Shiva Sadighfard, Bahman Pasban Eslam, Reza Amirnia, Esmaeil Zanghani

Evaluation of Photosynthetic Roles of Different Canopy Strata and Capitulum on Seed Yield and its Components of Spring Safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.)

The main source of seed filling results from the photosynthesis of the green tissue closest to the seed sinks in the capitula. To evaluate the role of different leaf strata and capitula in seed yield and its components of Safflower genotypes, a field study was performed as a factorial experiment based on RCBD in 3 replicates in East Azarbaijan Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center in 2008. The used factors in this experiment were: two Safflower genotypes including (Mahalli Esfahan and Goldasht) and defoliation in five levels: defoliation of plants in lower 1/3, middle 1/3, upper 1/3 of the stem, capitulum covered with aluminum paper and control (without defoliation). The results showed that defoliation did not affect plant height and number of pods. But, there was a highly significant difference between strata in terms of number of seeds per pod, number of seeds per plant, 1000 seeds weight, oil percentage and oil yield. The interaction of genotype×strata treatments in seeds yield and harvest index was significant. Among the defoliation treatment levels in both genotypes, the highest decrease in the seed yield compared to the control were observed in the upper 1/3 defoliation levels, whereas the lowest decrease was observed in the lower 1/3 defoliation level. The rate of seed yield reduction in Mahalli Esfahan was higher than Goldasht. The change in Goldasht seed yield was mostly due to changes in the number of seeds per plant and the number of seeds in the head. In addition, net photosynthesis, strata leaf area, and photosynthesis contribution of the upper strata compared to the lower ones were higher, and removal of the upper strata had the highest effect on seed yield through the reduction in the total photosynthesis of the whole plant. Also, covering the capitulum caused a significant decrease in the seed yield. So, head photosynthesis has a major contribution to Safflower seed yield.

PDF

___

Abbaspour F, Shakiba M R, Aaliari H, Valizadeh M. 2003. Effect of Defoliation On Yield and Yield Components in Sunflower. Journal of Agrıcultural Scıence (Universıty of Tabriz). 12(4): 71-77.
Abdi S, Fayaz Moghaddam A, Ghadimzadeh M. 2007. Effect of different levels of defoliation on seed yield and oil content of two sunflower hybrid cultivars in reproductive stages of the plant. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology and Natural Resource. 11 (40): 245-255. ISSN:1028-7655.
Dordas CA, Sioulas C. 2008. Safflower yield, chlorophyll content, photosynthesis, and water use efficiency response to nitrogen fertilization under rainfed conditions. Ind. Crops Prod. 27: 75–85. Doi:10.1016/j.indcrop.2007.07.020.
Ehsanzade P, Mahmudieh R. 2004. Photosynthetic contribution of the inflorescene and adjacent green tissue to grain yield of safflower under field conditions. 13th International congress of photosynthesis, montreal, Canada. 7(2): 248. Doi: 10.3923/jbs.2007.263.269.
Ehsanzadeh P, Zareiyan I. 2003. Effect of plant density on yield, yield components and some growth characteristics of two safflower cultivars in Isfahan. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology and Natural Resources. 7(1): 129-140.
Elfadl MA, Luukkanen O. 2003. Effect of pruning on Prosopis juliflora: considerations for tropical dryland agroforestry. J. Arid Environ. 53: 441–455. Doi:10.1006/jare.2002.1069.
Erbas S, Baydar H. 2007. Defoliation Effects on Sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) Seed Yield and Oil Quality. Turk J Biol. 31: 115-118. https://journals.tubitak.gov.tr/biology.
Evans J R. 1989. Photosynthesis: the dependence on nitrogen partitioning. In Causes and Consequences of Variation in Growth Rate and Productivity of Higher Plants. Eds. H. Lambers, M.L. Cambridge, H. Konings and T.L. Pons. SPB Academic Publishing, The Hague, The Netherlands. 159-174.
Farid N, Ehsanzadeh P. 2006. Yield and yield components of safflower genotypes and their response to shading treatment on pods and adjacent leaves in spring planting conditions in Isfahan. 2006. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology and Natural Resources. 10 (1): 189-198. ISSN : 1028-7655.
Handa IT, Körner C, Hattenschwiler S. 2005. A test of the tree- line carbon limitation hypothesis by in situ CO2 enrichment and defoliation. Ecology. 86: 1288-1300. https://doi.org/10.1890/04-0711.
Jahanbin I, Narurad M, Ghasemi A. 2008. Investigation of Relationships between Yield and Yield Components of Seed and Oil in Autumn Safflower Cultivars. Abstracts of the 10th Iranian Congress of Agricultural Sciences and Plant Breeding. 178.
Jamshidi E, Agaalikhani M, Galanand A. 2009. Effect of defoliation intensity at different reproductive stages on seed and oil yields in sunflower (Helianthus annus L.). Iranıan Journal Of Crop Scıences. 10 (4): 349-361.
Kamali N, Mohammadi Nejad E, Tohidi Nejad E, Rezaie S. 2009. Study Of Different Zinc Rates Effects On Yield And Yield Components Of Safflower Genotypes In Jiroft Region, Iran. Journal of Plant Ecophysıology (Jıroft Branch). 1(1): 25-29.
Khan NA, Khan M, Ansari HR. 2002. Auxin and defoliation effects on photosynthesis and ethylene evolution in mustard. Sci. Hort. 96 (1-4): 43-51. Doi: 10.1016/S0304- 4238(02)00094-8.
Lavigne MB, Little CHA, Major JE. 2001. Increasing the sink, source balance enhances photosynthetic rate of 1 year-old Balsam-fir foliage by increasing allocation of mineral nutrients. Tree Physiol. 21: 417- 426. Doi: 10.1093/treephys/21.7.417.
Mollaashahi Javan, Shi., Dahmardeh, M. 2009. Study of the effect of planting date on quantitative and qualitative yield of safflower in Sistan climatic conditions. National Conference on Oilseed Plants. University of Esfahan. 74.
Najafi Khan Behbin H, Dadashi MR, Faraji A, Soltani A. 2020. The effect of leaf removal intensity and time on quantitative and qualitative traits of soybeans (Glycine max L.) under amino acid conditions (Nutramin-WSP). Journal of Crop Production. 13(2): 17-36. Doi:10.22069/ejcp.2020.15797.2175.
Ozaki K, Saito H, Yamamuro K. 2004. Compensatory photosynthesis as a response to partial debudding in Ezo Spruce, Picea jezoensis seedlings. Ecol. Res. 19:225-231. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1703.2003.00627.x.
Palchamy K, Cheelam V, Senapathy S, Praduman Y, Betha UK, Mobeen S, Ranjan S, Selvaraj VM, Yarabapani RR, Manmode DM, Mukta N. 2020. Marker-assisted selection for fast-track breeding of high oleic lines in safflower (Carthamus tinctorious L.). Industrial Crops And Producs. 158 (112983): 1-10. Doi:10.1016/j.indcrop.2020.112983.
Purahmadi M, Honernejad R, Oveysi M. 2014. Effect of defoliation and on morphophysiological characteristics under drought stress condition in Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.). Agronomic Research in semi desert regions. 11(4): 237-244.
Purgasemiyan N, Zahedi M. 2008. Effect of planting system on yield and yield components of two safflower cultivars in Isfahan. Abstracts of the 10th Iranian Congress of Agricultural Sciences and Plant Breeding. 64.
Querix A, Dewar R, Gaudillere JP, Dayau S, Valancogne C. 2001. Sink Feedback regulation of photosynthesis in rines: Measurements and a model. J. of Experimental Bot. 52(365): 2313- 2322. Doi: 10.1093/jexbot/52.365.2313.
Shafiullah MA, Khan MA, Oswal MA. 2000. Simulation of leaf damage by artificial defoliation and its effect on sunflower( Heliantus annuus L.) Performance. Pakistan J. of Biol. Sci. 3(3): 459- 462. Doi: 10.3923/pjbs.2000.459.462.
Turnbull T, Adams M, Warren CH. 2007. Increased photosynthesis following partial defoliation of field-grown Eucalyptus globulus seedlings is not caused by increased leaf nitrogen. Tree Physiol. 27(10):1481-1492. Doi: 10.1093/treephys/27.10.1481.
Urie AL, Leininger LN, Zimmer DE. 1968. Effects of degree and time of defoliation on yield and related attributes of safflower. Crop Sci. 8: 747-750. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1968.0011183X000800060032x.
Zhu XG, Long SP, Ort DR. 2010. Improving photosynthetic efficiency for greater yield. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 61: 235- 261. Doi: 10.1146/annurev-arplant-042809-112206.