ROLE OF COTYLEDONS IN REGULATION OF PHYSIO-BIOCHEMICAL COMPONENTS OF SOYBEAN (GLYCINE MAX L.)

Article Id: ARCC2950 | Page : 204 - 208
Citation :- ROLE OF COTYLEDONS IN REGULATION OF PHYSIO-BIOCHEMICAL COMPONENTS OF SOYBEAN (GLYCINE MAX L.).Indian Journal Of Agricultural Research.2003.(37):204 - 208
S. Ramana, Ajay, A.B. Singh and R.B.R. Yadava
Address : Indian Institute of Soil Science. Bhopal - 462 038, India

Abstract

An experiment was conducted by removing the cotyledons on the day of emergence (VE i.e., 4 Day after sowing) to study the their role on growth and development of soybean. The removal of one cotyledon (1C) did not affect the growth and development of soybean significantly over control but the removal of both cotyledons (0C) resulted in stunted growth and decreased the total dry weight. The removal of the cotyledons (0C and lC) increased the chlorophyll fractions, carotenoid and the activity of nitrate reductase (NR) enzyme but decreased the activities ofpo1yphenol oxidase (PPO) and peroxidase ( PO) enzymes. Further, the removal of cotyledons decreased the riumber of nodules/plants compared to control. The spectral scanning of root exudates showed inherent differences between plants without cotyledons [Absorbance 0.5 (0C) with flat peak] and plants with 1 cotyledon (1C) having distinct peak (inflection) at 400nm IAbsorbance 0.2) and the plants with two cotyledons (2C) 0.15 with a sharp peak. Though. relatively higher seed yield was recorded in the plants with 0C and 1C over control (2C), the difference was not significant.

Keywords

References

  1. Ajay and Joshi. YC. (·1997). Ann. P/. Physio/.. 11: 155-159.
  2. Arnon, D. (1949). PI. Physio/., 24: 1-15.
  3. Berger, OA eta/. (1990). Proc. Soil Crop Science Society Florida. 5: 177-180.
  4. Brown, C.S. and Huber. S.c. (1987). Prog. Photosynth. Res., 3: 725-728.
  5. Frakas. G.L. and Kiraly (1962). Phytopath.. 44: 104-150.
  6. Fehr, w.R. and Caviness, C.E. (1977). Coop. Ext. Serv. Spec. Rep.. 80
  7. Gomez, K.A. and Gomez. A. (1984). Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. 2no Ed. John Wiley & Sons Inc.
  8. New York.
  9. Hageman, R.H. and HuckIesby, D.P. (1971). Methods in Enzymology. (San Pietro. A. cd.) Vo! 23A Academic Pr,'''s
  10. London. pp. 491-503.
  11. Hardina and Silsbury, J.H. (1992). Ann. Bot., 69: 227-230.
  12. Harris, H. eta/. (1986). Ann. Bot., 57: 69-79.
  13. Hiscox, T.O. and Israeltam. G.F (1979) CanadiaiJJ Bot.. 57' 1332-1334.
  14. Hocking. PO and Peter, 13.T (1989) FieidCropRes 22: 59-75.
  15. Hunt. 'I.E pta! (1994). Agron. J. 86: 140-146.
  16. LovelL P and Moore. K.1l971) J Expt/. BOl.. 22: 153-162
  17. MacCdrthv. D.C. and Galston. A.W. (1959). PI Physio/.. 34 416-418
  18. Pe"t .} R etal (1981). An/7 Bol., 48; 183-187.
  19. Weber. CR and Caldwell. BE (1966). Crop Sci.. 6: 25-27.

Global Footprints