Legume Research-An International Journal

Physiological response of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) at early seedling stage under salt stress conditions

DOI: 10.18805/LR-4059    | Article Id: LR-4059 | Page : 625-632
Citation :- Physiological response of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) at early seedling stage under salt stress conditions.Legume Research-An International Journal.2019.(42):625-632
Anita Mann, Gurpreet Kaur, Ashwani Kumar, Satish Kumar Sanwal, Jogendra Singh and P.C. Sharma anitadgr13@gmail.com
Address : ICAR-Central Soil Salinity Research Institute, Karnal-132 001, Haryana, India.
Submitted Date : 10-07-2018
Accepted Date : 4-10-2018
First Online:

Abstract

Screening of chickpea lines for salt tolerance through seed germination and early seedling growth is crucial for their evaluation. Seeds of 30 chickpea genotypes were germinated on a sand bed irrigated with saline (3, 6, 9, 12 dS/m) and control solutions upto 30 days. At the early seedling stage (25-30 days), germination percentage, chlorophyll content, proline, root length, shoot length and seedling dry weight were found to be affected due to salinity. Salt tolerance index (STI) for plant biomass maintained a significant correlation with chlorophyll, proline, shoot length, and root length, which indicated that these parameters could be used as selection criteria for screening chickpea genotypes against salt stress. Significant differences in shoot length, root length, and seedling dry weight in 30-day-old seedlings were observed among selected chickpea genotypes as well. From the overall observation of germination characterstics and early seedling growth, it is concluded that the chickpea genotypes, HC-1, HC-5, ICC 867, ICC 5003, H-10-41 showed better salt tolerance as compared to the available salt tolerant check variety.

Keywords

Chickpea K+/Na+ ratio Proline Salt tolerance index.

