Journals / International Journal of Secondary Metabolite / 2017 / Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 3

Effects of Different Salt Concentrations on Quinoa Seedling Quality

Pages
20–26
Publication Date
2022-10-19
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)

Moreover, there was a rapid decline of plant on the 16 ds m-1 values.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The experiment designed a completely randomized experimental design was carried out Adnan Menderes University, Agriculture Faculties greenhouse.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The seeds were sowed in plastic pots filled with soil and perlite (%50+%50) at the greenhouse with six replicates.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Moreover, there was a rapid decline of plant on the 16 ds m-1 values.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Salinity · Quinoa · Seedling Quality

Abstract

The experiment designed a completely randomized experimental design was carried out Adnan Menderes University, Agriculture Faculties greenhouse. Quinoa variety candidate named “Saponinsiz” is used experimental material. The seeds were sowed in plastic pots filled with soil and perlite (%50+%50) at the greenhouse with six replicates. Five different salt concentrations were determined as 0 (control), 4 ds m-1, 8 ds m-1, 16 ds m-1 and 30 ds m-1 and were applied with NaCl solution which was prepared before sowing. Leaf number, leaf length, leaf width, leaf thickness, stem thickness and green biomass weight values ​​were measured when the quinoa plant reached 6 leaf stage. As a result of the study, it was observed that the differences between the salt concentrations in leaf number, leaf length, leaf width and green biomass weight were significant. The maximum leaf length (11.53 mm) was measured with 8 ds m-1 salt concentration applied plants, whereas the maximum leaf width (4.99 mm) and green biomass (1019.5 mg) were measured with 4 ds m-1. The control plot only showed the highest values ​​for the leaf number value. These results confirmed that the quinoa plant was facultative halophytic species (salt-resistant). It was determined that 16 ds m-1 dose gave the lowest values in all measurements. And any plant wasn’t growing at the 30 ds m-1 applied pots. The values of the experiment measured of 4 ds m-1 pots and 8 ds m-1 pots, which is considered the limit values for the field crops, were approximately equal or greater than control pots. Moreover, there was a rapid decline of plant on the 16 ds m-1 values.

Özet

The experiment designed a completely randomized experimental design was carried out Adnan Menderes University, Agriculture Faculties greenhouse. Quinoa variety candidate named “Saponinsiz” is used experimental material. The seeds were sowed in plastic pots filled with soil and perlite (%50+%50) at the greenhouse with six replicates. Five different salt concentrations were determined as 0 (control), 4 ds m-1, 8 ds m-1, 16 ds m-1 and 30 ds m-1 and were applied with NaCl solution which was prepared before sowing. Leaf number, leaf length, leaf width, leaf thickness, stem thickness and green biomass weight values ​​were measured when the quinoa plant reached 6 leaf stage. As a result of the study, it was observed that the differences between the salt concentrations in leaf number, leaf length, leaf width and green biomass weight were significant. The maximum leaf length (11.53 mm) was measured with 8 ds m-1 salt concentration applied plants, whereas the maximum leaf width (4.99 mm) and green biomass (1019.5 mg) were measured with 4 ds m-1. The control plot only showed the highest values ​​for the leaf number value. These results confirmed that the quinoa plant was facultative halophytic species (salt-resistant). It was determined that 16 ds m-1 dose gave the lowest values in all measurements. And any plant wasn’t growing at the 30 ds m-1 applied pots. The values of the experiment measured of 4 ds m-1 pots and 8 ds m-1 pots, which is considered the limit values for the field crops, were approximately equal or greater than control pots. Moreover, there was a rapid decline of plant on the 16 ds m-1 values.

🔖

Cite This Article

KOCA, Y. O., ÖZMEN, S., KÜÇÜK, C., ÖZEROĞLU, A., OKUR, F. B., ÖKTEM, N. (2022). Effects of Different Salt Concentrations on Quinoa Seedling Quality. International Journal of Secondary Metabolite, Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 3, 20–26. https://ajindex.com/articles/541741

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Pitman, M. G., & Läuchli, A. (2002). Global impact of salinity and agricultural ecosystems. Salinity: environment-plants-molecules, 3, 20. Munns, R., & Tester, M. (2008). Mechanisms of salinity tolerance. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol., 59, 651-681.
  2. Wilson, C., Read, J. J., & Abo-Kassem, E. (2002). Effect of mixed-salt salinity on growth and ion relations of a quinoa and a wheat variety. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 25(12), 2689-2704.
  3. Ruiz-Carrasco, K., Antognoni, F., Coulibaly, A. K., Lizardi, S., Covarrubias, A., Martínez, E. A., & Zurita-Silva, A. (2011). Variation in salinity tolerance of four lowland genotypes of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) as assessed by growth, physiological traits, and sodium transporter gene expression. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, 49(11), 1333-1341.
  4. Rindos, D. (1992). The Origins of Agriculture. An International Perspective, Smithsonian Institution Press,
  5. Washington, London, pp. 173-205.
  6. Jacobsen, S. E., Mujica, A., & Jensen, C. R. (2003). The resistance of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) to adverse abiotic factors. Food Reviews International, 19(1-2), 99-109.
  7. Jacobsen, S.-E., Mujica, A. (2001). Avances en el conocimiento de resistencia a factores abio´ticos adversos en la quinua (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). Memorias Primer Taller Internacional de la Quinua., Lima, Peru. Repo-Carrasco, R., Espinoza, C., & Jacobsen, S. E. (2003). Nutritional value and use of the Andean crops quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) and kañiwa (Chenopodium pallidicaule). Food reviews international, 19(1-2), 179-189.
  8. James, J. J., Alder, N. N., Mühling, K. H., Läuchli, A. E., Shackel, K. A., Donovan, L. A., & Richards, J. H. (2005). High apoplastic solute concentrations in leaves alter water relations of the halophytic shrub, Sarcobatus vermiculatus. Journal of Experimental Botany, 57(1), 139-147. Kozioł, M. J. (1992). Chemical composition and nutritional evaluation of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 5(1), 35-68.
  9. Small, E. (2013). Quinoa: is the United Nations’ featured crop of 2013 bad for biodiversity. Biodiversity, 14(3), 169-79.
  10. Flagella, Z., Trono, D., Pompa, M., Di Fonzo, N., & Pastore, D. (2006). Seawater stress applied at germination affects mitochondrial function in durum wheat (Triticum durum) early seedlings. Functional Plant Biology, 33(4), 357-366.
  11. Bohnert, H. J., Nelson, D. E., & Jensen, R. G. (1995). Adaptations to environmental stresses. The plant cell, 7(7), 1099. Hariadi, Y., Marandon, K., Tia