اثر خشکی و سایه بر رشد چمن فستوکای پابلند (Festuca arundinacea L.) و علف گندمی بیابانی (Agropyron desertorum L.)

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی سابق کارشناسی ارشد، گروه باغبانی، دانشکدۀ کشاورزی، دانشگاه صنعتی اصفهان

2 دانشیار، گروه باغبانی، دانشکدۀ کشاورزی، دانشگاه صنعتی اصفهان

3 استادیار، گروه باغبانی، دانشکدۀ کشاورزی، دانشگاه صنعتی اصفهان

4 استادیار، گروه زراعت و اصلاح نباتات، دانشکدۀ کشاورزی، دانشگاه صنعتی اصفهان

چکیده

اطلاعات اندکی در مورد اثرهای متقابل تنش‏های محیطی بر فیزیولوژی و رشد گیاهان چمنی در اختیار است. همچنین بررسی جداگانۀ یک عامل محیطی بر روی گیاه نمی‌تواند الگوی مناسبی برای شرایط طبیعی باشد. در این پژوهش اثر متقابل سطوح مختلف سایه (0، 50 و 70 درصد) و سطوح خشکی (آبیاری کامل و قطع آبیاری) بر خصوصیات ظاهری بخش هوایی و ریشه‌ای علف گندمی بیابانی (Agropyron desertorum) و فستوکای پابلند (Festuca arundinacea Schreb. ‘Forager’) به‌صورت فاکتوریل در قالب طرح کاملاً تصادفی بررسی شد. تحت سطوح مختلف سایه (50 و 70 درصد) اثر منفی خشکی بر سرعت خشکیدگی، کیفیت ظاهری، نشت یونی و درصد مرگ‌و‌میر ریشه‌های سطحی و عمقی نسبت به نور کامل کاسته شد. از نظر کاربرد زینتی (حفظ کیفیت ظاهری)، تحت شرایط خشکی و نور کامل، گونۀ فستوکای پابلند و تحت تنش خشکی و سایه سطح بالا (70 درصد) گونۀ علف گندمی بیابانی موفق‌تر بود. تحت سایۀ متوسط (50 درصد) و خشکی گونۀ فستوکای پابلند نسبت به علف گندمی بیابانی زمان بیشتری‌ تا خشکیدگی سپری کرد. به نظر می‏رسد اثر متقابل عوامل محیطی از‌جمله شدت نور بر مکانیسم‏های‌ استفاده‌شده در مواجهه با خشکی مؤثر باشند که نیاز به بررسی‏های بیشتری دارد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Effect of drought stress and different levels of shade on the growth and performance of wheatgrass and tall fescue

نویسندگان [English]

  • Amir Sadeghi 1
  • Nematollah Etemadi 2
  • Ali Nikbakht 3
  • Mohammad Reza Sabzalian 4
1 Former M. Sc. Student, Department of Horticulture, College of Agriculture, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran
2 Associate Professor, Department of Horticulture, College of Agriculture, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran
3 Assistant Professors, Department of Horticulture, College of Agriculture, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran
4 Assistant Professor, Department of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, College of Agriculture, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran
چکیده [English]

A few information about the combined effects of different environmental stress on turfgrass physiology and growth is available. Also, a separate study of environmental factors on plant cannot be a suitable model for natural conditions. This study was conducted to investigate the interactive effects of different levels of shade (0, 50, and 70%) and water treatments (well-watered and non-irrigated) on visual quality and root characteristics of wheatgrass (Agropyron deserturum L.) and tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea Schreb. ‘Forager’) in a factorial arrangement based on a completely randomized design. Under different levels of shade (50 and 70%), the negative effects of drought stress on the rate of dehydration, visual quality, ion leakage and the mortality rate of surface and deep roots was reduced. According to the ornamental performance, tall fescue had better performance than the wheatgrass under drought stress conditions and full sunlight, but wheatgrass was more successful than tall fescue under drought stress and 70% shade level. Under moderate shade (50%) and drought stress, tall fescue spent more time to dehydrate than wheatgrass. It can be concluded that in water stress conditions, shading could be useful to cope with drought stress, which needs to be further investigated.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • electrolyte leakage of root
  • root mortality
  • Tall fescue
  • wheatgrass

مراجع

  1. Abraham, E. M., Huang, B., Bonos, S. A. & Meyer, W. A. (2004). Evaluation of drought resistance for Texas bluegrass, Kentucky bluegrass, and their hybrids. Crop Science, 44, 1746-1753.
  2. Aranda, I., Castro, L., Pardos, M., Gil, L. & Pardos, J. A. (2005). Effects of the interaction between drought and shade on water relations, gas exchange and morphological traits in cork oak (Quercus ruber L.) seedlings. Forest Ecology and Management, 210, 117-129.
  3. Climent, J. M., Aranda, I., Alonso, J., Pardos, J. A. & Gil, L. (2006). Developmental constraints limit the response of Canary Island pine seedlings to combined shade and drought. Forest Ecology and Management, 231, 164-168.
  4. Daniel, G. O., Loren, S. T. J. & Jensen, K. B. (2001). Crested Wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum) and Agropyron desertorum accessions. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 70, 707-716.
  5. Fu, J. & Huang, B. (2001). Involvement of antioxidants and lipid peroxidation in the adaption of tow cool season grasses to localized drought stress. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 45, 105-114.
  6. Halliwell, B. (1999). Antioxidantdefence mechanism frome the beginning to the end. Free Radical Research, 31, 261-272.
  7. Holmgren, M., Scheffer, M. & Huston, M. A. (1997). The interplay of facilitation and competition in plant communities. Ecology, 78, 1966-1975.
  8. Holmgren, M. (2000). Combined effects of shade and drought on tulip poplar seedlings: trade-intolerance or facilitation? OIKOS, 90, 67-78.
  9. Huang, B., Duncan, R. R. & Carrow, R. N. (1997). Drought-resistance mechanisms of seven warm-season turfgrasses under surface soil drying: II. Root aspects. Crop Science, 37, 1863-1869.
  10. Huang, B. & Fry, J. D. (1998). Root anatomical, physiological, and morphological responses to drought stress for tall fescue cultivars. Crop Science, 38, 1017-1022.
  11. Huang, B. & Gao, H. (2000). Root physiological characteristics associated with drought resistance in tall fescue cultivars. Crop Science, 40, 196-203.
  12. Knievel, D. P. (1973). Procedures for estimating ratio of live or dead root dry matter in root core samples. Crop Science, 13, 124-126.
  13. Kubiske, M. E., Abrams, M. D. & Mostoller, S. A. (1996). Stomatal and nonstomatal limitations on photosynthesis in relation to the drought and shade tolerance of tree species in open and understory environments. Trees, 11, 76-82.
  14. Man, D., Boa, Y. X., Han, B. & Zhang, X. (2011). Drought tolerance associated with proline and hormone metabolism in two tall fescue cultivars. HortScience, 7,1027-1032.
  15. Marshall, J. D. (1986). Drought and shade interact to cause fine-root mortality in Douglas-fir seedlings. Plant and Soil, 91, 51-70.
  16. McCann, S. E. & Huang, B. (2008). Turfgrass Drought Physiology and Irrigation Management. pp. 431-446. In: M. Pessarakli (Ed), Handbook of Turfgrass Management and Physiology. (pp. 431-446.) CRC Press.
  17. Nobel, P. S. (1999). Physicochemical and environmental plant physiology (2nded.). Academic Press, San Diego. 474 pp.
  18. Richardson, M. D., Karcher, D. E., Hignight, K. & Rush, D. (2008). Drought tolerance and rooting capacity of Kentucky bluegrass cultivars. Crop Science, 48, 2429-2436.
  19. Ruter, J. M. (1993). High-temperature-induced electrolyte leakage from excised leaves and roots of three hollies. HortScience, 28(9), 927-928.
  20. Selahvarzi, Y., Tehranifar, A., Gazanchian, A. & Arooei, H. (2008). Drought resistance mechanisms of native and commercial turfgrasses under drought stress: Root responses. Iranian Journal of Horticultural Sciences, 22(2), 1-12. (in Farsi)
  21. Sheffer, K. M., Dunn, J. H. & Minner, D. D. (1987). Summer drought response and rooting depth of three cool-season turfgrasses. HortScience, 22, 296-297.
  22. Smith, T. & Huston, M. (1989). A theory of the spatial and temporal dynamics of plant communities. Vegetatio, 83, 49-69.
  23. Stier, C. J.& Gardner, D. S. (2008). Shade Stress and Management. In: M, Pessarakli (Ed), Handbook of Turfgrass Management and Physiology. (pp. 447-472.) CRC Press.
  24. Taiz, L. & Zeiger, E. (1998). Plant Physiology. Sinauer Associates, Inc, Sunderland, MA. 792 pp.
  25. Tatari, M., Fotouhi Ghazvini, R., Etemadi, N., Ahadi, A. M. & Mousavi, A. (2013). Study of some physiological responses in three species of turfgrass in drought stress conditions. Journal of Plant Production, 20(1), 63-87. (in Farsi)
  26. Yang, Y., Liu, Q., Han, C., Qiao, Y. Z., Yao, X. Q. & Yin, H. J. (2007). Influence of water stress and low irradiance on morphological and physiological characteristics of Picea asperata seedlings. Photosynthetica, 45(4), 613-619.
  27. Yordanov, I., Velikova, V. & Tsonev, T. (2003). Plant responses to drought and stress tolerance. Bulgarian Journal of Plant Physiology, Special Issue, 187-206.

فایل ها

سابقه مقاله

  • تاریخ دریافت: 06 مهر 1392
  • تاریخ بازنگری: 30 بهمن 1392
  • تاریخ پذیرش: 17 اسفند 1392

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار