Volume 11, Issue 30 (9-2019)                   jcb 2019, 11(30): 11-22 | Back to browse issues page

XML Persian Abstract Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

rezaeinia M, Bihamta M, Peighambari S A, Abbsi A R. Effect of Drought Stress on Antioxidant Enzymes Activities and Some Physiological Traits in Chickpea (Cicer Arietinum L.). jcb. 2019; 11 (30) :11-22
URL: http://jcb.sanru.ac.ir/article-1-866-en.html
University of Tehran
Abstract:   (337 Views)

The aims of this study to assess the response of chickpea genotypes to drought stress in terms of physiological parameters and subsequent biochemical changes for more understand of drought resistance mechanisms in plants and accession to better genetic resources. Investigation were of 5 chickpea genotypes under 100, 65 and 30 percent of field capacity at two sampling time i.e. 7 and 14 days after stress induction (in 4 to 6 leaves stage). The experiment design factorial split-plot in time experiment in a completely randomized design with three replications at greenhouse of college of agriculture and natural resource of University of Tehran in 2013. Results showed that there were significant differences among genotypes, stress levels, duration of stress and interaction among them. Drought stress reduced the relative water content (RWC) and electrolyte leakage (EL) significantly. The electrolyte leakage rate under drought stress conditions in drought-tolerant genotypes is usually less than sensitive genotypes; genotypes of 998 and 606 are resistant to this and genotype of 357 are sensitive. Increase of the duration of stress, reduced the activity of the antioxidant enzymes. According to the results, the catalase (CAT) and ascorbate peroxidase (APX) enzymes activity in both periods increased in higher drought stress. Activity of superoxide dismutase (SOD) decreased with increasing tension stress. In elevated density of stress, guaiacol peroxidase (GPX) enzyme activity increased to 65% crop capacity in both periods. However, compared to 65%, the enzyme activity decreased at 30% stress level. In regard, the responses of all genotypes were not the same and some genotypes had an elevating trend. Genotypes 606 and 998 showed more activity level in enzymes of catalase, ascorbate peroxidase and superoxide dismutase under stress condition and but genotype 357 had a less value. The activity guaiacol peroxidase in genotypes of 236 and 357 had the highest and lowest activity, respectively. Under drought stress conditions, the activity of antioxidant enzymes was more in tolerant plants than others. Given that the activity of catalase, ascorbate peroxidase and superoxide dismutase enzymes were highest in genotypes 606 and 998, so they were introduced as drought tolerant genotypes in this experiment. The genotype 357, with the lowest enzyme activity, was introduced as a susceptible genotype. Of course, the reaction of plants to drought stress varies considerably depending on the severity and duration of the stress, and also plant type and growth stage.

Full-Text [PDF 425 kb]   (112 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: General
Received: 2017/12/10 | Revised: 2019/08/31 | Accepted: 2018/09/24 | Published: 2019/09/11

