The Effect of Different levels of Soil Moisture on Visual Quality, Morphological and Physiological Characteristics of Three Native Grass Species

علوم باغبانی

Article 5, Volume 31, Issue 1, February 2017, Pages 216-225   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/jhorts4.v0i0.56264

Authors

Ramin Mahdavi¹; Madhi Parsa^{* 1}; Ali Gazanchian²; Hamidreza Khazaie¹

¹Ferdowsi University of Mashhad

²Khorasan Agriculture and Natural Resources Research Center

Abstract

Introduction: Over the last three decades, turfgrass breeders have put significant effort into breeding and developing turf species that have good drought resistance. As water conservation becomes an important issue, an interest is increasing in identifying grasses that require less water. Lack of water resources is most problems to increasing urban green spaces. Plants with good drought resistance are those that are able to survive stress by means of drought avoidance, drought tolerance at leaf water potentials, or both. The efficient use of water is made possible by understanding the effects of soil moisture water on crop development and yield. Drought affects the visual quality, growth rate and evapotranspiration. Researchers reported that turfgrass subjected to drought conditions for short periods could sustain a fairly good appearance by soil moisture about half of its consumptive use whenever soil moisture level falls to near permanent wilting point. Drought stress caused decrease in RWC and visual quality of many grass cultivars. In drought conditions resistance grass showed increase in proline content on their leaves. Therefore the use of native grasses with high-strength instead of imported grass with low-resistance is one way to increase landscape areas and reduce costs. The purpose of this study was to be compared native grasses with commercial grass cultivar “Super sport”.
Materials and Methods: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of soil moisture stress levels included 85% (control), 65% and 45% of field capacity on native species Brumos tomentellus, Festuca rubra and F. arundinacea and commercial cultivars Super sport (control) under greenhouse conditions. Plants were cultured in PVC containers measuring 9 cm in diameter and 60 cm deep. Soil was mixture of 70% loam soil, 20% pit mass and 10% sand. Greenhouse air temperature was maintained between 22 and 28 centigrade degree. All plants were maintained under well watered conditions for 45 day before drought stress. This experiment was conducted as factorial experiment based on completely random design with four replications. Measured parameters were length and width of leaves, chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b and total chlorophyll content, visual quality, electrolyte leakage, RWC and proline content of leaves. Length and width of leaves measured with ruler. Proline content, RWC percent, chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b and total chlorophyll content of leaf, visual quality and leaf electrolyte leakage was measured with standard protocols. Analysis of the data by statistical software JMP 8 and graphs with Excel 2010 was drawn.
Results and Discussion: Result of the experiment showed those native species have different response to soil moisture stress conditions. The highest and lowest length of leaves were observed in 65% field capacity in F. arundinacea and super sport grass, respectively. The results showed that width of leaves of B. tomentellus increased and decreased in super sport. Under soil moisture stress conditions, F. arundinacea has best visual quality with 7.66 score. Highest chlorophyll a and total chlorophyll were observed in tall fescue grass. The lowest electrolyte leakage under drought stress was obtained from F. rubra with 25.66 percent. RWC content in the native F. arundinacea increased to 77.80 compared with super sport (control). B. tomentellus under soil moisture stress showed the highest proline content and commercial cultivar (super sport) indicate lowest proline content at 45% field capacity. Selahvarzi and et al. (2009) found that visual quality of tall fescue decrease in drought stress. In drought stress RWC percent decrease in grass species. Proline content was increased in drought stress at Lolium perene cool season grass. Much studies on native cultivar indicated that native turfgrass cultivar have more resistance to drought stress compared with exotic turfgrass cultivars.
Conclusions: According to the results, we said native grass species under drought stress conditions have better quality compared with imported grass cultivar Super sport. Visual quality in native grass were suitable for use in urban landscape, that visual quality showed little change in soil moisture stress and leaves were fresh in this conditions. Native grass cultivars were more resistance than imported grass cultivar. This study showed that native grass such as F. arundinacea and F. rubra has low cost to use and these turfgrass need to lower water soil moisture than commercial grass Super sport.

Keywords

Drought stress; Electron leakage; Native grass; Imported grass; Proline

References

1- Abdul Jaleel C., Manivannan P., Wahid A., Farooq M., Somasundaram R., and Panneerselvam R. 2009. Drought stress in plants: a review on morphological characteristics and pigments composition. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology, 11:100-105.

2- Ahmadi S.S., Basiri M., and Etemadi N. 2013. Comparison of Drought Resistance of Five Species, Cultivars and Populations of Lawn for Using in Landscape. Iranian Journal of Horticultural Science and Technology, 13 (4): 391-404. (in Persian with English abstract)

3- Bastug R., and Buyuktas D. 2003. The effects of different soil moisture levels applied in golf courses on some quality characteristics of turf grass. Soil moisture Science, 22: 87-93.

4- 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.

5- Beard J.B. 1973. Turfgrass: science and culture. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood cliffs, New Jersey.

6- Bhatt R.M., and Srinivasarao N. K. 2005. Influence of pod load response of okra to water stress. Indian Journal Plant Physiology, 10: 54-59.

7- Bian S., and Jiang Y. 2009. Reactive oxygen species, antioxidant enzyme activities and gene expression patterns in leaves and roots of Kentucky bluegrass in response to drought stress and recovery. Scientia Horticulture, 120: 264-270.

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

9- Carrow R.N., and Duncan R.R. 2003. Improving drought resistance and persistence in turf-type tall fescue. Crop Science, 43: 978-984.

10- Dacosta M., and Huang B. 2005. Deficiet soil moisture effects on water use characteristics of Bentgrass species. Crop Science, 46: 1779-1786.

11- Dacosta M., and Huang B. 2006. Minimum water requirement for creeping, colonial and velvet Bentgrass under fairway condition. Crop Science, 46: 81-89.

12- Duncan R.R. and Shuman C.M. 1993. Acid soil stress response of Zoysiagrass. International Turfgrass Society Research Journal. 7: 805-811.

13- Fu J., Fry J., and Huang B. 2004. Minimum water requirements of four turfgrasses in the transition zone. Horticultural Science, 39: 1740-1744.

13- Gezanchian A., Khoshkholghsima N.A., Malboobi M.A., and MajidiHeravan E. 2006. Relationship between emergence and soil water content for perennial cool-season grasses native to Iran. Crop Science, 46: 544-553.

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

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

16- Huang B., Duncan R.R., and Carrow R.N. 1997. Drought-resistance mechanisms of seven warm-season turfgrasses under surface soil drying: II. Root aspects. Crop Science, 37: 1863-1869.

17- 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: 436-442.

18- Karcher D., Richardson M., and Landreth J. 2007. Drought Tolerance of tall fescue and bluegrass cultivars. Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research, 557: 17-20.

19- Karcher D., Richardson1 M., and Landreth J. 2008. Drought Tolerance of Tall Fescue and Bluegrass Cultivars 2nd Year Data. Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research, 568: 25-28.

20- Manuchehri R., and Salehi H. 2015. Morphophysiological and biochemical changes in tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea Schreb.) under combined salinity and deficit irrigation stresses. Desert, 20: 29-38.

21- Ommen O.E., Donnelly A., Vanhoutvin S., Vanoijen M., and Manderscheid R. 1999. Chlorophyll content of spring wheat flag leaves grown under elevated CO2 concentration and other environmental stress within `ESPACE-Wheat` project. European Journal of Agronomy, 10: 197-203.

22- Qian Y.L., and Fry J.d. 1996. Soil moisture frequency affects zoysiagrass rooting and plant water status. HortScience, 31: 234-237.

23- Salehi H., and Salehi M. 2011. Investigation on physiological characteristics of in tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea Scherb.) accessions tolerance to drought stress. Technical Journal of Engineering and Applied Science, 1(1): 10-14.

24- Selahvarzi Y., Tehranifar A., and Gazanchian A. 2008. Physiomorphological changes under drought stress and rewatering in endomic and exotic turfgrasses. Iranian Journal of horticulture science and technology, 9(3): 193- 204. (in Persian).

25- Selahvarzi Y., Tehranifar A., Gazanchian A., and Arooei H. 2009. Drought resistance mechanisms of native and commercial turfgrasses under drought stress: I. Root responses. Journal of horticulture science, 22(2): 1-12. (in Persian with English abstract)

26- Selahvarzi Y., Tehranifar A., Gazanchian A., and Arooei H. 2009. Drought resistance mechanisms of native and commercial turfgrasses under drought stress: ΙΙ. Shoot responses. Journal of Horticultural Sciences, 23(1) 1-9. (in Persian with English abstract)

27- Shearman R.C. 2006. Fifty years of splendor in the Grass. Crop Science. 46: 2218-2229.

28- Simmons M., Bertelsen M., Windhager S., and Zafian H. 2011. The performance of native and non-native turfgrass monocultures and native turfgrasspolycultures: An ecological approach to sustainable lawns. Ecological Engineering, 37: 1095-1103.

29- Smirnoff N. 1993. The role of active oxygen in the response of plants to water deficit and desiccation. New Phytologist, 125: 27–58.

30- Tatari M., FotouhiGhazvini R., Etemadi N., Ahmadi A.M., and Musavi A. 2013. Study of some physiological responses in three species of turfgrass in drought stress conditions. Journal of plant production, 20(1): 63-86. (in Persian with English abstract)

31- Thomas H. 1986. Effect of rate if dehydration on leaf water stress and osmotic adjustment in drought. Annals of Botany, 57: 225-235.

32- Turgeon A.J. 1999. Turfgrass management. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood cliffs, New Jersey.

33- Wang W.B., Kim Y.H., Lee H.S., Kim K.Y., Deng X.P., and Kwak S.S. 2009. Analysis of antioxidant enzyme activity during germination of alfalfa under salt and drought stress. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, 47: 570-577.

34- White R.H., Bruneau A.U., and Cowett T.J. 2001. Drought resistance of diverse tall fescue cultivars. International Turfgrass Society Research Journal, 7: 607-613.

35- Zhang Y.B., Liu A.R., and Zhang X.P. 2009. Comparison of adaptability of thirteen cultivars of cold-season turfgrass in spring and summer in Bengbu. Pratacultural Science, 4: 350-355.

36- Zhou L., Shi P., and Peng Y. 2013. Improved drought tolerance through drought preconditioning associated with changes in antioxidant enzyme activities, gene expression and osmoregulatory solutes accumulation in White clover (Trifoliumrepens L.). Plant Omics Journal, 6(6): 481-489.