The effect of waterlogging on yield and yield components of chickpea under dry farming

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Razi university

2 Razi University

Abstract

Background and objectives: About 10 percent of arable land in the world and almost one million hectares of land under cultivation in Iran has problem of waterlogging. When the soil water is increases as far that prevent the flow of oxygen in soil, waterlogging is happen. Plants have different mechanisms in the waterlogging conditions. The amount of damage depends to the crop, variety, waterlogging duration, plant growth stages, water temperature, and etc. So, this study was conducted in order to investigate the effect of different periods of waterlogging on various growth stages of chickpea in dry land conditions.

Materials and methods: This study was carried out on chickpea cv. ‘ILC482’ at the agricultural research farm of Campus of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran during 2013-2014. The experimental design was conducted in a split plot based on a randomized complete block design (RCBD) with three replications. Treatment included time of waterlogging, establishment, vegetative, flowering and poding (14, 70, 126 and 182 days after sowing) were used as the main plot and four waterlogging durations (non-waterlogging, 4, 8 and 12 days waterlogging) served as the sub plots. Chickpea seeds were planted in autumn and dry land conditions. Grain and biomass yield, harvest index, number of grain per plant, number of pod per plant, 100-grain weight and grain protein content were measured at the end of experiment and also trend of grain filling, leaf area index, leaf dry weight and total dry weight were recorded during the waterlogging period.

Results: The results showed that with increase waterlogging durations were increased of grain yield at establishment, vegetative and flowering, but decreased at the poding stage. The highest loss in grain yield was waterlogging at the poding stage. With increasing duration of waterlogging increased the number of grain per plant significantly (22.2%), but was contrary for grain weight. Detriment of waterlogging on the number of grain of chickpea was in the final growth stages about 40% compared to flowering. The lowest of grain protein was at the poding stage with 12 days waterlogging about 16.04%. Leaf area index, leaf dry weight and total dry weight increased with waterlogging treatment at establishments, vegetative and flowering stages, but at the poding stage decreased in all waterlogging periods.


Conclusion: The waterlogging conditions at different growth stages of chickpea in dry conditions (except for poding stage) was not only reduces the yield and yield components, but also after the removal of waterlogging, cause recovery and increase again growth after treatment and each plant produces new flowers and pods compensated the damage caused by waterlogging conditions. Furthermore, in this study, the most of damage to chickpea had non waterlogging (dry conditions) and 12 days waterlogged treatments.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

1. Ahlawat, I., Ali, M., and Shivkumar, B. 2003. Cropping systems research in chickpea.
Chickpea research in India (EdsMasood Ali, Shiv Kumar and NB Singh). Indian Institute of
Pulses Research, Kanpur, India, 113-119.
2. Ahmadi, K., Gholizadeh, H., Ebadzadeh, H., Hossainpoor, R., Hatami, F., Fazli, B.,
Kazemian, A., and Rafiei, M. 2015. Agricultural Statistics of Crops. Jahad Keshavarzi Press.
1: 1-169. (In Persian)
3. Ahmed, S., Nawata, E., Hosokawa, M., Domae, Y., and Sakuratani, T. 2002. Alterations in
photosynthesis and some antioxidant enzymatic activities of mungbean subjected to
waterlogging. Plant Sci., 163: 117-123.
4. Alam, M., and Rabbani, M.G. 2007. Vulnerabilities and responses to climate change for
Dhaka. Environ. Urban., 19: 81-97.
5. Ashraf, M.A. 2012. Waterlogging stress in plants: A review. Afr. J. Agric. Res., 7: 1976–
1981.
6. Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC). 1990. Official methods of analysis,
15th edition by Kenneth Helrich, protein, 70p.
7. Bansal, R., and Srivastava, J. 2015. Effect of waterlogging on photosynthetic and
biochemical parameters in pigeon pea. Russ. J. Plant Physiol., 62: 322-327.
8. Celik, G., and Turhan, E. 2013. Genotypic variation in growth and physiological responses
of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) seedlings to flooding. Afr. J. Biotechnol., 10: 7372-
7380.
9. Cowie, A., Jessop, R., and MacLeod, D. 1996. Effects of waterlogging on chickpeas I.
Influence of timing of waterlogging. Plant Soil, 183: 97-103.
10. Cowie, A., Jessop, R., and MacLeod, D. 1996. Effects of waterlogging on chickpeas II.
Possible causes of decreased tolerance of waterlogging at flowering. Plant Soil, 183: 105-
115.
11. Ezin, V., Pena, R.D.L., and Ahanchede, A. 2010. Flooding tolerance of tomato genotypes
during vegetative and reproductive stages. Braz. J. Plant Physiol., 22(1): 131-142.
12. Ghadiryan, R., Soltani, A., Zeinali, E., Kalateh Arabi, M., and Bakhshandeh, E. 2011.
Evaluating non-linear regression models for use in growth analysis of wheat. Elec. J. Crop
Prot., 4(3): 55-77. (In Persian)
13. Ghobadi, M.E., Bakhshandeh, A., Nadian, H., Fathi, G., Gharineh, M.H., Alami-saied K.,
and Ghobadi, M. 2007. Effect of waterlogging durations at different growth stages of wheat
on yield and yield components. The Sci. J. Agric., 30(2): 133-146. (In Persian)
14. Ghobadi, M.E., Nadian, H., Bakhshandeh, A., Fathi, G., Gharineh, M.H., and Ghobadi M.
2007. Study of root growth, biological yield and grain yield of wheat genotypes under
waterlogging stress during different growth stages. Seed and Plant, 22(4): 513-527. (In
Persian)
15. Gibbs, J., and Greenway, H. 2003. Review: Mechanisms of anoxia tolerance in plants. I.
Growth, survival and anaerobic catabolism. Funct. Plant Biol., 30: 353-353.
16. Islam, M., Nessa, B., Haque, M., and Ahmed, J. 2009. Effect of soil flooding stress on
morphology and yield of five Lentil (Lens Culinaris Medic.) genotypes. IUP J. Soil Water
Sci., 2: 48-57.
17. Jackson, M.B., Ishizawa, K., and Ito, O. 2009. Evolution and mechanisms of plant tolerance
to flooding stress. Ann. Bot., 103: 137-142.
18. Jackson., M.B., and Colmer, T.D. 2005. Response and adaptation by plants to flooding
stress. Ann. Bot., 96: 501-505.
19. Kamal, A.H.M., and Komatsu, S. 2015. Involvement of reactive oxygen species and
mitochondrial proteins in biophoton emission in roots of soybean plants under flooding
stress. J. Proteome Res., 14: 2219-2236.
20. Krishnamurthy, L., Upadhyaya, H., Saxena, K., and Vadez, V. 2012. Variation for temporary
waterlogging response within the mini core pigeon pea germplasm. J. Agric. Sci., 150: 357-
364.
21. Kumar, P., Pal, M., Joshit, R., and Sairam, R.K. 2013. Yield, growth and physiological
responses of mung bean [Vignaradiate (L.) Wilczek] genotypes to waterlogging at
vegetative stage. Physiol Mol. Biol. Plants, 19(2): 209-220.
22. Lekshmy, S., Jha, S.K., and Sairam, R.K. 2015. Physiological and molecular mechanisms of
flooding tolerance in plants. Elucidation of Abiotic Stress Signaling in Plants, Springer press.
Pp: 227-242.
23. Licausi, F., and Perata, P. 2009. Low oxygen signaling and tolerance in plants. Adv. Bot.
Res., 50: 139-198.
24. Mauchamp, A., and Méthy, M. 2004. Submergence-induced damage of photosynthetic
apparatus in Phragmitesaustralis. Environ. Exper. Bot., 51: 227-235.
25. Mutava, R.N., Prince, S.J.K., Syed, N.H., Song, L., Valliyodan, B., Chen, W., and Nguyen,
H.T. 2015. Understanding abiotic stress tolerance mechanisms in soybean: A comparative
evaluation of soybean response to drought and flooding stress. Plant Physiol. Biochem., 86:
109-120.
26. Oh, M., and Komatsu, S. 2015. Characterization of proteins in soybean roots under flooding
and drought stresses. J. Proteomics, 114: 161-181.
27. Palta, J., Ganjeali, A., Turner, N., and Siddique, K. 2010. Effects of transient subsurface
waterlogging on root growth, plant biomass and yield of chickpea. Agric. Water Manag., 97:
1469-1476.
28. Rasaei, A., Ghobadi, M.E., Jalali-Honarmand, S., Ghobadi, M., and Saeidi, M. 2012.
Waterlogging and its effects on nitrogen of soil and plant. Ann. Biol. Res., 3(1): 119-124.
29. Romina, P., Abeledo, L.G., and Miralles, D.J. 2014. Identifying the critical period for
waterlogging on yield and its components in wheat and barley. Plant Soil, 378: 265-277.
30. Saqib, M., Akhtar, J., and Qureshi, R.H. 2004. Pot study on wheat growth in saline and
waterlogged compacted soil: II. Root growth and leaf ionic relations. Soil Tillage Res., 77:
179-187.
31. Saqib, M., Akhtar, J., and Qureshi, R.H. 2004. Pot study on wheat growth in saline and
waterlogged compacted soil: I. Grain yield and yield components. Soil Tillage Res., 77: 169-
177.
32. Smethurst, C.F., Garnett, T., and Shabala, S. 2005. Nutritional and chlorophyll fluorescence
responses of lucerne (Medicago sativa) to waterlogging and subsequent recovery. Plant Soil,
270: 31-45.
33. Solaiman, Z., Colmer, T., Loss, S., Thomson, B., and Siddique, K. 2007. Growth responses
of cool-season grain legumes to transient waterlogging. Crop Pasture Sci., 58: 406-412.
34. Stoyanov, Z. 2005. Effects of water stress on leaf water relations of young bean plants. J.
Cent. Eur. Agr., 6(1): 5-14.
35. Sullivan, M., VanToai, T., Fausey, N., Beuerlein, J., Parkinson, R., and Soboyejo, A. 2001.
Evaluating on-farm flooding impacts on soybean. Crop Sci., 41: 93-100.
36. Voesenek, L.A., and Bailey‐Serres, J. 2015. Flood adaptive traits and processes: an
overview. New Phytol., 206: 57-73.
Journal of Crop Production
Volume 10, Issue 3
January 2018
Pages 51-64

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics