تأثیر تنش خشکی بر تنظیم اسمزی، تغییرپذیری پرولین و قندهای محلول ریشه و برگ و رابطۀ آن با تحمل به خشکی در دوازده ژنوتیپ نخود (Cicer arietinum L.)

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار، مجتمع آموزش عالی شیروان

2 استاد دانشکدۀ کشاورزی، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد

3 استاد دانشکدۀ علوم، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد

4 استادیار پژوهشکدۀ علوم گیاهی، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد

5 استادیار، گروه کشاورزی، دانشگاه پیام نور

چکیده

خشکی از جمله تنش‌های مهم محیطی است که بر رشد و نمو گیاهان اثر می‌گذارد. این آزمایش به‌منظور ارزیابی تأثیر تنش خشکی بر دوازده ژنوتیپ نخود در شرایط آبکشت (هیدروپونیک) با استفاده از پلی‌اتیلن ‌گلیکول 6000 و ایجاد تیمارهای تنش 3- و 6- بار و شاهد (بدون تنش) انجام شد. دو هفته پس از اعمال تیمار تنش روی ژنوتیپ‌ها، متغیرها ارزیابی شدند. نتایج نشان داد که با اعمال تنش خشکی، درصد رطوبت برگ کاسته شد اما در ریشه‌‌ها تغییر معنی‌داری از این نظر مشاهده نشد. در برابر میزان پتانسیل اسمزی، میزان اسمولیت‌ها و پرولین در پاسخ به تنش خشکی در برگ و ریشه افزایش یافت. شاخص تحمل به خشکی (DRI) بر پایۀ عملکرد زیست‌توده، در ژنوتیپ‌ها همبستگی مثبت و معنی‌داری با میزان اسمولیت‌های ریشه در تیمار تنش ۳- بار داشت. با وجود معنی‌دار نبودن تغییر میزان قند محلول برگ در تیمارها، در ریشه میزان این ترکیب‌ها در تیمارهای تنش نسبت به شاهد کاسته شد. به‌رغم وجود همبستگی بین شاخص تحمل به خشکی با برخی از صفات اندازه‌گیری‌شده به نظر می‌رسد که تنظیم اسمزی، درصد رطوبت، پرولین و قندهای محلول هیچ‌کدام به‌تنهایی نمی‌توانند شاخص مناسبی برای ارزیابی تحمل به خشکی در ژنوتیپ‌های نخود در شرایط یکسان با این آزمایش باشند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Effect of drought stress on osmotic adjustment, proline and soluble sugars in root and shoot and relationship with drought tolerance in 12 genotypes of Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mohammad Zare Mehrjerdi 1
  • Abdolreza Bagheri 2
  • Ahmadreza Bahrami 3
  • Jafar Nabati 4
  • Ali Masoumi 5
1 Assistance Professor, Shirvan Higher Education Complex, Iran
2 Professor, Faculty of Agriculture Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Iran
3 Professor, Faculty of Science, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Iran
4 Assistance Professor Research Center for Plant Sciences, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Iran
5 Assistance Professor, Department of Agriculture, Payame Noor University, Iran
چکیده [English]

Environmental stresses such as drought have important effects on plant growth and development. In order to evaluate the effect of drought tolerance, 12 chickpea genotypes were treated with drought stress in hydroponic condition in greenhouses. Treatments were a control and two stress treatments -3 and -6 bar that was created with polyethylene glycol in hydroponic condition. Two weeks after the stress treatments on the genotypes, moisture content, osmotic potential, proline and soluble sugars were evaluated in their shoot and root. Results showed that drought stress reduced moisture content in shoot, but moisture content in the root had no significant changes. On the other hand amount of osmotic potential, osmotic compounds and proline increased in response to drought stress in shoot and root. Drought tolerance index in genotypes showed positive significant correlation with amount of the root osmotic compounds in -3 bar treatment. Despite the absence of significant changes in leaf soluble sugars, the amount of root soluble sugars declined in stress treatments compared to control. In addition, the positive significant correlation was observed between the drought tolerance index in -6 bar treatments and root soluble sugars of this treatment. Leaf and root proline levels had not significantly correlation with drought tolerance in genotypes. Despite some correlations between traits and drought tolerance index it seems that osmotic adjustment, moisture content, proline and soluble sugars alone not to be a suitable indicator to evaluate drought tolerance in chickpea genotypes.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Chickpea
  • hydroponic
  • osmotic compounds
  • osmotic potential

مراجع

  1. Bartels, D. & Sunkar, R. (2005). Drought and salt tolerance in plants. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 24, 23-58.
  2. Basu, P.S., Masood A. & Chaturvedi, S.K. (2007). Osmotic adjustment increase water uptake, remobilization of assimilates and maintains photosynthesis in chickpea under drought. Indian Journal of Experimental Biology, 45, 261-267.
  3. Bates, L.S., Waldran, R.P. & Teare, I.D. (1973). Rapid determination of free proline for water studies. Plant and Soil, 39, 205-208.
  4. Blum, A., Munns, R., Passioura, J.B., Turner, N.C., Sharp, R.E., Boyer, J.S. Nguyen, H.T. & Hsiao, T.C. (1996). Letters to the editor. Genetically engineered plants resistant to soil drying and salt stress: how to interpret osmoticrelations?. Plant Physiology, 110, 1051-1053.
  5. Chaves, M.M., Maroco, J.P. & Pereira, J.S. (2003). Understanding plant responses to drought: from genes to the whole plant. Functional Plant Biology, 30, 239-264.
  6. Dubois, M., Gilles, K.A., Hamilton, J.K., Rebers, P.A. & Smith, F. (1956). Calorimetric method for determination of sugars and related substances. Analytical Chemistry, 28, 350-356.
  7. FAOSTAT Database. (2012). http://apps.fao.org/faostat/
  8. Fischer, R.A. & Maurer, R. (1978). Drought resistance in spring wheat cultivars. I. Grain yield response. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 29, 897-907.
  9. Gomes, F.P., Olivab, M.A., Mielkea, M.S., Almeidaa, A.F. & Aquinob, L.A. (2010). Osmotic adjustment, proline accumulation and cell membrane stability in leaves of Cocos nucifera submitted to drought stress. Scientia Horticulturae, 126, 379-384.
  10. Haileselasie, T. H. & Teferii, G. (2012). The Effect of Salinity Stress on Germination of Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) Land Race of Tigray. Current Research Journal of Biological Sciences, 4, 578-583.
  11. Hakimi, A., Monneveux, P. & Galiba, G. (1995). Soluble sugars, proline and Relative Water Content (RWC) as traits for improving drought tolerance and divergent selection for RWC from T. polonicum into T. durum. Journal of Genetic Breeding, 49, 237-244.
  12. Hare, P.D. & Cress, W.A. (1997). Metabolic implications of stress induced proline accumulation in plants. Plant Growth Regulators, 21, 79-102.
  13. Hoekstra, F.A. & Buitink, J. (2001). Mechanisms of plant dessiccation tolerance. Trends in Plant Science, 8, 431-438.
  14. Ingram, J. & Bartels, D. (1996). The molecular basis of dehydration tolerance in plants. Annual Review of Plant Physiology and Plant Molecular Biology, 47, 377-403.
  15. Koch, K.E. (1996) Carbohydrate-modulated gene expression in plants. Annu Rev Plant Physiol Plant Molecular Biology, 47, 509-540.
  16. Kumar, J. & Rao, B.V. (2001). Registration of ICCV96029, super early and double podded chickpea germplasm. Crop Science, 41, 605-606.
  17. Leport, L., Turner, N.C., French, R.J., Barr, M.D., Duda, R., Davies, S.L., Tennant, D. & Siddique, K.H.M. (1999). Physiological responses of chickpea genotypes to terminal drought in a Mediterranean-type environment. European Journal of Agronomy, 11, 279-291.
  18.  
  19. Lizana, C., Wentworth, M., Mart ́nez, J.P., Villegas, D., Meneses, R., Murchie, E.H., Pastenes, C., Lercari, B., Vernieri, P., Horton, P. & Pinto, M. (2006). Differential adaptation of two varieties of common bean to abiotic stress. I. Effects of drought on yield and photosynthesis. Journal of Experimental Botany, 57, 685-697.
  20. Lutts, S., Almansouri, M. & Kinet, J.M. (2004). Salinity and water stress have contrasting effects on the relationship between growth and cell viability during and after stress exposure in durum wheat callus. Plant Science, 167, 9-18.
  21. Michel, B.E. & Kaufman, M.R. (1973). The osmotic potential of polyethylenglycol 6000. Plant Physiology, 51, 914-916.
  22. Moinuddin, K.H.M. & Khannu-Chopra, R. (2004). Osmotic adjustment in chickpea in relation to seed yield and yield parameters. Crop Science, 44, 449-455.
  23. Morgan, J.M., Rodriguez-Maribona, B. & Knights, E.J. (1991). Adaptation to water deficit in chickpea breeding lines by osmoregulation, relationship to grain yields in the fields. Field Crops Research, 27, 61-70.
  24. Nezami, A. (2003). Evaluation of chickpea genotypes (Cicer arietinum L.) for cold tolerance in fall sowing on highland regions. Ph.D. Thesis. Faculty of Agriculture, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad. (in Farsi)
  25. Pagter, M., Bragato, C. & Brix, H. (2005). Tolerance and physiological responses of Phragmites australis to water déficit. Aquatic Botany, 81, 285-299.
  26. Pouresmael, M., Mozafari, J., Khavari-Nejad, R.A., Najafi, F. & Moradi, F. (2015). Identification of possible mechanisms of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) drought tolerance using cDNA-AFLP. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 17, 1303-1317.
  27. Rajendrakumar, C.S.V., Reddy, B.V.B. & Reddy, A.R. (1994). Proline-protein interactions: protection of structural and functional integrity of M4 lactate dehydrogenase. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, 2, 957-963.
  28. Reddy, A.R., Chaitanya, K.V. & Vivekanandan, M. (2004). Drought-induced responses of photosynthesis and antioxidant metabolism in higher plants. Journal of Plant Physiology, 161, 1189-1202.
  29. Sabaghpour, S.H., Mahmodi, A.A., Saeed, A., Kamel, M. & Malhotra, R.S. (2006). Study on chickpea drought tolerance lines under dryland condition of Iran. Indian Journal Crop Science, 1, 70-73.
  30. Singh, D.P., Chaudhary, B.D., Singh, P., Sharma, H.C. & Karwasra, S.P.S. (1990). Drought tolerance in oilseed Brassicas and chickpea. Hisar, India: Haryana Agricultural University.
  31. Sturm, A. & Tang, G.Q. (1999). The sucrose-cleaving enzymes of plants are crucial for development, growth and carbon partitioning. Trends in Plant Science, 4, 401-407.
  32. Subarao, G.V., Chauhan, Y.S. & Johansen, C. (2000). Patterns of osmotic adjustment in pigeopea its importance as a mechanism of drought resistance. European Journal of Agronomy, 12, 239-249.
  33. Subarao, G.V., Johanson, C., Slinkard, A.E., Nageswara R.C., Rao Saxena, N.P. & Chauhan, Y.S. (1995). Strategies for improving drought resistance in grain legumes. Critic Review in Plant Science, 14, 469-523.
  34. Szabados, L. & Savoure, A. (2009). Proline: a multifunctional amino acid. Trends in Plant Science, 2, 89-97.
  35. Todaka, D., Shinozaki, K. & Yamaguchi-Shinozaki, K. (2015). Recent advances in the dissection of drought-stress regulatory networks and strategies for development of drought-tolerant transgenic rice plants. Frontiers in Plant Science, 6, 2-20.
  36. Türkan, I., Bor, M., Özdemir, F. & Koca, H. (2005). Differential responses of lipid peroxidation and antioxidants in leaves of drought-tolerant P. acutifolius Gray and drought sensitive P. vulgaris L. subjected to polyethylene glycol mediated water stress. Plant Science, 168, 223-231.
  37. Turner, N.C., Abbo, S., Berger, J.D., Chaturvedi, S.K., French, R.J., Ludwig, C., Mannur, D.M., Singh, J. & Yadava, H.S. (2007). Osmotic adjustment in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) results in no yield benefit under terminal drought. Journal of Experimental Botany, 58, 187-194.
  38. Vendruscolo, E.C.G., Schuster, I., Pileggi, M., Scapim, C.A., Molinari, H.B.C., Marur, C.J. & Vieira, L.G.E. (2007). Stress-induced synthesis of proline confers tolerance to water deficit in transgenic wheat. Journal of Plant Physiololgy, 164, 1367-1376.
  39. Voet, D., Voet, J.G. & Pratt, C.W. (2001). Fundamentals of biochemistry. New York, Wiley.
  40. Wang, Z., Quebedeaux, B. & Stutte, G.W. (1996). Partitioning of (14C) glucose into sorbitol and other carbohydrates in apple under water stress. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology, 23, 245-251.

فایل ها

سابقه مقاله

  • تاریخ دریافت: 09 آبان 1394
  • تاریخ بازنگری: 26 آذر 1394
  • تاریخ پذیرش: 19 دی 1394
  • تاریخ انتشار: 01 آذر 1395

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار