ناریا ینابغاب مولع

(1)

53 1

1401 ) 115 - 99

( DOI: 10.22059/ijhs.2021.294739.1758

* Corresponding author E-mail: [email protected]

:

! " #

$

"

%&

( )1

* " +"

2

. *

3

1 2 3

.

!"# $% &' (

:*+ , )

17 / 10 / 1398 - :4 56 , 17

/ 12 / 1399 (

0

8 9&

' :" ;+ < && =' >' ? ( ( < @ , 6 % A&' <% . B %

C ) Rosa canina

R. beggeriana R. orientalis

R. persica

<% ( 9&

D

%E F G% H # IJ K > + L M <% '(E % + N >' O

>' ? ( O < >' ? P

9&

D

%E ) O B) QR < % 03

/ 0 - ( 8 / 0 - (S ') 5

/ 1 - UE >!V 6 W 6 ' ( B)

F 8 P ( B 4 X 6 ( >M C <J V O ! .

< O 9& Y! *= 5' O D

%E Z % ( [ \ % . & + K

QR C (LMA)

< ]!%

9& % L ^ ' O D

%E 9& .*B _ E % D

%E Z % UE "V =' 9O IX '

(RWC) GY? `8 B a' (PI)

J ' a' * a' 9 :+ >!+ G !O JE

(MDA) R. persica

. B

<

R. canina 9&

D

%E 9O IX ' RWC

E *!+ b PI

!V (DPPH) * a' 9 :+

. BMDA

<

R. beggeriana 9&

D

%E * 9 :+ I"

E *!+ b

!V

% B

<!a . % \ V=' L ^ L ^M

<

R. orientalis 9&

D

%E . % ' L ^M &@ L !!c IX '

\ % [

R. orientalis de

R. beggeriana

9& S B <%

D

%E

>Y= ' . & VO

0

: 2

8 E *!+ b

!V J ' >!+ G . !O JE

Study of some physiological and biochemical reactions in some Iranian native roses to water deficit stress

NedaJalali¹, Rohangiz Naderi^2* and Azizollah Khandan-Mirkohi³

1, 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) ABSTRACT

Drought stress is one of limitation factors in landscape expantion. In order to investigate response of four wild roses species (Rosa canina, R. beggeriana, R. orientalis & R. persica) to water deficit, a factorial experiment was carried out 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 to water deficit treatment. Based on the results, leaf mass area (LMA) was different between species and water deficit had 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. canina RWC, PI and free radical scavenging capacity (DPPH) decreased and EL and MDA increased. In R. beggeriana EL and DPPH increased and in other characteristics difference was invisible. In R. orientalis water deficit had no dramatic effect on traits. Based on the results R. orientalis and then R. beggeriana are more tolerable to drought stress.

Keywords: Antioxidant capacity,chlorophyll,drought, malondialdehyde.

(2)

3

% 6'72 1 3 '8 9 :; <) (= % >&

2 ? @ :/ 9:)1 6'72 92 .$ ,

.A2 / 9=B2 2 4 & CD;

,#$

)

Lee

et al., 2015

( += $ . F5

9'G'$

H') I F5 1

? J2 / =K

% >&

(=

% ':

1

L M/

'/

2 , .$

, 9'A

") (&

#'J/

N +2 9 ; DJ'

% O C2 F5

%1 J$

9A#P Q GD

%

% Q, 9

)

Lea-Cox & Ross, 2001

( .

R+ A2 1 ) F5 += $

"#3 H) 3 .$ 9 )

2 . +2 5 (= % >&

MD J! .$ 4)+

.SD! D! T U , M 6'72

%

2 ; '@ 3 973 % (= % >&

, )

Amissah

et al., 2015

.(

%V3 D 1 ) (= % >& += %

2 ,/ +3 , J! . W M2 '0 F XD/

)

Niu et

al., 2008

( . D#)1 '0 92 M2 ./ D 5 ) # .

4$

5 0,##$ Q GD (= % >& (= Y) #P .

21 % ' 5 ) $ ") (& Z/ ! % ' 5 %,#

$ , +! < $ A; 1 '/ +2 % ' 5 F5 ,M2 )

Niu

et al., 2006

(.

) 4$ ./ ' [ H'Z/ '2 ) 2 +J$

250

T'2 <J! . '/ <J! ]^ #2 ( (R D2

2 F+:72 ('/ 0,/ ('2 H' .$ +

2 ,72 _+`

.$ % +^ . , 70

,P

0,/

25 2 ? +P +J$ ,P H) # . '0

,) I .Tb:2 <) F5 H'2 3 c J2 .$ 9 d

.D + .J' ) %1 J$ e 21 1 9

(Farzam, 2009)

.

) ./+0

% 1 f =) M3 W 3

L M/

. (

]^ #2 +#

Q,#$ I 2 ,#

)

Rechinger, 1982

.(

% 1 ,) =' W ; K .T' + ,/+'I ./+

'B 3

2 ,/+

,/+'I ./ +

<) [

% g3 .D! # Q,

'B 3 1 '/

2 , )

Gault & Synge,

.(1987

9) B$

W ; ,),

%1 .$

. [ &

2 ,#

.) I ) ,#D:

.$

1 ]) ^ ,/+'I ./ + ) 1 .D& ) ,/

)

Halevy, 1986

.(

% 1 J8

% T0 Q Z)

QV)

% . +#U .) I

% ,/+'I ) _ P ./+0

% 1 +2

9J$

$ ,/

)

Tkalec et al., 2012

.(

Q1 2

_ P 0 9'

Q GD Q

1 W * 4 I ./+0 -

% J8 W ;

),;

% ,' . O ,

8 P

! ,'$ 3 2 ,##$

.

% )1 1 ./+0

%

1 .$

H 2 9

%

? GP

%,# 1 ,#

+2

Q

% ; .D& Z/

,/

.

? 'P+C!

c ; +3

./+0

% J8 1 Q, J2 Q,

9 .$

2 +3

92 M2 )1 . 6) ,U :2 /

`'72 +

`U

&

! 4$

('2 H'2 D) )1 C

W+'D/ h'

92 M2 i .

% ' W /

. H)

? GP F+T`2 .$

./+0

% J8 1 W ; ),;

3 + ,/

2 -

,#/+3 9 R MD/

. W ; ,2 +2 Q

%

"'

% 3 ; ,/ '0 )

Zlesak, 2007

.(

. j I % ': ? A `2 .D k0 % %

. '0 ) ' ' +' + +2 )*+ +)('&

4$

5

Q $ [ (0 Q1 ,/ .,/

l! ! % '0

% +D72 c'& T$ ,M2 ,#/ 2 ,/ L =3 F5 += $ F5 =:/

(RWC)

/+) 9J/

+#U . .$ (EL)

2 F+:72 Q '0 +3 c ; % 'A2 .,/+

Q('Z/

%* / Fk Q1 Q '0 . %(D# +D& % 2 / +/

(= 9 :; c'& T$ ,M2 H) # ,#

Q '0 Q '0 (D# +D& T U .$ 9 %,'T$ c2 U <)

2 ; '@ 3 973 ,

(Taiz & Zeiger, 1998)

.

Q '0 m 2+' ,' +3 % .' % ,#)5 & 1 (D# +D&

m :8 1 ) 9 . )*+ +)('& % ,#)5 & H) 3

"#3 2 `'72 % ,

(Farooq et al., 2009)

.

.Z/ ) / +3 H) # R+=; c ; ('2 <) HD

2 "#3 6) 973 (D# +D&

Z/ J/ <) ,/ +3

, Q '0 % 01

(Niu & Rodriguez, 2009)

.

H''A3 % ,'G2 H'Z/ '2 <) ('/ F5 =:/ ,M2 F5 =:/ ,M2 .9 Q '0 )*+ +)('& F5 9'An

9 J! "#3 . Z/ J/

)

Ahmadizadeh,

(2013

.

Niu & Rodriguez (2009)

.$ ,/ $ [ (0

4; 1 (D# +D& ,M2

‘Dr. Huey’

Rosa

×fortuniana R. odorata

R. multiflora

9U :

Q ^ 4$

5 (D# +D& 9& ) " $

‘Dr.

Huey’

R.×fortuniana

,M2 o RWC

3 +P 9 ) (/ ZD:=

ZD:= H) .$

(3)

R. odorata

9 +^ T$ +` .9 ,/ +

4$

R. odorata

.) I ) 1 % D $ (D# +D& ,M2

. J/

Gholami & Rahemi (2010)

" $ ('/

#A2 ,M2 H' J2 4; +3 '#'2 1 RWC

-

1 ,A 21 1 1 4$

5 .$ ,/ $ Q, J2 5

/ 64

,A 9& ) " $ c=; . 9=:/ ,P % ' 5 1

., <) (/ , . 5 ,M2 Q

Z/ J/ <) +#U . c'& T$ r# +T& JD/

9 Q, .D! # (D# +D& 1 .' ) ' ' +D&

"#3 + ? =@ % 2 $ .

r# +T& .

% '8 .! - +2 3 U ^ H'#S c'& T$

2 4 & H $ 1 H $ 4:' + D2 .,#$

O C2 ]) ^

ATP NADPH

") :$ 9'An +3 I N' -

4D:' +D& D .' Q,/ )kI J $ . II

2 ; '@ 3 973 r# +T& T U 5 R =/

,

(Ogren, 1990)

.

+2 c'& T$

1 r# +T&

De Dauw et

al.

(2013)

9'A

F1

% 1 ,'d+Th) cP 8

1

; 3

Rosa ‘Yesterday’×Rosa wichurana

%

. c 73 4$

5 l! ,M2 ,/ $ % Z K

T U @+2 2+D/5+$

4D:' +D&

II (Y(II))

Q1 ,/

% '0 .,/ $ H' Q 0 '0

"#3 Q,)

, s) D/

J2 , Q,)

l!

(Y(II))

%

() 3 1 c ; l! .A `2 5 +=/ % DU

.

Q '!t 5 ,72 973 6) 4$

5

"#3

/+' ,':$

,' +3 u+&

Q A ./+0

% V':$

"#$

0

(ROS)

<) 73 2 ,#$

.

" $ )

CO2

.D:

, ./1 ) 9' A&

F+'A2 4)(/5

N' 5 Q ZD

%

%(D# +D&

973

"#3 5 g#2

. ,' +3 ./+0

% V':$

"#$

0 ,#/ 2

O^2-

H2O2

RO

-OH

2 + )

Flexas & Medrano,

2002; Lawlor & Cornic, 2002

.(

Y' [ D:0 i e+#3 + . . +3

./+0 ) J8 1 vTDX2 %

j I +2 "#3 . ) ' ' +' )*+ +)('& %

./+0 ,72 ) 2+ 1 % j I .A `2 Q +

1 .

"#3

%

`'72

% 9' Q,#) (&

]^ #2

<J!

<J! . '/

2 Q U .$ - ,

% >& % 1 .) I +#U . /5 $ 2 4:'/ 2 ) # (=

./+0 H) j I %

%,'G2 ? U ^

% _ P W ; g) 0

) ,), 1 W ; +=

4 &

2 " VI H) .,#$

"#3 '@ 3 O, 4$

5 l!

%

., W g/ ) 2+ 1 ./+0 - )*+ +)('&

4 *

Y #2 %1 J$ r) I 1 % >& " VI H) R w $ Y; 3 Q ZJ/ A'=^

1394 .

c) +D$ & ") 215 ? +P x+T _ ^ .) I

c2 $ %

1 % ./+0 R c2 U ., W g/ 3 . & C3 c2 J8 1 y` - c2

Rosa canina L.

./+0) 1 % .) I +#U . % g3 $ .$ %

( 4 (= % >&

R. orientalis Dupont ex

.Ser R. beggeriana Schrenk R. persica Michx

ex Juss.

"#3 W c2 U 4$

5 y` . c2

"#3 4$

5 ) , 03 / 0 - 6 +D2 "#3 (R I Z2

) 8 / 0 - ) ,), "#3 (R I Z2 5

/ 1 . (R I Z2

Y c72 ? U ^ .,/ + W +D$ & . (#2 % 5

R , ./+0 1

c72 ) # 1 rI .9 Q,25

./+0 "#$ I +$k2 %

'/ ) +T& 1 Q GD

H'MM72 ) ? A `2

(Samiei et al., 2010)

[+ I ,#G /5 %

1392 Y

Q 0 . % 5

A'=^ Y #2 %1 J$ r) I / =K W+TU ., Q R MD/ 3 Q ZJ/

R , 1 . Y c72 D:/ % 5

% / ) # ./+0 +2 % .A `2 .

Table 1. Collection site of Iranian rose and identification of studied species.

Species Collection site

Province Number

R. canina L.

Collection of Faculty of Agriculture Karaj

1

R. orientalis Dupont ex Ser.

Emamzadeh Davood Tehran

2

R. beggeriana Schrenk Shahroud

Semnan 3

R. persica Michx. ex Juss.

Tash Semnan

4

(4)

,A3 150 ./+0 1 [+ I ,U

,T0

% 'D I Q '

4g8 10 9J$ D'

,/, . % Q() Z# .)i <) 1 " 1 g)

,T0 v$

Q GD +2 D: .,) 0 Q GD

,T0 1 ^+TX2

x ! .SK . 2 o =$ !

. 9=:/

1:1:2 .J) t+G/ 1 % '0+T % . +

,T0 " 1 ,:/ W,U x ! . '0 ,T0 .,/, Q ; t+G/ c ; 'K y` % %

[+ I % 8

% 3 Q1 9J$

Q,

% >&

1 ;

,/, Q 0,' % , Z/ R <) ?,2 .

.,/, "#3 % '3 W g/ 1 c=; 3 4$

5 .

.,#) / , Q, MD:2 +!

Q 2

= )

R+T72 I 0 +$

c2 $ 20 NPK

- 20 - 20

W g/ %k{2() P #U % 8 ,

. Ok8 vTU

%

1 ,T0 .

? +P D

W g/

. .9& 0

+|#2 H''A3

? 'P+C!

L+TX2 D:

Q GD

Q, 1 D:

,T0 ./+ /

% W g/

./+ /

Y #2 %1 J$ r) I % ' 5 Q 0 Q ZJ) 215 . H''A3 .,/, Q R MD/ 3 Q ZJ/ A'=^

U 1 9'& } 4d 0 2VI .`M/ (FC)

(PWP)

, W g/ % J& ? 7GP Q ZD 1 Q GD R , ) 2 .(

MD +! . .$ Q1 ,/ 4 '0 W R Q, F XD/ ,#D = #2 , ,/ + .D& )

.,#D& 0 ; Q GD +2 ") 215 % c=;

1 e

") 215 +|#2 .

" $ @ 2

" 3 +/

,' +!

'X=3 y` 1 F5 x !

9; ") (& ('/

,T0 x ! ") 215

<'D I Q,/ +I

,/,

(Gholami et al., 2012)

. 1 ") 215 W g/ %

./+0 J8 1 ) - ./+0 ( +2 .

.D

,T0 20 ) 3 F XD/

., Q 0 R 3 9'& }

.U (2

%

% ' 5 .

+#U ,

F+:72 ,/,

Q 0

W W+

.D ) 973 .$ ,/ +

"#3 J!

,#D& 0 ; .

W g/ % ' 5 Y`; ? +C "#3 R U

3 W Q 0 "#3 .$ % +` , 8

/ 0 - R I Z2

3 W+ .D 5

/ 1 - % ., R U R I Z2

s# 9 +^ Q ZD 1 x ! 9 +^ ,M2 H''A3

TDR (Spectrum, FieldScout)

., Q GD 21

0 ./+ / '0 1 |/ +2 "#3 y` . ,' ,g2 Q,) "#3 '0 rh , .' 3 % ' 5 ﺍ

9J0 9'T ; 3 ,/, ./+0 % )kI

. +

,g2 % ' 5 1 ,A .DG <) 1 <) +|#2 H) ./+ /

% ., 3

!" # (LMA)

c2 $ o y` ,D 9GP H) % '0 Q1 ,/ % Y (.S0 9G ) Q ZD 1 Q GD Q, % 5

s# y`

(Delta T, England)

Q1 ,/

, % '0

5 . rh 80

D/ . ,/, Q R MD/ 0

<J! 1 c2 $ , <J! 1 ,A o (DW)

Q1 ,/

, % '0 ) .` 1 Q GD

1 o 1 (

., .= 72 y` ,8

) 1 (

LMA= (DW/LA)

$% & ' () (RWC)

#

[ o F5 =:/ % +D72

Turner (1981)

W g/

o 3 1 ., c2 $ %

Q1 ,/ (FW)

Q, % '0

) 215 O } ./ 0 , o rh ; ZJ

?,2 . .D& 0 24

.^+K `M2 F5 9U

r/ * +3 1 ,/, 1 Q 5 1 rI ,/, Q1 ,/ (TW)

5 . rh , % '0 80

.

D/

<J! 1 ,A .D& ) R MD/ 0 <J! 1 ,

., 9=@ /5 (DW)

) .` 1 Q GD RWC

2 (

., .= 72

) 2 (

RWC%= (FWDW)/(TWDW)× 100

R ,

2 . 0V)

% )('&

) ' ' x ! +2 Q GD

.

Table 2. Physical and chemical characteristics of used soil.

Permanent wilting point (PWP) Field capacity

(FC) EC (ds m^-

1) Soil pH

Texture Soil composition

11.84%

30.41%

2.65 7.8

Sandy loam Garden soil, sand and leaf compost

2:1:1

(5)

* (EL)

/+) 9J/ ,M2 JK . N' 5 ('2 "g# % <) ? A`; . .' 3 0 ./+ / 1 W 0 . ,M2

D/

% D2 +JD: . 1 rI .,/, !

+ &

% 50 T'2 ,/, cMD#2 % D' 25

T'2 D'

./+ / rh ., .& n + & . Q('/+) F5 .

?,2 24 ,/, Q ; ZJ) 215 ' % 9U

.' ) D 9) , 5 1 rI

(EC1)

6 +3

EC

D2

(Metrohm 644)

Q1 ,/

./+ / rh ., % '0 .

?,2 20 % 2 .M';

120 D/ .

$+3 0

, <#! 1 ,A ,/, Q1 ,/ ,g2 /5 EC

% '0

,

(EC2)

,M2 . .` ]=^ EL

) % 3 , .= 72 (

(Eugenia et al., 2003)

.

) 3 (

EL=(EC1/EC2)×100

+ ' !, !+%

(MDA)

Q1 ,/

[ ,'h' +' ,':$ I ,M2 % '0

Hodges et al.

(1999)

D' T'2 <) ., W g/

R+T72 1 / 0

% 3 ,P . ,' <'T':$+ $ 1

/ 0 W 0

, .& n Q1 3 o ./+ / 15

W 0 F5 W 8 .M';

% 2 j) W 8 $ 1 ,A 9& 0 ; 4 . D/

?,2 . 0 10

*+'G) D/ .M';

13000 D2+D& D h , .D k0 .M';

(Shimadzu UV-160, Japan)

w+2 R+^

% 600

540 ., 9d ; D2+/ /

Fv/Fm PI

c 8 c ; D ) +T& Q ZD 1 Q GD )

Hansatech Instruments, Handy PEA, Norfolk, UK

( ,/

Q1

% '0 c'& T$ r# +T& %

Q1 ,/ ., W g/ a

") 215 Q W 3 % '0

H' 9U 10

3 12 9& 0 ? +P } 1 c=;

?,2 . ) 3 % 01 Q 20

JX .M';

+ Q, x I =K 0 1 .$ .S0 <# I 1 T U l! ? GP ., W g/

B$ ,8 (PI)

4D:' +D& 2+D/5+$ T U

II (Fv/Fm)

6

4 5 .,#D& 0 ; )1 +2

) 4 (

Fv/Fm=(Fm-F0)/Fm

F0

.' r/ +T& : B$ ,8 r/ +T& :Fm

:Fv

''{D2 r/ +T&

) 5 (

PI=RC/ABS

4D:' +D& "#$ ($ 2 :RC II

Fk ) :ABS

%* / .

-.,/ !0 '.(1 (2 '

Q1 ,/

c'& T$ % '0

a

o % ,'d+#3 $ c$ b

[ 1 Q GD

Lichtenthaler (1987)

9& 0 W g/

) 6 m 6

., .= 72 (

) 6 (

Chla = 12.25 × A663 2.79 × A645

Chlb = 21.50 × A645 5.10 × A663

Chla+b = 7.15 × A663 + 18.71 × A645

C_x+c = (1000×A₄₇₀1.82×Chl_a85.02×Chl_b)/ 198

( % *,2 3 45 !,&5

D/5 9'& } Q CU c$ / ,':$

Q 1

B#!

15 R ) 0,##$

)DPPH

1 1 -

% c'#&

- 2 -

c) 'I [ (c)1 ,'

Falchi et al.

(2006)

w+2 R+^ D2+D& D h Q ZD 1 Q GD 517

) .` 1 Q GD W g/ D2+/ / 7

.,) 0 .= 72 (

) 7 (

DPPH%= 100  [(A517 / A0) ×100]

A₀

Fk : ./+ / , DPPH

A517

Fk : ./+ / DPPH

56 7 8"

!" #

Q r/ ) .)(g3 s) D/

4$ "#3 .$ J/

5

#A2 '@ 3 LMA

./+0 H' 9GP H) 2 9 ,/ %

#A2 ? G3 J/ ,P s#I R D8 y` %

R , ) 3 ,M2 H) DJ' .(

./+0 LMA R.

beggeriana

H'Z/ '2 H) D $ , Q, J2

R.

persica

c ) ,25 9 . 1

#A2 ? G3 ,#- .(

-

H' % 25 ~ 7 1 %

R. orientalis R. canina

R. beggeriana

0V) o y` 1 . +=/

o % U 9 8 ,#D: o Q1 ,/ 1 vTDX2 %

o ( ,/ w 'D8 % DJ' r2+' . 3

(Huang et al.,

(6)

2019)

,M2 . •G8 o DJ' U R+^ 3i LMA

.9 6=3 2 0,' J! 1 9} G8 ) kK +2

LMA

o ; =`/ 6) c' . i D8 3i ]^ #2 %

o 3i 4$ 3 9TU . H'#S 6) H) <J!

9 )

Riva et al., 2016

( 3i ,M2 H) .

Q, Q, J2LMA R. beggeriana

c' . i D8

N +2 .$ 9 (Q,J/ .d Q ) 0 3i 4$ 3 +2 . + 2 3i LMA R. orientalis

.Tb:2

o 4$ 4$ 3 + + ? GD2 H) ) . 9=:/

o ) <J! 1 DJ' ( )1 R+ '3+$ 4'Xn %

") (& N +2 . . +3 .,) 0 LMA

Q . #)

"#3 . +2 4$

5 2 ''{3 9 Q + Q 3+$

5 @ Q,J/ g) Q '0 D!

#A2LMA

. +=/

# $% & ' ()

Q r/ ) .)(g3 1 cP 8 s) D/

.$ J/

/5 c MD2 @ ./+0 "#3 '3 @ RWC

#A2 R , ) 9 .D % 3

4) 2 "#3 .(

./+0 .

#A2 ''{3 1 % ,M2 %

RWC

,), "#3 . / g) , . 9=:/

R. canina

30 5 ,A ,P

R. persica

28 / 21 ,P

" $ ,M2 H) DJ' , . 9=:/ " $

RWC

,M2 H) D $ ,#D H) ) . 9=:/

4$ "#3 1 % )kI '@ 3 5

R. orientalis

., Q,)

./+0 . ,A 1 <) 1 ,g2 % ' 5 1 ,A y` . =) M3 ,#D:/ +3 ,), 4) 2 "#3

c ) ,/ 0 , '0RWC

2 .(

. J8 1 (LMA) y` ,8 o 1 ./+0 @ H'Z/ '2.:) M2. 1c

Figure 1. Mean comparison effect of species on leaf mass per unit area (LMA) of wild rose.

R ,

3 . s) D/

€)(g3 r/ ) @ 3

"#

4$

5 ./+0 l!

)1 +2 % . J8 1

Table 3. Results of variance analysis effect of water deficit and species on studied parameters of wild rose.

Mean of squares Source of

variation

df LMA RWC EL MDA Fv/Fm

Water deficit (W)

6 1.44 ns 458.82^** 21215.01^** 240.3^** 0.023^**

Species (S) 3 3.89^* 102.91^* 14557.61^** 404.98^** 0.034^**

W×S 18 1.22 ns 86.25^** 5931.1^** 86.98^** 0.012^**

Error 54 1.31 36.54 1211.84 18.41 0.003

CV (%) 29.28 7.91 22.07 7.18 7.67

Mean of squares Source of

variation

df PI Chl a Chl b Total Chl Carotenoids DPPH

Water deficit (W)

6 12.31^** 14.79^** 2.04^** 26.79^** 1.55^** 175.55^*

Species (S) 3 17.11^** 24.31^** 18.82^** 78.06^** 11.83^** 2351.25^**

W×S 18 6.9^** 5.89^** 1.15^** 11.78^** 1.30^** 725.75^**

Error 54 2.28 1.67 0.19 2.93 0.45 35.07

CV (%) 9.16 8.14 7.65 7.94 13.57 8.72

* :**

. N'3 3 ? G3

#A2 y`

R D8 5 1 ,P

.

:N'3 3 . ? GP vGX2)

y` ,8 o 1 LMA

F5 =:/ %+D72RWC

/+) 9J/EL

,' , 5 % + 2MDA Fv/Fm

4D:' +D& 2+D/5+$ )5 $ B$,8

II

%(D# +D& T U l! PI

c'& T$ ,M2Chl

c$ /,':$ D/5 9'& }DPPH (

**:Significantly difference at 5% and 1% probability level; respectively. (Traits abbreviations: LMA, leaf mass per unit area; RWC, relatively water content; EL, electric leakage; MDA, malondialdehyde; Fv/Fm, maximum quantum efficiency of photosystem II; PI, performance Index; Chl, chlorophyll; DPPH, free radical scavenging capacity).

ab ab

a

b

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2

R. canina R. orientalis R. beggeriana R. persica LMA (µg mm-2(

Rosa Species

(7)

Gholami & Rahemi (2010)

#A2 " $

,M2 1 F5 Y`; 1 ,A , . 9=:/ RWC

.,/ $ [ (0 H' J2 4; +3 '#'2

Niu &

Rodriguez (2009)

,), "#3 .$ ,/ $ [ (0

4$

5 .) I RWC

/5 .9& ) " $ 1 %

.) I .$ ,/ $ Q, J2 %

‘Dr. Huey’

.:) M2

.) I ) .9& ) " $ % DJ' 9U RWC

Handerson-Cole & Davies (1993)

,/ $ [ (0

,M2 .$

1 '/ 15 % >& 1 4; RWC

.Z/ . 1 '/ 1 4; . 9=:/ 4$ % , Z/

%

Q,/+ 'X=3 y` 9TU /5 ., •G8 DJ' i 7` .)i D -+$ G#2 o Q1 ,/ D $

W M2 6=3 2 'X=3 . 1 '/ " $ .g'D/ 3

.,#D:/

c ; R ,D2 l! <) o RWC

9' :8 ,M2 y) J3 % DU 1 . '0

2 F5 9 ,

)

Sanchez-Rodriguez et al.,

(2010

./+0 H' . +2 J8 1 %

n 8 .A `2

R. orientalis

y` R+ '3+$ .)i %

4'Xn ./+0 ) . 9=:/ % 3 2 |/ . +

,

9 1 Y/ 2 Q $ c U , <) +#U . .)i H) •G8 F5 )1 HD&

% +D72 .9 Q, DJ' RWC

9' A& ) (/ +^ . o F5 =:/

%

ZD:= x ! F5 9'An Q '0 )*+ +)('&

(Ozkur et al., 2009)

% DU c ; 0V) <)

‚'3+/* % Z K . W M2 %

4$

5 2 F :8 . ,)5

)

Rachmilevitch et al., 2006

(.

+ * '

!,6!+%

4$ "#3 ./+0 5

? G3 /5 c MD2 @ 1 %

#A2 ,M2 % R , ) ,#D EL

3 H) DJ' .(

,M2 4$ "#3 EL

./+0 ,), 5

R. canina

R. persica

) M2 N'3 3 . 11

/ 40 38 / 41 ,P

4$ . 9=:/ /5 D $ c 73 Q,# J/ .$ + 5

./+0 9

R. beggeriana

/+) 9J/ ,M2 4

) 04 / 31

#A2 ") (& , . 9=:/ ,), "#3 ( ./+0 /+) 9J/ ,M2 .9

R. orientalis

9'An

5 ,M2 9 3 GD2 . 9=:/ 4) 2 "#3

4$ "#3 9 " $ , 5 ,M2 ,), 5

./+0 . ., : ) % 25 |/ 1 , % ' 5

.,) 0 '0 ,g2 4'2 3 9J0 N= ,g2

J!"#3 MD , C .) J8 1 F5 =:/ % +D72 5 4$"#3 ./+0c MD2 @ H'Z/ '2.:) M2. 2c ƒ6 +D2 ƒ J! ,), "#3 SD

./+ / MR

%

<) 1 rI 1

% ' 5 ƒ6 +D2 J! "#3 ,g2 % ./+ / SR

ƒ,), J! "#3 ,g2 % ' 5 1 rI 1 <) ƒ6 +D2 J! "#3 ,g2 % ' 5 1 rI .DG <) % ./+ / MW

./+ / SW

%

<) .DG rI 1

% ' 5 ,), J! "#3 ,g2 (.

Figure 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 water stress; SR, sampling one day after re-watering in severe water stress, MW, sampling one week after re-watering in

mild water stress; SW, sampling one week after re-watering in severe water stress).

abc abc abc abc

c

a

bc

abc

e

bc c

d

abc ab

abc abc

abc abc abc

bc

abcabc abcabc abc abc

abc abc

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

R. canina R. orientalis R. beggeriana R. persica

RWC (%)

Rosa Species

C MD SD MR SR MW SW

(8)

,#-

R. beggeriana R. persica

1 <)

.DG <) 2 + i 4 1 /+) 9J/ ,), "#3 1 ,A c ) 9& ) " $ /+) 9J/ ,M2 ,g2 % ' 5 1 ,A 3

"#3 B$ .T 8 O, H' +T % JK .(

%

2 D:)1 'K Q +) ? =@ Z- h ) •G8 .,

. W M2 '0 0V) <) "#3 6) 973 +T 4$

5 2 , )

Bajji et al., 2002b

.(

J! "#3

"X >A .)i % ,'h' +G:& %

9 8 JK %

2 kG#2 JK D! "

.g'D/ +

2 „ R+T c! +2 9J/

g'D/ , "#3 .

