PHYSIOLOGICAL AND BIOCHEMICAL RESPONSES OF CHICKPEA GENOTYPES TO DIFFERENT MOISTURE STRESS IN BANGLADESH

Abstract

Moisture stress influence seed germination, growth including physiological, biochemical attributes and yield of chickpea. Genotypes may vary in their capacity to tolerate moisture stress. Therefore, the study was undertaken to evaluate physiological and biochemical responses of selected chickpea genotypes in the drought prone ecosystems. The experiment was carried out at the Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute, Gazipur Bangladesh during 2017 and 2018. The experiment was laid out in Complete Randomized Design (CRD) with four chickpea genotypes and eleven moisture regimes. Relative water content and carotenoids content significantly decreased when stress imposed until pod formation stage. Moisture stress imposed during pre-flowering stage significantly decreased chlorophyll a and chlorophyll b content. Proline accumulation was higher in BD-6048compared to other genotypes under all moisture stress conditions. Phosphorus, potassium and protein content were lower under moisture stress until pod formation stage. Under moisture stress conditions the genotypes BD-6048 gave the highest yield compared to other genotypes. Moisture stress until pre flowering and pod formation stage reduced seed yield more severe than that on flowering stage.

Keywords

• Chlorophyll content
• field capacity
• relative water content
• seed yield

References

1. AOAC. 1965. “Official Methods of Analysis” of Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington D.C., 15th Ed. Askari, E. and P.Ehsanzadeh. 2015. Drought stress mitigation by foliar application of salicylic acid and their interactive effects on physiological characteristics of fennel (Foeniculum vulgare Mill.) genotypes. Acta. Physiol. Plant. 37:1-14.
2. Balling R.C. and P. Gober. 2007. Climate variability and residential water use in the city of Phoenix, Arizona. J. Appl. Meteorol. Clim. 46(7): 1130-1137.
3. Bates, L.S., R.P. Waldren and L.D. Teare. 1973. Rapid determination of free proline for water stress studies. Plant Soil. 39: 205-207.
4. BBS. 2017. Statistical Year Book of Bangladesh. Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, Statistics and Informatics Division, Ministry of Planning, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
5. Ceyhan, E., A. Kahraman, M. Önder , M.K. Ates, S. Karadas , R. Topak and M.A. Avci. 2012. Physiological and biochemical responses to drought stress of chickpea genotypes. World Aca. Sci. Eng. Technol.66: 383-388.
6. Chapman, H.D. and P.R. Pratt. 1961. Methods of Analysis for Soils, Plants and Water. Univ. of Calif., Berley. pp. 169-170.
7. Chiang, H.H. and A.M. Dandekar. 1995. Regulation of proline accumulation in Arabidopsis thaliana (L.) Heynh during development and in response to desiccation. Plant. Cell Environ. 18: 1280–1290.
8. Eckstein, D., V. Kunzel, L. Schafer and M. Winges. 2019. Global climate risk index 2020. Bonn Ger. 2019: 9.

9. Fahad, S., A.A. Bajwa, U. Nazir, S.A. Anjum, A.Farooq, A. Zohaib, S. Sadia, W. Nasim, S.Adkins, S. Saud, M.Z. Ihsan, H. Alharby, C. Wu, D. Wang and J. Huang. 2017. Crop production under drought and heat stress: Plant responses and management options. Front. Plant Sci. 8:1147.
10. FAOSTAT. 2017. Statistical database of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, http://faostat fao.org/download/O/OA/E.
11. Farooq, M, A. Wahid, N. Kobayashi, D, Fujita and SMA. Basra. 2009.Plant drought stress: effects, mechanisms and management. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 29: 185-212.
12. Gomez, K.A. and A.A. Gomez. 1984. Statistical procedures for agricultural research. A Wiley International Science Published by John Wiled and Sons New work, Brisbane Singapore pp. 139-240.
13. Gray, C. and V. Mueller. 2012. Drought and Population Mobility in Rural Ethiopia. World Dev. 40(1): 134-145.
14. Grolle, J. 2015. Historical case studies of famines and migrations in the West African Sahel and their possible relevance now and in the future. Popul. Environ. 37(2): 181-206. Lichtenthaler, A. and R. Wellburn. 1983. Determinations of total carotenoids and chlorophylls a and b of leaf extracts in different solvents. Biochem. Soc. Trans.11 (5): 591–592. Jackson, L.E., U. Pascual and T. Hodkin. 2007.Utilizing and conserving agro biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Agro Ecol. Syst. Environ. 121: 196-210.
15. Jackson, M.L. 1975.Soil Chemical Analysis Prentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi. Jaleel, C.A., R. Gopi, B.Sankar, P. Manivannan, A. Kishorekumar, R. Sridharanand R. Panneerselvam. 2007. Studies on germination, seedling vigour, lipid peroxidation and proline metabolism in Catharanthus roseus seedlings under salt stress. South Afr. J. Bot. 73: 190–195.
16. Jamro, S., F.N. Channa, G.H. Dars, K. Ansari and N.Y. Krakauer. 2020. Exploring the Evolutionof Drought Characteristics in Balochistan, Pakistan. Appl. Sci. 10(3): 913.
17. Jerez, S. and R.M. Trigo. 2013. Time-scale and extent at which large-scale circulation modes determine the wind and solar potential in the Iberian Peninsula. Environ. Res. Lett. 8(4):044035.
18. Johal, N., J.Kaur, S.K.Grewal, S. Singh and A.Kushwah.2020. Physiological and Biochemical Responses of Chickpea Accessions at Reproductive Stage Under Receding Moisture Conditions. Agric. Res. 9(4):554–567.
19. Kalefetoğlu, T. 2006. Characterization of chickpea (Cicer arietinumL.) cultivars and lines tolerance to drought stress. Master Thesis, HaccetepeUniversiy, Ankara, Turkey.
20. Kaur, S., M. Arora, A.K. Gupta and N. Kaur. 2012. Exploration of biochemical and morphological diversity in chickpea seeds to categorize cold stress-tolerant and susceptible genotypes. Acta Physiol. Plant.34: 569-580.
21. Kpyoarissis, A., Y. Petropoulou andY. Manetas. 1995. Summer survival of leaves in a soft-leaved shrub (Phlomis fruticosa L., Labiatae) under Mediterranean field conditions: avoidance of photo inhibitory damage through decreased chlorophyll contents. J. Exp. Bot.46: 1825–1831.
22. Lobato, A.K.S., R.C.L.Costa, C.F. Oliveira Neto, B.G. Santos Filho, F.J.R. Cruz, J.M.N.Freitas and F.C. Cordeiro. 2008. Morphological changes in soybean under progressive water stress. Int. J. Bot.4: 231-235.
23. Lopez, F.B., C. Johansen, Y.S. Chauhan. 1996. Effect of timing of drought stress on phenology, yield and yield components of a short-duration pigeon pea. J Agron. Crop Sci. 177: 311-320.
24. Moayedi, A.A., A. Nasrulhaq-Boyce and H. Tavakoli. 2011. Application of physiological and biochemical indices for screening and assessment of drought tolerance in durum wheat genotypes. Aust. J. Crop Sci.5: 1014-1018. Nova´k, V. and J. Vidovicˇ. 2000. Transpiration and nutrient uptake dynamics in maize (Zea mays L.). Ecol. Model. 166:99–107.
25. Nyachiro, J.M., K.G. Briggs, J. Hoddinott and A.M. Johnson-Flanagan. 2001. Chlorophyll content, chlorophyll fluorescence andwater deficit in spring wheat. Cereal Res. Commun. 29: 135–142.
26. Pilbeam, C.J., J.K. Akatse, P.D. Hebblethwaite and C.D. Wright. 1992. Yield production in two contrasting forms of spring-sown faba beans in relation to water supply. Field Crops Res. 29:73-287.
27. Radersma, S., B. Lusiana and M. van Noordwijk. 2005. Simulation of soil drying induced phosphorus deficiency and phosphorus mobilization as determinants of maize growth near tree lines on a Ferralsol. Field Crops Res. 91:171–184.
28. Sweet, S.K., D.W. Wolfe, A. DeGaetano and R. Benner. 2017. Anatomy of the 2016drought in the Northeastern United States: Implications for agriculture and water resources in humid climates. Agric. For. Meteor.247: 571-581.
29. Tan, Y., Z. Liang, H. Shao and F. Du. 2006.Effect of water deficits on the activity of anti-oxidative enzymes and osmoregulation among three different genotypes of Radix astragali at seeding stage. Colloid Surf. B. 49: 59-64.
30. Verbruggen, N. and C.Hermans.2008. Proline accumulation in plants: a review. Amino Acids.35: 753- 759.
31. Vidal-Macua, J.J., M. Ninyerola, A. Zabala,C. Domingo-Marimon, O. Gonzalez-Guerrero and X. Pons. 2018. Environmental and socioeconomic factors of abandonment of rainfed and irrigated crops in northeast Spain. Appl. Geogr. 90: 155-174.
32. Weatherley, P.E. 1950. Studies in the water relations of the cotton plant. I. The ûeld measurement of water deûcits in leaves. NewPhytol.49: 81-97.