Evaluation of Drought Tolerance of Potato Cultivars Under Greenhouse Conditions - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 32
About This Presentation
Title:

Evaluation of Drought Tolerance of Potato Cultivars Under Greenhouse Conditions

Description:

Clonal propagation started from excised shoot apices of growing sprouts. ... Plate 2. Potato sprout which is used as starting material for clonal propagation. ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:98
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 33
Provided by: jrahmat
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Evaluation of Drought Tolerance of Potato Cultivars Under Greenhouse Conditions


1
Evaluation of Drought Tolerance of Potato
Cultivars Under Greenhouse Conditions
  • Sultan F. Alsharari and Abdullah A. Alsadon

Department of Plant Production College of Food
and Agricultural Sciences King Saud
University P.O. Box 2460 Riyadh 11451 Saudi
Arabia
2
Introduction
  • Potato is characterized as a drought sensitive
    crop.
  • Drought conditions resulted in reduced vegetative
    growth, leaf area and plant height.
  • Many studies have illustrated the effect of
    drought treatments on low tuber yield in
    potatoes. Tuber quality can also be affected.

3
Introduction
  • Fresh Tuber yield was significantly correlated to
    root dry mass which was reduced by drought.
  • Proline content in the leaves is a key factor in
    determining drought tolerant or sensitive
    cultivars.
  • Water stress in the field or greenhouse has
    resulted in an increase in proline content in
    potato tubers.
  • From the previous studies, it is clear that
    drought has a major role in decreasing potato
    productivity and quality.

4
Objective
  • The objective of this study was to evaluate
    growth and productivity of some potato cultivars
    in response to drought treatments under
    greenhouse conditions.

5
Materials and Methods
  • Seed potatoes of seven cultivars were obtained
    from local agricultural companies which commonly
    grow them for fresh or processing purposes.
  • These cultivars represent a selection of maturity
    groups and tuber characteristics (Table 1).

6
Table 1 Maturity type and tuber traits of seven
potato cultivars selected in this project
Sources
1- Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Plant
Products Directorate, Plant Health Division,
Potato Section (www.inspection.gc.ca/english/plave
g/potpom/var) 2- Nivaa Holland (www.aardappelpagin
a.nl/index.html) 3- Le Plant De Pomme De Terre
(The French varieties) (www.plantdepommedeterre.or
g/eng/var.asp)
7
Hermes
Sandy
Mondial
Safrane
Asterix
Victoria
Rosetta
Plate 1. Tuber traits of eight potato cultivars
selected in this project.
8
Materials and Methods
  • Clonal propagation started from excised shoot
    apices of growing sprouts.
  • Several multiplication cycles were carried out
    using single node explants. Subculture was
    repeated until the required number of plantlets
    for each cultivar was achieved to conduct the
    experiment.
  • At least 200 plantlets (12-15 cm long, each with
    4-5 leaves and good root system) per cultivar
    were transferred to the greenhouse of the
    Agricultural Research and Experiment Station at
    Dirab, near Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

9
Plate 2. Potato sprout which is used as starting
material for clonal propagation.
10
Plate 3. Potato plantlet inside a test tube.
11
Plate 4. Potato plantlet is being cut into
different stem cuttings with single node.
12
Plate 5. Potato plantlet is being cut into
different stem cuttings with single node.
13
Materials and Methods
  • Plantlets of 6-8cm in length and with 4-6
    leaflets were transplanted into 25 cm pots. Pots
    were filled with 1 2 peat moss sand
  • Acclimatization was carried out by applying mist
    system under plastic cover at about 10 minutes
    interval for 1 minute and gradually increasing
    time intervals until the end of second week when
    cover was removed.
  • Temperature and relative humidity were set at 24
    2 C and 70 5, respectively.

14
Materials and Methods
  • Following two weeks of acclimatization, a class A
    evapotranspiration pan was placed in a central
    location between plants. Irrigation treatments
    were 20, 40, 60, 80 and 100 of water depletion
    by evaporation (WDE). Irrigation water was
    added near the plant base every other day.
  • For every cultivar, eighty pots were used
    (representing five irrigation treatments x 4 pots
    x 4 replication per treatments).
  • The experiment was designed as split plot with
    four replicates each. The cultivars were
    assigned as main plot and irrigation treatments
    as sub plots.

15
Materials and Methods
  • The first plant sample was taken at transplanting
    time. Destructive harvests consisting of one
    plant per subplot were randomly carried out 30,
    60 and 90 days after treatment (DAT).
  • Drought tolerance was evaluated based on response
    of vegetative growth traits (plant height,
    number of branches, leaf area) as well as tuber
    traits (number and weight). Proline content in
    the leaves was also evaluated.
  • Data were analyzed using statistical SAS program.
    Mean separation was carried out by the least
    significant difference.

16
Results and Discussion
  • Plant Height
  • Number of Branches
  • Leaf Area
  • Proline content
  • Tuber number
  • Tuber weight

17
Table 1 Comparison of plant height between
potato cultivars originated from micropropagated
plantlets, grown in the greenhouse and exposed to
irrigation treatments.
18
Fig. 1 Effect of irrigation treatment on plant
height of potato cultivars originated from
micropropagated plantlets and grown in the
greenhouse.
19
Table 2 Comparison of number of branches between
potato cultivars originated from micropropagated
plantlets, grown in the greenhouse and exposed
to irrigation treatments.
20
Fig. 2 Effect of irrigation treatment on number
of branches/plant of potato cultivars originated
from micropropagated plantlets and grown in the
greenhouse.
21
Table 3 Comparison of leaf area between potato
cultivars originated from micropropagated
plantlets, grown in the greenhouse and exposed to
irrigation treatments.
22
Fig. 3 Effect of irrigation treatment on leaf
area of potato cultivars originated from
micropropagated plantlets and grown in the
greenhouse.
23
Table 4 Comparison of proline content between
potato cultivars originated from micropropagated
plantlets, grown in the greenhouse and exposed to
irrigation treatments.
24
Fig. 4 Effect of irrigation treatment on proline
content of potato cultivars originated from
micropropagated plantlets and grown in the
greenhouse.
25
Table 5 Comparison of tuber number between
potato cultivars originated from micropropagated
plantlets, grown in the greenhouse and exposed to
irrigation treatments.
26
Fig. 5 Effect of irrigation treatment on tuber
number of potato cultivars originated from
micropropagated plantlets and grown in the
greenhouse.
27
Table 6 Comparison of tuber weight between
potato cultivars originated from micropropagated
plantlets, grown in the greenhouse and exposed to
irrigation treatments.
28
Fig. 6 Effect of irrigation treatment on tuber
weight of potato cultivars originated from
micropropagated plantlets and grown in the
greenhouse.
29
Conclusion
  • Significant differences have been reported among
    cultivars and between irrigation treatments in
    most traits.
  • In general, as water stress increased, vegetative
    growth and tuber yield decreased.
  • Proline content increased as water stress
    increased.

30
Conclusion
  • Significantly higher tuber weight was measured in
    Rosetta plants at 60 DAT. Whereas after 90 DAT,
    both Rosetta and Sandy plants had higher tuber
    weight followed by Hermis, Safrina Asterix and
    Mondial plants, respectively.
  • Accordingly three cultivars have been selected
    based on their tuber weight response at the 20
    WDE. These cultivars were
  • Rosetta (drought tolerant),
  • sandy ( moderately drought tolerance ) and
  • Asterix ( drought sensitive ).

31
Acknowledgment
  • Authors wish to thank King Abdulaziz City for
    Science and Technology for providing financial
    support through Graduate Student funding program
    (No. GR-10-24). Thanks are also due to Research
    Center of the College of Food and Agricultural
    Sciences.

32
Thank you for your Attention
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com