Introduction of the Most Resistant Juniperus Genotypes to Drought Stress Based on Physiological and Antioxidant Traits

علوم باغبانی

Article 2, Volume 36, Issue 2 - Serial Number 54, June 2022, Pages 343-353   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/jhorts4.v39i1.88559

Authors

S. Keyghobadi^{* 1}; R. Fotohi Ghazvini²; Y. Tajvar³; A. Sabouri⁴

¹Department of Horticultural Sciences, University Campus 2, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran

²Department of Horticultural Sciences, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran

³Ramsar Citrus and Subtropical Fruits Research Center, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Ramsar, Iran

⁴Department of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran

Abstract

Introduction
 Drought is one of the most important environmental stresses that affects various plants such as ornamental plants. The identification and selection of ornamental tolerant genotypes is essential for landscape projects. Understanding the mechanisms that enable plants to adapt to drought stress can help to select the most tolerant genotypes for cultivation in arid and semi-arid regions.
Materials and Methods
 For this purpose, a research was conducted as a factorial experiment based on completely randomized design with eleven genotypes and two levels of irrigation (irrigation as Control and severe drought) at Ramsar Citrus and Tropical Fruits Research Institute.
Results and Discussion
 The first symptoms of drought stress were observed after 10 days in the Juniperus horizontalis (G1) genotype (the most sensitive genotype) and were not recovered and dried after 15 days. G3 and G5 genotypes (Ravande-mamouli and Ravande-setarei, respectively) showed drought stress after 28 days (most tolerant genotypes) and recovered at the end of the stress period after irrigation. Drought stress decreased photosynthetic pigments in studied genotypes. The content of soluble sugars, proline, and total soluble protein increased under drought stress conditions and the highest amount was observed in G3 genotype 30.8 mg g^-1 DW, 30.5 μg g^-1 DW, and 965.2 μg g^-1FW, respectively. Under drought stress condition, the highest concentration of hydrogen peroxide, malondialdehyde and electrical conductivity were observed in G11, G4, and G10 genotypes respectively compared to control plants. In addition, the most enzyme activity of superoxide dismutase (85.57%), total phenol (181.09%) and total flavonoid (98.46%) was evaluated in G3, G5 and G8 respectively. Also, chlorophyll changes indicate the response of plants to environmental stresses such as drought during drought stress, the concentration of abscisic acid and ethylene increases, which stimulates the activity of the enzyme chlorophilase and causes chlorophyll degradation. The reduction of photosynthetic pigments under drought stress also seems to be related to changes in nitrogen metabolism to proline production and reduced chlorophyll synthesis because the precursor of chlorophyll and proline is glutamate. Furthermore, one of the biochemical changes that occur in plants under drought stress is the accumulation of ROS. Numerous reports have stated that drought stress increases ROS production. Drought-induced oxidative stress causes lipid peroxidation and membrane damage. It seems that in some genotypes with low levels of malondialdehyde, the membrane damage is severe and leads to more electrical conductivity. Genotypes with more electrical conductivity are more damaged by drought stress. In some genotypes, such as G2 and G11, there was a positive correlation between malondialdehyde content and electrical conductivity, but in others, such as G1, there was a negative correlation. Although the amount of malondialdehyde in this genotype is low, electrical conductivity is very high. In other words, this genotype should be a genotype sensitive to drought stress. The tolerance of the plant to various environmental stresses may be related to the level of activity of the enzymes responsible for scavenging ROS. The antioxidant response to water scarcity depends on the severity of stress and type of plant species. Therefore, different genotypes increased their antioxidant activity to reduce the effects of oxidative stress, and the high antioxidant activity was observed for G5 compared with other genotypes which can be contemplated as drought-tolerant genotype. The accumulation of compatible metabolites such as soluble sugars and proline in plants under drought conditions can help to protect them against stress. The proline and soluble sugars accumulation under stress conditions reduce lipid peroxidation and acts as a free radical scavenger. According to the results, drought stress induced accumulation of proline and soluble sugars in the genotypes of Juniperus and the highest accumulation of proline was related to G3. Therefore, this genotype can be introduced as drought-resistant genotype.
Conclusion
 The results of the current study showed that drought stress significantly affected some biochemical parameters in all eleven genotypes. However, a variation in drought susceptibility was observed among genotypes. The studied genotypes in this experiment had different responses to drought stress and it seems that they utilized different mechanisms for stress tolerance. Genotype of G3 (Ravande -mamouli) was the most tolerant genotype to drought stress based on the highest levels of superoxide dismutase, soluble sugars, proline, and soluble protein. Genotype of G5 was also tolerant to drought stress with high superoxide dismutase activity and the largest amount of total flavonoid production. Therefore, increasing of compatible metabolites and antioxidant system are effective protective mechanisms against oxidative damage under drought stress.

Keywords

Compatible metabolites; Environmental stress; Juniperus; Superoxide dismutase

References

1- Tajvar Y., Fotouhi-Gazvini R., Hamidoghli Y., and Hassan-Sajedi R. 2011. Physiological and biochemical responses of peg mandarin on citrange rootstock to low temperature stress. Journal of Plant Biology 9: 1-12. (In Persian with English abstract)

2- Fifaei R., Fotouhi-Gazvini R., Golein B., and Hamidoghli Y. 2015. The Effect of Drought Stress on the amount of proline, soluble sugars, malondialdehyde and pigments in commercial citrus bases in north of country. Journal Crop Improve 17(4): 939-952. (In Persian with English abstract)

3- Zarabi M.M., Talaei A., Soleimani A., and Haddad R. 2010. Physiological role and biochemical changes of six olive (Olea europaea L.) cultivars against drought stress. Journal of Horticultural Science 24(2): 234-244. (In Persian with English abstract)

4- Ahmad P., Jaleel C.A., and Sharma S. 2011. Antioxidative defence system, lipid peroxidation, proline metabolizing enzymes and biochemical activity in two genotypes of Morus alba L. subjected to NaCl stress. Russian Journal Plant Physlogy 57: 509-517. https://doi:10.1134/S1021443710040084.

5- Alguacil M.F., Caravaca P., Daz-Vivancos J.A., Hernandez L., and Roldan A. 2006. Effect of arbuscular mycorrhizae and induced drought stress on antioxidant enzyme and nitrate reductase activities in Juniperus oxycedrus L. grown in a composted sewage sludge-amended semi-arid soil. Plant and Soil 279: 209-218.

6- Ashraf M.A., Riaz M., and Saleem Arif M. 2018. Plant metabolites and regulation under environmental stress Edited by Parvaiz Ahmad, Mohammad Abass Ahanger., Vijay Pratap Singh, Durgesh Kumar Tripathi, Pravej Alam, Mohammad Nasser Alyemeni. Academic Press is an in print of Elsevier.

7- Bates L., Waldren S.P., and Tear D.I .1973. Rapid determination of free proline for water- stress studies. Plant and Soil 39: 205-207. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00018060.

8- Seleiman M., Al-Suhaibani N., Ali N., Akmal M., Alotaibi M., Rafay Y., Dindaroglu T., Hafiz A., and Battaglia M. 2021. Drought stress impacts on plants and different approaches to alleviate its adverse effects. Plants 10: 259. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants/10020259.

9- Boominathan R., and Doran P.M. 2002. Ni induced oxidative stress in roots of the Ni hyperaccumolator, Alyssum bertoloni. New Phytologist 156: 202-205. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-8137.2002.00506.x.

10- Bradford M.M. 1976. A rapid and sensitive method for the quantisation of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein-dye binding. Analytical Biochemistry 72: 248-254. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-2697(76)90527-3.

11- Chang C., Yang M., Wen H., and Chern J. 2002. Estimation of total flavonoid content in propolis by two complementary colorimetric methods. Journal Food Drug Analysis 10: 178-182.

12- Dolatabadian A., Modares Sanavi S.A.M., and Sharifi M. 2009. Effect of ascorbic acid on antioxidant enzyme, proline accumulation and lipid peroxidation of Brassica napus L. under salt stress. Journal Agronomy Crop Science 194: 206-213. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-037X.2008.00301.x.

13- Farooq M., Wahid A., Kobayashi N., Fujita D., and Barsa S.M. 2009. Plant drought stress: effects, mechanisms and management. Agronomy Sustainable Development 29: 185-212. https://doi.org/10.1051/agro:2008021.

14- Harinasut P., Poonsopa D., Roengmongkol K., and Charoensalaporn R. 2003. Salinity effects on antioxidant enzymes in mulburg cultivar. Asian Journal Scientific Research 29: 109-113.

15- Hosseini-Boldaji S.A., Khavari-Nejad R.A., Hassan-Sajedi R., Fahimi H., and Saadatmand S. 2012. Water availability effects on antioxidant enzyme activities lipid peroxidation, and reducing sugar contents of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.). Acta Physiologiea Plantarum 34: 1177-1186. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11738-011-0914-6.

16- Jimenez S., Dridi, J., Gutierrez D., Moret D., Jrigoyen J.J. Moreno M.A., and Gogorcena. Y. 2013. Physiological, biochemical and molecular responses in four prunus roots tocks submitted to drought stress. Tree Physiology 33: 1061-75. http://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpt074. Epub 2013 Oct 25.

17- Kholova J., Hasan C.T.M., Khocova M., and Vadie V. 2011. Doesa terminal drought tolerance QTL contribute to differences in ROS scavenging enzymes and photosynthetic pigments in pear millet exposed to drought. Journal of Environmental Experimental Botany 71: 99-106.

18- Kochert G., Helebust J.A., and Craig J.S. 1978. Physiological methods: Carbohydrate determination by the phenol sulfuric acid method, Physiological methods, Kochert, G., Eds., and Cambridge University: Press Cambridge, United Kingdom, PP: 13-16.

19-Laxa M., Liebthal M., Telman W., Chibani K., and Dietz K.J. 2019. The Role of the Plant Antioxidant System in Drought Tolerance. Antioxidants 94: 1-31. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2010.11.001.

20- Lichtenthaler H.K. 1987. Chlorophylls and carotenoids; pigments of photosynthetic membranes. Method in Enzymology 148: 350-382. https://doi.org/10.1016/0076-6879(87)48036-1.

21- Meda A., Lamien C.E., Romito M., Millogo J., and Nacoulma O.G. 2005. Determination of the total phenolic, flavonoid and pralin contents in Burkina fasan honey, as well as their scavenging activity. Food Chemistry 91: 571-577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2004.10.006.

22- Nyarukowa C., Koech R., Loots T., and Apostolides Z. 2016. A method for Short-time Withering Assessment of Probability for Drought Tolerance in Camellia sinensis validated by targeted metabolomics. Journal Plant Physiology 198: 39-48. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jplph.2016.04.004.

23- Sairam R.K., Veerabhadra-Rao K., and Srivastava G.C. 2002. Differential response of wheat genotypes to long term salinity stress in relation to oxidative stress, antioxidant activity and osmolyte concentration. Plant Science 163: 1037-1046. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9452(02)00278-9.

24- Saleem M., Ashraf M., and Akram N.A. 2011. Salt (NaCl)-induced modulation in some key physio-biochemical attributes in okra (Abelmoschus esculentus L.). Journal Agronomy Crop Science 197: 202-213. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-037X.2010.00453.x.

25- Siripornadulsil S., Traina S., Verma D.P.S., and Sayre R.T. 2002. Molecular mechanisms of proline mediated to toxic heavy metals in transgenic microalgae. Plant Cell 14: 2837-2847. http://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.004853.

26- Tavares L., McDougall G.J., Fortalezas S., Stewart D., Ferreira R.B., and Santos C.N. 2012. The neuroprotective potential of phenolic-enriched fractions from four Juniperus species found in Portugal. Food Chemistry 135: 562-570.

27- Wang X., Cai X., Wang Q., and Dai S.2016. Drought-responsive mechanisms in plant leaves revealed by proteomics. International Journal Molecular Science 17: 1-30. http://doi.org/10.3390/ijms17101706.

28- Winterbourn C.C., Mcgrath B.M., and Carrell R.W. 1977. Reactions involving superoxide and normal and unstable hemoglobins. Biochemical Journal 155: 493-502. http://doi.org/10.1042/bj1550493.

29- Wu Q.S., Xia R.X., and Zou Y.N. 2008. Improved soil structure and citrus growth after inoculation with three arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi under drought stress. European Journal Soil Biology 44: 122-128. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejsobi.2007.10.001.