¶óÆæÆ®¦¢Ä«Æä¦¢ºí·Î±×¦¢´õº¸±â
¾ÆÄ«µ¥¹Ì Ȩ ¸í»çƯ°­ ´ëÇבּ¸½Ç޹æ Á¶°æ½Ç¹« µ¿¿µ»ó°­ÀÇ Çѱ¹ÀÇ ÀüÅëÁ¤¿ø ÇÐȸº° ³í¹®
ÇÐȸº° ³í¹®

Çѱ¹°Ç¼³°ü¸®ÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹°ÇÃà½Ã°øÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹µµ·ÎÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹»ý¹°È¯°æÁ¶ÀýÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹»ýÅÂÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹¼öÀÚ¿øÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹½Ä¹°ÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹½Ç³»µðÀÚÀÎÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹ÀÚ¿ø½Ä¹°ÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹ÀܵðÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹Á¶°æÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹Áö¹Ý°øÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹ÇÏõȣ¼öÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹È¯°æ»ý¹°ÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹È¯°æ»ýÅÂÇÐȸ

Çѱ¹»ý¹°È¯°æÁ¶ÀýÇÐȸ / v.19, no.4, 2010³â, pp.266-274
Åä¾ç ¼öºÐ °áÇÌ¿¡ µû¸¥ Å丶ÅäÀÇ »ýÀ°°ú »ý¸®ÀûÀÀ
( Growth and Physiological Adaptations of Tomato Plants (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill) in Response to Water Scarcity in Soil )
Ȳ½Â¹Ì;±ÇÅ÷û;µµÀº¼ö;¹Ú¹ÌÈñ; ±¹¸³³ó¾÷°úÇпø ½ÅÀÛ¹°°³¹ß°ú;±¹¸³³ó¾÷°úÇпø ½ÅÀÛ¹°°³¹ß°ú;ÁߺδëÇб³ ÇѹæÁ¦¾à°úÇаú;±¹¸³¿ø¿¹Æ¯ÀÛ°úÇпø ä¼Ò°ú;
 
