**6. Conclusion**

**Figure 8.** Sugar beet leaf development of cv. 'Felicita' 8 days after salt treatment (a) 0 mM NaCl (control), (b) 50 mM

Number of stomata decreased by increasing NaCl concentration and this decrease was compensated by increased stomata size as reported by Inze and De Veylder [16]. Higher NaCl concentration increased stomata length and decreased stomata width in tetraploid genotype 'AD 440'. The highest stomata area was recorded from 150 mM NaCl treatment in diploid

The highest cell and stomata numbers were recorded from 0 mM NaCl treatment in both genotypes. And also cell and stomata numbers decreased by increasing NaCl concentration. However, this decrease in cell and stomata numbers were observed sharper in diploid genotype than in tetraploid one. The difference in cell and stomata numbers between 0 and 150 mM NaCl treatments was higher in diploid than in tetraploid. This could be due to the fact that tetraploid genotype 'AD 440' was more resistant to salt stress than diploid genotype 'Felicita' (Table 11). In other characters (cell and stomata lengths, cell and stomata widths, approx. cell and stomata areas), the highest values were recorded from 150 mM NaCl treatment in diploid genotype while they were noted from 50 mM NaCl treatment in tetraploid genotype. Since many characters in 150 mM NaCl concentration were almost the same as in 0 mM NaCl, it could be concluded that tetraploid genotype 'AD 440' was more resistant to salt stress than

genotype while it was noted from 50 mM in tetraploid (Table 11).

NaCl and (c) 150 mM NaCl

378 Current Progress in Biological Research

diploid one.

Polyploidy is a common phenomenon in nature. There are differences between diploid and polyploid plants from morphological, physiological, cellular and biochemical aspects. Although polyploid genotypes have several advantages over diploids, the effects of increased ploidy level cannot be anticipated all the time. This was seen clearly in the studies we con‐ ducted. From one hand, diploid genotypes found superior than tetraploids in the generative characteristics such as total chlorophyll and protein contents, root and sugar yields, and sugar content under field conditions, on the other hand, regeneration capacity and susceptibility to *Agrobacterium tumefaciens* infection of polyploids were found higher under *in vtiro* conditions. Moreover, when cellular responses were examined, tetraploid genotype seemed more resistant to salt stress than diploid counterpart. Thus, it should be considered that responses of polyploid genotypes may differ from mophological, physiological, cellular and biochemical aspects. That is why, in a research study, responses of both diploid and polyploid genotypes should be evaluated carefully for successful results.

### **Author details**

#### Mustafa Yildiz

Address all correspondence to: myildiz@ankara.edu.tr

Department of Field Crops, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Ankara, Diskapi, Ankara, Turkey

[12] Beyaz R, Alizadeh B, Gurel S, Ozcan SF, Yıldız M. Sugar beet (*Beta vulgaris* L.)

Plant Responses at Different Ploidy Levels http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/55785 381

[13] Bretagnolle F, Thompson JD, Lumaret R. The influence of seed size variation on seed germination and seedling vigour in diploid and tetraploid *Dactylis glomerata* L. An‐

[14] Sung JM, Chiu KY. Hydration effect on seedling emergence strength of watermelon

[15] Kihara H. Triploid watermelons. Proceedings of the American Society for Horticul‐

[16] Doonan J. Social control on cell proliferation in plants. Current Opinion in Plant Biol‐

[17] Inze D, De Veylder L. Cell cycle regulation in plant development. Annual Review of

[18] Pegtel DM. Effect of ploidy level on fruit morphology, seed germination and juvenile growth in scurvy grass (*Cochlearia officinalis* L. s.l., Brassicaceae). Plant Species Biolo‐

[19] Dale JE. The control of leaf expansion. Annual Review of Plant Physiology 1988; 39:

[20] Sunderland N. Cell division and expansion in the growth of the leaf. Journal of Ex‐

[21] Prado FE, Gonzalez JA, Gallardo M, Moris M, Boero C, Kortsarz A. Changes in solu‐ ble carbonhydrates and invertase activity in *Chenopodium quinoa* ("quinoa") devel‐ oped for saline stress during germination. Current Topics in Phytochemistry 1995;

[22] Sullivan BP, Phafler PL. Diploid-tetraploid comparison in rye. III. Temperature ef‐

[23] Pal RN, Laloraya MM. Effect of calcium levels on chlorophyll synthesis in peanut and linseed plants. Biochemie und Physiologie Pflanezen 1972; 163: 443-449.