1. Abedi, T. and H. Pakniat. 2010. Antioxidant enzyme changes in response to drought stress in ten cultivars of oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.). Czech Journal of Genetics and Plant Breeding, 46(10): 27-34. [DOI:10.17221/67/2009-CJGPB]
2. Aebi, H. 1984. Catalase in vitro. Methods in Enzymology, 105: 121-126. [DOI:10.1016/S0076-6879(84)05016-3]
3. Ahmed, S., E. Nawata, M. Hosokawa, Y. Domae and T. Sakuratani. 2002. Alterations in photosynthesis and some antioxidant enzymatic activities of mungbean subjected to water logging. Plant Science, 163: 117-123. [DOI:10.1016/S0168-9452(02)00080-8]
4. Allen, R.D. 1995. Dissection of oxidative stress tolerance using transgenic plants. Plant Physiology, 57: 1049-1054. [DOI:10.1104/pp.107.4.1049]
5. Asada, K. 2000. The water-water cycle as alternative photon and electron sinks. Philosophical transactions of the royal society B: Biological Sciences, 355(1402): 1419-1431. [DOI:10.1098/rstb.2000.0703]
6. Barnabas, B., K. Jager and A. Feher. 2008. The effect of drought and heat stress on reproductive processes in cereals. Plant Cell and Environment, 31: 11-38.
7. Bayoumi, T.Y., M. Eid and E.M. Metwali. 2008. Application of physiological and biochemical indices as a screening technique for drought tolerance in wheat genotypes. African Journal of Biotechnology, 7: 2341-2352.
8. Beltrano, J. and M.G. Ronco. 2008. Improved tolerance of wheat plants (Triticum aestivum L.) to drought stress and rewatering by the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus Glomus claroideum: Effect on growth and cell membrane stability. Brazilian Journal of Plant Physiology, 20: 29-37. [DOI:10.1590/S1677-04202008000100004]
9. Blokhina, O., E. Virolainen and K.V. Fagerstedt. 2003. Antioxidants, oxidative damage and oxygen deprivation stress: a review. Annals of Botany, 91(2): 179-194. [DOI:10.1093/aob/mcf118]
10. Cameron, D. 1999. The effect of different irrigations on water relation and growth in rododenderon. New Phytologist, 137: 90-95.
11. Casano, L.M., M. Martin and B. Sabater. 1994. Sensitivity of superoxide dismutase transcript levels and activities to oxidative stress is lower in mature-senescent than in young barley leaves. Plant Physiology, 106: 1033-1039. [DOI:10.1104/pp.106.3.1033]
12. Change, B. and A.C. Maehly. 1955. Assay of catalases and peroxidase. Methods in Enzymology, 2: 764-775. [DOI:10.1016/S0076-6879(55)02300-8]
13. Chaparzadeh, N., M.L. Amico, R.K. Nejad, R. Izzo and F.N. Izzo. 2004. Antioxidative responses of Calendula officinalis under salinity conditions. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, 42: 695-701. [DOI:10.1016/j.plaphy.2004.07.001]
14. Chaves, M.M., J.P. Maroco and J.S. Pereira. 2003. Understanding plant responses to drought from genes to the whole plant. Functional Plant Biology, 30(3): 239-264. [DOI:10.1071/FP02076]
15. Dedio, W. 1975.Water relations in wheat leaves as screening tests for drought resistance. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 55(2): 369-378. [DOI:10.4141/cjps75-059]
16. Demiral T. and I. Türkan. 2004. Does exogenous glycine betaine affect antioxidative system of rice seedlings under NaCl treatment? Journal of Plant Physiology, 161: 1089-1100. [DOI:10.1016/j.jplph.2004.03.009]
17. Dhindsa, R.S., P.A.M.E.L.A. Plumb-Dhindsa and T.A. Thorpe. 1981. 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(1): 93-101. [DOI:10.1093/jxb/32.1.93]
18. Esfandiari, E. 2007. Evaluation of drought tolerance in winter wheat cultivars using physiological and biochemical parameters. PhD thesis in Agronomy (Crop Physiology), Faculty of Agriculture, University of Tabriz (In Persian).
19. FAO. 2010. FAO Statistics. From http://faostat3.fao.org.
20. Farooq, M., A. Wahid, N. Kobayashi, D. Fujita and S.M.A. Basra. 2009. Plant drought stress: effects, mechanisms and management. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 29: 185-212. [DOI:10.1051/agro:2008021]
21. Franca, M.G.C., A.T.P. Thi, C. Pimentel, R.O.P. Rossiello, Y. Zuily-Fodil and D. Laffray. 2000. Differences in growth and water relations among Phaseolus vulgaris cultivars in response to induced drought stress. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 43: 227-237. [DOI:10.1016/S0098-8472(99)00060-X]
