنش خشکی بر برخی از ویژگی‌های سه رقم انگور (یاقوتی، بیدانه سفید و عسکری)، آزمایشی گلدانی به‌صورت فاکتوریل در قالب طرح بلوک‌های کامل تصادفی با چهار تکرار در سال‌های94-1393 انجام شد. تیمارهای آبیاری در چهار سطح، شامل تیمار شاهد (100 درصد ظرفیت زراعی)، تنش متوسط (60 درصد ظرفیت زراعی)، تنش شدید (30 درصد ظرفیت زراعی) و تیمار آبیاری مجدد پس از تیمار تنش شدید انجام شدند. نتایج نشان داد که با افزایش شدت تنش خشکی، شاخص‌های رشدی، شاخص کلروفیل و محتوای نسبی آب برگ‌ها کاهش می‌یابد و در شرایط تنش خشکی شدید رقم یاقوتی دارای بیشترین میزان افزایش ارتفاع (12/9 سانتیمتر)، تعداد برگ (12/35)، وزن خشک برگ و ساقه (به ترتیب 92/4 و 41/8 گرم) و محتوای نسبی آب برگ (49/85 درصد) بود. میزان نشت الکترولیت‌ها، میزان قندهای محلول کل، میزان فعالیت آنتی‌اکسیدانی، ترکیبات فنلی و پرولین با افزایش شدت تنش خشکی افزایش یافت. در شرایط تنش خشکی رقم بیدانه سفید دارای بیشترین میزان نشت الکترولیت‌ها بود و رقم یاقوتی بیشترین میزان فعالیت آنتی‌اکسیدانی (3/45 درصد) و پرولین (12/11 میکرو مول بر گرم وزن خشک) را در شرایط تنش خشکی شدید نسبت به دو رقم دیگر داشت. با توجه به نتایج بدست آمده در این پژوهش به نظر می‌رسد که رقم یاقوتی نسبت به دو رقم دیگر به خشکی متحمل‌تر است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

• پرولین
• شاخص‌های رشدی
• میزان قندهای محلول
• محتوای نسبی آب برگ

20.1001.1.20084730.1396.31.2.8.2

عنوان مقاله [English]

Effects of Drought Stress and Rewatering on some Morphological and Physiological Properties of Three Grapevine Cultivars

نویسندگان [English]

• Mehdi Aran
• Bahram Abedi
• Ali Tehranifar
• Mehdi Parsa

Ferdowsi University of Mashhad

چکیده [English]

Introduction: Most plants have developed morphological and physiological mechanisms which allow them to cope with drought stress. Almost all the studies conducted on grapevines (Vitisvinifera L.) responses to drought conditions have focused on physiological responses such as stomatal reactions, photosynthesis and osmotic adjustment, and biochemical responses like carbohydrates and proline. According to these studies, physiological and biochemical responses of grapevines to water stress are quite variable. This variability could be related to cultivar, time of the year, previous water stress level, intensity of stress, and environmental conditions. Osmotic adjustment in terms of compatible solutes accumulation has been considered as an important physiological adaptation for plant to resist drought, which facilitates the extraction of water from dry soils and maintenance of cell turgor, gas exchange and growth in very dry environments. Acting as compatible solutes as well as antioxidants, a significant rise in proline amount was observed in grapevine leaves under water stress conditions, suggesting that this amino acid has a protective role against the formation of excessive reactive oxygen species (ROS). Plants, in order to overcome oxidative stress, have developed enzymatic and non-enzymatic antioxidant defense mechanisms against scavenge ROS.
Materials and Methods: This research was conducted to assess the effect of different levels of irrigation on some characteristics of three cultivars of grapevine (Yaghooti, Bidanesefid and Askari), as a factorial based on a randomized complete block design in two years with four replications. The experiment started in June 21, 2014 and 2015. Water treatments were applied in four levels including: control plant (100% FC), moderate stress (60% FC), severe stress (30% FC) and rewatering treatment after severe stress treatment. Increase height, leaf number, stem diameter, leaf fresh and dry weight, stem dry weight, chlorophyll index,RWC, electrolyte leakage, soluble sugar, antioxidant activity, phenolic compound and proline were measured at the end of the experiment. JMP8 software was used to test the significant differences among the treatments and the interactions. When there were significant differences, means were separated by Tukey HSD test at the probability level p

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

• Growth characteristics
• Leaf relative water content
• Proline
• Soluble sugar

مراجع

1. Abe N., Murata T., and Hirota A. 1998. Novel 1,1-diphenyl-2-picryhy- drazyl- radical scavengers, bisorbicillin and dimethyl trichodimerol, from a fungus. Bioscience, Biotechnology and Biochemistry, 62: 661-662.

2. Ashraf M., Athar H.R., Harris P.J.C., and Kwon T.R. 2008. Some prospective strategies for improving crop salt tolerance. Advances in Agronomy, 97: 45–110.

