Effective index in growth retainment under drought stress and recovery stage in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) genotypes

Document Type : Original Articles

Author

• Raheleh Rahbarian

Department of Biology, Payame-Noor University, Iran

10.22067/ijpr.v9i1.30586

Abstract

Introduction
 Chickpea is an important source of protein supply in human diet. Drought decreases the yield and has the potential for leading into a total crop failure. However, chickpea is known for its better drought tolerance when compared to most of the other cool season legumes. Furthermore, drought stress is one of the fundamental reasons for reducing the amount of growth and yield of chickpea. One of plant response to drought stress is change in photosynthetic efficiency and photosynthetic pigment content. Fv/Fm ratio is a parameter that determinate any damage to photosystems and possible photo inhibition. Photosynthetic pigments play important roles in harvesting light. Drought stress decreases CO₂ assimilation rate and root growing index leading to reduction of yield. Under drought stress condition plants close their stomata to reduce water loss and retain relative water content. So decrease in internal CO₂ concentration and net photosynthetic rate would occur. Reduced inhibition of CO₂ assimilation rate under drought stress is so important for resistant chickpea genotypes. The effects of drought stress on membrane stability index, relative water content and leaf water potential have also been investigated in many studies. This study is designed to investigate effective traits regarding growth retain under drought stress and recovery stages in resistant and susceptible chickpea genotypes. In addition, the study aims at determining the role of physiological indexes in growth retaining in drought stressed chickpea plants.
 
Materials & Methods
 In order to evaluate the effective traits regarding growth retain under drought stress and recovery stage in chickpea genotypes, an experiment was conducted in controlled conditions with two tolerant genotypes (MCC392 and MCC877) and one susceptible genotypes (MCC68) were grown under controlled (field capacity) and drought stress (25% field capacity) conditions in growth chamber under 12.5 hours photoperiod (21°C day/8°C night) for the first month and 13 hours, photoperiod (27°C day/12°C night) for the second month similar to normal field situations in chickpea growing region. Drought stress induced for 9 days in the flowering stage and then plants were watering up to field capacity (recovery stage). Water use efficiency (WUE), CO₂ assimilation rate (A), transpiration rate (E), leaf water potential, chlorophyll fluorescence, membrane stability index (MSI), relative water content (RWC), stomatal resistance, and leaf, area, dry weight and volume of roots were investigated before drought stress, 24 hours and 48 hours after drought stress and recovery stages in investigated genotypes.
 
Results & Discussion
Drought stress significantly decreased CO₂ assimilation rate, transpiration rate, and PSII photochemical efficiency (Fv/Fm), RWC and MSI in all genotypes. In the recovery stage, MCC877 genotype had the highest WUE and the lowest transpiration rate as compared to other genotypes. Also in this stage, MSI in all genotypes was lower than control plants. MCC68 genotype (susceptible genotype) had the lowest MSI in recovery stage as compared to drought stressed plant after 48 hours According to these results, MCC68 genotype (as a susceptible genotype) could not retain MSI under drought stress and recovery stage while in resistant genotypes (MCC392 and MCC877) there was no significant difference for MSI in recovery stage as compared to drought stressed plant after 48 hours. Water potential was higher in recovered plant as compared to drought stressed plant after 48 hours while control plant in recovery stage had lower water potential as compared to drought stressed plant. MCC392 (resistant genotype) and MCC68 (susceptible genotype) recovered genotypes had the highest and the lowest increasing in leaf water potential as compared to drought stressed plant after 48 hours. Higher water potential in chickpea genotypes is effective in increasing drought tolerance and growth retaining after drought. CO₂ assimilation rate and water use efficiency was higher in resistant genotypes (MCC392 and MCC877) as compared to susceptible genotype (MCC68) in all drought stress stages. Resistant genotypes had lower transpiration rate under drought stress as compared to control plants in all investigated stages.
 
Conclusions
 According to the results, higher membrane stability index, lower transpiration rate and higher water use efficiency can be effective in growth retain under drought stress and recovery stage. Also tolerant genotypes (MCC392 and MCC877) that have prevented the sharp decreased in photochemical efficiency and CO₂ assimilation rate under drought stress had higher ability to growth retain after drought stress.

Keywords

• Chickpea
• CO2 assimilation rate
• PSII photochemical efficiency
• Transpiration rate

---

References

1. Ahmed, S., Nawata, E., Hosokawa, M., Domae, Y., and Sakuratani, T. 2002. Alterations in photosynthesis and some antioxidant enzymatic activity of mungbean subjected to waterlogging. Plant Science 163: 117-123.
2. Ashraf, M., and Iram, A. 2005. Drought stress induced changes in some organic substances in nodules and other plant parts of two potential legumes differing in salt tolerance. Flora 200: 535-546.
3. Ashraf, M., Nawazish, S.H., and Athar, H. 2007. Are chlorophyll fluorescence and photosynthetic capacity potential physiological determinants of drought tolerance in maize (Zea mays)? Pakistan Journal of Botany 39: 1123-1131.
4. Barr, H.D., and Weatherley, P.E. 1962. A re-examination of the relative turgidity technique for estimating water deficit in leaves. Australian Journal of Biological Science 15: 413-428.
5. Bayoumi, T.Y., Eid, M., and Metwali, E.M. 2008. Application of physiological and biochemical indices as a screening technique for drought tolerance in wheat genotypes. African Journal of Biotechnology 7: 2341-2352.
6. Beck, E., Fettig, S., Knake, C., Hartig, K., and Bhattarai, T. 2007. Specific and unspecific responses of plants to cold and drought stress. Journal of Bioscience 32: 501-
7. Dulai, S., Molnar, I., Pronay, J., Csernak, A., Tarnai, R., and Molnar-Lang, M. 2006. Effects of drought on photosynthetic parameters and heat stability of PSII in wheat and in Aegilops species originating from dry habitats. Acta Biologica Szegediensis 50: 11-17.
8. Farooq, M., Wahid, A., Kobayashi, N., Fujita, D., and Basra, S.M.A. 2009. Plant drought stress: effects, mechanisms and management. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 29: 185-
9. Figueiredo, M., Bezerra, E., and Burity, H. 2001. Water stress response on the enzymatic activity in cowpea nodules. Brazilian Journal of Microbiology 32:1-9.
10. Fu, J., andHuang, B. 2001. Involvement of antioxidants and lipid peroxidation in the adaptation of two cool-season grasses to localized drought stress. Environmental and Experimental Botany 45: 05-114.
11. Galle, A., Csiszar, J., Tari, I., and Erdei, L. 2002. Changes in water and chlorophyll fluorescence parameters under osmotic stress in wheat cultivars. Acta Biologica Szegedieniensis 46: 85-86.
12. Ganjeali, A., and Kafi, M. 2007. Genotypic differences for allometric relationships between root and shoot characteristics in chickpea (Cicer arietinum), Pakistan Journal of Botany 39: 1523-1531.
13. Ganjeali, A., Porsa, H., and Bagheri, A. 2011. Assessment of Iranian chickpea (Cicer arietinum) germplasms for drought tolerance. Agricultural Water Management 98(9): 1477-1484.
14. Ganjeali, A., Rahbarian, R., Baghri, A., and Malekzadeh-Shafaroudi, S. 2014, Study of drought stress on morphological, physiological and biochemical characteristics of chickpea genotypes (Cicer arietinum) under field condition. Iranian Journal of Pulses Research 5(1): 91-102. (In Persian with English Summary).
15. Gindaba, , Rozanov, A., and Negash, L., 2004. Photosynthetic gas exchange, growth and biomass allocation of to Eucalyptus and three indigenous of tree species of Ethiopia under moisture deficit. Forest Ecology and Management 205:127-138.
16. Guerfel, M., Baccouri, O., Boujnah, D., Cha, W., and Zarrouk, M. 2008. Impacts of water stress on gas exchange, water elations, chlorophyll content and leaf structure in the two main Tunisian olive (Olea europaea) cultivars. Scientia Horticulturae 1: 1-7.
17. Gunes, A., Cicek, N., Inal, A., Alpaslan, M., Eraslan, F., Guneri E., and Guzelordu, T. 2006. Genotypic response of chickpea (Cicer arietinum) cultivars to drought stress implemented at pre-and post anthesis stages and its relations with nutrient uptake and efficiency. Plant Soil Environment 52: 868-876.
18. Helal, R.M., and Samir, M.A. 2008. Comprative response of drought tolorant and drought sensitive maize genotypes to water stress. Australian Journal of Crop Science 1: 31-36.
19. Izanloo, A., Condon, A.G., Langridge, P., Tester, M., and Schnurbusch, T. 2008. Different mechanisms of adaptation to cyclic water stress in two south australian bread wheat cultivars. Journal of Experimental Botany 59: 3327-3346.
20. Jaleel, C.A, Manivannan, P., Wahid, A., Farooq, M., Al-Juburi, H.J., Somasundaram, R., and Panneerselvam, R. 2009. Drought stress plants: a review on morphological characteristics and pigments composition. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology 11:100-105.
21. Kiani, S.P., Maury, P., Sarrafi, A., & Grieu, P. 2008. QTL analysis of chlorophyll fluorescence parameters in sunflower (Helianthus annuus) under well-watered and water-stressed conditions. Plant Science 175: 565-573.
22. Maxwell, K., and Johnson, G.N. 2000. Chlorophyll fluorescence- a practical guide. Journal of Experimental Botany 51: 659-668.
23. Nunes, C., Ara ujo, S., da Silva, J.M., Salema Fevereiro, M., and da Silva, A. 2008. Physiological responses of the legume model Medicago truncatula Jem along to water deficit. Environmental and Experimental Botany 63: 289-296.
24. Premachandra, G.S., Saneoka, H., and Ogata, S. 1990. Cell membrane stability an indicator of drought tolerance as affected by applied nitrogen in soybean. Journal of Agricultural Science (Camb) 115: 63-66.
25. Parameshwarappa, S.G., and Salimath, P.M. 2008. Field screening of chickpea genotypes for drought resistance. Karnataka Journal of Agriculture Science 21: 113-114.
26. Rahbarian, R., Khavari Nejad. R.A., Ganjeali, A.,Baghri, A., and Najafi, F. 2011. Drought stress effects on photosynthesis and water relations in tolerant and susceptible chickpea (Cicer arietinum. L.) enotypes. Acta Biologica Cracoviensia Series Botanica 53: 47-56.
27. Rahbarian, R., Khavari Nejad. R.A., Ganjeali, A.,Baghri, A., Najafi, F., and Roshanfekr, M. 2012. Use of biochemical indices and antioxidant enzymes as a screening technique for drought tolerance in chickpea genotypes (Cicer arietinum). African Journal of Agricultural Research 7(39): 5372-5380.
28. Rahbarian, R., Khavari Nejad, A., Ganjeali, A.,Baghri, A., and Najafi, F. 2013. Drought stress effects on photosynthesis chlorophyll fluorescence and photosynthetic pigments in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) genotypes. Iranian Journal of Pulses Research 4(2): 87-98. (In Persian with English Summary).
29. Zlatev, Z.S., and Yordanov, I.T. 2004. Effects of soil drought on photosynthesis and chlorophyll fluorescence in bean plants, BULG. Journal of Plant Physiology 30: 3-18.