Printer Friendly

Evaluation of physiological traits changes in drought stress, the application of potassium and their impact on the yield of mung bean cultivars and promising lines.

Introduction

Mung bean (vigna radiata) is one of the important short--duration grain legume crops with wide adaptability, low input requirements and the ability to improve the soil by fixing atmospheric nitrogen and well suited to a large number of cropping systems and constitutes and important source of high quality protein in the cereal based diets of many people in Asia [10]. Mung bean seeds are rich in protein and amino acids, thus serve as a valuable protein source for human consumption. Pods and sprouts of mung bean are also eaten as a vegetable and are a source of vitamins and minerals. Moreover, this plant is nitrogen fixing, has a short life cycle and therefore, is widely grown as mix, inter crop or in rotation to improve nitrogen status of soil or to break the disease/pest cycles. Drought is a worldwide problem, constraining global crop production and quality and recent global climate change has made this situation more serious. Water is a vital factor for plant growth and development. Water deficit, limits the growth, permanent or temporary, distribution of natural vegetation and the performance of cultivated plants more than any other environmental factors. Therefore, innovation is needed to increase the efficiency of use of the water that is available. One approach is the development of new irrigation scheduling techniques such as deficit irrigation, which are not necessarily based on full crop water requirement. Deficit (or regulated deficit) irrigation is one way of maximizing water use efficiency (WUE) for higher yields per unit of irrigation water applied. The grower must have prior knowledge of crop yield responses to deficit irrigation [5]. Accurate water application prevents over or under irrigation. Over-irrigation wastes water, energy and labor, leaches nutrients below the root zone and leads to water logging which reduces crop yields. Under-irrigation stresses the plant resulting in yield reductions and decrease returns [18]. Water stress affects almost all aspects of mung bean growth and development. This crop suffering water stress resulted in decreased seed yield, chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b, chlorophyll concentration, and yield per hectare and stomatal Conductance. Supplemental irrigation, particularly at the pod filling stage to improve plant water status gives economic increase in yields in areas of super optimal temperature during the reproductive growth. The late flowering and pod setting stages appear to be the most sensitive stages to soil moisture stress. Mung bean yield was depressed when the irrigation treatments were given at flowering, with or without pre flowering irrigation [15]. Stress is a series of external factors that have a negative impact on a plant's life. Drought is one of the most effective stresses on plant's development and production because water deficit limits the photosynthesis, stimulates plant to produce more ABA that in turn induces more stomata closure, increases water movement resistance in plants, changes leaf's energy output, decreases hydraulic conductivity and disrupts plant's thermodynamic temperature. Drought stress is often accompanied by heat stress that intensifies the effects of salinity on leaves and in the root zone because of transpiration decrease from the leaves surfaces that limits their cooling due to water vaporization. Dry matter production in plants in water limitation conditions depends on climate and soil status that affects available soil water and plant water use efficiency. Plants with higher water absorption capacities or higher water use efficiency, better tolerate drought conditions [20]. Drought stress affects all plant's vital mechanisms and while stomata and non-stomata factors, together, play a role in photosynthesis reduction; one of these factors may have more influence over leaf's assimilation capacity depending on the severity and duration of the stress, and plant's growth stage [8]. Drought stress directly makes drastic changes in LAI and therefore, severely decreases total photosynthesis due to its multiple effects on growth including limitation of leaf development. Leaf area is important because photosynthesis is a function of it. However, rapid development of the leaf area may have a negative effect on water availability in plants [20]. Thus, drought stress reduces the biomass and despite slightly increasing the harvest index, it reduces production per unit area and this significantly decreases the chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b, chlorophyll concentration and ultimately reduces the seed yield.

Materials and Methods

This experiment was carried out during two years (2010-11) at experimental field of Safiabad Agricultural Research Center of Dezful, southwest Iran. This field is located in a warm and semi-arid region with hot summers and cold and relatively dry winters having low precipitations, 82.9 m above sea level in 48[degrees] 26' N and 32[degrees]16' W, with 321 mm average 30 years rainfall, 2400 mm average annual evaporation, maximum temperature of 52[degrees]C and mean temperature of 23.9[degrees]C. This experiment was implemented using a complete randomized blocks Factorial split plot with three replications. Major factor include three irrigation levels at 120(I1), 180(I2) and 240 mm(I3) evaporation from the pan and minor factor include three Potassium levels at zero, 37.5 and 75kg/ha while cultivars considered as another minor facror comprised of five varieties called Partow, Indian heap and vc6172, cn95 & kps1 as promising lines. Traits evaluated include: chlorophyll a (g/g leaf), chlorophyll b(g/g leaf), chlorophyll ab(g/g leaf) total chlorophyll (spad), yield per hectare (kg/ha) and stomatal Conductance (mmol H2o. [m.sup.-2].[s.sup.-1]) Soil was a clay loam with a pH of 7.2, 0.096 ppm of organic matter, 960 ppm of total N, 14.3 ppm exchangeable phosphate, 140 ppm exchangeable potassium, and 1 milimos Ec. NPK were added to soil at the rate of 50 kg N/hectare as ammonium nitrate 46% N, 60 kg P2O 5/hectare as superphosphate 15.5% PO (before sowing) and 0-90-180 kg K2 O/ha as potassium sulfate 48% K O at treatments fertility. Another agronomic practice for growing mung bean was followed as recommended. At flowering time, 20 plants were chosen randomly from each plot to determine yield attributes including chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b (by spectrometer), chlorophyll ab, total chlorophyll (by chlorophyll measurement), and yield per hectare and stomatal Conductance. Whole plot was harvested to determine seed yield per hectare. Chlorophyll a and b by spectophotometry, total Chlorophyll by Chlorophyll meter (spad) and stomatal Conductance by leaf porometer from 20 leaves were measured in the flowering stage. The obtained results were tested through statistical analysis of variance according to the method described in Mastat C. and the combined analysis of the two seasons was calculated using the SAS method. Furthermore, mean comparisons performed using Dancan examination on 1% and 5% levels.

Results And Discussion

Chlorophyll a (ch a):

Data analysis indicated that different drought stress levels, potassium, cultivars, interaction among drought stress and cultivars, drought stress and potassium, cultivars and potassium and also the tripartite interaction had a significant effect (P [less than or equal to] 0.01) on chlorophyll a (Table 1). Between drought stress levels, The highest ch a (0.968) was obtained in plots with I1, however, the lowest ch a (0.950) was obtained from plots with I3, between potassium levels the highest ch a (0.983) was obtained in plots with k2, however, the lowest ch a (0.930) was obtained from plots with k1, between cultivars the highest ch a (0.992) was obtained in plots seeded with pa, however, the lowest ch a (0.899) was obtained from plots planted with kp cultivar (Table 2). For interaction between drought stress and cultivars the highest ch a (1.03) was obtained in plots seeded with vc and I1, however, the lowest ch a (0.846) was obtained from plots planted with cn and I3 (Table 3). For interaction between drought stress and potassium the highest ch a (1.027 &1.025) was obtained in plots with I1 in K2 & K3 respectively, however, the lowest ch a (0.901) was obtained from plots with k1 and I3 (Table 5). Interaction between cultivars and potassium the highest ch a (1.03) was obtained in plots seeded with K2 and Indian heap, however, the lowest ch a (0.833) was obtained from plots planted with k3 and kp (Table 4). By increasing the drought stress, the procedure of destroying chlorophyll is carried out faster [9]. The results showed that the drought stress had a negative effect on chlorophyll a and potassium made these effects decrease. These findings were compatible with, Mishita et al [13] and Bleake et al. [5].

Chlorophyll b (ch b):

Data analysis suggested that different drought stress levels, potassium, cultivars, interaction among drought stress and cultivars, drought stress and potassium, cultivars and potassium and also the tripartite interaction had a significant effect (P [less than or equal to] 0.01) on chlorophyll b (Table 1). Between drought stress levels, the highest ch b (0.327) was obtained in plots with I1, however, the lowest ch b (0.306) was obtained from plots with I3, between potassium levels the highest ch b (0.341) was obtained in plots with k2, however, the lowest ch b (0.306) was obtained from plots with k1, between cultivars the highest ch b (0.342) was obtained in plots seeded with pa and ha, however, the lowest ch b (0.302) was obtained from plots planted with kp cultivar (Table 2). For interaction between drought stress and cultivars The highest ch b (0.433) was obtained in plots seeded with pa and I3, however, the lowest ch b (0.284) was obtained from plots planted with vc and I3 (Table 3). For interaction between drought stress and potassium the highest ch b (0.418) was obtained in plots with I3 and K2 respectively, however, the lowest ch b (0.271) was obtained from plots with I3 and k1 (Table 5). Interaction between cultivars and potassium the highest ch b (0.389) was obtained in plots seeded with K2 and pa, however, the lowest ch b (0.251) was obtained from plots planted with k1 and kp (Table 4). The sensitivity of chlorophyll b against drought stress was more than chlorophyll a and the halt in synthesis of chlorophyll b occurred faster. The results showed that the drought stress had a negative effect on chlorophyll b and potassium made these effects decrease. These findings were compatible with, Afkari et al [3] and Chaves et al. [7].

Chlorophyll ab (ch ab):

Data analysis confirmed that cultivars, interaction among drought stress and cultivars, drought stress and potassium and also the tripartite interaction had a significant effect (P [less than or equal to] 0.01) on chlorophyll ab (Table 1). Between drought stress levels, the highest ch ab (1.23) was obtained in plots with I1, however, the lowest ch ab (1.18) was obtained from plots with I2, between potassium levels the highest ch ab (1.24) was obtained in plots with k2, however, the lowest ch ab (1.18) was obtained from plots with k1, between cultivars the highest ch ab (1.274, 1.259) was obtained in plots seeded with pa and ha, however, the lowest ch ab (1.129) was obtained from plots planted with kp cultivar (Table 2). For interaction between drought stress and cultivars the highest ch ab (1.436) was obtained in plots seeded with pa and I3, however, the lowest ch ab (1.087) was obtained from plots planted with cn cultivar and I3. Interaction between drought stress and potassium showed that the highest ch ab (1.318) was obtained in plots with K2 and I3, however, the lowest ch ab (1.116) was obtained from plots with k1 and I3. Interaction between cultivars and potassium showed that the highest ch ab (1.33 & 1.3) was obtained in plots seeded with K2 and pa & Ih. These findings were compatible with Afkari et al [3] and Chaves et al. [7].

Total Chlorophyll (tch):

Data analysis showed that different drought stress levels, potassium, cultivars, interaction among drought stress and cultivars, drought stress and potassium and also the tripartite interaction had a significant effect (P [less than or equal to] 0.01) on chlorophyll a (Table 1). Between drought stress levels, the highest ch c(67.6) was obtained in plots with I1, however, the lowest ch c (56.2) was obtained from plots with I3, between potassium levels the highest ch c (64.6) was obtained in plots with k3, however, the lowest ch c (58.2) was obtained from plots with k1, between cultivars the highest ch c (77.9) was obtained in plots seeded with vc, however, the lowest ch c (45) was obtained from plots planted with cn cultivar (Table 2). For interaction between drought stress and cultivars the highest ch c (84) was obtained in plots seeded with vc and I2, however, the lowest ch c (36) was obtained from plots planted with cn and I3(Table 3). For interaction between drought stress and potassium the highest ch c (71) was obtained in plots with I1 and K2, however, the lowest ch c (48.3) was obtained from plots with I3 and k1 (Table 5). The anticlimax of chlorophyll often goes with drought stress and changing in the amount of chlorophyll can be a considerable sign of drought in plants [7]. Attracting radiance, particularly in light-infested conditions largely depends on the photosynthetic chlorophyll concentration [16]. These findings were compatible with Tawfik et al [22] and Al-Tabbal et al [4].

Seed Yield (SY):

Data analysis showed that different drought stress levels, potassium, cultivars, interaction among drought stress and cultivars, drought stress and potassium and also the tripartite interaction had a significant effect (P [less than or equal to] 0.01) on the seed yield. The highest seed yield (3270 kg/ha) was produced by ha, however, the lowest seed yield (2489kg/h) was recorded by promising line kp. The maximum SY of cultivar pa was due to high chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b, and chlorophyll ab and stomatal Conductance. Furthermore, the significant effect of seed yield had been reported by Ahmad [2], Bismillah Khan [6], and Sadeghipour [17]. Between drought stress levels, the maximum seed yield (3568kg/h) by I1, and minimum seed yield (2483kg/h) were recorded by I3. The prevention of irrigation caused a decrease in yield components so that the yield seed decreased. These findings agree with Nielsen and Nilson [15], Thomas et al [22]. Furthermore it was reported that SY of Mung bean was reduced by 65% when water stress occurred at the time of flowering. Between potassium levels the maximum SY (3040kg/ha) was observed in k3, however, the minimum SY (2873kg/ha) was observed in k1 (Table3). For interaction between drought stress and cultivars the highest SY (3860kg/ha) was obtained in plots seeded with vc and I1, however, the lowest SY (1940kg/ha) was obtained from plots planted with kp and I3 (Table 3). For interaction between drought stress and potassium the highest SY (3943kg/ha) was obtained in plots with I1 and k3 respectively, however, the lowest SY (2291kg/ha) was obtained from plots with I3 and k1 (Table 5). Interaction between cultivars and potassium, the highest SY (3542kg/ha) was obtained in plots seeded with k3 and pa, however, the lowest SY (2673kg/ha) was obtained from plots planted with k1 and kp (Table 4). These findings also agree with Chaves [7].

Stomatal Conductance (SC) (mmol H2o. [m.sup.-2].[s.sup.-1])

Data analysis indicated that different drought stress levels, cultivars, drought stress and potassium and also the tripartite interaction had a significant effect (P [less than or equal to] 0.01) on the stomatal Conductance. Between cultivars, the highest SC (191) was observed in the vc, however, the lowest SC (132) was observed in the promising line kp. Between drought stress levels, the maximum SC (178) was recorded by I1, and the minimum SC (140) was recorded by I3. The prevention of irrigation caused a decrease in SC. These findings agree with Nielsen and Nilson [12], Thomas et al [18]. Between potassium levels the maximum SC (168) was observed in k3, however, the minimum SC (160) was observed in k1 (Table3). The tripartite interaction showed that the highest SC (289) was observed in vc *I1*K3, however, the lowest SC (62) was observed in hp*I3*K1. Drought stress decreases the water inside the tissues and it causes stomatas to close more and finally it decreases photosynthesis. These findings were compatible with Chaves et al [7] and Al-Tabbal et al [4].

Conclusion:

Water deficit causes interferences in the biochemical activities, production of photosynthetic materials, and shortage of seed capacity, chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b, total chlorophyll and stomatal conductance causes a decrease in seed yield. The results indicated that drought stress had an indirect effect on plant vital processes, shortening its life. In optimal conditions for producing, it is recommended that optimal irrigation for plants at 120 mm evaporation from the pan, applying potassium for decreasing the effects of drought stress on the Chlorophyll a, Chlorophyll b, total Chlorophyll and stomatal conductance is important so that high efficiency is achieved. The findings confirmed that, in general, drought stress had a negative and significant effect on physiological traits that these traits had significant effects on the components of seed yields. On the other hand, the use of potassium with a positive and significant effect on physiological traits of plants improved the components of seed yields. In order to achieve economic yield of mung bean in the region mentioned, among measured cultivars, cultivar partwo and Indian heap were shown to be proper for this region. These findings were compatible with, Ahmad [2], Bismillah Khan [6], Maqsood et al [14], Nielsen and Nilson [15] and Thomas et al. [24].

References

[1.] Abbasi, P., 2003. Effects of different levels salinity and water stress on growth characteristics and physiological traits Aeluropus spp. Ph.D. Thesis. Islamic Azad University of Tehran. Iran.

[2.] Ahmed, S., 2006. Changes of endogenous ABA and ACC, and their correlations to photosynthesis and water relation, during water logging. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 57: 278-284.

[3.] Afkari Bajehbaj, A., N. Gasimov and M. Yarnia, 2009. Effects of drought stress and potassium on some of the physiological and morphological traits of sunflower (Helianthus Annuus L.) cultivars. J. Food, Agriculture and Environment, 7(3&4): 448-451

[4.] Al-Tabbal, J.A., J.Y. Ayad and O.M. Kafawin, 2008. Effect of water deficit and plant growth regulations on leaf chlorophyll, prolin and total soluble sugar content of two durum wheat cultivar. Journal of Agronomy, 23: 113-119.

[5.] Bekele, S., 2007. Regulated deficit irrigation scheduling of Onion in seme-arid region of Ethiopia. Agri. Water Manage., 89(1-2): 148-152.

[6.] Bismillah Khan, M.M. Asif, N. Hussain and M. Aziz, 2003. Impact of different levels of phosphorus on growth and yield of Mung bean genotypes. Asian J. plant Sci., 2(9): 677-679.

[7.] Chaves, M.M., J.S. Pereir, J. Maroco, M.L. Rodriguse, C.P.P. Ricardo, M.L. Osorio, I. Carvalho, T. Faria, C. Pinheiro, 2002. How plants cope with water stress in the field. photosynthesis and growth. annals of botany, 907-916.89.

[8.] Ferrat, J.L., C.L. Lovatt, 1992. Relationship between relative water content, Nitrogen Pools, and growth of Phaseolus vulgaris. gray during water deficit. Crop science, 39: 467-473.

[9.] Ghosh, P.K., and K.M. Hati, 2004. Comprative effectivence of cattle manure, poultry manure, phosphocompost and fertilizer-NPK on three cropping system in vertisols of semi-arid tropics. n. Dry matter yield, nodulation, chlorophyll content and enzyme activity, 95: 85-93.

[10.] Khattak, G.S.S., M.A. Haq, M. Ashraf, G.R. TTahir, 2001. Detection of epistasis and estimation of additive and dominance component of genetic variationmung bean Fild Crop Res., 72: 211-219.

[11.] Lopez, F.B., T.L. Setter, C.R. McDavid, 1988. Photosynthesis and Water vapor Exchange of Pigeon pea leaves in response to water deficit and recovery. Crop Sci., 28: 141-145.

[12.] Maroco, J.P., J.S. Periera, 2000. Growth, Photosynthesis and water use efficiency of two CH sahelian grasses subjected to water deficits. Journal of Arid Environment, 45: 119-137.

[13.] Miashita, K., 2004. Recovery response of photosynthesis, transpiration and stomatal 2859 onductance in kidney bean following drought stress. Env and Exp Botany.

[14.] Maqsood, M., J. Iqbal, K. Rafiq and N. Yousaf, 2000. Response of two mung bean to different irrigation levels. Pak. J.Agric. Sci., 3: 1006-1007.

[15.] Nielsen, D.C. & N.O. Nelson, 1998. Black bean sensivity to water stress at varius growth stages. Crop Sci., 38: 422-427.

[16.] Ramanathan, K.M., 2011. Future research needs on K for sustainable crop production. Karnataka Journal. Agri. Sci., 24(1): 91-99.

[17.] Reddy, A.R., K.V. Chaitany and M. Vivekanandan, 2004. Drought-induced responses of photosynthesis and antioxidant metabolism in higher plants. J. Plant Physiol., 161: 1189-1202.

[18.] Sadeghipour, O., 2008. The influences of water stress on Biomass and Harvest index in three mung bean cultivars. Asian journal of plant science, ISSN.1682-3974

[19.] Siddiqui, M.H., F.C. Oad and U.A. Buriro, 2007. Response of Cotton cultivars to varying irrigation regimes. Asian J. Plant Sci., 6(1): 153-157.

[20.] Taiz and zeiger, Kafi, Zand and Abbasi, 2009. Plant physiology.

[21.] Tawfik, K.M., 2008. Effect of Water Stress in Addition to Potassiomag Application on Mung bean. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 2(1): 42-52.

[22.] Taylor, S. and G.L. Ashcroft, 1972. Physical edaphology-the physics of irrigated and nonoirrigated soils. Freeman, Sanfrancisco.

[23.] Thomas., M.J. Robertson, 2003. The effect of timing and severity of water deficit on growth development, yield accumulation and nitrogen fixation of mung bean. Field Crop Res., 86(1): 67-80.

[24.] Ward, K., R. Scarth, J. Daun, 1992. Effects of genotype and environment on seed chlorophyll degradation during ripening in four cultivars of oilseed rape. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 72: 643-649.

Abbreviation:

stomatal Conductance (SC), chlorophyll a(ch a), chlorophyll b(ch b),total chlorophyll (t ch), Seed Yield (SY), Cultivars: Partow (Pa), Indian heap (Ih), Promising lines: Vc6172 (Vc), Kps1 (Kp) and Cn 95 (Cn), Potassium (k).

(1) Zarifinia, Naser; (2) Amir Aynehband, (3) Shahram Lak, (4) Adel Modhej

(1) Ph.D. Student of Agronomy, Khuzestan Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Iran

(2) Department of Agriculture, Shahid Chamran University, Khuzestan-Iran

(3) Department of Agriculture, Khuzestan Science and Research branch' Islamic Azad University-Iran

(4) Department of Agriculture, Islamic Azad University, Shushtar Branch, Iran

Corresponding Author

Zarifinia, Naser 1, Ph.D. Student of Agronomy, Khuzestan Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Iran
Table 1: Interaction effects of water stress levels, Potassium and
cultivar on physiological traits of mung bean (2010-2011)

