Indian Journal of Agricultural Research

  • Chief EditorT. Mohapatra

  • Print ISSN 0367-8245

  • Online ISSN 0976-058X

  • NAAS Rating 5.60

  • SJR 0.293

Frequency :
Bi-monthly (February, April, June, August, October 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

Indian Journal of Agricultural Research, volume 50 issue 6 (december 2016) : 604-608

Natural variation in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) for root traits and biomass partitioning under drought

Parvaze A. Sofi*, Iram Saba
1<p>Faculty of Agriculture, SKUAST-K, Wadura, Sopore, 193 201, India.</p>
Cite article:- Sofi* A. Parvaze, Saba Iram (2016). Natural variation in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) for root traitsand biomass partitioning under drought . Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 50(6): 604-608. doi: 10.18805/ijare.v50i6.6679.

ABSTRACT

The present study was undertaken to assess the response of common bean under drought in respect of root traits and biomass partitioning in fifteen common bean genotypes. The basal root whorl number and the number of basal roots  was highest in case of WB-185  and lowest in case of SR-1, whereas, the basal root growth angle was highest in case of WB-258  and lowest in case of WB-249. Rooting depth measured as the length of longest root harvested was highest in case of WB-6 (66.2) while as lowest value was recorded for WB-112 (20.4). Dry root weight was highest in case of WB-216 (0.45) and lowest value was recorded for WB-341 (0.22). Similarly leaf biomass was highest in case of WB-6 (0.58) followed by WB-216 (0.58) and the lowest value recorded for WB-1186 (0.12). Shoot dry weight was highest for WB-6 (0.55) followed by WB-216 (0.44) and the lowest value recorded for WB-1186 (0.118). Pod dry weight was highest for WB-489 (2.28) followed by WB-216 (2.19) and the lowest value recorded for WB-83 (0.68).489. Root biomass proportion was highest for WB-195 (18.34) and lowest for WB-489 (10.00). Similarly leaf biomass to total biomass was highest in case of WB-83 (23.19) whereas lowest value was recorded for WB-1186 (7.60). Highest stem biomass proportion was recorded for Arka Anoop (19.19) and the lowest value was recorded for WB-1186 (7.591). Biomass allocation to pods was highest in case of WB-489 (69.92) followed by WB-1186 (68.69) whereas lowest value was recorded for WB-83 (45.40). 

REFERENCES


  1. Allen, R.,G., Pereira, L.S and Raes, D. (1998)., Crop evapo-transpiration—guidelines for computing crop water requirements. FAO Irrigation and drainage paper 56. FAO, Rome, Italy.

  2. Basu, P., Zhang, Y. J., Lynch, J. P. and Brown, K. M. (2007)., Ethylene modulates genetic, positional, and nutritional regulation of root plagiogravitropism. Funct. Plant Biol., 34: 41–51.

  3. Beebe S, Rao I and Blair M. (2009). Breeding for abiotic stress tolerance in common bean: Present and future challenges. Proceedings of the 14th Australian Plant Breeding & 11th SABRAO Conference, August 10–14, 2009, Brisbane, Australia.

  4. Broughton W, Hernández G, Blair M, Beebe S, Gepts P and Vanderleyden, J. (2003)., Beans (Phaseolus spp.) – model food legumes. Plant and Soil., 252: 55–128.

  5. Christopher, J., Christopher, M., Jennings, R., Jones, S., Fletcher, S., Borrel, A., Ahmad, M., Jordan, D, Mace, E. and Hammer, G. (2012). QTL for root angle and number in a population developed from bread wheats with contrasting adaptation to water limited environments. Theor. Appl. Genetics., 126: 1563-1574

  6. Emam, Y, Shekoofa, A., Salehi, F and Jalali, A. (2012)., Water Stress Effects on Two Common Bean Cultivars with Contrasting Growth Habits. American-Eurasian J. Agric. & Environ. Sci., 9: 495-499

  7. Graham, P. and Ranalli, P. (1997)., Common Bean. Field Crops Research., 53: 131-46

  8. Ludlow, M.. and Muchow, R. (1990)., A critical evaluation of traits for improving crop yields in water-limited environments. Advances in Agronomy., 43:107-153.

  9. Lynch, J.P. and Brown, K.M. (2001). Topsoil foraging – an architectural adaptation of plants to low phosphorus availability. Plant & Soil. 237: 225-237

  10. Poorter, H, Niklas, K., Reich, P. Oleksyn, J, Poot, P. and Mommer, K. (2012). Biomass allocation to leaves, stems and roots: meta-analyses of interspecific variation and environmental control. New Phytologist. 193: 30-50

  11. Rao, I.M., Beebe, S.E and Polan a, J. (2009). Physiological basis of improved drought resistance in common bean: the contribution of photosynthate mobilization to grain. Paper presented at Interdrought III: Shanghai, China, October 11–16, 2009.

  12. Rao, I.M. (2001)., Role of physiology in improving crop adaptation to abiotic stresses in the tropics: The case of common bean and tropical forages. In: M Pessarakli (ed.) Handbook of Plant and Crop Physiology. Marcel Dekker, Inc, New York, pp. 583–613.

  13. Rezene, Y., Gebeyehu, S. and Zelleke, H. (2013)., Morpho-physiological response to post-flowering drought stress in small red seeded common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) genotypes. J. of Plant Studies., 2: 41-53

  14. Schneider, K. A., Rosales, R. And Ibarra-Perez, F. (1997)., Improving common bean performance under drought stress. Crop Sci., 37., 43–50.

  15. Singh, S.P. (1995)., Selection for water stress tolerance in interracial populations of common bean. Crop Sci., 35:118–124.

  16. Subbarao, G.V., C. Johansen, A.E. Slinkard, R.C. Nageswara, R.N.. Saxena, and Y.S. Chauhan , Y.S. 1995., Strategies for improving drought resistance in grain legumes . Critical Reviews in Plant Sci., 14: 469-523.

  17. Teran, H. and Singh,S. P. (2002)., Comparison of sources and lines selected for drought resistance in common bean. Crop Sci., 42: 64–70.

  18. Wortman C., Kirkby R. A., Eledu, C.A. and Allen D.J. (1998)., Atlas of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) production in Africa. CIAT publication no. 297. CIAT, Cali, Colombia, 131 pp

     
Reviewed By

Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Editorial Board

    View all (0)