Physico-Chemical Evaluation of Some Wormwood (Artemisia absinthium L.) Ecotypes Under Salt Stress Condition

Document Type : Research Paper


1 Department of Horticultural Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Karaj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Karaj, Iran

2 Department of Horticultural Science, Faculty of Agriculture, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran


The physiological and biochemical responses of three ecotypes of Artemisia absinthium L. from Iran were evaluated under salinity conditions. Salinity treatments were made by NaCl with EC of 0, 5, 10 and 15 dS/m.   Physiological and biochemical attributes were measured 30 days after the salt treatments imposed. Highest reduction in the shoot and root fresh weights was observed in the ecotypes of East Azarbaijan and Guilan at 10 and 15 dS/m salinity levels. The ecotype of Semnan was affected lesser by the same salinity levels than the control. Total chlorophyll showed a significant decrease at all salinity levels in all ecotypes. But the ecotype of East Azarbaijan showed a higher reduction at 10 and 15 dS/m salinity. Increasing the concentration of exterior salt led to increase the Na+ and Cl concentrations in leaves, stems and roots. The highest Na accumulation in stems was found in the ecotype of East Azarbaijan at 10 and 15 dS/m.   The highest proline was detected in the ecotype of Semnan. The results indicated that there was different responses to salinity among the studied Artemisia absinthium ecotypes. The ecotypes of Semnan and Guilan were more salt tolerant than the East Azarbaijan ecotype. The relative tolerance of the ecotype of Semnan was due to the high amount of output capacity of Na+, Ca2+ concentration, as well as its proline content.


Article Title [فارسی]

ارزیابی فیزیکی-شیمیایی برخی اکوتیپ‌های افسنطین (Artemisia absinthium L.) در شرایط تنش شوری

Authors [فارسی]

  • رعنا شریفی وش 1
  • مجید شکرپور 2
1 دانشکده کشاورزی دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد کرج
2 گروه علوم باغبانی و فضای سبز، پردیس کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی، دانشگاه تهران، کرج
Abstract [فارسی]

پاسخ­های فیزیولوژیک و بیوشیمیایی سه اکوتیپ افسنطین در شرایط تنش شوری مورد ارزیابی قرار گرفت. تیمارهای شوری متشکل از محلول NaCl با هدایت الکتریکی 0، 5، 10 و 15 دسی­زیمنس بر متر بودند. یک ماه پس از اعمال تیمارهای شوری، ویژگی­­های فیزیولوژیک و بیوشیمیایی اندازه­گیری شد. بیشترین کاهش وزن تر اندام هوایی و ریشه در اکوتیپ­های آذربایجان­شرقی و گیلان در سطوح شوری 10 و 15 دسی­زیمنس ­بر متر مشاهده شد. اکوتیپ سمنان در شرایط شوری در مقایسه با شاهد کمتر تحت تاثیر قرار گرفت. کاهش معنی­دار کلروفیل کل در کلیه سطوح شوری و در همه اکوتیپ­ها مشاهده شد. با وجود این، اکوتیپ آذربایجان­شرقی کاهش بیشتری در سطوح 10 و 15 دسی زیمنس بر متر داشت. افزایش غلظت نمک خروجی (دفع شده از گیاه) منجر به افزایش غلظت یون­های سدیم و کلر در سطح برگ، ساقه و ریشه شد. بیشترین تجمع سدیم در ساقه­های اکوتیپ آذربایجان­شرقی در شوری 10 و 15 دسی زیمنس بر متر به دست آمد. اکوتیپ سمنان دارای بیشترین مقدار پرولین بود. نتایج این مطالعه حاکی از پاسخ­های متفاوت شوری در بین اکوتیپ­های افسنطین بود. به طوری که اکوتیپ­های سمنان و گیلان متحمل­تر از اکوتیپ آذربایجان شرقی به شوری بودند. تحمل نسبی اکوتیپ سمنان به واسطه میزان زیاد پرولین و ظرفیت خروج یون­های سدیم و کلر بود.


Keywords [فارسی]

