Identification of drought tolerant genotypes based on physiological, biomass and yield response in groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.)

DOI: 10.18805/IJARe.A-4984    | Article Id: A-4984 | Page : 221-227
Citation :- Identification of drought tolerant genotypes based on physiological, biomass and yield response in groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.).Indian Journal Of Agricultural Research.2018.(52):221-227
Sujata Mahantesh, H.N Ramesh Babu, Kirankumar Ghanti and P.C. Raddy
Address : Department of Crop Physiology, University of Agricultural Sciences, GKVK, Bangalore-560 065, Karnataka, India.
Submitted Date : 24-01-2018
Accepted Date : 19-04-2018


Drought are serious threats on crop productivity losses than any other abiotic stress factor in rainfed agriculture. Influence of the drought using osmotic stress is the one of the best method for the evaluation of tolerance during the germination phase. Seeds of Twenty genotypes of groundnut imposed to osmotic stress (-10bars) of polyethylene glycol (PEG6000) in the laboratory condition.  Based on low percent reduction recovery growth (%RRG) in shoot and root length most sensitive and tolerant 16 genotypes were selected.  Further, moisture stress was imposed at 20-day-old seedlings at WW (100%FC), MS1 (70%FC), MS2 (30%FC)) under controlled conditions (greenhouse) different filed capacity. The harmful effects of  moisture stress were more distinct in drought sensitive genotypes. High mean value of drought susceptibility indexes (DSI) for GPBD-4(G1), JL-24(G2) and KCG-6(G3) G1, G2 andG3 were identified as susceptible and NRCG12273 (G13), ICGV1562 (G15) and TMV-2(G16), G16, G15 and G13 recorded superior performance for less DSI under two soil moisture levels. High pod yield under stress environment due to its ability in maintaining pod number as well as total biomass. There was no significant difference between Pod yield and TDM under moisture stresses of DSI for G1, G2 and G3 genotypes. 


Drought susceptibility index Harvest Index Moisture Stress Pod yield Total dry matter.


  1. Adele, M., Maria, S., Umberto, A., Carmelo, S., Albino, M. (2014). Effect of PEG-induced drought stress on seed germination of four lentil genotypes. Journal of Plant interaction, 9:1354-363.
  2. Arunachalam, P. (2012). Screening for Drought Tolerant groundnut (Arachis hypogaeaL.) lines suitable for Rainfed Alfisol. Asian journal of Agriculture Research 7 (1):1819-1894.
  3. Arunyanark, A., Jogloy, S., Akkaseng, C., Vorasoot, N., Kesmala, T., Nageswara Rao, R.C., Wright, G.C. and Patanothai, A. (2008). Chlorophyll stability is an indicator of drought tolerance in peanut. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 194:113– 125.
  4. Barrs, H.,D. and Weatherley, P,.E. (1962).A re-examinati on of the relative turgidity technique for estimati ng water deficit in leaves. Australian Journal of Biological Sciences 15: 413–428.
  5. Bayoumi, T.Y., Eid,M., H, Metwali, E.,M.(2008). Application of physiological and biochemical indices as a screening technique for drought tolerance in wheat genotypes. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 7: 2341-2352.
  6. Deshmukh, D.,V. and Mate, S.,N. (2013). Evaluation of Pigeonpea Genotypes for Morpho-Physiological Traits Related to Drought Tolerance. World Journal of Agricultural Sciences 9 (1): 17-23.
  7. Fischer,R., A.and Maurer, R.(1978).Drought resistance in spring wheat cultivars. I. Grain yield responses. Aust. J. Agric.Res., 29: 897 – 912.
  8. Govindraj M., Shanmugasundaram, P.,Sumathi., Muthiah A.R. (2010). Simple, Rapid And Cost Effective Screening Method For Drought Resistant Breeding In Pearl Millet. Electronic Journal of Plant Breeding,1(4): 590- 599.
  9. Grzesiak, M. T., Waligorski, P., Janowiak, F., Marcinska, I., Hura, K., Szczyrek, P., Glab, T.(2013). The relations between drought susceptibility index based on grain yield (DSIGY) and key physiological seedling traits in maize and triticale genotypes. Acta Physiol. Plant., 35(2) 549-565.
  10. Jacqueline, W., et,.al (2015). Assessment of drought tolerance of peanut cultivars based on physiological and yield traits in a semiarid environment. Agricultural Water Management 166 70–76.
  11. Jasemaminifar. (2013). Grain yield improvement of groundnut (Arachishypogaea L.) under drought stress conditions. IJACS Journal ISSN 819-824
  12. Johansen, C., Nageswara Rao, R.,C. (1996). ”Maximizing groundnut yields,” in Achieving High Groundnut Yields: Proceedings of International Workshop, August 25–29, Patancheru: ICRISAT: 117–127 
  13. Jongrungklang, N,. Toomasan, B., Vorasoot, N., Jogloy, S. Kesmala, T and Patanothai, A.(2008). Identification of pea genotype with high water use Efficiency under drought stress. Asian Journal of Plant Sciences (7): 628-638.
  14. Hassan, K, Behroz,V,. Rahmatolah, M., A,.Tahmaseb, H and Kamal, S.(2018).Grain yield stability of barley genotypes in uniform regional yield trails in warm and semi warm dry land area. Indian J. Agric. Res. 52 (1) : 16-21
  15. Kambiranda, D M., Vasanthaiah, H.K.N. Ramesh, K., Anaga A,. Basha, S.,M and Naik, K. (2011).Impact of Drought Stresson Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) Productivity and Food Safty,In;plants and Environment ISBN; 978-953
  16. Kholová J.,Hash C.T.,Kakkera A.,Koèová M.,Vadez,V.(2010).Constitutive water-conserving mechanisms are correlated with the terminal drought tolerance of pearl millet [Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.] Journal of Experimental Botany. ;61: 369–377.
  17. Lu, Z., and Neumann, P. M. (1998). Water-stressed maize, barley, and rice seedlings show species diversity in mechanisms of leaf growth inhibition. J. Exp. Bot. 49: 1945–1952
  18. Murlidhar,M., Khunt, K.A., Khorajia, H.(2018).Sources of growth to Indian groundnut: A state-wise decomposition analysis 1 ICAR-    National Research Centre on Seed Spices. Indian J. Agric. Res.52 (1): 0367-8245 
  19. Nigam,S. N., Dwivedi, S. L., Gibbons, R.,W. (1991).Groundnut breeding: constraints, achievements and future possibilities. Plant Breed. Abstr. 61: 1127–1136 .
  20. Janila,P.,Nigam,S.N.,Manish,K,.Pandey,P,.NagesandRajeev,K.Varshney (2013).Groundnut improvement: use of genetic and genomic tools 4.1-16
  21. Ratnakumar,P.,Vadez,V.(2012).Tolerant groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) genotypes to intermittent drought maintains high harvest index and has small leaf canopy under stress. Functional Plant Biology 38:1016- 1023.
  22. Richardson, A.,D, Duigan, S.P, Berlyn,G.,P.(2002). An evaluation of nonivasive methods to estimate foliar chlorophyll content. New Phytol 153:185–194.
  23. Rucker, K.S., Kevin, C.K., Holbrook, C.C., Hook, J.E. (1995). Identification of Groundnut Genotypes with Improved Drought Avoidance Traits. Groundnut Sci 22(1): 14–18. 
  24. Saint-Clair,P.M (1976).Germination of Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench under PEG-induced stress. Canadian J. Plant Sci,. 56: 21-24.
  25. Soleymani, A., Hesam, M., Shahrajabian, H. (2012). Study of cold stress on the germination and seedling stage and determination of recovery in rice varieties. Int J Biol. 4: 2330.
  26. Songsri, P., Jogloy, S., Kesmala, T., Vorasoot, N., Akkasaeng, C., Patanothai, A., and Holbrook, C.C. (2008). Heritability of drought resistance traits and correlation of drought resistance and agronomic traits in peanut. Crop Sci., 48: 2245-2253.
  27. Suther, D,.M. and Patel, M,.S. (1992).Yield and nutrient absorption by groundnut and iron availability in soil as influenced by lime and soil water. Journal of Indian Society of Soil Science, 40 (3): 594-596.
  28. Vanaja, M., Maheswari, M., Sathish, P., Vagheera, P., Jyothi Lakshmi, Vijay Kumar, N., G., Yadav, S., K., Abdul, R., Jainender Singh Sarkar,B. (2015).Genotypic variability in physiological, biomass and yield response to drought stress in pigeonpea Physiol Mol Biol Plants 21(4):541–549
  29. Veslues P., Ober, E . R., Sharp (1998). Root growth and oxygen relations at low water potentials. Impact of oxygen availability in polyethylene glycol solutions. Plant Physiol. 116: 1403-1412
  30. Zaman-Allah, M., David, M. J. and Vincent, V. A. (2011). Conservative pattern of water use, rather than deep or profuse rooting, is critical for the terminal drought tolerance of chickpea. Journal of Experimental Botany, (62) 12: 4239–4252.

Global Footprints