بررسی تأثیر محلول پاشی متانول بر ویژگی های کیفی، عملکرد و اجزای عملکرد سویا (Glycine max L.) تحت تنش خشکی

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

دانشگاه زابل

چکیده

به‌منظور بررسی تأثیر محلول‌پاشی متانول بر ویژگی‌های کمی، هدایت روزنه‌ای و محتوای پرولین سویا در شرایط تنش خشکی، آزمایشی به‌صورت کرت‌های خرد شده در قالب بلوک‌های کامل تصادفی با سه تکرار در مزرعه پژوهشی دانشکده کشاورزی مغان در سال 1390 اجرا گردید. تنش خشکی در سه سطح شامل: آبیاری پس از 40 (شاهد)، 55 و 70 درصد تخلیه رطوبت قابل دسترس به‌عنوان عامل اصلی و محلول‌پاشی متانول در چهار سطح شامل: عدم محلول‌پاشی، محلول‌پاشی با 7، 21 و 35 درصد حجمی متانول به‌عنوان عامل فرعی لحاظ شدند. نتایح نشان داد که تأثیر تنش خشکی و محلول‌پاشی متانول بر ارتفاع بوته، تعداد برگ در بوته، سطح برگ، تعداد غلاف و دانه در بوته، وزن هزاردانه، عملکرد بیولوژیک و دانه، هدایت روزنه‌ای و محتوای پرولین برگ معنی‌دار شد. افزایش تنش خشکی موجب افزایش محتوای پرولین برگ و کاهش سایر ویژگی‌ها گردید، به‌طوری‌که تیمار آبیاری پس از 70 درصد تخلیه رطوبتی قابل دسترس در مقایسه با تیمار شاهد موجب کاهش 51/2 درصد عملکرد دانه شد. با محلول‌پاشی متانول تا 21 درصد حجمی تمام ویژگی‌های مورد بررسی به‌جز محتوای پرولین افزایش و افزایش درصد حجمی متانول بیشتر از آن سبب کاهش آنها گردید. محلول‌پاشی متانول با 21 درصد حجمی بیشترین تأثیر را بر ویژگی‌های کمی و هدایت روزنه‌ای داشت، به‌طوری‌که موجب افزایش 25/6 درصد عملکرد دانه گردید.

کلیدواژه‌ها


1. Aminifar J., Biglouei, M. H., Mohsenabad, G., and Samiezadeh, H. 2012. Effect of deficit irrigation on quantitative and qualitative yield of seven soybean cultivars in rashtregion. Electronic Journal of Crop Production 5 (2): 93-109. (in Persian with English abstract).
2. Ball, R. A., Purcell, L. C., and Vories, D. 2000. Short-season soybean yield compensation in response to population and water regime. Crop Science 40: 1070-1078.
3. Bates, I. S., Waldren, P. R., and Teare, I. D. 1973. Rapid determination of free proline for water stress studies. Plant and Soil 39: 205-207.
4. Chabok, B. 1996. Evaluation of effective physiological indices on drought resistance in chickpea. MSc dissertation, Faculty of Agriculture, Islamic Azad University, Karaj Unit. (in Persian with English abstract).
5. Clover, G., Smith, H., and Jaggard, K. 1998. The crop under stress. British Sugar Beet Review 66 (3): 17-19.
6. Daneshiyan, J. 2000. The study of drought stress ecophysiological effect on soybean. PhD, dissertation, Islamic Azad University, Research Center Tehran Unit. (in Persian with English abstract).
7. 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.
8. During, H., 1992. Evidence for osmotic adjustment to drought in grapevines (Vitis vinifera L.). Journal of Grapevine Research 23: 1-10.
9. Fall, R., and Benson, A. 1996. Leaf methanol, the simplest natural product from plants. Trends Plant Science 1: 296-301.
10. Gonzalez, A. M. 2005. Physiological responses of tagasaste to a progressive drought in its native environment on the Canary Islands. Environment Experiment Botany 53: 195-204.
11. Grieshop, C. M., and Fahey, G. C. Jr. 2001. Comparison of quality characteristics of soybeans from Brazil, China, and the United States. Agriculture Food Chemical 49: 2669-2673.
12. Hsiao, T. C. 2000. Leaf and root growth in relation to water status. HortScience 35: 1051-1058.
13. Humble, G. D., and Hsiao, T. C. 1970. Light- dependent influx and efflux of potassium of guard cell during stomatal opening and closing. Plant Physiology 46: 483-487.
14. Humble, G. D., and Raschke, K. 1971. Stomatal opening quantitatively related to potassium transport. Plant Physiology 48: 447- 453.
15. Ivanova, E. G., Dornina N. V., and Trotsenko, Y. A. 2001. Arabic methyl bacteria are capable of synthesizing axins. Microbiology 70: 392-397.
16. Latifi, N. 1991. The Soybean Crops (cultivation, physiology, cultivation). Jahade Daneshgahi Mashhad. 280 p. (in Persian).
17. Leport, L., Turner, N. C., French, R. J., Tennant, D., Thomson, B. D., and Siddique, K. H. M. 1998. Water relation, gas exchange, and growth of cool-season grain legumes in a Mediterranean-type environment. European Journal Agronomy 9: 295-303.
18. Li, Y., Gupta, J., and Siyumbano, A. K. 1995. Effect of methanol on soybean photosynthesis and chlorophyll. Journal Plant Nutrients 18: 1875-1880.
19. Liu, F., Andersen, M. N., and Jensen, C. R. 2004. Root signal controls pod growth in drought-stressed soybean during the critical abortion-sensitive phase of pod development. Field Crop Research 85: 159-166.
20. Mahlooji, M., Mousavi, S. F., and Karimi, M. 2000. The effects of water stress and planting date on yield and yield components of pinto bean (phaseolus vulgaris), Journal of Water and Soil Science 4 (1): 57-68. (in Persian with English abstract).
21. Makhdum, M. I., Malik, M. N. A., Din, S. U., Ahmad, F., and Chaudhry, F. I. 2002. Physiological response of cotton to methanol foliar application. Journal Research 13: 37-43.
22. Mirakhori, M., Paknejad, F., Moradi, F., Ardakani, M., Zahedi, H., and Nazeri, P. 2009. Effect of drought stress and methanol on yield and yield components of soybean max (L 17). American Journal of Biochemistry and Biotechnology 5 (4): 162-169.
23. Nadali, A., Paknejad, F., Moradi, F., and Vazan, S. 2009. Effects of methanol on yield and some quality characteristics of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) cv. Raoul in drought and non-drought stress conditions. Seed and Plant Production Journal 26 (1): 95-108.
24. Nonomura, A. M., and Benson, A. 1992. The path of carbon in photosynthesis: improved crop yields with methanol. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 89: 9794-9798.
25. Palmer, J. E., Dunphy, J., and Reese, P. 1995. Managing drought- stressed soybeans in the southeast. North Carolina cooperative extension service as publication number AG-519-12. http://www.ces.ncsu.Edu/drought/dro-24.Html.
26. Pourmosavi, S. M., Galavi, M., Daneshiyan, J., Ganbari, A., Basirani, N., and Jonobi, P. 2008. Effect of animal manure application on quantitative and qualitative yield of soybean in drought stress conditions. Iranian Journal of Field Crop Science 40 (1): 133-145. (in Persian with English abstract).
27. Rajinder, S. D. 1987. Glutathione status and protein synthesis during drought and subsequent dehydration in Torularulis. Plant Physiology 83: 816-819.
28. Ramberget, H. A., Bradley, J. S. C., Olsen, J. S. C., Nishio, J. N., Markwell, J., and Osterman, J. C. 2002. The role of methanol in promoting plant growth: an update. Review Plant Biochemistry and Biotechnology 1: 113-126.
29. Ramirez, I., Dorta, F., Espinoza, V., Jimenez, E., Mercado, A., and Pen Cortes, A. 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.
30. Sadeghipour, O. 2009. The Influence of water stress on biomass and harvest index in three mungbean (Vigna radiata L., Wilczek) varieties. Asian Journal Science 8 (3): 245-249.
31. Safarzade vishgahi, M. N., Noormohamadi, G., and Hagidi Haravan, A. 2005.Effect of methanol on peanut function and yield components. Journal of Agricultural Sciences 87-104. (in Persian with English abstract).
32. Shahmoradi, Sh. 2003. Effects of drought stress on qualitative and quantitative traits in soybean cultivars and advanced lines. MSc dissertation, Faculty of Agriculture Tehran University. (in Persian with English abstract).
33. Stewart, G. R. 1992. Physiology and biochemistry of drought resistance in plant. Aspinnal New York.
34. Syros, T. 2004. Photosynthetic response and peroxides in relation to water and nutrient deficiency in gerbera. Environment Experiment Botany 52: 23-31.
35. Wu, R., and Garg, A. 2003. Engineering rice plants with trehalose producing genes improves tolerance to drought, salt and low temperature. ISB News, February.
36. Zbiec, I. I., Karczmarczyk, S., and Koszanski, Z. 1999. Influence of methanol on some cultivated plants. Department of Plant Production and Irrigation, Agriculture University of Szczecin Poland 73: 217-220.
37. Zbiec, I., Karczmarczyk, S., and Podsiado, C. 2003. Response of some cultivated plants to methanol as compared to supplemental irrigation. Electronic Journal of Polish Agricultural Universities 6 (1): 1-7.
CAPTCHA Image