Crop Science Illumina
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (14)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wang, Z.
Right arrow Articles by Huang, B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Wang, Z.
Right arrow Articles by Huang, B.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Wang, Z.
Right arrow Articles by Huang, B.
Related Collections
Right arrow Turfgrass Management
Right arrow Temperature Stress
Right arrow Water Stress
Right arrow Turfgrass
Published in Crop Sci. 44:1729-1736 (2004).
© 2004 Crop Science Society of America
677 S. Segoe Rd., Madison, WI 53711 USA

TURFGRASS SCIENCE

Physiological Recovery of Kentucky Bluegrass from Simultaneous Drought and Heat Stress

Zhaolong Wangb and Bingru Huanga,*

a Dep. of Plant Biology and Pathology, Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, NJ 08901
b College of Agricultural and Biological Sci., Shanghai Jiao Tong Univ., Shanghai 201101, China

* Corresponding author (huang{at}aesop.rutgers.edu).


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Drought and heat are two major factors limiting growth of cool season grasses. Rapid recovery from the combination of those stresses is important for the persistence of perennial turfgrasses. The study was designed to examine physiological factors associated with the persistence and recovery of Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis L.) exposed to combined drought and heat stress following rewatering and/or temperature drop. Two cultivars differing in drought and heat tolerance, ‘Midnight’ (tolerant) and ‘Brilliant’ (sensitive), were exposed to drought and heat stress (35°C) simultaneously in a growth chamber until most plants became brown and completely desiccated (14 d). Plants were then subjected to three recovery treatments: (i) rewatered but exposed to heat stress (rewatering); (ii) returned to optimum temperature (20°C) but unwatered (cooling), and (iii) rewatering and cooling. Leaf photochemical efficiency (Fv/Fm), chlorophyll content, and activities of superoxide dismutase (SOD) and catalase (CAT) declined, while electrolyte leakage (EL) and lipid peroxidation increased rapidly during the combined stress. The adverse impact of the combined stress was more severe for Brilliant than for Midnight. Following rewatering or in combination with cooling, all parameters except chlorophyll content fully recovered for Midnight. However, for Brilliant, most of the parameters did not recover completely; Fv/Fm recovered partially. There was no recovery for any parameters of either cultivar when plants were returned to the optimum temperature but still unwatered. The results suggested that simultaneous drought and heat stress could cause permanent physiological damage for Kentucky bluegrass, particularly for the stress-sensitive cultivar. Rewatering was essential for physiological recovery from the combined stress, regardless of temperature conditions. Rapid resumption of Fv/Fm, cell membrane stability, and antioxidant activities were important factors contributing to the recovery of Kentucky bluegrass.

Abbreviations: CAT, catalase • EL, electrolyte leakage • Fv/Fm, photochemical efficiency • MDA, malondialdehyde • NBT, nitro blue tetrazolium • SOD, superoxide dismutase


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
DROUGHT AND HEAT STRESSES are two major factors limiting the growth of cool-season grasses. Either stress alone induces changes in various physiological processes. Drought or heat stress can cause oxidative stress through the production of reactive oxygen species such as superoxide radicals and hydrogen peroxide. Reactive oxygen species can cause lipid peroxidation and, in turn damage cell membranes, photosynthetic apparatus, and lead to degradation of chlorophyll (Smirnoff, 1993; Foyer et al., 1994). Drought- or heat-induced oxidative damage is related to the suppression of activities of antioxidant enzymes, such as SOD and CAT (Smirnoff, 1993; Foyer et al., 1994; Zhang and Kirkham, 1996). These are two key enzymes plants evolved to quench reactive oxygen species and protect plants from oxidative damage (Bowler et al., 1992). During summer months, cool-season turfgrasses are often subjected to simultaneous drought and heat stress under field conditions, suffering severe decline in turf quality. The deleterious effects of combined drought and heat stress are associated with damage to cell membranes, photosynthesis, and antioxidant system in perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) and tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea Shreb.) (Jiang and Huang, 2001a).

Much is known about the adverse impact of drought or heat stress on plant growth and physiological activities, but much less about the recovery of physiological functions following stress relief. For perennial turfgrasses, the most important strategy is not the maintenance of growth or production during stress, but the ability to survive and recover rapidly from the combined summer stress after rainfall or irrigation or after a temperature drop. Previous research in turfgrass recovery has mainly focused on the relief of drought stress. Several studies reported that turfgrass species and cultivars vary in their recuperative ability from drought stress alone (Hook et al., 1992; Qian and Fry, 1997; Huang et al., 1998). After rewatering following drought stress, leaf water status and turf quality of drought-tolerant tall fescue cultivars returned to the prestress levels, but Fv/Fm did not recover completely, indicating permanent damage of the photosynthetic apparatus in existing leaf tissues (Huang et al., 1998). White et al. (1992) reported that recovery of tall fescue from drought stress was associated with low basal osmotic potential before stress, prolonged positive turgor maintenance, and delayed leaf rolling during stress. Qian and Fry (1997) also reported that osmotic adjustment contributed to plant regrowth from drought stress following rewatering in warm-season turfgrass species.

While physiological recovery from drought stress alone has been addressed previously in several turfgrass species, recuperative capacity of various physiological processes for cool-season turfgrasses from combined drought and heat stress have not been well understood. Understanding the underlying mechanisms of recovery is essential for improving the survival of cool-season grasses in dry and hot environments. Selecting traits for improved recovery may be of more economic importance than selecting for improved growth during drought (Norris and Thomas, 1982). Therefore, the objective of this study was to examine physiological factors associated with the persistence and recovery of Kentucky bluegrass exposed to combined drought and heat stress following rewatering and/or temperature drop. We compared two cultivars, Midnight and Brilliant, which were chosen based on their contrasting tolerance to drought and heat stress. Our previous studies have shown that Midnight is more tolerant to drought (Wang et al., 2003a, 2003b) or heat stress alone (2003, unpublished data) compared with Brilliant.


   MATERIALS AND METHODS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Plant Materials and Growth Conditions
Three-year-old sods (15-cm diam. and 2-cm thickness) of Midnight and Brilliant Kentucky bluegrass were collected from field plots at the turfgrass farm, Rutgers University, Adelphia, NJ. Sods were washed free of soil before planting in 20-cm-diam. by 40-cm-deep pots filled with a mixture of sand and topsoil (fine, montmorillonitic, mesic, aquic arquidolls) (1:3, v/v). Plants were maintained in a greenhouse for 60 d. Controlled-release fertilizer (17–6–10 N–P–K) was top-dressed twice to provide a total of 17 g N m–2 before the treatment was imposed. Turf was hand clipped twice weekly at about a 6-cm height.

Treatments and Experimental Design
Plants were first grown in well-watered condition (watered every other day until drainage occurred at the bottom of pot) at optimum temperature (20/15°C) for 14 d in the growth chamber, and measurements were made as the initial control. Simultaneous drought and heat stress was then imposed by withholding irrigation and exposure of plants to 35/30°C (day/night). The treatment was repeated in four growth chambers. Plants of two cultivars were randomly placed in each growth chamber. The growth chambers had 75% relative humidity, a 14-h photoperiod, and photosynthetically active radiation of 600 µmol m–2 s–1. Volumetric soil water content in a 0- to 20-cm soil layer of each pot was monitored by time domain reflectometry (Soil Moisture Equipment Corp., Santa Barbara, CA). At the initiation of the treatment, volumetric soil moisture was at the field capacity (28%). By 14 d of combined stress, soil moisture dropped to 5% and most plants were desiccated and brown.

Plants were then exposed to the following treatments to examine for recovery following 14 d of combined drought and heat stress: (i) continually maintained unwatered and heat stressed (stress control); (ii) rewatered, but still exposed to heat stress (rewatering); (iii) unwatered, but returned to optimum temperature (20/15°C) (cooling); and (iv) rewatered and exposed to optimum temperature (rewatering and cooling). For the rewatering treatments, plants were watered every other day until water drained from the bottom of pots. Each treatment and cultivar consisted of four replicates (pots) which were randomly arranged in four growth chambers. Four growth chambers were set at 20/15°C (day/night) and four were set at 35/30°C (day/night). One replicate of Treatments i and ii was maintained in each of the four heat-stress chambers while one replicate of Treatments iii and iv was maintained at the optimum-temperature chambers.

The experiment was a completely randomized plot design. Cultivar difference during combined stress, duration of stress treatment, recovery treatment, and the interaction of cultivar with stress treatment or with recovery treatment were determined by ANOVA according to the general linear model procedure of SAS (SAS Institute, 1992). Means of stress durations, recovery treatments, and cultivars were tested with LSD at a probability level of 0.05.

Measurements
During the stress period, all measurements except turf quality were made on the top three fully expanded leaves from multiple plants in each pot. During the recovery, measurements were taken only for leaves existing before rewatering or cooling to examine the recuperative ability of stressed tissues to avoid the confounding effects of newly regenerated tissues.

Turf quality was visually rated on 1-to-9 scale (1 = brown, dead turf, 9 = green and dense) based on shoot color and density.

Cell membrane stability was estimated by measuring EL from leaf tissues. Samples of fresh leaves (0.1 g) were rinsed and immersed in 20 mL of deionized water. The conductivity of the solution (Cinitial) was measured after the leaves were shaken for 24 h using a conductivity meter (YSI Incorporated, Yellow Springs, OH). Leaves then were killed by autoclaving at 140°C for 20 min. The conductivity of killed tissues (Cmax) was measured after samples were cooled down to room temperature. Relative EL was calculated as the percentage of Cinitial over Cmax.

Leaf Fv/Fm was estimated by measuring chlorophyll fluorescence (a ratio of variable to maximum photo yield to Fv/Fm) with a fluorescence induction monitor (BioScientific Ltd., Herts, UK). Leaf chlorophyll was extracted by soaking 0.05 g of leaf sample in 20 mL of dimethyl sulfoxide in the dark for 72 h following the procedure described by (Hiscox and G.F. Israelstam, 1979). Absorbance of the extractant at 663 and 645 nm was measured with a spectrophotometer (Spectronic Instruments, Inc., Rochester, NY) and converted to chlorophyll content using the formulas described by Arnon (1949).

For the analysis of antioxidant enzymes, 0.5 g fresh leaves were ground with a tissue grinder in 8 mL of 50 mM ice-cold phosphate buffer (pH 7.0) containing 1% (w/v) polyvinylpyrrolidone and 0.2 g of white quartz sand, which were placed in a ice bath. The homogenate was centrifuged at 15000 x g for 20 min at 4°C. The supernatant was used for assay of enzyme activity and the level of lipid peroxidation.

The activity of SOD was determined by measuring its ability to inhibit the photoreduction of nitro blue tetrazolium (NBT; 2,2'-di-p-nitrophenyl-5,5'-diphenyl-[3,3'-dimethoxy-4,4'-diphenylene] ditetrazolium chloride) following the method of Giannopolitis and Ries (1977). The reaction solution (3 mL) contained 50 µM NBT, 1.3 µM riboflavin (7,8-dimethyl-10-ribitylisoalloxazine), 13 mM methionine [2-amino-4-(methylthio)-butyric acid], 75 nM EDTA (ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid), 50 mM phosphate buffer (pH 7.8), and 20 µL of enzyme extract, with nonenzyme solution as control. Test tubes containing the reaction solution were irradiated under a set of six fluorescent light tubes at 78 µmol m–2 s–1 for 15 min. The absorbance of the irradiated and nonirradiated solution at 560 nm was determined with a spectrophotometer (Spectronic Instruments, Inc., Rochester, NY). One unit of SOD activity was defined as the amount of enzyme that would inhibit 50% of NBT photoreduction.

Catalase activity was measured using the method of Chance and Maehly (1955). The reaction solution (3 mL) contained 50 mM phosphate buffer (pH 7.0), 15 mM H2O2, and 0.1 mL of enzyme extract. Reaction was initiated by adding the enzyme extract. Because of the linear decline of absorbance at 240 nm within the first 3 min, changes of the absorbance were read every minute. One-unit CAT activity was defined as the absorbance change of 0.01 units per minute. Both SOD and CAT activities were expressed on a protein basis. Protein content was determined using the method described by Bradford (1976).

