Study on drought stress effects on morphological, physiological and biochemical characteristics of chickpea genotypes (Cicer arietinum L.) under field condition

Document Type : Original Articles

Authors

• Ali Ganjeali ¹
• Raheleh Rahbarian ²
• Abdolreza Bagheri ¹
• Saeed Malekzadeh-Shafaroudi ¹

¹ Ferdowsi University of Mashhad

² Contribution from Payame Noor University

10.22067/ijpr.v1393i1.46206

Abstract

In order to evaluate of morphological, physiological and biochemical traits, related to drought tolerance, an experiment was carried out in field condition. In this study two commercial cultivars (MCC361, MCC358), three Kabuli and three Deci type of tolerant genotypes (MCC392, MCC537, MCC696, MCC873, MCC870, MCC10,) and three Kabuli and three Deci type of susceptible genotypes (MCC759, MCC588, MCC774, MCC45, MCC39, MCC101) were grown in Ferdowsi University of Mashhad research field. These genotypes were compared in shoot length, dry weight, leaf area, Fv/Fm, leaf water potential, prolin and protein content and catalase activity in the flowering stage. There was a significant positive correlation between prolin and protein content. Catalase activity also had significant positive correlation with dry weight and leaf area. Susceptible genotypes had lower Fv/Fm, leaf water potential, prolin content and catalase activity than tolerant genotypes. Accordingly, Fv/Fm, leaf water potential, prolin content and catalase activity were introduced as suitable markers for identification of drought tolerant genotypes. Commercial cultivar (MCC358) was introduced as a tolerant genotype because of higher Fv/Fm, leaf water potential, prolin content and catalase activity as compared to susceptible genotypes under drought stress.

Keywords

• Catalase
• Chickpea
• Drought stress
• Fv/Fm
• Prolin

---

References

1. Ahmed, S., Nawata, E., Hosokawa, M., Domae, Y., and Sakuratani, T. 2002. Alterations in photosynthesis and some antioxidant enzymatic activities of mungbean subjected to water logging. Plant Science 163: 117-123.

2. Amini, F., and Ehsanpour, A. 2005. Soluble proteins, proline, carbohydrates and Na+ /K+ changes in two tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) cultivars under in vitro salt stress. American Journal of Biochemistry and Biotechnology 1: 212-216.

3. Ashraf, M., and Harris, P.J.C. 2004. Potential biochemical indicators of salinity tolerance in plants, Plant Sci. 166: 3-16.

4. 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.

5. 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 L.)? Pak. J. Bot. 39: 1123-1131.

6. Auld, D.L., Bettis, B.L. Crock, J.E., and Kephart, K.D. 1988. Planting date and temperature effects on germination, emergence, and seed yield of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Agron. J. 80: 909-914.

7. Bagheri, A., Nezami, A., Ganjeali, A., and Parsa, M. 1997. The Chickpea. Mashhad Jahad Daneshgahi Publishers (In Persian).

8. 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.

9. Bates, L.S., Waldern, R.P., and Teare, I.D. 1973. Rapid determination of free proline for water stress studies. Plant Soil Environ. 39: 205-207.

10. Bayoumi, T.Y., Eid, M., & 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.

11. Beck, E., Fettig, S., Knake, C., Hartig, K., and Bhattarai, T. 2007. Specific and unspecific responses of plants to cold and drought stress. J. Biosci. 32: 501-510.

12. Bray, E.A. 1997. Plant responses to water deficit. Trends in Plant Science 2: 48-54.

13. Chandlee, J.M., and Scandalios, J.G. 1984. Analysis of variants affecting the catalase development program in Maize scutellum. Theor. Appl. Genet. 69: 71-77.

14. 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.

15. Eivazi, A., Talat, F., Saeed, A., and Ranji, H. 2007. Selection for osmoregulation gene to improve grain yield of wheat genotype under osmotic stress. Pakistan Journal of Biological Science 10: 3703-3707.

16. 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: 185-212.

17. Figueiredo, M., Bezerra, E., and Burity, H. 2001. Water stress response on the enzymatic activity in cowpea nodules. Braz. J. Microbiol. 32: 1-9.

18. Fu, J., and Huang, B. 2001. Involvement of antioxidants and lipid peroxidation in the adaptation of two cool-season grasses to localized drought stress. Environ. Exp. Bot. 45: 05-114.

19. 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.

20. Ganjeali, A., and Kafi, M. 2007. Genotypic differences for allometric relationships between root and shot characteristics in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Pak. J. Bot. 39: 1523-1531.

21. Ganjeali, A., Bagheri, A., and Porsa. H. 2009. Evaluation of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) germplasm for drought resistance. Iranian Journal of Field Crops Research 6: 295-303. (In Persian with English Summary).

22. Ganjeali, A., Porsa, H., and Bagheri, A. 2011. Assessment of Iranian chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) germplasms for drought tolerance. Agricultural Water Management 98: 1477-1484.

23. 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 L.) cultivars. Scientia Horticulturae 1: 1-7.

24. Helal, R.M., and Samir, M.A. 2008. Comparative response of drought tolerant and drought sensitive maize genotypes to water stress. Aust. J. Crop Sci. 1: 31-36.

25. 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.

26. Kiani, S.P., Maury, P., Sarrafi, A., and Grieu, P. 2008. QTL analysis of chlorophyll fluorescence parameters in sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) under well-watered and water-stressed conditions. Plant Science 175: 565-573.

27. Koca, H., Bor, M., Ozdemir, F., and Turkan, I. 2007. The effect of salt stress on lipid peroxidation, antioxidative enzymes and proline content of sesame cultivars. Environmental and Experimental Botany 60: 344-351.

28. Lowry, O.H., Rosebrough, N.J., Farr, A.L., and Randapp, R.J. 1951. Protein measurement with the folin phenol reagent. J. Biol. Chem. 191: 265-275.

29. Maxwell, K., and Giles, N.J. 2000. Chlorophyll fluorescence, a practical guide. Journal of Experimental Botany 51: 659-668.

30. Najaphy, A., Niari Khamssi, N., Mostafaie, A., and Mirzaee, H. 2010. Effect of progressive water deficit stress on praline accumulation and protein profiles of leaves in chickpea. African Journal of Biotechnology 9: 7033-7036.

31. Niknam, V., Razavi, N., Ebrahimzadeh, H., and Sharifizadeh, B. 2006. Effect of NaCl on biomass proline and protein contents and antioxidant enzymes in seedling and calli of two Triginella species. Biologia Plantarum 50: 591-596.

32. 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 cv. Jem along to water deficit. Environmental and Experimental Botany 63: 289-296.

33. Parameshwarappa, S.G., and Salimath, P.M. 2008. Field screening of chickpea genotypes for drought resistance. Karnataka Journal of Agriculture Science 21: 113-114.

34. 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.

35. Rahbarian, R., Khavari-Nejad, R.A., Ganjeali, A., Bagheri, A., and Najafi, F. 2011. Drought stress effects on photosynthesis, chlorophyll fluorescence and water relations, in tolerant and susceptible chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) genotypes. Acta abaiologica Cracoviensia 53: 2-9.

36. Simova-Stoilova, L., Demirevska, K., Petrova, T., Tsenov, N., and Feller, U. 2008. Antioxidative protection in wheat varieties under severe recoverable drought at seedling stage. Plant Soil Environment 54: 529-536.

37. Tawfik, K.M. 2008. Effect of water stress in addition to potassiomag application on mungbean. Aust. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 2: 42-52.

38. Zlatev, Z.S., and Yordanov, I.T. 2004. Effects of soil drought on photosynthesis and chlorophyll fluorescence in bean plants. Bulgarian Journal of Plant Physiology 30:3-18.