Journal of Arid Land

, Volume 11, Issue 4, pp 623–635 | Cite as

A drought resistance index to select drought resistant plant species based on leaf water potential measurements

  • SayedJamaleddin Khajeddin
  • SayedHamid MatinkhahEmail author
  • Zahra Jafari


The water deficit in arid and semi-arid regions is the primary limiting factor for the development of urban greenery and forestation. In addition, planting the species that consume low levels of water is useful in arid and semi-arid regions that have poor water management measures. Leaf water potential (Ψ) is a physiological parameter that can be used to identify drought resistance in various species. Indeed, Ψ is one of the most important properties of a plant that can be measured using a pressure chamber. Drought avoiding or drought resistant species have a lower Ψ than plants that use normal or high levels of water. To determine drought resistance of species that are suitable for afforestation in arid urban regions, we evaluated twenty woody species in the Isfahan City, central Iran. The experimental design was random split-split plots with five replications. The species were planted outdoor in plastic pots and then subjected to treatments that consisted of two soil types and five drip irrigation regimes. To evaluate the resistance of each species to drought, we used the Ψ and the number of survived plants to obtain the drought resistance index (DRI). Then, cluster analysis, dendrogram, and similarity index were used to group the species using DRI. Result indicates that the evaluated species were classified into five groups: (1) high water consuming species (DRI>–60 MPa); (2) above normal water consuming species (–60 MPa≥DRI>–90 MPa); (3) normal water consuming species (–90 MPa≥DRI>–120 MPa); (4) semi-drought resistant species (–120 MPa≥DRI>–150 MPa); and (5) drought resistant species (DRI≤–150 MPa). According to the DRI, Salix babylonica L., Populus alba L., and P. nigra L. are high water consuming species, Platanus orientalis L. and Albizia julibrissin Benth are normal water consuming species, and Quercus infectoria Oliv. and Olea europaea L. can be considered as drought resistant species.

Key words

drought resistant species drought resistance index forestation leaf water potential water deficit 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



We would like to thank students of the Isfahan University of Technology, Iran for help us to perform this research.


  1. Augé R M, Duan X, Croker J L, et al. 1998. Foliar dehydration tolerance of twelve deciduous tree species. Journal of Experimental Botany, 49(321): 753–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bouyoucos G J. 1962. Hydrometer method improved for making particle size analyses of soils 1. Agronomy Journal, 54(5): 464–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Davis J A, Kerezsy A. Nicol, S. 2017. Springs: conserving perennial water is critical in arid landscapes. Biological Conservation, 211: 30–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Endres L. 2007. Daily and seasonal variation of water relationship in sugar apple (Annona squamosa L.) under different irrigation regimes at semi-arid Brazil. Scientia Horticulturae, 113(2): 149–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fischer R A, Wood J T. 1979. Drought resistance in spring wheat cultivars. III. Yield association with morpho-physiological traits. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 30(6): 1001–1020.Google Scholar
  6. Fukuda K, Nishiya Y, Nakamura M, et al. 1997. Water relations of Yezo spruce and Todo fir in declined stands of boreal forest in Hokkaido, Japan. Journal of Forest Research, 2(2): 79–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gee G W, Or D. 2002. Particle-size analysis. In: Dane J H, Topp G C. Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 4, Physical Methods. Soil Science Society of America Book Series. Madison: Soil Science Society of America, 255–293.Google Scholar
  8. Goyal M R. 2015. Sustainable Micro Irrigation. Tornoto: Oakille CRC Press, 506.Google Scholar
  9. Gullo M A L, Trifilò P, Raimondo F. 2007. Hydraulic characteristics and water relations in pigment-less mutant shoots of an orange tree. Tree Physiology, 27(2): 209–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jafari Haghighi M. 2003. Methods of Soil Sampling and Analysis. Tehran: Nedaye Zohi Publications, 236. (in Persian)Google Scholar
  11. James D W, Hanks R J, Jurinak J J. 1982. Modern Irrigated Soils. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 235.Google Scholar
  12. Jones H G. 2007. Monitoring plant and soil water status: established and novel methods revisited and their relevance to studies of drought tolerance. Journal of Experimenatl Botany, 58(2): 119–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jongman R H, Ter Braak C J, Van Tongeren O F. 1995. Data Analysis in Community and Landscape Ecology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Karamanos A, Papatheohari A. 1999. Assessment of drought resistance of crop genotypes by means of the water potential index. Crop Science, 39(6): 1792–1797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kent M. 2011. Vegetation Description and Data Analysis: A Practical Approach. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 428.Google Scholar
  16. Kirkham M B. 2005. Principles of Soil and Plant Water Relations. Burlington: Academic Press, 500.Google Scholar
  17. Klute A. 1986. Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1. Physical and Mineralogical Properties (2nd ed.). Madison: American Society of Agronomy and Soil Science Society of America, 1188.Google Scholar
  18. Kramer P J, Boyer J S. 1997. Water relations of plants and soils. Forest Science, 43(1): 151–152.Google Scholar
  19. Mueller-Dombois D, Ellenberg H. 2013. Aims and Methods of Vegetation Ecology. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 547.Google Scholar
  20. Mishio M, Yokoi Y. 1991. A model for estimation of water flow resistance in soil-leaf pathway under dynamic conditions. Journal of Experimental Botany, 42(4): 541–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Osakabe Y, Osakabe K, Shinozaki K, et al. 2014}. Response of plants to water stress. Front Plant Science, doi: Scholar
  22. Per T S, Khan N A, Reddy P S, et al. 2017. Approaches in modulating proline metabolism in plants for salt and drought stress tolerance: Phytohormones, mineral nutrients and transgenic. Plant physiology and biochemistry, 115: 126–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pérez-Priego O, Zarco-Tejada P J, Miller J R, et al. 2005. Detection of water stress in orchard trees with a high-resolution spectrometer through chlorophyll fluorescence in-filling of the O/sub 2/-A band. Geoscience and Remote Sensing, IEEE Transactions, 43(12): 2860–2869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sakcali M, Ozturk M. 2004. Eco-physiological behaviour of some Mediterranean plants as suitable candidates for reclamation of degraded areas. Journal of Arid Environments, 57(2): 141–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schneider E, Sanders J, Von Willert D. 2006. Devil's claw (Harpagophytum procumbens) from southern Africa: sustainable use by cultivation combined with controlled harvesting in semi-wild populations. Frontis, 17: 181–202.Google Scholar
  26. Shrestha M K, StockW D, Ward D, et al. 2003. Water status of isolated Negev desert populations of Acacia raddiana with different mortality levels. Plant Ecology, 168(2): 297–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Slavich P G, Petterson G H. 1993. Estimating the electrical conductivity of saturated paste extracts from 1:5 soil, water suspensions and texture. Soil Research, 31(1): 73–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Vertovec M, Sakçali S, Ozturk M, et al. 2001. Diagnosing plant water status as a tool for quantifying water stress on a regional basis in Mediterranean drylands. Annals of Forest Science, 58(2): 113–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Science Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • SayedJamaleddin Khajeddin
    • 1
  • SayedHamid Matinkhah
    • 1
    Email author
  • Zahra Jafari
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Natural ResourcesIsfahan University of TechnologyIsfahanIran

Personalised recommendations