yield potential analysis of desi chickpea genotypes...

Yield Potential Analysis of Desi Chickpea

Genotypes in Water Stress Conditions

Alireza Taleei*a and Jalal Shaabanib

a Professor in the Department of Agronomy & Plant breeding,

Faculty of Agricultural Sciences and Engineering,

College of Agriculture and Natural Resources,

University of Tehran, Karaj, P.O. Box 31587-71787, Iran b MSc student in the Department of Agronomy & Plant breeding,

Faculty of Agricultural Sciences and Engineering,

College of Agriculture and Natural Resources,

University of Tehran, Karaj, P.O. Box 31587-71787, Iran.

E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract: The productivity of food legumes such as chickpea are limited by

multiple stresses like drought, however, the severity of these stresses in the field

conditions is changeable. This research was carried out to screening some of the

drought tolerant Desi chickpea genotypes and characterization drought tolerance

indices by twenty-eight lines with two cultivars namely Pyrooz and Kaka as

check varieties. Two genotypes named 10 and 321and genotype 252 were

identified as tolerant and genotypes 9, 252 and Pyrooz were susceptible

genotypes in this study.

Keywords: Drought stress; Desi chickpea; tolerance; susceptible; yield potential

1 Introduction

Chickpea as the second most important grain legume crop in the world is cultivated

mainly in arid and semi-arid regions. Improvement and selection of genotypes with

higher yield potential and stability under drought stress condition is a great breeding

challenge still and has shown low and slow advance and observed in a few crops such

as common bean, rice, and maize (White and Castillo, 1992; Fukai and Cooper. 1995;

Schneider et al. 1997; Banziger et al. 1999). Ludlow and Muchow (1990) believed that

the lak of complete successful in these aims could be due to quantitative and temporary

variability in soil moisture among evaluating of traits in the experiments between

multiple years, and or low genotypic variance in yield of cultivars under drought

condition. High complex genetic basis of drought tolerance can be one of these aims

(Turner et al. 2001). Lake and Sadras (2016) reported that the associations between

yield and crop growth rate were stronger under drought stress than normal conditions

in chickpea. Rate of plant growth is dependent on two factors, enviromental and

genotypic source of variation, and hence this character is used to modelling and has

potential functions in plant breeding (Wiegand and Richardson, 1990). Krishnamurthy

Advanced Science and Technology Letters Vol.142 (BSBT 2016), pp.9-16

http://dx.doi.org/10.14257/astl.2016.142.02

ISSN: 2287-1233 ASTL Copyright © 2016 SERSC

et al. (2010) found that heritability of chickpea shoot biomass and seed yield under

drought stress were more than those values in normal irrigated condition.

Plant breeders have used many developmental strategies to increase drought

tolerance in crops through time. Selection through tolerance criteria is a one of them

that have been introduced to segregating genotypes by different responses to drought

stress in field. Hall (1993) reported drought resistance indicates as a relative yield of a

genotype subjected to the same drought stress compared to other genotypes.

Accordingly, selection of some Iranian Desi chickpea landraces with higher tolerance

to drought stress and genotypes with higher yield potential at average of drought stress

and non-stress conditions were objectives of this research.

2 Materials and Methods

This research carried out in the research field of the Department of Agronomy and Plant

breeding, University College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of

Tehran-Karaj, Iran (with latitude 35056'N and longitude 50058'E and altitude of 1112.5

m above sea level) between February and August 2014. The average annual rainfall

based on data of 48 years average is 268 mm and the amount of rainfall for the research

period was 94.5 mm.

2.1 Plant Materials and Experimental Design

Twenty-eight Desi chickpea lines were selected from departmental gene bank along

with two cultivars namely Pyrooz and Kaka as control (Results not shown). A nested

completely randomized block design with two replications used to implement the

experiment. Each block considered as an environment and all the genotypes were

randomly allocated in each block, in a way that the two environmenst contain drought

stress and non-stress conditions. The seeds of each line were sown in rows with 1-meter

length and between row’s distance of 0.5 m and that of between plants was 10 cm. The

experiment consists of four blocks, two for drought, and two for non-stress conditions.

2.2 Data Collection

Days to 50% flowering (Fl), 50% podding (Po) and 50% maturity (Ma), as phenological

traits recorded for every rows during developmental stage of plants. Considering the

marginal effects, equal numbers of plants for each line were harvested. The rest of traits

were measured after harvesting of plants including yield (Yi), total dry matter (TDM),

100-seed weight (SW) and harvest index (HI). These traits were measured by an

electronic weighing scale. In addition, number of seeds (NS) also was recorded.

Drought stress was applied in 50% of flowering time for all blocks and since then

irrigation was terminated in stress condition, however, in non-stress condition

continued it was due to common irrigation regime of the region.

Advanced Science and Technology Letters Vol.142 (BSBT 2016)

10 Copyright © 2016 SERSC

2.3 Analysis

To eliminate the probable errors, the average of two replications used to analyse. One-

way analysis of variance applied for scored traits. Besides, the above-mentioned indices

were calculated for stress and non-stress conditions, respectively. The genotype's mean

yield of each environment was compared. In addition, multivariate analysis was carried

out for the traits and tolerance indices. The obtained data were subjected to analysis of

variance (ANOVA) with the Statistical Software Package (SAS, version 9.3, SAS

Institute Inc. Cary, NC, USA). Factor analysis, principal component analysis, cluster

analysis, and biplot analysis as multivariate techniques were performed using

Statgraphics X64 (Statgraphics Centurion XV1.11, Stat Point Technologies, USA).

3 Results

3.1 Phenological Traits

The F-value for flowering time although was not significant among genotypes, however

its range was varied from 62.50±3.31 to 77.50±10.23 days for genotypes 267 and 276,

respectively. Considering the results for podding time, drought stress was highly

significant effect for this trait (P ≤ 0.01), as genotype 267 (70.00±1.73) and genotype

276 (81.00±6.50) have the smallest and greatest period of times to rise of pods. Highly

significant effect of drought stress on times to maturity was observed (P ≤ 0.01) and

minimum of days to maturity has seen for genotype 252 (85.00±31.21), and that of the

maximum value was for genotype 8 by 110.0±12.32 days (Results not shown).

3.2 Total Dry Matter and Harvest Index

The results of ANOVA in table 2 showed that both of the total dry matter and harvest

index were affected by drought stress, which were highly significant. Among the

evaluated genotypes, genotype 5 with 23.04±9.48gr plant-1 and genotype 407 with

6.26±5.32gr plant-1 have highest and lowest total dry matter, respectively. Genotype

333 has the high harvest index of (0.65±0.24), while that of genotype 5 (0.32±0.04) was

the lowest one (Results not shown).

3.3 Yield and its Components

The tested genotypes have not affected by drought stress for 100-seed weight; however,

the character showed highly significant difference between genotypes within

environments (P ≤ 0.01). Considering table2, grain yield and seed number showed

highly significant differences in stress and non-stress conditions. Results of means

comparison revealed that 3.68±2.49 and 10.48±4.85 were lowest and highest grain yield

of genotypes 407 and 321, respectively. The genotype 407 with 22.39±12.37 seeds

plant-1 has minimum and the genotypes 321 with 69.01±31.54 seeds has maximum of


Copyright © 2016 SERSC 11

seed number per plant. The genotypes 407 and 321 (10.07±0.14) and the genotype 347

(40.66±21.74) showed most and least 100-seed weight per plant (Results not shown).

4 Partial Correlations

4.1 Non-stress Condition

The correlation between flowering and podding time, among phenological traits of Desi

chickpea, and that of podding and maturity of the crop were highly significant. Total

dry matter and harvest index did not show any relationship with the traits related to

phenology and maturity; however, those correlations with grain yield were significant

and highly significant, respectively. Seed number and 100-seed weight, have highly

negative correlation, nevertheless, there were a positive and highly significant

correlations between grain yield and both of them. Harvest index and time of podding,

in contrary to maturity of the plant, showed a positive significant correlation with yield

(Results not shown).

4.2 Stress Condition

Only two character have a correlation and of cource severely positive with yield. On

the other hand, these traits showed negative relationships between total dry matter and

harvest index, but they had a significant correlation with together. The correlation

between number of seed and 100-seed weight was significant and negative, too (Results

not shown).

4.3 Stress and Non-stress Condition’s Mean

The phenological measured traits, showed in table 6, did not have any relationships to

that of yield and its components. Total dry matter and harvest index have highly, as

100-seed weight, which has a significant positive correlation with grain yield. High

negative correlations, in addition, were found between total dry matter with harvest

index and between 100-seed weight and seed number, too.

5 Cluster Analysis

5.1 Characters

The results of cluster analysis using Ward's method for genotypes (Figure not shown).

Considering to these results, four groups were obtained. The first group included

genotypes 276, 231, 76, 151, 46, 252, 232, 51, 150, 122, and Pyrooz. The genotypes

21, 247, 407, 333, 267, 316, and Kaka were placed in the second group. The third group



included genotypes 47, 49, 48, 90, 50, 321, and 322, as well the genotypes 5, 347, 10,

9, and 8 included in groupe 4.

5.2 Factor Analysis

Factor analysis carried out using principal components method. In this analysis three

factors were obtained which justified 76.14% of total variance. Total dry matter and

grain yield have high values for the first factor, which justified 30.38% of total varince.

Number of seeds explained second factor with 24.43% of variance proportion. The third

factor which explained 21.32% of total variation had high value for the flowering time

(Results not shown).

6 Discussion

The existence of a large variation has established by this work for drought response in

the evaluating set of Desi chickpea genotypes in the field. This collection was included

Iranian landraces that adapted to the region during years. The phenological traits, it was

seen that have not a main-direct influence on related characters to yield. Because of

applying stress was in the 50% of flowering, this can one reason of the phenomen.

However, drought stress impressed these traits and a significant drought-induced

difference has shown between stress and non-stress conditions. Nevertheless, maturity

time showed a same direction with total dry matter (Figure not shown); based on this

result, due to existance of a possitive correlation between yield and total dry matter,

could be said, probably, enhancement in maturity time caused more growth and

followed by increase in available period for material remobilization can be resulted to

more production in the plant. In other words, more staying immature phases

consequently, more photosynthetically activities and production. There has said that the

delay in maturity can provide a vital period to hold CO2 assimilation for photosynthesis

(Farooq et al. 2016). Saxena et al. (1993) did not found an association between shorter

growth duration with chickpea grain yield under drought stress. Farooq et al. (2016)

said that the main reasons terminal drought-mediated loss of grain yield are rate of net

photosynthesis reduction, decrease in grain and damage to seed development. In grain

legumes as chickpea, stay green longer can be a sufficient potential for increased

duration pod filling-mediated more yield (Rong-hua et al. 2006). A collection include

211 chickpea accessions were stablished in three years, shoot biomas and grain yield

showed a highly heritability than other such as phenological traits. It said as well as top

yielding accessions had a flowering time up to 45-50 days following sowing seeds,

among the set in two years, but this time was 40 DAS for third (Krishnamurthy et al.

2010). Our observations, with respected to the results, suggested any association,

whether drought or irrigated condition, has not between flowering time and yield

(Results not shown). Podding time has, in the present work, also similar positive

association with yield, though at non-stress condition (Results not shown). A drought-

induced decline percent of seed yield was estimated 49-54, 27-40, 45-69 for late



ripening, anthesis, and reproductive stage in chickpea, respectively (Samarah et al.

2009; Mafakheri et al. 2010; Nayyar et al. 2006). It seems that, with regard to diverse

results of studies, plant phenology behaviour-influenced outcomes of dissection trials

could been penetrated by many factors as genetic, environment, season, temperature,

moment beginning, severity and duration of water deficit, soil profile and many of

others. Capman et al. (2000a) pronounced stress-mediated temporal and spatial

unpredictability could make a gap between environments where these factors already

limit growth and yield of chickpea and multi-field experiments. The mismatch may be

suffice for converse genetic improvement, as in the many of studies in effect with

drought stress, the early flowering genotypes are favorite, whereas have a few yield in

most desirable environments (Chapman et al. 2000b). The results of modeling to known

the pattern of water deficit and temperature determined environment as a dominant

source of variation for Australian chickpea yield and/or production (Lake et al. 2016).

Krishnamurthy et al. (2010) confirmed that the highly drought sensitive accessions

(ICC 3776, ICC 8058 and ICC 7184) have a greater canopy than rest. Total dry matter,

in the present work has a great correlation with seed yield. This trait is known as a

follower of growth and development events, such as water absorption of root, canopy,

or shoot mass, efficiency of radiations, etc, (Results not shown), r (coefficient of

correlation) was equal to 0.404, 0.977, and 0.941 for irrigated, drought, and mean

values of those conditions, respectively. 100-seed weight was a unique character that

did affected not by drought (Results not shown). Varshney et al. (2014) reported that

chickpea's 100-seed weight has least in effect with water scarcity for several years and

locations; also its heritability was high that's why supposed selection based on this trait

could be positive advancement in more and stable yield breeding programs under

terminal drought stress. Cluster analysis on trait-obtained data placed the genotypes 321

and 322 in a same group; these genotypes (Figuers not shown). Although phenological

characters did not show any difference between the three more tolerant genotypes,

diversity of those in yield and number of seed was considerable (Results not shown).

The grain yield has greatest correlation with seed number and total dry mater for stress

and non-stress condition, respectively. Factor analysis also proposed the total dry

matter, yield, number of seed, and flowering time as mian traits in the case of

conditions, in order of importance (Results not shown). According to the above

discussion, genotype 321 was known as most tolerant followed by 10 and 321,

respectively. The results showed that the intended genotypes had short time to

flowering and podding stages, as apllying of stress was at 50% flowering time of overall

genotypes.

References

1. Bänziger, M., Edmeades, G.O. and Lafitte, H.R., 1999. Selection for drought tolerance

increases maize yields across a range of nitrogen levels. Crop science, 39(4), pp.1035-1040.

2. Chapman, S.C., Cooper, M., Hammer, G.L. and Butler, D.G., 2000a. Genotype by

environment interactions affecting grain sorghum. II. Frequencies of different seasonal

patterns of drought stress are related to location effects on hybrid yields. Crop and Pasture

Science, 51(2), pp.209-222.



3. Chapman, S.C., Hammer, G.L., Butler, D.G. and Cooper, M., 2000b. Genotype by

environment interactions affecting grain sorghum. III. Temporal sequences and spatial

patterns in the target population of environments. Crop and Pasture Science, 51(2), pp.223-

234.

4. XiangWen, F., Turner, N.C., GuiJun, Y., FengMin, L. and Siddique, K.H.M., 2010. Flower

numbers, pod production, pollen viability, and pistil function are reduced and flower and

pod abortion increased in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) under terminal drought. Journal of

Experimental Botany, 61(2), pp.335-345.

5. Farooq, M., Gogoi, N., Barthakur, S., Baroowa, B., Bharadwaj, N., Alghamdi, S.S. and

Siddique, K.H.M., 2016. Drought Stress in Grain Legumes during Reproduction and Grain

Filling. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science.

6. Farooq, M., Wahid, A., Kobayashi, N., Fujita, D. and Basra, S.M.A., 2009. Plant drought

stress: effects, mechanisms and management. In Sustainable Agriculture (pp. 153-188).

Springer Netherlands.

7. Fernandez, G.C., 1992, August. Effective selection criteria for assessing plant stress

tolerance. In Proceedings of the international symposium on adaptation of vegetables and

other food crops in temperature and water stress (pp. 257-270).

8. Fischer, R.A., Rees, D., Sayre, K.D., Lu, Z.M., Condon, A.G. and Saavedra, A.L., 1998.

Wheat yield progress associated with higher stomatal conductance and photosynthetic rate,

and cooler canopies. Crop Science, 38(6), pp.1467-1475.

9. Fukai, S. and Cooper, M., 1995. Development of drought-resistant cultivars using

physiomorphological traits in rice. Field Crops Research, 40(2), pp.67-86.

10. Hall, A.E., 1993. Is dehydration tolerance relevant to genotypic difference in leaf senescence

and crop adaption to dry environments?. Current Topics in Plant Physiology (USA).

11. Jusheng, L., 1998. Comparison of Evaluating Methods for Agronomic Drought Resistance

in Crops [J]. Acta Agriculturae Boreali-Occidentalis Sinica, 3.

12. Krishnamurthy, L., Kashiwagi, J., Gaur, P.M., Upadhyaya, H.D. and Vadez, V., 2010.

Sources of tolerance to terminal drought in the chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) minicore

germplasm. Field Crops Research, 119(2), pp.322-330.

13. Lake, L., Chenu, K. and Sadras, V.O., 2016. Patterns of water stress and temperature for

Australian chickpea production. Crop and Pasture Science, 67(2), pp.204-215.

14. Lake, L. and Sadras, V.O., 2016. Screening chickpea for adaptation to water stress:

Associations between yield and crop growth rate. European Journal of Agronomy, 81,

pp.86-91.

15. Li, R.H., Guo, P.G., Michael, B., Stefania, G. and Salvatore, C., 2006. Evaluation of

chlorophyll content and fluorescence parameters as indicators of drought tolerance in barley.

Agricultural Sciences in China, 5(10), pp.751-757.

16. Ludlow, M.M. and Muchow, R.C., 1990. A critical evaluation of traits for improving crop

yields in water-limited environments. Advances in Agronomy, 43, pp.107-153.

17. Mafakheri, A., Siosemardeh, A., Bahramnejad, B., Struik, P.C. and Sohrabi, Y., 2010. Effect

of drought stress on yield, proline and chlorophyll contents in three chickpea cultivars.

Australian Journal of Crop Science, 4(8), p.580.

18. Nayyar, H., Kaur, S., Singh, S. and Upadhyaya, H.D., 2006. Differential sensitivity of Desi

(small‐seeded) and Kabuli (large‐seeded) 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(13), pp.2076-2082.

19. Ramirez-Vallejo, P. and Kelly, J.D., 1998. Traits related to drought resistance in common

bean. Euphytica, 99(2), pp.127-136.

20. Rosielle, A.A. and Hamblin, J., 1981. Theoretical aspects of selection for yield in stress and

non-stress environment. Crop Science, 21(6), pp.943-946.



21. Sabaghpour, S.H., Mahmodi, A.A., Saeed, A., Kamel, M. and Malhotra, R.S., 2006. Study

on chickpea drought tolerance lines under dryland condition of Iran. Indian J. Crop Sci, 1(1-

2), pp.70-73.

22. Sadras, V. and Dreccer, M.F., 2015. Adaptation of wheat, barley, canola, field pea and

chickpea to the thermal environments of Australia. Crop and Pasture Science, 66(11),

pp.1137-1150.

23. Sadras, V.O., Lake, L., Li, Y., Farquharson, E.A. and Sutton, T., 2016. Phenotypic plasticity

and its genetic regulation for yield, nitrogen fixation and δ13C in chickpea crops under

varying water regimes. Journal of Experimental Botany, 67(14), pp.4339-4351.

24. Samarah, N.H., Haddad, N. and Alqudah, A.M., 2009. Yield potential evaluation in

chickpea genotypes under late terminal drought in relation to the length of reproductive

stage. Italian Journal of Agronomy, 4(3), pp.111-117.

25. Saxena, N.P., Krishnamurthy, L., Johansen, C., 1993. Registration of a drought-resistant

chickpea germplasm. Crop Sci. 33, 1424.

26. Schneider, K.A., Rosales-Serna, R., Ibarra-Perez, F., Cazares-Enriquez, B., Acosta-

Gallegos, J.A., Ramirez-Vallejo, P., Wassimi, N. and Kelly, J.D., 1997. Improving common

bean performance under drought stress. Crop Science, 37(1), pp.43-50.

27. Singh, V.K., Khan, A.W., Jaganathan, D., Thudi, M., Roorkiwal, M., Takagi, H., Garg, V.,

Kumar, V., Chitikineni, A., Gaur, P.M. and Sutton, T., 2016. QTL‐seq for rapid

identification of candidate genes for 100‐seed weight and root/total plant dry weight ratio

under rainfed conditions in chickpea. Plant Biotechnology Journal.

28. Turner, N.C., Wright, G.C. and Siddique, K.H.M., 2001. Adaptation of grain legumes

(pulses) to water-limited environments. Advances in Agronomy, 71, pp.193-231.

29. Varshney, R.K., Thudi, M., Nayak, S.N., Gaur, P.M., Kashiwagi, J., Krishnamurthy, L.,

Jaganathan, D., Koppolu, J., Bohra, A., Tripathi, S. and Rathore, A., 2014. Genetic

dissection of drought tolerance in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Theoretical and Applied

Genetics, 127(2), pp.445-462.

30. White, J.W. and Castillo, J.A., 1992. Evaluation of diverse shoot genotypes on selected root

genotypes of common bean under soil water deficits. Crop Science, 32(3), pp.762-765.

31. Wiegand, C.L. and Richardson, A.J., 1990. Use of spectral vegetation indices to infer leaf

area, evapotranspiration and yield: I. Rationale. Agronomy Journal, 82(3), pp.623-629.



yield potential analysis of desi chickpea genotypes...

Documents