Water relations in parsley plants cultivated in brackish nutrient solutions of different cationic natures

Martins, Juliana B.; Santos, José A.; Bartusch, Victor P.; Gheyi, Hans R.; Bezerra, Egídio; Silva, Manassés M. da

doi:10.1590/1807-1929/agriambi.v23n9p662-668

home Sumário navigate_before Anterior Atual Seguinte navigate_next

home Sumário

Articles • Rev. bras. eng. agríc. ambient. 23 (9) • Sept 2019 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-1929/agriambi.v23n9p662-668 linkcopy

Water relations in parsley plants cultivated in brackish nutrient solutions of different cationic natures

Relações hídricas em plantas de salsa cultivada em soluções nutritivas salobras de naturezas catiônicas distintas

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

The analysis of plant response to the cationic variability of the waters, in addition to the osmotic component, is indispensable in the context of salt stress. Thus, between October 2017 and February 2018, in Recife, PE, Brazil (8° 1’ 7” S and 34° 56’ 53” W, and altitude of 6.5 m), the present study was carried out to evaluate the water relations of parsley plants (Petroselinum crispum), cv. Graúda Portuguesa, cultivated in brackish nutrient solutions (electrical conductivities of 1.7, 2.7, 3.7, 4.7, 5.7 and 6.7 dS m^-1) prepared in waters with different cationic natures (NaCl, CaCl₂, KCl and MgCl₂). The experimental design was completely randomized, in a 6 x 4 factorial scheme, with five repetitions, and five plants per plot. Two experiments were conducted sequentially under this statistical design; in the first, the evapotranspired depth was replaced with supply water (0.12 dS m^-1) and in the second, with the respective brackish water. The increment in nutrient solution salinity influences the fresh and dry biomass and the percentages of total, shoot and root dry masses, and this increment led to different behavior in parsley physiology under the different cationic natures of the water, being less harmful with the use of supply water to replace the evapotranspired depth and with CaCl₂ water with electrical conductivity above 5.7 dS m^-1, in the replacement with brackish water.

Key words:
Petroselinum crispum; soilless cultivation; water content

	EC of the nutriente solution - EC_ns (dS m^-1)						Regression equation	R²
	1.7	2.7	3.7	4.7	5.7	6.7	Regression equation	R²
CN	¹WUE – SFB (g L^-1) - Supply (ECns: p ≤ 0.05, CN: p ≤ 0.05, ECns vs CN: p ≤ 0.05, CV = 7.19%)
NaCl	50.66 a	53.24 a	45.13 bc	44.51 b	40.02 b	32.54 a	Y = –3.739**x + 60.06	0.88
CaCl₂	51.68 a	55.30 a	51.98 a	55.92 a	46.63 a	28.50 a	Y = –2.368**x² + 15.95x + 30.02	0.91
MgCl₂	49.49 a	45.44 b	46.04 b	43.49 b	33.00 c	28.59 a	Y = –4.1249**x + 58.333	0.87
KCl	53.88 a	52.80 a	40.11 c	38.13 c	39.25 b	29.29 a	Y = –4.731**x + 62.11	0.88
	¹WUE – SFB (g L^-1) - Brackish (ECns: p ≤ 0.05, CN: p ≤ 0.05, ECns vs CN: p ≤ 0.05, CV = 5.61%)
NaCl	54.61 a	56.40 b	56.67 b	56.09 b	55.93 b	55.34 b	Y = –0.2432**x² + 2.0904x + 52.06	0.79
CaCl₂	52.56 a	55.13 b	65.97 a	65.48 a	66.48 a	63.64 a	Y = –1.18x² + 12.503x + 33.408	0.89
MgCl₂	55.48 a	62.10 a	64.13 a	66.62 a	65.97 a	58.50 ab	Y = –1.45x² + 13.023x + 37.344	0.93
KCl	53.53 a	52.59 b	50.30 c	50.45 c	55.22 b	57.60 b	Y = 0.801**x² – 5.91x + 61.66	0.88
	¹WUE – SDB (g L^-1) - Supply (ECns: p ≤ 0.05, NC: p ≤ 0.05, ECns vs CN: p ≤ 0.05, CV = 13.30%)
NaCl	8.14 a	8.38 ab	8.05 ab	8.70 ab	7.26 b	6.49 a	Y = –0.169x² + 1.110x + 6.657	0.83
CaCl₂	9.09 a	9.22 a	9.41 a	9.92 a	8.97 a	7.33 a	Y = –0.239**x² + 1.753x + 6.549	0.85
MgCl₂	7.51 a	7.05 b	7.60 b	7.88 b	5.40 c	4.78 b	Y = –0.231x² + 1.415x + 5.505	0.81
KCl	8.50 a	7.55 ab	7.22 b	7.48 b	8.23 ab	7.05 a	ȳ = 7.67 g L^-1
	¹WUE – SBD (g L^-1) - Brackish (ECns: p ≤ 0.05, CN: p ≤ 0.05, ECns vs CN: p ≤ 0.05, CV = 8.48%)
NaCl	10.96 a	10.98 b	12.59 ab	12.68 ab	13.21 ab	13.24 ab	Y = 0.519**x + 10.09	0.86
CaCl₂	10.63 a	11.75 ab	13.17 a	13.59 a	14.79 a	14.50 a	Y = 0.8254**x + 9.6049	0.91
MgCl₂	11.26 a	12.82 a	13.56 a	13.37 a	13.97 ab	13.76 ab	Y = 0.4503**x + 11.232	0.71
KCl	10.80 a	10.48 b	11.37 b	11.31 b	12.69 b	12.75 b	Y = 0.446**x + 9.61	0.83

	EC of the nutriente solution – EC_ns (dS m^-1)						Regression equation	R²
	1.7	2.7	3.7	4.7	5.7	6.7	Regression equation	R²
CN	¹SBPI (Supply) (ECns: p ≤ 0.05, CN: p ≤ 0.05, ECns vs CN: p ≤ 0.05, CV = 4.08%)
NaCl	0.753 a	0.825 a	0.838 a	0.848 a	0.843 a	0.840 ab	Y = –0.0108**x² + 0.1108x + 0.5721	0.89
CaCl₂	0.778 a	0.792 a	0.860 a	0.863 a	0.870 a	0.881 a	Y = 0.0216**x + 0.7506	0.83
MgCl₂	0.770 a	0.812 a	0.828 a	0.829 a	0.820 a	0.785 b	Y = –0.008**x² + 0.0674x + 0.685	0.83
KCl	0.791 a	0.804 a	0.848 a	0.857 a	0.855 a	0.808 b	Y = –0.0086x² + 0.0793x + 0.6718	0.84
	¹SBPI (Brackish) (ECns: p ≤ 0.05, CN: p ≤ 0.05, ECns vs CN: p ≤ 0.05, CV = 1.18%)
NaCl	0.904 a	0.900 a	0.901 a	0.900 a	0.890 a	0.889 ab	Y = –0.0031*x + 0.9107	0.79
CaCl₂	0.899 a	0.897 a	0.894 a	0.893 a	0.880 a	0.873 c	Y = –0.0053**x + 0.9119	0.88
MgCl₂	0.903 a	0.904 a	0.901 a	0.887 a	0.889 a	0.879 bc	Y = –0.0051**x + 0.9155	0.86
KCl	0.897 a	0.890 a	0.896 a	0.896 a	0.891 a	0.896 a	ȳ = 0.89
	¹R/S (Supply) (ECns: p ≤ 0.05, CN: p ≤ 0.05, ECns vs CN: p ≤ 0.05, CV = 3.55%)
NaCl	0.263 a	0.277 a	0.278 a	0.278 a	0.286 a	0.291 a	Y = 0.0047**x + 0.2592	0.89
CaCl₂	0.196 a	0.199 b	0.199 b	0.208 ab	0.209 b	0.226 a	Y = 0.0054**x + 0.1839	0.84
MgCl₂	0.200 a	0.212 ab	0.207 ab	0.206 b	0.241 ab	0.258 a	Y = 0.0108**x + 0.1755	0.75
KCl	0.243 a	0.255 ab	0.260 ab	0.266 ab	0.270 ab	0.270 a	Y = 0.0054**x + 0.2387	0.90
	¹R/S (Brackish) (ECns: p ≤ 0.05, CN: p ≤ 0.05, ECns vs CN: p ≤ 0.05, CV = 11.18%)
NaCl	0.110 a	0.113 a	0.113 a	0.113 a	0.114 b	0.118 b	Y = 0.0013*x + 0.1086	0.78
CaCl₂	0.112 a	0.114 a	0.118 a	0.126 a	0.131 a	0.135 a	Y = 0.005**x + 0.1019	0.97
MgCl₂	0.113 a	0.115 a	0.119 a	0.120 a	0.126 ab	0.130 ab	Y = 0.0032**x + 0.1072	0.95
KCl	0.115 a	0.120 a	0.116 a	0.115 a	0.121 ab	0.116 b	ȳ = 0.1177

	EC of the nutriente solution - EC_ns (dS m^-1)						Regression equation	R²
	1.7	2.7	3.7	4.7	5.7	6.7	Regression equation	R²
	WCP % (Supply) (ECns: p ≤ 0.05, CN: p > 0.05, ECns vs CN: p > 0.05, CV = 2.74%)

	84.69	85.35	84.94	83.95	83.90	82.41	Y = –0.166x² + 0.918x + 83.77	0.92
	WCP % (Brackish) (ECns: p ≤ 0.05, CN: p > 0.05, ECns vs CN: p > 0.05, CV = 2.31%)
	81.46	81.00	80.80	79.50	79.81	79.23	Y = –0.458**x + 82.22	0.89
	WCS % (Supply) (ECns: p ≤ 0.05, CN: p ≤ 0.05, ECns vs CN: p > 0.05, CV = 3.80%)
	84.06	83.87	82.58	81.45	80.88	79.4	Y = –0.9543**x + 86.048	0.97
		NaCl	CaCl₂	MgCl₂	KCl
Mean		82.02 a	81.35 b	81.65 b	82.12 a
	WCS % (Brackish) (ECns: p ≤ 0.05, CN: p > 0.05, ECns vs CN: p > 0.05, CV = 2.95%)
	79.94	79.45	79.30	78.72	78.13	77.32	Y = –0.5326**x + 80.88	0.88
	¹WCR % (Supply) (ECns: p ≤ 0.05, CN: p ≤ 0.05, ECns vs CN: p ≤ 0.05, CV = 2.46%)
NaCl	86.19 a	90.08 a	90.97 a	90.94 a	90.93 ab	89.84 ab	Y = –0.508**x² + 4.868x + 79.83	0.92
CaCl₂	88.56 a	89.33 a	91.93 a	91.55 a	91.69 a	91.02 a	Y = –0.304**x² + 3.098x + 83.92	0.88
MgCl₂	86.82 a	89.67 a	90.28 a	89.70 a	89.29 b	87.98 b	Y = –0.444**x² + 3.848x + 81.92	0.90
KCl	87.57 a	88.36 a	91.35 a	91.35 a	90.34 ab	89.06 ab	Y = –0.470x² + 4.335*x + 81.13	0.85
	WCR % (Brackish) (ECns: p ≤ 0.05, CN: p ≤ 0.05, ECns vs CN: p > 0.05, CV = 1.30%)
	88.87	88.50	88.31	87.78	87.41	87.31	Y = –0.3314**x + 89.422	0.97
		NaCl	CaCl₂	MgCl₂	KCl
Mean		88.50 a	87.67 b	87.38 b	88.87 a

vertical_align_top show_chart

more_horiz close
- image
- translate
- link
- article
- vertical_align_top
- file_download
- show_chart
- image
- translate
- link
- article

location_on

Unidade Acadêmica de Engenharia Agrícola Unidade Acadêmica de Engenharia Agrícola, UFCG, Av. Aprígio Veloso 882, Bodocongó, Bloco CM, 1º andar, CEP 58429-140, Tel. +55 83 2101 1056 - Campina Grande - PB - Brazil
E-mail: revistagriambi@gmail.com

rss_feed Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[TFN1] ¹Different letters in the column indicate significant differences between cationic natures at p ≤ 0.05 by Tukey test