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

.blurhash-client-img { display: none !important; }

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

Folia Horticulturae

Volume 32 (2020): Issue 2 (December 2020)

By: Ahmad Azeem, Qaiser Javed, Jianfan Sun, Muhammad I. Nawaz, Ikram Ullah, Rakhwe Kama and Daolin Du

Open Access

|Sep 2020

Figures & Tables

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.

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.

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.

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

SLev		Salt duration (weeks)

		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
Plant height, cm	T1	14.9 a	20.2 b	30.0 c	40.0 d	45.0 e	53.3 f	66.0 g	71.0 h	82.0 i	87.6 j	97.6 k	110.6 l
	T2	13.9 i	16.7 k	22.8 j	29.2 i	33.7 h	38.4 g	45.6 f	47.5 e	56.0 d	57.1 c	57.2 b	57.2 a
	T3	13.2 c	18.3 d	21.8 e	25.3 f	35.0 g	36.4 g	36.1 g	36.3 g	36.1 g	36.2 g	36.2 g	36.1 g
	T4	8.4 b	17.3 c	23.7 d	28.6 e	28.7 e	28.5 e	28.6 e	28.3 e	28.7 e	28.6 e	28.6 e	28.4 e

Stem diameter, cm	T1	3.6 a	3.8 a	4.4 a	5.1 ab	6.8 b	9.1 bc	11.6 c	15.0 d	17.2 de	18.9 e	20.6 e	21.6 e
	T2	2.6 b	2.8 b	3.9 c	4.3 d	4.9 e	5.2 e	5.8 f	7.8 g	9.1 g	9.2 g	9.14 g	9.2 g
	T3	2.4 c	2.8 d	3.5 e	5.1 f	7.5 g	7.5 g	7.1 g	7.1 g	7.2 g	7.2 g	7.2 g	7.2 g
	T4	1.7 d	2.2 e	2.6 f	2.5 f	2.2 f	2.1 f	2.7 f	2.6 f	2.6 f	2.7 f	2.6 f	2.6 f

Root length, cm	T1	10.2 a	11.4 ab	14.3 b	18.4 c	20.4 cd	23.6 d	26.1 de	28.4 e	30.1 ef	31.2 ef	32.3 f	32.3 f
	T2	9.5 b	11.7 c	13.2 d	15.1 e	17.2 f	8.1 f	20.4 g	21.6 gh	22.9 h	23.6 h	23.7 h	23.7 h
	T3	8.9 c	10.6 d	14.7 e	15.4 f	18.8 g	18.7 g	18.6 g	18.6 g	18.6 g	18.5 g	18.5 g	18.6 g
	T4	8.5 d	9.1 e	10.5 f	11.3 k	11.3 k	11.3 k	11.6 k	11.3 k	11.1 k	11.3 k	11.2 k	11.3 k

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

Main variables	Cult	SLev	SDur	Cult × SLev	Cult × SDur	SLev × SDur	Cult × SLev × SDur
PH	87.227**	16630.85**	4912.286**	8.318**	18.801**	1008.619**	18.078**
RL	94.138**	6422.472**	1603.98**	258.563**	10.662**	300.922**	13.369**
SD	1.822^NS	3940.037**	655.581**	64.922**	0.294^NS	206.851**	2.058**
FW	34.992**	4948.99**	662.663**	40.121**	4.575**	208.645**	7.73**
DW	13.041**	1916.822**	249.977**	5.433**	1.289^NS	75.574**	0.874^NS

Correlation between different parameters of two okra cultivars

	SD	RL	FW	DW	P_N	Gs	E	WUE	Wp	SDur	SLev
Green

PH	0.952**	0.969**	0.950**	0.934**	0.693**	0.549**	0.350**	0.544**	0.392**	0.593**	–0.578**
SD		0.978**	0.982**	0.956**	0.768**	0.667**	0.368**	0.605**	0.496**	0.497**	–0.640**
RL			0.976**	0.957**	0.726**	0.589**	0.350**	0.580**	0.425**	0.571**	–0.601**
FW				0.986**	0.808**	0.683**	0.394**	0.646**	0.508**	0.481**	–0.663**
DW					0.803**	0.675**	0.398**	0.637**	0.509**	0.472**	–0.660**
P_N						0.932**	0.154	0.907**	0.839**	0.017	–0.840**
Gs							0.154	0.818**	0.891**	–0.115	–0.845**
E								–0.170*	0.024	0.393**	–0.296**
WUE									0.800**	–0.115	–0.758**
Wp										–0.324**	–0.859**
SDur											0.000

