تأثیر تنش هم‌زمان خشکی و شوری بر جذب آب و پتانسیل آب برگ درخت بادام در شرایط نیمه‌خشک

نوع مقاله : مقالات پژوهشی

نویسندگان

• اژدر عُنّابی میلانی
• محمد زرین بال

سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی

https://doi.org/10.22067/jsw.v33i6.76735

چکیده

درخت بادام تحمل خوبی به کم آبی دارد و مناسب کاشت در مناطق خشک و نیمه­خشک نظیر ایران است اما حساسیت آن به شوری، مدیریت آبیاری آن را با چالش­هایی مواجه کرده است. این مطالعه با هدف بررسی تأاثیر تنش هم‌زمان خشکی و شوری بر جذب آب، رشد رویشی و پتانسیل آب برگ درخت بادام در قالب طرح بلوک‌های کامل تصادفی با سه تیمار شوری آب، شامل آب چاه با شوری dS/m2 (T1)، و آب‌های شور شده با نمک‌هایی با همان ترکیب آب چاه dS/m4 (T2) و dS/m5 (T3) در سه تکرار در خاکی با بافت شن لومی اجرا شد. در طول فصل رشد، دما و رطوبت نسبی هوا، پتانسیل آب برگ (LWP) و رطوبت خاک (SWC) تا عمق 70 سانتی‌متر اندازه‌گیری گردید. نتایج نشان داد که شوری تأثیر معنی‌داری (P<0.01) بر LWP، رشد رویشی و مقدار آب باقیمانده خاک دارد. متوسط فصلی رشد طولی سرشاخه و رشد قطری تنه در درخت بدون تنش به­ترتیب 104 سانتی­متر و 53 درصد بود که در تیمار تنش هم­زمان خشکی و شوری (T3) به­ترتیب به 62 سانتی­متر و 18 درصد کاهش یافت. متوسط فصلی LWP برای تیمارهای T1 تا T3 به‌ترتیب 78/1-، 93/1- و 16/2- مگاپاسکال بدست آمد. ارتباط معنی‌داری بین LWP با کمبود فشار بخار هوا و SWC حاصل شد. حد آستانه‌ای LWP برای شروع تنش، 78/1- مگاپاسکال بدست آمد. براساس پتانسیل آب برگ آستانه­ای تنش، کمینه رطوبت حجمی خاک برای تیمارهای T1 تا T3 برای اجتناب از تنش به‌ترتیب 1/10، 8/11 و 5/13 درصد تعیین شد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

• پتانسیل آب ساقه
• رطوبت خاک
• قطر تنه
• کمبود فشار بخار

20.1001.1.20084757.1398.33.6.6.7

عنوان مقاله [English]

The Effects of Simultaneous Drought and Salinity Stresses on Growth, Water Uptake and Leaf Water Potential of Almond in Semi-Arid Condition

نویسندگان [English]

• A. Onnabi Milani
• M. Zarrinbal

Agricultural Research Education and Extention Organization

چکیده [English]

Introduction: Almond (Prunus dulcis) has an important role in the agricultural economy of north-west of Iran, especially Azerbaijan provinces. Due to arid and semi-arid conditions of our country, large areas of cultivated land are affected by salinity. Almond trees have good tolerance to water stress, and are suitable for such conditions. However, sensitivity of almond trees to salinity calls for special attention to the integrated effect of salinity and water stress on its water relations. This trial aimed to evaluate the combined effect of salinity and drought stress on water uptake, vegetative growth and leaf water potential (LWP) of almond trees.
Materials and Methods: The experiment was conducted at the Sahand Horticultural Station located in East Azerbaijan, Iran (37o 55' 43'' N, 45o 57' 29'' E) during 2014 growing season at 7 years old almond (cv Azar) trees grafted on GF677 rootstock based on randomized complete block design with three replications. Treatments comprised three irrigation salinity levels viz. 2 (T1), 4 (T2), and 5 (T3) dSm-1. The soil of the experiment site was coarse loamy mixed calcareous mesic typic xerofluvents. Undisturbed and composite disturbed soil samples were taken from three diagnostic layers. Twelve undisturbed core samples were taken from each layer. Composite disturbed soil samples were air-dried and ground to pass a 2-mm sieve.  All the appropriate soil chemical (Organic matter and Calcium carbonate content, pH and EC, Total N, Available P and K) and physical (Particle size distribution, natural bulk density) properties were measured by the routine laboratory methods. Water contents at field capacity (FC) and permanent wilting point (PWP) were determined by the pressure plate apparatus. After irrigation of all trees with 200 mm water enough for saturating of soil in rooting depth on 20th of May, the measurements began. The volumetric soil water content (SWC) was measured at three locations around each tree 30 cm apart from tree trunk at three depths (0‒20, 0‒40 and 0‒70) using a TDR probe. During the experiment (20th May till 17th October), air temperature and relative humidity were obtained from the meteorological site located in the station. The midday leaf water potential (LWP) was measured from the leaves located in north part of trees close to stem between 12 and 14 o’clock.
Result and Discussion: Results indicated that salinity has significant effect (p<0.01) on LWP, vegetative growth and remaining water content. The difference between T3 and other treatments was not significant in SWC more than 8%. Therefore, it is obvious that, at SWC less than 8%, reduction in soil water potential due to increased osmotic pressure of soil solution in T3 have caused that, trees unable to uptake more water. Therefore, at SWCs less than 8%, remaining water content in T3 was significantly more than other treatments. Seasonal averages of annual vegetative growth and increase in trunk diameter in unstressed tree was 104 cm and 53%, respectively and decreased to 62 cm and 18% in T3 respectively. Seasonal averages of LWP for treatment T1 to T3 were ˗1.78, ˗1.93 and ˗2.16 MPa respectively. Whereas unstressed trees had highest LWP (-1.53 MPa). Highest and lowest LWP for treatment T1 to T3 were -1.20, -1.32 and -1.35 and -2.38, -2.47 and -2.73 MPa respectively. LWP of unstressed trees was between -1.1 and -2.0 MPa. There was significant negative correlation between LWP and VPD. The slope of regression equation increased as stress severity increased. This means that, for a given VPD, leaf water potential was declined with increase in salinity of irrigation water. LWP is affected by two stresses namely evaporative demand of the atmosphere (atmospheric-induced stress) and unavailability of water due to the reduction of soil water content (soil-induced stress). In well-watered plants, LWP is affected only by atmospheric factors (VPD) and therefore the relationship between LWP and SWC should not be significant as it took place in our experiment for unstressed trees. But there was a significant relationship between LWP and SWC in stressed treatments (T1 to T3) because of soil-induced stress. Threshold value of LWP for initiating stress was obtained to be -1.78 MPa. Based on the threshold LWP, values of SWC for initiating stress for treatment T1 to T3 can be 10.1, 11.8 and 13.5%, respectively.
Conclusion: Based on our findings, the midday leaf water potential is a suitable criterion for determining water status of almond trees in the studied area and can be used as an indicator for tree water and salinity stresses. Irrigation water salinity had significant effect on LWP. Due to relationship between LWP and soil water content (SWC), this indicator can be used for determination of soil available water and non-limiting water range of almond trees. Besides LWP, salinity also had a significant effect on vegetative growth and extractable soil water content. At high water content, the effect of salinity on extractable water content was not significant. But with decreasing water content, the effect of salinity increased so that, at SWC less than about 8%, the remaining SWC in saline condition was significantly higher than non-saline condition (extractable water in the saline condition was less than non-saline condition). Salinity also reduced soil available water range of almond trees., LWP reached to its threshold value (-1.78 MPa) at SWC equal to 10 and 13.5% in non-saline and saline condition respectively.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

• Soil water content
• stem water potential
• trunk diameter
• Vapor pressure deficit

مراجع

1- Aliasgharzad N. 2000. The abundance and distribution of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in saline soils of the Tabriz plain and their inoculation effects on the improvement of salt tolerance in onion and barley. Ph.D Thesis, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran. (In Persian with English abstract)

2- Bartels D., and Sunkar R. 2005. Drought and salt tolerance in plants. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci., 24: 23–58.

3- Carrow R.N., and Duncan R.R. 1998. Salt-affected turfgrass sites: Assessment and management. Sleeping Bear Press, Farmington Hills, MI.

4- Chalmers D.J., Burge G., Jerie P.H., and Mitchell P.D. 1986. The mechanism of regulation of Bartlett pear fruit and vegetative growth by irrigation with holding and regulated deficit irrigation. Journal of the American Society of Horticultural Science 111: 904–907.

5- Chalmers D.J., Mitchell P.D., and Vanheek L. 1981. Control of peach tree growth and productivity by regulated water supply, tree density and summer pruning. Journal of the American Society of Horticultural Science 106: 307–312.

6- Charrera M., Parasi G.A., and Monet R. 1998. Rootstock influence on the performance of the peach variety "Catherine". Acta Horticulturae 465: 573–577.

7- Chauvin W., Ameglio T., Prunet J.P., and Soing P. 2006. Irrigation of walnut trees managing the water potential. Acta Horticulturae 705: 473–477.

8- Chone X., Van Leeuwen C., Dubourdieu D., and Gaudillère J.P. 2001. Stem water potential is a sensitive indicator of grapevine water status. Annals of Botany 87: 477–483.

9- El Gharbi A., and Jraidi B. 1994. Performance of rootstocks of almond, peach and peach × almond hybrids with regard to iron chlorosis. Acta Horticulturae 373: 91-97.

10- FAO. 1994. Land degradation in South Asia: Its severity, causes and effects upon the people. World Soil Resources Reports. FAO, Rome.

11- Flowers T.J. 1999. Salinization and horticultural production. Scientia Horticulturae 78: 1–4.

12- Flowers T.J., and Yeo A.R. 1986. Ion relations of plants under drought and salinity. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 13: 75–91.

13- Fulton A., Buchner R., Olson W., and Shackel K. 2001. Rapid equilibration of leaf and stem water potential under field conditions in almonds, walnuts, and prunes. HortTechnology 11(4): 609–615.

14- Garcia-Tejero I., Duran-Zuazo V.H., Arriaga J., Hernandez A., Velez L.M., and Muriel-Fernandez J.L. 2012. Approach to assess infrared thermal imaging of almond trees under water-stress conditions. Fruits 67: 463–474.

15- Garnier E., and Berger A. 1985. Testing water potential in peach trees as an indicator of water stress. Journal of Horticultural Science 60: 47–56.

16- Girona J., Mata M., and Marsal J. 2005. Regulated deficit irrigation during the kernel filling period and optimal irrigation rates in almond. Agricultural Water Management 75: 152–167.

17- Goldhamer D.A., and Fereres E. 2004. Irrigation scheduling of almond trees with trunk diameter sensors. Irrigation Science 23: 11–19.

18- Gomes-Laranjo J., Coutinho J.P., Galhano V., and Cordeiro V. 2006. Responses of five almond cultivars to irrigation: Photosynthesis and leaf water potential. Agricultural Water Management 83: 261–265.

19- Ghotbizadeh M., and Sepaskhah A.R. 2015. Effect of irrigation interval and water salinity on growth of vetiver (Vetiveria zizanioides). International Journal of Plant Production 9(1): 17–38.

20- Gucci R., Lombardini L., and Tattini M. 1997. Analysis of leaf water relations in leaves of two olive (Olea europea L.) cultivars differing in tolerance to salinity. Tree Physiology 17: 13–21.

21- Hsiao T.C. 1973. Plant responses to water stress. Annual Review of Plant Physiology 24: 519–570.

22- Idso S.B., and Reginato R.J. 1982. Soil- and atmosphere-induced plant water stress in cotton as inferred from foliage temperatures. Water Resources Research 18(4): 1143–1148.

23- Jones H.G. 2004. Irrigation scheduling: advantages and pitfalls of plant-based methods. Journal of Experimental Botany 55(407): 2427–2436.

24- Jones H.G., and Cumming I.G. 1984. Variation of leaf conductance and leaf water potential in apple orchards. Journal of Horticultural Science 59(3): 329–336.

25- Klein I., Esparza G., Weinbaum S.A., and De Jong T.M. 2001. Effects of irrigation deprivation during the harvest period on leaf persistence and function in mature almond trees. Tree Physiology 21: 1063–1072.

26- Kluitenberg GJ and Biggar JW, 1992. Canopy temperature as a measure of salinity stress on sorghum. Irrigation Science 13(3): 115-121.

27- Lemeur R., Ranjbar A., and Van Damme P. 2001. Ecophysiological characteristics of two pistachio species (Pistacia khinjuk and Pistacia mutica) in response to salinity. p. 179-187. In: A.k. BE (ed.) XI GREMPA Seminar on Pistachios and Almonds. Zaragoza: CIHEAM, (Cahiers Options Mediterraneennes; n. 56).

28- Levitt J. 1980. Salt and ion stresses. p. 365–488. In J. Levitt (ed.) Responses of Plant to Environmental Stresses. Vol 2. New York, Academic Press.

29- Maas E.V. 1986. Salt tolerance in plants. Applied Agricultural Research 1: 12–26.

30- Marsal J., Girona J., and Mata M. 1997. Leaf water relation parameters in almond compared to hazelnut trees during a deficit irrigation period. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 122: 582–587.

31- McCutchan H., and Shackel K.A. 1992. Stem-water potential as a sensitive indicator of water stress in prune trees (Prunus domestica L. cv. French). Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 117(4): 607‒611.

32- Monastra F., and Raparelli E., 1997. Inventory of almond research, germplasm and references, REUR Technical Series 51, FAO, Rome.

33- Monteith J.L. 1973. Principles of Environmental Physics. Edward Arnold, London.

34- Morales M.A., Alarcon J.J., Torrecillas A., and Sanchez-Blanco M.J. 2000. Growth and water relations of Lotus creticus creticus plants as affected by salinity. Biologia Plantarum 43(3): 413–417.

35- Mousavi A., Lessani H., Babalar M., Talaei A.R., and Fallahi E. 2008. Influence of salinity on chlorophyll, leaf water potential, total soluble sugars, and mineral nutrients in two young olive cultivars. Journal of Plant Nutrition 31: 1906–1916.

36- Munns R. 2002. Comparative physiology of salt and water stress. Plant, Cell and Environment 25(2): 239–250.

37- Murray F.W. 1967. On the computation of saturation vapor pressure. Journal of Applied Meteorology 6: 203–204.

38- Naor A. 1998. Relations between leaf and stem water potential and stomatal conductance in three field-grown woody species. Journal of Horticultural Science Biotechnology 73: 431–436.

39- Naor A. 1999. Midday stem water potential as a plant water stress indicator for irrigation scheduling in fruit trees. Acta Horticulturae 537: 447–454.

40- Naor, A. 2000. Midday stem water potential as a plant water stress indicator for irrigation scheduling in fruit trees. Acta Horticulturae 537: 447–454.

41- Naor A., Gal Y., and Bravdo B. 1997. Crop load affects assimilation rate, stomatal conductance, stem water potential and water relations of field-grown ‘Sauvignon blanc’ grapevines. Journal of Experimental Botany 48: 1675–1680.

42- Naor A., Hupert H., Greenblat Y., Peres M., and Klein I. 2001. The response of nectarine fruit size and midday stem water potential to irrigation level in stage III and crop load. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 126: 140–143.

43- Naor A., Naschitz S., Peres M., and Gal Y. 2008. Responses of apple fruit size to tree water status and crop load. Tree Physiology 28(8): 1255–1261.

44- Nortes P.A., Perez-Pastor A., Egea G., Conejero W., and Domingo R. 2005. Comparison of changes in stem diameter and water potential values for detecting stress in young almond trees. Agricultural Water Management 77: 296–307.

45- Peretz J., Evans R.G., and Proebsting E.L. 1984. Leaf water potentials for management of high frequency irrigation on apples. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 27: 437–442.

