Browse > Article

Growth and Physiological Adaptations of Tomato Plants (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill) in Response to Water Scarcity in Soil  

Hwang, Seung-Mi (Bio-crops Development Division, National Academy of Agricultural Science)
Kwon, Taek-Ryun (Bio-crops Development Division, National Academy of Agricultural Science)
Doh, Eun-Soo (Department of Herbal Pharmaceutical Science, Joongbu University)
Park, Me-Hea (Vegetable Division, National Institute of Horticultural and Herbal Science)
Publication Information
Journal of Bio-Environment Control / v.19, no.4, 2010 , pp. 266-274 More about this Journal
Abstract
This study aim to investigate fundamentally the growth and physiological responses of tomato plants in responses to two different levels of water deficit, a weak drought stress (-25 kPa) and a severe drought stress (-100 kPa) in soil. The two levels of water deficit were maintained using a micro-irrigation system consisted of soil sensors for the real-time monitoring of soil water content and irrigation modules in a greenhouse experiment. Soil water contents were fluctuated throughout the 30 days treatment period but differed between the two treatments with the average -47 kPa in -25 kPa set treatment and the -119 kPa in -100 kPa set treatment. There were significant differences in plant height between the two different soil water statuses in plant height without differences of the number of nodes. The plants grown in the severe water-deficit treatment had greater accumulation of biomass than the plants in the weak water-deficit treatment. The severe water-deficit treatment (-119 kPa) also induced greater leaf area and leaf dry weight of the plants than the weak water-deficit treatment did, even though there was no difference in leaf area per unit dry weight. These results of growth parameters tested in this study indicate that the severe drought could cause an adaptation of tomato plants to the drought stress with the enhancement of biomass and leaf expansion without changes of leaf thickness. Greater relative water content of leaves and lower osmotic potential of sap expressed from turgid leaves were recorded in the severe water deficit treatment than in the weak water deficit treatment. This finding also postulated physiological adaptation to be better water status under drought stress. The drought imposition affected significantly on photosynthesis, water use efficiency and stomatal conductance of tomato plants. The severe water-deficit treatment increased PSII activities and water use efficiency, but decreased stomatal conductance than the weak water-deficit treatment. However, there were no differences between the two treatments in total photosynthetic capacity. Finally, there were no differences in the number and biomass of fruits. These results suggested that tomato plants have an ability to make adaptation to water deficit conditions through changes in leaf morphology, osmotic potentials, and water use efficiency as well as PSII activity. These adaptation responses should be considered in the screening of drought tolerance of tomato plants.
Keywords
drought adaptation; osmotic potential; tomato; water deficit;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Giovannucci, E. 1999. Tomatoes, tomato-based products, lycopene, and cancer; Review of the epidemio-logic literature. J. Nart. Cancer. Inst. 91:317-331.   DOI   ScienceOn
2 Shinozaki, K. and K. Yamaguchi-Shinozaki. 2000. Molecular responses to dehydration and low temperature: differences and cross-talk between two stress signaling pathways. Current Opinion in Plant Biology. 3:217-223.
3 Vacher, J.J. 1998. Responses of two main Andean crops, quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) and papa amarga (Solanum juzepczukii Buk.) to drought on the Bolivian Altiplano: significance of local adaptation. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 68:99-108.   DOI
4 Wudiri, B.B. and D.W. Henderson, 1985. Effects of water stress on flowering and fruit set in processing tomatoes. Sci. Hortic. 27:189-198.   DOI
5 Zavala, M. 2004. Integration of drought tolerance mechanisms in Mediterranean sclerophylls: a functional interpretation of leaf gas exchange simulators. Ecol. Model. 176:211-226   DOI
6 Glynn, C.P. and N. Colin. 2002. Identification of drought tolerant woody perennial using chlorophyII fluorescence. J. Arboricult. 28:215-223.
7 Kang, N.J., M.W. Cho, J.K. Kweon, H.C Rhee, and Y.H. Choi. 2006. Effects of deficit irrigation on the total soluble soilds and fruit yields of fresh tomato. J Bio-Environment Control. 15:335-339.   과학기술학회마을
8 Lafitte, R.. 2002. Relationship between leaf relative water content during reproductive stage water deficit and grain formation in rice. Field Crops Research. 76:165-174.   DOI
9 Leung, J. and J. Girauda. 1998. Abscisic acid signal transduction. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol. 49:199-222.   DOI   ScienceOn
10 Ma, C.C., Y.B. Gao, J.L. Wang, and H.Y. Guo. 2004. Ecological adaptation of Caragana opulens in photosynthesis and water metabolism in Inner Mongolia Plateau. Acta Phytoecologica Sinica. 28:307-311.
11 Bohnert, H., D. Nelson, and G. Richard. 1995. Adaptation to environmental stresses. Plant Cell. 7:1099-1111.
12 Nobel, P.S. 1983. Biophysical Plant Physiology and Ecology. W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco.
13 Shinozaki, K. and K. Yamaguchi-Shinozaki. 1997. Gene induction in water-stress response. Plant Physiol: 115:327-334.   DOI
14 Bajji, M., T.M. Kient, and L. Stanley. 2002. The use of the electrolyte leakage method for assessing cell membrane stability as a water stress tolerance in durum wheat. Plant Growth Regul. 36:61-70.   DOI   ScienceOn
15 Bray, E.A. 1997. Plant responses to water deficit. Trends Plant Sci. 2:48-54.   DOI   ScienceOn
16 Catsky, J. 1960. Determination of water deficit in discs cut out from leaf blades. Biol. Plant. 2:76-77.   DOI
17 Chang, C.Y. and M.L. Zhang. 1997. Anatomical structures of young stems and leaves of some Caragana species with their ecological adaptabilities. Bulletin of Botanical Research 17:65-71.
18 Chaves, M.M., J.S. Pereira, J. Maroco, M.L. Rodrigues, C.P.P. Ricardo, M.L. Osorio, I. Carvalho, T. Faria, and C. Pinheiro. 2002. How plants cope with water stress in the field. Photosynthesis and growth. Ann. Bot. 89:907-916.   DOI   ScienceOn
19 Cuartero, J. and R. Fernandez-Munoz. 1999. Tomato and salinity. Scientia Hort. 78:83-125.
20 Costa Franca, M.G., A.T. Pham Thi, C. Pimental, R.O. Pereyra Rossiello, Y. Zuily-Fodil, and D. Laffray. 2000. Differences in growth and water relation among Phaseolus vulgaris cultivars in response to induces drought stress. Environ. Exp. Bot. 43:227-337.   DOI   ScienceOn
21 Daniele, C., N.K. Drame, H. Roy-Macauley, S. Braconnier, and D. Laffray. 2005. Analysis of early responses to drought associated with field drought adaptation in Sahelian groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) cultivars. Environ. Exp. Bot. 54:219-230.   DOI   ScienceOn
22 Davies, W.J., M. Bacon, S. Thompson, W. Sobeih, and L. Gonzalez Rodriguez. 2000. Regulation of leaf and fruit growth in plant growing in drying soil: exploitation of the plant's chemical signaling system and hydraulic architecture. J. Exp. Bot. 51:1617-1626.   DOI
23 Anyia, A.O. and H. Herzog. 2004. Water-use efficiency, leaf area and leaf gas exchange of cowpeas under mid-season drought. Europ. J. Agron. 20:327-339.   DOI   ScienceOn