Indian Journal of Agricultural Research

  • Chief EditorV. Geethalakshmi

  • 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
Submit

Indian Journal of Agricultural Research, volume 49 issue 4 (august 2015) : 299-307

Physiological responses of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill ) cv. Arka Ashish to elevated atmospheric CO2 under water limiting conditions

H. Mamatha, N.K. Srinivasa Rao, T. Vijayalakshmi
1Division of Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, Indian Institute of Horticultural Research, Bangalore-560 089, India
Cite article:- Mamatha H., Rao Srinivasa N.K., Vijayalakshmi T. (2024). Physiological responses of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill ) cv. Arka Ashish to elevated atmospheric CO2 under water limiting conditions. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 49(4): 299-307. doi: 10.5958/0976-058X.2015.00055.4.

ABSTRACT

The study was conducted to understand the physiological responses of tomato cv. Arka Ashish to 550 ppm elevated CO2 (EC) and to what extent EC alleviates the adverse effects of water stress at peak flowering stage. The plants grown at EC had significantly higher PN with decreased stomatal conductance (gs) and leaf transpiration rate (E) compared to plants grown at 380 ppm ambient CO2 (AC), irrespective of water supply conditions. Plants grown at EC recorded a lower number of stomata on both adaxial and abaxial surfaces. The plants at EC maintained higher water potential(Yw), instantaneous water use efficiency (iWUE) and lower osmotic potential (Ys) at irrigated and water stress condition. Higher SOD and GR activity was observed at EC compared to the plants grown at AC. Increased number of fruits and fruit weight per plant were observed at EC both at control and water stress condition.

REFERENCES

  1. Adams, P. (1990). Effects of watering on the yield, quality and composition of tomatoes grown in bags of peat. J.Hortic.Sci.,65:667-674.
  2. Anonymous. 2014. www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ NOAA/ESRL:Recent monthly average Mauna Loa CO2, March 2014.
  3. Behboudian, H.M. (1994). Carbon Dioxide Enrichment in ‘Virosa’ Tomato Plant: Responses to Enrichment Duration and to Temperature. HortScience., 29:1456-1459.
  4. Bencze, S.; Bamberger, Z.; Janda, K.; Balla, B.; Varga, Z.; Bedo. and Veisz, O. (2014). Physiological response of wheat varieties to elevated atmospheric CO2 and low water supply levels. Photosynthetica., 52:71-82.
  5. Bikash, C.; Sarker and Michihirohara. (2011). Effects of elevated CO2 and water stress on the adaptation of stomata and gas exchange in leaves of eggplants (Solanumm elongena L.). Bangladesh J. Botany., 40:1-8.
  6. Bowes, G. (1996). Photosynthetic responses to changing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. In: Baker N.R.,(1996) ed. Photosynthesis and the environment. Advances in photosynthesis, 5, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, Pp. 387-407.
  7. Bunce, J.A. (1998). Effect of humidity on short-term responses of stomatal conductance to an increase in carbon dioxide concentration. Plant Cell Environ., 21:115-120.
  8. Centritto, M.; Lucas, E.M. and Jarvis, P.G. (2002). Gas exchange, biomass, whole-plant water-use efficiency and water uptake of peach (Prunus persica) seedlings in response to elevated carbon dioxide concentration and water availability. Tree Physiol., 22:699-706.
  9. Clark, H.; Newton, P.C.D and Barker D.J, (1999). Physiological and morphological responses to elevated CO2 and a soil moisture deficit of temperate pasture species growing in an established plant community. J. Exp. Bot., 50:233-242.
  10. Dang, Q.L.; Lieffers, V.J.; Rothwell, R.L.; S.E. and Mcdonald. (1991). Diurnal variation and interrelations of ecophysiological parameters in the three peatland woody species under different weather and soil moisture conditions. Oecologia., 88:317-324.
  11. Doorenbos, J. and Kassam, A.H. (1979). Yield response to water. Food and Agriculture Organization irrigation and drainage paper, 33, Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome. 157pp.
  12. Drake, B.G.; Gonzalez-Meler, M.A. and Long, S.P. (1997). More efficient plants: a consequence of rising atmospheric CO2? Annual Review of Plant Physiology and Plant Molecular Biology, 48:609-639.
  13. Ellsworth, D.S. (1999). CO2 enrichment in a maturing pine forest: are CO2 exchange and water stress in the canopy affected? Plant Cell Environ., 22:461- 472.
  14. Field, C.B.; Jackson, R.B. and Mooney, H.A. (1995). Stomatal responses to increased CO2 - implications from the plant to the global scale. Plant Cell Environ., 18:1214-1225.
  15. Fierro, A.; Tremblay, N. and Andre, G. (1994). Supplemental Carbon Dioxide and Light Improved Tomato and Pepper Seedling Growth and Yield. Hortscience., 29:152-154.
  16. Fleisher, David H., Timlin. Dennis J. and Reddy. V.R. (2008) Elevated carbon dioxide and water stress effects on potato canopy gas exchange, water use, and productivity. Agr. Forest. Meteorol. 148:1109-1122.
  17. Giannopolitis, C.N. and Chloride, S.K. (1977). Superoxide dismutase. I. occurrence in higher plants. Plant Physiol., 59:309- 314.
  18. IPCC, 2013: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
  19. Islam, S.; Khan, S.; James, O. and Garner. (2006). Elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration enhances carbohydrate metabolism in developing Lycopersicon esculentum mill. Cultivars. Int. J. Agri. Biol., 8:157-161.
  20. Jiang, Y.W. and Huang, B.G. (2001). Effects of calcium on antioxidant activities and water relations associated with heat tolerance in two cool-season grasses. J. Exp. Bot., 52:341-349.
  21. Kimball, B.A.; Kobayashi.K. and Bindi, M. (2002). Response of agricultural crops to free air CO2 enhancement. Adv. Agron., 77:293-368.
  22. Leakey, A.D.B.; XU, F.; Gillespie, K.M..; Mcgrath, J.M.; Ainsworth, E.A. and ORT, D.R. (2009). The genomic basis for stimulated respiratory carbon loss to the atmosphere by plants growing under elevated CO2. Proceedings of The National Acadamy of Sciences of The United States of America. 106:3597-3602.
  23. Lin. Jiu-Sheng and Wang. Gen-Xuan (2002). Doubled CO2 could improve the drought tolerance better in sensitive cultivars than in tolerant cultivars in spring wheat. Plant Sci. 163: 627-637.
  24. Lin, J.; Jach, M.E. and Ceulemans, R. (2001). Stomatal density and needle anatomy of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) are affected by elevated CO2. New Phytol., 150:665-674.
  25. Long, S.P.; Ainsworth, E.A.; Rogers, A. and Ort, D.R. (2004). Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide: Plants FACE the future. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol., 55:591-628.
  26. Mamatha, H.; Srinivasa Rao, N. K.; Laxman, R. H.; Shivashankara, K. S.; Bhatt, R. M. and Pavithra. K. C. (2014). Impact of elevated CO2 on growth, physiology, yield, and quality of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill) cv. Arka Ashish. Photosynthetica., 52:519-528.
  27. Paez, A., Hellmers. H. and Strain. B.R., (1984). Carbon dioxide enrichment and water stress interaction on growth of two tomato cultivars. J. Agri. Sci. 102: 687-693.
  28. Peet, M. M..; Willits, D.H.; Tripp, K.E.; Kroen, W.K.; Pharr, D.M.; Deepa, M.A. and Nelson, P.V. 1991. CO2 enrichment responses of chrysanthemum, cucumber and tomato photosynthesis, growth, nutrient concentrations and yield. Impact of global climatic changes on photosynthesis and plant productivity. Proceedings of the indo – US workshop held on 8 – 12 January at New Delhi India. 193-212pp.
  29. Rahman, S.M.L.; Natwata, E. and Sakuratani, T. (1999). Effect of water stress on growth, yield and eco-physiological responses of four tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum. Mill) cultivars. J. Jpn. Soc. Hortic. Sci., 68:499-504.
  30. Rao, N. K.S.; Bhatt, R.M. and Sadashiva, A.T. (2000). Tolerance to water stress in tomato cultivars. Photosynthetica, 38: 465-467.
  31. Reddy, A.R.; Rasineni, G.K. and Raghavendra, A.S. (2010). The impact of global elevated CO2 concentration on photosynthesis and plant productivity. Curr. Sci., 99:46-57.
  32. Richard, A. Reinert.; Gwen Eason. and Jefforybarton., (1997). Growth and fruiting of tomato as influenced by elevated carbon dioxide and ozone. New Phytol., 137:411-420.
  33. Robredo, A.; Perez-Lopez, U.; Lacuesta, M.; Mena-Petite, A. and Munoz-Rueda, A (2010). Influence of water stress on photosynthetic characteristics in barley plants under ambient and elevated CO2 concentrations. Biol. Plantarum., 54:285–292.
  34. Robredo, A.; Perez-Lopez, U.; Sainz DE LA Maza, H.; Gonzalez-Moro, B.; Lacuesta, M.; Mena-Petite, A. and MUNOZ- RUEDA, A. (2007). Elevated CO2 alleviates the impact of drought on barley improving water status by lowering stomatal conductance and delaying its effects on photosynthesis. Environ. Exp. Bot., 59:252-263.
  35. Schwanz, P.; Picon, C.; Vivin, P.; Dreyer, E.; Guehl, J.M. and Polle, A. (1996). Responses of Antioxidative Systems to Drought Stress in Pendunculate Oak and Maritime Pine as Modulated by Elevated CO2. Plant Physiol., 110: 393- 402.
  36. Sionit, N.; Strain,B.R.; Hellmers, H. And Kramer, P.J. (1981). Effects of atmospheric CO2 concentrations water stress on water relations of wheat. Bot. Gaz., 142:191-196.
  37. Stitt, M. (1991). Rising CO2 levels and their potential significance for carbon flow in photosynthetic cells. Plant Cell Environ., 14:741-762.
  38. Tripp. Kim E., Peet Mary M., Pharr. D. Mason, Willits. Daniel H. and Nelson. Paul V. (1991) CO2 Enhanced Yield and Foliar Deformation among Tomato Genotypes in Elevated CO2 Environments. Plant Physiol. 96: 713-719.
  39. Vanaja, M..; Yadav, S.K.; Archana, G.; Jyothi Lakshmi, N.; Ram Reddy, P.R..; Vagheera, P.; Abdul Razak S.K.; Maheswari, M. and Venkateswarlu, B. (2011). Response of C4 (maize) and C3 (sunflower) crop plants to drought stress and enhanced carbon dioxide concentration. Plant Soil Environ., 57: 207–215.
  40. Veitkohler, U.; Krumbein, A. and Kosegarten, H. (1999). Effect of different water supply on plant growth and fruit quality of Lycopersicon esculentum. J. Plant. Nutr. Soil. Sc., 162:583-588.
  41. Von Caemmerer, S. and Farquhar, G.D. (1981). Some relationships between the biochemistry of photosynthesis and the gas exchange of leaves. Planta., 153:376-387.
  42. Ward, J.K.; Tissue, D.T.; Thomas, R.B.; Strain, B.R. (1999). Compara­tive responses of model C3 and C4 plants to drought in low and elevated CO2. Glob. Change. Biol., 5:857-867.
  43. Xiao, C.W.; Sun, O.J.; Zhou, G.S.; Zhao, J.A. and WU, G. (2005). Interactive effects of elevated CO2 and drought stress on leaf water potential and growth in Caragana intermedia. Trees, 19:711-720.
  44. Yelle, S.; Richard, C.; Beeson, J.R.; Marc, J.; Trudel. and Andre Gosselin. (1990). Duration of CO2 enrichment influences growth, yield, and gas exchange of two tomato species. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci., 115:52-57.
  45. Zhang, J. and J.D. Marshall. (1994). Population differences in water use efficiency of well-watered and water-stressed western larch seedlings. Can. J. Forest Res., 24:92-99.
Reviewed By

Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Editorial Board

    View all (0)