International Journal of Innovative Approaches in Agricultural Research
Abbreviation: IJIAAR | ISSN (Online): 2602-4772 | DOI: 10.29329/ijiaar

Original article | International Journal of Innovative Approaches in Agricultural Research 2021, Vol. 5(1) 111-123

Differential Response of Sunflower Maintainer and Restorer Inbred Lines to Salt Stress

Mehdi Ghaffari, Hamid Reza Fanaei, Gholamhossein Shiresmaeili, Farnaz Shariati, Nadia Safavi Fard & Bahram Majd Nasiri

pp. 111 - 123   |  DOI:

Published online: March 31, 2021  |   Number of Views: 12  |  Number of Download: 93


In order to identify of salt tolerant sunflower inbred lines a set of 24 inbred lines were evaluated as a randomized block design with three replications in Isfahan and Zabol in 2017. Salt stress was imposed following seedlings establishment 20 days after planting as irrigation with two (fresh water) and 8 ds.m-2 electrical conductivity. According to the results, there were significant differences among locations and also salt treatment for all measured traits except for flowering time and oil content. There were also significant differences among inbred lines for all of the characteristics which could be used a source for improvement of salt tolerance in sunflower. Salt stress had a negative impact on agronomic futures of the inbred lines. Achene and oil yield had suffered more than other traits with 34 and 31% reduction respectively. Phenological traits were affected less than agronomic traits. The inbred lines BGK259 and RGK38 had the highest and lowest achene and oil yield respectively. Three lines BGK259, BGK369 and BGK375 with higher STI expressed as more salt tolerant lines. All 12 maintainer lines had a higher STI than all the 12 restorer lines and were more tolerant. Among the restorers RGK22, RGK15 and RGK2 were more salt tolerant than others. In accordance with STI, TOL and GM indices, principal component analysis differentiated BGK259, BGK369 and BGK375 as the most salt tolerant inbred lines.

Keywords: Genetic Variability, Inbred line, Principal Components, Tolerance index

How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Ghaffari, M., Fanaei, H.R., Shiresmaeili, G., Shariati, F., Fard, N.S. & Nasiri, B.M. (2021). Differential Response of Sunflower Maintainer and Restorer Inbred Lines to Salt Stress . International Journal of Innovative Approaches in Agricultural Research, 5(1), 111-123. doi: 10.29329/ijiaar.2021.339.9

Ghaffari, M., Fanaei, H., Shiresmaeili, G., Shariati, F., Fard, N. and Nasiri, B. (2021). Differential Response of Sunflower Maintainer and Restorer Inbred Lines to Salt Stress . International Journal of Innovative Approaches in Agricultural Research, 5(1), pp. 111-123.

Chicago 16th edition
Ghaffari, Mehdi, Hamid Reza Fanaei, Gholamhossein Shiresmaeili, Farnaz Shariati, Nadia Safavi Fard and Bahram Majd Nasiri (2021). "Differential Response of Sunflower Maintainer and Restorer Inbred Lines to Salt Stress ". International Journal of Innovative Approaches in Agricultural Research 5 (1):111-123. doi:10.29329/ijiaar.2021.339.9.

  1. Anonymous, 2018. Office of cotton and oilseeds, Ministry of agriculture jihad, Iran. [Google Scholar]
  2. Clarke N., Hetschkun H., Jones C., Boswell E. and Marfaing H., 1993. Identification of stress tolerance traits in sugar beet. In: M. B. Jackson and C. R. Black (eds.). Interacting stress on plants in a changing climate. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 511-524. [Google Scholar]
  3. Darvishzadeh, R., Pirzad, A., Hatami-Maleki, H., Poormohammad Kiani, S., Sarrafi, A., 2010. Evaluation of the reaction of sunflower inbred lines and their F1 hybrids to drought conditions using various stress tolerance indices. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research. 8, 1037-1046. [Google Scholar]
  4. Dehghani, M., Shiresmaili G., H., and Parsadost, F., 2014. study the effect of irrigation water salinity on three commercial sunflower hybrids. Journal of Water Research in Agriculture. 28(1),191-199. [in Persian]. [Google Scholar]
  5. Fernandez G.C.J., 1992. Effective selection criteria for assessing plant stress tolerance. p. 257-270. In: C. G. Kuo (ed,), Proceedings of the Int. Symp. on Adaptation of Vegetables and Other Food Crops in Temperature and Water Stress, 13-15 August. Taiwan [Google Scholar]
  6. Flagella, Z., Giuliani, M. M., Rotunno, T., Di Caterina, R., De Caro, A., 2004. Effect of saline water on oil yield and quality of a high oleic sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) hybrid. European Journal of Agronomy. 21(2), 267-272. [Google Scholar]
  7. Francois, 1996. Salinity Effects on Four Sunflower Hybrids. Agron. J. 88:215-219. [Google Scholar]
  8. Ghaffari, M., Andarkhor, S., Homayonifar, M., Kalantar Ahmadi, S., Shariati, F., Jamali, H., Rahmanpour, S. 2020. Agronomic attributes and stability of exotic sunflower hybrids in Iran, Helia, 43 (72), 67-81. doi: [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  9. Ghaffari, M., Davaji, A.M.N.R. and Ghadimi, F.N., 2019. Oil yield determinant of sunflower in climatically different regions of Iran. Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Science, 25(1), pp.67-71. [Google Scholar]
  10. Ghaffari M., Farrokhi E., Mirzapour M. 2011. Combining ability and gene action for agronomic traits and oil content in sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) using F1 hybrids. Crop Breeding Journal, 1: 73–84 [Google Scholar]
  11. Ghaffari, M., Toorchi, M., Valizadeh, M., Shakiba, M. R., 2012. Morpho-physiological screening of sunflower inbred lines under drought stress condition. Turkish Journal of Field Crops. 17(2), 185-190. [Google Scholar]
  12. Haddadan, A.Z., Ghaffari, M., Hervan, E.M. and Alizadeh, B., 2020. Impact of parent inbred lines on heterosis expression for agronomic characteristics in sunflower. Czech Journal of Genetics and Plant Breeding. 56: 123-132. [Google Scholar]
  13. Hasegawa, P. M., Bressan, R. A., Zhu, J. K., Bohnert, H. J., 2000. Plant cellular and molecular responses to high salinity. Annual Review of Plant Physiology and Plant Molecular Biology. 51, 463-499. [Google Scholar]
  14. Kamkar, B., M. Kafi, M. Nassiri Mahallati., 2004. Determination of the most sensitive developmental period of wheat (Triticum aestivum) to salt stress to optimize saline water utilization. p. 1-6. Proc. 4th International Crop Science Congress. 26 Sept. -1 Oct. 2004. Brisbane, Australia.  [Google Scholar]
  15. Katerji, N., Van Hoorn, J.W., Hamdy, A. and Mastrorilli, M., 2000. Salt tolerance classification of crops according to soil salinity and to water stress day index. Agricultural water management, 43(1): 99-109. [Google Scholar]
  16. Kaya, M.D., Akdoğan, G., Kulan, E.G., Dağhan, H.H and Sari, A., 2019. Salinity tolerance classification of sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) and safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.) by cluster and principal component analysis. Applied Ecology and Environmental Research. 17(2) :3849-3857. [Google Scholar]
  17. Khajepour, M.R., 2007. Industrial Crop Production. Jahad Daneshgahi of Isfahan. 250p. [in Persian]. [Google Scholar]
  18. Khan, M. A., Gulzar, S., 2003. Germination responses of Sporobolus ioclados: A saline desert grass. Journal of Arid Environments. 55, 453-464. [Google Scholar]
  19. Levit, J., 1980. Responses of plants to environmental stress. VOL. 2, Water, Radiation, Salt and other stress, Academic Press, U.S.A. 607 p. [Google Scholar]
  20. Maas, E.V., Hoffman, G.J., 1977. Crop salt tolerance-current assessment. Journal of the irrigation and drainage division. 103(2) 115-134. [Google Scholar]
  21. Munns, R., 2002. Comparative physiology of salt and water stress. Plant, Cell and Environment. 25(2), 239-250. [Google Scholar]
  22. Parida, A. K., Das, A. B., 2005. Salt tolerance and salinity effects on plants: A review. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 60(3), 324-349. [Google Scholar]
  23. Pirzad, A., Ghadernajad Azar, R., Hadi, H and Tousi, P., 2013. Effect of Soil Salinity Stress on Some Vegetative and Reproductive Traits of Sunflower Cultivars in Mahabad Conditions. Journal of Agronomy Science. 9, 55-66. [In Persian with English Summary]. [Google Scholar]
  24. Volkmar, K., Hu, Y., Steppuhn, H., 1998. Physiological responses of plants to salinity: A review. Canadian Journal of Plant Science. 78, 19-27. [Google Scholar]