Variation       df   chlorophyll   chlorophyll    Total
source               a             b              chlorophyll

Rep             2    0.024ns       0.0077ns       180.94ns
Irrigation      2    0.0046 **     0.0095 **      1450.48 **
Rep*I (Error)   4    0.054         0.0118         497.225
Potassium(K)    2    0.031 *       0.0138 **      474.383 *
K*I             4    0.052 **      0.009 *        4152.569 **
Genotype(V)     4    0.049 **      0.043 **       386.28 *
Ix V            8    0.053 **      0.018 **       456.2 **
VxK             8    0.026ns       0.0113 **      104.9ns
Vx KxI          16   0.063 **      0.0157 **      333.9 **
Error           84   0.0156        0.00265        134.5
CV%                  12.56         15.2           18.79

Variation       df   Stomatal         chlorophyll   SY/h
source               Conductance      ab

Rep             2    3631.2ns         0.081ns       591486ns
Irrigation      2    17400.8 **       0.0261ns      14199063 **
Rep*I (Error)   4    2332.2           0.1285        1083299
Potassium(K)    2    642.5ns          0.0514ns      331389ns
K*I             4    14369.7 **       0.1170 **     2320408 **
Genotype(V)     4    10237.5 **       0.1050 **     2270059 **
Ix V            8    2067.9ns         0.1000 **     543723.6 **
VxK             8    2698.1ns         0.0396ns      660493.2 **
Vx KxI          16   4079.4 *         0.966 **      796893.3 **
Error           84   2091.3           0.030         201829.1
CV%                  19.26            13.6          14.99

Significant probability levels of 5% and 1% *,**--insignificant
ns--water stress A--Potassium P--cultivar B--interaction between
water stress and cultivar AB

Table 2: Mean comparison of physiological traits simple
effects of mung bean cultivar grown (Average values of
2010 and 2011)

Treatment      chlorophyll a   chlorophyll b   Total
(Irrigation)                                   chlorophyll

I1             0.968a          0.327a          67.6a
I2             0.952b          0.308b          613b
I3             0.950b          0.306b          56.2c

Potassium(K)

k1             0.930b          0.306b          58.2b
k2             0.983a          0.341a          62.3ab
k3             0.980a          0.338a          64.6a

Genotype(V)

Partow         0.992a          0.342a          62b
Hendi          0.988a          0.342a          56.7bc
Vc6172         0.984a          0.312b          77.9a
Kps1           0.899b          0.302b          67.8ab
Cn95           0.919b          0.319b          45c

Treatment      Stomatal      chlorophyll   SY/h
(Irrigation)   Conductance   ab

I1             178a          1.23a         3568a
I2             167ab         1.18a         2788b
I3             140b          1.22a         2483b

Potassium(K)

k1             160a          1.18b         2873b
k2             166a          1.24a         2926ab
k3             168a          1.21ab        3040a

Genotype(V)

Partow         156bc         1.274a        3056b
Hendi          152c          1.259a        3270a
Vc6172         191a          1.234a        3046b
Kps1           132d          1.129b        2489d
Cn95           179ab         1.149b        2871c

Table 3: Mean interaction comparison of physiological
traits of mung bean cultivar grown under water stress
levels conditions (2010-2011)

Treatment   chlorophyll a   chlorophyll b   Total
(I x V)                                     chlorophyll

I1 x Pa     0.981b          0.295d          60.5c
I1 x Ih     0.999ab         0.373b          62.2c
I1 x vc     1.03a           0.318c          79.3b
I1 x KP     0.886be         0.299d          78.3b
I1 x cn     0.923cd         0.347bc         57.5c
I2 x Pa     0.913cd         0.299d          62.7c
I2 x Ih     0.911d          0.298d          61.6c
I2 x vc     0.950c          0.335bc         84a
I2 x KP     0.877de         0.312c          57.7c
I2 x cn     0.911d          0.294d          40.5de
I3 x Pa     0.901de         0.433a          60.9c
I3 x Ih     0.895de         0.356b          46.3d
I3 x vc     0.892de         0.284d          70.6bc
I3 x KP     0.874e          0.335bc         67.4bc
I3 x cn     0.846f          0.315c          36e

Treatment   Stomatal      chlorophyll   SY/h
(I x V)     Conductance   ab

I1 x Pa     175b          1.223b        3640a
I1 x Ih     186ab         1.317ab       3481b
I1 x vc     213a          1.294ab       3860a
I1 x KP     141bc         1.124b        3110c
I1 x cn     195ab         1.187b        3751ab
I2 x Pa     159b          1.165b        3020c
I2 x Ih     156b          1.134b        3283bc
I2 x vc     199ab         1.3ab         2762d
I2 x KP     120c          1.144b        2416e
I2 x cn     192ab         1.167b        2461e
I3 x Pa     153b          1.436a        2510de
I3 x Ih     123bc         1.325ab       3047c
I3 x vc     160b          1.11b         25145de
I3 x KP     126bc         1.123b        1940f
I3 x cn     149b          1.087c        2402e

Table 4: Mean interaction comparison of physiological
traits of mung bean cultivar grown under potassium
levels conditions (2010-2011)

Treatment   chlorophyll   chlorophyll   Total
(K x V)     a             b             chlorophyll

k1 x Pa     1.02a         0.343b        55.9c
k1 x Ih     0.917c        0.318c        50.2d
k1 x vc     0.918c        0.338bc       76.1ab
k1 x KP     0.878d        0.251e        64.1b
k1 x cn     0.871d        0.278d        44.6e
k2 x Pa     1.01a         0.389a        65.2b
k2 x Ih     1.03a         0.358b        57.1c
k2 x vc     0.993b        0.304c        79.2a
k2 x KP     0.986b        0.327bc       64.8b
k2 x cn     0.896cd       0.325c        45.4e
k3 x Pa     0.949c        0.295d        62.9bc
k3 x Ih     1.02a         0.351b        62.7bc
k3 x vc     0.991b        0.295d        78.7a
k3 x KP     0.833e        0.327bc       74.4ab
k3 x cn     0.99b         0.353b        44.1e

Treatment   Stomatal      chlorophyll   SY/h
(K x V)     Conductance   ab

k1 x Pa     164c          1.29a         2873d
k1 x Ih     151d          1.19b         3072c
k1 x vc     191ab         1.25b         2861d
k1 x KP     116f          1.05c         2672e
k1 x cn     180b          1.11c         2885d
k2 x Pa     173bc         1.33a         3482ab
k2 x Ih     159cd         1.3a          3271b
k2 x vc     212a          1.24b         2978cd
k2 x KP     150d          1.24b         2750de
k2 x cn     179b          1.11c         2982cd
k3 x Pa     132e          1.2b          3542a
k3 x Ih     145d          1.29a         3467ab
k3 x vc     169bc         1.22b         2999cd
k3 x KP     131e          1.1c          2840d
k3 x cn     177b          1.23b         3114bc

Table 4: Mean interaction comparison of physiological
traits of mung bean cultivar grown under water stress
and potassium levels (2010-2011)

Treatment   chlorophyll   chlorophyll   Total
(I x K)     a             b             chlorophyll

I1 x k1     0.984bc       0.313bc       64ab
I1 x k2     1.027a        0.33b         71a
I1 x k3     1.025a        0.337b        67.6ab
I2 x k1     0.941c        0.333b        62.2b
I2 x k2     0.95c         0.274c        60.5b
I2 x k3     1.01b         0.316bc       61.1b
I3 x k1     0.901d        0.271c        48.3d
I3 x k2     0.94c         0.418a        55.4c
I3 x k3     0.998b        0.32bc        65ab

Treatment   Stomatal      chlorophyll   SY/h
(I x K)     Conductance   ab

I1 x k1     171b          1.196b        3303ab
I1 x k2     170b          1.299ab       3457ab
I1 x k3     194a          1.19b         3943a
I2 x k1     118e          1.214b        2966b
I2 x k2     155c          1.113c        3055b
I2 x k3     148c          1.218b        3065b
I3 x k1     108f          1.116c        2291e
I3 x k2     144c          1.318a        2349d
I3 x k3     136d          1.213b        2807c
COPYRIGHT 2012 American-Eurasian Network for Scientific Information
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2012 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

 
Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Author:Zarifinia, Naser; Aynehband, Amir; Lak, Shahram; Modhej, Adel
Publication:Advances in Environmental Biology
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:7IRAN
Date:Oct 1, 2012
Words:4890
Previous Article:Allelopathic potential of Camellia sinensis L.
Next Article:Effects of dexamethasone, piroxicam and sterile aloe vera extract on the prevention of postoperative peritoneal adhesion formation in rat.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters