Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Effects of Salinity on the Morphology of the ' Bursa Siyahı', Fig (Ficus carica L.) cultivar In vitro Conditions

Year 2018, Volume: 21 Issue: 3, 292 - 296, 15.06.2018

Yelda Emek

https://doi.org/10.18016/ksudobil.298973

Abstract

The objective of this study was to examine the effects of NaCl on the
morphology of Ficus carica cv. 'Bursa
Siyahı' seedlings. For the  salt stress
tolerance, seeds of Ficus carica L.
cv 'Bursa Siyahı' were germinated in
vitro conditions and obtained seedlings were cultured in Murashige and
Skoog culture medium without NaCl (as control) and with different NaCl
concentrations. It was
observed that  plant viability were
decreased with increasing NaCl concentration in the medium At the end of six weeks,
plants were evaluated for the parameters of fresh weight (FW), shoot length
(SL), leaf number (LN), root number (RN) and root length (RL). Plants in medium
with 40 mM NaCl gave the maximum growth, salt stress effect was found to be
increased in relative to the salt concentrations.

Keywords

Ficus carica cv. Bursa Siyahı NaCl stress in vitro growth

References

  • Arzani A, Mirodjagh SS 1999. Response of Durum Wheat Cultivars to Immature Embryo Culture, Callus Induction and In vitro Salt Stress. Plant Cell Tiss. Org. Cult., 58: 67-72.
  • Bandeoglu E, Eyidogan F, Yucel M, Avni Oktem H 2004. Antioxidant Responses of Shoots and Roots of Lentil to NaCl-Salinity Stress. Plant Growth Regulation, 42: 69-77.
  • Barakat M, Abdel Latif H 1996. In vitro Selection of Wheat Callus Tolerant to High Levels of Salt Plant Regeneration. Euphytica, 91: 127-140.
  • Bohnert HJ, Nelson DE, Jensen RG 1995. Adaptations to Environmental Stresses. The Plant Cell,7:1099-1111.
  • Cavalcanti F, Lima JP,Silva S,Viegas R, Silveria J 2007. Roots and Leaves Display Contrasting Oxidative Response During Salt Stress and Recovery in Cowpea. J. Plant Physiol., 164:591-600.
  • Farhoudi R, Modhej A, Afrous A 2015. Effect of Salt Stress on Physiological and Morphological Parameters of Rapeseed Cultivars. J.Sci. Res. and Dev., 2(5):111-117
  • Fay MF 1994. In What Situation is In vitro Culture Appropriate to Plant Conservation? Biodivers Conserv, 3: 176-183.
  • Golombek SD, Lüdders P 1993. Effect of Short-term Salinity on Leaf Gas Exchange of the Fig (Ficus carica L.). Plant and Soil, 148: 21-27.
  • Hussain A, Khan ZI, Ashraf M, Rashid MH, Akhtar MS 2004. Effect of Salt Stress on Some Growth Attributes of Sugarcane Cultivars CP-77-400 and Coj- 84. Int. J. Agric. Biol., 6(1):188-191.
  • Kamrani MH, Hosseinniya H, Chegeni AR 2013. Effect of Salinity on the Growth Characteristics of Canola (Brassica napus L.). Tech. J. Eng and Applied Sci., 3(18):2327-2333.
  • Kingsbury RW, Epstein E 1984. Selection for Salt Resistant in Spring Wheat. Crop Sci., 24: 310-315.
  • Kirtikar KR, Basu BD 1986. Indian Medicinal Plants. International Book Distributors,Vol:3, Dehradun, 2329p.
  • Munns R, Hare RA, James RA, Rebetzke GI 2000. Genetic Variation for İmproving the Salt Tolerance of Durum Wheat. Aust.J. Agric. Res., 51: 69-74.
  • Munns R 2002. Comparative Physiology of Salt and Water Stress. Plant Cell and Environment, 25:239-250.
  • Murashige T, Skoog F 1962. A Revised Medium for Rapid Growth and Bioassays with Tabacco Tissue Cultures. Physiol. Plant., 15: 473-497.
  • Noble CL, Rogers ME 1992. Arguments for The Use of Physiological Criteria for Improving the Salt Tolerance in Crops. Plant Soil,146: 99-107.
  • Pandey SC, Kalloo G. 1993. Spinach, Spinacia oleracea L. In "Genetic Improvement of Vegetable Crops", (Ed. Kalloo G, Bergh BO), Pergamon Press, pp. 325–336, DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-08-040826-2.50027-8
  • Rawson HM, Richards RA, Munns R 1988. An Examination of Selection Criteria for Salt Tolerance in Wheat, Barley and Triticale Genotypes. Aust. J. Agric. Res., 39: 759-772.
  • Salisburry FB, Ross CW 1992. Plant Physiology. Wadsworth Pub. Com. Belmont, California, USA
  • Stepien P, Johnson NG 2009. Contrasting Responses of Photosynthesis to Salt Stress in The Glycophyte arabidopsis and The Halophyte Thellungiella: Role of The Plastid Terminal Oxidase as an Alternative Electron Sink. Plant Physiol., 149: 1154-1165.
  • Yadav AC, Mangel JC, Lal S, Sharma SK, Kapoor A 2001. Effect of Salinity and Phosphorus on Growth and Yield of Potato CV. Kufri Sutlej. Journal of Indian Potato Association, 28: 30-31.
  • Yeo AR, Flowers TJ 1983.Varietal Differences in The Toxicity of Sodium Ions in Rice Leaves. Physiol. Plant., 59:189-195.
  • Zhu J 2001. Plant Salt Tolerance. Trends Plant Sci., 6: 66-71.

In vitro Şartlar Altında 'Bursa Siyahı' (Ficus carica L.) İncir Çeşidinin Morfolojisi Üzerine Tuzun Etkisi

Year 2018, Volume: 21 Issue: 3, 292 - 296, 15.06.2018

Yelda Emek

https://doi.org/10.18016/ksudobil.298973

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı Ficus carica cv. Bursa Siyahı
fidelerinin morfolojisi üzerine farklı NaCl konsantrasyonlarının etkisini
belirlemektir. Ficus carica L. cv
Bursa Siyahı tohumları in vitro  şartlar altında çimlendirilmiş ve in vitro olarak elde edilmiş fideler tuz
stresi için farklı konsantrasyonda NaCl içeren ve kontrol olarak NaCl içermeyen
Murashige ve Skoog ortamında kültüre alınmıştır.  Bitki canlılığının, ortamdaki NaCl konsantrasyonunun
artışına bağlı olarak azaldığı gözlemlemiştir.  Altı haftanın sonunda, bitkiler taze ağılık
(TA), sürgün uzunluğu (SU), yaprak sayısı (YS), kök sayısı (KS) ve kök uzunluğu
(KU) gibi parametrelerle değerlendirilmiştir. 
40 mM NaCl ilaveli ortamda bulunan bitkiler maksimum büyüme
göstermişlerdir, tuz stresi etkilerinin artan tuz konsantrasyonlarına bağlı
olarak arttığı gözlemlenmiştir.

Keywords

Ficus carica cv. Bursa Siyahı NaCl stres in Vitro büyüme

References

  • Arzani A, Mirodjagh SS 1999. Response of Durum Wheat Cultivars to Immature Embryo Culture, Callus Induction and In vitro Salt Stress. Plant Cell Tiss. Org. Cult., 58: 67-72.
  • Bandeoglu E, Eyidogan F, Yucel M, Avni Oktem H 2004. Antioxidant Responses of Shoots and Roots of Lentil to NaCl-Salinity Stress. Plant Growth Regulation, 42: 69-77.
  • Barakat M, Abdel Latif H 1996. In vitro Selection of Wheat Callus Tolerant to High Levels of Salt Plant Regeneration. Euphytica, 91: 127-140.
  • Bohnert HJ, Nelson DE, Jensen RG 1995. Adaptations to Environmental Stresses. The Plant Cell,7:1099-1111.
  • Cavalcanti F, Lima JP,Silva S,Viegas R, Silveria J 2007. Roots and Leaves Display Contrasting Oxidative Response During Salt Stress and Recovery in Cowpea. J. Plant Physiol., 164:591-600.
  • Farhoudi R, Modhej A, Afrous A 2015. Effect of Salt Stress on Physiological and Morphological Parameters of Rapeseed Cultivars. J.Sci. Res. and Dev., 2(5):111-117
  • Fay MF 1994. In What Situation is In vitro Culture Appropriate to Plant Conservation? Biodivers Conserv, 3: 176-183.
  • Golombek SD, Lüdders P 1993. Effect of Short-term Salinity on Leaf Gas Exchange of the Fig (Ficus carica L.). Plant and Soil, 148: 21-27.
  • Hussain A, Khan ZI, Ashraf M, Rashid MH, Akhtar MS 2004. Effect of Salt Stress on Some Growth Attributes of Sugarcane Cultivars CP-77-400 and Coj- 84. Int. J. Agric. Biol., 6(1):188-191.
  • Kamrani MH, Hosseinniya H, Chegeni AR 2013. Effect of Salinity on the Growth Characteristics of Canola (Brassica napus L.). Tech. J. Eng and Applied Sci., 3(18):2327-2333.
  • Kingsbury RW, Epstein E 1984. Selection for Salt Resistant in Spring Wheat. Crop Sci., 24: 310-315.
  • Kirtikar KR, Basu BD 1986. Indian Medicinal Plants. International Book Distributors,Vol:3, Dehradun, 2329p.
  • Munns R, Hare RA, James RA, Rebetzke GI 2000. Genetic Variation for İmproving the Salt Tolerance of Durum Wheat. Aust.J. Agric. Res., 51: 69-74.
  • Munns R 2002. Comparative Physiology of Salt and Water Stress. Plant Cell and Environment, 25:239-250.
  • Murashige T, Skoog F 1962. A Revised Medium for Rapid Growth and Bioassays with Tabacco Tissue Cultures. Physiol. Plant., 15: 473-497.
  • Noble CL, Rogers ME 1992. Arguments for The Use of Physiological Criteria for Improving the Salt Tolerance in Crops. Plant Soil,146: 99-107.
  • Pandey SC, Kalloo G. 1993. Spinach, Spinacia oleracea L. In "Genetic Improvement of Vegetable Crops", (Ed. Kalloo G, Bergh BO), Pergamon Press, pp. 325–336, DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-08-040826-2.50027-8
  • Rawson HM, Richards RA, Munns R 1988. An Examination of Selection Criteria for Salt Tolerance in Wheat, Barley and Triticale Genotypes. Aust. J. Agric. Res., 39: 759-772.
  • Salisburry FB, Ross CW 1992. Plant Physiology. Wadsworth Pub. Com. Belmont, California, USA
  • Stepien P, Johnson NG 2009. Contrasting Responses of Photosynthesis to Salt Stress in The Glycophyte arabidopsis and The Halophyte Thellungiella: Role of The Plastid Terminal Oxidase as an Alternative Electron Sink. Plant Physiol., 149: 1154-1165.
  • Yadav AC, Mangel JC, Lal S, Sharma SK, Kapoor A 2001. Effect of Salinity and Phosphorus on Growth and Yield of Potato CV. Kufri Sutlej. Journal of Indian Potato Association, 28: 30-31.
  • Yeo AR, Flowers TJ 1983.Varietal Differences in The Toxicity of Sodium Ions in Rice Leaves. Physiol. Plant., 59:189-195.
  • Zhu J 2001. Plant Salt Tolerance. Trends Plant Sci., 6: 66-71.
There are 23 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section RESEARCH ARTICLE
Authors

Yelda Emek 0000-0003-1095-3908

Publication Date June 15, 2018
Submission Date March 20, 2017
Acceptance Date August 23, 2017
Published in Issue Year 2018Volume: 21 Issue: 3

Cite

APA Emek, Y. (2018). In vitro Şartlar Altında ’Bursa Siyahı’ (Ficus carica L.) İncir Çeşidinin Morfolojisi Üzerine Tuzun Etkisi. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Tarım Ve Doğa Dergisi, 21(3), 292-296. https://doi.org/10.18016/ksudobil.298973
 Download Cover Image


International Peer Reviewed Journal
Free submission and publication
Published 6 times a year



88x31.png


KSU Journal of Agriculture and Nature

e-ISSN: 2619-9149