Use of Physiological Parameters for Screening Drought Tolerant Barley Genotypes

Document Type : Research Paper


1 Seed and Plant Improvement Research Department, West Azarbaijan Agricultural and Natural Resources Research Center, AREEO, Urmia, Iran

2 Seed and Plant Improvement Institute, Cereals Research Department, AREEO, Karaj, Iran


With the aim of understanding and identifying the traits which can be used as the suitable criteria for quick screening of the water deficit tolerant barley genotypes, an experiment based on randomized complete blocks design with three replications was conducted during two years to evaluate the biochemical responses of 20 barley genotypes to full irrigation and terminal water stress in the field condition. Results showed large genetic differences among barley genotypes in response to water deficit, which could be utilized in breeding programs. Proline, sucrose, glucose, fructose, superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT), glutathione peroxidase (GPX), auxin, gibberellin and abscisic acid (ABA) content were significantly affected by different irrigation conditions and genotypes. Water deficit significantly increased proline, carbohydrates accumulation and activities of CAT, SOD, GPX and ABA concentration in the barley genotypes. However, indole acetic acid (IAA) and gibberellic acid (GA3) contents decreased under the terminal water stress. Cluster analysis showed that genotypes 11, 18 and 19 had higher values of proline, fructose, glucose, IAA, GA3, GPX, CAT and SOD. These genotypes could be considered as drought tolerant genotypes which can tolerate unfavorable environmental conditions as compared to other genotypes through overproduction of some osmolytes, effective phyto-hormone signaling and better antioxidant enzymes activity for scavenging reactive oxygen species and consequently enhanced potential for production of higher grain yield. Thus, it seems that biochemical and phyto-hormonal responses could be introduced as desirable and suitable indicators for screening genotypes with better potential under water deficit stress condition.


Article Title [فارسی]

استفاده از صفات فیزیولوژیکی برای غربال ژنوتیپ‌‌های متحمل به خشکی جو

Authors [فارسی]

  • سلیمان محمدی 1
  • بهزاد سرخی‌ لـله لو 2
1 بخش تحقیقات اصلاح و تهیه نهال و بذر، مرکز تحقیقات کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی استان آذربایجان غربی، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، ارومیه
2 بخش تحقیقات غلات، موسسه تحقیقات اصلاح و تهیه نهال و بذر، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، کرج
Abstract [فارسی]

به‌ منظور ارزیابی پاسخ ژنوتیپ‌­های مختلف جو به آبیاری کامل و تنش آبی انتهایی، آزمایشی بر پایه طرح بلوک‌­های کامل تصادفی با سه تکرار طی دو سال انجام شد. نتایج نشان داد که تفاوت‌­های ژنتیکی زیادی بین ژنوتیپ‌­های جو در پاسخ به کم‌آبی وجود دارد که می‌­تواند در برنامه‌­های اصلاحی مورد استفاده قرار گیرد. پرولین، ساکارز، گلوگوز، فروکتوز، سوپر اکسید دیسموتاز، کاتالاز،‌ گلوتامین پراکسیداز، اکسین، ژیبرلین و اسید آبسیزیک به طور معنی‌داری تحت تأثیر شرایط متفاوت آبیاری و نوع ژنوتیپ‌ قرار گرفتند. کمبود آب سبب افزایش معنی­دار پرولین، تجمع کربوهیدرات­­ها و فعالیت آنزیم‌­های سوپر اکسید دیسموتاز، کاتالاز،‌ گلوتامین پراکسیداز و غلظت اسید آبسیزیک در ژنوتیپ­‌های جو شد، در‌صورتی که مقدار اکسین و اسید ژیبرلیک تحت تنش آبی انتهایی کاهش یافت. ژنوتیپ­های 11، 18 و 19 دارای مقادیر بیشتری از پرولین، فروکتوز، گلوگز، اکسین، ژیبرلین، گلوتامین پرواکسیداز، کاتالاز و سوپر اکسید دسموتاز بودند. این ژنوتیپ‌­ها را می­­توان به عنوان ژنوتیپ ­های متحمل به تنش خشکی در نظر گرفت که  با تولید بیشتر برخی اسمولیت­ها، هورمون­­های گیاهی موثر در سیگنال­دهی و فعالیت بهتر آنزیم­های آنتی‌اکسیدان برای مقابله با گونه­های اکسیژن فعال، شرایط نامساعد محیطی را بهتر از سایر ژنوتیپ­ها تحمل کرده و دارای پتانسیل عملکرد دانه بیشتری هستند. بنابراین، به نظر می­رسد که پاسخ­های بیوشیمیایی و هورمون‌های گیاهی را می­توان به عنوان نشانگرهای مناسب در غربال و انتخاب ژنوتیپ­های جو با پتانسیل بهتر تحت شرایط محدودیت آب معرفی کرد.

Keywords [فارسی]

  • آنزیم­­های آنتی اکسیدان
  • جو
  • قندهای محلول
  • هورمون­های گیاهی
Alia P and Pardha S, 1991. Proline accumulation under heavy metal stress. Journal of Plant Physiology 138: 554-558.
Araus JL, Slafer GA, Reynolds MP and Royo C, 2002. Plant breeding and drought in C3 cereals: what should we breed for? Annals of Botany 89: 925-940.
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.
Bates LS, Waldren RP and Teare ID, 1973. Rapid determination of free proline for water-stress studies. Plant and Soil 39: 205–207.
Baysal Furtana G and Tıpırdamaz R, 2010. Physiological and antioxidant response of three cultivars of cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) to salinity. Turkish Journal of Biology 34: 287–296.
Bray EA, Bailey-Serres J and Weretilnyk E, 2000. Responses to abiotic stresses. In: Buchanan BB, Gruissem W and Jones RL (Eds). Biochemistry and Molecular Biology of Plants. Pp. 1158–1203. American Society of Plant Physiologists, Rockville, MD, USA.
Celik O and Atak C, 2012. The effect of salt stress on antioxidative enzymes and proline content of two Turkish tobacco varieties. Turkish Journal of Biology 36: 339–356.
Chen C and Dickman MB, 2005. Proline suppresses apoptosis in the fungal pathogen Colletotrichum trifolii. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 102: 3459-3464.
Demiralay M, Sağlam A and Kadıoğlu A, 2013. Salicylic acid delays leaf rolling by inducing antioxidant enzymes and modulating osmoprotectant content in Ctenanthe setosa under osmotic stress. Turkish Journal of Biology 37: 49–59.
Dhindsa RS, Dhindsa PP and Thorpe TA, 1980. Leaf senescence correlated with increased levels of membrane permeability and lipid-peroxidation and decreased levels of superoxide dismutase and catalase. Journal of Experimental Botany 32: 93–101.
Farooq M, Wahid A, Kobayashi N, Fujita D and Basra SMA, 2009. Plant drought stress: effects, mechanisms and management. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 29: 185–212.
Foyer CH, Descourvieres P and Kunert KJ, 1994. Protection against oxygen radicals: an important defense mechanism studied in transgenic plants. Plant, Cell and Environment 17: 507–523.
Foyer C and Noctor G, 2003. Redox sensing and signaling associated with reactive oxygen in chloroplasts, peroxisomes and mitochondria. Plant Physiology 119: 355-364.
Kannangara T, Durley RC, Simpson GM and Stout DG, 1982. Drought resistance of Sorghum bicolor. 4. Hormonal changes in relation to drought stress in field-grown plants. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 62: 317–330.
Kim TH, Lee BR, Jung WJ, Kim KY, Avice J and Qurry A, 2004. De novo protein synthesis in relation to ammonia and proline accumulation in water stressed white clover. Functional Plant Biology 31: 847–855.
Lee BR, Jin YL, Avice JC, Cliquet JB, Qurry A and Kim TH, 2009. Increased proline loading to phloem and its effects on nitrogen uptake and assimilation in water-stressed white clover (Trifolium repens). New Phytologist 182: 654–663.
Matysik J, Alia Bhalu B and Mohanty P, 2002. Molecular mechanisms of quenching of reactive oxygen species by proline under stress in plants. Current Science 82: 525–532.
Mittler R, Vanderauwera S, Gollery M and van Breusegem F, 2004. Reactive oxygen gene network of plants. Trends in Plant Science 9: 490–498.
Mohammadi S, Rezaie M, Hosseinzadeh Mahootchi A, Hamze H and Kalilagdam N, 2015. Effect of water stress on oxidative damage and antioxidant enzyme activity of bread wheat genotypes. WALIA Journal 31: 163-169.
Morcuende R, Kostadinova S, Perez P, Martin Del Molino IM and Martínez-Carrasco R, 2004. Nitrate is a negative signal for fructan synthesis, and the fructosyl transferase–inducing trehalose inhibits nitrogen and carbon assimilation in excised barley leaves. New Phytologist 161: 749–759.
Nilsen ET and Orcutte DM, 1996. Phytohormones and plant responses to stress. In: Nilsen ET and Orcutte DM (Eds.). Physiology of Plant Under Stress: Abiotic Factors. Pp. 183–198. John Wiley and Sons.
Paglia DE and Valentine WN, 1987. Studies on the quantitative and qualitative characterization of glutathione peroxidase. Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine 70: 158-165.
Pereira GJG, Molina SMG, Lea PJ and Azevedo RA, 2002. Activity of antioxidant enzymes in response to cadmium in Crotalaria juncea. Plant and Soil 239: 123–132.
Reddy AR, Chaitanya KV and Vivekanandan M, 2004. Drought induced responses of photosynthesis and antioxidant metabolism in higher plants. Journal of Plant Physiology 161: 1189–1202.
Ribaut JM and Pilet PE, 1991. Effects of water stress on growth, osmotic potential and abscisic acid content of maize roots. Physiologia Plantarum 81: 156–162.
Sadiqov ST, Akbulut M and Ehmedov V. 2002. Role of Ca2+ in drought stress signaling in wheat seedlings. Biochemistry 67: 491–497.
Sairam RK, Srivastava GC and Saxena DC. 2000. Increased antioxidant activity under elevated temperatures: a mechanism of heat stress tolerance in wheat genotypes. Biologia Plantarum 43: 245–251.
Serraj R and Sinclair TR. 2002. Osmolyte accumulation: can it really help increase crop yield under drought conditions? Plant, Cell and Environment 25: 333–341.
Sorkhilalehloo B, Mohammadi S, Razavi AR, Chaichi M, Teymourpour H, Aminzadeh GhR, Sharifalhoseini M and Fathi Haftshehjani A, 2014. Evaluation of adaptability of elite barley genotypes in regional yield trial of cold zone. Final Report 93/45559. Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization, Iran (In Persian).   
Subbarao GV, Nam NH, Chauhan YS and Johansen C, 2000. Osmotic adjustment, water relations and carbohydrate remobilization in pigeonpea under water deficits. Journal of Plant Physiology 157: 651–659.
Umezawa T, Fujita M, Fujita Y, Yamaguchi-Shinozaki K and Shinozaki K, 2006. Engineering drought tolerance in plants: discovering and tailoring genes to unlock the future. Current Opinion in Biotechnology 17: 113-122.
Vartanian N, Marcotte L and Ciraudat J, 1994. Drought rhizogenesis in Arabidopsis thaliana: differential responses of hormonal mutants. Plant Physiology 104: 761–767.
Yurekli, F, Banu Porgal Z and Turkan I, 2004. Variations in abscisic acid, indole-3-acetic acid, and gibberellic acid and zeatin concentrations in two bean species subjected tosalt stress. Acta Biological Cracoviensia Series Botanica, 46: 201–212.
Zhang M, Duan L, Zhai Z, Li J, Tian X, Wang B, He Z and Li Z, 2004. Effects of plant growth regulators on water deficit-induced yield loss in soybean. Proceedings of the 4th International Crop Science Congress, Brisbane, Australia.