• صفحه اصلی
  • ارزیابی صفات مورفولوژیکی و بیوشیمیایی در گیاهچه‌‌‌های چهار رقم زودرس و دیررس سیب‌‌‌زمینی در شرایط درون شیشه‌‌‌ای

اشتراک گذاری

آدرس مقاله


کد مقاله : SJOAPB-2307-1412 بازدید : 238 صفحه: 43 - 62

نوع مقاله: پژوهشی

ارزیابی صفات مورفولوژیکی و بیوشیمیایی در گیاهچه‌‌‌های چهار رقم زودرس و دیررس سیب‌‌‌زمینی در شرایط درون شیشه‌‌‌ای

محورهای موضوعی : زیست شناسی

فرح فراهانی 1 , ملیحه طالبی 2 , طاهر برزگر 3

1 - دانشیار، گروه میکروبیولوژی، واحد قم، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، قم، ایران
2 - کارشناسی ارشد، گروه علوم باغبانی، واحد علوم و تحقیقات، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران.
3 - دانشیار، گروه علوم باغبانی، دانشگاه زنجان، زنجان، ایران.

تاریخ دریافت : 1402/04/19 تاریخ پذیرش : 1402/04/25 تاریخ انتشار : 1402/02/01

کلید واژه: شرایط درون شیشه‌‌‌ای, صفات بیوشیمیایی, صفات مورفولوژیکی, محیط کشت MS, کلروفیل, کاتالاز, کاروتنوئید, آنتوسیانین, سیب‌‌‌زمینی,

چکیده مقاله :

هدف: با توجه به اهمیت سیب‌‌‌زمینی در اقتصاد و تغذیه انسان، نیاز به تولید بذرهای سالم از طریق کشت بافت جهت بالا بردن کیفیت غده و در نهایت حفظ عملکرد محصول، محسوس می‌باشد. در این راستا، هدف پژوهش حاضر ارزیابی صفات مورفولوژیکی و بیوشیمیایی در گیاهچه‌‌‌های چهار رقم زودرس و دیررس سیب‌‌‌زمینی در شرایط درون شیشه‌‌‌ای است.مواد و روش‌‌ها: چهار رقم تجاری سیب‌‌‌زمینی به صورت ریز نمونه‌های تک‌گره، در محیط کشت MS فاقد هرگونه مواد تنظیم‌کننده رشد گیاهی، کشت داده شد. گیاهچه‌ها پس از 5 هفته رشد کردند. گیاهچه‌ها از نظر صفات مورفولوژیکی (تعداد گیاهچه‌‌‌های تولید شده از یک گیاهچه، طول ساقه، تعداد انشعابات، گره، ریشه و ریزغده) و همچنین صفات بیوشیمیایی (محتوای کلروفیل a، b، کاروتنوئید، آنتوسیانین، فعالیت آنزیم کاتالاز و فعالیت آنزیم پلی فنل اکسیداز) مورد ارزیابی قرار گرفتند.یافته‌‌ها: در صفات مورفولوژیکی، رقم دیررس ساتینا، تعداد گیاهچه و طول ساقه، و رقم زودرس سانته، تعداد ریشه بیشتری را نسبت به سایر ارقام نشان دادند. در بررسی صفات بیوشیمیایی، رقم دیررس آگریا از نظر مقدار رنگیزه‌ها و آنزیم کاتالاز، نسبت به سایر ارقام برتر بود.نتیجه‌گیری: در شرایط رویشی یکسان، ارقام مختلف در صفات رویشی و بیوشیمیایی پتانسیل متفاوتی دارند. الگوی رشد ژنوتیپ‌های مختلف با سنتز مواد غذایی و سطوح متفاوت هورمون‌های داخلی و توازن مابین آنها تعیین می‌شوند و در نتیجه پاسخ‌های گوناگونی نسبت به شرایط محیط کشت می‌دهند.مطالعه حاضر نشان داد که در شرایط رویشی یکسان، ارقام زودرس ساتینا از نظر صفات رویشی و آگریا از نظر مقدار رنگیزه‌ها می‌‌‌توانند برای کشت‌های انبوه انتخاب شوند.

چکیده انگلیسی:

Objective: Considering the importance of potato in the economy and human nutrition, the need to produce healthy seeds through tissue culture in order to increase the quality of the tuber and ultimately maintain the yield of the product is noticeable. In this regard, the aim of the present study is to evaluate the morphological and biochemical traits in the seedlings of four early and late potato cultivars under in vitro conditions.Materials and methods: Four commercial varieties of potato were cultivated as single-node microspecimens in MS culture medium without any plant growth regulators. Seedlings grew after 5 weeks. Seedlings were evaluated in terms of morphological traits (number of seedlings produced from one seedling, stem length, number of branches, nodes, roots and micro-gland) as well as biochemical traits (chlorophyll a, b, carotenoid, anthocyanin, catalase enzyme activity and polyphenol oxidase enzyme activity).Findings: In morphological traits, late cultivar Satina, number of seedlings and stem length, and early cultivar Sante showed more roots than other cultivars. In the study of biochemical traits, the late cultivar Agria was superior to other cultivars in terms of the amount of pigments and catalase enzyme.Conclusion: In the same vegetative conditions, different cultivars have different potential in vegetative and biochemical traits. The growth pattern of different genotypes is determined by the synthesis of food and different levels of internal hormones and the balance between them, and as a result, they give different responses to the conditions of the culture environment. The present study showed that in the same vegetative conditions, the early cultivars of Satina in terms of vegetative traits and Agria in terms of the amount of pigments can be selected for mass cultivation.

منابع و مأخذ:


  1. A.O. Food and Agriculture Organization, 2012. https://www.fao.org/home/en
    2.
  2. HassanDokht MR. Vegetable production technology. Tehran University, 2012. [in persian]
    3.
  3. Jim´enez E, P´erez N, Feria M, Barb´on R, Capote A, Ch´avez M, Quiala E & P´erez JC. Improved production of potato microtubers using a temporary immersion system. Plant Cell. Tissue and Organ Culture. 1999; 59: 19-23.
    4.
  4. Bolandi A, Hamidi R & Bidakhti R. Investigating the effect of hormone and photoperiod on the production of microtubers in two potato cultivars under glass conditions. Journal of Gardening Sciences. 2013; 27: 158-165. [in persian]
    5.
  5. Gopal J, Chamail A & Sarkar D. In vitro production of microtubers for conservation of potato germplasm: effect of genotype, abscisic acid and sucrose. In vitro Cellular and Development Biology Plant. 2004; 40: 485-490.
    6.
  6. Arregui LM, Veramendi JJ & Mingo-Castel AM. Effect of gelling agents on in vitro tuberzation of six potato cultivars. American J. of Potato research. 2003; 80: 141-144.
    7.
  7. Anjum MK & Villiers TA. Induction of microtubers in vitro from stem segments of Solanum tuberosum, S. Commersonii Dun. And S. acaule Bitt. Scientia Horticulture. 1997; 70: 231-235.
    8.
  8. Modarres Sanavy SAM & Jami Moeini M. Effects of different hormone combinations and planting beds on growth of single nodes plantlets from potato meristem culture. Plant Tissue Cult. 2003; 13(2): 145-150.
    9.
  9. Roodbar Shojaei T, Sepahvand NA, Mansour O, Abdi HR & Mohajeri Naraghi S. The effect of plant growth regulators, cultivars and substrate combination on production of virus free potato minitubers. African J. of Biotechnology. 2009; 8(19): 4864-4871.
    10.
  10. Mani F, Mhamdi M, Bettaieb T & Hannachi C. Shoot regeneration, micropropagation and microtuberization of potato (Solanum tuberosum) cultivars. J. of New Sciences. 2014; 7(2): 18-10.
    11.
  11. Ozturk G & Yildirim Z. A comparison of field performances of minitubers and microtubers used in seed potatp production. Turkish J. of Field Crops. 2010; 15(2): 141-147.
    12.
  12. Bolandi A & Zarghami R. Investigating factors affecting the production of sprouts and microtubes in potatoes in vitro. Journal of Agriculture Research. 2005; 4: 24-32. [in persian]
    13.
  13. Kawakami J, Kazuto I, Toshihiro H & Yutaka J. Growth and yield of potato plants grown from microtubers in fields. American J. of potato Research. 2003; 80: 371-378.
    14.
  14. Nistor A, Campeanu G, Atanasiu N, Chiru N & Karacsonyi D. Influence of potato genotypes on “in vitro” production of microtubers. Romanian Biotechnological Letter. 2010; 15(3): 5317-5324.
    15.
  15. Hoque ME. In vitro tuberization in potato (Solanum tuberosum ). Plant Omics J. 2010; 3(1): 7-11.
    16.
  16. BayaniiRad B, Bolandi A, Taheri R, Hamidi H & Hosseini SS. Investigating the reaction of different potato cultivars on micronodulation in tissue culture medium. 12th Genetic Congress of Iran, 2012. [in persian]
    17.
  17. Le CL. In vitro mass propagation of potato in liquid medium. Inaugural meeting in tamper, Finland, 2000: 44-45.
    18.
  18. Qing Chang L, Teiji K & Muneharu S. Varietal differences of somatic embryogenesis in shoot tip cultures of sweet potato, Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam. Mem. Fac. Agr. Kagoshima Univ. 1993; 29: 39-42.
    19.
  19. Pruski KW. Microporopagation technology in early phases of commercial seed potato production. J. of Potato Res. 2003; 80: 183-193.
    20.
  20. Elshibi SM. Effect of genotype on morphogenesis of ten Solanum potato variets cultured in vitro. African Potaton Association Conferrence Proceeding, 2000; 5: 23-26.
    21.
  21. Nowak J & Colborne D. In virto tuberization and tuber proteins as indicators of heat tolerance in potato. Potato J, 1989; 44: 35-45.
    22.
  22. Murashige T & Skoog F. A revised medium for rapid growth and bioassay with tobacoo tissue cultures. Physiology Plant, 1962; 15: 473-497.
    23.
  23. Donnelly DJ, Coleman WK & Coleman SE. Potato microtuber production and performance: A review. American J. of Potato Research. 2003; 80(2): 103-115
    24.
  24. Arnon AN. Method of extraction of chlorophyll in the plants. Agron J. 1967; 23: 112-121.
    25.
  25. Krizek DT, Britz SJ & Mirecki RM. Inhibitory effects of ambient levels of solar UV-A and UV-B radiation on growth of cv. New Red Fire lettuce. Physiologia platarum. 1998; 103: 1-7.
    26.
  26. Kar M & Mishra D. Catalase, Peroxidase and polyphenolxidase activities during rice leaf senescence. Plant Phsiol.1976; 57: 315-319.
    27.
  27. Chance B & Maehly AC. Assay of catalase and peroxidase, Methods Enzymology. 1995; 2: 764-791.
    28.
  28. Resende MLV, Nojosa GBA, Cavalcanti LS, Aguilar MAG, Silva LHCP, Perez JO, Andrade GCG, Carvalho GA & Castro RM. Induction of resistance in cocoa against Crinipellis perniciosa and Verticillium dahliae by acibenzolar-s-methyl (ASM). Plant Pathology. 2002; 51: 621-628.
    29.
  29. Charles G, Rossingol L & Rossingol M. Environmental effect on potato plants in vito. of Plant Physiol. 1992; 6: 708-713.
    30.
  30. Leclerc Y, Donelly DJ & Seabrook JEA. Microtuberization of layered shoots and nodal cuttings of potato: the influence of growth regulators and incubation periods. Plant Cell Tissue and Organ Culture. 1994; 37: 113-120.
    31.
  31. Ziv M & Shemesh D. Progration and tuberization of potato bud clusters from bioreactor culture. In vitro Cellular and Development Biology Plant. 1996; 32: 31-36.
    32.
  32. Jackson SD. Multiple signaling pathway control tuber induction in potato. Plant Physiol. 1999; 199: 1-8.
    33.
  33. Sharma AK, Venkatasalam EP & Singh RK. Micro-tuber production behavior of some commercially important potato (Solanum tuberosum) cultivars. Indian J. of Agricultural Sciences. 2011; 81(11): 1008-1013.
    34.
  34. Phippen WB & Simon JE. Shoot regeneration of young leaf explants from basil (Ocimum basilicum). In vitro Cellular and Developmental Biology. 2000; 36: 250-254.
    35.
  35. Moradi Payam A, Farshad Far AA, Chaiichi M, Khodadadi M & Haghtalab Z. Investigating the effect of seedling density in meristem cultivation on the performance of Sante and Agria mini-tubers. 11th Congress of Agricultural Sciences and Plant Breeding of Iran, Tehran, 2010; (In Persian).
    36.
  36. Hafizi B, Bolandi AR, SohaniDarban A & Hamidi H. The effect of sucrose and hormonal composition on the morphological characteristics of two potato cultivars, Agria and Marfona, in vitro. In: 6th National New Ideas in Agriculture, Khorasegan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Iran, 2011. [in persian]
    37.
  37. Kianmehr B, Otroshy M, Parsa M, Nassiri Mohallati M & Moradi K. Effect of Plant Growth Regulation during in vitro Phase on Potato Minituber Production. International J. of Agriculture and Crop Sciences. 2012; 4(15): 1060-1067.
    38.
_||_

  1. A.O. Food and Agriculture Organization, 2012. https://www.fao.org/home/en
    2.
  2. HassanDokht MR. Vegetable production technology. Tehran University, 2012. [in persian]
    3.
  3. Jim´enez E, P´erez N, Feria M, Barb´on R, Capote A, Ch´avez M, Quiala E & P´erez JC. Improved production of potato microtubers using a temporary immersion system. Plant Cell. Tissue and Organ Culture. 1999; 59: 19-23.
    4.
  4. Bolandi A, Hamidi R & Bidakhti R. Investigating the effect of hormone and photoperiod on the production of microtubers in two potato cultivars under glass conditions. Journal of Gardening Sciences. 2013; 27: 158-165. [in persian]
    5.
  5. Gopal J, Chamail A & Sarkar D. In vitro production of microtubers for conservation of potato germplasm: effect of genotype, abscisic acid and sucrose. In vitro Cellular and Development Biology Plant. 2004; 40: 485-490.
    6.
  6. Arregui LM, Veramendi JJ & Mingo-Castel AM. Effect of gelling agents on in vitro tuberzation of six potato cultivars. American J. of Potato research. 2003; 80: 141-144.
    7.
  7. Anjum MK & Villiers TA. Induction of microtubers in vitro from stem segments of Solanum tuberosum, S. Commersonii Dun. And S. acaule Bitt. Scientia Horticulture. 1997; 70: 231-235.
    8.
  8. Modarres Sanavy SAM & Jami Moeini M. Effects of different hormone combinations and planting beds on growth of single nodes plantlets from potato meristem culture. Plant Tissue Cult. 2003; 13(2): 145-150.
    9.
  9. Roodbar Shojaei T, Sepahvand NA, Mansour O, Abdi HR & Mohajeri Naraghi S. The effect of plant growth regulators, cultivars and substrate combination on production of virus free potato minitubers. African J. of Biotechnology. 2009; 8(19): 4864-4871.
    10.
  10. Mani F, Mhamdi M, Bettaieb T & Hannachi C. Shoot regeneration, micropropagation and microtuberization of potato (Solanum tuberosum) cultivars. J. of New Sciences. 2014; 7(2): 18-10.
    11.
  11. Ozturk G & Yildirim Z. A comparison of field performances of minitubers and microtubers used in seed potatp production. Turkish J. of Field Crops. 2010; 15(2): 141-147.
    12.
  12. Bolandi A & Zarghami R. Investigating factors affecting the production of sprouts and microtubes in potatoes in vitro. Journal of Agriculture Research. 2005; 4: 24-32. [in persian]
    13.
  13. Kawakami J, Kazuto I, Toshihiro H & Yutaka J. Growth and yield of potato plants grown from microtubers in fields. American J. of potato Research. 2003; 80: 371-378.
    14.
  14. Nistor A, Campeanu G, Atanasiu N, Chiru N & Karacsonyi D. Influence of potato genotypes on “in vitro” production of microtubers. Romanian Biotechnological Letter. 2010; 15(3): 5317-5324.
    15.
  15. Hoque ME. In vitro tuberization in potato (Solanum tuberosum ). Plant Omics J. 2010; 3(1): 7-11.
    16.
  16. BayaniiRad B, Bolandi A, Taheri R, Hamidi H & Hosseini SS. Investigating the reaction of different potato cultivars on micronodulation in tissue culture medium. 12th Genetic Congress of Iran, 2012. [in persian]
    17.
  17. Le CL. In vitro mass propagation of potato in liquid medium. Inaugural meeting in tamper, Finland, 2000: 44-45.
    18.
  18. Qing Chang L, Teiji K & Muneharu S. Varietal differences of somatic embryogenesis in shoot tip cultures of sweet potato, Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam. Mem. Fac. Agr. Kagoshima Univ. 1993; 29: 39-42.
    19.
  19. Pruski KW. Microporopagation technology in early phases of commercial seed potato production. J. of Potato Res. 2003; 80: 183-193.
    20.
  20. Elshibi SM. Effect of genotype on morphogenesis of ten Solanum potato variets cultured in vitro. African Potaton Association Conferrence Proceeding, 2000; 5: 23-26.
    21.
  21. Nowak J & Colborne D. In virto tuberization and tuber proteins as indicators of heat tolerance in potato. Potato J, 1989; 44: 35-45.
    22.
  22. Murashige T & Skoog F. A revised medium for rapid growth and bioassay with tobacoo tissue cultures. Physiology Plant, 1962; 15: 473-497.
    23.
  23. Donnelly DJ, Coleman WK & Coleman SE. Potato microtuber production and performance: A review. American J. of Potato Research. 2003; 80(2): 103-115
    24.
  24. Arnon AN. Method of extraction of chlorophyll in the plants. Agron J. 1967; 23: 112-121.
    25.
  25. Krizek DT, Britz SJ & Mirecki RM. Inhibitory effects of ambient levels of solar UV-A and UV-B radiation on growth of cv. New Red Fire lettuce. Physiologia platarum. 1998; 103: 1-7.
    26.
  26. Kar M & Mishra D. Catalase, Peroxidase and polyphenolxidase activities during rice leaf senescence. Plant Phsiol.1976; 57: 315-319.
    27.
  27. Chance B & Maehly AC. Assay of catalase and peroxidase, Methods Enzymology. 1995; 2: 764-791.
    28.
  28. Resende MLV, Nojosa GBA, Cavalcanti LS, Aguilar MAG, Silva LHCP, Perez JO, Andrade GCG, Carvalho GA & Castro RM. Induction of resistance in cocoa against Crinipellis perniciosa and Verticillium dahliae by acibenzolar-s-methyl (ASM). Plant Pathology. 2002; 51: 621-628.
    29.
  29. Charles G, Rossingol L & Rossingol M. Environmental effect on potato plants in vito. of Plant Physiol. 1992; 6: 708-713.
    30.
  30. Leclerc Y, Donelly DJ & Seabrook JEA. Microtuberization of layered shoots and nodal cuttings of potato: the influence of growth regulators and incubation periods. Plant Cell Tissue and Organ Culture. 1994; 37: 113-120.
    31.
  31. Ziv M & Shemesh D. Progration and tuberization of potato bud clusters from bioreactor culture. In vitro Cellular and Development Biology Plant. 1996; 32: 31-36.
    32.
  32. Jackson SD. Multiple signaling pathway control tuber induction in potato. Plant Physiol. 1999; 199: 1-8.
    33.
  33. Sharma AK, Venkatasalam EP & Singh RK. Micro-tuber production behavior of some commercially important potato (Solanum tuberosum) cultivars. Indian J. of Agricultural Sciences. 2011; 81(11): 1008-1013.
    34.
  34. Phippen WB & Simon JE. Shoot regeneration of young leaf explants from basil (Ocimum basilicum). In vitro Cellular and Developmental Biology. 2000; 36: 250-254.
    35.
  35. Moradi Payam A, Farshad Far AA, Chaiichi M, Khodadadi M & Haghtalab Z. Investigating the effect of seedling density in meristem cultivation on the performance of Sante and Agria mini-tubers. 11th Congress of Agricultural Sciences and Plant Breeding of Iran, Tehran, 2010; (In Persian).
    36.
  36. Hafizi B, Bolandi AR, SohaniDarban A & Hamidi H. The effect of sucrose and hormonal composition on the morphological characteristics of two potato cultivars, Agria and Marfona, in vitro. In: 6th National New Ideas in Agriculture, Khorasegan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Iran, 2011. [in persian]
    37.
  37. Kianmehr B, Otroshy M, Parsa M, Nassiri Mohallati M & Moradi K. Effect of Plant Growth Regulation during in vitro Phase on Potato Minituber Production. International J. of Agriculture and Crop Sciences. 2012; 4(15): 1060-1067.
    38.

مقالات مرتبط

حقوق این وب‌سایت متعلق به سامانه مدیریت نشریات دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی است.
حق نشر © 1403-1400

صفحه اصلی| عضویت/ ورود| درباره سند| تماس با ما|
[English] [العربية] [en] [ar]