Quantum efficiency of photosystem II and production of orange under salt stress and nitrogen fertilization

Sousa, Jônatas R. M. de; Gheyi, Hans R.; Brito, Marcos E. B.; Lacerda, Claudivan F. de; Silva, Francisco V. da; Soares, Frederico A. L.

doi:10.1590/1807-1929/agriambi.v20n5p434-440

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Revista Brasileira de Engenharia Agrícola e Ambiental

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

SOIL, WATER AND PLANT MANAGEMENT • Rev. bras. eng. agríc. ambient. 20 (5) • May 2016 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-1929/agriambi.v20n5p434-440 copy

Quantum efficiency of photosystem II and production of orange under salt stress and nitrogen fertilization

Eficiência quântica do fotossistema II e produção de laranjeira sob estresse salino e adubação nitrogenada

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

This study aimed to evaluate the salt tolerance of 'Mimo do Céu' orange grafted onto three rootstocks using physiological parameters such as maximum quantum efficiency of photosystem II (PSII) and the production of fruits. It also evaluated the effectiveness of increased nitrogen (N) fertilization in reducing the effects of salt stress. Two concomitant experiments were carried out under controlled conditions, using drainage lysimeters. The Experiment I evaluated the effects of the application of five levels of saline water on three combinations of scion-rootstocks grafted with 'Mimo de Ceu' orange, in a randomized block design with three replicates in a 5 x 3 factorial scheme. The Experiment II evaluated the application of two N levels (100 and 200% of recommendation) in three scion-rootstock combinations irrigated with water of electrical conductivity of 3.0 dS m^-1, in a 3 x 2 factorial scheme, with three replicates. The maximum quantum efficiency of PSII was inhibited in citrus plants under salt stress. 'Mimo do Ceu' orange grafted onto 'Common' Rangpur lime has higher yield potential. The increase in N dose did not reduce the deleterious effects of water salinity on fruit production.

Key words:
Citrus spp.; physiology; salt stress.

Scion	Rootstock^* * From the Citrus Breeding Program (PMG – Citros) of the Embrapa Cassava and Fruits
‘Mimo do Céu’ orange	RS1 - TSKC (‘Common Sunki’ mandarin (Citrus sunki (Hayata) hort. ex Tanaka)) x TRENG (Poncirus Trifoliata ‘English’) – 256
	RS2 - LCRC (‘Common’ Rangpur lime (Citrus limonia L. Osbeck))
	RS3 - TSKC x (Rangpur lime (LCR) x Poncirus Trifoliata (TR)) – 059.

Density kg dm^-3	Total porosity %	Sand	Silt	Clay	Sorption complex				pH_sp	EC_se dS m^-1
		Sand	Silt	Clay	Ca²⁺	Mg²⁺	Na⁺	K⁺
		g kg^-1			cmol_c kg^-1
1.42	49.47	734	168	98	1.88	3.13	1.64	0.06	4.72	0.66

	Nitrogen (N)	Phosphorus (P)	Potassium (K)
Recommendation (mg kg^-1 of soil)	100	300	150
Fertilizer source	Urea	MAP	K₂SO₄
Fertilization (g per lysimeter)	21.5	121.1	72.2
Monthly amount (g month^-1)	1.8	10.1	6.1

Source of variation	DF	Mean Square
Source of variation	DF	Fo¹ 1 Statistical analysis performed after transforming the data to √X	Fm	Fv	Fv/Fm	TFP¹ 1 Statistical analysis performed after transforming the data to √X
Salinity (ECw)	4	116082.988^ ns, , * Respectively, not significant, significant at p < 0.01 and p < 0.05;	399487.889^ ns, , * Respectively, not significant, significant at p < 0.01 and p < 0.05;	902822.577^ ns, , * Respectively, not significant, significant at p < 0.01 and p < 0.05;	0.081^ ns, , * Respectively, not significant, significant at p < 0.01 and p < 0.05;	7805376.744^ ns, , * Respectively, not significant, significant at p < 0.01 and p < 0.05;
Linear regression		395328.117^ ns, , * Respectively, not significant, significant at p < 0.01 and p < 0.05;	1597951.556^ ns, , * Respectively, not significant, significant at p < 0.01 and p < 0.05;	3480766.513^ ns, , * Respectively, not significant, significant at p < 0.01 and p < 0.05;	0.288^ ns, , * Respectively, not significant, significant at p < 0.01 and p < 0.05;	29158543.699^ ns, , * Respectively, not significant, significant at p < 0.01 and p < 0.05;
Quadratic regression		45048.618^ns ns, *, Respectively, not significant, significant at p < 0.01 and p < 0.05;	43134.689^ns ns, *, Respectively, not significant, significant at p < 0.01 and p < 0.05;	118151.145^ns ns, *, Respectively, not significant, significant at p < 0.01 and p < 0.05;	0.031^ ns, , * Respectively, not significant, significant at p < 0.01 and p < 0.05;	1343595.208^ns ns, *, Respectively, not significant, significant at p < 0.01 and p < 0.05;
Rootstock (RS)	2	19079.444^ns ns, *, Respectively, not significant, significant at p < 0.01 and p < 0.05;	43134.689^ns ns, *, Respectively, not significant, significant at p < 0.01 and p < 0.05;	22869.272^ns ns, *, Respectively, not significant, significant at p < 0.01 and p < 0.05;	0.003^ns ns, *, Respectively, not significant, significant at p < 0.01 and p < 0.05;	15191409.8^ ns, , * Respectively, not significant, significant at p < 0.01 and p < 0.05;
ECw x RS	8	7343.186^ns ns, *, Respectively, not significant, significant at p < 0.01 and p < 0.05;	26950.272^ns ns, *, Respectively, not significant, significant at p < 0.01 and p < 0.05;	15061.869^ns ns, *, Respectively, not significant, significant at p < 0.01 and p < 0.05;	0.001^ns ns, *, Respectively, not significant, significant at p < 0.01 and p < 0.05;	246646.744^ns ns, *, Respectively, not significant, significant at p < 0.01 and p < 0.05;
Block	2	8083.084	24758.689	36191.339	0.003	227141.267
Residue	28	10280.084	53464.998	35825.934	0.002	420757.719
CV		9.86	12.44	13.7	7.15	10.25
Overall mean (ECw)		476.247	1858.111	4853032.644	0.7350	3311.467
Overall mean (RS)		560.556	1760.056	1199.333	0.658	1941.142

Source of variation	DF	Mean Square
Source of variation	DF	Fo¹ 1 Statistical analysis performed after transforming the data to √X	Fm	Fv	Fv/Fm	TPF¹ 1 Statistical analysis performed after transforming the data to √X
Nitrogen (N)	1	183618^* * = significant at p ≤ 0.05.	560740.5^ns ns = not significant;	1387778^* * = significant at p ≤ 0.05.	0.105^ns ns = not significant;	107399.13^ns ns = not significant;
Rootstock (RS)	2	20743.39^ns ns = not significant;	61766.89^ns ns = not significant;	119632.67^ns ns = not significant;	0.014^ns ns = not significant;	2974490.941^ = significant at p ≤ 0.01;
N x RS	2	35668.5^ns ns = not significant;	61766.89^ns ns = not significant;	98468.67^ns ns = not significant;	0.02^ns ns = not significant;	2464.898^ns ns = not significant;
Block	2	26403.39	29070.06	86	0.001	205415.235
Residue	10	28714.39	187019.12	232686.93	0.024	34026.458
CV		14.78	12.47	22.19	13.28	9.5
Overall mean		560	1760	1199	0.657	1941.14

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

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] jonatasraulyno@gmail.com (Corresponding author)