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

Research Articles

Vol. 12 No. Sp2 (2025): Current Trends in Plant Science and Microbiome for Sustainability

Screening and evaluation of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) genotypes for salinity stress tolerance: A biochemical, physiological and yield assessment

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.5365
Submitted
29 September 2024
Published
19-06-2025

Abstract

Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.), an important legume crop extensively cultivated across India, is adversely affected by a range of biotic and abiotic stresses, with soil salinity being a major factor that significantly reduces its productivity. Among several alternatives available for salinity management developing tolerant cultivars is the judicious and sustainable approach. The present investigation was undertaken to screen 20 chickpea genotypes in pots, under controlled conditions by treating with 60 mM & 120 mM NaCl concentration in split doses at sowing and 15 days to sowing (DAS). Observation on various physiological, biochemical and alternation in yield contributing parameters were recorded during the pod initiation stage and used for statistical analysis i.e. correlation and path analysis. All the traits show significant variation at both 1 % and 5 % level of significance. Results revealed that there was a significant decrease in total chlorophyll and relative water content in susceptible genotypes (ICC 249 & ICC 247) while salt tolerant genotypes (ICC 5439 & GNG 1581) showed significantly lower reduction in these traits. A significant increase was observed in lipid peroxidation and proline content while non- significant increase in protein content in tolerant genotypes as compared to sensitive genotypes. The results showed that the total proline content increased due to the production of stress-related proteins during salinity stress. Based on the results of the study, ICC5439 and GNG 1581 are highly tolerant chickpea genotypes under salinity stress conditions. ICC 6050, ICC 251, ICC 252 and ICC 262 are medium- tolerant genotypes, while ICC253, ICC 247 and ICC 249 are highly susceptible genotypes. The remaining are minimum tolerant and sensitive genotypes. The study further revealed significant direct associations among traits, emphasizing the feasibility of effective selection for improving chickpea characteristics. The findings offer valuable insights into the tolerant genotypes, guiding future breeding and selection programs.

