4.7 Article

Comparative Study of Drought Stress Effects on Traditional and Modern Apple Cultivars

期刊

PLANTS-BASEL
卷 10, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/plants10030561

关键词

chlorophyll; lipid peroxidation; OJIP test; photosynthesis; proline; water content

资金

  1. Interreg-IPA CBC Croatia-Serbia project - EU: Development of new tree nursery products for fast growing fruit industry based on local genetic resources and modern technologies [160. 2014-2020]
  2. EU

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Genotype-dependent responses of apples to drought stress were evaluated between commercial and traditional apple cultivars, showing that traditional cultivar Crvenka exhibited better tolerance with higher photosynthetic efficiency, leaf water content, chlorophyll content, and lower lipid peroxidation. In contrast, the commercial cultivar Golden Delicious Reinders showed decreased water content in leaves, increased lipid peroxidation levels, and photoinhibition, indicating its adverse response to drought stress.
Genotype-dependent responses of apples to drought stress were evaluated between commercial and traditional apple cultivars. The results indicate different mechanisms of tolerance to investigated drought stress conditions. Chlorophyll fluorescence induction (OJIP) parameters, chlorophyll and carotenoid content, malondialdehyde (MDA), hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), proline, phenols and leaf water content (WC) were measured. The traditional cultivar Crvenka confirmed the best tolerance to a drought stress condition, presenting higher photosynthetic efficiency, higher leaf water content, higher levels of chlorophyll content and lower lipid peroxidation with greater membrane stability. The commercial cultivar Golden Delicious Reinders showed decreased water content in leaves, increased lipid peroxidation levels and photoinhibition. Considering all results, the commercial cultivar Golden Delicious Reinders was adversely affected by drought, while traditional cultivars exhibited better tolerance to drought stress.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据