Characterization of Comparative Response of Fifteen Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) Genotypes to NaCl Stress

Authors
M. Amjad 1
J. Akhtar 2
M. Anwar-ul-Haq 2
R. Ahmad 3
M. Zaid 2
1 Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
2 Institute of Soil and Environmental Sciences, University of Agriculture Faisalabad-38040, Pakistan.
3 Department of Agronomy, University of Agriculture Faisalabad-38040, Pakistan.
Abstract
A solution culture experiment was conducted to evaluate the salinity tolerance of 15 tomato genotypes in Hoagland’s nutrient solution with three levels of NaCl (0, 75, and 150 mM). The experiment was conducted in completely randomized design with three replicates. After 30 days of imposition of salt stress, gas exchange parameters including transpiration rate, stomatal conductance, CO2 assimilation rate, and intercellular CO2 concentration were recorded and the harvested plants were characterized for growth (shoot/ longest root lengths and fresh/dry weights) and ionic characteristics (Na+, K+ and K+/Na+ ratio) parameters. All growth and gas exchange parameters decreased with increasing NaCl concentrations. However, this decrease was less in salt-tolerant genotypes as compared to salt-sensitive genotypes. It was also observed that with the increasing NaCl concentration in the rooting medium, the amount of Na+ in the plant tissues increased while the amount of K+ ion decreased. Thus, it was concluded that the plants with more K+ absorbing ability, with high K+/Na+ ratio, and higher growth were more salt-tolerant. Also, the results showed that fresh and dry weights, gas exchange characteristics, and K+/Na+ ratio were very effective in determining salt tolerance of tomato. Considering the genotypes, Indent-1 and Nagina were characterized as salt tolerant and the Red Ball and Peto-86 as salt sensitive under saline conditions.

Keywords

1. Akhtar, J., Saqib, Z. A., Sarfraz, M., Saleem, I. and Haq, M. A. 2010. Evaluating Salt Tolerant Cotton Genotypes at Different Levels of NaCl Stress in Solution and Soil Culture. Pak J Bot., 42(4): 2857-2866.
2. Aktas, H., Abak, K. and Cakmak, I. 2006. Genotypic Variation in the Response of Pepper to Salinity. Sci. Horticul., 110: 260-266.
3. Arvin, M. J. and Donnelly, D. J. 2008. Screening Potato Cultivars and Wild Species to Abiotic Stresses Using an Electrolyte Leakage Bioassay. J. Agric. Sci. Technol., 10: 33-42.
4. Athar, H. and Ashraf, M. 2005. Photosynthesis under Drought Stress. In: Pessarakli, M. (Ed.), Handbook of Photosynthesis, Second Ed. CRC Press, New York, pp. 795–810.
5. Christina, E., Reynolds, H., Anita, L., Jan M., Nicole S., Anita, Z. and Urs, F. 2010. Interactions between Temperature, Drought and Stomatal Opening in Legumes. Environ. Exp. Bot., 68: 37–43.
6. Dadkhah, A. 2011. Effect of Salinity on Growth and Leaf Photosynthesis of Two Sugar Beet (beta vulgaris L.) Cultivars. J. Agr. Sci. Tech., 13: 1001-1012.
7. Damon, P. M, and Rengel, Z. 2007. Wheat Genotypes Differ in Potassium Efficiency under Glasshouse and Field Conditions. Aust. J. Agric. Res., 58: 816–825
8. Damon, P. M., Osborne, L. D. and Rengel, Z. 2007. Canola Genotypes Differ in Potassium Efficiency during Vegetative Growth. Euphytica, 156: 387–397.
9. Dasgan, H. Y., Aktas, H., Abak, K. and Cakmak, I. 2002. Determination of Screening Techniques to Salt Tolerance in Tomatoes and Investigation of Genotype Responses. Plant Science, 163: 695-703.
10. Ehsanzadeh, P., Nekoonam, M. S., Azhar, J. N., Pourhadian, H. and Shaydaee, S. 2009. Growth, Chlorophyll, and Cation Concentration of Tetraploid Wheat on a Solution High in Sodium Chloride Salt: Hulled Versus Free-Threshing Genotypes. J. Plant Nutrit., 32: 58–70.
11. Ezin, V., Robert, D. P. and Adam A. 2010. Physiological and Agronomical Criteria for Screening Tomato Genotypes for Tolerance to Salinity. EJEAFChe, 9 (10): 1641-1656.
12. FAO, 2010. http://faostat.fao.org/site/567/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=567#ancor
13. Gama, P. B., Tanaka, S., Eneji, K., Eltayeb, A. E. and Siddig, K. E. 2009. Salt-induced Stress Effect on Biomass, Photosynthetic Rate and Reactive Oxygen Species-Scavenging Enzyme Accumulation in Common Bean. J. Plant Nutrit., 32: 837-854.
14. Gorham, J. 1984. Salt Tolerance in the Triticae: K+/Na+ Discrimination in Some Potential Wheat Grasses and Their Amphiploids with Wheat. J Exper Bot, 45: 441-447.
15. Hajer, A. S., Malibari, A., Al-Zahrani, H. S. and Almaghrabi, O. A. 2006. Responses of Three Tomato Cultivars to Seawater Salinity 1- Effect of Salinity on the Seedling Growth. Afric. J. Biotech., 5: 855-861.
16. Hoagland, D. R. and Arnon, D. I. 1950. The Water Culture Method for Growing Plant Without Soil. California Agri. Exp. Station Circl. 345:39.
17. Juan, M., Rosa, M., Rivero, L. R. and Juan, M. R. 2005. Evaluation of Some Nutritional and Biochemical Indicators in Selecting Salt-resistant Tomato Cultivars. Environ. Exp. Bot., 54: 193-201.
18. Kausar, R., M. Arshad, A. Shahzad and S. Komatsu. 2013. Proteomics Analysis of Sensitive and Tolerant Barley Genotypes under Drought Stress. Amino Acids, 44: 345-359.
19. Khan, G. S. 1998. Soil Salinity-sodicity Status in Pakistan. Soil Surv. Pak. Lahore. Pp. 59.
20. Kumar, R., Goyal, V. and Kuhad, M. S. 2005. Influence of Frtility-salinity Interactions on Growth, Water Status and Yield of Indian Mustard (Brassica juncea). Ind. J. Plant Phys., 10: 139-144.
21. Li, Y. L., Marcelis, L. F. M., Stanghellini, C. 2004. Plant Water Relations as Affected by Osmotic Potential of the Nutrient Solution and Potential Transpiration in Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum L.). J. Hort. Sci. Biotech., 79: 211–218.
22. Liebersbach, H., Steingrobe, B. and Claassen, N. 2004. Roots Regulate Ion Transport in the Rhizosphere to Counteract Reduced Mobility in Dry Soil. Plant Soil. 260: 79–88.
23. Lu, S. W., Li, T. and Jing, J. 2010. Effects of Tomato Fruit under Na+ -Salt and Cl- Salt Stresses on Sucrose Metabolism. Afric. J. Agric. Res., 5(16): 2227-2231.
24. Marschner, H. 1995. Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants 2nd Edit. Academic Press. London. pp. 299-312.
25. Mohammad, M., Shibli, R., Ajouni, M. and Nimri, L. 1998. Tomato Root and Shoot Responses to Salt Stress under Different Levels of Phosphorus Nutrition. J. Plant Nutrit., 21: 1667-1680.
26. Munns, R., James, R. A. and Lauchli, A. 2006. Approaches to Increasing the Salt Tolerance of Wheat and Other Cereals. J. Exp. Bot., 57: 1025–1043.
27. Oztekin G. B. and Tuzel, Y. 2011. Comparative Salinity Responses Among Tomato Genotypes and Rootstocks. Pak. J. Bot., 43(6): 2665-2672.
28. Qi, Z. and Spalding, E. P. 2004. Protection of Plasma Membrane K+ Transport by the Salt Overly Sensitive1 Na+-H+ Antiporter during Salinity Stress. Plant Physiol., 136: 2547–2555.
29. Rus, A. M., Estan, M. T., Gisbert, C., Garcia-Sogo, B., Serrano, R., Caro, M., Moreno, V. and Boları´n, M. C. 2001. Expressing the Yeast HAL1 Gene in Tomato Increases Fruit Yield and Enhances K+/Na+ Selectivity under Salt Stress. Plant, Cell Environ., 24: 875–880.
30. Sairam, R. K., Rao, K. V. and Srivastava, G. C. 2002. Differential Response of Wheat Genotypes to Long Term Salinity Stress in Relation to Oxidative Stress, Antioxidant Activity and Osmolytes Concentration. Plant Sci., 163: 1037-1046.
31. Santa-Cruz, A., Acosta, M., Rus, A. and Bolarin, M. C. 2002. Short-term Salt Tolerance Mechanisms in Differentially Salt Tolerant Tomato Species. Plant Physiol., 19: 331–340.
32. Stepien, P, and Kłbus, G. 2006. Water Relations and Photosynthesis in Cucumis sativus L. Leaves under Salt Stress. Biolog. Plantarum, 50: 610-616.
33. Tantawy, A. S., Abdel-Mawgoud, A. M. R., El-Nemr, M. A., Chamoun, Y. G. 2009. Alleviation of Salinity Effects on Tomato Plants by Application of Amino-acids and Growth Regulators. Eur. J. Sci. Res., 30(3): 484-494.
34. Telesiñski, A., Nowak, J., Smolik, B., Dubowska, A. and Skrzypiec, N. 2008. Effect of Soil Salinity on Activity of Antioxidant Enzymes and Content of Ascorbic Acid and Phenols in Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris l.) plants. J. Elementol, 13(3): 401-409
35. Trehan, S. P., El-Dessougi, H. and Claassen, N. 2005. Potassium Efficiency of 10 Potato Cultivars as Related to Their Capability to Use Nonexchangeable Soil Potassium by Chemical Mobilization. Comm. Soil Sci. Plant Anal., 36: 1809–1822.
36. Yamaguchi, T. and Blumwald, E. 2005. Developing Salt Tolerant Crop Plants: Challenges and Opportunities. Trends Plant Sci., 10(12):615-620.
37. Yang, X. E., Liu, J. X., Wang, W. M., Ye, Z. Q. and Luo, A.C. 2004. Potassium Internal use Efficiency Relative to Growth Vigor, Potassium Distribution, and Carbohydrate Allocation in Rice Genotypes. J. Plant Nutrit., 27: 837–852
38. Yilmaz, J. L. 2004. Abiotic Stress Tolerance: Metabolic and Physiological Effects of Compatible Solutes and Calmodulin on E. coli and Tobacco. In: "Pure and Applied Biochemistry", (Ed): J. L. Yilmaz, Lund University, Lund, Sweden, PP. 1-40.
39. Yokas, I, Tuna, A. L., Burun, B., Altunlu, H., Altana, F. and Kaya, C. 2008. Responses of the Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) Plant to Exposure to Different Salt Forms and Rates. Turk. J. Agric., (32): 319-329.
40. Zhang, J. F., Yuan, Y., Niu, C., Hinchliffe, D. J., Lu, Y., Yu, S. X., Ulloa, M., Percy, R.G. and Cantrell, R.G. 2007. AFLP-RGA Markers in Comparison with RGA and AFLP in Cultivated Tetraploid Cotton. Crop Sci., 47:180–187.
41. Zhao, G. Q., Ma, B. L. and Ren, C. Z. 2007. Growth, Gas Exchange, Chlorophyll Fluorescence, and Ion Content of Naked Oat in Response to Salinity. Crop Sci., 47: 123–131.
Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology
Volume 16, Issue 4
July and August 2014
Pages 851-862