تاثیر سس زراعی (Cuscuta campestris) بر برخی ویژگی‌های فیزیولوژیکی و عملکرد چغندر‌قند (Beta vulgaris)

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 مرکز تحقیقات ارومیه

2 دانشگاه ارومیه

3 موسسه تحقیقات گیاهپزشکی

4 جهاد دانشگاه ارومیه

چکیده

استان آذریابجان غربی به دلیل دارا بودن شرایط مطلوب آب وهوایی، دومین قطب تولید چغندر‌قند در ایران می‌باشد. علف‌های‌هرز بخصوص سس زراعی یکی از مهم‌ترین عوامل تاثیرگذار بر کاهش عملکرد کمی و کیفی چغندرقند می‌باشند. به منظور ارزیابی تاثیر سس زراعی بر رنگیزه‌های فتوسنتزی و عملکرد کمی وکیفی چغندرقند، آزمایشی با استفاده از آزمون t جفت شده در سال زراعی 1393 در چهار مزرعه در شهرستان ارومیه انجام شد. مزارع مورد مطالعه تاریخ کاشت یکسان (دهه سوم فروردین ماه)، تراکم یکنواخت (8 بوته در مترمربع) و رقم یکسان (اکباتان) داشتند. در این آزمایش از هر مزرعه، 30 بوته سالم و 30 بوته آلوده به سس انتخاب شدند. ویژگی‌های فیزیولوژیک و عملکرد به ترتیب در مرحله استقرار بوته (12-8 برگی) و در زمان برداشت مورد ارزیابی قرار گرفتند. نتایج نشان دادند که سس زراعی اثرات منفی برکارآئی فتوسنتزی برگ‌های چغندرقند داشتند، به طوری که کلروفیل a، b و کلروفیل کل به ترتیب 38، 18 و 30 درصد کاهش یافتند، ولی کاروتن تغییر معنی‌داری نداشت. از طرف دیگر صفات عملکرد ریشه 25 درصد، قند 8/1 درصد، عملکرد قند ناخالص 3/24 درصد، عملکرد قند خالص 5/18 درصد و وزن خشک اندام‌های هوایی 18 درصد کاهش یافتند. همچنین نتایج ناخالصی‌های ریشه نشان داد که سس زراعی نیتروژن و سدیم را افزایش داد (به ترتیب 3/37 و 2/28 درصد) و پتاسیم تغییر معنی‌داری نداشت.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Effect of Field Dodder (Cuscuta campestris) on Some Physiological and Yield Traits of Sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris)

چکیده [English]

Due to its favorable weather conditions, west Azarbayejan province is the second-largest producer of sugar beet in Iran. Weeds, especially field dodder, is one of the most important components that has negative effects on the quality and quantity of sugarbeet. In order to evaluate the effect of field dodder on the photosynthetic pigments and yield (quality and quantity) of sugar beet, a study using paired t-test was carried out on four farms in Urmieh-West Azarbayejan, during 2014. Studied farms had similar date of planting (first ten days of April), uniform density (8 plants per square meter) and same cultivar (Ecbatan). In this research, 30 healthy plants and 30 plants infected with field dodder were selected from each farm. Physiological and tecnicall characteristics were evaluated at the established plant stage (8-12 leaves) and at the harvest stage of sugerbeet Results showed that dodder affected efficiency of photosynthesis on sugarbeet leaves, such that it reduced chlorophylls a and b and total chlorophyll by 30,18, and 38% respectively, but the amount of carotene was not affected. It also reduced yield by 25%, root sugar content by 108%, impure sugar by 18.5% and foliage dry weight by 18%. Dodder also increased root nitrogen content by 37.3%, but had no effect on potassium content.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Carotenoid
  • Chlorophyll
  • Parasitic weed
  • Potassium
  • Sodium

مراجع

Abdollahian Noghabi, M., Rahbari, A., Alizadeh, H. and Rahimihan, H. 2010. Integrated weed control of sugar beet in the method of complete seedbed preparation in autumn. Iran. J. Weed Res. 2: 29-42. (In Persian with English Summary).
Abdollahian Noghabi, M., Sheikhoeslami, R. and Babaee, B. 2005.Terms and definitions of technologic qualities and quantities of sugar beet. J. Sugar beet. 21: 101-104. (In Persian with English Summary).
Albert, M., Van der Krol, S. and Kaldenhoff, R. 2010. Cuscuta reflexa invasion induces Ca release in its host. Plant Bio. 12: 554-557.
Amirmoradi, S., Rezvani M.P. and Abdollahian Noghabi, M. 2010. Effect of dodder on yield quality characteristics of sugar beet in Chenaran conditions. Iran. J. Field Crop Res. 8: 965-974. (In Persian with English Summary).
Bandegi, M.R. and Armin, M. 2014. Effect of weed interference with sugar beet under different nitrogen amounts. J. Plant Ecophy. 6: 45-57. (In Persian with English Summary).
Benvenuti, S., Dinelli, G., Bonetti, A. and Catizone, P. 2005. Germination, Ecology, emergence and host detection in Cuscuta campestris. Weed Res. 45: 270-278.
Carter, J.N. 1985. Potassium and sodium uptake effects on sucrose concentration and quality of sugar beet roots. J. Am. Soc. Sugar Beet Technol. 23: 183-200.
Chepkasova, A.P. 1973. The effect of MH on the content of mineral nutrients in sugar beet infested with dodder.Weed Abs. 24: 217.
Costea, M. and Tardif, F.J. 2006. The biology of Canadian weeds.133. Cuscuta campestrisYuncker, C. gronorii willd.Exschult, C. umbrosa Beyr. Exhook., C. epithymum (L.) and C.epilinum Weihe. Can. J. Plant Sci. 86: 293-316.
Cnar, N.F. and Mosleh, M.D. 2008. Biological and anatomical of different Cuscuta species. J. Dohuk Univ. 11: 22-39.
Dinelli, G., Bonetti, A. and Tibiletti, E. 1993. Photosynthetic and accessory pigments in Cuscuta campestris Yuncker and some host species. Weed Sci. 33: 253-260.
Dunham, R. and Clark, N. 1992. Cropping with stress. Brit. Sugar Beet Rev. 60:10-13.
Fallahpour, F., Kocheki, A.R., Mallatii, M.N. and Rasttegar, M.F. 2013. Study resistance of sugar beet cultivar to field dodder. Iran. J. Field Crop Res. 11: 208-214. (In Persian with English Summary).
 FAO STAT.2014. Agricultural Data. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. (5.292014). ttp://faostat3.fao.org/ fao statgateway/ go/to/download).
Garcia, M.A.,, Costea, M., Kuzuzmina, M. and Stefanovic, S. 2014. phylogeny, character, evolution, and biogeography of Cuscuta(Dodder: Convolvulaceae) infer red from coding plastid and nuclear sequencesa. Am. J. Bot. 101: 1–21.
Honarvar, M., Ashtari, A.K. and Karimi, K. 2012. Estimation of sugar losses at production in Molasses sugar industries, based on technological qualities of sugar beet. Food Tech. Nut. 9: 31-38.
Javaheri, S., Abdollahian Noghabi, M., Kashani, A., Noshad, H. and Habini, D. 2011. Effect of leaf position and age on the nitrogen content and chlorophyll meter values in sugar beet. Iran. J. Field Crop Sci. 13: 87-98. (In Persian with English Summary).
Kelly, K. 1992. Resource choices in Cuscuta europaea. Proc. National Acad. of Sci. 89: 12194-12197.
Khajepour, 1998. Industrial crop production. Isfahan Jahad- Daneshgahi Press. (In Persian). 250Pp.
Khayamim, S., Jahadakbar, M.R., Noshad, H., Roozbeh, F. and Mavaddat, Z. 2014. Effect of salt stress on photosynthetic components of sugar beet under greenhouse and field conditions. Sugar Beet J. 30: 59-73. (In Persian with English Summary).
Koskela, T., Salonen, V. and Mutikainen, P. 2001. Interaction of a host plant and its holoparasitie: effects of previous selection by the parasite. J. Evo. Bio. 14: 910-917.
Koucheki A.R., Nasiri Mahalati, M., Siahmargouei, A., Gharakhlou, J., Rastgou, M. and Ghaemi, A. 2008. Effect of different integrated weed management methods on weed density and yield of sugar beet crop. Iran. J. Field Crops Res. 6: 383-391. (In Persian with English Summary).
Lanini, W.T. and Kogan, M. 2005. Biology and management of Cuscuta in crops. Cien. Inv. Agr. 32: 127-141.
Lichtenthaler, H.K. 1987. Chlorophylls and carotenoids: Pigments of photosynthetic biomembranes. Methods Enymo. 148: 350-382.
Mabberly, D.J. 2008. The plant- book(A Portable Dictionary of Plants, their Classifications, and Uses), 3rd edition. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, New York. 255Pp.
Miller, L. and Houghton, J.A. 1945. The micro-kjeldahl determination of the nitrogen content of amino acids. Downloaded from http://www.jbc.org/ by guest on April. 11: 2015.
Mishra, J. S. 2009. Biology and management of Cuscuta species. Indian J. Weed Sci. 41: 1-11.
Mishra, S. and Sanwal, G.G. 1994. Effects of Cuscuta infection on chloroplast lipid composition of Brassica leaves. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 100: 61-70.
Mousavi, M.R. 2010. Weed control (Principle and Methods). Marze Danesh Press 470 Pp. (In Persian with english summary).
Mousavi, M.R. and Shimi, P. 1997. Parasitic weed of world (Biology and Control). Varamin Islamic Azad university. 575 Pp. (In Persian with english summary).
Qasem, J. R. 2011. Parasitic flowering plants of woody species in Jordan. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 131: 143-155.
Parker, C. 2012. Parasitic weeds a world challenge. Weed Sci. 60: 269-276.
 Parker, C. and Riches, C.R. 1993. Parasitic weeds of the world: Biology and control, CAB International, Wallingford, 332 Pp.
Pourmirza, A.A. 2004. Experimental designs in agricultural sciences. Jahad- Daneshgagi Urmia Press. 283 Pp. (In Persian with english summary).
Ranji, Z. and Parvizi, M. 1996. Screening sugar beet offspring salt tolerant lines using production potential and susceptibility index characteristics of saline and non saline condition. J. Sugar beet. 12: 19-28. (In Persian with English Summary).
Rashed moassel, M.H., and Mousavi, S. K. 2006. Principle of weed control management . Mashad University Press. 850 Pp. (In Persian with english summary).
Sandler, H.A. 2010. Managing cuscuta gronovii (Swamp dodder) in Cranberry requires an integrated approach. Sustainability 2: 660-683.
Seydabadi, A. and Armin, M. 2014. Sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) response to herbicide tank- mixing and Humic acid. Int. J. Biosci. 4: 339-345.
Sharifi, P., Fadakar, F. and Mahdavi, V. 2013. Chemical control of dodder (cuscuta spp.) in the sugar beet fields. Tech. J. Engin. Appl. Sci. 3: 3502-3505.
Shen, H., Hong, L., Ye, W., Cao, H. and Wang, Z. 2007. The influence of the holoparasitic plant cuscuta campestris on the growth and photosynthesis of its host Mikania micrantha. J. Exp. Bot. 58: 2929-37.
Sohrabi, M., Ghalavand, A., Rahimian, H. and Fotuhi, K. 2001. Chemical control of dodder (Cuscuta campestrirs) in sugar beet and evaluation of phytotoxicity effects on wheat in rotation. Iran. J. Crop Sci. 3: 26-33. (In Persian with English Summary).
Soliman, I.E. and Hamza, A.M. 2010. Evaluation of some herbicides against flax dodder (Cuscuta epilinum Weihe) in fibre flax(Linum usttatissum L.) cultivation. J. Plant Protec. Res. 50: 372-378.
Stojsin, V., Maric A. and Jocic, B. 1991. Harmfulness of Cuscuta campestris Yunck. On sugar beet under varying mineral nutrition. Zastitabilja. 42: 353-363.
Toth, P., Tancik, J. and Cagan, L. 2006. Distribution and harmfulness of field dodder (Cuacuta campestrisYuncker) at sugar beet fields in Slavakia. Nat. Sci. Matica.110: 179-185.
Trivedi, G.C., Patel, R.B., Meisuriya, M.I. and Patel, V.J. 2000. Some problematic weeds and their management. Agric. Rev. 21: 238-243.
Van der Kooij, T.A.W., Krause, K., Dörr, I. and Krupinska, K. 2000. Molecular, functional and ultrastructural characterization of plastids from six species of the parasitic flowering plant genus Cuscuta. Planta. 210: 701–707.
Wallace, A., Romney, M. and Alexander, G.V. 1978. Mineral composition of cuscuta nevadensi Johnston (dodder) in relationship to its host. Plant & Soil. 50: 227-231.
Wang, D., Hu, F., Chen, Y., Yang, J. and Kong, C.H. 2007. Photosynthetic characteristics of Cuscuta japonica and its hosts during parasitization and after detachment. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol.18: 4715-21.
Wood, R.K.S. 1967. Physiological Plant Pathology. Blackwell Scientific Publication Ltd. Oxford and Edinburgh Press. 355 Pp.
Zeinali, E. and Ehteshami, M.R. 2003. Biology and control of important weed species. Gorgan university of Agricultural Science and Natural Resources press. 412 Pp. (In Persian with english summary).

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار