ارزیابی تحمل به شوری 140 ژنوتیپ نخود دسی (Cicer arietinum)

نوع مقاله : مقالات پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 گروه بقولات، پژوهشکده علوم گیاهی، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد

2 دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد

چکیده

این مطالعه در قالب طرح کاملاً تصادفی با سه تکرار جهت بررسی تحمل به شوری 140 ژنوتیپ نخود دسی در تنش شوری dSm-112 کلرید سدیم در شرایط هیدروپونیک در سال 1395 در پژوهشکده علوم گیاهی دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد انجام شد. نتایج نشان داد که 21 ژنوتیپ دارای بقای بالاتر از 76 درصد بود که در این میان شش ژنوتیپ MCC18، MCC22، MCC29، MCC59، MCC136 و MCC430 دارای بقای 100 درصد بودند. در دامنه‌های بقای 76-100، 51-75، 26-50 و 0-25 درصد، به ترتیب 43، 57، 42 و 16 درصد از ژنوتیپ‌ها در مراحل رشدی بعد از گلدهی قرار داشتند. با افزایش درصد بقاء، ارتفاع بوته افزایش پیدا کرد، به‌طوری‌که ژنوتیپ‌های موجود در دامنه بقای
76-100 درصد نسبت به ژنوتیپ‌های موجود در دامنه بقای 51-75، 26-50 و 0-25 درصد به ترتیب 4، 5 و 12سانتی‌متر ارتفاع بوته بیشتری داشتند. در دامنه بقای 0-25 درصد، تعداد شاخه‌ فرعی کمتری نسبت به سایر دامنه‌های بقاء مشاهده شد. در دامنه بقای 76-100 و 51-75 درصد، درصد برگ‌های ریزش‌کرده و برگ‌های باقیمانده مشابه بود. بیشترین درصد برگ باقیمانده (73درصد) در ژنوتیپ MCC177 با بقای گیاهچه 75 درصد مشاهده شد. متوسط شاخص پایداری غشاء در دامنه‌های مختلف بقاء با افزایش درصد بقاء پایداری غشاء افزایش یافت. بیشترین شاخص پایداری غشاء مربوط به ژنوتیپ‌های MCC34 و MCC179 به‌ ترتیب با بقای 53 و 85 درصد و پایداری غشاء 52 و 51 درصد بود. با افزایش درصد بقاء، مقدار سدیم کاهش و مقدار پتاسیم افزایش یافت. میزان ماده خشک با افزایش بقاء از 25-0 درصد به 50-26، 51-75 و 76-100 درصد به ‌ترتیب 16، 24 و 38 درصد افزایش یافت. شش ژنوتیپ MCC4، MCC43، MCC22، MCC49، MCC59 و MCC85 بیشترین وزن اندام هوایی را در میان ژنوتیپ‌ها دارا بودند. به‌طورکلی امکان استفاده از ژنوتیپ‌های دارای مکانیسم‌های تحمل به شوری جهت اصلاح برای تنش شوری و همچنین به‌گزینی ژنوتیپ‌های نخود دسی برای شرایط تنش شوری ملایم وجود دارد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Evaluation and selection of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) Deci types for salinity tolerance introduction

نویسندگان [English]

  • Jafar Nabati 1
  • Mohammad Kafi 2
  • Ahmad Nezami 2
  • Elahe Boroumand Rezazadeh 2
1 Research Center for Plant Sciences, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran
2 Ferdowsi University of Mashhad
چکیده [English]

Introduction
The agricultural sector needs to reduce the use of freshwaters and using low quality waters instead of increasing demand for domestic and industrial water uses, along with the reduction of groundwater level. Therefore, using saline water in the future for agricultural production is unavoidable. The soil fertility has been reduced due to decreasing the quality of water resources and increasing salinity in agriculture lands. Saline water and saline soil contain high concentrations of salts such as calcium sulfate and sodium carbonate, although sodium chloride is the dominant salt. Salt stress affects various physiological and metabolic processes in plant and may eventually impede crop production depending on the extent and severity of the stress. In the early stages, a high concentration of solutes present in the soil brings about osmotic stress which reduces the capacity of root systems to absorb water and, that start the loss of leaves water. This is accompanied by ion-specific effects that cause the accumulation of toxic concentration of Na+ and Cl in the cells, which manifest in the form of chlorosis and necrosis. Planting legumes in saline soil is important for conservation of sustainability of production. However, legumes, including chickpea, show low-salinity tolerance and loss yield in saline conditions. To permit crop growth on natural saline soils considerable enhancement of salinity tolerance could be required for the chickpea which is a relatively salt sensitive legume. Therefore, identification and introduction of salt tolerated chickpea cultivars help sustainable crop production in moderate saline areas.
 
Materials and Methods
This study was carried out under hydroponic conditions in the greenhouse of Research Center for Plant Sciences, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad. The experiment was conducted as a completely randomized design with three replications to evaluate salinity tolerance of 140 Deci-type chickpea genotypes during seedling stage in a salinity level of 12 dSm-1 NaCl. Hoagland solution had been used in the sand culture method. Recirculating nutrient system was applied, nutrient solution was replaced weekly and salinity of nutrient solution was adjusted daily, but no acidity adjustments were made in the Hoagland solution. Four weeks after salinity application, growth stages, height plant, branch number, survival percentage, remained leaves, shed leaves, membrane stability index, sodium and potassium concentration were measured.
 
Results and Discussion
Results indicated that survival percentage of 21 genotypes was more than 76% among which, six genotypes of MCC18، MCC22، MCC29، MCC59، MCC136 and MCC430 showed 100% survival. In the survival range of 76-100, 51-75, 26-50 and 0-25%, 43, 57, 42 and 16 percent of genotypes were in the post-flowering stages, respectively. Plant height increased with increasing survival range, so that the genotypes in the survival range of 76-100% were 4, 5 and 12 cm higher than the survival range of 51-75, 26-50 and 0-25%, respectively. The highest plant was observed in MCC59 genotype with 100% survival range. The lowest number of branches per plant was observed in the 0-25% survival range. With increasing survival range percentage of shed leaves decreased and the percentage of remained leaves increased. The same percentage of shed leaves and the remained leaves were observed in the survival range of 76-100% and 51-75%. In three survival range 76-100%, 51-75%, and% 26-50, the shed leaves were about 50%. The highest percentage of remained leaves (73%) was observed in MCC177 genotype with 75% survival. The membrane stability index increased with raise up survival range. There were no difference in survival range of 26-50 and 51-75% in membrane stability index, but in the survival range of 76-100%, membrane stability 6% increased compared to the two previous survival ranges. The highest membrane stability index observed at MCC34 (53%) and MCC179 (52%) with 85%, 51% survival, respectively. However, among genotypes in 100% survival some genotypes, such as MCC29 and MCC136, had a relatively low membrane stability index. With rising up survival range, sodium concentration decreased and potassium increased. Sodium to potassium ratio was also decreased with increasing survival range. Dry matter productions per plant increased with improving survival range. Dry matter from 0-25% to 26-50%, 51-75% and 76-100% survival range, increased 16%, 24%, and 38%, respectively. MCC4, MCC43, MCC22, MCC49, MCC59 and MCC85 had the highest dry matter productions.
 
Conclusion
The correlation between traits showed the positive correlation between survivals and remained leaves which is depended on maintaining membrane stability and decreasing sodium uptake in plant. Based on this information, chickpea genotypes have salt tolerance mechanisms and it is possible to use these genotypes for breeding programs for moderate salinity stress conditions.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Hydroponics
  • membrane
  • Potassium
  • Sodium
  • Survival
  1. Asha Dhingra, H.R. 2007. Salinity mediated changes in yield and nutritive value of chickpea (Cicer arietinum) seeds. Indian Journal Plant Physiology 12: 271-275.
  2. Ashraf, M., and Waheed, A. 1993. Responses of some genetically diverse lines of chick pea (Cicer arietinum) to salt. Plant and Soil 154: 257-266.
  3. Chenarani, M., Safipour Afshar, A., and Saied Nematpour, F. 2015. Physiological and biochemical responses of chickpea (Cicer arietinum) to Ascorbic acid under salinity stress. Iranian Journal of Plant Physiology and Biochemistry 1(1): 63-76.
  4. Dantas, B.F., Ribeiro, L.D., and Aragao, C.A. 2005. Physiological response of cowpea seeds to salinity stress. Revista Brasileira de Sementes 27(1): 144-148.
  5. Doraki, Gh.R., Zamani, Gh.R., and Sayyari, M.H. 2018. Effect of salt stress on yield components and concentrations of sodium and potassium in chickpea (Cicer arietinum cv. Azad). Iranian Journal of Pulses Research 9(1): DOI: 10.22067/ijpr.v9i1.53816. (In Persian with English Summary).
  6. Statistics. Agriculture Statistics of Iran 2016, http://faostat3.fao.org.
  7. Flowers, T.J., Gaur, P.M., Laxmipathi Gowda, C.L., Krishnamurthy, L., Samineni, S., Siddique, K.H.M., Turner, N.C., Vadez, V., Varshney, R.K., and Colmer, T.D. 2010. Salt sensitivity in chickpea. Plant, Cell and Environment 33: 490-
  8. Garcia-Sanchez, F., Jifon, J.L., Carvaial, M., and Syvertsen, M. 2002. Gas exchange, chlorophyll and nutrient contents in relation to Na+ and Cl- accumulation in ‘Sunburst’ mandarin grafted on different rootstocks. Plant Science 162: 705-712.
  9. Garg, N., and Singla, R, 2009. Variability in the response of chickpea cultivars to short-term salinity, in terms of water retention capacity, membrane permeability, and osmo-protection. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry 33: 57-63.
  10. Grattan, S.R., and Grieve, C.M. 1992. Mineral element acquisition and growth response of plants grown in saline environment. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 38: 275-300.
  11. Gupta, B., and Huang, B. 2014. Mechanism of salinity tolerance in plants: physiological, biochemical, and molecular characterization. International Journal of Genomics 2014; https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/701596,
  12. Hasegawa, P.M., Bressnan, R.A., Zhu, J.K., and Bohnert, H.J. 2000. Plant cellular and molecular responses to high salinity. Annual Review of Plant Physiology and Plant Molecular Biology 51: 463-499.
  13. Hoagland, D.R., and Arnon, D.L. 1950. The water culture method for growing plants without soil. California Agricultural Experiment Station Circular pp: 347.
  14. Horie, T., Hauser, F., and Schroeder, J.I. 2009. HKT transporter-mediated salinity resistance mechanisms in Arabidopsis and monocot crop plants. Trends in Plant Science 14(12): 660-668.
  15. Islam, M.Z., Baset Mia, M.A., Islam, M.R., and Akter, A. 2007. Effect of different saline levels on growth and yield attributes of mutant rice. Journal of Soil and Nature 1(2): 18-22.
  16. Jamil, A., Riaz, S., Ashraf, M., and Foolad, M.R. 2011. Gene Expression profiling of plants under salt stress. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 30(5): 435-
  17. Kao, W.Y. 2011. Na, K and Ca contents in roots and leaves of three glycine species differing in response to Nacl treatments. Taiwania 56(1): 17-22.
  18. Kapoor, N., and Pande, V. 2015. Effect of salt stress on growth parameters, moisture content, relative water content and photosynthetic pigments of fenugreek variety RMt-1. Journal of Plant Sciences 10(6): 210-221.
  19. Khan, H., Siddique, K.H.M., and Colmer, T.D. 2017. Vegetative and reproductive growth of salt-stressed chickpea are carbon-limited: sucrose infusion at the reproductive stage improves salt tolerance. Journal of Experimental Botany 68(8): 2001-2011.
