The impact of drought stress on morphological and physiological parameters of three strawberry varieties in different growing conditions

Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Sciences

Volumn 52, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 79-92

  Nezhadahmadi, Arash ^b   Faruq, Golam ^b   Rashid, Kamaludin ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA   (Malaysia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA   (Malaysia)

Author keywords

Chlorophyll content; Fragariaananassa; Growing conditions; Leaf physiology; Moisture content

Indexed keywords

FRAGARIA X ANANASSA;

EID: 84926465831     PISSN: 05529034     EISSN: 20760906     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Amil-Ruiz, F., R. Blanco-Portales, J. Munoz-Blanco and J.L. Caballero. 2011. The strawberry plant defense mechanis m. A Mol. Rev. Plant Cell Physiol. 52:18731903.
2. Birch, C.J., G.L. Hammer and K.G. Rickert. 1998. Improved methods for predicting individual leaf area and leaf senescence in maize (Zea mays). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 49:249–262.
3. Bradford, K.J. and T.C. Hsiao. 1982. Physiological responses to moderate water stress. p. 263–324. In: O. Lange, P.S. Nobel, C.B. Osmond and H. Zeigler (eds.), Physiological Plant ecology II: Water relations and carbon assimilat ion. Encyclop. Plant Physiol. Vol. 12B. Springer. Berlin-Heidelberg-New York.
4. Chandra, A., P.S. Pathak, R.K. Bhatt and A. Dubey. 2004. Variation in drought tolerance of different Stylosanthesaccessions. Biol. Plant. 48:457-460.
5. Chart zoulakis, K., B. Noitsakis and I. Therios. 1993. Photosynthesis, plant growth and dry matter distribution in kiwifruit as influenced by water deficits. Irrigation Sci. 14:1–5.
6. Chaves, M.M., J.P. Maroco and J. Pereira. 2003. Understanding plant responses to drought from genes to the whole plant. Funct. Plant Biol. 30:239-264.
7. Ghaderi, N. and A. Siosemardeh. 2011. Response to drought stress of two strawberry cultivars (cv. Kurdistan and Selva). Hort. Environ. Biotechnol. 52:6-12.
8. Giovannoni, J.J. 2004. Genetic regulation of fruit development and ripening. The Plant Cell. 16:170–180.
9. Grant, O.M., A.W. Johnson, M.J. Davies, C.M. James and D.W. Simpson. 2010. Physiological and morphological diversity of cult ivated strawberry (Fragaria × ananassa) in response to water deficit. Env. and Exp. Bot. 68:264–272.
10. Heschel, M.S. and C. Riginos. 2005. Mechanism of selection for drought stress tolerance and avoidance in Impatiens capensis (Balsaminaceae). Am. J. Bot. 92:37-44.
11. Kirnak, C., I.T. Kaya and D. Higgs. 2001. The influence of water deficit on vegetative growth, physiology, fruit yield and quality in eggplants. Bulg. J. Plant Physiol. 27:34-36.
12. Klamkowski, K. and W. Treder. 2008. Response to drought stress of three strawberry cultivars grown under greenhouse conditions. J. Fruit Ornamental Plant Res. 16:179-188.
13. Li, H., T. Li, R.J. Gordon, S.K. Asiedu and K. Hu. 2010. Strawberry plant fruit ing efficiency and its correlation with solar irradiance, temperature and reflectance water index variation. Env. and Exp. Bot. 68:165-174.
14. Montgomery, E.G. 1911. Correlat ion studies in corn. 24th Annual Report. 1911. Agricultural Experiment Station, Nebraska, Mo, USA.
15. Moreno-Sotomayor, A., A. Weiss, E.T. Paparozzi and T.J. Arkebauer. 2002. Stability of leaf anatomy and light response curves of field grown maize as a function of age and nitrogen status. J. Plant Physiol. 159:819-826.
16. Passioura, J.B. 1996. Drought and drought tolerance, pp.3 12. In: E. Belhassen (ed.), Drought tolerance in higher plants: Genetical, physiological and molecular biological analysis. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
17. Ristic, Z. and D.D. Cass. 1991. Leaf anatomy of Zea mays L. in response to water shortage and high temperature: a comparison of drought-resistant and drought-sensitive lines. Bot. Gaz. 152:173-185.
18. Rizza, F., F.W. Badeck, L. Cattivelli, O. Lidestri, D.N. Fonzo and A.M. Stanca. 2004. Use of a water stress index to identify barley genotypes adapted to rainfed and irrigated conditions. Crop Sci. 44:2127-2137.
19. Rucker, K.S., C.K. Kevin, C.C. Holbrook and J.F. Hook. 1995. Identificat ion of peanut genotypes with improved drought avoidance traits. Peanut Sci. 22:14-18.
20. Sam, O., E. Jerez, J. Dell Amico and M.C. Ruiz-Sanchez. 2000. Water stress induced changes in anatomy of tomato leaf epidermis. Biol. Plant. 43:275-277.
21. Santacruz, S.D. and J.H. Cock. 1984. Physiological studies on cassava (ManihotesculentaCrantz) leaves under drought conditions. ActaAgronomica 34:26–31.
22. Saura-Mas, S. and F. Lloret. 2007. Leaf and shoot water content and leaf dry matter content of Mediterranean woody species with different post-fire regenerative strategies. Ann. Bot. 99:545-554.
23. Shao, H.B., Li.Y. Chu, C. Abdul Jaleel and C.X. Zhao. 2008. Water-deficit stress-induced anatomical changes in higher plants. C. R. Biologies 331:215-225.
24. Silva, H., J.P. Mart inez, C. Baginsky and M. Pinto. 1999. Effect of water deficit on the leaf anatomy of six cultivars of the common bean, Phaseolus vulgaris. RevistaChilena de Historia Natural 72:219-235.
25. Sivasubramaniawn, K. 1992. Chlorophyll stability index: methods for determining drought hardness of Acacia species. Nitrogen Fixing Tree Res. Reports 10:111-112.
26. Steinberg, S.L., J.C. Miller and M.J. Mcfarland. 1990. Dry matter part itioning and vegetative growth of young peach trees under water stress. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 17:6–23.