Impaginato 249 Adv. Hort. Sci., 2018 32(2): 249-264 DOI: 10.13128/ahs-22261 Evaluation of salinity tolerance in fourteen selected pistachio (Pistacia vera L.) cultivars A. Momenpour 1 (*), A. Imani 2 1 National Salinity Research Center, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization, AREEO, Yazd, Iran. 2 Temperate Fruit Research Center, Horticultural Research Institute, Agricultural Research Education and Extension Organization, AREEO, Karaj, Iran. Key words: chlorophyll fluorescence, Ghazvini cultivar, growth indices, Pistacia vera L., salinity water. Abstract: Cultivars and rootstocks tolerant to salinity are determinant to increase the salt tolerance of planted fruit trees including pistachio. In this research, the effect of salinity stress on morphological and physiological traits as well as the concentration of nutrition elements in some pistachio cultivars was investigated based on completely randomized design (CRD), with two fac- tors cultivars and irrigation water salinity. Studied cultivars were Ghazvini, Shahpasand, Akbari, Khanjari, Jandaghi, Italiyayi, Fndoghi 48, Sabz Pesteh Tohg, Ahmad Aghaee, Rezaie Zood Res, Mousa Abadi, Ebrahimi, Kaleh Ghochi and Badami Zarand and levels of salinity were 0.5, 4.9, 9.8, 14.75 and 19.8 dS/m. Each treatment had nine replicas. The results showed that increasing salinity reduced branch height, branch diameter, number of total leaves, and percent- age of green leaves, relative humidity content, chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b and total chlorophylls in all cultivars. But percentage of necrotic leaves, percentage of downfall leaves, relative ionic percentage and cell membrane injury percent- age were increased. The results showed that salinity stress affected the young trees through increasing the amount of minimum fluorescence (F0) and decreasing the maximum fluorescence (FM) and reducing variable fluorescence (FV) as well as the ratio of variable fluorescence to maximum fluorescence from 0.83±1 in the control plants to 0.59±0.015 in Rezaie Zood Res cultivar and 0.61±0.009 in Mousa Abadi cultivar. The results also showed that in the total cultivars studied, the highest amount of Na+ in leaves and roots (2.09±0.04% and 3.04±0.06%), and the lowest amount of K+ in leaves and roots (0.40±0.02% and 0.34±0.01%), were observed in treatment 19.75 dS/m. Overall, Ghazvini was found to be the most tolerant cultivar to salinity stress. This cultivar could well tolerate salinity 14.75 dS/m. 1. Introduction Pistachio (Pistacia vera L.) is one of the important commercial crops in Iran. Majority of pistachio orchards are located in areas with saline soil and are irrigated with low quality and salty waters. Although pistachio trees are classified as tolerant to salinity, researches have demonstrated (*) Corresponding author: a.momenpour@areeo.ac.ir Citation: MOMENPOUR A., IMANI A., 2018 - Evaluation of salinity tolerance in fourteen selected pistachio (Pistacia vera L.) cultivars. - Adv. Hort. Sci., 32(2): 249-264 Copyright: © 2018 Momenpour A., Imani A. This is an open access, peer reviewed article published by Firenze University Press (http://www.fupress.net/index.php/ahs/) and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Data Availability Statement: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files. Competing Interests: The authors declare no competing interests. Received for publication 7 December 2017 Accepted for publication 18 April 2018 AHS Advances in Horticultural Science Adv. Hort. Sci., 2018 32(2): 249-264 250 that growth rates of pistachio trees decrease with increasing sodium chloride (NaCl) concentration in soil and there is a positive correlation between sodi- um (Na+) as well as chloride (Cl−) concentration in plant tissue and soil (Sepaskhah and Maftoun, 1988; Noitsakis et al., 1997; Munns and Tester, 2008; Zrig et al., 2015). Salinity stress also negatively affects photosynthesis rate, morphology of leaves, and nutri- e n t b a l a n c e i n p i s t a c h i o t r e e s ( P i c c h i o n i a n d Myamoto, 1990; Saadatmand et al., 2007; Karimi et al., 2011). Walker et al. (1987) and Karimi et al. (2009) reported that the highest chloride concentra- tions were observed in lamina and petiole of pista- chio seedlings irrigated with salty water, whereas highest sodium concentration was observed in roots. Ferguson et al. (2002) suggested that the decrease of water potential in plant in higher salinity levels is one of the main reason for decrease pistachio yield. It has been reported that salinity stress is one of the most important environmental factors limiting photosynthesis in the majority of worldwide cultivat- ed crops, including pistachio crop (Maxwell and J o h n s o n , 2 0 0 0 ; R a n j b a r f o r d o e i e t a l . , 2 0 0 6 ) . Chlorophyll fluorescence (CF) has been used to study plant responses to different kinds of stress (Baker and Rosenqvist, 2004). Chlorophyll (Chl) fluorescence yield (Chl FY) such as minimal Chl FY (F0) and variable Chl FY (Fv) can be used for evidencing stress and dam- age of the photosynthetic apparatus, and characteriz- ing the environment where plants grow (Herda et al., 1999; DeEll and Toivonen, 2003; Kodad et al., 2010). Fv/Fm ratio has been used in many studies related to stress in plants. In most of plants, when ratio Fv/Fm is around 0.83 means that stress has not been intro- duced to the plant. Values lower than this will be seen when the plant has been exposed to stress, indi- cating in particular the phenomenon of photo inhibi- tion (Herda et al., 1999; DeEll and Toivonen, 2003; Kodad et al., 2010). Selecting nutrient sources that do not add harm- ful ions and salinity to irrigation water to avoid com- pounding salinity problems would be the best option. In areas affected by soil and water salinity, neverthe- less, it is more convenient to use salt-tolerant root- stocks for the species characterized by a certain degree of salt tolerance, i.e. Pistacia sp. An important characteristic of Pistacia sp. is their ability to store large quantities of Na+ in roots, which might make pistachio tolerant to Na+ (Picchioni and Myamoto, 1990; Karimi et al., 2011). Sepaskhah and Maftoun (1988) reported that 50% reduction in shoot growth was observed when the average root-zone salinity was between 7.9 and 10 dS/m (ECe). Saadatmand et al. (2007) postulated that salinity stress had more negative influence than drought stress on pistachio growth. They reported that Sarakhs variety showed higher sensitivity to soil salinity than Qazvini variety, but with increasing in irrigation intervals, Sarakhs was more-tolerate to salinity than Qazvini. Although, other researchers have studied the influence of soil and water salinity on the growth indices and chemical composition of pistachio culti- vars, but in before researches a low number of culti- vars was investigated. Therefore, in this research, the effects of five levels of irrigation water salinity on morphological and physiological traits as well as the concentration of nutrition elements in fourteen selected pistachio (Pistacia vera L.) cultivars have been investigated in order to find most tolerant culti- vars to salinity. 2. Materials and Methods Plant material and natural salt treatments In this research, the effects of salinity stress on morphological and physiological traits and on the concentration of nutrition elements in 14 pistachio cultivars such as Ghazvini, Shahpasand, Akbari, Khanjari, Jandaghi, Italiyayi, Fndoghi 48, Sabz Pesteh Tohg, Ahmad Aghaee, Rezaie Zood Res, Mousa Abadi, Ebrahimi, Kaleh Ghochi and Badami Zarand were investigated. The experiment was carried out in the research greenhouse of Temperate Fruit Research Center, Horticultural Research Institute in Karaj-Iran in years of 2013 and 2014 based on completely ran- domized design (CRD), with two factors; cultivars with 14 levels and irrigation water salinity by 5 levels (Control= 0.5 dS/m, A= 4.8 dS/m, B= 9.8 dS/m, C= 14.75 dS/m and D=19.8 dS/m) and with nine replica- tions for each treatment, for a total of 630 pots. Seeds were germinated according to the method described by Karimi et al. (2009). Seeds were pre- t r e a t e d w i t h b e n o m y l ( w e t t a b l e p o w d e r - 5 0 % ; DuPont, Wilmington, DE, USA) for 24 h, and then incubated at 30°C within layers of sterile moist crisped cloth. After radicle emergence, seeds were p l a n t e d i n J i f f y p o t s ( J i f f y G r o u p , M o e r d i j k , Netherlands) and grown in a greenhouse for three months. Seedlings with 10 to 15 cm height were transplanted to pots 2 Kg filled with soil series of fine loamy mixed, which its characteristics are listed in Table 1. Salinity treatment was started and continued for Momenpour and Imani - Salinity tolerance in fourteen selected pistachio cultivars 251 two and half months. For salinity treatments, salts were collected of salt lake shore in Qom-Iran. Then, salinity treatments were obtained by solving 0, 2.4, 4.8, 7.2 and 9.6 g of salt in 1 L of water (treatments composition is reported in Table 2). Also, to avoid sudden shock and plasmolysis, salt treatments were gradually added and reached to the final concentra- tion within a week (2 stages of irrigations). Field capacity (FC) of soil in pots was determined before transferring plants to units by a pressure plate (Model F1, make USA). Irrigation schedule was orga- nized according to pots changes in weight and leach- ing requirement. Electric conductivity and pH rate were regularly measured in drainage water to main- tain the electric conductivity of both input and soil solutions in a stable range. At the end of the experi- ment, the soil of pots in each level salinity was mixed together. Then three samples of each treatment (in total 15 samples) were analyzed (Table 3). Growth parameters At the end of the experiment, growth characteris- tics including main-shoot length, trunk diameter and number of leaves, were measured as well as percent- age of necrotic leaves, downfall leaves and green leaves were calculated (Papadakis et al., 2007). Fresh weight of leaves, main-shoots and roots were mea- sured immediately after removing, using a digital scale. Dry weight of the samples was measured using an oven at 75°C for 48 h (Papadakis et al., 2007). Physiological parameters For determination of leaf chlorophyll, 0.2 g of leaf was extracted (in total 630 samples, means nine replicas for each cultivar and for each salinity treat- ment), with ethanol 80% and chlorophyll a, chloro- phyll b and total chlorophyll content were calculated with the method described by Arnon (1949). Leaf greenness (chlorophyll index) was evaluated on the same leaves used for gas exchange and fluorescence using a SPAD (Minolta, 502, made in Japan) after 75 days since treatments introduction. Leaf relative water content (RWC) was deter- mined with nine replicas (made by four leaves each) for each treatment and for each cultivar, for a total of 630 samples. Fresh weight (Fw) was recorded and then samples were put into distilled water and kept at 4°C for 24 h in the dark. After the emission of extra humidity, samples were weighed again to obtain the Total weight (Tw). Subsequently, samples were kept in the oven at 105°C for 24 hours and Dry weight (Dw) was recorded. Finally, relative water content w a s c a l c u l a t e d v i a f o r m u l a e ( Y a m a s a k i a n d Title Value Saturation percentage (%) 39 Field capacity (%) 27.33 Permanent wiltering point (%) 14.8 dS/m (EC) 1.28 pH 7.5 N (%) 0.15 Organic carbon (%) 1.49 P (ppm) 104.9 Sand (%) 46 Silt (%) 34 Clay (%) 20 Texture Loam Ca (ppm) 1230 Mg (ppm) 316.2 Total neutralizing value (%) 13.8 Cu (ppm) 2.12 Zn (ppm) 4.86 Fe (ppm) 27.34 K (ppm) 690 Mn (ppm) 16.26 Na (ppm) 93.15 Table 1 - Physical and chemical characteristics of soil mixture Table 2 - Salt solution characteristics Treatments Electrical conductivity (dS/m) (pH) Na (mg/L) Cl (mg/L) Ca (mg/L) Mg (mg/L) HCO3 -(mg/L) Control 0.50 7.30 22.1 35.5 62 17.1 98 A 4.90 7.60 809 1386 79 23.01 137 B 9.80 7.78 1653 2836 99 25.7 159 C 14.75 7.87 2443 4199 123 28.5 186 D 19.80 7.95 3276 5610 151 31.9 214 Treatments EC (dS/m) pH Control 1.2 7.4 A 5.7 7.65 B 10.9 7.87 C 15.95 7.96 D 21.3 8.05 Table 3 - EC and pH soil treated with different levels of salinity Adv. Hort. Sci., 2018 32(2): 249-264 252 Dillenburg, 1999). RWC= [(Fw-Dw) / (Tw-Dw)] ´100 For the determination of relative ionic content was determined with nine replicas (made by four leaves each) for each treatment and for each cultivar, for a total of 630 samples. The amount of 0.5 g of each sample was put in tubes with 25 ml of distilled water at 25°C for 24 h on a shaker with speed 120 in/min. Electrical conductivity (EC) of the medium was then read using a conductivity meter (conduct meter; Radiometer, Copenhagen). Following the ini- tial reading (Lt), samples were autoclaved for 20 min to kill leaf tissues and then kept at 25°C for 2 h on shaker with speed 120 in/min and a final reading (Lo) was obtained. Finally, relative ionic percentage was calculated via formulae: Relative ionic percentage = (Lt/Lo)/100 as described in Lutts et al. (1995). After calculation relative ionic percentage, cell membrane injury in samples’ treatment with natural salt ratio samples control was performed as follows: % Injury = 1- [1- (T1/T2)/ 1- (C1/C2)] × 100 Where T and C refer to the EC values of stress- treated and control tubes and 1 and 2 refer to the ini- tial and final EC, respectively (Lutts et al., 1995). Chlorophyll fluorescence parameters Chlorophyll fluorescence of leaves was measured using a portable fluorometer PAM-2000 (H. Walz, Effeltrich, Germany). Before measuring chlorophyll fluorescence parameters, three leaves on main- branch of each plant were put in dark-adapted state (DAS) for 30 min using light exclusion clips (Maxwell and Johnson, 2000). Maximum quantum efficiency of photosystem II (Fv/Fm) was determined as Fv/Fm= (Fm-F0)/Fm; where Fm and F0 were maximum and mini- mum fluorescence of dark-adapted leaves, respec- tively. Concentration of Na+ and K+ Concentration of Na+ and K+ in leaves and roots was determined with nine replicas for each treat- ment and for each cultivar, for a total of 630 sam- ples. Leaves and roots of each plant, oven-dried at 75°C for 48 h, and then milled to a fine powder to pass through a 30-mesh screen. The amount of 0.5 g of each sample was dry-ached for 6h at 550°C, dis- solved in 3 mL of 6 mol L−1 HCl and diluted to 50 mL with deionized water. Subsequently, concentration of Na+ and K+ were determined using atomic absorption spectroscopy (Papadakis et al., 2007). Statistical analysis This experiment was carried out based on com- pletely randomized design (CRD), with factors culti- vars in 14 levels and irrigation water salinity in 5 lev- els and with nine replicas for each treatment in research greenhouse of Temperate Fruit Research Center, Horticultural Research Institute in Karaj-Iran in years 2013 and 2014. Finally, data were analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) using SAS soft- ware. Means were also compared by Duncan’s Multiple Range test at 1% level. 3. Results As reported in Table 4, salinity treatments nega- tively affected plant height, trunk diameter and num- ber of leaves. With increasing salinity concentration in irrigation water, final height, trunk diameter and n u m b e r o f l e a v e s i n a l l s t u d i e d c u l t i v a r s w e r e decreased. The lowest branch height, trunk diameter and leaf number were observed in salinity level D. The rate of decrease branch height, trunk diameter and number of leaves among the cultivars showed a significant difference with each other. The height of Khanjari, Jandaghi, Italiyayi, Fndoghi 48, Sabz Pesteh Tohg, Ahmad Aghaee, Rezaie Zood Res, Mousa Abadi, Ebrahimi and Kaleh Ghochi cultivars were decreased in salinity level B compared to control plants. While the height of Akbari, Shahpasand and Badami Zarand cultivars in salinity level C and in Qazvini cultivar only in salinity level D was decreased significantly compared to control plants. As reported in Table 4, as the salt concentration increases, the trunk diameter and its growth were decreased during the application of salinity stress in all cultivars. The decrease in trunk diameter in the cultivars showed a significant difference with each other. The trunk diameter of Khanjari, Fndoghi 48, Rezaie Zood Res, Mousa Abadi and Kaleh Ghochi cul- tivars was decreased in salinity level B compared to control plants. While the trunk diameter of Italiyayi, J a n d a g h i , E b r a h i m i , S a b z P e s t e h T o h g , A h m a d Aghaee, Akbari, Shahpasand and Badami Zarand cul- tivars in salinity level C and in Qazvini cultivar only in salinity level D was decreased significantly compared to control plants. The results showed that number of leaves with increasing salinity concentrations were reduced, but the amount of reduction in the number of leaves in different cultivars had significant differences. The maximum number of leaves were observed in control Momenpour and Imani - Salinity tolerance in fourteen selected pistachio cultivars 253 Table 4 - Effect of interaction between salinity and cultivar on some of the morphologic traits Means in each column and for each factor, followed by similar letter(s) are not significantly different at the 1% probability level, using Duncan’s Multiple Range Test. *= a/ is less than z. Given that variety of data was very wide, Duncan’s test grouped data between a to z and less than z such as a/, b/, c/, d/ and e/. Cultivars Treatments No. of green leaves Green Leaves (%) Trunk diameter (mm) Branch height (cm) Khanjari Control 27.33±1.0 h-n 100.00±0.0 a 8.38±0.13 a 32.50±1.56 f-g A 25.00±1.93 n-r 100.00±0.0 a 8.38±0.09 a 31.47±0.37 g-j B 22.55±1.42 s-v 97.02±3.81 a-d 8.07±0.09 b 28.67±1.17 k-n C 20.00±1.22 t-w 76.21±5.82 m-o 7.57±0.09 cd 25.55±0.52 r-s D 16.33±1.32 x-z 51.41±6.87 q 6.94±0.05 f-h 21.31±0.54 w-x Akbari Control 24.67±1.80 o-s 100.00±0.0 a 7.53±0.10 c-d 25.05±2.78 r-s A 22.89±0.78 s-u 100.00±0.0 a 5.55±0.09 c-d 24.38±2.69 s-u B 22.11±0.70 s-v 100.00±0.0 a 7.31±0.05 d-e 23.55±1.26 s-v C 18.45±0.72 u-y 96.86±4.23 a-d 7.14±0.06 e-g 22.67±1.29 t-y D 16.45±0.88 x-z 89.43±4.92 g-i 6.65±0.08 h-j 20.18±1.79 w-y Ghazvini Control 27.23±0.77 h-n 100.00±0.0 a 5.82±0.07 p-u 22.57±1.08 t-w A 27.07±0.26 i-m 100.00±0.0 a 5.81±0.07 p-u 22.55±0.57 t-w B 26.52±0.67 j-o 99.55±0.0 a 5.70±0.05 s-w 21.67±0.50 u-x C 25.77±0.67 m-r 97.72±5.63 a-c 5.46±0.04 u-x 20.7±1.0 w-y D 23.81±2.24 q-u 90.88±7.07 e-h 5.02±0.06 x-y 18.11±1.21 y-z Italiaie Control 31.67±2.34 e 100.00±0.0 a 6.71±0.03 h-j 33.00±2.95 e-h A 31.06±2.0 e-f 100.00±0.0 a 6.74±0.16 h-j 32.30±1.21 f-h B 29.22±1.39 f-i 98.85±2.40 a-b 6.53±0.12 j-m 30.17±0.94 i-k C 25.22±1.71 n-r 90.72±8.49 e-h 6.15±0.29 n-q 26.43±1.19 o-r D 22.33±2.34 q-u 84.88±5.04 i-k 5.60±0.24 t-x 22.71±1.90 t-w Kaleh Ghochi Control 27.00±1.93 i-n 100.00±0.0 a 6.63±0.05 f-h 32.09±0.87 f-h A 26.85±0.86 i-n 10000±0.0 a 6.59±0.04 j-k 31.87±0.86 f-i B 23.44±0.72 q-u 97.66±3.04 a-c 6.28±0.03 l-p 28.87±0.86 k-n C 19.33±1.0 u-w 89.60±5.26 f-i 5.78±0.04 p-u 25.43±0.71 r-s D 15.33±1.0 y-z 72.92±7.64 o 5.25±0.03 w-x 20.28±0.48 x-y Jandaghi Control 27.89±1.05 g-j 100.00±0.0 a 6.05±1 p-r 23.56±0.73 s-v A 27.11±2.26 i-m 100.00±0.0 a 6.04±1 p-r 23.45± 1.05 s-w B 25.33±0.70 n-r 95.80±3.46 a-e 5.97±1 q-s 21.03±0.53 w-x C 20.67±1.93 t-w 80.96±6.21 k-m 5.33±1 u-x 18.73±0.68 y-z D 15.44±1.42 y-z 64.71±7.56 p 4.81±1 y-z 16.45±0.51 a Mousa Abadi Control 32.00±1.22 e 100.00±0.0 a 5.78±1 p-u 30.00±1.87 j-l A 30.44±1.74 e-f 100.00±0.0 a 5.61±1 s-w 29.48±0.87 k-m B 26.88±1.69 i-n 93.80±3.13 b-e 5.33±1 w-x 26.65±0.75 n-r C 22.11±2.02 s-v 78.71±5.28 l-n 5.12±1 x-y 21.75±0.72 u-x D 15.00±1.22 z 52.47±4.98 q 4.57±1 z 14.90±1.07 b Ebrahimi Control 29.33±1.93 f-h 100.00±0.0 a 6.07±0.09 p-r 33.67±1.58 e-f A 28.77±1.20 f-i 100.00±0.0 a 6.08±1.29 p-r 33.55±1.26 e-f B 27.44±1.33 g-k 91.85±2.60 d-h 5.75±0.66 p-u 31.26±1.29 h-j C 23.67±1.32 q-u 84.68±4.53 i-k 5.44±0.09 u-x 26.56±1.44 n-q D 19.33±1.32 u-w 62.98±8.62 p 5.17±0.09 w-y 22.15±1.34 s-v Badami Zarand Control 25.00±1.22 n-r 100.00±0.0 a 6.73±0.05 h-j 29.32±1.09 k-m A 24.67±1.32 o-s 100.00±0.0 a 6.69±0.06 h-j 29.35±1.30 k-m B 23.33±1.0 q-u 97.39±0.0 a-c 6.56±0.08 j-l 27.40±0.92 m-q C 21.44±1.23 t-v 93.00±3.37 c-h 6.25±0.06 m-p 24.51±0.81 r-t D 17.78±1.48 v-y 83.71±4.45 j-l 5.80±0.12 p-u 21.19±0.90 w-x Fandoghi 48 Control 35.00±1.87 d 100.00±0.0 a 6.62±0.19 i-j 36.53±1.11 d A 34.33±1.58 d 100.00±0.0 a 6.53±0.11 j-m 36.23±0.92 d B 31.11±1.69 e-f 94.55±4.30 b-e 6.30±0.10 k-o 33.17±1.26 e-g C 26.77±1.85 j-o 87.96±2.29 h-j 5.90±0.15 q-s 29.34±1.65 k-m D 21.11±1.69 t-w 75.97±6.88 o 5.67±0.09 s-w 23.45±1.02 s-v Sabs Pesteh Togh Control 32.00±1.50 e 100.00±0.0 a 6.43±0.09 j-n 28.22±1.21 l-o A 31.67±0.86 e 100.00±0.0 a 6.44±0.05 j-n 27.73±1.10 m-p B 28.00±1.87 g-k 93.78±0.05 b-g 6.13±0.08 n-p 25.70±0.92 p-r C 24.33±1.32 p-t 83.08±3.09 h-j 5.73±0.08 s-w 22.91±0.29 s-v D 20.11±1.45 t-w 67.29±5.39 no 5.33±0.09 u-x 21.01±0.64 w-x Ahmad Aghaee Control 30.00±1.87 e-g 100.00±0.0 a 5.71±0.11 s-w 23.11±1.16 s-w A 27.88±1.16 g-k 100.00±0.0 a 5.67±0.08 s-w 21.33±1.32 w-x B 25.00±1.22 n-s 95.55±3.16 a-e 5.35±0.11 u-x 18.33±0.96 y-z C 22.11±1.26 s-v 82.32±4.41 kl 5.11±0.08 x-y 17.21±0.54 z D 19.04±0.72 u-x 72.01±2.50 o 4.73±0.08 y-z 16.22±0.66 a/* Rezaie Zodres Control 30.67±1.32 e-g 100.00±0.0 a 5.81±0.18 p-u 34.63±2.23 e A 29.22±1.30 f-h 100.00±0.0 a 5.50±0.26 u-x 32.22±1.27 e-h B 25.77±1.71 m-r 91.76±5.73 d-h 5.17±0.16 w 28.11±1.32 m-p C 20.55±1.01 t-w 75.51±6.87 no 5.05±0.33 x-y 23.46±1.48 s-v D 16.00±0.86 y-z 53.48±4.82 q 4.49±0.24 z-a 17.95±1.08 y-z Shahpasand Control 45.00±1.65 a 100.00±0.0 a 7.77±0.11 c 47.51±1.40 a A 43.67±1.0 a 100.00±0.0 a 7.65±0.10 c 47.07±1.29 a B 41.67±0.70 a-b 98.55±0.0 a-b 7.52±0.10 cd 45.01±0.98 a-b C 39.11±1.16 c 93.89±1.81 b-g 7.21±0.06 e-f 42.19±3.33 c D 35.33±1.58 d 83.01±4.73 j-l 6.90±0.09 g-i 37.01±1.06 d Adv. Hort. Sci., 2018 32(2): 249-264 254 plants of Shahpasand cultivar (45±1.65 leaves), and the lowest amount of them were observed in Mousa Abadi, Kaleh Ghochi, Jandaghi and Rezaie Zood Res cultivars in salinity level D (15±1.22, 15.33±1.00, 15.44±1.42 and 16±0.86 leaves), respectively. The results showed that with increasing salinity of irrigation water, the percentage of green leaves in all cultivars was decreased. In control plants and also plants treated with salinity level A, all leaves of plants were green and were not observed any necrotic leaves. Necrosis and fallen leaves in all cultivars were observed in salinity levels B (except for Akbari culti- var), C and D. The lowest percentage of green leaves was found in salinity level D and in Mousa Abadi (52.47±4.98%), and Rezaie Zood Res (53.48±4.82%), cultivars, respectively. As reported in Table 5, in all the cultivars as the salinity increases, the percentage of necrosis leaves were increased and the first symptoms of necrosis except for Akbari cultivar were observed in salinity level A. In all cultivars, the highest incidence of necrosis leaves was observed in salinity level D. The percentage of fallen leaves also were increased with increasing salinity levels while in all cultivars except for Akbari and Ghazvini cultivars were observed fall- en leaves in salinity levels C and D. The results showed that leaves and shoots fresh and dry weights in all studied cultivars significantly decreased by applying salinity stress and increasing its concentration. Shoots and leaves fresh and dry weights in Kaleh Ghochi, Italiyayi, Jandaghi, Fndoghi 48, Ebrahimi, Mousa Abadi and Rezaei Zood Res culti- vars in salinity levels B, C and D, and in Khanjari, Sabz Pesteh Tohg, Ahmad Aghaee and Badami Zarand cul- tivars in salinity levels C and D, and in Akbari, Shahpasand and Qazvini cultivars only in salinity level D, were decreased significantly compared to control plants. Based on the results of this study, as the salinity increases, the amount of minimum chlorophyll fluo- rescence (F0) was increased significantly. The highest amount of F0 in all cultivars was observed in salinity level D. The highest amount of F0 was observed in the leaves of Khanjari cultivar treated with salinity level D (Table 7). Also, maximum chlorophyll fluorescence (Fm) in all cultivars was decreased significantly as the salinity increased. The highest amount of Fm was observed in control plants while the lowest amount of Fm was observed in Rezaie Zood Res (365.22± 20.90), Jandaghi (380.67±11.69) and Mousa Abadi (387.67±29.06) cultivars that was treated with salini- ty level D, respectively (Table 7). The results showed that in all studied cultivars, (Fv/Fm) ratio was reduced significantly by applying salinity stress and increasing its concentration. Furthermore, there was a significant difference Fv/Fm values in different levels of salinity among tested cul- tivars. In the leaves of the control plants Fv/Fm was 0.83±1 indicating the existence of ideal and non- stressed environmental conditions for the growth of all cultivars throughout the experimental period. Regarding changes in (Fv/Fm) ratio the stress intensity in Rezaie Zood Res and Mousa Abadi culti- v a r s w a s m o r e s e v e r e t h a n o t h e r c u l t i v a r s , (0.59±0.015 and 0.61±0.009 respectively). Therefore, the susceptibility of these cultivars to salinity stress in levels C and D were higher than other cultivars. On the contrary, Gazvini and Akbari cultivars were less damaged, (0.76±0.003 and 0.75±0.007, respectively) (Table 7). In other words, Fv/Fm in this cultivars, showed the lowest decrease. Results on chlorophyll a, b and total chlorophyll content of the leaves treated in different salinity lev- els are reported in Table 8. Chlorophyll a content was reduced significantly in all of the studied cultivars in salinity level D compared to control plants while chlorophyll b content in salinity levels C and D was reduced significantly compared to the control plants. Total chlorophyll content was decreased significantly in Ghazvini cultivar only in salinity level D, and in Akbari and Badami Zarani cultivars in salinity levels C and D while total chlorophyll content in other culti- vars decreased significantly in salinity levels B, C and D (Table 8). Chlorophyll index was decreased signifi- cantly under salinity stress. The lowest chlorophyll index was observed in the leaves of the plants that were irrigated with salinity level D. The highest reduction in chlorophyll index was observed in Mousa abadi (22.60±1.50), Jandaghi (27.83±0.98) and Kaleh Ghochi (31.47±3.08) cultivars. The lowest reduction in chlorophyll index was observed in Shahpasand (55.35±1.35), Akbari (53.70±1.24) and Ghazvini (49.78±1.10) cultivars (Table 8). According to the results reported in Table 9, the content of relative humidity of leaves decreased sig- nificantly as the salinity increased. The content of rel- ative humidity in leaves of control plants were higher than 79.83% (of 79.83±0.24% in control plant leaves of Shahpasand cultivar to 85.25±0.64% in control plant leaves of Khanjari cultivar), while relative humidity content in leaves of Mousa Abadi, Rezaie Zood Res and Sabz Pesteh Togh plants in salinity level D, were 64.17±0.52%, 66.49±0.57% and 66.95± 0.77%, respectively. In Ghazvini and Akbari cultivars Momenpour and Imani - Salinity tolerance in fourteen selected pistachio cultivars 255 Table 5 - Effect of interaction between salinity and cultivar on the morphologic traits measured Means in each column and for each factor, followed by similar letter(s) are not significantly different at the 1% probability level, using Duncan’s Multiple Range Test. Cultivar Treatments Leaf dry weight (g) Leaf fresh weight (g) Downfall leaves (%) Necrosis leaves (%) Khanjari Control 2.77±0.02 d-f 6.28±0.06 e-f 0.00±0.0 l 0.00±0.0 q A 2.77±0.01 d-f 6.30±0.02 e-f 0.00±0.0 l 0.00±0.0 q B 2.67±0.02 f-g 6.05±0.06 f-g 0.00±0.0 l 2.98±3.81 n-q C 2.54±0.01 g-i 5.71±0.03 h 11.72±3.47 d 16.07±4.47 d-e D 2.47±0.03 h-k 5.04±0.06 k-m 19.24±3.22 b 29.35±4.24 a Akbari Control 1.73±0.12 s-u 3.67±0.26 q-t 0.00±0.0 l 0.00±0.0 q A 1.61±0.05 t-u 3.41±0.11 r-u 0.00±0.0 l 0.00±0.0 q B 1.48±0.04 u-x 3.16±0.10 s-v 0.00±0.0 l 0.00±0.0 q C 1.43±0.06 v-x 2.95±0.14 t-w 0.00±0.0 l 3.14±4.23 m-q D 1.34±0.06 w-y 2.69±0.13 u-x 0.00±0.0 l 10.57±4.34 f-h Ghazvini Control 2.45±0.06 h-l 5.44±0.15 h-j 0.00±0.0 l 0.00±0.0 q A 2.44±0.02 h-l 5.41±0.05 h-j 0.00±0.0 l 0.00±0.0 q B 2.40±0.06 h-l 5.30±0.13 i-k 0.00±0.0 l 0.45± 0.30 q C 2.31±0.06 k-o 5.02±0.13 j-l 0.00±0.0 l 3.28±5.63 m-q D 2.25±0.21 m-p 4.76±0.44 l-n 0.00±0.0 l 9.12±3.68 g-i Italiaie Control 2.52±0.18 h-j 5.70±0.42 h 0.00±0.0 l 0.00±0.0 q A 2.54±0.15 h-j 5.75±0.35 g-h 0.00±0.0 l 0.00±0.0 q B 2.30±0.10 k-o 5.14±0.24 j-l 0.00±0.0 l 1.15±2.40 p-q C 1.98±0.13 o-s 4.38± 0.29 o-p 3.78±3.50 g-l 5.50±5.62 i-n D 1.73±0.18 s-u 3.77±0.39 q-t 5.13± 3.05 f-j 8.99±3.09 g-j Kaleh Ghoch Control 2.36±0.16 h-m 5.13±0.36 i-k 0.00±0.0 l 0.00±0.0 q A 2.37±0.07 h-m 5.13±0.16 i-k 0.00±0.0 l 0.00±0.0 q B 2.01±0.06 o-s 4.29±0.13 o-p 1.19±2.50 kl 1.15±3.04 p-q C 1.58±0.08 t-u 3.32±0.17 r-u 4.91±2.70 f-k 5.49±2.78 i-n D 1.18±0.11 y-z 2.43±0.15 v-y 17.10±7.08 b-c 9.98±6.03 f-h Jandaghi Control 2.92±0.23 c-d 6.41±0.24 e 0.00±0.0 l 0.00±0.0 q A 2.89±0.06 c-e 6.32±0.50 e-f 0.00±0.0 l 0.00±0.0 q B 2.55±0.18 g-h 5.53±0.14 hi 1.87± 1.90 i-l 2.33±2.95 n-q C 1.95±0.12 p-t 4.13±0.38 p-r 11.54± 4.80 d 7.50±4.54 g-l D 1.41±0.04 v-x 2.90±0.26 t-w 17.74± 6.60 b-c 17.55±6.71 cd Mousa Abadi Control 1.83±0.02 r-t 4.07±0.09 p-r 0.00±0.0 l 00.00±0.0 q A 1.91±0.09 p-t 3.99±0.06 p-s 0.00±0.0 l 00.00±0.0 q B 1.51±0.10 u-x 3.22±0.20 s-u 2.65±1.30 i-l 3.55±1.50 m-q C 1.18±0.05 y-z 2.43±0.22 v-y 8.15± 2.50 d-f 13.04±2.74 e-f D 0.72±0.12 z 1.42±0.11 z 27.06± 4.90 a 20.47±4.70b-c Ebrahimi Control 1.94±0.07 p-s 4.52 ±0.29m-o 0.00±0.0 l 00.00±0.0 q A 1.87±0.10 r-t 4.32±0.18 o-p 0.00±0.0 l 00.00±0.0 q B 1.61±0.04 t-u 3.61±0.23 q-t 3.82±2.33 g-l 5.33±2.11 j-o C 1.22±0.12 x-y 2.70±0.09 u-x 5.02±2.89 f-k 9.29±3.24 f-h D 0.71±0.12 z 1.50±0.25 y-z 15.05±2.95 c 21.96±3.11 b Badami Zarand Control 2.47±0.13 h-k 5.25±0.25 i-k 0.00±0.0 l 0.00±0.0 q A 2.43±0.09 h-k 5.15±0.27 j-k 0.00±0.0 l 0.00±0.0 q B 2.29±0.11 k-o 4.91±0.20 k-m 0.00±0.0 l 2.61±1.11 n-q C 2.08±0.14 o-r 4.28±0.24 o-p 3.50±2.70 h-l 3.50±2.51 m-q D 1.71±0.16 s-u 3.41±0.28 r-u 5.64±2.99 f-i 10.65±3.80 f-h Fandoghi 48 Control 3.11±0.14 c 7.03±0.37 d 0.00±0.0 l 0.00±0.0 q A 3.06±0.14 c 6.87±0.31 d 0.00±0.0 l 0.00±0.0 q B 2.73±13 e-f 6.07±0.32 f-g 0.00±0.0 l 5.45±2.37 l-p C 2.29±0.15 k-m 4.98±0.34 k-m 3.74±2.50 g-l 8.28±2.30 g-k D 1.73±0.13 s-u 3.67±0.29 q-t 18.15±3.70 b-c 15.88±3.53 de Sabs Pesteh Togh Control 2.34±0.04 j-n 4.99±0.09 k-m 0.00±0.0 l 0.00±0.0 a A 2.35±0.05 j-n 4.99±0.12 k-m 0.00±0.0 l 0.00±0.0 a B 2.29±0.06 k-o 4.76±0.13 m-n 1.11±1.17 j-l 5.01±1.39 k-p C 2.13±0.08 o-r 4.33±0.16 o-p 6.88±2.70 e-h 10.04±2.84 f-h D 1.98±0.08 o-s 3.96±0.17 p-s 14.46±3.67 cd 18.25±3.53 cd Ahmad Aghaee Control 1.89±0.05 p-u 3.85±0.11 p-s 0.00±0.0 l 0.00±0.0 q A 1.87±0.03 p-t 3.68±0.06 q-t 0.00±0.0 l 0.00±0.0 q B 1.78±0.04 s-t 3.48±0.08 r-u 0.50±1.10 l 3.95±2.73 l-q C 1.66±0.04 t-v 3.18±0.08 t-v 6.56±2.12 e-h 11.12±2.64 f-g D 1.42±0.05 v-x 2.66±0.09 u-x 11.37±2.50 d 16.62±2.56 de Rezaie Zodres Control 2.27±0.05 k-m 4.52±0.10 m-o 0.00±0.0 l 0.00±0.0 q A 2.25±0.03 k-m 4.45±0.05 m-o 0.00±0.0 l 0.00±0.0 q B 2.15±0.04 m-p 4.21±0.07 p-s 1.31±0.70 j-l 6.93±3.84 h-m C 1.85±0.067 r-t 3.56±0.13 q-t 9.31±3.12 de 15.18±3.82 de D 1.58±0.05 t-u 2.97±0.09 t-w 27.41±4.45 a 29.11±4.80 a Shahpasand Control 4.34±0.05 a 8.36±0.10 a 0.00±0.0 l 0.00±0.0 q A 4.34±0.02 a 8.32±0.05 a 0.00±0.0 l 0.00±0.0 q B 4.29± 0.03 a 8.17±0.06 a-b 0.00±0.0 l 1.45±0.5 o-q C 4.23±0.05 a 7.93±0.10 b 3.06±1.50 h-l 3.05±1.62 m-q D 4.02±0.08 b 7.41±0.16 c 7.54±3.01 e-g 9.45±3.08 f-h Adv. Hort. Sci., 2018 32(2): 249-264 256 Table 6 - Effect of interaction between salinity and cultivar on the morphologic traits measured Means in each column and for each factor, followed by similar letter(s) are not significantly different at the 1% probability level, using Duncan’s Multiple Range Test. *= a/ is less than z. Given that variety of data was very wide, Duncan’s test grouped data between a to z and less than z such as a/, b/, c/, d/ and e/. Cultivar Treatments Branch fresh weight (g) Root fresh weight (g) Root dry weight ratio to aerial organ dry weight Root fresh weight ratio to aerial organ fresh weight Khanjari Control 4.42±0.02 g-i 8.12±0.13 i-l 0.65±0.01 m-v 0.76±0.01 o-y A 4.38±0.01 g-j 8.13±0.07 h-l 0.65±0.01 m-v 0.76±0.01 o-y B 4.16±0.05 h-m 7.75±0.28 l-o 0.67±0.02 m-u 0.78±0.02 o-x C 3.69±0.05 j-s 6.69±0.11 r-s 0.69±0.01 m-u 0.81±0.01 m-u D 3.01±0.06 r-z 6.14± 0.06 t-u 0.73±0.01 k-s 0.88±0.01 i-r Akbari Control 3.25±0.36 o-x 8.58±0.51 f-i 0.99±0.08 c-j 1.24±0.10 c-f A 3.17±0.34 o-x 8.51±0.25 f-j 1.03±0.05 c-h 1.28±0.06 c-e B 2.99±0.16 s-z 8.01±0.14 j-n 1.03±0.04 c-h 1.28±0.05 c-e C 2.76±0.15 u-a/ 7.95±0.05 j-n 1.04±0.04 c-g 1.31±0.06 c-e D 2.28±0.20 a/-c/ 7.79±0.04 l-o 1.11±0.06 c-d 1.42±0.08 a-c Ghazvini Control 3.44±0.16 n-v 9.46±0.15 a-b 0.91±0.02 d-l 1.06 ±0.02e-n A 3.38±0.08 o-w 9.42±0.35 a-b 0.91±0.03 d-l 1.07±0.04 e-n B 3.18±0.07 o-x 9.35±0.03 a-b 0.94±0.01 d-k 1.10±0.01 e-k C 2.66±0.14 v-a/ 9.29±0.03 a-c 1.03±0.01 c-h 1.21±0.03 c-g D 2.42±0.16 y-b/ 9.15±0.04 a-e 1.09±0.07 c-e 1.28±0.08 c-e Italiaie Control 4.35±0.39 g-k 9.60±0.07 a 0.82±0.06 g-n 0.96±0.06 g-p A 4.23±0.15 h-l 9.58±0.05 a 0.83±0.03 g-n 0.96±0.03 g-p B 3.89±0.12 h-o 9.41±2.98 a-b 0.85±0.28 f-n 0.99 f±0.33-o C 3.30±0.14 o-x 9.19±0.06 a-d 1.02±0.05 c-i 1.19±0.06 c-h D 2.72±0.22 v-a/ 8.96±0.07 b-f 1.20±0.09 b-c 1.37±0.10 b-d Kaleh Ghochi Control 3.21±0.08 o-x 5.46±0.07 w-y 0.56±0.01 p-w 0.65±0.01 r-y A 3.12±0.08 p-y 5.46±0.03 w-y 0.57±0.01 o-w 0.67±0.01 q-y B 2.74±0.08 v-a/ 5.41±0.04 w-z 0.66±0.01 m-u 0.77±0.02 o-y C 2.23±0.06 a/-c/ 5.20±0.05 w-a/ 0.80±0.03 h-p 0.93±0.04 h-q D 1.62±0.03 c/ 4.90±0.03 z-b/ 1.03±0.04 c-h 1.21±0.05 c-g Jandaghi Control 3.49±0.10 m-u 5.24±0.06 w-a/ 0.46±0.01 u-w 0.53±0.01 v-y A 3.42±0.15 n-v 5.22±0.04 w-a/ 0.47±0.02 t-w 0.54±0.02 u-y B 2.90±0.07 t-z 5.01±0.07 y-b/ 0.52±0.01 r-w 0.59±0.01 t-y C 2.34± 0.08 z-b/ 4.78±0.05 a/-c/ 0.65±0.03 m-v 0.74±0.04 o-y D 1.81±0.05 b/ 4.28±0.03 d/ 0.79±0.03 i-p 0.91±0.04 i-r Mousa Abadi Control 3.30±0.20 o-w 5.16±0.18 w-a/ 0.63±0.03 n-w 0.70±0.03 p-y A 3.18±0.09 o-w 5.08±0.10 y-a/ 0.63±0.01 n-w 0.71±0.01 p-y B 2.46±0.07 x- a/ 4.97±0.07 y-b/ 0.75±0.02 k-r 0.84±0.03 k-t C 1.96±0.06 a/- d/ 4.53±0.05 b/-d/ 0.95±0.03 d-k 1.08±0.04 e-l D 1.16±0.08 d/ 4.13±0.07 d/e/ 1.39±0.06 a-b 1.60±0.07 a-b Ebrahimi Control 5.05±0.23 e-g 7.51±0.09 n-p 0.76±0.03 j-q 0.79±0.03 n-w A 5.04±0.18 e-g 7.49±0.06 n-q 0.77±0.02 j-p 0.80±0.02 n-v B 4.41±0.18 f-j 7.32±0.04 o-q 0.87±0.02 e-m 0.91±0.02 i-r C 3.50±0.19 m-t 7.04±0.07 p-r 1.07±0.03 c-f 1.13±0.03 d-j D 2.68±0.16 w-a/ 6.69±0.06 r-s 1.47±0.13 a 1.61±0.16 a Badami Zarand Control 5.57±0.20 d-e 8.80±0.09 c-g 0.78±0.02 j-p 0.81±0.02 m-u A 5.54±0.24 d-e 8.73±0.13 d-g 0.78±0.03 j-p 0.82±0.03 l-t B 5.10±0.17 e-f 8.65±0.13 e-h 0.84±0.02 g-n 0.87±0.03 j-s C 4.41±0.14 g-j 8.32±0.26 g-k 0.92±0.03 d-l 0.96±0.04 g-p D 3.64±0.15 k-s 8.06±0.17 i-m 1.09±0.05 c-e 1.14±0.06 d-i Fandoghi 48 Control 7.71±0.23 a-b 7.62±0.11 l-o 0.41±0.01 w 0.51±0.01 x-y A 7.60±0.19 a-b 7.58±0.05 m-o 0.42±0.01 v-w 0.52±0.01 w-y B 6.81±0.25 c 7.30±0.09 o-q 0.46±0.01 u-w 0.57±0.01 t-v C 5.78±0.32 d 6.99±0.08 q-s 0.52±0.02 r-w 0.65±0.033 r-y D 4.36±0.19 g-j 6.50±0.14 s-t 0.65±0.03 m-v 0.82±0.04 l-t Sabs Pesteh Togh Control 3.81±0.16 i-p 6.02±0.11 t-v 0.69±0.02 l-u 0.68±0.02 q-y A 3.74±0.14 i-r 5.99±0.07 u-v 0.70±0.01 l-t 0.69±0.01 p-y B 3.21±0.11 o-x 5.71±0.18 u-w 0.73±0.01 k-s 0.71±0.01 p-y C 2.61±0.03 x-a/ 5.38±0.14 w-z 0.78±0.01 j-p 0.78±0.01 o-x D 2.14±0.06 a/-c/ 4.95±0.11 y-a/ 0.82±0.02 g-n 0.81±0.02 m-u Ahmad Aghaee Control 3.83±0.07 i-p 5.72±0.06 u-w 0.76±0.01 j-q 0.75±0.01 o-y A 3.76±0.03 i-q 5.73 ±0.07u-w 0.79±0.01 j-p 0.77±0.01 o-y B 3.55±0.07 l-t 5.61±0.07 v-x 0.82±0.01 g-n 0.80±0.01 m-v C 3.35±0.07 o-w 5.47±0.08 w-y 0.86±0.01 f-n 0.84±0.01 k-t D 2.85±0.09 t-z 5.02±0.07 y-a/ 0.91±0.01 d-l 0.91±0.01 i-r Rezaie Zodres Control 4.56±0.09 f-h 4.56±0.12 b/-d/ 0.49±0.01 t-w 0.50±0.01 y A 4.46±0.12 f-i 4.41±0.11 b/-d/ 0.50±0.02 s-w 0.50±0.02 y B 4.13±0.09 i-n 4.28±0.16 d/ 0.51±0.01 s-w 0.51±0.01 x-y C 3.78±0.09 i-q 3.98±0.15 e/ 0.53±0.02 q-w 0.54±0.02 u-y D 3.05±0.10 q-z 3.53±0.09 f/ 0.58±0.01 o-w 0.59±0.01 t-y Shahpasand Control 8.01±0.07 a 9.44±0.11 a-b 0.47±0.01 t-w 0.57±0.01 t-y A 7.98±0.08 a 9.43±0.08 a-b 0.48±0.01 t-w 0.58±0.01 t-y B 7.83±0.12 a-b 9.21±0.05 a-d 0.48±0.01 t-w 0.58±0.01 t-y C 7.49±0.07 a-b 8.98±0.13 