Agric. sci. dev., Vol(4), No (2), February, 2015. pp.

22-26

TI Journals

ISSN:

Agriculture Science Developments

2306-7527

www.tijournals.com

Copyright 2015. All rights reserved for TI Journals.

Effect of Superabsorbent Polymer on Lawn under Drought Stress

Condition
Abbas Khalili Darini*
Department of Horticultural Sciences, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

Roohangiz Naderi
Department of Horticultural Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture Science & Engineering, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran.

Ahmad Khalighi
Department of Horticultural Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture Science & Engineering, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran.

Mohammadreza Taheri
Department of Horticultural Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture Science & Engineering, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran.
*Corresponding author: abbas.khalildarini@yahoo.com

Keywords

Abstract

Turfgrass
Water stress
Irrigation
Water absorbing material
Cynodon dactylon L.

Drought is a widespread abiotic stress that causes crop production losses in arid and semiarid areas
worldwide. Landscape establishment and maintenance are faced to severe water resources limitation. Water
absorbing material can holding water and increase irrigation interval period. In this study, some parameters
of Cynodon dactylon L. were analyzed to understand their tolerance to drought stress. Cynodon dactylon L.
(Bermuda grass) were planted in pot and subjected to four different regimes of irrigation interval 1, 2, 3 and
5 days and superabsorbent polymer (SAP) amounts 0, 15, 30 and 40 gm-2. Lawn height, resiliency of lawn,
visual quality, lawn uniformity, root length, root and leaf fresh and dry weight, capacity of supply water in
rhizosphere (CSWR), proline content and chlorophyll content were measured. Results showed that irrigation
interval and SAP had significant effect on growth characteristics. Lawn height, visual quality, lawn
uniformity, root length, root and leaf fresh and dry weight, CSWR and chlorophyll content were decreased
with increasing irrigation interval period and increased with increasing SAP concentration in substrate.
proline content was increased in five day interval without SAP. Application of SAP could decrease drought
stress symptom on lawn.

1.

Introduction

Water is one of the most important factors limiting plant growth and agricultural productivity in many areas of the world (1). With the fast
decline of irrigation water potential and continued expansion of population and economic activity in most of the countries, which are located
specially in the arid and semi-arid regions of the world, the problems of water scarcity is expected to be aggravated further as studied by Mark,
(2) and Biswas (3,4). Water conservation and the improvement of irrigation efficiency are important in landscape water management (5).
Turfgrasses and ornamental plants are considered an integral part of landscape ecological systems worldwide which provide esthetic value (6).
Turfgrasses were extensively used in a sole manner or in combination with trees for environmental greening (7). Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers.
(Bermuda grass) is a species distributed abundantly in tropical and warm temperate areas (8). In the non-irrigated crops the bermudagrass is very
competitive, turning water to its own advantage and giving a huge groundbiomass (rhizomes) and aerial (stolons and stems with leaves). This
grass is even stronger and highly drought resistant, suspected to issue its roots in the fresh, toxic substances and leave an abundance of organic
matter decomposition which is itself a source toxins (9, 10). Natural populations of Bermuda grass can have considerable genetic variation for
tolerance to soil temperatures, salinity and drought (11). As a result of below-optimal water supply, turfgrass quality and forage yield often are
reduced (12). Well-watered conditions should be considered when turf evapotranspiration (ETc) is measured for crop coefficient development
(13). Water stress will affect turf evapotranspiration rate, growth rate, and visual quality (14).
One strategy that possesses great promise for reducing the need for supplemental irrigation on turfgrass sites is the use of water-absorbing
polymers to increase the amount of available moisture within the turfgrass root zone (15). The use of superabsorbent polymer (SAP) is effective
on reduction of drought stress effects (16). Super absorbent polymers have been used as water retaining materials in the agricultural and
horticultural fields, because when incorporated with soil, they can retain large quantities of water and nutrients (17). SAP materials are
hydrophilic networks that can absorb and retain huge amounts of water or aqueous solutions. They can uptake water as high as 100,000% (18).
Many studies reported that application of super absorbent polymers increased tolerance or resistance of drought stress in different plant for
example Nazarli and Zardashti (19) reported that super absorbent polymer (A200) significantly increased sunflower traits that exposed to
drought stress at reproductive stage. Pouresmaeil et al., (20) studied effect of super absorbent polymer application on red bean in drought stress.
They showed that in both conditions normal and drought stress, super absorbent polymer has increased yield and antioxidant enzymes rate and
decreased malondialdehyde and Ditirosine in every variety. Also Sheikhmoradi et al., (21) evaluated effect of different superabsorbent and
irrigation cycles on lawn. They observed that superabsorbent amount had significant effect on shoot height, total chlorophyll and plant density.
They showed that application of superabsorbent in drought stress condition can reduce stress and lead to prevent yield loss.
In this study the lawn was exposed to drought stress and effects of Superabsorbent application in this on different traits of lawn were evaluated.

