In vitro evaluation of drought tolerance in two grape (Vitis vinifera L.) cultivars

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

Department of Horticultural Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamadan, Iran

Abstract

Abiotic stresses pose a major threat to agriculture. Therefore, developing plants that are more tolerant of these stresses is very important for improving crop productivity. Grapevines (Vitis vinifera L.) is an important fruit crop cultivated in the world. An in vitro experiment was designed to study the response of ‘White Seedless’ and ‘Flame Seedless’ cultivars of Vitis to drought stress. Treatments included four concentrations of PEG 6000, i.e., 0, 0.5, 1, and 2% (w/v), which were equivalent to 0, -0.035, -0.07, and -0.14 times the water potential, respectively. The single-node explants of Vitis grown on MS medium, supplemented with growth regulators BA (2 mg/l), NAA (0.2 mg/l), sucrose (30 g/l), agar (7 gr), and activated charcoal )200 mg/l), were transferred to the same medium but with different concentrations of PEG for 30 days. The results showed that the Flame Seedless cultivar had better growth characters than the White Seedless cultivar on the average of PEG concentrations. Flame Seedless also managed drought stress in terms of shoot length, the number of leaves per shoot, dry weight, chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b, and soluble carbohydrates more efficiently than White Seedless, and produced a high percentage of callus (87.5%) at the 1% PEG stress level. Although the White Seedless cultivar was not more vigorous than Flame Seedless but showed significantly higher proline content, non-significant reduction in relative water content, and a slightly lower reduction in shoot length, and fresh weight at 2% PEG as compared to the control. It seems that both grapevine varieties succeeded in dealing with the PEG drought stress with their special mechanisms. 

Keywords

Article Title [Persian]

ارزیابی واکنش دو رقم انگور (Vitis vinifera L.) به تنش خشکی در شرایط درون درون شیشه ای

Authors [Persian]

  • فاطمه شیرازی
  • منصور غلامی
  • حسن ساریخانی
گروه علوم باغبانی، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه بوعلی سینا، همدان
Abstract [Persian]

تنش ­های غیر زنده تهدیدی بزرگ برای کشاورزی به حساب می ­آیند. بنابراین، تولید گیاهان متحمل به تنش از اهمیت زیادی در افزایش بهره ­وری برخوردار است. انگور (Vitis vinifera L.) یکی از گیاهان خوراکی مهم تحت کشت در سراسر جهان است. به منظور بررسی واکنش دو رقم انگور، بیدانه سفید و فلیم سیدلس، به تنش خشکی، آزمایشی در شرایط درون شیشه­ ای طراحی شد. عامل دوم شامل چهار غلظت 0، 0/05، 1 و 2 درصد پلی اتیلن گلیکول 6000 بود. این غظت­ ها به ترتیب معادل 0، 0.035-، 0/07- و 0/14- بار پتانسیل آب بودند. ریزنمونه­­ های تک گره ­ای انگور رشد یافته در محیط موراشیگ و اسکوک با تنظیم کننده ­های بنزیل آدنین  (2 میلی گرم در لیتر)، نفتالین استیک اسید (0/2  میلی گرم در لیتر)، ساکارز (30 گرم در لیتر)، آگار (7 گرم) و ذغال فعال (200 میلی گرم در لیتر)، پس از استقرار کامل به محیط کشت مشابه ولی با غلظت ­های مختلف پلی اتیلن گلیکول به مدت 30 روز منتقل شدند. نتایج نشان داد که رقم فلیم سیدلس از ویژگی ­های رشد بهتری نسبت به رقم بیدانه سفید در متوسط غلظت­ های PEG برخوردار بود. فلیم سیدلس همچنین تنش خشکی را از نظر طول شاخساره، تعداد برگ در شاخساره، وزن خشک ریزنمونه، کلروفیل a، کلروفیل b و کربوهیدرات­ های محلول به طور موثرتر از رقم بیدانه سفید مدیریت کرد و از درصد بالای کالوس (87/5 درصد) در غلظت 1 درصد PEG  برخوردار بود.. اگرچه رقم بیدانه سفید از نظر ویژگی­ های رشدی قوی‌تر از فلیم سیدلس نبود، ولی محتوای پرولین  بالاتر معنی‌دار، کاهش غیرمعنی‌دار در محتوای آب نسبی و کاهش اندکی در طول ساقه و وزن تر ریزنمونه‌ها در غلظت 2 درصد PEG نسبت به شاهد نشان داد. به نظر می­ رسد هر دو رقم انگور با سازوکارهای ویژه خود موفق به مقابله با تنش خشکی PEG شده ­اند.

Keywords [Persian]

  • انگور
  • پلی اتیلن گلیکول
  • تنش خشکی
  • کشت درون شیشه ای

References

 
References
Abhari A and Gholinezhad E, 2019. Effect of humic acid on grain yield and yield components in chickpea under different irrigation levels. Journal of Plant Physiology and Breeding 9(2): 19-29.
Alizadeh M, Singh SK, and Patel VB, 2010. Comparative performance of in vitro multiplication in four grape (Vitis spp.) rootstock genotypes. International Journal of Plant Production 4(1): 41-50.
Alvarez R, Nissen SJ, and Sutter EG, 1989. Relationship between indol-3-acetic acid levels in apple (Malus pumila Mill) rootstocks cultured in vitro and adventitious root formation in the presence of indole 3-butyric acid. Plant Physiology 89(2): 439-443.
Augé RM, Stodola AJW, Moore JL, Klingeman WE, and Duan X, 2003. Comparative dehydration tolerance of foliage of several ornamental crops. Scientia Horticulturae 98(4): 511-516.
Bajaj Y, 1986. Biotechnology in Agriculture and Forestry. Trees I. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.
Barakat MN and Abdel-Latif TH, 1996. In vitro selection of wheat callus tolerant to high levels of salt and plant regeneration. Euphytica 91: 127-140.
Bigdeloo V, Soleimani A, Abdollahi H, and Bahari A, 2018. Comparative study of two pear cultivars to PEG-induced osmotic stress. Journal of Plant Physiology and Breeding 8(1): 89-99.
Cano EA, Pérez-Alfocea F, Moreno V, Caro M, and Bolarín MC, 1998. Evaluation of salt tolerance in cultivated and wild tomato species through in vitro shoot apex culture. Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture 53: 19.
Darko E, Végh B, Khalil R, Marček T, Szalai G, Pál M, and Janda T, 2019. Metabolic responses of wheat seedlings to osmotic stress induced by various osmolytes under iso-osmotic conditions. PLoS ONE 14(12): e0226151. 
Debez A, Saadaoui D, Ramani B, Ouerghi Z, Koyro HW, Huchzermeyer B, and Abdelly C, 2006. Leaf H+-ATPase activity and photosynthetic capacity of Cakile maritima under increasing salinity. Environmental and Experimental Botany 57(3): 285-295.
Dörffling K, Dörffling H, and Lesselich G, 1993. In vitro selection and regeneration of hydroxyproline-resistant lines of winter wheat with increased proline content and increased frost tolerance. Journal of Plant Physiology 142(2): 222-225.
Eftekhari M, Alizadeh M, Mashayekhi K, and Asghari HR, 2012. In vitro propagation of four Iranian grape varieties: influence of genotype and pretreatment with arbuscular mycorrhiza. Vitis 51(4): 175-182.
Fallon KM and Phillips R, 1989. Responses to water stress in adapted and unadapted carrot cell suspension cultures. Journal of Experimental Botany 40(6): 681-687.
Grönroos L, Kubat B, Von Arnold S, and Eliasson L, 1989. Cytokinin contents in shoot cultures of four Salix clones. Journal of Plant Physiology 135(2): 150-154.
Gross J, 1991. Pigments in Vegetables. Chlorophylls and Carotenoids. Van Nostr Reinhold, New York, USA, 351 p.
Heyser JW and Nabors MW, 1981. Growth, water content, and solute accumulation of two tobacco cell lines cultured on sodium chloride, dextran, and polyethylene glycol. Plant Physiology 68(6): 1454-1459.
Hoekstra FA, Golovina EA, and Buitink J, 2001. Mechanisms of plant dessication tolerance. Trends in Plant Science 6(9): 431-438.
Hussain A, Qarshi IA, Nazir H, and Ullah I, 2012. Plant tissue culture: current status and opportunities. In: Leva A and Rinaldi LMR (eds.). Recent Advances in Plant In Vitro Culture. Pp. 1-27. IntechOpen.
Jacomini E, Bertani A, and Mapelli S, 1988. Accumulation of polyethylene glycol 6000 and its effects on water content and carbohydrate level in water-stressed tomato plants. Canadian Journal of Botany 66(5): 970-973.
Karimi S, Hojati Sh, Eshghi S, Nazary Moghaddam R, and Jandoust S, 2012. Magnetic exposure improves tolerance of fig ‘Sabz’ explants to drought stress induced in vitro. Scientia Horticulturae 137: 95-99.
Kent LM and Lauchli A, 1985. Germination and seedling growth of cotton: salinity-calcium interactions. Plant Cell and Environment 8(2): 155-159.
Khalilzadeh R,  Seid Sharifi R, and Pirzad  A, 2020. Mitigation of drought stress in pot marigold (Calendula officinalis) plant by foliar application of methanol. Journal of Plant Physiology and Breeding 10(1): 71-84.
Kramer PJ, 1983. Water Relations of Plants. Academic Press, Inc., USA.
Le Dily F, Billard JP, Le Saos J, and Huault C, 1993. Effect of NaCl and gabaculine on chlorophyll and proline levels during growth of radish cotyledons. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry 31(3): 303-310.
Levall MW and Bornman JF, 1993. Selection in vitro for UV-tolerant sugar beet (Beta vulgaris) somaclones. Physiologia Plantarum 88(1): 37-43.
Levitt J, 1980. Response of plant to environmental stresses: water, radiation, salt, and other stress. Academic Press, USA, 607 p.