46- Rahimi Eichi V. 2013. Water use efficiency in almond (Prunus dulcis (Mill.) D. A. Webb). M.Sc. thesis. School of Agriculture, Food and Wine. Faculty of Science. University of Adelaide.

47- Romero P., Botia P., and Garcia F. 2004a. Effects of regulated deficit irrigation under subsurface drip irrigation conditions on water relations of mature almond trees. Plant and Soil 260: 155–168.

48- Romero P., Navarro J.M., Garcia F., and Ordaz P.B. 2004b. Effects of regulated deficit irrigation during the pre-harvest period on gas exchange, leaf development and crop yield of mature almond trees. Tree Physiology 24: 303–312.

49- Ruiz-Sanchez M.C., Torrecillas A., Del Amor F., Leon A., and Abrisqueta J.M. 1988. Leaf water potential and leaf conductance during the growing season in almond trees under different irrigation regimes. Biologia Plantarum 30(5): 327–332.

50- Scholander P.F., Hammel H.T., Bradstreet E.D., and Hemmingsen E.A. 1965. Sap pressure in vascular plants. Science 148: 339–346.

51- Sdoodee S., and Somjun J. 2008. Measurement of stem water potential as a sensitive indicator of water stress in neck orange (Citrus reticulata Blanco). Songklanakarin Journal of Science and Technology 30(5): 561–564.

52- Sepulcre-Canto G., Zarco-Tejada P.J., Jimenez-Muñoz J.C., Sobrino J.A., de Miguel E., and Villalobos F.J. 2006. Detection of water stress in an olive orchard with thermal remote sensing imagery. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 136: 31‒44.

53- Shackel K. 2011. A plant-based approach to deficit irrigation in trees and vines. Horticultural Science 46(2): 173–177.

54- Shackel K.A., Ahmadi H., Biasi W., Buchner R., Goldhamer D., Gurusinghe S., Hasey J., Kester D., Krueger B., Lampinen B., McGourty G., Micke W., Mitcham E., Olson B., Pelletrau K., Philips H., Ramos D., Schwankl L., Sibbett S., Snyder R., Southwick S., Stevenson M., Thorpe M., Weinbaum S., and Yeager J. 1997. Plant water status as an index of irrigation need in deciduous fruit trees. HortTechnology 7(1): 23–29.

55- Shackel K.A., Lampinen B., Sibbett S., and Olson W. 2000. The relation of midday stem water potential to the growth and physiology of fruit trees under water limited conditions. Acta Horticulturae 537: 425–430.

56- Shannon M.C., Grieve C.M., and Francois L.E. 1994. Whole-plant response to salinity. p. 199-244. In R.E. Wilkinson (ed.) Plant-Environment Interactions. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.

57- Tardieu F., and Simonneau T. 1998. Variability among species of stomatal control under fluctuating soil water status and evaporative demand: modelling isohydric and anisohydric behaviours. Journal of Experimental Botany 49: 419–432.

58- Tuteja N. 2007. Mechanisms of high salinity tolerance in plants. Methods in Enzymology 428: 419–438.

59- West D.W. 1978. Water use and sodium chloride uptake by apple trees I. The effect of non-uniform distribution of sodium chloride in the root zone. Plant and Soil 50(1–3): 37–49.

60- Williams L.E., and Araujo F.J. 2002. Correlations among predawn leaf, midday leaf, and midday stem water potential and their correlations with other measures of soil and plant water status in Vitis vinifera. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 127: 448–454.

61- Yadollahi A., and NazaryMoghadam A.R. 2012. Micropropagation of GF677 rootstock. Journal of Agricultural Science 4(5): 131–138.

62- Ye Z. 2016. Salinity stress, a key factor affecting almond tree stem water potential. Available at: https://ysp.ucdavis.edu/content/salinity-stress-key-factor-affecting-almond-tree-stem-water-potential. (visited 6 May 2019).

63- Zrig A., Ben Mohamed H., Tounekti T., Ennajeh M., Valero D., and Khemira H. 2015. A Comparative Study of Salt Tolerance of Three Almond RootstocksJournal of Agricultural Science and Technology 17: 675–689.