Evaluation of Least Limiting Water Range by Vegetative and Physiological Parameters of Pistachio, cv. Sarakhsi, Seedlings

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

Abstract

Continuous availability of soil water is an important factor for plant growth. Both lack of adequate access to water in soils, or adequate oxygen in saturated soils, may reduce or even stop plant growth. To study the behavior of pistachio seedling at various moisture levels and to determine non-limiting water range for its growth, a greenhouse experiment with a completely randomized design was conducted at two levels of bulk density (BD) i.e. 1.5 and 1.8 g cm-3, six moisture levels for BD 1.5 g cm-3 (33-43%, 25-33%, 19-25%, 14-19%, 11-14%, and 7-11% on volume basis) and BD level of 1.8 g cm-3 (27-33%, 23-27%, 19-23%, 15-19%, 13-15%, and 8-13% v/v), with three replications. After transferring the pistachio cv. Sarakhsi seedlings (Pistachio vera L.) into soil cylinders and their establishment, six different volumetric water contents for each BD level were applied. Stomatal conductance of the third mature leaf, proline content, leaf relative water content (RWC) and leaf area were determined. The effect of moisture levels on all growth parameters were significant (P<0.01). With bulk density of 1.5 g cm-3, the seedlings experienced vegetative and physiological limitations in the range of 7 to 14 percent volumetric water content, thus, non-limiting water range for pistachio seedling at this BD level ranged from 14 to 43 percent v/v. In the compacted treatment (BD of 1.8 g cm-3), the vegetative growth and physiological activities suffered limitations within the range of 8-19 percent water content due to moisture deficit, and, in the range of 23-32, were retarded due to soil poor aeration. Also, non-limiting water range at this BD ranged from 19-23 percent water content. The least limiting water range predicted from Dasilva et al. model at the two BDof 1.5 and 1.8 g cm-3 were 11- 25% and 20- 22 percent, respectively. The differences between the predicted range and the range obtained based on the seedling response implies the need for the calibration of the predicting model for each particular soil and plant.

Keywords

References

  1. Arora, A. Sairam, R.K  and  Srivastava, G.C. 2002. Oxidative stress and antioxidative systems in plants. Currrent Science. 82: 1227- 1238.
  2. Bates, I.S. Waldern, R.P and Teare, I.D, 1973. Rapid determination of free prolin for  water stress studies. Plant and Soil. 39:205-207.
  3. Belaygue, C. Wery, J. Cowan, A.A and Tardieu, F. 1996. Contribution of leaf   expansion, rate of leaf appearance, and stolon branching to growth of plant leaf area under water deficit in white clover. Crop Science. 36: 1240–1246.
  4. Bengough, A.G. Bransby, M.F. Hans, J. Mackenna, S.J. Roberts, T.J. and Valentine, T.A. 2006. Root responses to soil physical conditions, growth dynamics from field to cell. Journal of Experimental Botany. 57:437-447
  5. Betz, C. L. Allmaras, R. R. Copeland, S. M. and Randall, G. W. 1998. Least limiting water range: traffic and long-term tillage influences in a Webster soil. Soil Science Society of America  Journal. 62: 1384-1393.
  6. Blainski, E Goncalve, A.C.A Tormena,C.A Folegatti, M.V and Guimaraes, R.M.L. 2009. Least limiting water range of an irrigated Dystroferric Red Nitosol .Revista Brasileira de Ciencia do Solo.33:273-281.
  7. Busscher, W.J. 1990. Adjustment of flat-tipped penetrometer resistance data to a common    water content. Transactions of American Society of Agricultural Engineers. 33:519–524.
  8. Da Silva, A.P. Imhoff, S and Kay, B.D.2004. Plant response to mechanical resistance and air-filled porosity of soils under conventional and no-tillage system. Scientia Agricola.61:451-456.
  9. Da Silva, A.P. Kay, B.D and Perfect, E. 1994. Characterization of the least  limiting  water range of soils. Soil Science Society of America  Journal. 58: 1775–1781.
  10. Da Silva,  A.P and Kay, B.D., 1996. The sensitivity of shoot growth of corn to the least limiting water range of soils. Plant and Soil. 184: 323– 329.
  11. Drew, M.C. 1990. Sensing soil oxygen. Plant Cell and Environment. 13: 681-693.
  12. Gee, G.W and Or, D. 2002. Particle size analysis. In: Dane, J.H and Topp, G.C(eds.). Pp. 255-293. Methods of Soil Analysis. Physical Methods, Part 4. ASA and SSSA. Madison, WI..
  13. He, C.F Drew, M.C Jordan, W.R and Morgan, P.W.1996. Ethylene biosynthesis during      aerenchyma formation in roots of maize subjected to mechanical impedance and hypoxia. Plant Physiology.112: 1679-1685.
  14. Ismail, M.R Aziz, M.A and Hashim, T. 1994. Growth, water relations and physiological  change of young durian (Durio zibenthinus Murr) as influenced by  water availability. Pertanika Journal of Tropical Agricultural Science. 17:149–156.
  15. Jones, H.G. 1992. A Quantitative Approach to  Environmental Plant Physiology, 2nd ed. In: Plants and Microclimate.Cambridge University press. 428p.
  16. Lawlor, D.W. 2002. Limitation to photosynthesis in water stressed leaves: stomato vs metabolism and the role of . Annals of  Botany. 89: 871- 885.
  17. LeBaron, A.D. 1973. Projecting Iranian agricultural supply and demand. Iranian Journal of Agricultural Research. 2: 2–11.
  18. Letey, J. 1985. Relationship between soil physical properties and crop production. Advances  in  Soil Science. 277- 294.
  19. Mahajan, S.h and Tuteja, N.2005. Cold, salinity and drought stresses: An overview. Archives of  Biochememistry and Biophysics. 444: 139- 158.
  20. Mohammadi, M. H Asadzadeh, F. and Vanclooster, M. 2010. Refining and unifying the upper limits of the least limiting water range using soil and plant properties. Plant Soil. 334: 221-234.
  21. Nagel, O.W Konings, H and Lambers, H. 1994. Growth rate, plant development and water relations of ABA-deficient tomato mutant sitiens. Physiologia Plantarum. 92:102–108.
  22. Nelson, D.W and Sommers, L.E. 1996. Total carbon, organic carbon and organic matter. Pp. 961-1010. In: Sparks, D.L (ed.). Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 3.  Chemical Methods. ASA and SSSA. Madison, WI.
  23. Ortunõ, M.F Garcia-Orellana, Y. Conejero, W. Ruiz-Sanchez, M.C Mounzer, O Alarcon, J.J and Torrecillas, A. 2006. Relationships between climatic variables and sap  flow, stem water potential and maximum daily trunk shrinkage in lemon trees. Plant and Soil. 279: 229–242.
  24. Pic, E. Teyssendier, D. L. Serve, B.Tardieu, F and Turc, O. 2002. Leaf senescence induced by mild water deficit follows the same sequence of macroscopic, biochemical and molecular events as monocarpic senescence in pea. Plant Physiology.128:236–246.
  25. Remorini, D. and Massai, R. 2003. Comparison of water status indicators for young peach trees. Irrigation Science. 22:39–46.
  26. Serpe, M.D and Mathews, M.A. 2000. Turgor and cell wall yielding in dicot leaf  growth in response to changes in relative humidity. Australian Jounrnal Plant Physiology. 27:1131–1140.
  27. Siegel – Issem, C.M. Burger, J.A. Powers, R.F. Ponder Fand Patterson, S.C. 2005. Seedling root growth as a function of soil density and water content. Soil Science Society of America  Journal. 69: 215-226.
  28. Siti, S.Z and Razi, I.M. 2009. Growth, stomata aperture, biochemical changes and ranch  anatomy in mango (Mangifera indica) cv. Chokanan in response to root  restriction and water stress. Scientia Horticulture.123: 58- 67.
  29. Spiegel-Roy, P. Mazigh, D. and Evenari, M. 1977. Response of pistachio to low soil moisture conditions. Jounrnal American Society for Horticultural Science. 102: 470–473.
  30. Veihmeyer, F. J. and Hendrickson, A. H. 1949. Methods of measuring field capacity and wilting percentages of soils, Soil Science. 68: 75–94
  1. Wheatherley,E. 1970. Some aspects of water relations. Advances in Botanical Research. 3: 171- 206.
  2. Wilkinson, S. and Davies, W.J. 2002. ABA-based chemical signaling: the coordination of responses to stress in plants. Plant Cell Environment. 25:195- 210.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics