Legume Research

  • Chief EditorJ. S. Sandhu

  • Print ISSN 0250-5371

  • Online ISSN 0976-0571

  • NAAS Rating 6.67

  • SJR .391

  • Impact Factor .669 (2022)

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 44 issue 10 (october 2021) : 1226-1232

Effect of Simulated Waterlogging Condition Imposed at Early Vegetative Growth on Final Yield in Greengram (Vigna radiata)

Bhaskar Saikia, Prakash Kalita, Ranjan Das
1Department of Crop Physiology, Assam Agricultural University, Jorhat-785 013, Assam, India.

  • Submitted18-09-2019|

  • Accepted22-08-2020|

  • First Online 02-01-2021|

  • doi 10.18805/LR-4238

Cite article:- Saikia Bhaskar, Kalita Prakash, Das Ranjan (2021). Effect of Simulated Waterlogging Condition Imposed at Early Vegetative Growth on Final Yield in Greengram (Vigna radiata). Legume Research. 44(10): 1226-1232. doi: 10.18805/LR-4238.

ABSTRACT

Background: ‘Rain’ plays a very important role since most of the agricultural productivity is rainfall dependent. However at the same time unpredictable and untimely rainfall are also responsible for crop loss. In India, our North-eastern region receives the highest amount of rainfall. Even in pre-monsoon season, our region receives very high amount of rainfall which hampers the crop production, especially the summer season greengram. Hence, an effort had been made to screen some genotypes of summer greengram, tolerant to waterlogging condition. A study was carried out during the summer season to evaluate the physiological performance of some greengram genotypes as influenced by waterlogging condition of varying duration imposed at early vegetative stage of growth.
Methods: From an initial screening of forty genotypes in laboratory condition, five genotypes were selected based on germination percentage, seedling length and vigour index. These five genotypes were further evaluated in a pot experiment with four treatment combinations comprising of control (T1), waterlogging for 4 days (T2), waterlogging for 8 days (T3) and waterlogging for 12 days (T4). Waterlogging conditions were created in the pots at the time of sowing. 
Result: Water logging caused adverse effect on growth and development of all the genotypes, with the longest waterlogging showing severe deleterious effect. The parameters viz. germination percentage, leaf chlorophyll content, leaf area, plant height, nitrate reductase activity, number of seeds pod-1, pods plant-1, root length, number of root nodules plant-1 and harvest index were found to decline under waterlogged condition whereas, lipid peroxidase and superoxide dismutase activity showed higher values under waterlogged condition. The performance of the genotype Sadiya Local was found to be the best from the point of view of tolerance as indicated by higher seed yield followed by AKM 12-28. The better performance of this genotype appeared to be related to the higher values for some traits viz. germination percentage, leaf chlorophyll, nitrate reductase activity, superoxide dismutase activity, number of pods plant-1 and harvest index. 

REFERENCES

  1. Alam, I., Lee, D., Kim, K., Park, C., shamin, S.A., Lee, H., Oh, K., Yun, B. and Lee, B. (2010). Proteome analysis of soybean roots under waterlogging stress at an early vegetative stage. Journal of Biological Sciences. 35: 49-62.
  2. Alaousi-Sosse, B. (2005). Influence of flooding on growth, nitrogen availability in soil and nitrate reduction of young oak seedlings (Querem robur L.). Annals of Forest Science. 62(6): 156-159.
  3. Ara, R., Mannan, M.A., Khaliq, Q.A. and Miah, M.M.U. (2015). Waterlogging tolerance of soybean. Bangladesh Journal Agricultural Research. 18(2): 105-109.
  4. Bansal, R., Sharma, S., Tripathi, K., Gayacharan, A. and Kumar, A. (2019). Waterlogging tolerance in black gram [Vigna mungo (L.) Hepper] is associated with chlorophyll content and membrane integrity. Indian Journal of Biochemistry and Biophysics. 56: 81-85.
  5. Beauchamp, C. and Fridovich, I. (1971). Superoxide dismutase: Improved assays and an assay applicable to acrylamide gels. Analytical Biochemistry. 44(1): 276-287.
  6. Choi, B.H., Lee, J.T. and Chung, K.U. (1986). Influence of flooding time and duration of yield components and seed yield in growing groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Research Report of the Rural Development Administration. Crops, Korea Republic. 28: 175-179.
  7. Crozier, A., Reid, D.M. and Harvey, B.M.R. (1969). The effects of flooding on the export of gibberellins from root to the shoot. Planta. 89: 376-379.
  8. Fausey, N.R., Vantoai, T.T. and MnDonald, M.B. (1985). Response of ten corn cultivars to flooding. Trans ASAE. 28: 1794-1797.
  9. Hiscox, J.D. and Israelstam, G.F. (1979). A method for the extraction of chlorophyll from leaf tissue without maceration. Canadian Journal of Botany. 57(12): 1332-1334.
  10. Heath, R.L. and Packer, L. (1968). Photoperoxidation in isolated chloroplasts. I. Kinetics and stoichiometry of fatty acid peroxidation. Archives in Biochemistry and Biophysics. 125: 189-198.
  11. Hocking, P.J.; Reicosky, D.C. and Meyer, W.S. (1987). Effects of intermittent waterlogging on the mineral nutrition of cotton. Plant and Soil. 101: 211-221.
  12. Hsu, F., Lin, J. and Chang, S. (2000). Effects of waterlogging on seed germination, electric conductivity of seed leakage and developments of hypocotyl and radicle in sudangrass. Botanical Bulletin-Academia Sinica. 1: 267.
  13. Jackson, M.B. (1983). Rapid injury to peas by soil waterlogging. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 30(2): 143-152.
  14. Jaffar Ullah, Md. (2006). Effect of waterlogging on germination, emergence and subsequent development of mungbean. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 19(3): 513-516.
  15. Kozlowski, T.T. (1976). Plant responses to flooding. Bioscience. 34: 162-167.
  16. Krishnamoorty, N.H., Goswami, C.L. and Dayal, J. (1987). Effect of waterlogging and growth retardants on gram. Indian Journal of Plant Physiology. 30(4): 387-389.
  17. Kumar, P., Pal, M., Joshi, R. and Sairam, R.K. (2013). Yield growth and physiological response of mungbean (Vigna radiata L.) genotypes to waterlogging at vegetative stage. Physiology and Molecular Biology of Plants. 19(2): 209-220.
  18. Kumutha, D., Sairam, R.K., Ezhilmathi, K., Srivastava, G.C., Deshmukh, P.S. and Meena, R.C. (2009). Waterlogging induced oxidative stress and antioxidant activity in pigeonpea genotypes. Biologia Plantarum 53(1): 75-84.
  19. Lal, M., Kumar, A., Jangra, M., Rajkumar, R. and Sheokand, S. (2018). Screening of Pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.] Genotypes for Waterlogging, Salinity and Combined Waterlogging and Salinity Tolerance. International Journal of Pure Applied Biosciences. 6(3): 128-136.
  20. Laosuwan, P., Mekanawakul, M. and Thongsomsri, A. (1994). The effect of waterlogging on growth and yield of mungbean. Suranaree Journal of Science and Technology. 1: 9-14.
  21. Minchin, F.R. and Summerfield, R.J. (1977). Symbiotic nitrogen fixation and vegetative growth of cowpea [Vigna ungiculata (L.) Walp.] in waterlogged conditions. Plant and Soil. 45: 113-127.
  22. NichiProvinch, A.A. (1967). In: Photosynthetic Production System, [Nichi-Provinch, A.A. (eds.)] pp. 3-36.
  23. Panse, V.G. and Sukhatme, P.V. (1967). Statistical Methods for Agricultural Workers, 2nd Edition. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi.
  24. Prasanna, Y.L. and Ramarao, G. (2014). Effect of waterlogging on physiological and biochemical parameters and seed yield in greengram genotypes. International Journal of Food, Agriculture and Veterinary Sciences. 4(2): 176-183.
  25. Sairam, R.K., Dharmar, K., Chinnuswamy, V., Lekshmy, S., Joshi, R. and Bhattacharya, P. (2011). The role of non-symbiotic haemoglobin and nitric oxide homeostasis in waterlogging tolerance in vigna species. Biologia Planatarum. 56(3): 528-536.
  26. Srivastava, J.P., Gangey, S.K. and Shahi, J.P. (2007). Waterlogging resistance in maize in relation to growth, mineral compositions and some biochemical parameters. Indian Journal of Plant Physiology. 12(1): 28-33.
  27. Takele, A. and Mcdavid, C.R. (1995). The response of pigeonpea cultivars to short durations of waterlogging. African Crop Science Journal. 5(2): 141-144.
  28. Thimmaiah, S.K. (1999). Standard Methods of Biochemical Analysis. Kalyani Publishers, New Delhi, India.
  29. Trought, M.C. and Drew, M.C. (1980). The development of waterlogging damage in wheat seedlings (Triticum aestivum L.). II. Accumulation and redistribution of nutrients by the shoots. Plant and Soil. 56: 187-199.
  30. Vijayarengen, P. and Dhanavel, D. (2005). Effect of waterlogging on growth and pigment content of greengram (Vigna radiata L.). Advances in Plant Science. 18(2): 927-929.
  31. Wample, R.L. and Thorton, R.K. (1984). Differences in the response of sunflower subjected to flooding and drought stress. Physiology Plantarum. 61: 611-616.
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Editorial Board

    View all (0)