Effect of Salt Stress on Morphological Characteristics and Secondary Metabolites of Some Forage Pea Cultivars

Year 2024, , 69 - 76, 01.01.2024

Nilay Kayın , Alev Akpinar Borazan , Ferzat Turan

https://doi.org/10.47115/bsagriculture.1390139

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Forage pea (Pisum sativum L.) is an annual legume forage crop grown in various regions of Türkiye. It is high in protein, carbohydrate, and digestible matter and contains minerals such as phosphorus, calcium, and vitamins A and D. Salinity stress is an important problem in the cultivation of forage peas. Salinity reduces the osmotic potential of soil solutes, making it difficult for the roots to absorb the water. This study aimed to determine some parameters of two registered forage pea cultivars at different concentrations of two salt types. The effects of these salts on the morphological characteristics and biochemical components of two different registered cultivars of pea, cv. Ateş and cv. Töre were investigated in the present study. The trials were conducted in pots and Na2SO4 and CaCl2 were applied at concentrations of 0, 50, 100 and 150 mM. As a result of the trials, the morphological characteristics like fresh and dry weights and lengths of roots and shoots were investigated along with the biochemical properties like total antioxidant activity and total phenolic content. The study was performed in 2 replicates to determine the effect of different salt types and concentrations. The critical salt concentration values for the change in shoot and root fresh weight among morphological traits were determined as 100 and 150 mM for secondary metabolites. While the cv. Töre forage pea showed the highest salt resistance in shoot and root fresh weights in the presence of Na2SO4 the cv. Ateş forage pea showed the lowest salt resistance in the presence of CaCl2. In terms of shoot and root dry weights, the cv. Töre forage pea showed the least resistance at 50 mM Na2SO4 concentration. As for plant length, the cv. Ateş forage pea cultivar showed the least resistance in shoot length at 150 mM CaCl2 concentration, while it showed the highest resistance in root length at this value. The highest total antioxidant activity for the cv. Ateş forage pea and the highest total phenolic content for the cv. Töre forage pea were determined at 150 mM CaCl2 concentration. The lowest total phenolic content value was estimated in the cv. Töre forage pea cultivar at 150 mM Na2SO4 salt concentration.

Keywords

Salt stress, Morphological properties, Total phenolic content, Radical scaving activity

