Drought Tolerance of Some Wine Grape Cultivars Under In Vitro Conditions

Öz

This study was conducted to determine the drought tolerance of 6 different economically important wine grape cultivars (‘Sultani Seedless’, ‘Çalkarası’, ‘Emir’, ‘Boğazkere’, ‘Öküzgözü’, ‘Narince’) of Turkey under in vitro conditions. Drought stress was induced on in vitro-grown explants by 3 different PEG (8000) (poly ethylene glycol) doses (2, 4 and 6 %). Plants were subjected to drought stress for 6 weeks and plant fresh weight, dry weight, shoot length, number of shoots, number of leaves, electrolyte leakage, relative water content, proline content and lipid peroxidation (MDA) were determined. Being more distinctive at higher doses, PEG treatments yielded significant decreases in fresh weight, dry weight, shoot length, number of shoots and number of leaves. As compared to the control, PEG treatments also yielded greater electrolyte leakage in all cultivars. All three PEG concentrations decreased relative water content of all cultivars. Proline content of explants increased with increasing PEG doses. While plant response to PEG treatments varied with the cultivars in 2 % PEG treatments, significant increases were observed in MDA content of all cultivars at higher doses (4 and 6 %).

Anahtar Kelimeler

• PEG
• in vitro Screening
• Proline
• MDA

Kaynakça

1. Adams RM, Chen CC, Mc Carl BA, Schimmelpfennig, DE (2001). Climate variability and climate change: implications for agriculture. Adv Econ Environ Resources 3: 95-113.
2. Ahuja I, De Vos RCH, Bones AM, Hall RD (2010). Plant molecular stress responses face climate change. Trends in Plant Science 15(12):664–674
3. Akbarpour E, Imani A, Yeganeh SF (2017). Physiological and morphological responses of almond cultivars under ın vitro drought stress. Journal of Nuts 8 (1):61-72.
4. Al-Khayri JM, Al-Bahrany AM (2004). Growth, water content and proline accumulation in drought-stressed callus of date palm. Biologia Plantarum 48 (1): 105–108
5. Alvarez S, Marsh EL, Schroeder SG, Schachtman DP (2008). Metabolomic and proteomic changes in the xylem sap of maize under drought. Plant Cell Environ. 31: 325–340.
6. Babalık Z (2012). Effects of salt and water stress on some physiological and biochemical characteristics of grapevines. S.D.Ü. Institute of Science Department of Hortıculture. Ph. D. Thesis.249s., Turkey
7. Babalık Z, Türk FH, Baydar NG (2015). Determınatıon on some physiologıcal and biochemical characteristics of Kober 5 BB rootstcks ın vıtro conditions under water stress. Selçuk Tarım ve Gıda Bilimleri Dergisi-A 27: 552-561
8. Bajji M, Kinet JM, Lutts S (2001). The use of the electrolyte leakage method for assessing cell membrane stability as a water stress tolerance test in durum wheat. Plant Growth Regulation 00: 1–10

9. Bates LS, Waldren RP, Teare ID (1973). Rapid determination of free proline for water stress studies. Plant Soil. 39: 205–207
10. Ben Ahmed C, Ben Rouina B, Boukhris M (2008). Changes in water relations, photosynthetic activity and proline accumulation in one-year-old olive trees (Olea europaea l. cv. chemlali) in response to NaCI salinity. Acta Physiologiae Plantarum 30 (4): 553–560
11. Bressan RA, Handa AK, Handa S, Hasegawa PM (1982). Growth and water relation of cultured tomato cells after adjustment to low external water potentials. Plant Physiol. 701: 303–1309
12. Carbonneau A, Deloire A, Jaillard B (2007). The Grapevine: Physiology, Terroir, Growing. Dunod. 442. Paris; France
13. Carmo-Silva AE, Keys AJ, Beale MH, Ward JL, Baker JM, Hawkins ND, Arrabaça MC, Parry MAJ (2009). Drought stress increases the production of 5-hydroxynorvaline in two C4 grasses. Phytochemistry 70: 664–67
14. Chai TT, Fadzillah NM, Kusnan , Mahmood M (2005). Water stress-induced oxidative damage and antioxidant responses in micropropagated banana plantlets. Biologia Plantarum Volume 49 (1): 153–156
15. Cui ZH, Bi WL, Hao XY, Xu Y, Li PM, Walker MA, Wang QC (2016). Responses of in vitro-grown plantlets (Vitis vinifera) to grapevine leafroll-associated virus-3 and peg-ınduced drought stress. Front. Physiol., | Http://Dx.Doi.Org/10.3389/Fphys.2016.00203
16. Dami I, Hughes H (1995). Leaf anatomy and water loss of in vitro peg-treated ‘Valiant’ grape. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 42: 179-184
17. Ghaderi N, Talaie AR, Ebadi A, Lessani L (2011). The physiological response of three ıranian grape cultivars to progressive drought stress. J. Agr. Sci. Tech. 13: 601-610
18. Heath RL, Packer L (1968). Photoperoxidation in isolated chloroplasts. ı kinetics and stoichiometry of fatty acid penoxidation, arch. Biochem. Biophys. 125: 189-198
19. Hoekstra FA, Golovina EA, Buitink J (2001). Mechanisms of Plant Desiccation Tolerance. Trends in Plant Science 6(9): 431–438
20. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change) (2007). Workinggroup II report "ımpacts, adaptation and vulnerability". M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. Van Der Linden And C.E. Hanson(Eds). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom And New York, NY, USA. 976 Pp.
21. Jain M (2001). Tissue culture-derived variation in crop improvement. Euphytica 118: 153–166
22. Karimi S, Hojati S, Eshghi S, Moghaddam RN, Jandoust S (2012). Magnetic exposure improves tolerance of fig ‘Sabz’ explants to drought stress induced in vitro. Scientia Horticulturae. Volume 137: 95–99
23. Kaufmann MR, Eckard AN (1971). Evaluation of water stress control with polyethylene glycols by analysis of guttation. Plant Physiol. 47: 453-456.
24. Keskin N, Kunter B (2007). Induction of resveratrol via UV irradiation effect in Erciş callus culture. Journal of Agricultural Science, 13(4): 379-384
25. Keskin N, Kunter B (2009). The effcets of callus age UV irradiation and incubation time on trans-resveratrol production in grapevine callus culture. Journal of Agricultural sciences, 15(1): 9-13
26. Kunter B, Cantür, S, Keskin N, Çetiner H (2017). Evaluation of viticultural performance of Ankara in relation to effective heat sum-vine phenology observations. 5th International Participation soil and water resources congress, I, 545-552
27. Leopold AC, Musgrave M E, Williams K M (1981). Solute leakage resulting from leaf desiccation. Plant Physiol. 68: 1222–1225
28. Mahajan S, Tuteja N (2005). Cold, salinity and drought stresses: an overview. Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics 444(2): 139–158
29. Manoj KR, Rajwant KK, Rohtas S, Manu PG, Dhawan AK (2011). Developing stress tolerant plants through in vitro selection—an overview of the recent progress. Environmental and Experimental Botany 71: 89–98
30. Molassiotis AN, Sotiropoulos T, Tanou G, Kofidis G, Diamantidis ,Therios I (2006). Antioxidant and anatomical responses in shoot culture of the apple rootstock MM 106 treated with NaCl, KCl, mannitol or sorbitol. Biol. Plant. 50: 61-68
31. Murashige T, Skoog F (1962) A Revised Medium for Rapid Growth and Bioassay with Tobacco Tissue Cultures. Physiology and Plants 15: 472-497
32. Özden M, Demirel U, Kahraman A (2009). Effects of proline on antioxidant system in leaves of grapevine (Vitis vinifera l.) exposed to oxidative stress by H2O2. Scientia Horticulturae 119: 163–168
33. Parida AK, Dagaonkar VS, Phalak MS, Umalkar GV, Aurangabadkar LP (2007). Alterations in photosynthetic pigments, protein and osmotic components in cotton genotypes subjected to short-term drought stress followed by recovery. Plant Biotechnol. Rep. 1: 37–48
34. Patakas A, Noitsakis B (2001). Leaf age affect on solute accumulation in water-stressed grapevine. Journal of Plant Physiology 158: 63-69
35. Pellegrino A, Lebon E, Simmonneau T, Wery J (2005). Towards a simple ındicator of water stress in grapevine (Vitis vinifera l.) based on the differential sensitivities of vegetative growth component. Austral. J. Grape Wine Res. 11: 306-315
36. Ragab MH, Moustafa AS (2008). Comparative response of drought tolerant and drought sensitive maize genotypes to water stress. Australian Journal of Crop Science Southern Cross Journals© 1(1):31-36
37. Rampino P, Pataleo S, Gerardı C, Mıta G, Perrott C (2006). Drought stress response in wheat: physiological and molecular analysis of resistant and sensitive genotype. Plant Cell Environ. 29: 2143–2152
38. Sabır A (2016). Physıologıcal and morphologıcal responses of grapevıne (V. vinifera l. cv. ‘Italıaʼ) leaf to water defıcıt under dıfferent rootstock effects. Issn 1644-0692 www.acta.media.pl Acta Sci. Pol. Hortorum Cultus 15(1): 135-148
39. Sánchez FJ, De Andrés EF, Tenorio JL, Ayerbe L (2004). Growth of epicotyls, turgor maintenance and osmotic adjustment in pea plants (Pisum sativum l.) subjected to water stress. Field Crops Res. 86: 81–90
40. Savee R, Adillon J (1990) Comparision between plant water relations of in vitro plants and rooted cuttings of kiwifruit. Acta Horticulturae 282: 53-57
41. Sawwan J, Shibli RA, Swaidat I, Tahat M (2000) Phosphorus regulates osmotic potential and growth of african violet under in vitro- induced water deficit, Journal of Plant Nutrition 23 (6): 759-771, DOI: 10.1080/01904160009382057
42. Šircelj H, Tausz M, Grill D, Batič F (2007). Detecting different levels of drought stress in apple trees (Malus domestica borkh.) with selected biochemical and physiological parameters. Scientia Horticulturae 113 (4): 362–369.
43. Sivakumar MVK (2006). Climate prediction and agriculture: current status and future challenges. Climate Research 33(1): 3-17
44. Sivritepe N, Erturk U, Yerlikaya C, Türkan I, Bor M, Özdemir F (2008). Response of the cherry rootstock to water stress induced in vitro. Biol. Plant. 52: 573-576
45. Stevanovic B, Sinzar J, Glisic O (1997). Electrolyte leakage differences between poikilohydrous and homoiohydrous species of gesneriaceae. Biol. Plant. 40: 299–303
46. Sucu S, Yağcı A, Yıldırım K (2018). Changes in Morphological, Physiological Traits And Enzyme Activity Of Grafted And Ungrafted Grapevine Rootstocks Under Drought Stress. Erwebs-Obstbau, Doi:10.1007/s10341-071-0345-7 (Yayın No: 3572292).
47. Taiz L, Zeiger E (1998). Plant Physiology 2nd Ed. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, Mass
48. Tangolar SG, Tangolar S, Kelebek H, Topcu S (2016). Determination of phenolics, sugars, organic acids and antioxidants in the grape variety kalecik karasi under different bud loads and irrigation amounts. Korean Journal of Horticultural Science and Technology 34 (3): 495-509
49. Teulate B, Rekika D, Nachit MM, Monneveux P (1997). Comparative Osmotic adjustments in barley and tetraploid wheats. Plant Breeding 116, 519–523.
50. Tewary P, Ardhana S, Raghunath M, Sarkar A (2000) - In vitro response of promising mulberry (Morus sp.) genotypes for tolerance to salt and osmotic stresses. Plant Growth Reg. 30: 17-21
51. Winning H, Viereck N, Wollenweber B, Larsen FH, Jacobsen S, Søndergaard I, Engelsen SB (2009). Exploring abiotic stress on asynchronous protein metabolism in single kernels of wheat studied by nmr spectroscopy and chemometrics. J. Exp. Bot 60: 291–300
52. Yağmur Y (2008). İnvestigation of some physiological and Biochemical tolerance parameters against Drought stress of different grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) Cultivars. E Ü., Institute of Science, M. Sc. Thesisi, Biology Department. Februrary. 124s, Turkey.
53. Yamasaki S, Dillenburg LR (1999). Measurements of leaf relative water content in Araucaria angustifolia. Revista Brasilleira De Fisiologia Vegetal 11(2): 69-75
54. Yokota A, Takahara K, Akashı K (2006). Water stress. Physiology and Molecular Biology of Stress Tolerance in Plants Pp 15-39
55. Zhang X, Luo Z, Tang J, Lu W , Yi Y (2004). Effect of high temperature and drought stress on free proline content and soluble sugar content of (Taxiphyllum Taxirameum). Europe Pmc. 24(6): 570-573
56. Zhong W, Pan X, Liu W, Zhou J (2012). Response of wild *Vitis quinquangularis* "huaxi-4" tube seedlings to peg stress in morphology and physiology. Journal of Northwest A , F University. Natural Science Edition 40 (6): 181-188.