Effect of Drought Stress on Morphological and Physiological Characteristics of Wheatgrass and Tall fescue

علوم باغبانی

Article 12, Volume 28, Issue 4, November 2014, Pages 544-553   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/jhorts4.v0i0.25119

Authors

Amir Sadeghi; Nematollah Etemadi^* ; Mahboobe Shams; Fateme Nyazmand

Isfahan University of Technology

Abstract

In this study, the effect of drought stress on morphological and physiological characteristics of wheatgrass and tall fescue was investigated in a factorial-split plot in time arrangement based on a completely randomized design with three replications. After turf establishment, half pots were exposed to drought stress and the half other were completely irrigated. Based on the results tall fescue had higher color and lower percent leaf firing during first 10 days of drought stress, but after this period, the percent leaf firing in tall fescue increased, so that it had higher percent leaf firing and lower color than wheatgrass in the end of experiment. The results showed that under drought stress conditions was not observed the significant difference between two species in leaf relative water content. In wheatgrass, proline content of stressed plants was equal to control plants during first 10 days of drought stress but with prolonged stress treatment, the proline content increased significantly. Despite wheatgrass which had moderate rate for closed stomata percentage during stress period, tall fescue showed a great increased in this index and reached to 89.52% at the end of 20th day. Also in drought stress, the stomata density increased and stomata diameter decreased significantly. Therefore, based on the results in long drought stress, wheatgrass had higher drought resistance than tall fescue.

Keywords

Proline; Drought stress; Percent leaf firing; Stomata

References

1- احمدی ص. 1388. مقایسه و بررسی تحمل به خشکی پنج گونه، رقم و جمعیت چمن برای استفاده در فضای سبز. پایان نامه کارشناسی ارشد، دانشکده منابع طبیعی، دانشگاه صنعتی اصفهان، اصفهان.

2- اعتمادی ن. 1384. بررسی تنوع ژنتیکی، تحمل به خشکی و خصوصیات ظاهری جمعیت‌های گیاه چمنی مرغ (Cynodon dactylon L.). پایان نامه دکتری، پردیس کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران.

3- افشارمنش غ.، حیدری شریف آباد ح.، مظاهری د.، نورمحمدی ق. و مدنی ح. 1389. اثر تنش کم آبی بر برخی جنبه های فیزیولوژیکی و آناتومیکی ارقام یونجه (Medicago sativa L.). نشریه زراعت 89: 61-48.

4- امیری خواه ر. 1390. اثر ترینگزاپک اتیل بر کیفیت ظاهری و کاربردی چمن رای گراس دائمی. پایان نامه کارشناسی ارشد، دانشگاه صنعتی اصفهان، اصفهان.

5- حجازی ا. و کفاشی صدقی م. 1379. کاربرد مواد رشد گیاهی. انتشارات دانشگاه تهران، تهران.

6- حکمت شعار ح. 1372. فیزیولوژی گیاهان در شرایط دشوار. انتشارات نیکنام، تبریز.

7- تاتاری م.، فتوحی قزوینی ر.، اعتمادی ن.، احدی ع.م.، و موسوی س.ا. 1392. بررسی برخی پاسخ های فیزیولوژیکی سه نوع چمن در شرایط تنش خشکی. مجله پژوهش های تولید گیاهی 20 (1): 87-63.

8- سلاح ورزی ی.، تهرانی فر ع. و گزانچیان ع. 1387. بررسی تغییرهای فیزیو مورفولوژیک سبز فرش‌های بومی و خارجی در تنش خشکی و آبیاری دوباره. مجله علوم و فنون باغبانی ایران 9 (3): 204-193.

9- ضرابی م.م.، طلایی ع.، سلیمانی ع. و حداد ر. 1389. نقش فیزیولوژیکی و تغییرات بیوشیمیایی شش رقم زیتون (Olea europaea L.) در برابر تنش خشکی. نشریه علوم باغبانی 24 (2): 244-234.

10- مصطفایی ا. 1390. ارزیابی کیفیت و تحمل به خشکی دو نوع چمن بومی ایران. پایان نامه کارشناسی ارشد، پردیس کشاورزی ابوریحان، دانشگاه تهران، تهران.

11- Anonymous. 1999. National Turfgrass Evaluation Program NTEP. http://www.ntep.org/

12- Bates L.S., Woldren R.P., and Teare I.D. 1973. Rapid determination of free proline for water stress studies. Plant and Soil, 39: 205-207.

