Have a personal or library account? Click to login

Chitosan Improves Morphological and Physiological Attributes of Grapevines Under Deficit Irrigation Conditions

Journal of Horticultural Research
Volume 29 (2021): Issue 1 (June 2021)
By:
Open Access
|Apr 2021

Figures & Tables

Figure 1

Effect of foliar application of chitosan and irrigation levels on leaf area, trunk cross-sectional area (TCA), total dry weight and root dry weight of grapevines ‘Crimson’. Means followed by different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between treatments based on LSD test (p = 0.05)
Effect of foliar application of chitosan and irrigation levels on leaf area, trunk cross-sectional area (TCA), total dry weight and root dry weight of grapevines ‘Crimson’. Means followed by different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between treatments based on LSD test (p = 0.05)

Figure 2

Effect of foliar application of chitosan and irrigation levels on relative chlorophyll content, proline content, leaf total carbohydrates, and leaf catalase activity. Means followed by different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between treatments based on LSD test (p = 0.05)
Effect of foliar application of chitosan and irrigation levels on relative chlorophyll content, proline content, leaf total carbohydrates, and leaf catalase activity. Means followed by different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between treatments based on LSD test (p = 0.05)

Figure 3

Effect of foliar application of chitosan and irrigation levels on leaf water potential and relative water content. Means followed by different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between treatments based on LSD test (p = 0.05)
Effect of foliar application of chitosan and irrigation levels on leaf water potential and relative water content. Means followed by different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between treatments based on LSD test (p = 0.05)

Figure 4

The effect of irrigation levels and chitosan treatments on the evapotranspiration (mL per day) during four months of drought and chitosan treatments of grapevines in 2017. Values are mean ± S.E. (n = 16). Irrigation levels: A = 100% of field capacity, B = 60% of field capacity, C = 40% of field capacity
The effect of irrigation levels and chitosan treatments on the evapotranspiration (mL per day) during four months of drought and chitosan treatments of grapevines in 2017. Values are mean ± S.E. (n = 16). Irrigation levels: A = 100% of field capacity, B = 60% of field capacity, C = 40% of field capacity

Figure 5

The effect of irrigation levels and chitosan treatments on the evapotranspiration (mL per day) during four months of drought and chitosan treatments of grapevines in 2018. Values are mean ± S.E. (n = 16). Irrigation levels: A = 100% of field capacity, B = 60% of field capacity, C = 40% of field capacity
The effect of irrigation levels and chitosan treatments on the evapotranspiration (mL per day) during four months of drought and chitosan treatments of grapevines in 2018. Values are mean ± S.E. (n = 16). Irrigation levels: A = 100% of field capacity, B = 60% of field capacity, C = 40% of field capacity
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/johr-2021-0003 | Journal eISSN: 2353-3978 | Journal ISSN: 2300-5009
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 9 - 22
Submitted on: Jul 1, 2020
Accepted on: Feb 1, 2021
Published on: Apr 1, 2021
Published by: National Institute of Horticultural Research
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 2 times per year
Keywords:
drought,
evapotranspiration,
proline,
relative water content,
leaf water potential
Related subjects:
Life sciences,
Biotechnology,
Plant science,
Ecology,
Life sciences, other

© 2021 Hoda Ali Khalil, Rasha M. Badr Eldin, published by National Institute of Horticultural Research
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 29 (2021): Issue 1 (June 2021)Next article