ÃÊ ·Ï
º» ¿¬±¸´Â Å丶ÅäÀÇ Åä¾ç ¼öºÐ°áÇÌÁ¶°Ç¿¡¼­ÀÇ »ýÀå°ú »ý¸®ÀûÀÎ ¹ÝÀÀÀ» ±Ùº»ÀûÀ¸·Î Á¶»çÇϱâ À§ÇÏ¿© ¼öÇàµÇ¾ú´Ù. Åä¾ç¿¡ µÎ°¡Áö ¼öºÐÁ¶°Ç, ½ÉÇÑ ¼öºÐ°áÇÌ(-100kPa)°ú, ´ëÁ¶±¸ÀÎ ¾àÇÑ ¼öºÐ°áÇÌ Ã³¸®(-25kPa)´Â ½Ç½Ã°£ Åä¾ç¼öºÐÇÔ·®À» ¸ð´ÏÅ͸µÀ» ÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â Åä¾ç¼¾¼­¿Í °ü¼ö ¸ðµâÀ» °®Ãá micro-irrigation ½Ã½ºÅÛÀ» °í¾È, ¿Â½Ç¿¡¼­ À¯ÁöµÇ¾ú´Ù. Åä¾ç¼öºÐÇÔ·®Àº 30Àϵ¿¾È º¯µ¿µÇ¾úÀ¸¸ç, -25kPa·Î ¸ÂÃçÁø 󸮱¸´Â Æò±Õ -47kPa, -100kPa 󸮱¸´Â Æò±Õ -119kPa·Î Â÷À̸¦ ³ªÅ¸³Â´Ù. ÀÌ µÎ °¡Áö ´Ù¸¥ Åä¾ç¼öºÐ»óÅ¿¡¼­ ÀÚ¶õ ½Ä¹°Ã¼ »çÀÌÀÇ »ýÀ°À» ºñ±³ÇØ º» °á°ú ¼öºÐ°áÇÌ»óÅÂ(-100kPa)¿¡¼­ ÀÚ¶õ ½Ä¹°Ã¼°¡ ´ëÁ¶±¸ÀÎ ¾àÇÑ ¼öºÐ°áÇÌ(-25kPa) 󸮱¸¿¡ ºñÇØ Àý°£¼öÀÇ Â÷À̾øÀÌ ½ÅÀåÀÌ À¯ÀÇÇÏ°Ô °¨¼ÒÇÏ¿´À¸¸ç °Ç¹°ÁßÀÇ ÃàÀûÀº ´õ ³ô°Ô ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù. ¶ÇÇÑ °Ç¹°Áß ´ç ¿±¸éÀûÀÇ Â÷ÀÌ ¾øÀÌ, ¿±¸éÀû°ú ¿±°ÇÁßÀÌ ¼öºÐ °áÇÌÀÌ ¾àÇÑ Ã³¸®±¸¿¡ ºñÇØ ¼öºÐ°áÇÌÀÌ ½ÉÇÑ Ã³¸®±¸°¡ ´õ ³ô°Ô ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù. ÀÌ·¯ÇÑ »ýÀ°»óÀÇ Â÷ÀÌ´Â ½ÉÇÑ ¼öºÐ½ºÆ®·¹½º°¡ ¿±µÎ²²ÀÇ º¯È­¾øÀÌ »ýüÁßÀÇ Áõ°¡¿Í ¿±¸éÀû È®º¸¸¦ ÅëÇØ Å丶ÅäÀÇ ¼öºÐ½ºÆ®·¹½º¿¡ ÀûÀÀÀ» ¾ß±â½Ãų ¼ö ÀÖÀ½À» Á¦½ÃÇß´Ù. ¼öºÐ°áÇÌ¿¡ µû¸¥ Å丶Åä »ýÀ°±â°£µ¿¾È, »ý¸®Àûº¯È­¸¦ Á¶»çÇÑ °á°ú, -100kPa 󸮱¸¿¡¼­ ÀÚ¶õ Å丶Åä°¡ ´ëÁ¶±¸ÀÎ -25kPa 󸮱¸¿¡ ºñÇØ ¿±ÀÇ »ó´ë¼öºÐÇÔ·®ÀÇ Áõ°¡¿Í ÀÙÀÇ »ïÅõ¾ÐÀÌ ³·°Ô ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù. ÀÌ´Â ¼öºÐ½ºÆ®·¹½º¾Æ·¡¼­ Å丶ÅäÀÇ ´õ ³ªÀº ¼öºÐ»óŸ¦ À¯ÁöÇϱâ À§ÇÑ »ý¸®ÀûÀÎ ÀûÀÀÀ» ¼³¸íÇØÁØ´Ù. ¾Æ¿ï·¯ ½ÉÇÑ ¼öºÐ½ºÆ®·¹½º´Â ´ëÁ¶±¸¿¡ ºñÇØ PSII Ȱ¼º°ú ¼öºÐȰ¿ëµµ¸¦ Áõ°¡µÇ¾úÀ¸¸ç, ³·Àº ±â°øÀúÇ×µµ¸¦ ³ªÅ¸³»¾ú´Ù. 󸮰£ÀÇ ±¤ÇÕ¼ºÀÇ Â÷ÀÌ´Â ¾ø¾úÀ¸¸ç, Å丶Åä °ú½ÇÀÇ ¼ö¿Í »ýÀ°·®ÀÇ Â÷ÀÌ´Â ¾ø¾ú´Ù. ÀÌ·¯ÇÑ °á°ú´Â Å丶Åä 'Picco'°¡ ¿±ÇüÅÂÀÇ º¯Çü°ú »ïÅõ¾Ð, ¼öºÐȰ¿ëµµ¿Í PSIIÀÇ È°¼ºÀ» ÅëÇØ ¼öºÐ°áÇÌ»óÅ¿¡¼­ ÀûÀÀÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ°Ô ¸¸µé ´É·ÂÀ» º¸¿©ÁØ´Ù. º» ¿¬±¸°á°ú¿¡¼­ ³ªÅ¸³­ Å丶ÅäÀÇ ¼öºÐ½ºÆ®·¹½º ÀûÀÀ ¸ÞÄ¿´ÏÁòÀº Å丶ÅäÀÇ °¡¹³ÀúÇ×¼º ½ºÅ©¸°¿¡ À־ °í·ÁµÇ¾îÁ®¾ß ÇÒ °ÍÀ¸·Î º¸ÀδÙ.
This study aim to investigate fundamentally the growth and physiological responses of tomato plants in responses to two different levels of water deficit, a weak drought stress (-25 kPa) and a severe drought stress (-100 kPa) in soil. The two levels of water deficit were maintained using a micro-irrigation system consisted of soil sensors for the real-time monitoring of soil water content and irrigation modules in a greenhouse experiment. Soil water contents were fluctuated throughout the 30 days treatment period but differed between the two treatments with the average -47 kPa in -25 kPa set treatment and the -119 kPa in -100 kPa set treatment. There were significant differences in plant height between the two different soil water statuses in plant height without differences of the number of nodes. The plants grown in the severe water-deficit treatment had greater accumulation of biomass than the plants in the weak water-deficit treatment. The severe water-deficit treatment (-119 kPa) also induced greater leaf area and leaf dry weight of the plants than the weak water-deficit treatment did, even though there was no difference in leaf area per unit dry weight. These results of growth parameters tested in this study indicate that the severe drought could cause an adaptation of tomato plants to the drought stress with the enhancement of biomass and leaf expansion without changes of leaf thickness. Greater relative water content of leaves and lower osmotic potential of sap expressed from turgid leaves were recorded in the severe water deficit treatment than in the weak water deficit treatment. This finding also postulated physiological adaptation to be better water status under drought stress. The drought imposition affected significantly on photosynthesis, water use efficiency and stomatal conductance of tomato plants. The severe water-deficit treatment increased PSII activities and water use efficiency, but decreased stomatal conductance than the weak water-deficit treatment. However, there were no differences between the two treatments in total photosynthetic capacity. Finally, there were no differences in the number and biomass of fruits. These results suggested that tomato plants have an ability to make adaptation to water deficit conditions through changes in leaf morphology, osmotic potentials, and water use efficiency as well as PSII activity. These adaptation responses should be considered in the screening of drought tolerance of tomato plants.
 
Ű¿öµå
°¡¹³ÀûÀÀ¼º;»ïÅõ¾Ð;¼öºÐ°áÇÌ;Å丶Åä;drought adaptation;osmotic potential;tomato;water deficit;
 
»ý¹°È¯°æÁ¶ÀýÇÐȸÁö / v.19, no.4, 2010³â, pp.266-274
Çѱ¹»ý¹°È¯°æÁ¶ÀýÇÐȸ
ISSN : 1229-4675
UCI : G100:I100-KOI(KISTI1.1003/JNL.JAKO201015037859922)
¾ð¾î : ¿µ¾î
³í¹® Á¦°ø : KISTI Çѱ¹°úÇбâ¼úÁ¤º¸¿¬±¸¿ø
¸ñ·Ïº¸±â
ȸ»ç¼Ò°³ ±¤°í¾È³» ÀÌ¿ë¾à°ü °³ÀÎÁ¤º¸Ãë±Þ¹æÄ§ Ã¥ÀÓÀÇ ÇѰè¿Í ¹ýÀû°íÁö À̸ÞÀÏÁÖ¼Ò ¹«´Ü¼öÁý °ÅºÎ °í°´¼¾ÅÍ
   

ÇÏÀ§¹è³ÊÀ̵¿