References

  1. Arnon, D.I. (1949). Copper enzymes in isolated chloroplasts. Polyphenoloxidase in Beta vulgaris. Plant Physiology, 24: 1-15.
  2. Bates, L.S., Waldren, R. P. and Teare, I. D. (1973). Rapid determination of free proline for water stress studies. Plant and Soil, 39: 205.
  3. Bayoumi, T. Y., Eid manal, H., and Metwali, E. M. (2008). Application of physiological and biochemical indices as a screening technique for drought tolerance in wheat genotypes. African Journal of Biotechnology, 14: 2341-2352.
  4. Bhattarai, T. and Sebastian, F. (2005). Isolation and characterization of a dehydrin gene from Cicer pinnatifidum, a drought-resistant wild relative of chickpea. Physiologia Plantarum, 123: 452-458. 
  5. Cheeseman, J.M. (1988). Mechanisms of salinity tolerance in plants. Journal of Plant Physiology, 87: 547-550.
  6. Chen, J., Ghanem, M. E., and Siddique, K. H. M. (2016). Characterising root trait variability in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) germplasm. Journal of Experimental Botany, 68: 1987-1999.
  7. Flowers, T. J., Gaur, P.M., Gowda, C.L.L., Krishnamurthy, L., Srinivasan, S., Siddique, K.H.M., et al. (2010). Salt sensitivity in chickpea. Plant Cell and Environment.33:490-509.
  8. Gill, S. S. and Tuteja, N. (2010). Reactive oxygen species and antioxidant machinery in abiotic stress tolerance in crop plants. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, 48: 909-930.
  9. Gilroy, S., Suzuki, N., Miller, G., Choi, Won-Gyu., Toyota, M., Devireddy, Amith R, and Mittler, R. (2014). A tidal wave of signals: calcium and ROS at the forefront of rapid systemic signaling. Trends in Plant Science, 19: 623-630.
  10. Greenway, H. and Munns, R. (1980). Mechanism of salt tolerance in non halophytes. Annual Review of Plant Physiology, 31: 149-190.
  11. Kato, M. and Shimizu, S. (1985). Chlorophyll metabolism in higher plants. VI. Involvement of peroxidase in chlorophyll degeneration. Plant Cell Physiology, 26(7): 1291-301.
  12. Krishnamurthy, L., Turner, N.C., Gaur, P.M., Upadhyaya, H.D., Varshney, R.K., Siddique, K.H.M., and Vadez, V. (2011). Consistent variation across soil types in salinity resistance of a diverse range of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) genotypes. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science,197:214-27.
  13. Kumar, Ashwani., Kumar, Arvind., Lata, Charu. and Kumar, Saurabh. (2016). Eco-physiological responses of Aeluropus lagopoides (grass halophyte) and Suaeda nudiflora (non-grass halophyte) under individual and interactive sodic and salt stress. South African Journal of Botany, 105: 36-44.
  14. Kumar, A., Lata, C., Krishnamurthy, S.L., Kumar, Arvind., Prasad, K.R.K. and Kulshreshtha, Neeraj. (2017). Physiological and biochemical characterization of rice varieties under salt and drought stresses. Journal of Soil Salinity and Water Quality, 9(2): 167-177.
  15. Kumari, V., Germida J. and Vujanovic V. (2018). Legume endosymbionts: Drought stress tolerance in second generation chickpea (Cicer arietinum) seeds. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science,1-12. DOI: 10.1111/jac.12283
  16. Lata, C., Kumar, A., Sharma, S.K., Singh, J., Sheokand, S., Pooja, Mann, A. and Rani B. (2017). Tolerance to combined boron and salt stress in wheat varieties: Biochemical and molecular characterization. Indian Journal of Experimental Biology, 55: 321-328.
  17. Maggio, A., Miyazaki, S. and Veronese, P. (2002). Does proline accumulation play an active role in stress-induced growth reduction? Plant Journal, 31: 699-712.
  18. Mann, A., Bishi S. K., Mahatma, M. K. and Kumar, A. (2015). In: Managing Salt Tolerance in Plants. Molecular and Genomic Perspectives. (Wani S. H. and Hossain M.A. Eds.). Metabolomics and Salt Stress Tolerance in Plants. CRC Press Taylor and Francis Group. P: 252-262,
  19. Melonid, D. A., Oliva, M. A., Ruiz, H. A. and Martinez, C. A. (2001). Contribution of proline and inorganic solutes to osmotic adjustment in cotton under salt stress. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 24(3): 599-612.
  20. Munns, R. and Termatt A. (1986). Whole-plant responses to salinity. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology, 13: 143-160.
  21. Munns, R. and Tester, M. (2008). Mechanisms of salinity tolerance. Annual Review of Plant Biology, 59: 651-681.
  22. Munns, R. (2002). Comparative physiology of salt and water stress. Plant Cell and Environment, 25(2): 239-52.
  23. Prado, F. E., Boero, C., Gallardo, M. and Gonzalez, J. A. (2000). Effect of NaCl on germination, growth, and soluble sugar content in Chenopodium quinoa Willd. seeds. Botanical Bulletin-Academia Sinica Taipei 41(1): 27-34.
  24. Pushpavalli, R., Quealy, J., Colme,r T. D., Turner, N. C., Siddique, K. H. M., Rao, M. V. and Vadez, V. (2016). Salt stress delayed flowering and reduced reproductive success of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.), a response associated with Na+ accumulation in leaves. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 202 (2). 125-138.
  25. Qadir, M., Quillerou, E., Nangia, V., et al. (2014). Economics of salt-induced land degradation and restoration. Natural Research Forum, 38: 282-295.
  26. Pushpavalli, R., Krishnamurthy, L., Thudi, M., Gaur, Pooran M., Rao, Mandali V., Siddique, K. et al (2015). Two key genomic regions harbour QTLs for salinity tolerance in ICCV 2 × JG 11 derived chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) recombinant inbred lines. BMC Plant Biology 15:124
  27. Ramamoorthy, P., Lakshmanan, K., Upadhyaya, H. D., Vadez, V., and Varshneya, R. K. (2017). Root traits confer grain yield advantages under terminal drought in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Field Crops Research, 201: 146-161.
  28. Roy, S. J., Negr~ao, S. and Tester, M. (2014). Salt resistant crop plants. Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 26: 115-124.
  29. Sanwal, S. K., Kumar, A., Mann, A. and Kaur, G. (2018). Differential response of pea (Pisum sativum) genotypes exposed to salinity in relation to physiological and biochemical attributes. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences,, 88 (1): 149-56.
  30. Samineni, S., Siddique, K.H.M., Gaur, P.M. and Colmer, T. D. (2011). Salt sensitivity of the vegetative and reproductive stages in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.): Podding is a particularly sensitive stage. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 71:260-8.
  31. Azimi, S., Amirnia, R., Tajbakhsh, M. and Ghiyasi, M. (2012). Effects of salt stress on growth and nutrients concentration in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Advances in Environmental Biology, 6(2): 907-911. 
  32. Singla, R. and Garg, N. (2005). Influence of salinity on growth and yield attributes in chickpea cultivars. Journal of Agriculture, 29: 231-235.
  33. Turner, N. C., Colmer, T. D., Quealy, J., Pushpavalli, R., Krishnamurthy, L., Kaur, J., Singh, G., et al (2013). Salinity tolerance and ion accumulation in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) subjected to salt stress. Plant and Soil, 365: 347-361.
  34. Vadez, V., Krishnamurthy, L., Serraj, R., Gaur, P.M., Upadhyaya, H. D., Hoisington, D.A., et al (2007). Large variation in salinity tolerance in chickpea is explained by differences in sensitivity at the reproductive stage. Field Crops Research, 104: 123-129.
  35. Wang, W., Vinocur, B. and Altman, A. (2003). Plant responses to drought, salinity and extreme temperatures: towards genetic engineering for stress tolerance. Planta, 218(1):1-14.
  36. Zheng, Y., Wang, Z., Sun, X., Jia, A., Jiang, G. and Li, Z. (2008). Higher salinity tolerance cultivars of winter wheat relieved senescence at reproductive stage. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 62: 129-38. 

Global Footprints