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 (2023)

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
Legume Research, volume 29 issue 3 (september 2006) : 175 - 180

SENSITIVITY TO MOISTURE STRESS AND GROWTH REGULATORS ON YIELD AND YIELD COMPONENTS OF TWO CHICKPEA GENOTYPES AT DIFFERENT GROWTH STAGES

Pankaj Kumar*, P.S. Deshmukh
1Division of Plant Physiology, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi - 110 012, India
  • Submitted|

  • First Online |

  • doi

Cite article:- Kumar* Pankaj, Deshmukh P.S. (2024). SENSITIVITY TO MOISTURE STRESS AND GROWTH REGULATORS ON YIELD AND YIELD COMPONENTS OF TWO CHICKPEA GENOTYPES AT DIFFERENT GROWTH STAGES. Legume Research. 29(3): 175 - 180. doi: .
Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) is mainly cultivated as a rainfed crop and is mainly grown on residual moisture during rabi in India. Foliar application of growth regulators was sprayed to the moisture stressed chickpea plants grown in pots at the beginning of moisture stress treatments viz., BA-50ppm, ABA-25ppm, BA-50ppm + ABA 25ppm and water spray as control. It was observed that the genotype C-214 was relatively drought tolerant as compared to BG-362. However, both the genotypes were more sensitive to moisture stress at early vegetative growth stage and the maximum reduction in yield and yield components were observed when moisture stress treatment was given between 40–60 DAS followed by stress between 61–80 DAS. Among the growth regulator treatments, MS+BA+ABA was found to be the best for all the parameters studied followed by MS+ABA treatment over moisture stress.
    1. Blum, A. (1996). Plant Growth Reg., 20: 135-148.
    2. Bohnert, H.J. and Jensen, R.G. (1995). Trends Biotechnol., 14: 89-97.
    3. Brar, Z.S. et al (1992). Intern. Chickpea Newsl., 27: 25-27.
    4. Davies, W.J. and Zhang, T. (1991). Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol., 42: 55-76.
    5. Ghassemi-Golezani, K. et al. (1998) Agric. Sci. Tabriz, 7: 17-42.
    6. Gupta, N.K. (1996). Ph. D. Thesis IARI, New Delhi, India.
    7. Janaradhan, K.V. and Bhojaraja, R. (1999). Adv. Plant Physiol., 2: 113-135.
    8. Karmorker, J.L. and Mariam, H. (1997). Bangladesh J. Bot., 26: 169-175.
    9. Kpoghumou et al. (1990). Agron. Crop Sci., 164: 104-109.
    10. Leport, L. et al. (1999). European J. Agron., 11: 279-291.
    11. Lopez, F.B. et al. (1996). J. Agron. Crop Sci., 177: 311-320.
    12. Morris, R.O. et al. (1993). Aust. J. Plant Physiol., 20: 621-637.
    13. Mwanamwenge, J. et al. (1999). European J. Agron., 11: 1-11.
    14. Nam, N.H. et al. (1993). Exp. Agric., 29: 307-316.
    15. Rajasekaran, L.R. and Blake, T.J. (1999). J. Plant Growth Reg., 18: 175-181.
    16. Samuel, S.R.(1999). M. Sc. Thesis, IARI, New Delhi, India.
    17. Saxena N.P. and Johansen, C. (1990). Proc. Intern. Congress of Plant Physiology, Vol. 1, 15-20 February, 1988, New Delhi, India, pp. 279-288.
    18. Singh, P. et al. (1990). Proc. 2nd Intern. Workshop on Chickpea Improv., 4-8 Dec., 1989, ICRISAT, Hyderabad, pp. 73-79.
    19. Sionit, N. and Kramer, P.J. (1977). Agron. J., 69: 274-278
    20. Turner, N.C. (1997). Adv. Agron., 58: 295-338.

    Editorial Board

    View all (0)