Banner
Current IssueEditorial BoardOnline First ArticlesArchive
Current IssueEditorial BoardOnline First ArticlesArchive

volume 30 issue 1 (march 2007) : 41 - 44

CHANGES IN CERTAIN ORGANIC METABOLITES DURING SEEDLING GROWTH OF CHICKPEA UNDER SALT STRESS AND ALONGWITH EXOGENOUS PROLINE

M
Madhurendra
N
N. Prasad
1Department of Biochemistry, Faculty of Basic Science and Humanities, Rajendra Agricultural University. Pusa. Samastipur - 848 125. India

  • Submitted|

  • First Online |

  • doi

Cite article:- Madhurendra, Prasad N. (2025). CHANGES IN CERTAIN ORGANIC METABOLITES DURING SEEDLING GROWTH OF CHICKPEA UNDER SALT STRESS AND ALONGWITH EXOGENOUS PROLINE. Legume Research. 30(1): 41 - 44. doi: .

ABSTRACT

Salt tolerant (BG-372, KWR-108) and susceptible (C-235, H-208) chickpea genotypes were subjected to varied levels of salt stress (0.0, 4.0, 8.0 and 12.0 dS/m) to investigate certain biochemical parameters in 8-day old seedling under different level of salt stress alone and alongwith exogenous proline of 10−5M concentration. The salt stress decreased the total sugar, reducing and non-reducing sugar but increased starch, and proline content. The exogenous proline when applied with saIt stress reduced the adverse effect of salt stress. Lower soluble protein content was noticed in tolerant genotypes.

KEYWORDS

    REFERENCES

    1. Bal, A.R. (1976). BioI. Plant., 18: 227-229.
    2. Bates, L.S. et a/. (1973). PI. Soil, 39: 205-208.
    3. Brown, L.M. and Hellebust, JA (1978). Can. J. Bot., 56: 676-679.
    4. Dubey, R.S. (1984). Oryza, 21: 213-217.
    5. Gloux, K. and Rudulier, D. Le (1989). Archives Microbiol., 151(2): 143-148.
    6. Khanna, S. and Rai, V,K. (1995). Indian J. Exp. BioI., 33: 766-770.
    7. Lauter, D.J. and Munns, D.N. (1986). PI. Soil, 95: 271-279.
    8. Lowry, O.H. etal. (1951). J. BioI. Chern., 193: 265-275.
    9. Miller, G.L (1959). Anal. Chern., 31: 426-428.
    10. Raggi, V. (1994). Physiol. Plant, 91: 427-434.
    11. Singh, M. and Singh, S. (1995). Indian J. PI. Physiol., 38(2): 109-113.
    12. Singh, G. etal. (1985). Experientia, 41: 40-41. .
    13. Thakur, P.S. and Rai, V.K. (1985). Biol. Plant, 27: 438-461.
    14. Trevelyan, W.E. and Harrison, J.S. (1952). Biochem. J.. 50: 299
    Published In
    Legume Research
    Article Metrics
    Metrics Icon
    0
    Views
    0
    Citations
    Reviewed By
    Share Article
    Download Article
    In this Article
      Contact us
      Follow us

      volume 30 issue 1 (march 2007) : 41 - 44

      CHANGES IN CERTAIN ORGANIC METABOLITES DURING SEEDLING GROWTH OF CHICKPEA UNDER SALT STRESS AND ALONGWITH EXOGENOUS PROLINE

      M
      Madhurendra
      N
      N. Prasad
      1Department of Biochemistry, Faculty of Basic Science and Humanities, Rajendra Agricultural University. Pusa. Samastipur - 848 125. India

      • Submitted|

      • First Online |

      • doi

      Cite article:- Madhurendra, Prasad N. (2025). CHANGES IN CERTAIN ORGANIC METABOLITES DURING SEEDLING GROWTH OF CHICKPEA UNDER SALT STRESS AND ALONGWITH EXOGENOUS PROLINE. Legume Research. 30(1): 41 - 44. doi: .

      ABSTRACT

      Salt tolerant (BG-372, KWR-108) and susceptible (C-235, H-208) chickpea genotypes were subjected to varied levels of salt stress (0.0, 4.0, 8.0 and 12.0 dS/m) to investigate certain biochemical parameters in 8-day old seedling under different level of salt stress alone and alongwith exogenous proline of 10−5M concentration. The salt stress decreased the total sugar, reducing and non-reducing sugar but increased starch, and proline content. The exogenous proline when applied with saIt stress reduced the adverse effect of salt stress. Lower soluble protein content was noticed in tolerant genotypes.

      KEYWORDS

        REFERENCES

        1. Bal, A.R. (1976). BioI. Plant., 18: 227-229.
        2. Bates, L.S. et a/. (1973). PI. Soil, 39: 205-208.
        3. Brown, L.M. and Hellebust, JA (1978). Can. J. Bot., 56: 676-679.
        4. Dubey, R.S. (1984). Oryza, 21: 213-217.
        5. Gloux, K. and Rudulier, D. Le (1989). Archives Microbiol., 151(2): 143-148.
        6. Khanna, S. and Rai, V,K. (1995). Indian J. Exp. BioI., 33: 766-770.
        7. Lauter, D.J. and Munns, D.N. (1986). PI. Soil, 95: 271-279.
        8. Lowry, O.H. etal. (1951). J. BioI. Chern., 193: 265-275.
        9. Miller, G.L (1959). Anal. Chern., 31: 426-428.
        10. Raggi, V. (1994). Physiol. Plant, 91: 427-434.
        11. Singh, M. and Singh, S. (1995). Indian J. PI. Physiol., 38(2): 109-113.
        12. Singh, G. etal. (1985). Experientia, 41: 40-41. .
        13. Thakur, P.S. and Rai, V.K. (1985). Biol. Plant, 27: 438-461.
        14. Trevelyan, W.E. and Harrison, J.S. (1952). Biochem. J.. 50: 299
        In this Article
          Contact us
          Follow us
          Published In
          Legume Research

          Editorial Board

          View all (0)