23 2
1400
220 - 211
: !
! "
1
* 2
1 ! " .
$ % %&' ( )*
* + - - ./
$ % %&' 0+ 1 2+ 3/
4 5 67 8 "
8 9:;
8 +
$ % %&' 0+ 1
< ' 2+ 3/
8 9:;
.8
2 3= ! .
$ % %&' 2.6 : ;
>? @
$ % %&' A ;
> 9' B 9=
C 8 +
$ % %&' 0+ 1
< ' 2+ 3/
D / .8
EF ! G ' :> %
02 / 10 / 1398 :> % 0 C G '
25 / 3 / 1399
! " #$ %"& '( )$*
$ ( % !
& . & # )$*
( ,
% ( &
-.
%"& '(
&
)/
0 ( 1% ! ( %2* 34
$ 1398 (
$9"
:$; ;<
)!( $2=
1 !(
>
(
?$" @A
?$B $C D$E A . ) &
D$E
* 34
!
$ !F
: = )$*
G ($&
A # ( H$
I ' J &
)$*
$=
% $K
$&
( A $L"
. ($
(/ M N ( & '( O$ & $= )($ &F
$P )($ &F 75
S(
& A( ( ' ( $= )($ &F : = ?
% S )$*
0 (
% !
& $ F $ BF 1$ ($
? : = )$*
, ( %
* . A " B : =
%2 $ !F )$*
( N ( ;"
T
%*
&
2 1
&
)($ &F
$=
A . -.
0* &
S & 0 ( )($ &F ($ = :$L
V &$ T 1 =
$LS $ ) & S( G WX ( V &$
:
% P )($ F , ! S( Y 4 WX (
& ( . 0 (
$ F
& $ B $ ($ 0 ( & Z % 2# [ A ( 3
/ 40 1 / 40
& V &$ S(
_#$A . H )
@&
`F )(
& %"& '( [ A (
& & & $ F $ BF 1$ ($ D$ ( ) &
$ 82 / 4 1 02 / 5 53 / 6
& T D B = ) & & $& . & `F P " * )!
0 ( b 1 $= )($ &F %"& '( [ A ( $ F 0 ( %L = % =
% 9 $ PH$X ( ;X ( . A Y ( D$ ( b /
@&:
`F )(
1 1 < _#$A 1 A & _#$A 1 T G2# $ S(
.
Moisture Stress Tolerance of Atousa Potato Cultivar Compared to Agria and Marfona Cultivars
Amir Hooshang Jalali1*, Ahmad Mousapour Gorji2
1. Assistant Professor, Horticulture Crops Research Department, Isfahan Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, AREEO, Isfahan, Iran.
2. Associate Professor, Department of Vegetable, Seed and Plant Improvement Institute, AREEO, Karaj, Iran Received: December 23, 2019 Accepted: June 14, 2020
Abstract
The phenomenon of reduced potato yield have increased in recent years under adverse conditions, such as water stress. The effects of water stress on yield and yield component of three potato cultivars have been evaluated in this study during 2019 growing season. This investigation has been arranged as split-plot experiment, based on a randomized complete block design with three replications at Rozveh Agricultural Research Station (Chadegan, Isfahan, Iran). The main-plots are assigned to irrigation levels (75% and 100% field capacity) and sub-plots to potato cultivars (Marfona, Agria, and Atousa). To ensure the initial establishment of the plant and prevent severe crop failure, one additional irrigation has been performed at the establishment stage, with two supplementary irrigations performed at the tuber initiation stage for all plots. There has been a significant interaction between irrigation level and cultivars for tuber yields (α<%1) as well as other traits (α<%5). In water stress conditions, yield and water use efficiency of Atousa, new cultivar, are more than the other cultivars. Marketable yield of Atousa cultivar is about 40% higher than Marfona and Agria cultivars. The new cultivar produces 6.53 kg of tubers per cubic meter of water, while water use efficiency for Marfona and Agria is only 4.82 and 5.02 kg m-3, respectively. In conclusion, it is suggested that Atusa cultivar in both water stress and in normal conditions is more suitable for cultivation in the study area than in Marfona and Agria cultivars.
Keywords: Harvest index, stress tolerance index, tuber dry matter percentage, water use efficiency, yield.
1 .
$ ( 2017 N ) c 160
%d ( ! ($" * ( /*
2= & ? )!( $2=
% ! )
Solanum
tuberosum L.
( $P ) H " $ g$K"#
5 ?
