Legume Research

  • Chief EditorJ. S. Sandhu

  • Print ISSN 0250-5371

  • Online ISSN 0976-0571

  • NAAS Rating 6.80

  • SJR 0.391

  • Impact Factor 0.8 (2023)

Frequency :
Monthly (January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November and December)
Indexing Services :
BIOSIS Preview, ISI Citation Index, Biological Abstracts, Elsevier (Scopus and Embase), AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus
Submit

Research Article

Legume Research, volume 41 issue 3 (june 2018) : 384-391

Evaluation of blackgram genotypes for drought tolerance based on root dynamics and gas exchange parameters

M. Prakash, R. Elangaimannan, B. Sunilkumar, G. Sathiya Narayanan
1Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding, Faculty of Agriculture, Annamalai University, Annamalai Nagar-608002, Tamil Nadu, India.

  • Submitted17-03-2016|

  • Accepted30-08-2016|

  • First Online 05-12-2017|

  • doi 10.18805/LR-3702

Cite article:- Prakash M., Elangaimannan R., Sunilkumar B., Narayanan Sathiya G. (2017). Evaluation of blackgram genotypes for drought tolerance based on root dynamics and gas exchange parameters. Legume Research. 41(3): 384-391. doi: 10.18805/LR-3702.

ABSTRACT

Ninety four genotypes of black gram were evaluated under rainfed condition for their biometric characters viz., plant height, number of pods plant-1, number of seeds pod-1, 100 seed weight and seed yield plant-1 for preliminary screening to identify the best performing genotype.  Based on their yield performance, eight genotypes viz., RU8-705, PALAVAYAL-LOCAL, T 9, PHM 8, ADT 3, CBG-09-06, VANNIYUR-LOCAL and CBG-09-13 were selected and raised in three environments. Among them, two genotypes viz., T 9 and CBG-09-13 were selected and their root parameters viz., root and shoot length, shoot length, number of roots, root diameter, fresh weight of root, fresh weight of shoot, dry weight of root, dry weight of shoot, root volume and gas exchange characters viz., net photosynthetic rate, leaf temperature, stomatal conductance and intercellular CO2 were studied to identify the best genotype among them suitable for moisture stress condition. Based on the results, it was found that CBG-09-13 performed well under moisture stress condition.

REFERENCES

  1. Ali M A, Abbas A, Awan SI, Jabran K and Gardezi SDA. (2011). Correlated response of various morpho-physiological characters with grain yield in sorghum land races at different growth phases. The J. Anim. Plant Sci., 21(4): 671-679. 
  2. Anonymous (2011). Agropedia.iitk.ac.in.
  3. Bibi A, Sadaqat H A, Akram H M and Mohammed M I. (2010). Physiological markers for screening sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) germplasm under water stress condition. Int. J. Agric. Biol., 12: 451–455. 
  4. Bidinger FR, Mahalaxmi V, Talukdar B J and Algarswamy G. (1982). Improvement of drought resistance in pearl millet. Workshop on Principles and Methods of Crop Improvement for Drought Resistance with Emphasis on Rice, IRRI, Los Banos, Phillipines, on May. 4-8th 1981, pp: 45-49.
  5. Campos P S. (1998). Effects of water stress on photosynthetic performance and membrane integrity in Vigna spp. The role of membrane lipids in drought tolerance. Ph.D Thesis, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisboa, pp 114.
  6. Chaves M M, Flexas J and Pinheiro C. (2009). Photosynthesis under drought and salt stress: regulation mechanisms from whole plant to cell. Ann. Bot., 103: 551-560.
  7. Dhanda S S, Sethi G S and Behl R K. (2004). Indices of drought tolerance in wheat genotypes at early stages of plant growth. J. Agron. Crop Sci., 190: 1-6. 
  8. Grade V N, Chauvin L S, Jalap D N and Koala A B. (2014). Response of green gram (Vigna radiata L). varieties to integrated nutrient management in summer season. Agrl. Sci. Digest., 34(1): 36-40.
  9. Harrision RD, Daniell J W and Chesire J M. (1989). Net photosynthesis and stomatal conductance of peach seedlings and cuttings in response to changes in soil water potential. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci., 114: 986-990. 
  10. Kaydan D and Yagmur M. (2008). Germination, seedling growth and relative water content of shoot in different seed sizes of triticale under osmotic stress of water and NaCl. Afr. J. Biotechnol., 7 (16): 2862-2868. 
  11. Khayatnezhad M, Gholamin R, Jamaatie-Somarin SH and Zabihi-Mahmoodabad R. (2010). Effects of PEG stress on corn cultivars (Zea mays L.) at germination stage. World Appl. Sci. J., 11(5): 504-506.
  12. Khodarahmpour Z. (2011). Effect of drought stress induced by polyethylene glycol (PEG) on germination indices in corn (Zea mays L.) hybrids. Afr. J. Biotechnol., 10(79): 18222-18227. 
  13. Lawlor DW. (2002). Limitation of photosynthesis in water-stressed leaves, stomatal metabolism and the role of ATP. Annales Botanici Fennici, 89: 871-885.
  14. Leishman M R. and Westoby M. (1994). The role of seed size in seedling establishment in dry soil conditions -experimental evidence from semi-arid species. J. Ecol., 82(2): 249-258.
  15. Liu F, Anderson M N, Jacobson S E. and Jensen C R. (2005). Stomatal control and water use efficiency of soybean (Glycine max L. Merr.) during progressive soil drying. Environ. Exp. Bot., 54: 33 – 40.
  16. Okçu G, Kaya M D and Atak M. (2005). Effects of salt and drought stresses on germination and seedling growth of pea (Pisum sativum L.). Turk J. Agric. For., 29: 237-242. 
  17. Rauf S. (2008). Breeding sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) for drought tolerance. Communication in Biometry and Crop Science. 3(1): 29-44. 
  18. Ray J D and Sinclair T R. (1998). The effect of pot size on growth and transpiration of maize and soybean during water deficit stress. J. Exp Bot., 49: 1381 – 1386.
  19. Revanappa S B, Kamannavar P V, Vijaykumar A G, Ganajaxi M, Gajanan D K, Arunkumar B and Salimath P M. (2012). Genotype X environment interaction and analysis for grain yield in black gram. Legume Res., 35(1):56-58.
  20. Ruiz-Sanchez M C, Domingo R, Torrecillas A and Perez Pastor A. (2000). Water stress pre conditioning to improve drought resistance in young apricot plants. Plant Sci., 156: 245-251. 
  21. Salih A A, Ali I A, Lux A, Luxova M, Cohen Y, Sugimoto Y and Inanaga S. (1999). Rooting, water uptake, and xylem structure adaptation to drought of two sorghum cultivars. Crop Sci., 39: 168–173. 
  22. Vignes D, Djekoun A and Planchon C. (1986). Responses de different genotypes de soja au deficit hydrique. Can. J. Plant Sci., 66: 247 – 255.
  23. Vincent V. (2014). Root hydraulics: The forgotten side of roots in drought adaptation. Field Crops Research. 166:15-24.,
  24. Xiong L, Wang R, Mao G and Koczan J M. (2006). Identification of drought tolerance determinants by genetic analysis of root response to drought stress and abscisic acid. Plant Physiology. 142:1065-1074.
  25. Yadav S K, Jyothi Lakshmi N, Vikram Singh, Amol Patil, Yogesh Kumar Tiwari, Nagendram E, Sathish P, Vanaja M, Maheswari M and Venkateswarlu B. (2013). In vitro screening of Vigna mungo genotypes for PEG induced moisture deficit stress. Indian Journal of Plant Physiology.18(1):55-60. 
  26. Yordanov I, Velikova V and Tsonev T. (2003). Plant responses to drought and stress tolerance. Bulgarian Journal of Plant Physiology, Special issue, 187-206.
Reviewed By

Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Editorial Board

    View all (0)