Context: Salinity is in coastal, arid and semi-arid regions a major constraint in the productivity and agricultural development around the world. Objectifs: The objective of this study is to evaluate the effect of salinity on the growth, the nutritional value of the fruits of three okra (Abelmoschus esculentus L.) cultivars including two local (Javia and Parkwa) and a hybrid variety (Hire). Methodology: This is how four solutions of different NaCl concentrations from 0, 60, 120 to 240 mM were used to water okra plants at the four-leaves stage and this for two months in completely randomized device with four repetitions. Results: The results have differneces and similarities between the three varities during saline treatments. Salinity causes a decrease in growth, performance yield (from 0 to 240 mM NaCl to 28%, 23.6% and 22% in Parkwa, Hire, Javia cultivars respectively), mineral elements, antioxidants components and accumulation of Na content (to 45% in Parkwa, 23% in Hire and 18.4% in Javia from 0 to 240 mM NaCl) and flowering period (from 0 to 240 mM NaCl to 27.5%, 23.1% et 21.9% in Parkwa, Hire, Javia respectively). The reductions generated by salt have been less strong in Javia and Hire cultivars while the reductions were stronger at Parkwa cultivar. In addition, NaCl, at high concentrations, advantage of osmoticum accumulation involved in the osmotic ajustement mechanisms and would also serve as osmoprotector. Accumulation of osmolytes is salinity tolerance index that explains the maintenance of good water status in okra. Conclusion: Cultivars Javia and Hire were the most salt tolerant while the Parkwa was the most sensitive. The good behaviour of Javia and Hire varieties in the face of salinity can be considered for their use to better enhance the sahelian and coastal areas.
Published in | Plant (Volume 12, Issue 3) |
DOI | 10.11648/j.plant.20241203.13 |
Page(s) | 66-75 |
Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Growth, Nutritional Value, Okra, Salinity, Tolerance
Physio-chemical properties | Quantity |
---|---|
Clay % | 38.98 ± 2.59 |
Sand% | 67.04 ± 2.77 |
Total carbon % | 0.77 ± 0.09 |
Total nitrogen % | 0.33 ± 0.23 |
Ratio C/N | 3.67 ± 1.06 |
Phosphorus (%) | 0,28 ± 0.09 |
Potassium (meq 100g-1) | 2.23 ± 1.03 |
Sodium (meq 100g-1) | 1.14 ± 0.57 |
Calcium (meq 100g-1) | 11.19 ± 1.85 |
Magnésium (meq 100g-1) | 2.65 ± 1.01 |
pH | 5.89 ± 1.02 |
EC (dS/m) | 3.15 ± 1.49 |
Chemical characteristics | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Irrigation Water | Ca2+ (mg g-1) | Mg2+ (mg g-1) | K+ (mg g-1) | HCO3- (mg g-1) | Na+ (mg g-1) | SO42- (mg g-1) | Cl- (mg g-1) | pH | CE (dS m-1) |
Tap water | 238.2 | 118.3 | 25.4 | 63.1 | 441.4 | 515.9 | 26.8 | 7.34 | 2.11 |
Growth and yield parameters | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cultivars | Treatment (mM NaCl) | PH (cm) | FLO (days) | NF per plant | NS per fruit | FFW (g) | LF (cm) | WF (g) | FY (t ha-1) | FRWC (% ) | ||
Hire | 0 | 31.56±1.13j | 56.71±2.31f | 11.86±1.26m | 60.95±3.12e | 6.85±1.11m | 6.02±0.92n | 2.06±0.78o | 25.84±1.09k | 89.94±3.53a | ||
60 | 28.95±1.02j | 59.53±2.42f | 9.91±2.33n | 57.52±3.66f | 6.15±1.21m | 5.73±0.84n | 1.79±0.59o | 23.95±1.06k | 87.32±4.07a | |||
120 | 25.67±1.13k | 63.45±1.52e | 7.88±2.12n | 52.73±3.17g | 5.01±0.88m | 5.04±1.07n | 1.36±1.01o | 21.22±0.84k | 84.10±3.55b | |||
240 | 20.93±1.09k | 69.83±2.01d | 6.72±3.01n | 48.91±2.83h | 4.13±0.92n | 4.13±1.09o | 1.02±1.08o | 19.73±0.79l | 81.13±4.01b | |||
Parkwa | 0 | 33.51±1.23j | 53.91±1.88g | 13.26±2.51m | 55.95±3.28f | 6.15±1.23m | 9.57±0.92n | 1.67±1.23o | 25.22±1.22k | 86.55±3.03a | ||
60 | 30.27±1.06j | 57.27±1.73f | 11.07±2.25m | 51.76±2.55g | 5.26±1.02m | 8.25±1.11n | 1.31±0.95o | 23.31±1.05k | 83.25±3.27b | |||
120 | 25.68±1.16k | 62.68±2.86b | 9.13±2.46n | 47.29±2.43h | 4.22±0.73n | 7.79±0.86n | 0.92±1.04p | 21.53±0.94k | 80.28±2.66b | |||
240 | 21.89±1.14k | 68.76±1.93d | 7.05±1.98n | 42.54±3.01i | 3.55±1.24n | 6.52±1.03n | 0.71±0.86p | 18.18±1.31l | 77.17±2.45c | |||
Javia | 0 | 29.96±1.07j | 50.55±2.32g | 14.43±1.17m | 53.87±3.15g | 8.12±2.17m | 11.51±0.88m | 1.61±0.84o | 27.85±1.11j | 85.16±2.27a | ||
60 | 27.82±2.12j | 53.45±2.83g | 13.15±2.88m | 50.63±3.14g | 7.55±1.15m | 11.02±1.12m | 1.30±0.92o | 26.94±1.12k | 83.52±2.19b | |||
120 | 25.63±1.07k | 57.34±2.71f | 11.73±3.22m | 46.74±2.43h | 6.81±1.18m | 10.24±0.97m | 1.08±0.76o | 24.19±0.95k | 79.64±2.38c | |||
240 | 21.19±2.13k | 61.62±1.65e | 10.27±3.02lm | 42.83±3.52i | 5.82±1.01m | 8.32±0.77n | 0.88±1.03p | 21.71±1.03k | 76.95±3.01c | |||
Two way ANOVA results | ||||||||||||
Salt stress (S) | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | |||
Cultivar (C) | NS | NS | NS | * | NS | NS | NS | NS | * | |||
Interaction C x SS | * | * | ** | * | * | * | * | * | * |
Fruit mineral components | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cultivars | Treatment (mM NaCl) | Ca (µg g-1) | P (µg g-1) | K (mg g-1) | Mg (µg g-1) | Iron (µg g-1) | Na (µg g-1) |
Hire | 0 | 766.11±3.02a | 316.29±1.33g | 1.32±2.01m | 355.35±2.33f | 2.65±0.55m | 59.33±2.22k |
60 | 694.90±3.14b | 283.14±1.51g | 1.05±2.22m | 320.54±2.45f | 2.37±0.62m | 63.12±2.14k | |
120 | 579.12±3.05c | 240.72±2.02h | 0.83±3.07n | 242.26±2.81g | 2.01±0.74m | 67.50±2.44j | |
240 | 405.43±3.07e | 194.55±1.83i | 0.68±2.12n | 196.53±2.24h | 1.47±0.88m | 72.94±1.79i | |
Parkwa | 0 | 758.54±3.11a | 312.65±1.72g | 1.36±2.11m | 358.17±1.84f | 2.78±0.85m | 57.55±2.12l |
60 | 589.81±3.43c | 259.22±1.73g | 1.02±2.06m | 301.79±2.21g | 2.32±0.47m | 65.95±1.99j | |
120 | 456.36±2.96d | 202.46±1.75h | 0.78±2.64n | 273.65±1.92g | 1.93±0.91m | 72.16±1.77j | |
240 | 402.74±2.88e | 167.12±0.97i | 0.61±2.53n | 199.12±1.89h | 1.23±0.94m | 83.47±3.14i | |
Javia | 0 | 762.49±3.16a | 318.64±1.99g | 1.34±3.19m | 356.24±1.93f | 2.95±0.83m | 58.61±3.11l |
60 | 701.83±3.22b | 288.25±1.07g | 1.09±3.27m | 314.18±2.11f | 2.61±0.78m | 62.83±2.93k | |
120 | 660.18±3.18b | 241.43±2.05h | 0.85±2.04n | 288.54±2.05g | 2.23±1.02m | 65.92±3.07j | |
240 | 582.52±3.06c | 209.34±1.76i | 0.74±2.77n | 231.26±2.57h | 1.74±1.09m | 69.37±2.19i | |
Two way ANOVA results | |||||||
Salt stress (SS) | ** | * | * | * | * | * | |
Cultivars (PP) | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | |
Interaction PP x SS | * | * | * | * | * | * |
ASA | Ascorbic Acid |
BC | Beta Carotene |
Ca | Calcium |
DAP | Days After Planting |
DAS | Days After Sowing |
FC | Fiber Content |
FLO | Flowering |
FFW | Fruit Fresh Weight |
FRWC | Fruit Relative Water Content |
FY | Fruit Yield |
LF | Longer of Fruit |
Mg | Magnesium |
N | Nitrogen |
NF | Number of Fruit per Plant |
C | Organic Carbon |
PH | Plant Height |
P | Phosphorus |
K | Potassium |
Na | Sodium |
SP | Soluble Protein |
