Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Early Access

Comparative analysis of root system architecture and sulfur acquisition among chickpea cultivars under contrasting sulfur nutrition in hydroponic cultures

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.12039
Submitted
29 September 2025
Published
09-01-2026

Abstract

Sulfur (S) is an essential element for plant growth, development and defense against biotic and abiotic stresses. Sulfate assimilation in plants is demand-driven and low soil S severely impairs growth and reduces seed protein quality. Like many legumes, chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) seeds are characterized by suboptimal levels of cysteine and methionine. Therefore, it is imperative to screen the cultivars for maximum sulfate assimilation and utilization efficiency. In the present study, we screened a total of sixteen chickpea cultivars based on root system architecture (RSA) under contrasting S regimes-S-starvation and S-sufficient conditions-highlighting the potential correlations between altered root plasticity, corresponding dry mass and S allocation within plants at the whole-plant level. The root morphological traits were measured and the values of RSA traits for Desi cultivars (PUSA256, PUSA547, PUSA5028 and PUSA362) and Kabuli cultivars (PUSA1003 and PUSA1053) were significantly higher even under S-starvation conditions, maximizing the concurrent increase in sulfur acquisition, indicating their sulfur efficiency. However, the fold decrease of these traits, dry mass and sulfur content at S-starvation was higher for Kabuli cultivars, coinciding with plant chlorosis, indicating their susceptibility to S-starvation stress. Additionally, cultivars such as PUSA3022, KAK2, PUSA5023, BGD112 and BGD72 displayed drastic declines in root traits and sulfur content under S-starvation, highlighting their limited capacity to adapt via root plasticity, particularly in lateral root development. These findings emphasize the importance of root morphogenetic traits in sulfur efficiency and provide a basis for breeding chickpea cultivars with improved nutrient use efficiency.

