Response of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) cultivars to drought stress under in vitro and field conditions

Zaki, Haitham E. M.; Radwan, Khlode S. A.

doi:10.1186/s40538-021-00266-z

Chemical and Biological Technologies in Agriculture

Table 2 Shoots fresh weight, roots fresh weight, total root length, surface area of root and no. of roots of stem node derived in vitro plantlets of 21 potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) cultivars

From: Response of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) cultivars to drought stress under in vitro and field conditions

Cultivar	Shoots fresh weight (g)				Roots fresh weight (g)				Total root length (mm)				Surface area of root (cm²)				No. of roots/plantlet
Cultivar	0.0^a	0.1	0.2	0.3	0.0	0.1	0.2	0.3	0.0	0.1	0.2	0.3	0.0	0.1	0.2	0.3	0.0	0.1	0.2	0.3
Agata	0.70	0.65	0.63	0.56	0.85	0.82	0.79	0.68	113.32	112.0	105.0	99.35	1.14	1.10	0.94	0.89	8.45	7.51	7.40	7.11
Almond	1.20	0.98	0.88	0.67	0.52	0.15	0.11	0.09	71.21	25.51	14.51	5.210	0.75	0.27	0.22	0.13	7.45	4.50	3.25	2.14
Anya	0.95	0.85	0.61	0.52	0.38	0.11	0.08	0.05	68.51	40.21	30.24	20.11	0.55	0.32	0.29	0.31	6.51	4.61	2.51	2.01
Atlantic	1.11	0.93	0.80	0.41	0.54	0.51	0.48	0.21	66.21	57.51	50.21	39.58	0.79	0.75	0.71	0.66	6.21	6.48	6.31	5.99
Burren	1.31	1.16	0.89	0.65	0.51	0.33	0.21	0.15	85.51	41.25	31.54	15.27	0.89	0.56	0.25	0.13	7.95	5.51	2.24	1.91
Cara	1.00	0.86	0.74	0.68	0.42	0.35	0.22	0.15	64.62	38.50	30.10	20.14	0.65	0.42	0.21	0.15	6.35	3.51	2.11	1.84
Champion	1.06	0.82	0.78	0.64	0.51	0.35	0.24	0.11	63.62	28.51	21.25	14.25	0.55	0.40	0.14	0.12	7.14	3.62	1.51	1.12
Desiree	0.95	0.79	0.65	0.54	0.49	0.21	0.11	0.11	60.50	30.11	20.15	11.24	0.46	0.26	0.15	0.11	6.57	2.95	1.21	1.05
Diamond	1.12	0.92	0.61	0.45	1.29	1.24	1.18	1.11	91.61	89.08	82.36	72.00	1.11	1.07	1.06	1.04	8.67	9.56	8.91	8.51
Gala	0.71	0.54	0.34	0.21	0.61	0.21	0.10	0.08	98.65	25.61	19.57	11.36	0.96	0.25	0.15	0.10	8.45	3.51	1.11	1.01
Gazella	0.83	0.52	0.50	0.41	0.52	0.14	0.14	0.10	62.35	22.10	19.56	13.26	0.45	0.21	0.15	0.12	6.95	3.21	2.14	1.01
Kennebec	0.67	0.56	0.52	0.41	0.80	0.75	0.72	0.58	56.24	64.51	50.25	41.00	0.72	0.69	0.60	0.55	6.14	6.32	6.15	5.93
King Edward	0.87	0.74	0.65	0.61	0.56	0.32	0.11	0.12	69.80	44.42	30.00	21.00	0.46	0.34	0.21	0.20	7.54	3.14	2.55	1.32
Lady Balfour	1.51	0.78	0.65	0.51	0.41	0.20	0.16	0.08	53.25	25.16	20.10	14.21	0.27	0.21	0.20	0.11	5.12	2.15	1.11	1.00
Lady Rosetta	0.99	0.85	0.74	0.65	0.47	0.21	0.12	0.11	61.25	31.22	19.54	12.53	0.41	0.26	0.21	0.10	5.95	3.01	1.14	1.11
Marble	0.95	0.84	0.65	0.47	0.49	0.15	0.11	0.08	61.35	32.51	20.15	13.25	0.42	0.26	0.23	0.12	5.99	2.57	1.58	1.14
Marfona	0.97	0.62	0.55	0.47	0.45	0.21	0.21	0.11	60.52	29.54	18.65	11.23	0.41	0.21	0.14	0.11	5.14	2.35	2.21	1.10
Maritiema	1.25	0.89	0.65	0.55	0.30	0.25	0.14	0.07	51.25	24.61	19.51	14.62	0.26	0.22	0.20	0.14	5.01	2.31	1.56	0.90
Mizen	1.05	0.89	0.78	0.65	0.49	0.15	0.11	0.08	62.32	35.21	25.61	17.62	0.45	0.31	0.24	0.18	5.84	3.10	1.54	1.21
Russet Burbank	1.17	0.86	0.63	0.46	1.15	1.08	0.98	0.84	88.45	76.85	72.50	66.84	1.11	1.10	0.97	0.86	9.54	9.22	9.10	8.88
Spunta	0.79	0.52	0.42	0.40	0.55	0.33	0.22	0.11	71.24	41.56	31.25	22.54	0.55	0.27	0.29	0.11	7.55	3.51	1.51	1.12
LSD (0.05)	0.0550				0.0819				1.104				0.2701				0.225

Explants were grown on media supplemented with three different levels of sorbitol (0.1, 0.2 or 0.3 mol L⁻¹) compared with the control (no sorbitol). The experiment was repeated three times (n = 20) and significant differences were calculated using LSD test
^aSorbitol mol L⁻¹

Back to article page