Domateste Kuraklık Stresinin Bazı Fizyolojik Parametrelere Etkisi

Öz

Kuraklık stresi en önemli abiyotik stres faktörlerinden biridir. Domateste kuraklık stresinin neden olduğu verim ve kalite kayıplarını azaltmak için yapılan çalışmalar önem arz etmektedir. Çalışma 10 domates genotipi ve şahit olarak 2 domates çeşidi kullanılarak 2017-2018 yılı ilkbahar-yaz sezonunda açık alanda kuraklık stresinin etkisi belirlenmesi amacıyla yapılmıştır. Uygulama olarak %100 tam sulama (kontrol) ve %50 su kısıtlaması yer almaktadır. Domates genotip ve şahit çeşitlerin tam sulama ve su kısıtı şartlarında membran zararlanma indeksi, stoma iletkenliği, yaprak su potansiyeli, yaprak oransal su içeriği, ozmotik potansiyel, SPAD, yaprak sıcaklığı, yaprak alanı, yaş ve kuru ağırlık parametreleri incelenmiştir. Çalışma sonucunda membran zararlanma indeksi en düşük 2.89 ile Tom-139 genotipinde görülmüştür. Stoma iletkenliği yüzde değişimi en düşük -1.78 ile Tom-225 genotipinde, en yüksek ise -87.16 ile Tom-29’da görülmüştür. Yaprak su potansiyeli yüzde değişimi en yüksek 234.12 ile Tom-21’de belirlenmiştir. Ozmotik potansiyel en yüksek kuraklık stresinde Falcon çeşidinde, en yüksek yüzde değişim ise Rio Grande çeşidinde görülmüştür. Yeşil aksam kuru ağırlık yüzde değişimi en yüksek Tom-139 genotipinde 53.79 olarak belirlenmiştir. Yaprak sıcaklığı yüzde azalışı en yüksek -15.89 ile Tom-230 genotipinde bulunmuştur. Sonuç olarak yapılan analiz ve ölçümler sonucunda domates genotipleri ve şahit çeşitler arasında farklılıkların olduğu belirlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kuraklık
• fizyoloji
• abiyotik stres
• domates

The Effect of Drought Stress on Some Physiological Parameters in Tomato

Öz

Drought stress is one of the most important abiotic stress factors. Studies to reduce yield and quality losses caused by drought stress in tomatoes are important. The study was carried out to determine the effect of drought stress in the open field in the spring-summer season of 2017-2018, using 10 tomato genotypes and 2 tomato varieties as witnesses. The application includes 100% full irrigation (control) and 50% water restriction. Membrane damage index, stomatal conductivity, leaf water potential, leaf proportional water content, ozmotic potential, SPAD, leaf temperature, leaf area, fresh and dry weight parameters of tomato genotype and witness varieties were investigated under full irrigation and water restriction conditions. As a result of the study, the lowest membrane damage index was observed in Tom-139 genotype with 2.89. The lowest percentage change in stomatal conductivity was observed in Tom-225 genotype with -1.78, and the highest in Tom-29 with -87.16. The highest percentage change in leaf water potential was determined in Tom-21 with 234.12. The highest osmotic potential was observed in Falcon variety under drought stress, and the highest percentage change was observed in Rio Grande variety. The highest percentage change in dry weight was determined as 53.79 in Tom-139 genotype. The highest percentage decrease in leaf temperature was found in Tom-230 genotype with -15.89. As a result of the analysis and measurements, it was determined that there were differences between tomato genotypes and witness varieties.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Drought
• physiology
• abiotic stress
• tomato

Kaynakça

1. Aghaie, P., Ali, S., Tafreshi, H., Ali, M., Haerinasab, M., 2018. Tolerance evaluation and clustering of fourteen tomato cultivars grown under mild and severe drought conditions. Scientia Horticulturae 232:1-12.
2. Akhoundnejad, Y., 2011. Kuraklığa tolerant bazı domates genotiplerinin arazi performanslarının belirlenmesi (Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Çukurova Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Adana, 130s.
3. Akoyunoglou, G., 1977. Development of the photosystem II unit in plastids of bean leaves greened in periodic light. Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics 183:571-580.
4. Alexieva, V., Sergiev, I., Mapelli, S., Karanov, E., 2001. The effect of drought ultraviolet radiation on growth and stress markers in pea and wheat. Plant, Cell and Environment 24, 1337-1344.
5. Almeselmani, M., Abdullah, F., Hareri, F., Naaesan, M., Ammar, M. A, Kanbar, O.Z., Saud, A.A., 2011. Effect of drought on different physiological characters and yield component in different varieties of Syrian durum wheat. Journal of Agricultural Science 3:127-33.
6. Alp, Y., Kabay, T., 2017. Kuraklık stresinin bazı yerli ve ticari domates çeşitlerinde bitki gelişimi üzerine etkileri. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi 27:387-395.
7. Anonim., 2022. FAO Agricultural Statistical Database (http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/qc; Erişim:16.09.2020).
8. Ashraf, M., 1994. Breeding for salinity tolerance in plants. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 13:17-42.

9. Ashraf, M., Foolad, M.R., 2007. Roles of glycine betaine and proline in improving plant abiotic stress resistance. Environmental & Experimental Botany 59:206-216.
10. Bijanzadeh, E., Emam, Y., 2010. Effect of defoliation and drought stress on yield components and chlorophyll content of wheat. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences 13:699.
11. Blum, A., 1986. Breeding crop varieties for stress environments. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 2:199-237.
12. Bohalima, A.A.O., 2017. Tuz ve kuraklık stresinin domates gelişimi üzerine etkileri (Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Kastamonu Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Kastamonu, 91s.
13. Brown, S.B., Houghton, J.D., Hendry, GAF., 1991. Chlorophyll breakdown. In H, Scheer (Eds.), Chlorophylls, Boca Raton, Florida, USA:CRP Press, pp:465-489.
14. Buschmann, C., Lichtenthaler, H.K., 1998. Principles and characteristics of multi-colour fluorescence ımaging of plants. Journal of Plant Physiology 152:297-314.
15. Büyük, İ., Soydam-Aydın, S., Aras, S., 2012. Bitkilerin stres koşullarına verdiği moleküler cevaplar. Türk Hijyen ve Deneysel Biyoloji Dergisi 69:97-110.
16. Cantore, V., Lechkar, O., Karabulut, E., Sellami, M.H., Albrizio, R., Boari, F., Stellacci, A.M., Todorovic, M., 2016. Combined effect of deficit irrigation and strobilurin application on yield, fruit quality and water use efficiency of “cherry” tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). Agricultural Water Management 167:53-61.
17. Capell, T., Bassie, L., Christou, P., 2004. Modulation of the polyamine biosynthetic pathway in transgenic rice confers tolerance to drought stress. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 101:9909-9914.
18. Chaerle, L., Van Der Straeten, D., 2000. Imaging techniques and the early detection of plant stress. Trends in Plant Science 5:495-501.
19. Chen, Y.E., Liu, W.J., Su, Y.Q., Cui, J.M., Zhang, Z.W., Yuan, M., Zhang, H.Y., Yuan, S., 2016. Different response of photosystem II to short and long-term drought stress in Arabidopsis thaliana. Physiologia Plantarum 158:225-235.
20. Cowan, I.R., 1982. Regulation of water use in relation to carbon gain on higher plants. In:O.L. Lange, (Eds.), Physiological Plant Ecology, Berlin:Springer, pp:589-614.
21. Çakmakçı, R., 2009. Stres koşullarında ACC deaminaze üretici bakteriler tarafından bitki gelişiminin teşvik edilmesi. Atatürk Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi 40:109-125.
22. Çırak, C., Esendal, E., 2006. Soyada kuraklık stresi. Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi 21:231-237.
23. Daşgan, H, Y., Akhoundnejad,Y., Kuşvuran, Ş., Aydöner Çoban, G., 2014. Kavunda kuraklık stresi fizyolojik parametrelerinin saksıda genç bitki aşamasında ve arazide verim aşamasında karşılaştırılması. 10. Sebze Tarımı Sempozyumu, Tekirdağ.
24. Daşgan, H.Y., Kuşvuran, Ş., Abak, L., Sarı, N., 2010-a. İklim değişikliğinin sebze tarımına etkileri, kuraklığa ve tuzluluğa dayanıklı yöresel sebze genotiplerinin belirlenmesi ve korunması. MDG-F 1980, Türkiye’nin İklim Değişikliğine Uyum Kapasitesinin Geliştirilmesi Birleşmiş Milletler Ortak Programı. Özel proje kitapçığı.
25. Daşgan, H.Y., Kuşvuran, Ş., Abak, K., Sarı, N., 2010-b. Screening and saving of local vegetables for their resistance to drought and salinity. UNDP Project Final Report.
26. Dhanda, S.S., Sethi, G.S., 2002. Tolerance to drought stress among selected Indian wheat cultivars. Journal of Agricultural Science 139:319-326.
27. Din, J., Khan, S., Ali, I., Gurmani, A., 2011. Physiological and agronomic response of canola varieties to drought stress. Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences 21:78-82.
28. Dlugokecka, E., Kacperska-Palacz, A., 1978. Re-examination of electrical conductivity method for estimation of drought injury. Biologia Plantarum 20:262-267.
29. Egilla, J.N., Davies, F.T., Boutton, T.W., 2005. Drought stress influences leaf water content, photosynthesis, and water-use efficiency of Hibiscus rosa-sinensis at three potassium concentrations. Photosynthetica 43:135-140.
30. Fan, S., Blake, T.G., 1994. Abscisic acid induced electrolyte leakage in woody species with contrasting ecological requirements. Plant Physiology 89:817-823.
31. Gök, A., 2018. Domates (Solanum lycopersıcum)’de likopen seviyesini belirleten genlerin kalıtımı ve çevre varyansının etkisi (Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Fen Bilimler Enstitüsü, Isparta, 54s.
32. Grossman, A.R., Bhaya, D., Apt, K.E., Kehoe, D.M., 1995. Light-harvesting complexes in oxygenic photosynthesis:diversity, control, and evolution. Annual Review of Genetics 29:231-288.
33. Günay, A., 2005. Özel Sebze Yetiştiriciliği. Türkiye:Çağ Matbaası, 318-343s.
34. Güneri Bağcı, E., 2010. Nohut çeşitlerinde kuraklığa bağlı oksidatif stresin fizyolojik ve biyokimyasal parametrelerle belirlenmesi (Doktora Tezi). Ankara üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Fakültesi, Ankara, 420s.
35. İpek, M., 2015. In vitro şartlarda garnem ve myrobolan 29c anaçlarının kurak stresine karşı tepkilerinin belirlenmesi (Doktora Tezi). Selçuk Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Konya, 142s.
36. Javadi, T., Rohollahi, D., Ghaderi, N., Nazari, F., 2017. Mitigating the adverse effects of drought stress on the morpho-physiological traits and anti-oxidative enzyme activities of Prunus avium through β-amino butyric acid drenching. Scientia Horticulturae 218:156-163.
37. Jones, R.A., 1986. The development of salt-tolerant tomatoes:Breeding strategies. Acta Horticulturae 190:101-114.
38. Kalefetoğlu, T., Ekmekci, Y., 2005. The effects of drought on plants and tolerance mechanisms. Gazi University Journal of Science 18:723-740.
39. Kapluhan, E., 2013. Türkiye’de kuraklık ve kuraklığın tarıma etkisi. Marmara Coğrafya Dergisi 27:487-510.
40. Karipçin, M.Z., 2009. Yerli ve yabani karpuz genotiplerinde kuraklığa toleransın belirlenmesi (Doktora Tezi). Çukurova Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Adana, 279s.
41. Katarzania, S.L., Bandurska, H., Bocianowski, J., 2010. Evaluation of cell membrane injury in caravay (Carum carvi L.) genotypes in water deficit conditions. Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae 79:95-99.
42. Khan, S.H., Khan, A., Litaf, U., Shah, A.S., Khan, M.A., 2015. Effect of drought stress on tomato cv. bombino. Journal of Food Processing Technology 7:1-7.
43. Khanna-Chopra, R., D.S. Selote, 2007. Acclimation to drought stress generates oxidative stress tolerance in drought resistant than susceptible wheat cultivar under field conditions. Environmental and Experimental Botany 60:276-283.
44. Kıran, S., Kuşvuran, Ş., Özkay, F., Ellialtıoğlu, Ş.Ş., 2015. Domates, patlıcan ve kavun genotiplerinin kuraklığa dayanım durumlarını belirlemeye yönelik olarak incelenen özellikler arasındaki ilişkiler. Nevşehir Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi 4(2):9-25.
45. Kocaçalışkan, İ., 2002. Bitki Fizyolojisi. Türkiye:Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
46. Kuşvuran, Ş., Daşgan, H.Y., 2017. Drought induced physiological and biochemical responses in Solanum lycopersicum genotypes differing to tolerance. Acta Scientiarum Polonorum Hortorum Cultus 16:19-27.
47. Lawlor, D.W., Cornic, G., 2002. Photosynthetic carbon assimilation and associated metabolism in relation to water deficits in higher plants. Plant, Cell and Environment 25:275-294.
48. Leskovar, D.I., Cantliffe, D.J., 1992. Pepper seedling growth response to drought stress and exogenous abscisic acid. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 117:389-393.
49. Levitt, J., 1980. Response of plants to environmental stresses. Orlando:Academic Press.
50. Mahajan, S., Tuteja, N., 2005. Cold, salinity and drought stresses:An overview. Arch Biochem Biophys 444:139-158.
51. Moriana, A., Fereres, E., 2002. Plant indicators for scheduling irrigation of young olive trees. Irrigation Science 21:83-90.
52. Moussa, H.R., Abdel-Aziz, S.M., 2008. Comparative response of drought tolerant and drought sensitive maize genotypes to water stress. Australian Journal of Crop Science 1:31-36.
53. Munns, R., Termaat, A., 1986. Whole‐plant responses to salinity. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 13:143‐16.
54. Nahar, K., Gretzmacher, R., 2002. Effect of water stress on nutrient uptake, yield and quality of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) under subtropical conditions. Die Bodenkultur 53:45-51.
55. Nicoleta, B.A., Nedelea, G., 2012. Research concerning drought tolerance in some tomato seedling genotypes. Journal of Horticulture, Forestry and Biotechnology 16:96-102.
56. Özcan, S., Babaoğlu, M., Gürel, E., 2004. Bitki biyoteknolojisi genetik mühendisliği ve uygulamaları. Selçuk Üniversitesi Vakfı, Konya.
57. Özer, H., Karadoğan, T., Oral, E., 1997. Bitkilerde su stresi ve dayanıklılık mekanizması. Atatürk Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi 28:488-495.
58. Patanè, C., Cosentino, S.L., 2010. Effects of soil water deficit on yield and quality of processing tomato under a Mediterranean climate. Agricultural Water Management 97:131-138.
59. Patanè, C., Tringali, S., Sortino, O., 2011. Effects of deficit irrigation on biomass, yield, water productivity and fruit quality of processing tomato under semi-arid Mediterranean climate conditions. Scientia Horticulturae 129:590-596.
60. Perassakli, M., Huber, J.T., Tucker, T.C., 1987. Dry matter yield, nitrogen absorption and water uptake by sweet corn under salt stress. Journal of Plant Nutrition 12:279-290.