4$

5 " $ %,'h' +' ,':$ I ") (& N=

2 +T % JK % ,) I +

(Mirjalili, 2005)

.

4; +Z/

"#3 _+` ") (& ,'G ./

4$

5 …U

, /+) 9J/ ('2 ") (&

)

Soukhtesaraee et al.,

(2017

m 0+T $ D#$ H - +T Q +) % ,) I . 973 ('/

9& ) " $ 9U . J! "#3 6)

(Wang & Huang, 2004)

"#3 . 92 M2 . 4$

5

vTDX2 % +'D +$ H' +T % JK ? =@ )1 6) 973 4$

5 2 g) () 3 " $ ,#$

ZD:= "#3 973 , =:/ ,M2

(Premachandra et al., 1989)

.

Dhanda et al.

(2004)

9 :; +T % JK ? =@ .$ ,/ $ ' 1 o %

"#3 4 I W * % Z K % ? 'P+C! H) D 2 4$

5 2 .,

21 4$

5 W M2

%1 Q +) +T u G3

2 ,D&

.$

9'& } 6:

+T

%

•G8 J&

m 25 2

,

") (&

2 , )

Neuman,

.(1995

'0

"#3 Q,)

" $ 9J/

/+)

J/

Q,#

Y g3 DJ' 9' +

2 , .$

c':/ DI

%(

" $ 9'& }

.Z/

% F5

") (&

2 , )

Sperdouli & Moustakas, 2012

.(

" $ 9J/

/+) i D8 . ) ,#)5 &

.$

? =@

JK

•G8 2 ,##$

L+ 2 9

4'|#3

%(

Q +) +T L =3 )

Kocheva et

al., 2014

.(

N' 5 D $ . JK 2 ,/ +3

") (&

9'& } Y g3 ,#;

o

^

"#3 5

L =3 .D

, . ,#;

. QV)

%

% ,) $

'8 Q,J/

,#/ 2 1 $

% 3 1+

JK +T

%

") (&

? =@

.)i

%,'h' m 3 ,/

)

! ./+0 .(

^SD ƒ6 +D2 J!"#3 ^MDƒ, ^C) . J8 1 /+) 9J/ 5 4$"#3 ./+0c MD2 @ H'Z/ '2.:) M2. 3 c

"#3 ,), ƒ J!

./+ / MR

%

<) 1 rI 1

% ' 5 ,g2

"#3 J!

ƒ6 +D2 ./+ / SR

%

<) 1 rI 1

% ' 5 ,g2

"#3 J!

ƒ,), ./+ / MW

%

<) .DG rI 1

% ' 5 ,g2

"#3 J!

ƒ6 +D2 ./+ / SW

%

<) .DG rI 1

% ' 5 ,g2

"#3 J!

,), ( .

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 water stress; SR, sampling one day after re-watering in severe water stress, MW, sampling one week after re-watering in

h-l

a-c

kl g-l e-k

h-l

g-l

d-j a-d

b-g b-h

a-f

g-l

a

e-k c-h

f-l

e-k

a-e a-f

h-l

a

j-l

g-l l

h-l

l

i-l

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

EC (%)

Rosa Species

C MD SD MR SR MW SW

(9)

4:'/ 2 D} G8

H) +2 c8 Q,/+

1+#

.

D .D! # Q,J/

9 2 .S/5 lXJ2 9

J!

R+ T2 ) .$

A'=^ 9 8 Q 0

,'h' +G:&

.D +'I ,#D:

,#;

H)(Z)

2 ,/+

H) e+n+2 2 ,/ +3 1 .T8 2

=/

''{3

c' J3 .#2

%,'h' .$

) / +3 c' J3 c:'2

%

m+ A2 ,/

N +2

") (&

9J/

/+) 2 ,/+

% '0+T ) ,#$

Bajji et al., 2002a

.(

,M2 ") (&

/+) 9J/

R. orientalis

. i D8 4) 2 "#3

W M2 .$ 9 L+ 2 c)i H' +T Q +) %1

4$ . +2 .T8 2 H) .9 .D& 0 W g/ 5

+ 2

% +' ,':$ I ?i+C72 1 ) ,' , 5

"#3 . +3 c ; Z/ J/ <) 9 %,'h' 2 /+' ,':$

,M2 k , DJ' MDA

9 6=3 2 3i /+' ,':$ "#3 . )

Al

Hassan et al., 2015

( J/ 1 cP 8 s) D/ .

"#3 '3 .$

4$

5

#A2 @ ./+0 %

.D MDA

R , ) ,/

3 ,M2 .(

'3 MDA

./+0 ,), "#3 %

R. canina R. persica

% ' 5 1 ,A J/ ") (& , . 9=:/

"#3 . 9=:/ ,/ ,g2 4$

5 J $ ,/

#A2 , J3 G3 ,#- ,#D . +

./+0 %

R. orientalis R. beggeriana

''{3

#A2 c ) ,J/ Q, J2 , . 9=:/ % 4

.(

,M2 ") (&

o MDA

. +0 % &

973 Z/

"#3 6) 4$

5 ' J) .9 Q, [ (0

% JK Z- h ) ,'h' +' ,':$ I .$ ,/ $ 2 N) X3 +T o 2 N= 9) / ,#$

R+T

2 ,M2 ") (& Z) <) . +

MDA

‚'3+/*

. m :8 % 4$

5 . +0

#A2 Z/ &

+

(Kusvuran & Dasgan, 2017)

,M2 . '0 MDA

"#3 . m :8 4$

5 2 ") (&

") (& H) , )

./+0 c' J3 V':$ R A& %

(ROS)

L =3

‚'3+/*

%1 :$ I ) / +3 vTDX2 % .T M2 ) ROS

,#3 GD2 Z), ) +' ,':$

)

Mansori et

al., 2015

(.

Fv/Fm PI

Q r/ ) .)(g3 ./+0 "#3 '3 .$ J/

#A2 @ /5 c MD2 @ l! %

PI

Fv/Fm

R , ) ,#D 3

4$ "#3 % '3 .(

5

,M2 " $ N=

./+0 . PI

H) ,#- ,

#3 " $

R. beggeriana

% 25 ~ 7 1

#A2 . +

"#3 SDƒ, C .) J8 1 ,' , 5% + 2 % ' 5 4$ ./+0c MD2 @ H'Z/ '2.:) M2 .4c ,),

ƒ J!

SW

./+ /

%

<) .DG rI 1

% ' 5 ,g2

"#3 J!

,), (.

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).

d d

bc

d a

d

bc bc

ab

d

a

cd

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

MDA (nmol per g of DW)

Rosa Species

C SD SW

(10)

? ''{3 ./+0 PI

R. orientalis

Q R+^

./+0 ) 1 D $ ") 215 [+XD D $ +

9J0 ,/ ., , . 9=:/ ? ''{3 % )kI

./+0

R. canina

H') I ,g2 % ' 5 1 ,A 1 <)

Q '0 $ ''{3 .DG <) 1 ,A ,/ H) 2 +

! T U % ,8 3 9:/ +3 c=; . 9=:/ +

l! 4) 2 "#3 .$ %,8 3 ,JX +=

9J01 , T U l! ,M2 . T U c ) 5 .(

l!

Fv/Fm

#A2 @ ,#- J/ %

./+0 H' , cd ; () 3 % O D! H) ,/ 2 c ) +=/ N #2 & $ 6

? (0 s) D/ H) .(

De Dauw et al.

(2013)

H) 1 /5 9 9M `2

9'A H' % Z K % l!

F₁

"#3 . W M2

4$

D2 I l! H) ,/ + Q $ Q GD 5 ('/ H) .,#D:/ ,/ 1 % DU c ; 2+D/5+$ T U B$ ,8 l! .$ , 9 @ 4D:' +D&

II (Fv/Fm)

= #2 l!

%

Q1 ,/

/ 1 "#3 ,M2 % '0 l! .,

Fv/Fm

) ' ' %* / . k +/ c),=3 ,M2 , 2 J/

(Rostamabadi et al., 2016)

% ':

.T 1 ZJ VI 1

Kocheva et al.

(2004)

Strauss et al.

(2006)

.$ ,#D& ) +! ? A `2

''{3 . l! H) Q +=/ m :8 ,#- `'72 ?

.T M2 W ; "#)(0 % % =DA2 'A2

"#3 / J `'72 % T U l! 2 .,)5

4 & %(D# +D& T U .=/ . .)(g3 Q1 2 +3+& Fk ) $ H' L =3 9GP H) . 5

4D:' +D& .DX'Z/ %* / O C3 ,A3 4$ 3 II

1 ,A . D R MD/ R D8 J#$ ($ 2 +#'$+D I J/ .DX'Z/ %* / 6 +3 A

2 ,

(Goncalves & Santos, 2005)

.

-.,/ ,,78 '.(1 (2 '

4$ "#3 ./+0 5

#A2 @ J8 1 % %

c'& T$ ,M2

a

J/ ,'d+#3 $ ,M2 c$ b

#A2 '@ 3 ('/ '3 c MD2 @ H'#S ,/

%

R , ) 9 /5 3

J/ H'Z/ '2 ? :) M2 .(

./+0 . c'& T$ ,M2

? G3 , . 9=:/ a

#A2 4$ "#3 ^ % 25 ~ 7 1 % .9 ,/ 5

c 5 . .:) M2 H'Z/ '2 @ c MD2 ./+0 % ' 5 4$

%(D# +D& T U l!

1 (PI) J8 . ) ƒ, C

"#3 MD

J!

ƒ6 +D2

"#3 SD ,), ƒ J!

./+ / MR

%

<) 1 rI 1

% ' 5 ,g2

"#3 J!

ƒ6 +D2 ./+ / SR

%

<) 1 rI 1

% ' 5 ,g2

"#3 J!

ƒ,), ./+ / MW

%

<) .DG rI 1

% ' 5 ,g2

"#3 J!

ƒ6 +D2 ./+ / SW

%

<) .DG rI 1

% ' 5 ,g2

"#3 J!

,), ( .

Figure. 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 water stress; SR, sampling one day after re-watering in severe water stress, MW, sampling one week after re-watering in

a-d a-e

ab

a-f d-i

b-i

a-e

f-i

b-g b-i

c-i c-i

hi

a-e

g-i

d-i

i

a-e a-e

g-i a-e

b-h

a-c

b-h e-i

c-i

a

c-i

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

PI

Rosa Species

C MD SD MR SR MW SW

(11)

c 6 . .:) M2 H'Z/ '2 @ c MD2 ./+0

% ' 5 4$

4D:' +D& 2+D/5+$ T U B$ ,8

II (Fv/Fm)

1 J8 . ) ƒ, C

"#3 MD

J!

ƒ6 +D2

"#3 SD

,), ƒ J!

./+ / MR

%

<) 1 rI 1

% ' 5 ,g2

"#3 J!

ƒ6 +D2

./+ / SR

%

<) 1 rI 1

% ' 5 ,g2

"#3 J!

ƒ,), ./+ / MW

%

<) .DG rI 1

% ' 5 ,g2

"#3 J!

ƒ6 +D2 ./+ / SW

%

<) .DG rI 1

% ' 5 ,g2

"#3 J!

,), ( .

Figure 6. Mean comparison interaction effect of species and water deficit on maximum quantum efficiency of photosystem II (Fv/Fm) 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 water stress; SW, sampling one week after re-watering in severe water stress).

,g2 % ' 5

R. canina

<) ,), "#3

.$ J/ %,), " $ ,/ % ' 5 1 ,A 1 .9& ) += c'& T$ ,M2 ,A .DG <)

R.

persica

c'& T$ ,M2 ,g2 % ' 5 ^ ('/

1 a

c ) 9 " $ 4 7

c'& T$ ,M2 .(

b

./+0 %

R. canina R. orientalis

,), "#3

, . 9=:/

#A2 ") (&

./+0 2 .9 %

#A2 ? G3 Z) ,g2 % ' 5 .9 ,/ %

c'& T$ ,M2 ./+0 . b

( .

