SHO‘RLANISH STRESSI OSTIDA G‘O‘ZA GENOTIPLARINING SUV BALANSINI SAQLASH QOBILIYATI VA ULARNING CHIDAMLILIK DARAJASI
##article.subject##:
g‘o‘za, sho‘rlanish stressi, TWC, RWC, ELWL, fiziologik marker, seleksiya, chidamlilik##article.abstract##
Sug‘oriladigan maydonlarning sho‘rlanishi O‘zbekistonda barqaror paxtachilikka asosiy to‘siqlardan biri bo‘lib qolmoqda; suv resurslari tanqisligi va tuproq tuzlanishining kuchayishi sharoitida sho‘rga chidamli genotiplarni tezkor va ishonchli fiziologik markerlar asosida ajratib olish seleksiya dasturlarining eng dolzarb vazifasidir. G‘o‘za (Gossypium hirsutum L.) genotiplarining sho‘rlanishga fiziologik javobini TWC, RWC va ELWL ko‘rsatkichlari asosida baholash hamda seleksiya uchun istiqbolli chidamli donorlarni aniqlash. O‘zbekistonda istiqbolli 17 genotip o‘rtacha va kuchli sho‘rlangan sharoitlarda, tasodifiy bloklar sxemasida 3–4 takror bilan sinovdan o‘tkazildi. Umumiy suv miqdori (TWC, %), nisbiy suv miqdori (RWC, %), bargdan suv yo‘qotish va (ELWL, %; 3 soatlik protokol) o‘lchandi. Ma’lumotlar ikki omilli ANOVA (Genotip, Sho‘rlanish, Genotip×Sho‘rlanish) yordamida tahlil qilindi. Sho‘rlanish ortishi umumiy tendensiya sifatida TWC va RWC ni pasaytirdi, ELWL ni oshirdi (p<0.001). ANOVA natijalari Genotip, sho‘rlanish darajasi hamda ularning o‘zaro ta’siri barcha ko‘rsatkichlarga sezilarli ta’sir ko‘rsatganini tasdiqladi (p<0.001). Chidamli guruh sifatida Yulduz-2, T-1002, T-1003 va T-1090 ajralib chiqdi: kuchli sho‘rda ham TWC/RWC nisbatan yuqori va ELWL past darajada ekanligi qayd etildi. Ishonch, L-217, L-218, Orzu, T-1050 sezgir genotiplar sifatida aniqlandi (TWC/RWC keskin pasayishi va ELWLning yuqoriligi). TWC, RWC va ELWL kompleks yondashuvi sho‘rga chidamlilikni tez va ishonchli baholash uchun samarali markerlar to‘plamini beradi. Aniqlangan chidamli genotiplar — Yulduz-2, T-1002, T-1003, T-1090 — seleksiya dasturlarida sho‘rga chidamli donor sifatida tavsiya etiladi.
Библиографические ссылки
Ashraf, M., & Harris, P. J. C. (2013). Photosynthesis under stressful environments: An overview. Photosynthetica, 51(2), 163–190.
Barrs, H. D., & Weatherley, P. E. (1962). A re-examination of the relative turgidity technique for estimating water deficits in leaves. Australian Journal of Biological Sciences, 15, 413–428.
Blum, A. (2011). Plant Breeding for Water-Limited Environments. Springer.
Chaves, M. M., Flexas, J., & Pinheiro, C. (2009). Photosynthesis under drought and salt stress: Regulation mechanisms from whole plant to cell. Annals of Botany, 103, 551–560.
Clarke, J. M., & McCaig, T. N. (1982). Excised-leaf water retention capability as an indicator of drought resistance. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 62, 571–578.
Flowers, T. J., & Colmer, T. D. (2008). Salinity tolerance in halophytes. New Phytologist, 179(4), 945–963.
Kerstiens, G. (2006). Water transport in plant cuticles: An update. Journal of Experimental Botany, 57(11), 2493–2499.
Kramer, P. J., & Boyer, J. S. (1995). Water Relations of Plants and Soils. Academic Press.
Munns, R., & Tester, M. (2008). Mechanisms of salinity tolerance. Annual Review of Plant Biology, 59, 651–681.
Parida, A. K., & Das, A. B. (2005). Salt tolerance and salinity effects on plants: A review. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 60(3), 324–349.
Roy, S. J., Negrão, S., & Tester, M. (2014). Salt resistant crop plants: Current understanding of molecular mechanisms. Trends in Plant Science, 19(6), 371–379.
Schonfeld, M. A., Johnson, R. C., Carver, B. F., & Mornhinweg, D. W. (1988). Water relations in winter wheat: Excised-leaf water loss and drought resistance. Crop Science, 28(3), 526–531.
Slavík, B. (1974). Methods of Studying Plant Water Relations. Springer.
Turner, N. C. (1981). Techniques and experimental approaches for the measurement of plant water status. Plant and Soil, 58(1–3), 339–366.
Szabados, L., & Savouré, A. (2010). Proline: A multifunctional amino acid. Trends in Plant Science, 15(2), 89–97.
