SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Turkish Journal of Botany / 2011 / Cilt: 35 - Sayı: 4

Changes in anatomical and physiological parameters of soybean under drought stress

Serdar MAKBUL
Neslihan Saruhan GÜLER
Nuran DURMUŞ
Seher GÜVEN
Pages
369–377
Publication Date
2011-04-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

It has been concluded that some anatomical and physiological changes occurred in soybean under drought stress.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Anatomical changes in the root, stem, and leaf of soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr. cv.
📊
Key Findings & Data:These characters were also statistically significant.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It has been concluded that some anatomical and physiological changes occurred in soybean under drought stress.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Key words: Drought stress · Glycine max · anatomical structure

Abstract

Anatomical changes in the root, stem, and leaf of soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr. cv. Nazlıcan) plants under drought stress were studied by light microscope and their significance was evaluated by numerical analysis. Some anatomical features related to parenchymatous cells, diameter of tracheas belonging to the root, stem, and leaf; stomata index; and size and average number of stomata and epidermal cells were found to be important characters varying in soybean plants under stress. These characters were also statistically significant. Leaf water potential (Yleaf), root:shoot ratio, total chlorophyll content, and stomatal conductance were measured. Yleaf, total chlorophyll content, and stomatal conductance were lower while root:shoot ratio was higher in stressed plants compared to the unstressed ones. It has been concluded that some anatomical and physiological changes occurred in soybean under drought stress.

Özet

Anatomical changes in the root, stem, and leaf of soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr. cv. Nazlıcan) plants under drought stress were studied by light microscope and their significance was evaluated by numerical analysis. Some anatomical features related to parenchymatous cells, diameter of tracheas belonging to the root, stem, and leaf; stomata index; and size and average number of stomata and epidermal cells were found to be important characters varying in soybean plants under stress. These characters were also statistically significant. Leaf water potential (Yleaf), root:shoot ratio, total chlorophyll content, and stomatal conductance were measured. Yleaf, total chlorophyll content, and stomatal conductance were lower while root:shoot ratio was higher in stressed plants compared to the unstressed ones. It has been concluded that some anatomical and physiological changes occurred in soybean under drought stress.

🔖

Cite This Article

MAKBUL, S., GÜLER, N. S., DURMUŞ, N., GÜVEN, S. (2011). Changes in anatomical and physiological parameters of soybean under drought stress. Turkish Journal of Botany, Cilt: 35 - Sayı: 4, 369–377. https://ajindex.com/articles/183314

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Abrams MD (1994). Genotypic and phenotypic variation as stress adaptations in temperate tree species: a review of several case studies. Tree Physiol 14: 833-842.
  2. Araus JL, Slafer GA, Reynolds MP & Royo C (2002). Plant breeding and drought in C3 cereals: What should we breed for? Ann Bot 89: 925-940.
  3. Arnon DI (1949). Copper enzymes in isolated chloroplasts. Polyphenoloxidase in Beta vulgaris. Plant Physiol 24: 1-15. Canne-Hilliker J & Kampny C (1990). Taxonomic signifi cance of leaf and stem anatomy of Agalinis (Scrophulariaceae) from the USA and Canada. Can J Bot 69: 1935-1950.
  4. Chaves M (2002). Water stress in the regulation of photosynthesis in the fi eld. Ann Bot 89: 907-916.
  5. Child RD, Summers JE, Babij J, Farrent JW & Bruce DM (2003). Increased resistance to pod chatter is associated with changes in the vascular structure in pods of a resynthesized Brassica napus line. J Exp Bot 54: 1919-1930. Fu J & Huang B (2001). Involvement of antioxidants and lipid peroxidation in the adaptation of two cool-season grasses to localized drought stress. Environ Exp Bot 45: 105-114.
  6. Giorio P, Sorrentino G & d’Andria R (1999). Stomatal behaviour, leaf water status and photosynthetic response in fi eld-grown olive trees under water defi cit. Environ Exp Bot 42: 95-104. Gonzales L & Gonzales-Vilar M (2001). Determination of relative water content. In: Reigosa MJ (ed.) Handbook of Plant Ecophysiology Techniques, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, p. 207-212.
  7. Guerfel M, Baccouri O, Boujnah D, Chaibi W & Zarrouk M (2009). Impacts of water stress on gas exchange, water relations, chlorophyll content and leaf structure in the two main Tunisian olive (Olea europaea L.) cultivars. Sci Hortic 119: 257-263. Güvenç A & Duman H (2010). Morphological and anatomical studies of annual taxa of Sideritis L. (Lamiaceae), with notes on chorology in Turkey. Turk J Bot 34: 83-104.
  8. Jones HG (1998). Stomatal control of photosynthesis and transpiration. J Exp Bot 49: 387-398. Karabourniotis G & Bornman J (1999).
  9. Penetration of UV-A, UV-B and blue light through the leaf trichome layers of two xeromorphic plants, olive and oak, measured by optical fi bre micropropes. Physiol Plantarum 105: 655-661.
  10. Kutlu N, Terzi R, Tekeli C, Senel G, Battal P & Kadioglu A (2009). Changes in anatomical structure and levels of endogenous phytohormones during leaf rolling in Ctenanthe setosa. Turk J Biol 33: 115-122.
  11. Ladjal M, Epron D & Ducrey M (2000). Eff ects of drought preconditioning on thermo tolerance of