Controle hormonal do déficit hídrico em tomateiro




Auxina, Giberelina, Micro-Tom


O déficit hídrico é um dos principais fatores limitantes da produção agrícola. Por isso, as plantas têm desenvolvido mecanismos de sobrevivência e aclimatação à condição de déficit hídrico, por exemplo, o fechamento estomático que visa minimizar a perda de água pela planta. Com efeito, as respostas das plantas ao déficit hídrico são controladas diretamente pelo balanço hormonal. Assim, o objetivo do presente estudo foi avaliar como diferentes mutantes hormonais de tomateiro respondem à condição de déficit hídrico. Foram utilizados cinco genótipos de tomateiro, o cultivar Micro-Tom (MT), tipo selvagem, os mutantes Never ripe (Nr), com baixa sensibilidade ao etileno, diageotropica (dgt), com baixa sensibilidade à auxina, e os transgênicos L19 (com elevada biossíntese de giberelina) e SL (com baixa biossíntese de estrigolactonas). As plantas foram cultivadas em vasos de polietileno com capacidade para 350 mL preenchidos com substrato comercial. Durante o desenvolvimento, todas as plantas foram diariamente irrigadas até o início do déficit hídrico, 37 dias após a semeadura (DAS). A fim de induzir o déficit hídrico, a irrigação foi suspensa em parte das plantas por um período de sete dias. Plantas-controle foram irrigadas continuamente. Depois de sete dias nas respectivas condições (irrigada e déficit hídrico), as plantas foram colhidas para a realização das análises de crescimento, conteúdo relativo de água (CRA) e extravasamento de eletrólitos. Como esperado, plantas de L19 exibiram maior altura de plantas, enquanto plantas de SL apresentaram maior acúmulo de massa fresca e seca da parte aérea em condição controle. Em condição de déficit hídrico, observou-se redução de massa fresca e altura de plantas em todos os genótipos avaliados. Enquanto que apenas plantas de MT e SL não sofreram redução de massa seca da parte aérea em função da restrição hídrica. Quanto ao CRA, apenas plantas de L19 não apresentaram redução sob condição de déficit hídrico.


Não há dados estatísticos.


AGURLA S et al. 2018. Mechanism of stomatal closure in plants exposed to drought and cold stress. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology 1: 215-231.

ALGHABARI F et al. 2014. Effect of Rht alleles on the tolerance of wheat grain set to high temperature and drought stress during booting and anthesis. Journal of Agronomy Crop Science 200: 36-45.

ANJUM AS et al. 2017. Growth and developmental responses of crop plants under drought stress: a review. Zemdirbyste – Agriculture 104: 267-276.

BASSEL GW et al. 2008. procera is a putative DELLA mutant in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum): effects on the seed and vegetative plant. Journal of Experimental Botany 59: 585-593.

BREWER PB et al. 2013. Diverse roles of strigolactones in plant development. Molecular Plant 6: 18-28.

BRUMOS J et al. 2018. Local auxin biosynthesis is a key regulator of plant development. Developmental Cell 47: 306-318.

CARRERA E et al. 2012. Characterization of the procera tomato mutant shows novel functions of the SlDELLA protein in the control of flower morphology, cell division and expansion, and the auxin-signaling pathway during fruit-set and development. Plant Physiology 160: 1581-1596.

CARVALHO RF et al. 2011. Convergence of developmental mutants into a single tomato model system: ‘Micro-Tom’ as an effective toolkit for plant development research. Plant Methods 7: 18.

COELHO FILHO MA et al. 2013. The involvement of gibberellin signaling in the effect of soil resistance to root penetration on leaf elongation and tiller number in wheat. Plant Soil 371: 81-94.

CUI M et al. 2015. Ethylene increases accumulation of compatible solutes and decreases oxidative stress to improve plant tolerance to water stress in Arabidopsis. Journal of Plant Biology 58: 193-201.

DE OLLAS C & DODD IC. 2016. Physiological impacts of ABA-JA interactions under water-limitation. Plant Molecular Biology 91: 641-650.

FAHAD S et al. 2017. Crop production under drought and heat stress: plant responses and management options. Frontiers in Plant Science 8: 1-16.

FEITOSA SS et al. 2016. Fisiologia do Sesamum indicum L. sob estresse hídrico e aplicação de ácido salicílico. Irriga 21: 711-723.

FRICK EM & STRADER LC. 2018. Roles for IBA-derived auxin in plant development. Journal of Experimental Botany 69: 169-177.

GAION LA et al. 2018. Constitutive gibberellin response in grafted tomato modulates root-to-shoot signaling under drought stress. Journal of Plant Physiology 221: 11-21.

GERTMAN E & FUCHS Y. 1972. Effects of abscisic acid and its interaction with other plant hormones on ethylene production in two plant systems. Planta 50: 194-195.

GARCÍA-HURTADO N et al. 2012. The characterization of transgenic tomato overexpressing gibberellin 20-oxidase reveals induction of parthenocarpic fruit growth, higher yield, and alteration of the gibberellin biosynthetic pathway. Journal of Experimental Botany 63: 5803-5813.

GRAVES WR & GLADON RJ. 1985. Water stress, endogenous ethylene, and Ficus benjamina leaf abscission. HortScience 20: 273-275.

HAMILTON AJ et al. 1990. Antisense gene that inhibits synthesis of the hormone ethylene in transgenic plants. Nature 346: 284-287.

HARTMAN K & TRINGE SG. 2019. Interactions between plants and soil shaping the root microbiome under abiotic stress. Biochemical Journal 476: 2705-2724.

HASAN MM et al. 2021. ABA-induced stomatal movements in vascular plants during dehydration and rehydration. Environmental and Experimental Botany 186: 104436.

HASANUZZAMAN M et al. 2020. Reactive oxygen species and antioxidant defensive in plants under abiotic stress: revisiting the crucial role o f a universal defense regulator. Antioxidants 9: 1-52.

HUNTER MC et al. 2021. Cover crop effects on maize drought stress and yield. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 311: 1-10.

KAGE H et al. 2004. Root growth and dry matter partitioning of cauliflower under drought stress conditions: measurement and simulation. European Journal of Agronomy 20: 379-394.

KAPOOR D et al. 2020. The impact of drought in plant metabolism: how to exploit tolerance mechanisms to increase crop production. Applied Sciences 10: 1-19.

KELLY MO & BRADFORD KJ. 1986. Insensitivity of the diageotropica tomato mutant to auxin. Plant Physiology 82: 713-717.

KOCH G et al. 2019. Leaf production and expansion: A generalized response to drought stresses from cells to whole leaf biomass – A case study in the tomato compound leaf. Plants 8: 409.

KOVALESKI AP & GROSSMAN JJ. 2021. Standardization of electrolyte leakage data and a novel liquid nitrogen control improve measurements of cold hardiness in woody tissue. Plant Methods 17: 1-20.

LANDJEVA S et al. 2008. The contribution of the gibberellin-insensitive semi-dwarfing (Rht) genes to genetic variation in wheat seedling growth in response to osmotic stress. Journal of Agricultural Science 146: 275-286.

LIANG G et al. 2020. Effects of drought stress on photosynthetic and physiological parameters of tomato. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 145: 12-17.

LIU T et al. 2013. Identification of drought stress-responsive transcription factors in ramie (Boehmeria nivea L. Gaud). BMC Plant Biology 13: 130.

LIU X et al. 2016. The NF-YC-RGL2 module integrates GA and ABA signalling to regulate seed germination in Arabidopsis. Nature Communication 7: 12768.

MARTIN-STPAUL N et al. 2017. Plant resistance to drought depends on timely stomatal closure. Ecology Letters 1: 1-11.

MODANESI S et al. 2020. Do satellite surface soil moisture observations better retain information about crop-yield variability in drought conditions? American Geophysical Union 1: 1-32.

NELISSEN H et al. 2018. The reduction in maize leaf growth under mild drought affects the transition between cell division and cell expansion and cannot be restored by elevated gibberellic acid levels. Plant Biotechnology Journal 16: 615-627.

PARRY MAJ et al. 2005. Prospects for crop production under drought: research priorities and future directions. Annals of Applied Biology 147: 211-226.

PIMENTA LANGE MJ & LANGE T. 2006. Gibberellin biosynthesis and the regulation of plant development. Plant Biology 8: 281-290.

RIZZA A & JONES AM. 2018. The makings of a gradient: spatiotemporal distribution of gibberellins in plant development. Current Opinion in Plant Biology 47: 9-15.

RUIZ-LOZANO JM et al. 2016. Arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis induces strigolactone biosynthesis under drought and improves drought tolerance in lettuce and tomato. Plant, Cell and Environment 39: 441-452.

SARWAT M & TUTEJA N. 2017. Hormonal signaling to control stomatal movement during drought stress. Plant Gene 1: 1-51.

SEHGAL A et al. 2017. Effects of drought, heat and their interaction on the growth, yield and photosynthetic function of lentil (Lens culinaris Medikus) genotypes varying in heat and drought sensitivity. Frontiers in Plant Science 8: 1-22.

SELLIN A et al. 2014. Rapid and long-term effects of water deficit on gas exchange and hydraulic conductance of silver birch trees grown under varying atmospheric humidity. Plant Biology 14: 72-84.

SERGIEV I et al. 2019. Exogenous auxin type compounds amend PEG-induced physiological responses of pea plants. Scientia Horticulturae 248: 200-205.

SHI H et al. 2014. Modulation of auxin content in Arabidopsis confers improved drought stress resistance. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry 82: 209-217.

TURNER NC. 1981. Techniques and experimental approaches for the measurement of plant water status. Plant Soil 58: 339-366.

VISENTIN I et al. 2016. Low levels of strigolactones in roots as a component of the systemic signal of drought stress in tomato. New Phytologist 212: 954-963.

WANG C et al. 2008. Influence of water stress on endogenous hormone contents and cell damage of maize seedlings. Journal of Integrative Plant Biology 50: 427-434.

WANG Y et al. 2017. Gibberellin in plant height control: old player, new story. Plant Cell Report 36: 391-398.

ZHU T et al. 2018. Mitochondrial alternative oxidase-dependent autophagy involved in ethylene-mediated drought tolerance in Solanum lycopersicum. Plant Biotechnology Journal 16: 2063-2076.




Como Citar

SOUZA, P. C. da S.; MARTINS, F. B.; GAION, L. A. Controle hormonal do déficit hídrico em tomateiro. Revista de Ciências Agroveterinárias, Lages, v. 20, n. 4, p. 271-277, 2021. DOI: 10.5965/223811712042021271. Disponível em: Acesso em: 27 jan. 2022.



Artigo de Pesquisa - Ciência de Plantas e Produtos Derivados