Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Vol. 13 No. 3 (2026)

Varietal differences in drought tolerance among spinach (Spinacia oleracea L.) cultivars: Insights from morpho-physiological and biochemical responses

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.12559
Submitted
27 November 2025
Published
01-08-2026 — Updated on 10-08-2026
Versions

Abstract

This research was carried out to investigate the tolerance of two imported spinach varieties (Spinacia oleracea L.) [Dutch F1 (Narita) and Italian standard (Viroflay)] and one native variety (Khardar Mashhad) to drought stress. A factorial experiment based on a completely randomised design (CRD) with 4 irrigation levels based on field capacity (FC) [100 % (no stress), 75 % (mild stress), 50 % (moderate stress) and 25 % (severe stress)] and 4 replications was conducted in Mashhad, northeastern Iran, during 2022. The results showed that drought stress significantly reduced growth and leaf-related traits, whereas proline accumulation increased markedly under severe drought stress and reached 1.01 µmol g-1 fresh weight (FW). Dutch F1 cultivar exhibited superior root traits, including higher root dry weight (DW) (1.63 g), root volume (14.68 cm³), root area (63300.75 mm²) and mean root diameter (0.51 mm), under drought stress, indicating enhanced drought tolerance compared with the other cultivars. In contrast, Khardar Mashhad showed the lowest root area (3842.25 mm²) and root length (7392.50 mm) under severe drought stress, indicating greater sensitivity to water deficit conditions. Chlorophyll A (Chl A) and total chlorophyll contents were highest in Viroflay (9.16 and 12.67 mg 100 g-1 FW, respectively). Under severe stress conditions, shoot fresh weight, shoot DW, leaf area and plant height decreased to 2.86 g, 0.54 g, 48.00 cm² and 11.37 cm respectively. Overall, Dutch F1 can be recommended for cultivation in northeastern Iran, because it had better root growth and development than the others by maintaining leaf water status, which caused more resistance to drought.