References

• Amirgani, M. R. 2010. Effect of Salinity Stress on Growth, Mineral Composition, Proline Content, Antioxidant Enzymes of Soybean, American Journal of Plant Physiology, 5 (6), 350-360. Eksik !!!
• Arslan M, Çetin S, Erdurmuş C. 2013. Negative effects of salt stress on plant development and salinity tolerance of some forage crops. J Agri Eng, 360: 32-39.
• Avcı S, Şahan S, Kaya MD. 2018. Determination of salt-stress response in forage pea cultivars during germination and early seedling growth. 2nd International Conference on Agriculture, Forest, Food Sciences and Technologies (ICAFOF). April 02-05, Çeşme/İzmir, Türkiye, pp: 88-94.
• Ayaz Seyhan S. 2019. Reevaluation of DPPH antioxidant assay. Batman Univ J Life Sci, 9(2): 125-135.
• Boughalleb F, Abdellaoui R, Mahmoudi M, Bakhshandeh E. 2020. Changes in phenolic profile, soluble sugar, proline, and antioxidant enzyme activities of Polygonum equisetiforme in response to salinity. Turkish J Botany, 44: 25-35.
• Bu Y, Kou J, Sun B, Takano T, Liu S. 2015. Adverse effect of urease on salt stress during seed germination in Arabidopsisthaliana. FEBS Lett, 589: 1308-1313.
• Çaçan E, Kaplan M, Kökten K, Tutor H. 2018. Evaluation of some forage pea (Pisum sativum ssp. arvense L.) lines and cultivars regarding seed yield and straw quality. J Instit Sci Technol, 8(2): 275-284.
• Demirkol G, Yılmaz N, Önal Aşcı Ö. 2019. The effect of salt stress on the germination and seedling growth parameters of a selected forage pea (Pisum sativum ssp. arvense L.) genotype. J Agri Nature, 22(3): 354-359.
• Doğru A, Canavar S. 2020. Physiological and biochemical components of salt tolerance in plants. Acad Platf J Eng Sci, 8(1): 155-174.
• Izadi MH, Rabbani J, Emam Y, Tahmasebi A, Pessarakli M. 2014. Effect of salinity stress on physiological performance of various wheat and barley cultivars. J Plant Nutrit, 37: 520-531.
• Kang J, Xie W, Sun Y, Yang Q, Wu M. 2010. Identification of genes induced by salt stress from Medicago truncatula L. seedlings. African J Biotechnol, 9(45): 7589-7594.
• Kara A, Tunçtürk M, Tunçtürk R. 2019. Effects of seaweed on the growth parameters, total phenolic and antioxidant substance contents of Echinacea purpurea L. under salt stress. J Bahri Dagdas Crop Res, 8(1): 115-124.
• Kayın N, Turan F, Aydemir ES. 2022. Effect of different salt concentrations on some forage pea cultivars during germination and early seedling stage. Int J Chem Technol, 6(2): 108-113.
• Kıpçak S, Ekincialp A, Erdinç Ç, Kabay T, Şensoy S. 2019. Effects of salt stress on some nutrient content and total antioxidant and total phenol content in different bean genotypes. Yuzuncu Yıl Univ J Agri Sci, 29(1): 136-144.
• Korkmaz H, Durmaz A. 2017. Responses of plants to abiotic stress factors. Gümüşhane Univ J Sci Technol, 7(2): 192-207.
• Michalak A. 2006. Phenolic compounds and their antioxidant activity in plants growing under heavy metal stress. Polish J Environ Stud, 15(4): 523-530.
• Mohamed AA, Aly AA. 2008. Alterations of some secondary metabolites and enzymes activity by using exogenous antioxidant compound in onion plants grown under sea water stress. American-Eurasian J Sci Res, 3(2): 139-146.
• Ouafi L, Alane F, Rahal Bouziane H, Abdelguerfi A. 2016. Agro-morphological diversity within field pea (Pisum sativum L.) genotypes. African J Agri Res, 11(40): 4039-4047.
• Rhodes D, Rich PJ. 1988. Preliminary genetic studies of the phenotype of betaine deficiency in leamays L. Plant Physiol, 88: 102-108.
• Roy SJ, Negrao S, Tester M. 2014. Salt-resistant crop plants. Curr Opin Biotechnol, 26: 115-24.
• Ruiz JM, Rivero RM, Lopez-Cantarero I, Romero L. 2003. Role of Ca 2+ in the metabolism of phenolic compounds in tobacco leaves (Nicotiana tabaccum L.). Plant Growth Regul, 41: 173-177.
• Shahidi F, Chavon UD, Naczk M, Amarowicz R. 2001. Nutrient distribution and phenolic antioxidants in air-classified fractions of beach pea (Lathyrus maritimus L.). J Agri Food Chem, 49: 926-933.
• Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ. 1981. Biometry. W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, California, US.
• Tekeli AS, Ateş E. 2003. Yield and its components in field pea (Pisum arvense L.) lines. J Central European Agri, 4(4): 313-317.
• Tetiktabanlar İ, Öztürk L, Kısa D, Genç N. 2020. The effect of salt stress on the phenolic compounds in pea (Pisum sativum L.) varieties. Gaziosmanpasa J Sci Res, 9(1): 85-94.
• Tiryaki İ. 2018. Adaptation mechanisms of some field plants against salt stress. J Agri Nature, 21(5): 800-808.
• Tsegay BA, Andargie M. 2018. Seed priming with gibberellic acid (GA3) alleviates salinity-induced inhibition of germination and seedling growth of Zea mays L., Pisum sativum var. abyssinicum A. Braun and Lathyrus sativus L. J Crop Sci Biotechnol, 21(3): 261–267.
• Uzun A, Açıkgöz E, Gün H. 2012. Determination of grass, seed and crude protein yields of some fodder pea (Pisum sativum L.) varieties harvested in different development periods. J Agri Fac Bursa Uludag Univ, 26(1): 27-38.
• Zambi H, Önal Aşcı Ö. 2020. Effect of NaCl Stress on chlorophyll and mineral content of forage pea. Int J Agri Wildlife Sci, 6(3): 562-569.