Morpho-physiological and biochemical alternation responses in different chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) genotypes under two constructing water regimes
Paper Details
Morpho-physiological and biochemical alternation responses in different chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) genotypes under two constructing water regimes
Abstract
The experiment was conducted to assess the differential morpho-physiological response to stimulated water deficit and to determine the relationship between some of these morphological and physiological traits and yield components of ten chickpea genotypes grown in field under irrigated and rain-fed conditions. Variance analysis of the data showed that the environment was a significant source of variation for all measured characters and genotypes showed significant differences for all measured traits in both environments. In well-watered condition, the highest correlation was belonged to number of seeds per plant and number of pods per plant (P<0.01). The seed yield had highly significant positive correlation with number of seeds per plant (P<0.01) and number of pods per plant (P<0.01). Also, seed yield showed positive significant (P<0.05) correlation with RWC, Na+ and K+ uptake. In water deficit condition high significant positive correlation were observed between grain yields with physiological traits, while in irrigated environment the correlation between grain yields with proline accumulation was not significant. In general, the results suggested that a chickpea cultivar, for increased yield under irrigated conditions, should have maximum number of seeds and pods per plant and under stress conditions should have maximum number of seeds and pods per plant and also keep the high level of RWC, chlorophyll and proline content in their leaves. Thus, identifying these traits as selection criteria in chickpea breeding program may be useful for breeders to introduce suitable drought resistant chickpea cultivars for arid regions.
Baligar VC, Fageria NK, He ZL. 2001. Nutrient use efficiency in plants. Communication in. Soil Science & Plant Analysis 32, 921–950. http://dx.doi.org/10.1081/CSS-100104098
Bates LS, Waldren RP, Tear ID. 1973. Rapid determination of free proline for water-stress studies. Plant Soil 39, 205-207.
Benjamin JG, Nielsen DC. 2006. Water deficit effects on root distribution of soybean, field pea and chickpea. Fields Crop Research 97, 248–253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2005.10.005
Chiang HH, Dandekar AM. 1995. Regulation of proline accumulation in Arabidopsis thaliana (L.) Heynh during development and in response to desiccation. Plant Cell Environment 18, 1280–1290. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.1995.tb00187.x
Dhanda SS, Sethi GS, Behl RK. 2004. Indices of drought tolerance in wheat genotypes at early stages of plant growth. Journal of Agronomy & Crop Science 190, 6-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-037X.2004.00592.x
FAO STAT. 2009. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAO Production year book. Rome, Italy: FAO. http://apps.fao.org.
Ganjeali A, Kafi M, Bagheri A, Shahriyari F. 2005. Screening for drought tolerance on Chickpea genotypes. Iranian Journal of Field Crops Research 3, 122–127.
Gunes A, Cicek NC, Inal A, Alpaslan M, Eraslan F, Guneri E, Guzelordu T. 2006. Genotypic response of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) cultivars to drought stress implemented at pre- and post-anthesis stages and its relations with nutrient uptake and efficiency. Plant Soil Environment 52, 368–376.
Gunes A, Inal A, Adak MS, Bagci EG, Cicek N, Eraslan F. 2008. Effect of drought stress implemented at pre- or post- anthesis stage some physiological as screening criteria in chickpea cultivars. Russian Journal of Plant Physiology 55, 59-67.
Iturbe-Ormaetxe I, Escuredo PR, Arrese-Igor C, Becana M. 1998. Oxidative damage in pea plants exposed to water deficit or paraquat. Plant Physiology 116, 173–181
Jaleel CA, Manivannan P, Lakshmanan GMA, Panneerselvam R. 2008. Alterations in morphological parameters and photosynthetic pigment responses of Catharanthus roseus under soil water deficits. Colleid Surface B: Biointraction 61, 298–303. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfb.2007.09.008
Jiang Y, Huang B. 2002. Protein alternations in tall fescue in response to drought stress and abscisic acid. Crop Science 42, 202-207. http://dx.doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2002.2020
Kottapalli KR, Rakwal R, Shibato J, Burow G, Tissue D, Burke J, Puppala N, Burow M, Payton A. 2009. Physiology and proteomics of the water-deficit stress response in three contrasting peanut genotypes. Plant Cell Environment 32, 380- 407. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2009.01933.x
Kusaka M, Ohta M, Fujimura T. 2005. Contribution of inorganic components to osmotic adjustment and leaf folding for drought tolerance in pearl millet. Physiologiae Plantarum 125, 474–489. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-3054.2005.00578.x
Mafakheri A, Siosemardeh A, Bahramnejad B, Struik PC, Sohrabi Y. 2011. Effect of drought stress and subsequent recovery on protein, carbohydrate contents, catalase and peroxidase activities in three chickpea (Cicer arietinum) cultivars. Australian Journal of Crop Science 5(10), 1255-1260.
