Sodicity stress differently influences physiological traits and anti-oxidant enzymes in pear and peach cultivars

BACKGROUND: The growth and physiological responses to sodicity stress of pear and peach are poorly understood. Insights into how sodicity stress alters tree physiology remain vital to developing salt tolerant scion and rootstock cultivars. METHODS: The effects of sodicity stress (soil pH(s) ~8.8) on tree growth and physiological traits of field grown trees of pear cultivars Punjab Beauty and Patharnakh, and peach cultivars Partap and Shan-e-Punjab were recorded using standard procedures. Sodicity-induced changes in oxidative stressors, proline, anti-oxidant enzymes and leaf ions were measured to draw inferences. RESULTS: Sodicity-induced reductions in vegetative growth were particularly marked in Patharnakh pear and Partap peach compared with other cultivars. Although sodicity stress triggered a significant increase in leaf malondialdehyde (MDA) and hydrogen peroxide (H(2)O(2)), their levels relative to controls were much higher in peach than in pear; reflecting that peach suffered from greater oxidative stress. Interestingly, MDA and H(2)O(2) levels did not seem to be deleterious enough to trigger proline-induced osmotic adjustment in pears. The activities of anti-oxidant enzymes strongly varied with the cultivar; specifically, the sodicity-induced increases in CAT and SOD activities were much higher in Punjab Beauty pear and Shan-e-Punjab peach. Principal Component Analysis revealed an explicit convergence between CAT and SOD activities in Punjab Beauty and Shan-e-Punjab cultivars in response to sodicity-induced oxidative stress. Correlation analysis revealed that leaf Na(+) strongly inhibited tree growth in peach than in pear. Leaf K(+) and proline were found to be the major osmolytes in sodicity-stressed pear and peach cultivars, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We have for the first time studied the effects of sodicity stress on important tree growth and physiological traits of commercially important pear and peach cultivars. Our findings revealed a marked suppressive effect of sodicity stress on tree growth in peach than in pear. The sodicity-induced upticks in leaf malondialdehyde, hydrogen peroxide and Na(+) seemed to induce proline-mediated osmotic adjustment in peach but not in pear. The overall better sodicity tolerance in pear compared to peach was ascribed to increased activities of anti-oxidant enzymes catalase and superoxide dismutase enzymes together with restricted Na(+) uptake and better leaf K(+) levels. Further investigations are needed to elucidate the effects of sodicity stress on genetic and transcriptional changes, and on fruit yield and quality.