4.7 Article

Effect of different irrigation regimes on carbohydrate partitioning in leaves and wood of two table olive cultivars (Olea europaea L. cv. Meski and Picholine)

期刊

AGRICULTURAL WATER MANAGEMENT
卷 96, 期 2, 页码 293-298

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.agwat.2008.08.007

关键词

Sugar; Glucose; Mannitol; Cultivar; Water potential

资金

  1. Ministere de l'Enseignement Superieur
  2. Ministere de la Recherche Scientifique de la Technologie et de Developpement des Competences (UR Nutrition et Desordres Metaboliques)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, changes in carbohydrate composition were investigated at the end of the biological cycle of two important table olive cultivars 'Meski' and 'Picholine' grown in Tunisia under different irrigation regimes. A control treatment [100% crop evapotranspiration (ETc)] and a stress treatment (50% ETc) were considered. At the end of August, leaf water potential was measured and sugar compounds were determined in mature leaves and in the wood of fruit-bearing branches by gas chromatography. The leaf water potential increased with the stress treatment in both cultivars, but the increase was more pronounced with 'Picholine' than with 'Meski'. Glucose, fructose, mannitol, sucrose, galactose and inositol were the main sugars found in the leaves and wood of olive trees. Glucose, fructose and mannitol accounted for 90% of the total soluble carbohydrate fraction. The fraction and amount of these sugars changed between cultivars and with irrigation treatment. In the control treatment, the leaves of Meski showed a high level of glucose (48%), fructose (19%) and mannitol (25%), while the leaves of Picholine showed amounts of 57, 15 and 17%, respectively. The restriction of irrigation water (50% ETc) induces an accumulation of glucose in the leaves and wood of 'Meski' and an accumulation of mannitol and glucose in the wood of 'Picholine', while the leaves showed only an increase in mannitol. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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