Evaluation of Pigeonpea Genotypes for Morpho-Physiological Traits Related to Drought Tolerance

Transcription

1 World Journal of Agricultural Sciences 9 (1): 17-23, 13 ISSN IDOSI Publications, 13 DOI: /idosi.wjas Evaluation of Pigeonpea Genotypes for Morpho-Physiological Traits Related to Drought Tolerance D.V. Deshmukh a S.N. Mate Department of Botany, Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri , Dist.: Ahmednagar (M. S.), Iia Abstract: Eleven pigeonpea genotypes in rainout shelter a seventeen genotypes in field coition were evaluated in separate sets for moisture stress a irrigated coitions with two replications for morphophysiological traits related to drought tolerance. Uer rainout shelter coition, JSA 59 has low reduction in yield due to water stress, high DTE, low DSI, low membrane injury iex, high harvest iex a the highest grain yield a total dry matter uer stress considered as drought tolerant genotype. The another genotype BSMR 853 was fou to be promising for DTE, low magnitude of stress iuced yield reduction, high RLWC, low membrane injury iex a 2 ranking performance for total dry matter but it was poor in respect of grain yield. The culture JSE 115 had better ranking for harvest iex, grain yield a RLWC a rate of water loss but it was of intermediate nature for DTE, membrane injury iex a per cent reduction in yield due to stress. In rd turn it ranked 3 for overall performance in respect of drought character. The culture JSA 41 derived a great attention as it was characterized by high magnitude of DTE, lowest DSI a lowest reduction in yield a fairly high ranking for membrane injury iex as well as grain yield performance. It was demerited by lower ranking for RLWC, total dry matter a harvest iex. Uer field coition, the genotype JSA 59 a K 2 were fou better for drought tolerance. The culture BSMR 736 showed 2 ranking for yield uer stress but was demerited by very low rank for all other attributes, whereas, TTB 7 showed high rank for DTE, DSI a per cent reduction in yield but had vary low rank for grain yield a RLWC. It can be concluded that JSA 59 a K2 are the most promising types as drought tolerance uer field coition. Key words: Rainout shelter Drought tolerance Relative leaf water content Per cent reduction Membrane injury iex Harvest iex Rate of water loss INTRODUCTION Drought is the major constraint which reduces the productivity of crop. It is known that pigeonpea thrives well uer drought prone coition. However, there is a great variability for yield performance of different pigeonpea genotypes uer drought coition. Attempts to measure the degree of tolerance with a single parameter have limited value because of the multiplicity of the factors a their interactions contributing to drought tolerance uer field coitions. Different workers used different methods to evaluate genetic differences in drought tolerance [1]. The attempts were made to select genotypes tolerant/ resistant to moisture stress coition based on morpho-anatomical traits a to make decision jointly by following joint technique for further field trial experiment [2]. Accordingly, the present study was planned to fi out the simple a precise field method to detect genotypic differences in drought tolerance a to quantify loss in yield. MATERIALS AND METHODS Two separate experiments were coucted uer rainout shelter with eleven genotypes a uer field coition with seventeen genotypes in two sets by imposing moisture versus non-stress coitions with two replications at Pulses Improvement Project, Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri , Dist.: Ahmednagar (M. S.), Iia during Kharif-6. The plot 2 2 sizes were 1.5 x 2.1 m a 3. x 3. m for rainout shelter a field coition, respectively with the spacing Correspoing Author: Dr. D.V. Deshmukh, Department of Botany, Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rhauri , Dist: Ahmednagar (M.S.), Iia. 17

2 of 6 x 1 cm. The crop in rainout shelter was irrigated after sowing a eight days after germination for good crop sta. Uer field coition, one set was kept as rainfed while another was irrigated. The irrigated sets uer both the situations were irrigated three times as a when stress is observed. The observations on relative leaf water content (RLWC), membrane injury iex a rate of water loss (ROWL) were recorded at the stage of 5% flowering to 5% podding. The assimilate partitioning in component parts of plant was recorded at the stages of 5% podding a at maturity on raomly selected five plants. The observations on morphological characters were recorded at the time of harvesting on raomly selected five plants. The drought parameters were calculated by using the following formulae. 1. Drought tolerance efficiency (DTE) formula given by Fischer a Wood [3] Yield uer stress DTE = x 1 Yield uer no-stress 2. Drought susceptibility iex (DSI) formula given by Fischer a Maurer [4] (1- Y / Y 1) DSI = DI Y = Yield of iividual genotype uer stress Y = Yield of iividual genotype uer no stress 1 DI = (1- Y r/ Y i) Y = Mean of all the genotypes uer stress r Y = Mean of all the genotypes uer no stress i 3. Membrane injury iex (MII) formula given by Blum a Ebercon[5] C1 C 1= EC at 45 C for 3 min. MII = C 2 C 2= EC at 1 C for 1 min 4. Relative leaf water content (RLWC) formula given by Kramer [6] Fw - Dw Fw = Fresh weight, RLWC = x 1 Dw= Dry weight Tw - Dw Tw= Turgid weight 5. Harvest iex (HI) formula given by Donald [7]. Grain yield HI (%) = x 1 Biological yield 6. ROWL= Rate of water loss in mg/ min. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Identification of a drought tolerant variety of pigeonpea is a difficult job for several reasons. Several attributes are related to drought tolerance. It is highly impossible to have a genotype possessing all these characters responsible for drought tolerance. For the selection of such genotypes, the studies on morpho-physiological characters related to plant parts are essential [8]. Eleven pigeonpea genotypes uer rainout shelter a seventeen genotypes uer field coition were evaluated for drought tolerance. The attributes like DTE, DSI, membrane injury iex, rate of loss of water form leaves, RLWC have a direct bearing on the ability of a genotype to withsta against water stress [9]. This is reflected in relative values of per cent reduction in yield due to water stress in comparison with stress free coition. It also reflects the grain yield performance a total biomass formed uer stress coition. Harvest iex is another iication of the efficiency of genotypes to converts the biomass into grain yield. The data on these attitudes in rainout shelter a field coition are presented in Table 1. Evaluation for Drought Tolerance uer Rainout Shelter Coition: The genotype JSA 41 maintained higher ranking for DTE, DSI, minimum loss of water a least reduction in yield, however, RLWC, harvest iex a total dry matter its performance was not satisfactory. Some genotypes like BSMR 736, BDN 9 showed high rank for minimum loss of water but for other characters their performance was poor. A simultaneous consideration of relative ranking of genotypes on the basis of the nine attributes it is revealed that the genotype JSA 59 is the most drought tolerant as is has low reduction in yield due to water stress, high DTE, low DSI, low membrane injury iex, high harvest iex a first ranking performance for grain yield a total dry matter uer stress in rainout shelter. The another genotype BSMR 853 was fou to be promising for DTE, low magnitude of stress iuced yield reduction, high RLWC, low membrane injury iex a 2 ranking performance for total dry matter but it was poor in respect of grain yield which have a direct practical utility. The culture JSE 115 however showed high ranking for harvest iex, grain yield a RLWC a rate of water loss but it was of intermediate nature for DTE, membrane injury iex a per cent reduction in yield due to stress. In turn it ranked rd 3 for overall performance in respect of drought character. 18

3 Table 1: Evaluation of pigeonpea genotypes for traits related to drought tolerance uer rainout shelter a field coition (Kharif 5) Grain yield (kg/ha) % reduction due Mem-brane Harvest ROWL Total bio- Sr. No Entry Non irrigated irrigated to moisture stress DTE % DSI % injury iex iex mg/ min RLWC % mass, g/ plant Rainout shelter coition 1 JKM JKE K JSA JSA BDN BDN BSMR BSMR PT PT SE± 16 6 CD at 5% CV% Field coition 1 JKM JKE K JSA JSA BDN BDN BSMR BSMR PT PT Gullyal local Bidar local TTB GAUT GAUT PT SE± CD at 5% 573 NS CV% The culture JSA 41 derived a great attention as it was characterized by high magnitude of DTE, lowest DSI a lowest reduction in yield a fairly high ranking for membrane injury iex as well as grain yield performance. It was demerited by lower ranking for RLWC, total dry matter a harvest iex. Evaluation for Drought Tolerance uer Field Coition: A simultaneous consideration for various characters related to drought tolerance iicated that the genotype JSA 59 is the best followed by K 2 in respect of tolerance to drought uer field coition. The culture BSMR 736 showed 2 ranking for yield uer stress but was demerited by very low rank for all other attributes, whereas TTB 7 showed high rank for DTE, DSI a per cent reduction in yield but had low performance for grain yield a RLWC. Assimilate Partitioning in Component Parts of Plant: The dry matter accumulation in different plant parts was studied as each part of the plant has a specific function a utility. The assimilate partitioning in component parts of plant can confirms the characters related to drought tolerance. The observations on assimilate partitioning component parts of plant at the stage of pod formation uer rainout shelter the genotypes JSA 41 (1.4 ) uer moisture stress, whereas uer irrigated coition JSA 59 (13.7 g/ plant) recorded highest dry matter production in root (Fig.1) whereas the genotypes, JKM 5 (17.52 ) a PT 25-6 (18.9 ) produced highest dry matter in leaves uer moisture stress a irrigated coition, respectively. The genotype, BSMR 853 was fou to be promising for dry matter accumulation in stem uer moisture stress (59.57 ) as well as irrigated (64.12 ) coition whereas 19

