Effects of Different Types of Irrigation Water Quality and Silicon Doses on Fruit Yield, Chlorophyll and Carotenoid Contents of Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum L.) under Soilless Culture Technique

Abstract

This study was conducted to determine the effects of different irrigation water treatments and silicon doses on leaf SPAD meter readings, chlorophyll content and carotenoid contents of tomato plants. Tybiff Aq tomato seedling were grown in 3-liter pots filled with 1100 g of 1:1 peat-perlite mixture for 70 days. Four different type of irrigation waters were prepared with the use of sea and tap water. Irrigation waters included I) Full sea water, II) ½ sea water + ½ tap water, III) ¼ sea water + ¾ tap water, IV) Full tap water (control). Each irrigation water was supplemented with silica gel (SiO2.xH2O) at 0, 0.5, 1 and 2 mM Si doses. Nutrient solutions were supplied to meet macro and micronutrient requirements of tomato plants. Leaf chlorophyll-a, chlorophyll-b and total chlorophyll contents significantly increased with increasing tap water ratios of the irrigation water. Significant increases were observed in chlorophyll-a, chlorophyll-b and total chlorophyll contents with increasing silicon doses. Such increases achieved with silicon treatments were more remarkable for chlorophyll-a and total chlorophyll contents. Leaf chlorophyll-a, chlorophyll-b and total chlorophyll contents significantly decreased with increasing leaf sodium, chlorine and magnesium contents, but significantly increased with increasing leaf active iron and potassium contents. Leaf chlorophyll-a, chlorophyll-b and total chlorophyll contents increased with increasing leaf calcium contents, but such increases were not significant. Leaf carotenoid contents significantly increased with increasing tap water ratios of the irrigation water. Effects of silicon doses on leaf carotenoid contents varied with the type of irrigation water. The 0.5 mM silicon supplementation into tap water significantly increased carotenoid contents.

Keywords

• Tomato
• Seawater
• Tap water
• Silicon
• Chlorophyll
• Carotenoid

References

1. Agastian P, Kingsley S J & Vivekanandan M (2000). Effect of salinity on photosynthesis and biochemical characteristics in mulberry genotypes, Photosynthetica, 38: 287-290
2. Al-Aghabary K, Zhu Z & Shi Q (2004). Influence of silicon supply on chlorophyll content, chlorophyll fluorescence, and antioxidative enzyme activities in tomato plants under salt stress, Journal of Plant Physiology 27(12): 2101-2115
3. Alamgir A N M & Ali M Y (1999). Effect of salinity on leaf pigments, sugar and protein concentration and chloroplast ATPaz activity of rice (Oryza sativa L.). Bangladesh Journal of Botany 28: 145-149
4. Alian A, Altman A & Heuer B (2000). Genotypic difference in salinity and water stress tolerance of fresh market tomato cultivars. Plant Science 152(1): 59-65
5. Alpaslan M, Güneş A, Taban S, Erdal İ & Tarakcıoğlu C (1998). Tuz stresinde çeltik ve buğday çeşitlerinin kalsiyum, fosfor, demir, bakır, çinko ve mangan içeriklerindeki değişmeler, Turkish Journal of Agriculture And Forestry 22: 227-233
6. Arnon D (1949). Copper enzymes in isolated chloroplasts. polyphenoloxidase in Beta Vulgaris. Plant Physiology 24: 1-15
7. Bayraklı F (1987). Toprak ve bitki analizleri. Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi, Samsun, Türkiye
8. Chutipaijit S, Cha-um S & Sompornpailin K (2011) High contents of proline and anthocyanin increase protective response to salinity in Oryza sativa L. spp. Indica, Australian Jounral of Crop Science 5: 1191-1198

9. Coşkun D, Britto D T, Huynh W & Kronzucker H (2016). The role of silicon in higher plants under salinity and drought stress. Frontiers in Plant Science 7: 1072. Doi:10.3389/Fpls.2016.01072
10. Dannon E A & Wydra K (2004). Inretaction between silicon amendment, bacterial wilt development and phenotype of Ralstonia solanacearum in tomato genotypes. Physiological And Molecular Plant Pathology 64: 233-243
11. Gül A (2012). Topraksız Tarım 2. Baskı, Hasat Yayıncılık Limited Şirketi, İstanbul, Türkiye
12. Huang B (2006). Cellular membranes in stress sensing and regulation of plant adaptation to abiotic stresses, plant-environment interactions, Published by CRC/Taylor and Francis, pp 416
13. Kacar B & İnal A (2008). Bitki Analizleri, 1. Basım. Nobel Yayınları, Ankara, Türkiye
14. Kacar B (1994). Bitki ve toprağın kimyasal analizleri: III, Toprak analizleri, Ankara Üniversitesi, Ziraat Fakültesi, Eğitim, Araştırma ve Geliştirme Vakfı Yayınları No: 3, Ankara, Türkiye
15. Kennedy B F & De Fillippis L F (1999). Physiological and oxidative response to NaCl of the salt tolerant Grevillea ilicifolia and the salt sensitive Grevillea arenaria, J. Plant Physiology 155: 746-754
16. Khavarinejad R A & Mostofi Y (1998). Effects of NaCl on photosynthetic pigments, saccharides, and chloroplast ultrastructure in leaves of tomato cultivars, Photosynthetica, 35: 151-154
17. Levitt J (1980). Responses of plants to environmental stresses. Academic Press, New York, USA, pp 365-434
18. Li Y, Stanghellini C & Challa H (2001). Effect of electrical conductivity and transpiration on production of greenhouse tomato (Lycopersicon Esculentum L.). Scientia Horticulturae 88: 11-29
19. Maas E V & Hoffman G J (1977). Crop salt tolerance – current assessment. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Division American Society of Civil Engineers 103: 115-134
20. Marschner H (1995). Mineral nutrition of higher plants. Academic Press, New York, USA, pp 657-680
21. Maxwell K & Johnson G N (2000). Chlorophyll fluorescence-A practical guide, Journal of Experimental Botany 51: 659-668
22. Mittal S, Kumari N & Sharma V (2012). Differential response of salt stress on Brassica juncea: Photosynthetic performance, pigment, proline, D1 and antioxidant enzymes. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry 54: 17-26
23. Niu X, Bressan R A, Hasegawa P M & Pardo J M (1995). Ion homeostasis in NaCl stress environments. Plant Physiology 109: 735-742
24. Oserkowsky J 1933. Quantitative relation between chlorophyll and iron in green and chlorotic pear leaves. Plant Physiology 8: 449-468
25. Parida A K & Das A B (2005). Salt tolerance and salinity effect on plant: A review. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 60: 324-349
26. Rengel Z (1992). The role of calcium in salt toxicity. Plant, Cell & Environment 15: 625-632
27. Romero-Aranda M R, Jurado O & Cuartero J (2006). Silicon alleviates the deleterious salt effect on tomato plant growth by improving plant water status. Journal of Plant Physiology 163: 847-855
28. Sağlam T (2008). Toprak ve suyun kimyasal analiz yöntemleri. Namık Kemal Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Yayın No:2, Tekirdağ, Türkiye
29. Sonneveld C & Van Der Burg A M M (1991). Sodium chloride salinity in fruit vegetable crops in soilless culture. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 39: 115-122
30. Stamatakis A, Savvas D, Papadantonakis N, Lydakis-Simantiris N & Kefalas P (2003). Effects of silicon and salinity on fruit yield and quality of tomato grown hydroponically. Acta Horticulturae 609: 141-149
31. Tavakkoli M M, Roosta H R & Hamidpour M (2016). Effects of alkali stress and growing media on growth and physiological characteristics of Gerbera plants. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology 18: 453-466
32. Tuteja N (2007). Mechanisms of high salinity tolerance in plants, Methods in Enzymology 428, 419-438
33. Wang Y & Nil N (2000). Changes in chlorophyll, ribulose biphosphate carboxylase–oxygenase, glycine betaine content, photosynthesis and transpiration in Amaranthus tricolor leaves during salt stress, The Journal of Horticultural Science and Biotechnology 75: 623-627
34. Withan F H & Blayedes D F & Devlin R M (1971). Experiments in Plant Physiology. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, USA, pp 55-58
35. Zhu Y & Gong H (2014). Beneficial effects of silicon on salt and drought tolerance in plants agronomy for sustainable development, Springer Verlag/Edp Sciences/INRA 34 (2): 455-472