Page 1 @ > > @ 1< > 2* 3 1- > > > @ > @ @ > > @ > @ > < 3 ...

‫ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻘﺎت ﻏﻼت‬ ‫ﺳﺎل دوم‪ /‬ﺷﻤﺎره ﭼﻬﺎرم‪(289-305) 1391 /‬‬

‫ارزﻳﺎﺑﻲ ﺗﻨﻮع ژﻧﺘﻴﻜﻲ ژﻧﻮﺗﻴﭗﻫﺎي ﮔﻨﺪم ﻧﺎن ﺑﺮ اﺳﺎس ﺻﻔﺎت ﻓﻴﺰﻳﻮﻟﻮژﻳﻚ در ﺷﺮاﻳﻂ‬ ‫ﺑﺪون ﺗﻨﺶ و ﺗﻨﺶ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ آﺧﺮ ﻓﺼﻞ‬ ‫رﺿﺎ اﻣﻴﺮي‪ ،1‬ﺻﺤﺒﺖ ﺑﻬﺮاﻣﻲﻧﮋاد‪ *2‬و ﺷﻬﺮﻳﺎر ﺳﺎﺳﺎﻧﻲ‬

‫‪3‬‬

‫‪ -1‬داﻧﺸﺠﻮي ﻛﺎرﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ارﺷﺪ اﺻﻼح ﻧﺒﺎﺗﺎت ﭘﺮدﻳﺲ ﻛﺸﺎورزي و ﻣﻨﺎﺑﻊ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﻲ داﻧﺸﮕﺎه رازي‪ -2 ،‬داﻧﺸﻴﺎر ﮔﺮوه زراﻋﺖ و اﺻﻼح‬ ‫ﻧﺒﺎﺗﺎت و ﮔﺮوه ﭘﮋوﻫﺸﻲ ﺑﻴﻮﺗﻜﻨﻮﻟﻮژي ﻣﻘﺎوﻣﺖ ﺑﻪ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ داﻧﺸﮕﺎه رازي‪ -3 ،‬اﺳﺘﺎدﻳﺎر ﭘﮋوﻫﺸﻲ ﻣﺮﻛﺰ ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻘﺎت ﻛﺸﺎورزي و ﻣﻨﺎﺑﻊ‬ ‫ﻃﺒﻴﻌﻲ اﺳﺘﺎن ﻛﺮﻣﺎﻧﺸﺎه‬

‫)ﺗﺎرﻳﺦ درﻳﺎﻓﺖ‪ -1391/7/11 :‬ﺗﺎرﻳﺦ ﭘﺬﻳﺮش‪(1391/11/9 :‬‬ ‫ﭼﻜﻴﺪه‬ ‫ﺑﻪ ﻣﻨﻈﻮر ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﺗﻨﻮع ژﻧﺘﻴﻜﻲ و اﺛﺮ ﺗﻨﺶ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ ﺑﺮ ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد داﻧﻪ و ﺑﺮﺧﻲ ﺧﺼﻮﺻﻴﺎت ﻓﻴﺰﻳﻮﻟﻮژﻳﻚ ﮔﻨﺪم ﻧﺎن‪ ،‬ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪاي ﺑﺎ‬ ‫‪ 80‬ژﻧﻮﺗﻴﭗ ﮔﻨـﺪم ﻧﺎن در ﺳﺎل زراﻋﻲ ‪ 1390-91‬در ﻣﺰرﻋﻪ ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻘﺎﺗﻲ ﭘﺮدﻳﺲ ﻛﺸﺎورزي و ﻣﻨﺎﺑﻊ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﻲ داﻧﺸﮕﺎه رازي ﻛﺮﻣﺎﻧﺸﺎه‬ ‫در ﻗﺎﻟﺐ ﻃﺮح ﺑﻠﻮكﻫﺎي ﻛﺎﻣﻞ ﺗﺼﺎدﻓﻲ ﺑﺎ ‪ 3‬ﺗﻜﺮار در ﺷﺮاﻳﻂ ﺗﻨﺶ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ آﺧﺮ ﻓﺼﻞ و ﻧﺮﻣﺎل )ﺑﺪون ﺗﻨﺶ( اﻧﺠﺎم ﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﻧﺘﺎﻳﺞ‬ ‫ﺣﺎﺻﻞ از ﺗﺠﺰﻳﻪ وارﻳﺎﻧﺲ ﻣﺮﻛﺐ ﻧﺸﺎن داد ﻛﻪ اﺧﺘﻼف ﺑﺴﻴﺎر ﻣﻌﻨﻲداري ﺑﻴﻦ ژﻧﻮﺗﻴﭗﻫﺎي ﻣﻮرد آزﻣﺎﻳﺶ از ﻟﺤﺎظ ﺗﻤﺎﻣﻲ ﺻﻔﺎت‬ ‫ﻣﻮرد ﺑﺮرﺳﻲ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ اﺳﺘﺜﻨﺎي ﻣﺤﺘﻮاي ﻛﻠﺮوﻓﻴﻞ ‪ b‬و ﻛﻞ وﺟﻮد دارد‪ .‬اﺛﺮ ﻣﺤﻴﻂ ﻧﻴﺰ روي ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد داﻧﻪ‪ ،‬دورهي ﭘﺮﺷﺪن داﻧﻪ و وزن داﻧﻪ‬ ‫در ﺳﻄﺢ اﺣﺘﻤﺎل ﻳﻚ درﺻﺪ و روي ﻣﺤﺘﻮاي ﻧﺴﺒﻲ آب ﺑﺮگ در ﺳﻄﺢ اﺣﺘﻤﺎل ﭘﻨﺞ درﺻﺪ ﻣﻌﻨﻲدار ﺑﻮد‪ .‬در اﺛﺮ ﺗﻨﺶ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ ﺑﻪ‬ ‫ﻃﻮر ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ‪ ،‬ﻣﺤﺘﻮاي ﻛﻠﺮوﻓﻴﻞ ‪ a‬ﺑﻪ ﻣﻴﺰان ‪ 3/54‬درﺻﺪ‪ ،‬ﻋﺪد ﻛﻠﺮوﻓﻴﻞﻣﺘﺮ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻴﺰان ‪ 2‬درﺻﺪ و ﻣﺤﺘﻮاي ﻧﺴﺒﻲ آب ﺑﺮگ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻴﺰان‬ ‫‪ 10‬درﺻﺪ ﻛﺎﻫﺶ و ﻣﺤﺘﻮاي ﻛﻠﺮوﻓﻴﻞ ‪ b‬و ﻛﻠﺮوﻓﻴﻞ ﻛﻞ ﺑﻪ ﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ ‪ 6/16‬و ‪ 2/68‬درﺻﺪ اﻓﺰاﻳﺶ ﻳﺎﻓﺖ‪ .‬ﻫﻤﭽﻨﻴﻦ‪ ،‬در اﺛﺮ ﺗﻨﺶ‬ ‫ﺧﺸﻜﻲ ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮر ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ‪ 23/48 ،‬درﺻﺪ از ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد داﻧﻪ‪ 19/14 ،‬درﺻﺪ از ﻃﻮل دوره ﭘﺮﺷﺪن داﻧﻪ و ‪ 18‬درﺻﺪ از وزن ﺗﻚ داﻧﻪ‬ ‫ﻛﺎﺳﺘﻪ و ‪ 2/20‬درﺻﺪ ﺑﻪ ﺳﺮﻋﺖ ﭘﺮ ﺷﺪن داﻧﻪ اﻓﺰوده ﺷﺪ‪ .‬در ﻫﺮ دو ﺷﺮاﻳﻂ ﺑﺪون ﺗﻨﺶ و ﺗﻨﺶ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ‪ ،‬ﺑﻴﻦ ﻣﺤﺘﻮاي ﻛﻠﺮوﻓﻴﻞ ‪a‬‬ ‫و ‪ b‬و ﻧﻴﺰ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺳﺮﻋﺖ ﭘﺮ ﺷﺪن داﻧﻪ و ﻃﻮل دوره ﭘﺮ ﺷﺪن داﻧﻪ‪ ،‬ﻫﻤﺒﺴﺘﮕﻲ ﻣﻨﻔﻲ و ﺑﺴﻴﺎر ﻣﻌﻨﻲداري ﻣﺸﺎﻫﺪه ﺷﺪ‪ ،‬در ﺣﺎﻟﻲ ﻛﻪ‬ ‫ﻫﻤﺒﺴﺘﮕﻲ ﺑﻴﻦ ﻣﺤﺘﻮاي ﻛﻠﺮوﻓﻴﻞ ‪ b‬و ﻛﻞ و ﻧﻴﺰ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺳﺮﻋﺖ ﭘﺮ ﺷﺪن داﻧﻪ و وزن ﺗﻚ داﻧﻪ ﻣﺜﺒﺖ و ﺑﺴﻴﺎر ﻣﻌﻨﻲدار ﺑﻮد و در ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻞ‪،‬‬ ‫ﻫﻤﺒﺴﺘﮕﻲ ﻣﻌﻨﻲداري ﺑﻴﻦ ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد داﻧﻪ ﺑﺎ ﺳﺎﻳﺮ ﺻﻔﺎت دﻳﺪه ﻧﺸﺪ‪ .‬ﻧﺘﺎﻳﺞ اﻳﻦ ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﻧﺸﺎن داد ﻛﻪ ﺗﻨﺶ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ آﺧﺮ ﻓﺼﻞ اﺛﺮ‬ ‫ﻣﻌﻨﻲداري ﺑﺮ اﻏﻠﺐ ﺻﻔﺎت ﻣﻮرد ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ و ﺑﻪ ﺧﺼﻮص ﺑﺮ ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد داﻧﻪ داﺷﺖ‪ .‬ﺑﻨﺎﺑﺮاﻳﻦ‪ ،‬در ﻣﻨﺎﻃﻖ ﺑﺎ اﻗﻠﻴﻢ ﻣﺸﺎﺑﻪ ﻛﻪ ﺧﻄﺮ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ‬ ‫آﺧﺮ ﻓﺼﻞ وﺟﻮد دارد‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻳﺪ از ارﻗﺎﻣﻲ اﺳﺘﻔﺎده ﺷﻮد ﻛﻪ ﺳﺎزﮔﺎر ﺑﺎ ﺷﺮاﻳﻂ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻪ و ﻣﺘﺤﻤﻞ ﺑﻪ ﺗﻨﺶ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ ﺑﺎﺷﻨﺪ و از اﻳﻨﺮو‪ ،‬ارﻗﺎم‬ ‫زودرﺳﻲ ﻛﻪ ﭘﺘﺎﻧﺴﻴﻞ ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد داﻧﻪ ﺑﺎﻻﻳﻲ ﻧﻴﺰ دارﻧﺪ‪ ،‬در اﻳﻦ ﺷﺮاﻳﻂ ﻣﻮﻓﻖﺗﺮ ﻣﻲﺑﺎﺷﻨﺪ‪.‬‬ ‫واژهﻫﺎي ﻛﻠﻴﺪي‪ :‬دوره ﭘﺮ ﺷﺪن داﻧﻪ‪ ،‬ﺳﺮﻋﺖ ﭘﺮ ﺷﺪن داﻧﻪ‪ ،‬ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد داﻧﻪ‪ ،‬ﻣﺤﺘﻮاي ﻛﻠﺮوﻓﻴﻞ‪ ،‬ﻣﺤﺘﻮاي ﻧﺴﺒﻲ آب ﺑﺮگ‬

‫* ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻨﺪه ﻣﺴﺌﻮل‪[email protected] :‬‬

‫‪290‬‬

‫اﻣﻴﺮي و ﻫﻤﻜﺎران‪ :‬ارزﻳﺎﺑﻲ ﺗﻨﻮع ژﻧﺘﻴﻜﻲ ژﻧﻮﺗﻴﭗﻫﺎي ﮔﻨﺪم ﻧﺎن در ﺷﺮاﻳﻂ ﺑﺪون ﺗﻨﺶ و ﺗﻨﺶ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ آﺧﺮ ﻓﺼﻞ‬

‫ﻣﻘﺪﻣﻪ‬ ‫ﮔﻨﺪم ﻧﺎن )‪ (Triticum aestivum L.‬اوﻟﻴﻦ ﻏﻠﻪ و‬ ‫ﻣﻬﻢﺗﺮﻳﻦ ﮔﻴﺎه زراﻋﻲ دﻧﻴﺎ اﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﻏﺬاي اﺻﻠﻲ ﺣﺪود ﻳﻚ‬ ‫ﺳﻮم ﺟﻤﻌﻴﺖ ﺟﻬﺎن اﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺗﻮﻟﻴﺪ ﺟﻬﺎﻧﻲ ﮔﻨﺪم در ﺳﺎل‬ ‫‪ 2011‬ﺣﺪود ‪ 704‬ﻣﻴﻠﻴﻮن ﺗﻦ ﺑﺮآورد ﺷﺪ ﻛﻪ اﻳﺮان در‬ ‫ﺟﺎﻳﮕﺎه ﭼﻬﺎردﻫﻢ ﻗﺮار ﮔﺮﻓﺖ )‪ .(FAO, 2011‬در ﺳﺎل‬ ‫زراﻋﻲ ‪ 1388-89‬ﺳﻄﺢ زﻳﺮ ﻛﺸﺖ ﮔﻨﺪم در اﻳﺮان ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮ از‬ ‫ﻫﻔﺖ ﻣﻴﻠﻴﻮن ﻫﻜﺘﺎر ﺑﺮآورد ﺷﺪه ﻛﻪ ‪ 36/6‬درﺻﺪ آن آﺑﻲ و‬ ‫‪ 63/4‬درﺻﺪ دﻳﻢ ﺑﻮده اﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﻣﻴﺰان ﺗﻮﻟﻴﺪ آن ﺣﺪود ‪13/5‬‬ ‫ﻣﻴﻠﻴﻮن ﺗﻦ ﺑﻮد ﻛﻪ ‪ 59‬درﺻﺪ آن از ﻛﺸﺖ آﺑﻲ و ‪ 41‬درﺻﺪ‬ ‫آن از ﻛﺸﺖ دﻳﻢ ﺑﻪ دﺳﺖ آﻣﺪ‪ .‬اﻳﻦ درﺣﺎﻟﻲ اﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ اﺳﺘﺎن‬ ‫ﻛﺮﻣﺎﻧﺸﺎه از ﻧﻈﺮ ﺳﻄﺢ زﻳﺮ ﻛﺸﺖ در رﺗﺒﻪي ﭼﻬﺎرم و از ﻧﻈﺮ‬ ‫ﻣﻴﺰان ﺗﻮﻟﻴﺪ در رﺗﺒﻪي ﭘﻨﺠﻢ ﻛﺸﻮر ﻗﺮار دارد )‪Jehade-‬‬ ‫‪ .(Agriculture, 2011‬در اﻳﻦ اﺳﺘﺎن ﺗﻨﺶ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ ﺑﻪ‬ ‫ﺧﺼﻮص در اواﺧﺮ ﻓﺼﻞ رﺷﺪ ﻳﻜﻲ از ﻋﻤﺪهﺗﺮﻳﻦ ﻋﻮاﻣﻞ‬ ‫ﻣﺤﺪود ﻛﻨﻨﺪهي ﺗﻮﻟﻴﺪ ﻣﺤﺴﻮب ﻣﻲﺷﻮد‪.‬‬ ‫ﺧﺸﻜﻲ ﻳﻜﻲ از ﻣﻬﻢﺗﺮﻳﻦ ﻋﻮاﻣﻞ ﺗﻨﺶزاي ﻣﺤﻴﻄﻲ و‬ ‫ﻣﺤﺪود ﻛﻨﻨﺪهي ﺗﻮﻟﻴﺪ ﻣﺤﺼﻮﻻت زراﻋﻲ از ﺟﻤﻠﻪ ﮔﻨﺪم در‬ ‫دﻧﻴﺎ و اﻳﺮان اﺳﺖ )‪ .(Andrew et al., 2000‬ﻧﻮد درﺻﺪ از‬ ‫ﻛﺸﻮر اﻳﺮان در ﻧﻮاﺣﻲ ﺧﺸﻚ و ﻧﻴﻤﻪ ﺧﺸﻚ ﻗﺮار دارد‬ ‫)‪ .(FAO, 2010‬ﻛﺎﻫﺶ ﻣﻨﺎﺑﻊ آب ﺳﺒﺐ ﺷﺪه اﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ‬ ‫ﺗﻜﺎﻣﻞ ارﻗﺎم زراﻋﻲ ﺑﺎ ﺳﺎزﮔﺎري ﺑﻬﺒﻮد ﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ‪،‬‬ ‫ﻫﺪف ﻣﻬﻤﻲ در ﺑﺴﻴﺎري از ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﻪﻫﺎي اﺻﻼﺣﻲ ﮔﻴﺎﻫﺎن ﺷﻮد‬ ‫)‪ .(Sivamani et al., 2000‬ﮔﻨﺪم در اﻛﺜﺮ ﻧﻘﺎط ﺟﻬﺎن در‬ ‫ﻣﺮاﺣﻞ اﻧﺘﻬﺎﻳﻲ رﺷﺪ و اﻏﻠﺐ در ﻃﻲ ﭘﺮ ﺷﺪن داﻧﻪ ﺑﺎ ﻛﻤﺒﻮد‬ ‫آب ﻣﻮاﺟﻪ اﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ اﻳﻦ اﻣﺮ ﻣﻨﺠﺮ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺤﺪودﻳﺖ ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد‬ ‫داﻧﻪ ﻣﻲﺷﻮد )‪.(Nicolas and Turner, 1993‬‬ ‫ﻣﻌﻤﻮﻻً در ﻣﻨﺎﻃﻘﻲ ﭼﻮن ﻛﺮﻣﺎﻧﺸﺎه ﻛﻪ ﺟﺰو ﻣﻨﺎﻃﻖ‬ ‫ﺧﺸﻚ و ﻧﻴﻤﻪﺧﺸﻚ ﻛﺸﻮر ﻣﺤﺴﻮب ﻣﻲﺷﻮد‪ ،‬اراﺿﻲ زﻳﺮ‬ ‫ﻛﺸﺖ ﮔﻨﺪم از اواﺳﻂ ﺑﻬﺎر ﺑﺎ ﺗﻨﺶ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ آﺧﺮ ﻓﺼﻞ ﻣﻮاﺟﻪ‬ ‫ﻣﻲﺷﻮﻧﺪ و ﻛﺎﻫﺶ ﭼﺸﻤﮕﻴﺮي در ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد آﻧﻬﺎ ﺑﻪ وﻗﻮع ﻣﻲ‪-‬‬ ‫ﭘﻴﻮﻧﺪد‪ .‬از اﻳﻨﺮو‪ ،‬ﺑﺮرﺳﻲ ﭘﺎﺳﺦ ﮔﻨﺪم ﺑﻪ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ و ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ‬ ‫ﺻﻔﺎت ﻓﻴﺰﻳﻮﻟﻮژﻳﻚ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﺎ ﺗﺤﻤﻞ ﺑﻪ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ ﻛﻪ ﻳﻜﻲ از‬ ‫راﻫﻜﺎرﻫﺎي ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻠﻪ ﺑﺎ ﻋﻮارض اﻳﻦ ﺗﻨﺶ اﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﺑﻴﺶ از ﭘﻴﺶ‬ ‫اﺣﺴﺎس ﻣﻲﺷﻮد؛ ﻟﺬا ﻻزم اﺳﺖ ﺟﻨﺒﻪﻫﺎي ﻓﻴﺰﻳﻮﻟﻮژﻳﻚ‬ ‫ﺗﺤﻤﻞ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ را ﻛﻪ ﺑﺎ ﭘﺎﻳﺪاري ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد در ﺷﺮاﻳﻂ ﺗﻨﺶ‬ ‫ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﻧﻤﻮده و از ﺻﻔﺎت ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﺑﺮاي‬ ‫ﮔﺰﻳﻨﺶ اﺳﺘﻔﺎده ﻧﻤﻮد )‪.(Mohammadi et al., 2006‬‬

‫از ﺻﻔﺎت ﻓﻴﺰﻳﻮﻟﻮژﻳﻚ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﺎ ﻣﺤﺘﻮاي آب ﮔﻴﺎه‬ ‫ﻫﻤﭽﻮن ﻣﺤﺘﻮاي ﻧﺴﺒﻲ آب ﺑﺮگ ) ‪Relative Water‬‬ ‫‪ (Content: RWC‬ﻣﻲﺗﻮان ﺑﺮاي اﺻﻼح ﻣﻘﺎوﻣﺖ ﺑﻪ‬ ‫ﺧﺸﻜﻲ اﺳﺘﻔﺎده ﻛﺮد ) ‪Ramirez-Vallejo and Kelly,‬‬ ‫‪ .(1998‬ﻣﺤﺘﻮاي ﻧﺴﺒﻲ آب ﻛﻪ ﺗﺤﺖ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﺗﻨﻈﻴﻢ اﺳﻤﺰي‪،‬‬ ‫ﺟﺬب آب و ﻣﻴﺰان ﺗﻌﺮق ﻗﺮار داﺷﺘﻪ و ﻧﻴﺰ وراﺛﺖﭘﺬﻳﺮي‬ ‫ﺑﺎﻻﻳﻲ را در ﺷﺮاﻳﻂ ﺗﻨﺶ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ ﻧﺸﺎن داده اﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪﻋﻨﻮان‬ ‫ﻣﻌﻴﺎر اﻧﺘﺨﺎب ﺑﺮاي ﺗﺤﻤﻞ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ ﭘﻴﺸﻨﻬﺎد ﺷﺪه اﺳﺖ‬ ‫)‪ .(Siddique et al., 2000‬ﺑﻨﺎﺑﺮاﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ژﻧﻮﺗﻴﭗﻫﺎﻳﻲ ﻛﻪ‬ ‫ﺑﺪون ﺑﺴﺘﻦ روزﻧﻪﻫﺎي ﺧﻮد ﺗﻮاﻧﺎﻳﻲ ﺣﻔﻆ آب ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮي‬ ‫دارﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﺑﺮاي ﻣﻨﺎﻃﻖ ﺧﺸﻚ ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺐﺗﺮ ﻣﻲﺑﺎﺷﻨﺪ ) ‪Blum et‬‬ ‫‪.(al., 1981‬‬ ‫ﺗﻨﺶ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ در دوره ﺑﻌﺪ از ﮔﻠﺪﻫﻲ ﻣﻮﺟﺐ ﺗﺴﺮﻳﻊ‬ ‫ﭘﻴﺮي ﺑﺴﻴﺎري از ﮔﻮﻧﻪﻫﺎي ﮔﻴﺎﻫﻲ ﻣﻲﺷﻮد ) ‪Hafsi et al.,‬‬ ‫‪ (2007‬ﻛﻪ زرد ﺷﺪن ﺑﺮگ از ﻋﻼﺋﻢ آن اﺳﺖ‪ .‬زرد ﺷﺪن‬ ‫ﺑﺮگ ﻫﻨﮕﺎﻣﻲ رخ ﻣﻲدﻫﺪ ﻛﻪ ﻣﺤﺘﻮاي ﻛﻠﺮوﻓﻴﻞ ﺑﺮگ ﺣﺪود‬ ‫‪ %50‬ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﺑﻪ ﺑﺮگ ﺳﺒﺰ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﻲ ﻛﺎﻫﺶ ﻳﺎﺑﺪ‪ .‬ﻣﺸﺎﻫﺪهي‬ ‫ﭘﻴﺮي ﺑﺎ اﺳﺘﻔﺎده از اﻧﺪازهﮔﻴﺮيﻫﺎي ﻛﻠﺮوﻓﻴﻞ ﺑﺮگ اﻣﻜﺎن‪-‬‬ ‫ﭘﺬﻳﺮ اﺳﺖ )‪ .(Cha et al., 2002‬ﺗﻨﺶ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ ﺑﺎﻋﺚ‬ ‫ﻛﺎﻫﺶ ﻣﻴﺰان ﻛﻠﺮوﻓﻴﻞ ﺑﺮگ ﻣﻲﺷﻮد ) ‪Saeidi et al.,‬‬ ‫‪ ، (2010‬ﻟﺬا اﻳﻦ ﻛﺎﻫﺶ ﻣﻲﺗﻮاﻧﺪ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮان ﻳﻚ ﻋﺎﻣﻞ‬ ‫ﻣﺤﺪود ﻛﻨﻨﺪهي ﻏﻴﺮ روزﻧﻪاي ﺑﻪ ﺣﺴﺎب آﻳﺪ ) ‪Behra et‬‬ ‫‪ .(al., 2002‬از ﻃﺮﻓﻲ ﺣﻔﻆ ﻏﻠﻈﺖ ﻛﻠﺮوﻓﻴﻞ در ﺗﻨﺶ‬ ‫ﺧﺸﻜﻲ ﺑﻪ ﺛﺒﺎت ﻓﺘﻮﺳﻨﺘﺰ ﻛﻤﻚ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﻨﺎﺑﺮاﻳﻦ ﻣﻲﺗﻮان‬ ‫آن را از ﺟﻤﻠﻪ ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي ﻓﻴﺰﻳﻮﻟﻮژﻳﻚ ﺗﺤﻤﻞ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ ﺑﻪ‪-‬‬ ‫ﺷﻤﺎر آورد )‪.(Pessarkli, 1999‬‬ ‫اﻏﻠﺐ‪ ،‬ﻫﺪف ﻧﻬﺎﻳﻲ ﺑﻪﻧﮋادﮔﺮان اﻓﺰاﻳﺶ ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد ﮔﻴﺎﻫﺎن‬ ‫زراﻋﻲ اﺳﺖ و ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﻪ وﺟﻮد رواﺑﻂ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﻴﻢ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺳﺮﻋﺖ‬ ‫و ﻃﻮل دورهي ﭘﺮﺷﺪن داﻧﻪ ﺑﺎ ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد و اﺟﺰاي ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد‬ ‫داﻧﻪ‪ ،‬ﮔﺰﻳﻨﺶ ﺑﺮ اﺳﺎس اﻳﻦ ﺻﻔﺎت ﻣﻲﺗﻮاﻧﺪ ﻳﻚ روش‬ ‫ارزﻳﺎﺑﻲ ﻓﻴﺰﻳﻮﻟﻮژﻳﻚ ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺐ اﺳﺖ و ﻣﺤﻘﻘﺎن را در اﻧﺘﺨﺎب‬ ‫ﻏﻴﺮﻣﺴﺘﻘﻴﻢ ﻳﺎري ﻧﻤﺎﻳﺪ )‪ .(Brdar et al., 2008‬ﻫﺮﭼﻨﺪ‬ ‫ﺳﺮﻋﺖ ﭘﺮﺷﺪن داﻧﻪ ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮ ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ژﻧﻮﺗﻴﭗ و ﻣﺪت ﭘﺮﺷﺪن‬ ‫آن ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮ از ﺳﻮي ﻣﺤﻴﻂ ﺗﺤﺖ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﻗﺮار ﻣﻲﮔﻴﺮد‪ ،‬اﻣﺎ‬ ‫ﻣﺤﻴﻂ روي ﻫﺮدوي آنﻫﺎ ﻣﺆﺛﺮ اﺳﺖ ) ‪Quarrie and‬‬ ‫‪ .(Jones, 1979‬ﺗﻨﺶ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ ﻃﻲ ﻣﺮﺣﻠﻪي ﭘﺮﺷﺪن داﻧﻪ‪،‬‬ ‫ﺑﻪ وﻳﮋه اﮔﺮ ﺑﺎ ﮔﺮﻣﺎ ﻧﻴﺰ ﻫﻤﺮاه اﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﻣﻲﺗﻮاﻧﺪ از ﻃﺮﻳﻖ‬ ‫ﺗﺴﺮﻳﻊ ﭘﻴﺮي ﺑﺮگﻫﺎ و ﻛﺎﻫﺶ دوره و ﺳﺮﻋﺖ ﭘﺮﺷﺪن داﻧﻪ‪،‬‬ ‫ﻣﻮﺟﺐ ﻛﺎﻫﺶ وزن داﻧﻪ و ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد داﻧﻪ ﺷﻮد ) ‪Stone and‬‬

‫ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻘﺎت ﻏﻼت‪ /‬ﺳﺎل دوم‪ /‬ﺷﻤﺎره ﭼﻬﺎرم‪1391 /‬‬

‫‪ .(Nicolas, 1994; Royo et al., 2000‬اﻓﺰاﻳﺶ وزن‬ ‫داﻧﻪ ﻛﻪ ﻳﻜﻲ از اﺟﺰاي اﺻﻠﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد داﻧﻪ اﺳﺖ‪ ،‬از ﻃﺮﻳﻖ‬ ‫ﻃﻮل دوره و ﺳﺮﻋﺖ ﭘﺮﺷﺪن داﻧﻪ ﻣﻴﺴﺮ اﺳﺖ و ﻫﻤﺒﺴﺘﮕﻲ‬ ‫ﻗﻮي ﺑﻴﻦ وزن ﻧﻬﺎﻳﻲ داﻧﻪ و دورهي ﭘﺮﺷﺪن داﻧﻪ ﮔﺰارش‬ ‫ﺷﺪه اﺳﺖ )‪.(Gebeyhou et al., 1982 a, b‬‬ ‫ﺑﺮرﺳﻲ ﺗﻌﺪادي از ارﻗﺎم ﮔﻨﺪم ﻣﻌﺮﻓﻲ ﺷﺪه ﻛﺸﻮر و‬ ‫ﺑﺮﺧﻲ ژﻧﻮﺗﻴﭗﻫﺎ ﻃﻲ ﺳﺎلﻫﺎي ﮔﺬﺷﺘﻪ ﻧﺸﺎن داده اﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ‬ ‫ﺗﻨﻮع ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﺗﻮﺟﻬﻲ در ﻓﺮآﻳﻨﺪﻫﺎي ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﻓﻴﺰﻳﻮﻟﻮژي و ﻧﻴﺰ‬ ‫ﺗﻔﺎوتﻫﺎي ژﻧﺘﻴﻜﻲ زﻳﺎدي در ﺑﻴﻦ رﻗﻢﻫﺎ و ژﻧﻮﺗﻴﭗﻫﺎ وﺟﻮد‬ ‫دارد ﻛﻪ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪي اﻳﻦ ﺗﻨﻮﻋﺎت ﻣﻲﺗﻮاﻧﺪ ﻣﺎ را در ﺑﻬﺒﻮد‬ ‫ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﻪﻫﺎي اﺻﻼﺣﻲ آﻳﻨﺪه ﻳﺎري ﻧﻤﺎﻳﺪ؛ ﻟﺬا ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﻪ‬ ‫اﻫﻤﻴﺖ ﮔﻨﺪم ﺑﻪﻋﻨﻮان ﻳﻚ ﮔﻴﺎه اﺳﺘﺮاﺗﮋﻳﻚ و ﻧﻴﺰ اﻗﻠﻴﻢ‬ ‫ﺧﺸﻚ و ﻧﻴﻤﻪﺧﺸﻚ اﻳﺮان‪ ،‬ﭘﮋوﻫﺶ ﺣﺎﺿﺮ ﺑﻪﻣﻨﻈﻮر ارزﻳﺎﺑﻲ‬ ‫ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد داﻧﻪ و ﺑﺮﺧﻲ ﺧﺼﻮﺻﻴﺎت ﻓﻴﺰﻳﻮﻟﻮژﻳﻚ ‪ 80‬ژﻧﻮﺗﻴﭗ‬ ‫ﮔﻨﺪم ﻧﺎن و ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪي اﺛﺮ ﺗﻨﺶ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ آﺧﺮ ﻓﺼﻞ ﺑﺮ آنﻫﺎ‬ ‫اﺟﺮا ﺷﺪ‪.‬‬

‫‪291‬‬

‫در ﻃﻮل اﺟﺮاي ﻃﺮح از ﻫﻴﭻ ﻧﻮع ﻛﻮدي اﺳﺘﻔﺎده ﻧﺸﺪ و‬ ‫ﻛﻨﺘﺮل ﻋﻠﻒﻫﺎي ﻫﺮز ﺑﻪ ﺻﻮرت دﺳﺘﻲ اﻧﺠﺎم ﮔﺮﻓﺖ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺑﺮداﺷﺖ در اواﺧﺮ ﺗﻴﺮ ﻣﺎه ﺳﺎل ‪ 1391‬ﺻﻮرت ﮔﺮﻓﺖ و‬ ‫ﺷﺪت ﺗﻨﺶ )‪ (Stress intensity‬ﺑﺮ ﻃﺒﻖ ﻓﺮﻣﻮل زﻳﺮ‬ ‫ﻣﺤﺎﺳﺒﻪ ﺷﺪ‪:‬‬ ‫)‪(1‬‬

‫) ‪Stress intensity =1- ( Ys / Yp‬‬

‫ﻛﻪ در آن ‪ Yp‬و ‪ Ys‬ﺑﻪﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ ﻋﺒﺎرﺗﻨﺪ از ﻣﻴﺎﻧﮕﻴﻦ‬ ‫ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد ﻫﻤﻪ ژﻧﻮﺗﻴﭗﻫﺎ در ﻣﺤﻴﻂ ﺑﺪون ﺗﻨﺶ و ﻣﺤﻴﻂ‬ ‫ﺗﻨﺶ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ )‪ .(Fischer and Maurer, 1978‬ﺻﻔﺎت‬ ‫ﻣﻮرد ﺑﺮرﺳﻲ ﺑﻪ ﺷﺮح زﻳﺮ ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ و ﺛﺒﺖ ﺷﺪﻧﺪ‪:‬‬ ‫ﻣﺤﺘﻮاي ﻛﻠﺮوﻓﻴﻞﻫﺎي ‪ b ،a‬و ﻛﻞ‪ :‬ﻣﻴﺰان ﻛﻠﺮوﻓﻴﻞ ‪b ،a‬‬

‫و ﻛﻞ ﺑﺮ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻣﻴﻜﺮوﮔﺮم ﺑﺮ ﻣﻴﻠﻲﻟﻴﺘﺮ ﻣﺘﺎﻧﻮل ﺑﻪ روش‬ ‫ﻫﻴﭙﻜﻴﻨﺰ و ﺑﻴﻜﺮ )‪ (Hipkins and Baker, 1986‬ﻣﺤﺎﺳﺒﻪ‬ ‫ﺷﺪﻧﺪ‪.‬‬ ‫درﺟﻪ ﺳﺒﺰﻳﻨﮕﻲ ﺑﺮگ‪ :‬ﺑﻪ ﻣﻨﻈﻮر اﻧﺪازهﮔﻴﺮي ﺳﺒﺰﻳﻨﮕﻲ‬ ‫ﺑﺮگ ﺑﺎ اﺳﺘﻔﺎده از دﺳﺘﮕﺎه ‪SPAD-502, ) SPAD‬‬

‫ﻣﻮاد و روشﻫﺎ‬

‫‪ ،(Minolta, Japan‬ﺑﺪون ﺗﺨﺮﻳﺐ ﺑﺎﻓﺖﻫﺎي ﮔﻴﺎﻫﻲ از ﻫﺮ‬

‫اﻳﻦ ﭘﮋوﻫﺶ در ﺳﺎل زراﻋﻲ ‪ 1390-91‬در ﻣﺰرﻋﻪ‬ ‫ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻘﺎﺗﻲ و آزﻣﺎﻳﺸﮕﺎهﻫﺎي ﭘﺮدﻳﺲ ﻛﺸﺎورزي و ﻣﻨﺎﺑﻊ‬ ‫ﻃﺒﻴﻌﻲ داﻧﺸﮕﺎه رازي ﻛﺮﻣﺎﻧﺸﺎه ﺑﺎ ﻣﺨﺘﺼﺎت ﺟﻐﺮاﻓﻴﺎﻳﻲ ‪46‬‬ ‫درﺟﻪ و ‪ 20‬دﻗﻴﻘﻪ ﻃﻮل ﺷﺮﻗﻲ و ‪ 34‬درﺟﻪ و ‪ 20‬دﻗﻴﻘﻪ‬ ‫ﻋﺮض ﺷﻤﺎﻟﻲ روي ‪ 80‬ژﻧﻮﺗﻴﭗ ﮔﻨﺪم ﻧﺎن آﺑﻲ ﺗﻬﻴﻪ ﺷﺪه از‬ ‫ﻣﺮﻛﺰ ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻘﺎت ﻛﺸﺎورزي و ﻣﻨﺎﺑﻊ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﻲ ﻛﺮﻣﺎﻧﺸﺎه )ﺟﺪول‬ ‫‪ (1‬در ﻗﺎﻟﺐ ﻃﺮح ﺑﻠﻮكﻫﺎي ﻛﺎﻣﻞ ﺗﺼﺎدﻓﻲ ﺑﺎ ﺳﻪ ﺗﻜﺮار و در‬ ‫دو ﺷﺮاﻳﻂ ﺑﺪون ﺗﻨﺶ و ﺗﻨﺶ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ آﺧﺮ ﻓﺼﻞ اﺟﺮا ﺷﺪ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺑﺎﻓﺖ ﺧﺎك ﻣﺤﻞ اﺟﺮاي آزﻣﺎﻳﺶ رﺳﻲ ﺑﻮد‪ .‬ﺑﻪ ﻣﻨﻈﻮر‬ ‫ﺟﻠﻮﮔﻴﺮي از آﻟﻮدﮔﻲ ﺑﻪ ﺳﻴﺎﻫﻚ‪ ،‬ﺑﺬرﻫﺎي ﻛﻠﻴﻪ ژﻧﻮﺗﻴﭗﻫﺎ‬ ‫ﻗﺒﻞ از ﻛﺎﺷﺖ ﺑﺎ ﻗﺎرچﻛﺶ ﻛﺎرﺑﻮﻛﺴﻴﻦ ﺗﻴﺮام )‪(Vitawax‬‬ ‫ﺑﻪ ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ‪ 2/5‬در ﻫﺰار ﺿﺪ ﻋﻔﻮﻧﻲ ﺷﺪﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﻛﺎﺷﺖ در ‪15‬‬ ‫آﺑﺎن ‪ 1390‬ﺑﻪ ﺻﻮرت دﺳﺘﻲ اﻧﺠﺎم ﮔﺮﻓﺖ‪ .‬ﻫﺮ ﻛﺮت ﺷﺎﻣﻞ‬ ‫‪ 5‬ﺧﻂ ﻛﺸﺖ ‪ 1/2‬ﻣﺘﺮي ﺑﺎ ﻓﺎﺻﻠﻪ ﺧﻄﻮط ‪ 20‬ﺳﺎﻧﺘﻲﻣﺘﺮ و‬ ‫ﺗﺮاﻛﻢ ‪ 400‬ﺑﺬر در ﻣﺘﺮ ﻣﺮﺑﻊ ﺑﻮد‪ .‬ﻗﻄﻊ آﺑﻴﺎري از ﺗﺎرﻳﺦ ‪28‬‬ ‫اردﻳﺒﻬﺸﺖ ‪ 1391‬در ﻣﺤﻴﻂ ﺗﻨﺶ اﻋﻤﺎل ﺷﺪ ﻛﻪ ﺗﺎ ﻣﺮﺣﻠﻪ‬ ‫ﺑﺮداﺷﺖ ﺗﺪاوم ﻳﺎﻓﺖ‪ ،‬ﺿﻤﻦ آﻧﻜﻪ در ﺑﺎزه زﻣﺎﻧﻲ اﺟﺮاي ﺗﻴﻤﺎر‬ ‫ﻗﻄﻊ آﺑﻴﺎري ﻫﻴﭻﮔﻮﻧﻪ ﺑﺎرﻧﺪﮔﻲ روي ﻧﺪاد )ﺷﻜﻞ ‪ ،(1‬اﻣﺎ‬ ‫ﻣﺤﻴﻂ ﺑﺪون ﺗﻨﺶ ﺗﺎ زﻣﺎن رﺳﻴﺪﮔﻲ ﻓﻴﺰﻳﻮﻟﻮژﻳﻚ در ﺳﻪ‬ ‫ﻧﻮﺑﺖ ﻣﻮرد آﺑﻴﺎري ﻗﺮار ﮔﺮﻓﺖ‪.‬‬

‫ژﻧﻮﺗﻴﭗ‪ ،‬ﭘﻨﺞ ﺑﺮگ ﭘﺮﭼﻢ ﺳﺎﻟﻢ اﻧﺘﺨﺎب و از ﺳﻪ ﻗﺴﻤﺖ‬ ‫اﺑﺘﺪا‪ ،‬ﻣﻴﺎﻧﻪ و اﻧﺘﻬﺎي ﺑﺮگ اﻧﺪازهﮔﻴﺮي اﻧﺠﺎم ﺷﺪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮري‬ ‫ﻛﻪ در ﻣﺠﻤﻮع ﺑﺮاي ﻫﺮ ژﻧﻮﺗﻴﭗ‪ 15 ،‬ﻗﺮاﺋﺖ اﻧﺠﺎم ﮔﺮﻓﺖ و‬ ‫ﻣﻴﺎﻧﮕﻴﻦ اﻋﺪاد ﺛﺒﺖ ﺷﺪ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻣﺤﺘﻮاي ﻧﺴﺒﻲ آب ﺑﺮگ )‪ :(RWC‬ﺑﻪﻣﻨﻈﻮر اﻧﺪازهﮔﻴﺮي‬ ‫اﻳﻦ ﺻﻔﺖ ﺗﻌﺪاد ‪ 10‬ﺑﺮگ ﭘﺮﭼﻢ از ﻫﺮ ﻛﺮت اﻧﺘﺨﺎب ﺷﺪ و‬ ‫اﻳﻦ ﺑﺮگﻫﺎ در داﺧﻞ ﻛﻴﺴﻪﻫﺎي ﻧﺎﻳﻠﻮﻧﻲ ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﻓﻼﺳﻚ ﻳﺦ‬ ‫ﺳﺮﻳﻌﺎً ﺑﻪ آزﻣﺎﻳﺸﮕﺎه ﻣﻨﺘﻘﻞ ﺷﺪ‪ .‬اﺑﺘﺪا وزن ﺗﺮ آنﻫﺎ اﻧﺪازه‪-‬‬ ‫ﮔﻴﺮي ﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﺳﭙﺲ ﺑﻪﻣﻨﻈﻮر ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ وزن ﺗﻮرژﺳﺎﻧﺲ‪ ،‬ﺑﺮگﻫﺎ‬ ‫ﺑﻪﻣﺪت ‪ 4‬ﺳﺎﻋﺖ در ﺷﺪت ﻧﻮر ﻛﻢ و در دﻣﺎي اﺗﺎق‪ ،‬در‬ ‫داﺧﻞ آب ﻣﻘﻄﺮ ﻏﻮﻃﻪ ور ﺷﺪ‪ .‬در ﭘﺎﻳﺎن ﺑﻪﻣﻨﻈﻮر ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ‬ ‫وزن ﺧﺸﻚ‪ ،‬ﺑﺮگﻫﺎ ﺑﻪﻣﺪت ‪ 48‬ﺳﺎﻋﺖ در آون و در دﻣﺎي‬ ‫‪ 72‬درﺟﻪ ﺳﺎﻧﺘﻲﮔﺮاد ﻗﺮار داده ﺷﺪﻧﺪ و ﺳﭙﺲ ‪ RWC‬از‬ ‫ﻃﺮﻳﻖ راﺑﻄﻪي زﻳﺮ ﻣﺤﺎﺳﺒﻪ ﺷﺪ‪.‬‬ ‫)‪(2‬‬

‫‪ (FW − DW) ‬‬ ‫‪RWC% = ‬‬ ‫‪ × 100‬‬ ‫‪ (TW − DW) ‬‬

‫در اﻳﻦ راﺑﻄﻪ‪ FW ،‬وزن ﺗﺮ ﺑﺮگ‪ DW ،‬وزن ﺧﺸﻚ‬ ‫ﺑﺮگ و ‪ TW‬وزن ﺑﺮگ در ﺣﺎﻟﺖ اﺷﺒﺎع اﺳﺖ ) ‪Egert and‬‬ ‫‪.(Tevini, 2002‬‬


‫‪292‬‬

‫ﺳﺮﻋﺖ و ﻃﻮل دورهي ﭘﺮﺷﺪن داﻧﻪ‪ :‬ﻓﺎﺻﻠﻪي زﻣﺎﻧﻲ ﺑﻴﻦ‬ ‫‪ 50‬درﺻﺪ ﻇﻬﻮر ﺑﺴﺎك ﺑﺮ ﺳﻨﺒﻠﻪ ﻫﺮ رﻗﻢ ﺗﺎ رﺳﻴﺪن‬ ‫ﻓﻴﺰﻳﻮﻟﻮژﻳﻚ ﺑﻪﻋﻨﻮان ﻃﻮل دوره ﭘﺮﺷﺪن داﻧﻪ در ﻧﻈﺮ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ‬ ‫ﺷﺪ‪ .‬از ﺣﺎﺻﻞ ﺗﻘﺴﻴﻢ وزن ﺗﻚ داﻧﻪ ﺑﺮ ﻃﻮل دورهي ﭘﺮﺷﺪن‬ ‫داﻧﻪ ﻧﻴﺰ‪ ،‬ﻣﻴﺎﻧﮕﻴﻦ ﺳﺮﻋﺖ ﭘﺮﺷﺪن داﻧﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻴﻠﻲﮔﺮم در داﻧﻪ‬ ‫در روز ﺑﺪﺳﺖ آﻣﺪ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد داﻧﻪ‪ :‬ﺑﺮاي اﻧﺪازهﮔﻴﺮي اﻳﻦ ﺻﻔﺖ‪ ،‬دو ردﻳﻒ ﻣﻴﺎﻧﻲ‬ ‫از ﻫﺮ ﻛﺮت ﺑﺮداﺷﺖ و ﺑﻌﺪ از ﺧﺮﻣﻦﻛﻮﺑﻲ‪ ،‬وزن ﻛﻞ ﺑﺬرﻫﺎي‬ ‫آن ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮان ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد داﻧﻪ در ﺳﻄﺢ ﻣﺰﺑﻮر در ﻧﻈﺮ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ و‬ ‫واﺣﺪ آن ﺑﻪ ﻛﻴﻠﻮﮔﺮم در ﻫﻜﺘﺎر ﺗﺒﺪﻳﻞ ﺷﺪ‪.‬‬ ‫درﺻﺪ ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮات ﺻﻔﺎت در اﺛﺮ ﺗﻨﺶ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ‪ ،‬از ﻃﺮﻳﻖ‬ ‫ﺗﻘﺴﻴﻢ ﻣﻘﺪار ﻛﺎﻫﺶ ﻫﺮ ﺻﻔﺖ در اﺛﺮ ﺗﻨﺶ‪ ،‬ﺑﺮ ﻫﻤﺎن ﺻﻔﺖ‬ ‫در ﻣﺤﻴﻂ ﺑﺪون ﺗﻨﺶ و ﺿﺮب ﻋﺪد ﺣﺎﺻﻞ در ‪100‬‬ ‫ﻣﺤﺎﺳﺒﻪ ﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﺗﺠﺰﻳﻪ وارﻳﺎﻧﺲ ﺳﺎده و ﻣﺮﻛﺐ و ﻣﻘﺎﻳﺴﻪ‬ ‫ﻣﻴﺎﻧﮕﻴﻦ ﺑﺮاي ﺻﻔﺎت اﻧﺪازهﮔﻴﺮي ﺷﺪه ﺑﺎ ﻧﺮم اﻓﺰار ‪SAS‬‬ ‫اﻧﺠﺎم ﮔﺮﻓﺖ‪ .‬ﺑﺮاي ﻣﺤﺎﺳﺒﻪي ﺿﺮﻳﺐ ﻫﻤﺒﺴﺘﮕﻲ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺻﻔﺎت‬ ‫ﻣﻮرد ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ از ﻧﺮم اﻓﺰار ‪ SPSS‬اﺳﺘﻔﺎده ﺷﺪ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻧﺘﺎﻳﺞ و ﺑﺤﺚ‬ ‫ﻫﻤﺎنﻃﻮر ﻛﻪ از ﺟﺪول ‪ 2‬ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﻣﺸﺎﻫﺪه اﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﺑﻴﻦ‬ ‫ژﻧﻮﺗﻴﭗﻫﺎ از ﻟﺤﺎظ اﻏﻠﺐ ﺻﻔﺎت ﻣﻮرد ﺑﺮرﺳﻲ ﺑﻪ اﺳﺘﺜﻨﺎي‬ ‫ﻣﺤﺘﻮاي ﻛﻠﺮوﻓﻴﻞ در ﻫﺮ دو ﺷﺮاﻳﻂ و ﻣﺤﺘﻮاي ﻧﺴﺒﻲ آب‬

‫ﺑﺮگ در ﻣﺤﻴﻂ ﺑﺪون ﺗﻨﺶ‪ ،‬اﺧﺘﻼف ﺑﺴﻴﺎر ﻣﻌﻨﻲداري در‬ ‫ﻫﺮ دو ﺷﺮاﻳﻂ ﺑﺪون ﺗﻨﺶ و ﺗﻨﺶ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ آﺧﺮ ﻓﺼﻞ وﺟﻮد‬ ‫داﺷﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺑﻴﺎﻧﮕﺮ وﺟﻮد ﺗﻨﻮع و ﺗﻔﺎوتﻫﺎي ژﻧﺘﻴﻜﻲ زﻳﺎد ﺑﻴﻦ‬ ‫ژﻧﻮﺗﻴﭗﻫﺎي ﻣﻮرد ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ اﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺟﻬﺖ اﻧﺠﺎم ﺗﺠﺰﻳﻪ وارﻳﺎﻧﺲ‬ ‫ﻣﺮﻛﺐ‪ ،‬آزﻣﻮن ﻳﻜﻨﻮاﺧﺘﻲ وارﻳﺎﻧﺲﻫﺎ )آزﻣﻮن ﺑﺎرﺗﻠﺖ( اﻧﺠﺎم‬ ‫ﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﻪ دﻟﻴﻞ ﻏﻴﺮﻳﻜﻨﻮاﺧﺖ ﺑﻮدن وارﻳﺎﻧﺲ ﺻﻔﺖ ﺳﺮﻋﺖ ﭘﺮ‬ ‫ﺷﺪن داﻧﻪ‪ ،‬اﻳﻦ ﺻﻔﺖ وارد ﺗﺠﺰﻳﻪ وارﻳﺎﻧﺲ ﻣﺮﻛﺐ ﻧﺸﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﺮ‬ ‫ﻣﺒﻨﺎي ﻧﺘﺎﻳﺞ ﺣﺎﺻﻞ از ﺗﺠﺰﻳﻪ وارﻳﺎﻧﺲ ﻣﺮﻛﺐ ‪ 80‬ژﻧﻮﺗﻴﭗ‬ ‫ﺑﺮاي ﻫﺮ دو ﻣﺤﻴﻂ ﺑﺪون ﺗﻨﺶ و ﺗﻨﺶ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ )ﺟﺪول ‪،(3‬‬ ‫ﺑﻴﻦ ژﻧﻮﺗﻴﭗﻫﺎ از ﻟﺤﺎظ ﻫﻤﻪ ﺻﻔﺎت ﻣﻮرد ﺑﺮرﺳﻲ ﺑﺠﺰ‬ ‫ﻣﺤﺘﻮاي ﻛﻠﺮوﻓﻴﻞ ‪ b‬و ﻛﻠﺮوﻓﻴﻞ ﻛﻞ اﺧﺘﻼف ﺑﺴﻴﺎر ﻣﻌﻨﻲ‪-‬‬ ‫داري وﺟﻮد دارد‪.‬‬ ‫درﺻﺪ ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮ ﻣﻴﺎﻧﮕﻴﻦ ﺻﻔﺎت در اﺛﺮ ﺗﻨﺶ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ در‬ ‫ﺟﺪول ‪ 4‬ﻧﺸﺎن داده ﺷﺪه اﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﻻزم ﺑﻪ ذﻛﺮ اﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺷﺪت‬ ‫ﺗﻨﺶ )‪ (Stress intensity‬ﺑﻪ ﻣﻴﺰان ‪ 0/23‬ﻣﺤﺎﺳﺒﻪ ﺷﺪ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻣﺜﺒﺖ ﺑﻮدن درﺻﺪ ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮ ﺻﻔﺖ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻌﻨﻲ ﻛﺎﻫﺶ ﻣﻘﺪار آن‬ ‫ﺻﻔﺖ و ﻣﻨﻔﻲ ﺑﻮدن آن ﺑﻪ ﻣﻨﺰﻟﻪ اﻓﺰاﻳﺶ ﻣﻘﺪار آن ﺻﻔﺖ‬ ‫در اﺛﺮ ﺗﻨﺶ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ اﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﻫﻤﺎنﻃﻮر ﻛﻪ ﻣﺸﺎﻫﺪه ﻣﻲﺷﻮد‬ ‫ﺗﻨﺶ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮﻳﻦ اﺛﺮ را ﺑﺮ ﻣﻴﺰان ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد داﻧﻪ ﮔﺬاﺷﺘﻪ‬ ‫اﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮري ﻛﻪ ﻣﻮﺟﺐ ﻛﺎﻫﺶ ‪ 23/48‬درﺻﺪي آن‬ ‫ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﺑﻪ ﺷﺮاﻳﻂ ﺑﺪون ﺗﻨﺶ ﺷﺪه اﺳﺖ‪.‬‬

‫ﺷﻜﻞ ‪ -1‬ﻣﻘﺪار ﻛﻞ ﺑﺎرﻧﺪﮔﻲ )ﻣﻴﻠﻲﻣﺘﺮ( و دﻣﺎي ﺣﺪاﻛﺜﺮ و ﺣﺪاﻗﻞ )درﺟﻪ ﺳﺎﻧﺘﻲﮔﺮاد( ﻣﺎﻫﻴﺎﻧﻪ در ﺳﺎل زراﻋﻲ ‪.1390-1391‬‬ ‫‪Figure 1. Monthly total rainfall (mm) and temperature (°C) (Max. and Min.) in 2011-2012 cropping season.‬‬

‫‪293‬‬


‫ﺟﺪول ‪ -1‬ﻧﺎم و ﺷﻤﺎره ژﻧﻮﺗﻴﭗﻫﺎي ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﺷﺪه‬ ‫ژﻧﻮﺗﻴﭗ‬ ‫‪Genotype‬‬ ‫اﻓﻼك‬ ‫‪Aflak‬‬

‫ﺑﺎز‬ ‫‪Baz‬‬

‫ﺷﺎهﭘﺴﻨﺪ‬ ‫‪Shahpasand‬‬

‫اﻣﻴﺪ‬ ‫‪Omid‬‬

‫روﺷﻦ‬ ‫‪Roshan‬‬

‫ﻃﺒﺴﻲ‬ ‫‪Tabasi‬‬

‫ﺷﻌﻠﻪ‬ ‫‪Sholeh‬‬

‫ﺳﺮخﺗﺨﻢ‬ ‫‪Sorkhetokhm‬‬

‫ﻋﺪل‬ ‫‪Adl‬‬

‫ﺳﺒﻼن‬ ‫‪Sabalan‬‬

‫ﺷﻤﺎره‬ ‫‪Code‬‬ ‫‪61‬‬ ‫‪62‬‬ ‫‪63‬‬ ‫‪64‬‬ ‫‪65‬‬ ‫‪66‬‬ ‫‪67‬‬ ‫‪68‬‬ ‫‪69‬‬ ‫‪70‬‬

‫ﺑﻚﻛﺮاس ﺑﻬﺎره روﺷﻦ‬ ‫‪Roshan spring‬‬ ‫‪backcross‬‬

‫‪71‬‬

‫ﺑﻚﻛﺮاس زﻣﺴﺘﺎﻧﻪ روﺷﻦ‬ ‫‪Roshan winter‬‬ ‫‪backcross‬‬

‫ﻛﺮاس ﺷﺎﻫﻲ‬ ‫‪Cross Shahi‬‬

‫ﻣﺎرون‬ ‫‪Maroon‬‬

‫ﻛﻮﻳﺮ‬ ‫‪Kavir‬‬

‫ﻫﺎﻣﻮن‬ ‫‪Hamoon‬‬

‫ﺑﻢ‬ ‫‪Bam‬‬

‫اﻛﺒﺮي‬ ‫‪Akbari‬‬

‫ﺳﻴﺴﺘﺎن‬ ‫‪Sistan‬‬

‫ﻧﻮرﺳﺘﺎر‬ ‫‪Noorstar‬‬

‫‪72‬‬ ‫‪73‬‬ ‫‪74‬‬ ‫‪75‬‬ ‫‪76‬‬ ‫‪77‬‬ ‫‪78‬‬ ‫‪79‬‬ ‫‪80‬‬

‫‪Table 1. Name and code of studied genotypes‬‬ ‫ﺷﻤﺎره‬ ‫ژﻧﻮﺗﻴﭗ‬ ‫ﺷﻤﺎره‬ ‫ژﻧﻮﺗﻴﭗ‬ ‫‪Code‬‬ ‫‪Genotype‬‬ ‫‪Code‬‬ ‫‪Genotype‬‬ ‫اﻟﻤﻮت‬ ‫ﻛﺎوه‬ ‫‪21‬‬ ‫‪41‬‬ ‫‪Kaveh‬‬

‫‪Alamot‬‬

‫رﺳﻮل‬

‫اﻟﻮﻧﺪ‬

‫‪Rasool‬‬

‫ﺗﺠﻦ‬ ‫‪Tajan‬‬

‫ﺷﻴﺮودي‬ ‫‪Shiroodi‬‬

‫درﻳﺎ‬ ‫‪Darya‬‬

‫آرﺗﺎ‬ ‫‪Arta‬‬

‫ﻣﺮوارﻳﺪ‬ ‫‪Morvarid‬‬

‫‪N-85-5‬‬ ‫اروﻧﺪ‬ ‫‪Arvand‬‬

‫ﭼﻨﺎب‬ ‫‪Chenab‬‬

‫ﺑﻴﺎت‬ ‫‪Bayat‬‬

‫ﻓﻼت‬ ‫‪Falat‬‬

‫ﻫﻴﺮﻣﻨﺪ‬ ‫‪Hirmand‬‬

‫داراب‪2-‬‬ ‫‪Darab-2‬‬

‫اﺗﺮك‬ ‫‪Atrak‬‬

‫ﭼﻤﺮان‬ ‫‪Chamran‬‬

‫اﺳﺘﺎر‬ ‫‪Star‬‬

‫د‪‬ز‬ ‫‪Dez‬‬

‫وﻳﺮﻳﻨﺎك‬ ‫‪Virinak‬‬

‫ﻻﻳﻦ ‪A‬‬ ‫‪Line A‬‬

‫ﺑﺮاي ﻛﻠﻴﻪي ﺻﻔﺎت ﻣﻮرد ﺑﺮرﺳﻲ اﺛﺮ ﻣﺘﻘﺎﺑﻞ ژﻧﻮﺗﻴﭗ در‬ ‫ﻣﺤﻴﻂ در ﺗﺠﺰﻳﻪ ﻣﺮﻛﺐ ﻣﻌﻨﻲدار ﻧﺸﺪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ اﻳﻦ ﻣﻌﻨﻲ ﻛﻪ‬ ‫ژﻧﻮﺗﻴﭗﻫﺎ از ﻧﻈﺮ اﻳﻦ ﺻﻔﺎت در ﺷﺮاﻳﻂ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﻣﺤﻴﻄﻲ‬

‫‪42‬‬ ‫‪43‬‬ ‫‪44‬‬ ‫‪45‬‬ ‫‪46‬‬ ‫‪47‬‬ ‫‪48‬‬ ‫‪49‬‬ ‫‪50‬‬ ‫‪51‬‬

‫‪52‬‬ ‫‪53‬‬ ‫‪54‬‬ ‫‪55‬‬ ‫‪56‬‬ ‫‪57‬‬ ‫‪58‬‬ ‫‪59‬‬ ‫‪60‬‬

‫‪Alvand‬‬

‫زرﻳﻦ‬ ‫‪Zarrin‬‬

‫‪MV-17‬‬ ‫ﮔﺎﺳﭙﺎرد‬ ‫‪Gaspard‬‬

‫ﮔﺎﺳﻜﻮژن‬ ‫‪Gaskojen‬‬

‫ﺳﺎﻳﺴﻮن‬ ‫‪Sayson‬‬

‫ﺷﻬﺮﻳﺎر‬ ‫‪Shahryar‬‬

‫ﺗﻮس‬ ‫‪Toos‬‬

‫ﭘﻴﺸﮕﺎم‬ ‫‪Pishgam‬‬

‫ﻣﻴﻬﻦ‬ ‫‪Mihan‬‬

‫اوروم‬ ‫‪Urom‬‬

‫زارع‬ ‫‪Zare‬‬

‫اﻳﻨﻴﺎ‬ ‫‪Inia‬‬

‫ﺧﺰر‪1-‬‬ ‫‪Khazar-1‬‬

‫ﻣﻐﺎن‪1-‬‬ ‫‪Moghan-1‬‬

‫ﻣﻐﺎن–‪2‬‬ ‫‪Moghan-2‬‬

‫ﻣﻐﺎن‪3-‬‬ ‫‪Moghan-3‬‬

‫ﮔﻠﺴﺘﺎن‬ ‫‪Golestan‬‬

‫اﻟﺒﺮز‬ ‫‪Alborz‬‬

‫‪22‬‬ ‫‪23‬‬ ‫‪24‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬ ‫‪26‬‬ ‫‪27‬‬ ‫‪28‬‬ ‫‪29‬‬ ‫‪30‬‬ ‫‪31‬‬

‫‪32‬‬ ‫‪33‬‬ ‫‪34‬‬ ‫‪35‬‬ ‫‪36‬‬ ‫‪37‬‬ ‫‪38‬‬ ‫‪39‬‬ ‫‪40‬‬

‫ژﻧﻮﺗﻴﭗ‬ ‫‪Genotype‬‬ ‫ﻛﺮج‪1-‬‬ ‫‪Karaj-1‬‬

‫ﻛﺮج‪2-‬‬ ‫‪Karaj-2‬‬

‫ﻛﺮج‪3-‬‬ ‫‪Karaj-3‬‬

‫آزادي‬ ‫‪Azadi‬‬

‫ﻗﺪس‬ ‫‪Ghods‬‬

‫ﻣﻬﺪوي‬ ‫‪Mahdavi‬‬

‫ﻧﻴﻚﻧﮋاد‬ ‫‪Niknejad‬‬

‫ﻣﺮودﺷﺖ‬ ‫‪Marvdasht‬‬

‫ﭘﻴﺸﺘﺎز‬ ‫‪Pishtaz‬‬

‫ﺷﻴﺮاز‬ ‫‪Shiraz‬‬

‫ﺳﭙﺎﻫﺎن‬ ‫‪Sepahan‬‬

‫ﺑﻬﺎر‬ ‫‪Bahar‬‬

‫ﭘﺎرﺳﻲ‬ ‫‪Parsi‬‬

‫ﺳﻴﻮﻧﺪ‬ ‫‪Sivand‬‬

‫‪M-85-7‬‬ ‫‪WS-82-9‬‬ ‫ﺳﻴﺮوان‬ ‫‪Sirvan‬‬

‫‪DN-11‬‬ ‫ﺑﺰوﺳﺘﺎﻳﺎ‬ ‫‪Bezostaya‬‬

‫ﻧﻮﻳﺪ‬ ‫‪Navid‬‬

‫ﺷﻤﺎره‬ ‫‪Code‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫‪6‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬ ‫‪9‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬ ‫‪11‬‬

‫‪12‬‬ ‫‪13‬‬ ‫‪14‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬ ‫‪16‬‬ ‫‪17‬‬ ‫‪18‬‬ ‫‪19‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬

‫واﻛﻨﺶ ﻳﻜﺴﺎﻧﻲ داﺷﺘﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﻨﺎﺑﺮاﻳﻦ‪ ،‬در اداﻣﻪ ﺗﻨﻬﺎ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻘﺎﻳﺴﻪ‬ ‫ﻣﻴﺎﻧﮕﻴﻦ دو ﻣﺤﻴﻂ )ﺗﺠﺰﻳﻪ ﻣﺮﻛﺐ( ﭘﺮداﺧﺘﻪ ﻣﻲﺷﻮد‪.‬‬ ‫ﻣﺤﺘﻮاي ﻛﻠﺮوﻓﻴﻞ ﺑﺮگ ﭘﺮﭼﻢ‪ :‬ﻧﺘﺎﻳﺞ ﺗﺠﺰﻳﻪ وارﻳﺎﻧﺲ‬ ‫ﻣﺮﻛﺐ ﻧﺸﺎن دﻫﻨﺪهي وﺟﻮد اﺧﺘﻼف ﺑﺴﻴﺎر ﻣﻌﻨﻲدار ﺑﻴﻦ‬

‫‪294‬‬


‫ژﻧﻮﺗﻴﭗﻫﺎ از ﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﺤﺘﻮاي ﻛﻠﺮوﻓﻴﻞ ‪ a‬و ﻋﺪم وﺟﻮد ﺗﻔﺎوت‬ ‫ﻣﻌﻨﻲدار ﺑﻴﻦ آنﻫﺎ از ﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﺤﺘﻮاي ﻛﻠﺮوﻓﻴﻞ ‪ b‬و ﻛﻞ ﺑﻮد‬ ‫)ﺟﺪول ‪ .(3‬ﻫﻤﭽﻨﻴﻦ اﺛﺮ ﻣﺤﻴﻂ روي ﻣﺤﺘﻮاي ﻫﺮ ﺳﻪ ﻧﻮع‬ ‫ﻛﻠﺮوﻓﻴﻞ ﻣﻌﻨﻲدار ﻧﺒﻮد‪ .‬اﻳﻦ ﻣﻄﻠﺐ ﻧﺸﺎن ﻣﻲدﻫﺪ ﻛﻪ ﺗﻨﺶ‬ ‫ﺧﺸﻜﻲ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﻣﻌﻨﻲداري روي آنﻫﺎ ﻧﺪاﺷﺘﻪ اﺳﺖ‪ .‬اﻳﻦ ﻣﻬﻢ‬ ‫ﻣﻤﻜﻦ اﺳﺖ ﺑﻪ دﻟﻴﻞ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎر ژﻧﺘﻴﻜﻲ ﺧﻮد ژﻧﻮﺗﻴﭗﻫﺎ و ﻧﻴﺰ‬ ‫اﻋﻤﺎل ﺗﻨﺶ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ در اﻧﺘﻬﺎي ﻓﺼﻞ و ﻣﻼﻳﻢ ﺑﻮدن ﺷﺪت‬ ‫ﺗﻨﺶ اﺳﺖ‪ .‬زﻳﺮا ﻃﺒﻖ ﻧﻈﺮ اﺣﻤﺪي و ﺑﻴﻜﺮ ) ‪Ahmadi and‬‬ ‫‪ (Baker, 1998‬ﻳﻚ ﺣﺪاﻗﻞ ﺷﺪت ﻳﺎ ﻃﻮل دورهي ﺗﻨﺶ‬ ‫ﺧﺸﻜﻲ ﻻزم اﺳﺖ ﺗﺎ ﻏﻠﻈﺖ ﻛﻠﺮوﻓﻴﻞ ﺑﺮگ ﺑﺎﻟﻎ ﺗﺤﺖ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﻗﺮار ﮔﻴﺮد‪ .‬ﺑﺎ اﻳﻦ وﺟﻮد واﻛﻨﺶ ژﻧﻮﺗﻴﭗﻫﺎ ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﺑﻪ ﺗﻨﺶ‬ ‫ﺧﺸﻜﻲ اﻋﻤﺎل ﺷﺪه ﻣﺘﻔﺎوت ﺑﻮد ﺑﻪﻃﻮري ﻛﻪ در اﺛﺮ ﺗﻨﺶ‬ ‫ﺧﺸﻜﻲ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪﻃﻮر ﻣﻴﺎﻧﮕﻴﻦ ﻣﺤﺘﻮاي ﻛﻠﺮوﻓﻴﻞ ‪ a‬ﺑﻪ ﻣﻴﺰان‬ ‫‪ 3/54‬درﺻﺪ ﻛﺎﻫﺶ ﻳﺎﻓﺖ اﻣﺎ ﻣﺤﺘﻮاي ﻛﻠﺮوﻓﻴﻞ ‪ b‬و‬ ‫ﻛﻠﺮوﻓﻴﻞ ﻛﻞ ﺑﻪ ﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ ﺑﻪﻃﻮر ﻣﻴﺎﻧﮕﻴﻦ ‪ 6/16‬و ‪ 2/68‬درﺻﺪ‬ ‫اﻓﺰاﻳﺶ ﻧﺸﺎن دادﻧﺪ )ﺟﺪول ‪ .(4‬در ﮔﻴﺎﻫﺎن زراﻋﻲ ﮔﺰارش‪-‬‬ ‫ﻫﺎﻳﻲ ﻣﺒﻨﻲ ﺑﺮ ﻋﺪم ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﺗﻨﺶ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ ﺑﺮ ﻏﻠﻈﺖ ﻛﻠﺮوﻓﻴﻞ‬ ‫اراﺋﻪ ﺷﺪه اﺳﺖ )‪ .(Kulshreshtha et al., 1987‬اﺷﺮف و‬ ‫ﻫﻤﻜﺎران )‪ (Ashraf et al., 1994‬ﮔﺰارش دادﻧﺪ ﺑﻴﻦ‬ ‫ﺗﺤﻤﻞ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ در ﮔﻨﺪم و ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮات ﻏﻠﻈﺖ ﻛﻠﺮوﻓﻴﻞ ﺗﺤﺖ‬ ‫ﺗﻨﺶ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ راﺑﻄﻪاي وﺟﻮد ﻧﺪارد‪ ،‬ﺑﺎ اﻳﻦ ﺣﺎل ﺗﻨﺶ‬ ‫ﺧﺸﻜﻲ ﻏﻠﻈﺖ ﻛﻠﺮوﻓﻴﻞ ‪ b‬را ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮ از ﻛﻠﺮوﻓﻴﻞ ‪ a‬ﻛﺎﻫﺶ‬ ‫ﻣﻲدﻫﺪ‪ .‬در ارﺗﺒﺎط ﺑﺎ ﻛﺎﻫﺶ ﻛﻠﺮوﻓﻴﻞ ‪ a‬ﺑﻪﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﻲرﺳﺪ در‬ ‫اﺛﺮ ﺗﻨﺶ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ‪ ،‬ﺗﻮﻟﻴﺪ رادﻳﻜﺎلﻫﺎي اﻛﺴﻴﮋن اﻓﺰاﻳﺶ ﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪ‬ ‫و اﻳﻦ رادﻳﻜﺎلﻫﺎي آزاد ﺑﺎﻋﺚ ﭘﺮاﻛﺴﻴﺪاﺳﻴﻮن ) ‪Wise and‬‬ ‫‪ (Naylor, 1989‬و درﻧﺘﻴﺠﻪ ﺗﺠﺰﻳﻪي اﻳﻦ رﻧﮕﻴﺰه ﻣﻲﺷﻮﻧﺪ‬ ‫)‪.(Schutz and Fangmeir, 2001‬‬ ‫ﻧﺘﺎﻳﺞ ﻣﻘﺎﻳﺴﻪ ﻣﻴﺎﻧﮕﻴﻦ ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ دو ﻣﺤﻴﻂ ﻧﺸﺎن داد ﻛﻪ‬ ‫ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮﻳﻦ و ﻛﻤﺘﺮﻳﻦ ﻏﻠﻈﺖ ﻛﻠﺮوﻓﻴﻞ ‪ a‬ﺑﻪ ﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ ﻣﺮﺑﻮط ﺑﻪ‬ ‫ژﻧﻮﺗﻴﭗﻫﺎي ﺷﻤﺎره ‪) 41‬ﻛﺎوه( و ‪) 4‬آزادي( ﺑﻮد )ﺟﺪول ‪.(5‬‬ ‫ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﻲرﺳﺪ ﺑﻴﻦ ﻛﻠﺮوﻓﻴﻞ ‪ a‬و ‪ b‬راﺑﻄﻪي ﻋﻜﺲ وﺟﻮد‬ ‫داﺷﺘﻪ ﺑﻪﻃﻮري ﻛﻪ ﻧﺘﺎﻳﺞ ﺗﺠﺰﻳﻪي ﻫﻤﺒﺴﺘﮕﻲ ﻧﻴﺰ ﺣﺎﻛﻲ از‬ ‫وﺟﻮد ﻫﻤﺒﺴﺘﮕﻲ ﻣﻨﻔﻲ و ﺑﺴﻴﺎر ﻣﻌﻨﻲدار ﺑﻴﻦ آنﻫﺎ در‬ ‫ﺷﺮاﻳﻂ ﺗﻨﺶ )**‪ (r= -0/813‬و ﺑﺪون ﺗﻨﺶ )**‪-0/325‬‬ ‫=‪ (r‬ﺑﻮد )ﺟﺪول ‪ .(6‬ﺑﻴﻦ ﻣﺤﺘﻮاي ﻛﻠﺮوﻓﻴﻞ ﺑﺮگ ﭘﺮﭼﻢ و‬ ‫ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد داﻧﻪ ﻫﻤﺒﺴﺘﮕﻲ ﻣﻌﻨﻲداري ﻣﺸﺎﻫﺪه ﻧﺸﺪ‪ .‬اﻳﻦ‬ ‫ﻧﺘﻴﺠﻪ ﺑﺎ ﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪﻫﺎي ﻓﺮﺷﺎدﻓﺮ و ﻫﻤﻜﺎران ) ‪Farshadfar et‬‬ ‫‪ (al., 2008‬ﻣﻄﺎﺑﻘﺖ داﺷﺖ‪ .‬ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮر ﻛﻠﻲ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﻲرﺳﺪ‬ ‫ﻛﻪ در ﺻﻮرت ﺑﺮوز ﺷﺮاﻳﻂ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ آﺧﺮ ﻓﺼﻞ از ﻣﺤﺘﻮاي‬

