COMPARING DROUGHT TOLERANCE ABILITY OF TOMATO (Solanum lycopersicum L.) AND JUTE MALLOW (Corchorus olitorus L.) PLANTS.

₦ 7,500.00
i h

ABSTRACT

Drought stress is a pressing challenge for global agriculture, urging an exploration of drought tolerance mechanisms in diverse crop species. This study sought to compare the drought tolerance of two distinct plants, tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) and jute mallow (Corchorus olitorus L.). The research was conducted at the Department of Plant Biology and Biotechnology Screen House, located at the University of Benin, Nigeria, using seeds provided by the National Horticultural Research Institute (NIHORT), Ibadan. The study involved controlled drought treatments, subjecting both tomato and jute mallow to varying 2, 3, 4, and 7-day water regimes, each with its respective control group. Viability tests were carried out using the floating technique, with seed priming before planting. Morphological characteristics, such as stem girth, plant height, leaf weight, and leaf count, were meticulously measured. Physiological, histological, and microbial analyses were performed to scrutinize how the plants responded to drought. In Solanum lycopersicum and Corchorus olitorius, germination, control group seed germination increases over time, while water stress reduces germination, with prolonged stress intensifying the reduction, and various parameters respond differently to stress, while lycopene, carotenoids, and chlorophyll remain stable, and proline, MDA, and nitrate reductase activity vary in stress-specific patterns. The histological analysis unveiled significant rupturing of root and stem cell tissues following a 7-day drought treatment compared to the control and the 2-day drought treatment for both plants. These findings provide valuable insights into the diverse strategies employed by different plant species to combat water scarcity, enriching our understanding of drought tolerance mechanisms in crop plants

0.0 0
Write your own review Close
  • Only registered users can write reviews
*
*
  • Bad
  • Excellent
*
*
*
*
Only registered users can write reviews