Next Article in Journal
Dose–Effect Relationship of Water Salinity Levels on Osmotic Regulators, Nutrient Uptake, and Growth of Transplanting Vetiver [Vetiveria zizanioides (L.) Nash]
Next Article in Special Issue
Using Zinc Oxide Nanoparticles to Improve the Color and Berry Quality of Table Grapes Cv. Crimson Seedless
Previous Article in Journal
Is Every Wild Species a Rich Source of Disease Resistance? Avena fatua L.—Potential Donor of Resistance to Powdery Mildew
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 10
Issue 3
10.3390/plants10030561
plants-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Edit a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Comparative Study of Drought Stress Effects on Traditional and Modern Apple Cultivars

by
Ines Mihaljević
*,
Marija Viljevac Vuletić
,
Domagoj Šimić
,
Vesna Tomaš
,
Daniela Horvat
,
Marko Josipović
,
Zvonimir Zdunić
,
Krunoslav Dugalić
and
Dominik Vuković
Agricultural Institute Osijek, Južno predgrađe 17, HR-31000 Osijek, Croatia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2021, 10(3), 561; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10030561
Received: 25 February 2021 / Revised: 11 March 2021 / Accepted: 12 March 2021 / Published: 16 March 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Physiology and Molecular Biology of Fruit Trees and Vines)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Genotype-dependent responses of apples to drought stress were evaluated between commercial and traditional apple cultivars. The results indicate different mechanisms of tolerance to investigated drought stress conditions. Chlorophyll fluorescence induction (OJIP) parameters, chlorophyll and carotenoid content, malondialdehyde (MDA), hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), proline, phenols and leaf water content (WC) were measured. The traditional cultivar “Crvenka” confirmed the best tolerance to a drought stress condition, presenting higher photosynthetic efficiency, higher leaf water content, higher levels of chlorophyll content and lower lipid peroxidation with greater membrane stability. The commercial cultivar “Golden Delicious Reinders” showed decreased water content in leaves, increased lipid peroxidation levels and photoinhibition. Considering all results, the commercial cultivar “Golden Delicious Reinders” was adversely affected by drought, while traditional cultivars exhibited better tolerance to drought stress.

1. Introduction

In recent years, numerous studies have been published about the effects of global climate change on ecosystems, and it is predicted that climate change will cause extreme temperatures and droughts. Drought has become a major abiotic stress factor that adversely effects plant growth, survival and limits crop productivity [1], causing a reduction in fruit yield and fruit quality [2]. It has been shown that water deficit influences various physiological, biochemical, metabolic and molecular processes in various plants, including apple trees [3,4]. Lack of water in plants induces oxidative stress [5,6], overproduction of reactive oxygen species (ROS), including the superoxide radical (O2−) and hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), which cause lipid peroxidation and damages the membrane, proteins, chlorophyll, nucleic acids and cell death [7,8]. Drought can cause a significant reduction and damage in photosynthesis and chlorophyll degradation [9,10]. According to Chaves et al. [11], the negative effects of drought on plant physiology are dependent on the intensity and duration of the drought stress and the genetic capacity of the plant to cope and survive in this stress conditions. To cope with drought stress and protect themselves from oxidative stress, plants have evolved antioxidant defense mechanisms including antioxidant enzymes (e.g., peroxidase (POD), superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT)) and non-enzymatic antioxidants (e.g., phenolic, ascorbic acid, glutathione, carotenoids) [12,13,14]. Some plants accumulate osmolytes such as proline, glycine betaine and soluble sugars to protect themselves and to alleviate the drought stress condition [15,16,17]. Recent studies reported that some secondary metabolites synthesized in plant organs such as volatile compounds terpens [18] and some phytohormones such as brassinolide [19] alleviated the effect of drought stress on plants by improving the plant’s defense system. The apple (Malus domestica Borkh.), is one of the most economically important continental fruits worldwide and one of the most consumed fruits in the world [20]. It is predicted that in the future, different regions in Europe will be affected by drought [21]; therefore, it is necessary to prepare apple production for stronger droughts. The ability of apple trees to cope with drought stress and to achieve a high yield in these conditions will be of great economic importance. Proper selection of drought resistant cultivars and rootstock is one of the strategies to reduce the impact of this stress and contribute to a more stable apple production. The apple is the fruit that is most commonly cultivated in Croatia, but in intensive apple production they are mostly represented by commercial, modern cultivars with high productivity. Modern cultivars are foreign, high yielding cultivars, which do not represent the diversity of local conditions. They were derived from plant breeding. Traditional cultivars are those cultivars that have been related to specific region, mostly grown in backyards and small orchards whose origin is mostly not known. They are locally adapted to its natural environment. Due to global climate change, the most important characteristics of plants is their tolerance to different abiotic and biotic stresses such as drought, extreme temperature, disease and pest resistance. These characteristics are usually present in traditional cultivars, but because of the great representation of high yielding commercial cultivars, interest in the production of traditional cultivars has decreased. In recent years, there has been a great interest in growing traditional cultivars that are suitable for production in this area [22]. In previous research, traditional cultivars have shown that they have very valuable fruits, contain more polyphenols [23], more fibers, proteins, sugars, β-carotene and vitamin E [24], and they have a better capacity to tolerate biotic and abiotic stress [25] compared to commercial cultivars. The aims of this study were (1) to elucidate the adaptation mechanisms of two traditional apple cultivars to drought-stressed conditions in comparison with commercial cultivar; (2) to obtain information about the genetic potential of drought stress tolerance of these traditional cultivars for the future production and breeding of new apple cultivars. Measuring chlorophyll a fluorescence has been widely used as a non-destructive method to analyze the structure and function of the photosynthetic apparatus, particularly PS II, under different abiotic stresses, including drought stress [26,27,28]. In this study we investigated the drought tolerance of selected apple cultivars by OJIP (chlorophyll a fluorescence analysis). For a better understanding of the defense mechanisms of investigated cultivars, beside photosynthetic efficiency, we studied lipid peroxidation, proline, phenol, chlorophyll and water content in the leaves. To the best of our knowledge, the drought stress tolerance of these traditional apples has not been previously studied.

2. Results

2.1. Effect of Drought Stress on Chlorophyll Fluorescence Parameters

Drought tolerance of three apple cultivars (two traditional and one commercial) was evaluated through analyzing several fluorescence parameters. Significant increase in absorption per active reaction center (ABS/RC), trapped energy flux per active reaction center (TR0/RC), electron transport flux per active reaction center (ET0/RC) and dissipation energy per active reaction center (DI0/RC) at 7 and 12 DAS (day after stress) between control and drought-stressed plants were observed in cultivar “Golden Delicious Reinders” (Figure 1A–D). The increase in the following parameters were more pronounced at 12 DAS: absorption per active reaction center (ABS/RC) (value was higher by 63% compared to control plants) (Figure 1A), trapped energy flux per active reaction center (TR0/RC) (value was higher by 47% compared to control plants) (Figure 1B), electron transport flux per active reaction center (ET0/RC) (value was higher by 72% compared to control plants) (Figure 1C), dissipation energy per active reaction center (DI0/RC) (value was higher by 157% compared to control plants) (Figure 1D). Traditional cultivar “Crvenka” showed no significant differences between control and drought treatment plants in the previously mentioned parameters, while “Dugara” showed significant differences for ET0/RC and DI0/RC at 7 DAS (Figure 1A–D).
Significantly lower values in drought-stressed plants were observed in “Golden Delicious Reinders” for a maximum quantum yield of photosystem II (Fv/Fm) and performance index on absorption basis (PIABS) (Figure 2A,C). Decreases in these parameters were also more pronounced at 12 DAS: maximum quantum yield of photosystem II (Fv/Fm) (value was lower by 10% compared to control plants) (Figure 2A), performance index on absorption basis (PIABS) (value was lower by 75% compared to control plants) (Figure 2C). There were no statistical differences in these parameters, between control and drought-stressed plants in the leaves of traditional cultivars “Crvenka” and “Dugara” (Figure 2A,C). Values of efficiency/probability with which an electron from the intersystem electron carriers is transferred to reduce end electron acceptors at the PSI acceptor side (RE0/ET0) did not change significantly after 7 days of drought in all cultivars. After 12 days of drought treatment, the value of (RE0/ET0) in “Golden Delicious Reinders” was increased, while in cultivar “Dugara” it was decreased. The values of this parameter did not change in cultivar “Crvenka” even after 12 DAS (2B). However, the results showed that the highest values of (PIABS) were recorded in cultivar “Crvenka” after 7 days of drought (4.35) and 12 days of drought (4.05) (Figure 2C). Similarly, under the drought stress, PItotal values showed the highest drop in the leaves of “Golden Delicious Reinders”; values were significantly lower than those in non-stressed plants. The smallest decrease in this parameter was recorded for cultivar “Crvenka” (Figure 2D).

2.2. OJIP Curve

The fluorescent transient OJIP curves represent a plot of fluorescence data for each cultivar plotted on logarithmic time scale at 12 days of drought treatment. They revealed distinct differences between cultivars and treatments. In drought treatments, the change of the OJIP curve of traditional apple cultivars “Crvenka” and “Dugara” was less visible than that commercial cultivar “Golden Delicious Reinders”. Our results showed that drought treated plants of the “Golden Delicious Reinders” cultivar had higher fluorescence intensity at the J step (2 ms) and I step, compared to traditional cultivars (Figure 3A,D,G), resulting in a dramatically changed OJIP curve shape. Drought stressed plants of “Dugara” cultivar exhibited slightly positive L band, with small amplitude (Figure 3E). We also recorded positive L and K bands in “Golden Delicious Reinders”, with much more pronounced L and K band amplitude (Figure 3H,I). The traditional cultivar “Crvenka” was observed with a negative L and K bands (Figure 3B,C).

2.3. Chlorophyll and Carotenoid Content

The concentration of total chlorophyll content remained unchanged in drought-stressed leaves of all cultivars at 7 DAS compared to control (Figure 4A). All apple cultivars after 12 day of drought showed a significant decrease in total chlorophyll content, compared to control. Among the plants subjected to drought stress, cultivar “Crvenka” retained the highest chlorophyll content at 7 DAS (7.76 mg/g DW) and at 12 DAS (6.88 mg/g DW) (Figure 4A). Leaf carotenoids content of all apple cultivars under drought did not differ from control at 7 and 12 DAS except in cultivar “Golden Delicious Reinders” at 12 DAS (value was lower 18% compared to control plants) (Figure 4B)

2.4. MDA and H2O2 Content

Lipid peroxidation was determined by evaluating the malondialdehyde (MDA) content in leaf tissues. In our study, the MDA significantly increased only at 12 DAS in cultivars “Golden Delicious Reinders” and “Dugara”, while the MDA content in the leaves of cultivar “Crvenka” remained unchanged (Figure 5A). The highest accumulation of MDA under drought treatment was observed in cultivar “Golden Delicious Reinders” at 12 DAS (15.19 nmol/g FW) (Figure 5A). A significant increase in H2O2 content after 7 and 12 DAS compared to control was detected in “Golden Delicious Reinders” and “Dugara” cultivars (Figure 5B). “Crvenka” showed significantly lower accumulation of H2O2 in drought-stressed plants compared to control for 30% only after 12 DAS (Figure 5B). After 7 and 12 DAS, cultivar “Golden Delicious Reinders” was observed to have the highest accumulation of H2O2 (3.55 µmol/g FW and 5.6 µmol/g FW).

2.5. Proline and Phenols Content

After 7 days of drought, the contents of proline remained unchanged in all cultivars, as compared with the corresponding controls (Figure 5C). The contents of proline at 12 DAS significantly increased under drought stress only in “Golden Delicious Reinders”. There were no statistical differences, between control and drought stress plants in cultivar “Dugara”, while in cultivar “Crvenka” a significant decrease in proline content was recorded (Figure 5C). Phenols content in the leaves of all apple cultivar did not change at 7 day, compared to control (Figure 5D). After 12 days of treatment drought stress induced an accumulation of phenols content in “Golden Delicious Reinders” and “Crvenka” cultivars. A significantly higher phenols content was detected in “Golden Delicious Reinders” (25.8 mg GAE/g FW) compared to “Crvenka” (22.82 mg GAE/g FW). There were no statistical differences between control and drought stress plants in cultivar “Dugara” (Figure 5D).

2.6. Water Content in the Leaves

There were no significant differences in leaf water content between cultivars under control and drought condition at 7 DAS. The water content (%) in the leaves of the studied apple cultivars decreased significantly only in cultivar “Golden Delicious Reinders” after 12 day of drought treatment (value was lower 23% compared to control plants) (Figure 6).

3. Discussion

Some research has been conducted on the fruit quality characterization of traditional cultivars in Croatia and Balkan Region [29,30]. The molecular analyses were also conducted on these cultivars and revealed a clear differentiation between traditional and commercial cultivars [31], but no information is available about the effects of abiotic stresses on them. In this study we evaluated and compared some physiological and biochemical traits, in two traditional cultivars and one commercial cultivar, under a short period of drought, to understand their tolerance to drought stress.
Based on the chlorophyll fluorescence parameters, we investigated and compared the changes in fluorescence characteristics of PS II of selected cultivars under drought stress. The present study showed significant differences in leaf photochemistry of investigated cultivars, by analysis of OJIP kinetics. Our results showed that drought treated plants of “Golden Delicious Reinders” have higher fluorescence intensity at the J phase and I phase compared to “Dugara” and “Crvenka”, indicating a stronger decline and inhibition in electron transport beyond the QA and beyond PQH2 [32,33]. Simultaneously, the appearance of the positive L peak (around 120–150 μs) and K peak (around 300 μs) was observed in the OJIP transient of that cultivar. According to Strasser and Stirbet [34], the L band is an indicator of energetic connectivity or grouping between PS II units and positive L band reflects lower connectivity between PSII units. On the other hand, negative L band points on higher connectivity, efficient use of the excitation energy and higher stability of the photosynthetic system [35]. Data on the L-band indicate that in “Golden Delicious Reinders” and “Dugara”, drought stress treatment resulted in a decrease in energetic connectivity, while the cultivar “Crvenka” showed an increase in energetic connectivity. Similarly, the negative L-band occurred in the leaves of transgenic rice (overexpressing the OsNAC10-improved drought-stress tolerance) compared to non-transgenic under drought condition [36]. When plants are exposed to stressful conditions, the K-band occurs within the 200–300 μs range of the ChlF induction curve which has been associated with an inhibition and inactivation of the oxygen-evolving complex (OEC) [37]. In this study, the appearance of K-band suggested that drought in the leaves of “Golden Delicious Reinders” caused an inactivation of the OEC, while cultivar “Crvenka” retained a stable OEC (negative K band). L and K-bands with positive amplitudes were previously recorded for passion fruit [38] and sunflower [39] when exposed to drought. Drought significantly affected all the photosynthetic parameters studied in this study. Higher average absorption (ABS/RC), trapping (TR0/RC), electron transport (ET0/RC) and dissipation (DI0/RC) in the drought-stressed plants of “Golden Delicious Reinders” indicate inactivation of a certain part of RCs, due to inactivation of OEC, as well as the transformation of active RCs to silent [40]. We supposed that the greater number of inactive reaction centers was the basic reason for the higher dissipation of absorbed light. The inactivation of RCs due to drought stresses was evidenced by the decline in Fv/Fm. Similar behaviour of these parameters under drought-stressed grape leaves has been reported by Wang et al. [41]. Boguszewska-Mańkowska et al. [42] noticed an increase in the parameters ABS/RC, DI0/RC and TR0/RC and a large decrease in PIABS in drought-sensitive potato cultivars subjected to drought. In traditional cultivar “Crvenka” the values of these parameters remained unchanged under the influence of drought which indicated that the photosynthetic apparatus of cultivar “Crvenka”, with the highest values of PIABS, was the most tolerant to investigated drought condition. PItotal was used to measure the performance up to the reduction of PSI end electron acceptors and its values represent the energy flow efficiency of the photosynthetic transport chain beyond PS II [40]. This parameter is the product of the performance index on absorption basis PIABS and the probability that an electron can move from reduced intersystem electron acceptors to PSI end electron acceptors (RE0/ET0). There was no difference in RE0/ET0 between drought-stressed and control plants in tolerant cultivar “Crvenka”, indicating that the electron flow was proceeding normally from PQH2 to the PSI end electron acceptors. The highest values of parameter PItotal also confirmed the better performance of PSI acceptor side in traditional cultivar “Crvenka” as compared to “Dugara” and “Golden Delicious Reinders” under drought stress. Increase of RE0/ET0 in the drought treatment in “Golden Delicious Reinders” is probably due to decrease in redox balance of PSII electron acceptors because of lower PSII activity. The parameter RE0/ET0 decreased by drought only in traditional cultivar “Dugara”. According to Schansker et al. [43], reduced parameter RE0/ET0 indicated that drought had a negative effect on electron flow at the acceptor side of PSI caused by an inactivation of ferredoxin-NADP+-reductase. The lower value of these parameter in “Dugara” indicate unsuitable electron transfer between two photosystems and that the acceptor side of PS I might be inhibited. This was reflected in the lower level of the PI (total) in this cultivar. The effects of drought stress observed in parameters PI (total) and RE0/ET0 are in accordance with a previous report of Jia et al. [44] in drought-stressed maize plants. (Fv/Fm) known as maximum quantum yield of PS II represent the efficiency of PSII primary photochemistry. Decreased value of that parameter under 0.75 indicates that PS II has been damaged [45]. Decrease of this parameter was observed only in the leaves of commercial, drought sensitive cultivar, “Golden Delicious Reinders”. This finding is consistent with the previous report of Faraloni et al. [46] who showed that the the Fv/Fm values decreased in the sensitive cultivars of olive, whereas the tolerant cultivar did not show any decrease in Fv/Fm. In this study, we found that Fv/Fm recorded values of all three cultivar were in the range of 0.77–0.85. Despite the fact that the OJIP curves obviously showed damage to the OEC complex and lower energetic connectivity between PS II units of the “Golden Delicious Reinders”, the values of Fv/Fm, although they were significantly decreased, were not below 0.75. However, parameter Fv/Fm is a well-known indicator of stress; this result indicates that drought stress has relatively little effect on the parameter Fv/Fm in this study. Previous reports also suggest that drought has relatively slight effect on the parameter Fv/Fm; thus, it is not a sensitive parameter for analysing drought stress [41,47].
Based on the obtained results we supposed that after 12 days of drought stress, decreasing trends of PIABS and PItotal values of the commercial cultivar “Golden Delicious Reinders” were mainly due to an inactivation of PS II RCs, a higher increase in TR0/RC and thereby ABS/RC, ET0/RC and DI0/RC. While in cultivar “Dugara”, the most sensitive components of the photosynthetic electron transport chain seemed to be the probability that an electron from the intersystem electron carriers is transferred to reduce end electron acceptors at the PSI acceptor side RE0/ET0. The highest photosynthetic activity in “Crvenka” was due to the highest amount of active PSII reaction centers and stable absorption flux. Our results indicated that the photosynthetic apparatus of traditional cultivar “Crvenka” was more tolerant to drought stress than “Golden Delicious Reinders” and “Dugara”.
Chlorophylls as the main photosynthetic pigments in plant leaves reflect the photosynthetic capacity of leaves and overall plant vitality. The chlorophyll content of plant leaves is considered as a good stress indicator for evaluating tolerance levels of various crops to different abiotic stresses, including drought stress [48]. Previous research documented that drought stress reduced the accumulation of chlorophyll content in apple rootstock [49,50]. Our research findings show that in drought treated plants chlorophyll content was also decreased, but only after 12 DAS. The decreases were more pronounced in the commercial cultivar “Golden Delicious Reinders”, while in “Crvenka” the decreases were lower. These results are in agreement with research of Bhusal et al. [10] where degradations in total chlorophyll content were lower in the more tolerant “Fuji” apple than in “Hongro” apples. Carotenoids play essential roles in photosynthesis, since they protect photosystem II from photo-oxidative damage [51]. Khoyerdi et al. [52] reported that the pistachio cultivar with higher carotenoids content was more tolerant to drought stress. In the present study, in contrast to decreases in the total chlorophyll content, the carotenoid content of traditional cultivars “Dugara” and “Crvenka” remained stable. After 12 DAS, total carotenoids were reduced only in commercial cultivar “Golden Delicious Reinders”, probably because the xanthophyll cycle was not activated properly to protect PS II from photoinhibition [53].
Decreased PS II activity under drought is connected with oxidative stress and cell membrane injury caused by increased lipid peroxidation [54]. MDA is a product of lipid peroxidation, often used as a measure of oxidative stress during drought stress [55]. Different abiotic stresses including drought induce the production of different kinds of reactive oxygen species (ROS) such as H2O2, which damage the membrane lipids [56]. Our results showed that higher MDA concentration in drought-stressed plants was associated with higher H2O2 content. The significant increase in MDA and H2O2 contents with drought stress progressed in the two apple cultivars “Golden Delicious Reinders” and “Dugara” suggested that drought stress caused oxidative damages in both cultivars. The intensity of H2O2, and consequently MDA, increased with the intensity of stress. Møller et al. [57] suggest that the higher MDA content caused more serious oxidative damage. This is evident in our study where commercial cultivar “Golden Delicious Reinders” possessed higher increased rate in the contents of MDA and H2O2 and earlier significant changes of H2O2 compared to the traditional cultivar “Dugara”, suggesting that “Dugara” possessed better drought tolerance. Previous studies also showed an increased level of MDA and H2O2 in olive and poplar plants under drought stress [58,59]. Content of MDA under drought stress in traditional cultivar “Crvenka” remained stable, while the content of H2O2 decreased at 12 day of drought. The finding of lower content of H2O2 under drought stress was in accordance with previous report of Umar and Shaheed-Siddiqui [60]. They presumed that the lower H2O2 production in drought stress might be due to the activation of antioxidant enzyme activities, particularly CAT, which detoxify H2O2 and reduces H2O2 accumulation.
Water content in leaves (WC) is an indicator of water status in plants used for drought tolerance estimation [61]. In response to drought stress conditions after (12 DAS), significant drops in water content (WC) were observed only in the leaves of the “Golden Delicious Reinders”, cultivar with the lowest photosynthetic efficiency. Traditional cultivars had better photosynthetic efficiency and unchanged water content. A study by Tounekti et al. [62] also showed that drought tolerant coffee cultivar had higher water content in the leaves with higher photosynthetic efficiency. All of these indicators support the data obtained in photochemical parameters, indicating better drought tolerance of traditional cultivars.
Proline is an important organic solute that is accumulated and increased in plants under drought conditions [63], acting as an ROS scavenging molecule [64]. Much previous research reported that drought tolerant plants had higher accumulation of proline under drought stress conditions [65,66]. In contrast to these findings, our results showed that proline measurements are not a reliable screening method for drought tolerance of investigated apple cultivars. The proline content was not higher in the drought tolerant cultivar “Crvenka” compared to drought sensitive “Golden Delicious Reinders”. Decreases in proline content in “Crvenka” indicate on activation some other defence mechanism against drought. Similar results were observed in the research of Rampino et al. [67] where drought tolerant wheat plants had higher relative water content (RWC) and reduced accumulation of proline. Plant phenolic compounds are secondary metabolites that act as antioxidants; they have been describe as indicators of abiotic stress tolerance in plants [68,69]. Hura et al. [70] found that triticale plants with better photosynthetic activity had higher levels of phenolic compounds. This is not consistent with our study where the amount of total phenolic compounds accumulated in the leaves of studied cultivars was very variable and the highest phenolic content was observed in the commercial cultivar “Golden Delicious Reinders”. These results suggest that phenols do not play a significant role in the defensive reactions of investigated apple cultivars. Similarly, Puente-Garza et al. [71] noticed that total phenolic content is not related to antioxidant activity in Agave plants. Although we hypothesized that higher concentrations of proline and secondary metabolites (phenols) will improve osmotic adjustment and tolerance to drought stress, this hypothesis is not supported, implying that in this study probably antioxidant enzyme systems were provoked as a defensive mechanism.
Our study concludes that specific differences in physiological and biochemical responses to drought stress among cultivars existed. Among the investigated cultivars, the more drought tolerant characteristic was observed in the traditional cultivar “Crvenka”. Higher photosynthetic efficiency, higher content of chlorophyll and greater membrane stability indicate that traditional cultivar “Crvenka” has the highest drought tolerance, while in contrast, the commercial cultivar “Golden Delicious Reinders” was the most sensitive in the investigated condition. Good quality traits of “Crvenka” [72] and good drought tolerance make this cultivar a promising candidate for cultivation under drought conditions in this area. These cultivars can be recommended for the revitalization of the production assortment in the study area and contribute to fruit growing development. The preservation of traditional cultivars is very important in order to preserve the genetic material for breeding; thus, the results from this study may provide valuable information for the future breeding programmes.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Apple Cultivars, Growth Conditions and Experimental Setup

