ISSN 1450-216X / 1450-202X Vol. 152 No 4 April, 2019, pp. 509-515 http://www. europeanjournalofscientificresearch.com
Growth of Tomato (Solanum Lycopersicum L.) under Waterlogging Condition
Erhenhi, A.H.
Corresponding Author Department of Botany Delta State University, Abraka, Nigeria
Tel: +2348067749296
E-mail: erhenhiah@gmail.com; aherhenhi@delsu.edu.ng
Lemy, E.E.
Department of Animal and Environmental Biology University of Benin, Benin City, Nigeria
Vwioko, D.E.
Department of Plant Biology and Biotechnology University of Benin, Benin City, Nigeria
Imene, O.
Department of Botany
Delta State University, Abraka, Nigeria
Abstract
This study was carried out to determine the effects of flooding on the germination and growth of tomato plant (Solanum lycopersicum L.). Seeds of tomato were purchased from Agricultural Procurement Agency, Ministry of Agriculture, Warri, Delta State and were subjected to flooding. The study showed high percent germination in the control (100%). The highest percentage germination of 74% recorded was in the one week waterlogged treatment, this was followed by 70% and 60% for three weeks and two weeks waterlogged treatment. The values for mean plant height obtained after 56 days of waterlogged treatments showed that the treatment affected the plant height in the two and three weeks waterlogged treatment. The least and highest height were recorded to be 6.00cm and 13.30cm. Similar trend were recorded in stem girth and number of leaves.
There were observed differences in the mean values obtained in the adventitious with the control having the highest of 10.9 after 56 days of planting. Percentage survival was highest in the control (90%) followed by three weeks waterlogged (82%). The fresh and dry weight of the plants after fifty six (56) days of growth showed that the root had higher weight compared to the stem and leaves in the control compared to other water logged conditions. Soil physicochemical parameters determined also recorded variations in the study.
Keywords: Growth indices, waterlogging, tomato, plant stress.
Introduction
Stress caused by flood affects large areas of the world (Martinez-Alcántara et al., 2012) and the depth can have effect on plant species, composition and biomass of established plants. Waterlogged and submerged soil result to stress in plants as characterized by Jackson and Colmer (2005) as the major abiotic constraints of plant growth and development, distribution of species and production. Prolonged flooding result to crop losses in severe cases (Bange et al., 2004) and as a result the vegetative and reproductive growth is negatively affected (Gibbs and Greenway, 2003). Difference in flood tolerance has also been reported by Das (2012) as well as intolerance to flooding and aeration of root media among herbaceous plant species. One of the symptom observed in plants damaged by flooding is closure of stomatal, this process alters both gaseous exchange and also decreases the absorption of water, influenced negatively by anaerobic condition occurring in the rhizosphere. Alteration of the process of transpiration usually results to wilting of plant leaves and causes senescence earlier than usual as well as foliar abscission (Ashraf, 2012).
Root respiration in areas affected by flooding and waterlogging causing hypoxia (poor aeration) and anoxia (not aerated) by which exchange of gases and diffusion inhibited severely are usually changed from aerobic to anaerobic conditions are detrimental to plants (Armstrong et al., 1994). In soil having a poor and reduced oxygen partial pressure, nutrient availability of plants are strongly reduced. As long as the level of oxygen available in soil is reduced, anaerobic microorganisms dominate, creating strongly reducing effects in the rhizosphere in which Fe2+, Mn2+, H2S, sulphides, lactic acid, and butyric acid, among others, increase to toxic concentrations (Larcher, 2003). Waterlogging and flooding is considered as stress factors in plant. It is estimated that about 13% of the global land area and 16% of the tomato areas in production worldwide are prone to the risk of flooding and waterlogging (Ahsan et al., 2007).
The main effect of waterlogging in plants is oxygen deprivation. When there is a low oxygen environment in the root zone, there is a change from aerobic to anaerobic conditions. Root metabolism in an anaerobic environment yields less energy for plant functions (Horchani et al., 2008).
Shortage of water is usually the most unfavourable condition plants encounters. This condition result in the reduction of plant growth alters and inhibits the process of metabolism and subsequently reduces yield in crops (Hossain and Uddin, 2011). The onset of waterlogging during the period of sowing and the stage of sprouting usually result to fatal damage of seedling resulting in non-seed germination. Due to the fact that seeds and seedlings radical and roots are not mainly adapted to waterlogging, they are usually vulnerable to diseases that are caused by flooding. Subsequently, the ability to adapt to waterlogging environment in plants increases as the plant grows (Hossain and Uddin, 2011). Based on the implications of flooding of plant growth, this study therefore evaluates the growth of tomato (Solanum Lycopersicum L) under waterlogged conditions.
Materials and Methods Collection of Soil and Seeds
Soil sample used for the study was obtained at the fallow farm behind the Main Library, Site II, Delta State University, Abraka. Top soil sample (0-15 cm deep) were collected using shovel, the soil was sieved to remove debris and other materials. Seeds of tomato used for the study were purchased at the Agricultural Procurement Agency, Ministry of Agriculture, Warri, Delta State.
Seed viability and Thinning
Test of seed viability was carried out using the floatation technique. Seeds were put in a bowl of water and left to stand for 5-10 minutes undisturbed. Those seeds that floated were considered not viable.
The seeds that sank down were taken as viable. These were the seeds that were collected for planting.
Sowing was done in the morning hours. Ten seeds were sown per bowl. After two weeks of observation for germination of seeds, the plants in each bowl were thinned to three per bowl.
Application of Waterlogging Treatments
Waterlogging treatments began when the plants were three weeks old from the day of planting. Three waterlogging regimes (treatments) were carried out – one week, two weeks and three weeks. Flooding was done by applying excess water to the plants to cover the soil surface and daily monitoring to ensure the water level was maintained above the soil surface.
Determination of Plant Growth Parameters
Plant parameters such as percentage germination, plant height, stem girth, number of leaves, number of adventitious roots, percentage survival and biomass (fresh and dry weight) were measured. Plant height was taken by measuring the plant from the base to the tip using a meter rule. Number of leaves was determined by counting the leaves of a specific plant throughout the study. Stem girth was measured by using a thin thread wrapped around the stem and the length measured on a meter rule. Numbers of adventitious roots were determined by counting. The biomass (fresh and dry weight) was obtained by weighing the plant after harvest for fresh weight and drying the plant in oven at 50 °C for five days and the weight recorded.
Results
The results obtained from the effects of water logging on the growth of tomato are presented below. The study showed that water logging had different effects on the growth of the plants compared to the control.
Although there were slight variations in some of the parameters examined during the study. Table 1 shows the results obtained from the percentage germination of tomato in experimental pots marked for both the control and the different regimes for waterlogging proposed for the study. From the results, it was observed that the control had the highest growth percentage compared to others. The effects of the different waterlogged treatment on the plant height of tomato are shown in Table 2. There were observed different between the treatment and the control plants after fifty six (56) days. The highest value was recorded in the one week water logged after fifty six (56) days compared to other treatment during the study. Also, the least was recorded in the proposed three weeks water logging treatment.
Table 1: Percentage germination of tomato in pots marked for waterlogging study
NURSERY DAYS AFTER PLANTING
6 8 10 12 14
Control (No waterlogging) 70±1.2 100±0.0 100±0.0 100±0.0 100±0.0 One-week waterlogging 21±12.50 27±20.028 63±36.833 69±37.253 74±35.340 Two-week waterlogging 35±21.213 51±32.813 49±29.231 57±31.640 60±30.912 Three-week waterlogging 23±15.275 41.1±28.038 53±24.967 69±21.833 70±23.094 Values= mean ± S.D.
Table 2: Plant height (cm) of tomato under waterlogged condition
TREATMENT DAYS AFTER PLANTING
14 28 42 56
Control (No Waterlogging) 4.07±0.434 7.65±3.675 10.15±2.991 13.30±2.497 One-Week Waterlogging 3.93±0.549 4.75±0.825 5.50±1.291 7.47±1.615 Two-Week Waterlogging 4.14±1.158 4.60±1.329 4.80±1.438 6.35±1.375 Three-Week Waterlogging 3.90±0.699 4.80±0.856 5.20±0.714 6.00±1.027 Values = mean ± S.D.
Table 3 shows the stem girth of the plants under control and waterlogged treatments examined during the study. The result revealed that the different treatments had effects on the stem girth as the control was observed to be higher compared to other treatments during the study period.
Table 4 shows the number of leaves of tomato plants fifty six (56) days after planting observed for control and waterlogged conditions. There was higher mean value for number of leaves formed per plant under the control condition. Plant response under other conditions like one week, two-week and three-week waterlogging treatments are also shown.
Table 3: Stem girth (cm) of tomato under water logged condition
TREATMENT DAYS AFTER PLANTING
14 28 42 56
Control (No Waterlogging) 0.65±0.150 0.73±0.149 0.84±0.096 0.85±0.070 One-Week Waterlogging 0.58±0.230 0.7±0.216 0.81±0.159 0.82±0.131 Two-Week Waterlogging 0.69±0.159 0.77±0.156 0.755±0.159 0.766±0.141 Three-Week Waterlogging 0.63±1.133 0.73±0.149 0.75±0.158 0.77±0.133 Values = mean ± S.D.
Table 4: Number of leaves formed per tomato plant under waterlogged condition
TREATMENT DAYS AFTER PLANTING
14 28 42 56
Control (No Water Logging) 4.3±0.483 4.3±0.483 4.3±0.483 4.5±0.527
One-Week Water Logging 4.2±1.033 4.2±1.033 4.2±1.033 4.2±1.033
Two-Week Water Logging 3.8±0.632 3.2±0.918 3.11±0.928 3.88±0.333 Three-Week Water Logging 3.1±0.875 3.1±0.875 3.5±0.971 3.9±0.567 Values = mean ±S.D.
The results obtained from the number of adventitious roots produced by tomato plants fifty six (56) days after planting are presented in Table 5. There were observed differences in the mean values obtained in the adventitious roots in both the control and proposed water logged treatments. Although, the control had the highest values followed by proposed one week water logged compared to other water logged treatments.
Table 6 showed the results of percentage survival recorded in all the treatments and control fifty six (56) days after planting. Percentage survival was observed to be highest in the control. Tomato plants showed lower survival percent in other conditions.
Table 5: Number of adventitious roots produced by tomato plants under waterlogged condition
TREATMENT DAYS AFTER PLANTING
28 42 56
Control (No waterlogging) 0.7±0.948 4.3±0.483 10.9±1.663
One-week waterlogging 2.3±1.889 6.5±2.121 10.2±1.033
Two-week waterlogging 2.7±1.703 3.77±2.108 8.11±2.088
Three-week waterlogging 0.8±1.033 4.5±1.434 9.4±1.506
Values = mean ±S.D.
Table 6: Percentage survival of tomato plants under waterlogged conditions
TREATMENT DAYS AFTER PLANTING
14 28 42 56
Control (No Water Logging) 100 98 90 90
One-Week Water Logging 88 82 82 78
Two-Week Water Logging 86 86 84 78
Three-Week Water Logging 94 94 80 82
Value = Average of ten pots, each with three plants at the commence of waterlogging condition
Figures 1 – 3 show the results obtained from determination of the fresh and dry weight of the plants after fifty six (56) days of growth. The result showed that the root had higher weight compared to the stem and leaves in the control compared to other water logged conditions.
Figure 1: Fresh and dry weights of the stem of tomato plants subjected to waterlogged condition
Figure 2: Fresh and dry weights of the leaves of tomato plants subjected to waterlogged condition
Figure 3: Fresh and dry weights of the roots of tomato plants subjected to waterlogged condition
Discussion
Generally, flooding had effects the growth parameters and biomass of tomato plants. Although, there were variations in the values obtained for control and waterlogged conditions. Flooding reduced the mean plant heights of tomato plants. The results are in agreement with the report of Rahman et al.
(2000). The rate at which plant height decreased is in proportion with the extent of damage that
waterlogging and drought conditions imposed on the plants. The reduction of plant height deduced from the study could be attributed to reduced O2availability for plant cells, caused by waterlogging conditions or soil compaction (Bailey-Serres and Voesenek, 2008). Waterlogging conditions result in flooding of pores in soil which reduces the rate of oxygen available causing low rate of diffusion of dissolved oxygen in stagnant water, at this phase, in this case, soil surface above waterlogged point contains oxygen (Taiz and Zeiger, 2010)
Soil flooding and waterlogging conditions cause stress to plant growth. Waterlog and flooding conditions are major factors and resultant constrain on the growth and development of plants. These conditions also result in decreased rate of distribution of species and production of agricultural crops (Jackson and Colmer, 2005). The rate at which plants respond to flooding and drought condition differs between plants of the same species, different species as well as differs based on the parts associated with these conditions. During germination of seeds, they are usually affected by flooding and drought conditions (Sesay, 2009). Also, continuous flooding events result in damage of some plant species while the same conditions may favour other species. By contrast, the flood resulted in plants initially having a slightly reduced growth rate than control plants and then a slightly higher growth rate than the control plants, even under prolonged flooding. The result from this study conforms to results from other finding which states that dry weight of plant roots, leaves and stalk of flood plants were higher than the control (Hidaka and Karim, 2007).
Plant root and shoot systems react differently in both waterlogged and drought conditions, resulting in difference and variation in plant morphology and anatomy in the root system. Also, there is tendency of reduction in root system to tolerate flooding condition (Ammara and Shumaila, 2010).
Report has also shown that plants grown in flood condition for about 3 months and above has resulted in increase in the root development (Gilbert et al., 2007), also, flooding has been reported to cause increase in dry weight of plants (Begum et al., 2013). During flooding condition, plants usually produce root systems used for alternative oxygen production and enable the plant to maintain root activities. Root systems produced during such conditions are better adapted to abiotic conditions due to their well adapted nature (Thanankorn et al., 2016). The report of this study showed that prolong waterlogging condition caused reduction in the dry weight of root. Studies such as those of Gomethi et al. (2014) who stated that prolong waterlogged condition caused reduction in root dry weight.
Conclusion
The result of the study showed plants subjected to waterlogging conditions were affected negatively, although there was no total mortality of plants at the different waterlogged regime or condition.
However, there may be need to extend the duration of waterlogging further in order to conclude that this variety of tomato can tolerate long term waterlogging.
References
[1] Ahsan, N., D. G. Lee, S. H. Lee and K. Y. Kang, (2007). A comparative proteomic analysis of tomato leaves in response to waterlogging stress. Physiologia Plantarum, 131:555-570.
[2] Ammara, M. and Shumaila, N. (2012). A Review: Water Logging Effects on Morphological, Anatomical, Physiological and Biochemical Attributes of Food and Cash Crops. International Journal of Water Resources and Arid Environments 2(4): 119-126.
[3] Armstrong, W. (1979). Aeration in higher plants. Advances in Botanical Research, 7: 225-332.
[4] Ashraf, M.A. (2012). Waterlogging stress in plants: A review. African Journal of Agricultural Research 7:1976-1981.
[5] Bailey–Serres, J. and Voesenek, L.A.C.J. (2008). Flooding stress: acclimations and genetic diversity. Annual Review of Plant Biology 59:313–339.
[6] Bange, M.P., S.P. Milroy and P. Thongbai. (2004). Growth and yield of cotton in response to waterlogging. Field Crops Research 88: 129-142.
[7] Begum, M.K., Alam, M.R. and Islam, M.S. (2013). Adaptive mechanism of sugarcane genotypes under flood stress condition. World Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 1:56–64.
[8] Gibbs, J. and Greenway, H. (2003). Mechanisms of anoxia tolerance in plants. I. Growth, survival and anaerobic catabolism. Functional Plant Biology 30:1-47.
[9] Gilbert, R. A., Rainbolt, C. R., Morris, D. R. and Bennett, A. C. (2007). Morphological responses of sugarcane to long-term flooding. Agronomy Journal, 99:1622–1628.
[10] Gomathi, R., Gururaja Roa, P.N. and Chandran, K. (2014). Adaptive response of sugarcane to waterlogging stress: An over view. Sugar Technology, 17:325–338.
[11] Hidaka, T. and Karim, M. (2007). Flooding tolerance of sugarcane in relation to growth, physiology and root structure. South Pacific Studies 28:11–21.
[12] Horchani, F., Aloui, A., Brouquisse, R., and Aschi-Smiti, S. (2008). Physiological responses of tomato plants (Solanum lycopersicum) as affected by root hypoxia. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 194: 297-303.
[13] Hossain, A. and S.N. Uddin, (2011). Mechanisms of water logging tolerance in wheat:
Morphological and metabolic adaptations under hypoxia or anoxia. Australian Journal of Crop Sciences, 5(9): 1094-1101.
[14] Jackson, M.B. (2008). Ethylene–promoted elongation: an adaptation to submergence stress.
Annals of Botany 101:229–248.
[15] Larcher, W. (2003). Physiological plant ecology: Ecophysiology and stress physiology of functional groups. (4th ed.). Berlin: Springer-Verlag. pp. 401–416.
[16] Martinez-Alcántara, B., S. Jover, A. Quiñones, M.A. Forner-Giner, J. Rodríguez-Gamir, F.
Legaz, E. Primo-Millo and D.J. Iglesias. (2012). Flooding affects uptake and distribution of carbon and nitrogen in citrus seedlings. Journal of Plant Physiology 169:1150-1157.
[17] Mensah, J.K., Obadoni, B.O., Eruotor, P.G. and Onome-Irieguna, F. (2006). Simulated flooding and drought effects on germination, growth, and yield parameters of sesame (Sesamum indicum L.). African Journal of Biotechnology 5(13): 1249-1253.
[18] Rahman, A., Tsurumi, S., Amakawa, T., Soga, K., Hoson, T., Goto, N. and Kamisaka, S.
(2000). Involvement of ethylene and gibberellin signalings in chromosaponin I-induced cell division and cell elongation in the roots of Arabidopsis seedlings. Plant Cell Physiology 41:1–
9.
[19] Sesay, A. (2009). Influence of flooding on bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea L.) germination: Effect of temperature, duration and timing. African Journal of Agricultural Research 4(2): 100-106.
[20] Taiz, L. and Zeiger, E. (2006). Plant Physiology, 4th Ed., Sinauer Associates Inc. Publishers, Massachusetts. 181p.
[21] Thanankorn, J., Jun, T., Kenta, W., M.N., Hiroo, T., Ryuichi, S., Masami, U. and Yoshinobu, K. (2016). Effects of duration and combination of drought and flood conditions on leaf photosynthesis, growth and sugar content in sugarcane. Plant Production Science, 5:1-12