100 [ " $& b ( /*
7 / 31 ($" * ( b
&
$ * ( % * . F
64 / 50
D B =
% ! ( F
( K< b )$*
% h K ?$" 9 1 $ $= )$*( 2= ( b . =
$ F
&
& &
07 / 71 1 86 / 103 88 / 51 D B =
&
) ! $ * ( * .
% ! ? (
b . = 104 ) H$= = ) H$= E !
* !$ (
! ( * ( )
FAO, 2017;FAO, 2013
( .
% ! ij P
&
? & O$ N %*$ B 0=
%&F
% "#$ A
* 34 H b * & A $& k "l )$*
_#$A ! $L"
1 T m % $*
_#$A G n H &
D$ ( < 1G n H / )$*
k "l
% ! , b ! (
% ( & ( (
)
Saravia et al., 2016
( A( ( ' ( .
% ! 1
%"& '(
% G n H k "l N ( (
&
* ( ;" ( #. . A$& "A
*$= 1? H " H *$= 1 $ B H T
%*
0 EN ! P $ T ? A
j ! $*
% !
" * %"& '( [ A ( )
Obidiegwu
et al., 2015
( ) & .
T
%*
b N ( Z 1 $
T
%*
$Z J$# ( `F $"4 0=
! 25 -
$ $4 = A$&
)
Drapal et al., 2017
( .
)$*
A : ! (
( K
1 A(
b 0 @
( &
>L
?$B(
% $*
&
/ T
$*
p
$ 1 * B
% 2#
% $ ! A$&
= T
$*
A
" B 1 A$&
0 @ )/" "
&
T
$*
G <
A
$ ' ( A(
$ B
*$=
%
&$
)
Aliche et al., 2020
( >X -. $ Z = ( %2* 34 ( .
10 15 B N ( )($ &F ! ( 0 ( %*
% ! ( ?$2 Y $" B ( %&$ !( (
>X 15 ! ( 1 "A *$= 0 ( * )($ &F
>X ( $ 10
0 ( G [; )($ &F ! ( ($C
A )
Romero et al., 2017
( L* $; ( .
? =
? = b $; % ! I X ( $*
25 1 50 100 S(
?$2 (/ M N ( & '(
? = b = A
& Z $*
[ A ( P D$ (
( ) j$& %"& '(
)
Kesiime et al.,
(2016
PH$X ( . ' ( %"& '( -. ?F ( = )
$2 ( @M $& A( ( qr H %B 34 )$*
0 ( )($ &F
% _ l2 % !
Y $" A
& D $; 0 ( [ A b ( ?$2 %"& '(
& T P $@
G ?! & = H ) T
?F ( /
& $*
&
)
Shi et al., 2015
( .
/= ! % ?$@LS ?$"
H % S ( % !
% ` < ( 2=
& "AsB * ( %H 1 A Z = H
`F >&$
G2#
! K< b 2= WX 1%H$
! &
20 & ($" * ( /*
6 / 16 " $ *$= ($" * ( /*
.
& " #$ )$*
$# ( `F >X H
! V($& *$= ?$" b )/= t'$ ( ( $*
$ A ` T t'$ ( %&F >&$ *$= ?F E " ( ` T
?$2 '$# ( % 2# & <" D$ ( & D /H
% -. $; * 34 b D$E ! h * b &$ & . =
$ F 0 ( ) / & %"& '( <
$ BF $ ($ 0 ( $& ( 0 () Y ( D$ ( )
( . &
2 .
&
( ,
% ( &
-.
%"& '(
&
) /
0 (
% ! 1 2* 34
% $ ( 1398 (
$9"
:$; ;<
> 1 !( )!( $2=
( ?$" @A
?$B $C ) '
% $ p 50
( 34
;
% A
u
% $ p 32
( 50
;
%H$ A ( D$E A .
%B3 ! %# &
$ !F < J$# % $ A / )$*
( )
1 ( ) & . A ?$2 D$E
* 34
!
$ !F : =
$*
) G ($&
A # (
H$
I '
J &
)$*
$=
% $K
$&
(
$L"
A .
*
: =
$A A [#
2=
&
' ($@C
"
= &
&
?F ( k ( ) ( b & S$
75 25
%" $
"
. A " B , (
($
$= )($ &F $A )($ &F )
O$ &
& '(
$P )($ &F ( (/ M N ( 75
)($ &F S(
A( ( ' ( $=
&
? : =
$*
% S )
0 (
% !
$A $ F $ BF 1$ ($
&
?
: =
$*
) $ )($ &F . A " B , ( %
* ) & H ( ;"
: =
$*
?$
O$ &
& '(
A " B , ( (/ M N ( .
%' E (
17 *$A ($ ( )($ &F &
4811 P "
(
%&F ($
3512 P "
. A h K `F
($
)($ &F ) &
= : =
$*
0"
X ) [
H H )$*
16 ) ( X
?$ C )$*
Jc4 ( ( S$
20
$ 25
%" $ ) "
$&
%&
2 / 1
$ 5 / 1 D$E A . ) &
b P
? / t
`F
% K ( ) "&
* J &
G
( " = K
? /
`F
% K (
* ( )($ &F
A $ )( &
@ . A ) B
! 2
%&F b &
)$*($
*$A k (
A$
( , A . _#$A
@&
)(
! )($ &F `F ) X& (
1 ( Z $<
A
)
Tanner & Sinclair, 1983
.(
) X& ( 1 (
WUE= Y/WC
b ( 1 X& ( K< V &$ Y
WC
% K `F ( ; ! < _#$A .
X& (
) 2 ( A Z $<
)
Fernandez, 1992
( :
) X& ( 2 (
p 2
STI= (Yp×Ys)/Ŷ
1 X& ( b ( 1STI
Yp
Ys
Ŷp
&
_#$A
( 1 ? & [ A ( 1 <
D [ A ( D$ ( D$ = b 9 $ [ A " * " D$ ( / $ BF $ ($ D$ ( . " *
% 2= ?$@LS b ( ! [ A ( = = $ F 0 ( A
? = D$ $& icZ
KSG82
% "#$ A A
&
%B!$
[
v D$ ( 2= (s& $@ @ IcS :$; ;<
)( sB
1O( [ " 1 K< 4 0 ( b . A % P
!$ ) ( , D $; (% Z > $ S ( h K )( #
)($ & &
)!$ J$# ? !F & $& . % )$*
. A 0 $"4 L )$* = &
( ; 150
& ( ( ( = ! ) _H$# ?n " D B = N 1 A$= ! Z
%B & A $ Y 4 )
D$9 * J$#
%*
)$4 &
( N A(
>
T
$*
)
$=
? A A(
%2 ( ( ( D$E # ( 2= . A $d b ! &
15 . A D$E A & :$ @
! ( Z
! w ($
1 A &
:$
% !
D )$*
@ % * 0 ld
? A 4 T
) B
! :$ S D$9 * A &
D$E A .
; +) 1 . 7 <' . 07 !36 / ! > < 7 # # &?7@#:
%B3 J$# )$*
bA
) (% ) (% O(
) (%
% " H * ) dS m-1 (
"
%HF ) (% L
) mg kg-1 (
$"4 0
) mg kg-1 (
?n "
) (%
40 / 14 20 / 41 40 / 44 50
/ 3 70
/ 7 55 / 0 00
/ 26 00
/ 410 06
/ 0
(
?$ ! 1 A &
"
! k ( )$*
[
* : =
@ ( F &
) /
$L"
A .
T T 1h$ A )( )$*
) ( A & 1 4 )$*
T 1 $- A(
V ($@C ! & ) ( = % $*
?F 4 ) (
0* & $*
b C T )$*
$&
X 0=
! 35
%
"
&
? T )$*
&$ T V
( ,
" B A
) Parvizi et al., 2011
@ (
! ) B
?!
G2#
( F &
_#$A 1 A &
G
"
! N$
* : = =
B &(
T
$*
)
&
:( S V &
A ( D )$*
% * 1 &
A &
&
: 48
$ (
? F
$&
)$
75
( O
( B . q4
! PX PX
? = 10
T 1% !
S(
$ G2#
T
! : $L
% ! T
!$
T
$*
q4
! b" B(
(
? F
$&
)$
72 (
O &
: 72
$ Z $<
A . ) &
/E
$*
! D ( / l ) SAS
1 / 9 ( ) &
$;
b 9 $
$*
!
V (
$;
C )
b ) 5 S(
(
$L"
A .
3 .
Y $"
/E q $ ( ( ( :$LS k "l
%2 $ !F (
) 2
?$2 ( A
& )($ &F ($ -. .
