Legume Research

  • Chief EditorJ. S. Sandhu

  • Print ISSN 0250-5371

  • Online ISSN 0976-0571

  • NAAS Rating 6.80

  • SJR 0.391

  • Impact Factor 0.8 (2024)

Frequency :
Monthly (January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November 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

Legume Research, volume 30 issue 2 (june 2007) : 141-144

EFFECT OF NaCI SAUNIlY STRESS ON SEED GERMINATION AND SEEDLING GROWTH OF CHICK PEA (CICER ARIETINUML.)

P. Anantharaju, AR. Muthiah
1Centre for Plant Breeding and Genetics Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore - 641 003, India.

  • Submitted|

  • First Online |

  • doi

Cite article:- Anantharaju P., Muthiah AR. (2024). EFFECT OF NaCI SAUNIlY STRESS ON SEED GERMINATION AND SEEDLING GROWTH OF CHICK PEA (CICER ARIETINUML.). Legume Research. 30(2): 141-144. doi: .

ABSTRACT

Genotypic differences for tolerance to salinity at different growth stages were reported. Germination and seedling growth may be reliable parameters for rapid screening against salinity. Nine genotypes of chickpea were subjected to salinity stress during germination and seedling growth using different concentrations of salt solution. The germination percentage and seedling growth declined in all the genotypes with increasing salinity stress. Out of nine genotypes CO 3, CO 4 and ICC 4278 were more tolerant towards simulated salinity stress condition. PLS 5225-1 is less tolerant to salinity stress, while ICC 2812 was the most susceptible. During any physiological stress, growth, metabolism and development activities were adversely affected and plants can survive under adverse conditions through some adaptive mechanisms. The tolerant genotypes have higher proline contents as compared to susceptible genotypes.

KEYWORDS

    REFERENCES

    1. Ayman, S. (1995). M.Sc., (Ag.). Thesis, I. Ag. Sc. SHU. Varnasi, India.
    2. Bates, L.S. et al. (1973). Plant Soil, 39: 205-207.
    3. Siswas, T.D. and Mukherjee, S.K. (1997). In: Salt Affected Soils, Text Sook of Soil Science, ISH Publishing Co~ Pvt.
    4. Ltd., pp. 399-413.
    5. FAO. (1998). Production Yearbook. Vol. 52, Rome, Italy: FAO.
    6. ISTA, (1976). International rules for seed testing. Seed Sci. 4 Techno., 4: supplement rules, 3-39.
    7. ISTA, (1999). International rules for seed testing. Seed Sci. 4 Techno., 27: supplement rules, 27-31.
    8. Sharma, KD. et a!. (1990) Indian J. Expt. Bio!., 28 : 890-892.
    9. Singh, A.K and Singh, RA (1999). Indian J.Plant Physio!., 4: 111-113.
    10. Sharma, P.K et al (1996). Haryana Agric. Univ. J. Res., 28 : 1-7.
    11. Khan et al (1997}J Agron. Crop Sci., 179: 149-161.
    12. Torres, Wand Echevarria, I. (1994). Cultivars Tropicals, 15: 44-47.
    13. Power, S.L and Mehta, \!.S, (1997). Ann. Agric. Res., 18: 536-537.
    14. Srivastava, J.P. (1998). Adv. Plant Physiol., 1: 381-393.
    Reviewed By

    Download Article
    In this Article
      Contact us
      Follow us

      Editorial Board

      View all (0)