No abstract

Drought is important environmental stress that reduces the yield and quality of crops all around the world. The drought-responsive regulatory network is very complex in plants. MicroRNAs are an important gene expression regulator under drought conditions. Identifying drought-responsive genes and their related miRNAs helps us to provide valuable information on plant stress regulation by miRNAs in stress conditions. In this study, a microarray dataset of drought stress and well-water samples of Arabidopsis were analyzed to identify the common root and shoot genes in drought. GEO2R tool was used for identifying differentially expressed genes. Gene ontology enrichment, protein-protein interaction, pathway analysis, and potential miRNAs for hub genes were performed using bioinformatics tools. There were 486 and 288 DEGs of root and shoot tissue respectively. Venn diagram analysis demonstrated that 59 DEGs were common in both root and shoot tissues, including 51 upregulated genes and 8 downregulated genes enriched in response to water deprivation, response to osmotic stress, response to abscisic acid, response to oxidative stress, response to salt stress and other related pathways. Gene ontology and protein network analysis showed that TSPO, LTI78, AFP1, RAB18, LTI65, HAI1, HAI2, LEA4-5, LEA7, and F16B3.11 genes are hub genes in drought conditions. All hub genes except LEA7 and F16B3.11 were target genes of miRNAs. It seems that these genes and their related miRNAs can play a crucial role in drought response adaptation and they can be considered in breeding programs and genetic engineering for the production of drought-tolerant plants.

No abstract

No abstract

This study was done in a strawberry greenhouse to examine the technical and the economical evaluation of two drip irrigation systems including the tape and the drip line in the northern part of Iran. The result showed that all of the technical indices with tape were higher than drip line, and due to statistical analysis reveal a significant difference (P < 0.05). Yield and water productivity (WP) with tape were higher than drip line (P < 0.05). Benefit per drop (BPD) and net benefit per drop (NBPD) with tape were higher than drip line. Net present value, internal rate of capital return and benefit to cost ratio in drip line were higher than tape. In general, regarding technical evaluation tape was better than drip line, besides according to the economical evaluation the drip lines were better than tape.