4 JKM 5 JKE 115 K 2 JSA 41 JSA 59 BDN 9 BDN 1 BSMR 736 BSMR 853 PT 2-5 PT 25-6 Root (I) Root (I1) Leaves(I) Leaves(I1) Stem(I) Stem(I1) Pods(I) Pods(I1) genotypes Fig. 1: Dry matter distribution in component parts of plant in rainout shelter at podding stage JKM -5 JKE 115 K2 JSA-41 JSA-59 BDN-9 BDN-1 BSMR-736 BSMR-853 PT-2-5 PT Gullyal local Bidar local TTB-7 GAUT 1 GAUT 2 PT-25-6 Root(I) Root(I1) Leaves(I) Leaves(I1) Genotypes Stem(I) Stem(I1) Stem(I) Stem(I1) Fig. 2: Dry matter distribution in component parts of plant uer field coition at podding stage the genotype, JSA 59 produced higher dry matter in pods produced highest dry matter in root uer rainfed a uer moisture stress (12.77 ) as well as irrigated irrigated coition, respectively (Fig. 2). BSMR 853 is a (14.47 ) coition. While, considering the total dry very good genotype recorded highest dry matter matter production the genotype, BSMR 853 was fou to accumulation in leaves as well as stem uer both the be promising for total dry matter production uer coitions. The genotype, PT (15. ) uer moisture stress (9.37 ) as well as irrigated (15.9 rainfed a JSA 59 (12.92 ) uer irrigated ) coition. coition recorded highest dry matter production in pods. The data in field coition on assimilate In all the genotype PT produced higher total dry partitioning in component parts of plant at the stage matter uer moisture stress (11.5 ) as well as of pod formation showed that the genotypes, irrigated (17.74 ) coition at the stage of pod GAUT 1 (13. ) a GAUT 2 (13.8 ) formation.

5 JKM 5 JKE 115 K 2 JSA 41 JSA 59 BDN 9 BDN 1 BSMR 736 BSMR 853 PT 2-5 PT 25-6 Root (I) Root (I1) Leaves(I) Leaves(I1) Stem(I) Stem(I1) Pods(I) Pods(I1) Genotypes Fig. 3: Dry matter partitioning in component parts of plant in rainout shelter at maturity PT-25-6 GAUT 2 GAUT 1 TTB-7 Bidar local Gullyal local PT PT-2-5 BSMR-853 BSMR-736 BDN-1 BDN-9 JSA-59 JSA-41 K2 JKE 115 JKM -5 Root (I) Root (I1) Leaves(I) Leaves(I1) Genotypes Stem(I) Stem(I1) Pods(I) Pods(I1) Fig. 4: Dry matter partitioning in component parts of plant in field at maturity The data on total dry matter production at the stage (16.87 ) a K 2 (19.41 ) produced highest of maturity uer rainout shelter showed that the dry matter in leaves uer moisture stress a irrigated genotype JSA 59 produced higher dry matter uer coition, respectively. The genotypes, BSMR 853 uer moisture stress ( ) as well as irrigated ( moisture stress (82.95 ) a JKM 5 uer ) coition (Fig 3). The assimilate partitioning in irrigated coition (94.25 ) were fou to be component parts of plant iicated that the genotype promising for dry matter accumulation in stem. The JSA 59 recorded highest matter production in root uer genotypes, JSA 59 (68.5 ) a BDN 1 (12.15 moisture stress (19.55 ) whereas, uer irrigated ) produced highest dry matter production in pods coition BSMR 853 (24.1 ) produced highest dry uer moisture stress a irrigated coition, matter production in root. The genotypes, BDN 9 respectively. 21