Red

PH	0.957**	0.946**	0.961**	0.951**	0.665**	0.460**	0.428**	0.505**	0.302**	0.642**	–0.572**
SD		0.947**	0.967**	0.967**	0.679**	0.523**	0.450**	0.521**	0.410**	0.544**	–0.623**
RL			0.940**	0.943**	0.666**	0.440**	0.510**	0.509**	0.343**	0.604**	–0.644**
FW				0.992**	0.796**	0.621**	0.413**	0.635**	0.483**	0.479**	–0.680**
DW					0.797**	0.620**	0.418**	0.642**	0.496**	0.469**	–0.694**
P_N						0.894**	0.212*	0.912**	0.811**	0.000	–0.857**
Gs							0.187*	0.813**	0.893**	–0.221**	–0.853**
E								–0.130	0.074	0.465**	–0.387**
WUE									0.789**	–0.141	–0.766**
Wp										–0.381**	–0.817**
SDur											0.000

Different treatment levels

Treatment	Concentration (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)
T1	20.8	0	0
T2	103.3	3	3
T3	180.0	6	6
T4	257.0	9	9

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

Main variables	Cult	SLev	SDur	Cult × SLev	Cult × SDur	SLev × SDur	Cult × SLev × SDur
P_N	33.72**	7382.7**	72.59**	63.58**	1.49^NS	118.81**	2.17**
Gs	14.60**	2249.22**	20.03**	6.81**	2.35**	12.75**	2.92**
E	92.59**	77.75**	19.10**	13.08**	3.51**	7.42**	4.51**
WUE	54.83**	646.96**	15.71**	2.45^NS	2.98**	21.35**	3.32**
Wp	46.30**	1332.00**	71.77**	18.81**	1.52^NS	12.43**	1.24^NS

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

SLev		Salt duration (weeks)

		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
Plant height, cm	T1	14.2 a	23.8 b	30.4 c	36.3 d	43.7 e	49.9 f	57.3 g	64.2 h	76.7 i	83.5 j	103.0 k	117.6 l
	T2	13.1 f	18.1 h	21.9 c	31.3 g	35.6 e	44.9 f	48.0 f	52.2 g	52.4 g	52.14 g	52.4 g	52.3 g
	T3	12.3 a	17.8 b	23.8 f	27.8 d	32.6 e	32.4 e	32.6 e	32.3 e	32.5 e	32.5 e	32.4 e	32.6 e
	T4	11.9 a	18.9 c	26.4 b	26.5 b	26.5 b	26.5 b	26.5 b	26.5 b	26.3 b	26.4 b	26.3 b	26.4 b

Stem diameter, cm	T1	3.6 a	4.1 a	4.4 ab	5.4 ab	7.8 bc	10.7 bc	13.6 cd	16.9 d	19.7 d	21.3 e	22.1 e	23.0 e
	T2	2.4 b	2.8 c	3.8 a	4.4 d	5.13 e	5.3 f	5.9 g	8.3 g	8.5 g	8.5 g	8.51 g	9.0 g
	T3	2.2 d	2.8 b	3.7 b	3.8 a	5.6 g	5.7 g	5.6 g	5.8 g	5.6 g	5.4 g	5.6 g	5.6 g
	T4	1.9 e	2.4 f	2.8 g	3.1 h	3.1 h	3.1 h	3.1 h	3.1 h	3.2 h	3.1 h	3.08 h	3.1 h

Root length, cm	T1	9.8 a	12.0 b	14.1 c	15.2 d	17.5 e	20.4 f	25.9 g	29.9 h	33.1 i	33.6 ij	34.1 j	35.1 k
	T2	9.6 a	9.8 bc	10.8 b	13.4 e	14.9 d	17.3 g	19.3 f	20.8 j	20.6 j	20.7 j	20.8 j	20.7 j
	T3	9.7 c	11.7 a	12.7 d	13.4 b	14.2 h	15.2 i	15.3 i	15.3 i	15.3 i	15.3 i	15.2 i	15.3 i
	T4	9.4 d	11.2 c	12.1 b	12.5 b	12.6 b	12.7 b	12.6 b	12.6 b	12.6 b	12.6 b	12.6 b	12.3 b

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/fhort-2020-0015 | Journal eISSN: 2083-5965 | Journal ISSN: 0867-1761

Journal RSS Feed

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

Keywords:

physiological traits,

plant survival,

saline irrigation,

Related subjects:

Life sciences, other

© 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.

Previous article Volume 32 (2020): Issue 2 (December 2020)Next article