Evolution of Morphological and Physiological Response of Agropyron spp. toDrought Stress

علوم باغبانی

Article 3, Volume 31, Issue 2, April 2017, Pages 389-400   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/jhorts4.v0i0.56268

Authors

Mahdi Yaghoobi¹; Mahdi Parsa^{* 1}; Ali Gazanchian²; Hamidreza Khazaie¹

¹Ferdowsi University of Mashhad

²Khorasan Razavi Agricultural and Natural Resources Research And Education Center

Abstract

Introduction: Lack of water resources is one of the most problems ofincreasing urban green spaces. Over the last threedecades, turfgrass and lawn researches have put significant effort into developing and evaluating turf species that have good drought resistance. As water conservation becomes an important issue, considerable interest is increasing in identifying grasses that require less water. 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 irrigation 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 irrigation 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 grass imported with low-resistance is one way to increase green space and reduce costs. The purpose of this study was comparednative grasses with commercial grass cultivars.
Materials and Methods: This study was to evaluate the yield and resistance of native grasses to drought stress in 2014. This experiment was conducted in Khorasan Agricultural Research Center. NativeAgropyron grass species includedAgropyronelangatum, A. desertrum, A. cristatum and commercial cultivarwassuper sport and third level of stress, including severe stress (45% FC), moderate stress (65% FC) and control (85% field capacity) were experimental treatments. Plants were cultured in PVC containers measuring 9 cm in diameter and 60 cm deep under greenhouse condition. 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 days before drought stress. This experiment was designed in factorial experiment based on completely random with fourreplicates. After the stress treatment parameters such as length and width of leaves, chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b and total chlorophyll content, visual quality, electrolyte leakage, RWC and proline content of leaves were measured. Length and width of leaves were measured with ruler. Proline content, RWC percent, chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b and total chlorophyll content of leaf, visual quality and leaf electrolyte leakage weremeasured 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 that those native species have different response to soil moisture stress conditions. The highest and lowest lengths of leaf were observed under45% field capacity in A. elangatum and super sport grass, respectively. The results showed that width of leaves of A. elangatum increase and then decrease in super sport. Under drought stress conditions A. desertrum has best visual quality with 6.07 score. Highest chlorophyll a and total chlorophyll were observed in A. elangatum. The lowest electrolyte leakage under drought stress was obtained from A. elangatum with 17.91 percent. RWC content in the native A. elangatum increased to 82.12 compared with super sport (control). A. elangatum under drought stress showed highest proline content and commercial cultivar (super sport) indicated lowest proline content at 45% field capacity irrigation. 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 increasedupondrought stress inLoliumperenecool season grass. Many 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 such as Super sport. Visual quality in native grass was suitable for use in urban landscape, that visual quality show little change in drought stress and leaves were fresh in this conditions. The best visual quality of two native species A. elongatum and A. desertrum was observed under 65% field capacity. Nativegrass cultivars were more resistance than imported grass cultivars. This study showed that native grass such asA. elongatum and A. desertrumhas low cost to use and these turfgrass need to lower water irrigation than commercial grass Super sport. Then two species can be introduced as low-input cultivars.

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- Bacon, M.A., Thompson, D.S., and Davies, W.J. 1997. Can cell wall peroxidase activity explain the leaf growth response of Lolium temulentum L. during drought stress. Journal of Experimental Botany, 317:2075-2085.

4- Barrs, H.D., and Weaterley, P.E. 1962. A re-examination of the relative turgidity techniques for the estimating water deficit in leaves. Australian journal of biological sciences, 15: 413-428.

5- Bastug, R. and Buyuktas, D. 2003.The effects of different irrigation levels applied in golf courses on some quality characteristics of turf grass. Irrigation Science .22.87-93.

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

7- 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.

8- 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.

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

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

11- Dacosta, M., and Huang, B. 2005.Deficiet irrigation effects on water use characteristics of Bentgrass species. Crop science. 46: 1779-1786.

12- Farkhondeh, R., Nabizadeh, E., and Jalilnezhad, N. 2012. Effect of salinity stress on proline content, membrane stability and water relations in two sugar beet cultivars. International Journal of Agriculture Science. 2: 385-392.

13- Farshadfar, A., and Javadinia J. 2011. Evaluation of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) genotypes for drought tolerance. Seed and Plant Improvement Journal, 24: 517:537.

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

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

16- Gazanchian A., Hajheidari M.,Khosh Kholgh Sima N.A., and Salkadeh, G.H. 2007. Proteome response of Elymuselongatum to sever water stress and recovery. Journal of Experimental Botany, 58:291-300.

17- Gill, S.S., and Tuteja, N. 2010. Reactive oxygen species and antioxidant machinery in abiotic stress tolerance in crop plants. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry. 48: 909-930.

18- Gunes, A., Pilbeam, D.J., Inal, A., and Coban, S. 2008. Influence of silicon on sunflower cultivars under drought stress, I: Growth, antioxidant mechanisms, and lipid peroxidation. Communication Soil Science and Plant Analysis. 39: 1885-1903.

19- Guo, Z., Ou, W., Lu, S., and Zhong, Q. 2006. Differential responses of antioxidative system to chilling and drought in four rice cultivars differing in sensitivity. Plant Physiology andBiochemistry. 44: 828-836.

20- 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.

21- 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.

22- 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.

23- Jinrong, L., Xiaorong, X. Jianxiong, D. Jixiong, S., and Xiaomin, B. 2008. Effects of simultaneous drought and heat stress on Kentucky bluegrass. Scientica Horticulture. 115: 190-195.

24- 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.

25- Karcher, D., Richardson, M., and Landreth, J. 2007. Drought Tolerance of tall fescue and bluegrass cultivars. Arkansas Agriculture Experiment Standard Research Ser. 557:17-20.

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

27- Lemaire, G., and Chapman, D. 1996. Tissue flows in grazed plant communities. P. 3-36. In Hodgson, J. and Llius, A.W. (Ed.). The ecology and management of grazing system. CAB Int., UK.

28- Liu, J., Xie, X., Du, J., Sun, J., and Bai, X. 2008. Effects of simultaneous drought and heat stress on Kentucky bluegrass. Scientica Horticulture. 115: 190-195.

29- Magni, S. Voltrrani, M. and Miele, S .2003. Soccer pitches performance as affected by construction method sand type and turf grass mixture. 1st International Conference on Turf Grass Management and Science for Sport Fields.

30- Mostafaie, A. 2011. Evolution quality and drought resistance of two Iranian turfgarsess. Horticulture thesis of post graduated (MSc), University of Tehran.

31- 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.

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

33- Sakr, W. R. 2009.Respose of paspalum turfgrass grown in sandy soil to trinexapac-ethyl and irrigation water salinity. Journal of horticulture Science and Ornamental Plants, 1:15-26.

34- 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. Environment Experimental Botany.52:131-138.

35- 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)

36- 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)

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

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

39- Tatari, M., Fotouhi Ghazvini, 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)

40- Thomas, H; and James, A.R. 1993. Freezing tolerance and solute changes in contrasting genotypes of Lolium perenne L. Acclimated to cold and drought. Annual Botany. 72: 249-254.

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

42- Volaire, F; Thomas, H; and Lelievere, F. 1998. Survival and Recover of perennial forage Grasses under prolong Mediterranean Drought. New Phytologist. 140:439-449.

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

44- 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.