4.7 Article

Physiological and Biochemical Changes in Sugar Beet Seedlings to Confer Stress Adaptability under Drought Condition

期刊

PLANTS-BASEL
卷 9, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/plants9111511

关键词

sugar beet cultivars; drought; osmolytes; antioxidant enzymes; secondary metabolites; and antioxidant capacity

资金

  1. [224066000]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The present study was conducted to examine the adaptability of 11 sugar beet cultivars grown under drought stress in the controlled glasshouse. The treatment was initiated on 30-day-old sugar beet plants where drought stress was made withholding water supply for consecutive 10 days while control was done with providing water as per requirement. It was observed that drought stress expressively reduced plant growth, photosynthetic pigments, and photosynthetic quantum yield in all the cultivars but comparative better results were observed in S1 (MAXIMELLA), S2 (HELENIKA), S6 (RECODDINA), S8 (SV2347), and S11 (BSRI Sugarbeet 2) cultivars. Besides, osmolytes like proline, glycine betaine, total soluble carbohydrate, total soluble sugar, total polyphenol, total flavonoid, and DPPH free radical scavenging activity were remarkably increased under drought condition in MAXIMELLA, HELENIKA, TERRANOVA, GREGOIA, SV2348, and BSRI Sugar beet 2 cultivars. In contrast, activities of enzymes like superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT), and peroxidase (POD) were significantly decreased in all, while the cultivars SV2347, BSRI Sugar beet 1 and BSRI Sugar beet 2 were found with increased ascorbate peroxidase (APX) activity under drought condition. In parallel, polyphenol oxidase (PPO) was increased in all cultivars except HELENIKA. Overall, the cultivars HELENIKA, RECODDINA, GREGOIA, SV2347, SV2348, BSRI Sugar beet 1, and BSRI Sugar beet 2 were found best fitted to the given drought condition. These findings would help further for the improvement of stress adaptive sugar beet cultivars development in the breeding program for drought-prone regions.

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