Investigation morphological and physiological response of Thymus vulgaris L. to drought stress

Paper Details

Research Paper 01/08/2014
Views (191) Download (4)

Investigation morphological and physiological response of Thymus vulgaris L. to drought stress

Mansour Sarajuoghi, Bohloul Abbaszadeh, Mohammad Reza Ardakani
J. Bio. Env. Sci.5( 2), 486-492, August 2014.
Certificate: JBES 2014 [Generate Certificate]


This study was performed to evaluate the effect of drought stress on quality and quantity yield of Thymus vulgaris under field and laboratory condition in Karaj, Iran. The study was conducted as randomized complete block design with five treatments and three replications. Treatments were included 100% moisture (control), 80% (optimum irrigation), 60% (deficit stress), 40% (fairly high stress) and 20% (high stress) of field capacity. Before plant harvesting, morphological traits were recorded. Then plants were cut from about 3cm above ground and aerial organs yield was evaluated after drying at 60-70°C. Essential oil was taken by using Clevenger and water distillation method during 2.5h and its yield was calculated. Soluble sugars, proline, sodium, potassium, magnesium, calcium and iron were measured. Results indicated that drought stress significantly affected plant height, flowering shoot yield, oil percent, oil yield, thymol percent, carvacrol percent, amount of chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b, proline, soluble sugars, sodium, magnesium, iron and RWC (α≤0.01). Mean comparisons showed that the highest flowering shoot yield belonged to 80% of field capacity with 1728kg/ha. The highest (2.22%) and the lowest (0.74%) oil percent were observed in 20 and 100% of field capacity, respectively. 80, 60 and 40% of field capacity had the maximum of oil yield with 19.26, 18.478 and 17.309kg/ha, respectively. The maximum of thymol percent belonged to 80 (42.37%), 60 (42.52%) and 40% (41.4%) of field capacity. The highest magnesium amount observed in 80 (0.74ppm) and 60% (0.63ppm) of field capacity. 100 and 80% of field capacity showed the highest iron with 0.53 and 0.67ppm, respectively.


Abbaszadeh B, Aliabadi Farahani H, Morteza E. 2009. Effects of irrigation levels on essential oil of balm (Melissa officinalis L.). American-Eurasian Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 3(1), 53-56.

Abbaszadeh B, Sharifi Ashourabadi A, Lebaschi MH, Naderi M, Moghadami F. 2007. The effect of drought stress on proline, soluble sugars, chlorophyll and RWC of Melissa officinalis. Iranian Journal of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants Research 23(4), 504-513.

Arazmju A, Heydari M, Ghanbari A, Siyahsar B, Ahmadiyan A. 2010. The effect of three fertilizer types on oil percent, photosynthetic pigments and osmotic regulation of Matricaria chamomilla under drought stress. Iranian Journal of Environment Stresses in Agronomic Science 3(1), 23-33.

Arazmju A, Heydari M, Ghanbari A. 2010. The effect of drought stress and fertilizer type on yield and quality of Matricaria chamomilla. Iranian Journal of Crop Sciences 12(2), 100-111.

Cellier F, Conejero G, Breitler J, Casse F. 1998. Molecularand physiological response to water deficit in drought-tolerant and drought-sensitive lines of sunflower. Plant Physiology 116, 319-328.

Chandra, Obul Reddy P, Sairanganayakulu G, Thippeswamy M, Sudhakar Reddy P, Reddy MK, Chinta Sudhakar H. 2008. Identification of strees-induced genes from the drought tolerant semi-arid legume crop horsegarm (Macrothlamauniflora (Lam.) Verdc.) through analysis of subtracted expressed sequence tags. Plant Sci 175, 372-384.

Chugan R. 2004. Maize breeding for drought tolerance and nitrogen (from theory up to practice). Ministry of agriculture.

Erdem T, Delba L, Orta AH. 2001. Water-use characteristics of sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) under deficit irrigation. Pak. J. Bio. Sci. 4, 766-769.

Fatima SF, Farooqi AHA, Srikant S. 2000. Effect of drought stress and plant density on growth and essential oil metabolism in citronella java (Cymbopogon winterianus L.). Journal of Medicinal and Aromatic Plant Sciences 22 (1), 563-567.

Ghazanshahi J. 1997. Soil and Plant Analysis. Homa press, Iran. 311pp

Irrigoyen JJ, Emerich DW, Sanchez DM. 1992. Water stress induced changes in concentrations of proline and total soluble sugars in modulated alfalfa (Medicago saviiva) plants, Physiologia Plantarum 84, 55-60.

Khalid KhA. 2006. Influence of water stress on growth essential oil and composition of Hypericum brasilience. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology 85, 197-202.

Levitt J. 1980. Response of Plants to Environmental Stresses, Vol. 2, Water, Radiation, Salt and Other Stresses, Academic press, New York.650pp.

Munne S, Alegre L. 2000. The significance of beta carotene, alpha tocopherol and the xanthoohyll cycle in droughted Mellisa officinalis L. Journal of plant Physiology, 27(2), 139-148.

Petropoulos SA, Dimitra D, Polissiou MG, Passam HC. 2008. The effect of water deficit stress in the growth, yield and composition of essential oils of parsley and peppermint. Scientia Horticulturae 115, 393-397.

Rezapour A, Heydari M, Galvi M, Ramoudi M. 2011. The effect of drought stress and sulfur various amount on yield, seed yield components and osmotic regulators of Nigella sativa L. Iranian Journal of Medicinal and Aromatic Plant Sciences 27(3), 384-396.

Taherkhani T, Rahmani N, Moradi A, Zandi P. 2011. Assessment of nitrogen levels on flower yield of Calendula grown under different water deficit stress using drought tolerant indices. Journal of American Science 7(10), 591-598.

Tyler M. 2009. Yield response factor to water and water use efficiency of Tagetes minuta L. Agricultural water management 96(8), 1225-1233.

Vazque Z. 2010. Essential oil content and composition of Silybum marianum at different irrigation regimes. Journal of Agronomy 10(2), 969-1002.

Yang J, Kloepper JV, Ryu CM. 2009. Rhizosphere bacteria help plants tolerate abiotic stress. Trends in Plant Science 14(1), 1-4.

Zaidi HES, Waheed A, Jalal-Ud-Din, Arshad M, Razzaq A. 2014. Evaluation of sunflowers hybrids to drought stress at germination and seedling growth stages. International Journal of Scholarly Research Gate 2(2), 51-59.