ارزیابی عملکرد و برخی ویژگی‌های مورفوفیزیولوژیکی ژنوتیپ‌های لوبیای چیتی (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) تحت رژیم‌های مختلف آبیاری

پژوهش‌های حبوبات ایران

دوره 14، شماره 1 - شماره پیاپی 27، خرداد 1402، صفحه 19-33   

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22067/ijpr.v14i1.2206-1026

نویسندگان

حبیب الله رحیمی¹؛ حمید رضا عشقی زاده^{* 1}؛ جمشید رزمجو¹؛ مرتضی زاهدی¹؛ عادل غدیری²؛ مرضیه اسدی¹

¹گروه تولید و ژنتیک گیاهی، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه صنعتی اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران

²مرکز تحقیقات و آموزش کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی استان مرکزی، اراک، ایران

چکیده

این آزمایش در مزرعه پردیس تحقیقات و آموزش لوبیای خمین به صورت کرت­های خردشده در قالب طرح بلوک‌های کامل تصادفی با سه تکرار در سال زراعی 1398 انجام شد. رژیم آبیاری به عنوان کرت اصلی شامل 50 (I₁)، 70  (I₂) و 110 (I₃) میلی­متر تبخیر تجمعی از تشت تبخیر کلاس A بود. هجده ژنوتیپ لوبیاچیتی به عنوان کرت فرعی در نظر گرفته شد. تنش خشکی باعث کاهش محتوای نسبی آب برگ، شاخص سطح برگ، ارتفاع بوته، تعداد دانه در غلاف، تعداد غلاف در بوته، تعداد دانه در بوته، شاخص برداشت و عملکرد بیولوژیک و دانه شد. به علاوه، میزان این کاهش با افزایش شدت تنش خشکی بیشتر بود. با توجه به ضرایب همبستگی بین صفات در رژیم آبیاری I₃ یا تنش شدید، همبستگی بین عملکرد دانه با تعداد غلاف در بوته، تعداد دانه در غلاف و تعداد دانه در بوته مثبت و معنی­دار بود. ژنوتیپ‌های لوبیاچیتی از نظر شاخص سطح برگ، ارتفاع بوته، تعداد دانه در غلاف، تعداد غلاف در بوته، عملکرد دانه، شاخص برداشت و شاخص تحمل به خشکی (STI) در شرایط تنش ملایم و شدید تفاوت معنی‌داری داشتند. در بین ژنوتیپ های مورد مطالعه، با توجه به شاخص تحمل به خشکی از نظر عملکرد دانه، ژنوتیپ غفار به عنوان ژنوتیپ متحمل به خشکی شناسایی شد. به طور کلی، تنوع قابل‌توجهی در بین ژنوتیپ‌های مورد مطالعه در پاسخ به سطوح مختلف آبیاری وجود داشت که می‌توان از آن برای اصلاح­نژاد و انتخاب لوبیاچیتی برای تحمل به خشکی استفاده کرد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

