با همکاری مشترک دانشگاه پیام نور و انجمن بیوتکنولوژی جمهوری اسلامی ایران

نوع مقاله : علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 گروه زیست شناسی دانشگاه پیام نور، تهران

2 دانشگاه دولتی باکو

چکیده

گیاه گاوزبان (Borago officinalis L.) یکی از قدیمی‌ترین گیاهان دارویی است که در ایران و سایر نقاط دنیا مورد توجه می‌باشد. لذا با توجه به اهمیت دارویی این گیاه، وفور اراضی خشک، بررسی توانایی مقابله با تنش‌های محیطی توسط این گیاه، ضروری به نظر می‌رسد تا مطالعه ای با اهداف اثرات تنش آبی برمقدار پروتئین، پرولین و عناصر پرمصرف N,P,S ,K و رشد در شرایط هیدروپونیک انجام گیرد. نتایج نشان داد پروتئین و وزن‌تر و خشک ریشه و بخش‌های هوایی گیاهان تحت تیمار تنش آبی نسبت به گیاهان شاهد کاهش یافت که این کاهش در بخش‌های هوایی معنی‌دار بود، مقدار K در ریشه کاهش و در بخش‌های هوایی افزایش و مقادیر عناصر پر مصرف S, P, N در ریشه افزایش و در بخش‌های هوایی کاهش یافت. بیوسنتز پرولین در برگ و ریشه با اعمال تنش خشکی نسبت به شاهد افزایش معنی‌داری یافت. تنش خشکی باعث کاهش مقدار پروتئین در اندام هوایی و ریشه نسبت به گیاه شاهد شد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

The study nutrition elements, proline, protein, and growth charactersts of Brago officilalis L. Under drught stress.

نویسندگان [English]

  • simin zahedchekovari 1
  • Neymat Gasemov 2

1 Department of Biology, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran

2 Department of Biology, Baku State University, Baku, Azerbaijan

چکیده [English]

Borago officilalis, one of the oldest medicinal plants that is consumed in iran and other regions word. The considering importance of medicinal Borago officilalis, abundance of dry land, confroting ability with environmental stress by this plant, it seems necessary until done one study with the folowing goals. The chief goal of this research is to look for any effects of hydro stresses on proline biosynthesis, protein quantity, growth and change high consumption elements like K, S, P & N at hydroponic conditions. According to the results, there was a reduction in the weight of dry / wet root and aerial sections in any plants under hydro stress treatment in comparison with witness ones. The mentioned reductions were significant at aerial sections. There was a decrease in K quantity at root section with an increase at aerial parts. Also there was an increase in quantity of high consumption elements like N, P & S of root and a reduction of the same at aerial sections. Drought stress decreases the amount of protein in the plant shoots and roots compared to control. Proline contents in leaves and roots significantly increased under drought stress compared to control.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Borago officinalis L
  • Proline
  • protein
  • Nutrition elements
  • Drught stress
Bates LS, Walderen RD, Taere ID (1973) Rapid determination of free proline for water stress studies. Plant Soil, 39: 205-207.
 
Bhan S, Singh HG, Singh A (1973) Note on root development as an index of drought resistance in sorghum(Sorghum bicolor) Indian  J. Agric.Sci , pp. 43, 828.
 
Carry P (1999) Enviromental Horticulture: Guide to Nutrient Management. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation. Virginia Institue and State University.  pp.16.
 
Dram KN, Clavel D, Repellin A, Passaquet C, Zuily-Fodil Y (2007) Water deficit induces variation in expression of stress-responsive genes in two peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.)  Plant physiol Biochem 45, 236-243.
 
Duke AG (1981) Hand book of medicinal herbs. CRC Press, New York.
 
Grammer GR, Bowman DC (1991) Plant Plant Physiol , pp. 95, 965.
 
Guo T, Zhang G, Zhou M, Wu F , Chen J (2004) Effects of aluminum and cadmium toxicity on growth and antioxidant enzyme activities of two rley genotypes with different Al resistance. Plant Soil, 258: 241-248.
 
Hajheidari M, Abdollahian-Noghabi M, Askari H, Heidari M, Sadeghian SY, Ober ES, Hosseini Salekdeh Gh (2005) Proteome analysis of sugar beet leavesunder drought stress. Proteomics 5: 950-960.
 
Hil Minard J, Vaverkat DM (2003) Plant physiology in extreme conditions. pp. 240-250.
Hurd EA, Agron J (1968) Effects of co2 enrichment on the growth of young tomato plants in low light Ann. Bot, pp. 60, 201.
 
Lafitte HR, Yongsheng G, Yan S, Li ZK (2007) Whole plant responses, key processes, and adaptation to drought stress: the case of rice. J Exp Bot 58, 169-175.
 
Lowry OH, Rosebrough NJ, Rand RJ (1951) Protein measurement with the folin phenol reagent. J. Biol.Chem, 193: 265-273.
 
Malakouti MJ (2004) Soil fertility of arid semi-arid regions, Tarbiat Modarres University, 428 pp.
 
Mc Cu KF, Hanson AD (1999) Drought and salt toleranc: Toward  under standing and application. Trends Biotechnol. 8: 358-362.
 
Mc Williams D (2003) Identifying Nutrient Deficiencies for Efficient Plant Growth and Water Use. New Mexico State University NMSU and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.  pp.4.
 
Modaihsh AS, AL-Mustafa WA, Metwallv EA (1989) Effect of element sulfur on chemical changes and nutrient availability in calcareous soils. Plant and soil, 16: 95-101.
 
Morgan JM (1984) Osmoregulation and water stress in higher plants, Annual Rew of plant physiology, 35: 299-339.
 
Premachandra GS, Saneoka H, Fujita K, Ogata S (2002) Water stress Journal of Experimental Botany, pp. 43, 156.
 
Sairam RK, Deshmukh PS, Saxena DC (1998) Role of antioxidant Systemes in wheat genotype tolerance to water stress. Biologia Plantarum. 41(3): 387-394.
 
Shanker R, Sharma P (2005) Drought induces oxidative stress and enhances the activities of antioxidant enzymes in growing rice seedling .Journal of Plant and Growth Regulation. 46: 209-221.
 
Shao HB, Chu LY, Jaleel CA, Zhao CX (2008) Water-deficit stress induced anatomical changes in higher plants. CR Biol. 331: 215-225.
 
Shibles RM, Weber CR (1966) Interception of solar radiation and dry mater production by varius soybean planting patterns Crop Sci., pp. 6, 55.
 
Stewart CR (1972) Proline content and metabolism during rehydration of wilted excised leaves in the dark. Plant Physiol. 50: 679-681.
 
Tayeb MA (2005) Response of barley Gains to the interactive effect of Salinity and salicylic acid. Plant Growth Regulation. 45: 215-225.
 
Yordanov I, Tsonev T (2003) Plant responses to drought and stress tolerance. Blug J Plant physiol Special issue: 189-206.