A O

3363
Advances in Environmental Biology, 5(10): 3363-3368, 2011
ISSN 1995-0756
This is a refereed journal and all articles are professionally screened and reviewed
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Effect of Irrigation Intervals and Planting Patterns on Yield and Qualitative Traits of
Forage Sorghum
1
Seyed Gholam Reza Moosavi , 2 Mohamad Javad Seghatoleslami, 3Hamed Javadi and 4Elham
Ansari-nia
1,2
3,4
Assistant Professor of Islamic Azad University, Birjand Branch, Birjand, Iran
Member of Young Researchers Club, Islamic Azad University, Birjand Branch, Birjand, Iran.
Seyed Gholam Reza Moosavi , Mohamad Javad Seghatoleslami, Hamed Javadi and Elham Ansari-nia:
Effect of Irrigation Intervals and Planting Patterns on Yield and Qualitative Traits of Forage Sorghum
ABSTRACT
In order to study the effect of irrigation intervals and planting pattern on the yield, yield components and
qualitative traits of forage sorghum (Speedfeed variety) was conducted an experiment in Research Field of
Islamic Azad University, Birjand, Iran in 2006. The experimental design was split plot in form RCBD with three
replications and with 4 levels of irrigation interval (5, 10, 15 and 20 days) as main plots and 2 levels of planting
pattern (one row above the furrow and two rows into the furrow) as sub plots. The irrigation intervals had a
significant effect on the yield and yield components of forage sorghum but the planting pattern and the
interaction of the irrigation intervals × planting pattern had no significant effect on these traits. The increase in
irrigation interval from 5 to 20 days decreased the weight of the dry leaf, stem, ear and total fresh weight (sum
of two cuttings) by 57.2, 72.1, 69 and 66.9 percent, respectively. The total dry forage in 5 days irrigation
interval was 16.9 ton/ha which in comparison to 10, 15 and 20 days irrigation intervals advanced by 19.4, 44.3
and 66 percent, respectively. The irrigation intervals had a significant effect on the leaf to stem ratio and protein
yield (sum of two cuttings). The comparison of mentioned traits averages in this experiment showed that with
the increase of irrigation intervals, the leaf to stem ratio increased but protein yield decreased, significantly. The
yield of crude protein with the increase of irrigation interval from 5 to 20 days decreased by 66.5 percent. The
result of this research showed that water stress had negative effect on forage production and qualitative traits but
planting pattern had not significant effect on these traits.
Key word: forage sorghum, irrigation intervals, planting pattern, yield, qualitative traits.
Introduction
Drought is a worldwide problem, constraining
global crop production seriously and recent global
climate change has made this situation more serious
[8,10,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,]. Under
dry environmental conditions plants develop
different mechanisms to resist and survive. These
mechanisms are commonly based on morphological
and physiological responsessuch as LAI reduction,
that delay the water deficit [13].
Water deficit (commonly known as drought) can
be defined as the absence of adequate moisture
necessary for a plant to grow normally and complete
its life cycle [32]. Water scarcity and drought are the
main features of the dry areas. Water is the single
most limiting resource for world agriculture and food
production, highly exceeding other key limitations.
Large amount of water is used in field production of
food crops, leading to a deficit of fresh water
resources in many arid or semi-arid areas in the
world. In regions where water scarcity is the
principal limiting factor for cultivation, farmers are
interested in growing crops that are able to adapt to
drought conditions [4,21].
Sorghum is becoming an increasingly important
forage crop in many regions of the world [32]. Its
high resistance to drought makes it a suitable crop for
semi-arid areas [31]. Sorghum can responsed to
additional irrigation by stem elongation and increase
of yield [27,29].
[23] were reported that water deficit stress
reduced quantitative and qualitative yield included
total fresh weight, total dry weight, leaf dry weight,
stem dry weight, protein yield and leaf/stem ratio of
forage millet " nutrifeed " [14] were reported that
significant difference between irrigation intervals of
8, 12, 16 and 20 days for fresh- feed yield and dryfeed yield were obtained in forage sorghum. In this
study, highest fresh and dry-feed yield (52.4 and 15.5
ton/ha, respectively) obtained when 8 days irrigation
interval was applied. [25] were reported adverse
Corresponding Author
Seyed Gholam Reza Moosavi, Assistant Professor of Islamic Azad University, Birjand Branch,
Birjand, Iran.