References

  1. 1. Ahmed HG, Naeem M, Faisal A, Fatima N, Tariq S, Owais M. Enriching the content of proteins and essential amino acids in legumes. In: Nadeem MA, Baloch FS, Fiaz S, Aasim M, Habyarimana E, Sönmez O, Zencirci N, editors. Legumes biofortification. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2023. p. 417–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20934-3_18
  2. 2. Nagesh CR, Prashat GR, Goswami S, Bharadwaj C, Praveen S, Ramesh SV, et al. Sulfate transport and metabolism: strategies to improve the seed protein quality. Mol Biol Rep. 2024;51(1):242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11033-023-09063-6
  3. 3. Takahashi H, Kopriva S, Giordano M, Saito K, Hell R. Sulfur assimilation in photosynthetic organisms: molecular functions and regulations of transporters and assimilatory enzymes. Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2011;62(1):157–84. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-arplant-042110-103921
  4. 4. Abdin MZ, Akmal M, Ram M, Nafis T, Alam P, Nadeem M, et al. Constitutive expression of high-affinity sulfate transporter (HAST) gene in Indian mustard showed enhanced sulfur uptake and assimilation. Protoplasma. 2011;248(3):591–600. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00709-010-0205-4
  5. 5. Kopriva S, Malagoli M, Takahashi H. Sulfur nutrition: impacts on plant development, metabolism and stress responses. J Exp Bot. 2019;70(16):4069–73. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erz319
  6. 6. Zhou J, Zhang H, Huang Y, Jiao S, Zheng X, Lu W, et al. Impact of sulfur deficiency and excess on the growth and development of soybean seedlings. Int J Mol Sci. 2024;25(20):11253. https:// doi.org/10.3390/ijms252011253
  7. 7. Pandurangan S, Sandercock M, Beyaert R, Conn KL, Hou A, Marsolais F. Differential response to sulfur nutrition of two common bean genotypes differing in storage protein composition. Front Plant Sci. 2015;6:92. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2015.00092
  8. 8. Buchner P, Takahashi H, Hawkesford MJ. Plant sulphate transporters: co-ordination of uptake, intracellular and long-distance transport. J Exp Bot. 2004;55(404):1765–73. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erh206
  9. 9. Li Q, Wu Y, Chen W, Jin R, Kong F, Ke Y, et al. Cultivar differences in root nitrogen uptake ability of maize hybrids. Front Plant Sci. 2017;8:1060. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.01060
  10. 10. Lopez G, Ahmadi SH, Amelung W, Athmann M, Ewert F, Gaiser T, et al. Nutrient deficiency effects on root architecture and root-to-shoot ratio in arable crops. Front Plant Sci. 2023;13:1067498. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.1067498
  11. 11. Xue H, Liu J, Oo S, Patterson C, Liu W, Li Q, et al. Differential responses of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) to nitrogen deficiency in the root morpho-physiological characteristics and potential microRNA-mediated mechanisms. Front Plant Sci. 2022;13:928229. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fpls.2022.928229
  12. 12. Shang L, Cai S, Ma L, Wang Y, Abduweli A, Wang M, et al. Seedling root QTLs analysis on dynamic development and upon nitrogen deficiency stress in upland cotton. Euphytica. 2016;207(3):645–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-015-1586-9
  13. 13. Gao Y, Li X, Tian QY, Wang BL, Zhang WH. Sulfur deficiency had different effects on Medicago truncatula ecotypes A17 and R108 in terms of growth, root morphology and nutrient contents. J Plant Nutr. 2016;39(3):301–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/01904167.2015.1022263
  14. 14. Varin S, Cliquet JB, Personeni E, Avice JC, Lemauviel-Lavenant S. How does sulphur availability modify N acquisition of white clover (Trifolium repens L.)? J Exp Bot. 2010;61(1):225–34. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erp304
  15. 15. Chesnin L, Yien CH. Turbidimetric determination of available sulfates. Soil Sci Soc Am J. 1951:149–51.
  16. 16. Koralewska A, Buchner P, Stuiver CE, Posthumus FS, Kopriva S, Hawkesford MJ, et al. Expression and activity of sulfate transporters and APS reductase in curly kale in response to sulfate deprivation and re-supply. J Plant Physiol. 2009;166(2):168–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jplph.2008.03.018
  17. 17. Maas FM, Hoffmann I, Van Harmelen MJ, De Kok LJ. Refractometric determination of sulphate and other anions in plants separated by high-performance liquid chromatography. Plant Soil. 1986;91 (1):129–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02181892
  18. 18. Aarabi F, Naake T, Fernie AR, Hoefgen R. Coordinating sulfur pools under sulfate deprivation. Trends Plant Sci. 2020;25(12):1227–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2020.07.009
  19. 19. Chandra N, Pandey N. Role of sulfur nutrition in plant and seed metabolism of Glycine max L. J Plant Nutr. 2016;39(8):1103–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/01904167.2015.1087069
  20. 20. Linkohr BI, Williamson LC, Fitter AH, Leyser HO. Nitrate and phosphate availability and distribution have different effects on root system architecture of Arabidopsis. Plant J. 2002;29(6):751–60. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-313X.2002.01251.x
  21. 21. Li WJ, He P, Gao Q, Jin JY, Hou YP, Yin CX, et al. Dry matter formation and nitrogen uptake in two maize cultivars differing in nitrogen use efficiency. J Plant Nutr Fertil. 2010;16(1):51–7.
  22. 22. Kimura Y, Ushiwatari T, Suyama A, Tominaga-Wada R, Wada T, Maruyama-Nakashita A. Contribution of root hair development to sulfate uptake in Arabidopsis. Plants. 2019;8(4):106. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants8040106
  23. 23. Chung JS, Kim HC, Yun SM, Kim HJ, Kim CS, Lee JJ. Metabolite analysis of lettuce in response to sulfur nutrition. Horticulturae. 2022;8(8):734. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae8080734
  24. 24. Li Q, Gao Y, Yang A. Sulfur homeostasis in plants. Int J Mol Sci. 2020;21(23):8926. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21238926
  25. 25. Gruber BD, Giehl RF, Friedel S, von Wirén N. Plasticity of the Arabidopsis root system under nutrient deficiencies. Plant Physiol. 2013;163(1):161–79. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.113.218453
  26. 26. Zhao Q, Wu Y, Gao L, Ma J, Li CY, Xiang CB. Sulfur nutrient availability regulates root elongation by affecting root indole-3- acetic acid levels and the stem cell niche. J Integr Plant Biol. 2014;56 (12):1151–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/jipb.12244

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.