6 Table 2: Ancillary characters of pigeonpea genotypes uer rainout shelter a field coition Days to Days 5 % to matu Plant Bran-ches Pods/ Seeds Yield 1 5% Plant Bran- Pods/ Seeds/ Yield/ 1 S N Entry Flow ering rity height / plant plant / pod / plant grain wt. g flow maturity height ches/ plant plant pod plant grain wt. g Rainout shelter Moisture stress Irrigated 1 JKM JKE K JSA JSA BDN BDN BSMR BSMR PT PT Mean Field coition Rainfed Irrigated 1 JKM JKE K JSA JSA BDN BDN BSMR BSMR PT PT Gullyal local Bidar local TTB GAUT GAUT PT Mean The experiment coucted in field coition, production a their distribution in component parts of genotype PT recorded highest dry matter plant it is observed that the genotype JSA 59 fou to be accumulation uer rainfed ( ) as well as a boon for drought tolerance followed by BSMR 853 in irrigated ( ) coition (Fig. 4). The genotype rainout shelter uer moisture stress as well as irrigated PT recorded highest dry matter in root uer coition. In the field, BSMR 853 was higher dry matter moisture stress (22.26 ) whereas, uer irrigated producer followed by JSA 59 uer irrigated as well as coition, PT 25-6 (28.94 ) produced higher per rainfed coition. Amongst these two genotypes, BSMR cent dry matter in root. The highest dry matter in leaves 853 was demerited by grain yield than JSA 59. On the was recorded by the genotype TTB 7 (24.12 ) a basis of these observations, JSA 59 was fou to be a K 2 ( ) uer rainfed a irrigated coitions, best genotype for dry matter accumulation a their respectively. The genotype, BSMR 853 was fou to be distribution in component parts of plant uer moisture promising for dry matter accumulation in stem uer stress coition [1]. rainfed ( ) as well as irrigated ( ) coition. The genotypes, PT (77.8 ) a Morphological Characters: The days to 5% flowering JSA 59 (17.9 ) recorded highest dry matter was hastened by 5 to 6 days due to moisture stress partitioning in pods uer moisture stress a irrigated coition, whereas maturity was delayed by 1 to coitions, respectively. 14 days by irrigating the crop in rainout shelter a The relative ranking was done on the basis of joint field coition (Table 2). Amongst eleven genotypes scoring of all the characters related to dry matter in rainout shelter a seventeen genotypes in field 22

7 coition, the genotype JKM 5 was fou to be less 3. Fischer, K.S. a Wood, Breeding a sensitive to moisture stress coition for days to 5% selection for drought tolerance in tropical maize. flowering as well as maturity. Comparatively the In: K.S. Fisher, E.C. Johnson a G.O. Edmos reductions for yield a yield contributing characters (Eds). Proceedings of symposium on Principles a were higher in rainout shelter than field coition. Gupta Methods in Crop Improvement for Drought et al [11] opined that there is a positive correlation Resistance with Emphasis on Rice, IRRI, Philippines, between drought periods, plant height, leaf area a leaf May, dry weight. 4. Fischer, R.A. a R. Maurer, Drought resistance in spring wheat cultivars. I: Grain CONCLUSIONS yield responses. Aust. J. Agric. Res., 29: Blum, A. a A. Ebercon, Cell membrane Uer rainout shelter coition, the genotype JSA 59 stability as a measure of drought a heat tolerance rated as most drought tolerant type followed by JSE 115 in wheat. Crop. Sci., 21: a JSA 41 while uer field coition, JSA 59 a K2 are 6. Kramer, P.J., Water Deficits a Plant Growth. the most promising types for drought tolerance. Water Relations of Plants, pp: Therefore, from the data of rainout shelter a field 7. Donald, C.M., In search of yield. Inst. Agric. coition it is clear that JSA 59 is the best genotype for Sci., 28: moisture stress coition a can be used for further 8. Deshmukh, D.V., L.B. Mhase a B.M. Jamadagni, Agronomy a Breeding programme aimed at 4. Evaluation of chickpea genotypes for drought management of drought in pigeonpea. tolerance. Iian J. Pulses Res., 17(1): Singh, K.N., 3. Response of morpho-physiological REFERENCES characters to water stress in pigeonpea. Abstracts: National symposium on pulses for crop 1. Bidinger, F.R., V. Mahalaxmi, B.J. Talukdar a diversification a natural resource management G. Alagarswami, Improvement of drought (NPS 3) held at IIPR, Kanpur on -22 Dec., tolerance in pearl millet; Workshop on principles a 3: ABS., 1: 268. methods of crop improvement for drought tolerance 1. Yadav, V.K., N. Yadav a R.D. Singh, with emphasis on rice held at International Rice Metabolic changes a their impact on yield in Research Institute, Los Banos, Philippines on May, chickpea uer water stress. Plant Physiology a th ; pp: Biochemistry, 23(1): Arunachalam, V. a A. Baopadhyay, Gupta, S.N., B.S. Dahiya, B.P.S. Malik a A method of making decisions jointly on a N.R. Bishnoi, Response of chickpea to water number of depeent characters. Iian J. Genet., deficits a drought stress. Haryana Agricultural 44: University Research Journal, 25(1):