Login
Registrati
Reimposta password
Pubblica & Distribuisci
Soluzioni Editoriali
Soluzioni di Distribuzione
Temi
Architettura e design
Arti
Business e Economia
Chimica
Chimica industriale
Farmacia
Filosofia
Fisica
Geoscienze
Ingegneria
Interesse generale
Legge
Letteratura
Linguistica e semiotica
Matematica
Medicina
Musica
Scienze bibliotecarie e dell'informazione, studi library
Scienze dei materiali
Scienze della vita
Scienze informatiche
Scienze sociali
Sport e tempo libero
Storia
Studi classici e del Vicino Oriente antico
Studi culturali
Studi ebraici
Teologia e religione
Pubblicazioni
Riviste
Libri
Atti
Editori
Blog
Contatti
Cerca
EUR
USD
GBP
Italiano
English
Deutsch
Polski
Español
Français
Italiano
Carrello
Home
Riviste
Journal of Horticultural Research
Volume 29 (2021): Numero 1 (June 2021)
Accesso libero
Chitosan Improves Morphological and Physiological Attributes of Grapevines Under Deficit Irrigation Conditions
Hoda Ali Khalil
Hoda Ali Khalil
e
Rasha M. Badr Eldin
Rasha M. Badr Eldin
| 01 apr 2021
Journal of Horticultural Research
Volume 29 (2021): Numero 1 (June 2021)
INFORMAZIONI SU QUESTO ARTICOLO
Articolo precedente
Articolo Successivo
Sommario
Articolo
Immagini e tabelle
Bibliografia
Autori
Articoli in questo Numero
Anteprima
PDF
Cita
CONDIVIDI
Pubblicato online:
01 apr 2021
Pagine:
9 - 22
Ricevuto:
01 lug 2020
Accettato:
01 feb 2021
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2478/johr-2021-0003
Parole chiave
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