[24] Wright GC, Nageswara RRC, Farquhar GD. Water use efficiency and carbon isotope discrimination in peanut under water deficit conditions. Crop Science 1994; 34: 92-97.

[25] Nageswara RRC, Talwar HS, Wright GC. Rapid assessment of specific leaf area and leaf nitrogen in peanut (*Arachis hypogaea* L.) using chlorophyll meter. Journal of

[26] Warner DA, Edwards GE. Effects of polyploidy on photosynthetic rates, photosyn‐ thetic enzymes, contents of DNA, chlorophyll, and sizes and numbers of photosyn‐ thetic cells in the C4 dicot *Atriplex confertifolia*. Plant Physiology 1989; 91: 1143-1151.

fects on seedling development. Crop Science 1986; 26: 795-799.

Agronomy and Crop Science 2001; 189: 175-182.

growth at different ploidy levels. Caryologia 2013 (in press).

seeds differing in ploidy. Plant Science 1995; 110: 21-26.

nals of Botany 1995; 76: 607-615.

tural Science 1951; 58: 217-230.

ogy 2000; 3: 482-487.

gy 1999; 14: 201-215.

267-295.

14: 1-5.

Genetics 2006; 40: 77-105.

perimental Botany 1960; 11: 68-80.

### **References**


[12] Beyaz R, Alizadeh B, Gurel S, Ozcan SF, Yıldız M. Sugar beet (*Beta vulgaris* L.) growth at different ploidy levels. Caryologia 2013 (in press).

**Author details**

380 Current Progress in Biological Research

Address all correspondence to: myildiz@ankara.edu.tr

Department of Field Crops, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Ankara, Diskapi, Ankara,

[1] Grant V. Plant Speciation, 2nd ed. Columbia University Press, New York, New York,

[2] Goldblatt P. Polyploidy in angiosperms: Monocotyledons. In: Lewis W.H. (Ed.), Pol‐ yploidy: Biological relevance, 219 – 239. Plenum Press, New York, New York, USA;

[3] Ramsey JR, Schemske DW. Pathways, mechanisms, and rates of polyploid formation in flowering plants. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 1998; 29: 467-501.

[4] Stebbins GL. Types of polyploids: their classification and significance. Advances in

[5] Molin WT, Meyers SP, Baer GR, Schrader LE Ploidy effects of isogenic populations of alfalfa II. Photosynthesis, chloroplast number, ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase,

[6] Warner DA, Ku MSB, Edwards GE. Photosynthesis, leaf anatomy, and cellular con‐ stituents in the polyploid C4 grass *Panicum virgatum*. Plant Physiology 1987; 84:

[7] Jan CC Induced tetraploidy and trisomic production of *Heliantus annus* L. Genome

[8] Hussain SW, Williams WM, Woodfield DR, Hampton JG. Development of a ploidy series from a single interspecific *Trifolium repens* L&A macr: nigrescens Viv. F1 hy‐

[9] Ranney TG. Polyploidy: From evolution to new plant development. Proceedings of

[10] Comai L. The advantages and disadvantages of being polyploid. Nature Genetics

[11] Mathura S, Fossey A, Beck S. Comperative study of chlorophyll content in diploid and tetraploid black Wattle *(Acacia mearnsii*). Forestry 2006; 79(4): 381-388.

brid. Theoritical and Applied Genetics 1997; 94: 821–831.

the International Plant Propagator's Society 2006; 56: 604-607.

chlorophyll, and DNA in protoplasts. Plant Physiology 1982; 70: 1710-1714.

Mustafa Yildiz

**References**

USA; 1981.

Genetics 1947; 1: 403–429.

1980.

461-466.

1988; 30: 647–651.

2005; 6: 836-846.

Turkey


[27] Beck SL, Dunlop RW, Fossey A. Evaluation of induced polyploidy in *Acacia mearnsii* through stomatal counts and guard cell measurements. The South African Journal of Botany 2003a; 69: 563-567.

[40] Tal M, Gardi I. Physiology of polyploid plants: Water balance in autotetraploid and diploid tomato under low and high salinity. Physiologia Plantarum 1976; 38, 257-261.

Plant Responses at Different Ploidy Levels http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/55785 383

[41] Yildiz M, Özgen M. The effect of a submersion pretreatment on in vitro explant growth and shoot regeneration from hypocotyls of flax (*Linum usitatissimum*). Plant

[42] Reinink K, Biom-Zandstra M. The relation between cell size, ploidy level and nitrate

[43] Wintermans JFGM, De Mots A. Spectrophotometric characteristics of chlorophylls *a* and *b* and their pheophytins in ethanol. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 1965; 109:

[44] Hooykaas PJJ, Schilperoort RA. *Agrobacterium* and plant genetic engineering. Plant

[45] Nester EW, Gordon MP, Amasino RM, Yanofsky MF. Crown gall: a molecular and physiological analysis. Annual Review of Plant Physiology 1984; 35: 387-413.

[46] Bevan MW, Chilton MD. T-DNA of the *Agrobacterium* Ti and Ri plamids. Annual Re‐

[47] Binns AN, Thomashaw MF. Cell biology of *Agrobacterium* infection and transforma‐

[48] Yildiz M, Koyuncu N, Ozgen M. *In vitro* susceptibility of two sugar beet (*Beta vulgaris* L.) lines in different ploidy levels to *Agrobacterium tumefaciens*. Proceedings of Sixth

[49] DeCleene M, DeLey J. The host range of crown gall. Botanical Review 1976; 42: 389–

[50] Anderson A, Moore L. Host specificity in the genus *Agrobacterium*. Phytopathology

[51] Porter JR. Host range and implications of plant infection by *Agrobacterium rhizogenes*.

[52] Schläppi M, Hohn B. Competence of immature maize embryos for *Agrobacterium*-

[53] Van Wordragen MF, Dons HJM. *Agrobacterium tumefaciens*-mediated transfor-mation

[54] Hood EE, Fraley RT, Chilton MD. Virulence of *Agrobacterium tumefaciens* strain A281

[55] Schroeder HE, Schotz AH, Wardley-Richardson T, Spencer D, Higgins TJV. Transfor‐ mation and regeneration of two cultivars of pea (*Pisum sativum* L.). Plant Physiology

of recalcitrant crops. Plant Molecular Biology Reporter 1992; 10:12–36.

tion of plants. Annual Review of Microbiology 1988; 42: 575-606.

Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 1991; 10: 387–421.

mediated gene transfer. Plant Cell 1992; 4: 7–16.

on legumes. Plant Physiology 1987; 83: 529–34.

Field Crops Congress of Turkey, 5-9 September, Antalya, Turkey; 2005.

concentration in lettuce. Physiologia Plantarum 1989; 76: 575-580.

Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture 2004; 77: 111-115.

Molecular Biology 1992; 19: 15-38.

view Genetics 1982; 16: 357-384.

448-453.

466.

1979; 69: 320–323.

1993; 101: 751–57.


[40] Tal M, Gardi I. Physiology of polyploid plants: Water balance in autotetraploid and diploid tomato under low and high salinity. Physiologia Plantarum 1976; 38, 257-261.

[27] Beck SL, Dunlop RW, Fossey A. Evaluation of induced polyploidy in *Acacia mearnsii* through stomatal counts and guard cell measurements. The South African Journal of

[28] Beck SL, Fossey A, Mathura S. Ploidy determination of black waffle (*Acacia mearnsii*) using stomatal chloroplast counts. Southern African Forestry Journal 2003b; 192:

[29] Thirugnanakumar S, Manivannan K, Prakash M, Narasimman R, Anitha Vasline Y.

[30] Yıldız M, Alizadeh B, Beyaz R. *In vitro* explant growth and shoot regeneration from petioles of sugar beet (*Beta vulgaris* L.) lines at different ploidy levels. Journal of Sug‐

[31] Tetu T, Sangwan RS, Sangwan-Norreel BS. Hormonal control of organogenesis and somatic embryogenesis in *Beta vulgaris* callus. Journal of Experimental Botany 1987;

[32] Detrez C, Tetu T, Sangwan RS, Sangwan-Norreel BS. Direct organogenesis from pe‐ tiole and thin cell layer explants in sugar beet cultured *in vitro*. Journal of Experimen‐

[33] Ritchie GA, Short KC, Davey MR. *In vitro* shoot regeneration from callus, leaf axils and petioles of sugarbeet (*Beta vulgaris* L.). Journal of Experimental Botany 1989; 40:

[34] Toldi O, Gyulai G, Kiss J, Tarns I, Balazs E. Antiauxin enhanced microshoot initiation and plant regeneration from epicotyl-originated thin layer explants of sugar beet *(Be‐*

[35] Grieve TM, Gartlan KMA, Elliott MC. Micropropagation of commercially important

[36] Zhang CL, Chen DF, Elliott MC, Slater A. Thidiazuron-induced organogenesis and somatic embryogenesis in sugar beet (*Beta vulgaris* L). In Vitro Cellular and Develop‐

[37] Yildiz M, Onde S, Ozgen M. Sucrose effects on phenolic concentration and plant re‐ generation from sugarbeet leaf and petiole explants. Journal of Sugar Beet Research

[38] Jibiki M, Kuno Y, Shinoyama H, Fujii T. Isolation and properties of large cell strains from a methanol-utilizing yeast, *Candida* sp. N-16 by colchicine treatment. The Jour‐

[39] Guertin DA, Sabatini DM. Cell size control. Encyclopedia of Life Sciences. John Wi‐

Botany 2003a; 69: 563-567.

ar Beet Research 2013 (in press).

tal Botany 1988; 39: 917-926.

In Vitro Plant Breeding. Agrobios, India; 2009.

*ta vulgaris* L). Plant Cell Reports 1996; 15: 851–854.

mental Biology-Plant 2001; 37: 305–310.

sugar beet cultivars. Plant Growth Regulation 1997; 21: 15-18.

nal of General and Applied Microbiology 1993; 39: 439-442.

79-92.

382 Current Progress in Biological Research

38: 506-517.

277-283.

2007; 44: 1–15.

ley & Sons Ltd.; 2005.


[56] Beneddra T, Picard C, Nesme X. Correlation between susceptibility to crown gall and sensitivity to cytokinin in aspen cultivars. Phytopathology 1996; 86: 225–231.

[70] Warkentin TD, McHughen A. Crown gall transformation of lentil (*Lens culinaris* Medic.) with virulent strains of *Agrobacterium tumefaciens*. Plant Cell Reports 1991; 10:

Plant Responses at Different Ploidy Levels http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/55785 385

[71] Islam R, Malik T, Husnain T, Riazuddin S. Strain and cultivar specificity in the *Agro‐*

[72] Yıldız M. The effect of cell size and cell shape of sugar beet (*Beta vulgaris* var. *sacchari‐ fera*) on yield and sucrose concentration. M.Sc. Thesis, Ankara University, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Department of Field Crops, Ankara, Turkey;

[73] Yildiz M, Erkilic EG, Kocak N, Telci C, Kurumlu S and Ozcan S. The response of sug‐ ar beet lines and cultivars (*Beta vulgaris* L.) with different ploidy levels to *in vitro* sal‐ inity stress. 1st National Congress on Agriculture and Exposition with International

*bacterium*-chickpea interaction. Plant Cell Reports 1994; 13: 561-563.