S | Sulfate |
TSS | Total Soluble Sugar |
WAS | Week after Sowing |
WF | Width of Fruit |
Osmolytes, antioxidant components | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cultivars | Treatment (mM NaCl) | FC (mg g-1) | ASA (µg g-1) | BC (µg g-1) | TSS (mg g-1) | SP (mg g-1) |
Hire | 0 | 24.55±0.93g | 161.29±3.22a | 1.81±1.19i | 18.26±0.88h | 16.75±0.97h |
60 | 27.77±1.01f | 141.80±3.71b | 1.49±1.21i | 23.48±0.79g | 20.92±0.89g | |
120 | 31.36±1.04e | 117.32±3.62c | 1.12±1.03i | 28.82±0.92f | 25.53±0.68f | |
240 | 36.31±1.07e | 98.76±2.52b | 0.84±1.09j | 36.22±1.12e | 31.64±0.61e | |
Parkwa | 0 | 21.63±0.92g | 160.52±2.88a | 1.79±0.85i | 16.53±0.98h | 15.38±0.74h |
60 | 23.57±0.88g | 127.66±3.77c | 1.38±1.02i | 21.74±0.73g | 20.10±0.77g | |
120 | 26.70±0.91f | 98.85±3.33d | 0.97±1.01j | 28.68±0.85f | 26.91±1.01f | |
240 | 30.62±0.89e | 91.57±2.64d | 0.82±0.88j | 36.19±1.14e | 34.73±1.08e | |
Javia | 0 | 22.94±0.76g | 163.24±3.71a | 1.86±1.11i | 17.41±1.17h | 16.24±1.17h |
60 | 24.26±1.22g | 140.43±2.81b | 1.61±1.03i | 21.26±0.87g | 19.69±0.83h | |
120 | 27.53±1.09f | 120.47±3.13c | 1.39±0.68i | 26.87±0.91f | 23.55±0.95g | |
240 | 32.17±1.12e | 109.34±2.87d | 1.09±1.01i | 30.74±1.03e | 28.73±0.87f | |
Two way ANOVA results | ||||||
Salt stress (SS) | ** | * | * | ** | ** | |
Cultivars (C) | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | |
Interaction C x SS | * | * | * | * | * |
[1] | Siddartha, D., Kotikal Y. K, Venkateshalu, Sanjiv, D. Seasonal incidence of sucking pests on okra. Global journal of bio-science and biotechnology. 2017. 6(2): 245-250. |
[2] | Shamsul, A., and Arifuzzaman, K. Chemical Analysis of Okra Bast Fiber (Abelmoschus esculentus) and Its Physico-chemical Properties. Journal of textile and Appare1, Technology and management. 2007. Vol. 5. Issue 4. |
[3] | Gnago, J. A., Danho, M., Agneroh, T. A., Fofana, I. K., Kohou, A. G. Efficiency of neem (Azadirachta indica) extract and the papayer (Carica papaya) in the fight against the okra (Abelmoschus esculentus) and cabbage (Brassicaoleracea) pest in Côte d’Ivoire. International Formulae Group; All Right Reserved. 2010. 4: 953-965. |
[4] | Gandonou, C. B., Skali-Senhaji, N. Sugarcane (Saccharum sp.) salt tolerance at various developmental levels. In: Chakraborty U, Chakraborty B, Editors. Abiotic Stresses in Crop Plants, CABI Publishing, United Kingdom. 2015. |
[5] | Akinci, I. E., Akinci, S., Yilmaz, K., Dikici, H. Response of eggplant varieties (Solanum melongena) to salinity in germination and seedling stages. New Zealand Journal of Crop Horticultural Science. 2004. (32): 193-200. |
[6] | Gandonou, C. B., Gnancadja, S. L., Abrini, J., SkaliSenhaji, N. Salinity tolerance of some sugarcane (Saccharum sp.) cultivars in hydroponic medium International Sugar Journal. 2012. 114(1359): 190-196. |
[7] | Zhang, P., Senge, M., Yoshiyama, K., Ito, K., Dai, Y. and Zhang, F. Effects of Low Salinity Stress on Growth, Yield and Water Use Efficiency of Tomato under Soilless Cultivation. Transactions of the Japanese Society of Irrigation, Drainage and Rural Engineering. 2017. 85, I_15-I_21. |
[8] | Prasad, S. M., Parihar, P., Singh, V. P. Effect of salt stress on nutritional value of vegetables. Biochemistry and Pharmacology. 2014. 3(2): 1-2. |
[9] | Krauss, S., Schnitzler, W., Grassmann, J. and Woltike, M. The Influence of Different Electrical Conductivity Values in a Simplified Recirculating Soilless System on Inner and Outer Fruit Quality Characteristics of Tomato. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2006. 54, 441-448. |
[10] | Hand, M. J., Taffouo, V. D., Nouck, A. E., Nyemene, K. P. J., Tonfack, L. B., Meguekam, T. L., Youmbi, E. Effects of Salt Stress on Plant Growth, Nutrient Partitioning, Chlorophyll Content, Leaf Relative Water Content, Accumulation of Osmolytes and Antioxidant Compounds in Pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) cultivars. Notulae Botanicae Horti Agrobotanici Cluj-Napoca; 2017. 45(2): 481-490. |
[11] | Pitman, M. G. and Lauchli, A. Global Impact of Salinity and Agricultural Ecosystems. In: Lauchli, A. and Luttge, V., Eds., Salinity: Environment-Plants Molecules, Kluwer, Dordrecht. 2002. 3-20. |
[12] | Munns, R. A., James, A., and Lauchli. Approaches to increasing the salt tolerance of wheat and other cereals, Journal of Experimental Botany. 2006. Vol. 57, n° 5, pp. 1025-1043. |
[13] | Imana, C., Aguyoh, J. N. and Opiyo, A. Growth and physiological changes of tomato as influenced by soil moisture levels Second RUFORUM Biennial Meeting 20 - 24 September 2010, Entebbe, Uganda. |
[14] | Hoagland, D. R., Arnon, D. I. The water culture method for growing plants without soil. University of California, College of Agriculture, Agricultural Experiment Station, Baltimore, USA. 1950. |
[15] | Walkley, A., Black, I. A. An examination of the Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Sci. 1934. 37, 29-38. |
[16] | Okalebo, J. R., Gathua, W. K., Woomer, P. L. Laboratory methods of soil and plant analysis: a working manual In Soil Biology and Fertility, Soil Science Society of East Africa, Kari, UNESCO-ROSTA Naïrobi, Kenya. 1993. 88 p. |
[17] | Taffouo V. D., Djiotie, N. L., Kenne, M., Din, N., Priso, J. R., Dibong, S. and Akoa, A. Effect of Salt Stress on Physiological and Agronomic Characterstics of Three Tropical Cucurbit Species. Journal of Applied Biosciences. 2008. 10, 434-441. |
[18] | Taleisnik, E., Peyrano, G., Arias, C. Response of Chloris gayana cultivars to salinity. 1. Germination and early vegetative growth. Trop. Grassl. 1997. 31, 232-240. |
[19] | Metwally, S. A., Khalid, K. A. and Abou-Leila, B. H., Effect of water regime on the growth, flower yield, essential oil and proline contents of Calendula officinalis. Nusantara Bioscience. 2013. 5(2), 65-69. |
[20] | Taffouo, V. D., Nouck, A. H., Dibong, S. D., Amougou, A. Effects of Salinity Stress on Seedlings Growth, Mineral Nutrients and Total Chlorophyll of Some Tomato (Lycopersicum esculentum L.) Cultivars. African J. Biotechnol. 2010. 9, 33. |
[21] |
Sánchez, F. J., De Andrés, E. F., Tenorio, J. L. and Ayerbe, L. Growth of Epicotyls, Turgor Maintenance and Osmotic Adjustment in Pea Plants (Pisum sativum L.) Subjected to Water Stress. Field Crops Research. 2004. 86, 81-90.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4290 (03)00121-7. |
[22] | Dubois, M., Gilles, K. A, Hamilton, J. K., Rebers, P. A., Smith, F. Colorimetric method for determination of sugars and related substances. Analytical Chemistry. 1956. 28, 350-356. |
[23] | Bradford, M. M. A rapid and sensitive method for the quantitation of microgram quantities of proteins utilizing the principle of protein-dye binding. Analytical Biochemistry. 1976.72, 248-254. |