2.

Material and methods

This study was conducted as a factorial experiment based in a randomized complete block design (RCBD) with 4 replications. The experiment
was performed at Orchid Garden, Tehran, Iran (35 34 longitudes and 3551longitudes and an altitude of 1416 m). The soil of experimental
site was silt loam, with a pH of 7.8 and Ec = 0.85 dS m1 .

23

Effect of Superabsorbent Polymer on Lawn under Drought Stress Condition

Agriculture Science Developments Vol(4), No (2), February, 2015.

The work was conducted in spring and summer of 2012 and 2013. Cynodon dactylon L. seeds provided from Falat Company (Iran) and planted
in pots. Substrate mixture was sand: manure: soil (1:1:1). First factor was irrigation period treatment including 1, 2, 3 and 5 days interval and
second factor was superabsorbent polymer (SAP) amounts 0, 15, 30 and 40 gm-2. The used substrate amendment was superabsorbent produced
by Aqua holder Co. Ltd., Seeds were planted in spring 2012. Three months after seed emergence all pots were irrigated and heading from height
5-6.5 cm to establishment and tillering of grass. Pots were maintained at outdoor without irrigation in autumn and winter and then in spring
2013, pots re-irrigated and maintained to early summer. Irrigation period treatments were performed in summer 2013 and three weeks lasted.
Some traits including; lawn height, resiliency of lawn (using a hypothetical 1-5 scale where 1= the worst state to 5= the best state), visual quality
based on National Turfgrass Evaluation program (NTEP) guidance and using a hypothetical 1-9 scale where 9: the best state and 1: the worst
state, lawn uniformity (using a hypothetical 1-9 scale where 9: the best state and 1: the worst state), root length, root and leaf fresh and dry
weight, capacity of supply water in rhizosphere, proline content (22) and chlorophyll content were evaluated.
All data were analyzed using the SAS software (version 9.1) according to analysis of variance (ANOVA) at P 0.5 and P 0.01. Percent data
were arcsine transformed before performing ANOVA. Treatment means were compared using Duncans multiple range test (DMRT) at the 5%
level of probability and graphs were drawn using Excel 2010 software.

3.

Result and discussion

3.1 Lawn height

Results showed that irrigation period significantly affected lawn height (P 0.01) according to Table 1. The highest lawn height observed in one
day interval irrigation and the shortest lawn height observed in 5 days interval irrigation (Table 2). SAP significantly influenced lawn height
(Table 1). Application of 40 gm-2 SAP produced the highest lawn height and control without SAP showed the shortest lawn height. Also there
was significant difference between 15 and 30 gm-2 SAP in lawn height (Table 2). Interaction effect between irrigation period and SAP showed
that the highest lawn height obtained with one day irrigation and 30 gm-2 SAP or one day interval irrigation and 40 gm-2 SAP and it was not
statistically different from two days interval irrigation and 40 gm-2 SAP. The shortest lawn height was observed in five day interval irrigation
without SAP and five day interval irrigation and 15 gm-2 SAP (Table 3). Malekian et al., (23) reported that application of pumice (one type of
SAP) induced better maize height in comparison to control plant. Nazarli and Zardashti (19) reported that increasing irrigation interval resulted
in decrease of plant height. They declared drought stress led to the reduction in stem cells, water potential to a lower level needed for cell
elongation and, consequently shorter internodes and stem height. The decrease in plant length as response to drought may be either due to the
decrease of cell elongation resulting from water shortage, which led to a decrease in each cell turgor, cell volume and, eventually, cell growth or
due to blocking up of xylem and phloem vessels, thus hindering any translocation through (24).
Table 1. Analysis of variance of the effect of irrigation interval and superabsorbent polymer on some traits of Cynodon dactylon L.
SOV
Irrigation
SAP
I*S
error
CV

Lawn height

Resiliency of lawn

visual quality

lawn uniformity

root length

root fresh weight

root dry weight

27.48**
7.3**
0.14*
0.064
2.14

24.95**
1.27**
0.15*
0.058
7.57

101.62**
1.04*
0.88**
0.31
10.4

99.26**
0.31
1.00**
0.17
6.36

50.98**
27.49**
1.08
0.78
3.45

0.046**
0.00036
0.0049**
0.0002
2.44

0.003**
0.0002**
0.00004
0.00004
6.08

*,** significant at P 0.05 or 0.01, respectively.

Continues Table 1. Analysis of variance of the effect of irrigation interval and superabsorbent polymer on Cynodon dactylon L.
SOV
Irrigation
SAP
I*S
error
CV

leaf fresh weight

leaf dry weight

CSWR

Proline content

Chlorophyll a

Chlorophyll b

12.73**
8.50**
0.53**
0.08
3.81

0.19**
0.25**
0.017
0.0086
7.17

42590.62**
43988.54**
3752.38**
72.13
2.03

5253.53**
622.31**
33.90**
0.70
1.73

0.024**
0.007**
0.0004
0.00005
2.99

0.02**
0.004**
0.00028
0.00019
7.011

*,** significant at P 0.05 or 0.01, respectively.

3.2 Resiliency of lawn

Irrigation period treatment showed significant effect on resiliency of lawn (Table 1). The highest resiliency observed in one day interval
irrigation and the lowest resiliency of lawn determined in 5 day interval irrigation with mean value 1.5 (Table 2). SAP treatment showed
significant effect on resiliency of lawn (Table 1). The highest resiliency obtained with 40 gm-2 SAP and the lowest resiliency observed in control
and also in 15 gm-2 SAP (Table 2). For interaction effect between irrigation period and SAP, the highest resiliency of lawn obtained in one day
interval irrigation and 40 gm-2 SAP and the lowest resiliency observed in five day interval irrigation and 15 gm-2 SAP (Table 3).
3.3 Visual quality
The results showed that Irrigation period treatment significantly influenced visual quality (Table 1). Same as mentioned traits the best visual
quality obtained in one day interval irrigation and the worst visual quality observed in five day interval irrigation (Table 2). SAP had significant
effect on visual quality (Table 1). The best visual quality was achieved with 30 gm-2 SAP and the worst visual quality observed with 40 gm-2
SAP. There was no difference between control and 15 gm-2 SAP and they were worse than 30 gm-2 SAP and better than 40 gm-2 SAP (Table 2).
Interaction effect between irrigation period and SAP showed that the best result obtained in one day interval irrigation and 40 gm-2 SAP and the
worst result showed that in five day interval irrigation and without SAP (Control, Table 3).

Abbas Khalili Darini *, Roohangiz Naderi, Ahmad Khalighi, Mohammadreza Taheri

24

Agriculture Science Developments Vol(4), No (2), February, 2015.

Table 2. Effect of irrigation interval and superabsorbent polymer treatment on some traits of Cynodon dactylon L.
Treatment
Irrigation
1 day
2 day
3 day
5 day
SAP
0
15
30
40

Lawn height

Resiliency of lawn

Visual quality

Lawn uniformity

Root length

Root fresh weight

Root dry weight

13.41 a
12.36 b
11.11 c
10.46 d

4.28 a
3.97 b
3.03 c
1.5 d

8.31 a
6.25 b
4.56 c
2.38 d

8.38 a
8.19 a
6.5 b
3c

25.78 b
27.06 a
26.66 a
23.09 c

0.57 a
0.58 a
0.49 b
0.47 c

0.12 a
0.12 a
0.10 b
0.09 c

11.11 d
11.52 c
12.04 b
12.67 a

2.91 c
3.06 c
3.25 b
3.56 a

5.38 ab
5.37 ab
5.69 a
5.06 b

6.37 b
6.44 ab
6.56 ab
6.69 a

24.34 d
25 c
25.88 b
27.37 a

0.54 a
0.53 ab
0.52b
0.53 ab

0.09 d
0.10 c
0.11 b
0.12 a

continues Table 2. Effect of irrigation interval and superabsorbent polymer treatment on some traits of Cynodon dactylon L.
Treatment
Irrigation
1 day
2 day
3 day
5 day
SAP
0
15
30
40

Leaf fresh weight

Leaf dry weight

CSWR

Proline content

Chlorophyll a

Chlorophyll b

8.12 a
7.86 b
6.9 c
6.18 d

1.39 a
1.39 a
1.23 b
1.17 b

360.63 d
391.56 c
445.31 b
475 a

30.53 d
39.07 c
50.29 b
72.39 a

0.29 a
0.24 b
0.22 c
0.19 d

0.23 a
0.21 b
0.20 c
0.15 d

6.52 d
6.81 c
7.6 b
8.12 a

1.15 d
1.25 c
1.34 b
1.44 a

343.75 d
420.94 c
445.31 b
462.5 a

55.96 a
49.60 b
45.35 c
41.38 d

0.21 d
0.23 c
0.25 b
0.26 a

0.18 c
0.19 b
0.19 b
0.22 a

Table 3. Interaction effect of irrigation interval and superabsorbent polymer treatment on some traits of Cynodon dactylon L.
Treatment
I1S1
I1S2
I1S3
I1S4
I2S1
I2S2
I2S3
I2S4
I3S1
I3S2
I3S3
I3S4
I4S1
I4S2
I4S3
I4S4

Lawn
height
8.85 c
9.25 b
9.59 a
9.83 a
8.08 e
8.34 d
8.99 b
9.80 a
7.31 g
7.59 f
7.78 f
8.41 d
6.86 h
7.04 h
7.32 g
8.08 e

Resiliency of
lawn
3.87 cd
4.00 bcd
4.25 b
5.00 a
3.75 d
4.00 bcd
4.00 bcd
4.50 ab
2.62 g
3.00 f
3.12 ef
3.37 e
1.37 ij
1.25 j
1.62 hi
1.75 h

Visual
quality
7.75 c
8.00 bc
8.50 ab
9.00 a
6.50 d
6.25 d
6.75 d
5.50 e
4.75 f
4.75 f
4.75 f
4.00 g
1.75 i
2.50 h
2.50 h
2.75 h

Lawn
uniformity
8.00 b
8.00 b
8.50 ab
9.00 a
8.00 b
8.25 b
8.25 b
8.25 b
7.25 c
6.50 d
6.25 d
6.00 d
2.25 f
3.00 e
3.25 e
3.50 e

Root
length
24.37 gf
24.75 gf
25.87 de
28.12 ab
25.25 ef
26.50 cd
27.50 bc
29.00 a
25.25 ef
26.00 de
26.87 cd
28.50 ab
22.50 i
22.75 i
23.25 ih
23.87 gf

Root fresh
weight
0.54 d
0.56 bc
0.57 b
0.61 a
0.55 cd
0.57 b
0.57 b
0.61 a
0.53 d
0.51 e
0.48 f
0.46 h
0.51 e
0.48 gf
0.46 gf
0.42 i

Leaf fresh
weight
7.12 de
7.50 cd
8.52 b
9.32 a
7.02 e
7.10 de
8.35 b
8.95 a
6.25 f
6.42 f
7.10 de
7.82 c
5.70 g
6.22 f
6.42 f
6.37 f

Leaf dry
weight
1.20 c
1.30 bc
1.42 b
1.62 a
1.22 c
1.30 bc
1.42 b
1.60 a
1.15cd
1.22 c
1.25 c
1.30 bc
1.02 d
1.017 c
1.25 c
1.25 c

CSWR
185.5 g
267.75 f
268.62 f
287.87 e
190.75 g
269.5 f
315 d
321.13 cd
269.5 f
316.75 b
324.62 c
336 b
316.75 d
324.62 c
338.62 b
350 a

Proline
content
35.71 l
30.34 n
28.05 o
28.02 o
45.87 h
41.41 j
37.44 k
31.56 m
57.34 e
51.38 f
48.13 g
44.29 i
84.89 a
75.25 b
66.77 c
61.64 d

I1: 1 day irrigation interval, I2: 2 day irrigation interval, I3: 3 day irrigation interval and I4: 5 day irrigation interval; S1: without SAP, S2: 15 gm-2 SAP, S3: 30 gm-2 SAP, S4: 40 gm-2
SAP.

3.4 Lawn uniformity

Lawn uniformity significantly affected by irrigation period (Table 1). The best uniformity was obtained with one day interval irrigation and
which it showed no difference with two days interval irrigation. The worst uniformity determined in five days interval irrigation (Table 2). SAP
showed no significantly effect on uniformity (Table 1). Also for interaction effect between irrigation period and SAP, the best uniformity was
observed in one day interval irrigation and 40 gm-2 SAP and the worst uniformity observed in five days interval irrigation and 40 gm-2 SAP
(Table 3).
3.5 Root length
According to Table 1. irrigation period treatment significantly affected root length. Two and three day interval irrigation showed the longest root
length and five days interval irrigation produced the shortest root length. In one day interval irrigation, root length was longer than two and three
day interval irrigation (Table 2). Also SAP showed significant effect on root length (Table 1). The longest root length observed with 40 gm-2
SAP and shortest root length observed in control without SAP (Table 2). Zamnipour et al., (25) confirmed that irrigation interval and SAP
significantly influenced number of root and root length in Mahaleb genotypes. Number of root and root length was reduced with increasing the
irrigation interval and with increasing of SAP concentration improved the number and length of root.
3.6 Root fresh weight
Irrigation period showed significant effect on root fresh weight (Table 1). The highest root fresh weight obtained in one and two days interval
irrigation and the lowest root fresh weight observed in five days interval irrigation (Table 2). SAP had no significant effect on root fresh weight
(Table 1). Interaction effect between irrigation period and SAP showed that the highest root fresh weight obtained in one day interval irrigation
and 40 gm-2 SAP and two days interval irrigation and 40 gm-2 SAP. The lowest root fresh weight observed in five days interval irrigation and 40
gm-2 SAP (Table 2). Shaeikhmoradi et al., (21) reported that the maximum root fresh weight obtained in one day interval irrigation and 30 gm-2
SAP and increasing irrigation interval decrease root fresh weight.

25

Effect of Superabsorbent Polymer on Lawn under Drought Stress Condition

Agriculture Science Developments Vol(4), No (2), February, 2015.

3.7 Root dry weight

Root dry weight significantly influenced with irrigation period (Table 1). The highest root dry weight was obtained in one day interval irrigation
which it showed no difference with two days interval irrigation (Table 2). SAP treatment showed significant effect on root dry weight (Table 1).
The highest dry weight observed in 40 gm-2 SAP and the lowest root dry weight obtained in control without SAP (Table 2). Sheikhmoradi et al.,
(21) observed that in short interval irrigation (1 or 2-day interval) root dry weight raised by increasing superabsorbent amount.
3.8 Leaf fresh weight
Irrigation period showed significant effect on leaf fresh weight (Table 1). As expected, the highest leaf fresh weight produced in control (one day
interval irrigation) and the lowest mean observed in five days interval irrigation (Table 2). In addition leaf fresh weight affected with SAP (Table
1). The highest leaf fresh weight obtained in 40 gm-2 SAP and the lowest mean was determined in control without SAP (table 2). Interaction
effect between irrigation period and SAP showed significant effect on leaf fresh weight and the highest leaf fresh weight observed in one day
interval irrigation with 40 gm-2 SAP and two days interval irrigation with 40 gm-2 SAP. Also the lowest leaf fresh weight was obtained in five
days interval irrigation without SAP (Table 3).
3.9 Leaf dry weight
Analysis of variance showed that irrigation period significantly affected leaf dry weight in Cynodon dactylon L. (Table 1). The heaviest leaf dry
weight was determined in one and two day interval irrigation and the lowest weight was observed in three and five day interval irrigation (Table
2). Also leaf dry weight significantly was influenced with SAP (Table 1). The leaf dry weight increased with SAP concentration and the highest
mean was observed in 40, 30, 15 gm-2 respectively and the lowest mean was presented in control without SAP (Table 2). Keshavars et al., (26)
reported that irrigation and SAP had significant effect on dry weight of Pear millet. They observed that water stress decreased dry weight and
incorporation of SAP to soil increased dry weight.
3.10 Capacity of supply water in rhizosphere
As showed in Table 1. CSWR significantly was affected with both irrigation period and SAP. The best result between irrigation period
treatments was obtained in one day interval irrigation and it was decreased respectively in two, three and five day interval irrigation (Table 2). 40
gm-2 SAP showed the highest CSWR and it was the lowest in control (without SAP, Table 2). Also for interaction effect between irrigation
period and SAP, the highest CSWR was observed in five day interval irrigation with 40 gm-2 SAP and the lowest CSWR was determined in one
day interval irrigation without SAP (Table 3).
3.11 Proline content
Irrigation period significantly affected proline content (Table 1). Proline content in five day interval irrigation was more than irrigation period
which was tested and the lowest proline content was observed in one day interval irrigation (Table 2). SAP significantly influenced proline
content (Table 1). The highest proline content was obtained in control that was without SAP and it was decreased when SAP was added to
substrate and the lowest proline content was determined in 40 gm -2 SAP (Table 2). Interaction effect between irrigation period and SAP showed
that with five day interval irrigation without using SAP the highest proline content was obtained and it was decreased when irrigation period
reached to one day and 40 gm-2 SAP applied (Table 3). Accumulation of proline under stress in many plant species has been correlated with
stress tolerance, and its concentration has been shown to be generally higher in stress-tolerant than in stress-sensitive plants. It influences protein
solvation and preserves the quarternary structure of complex proteins, maintains membrane integrity under dehydration stress and reduces
oxidation of lipid membranes or photoinhibition (27). Nazarli et al., (28) explained that proline content in sunflower under drought stress was
increased. Increasing in drought stress resulted in increase in proline content, and the highest values were obtained in 14 days after irrigation
with no polymer and the lowest value were observed in 6 days after irrigation with 300 kgha -1 polymer.
3.12 Chlorophyll content
Irrigation period significantly influenced chlorophyll a and b (Table 1). In both chlorophyll a and b the highest content produced in one day
interval irrigation and the lowest content observed in five day interval irrigation (Table 2). Also SAP showed significant effect on chlorophyll
content (Table 1). The highest chlorophyll content was achieved in 40 gm-2 SAP for both chlorophyll a and b and the lowest content was
determined in substrate without SAP (Table 2). Ziaeidoustan et al., (29) showed that irrigation interval and SAP significantly affected
chlorophyll content in peanut. Lower irrigation interval (6 day) with application of SAP produced higher chlorophyll content.

4.

Conclusion

Superabsorbent polymers are used as a soil additive, as reservoir of nutrients, and as water superabsorbent in the soil. This study confirmed that
superabsorbent polymer plays an important role in the maintenance of soil moisture, due to changes in soil particles distribution and liquid and
gas phase. Drought stress often reduces plant growth and the magnitude of reduction depends on the degree of drought stress. Increasing in
irrigation interval resulted to increasing in growth retardant and destruction in plant. According to the results from this research, application of
superabsorbent polymer could decrease drought stress symptom on lawn. 40 gm-2 superabsorbent polymers was more suitable for reserve water
in soil.

References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]

Petit JR, Jouzel J, Raynaud D, Barkov NI, Barnola JM, Basile I, Bender M, et al. 1999. Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the
Vostok ice core, Antarctica. Nature, 399 : 429-436.Reference 2.
Mark RW. 1997. Water Resources in the Twenty-First Century: Challenges and Implications for Action,Food and Agriculture, and the Environment
Discussion Paper 20, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington D.C., U.S.A.
Biswas AK. 1993. Water for Sustainable Development in the Twenty-First Century: A Global Perspective, In: Biswas AK, Jellali M, Stout G. (Eds.), Water
for Sustainable Development in the21st Century, Water Resources Management Series: 1, Oxford University Press, Delhi.
Biswas AK. 2001. Water Policies in Developing World. Water Resources Development, 17 (4): 489-499.
Niu G, Rodriguez DS, Cabrera R, McKenney C, Mackay W. 2006. Determining water use and crop coefficients of five woody landscape plants. J. Environ.
Hort, 24: 160-165.
Roberts, E.C., Huffine, W.W., Grau, F.V., and Murray, J.J. 1992. Turfgrass ScienceHistorical Overview.In: Waddington, D.V., Carrow, R.N., and
Shearman, R.C. (eds).1997. Turfgrass. American Society of Agronomy, Inc., Crop Science Sociey of America,Inc., Soil Science Society of America, Inc.,
Publishers. Madison, Wisconsin.

Abbas Khalili Darini *, Roohangiz Naderi, Ahmad Khalighi, Mohammadreza Taheri

26

Agriculture Science Developments Vol(4), No (2), February, 2015.

[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]

Li X, Wang l, Li Y, Sun L, Cai Sh, Huang Z. 2014. Comparative Analyses of Physiological Responses of Cynodon dactylon Accessions from Southwest
China to Sulfur Dioxide Toxicity. The Scientific World Journal. 13.
Chaudhary SA. 1989. Grasses of Saudi Arabia, National Herbarium, National Agriculture and Water Research Center, Ministry of Agricultureand Water,
Riadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Horowitz M. 1972. Development of Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. Weed Res, 12: 521-528.
Omezine A. 1990. Effet comptitif du chiendent [Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers.] et du souchet rond (Cyperus rotundus L.) sur la croissance des plantules
dabricotiers. Acquis de Recherche 6 me journes dIRESA. Nabeul, 15-16. Dcembre 1990 Tunisie.
Speranza M. 1995. Bermuda grass, populations, temperature, salinity, drought morphology and phenology of Cynodon dactylon(L.) Pers. (Gramineae) in
Italy. Webbia, 49: 225-237.
Wang JP, Bughrara SS, Nelson CJ. 2008. Morphophysiological Responses of Several Fescue Grasses to Drought Stress. Hortscience, 43(3): 776-783.
Allen, R. G., Pereira, L. S., Raes, D. and Smith, M. 1998. Crop Evapotranspiration. Guidelines for computing crop water requirements. FAO Irrigation and
Drainage Paper 56. Food and Agric. Org. of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. 300 p.
Meyer, J.L. and Gibeault, V.A. 1987. Turfgrass performance when underirrigated. Applied Agricultural Research Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 117-199. SpringerVerlag
New York Inc.
Nus J, Boaz M, Woffor Jr D. 1991. Water-Absorbing Polymers Show Promise,Turf. Golf & sport TURF, 18-23.
El-Hady OA, Safia MA, Abdel-Kader AA. 2002. Sand-Compost-Hyrogel mix for low cost production of tomato seedlings. J. Egypt Soil Sci., 42(4): 767782.
Huttermann A, Zommorodi M, Reise K. 2006. Addition of hydrogels to soil for prolonging the survival of Pinus halepensis seedlings subjected to drought. J.
Soil Tillage Res., 50: 295-304.
Zohuriaan-Mehr MJ, Kabiri K. 2008. Superabsorbent Polymer Materials: A Review, Iranian Polymer Journal, 17 (6): 451-477.
Nazarli H, Zardashti MR. 2010. The effect of drought stress and super absorbent polymer (A200) on agronomical traits of sunflower (Helianthus annus L.)
under field condition. Cercetri Agronomice n Moldova, 143(3): 5-14.
Pouresmaeil P, Habibi D, Mashadi Akbar Boojar M, Tarighaleslami M. 2013. Effect of super absorbent polymer application on chemical and biochemical
activities in red bean (Phaseolus volgari s L.) cultivars under drought stress. European Journal of Experimental Biology, 3(3): 261-266.
Sheikhmoradi F, Argi I, Abdodi V, Esmaeili A. 2012. Evaluation the Effects of Superabsorbent on Qualitative Characteristics of Lawn. Journal of
Ornamental and Horticultural Plants, 2 (1): 55-60.
Bates LS, RP Waldren and D Teari 1973.Rapid determination of free proline for water stress studies. Plant Soil 39: 205-207.
Malekian A, Valizadeh E, Dastoori M, Samadi S, Bayat V. 2012. Soil water retention and maize (Zea mays L.) growth as effected by different amounts of
Pumice. AJCS, 6(3): 450-454.
Lovisolo C, Schuber A. 1998. Effects of water stress on vessel size xylem hydraulic conductivity in Vitis vinifera L. J Exp Bot, 49: 693-700.
Zamanipour M, Moghadam E G, Tehranifar A. 2014. Response of two selected Prunus Mahaleb (Prunus Mahaleb L.) genotypes to water stress and
superabsorbent application. International Journal of AgriScience, 4(4): 218-223.
Keshavars L, Farhbakhsh H, Golkar P. 2012. The Effects of Drought Stress and Super Absorbent Polymer on Morphphysiological Traits of Pear millet
(Pennisetum glaucum). Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci, 3 (1), 148-154.
Demiral T, Turkan I. 2004. Does exogenous glycinebetaine affect antioxidative system of rice seedlings under NaCl treatment? J. Plant Physiol., 161: 10891110.
Nazarli H, Faraji F, Zardashti MR. 2011. Effect of drought stress and polymer on osmotic adjusyment and pigment of sunflower. Cercetri Agronomice n
Moldova, 145 (1): 35-41.
Ziaeidoustan H, Azarpour E, Safiyar S. 2013. Study the Effects of Different Levels of Irrigation Interval, Nitrogen and Superabsorbent on Yield and yield
component of peanut. International Journal of Agriculture and Crop Sciences. 5 (18): 2071-2078.