References

  1. 1. Tekin S, Yazar A, Çolak YB. Adaptation to climate change: irrigation management under water scarcity and introduction of drought-resistant crops (quinoa) in semi-arid regions. In: Agricultural Water Management. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland; 2025. p. 35–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-96134-2_3
  2. 2. Sellami MH, Abi Saab MT, Albrizio R. Toward water-smart cereal production: a narrative review of agronomic, genetic and digital innovations for water productivity and climate resilience. Front Plant Sci. 2026;17:1826562. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2026.1826562
  3. 3. Park J, Lee SH, Lee J, Wi SH, Seo TC, Moon JH, et al. Growing vegetables in a warming world - a review of crop response to drought stress and strategies to mitigate adverse effects in vegetable production. Front Plant Sci. 2025;16:1561100. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2025.1561100
  4. 4. Song F, Yang Q, Huang J, Guo Z, Li Y, Deng W. Plant drought stress: physiological, biochemical and molecular mechanisms. Plant Stress. 2026;19:101153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stress.2025.101153
  5. 5. Vadez V, Grondin A, Chenu K, Henry A, Laplaze L, Millet EJ, et al. Crop traits and production under drought. Nat Rev Earth Environ. 2024;5(3):211–25. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-023-00514-w
  6. 6. Franco-Navarro JD, Padilla YG, Álvarez S, Calatayud Á, Colmenero-Flores JM, Gómez-Bellot MJ, et al. Advancements in water-saving strategies and crop adaptation to drought: a comprehensive review. Physiol Plant. 2025;177(4):e70332. https://doi.org/10.1111/ppl.70332
  7. 7. Balasubramaniam AK, Saste G, Kureshi AA, Mulay V, Hingorani L. Nutritional and health beneficial properties of spinach (Spinacia oleracea L.): a comprehensive review. Pharmacol Res Nat Prod. 2025;8:100368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prenap.2025.100368
  8. 8. Nasarullah NN, Ahmed WNW, Othman H. Determining water stress and varying irrigation regimes on spinach (Spinacia oleracea L.) growth performance. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci. 2022;1059(1):012073. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1059/1/012073
  9. 9. Bhattarai G, Shi A. Research advances and prospects of spinach breeding, genetics and genomics. Veg Res. 2021;1(1):1–18. https://doi.org/10.48130/VR-2021-0009
  10. 10. Böhm W. Methods of studying root systems. Vol. 33. Berlin: Springer; 1979. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-67282-8
  11. 11. Barrs H, Weatherley P. A re-examination of the relative turgidity technique for estimating water deficits in leaves. Aust J Biol Sci. 1962;15(3):413–28. https://doi.org/10.1071/BI9620413
  12. 12. Dere Ş, Güneş T, Sivaci R. Spectrophotometric determination of chlorophyll-A, B and total carotenoid contents of some algae species using different solvents. Turk J Bot. 1998;22(2):13–8.
  13. 13. Carrillo R, Moreno I, Romero LC, Aroca A, Gotor C. Hydrogen sulfide-induced barley resilience to drought and salinity through protein persulfidation. Plant Physiol Biochem. 2025;221:109644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2025.109644
  14. 14. Bates LS, Waldren RP, Teare ID. Rapid determination of free proline for water-stress studies. Plant Soil. 1973;39(1):205–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00018060
  15. 15. Khan AA, Wang YF, Akbar R, Alhoqail WA. Mechanistic insights and future perspectives of drought stress management in staple crops. Front Plant Sci. 2025;16:1547452. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2025.1547452
  16. 16. Cao Y, Yang W, Ma J, Cheng Z, Zhang X, Liu X, et al. An integrated framework for drought stress in plants. Int J Mol Sci. 2024;25(17):9347. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms25179347
  17. 17. Ali S, Mir RA, Haque MA, Danishuddin, Almalki MA, Alfredan M, et al. Exploring physiological and molecular dynamics of drought stress responses in plants: challenges and future directions. Front Plant Sci. 2025;16:1565635. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2025.1565635
  18. 18. Ullah H, Santiago-Arenas R, Ferdous Z, Attia A, Datta A. Improving water use efficiency, nitrogen use efficiency and radiation use efficiency in field crops under drought stress: a review. In: Advances in Agronomy. Elsevier; 2019. p. 109–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.agron.2019.02.002
  19. 19. Rahnama A, Hosseinalipour B, Farrokhian Firouzi A, Tom Harrison M, Ghorbanpour M. Root architecture traits and genotypic responses of wheat at seedling stage to water-deficit stress. Cereal Res Commun. 2024;52(4):1499–510. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42976-023-00481-4
  20. 20. Albacete AA, Martínez-Andújar C, Pérez-Alfocea F. Hormonal and metabolic regulation of source–sink relations under salinity and drought: from plant survival to crop yield stability. Biotechnol Adv. 2014;32(1):12–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2013.10.005
  21. 21. Asfaw A, Blair MW. Quantitative trait loci for rooting pattern traits of common beans grown under drought stress versus non-stress conditions. Mol Breeding. 2012;30(2):681–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11032-011-9654-y
  22. 22. Carvalho P, Azam-Ali S, Foulkes MJ. Quantifying relationships between rooting traits and water uptake under drought in Mediterranean barley and durum wheat. J Integr Plant Biol. 2014;56(5):455–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/jipb.12109
  23. 23. Duddek P, Carminati A, Koebernick N, Ohmann L, Lovric G, Delzon S, et al. The impact of drought-induced root and root hair shrinkage on root–soil contact. Plant Physiol. 2022;189(3):1232–6. https://doi.org/10.1093/plphys/kiac144
  24. 24. Carminati A, Vetterlein D, Weller U, Vogel HJ, Oswald SE. When roots lose contact. Vadose Zone J. 2009;8(3):805–9. https://doi.org/10.2136/vzj2008.0147
  25. 25. Koch A, Cai G, Ahmed MA, Meunier F, Carminati A, Vanderborght J, et al. On the importance of rhizosphere conductance and soil-root contact in drying soils. Ann Bot. 2025;136(5–6):1047–64. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcaf082
  26. 26. Lobet G, Couvreur V, Meunier F, Javaux M, Draye X. Plant water uptake in drying soils. Plant Physiol. 2014;164(4):1619–27. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.113.233486
  27. 27. Comas LH, Becker SR, Cruz VMV, Byrne PF, Dierig DA. Root traits contributing to plant productivity under drought. Front Plant Sci. 2013;4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2013.00442
  28. 28. Comas L, Bouma T, Eissenstat D. Linking root traits to potential growth rate in six temperate tree species. Oecologia. 2002;132(1):34–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-002-0922-8
  29. 29. Teng Z, Lyu J, Chen Y, Zhang J, Ye N. Effects of stress-induced ABA on root architecture development: positive and negative actions. Crop J. 2023;11(4):1072–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cj.2023.06.007
  30. 30. Zhang Y, Xu F, Ding Y, Du H, Zhang Q, Dang X, et al. Abscisic acid mediates barley rhizosheath formation under mild soil drying by promoting root hair growth and auxin response. Plant Cell Environ. 2021;44(6):1935–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.14036
  31. 31. Li B, Zhang X, Morita S, Sekiya N, Araki H, Gu H, et al. Are crop deep roots always beneficial for combating drought: a review of root structure and function, regulation and phenotyping. Agric Water Manag. 2022;271:107781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2022.107781
  32. 32. Feller U. Drought stress and carbon assimilation in a warming climate: reversible and irreversible impacts. J Plant Physiol. 2016;203:84–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jplph.2016.04.002
  33. 33. Pantin F, Simonneau T, Rolland G, Dauzat M, Muller B. Control of leaf expansion: a developmental switch from metabolics to hydraulics. Plant Physiol. 2011;156(2):803–15. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.111.176289
  34. 34. Kadioglu A, Terzi R. A dehydration avoidance mechanism: leaf rolling. Bot Rev. 2007;73(4):290–302. https://doi.org/10.1663/0006-8101(2007)73[290:ADAMLR]2.0.CO;2
  35. 35. Bartlett MK, Scoffoni C, Sack L. The determinants of leaf turgor loss point and prediction of drought tolerance of species and biomes: a global meta-analysis. Ecol Lett. 2012;15(5):393–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2012.01751.x
  36. 36. Barre P, Turner L, Escobar-Gutiérrez A. Leaf length variation in perennial forage grasses. Agriculture. 2015;5(3):682–96. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture5030682
  37. 37. Zhou S, Han Y, Chen Y, Kong X, Wang W. The involvement of expansins in response to water stress during leaf development in wheat. J Plant Physiol. 2015;183:64–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jplph.2015.05.012
  38. 38. Zhao N, Zhou Z, Cui S, Zhang X, Zhu S, Wang Y, et al. Advanced imaging-enabled understanding of cell wall remodeling mechanisms mediating plant drought stress tolerance. Front Plant Sci. 2025;16:1635078. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2025.1635078
  39. 39. Li X, Wang S, Zhu L, Zhang P, Qi H, Zhang K, et al. Leaf hydraulic decline coordinates stomatal and photosynthetic limitations through anatomical adjustments under drought stress in cotton. Front Plant Sci. 2025;16:1622308. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2025.1622308
  40. 40. Wang S, Ma Q, Li C, Zhang S, Liu X. Chloroplast responses to drought: integrative mechanisms and mitigation strategies. Int J Mol Sci. 2025;26(24):11872. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms262411872
  41. 41. Ishfaq N, Waraich EA, Ahmad M, Hussain S, Zulfiqar U, Din KU, et al. Mitigating drought-induced oxidative stress in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) through foliar application of sulfhydryl thiourea. Sci Rep. 2024;14(1):15985. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-66506-y
  42. 42. Yan S, Zhan M, Liu Z, Zhang X. Insight into the transcriptional regulation of key genes involved in proline metabolism in plants under osmotic stress. Biochimie. 2025;228:8–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biochi.2024.08.006
  43. 43. Renzetti M, Funck D, Trovato M. Proline and ROS: a unified mechanism in plant development and stress response? Plants. 2024;14(1):2. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14010002
  44. 44. Renzetti M, Bertolini E, Trovato M. Proline metabolism genes in transgenic plants: meta-analysis under drought and salt stress. Plants. 2024;13(14):1913. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13141913
  45. 45. Alagoz SM, Lajayer BA, Ghorbanpour M. Proline and soluble carbohydrates biosynthesis and their roles in plants under abiotic stresses. In: Plant Stress Mitigators. Academic Press; 2023. p. 169–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-89871-3.00027-6
  46. 46. Moreno-Lora A, Domínguez-Armario V, Arenas-Arenas FJ. Water use and physiological responses of new citrus rootstocks under drought stress conditions. Sci Hortic. 2026;358:114726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2026.114726
  47. 47. Hayat S, Hayat Q, Alyemeni MN, Wani AS, Pichtel J, Ahmad A. Role of proline under changing environments. Plant Signal Behav. 2012;7(11):1456–66. https://doi.org/10.4161/psb.21949

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.