Effects of foliar application of methanol on physiological characteristics of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) under drought stress

پژوهش‌های حبوبات ایران

Article 4, Volume 5, Issue 2, December 2014, Pages 71-82   

Document Type: Original Articles

DOI: 10.22067/ijpr.v1393i2.47031

Authors

Saeed Reza Hosseinzadeh^{* 1}; Monireh Cheniany²; Azam Salimi³

¹Tarbiat Moalem University, Tehran

²Ferdowsi University of Mashhad

³Tarbiat Moalem University

Abstract

In order to evaluate the effects of foliar application of methanol on some physiological characteristics of chickpea under drought stress, an experiment was conducted as a factorial based on completely randomized design with three replications in 2011 at the Recearch center of plant for Sciences in Ferdowsi University of Mashhad. The first factor was different levels of methanol including, 0 (control), 20, 25, 30, 35 volumetric percentage (v/v), which were used as foliar applications at three times during growth season of chickpea, with 10 days intervals. Second factor was drought stress condition in two levels 25 and 100 percent of field capacity. Results showed that there was significant difference (P 0.01) between methanol levels concentrations regarding to chlorophyll a, b, carotenoid, total chlorophyll content, assimilation CO2, relative water content, chlorophyll feluorecence (Fv\Fm) and membrane stability coefficient. Spraying with 30% volume level significantly increased chlorophyll a and b content, assimilation CO2 and relative water content compared to control. There was no significant difference on chlorophyll feluorecence (Fv\Fm) between methanol levels, but there was significant increase compared to control. Effects of drought and methanol were not significant differences on carotenoid and relative water content but on the chlorophyll a, b, total chlorophyll content, chlorophyll a/b ratio, CO2 assimilation, chlorophyll feluorecence (Fv\Fm), interacellular CO2 and membrane stability coefficient were significant (P 0.05).

Keywords

Methanol spraying; Physiologic characteristics; Drought stress; Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)

References

1. Anonymous, A. 1993. An introduction to Flourescence Measurements with the Plant Efficiency Analyzer. Hansatech instruments Ltd., England.

2. Bagheri, A., Nezami, A., Ganjeali, A., and Parsa, M. 1997. Agronomy and breeding chickpea. Publications Jahad University of Mashhad. (In Persian).

3. Boyer, J.S., Armand, P.A. and Sharp, R.E. 1987. Light stress and leaf water relations. In: Kyle, D.J., C.B. Osmoud and C.J. Arntzen (eds), Photoinhibition, Elsevier Science Publishers B. V., Amsterdam. pp: 111-122.

4. Clover, G., Smith, H., and Jaggard, K. 1998. The Crop under Stress. British Sugar Beet Review 66 (3): 17-19.

5. Downie, A., Miyazaki, S., Bohnert, H., John, P., Coleman, J., Parry, M., and Haslam, R. 2004. Expression profiling of the response of Arabidopsis thaliana to methanol stimulation. Phytochem 65: 2305-2316.

6. Gout, E., Aubert, S., Bligny, R., Rebeille, F., Nonomura, A.R., Benson, A. and Douce, R. 2000 plant Metabolism of methanol in plant cells. Carbon-13 nuclear magnetic resonance studies. Plant Physiol. 123: 287-296.

7. Hemming, D.J.B., Criddle, R.C. ans Hansen, L.D. 1995. Effects of methanol on plant respiration. Journal of Plant Physiology 146:193-198.

8. Holland, M.A. 1997. Occams razor applied to hormonology. Are cytokinins produced by plants? Plant Physiol. 115: 865-868.

9. Hosseinzadeh, S.R., Salimi, A., and Ganjeali, A. 2011. Effects of foliar application of methanol on morphological characteristics of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) under drought stress. Environmental Stresses in Crop Science 4: 140-150.

10. Hosseinzadeh, S. R., Salimi, A., Ganjeali, A and Ahmadpour, R. 2012. Effects of foliar application of methanol on growth and root characteristics of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) under drought stress. European Journal of Experimental Biology 2 (5):1697-1702.

11. Hsiao, T.C. 2000. Leaf and root growth in relation to water status. Horticultural Science 35: 1051-1058.

12. Khafagi, O.M.A. and El-Lawendy, W.I. 1997. Effect of different irrigation intervals on sugar beet growth, plant water relations ans photosynethetic pigments. Annals of Agricultural Science Moshtohor 35: 305-319.

13. Lichtenthaler, H.K. 1992. The Kaustky effect: 60years of chlorophyll fluorescence induction kinetics. Food crops to temperature and water stress, AVRDC, Shanhua, Taiwan, pp: 389-398.

14. Lu, Q., Lu, C., Zhang, J. and Kuang, T. 2002. Photosynthesis and chlorophyll a fluorescence during flag leaf senescence of field-grown wheat plants. J Plant Physiol 159: 1173-1178.

15. Madhaiyan, M., Poonguzhali, S., Sundaram, S.P., and Sa, T.A . 2006. New insight into foliar applied methanol influencing phylloplane methylotrophic dynamics and growth promotion of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) and sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.). Environmental and Experimental Botany 57: 168-176.

16. Makhdum, I.M., Nawaz, A. Shabab, M., Ahmad, F., and Illahi, F. 2002. Physiological response of cotton to methanol foliar application. Journal of Research (Science), Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan, Pakistan 13: 37-43.

17. Mohammadian, R., Rahimian, H., Moghaddam, M. and Sadeghian, S.Y. 2003. Effect of early drought stress on sugar beets chlorophyll fluorescence. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences 6 (20): 1763-1769.

18. Nemecek-Marshall, M., MacDonald, R.C., Franzen, J.J., Wojciechowski, C.L., and Fall, R. 1995. Methanol emission from leaves: enzymatic detection of gas-phase methanol and relation of methanol fluxes to stomatal conductance & leaf development. Plant Physiol 108: 1359-1368.

19. Nonomura, A.M. 1997. Method and composition for enhancing carbon fixation in plants. Proc Natl Acad Sci, U.S.A. 89: 9794-9798.

20. Nonomura, A.M., and Benson, A.A. 1992. The path of carbon in photosynthesis: Improved crop yields with methanol. Proc. National Acad. Sci., USA, 89: 9794-9798.

21. Ober, E. 2001. The Search for Drought Tolerance in Sugar Beet. British Sugar Beet Review 69 (1): 40-43.

22. Paknejad, F., Majidi heravan, E., Noor mohammadi, Q., Siyadat, A., and Vazan, S. 2007. Effects of drought stress on chlorophyll fluorescence parameters, chlorophyll content & grain yield of wheat cultivars. American Journal of Biochemistry and Biotechnology 5 (4): 162-169.

23. Parsa, M., and Bagheri, A. 2008. Legumes. Mashhad University Jahad Press. (In Persian).

24. Rajala, A., Karkkainen, J., Peltonen, J., and Peltonen-Sainio, P. 1998. Foliar applications of alcohols failed to enhance growth and yield of C3 crops. Industrial Crop Production 7: 129-137.

25. Ramadant, T., and Omran, Y. 2005. The effects of foliar application of methanol on productivity and fruit quality of grapevine cv. flame seedlees. Vitis Journal 44: 11-16.

26. Ranalli, P., Di Candilo, M. and Bagatta, M. 1997. Drought Tolerance Screening for Potato Improvement. Plant Breeding 116: 290-292.

27. Rowe, R.N., Farr, D.J., and Richards, B.A.J. 1994. Effects of foliar and root applications of methanol or ethanol on the growth of tomato plants (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill) New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science 22: 335-337.

28. Safarzade Vishkaei, M. 2007. Effects of methanol on growth and yield of peanut. Ph. D. thesis. Sciences and Research unit, Islamic Azad University Tehran, Iran, pp 232 (in Persian).

29. Vyshkayy, M., Noormohammadi, Gh., Majidi, A., and Rabii, B. 2008. Effect of methanol on the growth function peanuts. Special Issue Journal of Agricultural Sciences 1: 102-87. (In Persian with English Summary).

30. Wilson, J.M. and Greaves, J.A. 1993. Development of and water stress in crop plants. In: Adaptation of food crops to temperature and water stress, AVRDC, Shanhua, Taiwan, pp: 389-398.

31. Zbiec, I.I., Karczmarczyk, S. and Koszanski, Z. 1999. Influence of methanol on some cultivated plants. Department of Plant Production and Irrigation. Agricultural University of Szczecin Poland 73: 217-220.

32. Zbiec, I., Karczmarczyk, S., and Podsiadlo, C. 2003. Response of some cultivated plants to methanol as compared to supplemental irrigation. Electronic Journal of Polish Agricultural Universities 6 (1):1-7.