Evaluation of Salt-Tolerance Physiological Indices on Some Provender Plants in Saline Areas

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Associate Professor, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, Iran

2 M.Sc., Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, Iran

3 Assistant Professor, Agricultural Biotechnology Research Institute of Iran

Abstract

Use of salt-tolerant cultivars is one of the ways to deal with salinity. Therefore, in order to investigate the physiological aspects of salt tolerance, a factorial experiment based on completely randomized design with three replications was conducted at the Agricultural Biotechnology Research Institute of Iran in 2010. In this experiment, five fodder plant species collected from saline pasture areas in Iran were evaluated at six different salinity levels (0, 50, 100, 150, 200, and 250 mM). Plants were cultivated in sand culture and were supplied daily by Hoagland solution. Salinity treatments were applied for 21 days at the end of vegetative stage and the shoots were sampled. The results showed that the species Festuca ovina had the highest percentage of fresh and dry weights compared to their control (zero salinity). About RWC, with increasing salinity, four species Hordeum vulgare, Festuca arundinacea, Bromus confines and Agropyron elongatum were able to largely maintain their relative water content (RWC), while the reduction of RWC in the species F. ovina was maximum (40%) at the salinity level of 250 mM. The results showed that the maximum absorption of sodium was for H. vulgare and then F. arundinacea, A. elongatum, B. confines and F. ovina, respectively. Also, F. ovina had much lower potassium than the other species. Finally, based on fresh and dry weights and osmotic regulation, results showed that H. vulgare was in the first place for salinity tolerance, followed by F. arundinacea, A. elongatum, B. confines, and F. ovina at lower ranks.

Keywords

References

  1. Ashraf, M. 2002. Salt tolerance of cotton: some new advances. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 21(1):1-30.
  2. Cerus, C.M., R.J. Suido, and C.A. Barassi. 1997. Shoot growth and water status in Azospirillum inoculated with seedlings grown under osmotic and salt stresses. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 35:939-994.
  3. Chen, Z., I. Newman, M. Zhou, N. Mendham, G. Zhang, and S. Shabala. 2005. Screening plants for salt tolerance by measuring K+ flux: a case study for barley. Plant Cell Environ. 28:1230-1246.
  4. Elzam, O.E., and E. Epstein. 1969. Salt relation of two grass species differing in salt tolerance I. Growth and salt content at different salt concentrations. II. Kinetics of the absorption of K+, Na+ and Cl– by their excised roots. Agrochimica, 13:190-196.
  5. Farooq, M., A. Wahid, N. Kobayashi, D. Fujita, and S.M.A. 2009. Plant drought stress: effects, mechanisms and management. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 29:185-212.
  6. Greenway, H., and R. Munns. 1980. Mechanism of salt tolerance in non-halophytes. Rev. Plant Physiol. 31:149-190.
  7. Gorham, J., J. Bridges, J. Dubcovsky, J. Dvorak, P.A. Hollington, M.C. Luo, and J.A. Khan. 1997. Genetic analysis and physiology of a trait for enhanced K+/Na+ discrimination in wheat. New Phytol. 137:109-116.
  8. Khoshkolgh Sima, N.A., H. Askari, H.H. Moirzaei, and M. Pessarakli. 2009. Genotepe-depenent differential responses of three forage species to calcium supplement in saline conditions. J. Plant Nut. 32:579-597.
  9. Munns, R. 2002. Comparative physiology of salt and water stress. Plant Cell Environ. 25:239-250.
  10. Munns, R., R.A. James, and A. Lauchli. 2006. Approaches to increasing the salt tolerance of wheat and other cereals. J. Exp. Bot. 57:1025-1043.
  11. Munns, R., and M. Tester. 2008. Mechanisms of salinity tolerance. Rev. Plant Biol. 59:651-668.
  12. Ping, A., S. Inanaga, Y. Cohen, U. Kafkafi, and Y. Sugimoto. 2002. Salt tolerance in two soybean cultivars. Plant Nutr. 25:407-423.
  13. Rezaei, H., A. KhoshKholgh Sima, M.J. Malakouti, and M. Pessarakli. 2006. Salt tolerance of canola in relation to accumulation and Xylem transportation of cations. Plant nut. 29:1903-1917.
  14. Sairam, R.K. and G.C. Srivastava. Changes in antioxidant activity in sub-cellular fractions of tolerant and susceptible wheat genotypes in response to long-term salt stress. Plant Sci. 162:897-904.
  15. Serraj, R. and T.R. 2002. Osmolyte accumulation: can it really help increase crop yield under drought conditions. Plant Cell Environ. 25:333-341.
  16. Siddiqui, Z.S., M.A. Khanl, B.G. Kim, J.S. Huang, and T.R. Kwon. 2008. Physiological Responses of Brassica napus Genotypes to Combined Drought and Salt Stress. Plant Stress. 2:78-83.
  17. Shannon, M.C., C.M. Grieve, and L.E. Francois. 1994. Whole-plant response to salinity. In Plant- Environment Interactions. (eds). R.E Wilkinson. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp: 199-244.
  18. Tavakoli, F., S. Vazan, F. Moradi, B. Shiran, and K. Sorkheh. 2010. Differential response of salt tolerant and susceptible barley genotypes to salinity stress.  Crop Improve. 24:244-260.
  19. Vysotskaya, L., P.E. Hedley, G. Sharipova, D. Veselov, G. Kudoyarova, J. Morris, and J. Jones. 2010. Effect of salinity on water relations of wild barley plants differing in salt tolerance. Aob Plants.(2010:plq006).
  20. Yousif, B.S., Y.l. Li, N.T. Nguyen, Y. Massaoka, and H. Saneoka. 2010. Comparative studies in sailinity tolerance between New Zealand Spinach(Tetragonia tetragonioides) and Chrd (Beta Vulgaris) to salt stress.    J. 1:19-24.
  21. Zaho, G.Q., B.L. Mab, and C.Z. Ren. 2007. Growth, gas exchanges, chlorophyll fluorescence and ion content of naked oat in response to salinity. Crop Sci. 47:123-131.
Iranian Journal of Soil Research
Volume 27, Issue 4
March 2013
Pages 475-484

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics