تأثیر متانول بر خصوصیات مورفولوژیکی گیاه لوبیا (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) تحت تنش خشکی

پژوهشهای زراعی ایران

مقاله 9، دوره 13، شماره 4 - شماره پیاپی 40، دی 1394، صفحه 854-863   

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22067/gsc.v13i4.43526

نویسندگان

نظام آرمند؛ حمزه امیری^* ؛ احمد اسماعیلی

دانشگاه لرستان

چکیده

نتایج بررسی‌ها مؤید این است که محلول‌پاشی متانول نقش مؤثری در تحمل به خشکی گیاهان سه کربنه دارد. در این راستا به‌منظور بررسی اثر محلول‌پاشی متانول بر خصوصیات مورفولوژیکی لوبیا (رقم صدری) در شرایط تنش خشکی آزمایشی به‌صورت فاکتوریل (با دو عامل) در قالب طرح کاملاً تصادفی با سه تکرار به اجرا درآمد. عامل اول شامل تیمارهای مختلف محلول‌پاشی متانول با چهار سطح (شاهد یا بدون محلول‌پاشی، 10، 20 و 30 درصد حجمی) بود که محلول‌پاشی سه بار طی فصل رشد گیاه و با فواصل 10 روز صورت گرفت. عامل دوم تیمار تنش خشکی بود که شامل تنش خشکی شدید (25 درصد ظرفیت زراعی)، تنش خشکی ملایم (50 درصد ظرفیت زراعی) و بدون تنش خشکی (100 درصد ظرفیت زراعی) بود. نتایج این آزمایش نشان داد که در شرایط بدون تنش خشکی، محلول‌پاشی 30 درصد حجمی منجر به افزایش معنی‌داری از نظر ارتفاع بوته، تعداد شاخه جانبی، تعداد غلاف، وزن خشک ریشه و قطر ریشه نسبت به سطح شاهد شد. در شرایط تنش ملایم و شدید، سطوح متانول نتوانست اثرات منفی ناشی از تنش خشکی را کاهش دهد. مطالعه حاضر نشان داد که در شرایط تنش خشکی محلول‌پاشی متانول بر گیاه لوبیا مؤثر نیست.

کلیدواژه‌ها

تنش خشکی؛ خصوصیات مورفولوژیکی؛ عملکرد ریشه؛ محلول‌پاشی متانول

مراجع

1. Abanda, D., Musch, M., Tschiersch, J., and Schawb, M. 2006. Molecular interaction between Methylobacterium extorquens and seedling growth promotion, methanol consumption and localization of the methanol emission site. Journal of Experimental Botany 57 (15): 4025-4032.

2. Ahmadpour, R., Hosseinzadeh, S. R., Armand, N., and Fani, E. 2015. Effect of methanol on germination characteristics of lentil (Lens culinaris Medik.) under drought stress. Iranian Journal of Seed Research 2: 83-96. (in Persian with English abstract).

3. Bagheri, A., Mahmoudi, A., and Ghezeli, F. 2001. Common Bean: Research for Crop Improvement. Jahad daneshgahi press. 556 pp.

4. Benson, A. A., and Nonomura, A. M. 1994. The path of carbon in photosynthesis: methanol inhibition of glycolic acid accumulation. Photosynthesis Research 34: 196-206.

5. Blum, A. 1996. Crop response to drought and the interpretation adaptation. Plant Growth Regulation 20: 135-148.

6. Boyer, J. S., Armand, P. A., and Sharp, R. E. 1987. Light stress and leaf water relations. Photoinhibition, Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam. pp: 111-122.

7. Dorri, H. R. 2008. Bean Agronomy. Publication Series of Research Center of Bean, Khomein. 46 PP.

8. Doss, B. D., Pearson, R., and Wand Howard, T. R. 1974. Effect of soil water stress at various growth stages on soybean yield. Agronomy Journal 66: 297-299.

9. 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. Photochemistry 65: 2305-2316.

10. Ehyaei, H. R., Parsa, M., Kafi, M., and Nasiri mahalati, M. 2010. Effect of foliar application of methanol and irrigation regimes on yield and yield components of chickpea cultivars. Iranian Journal of Pulses Research 1: 37-48. (in Persian with English abstract).

11. Fischer, R. A. 2001. Selection traits for improving yield potential. In: M.P. Reynolds, J.I. Ortiz- Monasterio and A. McNab (Eds.). Application of Physiology in Wheat Breeding. D.F. CIMMYT. Mexico p. 148-159.

12. Gamze, O. K. U., Mehmet Demir, K. A. Y., and Mehmet, A. T. A. 2005. Effects of salt and drought stresses on germination and seedling growth of pea (Pisum sativum L.). Turkish Journal of Agriculture 29: 237-242.

13. Ganjeali, A., and Kafi, M. 2007. Genotypic differences for allometric relationships between root and shot characteristics in Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Pakistan Journal of Botany 39: 1523-1531.

14. Ganjeali, A., Kafi, M., Bagheri, A., and Shahriyari, F. 2004. Allometric relationship between root and shoot characteristics of chickpeas seedling (Cicer arietinum L.). Iranian Journal of Field Crops Research 18: 67-80. (in Persian with English abstract).

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

16. Hanson, A. D., and Roje, S. 2001. One carbon metabolism in higher plants. Annual Review of Plant Physiology 52: 119-138.

17. Heins, R. 1980. Inhibition of ethylene synthesis and senescence in carnation by ethanol. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 105 (1): 141-144.

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

19. Hosseinzadeh, S. R., Amiri, H., and Ismaili A. 2015. Effect of vermicompost fertilizer on photosynthetic characteristics of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) under drought stress. Photosynthetica, doi: 10.1007/s11099-015-0162-x.

20. 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.

21. Hosseinzadeh, S. R., Salimi, A. Ganjeali, A., and Ahmadpour, R. 2014. Effects of foliar application of methanol on photosynthetic characteristics chlorophyll fluorescence and chlorophyll content of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) under drought stress. Iranian Journal of Plant Biology 5: 116-129. (in Persian with English abstract).

22. Ivanova, E. G., Dornina, N. V., and Trotsenko, Y. A. 2001. Aerobic methylobacteria are capable of synthesizing auxins. Microbiology 70: 392-397.

23. Jalota, S. K., Anil, S., and Harman, W. L. 2006. Assessing the response of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) yield to irrigation water on two soils in Punjab (India). Agricultural Water Management 79: 312-320.

24. Leport, L., Turner, N. C., Davies, S. L., and Siddique, K. H. M. 2006. Variation in pod production and abortion among chickpea cultivars under terminal drought. Europian Journal of Agronomy 24: 236-246.

25. Li, Y., Gupta, J., and Siyumbano, A. K. 1995. Effect of methanol on soybean photosynthesis and chlorophyll. Journal of Plant Nutrition 18: 1875-1880.

26. 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.

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

28. Mauney, J. R., and Gerik, T. J. 1994. Evaluating methanol usage in Cotton. National Cotton Council of America Memphis, TN, USA. pp: 40.

29. Mirakhori, M., Paknejad, F., Moradi, P., Nazeri, P., and Nasri, M. 2010. Effects of foliar application of methanol on (Glycine max L.). Journal of Agroecology 2: 236-244. (in Persian with English abstract).

30. Muchow, R. C., Sinclair, T., and Rennetl, I. M. 1990. Temperature and solar radiation effects on potential maize yield across locations. Agronomy Journal 82: 238-343.

31. Nadali, I., Paknejad, F., Moradi, F., and Vazan, S. 2010. Effect of methanol on yield and some quality characteristics of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) cv. Rasoul in Drought and Non-Drought Stress Conditions. Journal of Seed and Plant Improvement 26: 95-108. (in Persian with English abstract).

32. 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 and leaf development. Plant Physiology 108: 1359-1368.

33. Nonomura, A. M., and Benson, A. A. 1992. The path of carbon in photosynthesis: Improved crop yields with methanol. National Academic Science, USA. 89: 9794-9798.

34. Rahbarian, R., Khavari-nejad, R., Ganjeali, A., Bagheri, A. R., and Najafi, F. 2011. Drought stress effects on photosynthesis, chlorophyll fluorescence and water. Acta Biologica Cracoviensia-Series Botanica 53: 47-56.

35. 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.

36. Ramadan, 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.

37. Ramirez, I., Dorta, F., Espinoza, V., Jimenez, E., Mercado, A., and Pena-Cortes, H. 2006. Effects of foliar and root applications of methanol on the growth of arabidopsis, tobacco and tomato plants. Journal Plant Growth Regulation 25: 30-44.

38. Richner, W., Soidati, A., and Stamp, P. 1996. Shoot to root relation in field grown maize seedlings. Agronomy Journal 88: 56-61.

39. 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.L). New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science 22: 335-337.

40. Saxena, N. P., Singh, S. C., Sethi, L., Krishnamurthy, S., Singh, D., and Johansen, C. 2005. Genetic enhancement of drought tolerance in chickpea (short note). (WWW. ICRISAT.org).

41. Sheldrake, A. R., and Saxena, N. D. 1979. The growth and development of chickpea under progressive moisture stress. Stress Physiology in Crop Plants 5: 58-74.

42. Van, I., Heitholt, M. W., Wells, J. J., and Oosterhuis, D. M. 1995. Foliar methanol applications to cotton in the Southeastern United States, leaf physiology, growth and yield components. Agronomy Journal 87: 1157-1160.

43. Vyshkahi, 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 abstract).

44. 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.