E-mail: [email protected]
3364
Adv. Environ. Biol., 5(10): 3363-3368, 2011
effects on LAI of sorghum as soil water deficit
developed.
The objective of this research was to study the
effects of irrigation intervals and planting patterns on
yield and qualitative traits of forage sorghum.
Materials and Methods
This experiment was conducted in the
Agricultural Research Station of Islamic Azad
University, Birjand Branch (latitued: 320,52';
longitude :590, 13' and 1400 m ), Iran, during 2006
spring season. The soil texture was sandy loam with
8.25 pH, 0.67% organic matter and 7.6 ms/cm EC.
The experimental design used was a split plot in
the base RCBD with three replications, in which the
main plots were the irrigation intervals, and the subplots were planting pattern treatments. The irrigation
intervals were four levels (5, 10, 15 and 20 days) and
planting patterns were two levels (one row above the
furrow and two rows into the furrow). The used
sorghum hybrid was Speedfeed. The distance
between sub and main plots and blocks (replications)
were 0.5, 1.5 and 2.5 meter, respectively. Also the
distance between row in one row and tow rows were
50 and 25cm, respectively. The plant density was
200000 plants per hectar. The size of each plot was
3m × 7m and consisted of 6 rows. The fertilizer was
applied according to the regions tradition. The weeds
were three times controlled by hand during growth
stages. The seeds of forage sorghum sowing in
middle spring 2006 year and after 4 weeks of (in four
leaf stage) young plants were thining for reach to
plant density of consist (200000 plants/ha).
After thining, in order to study of effect
irrigation intervals on physiological traits, with 10
days intervals were harvested four plants at ground
leve from each plots and were separated and divided
futher into leaves and stems. Then green leaf area
was measured by leaf area meter and samples
divided were dried in the oven at 60 0C for 72 h and
weighted. The physiological traits including LAI and
total dry weight of one plant obtained. In this study
was used growing degree days (GDD) instead of
calendar days in computing the growth indices. GDD
is a temperature index and calculated by summing
the following equation for each day from the date of
sowing to the date of each sampling: GDD=Σ1n
[(Tmax+Tmin)/2]-Tb, Where Tmax is the maximum
daily air temperature with an upper limit of 35°C,
Tmin is the minimum daily air temperature with a
lower limit of 10°C and Tb is set equal 10°C, the
base temperature below which no growth occurs.
At time of 10 percent flowering of forage
sorghum, in each plot, two middle rows with 4
meters length were harvested. Then the main shoot
and tillers were separated and divided further into
leaves, stems and ears. Samples were dried at 600c
temprature in oven. The Crude protein was estimated
by multiplying N parentage by 6.25. N contents were
determined by modified Kjeldahal’s method [2].
Finally, the data were analyzed by software
MSTAT-C for each trait and the means were
compared by Duncan Multiple Range Test at 5%
level.
Results and Discussion
Yield and yield components:
The analysis of variance showed that irrigation
intervals had significant effect on yield and yield
components of forage sorghum but the planting
pattern and interaction between irrigation interval ×
planting pattern had not signification effect on yield
and yield components (Table 1).
Table 1: Variance analysis for effects of irrigation intervals and planting patterns on yield and yield components of forage sorghum.