The experiment was conducted in the greenhouse of Agricultural Institute Osijek, Croatia, in the summer (July 2019). Three apple (Malus domestica Borkh) cultivars were used in the experiment (“Golden Delicious Reinders”, “Crvenka” and “Dugara”). “Golden Delicious Reinders” is a widespread and very common commercial cultivar grown in intensive apple orchard systems. “Crvenka” and “Dugara” are traditional cultivars, originating from continental Croatia, grown mostly in small orchards. In the Balkan region, there are also many different names amongst those apple cultivars with the same genetic origin. One-year-old apple trees, grafted into rootstock M9, were grown in 25 L pots (one plant per pot) filled with soil (65% white peat, 35% black peat, 150 L clay/m3, 1500 g nitrogen-phosphorous-potassium fertilizer/m3). All the potted plants were regularly irrigated for 3 months under greenhouse conditions before drought stress was imposed. In this experiment drought stress was imposed by withdrawing irrigation. Five plants of each cultivar were under water-deficit (non-irrigated plants) and used as drought treatment, while five plants were optimally irrigated every day (2 L of water per day) and used as a control. The greenhouse’s mean day/night temperatures were 28 °C/20 °C at 7 DAS (day after stress) and 25 °C/15 °C at 12 DAS (day after stress), mean relative air humidity was 60/80% and 70/80%. The irradiance in the greenhouse was natural.

4.2. Measurement of Chlorophyll a Fluorescence

The measurements of chlorophyll a fluorescence were determined on leaves after 7 and 12 days of drought treatment. The measurements were performed on five plants per treatment for each cultivar on three fully developed leaves. The same leaf samples were collected, frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored at −80 °C for further analysis. Measurements were conducted on a sunny day, in the morning (8 h to 9:30 h) before the midday depression of photosynthesis. Chlorophyll a fluorescence was measured by a Handy-PEA fluorimeter (Plant Efficiency Analyser, Hansatech Instruments Ltd., Great Britain), which measures changes in chlorophyll a fluorescence during 10 μs to 1 s. Before measurement, all of the leaves were dark adapted using special leaf clips. After a dark-adapted period (30 min), leaves were exposed to a saturating red light pulses (wavelength in peak at 650 nm, 3.200 μmol (photon) m–2 s–1) which generate a fast fluorescence rise from the initial fluorescence intensity (F0) to a maximal intensity (Fm). Fluorescence intensity was measured at 50 µs, when all PS II RCs are open (the O step) (F0); 100 µs; 300 µs; 2 ms (FJ) (the J step); 30 ms (FI) (the I step) and 1 s maximal intensity when all PSII RCs are closed (Fm = P step). Recorded fluorescence values were used to calculate various parameters of the JIP test. The JIP test and analysis explore changes in photosystem II (PSII) photochemical performance, and it has been widely used as a measure of plants sensitivity to different stresses. It provides information about absorbed light energy as well as information on photosynthetic apparatus structure and function [73]. The parameters used for quantifying PSII behavior are the absorbed energy flux (ABS/RC), trapped energy flux (TR0/RC), electron transport flux (ET0/RC), dissipated energy flux (DI0/RC), the efficiency with which an electron can move from the reduced intersystem electron acceptors to the PS I end electron acceptors (RE0/ET0), performance index (PIABS), performance index for energy conservation from exciton to the reduction of PSI end acceptors (PItotal) and maximum quantum yield of primary photochemistry (TR0/ABS; Fv/Fm). Calculations are shown in Table 1.
Chlorophyll fluorescence transient data were demonstrated as OJIP curves and plotted on a logarithmic scale from 50 µs to 1 s, where O, J, I, P steps were marked. The OJIP transients were double normalized between O and P steps: WOP = (Ft − F0)/(FP − F0). For further analysis of drought-induced changes in the OJIP curve and to evaluate differences between control plants and drought-stressed plants of each cultivar, the differential curves were presented separately. For visualization of L-band, fluorescence data were normalized between O (50 μs) and K (300 μs) steps, as VOK = (Ft − F0)/(FK − F0) and plotted as difference kinetics ΔVOK = VOK(drought) − VOK (control). For visualization of the K-band, fluorescence data were normalized between O and J (2 ms) steps as WOJ = (Ft − F0)/(FJ − F0) and plotted as difference kinetics ΔWOJ = VOJ (drought) − VOJ (control) [40,73].

4.3. Analysis of Total Chlorophyll Content and Carotenoids

After chlorophyll a measurements, a bulk sample of the same fifteen leaves per cultivar was used for the analyses of total chlorophyll content (Chl a + b) and carotenoids (Car). The leaves were homogenized into a fine powder using liquid nitrogen with the addition of magnesium hydroxide carbonate. Photosynthetic pigments in the samples of leaves were extracted and re-extracted seven times with absolute acetone until it was completely uncolored to obtain maximum pigment utilization in five repetitions. Absorbance of the solution was measured by spectrophotometer (Specord 200, Analytik, Jena, Germany) at 470, 647 and 663 nm. The concentrations of chlorophyll a (Chl a), chlorophyll b (Chl b) and carotenoids (Car) were calculated according to the equations of Lichtenthaler [74] and expressed as milligram per gram of dry weight (mg/g DW).

4.4. Extraction and Determination of Lipid Peroxidation and Hydrogen Peroxide

Extraction was performed by 1 mL of 0.1% (w/v) trichloroacetic acid (TCA) per 0.20 g of tissue powder. After extraction in the ice bath, homogenates were centrifuged for 15 min at 12,000× g at 4 °C and supernatants were used for determination of lipid peroxidation and hydrogen peroxide.
Lipid peroxidation was measured as content of malondialdehyde (MDA) in the leaves by the method of Verma and Dubey [75]. A total of 0.5 mL of the supernatant was mixed with 1 mL of 0.5% thiobarbituric acid (TBA) in 20% trichloroacetic acid (TCA), and thereafter it was heated for 30 min at 95 °C in a heating block and then cooled on ice. After centrifugation for 15 min at 14,000× g at 4 °C, the absorbance of the supernatant was read at 532 and 600 nm. The content of MDA was estimated by using the extinction coefficient of 155 mM−1 cm−1, and concentration was expressed as nanomole per gram of fresh weight (nmol/g FW).
Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) concentration was quantified according to Velikova et al. [76]. After the addition of 0.5 mL of supernatant into 10 mM potassium phosphate buffer (pH 7.0) (0.5 mL) and 1 M potassium iodide (1 mL), reaction mixture was stored in darkness for 20 min. Absorbance of the reaction mixture was read at 390 nm, and H2O2 content was determined using a calibration curve obtained with different concentrations of H2O2 and expressed as micromoles per gram of fresh weight (µmol/g FW).

4.5. Extraction and Determination of Total Phenolic and Proline Content

Extraction was performed by 80% ethanol per 0.10 g of tissue powder and kept overnight at 4 °C. After centrifugation at 14,000× g at 4 °C for 10 min, supernatants were used for determination of total phenolic and proline content.
Proline content was analysed by the procedure of Woodrow et al. [77]. Aliquots of 50 μL, as well as proline standards (in range of 0.2 to 1 mM) in 4:1 ethanol: water (v/v), were dispensed into reaction tubes. In each tube, we added 100 μL of a reaction mixture prepared with ninhydrin 1% (v/v) in acetic acid 60% (v/v) and ethanol 20% (v/v). The tube content was mixed and heated in a heating block at 95 °C for 20 min. After cooling at room temperature, tubes were centrifuged at 500× g for 1 min, and then 100 μL of the mixtures were transferred to polypropylene microplate. The absorbance at 520 nm was measured by an Epoch microplate spectrophotometer (Bio-Tek, Germany). Proline content was calculated according to obtained standard curve and expressed as micromoles per gram of fresh weight (μmol/g FW).
Total phenolic content was determined by modified Folin–Ciocalteu method [78]. A total of 20 µL of supernatant was mixed with 1.58 mL of dH2O and 0.1 mL of Folin–Ciocalteu reagent (1:1; v/v diluted with water). After 5 min, 0.3 mL of sodium carbonate solution (20%; v/v diluted with water) was added. Homogenized reaction mixture was placed for 30 min in a dark place at room temperature. Absorbance of the solution was measured by spectrophotometer (Specord 200, Analytik, Jena) at 765 nm. The content of total phenolic was expressed as milligrams of gallic acid equivalents (GAE) per g based on a gallic acid calibration curve.

4.6. Determination of Water Content

After measuring chlorophyll fluorescence, a fraction of the leaves were sampled from the apple cultivars grown under either control or drought conditions and weighed to obtain the leaf fresh weight (FW). Thereafter, the weighed fraction of leaves was dried in the oven at 75 °C and weighed again to determine dry weight (DW). The water content in the leaves was calculated based on the equation [79]:
WC (%) = (FW − DW)/FW × 100

4.7. Statistical Analysis

Analysis of variance was carried out to determine differences among the treatments and cultivars on the 7th and 12th day of drought treatment. Mean comparisons were performed using the least significant difference (LSD) test at a 0.05 level of probability. The results are presented as means ± standard error of fifteen replicates for Chl a fluorescence parameters; five replicates for chlorophyll, carotenoid, MDA, H2O2, proline and phenols content and three replicates for leaf water content.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, I.M.; formal analysis, D.Š.; investigation, I.M., M.V.V., V.T. and K.D.; resources, D.H. and M.J.; writing—original draft preparation, I.M.; writing—review and editing, I.M.; supervision, Z.Z. and D.V.; project administration, D.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Interreg- IPA CBC Croatia-Serbia project, funding by the EU: “Development of new tree nursery products for fast growing fruit industry based on local genetic resources and modern technologies”; 160. 2014–2020.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All data are contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Berger, J.; Palta, J.; Vadez, V. Review: An integrated framework for crop adaptation to dry environments: Responses to transient and terminal drought. Plant Sci. 2016, 252, 58–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  2. Pérez-Pérez, J.G.; Romero, P.; Navarro, J.M.; Botía, P. Response of sweet orange cv “Lane late” to deficit irrigation in two rootstocks. I: Water relations, leaf gas exchange and vegetative growth. Irrig. Sci. 2008, 26, 415–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Zu, X.; Lu, Y.; Wang, Q.; Chu, P.; Miao, W.; Wang, H.; La, H. A new method for evaluating the drought tolerance of upland rice cultivars. Crop. J. 2017, 5, 488–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Massonnet, C.; Costes, E.; Rambal, S.; Dreyer, E.; Regnard, J.L. Stomatal regulation of photosynthesis in apple leaves: Evidence for different water-use strategies between two cultivars. Ann. Bot. 2007, 100, 1347–1356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  5. Lei, Y.; Yin, C.; Li, C. Differences in some morphological, physiological, and biochemical responses to drought stress in two contrasting populations of Populus przewalskii. Physiol. Plant. 2006, 127, 182–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Noctor, G.; Mhamdi, A.; Foyer, C.H. The roles of reactive oxygen metabolism in drought: Not so cut and dried. Plant Physiol. 2014, 164, 1636–1648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  7. Scandalios, J.G. Oxygen stress and superoxide dismutases. Plant Physiol. 1993, 101, 7–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  8. Smirnoff, N. The role of active oxygen in the response of plants to water deficit and desiccation. New Phytol. 1993, 125, 27–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Viljevac, M.; Dugalic, K.; Mihaljević, I.; Šimić, D.; Sudar, R.; Jurković, Z.; Lepeduš, H. Chlorophylls content and photosynthetic efficiency in two sour cherry Prunus cerasus (L.) genotypes under drought stress. Acta Bot. Croat. 2013, 72, 221–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  10. Bhusal, N.; Han, S.G.; Yoon, T.M. Impact of drought stress on photosynthetic response, leaf water potential, and stem sap flow in two cultivars of bi-leader apple trees (Malus × domestica Borkh.). Sci. Hortic. 2019, 246, 535–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Chaves, M.M.; Pereira, J.S.; Maroco, J.; Rodrigues, M.; Ricardo, C.P.P.; Osório, M.L.; Carvalho, I.; Faria, T.; Pinheiro, C. How plants cope with water stress in the field: Photosynthesis and growth. Ann. Bot. 2002, 89, 907–916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  12. Asensi-Fabado, M.A.; Munné-Bosch, S. Vitamins in plants: Occurrence, biosynthesis and antioxidant function. Trends Plant Sci. 2010, 15, 582–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Farooq, M.; Hussain, M.; Wahid, A.; Siddique, K.H.M. Chapter 1, Drought Stress in Plants: An Overview. In Plant Responses to Drought Stress; Aroca, R., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; pp. 1–33. [Google Scholar]
  14. Faize, M.; Burgos, L.; Faize, L.; Piqueras, A.; Nicolas, E.; Barba-Espin, G.; Clemente-Moreno, M.J.; Alcobendas, R.; Artlip, T.; Hernandez, J.A. Involvement of cytosolic ascorbate peroxidase and Cu/Zn-superoxide dismutase for improved tolerance against drought stress. J. Exp. Bot. 2011, 62, 2599–2613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Shehab, G.G.; Ahmed, O.K.; El-Beltagi, H.S. Effects of various chemical agents for alleviation of drought stress in rice plants Oryza sativa (L.). Not. Bot. Horti Agrobot. 2010, 38, 139–148. [Google Scholar]
  16. Xu, Z.; Sun, M.; Jiang, X.; Sun, H.; Dang, X.; Cong, H.; Qiao, F. Glycinebetaine biosynthesis in response to osmotic stress depends on jasmonate signaling in watermelon suspension cells. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 1469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  17. Dien, D.C.; Mochizuki, T.; Yamakawa, T. Effect of various drought stresses and subsequent recovery on proline, total soluble sugar and starch metabolisms in Rice Oryza sativa (L.) varieties. Plant Prod. Sci. 2019, 22, 530–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  18. Mahdavi, A.; Moradi, P.; Mastinu, A. Variation in Terpene Profiles of Thymus vulgaris in Water Deficit Stress Response. Molecules 2020, 25, 1091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  19. Naservafaei, S.; Sohrabi, Y.; Moradi, P.; Mac Sweeney, E.; Mastinu, A. Biological Response of Lallemantia iberica to Brassinolide Treatment under Different Watering Conditions. Plants 2021, 10, 496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Harris, S.A.; Robinson, J.P.; Juniper, B.E. Genetic clues to the origin of the apple. Trends Genet. 2002, 8, 426–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Lindner, M.; Maroschek, M.; Netherer, S.; Kremer, A.; Barbati, A.; Garcia-Gonzalo, J.; Lexer, M.J. Climate change impacts, adaptive capacity, and vulnerability of European forest ecosystems. For. Ecol. Manag. 2010, 259, 698–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Skendrović Babojelić, M.; Korent, P.; Šindrak, Z.; Jemrić, T. Pomološka svojstva i kakvoća ploda tradicionalnih sorata jabuka. Glas. Zaštite Bilja 2014, 37, 20–27. [Google Scholar]
  23. Donno, D.; Beccaro, G.L.; Mellano, M.G.; Torello Marinoni, D.; Cerutti, A.K.; Canterino, S.; Bounous, G. Application of sensory, nutraceutical and genetic techniques to create a quality profile of ancient apple cultivars. J. Food Qual. 2012, 35, 169–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Feliciano, R.P.; Antunes, C.; Ramos, A.; Serra, A.T.; Figueira, M.E.; Duarte, C.M.M.; de Carvalho, A.; Bronze, M.R. Characterization of traditional and exotic apple varieties from Portugal. Part 1—Nutritional, phytochemical and sensory evaluation. J. Funct. Foods. 2010, 2, 35–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Cvetković, M.; Tomić, L.; Botu, M.; Gjamovski, V.; Jemrić, T.; Lazović, B.; Ognjanov, V.; Pintea, M.; Sevo, R.; Achim, G.; et al. SEEDNet’s WG for Fruit and Vitis. In Balkan Pomology, Apples; Exaktaprinting AB: Malmo, Sweden, 2012; pp. 12–13. [Google Scholar]
  26. Çiçek, N.; Erdal, Ş.Ç.; Arslan, Ö.; Nalçaiyi, S.B.; Çil, A.N.; Şahin, V.; Kaya, Y.; Ekmekçi, Y. Assessing drought tolerance in field-grown sunflower hybrids by chlorophyll fluorescence kinetics. Rev. Bras. Bot. 2019, 42, 249–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Wang, Z.; Li, G.; Sun, H.; Ma, L.; Guo, Y.; Zhao, Z.; Gao, H.; Mei, L. Effects of drought stress on photosynthesis and photosynthetic electron transport chain in young apple tree leaves. Biol. Open 2018, 7, bio035279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  28. Roostaei, M.; Mohammadi, S.A.; Amri, A.; Majidi, E.; Nachit, M.; Haghparast, R. Chlorophyll fluorescence parameters and drought tolerance in a mapping population of winter bread wheat in the highlands of Iran. Russ. J. Plant Physiol. 2011, 58, 351–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Milinović, B.; Vujević, P.; Halapija Kazija, D.; Jelačić, T.; Čiček, D.; Biško, A. Productivity and fruit quality of traditional apple cultivars within intensive production systems. Pomol. Croat. 2017, 21, 3–4. [Google Scholar]
  30. Barać, G.; Milić, B.; Magazin, N.; Ognjanov, V.; Keserović, Z.; Ivanišević, D.; Kalajdžić, M.; Vuković, D.; Mihaljević, I.; Tomaš, V.; et al. Varieties and Selections of Fruit Trees from Eastern Croatia and Northwestern Serbia; Grafika: Osijek, Croatia, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  31. Gasi, F.; Simon, S.; Pojskic, N.; Kurtovic, M.; Pejic, I.; Mekjell, M.; Kaiser, C. Evaluation of apple (Malus x domestica Borkh) genetic resources in Bosnia and Herzegovina using microsatellite markers. HortScience 2013, 48, 13–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  32. Haldiman, P.; Strasser, R.J. Effects of anaerobiosis as probed by the polyphasic chlorophyll a fluorescence rise kinetic in pea Pisum sativum (L.). Photosynth. Res. 1999, 62, 67–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  33. Yan, K.; Shao, H.; Shao, C.; Zhao, S.; Brestic, M. Dissection of photosynthetic electron transport process in sweet sorghum under heat stress. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e62100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  34. Strasser, R.J.; Stirbet, A.D. Heterogeneity of photosystem II probed by the numerically simulated chlorophyll a fluorescence rise (O-J-I-P). Math Comput. Simul. 1998, 48, 3–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Strasser, R.J.; Tsimilli-Michael, M.; Srivastava, A. Analysis of the chlorophyll transient. In Chlorophyll a Fluorescence: A Signature of Photosynthesis. Advances in Photosynthesis and Respiration; Papageorgiou, G.G.C., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2004; Volume 19, pp. 321–362. [Google Scholar]
  36. Redillas, M.C.F.R.; Strasser, R.J.; Jin, S.J.; Kim, Y.S.; Kim, J.K. The use of JIP test to evaluate drought-tolerance of transgenic rice overexpressing OsNAC10. Plant Biotechnol. Rep. 2011, 5, 169–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Kalaji, H.M.; Jajoo, A.; Oukarroum, A.; Brestic, M.; Zivcak, M.; Samoborska, I.A.; Cetner, M.D.; Lukasik, I.; Goltsev, V.; Ladle, R.J. Chlorophyll a fluorescence as a tool to monitor physiological status of plants under abiotic stress conditions. Acta Physiol. Plant. 2016, 38, 102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  38. Gomes, M.T.G.; da Luz, A.C.; Rossi dos Santos, M.; Do Carmo Pimentel Batitucci, M.; Moura Silva, D.; Falqueto, A.R. Drought tolerance of passion fruit plants assessed by the OJIP chlorophyll a fluorescence transient. Sci. Hortic. 2012, 142, 49–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Arslan, Ö.; Balkan Nalçaiyi, A.S.; Çulha Erdal, Ş.; Pekcan, V.; Kaya, Y.; Çiçek, N.; Ekmekçi, Y. Analysis of drought response of sunflower inbred lines by chlorophyll a fluorescence induction kinetics. Photosynthetica 2020, 58, 348–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  40. Yusuf, M.A.; Kumar, D.; Rajwanshi, R.; Strasser, R.J.; Tsimilli-Michael, M.; Govindjee; Sarin, N.B. Overexpression of gamma-tocopherol methyl transferase gene in transgenic Brassica juncea plants alleviates abiotic stress: Physiological and chlorophyll a fluorescence measurements. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 2010, 1979, 1428–1438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  41. Wang, Z.X.; Chen, L.; Ai, J.; Qin, H.Y.; Liu, Y.X.; Xu, P.L.; Jiao, Z.Q.; Zhao, Y.; Zhang, Q.T. Photosynthesis and activity of photosystem II in response to drought stress in Amur Grape (Vitis amurensis Rupr.). Photosynthetica 2012, 50, 189–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Boguszewska-Mańkowska, D.; Pieczyński, M.; Wyrzykowska, A.; Kalaji, H.M.; Sieczko, L.; Szweykowska-Kulińska, Z.; Zagdańska, B. Divergent strategies displayed by potato Solanum tuberosum (L.) cultivars to cope with soil drought. J. Agron. Crop. Sci. 2018, 204, 13–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  43. Schansker, G.; Toth, S.Z.; Strasser, R.J. Methylviologen and dibromothymo-quinone treatments of pea leaves reveal the role of photosystem I in the Chl a fluorescence rise OJIP. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 2005, 1706, 250–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  44. Jia, Y.; Xiao, W.; Ye Xiaolin, Y.; Xiaoli, W.; Guohong, L.; Gang Li, W.; Wang, Y. Response of photosynthetic performance to drought duration and re-watering in maize. Agronomy 2020, 10, 533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  45. Krause, G.H.; Weis, E. Chlorophyll fluorescence and photosynthesis: The basics. Plant Mol. Biol. 1991, 42, 313–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Faraloni, C.; Cutino, I.; Petruccelli, R.; Leva, A.R.; Lazzeri, S.; Torzillo, G. Chlorophyll fluorescence technique as a rapid tool for in vitro screening of olive cultivars Olea europaea (L.) tolerant to drought stress. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2011, 73, 49–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Lu, C.; Zhang, J. Effect of water stress on photosystem II photochemistry and its thermostability in wheat plants. Exp. Bot. 1999, 336, 1199–1206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Arunyanark, A.; Jogloy, S.; Akkasaeng, C.; Vorasot, N.; Kesmala, T.; Nageswara Rao, R.C.; Wright, G.C.; Patanothai, A. Chlorophyll stability is an indicator of drought tolerance in peanut. J. Agron. Crop. Sci. 2008, 194, 113–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Alizadeh, A.; Alizade, V.; Nassery, L.; Eivazi, A. Effect of drought stress on apple dwarf rootstocks. TJEAS 2011, 1, 86–94. [Google Scholar]
  50. Bolat, I.; Dikilitas, M.; Ercisli, S.; Ikinci, A.; Tonkaz, T. The effect of water stress on some morphological, physiological, and biochemical characteristics and bud success on apple and quince rootstocks. Sci. World J. 2014, 2014, 769732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Cogdell, R.J.; Gardiner, A.T. Functions of carotenoids in photosynthesis. Methods Enzymol. 1993, 214, 185–193. [Google Scholar]
  52. Khoyerdi, F.; Shamshiri, M.H.; Estaji, A. Changes in some physiological and osmotic parameters of several pistachio genotypes under drought stress. Sci. Hortic. 2016, 198, 44–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Jahns, P.; Holzwarth, A.R. The role of the xanthophyll cycle and of lutein in photoprotection of photosystem II. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 2012, 1817, 182–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  54. Benhassaine-Kesri, G.; Aid, F.; Demandre, C.; Kader, J.C.; Mazliak, P. Drought stress affects chloroplast lipid metabolism in rape (Brassica napus) leaves. Physiol. Plant. 2002, 115, 221–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Farooq, M.; Wahid, A.; Lee, D.J.; Cheema, S.A.; Aziz, T. Comparative time course action of the foliar applied glycinebetaine, salicylic acid, nitrous oxide, brassinosteroids and spermine in improving drought resistance of rice. J. Agron. Crop. Sci. 2010, 196, 336–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Kocsy, G.; Laurie, R.; Szalai, G.; Szilagyi, V.; Simon-Sarkadi, L.; Galiba, G.; de Ronde, J.A. Genetic manipulation of proline levels affects antioxidants in soybean subjected to simultaneous drought and heat stress. Physiol. Plant. 2005, 124, 227–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Møller, I.M.; Jensen, P.E.; Hansson, A. Oxidative modifications to cellular components in plants. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2007, 58, 459–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  58. Petridis, A.; Therios, I.; Samouris, G.; Koundouras, S.; Giannakoula, A. Effect of water deficit on leaf phenolic composition, gas exchange, oxidative damage and antioxidant activity of four Greek olive Olea europaea (L.) cultivars. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2012, 60, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Yang, F.; Miao, L.F. Adaptive responses to progressive drought stress in two poplar species originating from different altitudes. Silva Fenn. 2010, 44, 23–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  60. Umar, M.; Shaheed Siddiqui, Z. Physiological performance of sunflower genotypes under combined salt and drought stress. Acta Bot. Croat. 2018, 77, 36–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  61. Bandurska, H.; Jόźwiak, W. A comparison of the effects of drought on proline accumulation and peroxidases activity in leaves of Festuca rubra (L.) and Lolium perenne (L.). Acta Soc. Bot. Pol. 2010, 79, 111–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Tounekti, T.; Mahdhi, M.; Al-Turki, T.; Khemira, H. Water relations and photo-protection mechanisms during drought stress in four coffee (Coffea arabica) cultivars from southwestern Saudi Arabi. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2018, 117, 17–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Sumera, I.; Asghari, B. Effect of drought and abscisic acidapplication on the osmotic adjustment of four wheat cultivars. J. Chem. Soc. Pak. 2010, 32, 13–19. [Google Scholar]
  64. Liang, X.; Zhang, L.; Natarajan, S.K.; Becker, D.F. Proline mechanisms of stress survival. Antioxid. Redox Signal. 2013, 19, 998–1011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  65. Anjum, S.A.; Tanveer, M.; Ashraf, U.; Hussain, S.; Shahzad, B.; Khan, I.; Wang, L. Effect of progressive drought stress on growth, leaf gas exchange, and antioxidant production in two maize cultivars. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2016, 23, 17132–17141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Man, D.; Bao, Y.X.; Han, L.B. Drought tolerance associated with proline and hormone metabolism in two tall fescue cultivars. HortScience 2011, 1, 1027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  67. Rampino, P.; Patale, S.; Gerardi, C.; Mita, G.; Perrotta, C. Drought stress responses in wheat: Physiological and molecular analysis of resistant and sensitive genotypes. Plant Cell Environ. 2006, 29, 2143–2152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Blokhina, O.; Virolainen, E.; Fagerstedt, K.V. Antioxidants, oxidative damage and oxygen deprivation stress. Ann. Bot. 2003, 9, 179–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  69. Quan, N.T.; Anh, L.H.; Khang, D.T.; Tuyen, P.T.; Toan, N.P.; Minh, T.N.; Bach, D.T.; Ha, P.T.T.; Elzaawely, A.A.; Khanh, T.D.; et al. Involvement of secondary metabolites in response to drought stress of rice Oryza sativa (L.). Agriculture 2016, 6, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  70. Hura, T.; Hura, K.; Grzesiak, S. Physiological and biochemical parameters for identifications of QTLs controlling the winter triticale drought tolerance at the seedling stage. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2009, 47, 210–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Puente-Garza, C.A.; Cristina Meza, M.; Desiree Ochoa, M.; Silverio García, L. Effect of in vitro drought stress on phenolic acids, flavonols, saponins, and antioxidant activity in Agave salmiana. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2017, 115, 400–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Jakobek, L.; Ištuk, J.; Buljeta, I.; Voća, S.; Šic Žlabur, J.; Skendrović Babojelić, M. Traditional, indigenous apple varieties, a fruit with potential for beneficial effects: Their quality traits and bioactive polyphenol contents. Foods 2020, 9, 52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  73. Strasser, R.J.; Srivastava, A.; Tsimilli-Michael, M. The fluorescence transient as a tool to characterize and screen photosynthetic samples. In Probing Photosynthesis: Mechanism, Regulation and Adaptation; Yunus, M., Pathre, U., Mohanty, P., Eds.; Taylor and Francis: London, UK, 2000; pp. 443–480. [Google Scholar]
  74. Lichtenthaler, H.K. Chlorophylls and carotenoids: Pigments of photosynthetic biomembranes. Methods Enzymol. 1987, 148, 350–382. [Google Scholar]
  75. Verma, S.; Dubey, R.S. Leads toxicity induces lipid peroxidation and alters the activities of antioxidant enzymes in growing rice plants. Plant Sci. 2003, 164, 645–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Velikova, V.; Yordanov, I.; Edreva, A. Oxidative stress and some antioxidant systems in acid rain-treated bean plants: Protective role of exogenous polyamines. Plant Sci. 2000, 151, 59–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Woodrow, P.; Ciarmiello, L.F.; Annunziata, M.G.; Pacifico, S.; Iannuzzi, F.; Mirto, A.; D’Amelia, L.; Dell’Aversana, E.; Piccolella, S.; Fuggi, A.; et al. Durum wheat seedling responses to simultaneous high light and salinity involve a fine reconfiguration of amino acids and carbohydrate metabolism. Physiol. Plant. 2017, 159, 290–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Singleton, V.L.; Rossi, J.A. Colorimetry of total phenolics with phosphomolybdic–phosphotungstic acid reagents. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 1965, 16, 144–158. [Google Scholar]
  79. Kumar, D.; Al Hassan, M.; Naranjo, M.A.; Agrawal, V.; Boscaiu, M.; Vicente, O. Effects of salinity and drought on growth, ionic relations, compatible solutes and activation of antioxidant systems in oleander Nerium oleander (L.). PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0185017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Plants 10 00561 g001 550
Figure 1. Absorption per active reaction center (ABS/RC) (A), trapped energy flux per active reaction center (TR0/RC) (B), electron transport flux per active reaction center (ET0/RC) (C), dissipation energy per active reaction center (DI0/RC) (D), measured in control and drought-stressed apple cultivars (“Golden Delicious Reinders”, “Crvenka” and “Dugara”) at 7 and 12 DAS (day after stress). Values are presented as relative units. Values are mean ± SE (n = 15). Different letters indicate significant difference among treatments and cultivars at p < 0.05 according to the LSD test.
Figure 1. Absorption per active reaction center (ABS/RC) (A), trapped energy flux per active reaction center (TR0/RC) (B), electron transport flux per active reaction center (ET0/RC) (C), dissipation energy per active reaction center (DI0/RC) (D), measured in control and drought-stressed apple cultivars (“Golden Delicious Reinders”, “Crvenka” and “Dugara”) at 7 and 12 DAS (day after stress). Values are presented as relative units. Values are mean ± SE (n = 15). Different letters indicate significant difference among treatments and cultivars at p < 0.05 according to the LSD test.
Plants 10 00561 g001
Plants 10 00561 g002 550
Figure 2. Maximum quantum yield of photosystem II (Fv/Fm) (A), efficiency/probability with which an electron from the intersystem electron carriers transferred to reduce end acceptors at the PSI acceptor side (RE0/ET0) (B), performance index on absorption basis (PIABS) (C), performance index for energy conservation from exciton to the reduction of PSI end acceptors (PItotal) (D), measured in control and drought-stressed apple cultivars (“Golden Delicious Reinders”, “Crvenka” and “Dugara”) at 7 and 12 DAS (day after stress). Values are presented as relative units. Values are mean ± SE (n = 15). Different letters indicate significant differences among treatments and cultivars at p < 0.05 according to the LSD test.
Figure 2. Maximum quantum yield of photosystem II (Fv/Fm) (A), efficiency/probability with which an electron from the intersystem electron carriers transferred to reduce end acceptors at the PSI acceptor side (RE0/ET0) (B), performance index on absorption basis (PIABS) (C), performance index for energy conservation from exciton to the reduction of PSI end acceptors (PItotal) (D), measured in control and drought-stressed apple cultivars (“Golden Delicious Reinders”, “Crvenka” and “Dugara”) at 7 and 12 DAS (day after stress). Values are presented as relative units. Values are mean ± SE (n = 15). Different letters indicate significant differences among treatments and cultivars at p < 0.05 according to the LSD test.
Plants 10 00561 g002
Plants 10 00561 g003 550
Figure 3. Chlorophyll a fluorescence OJIP transient curves of leaves of three apple cultivars submitted for 12 days to drought stress. Transients curves were normalized between O and P steps: WOP = (Ft − F0)/(FP − F0) (A,D,G). The difference kinetics ΔWOJ (C,F,I) reveal the K-band; ΔWOK (B,E,H) reveals the L-band. ΔWOJ [ΔWOJ = VOJ(treatment) − VOJ(control)] and ΔWOK [ΔWOK = VOK(treatment) − VOK(control)] were calculated from the comparisons of the stressed and control plants. Mean values (n = 15).
Figure 3. Chlorophyll a fluorescence OJIP transient curves of leaves of three apple cultivars submitted for 12 days to drought stress. Transients curves were normalized between O and P steps: WOP = (Ft − F0)/(FP − F0) (A,D,G). The difference kinetics ΔWOJ (C,F,I) reveal the K-band; ΔWOK (B,E,H) reveals the L-band. ΔWOJ [ΔWOJ = VOJ(treatment) − VOJ(control)] and ΔWOK [ΔWOK = VOK(treatment) − VOK(control)] were calculated from the comparisons of the stressed and control plants. Mean values (n = 15).
Plants 10 00561 g003
Plants 10 00561 g004 550
Figure 4. Total chlorophyll (Chl a + b) (A) and carotenoid (Car) (B) contents measured in control and drought-stressed apple cultivars (“Golden Delicious Reinders”, “Crvenka” and “Dugara”) at 7 and 12 DAS (day after stress). Values are mean ± SE (n = 5). Different letters indicate significant difference among treatments and cultivars at p < 0.05 according to LSD test.
Figure 4. Total chlorophyll (Chl a + b) (A) and carotenoid (Car) (B) contents measured in control and drought-stressed apple cultivars (“Golden Delicious Reinders”, “Crvenka” and “Dugara”) at 7 and 12 DAS (day after stress). Values are mean ± SE (n = 5). Different letters indicate significant difference among treatments and cultivars at p < 0.05 according to LSD test.
Plants 10 00561 g004
Plants 10 00561 g005 550
Figure 5. Malondialdehyde (MDA) (A), hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) (B), proline (C) and phenols (D) contents measured in control and drought-stressed apple cultivars (“Golden Delicious Reinders”, “Crvenka” and “Dugara”) at 7 and 12 DAS (day after stress). Values are mean ± SE (n = 5). Different letters indicate significant differences among treatments and cultivars at p < 0.05 according to the LSD test.
Figure 5. Malondialdehyde (MDA) (A), hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) (B), proline (C) and phenols (D) contents measured in control and drought-stressed apple cultivars (“Golden Delicious Reinders”, “Crvenka” and “Dugara”) at 7 and 12 DAS (day after stress). Values are mean ± SE (n = 5). Different letters indicate significant differences among treatments and cultivars at p < 0.05 according to the LSD test.
Plants 10 00561 g005
Plants 10 00561 g006 550
Figure 6. Water content in leaves measured in control and drought-stressed apple cultivars (“Golden Delicious Reinders”, “Crvenka” and “Dugara”) at 7 and 12 DAS (day after stress). Values are mean ± SE (n = 3). Different letters indicate significant differences among treatments and cultivars at p < 0.05 according to the LSD test.
Figure 6. Water content in leaves measured in control and drought-stressed apple cultivars (“Golden Delicious Reinders”, “Crvenka” and “Dugara”) at 7 and 12 DAS (day after stress). Values are mean ± SE (n = 3). Different letters indicate significant differences among treatments and cultivars at p < 0.05 according to the LSD test.
Plants 10 00561 g006
Table
Table 1. Parameters and formulae used in the analysis of the OJIP fluorescence transient.
Table 1. Parameters and formulae used in the analysis of the OJIP fluorescence transient.
TR0/ABS: Maximum quantum yield of PSII; TR0/ABS = [1 − (F0/Fm)]
ABS/RC: Absorption per active RC; ABS/RC = M0 (1/VJ) [1/(Fv/Fm)]
TR0/RC: Trapping per active RC; TR0/RC = M0 (1/VJ)
ET0/RC: Electron transport per active RC; ET0/RC = M0 (1/VJ) (1 − VJ)
DI0/RC: Dissipation per active RC; DI0/RC = (ABS/RC) − (TR0/RC)
RE0/ET0: The efficiency with which an electron can move from the reduced intersystem electron acceptors to the PS I end electron acceptors; (1 − VI)/(1 − VJ)
PIABS: Performance index; PI = (RC/ABS) (TR0/DI0) [ET0/(TR0 − ET0)]
PItotal: Performance index for energy conservation from exciton to the reduction of PSI end acceptors;
PItotal = PIABS × [(RE0/ET0)/(1 − RE0/ET0)]
All fluorescence parameters are in relative units. RC—reaction center.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mihaljević, I.; Viljevac Vuletić, M.; Šimić, D.; Tomaš, V.; Horvat, D.; Josipović, M.; Zdunić, Z.; Dugalić, K.; Vuković, D. Comparative Study of Drought Stress Effects on Traditional and Modern Apple Cultivars. Plants 2021, 10, 561. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10030561

AMA Style

Mihaljević I, Viljevac Vuletić M, Šimić D, Tomaš V, Horvat D, Josipović M, Zdunić Z, Dugalić K, Vuković D. Comparative Study of Drought Stress Effects on Traditional and Modern Apple Cultivars. Plants. 2021; 10(3):561. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10030561

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mihaljević, Ines, Marija Viljevac Vuletić, Domagoj Šimić, Vesna Tomaš, Daniela Horvat, Marko Josipović, Zvonimir Zdunić, Krunoslav Dugalić, and Dominik Vuković. 2021. "Comparative Study of Drought Stress Effects on Traditional and Modern Apple Cultivars" Plants 10, no. 3: 561. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10030561

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop