Journal of Crop Science and Biotechnology

, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 407–416 | Cite as

Morphological, Physiological, and Biochemical Responses to Water Stress in Melon (Cucumis melo) Subjected to Regulated Deficit Irrigation (RDI) and Partial Rootzone Drying (PRD)

  • Mouna LamaouiEmail author
  • Abdelghani Chakhchar
  • Youssef EL Kharrassi
  • Said Wahbi
  • Cherkaoui El Modafar
Research Article


In this study, the impact of two water-saving techniques, Regulated Deficit Irrigation (RDI) and Partial Rootzone Drying (PRD) was investigated by comparing their impact on the behavior of three melon varieties (Cucumis melo), Galia, Jucar, and DRG. The morphological, physiological, and biochemical responses to the deficit irrigation systems were considered. The results show that both PRD and RDI constraints increase the plants water-use efficiency without impairing plants’ vegetative growth. These treatments reduced the leaf water content and the stomatal conductance without any significant leaf expansion under the water restriction pressure. An increase in the peroxidase activity was recorded under both treatments without having any influence on the activity of polyphenol oxidase. Besides, the application of both treatments had no significant effect on phenolic compounds compared to the well-watered plants. PRD-treated Galia plants had better results. These results provide useful knowledge on efficient irrigation and water management systems for melon fruit tree cultivation, in particular in a water-limited environment.

Key words

Partial root-zone drying water-use efficiency regulated deficit irrigation water deficit Cucumis melo 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Antolín MC, Santesteban H, Santamaría E, Aguirreolea J, Sánchez–Díaz M, 2008. Involvement of abscisic acid and polyamines in berry ripening of Vitis vinifera (L.) subjected to water deficit irrigation. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 14: 123–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beis A, Patakas A. 2015. Differential physiological and biochemical responses to drought in grapevines subjected to partial root drying and deficit irrigation. Eur. J. Agron. 62: 90–97.doi:10.1016/j.eja.2014.10.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bradford MM. 1976. A rapid and sensitive method for the quantification of microgram of quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein–dye binding. Anal. Biochem. 72: 248–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cabello MJ, Castellanos MT, Romojaro F, Martinez–Madrid C, Ribas F. 2009. Yield and quality of melon grown under different irrigation and nitrogen rates. Agric. Water Manag. 96: 866–874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chakhchar A, Lamaoui M, Wahbi S, Ferradous A, El Mousadik A, Ibnsouda–Koraichi S, Filali–Maltou A, El Modafar C. 2015. Leaf water status, osmoregulation and secondary metabolism as a model for depicting drought tolerance in Argania spinosa. Acta Physiol. Plant. 37: 80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chanda SV, Singh YD. 2002. Estimation of leaf area in wheat using linear measurements. Plant Breed. Seed Sci. 46: 75–79Google Scholar
  7. Chaves MM, Santos TP, Souza CR, Ortuño MF, Rodrigues ML, Lopes CM, et al. 2007. Deficit irrigation in grapevine improves water–use efficiency while controlling vigour and production quality. Ann. Appl. Biol. 150:237–252. doi:10.1111/j.1744–7348.2006.00123.x74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Claudia R, de Souza, Joao, Tiago P, dos Santos Lucılia Rodrigues M, Carlos Lopes, Joao S. Pereira, Manuela Chaves M. 2005. Effect of water deficits on the activity of anti–oxidative enzymes and osmoregulation among three different genotypes of Radix Astragali at seeding stage. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 106: 261–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Çolak YB, Yazar A. 2017. Evaluation of crop water stress index on Royal table grape variety under partial root drying and conventional deficit irrigation regimes in the Mediterranean Region. Sci. Hortic. 224: 384–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Comstock JP. 2002. Hydraulic and chemical signalling in the control of stom–atal conductance and transpiration. J. Exp. Bot. 53: 195–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Consoli S, Stagno F, Roccuzzo G, Cirelli GL, Intrigliolo F. 2014. Sustainable management of limited water resources in a young orange orchard. Agric. Water Manag. 132: 60–68. doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2013.10.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Costa JM, Ortuno MF, Chaves MM. 2007. Deficit irrigation as a strategy to save water: physiology and potential application to horticulture. J. Integ. Plant Biol. 49: 1421–1434. doi:10.1111/j.1672–9072.2007.00556.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Daniel P, Schachtman J, Goodger QD. 2008. Chemical root to shoot signaling under drought. Trends Plant Sci. 13: 6–282Google Scholar
  14. da Silva JR, Patterson AE, Rodrigues WP, Campostrini E, Griffin KL. 2017. Photosynthetic acclimation to elevated CO2 combined with partial rootzone drying results in improved water use efficiency, drought tolerance and leaf carbon balance of grapevines (Vitis labrusca). Environ. Exper. Bot. 134: 82–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Davies WJ, Tardieu E, Trejo CL. 1994. How do chemical signals work in plants that grow in drying soil? Plant Physiol. 104: 309–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dry PR, Loveys BR, Düring H. 2000. Partial drying of the rootzone of grape. I. Transient changes in shoot growth and gas exchange. Vitis. 39: 3–7Google Scholar
  17. Dry PR, Loveys BR, McCarthy MG, Stoll M. 2001. Strategic irrigation management in Australian vineyards. J. Int. Sci. Vigne Vin. 35: 129–139Google Scholar
  18. Du S, Kang S, Li F, Du T. 2017. Water use efficiency is improved by alternate partial root–zone irrigation of apple in arid northwest China. Agric. Water Manage. 179: 184–192, doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2016.05.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Elmaghrabi AM, Rogers HJ, Francis D, Ochatt SJ. 2017. PEG induces high expression of the cell cycle checkpoint gene WEE1 in embryogenic callus of Medicago truncatula: Potential link between cell cycle checkpoint regulation and osmotic stress. Front. Plant Sci. 8: 1479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gasque M, Martí P, Granero B, González–Altozano P. 2016. Effects of long–term summer deficit irrigation on ‘Navelina’ citrus trees. Agric. Water Manag. 169: 140–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gill SS, Tuteja N. 2010. Reactive oxygen species and antioxidant machinery in abiotic stress tolerance in crop plants. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 48: 909–930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goldhamer DA, Beede R. 2004. Regulated deficit irrigation effects on yield, nut quality and water–use efficiency of mature pistachio trees. J. Hort. Sci. Biotech. 79: 538–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Goldhamer DA, Viveros M, Salinas M. 2006. Regulated deficit irrigation in almonds: effects of variations in applied water and stress timing on yield and yield components. Irrig. Sci. 24:101–114, doi:10.1007/s00271–005–0014–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hori K, Wada A, Shibuta, T. 1997. Changes in phenol oxidase activities of the galls on leaves of Ulmus davidana formed by Tetraneura fusiformis (Homoptera: Eriosomatidae), Appl. Entomol. Zool. 32: 365–371, doi: 10.1303/aez.32.365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kang S, Liang Z, Hu W, Zhang J. 1998. Water use efficiency of controlled root–divided alternate irrigation. Agric. Water Manage. 38: 69–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kang S, Zhang J. 2004. Controlled alternate partial rootzone irrigation: its physiological consequences and impact on water use efficiency. J. Exp. Bot. 55: 2437–2446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Karuppanapandian T, Moon JC, Kim C, Manoharan K, Kim W. 2011. Reactive oxygen species in plants: their generation, signal transduction, and scavenging mechanisms. Aust. J. Crop Sci. 5: 709–725Google Scholar
