SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry / 2018 / Cilt: 42 - Sayı: 2

Drought stress responses of seedlings of two oak species (<i>Quercus cerris</i> and <i>Quercus robur</i>)

Ayşe DELİGÖZ
Esra BAYAR
Pages
114–123
Publication Date
2018-04-26
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)

These findings suggested that the Q. cerris and Q. robur seedlings showed a drought stress adaptive mechanism either by restricting their growth or increasing root:shoot ratio or by decreasing water loss (reduced stomatal conductance) and accumulating of osmotic solutes.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Effects of drought stress on growth, predawn xylem water potential (ψpd), osmotic solutes (soluble sugar and proline), and stomatal conductance were assessed in two oak (Quercus cerris L. and Quercus robur L.) seedlings.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Seedlings of both species were subjected to three drought treatments with the following irrigation intervals: well-watered (control: irrigation every 2-3 days), moderate drought stress (irrigation every 15 days), and severe drought stress (irrigation every 30 days).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:These findings suggested that the Q. cerris and Q. robur seedlings showed a drought stress adaptive mechanism either by restricting their growth or increasing root:shoot ratio or by decreasing water loss (reduced stomatal conductance) and accumulating of osmotic solutes.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Growth · osmotic adjustment · proline

Abstract

Effects of drought stress on growth, predawn xylem water potential (ψpd), osmotic solutes (soluble sugar and proline), and stomatal conductance were assessed in two oak (Quercus cerris L. and Quercus robur L.) seedlings. Seedlings of both species were subjected to three drought treatments with the following irrigation intervals: well-watered (control: irrigation every 2-3 days), moderate drought stress (irrigation every 15 days), and severe drought stress (irrigation every 30 days). Drought-stressed seedlings of Q. cerris and Q. robur had more negative predawn xylem water potential than their well-watered seedlings. In Q. cerris, root collar diameter and root dry weights were negatively influenced by drought, while height, shoot dry weight, and root:shoot ratios were unaffected. Height and shoot dry weight of drought-stressed Q. robur were decreased, while root:shoot ratio increased. Drought caused significant decreases in stomatal conductance of both species. Q. cerris seedlings sustained higher stomatal conductance compared with Q. robur. Proline and soluble sugar increased in response to drought stress. Q. robur had a higher proline accumulation than Q. cerris. These findings suggested that the Q. cerris and Q. robur seedlings showed a drought stress adaptive mechanism either by restricting their growth or increasing root:shoot ratio or by decreasing water loss (reduced stomatal conductance) and accumulating of osmotic solutes.

🔖

Cite This Article

DELİGÖZ, A., BAYAR, E. (2018). Drought stress responses of seedlings of two oak species (<i>Quercus cerris</i> and <i>Quercus robur</i>). Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, Cilt: 42 - Sayı: 2, 114–123. https://ajindex.com/articles/722826

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Abrams MD (1990). Adaption and responses to drought in Quercus species of North America. Tree Physiol 7: 227-238.
  2. Akıncı S, Lösel DM (2012). Plant Water-Stress Response Mechanisms. In: Rahman IMM, editor. Water Stress. Rijeka, Croatia: InTech, pp. 15-42.
  3. Arend M, Brem A, Kuster TM, Günthardt-Goerg MS (2012). Seasonal photosynthetic responses of European oaks to drought and elevated daytime temperature. Plant Biol 15: 169-176.
  4. Arend M, Kuster T, Günthardt-Goerg M S, Dobbertin M (2011). Provenance-specific growth responses to drought and air warming in three European oak species ( Quercus robur, Q. petraea and Q. pubescens ). Tree Physiol 31: 287-297.
  5. Atta HAE, Aref IM, Ahmed AI, Khan PR (2012). Morphological and anatomical response of Acacia ehrenbergiana Hayne and Acacia tortilis (Forssk) Haynes subspp. raddiana seedlings to induced water stress. Afr J Biotechnol 11: 10188-10199.
  6. Bates LS, Waldren RP, Teare ID (1973). Rapid determination of free proline for water-stress studies. Plant Soil 39: 205-207.
  7. Bhaskara GB, Yang T, Verslues PE (2015). Dynamic proline metabolism: importance and regulation in water limited environments. Front Plant Sci 6: 484. Blum A (1996). Crop responses to drought and the interpretation of adaptation. Plant Growth Regul 20: 135-148.
  8. Chavarria G, Pessoa dos Santos H (2012). Plant water relations: absorption, transport and control mechanisms. In: Montanaro G, Dichio B, editors. Advances in Selected Plant Physiology Aspects. Rijeka, Croatia: InTech, pp. 105-132.
  9. Chaves MM, Maroco JP, Pereira JS (2003). Understanding plant response to drought-from genes to the whole plant. Funct Plant Biol 30: 239-264.
  10. Chaves MM, Pereira JS, Maroco JP, Rodrigues ML, Ricardo CPP, Osorio ML, Carvalh I, Faria T, Pinheiro C (2002). How plants cope with water stress in the field. Photosynthesis and growth. Ann Bot 89: 907-916.
  11. Cotrozzi L, Remorini D, Pellegrini E, Landi M, Massai R, Nali C, Guidi L, Lorenzini G (2016). Variations in physiological and biochemical traits of oak seedlings grown under drought and ozone stress. Physiol Plant 157: 69-84.
  12. Deligoz A, Bayar E, Yazici N (2016). Responses of growth, water relations and compatible solutes contents to repeated drought stress in Cedrus libani. Fresen Environ Bull 25: 3760-3767.
  13. Deligoz A, Gur M (2015). Morphological, physiological and biochemical responses to drought stress of Stone pine ( Pinus pinea L.) seedlings. Acta Physiol Plant 37: 243. Dickson R, Tomlinson PT (1996). Oak growth, development and