Acceso abierto

Chitosan Improves Morphological and Physiological Attributes of Grapevines Under Deficit Irrigation Conditions

Hoda Ali Khalil
Hoda Ali Khalil
 y 
Rasha M. Badr Eldin
Rasha M. Badr Eldin
   | 01 abr 2021
Journal of Horticultural Research's Cover Image
Acerca de este artículo
Artículo anterior
Artículo siguiente
Cite
Publicado en línea: 01 abr 2021
Páginas: 9 - 22
Recibido: 01 jul 2020
Aceptado: 01 feb 2021
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/johr-2021-0003
Palabras clave
© 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)
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)
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)
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
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
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
eISSN:
2353-3978
Idioma:
Inglés
Calendario de la edición:
2 veces al año
Temas de la revista:
Life Sciences, Biotechnology, Plant Science, Ecology, other
RSS Feed de revista