3. Bandeoğlu E., Eyidoğan F., Yücel M., and Öktem H.A. 2004. Antioxidant responses of shoots and roots of lentil to NaCl-salinity stress. Plant Growth Regulation, 42: 69–77.

4. Bandurska H., Plachta M., and Woszczyk M. 2009. Seasonal patterns of free proline and carbohydrate levels in cherry laurel (Prunus laurocerasus) and ivy (Hederea helix) leaves and resistance to freezing and water deficit. Dendrobiology, 62:3–9.

5. Bates L.S., Waldran R.P., and Teare I.D. 1973. Rapid determination of free proline for water studies. Plant Soil, 39: 205–208.

6. Blum A. 1988. Drought resistance, In: A. Blum (ed), Plant breeding fof stress environments, CRC. Florida, pp: 43-69.

7. Bota J., Stasyk O., Flexas J., and Medrano H. 2004. Effect of water stress on partitioning of 14C labelled photosynthates in Vitis vinifera. Plant Biology, 31(7): 697–708.

8. Chang W.C., Kim S.C., Hwang S.S., Choi B.K., and Kim S.K. 2002. Antioxidant activity and free radical scavenging capacity between Korean medicinal plants and flavonoids by assay-guided comparison. Plant Science, 163: 1161-1168.

9. Chaves M.M., and Oliveira M.M. 2004. Mechanisms underlying plant resilience to water deficits: prospects for water-saving agriculture. Journal of Experimental Botany, 55: 2365–2384.

10. Chaves M.M., Flexas J., and Pinheiro C. 2009. Photosynthesis under drought and salt stress: regulation mechanisms from whole plant to cell. Annals of Botany, 103: 551–560.

11. Chaves M.M., Zarrouk O., Francisco R., Costa J.M., and Lopes C.M. 2010. Grapevine under deficit irrigation: hints from physiological and molecular data. Annals of Botany, 105(5): 661-676.

12. Claussen W. 2005. Proline as a measure of stress in tomato plants. Plant Science, 168: 241–248.

13. Dichio B., Romano M., Nuzzu V., and Xiloyannis C. 2002. Soil water availability and relationship between canopy and roots in young olive trees cv. Coratana. Acta Horticulturae, 586: 419–422.

14. Ez-zohra I.F., Said Q., Mohamed F., and Tayeb K. 2014. Biochemical Changes in Grapevines Roots in Responses to Osmotic Stress. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 4(7): 1-5.

15. Faraloni C., Cutino I., Petruccelli R., Leva A.R., Lazzeri S., and Torzillo G. 2011. Chlorophyll Fluorescence Technique as a Rapid Tool for In Vitro Screening of Olive Cultivars (Olea europaea L.) Tolerant to Drought Stress. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 73:49-56.

16. Filella I., Llusia J., Pin J.O., and Pen J.U. 1998. Leaf gas exchange and fluorescence of Phillyrea latifolia, Pistacia lentiscus and Quercus ilex saplings in severe drought and high temperature conditions. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 39: 213–220.

17. 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.

18. 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 Farsi).

19. 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.

20. Habibi D., Ardakani M.R., Boojar M.M., Taleghani D.E., and Mahmoodi A. 2004. Antioxidative in sunflower subjected to drought stress. 4th International Crop Science Congress. 26 sep to 10 Oct. Australia.

21. Hedge J.E.Z., and Hofreiter B.T. 1962. Carbohydrate Chemistry. PP. 17-22. In:R.L. Whistler and B. Miller (Eds.), Academic Press.

22. Hura T., Hura K., Grzesiak M., and Rezepka A. 2007. Effect of Long-term Drought Stress on Leaf Gas Exchange and Fluorescence Parameters in C3 and C4 Plants. Acta Physiologiae Plantarum, 29: 103- 113.

23. Jalili marandi R., Hasaani A., Dolati bane H., Azizi H., and Haji taghilo R. 2011. Different Levels of Soil Moisture on the Morphological and Physiological Characteristics of Three Grape Cultivars (Vitis vinifera L.). Iranian journal of horticultural science, 42(1):31-40 (in Persian).

24. Jiang Y., and Huang N. 2001. Drought and heat stress injury to two cool-season turfgrasses in relation to antioxidant metabolism and lipid peroxidation. Crop Science, 41: 436-442.

25. Jimenez S., Dridi J., Gutierrez D., Moret D., Irigoyen J.J., Moreno M.A., and Gogorcena Y. 2013. Physiological, biochemical and molecular responses in four Prunus rootstocks submitted to drought stress. Tree Physiology, 33: 1061–1075.

26. Kang H.M., and Saltveit M.E. 2002. Effect of chilling on antioxidant enzymes and DPPH-radical scavenging activity of high- and low-vigour cucumber seedling radicles. Plant Cell Environment, 25: 1233-1238.

27. Koundouras S., Tsialtas IT., Zioziou E., and Nikolaou N. 2008. Rootstock effect on the adaptive strategies of grapevine (Vitis vinifera cv. Cabernet–Sauvignon) under contrasting water status, Leaf physiological and structural responses. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 128: 86-96.

28. Krasensky J., and Jonak C. 2012. Drought, salt, and temperature stress induced metabolic rearrangements and regulatory networks. Journal of Experimental Botany, 63:1593–1608.

29. Lebon E., Pellegrino A., and Louarn G. 2006. Branch development controls leaf area dynamics in grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) growing in drying soil. Annals of Botany, 98(1): 175–185.

30. Liu B.H., Cheng L., Liang D., Zou Y.J., and Ma F.W. 2012. Growth, gas exchange, water-use efficiency, and carbon isotope composition of ‘Gale Gala’ apple trees grafted onto 9 wild Chinese rootstocks in response to drought stress. Photosynthetica, 50: 401–410.

31. 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. Functional Plant Biology, 37: 98–116.

32. Mahajan S., and Tuteja N. 2005. Cold, salinity and drought stresses: an overview. Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics, 444: 139–158.

33. Mc Donald S., Prenzler P.D., Autolovich M., and Robards K. 2001. Phenolic content and antioxidant activity of olive extracts. Food Chemistry, 73: 73- 84.

34. Mohamed A.A., and Aly A.A. 2008. Alternations of some secondary metabolites and enzymes activity by using exogenous antioxidant compound in onion plants grown under seawater salt stress. American-Eurasian Journal of Scientific Research, 3: 139-146.

35. Molassiotis A., Sotiropoulos T., Tanou G., Diamantidis G., and Therios I. 2006. Boron-induced oxidative damage and antioxidant and nucleolytic responses in shoot tips culture of the apple rootstock EM9 (Malus domestica Borkh). Environmental and Experimental Botany, 56: 54–62.

36. Patakas A. 2000. Changes in the solutes contributing to osmotic potential during leaf ontogeny in grapevine leaves. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 51(3): 223-226.

37. -Perez-Perez J.G., Syvertsen J.P., Botia P., and Garcia-Sanchez F. 2007. Leaf water relations and net gas exchange responses of salinized Carrizo citrange seedlings during drought stress and recovery. Annals of Botany, 100(2): 335–345.

38. Peterlunger E., Siviloti P., Celoti E., and Zironi R. 2000. Water stress and polyphenolic quality in red grapes. 6th International symposium on grapevine physiology and biotechnology, Heraklion, Greece.

39. Ramteke S.D., and Karibasappa G.S. 2005. Screening of grape (Vitis vinifera) genotypes for drought tolerance. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 75: 355-357.

40. Rayees A.W., Sheema S., Dar N.A., Angchuk S., and Parray G.A. 2013. Irrigation regimes effecting drought tolerance of grape rootstocks under cold arid conditions. International Journal of Scientific and Technology Research, 12(2): 113-117.

41. Sairam R.K., Chandrasekhar V., and Srivastava G.C. 2001. Comparison of hexaploid and tetraploid wheat cultivars in their responses to water stress. Biologia Plantarum, 44 (1): 89-94.

42. Santesteban L.G., Miranda C., and Royo J.B. 2009. Effect of water deficit and rewatering on leaf gas exchange and transpiration decline of excised leaves of four grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) cultivars. Scientia Horticulturae, 121: 434–439.

43. Satisha J., Prakash G.S., and Venugopalan R. 2006. Statistical modeling of the effect of physiobiochemical parameters on water use efficiency of grape varieties, rootstocks and their stionic combinations under moisture stress conditions. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 30: 261-271.

44. Shamsi K., 2010. The effects of drought stress on yield, relative water content, proline, soluble carbohydrates and chlorophyll of bread wheat cultivars. Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences, 8 (3): 1051- 1060.

45. Smirnoff N. 1993. The role of active oxygen in the response to water deficit and desiccation. New Phytologist, 125: 27–58.

46. Sun, J., Gu J., Zeng J., Han Sh., Song A, Chen F., Fang W., Jiang J., and Chen S. 2013. Changes in leaf morphology, antioxidant activity and photosynthesis capacity in two different drought-tolerant cultivars of chrysanthemum during and after water stress. Scientia Horticulturae, 161: 249–258.

47. Taiz L., and Zeiger E., 2006. Plant Physiology (4th ed.). Publishers sunderland, Massachusetts, 738p.

48. Tian X., and Lei Y. 2006. Nitric oxide treatment alleviates drought stress in wheat seedlings. Biologia Plantarum. 50 (4):775-778.

49. Tooumi 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. Journal international des sciences de la vigne et du vin, 41(2): 85-93.

50. Zokaee-Khosroshahi M., Esna- Ashari M., Ershadi A., and Imani A. 2014. Morphological changes in response to drought stress in cultivated and wild almond species. International Journal of Horticultural Science and Technology, 1(1): 79-92.