• No results found

ASSESSMENT OF CHICKPEA GENOTYPES FOR HIGH TEMPERATURE TOLERANCE

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2020

Share "ASSESSMENT OF CHICKPEA GENOTYPES FOR HIGH TEMPERATURE TOLERANCE"

Copied!
9
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

*Corresponding author: neerajhau@yahoo.co.in; nandwal@hau.ernet.in

ASSESSMENT OF CHICKPEA GENOTYPES FOR HIGH TEMPERATURE TOLERANCE

NEERAJ KUMAR*1, A.S. NANDWAL1, R. YADAV3, P. BHASKER1 , S. KUMAR2 , S. DEVI1,

S. SINGH1 AND V.S. LATHER3

1Department of Botany and Plant Physiology, 2Department of Agronomy, 3Pulses Section, Department of Genetic and Plant Breeding, CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar-125 004, Haryana

Received on 30th September, 2011, Revised and accepted on 5th August, 2012 SUMMARY

Global warming is predicted to increase temperature by 5oC by the end of this century. Scope of

expansion of rice fallows, changes in cropping system and the global warming demand identification of chickpea varieties tolerant to high temperature. With this objective plants of 115 chickpea genotypes comprising released varieties differing in their sensitivity to temperature were grown under two sowing dates normal (November 18, 2009) and late (December 12, 2009) in order to assess their tolerance against high temperature (>35oC) by studying various morpho-physiological traits. In general, results

indicated that high temperature caused hastening of flowering and maturity in chickpea by 15 days in late sown as compared to normal sown conditions. Canopy temperature depression (CTD) and relative stress injury (RSI %) exhibited significant differences among the genotypes. Under normal sown conditions, CTD values ranged from -2.9 to -7.2oC in RSG-2 and GNG-146, respectively. Similarly, under

late sown conditions, the values ranged from -1.8oC in Vaibhava to -4.8oC in GNG 663. Relative stress

injury of leaves varied from 20% in CSG 8962 to 42 % in Pusa 244 under normal sown and from 23% in GNG 663 to 50 % in Pusa 244 under late sown conditions. The genotype Pusa 244 experienced highest reduction (70.4%) in seed yield plant-1 while lowest was (7.3%) in GNG 663. The chickpea

genotypes Pusa 240, JG 218, ICCV 92944, RAU 52, HK 94-34, KWR 108 having low HSI, RSI and high CTD values found place on the negative end of principal factor 3 and 4 were identified as thus showing thermo-insensitive the maximum tolerance against heat stress under late sown conditions. In addition to above, chickpea genotypes IPC 98-12, CSG 8962, GCP 101, CSJD 844, GNG 146, M2, ICCV 4958, Pusa 209, Pusa 267, BG 276 and GNG 663 also had low HSI values but with higher values of RSI and CTD. Therefore, it is concluded that these genotypes in future may prove better for developing heat tolerant genotypes and can be used in hybridization programme of chickpea.

Key words: Chickpea, canopy temperature depression, heat susceptibility index, high temperature, relative stress injury, seed yield

INTRODUCTION

In India, chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) is an important protein rich cool-season food legume mainly grown in arid and semi-arid zones often experienceing drought and high temperature stresses during

(2)

in drastic reduction in the yield because of the exposure of post anthesis phase to high temperature (>35oC). During the last decade, the chickpea area under late-sown conditions has been increasing, particularly in northern and central India, due to inclusion of chickpea in new cropping systems and intense sequential cropping practices leading to a prolonged exposure of chickpea to high temperature in the growing season, mainly in reproductive phase. Impact of high temperature on crop depends on the coincidence of heat stress with sensitive phases of crop growth. Flowering and podding in chickpea is known to be very sensitive to changes in external environment and drastic reduction in seed yields were observed when plants were exposed to high temperature (Wang et al. 2006, Khetarpal et al. 2009, Krishnamurthy et al. 2011, Bahuguna et al. 2012, Devasirvatham et al. 2012). Berger et al. (2011) described the global chickpea distribution based on climate analysis and current production trends. The climate analysis showed that the current chickpea-growing area is under threat from increasing temperature and production may extend to cooler regions. In north India, chickpea grain yield decreased by 53 kg ha–1 in Uttar Pradesh and 301 kg ha–1 in Haryana per 1oC increase in seasonal temperature (Kalra et al. 2008).

Plant responses to high temperature are diverse. High temperature adversely affects photosynthesis, respiration, membrane stability, fertilization, fruit maturation, quality of seeds, nutrient absorption etc. (Wahid et al. 2007, Basu et al. 2011). Chickpea has been reported to be relatively sensitive in terms of membrane stability and photo system II functioning at high temperatures than other legumes such as groundnut, pigeonpea and soyabean and heat killing temperature in chickpea was found to be 44.3oC for 41 minutes (Srinivasan et al. 1996). Canopy temperature depression itself is a mechanism of heat escape as suggested by Cornish et al. (1991). This permits differences among genotypes to be detected relatively easily using infrared thermometry.

Information on tolerance to high temperature stress in chickpea genotypes is still not well under stood. Therefore, in order to address the impact of climate change on chickpea productivity, new chickpea varieties with greater tolerance to high temperature are needed.

With this objective 115 chickpea were screened against high temperature tolerance by studying various morpho-physiological traits and evaluating their tolerance to heat stress via heat susceptibility index (HSI).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred and fifteen genotypes of chickpea differing in their sensitivity to temperature were sown in field under normal sown (November 18, 2009) and late sown (December 12, 2009) conditions during the rabi

season of 2009-10 in a randomized complete block design with three replications at CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar (about 29o 10’ N, 75o 46’ E, 215.2 m above sea level), Haryana, India. The experimental plot consisted of one row of 4 m length, 45 cm apart both for normal and late sowing. The normal and late sown crop was grown with pre-sown irrigation. The experimental areas were fertilized @ 15 kg N and 40 kg P2O5 ha-1 as basal dose before sowing. During both the planting, the seeds were inoculated with Rhizobium

culture, Ca-181 obtained from the department of Microbiology, CCS HAU, Hisar. Hand weeding was done twice i.e. at seedling stage and prior to flowering. Need-based insecticide sprays against pod borer (Helicoverpa armigera) were provided. One irrigation was given before the flowering in normal and late sown trials just to avoid any drought during the experiment.

Observation recorded: Observations for days to 50% flowering, podding and physiological maturity were recorded (data not given). Canopy temperature depression (CTD, the difference between air and canopy temperature), relative stress injury (RSI %), pod setting above 30oC and seed yield attributes were recorded. For pod setting above 30oC, ten flowers in each line were tagged in late sown (19th March 2010; Maximum Temperature 36.5oC: Minimum Temperature 19.5oC) conditions to observe pod setting.

(3)

in boiling water bath and their respective electrical conductivity [EC1 and EC2] were measured by conductivity meter. RSI % was calculated with formula: RSI % = 1- [(EC1/EC2)] × 100.

Canopy temperatures of chickpea genotypes were measured in the normal and late sown plots between 1330 and 1430 h (MDT). A hand-held infrared thermometer (Telatemp Model AG-42, USA) was used to monitor the CTD. Canopy temperature measurements were made during the 50% flowering stage when temperature was above 30oC. Each CTD measurement was the average of three readings recorded in each plot. Yield attributes and seed yield plant-1 were recorded after threshing at harvest under normal and late sown conditions.

Heat susceptibility index (HSI) for each genotype was calculated by the formula given by Fischer and Maurer (1978): HSI = (1-YL/YN) / (1-XL / XN). Where YL = Mean seed yield of a line under late sown conditions, YN = Mean seed yield of a line under normal sown conditions, XL = Mean seed yield of all lines under late sown conditions, XN = Mean seed yield of all lines under normal sown conditions.

Statistical Analysis: Data were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) using online Statistical Analysis Package (OPSTAT, Computer Section, CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, Haryana, India) and treatment means were compared by the least significant differences (LSD) (p < 0.05).

Data reduction techniques were employed using the SPSS 10.0 software. Correlation matrix was used to extract the principal components. The factor axes were rotated using Varimax rotation. Principal factor scores were determined using Anderson-Rubin method. Plotting of different genotypes was done using their individual factor scores taking different principal factors as axes.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The second fortnight of March and first fortnight of April were the critical period to study the effect of high temperature as it exceeded more than 35oC in this region (Fig. 1).

Maximum 107 and 96 days was taken in Sadabahar, whereas, PDG 84-16 required 89 and 68 days to 50% flowering under normal and late sown conditions, respectively. Similarly, H-208 took 156 and 136 days to physiological maturity under normal and late sown conditions, respectively. In general, results indicated that high temperature caused hastening of flowering and maturity by 15 days in chickpea (data not given).

Genotypes BG 396, ICCV 92944, PDG 84-16, BG 276, IPC 95-1, GNG 663, DCP 92-3, CSJD 844, JG 218, CSG 8962, RSG 931, GNG 146, Pusa 240, RSG 888, BGD 75, and HC 5 showed more than 80% pod formation above 35 oC (data not given).

The canopy temperature depression (CTD) exhibited significant differences among the genotypes under both the environments. Under normal sown conditions, CTD values ranged from -2.9 to -7.2oC in RSG-2 and GNG-146, respectively. Similarly under late sown conditions, the values ranged from -1.8oC in Vaibhava to -4.8oC in GNG 663.

Cell membrane stability is one of the important features, which enables tolerant genotypes to withstand high temperature stress. Relative stress injury of leaves varied from 20% in CSG 8962 to 42% in Pusa 244 under normal sown and from 23% in GNG 663 to 50% in Pusa Fig. 1. Trend of daily minimum and maximum temperature from 15th March to 15th April prior to physiological maturity

(4)

244 under late sown conditions. Relative stress injury was considerably high under late sown conditions. Genotypes that showed less RSI yielded better under both the conditions (Table 1).

Late sown conditions reduced plant height, pod plant-1, 100 seed weight, biological and seed yield plant -1. Genotypic variation in plant height among genotypes was recorded in the range of 49 cm (IPC 94-94) to 79 (HC 5) in normal plants. In late sown plants above it varied from 41 cm (RSG-2) to 75 in (HC 5) (Table 1). The number of pods plant-1 varied from 35 (Chaffa) to 120 (RS 10) and 22 (Vishal) to 80 (Pusa 212) respectively, in normal and late sown plants. Hundred seed weight among genotypes varied in the range of 10.2 g (RAU 52) to 36.5 (Pusa 1053) and 9 g (RAU 52) to 34.3 (Pusa 1053) respectively, in normal and late sown plants (data not given). Significant reduction occurred in biological and seed yield in late sown plants. The general mean magnitude of reduction in biological and seed yield plant-1 was observed as 36.6 and 29.2%, respectively. Maximum (50.8 g) biological yield plant-1 was recorded in HK 98 -155 in late sown plants (Table 1).

Among the genotypes, Pusa 244 experienced highest (70.4%) while minimum (7.3%) reduction in seed yield plant-1 was observed in GNG 663. Maximum (31.1 g and 16.2 g) seed yield plant-1 was recorded in RSGK 6 in normal and late sown plants among kabuli genotypes. Maximum (19.9 g) seed yield plant-1 was recorded in Pusa 256 in normal sown plants whereas; in late sown plants maximum (12.1 g) seed yield plant-1 was observed in RSG 888 (Table 1). Coincidence of high temperature from flowering to maturity caused reduction in grain filling period resulting in low yield, which was a major limitation in chickpea yields. Furthermore, seed-filling rate is highly dependent on temperature and is found to be seriously impaired by heat stress due to reduction in photosynthesis at high temperature (Egli 2004, Yang et al. 2008). The seed yield plant-1 has significant positive correlation with biological yield plant-1 (r2 =0.699) and (r2 =0.633) under normal and late sown conditions, respectively.

The genotypes namely ICC 4958 and HK 94-134 showed higher seed and biological yield plant-1 than their

respective general mean under both the environments. The genotype ICCV 4958 also showed the superiority for characters like plant height, pod/plant and 100-seed weight under both the environments. The genotypes namely H04-87, H04-11, PG 96006, IPC 2000-33, JKG 1, Katila, HC-5 and H 03-56 which recorded the HSI value equal to one also had higher seed and biological yield plant-1 under both the environments (Table 1). As shown in the Table 1 genotypes IPC 2000-45, Pusa 1053, IPC 92-39, JGG 1, C-235, GL 769, JG 74, SAKI 9516, GCP 105, Pusa 244 were identified as thermosensitive genotypes and showed the least tolerance against heat stress (HSI values >1.5).

Principle component analysis for combination of physiological and agronomical traits: Since traits associated to heat tolerance were different among chickpea genotypes, combination of these traits in a multivariate analysis could be more informative for selection of more tolerant genotypes. Keeping in mind this view, principle component analysis of CTD, RSI, pod plant-1, 100 seed weight, biological and seed yield plant-1and HSI under normal and late sown conditions was done for finding which of these indices account for most of the variability and could be grouped together.

Initially the data were analyzed without any rotation to derive clear picture of interaction of variables among themselves and with the principal factors. But it failed to provide much information regarding the idea of correlation between the variables and the principal factors. The failure of principal factor analysis without rotation to draw sensible conclusions prompted us to go for analysis with rotation. Varimax method of orthogonal rotation (Kaiser, 1958) was utilized in the present study to rotate the factor axes. This is the most commonly used method and can also be placed in a meaningful biological context (Titz 1983). All the eight variables showed high loading on different principal factors and none of them was left after rotation of the principal factor axes. Moreover, it clearly grouped the similar type of variables by loading them together on a common principal factor.

(5)

Table 1. Canopy temperature depression (CTD), relative stress injury (RSI), seed yield attributes and heat susceptibility Index (HSI) of chickpea genotypes under normal and late sown conditions. (Genotypes arranged with increasing HSI values)

---S.No Genotypes CTD (- oC) RSI (%) Plant height Biological yield Grain yield HSI

(cm) (g plant-1) (g plant-1)

NS LS NS LS NS LS NS LS NS LS

---Tolerant genotypes

(6)

43 PBG 1 4.9 2.6 26 32 66 64 34.3 27.4 13.9 9.6 0.84 44 Pusa 372 5.5 2.7 30 36 58 54 26.1 14.1 6.9 4.7 0.86 45 BG 1006 4.7 2.9 26 29 65 59 33.2 21.4 10.5 7.1 0.87 46 IPC 2001-2 5.1 3.3 34 36 60 53 23.9 21.2 9.3 6.3 0.87 47 KPG 59 3.8 2.4 28 34 56 49 23.5 17.8 7.1 4.8 0.87 48 H04-11 5.3 3.2 30 34 73 69 42.2 39.3 14.5 9.8 0.87 49 Sadabahar 5.7 3.1 36 40 57 54 24.3 17.4 7.3 4.9 0.88 50 GPF 2 5.4 2.8 29 33 61 58 31.4 29.1 12.4 8.3 0.89 51 HC 5 4.5 2.1 26 36 79 75 54.7 29.4 14.7 10.4 0.90 52 JG 11 5.6 3.2 24 27 52 46 43.2 25.2 14.3 9.4 0.92 53 L 551 4.0 2.4 34 36 66 64 26.8 20.9 13.0 8.4 0.95 54 RSG 2 2.9 1.9 30 33 65 41 36.2 23.2 7.9 5.1 0.95 55 Vijay 6.8 2.9 31 36 56 50 44.1 22.8 8.3 5.3 0.97 56 IPC 97-67 5.8 3.6 26 28 65 63 25.3 17.6 7.7 4.9 0.98

Sensitive genotypes

57 Annegiri 4.0 2.6 26 29 57 52 22.9 21.5 7.5 4.7 1.00 58 BGM 413 5.3 3.1 28 34 52 44 35.9 22.4 11.6 7.3 1.00 59 IPC 95-1 5.6 3.4 33 35 59 51 45.4 31.9 11.4 7.1 1.01 60 Pusa 212 5.5 2.9 25 32 58 55 51.6 33.2 18.5 11.6 1.01 61 Radhey 5.2 3.4 27 32 63 59 28.5 19.6 10.4 6.4 1.03 62 GNG 1292 5.9 2.7 28 31 70 58 42.4 32.2 12.3 7.6 1.03 63 PG 96006 4.7 2.1 28 30 74 70 45.5 38.0 18.2 11.1 1.05 64 BG 396 5.8 3.4 36 40 62 63 41.3 32.6 15.0 9.1 1.06 65 IPC 2000-41 4.1 2.6 30 32 74 56 26 16.8 9.6 5.8 1.06 66 E 100 Ym 5.0 3.2 29 31 53 49 45.2 21.7 12.6 7.6 1.07 67 Avrodhi 4.8 2.9 30 36 65 60 24.6 20.6 10.6 6.4 1.07 68 IPC 2000-33 4.8 2.8 36 41 68 52 46.1 31.5 14.7 8.8 1.08 69 Pusa 312 4.8 2.6 29 33 55 52 28.4 23.2 13.3 7.9 1.09 70 ICCV 2 2.8 1.9 32 38 56 52 45.2 24.3 10.6 6.3 1.09 71 JKG 1 5.7 3.2 32 38 54 51 54.2 38.9 18.3 10.9 1.09 72 Virat 3.7 2.3 26 32 64 63 40.4 28.1 12.7 7.5 1.10 73 GNG 469 5.0 2.4 30 36 73 63 45.9 40.7 14.3 8.4 1.11 74 Katila 5.3 3.2 33 36 61 53 42.6 32.4 15.4 8.9 1.14 75 PG 12 5.6 2.6 28 36 52 48 37.2 36.2 14.2 8.2 1.14 76 Pant G 114 5.1 3.3 30 34 63 59 32.2 26.2 10.9 6.3 1.14 77 ICCV 37 4.6 2.1 26 32 51 49 33.2 21.2 10.6 6.1 1.14 78 M1 6.7 3.2 29 36 61 60 34.5 26.3 11.0 6.3 1.15 79 C 15 4.7 2.2 32 36 65 56 28.3 24.4 11.0 5.3 1.15 80 HK 98-155 5.7 2.9 34 40 68 55 63.1 50.8 13.6 7.7 1.17 81 H 208 6.1 4.8 36 42 68 52 38.3 30.2 14.6 8.1 1.20 82 H03-56 5.2 3.1 32 36 70 68 42.1 33.2 16.4 8.9 1.20 83 Pusa 329 5.7 2.3 35 38 67 55 38.6 26.4 12.9 6.7 1.21 84 C 20 5.9 2.8 34 39 68 63 35.2 26.3 10.7 4.7 1.22

Most sensitive genotypes

(7)

92 Pusa 391 5.8 3.1 38 42 65 58 27.3 17.0 10.6 5.4 1.32 93 C 16 5.3 3.6 32 38 63 62 27.7 15.5 9.0 4.9 1.32 94 PBG 5 3.2 1.9 36 41 64 63 54.8 31.3 16.6 8.4 1.33 95 Phule G-5 6.5 2.9 32 38 64 62 35.2 25.6 14.9 7.5 1.34 96 PDG 3 5.4 2.4 38 42 59 52 41.6 15.4 8.5 4.2 1.36 97 RSG 44 6.4 3.8 29 37 54 48 44.4 38.2 18.3 8.9 1.38 98 Pusa 1003 5.9 2.9 24 29 60 59 70.3 36.7 24.2 11.7 1.39 99 H04-45 5.8 2.6 37 44 67 62 45.7 41.3 15.6 7.5 1.40 100 Chaffa 6.1 3.6 36 40 59 50 33.0 29.2 9.2 4.3 1.43 101 H04-44 6.6 3.4 34 41 67 64 43.5 34.5 15.3 7.1 1.44 102 ICCV 14880 5.2 2.4 37 42 65 49 30.4 13.3 10.5 4.8 1.46 103 IPC 94-94 5.0 3.2 34 37 49 42 20.1 6.2 5.9 2.7 1.46 104 RSG 807 5.9 3.8 32 40 59 52 33.6 29.8 12.3 5.6 1.47 105 GG 2 4.2 2.8 35 39 54 55 43.3 31.5 18.8 8.5 1.48 106 IPC 2000-45 4.6 2.2 40 42 73 57 25.8 13.3 11.8 5.0 1.55 107 Pusa 1053 5.1 2.6 38 44 57 54 56.4 35.2 28.1 11.9 1.55 108 IPC 92-39 5.8 2.1 38 42 74 62 40.4 21.7 12.8 5.2 1.60 109 JGG 1 5.6 3.1 35 39 59 50 31.2 26.8 14.1 5.4 1.66 110 C 235 5.0 3.8 35 39 63 52 33.5 19.5 13.1 5.0 1.67 111 GL 769 3.5 3.2 38 42 61 60 36.7 20.5 14.6 5.3 1.72 112 JG 74 6.7 3.9 36 44 64 57 62.5 25.7 18.1 6.4 1.74 113 SAKI 9516 5.7 3.3 36 43 59 47 28.2 18.1 11.4 3.6 1.84 114 GCP 105 5.3 3.0 40 44 57 51 26.1 8.7 10.5 3.3 1.85 115 Pusa 244 5.7 3.4 42 50 63 54 34.1 11.6 12.5 3.7 1.90 General Means 5.5 3.1 30.1 34.7 61.9 55.6 36.4 25.8 12.3 7.7 0.99 CD at 5% 0.9 0.6 1.7 1.2 2.3 2.5 3.9 1.9 1.1 0.8 0.23 CV (%) 5.2 4.6 3.2 4.9 2.4 28 6.7 4.7 4.7 6.4 14.5

---towards the variability (25.19%) followed by principal component II (17.61%) and principal component III (15.01%). The first principal factor (PF) showed high loading four yield variables i.e. seed yield plant-1, biological yield plant-1 and pod per plant-1 and HSI. The principal factors 2 also ascribed for the yield variables

i.e. plant height and 100 seed weight. The PF 3 showed high loading for RSI and CTD. Thus, this can be designated as physiological factor (Table 3).

Similarly, under late sown conditions, the first four principal components together account for 70.75% of the variability. The first principal component contributed maximum towards the variability (19.23%) followed by principal component II (18.74%), principal Component III (18.05 %) for HSI and seed yield plant-1and principal component IV (14.7%). The first principal factor (PF) showed high loading for two yield variables i.e. plant height and 100 seed weight. The principal factors 2 also ascribed yield variables i.e. pod plant-1and biological yield plant-1. The PF 3 showed high loading for HSI and seed

yield plant-1. This can be designated as yield factor. Principal Factor 4 had high loading of RSI and CTD and hence can be designated as physiological factor (Table 4). Berger et al. (2004) conducted principal component analysis in chickpea genotypes and transferred many

Table 2. Factor loadings of different characters with respect to different principal factors (Varimax rotation) in chickpea genotypes under normal sown conditions

---Characters/Principal PF 1 PF 2 PF 3

Factors

(8)

---Table 4. Total variance explained by different principal components in chickpea genotypes under normal (NS) and late (LS) sown conditions

---Principal Eigen value Per cent variance Cumulative variance

component NS LS NS LS NS LS

---1 2.30 2.20 25.19 19.23 25.19 19.23

2 1.24 1.28 17.61 18.74 42.81 37.97

3 1.08 1.11 15.00 18.05 57.82 56.02

4 1.05 14.72 70.75

---Table 3. Factor loadings of different characters with respect to different principal factors (Varimax rotation) in chickpea genotypes under late sown conditions

---Characters/Principal PF 1 PF 2 PF 3 PF 4 Factors

---100 seed weight 0.836* -0.191 -0.036 0.033 Plant height 0.691* 0.221 0.076 -0.087 Pod per plant -0.077 0.899* 0.063 -0.060 Biological yield 0.496 0.687* -0.345 0.067 HSI 0.165 0.112 0.912* 0.056 Seed yield 0.376 0.475 -0.690* -0.073 RSI 0.156 0.079 0.081 0.798* CTD 0.213 0.130 0.003 -0.717*

---correlated variables into a few independent principal components explaining much of the variability of the original set.

Principal factor scores were calculated for all the genotypes for all the three and four principal factors under normal and late sown conditions respectively,

using Anderson-Rubin method and were utilized in finding genotypes superior for different factors i.e. for all the characters cumulatively ascribed to that factor. A high value of principal factor score of a particular genotype in a particular principal factor denotes high values for those variables in that genotype, which that factor is representing. The chickpea genotypes were plotted on graphs utilizing their principal factor scores based on two factors i.e. PF 1 and 3 under normal and PF 3 and 4 under late sown conditions as these two principal factors are responsible for seed yield plant-1 and physiological factors (Fig. 2 a, b). The chickpea genotypes which found place towards the better end of both the factors were supposed to be superior for those two factors and hence superior for all the characters which both of these factors are defining.

The chickpea genotypes Pusa 240, JG 218, ICCV 92944, RAU 52, HK 94-34, KWR 108 found place on the negative end of principal factor 3 and 4 were having low HSI, RSI and high CTD values were identified as

(9)

thermo-insensitive thus showing maximum tolerance against heat stress under late sown conditions. In addition to above, chickpea genotypes IPC 98-12, CSG 8962, GCP 101, CSJD-844, GNG 146, M2, ICCV 4958, Pusa 209, Pusa 267, BG 276 and GNG 663 also had low HSI values but there were higher values of RSI and CTD. Therefore, it is concluded that these genotypes in future may prove better for developing heat tolerant genotypes and can be used in hybridization programme of chickpea.

REFERENCES

Bahuguna, R.N., Shah, D., Jha, J., Pandey, S.K., Khetarpal, S., Anand, A. and Pal, M. (2012). Effect of mild temperature stress on reproductive dynamics and yield

of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Indian J. Plant

Physiol.17: 1-8.

Basu, P.S., Ali, M. and Chaturvedi, S.K. (2011). Terminal heat stress adversely affects chickpea productivity in northern India-strategies to improve thermo tolerance in the crop under climate change. In: Pandey, V. (ed.) Impact of Climate Change on Agriculture, ISPRS Archives XXXVIII-8/W3 Workshop Proceedings, pp. 189-193.

Berger, J.D., Turner, N.C., Siddique, K.H.M., Knight, E.J., Brinsmead, R.B., Mock, I., Edmondson, C. and Khan, T.N. (2004). Genotype by environment studies across Australia reveal the importance of phenology for

chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) improvement. Aust. J.

Agri. Res.55: 1071-1084.

Berger, J.D., Milroy, S.P., Turner, N.C., Siddique, K.H.M., Imtiaz, M. and Malhotra, R. (2011). Chickpea evolution has selected for contrasting phenological mechanisms

among different habitats. Euphytica. 180: 1–15.

Cornish, K., Radin, J.W., Turcotte, E.L. and Zeiger, E. (1991). Enhanced photosynthesis and stomatal conductance of

pima cotton (Gossypium barbadense L.) bred for

increased yield. Plant Physiol. 97: 484-489.

Egli, B.D. (2004). Seed-fill duration and yield of grain crops.

Adv. Agron. 83: 243-279.

Fischer, R.A. and Maurer, R. (1978). Drought resistance in

spring heat cultivars, I. Grain yields response. Aust. J.

Agri. Res.29: 897–912.

Kaiser, H.F. (1958). The varimax criterion for analytic rotation

in factor analysis. Psychometrika. 23: 187.

Kalra, N., Chakraborty, D., Sharma, A., Rai, H.K., Jolly, M., Chander, S., Kumar, P.R., Bhadraray, S., Barman, D., Mittal, R.B., Lal, M. and Sehgal, M. (2008). Effect of temperature on yield of some winter crops in northwest

India. Curr. Sci. 94: 82–88.

Khetarpal, S., Pal, M. and Snehlata (2009). Effect of elevated temperature on growth and physiological characteristics

in chickpea cultivars. Indian J. Plant Physiol. 14:

377-383.

Krishnamurthy, L., Gaur, P.M., Basu, P.S., Chaturvedi, S. K., Tripathi, S., Vadez, V., Rathore, A., Varshney, R.K. and Gowda, C.L.L. (2011). Large genetic variation for heat

tolerance in the reference collection of chickpea (Cicer

arietinum L.) germplasm. Plant Gen. Resources:

Characterization and Utilization 9: 59–69.

Srinivasan, A., Takeda, H. and Senboku, T. (1996). Heat tolerance in food legumes as evaluated by cell membrane thermo stability and chlorophyll fluorescence

techniques. Euphytica 88: 35-45.

Sullivan, C.Y. and Ross, W.M. (1979). Selecting for drought

and heat resistance in grain sorghum. In : Mussell, H.

and Staples, R. (eds.)Stress physiology in crop plants.

John Wiley, New York, USA, pp. 263-281.

Titz, W. (1983). Multivariate analysis of polyploid complex

Vateriana officinalis. In: J. Felseinstein (ed.) Numerical

Taxonomy, NATO ASI Series, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

Wahid, A., Gelani, S., Ashraf, M. and Foolad, M.R. (2007).

Heat tolerance in plants: An overview. Environ. Exp.

Bot.61: 199-223.

Wang, J.Y.T., Gan, F., Clarke, F. and McDonald, C.L. (2006). Response of chickpea yield to high temperature stress

during reproductive development. Crop Sci. 46:

2171-2178.

Yang, W., Peng, S., Dionisio-Sese Rebecca, M.L., Laza, C. and Visperas, R.M. (2008). Grain filling duration, crucial determinant of genotypic variation of grain yield in

field-grown tropical irrigated rice. Field Crops Res.105:

Figure

Fig. 1. Trend of daily minimum and maximum temperaturefrom 15th March to 15th April prior to physiological maturityunder late sown conditions
Table 1. Canopy temperature depression (CTD), relative stress injury (RSI), seed yield attributes and heatsusceptibility Index (HSI) of chickpea genotypes under normal and late sown conditions
Table 2. Factor loadings of different characters withrespect to different principal factors (Varimax rotation)in chickpea genotypes under normal sown conditions----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3. Factor loadings of different characters withrespect to different principal factors (Varimax rotation)in chickpea genotypes under late sown conditions----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

References

Related documents

(The petitioner conceded that fees derived from conducting other insurance programs were unrelated business taxable income not substantially related to its exempt purposes.) In

We use two complementary (anonymized) datasets: traffic logs provided by a European mobile network operator (MNO) with 19M customers, and traffic logs from 5,000 users of Lumen,

At student level, home language, intention to leave school early, socioeconomic status, grade level, cultural capital, and books in the home are significantly associated

Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for patients following open surgical aortic valve replacement and transcatheter aortic valve implant: a systematic review and

This dissertation investigates the use of an Intra-City Affordability Index to better understand the transport expenditure and travel patterns of public transport commuters within

For these reasons, intravalley acoustic phonon scattering can sufficiently increase the backward flow of hot electrons and decrease the peak of the mean velocity of electrons in

The effect of additional optical rotation observed earlier in a number of absorbing non-centrosymmetric crystals under the influence of external magnetic field [1–3], which has