TOLERANCE TEST ON RUELLIA (Ruellia brittoniana) TOWARD DIFFERENT

SALINITY LEVELS

Eko Widaryanto, Nova Yanti Situmorang, Akbar Saitama, Akbar Hidayatullah Zaini

Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture, Brawijaya University

Jl. Veteran, Malang 65145 JawaTimur, Indonesia
*)
E-mail : weedar.eko@gmail.com

ABSTRACT

Coastal tourism is one of the potential natural resources in Indonesia. The plantation of
flowering plants on the beaches will add to the beauty of the coastal landscape. Nonetheless,
there is still limited information about the adaptation of ornamental plants and flowering
plants in Indonesia. Therefore, a study on the plants which are able to adapt the coastal soil
condition is necessary. This study aimed to find out the response and tolerance of two types
of Ruellia brittoniana flowers at different salinity levels. Conducted from January to March
2016 in the screenhouse of STTP 2, Tanjung, Malang, this study employed Factorial
Complete Random Design. The data were analyzed using ANOVA, if there was a significant
effect then continued to follow-up test HSD 5%. The results showed that there was no
interaction between the types of flowers and the level of salinity. Moreover, the treatment of
different salinity levels significantly affected all observed variables. The different salinity
leveltreatment shows that the higher the salinity level, the lower the values of the plant
height, leaf number, leaf area, canopy dry weight, total fresh weight and total dry weight.
This is shown in the lower saline levels of all observed variables compared to the control
ones, while in the fresh and dry weights of roots, there is a positive correlation between the
salinity treatment and the increase in salinity. All observation variables showed that Ruellia
brittoniana flowersare tolerant to salinity up to 4000 ppm.

Keywords: Ruellia, salinity, flower type, coastline landscaping

 INTRODUCTION

As the largest archipelago country, Indonesia has large and small islands of around
17,508 islands with coastlines of approximately 81,000 Km [Bengen, 2001]. Coastal areas
generally contain salt compounds from seawater which seeps into the land through
underground channel or wind blow. The dominant salt compound in saline soils in the coastal
areas is sodium chloride (NaCl). The high NaCl content in the coastal area causes the soil to
become saline so that only certain plants can grow normally.
Cultivated plants are mostly susceptible to high salinity conditions even though some
may be able to survive yet with reduced yields. Several plants develop mechanisms to
overcome the salinity stress, but some others are adapted to saline conditions [Yunianti,
2004]. [Agastian et al., 2000] stated that at 1-3% salinity level yields in the sensitive
plantsdecrease, at 3-5% salinity levelyields in most plants reduce, only particular plants can
grow normally at 5-10% salinity level, while nearly every plant cannot yield at 10% salinity
level.
Coastal tourism is one of the main potential natural resources in Indonesia.The
plantation of flowering plants on the beaches will add to the beauty of the coastal landscape.
However, there is still limited information about the adaptation of ornamental plants and
flowering plants in Indonesia. Therefore, a study on the plants which are able to adapt coastal
soil condition is necessary. One of the plants that potential grow on coastal region is Ruellia
brittoniana.
Ruellia brittoniana is a landscape plant often used to add the beauty in the city gardens.
This plant is able to grow both in the low and high lands. Besides, the cultivation of this plant
is not complicated, thus, it is expected that the plant can grow well in the saline soil in coastal
regions and add the esthetic value of the coastline.
Based on the mentioned phenomena, this study was aimed to test whether Ruellia
brittonianacan survive in salinity stress conditions and to find out the salinity tolerance
levelof theRuelliabrittonianagrowth as an alternative of land use asa flowering garden on the
beach

MATERIALS AND METHOD

This study was conducted at screenhouse STTP 2, Tanjung, Malang from January
toMarch 2016. STTP 2 Malang is located at 500 mdpl with the average temperature of 22o-
25o C. The humidity of Malang city ranges from 74% - 82%.
 The tools used in the study were polybags with a height of 30 cm and a diameter of 20
cm, a hoe, knives, scopes, woods, alphaboard, a ruler, an analytic scale, an oven, a scissor,
measuring cups, paper, pens and a camera. The materials used were soil as a planting
medium, water and fertilizer. Ruellia seeds were used as the planting material. The study was
conducted using factorial complete random design with 3 replications. The observed
treatment were flower types with 2 colors: purple (J1) and white (J2) flowers and the level of
salinity with 5 concentrations, including 0 ppm (S0), 1000 ppm (S1), 2000 ppm (S2), 3000
ppm (S3) and 4000 ppm (S4).
All obtained data were analyzed using F test with 5% significant level to discover the
effect of the treatment. If F value is > than F table, there is a significant effect and then
continued to follow-up test HSD 5%.

RESULT
The results of variance analysis on various observation variables show that there was no
interaction between the type of flower and the level of salinity, but there was a significant
difference between the level of salinity and various observation variables.
Plant Height
Table of the plant height shows that there is a significant difference because of the
treatment of the salinity level to the plant height at various observation ages (Table 1).
Table 1 describes thatat the observation age of 14, 28, 42 and 70 DAP the plant growth
of the treated plants at the lowest saline level (1000 ppm) was hindered significantlyby as
much as 8, 11, 13 and 18% compared to the control group. However, the level of salinity does
not show a significant effect on the plant height. Different responses were shown in the
treatment of 4000 ppm salinity level in which the level of salinity inhibited plant growth by
as much as 19, 28, 40 and 42% compared to control treatment (0 ppm). According to the level
of salinity treatment, it can be concluded that giving a higher level of salinity causes a
decrease in the plant height.
Root Length
Longer roots are the potential for plants to support growth by absorbing more minerals
and nutrients. Lengthening of plant roots can also happen due to high salinity stress. The
observation of root length is done by measuring the length from the root tip to the root base
of the ruellia flower. Based on the analysis of variance and HSD test at the level of 5%, the
results showed that there were significant differences due to the treatment of the level of
salinity to the root length at various ages of observation. Given the treatment of 4000 ppm
salinity, the plants at observation ages of 14, 28, 42 and 70 DAP had a longer root than plants
given other levels of salinity. Treatment of salinity levels with a concentration of 4000 ppm
increased root lengths by 21, 22, 31 and 35% compared to control treatments (0ppm). The
lowest salinity level (1000 ppm) did not have a significant effect for the plants on 14 and 28.
DAP, but at observation ages 42 and 70 DAP it showed a significant effect on root length.

Table 1 Plant Height Average After Treatment of Different Salinity Levels at Various
Observation Ages
Plant Height (cm) at Observation (DAP)
Treatment
0 14 28 42 70
S 0 ppm 3.09 4.00 a 4.62 a 5.13 a 5.82 a
1000 ppm 3.17 3.65b 4.03 b 4.44 b 4.76 b
2000 ppm 3.20 3.49 bc 3.67 c 3.85 c 4.19 c
3000 ppm 3.12 3.39 cd 3.49 cd 3.60 cd 3.71 d
4000 ppm 3.12 3.24 d 3.31 d 3.40 d 3.37 e
CV (%) 2.42 4.00 3.43 3.56 3.05
HSD tn 0.24 0.22 0.25 0.23
Note: numbers followed by the same letter at the same age do not show a significant
difference at HSD (honestly significantly different) test 5%; DAP: day after
planting; S: salinity.

Table 2 Root Length Average After Treatment of Different Salinity Levels at Various
Observation Ages
Root Length (cm) at Observation (DAP)
Treatment
14 28 42 70
S 0 ppm 28.50 a 29.52 a 27.55 a 28.05 a
1000 ppm 29.83 ab 30.50 ab 31.50 b 31.17 b
2000 ppm 31.60 bc 32.05 b 32.96 b 32.11 b
3000 ppm 33.05 cd 32.77 b 33.38 b 33.94 c
4000 ppm 34.51 d 35.94 c 36.35c 37.73 d
CV (%) 5.18 4.48 4.75 2.91
HSD 2.82 2.49 2.65 1.64
Note: numbers followed by the same letter at the same age do not show a significant
difference at HSD (honestly significantly different) test 5%; DAP: day after
planting; S: salinity.
Numbers of Leaf
The number of leaves of ruellia flowers in this study shows that there is no interaction
between the level of salinity and the type of flower.Treatment of 1000 ppm salinity was able
to inhibit the growth of leaf numbers on average of 12-16% at various ages of observation
(Table 3). The biggest effect was shown in the treatment of 4000 ppm salinity which was able
to inhibit the growth of leaf numbers up to 32% when compared to the control treatment.

Table 3 Average of Number of LeafAfter Treatment of Different Salinity Levelsat Various

Observation Ages
Leaf Number (leaf plant-1) at Observation (DAP)
Treatment
0 14 28 42 70
S 0 ppm 20.16 23.41 a 26.25 a 28.41 a 31.00 a
1000 ppm 20.91 20.58 b 22.33 b 23.50 b 23.16 b
2000 ppm 20.16 19.50 b 20.58 b 21.83 bc 21.83 b
3000 ppm 20.91 19.25 b 20.66 b 20.83 bc 21.50 b
4000 ppm 20.00 19.16 b 19.83 b 20.16 c 20.83 b
CV (%) 4.62 7.00 7.99 7.88 8.93
HSD tn 2.46 3.02 3.12 3.65
Note: numbers followed by the same letter at the same age do not show a significant
difference at HSD (honestly significantly different) test 5%; DAP: day after
planting; S: salinity.

Total DryWeight
The observation ages of 28, 42 and 70 DAT show that the treatment of 4000 ppm
salinity level had a significant effect where the total dry weight of the plant decreased by 20
to 26% when compared to that of the control treatment. Different responses were shown at
1000, 2000 and 3000 ppm salinity levels where salinity treatment did not significantly affect
the total dry weight of plants.
Table 3 Average of Total Dry Weight of Plants After Treatment of Different Salinity
Levelsat Various Observation Ages
Dry Weight (g plant-1)) at Observation (DAP)
Treatment
14 28 42 70
S 0 ppm 5.63 8.04 a 8.21 a 9.05 a
1000 ppm 5.26 7.35 ab 7.86 ab 7.39 ab
2000 ppm 4.90 6.83 ab 7.65 ab 7.73 ab
3000 ppm 4.84 6.40 ab 6.85 ab 7.21 b
4000 ppm 4.85 6.03 b 6.56 b 6.68 b
CV (%) 9.90 14.99 10.62 13.60
HSD tn 1.79 1.36 1.79
Note: numbers followed by the same letter at the same age do not show a significant
difference at HSD (honestly significantly different) test 5%; DAP: day after
planting; S: salinity.

DISCUSSION
 On the plant height table (Tabel 1) it is described that there was a difference in the plant
height every 2 weeks. This indicates that the plant growth in every week is not similar. The
older the plant, the higher the accumulation of NaCl in the soil whch causes the decrease in
the soil pH, inhibiting the plant growth. The result of the experiment conducted by [Satti et
al., 1994] showed that the plant height of tomato plants experienced a significant change after
given 50m M NaCl salinity level.
Salinity reduces photosynthesis so that when plants are irrigated with water containing
35 and 70 mM NaCl, their height and dry weight reduce [Psarras et al., 2008]. The
administration of initial stress treatment with lower salinity causes plants to become more
tolerant of salinity. This can be seen from ruellia flowers withthe salinity treatment of 1000
ppm which are more tolerant of saline conditions. When plants need nutrients in large
quantities, in the media there are Na+and Cl- which inhibit nutrient and water absorption. The
tendency to decreasing plant height is caused by the low rate of photosynthesis.
Ruellia flowers with higher salinity treatment generally have longer roots than those of
the control treatment (0 ppm). Root lengthening occurs due to high salinity stress. This is
because the response of plants as a form of adaptation to drought is related to the ability of
the roots to obtain groundwater in the deeper zones [Taiz and Zeiger, 2002].
The root length of the control plant (0 ppm) was significantly lower than those of plants
in other treatments. This can be caused by a deficiency of chloride ions (Cl-) and elements of
Nitrogen in the plants, which causes ungrown roots and thickening or swelling at the root tip.
The thickening of the root is caused the absence of the osmotic pressure control at the root.
Root development in non-saline soils is better because the absorption of N from the soil
through the process of root interception and mass flow is better compared to the root
mechanism in the saline soils which inhibit the root growth [Bidwell, 1979].
According to [Munns and Tester, 2008], low groundwater content can result in low
concentrations of nutrients present in the soil solution. The low nutrient concentration in the
soil solution is caused by the NaCl content contained in the soil,causing the roots difficult to
find nutrients, thus, the plant needs for nutrients are not fulfilled and result in nutrient
competition among plants. Leaves as one of the plant organs function as a place for
photosynthesis. If water absorption is low, the process of leaf formation is also low. Salinity
generallyreduces the plant growth as a result of a decrease in leaf area and number of leaves
[Ksouri et al., 2007]. The same thing also expressed by [Neffati et al., 2011] stating that the
decrease in the number and area of leaves is also caused by the low supply of nutrients and
water and the accumulation of high Na + and Cl- ions in plant tissues which inhibits the
process of cell differentiation at the point of growth.
[Bai et al., 2011] reported that the total leaf area was the most affected variable
compared to other growth parameters. This can be seen from the significant reduction of leaf
area which indicates high sensitivity of leaf growth to salinity. Na +metabolic toxicity mostly
causes a decrease in cation function in the process of nutrient absorption through cell
membranes due to an increase in ratio Na+ : K+.
Salinity and leaf area usually have inverse relationships. With an increase inthe salinity
level, the loss of water per plant through transpiration decreases. Not only the leaf area, but
also net CO2 fixation per unit of leaf area can also reduce, while respiration increases. The
low rate of CO2 fixation during the light period can be caused by water deficiency and partial
stomatal closure, losing turgor from mesophyll cells, which is due to salt accumulation in the
apoplas or directly due to ion toxicity.
Leaf area affects the availability of water in the soil/growing media. If the soil
conditions are dry or are potentially saline stress, the leaves experience physiological
adaptation to maintain the stability of the water in the body by shrinking or closing the
stomata and rolling the leaves. The increase of atmospheric CO2 can increase the rate of
photosynthesis and can play an important role in high salinity conditions. Plants that grow in
saline conditions have to compensate for the decrease in stomatal opening, leaf area and
higher respiration rate by significantly increasing the tolerance, as found in tomatoes. The
leaf area of the plant has a tendency to decrease at each increasing saline concentration.
The administration of initial stress salinity treatment at lower level causes the plant to
be more tolerant of salinity and has no effect on the total dry weight of the plant [Tester and
Davenport, 2003]. This can be proven in (Table 5), in which low level salinity treatment does
not significantly affect the total dry weight of plants.
The increase in total dry weight of the plant in ruellia flowers shows inverserelationship
to the increase in salinity levels. The higher the level of salinity, the lower the total dry weight
of the plant. This can be seen from the results of the total dry weight at a salinity level of
4000 ppm which is significantly able to reduce the total dry weight of the plants by 20-26%.
In saline conditions, the availability of water decreases, but the rate of plant respiration
tends to increase. This has led to a decrease in the dry weight of plants. A decrease in plant
dry weight due to saline stress has also been reported for rice and wheat [Zeng et al., 2002;
Hu et al., 2006]. When saline stress occurs, the plant initially experiences an osmotic stress
phase which slowers the emergence of leaves, inhibits leaf growth, and stimulate acceleration
of the leaves due to excessive accumulation of toxic ions [Rajendran et al., 2009; Tavakkoli et
al., 2010].
Many studies have suggested a linear relationship between salinity stress and dry
weight biomass. This research shows that the higher the level of salinity stress, the lower the
average of total dry weight produced. Salinity can reduce the level of crop productivity
because of the decrease of primary metabolism, shrinkage of leaf area and photosynthetic
activity. The decrease in accumulation of pro-productivity due to salinity in each plant type is
different. This is influenced by the tolerance of each type of plant [Al-Busaidi et al., 2010].
Based on genetic factors, the adaptability of plants to salinity varies. [Ashraf et al., 2007]
reported that plants treated with salinity would show a physiological response on leaves, such
as closing the stomata and decreasing the number and area of leaves.