  • افسنطین
  • پرولین
  • شوری
  • محتوای یونی
Abd-El Nabi L and Hussein E, 1996. Effect of irrigation with saline water on damsesa oil and on Spodolera littoralis (Bios D). First Egyptian-Hungarian Horticultural Conference, Kafr El-Sheikh, Egypt.
Ahmad P and Prasad MNV, 2011. Environmental Adaptations and Stress Tolerance of Plants in the Era of Climate Change. Springer Science & Business Media.
Arnon DI, 1949. Copper enzymes in isolated chloroplasts. Polyphenoloxidase in Beta vulgaris. Plant Physiology 24 (1): 1-16.
Baghalian K, Haghiry A, Naghavi MR and Mohammadi A, 2008. Effect of saline irrigation water on agronomical and phytochemical characters of chamomile (Matricaria recutita L.). Scientia Horticulturae 116: 437-441.
Barrs H and Weatherley P, 1962. A re-examination of the relative turgidity technique for estimating water deficits in leaves. Australian Journal of Biological Sciences 15: 413-428.
Bates L, Waldren R and Teare I, 1973. Rapid determination of free proline for water-stress studies. Plant and Soil 39: 205-207.
Belkheiri O and Mulas M, 2013. The effects of salt stress on growth, water relations and ion accumulation in two halophyte Atriplex species. Environmental and Experimental Botany 86:17-28.
Blum A and Ebercon A, 1981. Cell membrane stability as a measure of drought and heat tolerance in wheat. Crop Science 21: 43-47.
Burbott AJ and Loomis WD, 1969. Evidence for metabolic turnover of monoterpenes in peppermint. Plant Physiology 44: 173-179.
Chaparzadeh N, D'Amico ML, Khavari-Nejad RA, Izzo R and Navari-Izzo F, 2004. Antioxidative responses of Calendula officinalis under salinity conditions. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry 42: 695-701.
Charles DJ, Joly RJ and Simon JE, 1990. Effects of osmotic stress on the essential oil content and composition of peppermint. Phytochemistry 29: 2837-2840.
Clevenger J, 1928. Apparatus for the determination of volatile oil. Journal of the American Pharmaceutical Association 17: 345-349.
Cramer GR, Läuchli A and Polito VS, 1985. Displacement of Ca2+ by Na+ from the plasmalemma of root cells.  A primary response to salt stress? Plant Physiology 79: 207-211.
FAO, 2008. FAO Land and Plant Nutrition Management Service.
Flagella Z, Giuliani M, Rotunno T, Di Caterina R and De Caro A, 2004. Effect of saline water on oil yield and quality of a high oleic sunflower (Helianthus annuus (L.)) hybrid. European Journal of Agronomy 21: 267-272.
Flowers T, Troke P and Yeo A, 1977. The mechanism of salt tolerance in halophytes. Annual Review of Plant Physiology 28: 89-121.
Francois L and Bernstein L, 1964. Salt tolerance of safflower. Agronomy Journal 56: 38-40.
Gengmao Z, Yu H, Xing S, Shihui L, Quanmei S and Changhai W, 2015. Salinity stress increases secondary metabolites and enzyme activity in safflower. Industrial Crops and Products 64: 175-181.
Greenway H and Munns R, 1980. Mechanisms of salt tolerance in nonhalophytes. Annual Review of Plant Physiology 31: 149-190.
Guan Z-Y, Su Y-J, Teng N-J, Chen S-M, Sun H-N, Li C-L and Chen F-D, 2013. Morphological, physiological, and structural responses of two species of Artemisia to NaCl stress. The Scientific World Journal.  Vol. 2013, Article ID 309808, 10 pages.
Hameed M and Ashraf M, 2008. Physiological and biochemical adaptations of Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. from the Salt Range (Pakistan) to salinity stress. Flora-Morphology, Distribution, Functional Ecology of Plants 203: 683-694.
Heidari Sharifabad H, 2001. Plants and the Salinity. The Publication of Research Institute of Forests and Rangelands, Tehran, Iran (In Persian).
Hemantaranjan A, 1998. Advances in Plant Physiology. Scientific Publishers (India).
Khalid KA and da Silva JAT, 2010. Yield, essential oil and pigment content of Calendula officinalis (L.) flower heads cultivated under salt stress conditions. Scientia Horticulturae 126: 297-305.
Khan MA, Ungar IA and Showalter AM, 2000. The effect of salinity on the growth, water status, and ion content of a leaf succulent perennial halophyte, Suaeda fruticosa (L.) Forssk. Journal of Arid Environments 45: 73-84.
Koyro H-W, 2006. Effect of salinity on growth, photosynthesis, water relations and solute composition of the potential cash crop halophyte Plantago coronopus (L.). Environmental and Experimental Botany 56: 136-146.
Lindhauer MG, Haeder HE and Beringer H, 1990. Osmotic potentials and solute concentrations in sugar beet plants cultivated with varying potassium/sodium ratios. Zeitschrift für Pflanzenernährung und Bodenkunde 153: 25-32.
Morales C, Cusido R, Palazon J and Bonfill M, 1993. Response of Digitalis purpurea plants to temporary salinity. Journal of Plant Nutrition 16: 327-335.
Morris DL, 1948. Quantitative determination of carbohydrates with Dreywood's anthrone reagent. Science 107: 254-255.
Munns R, 2002. Comparative physiology of salt and water stress Plant, Cell & Environment 25: 239-250.
Prasad A, Kumar D, Anwar M, Singh D and Jain D, 1998. Response of Artemisia annua L. to soil salinity. Journal of Herbs, Spices & Medicinal Plants 5: 49-55.
Qureshi MI, Israr M, Abdin M and Iqbal M, 2005. Responses of Artemisia annua L. to lead and salt-induced oxidative stress. Environmental and Experimental Botany 53: 185-193.
Sabra A, Daayf F and Renault S, 2012. Differential physiological and biochemical responses of three Echinacea species to salinity stress. Scientia Horticulturae 135: 23-31.
Sairam RK, Rao KV and Srivastava G, 2002. Differential response of wheat genotypes to long term salinity stress in relation to oxidative stress, antioxidant activity and osmolyte concentration. Plant Science 163: 1037-1046.
Sarwat M, Ahmad P, Nabi G and Hu X, 2013. Ca2+ signals: the versatile decoders of environmental cues. Critical Reviews in Biotechnology 33: 97-109.
SAS Institute, 2004. SAS v. 9.1 Software. SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina, USA.
Tan RX, Zheng W and Tang H, 1998. Biologically active substances from the genus Artemisia. Planta Medica 64: 295-302.
Temminghoff EE and Houba VJ, 2004. Plant Analysis Procedures. Springer Publishers, 179 pp.