Morphological and Physiological Effects of Drought Stress on Some Strawberry Cultivars
Abstract
This study was carried out in the Selcuk University Faculty of Agriculture Department of Horticulture Research and practice greenhouse. In the study, Ata77, Bolverim77, Doruk77, Dorukhan77, Eren77, Erenoğlu77 and Hilal77 strawberry varieties obtained from Yalova Atatürk Horticultural Research Institute were used. Sewing 5-6 leaf stage seedlings strawberries made after the arrival of field capacity after the leaves of plants irrigation turgor until drought. After implementation of the varieties of drought with healing and drought period of watering again losses to determine. Leaf relative water content (LRWC) loss 15. by the end of the day up to Ata77 cultivar (51.51%) while the cultivar Dorukhan77 with at least lost 29.74%. Improvement of then 7. day also represents the maximum improvement in the kind of Dorukhan77 (% 5.38), while according to the day of check out lost 17.57% Ata77. Membrane permeability up to Ata77 cultivar (91.32%) while the lowest membrane radicals Doruk77 (71.46%). The drought is finally low stomatal conductivity Ata77 (10.70 mmol m-2 h-1) from the rubrics communicate the highest stomatal conductivity Doruk77 (106.76 mmol m-2 h-1) measured from. Measured in terms of the amount of chlorophyll in leaves, drought and recovery period maximum type of SPAD value from Eren77 (56.52 and 56.73) while Hilal77 the lowest values were obtained from (52.15 and 52.31). Body weight value of relative dry drought at the end of the implementation of the Doruk77 with the highest being obtained from 33.47 g minimum value has been obtained from Ata77 with 24.35 g. In terms of relative root dry weight, the highest value is being obtained from 24.79 g Doruk77 with the minimum value has been obtained from Dorukhan77 with 18.44 g. Leaf after leaf of the drought in the area measuring growth% 2.57 cultivar Dorukhan77 with, while the lowest leaf growth is cultivar has been Doruk77 0.26%.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Abbaspour H, Saeidi-Sar S, Afshari H, Abdel-Wahhab MA (2012). Tolerance of mycorrhiza infected pistachio (Pista-cia vera L.) seedling to drought stress under glasshouse conditions. Journal of Plant Physiology 169: 704 -709.
Alizadeh A, Alizade V, Nassery L, Eivazi A (2011). Effect of drought stress on apple dwarf rootstocks. Technical Jour-nal of Engineering and Applied Science 1: 86-94.
Anonim (2008). İklim değişikliği ve yapılan çalışmalar. T.C. Çevre ve Orman Bakanlığı Yayınları.
Anonymous (2017). https://arastirma. tarim.gov.tr /yalovabahce/Menu/34/Meyveler, Date of access: 19.06.2021.
Anonymous (2021). https://fao.org. Date of access : 19.06.2021
Ashraf M, Foolad MR (2007). Roles of glycine betaine ve proline in improving plant abiotic stress resistance. En-vionmental ve Experimental Botany 59: 206-216.
Bertamini M, Zulini L, Muthuchelian K, Nedunchezhian N (2006). Effect of water deficit on photosynthetic and other physiological responses in grapevine (Vitis vinifera L. cv. Riesling) plants. Photosynthetica 44: 151-154.
Bolat I, Dikilitas M, Ercisli S, Ikinci A, Tonkaz T (2014). The effect of water stress on some morphological, physiologi-cal, and biochemical characteristics and bud success on apple and quince rootstocks. The Scientific World Journal, 1-8.
Boutraa T, Akhkha A, Abdulkhaliq AS, Alhejeli AM (2010). Effect of water stress on growth and water use efficiency (WUE) of some wheat cultivars (Triticum durum) grown in Saudi Arabia. Journal of Taibah University of Science 3: 39-48.
Caruso A, Chefdor F, Carpin S, Depierreux C, Delmotte FM, Kahlem G (2008). Physiological characterization and iden-tification of genes differentially expressed in response to drought induced by PEG 6000 in Populus canadensis lea-ves. Journal of Plant Physiology 165: 932-941.
Çırak A, Esendal E (2006). Soyada kuraklık stresi, OMÜ Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 21: 231-237.
Demirtaş, MN, Kırnak H (2009). Kayısıda farklı sulama yön-temleri ve aralıklarının fizyolojik parametrelere etkisi. Yü-züncü Yıl Üniversitesi Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi 19: 79-83.
Deuel CL, Plotto A (2004). Strawberries and raspberries. In Processing Fruits. www.scribd.com. Date of access: 10.11.2013.
Efeoğlu N (2009). Studies on the changes in lipid peroxidation and antioxidants in drought stress induced cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.) varieties, Journal of Environmental Bio-logy 29: 689-691.
Ghaderi N, Siosemardeh A (2011). Response to drought stress of two strawberry cultivars Horticulture, Environment and Biotechnology 52: 6-12.
Goss JA (1973). Physiology of plants and their cells. Berga-mon Press Inc. Maxwell House, Fairview Park Elmsford N.Y.10523, P:135.
İpek M, Pirlak L, Esitken A, Dönmez MF, Turan M, Sahin F (2014). Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) inc-rease yield, growth and nutrition of strawberry under high-calcareous soil conditions. Journal of Plant Nutrition 37: 990-1001.
İpek M (2015). Determination of Garnem and Myrobolan 29c rootstocks reactions against drought stress in vitro conditi-ons. PhD Thesis, Selçuk University (Unpublished), Kon-ya, Turkey.
Jaleel CA, Manivannan P, Wahid A, Farooq M, Somasunda-ram R, Panneerselvam R (2009). Drought stress in plants: a review on morphological characteristics and pigments composition. International Journal of Agricultural Biology 11: 100–105.
Karimi S, Yadollahi A, Nazari-Moghadam R, Imani A, Arzani K (2012). In vitro screening of almond (Prunus dulcis (Mill.)) genotypes for drought tolerance. Journal of Biolo-logical and Environmental Science 6: 263-270.
Khan Q, Ahmad A (2004). Salt tolerance of cotton cultivars in relation to relative growth rate in saline environments. Inernational Journal of Agriculture & Biology 6: 786-787.
Klamkowski K, Treder W (2008). Response to drought stress of three strawberry cultivars grown under greenhouse conditions. Journal of Fruit and Ornamental Plant Rese-arch 16: 179-188.
Kluge M (1976). Carbon and nitrogen metabolism under water stress: Water and Plant Life 243-252.
Kuşcu A (2006). Yazlık ekmeklik buğday (Triticum aestivum L.) veriminde son çeyrek yüzyılda gerçekleşen ilerlemele-rin morfolojik ve fizyolojik esasları, Doktora Tezi, Çuku-rova Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü (Basılmamış), Adana.
Kuşvuran Ş (2010). Kavunlarda kuraklık ve tuzluluğa toleran-sın fizyolojik mekanizmaları arasındaki bağlantılar. Dokto-ra Tezi, Çukurova Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü (Basılmamış), Adana.
Lutts K, Bouharmont C (1996). NaCl-induced senescence in leaves of rice (Oryza sativa L.) cultivars differing in sali-nity resistance. Annals of Botany 78: 389-398.
Mahajan S, Tuteja N (2005). Cold, salinity and drought stres-ses: An overview. Archives of Biochemistry and Biophy-sics 444: 139-158.
Monti LM (1987). Breeding plants for drought resistance; the problem and its relevance, drought resistance in plants. Meeting Held in Amalfi, Belgium, 1-8.
Nair AS, Abraham TK, Jaya DS (2008). Studies on the chan-ges in lipid peroxidation and antioxidants in drought stress induced cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.) varieties. Journal of Environmental Biology 29: 689-691.
Nogués S, Baker NR (2000). Effects of drought on pho-tosynthesis in Mediterranean plants grown under enhanced UV‐B radiation. Journal of Experimental Botany 51: 1309-1317.
Özcan M, Babaoğlu M, Gürel E (2004). Bitki biyoteknolojisi genetik mühendisliği ve uygulamaları. Selçuk Üniversitesi Vakfı Yayınları, Konya.
Özfidan C (2010). Ekzojen ABA uygulamasının kuraklık stresi (PEG-6000) altındaki yabani ve ABA-eksik Arabi-dopsis mutantları üzerindeki biyokimyasal ve fizyolojik et-kilerinin araştırılması. Doktora Tezi, Ege Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü (Basılmamış), İzmir.
Patel PK, Hemantaranjan A, Sarma BK, Singh R (2011). Growth and antioxidant system under drought stress in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) as sustained by salicylic acid. Journal of Stress Physiology & Biochemistry 7: 130-144.
Rahman SML, Mackay AW, Quebedeaux B, Nawata E, Saku-ratani T, Mesbahuddin ASM (2002). Superoxide dismuta-se activity, leaf water potential, relative water content, growth and yield of a drought-tolerant and a drought-sensitive tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) cultivars. Subtropical Plant Science 54: 16-22.
Romo S, Labrador E, Dopico B (2001). Water stress-regulated gene expression in Cicer arietinum seedlings and plants. Plant Physiolology and Biochemistry 39: 1017−1026.
Sayyari M, Ghanbari F (2012). Effects of super absorbent polymer a 200 on the growth, yield and some physiologi-cal responses in sweet pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) un-der various irrigation regimes. International Journal of Ag-ricultural and Food Research 1: 1‐11.
Sircelj H, Tausz M, Grill D, Batic F (2007). Detecting diffe-rent levels of drought stress in apple trees (Malus domesti-ca Borkh.) with selected biochemical and physiological pa-rameters. Scientia Horticulturae 113: 362-369.
Sivritepe N, Erturk U, Yerlikaya C, Turkan I, Bor M, Ozdemir F (2008). Response of the cherry rootstock to water stress induced in vitro. Biologia Plantarum 52: 573-576.
Taiz L, Zeiger E (2008). Bitki fizyolojisi, Palme Yayımcılık, Ankara, 547.
Zanjani KE, Rad AHS, Naeemi M, Aghdam AM, Taherkhani T (2012). Effects of zeolite and selenium application on some physiological traits and oil 126 yi eld of medicinal pumpkin (Cucurbita pepo L.) under drought stress. Cur-rent Research Journal of Biological Sciences 4: 462-470.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15316/SJAFS.2021.248
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Bu eser Creative Commons Alıntı-GayriTicari-Türetilemez 4.0 Uluslararası Lisansı ile lisanslanmıştır.