دوره 9، شماره 21 - ( بهار 1396 )
جلد 9 شماره 21 صفحات 55-44 |
برگشت به فهرست نسخه ها
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
(2017). Study some of Wheat Cultivars Based on Morphological Traits and Drought Tolerance Indices. jcb. 9(21), 44-55. doi:10.29252/jcb.9.21.44
URL: http://jcb.sanru.ac.ir/article-1-794-fa.html
URL: http://jcb.sanru.ac.ir/article-1-794-fa.html
طهماسب عالی مریم، اصغری علی، سفالیان امید، محمددوست چمن آباد حمیدرضا، رسول زاده علی. بررسی برخی ارقام گندم از لحاظ صفات مورفولوژیکی و شاخص های تحمل به تنش خشکی پژوهشنامه اصلاح گیاهان زراعی 1396; 9 (21) :55-44 10.29252/jcb.9.21.44
چکیده: (3857 مشاهده)
اصولا مهمترین عامل محدود کننده رشد گیاهان کمبود آب میباشد. بیشتر اراضی ایران در نواحی خشک و نیمه خشک واقع شدهاند، بنابراین تعیین ژنوتیپهایی که تحت شرایط کمآبی قادر به ارایه عملکرد نسبتا قابل قبولی باشند، امری ضروری است. به منظور شناسایی ارقام متحمل به خشکی، تعداد 20 رقم زراعی گندم به صورت فاکتوریل بر پایه طرح بلوکهای کامل تصادفی با 3 تکرار در سه سطح تنش خشکی (0، 6/0- و 2/1- مگاپاسگال) و در محیط آبکشت در گلخانه دانشگاه محقق اردبیلی از نظر صفات طول ریشه، وزت تر ریشه و اندام هوایی، وزن خشک ریشه و اندام هوایی و نسبت وزن خشک ریشه به اندام هوایی مورد بررسی قرار گرفت. تنش خشکی از طریق پلیاتیلن گلیکول 6000 اعمال شد. نتایج تجزیه واریانس نشان داد که بین سطوح تنش خشکی از نظر اغلب صفات اختلاف معنیدار وجود دارد. بین ارقام گندم نیز از نظر تمامی صفات اختلاف معنیدار وجود داشت. اثر متقابل سطوح تنش و ارقام در مورد تمامی صفات معنیدار بود. شاخصهای تحمل به خشکی از قبیل: شاخص میانگین هارمونیک تولید (HARM)، شاخص میانگین هندسی تولید (GMP)، شاخص تحمل به تنش (STI) و میانگین تولید (MP) بر مبنای عملکرد بیولوژیک در شرایط بدون تنش خشکی (YP) و دارای تنش خشکی (YS ) محاسبه شدند. تجزیه واریانس شاخصهای فوق در بین ارقام اختلاف معنیدار نشان داد که حاکی از وجود تنوع بین ارقام و عکسالعمل متفاوت آنها به تنش خشکی میباشد. مقایسه میانگینها با روش دانکن در سطح احتمال یکدرصد صورت گرفت. در مورد اکثر صفات با افزایش میزان تنش خشکی کاهش میانگین صفات مورد بررسی در ارقام مشاهده شد. براساس نتایج حاصل از تجزیه خوشهای ارقام از نظر صفات مورفولوژیک، تحت شرایط غیر تنش ارقام آرتا، بککراسروشن، تجن، گاسکوژن و شیرودی در گروه بهترینها قرار گرفتند و تحت شرایط تنش خشکی 6/0- مگاپاسگال ارقام آرتا، شیرودی، تجن، کویر و گاسکوژن به عنوان ارقام متحمل شناخته شدند. تحت شرایط تنش خشکی 2/1- مگاپاسگال ارقام کویر، رسول و میهن به عنوان ارقام متحمل شناخته شدند. در مجموع ارقام رسول و میهن با توجه به نتایج گروهبندی بر مبنای صفات مورفولوژیک و شاخصهای تحمل به عنوان ارقام متحمل شناخته شدند.
نوع مطالعه: پژوهشي |
موضوع مقاله:
اصلاح نباتات، بیومتری
دریافت: 1396/5/8 | ویرایش نهایی: 1396/5/8 | پذیرش: 1396/5/8 | انتشار: 1396/5/8
دریافت: 1396/5/8 | ویرایش نهایی: 1396/5/8 | پذیرش: 1396/5/8 | انتشار: 1396/5/8
فهرست منابع
1. Abdalla, M.M. and N.H. El-Khoshiban. 2007. The influence of water stress on growth, relative water content, photosynthetic pigments, some metabolic and hormonal contents of two Triticum aestivum cultivars. Journal of Applied Science Research, 3: 2062-2074.
2. Akhundi, M. 2011. Effects of PEG stress on Geneva hydroponic plant types, the Eleventh Congress of Crop Science. Martyr Beheshti University, (In Persian).
3. Alizadeh, A. 2009. Relationship between soil and vegetation. Press Astan Quds Razavi. Mashhad, 353 pp. (In Persian).
4. Araus, J.L., G.A. Slafer, M.P. Reynolds and C. Royo. 2002. Plant breeding and drought in C3 cereal should we breed for?. Annals of Botany, 89: 925-940. [DOI:10.1093/aob/mcf049]
5. Ashraf, M. and M.R. Foolad. 2007. Roles of glycine betaine and proline in improving plant abiotic stress resistance. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 59: 206-216. [DOI:10.1016/j.envexpbot.2005.12.006]
6. Bhatt, R.M. and N.K. Srinivasa Rao. 2005. Influence of pod load on response of okra to water stress. Indian Journal Plant Physiology, 10: 54-59.
7. Dardanelli, J.L., J.T. Ritchie, M. Calmon, J.M. Andriani and D.J. Collino. 2004. An empirical model for root water uptake. Field Crops Research, 87: 59-71. [DOI:10.1016/j.fcr.2003.09.008]
8. Fernandez, G.C. 1992. Effective selection criteria for assessing plant stress tolerance. Proceeding of the International Symposium on Adaptation of Vegetablem and other Food Crops to Temperature Water Stress. Taiwan 13-18, August.
9. Ganjeali, A. and A. Bagheri. 2011. Evaluation of morphological characteristics of root chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) in response to drought stress. Iranian Journal of Pulses Research, 1: 101-110 (In Persian).
10. Ganjeali, A., M. Kaffi and M. Sabet Teimouri. 2010. Evaluation of root and shoot physiological indices in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) under drought stress. Environmental Stresses in Crop Sciences, 3: 35-45.
11. Golabadi, M., A. Arzani and S.A.M. Mirmohammadi Maibody. 2006. Assesment of drought tolerance in segregating populations in durum wheat. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 1: 162-171 (In Persian).
12. Izanloo, A., H. Zeinali, G.A. Husseinzade and N. Majnoon Husseini. 2002. The best indicator of drought tolerance in soybean cultivars.The seventh key papers Crop Science Congress. Seed and Plant Improvement Institute, Karaj, 533-544 (In Persian).
13. Jamshidi Moghadam, M., H. Pakniat and E. Farshadfar. 2007. Evaluation of drought tolerance of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) Lines Using Agro-Physiologic Characteristics. Seed and Plant, 23: 325-342 (In Persian).
14. Kafi, M. and A. Mahdavi-e-Damghani. 2000. Mechanisms of plants to environmental Stresses. Ferdowsi University Publication. Mashhad, Iran. 449 pp (In Persian).
15. Karimi, H. 1993. Wheat. Tehran University Publication Center, First Printing, 599 pp (In Persian).
16. Khazaei, H. and M. Kafi. 2003. Effect of drought stress on root growth and dry matter partitioning between roots and shoots of winter wheat. Iranian Journal of Field Crops Research, 1: 33-41 (In Persian).
17. Krishnamurthy, L., J. Kashiwagi, H.D. Upadhyaya. 2003. Genetic diversity of drought avoidance root traits in the mini- core germplasm collection of chickpea. International Chickpea and Pigeon Pea Newsletters, 10: 21-24.
18. Kulkarni, M. and P. Swati. 2009. Evaluating Variability of Root Size System and Its Constitutive Traits in Hot Pepper (Capsicum annum L.) Under Water Stress. Scientia Horticulturae 120: 159-166. [DOI:10.1016/j.scienta.2008.10.007]
19. Madakadze, I.C. 1999. Switchgrass biomass and chemical composition for biofuel in Eastern Canada. Agronomy Journal, 97: 696-701. [DOI:10.2134/agronj1999.914696x]
20. Masommi, A., H. Zamyad and M. Sarvari. 2005. Study on the root parameters of chickpea (Cicer arientinum L.) genotypes in the water stress conditions. In: Proceedings of the 1th Iranian Pulse Crops Symposiom. Mashhad, Iran. 579 pp (In Persian).
21. Matsuo, R.R. 1998. Durum wheat: its unique pasta-making properties. pp: 169-178, In: Bushuk, W. and Rasper, V.F. (Eds.), Wheat Production, Properties and Quality. Chapman and Hall. 255 pp. [DOI:10.1007/978-1-4615-2672-8_12]
22. Matsui, T. and B.B. Singh. 2003. Root characteristics in cowpea related to drought tolerance at the seedling stage. Experimental Agriculture, 39: 29-38. [DOI:10.1017/S0014479703001108]
23. Michel, B.E. and M.R. Kaufman. 1973. The osmotic potential of polyetylene glycol 6000. Plant Physiology, 51: 914-916. [DOI:10.1104/pp.51.5.914]
24. Mirzaee, M.R. and S.M. Rezvani. 2008. Effect of drought stress on beet quality at different growth stages. Journal of Sugar Beet, 45: 42- 29 (In Persian).
25. Mohammadi, G., A. Javanshir, F. Rahimzadehkhoei, A. Mohammadi and S. Zehtabesalmasi. 2004. The effect of weeds interference on shoot and root growth and harvest index in chickpea. Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 6: 1-9 (In Persian).
26. Mohammadi, R., R. Haghparast and M. Aghaee. 2007. Selection criteria in the selection of drought tolerant genotypes of durum wheat. Ninth Congress of Crop Science, September, Tehran University, Abouraihan. 555 pp (In Persian).
27. Mohammadi, R., M. Armion, D. Kahrizi and A. Amri. 2010. Efficiency of screening techniques for evaluating durum wheat genotypes under mild drought conditions. International Journal of Plant Production, 4: 11-24.
28. Mohammadnia, Sh., A. Asghari, O. Sofalian, H. Mohammaddoust Chamanabad, R. Karimizadeh and A.A. Shokouhian. 1395. Evaluation of durum wheat lines using drought stress indices, Journal of Crop Breeding, 8: 11-23 (In Persian).
29. Nagarajan, S., J. Rane, M. Maheswari and P. Gambhir. 1999. Effectof postanthesis water stress on accumulation of dry matter, carbon andnitrogen and their partitioning of dry matter, carbon and nitrogen and theirpartitioning in wheat varieties differing in drought tolerance. Journal of Agronomy Crop Sciences, 129:136-183. [DOI:10.1046/j.1439-037x.1999.00326.x]
30. Okcu, G., M.D. Kaya and M. Atak. 2004. Effects of salt and drought stresses on germination and seedling growth of Pea (Pisum sativum L.) Agricultural, 29: 237-242.
31. Parry, M.A.J., P.J. Andralojic, S. khan, P.J.J. Lea and A.J. Keys. 2002. Rubisco Activity: effects of drought stress. Annals of Botany, 89: 833-839. [DOI:10.1093/aob/mcf103]
32. Patakas, A., N. Nikolaou, E. Zioziou, K. Radoglou and B. Niotsakis. 2002. The role of organic solute and ion accumulation in osmotic adjustment in drought-stressed grapevines. Plant Science, 163: 361-367. [DOI:10.1016/S0168-9452(02)00140-1]
33. Rane, J., M. Maheshwari and S. Nagarajan. 2001. Effect of pre-anthesis water stress on growth, photosynthesis and yield of six wheat cultivars differing in drought tolerance. Indian Journal of Plant Physiology, 6: 53-60.
34. Reddy, A.R., K.V. Claitanya and M. Vivekanadan. 2004. Drought-induced responses ophotosynthesis and antioxidant metabolism in higher plants. Journal of Plant Physiology, 161: 1189-1202. [DOI:10.1016/j.jplph.2004.01.013]
35. Rosielle, A.A. and J. Hamblin. 1981. Theoretical aspects of selection for yield in stress and non-stress environments. Crop Science, 21: 943-946. [DOI:10.2135/cropsci1981.0011183X002100060033x]
36. Sabaghpour, S.H., A.A. Mahmodi, A. Saeed, K. Masood and R.S. Malhotra. 2006. Study of chickpealines drought tolerance under dryland condition of Iran. Indian Journal of Crop Science, 1: 70-73.
37. Sadiqov, S.T., M. Akbulut and V. Ehmedov. 2002. Role of Ca2+ in drought stress signaling in wheat seedlings. Biochemistry, 67: 491-497. [DOI:10.1023/A:1015298309888]
38. Sandahu, A.S. and H.H. Laude. 1985. Effects of drought heat hardiness in winter wheat. Agronomy Journal, 50: 78-81. [DOI:10.2134/agronj1958.00021962005000020007x]
39. Saxena, N.P., O. Singh, S.C. Sethi, L. Krishnamurthy, S.D. Singh and C. Johansen. 2005. Genetic enhancement of drought tolerance in chickpea (short note). (WWW. ICRISAT.org). 15 pp.
40. Shahriari, R. and D. Hassanpanah. 2006. Evaluation of indigenous and promising genotypes of wheat coleoptile length in vitro using manitol as an osmotic stress. Fourth Congress of Biotechnology, 252 pp (In Persian).
41. Sinaki, J.M., E.M. Heravan, A.H. Shirani Rad, G. Noormohammadi and G. Zarei. 2007. The Effects of water deficit during growth stages of Canola (Brassica napus L.). Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, 2: 417-422.
42. Sivritepe, N., U. Erturk, C. Yerlikaya, I. Turkan, M. Bor and F. Ozdemir. 2008. Response of the cherry rootstock to water stress induced in vitro. Biologia Plantarum, 52: 573-576. [DOI:10.1007/s10535-008-0114-4]
43. Soltani, A. and S. Galeshi. 2002. Importance of rapid canopy closure for wheat production in a temperate subhumid environment: experimentation and simulation. Field Crops Res, 77: 17-30. [DOI:10.1016/S0378-4290(02)00045-X]
44. Specht, J., K. Chase, M. Macrander, G. Graef, J. Chung, J. Markwell, M. Germann, J. Orf and K. Lark. 2001. Soybean response to water: A QTL analysis of drought tolerance. Crop Science, 41: 493-502. [DOI:10.2135/cropsci2001.412493x]
45. Srivastava, J.P., E. Acevedo and S. Varma. 1987. Drought tolerance in winter cereal. John Wiley,
46. 375 pp.
47. Talebi, R., F. Fayaz and A. Mohammadnaji. 2009. Effective selection criteria for assessing drought stress tolerance in durum wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Plant Physiology, 35: 64-74.
48. Turkan, I., M. Bor, F. Ozdemir and H. Koca. 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: 223-231. [DOI:10.1016/j.plantsci.2004.07.032]
49. Tvakol, E. and H. Pakniyat. 2007. Evaluation of some Drought Resistance Criteria at Seedling Stage in Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Cultivars .Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences, 10: 1113-1117. [DOI:10.3923/pjbs.2007.1113.1117]
50. Vajrabhaya, M., W. Kumpun and S. Chadchawan. 2001. The solute accumulation: the mechanism for drought tolerance in RD23 rice (Oryza sativa L.) lines. Science Asia, 27: 93-97. [DOI:10.2306/scienceasia1513-1874.2001.27.093]
51. Van Den Berg, L. and Y.J. Zeng. 2006. Response of South African indigenous grasss pecies to drought stress induced by polyethylene glycol (PEG) 6000. South African Journal of Boany, 72: 284-286. [DOI:10.1016/j.sajb.2005.07.006]
52. Vinocur, B. and A. Altman. 2005. Recent advances in engineering plant tolerance to abiotic stress: achievements and limitations. Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 16: 123-132. [DOI:10.1016/j.copbio.2005.02.001]
53. Zali1, H., T. Hasanloo, O. Sofalian, A. Asghari and M. Zeinalabedini. 2016. Appropriate strategies for selection of drought tolerant genotypes in canola Journal of Crop Breeding 8: 77-90 (In Persian). [DOI:10.29252/jcb.8.18.191]
54. Zhu, J., H. Kang, H. Tan and M. Xu. 2006. Effects of drought stresses induced by polyethylene glycol on germination of Pinus sylvestris var. mongolica seeds from natural and plantation forests on sandy land. Journal of Forest Research, 11: 319-328. [DOI:10.1007/s10310-006-0214-y]
| بازنشر اطلاعات | |
 |
این مقاله تحت شرایط Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License قابل بازنشر است. |
