Indian Journal of Plant Physiology

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 16–23 | Cite as

Antioxidant defense system in chickpea against drought stress at pre- and post- flowering stages

Original Article
  • 91 Downloads

Abstract

Ten wilt resistant and three wilt susceptible chickpea genotypes were subjected to drought stress at pre and post flowering stages along with four drought tolerant and three drought susceptible checks by withholding irrigation. The three wilt resistant chickpea genotypes viz., GJG 0922, JG 24 and JG 2001-4 recorded significant increase in proline and glycine betaine accumulation and SOD, APX, GPX, CAT activities under water-deficit stress at preflowering stage. The mean leaf proline content of the control genotypes was 23.72 µmol g−1 DW and increased to 56.73 µmol g−1 DW under drought stress at preflowering stage. Based on the level of osmolyte accumulation, induction of antioxidative enzymes, five chickpea genotypes viz., JG 552476, GJG 0922, JG 24, JG 2001-4 and GJG 0919 could be categorized as drought tolerant. Chickpea genotype PBG 5 which recorded 26.8% wilt incidence and exhibited higher induction of antioxidative enzymes was rolerant to drought stress at preflowering stage while the three wilt resistant genotypes viz., BCP 2010-1, GJG 0904 and IPC 1048 appeared to be drought susceptible.

Keywords

Chickpea Drought Osmolytes Genotypes Antioxidative enzymes 

Supplementary material

40502_2017_322_MOESM1_ESM.docx (14 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 13 kb)

References

  1. Ahmad, F., Gaur, P., & Croser, J. (2005). Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). In R. Singh & P. Jauhar (Eds.), Genetic resources, chromosome engineering and crop improvement-grain legumes (pp. 185–214). Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  2. Ahmed, I. M., Dai, H., Zheng, W., Cao, F., Zhang, G., Sun, D., et al. (2013). Genotypic differences in physiological characteristics in the tolerance to drought and salinity combined stress between Tibetan wild and cultivated barley. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, 63, 49–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bates, L. S., Waldren, R. P., & Teare, I. D. (1973). Rapid determination of free proline for water stress studies. Plant and Soil, 39, 205–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cevik, S., Yildizli, A., Yandim, G., Goksu, H., Gultekin, M. S., Degera, A. G., et al. (2014). Some synthetic cyclitol derivatives alleviate the effect of water deficit in cultivated and wild-type chickpea species. Journal Plant Physiology, 171, 807–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Costa, H., Gallego, S. M., & Tomaro, M. L. (2002). Effect of UV-B radiation on antioxidant defense system in sunflower cotyledons. Plant Science, 162, 939–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Farjam, S., Siosemardeh, A., Kazemi-Arbat, H., Yarnia, M., & Rokhzadi, A. (2014). Response of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) to exogenous salicylic acid and ascorbic acid under vegetative and reproductive drought stress conditions. Applied Botany Food Quality, 87, 80–86.Google Scholar
  7. Farooq, M., Wahid, A., Kobayashi, N., Fujita, D., & Basra, S. M. A. (2009). Plant drought stress: Effects, mechanisms and management. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 29, 185–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ghanbari, A. A., Shakiba, M. R., Toorchi, M., & Choukan, R. (2013). Morpho-physiological responses of common bean leaf to water deficit stress. European Journal of Experimental Biology, 3, 487–492.Google Scholar
  9. Hasegawa, P. M., Bressan, R. A., Zhu, J. K., & Bohnert, H. J. (2000). Plant cellular and molecular responses to high salinity. Plant Molecular Biology, 51, 463–499.Google Scholar
  10. Henderson, C. R. (1952). Specific and general combining ability. In J. W. Gowen (Ed.), Heterosis. Ames, IA: Iowa State College Press.Google Scholar
  11. Kadkhodaie, A., Zahedi, M., Razmjoo, J., & Pessarakli, M. (2014). Changes in some anti-oxidative enzymes and physiological indices among sesame genotypes (Sesamum indicumL.) in response to soil water deficits under field conditions. Acta Physiologiae Plantarum, 36, 641–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kaur, K., Kaur, N., Gupta, A. K., & Singh, I. (2013). Exploration of the antioxidative defense system to characterize chickpea genotypes showing differential response towards water deficit conditions. Plant Growth Regulator, 70, 49–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lugojan, C., & Ciulca, S. (2011). Evaluation of relative water content in winter wheat. Journal of Horticulture Forestry and Biotechnology, 15, 173–177.Google Scholar
  14. Meena, N., Ali, K., Dehmukh, P. S., & Tyagi, A. (2014). Effect of heat stress on physio-biochemical characteristics of chickpea (Cicer arietinum) genotypes. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 84, 401–406.Google Scholar
  15. Mohammadi, A., Davood, H., Mahyar, R., & Mafakheri, S. (2011). Effect of drought stress on antioxidant enzymes activity of some chickpea cultivars. American-Eurasian Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Science, 11, 782–785.Google Scholar
  16. Munne-Bosch, S., & Penuelas, J. (2003). Photo-and antioxidative protection, and a role for salicylic acid during drought and recovery in field-grown Phillyrea angustifolia plants. Planta, 217, 758–766.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Oberoi, H. K., Gupta, A. K., Kaur, S., & Singh, I. (2014). Stage specific upregulation of antioxidant defence system in leaves for regulating drought tolerance in chickpea. Journal of Applied and Natural Science, 6, 326–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Panse, V. G., & Sukhatme, P. V. (1985). Statistical methods for agricultural workers. New Delhi: ICAR publication.Google Scholar
  19. Prochazkova, D., Sairam, R. K., Srivastava, G. C., & Singh, D. V. (2001). Oxidative stress and antioxidant activity as the basis of senescence in maize leaves. Plant Science, 161, 765–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rabert, G. A., Manivannan, P., Somasundaram, R., & Panneerselvam, R. (2014). Triazole compounds alter the antioxidant and osmoprotectant status in drought stressed Helianthus annuus L. plants. Emirates Journal of Food and Agriculture, 26, 265–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Raheleh, R., Ramazanali, K. N., Ali, G., Abdolreza, B., Farzaneh, N., & Masoud, R. (2012). Use of biochemical indices and antioxidant enzymes as a screening technique for drought tolerance in chickpea genotypes (Cicer arietinum L.). African Journal of Agricultural Research, 7, 5372–5380.Google Scholar
  22. Randhawa, N., & Kaur, J. (2015). Antioxidant responses of Chickpea genotypes exposed to moisture stress. International Journal of Advance Research, 3, 950–955.Google Scholar
  23. Ryan, J. G. (1997). A global perspective on pigeon pea and chickpea sustainable production systems: Present status and future potential. In A. N. Asthana & M. Ali (Eds.), Recent advances in pulses research (pp. 1–31). Kanpur: Indian Society of Pulses Research and Development, IIPR.Google Scholar
  24. Singh, N. P. & Sewak, S. (2013). Global perspective of chickpea research. In AICRP on chickpea (pp. 8–13).Google Scholar
  25. Singh, S., Verma, A., & Dubey, V. K. (2012). Effectivity of anti-oxidative enzymatic system on diminishing the oxidative stress induced by aluminium in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) seedlings. Brazilian Journal of Plant Physiology, 24, 47–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Stumpf, D. K. (1984). Quantification and purification of quarternary ammonium compounds from halophyte tissue. Plant Physiology, 75, 273–274.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Wu, G., Zhou, Z., Chen, P., Tang, X., Shao, H., & Wang, H. (2014). Comparative ecophysiological study of salt stress for wild and cultivated soybean species from the yellow river delta, China. The Scientific World Journal, 10, 1–13.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Society for Plant Physiology 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiochemistryMPKVAhmednagarIndia

Personalised recommendations