بررسی قابلیت تولید و تحمل به خشکی سه رقم ارزن و سورگوم اسپیدفید در منطقه رفسنجان
محورهای موضوعی : مجله علمی- پژوهشی اکوفیزیولوژی گیاهی
1 - دانش‌آموخته کارشناسی ارشد دانشگاه ولی‌عصر رفسنجان، رفسنجان، ایران
2 - استادیار، عضو هیئت علمی دانشگاه ولی‌عصر رفسنجان، رفسنجان، ایران
کلید واژه: عملکرد, تنش خشکی, علوفه, ارزن,
چکیده مقاله :
این تحقیق با هدف بررسی میزان تحمل به خشکی ارقام ارزن در منطقه رفسنجان به‌صورت آزمایش کرت‌های خرد شده در قالب طرح بلوک‌های کامل تصادفی با سه تکرار انجام شد. عامل اصلی دور آبیاری در سه سطح شامل انجام آبیاری پس از 80 (شاهد)، 120 و 160 میلی‌متر تبخیر از تشتک تبخیرکلاس A و عامل فرعی شامل یک رقم سورگوم (Sorghum bicolor var. Speedfeed) و سه رقم ارزن باستان (Setaria italica var. Bastan)، پیشاهنگ (Panicum miliaceum var. Pishahang) و نوتریفید (Pennisetum americanum var. Nutrifeed) بود. براساس نتایج، افزایش دور آبیاری سبب کاهش در صفات رویشی و فیزیولوژیک و عملکرد علوفه گردید و بر اهمیت ساقه به عنوان اندام ذخیره‌ای مهم در این شرایط افزود. تنش خشکی سبب کاهش سطح برگ و شاخص پربرگی شد و از این طریق سبب کاهش کیفیت علوفه تولیدی گردید. تحمل به خشکی سورگوم اسپیدفید به دلیل تولید ماده خشک زیادتر و بالاترین مقادیر شاخص‌های MP، GMP، STI و HAM، بیشتر از ارقام ارزن مورد مطالعه بود. بیشترین عملکرد خشک علوفه (Kg/ha 9376) از سورگوم اسپیدفید و در بین اقام ارزن نیز از رقم پیشاهنگ (Kg/ha 6251) در دور آبیاری شاهد بدست آمد. ارزن پیشاهنگ نیز بر سایر ارقام ارزن برتری داشت. ارزن نوتریفید به دلیل تولید عملکرد خشک برگ و همچنین دارا بودن بیشترین شاخص پربرگی (45%) و درصد پروتئین خام (7/20) از کیفیت علوفه بالاتری برخوردار می‌باشد.
In order to evaluation of producibility and drought tolerance of three varieties of forage mille and one variety of sorghum, the experiment was conducted a split plot in a randomized complete block design with three replications. Irrigation frequencies consisted of irrigation after 80 (control), 120 and 160 mm evaporation from class A pan as main plots and sub plots was consisted of sorghum varietiy (Sorghum bicolor var. Speedfeed) and three varieties of millet (Setaria italica var. Bastan, Panicum miliaceum var. Pishahang and Pennisetum americanum var. Nutrifeed). Irrigation after 120 mm evaporation resulted in a mild drought stress. However, the delay in irrigation reduced values of studied growth and physiological characteristics forage yield and reserves in shoot appeared to be important in this situation. Drought stress reduced forage quality by reducing the leaf area and leafy index. Sorghum variety compared to millet varieties had higher drought tolerance due to higher dry matter production as well as the highest value of tolerance indices MP, GMP, STI and HAM. Of the three varieties of millet, Pishahang proved superiority. At control irrigation frequency, highest forage yield (6251 Kg/ha) produced by Speedfeed, and the highest forage yield (9376 Kg/ha) obtained from Pishahang among millet cultivars. Higher forage quality achieved by Nutrifeed millet due to highest of leaf dry weight, leafier index (45%) and crude protein percent (20.7), which can be considered in agronomic decisions.
Azari, A., S. A. M. Modares Sanavi, A. Anagholi, S. A. M. Cheraghi, M. Gholami, B. Alizadeh, H. Askari and K. Sadatasilan. 2011. Genotypes performance of brassica Species under Saline Conditions using Salt Tolerance Indices. Iran. J. field. Crop Sci. 43: 113-127.
Betran, F. J., D. Beck, M. Banziger and G. O. Edmeades. 2003. Genetic analysis of inbred and hybrid grain yield under stress and nonstress environments in tropical maize. Crop Sci. 43: 807–817.
Bremner, J. M and D. R. Keeney. 1965. Stream distillation methods for determination of ammonium, nitrate and nitrite. Anal. Chim. Acta. 32: 485-495.
Byrne, P. F., J. Bolanos, G. O0. Edmeades and D. L. Eaton. 1995. Gains from selection under drought versus multilocation testing in related tropical maize populations. Crop Sci. 35: 63–69.
Cattivelli, L., F. Rizza, F. W. Badeck, E. Mazzucotelli, A. M. Mastrangelo and E. Francia. 2008. Drought tolerance improvement in crop plants: an integrated view from breeding to genomics. Field Crops. Res. 105 (1–2): 1–14.
Clarke, J. M., R. M. De Pauw, and T. M. Townley-Smith. 1992. Evaluation of methods for quantification of drought tolerance in wheat. Crop Sci. 32: 728– 732.
Emam, Y and M. Niknezhad. 2004. Introduction to the physiology of crop yield. (2th ed.) Shiraz University.P 579. (In Persian).
Fernandez, G. C. J. 1992. Effective selection criteria for assessing plant stress tolerance. In: Kuo,C. C. (Ed), Proc. Of an International Symposium on Adaptation of Food Crops to Temperature and Water Stress. AVRDC, Shanhua, Taiwan. 257-270.
Fracasso, A., L. Trindade and S. Amaducci. 2015. Drought tolerance strategies highlighted by two Sorghum bicolor races in a dry-down experiment. J. Plant. Physiol. 65: 175-183.
Fraser, J., D. McCartney, H. Najda and Z. Mir. 2004. Yield potential and forage quality of annual forage legumes in southern Alberta and northeast Saskatchewan. Can. J. Plant Sci. 84: 143-155.
Gavuzzi, P., F. Rizza, M. Palumbo, R. G. Campaline, G. L. Ricciard and B. Borghi. 1997. Evaluation of field and laboratory predictors of drought and heat tolerance in winter cereals. Can. J. Plant Sci. 77: 523–531.
Hasheminasab, H., A. Aliakbari and R. Baniasadi. 2014. Optimizing the relative water protection (RWP) as novel approach for monitoring drought tolerance in Iranian pistachio cultivars using graphical analysis. Int. J. Biosci. 4: 194-203. (In Persian)
Jaleel, C. A., R. Gopi and R. Panneerselvam. 2007. Alterations in lipid peroxidation, electrolyte leakage, and proline metabolism in Catharanthus roseus under treatment with triadimefon, a systemic fungicide. C. R. Biol. 330 (12): 905–12.
Kafi, M., A, Borzoee,. A, Kamandi., A, Masoumi and Nabati, J. 2009. Physiology of environmental stress in plants. Jihad Daneshgahi of Mashhad press. (In Persian)
Khajepour, M. R. 2013. Cereal. University of esfahan Ltd.
Kumari Vinodhana, N and K. Ganesamurthy. 2010. Evaluation of morpho-physiologicalcharacters in sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench) genotypes under post-floweringdrought stress. J. Plant. Breed. 1(4),585-589.
Lithourgidis, A., I. Vasilakoglou, K. Dhima, C. Doras and M. Yiakoulaki. 2006. Forage yield and quality of common vetch mixtures with oat and triticale in two seeding ratios. Field Crops. Res. 99: 106-113.
Majnoon Hosseini, N. 2015. Cereal crops (Cultivation and production ,2th ed). University of Tehran press.
Malekshahi, F., H. Dehghani and B. Alizadeh. 2009. Study of drought tolerance indices in some winter rapeseed varieties (Brassica napus L.). J. Sci. technol. Agric. Res. 48: 77-89 (in Persian).
Munne, S., K. Schwarz, L. Alegre, G. Horvath and Z. Szigeti. 1999. Alpha-tocopherol protectionagainst drought, induced damage in Rosmarinus officinalis L and Melissa officinalis L. proceedings of an International workshop at Tata, Hungary, 23-26 August.
Nadiu, T and A. Naraly. 2001. Screening of drought tolerance in greengram (Vina radiata L. Wilczeek) genotypes under receding soil moisture. Indian. J. Plant Physiol. 6(2): 197-201.
Narooie, M. 2015. Response of sorghum (Sorghum bicolar Momench) cultivars to nitrogen fertilization and sowing dates. M. Sc. Thesis, Department of Agronomy and Plant Breeding. Vali-e-Asr Univerity. Rafsanjan. Iran.
Narooyi Rad, M. R., R. Abbasi and M. Mohammad Ghasemi. 2009. Evaluation of drought tolerance using indicators of stress tolerance in sorghum landraces collected in National Plant Gene Bank of Iran. Int. J. Environ. Agric Res. 82: 11- 18.
Nouriazhar, J and P. Ehsanzedeh. 2007. Study of relationship of some growth indices and yield of five corn hybrids at two irrigation regime in Esfahan region. J. Sci. technol. 41: 261- 272.
Pinheiro, C., and M. M, Chaves. 2011. Photosynthesis and drought: can we make metabolic connections from available data. J. Exp. Bot. 62(3): 869-82.
Rai, K., R. K. Kalia, R. Singh, P. Gangola and A. Dhawan. 2011. Developing stress tolerant plants through in vitro selection An overview of the recent progress. Environ.Exper. Bot. 71: 89-98.
Rajendra, H., M. Devaraja and G. Subash. 2006. Effect of stage of harvesting of seed crop, Nitrogen and Phosphorus level of the forage yield and ratoon ability if forage pearl millet. Ind. J. Agric. Res. 40 (3): 232 – 234.
Ritchie, S. W., H. I. Nyvgen., and A. S. Halady. 1990. Leaf water content and gas exchange parameters of two wheat genotypes differing in drought resistance. Crop Sci. 30: 105-111.
Rooney, W. L., J. Blumenthal., B. Bean., J. Mullet. 2007. Designing sorghum as adedicated bioenergy feedstock. Biofuel. Bioprod. Biorefin. 1(2): 147 – 157.
Safari, H. and A. A. jafari. 2011. Drought resistance evaluation based on forage yield in accessions of Agropyron trichophorumby drought resistance indices. Iran. J. Range. Desert. Res. 19 (4): 640- 653.
Simane, B., P. C. Struik, M. M. Nachit and J. M. Peacock. 1993. Ontogenic analysis of field components and yield stability of durum wheat in water-limited environments. Euphytica.71: 211–219.
Tadayon, M. R and H. Karimzadeh Soureshjani.2017.Effect of zeolite on physiological and biochemical attributes of Proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) in deficit irrigation conditions . Iran. J. field. Crop Sci.48(2):443-452.
Van Ginkel, M., D. S. Calhoun., G. Gebeyehu., A. Miranda., C. Tian-you., R. Pargas Lara., R. M. Trethowan., K. Sayre. L. Crossa., and S. Rajaram. 1998. Plant traits related to yield of wheat in early, late, or continuous drought conditions. Euphytica. 100: 109– 121.
Van Soest, P. J. 1973. Revised estimates of the net energy values of foods. InProc, Cornel Nutri. Conf. Ithaca, New York Cornel University Press, PP 11-23.
Earl, H. J and R. F. Davis. 2003. Effect of drought stress on leaf and whole canopy radiation use efficiency and yield of maize. Agron J. 95: 688-696.
_||_