تأثیر تلقیح باکتری محرک رشد Pseudomonas putida بر تحمل به شوری نهالهای استبرق (Calotropis procera Ait.) | ||
| خشک بوم | ||
| مقاله 7، دوره 6، شماره 1، فروردین 1395، صفحه 81-94 اصل مقاله (393.42 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| محمد بهمنی1؛ سید غلامعلی جلالی* 1؛ احمد اصغرزاده2؛ مسعود طبری کوچکسرایی1 | ||
| 1دانشگاه تربیت مدرس | ||
| 2موسسه تحقیقات خاک و آب کشور | ||
| چکیده | ||
| این تحقیق با هدف بررسی تحمل به شوری نهالهای استبرق با استفاده از تلقیح باکتری Pseudomonas putida در شرایط گلخانه انجام گرفت. آزمایش، با شش سطح تیمار آبیاری در سطوح مختلف شوری (0، 5، 10، 15، 20 و 25 دسیزیمنس بر متر) و دو سطح تیمار تلقیح (شاهد و باکتری) بهصورت آزمایش فاکتوریل در قالب طرح آماری کامل تصادفی با سه تکرار طراحی شد. نتایج این پژوهش نشان داد در شوری بیش از 15 دسیزیمنس بر متر، همه نهالهای تلقیح نشده با باکتری خشک شدند. این در حالی است که در شرایط تلقیح با باکتری، بیش از نیمی از نهالها در شوری 15 دسی زیمنس بر متر و حدود 38 درصد نهالها در شوری 25 دسیزیمنس بر متر زنده ماندند. در شرایط نبود شوری، ارتفاع، سطح ریشه، وزن تر و خشک نهالهای تلقیح شده با باکتری نسبت به نهالهای تلقیح نشده به ترتیب 6/2، 3/40، 38 و 9/31 درصد افزایش داشتند. در نهالهای تلقیح شده با باکتری در اغلبِ سطوح شوری تا 15 دسیزیمنس بر متر نرخ فتوسنتز و کلروفیل از نظر آماری افزایش و میزان تعرق کاهش یافت؛ اما نشت الکترولیت تفاوتی نشان نداد. همچنین، غلظت نیتروژن، پتاسیم، و پتاسیم به سدیم برگ افزایش و غلظت سدیم کاهش یافت. بر اساس نتایج این پژوهش، باکتری محرک رشد سودوموناس عملکرد و بازدهی مطلوبی را برای نهالهای استبرق رشد یافته تا شوری 15 دسی زیمنس بر متر فراهم کرده است. از این رو، استفاده از این باکتری به عنوان یک رهیافت نوین بیوتکنولوژیک میتواند برای تلقیح نهال این گونه جهت احیای اراضی شور و نیز تولید نهال آن در نهالستانهای با خاک شور پیشنهاد شود. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| استبرق؛ باکتری؛ زندهمانی؛ شوری؛ فتوسنتز و نشت الکترولیت | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Effect of Inoculation Growth Promotion Bacterium Pseudomonas putida on Tolerance to Salinity of Calotropis procera Ait. Seedlings | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| mohammad Bahmani1؛ Gholam Ali Jalali1؛ Ahmad Asgharzadeh2؛ masoud Tabari1 | ||
| 2Associate Professor of Institute of Soil and Water Research, Tehran | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| This study aimed to investigate the tolerance to salinity of Calotropis seedlings inoculated with the bacterium Pseudomonas Putida was conducted under greenhouse conditions. Treatments, six levels salinity stress factor with sodium chloride salt (0, 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 ds/m) and two level inoculation factor (control and bacterium) as a factorial experiment in a completely randomized design with three replications was designed. Result showed that salinity more than 15ds/m, non-inoculation bacterium seedlings were dried. However, bacterium inoculated seedlings in 15 and 25ds/m salinity level respectively more than 50% and 38% their survival maintained. In non-salinity condition, height, root area, fresh and dry weight of seedling, respectively 2.59, 40.35, 38.05 and 31.89 percentage increase in the bacterium inoculated seedlings compared to non-inoculated was observed. In most salinity level until 15 ds/m of Inoculated seedlings, rate of photosynthesis and chlorophyll significantly increased as well as transpiration rate decreased. But electrolyte leakage did not any difference. So concentration of nitrogen, potassium and potassium to sodium of leaves bacterium seedlings compared to control were increased while sodium of leaves decreased. Overall, this research revealed that Seedlings inoculated to PGPB pseudomonas until moderate level of salinity specially 15 ds/m has provided most optimal performance and efficiency. Hence, using of this bacterium as a new biotechnologic approach could be suggested for Inoculation seedlings this species in reclamation of saline lands and production of its seedlings in nurseries with salty soils. | ||
| کلیدواژهها [English] | ||
| Calotropis procera, Bacterium, Survival, salinity, Photosynthesis and electrolyte leakage | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
[1]. Abtahi, A.S. (1380).Two varieties of pistachio seedlings response to the amount and type of soil in the greenhouse. Journal of Science and Technology of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 5 (1), 93-100 (in Persian).
[2]. Alexander, D.B., and Zuberer, D.A. 1991. Use and Production by rhizosphere bacteria, Biology chrome azurol S reagents to evaluate siderophore.Fertility of Soil, 12, 39-45
[3]. Al-Sobhi, O.A., Al-Zahrani, H.S., & Al-Ahmadi, S.B. (2006). Effect of Salinity on Chlorophyl and Carbohydrate Contents of Calotropis procera Seedlings. Scientific Journal of King Faisal University, 7(1),105-115.
[4]. AOSA, (1970). Tetrazolium Testing Handbook to the Handbook on Seed Testing, Prepared by the Tetrazolium Subcommittee of the Association of Official Seed Analysts.
[5]. Ashraf, M.Y., & Bhatti, A.S. (2000). Effect of salinity on growth and chlorophyll content of Rice. Pakistan Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research, 43 (2), 130-131.
[6]. Bahmani, M., Jalali, Gh., Asgharzadeh, A., & Tabari, M. (2014). Effect of Plant Growth Promotion Rhizobacterial on some characteristic of germination and seed vigority. Journal of Soil Biology, 2(1), 80 - 86. (In Persian)
[7]. Bashan, Y., Holguin, G., & de-Bashan, L.E. (2004). Azospirillum – plant relationships: physiolog-ical, molecular, agricultural, and environmental advances. Canadian Journal of Microbiology, 50,52–77.
[8]. Berglund, A.H., Larsson, K.E., & Liljenberg, C.S. (2004) Permeability behavior of lipid vesiclesprepared from plant plasma membranes – impact of compositional changes. Biochimistry Biophysic Acta Molecular Cell Biolology, 1682, 11–7.
[9]. Bharti, N., Barnawal, D., Awasthi, A., Yadav, A., & Kalra, A. (2014). Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria alleviate salinity induced negative effects on growth, oil content and physiological status in Mentha arvensis. Acta Physiologiae Plantarum, 36(1), 45-60
[10]. Bohn, W. (1979). Methods of studying root systems, Ecological Studies, Springer Verlag., Berlin, 188 pp.
[11]. Chanway, C.P., Shishido, M., Nairn, J., Jungwirth, S., Markham, J., Xiao, G., & Holl, F.B. (2000). Entophytic colonization and field responses of hybrid spruce seedling after inoculation with plant growth- promoting rhizobacteria. Forest Ecology and Management, 133, 81-88.
[12]. Del Amor, F.M., & Cuadra - Crespo, P. (2011). Plant growth-promoting bacteria as a tool to improve salinity tolerance in sweet pepper. Functional Plant Biology, 39(1), 82-90
[13]. Emami, A. (1375). Methods of plant analysis (Volume I). Organization of research, education and agricultural extension, Soil and Water Research Institute, Publication No. 982. 128 pages.
[14]. Eugenia, M., Nunes, S., & Smith, G., (2003). Electrolyte leakage assay capable of quantifying freezing resistance in rose clover. Crop Science, 43: 1349-1357.
[15]. Ferreira-Silva, S.L., Silveira, J., Voigt, E., Soares, L., & Viegas, R. (2008). Changes in physiological indicators associated with salt tolerance in two contrasting cashew rootstocks. Braz. Journal of Plant Physiology, 20, 51-59.
[16]. Flexas, J., Ortun, O., M.F, Ribas-Carbo, M., Di az-Espejo, A., Florez-Sarasa, I.D., & Medrano, H. (2007). Mesophyll conductance to CO Arabidopsis thaliana. New Phytology, 175, 501–511
[17]. Garcia-Sanchez, F., & Syvertsen, J.P. (2006). Salinity tolerance of Cleopatra mandarin and Carrizo citrange citrus rootstock seedlings is affected by Co2 enrichment during growth. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science, 131, 24- 31.
[18]. Glick, B., Jacobson, R., Schwarz, C.B., & Pasternak, J.J. (1994). 1aminocycloprpane-1-carboxylic acid deaminase mutants of the plant growth promoting rhizobacterium Pseudomonas putida GR12-2 do not stimulate canola root elongation. Canadian Journal of Microbiology, 40, 911-915.
[19]. Greenway, H., & Munns, R. (1980). Mechanisms of salt tolerance in nonhalophytes, Annual Reviews of Plant Physiology, 31, 149-190.
[20]. Hafeez, F.Y., Safdar, M.E., Chaudhry, A.U., & Malik, K.A. (2004). Rhizobial inoculation improves seedling emergence, nutrient uptake and growth of cotton. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 44, 617-622
[21]. Hester, M.W., Mendelesoln, I.A., & Mckee, K.L. (2001). Species and Population variation to salinity stress in Panicum hemitomon, Spartina patens, and Spartina alterniflora: morphological and physiological constrains. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 46, 277-297.
[22]. Ibrahim, A.H. (2013). Tolerance and avoidance responses to salinity and water stresses in Calotropis Procera and Suaeda aegyptiaca. Turk Journal of Agricultural and Forestry, 37, 352-360.
[23]. Karlidag, H., Esitken, A., Yildirim, E., Figen Donmez, M., & Turan, M. (2011). Effects of Plant Growth Promoting Bacteria on Yield, Growth, Leaf Water Content, Membrane Permeability, and Ionic Composition of Strawberry under Saline Conditions. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 34 (1) 34-45.
[24]. Khavazi, K.R.E., & malakouti, J. (2005). Necessity of Industrial production of bio-fertilizer in Iran. Research Institute of Soil and Water, 439 pages
[25]. Lutts, S., Kinet, J.M., & Bouharmont, J. (1995). Changes in plant response to NaCl during development of rice. Journal of Experimental Botany, 46 (12), 1843-1852.
[26]. Marcelo, S.M., & Bruce, S. (2010). Photosynthetic and growth responses of Eugenia uniflora L. seedlings to soil flooding and light intensity. Environmental and Experimental, 68(2), 113–121
[27]. Mayak, S., Tirosh, T., & Glick, B.R. (2004). Plant growth-promoting bacteria confer resistance in tomato plants to salt stress. Plant Physiology Biochemistry, 42: 565-572.
[28]. Momeni, A. (2009). Geographic distribution of soil salinity levels of Iran. Journal of Soil Science (soil and water), 24 (3), 215-204 (in Persian)
[29]. Naumann, J.C., Young, D.R., & Anderson, J.E. (2007). Linking leaf chlorophyll fluorescence Properties to physiological responses for detection of salt and drought stress in coastal plant Species. Physiology Plant, 131,422–433
[30]. Ortiz, N., Armadaa, E., Duque, E., Roldán, A., & Azcón. R. (2015). Contribution of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and/or bacteria to enhancing plant drought tolerance under natural soil conditions: Effectiveness of autochthonous or allochthonous strains. Journal of Plant Physiology, 174, 87–96.
[31]. Patten, C.L., & Glick B.R. (2002). Role of Pseudomonas putida indole acetic acid in development of host plant root system. Apply Environment Microbiology, 3795-3801.
[32]. Sabeti, H. (2002). Forests, Trees and Shrubs of Iran. Yazd University Press, 3nd edition. (In Farsi).
[33]. Saxton, K.E., Rawls, W.J., Romberger, J.S. & papendick, R.I. (1986). estimating generalized soil water characteristics from texture. Soil Scientific of Social American Journal, 50,1031-1036.
[34]. Taiz, L,. & Zeiger, E. (2002). Plant Physiology, Third Edition. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. 690 pps.
[35]. Todar, K. (2004). Pseudomonas and its relatives. http://www.tex book of bacteriology. Net/pseudomonas. Etc. html.
[36]. Wang, J., Xing, D., Zhang, L., & Jia, L. (2007). A new principle photosynthesis capacity biosensor based on quantitative measurement of delayed fluorescence in vivo. Biosensors and Bioelectronics, 22, 12, 2861–2868.
[37]. Yao, L., Zhan sheng, W., & Zheng, Y. (2010). Growth promotion and protection against salt stress by Pseudomonas putida Rs-198 on cotton. European Journal of Soil Biology, 46, 49-54. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 1,638 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 1,375 |
||