‫ﻛﻠﺮوﻓﻴﻞ ‪ a‬ﺑﺮگﻫﺎ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﻪ ﺷﺪه درﺣﺎﻟﻲ ﻛﻪ ﺑﺮ ﻣﺤﺘﻮاي‬ ‫ﻛﻠﺮوﻓﻴﻞ ‪ b‬در ﺑﺮگﻫﺎ اﻓﺰوده ﻣﻲﺷﻮد و از آﻧﺠﺎ ﻛﻪ ﺳﻬﻢ‬ ‫ﻛﻠﺮوﻓﻴﻞ ‪ b‬در ﻣﺤﺘﻮاي ﻛﻠﺮوﻓﻴﻞ ﻛﻞ ﭼﻴﺮﮔﻲ دارد‪ ،‬ﻟﺬا در‬ ‫ﺻﻮرت ﺑﺮوز ﺧﺸﻜﻲ آﺧﺮ ﻓﺼﻞ‪ ،‬ﻣﺤﺘﻮاي ﻛﻠﺮوﻓﻴﻞ ﻛﻞ در‬ ‫ﺑﺮگﻫﺎ ﺑﺎ ﻓﺰوﻧﻲ ﻧﻪ ﭼﻨﺪان ﻣﻌﻨﻲدار ﻣﻮاﺟﻪ ﻣﻲﺷﻮد )ﺟﺪول‬ ‫‪.(5‬‬ ‫ﻋﺪد ﻛﻠﺮوﻓﻴﻞﻣﺘﺮ‪ :‬ژﻧﻮﺗﻴﭗﻫﺎي ﻣﻮرد ﺑﺮرﺳﻲ از ﻧﻈﺮ ﻋﺪد‬ ‫ﻛﻠﺮوﻓﻴﻞﻣﺘﺮ اﺧﺘﻼف ﺑﺴﻴﺎر ﻣﻌﻨﻲداري داﺷﺘﻨﺪ‪ ،‬اﻣﺎ اﺛﺮ‬ ‫ﻣﺤﻴﻂ ﺑﺮ آن ﻣﻌﻨﻲدار ﻧﺒﻮد )ﺟﺪول ‪ .(3‬ﺑﺮ اﺳﺎس ﺟﺪول ‪،4‬‬ ‫ﺗﻨﺶ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ ﺑﻪﻃﻮر ﻣﻴﺎﻧﮕﻴﻦ ﺑﺎﻋﺚ ﻛﺎﻫﺶ دو درﺻﺪي ﻋﺪد‬ ‫ﻛﻠﺮوﻓﻴﻞﻣﺘﺮ ﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﺮ اﺳﺎس ﻧﺘﺎﻳﺞ ﻣﻘﺎﻳﺴﻪ ﻣﻴﺎﻧﮕﻴﻦ ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ‬ ‫دو ﻣﺤﻴﻂ‪ ،‬ﺑﻚﻛﺮاس زﻣﺴﺘﺎﻧﻪ روﺷﻦ )‪ (72‬و ﻻﻳﻦ ‪(60) A‬‬ ‫ﺑﻪﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮﻳﻦ و ﻛﻤﺘﺮﻳﻦ ﻣﻘﺪار ﻋﺪد ﻛﻠﺮوﻓﻴﻞﻣﺘﺮ را دارا‬ ‫ﺑﻮدﻧﺪ‪ .‬در اﻳﻦ آزﻣﺎﻳﺶ ﻫﻤﺒﺴﺘﮕﻲ ﻣﻌﻨﻲداري در ﺷﺮاﻳﻂ‬ ‫ﺗﻨﺶ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ و ﻧﺮﻣﺎل ﺑﻴﻦ ﻋﺪد ﻛﻠﺮوﻓﻴﻞﻣﺘﺮ و ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد داﻧﻪ‬ ‫ﻣﺸﺎﻫﺪه ﻧﺸﺪ )ﺟﺪول ‪ .(6‬ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮر ﻛﻠﻲ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﻲرﺳﺪ‬ ‫ﻣﻴﺰان ﻋﺪد ﻛﻠﺮوﻓﻴﻞﻣﺘﺮ در ارﻗﺎم زﻣﺴﺘﺎﻧﻪ ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮ از ارﻗﺎم‬ ‫ﺑﻬﺎره اﺳﺖ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻣﺤﺘﻮاي ﻧﺴﺒﻲ آب ﺑﺮگ‪ :‬ﺑﺮرﺳﻲ ﺗﺠﺰﻳﻪ وارﻳﺎﻧﺲ ﻣﺮﻛﺐ‬ ‫)ﺟﺪول ‪ (3‬ﻧﺸﺎن داد ﻛﻪ اﺛﺮ ﻣﺤﻴﻂ در ﺳﻄﺢ اﺣﺘﻤﺎل ﭘﻨﺞ‬ ‫درﺻﺪ و اﺛﺮ ژﻧﻮﺗﻴﭗ در ﺳﻄﺢ اﺣﺘﻤﺎل ﻳﻚ درﺻﺪ ﺑﺮاي‬ ‫ﻣﺤﺘﻮاي ﻧﺴﺒﻲ آب ﻣﻌﻨﻲدار ﺑﻮد‪ .‬اﻳﻦ ﻣﻄﻠﺐ ﻧﺸﺎن ﻣﻲدﻫﺪ‬ ‫ﻛﻪ ﺗﻨﺶ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﻣﻌﻨﻲداري روي اﻳﻦ ﺻﻔﺖ داﺷﺘﻪ‬ ‫اﺳﺖ ﺑﻪﻃﻮري ﻛﻪ ﺑﺎﻋﺚ ﻛﺎﻫﺶ ‪ 10/19‬درﺻﺪي آن ﺷﺪه‬ ‫اﺳﺖ )ﺟﺪول ‪ .(4‬ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮﻳﻦ ﻣﻴﺰان ﻛﺎﻫﺶ ‪ RWC‬در‬ ‫ژﻧﻮﺗﻴﭗﻫﺎي ﺷﻤﺎره ‪) 22‬اﻟﻮﻧﺪ(‪) 31 ،‬ﻣﻴﻬﻦ( و ‪) 71‬ﺑﻚ‬ ‫ﻛﺮاس ﺑﻬﺎره روﺷﻦ( ﺑﻪﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ ﺑﺎ ‪ 24 ،26‬و ‪ 20‬درﺻﺪ‪،‬‬ ‫ﻣﺸﺎﻫﺪه ﺷﺪ‪ .‬ژﻧﻮﺗﻴﭗﻫﺎي ﺷﻤﺎره ‪) 25‬ﮔﺎﺳﭙﺎرد( و ‪68‬‬ ‫)ﺳﺮخﺗﺨﻢ( ﺑﻪﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮﻳﻦ و ﻛﻤﺘﺮﻳﻦ ﻣﺤﺘﻮاي ﻧﺴﺒﻲ‬ ‫آب ﺑﺮگ را در ﻣﻘﺎﻳﺴﻪ ﻣﻴﺎﻧﮕﻴﻦ ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ دو ﻣﺤﻴﻂ ﺑﻪ ﺧﻮد‬ ‫اﺧﺘﺼﺎص دادﻧﺪ )ﺟﺪول ‪ .(5‬اﻣﺎم و ﻧﻴﻚﻧﮋاد ) ‪Emam and‬‬ ‫‪ (Niknejhad, 2004‬اﺑﺮاز داﺷﺘﻨﺪ ﻛﻪ ﻛﺎﻫﺶ ﻣﺤﺘﻮاي‬ ‫ﻧﺴﺒﻲ آب ﺑﺮگ از اوﻟﻴﻦ آﺛﺎر ﺗﻨﺶ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ ﺑﻮده و ﻣﻮﺟﺐ‬ ‫ﻛﺎﻫﺶ ﻣﻴﺰان ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد ﻧﻴﺰ ﻣﻲﺷﻮد‪ .‬ﺳﻴﺪﻳﻜﻮ و ﻫﻤﻜﺎران‬ ‫)‪ ،(Siddique et al., 2000‬ﺳﺎﻳﺮام و ﺳﺮﻳﻮاﺳﺘﺎوا‬ ‫)‪ (Sairam and Srivastava, 2001‬و ﻣﻮﻟﻨﺎر و ﻫﻤﻜﺎران‬ ‫)‪ (Molnar et al., 2002‬ﻧﻴﺰ اﻋﻼم ﻛﺮدﻧﺪ ﻛﻪ در ﺷﺮاﻳﻂ‬ ‫ﺗﻨﺶ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ‪ ،‬ﻣﺤﺘﻮاي ﻧﺴﺒﻲ آب ﺑﺮگ ﻛﺎﻫﺶ ﻣﻲﻳﺎﺑﺪ‪.‬‬

295

1391 /‫ ﺷﻤﺎره ﭼﻬﺎرم‬/‫ ﺳﺎل دوم‬/‫ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻘﺎت ﻏﻼت‬ ‫ ﺗﺠﺰﻳﻪ وارﻳﺎﻧﺲ ﺻﻔﺎت ﻣﻮرد ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﺗﺤﺖ ﺷﺮاﻳﻂ ﺑﺪون ﺗﻨﺶ و ﺗﻨﺶ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ‬-2 ‫ﺟﺪول‬

Table 2. Analysis of variance for studied traits under non-stress and stress conditions (Mean Squares) ‫ﻣﻴﺎﻧﮕﻴﻦ ﻣﺮﺑﻌﺎت‬ ‫درﺟﻪ‬ a ‫ﻛﻠﺮوﻓﻴﻞ‬ b ‫ﻛﻠﺮوﻓﻴﻞ‬ ‫ﻛﻠﺮوﻓﻴﻞ ﻛﻞ‬ ‫ﻣﻨﺎﺑﻊ ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮ‬ ‫آزادي‬ Chlorophyll a Chlorophyll b Total Chlorophyll S.O.V ‫ﺑﺪون ﺗﻨﺶ‬ ‫ﺗﻨﺶ‬ ‫ﺑﺪون ﺗﻨﺶ‬ ‫ﺗﻨﺶ‬ ‫ﺑﺪون ﺗﻨﺶ‬ ‫ﺗﻨﺶ‬ d.f ‫ﺗﻜﺮار‬ Replication

‫ژﻧﻮﺗﻴﭗ‬ Genotype

‫ﺧﻄﺎ‬ Error

‫ﺿﺮﻳﺐ ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮات‬ C.V %

Non-stress

Stress

Non-stress

Stress

Non-stress

Stress

2

323.8557**

31.3006**

12433.5904**

2678.7730**

9623.8534**

2197.1809**

79

5.6187 ns

5.4099 ns

162.5333 ns

166.0361 ns

151.7976 ns

125.5275 ns

158

4.5602

4.6920

176.6099

164.1995

163.0149

128.6814

-

8.61

9.05

29.98

27.23

18.29

15.82

.‫ درﺻﺪ‬1 ‫ درﺻﺪ و‬5 ‫ ﺑﻪﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ ﻏﻴﺮﻣﻌﻨﻲدار و ﻣﻌﻨﻲدار در ﺳﻄﺢ اﺣﺘﻤﺎل‬:** * ns ns *

**

, and : Non significant, significant at the 5% and 1% probability levels, respectively.

2 ‫اداﻣﻪ ﺟﺪول‬

Table 2. Continued (Mean Squares) ‫ﻣﻴﺎﻧﮕﻴﻦ ﻣﺮﺑﻌﺎت‬

‫ﻣﻨﺎﺑﻊ ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮ‬ S.O.V

‫درﺟﻪ‬ ‫آزادي‬

Replication




‫ﻣﺤﺘﻮاي ﻧﺴﺒﻲ آب ﺑﺮگ‬

‫وزن ﺗﻚ داﻧﻪ‬

SPAD

Relative Water Content

Kernel Weight

‫ﺑﺪون ﺗﻨﺶ‬

‫ﺗﻨﺶ‬


‫ﺗﻨﺶ‬


‫ﺗﻨﺶ‬

Non-stress

Stress

Non-stress

Stress

Non-stress

Stress

2

13.4925*

30.4605**

2.8225 ns

821.402263**

101.3954**

103.8685*

79

18.0734**

17.5140**

19.4223 ns

55.929154**

64.6990**

57.8046**

158

3.7273

5.3028

15.4739

35.19178

11.6802

23.1081

-

3.53

4.30

5.03

8.44

8.59

14.74

d.f

‫ﺗﻜﺮار‬

‫ﻋﺪد ﻛﻠﺮوﻓﻴﻞﻣﺘﺮ‬


**



Table 2. Continued (Mean Squares) ‫ﻣﻴﺎﻧﮕﻴﻦ ﻣﺮﺑﻌﺎت‬

‫ﻣﻨﺎﺑﻊ ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮ‬ S.O.V

‫ﺗﻜﺮار‬ Replication




‫درﺟﻪ‬ ‫آزادي‬

‫ﺳﺮﻋﺖ ﭘﺮ ﺷﺪن داﻧﻪ‬

‫دوره ﭘﺮ ﺷﺪن داﻧﻪ‬

‫ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد داﻧﻪ‬

Kernel Filling Rate

Kernel Filling Duration

Kernel Yield


‫ﺗﻨﺶ‬


‫ﺗﻨﺶ‬


‫ﺗﻨﺶ‬

Non-stress

Stress

Non-stress

Stress

Non-stress

Stress

2

0.0521*

0.0742 ns

2.9542 ns

13.0875 ns

12450131.8*

4363472.5 ns

79

0.1024**

0.1513**

30.5649**

29.1897**

5224359.3**

3148554.2*

158

0.0149

0.0531

6.5238

8.5854

3216520.2

2103065.2

-

10.63

19.67

7.27

10.31

27.00

28.54

d.f


**


‫ ارزﻳﺎﺑﻲ ﺗﻨﻮع ژﻧﺘﻴﻜﻲ ژﻧﻮﺗﻴﭗﻫﺎي ﮔﻨﺪم ﻧﺎن در ﺷﺮاﻳﻂ ﺑﺪون ﺗﻨﺶ و ﺗﻨﺶ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ آﺧﺮ ﻓﺼﻞ‬:‫اﻣﻴﺮي و ﻫﻤﻜﺎران‬

296

‫ ﺗﺠﺰﻳﻪ وارﻳﺎﻧﺲ ﻣﺮﻛﺐ ﺑﺮاي ﺻﻔﺎت ﻣﻮرد ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﺗﺤﺖ ﺷﺮاﻳﻂ ﺑﺪون ﺗﻨﺶ و ﺗﻨﺶ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ‬-3 ‫ﺟﺪول‬ Table 3. Combined analysis of variance for studied traits under non-stress and stress conditions (Mean Squares) ‫ﻣﻴﺎﻧﮕﻴﻦ ﻣﺮﺑﻌﺎت‬ ‫درﺟﻪ‬ ‫ﻣﻨﺎﺑﻊ ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮ‬ S.O.V ‫آزادي‬ a ‫ﻛﻠﺮوﻓﻴﻞ‬ b ‫ﻛﻠﺮوﻓﻴﻞ‬ ‫ﻛﻠﺮوﻓﻴﻞ ﻛﻞ‬ ‫ﻋﺪد ﻛﻠﺮوﻓﻴﻞﻣﺘﺮ‬ d.f Environment (En) Replication / En

Chlorophyll a

Chlorophyll b

Total Chlorophyll

SPAD

‫ﻣﺤﻴﻂ‬

1

92.8092

4

177.5781

7556.1818

5910.5171

21.9765

Genotype (G)

‫ﺗﻜﺮار درون ﻣﺤﻴﻂ‬ ‫ژﻧﻮﺗﻴﭗ‬

79

6.8979**

193.0620ns

156.5053ns

33.8980**

En × G

‫ژﻧﻮﺗﻴﭗ × ﻣﺤﻴﻂ‬

79

4.1306ns

135.5074ns

120.8198ns

1.6894ns

Error

‫اﺷﺘﺒﺎه آزﻣﺎﻳﺸﻲ‬

316

4.6261

170.4046

145.8481

4.5150

C.V. %

(%) ‫ﺿﺮﻳﺐ ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮات‬

-

8.83

28.57

17.07

3.93

ns

893.7311

ns

420.5879

ns

143.3360ns

.‫ درﺻﺪ‬1 ‫ درﺻﺪ و‬5 ‫ ﺑﻪﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ ﻏﻴﺮﻣﻌﻨﻲدار و ﻣﻌﻨﻲدار در ﺳﻄﺢ اﺣﺘﻤﺎل‬: ** * ns ns *

, and **: Non significant, significant at the 5% and 1% probability levels, respectively.


Table 3. Continued ‫درﺟﻪ‬ ‫آزادي‬

‫ﻣﻨﺎﺑﻊ ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮ‬

S.O.V

(Mean Squares) ‫ﻣﻴﺎﻧﮕﻴﻦ ﻣﺮﺑﻌﺎت‬



‫دوره ﭘﺮ ﺷﺪن داﻧﻪ‬

‫ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد داﻧﻪ‬

d.f

Relative Water Content

Kernel Weight

Kernel Filling Duration

Kernel Yield

‫ﻣﺤﻴﻂ‬

1

7538.0223*

6145.5728**

5447.27**

291860113.3**

4

412.1124

102.6320

7.94

8406802.2

Genotype (G)

‫ﺗﻜﺮار درون ﻣﺤﻴﻂ‬ ‫ژﻧﻮﺗﻴﭗ‬

Env× G

‫ژﻧﻮﺗﻴﭗ × ﻣﺤﻴﻂ‬

79

29.3631

Error

‫اﺷﺘﺒﺎه آزﻣﺎﻳﺸﻲ‬

316

25.3328

17.3942

7.52

2659793

C.V. %

(٪) ‫ﺿﺮﻳﺐ ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮات‬

-

6.78

11.53

8.63

27.82

Environment (En) Replication / En

79

45.9884

** ns

102.3787 20.1248

**

ns

54.73 5.25

**

ns

6350298.7** 2022614.8ns

.‫ درﺻﺪ‬1 ‫ درﺻﺪ و‬5 ‫ ﺑﻪﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ ﻏﻴﺮﻣﻌﻨﻲدار و ﻣﻌﻨﻲدار در ﺳﻄﺢ اﺣﺘﻤﺎل‬: ** * ns ns *

**


‫ ﻣﻴﺎﻧﮕﻴﻦ و درﺻﺪ ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮات ﺻﻔﺎت ﻣﻮرد ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ در ژﻧﻮﺗﻴﭗﻫﺎي ﮔﻨﺪم ﻧﺎن در ﺷﺮاﻳﻂ ﺑﺪون ﺗﻨﺶ و ﺗﻨﺶ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ‬-4 ‫ﺟﺪول‬ Table 4. Means and variations percentage of the studied traits in bread wheat genotypes under non-stress and stress conditions ‫ﺑﺪون ﺗﻨﺶ‬ ‫ﺗﻨﺶ‬ (%) ‫ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮات‬ ‫ﺻﻔﺖ‬ Trait Chlorophyll a (µg/ml) Chlorophyll b (µg/ml) Total Chlorophyll (µg/ml) SPAD Relative Water Content (%) Kernel Weight (mg) -1

Kernel Filling Rate (mg.day ) Kernel Filling Duration (Day) Kernel Yield (Kg.ha-1)

a ‫ﻛﻠﺮوﻓﻴﻞ‬ b ‫ﻛﻠﺮوﻓﻴﻞ‬ ‫ﻛﻠﺮوﻓﻴﻞ ﻛﻞ‬ ‫ﻋﺪد ﻛﻠﺮوﻓﻴﻞﻣﺘﺮ‬ ‫ﻣﺤﺘﻮاي ﻧﺴﺒﻲ آب ﺑﺮگ‬ ‫وزن ﺗﻚ داﻧﻪ‬ ‫ﺳﺮﻋﺖ ﭘﺮ ﺷﺪن داﻧﻪ‬ ‫دوره ﭘﺮ ﺷﺪن داﻧﻪ‬ ‫ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد داﻧﻪ‬

Non-stress 24.81

Stress 23.93

Variations (%) 3.54

44.33

47.06

-6.16

69.82

71.69

-2.68

54.62

53.53

2.00

78.22

70.25

10.19

39.77

32.61

18.00

1.15

1.17

-2.20

35.15

28.42 5082

19.14

6641

23.48

297

1391 /‫ ﺷﻤﺎره ﭼﻬﺎرم‬/‫ ﺳﺎل دوم‬/‫ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻘﺎت ﻏﻼت‬

‫ ﻣﻘﺎﻳﺴﻪ ﻣﻴﺎﻧﮕﻴﻦ ﺻﻔﺎت ﻣﻮرد ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ در دو ﺷﺮاﻳﻂ ﺑﺪون ﺗﻨﺶ و ﺗﻨﺶ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ‬-5 ‫ﺟﺪول‬ ‫ژﻧﻮﺗﻴﭗ‬ Genotype 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58

Table 5. Mean comparison of studied traits in two non-stress and stress conditions a ‫ﻛﻠﺮوﻓﻴﻞ‬ ‫ﻣﺤﺘﻮاي ﻧﺴﺒﻲ آب ﺑﺮگ‬ ‫وزن ﺗﻚ داﻧﻪ‬ ‫دوره ﭘﺮ ﺷﺪن داﻧﻪ‬ Chlorophyll a (µg/ml) 23.633 25.013 25.327 21.586 23.050 24.363 24.663 23.255 23.911 25.576 22.995 24.928 25.629 24.297 24.512 24.859 25.576 25.051 24.575 23.535 23.058 25.282 25.240 25.600 25.881 23.332 22.917 25.677 24.295 22.983 24.132 24.033 23.705 21.999 25.027 23.901 23.781 24.021 26.030 23.676 26.616 23.389 24.843 22.704 25.640 23.009 24.558 25.674 22.455 23.984 24.316 24.420 24.783 22.352 23.884 23.961 22.777 24.192

‫ﻋﺪد ﻛﻠﺮوﻓﻴﻞﻣﺘﺮ‬ SPAD 52.017 50.283 54.283 53.967 55.517 53.683 55.700 53.767 52.500 57.250 53.450 50.450 56.467 53.017 56.383 52.000 52.550 56.167 55.067 55.017 54.933 50.733 53.233 57.267 57.867 58.867 53.617 54.867 56.100 54.117 55.117 56.767 56.733 53.133 55.633 55.700 55.017 52.550 51.867 50.067 52.200 53.333 52.367 56.750 54.250 54.300 56.250 51.217 52.600 56.417 52.550 57.183 55.050 52.983 51.450 54.433 55.100 50.867

Relative Water Content (%) 71.780 72.555 75.265 76.258 73.398 72.795 75.378 78.832 73.607 80.542 75.422 70.287 72.405 74.603 77.503 72.348 72.717 73.335 76.420 75.797 74.598 67.963 77.107 73.047 84.065 76.297 76.822 76.003 75.560 75.898 74.337 76.812 74.983 73.358 69.580 78.268 73.765 75.587 76.227 73.755 74.488 74.985 72.628 73.112 76.518 78.410 75.683 79.095 69.713 72.593 71.363 73.352 72.758 74.918 72.465 73.692 76.678 72.182

Kernel Weight (mg) 39.392 34.617 28.317 30.650 29.545 35.920 32.417 30.318 36.020 31.615 33.785 35.500 38.902 32.222 34.963 42.883 38.793 35.112 36.557 32.523 37.942 35.902 33.497 28.042 34.038 32.810 26.325 34.412 30.718 38.940 35.885 36.735 35.820 33.092 38.030 34.423 30.172 35.660 37.220 43.675 37.262 40.478 33.297 42.492 35.275 34.505 33.483 37.748 41.158 34.335 39.015 37.865 40.738 35.793 34.605 33.607 37.128 33.000

Kernel Filling Duration (Day) 29.333 29.333 31.333 26.500 32.833 32.000 32.500 31.500 33.167 34.667 32.667 33.500 35.833 30.000 30.833 23.333 33.167 30.167 28.667 28.500 30.167 30.333 28.333 34.500 29.833 34.333 32.667 32.333 28.833 34.167 31.500 34.167 29.167 33.167 34.500 34.667 33.333 32.000 32.333 25.333 31.333 33.333 31.333 26.667 33.667 35.000 38.667 31.000 30.833 21.833 29.833 28.833 33.667 32.000 31.833 31.500 34.333 28.833

‫ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد داﻧﻪ‬ Kernel Yield (Kg.ha-1) 4410.9 4458.2 5807.6 6364.9 8185.6 6958.7 5369.6 8036.9 5912.5 5820.3 6123.1 6443.6 6464.6 5355.2 5142.1 6344.1 6217.9 6383.5 5691.2 6647.5 5130.8 7299.9 6920.9 6030.9 4995.9 4152.2 4994.0 4878.2 6196.1 6236.4 5904.7 4245.9 7544.7 5994.7 5087.3 5782.9 5886.2 5069.0 5709.8 5439.4 6461.8 4557.0 6101.8 6422.0 4580.1 6414.4 4725.7 6289.4 7035.1 5462.4 6510.2 7238.7 6010.0 7450.7 7636.8 6283.1 4819.5 5988.6


‫‪298‬‬ ‫اداﻣﻪ ﺟﺪول ‪5‬‬ ‫ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد داﻧﻪ‬

‫‪Table 5. Continued‬‬ ‫دوره ﭘﺮ ﺷﺪن داﻧﻪ‬ ‫‪Kernel Filling‬‬ ‫‪Duration‬‬ ‫)‪(Day‬‬ ‫‪31.500‬‬ ‫‪31.833‬‬ ‫‪35.000‬‬ ‫‪31.000‬‬ ‫‪30.333‬‬ ‫‪30.000‬‬ ‫‪33.000‬‬ ‫‪36.667‬‬ ‫‪37.833‬‬ ‫‪36.333‬‬ ‫‪33.500‬‬ ‫‪30.000‬‬ ‫‪30.833‬‬ ‫‪34.333‬‬ ‫‪36.667‬‬ ‫‪32.000‬‬ ‫‪37.333‬‬ ‫‪28.167‬‬ ‫‪34.333‬‬ ‫‪30.833‬‬ ‫‪33.500‬‬ ‫‪28.500‬‬



‫‪Kernel‬‬ ‫)‪Weight (mg‬‬

‫‪Relative Water‬‬ ‫)‪Content (%‬‬

‫‪SPAD‬‬

‫‪34.778‬‬ ‫‪36.885‬‬ ‫‪37.688‬‬ ‫‪35.655‬‬ ‫‪39.040‬‬ ‫‪39.913‬‬ ‫‪46.902‬‬ ‫‪42.462‬‬ ‫‪39.557‬‬ ‫‪40.623‬‬ ‫‪35.327‬‬ ‫‪37.347‬‬ ‫‪37.208‬‬ ‫‪39.347‬‬ ‫‪35.620‬‬ ‫‪40.162‬‬ ‫‪37.355‬‬ ‫‪42.197‬‬ ‫‪43.673‬‬ ‫‪43.718‬‬ ‫‪39.423‬‬ ‫‪24.895‬‬

‫‪75.808‬‬ ‫‪70.880‬‬ ‫‪77.235‬‬ ‫‪72.367‬‬ ‫‪74.392‬‬ ‫‪74.467‬‬ ‫‪69.145‬‬ ‫‪72.732‬‬ ‫‪71.027‬‬ ‫‪67.938‬‬ ‫‪73.737‬‬ ‫‪70.258‬‬ ‫‪71.168‬‬ ‫‪72.012‬‬ ‫‪72.393‬‬ ‫‪72.313‬‬ ‫‪74.142‬‬ ‫‪75.482‬‬ ‫‪77.008‬‬ ‫‪76.853‬‬ ‫‪76.350‬‬ ‫‪73.295‬‬

‫‪52.833‬‬ ‫‪47.317‬‬ ‫‪53.850‬‬ ‫‪51.917‬‬ ‫‪53.217‬‬ ‫‪51.750‬‬ ‫‪55.717‬‬ ‫‪53.150‬‬ ‫‪52.667‬‬ ‫‪55.717‬‬ ‫‪52.050‬‬ ‫‪51.000‬‬ ‫‪56.583‬‬ ‫‪59.033‬‬ ‫‪52.167‬‬ ‫‪51.667‬‬ ‫‪54.583‬‬ ‫‪56.317‬‬ ‫‪57.450‬‬ ‫‪58.200‬‬ ‫‪57.300‬‬ ‫‪48.650‬‬

‫‪24.795‬‬ ‫‪24.400‬‬ ‫‪26.347‬‬ ‫‪25.306‬‬ ‫‪25.910‬‬ ‫‪24.262‬‬ ‫‪26.032‬‬ ‫‪24.122‬‬ ‫‪24.317‬‬ ‫‪25.410‬‬ ‫‪25.595‬‬ ‫‪23.146‬‬ ‫‪24.832‬‬ ‫‪24.337‬‬ ‫‪23.610‬‬ ‫‪23.772‬‬ ‫‪26.092‬‬ ‫‪24.498‬‬ ‫‪25.509‬‬ ‫‪24.178‬‬ ‫‪24.660‬‬ ‫‪23.937‬‬

‫‪8185.6‬‬

‫‪38.667‬‬

‫‪46.902‬‬

‫‪84.065‬‬

‫‪59.033‬‬

‫‪26.616‬‬

‫‪2310.9‬‬

‫‪21.833‬‬

‫‪24.895‬‬

‫‪67.938‬‬

‫‪47.317‬‬

‫‪21.586‬‬

‫‪5861.5‬‬

‫‪31.794‬‬

‫‪36.187‬‬

‫‪74.261‬‬

‫‪54.077‬‬

‫‪24.369‬‬

‫‪1852.6‬‬ ‫‪2440.1‬‬

‫‪3.1154‬‬ ‫‪4.1035‬‬

‫‪4.7376‬‬ ‫‪6.2401‬‬

‫‪5.72‬‬ ‫‪7.53‬‬

‫‪2.4137‬‬ ‫‪3.1792‬‬

‫‪2.4432‬‬ ‫‪3.2181‬‬

‫‪Kernel Yield‬‬ ‫)‪(Kg.ha-1‬‬ ‫‪5883.0‬‬ ‫‪4588.7‬‬ ‫‪6655.4‬‬ ‫‪4829.7‬‬ ‫‪4014.4‬‬ ‫‪5228.5‬‬ ‫‪6960.8‬‬ ‫‪5912.1‬‬ ‫‪4523.9‬‬ ‫‪4963.0‬‬ ‫‪6852.2‬‬ ‫‪5970.6‬‬ ‫‪6159.7‬‬ ‫‪8119.3‬‬ ‫‪5422.4‬‬ ‫‪4692.7‬‬ ‫‪6048.5‬‬ ‫‪6148.8‬‬ ‫‪5882.2‬‬ ‫‪5610.4‬‬ ‫‪6516.6‬‬ ‫‪2310.9‬‬

‫ﺻﻔﺎﺋﻲ ﭼﺎﺋﻲﻛﺎر و ﻫﻤﻜﺎران ) ‪Safaei Chaeikar et‬‬

‫‪ (al., 2008‬ﻧﻴﺰ اﺑﺮاز داﺷﺘﻨﺪ ﻛﻪ ﺗﻨﺶ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ در ﺑﺮﻧﺞ‬ ‫ﺑﺎﻋﺚ ﻛﺎﻫﺶ ‪ 17/91‬درﺻﺪي ﻣﺤﺘﻮاي ﻧﺴﺒﻲ آب ﺑﺮگ ﺷﺪه‬ ‫اﺳﺖ‪ .‬در اﻳﻦ آزﻣﺎﻳﺶ ﻫﻤﺒﺴﺘﮕﻲ ﻣﻌﻨﻲداري در ﺷﺮاﻳﻂ‬ ‫ﺗﻨﺶ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ و ﺑﺪونﺗﻨﺶ ﺑﻴﻦ ﻣﺤﺘﻮاي ﻧﺴﺒﻲ آب و‬ ‫ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد داﻧﻪ در ﻫﺮ دو ﺷﺮاﻳﻂ ﻣﺸﺎﻫﺪه ﻧﺸﺪ )ﺟﺪول ‪.(6‬‬ ‫وزن‪ ،‬ﺳﺮﻋﺖ و ﻃﻮل دورهي ﭘﺮﺷﺪن داﻧﻪ‪ :‬ﺗﺠﺰﻳﻪ‬ ‫وارﻳﺎﻧﺲ ﺳﺎده ﺳﺮﻋﺖ ﭘﺮ ﺷﺪن داﻧﻪ ﻧﺸﺎن داد ﻛﻪ ژﻧﻮﺗﻴﭗ‪-‬‬ ‫ﻫﺎي ﻣﻮرد آزﻣﺎﻳﺶ از ﻟﺤﺎظ اﻳﻦ ﺻﻔﺖ اﺧﺘﻼف ﺑﺴﻴﺎر‬ ‫ﻣﻌﻨﻲداري در ﻫﺮ دو ﺷﺮاﻳﻂ داﺷﺘﻨﺪ )ﺟﺪول ‪ .(2‬ﺑﺮ اﺳﺎس‬ ‫ﻧﺘﺎﻳﺞ ﻣﻘﺎﻳﺴﻪ ﻣﻴﺎﻧﮕﻴﻦﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ژﻧﻮﺗﻴﭗﻫﺎي ﺷﻤﺎره ‪WS-) 16‬‬ ‫‪ (82-9‬و ‪) 40‬اﻟﺒﺮز( ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮﻳﻦ‪ ،‬و ژﻧﻮﺗﻴﭗﻫﺎي ﺷﻤﺎره ‪3‬‬ ‫)ﻛﺮج‪ (3-‬و ‪) 80‬ﻧﻮرﺳﺘﺎر( ﻛﻤﺘﺮﻳﻦ ﺳﺮﻋﺖ ﭘﺮ ﺷﺪن داﻧﻪ را‬ ‫ﺑﻪ ﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ در ﺷﺮاﻳﻂ ﺑﺪون ﺗﻨﺶ و ﺗﻨﺶ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ داﺷﺘﻨﺪ‬ ‫)ﺟﺪول ‪ .(7‬ﺗﺠﺰﻳﻪ وارﻳﺎﻧﺲ ﻣﺮﻛﺐ ﻧﺸﺎن داد ﻛﻪ ژﻧﻮﺗﻴﭗ‪-‬‬

‫ﻋﺪد ﻛﻠﺮوﻓﻴﻞﻣﺘﺮ‬

‫ﻛﻠﺮوﻓﻴﻞ ‪a‬‬ ‫‪Chlorophyll a‬‬ ‫)‪(µg/ml‬‬

‫ژﻧﻮﺗﻴﭗ‬ ‫‪Genotype‬‬ ‫‪59‬‬ ‫‪60‬‬ ‫‪61‬‬ ‫‪62‬‬ ‫‪63‬‬ ‫‪64‬‬ ‫‪65‬‬ ‫‪66‬‬ ‫‪67‬‬ ‫‪68‬‬ ‫‪69‬‬ ‫‪70‬‬ ‫‪71‬‬ ‫‪72‬‬ ‫‪73‬‬ ‫‪74‬‬ ‫‪75‬‬ ‫‪76‬‬ ‫‪77‬‬ ‫‪78‬‬ ‫‪79‬‬ ‫‪80‬‬ ‫ﺣﺪاﻛﺜﺮ‬ ‫‪Maximum‬‬ ‫ﺣﺪاﻗﻞ‬ ‫‪Minimum‬‬ ‫ﻣﻴﺎﻧﮕﻴﻦ‬ ‫‪Mean‬‬ ‫‪LSD 5%‬‬ ‫‪LSD 1%‬‬

