مقایسه واکنش به شوری در ارقام گندم متحمل با ارقام معرفی شده برای شرایط غیرشور

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 مرکز ملی تحقیقات شوری

2 دانشگاه علوم کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی گرگان

3 مرکز تحقیقات کشاورزی گرگان

چکیده

سابقه و هدف: تنش شوری یک عامل اصلی محدود کننده در کاهش عملکرد محصولات زراعی در دنیا می‌باشد. تحمل به شوری در بین گیاهان از طریق سه مکانیسم عمده شامل تحمل اسمزی، دفع سدیم و تحمل بافت به تنش شوری واکنش نشان می‌دهد.
مواد و روش‌ها: به منظور مطالعه واکنش به شوری ارقام گندم متحمل به شوری معرفی شده و مقایسه مکانیسم‌های آن با ارقام معرفی شده در شرایط غیرشور این آزمایش در سه مرحله آزمایشگاهی(جوانه‌زنی)، گلخانه‌ای(یک سال) و مزرعه‌ای(دو سال) طی سال‌های زراعی 93-1391 انجام گردید. در آزمایش مزرعه‌ای، تیمارهای آزمایشی شامل ارقام متحمل به شوری اکبری، سیستان، ارگ، افق و روشن و ارقام معرفی شده برای شرایط متعارف شامل مروارید، کوهدشت و فلات بودند که در دو شرایط مکانی مختلف شامل ایستگاه شوری آق قلا به عنوان محیط شور و ایستگاه گرگان به عنوان محیط غیرشور به صورت بلوک‌های کامل تصادفی و در 4 تکرار کشت شدند. در آزمایش گلخانه‌ای نیز تمامی ارقام فوق در محیط کشت شن و با استفاده از محلول غذائی هوگلند در شوری شاهد و 15 دسی‌زیمنس بر متر کشت شدند. اندازه‌گیری میزان رشد پس از شروع تنش در 7 روز اول به صورت روزانه و پس از آن دو روز یک بار بمدت دو هفته انجام گردید. پس از این دوره، میزان سدیم در پهنک برگ اندازه‌گیری شد. از ارقام کوهدشت، فلات و افق گلدان‌هائی به غیر از گلدان‌های فوق در سه تکرار تهیه شد و با شوری‌های 2، 5/7 و 15 دسی‌زیمنس بر متر از سبز شدن تا انتهای فصل رشد تیمار شدند تا آستانه تحمل و واکنش به شوری در آنها مشخص گردد. در مرحله آزمایشگاهی، میزان جوانه‌زنی برای ارقام مورد بررسی از شوری صفر تا 30 دسی‌زیمنس بر متر با فاصله 5 واحد در 3 تکرار اندازه‌گیری شد تا واکنش به شوری در این مرحله نیز تعیین گردد.
یافته‌ها: بر اساس نتایج، منحنی رشد دو مرحله‌ای در واکنش به شوری در ارقام مورد بررسی مشاهده گردید بطوریکه در آن اثرات اسمزی تنش شوری به مراتب بیشتر از اثرات ویژه یونی بود. بطورکلی در هفته اول پس از اعمال تنش شوری کاهش رشد تقریباً یکسانی به لحاظ وزن خشک در ارقام حاصل شد هرچند که کاهش سطح برگ بلافاصله پس از اعمال تنش شوری شروع گردید. براساس محاسبات سرعت رشد نسبی در هفته اول، رقم سیستان به عنوان رقم متحمل به تنش اسمزی و رقم فلات به عنوان رقم حساس انتخاب گردید. در ادامه آزمایش و طی دو هفته بعدی کاهش بیشتری در میزان رشد در شرایط شور حادث گردید که این کاهش رشد مربوط به تجمع یون‌های سدیم و اثرات ویژه یونی بود. بر اساس مدل دو خطی واکنش به شوری، ارقام فلات، کوهدشت و افق به ترتیب دارای آستانه تحمل به شوری 06/6، 27/5 و 00/4 دسی‌زیمنس بر متر بودند. بر اساس مدل سیگموئیدی واکنش به شوری نیز این ارقام به ترتیب در شوری‌های 86/11، 56/11 و 38/13 دسی‌زیمنس بر متر به عملکرد نسبی 50 درصد رسیدند.
نتیجه‌گیری: بطورکلی جمع‌بندی نتایج آزمایشات حاکی از آن است که ارقام معرفی شده با عنوان متحمل به شوری، بیشتر به‌دلیل سازگاری با شرایط اقلیمی که در آن تولید و معرفی شده‌اند دارای عملکرد مناسب در شرایط شور هستند و هنگامی که در شرایط اقلیمی متفاوت اما شور کاشته می‌شوند، نمی‌توانند خصوصیات تحمل به شوری را به‌صورت موثر از خود نشان دهند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Comparison of salinity response in tolerant wheat cultivars with introduced cultivars for non-saline condition

نویسندگان [English]

  • amin anagholi 1
  • Sarale Galeshi 2
چکیده [English]

Background and objectives: Salinity stress is a major constraint inhibiting yield of crops throughout the world. Salinity tolerance in crops responded to salinity stress by three main mechanism including osmotic tolerance, ion exclusion and tissue tolerance.

Materials and methods: In order to study of salinity response of introduced salinity tolerant wheat cultivars and comparison of them with introduced wheat cultivars for non-saline condition, this experiment arranged in three steps of germination, greenhouse(one year) and farm( two years) during 2012-2014. In farm experiment, treatment includes salinity tolerant cultivars of Akbari, Sistan, Arg, Ofogh and Roshan and introduced cultivars for non-saline condition namely Morvarid, KohDasht and Falat. This cultivars cultured in two stations of Salinity research farm(Agh-Ghala) and Gorgan station(as non-saline condition) in randomized complete block design with four replications. In greenhouse experiment, all of the cultivars planted in pots with sandy medium and Hoagland solution. Salinity treatments were control condition and 15dS.m-1. Relative growth rate measured daily for seven days after salt exposure and then measured with two days interval for two weeks. The sodium content of leaves, the leaf area and total dry matter in all of the pots, measured three weeks after salt exposure. Additional pots for cultivars of Falat, KohDasht and Ofogh prepared and treated with salinities of 2, 7.5 and 15dS.m-1 in three replications. These pots continued until end of the season in order to determination of salinity threshold based on the grain yield. Also the germination of the cultivars measured at salinities of 0 until 30dS.m-1 with 5 unit intervals in three replications to calculate salinity threshold in germination stage.

Results: Based on the results, salinity caused two phase growth reduction of osmotic and ionic, so that the osmotic effect influenced more than ionic effect. In the first week after salt exposure, the same dry matter reduction observed in cultivars, but reducing in leaf area starts immediately after salt exposure. The Sistan cultivar considered as osmotic tolerant and Falat as sensitive cultivar based on the reduction of relative growth rate in the first week after salt exposure. In the next two weeks of experiment more reduction occurred in growth rate in saline condition. This reduction attributed to accumulation of sodium ions and ionic effect phase of salinity stress. Based on the two linear model of response of crops to salinity, the cultivars of Falat, KohDasht and Ofogh had the threshold of 6.06, 5.27 and 4.00 dS.m-1 respectively. Based on the sigmoidal model these cultivars produced 50 percent relative yield in salinities of 11.86, 11.56 and 13.38dS.m-1 respectively.

Conclusion: At all pluralization of results showed that, the salt tolerance cultivars produced higher yields only in native climate condition. When they cultured in different climatic condition with salinity stress, they can’t produce higher yields and not shown salinity tolerance qualifications by effectiveness.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • wheat cultivars
  • osmotic effects
  • ionic effects
  • stress tolerance mechanism
  • salinity tolerance threshold
1.Ahmed, S., Nawata, E., Hosokawa, M., Domae, Y., and Sakuratani, T. 2002. Alterations in photosynthesis and some antioxidant enzymatic activities of mung bean subjected to water logging. Plant Sci., 163: 117-123.
2.Ali-Dib, T., Monneveux, P.H., Acevedo, J., and Nachil, M.M. 1994. Evaluation of praline analysis and chlorophyll fluorescence quenching measurements as drough tolerance indicators in durum wheat (Triticum turgidum L. Var. durum). Euphytica., 79(1-2): 65-73.
3.Amirjan, M.R., Iranbakhsh, A., and Abnosi, M.H. 2009. Molecular mechanism of photosynthesis. Arak university, P.o. Box38156.
4.Araus, J.L., Amaro, T., Voltas, J., Nakkoul, H., and Nachit, M.M. 1998. Chlorophyll fluorescence as a selection criterion for grain yield in durum wheat under Mediterranean conditions. Field Crops Res., 55: 209-223.
5.Bahrololoumi, S.M.J. 2012. Study ofeffect of salt and water stresses on production Reactive oxygen species (ROS) and fluorescence characteristics of soybean (Glycine max L.). M.Sc. Dissertation, Crop Sciences Faculty. Sari Agriculturul Sciences and Natural Reasources University. (In Persian with English Summary)
6.Baker, N.R., and Rosenqvist, E. 2004. Applications of chlorophyll fluorescence Can improve crop production strategies: an examination of future possibilities.
J. Exp. Bot., 55: 607–621.
7.Basu, P., Ashoo, S., and Sukumaran, N. 1998. Changes in net photosynthetic rate and chlorophyll fluorescence in potato leaves induced by water stress. Photosynthetic., 19: 13-35.
8.Bayat, A.A., Sepehri, A., Ahmadvand, G., and Dorri, H.R. 2010. Effect of water deficit stress on yield and yield components of pinto bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) genotypes.J. Crop Sci., 12(1): 42-51. (In Persian with English Summary)
9.Bayoumi, T.Y., Manal, H., and Metwali, E. 2008. Application of physiological and biochemical indices as a screening technique for drought tolerance in wheat genotypes. Afr.J. Biotechnol., 14: 2341-2352.
10.Bhardway, R., and Singhal, G. 1981. Effect of water stress on photochemical activity of chloroplasts during greening etiolated barley seedlings. Plant Cell Physiol., 22(2): 155-162.
11.Colom, M.R., and Vazzana, C. 2003. Photosynthesis and PSII functionality of drought-resistant and drought-sensitive weeping lovegrass plants. Environ. Exp. Bot., 49: 135-144.
12.Darvish-Balouchi, M., Paknezhad, F., Kashani, A., Ardakani, M.R., and Darvish-Balouchi, M. 2010. Effect of Drought Stress and some Microelements on Fluorescence chlorophyll parameters, chlorophyll content, RWC, EC, and grain yield in corn (SC704). Iran. J. Field Crop Sci., 41(3): 531-543. (In Persian)
13.Entz, M.H., and Flower, D.B. 1990. Differential agronomic responses of winter wheat cultivars to preanthesis environmental stress. Crop Sci., 30(6): 1119-1123.
14.Eshghizadeh, H.R., and Ehsanzadeh, P. 2009. Effect of defferrent irrigation regims on corn (Zea mays L.) genotypes, fluorescencechlorophyll, growthcharacteristics and seed yield. Iran. J. Field Crop Sci., 40(2): 135-144.
15.Gebeyehu, P., Wiese, H., and Schubert, S. 2010. Effects of drought stress on seed sink strength and leaf protein patterns of common bean genotypes. Afr. Crop Sci. J., 18(2): 75-88.
16.Ghanbari, A.A., Shakiba, M.R., Toorchi, M., and Choukan, R. 2013. Morpho-physiological responses of common bean leaf to water deficit stress. Eur. J. Exp. Biol., 3(1): 487-492.
17.Havaux, M., and Niyogi, K.K. 1999. The violoxanthin cycle protects plants from photooxidative damage by more than one mechanism. Proc. Nation. Aca. Sci., 96: 8762- 8767.
18.Havaux, M., Emez, M., and Lannoye, R. 1998. Selection de varieties de ble dur (Triticum durum Desf.) et de ble tender (Triticum aestivum L.) adapted a la secberesse par I mesure de I extinction de la et de ble tender (Triticum aestivum L.) adapted a la secberesse par I mesure de I extinction de la fluorescence de la chlorophylle in viva. Agronomie., 8(3): 193-199.
19.Hong, Z., Lakkineni, K., Zhang, Z., and Verna, P.S. 2000. Removal of feedback inhibition of 1–pyrroline-5-carboxylate synthetase results in increased praline accumulation and protection of plant from osmotic stress. Plant Physiol., 122, 1129–1136.
20.Javadipour, Z., Movahhedi Dehnavi, M., and Balouchi, H.R. 2012. Evaluation of photosynthesis parameters, chlorophyll content and fluorescence of safflower
cultivars under saline condition.Electron. J. Crop Prod., 6(2): 35-56. (In Persian with English Summary)
21.Khoshvaghti, H. 2006. Effects of water limitation on growth rate, grain filling and yield of three pinto bean cultivars. M.Sc. Dissertation, Faculty of Agriculture, Tabriz University, Iran. (In Persian with English Summary)
22.Kisman, A. 2003. Effects of drought stress in growth and yield of soybean. Sci. Philo., PPs 702.
23.Kouchacki, A., and Banayan Avval, M. 1994. Agricultural Crops. Third Edition.Mashhad University Jihad Publications, Mashhad, Iran. (In Persian)
24.Kumar, A., and Singh, D.P. 1998. Use of physiological indices as screening technique for drought tolerance in oil seed Brassicaspecies. Ann. Bot., 81: 413-420.
25.Lu, C., and Zhang, J. 1998. Effects of water stress on photosynthesis, chlorophyll fluorescence andphotoinhibitation in wheat plants. Aust. J. Plant Physiol., 25: 883.
26.Majnon Hosein, N. 2009. Agronomy and Pulses Production, 4th edition. Tehran University Jihad Publications, Tehran, Iran. (In Persian)
27.Mamnoei, E., and Seyed Sharifi, R. 2010. Study the effects of water deficit on chlorophyll fluorescenceindices and the amount of proline in six barley genotypes and its relation with canopy temperatureand yield. J. Plant Biol., 5: 51-62. (In Persian with English Summary)
28.Mayek-Perez, N., Garica-Espinosa, R., Lopez-Castanda, C., Acosta-Gallegos, J.A., and Simpson, J. 2002. Water relations, histopathology and growth of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) during pathogenesis of Macrophomina phaseolina under drought stress. Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol., 60: 158-195.
29.Mohammadi, H., Soltani, A., Sadeghipour, H., Zeinali, E., and Najafi Hezarjaribi, R. 2008. Effect of seed deterioration on vegetative growth and chlorophyll fluorescence in soybean (Glycine maxL.). J. Agric. Sci. Nat. Resour., 15(5): 112-118.
30.Movahhedy Dehnavy, M., Modarres Sanavy, S.A.M., Sorushzadeh, A., and Jalali, M. 2004. Change in proline, total soluble sugars, SPAD and chlorophyll fluorescence in winter safflower cultivars under drought stress and foliar application of zinc and manganese. Iran. J. Desert., 9(1): 93-109. (In Persian with English Summary)
31.Nazari-Nasi, H., Jabbari, F., Azimi, M.R., and Norouzian, M. 2012. Evaluation of Drought Stress on Cell Membrane Stability, Photosynthesis rate, Relative Water Content and seed yield in four pinto bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) genotypes. Iran. J. Field Crop Sci., 43(3): 491-199. (In Persian)
32.Ommen, O.E., and Donnelly, A. 1999. Chlorophyll content of spring wheat flag leaves grown under elevated CO2 concentrations and other environmental stresses within the 'ESPACE-wheat’ project. Eur. J. Agron., 10: 197-203.
33.Paknejad, F., Nasri, M., Tohidi Moghadam, H.R., Zahedi, H., and Jami Alahmad, M. 2007. Effects of drought stress on chlorophyll fluoresence parameters chlorophyll content and grain yield of wheat cultivars. J. Biol. Sci., 7(6): 841-847.
34.Piper, F.I., Corcuera, L.J., Alberdi, M., and Lusk, C. 2007. Differential photosynthetic and survivalresponses to soil drought in two evergreen Nothofagus species. Science., 64: 447-452.
35.Rahbarian, R., Khavari-nejad, R.A., Ganjeali, A., Bagheri, A.R., and Najafi, F. 2011. Drought stress effects on photosynthesis, chlorophyll fluorescence and water relations in tolerant and susceptible chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) genotypes. Acta. Bio. Craco. Ser. Bot., 53: 47-56.
36.Ramirez-Vallejo, P., and Kelly, J.D. 1998. Traits related to drought resistance in common bean. J. Euphytica., 99(6): 127-136.
37.Rasti-Sani, M., Lahouti, M., and Ganjeali, A. 2014. Effect of drought stress on some morphophysiological traits and chlorophyll fluorescence of red bean seedlings (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Iran. J. Pulses Res., 5: 1. 103-116. (In Persian with English Summary)
38.Reddy, A.R., Chaitanya, K.V., and Vivekanadan, M.V. 2004. Drught-induced responses of photosynthesis and Antioxidant metabolism in higher plants. J. Plant Phsiol., 161: 1189-1202.
39.Rigoberto, R.S., Josue, K.S., Jorge Alberto, A.G., Carlos, T.L., Joaquýn, O.C., and Kelly, J.D. 2004. Biomass distribution, maturity acceleration and yield indrought-stressed common bean cultivars. Field Crops Res., 85(6): 203-211.
40.Rohacek, K., Soukupova, J., and Bartak, M. 2008. Chlorophyllfluorescence: A wonderful tool to study plantphysiology and plant stress. In Schoefs B, (eds). Plant Cell Compartments- Selected Topics. Research Signpost, Kerala, India., 41-104.
41.Salehpour, M., Ebadi, A., Izadi, M., and Jamaati-e-Somarin, S. 2009. Evaluation of water stress and nitrogen fertilizer effects on relative water content, membrane stability index, chlorophyll and some other traits of lentils (Lens culinaris L.) under hydroponics conditions. Res. J. Environ. Sci., 3: 103-109.
42.Samimi Sadeh, N., Saba, J., Shekari, F., and Soleimani, K. 2008. Potential usefulness of the physiological traits for evaluation of drought resistance in wheat. J. Agric. Sci. Nat. Resour., 14(5): 110-115.
43.Sayed, O.H. 2003. Chlorophyll flourscence as a tool in cereal research. Photosynthetica, 3: 321-330.
44.Schonfeld, M.A., Johnson, R.C., Carver, B.F., and Mornhinweg, D.W. 1988. Water relations inwinter wheat as drought resistance indicators. Crop Sci., 28: 526-531.
45.Shepherd, A., McGinn, S.M., and Wyseure, G.C.L. 2002. Simulation of the effect of water shortage on the yields of winter wheat in North-East England. Ecol. Model., 147: 41-52.
46.Soltani, A. 2004. Chlorophyll fluorescence and its application. Internal Press”. University of Agricultural Science and Natural Resource, Gorgan., Iran.
47.Taize, L., and Zaiger, E. 2007. ABA and Drought Adaptation. (5th ed.). Chapter 25. P: 671-682.
48.Tilahun, A., and Sven, S. 2003. Mechanisms of drought resistance in grain: PSII stomatal regulationand root growth. Ethiop. J. Sci. Technol., 26: 137-144.
49.Turkan, I., Bor, M., Ozdemir, F., and Koca, H. 2005. Differential responses of lipid peroxidation and antioxidants in the leaves of drought- tolerant P. acutifolius Gray and drought- sensitive P. vulgaris L. subjected to polyethylene glycol mediated water stress. Plant Sci., 168: 223-231.
50.Yadav, R.S., and Bhushan, C. 2001. Effect of moisture stress on growth and yield in rice genotype. Indian J. Agric. Res., 2: 104-107.
51.Yordanov, I., Velikova, V., and Tsonev, T. 2003. Plant responses to drought and stress tolerance. Bulg. J. Plant Physiol. Special Issue., 187-206.
52.Zadehbagheri, M., Kamelmanesh, M.M., Javanmardi, S., and Sharafzadeh, S. 2012. Effect of drought stress on yield and yield components, relative leaf water content, proline and potassium ion accumulation in different white bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) genotype. Afr. J. Agric. Res., 7(42): 5661-5670.
53.Zafarani-Moattar, P., Raey, Y., Ghassemi-Golezani, K., and Mohammadi, S.A. 2012. Effect of limited irrigation on growth and yield of bean cultivars. J. Sustain. Agric. Prod. Sci., 21(4): 85-94. (In Persian with English Summary)
54.Zlatev, Z. 2009. Drought-induced changes in chlorophyll fluorescence of young wheat plants. Biotechnol. Biotechnol. Equip., 23(4): 438-441.
55.Zlatev, Z.S., and Yordanov, I.T. 2004. Effects of soil drought on photosynthesis and chlorophyll fluorescence in bean plants. Bulg. J. Plant Physiol., 30: 3-18