dEjournals Home Page
Acta Agraria Debreceniensis
Current Archives Search Author Guide Submit online
Register Login

Acta Agraria Debreceniensis

No. 2 (2024)
Articles

Assessing the impact of salinity stress on some morpho-physiological traits of two chickpea genotypes under hydroponic conditions

Published:
2024-12-01
DOI Linkhttps://doi.org/10.34101/actaagrar/2/14277
Authors
Mawia Sobh,
Oqba Basal,
Ayman Shehada Al-Ouda,
Szilvia Veres
View
pdf
Keywords
Abiotic stresses Relative water content Stomatal conductacne Cicer arietinum L.
License

Copyright (c) 2024 by the Author(s)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How To Cite
Selected Style: APA
Sobh, M., Basal, O., Al-Ouda, A. S., & Veres, S. (2024). Assessing the impact of salinity stress on some morpho-physiological traits of two chickpea genotypes under hydroponic conditions. Acta Agraria Debreceniensis, 2, 47-53. https://doi.org/10.34101/actaagrar/2/14277
Abstract

Evaluating the performance of crop species to salinity stress is considered an intricate task due to differences in performance, response and susceptibility at different phenological stages of chickpea crop. Assessment of the performance of chickpea genotypes in response to NaCl-induced salinity stress at the initial vegetative phase is of great importance to have a crystal idea about the threshold level of tolerance. An experiment was carried out under hydroponic conditions to evaluate the performance of two chickpea genotypes (ELMO and ORION), in response to different salinity levels (0, 25, 50 and 75 mM NaCl) as factorial arrangement under completely randomized design with three replications. The average of shoot and root dry matter weight was significantly higher for the ELMO genotype at the control treatment (1.143, 0.4133 g respectively), while it was significantly lower in the two genotypes ORION and ELMO at the highest salinity level (0.267 and 0.2700; 0.0433 and 0.0533 g respectively). The root to shoot ratio was significantly higher in both genotypes in the control and the lowest salt level (25 mM NaCl), without significant differences among them (47.98, 43.30, 37.10 and 36.25% respectively). The relative water content and stomatal conductance were significantly higher in the ORION genotype (88.01%; 335.40 mmol m-2 s-1) compared to ELMO (84.09%; 299.10 mmol m-2 s-1), and increasing salinity level caused a proportional decline in both traits, where they were significantly lower at the highest salt level (75Mm) (77.45%; 87.50 mmol m-2 s-1). Results indicate genotypic variability in response to NaCl-induced salinity stress under hydroponic conditions and the physiological traits are more expressive and reliable as selection criteria than morphological ones.

