Effects of Deficient Irrigation on Some of the Morpho-physiological Characteristics of Four Fig Cultivars

علوم باغبانی

Article 2, Volume 29, Issue 4, November 2015, Pages 501-517   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/jhorts4.v29i4.51520

Authors

Gholamhossein Davarynejad¹; Somaye Shirbani^{* 2}; Mehdi Zarei³

¹Ferdowsi university of Mashhad

²Ferdowsi University of Mashhad

³Gonbad Kavous University

Abstract

Introduction: The amount of water available to plants includes one of the most important factors that affect the growth of plants. The objective of the present study was to investigate and compare the tolerance of different fig types (Ficus carica L.) to different low irrigation treatments.
Materials and Methods: A factorial trial based on a completely randomized design with 3 replications was carried out in Ferdowsi University of Mashhad. The treatments of this experiment were four levels of irrigation including; supplying enough water to pots (100% field capacity), mild stress (75% field capacity), average stress (50% field capacity) and severe stress (25% field capacity) on Green, Black, Shah Fig and Matthew cultivars. Some of morphological and physiological traits like stem growth, leaf umber, leaf area, root length, root area, fresh and dry weight of shoot and root, root to shoot ratio, relative water content, electrolyte leakage, total chlorophyll and proline were measured.
Results and Discussion: According to the results, significant differences were observed between different irrigation treatments for all measured parameters. The highest level of stem growth, leaf umber and leaf area were detected in control treatment (100% field capacity), while the lowest contents were observed in severe stress (25% field capacity). The results showed that the fresh and dry weight of shoot and root decreased with increasing drought stress, so that the lowest amounts were observed in severe stress treatment (25% field capacity). The levels of relative water content was significantly affected by different irrigation treatments, since treated plants with severe stress treatment (25% field capacity) had the lowest relative water values, while the highest levels was observed in control treatment (100% field capacity). The highest and lowest of total chlorophyll content was observed in control treatments (100% field capacity) and severe stress (25% field capacity), respectively. Among the study treatments, severe stress treatment (25% field capacity) had the highest amount of root length, root area, root to shoot ratio and control treatment had the lowest root length, root area, root to shoot ratio. The obtained results detected that electrolyte leakage increased with increasing drought stress. The severe stress treatment (25% field capacity), had the highest proline content, followed by the average stress treatment (50% field capacity), while the lowest value was observed in control (100% field capacity). A variation in terms of all measured parameters also was observed among the cultivars and the differences were statistically significant. Among the presently tested cultivars, Black has the best resistant ability to drought stress than in other cultivar.
Conclusion: This research showed all measured parameters were significantly affected by irrigation treatments and cultivars. These data demonstrated that cultivar was the main parameter which influences the morpho-physiological properties in figs.

Keywords

Ficus carica L; Drought stress; Electrolyte leakage; Chlorophyll; Prolin

References

1- Ahmadi A., and Srmrdeh A. 2004. Effect of drought stress on soluble carbohydrates, chlorophyll and prolin in 4 wheat cultivars adapted to different climatic conditions of Iran. Journal of Agricultural Sciences Iran. 35 (3): 753-763. (in Persian with English abstract)

2- Akhondi M., Safarnejad A. and Lahouti M. 2006. Effect of drought stress on prolin accumulation and mineral nutrients changes in alfalfa Medicage Sativa L. Sciences and Technology of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 10 (1): 175-175.

3- Atkinson C.H.J., Poloicarpo M.A.D. and Kuden A. M. 1999. Drought tolerance of apple rootstocks: Production and partitioning of dry matter. Plant and Soil, 206: 223-235.

4- Bajji M., Kinet J.M. and Lutts S. 2001.The use of the electrolyte leakage metod for assessing cell membrane stability as a water stress tolerance test in durume wheat. Plant Growth Regulatin, 1-10.

5- Bates L.S., Waldren R.P. and Teare L.d. 1973. Rapid determination of free proline for water-stress studies. Plant soil, 39: 205-207.

6- Behboudian M.H. and Mills T.M. 1997. Deficit irrigation in deciduous orchards. John Wiley and Sons. Ic., New York. P. 279

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

8- Chartzoulakis K., Patakas A.G., Kofidis A. and Nastou A. 2002. Water stress affects leaf anatomy, gas exchange, water relations and growth of two avocado cultivars. Scientia Horticulturae. 95:39-50.

9- Faghi H., and Sabet Sarvestani J. 2003. Fig (planting and harvesting). Rahagoosha Publications. P. 292. (in Persian)

10- Ganjali A. 2005. Investigation of physiology-morphological aspects to drought tolerance in chickpea (Cicer arientinum L.) species. Ph. D. Thesis, Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad. P. 238. (in Persian with English abstract)

11- Hill J., Verheggen F.P., Fernssen H., Vankammen A. and Zabel K. 1985. Bleomcin resistance: Anew dominant selectable marker for plant cell transformation. Plant Molecular Biology, 7: 171-176.

12- Huang B. and Gao H. 2000. Root physiological characteristics associated with drought resistance in tall fescue cultivars. Crop Science, 40: 196-203.

13- Johns G.G. 1978 .Transpiration, leaf area, stomatal and photosynthetic responses to gradually induced water stress in four temperate herbage species. Australian Journal of plant physiology, 5: 113-125.

14- Johns G.G. and Lazenby A. 1973. Defoliation, leaf area index, and the water use four temperate pasture species under irrigated and dryland conditions. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 24: 783-795.

15- Kocheva K., Lambrev P., Georgiev G., Goltsev V. and Karabaliev M. 2004. Evaluation of chlorophyll fluorescence and membrane injury in the leaves of barley cultivars under osmotic stress. Bioelectrochemisty, 63: 121-124.

16- Kozlowski T.T. 1968. Introduction In: Kozlowski T.T. (Ed.) .Water deficit and plant growth. P.I. Academic Press. New York.

17- Mohamadkhani N. and Haidary R. 2008. Drought -induced Accumulation of soluble sugars and proline in two Maize varieties. World Applied Sciences Journal, (3): 448- 453.

18- Pand H. and Singh J.S. 1981. Comparative biomass and water status of four range grasses growth under two soil water conditions. Journal of Range Management, 34: 480-484.

19- Probsting E.L. and Middleton J.E. 1980.The behavior of peach and pear trees under extreme drought stress. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science, 105: 380-385.

20- Qian Y.L. and Fry J.D. 1996. Irrigation frequency affects zoysiagrass rooting and plant water status. Horticultural Science, 31: 234-237.

21- Reddy A.R., Claitanya K.V. and Vivekanadan M. 2004 Drought induced responses of photosynthesis and antioxidant metabolism I higher plants. Journal of Plant Physiology, 161: 1189-1202.

22- Shariat A., and Asare M.H. 2008. Effect of drought stress on plant pigments, prolin, soluble sugars and growth properties of four eucalyptus species. Journal of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources. 15 (6): 13-24. (in Persian with English abstract)

23- Slahvrzy E. 2007. Effects of drought stress and re-irrigation on morpho-physiologic and biochemical responses in domestic and imported grasses. Master's thesis, Department of Horticulture Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad. P. 160. (in Persian with English abstract)

24- Syversten J.P. 1985. Itegration of water stress in fruit trees. Horticultural Science, 20: 1039-1043.

25- Tan C.S. and Buttery B.R. 1982.The effect of soil moisture stress to various fractions of the root system on transpiration, photosynthesis and internal water relation of peach seedling. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science, 107: 845-849.

26- Torrecillas A., Galego R., Perez-Pastor A. and Ruize-Anchez M. C. 1999. Gas Exchange and water relations of young apricot plants under drought conditions. Journal of Agriculture Science, 132: 445-452.

27- Zamani Z., Taheri A., Vazaei A. and Poustini K. 2002. Proline content and stomata resistance of almond seedling as affected by irrigation intervals. Acta Horticulture, 591: 411-416.

28- Zarrabi M., Motlaiy A., and Lesani H. 2008. Effect of drought stress on morphological and anatomical characteristics of olive different cultivars. Journal of Horticultural Science (Agricultural Science Iran). 39 (1): 109-117. (in Persian with English abstract)