Research article
Desi chickpea genotypes tolerate drought stress better than kabuli types by modulating germination metabolism, trehalose accumulation, and carbon assimilation

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2018.02.020Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Drought-induced reduction in growth was greater in kabuli genotypes than desi genotypes.

  • Desi genotypes had better germination, trehalose and sugars than kabuli genotypes under drought.

  • The desi genotype Bakhar-2011 performed better under drought than the desi genotype Bitall-2016.

Abstract

Chickpea is mostly grown in rainfed environments and, consequently, its growth is affected by drought stress. This study comprised two independent experiments to investigate the physiological basis of drought tolerance in desi and kabuli chickpea genotypes. In Experiment 1, six genotypes each of desi and kabuli types were planted in soil-filled pots under natural conditions. Ten days after planting, soil moisture was maintained at 75% water holding capacity (well-watered) or 50% water holding capacity (drought stress). Drought stress significantly reduced seedling dry weight, specific leaf area (SLA), and transpiration efficiency (TE) in both chickpea types, relative to the well-watered controls, but their responses varied, with relatively fewer reductions in desi genotypes, Bakhar-2011 and Bitall-2016, and kabuli genotypes, K-70005 and Noor-2013. These four genotypes were used in experiment 2, which was similar to the first but conducted in a climate chamber and the drought was imposed at planting. Drought stress reduced stand establishment, growth, photosynthesis, water relations, α-amylase activity, sugar metabolism, proline, phenolic accumulation, nitrogen and potassium to varying degrees in the four tested genotypes. The reductions were greater in kabuli genotypes than desi genotypes. Under drought stress, desi genotypes germinated better, and had higher trehalose, total and reducing sugars, sucrose, α-amylase activity, photosynthesis, growth, and mineral concentrations than kabuli genotypes. The desi genotype Bakhar-2011 performed better under drought than the desi genotype Bitall-2016 due to better germination metabolism and accumulation of free proline, total phenolics, and trehalose, which maintained carbon assimilation and prevented oxidative damage. In conclusion, desi chickpea types tolerate drought stress better than kabuli types due to better germination metabolism and trehalose accumulation, which prevented oxidative damage, helped with efficient water use, and sustained plant growth.

Introduction

Drought is a major constraint that restricts plant growth and development in chickpea. There are two major types of chickpea viz. desi and kabuli. Despite morphological differences between the desi and kabuli genotypes, they have a very narrow genetic base with up to 54% common genetic background (Upadhyaya et al., 2008; Varshney et al., 2013). However, the desi type can produce better yields under less than optimum conditions than the kabuli type (Nayyar et al., 2006; Yadav et al., 2006).

Drought decreases water and mineral uptake, photosynthesis and stomatal conductance (Farooq et al., 2009), all of which contribute to a substantial reduction in plant growth (Farooq et al., 2017a). Reduced water availability reduces plant growth due to a reduction in photosynthetic capacity and photosynthetic area (Chaves et al., 2011). Under limited water supply, the production of new leaves declines, and leaf abscission and senescence increases (Karamanos, 1980). As a result, total leaf area significantly decreases (Farooq et al., 2017a). Water deficit affects the photosynthetic apparatus due to the destruction of thylakoid membranes and disturbance of chlorophyll pigment formation (Tas and Tas, 2007). Drought may cause over-production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) (McCord, 2000), which causes oxidative damage to chloroplasts (Farooq et al., 2017a) through destabilization of the protein-pigment complex, and dilation of thylakoid membranes (Prasad and Saradhi, 2004). These ROS injure the DNA, nucleic acids, lipids, and proteins and may cause cell death (Foyer, 2005).

Plants respond to drought stress by closing stomata to restrict water loss (Liu et al., 2005; Awasthi et al., 2014), which reduces the influx of carbon (Awasthi et al., 2014) and, consequently, reduces photosynthesis due to decreased activities of ATP synthase and Rubisco (ribulose-1, 5-bisphosphate carboxylase) (Zlatev and Lidon, 2012).

The generation of ROS under water deficiency may act as a secondary messenger to activate defense mechanisms in plants (Farooq et al., 2009). Superoxide dismutase is the first line of defense to detoxify ROS to molecular oxygen and water to save the plant from oxidative damage (Noctor et al., 2000). The build-up of soluble phenolics and free proline also protects the plants from drought-induced oxidative damage (Farooq et al., 2009).

The accumulation of sugars, predominantly trehalose, protects plants from abiotic stresses (Farooq et al., 2017b) by restricting protein denaturation, acting as a free radical scavenger, and stabilizing biological membranes (Benaroudj et al., 2001). Trehalose also binds to the polar region of membranes with the hydroxyl group of proteins and phosphate to scavenge the ROS (Benaroudj et al., 2001; Farooq et al., 2009).

Plant responses to moisture deficit and tolerance are complex biological processes that need to be investigated using physiological and biochemical approaches at a systems level. Studies are available on chickpea tolerance to drought (Nayyar et al., 2006; Yadav et al., 2006), but there is limited information on the response of desi and kabuli chickpea genotypes to drought with special reference to transpiration efficiency (TE) and trehalose accumulation. This study hypothesized that the desi type of chickpea is more tolerant to drought due to morphological plasticity, and better TE and trehalose (and other sugars) accumulation. The specific objective of this study was to explore the basis of the differential response of desi and kabuli type chickpea genotypes to drought.

Section snippets

Planting material

Seeds of six desi (Bakhar-2011, Bitall-2016, BRC, Punjab-2008, NIAB-CH-2016, and Thal-2006) and six kabuli (CM-2008, K-9012, K-70005, Noor-2009, 2013 and Punajb-1) chickpea genotypes were collected from the Pulses Research Institute, Faisalabad, Pakistan.

Experiment 1

Chickpea seeds of the 12 tested genotypes were planted (eight seeds per pot) in soil-filled pots (10 kg). After emergence, the pots were thinned to six plants per pot and placed in a net-house under natural conditions. During the experiment,

Experiment 1

Drought significantly reduced seedling dry weight, SLA, and TE in both desi and kabuli chickpea types, relative to the well-watered controls (Table 1). Highest seedling dry weight was recorded in kabuli chickpea genotype K-70005 under well-watered conditions, which was followed kabuli chickpea genotype Noor-2013 and desi chickpea genotype Bakhar-2011 under well-watered. However, under drought stress, highest seedling dry weight was recorded in desi chickpea genotype Bitall-2016 followed by desi

Discussion

Drought stress affected the tested chickpea genotypes, with substantial genetic variation in the response of desi and kabuli chickpea types. Drought stress delayed emergence, which resulted in erratic and poor seedling growth and stand establishment in chickpea (Table 1, Table 2) due to reduced sugar metabolism, disturbed α-amylase activity (Table 3), decreased leaf CO2, PSII efficiency, and chlorophyll content (Table 4), oxidative damage (Table 5), reduced water relations (Table 6), and

Contribution

MF, SSA, and DJL conceived the idea, planned and conducted the experiment. MF and AU analyzed the data and prepared the first draft. MF, DJL, SSA, and KHMS wrote the final version of the manuscript.

Acknowledgments

The authors extend their appreciation to the International Scientific Partnership Program (ISPP) at King Saud University for funding this research work through ISPP# 0085.

References (55)

  • K.V.S.K. Prasad et al.

    Enhanced tolerance to photoinhibition in transgenic plants through targeting of glycine betaine biosynthesis into the chloroplasts

    Plant Sci.

    (2004)
  • R. Serraj et al.

    Variation in root traits of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) grown under terminal drought

    Field Crop. Res.

    (2004)
  • M. Stitt et al.

    Metabolite levels in specific cells and subcellular compartments of plant leaves

    Methods Enzymol.

    (1989)
  • G.V. Subbarao et al.

    Osmotic adjustment, water relations and carbohydrate remobilization in pigeonpea under water deficits

    J. Plant Physiol.

    (2000)
  • D.I. Arnon

    Copper enzymes in isolated chloroplast polyphenol oxidases in Beta vulgaris

    Plant Physiol. (Wash. D C)

    (1949)
  • A. Arunyanark et al.

    Chlorophyll stability is an indicator of drought tolerance in peanut

    J. Agron. Crop Sci.

    (2008)
  • Association of Official Seed Analysts (AOSA)

    Seed Vigor Testing Handbook. Contribution No. 32 to the Handbook on Seed Testing

    (1983)
  • R. Awasthi et al.

    Individual and combined effects of transient drought and heat stress on carbon assimilation and seed filling in chickpea

    Funct. Plant Biol.

    (2014)
  • H.D. Barr et al.

    A re-examination of the relative turgidity technique for estimating water deficit in leaves

    Aust. J. Biol. Sci.

    (1962)
  • L.S. Bates et al.

    Rapid determination of free proline for water stress studies

    Plant Soil

    (1973)
  • J.D. Bewley et al.

    Seeds. Physiology of Development and Germination

    (1985)
  • H.J. Bohnert et al.

    Metabolic engineering for increased salt tolerance-the next step

    Aust. J. Plant Physiol.

    (1996)
  • J. Čižmárilk et al.

    Determination of monosaccharides and disaccharides in honey by ion-exchange high performance chromatography

    Acta Fac. Pharm. Univ. Comenianae

    (2004)
  • S.S. Dhanda et al.

    Indices of drought tolerance in wheat genotypes at early stages of plant growth

    J. Agron. Crop Sci.

    (2004)
  • M. DuBois et al.

    Colorimetric method for determination of sugars and related substances

    Anal. Chem.

    (1956)
  • M. Farooq et al.

    Plant drought stress: effects, mechanisms and management Agron

    Sustain. Dev.

    (2009)
  • M. Farooq et al.

    Drought stress in grain legumes during reproduction and grain filling

    J. Agron. Crop Sci.

    (2017)
  • Cited by (38)

    • Effects of periodic drought with severe exhaust exposure on particle retention capacity and physiological responses of Photinia × fraseri Dress

      2022, Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety
      Citation Excerpt :

      Hence, it might be more rewarding to explore the variation in resilience and the corresponding changes in the dust retention by examining plants with repeated particulate stress rather than focusing on the effects of a single pollution event. Droughts, whose incidence has become increasingly frequent in cities around the world (Tong et al., 2018), are considered as a main stressor to urban plants and constitute a danger to plant growth (Farooq et al., 2018; Farquhar and Sharkey, 1982). For example, researchers have reported deformation in morphology (leaf curl, coarse leaf surface, foliar wax thickening) (Jaleel et al., 2009; Liu et al., 2021) and physiology (accumulation of malondialdehyde, consumption of soluble sugar content) under drought conditions (Chaves et al., 2009; Zhang et al., 2004).

    • Role of sugars in mediating abiotic stress tolerance in legumes

      2021, Abiotic Stress and Legumes: Tolerance and Management
    • Genotype and soil water availability shape the composition of AMF communities at chickpea early growth stages

      2020, Applied Soil Ecology
      Citation Excerpt :

      Several studies have shown that nutrient uptake and accumulation was hampered under water deficit conditions in various plant species (He and Dijkstra, 2014). However the response of different species and genotypes within species to nutrient uptake varies and the ability of increased uptake under drought stress conditions has been related with plant drought tolerance (Farooq et al., 2018). In the current study, the two genotypes responded differently to water limitation regarding the N and K accumulation in above ground biomass while no response of P content was noticed (Table 1).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text