Abstract
The effect of timing of waterlogging on chickpeas was examined in two pot trials. Plants were waterlogged for ten days from 21 days after sowing (DAS), at flowering or at mid-pod fill, plus combinations of these times. Waterlogging at any stage reduced seed yield; waterlogging at 21 DAS had the least effect, reducing yield relative to the non-waterlogged control by 35%. Ability of the plant to survive and regrow following waterlogging decreased with increasing physiological age: mortality rate averaged 0, 30 and 100% after waterlogging at 21 DAS, flowering and pod fill, respectively. Tolerance to waterlogging was not enhanced by previous exposure to waterlogging.
In the second experiment, waterlogging was imposed at six different times shortly before or after flowering began. Ability to survive waterlogging declined sharply as flowering commenced: mortality rate increased from 13% when waterlogging was imposed six days before flowering to 65% one day after flowering, and 100% when waterlogging began 7.5 days after flowering. We suggest that survival and recovery after waterlogging may have been inhibited in flowering plants by an inadequate supply of nitrogen or carbohydrates.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Beech D F and Brinsmead R B 1980 Tyson: A chickpea (Cicer arietinum (L.)) cultivar for grain production. J. Aust. Inst. Agric. Sci. 46, 127–129.
Belford R K, Cannell R Q, Thomson R J and Dennis C W 1980 Effects of waterlogging at different stages of development on the growth and yield of peas (Pisum sativum L.). J. Sci. Food Agric. 31, 857–869.
Bishnoi N R and Krishnamoorthy H N 1991 Effect of waterlogging and gibberellic acid on growth and yield of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Ind. J. Plant Physiol. 34, 186–191.
Broué P, Marshall D R and Munday J 1976 The response of lupins to waterlogging. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. Anim. Husb. 16, 549–554.
Cannell R Q, Gales K, Snaydon R W and Suhail B A 1979 Effects of short-term waterlogging on the growth and yield of peas (Pisum sativum). Ann. Appl. Biol. 93, 327–335.
Cowie A 1993 An examination of factors which affect waterlogging tolerance of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Ph.D. Thesis, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia.
Cowie A L, Jessop R S and MacLeod D A 1996 Effects of waterlogging on chickpeas. II. Possible causes of increased sensitivity to waterlogging at flowering. Plant and Soil 183, 105–115.
Evans J 1982 Symbiosis, nitrogen and dry matter distribution in chickpea (Cicer arietinum). Exp. Agric. 18, 339–351.
Griffin J L and Saxton A M 1988 Response of solid-seeded soybean to flood irrigation. II. Flood duration. Agron. J. 80, 885–888.
Jackson M B 1979 Rapid injury to peas by soil waterlogging. J. Sci. Food Agric. 30, 143–152.
Krishnamoorthy H N, Goswami G L and Jai Dayal 1983 Effect of CCC and B-nine on waterlogged gram (Cicer arietinum). Ind. J. Plant Physiol. 26, 258–263.
Orchard P W and Jessop R S 1984 The response of sorghum and sunflower to short-term waterlogging. I. Effects of stage of development and duration of waterlogging on growth and yield. Plant and Soil 81, 119–132.
Reid D M and Bradford K J 1984 Effects of flooding on hormone relations.In Flooding and Plant Growth. Ed. T T Kozlowski. pp 195–219. Academic Press, Orlando, FL, USA.
Schwinghamer M W 1994 Grower guide to identification of chickpea diseases in northern NSW. NSW Agriculture/Grains Research and Development Corporation. NSW Agriculture Communications Unit. Dubbo, NSW, Australia.
Sprent J L 1969 Prolonged production of acetylene by detached soybean nodules. Planta 88, 372–375.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cowie, A.L., Jessop, R.S. & MacLeod, D.A. Effects of waterlogging on chickpeas I. Influence of timing of waterlogging. Plant Soil 183, 97–103 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02185569
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02185569