اثر پیوند و تنش آبی بر عملکرد و خصوصیات مورفو-فیزیولوژیکی ریشه خیار گلخانه‌ای (Cucumis sativus L.)

علوم باغبانی

مقاله 1، دوره 36، شماره 2 - شماره پیاپی 54، شهریور 1401، صفحه 329-342  

نوع مقاله: مقالات پژوهشی

شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22067/jhs.2021.61641.0

نویسندگان

رسول آذرمی¹؛ یاسر حسینی ²

¹استادیار دانشکده کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی - دانشگاه محقق اردبیلی

²دانشیار دانشکده کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی مغان- دانشگاه محقق اردبیلی

چکیده

برای بررسی تاثیر پیوند و تنش آبی بر خصوصیات مورفولوژیکی ریشه و عملکرد خیار گلخانه­ای، (Cucumis sativus L. var. Nagen 972)، آزمایشی به­صورت کرت خرد شده در قالب طرح بلوک‌های کامل تصادفی با 3 تکرار انجام شد. تیمارها شامل پایه­های ’فلکسی فورت‘، ’شینتوزا‘،’ ناگن‘ و بدون پیوند یا شاهد بود و تنش­های خشکی در سه سطح 90، 60 و 40 درصد ظرفیت زراعی اعمال گردید. نوع پیوند مورد استفاده حفره‌ای بود. نتایج نشان‌داد تعداد برگ، تعداد ریشه­جانبی، محتوای کلروفیل و درصد نشت الکترولیت در گیاهان آبیاری شده با 90 درصد ظرفیت زراعی به ترتیب 41، 1310 و 16 درصد بیشتر از تنش آبی 40 درصد ظرفیت زراعی بود. تعداد برگ، غلظت کلروفیل به‌ترتیب در پایه­های کدوی ’فلکسی­فورت‘ و ’شینتوزا‘ تقریباً 21 و 9 درصد بیشتر از گیاهان غیرپیوندی بود. درحالی­که بیشترین نشت الکترولیت در پایه غیرپیوندی مشاهده گردید. بیشترین عملکرد، وزن‌تر ریشه و طول ریشه و هدایت روزنه­ای برگ در پایه ’فلکسی فورت‘ آبیاری شده با 90 درصد ظرفیت زراعی و کمترین آن­ها در گیاهان غیرپیوندی آبیاری شده با 40 درصد ظرفیت زراعی حاصل شد. لذا می­توان گفت که گیاهان پیوند شده بر روی پایه­های ’فلکسی­فورت‘ و ’شینتوزا‘ نسبت به پایه ’ناگن‘ و حالت غیرپیوندی در شرایط تنش آبی 60 و 40 درصد ظرفیت زراعی رشد و عملکرد بهتری داشتند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

پیوند؛ تنش رطوبتی؛ خیار گلخانه‌ای؛ عملکرد؛ ریشه

مراجع

1. Al-Debei H.S., Makhadmeh I., Abu-Al Ruz I., Al-Abdallat A.M., Ayad J.Y., and Al Amin N. 2012. Influence of different rootstocks on growth and yield of cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) under the impact of soil-borne pathogens in Jordan. Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment 10(2): 343-349.
2. Alomran A.M., Louki I.I., Aly A.A., and Nadeem M.E. 2013. Impact of Deficit Irrigation on Soil Salinity and Cucumber Yield under Greenhouse Condition in an Arid Environment. Journal Agriculture Science Technology 15: 1247-1259.
3. Amer K.H., Sally A.M., and Jerry L.H.2009. Effect of Deficit Irrigation andFertilization on Cucumber. Agronomy Journal 101: 1556–1564. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2009.0112.
4. An Y.Y., and Liang Z.S. 2013. Drought tolerance of Periploca sepium during seed germination: antioxidant defense and compatible solutes accumulation. Acta Physiological Plant 35: 959–967. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11738-012-1139-z.
5. Asseng A., Ritchia J.T., and Smuchker A.J.M. 1998. Root growth and water uptake during water deficit and recovering in wheat. Plant and Soil 201: 265-273. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004317523264.
6. Ayas S., and Demirtaş Ç. 2009. Deficit irrigation effects on cucumber (Cucumis sativus Maraton) yield in unheated greenhouse condition. Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment 7 (3&4): 645–649.
7. Buttaro D., Santamaria P., Signore A., Cantore V., Boari F., Montesano F., and Parente A. 2015. Irrigation management of greenhouse tomato and cucumber usingtensiometer: effects on yield, quality and water use. Agric. Agric. Sci. Procedia 4: 440–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aaspro.2015.03.050.
8. Cakir R., Cebib U. K., Altintasc S., and Ozdemirba A. 2017. Irrigation scheduling and water use efficiency of cucumber grown as aspring-summer cycle crop in solar greenhouse. Agricultural Water Management 180 :78–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2016.10.023.
9. Caser M., Scariot V., Gaino W., Larcher F., and Devecchi M. 2013. The effects of sodium chloride on the aesthetic value of Buxus European Journal of Horticultural Science 78:153–159.
10. Castelli F., Contillo R., and Miceli F. 1996. Non-destructive determination of leaf chlorophyll content in four crop species. Journal of Agricultural and Crop Science 4: 275–283. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-037X.1996.tb00246.x.
11. Castrillo M., and Calcargo A.M. 1998. Effects of water stress and rewatering on ribulose-1,5bisphosphate carboxylase activity, chlorophyll and protein contents in two cultivars of tomato. Journal of Horticulture Science 64: 717-724. https://doi.org/10.1080/14620316.1989.11516014.
12. Colla G., Rouphael Y., Cardarelli M., Salerno A., and Rea E. 2010. The effectiveness of grafting to improve alkalinity tolerance in watermelon. Environment Experiment Botany 68: 283–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2009.12.005.
13. Davis R.A., Perkins-Veazie P., Hassell R., Levi A., King S.R., and Zhang X. 2008. Grafting Effects on Vegetable Quality. Hort Science 43(6): 1670-1672. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.43.6.1670.
14. Doorenbos J., and Kassam A.H. 1979. Yield response to water. FAO Irrigation and Drainage paper no. 33.
15. Edelstein M., Burger Y., Horev C., Porat A., Meir A., and Cohen, R. 2004. Assessing the effect of genetic and anatomic variation of Cucurbita rootstocks on vigour, survival and yield of grafted melons. Journal Horticulture Science Biotechnology 79: 370–374. https://doi.org/10.1080/14620316.2004.11511775.
16. Farhadi A., Aroeii H., Nemati H., Salehi R., and Giuffrida F. 2016. The Effectiveness of Different Rootstocks for Improving Yield and Growth of Cucumber Cultivated Hydroponically in a Greenhouse. Horticulturae 2(1): 1-7. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae2010001.
17. Fotoohie g\Ghazvini R., Haidary M., Hashempur A. Physiology and molecular biology of stress tolerance in plants (Tranlate). Jahad Daneshgahi Publications of Mashhad, Razavi Khorasan Province. 2011, Pp, 360. (In Persian)
18. Gregory P., Baum A., and Yambao J. 1991. The fate of carbon in pulse-labelled crops of barley and wheat. Plant& Soil Science 136: 205-213.
19. Hang Y., Li J., Hua B., Liu Z.X., Fan M.L., and Bie Z.L. 2013. Grafting onto different rootstocks as a means to improve watermelon tolerance to low potassium. Science Horticulture 149: 80-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2012.02.009.
20. Lee J.M. 1994. Cultivation of grafted vegetables I. Current status, grafting methods, and benefits. Hort Science 29: 235-239. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.29.4.235.
21. Lee S.G., Choi J.U., Kim K.Y., Chung J.H., and Lee. Y.B. 1997. Effect of rootstocks and grafting methods on the growth and fruit quality of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum). RDA. Journal of Horticultural Science 39: 15-20.
22. Lee J.M. 2003. Advances in vegetable grafting. Chron. Horticulture 43: 13-19.
23. Lopez-Galarza S., San Bautista A., Perez D.M., Miguel A., Baixauli C., Pascual B., Maroto J.V., and Guardiola J.L. 2004. Effects of grafting and cytokinin-induced fruit setting on colour and sugar-content traits in glasshouse-grown triploid watermelon. Journal Horticulture Science Biotechnology 79: 971–976. https://doi.org/10.1080/14620316.2004.11511875.
24. Mao X., Liu M., Wang X., Hou C.Z., and Shi J. 2003. Effects of deficit irrigation on yield and water use of greenhouse grown cucumber in the north China plain. Agriculture Water Managment 61(3): 219-228. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-3774(03)00022-2.
25. Marsic K.N., and Jakse M. 2010. Growth and yield of grafted cucumber (Cucumis sativus) on different soilless substrates. Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment 8(2): 654–658.
26. Mugwanya M., Kimera F., and Dawood M. 2022. Elucidating the effects of combined treatments of salicylic acid and l-Proline on greenhouse-grown cucumber under saline drip irrigation. Journal Plant Growth Regul. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00344-022-10634-0.
27. Nilsen E.T., Freeman J., Grene R., and Tokuhisa J. 2014. A rootstock provides water conservation for a grafted commercial tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) line in response to mild-drought conditions: a focus on vegetative growth and photosynthetic parameters. Plos One. 9(12): 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115380.
28. Pasrenese C., Pimentel P., and Lillo J. 2005. Leaf movements and photo inhibition in relation to water stress in field-grown beans. Journal of Experimental Botany 56: 425–433. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/eri061.
29. Potropoulos S.A., Khah E.M., and Passam H.C. 2012. Evaluation of rootstocks for watermelon grafting with reference to plant development, yield and fruit quality. International Journal Plant Production 6: 481-492.53(373): 1503-1514. https://doi.org/10.22069/ijpp.2012.761.
30. Tuberosa R. 2011. Phenotyping for drought tolerance of cropin the genomics era: Key concepts, issues and approaches. University of Bolongna, Italy. Frontiers in Physiology Journal 3: 1-26. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2012.00347.
31. Rouphael Y., Schwarz D., Krumbein A., and Colla G. 2010. Impact of grafting on product quality of fruit vegetables. Science Hortculture 127: 172–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2010.09.001.
32. Simsek M., Kacura M., and Tonkaz T. 2004. The effects of different irrigation regimes on watermelon [Citrillus lanatus (Thunb.)] yield and yield components under semi-arid climatic conditions. Australian Journal Agriculture Resource 55: 1149–1157. https://doi.org/10.1071/AR03264.
33. Schwarz D., Rouphael Y., Colla G., and Venema J.H. 2010. Grafting as a tool to improve tolerance of vegetables to abiotic stresses: Thermal stress, water stress and organic pollutants. Science Horticulture 127: 162–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2010.09.016.
34. Shalaby T.A., Taha N.A., Rakha M.T., El-Beltagi H.S., Shehata W.F., Ramadan K.M.A., El-Ramady H., and Bayoumi Y.A. 2022. Can grafting manage fusarium wilt disease of cucumber and increase productivity under heat stress? Plants 11(9): 1147. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11091147.
35. Traka-Mavrona E., Koutsika-Sotiriou M., and Pritsa T. 2000. Response of squash (Cucurbita spp.) as rootstock for melon (Cucumis melo). Scientia Horticulturae 83: 353-362. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4238(99)00088-6.
36. Zhao G., Ma B., and Ren, C. 2007. Growth, gas exchange, chlorophyll fluorescence, and ion content of naked oat in response to salinity. Crop Science 47(1): 123-131. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2006.06.0371.