Araştırma Makalesi

Doğu Akdeniz koşullarında yetiştirilen kuraklığa dayanıklı ve hassas pamuk çeşitlerinin fotosentetik özelliklerin belirlenmesi

Cilt: 25 Sayı: 1 6 Nisan 2020
PDF İndir
EN TR

Quantifying photosynthetic properties of drought-resistant and sensitive cotton varieties grown in Eastern Mediterranean conditions

Abstract

Aims: This study aimed to investigate the effects of different irrigation water levels on evapotranspiration, water use efficiency, stomatal conductance, photosynthesis rates and yields in 14 drought-sensitive and resistant cotton varieties.


Methods and Results: The trial was carried out according to the random blocks experimental design pattern. The experimental study was conducted on ST 506, ST468, BA525, BA119, FLASH, SIOKRA L-22, TAM SPHINX, TAM 94L-25, PIMA S-7, TAMCOT-22, TAMCOT SP 21 S, TAMCOT SP 23, TAMCOT CAMD-ES and AKSEL cultivars. Evapotranspiration, water use efficiency, stomatal conductance, transpiration and photosynthesis rates and yields of the mentioned cultivars were determined. Photosynthesis rate, transpiration rate and stomatal conductance were measured only at the levels of full irrigation (I100) and 25% of the full irrigation (I25).


Conclusions: The total numbers of irrigation done in the first and second years were four and six, respectively. The amount of irrigation water applied varied between 270 and 480 mm in the first year, and 298 and 520 mm in the second year. Yield and evapotranspiration increased depending on the amount of irrigation water applied. The highest and lowest yields were determined as 358 kg da-1 in Aksel cultivar and 555 kg da-1 in BA525 variety, respectively. On average, the photosynthesis rate was measured as 12,616 µmol m-2 s-1 for I100, and 7.549 µmol m-2 s-1 for I25. As the stomatal conductance increased, the yield also increased (0.093 mol m-2 s-1 for I25 and 0.182 mol m-2 s-1 for I100). Transpiration rate was determined as 2.947 mmol m-2 s-1 for I25 and 3.919 mmol m-2 s-1 for I100. The varieties did not significantly differ in terms of water stress. Aksel cultivar is drought-sensitive, whereas the others are drought-resistant varieties.


Significance and Impact of the Study: The research revealed the physiological characteristics, plant water consumption and water use efficiency of 14 different cotton varieties widely grown in eastern Mediterranean conditions. And also, when the relationship of the mentioned parameters with yield was examined, the relationship between stomatal conductance and yield was found lower than the one between transpiration and photosynthesis rates.

Keywords

Kaynakça

  1. Bek Y, Efe E (1988) Araştırma ve Deneme Medotları I. Ç.Ü.Ziraat Fakültesi, Ders Kitabı: No:71, 395 S.
  2. Cook CG, El-Zik KM (1993) Fruiting and lint yield of cotton cultivars under irrigated and non-irrigated conditions. Field Crops Res. 33:411-421
  3. Doorenbos J, Kassam AH (19799) Yield Response to Water. FAO 33. 193 sayfa.
  4. Göksoy AT, Turan ZM (1991) Kuraklığın Bitki Fizyolojisi Ve Morfolojisi Üzerine Etkileri. U.Ü.Z.F. Dergisi, No: 8, 189-199, Bursa.
  5. Gomathinayagam P, Ingram KT, Maguling MA (1988) Pot screening for drought tolerance in rice. Int. Rice Res. Newsl. 13: 19.
  6. Howell TA, Cuence RH, Solomon KH (1990) Crop yield response. In: hoffman. g.j.. et al.. (eds.) Management of farm ırrigation systems (pp. 93-122). ASAE.
  7. James LG (1988) Principle of farm Irrigation systemdesign (Surface Irrigation. Newyork 543 pp.
  8. Jackson P, Rubertson M, Cupper M, Hammer G (1996) The Role of Physiological Understanding in Plant Breeding from Breeding Perspective. Field Crops Res 49. 11–37.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil

İngilizce

Konular

Ziraat Mühendisliği

Bölüm

Araştırma Makalesi

Yayımlanma Tarihi

6 Nisan 2020

Gönderilme Tarihi

6 Mart 2020

Kabul Tarihi

24 Mart 2020

Yayımlandığı Sayı

Yıl 1970 Cilt: 25 Sayı: 1

Kaynak Göster

APA
Ödemiş, B., Kılıc, S., & Evrendilek, F. (2020). Quantifying photosynthetic properties of drought-resistant and sensitive cotton varieties grown in Eastern Mediterranean conditions. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi, 25(1), 65-74. https://doi.org/10.37908/mkutbd.699594

22740137731737513771 13774 15432 1813713775 14624 15016 i2or 1857924881