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 3 (september 2007) : 157 - 165,

GERMINATION INDEX, GROWTH RATE, PHOTOSYNTHETIC PIGMENTS AND AMMONIA ASSIMILATING ENZYMES OF DESI AND KABULI CHICKPEA UNDER SALINITY STRESS

Neera Garg, Ranju Singla
1Department of Botany, Panjab University, Chandigarh-160014, India

  • Submitted|

  • First Online |

  • doi

Cite article:- Garg Neera, Singla Ranju (2024). GERMINATION INDEX, GROWTH RATE, PHOTOSYNTHETIC PIGMENTS AND AMMONIA ASSIMILATING ENZYMES OF DESI AND KABULI CHICKPEA UNDER SALINITY STRESS. Legume Research. 30(3): 157 - 165,. doi: .

ABSTRACT

Four cultivars of chickpea, two salt tolerant (CSG 8962 and CSG 9651) and two salt susceptible (BG 267 and DCP 92-3) were subjected to salt stress (0.0, 4.0, 6.0 and 8.0 dSm−1) and were investigated for germination index, growth rate, leaf chlorophyll and N-assimilation. Salinity markedly decreased germination and growth rate in all the cultivars but to alesser extent in cultivar CSG 9651 (kabuli). The leaf chlorophyll was more affected in DCP92-3 (desi). The tolerant cultivars had higher nitrate reductase activity, which ultimately resulted in increased activity of ammonia assimilating enzymes GS, GDH, and GOGAT in the leaves of CSG 8962 and CSG 9651. Breeding of kabuli cultivars in saline soils has been suggested in the present study.

KEYWORDS

    REFERENCES

    1. Al-Khanjari, S. et al. (2002). Crop Res. 24: 350-356.
    2. Ashraf, M. (1989). Plant Soil .118: 205-210.
    3. Ashraf,. M and Waheed, A. (1993). Plant Soil. 154: 257-266.
    4. Cheesman, J.M. (1988). J. Plant Physiol. 87: 547-550
    5. Cordovilla, M.P. et al. (1999). Applied Soil Eco. 11: 1-7.
    6. Cordovilla, M.P. et al. (1996). J. Expt. Bot. 47: 203-210.
    7. Dua, R.P. and Sharma, P.C. (1995). ICPN. 2: 19-22.
    8. Esechie, H.A. et al.(2002). J. Agron. Crop Sci .188: 155.
    9. Evans, L.T (1972). Pub. Int. Rice Res. Sci. 16: 627-631.
    10. Goula, H. (1994). Plant Physiol. 105: 1409-18.
    11. Groat ,R.G. and Vance, C.P. (1981). Plant Physiol. 67: 1198-1203.
    12. Helal, M. et al. (1975). Physiol. Plant. 35: 310-13.
    13. Hiscox ,T.D. and Israelstam, G.F. (1979). Can. J. Bot. 57:1332-34.
    14. Khan, M.G. (1996). Indian J. Plant Physiol. 1 (2): 128-129.
    15. Maguire, J.D. (1962). Crop Sci. 2: 176-177.
    16. Munns ,R. (1993). Plant Cell Environ. 16: 15-24.
    17. Nair, T.V.R. and Abrol, Y.P. (1977). Crop Sci. 438-442.
    18. Pahlich, E. and Joy, K .W. (1971). Can. J. Biochem. 49: 127-138.
    19. Rao, D.L.N. et al. (2002). Annals Bot. 89: 563-570.
    20. Rowe, W.B. et al. (1970). In: Methods in Enzymol 17 Part A (Eds. Tabor, H and Tabor (W). p. 850.
    21. Sekeroglu, N. et al. (1999). Turk. J. Field Crops. 4: 79-84.
    22. Sharma, S.K. (1997). Indian J. Plant Physiol. 2(2): 171-173.
    23. Solomonson, L.P. and Barber, M.J. (1990). Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol. 41: 225-53.
    24. Soussi, M. et al. (1999). J. Expt. Bot. 50 (340): 1701-08.
    25. Soussi, M. et al (1998). J. Expt. Bot. 49 (325): 1329-37.
    26. Sudhakar, C. et al. (1991). Indian J. Plant Physiol. 34: 171-177.
    27. Tempest, D.W. et al. (1970). Biochem. J. 117: 405-07.
    28. Vance, C.P. (1998). In ‘The rhizobiacea’. (Eds Spaink, HP, et al.) pp. 509-530.
    Reviewed By

    Download Article
    In this Article
      Contact us
      Follow us

      Editorial Board

      View all (0)