22. Fu, J. and B. Huang. 2001. Involvement of antioxidants and lipid peroxidation in the adaptation of two cool-season grasses to localized drought stress. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 45: 05-114. [DOI:10.1016/S0098-8472(00)00084-8]
23. Gambel, P.E. and J.J. Burke. 1994. Effect of water stress on the chloroplast antioxidant system. I. Alterations in glutathione reductase activity. Plant Physiology, 76: 615-621. [DOI:10.1104/pp.76.3.615]
24. Ghaderi, N., A.R. Talaie, A. Ebadi and H. Lessani. 2011. The physiological response of three Iranian grape cultivars to progressive drought stress. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 13: 601-609.
25. Ghanbari, A.A., M.R. Shakiba, M. Toorchi and R. Choukan. 2013. Morpho-physiological responses of common bean leaf to water deficit stress. European Journal of Experimental Biology, 3(1): 487-492.
26. Graça, J.P.D., F.A. Rodrigues, J.R.B. Farias, M.C.N.D. Oliveira, C.B. Hoffmann-Campo and S.M. Zingaretti. 2010. Physiological parameters in sugarcane cultivars submitted to water deficit. Brazilian Journal of Plant, 22(3): 189-197. [DOI:10.1590/S1677-04202010000300006]
27. Guerfel, M., O. Baccouri, D. Boujnah, W. Cha and M. Zarrouk. 2008. Impacts of water stress on gas exchange, water elations, chlorophyll content and leaf structure in the two main Tunisian olive (Olea europaea L.) cultivars. Scientia Horticulturae, 1: 1-7.
28. Guo, Z., W. Ou, S. Lu and Q. Zhong. 2006. Differential responses of antioxidative system to chilling and drought in four rice cultivars differing in sensitivity. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, 44: 828-836. [DOI:10.1016/j.plaphy.2006.10.024]
29. Hassanpour Lescokelaye, K., J. Ahmadi, J. Daneshyan and S. Hatami. 2015. Changes in chlorophyll, protein and antioxidant enzymes on durum wheat under drought stress. Journal of Crop Breeding, 7(15): 76-87 (In Persian).
30. Helal, R.M. and M.A. Samir. 2008. Comparative response of drought tolerant and drought sensitive maize genotypes to water stress. Australian Journal of Crop Science, 1: 31-36.
31. Israr, M. and S.V. Sahi. 2006. Antioxidative responses to mercury in the cell cultures of Sesbania drummondii. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, 44: 590-595. [DOI:10.1016/j.plaphy.2006.09.021]
32. Koca, H., M. Bor, F. Ozdemir and I. Turkan. 2007. The effect of salt stress on lipid peroxidation, antioxidative enzymes and proline content of sesame cultivars. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 60: 344-351. [DOI:10.1016/j.envexpbot.2006.12.005]
33. Martin, I. and M.S. Grotewiel. 2006. Oxidative damage and age related functional declines. Mechanisms Ageing and Develop, 127: 411-423. [DOI:10.1016/j.mad.2006.01.008]
34. Martínez, J.P., H.F.L.J. Silva, J.F. Ledent and M. Pinto. 2007. Effect of drought stress on the osmotic adjustment, cell wall elasticity and cell volume of six cultivars of common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). European Journal of Agronomy, 26(1): 30-38. [DOI:10.1016/j.eja.2006.08.003]
35. Mika, A. and S. Luthje. 2003. Properties of guaiacol peroxidase activities isolated from corn root plasma membranes. Plant Physiology, 132: 1489-1498. [DOI:10.1104/pp.103.020396]
36. Mirzaee, M., A. Moieni and F. Ghanati. 2013. Effects of drought stress on the lipid peroxidation and antioxidant enzyme activities in two canola (Brassica Napus L.) cultivar. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 15: 593-602.
37. Mitrovic, A., D. Janosevic, S. Budimir and J. Bogdanovic Pristov. 2012. Changes in antioxidative enzymes activities during Tacitus bellus direct shoot organogenesis. Biologia Plantarum, 56(2): 357-361. [DOI:10.1007/s10535-012-0098-y]
38. Mittler, R. 2002. Oxidative stress, antioxidants and stress tolerance. Trends in Plant Science, 7(9): 405-410. [DOI:10.1016/S1360-1385(02)02312-9]
39. Niknam, V., N. Razavi, H. Ebrahimzadeh and B. Sharifizadeh. 2006. Effect of NaCl on biomass proline and protein contents and antioxidant enzymes in seedling and calli of two Triginella pecies. Biologia Plantarum, 50: 591-596. [DOI:10.1007/s10535-006-0093-2]
40. Nunes, C., S. Ara ujo, J.M. Da Silva, M. Salema Fevereiro and A. Da Silva. 2008. Physiological responses of the legume model Medicago truncatula cv. Jem along to water deficit. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 63: 289-296. [DOI:10.1016/j.envexpbot.2007.11.004]
41. Omrani, B. and S. Moharramnejad. 2018. Study of Salinity Tolerance in Four Maize (Zea Mays L.) Hybrids at Seedling Stage. Journal of Crop Breeding, 9(24): 86 (In Persian).
42. Polle, A. 2001. Dissecting the superoxide dismutase-ascorbate-glutathione pathway in chloroplasts by metabolic modeling: Computer simulation as a step towards flux analysis. Plant Physiology, 126: 445-46. [DOI:10.1104/pp.126.1.445]
43. Ranieri, A., A. Castagna, J. Pacini, B. Baldan, A.M. Sodi and G.F. Soldatini. 2003. Early production and scavenging of hydrogen peroxide in the apoplast of sunflower plants exposed to ozone. Journal of Experimental Botany, 54(392): 2529-2540. [DOI:10.1093/jxb/erg270]
44. Rostami, A.A. and M. Rahemi. 2013. Screening drought tolerance in Caprifig varieties in accordance to Rresponses of antioxidant enzymes. World Applied Sciences Journal, 21(8): 1213-1219.
45. Sadeghipour, O. and P. Aghaei. 2012. Response of common bean to exogenous application of salicylic acid under water stress conditions. Environmental Biology, 6: 1160-1168.
46. Saglam, A., N. Saruhan, R. Terzi and A. Kadioglu. 2011. The relations between antioxidant enzymes and chlorophyll fluorescence parameters in common bean cultivars differing in sensitivity to drought stress. Russian Journal of Plant Physiology, 58(1): 60-68. [DOI:10.1134/S102144371101016X]
47. Sairam, R.K., K.V. Rao and G.C. Srivastava. 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. [DOI:10.1016/S0168-9452(02)00278-9]
48. Sharma, P. and R.S. Dubey. 2005. Drought induces oxidative stress and enhances the activities of antioxidant enzymes in growing rice seedlings. Plant Growth Regulation, 46(3): 209-221. [DOI:10.1007/s10725-005-0002-2]
49. Shehab, G.G., O.K. Ahmed and H.S. El-Beltagi. 2010. Effects of various chemical agents for alleviation of drought stress in rice plants (Oryza sativa L.). Notulae Botanicae Horti Agrobotanici, 38: 139-148.
50. Siddique, M.R.B., A. Hamid and M.S. Islam. 2000. Drought stress effects on water relations of wheat. Botanical Bulletin of Academia Sinica, 41 pp.
51. Siddiqui, M.H., M.Y. Al-Khaishany, M.A. Al-Qutami, M.H. Al-Whaibi, A. Grover, H.M. Ali, M.S. Al-Wahibi and N.A. Bukhari. 2015. Response of different genotypes of Faba Bean plant to drought stress. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 16: 10214-10227. [DOI:10.3390/ijms160510214]
52. Silva, M.A., J.L. Jifon, J.A.G. Da Silva and V. Sharma. 2007. Use of physiological parameters as fast tools to screen for drought tolerance in sugarcane. Brazilian Journal of Plant Physiology, 19: 193-201. [DOI:10.1590/S1677-04202007000300003]
53. Simova-Stoilova, L., K. Demirevska, T. Petrova, N. Tsenov and U. Feller. 2008. Antioxidative protection in wheat varieties under severe recoverable drought at seedling stage. Plant Soil Environment, 54: 529-536. [DOI:10.17221/427-PSE]
54. Stuart, N.W. 1993. Comparative cold hardiness of scion roots from fifty apple varieties. Proceedings American Society for Horticultural Science, 1939(37): 330-4.
55. Terzi, R., A. Saglam, N. Kutlu, H. Nar and A. Kadioglu. 2010. Impact of soil drought stress on photochemical efficiency of photosystem II and antioxidant enzyme activities of Phaseolus vulgaris cultivars. Turkish Journal of Botany, 34: 1-10.
56. Yong, T., L. Zongsuo, S. Hongbo and D. Feng. 2006. Effect of water deficits on the activity of anti-oxidative enzymes and osmoregulation among three different genotypes of Radix astragali at seedling stage. Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces, 49: 60-65. [DOI:10.1016/j.colsurfb.2006.02.014]
57. Zali, H., T. Hasanloo, O. Sofalian, A. Asghari and M. Zeinalabedini. 2016. Drought Stress Effect on Physiological Parameter and Amino Acids Accumulations in Canola. Journal of Crop Breeding, 8(18): 191 (In Persian). [DOI:10.29252/jcb.8.18.191]
58. Zlatev, Z.S., F.C. Lidon, J.C. Ramalho and I.T. Yordanov. 2006. Comparison of resistance to drought of three bean cultivars. Biologia Plantarum, 50(3): 389-394. [DOI:10.1007/s10535-006-0054-9]

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:

Send email to the article author

© 2020 All Rights Reserved | Journal of Crop Breeding

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb