Transcription
Iranian Journal of Horticultural ScienceVol 53, No 1, Spring 2022 (99-115)DOI: 10.22059/ijhs.2021.294739.1758(99-115) 1401153: !" #3*2.!"# % &')1* " " (%&"(.3 2 1(1399/12/17 :4 56 ,- 1398/10/17 :* ,)0Rosa canina)C ( @, 6% N 'OF G% H # IJ K UE !V 6 W6 '((SZ % ( [\Z % UE "V. B R. persica. B MDAB) -1/5%. & A&' % . B % ' :" L M %*a' 9 : R. orientalis [J'5'(DPPH)B\!V%. ' ' ? (O % %ED 9& P*!V ' ?O4 X 6 ( M C J VE % %ED 9&a'&&8 9&'(E %ED 9& % (R. persica R. orientalis R. beggerianaY! * ' 9O IX ' %ED 9& .*B(MDA) !O JE; ') -0/8 (-0/03) O B) QR K %ED 9&. % \ V ' L L M !a%R. beggeriana de%a' 9 : % L ' O ! G(O O! . BP]!% (LMA) QRa' (PI) ' ?(F 8CGY? 8 B (RWC)E *! b PI RWC 9O IX ' %ED 9& R. canina E *! b%*' L M9 : I"%ED 9& R. beggeriana &@ L !!c IX ' %ED 9& R. orientalis . & VO Y ' %ED 9& S B %. !O JEJ ' ! G!VE *! b8:20Study of some physiological and biochemical reactions in some Iranian native rosesto water deficit stressNeda Jalali1, Rohangiz Naderi2* and Azizollah Khandan-Mirkohi31, 2, 3. Ph. D. Candidate, Professor and Assistant Professor, College of Agriculture & Natural Resources, University of Tehran,Karaj, Iran(Received: Jan. 07, 2020- Accepted: Mar. 07, 2021)ABSTRACTDrought stress is one of limitation factors in landscape expantion. In order to investigate response of four wild rosesspecies (Rosa canina, R. beggeriana, R. orientalis & R. persica) to water deficit, a factorial experiment was carriedout in a completely randomized block design with two factors Rosa species and water deficit at three levels (control (-0.03),-0.8 (moderate) & -1.5 (Severe) MPa). One year old plant obtained from mentioned rose sucker were subjected towater deficit treatment. Based on the results, leaf mass area (LMA) was different between species and water deficithad no effect on that. Water deficit caused decreased relative leaf water content (RWC), performance index (PI),chlorophyll content and increased electric leakage (EL) and malondialdehyde (MDA) in R. persica. In R. caninaRWC, PI and free radical scavenging capacity (DPPH) decreased and EL and MDA increased. In R. beggeriana ELand DPPH increased and in other characteristics difference was invisible. In R. orientalis water deficit had nodramatic effect on traits. Based on the results R. orientalis and then R. beggeriana are more tolerable to droughtstress.Keywords: Antioxidant capacity, chlorophyll, drought, malondialdehyde.* Corresponding author E-mail: rnaderi@ut.ac.ir
54 "#3 .)2 1 ./ 0 ,#- ) ' ' 'Q1 2 .(Tkalec et al., 2012) ,/ 9J 2-./ 0 4 I W * 1 QQ GD 9'0 PO , . ,' %),; W ;J8 %% ./ 0 1 % )1.,## 2 ,' 3 ! 8 P 2 ,# %,# 1 ? GP % 9 H 2 . 1 3 c ; ? 'P C! .,/ .D& Z/ ; % Q 3 2 . 9 Q, Q, J2 1 J8 % ./ 0 U '72 ,U :2 / 6) . )1 92 M2&W 'D/ h')1 C H'2 D) ('2 4 !. F T 2 ? GP H) . W / % ' . i 92 M2- 2 ,/ 3 ),; W ; 1 J8 % ./ 0% Q 2 ,2 W ;. R MD/ 9 ,#/ 3.(Zlesak, 2007) ,/ '0 ; % 3"'% j I % ': ? A 2 .D k0 % .54 .'0 ) ' ' ' 2 )* )('&l!! % '0Q1 ,/ .,/ Q [ (0% D72 c'& T ,M2 ,#/ 2 ,/ L 3 F5 #U . . (EL) / ) 9J/ (RWC) F5 :/.,/ 2 F :72 Q '0 3 c ; % 'A2%* / Fk Q1 Q '0 . %(D# D& % Q('Z/( 9 :; c'& T ,M2 H) # ,# 2/ /Q '0 (D# D& T U . 9 %,'T c2 U ) Q '0.(Taiz & Zeiger, 1998) , 2 ; '@ 3 973Q '0 m 2 ' ,' 3 % .' % ,#)5 & 1 (D# D&. )* )('& % ,#)5 & H) 3m :8 1 ) 9.(Farooq et al., 2009) ,2 '72 % "#3R ; c ; ('2 ) HD.Z/ ) / 3 H) #Z/ J/ ) ,/ 3 2 "#3 6)973 (D# D&.