Loading...

Root-based Responses of Well-watered and Water-stressed Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) Genotypes Varying for Drought Tolerance and Biomass 

DOI: 10.18805/LR-593    | Article Id: LR-593 | Page : 308-314
Citation :- Root-based Responses of Well-watered and Water-stressed Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) Genotypes Varying for Drought Tolerance and Biomass.Legume Research.2021.(44):308-314
Address : Department of Seed Technology, Selçuk University, Konya, 42430 Turkey.
Submitted Date : 19-10-2020
Accepted Date : 25-12-2020

Abstract

Background: Chickpea is a pivotal grain legume crop and is grown in rain-fed conditions where its production has been challenged by drought. 
Methods: To understand precisely the root-based responses to well-watered (WW) and water-stressed (WS) treatments, 14 chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) genotypes differing in drought tolerance and biomass were studied in 100-cm cylinders under glasshouse conditions. 
Result: The genotypes exhibited significant variations in rooting depths ranging from 84.5 to 100.3 cm and 78.7 to 121 cm in WW and WS treatments, respectively and root biomasses varied from 0.23 to 1.01 g and 0.38 to 0.91 g. The average root biomass of drought-tolerant genotypes was 61.3% in WS treatment and 64.4% in WW treatment higher than that of drought-sensitive genotypes. Moreover, genotype with high biomass revealed greater root biomass and deeper rooting than the genotype with low biomass in both treatments. The root biomass in the deeper soil profile differed between drought-tolerant and drought-sensitive genotypes and was generally greater in WS compared to WW treatment. Overall, screening the variability in root features of chickpea genotypes with varying levels of drought tolerance and biomass contributes to new insights for understanding drought adaptation mechanisms and the improvement of new cultivars with superior root traits in breeding programs. 

Keywords

Biomass Chickpea Drought tolerance Root biomass Rooting depth Water stress

References

  1. Akman, H., Giroux, M., Bruckner, P. and Topal, A. (2012). Wheat root systems, genetics and methodology for evaluation of root characteristics. Selcuk Journal of Agriculture and Food Sciences. 25: 109-117.
  2. Bhaskarla, V., Zinta, G., Ford, R., Jain, M., Varshney, R.K. and Mantri, N. (2020). Comparative root transcriptomics provide insights into drought adaptation strategies in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 21: 1-20. 
  3. Bontpart,T., Robertson, I., Giuffrida, V., Concha, C., Scorza, L.C.T., McCormick, A.J., Doerner, P. (2020). Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) root system architecture adaptation to initial soil moisture improves seed development in dry-down conditions. BioRxiv: 2020.2009.2024.311753.
  4. Canales, F.J., Nagel, K.A., Müller, C., Rispail, N. and Prats, E. (2019). Deciphering root architectural traits involved to cope with water deficit in oat. Frontiers in Plant Science. 10: 1-18.
  5. FAOSTAT. (2018). Agriculture organization of the united nations. Faostat: Database–crop production.
  6. Fikre, A., Degefu, T., Admike, K. and Doerner, P. (2019). Rhizobox-based study of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) root system architecture: Standard operating procedure (sop) for phenotyping and screening to complement pre-breeding, ICRISAT, pp. 1-25.
  7. Jordan, W., Dugas, Jr, W. and Shouse, P. (1983). Strategies for crop improvement for drought-prone regions, in Developments in agricultural and managed forest ecology, Elsevier. pp. 281-299.
  8. Jukanti, A.K., Gaur, P.M., Gowda ,C. and Chibbar, R.N. (2012). Nutritional quality and health benefits of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.): A review. British Journal of Nutrition. 108: 11-26.
  9. Karadavut, U. and Sözen, Ö. (2017). Pearson and canonical correlations between the root properties and some yield components of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Legume Research. 40 (5): 890-895.
  10. Kashiwagi, J., Krishnamurthy, L., Crouch, J. and Serraj, R. (2006). Variability of root length density and its contributions to seed yield in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) under terminal drought stress. Field Crops Research. 95: 171-181.
  11. Kashiwagi, J., Krishnamurthy, L., Purushothaman, R., Upadhyaya, H., Gaur, P., Gowda, C.and Varshney, R. (2015). Scope for improvement of yield under drought through the root traits in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Field Crops Research. 170: 47-54.
  12. 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.
  13. Kumar, N., Nandwal, A., Waldia, R., Singh, S., Devi, S., Sharma, K. and Kumar, A. (2012). Drought tolerance in chickpea as evaluated by root characteristics, plant water status, membrane integrity and chlorophyll fluorescence techniques. Experimental Agriculture. 48: 1-10.
  14. Ludlow, M. and Muchow, R. (1990). A critical evaluation of traits for improving crop yields in water-limited environments, in Advances in agronomy, Elsevier. pp 107-153.
  15. Prakash, M., Elangaimannan, R., Sunilkumar, B. and Narayanan, G.S. (2018). Evaluation of blackgram genotypes for drought tolerance based on root dynamics and gas exchange parameters. Legume Research-An International Journal. 41(3): 384-391.
  16. Ramamoorthy, P., Lakshmanan, K., Upadhyaya, H.D., Vadez, V. and Varshney, R.K. (2017). Root traits confer grain yield advantages under terminal drought in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Field Crops Research. 201: 146-161.
  17. Saxena, N.P., Krishnamurthy, L. and Johansen, C. (1993). Registration of a drought-resistant chickpea germplasm. Crop Science. 33: 1424-1424.
  18. Serraj, R., Krishnamurthy, L., Kashiwagi, J., Kumar, J., Chandra, S. and Crouch, J. (2004). Variation in root traits of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) grown under terminal drought. Field Crops Research. 88: 115-127.
  19. Shamsi, K., Kobraee, S. and Haghparast, R. (2010). Drought stress mitigation using supplemental irrigation in rainfed chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) varieties in Kermanshah, Iran. African Journal of Biotechnology. 9: 4197-4203.
  20. Sinclair, T.R. (1994). Limits to crop yield? Physiology and Determination of Crop Yield: 509-532.
  21. Singh, K., Bejiga, G. and Malhotra, R. (1990). Associations of some characters with seed yield in chickpea collections. Euphytica. 49: 83-88.
  22. Soltani, A., Ghassemi-Golezani, K., Khooie, F. and Moghaddam, M. (1999). A simple model for chickpea growth and yield. Field Crops Research. 62: 213-224.
  23. Yadav, S.S., Kumar, J., Yadav, S., Singh, S., Yadav, V., Turner, N.C. and Redden, R. (2006). Evaluation of helicoverpa and drought resistance in desi and kabuli chickpea. Plant Genetic Resources. 4: 198-203.
  24. Zhou, H., Zheng, D., Feng, N., Xiang, H., Liu, Y. and Liang, X. (2020). Grain yield in mungbean (Vigna radiata) is associated with spatial distribution of root dry weight and volume. Legume Research: An International Journal. 43(3): 408-414. 

Global Footprints