امنیت غذایی؛ پایداری تولید؛ خشکی؛ شاخص تحمل به خشکی؛ عملکرد دانه

مراجع

1. Acosta-Gallegos, J.A., and Adams, M.W. 1991. Plant traits and yield stability of dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) cultivars under drought stress. The Journal of Agricultural Science 117(2): 213-219.
2. Ahmed, F.E., and Suliman, A.S.H. 2010. Effect of water stress applied at different stages of growth on seed yield and water-use efficiency of cowpea. Agriculture and Biology Journal of North America 1(4): 534-540.
3. Amini, S., Ghobadi, C., and Yamchi, A. 2015. Proline accumulation and osmotic stress: an and nitrogen fertilizer effects on relative water content, membrane stability index, chlorophyll andsome other traits of lentils (Lens culinaris) under hydroponics conditions. Research Journal of Environmental Sciences 3: 103-109.
4. Amiri Deh Ahmadi, S.R., Parsa, M., Nezami, A., and Ganjali, A. 2010. The effect of drought stress at different growth stages on growth indices of chickpea (Cicer arietinum) in greenhouse conditions. Iranian Journal of Pulses Research 1(2): 84-69. (In Persian).
5. Asadi, B., Dorri, H.R., and Ghadiri, A. 2011. Evaluation of cheetah bean genotypes to drought stress based on stress tolerance indices. Iranian Journal of Seed and Plant Production 4: 27(1): 615-630. (In Persian).
6. Bayat, A.A., Sephri, A., Ahmadvand, G., and Dorri, H.R. 2010. Effect of water deficit stress on yield and yield component of cheetah bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Iranian Journal of Crop Sciences 12(1): 42-54. (In Persian).
7. Borujerdnia, M., Bihamta, M.R., Alami Saeed, Kh., and Abdusi, V. 2016. Effect of drought stress on proline content, soluble carbohydrates, electrolyte leakage and relative water content of beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Iranian Journal of Crop Physiology 29: 41-23. (In Persian).
8. Brevedan, R., and Egli, B. 2003. Short periods of water stress during seed filling, leaf senescence and yield of soybean. Crop Sciences 43: 2083-2088.
9. Davoodi, S., Rahemi-Karizaki, A., Nakhzari-Moghadam, A., and Gholamalipour Alamdari, E. 2017. Evaluation of response of yield, yield components and harvest index of bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) to terminal drought stress. Crop Science Research in Arid Regions 1(2): 155-165. (In Persian).
10. Delfan, S., Bihamta, M.R., Hosein zade, A., and Sabokdast, M. 2018. Genetic Diversity in Bean Genotypes (Phaseolus vulgaris) under Drought Stress Conditions. Journal of Crop Breeding 10(26): 104-119. (In Persian).
11. Earl, H.J., and Davis, R.F. 2003. Effect of drought stress on leaf and whole canopy radiation use efficiency and yield of maize. Agronomy Journal 95: 688-696.
12. Emadi, N., Jahanbin, Sh., and Baluchi, H.R. 2013. The effect of drought stress and plant density on yield and some physiological characteristics of cheetah beans. Iranian  Journal of Crop production and processing 3(8): 36-25. (In Persian).
13. Faramarzi, A., Jamshidi, S., and Salehi, M. 2008. Study of drought stress at different growthstages on yield and yield components of threeChitti bean cultivars. Abstracts of 10^th Iranian Congress of Crop Production and Plant Breeding, August18-20. Karaj- Iran. p. 465. (In Persian).
14. Frahm, M.A., Rosas, J.C., Mayek-Perez, N., Lopez-Salinas, E., Acosta-Gallegos, J.A., and Kelly, J.D. 2004. Breeding beans for resistance to terminal drought in the lowland tropics. Euphytica 136 (2): 223-232.
15. Galeshi, S., and Bayat Tork, Z. 2005. Investigation of the effect of dehydration stress after pollination on seed strength of two wheat cultivars. Iranian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 12(6): 71-63. (In Persian).
16. Jaleel, C.A., Manivannan, P., Wahid, A., Farooq, M., Al-Juburi, J., Somasundaram, R., and Panneerselvam, R. 2009. Drought stress in plants: A review on morphological characteristics and pigments composition. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology 11(1): 100-105.
17. Jing, Y., and Huang, 2001. Osmoticadjustment root growth associatedwheat drought reconditioningenhanced heat tolerance in Kentuckybluegrass. Crop Sciences 41(4): 1168-1173.
18. Hosseinian, S., and Majnoon Hosseini, N. 2014. Analysis of correlation coefficients between grain yield and yield components in cowpea genotypes under normal and drought stress conditions. Iranian Journal of Field Crop Science 45: 575-583. (In Persian).
19. Koohi-Dehkordi, H., and Khoddambashi, M. Effect of different humidity conditionson traits related to seed yield on common beangenotypes. Abstracts of 10^th Iranian Congress of Crop Production and Plant Breeding, August18-20. Karaj- Iran. p. 468. (In Persian).
20. Moradi, A., Ahmadi, A., and Hosseinzadeh, A.H. 2008. Agronomic-physiological response of mung bean (Parto cultivar) to severe and mild drought stress in vegetative and reproductive growth stages. Iranian Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology 45: 671-659. (In Persian).
21. Morosan, M., Al Hassan, M., Naranjo, M.A., López-Gresa, M.P., Boscaiu, M., and Vicente, O. Comparative analysis of drought responses in Phaseolus vulgaris (common bean) and P. coccineus (runner bean) cultivars. The EuroBiotech Journal 1(3): 247-252.
22. Nilsen, E.T., and Orcutt, D.M. 1996. The Physiology of Plants under Stress. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
23. Padilla-Ramírez, J.S., Acosta-Gallegos, J.A., Acosta-Díaz, E., Mayek-Pérez, N., and Kelly, J.D. 2005. Partitioning and partitioning rate to seed yield in drought-stressed and non-stressed dry bean genotypes. In: Annual Report of the Bean Improvement Cooperative, Vol, 48, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University.
24. Ramirez Builes, V.H., Porch, T.G., and Harmsen, E.W. 2011. Genotypic differences in water use efficiency of common bean under drought stress. Agronomy Journal 103(4): 1206-1215.
25. Rezaei, A., and Kamgar Haghighi, A.A. 2009. The effect of moisture stress at different stages of growth on the yield of cowpea. Soil and Water Sciences 1: 124-117. (In Persian).
26. Rosales-Serna, R., Kohashi-Shibata, J., Acosta-Gallegos, J.A., Trejo-Lopez, C., Ortiz-Cereceres, J., and Kelly, J.D. 2002. Yield and phenological adjustment in four drought-stressed common bean cultivars. Annual report of the Bean Improvement Cooperative 45: 198-199.
27. Sadeghipour, O., and Aghaei, P. 2012. Response of common bean to exogenous application of salicylic acid under water stress conditions. Environmental Biology 6: 1160-1168.
28. Samarah, N.H. 2005. Effects of drought stress on growth and yield of barley. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 25(1): 145-149.
29. Saxena, N.., Sethi, S.C., Krishnamurty, L., and Haware, M.P. 1995. Hysiological approaches to genetic enhancement of drought resistance in chickpea. In: International Congress on Integrated Studies on Drought Tolerance of Higher Plants, August 29-30. Montpellier, France.
30. Shenkut, A.A., and Brick, M.A. 2003. Traits associated with dry edible bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) productivity under diverse soil moisture environments. Euphytica 133 (3): 339-347.
31. Silva, M.D.A., Jifon, J.L., Da Silva, J.A., and Sharma, V. 2007. Use of physiological parameters as fast tools to screen for drought tolerance in sugarcane. Brazilian Journal of Plant Physiology 19(3): 193-201.
32. Szilagyi, L. 2003. Influence of drought on seed yield components in common bean, Bulgarian Journal of Plant Physiology 11: 320-330.
33. Tesfaye, K., Walker, S., and Tsubo, M. 2006. Radiation interception and radiation use efficiency of three grain legume under water deficit conditions in semi-arid environment. European Journal of Agronomy 25(1): 60-70.
34. Turkan, I., Bor, M., Ozdemir, F., and Koca, H. 2005. Differential responses of lipid peroxidation and antioxidants in the leaves of drought- tolerant acutifolius Gray and drought- sensitive P. vulgaris L. subjected to polyethylene glycol mediated water stress. Plant Sciences 168: 223-231.
35. Wakrim, R., Wahabi, S., Tahi, H., Aganchich, B., and Serraj, R. 2005.Comparative effect of partial root drying (PRD) and regulated deficit irrigation(RDI) on water relation and water use efficiency in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment Journals 106: 275-287.
36. Zabet, M., Hosein zade, A.H., Ahmadi, A., and Khialparast, F. 2003. Effect of water stress on different traits and determination of the best water stress index in mung bean (Vigna radiata). Iranian Journal of Pulses Research 34: 889-898. (In Persian).
37. Zobayed, S.M.A., Afreen, F., and Kozai, T. 2007. Phytochemical and physiological changes in the leaves of St. Johns wort plants under a water stress condition. Environmental and Experimental Botany Journals 59: 109-116.