تحمل شوری و ارتباط آن با تولید زیست‌توده در ژنوتیپ‌های نخود زراعی

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار، بخش تحقیقات ژنتیک و بانک ژن گیاهی ملی ایران، مؤسسة تحقیقات اصلاح و تهیة نهال و بذر، کرج، ایران

2 استادیار، بخش تحقیقات اصلاح و تهیة نهال و بذر، مرکز تحقیقات کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی خراسان رضوی، نیشابور، ایران

3 کارشناس، تحقیقات خاک و آب، مرکز تحقیقات کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی خراسان رضوی، مشهد، ایران

چکیده

در تحقیق حاضر، تحمل شوری برخی ژنوتیپ‌های نخود تیپ ‘کابلی’ در مرحلة رشد رویشی با کاربرد تیمارهای 7/1، 5/4 و 5/6 دسی‌زیمنس بر متر نمک کلریدسدیم بررسی شد. تیمارهای شوری با افزایش نمک کلریدسدیم به محلول هوگلند 2/1 تهیه شد که به‌عنوان تیمار شاهد درنظر گرفته شده بود. این آزمایش در قالب طرح کرت‌های خردشده به اجرا درآمد. فاکتور اصلی در این آزمایش تیمار شوری و فاکتور فرعی ژنوتیپ‌های انتخابی بود. تیماردهی به مدت چهل روز دنبال شد. از صفاتی نظیر طول ساقه، سطح برگ، محتوای کلروفیل نسبی و نسبت تولید زیست‌توده یادداشت‌برداری به‌عمل آمد. نمونه‌های مختلف عکس‌العمل متفاوتی به غلظت‌های مختلف شوری نشان دادند. رتبه‌بندی ژنوتیپ‌ها براساس میزان تولید زیست‌تودة رویشی تحت تیمارهای شوری در مقایسه با تیمار شاهد و محاسبة شاخص‌های تحمل تنش نشان داد که نمونه‌های 5620، 5941،6364، 6142، 5280، 6356 و 5843 و رقم ‘هاشم’ بیشترین مقدار شاخص‌های تحمل تنش را دارایند. نمونة 6142 بهترین نمونه از نظر تحمل شوری در مرحلة رشد رویشی در تیمار 5/6 دسی‌زیمنس نمک کلریدسدیم بود. کاشت نمونه‌ها در مزرعة تحقیقاتی در ایستگاه فیض‌آباد نیشابور با هدایت الکتریکی عصارة اشباع خاک 8/9 دسی‌زیمنس بر متر که عموماً تحت تأثیر یون‌های سدیم و کلر بود، آسیب شدیدی را به تمامی نمونه‌ها وارد ساخت، به‌طوری که پس از شصت روز از زمان کاشت، تمامی نمونه‌ها از بین رفت. علت این آسیب شدید به دلیل شوری بالای خاک منطقة آزمایش از حد آستانة تحمل این نمونه‌ها بود.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Genetic variation for salinity tolerance and its association with biomass production in cultivated chickpea genotypes

نویسندگان [English]

  • Masoumeh Pouresmael 1
  • Jalal Rastegar 2
  • Mehdi Zangiabadi 3
1 Assistant Professor, Genetics and Plant Genetic Resources Department, Seed and Plant Improvement Institute, Karaj, Iran
2 Assistant Professor, Seed and Plant Improvement Research Department, Agricultural and Natural Resources Research Center of Khorasan Razavi, Neishabur, Iran
3 Expert, Soil and Water Research Department, Agricultural and Natural Resources Research Center of Khorasan Razavi, Mashhad, Iran
چکیده [English]

In this study, salinity tolerance of 51 Kabuli chickpea genotypes was investigated at vegetative growth phase using 4.5 and 6.5 ds/m salt solution (by adding NaCl to 1/2 Hoagland solution) and 1/2 Hoagland solution (EC= 1.7 ds/m) as control treatment. A split plot design was used in this experiment where the main plot was salinity treatments and the sub plot was genotypes. Treatments continued until 40 days and after that, shoot length, leaf area, chlorophyll content and biomass ratio were measured. Genotypes responded differently to saline condition. Based on vegetative biomass production under salt treatments in comparison with control treatment, different salinity tolerance indices calculated. Ranking of genotypes based on these indices indicated that, the genotypes number 5620, 6364, 5941, 5280, 6142, 6356, 5843 and Hashem cultivar were more tolerant to salinity. Under 6.5 ds/m NaCl, genotype 6142 was the most tolerant genotype. Sowing the genotypes at saline soil generally affected by Na+ and Cl- with electrical conductivity of 9.8 ds/m at Neishabur (Feiz abad) field caused strong damages on all the genotypes and 60 days after planting none of the genotypes could survive at saline field. High salinity level in the field in comparison with salinity tolerance threshold of the chickpea genotypes might be the reason for this reaction

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Genetic diversity
  • Kabuli chickpea
  • NaCl
  • salt stress
  • Soil Salinity
1 . پوراسماعیل م و والیانی ا (1390) بررسی تنوع ژنتیکی تحمل شوری در کلکسیون هسته نخود تیپ کابلی بانک ژن گیاهی ملی ایران در مرحله جوانه­زنی. زیست شناسی کاربردی دانشگاه الزهرا. 2(1): 12-31.

2. Abdelmajid K (2009) Differences in response of some tunisian chickpea genotypes (Cicer arietinum L.) to salinity. Pakistan Journal of Botany. 41: 3081-3091.

3. Ashraf M, McNeilly T and Bradshaw AD (1986) The potential for evolution of salt (NaCl) tolerance in seven grass species. New Phytology. 103: 299-309.

4. Bayuelo-Jimenez JS, Debouck DG and Lynch JP (2002) Salinity tolerance in Phaseolus species during early vegetative growth. Crop Science. 42: 2184-2192.

5. Dua RP (1992) Differential response of chickpea genotypes to salinity. Journal of Agricultural Science. 119: 367-371.

6. Esechie H, Al-Saidi A and Al-Khanjari S (2002) Effect of sodium chloride salinity on seedling emergence in chickpea. Crop Science. 188: 155-160.

7. FAO (2009) Second report on the state of the world’s plant genetic resources for food and agriculture commission on genetic resources for food and agriculture. Twelfth Regular Session. Rome. 19-23 October 2009. CGRFA-12/09/Inf.7 Rev.1.

8. Fernandez CJ (1992) Effective selection criteria for assessing plant stress tolerance. Proceedings of the international symposium on adaptation of vegetables and other food crops in temperature and water stress. Taiwan. Pp. 257-270.

9. Flowers TJ (2004) Improving crop salt tolerance. Journal of Experimental Botany. 55: 307-319.

10. Foolad MR (1996) Genetic analysis of salt tolerance during vegetative growth in tomato, Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. Plant Breeding. 115: 245-250.

11. Francois LE and Mass EV (1994) Crop response and management on salt affected soils. In: Pessarakli M (Ed.), Handbook of plant and crop stress. Dekker, New York. Pp. 149-180.

12. Gill PK, Sharma AD, Singh P and Bhullar S (2003) Changes in germination growth and soluble sugar contents of Sorghum bicolor L. Moench seeds under various abiotic stresses. Plant Growth Regulation. 40: 157-162.

13. Grewal HS (2010) Water uptake, water use efficiency, plant growth and ionic balance of wheat, barley, canola and chickpea plants on a sodic vertosol with variable subsoil NaCl salinity. Agricultural Water Management. 97: 148-156.

14. Katerji N, van Hoor n JW, Hamdy A,  Mastrorilli M, Oweis T and Erskine W (2001) Response of two varieties of lentil to soil salinity. Agricultural Water Management. 50: 83-96.

15. Krishnamurthy L, Turner NC, Gaur PM, Upadhyaya HD, Varshney RK, Siddique KHM and Vadez V (2011) Consistent variation across soil types in salinity resistance of a diverse range of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) genotypes. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science. 197: 214-227.

16. Malhotra RS and Blake T (2005) Breeding for salinity tolerance. In: Ashraf M and Philip H (Eds.) Abiotic stresses: Plant resistance through breeding and molecular approaches. Coventry University, Coventry, UK, pp.125-143.

17. Maher L, Armstrong R and Connor D (2003) Salt tolerant lentils - a possibility for the future? Proceedings of the 11th Australian Agronomy Conference. Available at: http://www.regional.org.au/au/asa/2003/c/17/maher.htm. Accessed 10 July 2008.

18. Maliro MFA, McNeil DL, Kollmorgen JF, Pittock C and Redden B (2004) screening chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) and wild relatives' germplasm from diverse sources for salt tolerance. New directions for a diverse planet. Proceedings of 4th International Crop Science Congress, Brisbane, Australia. Available at: http://www.cropscience.org.au.

19. Maliro MFA, McNeil DL, Redden B, Kollmorgen JF and Pittock C (2008) Sampling strategies and screening of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) germplasm for salt tolerance. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution. 55: 53-63.

20. Munns R and James RA (2003) Screening method For Salinity tolerance: a case study with tetraploid wheat. Plant and Soil. 253: 201-218.

21. Peel MD, Waldron BL, Jensen KB, Chatterton NJ, Horton H and Dudley LM (2004) Screening for salinity tolerance in alfalfa: A repeatable method. Crop Science. 44: 2049-2053.

22. Saxena NP (1987) Problems and prospects to screen and breed for tolerance to soil salinity: a case study with chickpea. In: Adaptation of chickpea and pigeonpea to abiotic stresses. Proceedings of Consultant’s Workshop, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Patancheru, AP, India. Pp. 63-76.

23. Saxena NP, Johansen C, Saxena MC and Silim SN (1993) Selection for drought and salinity tolerance in cool-season food legumes. In: Singh KB and Saxena MC (Eds.) Breeding for stress tolerance in cool- season food legumes. International Center for Agricultural Research in Dry Areas. A wiley- Sayce Co- Publication. Pp. 245-269.

24. Schatchman D, Munns PR and Whitecross MI (1991) Variation in sodium exclusion and salt tolerance in Triticum tauschii. Crop Science. 31: 992-997.

25. Serraj R, Krishnamurthy L and Upadhyaya HD (2004) Screening chickpea mini-core germplasm for tolerance to salinity. International Chickpea and Pigeonpea Newsletter. 11: 29-32.

26. Silim SN and Saxena MC (1993) Adaptation of spring – sown chickpea to the Mediterranean basin. II Factors influencing yield under drought. Field Crops Research. 34: 137-146.

27. Singla R and Garg N (2005) Influence of salinity on growth and yield attributes in chickpea cultivars. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Foresty. 29: 231-235.

28. Turner NC, Colmer TD, Quealy J, Pushpavalli R, Krishnamurthy L, Kaur J, Singh G, Siddique KHM and Vadez V (2013) Salinity tolerance and ion accumulation in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) subjected to salt stress. Plant and Soil. 365: 347-361.

29. Vadez V, Krishnamurthy L, Gaur PM, Upadhyaya HD, Hoisington DA, Varshney RK, Turner NC and Siddique KHM (2007) Large variation in salinity tolerance in chickpea is explained by differences in sensitivity at the reproductive stage. Field Crops Research. 104: 123-129.

30. Wang H, Qi Q, Schorr P, Cutler AJ, Crosby WL and  Fowke LC (1998) ICKI, a cyclin dependent protein kinase inhibitor from Arabidopsis thaliana interacts with both Cdc2a and CycDa, and its expression is induced by abscisic acid. Journal of Plant. 15: 501-510.

31. Zhang HX, Hodson J, Williams JP and Blumwald E (2001) Engineering salt-tolerant Brassica plants: characterization of yield and seed oil quality in transgenic plants with increased vacuolar sodium accumulation.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 98: 12832-12836.