b-f 0.49±0.01 t-w 0.59±0.01 t-y D 7.18±0.10 b-c 8.53±0.16 f-i 0.50±0.01 s-w 0.60±0.01 s-y Momenpour and Imani - Salinity tolerance in fourteen selected pistachio cultivars 257 Table 7 - Effect of interaction between salinity and cultivar on chlorophyll fluorescence parameters Means in each column and for each factor, followed by similar letter(s) are not significantly different at the 1% probability level, using Duncan’s Multiple Range Test. Cultivar Treatments (Fv/Fm) Maximum florescence (F m ) Minimum florescence (F o ) Khanjari Control 0.82±0.003 b-c 603.67±3.46 b-d 107.22±1.71 r-u A 0.82±0.003 b-c 606.44±3.39 b-d 110.67±1.58 o-r B 0.80±0.005 d-e 586.00±8.74 e-f 116.55±1.66 k-m C 0.74±0.015 j-k 540.33±5.50 k-m 139.88±8.52 e D 0.65±0.025 q 467.77±5.65 r 163.11±11.20 a Akbari Control 0.83±0.002 a-b 625.44±6.72 a 106.11±2.31 s-u A 0.82±0.004 b-c 617.67±5.85 a-c 109.77±2.16 p-s B 0.82±0.007 b-c 614.11±5.01 a-c 110.55±3.77 o-s C 0.78±0.003 f-g 607.11±7.09 b-d 134.22±2.38 f-g D 0.75±0.007 i-j 555.44±11.58 h-k 141.33±1.58 e Ghazvini Control 0.82±0.003 b-c 602.44±11.54 c-d 106.11±3.51 s-u A 0.82±0.003 b-c 602.55±17.00 c-d 108.67±4.09 q-t B 0.81±0.004 c-d 591.00±2.87 d-f 109.77±2.27 o-s C 0.80±0.003 c-e 578.33±5.61 d-g 118.67±1.93 j-m D 0.76±0.003 h-i 538.11±4.59 l-m 129.33±2.39 h Italiaie Control 0.83±0.004 a-b 600.77±7.41 c-e 101.22±3.89 v-w A 0.83±0.003 a-b 604.22±9.31 b-d 103.77±3.70 t-v B 0.81±0.004 c-d 576.44±3.71 f-g 112.00±2.39 n-q C 0.78±0.008 f-g 532.11±13.50 m 117.11±2.14 k-m D 0.73±0.009 l 488.67±6.61 o-q 133.55±5.12 f-g Kaleh Ghochi Control 0.83±0.002 a-b 538.44±9.46 l-m 93.22±1.98 y-z A 0.82±0.005 b-c 542.88±5.94 j-m 93.33±2.64 y-z B 0.80±0.005 d-e 529.88±7.18 m 106.44±2.29 s-u C 0.76±0.005 h-i 489.00±8.38 o-q 119.55±3.20 i-k D 0.69±0.009 m 444.11±12.31 s 137.00±3.46 e-f Jandaghi Control 0.83±0.005 a-b 580.33±18.67 f 100.67±2.64 v-w A 0.82±0.006 b-c 557.00±3.80 h-j 101.44±3.46 v-w B 0.77±0.006 g-h 479.88±6.73 p-r 110.33±2.54 p-s C 0.7±0.0043 l 417.33±9.04 t-u 113.89±3.25 m-p D 0.66±0.004 p 380.67±11.69 w 129.44±3.08 h Mousa Abadi Control 0.84 a±0.005 551.78±7.15 h-l 91.00±2.87 z A 0.82±0.007 b-c 530.00±7.29 m 94.00±3.57 x-z B 0.79±0.002 e-f 495.22±14.77 op 104.55±3.46 t-v C 0.73±0.008 kl 447.22±21.89 s 122.44±4.97 i-j D 0.61±0.009 s 387.67±29.06 w 151.00±10.34 b-c Ebrahimi Control 0.83±0.003 a-b 608.11±8.08 b-c 104.55±2.50 t-v A 0.83±0.004 a-b 609.67±8.17 a-c 105.44±3.77 t-v B 0.80±0.006 d-e 586.44±10.27 e-f 114.44±3.35 m-p C 0.77±0.006 g-h 539.67±14.41 k-m 123.67±4.24 i D 0.73±0.011 kl 512.44±12.28 n 140.67±4.44 e Badami Zarand Control 0.82±0.003 b-c 602.44±9.83 cd 105.55±2.12 s-u A 0.82±0.002 b-c 606.33±8.81 a-c 106.55±2.45 s-u B 0.81±0.003 c-d 597.11±10.32 d-f 108.55±1.58 q-t C 0.77± 0.007 g-h 542.55±13.92 j-m 124.44±4.92 i D 0.73±0.004 k-l 512.67±12.79 n 137.44±3.16 e-f Fandoghi 48 Control 0.84±0.006 a 585.44±10.90 f 95.11±2.97 x-z A 0.83±0.004 a-b 585.48±9.48 f 98.11±2.47 w-x B 0.79±0.004 e-f 579.00±8.95 f 118.89±3.33 j-m C 0.73±0.010 k-l 491.44±10.87 o-q 131.55±4.63 g-h D 0.64±0.018 r 404.55±14.39 u-v 147.33±4.74 d Sabs Pesteh Togh Control 0.83±0.005 a-b 562.00±14.96 g-h 95.67±1.73 x-y A 0.82±0.007 b-c 539.00±21.68 l-m 97.77±1.78 w-x B 0.76±0.009 h-i 470.89±14.88 r 110.88±2.52 o-r C 0.72±0.007 l 427.11±15.39 t 118.55±4.15 j-l D 0.67±0.009 o 409.11±14.58 u 134.00±3.93 f-g Ahmad Aghaee Control 0.83±0.003 a-b 610.33±12.40 a-c 106.44±2.24 s-u A 0.82±0.004 b-c 603.22±19.07 cd 111.22±3.07 o-r B 0.78±0.011 f-g 543.89±20.01 i-m 117.11±2.61 k-m C 0.75±0.009 i-j 510.33±12.10 n 130.00±3.27 g-h D 0.67±0.022 o 469.89±30.25 r 153.33±4.66 b Rezaie Zodres Control 0.84±0.008 a 562.89±13.27 g-h 92.67±3.04 y-z A 0.82±0.006 b-c 538.55±14.52 k-m 95.67±2.00 x-y B 0.76±0.012 h-i 467.77±16.20 r 105.33±3.60 t-v C 0.68±0.016 n 391.00±10.14 v-u 123.55±5.41 i D 0.59±0.015 t 365.22±20.90 x 147.77±7.52 cd Shahpasand Control 0.83±0.003 a-b 531.00±9.73 m 86.67±2.00 a/ A 0.83±0.004 a-b 530.88±8.26 m 88.00±1.58 a/ B 0.82±0.007 b-c 527.44±17.25 m-n 95.11±2.52 x-z C 0.79±0.012 e-f 499.67±18.36 o-p 105.77±2.81 s-u D 0.75±0.011 i-j 461.00±13.79 r 115.00±3.42 l-o Adv. Hort. Sci., 2018 32(2): 249-264 258 Table 8 - Effect of interaction between salinity and cultivar on the physiologic traits measured Means in each column and for each factor, followed by similar letter(s) are not significantly different at the 1% probability level, using Duncan’s Multiple Range Test. Cultivar Treatments Total chlorophyl (mg/g) Chlorophyll b (mg/g) Chlorophyll a (mg/g) Chlorophyll index (SPAD) Khanjari Control 1.13±0.03 k-n 0.36±0.02 g-j 0.77±0.02 g 57.58±1.52 f-h A 1.11±0.02 m-n 0.36±0.04 g-j 0.75±0.02 g-i 56.62±1.62 g-j B 1.06±0.02 p-r 0.34±0.02 i-l 0.72±0.05 i-k 53.60±0.82 i-l C 0.88±0.01 w 0.31±0.01 l-o 0.57±0.02 s 48.55±1.50 o-q D 0.59±0.02 a/ 0.22±0.01 t 0.37±0.04 w-x 40.00±1.73 y-z Akbari Control 1.45±0.007 c 0.51±0.008 a 0.95±0.003 c 61.27±0.98 c-d A 1.45±0.11 c 0.52±0.008 a 0.94±0.009 c 61.40±1.57 c-d B 1.40±0.02 c-d 0.51±0.1 a 0.89±0.03 c-d 60.15±1.55 c-e C 1.23±0.01 f 0.46±0.03 cd 0.77±0.01 g 56.97±1.04 g-i D 1.05±0.009 q-s 0.38±0.02 e-h 0.67±0.02 m-o 53.70±1.24 k-m Ghazvini Control 1.20±0.01 f-g 0.46±0.007 c-d 0.74±0.01 h-j 55.17±1.27 g-l A 1.21±.005 f-g 0.47±0.01 c-d 0.74±0.008 h-j 54.67±1.25 i-l B 1.17±0.006 g 0.45±0.007 c-d 0.72±0.005 j-k 54.04±1.09 j-m C 1.14±0.02 g-m 0.43±0.008 d 0.71±0.003 j-l 51.98±0.85 l-n D 0.97±0.004 t 0.35± 0.01 h-k 0.62±0.008 q-r 49.78±0.82 n-o Italiaie Control 1.10±0.01 m-o 0.36±0.004 g-j 0.74±0.003 h-j 49.95±1.10 n-o A 1.09±0.01 n-p 0.36±0.004 g-j 0.73±0.01 i-j 50.02±1.38 n-o B 1.04±0.007 q-s 0.32±0.01 k-n 0.72±0.003 j-k 45.17±1.36 r-u C 0.91±0.008 v 0.26±0.009 q-r 0.6±0.0075 op 43.95±1.43 t-w D 0.70±0.01 z 0.20±0.004 t 0.50±0.005 u 40.41±1.46 x-z Kaleh Ghochi Control 1.07±0.007 o-q 0.38±0.008 e-h 0.69±0.005 l-m 45.17±0.60 r-u A 1.06±0.008 p-r 0.37±0.004 f-i 0.69±0.003 l-m 43.95±0.16 t-w B 1.03±0.01 q-s 0.37±0.004 f-i 0.66±0.009 m-o 41.50±0.28 u-z C 0.80±0.009 x 0.31±0.008 l-o 0.49±0.02 u-v 36.24±0.40 a/ D 0.60±0.003 a/ 0.22±0.01 t 0.38±0.01 w-x 31.47±3.08 b/ Jandaghi Control 1.04±0.007 q-s 0.36±0.04 g-j 0.69±0.002 l-m 42.77±0.82 u-x A 1.04±0.008 q-s 0.36±0.04 g-j 0.68±0.004 l-n 42.77±0.76 u-x B 0.95±0.01 t-u 0.32±0.03 k-n 0.63±0.006 p-q 38.54±1.37 y-z C 0.74±0.004 y 0.26±0.03 q-r 0.48±0.010 u-v 35.45±0.85 a/ D 0.53±0.004 b/ 0.17±0.004 u 0.36±0.01 x 27.83±0.98 c/ Mousa Abadi Control 1.05±0.007 q-s 0.36±0.008 g-j 0.69±0.002 l-m 42.40±0.95 v-y A 1.04±0.008 q-s 0.36±0.004 g-j 0.68±0.003 l-n 42.65±0.51 u-y B 0.95±0.01 t-u 0.30±0.005 m-p 0.63±0.005 p-q 38.11±1.00 z-a/ C 0.72 ±0.01y-z 0.23±0.01 s-t 0.49±0.009 u-v 32.33±1.10 b/ D 0.48±0.03 c/ 0.15±0.004 u 0.33±0.008 y 22.60±1.50 d/ Ebrahimi Control 1.20±0.04 f-h 0.45±0.03 d 0.74±0.01 h-j 55.21±1.22 g-l A 1.19±0.008 g-i 0.45±0.02 cd 0.74±0.01 h-j 54.97±1.65 h-l B 1.12±0.02 l-n 0.42±0.01 e-g 0.70±0.008 j-l 49.97±1.98 no C 0.95±0.01 t-u 0.35±0.01 h-k 0.60±0.01 r 45.51±1.88 r-t D 0.74±0.01 y 0.27±0.01 p-r 0.47±0.01 v 40.27±1.54 x-z Badami Zarand Control 1.15±0.02 j-l 0.38±0.008 e-h 0.77±0.008 g 54.86±1.32 h-l A 1.15±0.02 j-l 0.39±0.01 e-g 0.76±0.01 g-h 54.80±1.47 i-l B 1.10±0.02 l-p 0.37±0.01 f-i 0.73±0.01 g-l 52.89±0.70 l-m C 0.93±0.01 u-v 0.30±0.01 m-p 0.63±0.01 p-q 49.39±1.53 n-p D 0.73±0.02 y-z 0.20±0.01 t 0.53±0.01 t 45.55±1.19 r-t Fandoghi 48 Control 1.23±0.02 f 0.41±0.03 e 0.83±0.01 e 56.88-i±1.16 g A 1.23±0.02 f 0.40±0.02 e-f 0.83±0.01 e 56.00±1.22 g-k B 1.16 ±0.009h-j 0.36±0.01 f-i 0.80±0.01 e-f 51.67±1.32 m-n C 1.02±0.03 s 0.32±0.01 k-n 0.70±0.01 j-l 47.22±1.48 p-r D 0.73±0.02 y-z 0.25±0.01 r-s 0.49±0.01 u-v 40.00±1.87 y-z Sabs Pesteh Togh Control 1.19±0.03 g-i 0.44±0.05 d 0.74±0.02 h-j 50.36±1.14 n-o A 1.16±0.02 i-k 0.44±0.02 d 0.73±0.007 i-j 46.93±7.47 o-r B 1.05±0.02 q-s 0.35±0.01 h-k 0.70±0.009 j-l 46.77±1.28 q-s C 0.81±0.008 x 0.28±0.02 o-q 0.53±0.01 t 42.47±0.90 v-y D 0.58±0.01 a/ 0.21±0.01 t 0.36±0.005 x 36.92±1.03 a/ Ahmad Aghaee Control 1.04±0.01 q-s 0.37±0.01 f-i 0.67±0.007 m-o 46.48±3.78 q-t A 1.02±0.02 s 0.35±0.01 h-k 0.67±0.007 m-o 44.15±0.22 s-v B 0.97±0.01 t 0.32±0.009 k-n 0.64±0.006 o-q 41.37±0.44 w-z C 0.83±0.01 x 0.29±0.01 n-q 0.53±0.01 t 36.60±0.30 a/ D 0.62±0.01 a/ 0.23±0.01 s-t 0.39±0.01 w 31.23±0.75 b/ Rezaie Zodres Control 1.12±0.02 l-n 0.36±0.008 g-j 0.76±0.02 g-h 57.72±1.04 e-g A 1.11±0.02 m-n 0.37±0.01 f-i 0.75±0.01 g-i 56.01±0.84 g-k B 1.02±0.02 s 0.32±0.01 k-m 0.70±0.01 j-l 53.25±1.63 lm C 0.86±0.02 w 0.29±0.01 n-q 0.57±0.01 s 48.56±1.41 o-q D 0.58±0.03 a/ 0.21±0.005 t 0.37±0.02 w-x 40.24±1.61 x-z Shahpasand Control 1.54±0.007 a 0.50±0.008 a-b 1.04±0.007 a 65.52±1.16 a A 1.54±0.01 a 0.50±0.01 a-b 1.03±0.009 a-b 64.52±1.19 a-b B 1.50±0.03 a-b 0.48±0.02 b-c 1.02±0.008 a-b 62.57±0.99 a-c C 1.33±0.03 e 0.40±0.02 e-f 0.93±0.01 c 59.98±0.79 d-f D 1.10±0.02 m-o 0.29±0.02 n-q 0.81±0.01 e-f 55.35±1.35 g-l Momenpour and Imani - Salinity tolerance in fourteen selected pistachio cultivars 259 Table 9 - Effect of interaction between salinity and cultivar on the physiologic traits measured Means in each column and for each factor, followed by similar letter(s) are not significantly different at the 1% probability level, using Duncan’s Multiple Range Test. Cultivar Treatments Cell membrane injury (%) Relative ionic leakage (%) Relative water content (%) Khanjari Control - 37.70±0.010 m-o 85.25±0.64 a A 2.98±1.28 w-y 39.14±0.008 k-o 84.16±0.46 a-b B 8.09±0.91 t-u 44.34±0.005 i-o 81.31±0.51 b C 23.09±3.10 k-m 51.75±0.019 d-k 77.60±0.62 c D 46.47±0.70 b 64.42±0.004 a-c 70.36±1.04 f Akbari Control - 38.05±0.007 l-o 85.08±0.40 a A 0.83±1.21 x-y 38.41±0.016 l-o 84.52±0.60 a-b B 5.27±1.07 u-w 42.30±0.006 j-o 82.90±0.60 a-b C 16.37±1.78 o-q 45.96±0.011 g-o 82.08±0.68 a-b D 27.83±2.18 h-i 50.09±0.013 d-k 80.22±0.56 b Ghazvini Control - 35.62±0.013 o 83.19±0.57 a-b A 0.42±0.19 y 36.59±0.006 m-o 82.98±0.64 a-b B 2.67±2.28 x-y 38.37±0.014 l-o 81.58±0.42 b C 5.89±2.81 u-w 39.73±0.018 k-o 80.88±0.36 b D 16.17±0.62 o-q 45.50±0.16 g-o 78.95±0.45 b-c Italiaie Control - 40.85±0.012 j-o 84.43±0.35 a-b A 0.75±0.79 x-y 40.88±0.005 j-o 84.21±0.38 a-b B 12.16±3.06 r-s 47.75±0.018 e-n 81.51±0.36 b C 22.24±2.62 l-m 52.75±0.015 c-i 78.40±0.37 c D 33.65±3.51 j-l 60.54±0.020 a-d 74.06±0.50 d-e Kaleh Ghochi Control - 39.43±0.015 k-o 83.41±0.32 a-b A 3.89±2.81 v-y 40.81±0.017 k-o 82.41±0.29 a-b B 11.97±0.59 r-s 43.67±0.003 i-o 81.45±0.32 b C 21.88±1.09 l-n 48.89±0.006 d-l 78.35±0.33 c D 38.43±2.46 de 59.29±0.015 b-f 73.59±0.30 e Jandaghi Control - 37.68±0.015 m-o 82.57±0.32 a-b A 3.06±1.36 w-y 38.85±0.008 l-o 81.45±0.34 b B 10.47±1.29 s-t 45.53±0.008 h-o 79.35±0.25 b-c C 18.68±2.28 n-p 55.70±0.014 b-i 74.67±0.29 d-e D 31.21±3.47 g-h 66.61±0.021 a-b 67.38±0.41 g Mousa Abadi Control - 37.59±0.007 l-o 80.42±0.27 b A 4.47±1.83 u-x 39.39±0.011 k-o 79.53±0.28 b-c B 18.68±2.77 n-p 49.41±0.017 d-k 75.55±0.35 d C 33.47±2.27 f-g 57.80±0.014 b-g 70.52±0.66 f D 54.83±4.50 a 71.34±0.028 a 64.17±0.52 i Ebrahimi Control - 40.04±0.010 k-o 81.51±0.25 b A 4.88±4.12 u-w 42.77±0.027 j-o 80.40±0.45 b-c B 12.92±4.01 q-s 46.57±0.024 f-o 78.49±0.31 b-c C 18.34±2.62 n-p 49.90±0.016 d-l 76.34±0.34 c-d D 27.70±4.05 h-i 56.65±0.024 b-h 69.95±0.45 f-g Badami Zarand Control - 35.90±0.018 n-o 80.56±0.26 b-c A 2.36±3.55 w-y 37.60±0.028 l-o 79.41±0.24 b-c B 6.96±2.50 t-v 41.66±0.016 j-o 78.13±0.30 c C 14.18±2.66 q-r 45.00±0.017 h-o 76.38±0.32 c-d D 21.21±2.04 l-n 49.51±0.013 d-l 73.21±0.47 e Fandoghi 48 Control - 41.44±0.012 j-o 82.51±0.33 a-b A 4.18±3.07 v-y 43.52±0.022 j-o 81.64±0.30 b B 10.24±2.12 s-t 47.33±0.012 f-o 79.22±0.47 b-c C 26.48±4.68 i-k 56.86±0.027 b-h 75.25±0.54 d D 41.04±3.79 c-d 65.40±0.022 a-b 69.12±0.47 f-g Sabs Pesteh Togh Control - 41.06±0.014 j-o 81.34±0.31 b A 5.35±3.95 u-w 44.64±0.029 h-o 79.60±0.41 b-c B 14.57±6.87 q-r 50.94±0.039 d-k 77.18±0.32 c-d C 28.48±4.47 h-i 57.93±0.025 b-g 73.67±0.59 e D 42.89±6.21 c 66.20±0.035 a-b 66.49±0.77 g-i Ahmad Aghaee Control - 39.50±0.013 k-o 85.02±0.32 a A 3.27±1.44 v-y 41.35±0.008 j-o 84.39±0.36 a-b B 9.63±0.93 s-t 44.05±0.005 i-o 83.26±0.42 a-b C 19.71±1.64 m-o 50.30±0.010 d-j 80.1±0.38 b D 35.57±2.85 e-f 60.11±0.017 a-e 75.38±0.38 d Rezaie Zodres Control - 40.12±0.006 k-o 81.05±0.42 b A 2.18±1.61 w-y 40.97±0.010 j-o 80.50±0.25 b-c B 10.48±1.51 s-t 48.81±0.009 d-l 77.17±0.51 c-d C 26.78±3.43 i-j 55.85±0.020 b-i 74.34±0.45 d-e D 47.45±2.95 b 68.31±0.017 a-b 66.95±0.57 g-i Shahpasand Control - 39.92±0.006 k-o 79.83±0.47 b-c A 3.61±3.10 v-y 40.43±0.021 k-o 79.49±0.22 b-c B 5.98±1.87 u-w 42.63±0.011 j-o 78.89±0.51 b-c C 15.32±3.43 p-r 46.68±0.020 f-o 77.15±0.53 c D 27.77±2.98 h-i 53.23±0.018 c-j 74.41±0.39 d-e 260 Adv. Hort. Sci., 2018 32(2): 249-264 was observed the least decrease in the relative humidity content of the leaves. Relative ion leakage percentage in all studied cul- tivars was increased by increasing salinity concentra- tion. The increase in the relative ion leakage percent- age was significant between the studied cultivars. The highest relative ion leakage percentage was observed in Mousa Abadi cultivar in salinity level D. After this cultivar, Rezai Zod Res, Jandaghi, Sabz Pesteh Togh, Fndoghi 48, Kanjari and Italiyayi culti- vars had the highest relative ion leakage percentage. The increase in relative ion leakage percentage was not significant in Ghazvini cultivar compared to the control plants (Table 9). The results showed that the cultivars had a significant difference in cell mem- brane injury percentage. The highest cell membrane injury percentage was observed in the leaves of Mousa Abadi (54.83±4.50%), and the lowest cell membrane injury percentage was observed in the leaves of Ghazvini (16.17±0.62%). Results reported in Table 10 assessed that with increasing salinity concentration in irrigation water, the sodium concentration in the leaves and roots of total cultivars increased. The increase in sodium con- centration in the leaves of Ghazvini cultivar was only significant when plants were treated with salinity l e v e l D , w h i l e i n A k b a r i , B a d a m i Z a r a n d a n d Shahpasand cultivars was observed a significant increased when treated with salinity levels C and D, compared to the control plants. While the increase of sodium concentration in the leaves of other cultivars was significant different salinity levels B, C and D, compared to the control plants (Table 10). The high- est sodium concentration in leaves was observed in the salinity level D and in Mousa Abadi (2.09± 0.045%), Rezaie Zood Res (2.05±0.030%), Khanjari (2.03±0.115%) and Jandaghi (1.90±0.035%) cultivars treated. Also the highest sodium concentration in roots was also observed in salinity level D, and in Mousa Abadi (3.04±0.06%) and Rezaie Zood Res (2.99±0.05%) cultivars. With increasing salinity levels (to 14.75 dS/m), potassium concentration increased in leaves and roots of Akbari, Ghazvini, Shahpasand, Badami Zarand and Ebrahimi cultivars while potassium con- tent in the leaves and roots of other cultivars except Mousa Abadi and Rezaie Zood Res increased to salini- ty level C. Potassium content in the leaves and roots of Mousa Abadi and Rezaie Zood Res cultivars was increased only in salinity level B. Overall, the highest potassium content in leaves and roots was observed in salinity level C and in Ghazvini (1.81±0.02%) and Akbari (1.38±0.02%) cultivars. 4. Discussion and Conclusions Based on the results of this study, with increasing salinity concentration in irrigation water, final height, trunk diameter and number of leaves in all studied cultivars decreased. Plant height is heavily depen- dent on growth environment. Since the growth phe- nomenon gained vital activities in which condition the plant must be in possession of enough water, reduction in the height occurs in case of failure to provide the required water due to the reduction of cell turgor pressure and length of the cells would be negatively affected (Munns, 2002; Munns and Tester, 2008). The osmotic effects of salinity stress can be observed immediately after salt application and are believed to continue for the duration of exposure, resulting in inhibited cell expansion and cell division (Munns 2002; Munns and Tester, 2008). In this r e s e a r c h , t r u n k d i a m e t e r a n d i t s g r o w t h w e r e decreased during the application of salinity stress in all cultivars. These results are consistent with other results (Sepaskhah and Maftoun, 1988; Munns and Tester, 2008; Zrig et al., 2015). It has been reported that growth rates of pistachio trees decrease with increasing sodium chloride (NaCl) concentration in soil. It has been also reported that there is a positive correlation between sodium (Na+) as well as chloride (Cl-) concentration in plant tissue and soil (Sepaskhah and Maftoun, 1988; Munns and Tester, 2008; Zrig et al., 2015). Based on the results of this study, number of leaves with increasing salinity concentrations reduced. Our results are consistent with studies reporting that increasing salinity levels negatively affect morphology and number of leaves in pistachio trees (Picchioni and Myamoto, 1990; Saadatmand et al., 2007; Karimi et al., 2011). The results of this research showed that with increasing salinity, per- centage of green leaves, leaves and shoots fresh and dry weights in all cultivars decreased but the percent- age of necrotic leaves and percentage of downfall leaves increades. The cultivars showed different responses to salinity levels. These results are consis- tent with the results of Karimi et al. (2009 and 2011). In these studies, effect of salinity levels on pistachio cultivars was investigated and was reported that pis- tachio cultivars showed different responses to salini- ty levels. Although pistachio trees are classified as tolerant to salinity, but amount of their tolerance to salinity is differently (Sepaskhah and Maftoun, 1988; Momenpour and Imani - Salinity tolerance in fourteen selected pistachio cultivars 261 Table 10 - Effect of interaction between salinity and cultivar on root and leaf K+ and Na+ contents Means in each column and for each factor, followed by similar letter(s) are not significantly different at the 1% probability level, using Duncan’s Multiple Range Test. Cultivar Treatments Root Na+ (%) Leaf Na+ (%) Root K+ (%) Leaf K+ (%) Khanjari Control 0.55±0.03 s-y 0.43±0.027 q-v 0.60±0.03 z-a/ 1.35±0.03 k-m A 0.59±0.01 q-y 0.46±0.023 q-v 0.76±0.05 p-w 1.44±0.11 d-i B 0.70±0.06 o-x 0.64±0.023 m-r 0.73±0.05 q-y 1.56±0.03 c-f C 1.57±0.11 g-i 1.25±0.055 g-h 0.50±0.04 b/ 1.30±0.06 i-o D 2.59±0.06 c-d 2.03±0.116 a 0.37±0.04 d/ 1.01±0.04 u-x Akbari Control 0.42±0.01 y 0.37±0.013 t-v 0.80±0.03 m-u 1.08±0.03 r-x A 0.44±0.008 x-y 0.39±0.005 t-v 0.99±0.03 f-i 1.21±0.05 m-r B 0.48±0.03 v-y 0.42±0.007 r-v 1.37±0.03 a 1.58±0.04 c-e C 0.97±0.03 l-n 0.73±0.035 k-n 1.38±0.02 a 1.59±0.02 b-d D 1.86±0.04 f 1.40±0.066 e-g 0.77±0.02 o-v 1.11±0.03 q-v Ghazvini Control 0.46±0.003 w-y 0.41±0.014 s-v 0.79±0.02 n-v 1.31±0.02 i-n A 0.47±0.004 w-y 0.41±0.007 s-v 0.84±0.02 k-r 1.48±0.02 d-h B 0.49±0.006 v-y 0.43±0.004 q-v 0.95±0.02 g-k 1.55±0.03 c-g C 0.52±0.006 u-y 0.46±0.007 q-v 1.08±0.02 d-f 1.81±0.02 a D 1.05±0.02 k-m 0.82±0.023 k-m 0.85±0.02 j-q 1.35±0.02 h-m Italiaie Control 0.57±0.02 r-y 0.34±0.006 v 0.93±0.02 h-l 1.08±0.02 r-x A 0.61±0.01 q-y 0.36±0.007 t-v 0.98±0.03 f-i 1.19±0.02 n-t B 0.78±0.03 n-t 0.43±0.007 q-v 1.13±0.02 cd 1.23±0.02 m-p C 1.21±0.02 j-k 0.82±0.027 k-m 0.88±0.02 i-p 0.99±0.02 v-x D 1.81±0.04 f 1.55±0.035 c-e 0.60±0.02 z-a/ 0.67±0.02 a/ Kaleh Ghochi Control 0.67±0.03 p-y 0.45±0.005 q-v 0.89±0.02 h-o 1.10±0.02 r-w A 0.70±0.02 o-x 0.47±0.003 p-v 0.95±0.02 g-k 1.18±0.04 n-t B 0.75±0.009 n-u 0.49± 0.003 p-v 1.14±0.02 b-d 1.57±0.02 c-e C 1.38±0.02 i-j 0.76±0.029 k-n 1.11±0.02 de 1.55±0.02 c-g D 2.55±0.04 d 1.50±0.044 d-f 0.82±0.02 l-t 1.17±0.02 n-t Jandaghi Control 0.49±0.006 u-y 0.41±0.005 s-v 0.68±0.02 u-z 0.82±0.02 y-z A 0.60±0.005 q-y 0.46±0.004 q-v 0.72±0.03 r-z 0.93±0.02 x-y B 0.82±0.01 m-q 0.57±0.017 n-u 0.75±0.05 q-x 1.08±0.02 r-w C 1.52±0.02 g-i 1.22±0.035 g-h 0.69±0.02 u-z 0.71±0.02 z-a/ D 2.73±0.03 cd 1.90±0.035 a-b 0.35±0.03 d/ 0.46±0.02 b/ Mousa Abadi Control 0.53±0.007 t-y 0.44±0.002 q-v 0.60/±0.01 z-a 1.05±0.02 s-x A 0.65±0.01 q-y 0.47±0.005 p-v 0.85±0.02 j-q 1.13±0.02 p-v B 0.83±0.03 m-p 0.71±0.034 l-o 0.63±0.02 a/ 1.07±0.02 r-x C 1.76±0.02 f-g 1.33±0.027 f-h 0.45±0.02 c/ 0.95±0.02 w-y D 3.04±0.06 a 2.09±0.045 a 0.34±0.01 d/ 0.40±0.02 c/ Ebrahimi Control 0.46±0.005 w-y 0.39±0.005 t-v 0.68±0.02 u-z 1.26±0.03 k-q A 0.48±0.005 v-y 0.41±0.004 s-v 0.77±0.02 o-v 1.37±0.02 h-l B 0.53±0.007 t-y 0.45±0.006 q-v 0.82±0.02 l-t 1.48±0.02 d-h C 1.14±0.04 k-l 0.87±0.020 j-l 0.83±0.02 k-s 1.50±0.02 d-h D 2.11±0.03 e 1.62±0.027 c-d 0.60±0.02 z-a/ 1.15±0.01 o-u Badami Zarand Control 0.51±0.007 u-y 0.48±0.005 p-v 0.71±0.02 s-z 1.04±0.01 t-x A 0.53±0.003 t-y 0.49±0.004 p-v 0.74±0.02 q-y 1.16±0.02 n-u B 0.56±0.008 r-y 0.51±0.019 o-v 0.97±0.02 f-j 1.43±0.01 e-j C 0.83±0.02 m-q 0.64±0.027 m-r 1.01±0.01 e-h 1.47±0.01 d-h D 1.73±0.04 f-g 1.23±0.027 g-h 0.70±0.02 t-z 1.05±0.01 s-x Fandoghi 48 Control 0.60±0.006 q-y 0.42±0.002 r-v 0.82±0.02 l-t 1.19±0.02 n-t A 0.64±0.008 q-y 0.44±0.005 q-v 0.91±0.02 h-n 1.28±0.03 j-p B 0.99±0.01 l-n 0.79±1.21 k-m 0.92±0.02 h-m 1.35±0.10 h-m C 1.43±0.02 h-j 0.93±0.01 j-k 0.90±0.02 h-n 1.30±0.02 i-o D 2.74±0.04 c-d 1.73±0.04 b-c 0.64±0.02 x-z 1.01±0.02 u-x Sabs Pesteh Togh Control 0.60±0.007 q-y 0.48±0.005 p-v 0.62±0.09 y-z 1.07±0.02 r-x A 0.64±0.01 q-y 0.51±0.005 o-v 0.88±0.01 i-p 1.28±0.02 j-p B 0.79±0.04 n-s 0.57±0.02 n-u 1.01±0.02 e-h 1.44±0.02 d-i C 1.55±0.03 g-i 1.02±0.05 i-j 0.67±0.009 v-z 1.19±0.01 n-t D 2.81±0.07 b-c 1.83±0.06 b 0.44±0.01 c/ 0.83±0.01 y-z Ahmad Aghaee Control 0.62±0.006 q-y 0.55±0.004 n-v 0.95±0.02 g-k 1.37±0.02 h-l A 0.65±0.006 q-y 0.58±0.005 n-t 1.08±0.02 d-f 1.54±0.03 c-g B 0.81±0.02 n-p 0.63±0.02 m-s 1.39±0.02 a 1.65±0.03 b-c C 1.64±0.02 f-h 1.17±0.02 h-i 1.35±0.01 a 1.50±0.05 d-h D 2.60±0.03 c-d 1.83±0.04 b 0.64±0.01 w-z 1.17±0.02 n-t Rezaie Zodres Control 0.55±1.41 s-y 0.42±0.005 r-v 0.82±0.02 l-t 1.22±0.02 l-r A 0.60±0.008 q-y 0.45±0.005 q-v 1.08±0.02 d-f 1.41±0.02 f-k B 0.93±0.02 l-o 0.68±0.03 l-p 0.85±0.01 j-q 1.21±0.02 m-r C 1.74±0.03 f-g 1.31±0.02 f-h 0.62±0.03 y-z 0.98±0.03 v-x D 2.99±0.05 a-b 2.05±0.03 a 0.39±0.02 d/ 0.64±0.02 a/ Shahpasand Control 0.43±0.004 y 0.35±0.005 u-v 0.97±0.02 f-j 1.40±0.03 g-k A 0.45±0.003 x-y 0.36±0.004 t-v 1.05±0.01 d-g 1.48±0.02 d-h B 0.48±0.006 v-y 0.38±0.006 t-v 1.23±0.01 b-c 1.68±0.03 a-c C 0.91±0.02 l-p 0.65±0.02 m-q 1.24±0.02 b 1.72±0.03 a-b D 1.76±0.02 f-g 1.28±0.07 g-h 0.90±0.03 h-n 1.37±0.03 h-l 262 Adv. Hort. Sci., 2018 32(2): 249-264 Munns and Tester, 2008). Based on the results of this study, Fv/Fm ratio was 0.83±1 in the leaves of the control plants indicating the existence of ideal and non-stressed environmen- tal conditions for the growth of all cultivars through- out the experimental period. In many plant species, when Fv/Fm ratio is about 0.83, it means that stress hasn’t been introduced to the plant and, lower levels indicate stress condition in plants (Maxwell and Johnson, 2000). Regarding changes in Fv/Fm values the stress intensity in Rezaie Zood Res and Mousa Abadi cultivars were more severe than other cultivars (0.59±0.015 and 0.61±0.09, respectively). On the con- trary, Gazvini and Akbari cultivars were less damaged (0.76±0.003 and 0.75±0.007, respectively). These results are consistent with the results of (Herda et al., 1999; Starck et al., 2000; DeEll and Toivonen, 2003; Kodad et al., 2010). It has been reported that salinity stress is one of the most important environmental factors limiting photosynthesis. Symptoms of salinity stress are expressed at both stomatal and non-stom- atal levels. At stomatal level, the plant closes its stomata to prevent injuries (Maxwell and Johnson, 2000, Ranjbarfordoei et al., 2006). As a result, net photosynthesis is unavoidably reduced due to a decrease in CO2 availability, which potentially dam- ages the photosynthetic apparatus (Lawlor and Cornic, 2002). Most of the decrease in photon flux energy used for photochemistry can be explained as an increase in non-photochemical dissipation of exci- tation energy (Lawlor and Cornic, 2002). The results of this research indicated that under salinity stress amount of chlorophyll b was reduced more than amount of chlorophyll a. These results are consistent with the results of Dejampour et al. (2012). These researchers investigated the effect of NaCl on the amount of chlorophyll a, b and total chlorophyll in some of the Prunus genus, and they reported that amount of chlorophyll b and total chlorophyll significantly decreased under salinity stress. However, reduction in amount of chlorophyll a in these plants was not significant. Also, total chlorophyll content was decreased significantly in all studied cultivars with increasing salinity that are con- sistent with the results of Karimi et al. (2009 and 2011). Researcher reported that salinity stress leads to reduction chlorophyll content and photosynthesis capacity in plants which are the major reasons of decreases growth and yield in plants (Levitt, 1980; Munns, 2002; Munns and Tester, 2008). The results showed that content of relative humidity were decreased significantly as the salinity increased. The highest reduction in relative humidity content was observed in leaves Mousa Abadi, Rezaie Zood Res and Sabz Pesteh Togh cultivars under salini- ty level of 19.8 dS/m. The results are consistent with the data reported by Shibli et al. (2000) and Massai et al. (2004). Salinity, through the gradual accumula- tion of sodium ions, reduces the relative water con- tent and osmotic potential of the leaf in full turgor state. Relative ion leakage percentage and cell mem- brane injury percentage in all studied cultivars were increased by increasing salinity concentration. The highest relative ion leakage percentage and cell membrane injury percentage were observed in Mousa Abadi cultivar under treatment 19.8 dS/m. These results are consistent with the results of other studies. It has been reported that using a relative ionic leak test is one way to find out the extent to which cell membranes are damaged. Recording the relative ion leakage rate allow for tissue damage esti- mation. This method was used for the first time by Dexter et al. (1930 and 1932) to investigate the resis- tance to cold in plants and, over time, was used to measure cell membrane damage in relation to other environmental stresses, including salinity stress (Chen et al., 1999). With increasing salinity concentration in irrigation water, the sodium concentration in the leaves and roots of total cultivars studied increased. The highest sodium concentration in leaves and roots were observed in salinity level 19.8 dS/m and in Mousa Abadi and Rezaie Zood Res cultivars which had the highest percentage of leaves necrosis and loss, and at the end of the experiment, only 52.47±4.98% and 53.48±4.82% of leaves were greens. In researches on various plants under salt stress, it has been reported that the loss of water availability, toxicity of Na+ and ion imbalance leads to growth limitation in plants (Mahajan and Tuteja, 2005; Szczerba et al., 2009). It is repeatedly reported that K+ deficiency and Na+ tox- icity are major restrictors of crop production world- wide (Mahajan and Tuteja, 2005; Szczerba et al., 2008, 2009). The results indicated that the type of cultivar is effective in potassium absorption and its transmission to the aerial part. In this research, Ghazvini and Akbari cultivars with increasing the