CONCLUSION
There is a negative linear relationship between salinity treatment and observed
variables. The higher the level of salinity,the lower the values of the plant height, leaf
number, leaf area, canopy dry weight, total fresh weight and total dry weight. At the salinity
level of 4000 ppm, the plant height,leaf number, leaf area, total fresh weight and total dry
weightof ruellia flowersis depressed by 50%.

REFERENCES

Al-Busaidi, A.S., Al-Rawahy and M. Ahmed. 2010. Growing Tomato in Salty Soil:
Secreening Response of Different Tomato Cultivars to Saline Irrigation. Sultan
Qaboos. Journal of Crop Science. 1: 77-86.
Agastian, P., S.J. Kingsley and M. Vivekananand. 2000. Effect of Salinity on Photosynthesis
and Biochemical Characteristics in Mulberry Genotypes. Photosynthetica. 38: 287-
290.
Ashraf, M., R. Fooland and M.R. 2007. Roles of glycine betaine and proline in improving
plant abiotic stress resistance. 59: 206–216.
Bai, R., Z. Zhang., Y.Hu., M. Fan., U.Schmidhalter. 2011. Improving the salt tolerance of
Chinese spring wheat through an evaluation of genotype genetic variation. J.of
Crop Sci. 5: 1173-1178.
Bengen, D.G. 2001. Synopsis of Coastal and Marine Natural Ecosystems and Resources
Center for Coastal and Marine Resources Studies [in Indonesian]. J. Pesisir and
Lautan. 4(3) : 1-16.
Bidwell, R. 1979. Plant Physiology. Mcmillan Publ.Co.Inc. New York.
Hu, YC, Z., Burucs and U.Schmidhalter. 2006. Short-term effect of drought and salinity on
growth and mineral elements in wheat seedlings. J. Plant Nutrition. 29: 2227-2243.
Ksouri, R., W. Megdiche, A. Debez, H. Falleh, C. Grignon and C. Abdelly. 2007. Salinity
efects on Polyphenol Content and Antioxiandt Activities in Leaves of the
Halophyte Cakile Maritima. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 45: 244–249.
Munns, R. and M. Tester. 2008. Mechanisme of salinity Tolerance. Annual Review of Plant
Biology. 59(2): 651-681.
Neffati, M.. J. Sriti, G. Hamdaoui, M.E. Kchouk and B. Marzouk. 2011. Salinity Impact on
Fruit Yield, Essential Oil Composition and Antioxiandt Activities of Coriandrum
Sativum Fruit. Extracts. Food Chem. 124: 221–225.
Psarras, G., M. Bertaki and K. Chartzoulakis. 2008. Response of Greenhouse Tomato to Salt
Stress and K+ Supplement. Plant Biosyst. 142: 149–153.
Rajendran, K., M. Tester and S.J. Roy. 2009. Quantifying the three main components of
salinity tolerance in cereals. Plant, Cell and Environ. 32: 237-249.
Satti, S. M. E., A. A. Ibrahim and S.M. Al‐Kindi. 1994. Enhancement of Salinity Tolerance
in Tomato: Implications of Potassium and Calcium in Flowering and Yield. 25:
2825-2840.
Taiz, L. and E. Zeiger. 2002. Plant Physiology. 3rd Edition. Sinauer Associates.Sunderland.
Tavakkoli, E., P. Rengasamy and G.K. McDonald. 2010. The response of barley to salinity
stress differs between hydroponics and soil systems. Functional Plant Biol. 37:
621-633.
Tester, M. and R. Davenport. 2003. Na+ Tolerance and Na+ Transport in Higher Plants.
Annals of Bot. 91: 503-527.
Yunianti, R. 2004. Screening of Soybean Cultivars Glycine max (L.) Merrill under Sodium
Chloride Stress Condition. Makara, Sains. 8 (1): 21-24.
Zeng, L., M.C. Shannon and C.M. Grieve. 2002. Evaluation of salt tolerance in rice
genotypes by multiple agronomic parameters. Euphytica. 127: 235-245.