Volume 9, Issue 23 (12-2017)
J Crop Breed 2017, 9(23): 95-104 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Kamrava S, Babaeian Jolodar N, Bagheri N. (2017). Evaluation of Drought Stress on Chlorophyll and Proline Traits in Soybean Genotypes. J Crop Breed. 9(23), 95-104. doi:10.29252/jcb.9.23.95
URL: http://jcb.sanru.ac.ir/article-1-878-en.html
URL: http://jcb.sanru.ac.ir/article-1-878-en.html
1- Sari Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University
Abstract: (4938 Views)
Soybean (Glycine max) is sensitive to drought stress, and increasing its yield, requires the selection of tolerate varieties which are adapted to semiarid or low water climates of Iran. In this research, the experiment was performed based on a factorial completely randomized design with three replications at 2013. Experimental factors were consisted of 8 genotypes of soybeans and 6 levels of drought stress ( irrigation in all growth stages as control treatment, intense stress in vegetative growth stage, intense stress in flowering stage, intense stress in pod stage, intense stress in flowering stage and pod stage and mild stress at all growth stages). The results showed that the drought stress significantly reduced the chlorophyll photosynthetic pigment (including chlorophyll a, b and total) and significantly increased the proline in different treatments so that, the control factor (irrigation in all growth stages) had the highest total chlorophyll (μ= 0.350), a (μ= 0.250) and b (μ= 0.100) and also it had the lowest level in control treatment namely proline (μ= 0.032). Mild Drought stress at all stages of growth and also severe drought stress from start flowering to finish pod levels had the lowest total chlorophyll (μ= 0.23), a (μ= 0.170) and b (μ= 0.060) and also, it had the highest proline (μ= 0.140). Comparison of means of chlorophyll and proline traits under the drought stress showed that genotypes 032 and HillCE were tolerant and genotypes Ford and Sahar were sensitive.
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
اصلاح نباتات، بیومتری
Received: 2017/12/23 | Accepted: 2017/12/23
Received: 2017/12/23 | Accepted: 2017/12/23
References
1. Abbaszadeh, B., A. Sharifi, D. Lbaschy and F. Moghadam. 2012. Effects of drought stress, proline, soluble sugar, chlorophyll relative water (pwc) (Melissa officinalis L). Quarterly scientific-research studies of medicinal and aromatic plants, 23: 513-504 (In Persian).
2. Abdipour, D., A. Rezaei and G. Bagheri. 2008. Evaluation of drought tolerance at flowering and pod indeterminate soybean genotypes. Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 22: 140-150 (In Persian).
3. Akbari, D. 2012. Determination of sensitivity to water stress at different growth stages of soybean spring in Iran. Journal of soil and water conservation, 15: 54-66 (In Persian).
4. Alipour Yamchi, M., M. Bihamta, M. Peighambari, M.R. Naghavi and M. Shafiee khorshidi. 2011. Evaluation of genetic diversity and classification of Kabuli Chickpea Genotypes in late season drought stress. Journal Crop Breeding, 7: 53-70.
5. Arnon, A.N. 1997. Method of extraction of chlorophyll in the plant. Journal of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, 23: 112-121.
6. Araya, T., K. Noguchi and I. Terashima. 2010. Effect of nitrogen nutrition on the carbohydrate repression of photosynthesis in leaves of Phaseolus vulgaris L. Journal of Plant Research, 123: 371-379. [DOI:10.1007/s10265-009-0279-8]
7. Arve, L.E., S. Torre, J.E. Olsen and K. Tanino. 2011. Stomatal responses to drought stress and air humidity in abiotic stress in plants mechanisms and adaptations. Journal of Plant Research, 119: 267-280.
8. Bhatts, G.M. 1993. Significance of path coefficient analysis determining the nature of character association. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 22: 338-343. [DOI:10.1007/BF00022643]
9. Bohnert, H.J. and R.G. Jensen. 2009. Strategies for engineering water stress tolerance in plant. Journal of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, 14: 89-97. [DOI:10.1016/0167-7799(96)80929-2]
10. Davodifard, M., D. Habibi and F. Davodi fard. 2011. Effects of salt stress on cell membrane stability, chlorophyll, growth and yield components in wheat inoculated with bacteria and humic acid. Journal of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, 2: 71-86 (In Persian).
11. Doss, B.D., R.W. Pearson and H. Ragers. 1974. Effect of soilwater stress at various growth stages on soybean yield. Journal of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, 66: 297-299. [DOI:10.2134/agronj1974.00021962006600020032x]
12. Fatemeh, B. and S. Arian. 2015. Effect of Ascorbate and Methylamine Treatments on DPPH Scavenging Activity of Soybean Plants (Glycine max L.) Under Polyethylene Glycol Induced Drought. Journal of Applied Environmental and Biological Sciences, 5: 161-165 (In Persian).
13. Flowers, T.J., P.F. Troke and A.R. Yeo. 2000. The mechanism of salt tolerance in halophytes Annu. Journal of Plant Physiol, 28: 89-121. [DOI:10.1146/annurev.pp.28.060177.000513]
14. Giang, Y. and N. Huang. 2006. Drought and heat sress injury to two cool-season turfgrasses in relation to antiaxdant metabolism and lipid peroxidation. Journal of Crop Science, 41: 436-442. [DOI:10.2135/cropsci2001.412436x]
15. Gusegnova, I.M., S.Y. Suleymanov and J.A. Aliyev. 2006. Protein composition and native state of pigments of thylakoid membrane of Wheat genotypes differently tolerant to water stress. Journal of Biochemistry Research, 71: 223-228. [DOI:10.1134/S000629790602009X]
16. Gzik, A. 1996. Accumulation of proline and pattern of α- amino acids in sugarbeet plants in response to osmotic, water and salt stress. Journal of Environmental and Experimental Botany, 36: 29-34. [DOI:10.1016/0098-8472(95)00046-1]
17. Hajebi, A.H., Sh. Heidari and A. Husseini. 2006. The effect of drought on growth and nodulation of three species of clover. Journal Research Development in Agriculture Gardener, 21: 13-66 (In Persian).
18. Hase, S., R. Vankova, K. Yamaguchi-Shinozaki, K. Shinozak and L. Tran. 2012. Cytokinins metabolism and function in plant adaptation to environmental stresses. Journal in Plant Science, 17: 172-179. [DOI:10.1016/j.tplants.2011.12.005]
19. Kuti, Y.S., W.K. Au-Yeung, Y.L. Yung and H.M. Lam. 2013. Drought stress and tolerance in soybean in comprehensive survey of international soybean research, Journal of Crop Science, 45: 209-238. [DOI:10.5772/52945]
20. Liu, F., C.R. Jensen and M.N. Andersen. 2004. Drought stress effect on carbohydrate concentration in soybean leaves and pods during early reproductive development its implication in altering pod set . Journal of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, 86: 1-13. [DOI:10.1016/S0378-4290(03)00165-5]
21. Loreto, F. and M. Centritto. 2008. Leaf carbon assimilation in a water-limited world. Plant Biosystems, 142: 154-161. [DOI:10.1080/11263500701872937]
22. Manavalan, L.P., S.K. Guttikonda, L.S. Phan Tran and H.T. Nguyen. 2009. Physiological and molecular approaches to improve drought resistance in soybean. Plant and Cell Physiology, 50: 1260-1276. [DOI:10.1093/pcp/pcp082]
23. Matysik, J.B., B. Alia and M. Ohanty. 2002. Molecular mechanisms of quenching of reactive oxygen species by proline under stress in plants. Journal of agricultural Science Cambridge, 82: 525-531.
24. Morgan, J.M. 1984. Osmoregulation and water stress in higher plants. Quarterly scientific-research studies of medicinal and aromatic plants, 35: 335-339. [DOI:10.1146/annurev.arplant.35.1.299]
25. Munns, R. and M. Tester. 2008. Mechanisms of salinity tolerance. Annual Review of Plant Biology, 59: 651-681. [DOI:10.1146/annurev.arplant.59.032607.092911]
26. Okcu, G., M.D. Kaya and M. Atak. 2007. Effects of salinity and drought stresses on germination and seedling growth of Pea (Pisum sativum L.). Journal of agricultural Science Tourki, 29: 237-242.
27. Ramseur, E.L., V.L. Quinsenberry, S.V. Wallace and J. Palmer. 2004. Yield and yield components. Field Crops Research, 19: 22-28.
28. Rahimi, M., M. Smart Khamtabashi, B. Liran and Sh. Mohammadi. 2017. Evaluation of Recombinant Pure Lines of Lentil under Drought Stress. Journal of Crop Breeding, 22: 82-97 (In Persian).
29. Shamsi, S.R.F., H. Pyrdshty, A.A. Ebadi, M. Esfahani and M. Rainey. 2017. Response of Root Characteristics and Dry Matter Partitioning in 40 Improved and Local Rice (Oryza sativa L.) Genotypes under Deficit Irrigation. Journal of Crop Breeding, 22: 63-72 (In Persian).
30. Safari, P., R. Honarnezhad and M. Esfahani. 2008. Evaluation of genetic diversity in peanut varieties using discriminant analysis. Journal of agricultural research, 6: 327-334 (In Persian).
31. Sairam, R.K., P.S. Deshmukh and D.C. Saxna. 2011. Role of antioxidant systemes in Anethum genotype tolerance to water stress. Journal of Applied Environmental and Biological Sciences, 41: 387-394. [DOI:10.1023/A:1001898310321]
32. Shahrodi, M., F. Abbasi and B. Momimvand. 2015. Evaluation of Qualitative and Quantitative 17 soybean genotypes (Glycine max L.) in Parsabad. Journal of Eco Physiology, 22: 325-329 (In Persian).
33. Sharifa, S. and A. Muriefah. 2015. Effects of paclobutrazol on growth and physiological attributes of Soybean (Glycine max) plants grown under water stress conditions. International Journal of Advanced Research in Biological Sciences, 2: 81-93.
34. Turner, N.C. 1986. Adaptation to water deficits changing perspective. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 13: 175-190. [DOI:10.1071/PP9860175]
35. Zareh, M. 2011. Analysis of the data in the study of natural resources with the software SPSS. Publications University of Tehran Unit, 249-251 (In Persian).
36. Zhao, C.X., L.Y. Guo, C.A. Jaleel, H.B. Shao and H.B. Yang. 2008. Prospectives for applying molecular and genetic methodology to improve wheat cultivars in drought environments. Comptes Rendus Biologies, 331: 579-586. [DOI:10.1016/j.crvi.2008.05.006]
37. Zali, H., T. Hasanlu, A. Sfalyan, A. Asghari and M. Zein-Al-Abedin. 2016. Appropriate strategies for selecting genotypes tolerant to drought stress in canola. Journal of Crop Breeding, 20: 52-67 (In Persian).
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