  28. Lamaoui M, Jemo M, Datla R, Bekkaoui F. 2018. Heat and drought stresses in crops and approaches for their mitigation. Front. Chem. 6: 26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Li X, Kang S, Zhang X, Li F, Lu H. 2018. Deficit irrigation provokes more pronounced responses of maize photosynthesis and water productivity to elevated CO2. Agric. Water Manage. 195: 71–83, doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2017.09.017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Loveys BR. 2000. Using irrigation management to improve the water use efficiency of horticultural crops. Land Manage. 1: 31–33Google Scholar
  31. Mancosu N, Snyder RL, Kyriakakis G, Spano D. 2015. Water scarcity and future challenges for food production. Water. 7: 975–992, doi:10.3390/w7030975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Marra FP, Marino G, Marchese A, Caruso T. 2016. Effects of different irrigation regimes on a super–high–density olive grove cv. ‘Arbequina’: vegetative growth, productivity and polyphenol content of the oil. Irrig. Sci. 34:313–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mingo DM, Theobald JC, Bacon MA, Davies WJ, Dodd IC. 2004. Biomass allocation in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) plants grown under partial rootzone drying: enhancement of root growth. Funct. Plant Biol. 31:971–978, doi:10.1071/FP04020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mossad A, Scalisi A, Bianco RL. 2017. Growth and water relations of field–grown ‘Valencia’ orange trees under long–term partial rootzone drying. Irrigation Sci. 36: 9–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pazzagli PT, Weiner J, Liu FL. 2016. Effects of CO2 elevation and irrigation regimes on leaf gas exchange, plant water relations, and water use efficiency of two tomato cultivars. Agric. Water Manag. 169: 26–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pérez–Pérez JG, Dodd IC, Botía P. 2012. Partial rootzone drying increases water–use efficiency of lemon Fino 49 trees independently of root–to–shoot ABA signalling. Funct. Plant Biol. 39: 366–378, doi:10.1071/FP11269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Raveh E. 2008. Partial root–zone drying as a possible replacement for ‘Verdelli’ practice in lemon production. Acta. Hort. 792: 537–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rodriguez R, Tames RS. 1982. Peroxidase and IAA oxidase in germinating seeds of Cicer arientium L, Rev. Esp. Fisiol. 38: 183–188Google Scholar
  39. Romero–Conde A, Kusakabe A, Melgar JC. 2014. Physiological responses of citrus to partial rootzone drying irrigation. Sci. Hort. 169: 234–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Santos MRD, Rodrigues Donato SL, Arantes ADM., Coelho EF, Oliveira PMD. 2017. Gas exchange in ‘BRS Princesa’ banana (Musa spp.) under partial rootzone drying irrigation in the north of Minas Gerais, Brazil. Acta Agron. 66: 378–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sensoy S, Ertek A, Gedik I, Kucukyumuk C. 2007. Irrigation frequency and amount affect yield and quality of field–grown melon (Cucumis melo L.). Agric. Water Manag. 88: 269–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Singleton VL, Rossi JA. 1965. Colorimetry of total phenolics with phosphomolybdic–phosphotungstic acid reagents. Am. J. Enology Vitic. 16: 144–158Google Scholar
  43. Tan Y, Liang Z, Shao H, Feng D. 2006. Effect of water deficits on the activity of anti–oxidative enzymes and osmoregulation among three different genotypes of Radix Astragali at seeding stage. Biointerfaces 49: 60–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tejera NA, Campos R, Sanjuan JL. 2004. Nitrogenase and antioxidant enzyme activities in Phaseolus vulgaris nodules formed by Rhizobium tropici isogenic strains with varying tolerance to salt stress. J. Plant Physiol. 161: 329–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Topcu S, Kirda C, Dasgan Y, Kaman H, Cetin M, Yazici A. 2006. Yield response and N–fertiliser recovery of tomato grown under deficit irrigation. Europ. J. Agron. 26: 64–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wahbi S, Centritto M, Serraj R, Chaves MM. 2005. Effects of partial rootzone drying (PRD) on adult olive tree (Olea europaea) in field conditions under arid climate. Photosynthetic responses. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 106: 303–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wahbi S, Tahi H, EL Modafar C, Aganchich C, Serraj R. 2008. Changes in antioxidant activities and phenol content in tomato plants subjected to partial root drying and regulated deficit irrigation. Plant Biosyst. 142: 550–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wang YS, Liu FL, Andersen MN, Jensen CR. 2010. Improved plant nitrogen nutrition contributes to higher water use efficiency in tomatoes under alternate partial root–zone irrigation. Funct. Plant Biol. 37: 175–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wang YS, Liu FL, Jensen LS, de Neergaard A, Jensen CR. 2013. Alternate partial root–zone irrigation improves fertilizer–N use efficiency in tomatoes. Irrig. Sci. 31: 589–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wei Z, Du T, Li X, Fang L, Liu F. 2018. Interactive effects of CO2 concentration elevation and nitrogen fertilization on water and nitrogen use efficiency of tomato grown under reduced irrigation regimes. Agric. Water Manag. 202: 174–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wu Y, Liu H, Liang Z, Kang S. 1999. Photosynthesis rate and transpiration efficiency change by alternately drying and wetting on maize plant. Acta Bot. Boreal. Occident. Sin. 19: 605–611Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Society of Crop Science (KSCS) and Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mouna Lamaoui
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Abdelghani Chakhchar
    • 1
  • Youssef EL Kharrassi
    • 2
  • Said Wahbi
    • 3
  • Cherkaoui El Modafar
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratoire de Biotechnologie et Bio-ingénierie Moléculaire, Faculté des Sciences et TechniquesUniversité Cadi AyadGuéliz, MarrakechMaroc
  2. 2.AgroBioSciences DivisionMohammed VI Polytechnic University (UM6P)BenguérirMorocco
  3. 3.Laboratoire de Biotechnologie et Physiologies des Plantes, Faculté des Sciences SemlaliaUniversité Cadi AyadMarrakechMaroc

Personalised recommendations