1V &$ 1 = V &$ T
)($ F , ! S( G WX ( T G2# $ S(
% P 0* . & (
@& :$LS & ($ b -. b C `F )(
A & _#$A 1)($ &F _#$A
& $ N S(
WX ( )($ F , ! 5
% P S(
& . & ( ( '
$L" 0 ( &$2 :$LS , ! * 34 b ( A
% P : $L %2 $ !F . ?$2 (
-.
0* &
($ =
V &$ T 1 = :$LS & 0 ( )($ &F ( G WX ( V &$
% P S . & (
-.
0* &
WX ( :$LS $ & 0 ( )($ &F ($ =
5
% P )($ F , ! S(
) & ( 2
.(
3 . 1 .
!" # $ ! % !" # $ ! &'
( ?$2 %2 $ !F 0 ( ( T = $;
1 ? & [ A $ BF $ ($ 0 (
&
$&
)$*
70 / 28 10 / 30 : $L ($" * ( b
% P ( ) "A 3
(1
Z $ F 0 ( $
0 ( b &
&
8 / 32 6 / 26 S(
&
&
, b !
&
( '
% P ( &
( . A )
0 ( A *$2 V &$ ) & %@&$2 T H $& $ F 20
/ 28 & Z ($" * ( b
) & 9 0 (
% P ( ) ?$2 3
( .(
? & [ A
&
V &$ T b
. & $ BF 0 ( & x &
; +) 2 7@A . B9 7 "
C 'D *E ': / 5'#F '?G H *E ': / 5 '?G H */I '?G H *J " ' K< * # 6 L6
M < ! + b 9 $
:$P&
(
) !F
>&$
: p S(
$
G2# A &_#$A )($ &F`F)( @& V &$ T V &$ =
25 /
0 ns 0/004 ns 0/067 ns 0/190 ns 0/071 ns 0/310ns 2 J &
25**
/ 1
1/09* 0/68* 6/57** 28/09** 12/88** 1 )($ &F
14 / 0
0/10 0/08 0/27 2/00 1/21 2 a $X#
12*
/ 1
1/86** 1/02* 4/87* 34/89* 2/90* 2 0 (
75*
/ 1
0/92* 0/77* 7/00* 42/49* 15/24** 2 0 ( ×)($ &F
84 / 0
0/57 0/34 3/96 30/15 1/02 8 b $X#
07 / 5
9/08 11/00 10/31 14/09 15/60 : p d
:** * 1ns
&
Z hc"#
% P ( hc"#
% P ( ( WX
$ "N 5 1 . S(
& Z $ F 0 ( / % 2# [ A ( $ B 0 ( $ ($ 0 (
&
41 22 S(
=
&
) & 1%"& '( [ A ( . A ) $ ($ 0 ( & Z $ F 0 ( V &$
$ BF
&
& &
3 / 40 1 / 40
& . & S(
,
% (
" 0 (
& ;X [ A $& $ F O( [ %& #
( $
1
%H$N(
(O( !) $ ($ 0 ( = i$ $
$"4 0=
(O( ) $ BF 0 ( "A )
{ $&
= b"A
&
1$ ($ 0 ( !
&
H
b
&$ l& = V &$ T b ! %@
) T
$*
= % C = )
&
H
( ' <
A(
0=
! 35
%
"
0 ( $& " " ( ( X
) $ &$ ( $ F 3
.(
? & [ A ( $ BF 0 ( V &$ T
& %"& '(
$P 24 26 = ! S(
F 0 ( = & %H$N ( b . & $ B [ A ( $
& ? &
[;
11 16 ! S(
& ( # = . g$K"# V &$ T
$ B
% ! & O$ N ?$*$ B ! 0=
%&F
"#$ A
% A S
% A b"A ) &
! & 1` X T 50
- 35 ( & '( ! S(
l J$# O "
2 )
Edwards et al., 2017
( $
&$ : $L k "l D$ ( b &
,Nc @ b ! )
) (
Saravia et al., 2016
( .
T ( : $L
[ A ( $@ % !
% & '( , ! F A
)
Oliveira et al.,
(2016
&$ / %"& '( [ A ( &
_ l2
& . 0 ( = ( 2= ( %2* 34 ( $m ?
O( [ " 1O( ! O(
% ! [ A (
%"& '( %"& '( ? &
A) !$TF ! A
( 0 ( * ?$2 Y $" A $; 0* $& ( K
? / $ 1 A ($C [ A
* ) & : $L" G
Chang et al., 2018
( ( .
" ( ? = L* $;
WX ( % !
c ?$2 Y $" ?$" * ( ( A $ 0 c )
| n b & V &$ : $L &
( %2 $ !F )$*
[ A 1
$ *$= 1/" " *$=
!
$&
$*
)
! %2 (
& % S j
)
Sharma
et al., 2011
( = )($ "l& $< ($@C ( %2* 34 ( .
?$ & Y $" A D$E ?( & 0 ( ! $L" $&
= & ?F B
?! $ 1 p ( T P C B A T
$*
5 / 26 ) $ *$= S(
Bagheri et al., 2016
( .
; +) 3 4 ' 7 ! . C O#P9 #! ' 45 # 6 # 0%I
'?G H
*/I '?G H / 5
*E ':
'?G H '#F / 5
*E ':
K<
+ *J " ' !
+F M <
. T G2# $
(%)
A & _#$A
(%)
V &$ T
(t ha-1)
&$
V
(t ha-1)
=
(t ha-1) 0 ( ($
81 /
19 b 64/98 b 5/01 b 23/61 b 28/70 b $ ($
)($ &F
$=
23 /
21 b 62/00 b 7/25 a 23/01 b 30/10 b $ BF
50 /
24 a 70/03 a 4/08 b 34/12 a 38/12 a $ F
20 /
21 b 69/41 b 3/00 b 17/11 b 20/00 b $ ($
%"& '(
09 /
22 b 66/72 b 6/01 a 17/13 b 23/10 b $ BF
82 /
26 a 78/72 a 4/43 ab 24/01 a 28/20 a $ F
b 9 $ O$ & J "2 h N ) ( )$*
? !F C )
% P hc"# b ( )(
) 05 / 0
P<
(.
3 . 2 . ( )* ! +, *
% -.,
$;
9 $ b
$*
?$2 A & _#$A $& X& ( (
A & _#$A $& $ F 0 ( 72
/ 78 [ A ( S(
%"& '(
03 / 70 P )($ &F [ A ( S(
) & 9 0 ( & Z
% P ( "A )
) 3 [ A * ( $ BF $ ($ 0 ( .(
: $L %"& '(
% P ( b ! ) * ( . "A ,
_#$A S( / %"& '( [ A ( 0 ( $& X& ( ( . A *$2 A &
-.
& %"& '(
! %# & . A ?$ & %L "l : , A & _#$A
* 34
= ($A " b & $*
( %"& '( =
A( k "l N % !
-.
_#$A & % $L"
b "A A &
-.
( ( A D$E )$*
A( K ?$ $4 0=
) &
Hossain et al., 2017
( .
k "l 0 ( $;
% ! [ A (
%' ( ) %"& '(
)($ &F P [ A $& ( A( K
A A & _#$A / } $& ?$2 %E ( *$= b H D
$*
%' ( % * )
& Z A( K D
$*
A ? % ! ! )
)
Chang et al., 2018
(
& . ,
% ( -.
%"& '(
A 1 ?$ ! & A & _#$A &
:
&
0 ( 3
% ! A$& "A %9" &
%
?
E "
. ~ ( ! b ( % = ) B
( 0@ %L = :$LS ! % T G2# $ S(
% ! ` <
% A . d$N * 34 ( (
$ ($ 0 ( & Z $ F 0 ( P )($ &F [ A $ BF
&
6 / 23 4 / 15 $ S( ( /
)($ F , ! / b = ?$2 T G2#
% P ( ) &
3 [ A ) & %@&$2 ( .(
S( / b %H A *$2 %"& '(
&
& &
5 / 26 4 / 21 . & S(
&
( ' 0 ( $; &$2
% ! ?$2 $ H$" ( 0 ( b = b & c
: $L T G2# $ S( , !
% P ( 1 "A
%2 ! %2 ( N * ( %"& '(
/
% P ( A T G2# $ S(
)
Ierna & Mauromicale, 2012
( $ S( $& X& ( ( .
%# & T G2#
* 34 B LS b ;"P ?
&
$ B A( K ( A $ ( `F = & " &
; & '( $ ( N &
0=
X& ( b ( )
)!$&
% = )
Li et al., 2016
(1 %# & $
* 34
$*
/
. b
? H " !$TF N ( `F A %*
0 EN ? A T
$*
T G2# $ S( & ( ? ( $
-v
% )
Ierna & Mauromicale, 2012
( .
( 0 ( * ) & G2# $ S( : p ( A ) 1 ( ?$2
! 0 ( b C B . A ,
: $L" 9 $& G2# $ S(
" * * ( $
} $& A( K ' ( %"& '( 0 (
% P /
A T G2# $ S( (
& . ( '
%2* 34 ( &$2 c ( H$
%"& '( )$*
0 c ( )($ &F) 65
1( (/ M & '( S(
( )($ &F) A 50
( (/ M & '( S(
( )($ &F) A % # 35
M & '( S(
& Z T G2# $ S( / & E ( (/
( )($ &F) *$A 80
A ( (/ M & '( S(
)
Pourasadollahi et al., 2019
? * 34 b ( .(
?! %"& '( [ A ( A
?! & Z T
?F G2#
&
% *$=
} $& d b &$
T G2# $ S( /
% $*
%# & ( . A
V( /B ($A / " b & $*
A D$ ( =
? = )$*
% 2# [ A & = % !
<"
H / ) j$& T G2# $ S(
% = )
Mahmood et al., 2015
.(
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 9&: !
7'.6 -& 6
45
0% 0% +
a
a
a b
b
b
6 0% + 0% S7"' 45 ' +F M < ! + 7 ! .1 /?
T ', *45 ' "'
& - >' ! U -"'
&!36 +%V
%!"
"
T( <" O?9"
%W!
"
) +9 "+9 05 / 0
P<
(
3 . 3 .
!/
01 2!3 4
?$ * A ( = B )
2 ( *$2
% A 1 17 &
# ! )($ &F
$
@ $
$ D$E E . " B
% K `F O$ &
& & P )($ &F ( ( " = ~
4811 & & %"& '( H$N ( ($" * ( P "
3512
& . & ($" * ( P "
( "@& :($Z
%"& '( H$N ( $ B A( K ' 27
S(
`F 0=
h K = A $& "ZH . A
@ & )($ &F & ( % K `F 0EN
" B , ( ?$ $ B H ( ;"
( . A
/ 0E 4 )($ &F
&
H b N $" F ( $ B =
%2 ! )($ &F $P %&F 0EN A ( ( T H )
. A h K $=
)($ &F [ A ( % K `F ( ;
$& P V( /B
$*
)($ &F _H$# !$ = % % !
N N$ b ( ( 5000
?$ & P "
% =
%Z ;&$X ) (
Jalali et al., 2017
(
.
& )$* & $&
@& F )($ &F `F )(
$ BF 1$ ($ 0 ( ) & P )($ &F [ A ( $ F
&
32 / 4 1 54 / 4 75 / 5 D B =
&
) ! *
A) & `F P "
2
& $ F 0 ( .(
% P ( ' (
@& _#$A )(
&
$ BF $ ($ D$ ( & Z )
( . A ic $=
%"& '( [ A ( %@&$2
= : $L b $& A *$2 _#$A
$*
@& ) `F )(
$ / [ A b ( A)
3 .(
@& _#$A
& %"& '( [ A ( `F )(
$& & & $ F $ BF 1$ ($ D$ ( ) &
82 / 4 1 02 / 5 53 / 6
& D B = . & P " * )!
n(
0
$*
) $& %"& '(
0= `F h K 1 T *$= $&
@& / `F )(
% A )
Kifle et al., 2016
( .
A( ( ' ( % K `F ( ; = %2* 34 ( $P ?F ( % ! 100
1 75 50 %&F !$ S(
@& & $ B b `F )(
&
& &
49 / 6 1 01 / 8
37 / 7 = D B
&
) ! A Z $< `F P " *
)
Bgheri et al., 2017
.(
30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 L6 T']!)3m(
# 6 C W:
/! I # 6 &1 0%
+ /]: 1 # 6 J &9 ' :']! L6 4A, C W: "+W .2 /?
/?
3 'D 7 ! . "' 6 0% + 0% S7"' L6
7 !36 45 -
& - 4
T ', *$9 U -"' >' !
&!36 +%V
%!"
"
O?9"
T( <"
%W!
"
) +9 "+9 05 / 0
P<
(.
@&
$ B ( )($ &F `F )(
& $& % !
& 0 ( 1% [ A !$ & -v % =( '
b P $ B _H$# %&F
% A ? [ A ( )
! 3 / 5 - 9 / 1 D B =
&
) ! ( P " * )
Jalali et
al., 2017
( Q .
* 34
? B b H [ A ( =
@& %"& '(
/ `F )(
%
&$
?F ( (
% ( =
$*
• P 0 c ) &
! /" "
*$=
" $
@& /
% `F )(
A )
Reyes-Cabrera et al., 2016
( ?$" &! ( %2* 34 .
= ?$2 /
$*
0 c )
%
@&
`F )(
0 ( ( )($ &F
* / ( % !
1 $
$*
A ) -.
A ! b ( % P
)
Reddy et al., 2016
( .
$ F 0 ( ?$2 < _#$A Z $<
[ A 1$ BF $ ($ % P ;X Y ( 0 ( & Z
% < "@& ( %"& '(
A) $ 4
.(
0 2 4 6 8
9&: ! 7'.6 -& 6
L6 'D)kg/m3(
8 5 "
0% + 0%
a a b b
b b
7 !36 45 - "' 0% / K< 7 ! .4 /?
T ', U -"' >' !
&!36
%!" +%V "
O?9"
T( <"
%W!
"
+9 "+9 ) 05 / 0
P<
(.
& & $ F 0 ( ) & _#$A b 4
/ 1 & Z = &
& & i$Z ; $ ($ 0 ( L* ?F ( = %2* 34 ( . &
0 ( 0 ( / A %&$ !( & < , ! % !
$ ($
< _#$A $&
63 / 0 0 c [ A (
56 / 0
0= A [ A (
< _#$A ( ; b
& ( ) g$K"# #
Hassanpanah, 2010
( .(
* 34 ! 9 %# &
& Z < _#$A / $*
_#$A $
( %"& '( < %&$ !( )$*
) j$& % ($= ! 1% !
& ( ( # &
)
Hossain et al., 2017
.(
4 . 6 4! 7
& Y $" & $&
$ F 0 ( * 34 b ( F
& c B3
%
$*
? % )
m 0 ( b ) & A
& $;
&
($
)
$*
< ( 1j$& $"4
@& C B . ( ) & Y ( D$ ( & Z / %"& '(
)(
%2 $ !F D$ ( ) & %"& '( [ A ( )($ &F `F
&
1 & j$& )($ &F P [ A & Z $ F 0 ( 3 0= ) & [ A = % P ?F & X b $ )($ &F
& . 0* $ B b 1% =( '
& % ! G ?
0= & O$ N K<
0= ) & %& # ) $= %&F )($ &F
.
* 34
$*
& $E $& d$N * 34 &$2 %
$& @ ) & ( ! 1 $
$*
1 " #$ %"& '( )
( =
$
$*
?F ! )($ & ( # )
% A 1 0*
$ F m D$ (
% X&( b (
. B ( (
5 .
9 $ ! .:
%P Z' >&$ )!( $2= V! F :$; ;< /= ! )($ * @ ?$@LS ?$"
b . @ D!j ($Z"
* 34 b 1
% % ( 2 B
.
6
<" = > ?: .
€ * B
$P u(
> $ [
?$B (
.
7 .
< =
Aliche, E.B., Theeuwen, T.P., Oortwijn, M., Visser, R.G., & van der Linden, C.G. (2020). Carbon partitioning mechanisms in POTATO under drought stress. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, 146, 211-219.
Bagheri, H R., Gharineh, M.H., Bakhshandeh, A., Taei, J, Mehnatkesh, A., & Andarzian, B.
(2016). Effect of water deficit stress and different nitrogen levels on yield, yield components and water use efficiency of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.). Environmental stresses in Crop Science, 1, 1-14. (In Persian).
0,0 0,4 0,8 1,2 1,6
9&: ! 7'.6 -& 6
0% / K<
8 5 "
a b
c
Chang, D.C., Jin, Y.I., Nam, J.H., Cheon, C.G., Cho, J.H., Kim, S.J., & Yu, H.S. (2018). Early drought effect on canopy development and tuber growth of potato cultivars with different maturities. Field Crops Research, 215,156-162.
Drapal, M., Farfan-Vignolo, E.R., Gutierrez, O.R., Bonierbale, M., Mihovilovich, E., & Fraser, P.D.
(2017). Identification of metabolites associated with water stress responses in Solanum tuberosum L. clones. Phytochemistry, 135, 24-33.
Edwards, S.J.L., & Livingstone, R.M. (2017).
Potato and potato products. In Non-Traditional Feeds for Use in Swine Production (1992). CRC Press. pp. 305-314.
Fernandez, G.C.J. (1992). Effective Selection Criteria for Assessing Plant Stress Tolerance.
In: Adaptation of Food Crops to Temperature and Water Stress Tolerance, Kuo, C.G. (2rd ed.)). Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center, Taiwan, pp: 257-270.