Lipid peroxidation is the symptom most easily ascribed to oxidative damage and often used as an indicator of oxidative stress (Zhang and Kirkham, 1994). The content of malondialdehyde (MDA), a final product of lipid peroxidation, was determined using the method described by Dhindsa et al. (1981). A 0.5-mL aliquot of extract was added to a tube containing 1 mL of 20% (v/v) trichloroacetic acid and 0.5% (v/v) thiobarbituric acid. The mixture was heated in a water bath at 95°C for 30 min. After cooled to room temperature and centrifuged at 10000 x g for 10 min, the supernatant was read for absorbance at 532 and 600 nm. The absorbance for nonspecific absorption at 600 nm was subtracted from the value at 532 nm. The amount of MDA (red pigment) was calculated using the adjusted absorbance and the extinction coefficient 155 mM–1 cm–1 (Heath and Packer, 1968).


   RESULTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Physiological Changes during Simultaneous Drought and Heat Stress
Well-watered plants before the exposure to the combined drought and heat stress (prestress control) maintained high turf quality, high leaf Fv/Fm and chlorophyll content, and low EL and lipid peroxidation (MDA content) (Fig. 1 and 2) . No differences were detected between the two cultivars in the prestress levels for any of the parameters examined.



View larger version (24K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 1. Effects of the combined drought and heat stress on turf quality, Fv/Fm ratio, electrolyte leakage (EL), and chlorophyll content for ‘Midnight’ and ‘Brilliant’. Vertical bars on the top indicate LSD values (P = 0.05) for the comparison between cultivars at the given day of treatment. Vertical bars on the right are the LSD values for the comparisons over time of treatment for each cultivar.

 


View larger version (18K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 2. Effects of the combined drought and heat stress on the activities of superoxide dismutase (SOD) and catalase (CAT), and malondialdehyde (MDA) content for ‘Midnight’ and ‘Brilliant’. Vertical bars on the top indicate LSD values (P = 0.05) for the comparison between cultivars at the given day of treatment. Vertical bars on the right are the LSD values for the comparisons over time of treatment for each cultivar.

 
Turf quality declined rapidly with the combined stress to below the prestress level at 4 d of stress for Brilliant and 8 d for Midnight (Fig. 1A). Midnight had higher turf quality than Brilliant throughout most of the stress period, including the end of the stress period (14 d). The Fv/Fm for both cultivars did not change before 6 d of stress and decreased at 11 d (Fig. 1B). Midnight maintained higher Fv/Fm ratio than Brilliant for the remaining of stress period. Electrolyte leakage increased across time under the combined stress, beginning at 4 d of treatment for Brilliant and 6 d for Midnight (Fig. 1C). Electrolyte leakage for Brilliant was significantly higher than that for Midnight from 4 to 11 d of treatment. Chlorophyll content remained at the prestress level until 8 d of stress for Brilliant and 11 d for Midnight and declined rapidly thereafter (Fig. 1D). Chlorophyll content was greater in Midnight than in Brilliant after 14 d of stress.

Superoxide dismutase activity declined across time with combined stress for both cultivars (Fig. 2A). Superoxide dismutase activity dropped to below the prestress level at 4 d for Brilliant and at 6 d for Midnight. Midnight had higher SOD activity than Brilliant at 4, 6, and 8 d of stress. Superoxide dismutase activity declined to only 12% of the prestress level for both cultivars at 14 d of treatment. Catalase activity decreased to below the initial level at 2 d of combined stress for Brilliant and 6 d for Midnight (Fig. 2B). Midnight had a higher CAT activity than Brilliant at 4 and 8 d of stress. Catalase activity dropped to 23 and 6% of the prestress level for Midnight and Brilliant, respectively, by 14 d of treatment. The MDA content increased with the duration of the stress (Fig. 2C). Significant increases in MDA content above the initial level were observed at 6 d for Brilliant and at 8 d for Midnight. Brilliant had a higher MDA content than Midnight after 4 d of treatment.

Recovery following Rewatering and Cooling
Turf quality for Midnight resumed, but did not reach the prestress levels following 12 d of rewatering alone or with cooling (Fig. 3A) . No recovery in turf quality for Midnight occurred when plants remained unirrigated at optimum temperature. Turf quality for Brilliant recovered partially with rewatering and cooling, but did not change with cooling or rewatering alone (Fig. 3B).



View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 3. Recovery in turf quality following rewatering, cooling, and rewatering + cooling for ‘Midnight’ and ‘Brilliant’. The horizontal line indicates the prestress level of the parameter. Vertical bars on the top indicate LSD values (P = 0.05) for the comparison between treatments at the given day of treatment. Vertical bars on the right are the LSD values for the comparisons over time for each treatment.

 
Electrolyte leakage for both cultivars was maintained at a level equivalent to the combined stress treatment, even after plants were returned to optimum temperature but continually exposed to drought stress (Fig. 4) . The level of EL dropped to below the stressed level 6 d following rewatering for Midnight (Fig. 4A), but no recovery in EL occurred for Brilliant (Fig. 4B). The recovery in EL occurred at 6 d for Midnight and at 12 d for Brilliant when plants were rewatered and returned to normal temperature, which was more pronounced than rewatering or cooling alone.



View larger version (14K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 4. Recovery in electrolyte leakage (EL) following rewatering, cooling, and rewatering + cooling for ‘Midnight’ and ‘Brilliant’. The horizontal dotted line indicates the prestress level of the parameter. Vertical bars on the top indicate LSD values (P = 0.05) for the comparison between treatments at the given day of treatment. The LSD values were 2.97, 2.97, 4.05, and 2.93, respectively, for Brilliant following rewatering + cooling, cooling, rewatering, and drought + heat. The corresponding values for Midnight were 4.05, 4.05, 6.28, and 5.31.

 
The Fv/Fm increased rapidly to the prestressed level 12 d following rewatering alone or along with cooling for Midnight (Fig. 5A) . The Fv/Fm for Brilliant also recovered under those conditions but never returned to the prestress level (Fig. 5B). No recovery in the Fv/Fm ratio occurred for both cultivars under drought stress even though plants were returned to optimum temperature conditions.



View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 5. Recovery in leaf photochemical efficiency (Fv/Fm) following rewatering, cooling, and rewatering + cooling for ‘Midnight’ and ‘Brilliant’. The horizontal dotted line indicates the prestress level of the parameter. Vertical bars on the top indicate LSD values (P = 0.05) for the comparison between treatments at the given day of treatment. The LSD values were 0.14, 0.19, 0, and 0, respectively, for Brilliant following rewatering + cooling, cooling, rewatering, and drought + heat. The corresponding values for Midnight were 0.09, 0.15, 0.01, and 0.

 
Leaf chlorophyll content continually declined to near zero following cooling or the combined stress for both cultivars by 12 d (Fig. 6) . Chlorophyll content dropped to below the stressed level at 3 and 6 d of rewatering alone or along with cooling, but resumed to some extent at 12 d in both cases for Midnight; the extent of the recovery from the combined was more dramatic than rewatering alone (Fig. 6A). For Brilliant, chlorophyll content continued to decline to near zero upon rewatering or cooling (Fig. 6B). Following rewatering and cooling, chlorophyll content for Brilliant decreased first and then increased slightly.



View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 6. Recovery in leaf chlorophyll content following rewatering, cooling, rewatering and cooling for ‘Midnight’ and ‘Brilliant’. The horizontal dotted line indicates the prestress level of the parameter. Vertical bars on the top indicate LSD values (P = 0.05) for the comparison between treatments at the given day of treatment. The LSD values were 1.29, 0, 0, and 0, respectively, for Brilliant following rewatering + cooling, cooling, rewatering, and drought + heat. The corresponding values for Midnight were 2.04, 0.83, 0.58, and 0.

 
The activity of both SOD and CAT for plants exposed to the combined stress dropped to zero by the time of recovery treatment initiated. Therefore, data of combined and drought and heat stress were not shown in Fig. 7 and 8 . Neither SOD nor CAT activity resumed following cooling when still exposed to drought stress for both cultivars (Fig. 7 and 8). Following rewatering alone or along with cooling, the activity of both enzymes increased for Midnight (Fig. 7), but did not recover for Brilliant (Fig. 8).



View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 7. Recovery in superoxide dismutase (SOD) activity, catalase (CAT) activity, and malondialdehyde (MDA) content following rewatering, cooling, and rewatering + cooling for ‘Midnight’. The horizontal dotted line indicates the prestress level of each parameter. Vertical bars on the top indicate LSD values (P = 0.05) for the comparison between treatments at the given day of treatment. Vertical bars on the right are the LSD values for the comparisons over time for each treatment.

 


View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 8. Recovery in superoxide dismutase (SOD) activity, catalase (CAT) activity, and malondialdehyde (MDA) content following rewatering, cooling, and rewatering + cooling for ‘Brilliant’. The horizontal line indicates the prestress level of each parameter. Vertical bars on the top indicate LSD values (P = 0.05) for the comparison between treatments at the given day of treatment. Vertical bars on the right are the LSD values for the comparisons over time for each treatment.

 
The MDA content continued increasing following cooling for both cultivars (Fig. 7 and 8). After 6 d of rewatering or along with cooling, MDA content decreased to the prestress level for Midnight (Fig. 7), but continually increased for Brilliant (Fig. 8).


   DISCUSSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
 
Leaf Fv/Fm, chlorophyll content, and cell membrane stability declined rapidly for both cultivars of Kentucky bluegrass exposed to drought and heat stress simultaneously, although to a lesser extent for Midnight than for Brilliant. The antioxidant enzyme activities of both cultivars were almost completely suppressed after 14 d of the combined stress, along with the sharp increase in the production of MDA or lipid peroxidation of cell membranes. These results agree with previous studies exhibited in other cool-season grasses (perennial ryegrass and tall fescue) (Jiang and Huang, 2001a, 2001b). Our results indicated that combined drought and heat stress was detrimental to the photosynthesis system and cell membrane stability for Kentucky bluegrass.

Rapid recovery from stress is an important aspect of the persistence of perennial grasses. Recovery following rewatering alone or together with cooling occurred for all physiological parameters measured in Midnight previously exposed to the combined stress, suggesting that this drought-tolerant Kentucky bluegrass cultivar had high environmental plasticity. However, both rewatering and cooling were required for the recovery of cell membrane stability and Fv/Fm for Brilliant, and the recovery in those parameters were less pronounced for Brilliant than for Midnight. Chlorophyll content, SOD and CAT activities, and lipid peroxidation did not change for Brilliant with rewatering alone or with cooling. The variation in the recuperative ability between the two cultivars could be because of the difference in the severity of stress damage, as Brilliant generally maintained lower physiological activities than Midnight during the combined drought and heat stress. Qian and Fry (1997) reported that recovery from drought stress alone was positively correlated with the level of drought tolerance (in terms of osmotic adjustment) in several turfgrass species. A drought-tolerant tall fescue cultivar recovered faster and more dramatically from drought stress following rewatering compared with a sensitive cultivar (Huang et al., 1998).

Returning plants to the optimum temperature while remaining unirrigated had no effects on the recovery of any of the parameters for either cultivar. However, rewatering only resulted in rapid restoration of physiological functions, to the same extent as rewatering in combination with cooling. These results indicate that irrigation is essential in order for Kentucky bluegrass to fully recover from the combined drought and heat stress, regardless of temperature, suggesting that water stress is the major factor controlling plant survival in dry and hot environments. Lack of water causes stomatal closure and reduces transpirational cooling under heat stress, which is found to be the major cause of plant mortality during summer for tree seedlings (Kolb and Robberecht, 1996).

Cell membrane stability and Fv/Fm resumed fully to the prestress level by 12 d of rewatering alone or together with cooling for Midnight, but chlorophyll content recovered only partially for Midnight, and never recovered for Brilliant. Similar to chlorophyll content, turf quality, which was rated partially on the basis of leaf greenness, also recovered to a lesser extent than Fv/Fm. These results suggest that combined drought and heat stress could have caused more severe damage to chlorophyll due to either enhancement of degradation or inhibition of synthesis than to cell membrane and Fv/Fm. Furthermore, the results suggest that resumption of cell membrane integrity and Fv/Fm could be more important for rapid regrowth or recovery in turf quality than resynthesis of chlorophyll upon rewatering. Sanchez et al. (1983) reported that recovery of photosynthesis preceded that of chlorophyll synthesis in response to rewatering for maize (Zea mays L.). Rapid recovery in Fv/Fm suggests that the functional forms of photosystem II for Kentucky bluegrass were restored quickly upon relief of drought or combined stress. Zhang et al. (2003) reported that Kentucky bluegrass with higher Fv/Fm during heat stress regrows faster after being transplanted to low temperature conditions. However, Huang et al. (1998) found that 21 d of soil drying caused long-term negative effects on Fv/Fm for tall fescue, which never returned to the prestress level following rewatering.

Superoxide dismutase and CAT activities also increased back to the prestress level for Midnight by rewatering alone or together with cooling, which could lead to the rapid decline in MDA content, indicating that antioxidant enzymes or recovery from the oxidative damage was involved in the rapid repair or recovery from the combined stress for drought-tolerant plants. However, drought and heat stress caused irreversible oxidative damage for Brilliant, which could be a factor, at least in part, for the partial recovery of physiological activities for the drought-sensitive cultivar. No previous data are available on oxidative recovery in response to rewatering from drought stress or cooling from heat stress or in combination for perennial grass species. In other species such as pea (Pisum sativum L.) the recovery in shoot growth from drought following rewatering was accompanied by the increase in SOD content and activity (Mittler and Zilinskas, 1994). Chilling-induced oxidative stress is associated with irreversible damage in maize (Prasad et al., 1994). The increase in SOD activity and the decrease in MDA content contribute to the recovery of pea plants from short-term salinity stress (Hernandez and Almansa, 2002).

Taken together, the results suggest that simultaneous drought and heat stress was detrimental for Kentucky bluegrass, particularly the drought-susceptible cultivar. In order for plants to fully recover from the combined drought stress, rewatering or rewatering in association with temperature drop was essential. Rewatering was more important than temperature decline for Kentucky bluegrass to recover from the combined stress. Therefore, timely irrigation is important for rapid recovery of Kentucky bluegrass following summer stress. Rapid increases in membrane stability, Fv/Fm, and antioxidant enzyme activity following rewatering or together with cooling could contribute to the recovery from simultaneous drought and heat stress. These physiological parameters could be used to select Kentucky bluegrass germplasms for the improvement of summer stress survival and recovery.

Received for publication August 7, 2003.


   REFERENCES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Agron. J.Home page
E. Merewitz, W. Meyer, S. Bonos, and B. Huang
Drought Stress Responses and Recovery of Texas x Kentucky Hybrids and Kentucky Bluegrass Genotypes in Temperate Climate Conditions
Agron. J., January 7, 2010; 102(1): 258 - 268.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Crop Sci.Home page
Y. He and B. Huang
Protein Changes during Heat Stress in Three Kentucky Bluegrass Cultivars Differing in Heat Tolerance
Crop Sci., November 7, 2007; 47(6): 2513 - 2520.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Crop Sci.Home page
K. Su, D. J. Bremer, S. J. Keeley, and J. D. Fry
Effects of High Temperature and Drought on a Hybrid Bluegrass Compared with Kentucky Bluegrass and Tall Fescue
Crop Sci., September 1, 2007; 47(5): 2152 - 2161.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (14)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wang, Z.
Right arrow Articles by Huang, B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Wang, Z.
Right arrow Articles by Huang, B.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Wang, Z.
Right arrow Articles by Huang, B.
Related Collections
Right arrow Turfgrass Management
Right arrow Temperature Stress
Right arrow Water Stress
Right arrow Turfgrass

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
The SCI Journals Agronomy Journal Vadose Zone Journal
Journal of Natural Resources
and Life Sciences Education		 Soil Science Society of America Journal
Journal of Plant Registrations Journal of
Environmental Quality		 The Plant Genome