Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Functional traits of okra cultivars (Chinese green and Chinese red) under salt stress Cover

Functional traits of okra cultivars (Chinese green and Chinese red) under salt stress

Open Access
|Sep 2020

Figures & Tables

Table 1

Different treatment levels

TreatmentConcentration (mM)Amount of NaCl in 1 L Hoagland culture medium (g · L−1)Amount of CaCl2 in 1 L Hoagland culture medium (g · L−1)
T120.800
T2103.333
T3180.066
T4257.099
Table 2

Variance analysis of physiological traits of two Okra cultivars under salt stress treatments

Main variablesCultSLevSDurCult × SLevCult × SDurSLev × SDurCult × SLev × SDur
PN33.72**7382.7**72.59**63.58**1.49NS118.81**2.17**
Gs14.60**2249.22**20.03**6.81**2.35**12.75**2.92**
E92.59**77.75**19.10**13.08**3.51**7.42**4.51**
WUE54.83**646.96**15.71**2.45NS2.98**21.35**3.32**
Wp46.30**1332.00**71.77**18.81**1.52NS12.43**1.24NS

** Significant difference at p < 0.01.

{ label (or @symbol) needed for fn[@id='j_fhort-2020-0015_table-fn_002_w2aab3b7c26b1b6b1ab1b2b1b2b3ab1Aa'] } NS represents non-significant difference.

Cult, cultivars; SLev, salinity levels; SDur, salt duration; PN, photosynthesis; Gs, stomatal conductance; E, transpiration; WUE, water use efficiency; Wp, water potential.

Figure 1

Effects of salinity treatments on the photosynthesis (A,B), stomatal conductance (C,D) and transpiration (E,F) of Chinese green and Chinese red, respectively; values represent means ± standard errors, followed by different letters in the same treatment process indicating a significant difference at p < 0.05, according to Tukey tests.

Figure 2

Effects of the salinity treatments on the WUE (G,H) and water potential (I,J) of Chinese green and Chinese red, respectively; values represent means ± standard errors, followed by different letters in the same treatment process indicating a significant difference at p < 0.05, according to Tukey tests. WUE represents water use efficiency.

Table 3

Variance analysis of growth traits of two okra cultivars under salt stress

Main variablesCultSLevSDurCult × SLevCult × SDurSLev × SDurCult × SLev × SDur
PH87.227**16630.85**4912.286**8.318**18.801**1008.619**18.078**
RL94.138**6422.472**1603.98**258.563**10.662**300.922**13.369**
SD1.822NS3940.037**655.581**64.922**0.294NS206.851**2.058**
FW34.992**4948.99**662.663**40.121**4.575**208.645**7.73**
DW13.041**1916.822**249.977**5.433**1.289NS75.574**0.874NS

** Significant difference at p < 0.01.

{ label (or @symbol) needed for fn[@id='j_fhort-2020-0015_table-fn_004_w2aab3b7c26b1b6b1ab1b2b2b2b3ab1Aa'] } NS represents non-significant difference.

Cult, cultivars; SLev, salinity levels; SDur, salt duration; PH, plant height; RL, root length; SD, stem diameter; FW, fresh weight; DW, dry weight.

Table 4

Correlation between different parameters of two okra cultivars

SDRLFWDWPNGsEWUEWpSDurSLev
Green
PH0.952**0.969**0.950**0.934**0.693**0.549**0.350**0.544**0.392**0.593**–0.578**
SD0.978**0.982**0.956**0.768**0.667**0.368**0.605**0.496**0.497**–0.640**
RL0.976**0.957**0.726**0.589**0.350**0.580**0.425**0.571**–0.601**
FW0.986**0.808**0.683**0.394**0.646**0.508**0.481**–0.663**
DW0.803**0.675**0.398**0.637**0.509**0.472**–0.660**
PN0.932**0.1540.907**0.839**0.017–0.840**
Gs0.1540.818**0.891**–0.115–0.845**
E–0.170*0.0240.393**–0.296**
WUE0.800**–0.115–0.758**
Wp–0.324**–0.859**
SDur0.000
Red
PH0.957**0.946**0.961**0.951**0.665**0.460**0.428**0.505**0.302**0.642**–0.572**
SD0.947**0.967**0.967**0.679**0.523**0.450**0.521**0.410**0.544**–0.623**
RL0.940**0.943**0.666**0.440**0.510**0.509**0.343**0.604**–0.644**
FW0.992**0.796**0.621**0.413**0.635**0.483**0.479**–0.680**
DW0.797**0.620**0.418**0.642**0.496**0.469**–0.694**
PN0.894**0.212*0.912**0.811**0.000–0.857**
Gs0.187*0.813**0.893**–0.221**–0.853**
E–0.1300.0740.465**–0.387**
WUE0.789**–0.141–0.766**
Wp–0.381**–0.817**
SDur0.000

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).

SLev, salinity levels; SDur, salt duration; PH, plant height; SD, stem diameter; RL, root length; FW, fresh weight; DW, dry weight; PN, photosynthesis; Gs, stomatal conductance; E, transpiration; WUE, water use efficiency; Wp, water potential.

Table 5

Plant height, stem diameter and root length of Chinese green under different salinity treatments

SLevSalt duration (weeks)
123456789101112
Plant height, cmT114.2 a23.8 b30.4 c36.3 d43.7 e49.9 f57.3 g64.2 h76.7 i83.5 j103.0 k117.6 l
T213.1 f18.1 h21.9 c31.3 g35.6 e44.9 f48.0 f52.2 g52.4 g52.14 g52.4 g52.3 g
T312.3 a17.8 b23.8 f27.8 d32.6 e32.4 e32.6 e32.3 e32.5 e32.5 e32.4 e32.6 e
T411.9 a18.9 c26.4 b26.5 b26.5 b26.5 b26.5 b26.5 b26.3 b26.4 b26.3 b26.4 b
Stem diameter, cmT13.6 a4.1 a4.4 ab5.4 ab7.8 bc10.7 bc13.6 cd16.9 d19.7 d21.3 e22.1 e23.0 e
T22.4 b2.8 c3.8 a4.4 d5.13 e5.3 f5.9 g8.3 g8.5 g8.5 g8.51 g9.0 g
T32.2 d2.8 b3.7 b3.8 a5.6 g5.7 g5.6 g5.8 g5.6 g5.4 g5.6 g5.6 g
T41.9 e2.4 f2.8 g3.1 h3.1 h3.1 h3.1 h3.1 h3.2 h3.1 h3.08 h3.1 h
Root length, cmT19.8 a12.0 b14.1 c15.2 d17.5 e20.4 f25.9 g29.9 h33.1 i33.6 ij34.1 j35.1 k
T29.6 a9.8 bc10.8 b13.4 e14.9 d17.3 g19.3 f20.8 j20.6 j20.7 j20.8 j20.7 j
T39.7 c11.7 a12.7 d13.4 b14.2 h15.2 i15.3 i15.3 i15.3 i15.3 i15.2 i15.3 i
T49.4 d11.2 c12.1 b12.5 b12.6 b12.7 b12.6 b12.6 b12.6 b12.6 b12.6 b12.3 b

[i] Values represent means, followed by different letters in the same treatment process indicating a significant difference at p ≤ 0.05, according to Tukey tests. T1 = 20.8 mM; T2 = 103.3 mM; T3 = 180.0 mM; and T4 = 257.0 mM.

[ii] SLev, salinity levels.

Table 6

Plant height, stem diameter and root length of Chinese red under different salinity treatments

SLevSalt duration (weeks)
123456789101112
Plant height, cmT114.9 a20.2 b30.0 c40.0 d45.0 e53.3 f66.0 g71.0 h82.0 i87.6 j97.6 k110.6 l
T213.9 i16.7 k22.8 j29.2 i33.7 h38.4 g45.6 f47.5 e56.0 d57.1 c57.2 b57.2 a
T313.2 c18.3 d21.8 e25.3 f35.0 g36.4 g36.1 g36.3 g36.1 g36.2 g36.2 g36.1 g
T48.4 b17.3 c23.7 d28.6 e28.7 e28.5 e28.6 e28.3 e28.7 e28.6 e28.6 e28.4 e
Stem diameter, cmT13.6 a3.8 a4.4 a5.1 ab6.8 b9.1 bc11.6 c15.0 d17.2 de18.9 e20.6 e21.6 e
T22.6 b2.8 b3.9 c4.3 d4.9 e5.2 e5.8 f7.8 g9.1 g9.2 g9.14 g9.2 g
T32.4 c2.8 d3.5 e5.1 f7.5 g7.5 g7.1 g7.1 g7.2 g7.2 g7.2 g7.2 g
T41.7 d2.2 e2.6 f2.5 f2.2 f2.1 f2.7 f2.6 f2.6 f2.7 f2.6 f2.6 f
Root length, cmT110.2 a11.4 ab14.3 b18.4 c20.4 cd23.6 d26.1 de28.4 e30.1 ef31.2 ef32.3 f32.3 f
T29.5 b11.7 c13.2 d15.1 e17.2 f8.1 f20.4 g21.6 gh22.9 h23.6 h23.7 h23.7 h
T38.9 c10.6 d14.7 e15.4 f18.8 g18.7 g18.6 g18.6 g18.6 g18.5 g18.5 g18.6 g
T48.5 d9.1 e10.5 f11.3 k11.3 k11.3 k11.6 k11.3 k11.1 k11.3 k11.2 k11.3 k

[i] Values represent means, followed by different letters in the same treatment process indicating a significant difference at p ≤ 0.05, according to Tukey tests. T1 = 20.8 mM; T2 = 103.3 mM; T3 = 180.0 mM; and T4 = 257.0 mM.

[ii] SLev, salinity levels.

Figure 3

Effects of salinity treatments on the fresh weight (Q,R) and dry weight (S,T) of Chinese green and Chinese red, respectively; values represent means ± standard errors, followed by different letters in the same treatment process indicating a significant difference at p < 0.05, according to Tukey tests.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/fhort-2020-0015 | Journal eISSN: 2083-5965 | Journal ISSN: 0867-1761
Language: English
Page range: 159 - 170
Submitted on: Feb 7, 2020
Accepted on: Jul 31, 2020
Published on: Sep 7, 2020
Published by: Polish Society for Horticultural Sciences (PSHS)
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 2 issues per year
Related subjects:

© 2020 Ahmad Azeem, Qaiser Javed, Jianfan Sun, Muhammad I. Nawaz, Ikram Ullah, Rakhwe Kama, Daolin Du, published by Polish Society for Horticultural Sciences (PSHS)
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.