  20. Khan, H., Siddique, K.H.M., Munira, R., and Colmer, T.D. 2015. Salt sensitivity in chickpea: growth, photosynthesis, seed yield components and tissue ion regulation in contrasting genotypes. Journal of Plant Physiology 182: 1-12.
  21. Khan, M., Shirazi, M., Khan, M.A., Mujtaba, S., Islam, E., Mumtaz, S., Shereen, A., Ansari, R., and Ashraf, M.Y. 2009. Role of proline, K/Na ratio and chlorophyll content in salt tolerance of wheat (Triticum aestivum). Pakistan Journal of Botany 41(2): 633-638.
  22. Mahlooji, M., Seyed Sharifi, R., Razmjoo, J., Sabzalian, M.R., and Sedghi, M. 2018. Effect of salt stress on photosynthesis and physiological parameters of three contrasting barley genotypes. Photosynthetica 56(2): 549-
  23. Muehlbauer, F.J., and Sarker, A. 2017. Economic Importance of Chickpea: Production, Value, and World Trade. In The Chickpea Genome (pp. 5-12). Springer, Cham.
  24. Munns, R., 2005. Genes and salt tolerance: bringing them together. New Phytologist 167: 645-663.
  25. Munns, R., and Gilliham, M. 2015. Salinity tolerance of crops-what is the cost? New phytologist 208(3): 668-673.
  26. Munns, R., and Tester, M. 2008. Mechanisms of salinity tolerance. Annual Review of Plant Biology 59: 651-681.
  27. Negrão, S., Schmöckel, S.M., and Tester, M. 2017. Evaluating physiological responses of plants to salinity stress. Annals of Botany 119(1): 1-11.
  28. Pouresmael, M., Rastegar, J., and Zangiabadi, M. 2014. Genetic variation for salinity tolerance and its association with biomass production in cultivated chickpea genotypes. Agricultural Crop Management (Journal of Agriculture) 16(3): 749-763.
  29. Razavi, S.M.A., Zaerzadeh, E., Khafaji, N., and Pahlevani, M. Some physical properties of seeds and splits of Desi chickpea (Kaka var.). Iranian Journal of Pulses Research 1(1): 77-83. (In Persian with English Summary).
  30. Roy, S.J., Tucker, E., and Tester, M. 2011. Genetic analysis of abiotic stress tolerance in crops. Current Opinion in Plant Biology 14(3): 232-239.
  31. Sakuraba, Y., Kim, D., Kim, Y.S., Hörtensteiner, S., and Paek, N.C. 2014. Arabidopsis STAYGREEN-LIKE (SGRL) promotes abiotic stress-induced leaf yellowing during vegetative growth. Federation of European Biochemical Societies Letters 588(21): 3830-3837.
  32. Shahid, M.A., Balal, R.M., Pervez, M.A., Abbas, T., Ashfaq, M., Ghazanfar, U., Afzal, M., Rashid, A., Garcia-Sanchez, F., and Mattson, N.S. 2012. Differential response of pea (Pisum sativum) genotypes to salt stress in relation to the growth, physiological attributes antioxidant activity and organic solutes. Australian Journal of Crop Science 6(5): 828.
  33. Shalhevet, J., Huck, M.G., and Schroeder, B.P. 1995. Root and shoot growth responses to salinity in maize and Agronomy Journal 87(3): 512-516.
  34. Shereen, A., Mumtaz, S., Raza, S., Khan, M.A., and Solangi, S. 2005. Salinity effects on seedling growth and yield components of different inbred rice lines. Pakistan Journal of Botany 37(1): 131-139.
  35. Siddique, K.H.M., Johansen, C., Turner, N.C., Jeuffroy, M.H., Hashem, A., Sakar, D., Gan, Y., and Alghamdi, S.S. 2011. Innovations in agronomy for food legumes. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 32(1): 45-
  36. Singla, R., and Garg, N. 2005. Influence of salinity on growth and yield attributes in chickpea cultivars. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry 29: 231-235.
  37. Tandon, H.L.S., 1995. Methods of Analysis of Soils, Plants, Water and F FDCO, New Delhi.
  38. Tester, M., and Davenport, R. 2003. Na+ tolerance and Na+ transport in higher plants. Annals of Botany 91: 503-
  39. Welfare, K., Yeo, A.R., and Flowers, T.J. 2002. Effects of salinity and ozone, individually and in combination, on the growth and ion contents of two chickpea (Cicer arietinum) varieties. Environmental Pollution 120(2): 397-403.
  40. Zare Mehrjerdi, M., Nabati, J., Massomi, A., Bagheri, A.R., and Kafi, M. 2011. Evaluation of tolerance to salinity based on root and shoot growth of 11 drought tolerant and sensitive chickpea genotypes at hydroponics conditions. Iranian Journal of Pulses Research 2(2): 83-96. (In Persian with English Summary).
  41. Zawude, S., and Shanko, D. 2017. Effects of salinity stress on chickpea (Cicer arietinum) landraces during early growth stage. International Journal of Scientific Reports 3(7): 214-219.