Mahajan S, Tuteja N. 2005. Cold, salinity and drought stresses: An overview. Archive of Biochemistry &. Biophysics 444, 139–158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.abb.2005.10.018
Martinez JP, Silva H, Ledent JF, Pinto M. 2007. Effect of drought stress on the osmotic adjustment, cell wall elasticity and cell volume of six cultivars of common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). European Journal of Agronomy 26, 30–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2006.08.003
Moinuddin R, Khanna-Chopra. 2004. Osmotic Adjustment in Chickpea in Relation to Seed Yield and Yield Parameters. Crop Science 44, 449-455. http://dx.doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2004.4490
Najafi A, Niari-Khamsi N, Mostafaie A, Mirzaee H. 2010. Effect of progressive water deficit stress on proline accumulation and protein profiles of leaves in chickpea. African Journal of Biotechnology 9(42), 7033-7036. http://dx.doi.org/10.5897/AJB10.933
Nyachiro JM, Briggs KG, Hoddinott J, Johnson-Flanagan AM. 2001. Chlorophyll content, chlorophyll fluorescence and water deficit in spring wheat. Cereal Research Communication 29, 135– 142.
Ommen OE, Donnelly A, Vanhoutvin S, van Oijen M, Manderscheid R. 1999. Chlorophyll content of spring wheat flag leaves grown under elevated CO2 concentrations and other environmental stresses within the ESPACE-wheat project. European Journal of Agronomy 10, 197-203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1161-0301(99)00011-8
Praba ML, Cairns JE, Babu RC, Lafitte HR. 2009. Identification of physiological traits underlying cultivar differences in drought tolerance in rice and wheat. Journal of Agronomy & Crop Science 195, 30–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-037X.2008.00341.x
Saxena NP, Krishnamurthy L, Johansen C. 1993. Registration of drought-resistant chickpea germplasm. Crop Science 33, 1424
Serraj R, Krishnamurthy KL, Ashiwagi J, Kumar J, Chandra S, Crouch JH. 2004. Variation in root traits of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) grown under terminal drought. Field Crops Research 88, 115–127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2003.12.001
Shao HB, Chu LY, Shao MA, Abdul Jaleel C, Hong-Mei M. 2008. Higher plant antioxidants and redox signaling under environmental stresses. Comptes Rendus Biologie 331, 433–441. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crvi.2008.03.011
Smirnoff N. 1995. Antioxidant systems and plant response to the environment. In: Smirnoff V (Ed.), Environment and Plant Metabolism: Flexibility and Acclimation, BIOS Scientific Publishers, Oxford, UK.
Talebi R, Baghebani N, Karami E, Ensafi MH. 2011. Defining selection indices for drought tolerance in chickpea under terminal drought stresses. Journal of Applied Biological Sciences 5(3), 33-38.
Talebi R, Ensafi MH, Baghbani N, Karami E, Mohammadi KH. 2013. Physiological responses of chickpea (Cicer arietinum) genotypes to drought stress. Environmenatal & Experimental Biology 11, 9-15
Talebi R, Karami E. 2011. Morphological and physiological traits associated with seed yield in different chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) genotypes under irrigated and water-deficit environments. South Asian Journal of Experimental Biology 1(6), 260-267.
Toker C, Canci H, Yildirim T. 2007a. Evaluation of perennial wild Cicer species for drought resistance. Genetics Resources & Crop Evolution 54, 1781–1786. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10722-006-9197-y
Toker C, Lluch C, Tejera NA, Serraj R, Siddique KHM. 2007b. Abiotic stresses. In: Yadav SS, Redden R, Chen W, Sharma B (eds) Chickpea breeding and management. CAB Int., Wellingford, p, 474–496.
Verbruggen N, Hermans C. 2008. Proline accumulation in plants: a review. Amino Acids 35, 753 759. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00726-008-0061-6
Yadav SS, Kumar J, Yadav SK, Singh S, Yadav VS, Turner NC, Redden R. 2006. Evaluation of Helicoverpa and drought resistance in desi and kabuli chickpea. Plants Genetics Resources 4, 198–203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1079/PGR2006123
Yancy PH, Clark ME, Hand SC, Bowlus RD, Somero GN. 1982. Living with water stress: evolution of osmolyte systems. Science 217, 1214– 1223.
Zhao CX, Guo LY, Jaleel CA, Shao HB, Yang HB. 2008. Prospects for dissecting plant-adaptive molecular mechanisms to improve wheat cultivars in drought environments. Comptes Rendus Biologie 331, 579–586. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crvi.2008.05.006
Shima Ghiabi, Soran Sharafi, Reza Talebi (2013), Morpho-physiological and biochemical alternation responses in different chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) genotypes under two constructing water regimes; IJB, V3, N8, August, P57-65
https://innspub.net/morpho-physiological-and-biochemical-alternation-responses-in-different-chickpea-cicer-arietinum-l-genotypes-under-two-constructing-water-regimes/
Copyright © 2013
By Authors and International
Network for Natural Sciences
(INNSPUB) https://innspub.net
This article is published under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0