Morphological and physiological responses to drought stress in eleven genotypes of the Juniperus species

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Department of Horticultural Sciences, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran.

2 Technology and Production Management Department, Citrus and Subtropical Research Fruits Center, Ramsar, Iran.

3 Department of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran.

10.22034/jppb.2020.13680

Abstract

Drought is one of the most prevalent and critical environmental stresses affecting a variety of plants, particularly ornamental plants. One of the useful methods to alleviate the effect of drought stress is to screen for and develop drought-tolerant varieties. In this study, a factorial experiment based on the completely randomized design was conducted to investigate the responses of 11 genotypes from different Juniperus species at two irrigation regimes (normal, drought: not irrigated for a four-week period) in terms of growth and biochemical characters.Drought stress had a significant negative impact on the assessed growth characters. The G3 and G8 genotypes had the highest root fresh weight and root dry weight at both normal and water-deficit stress conditions. G3 showed the highest root volume at normal conditions but at the drought stress, the highest root volume belonged to G1 and G8. At drought stress conditions, the leaf fresh weight and dry weight of G9, G8, G6, G4, G3 and G11 were higher than other genotypes. The stem fresh weight of G3 and G11 and the stem dry weight of G11 and G8 manifested higher values than other genotypes when water deficit stress was imposed. Stem diameter decreased in the seedlings at the drought stress, however, G2, G3, G4, G8, G9 and G11 had higher values than others at stress conditions. The relative water content decreased in the plants under stress, however, the reduction in G3, G5 and G6 were smaller than the rest of the genotypes. Among the genotypes, G5 and G3 showed the highest antioxidant activity under water-deficit stress. The genotypes G1, G6, G7 and G8 had also a notable increase in the antioxidant activity at drought stress conditions. Under drought stress, the highest increase in the proline content belonged to G3 followed by G5, G6 and G7 and the G5, G6, G10 and G8 genotypes had the highest amount of soluble sugars. In conclusion, G3 (Juniperus chinensis var. Sargentii) and G8 (Juniperus chinensis ‘Kallayʼs Compact’) showed mainly better performance under drought stress, which can be suggested as candidate drought-tolerant genotypes to be used in breeding programs for the sustainable development of urban landscape in arid and semi-arid areas. Although G5 (Juniperus procumbens ‘Nana’) had low biomass in this experiment, it showed high antioxidant activity, proline and soluble sugars at the drought stress conditions. Therefore, further investigation is needed, especially at more severe drought stress conditions, to elucidate its outstanding response to drought stress in terms of antioxidant activity and proline and soluble sugars content.

Keywords


Article Title [فارسی]

بررسی پاسخ های مرفولوژیکی و فیزیولوژیکی به تنش خشکی در یازده ژنوتیپ اُرس

Authors [فارسی]

  • ساقی کیقبادی 1
  • رضا فتئحی قزوینی 1
  • یحیی تاج ور 2
  • عاطفه صبوری 3
1 گروه باغبانی، دانشکده علوم کشاورزی، دانشگاه گیلان، رشت.
2 گروه فناوری و مدیریت تولید، پژوهشکده مرکبات و میوه های نیمه گرمسیری، رامسر.
3 گروه زراعت و اصلاح نباتات، دانشکده علوم کشاورزی، دانشگاه گیلان، رشت.
Abstract [فارسی]

خشکی یکی از مهمترین تنش­ های محیطی است که انواع گیاهان از جمله گیاهان زینتی را تحت تاثیر قرار می­ دهد. یکی از روش­ های مفید برای کاهش اثر تنش خشکی، غربالگری و تولید واریته ­های مقاوم به خشکی است.  در این مطالعه پژوهشی به‌ صورت آزمایش فاکتوریل در قالب طرح کاملا تصادفی با 11 ژنوتیپ رونده اُرس، در دو سطح آبیاری (آبیاری نرمال و تنش خشکی برای چهار هفته) از نظر صفات رشدی و بیوشیمیایی انجام شد. نتایج نشان داد که تنش خشکی تأثیر منفی قابل توجهی بر ویژگی­ های رشد مورد ارزیابی دارد. ژنوتیپ­ های G3 و G8 دارای بیشترین وزن تر ریشه و وزن خشک ریشه در دو شرایط عادی و تنش کمبود آب بودند. G3 بیشترین حجم ریشه را در شرایط آبیاری نرمال نشان داد ولی در تنش خشکی بیشترین حجم ریشه متعلق به G1 و G8 بود. در شرایط تنش خشکی، وزن تر و خشک برگ G9 ، G8 ، G6 ، G4 ، G3 و G11 بیشتر از سایر ژنوتیپ ­ها بود. وزن تر ساقه G3 و G11 و وزن خشک ساقه G11 و G8 به هنگام اعمال تنش کمبود آب، دارای مقادیر بالاتری در مقایسه با سایر ژنوتیپ­ ها بود. قطر ساقه تحت تأثیر منفی تنش خشکی قرار گرفت ولی  ژنوتیپ­ های G2،  G3، G4،  G8، G9  G11 به طور نسبی بیشترین مقدار را در بین ژنوتیپ­  ها داشتند. محتوای نسبی آب در گیاهان تحت تنش کم­ آبی کاهش یافت. با وجود این، کاهش این صفت در G3 ، G5 و G6 کمتر  از بقیه ژنوتیپ­ ها بود. در میان ژنوتیپ ­ها، G5 و G3 بیشترین فعالیت آنتی اکسیدانی را تحت تنش کمبود آب نشان دادند. ژنوتیپ­ های G1 ، G6 ، G7 و G8 نیز در شرایط تنش خشکی افزایش قابل توجهی در فعالیت آنتی اکسیدانی داشتند. در شرایط تنش خشکی، بیشترین افزایش محتوای پرولین متعلق به G3 و پس از آن G5 ، G6 و G7 بود و ژنوتیپ­ های G5 ، G6 ، G10 و G8 از بیشترین مقدار قندهای محلول برخوردار شدند. به طور کلی، G3 (Juniperus chinensis var. Sargentii) و G8 (Juniperus chinensis ‘Kallayʼs Compact’) عمدتا عملکرد بهتری را تحت تنش خشکی نشان دادند که می توان آن­ ها را به عنوان ژنوتیپ­ های مقاوم به خشکی برای استفاده در برنامه ­های اصلاح نبات برای توسعه پایدار فضای سبز شهری در مناطق خشک و نیمه خشک در نظر گرفت. اگرچه G5 (Juniperus procumbens ‘Nana’) در این آزمایش در شرایط تنش خشکی زیست توده پایینی داشت، ولی فعالیت آنتی اکسیدانی و محتوای پرولین و قندهای محلول بالایی را نشان داد. بنابراین، تحقیقات بیشتری، به ویژه در شرایط تنش خشکی شدیدتر، مورد نیاز است تا علت پاسخ برجسته آن به تنش خشکی از نظر فعالیت آنتی اکسیدانی و محتوای پرولین و قندهای محلول روشن شود.

Keywords [فارسی]

  • اُرس
  • تنش خشکی
  • صفات مورفولوژیکی و فیزیولوژیکی
  • فعالیت آنتی اکسیدانی
Arshad M, Biswas K, Bisgrove S, Schroeder WR, Thomas BR, Mansfield SD, Mattsson J and Plant A, 2019. Differences in drought resistance in nine North American hybrid poplars. Trees 33: 1111-1128.
Ashraf M and Foolad MR. 2007. Roles of glycine betaine and proline in improving plant abiotic stress resistance. Environmental and Experimental Botany 59: 206-216.
Baceler EA, Moutingo-Pereira JM, Goncalves BC, Lopes JI and Correia CM, 2009. Physiological responses of different olive genotypes to drought conditions. Acta Physiologiae Plantarum 31: 611-621.
Bates LS, Waldren RP and Teare ID, 1973. Rapid determination of free proline for water-stress studies. Plant and Soil 39: 205-207.
Bolat I, Dikilitas M, Ercisli S, Ikinci A. and Tonkaz T, 2014. The effect of water stress on some morphological, physiological and biochemical characteristics and bud success on apple and quince rootstocks. Scientific World Journal. 769732. doi: 10.1155/2014/769732.
Di Venere D, Sergio L, Linsalata V, Pieralice M, Cardinali A, Cascarano N and Bianco VV, 2009. Antioxidant properties of wild edible herbaceous species. Italian Journal of Agronomy 4: 635-640.
Emam Y, Shekoofa A, Salehi F, Jalali AH and Pessarakli M, 2011. Drought stress effects on two common bean cultivars with contrasting growth habits. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science 58(5): 527-534.
Farooq M, Wahid A, Kobayashi N, Fujita D and Barsa SMA, 2009. Plant drought stress: effects, mechanisms and management. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 29: 185-212.
Farzane A, Nemati H, Shoor M and Ansari H, 2020.  Antioxidant enzyme and plant productivity changes in field-grown tomato under drought stress conditions using exogenous putrescine. Journal of Plant Physiology and Breeding 10(1): 29-40.
Foyer CH and Noctor G, 2000. Oxygen processing in photosynthesis: regulation and signaling: regulation and signalling. New Phytologist 146(3): 359-88.
Ghassemi A, Farzaneh S and Moharramnejad S, 2020.  Impact of ascorbic acid on seed yield and its components in sweet corn (Zea mays L.) under drought stress. Journal of Plant Physiology and Breeding 10(1): 41-49.
Hanafy Ahmed AH, Darvish E and Alobaidy MG, 2017. Impact of putrescine and 24-epibrassinolide on growth, yield and chemical constituents of cotton (Gossypium barbadense L.) plant grown under drought stress conditions. Asian Journal of Plant Sciences 16(1): 9-23.
Hosseini Boldaji, SA, Khavari-Nejad RA, Hassan Sajedi R, Fahimi H and Saadatmand S, 2012. Water availability effects on antioxidant enzyme activities, lipid peroxidation, and reducing sugar contents of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.). Acta Physiologiae Plantarum 34: 1177-1186.
Hung SH, Yu CW and Lin CH, 2005. Hydrogen peroxide functions as a stress signal in plants. Botanical Bulletin of Academia Sinica 46: 1-10.
Jimenez S, Dridi J, Gutierrez D, Moret D, Irigoyen JJ, Moreno MA, and Gogorcena Y, 2013. Physiological, biochemical and molecular responses in four Prunus rootstocks submitted to drought stress. Tree Physiology 33(10): 1061-1075.
Kochert G, 1978. Carbohydrate determination by phenol-sulfuric acid method. In: Hellebust JA and Craigie JS (Eds). Handbook of Phycological Methods: Physiological and Biochemical Methods. Cambridge University Press, London, UK, pp. 95–97.
Krouma A, Fujimura T and Abdelly C, 2015. Growth, photosynthetic activity and water relations in three Tunisian chickpea genotypes (Cicer arietinum L.) subjected to a progressive water deficit stress. Agricultural Science Research Journal 5(12):206-214.
Kuznetsov VIV and Shevyakova NI, 1999. Proline under stress: biological role, metabolism and regulation. Russian Journal of Plant Physiology 46: 274-287.
Li Z, Jing W, Peng Y, Zhang XQ, Ma X, Huang LK and Yan YH, 2015. Spermine alleviates drought stress in white clover with different resistance by influencing carbohydrate metabolism and dehydrins synthesis. PLoS ONE 10(4): e0120708. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0120708.
Mao K, Hao G, Liu J, Adams RP and Milne RI, 2010. Diversification and biogeography of Juniperus (Cupressaceae): variable diversification rates and multiple intercontinental dispersals. New Phytologist 188 (1): 254-272. 
Miliauskas G, Venskutonis PR and van Beek TA, 2004. Screening of radical scavenging activity of some medicinal and aromatic plant extracts. Food Chemistry 85(2): 231-237.
Mittler R, Vanderauwera S, Gollery M and van Breusegem F, 2004. Reactive oxygen gene network of plants. Trends in Plant Science 9(10): 490-498.
Mohammadi M, Ghassemi-Golezani K, Zehtab-Salmasi S and Nasrollahzade S, 2016. Assessment of some physiological traits in spring safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.) cultivars under water stress. International Journal of Life Sciences 10: 58-64.
Mostafaie E, Zehtab-Salmasi S, Salehi-Lisar Y and Ghassemi-Golezani K, 2018. Changes in photosynthetic pigments, osmolytes and antioxidants of Indian mustard by drought and exogenous polyamines. Acta Biologica Hungarica 69(3): 313-324.
Niknam V, Razavi N, Ebrahimzadeh H and Sharifizadeh B, 2006. Effect of NaCl on biomass, protein and proline contents and antioxidant enzymes in seedlings and calli of two Trigonella species. Biologia Plantarum 50(4): 591-596.
Nyarukowa C, Koech R, Loots T and Apostolides Z, 2016. SWAPDT: a method for short-time withering assessment of probability for drought tolerance in Camellia sinensis validated by targeted metabolomics. Journal of Plant Physiology 198: 39-48.
Ozkur O, Ozdemir F, Bor M and Turkan I, 2009. Physiochemical and antioxidant responses of the perennial xerophyte Capparis ovata Desf. to drought. Environmental and Experimental Botany 66(3): 487-492.
Pourasadollahi A, Siosemardeh A, Hosseinpanahi F and Sohrabi Y, 2019. Physiological and agro-morphological response of potato to drought stress and hormone application. Journal of Plant Physiology and Breeding 9(1): 47-61.
Rabbani Kheirkhah SM and Kazemi F, 2015. Investigating strategies for optimum water usage in green spaces covered with lawn. Desert 20(2): 217-230.
Salehi-Lisar SY and Bakhshayeshan-Agdam H, 2016. Drought stress in plants: causes, consequences and tolerance. In: Hossain M et al. (eds.). Drought Stress Tolerance in Plants, Vol. 1. Springer, pp. 1-16.
Saruhan N, Turgut-Terzi R and Kadioglu A, 2012. The effects of exogenous polyamines on some biochemical changes during drought stress in Ctenanthe setosa (Rosc.). Acta Biologica Hungarica 57(2): 221-229.
Shayan S, Moghaddam Vahed M, Norouzi M, Mohammadi SA and Toorchi M, 2019. Inheritance of agronomic and physiological traits in wheat under water deficit stress and normal conditions. Journal of Plant Physiology and Breeding 9(2): 99-114.
Silva MA, Jifon JL, Da Silva JAG and Sharma V, 2007. Use of physiological parameters as fast tools to screen for drought tolerance in sugarcane. Brazilian Journal of Plant Physiology 19(3): 193-201.
Sivritepe N, Erturk U, Yarlikaya C, Turkan I, Bor M and Ozdemir F, 2008. Response of the cherry rootstock to water stress induced in vitro. Biologia Plantarum 52(3): 573-576.
Smart RE and Bingham GE, 1974.  Rapid estimates of relative water content. Plant Physiology 53: 258-260.
Tatari M, Jafari A, Shirmardi M and Mohamadi M, 2019. Using morphological and physiological traits to evaluate drought tolerance of pear populations (Pyrus spp.). International Journal of Fruit Science 20(4): 837-854.
Toupchi Khosrowshahi Z, Salehi-Lisar SY, Ghassemi-Golezani K and Motafakkerazad R, 2018. Physiological responses of safflower to exogenous putrescine under water deficit. Journal of Stress Physiology and Biochemistry 14(3): 38-48.
Vendruscolo ACG, Schuster I, Pileggi M, Scapim CA, Molinari HBC, Marur CJ and Vieira LGC, 2007. Stress-induced synthesis of proline confers tolerance to water deficit in transgenic wheat. Journal of Plant Physiology 164(10): 1367-1376.
Wang WB, Kim YH, Lee HS, Kim KY, Deng XP and Kwak SS, 2009. Analysis of antioxidant enzyme activity during germination of alfalfa under salt and drought stresses. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry 47(7): 570-577.
Yang F and Miao LF, 2010. Adaptive responses to progressive drought stress in two poplar species originating from different altitudes. Silva Fennica 44(1): 23-37.
Yang X, Wang B, Chen L, Li P and Cao C, 2019. The different influences of drought stress at the flowering stage on rice physiological traits, grain yield and quality. Scientific Reports 9: 3742. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-40161-0.
Zamani N, Mianabadi M and Abdolzadeh A, 2011. Changes in anti-oxidant activity of Thymus transcaspicus (Klokov) during growth and developmental stages. Journal of Cell and Molecular Research 3(1): 12-18.
Zebarjadi A, Mirany T, Kahrizi D, Ghobadi M and Nikoseresht R, 2012. Assessment of drought tolerance in some bread wheat genotypes using drought resistance indices. Biharean Biologist 6(2): 94-98.