R. persica

#A2 ? G3 , 5 ,M2 4'2 3 9 ,/

c ) , W g/

8 "#3 ^ c$ c'& T$ ,M2 .(

,),

R. canina R. orientalis

9=:/

, .

#A2 ") (&

" $ ,g2 % ' 5 9 %

,/, , % 25 ~ 7 . ,#D

R.

beggeriana R. persica

#A2 ? G3 Q,) %

,g2 % ' 5 .,J/

R. beggeriana

9! +# ) ,/

2 9 .2 ''{3 ,

R. persica

. 9=:/

,) " $ , c ) , Q

9 ,'d+#3 $ ,M2 .(

#3

R. canina

$ ''{3 ") 215 c8 2 ^

#A2 ") (& , . 9=:/ ,), "#3 %

c ) 9& 0 ; y` H) 3i 9 10

) .(

"#3 ? @ 1 4$

5 " $ +T 4':M3 " $

9 I T$ ,A3 .g'D/ .$ 9 R+T Q1 ,/

2 ,'I ") (& y` ,8 ,M2 H) # ,#$

2 )1 4 c'& T$

+

(Rahman, 2004)

s) D/ .

. ) M) &5 H - 7) Q '0 j I J2 9 Q, Q, J2 J!

(Moghadam et al.,

2015; Taheri et al., 2017)

"#3 2 H) c' .

,M2 ") (& N +2 .$ Q + ?,2 Q 3+$ J!

%,'d+$ '3 % JK 1 9} G8 H) # ,'d+#3 $ c'& T$ N) X3 1 % '0+T ") (& e+n+2 H) ,

•G8 . $ g) "#3 R U c'& T$ ,M2 1 "#3 6) 973 o c'& T$

l!

%

m+:72 ''{3 W,U .9 "#3 . 92 M2 )*+ +)('&

"#3 973 c'& T$ ,M2 4$

5 6 +3 =;

Pérez-

Pérez et al.

(2017) Carrizo citrange

H'#S

Toscano et al.

(2014)

.SD!

.J' D#)1 %

Q, [ (0 † , '0 =/+3 #I * <X'2 + o + U 9 "#3 Q 3+$ D=:/ Q ('/ 5 9T 4$

5 '

.9 Q, 4;

R. persica

4$ "#3 ,M2 5

c'& T$

a

c$ b

" $ , . 9=:/ ,'d+#3 $

#A2 4$ "#3 c'& T$ ,M2 " $ .9 5

ab a a ab

a-c a-c a-c

bc

a-c a-c

d

ab

a-c a-c

d

ab a-c

c

aba-c a-ca-c ab a-c

a-c a-c

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

Fv/Fm

Rosa Species

C MD SD MR SR MW SW

(12)

.T 1 % )1 '0

Vaccinium myrtillus

(Tahkokorpi et al., 2007)

+Z/ 4; ,#-

(Soukhtesaraee et al., 2017)

) ‡/ T0

Jaleel et al.,

Z D&5 (2008 (Kiani et al., 2008)

Q, [ (0

. 9 H 2 c'& T$ ,M2 " $ H'#S .9 R ) Y g3 1 '& T$ 4)(/5 ('2 ") (& c' %

) , Q,##$,':$ "#3 1 / 15

Loggini et al.,

2 ,'d+#3 $ c'& T$ ,M2 " $ .(1999

<) ,/ +3

4$ "#3 =/ )1 ? @ . U & j I ) , 5

Farooq

et al., 2009

.(

'8 ,g2 % ' 5 1 ,A .$ / '0

/ +2 ,' +3 Q '0 c 73 W,U c' . i D8 ,/+

.D= .9 (D# +D& v;+3 ,8 >2 1 M'; v) A3

9J0 . 9 Q,J/ .d +#$ 3 (D# +D& % )kI

)

Miyashita et al., 2005

.(

"#3 SD ƒ6 +D2 J!"#3 MDƒ, C) . J8 1 a c'& T$ % ' 5 4$ ./+0c MD2 @ H'Z/ '2.:) M2. 7 c ,), ƒ J!

./+ / MR

%

<) 1 rI 1

% ' 5 ,g2

"#3 J!

ƒ6 +D2 ./+ / SR

%

<) 1 rI 1

% ' 5 ,g2

"#3 J!

ƒ,), ./+ / MW

%

<) .DG rI 1

% ' 5 ,g2

"#3 J!

ƒ6 +D2 ./+ / SW

%

<) .DG rI 1

% ' 5 ,g2

"#3 J!

,), ( .

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 water

stress; SW, sampling one week after re-watering in severe water stress).

"#3 ^SD ƒ6 +D2 J!"#3 ^MDƒ, ^C) . J8 1 ^b c'& T$ % ' 5 4$ ./+0c MD2 @ H'Z/ '2.:) M2 .8 c ,), ƒ J!

./+ / MR

%

<) 1 rI 1

% ' 5 ,g2

"#3 J!

ƒ6 +D2 ./+ / SR

%

<) 1 rI 1

% ' 5 ,g2

"#3 J!

ƒ,), ./+ / MW

%

<) .DG rI 1

% ' 5 ,g2

"#3 J!

ƒ6 +D2 ./+ / SW

%

<) .DG rI 1

% ' 5 ,g2

"#3 J!

,), .(

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 water

stress; SW, sampling one week after re-watering in severe water stress).

ab

c-g c-g b-e

b-g b-g b-g

gh a

b-d

c-g e-g

b-f b-e b-e

gh c-g d-g c-g

h e-g

b-g bc

f-h c-g

b-e

gh

h

0 5 10 15 20 25

Chlorophyll a (µg g-1FW)

Rosa Species

C MD SD MR SR MW SW

b

f-k i-m d-i

b-d c-h

i-l k-n

a

b-c

j-n g-k

b-d b-d

e-i h-k

b-e b-e

k-n n

b-g b-f

e-j

k-n

b-d b-e

mn l-n

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Chlorophyll b (µg g-1FW)

Rosa Species

C MD SD MR SR MW SW