‫ﻫﺎي ﻣﻮرد آزﻣﺎﻳﺶ از ﻟﺤﺎظ وزن و ﻃﻮل دوره ﭘﺮﺷﺪن داﻧﻪ‬ ‫اﺧﺘﻼف ﺑﺴﻴﺎر ﻣﻌﻨﻲداري داﺷﺘﻪ و ﻧﻴﺰ اﺛﺮ ﻣﺤﻴﻂ ﺑﺮ آﻧﻬﺎ در‬ ‫ﺳﻄﺢ اﺣﺘﻤﺎل ﻳﻚ درﺻﺪ ﻣﻌﻨﻲدار ﺑﻮد )ﺟﺪول ‪ (3‬و ﻧﺸﺎن‬ ‫دﻫﻨﺪه اﻳﻨﻜﻪ ﺗﻨﺶ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﺑﺴﻴﺎر ﻣﻌﻨﻲداري روي اﻳﻦ‬ ‫ﺻﻔﺎت داﺷﺘﻪ اﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﻧﺤﻮي ﻛﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮر ﻣﻴﺎﻧﮕﻴﻦ ‪18‬‬ ‫درﺻﺪ از وزن ﺗﻚ داﻧﻪ و ‪ 19/14‬درﺻﺪ از ﻃﻮل دوره ﭘﺮ‬ ‫ﺷﺪن داﻧﻪ را ﻛﺎﻫﺶ داده اﺳﺖ )ﺟﺪول ‪ .(4‬درﺻﺪ ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮات‬ ‫ﭘﺎﻳﻴﻦ ﺳﺮﻋﺖ ﭘﺮ ﺷﺪن داﻧﻪ‪ ،‬ﻧﺸﺎن دﻫﻨﺪه ﺣﺴﺎﺳﻴﺖ ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮ‬ ‫ﻣﺪت ﭘﺮ ﺷﺪن داﻧﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮات ﺷﺮاﻳﻂ ﻣﺤﻴﻄﻲ اﺳﺖ و‬ ‫اﻳﻨﻜﻪ ﺳﺮﻋﺖ ﭘﺮ ﺷﺪن داﻧﻪ ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮ از ﻣﺪت ﭘﺮ ﺷﺪن داﻧﻪ‬ ‫ﺗﺤﺖ ﻛﻨﺘﺮل ژﻧﺘﻴﻚ ﮔﻴﺎه اﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﮔﻮدﻳﻨﮓ و ﻫﻤﻜﺎران‬ ‫)‪ (Gooding et al., 2003‬ﻧﻴﺰ ﮔﺰارش دادﻧﺪ ﻛﻪ اﻋﻤﺎل‬ ‫ﺗﻨﺶ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ در ﮔﻨﺪم ﺑﺎﻋﺚ ﻛﻮﺗﺎه ﻛﺮدن ﻃﻮل دوره ﭘﺮ‬ ‫ﺷﺪن داﻧﻪ ﻣﻲﺷﻮد‪.‬‬


‫‪299‬‬

‫‪300‬‬


‫در اﻗﻠﻴﻢﻫﺎﻳﻲ ﻛﻪ ﮔﻨﺪم ﺑﺎ ﺗﻨﺶﻫﺎي آﺧﺮ ﻓﺼﻞ از ﺟﻤﻠﻪ‬ ‫ﺧﺸﻜﻲ و ﮔﺮﻣﺎ ﻣﻮاﺟﻪ اﺳﺖ‪ ،‬اﺳﺘﻔﺎده از ارﻗﺎﻣﻲ ﻛﻪ ﻫﻤﺰﻣﺎن‬ ‫ﺑﺎ اﻓﺰاﻳﺶ وزن داﻧﻪ‪ ،‬ﺳﺮﻋﺖ ﭘﺮﺷﺪن داﻧﻪ ﻧﻴﺰ در آنﻫﺎ زﻳﺎد‬ ‫اﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﻣﻲﺗﻮاﻧﺪ ﻳﻜﻲ از راﻫﻜﺎرﻫﺎي ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﮔﻴﺎه ﮔﻨﺪم ﺑﺮاي‬ ‫ﻓﺮار از ﺗﻨﺶﻫﺎي آﺧﺮ ﻓﺼﻞ اﺳﺖ‪ .‬ژﻧﻮﺗﻴﭗﻫﺎي ﺷﻤﺎره ‪47‬‬ ‫)ﻣﺮوارﻳﺪ( و ‪) 50‬ﭼﻨﺎب( ﺑﻪ ﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮﻳﻦ و ﻛﻤﺘﺮﻳﻦ‬ ‫ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ )ﺑﺪون ﺗﻨﺶ و ﺗﻨﺶ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ( ﻃﻮل دورهي ﭘﺮﺷﺪن‬ ‫داﻧﻪ را داﺷﺘﻨﺪ )ﺟﺪول ‪ .(4‬رﻗﻢ ﭼﻨﺎب ﺑﺎ وﺟﻮد ﻣﺤﺘﻮاي‬ ‫ﺑﺎﻻي ﻛﻠﺮوﻓﻴﻞ ﺑﺮگ ﭘﺮﭼﻢ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﻋﻠﺖ ﺗﺒﺨﻴﺮ و ﺗﻌﺮق زﻳﺎد‪،‬‬ ‫ﻣﺤﺘﻮاي ﻧﺴﺒﻲ آب ﺑﺮگ آن ﻛﺎﻫﺶ ﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪ و در ﻧﺘﻴﺠﻪ اﻧﺠﺎم‬ ‫ﻓﺘﻮﺳﻨﺘﺰ ﺑﺎ ﻣﺤﺪودﻳﺖ روﺑﺮو ﺷﺪه و ﻃﻮل دورهي ﭘﺮﺷﺪن‬ ‫داﻧﻪي آن ﻛﺎﻫﺶ ﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪ اﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺑﺮ اﺳﺎس ﮔﺰارش ﺗﺎﻟﺒﺮت و‬ ‫ﻫﻤﻜﺎران )‪ (Talbert et al., 2008‬ارﻗﺎﻣﻲ از ﮔﻨﺪم ﻛﻪ‬ ‫ﺗﺤﺖ ﺷﺮاﻳﻂ ﮔﺮم و ﺧﺸﻚ و ﻣﻮاﺟﻬﻪ ﺑﺎ ﺗﻨﺶ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ در‬ ‫دورهي رﺳﻴﺪﮔﻲ ﻓﻴﺰﻳﻮﻟﻮژﻳﻚ‪ ،‬ﺳﺮﻋﺖ ﭘﺮﺷﺪن داﻧﻪ ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮ و‬ ‫ﻃﻮل دورهي ﭘﺮﺷﺪن داﻧﻪ ﻛﻤﺘﺮي دارﻧﺪ‪ ،‬از ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد داﻧﻪي‬ ‫ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮي ﺑﺮﺧﻮردارﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﺿﺮاﻳﺐ ﻫﻤﺒﺴﺘﮕﻲ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺳﺮﻋﺖ‪ ،‬ﻃﻮل‬ ‫دورهي ﭘﺮﺷﺪن داﻧﻪ و وزن ﺗﻚ داﻧﻪ ﻛﻪ ﺳﻪ ﻓﺎﻛﺘﻮر اﺻﻠﻲ از‬ ‫ﻓﺮاﻳﻨﺪ ﭘﺮﺷﺪن داﻧﻪ ﻣﻲﺑﺎﺷﻨﺪ‪ ،‬در ﺟﺪول ‪ 6‬اراﻳﻪ ﺷﺪه اﺳﺖ‪.‬‬ ‫در ﻫﺮ دو ﺷﺮاﻳﻂ ﺗﻨﺶ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ و ﺑﺪون ﺗﻨﺶ‪ ،‬ﻫﻤﺒﺴﺘﮕﻲ‬ ‫ﺑﻴﻦ ﺳﺮﻋﺖ ﭘﺮﺷﺪن داﻧﻪ ﺑﺎ ﻃﻮل دورهي ﭘﺮﺷﺪن ﻣﻨﻔﻲ و‬ ‫ﺑﺴﻴﺎر ﻣﻌﻨﻲدار وﻟﻲ ﺑﺎ وزن ﺗﻚ داﻧﻪ ﻣﺜﺒﺖ‪ ،‬ﺷﺪﻳﺪ و ﺑﺴﻴﺎر‬ ‫ﻣﻌﻨﻲدار ﺑﻮد‪ ،‬در ﺻﻮرﺗﻲ ﻛﻪ ﻫﻤﺒﺴﺘﮕﻲ ﺑﻴﻦ ﻃﻮل دورهي‬ ‫ﭘﺮﺷﺪن داﻧﻪ ﺑﺎ وزن ﺗﻚ داﻧﻪ ﻣﻌﻨﻲدار ﻧﺒﻮد‪.‬‬ ‫ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد داﻧﻪ‪ :‬ﻧﺘﺎﻳﺞ ﺗﺠﺰﻳﻪ وارﻳﺎﻧﺲ ﻣﺮﻛﺐ ﻧﺸﺎن داد‬ ‫ﻛﻪ ژﻧﻮﺗﻴﭗﻫﺎي ﻣﻮرد آزﻣﺎﻳﺶ از ﻟﺤﺎظ ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد داﻧﻪ اﺧﺘﻼف‬ ‫ﺑﺴﻴﺎر ﻣﻌﻨﻲداري داﺷﺘﻨﺪ )ﺟﺪول ‪ .(3‬ﻫﻤﭽﻨﻴﻦ اﺛﺮ ﻣﺤﻴﻂ‬ ‫ﺑﺮ آن در ﺳﻄﺢ اﺣﺘﻤﺎل ﻳﻚ درﺻﺪ ﻣﻌﻨﻲدار ﺑﻮد و ﻧﺸﺎن‬ ‫دﻫﻨﺪه اﻳﻨﻜﻪ ﺗﻨﺶ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﺑﺴﻴﺎر ﻣﻌﻨﻲداري روي آن‬ ‫داﺷﺘﻪ اﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﻧﺤﻮي ﻛﻪ اﻋﻤﺎل ﺗﻨﺶ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮر‬ ‫ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﺑﺎﻋﺚ ﻛﺎﻫﺶ ‪ 23/48‬درﺻﺪي ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد داﻧﻪ‬ ‫ژﻧﻮﺗﻴﭗﻫﺎ ﺷﺪ ﻛﻪ در داﻣﻨﻪ ﺷﺪت ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ )‪ 20‬ﺗﺎ ‪ 40‬درﺻﺪ‬ ‫ﻛﺎﻫﺶ( ﻗﺮار ﻣﻲﮔﻴﺮد )‪.(Blum, 2011‬‬ ‫ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻌﻨﻲ دار ﺷﺪن اﺛﺮ ﻣﺤﻴﻂ و ﻛﺎﻫﺶ ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد‬ ‫ﻛﻠﻴﻪ ارﻗﺎم در ﺣﺎﻟﺖ ﺗﻨﺶ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺤﻴﻂ ﺑﺪون‬ ‫ﺗﻨﺶ‪ ،‬ﻣﻲﺗﻮان ﻧﺘﻴﺠﻪ ﮔﺮﻓﺖ ﻛﻪ از ﻧﻈﺮ ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد داﻧﻪ ﺑﻴﻦ ‪2‬‬ ‫ﻣﺤﻴﻂ اﺧﺘﻼف ﻣﻌﻨﻲداري وﺟﻮد دارد‪ .‬اﻳﻦ ﻧﺘﺎﻳﺞ ﺑﺎ‬

‫ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﺎت ﺳﺎﻳﺮ ﻣﺤﻘﻘﻴﻦ ﻣﺒﻨﻲ ﺑﺮ ﻛﺎﻫﺶ ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد داﻧﻪ در اﺛﺮ‬ ‫ﺗﻨﺶ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ ﻣﻄﺎﺑﻘﺖ داﺷﺖ ) ;‪Guttieri et al., 2001‬‬ ‫‪ .(Nourmand et al., 2001‬در آزﻣﺎﻳﺶ راﻣﺸﻴﻨﻲ و‬ ‫ﻫﻤﻜﺎران )‪ (Ramshini et al., 2012‬ﻧﺸﺎن داده ﺷﺪ ﻛﻪ‬ ‫در اﺛﺮ ﺗﻨﺶ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ در ﻣﺮﺣﻠﻪي ﮔﺮدهاﻓﺸﺎﻧﻲ‪ ،‬ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد‬ ‫ژﻧﻮﺗﻴﭗﻫﺎ ‪ 26‬درﺻﺪ ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﺑﻪ ﺷﺮاﻳﻂ ﻧﺮﻣﺎل ﻛﺎﻫﺶ ﻳﺎﻓﺖ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻧﺘﺎﻳﺞ ﻣﻘﺎﻳﺴﻪ ﻣﻴﺎﻧﮕﻴﻦ دو ﻣﺤﻴﻂ ﻧﺸﺎن داد ﻛﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ‬ ‫ﻛﻤﺘﺮﻳﻦ و ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮﻳﻦ ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد داﻧﻪ ﻣﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﻪ ژﻧﻮﺗﻴﭗﻫﺎي‬ ‫ﺷﻤﺎره ‪) 80‬ﻧﻮرﺳﺘﺎر( و ‪) 5‬ﻗﺪس( ﺑﺎ ﻣﻴﺎﻧﮕﻴﻦ ‪2310‬‬ ‫و‪ 8185‬ﻛﻴﻠﻮﮔﺮم در ﻫﻜﺘﺎر ﺑﻮد )ﺟﺪول ‪ .(5‬در اﻳﻦ آزﻣﺎﻳﺶ‬ ‫ژﻧﻮﺗﻴﭗﻫﺎي ﭼﻨﺎب‪ ،‬ﺗﺠﻦ‪ ،‬ﺳﭙﺎﻫﺎن‪ ،‬ﻗﺪس‪ ،DN-11 ،‬رﺳﻮل‪،‬‬ ‫‪ N-85-5‬و درﻳﺎ ﺑﻪﻋﻨﻮان ژﻧﻮﺗﻴﭗﻫﺎﻳﻲ ﺑﺎ ﻛﻤﺘﺮﻳﻦ درﺻﺪ‬ ‫ﻛﺎﻫﺶ ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد و ژﻧﻮﺗﻴﭗﻫﺎي ﻧﻮرﺳﺘﺎر‪ ،‬ﺳﺒﻼن‪ ،‬ﺷﺎهﭘﺴﻨﺪ‪،‬‬ ‫ﭘﻴﺸﮕﺎم‪ ،‬ﻛﻮﻳﺮ‪ ،‬ﺑﻢ‪ ،‬ﺷﻬﺮﻳﺎر‪ ،‬داراب‪ ،2-‬ﻋﺪل‪ ،‬ﺳﻴﺴﺘﺎن و‬ ‫ﻣﻐﺎن‪ 2-‬ﺑﻪﻋﻨﻮان ژﻧﻮﺗﻴﭗﻫﺎﻳﻲ ﺑﺎ ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮﻳﻦ درﺻﺪ ﻛﺎﻫﺶ‬ ‫ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻪ ﺷﺪﻧﺪ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻧﺘﺎﻳﺞ ﻫﻤﺒﺴﺘﮕﻲ ﺳﺎده ﺻﻔﺎت )ﺟﺪول ‪ (6‬ﺣﺎﻛﻲ از‬ ‫ﻋﺪم وﺟﻮد ﻫﻤﺒﺴﺘﮕﻲ ﻣﻌﻨﻲدار ﺑﻴﻦ ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد داﻧﻪ ﺑﺎ ﺳﺎﻳﺮ‬ ‫ﺻﻔﺎت ﻣﻮرد ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ در ﻫﺮ دو ﺷﺮاﻳﻂ ﺗﻨﺶ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ و ﺑﺪون‬ ‫ﺗﻨﺶ ﺑﻮد‪ .‬ﺑﻪﻃﻮر ﻛﻠﻲ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﻲرﺳﺪ از آﻧﺠﺎ ﻛﻪ ﻃﻮل دوره‬ ‫ﭘﺮﺷﺪن داﻧﻪ در ارﻗﺎم زﻣﺴﺘﺎﻧﻪ ﻃﻮﻻﻧﻲﺗﺮ اﺳﺖ اﻳﻦ ارﻗﺎم در‬ ‫ﻣﻮاﺟﻬﻪ ﺑﺎ ﺷﺮاﻳﻂ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ آﺧﺮ ﻓﺼﻞ ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮ ﻣﺘﺄﺛﺮ ﺷﺪه و از‬ ‫ﻛﺎﺳﺘﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﻣﻼﺣﻈﻪاي در ﻗﻴﺎس ﺑﺎ ارﻗﺎم ﺑﻬﺎره‬ ‫ﺑﺮﺧﻮردار ﺑﺎﺷﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻋﺪم وﺟﻮد ﻫﻤﺒﺴﺘﮕﻲ ﻣﻌﻨﻲدار‬ ‫ﺑﻴﻦ ﺻﻔﺎت ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﻓﻴﺰﻳﻮﻟﻮژﻳﻚ و ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد داﻧﻪ در دو‬ ‫ﺷﺮاﻳﻂ ﺑﺪون ﺗﻨﺶ و ﺗﻨﺶ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮر ﺟﺪاﮔﺎﻧﻪ‪ ،‬درﺻﺪ‬ ‫ﻛﺎﻫﺶ ﻳﺎ اﻓﺰاﻳﺶ ﻛﻠﻴﻪ ﺻﻔﺎت در اﺛﺮ ﺗﻨﺶ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ در ﻛﻠﻴﻪ‬ ‫ژﻧﻮﺗﻴﭗﻫﺎ ﻣﺤﺎﺳﺒﻪ و ﻣﺠﺪداً ﻫﻤﺒﺴﺘﮕﻲ ﺳﺎده ﻓﻨﻮﺗﻴﭙﻲ‬ ‫ﻣﺤﺎﺳﺒﻪ ﺷﺪ )دادهﻫﺎ ﮔﺰارش ﻧﺸﺪهاﻧﺪ(‪ .‬ﻧﺘﺎﻳﺞ اﻳﻦ ﺑﺮرﺳﻲ‬ ‫ﺣﺎﻛﻲ از وﺟﻮد ﻫﻤﺒﺴﺘﮕﻲ ﻣﺜﺒﺖ و ﺑﺴﻴﺎر ﻣﻌﻨﻲدار ﺑﻴﻦ‬ ‫درﺻﺪ ﻛﺎﻫﺶ ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد داﻧﻪ ﺑﺎ درﺻﺪ ﻛﺎﻫﺶ وزن ﺗﻚ داﻧﻪ‬ ‫ﺑﻮد‪ .‬ﻫﻤﭽﻨﻴﻦ ﻧﺸﺎن داده ﺷﺪ ﻛﻪ ﺑﻴﻦ درﺻﺪ ﻛﺎﻫﺶ دوره ﭘﺮ‬ ‫ﺷﺪن داﻧﻪ و درﺻﺪ ﻛﺎﻫﺶ وزن ﺗﻚ داﻧﻪ راﺑﻄﻪ ﻣﺜﺒﺖ و‬ ‫ﺑﺴﻴﺎر ﻣﻌﻨﻲداري وﺟﻮد دارد‪ .‬ﻫﻤﺒﺴﺘﮕﻲ ﻣﺜﺒﺖ و ﻣﻌﻨﻲدار‬ ‫ﺑﻴﻦ درﺻﺪ ﻛﺎﻫﺶ وزن ﺗﻚ داﻧﻪ و ﻛﺎﻫﺶ ﺳﺮﻋﺖ ﭘﺮ ﺷﺪن‬ ‫داﻧﻪ ﺑﺎ ﻣﺤﺘﻮاي ﻧﺴﺒﻲ آب ﺑﺮگ ﻧﻴﺰ ﻣﺸﺎﻫﺪه ﺷﺪ‪.‬‬


301

‫ ﻣﻘﺎﻳﺴﻪ ﻣﻴﺎﻧﮕﻴﻦ ﺳﺮﻋﺖ ﭘﺮ ﺷﺪن داﻧﻪ ﺗﺤﺖ ﺷﺮاﻳﻂ ﺑﺪون ﺗﻨﺶ و ﺗﻨﺶ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ‬-7 ‫ﺟﺪول‬ Table 7. Mean comparison of Kernel Filling Rate under stress and non-stress conditions ‫ﺳﺮﻋﺖ ﭘﺮ ﺷﺪن داﻧﻪ‬ ‫ﺳﺮﻋﺖ ﭘﺮ ﺷﺪن داﻧﻪ‬ -1 ‫ژﻧﻮﺗﻴﭗ‬ ‫ژﻧﻮﺗﻴﭗ‬ Kernel Filling Rate (mg.day ) Kernel Filling Rate (mg.day-1) ‫ﺑﺪون ﺗﻨﺶ‬ ‫ﺗﻨﺶ‬ ‫ﺑﺪون ﺗﻨﺶ‬ ‫ﺗﻨﺶ‬ Genotype Genotype Non-stress

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Max. ‫ﺣﺪاﻛﺜﺮ‬ Min. ‫ﺣﺪاﻗﻞ‬ Mean ‫ﻣﻴﺎﻧﮕﻴﻦ‬ LSD 5% LSD 1%

1.36 1.21 0.84 1.14 0.90 1.21 1.02 1.05 1.11 0.88 1.04 1.08 1.11 1.00 1.16 1.89 1.26 1.19 1.18 1.18 1.25 1.21 1.24 0.80 1.13 0.91 0.75 1.14 1.10 1.12 1.16 1.06 1.20 0.98 1.11 0.97 0.87 1.01 1.12 1.55

Stress

1.33 1.15 1.00 1.19 0.91 1.01 0.98 0.87 1.06 0.98 1.03 1.05 1.06 1.18 1.12 1.83 1.07 1.15 1.43 1.10 1.26 1.19 1.12 0.83 1.15 1.02 0.90 0.99 1.03 1.18 1.12 1.10 1.28 1.02 1.09 1.03 0.97 1.27 1.20 1.99 Non-stress ‫ﺑﺪون ﺗﻨﺶ‬ 1.89 0.84 1.15 0.20 0.26

Non-stress

41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80

1.18 1.19 1.07 1.53 1.04 0.93 0.88 1.18 1.40 1.52 1.26 1.31 1.29 1.12 1.06 1.03 1.05 1.18 1.03 1.07 1.05 1.20 1.27 1.37 1.30 1.21 1.00 1.15 1.11 1.28 1.38 1.15 0.97 1.23 1.00 1.44 1.25 1.39 1.23 0.91 Stress ‫ﺗﻨﺶ‬ 1.99 0.84 1.17 0.37 0.49

Stress

1.19 1.26 1.06 1.82 1.07 1.06 0.85 1.26 1.29 1.90 1.45 1.36 1.14 1.12 1.12 1.11 1.12 1.10 1.19 1.27 1.10 1.14 1.33 1.30 1.58 1.10 1.11 1.09 1.00 1.21 1.00 1.14 0.98 1.29 1.00 1.59 1.30 1.46 1.15 0.84


‫ﺗﻨﻮع ژﻧﺘﻴﻜﻲ ﺑﺴﻴﺎر ﺑﺎﻻﻳﻲ در ﺧﺰاﻧﻪ ژﻧﻲ ﮔﻨﺪمﻫﺎي ﻣﻮﺟﻮد‬ ‫در اﻳﺮان وﺟﻮد دارد ﻛﻪ ﻣﻲﺗﻮاﻧﺪ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮان ذﺧﻴﺮه ژﻧﺘﻴﻜﻲ‬ .‫ﻏﻨﻲ ﻣﻮرد اﺳﺘﻔﺎده ﺑﻪﻧﮋادﮔﺮان ﻗﺮار ﮔﻴﺮد‬ ‫ﺳﭙﺎﺳﮕﺰاري‬ ‫ﻣﻨﺎﺑﻊ ﻣﺎﻟﻲ اﻳﻦ ﭘﮋوﻫﺶ ﺗﻮﺳﻂ داﻧﺸﮕﺎه رازي ﻛﺮﻣﺎﻧﺸﺎه‬ .‫ﺗﺄﻣﻴﻦ ﺷﺪه ﻛﻪ ﺑﺪﻳﻦوﺳﻴﻠﻪ اﻋﻼم ﻗﺪرداﻧﻲ ﻣﻲﺷﻮد‬

302

‫ﻧﺘﺎﻳﺞ اﻳﻦ ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﻧﺸﺎن داد ﻛﻪ ﺗﻨﺶ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ آﺧﺮ‬ ‫ﻓﺼﻞ اﺛﺮ ﺑﺎرزي ﺑﺮ اﻏﻠﺐ ﺻﻔﺎت ﻣﻮرد ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ و ﺑﻪﺧﺼﻮص‬ ‫ در ﻣﻨﺎﻃﻖ ﺑﺎ اﻗﻠﻴﻢ ﻣﺸﺎﺑﻪ ﻛﻪ‬،‫ ﺑﻨﺎﺑﺮاﻳﻦ‬.‫ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد داﻧﻪ دارد‬ ‫ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ از ارﻗﺎﻣﻲ اﺳﺘﻔﺎده‬،‫ﺧﻄﺮ ﺧﺸﻜﻲ آﺧﺮ ﻓﺼﻞ وﺟﻮد دارد‬ ‫ﺷﻮد ﻛﻪ ﺳﺎزﮔﺎر ﺑﺎ ﺷﺮاﻳﻂ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻪ و ﻣﺘﺤﻤﻞ ﺑﻪ ﺗﻨﺶ‬ ‫ از اﻳﻨﺮو ارﻗﺎم زودرس ﻛﻪ در ﻋﻴﻦ ﺣﺎل از‬.‫ﺧﺸﻜﻲ ﺑﺎﺷﻨﺪ‬ ‫ در اﻳﻦ‬،‫ﭘﺘﺎﻧﺴﻴﻞ ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد داﻧﻪي ﺑﺎﻻﻳﻲ ﻧﻴﺰ ﺑﺮﺧﻮردار ﺑﺎﺷﻨﺪ‬ ‫ ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮر ﻛﻠﻲ ﻣﻲﺗﻮان ﻧﺘﻴﺠﻪ ﮔﺮﻓﺖ ﻛﻪ‬.‫ﺷﺮاﻳﻂ ﻣﻮﻓﻖﺗﺮﻧﺪ‬

References Ahmadi, A. and Baker, D. A. 1998. Stomatal and non stomatal photosynthesis limitation factors on wheat under drought condition. Iranian Journal of Agriculture Science 31: 813-825. (In Persian). Andrew, K. B., Hammer, G. L. and Henzell, R. G. 2000. Does maintaining green leaf area in sorghum improve yield under drought? II. Dry matter production and yield. Crop Science 40: 1037-1048. Ashraf, M. Y., Azmi, A. R. Khan, A. H. and Ala, S. A. 1994. Effect of water on total phenols, peroxidase activity and chlorophyll content in wheat. Acta Phsiologiae Plantarum 16: 185-191. Behra, R. K., Mishra, P. C. and Choudhury, N. K. 2002. High irradiance and water stress induce alterations in pigment composition and chloroplast activities of primary wheat leaves. Journal of Plant Physiology 159: 967-973. Blum, A., Gozlan, G. and Mayer, J. 1981. The manifestation of dehydration avoidance in wheat breeding germplasm. Crop Science 21: 495-499. Blum, A. 2011. Plant breeding for water-limited environments. Springer Verlag. Brdar. M. D., Kraljevic-Balalic, M. M. and Borislav, D. 2008. The parameters of grain filling and yield components in common wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and durum wheat (Triticum turgidum L .var. Durum). Central European Journal of Biology 3 (1): 75-82. Cha, K. W., Lee, Y. J., Koh, H. J., Lee, B. M., Nam, Y. W. and Peak, N. C. 2002. Isolation, characterization, and mapping of the stay green mutant in rice. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 104: 526- 532. Egert, M. and Tevini, M. 2002. Influence of drought on some physiological parameters symptomatic for oxidative stress in leaves of chives (Allium choenoprasum). Environmental and Experimental Botany 48: 43-49. Emam, Y. and Niknejhad, M. 2004. An introduction to the physiology of crop yield. Shiraz University Press. Shiraz, Iran. pp: 571. (In Persian). Farshadfar, E., Ghasempour, H. and Vaezi, H. 2008. Molecular aspects of drought tolerance in bread wheat (Ttiticum aestivum). Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences 11 (1): 118-121. Fischer, R. A. and Maurer, R. 1978. Drought resistance in spring wheat cultivars. 1. Grain yield responses. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 29: 897-912. FAO. 2010. Food and Agriculture Organization. Statistics: FAOSTAT agriculture. Retrieved November, 2010. From http://fao.org/crop/statistics. FAO. 2011. Food and Agriculture Organization. Statistics: FAOSTAT agriculture. Retrieved May, 2012. From http://fao.org/crop/statistics. Gebeyhou, G., Knott, D. R. and Baker, R. J. 1982a. Relationships among duration of vegetative and Grain filling phases, yield components and grain yield in durum wheat cultivars. Crop Science 22: 287-290. Gebeyhou, G., Knott, D. R. and Baker, R. J. 1982b. Rate and duration of filling in durum wheat cultivars. Crop Science 22: 337-340.

303


Gooding, M. J., Ellis, R. H., Shewry, P. R. and Schofield, J. D. 2003. Effects of restricted water availability and increased temperature on grain filling, drying and quality of winter wheat. Journal of Cereal Science 37: 295-309. Guttieri, M. J., Stark, J. C., O.Brien, K. and Souza, E. 2001. Relative sensitivity of spring wheat grain yield and quality parameters to moisture deficit. Crop Science 41: 327-335. Hafsi, M., Akhter, J. and Monneveux, P. 2007. Leaf senescence and carbon isotope discrimination in durum wheat (Triticum durum Desf.) under severe drought conditions. Cereal Research Communications 35: 71-80. Hipkins, M. F. and Baker, N. R. 1986. Photosynthesis energy transduction. Spectroscopy. IRL Press. Oxford, Washington. pp. 51-101. In: Horii, A., McCu, P. and Shetty, K. (Eds.), Seed vigour studies in corn, soybean and tomato in response to fish protein hydrolysates and consequences on phenolic-linked responses. Bioresource Technology 98: 2170-2177. Jehade-Agriculture. 2011. Annual reports. Ministry of Jehad-e-Agriculture. Islamic Republic of Iran. (2009-2010 cropping season). From http://www.maj.ir/portal/Home. (In Persian). Kulshreshtha, S., Mishra, D. P. and Gupta, R. K. 1987. Changes in content of chlorophyll, proteins and lipids in whole chloroplast and chloroplast membrane fractions at different leaf water potentials in drought resistant and sensitive genotypes of wheat. Photosynthetica 21: 65- 70. Mohammadi, R., Haghparast, R., Aghaee-Sarbarzeh, M. and Abdollahi, A. 2006. Evaluation of drought tolerance of advanced durum wheat genotypes based on physiological criteria and related traits. Journal of Agricultural Science of Iran 3 (1-37): 563-575. (In Persian). Molnar, S., Gaspar, L., Stehi, L., Dulai, S., Sarvari, E., Kiraly, I., Galiba, G. and Molnar Long, M. 2002. The effects of drought stress on the photosynthetic processes of wheat and of aegilops biuncialis genotypes originating from various habitats. Acta Biologica Szegediensis 46 (3-4): 115116. Nicolas, M. E. and Turner, N. C. 1993. Use of chemical desiccants and senescing agent to select wheat lines maintaining stable grain size during post–anthesis drought. Field crops Research 31: 155-171. Nourmand, F., Rostami, M. A. and Ghannadha, M. R. 2001. A study of morpho-physiological traits of bread wheat, relationship with grain yield under normal and drought stress conditions. Iranian Journal of Agricultural Science 32: 185-194. (In Persian). Pessarkli, M. 1999. Handbook of plant and crop stress. Marcel Dekker Inc. 697 Pages. Quarrie, S. A. and Jones, H. G. 1979. Genotypic variation in leaf water potential, stomatal conductance and abssisic acid concentration in spring wheat subjected to artificial drought stress. Annals of Botany 44: 323-332. Ramirez-Vallejo, P. and Kelly, J. D. 1998. Traits related to drought resistance in common bean. Euphytica 99: 127-136. Ramshini, H., Fazel Najafabadi, M. and Bihamta, M. R. 2012. Inheritance of some traits in bread wheat using diallel method at normal and drought stress conditions. Cereal Research 2 (1): 1-15. (In Persian). Royo, C., Abaza, M., Blanco, R. and Garc´ıa del Moral, L. F. 2000. Triticale grain growth and morphometry as affected by drought stress, late sowing and simulated drought stress. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 27: 1051-1059. Saeidi, M., Moradi, F., Ahmadi, A., Spehri, R., Najafian, G. and Shabani, A. 2010. The effects of terminal water stress on physiological characteristics and sink- source relations in two bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cultivars. Iranian Journal of Crop Sciences 12 (4): 92-408. (In Persian). Safaei Chaeikar, S., Rabiei, B., Samizadeh, H. and Esfahani, M. 2008. Evaluation of tolerance to terminal drought stress in rice (Oryza sativa L.) genotypes. Iranian Journal of Crop Sciences 9 (4): 315-331. (In Persian). Sairam, R. K. and Srivastava, G. C. 2001. Water stress tolerance of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) variations in hydrogen peroxide accumulation and antioxidant activity in tolerant and susceptible genotypes. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 186: 63-70. Schutz, M. and Fangmeir, E. 2001. Growth and yield responses of spring wheat (triticum aestivum L. cv.Minaret) to elevated CO2 and water limitation. Environmental Pollution 114: 187-194.


304

Siddique, M. R. B., Hamid, A. and Islam, M. S. 2000. Drought stress effects on water relations of wheat. Butanical Bullecin of Academia Sinica 41: 35-38. Sivamani, E., Bahieldin, A., Wraith, J. M., Al- Niemi, T., Dyer, W. E., Ho, T. H. D. and Qu. R. 2000. Improved biomass productivity and water use efficiency under water deficit conditions in transgenic wheat constitutively expressing the barley HVA1 gene. Plant Science 155 (1): 1-9. Stone, P. J. and Nicolas, M. E. 1994. Wheat cultivars vary widely in their responses of grain yield and quality to short periods of post-anthesis heat stress. Functional Plant Biology 21: 887-900. Talbert, L. E., Lanning, S. P., Murphy, R. L. and Martin, J. M. 2008. Grain Fill Duration in Twelve Hard Red Spring Wheat Crosses Genetic Variation and Association with Other Agronomic Traits. Crop Science 41: 1390-1395. Wise, R. R. and Naylor, A.W. 1989. Chilling enhanced photo-oxidation, the peoxidative destruction of lipids during chilling injury to photosynthesis and ultrasracture. Plant physiology 83: 278-282.

Cereal Research, Vol. 2, No. 4, 2013 (289-305)

305

Evaluation of genetic diversity of bread wheat genotypes based on physiological traits in non-stress and terminal drought stress conditions Reza Amiri1, Sohbat Bahraminejad2* and Shahryar Sasani3

1. M.Sc. Student of Plant Breeding, Dept. of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, Campus of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Razi University, Kermanshah, 2. Assoc. Prof., Dept. of Agronomy and Plant Breeding and Biotechnology for Drought Resistance, Campus of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Razi University, Kermanshah, 3. Research Assist. Prof., Agricultural and Natural Resources Research Center of Kermanshah

(Received: October 2, 2012- Accepted: January 28, 2013) Abstract To study genetic variation and terminal drought stress on kernel yield and some physiological traits in bread wheat, an experiment was conducted using 80 irrigated bread wheat genotypes in a randomized complete block design (RCBD) with three replications under normal and terminal drought stress conditions in research farm of the Campus of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran, during 2011-2012 cropping season. The result of combined analysis of variance indicated high significant differences among genotypes for all studied traits except “chlorophyll b” and total chlorophyll. Moreover, effect of the environment on relative water content, kernel yield, kernel filling duration and kernel weight was highly significant. Terminal drought stress reduced “chlorophyll a”, SPAD and relative water contentas much as 3.54%, 2% and 10%, respectively but it increased “chlorophyll b” and total chlorophyll by 6.16 and 2.68%, respectively .In addition, drought stress caused reduction in kernel yield (23.48%), kernel filling duration (19.14%) and kernel weight (18%) but it increased kernel filling rate by 2.20%. There were high negative significant correlation between “chlorophyll a” and “chlorophyll b” and between kernel filling rate and kernel filling duration, whereas, correlation between “chlorophyll b” and total chlorophyll and between kernel filling rate and kernel weight were highly significant and positive. Correlation coefficients exhibited no significant associations between kernel yield and other traits in both normal and drought stress conditions. Keywords: Chlorophyll content, Kernel filling duration, Kernel filling rate, Kernel yield, Relative water content

*Corresponding author: [email protected]