EVALUATION OF PIGEONPEA GENOTYPES FOR MORPHO-PHYSIOLOGICAL TRAITS RELATED TO DROUGHT TOLLERANCE

Article Id: ARCC2019 | Page : 46-50
Citation :- EVALUATION OF PIGEONPEA GENOTYPES FOR MORPHO-PHYSIOLOGICAL TRAITS RELATED TO DROUGHT TOLLERANCE.Legume Research-An International Journal.2009.(32):46-50
D.V. Deshmukh, D.V. Kusalkar and J.V. Patil
Address : Pulses Improvement Project, Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidhyapeeth, Rahuri-413 722, India

Abstract

Ten pigeonpea genotypes were grown under moisture stress condition in rainout shelter and
irrigated condition separately for evaluating morpho-physiological traits associated to drought
tolerance in kharif 2006. The genotype JSA 59 was identified for highest seed yield under moisture
stress (476 kg/ha) as well as irrigated (1413 kg/ha) conditions. It also showed low reduction in yield
(66.31%) due to moisture stress as well as high DTE (33.69%) and low DSI (0.585). The relative leaf water content (RLWC) under moisture stress condition was highest in JKM 189 (40.71%) followed by BDN 2009 (39.92%) and TTB 7 (39.39%). There was a great variation for membrane injury index. It was lowest in JKM 204 (0.15) and JSA 59 (0.26). PT 02-9 having lowest membrane injury index (0.13) and lowest rate of water loss (0.223 mg/min), but low seed yield under moisture stress (122 kg/ha) as well as stress free condition (778 kg/ha). TTB 7 was marked by high biomass and its distribution in component parts of plant under stress as well as stress free condition. The genotypes JSA 59 and TTB 7 were also characterized by higher number of pods per plant and seed yield/plant under moisture stress as well as stress free condition. In addition to this, JSA 59 had higher harvest index under moisture stress (17.10%) as well as stress free condition (20.86%). Therefore, JSA 59 and TTB 7 wererated as most promising type for drought tolerance.

Keywords

Pigeonpea genotype Morpho-physiological traits Hoisture-stress Irrigation.

References

  1. Arunachalam V. and Bandopadhyay A. (1984). Indian J. Genet.; 44:419-424.
  2. Bidinger F.R. et al. (1982). Workshop on Principles and Methods of Crop Improvement for Drought Tolerance with Emphasis on Rice held at International Rice Research Institute, Los Banos, Phillipines on May, 4-8th1981; pp 45-49.
  3. Blum A. and Ebercon A. (1981). Crop. Sci.; 21:43-47.
  4. Deshmukh D.V. et al. (2004). Indian J. Pulses Res.; 17(1):47-49.
  5. Donald, C.M. (1962). Inst. Agril. Sci.; 28:171-178.
  6. Fischer, K. S. and Wood. (1981). In: Proceedings of Symposium on ‘Principles and Methods in Crop Improvement for
  7. Drought Resistance with Emphasis on Rice’ (Fisher, K. S. et al Eds)., IRRI, Phillipines; May, 1981.
  8. Fischer R.A. and Maurer R. (1978). Aust. J. Agric. Res.; 29:892-912.
  9. Gupta S.N. et al. (1995). HAU Res. J. 25(1):49-52 6.
  10. Kramer P. J. (1983). Water Deficits and Plant Growth. Water Relations of Plants. pp. 342-389.
  11. Singh, K.N. (2003). Abstracts: ‘National Symposium on Pulses for Crop Diversification and Natural Resource Management (NPS 2003)’ held at IIPR, Kanpur on 20-22nd Dec., 2003: ABS 10: 268.
  12. Yadav, V.K. et al. (1996). Plant Physiol. and Biochem.; 23(1):49-52.

Global Footprints