Legume Research

  • Chief EditorJ. S. Sandhu

  • Print ISSN 0250-5371

  • Online ISSN 0976-0571

  • NAAS Rating 6.80

  • SJR 0.32, CiteScore: 0.906

  • 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

Research Article

Legume Research, volume 42 issue 3 (june 2019) : 314-319

Simultaneous selection model based evaluation of arsenic tolerance in black gram (Vigna mungo L.) using morphological parameters 

M.Z. Shamim, Anjana Pandey
1Department of Biotechnology, Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology (MNNIT),  Allahabad-211 004, Uttar Pradesh, India.

  • Submitted17-02-2017|

  • Accepted25-09-2017|

  • First Online 20-01-2018|

  • doi 10.18805/LR-3854

Cite article:- Shamim M.Z., Pandey Anjana (2018). Simultaneous selection model based evaluation of arsenic tolerance in black gram (Vigna mungo L.) using morphological parameters. Legume Research. 42(3): 314-319. doi: 10.18805/LR-3854.

ABSTRACT

The evaluation of black gram under arsenic stress is important to identify the arsenic-tolerant genotypes for cultivation in arsenic affected soil and for crop improvement programs. Thirty-two black gram genotypes were received from Indian Institute of Pulses Research (IIPR) Kanpur, India was grown in sand and exposed to three arsenic toxicity levels (control, 150 and 300 µM NaAsO2). Root length, root weight, shoot length, shoot weight and total biomass of plants were recorded in the vegetative stage.The plants were grown in pots (45×30×20 cm)following CRD during Kharif 2014 and experiment was performed in three replications.The morphological characters of almost all genotypes were significantly decreased with increased concentration of arsenic in supplied nutrients, shoot length; root length was less affected, whereas shoot weight, root weight and total biomass were much decreased under arsenic stress condition. Selection of genotypes according to simultaneous selection index model suggests that genotypes IPU 99-176, IPU 25, IPU 2K 99-224 and IPU 99-3 are much successfully able to tolerate arsenic toxicity. The arsenic tolerance capacity of UH 82-14 and UPU 8335 were decreased with increasing concentration of NaAsO2 as compared to other genotypes. The genotypes IPU 99-235, UPU 8335, UH 82-14, LBG 623 and IPU 99-115 has very less capacity to cope arsenic toxicity. The genotypes IPU 99-176 and IPU 25 are appropriate for cultivation in arsenic affected soil as well as these genotypes may be much useful for hybridization program to develop the arsenic-tolerant heterotic cultivars. The root biomass and shoot biomass should be improved to develop arsenic tolerance in black gram. The ranking of genotypes based on multiple morphological parameters has great advantage on conventional methods under abiotic stress.    

REFERENCES

  1. Arumuganathan, K. and Earle, E.D. (1991). Nuclear DNA content of some important plant species. Plant. Mol. Biol. Rep. 9: 208-215.
  2. Chakraborti, D., Rahaman, M.M., Mitra, S., Chaterjee, A., Das, D., Das, B., Nayak, B., Pal, A.,et al. (2013). Groundwater arsenic contamination in India: A review of its magnitude, health, social, socio-economic effects and approaches for arsenic mitigation. JISAS. 67(2): 235-266.
  3. Chaparzadeh, N., Aftabi, Y., Dolati, M., Mehrnejad, F. andPessarakli, M. (2014). Salinity tolerance ranking of various wheat landraces from the west of the urmia saline lake in Iran by using physiological parameters. J. Plant. Nutr.37: 1025-1039.
  4. Cobbett, C.S. and Goldsbrough, P. (2002). Phytochelatins and metallothioneins: roles in heavy metal detoxification and homeostasis. Annu. Rev. Plant. Physiol. Plant. Mol. Biol .53: 159-182.
  5. Dadarwal, M. and Mathur, V.L. (2015). Identification of early maturing high yielding mutants in black gram [Vigna mungo(L.) Hepper]. Indian J. Agric. Res.49 (5): 421-426.
  6. El-Hendawy, S.E., Hu, Y., Yakout, G.M., Awad, A M., Hafiz, S. E. and Schmidhalter, U. (2005). Evaluating salt tolerance of wheat genotypes using multiple parameters. Europ. J. Agronomy. 22: 243-253.
  7. FAO. (2014). Statistical Year Book 2014 Asia and Pacific food and agriculture. Food. Agri. Org: 105. ISBN: 978-92-5-108145-7. 
  8. Flowers, T.J. and Yeo, A.R. (1981). Variability in the resistance of sodium chloride salinity within rice (Oryza sativa L.) varieties. New .    Phytol. 88: 363–373.
  9. Ghafoor, A., Sharif, A., Ahmad, Z., Zahid, M.A. and Rabbani, M.A. (2001). Genetic diversity in black gram [Vignamungo (L). Hepper]. Field. Crop. Res. 69: 183-190. 
  10. Gupta, S. (2012). Project Coordinator’s Report. All India Coordinated Research Project on MULLaRP, Kanpur, India.
  11. Hoagland, D.R. andArnon, D.I. (1938). The water culture method for growing plants without soil. Cal. Agri. Exp. Sta. Cir. 3: 346-347.
  12. Jayamani, P. and Sathya, M. (2013). Genetic diversity in pod characters of blackgram[Vigna mungo (L.) Hepper]. Legume Res.36 (3): 220 – 223.
  13. Konda, C.R.,Salimath, P.M. and Mishra, M.N.(2009). Genetic variability studies for productivity and its components in blackgram [Vignamunga(L.) Hepper]. Legume Res.32 (1): 59-61.
  14. Le Land, E.F., Catherine, M.G., Eugene, V.M. and Scott, M.L. (1994).Time of salt stress affects growth and yield components of irrigated wheat. Agron. J. 86: 100–107.
  15. MATLAB and Statistics Toolbox Release. (2012). TheMathWorks, Inc., Natick, Massachusetts, United States.
  16. Meharg, A.A. and Jardine, L. (2003). Arsenite transport into paddy rice (Oryzasativa) roots. New. Phytol. 157: 39-44.
  17. Mukherjee, A., Sengupta, M.K., Hossain, M.A., Ahamed, S., Das, B., Nayak, B., Lodh, D., et al. (2006). Arsenic Contamination in Groundwater: A Global Perspective with Emphasis on the Asian Scenario. J. Health. Popul. Nutr. 24(2): 142-163.
  18. Munns, R. and James, R.A., (2003). Screening methods for salinity tolerance: A case study with tetraploid wheat. Plant. Soil. 253: 201-218.
  19. Nazar, R., Iqbal, N., Masood, A., Syeed, S. and Khan, N.A.(2011). Understanding the significance of sulfur in improving salinity tolerance in plants. Env. Exp. Bot. 70: 80–87.
  20. Pandey, M.K., Roorkiwal, M., Singh, V.K., Ramalingam, A., Kudapa,H., Thudi, M.,et al. (2016). Emerging genomic tools for legume breeding: current status and future prospects. Front. Plant. Sci. 7: article, 455. doi:10.3389/fpls.2016.00455
  21. Pearson, G.A. and Bernstein, L. (1959). Salinity effects at several growth stages of rice. Agron. J. 51: 654-657.
  22. Smith, H.F. (1936). A discriminate function for plant selection. Ann. Eugenics. 7: 240-250.
  23. Snedecor, G.W. and Cochran, W.G. (1980). Statistical Methods. The Iowa State University Press, Ames, USA, pp. 135-170.
  24. Vavilov, N.I. (1926). Studies on the Origin of Cultivated Plants. Bull.Appl.Bot.Pla.Breed. 16 (2): 1-248.
  25. Veni , K., Murugan, E., Mini, M.L., Vanniarajan C. andRadhamani T. (2016).Genetic relationship between yield and battering quality inblack gram (VignamungoL.). Legume Research. 39 (3): 355-358.
  26. Verbruggen, N., Hermans, C. and Schat, H. (2009). Mechanisms to cope with arsenic or cadmium excess in plants. Curr. Opin. Plant. Bio. 12: 1-9.
  27. Verma, S. and Dubey, R.S. (2003). Lead toxicity induces lipid peroxidation and alters the activities of antioxidant enzymes in growing rice plants. Plant Science. 164: 645-655.
  28. Wyn Jones, R.G. and Gorham, T. (1993). Salt tolerance. In:Johnson, C.B. (Ed.), Physiological Processes. Limiting Plant Productivity, Butterworths, London, pp. 271-292.
  29. Zeng, L., Shannon, M.C., Grieve, C.M. (2002). Evaluation of salt tolerance in rice genotypes by multiple agronomic parameters. Euphytica.127: 235-245. 
Reviewed By

Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Editorial Board

    View all (0)