تنظیم اسمزی چغندرقند در شرایط تنش شوری

نوع مقاله: کامل علمی - پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 مرکز تحقیقات علمی کشاورزی حمس، سوریه

2 GCSAR، واحد تحقیقات ذرت، دمشق، سوریه

3 استاد گیاهان زراعی، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه البعث، حمص، سوریه

4 GCSAR، واحد تحقیقات چغندرقند، دوما، دمشق، سوریه

چکیده

تحقیق حاضر در مرکز تحقیقات کشاورزی دیرالزور وابسته به کمیسیون عالی تحقیقات علمی کشاورزی (GCSAR) سوریه در فصول زراعی سال‎های 2010-2009 انجام گرفت و طی آن، نقش Na+، K+، Na+/K+، تجمع کربوهیدرات‌ها در برگ‌ها و عیار قند  در تنظیم اسمزی در شرایط تنش شوری در 10 ژنوتیپ چغندرقند (پنج ژنوتیپ منوژرم و پنج ژنوتیپ مولتی‌ژرم) بررسی شد. بوته‌های چغندرقند با آب شور که هدایت الکتریکی آن در سال اول 6/8-10 دسی‌زیمنس بر متر و در سال دوم 4/8-4/10 دسی‌زیمنس بر متر بود، آبیاری شدند. آزمایش به صورت طرح بلوک‌های کامل تصادفی با سه تکرار بود. نتایج نشان داد که تنش شوری باعث افزایش مقدار Na+ برگ‌ها و ریشه‌های تمام ژنوتیپ‌ها شد اما مقدار افزایش آن در برگ‌ها بیش از ریشه‌ها بود. مقدار K+ در برگ‌ها و ریشه‌های تمام ژنوتیپ‌ها کاهش یافت اما میزان این کاهش در ریشه‌ها کمتر از برگ‌ها بود که احتمالاً به خاطر جایگزینی Na+ با K+ در این شرایط بود. بااین‌حال، در شرایط تنش شوری غلظت مواد محلول‌ غیرآلی (Na+ و K+) در برگ‌ها بیشتر از ریشه‌ها بود. ژنوتیپ کاویمرا (مولتی‌ژرم) به خاطر مقدار بالای Na+ در برگ‌ها و ریشه‌هایش به عنوان متحمل‌ترین ژنوتیپ شناسایی شد درحالی‌که حساس‌ترین ژنوتیپ تیگریس (مولتی‌ژرم) بود که کمترین تجمع Na+ در برگ‌ها و ریشه‌ها را داشت. به طور کلی، تجمع قندهای محلول در برگ‌ها در ژنوتیپ‌های متحمل نسبت به ژنوتیپ‌های غیرمتحمل بیشتر بود. نتایج نشان داد بین عیار قند ریشه‌ها و تنش شوری همبستگی وجود ندارد. آنالیز همبستگی نشان داد که مقدار Na+ و سپس قندهای محلول مهم‎ترین مواد برای تنظیم پتانسیل اسمزی برگ‌های چغندرقند در شرایط تنش شوری بودند. علاوه بر این، می‎توان مقدار ساکارز و مقدار Na+ ریشه‌های چغندرقند را اصلی‎ترین مواد محلول‌ برای تنظیم پتانسیل اسمزی دانست.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Osmotic Adjustment in Sugar Beet Plant under Salinity Stress

نویسندگان [English]

  • Fadi Abbas 1
  • A. Mohanna 2
  • Gh. Al-Lahham 3
  • Entessar AL-Jbawi 4
1 Scientific Agriculture Research Center of Homs. Syria
2 Professor of Field Crops, Faculty of Agriculture, Al Baath University, Homs, Syria.
3 GCSAR. Maize Research Department. Damascus, Syria.
4 GCSAR. Sugar Beet Research Department, Douma, Damascus, Syria.
چکیده [English]

This study was carried out in the General Commission for Scientific Agricultural Research (GCSAR) at Der Ez Zour Agricultural Research Center, during 2009- 2010 growing seasons. The role of Na+, K+, Na+/K+, carbohydrates accumulation of leaves, and sugar content of roots on the osmotic adjustment was studied in 10 sugar beet genotypes (five were monogerms and five were multigerms), under salinity stress. Sugar beet plants were irrigated with saline water, with the electrical conductivity (EC) ranging from 8.6-10 dS.m-1 in the first year and 8.4-10.4 dS.m-1 in the second year. A randomized complete block design (RCBD) with three replicates was used. The results showed that Na+ content in leaves and roots of all genotypes was increased in salinity stress, but the increment in leaves was higher than in roots. K+ contents in leaves and roots were decreased in all genotypes, but this reduction was lower in roots as compared with leaves. This may be due to the substitution of Na+ with K+ in such condition. However, under salinity stress concentrations of inorganic solutes (Na+, and K+) in leaves was higher than those in roots. Kawimera (multigerm) was considered the most tolerant genotype because of high Na+ content in its leaves and roots, whereas the most sensitive genotype was Tigris (multigerm), which had the lowest content of Na+ in leaves and roots. Generally, the accumulation of soluble sugars in leaves was higher in tolerant genotypes as compared with non-tolerant ones. The results exhibited no correlation between sugar content in roots and salinity stress. Correlation analysis showed Na+ content followed by soluble sugars as the main solutes for osmotic adjustment in sugar beet leaves under salinity conditions. Moreover, both sucrose and Na+ contents in beet root could be considered the main solutes for osmotic adjustment.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • genotypes
  • osmotic adjustment
  • Salinity stress
  • sugar beet
Abbas F, Mohanna A, Al-Lahham G, Al-Jbawi E.Laboratory Screening Tool for Selecting Sugar Beet, Beta vulgaris. L. Genotypes under Salinity Stress. 7th Conference of General Commission for Scientific Agricultural Research (GCSAR). Damascus, Syria. 2009.  2-3/8/2009.  Proceeding. 34 P.

Abbas F, Mohanna A, Al-Lahham G, Al-Jbawi E, AL-Jasem Z. Evaluation the Response of Some Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Genotypes under Saline Water Irrigation Conditions.  Under published in Arab Journal for Dry Environments. ACSAD. 2010.

Abdel-Aziz SM, Reda MMA. Osmotic adjustment for two wheat varieties. Egyptian Journal of Agricultural Researches. 2000. 78: 993-1004.

Abd-El-Motagally FMF. Evaluation of two sugar beet cultivars (Beta vulgaris L.) for growth and yield under drought and heat conditions . Phd thesis. Institute of Plant Nutrition University Giessen,Germany. 2004. 143 p.

Al-Lahham G, Sabbouh M, Ibrahim AS. Study the tolerance types of some Sorghum  [Sorghum  bicolor (L.) Moench] genotypes to salinity stress at early growth stages. Damascus University Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2006. 22(1): 255-270.

AOAC. Association of Official Analytical Chemistry Officinal Methods of Analysis. 17th. Ed, Washington,  DC USA. 2000. 2(44): 1- 43.

Ashraf M. Some important physiological selection criteria for salt tolerance in plants. Flora. 2004. 199: 361-376.

Di Martino C, Delfine S, Pizzuto R, Loreto F, Fuggi A.Free amino acids and glycine betaine in leaf osmoregulation of spinach responding to increasing salt stress. New Phytologist. 2003. 158 (3|): 455–463.

Djilianov D, Georgieva T, Moyankova D, Atanassov A, Shinozaki K, Smeeken SCM, Verma DPS, Murata N. Improved abiotic stress tolerance in plants by accumulation of osmoprotectants- Gene transport approach. 20th Anniversary Agro Bio Institute- Biotechnol. and Biotechnol. Eq. 19/2005. 2005. Special Issue. 63-71.

Eisa Sayed S, Ali SH.Biochemical, Physiological and Morphological Responses of Sugar Beet to Salinization Departments of Agricultural Botany and Biochemistry Faculty of Agriculture, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt. 2001. pp: 1-15.

Flowers TJ. Physiology of halophytes. Plant Soil, 1985. 89: 41-56.

Freitas JBS, Chagas RM, Almeida IMR, Cavalcanti FR, Silveira JAC. Expression of physiological traits related to salt tolerance in two contrasting cowpea cultivars. Document Embrapa Meio-Norte. 2001. 56: 115-118.

Ghoulam C, Foursy A, Fares K. Effect of salt stress on growth, inorganic ions and proline accumulation in relation of osmotic adjustment in five sugar beet cultivars. Journal of Environment and Experimental  Botany. 2002. 47: 39-50.

Glenn EP, Olsen MW, Frye RJ, Moore DW. How much sodium accumulation is necessary for salt tolerance of subspecies of halophyte Atriplex canescense? Plant Cell Environ. 1994. 17: 711-719.

Heuer B, Plaut Z. Photosynthesis and osmotic adjustment of two sugar beet cultivar grown under saline conditions. Journal of Experimental Botany. 1981. 40: 437-440.

Katerji N, Van-Hoorn JW, Hamdy A, Mastroili M. Osmotic adjustment of sugar beet in response to soil salinity and its influence on stomatal conductance, growth and yield. Journal  of Agriculture and Water Management. 1997. 34: 557-569.

Le Docte A. Commercial determination of sugar in beet root using the Shacks-Le Docte process, Int. Sug. J. 1927. 29: 488-92.[C.F. Sugar Beet Nutrition, April 1972 Applied Science Publishers LTD, London. A.P. Draycott].

Lindhauer MG, Haeder HE, Beringer H. Osmotic potentials and solute concentrations in sugar beet plants cultivated with varying potassium/sodium ratios. Z. Pflanzenernähr. Bodenk. 1990. 153, 25-32.

Pakniyat H, Kazemipour A, Mohammadi GA. Variation in salt tolerance of cultivated (Hurdeum vulgare L.) and wild (H. spontaneum C. Koch) barley genotypes from Iran. Iran Agric. Res. 2003. 22: 45-62.

Pakniyat H, Armion M. Sodium and proline accumulation as osmo-regulators in tolerance of sugar beet genotypes to salinity. Pak. Journal of Biological Sciences. 2007. 10: 4081-4086.

Parks GE, Dietrich MA, Schumaker KS. Increase vacuolar Na+/H+ exchange activity in Salicornia bigelovii Torr. in response to NaCl. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2002. 53: 1055-1065.

Rathert G. Effects of high salinity stress on mineral and carbohydrate metabolism of two cotton varieties. Plant and Soil. 1983. 73, 247-256.

Rengasamy P. World salinization with emphasis on Australia. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2006. 57: 1017–1023.

Rengasamy P. Soil processes affecting crop production in salt affected soils. Functional Plant Biology. 2010. 37: 613–620.

Sadeghian SY, Fazli H, Mohammadian R, Taleghani DF, Mesbah M. Genetic variation for drought stress in sugar beet. Journal of Sugar Research. 2000. 37: 35-77.

Sairam RK, Tyagi A. Physiology and molecular biology of salinity stress tolerance in plants. Journal of Current Science. 2004. 86: 407-421.

Schwarz M, Gale J. Maintenance respiration and carbon balance. Journal of Experimental  Botany. 1981. 32: 933-941.

Shabala S, Babourina O, Newman I. Ion-specific mechanisms of osmo-regulation in bean mesophyll cells. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2000. 51: 1243-1253.

Shannon MC. Testing Salt Tolerance Variability Among Tall Wheatgrass Lines . Agronomy Journal. 1977. Vol. 70, 719- 722 .

Spiro RG. Analysis of sugars found in glycoproteins. Methods Enzymol. 1966. 8:3-26.

Subbarao GV, Wheeler RM, Levine LH, Stutte GW. Glycine betaine accumulation, ionic and water relations of red beet at contrasting levels of sodium supply. Journal of Plant Physiology. 2001. 158: 767-776.

Tester M, Davenport R. Na+ tolerance and N+ transport in higher plants. Ann. Bot. 2003. 91: 503-527.

Ueda A, Kanechi M, Uno Y, Inagaki N. Photosynthetic limitations of a halophyte sea aster (Aster tripolium L.) under water stress and NaCl stress. Journal of  Plant Research. 2003. 116: 65-70.

Waller RA, and Duncan DB.A bays rule for the symmetric multiple comparison problem. American Statistical Association Journal. 1969. 1485-1503 pp.

Warne P, Guy RD, Roltins L, Reid DM. The effect of sodium sulphate and sodium chloride on growth, morphology, photosynthesis and water use efficiency of Chenopodium rubrum. Canadian  Journal of Botany. 1990. 68: 999-1006.

Zhang JL, Flowers TJ, Wang SM. Mechanisms of sodium uptake by roots of higher plants. Plant and Soil. 2010. 326: 45–60.

Zhu JK. Plant salt tolerance. Trends in Plant Science. 2001. 6: 66–71.