Investigation of polyethylene glycol on some elements and proline of monogrem genotypes leaf of sugar beet in greenhouse conditions

Paper Details

Research Paper 01/01/2014
Views (220) Download (7)
current_issue_feature_image
publication_file

Investigation of polyethylene glycol on some elements and proline of monogrem genotypes leaf of sugar beet in greenhouse conditions

Lida Issazadeh, Reza Serajamani, Mojtaba Ghasemi Fahim, Bahram Mirzamasoumzadeh
J. Bio. Env. Sci.4( 1), 228-232, January 2014.
Certificate: JBES 2014 [Generate Certificate]

Abstract

Drought stress was one of the major problems to produce farms plants in Iran and the world, as well as a serious threat to the successful production of crops around the world. In other hand, drought stress was main factor to decrease sugar beet performance. According to this issue, an examination was done on 2011 at greenhouse in order to Investigate Polyethylene Glycol on some elements and proline of monogerm genotypes leaf of sugar beet. Examination was done in two-factor factorial frame in a randomized complete block design with three replications. In Factor a (drought level: 1 normal irrigation, 2: Polyethylene glycol 6000 with 30% concentration) and factor b (genotype) was performed. In this study, sodium, potassium, phosphorus and leaf proline were evaluated. The results showed that there was significant difference at 1% probable level between interaction of × genotype in term of sodium, potassium and phosphorus characteristics and there was no significant difference at proline leaf genotypes at 1% probable level. Polyethylene glycol caused to reduce 3.84 % sodium, 42.99 % potassium as well as caused to increase 40.68 % proline and 54.47 % phosphorus. Sodium and potassium among elements had 30908 and phosphorus had 30906 values. . Comparing effects mean sodium, potassium and phosphorus showed that highest values was respectively (normal × genotype 30,906), (normal × genotype 30,906) and (PEG 6000 × genotype 30906) combinations.

VIEWS 9

Al Bahrany M. 2002.Hand book of seed physiology, Food Product press, NewYork. p. 270.

Clover G, Smith H, Jaggard K. 1998.The crop under stress. British Sugar Beet Review 66(3), 17-19.

Firouzabadi Brothers M, Shamei S, Naimi Gh. 2003. Effect of different levels of water stress on improving the quality and quantity of three sugar beet lines. Journal of Sugar Beet (2) 19, 133-143.

Hosseini S, Pourebrahim H. 2006. Economic Evaluation of Agricultural Research in Iran: Sugar Beet. Journal of Agricultural Science (2), 83-75. Iran.

Kafi M, MahdaviDamghani A. 2002. Resistance mechanisms of plants to environmental stresses (translation). University of Mashhad.

Michel BE, Kaufmann MR. 1973. The osmotic potential of polyethylene glycol 6000. Plant Physioloy 51, 914-916.

Nasiri M, Seyed sharifi R. 2007. Effect of micronutrient application on drought resistance of sugar beet seed production. 10th Congress of Soil Science p. 123.

Ober E. 2001. The search for drought tolerance in sugar beet. British Sugar Beet Review 69 (1), 40-43.

Tsveltkou M, Weele R. 2000. Effects of seed coating and osmotic priming on the germination of lettuce seeds. Journal of the American Society for Horticulture Science 112, 153-156.