LEAF WATER POTENTIAL AS SCREENING TECHNIQUE FOR DROUGHT RESISTANCE IN PIGEONPEA [Cajanus cajan L Millsp.]

PRASANNA SAKHARE¹*, B. FAKRUDIN², R. LOKESHA^3
1Wheat scheme, MARS, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, 580005, India
²Department of Biotechnology and Crop Improvement, Post Graduate centre, Bengaluru, 560065, India
³Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding, College of Agriculture, University of Agricultural Sciences, Raichur, 584101, India
* Corresponding Author : jprasannavs@gmail.com

Received : 17-05-2018     Accepted : 27-05-2018     Published : 30-05-2018
Volume : 10     Issue : 10       Pages : 6126 - 6127
Int J Agr Sci 10.10 (2018):6126-6127

Keywords : Pigeonpea, Leaf water potential (LWP)¸ Drought, Cajanus cajan
Academic Editor : Abdelsalam Mohammed Ibrahim, Dr Abhijit Borah
Conflict of Interest : None declared
Acknowledgements/Funding : Author thankful to University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, 580005, India
Author Contribution : All author equally contributed

Leaf water potential (LWP) represents a good indicator of the water status of plants, and continuous monitoring of it can be useful in research and field applications such as scheduling irrigation. Assessment of Leaf water potential, a physiological trait indication of drought tolerance among 20 genotypes of Pigeonpea chosen from core collection was done. Drought was induced by withholding irrigation at 30 days after sowing and following which alternate days LWP was monitored. LWP of stressed plants decreased rapidly compared to control plants. After 33 days of drought period a reduction of 71 % in LWP was recorded compared to control. At the end of stress period maximum LWP was recorded by ICP-8863 (-12.79 bars). Whereas control was at -4.10 bars. Upon re-watering, the genotypes CORG-9701, GRG-206, Gullyal white, ICP-8863, ICP-87119, ICP-96058, TS-3 and UPAS-120 had shown the recovery while rest died.

1. Jones M.M., Osmond C.B. and Turner N.C. (1982) Australian Journal of Plant Physiology, 7,193-205.
2. Sullivan C.Y., Yoshikawa F., Eastin J.D., Ross W.M., Clegg M. D., Maranville J.W. and Hallister A.L. (1971) Annual Report No. 5. University of Bebraska coop. Res. Div. of ARS/USDA, RockfetLer Foundation, 9-23.
3. Blum A. (2005) Australian Journal of Agriculture Research, 56, 1159-1168.
4. Isabelle Maréchaux, Megan K. Bartlett, Lawren Sack, Christopher Baraloto, Julien Engel, Emilie Joetzjer and Jérôme Chave (2015) Functional Ecology, 29, 10.
5. Ioannis G. Argyrokastritisa, Papastylianoub P.T. and Alexandrisa S. (2015) Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia, 4, 463-470.
6. Scholander P. F., Hammel H.T., Hemmingsen E.A. and Bradstreet E.D. (1964) Proceeds of National Academy of Science of the USA, 52, 119-25.
7. Keller F. and Ludlow M.M. (1993) Journal of Experimental Botany, 44(265), 1351-1359
8. Ludlow M.M., Muchow R.C.(1990) Advances in Agronomy, 43, 107–153.
9. Flower D.J. and Ludlow M.M. (1986) Leaves, Plant, Cell and Environment, 9(1), 33-40.
10. Ekanayake I., O’Toole, J.C., Garrity D. P. and Masajo T. M. (1985) Crop Science, 25, 927-933.
11. Bashar M.K., Das R.K., Islam M.A., Miah N.M. and Ahmed S. (1990) IRRN, 15, 12-13.
12. Jongdee B., Fukai S., Cooper M.(2002) Field Crops Research, 76(2–3), 153-163.
13. Matin M.A., Jarvis H. Brown and Hayden Ferguson (1987) Agronomy Journal, 81,100-105.
14. Scholander P.F., Hammel H.T., Hemmingsen E.A. and Bradstreet E.D. (1964) Proceeds of National Academy of Science of the USA, 52, 119-25.
15. Jain M., Nandwal A. S., Kundu B.S., Kumar B., Sheoran I.S., Kumar N., Mann A. and Kukreja S. (2006) Biologia plantarum, 50, 303-306.
16. Liberato M.A.R., Gonçalves J.F.C., Chevreuil L.R., Junior A.R.N., Fernandes A.V. and Junior U.M. S. (2006) Brazalian Journal Plant Physiology, 18(2), 315-323.