Indian Journal of Agricultural Research

  • Chief EditorT. Mohapatra

  • Print ISSN 0367-8245

  • Online ISSN 0976-058X

  • NAAS Rating 5.60

  • SJR 0.293

Frequency :
Bi-monthly (February, April, June, August, October and December)
Indexing Services :
BIOSIS Preview, ISI Citation Index, Biological Abstracts, Elsevier (Scopus and Embase), AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus
Indian Journal of Agricultural Research, volume 52 issue 4 (august 2018) : 362-367

Comparison of some physiological responces to salinity and normal conditions in Sugar Beet
 

A.M. Khorshid, F.A. Moghadam, I. Bernousi, S. Khayamim, A. Rajabi
Cite article:- Khorshid A.M., Moghadam F.A., Bernousi I., Khayamim S., Rajabi A. (2018). Comparison of some physiological responces to salinity and normal conditions in Sugar Beet. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 52(4): 362-367. doi: 10.18805/IJARe.A-320.
This study was carried out in the Agricultural Research Center of West Azerbaijan, Iran in 2016. In this research, variations in different physiological and yield traits measurement of total dry weight, shoot fresh weight, shoot dry weight, root fresh weight, root dry weight, relative water content, relative water loss, root length, leaf area, root/shoot ratio, specific leaf weigh, sodium content, potassium content and proline were investigated in normal and saline condition. The results indicated that in saline condition, total dry weight, root fresh weight, shoot dry weight, root/Shoot ratio, specific leaf weight, root length, proline and Na content were increased and the other traits were decreased. Study of correlation of traits showed that most significant difference between the two conditions was observed for the root/shoot ratio, so that, this trait has negative significant relation with total dry weight, shoot fresh weight, shoot dry weight, root fresh weight, root dry weight, relative water content, leaf area, root length, specific leaf weight in saline condition, but in normal condition correlation is positive and significant only in the total dry weight, root fresh weight, shoot dry weight and root dray weight and was not significant in the other traits. Step-wise regression analysis for total dry weight as dependent variable revealed that in normal condition, root fresh weight, shoot fresh weight and Na content expound of 93.1%  and in saline condition root fresh weight, root length, Na content and proline explicate of 81.3% of total variation exist in total dry weight. Therefore, it is suggested to consider different traits in breeding programs for normal and saline conditions.
  1. Abbas F., Mohanna A., Al-Lahham Gh. and AL-Jbawi E., (2012). Osmotic adjustment in sugar beet plant under salinity stress. J. Sugar beet, 28(1):37- 43.
  2. Abdollahian-Noghabi M., (1999). Ecophysiology of sugar beet Cultivars and weed species subjected to water deficiency stress. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Reading, Reading.
  3. Akhtar S.S., Andersen M.N., Naveed M., Zahir Z.A. and Liu F. (2015). Interactive effect of biochar and plant growth-promoting bacterial endophytes on ameliorating salinity stress in maize. Functional Plant Bio., 42(8):770-781.
  4. A.O.A.C., (2000). Association of Official Analytical Chemistry Officinal Methods of Analysis.17th. Ed, Washington, DC USA. 2(44):1- 43.
  5. Ashraf M. and Foolad M.R., (2007). Roles of glycine betaine and proline in improving plant abiotic stress resistance. Env. Exp. Bot., 59:206-216.
  6. Ashraf M. and Harris P.J.C., (2004). Potential biochemical indicators of salinity tolerance in plants. Plant Sci., 166:3-16.
  7. Ashraf M. and McNeilly T. (2004). Salinity tolerance in Brassica oilseeds. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci., 23:157–174.
  8. Barrs H.D. and Weatherly P.E., (1962). A re-examination of the relative turgidity technique for estimating water deficit in leaves. Australian J. Bio. Sci., 15:413-428.
  9. Bates l.S., Waldern R.P. and Teare I.D., (1973). Rapid determination of free proline for water stress studies. Plant and Soil, 39:205-207.
  10. Cooke D.A. and Scott R.K., (1993).The sugar beet crop. Chapman and Hall London, pp. 262-265.Dadkhah A., and Grrifiths G., (2004). Stomatal and nonstomatal components to inhibition of photosynthesis in leaves of sugar beet plants under salt stress. Iranian Agric. Res., 23:35-50.
  11. De Herralde F., Biel C., Save R., Morales M.A., Torrecillas A. and Alarcon J.J. (1998). Effect of water and salt stresses on the growth, gas exchange and water relations in Argyranthemum Coronopiflium plants. Crop Sci., 139:9-17.
