بررسی مقاومت به سرمازدگی جوانه های رویشی و زایشی ارقام و ژنوتیپ‌های مختلف گلابی در شرایط آب و هوایی مشهد

نوع مقاله : مقالات پژوهشی

نویسندگان

• شادان خورشیدی ¹
• غلامحسین داوری نژاد ¹
• لیلا سمیعی ²
• محمد مقدم ¹

¹ دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد

² پژوهشکده علوم گیاهی، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد

https://doi.org/10.22067/jhorts4.v30i3.50169

چکیده

گلابی بدلیل باز شدن زودتر جوانه‌های گل نسبت به سیب به سرمازدگی حساس‌تر می‌باشد.به دنبال سرمای6/6- درجه سانتی‌‍ گراد هشتم اسفند سال 1392 ارزیابی مقاومت به سرمازدگی در 23 ژنوتیپ معروف به گلابی درگزی و ارقام دیگر گلابی شامل بل دی جون، اسپادانا، کوشیا، دم کج،فرنگی،ترش و تبریزی در شرایط آب و هوایی مشهد انجام شد. آزمایش در قالب طرح بلوک‌های کامل تصادفی با سه تکرار انجام شد. میزان سرمازدگی جوانه‌های رویشی و زایشی ژنوتیپ‌های گلابی درگزی و سایر ارقام با روش هدایت الکتریکی، تعیین میزان پرولین در جوانه‌های زایشی و مشاهدات ظاهری بررسی گردید. بالاترین هدایت الکتریکی جوانه‌های زایشی در ژنوتیپ‌‌های درگزی شماره 10 و 19 و ارقام ترش و تبریزی و پایین‌ترین هدایت الکتریکی در ژنوتیپ‌های درگزی 8و 18 و رقم بل دی جون مشاهده شد. بیشترین هدایت الکتریکی جوانه‌های رویشی در ژنوتیپ های درگزی 10 و 19 و کمترین درژنوتیپ درگزی 21 و ارقام فرنگی و کوشیا مشاهده گردید.ژنوتیپ درگزی 20 بالاترین میزان پرولین (21 میکرو مول بر گرم) و ژنوتیپ‌های درگزی 2، 12، 13 و 14 و رقم اسپادانا مقدار ناچیزی پرولین (1/0 میکرو مول بر گرم)در جوانه‌های زایشی داشتند. همبستگی مثبت معنی‌داری بین میزان پرولین و هدایت الکتریکی مشاهده نشد. بر اساس تجزیه خوشه‌ایی با استفاده از روش WARDژنوتیپ‌ها و ارقام در 2 گروه مختلف قرار گرفتند. ارقام و ژنوتیپ‌های گروه دوم آسیب ظاهری، هدایت الکتریکی و میزان پرولین بیشتری داشتند. به طور کلی با توجه به نتایج این آزمایش، ژنوتیپ‌های درگزی مقاومت‌های متفاوتی به سرمازدگی نشان دادند که ممکن است منشا ژنتیکی متفاوت و یا ناشی از جهش در کلون‌های این رقم باشد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

• پرولین
• سرمازدگی
• درگزی
• نشت یونی

20.1001.1.20084730.1395.30.3.1.0

عنوان مقاله [English]

Investigation the Frost Resistance of Vegetative and Reproductive Buds of Pear Cultivars in Mashhad Climate Condition

نویسندگان [English]

• Shadan Khorshidi ¹
• Gholamhossein Davarynejad ¹
• Leila Samiei ²
• Mohammad Moghaddam ¹

¹ Ferdowsi University of Mashhad

² tarbiat modares

چکیده [English]

Introduction: Most deciduous trees need low temperature to break flower bud dormancy. One of the most important abiotic stresses is low temperature which limits production of temperate fruits. Pear production has been considerably reduced in recent years. Important pear cultivars show different levels of resistance to cold. Cold compatibility followed by resistance increase is controlled genetically and contains several mechanisms which lead to production of different metabolites such as: polypeptides, amino acids and sugars. The object of this research was to evaluate the frost resistance of different ‘Dare Gazi’ genotypes and other pear cultivars in Mashhad climate condition.
Materials and Methods: This study was conducted to investigate the frost resistance of 23 ‘Dare Gazi’ pear genotypes and nine other cultivars include: ‘William’s’, ‘Bell de june’, ‘Spadona’, ‘Koshia’, ‘Domkaj’, ‘Torsh’, ‘Sebri’ and ‘Tabrizi’. Plant material contained vegetative and reproductive buds of one-year-old shoot samples which were collected from 25-year old trees on March 2014, four days after winter cold (-6.6 °C) in three directions of trees and sent to the laboratory. Frost damages of vegetative and reproductive buds were investigated based on visual observations (%), electrolyte leakage (EC) and proline content. EC was measured with a Metrohm 644 digital conductivity meter and proline content was measured based on Bates et al. (1973) method, using acid ninhydrin. The experiment was performed on completely randomized experimental design with three replications. Statistical analysis was carried out using MSTAT-C and Excel software. Mean values were compared using the least significance difference test (LSD) at 1% levels. Cluster analysis was conducted by SPSS 16 program.
Results and Discussion: Highest EC of reproductive buds was observed in ‘Dare Gazi’ 10, 19, ‘Tabrizi’ and ‘Torsh’ whereas ‘Dare Gazi’ 8, 18 and ‘Bell de June’ had the lowest EC. Based on visual observations, the least percentage of damaged reproductive buds was observed in ‘Dare Gazi’ 22 while ‘William’s’ suffered from frost at the highest damage level (96%). Göndör and Tóth (1998) studied 13 pear cultivars by microscopic observations of flower buds and found that ‘Packham's Triumph’ was relatively resistant under Hungarian ecological conditions. Honty et al. (2008) reported that Kaiser was the most sensitive pear cultivar to low temperatures during endodormancy and ecodormancy. Khorshidi et al. (2014) described that pear reproductive buds of ‘Ghodumi’ were the most tolerant. Considering the vegetative buds, ‘Dare Gazi’ 19 had the highest EC (74.47 %) which was not significantly different from ‘Dare Gazi’ 10, 20 and 3 whereas the lowest one was found in ‘William’s’(24.75%). The highest percentage of healthy vegetative buds was found in ‘Dare Gazi’ 1 (50%) which did not show a significant difference with ‘Dare Gazi’ 12, 5 and 7. ‘Tabrizi’ was the most sensitive and had most damaged vegetative buds (95.99%). Khorshidi et al. (2014) observed the least damaged vegetative buds in ‘Dare Gazi’ and the most damaged buds in ‘Boheme’ and ‘Ghodumi’. Palonen and Buszard (1997) mentioned that hardiness of woody tissue of apples did not seem related to flower bud hardiness. The highest proline content of reproductive buds was found in ‘Dare Gazi’ 20 (21.28 µmol g-1FW) and the lowest content observed in ‘Dare Gazi’ 2 (0.1 µmol g-1 FW). Young (1977) described that increase in proline was not correlated well with relative cold hardiness of citrus rootstocks. Data did not show any significant correlation between EC and proline content. Barka and Audran (1997) studied grape buds and shoots and reached a high negative correlation between proline content and frosttolerance. Yelonsky (1979) indicated that accumulation of proline was not correlated to cold hardiness. The results of present experiment were in agreement with Duncan and Jack (1987) findings which reported that increase in proline was not always correspondent to cold resistance. Based on the cluster analysis, the genotypes laid in two distinct groups. First group included ‘Dare Gazi’1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23 and ‘Sebri’, ‘Domkaj’, ‘Bell de june’ and ‘Koshia’ and second group include ‘Dare Gazi’ 11,16, 21 and ‘William’s’, ‘Spadona’ and ‘Torsh’. Frost damage, EC and proline content were higher in the first group compared to second group.
Conclusion: Cosidering‘DareGazi’ genotypes, no correlation was found between proline content and frost damage rate. This shows that morphological differences among ‘Dare Gazi’ genotypes could be due to the existing of genetic variation of these genotypes or they are different clones of one cultivar.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

• Proline
• Frost
• ‘Dare Gazi’
• Electrolyte leakage

مراجع

1- Afshari H., Zahedi R., Parvaneh T. and Zadehbagheri M. 2014. Effect of salicylic acid on the proline, soluble sugars and ion leakage in two apricot cultivars under cold stress,Journalof CropImprovement,16: 127-138.

2-Ackerman W.L. 1969.Fruit bud hardiness of North Caucasus seedlings and other foreign peach introductions,Fruit Varieties and HorticulturalDigest, 23: 14-16.

3-BarkaE.A. andAudran J.C. 1997. Response of champenoise grapevine to low temperature: changes of shoot and bud proline concentrations in response to low temperatures and correlations with freezing tolerance,HorticulturalScience, 72: 557-582.

4-Bates L.S., Waldren R.P. andTeare I.D. 1973. Rapid determination of free proline for water stress studies, Plant andSoil, 39: 205-208.

5- Blum A. andEbercon A. 1981. Cell membrane stability as a measure of drought and heattolerance in wheat,Science, 21: 43-47.

6- Bohnert H.J. and Jensen R.G. 1996.Strategies for engineering water stress tolerance in plants,Trendsin Biotechnology, 14:89-97.

7- ChenY.Z.andAne L. 2005. The relationshipbetween seasonal changes in anti oxidativesystemand freezing tolerance in the leaves in Woody plants,ScientiaHorticulturae, 73: 272-279.

8- Davarynejad GH., Aryanpooya Z., Fahadan A. and Davarynejad E. 2009. Evaluation of susceptibility of walnut genotypes to sudden cold and frost injury,KoreanSocietyforHorticulturalScience, 50: 497-501.

9- Duncan D.R. and Jack M., 1987. Proline accumulation and its implication in cold tolerance of regenerable maize callus,Journal of PlantPhysiology, 83: 703-708.

10- Filiti N. and Neri D. 1989. Cold damage in fruit bud tissues ofpear,ActaHorticulturae, 26: 133–126.

11- Göndör M., and Toth MG. 1998.Evaluation of frost resistance and productivity of pear cultivars in Hungary.ActaHorticulturae, 484: 79-8.

12- Hardwick R.C. and AnderewsD.J. 1980. A method ofmeasuring differences between varieties in toleranceto suboptimal temperatures,Annals of Applied Biology,95: 235-246.

13- Honty K., Sardi E., Stefanovits-Banyai E. and Toth M. 2008. Frost induced changes in enzyme activities and carbohydrate content in the spurs of some pear cultivars during the dormancy, International Journal of Horticultural Science, 14: 41-44.

14- Howell G.S.and WeiserC.J. 1970. Fluctuations in the cold resistance of apple twigs duringspring dehardening, Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science, 95: 190192.

15- Irigoyen JJ., Emerich DW. andsanchez-DiazM. 1992.Water stress induces changes inconcentration of proline and total soluble sugerinnodulatedalfaalfa(Medicgo sativa)plants.Plants,Physiologiaplantarum,84:55-60.

16- Ivancsics J. 2003. Körtefajtakerzekenysegeteliestavaszifagy-karosodassalszemben,NövenyvedelmiTanacsok, 12 (5): 14–16.

17- Jahanbakhsh-Godehkahriz S., Karimzadeh G., Rastegar F., Zolla L., Egidi MG., Mahfoozi S. and Hosseini-Salekdeh G. 2009. Low temperature induced proteins in Chayene winter wheat: A proteomics study. In: The Proceedings of the 2nd Iranian Proteomics Congress, Royan Institute, Tehran, Iran, 80p.

18- Kang S. K., Motosugi H., Yonemori K. and Sugiura A. 1998. Supercooling characteristics of some deciduous fruit trees as related to water movement within the bud,Journal ofHorticultural Science&Biotechnology, 73: 165-172.

19- KhorshidiSh., DavarynejadGh.,Azmoode F. and Kameli M. 2014. Evaluation of susceptibility of pear and plum cultivars to winter frost,FoliaHorticulturae, 26: 103-108.

20- Levitt J. 1980. Responses of Plants to Environmental Stresses: Vol, I, Chilling, Freezing and

High temperature stresses. 2nd ed. Academic Press, New York, NY.

21- Linden L. and Palonen P. 2000. Relating freeze induced electrolyte leakage measurements to lethal temperature in red raspberry,Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science,125 (4):429-435.

22- Lindon L. 2002. Measuring cold hardiness in woody plants.PhD.Thesis., Helsinki Univ.Pub.

23- MaloneS.R.and Ashworth E.N. 1991. Freezing stress response in woody tissues observedusing low-temperature scanning electron microscopy and freeze substitution techniques,Plant Physiology, 95: 871-881.

24- Marcum K.B. 1998. Cell membrane theromotability and whole-plant heat tolerance of Kentucky bluegrass, Crop Science, 38: 1214-1218.

25-McNamara S. andPellett H. 1998. Cold hardiness of weigela cultivars, Journal ofEnvironmental Horticulture, 16: 238-242.

26- Khalafalla, M.S. and Palzkill, D.A. 1990. Seasonal patterns of carbohydrates and proline in jojoba clones that differ in frost susceptibility,HortScience, 25(1): 103-105.

27- Mousavi S., ShiranB., ImaniA.,Houshmand S. and Ebrahimie E. 2014. Investigation of some physiological indices related to frost damage in almond cultivars with different flowering time, Journal of Crop Production and Processing,4(12): 235-247)in Persian(.

28- Palonen P. andBuszard D. 1997. Current state of cold hardiness research on fruit crops,Canadian Journalof Plant Science, 77: 399-420.

29-PieberK. 1985. Winterfrostschäden in denÖsterreichischenObstanbaugebieten,Erwerbsobstbau, 27 (10):243–246.

30- Rodrigo J. 2000. Spring frosts in deciduous fruit trees-Morphological damage and flower hardiness,ScientiaHorticulturae, 85: 155-173.

31- SchinozakiK. andJamaguchi Sh.1996. Molecular responses to drought and coldstress,Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 7:161167.

32- Schwabe W.W. and Lionakis S.M. 1996.Leafattitude in olive in relation to droughtresistance,Journal of Horticultural Science, 71:157-166.

33-Soloklui A.A.G., Ershadi A. and Fallahi E. 2012. Evaluation of cold hardiness in seven Iranian commercial pomegranate (Punicagranatum L.) cultivars,HortScience, 47(12): 1821-1825.

34- Szalay L., Papp J. andSzabo Z. 2000. Evaluation of frost tolerance of peach varieties in artificial freezing tests,ActaHorticulturae, 538: 407-410.

35- Watkins R. 1976. Cherry, plum, peach, apricot and almond.In: Simmonds, N.W. (Eds.).Evolution of Crop Plants. Longman, London, pp. 242–247.

36- Yelonsky G. 1979. Accumulation of free proline in citrus leaves during cold hardening of young tree in controlled temperature regimes,Plant Physiology, 64: 425-427.

37- Young R.H. 1977. The effect of rootstocks on citrus cold hardiness,President of the International Society of Citriculture, 2: 518-522.