13- Beard J.B. 1973. Turfgrass Science and Culture. Prentice-Hall, Inc, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA.

14- Bonos S.A., and Murphy J.A. 1999. Growth responses and performance of Kentucky bluegrass under summer stress. Crop Science, 39 (3): 770-774

15- Blum A., and Ebercon A. 1981. Cell membrane stability as a measure of ought and heat tolerance in wheat. Crop Science, 21: 43-47.

16- Cherki G.H., Foursy A., and Fares K. 2002. Effects of salt stress on growth inorganic ions and proline accumulation in relation to osmotic adjustment in five sugar beet cultivars. Environmental and experimental Botany, 47: 39-50.

17- Cornic G. 2000. Drought stress inhibits photosynthesis by decreasing stomatal aperture–not by affecting ATP synthesis. Trends in Plant Science, 5 (5): 187-188.

18- Daniel G.O., Loren S.T.J., and Jensen K. 2001. Crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum) and Agropyron desertorum accessions. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 70: 707-716.

19- Fu J., and Huang B. 2001. Involvement of antioxidants and lipid peroxidation in the adaptation of two cool season grasses to localized drought stress. Environmental and experimental Botany, 45: 105-114.

20- Gindaba J., Rozanov A., and Negash L. 2005. Photosynthetic gas exchange, growth and biomass allocation of two Eucalyptus and three indigenous tree species of Ethiopia under moisture deficit. Forest Ecology and Management, 205: 127-138.

21- Goodfellow S., and Barkham J. P. 1974. Spectral transmission curves for a beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) canopy. Acta Botany Neerl, 23: 225–230.

22- Huang B., and Gao H. 1999. Physiological responses of diverse tall fescue cultivars to drought stresses. HortScience, 34 (5): 897-901.

23- Jiang Y., and Huang B. 2001. Drought and heat stress injury to two cool-season turfgrasses in relation to antioxidant metabolism and lipid peroxidation. Crop Science, 41 (2): 436-442.

24- Koski J., Qian Y., Hughes H.G., Christensen D.K., Reid S., Cuany R.L., and Wilhelm S.J. 1999. Alternative grasses for western U. S. lawns. Agronomy Abstract, 91: 137.

25- Ludlow M.M. 1989. Strategies in response to water stress. p. 269-281. In: H. K. Kreeb et al. (eds.). Structural and Functional Response to Environmental Stress: Water Shortage. SPB Academic Press, The Netherlands.

26- Maggio A., Miyazaki S., Veronese P., Fujita T., Ibeas J.I., Damsz B., Narasimhan M.L., Hasegawa P. M., Joly R. J., and Bressan R. A. 2002. Does proline accumulation play an active role in stress-induced growth reduction? Plant Journal, 31(6):699-712.

27- Mahajan S., and Tuteja N. 2005. Cold, salinity and drought stress: an overview. Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics, 444: 139-158.

28- Perdomo P., Murphy J.A., and Berkowitz G.A. 1996. Physiological changes associated with performance of Kentucky bluegrass cultivars during summer stress. HortScience, 31 (7): 1182-1186

29- Pessarakli M. 2008. Hand Book of Turfgrass Management and Physiology. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.

30- Qian Y.L., Fry J.D., and Upham W.S. 1997. Rooting and drought avoidance of warm-season turfgrasses and tall fescue in Kansas. Crop Science, 37 (3): 905-910.

31- Ratnayaka H.H., and Kincaid D. 2005. Gas exchange and leaf ultrastructure of Tinnevelly senna, Cassia angustifolia, under drought and nitrogen stress. Crop Science, 45: 840-847.

32- Saneoka H., Moghaieb R.E.A., Premachandra G.S., and Fujita K. 2004. Nitrogen nutrition and water stress effects on cell membrane stability and leaf water relations in Agrostis palustris Huds. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 52 (2): 131-138.

33- Taiz L., and Zeiger E. 1998. Plant Physiology. Sinauer Associates, Inc, Sunderland, Massachusetts.

34- Turkan I., Bor M., Ozdemir F., and Koca H. 2005. Differential response of lipid peroxidation and antioxidant in the leaves of drought tolerance (P. acutifolius Gray) and drought sensitive (P. vulgaris L.) subjected to polyethylene glycol mediated water stress. Plant Science, 168: 223-231.

35- Wang F., Zeng B., Sun Z., and Zhu C. 2009. Relationship between proline and Hg+2-induced oxidative stress in tolerant rice mutant. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 56 (4): 723-731.