Liu J, Xie X, Du J, Sun J, and Bai X, 2008. Effects of simultaneous drought and heat stress on Kentucky bluegrass. Scientia Horticulturae 115(2): 190-195.
Looney NE, Taylor JS, and Pharis RP, 1988.  Relationship of endogenous gibberellin and cytokinin levels in shoot tips to apical form in four strains of ‘McIntosh’ apple. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 113: 395-398.
Novak FJ and Jůvova Z, 1982. Clonal propagation of grapevine through in vitro axillary bud culture. Scientia Horticulturae 18(3): 231-240.
Oukabli A, Mekaoui A, Ibnouali-El-Aloui M, and Bari A, 2008. Contribution to identification of fig (Ficus carica) genotypes tolerant to drought. Acta Horticulturae 798: 87-93.
Ozden M, Demirel U, and Kahraman A, 2009. Effects of proline on antioxidant system in leaves of grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) exposed to oxidative stress by H2O2. Scientia Horticulturae 119(2): 163-168.
Paquin R and Lechasseur P, 1979. Observations sur une methodé de dosage de la proline libre dans les extraits de plantes. Canadian Journal of Botany 57(18): 1851-1854.
Patakas A and Noitsakis B, 2001. Leaf age effects on solute accumulation water-stressed grapevines. Journal of Plant Physiology 158(1): 63-69.
Péros JP, Torregrossa L, and Berger G, 1998. Variability among Vitis vinifera cultivars in micropropagation, organogenesis, and antibiotic sensitivity. Journal of Experimental Botany 49(319): 171-179.
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.
Rai MK, Kalia RK, Singh R, Gangola MP, and Dhawana AK, 2011. Developing stress tolerant plants through in vitro selection—An overview of the recent progress. Environmental and Experimental Botany 71(1): 89-98.
Reisch BI, 1986. Influence of genotype and cytokinins on in vitro shoot proliferation of grapes. J. American Society for Horticultural Science 111: 138-141.
Rout GR and Sahoo S, 2007. In vitro selection and plant regeneration of copper-tolerant plants from leaf explants of Nicotiana tabacum L. cv. ‘Xanthi’. Plant Breeding 126(4): 403-409.
Roy B and Mandal AB, 2005. Towards development of Al-toxicity tolerant lines in Indica rice by exploiting somaclonal variation. Euphytica 145: 221-227.
Rumbaugh MD and Johnson DA, 1981. Screening alfalfa germplasm for seedling drought resistance. Crop Science 21: 704-713.
Sarvari M,  Darvishzadeh R,  Najafzadeh R, and Hatami Maleki, 2017. Physio-biochemical and enzymatic responses of sunflower to drought stress. Journal of Plant Physiology and Breeding 7(1): 105-119.
Simões C, Brasil Bizarri CH, da Silva Cordeiro L, Carvalho de Castro T, Machado Coutada LC, Ribeiro da Silva AJ, Albarello N, and Mansur E, 2009. Anthocyanin production in callus cultures of Cleome rosea: modulation by culture conditions and characterization of pigments by means of HPLC-DAD/ESIMS. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry 47(10): 895-903.
Sivritepe N, Erturk U, Yerlikaya 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.
Smerea S, Andronic L, Grigorov T, and Bujoreanu V, 2010. In vitro regenerative genotypic specificity of meristems from virus infected grapevine cultivars. Romanian Biotechnological Letters 15(2): 19-25.
Solomon A, Beer S, Waisel Y, Jones GP, and Paleg LG, 1994. Effect of NaCl on the carboxylation activity of rubisco from Tamarix ordanis in the presence and absence of proline related compatible solutes. Physiologia Plantarum 90: 198-208.
Taylor CB, 1996. Proline and water deficit: ups, downs, ins, and outs. Plant Cell 8(8): 1221-1224.
Trotel P, Bouchereau A, Niogret MF, and Larher F, 1996. The fate of osmo-accumulated proline in leaf discs of rape (Brassica napus L.) incubated in a medium of low osmolarity. Plant Science 118(1): 31-45.
Turhan H and Baser I, 2004. In vitro and in vivo water stress in sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.). Helia 27(40): 227-236.
Türkan I, Bor M, Özademir 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 Science 168(1): 223-231.
Verslues PE, Agarwal M, Katiyar-Agarwal S, Zhu J, and Zhu JK, 2006. Methods and concepts in quantifying resistance to drought, salt, and freezing abiotic stresses that affect plant water status. Plant Journal 45(4): 523-539.
Wani SH, Sofi PA, Gosal SS, and Singh NB, 2010. In vitro screening of rice (Oryza sativa L.) callus for drought tolerance. Communications in Biometry and Crop Science 5(2):108-115.
Winkler AJ, Cook JA, Kliewer WM, and Lider LA, 1974. General Viticulture. University of California Press, Berkeley, USA, 710 p.
Zhang B and Archbold DD, 1993. Solute accumulation in leaves of a Fragaria chiloensis and a F. virginia selection response to water deficit stress. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 118(2): 280-285.
Journal of Plant Physiology and Breeding
Volume 10, Issue 2
December 2020
Pages 133-145

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics