PHYSIOLOGICAL AND BIOCHEMICAL STUDIES IN CLUSTER BEAN [CYAMOPSIS TETRAGONOLOBA (L.) TAUB.] AS INFLUENCED BY LIGHT AND MOISTURE STRESS

SREERAG¹*, M.M. VIJI², S. ROY³, R.V. MANJU⁴, R. BEENA^5
1Department of Plant Physiology, College of Agriculture, Vellayani, Kerala Agricultural University, Thiruvananthapuram, 695522, India
²Department of Plant Physiology, College of Agriculture, Vellayani, Kerala Agricultural University, Thiruvananthapuram, 695522, India
³Department of Plant Physiology, College of Agriculture, Vellayani, Kerala Agricultural University, Thiruvananthapuram, 695522, India
⁴Department of Plant Physiology, College of Agriculture, Vellayani, Kerala Agricultural University, Thiruvananthapuram, 695522, India
⁵Department of Plant Physiology, College of Agriculture, Vellayani, Kerala Agricultural University, Thiruvananthapuram, 695522, India
* Corresponding Author : sree007rag@gmail.com

Received : 01-08-2020     Accepted : 13-08-2020     Published : 15-08-2020
Volume : 12     Issue : 15       Pages : 10092 - 10096
Int J Agr Sci 12.15 (2020):10092-10096

Keywords : Shade, Field capacity, Physiological, Biochemical parameters
Academic Editor : Sanjeev Kumar
Conflict of Interest : None declared
Acknowledgements/Funding : Authors are thankful to Department of Plant Physiology, College of Agriculture, Vellayani, Kerala Agricultural University, Thiruvananthapuram, 695522, India
Author Contribution : All authors equally contributed

A field study was conducted in the Department of Plant Physiology, College of agriculture, Vellayani; in order to assess the physiological and biochemical changes taking place in cluster bean [Cyamopsis tetragonoloba (L.) Taub.] under the influence of light and moisture stress. The variety used for the study was KAU Suruchi. The results revealed that physiological parameters like plant height, shoot weight, crop growth rate, relative growth rate, photosynthetic rate and transpiration rate were significantly affected at all the critical growth stages. The treatment T6 (25% shade + 50% field capacity) recorded the highest plant height, whereas the lowest transpiration rate was recorded by T3 (50% shade + 50% field capacity), whereas the control, T7 (open + 100% field capacity) showed the highest values in all other parameters studied. The no. of primary branches per plant was significantly affected only in the flowering stage; root weight was significantly influenced in the vegetative and flowering stages; whereas the root: shoot ratio was significantly affected only in the vegetative stage. In the case of biochemical parameters, the chlorophyll content was found to be significantly higher in treatment T6, whereas the total soluble protein content was the highest in control, T7.

1. Agami A. R. (2013) J. Applied Sci. Res., 9 (11), 5701-5711.
2. Arora R.N. and Pahuja S.K. (2008) Plant Mutation Reports, 2(1), 7-9.
3. Chaturvedi G.S. and Ingram K.T. (1989) Philipp J Crop Sci, 14(2), 61-67.
4. Dai Y., Shen Z., Liu Y., Wang L., Hannaway D. and Lu H. (2009) Environmental and experimental botany, 65(2-3), 177-182.
5. Diethelm R. and Shibles R. (1989) Journal of Plant Physiology, 134(1), 70-74.
6. Evans J.R. and Seemann J.R. (1989) Photosynthesis, 8, 183-205.
7. Fails B.S., Lewis A. and Bardew J.A. (1982) J. Aro. Soc. Hortic. Sci., 107, 754-757.
8. Gaurav A. K., Raju D.V.S., Janaki ram T., Singh B., Jain R. and Gopalakrishnan S. (2015) Indian Journal of Agricultural. Sciences, 85, 931-935.
9. Giri G. (2001) Indian Journal of Agronomy, 46(2), 304-308.
10. Hedge D. M. (1989) Indian J. Agron., 34 (1), 30-34.
11. Hirasawa T., Nakahara M., Izumi T., Iwamoto Y. and Ishihara K. (1998) Plant Production Science, 1(1), 8-17.
12. Jensen P.J., Hangarter R.P. and Eslelte M. (1998) Pl. Physiol., 116, 485-462.
13. Joseph M.C., Randall D.D. and Nelson C.J., (1981) Plant Physiology, 68(4), 894-898.
14. Karimi M.M. and Siddique K.H.M. (1991) Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 42(1), 13-20.
15. Kumar R., Sharma S., Ramesh K., Pathania V. and Prasad R. (2014) Journal of Essential Oil Research, 26(5), 348-358.
16. Kumar S. (2005) MSc. (Ag.) thesis, Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, 113p.
17. Lambers S.K., Chaplin F. and Pons T.L. (1998) Plant Physiol. Ecol., Springer-Verlag, New York, 540
18. Lawlor D.W. (2009) Annals of Botany, 103(4), 543-549.
19. Misra R.D. & Ahmed M. (1987) Manual on Irrigation Agronomy, Oxford & IBH Publication, New Delhi, 412.
20. Mittler R. (2006) Trends in plant science, 11(1), 15-19.
21. Muthuchelian K., Paliwal K. and Gnanam A. (1989) Proceedings: Plant Sciences, 99(6), 539-546.
22. Noggle G.R. and Fritz G.J. (1979) Introductory Plant Physiology. Prentice Hall of India Private Limited, New Delhi, 688.
23. Rao N.K.S. and Bhatt R.M. (1988) Photosynthetica, 22(3), 377-382.
24. Saidi A., Ookawa T. and Hirasawa T. (2010) Plant Production Science, 13(3), 261-268.
25. Smittle D.A., Dickens W.L. and Stansell J.R. (1994) J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci., 119(5), 936-939.
26. Taiz L. and Zeiger E. (2010) Plant Physiology, (6th Ed.), Sinauer Associates. Massachusetts, 690
27. Zelitch L. (1971) Photosynthesis, photorespiration and plant productivity. Academic Press, New York, 374.
28. Zhang J., Liu J., Yang C., Du S. and Yang W. (2016) South African Journal of Botany, 105, 279-287.