References
  1. Annunziata, M.G.; Ciarmiello, L.F.; Woodrow, P.; Maximova, E.; Fuggi, A.; Carillo, P. (2017): Durum wheat roots adapt to salinity remodeling the cellular content of nitrogen metabolites and sucrose. Frontiers in Plant Science, 7, 2035. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.02035
  2. Ashraf, M.; Munns, R. (2022): Evolution of approaches to increase the salt tolerance of crops. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 41, 128–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352689.2022.2065136
  3. Buckley, T. N. (2019): How do stomata respond to water status? New Phytologist, 224 (1), 21–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.15899
  4. Buttar, H.K.; Badyal, R.K.; Kumar, V.; Singh, R.P.; Manchanda, G. (2021): Salt Stress Induced Morphological, Anatomical and Ionic Alterations in Chickpea. Soil Sci. Plant Analysis, 52 (6): 563–575. https://doi.org/10.1080/00103624.2020.1862155
  5. Carminati, A.; Javaux, M. (2020): Soil Rather Than Xylem Vulnerability Controls Stomatal Response to Drought.
  6. Trends in Plant Science, 25(9), 868–880. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2020.04.003
  7. Cisse, A.; Arshad, A.; Wang, X.; Yattara, F.; Hu, Y. (2019): Contrasting impacts of long-term application of bio
  8. fertilizers and organic manure on grain yield of winter wheat
  9. in North China Plain. Agronomy, 9:312. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy9060312
  10. Cossgrove, D.J. (1989): Linkage of wall extension with water and solute uptake. Physiology of cell Expansion During plant growth (D.J.Cossgrove and P. Knievel,ed, ed.), Am.Sci. Plant Physiology. Rockville, Md.P.88–100.
  11. FAO (2020): The State of Food and Agriculture 2020. Overcoming water challenges in agriculture. Rome.
  12. Farooq, M.; Gogoi, N.; Hussain, M.; Barthakur, S.; Paul, S.; Bharadwaj, N.; Migdadi, H.M.; Alghamdi, S.S.; Siddique, K.H.M. (2017): Effects, tolerance mechanisms and management of salt stress in grain legumes. Plant Physiol. Biochem., 118, 199–217. doi: 10.1016/j.plaphy.2017.06.020
  13. Flowers, T.J.; Glenn, E.P.; Volkov, V. (2019): Could vesicular transport of Na+ and Cl– be a feature of salt tolerance
  14. in halophytes? Ann. Bot., 123, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcy164
  15. Gaur, P.M.; Tripathi, S.; Gowda, C.L.L; Ranga Rao, G.V.; Sharma, H.C.; Pande, S., Sharma, M. (2010): Chickpea Seed Production Manual Report. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Andhra Pradesh. India, Patancheru, 502 324. URI: http://oar.icrisat.org/id/eprint/10276
  16. Guerrier, R.; Belmecheri, S.; Ollinger, S.V. (2019): Disentangling the role of photosynthesis and stomatal conductance on rising
  17. forest water-use efficiency. Proceedings of the
  18. National Academy of Sciences, 116 (34) 16909–16914.
  19. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1905912116
  20. Ismail, A.M.; Horie, T. (2017): Breeding Approaches for Improving Salt Tolerance. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol., 68, 405–434. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-arplant-042916-040936
  21. James, R.A.; Blake, C.; Byrt, C.S.; Munns, R. (2011): Major genes for Na+ exclusion, Nax1 and Nax2 wheatHKT1;4 and HKT1;5), decrease Na+ accumulation in bread wheat leaves under
  22. saline and waterlogged conditions. J. Exp. Bot, 62, 2939–2947. DOI: 10.1093/jxb/err003
  23. Li, L.J.; Gu, W.R.; Meng, Y.; Wang, Y.L.; Mu, J.Y.; Li, J.; Wei, S. (2018): Physiological and biochemical mechanism of spermidine improving drought resistance in maize seedlings under
  24. drought stress. Ying Yong Sheng Tai Xue Bao.; 29:554–564. DOI: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.201802.021
  25. Marschner, H.; Oberle, H.; Cakmak, I.; Römheld, V. (1990): Growth enhancement by silicon in cucumber (Cucumis sativus) plants depends on imbalance in phosphorus and zinc supply. Plant and Soil 124 (2):211–219. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00009262
  26. Muller, B.; Pantin, F.; Génard, M., Turc, O.; Freixes, S.; Piques, M.; Gibon, Y. (2011): Water deficits uncouple growth from photosynthesis, increase C content, and modify the relationships between C and growth in sink organs. J. Exp. Bot.; 62:1715–1729. DOI: 10.1093/jxb/erq438
  27. Munns, R.; Day, D.A.; Fricke, W.; Watt, M.; Arsova, B.; Barkla, B. J. (2020a): Energy costs of salt tolerance in crop plants. New Phytol., 225, 1072–1090. DOI: 10.1111/nph.15864
  28. Pujol, J.A.; Calvo, J.F.; Ramírez-Díaz, L. (2000): Recovery of germination from different osmotic conditions by four halophytes from southeastern Spain. Ann Bot., 85, 279–86. DOI: 10.1006/anbo.1999.1028
  29. Rahnama, A.; James, R.A.; Poustini, K.; Munns, R. (2010): Stomatal conductance as a screen for osmotic stress tolerance in durum wheat growing in saline soil. Funct. Plant Biol., 37, 255–263. DOI: 10.1071/FP09148
  30. Rouphael, Y.; De Micco, V.; Arena, C.; Raimondi, G.; Colla, G.; De Pascale, S. (2017): Effect of Ecklonia maxima seaweed extract on yield, mineral composition, gas exchange, and leaf anatomy of zucchini squash grown under saline conditions. Journal of Applied Phycology, 29, 459–470. DOI: 10.1007/s10811-016-0937-x
  31. Samineni, S.; Siddique, K.H.M.; Gaur, P.M.; Colmer, T.D. (2011): Salt sensitivity of the vegetative and reproductive stages in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) podding is a particularly sensitive stage. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 71, 260–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2010.12.014
  32. Schonfeld. M.A; Johnson, R.C.; Carver, B.F.; Morn Hinweg, D.W. (1988): Water relations in winter wheat as drought resistance indicators. Crop Science, 28, 526–531, 1988.
  33. DOI: 10.2135/cropsci1988.0011183X002800030021x
  34. Shin, Y.K.; Bhandari, S.R.; Jo, J.S.; Song, J.W.; Cho, M.C.; Yang, E.Y.; Lee, J.G. (2020): Response to salt stress in lettuce: changes in chlorophyll fluorescence parameters, phytochemical contents, and antioxidant activities. Agronomy, 10, 1627. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10111627
  35. Varshney, R.K.; Roorkiwal, M.; Sun, S. (2021): A chickpea genetic variation map based on the sequencing of 3,366 genomes. Nature 599, 622–627. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-04066-1
  36. Xiancan, Z.; Qingjun, C.; Luying, S.; Xiaoqin, Y.; Wenying, Y.; Hua, Z. (2018): Stomatal Conductance and Morphology of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Wheat Plants Response to Elevated CO2 and NaCl Stress. Front. Plant Sci., 9, 1363. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.01363
  37. Zulfiqar, F.; Ashraf, M. (2021): Nanoparticles potentially mediate salt stress tolerance in plants. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 160, 257–268. DOI: 10.1016/j.plaphy.2021.01.028
Most read articles by the same author(s)
1 2 3 > >>