Total
Leaf
Stem
Ear
Total
Ratio of
Total
SOV
df
Fresh
dry
dry
dry
dry
leaf to
protein
weight
weight
weight
weight
weight
stem
yield
0.032 ns
Replication
2
175.67 ns
1.48 ns
3.37 ns
0.075 ns
10.44 ns
0.039 ns
Irrigation intervals (A)
3
2697.50 **
19.39**
50.16**
0.17*
142.40**
0.236*
0.638**
Error a
6
81.30
0.62
2.15
0.023
5.21
0.047
0.013
0.052ns
Planting patterns (B)
1
236.60 ns
2.68ns
2.05 ns
0.006 ns
9.79 ns
0.05 ns
0.552 ns
0.001 ns
0.999ns
0.005 ns
0.004 ns
A×B
3
30.27 ns
0.114 ns
Error b
8
71.53
0.356
1.98
0.008
3.352
0.017
0.007
CV (%)
17.44
11.47
23.88
26.01
16.03
13.41
11.43
ns Non Significant at 0.05 probability level and *, ** Significants at 0.05 and 0.01 probability levels, respectively
The means comparison of this traits indicated
that with increase of water deficit stress decreased
yield and yield components, significantly (Table 2).
In summary with increase of irrigation interval from
5 to 20 days, total fresh, total dry, leaf dry, stem dry
and ear dry weight of forage sorghum decreased
66.9, 66, 57.3, 72.1 and 69 percent, significantly. The
results showed that maximum of total fresh yield
(72.58 ton/ha) was obtained with the 5 days irrigation
interval and treatment of 20 days irrigation interval
with production of 24.03 ton per hectar had lowest
total fresh yield. Irrigation intervals 5, 10, 15 and 20
days produced 16.9, 13.63, 9.42 and 5.74 ton/ha dry
matter, respectively (Table 2). The moisture stress
decreases assimilate supply by decreasing leaf area
and duration and disrupting nutrient intake and
3365
Adv. Environ. Biol., 5(10): 3363-3368, 2011
transfer and hence, it decreases yield components
and yield.
Although stomata closure generally occurs when
plants are exposed to drought but water stress is a
multi-dimensional stress, which causes different
physiological and biochemical effects on plants.
Such effects may contain reduction in cell division
and thus retardation of cellular growth, decrease in
photosynthesis, closure of stomata and changes in the
amount of chlorophyll [5,12,30]. Total this occurs
caused decline in photosynthesis and growth of plant
and yield decreased.
[3] reported that with the increase in
temperature and water deficit stress, alfalfa dry
forage yield decreased due to the decrease in
photosynthesis which resulted from the decrease in
leaf area and reduction of RUBISCO enzyme
activity.
[14] and Afsharmanesh [1] stated that the effect
of water deficit stress on fresh and dry forage yield
of sorghum and alfalfa was significant. So that, with
the increase in the intensity of drought stress, fresh
and dry forage yield, decreased which supports the
results of the current study.
Table 2: Effect of irrigation intervals on yield and yield components of forage sorghum
Irrigation
Total fresh
Leaf dry
Stem dry
Ear
intervals
weight
Weight
weight
dry weight
(day)
(ton/ha)
(ton/ha)
(ton/ha)
(ton/ha)
5
72.58 a
7.16 a
9.23 a
0.536 a
10
57.91 b
6.09 a
7.12 b
0.491 a
15
39.48c
4.49 b
4.68c
0.227 b
20
24.03 d
3.06 c
2.57 d
0.166 b
Total dry
weight
(ton/ha)
16.90 a
13.63 b
9.42 c
5.74 d
Ratio of
leaf to
stem
0.78b
0.86b
0.92b
1.19a
Total protein
yield
(ton/ha)
2..12a
1.61b
1.11c
0.61d
Means followed by the same letter symbols in each column-according to Duncan’s multiple range test are not significantly (P<0.05)
different from each other.
Ratio of leaf to stem:
The results showed that irrigation intervals had
significant effect on ratio of leaf to stem of forage
sorghum but the planting pattern and interaction
between irrigation interval × planting pattern had not
signification effect on this trait (Table 1). The means
comparison of this trait indicated that with increase
of water deficit stress increased ratio of leaf to stem
of forage sorghum, significantly. So that, with
increase of irrigation interval from 5 to 20 days ratio
of leaf to stem weight in forage sorghum increased
52.6 precent (Table 2).
Afsharmanesh [1] stated that the effect of water
deficit stress on leaf/stem ratio of alfalfa was
significant and with the increase in the intensity of
drought stress, leaf/stem ratio increased. Also,
Buxton [7] reported that alfalfa leaf/stem ratio
increased by 19% under drought stress conditions
which supports the results of the current study.
Total protein yield:
The analysis of variance showed that irrigation
intervals had significant effect on total protein yield
of forage sorghum but the planting pattern and
interaction between irrigation interval × planting
pattern had not signification effect on this trait (Table
1). The total protein yield (sum two cutting) with the
the increase of irrigation interval from 5 to 20 days
decreased from 2.12 to 0.61 ton/ha. In the other hand,
total protein yield decreased by 66.5% (Table 2). The
results of this research which is accord with reports
of many experiment [6,17,18,20,24,28].
The reason for crude protein yield loss under
water deficit stress could have been the decrease in
crude protein percentage and also the decrease in dry
matter production because crude protein yield is the
product of dry matter yield and crude protein
percentage of forage. The cellular growth on plant is
the activity that is very sensitive to water eficiency.
The decreasing of water potential in meristem is a
cause for reduction of the turgor (potential) pressure,
that isn’t enough for the cell growth; this subject is
one of the causes of decreasing protein synthesis and
declining the cells growth. َAlso, the other cellular
alterations such as decreased protein content,
increased ribonuclease activity, protein hydrolysis,
hydrogen peroxide concentration and dissociation of
polyribosomes are also known to occur in plants
exposed to water stress [15,22]. Decreasing of
protein percentage and yield reported by many
researchers such as Misra [19], Nakhoda et al., [23],
sasani et al., [28] and Haji Hassani Asl et al., [11] in
dry stress conditions.
Dry weight one plant:
The study of physiological traits showed that dry
weight each plant of sorghum in 52 days after
emergence and receives of 743 GDD in irrigation
intervals of 5, 10, 15 and 20 days was 9.1, 6.6, 5.3
and 4 gram, respectively (Figure 1). In the order
hand, increase of irrigation interval form 5 to 20 days
caused 56 percent reduction of dy matter
accumulation of each plant at first harvest.
Also 5 days irrigation interval had the heighest
biomass yield of one plant (25.2 g) at the first cut
time. This quantity was 14, 50 and 49.9 percent more
than 10, 15 and 20 days irrigation intervals
treatments, respectively. It seems that the reduction
of photosynthesis as a result of stomata closing and
3366
Adv. Environ. Biol., 5(10): 3363-3368, 2011
leaf area reduction caused the plant growth
reduction. Thus with increasing irrigation interval
unit 15 days, plant biomass declined but more
irrigation interval had not any significant effect on
dry matter accumulation at the first cutting time
(Figure 1).
20 days declined biomass yield of one plant (78.6
%). This caused significant reduction of forage yield
and
yield
components.
At harvest second cut time, dry weight each
plant in irrigation intervals of 5, 10, 15 and 20 days
was 54.3, 44.3, 27.8 and 11.6 gram, respectively. In
other words, increasing irrigation interval from 5 to
30
5day
10day
TDM (gr/m)
dry weight of one plant (g)
25
15 day
20day
20
15
10
5
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
GDD
Fig. 1: The effect irrigation intervals of dry weight of one plant of forge sorghum during first cut.
Leaf area index (LAI):
In away that observe in ّFigure 2, with time leaf
area index (LAI ) increased in all of irrigation
intervals but in irrigation intervals of 5 and 10 days
increase of LAI was faster in comparison with
irrigation interval 15 and 20 days. At harvest of first
cut time LAI of irrigation intervals 5, 10, 15 and 20
days was 4.95, 4, 3.5 and 3.1, respectively.
Maximum LAI was 13.3 that belonged to
irrigation interval of 5 days at harvest of second cut
time, that was 1.3, 2.6 and 3.9 times more than 10, 15
and 20 days irrigation interval treatments,
respectively. LAI increasing in the second cutting
was related to tillering enhancement and more
developing of roots in the soil (more absorption of
water and nutrients).
The increase or reduce in LAI has a direct effect
on plant growth rate. This index is the main tool for
enhancing photosynthesis power and assimilates
production. Also, Lizaso et al., [16] stated that the
average absorbed photosynthetic active radiation
(PAR) by leaf area at silking stage was the
determining factor of corn grain number and the
decrease in grain yield had a high correlation with
the decrease in corn leaf area. LAI reduction under
water deficit condition is a main reason for forage
yield reduction. Probably, the decrease in leaf area is
a response to stress for adapting water deficit
conditions and survival through decreasing cell
turgor pressure and the resulting decrease in leaf
growth and development as well as shedding of older
leaves for decreasing transpiring area of the plant.
6
5day
10day
5
15day
20day
LAI
4
3
2
1
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
GDD
Fig. 2: The effect of irrigation intervals on leaf area index of forage sorghum during the first cut.
3367
Adv. Environ. Biol., 5(10): 3363-3368, 2011
Conclusion:
The results of this research showed that water
stress had negative effect on forage production and
qualitative traits but planting pattern had not
significant effect on these traits. Also the 5 days
irrigation interval allocated to itself the highest yield
of fresh and dry forage but with respect to water
limitation and intense need to forage in the region, in
order to scrounge in the amount of consumption
water in the level unit and increase of under
cultivation lands, we can use 10 days irrigation
interval for the planting of forage sorghum in
Birdjand region, Iran.
References
1.
Afsharmanesh, G., 2009. Study of some
morphological traits and selection of droughtresistant alfalfa cultivars (Medicago sativa L.) in
Jiroft, Iran. Plant Ecophysiology, 3: 109-118.
2. AOAC., 1994. Association of official analytical
chemist (AOAC) official method of analysis
12th ed. Washington D.C., USA.
3. Aranjuelo, M.I., J.J. Irigoyen and M.S. Diaz,
2001. Effect of increased temperature and
drought associated to climate change on change
on productivity of nodulated alfalfa. En. XIV
Eucarpia Medicago SPP. Group Meeting.
Quality in Lucerne and Medics for animal
production. Zaragoza.
4. Bannayan, M., F. Nadjafi, M. Azizi, L. Tabrizi
and M. Rastgoo, 2008. Yield and seed quality of
Plantago ovata and Nigella sativa under
different rrigation treatments. Ind. Crops Prod.,
27: 11-16.
5. Bohnert, H.J. and R.G. Jennen, 1996. Strategies
for engineering water-stress tolerance in plants.
TIBTECH, 14: 89-97.
6. 6-Boyer, y.S., 1996. Advances in drought
tolerance in plants. Adv. Agron., 56: 187-217.
7. 7. Buxton, D.R., 2004. Growing quality forages
under variable environmental conditions, USDA,
Iowa State University, USA.PHYSIOLOGY
8. Chandler, J.W., D. Bartels, 2003. Drought
avoidance and drought adaptation. Encyclopedia
Water Sci., 163-165.
9. European Commission, 2004. Plants for the
future: a European Vision for Plant Genomics
and Biotechnology towards 2025 (see the web
site: http://www.europabio.org/).
10. Glombitza, C., P.H. Dubuis and O. Thulke,
2004. Cross talk and differential response to
abiotic and biotic stressors reflected at the
transcriptional level of effector genes from
secondary metabolism. Plant Mol. Biol., 51: 119.
11. Haji Hassani, Asl, N., A. Moradi Aghdam, H.
Aliabadi Farahani, N. Hosseini and M. Rassaei
Far, 2011. Three forage yield and its
components under water deficit condition on
delay cropping in Khoy zone (Iran). Advances in
Environmental Biology, 5(5): 847-852.
12. Jamaux, I., A. Steinmetz and E. Belhassen,
1997. Looking for molecular and physiological
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
markers of osmotic adjustment in sunflower.
New Phytol., 137: 117-127.
Joffre, R., S. Rambal and T. Winkel, 2001.
Respuestas de las plantas Mediterranean a al
hoja hasta el dosel. In ecosistemas
mediterraneos, pp: 37-65. (eds) Rodriguez, R.Z.
and F.I. Pugnaire de iraola. Espara: CSIC,
Castillo and edisart, s l publishers.
Kasemi- Arabt, H., F. Rahimzadeh-Khoyi, M.
Moghaddam and A. Banaei-Khosraghi, 2000.
The effects of different levels of nitrogen and
phosphorous fertilizers and irrigation intervals
on biomass yield of forage sorghum, speed feed.
Iranian J. Agric. Sci., 31(4): 713-723.
Levitt, J., 1980. Water, radiation salt and other
stresses. In: Responses of Plants to
Environmental Stress, Vol 2, Academic Press,
New York.
Lizaso, J.I., W.D. Batchelor. M.F. Westgate, and
L. Echarte, 2003. Enhancing the abil I ity of
CERES-Maize to compute light capture. Agric.
Syst, 76:293-311.
Mastrorilli, M., N. Katerji, and G. Rana, 1999.
Productivity and water use efficiency of sweet
sorghum as affected by soil water deficit
occurring at different vegetative growth stages.
European J. of Agron., 11: 207-215.
Medrano, H., M.M. Chaves, C. Porqueddu and
S. Caredda, 1998. Improving forage crops for
semi-arid areas. Outlook on agriculture., 27: 8994.
Misra, A.N., 1994. Pearl millet, seedling
establishment under variable soil moisture stress.
Acta. Physiol. Plant, 16(2): 101-103.
Mohamady, S. and R. Hasannejad, 2006. Effect
of water stress on some water related traits and
their relationships with height and dry matter in
maize early maturing inbred lines. Pakistan J. of
Biological Sci., 9(15): 2852-2857.
Muchow, R., 1989. Comparative productivity of
maize, sorghum and pearl millet in a semi arid
tropical environment. II. Effect of water deficit.
Field Crops Res., 20: 207-219.
Mukherjee, S.P. and M.A. Choudhuri, 1983.
Implications of water stress-induced changes in
the levels of endogenous ascorbic acid and
hydrogen peroxide in Vigna seedlings. Physiol
Plant, 58: 166-170.
Nakoda, B., A. Hashemi-Desfouli and N.
Banisadr, 2000. Water stress effects on forage
3368
Adv. Environ. Biol., 5(10): 3363-3368, 2011
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
yield and quality of pearl millet. Iranin J. Agric.
Sci. 31(4): 701-712.
Nielsen, D.C., M.F. Vigil and J.G. Benjamin,
2006. Forage yield response to water use for
dryland corn, millet and triticale in the central
Great Plains. Agron. J., 98: 992-998.
Roasenthal, W.D., G.F. Arkin, P.J. Shouse and
W.E. Jordan, 1987. Water deficit effects on
transpiration and leaf growth. Agron. J., 79:
1019-1026.
Saba, J., M. Moghaddam and K. Ghassemi,
2001. Genetic properties of drought resistance
indices, J. Agric. Sci. Technol., 3: 43-49.
Saeed, I.A. M. and A.H. El-Nadi, 1998. Forage
sorghum yield and water use efficiency under
variable irrigation. Irrig. Sci.,18: 67-71.
Sasani, S., M.R. Jahansooz and A. Ahmadi,
2004. The effects of deficit irrigation on wateruse efficiency, yield and quality of forage pearl
millet.Proceedings of the 4th international crop
science congress. Brisbane, Australia, 26 sep–1
oct.
Singh, B.R. and D.P. Singh, 1995. Agronomic
and physiological responses of sorghum, maize
and pearl millet to irrigation. Field Crops Res.,
42: 57-67.
Tabaeizadeh Z., 1998. Drought-induced
responses in plant cells. Int Rev Cytol., 182:
193-242.
Tabosa, J.N., D.J. Andrews, J.J. Tavares-Filho
and A.D. Azevedo-Neto, 1999. Comparison
among forage millet and sorghum varieties in
semi-arid Pernambuco, Brazil: yield and quality.
Int. Sorghum Millet Newslet., 40: 3-6.
Zerbini, E. and D. Thomas, 2003. Opportunities
for improvement of nutritive value in sorghum
and pearl millet residues in south Asia through
genetic enhancement. Field Crop Res., 84: 3-15.
Zhu, J.K., 2002. Salt and drought stress signal
transduction in plants, Annu. Rev. Plant Biol.,
53: 247-273.
Yordanov, I., V. Velikova and T. Tsonev, 2003.
Plant responses to drought and stress tolerance.
Bulg. J. Plant Physiol. (Special Issue), 187-206.
Asgharipour, M. and M. Rafiei, 2010.
Intercropping of Isabgol (Plantago Ovata L.)
And Lentil as Influenced by Drought Stress.
American-Eurasian Journal of Sustainable
Agriculture, 4(3): 341-348.
Pour, F.A., K. Mohsenifar, E. Pazira, 2011.
Affect of Drought on Pollution of Lenj Station
of Zayandehrood River by Artificial Neural
Network (ANN). Advances in Environmental
Biology, 5(7): 1461-1464.
Sharafzadeh, S., M. Deimehr, A.E. Jahromi.
2011. Effect of Irrigation Regimes on Growth
and Yield of Two Potato Cultivars. Advances in
Environmental Biology, 5(7): 1476-1479.
38. Bagheri, H., 2011. Evaluation of Some
Physiological Traits of Winter Canola Varieties
in Drought Stress Conditions. Advances in
Environmental Biology, 5(7): 1527-1530.
39. Dadbakhsh, A., A. Yazdansepas and M.
Ahmadizadeh, 2011. Study Drought Stress on
Yield of Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)
Genotypes by Drought Tolerance Indices.
Advances in Environmental Biology, 5(7): 18041810.
40. Ahmadizadeh, M., M. Valizadeh, H. Shahbazi,
M. Zaefizadeh and M. Habibpor, 2011.
Morphological Diversity and Interrelationships
Traits in Durum Wheat Landraces under Normal
Irrigation and Drought Stress Conditions.
Advances in Environmental Biology, 5(7): 19341940.
41. Nori, A., M. Ahmadizadeh, H. Shahbazi and S.
Aharizad 2011. Evaluation of Physiological
Responses of Durum Wheat Landraces
(Triticum Durum) to Terminal Drought Stress.
Advances in Environmental Biology, 5(7): 19471954.
42. Bigonah, H. and H. Shahbazy, 2011. Evaluation
of chlorophyll content and fluorescence
Parameters as indicators of drought tolerance in
the International varieties of durum wheat.
Advances in Environmental Biology, 5(7): 19791983.
43. Ghanifathi, T., M. Valizadeh, R. Shahryari, H.
Shahbazi, 2011. Effect of drought stress on
germination indices and seedling growth of 12
bread
wheat
genotypes.
Advances
in
Environmental Biology, 5(6): 1034-1039.
44. Dadbakhsh, A., A.Y. Sepas, 2011. Evaluation of
drought tolerance indices for screening bread
wheat genotypes in end-season drought stress
conditions. Advances in Environmental Biology,
5(6): 1040-1045.
45. Dadbakhsh, A., A.Y. Sepas, 2011. Evaluation of
drought tolerance of bread wheat genotypes after
pollination stage by stress and sensitivity
tolerance indices. Advances in Environmental
Biology, 5(6): 1046-1050.
46. Yarnia, M., M.B. Khorshidi, E. Benam,
Farajzadeh N. Memari Tabrizi, Nobari and V.
Ahmadzadeh, 2011. Effect of planting dates and
density in drought stress condition on yield and
yield components of Amaranth cv. Koniz.
Advances in Environmental Biology, 5(6): 11391149.
47. Asgharipour M., and M. Rafiei 2011. Effect of
Different Organic Amendments and Drought on
the Growth and Yield of Basil in the
Greenhouse. Advances in Environmental
Biology, 5(6): 1233-1239.