(Niu & Rodriguez, 2009) , Q '0 % 01H''A3 % ,'G2 H'Z/ '2 ) ('/ F5 :/ ,M2F5 :/ ,M2 .9 Q '0 )* )('& F5 9'AnAhmadizadeh, ) 9J! "#3 .Z/ J/. ,/ [ (0 (2009) Niu & Rodriguez .(2013Rosa‘Dr. Huey’ 4; 1(D# D& ,M29U : R. multiflora R. odorata fortuniana‘Dr.(D# D& 9& ) " 54 Q o RWC ,M2R. fortunianaHuey’ZD: H) . 3 P 9) (/ ZD: )* )('& % "# !:1003%? @6'72 1 3 '8 9 :; ) ( % &:/ 9:)1 6'72 92. ,2Lee ) ,# 2 4 &CD; .A2/ 9 B21 F5 H') I 9'G' F5 .(et al., 20151 % ':( % &/ K? J2") (&9'A, . ,2 '/ L M/F5 O C2 % DJ' 9 ; N 2 #'J/9 Q, %% Q GD9A#P %1 J .(Lea-Cox & Ross, 2001). 9) "#3 H) 3R A2 1 ) F5 MDJ! . 4) 2 . 2 5 ( % &% 6'72.SD!D!T U , M2 ; '@ 3 973 % ( % &Amissah ) ,( % & % %V3 D 1 ) .(et al., 2015Niu et ) ,J! . W M2'0 F XD/ ,/ 3 2. D#)1'0 92 M2 ./ D 5 ) # .(al., 20080,## Q GD( % & ( Y) #P . 54 % ' 5 %,# 21 % ' 5 ) ") (&Z/ !Niu ) , ! A; 1 '/ 2 % ' 5 F5 ,M2.(et al., 2006250) 4 ./ ' [ H'Z/ '2) 2 J J! . '/ J! ] #2 ( (RD2 T'2('/ 0,/('2 H' . 2 F :72,P 70 . % . ,2 ,72 H) # . '0 2 ? P J ,P 250,/. 9d,) I .Tb:2 ) F5 H'2 3 c J2.D .J') %1 J e21 1.(Farzam, 2009) 9( . L M/ W 3 f ) M3 1 % ./ 0).(Rechinger, 1982) ,# 2 Q,# I # ] #2'B 3 ./ ,/ 'I .T' K W ; ,) ' % 1Q, .D! # % g3 [ ) ./ ,/ 'I ,/ 2Gault & Synge, ) ,2 '/1 'B 3,# 2 [ & . . %1 ,), W ; 9) B .(1987,/ .D& ) ) 1 ./ ,/ 'I ]) 1 . ,#D: ) .) IQ Z) % T0J8 % 1 .(Halevy, 1986)1 % ./ 0 P ) ,/ 'I % .) I #U . % QV)
1011401153)Y'[ D:0 i e #3 . . 3)J8 1 vTDX2 % ./ 0 2 "#3 . ) ' ' ')* )('& % j Ij I .A 2 Q ,72 ) 2 1 % ./ 0Q,#) (& 9' % '72 % "#3 . 1Q U . - ,2 J! . '/ J! ] #2% & % 1.) I #U . /5 2./ 0 H) j I % 4:'/ 2 ) # ( W;g)0 P %%,'G2 ? U " VI H) .,# 2 4 & 1 W ; ) ,),% l!54 "#3 '@ 3O,., W g/ ) 2 1 ./ 0 )* )('&49 T .9 ,/ R. odorata.) I ) 1 % D (D# D& ,M2 R. odorata 4 J/" ('/ (2010) Gholami & Rahemi .-H' J2 4; 3 '#'2 1RWC ,M2#A264/5 . ,/ Q, J2 54 1 1 21 1 ,A% ' 5 1 ,A 9& ) " c ; . 9 :/ ,P., ) (/ , . 5 ,M2 QZ/ J/ ) #U . c'& T r# T& JD/9 Q, .D! # (D# D& 1 .') ' ' D&r# T& .2 . "#3 ? @ %% '8 .! - 23 U H'#S c'& T O C2 ]) 1 H 4:' D2 .,# 2 4 & H -") : 9'An 3 I N' NADPH ATPD .' Q,/ )kI J . II 4D:' D&, 2 ; '@ 3 973 r# T& T U 5 R /.(Ogren, 1990)De Dauw et 1r# T& c'& T 21 cP 8 % 1 ,'d Th) F1 9'A (2013) al.%Rosa ‘Yesterday’ Rosa wichurana ; 3l!,M2 ,/ % Z K 54 . c 73(Y(II)) II 4D:' D& @ 2 2 D/5 T UQ,) "#3'0 Q 0 H' .,/ % '0Q1 ,/% (Y(II)) l!, Q,)J2 s) D/ ,. / % DU c ; l! .A 2 51 () 3"#3 54 6)973 ,72 5 Q '!tV': % ./ 0 Q A u & ,' 3/ ' ,': CO2 ) " .,# 2 ) 73 (ROS) 0"# 4)(/5 F 'A2 9' A& ) ./1, .D:g#2 5 "#3 973 %(D# D& % Q ZD N' 5V': % ./ 0 ,' 3 .O2- ,#/ 2 0"# Flexas & Medrano, ) 2 -OH RO H2O2.(2002; Lawlor & Cornic, 2002*Y #2 %1 J r) I 1 % & " VI H). 1394 Rw Y;3 Q ZJ/ A' c2 % x T .) I c) D & ") 215 ? P1 % ./ 0 R c2 U ., W g/3.& C3J8 1 y - c2Rosa canina L.c21 % .) I #U . % g3 . % ./ 0)R. orientalis Dupont ex (4 ( % &R. persica Michx R. beggeriana Schrenk .Sery . c254 "#3 W c2 U ex Juss.6 D2 "#3 (R I Z2 -0/03) ,54 "#3. (R I Z2 1/5) ,), "#3 (R I Z2 -0/8)% 5Y c72 ? U .,/ W D & . (#2c72 ) # 1 rI .9 Q,25 1 R ,./ 0'/ ) T& 1 Q GD k2 % ./ 0 "# I(Samiei et al., 2010) H'MM72 )? A 2Q 0 . % 5Y 1392 ,#G/5 % [ IA' Y #2%1 J r) I / K W TU., Q R MD/3 Q ZJ/.A 2 2 % ./ 0 ) #/ K W TU/%D:/ % 5Yc72 .1 R ,Table 1. Collection site of Iranian rose and identification of studied ollection siteCollection of Faculty of AgricultureEmamzadeh DavoodShahroudTashSpeciesR. canina L.R. orientalis Dupont ex Ser.R. beggeriana SchrenkR. persica Michx. ex Juss.
54 "#3 .)2 1 ./ 0 ,#- ) ' ' 'W g/ % ' 5 Y ; ? C "#3 R U .,#D& 0 ;R I Z2 -0/8 3 W Q 0 "#3 . % ,% ., R U R I Z2 -1/5 3 W .Ds# 9 Q ZD 1 x ! 9 ,M2 H''A321 ., Q GD (Spectrum, FieldScout) TDR0 ./ /'0 1 / 2 "#3 y . ,'% ' 5 ﺍ ,g2 Q,) "#3'0 rh , .' 3. ./ 0 % )kI9J0 9'T ; 3 ,/,,g2 % ' 5 1 ,A .DG ) 1 ) #2 H).,3 % ./ /!"(LMA)#c2 oy ,D 9GP H) % '0 Q1 ,/ %Q ZD 1 Q GDQ, % 5Y (.S0 9G ), % '0Q1 ,/ (Delta T, England) s# y ,/, Q R MD/ 0 D/ . 80 5 . rho (DW) J! 1 c2 , J! 1 ,Ao 1 (1) . 1 Q GD, % '0Q1 ,/., . 72 y ,8(1)LMA (DW/LA)# (RWC) %& ' ()W g/ (1981) Turner [o F5 :/ % D72Q, % '0Q1 ,/ (FW) c2 % o 3 1 .,;ZJ) 215 O }./ 0 , orh. K M2 F59U 24 ?,2 . .D& 0r/ * 3 1 ,/, 1 Q5 1 rI ,/,.80 5 . rh , % '0Q1 ,/ (TW) J! 1 , J! 1 ,A .D& ) R MD/ 0 D/(2) . 1 Q GDRWC ., 9 @ /5 (DW)., . 72RWC% (FW DW)/(TW DW) 100(2).QGD 2 x ! ) ' ')* )('& % "# !:102./ 01 [ I ,U 150 ,A39J D' 10 4g8 Q ''D I % ,T0" 1 g) % Q() Z# .)i ) 1 .,/,Q GD 2 D: .,) 0 Q GD,T0 v o ! . 2 .SK x ! 1 TX2,T0.J) t G/ 1 % '0 T % . 1:1:2 9 :/ .,T0 " 1 ,:/ W,U x ! .'0% ,T0 .,/, Q; t G/ c ; 'K y %; 1 % & Q, 9J Q1 3 % [ I % 80,'% , Z/ R ) ?,2 . ,/, Q. 5 4 "#3 %'3 W g/ 1 c ; 3 .,/, ) Q2.,#) / ,Q, MD:2 !20-20 -20 NPK c2 0IR T72% vTU Ok8 ., W g/ %k{2() P #U % 8. .9& 0 W g/ D ? P .,T0 1Q GDD: L TX2 ? 'P C! H''A3 #2./ / W g/ %./ /,T0 D: 1 Q,Y #2 %1 J r) I % ' 5 Q 0 Q ZJ) 215 .H''A3 .,/, Q R MD/3 Q ZJ/A' (PWP) 4d0 2VI . M/ (FC) U 1 9'& }, W g/ % J& ? 7GP Q ZD 1 Q GD.(2 R , )MD ! . . Q1 ,/ 4'0 W RQ, F XD/ ,#D #2 ,,/ .D& )e1 c ; .,#D& 0 ; Q GD 2 ") 215 %,' ! / " 3 2 @ " #2 . ") 2159; ") (& ('/ x ! y 1 F5 'X 3,/, Q,/ I 'D I,T0 x ! ") 2151 ") 215 W g/ % .(Gholami et al., 2012).D . 2 (./ 0 -) J8 1 ./ 09'& } 3 R Q 0 ., F XD/ ) 3 20 ,T0Q 0 ,/, F :72 , #U . % ' 5 % .U (2J! "#3 973 . ,/ ) .D W W)('& %0V) .2 R ,Table 2. Physical and chemical characteristics of used soil.Soil compositionSoilTexturepHEC (ds m1)Field capacity(FC)Permanent wilting point(PWP)Garden soil, sand and leaf compost2:1:1Sandy loam7.82.6530.41%11.84%
1031401153(4):Fv B ,8 r/ T& :Fm .' r/ T& :F0''{D2 r/ T&PI RC/ABS(5)Fk) :ABS II 4D:' D& "# ( 2 :RC.%* /)/ K W TUFv/Fm (Fm-F0)/Fm'.(1(2 ' -.,/!0o % ,'d #3 c b a c'& T % '0Q1 ,/9& 0 W g/ (1987) Lichtenthaler [ 1 Q GD., . 72 (6) 6 m(6)Chla 12.25 A663 2.79 A645Chlb 21.50 A645 5.10 A663Chla b 7.15 A663 18.71 A645Cx c (1000 A470 1.82 Chla 85.02 Chlb)/ 1984556/ ) 9J/ ,M2 JK . N' 5 ('2 "g# % ) ? A ; . .' 3 0 ./ / 1 W 0 . ,M2 JD:. 1 rI .,/,! % D2 D/D' T'2 25 ,/, cMD#2 % D' T'2 50 % &. ./ / rh ., .& n & . Q('/ ) F5,/, Q; ZJ) 215 ' % 9U 24 ?,2) D 9) , 5 1 rIEC 6 3 (EC1) .'. ./ / rh ., % '0Q1 ,/ (Metrohm 644) D2 3 0 D/ . 120 % 2.M'; 20 ?,2% '0Q1 ,/ ,g2 /5 EC , #! 1 ,A ,/,, . 72 (3) %. ] EL ,M2 .(EC2) ,.(Eugenia et al., 2003)EL (EC1/EC2) 100(3)(MDA) !, ! %'!,&5 ( % *,2 3Q1Q CU c / ,': D/5 9'& }-2-c'#&% -1 1) DPPH 15 R )0,## B#!(2006) Falchi et al. [(c)1 ,' c) 'I517 w 2 R D2 D& D h Q ZD 1 Q GD.,) 0 . 72 (7) . 1 Q GDW g/ D2 / /(7)DPPH% 100 [(A517 / A0) 100]./ / , DPPH Fk :A0./ / DPPH Fk :A517*(EL) [,'h' ' ,': I ,M2 % '0Q1 ,/D' T'2 ) ., W g/ (1999) Hodges et al.W 0 0/1 . ,' 'T': % 3 ,P 0/1 R T72W 0 F5 W 8 .M'; 15 , .& n Q1 3 o ./ /%2j) W 8 1 ,A 9& 0 ;* 'G) D/.M'; 10 ?,2 .0 D/ . 4D2 D& D h, .D k0 .M';13000600 % w 2 R (Shimadzu UV-160, Japan)., 9d ; D2 / / 5407 8"!"PI Fv/Fm#54 "#3 . J/ Q r/ ) .)(g3 s) D/./ 0 H' 9GP H) 2 9 ,/ % #A2 '@ 3 LMAJ/ ,P s#I R D8 y % #A2 ? G3R. ./ 0LMA ,M2 H) DJ' .(3 R , )R.H'Z/ '2 H) D , Q, J2 beggeriana- #A2 ? G3 ,#- .(1 c ) ,25 9 . persicaR. canina R. orientalis H' % 25 7 1 %0V)o y 1 . / R. beggeriana% o % U9 8,#D: o Q1 ,/ 1 vTDX2(Huang et al., ,/ w 'D8 % DJ' r2 ' . 3o (c 8 c ;HansatechD ) T& Q ZDInstruments,1HandyQ GDPEA,)c'& T r# T& % % '0 Q1 ,/ (Norfolk, UK") 215 Q W 3 % '0Q1 ,/ ., W g/ a9& 0 ? P } 1 c ; 12 3 10 H' 9UJX.M'; 20 ?,2 .) 3 % 01 Q Q, x I K0 1 . .S0 # I 1B ,8 (PI)T U l! ? GP ., W g/6(Fv/Fm) II 4D:' D& 2 D/5 T U.,#D& 0 ; )1 2 5 4
54 "#3 .)2 1 ./ 0 ,#- ) ' ' '# %)* )('& % "# :104 G8 o DJ' U R 3i LMA ,M2 .2019)LMA .9 6 3 2 0,' J! 1 9} G8) kK 2] #2 % o ; / 6) c' . i D8 3io 3i 4 3 9TU . H'#S 6) H) J!3i ,M2H) .(Riva et al., 2016) 9c' . i D8 R. beggeriana Q, Q, J2 LMAN 2 . 9 (Q,J/ .dQ ) 0 3i 4 3.Tb:2 R. orientalis 2 . 2 3i LMAH) ) . 9 :/ o 4 4 3 ? GD2DJ' ( )1 R '3 4'Xn % o ) J! 1Q . #) . . 3 .,) 0 LMA ") (& N 22 ''{3 9 Q Q 3 54 "#3 . 2. /#A2 LMA 5 @ Q,J/ g) Q '0 D!& ' (). J/ Q r/ ) .)(g3 1 cP 8 s) D/@ RWC/5 c MD2 @ ./ 0 "#3 '34) 2 "#3 .(3 R , ) 9 .D % #A2RWC ,M2% #A2 ''{3 1 % ./ 0 .R. canina ,), "#3 . / g) ,. 9 :/,P 21/28 R. persica 5 ,A ,P 30. 9 :/ " RWC " ,M2 H) DJ' ,,M2 H) D ,#DH) ) . 9 :/., Q,) R. orientalis54 "#3 1 % )kI '@ 3,A 1 )1 ,g2 % ' 5 1 ,A ./ 0 .y . ) M3 ,#D:/ 3 ,), 4) 2 "#3.(2 c ) ,/ 0 ,'0 RWC(LMA (µg R. caninaR. orientalisR. beggerianaR. persicaRosa Species. J8 1 (LMA) y ,8 o 1 ./ 0 @ H'Z/ '2 .:) M2 .1 cFigure 1. Mean comparison effect of species on leaf mass per unit area (LMA) of wild rose. J8 1)1 2 % l!./ 05 4 "#3 @ r/ ) )(g3 s) D/ .3 R ,Table 3. Results of variance analysis effect of water deficit and species on studied parameters of wild rose.Mean of squaresSource ofvariationWaterdeficit (W)Species (S)W SErrorCV (%)Source ofvariationWaterdeficit (W)Species (S)W SErrorCV (%)df631854df631854LMARWC1.44 ns*3.891.22 6.25**5931.1**36.541211.847.9122.07Mean of squaresChl aChl bTotal *35.078.72/ ) 9J/ EL F5 :/ % D72 RWC y ,8o 1 LMA :N'3 3 . ? GP vGX2) .,P 1 5 R D8 y #A2 ? G3 N'3 3 . :** *(c /,': D/5 9'& } DPPH c'& T ,M2 Chl %(D# D&T U l! PI II 4D:' D& 2 D/5 )5 B ,8 Fv/Fm ,' , 5 % 2 MDA**: Significantly difference at 5% and 1% probability level; respectively. (Traits abbreviations: LMA, leaf mass per unit area; RWC, relatively watercontent; EL, electric leakage; MDA, malondialdehyde; Fv/Fm, maximum quantum efficiency of photosystem II; PI, performance Index; Chl,chlorophyll; DPPH, free radical scavenging capacity).
1051401153)% D72 .9 Q, DJ' RWC G8 F5 )1 HD&% 9' A&) (/ . o F5 :/ZD: x ! F5 9'An Q '0 )* )('&%DU c ; 0V) ) (Ozkur et al., 2009),)5 2 F :8 . 54 . W M2 % ‚'3 /* % Z K.(Rachmilevitch et al., 2006)!,6! %' #A2 " (2010) Gholami & Rahemi1F5 Y ; 1 ,A ,. 9 :/ RWC ,M2H' J2 4; 3 '#'2Niu & .,/ [ (0,), "#3 . ,/ [ (0 (2009) Rodriguez54 /5 .9& ) " 1 % .) IRWC.:) M2 ‘Dr. Huey’ %.) I . ,/ Q, J2.9& ) " % DJ' 9URWC .) I ),/ [ (0 (1993) Handerson-Cole & Davies1 '/15 % & 1 4;RWC ,M2 . % .Z/ . 1 '/ 1 4;. 9 :/ 4 % , Z/Q,/ 'X 3 y 9TU /5 ., G8 DJ' i7 .)iD - G#2 o Q1 ,/ D 6 3 2 'X 3 . 1 '/ " .g'D/3W M2c ; R ,D2 l! ) o RWC .,#D:/1 .'0 9' :8 ,M2 y) J3 %DUSanchez-Rodriguez et al., ) ,2 F59 2 J8 1 % ./ 0 H'.(2010y R '3 .)i % R. orientalis n 8 .A 2, 2 / . ./ 0 ) . 9 :/ % 34'Xn9 1 Y/ 2 Q c U , ) #U . .)i H)*? G3 /5 c MD2 @1 % ./ 054 "#3H) DJ' .(3 R , ) ,#D EL ,M2 % #A2R. canina ./ 0,),54 "#3 EL ,M2,P 41/38 40/11 ) M2 N'3 3 . R. persica54 . 9 :/ /5 D c 73 Q,#J/ . / ) 9J/ ,M2 4 R. beggeriana ./ 09#A2 ") (& , . 9 :/ ,), "#3 (31/04)/ ) 9J/ ,M2 .99'An R. orientalis ./ 0. 9 :/ 4) 2 "#35 ,M2 93 GD25 ,M2 ,), 54 "#39 " ,% ' 5 ./ 0 .,: ) % 25 / 1 ,.,) 0'0 ,g2 4'2 3 9J0 N ,g21009080abcaabc abcab abc abcabc abc abcabcabcbcc/ K W TUbc cabcabcabcabcabc abcRWC (%)7060abcabc abcbcdeCMD50SD40MR30SR20MW10SW0R. caninaR. orientalisR. beggerianaR. persicaRosa SpeciesJ! "#3 MD ,C ). J8 1 F5 :/ % D725 4 "#3 ./ 0 c MD2 @ H'Z/ '2 .:) M2 .2 c%./ / SR ƒ6 D2 J! "#3,g2 % ' 5 1 rI 1 ) %./ / MR ƒ J! ,), "#3 SDƒ6 D2ƒ6 D2 J! "#3,g2 % ' 5 1 rI .DG ) %./ / MW ƒ,),J! "#3,g2 % ' 5 1 rI 1 ).(,),J! "#3,g2 % ' 5 1 rI .DG ) %./ / SWFigure 2. Mean comparison interaction effect of species and water deficit on relatively water content of wild rose. (C, control; MD, mild water stress; SD, severe water stress; MR, sampling one day after re-watering in mild waterstress; SR, sampling one day after re-watering in severe water stress, MW, sampling one week after re-watering inmild water stress; SW, sampling one week after re-watering in severe water stress).
54 "#3 .)2 1 ./ 0 ,#- ) ' ' ')* )('& % "# (2004) Dhanda et al. .(Premachandra et al., 1989)!:1061 ) R. persica R. beggeriana ,#.DG ) 2 i 4 1 / ) 9J/ ,), "#3 1 ,Ac ) 9& ) " / ) 9J/ ,M2 ,g2 % ' 5 1 ,A% "#3 B .T 8 O, H' T % JK .(3Q ) ? @Z- h ) G8 ., 2 D:)1 'K. W M2'0 0V) ) "#3 6) 973 TJ! "#3 .(Bajji et al., 2002b) , 2 54 9 8 JK % .)i % ,'h' G:& % "X A.g'D/ 2 kG#2 JK D!""#3 .g'D/, 2 „ R T c! 2 9J/" %,'h' ' ,': I ") (& N 54 .(Mirjalili, 2005) 2 T % JK % ,) I U 54 "#3 ") (& ,'G ./ 4; Z/Soukhtesaraee et al., ) ,/ ) 9J/ ('2 ") (&m 0 T D# H T Q ) % ,) I .(20179& ) " 9U .J! "#3 6) 973 ('/54 "#3 . 92 M2 .(Wang & Huang, 2004)vTDX2 % 'D H' T % JK ? @ )1" ,# 2 g) () 3 54 6) 973ZD: "#3 973 , :/ ,M21 o % 9 :; T % JK ? @ . ,/ '"#3 4 I W * % Z K % ? 'P C! H) D 2., 2 54 u G3 T Q ) %1 W M2 5 4 21J& G8 % T 6: 9'& } . ,D& 22 ") (& ,2 m 25Neuman, ) ,/ ) 9J/ " Q,) "#3'0.(1995. ,2 9' DJ' Y g3 Q,#J/F5 % .Z/ 9'& } " %( c':/ DI.(Sperdouli & Moustakas, 2012) , 2 ") (&? @ . ) ,#)5 & . i D8 / ) 9J/ " 4' #39 L 2 ,## 2 G8JKL 3 T Q ) %(Kocheva et )") (& ,/ 3 2 JK . D N' 5 .(al., 20145 "#3 o,#; Y g3 9'& }% ,) % QV) . ,#; ., .D L 3 T JK 1 % 3 1 ,#/ 2 Q,J/ '8) ,/ m 3 %,'h' .)i ? @ ") (& %.( ./ 0 eb-g40EC . caninaR. orientalisR. beggerianaR. persicaRosa SpeciesSD ƒ6 D2 J! "#3 MD ƒ,C) . J8 1 / ) 9J/5 4 "#3 ./ 0 c MD2 @ H'Z/ '2 .:) M2 .3 c1 rI 1 ) % ./ / SR ƒ6 D2 J! "#3,g2 % ' 5 1 rI 1 ) %./ / MR ƒ J! ,), "#3./ / SW ƒ6 D2 J! "#3,g2 % ' 5 1 rI .DG ) % ./ / MW ƒ,),J! "#3,g2 % ' 5.(,),J! "#3,g2 % ' 5 1 rI .DG ) %Figure 3. Mean comparison of interaction effects of species and water deficit on electric leakage (EL) of wild rose.(C, control; MD, mild water stress; SD, severe water stress; MR, sampling one day after re-watering in mild waterstress; SR, sampling one day after re-watering in severe water stress, MW, sampling one week after re-watering inmild water stress; SW, sampling one week after re-watering in severe water stress).
1071401153''{3 R. beggeriana R. orientalis % ./ 0.(4 c ) ,J/ Q, J2 ,. 9 :/ % #A2973 Z/ &. 0 % oMDA ,M2 ") (&' J) .9 Q, [ (0 54 "#3 6)% JK Z- h ) ,'h' ' ,': I . ,/ R T o 2 N 9) /,# 2 N) X3 TMDA ,M2 ") (& Z) ) . 2 #A2 Z/ &. 0 54 . m :8 % ‚'3 /*'0 MDA ,M2 .(Kusvuran & Dasgan, 2017)") (& H) , ) 2 ") (& 54 "#3 . m :8L 3 (ROS) V': R A& % ./ 0 c' J3.T M2 ) ROS %1 : I ) / 3 vTDX2 % ‚'3 /*Mansori et ) ,#3 GD2 Z), ) ' ,': .(al., 2015)/ K W TU. 1 # Q,/ c8 2 H) D} G8 4:'/ 29 lXJ2 .S/5 2 9 Q,J/ .D! # DQ 0A' 9 8 . ) R T2J!H)(Z),#;,#D: .D 'I ,'h' G:&''{3 / .T8 2 1 ,/ 3 2 e n 2 H) ,/ 2% c:'2 c' J3 ) / 3 . %,'h' .#2 c' J3,/ 2 / ) 9J/ ") (& N 2 ,/m A2,M2 ") (& .(Bajji et al., 2002a) ,# % '0 T. i D8 4) 2 "#3 R. orientalis / ) 9J/ T Q ) %1 W M2 . 9 L 2 c)i H'.9 .D& 0 W g/ 54 . 2 .T8 2 H) ' ,': I ?i C72 1) ,' , 5% 2"#3. 3 c ; Z/ J/ ) 9 %,'h'2 / ' ,': DJ' MDA ,M2 k ,Al ) 9 6 3 2 3i/ ' ,': "#3 .J/1 cP 8 s) D/ .(Hassan et al., 2015% #A2 @ ./ 054 "#3 '3 . '3MDA ,M2 .(3 R , ) ,/ .DMDAR. persica R. canina % ./ 0,), "#3% ' 5 1 ,AJ/ ") (& ,. 9 :/J ,/54 "#3 . 9 :/ ,/,g2. #A2 ,J3 G3 ,#- ,#DPI Fv/Fm./ 0 "#3 '3 . J/ Q r/ ) .)(g3PI l!% #A2 @ /5 c MD2 @54 "#3 %'3 .(3 R , ) ,#D Fv/FmH) ,#- , ./ 0 .PI ,M2 " N #3 " % 25 7 1 R. beggeriana. #A2C90aMDA (nmol per g of DW)80abbc bc7060SDadddbc cdSWdd50403020100R. caninaR. orientalisR. beggerianaR. persicaRosa SpeciesSW ƒJ! ,), "#3 SD ƒ,.(,),C ).J8 1 ,' , 5 % 2 % ' 5 4 ./ 0 c MD2 @ H'Z/ '2 .:) M2 .4 cJ! "#3,g2 % ' 5 1 rI .DG ) %./ /Figure 4. Mean comparison interaction effect of species and water deficit on malondialdehyde of wild rose. (C,control; SD, severe water stress; SW, sampling one week after re-watering in severe water stress).
54 "#3 .)2 1 ./ 0 ,#- ) ' ' ')* )('& % "# % ': (Rostamabadi et al., 2016) ,2 J/(2004) Kocheva et al. .T1ZJ VI 1. ,#D& ) ! ? A 2 (2006) Strauss et al.Q / m :8 ,#- '72 ? ''{3 . l! H).T M2W ; "#)(0 % % DA2 'A2T U l! 2 .,)5 / J '72 % "#34 & %(D# D&T U . / . .)(g3 Q1 3 & Fk ) H' L 3 9GP H) . 5 2,A3 4 3 II 4D:' D& .DX'Z/ %* / O C31 ,A .D R MD/ R D8J# ( 2J/.DX'Z/ %* / 6 3 A #' D I.(Goncalves & Santos, 2005) , 2'.(1(2 ' -.,/!:108Q R R. orientalis ./ 0 PI ? ''{3[ XDD ./ 0 ) 1 D ") 215% )kI9J0 ,/ ., , . 9 :/ ? ''{3H') I ,g2 % ' 5 1 ,A 1 ) R. canina ./ 0Q '0 ''{3 .DG ) 1 ,A ,/ H) 2 c ; . 9 :/ !T U % ,8 3 9:/ 3l! 4) 2 "#3. %,8 3 ,JX 9J01 ,T U l!,M2 .T U.(5 c )J/ % #A2 @ ,#- Fv/Fm l!./ 0 H' , cd ; () 3 % O D! H) ,/ 2? (0 s) D/ H) .(6 c ) / N #2& H) 1 /5 9 9M 2 (2013) De Dauw et al."#3 . W M2 F1 9'A H' % Z K % l!D2 I l! H) ,/ Q Q GD54 ('/H).,#D:/ ,/ 1% DU c ;2 D/5 T U B ,8 l! . , 9 @% #2 l!(Fv/Fm) II4D:' D&l! .,/ 1"#3 ,M2 % '0Q1 ,/) ' ' %* / . k / c), 3 ,M2 Fv/Fm,,78% #A2 @ J8 1 % ./ 054 "#3J/ ,'d #3 ,M2 c b a c'& T ,M2% #A2 '@ 3 ('/'3 c MD2 @ H'#S ,/J/ H'Z/ '2 ? :) M2 .(3 R , ) 9/5? G3 , . 9 :/ a c'& T ,M2 ./ 0 .9 ,/ 54 "#3 % 25 7 1 % #A286a-da-ePIb-g4a-ca-ea-ea-e53aab7b-i iCa-eg-iig-iMWSW0R. caninaR. orientalisR. beggerianaR. persicaRosa Species"#3 MD ƒ,C ) . J8 1 (PI) %(D# D&T U l!% ' 5 4 ./ 0 c MD2 @ H'Z/ '2 .:) M2 .5 c./ / SR ƒ6 D2 J! "#3,g2 % ' 5 1 rI 1 ) %./ / MR ƒ J! ,), "#3 SD ƒ6 D2 J!J! "#3,g2 % ' 5 1 rI .DG ) %./ / MW ƒ,),J! "#3,g2 % ' 5 1 rI 1 ) %.(,),J! "#3,g2 % ' 5 1 rI .DG ) %./ / SW ƒ6 D2Figure. 5. Mean comparison interaction effect of species and water deficit on performance index (PI) of wild rose.(C, control; MD, mild water stress; SD, severe water stress; MR, sampling one day after re-watering in mild waterstress; SR, sampling one day after re-watering in severe water stress, MW, sampling one week after re-watering inmild water stress; SW, sampling one week after re-watering in severe water stress).
a-caa-c153a-c ab aba-c a-c)a a-c/ K W TUa-c a-c a-cab a-cabbca-c a-ca-c a-ccCdMDdSDMRSRMWR. caninaR. orientalisR. beggerianaR. persicaSWRosa Speciesƒ,C) . J8 1 (Fv/Fm) II 4D:'ƒ6 D2 J! "#3,g2 % ' 5 1,g2 % ' 5 1 rI .DG ) %.(,),J! "#3 D& 2 D/5 T U B ,8 % ' 5 4 ./ 0 c MD2 @ H'Z/ '2 .:) M2 .6 crI 1 ) %./ / MR ƒ J! ,), "#3 SD ƒ6 D2 J! "#3 MD./ / MW ƒ,),J! "#3,g2 % ' 5 1 rI 1 ) %./ / SR,g2 % ' 5 1 rI .DG ) %./ / SW ƒ6 D2 J! "#3Figure 6. Mean comparison interaction effect of species and water deficit on maximum quantum efficiency of photosystemII (Fv/Fm) of wild rose. (C, control; MD, mild water stress; SD, severe water stress; MR, sampling one day after re-wateringin mild water stress; SR, sampling one day after re-watering in severe water stress, MW, sampling one week after rewatering in mild water stress; SW, sampling one week after re-watering in severe water stress)." T 4':M3 " 54 "#3 ? @ 19 I T ,A3 .g'D/ . 9 R T Q1 ,/,M2 H) #,# 2 ,'I ") (& y ,8s) D/ .(Rahman, 2004) 2 )1 4 c'& T . ) M) &5 H 7) Q '0 j IJ2J!(Moghadam et al., 9 Q, Q, J2"#3 2 H) c' .2015; Taheri et al., 2017),M2 ") (& N 2 . Q ?,2 Q 3 J!%,'d '3 % JK 1 9} G8 H) #,'d #3 ") (& e n 2 H) , c'& T N) X3 1 % '0 T G8 . g)"#3 R Uc'& T ,M2% l! 1 "#3 6) 973 oc'& T m :72 ''{3 W,U .9 "#3 . 92 M2 )* )('&Pérez- 6 3 ; 54 "#3 973 c'& T ,M2H'#SCarrizo citrange(2017) Pérez et al.J' D#)1 % .SD!(2014) Toscano et al.Q, [ (0 † , '0 / 3 #I * X'2 o ' 54 "#3 Q 3 D :/ Q ('/ 5 9TU 9,M2 54 "#3 R. persica 4;.9 Q," , . 9 :/ ,'d #3 c b a c'& T 54 "#3 c'& T ,M2 " .9#A2 ) ,), "#3 R. canina ,g2 % ' 5. J/ %,), " ,/ % ' 5 1 ,A 1.9& ) c'& T ,M2 ,A .DG )R.1 a c'& T ,M2 ,g2 % ' 5 ('/ persicab c'& T ,M2 .(7 c ) 9" 4,), "#3 R. orientalis R. canina % ./ 0./ 02 .9 % #A2 ") (& , . 9 :/,g2 % ' 5.9 ,/ % #A2 ? G3 Z)R. persica ( . ./ 0 . b c'& T ,M24'2 3 9 ,/#A2 ? G3 ,5 ,M2"#3 c c'& T ,M2 .(8 c ) , W g/, . 9 :/ R. orientalis R. canina ,)," ,g2 % ' 59 % #A2 ") (&R.,/,,% 25 7 . ,#DQ,) % #A2 ? G3 R. persica beggeriana9! # ) ,/ R. beggeriana ,g2 % ' 5 .,J/. 9 :/ R. persica 2 9 .2 ''{3 ,,'d #3 ,M2 .(9 c ) , Q,) " , ''{3 ") 215 c8 2 R. canina#3% #A2 ") (& ,. 9 :/ ,), "#3) .(10 c ) 9& 0 ; y H) 3i9
54 "#3 .)2 1 ./ 0 ,#- ) ' ' ')* )('& % "# ) ,/ 3 2 ,'d #3 c'& T ,M2 " .(1999Farooq ) ,54 "#3 / )1 ? @ . U & j I'8 ,g2 % ' 5 1 ,A . / '0 .(et al., 2009 2 ,' 3 Q '0 c 73 W,U c' . i D8 ,/ /1 M'; v) A3 .D .9 (D# D& v; 3 ,8 29 Q,J/ .d # 3 (D# D& % )kI9J0 .(Miyashita et al., 2005)!:Vaccinium myrtillus110.T1 % )1'0 Z/ 4;,#- (Tahkokorpi et al., 2007)Jaleel et al., ) ‡/ T0 (Soukhtesaraee et al., 2017)Q, [ (0 (Kiani et al., 2008)Z D&5 (2008. 9 H 2 c'& T ,M2 " H'#S .9% R ) Y g3 1 '& T 4)(/5 ('2 ") (& c'/ 15Loggini et al., ) , Q,## ,': "#3 1Chlorophyll a (µg g-1 FW)25e-gaab20b-fb-gghc-gc-g b-gb-d b-eb-ec-g b-gc-g b-gc-gbcb-ed-gb-e c-ge-g ghgh15CMDh f-hhSDMR10SR5MWSW0R. caninaR. orientalisR. beggerianaR. persicaRosa Species"#3 SD ƒ6 D2 J! "#3 MD ƒ,C) . J8 1 a c'& T % ' 5 4 ./ 0 c MD2 @ H'Z/ '2 .:) M2 .7 c1 rI 1 ) %./ / SR ƒ6 D2 J! "#3,g2 % ' 5 1 rI 1 ) %./ / MR ƒ J! ,),J! "#3,g2 % ' 5./ / SW ƒ6 D2 J! "#3,g2 % ' 5 1 rI .DG ) %./ / MW ƒ,),.(,),J! "#3,g2 % ' 5 1 rI .DG ) %Chlorophyll b (µg g-1 FW)Figure 7. Mean comparison interaction effect of species and water deficit on chlorophyll a of wild rose (C, control;MD, mild water stress; SD, severe water stress; MR, sampling one day after re-watering in mild water stress; SR,sampling one day after re-watering in severe water stress, MW, sampling one week after re-watering in mild waterstress; SW, sampling one week after re-watering in severe water stress).109876543210abb-db-d b-e b-db-gf-kCb-c b-db-eb-f b-ec-hi-m i-lj-nd-ie-i k-n e-jmng-k h-kk-nn k-n l-nMDSDMRSRMWSWR. caninaR. orientalisR. beggerianaR. persicaRosa Species"#3 SD ƒ6 D2 J! "#3 MD ƒ,C) . J8 1 b c'& T % ' 5 4 ./ 0 c MD2 @ H'Z/ '2 .:) M2 .8 c1 rI 1 ) %./ / SR ƒ6 D2 J! "#3,g2 % ' 5 1 rI 1 ) %./ / MR ƒ J! ,),./ / SW ƒ6 D2 J! "#3,g2 % ' 5 1 rI .DG ) %./ / MW ƒ,),J! "#3,g2 % ' 5.(,),J! "#3,g2 % ' 5 1 rI .DG ) %Figure 8. Mean comparison interaction effect of species and water deficit on chlorophyll b of wild rose. (C, control;MD, mild water stress; SD, severe water stress; MR, sampling one day after re-watering in mild water stress; SR,sampling one day after re-watering in severe water stress, MW, sampling one week after re-watering in mild waterstress; SW, sampling one week after re-watering in severe water stress).
1111401153)/ K W TUTotal Chlorophyll (µg g-1 FW)35a30bb-ed-h b-gd-hb-f25bcb-d b-f b-eb-ed-h b-gc-gd-h c-g b-ff-hd-hhiCb-fg-i e-h20d-hi g-iMDiSD15MR10SR5MW0R. caninaR. orientalisR. beggerianaR. persicaSWRosa Species D2 J! "#3 MD ƒ,C) . J8 1 c c'& T % ' 5 4 ./ 0 c MD2 @ H'Z/ '2 .:) M2 .9 c1 rI 1 ) % ./ / SR ƒ6 D2 J! "#3,g2 % ' 5 1 rI 1 ) %./ / MR ƒ J! ,), "#3-./ / SW ƒ6 D2 J! "#3,g2 % ' 5 1 rI .DG ) % ./ / MW ƒ,),J! "#3,g2 % ' 5J! "#3,g2 % ' 5 1 rI .DG ) %.(,),Figure 9. Mean comparison of interaction effect of species and water deficit on total chlorophyll of wild rose. (C,SD ƒ6Carotenoid content (µg g-1 FW)control; MD, mild water stress; SD, severe water stress; MR, sampling one day after re-watering in mild water stress;SR, sampling one day after re-watering in severe water stress, MW, sampling one week after re-watering in mildwater stress; SW, sampling one week after re-watering in severe water stress).9876543210ab-dbb-fb-hf-hb-ec-gb-c b-db-g b-fc-hCb-de-he-h e-hd-h b-hf-hghc-h e-hd-hf-hMDf-h hhSDMRSRMWSWR. caninaR. orientalisR. beggerianaR. persicaRosa SpeciesSD ƒ6 D2 J! "#3 MD ƒ,C) . J8 1,'d #3 % ' 5 4 1 rI 1 ) %./ / SR ƒ6 D2 J! "#3,g2 % ' 5 1 rI 1-./ / SW ƒ6 D2 J! "#3,g2 % ' 5 1 rI .DG ) %./ /.(,),J! "#3,g2 % ' 5 1 rI .DG./ 0 c MD2 @ H'Z/ '2 .:) M2 .10 c ) % ./ / MR ƒ J! ,), "#3MW ƒ,),J! "#3,g2 % ' 5 ) %Figure 10. Mean comparison of interaction effect of species and water deficit on carotenoid of wild rose. (C, control;MD, mild water stress; SD, severe water stress; MR, sampling one day after re-watering in mild water stress; SR,sampling one day after re-watering in severe water stress, MW, sampling one week after re-watering in mild waterstress; SW, sampling one week after re-watering in severe water stress).% #A2 ''{3 " VI Q R. persica,M2 .9 % 3i ('2 .'M . 9 :/ 9 ,/. 9 :/ ,), "#3R. orientalisDPPH1 ,A .DG )'0 . .9 " ,/5 ,M2 ,#- ,#DJ ,/ ,g2 % ' 5.(11 c ) ,' / ,,M2 .(DPPH) 45!,&5 ( % *,2 3'@ 3 973 % #A2 c / ,': /5 H' c MD2 @ .9& 0 ; 1 ./ 0 e /DPPH ,M2 H) DJ' .(3 R , ) "#3 R. beggeriana ,), "#3./ 0 DPPH ,M2 . 8 ., Q,D/5 9'& }54 "#3#A2 ('/R. caninaJ2 ,),
54 "#3 .)2 1 ./ 0 ,#- ) ' ' ')* )('& % "# 100ab(%) DPPH80:112a ab abdd60abc!eedeC40SD20SW0R. caninaR. orientalisR. beggerianaR. persicaRosa SpeciesSWƒJ! ,), "#3 SD ƒ,.(,),C) .J8 1 DPPH ,M2 % ' 5 4 ./ 0 c MD2 @ H'Z/ '2 .:) M2 .11 cJ! "#3,g2 % ' 5 1 rI .DG ) %./ /Figure 11. Mean comparison interaction effect of species and water deficit on DPPH of wild rose.( C, control; SD,severe water stress; SW, sampling one week after re-watering in severe water stress).,M2 H) D . ,/ Q, J2 ? 29 . % ' 5 .TP & H) D ‘Valencia’ R M3 I‘Kinow’ Z/ / R / HDZ# R M3 I H'#S .,25% DJ' DPPH ,M2 DJ' .TP & % ' 5% 01'D/* ? ''{3 . ,#D} /5 .,#D, 2 ; '@ 3 9735 "#3 . "# H) 9 6 3 2 vTDX2 % ‚'3 #& . . 3 A 2Mishra & Gupta H'#S. 2 Q,) ? ''{3/ ,': D/5 % 4)(/5 ,M2 . ,/ y'n 3 (2006).T8 2D 4)* 'D e / . % )1 ,M2 .ZD: '72 % "#3 %,. , 2 / .H) s) D/ . . 31 m :8 % ./ 0/ ,': D/5 9'& } ,M2% R )Q, c 7D2% DJ' "#3 . . . 3 9 3i Q, ,' 3 /5 % DJ',M2 . R. orientalis ./ 0 l!) s) D/1 '/ W,U c' . 9 H 2 . % D DPPH"#3 973 HD& 0 ; D 3i 92 M2 DJ'DPPH 1 )i ,M2 . 4 R. persica ./ 0 .,% #A2 ? G3J/ ./ 0 ) . 9 :/. ,/ J/ ,54 "#3DPPH5 ' ,: 9,(% ./ 054 "#3 . J/ ]'M73 H) s) D/% DJ' Q,## N) X3 @ R. canina R. persica"#3 Q '0 92 M2 .DPPH ,M2 ") (&1 % ':.(Weidner et al., 2009). 15 % R ) F X2 @5 %1 : I #2 .'0H) 2 R A& / ,': D/5 4D:' "#3 1 cP 8- 2 "#3c 73 1 Q,#J/ )- D/5 9' A&@ 2 ? ' 3 ('2 .- .,- B#! % Q '0 ) / 3 , DJ' Q '0/ ,': V': 15 % R )F X2 @ %1% ,'D8H'b3 I ,'h' ' ,': I9DJ' "#3 . c 73 ) I 'bT /% i A2 DPPH ") 215 .(Samieiani et al., 2013) ) 6 3 15 % R ) %1 : I ) / 3 )1Mishra et al., ) 2 W g/ ,': D/5 R 2W G2 H' ? G3 4 & 4 2 .Tb:2 g#).(2012H) .9 / ,': D/5 9'& } / ,': D/5 9' A&; Q GD 2 Z), ) %i A2 PH' 9 @ "# ) . / ,': D/5 9' A& .,/ '0 2
-0.8 (moderate) & -1.5 (Severe) MPa). One year old plant obtained from mentioned rose sucker were subjected to water deficit treatment. Based on the results, leaf mass area (LMA) was different between species and water deficit . Niu, G., Rodriguez, D.S. & Wang, Y.T. (2006). Impact of drought and temperature on growth and leaf gas
