Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 MSc. Student, Plant Breeding, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran.

2 Associate professor, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran.

3 Assistant Professors of Gachsaran Agricultural Research Center, Gachsaran, Iran.

Abstract

Introduction
Wheat is one of the most important and strategic products and is the most valuable food for the people of the world, especially the Third World countries. Wheat farms in arid and semiarid regions in rainfed conditions are generally exposed to drought stress at the germination, emergence and the late stages of the growing season. The effects of PEG simulated osmotic stress on morphological traits, such as root and stem length, fresh and dry weight of root and stem have been studied in a large number of previous studies. This research was conducted to investigate the effect of osmotic stress on morphological characteristics of advanced durum wheat lines and to classify the studied lines in terms of osmotic stress tolerance and to identify the susceptible and tolerant lines.

Materials and methods
In order to study the effect of osmotic stress in durum wheat lines, 83 lines were evaluated at two levels including zero (control) and -4 bar osmotic potential. The experiment was done in tow condition based on completely randomized design with four replications. Polyethylene glycol 6000 was used to create -4 bar osmotic potential. The lines were cultivated in plastic pots with 10 cm diameter and 50 cm height that filled with sand. Irrigation of all pots until germination of seeds was done by normal water. After germination stage, control pots irrigated with Hogland solution and under stress pots irrigated with Hogland solution contain PEG6000. The Measurement of morphological traits included root and shoot length, fresh and dry weight of root and shoot, root volume and root area was done one month after applying stress and Ti and SIIG indices were calculated based on these traits. After calculating the Ti index for the studied lines and obtaining the highest and lowest tolerance index for each trait, they were used to calculate the distance of each line from the positive ideal genotype (d +) and the ideal negative genotype (-d). In addition to using the SIIG index in this analysis, the grouping of the studied lines was done using cluster analysis using Ward method. This grouping was performed by applying the average of the lines for Ti index and the results of cluster analysis were compared with the results of the SIIG index. Statistical analysis of data was done using SPSS16 software and comparison of averages was done with Duncan's test at a probability level of 1%.

Results and discussion
The results of variance analysis of Ti showed that the lines had a significant difference in all traits at 1% probability level. Based on the results of the comparison of the average of durum wheat lines in terms of the Ti indices calculated from the traits, in most traits, the lines 9, 26, 34, 40 and 53 the lines had the highest value of Ti index and the lines 22, 29, 51, 77 and 79 were the lines with the lowest value of Ti index. The high level of this index on each line indicates the high tolerance of these lines to osmotic stress. The results of line rating using SIIG method showed that lines 9, 16, 24, 25, 26, 34, 35, 38, 53 and 64 had the highest SIIG in comparison with other lines and these lines were identified as the most tolerated ones to osmotic stress. Lines 22, 29, 30, 51, 52, 61, 73, 77, 79 and 82 were ten lines with the least amount of SIIG and were the most sensitive lines to osmotic stress.

Conclusion
Based on the indices of Ti, lines 34, 9, 53, 26, 40, 16, 64, 7 have a high average and lines 29, 77, 22, 30, 51, 13, 79 have the low average of the traits . According to the SIIG index, the lines 34.9, 53, 26, 16, 64, 38, 25, 35, 24 were in the high average group and the lines 61, 52, 51, 30, 82, 73, 79, 77, 29, 22 were in the low average group. These results were also obtained in cluster analysis, and the results of this grouping were highly consistent with the results of the lines' ranking using the SIIG index. This shows that the SIIG index helps the researcher to sum up the results of different indices. In general, it can be presented that in this study, the lines 9, 34, 53, 26, 16, 64, 38, 25, 35, 24 were tolerant lines and the lines 61, 52, 51, 30, 82, 73, 79, 77, 29, 22 were susceptible ones to osmotic stress.

Keywords

Abdalla, M.M., El-Khoshiban, N.H., 2007. The influence of water stress on growth, relative water content, photosynthetic pigments, some metabolic and hormonal contents of two Triticum aestivum cultivars. Journal of Applied Science Research. 3, 2062-2074.
Akbarigujdi, E., Eizadi darbandi, A., Borzuie, A., Majdabadi, A., 2010. The survey of morphological changes of wheat genotypes under salt stress conditions. Science and Technology of Greenhouse Crops. 1, 71-82. [In Persian with English summary].
Alizadeh, A., 2009. Water, Soil and Plant Relationship. Astan Quds Razavi Press. Mashhad, 353p. [In Persian].
Araus, J.L., Slafer, G.A., Reynolds, M.P., Royo, C., 2002. Plant breeding and drought in C3 cereal should we breed for? Annals of Botany. 89, 925-940.
Bayoumi, T.Y., Eid, M.H., Metwali, E.M., 2008. Application of physiological and biochemical indices as a screening technique for drought tolerance in wheat genotypes. African Journal of Biotechnology. 7, 2341-2352.
Ganjeali, A., Bagheri, A., 2011. Evaluation of morphological characteristics of root chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) in response to drought stress. Iranian Journal of Pulses Research. 1, 101-110. [In Persian with English summary].
Ganjeali, A., Kaffi, M., Sabet Teimouri, M., 2010. Evaluation of root and shoot physiological indices in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) under drought stress. Environmental Stresses in Crop Sciences. 3, 35-45. [In Persian with English summary].
Garavandi, M., Farshadfar, E., Kahrizi, D., 2010. Evaluation of drought tolerance in advanced bread wheat genotypes in field and laboratory condition. Journal of Seed and Plant Seedling. 2, 233-252. [In Persian with English summary].
Jaberifar, A., Nasr Esfahani, M., Gandi, A. Rashidi Asl, A., Efyuni, D., 2011. Comparison of phonological traits of advanced wheat lines in Isfahan conditions. Quarterly Journal of Crops Physiology. 3, 69-83. [In Persian with English summary].
Kafi, M., Mahdavi-e-Damghani, A. 2000. Mechanisms of Plants Tolerance to Environmental Stresses. Ferdowsi University Publication. Mashhad, Iran. 449p. [In Persian].
Kafi, M., Borzuie, A., Kamandi, A., Maasumi, A., Nabati, J., 2009. Physiology of Environmental Stresses in Plants. University of Mashhad Publication, 504p. [In Persian].
Kafi, M., Zand, E., Kamkar, B., Sharifi, H.R., Goldani, M. 2005. Plant Physiology. University of Mashhad Publication. 456p. [In Persian].
Kant, S., Kafkafi, U. 2005. Impact of mineral deficiency stress. The Hebrew University. Available at: http://www.plantstress.com/articles/min_deficiency_i/impact.htm
Khazaei, H., Kafi, M., 2003. Effect of drought stress on root growth and dry matter partitioning between roots and shoots of winter wheat. Iranian Journal of Field Crops Research. 1, 33-41. [In Persian with English summary].
Kramer, P.J., 1999. Water Relation of Plants. Academic Press, New York.
Michel, B.E., Kaufmann, M.R., 1973. The osmotic potential of polyethylene glycol 6000. Plant Physiology. 51, 914-916.
Mirzaee, M.R., Rezvani, S.M., 2008. Effect of drought stress on beet quality at different growth stages. Journal of Sugar Beet. 45, 42- 49. [In Persian with English summary].
Mohammadnia, S., Asghari, A., Sofalian, O., Mohammaddoust, H., Karimizadeh, R. Shokouhian, A.A., 2016. Evaluation of durum wheat lines using drought stress indices. 8, 11-23. [In Persian with English summary].
Nagarajan, S., Rane, J., Maheswari, M., Gambhir, P., 1999. Effect of postanthesis water stress on accumulation of dry matter, carbon and nitrogen and their partitioning of dry matter, in wheat varieties differing in drought tolerance. Journal of Agronomy Crop Sciences. 129, 136-183.
Okcu, G., Kaya, M.D., Atak, M., 2005. Effects of salt and drought stresses on germination and seedling growth of pea (Pisum sativum L.). Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry. 29, 237-242.
Panda, S.K., Khan, M.H., 2004. Changes in growth and superoxide dismutase activity in Hydrilla verticillata L. under abiotic stress. Brazilian Journal of Plant Physiology. 16, 115-118.
Rajabzadeh, N. 2001. Bread Technology. Tehran University Press. [In Persian].
Reddy, A.R., Claitanya, K.V., Vivekanadan, M., 2004. Drought-induced responses of photosynthesis and antioxidant metabolism in higher plants. Journal of Plant Physiology. 161, 1189-1202.
Sabbaghpur, H. 2003. Drought tolerance mechanisms in plants. Journal of Agricultural Drought and Famine. 3, 21-32. [In Persian].
Sabirzhanova, I.B., Sabirzhanov, B.E., Chemeris, A., Veselov, D.S., Kudoyarov, G.R., 2005. Fast changes in expression of expansion gene and leaf extensibility in osmotically stressed maize plants. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry. 43, 419-422.
Sadiqov, S.T., Akbulut, M., Ehmedov, V., 2002. Role of Ca2+ in drought stress signaling in wheat seedlings. Biochemistry. 67, 491-497.
Sandahu, A.S., Laude, H.H., 1985. Effects of drought heat hardiness in winter wheat. Agronomy Journal. 50, 78-81.
Vinocur, B., Altman, A., 2005. Recent advances in engineering plant tolerance to abiotic stress: Achievements and limitations. Current Opinion in Biotechnology. 16, 123-132.
Yagutipour, A., Farshadfar, E., Saiedi, M., 2016. Evaluation drought tolerance of bread wheat genotypes using suitable compound method. Environmental Stresses in Crop Sciences. 10, 247-256. [In Persian with English summary].
Zali, H., Sofalian, O., Hasanloo, T., Asghari, A., Hoseini, S.M., 2015. Appraising of drought tolerance relying on stability analysis indices in canola genotypes simultaneously, using selection index of ideal genotype (SIIG) technique: Introduction of new method. Biological Forum. 7, 703-711.