Participation, April 27-30, Eskisehir, Turkey; 2011.

489-493.

1994.


[70] Warkentin TD, McHughen A. Crown gall transformation of lentil (*Lens culinaris* Medic.) with virulent strains of *Agrobacterium tumefaciens*. Plant Cell Reports 1991; 10: 489-493.

[56] Beneddra T, Picard C, Nesme X. Correlation between susceptibility to crown gall and sensitivity to cytokinin in aspen cultivars. Phytopathology 1996; 86: 225–231.

[57] Liu CN, Li XQ, Gelvin SB. Multiple copies of *virG* enhance the transient transforma‐ tion of celery, carrot, and rice tissues by *Agrobacterium tumefaciens.* Plant Molecular

[58] Ritchie SW, Liu CN, Sellmer JC, Kononowicz H, Hodges TK, Gelvin SB. *Agrobacteri‐ um tumefaciens*-mediated expression of *gusA* in maize tissues. Transgenic Research

[59] Smarrelli J, Watters MT, Diba LH. Response of various cucurbits to infection by plas‐ mid-harboring strains of *Agrobacterium*. Plant Physiology 1986; 82: 622–624.

[60] Bergmann B, Stomp AM. Effect of host plant genotype and growth rate on *Agrobacte‐ rium tumefaciens*-mediated gall formation in *Pinus radiata*. Phytopathology 1992; 82:

[61] Van Roekel JSC, Damm B, Melchers LS, Hoekema A. Factors influencing transforma‐ tion frequency of tomato (*Lycopersicon esculentum*). Plant Cell Reports 1993; 12: 644–

[62] Nam J, Matthysse AG, Gelvin SB. Differences in susceptibility of *Arabidopsis* ecotypes to crown gall disease may result from a deficiency in T-DNA integration. Plant Cell

[63] Lowe BA, Krul WR. Physical, chemical, developmental, and genetic factors that mod‐ ulate the *Agrobacterium-Vitis* interaction. Plant Physiology 1991; 96: 121–129.

[64] Bailey M, Boerma HR, Parrott WA. Inheritance of *Agrobacterium tumefaciens* induced

[65] Mauro AO, Pfeiffer TW, Collins GB. Inheritance of soybean susceptibility to *Agrobac‐ terium tumefaciens* and its relationship to transformation. Crop Science 1995; 35: 1152–

[66] Robbs S L, Hawes MC, Lin HJ, Pueppke SG, Smith LY. Inheritance of resistance to

[67] De Kathen A, Jacobsen HJ. Cell competence for Agrobacterium-mediated DNA

[68] Sangwan RS, Bourgeois Y, Brown S, Vasseur G, Sangwan-Norreel B. Characteriza‐ tion of competent cells and early events of *Agrobacterium*-mediated genetic transfor‐

[69] Owens LD, Cress DE.. Genotypic variability of soybean response to *Agrobacterium*

strains harboring the Ti or Ri plasmids. Plant Physiology 1985; 77: 87-94.

tumorigenesis of soybean. Crop Science 1994; 34: 514–519.

crown gall in *Pisum sativum*. Plant Physiology 1991; 95: 52–57.

mation in *Arabidopsis thaliana*. Planta 1992; 188: 439–456.

transfer in *Pisum sativum* L. Transgenic Research 1995; 4: 184–191.

Biology 1992; 20: 1071–1087.

1993; 2: 252–265.

384 Current Progress in Biological Research

1456–1462.

1997; 9: 317–333.

647.

1156.