amount of potassium in its leaves and roots could reduce the negative and destructive effects of sodi- um better than other cultivars. Potassium plays an important role in vital metabolites in salinity stress conditions, so that the K+ can counteract Na+ stress- es, thus the potential of plants to tolerate salinity is strongly dependent on their potassium nutrition 263 (Aleman et al., 2011; Nieves et al., 2016). Generally, the results of this study showed that by applying salinity stress and increasing its concentra- tion, growth indices including branch height, branch diameter, number of total leaves, percentage of green leaves, fresh and dry weight of leaves, shoots and roots, relative humidity content, chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b and total chlorophyll content, have been reduced in the all cultivars studied. But the per- centage of necrotic leaves, percentage of downfall leaves, relative ionic percentage and cell membrane injury percentage were increased. However, the reduction and increase of measured traits were sig- nificantly different among studied cultivars. The results also showed that salinity stress affected the young trees through increasing the amount of mini- mum fluorescence (F0) and decreasing the maximum fluorescence (Fm) and reducing variable fluorescence (Fv) as well as Fv/Fm ratio from 0.83±1 in the control p l a n t s t o 0 . 5 9 ± 0 . 0 1 5 i n R e z a i e Z o o d R e s a n d 0.61±0.009 in Mousa Abadi cultivar. Based on the results mentioned above, reducing Fv/Fm ratio was symptoms of the damaging stress in plants. The results of method chlorophyll fluorescence in this research are consistent with the results of morpho- logical and physiological traits and therefore, it can be said that chlorophyll fluorescence technique (Fv/Fm indicator) is a rapid, sensitive and non-destruc- tive method to check the intensity of stress that induced to plants. Overall, the result showed that type of cultivar and level of salinity was affected on concentration of Na+ and K+ in leaves and roots. Ghazvini cultivar was recognized as the most tolerant cultivar to salinity. This cultivar could tolerate salinity 14.75 dS/m. After this cultivar, Akbari, Badami Zarand and Shahpasand cultivars had more tolerance to salinity, respectively. In contrast, Rezaie Zood Res and Mousa Abadi cultivars were recognized as the most sensitive cultivars to salinity stress. After these cultivars, Khanjari, Jandaghi and Fndoghi 48 cultivars had more sensitive to salinity. References ALEMáN F., NIEVES-CORDONES M., MARTíNEZ V., RUBIO F., 2011 - Root K+ acquisition in plants: the Arabidopsis thaliana model. - Plant Cell Physiol., 52(9): 1603-1612. ARNON D.I., 1949 - Copper enzymes in isolated chloroplast polyphenol oxidase in Beta vulgaris. - Plant Physiol., 24: 1-15. BAKER N.R., ROSENQVIST E., 2004 - Applications of chloro- phyll fluorescence can improve crop production strate- gies: an examination of future possibilities. - J. Exp. Bot., 55(403): 607-1621. CHEN Q., ZHANG W.H., LIU Y.L., 1999 - Effect of NaCl, glu- tathione and ascorbic acid on function of tonoplast vesicles Isolated from barley leaf. - J. Plant Physiol., 155(6): 685-690. DeELL J.R., TOIVONEN P.M.A., 2003 - Practical applications of chlorophyll fluorescence in plant biology. - Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 259. DEJAMPOUR J., ALI ASGHARZADEH N., GERIGORIAN V., MAJIDI HERAVAN A., 2012 - Evaluation of salinity toler- ance in some interspecific hybrids of prunus. - Seed and Plant Improvement Journal, 4(28): 339-351. DExTER S.T., TOTTINGHAM W.E., GRABER L.F., 1930 - Preliminary results in measuring the hardiness of plants. - Plant Physiol., 5(2): 215-223. DExTER S.T., TOTTINGHAM W.E., GRABER L.F., 1932 - Investigations of the hardiness of plants by measure- ment of electrical conductivity. - Plant Physiol., 7(1): 63-78. FERGUSON L., POSS J.A., GRATTAN S.R., GRIEVE C.M., WANG D., WILSON C., DONOVAN T.J., CHAO C.T., 2002 - Pistachio rootstocks influence scion growth and ion relations under salinity and boron stress. - J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci., 127(2): 194-199. HERDA O., DENACORTES H., WILLMITZEER L., FISAHN J., 1999 - Effects of mechanical wounding, current appli- cation and heat treatment on chlorophyll fluorescence and pigment composition in tomato plants. - Plant Physiol., 105: 179-184. KARIMI H.R., EBADI A., ZAMANI Z., FATAHI R., 2011 - Effect of water salinity on growth induces physiological para- meters in some pistachio rootstocks. - J. Plant Nutr., 34: 935-944. KARIMI S., RAHEMI M., MAFTOUN M., TAVALLAI V., 2009 - Effects of long-term salinity on growth and perfor- mance of two Pistachio (Pistacia L.) rootstocks. - Aust. J. Basic & Appl. Sci., 3(3): 1630-1639. KODAD O., SOCIAS I COMPANY R., MORALES F., 2010 - Evaluation of almond flower tolerance to frosts by chlorophyll fluorescence. - Options Méditerranéennes: Série A. Séminaires Méditerranéens, 94: 141-145. LAWLOR D.W., CORNIC G., 2002 - Photosynthetic carbon assimilation and associated metabolism in relation to water deficits in higher plants. - Plant, Cell Environ., 25: 275-294. LEVITT J., 1980 - Responses of plants to environmental stresses. Volume 2. Water, radiation, salt and other stresses. Academic Press, New York, USA, pp. 307. LUTTS S., KINET J.M., BOUHARMONT J., 1995 - Changes in plant response to NaCl during development of rice (Oryza sativa L.) varieties differing in salinity resistance. - J. Exp. Bot., 46(12): 1843-1852. MAHAJAN SH., TUTEJA N., 2005 - Cold, salinity and drought stresses: An overview. - Arch. Biochem. Momenpour and Imani - Salinity tolerance in fourteen selected pistachio cultivars 264 Biophys., 444: 139-158. MASSAI R., REMORNI D., TATTINI M., 2004 - Gas exchange, w a t e r r e l a t i o n s a n d o s m o t i c a d j u s t m e n t i n t w o scion/rootstock combinations of Prunus under various salinity concentrations. - J. Plant Soil Sci., 259: 153-162. MAxWELL K., JOHNSON G.N., 2000 - Chlorophyll fluores- cence a practical guide. - J. Exp. Bot., 51: 659- 668. MUNNS R., 2002 - Comparative physiology of salt and water stress. - Plant Cell Environ., 25: 239-250. MUNNS R., TESTER M., 2008 - Mechanisms of salinity toler- ance. - Annu. Rev. Plant Biol., 59: 651-681. NIEVES-CORDONES M., AL SHIBLAWI F.R., SENTENAC H., 2016 - Roles and transport of sodium and potassium in plants, 291-324. - In: SIGEL A., H. SIGEL, and R.K.O. SIGEL (eds.) The Alkali metal ions: Their role for life. Springer-Verlang, Berlin, Germany, pp. 628. NOITSAKIS B., DIMASSI K., THERIOS I., 1997 - Effect of NaCl induced salinity on growth, chemical composition and water relation of two almond (Prunus amygdalus L.) cultivars and the hybrid GF677 (Prunus amygdalus - Prunus persica). - Acta Horticulturae, 449: 641-648. P A P A D A K I S I . E . , V E N E T I G . , C H A T Z I S S A V V I D I S C . , SPTIROPOULOS T.E., DIMASSI N., THERIOS I., 2007 - Growth, mineral composition, leaf chlorophyll and water relationships of two cherry varieties under NaCl- induced salinity stress. - Soil Sci. Plant Nutr., 53: 252- 258. PICCHIONI G.A., MIYAMOTO S., 1990 - Salt effects on growth and ion uptake of pistachio rootstock seedlings. - J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci., 115(4): 647-653. RANJBARFORDOEI A., SAMSON R.S., VANAMME P., 2006 - Chlorophyll fluorescence performance of sweet almond [Prunus dulcis (Miller) D. Webb] in response to salinity stress induced by NaCl. - Photosynthetica, 44(4): 513-522. SAADATMAND A.R., BANIHASHEMI Z., MAFTOUN M., SEPASKHAH A.R., 2007 - Interactive effects of soil salini- ty and water stress on growth and chemical composi- tions of pistachio nut trees. - J. Plant Nutr., 30: 2037- 2050. SEPASKHAH A.R., MAFTOUN M., 1988 - Relative salt toler- ance of pistachio cultivars. - J. Hortic. Sci., 63(1): 157- 162. SHIBLI R.A., SHATNAWI M.A., SWAIDAT I.Q., 2003 - Growth, osmotic adjustment and nutrient acquisition of bitter almond under induced sodium chloride salinity in vitro. - Commun. Soil Sci. Plant, 34: 1969-1979. STARCK Z., NIEMYSKA B., BOGDON J., TAWALBEH R.N.A., 2000 - Response of tomato plants to chilling stress in association with nutrient or phosphorus starvation. - Plant Soil Sci., 226: 99-106. SZCZERBA M.W., BRITTO D.T., BALKOS K.D., KRONZUCKER H.J., 2008 - NH 4 +-stimulated and -inhibited components of K+ transport in rice (Oryza sativa L.). - J. Exp. Bot., 59(12): 3415-3423. SZCZERBA M.W., BRITTO D.T., KRONZUCKER H.J., 2009 - K+ transport in plants: physiology and molecular biology. - Plant Physiol., 166: 447-466. WALKER R.R., TöRöKFALVY E., BEHBOUDIAN M.H., 1987 - Uptake and distribution of chloride: sodium and potas- sium ions and growth of salt-treated pistachio plants. - Aust. J. Agr. Res., 38: 383-394. YAMASAKI S., DILLENBURG L.C., 1999 - Measurements of leaf relative water content in Araucaria angustifolia. - Revista Brasilian Fisiologia Vegetal., 11: 69-75. ZRIG A., BEN MOHAMED H., TOUNEKTI T., OUELED S., KHEMIRA H., 2015 - Differential responses of antioxi- dant enzymes in salt-stressed almond tree grown under sun and shade conditions. - J. Plant Sci. Res., 2(1): 1-10. Adv. Hort. Sci., 2018 32(2): 249-264