Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T17:59:31.555Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DROUGHT TOLERANCE IN CHICKPEA AS EVALUATED BY ROOT CHARACTERISTICS, PLANT WATER STATUS, MEMBRANE INTEGRITY AND CHLOROPHYLL FLUORESCENCE TECHNIQUES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 March 2012

NEERAJ KUMAR ,
A. S. NANDWAL ,
R. S. WALDIA ,
S. SINGH ,
S. DEVI ,
K. D. SHARMA  and
A. KUMAR
NEERAJ KUMAR*
Affiliation:
Department of Botany and Plant Physiology, Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar 125 004, Haryana, India
A. S. NANDWAL
Affiliation:
Department of Botany and Plant Physiology, Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar 125 004, Haryana, India
R. S. WALDIA
Affiliation:
Pulses Section, Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding, Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar 125 004, Haryana, India
S. SINGH
Affiliation:
Department of Botany and Plant Physiology, Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar 125 004, Haryana, India
S. DEVI
Affiliation:
Department of Botany and Plant Physiology, Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar 125 004, Haryana, India
K. D. SHARMA
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar 125 004, Haryana, India
A. KUMAR
Affiliation:
Department of Botany and Plant Physiology, Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar 125 004, Haryana, India
*
‡Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Root traits, such as depth and root biomass, have been identified as the most promising plant traits in chickpea for terminal drought tolerance. With this objective, five contrasting genotypes of chickpea, viz. ICCV-4958, H-208, HC-5, RSG-931 and CSJ-379, having wide adaptability to drought prone areas at national level were assessed for various root characteristics under two environments, i.e. irrigated and rain-fed. The sampling was done at full bloom stage and there were significant differences in the rooting depth among the genotypes both under irrigated and rain-fed conditions. The chickpea roots penetrated to a minimum depth of 92 cm in CSJ-379 and maximum of 122 cm in ICCV-4958 under rain-fed conditions. The rooting depth remained higher under rain-fed than irrigated environment. Under irrigated conditions, the chickpea roots were able to grow to a maximum depth of 99 and 97 cm in HC-5 and ICCV-4958, respectively. Among the genotypes, biomass per plant of the root was higher in ICCV-4958 (6.7 g) and HC-5 (5.6 g) under rain-fed conditions. Similar observations were recorded for root/shoot ratio, dry weights of stem, leaf, nodules and total dry weight per plant. The moisture stress increased the biomass partitioning towards the roots. The water potential (ψw), osmotic potential (ψs) and relative water content (RWC %) of leaf were –0.98 MPa, –1.82 MPa and 60%, respectively, in the genotype HC-5, and –1.02 MPa, –1.72 MPa and 64%, respectively, in ICCV-4958 under rain-fed conditions. The rates of photosynthesis, and transpiration, values of the stomatal conductance and photochemical efficiency/quantum yield as indicated by Fv/Fm ratio were in the range of 6.7 to 10.6 (μmol m−2 s−1), 1.27 to 2.38 (mmol m−2 s−1), 0.23 to 0.48 (mol m−2 s−1) and 0.457 to 0.584, respectively, under rain-fed conditions. Genotypes HC-5 and ICCV-4958 also maintained higher photosynthetic and transpiration rates and Fv/Fm ratio than others. The maximum Fv/Fm values in these genotypes were correlated with the higher photosynthetic rate and dry matter yield per plant. Relative stress injury (RSI %) values in HC-5 and ICCV-4958 noticed were 25.3% and 23.7%, respectively. The results of this study indicate that under rain-fed conditions, genotypes ICCV-4958 and HC-5 had higher dry weight of stem, leaves, roots, nodules and total dry weight per plant, rooting depth, root/shoot ratio, photosynthetic and transpiration rates, photochemical efficiency and better plant water status but lower stomatal conductance than other genotypes. These traits are directly associated with maximum seed yield per plant, i.e. 15.6 g and 14.7 g per plant, respectively, in these genotypes. Therefore, both the genotypes in future can be used in crop improvement programme of chickpea breeding for drought tolerance.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 48 , Issue 3 , July 2012 , pp. 378 - 387
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

FAO (2010). http://faostat.fao.org (accessed 25 July 2009).Google Scholar
Kashiwagi, J., Krishnamurthy, L., Crouch, J. H. and Serraj, R. (2006). Variability of root characteristics and their contribution to seed yield in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) under terminal drought stress. Field Crops Research 95:171–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kashiwagi, J., Krishnamurthy, L., Upadhyaya, H. D. and Gaur, P. M. (2008). Rapid screening technique for canopy temperature status and its relevance to drought tolerance improvement in chickpea. Journal of SAT Agricultural Research 6:1–4 (ejournal.icrisat.org).Google Scholar
Kashiwagi, J., Krishnamurthy, L., Upadhyaya, H. D., Krishna, H., Chandra, S., Vadez, V. and Serraj, R. (2005). Genetic variability of drought-avoidance root traits in the mini-core germplasm collection of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Euphytica 146:213–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krishnamurthy, L., Kashiwagi, J., Upadhyaya, H. D. and Serraj, R. (2003). Genetic diversity of drought-avoidance root traits in the mini-core germplasm collection of chickpea. International Chickpea and Pigeonpea Newsletter 10:21–24.Google Scholar
Kumar, N., Nandwal, A. S., Devi, S., Sharma, K. D., Yadav, A. and Waldia, R. S. (2010). Root characteristics, plant water status and CO2 exchange in relation to drought tolerance in chickpea. SAT eJournal 8:1–5 (ejournal.icrisat.org).Google Scholar
Ludlow, M. M. and Muchow, R. C. (1990). A critical evaluation of traits for improving crop yields in water-limited environments. Advances in Agronomy 43:107–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsui, T. and Singh, B. B. (2003). Root characteristics in cowpea related to drought tolerance at the seedling stage. Experimental Agriculture 39:29–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saxena, N. P., Krishnamurthy, L. and Johansen, C. (1993). Registration of a drought-resistant chickpea germplasm. Crop Science 33:1424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharma, K. K. (2004–2005). Development and Evaluation of Transgenic Chickpea for Tolerance to Drought and Low Temperature Stress Using P5 CFS Gene and Drought Responsive Regulatory Elements. Program Report, Patancheru 502 324. Andhra Pradesh, India: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics.Google Scholar
Subba Rao, G. V., Johansen, C., Slinkard, A. E., Rao, R. C. N., Saxena, N. P. and Chauhan, Y. S. (1995). Strategies for improving drought resistance in grain legumes. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 14:469–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, C. Y. and Ross, W. M. (1979). Selecting for drought and heat resistance in grain sorghum. In Stress Physiology in Crop Plants, 263–281 (Eds Mussell, H. and Staples, R.). New York: John Willey.Google Scholar
Turner, N. C., Wright, G. C. and Siddique, K. H. M. (2001). Adaptation of grain legumes (pulses) to water limited environments. Advances in Agronomy 14:193–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weatherley, P. E. (1950). Studies on the water relations of the cotton plant. I. The field measurement of water deficit in leaves. New Phytologist 40:81–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaman-Allah, M., Jenkinson, D. M. and Vandez, V. (2011a). Chickpea genotypes contrasting for seed yield under terminal drought stress in the field differ for traits related to the control of water use. Functional Plant Biology 38:270–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaman-Allah, M., Jenkinson, D. M. and Vandez, V. (2011b). A conservative pattern of water use, rather than deep or profuse rooting, is critical for terminal drought tolerance of chickpea. Journal of Experimental Botany 38:270–281.Google Scholar