[24] | Van Soest, P. J. Use of detergents in the analysis of fibrous feeds. I. Preparation of fiber residues of low nitrogen content. Journal of Association Office Agriculture Chemistry. 1963. 46: 825-829. |
[25] | Gossett, D. R., Millhollon, E. P. and Lucas, M. C. Antioxidant Response to NaCI Stress in Salt Tolerant and Salt-Sensitive Cultivars of Cotton. Crop Science. 1994. 34, 706-714. |
[26] | Gahler, S., Otto, K. and Bohm, V. Alterations of Vitamin C, Total Phenolics, and Antioxidant Capacity as Affected by Processing Tomatoes to Different Products. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2003. 51, 7962-7968. |
[27] | Gilmore, A. M. and Yamamoto, H. Y., Linear. Models Relating Xanthophylls and Lumen Acidity to Non-Photochemical Fluorescence Quenching. Evidence That Antheraxanthin Explains Zeaxanthin-Independent Quenching. Photosynthesis Research. 1991. 35, 67-78. |
[28] | Abreu, C. A., et al. Comparação de métodos de análise para avaliar a disponibilidade de metais emsolos. Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo, Campinas. 1995. 19, 463-468. |
[29] | Malavolta, E., Vitti, G. C. and Oliveira, S. A. Avaliação do estado nutricional das plantas: princípios e aplicações. 2nd Edition, POTAFOS, Piracicaba, SP, 1997.319 p. |
[30] | Pauwels, J. M., Van Ranst, E., Verloo, M. and Mvondo, Z. A. Analysis Methods of Major Plants Elements. Pedology Laboratory Manual: Methods of Plants and Soil Analysis. Stock Management Equipment of Worms and Chemical Equipment. Publica Agricol. 1992. 28, AGCD, Brussels. |
[31] | Ali, S. G., Khan, A. N. U., Nawab, K. Enhanced proline synthesis may determine resistance to salt stress in tomato cultivars. Pak. J. Bot. 2011. Vol. 43(6): 2707-2710. |
[32] | Mandhania, S., Madan, S., Sawhney, V. Antioxidant defense mechanism under salt stress in wheat seedlings. Biol Plant. 2012. Vol. 50: 227–231. |
[33] | Munns, R. Salinity, growth and phytohormones. In: Läuchli A, Lüttge U. (eds.) Salinity: Environment - Plants - Molecules. Kluwer, Academic Publishers Dordrecht. 2002b. PP 271-290. |
[34] | Chookhampaeng, S. The effect of salt stress on growth, chlorophyll content proline content and antioxidative enzymes of pepper (Capsicum Annuum L.) seedling. European Journal of Scientific. 2011. Vol. 49, No. 1: 103-109. |
[35] | Kapoor, K., Srivastava, A. Assessment of salinity tolerance of Vinga mungo var. Pu-19 using ex vitro and in vitro methods. Asian J. Biotechnol. 2010. Vol. 2(2): 73–85. |
[36] | Slos, S. and Stoks, R. Predation risk induces stress proteins and reduces antioxidant defense. Functional Ecology. 2008. 22: 637-642. |
[37] | Ratnakar, A. and Rai, A. Effect of NaCl Salinity on β-Carotene, Thiamine, Riboflavin and Ascorbic Acid Contents in the Leaves of Amaranthus polygamous L. var. Pusa Kirti. Journal of Stress Physiology & Biochemistry. 2013. 9, 187-192. |
[38] | Dorais, M., Ehret, D. L. and Papadopoulos, A. P. Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) Health Components, from the Seed to the Consumer. Phytochemistry Reviews. 20087, 231-250. |
[39] | Sehrawat, N., Yadav, M., Bhat, K. V., Sairam, R. K., Jaiwal, P. K. Effect of Salinity Stress on Mungbean [Vigna radiata (L.) wilczek] During Consecutive Summer and Spring Seasons. J. Agric. Sci. 2015. 60, 23–32. |
[40] | Marschner, H. Saline soils, Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants, 2nd ed. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 1995. |
[41] | Hamrouni, L., Hanana, M., Abdelly, C., Ghorbel, A. Exclusion of chloride and inclusion of sodium: two concomitant mechanisms of salinity tolerance in the wild vine (Vitis vinifera subsp. sylvestris (var.’sejnène’) Bitechnol. agronom. Soc. Environ. 2011. 15(3), 387-400. |
[42] | Nouck, A. E., Hand, M. J., Numfor, E. N., Ekwel, S. S., Ndouma, C. M., Shang, E. W., Taffouo, V. D. Growth, mineral uptake, chlorophyll content, biochemical constituents and and non-enzymatic antioxidant compounds of white pepper (Piper nigrum L,) grown under saline conditions. International Journal of Biological and Chemical Sciences. 2021. 15(4): 1457–1468. ISSN 1997-342X (Online), ISSN 1991-8631 (Print). |
APA Style
Hand, M. J., Abib, C. F., Ousman, S., Tabi, K. M., Oumarou, B., et al. (2024). Influence of Different Rates of Salinity on Flowering, Yield and Fruit Nutritional Value of Three Okra [Abelmoschus esculentus (L.) Moench] Cultivars in far North Region of Cameroon. Plant, 12(3), 66-75. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.plant.20241203.13
ACS Style
Hand, M. J.; Abib, C. F.; Ousman, S.; Tabi, K. M.; Oumarou, B., et al. Influence of Different Rates of Salinity on Flowering, Yield and Fruit Nutritional Value of Three Okra [Abelmoschus esculentus (L.) Moench] Cultivars in far North Region of Cameroon. Plant. 2024, 12(3), 66-75. doi: 10.11648/j.plant.20241203.13
AMA Style
Hand MJ, Abib CF, Ousman S, Tabi KM, Oumarou B, et al. Influence of Different Rates of Salinity on Flowering, Yield and Fruit Nutritional Value of Three Okra [Abelmoschus esculentus (L.) Moench] Cultivars in far North Region of Cameroon. Plant. 2024;12(3):66-75. doi: 10.11648/j.plant.20241203.13
@article{10.11648/j.plant.20241203.13, author = {Mathias Julien Hand and Chimène Fanta Abib and Salomon Ousman and Kingsley Mbi Tabi and Bogno Oumarou and Victor Désiré Taffouo and Emmanuel Youmbi}, title = {Influence of Different Rates of Salinity on Flowering, Yield and Fruit Nutritional Value of Three Okra [Abelmoschus esculentus (L.) Moench] Cultivars in far North Region of Cameroon }, journal = {Plant}, volume = {12}, number = {3}, pages = {66-75}, doi = {10.11648/j.plant.20241203.13}, url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.plant.20241203.13}, eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.plant.20241203.13}, abstract = {Context: Salinity is in coastal, arid and semi-arid regions a major constraint in the productivity and agricultural development around the world. Objectifs: The objective of this study is to evaluate the effect of salinity on the growth, the nutritional value of the fruits of three okra (Abelmoschus esculentus L.) cultivars including two local (Javia and Parkwa) and a hybrid variety (Hire). Methodology: This is how four solutions of different NaCl concentrations from 0, 60, 120 to 240 mM were used to water okra plants at the four-leaves stage and this for two months in completely randomized device with four repetitions. Results: The results have differneces and similarities between the three varities during saline treatments. Salinity causes a decrease in growth, performance yield (from 0 to 240 mM NaCl to 28%, 23.6% and 22% in Parkwa, Hire, Javia cultivars respectively), mineral elements, antioxidants components and accumulation of Na content (to 45% in Parkwa, 23% in Hire and 18.4% in Javia from 0 to 240 mM NaCl) and flowering period (from 0 to 240 mM NaCl to 27.5%, 23.1% et 21.9% in Parkwa, Hire, Javia respectively). The reductions generated by salt have been less strong in Javia and Hire cultivars while the reductions were stronger at Parkwa cultivar. In addition, NaCl, at high concentrations, advantage of osmoticum accumulation involved in the osmotic ajustement mechanisms and would also serve as osmoprotector. Accumulation of osmolytes is salinity tolerance index that explains the maintenance of good water status in okra. Conclusion: Cultivars Javia and Hire were the most salt tolerant while the Parkwa was the most sensitive. The good behaviour of Javia and Hire varieties in the face of salinity can be considered for their use to better enhance the sahelian and coastal areas. }, year = {2024} }
TY - JOUR T1 - Influence of Different Rates of Salinity on Flowering, Yield and Fruit Nutritional Value of Three Okra [Abelmoschus esculentus (L.) Moench] Cultivars in far North Region of Cameroon AU - Mathias Julien Hand AU - Chimène Fanta Abib AU - Salomon Ousman AU - Kingsley Mbi Tabi AU - Bogno Oumarou AU - Victor Désiré Taffouo AU - Emmanuel Youmbi Y1 - 2024/09/20 PY - 2024 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.plant.20241203.13 DO - 10.11648/j.plant.20241203.13 T2 - Plant JF - Plant JO - Plant SP - 66 EP - 75 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2331-0677 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.plant.20241203.13 AB - Context: Salinity is in coastal, arid and semi-arid regions a major constraint in the productivity and agricultural development around the world. Objectifs: The objective of this study is to evaluate the effect of salinity on the growth, the nutritional value of the fruits of three okra (Abelmoschus esculentus L.) cultivars including two local (Javia and Parkwa) and a hybrid variety (Hire). Methodology: This is how four solutions of different NaCl concentrations from 0, 60, 120 to 240 mM were used to water okra plants at the four-leaves stage and this for two months in completely randomized device with four repetitions. Results: The results have differneces and similarities between the three varities during saline treatments. Salinity causes a decrease in growth, performance yield (from 0 to 240 mM NaCl to 28%, 23.6% and 22% in Parkwa, Hire, Javia cultivars respectively), mineral elements, antioxidants components and accumulation of Na content (to 45% in Parkwa, 23% in Hire and 18.4% in Javia from 0 to 240 mM NaCl) and flowering period (from 0 to 240 mM NaCl to 27.5%, 23.1% et 21.9% in Parkwa, Hire, Javia respectively). The reductions generated by salt have been less strong in Javia and Hire cultivars while the reductions were stronger at Parkwa cultivar. In addition, NaCl, at high concentrations, advantage of osmoticum accumulation involved in the osmotic ajustement mechanisms and would also serve as osmoprotector. Accumulation of osmolytes is salinity tolerance index that explains the maintenance of good water status in okra. Conclusion: Cultivars Javia and Hire were the most salt tolerant while the Parkwa was the most sensitive. The good behaviour of Javia and Hire varieties in the face of salinity can be considered for their use to better enhance the sahelian and coastal areas. VL - 12 IS - 3 ER -