Login
Register
Reset Password
Publish & Distribute
Publishing Solutions
Distribution Solutions
Subjects
Architecture and Design
Arts
Business and Economics
Chemistry
Classical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies
Computer Sciences
Cultural Studies
Engineering
General Interest
Geosciences
History
Industrial Chemistry
Jewish Studies
Law
Library and Information Science, Book Studies
Life Sciences
Linguistics and Semiotics
Literary Studies
Materials Sciences
Mathematics
Medicine
Music
Pharmacy
Philosophy
Physics
Social Sciences
Sports and Recreation
Theology and Religion
Publications
Journals
Books
Proceedings
Publishers
Blog
Contact
Search
EUR
USD
GBP
English
English
Deutsch
Polski
Español
Français
Italiano
Cart
Home
Journals
Journal of Horticultural Research
Volume 29 (2021): Issue 1 (June 2021)
Open Access
Chitosan Improves Morphological and Physiological Attributes of Grapevines Under Deficit Irrigation Conditions
Hoda Ali Khalil
Hoda Ali Khalil
and
Rasha M. Badr Eldin
Rasha M. Badr Eldin
| Apr 01, 2021
Journal of Horticultural Research
Volume 29 (2021): Issue 1 (June 2021)
About this article
Previous Article
Next Article
Abstract
Article
Figures & Tables
References
Authors
Articles in this Issue
Preview
PDF
Cite
Share
Published Online:
Apr 01, 2021
Page range:
9 - 22
Received:
Jul 01, 2020
Accepted:
Feb 01, 2021
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2478/johr-2021-0003
Keywords
drought
,
evapotranspiration
,
proline
,
relative water content
,
leaf water potential
© 2021 Hoda Ali Khalil et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.
Figure 1
Effect of foliar application of chitosan and irrigation levels on leaf area, trunk cross-sectional area (TCA), total dry weight and root dry weight of grapevines ‘Crimson’. Means followed by different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between treatments based on LSD test (p = 0.05)
Figure 2
Effect of foliar application of chitosan and irrigation levels on relative chlorophyll content, proline content, leaf total carbohydrates, and leaf catalase activity. Means followed by different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between treatments based on LSD test (p = 0.05)
Figure 3
Effect of foliar application of chitosan and irrigation levels on leaf water potential and relative water content. Means followed by different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between treatments based on LSD test (p = 0.05)
Figure 4
The effect of irrigation levels and chitosan treatments on the evapotranspiration (mL per day) during four months of drought and chitosan treatments of grapevines in 2017. Values are mean ± S.E. (n = 16). Irrigation levels: A = 100% of field capacity, B = 60% of field capacity, C = 40% of field capacity
Figure 5
The effect of irrigation levels and chitosan treatments on the evapotranspiration (mL per day) during four months of drought and chitosan treatments of grapevines in 2018. Values are mean ± S.E. (n = 16). Irrigation levels: A = 100% of field capacity, B = 60% of field capacity, C = 40% of field capacity