Hassanpanah, D. (2010). Evaluation of potato cultivars for resistance against water deficit stress under in vivo conditions. Potato Research, 53, 383-392.
Hossain, M., Zakaria, M., Mian, M.K., Karim, M.A., & Hossain, M. (2017). Stress tolerance attributes and yield based selection of potato genotypes for water stress environment.
Songklanakarin Journal of Science and Technology, 39, 185-194
Ierna, A., & Mauromicale, G. (2012). Tuber yield and irrigation water productivity in early potatoes as affected by irrigation regime.
Agricultural Water Management, 115, 276-284.
Jalali, A.H., Salemi, H., Nikouei, A., Gavangy, S., Rezaei, M., Khodagholi, M., & Toomanian, N.
(2017). Determination of water requirement for potato in different climates of Isfahan province. Applied Research in Field Crops, 30, 53-73. (In Persian).
Kesiime, V.E., Tusiime, G., Kashaija, I.N., Edema, R., Gibson, P., Namugga, P., & Kakuhenzire, R.
(2016). Characterization and evaluation of potato genotypes (Solanum tuberosum L.) for tolerance to drought in Uganda. American Journal of Potato Research, 93, 543-551.
Kifle, M., & Gebretsadikan, T.G. (2016). Yield and water use efficiency of furrow irrigated potato under regulated deficit irrigation, Atsibi- Wemberta, North Ethiopia. Agricultural Water Management, 170, 133-139.
Li, W., Xiong, B., Wang, S., Deng, X., Yin, L., &
Li, H. (2016). Regulation effects of water and nitrogen on the source-sink relationship in potato during the tuber bulking stage. PloS one, 11(1), 1-18.
Mahmood, A., Hossain, M., Zakaria, M., Mian, M.A., and Karim, M. (2015). Effects of water
stress on plant canopy, yield attributes and yield of potato. Kasetsart Journal, 49, 491-505.
Obidiegwu, J.E., Bryan, G.J., Jones, H.G., & Prashar, A. (2015). Coping with drought: stress and adaptive responses in potato and perspectives for improvement. Frontiers in plant science, 6, 542.
Oliveira, J.S., Brown, H.E., Gash, A., & Moot, D.J.
(2016). An explanation of yield differences in three potato cultivars. Agronomy Journal, 108, 1434-1446.
Parvizi, K., Souri, J., & Mahmoodi, R. (2011).
Investigating the effect of planting date on total yield and sales rate of potato cultivars in Hamedan. Journal of Horticultural Science, 25,89-93. (In Persian).
Pourasadollahi, A., Siosemardeh, A., Hosseinpanahi, F. and Sohrabi, Y. (2019). Physiological and agro- morphological response of potato to drought stress and hormone application. Journal of Plant Physiology and Breeding, 9, 47-61.
Reddy, J.M., Jumaboev, K., Bobojonov, I., Carli, C., & Eshmuratov, D. (2016). Yield and water use efficiency of potato varieties under different soil-moisture stress conditions in the Fergana Valley of Central Asia. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 40, 407-431.
Reyes-Cabrera, J., Zotarelli, L., Dukes, M.D., Rowland, D.L., & Sargent, S.A. (2016). Soil moisture distribution under drip irrigation and seepage for potato production. Agricultural Water Management, 169,183-192.
Romero, A.P., Alarcón, A., Valbuena, R.I., &
Galeano, C.H. (2017). Physiological assessment of water stress in potato using spectral information.
Frontiers in Plant Science, 8, p.1608.
Saravia, D., Farfán-Vignolo, E.R., Gutiérrez, R., De Mendiburu, F., Schafleitner, R., Bonierbale, M.,
& Khan, M.A. (2016). Yield and physiological response of potatoes indicate different strategies to cope with drought stress and nitrogen fertilization. American Journal of Potato Research, 93, 288-295.
Sharma, N., Kumar, P., Kadian, M.S., Pandey, S.K., Singh, S.V., & Luthra, S.K. (2011).
Performance of potato (Solanum tuberosum) clones under water stress. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 81, 41-45.
Shi, S., Fan, M., Iwama, K., Li, F., Zhang, Z., &
Jia, L. (2015). Physiological basis of drought tolerance in potato grown under long-term water deficiency. International Journal of Plant Production, 9, 305-320.
Tanner, C.B., & Sinclair, T.R. (1983). Efficient water use in crop production: Research or re- research? Limitations to efficient water use in crop production, pp.1-27.
