4.1 Article

Heat-stress Tolerance of Some Strawberry (Fragaria x ananassa) Cultivars

Journal

NOTULAE BOTANICAE HORTI AGROBOTANICI CLUJ-NAPOCA
Volume 41, Issue 1, Pages 244-249

Publisher

UNIV AGR SCI & VETERINARY MED CLUJ-NAPOCA

Keywords

genotype; high temperature; leaf; LT50; membrane injury

Categories

Funding

  1. The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK-TOVAG) [108 O 063]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Physiological parameters were used to investigate genotypic variations in 15 strawberry cultivars ['Aromas', 'Camarosa', 'Carmine','Cal. Giant 3' (CG3), 'Cal. Giant 5' (CG5), 'Elsanta', 'Fern', 'Festival', 'Honeoye', 'Kabarla', 'Redlands Hope' (R.Hope), 'Ruby Gem', 'Selva', 'Sweet Charlie' and 'Whitney'] and their relationship to heat-stress tolerance (HST). Cold stored (frigo) strawberry seedlings were grown in pots for six weeks and then transferred to a growth chamber. The temperature in the growth chamber was increased stepwise from 35 to 40,45 and 50 degrees C to create a heat-stressed environment. Leaf relative water content (RWC), loss of turgidity and chlorophyll content were measured at each temperature. The 'Elsanta' and 'R.Hope' had the highest RWC, while the 'Festival' and 'CG3' had the lowest. However, 'Elsanta' and 'R.Hope' had the lowest loss of turgidity, while 'Festival' and 'CG3' had the highest. 'Elsanta' and 'R.Hope' showed the lowest chlorophyll content, and 'CG3' and 'Whitney' had the highest. To determine HST (LT50), leaf discs of each cultivar were exposed to 35, 40, 45, 50, 55 and 60 degrees C. A considerable decrease in the LT50 was observed with increasing temperature in all cultivars. The LT50 of the cultivars ranged from 51.8 to 52.9 degrees C. Based on the data collected, 'Elsanta', 'R. Hope' and 'Camarosa' were determined to be relatively heat-tolerant cultivars, while 'Whitney', 'Fern', 'Festival' and 'CG3' were heat-sensitive cultivars.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available