  12. Dubey R.S., (1994). Protein synthesis by plants under stressful conditions. In: Handbook of Plant and Crop Stress, [Pessaraki, M. (ED)] Marcel Dekker, New York, pp: 277-299.
  13. FAO AGL. (2000). Land and plant nutrition management service: Global network on integrated soil management for sustainable use of salt affected soils. http://www.fao.org/ag/agl/agll/spush.
  14. Farkhondeh R., Nabizadeh E. and Jalilnezhad N., (2012). Effect of salinity stress on proline content, membrane stability and water relations in two sugar beet cultivars. Int. J. Agric. Sci., 2(5):385-392.
  15. Huang Y., Bie Z., Liu Z., Zhen A. and Wang. W., (2009). Protective role of proline against salt stress is partially related to the improvement of water status and peroxidase enzyme activity in cucumber. Soil Sci. and Plant Nut., 55:698-704.
  16. Jamil M., Shafiqand R. and Rha E.S., (2007). Salinity effect on plant growth, PSII photochemistry and chlorophyll content in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) and cabbage (Brassica oleraceacapitata L.). Pakistan J. Bot., 39(3):753-760.
  17. Kehl M., (2006). Saline soils of Iran with example from the alluvial plain of Korbal, Zagros Mountains. Proceeding of the international conference. Soil and Desertification- Integrated research for the sustainable management of soils in dry lands. Germant.www.desertnet.de/proceedings/start.htm
  18. Lakshmi A., Ramanjulu S., Veeranjaneyulu K. and Sudhakar C., (1996). Effect of NaCl on photosynthesis parameters in two cultivars of mulberry. Photosynthetica, 32(2):285-289.
  19. Malik A.A., Li W.G., Lou L.N., Weng J.H. and Chen J. F., (2010). Biochemical/physiological characterization and evaluation of in vitro salt tolerance in cucumber. African J. Biotec., 9(22):3284-3292.
  20. Mekki, B.B. and El-Gazzar M.M., (1999). Response of root yield and quality of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris, L.) to irrigation with saline water and foliar potassium fertilization. Annals agric. Sci. Ain Shams Univ., Cairo, 44(1):213-225. 
  21. Mengel K. and Kirkby E.A., (1980). Potassuim in crop production. Adv. Agron., 33:59-110.
  22. Moaveni P., Ranji Z. and Noor-Mohammadi G.H., (2004). Study of some physiological parameters and organic composition for salt tolerant and sensitive genotypes of sugar beet. Iranian J. of Crop Sci., 6(1):12-24.
  23. Munns R. (2002). Comparative physiology of salt and water stress. Plant, Cell and Env., 25:239-250.
  24. Morant-Manceau A., Pardir E. and Tremblin G., (2004). Osmotic adjustment, gas exchange and chlorophyll fluorescence of a hexaploid triticale and its parental species under salt stress, J. Plant Physio., 161:25-33.
  25. Narendra K., Roy, Ashwani, Srivastava K., Sharma S.G. and Singh A.K., (2003). Influence of Salinity on sodium, potassium and proline content in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) leaves and its mitigation through presoaking treatments. Indian. Jan J. Agric. Res., 37 (2):128 - 131.
  26. Ober E.S., Bloa M.L., Clark C.J.A., Royal A., Jaggard K.W. and Pidgon J.D., (2005). Evaluation of physiological traits as indirect selection criteria for drought tolerance in sugar beet. Field Crops Res., 91:231-249.
  27. Pakniyat H. and Armion M., (2007). Sodium and praline accumulation as osmoregulators in tolerance of sugar beet genotypes to salinity. Pakistan J. Bot., 10(22):4081-4086.
  28. Rains D.W. and Goyal S.S., (2003). Strategies for managing crop production in saline environments: An overview In: [Goyal S.S., Sharma S.K. and Rains D.W.,] Crop Production in Saline Environments. The Food Products Press. 1-10.
  29. Reda K.A., Shalaby A.A., KishkH. T. and Hegazi A.M., (1980). Some effects of potassium on growth yield and chemical composition of beet irrigated with saline water containing different levels of boron. Ain Shams Univ., Fac. Agric., Res. Bull.12337: 16 pp.
  30. Seaman J., (2007). Mechanisms of salt tolerance in halophytes: Can crop plant resistance to salinity be improved. APS 402 Dissertation. Candidate no: 000124971. 1-11.
  31. Shehata M.M., (1989). Physiological studies on the tolerance of some sugar beet varieties to salinity. Ph.D. Thesis, Fac. Agric., Cairo Univ., Egypt.
  32. Shehata M.M., Shohair A. A. and MostafaS.N., (2000).The effect of soil moisture level on four sugar beet varieties. Egypt. J. Agric. Res., 78(3):1141-1160.
  33. Yang R.C., Jana S. and Clarke J.M., (1991). Phenotypic diversity and associations of some potentially droughtresponsive characters of durum wheat. Crop Sci., 31:1484-1491.
  34. Witkowski E.T.F. and Lamont B.B., (1991). Leaf specific mass confounds leaf density and thickness. Oecologia, 88:486- 490. 

Editorial Board

View all (0)