References

  1. 1. Merga B, Haji J. Economic importance of chickpea: Production, value and world trade. Cogent Food and Agri. 2019;5(1):1615718. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2019.1615718
  2. 2. Anonymous. FAOSTAT statistical database. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO-UN), FAO, Rome. Accessed on December 28, 2022.Available at https://www.fao.org/statistics/en/
  3. 3. Anonymous. USDA, 2021. Accessed on August 30, 2023. Available at https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/fooddetails/174288/nutrients Mercader J. Mozambican grass seed consumption during the Middle Stone Age. Sci. 2009;326(5960):1680‒83. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1173966
  4. 4. Gupta AK. Origin of agriculture and domestication of plants and animals is linked to early Holocene climate amelioration. Curr Sci. 2004;10:54‒59. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24107979
  5. 5. Shaffer L. "Southernisation", agricultural and pastoral societies in ancient and classical history, edited by Michael Adas. Temple University Press; 2000. ISBN 1-56639-832-0
  6. 6. Harris DR, Gosden C. The origins and spread of agriculture and pastoralism in Eurasia: Crops, fields, flocks and herds, Routledge, 1996. ISBN 1-85728-538-7
  7. 7. Lal R. Thematic evolution of ISTRO: transition in scientific issues and research focus from 1955 to 2000. Soil and Tillage Res. 2001 Aug 1;61(1-2):3‒12. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-1987(01)
  8. 00184-2
  9. 8. Bruggeman A, Hamdy A, Touchan H, Karajeh F, Oweis T. Screening of some chickpea genotypes for salinity tolerance in a Mediterranean environment. Regional Action Programme (RAP): Water Resources Management and Water Saving in Irrigated Agriculture (WASIAPROJECT). 2003;171‒79. https://om.ciheam.org/article.php?IDPDF=3001803
  10. 9. Zhu JK. Plant salt tolerance. Trends in Plant Sci. 2001;6(2):66‒71. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1360-1385(00)01838-0
  11. 10. Flowers TJ, Gaur PM, Gowda CL, Krishnamurthy L, Samineni S, Siddique KH, et al. Salt sensitivity in chickpea. Plant, Cell Environ. 2010;33(4):490‒509. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2009.02051
  12. 11. Sharma MP, Grover M, Chourasiya D, Bharti A, Agnihotri R, Maheshwari HS, et al. Deciphering the role of trehalose in tripartite symbiosis among rhizobia, Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and legumes for enhancing abiotic stress tolerance in crop plants. Front Microbiol. 2020;11:509919. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2020.509919
  13. 12. Ashraf MP, Harris PJ. Potential biochemical indicators of salinity tolerance in plants. Plant Sci. 2004;166(1):3‒16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plantsci.2003.10.024
  14. 13. Cobos MJ, Rubio J, Fernández‐Romero MD, Garza R, Moreno MT, Millán T, et al. Genetic analysis of seed size, yield and days to flowering in a chickpea recombinant inbred line population derived from a Kabuli × Desi cross. Ann Appl Biol. 2007;151(1):33‒42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7348.
  15. 2007.00152.
  16. 14. De Santis MA, Rinaldi M, Menga V, Codianni P, Giuzio L, Fares C, et al. Influence of organic and conventional farming on grain yield and protein composition of chickpea genotypes. Agron. 2021;11(2):191. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11020191
  17. 15. Jukanti AK, Gaur PM, Gowda CL, Chibbar RN. Nutritional quality and health benefits of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.): a review. British J Nutri. 2012;108(S1):S11‒26. https://doi.org/10.1017/S00071 14512000797
  18. 16. Varshney RK, Song C, Saxena RK, Azam S, Yu S, Sharpe AG, et al. Draft genome sequence of chickpea (Cicer arietinum) provides a resource for trait improvement. Nat Biotechnol. 2013;31(3):240‒46. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2491
  19. 17. Singh KB, Omar M, Saxena MC, Johansen C. Screening for drought resistance in spring chickpea in the Mediterranean region. J Agron and Crop Sci. 1997;178(4):227‒35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-037X.1997.tb00495.
  20. 18. Ahmad F. A comparative study of chromosome morphology among the nine annual species of Cicer L. Cytobios. 2000;101(396):37‒53.
  21. 19. Khan HA, Siddique KH, Munir R, Colmer TD. Salt sensitivity in chickpea: Growth, photosynthesis, seed yield components and tissue ion regulation in contrasting genotypes. J Plant Physiol. 2015;182:1‒2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jplph.2015.05.002
  22. 20. Kotula L, Clode PL, Jimenez JD, Colmer TD. Salinity tolerance in chickpea is associated with the ability to ‘exclude’ Na from leaf mesophyll cells. J Experimen Bot. 2019;70(18):4991‒5002.
  23. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erz241
  24. 21. Makwana K, Tiwari S, Tripathi MK, Sharma AK, Pandya RK, Singh AK. Morphological characterization and DNA fingerprinting of pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum (L.) germplasms. Range Management and Agroforestry. 2021;42(2):205‒11.
  25. 22. Rajpoot NS, Tripathi MK, Tiwari S, Tomar RS, Kandalkar VS. Characterization of Indian mustard germplasm on the basis of morphological traits and SSR markers. Curr J Appl Sci Technol. 2020;39(48):300‒11. https://doi.org/10.9734/cjast/2020/v39i4831234
  26. 23. Choudhary ML, Tripathi MK, Tiwari S, Pandya RK, Gupta N, Tripathi N, et al. Screening of pearl millet [Pennisetum glaucum (L) R. Br.] germplasm lines for drought tolerance based on morpho-physiological traits and SSR markers. Curr J Appl Sci and Technol. 2021;40(5):46‒63.
  27. https://doi.org/10.9734/cjast/2021/v40i531303
  28. 24. Yadav KP, Singh AK, Tripathi MK, Tiwari S, Yadav SK, Tripathi N. Morpho-physiological and molecular characterization of maize (Zea mays L.) genotypes for drought tolerance. European J Appl Sci. 2022;10(6): 65–87. https://doi.org/10.14738/aivp.106.13340
  29. 25. Panse VG, Sukhatme PV. Statistical methods for agricultural workers. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi; 1969
  30. 26. Fisher RA, Yates F. Statistical tables for biological, agricultural and medical research. Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh and London. 1938;88(2295):596‒97. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.88.2295.596
  31. 27. Wright S. Correlation and causation. J Agri Res. 1921;20(7):557.
  32. 28. Wright S. The analysis of variance and the correlations between relatives with respect to deviations from an optimum. J Genetics. 1935;30:243‒56. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02982239
  33. 29. Dewey DR, Lu K. A correlation and path‐coefficient analysis of components of crested wheatgrass seed production 1. Agron J. 1959;51(9):515‒18. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1959. 00021962005100090002
  34. 30. Lenka D, Mishra B. Path coefficient analysis of yield in rice varieties. Indian J Agri Sci. 1973;43:376‒79.
  35. 31. Ahmed KB, Singh S, Sadiq Y, Khan MM, Uddin M, Naeem M, et al. Photosynthetic and cellular responses in plants under saline conditions. In: Frontiers in plant-soil interaction. Academic Press; 2021. pp. 293‒365. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-90943-3.00007-9
  36. 32. Reyes-Pérez JJ, Murillo-Amador B, Nieto-Garibay A, Hernández-Montiel LG, Ruiz-Espinoza FH, Rueda-Puente EO. Influence of humates to mitigate NaCl-induced adverse effects on Ocimum basilicum L.: relative water content and photosynthetic pigments. Pak J Bot. 2021;53(4):1159‒65. https://doi.org/10.30848/PJB2021-4(6)
  37. 33. El Sayed HE, El Sayed A. Influence of NaCl and Na2SO4 treatments on growth and development of broad bean (Vicia faba, L.) plant. J Life Sci. 2011;5(7):513‒23.
  38. 34. Naveed M, Sajid H, Mustafa A, Niamat B, Ahmad Z, Yaseen M, et al. Alleviation of salinity-induced oxidative stress, improvement in growth, physiology and mineral nutrition of canola (Brassica napus L.) through calcium-fortified composted animal manure. Sustain. 2020;12(3):846.
  39. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12030846
  40. 35. Iqra L, Rashid MS, Ali Q, Latif I, Mailk A. Evaluation of Na+/K+ ratio under salt stress conditions in wheat. Life Sci J. 2020;17(7):43‒47. https://doi/org/10.7537/marslsj170720.07
  41. 36. Azizian A, Sepaskhah AR. Maize response to water, salinity and nitrogen levels: soil and plant ions accumulation. Iran Agri Res. 2020;39(1):1‒2. https://doi.org/10.22099/iar.2018.26257.1251
  42. 37. Khamesi F, Amini A, Ehsanzadeh P. Chickpea response to saline water: Concurrence of ion homeostasis sustainment and antioxidative defence measures. South African J Bot. 2020;133:245‒52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sajb.2020.08.001
  43. 38. Hussein M, Embiale A, Husen A, Aref IM, Iqbal M. Salinity-induced modulation of plant growth and photosynthetic parameters in faba bean (Vicia faba) cultivars. Pak J Bot. 2017;49(3):867‒77.
  44. 39. Atieno J, Li Y, Langridge P, Dowling K, Brien C, Berger B, et al. Exploring genetic variation for salinity tolerance in chickpea using image-based phenotyping. Scientific Reports. 2017;7(1):1300. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-01211-7
  45. 40. Weisany W, Sohrabi Y, Heidari G, Siosemardeh A, Ghassemi-Golezani K. Changes in antioxidant enzymes activity and plant performance by salinity stress and zinc application in soybean (Glycine max L.). Plant Omics. 2012;5(2):60‒67. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.1829840
  46. 19960534
  47. 41. Singh AK, Singh RA, Sharma SG. Salt stress induced changes in certain organic metabolites during seedling growth of chickpea. Legume Res- An Intern J. 2001;24(1):11‒15.
  48. 42. Mann A, Kaur G, Kumar A, Sanwal SK, Singh J, Sharma PC. Physiological response of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) at the early seedling stage under salt stress conditions. Legume Res- An Intern J. 2019;42(5):625‒32. https://doi.org/10.18805/LR-4059
  49. 43. Jain M, Mathur G, Koul S, Sarin N. Ameliorative effects of proline on salt stress-induced lipid peroxidation in cell lines of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Plant Cell Reports. 2001;20:463‒68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002990100353
  50. 44. Amirjani MR. Effect of salinity stress on growth, mineral composition, proline content, and antioxidant enzymes of soybean. American J Plant Physiol. 2010;5(6):350‒60.
  51. https://doi.org/10.3923/ajpp.2010.350.360
  52. 45. Garg N. Salinity stress-induced changes in key metabolites in the nodules of Glycine max L. (Soybean) and Cicer arietinum L. (Chickpea) and the Manoeuvrability of their response through plant growth regulators. J Plant Biol- New Delhi. 2002;29(2):137‒42.
  53. 46. Kaur G, Sanwal SK, Sehrawat N, Kumar A, Kumar N, Mann A. Assessing the effect of salinity stress on root and shoot physiology of chickpea genotypes using hydroponic technique. Indian J Genetics and Plant Breed. 2021;81(04):586‒89. https://doi.org/10.31742/IJGPB.81.4.12
  54. 47. Kumar BS, Prakash M, Narayanan S, Gokulakrishnan J. Breeding for salinity tolerance in mungbean. APCBEE Procedia. 2012;4:30‒35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcbee.2012.11.006
  55. 48. Arshad M, Bakhsh A, Haqqani AM, Bashir MU. Genotype-environment interaction for grain yield in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Pak J Bot. 2003;35(2):181‒86.
  56. 49. Durga KK, Murthy SS, Rao YK, Reddy MV. Genetic studies on yield and yield components of chickpea. Agri Sci Digest. 2007;27(3):201‒03.
  57. 50. Turner NC, Colmer TD, Quealy J, Pushpavalli R, Krishnamurthy L, Kaur J, et al. Salinity tolerance and ion accumulation in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) subjected to salt stress. Plant and Soil. 2013;365:347‒61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-012-1387-0
  58. 51. Kanouni H, Shahab MR, Imtiaz M, Khalili M. Genetic variation in drought tolerance in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) genotypes. Crop Breed J. 2012;2(2):133‒38.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.