Influence of field drought on yield, yield components and antioxidant defense system in reproductive tissues of tolerant and susceptible Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) cultivars

Authors

  • HK OBEROI Department of Biochemistry, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, India. Author
  • AK GUPTA Department of Biochemistry, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, India. Author
  • S KAUR Department of Biochemistry, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, India. Author
  • INDERJIT SINGH Department of Plant Breeding and Genetics, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, India. Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.59797/jfl.v28i4.722

Keywords:

Antioxidative enzymes, Chickpea, Drought stress, Yield

Abstract

The objective of this study was to evaluate the role of the antioxidative defense system in imparting tolerance against drought-induced oxidative stress in seven chickpea comprising of two drought tolerant (desi - PDG 3 and PDG 4) and five drought susceptible (desi - PBG 1, GPF 2, PBG 5 and kabuli - L 550 and BG 1053) cultivars, when subjected to field drought stress. The study was conducted in reproductive tissues (podwall and seed) at 10, 20, 30 and 40 days after flowering (DAF) under irrigated and rainfed conditions. Drought susceptibility index (DSI) in the tolerant cultivars was comparatively lower than susceptible cultivars. Effect of water deficit conditions on plant growth led to decline in harvest index of all chickpea culitvars. However, in tolerant cultivars decline in harvest index was lower. During early pod development, the activities of antioxidative enzymes SOD, CAT, GR, POX and APX were more and as development progressed towards maturity the activities declined. Drought resulted in an increase in H2O, accumulation and lipid peroxidation at different reproductive developmental stages. Drought-tolerant cultivars have higher antioxidant enzymes activities as compared to that of susceptible cultivars resulting in maintenance of lower H,O, content and lipid peroxidation and higher growth, yield and yield components under water stress condition. In developing pods, susceptible cultivars failed to modulate the activities of antioxidative enzymes according to the ROS under field drought. Poor capacity of the antioxidative defense system in reproductive tissues of susceptible cultivars seems to be partly responsible for reduced yield potential under drought stress. Moreover, the higher status of antioxidative enzymes in pod wall of tolerant cultivars might protect the developing seeds from deleterious effects of drought.

References

Abedi T and Pakniyat H. 2010. Antioxidant enzyme changes in response to drought stress in ten cultivars of oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.). Czech Journal of Genetics and Plant Breeding 46: 27-34.

Agarwal SB and Rathore D. 2007. Changes in oxidative stress defence system in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and mung bean (Vigna radiata L.) cultivars grown with and without mineral nutrients and irradiated by supplemental ultraviolet-B. Environmental and Experimental Botany 59: 21-33.

Ara N. Nakkanong K, Lv W, Yang J, Hu Z and Zhang M. 2013. Antioxidant enzymatic activities and gene expression associated with heat tolerance in the stems and roots of two Cucurbit species ("Cucurbita maxima and Cucurbita moschata") and their interspecific inbred line "Maxchata". International Journal of Molecular Sciences doi: 10.3390/ijms141224008.

Beck DP, Wery J, Saxena MC, Ayadi A. 1991. Dinitrogen fixation and nitrogen balance in cool season food legumes. Agronomy Journal 83: 334-341.

Ben Amor N, Jimenez A. Megdiche W, Lundqvist M, Sevilla F and Abdelly C. 2007. Kinetics of the anti-oxidant response to salinity in the halophyte Cakile maritime. Journal of Integrative Plant Biology 49: 982-992.

Blokhina O, Virolainen E and Fagerstedt KV. 2003. Antioxidants, oxidative damage and oxygen deprivation stress: a review. Annals of Botany 91: 179-194.

Bouslama M and Schapaugh WT. 1984. Stress tolerance in soybean. Part 1. Evaluation of three screening techniques for heat and drought tolerance. Crop Science 24: 933-937.

Chance B and Machly AC. 1955: Assay of catalases and peroxidases. Methods Enzymology 2: 764-775.

Choukan R, Taherkhani T, Ghannadha MR and Khodarahmi M. 2006. Evaluation of drought tolerance in grain maize inbred lines using drought tolerance indices. Iranian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 8: 79-89.

Esterbaur H and Grill D. 1978. Seasonal variation of glutathione and glutathione reductase in needles of Picea abies. Plant Physiology 61: 119-121.

Fisher RA and Maurer R. 1978. Drought resistance in spring wheat cultivars. I. Grain yield response. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 29: 897-912.

Gan YT, Selles F, Hansen KG, Zentner RP, McKonkey BG and McDonald CL 2005. Effect of formulation and placement of Mesorhizobium inoculants for chickpea in the semiarid Canadian Prairies. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 85: 555-560

Mesorhizobium inoculants for chickpea in the semiarid Canadian Prairies. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 85: 555-560.

He L, Gao Z and Li E. 2009. Pretreatment of seed with H2O, enhances drought tolerance of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) seedlings. African Journal of Biotechnology 8: 6151-6157.

Heath RL and Packer L 1968. Photoperoxidation in isolated chloroplasts I. Kinetics and stoichiometry of fatty acid peroxidation. Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics 125: 189-198.

Hossain ABS, Sears AG, Cox TS and Paulsen GM. 1990. Desiccation tolerance and its relationship to assimilate partitioning in winter wheat. Crop Science 30: 622-627.

Jaleel CA, Manivannan P, Lakshmanan GMA, Gomathinayagam M and Panneerselvam R. 2008. Alterations in morphological parameters and photosynthetic pigment responses of Catharanthus roseus under soil water deficits. Colloids Surfurces B: Biointerfaces 61: 298-303.

Kanehere AM, Rashmi SB and Bhagat AA 2009. Effect of water stress on growth and yield of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Bioinfolet 6: 61-64.

Kaur S, Gupta AK, Sandhu JS and Gupta SK. 2009b. Antioxidative enzymes and sucrose synthase contribute to cold stress tolerance in chickpea. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 195: 393-397. Kaur H, Gupta AK, Kaur N and Sandhu JS. 2009a. Differential response of the antioxidant system in wild and cultivated genotypes of chickpea. Plant Growth Regulation 57: 109-114.

Khanna-Chopra R and Selote DS. 2007. Acclimation to drought stress generates oxidative stress tolerance in drought resistant than susceptible wheat cultivar under field conditions. Environmental and Experimental Botany 60: 276-283.

Lowry OH, Rosebrough NT, Farr AL and Randall RJ. 1951. Protein measurement with folin phenol reagent. Journal of Biological Chemistry 193: 265-275.

Mafakheri A, Siosemardeh A, Bahramnejad B, Struik PC and Sohrabi E. 2010. Effect of drought stress on yield, proline and chlorophyll contents in three chickpea cultivars. Australian Journal of Crop Science 4: 580-585.

Manavalan LP, Guttikonda SK, Tran LSP and Nguyan HT. 2009. Physiological and molecular approaches to improve drought resistance in soybean. Plant and Cell Physiology 50: 1260-1276.

Marklund S and Marklund G. 1974. Involvement of superoxide anion radical in the autoxidation of pyrogallol and a convenient assay for superoxide dismutase. European Journal of Biochemistry 47: 169-174.

Mittler R. 2002. Oxidative stress, antioxidants and stress tolerance. Trends in Plant Science 7: 405-410.

Mohan JR, Burke J and Orzech K. 1990. Thermal dependence of the apparent Km of glutathione reductases from three plant species. Plant Physiology 93: 822-824.

Nakano Y and Asada K. 1987. Purification of ascorbate peroxidase in spinach chloroplasts: its inactivation in ascorbate depleted medium and reactivation by monodehydroascorbate radical. Plant and Cell Physiology 28: 131-140.

Nayyar H, Kaur S, Singh S and Upadhyaya HD. 2006. Differential sensitivity of desi and kabuli chickpea genotypes to water stress during seed filling: effects on accumulation of seed reserves and yield. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 86: 2076-2082.

Nayyar H, Kaur S, Smita, Singh KJ, Dhir KK and Bains T. 2005. Water stress-induced injury to reproductive phase in chickpea: Evaluation of stress sensitivity in wild and cultivated species in relation to abscisic acid and polyamines. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 191: 450-457.

Noctor G and Foyer CH. 1998. Ascorbate and glutathione: Keeping active oxygen under control. Annual Review of Plant Physiology and Plant Molecular Biology 49: 249-279.

Pannu RK and Singh DP. 1993. Effect of irrigation on water use, water-use efficiency, growth and yield of mung bean. Field Crops Research 31: 87-100.

Parameshwarappa SG and Salimath PM. 2008. Field screening of chickpea genotypes for drought resistance. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences 21: 113-114.

Shannon LM, Kay E and Law JY. 1966. Peroxidase isozymes from horseradish roots. I. Isolation and physical properties. Journal of Biological Chemistry 241: 2166-2172.

Singh KB, Malhotra RS, Halila MH, Knights EJ and Verma MM. 1994. Current Status and Future Strategy in Breeding Chickpea for Resistance to Biotic and Abiotic Stresses, in Expending the Production and Use of Cool Season Food Legumes, Eds. F.J. Muehlbauer and W.J. Kaiser, Klwer Academic Pub. Printed in the Netherlands, pp. 572-591.

Singh ON, Singh RS and Singh JP. 1994. Supplemental fertilizer potassium to chickpea. Journal of Potassium Research 10: 83-85.

Sinha AK 1971. Colorimetric assay of catalase. Analytical Biochemistry 47: 389-394.

Talebi R, Naji AM and Fayaz F. 2008. Geographical patterns of genetic diversity in cultivated chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) characterized by amplified fragment length polymorphism. Plant, Soil and Environment 54: 447-452.

Ulemale CS, Mate SN and Deshmukh DV. 2013. Physiological indices for drought tolerance in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). World Journal of Agricultural Sciences 9: 123-131.

Downloads

Published

2024-09-04

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Influence of field drought on yield, yield components and antioxidant defense system in reproductive tissues of tolerant and susceptible Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) cultivars . (2024). Journal of Food Legumes, 28(4), 301-314. https://doi.org/10.59797/jfl.v28i4.722