Evaluation of mungbean [Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek] varieties under water deficit stress
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.2019.6.sp1.692Keywords:
Mungbean, growth parameters, water deficit stress, relative water contentAbstract
Legumes are the most important source of food and fodder but due to climatic changes and global warming; crops are consistently exposed to environmental stresses such as low water shortage, high salinity, mineral toxicity and deficiency, extreme temperatures, etc. Drought is undoubtedly the major constraint limiting plant growth and crop productivity worldwide. The present study was conducted to assess the effect of drought on the growth of plant and productivity in three different mungbean varieties [Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek] i.e. IPM 02-3, RMG 975 and IPM 02-14. The studied varieties exhibited significant variation in plant height, root length, pod length, pods/plant, fresh weight of shoot, root and nodule, dry weight of shoot, root and nodule, number of leaves/plant, plant leaf area, relative leaf water content (RLWC) and initiation day of flowering. The effect of drought can better seen at the flowering stage and pod development stage that ultimately reduces crop productivity. The deleterious effect of drought in terms of morpho-physiological properties studied as above was more prominent in the variety IPM 02-14 in comparison to RMG 975 and IPM 02-3. It can be concluded that varieties IPM 02-3 and RMG 975 are better adapted to drought condition.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
1. Singh R, Singh MK, Singh AK, Singh C. Pulses production in India: Issues and elucidations. Pharma Innov. 2018;7(1):10-13. ISSN (E): 2277- 7695.
2. Bharadwaj N, Gogoi N, Barthakur S, Basumatary N. Morpho-physiological responses in different mungbean genotypes under drought stress. Res J Recent Sci. 2018;7(7):1-5. ISSN 2277-502.
3. Gaur PM, Jukanti AK, Samineni S, Chaturvedi SK, Basu PS, Babbar A, et al. Climate change and heat stress tolerance in chickpea. In Climate Change and Plant Abiotic Stress Tolerance; Tuteja N, SS Gill, Eds. Wiley Blackwell:Weinheim, Germany. 2012;839-55. https://doi.org/10.1002/9783527675265.ch31
4. Basu S, Ramegowda V, Kumar A, Pereira A. Plant adaptation to drought stress. F1000 Res. 2016;5. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.7678.1
5. IPCC. Climate Change Synthesis Report Contribution of Working Groups I. II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva: IPCC, 151; 2014.
6. Bot AJ, Nachtergaele FO, Young A. Land resource potential and constraints at regional and country levels World Soil Resources Reports 90. Land and Water Development Division, FAO, Rome, Italy; 2000.
7. Sircelj H, Tausz M, Grill D, Batic F. Detecting different levels of drought stress in apple trees (Malus domestica Borkh.) with selected biochemical and physiological parameters.Sci Hort. 2007;113(4):362-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2007.04.012
8. Jaleel CA, Manivannan P, Wahid A, Farooq M, Al-juburi HJ, Somasundaram R, Panneerselvam R. Drought stress in plants: a review on morphological characteristics and pigments composition. Int J Agric Biol. 2009;11:100-05. ISSN Online: 1814–9596.
9. Alpert P, Oliver MJ. Drying without dying. In: Desiccation and survival in plants: drying without dying. Black M, Pritchard HW (eds). CABI publishing, Oxford and New York; 2002, pp. 1-45.
10. Walters C, Farrant JM, Pammenter NW, Berjak P. Desiccation stress and damage. In: Desiccation and survivalin plants: drying without dying. Black M, Pritchard HW (eds). CABI publishing, Oxford and New York; 2002, pp 263-93. https://doi.org/10.1079/9780851995342.0263
11. Kumari D, Chakraborty D. Drought stress mitigation in Vigna radiata by the application of root-nodulating bacteria. Plant Sci Today. 2017;4(4):209-12. https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.2017.4.4.343
12. Afzal MA, Murshad ANMMM, Bakar MA, Hamid A, Salahuddin ABM. Mungbean cultivation in Bangladesh, Pulse Research Station, Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute, Gazipur, Bangladesh; 2008.
13. Singh DP, Ahlawat IPS. Greengram (Vigna radiata) and blackgram (V. mungo) improvement in India: past, present and future prospects. Indian J Agric Sci. 2005;75(5):243-50.
14. Timsina J, Connor DJ. Productivity and management of rice-wheat cropping systems: Issues and challenges. Field Crops Res. 2001;69:93-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4290(00)00143-X
15. Pandey V, Shukla A. Acclimation and tolerance strategies of rice under drought stress. Rice Sci. 2015;22:147-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsci.2015.04.001
16. Singh DP, Singh BB. Breeding for tolerance to abiotic stresses in mungbean. J Food Legumes. 2011;24(2):83-90. Online ISSN: 0976-2434.
17. Sharma A, Dhanda S. Abiotic stress response in Vigna radiata L. (Mungbean). Int J Life Sci Biotechnol. Pharma Res. 2014;3(4):2250-3137.
18. Williams CH, Steinberg's A. Soil sulphur fraction as chemical indices of available sulphur in some Australian soil. Aust J Agric Res. 1969;10:340-52. https://doi.org/10.1071/AR9590340
19. Kitagawa Y, Yanai J, Nakao A. Evaluation of non exchangeable potassium content of agricultural soils in Japan by the boiling HNO3 extraction method in comparison with exchangeable potassium. Soil Sci Plant Nutr. 2018;64:116-122. https://doi.org/10.1080/00380768.2017.1411168
20. Wear JI. Boron. In: Methods of Soil Analysis (C.A. Black et al., Eds.), Part II. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Winconsin, USA; 1965.
21. Ambede JG, Netondo GW, Mwai GN, Musyimi DM. NaCl salinity affects germination, growth, physiology and biochemistry of bambara groundnut. Braz J Plant Physiol. 2012;24(3):151-60.https://doi.org/10.1590/S1677-04202012000300002
22. Chaudhary S, Chakraborty D. Screening of Vigna mungo (L.) Hepper varieties under drought stress. Plant Cell Biotechnol Mol Biol. 2019;20(1-2):35-46. http://www.ikprress.org/index.php/PCBMB/article/view/4328
23. Makbul S, Saruhanguler N, Durmus N, Guven S. Changes in anatomical and physiological parameters of soybean under drought stress. Turk J Bot. 2011;35:369-77. https://doi.org/10.3906/bot-1002-07
24. Yang JY, Zheng W, Tian Y. Effects of various mixed salt-alkaline stresses on growth, photosynthesis, and photosynthetic pigment concentrations of Medicago ruthenica seedlings. Photosynthetica. 2011;49:275-84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11099-011-0037-8
25. Hayatu M, Muhammad SY, Habibu UA. Effect of water stress on the leaf relative water content and yield of some Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. walp) genotypes. Int J Sci Technol Res. 2014;3(7):148-52. ISSN 2277-8616.
26. White PJ, George TS, Dupuy LX, Karley AJ, Valentine TA, Wiesel L, Wishart J. Root traits for infertile soils. Front Plant Sci. 2013a;4:193. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2013.00193
27. Jibhkate SB, Bhende SN, Kharche VK, Selvalakshmi V. Physico-chemical status of Katoltahsil in Nagpur district. J Soils Crop. 2009;19(1):122-128. E-ISSN: 2321–4902.
28. Neina D. The role of soil pH in plant nutrition and soil remediation. Appl Environ Soil Sci. 2019;1-9. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/5794869
29. Singh C, Bajpai RK, Tiwari A, Chandra M, Krishna B. Evaluations of soil fertility status of available major nutrients (N, P & K) and micro nutrients (Fe, Mn, Cu & Zn) in Vertisol of Balodabazar block in Balodabazar district of Chhattisgarh. J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2018;2:10-12. P-ISSN: 2349-8234.
30. Srinivasan S, Selvi RV, Ramesh S, Pandiyan M, Sunder M, Kannan R, et al. Response of mungbean to different methods and levels of molybdenum application under acid soil conditions. Acta Hortic. 2007;752:473-76. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2007.752.86
31. Jamal A, Khan MI, Tariq M, Fawad M. response of mung bean crop to different levels of applied Iron and Zinc. JHortic Plant Res. 2018;3:13-22. https://doi.org/10.18052/www.scipress.com/JHPR.3.13
32. Singh KS, Athokpam H. Physico-chemical characterization of farmland soil in some villages of Chandel Hill District, Manipur (India). Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2018; 7(2):417-25. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2018.702.053
33. Chowdhaury P, Sharma A, Syed Z, Agarwal D. Tissue specific drought stress response in different varieties of Mungbean (Vigna radiata (L) Wilczek) of Rajasthan. Int J Agric Environ Biotechnol. 2018;11(3):489-95. https://doi.org/10.30954/0974-1712.06.2018.10
34. Pandey S, Chakraborty D. Agro-morphological response of three Vigna mungo varieties (T9, RBU38 and VM4) to soil water deficit. Int J Sci Res Agric Sci. 2016;3(2):036-41.https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.2015.2.2.99
35. Sangakkaran UR, Frehner M, Nosberger J. Effect of soil moisture and potassium fertilizer on shoot water potential, photosynthesis and partitioning of carbon in mungbean and cowpea. J Agron Crop Sci. 2000;185:201-07. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-037x.2000.00422.x
36. Ranawake AL, Amarasingha UGS, Rodrigo WDRJ, Rodrigo UTD. Dahanayaka N. Effect of water stress on growth and yield of mungbean (Vigna radiata L). Trop Agric Res Exten. 2011;14(4):76-79. https://doi.org/10.4038/tare.v14i4.4851
37. Mondal MMA, Puteh AB, Malek MA, Ismail MR, Rafii MY, Latif MA. Seed Yield of Mungbean [Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek] in relation to growth and developmental aspects. Sci World J. 2012;1-7. https://doi.org/10.1100/2012/425168
38. Lie F, Andersen MN, Jensen CR. Loss of pod set caused by drought stress is associated with water status and ABA content of reproductive structures in soybean. Funct Plant Biol. 2003;30:271-80. https://doi.org/10.1071/FP02185
39. Parvez MT, Paul SK, Sarkar MAR. Yield and yield contributing characters of mungbean as affected by variety and level of phosphorus. J Agroforest. Environ. 2013;7(1):115- 118. ISSN 1995-6983.
40. King CA, Purcell C. Soybean nodule size and relationship to nitrogen fixation response to water deficit. Crop Sci. 2001; 41:1099-107. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2001.4141099x
41. Kumar A, Sharma KD. Physiological responses and dry matter partitioning of summer mungbean (Vigna radiata L.) Genotypes subjected to drought conditions. J Agron Crop Sci. 2009;95:270-77.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-037X.2009.00373.x
42. Arrese-Igor C, Gonzalez EM, Marino D, Ladrera R, Larrainzar E, Gil-Quintana E. Physiological responses of legume nodules to drought. Plant Stress. 2011;24-31.
43. Ramos MLG, Parsons R, Sprent JI, James EK. Effect of water stress on nitrogen fixation and nodule structure of common bean. Pesqui. Agropecu. Bras. 2003;38:339-47. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-204X2003000300002
44. Mondal MMA, Fakir MSA, Juraimi AS, Hakim MA, Islam MM, Shamsuddoha ATM. Effects of flowering behavior and pod maturity synchrony on yield of mungbean [Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek]. Aust J Crop Sci. 2011;5:945-953. ISSN:1835-2707.
45. Sankar B, Gopinathan P, Karthishwaran K, Somasundaram R. Variation in growth of peanut plants under drought stress condition and in combination with paclobutrazol and abscisic acid. Curr Bot. 2014;5:14-21.
46. Bhatt RM, Rao S. Influence of pod load response of okra to water stress. Indian J Plant Physiol. 2005;10:54-59.
47. Kusaka M, Ohta M, Fujimura T. Contribution of inorganic compounds to osmotic adjustment and leaf folding for drought tolerance in pearl millet. Physiol. Plant. 2005;125: 474-89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-3054.2005.00578.x
48. Costa-Franca MG, Pham-Thi AT, Pimentel C, Pereyra-Rossiello RO, Zuily-Fodil Y, Laffray D. Differences in growth and water relations among Phaseolus vulgaris cultivars in response to induced drought stress. Environ Exp Bot. 2000; 43:227-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0098-8472(99)00060-X
49. Ahmadizadeh M. Physiological and agro-morphological response to drought stress. Middle-East J Sci Res. 2013;13: 998-1009. https://doi.org/10.5829/idosi.mejsr.2013.13.8.3531
2. Bharadwaj N, Gogoi N, Barthakur S, Basumatary N. Morpho-physiological responses in different mungbean genotypes under drought stress. Res J Recent Sci. 2018;7(7):1-5. ISSN 2277-502.
3. Gaur PM, Jukanti AK, Samineni S, Chaturvedi SK, Basu PS, Babbar A, et al. Climate change and heat stress tolerance in chickpea. In Climate Change and Plant Abiotic Stress Tolerance; Tuteja N, SS Gill, Eds. Wiley Blackwell:Weinheim, Germany. 2012;839-55. https://doi.org/10.1002/9783527675265.ch31
4. Basu S, Ramegowda V, Kumar A, Pereira A. Plant adaptation to drought stress. F1000 Res. 2016;5. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.7678.1
5. IPCC. Climate Change Synthesis Report Contribution of Working Groups I. II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva: IPCC, 151; 2014.
6. Bot AJ, Nachtergaele FO, Young A. Land resource potential and constraints at regional and country levels World Soil Resources Reports 90. Land and Water Development Division, FAO, Rome, Italy; 2000.
7. Sircelj H, Tausz M, Grill D, Batic F. Detecting different levels of drought stress in apple trees (Malus domestica Borkh.) with selected biochemical and physiological parameters.Sci Hort. 2007;113(4):362-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2007.04.012
8. Jaleel CA, Manivannan P, Wahid A, Farooq M, Al-juburi HJ, Somasundaram R, Panneerselvam R. Drought stress in plants: a review on morphological characteristics and pigments composition. Int J Agric Biol. 2009;11:100-05. ISSN Online: 1814–9596.
9. Alpert P, Oliver MJ. Drying without dying. In: Desiccation and survival in plants: drying without dying. Black M, Pritchard HW (eds). CABI publishing, Oxford and New York; 2002, pp. 1-45.
10. Walters C, Farrant JM, Pammenter NW, Berjak P. Desiccation stress and damage. In: Desiccation and survivalin plants: drying without dying. Black M, Pritchard HW (eds). CABI publishing, Oxford and New York; 2002, pp 263-93. https://doi.org/10.1079/9780851995342.0263
11. Kumari D, Chakraborty D. Drought stress mitigation in Vigna radiata by the application of root-nodulating bacteria. Plant Sci Today. 2017;4(4):209-12. https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.2017.4.4.343
12. Afzal MA, Murshad ANMMM, Bakar MA, Hamid A, Salahuddin ABM. Mungbean cultivation in Bangladesh, Pulse Research Station, Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute, Gazipur, Bangladesh; 2008.
13. Singh DP, Ahlawat IPS. Greengram (Vigna radiata) and blackgram (V. mungo) improvement in India: past, present and future prospects. Indian J Agric Sci. 2005;75(5):243-50.
14. Timsina J, Connor DJ. Productivity and management of rice-wheat cropping systems: Issues and challenges. Field Crops Res. 2001;69:93-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4290(00)00143-X
15. Pandey V, Shukla A. Acclimation and tolerance strategies of rice under drought stress. Rice Sci. 2015;22:147-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsci.2015.04.001
16. Singh DP, Singh BB. Breeding for tolerance to abiotic stresses in mungbean. J Food Legumes. 2011;24(2):83-90. Online ISSN: 0976-2434.
17. Sharma A, Dhanda S. Abiotic stress response in Vigna radiata L. (Mungbean). Int J Life Sci Biotechnol. Pharma Res. 2014;3(4):2250-3137.
18. Williams CH, Steinberg's A. Soil sulphur fraction as chemical indices of available sulphur in some Australian soil. Aust J Agric Res. 1969;10:340-52. https://doi.org/10.1071/AR9590340
19. Kitagawa Y, Yanai J, Nakao A. Evaluation of non exchangeable potassium content of agricultural soils in Japan by the boiling HNO3 extraction method in comparison with exchangeable potassium. Soil Sci Plant Nutr. 2018;64:116-122. https://doi.org/10.1080/00380768.2017.1411168
20. Wear JI. Boron. In: Methods of Soil Analysis (C.A. Black et al., Eds.), Part II. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Winconsin, USA; 1965.
21. Ambede JG, Netondo GW, Mwai GN, Musyimi DM. NaCl salinity affects germination, growth, physiology and biochemistry of bambara groundnut. Braz J Plant Physiol. 2012;24(3):151-60.https://doi.org/10.1590/S1677-04202012000300002
22. Chaudhary S, Chakraborty D. Screening of Vigna mungo (L.) Hepper varieties under drought stress. Plant Cell Biotechnol Mol Biol. 2019;20(1-2):35-46. http://www.ikprress.org/index.php/PCBMB/article/view/4328
23. Makbul S, Saruhanguler N, Durmus N, Guven S. Changes in anatomical and physiological parameters of soybean under drought stress. Turk J Bot. 2011;35:369-77. https://doi.org/10.3906/bot-1002-07
24. Yang JY, Zheng W, Tian Y. Effects of various mixed salt-alkaline stresses on growth, photosynthesis, and photosynthetic pigment concentrations of Medicago ruthenica seedlings. Photosynthetica. 2011;49:275-84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11099-011-0037-8
25. Hayatu M, Muhammad SY, Habibu UA. Effect of water stress on the leaf relative water content and yield of some Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. walp) genotypes. Int J Sci Technol Res. 2014;3(7):148-52. ISSN 2277-8616.
26. White PJ, George TS, Dupuy LX, Karley AJ, Valentine TA, Wiesel L, Wishart J. Root traits for infertile soils. Front Plant Sci. 2013a;4:193. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2013.00193
27. Jibhkate SB, Bhende SN, Kharche VK, Selvalakshmi V. Physico-chemical status of Katoltahsil in Nagpur district. J Soils Crop. 2009;19(1):122-128. E-ISSN: 2321–4902.
28. Neina D. The role of soil pH in plant nutrition and soil remediation. Appl Environ Soil Sci. 2019;1-9. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/5794869
29. Singh C, Bajpai RK, Tiwari A, Chandra M, Krishna B. Evaluations of soil fertility status of available major nutrients (N, P & K) and micro nutrients (Fe, Mn, Cu & Zn) in Vertisol of Balodabazar block in Balodabazar district of Chhattisgarh. J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2018;2:10-12. P-ISSN: 2349-8234.
30. Srinivasan S, Selvi RV, Ramesh S, Pandiyan M, Sunder M, Kannan R, et al. Response of mungbean to different methods and levels of molybdenum application under acid soil conditions. Acta Hortic. 2007;752:473-76. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2007.752.86
31. Jamal A, Khan MI, Tariq M, Fawad M. response of mung bean crop to different levels of applied Iron and Zinc. JHortic Plant Res. 2018;3:13-22. https://doi.org/10.18052/www.scipress.com/JHPR.3.13
32. Singh KS, Athokpam H. Physico-chemical characterization of farmland soil in some villages of Chandel Hill District, Manipur (India). Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2018; 7(2):417-25. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2018.702.053
33. Chowdhaury P, Sharma A, Syed Z, Agarwal D. Tissue specific drought stress response in different varieties of Mungbean (Vigna radiata (L) Wilczek) of Rajasthan. Int J Agric Environ Biotechnol. 2018;11(3):489-95. https://doi.org/10.30954/0974-1712.06.2018.10
34. Pandey S, Chakraborty D. Agro-morphological response of three Vigna mungo varieties (T9, RBU38 and VM4) to soil water deficit. Int J Sci Res Agric Sci. 2016;3(2):036-41.https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.2015.2.2.99
35. Sangakkaran UR, Frehner M, Nosberger J. Effect of soil moisture and potassium fertilizer on shoot water potential, photosynthesis and partitioning of carbon in mungbean and cowpea. J Agron Crop Sci. 2000;185:201-07. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-037x.2000.00422.x
36. Ranawake AL, Amarasingha UGS, Rodrigo WDRJ, Rodrigo UTD. Dahanayaka N. Effect of water stress on growth and yield of mungbean (Vigna radiata L). Trop Agric Res Exten. 2011;14(4):76-79. https://doi.org/10.4038/tare.v14i4.4851
37. Mondal MMA, Puteh AB, Malek MA, Ismail MR, Rafii MY, Latif MA. Seed Yield of Mungbean [Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek] in relation to growth and developmental aspects. Sci World J. 2012;1-7. https://doi.org/10.1100/2012/425168
38. Lie F, Andersen MN, Jensen CR. Loss of pod set caused by drought stress is associated with water status and ABA content of reproductive structures in soybean. Funct Plant Biol. 2003;30:271-80. https://doi.org/10.1071/FP02185
39. Parvez MT, Paul SK, Sarkar MAR. Yield and yield contributing characters of mungbean as affected by variety and level of phosphorus. J Agroforest. Environ. 2013;7(1):115- 118. ISSN 1995-6983.
40. King CA, Purcell C. Soybean nodule size and relationship to nitrogen fixation response to water deficit. Crop Sci. 2001; 41:1099-107. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2001.4141099x
41. Kumar A, Sharma KD. Physiological responses and dry matter partitioning of summer mungbean (Vigna radiata L.) Genotypes subjected to drought conditions. J Agron Crop Sci. 2009;95:270-77.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-037X.2009.00373.x
42. Arrese-Igor C, Gonzalez EM, Marino D, Ladrera R, Larrainzar E, Gil-Quintana E. Physiological responses of legume nodules to drought. Plant Stress. 2011;24-31.
43. Ramos MLG, Parsons R, Sprent JI, James EK. Effect of water stress on nitrogen fixation and nodule structure of common bean. Pesqui. Agropecu. Bras. 2003;38:339-47. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-204X2003000300002
44. Mondal MMA, Fakir MSA, Juraimi AS, Hakim MA, Islam MM, Shamsuddoha ATM. Effects of flowering behavior and pod maturity synchrony on yield of mungbean [Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek]. Aust J Crop Sci. 2011;5:945-953. ISSN:1835-2707.
45. Sankar B, Gopinathan P, Karthishwaran K, Somasundaram R. Variation in growth of peanut plants under drought stress condition and in combination with paclobutrazol and abscisic acid. Curr Bot. 2014;5:14-21.
46. Bhatt RM, Rao S. Influence of pod load response of okra to water stress. Indian J Plant Physiol. 2005;10:54-59.
47. Kusaka M, Ohta M, Fujimura T. Contribution of inorganic compounds to osmotic adjustment and leaf folding for drought tolerance in pearl millet. Physiol. Plant. 2005;125: 474-89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-3054.2005.00578.x
48. Costa-Franca MG, Pham-Thi AT, Pimentel C, Pereyra-Rossiello RO, Zuily-Fodil Y, Laffray D. Differences in growth and water relations among Phaseolus vulgaris cultivars in response to induced drought stress. Environ Exp Bot. 2000; 43:227-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0098-8472(99)00060-X
49. Ahmadizadeh M. Physiological and agro-morphological response to drought stress. Middle-East J Sci Res. 2013;13: 998-1009. https://doi.org/10.5829/idosi.mejsr.2013.13.8.3531
Downloads
Published
31-12-2019
How to Cite
1.
Kumari D, Chakraborty D. Evaluation of mungbean [Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek] varieties under water deficit stress. Plant Sci. Today [Internet]. 2019 Dec. 31 [cited 2024 Nov. 4];6(sp1):623-30. Available from: https://horizonepublishing.com/journals/index.php/PST/article/view/692
Issue
Section
Research Articles
License
Copyright and Licence details of published articles
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Open Access Policy
Plant Science Today is an open access journal. There is no registration required to read any article. All published articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC Attribution 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