61. Petro-Turza, M., 1987. Flavor of tomato and tomato products. Food Review International 2:309-351.
62. Rao, M.K.V., Raghavendra, A.S., Reddy, J.K., 2006. Physiology and Molecular Biology of Stress Tolerance in Plants. Netherlands:Springer.
63. Sakuraba, Y., Yokono, M., Akimoto, S., Tanaka, R., Tanaka, A., 2010. Deregulated chlorophyll b synthesis reduces the energy transfer rate between photosynthetic pigments and induces photo damage in Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant and Cell Physiology 51(6):1055-1065.
64. Sánchez-Rodríguez, E., Rubio-Wilhelmi, M.M., Cervilla, L.M., Blasco, B., Rios, J., Rosales, M.A., Romero, L., Ruiz, J.M., 2010. Genotypic differences in some physiological parameters symptomatic for oxidative stress under moderate drought in tomato plants. Plant Science 178:30-40.
65. Sánchez, F.J., Andres, E.F., Tenorio, J.L., Ayerbe, L., 2004. Growth of epicotyls, turgor maintenance and osmotic adjustment in pea plants (Pisum sativum L.) subjected to water stress. Field Crops Research 86:81-90.
66. Shamim, F., Saqlan, S.M., Athar, H-UR-N., Waheed, A., 2014. Screening and selection of tomato genotypes/cultivars for drought tolerance using multivariate analysis. Pakistan Journal of Botany 46:1165-1178.
67. Sibomana, I.C., Aguyoh, J.N., Opiyo, A.M., 2013. Water stress affects growth and yield of container grown tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) plants. Global Journal of Bio-science and Biotechnology 2:461-466.
68. Sivakumar, R., Srividhya, S., 2016. Impact of drought on flowering, yield and quality parameters in diverse genotypes of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). Advances in Horticultural Science 30:3-11.
69. Sivritepe, N., Ertürk, U., Yerlikaya, C., Türkan, İ., Bor, M., Özdemir, F., 2008. Response of the cherry rootstock to water stress induced in vitro. Biologia Plantarum 52(3):573-576.
70. Smirnoff, N., 1993. The role of active oxygen in the response of plants to water deficit and desiccation. New Phytologist 125:27-58.
71. Taiz, L., Zeiger, E., 2008. Bitki fizyolojisi. Palme Yayıncılık, Ankara.
72. Tsuji, W., Ali, M.E.K., Inanaga, S., Sugimoto, Y., 2003. Growth and gas exchange of three sorghum cultivars under drought stress. Biomedical and Life Sciences 46:583-587.
73. Türkan, İ., Bor, M., Özdemir, F., Koca, H., 2005. Differential responses of lipid peroxidation and antioxidants in the leaves of drought-tolerant P.acutifolius gray and drought-sensitive P.vulgaris L. subjected to polyethylene glycol mediated water stress. Plant Science 168:223-231.
74. Vermeulen, K., Steppe, K., Lıunh, N.S., Lemeur, R., De Backer, L., Bleyaert, P., Dekock, J., Aerts, J.M., Berckmans, D., 2007. Simultaneous response of stem diameter, sap flow rate and leaf temperature of tomato plants to drought stress. Acta Horticulturae 801:1259-1266.
75. Wild, A., 2003. Soils, land and food:managing the land during the twenty-first century. Cambridge University Press:Cambridge.
76. Zegbe, J.A., Behboudian, M.H., Clothier, B.E., 2004. Partial rootzone drying is a feasible option for irrigating processing tomatoes. Agricultural Water Management, 68, 195-206.
77. Zhou, R., Yu, X., Ottosen, C.O., Rosenqvist, E., Zhao, L., Wang, Y., Zhao, T., Wu, Z., 2017. Drought stress had a predominant effect over heat stress on three tomato cultivars subjected to combined stress. BMC Plant Biology 17:24.