Printer Friendly

Evaluation of agronomic traits changes in drought stress and their impact on the yield of mungbean cultivars and promising lines.


Mungbean (vigna radiata) is one of the important short-duration grain legume crops with wide adaptability, low input requirements and the ability to improve the soil by fixing atmospheric nitrogen and well suited to a large number of cropping systems and constitutes and important source of high quality protein in the cereal based diets of many people in Asia [7]. Mung bean seeds are rich in protein and amino acids, thus serve as a valuable protein source for human consumption. Pods and sprouts of mung bean are also eaten as a vegetable and are a source of vitamins and minerals. Moreover, this plant is nitrogen fixing, has a short life cycle and therefore, is widely grown as mixed, inter crop or in rotation to improve nitrogen status of soil or to break the disease/pest cycles. Drought is a worldwide problem, constraining global crop production and quality seriously and recent global climate change has made this situation more serious. Water is a vital factor for plant growth and development. Water deficit, limits the growth, permanent or temporary, distribution of natural vegetation and the performance of cultivated plants more than any other environmental factors .Therefore, innovation are needed to increase the efficiency of use of the water that is available. One approach is the development of new irrigation scheduling techniques such as deficit irrigation, which are not necessarily based on full crop water requirement. Deficit (or regulated deficit) irrigation is one way of maximizing water use efficiency (WUE) for higher yields per unit of irrigation water applied [3]. The grower must have prior knowledge of crop yield responses to deficit irrigation [3]. Accurate water application prevents over or under irrigation. Over-irrigation wastes water, energy and labor, leaches nutrients below the root zone and leads to water logging which reduces crop yields. Under-irrigation stresses the plant resulting in yield reductions and decrease returns [15]. Water stress affects almost all aspects of mungbean growth and development. This crop suffering water stress resulted in decreased seed yield, pod number, number of seed [pod.sup.-1] and 1000-seed weight. Supplemental irrigation, particularly at the pod filling stage to improve plant water status gives economic increase in yields in areas of super optimal temperature during the reproductive growth. The late flowering and pod setting stages appear to be the most sensitive stages to soil moisture stress. Mungbean yield was depressed when the irrigation treatments were given at flowering, with or without pre flowering irrigation (15).

Stress is a series of external factors that have a negative impact on a plant's life. Drought is one of the most effective stresses on plant's development and production because water deficit limits the photosynthesis, stimulates plant to produce more ABA that in turn induces more stomatal closure, increases water movement resistance in plants, changes leaf's energy output, decreases hydraulic conductivity and disrupts plant's thermodynamic temperature. Drought stress is often accompanied by heat stress that intensifies the effects of salinity on leaves and in the root zone because of transpiration decrease from the leaves surfaces that limits their cooling due to water vaporization. Dry matter production in plants in water limitation conditions depends on climate and soil status that affects available soil water and plant water use efficiency. Plants with higher water absorption capacities or higher water use efficiency, better tolerate drought conditions [16]. Drought stress affects all plant's vital mechanisms and while stomatal and non-stomatal factors, together, play a role in photosynthesis reduction; one of these factors may have more influence over leaf's assimilation capacity depending on the severity and duration of the stress, and plant's growth stage [5]. Drought stress directly makes drastic changes in LAI and therefore, severely decreases total photosynthesis due to its multiple effects on growth including limitation of leaf development. Leaf area is important because photosynthesis is a function of it. However, rapid development of the leaf area may have a negative effect on water availability in plants [16]. Thus, drought stress reduces the biomass and despite slightly increasing the harvest index, it reduces production per unit area and this significantly decreases the number of pods, pod height, number of seeds per pod, seed length & diameter, and weight of 100 grains and ultimately reduces the seed yield.

Materials And Methods

This experiment was carried out during two years (2010-11) at experimental field of Safiabad Agricultural Research Center of Dezful, southwest Iran. This field has been located in a warm and semiarid region with hot summers and cool and relatively dry winters having low precipitations, 82.9 m above sea level in 48[degrees]26'N and 32[degrees]16'W, with 321 mm average 30 years rainfall, 2400 mm average annual evaporation, maximum temperature of 52[degrees]C and mean temperature of 23.9[degrees]C. This experiment was implemented using a complete randomized blocks split plot with three replications. Main factor included three irrigation levels at 120(I1), 180(I2) and 240 mm(I3) evaporation from the pan, while cultivars considered as the sub-factor comprised of five varieties namely Partow, Indian heap and vc6172, cn95 & kps1as promising lines. Traits evaluated included: seeds to pod ratio, number of pods per plant, number of seeds per pod, weight of 100 grains, yield per hectare, biomass, harvest index, leaf area index, grain length and diameter. Soil was a clay loam with a pH of 7.2, 0.096 ppm of organic matter, 960 ppm of total N, 14.3 ppm exchangeable phosphate, 140 ppm exchangeable potassium, and 1 milimos Ec. NPK were added at the rate of 50 kg N/hectare as ammonium nitrate 46% N, 60 kg P2O 5/hactar as superphosphate 15.5% PO (before sowing) and 0-90-180 kg K2 O/ha as potassium sulfate 48% K O at treatments fertility. The other agronomic practice for growing mungbean was followed as recommended. Representative samples were collected from three replicates for each treatment after 30-60 and 90 days from sowing, where leaf area index, Biomass, leaves and pods as well as weight of stem were determined. At harvest time, 20 guard plants were chosen randomly from each plot to determine yield attributes including number of pods/plant, seeds/pod, pods dry weight, and seed index. Whole plot was harvested to determine seed, straw, and biological yield/hectare. The obtained results were subjected to statistical analysis of variance according to the method described in Mastasc [16], and the combined analysis of the two seasons was calculated using the Sas method. Furthermore, mean comparisiosns performed using Dancan examination on 1% and 5% levels.

Results And Discussion

Seeds to pod ratio (SP):

Data analysis revealed that different cultivars had a significant effect (P [less than or equal to] 0.01) on seeds to pod ratio.The height sp (67%) was obtained in plots seeded with pa; while, the lowest sp (63%) was obtained from plots planted with Ih cultivar (Table 2). These results in Mungbean cultivar were also reported by Maqsood et al [11] and Siddique [15], identifying different sps in Mung bean cultivars.

Number of seeds per pod (S/P):

The results showed significant differences (p [less than or equal to] 0.01) in the drought stress levels to S/P. The maximum and minimum S/P was produced by I1(10) and I3(8.3). No significant difference was found between S/P cultivars. Furthermore, the results suggested a significant difference (p [less than or equal to] 0.05) in the interaction between drought stress and cultivars to S/P. The maximum and minimum S/P values were produced by I1 x pa (10.8) and I3 x kp (7.2) seed per pod, respectively.

Weight of 100 Grains (100GW):

Data analysis revealed that different cultivars had a significant effect (P [less than or equal to] 0.01) on 100GW. The heaviest (7.83 g) was produced in plots seeded with vc while; while, the lightest seeds (3.65 g) were obtained from plots planted with the pa cultivar (Table 2). The variation in 100GW among different Mungbean cultivars occurred due to varying potential cultivars for this parameter [19], an interaction between drought stress and cultivars to 100Gw. The maximum and minimum 100GW was produced by I2 x vc (8 g) and I3 x pa (3.6 g) 100GW, respectively. These results in Mungbean cultivar were also reported by Maqsood et al. [11] and Siddique [15], identifying different 100GW in Mungbean cultivars.

Number of pods per plant-1 (p/p):

The results indicated that the number of pods per plant-1 varied significantly (p [less than or equal to] 0.01) in different cultivars. The maximum and the minimum p/p(29.2 ,19)were observed in the cultivar vc and cn, respectively. Variation in p/p in Mungbean cultivar was also reported by Ahmad [2], Bismillah Khan, [4] and Sadeghipour [14].

Seed Yield (SY):

The cultivars showed significant differences (p [less than or equal to] 0.01) in their seed yield. The highest seed yield (3482 kg/h) was produced by Partow; while, the lowest seed yield (2287 kg/h) was recorded by Promising line kp.The maximum SY of cultivar pa was due to higher p/p and s/p. Further, the significant effect of seed yield had been reported by Ahmad [2], Bismillah Khan [4], and Sadeghipour [14]. Drought stress levels, also, showed significant differences (p [less than or equal to] 0.01) in seed yield, in the manner that the maximum seed yield (3458kg/h) by I1, and minimum seed yield (2291kg/h) were recorded by I3.

Withholding irrigation caused a decrease in p/p and s/p and, thus, SY. These findings are quite in agreement with those of Nielsen and Nilson [12].Thomas et al [18].also reported that SY of Mungbean was reduced by 65% when water stress was imposed at flowering. Interaction effect between drought stress levels and cultivars was significant (p [less than or equal to] 0.01) in case of SY. The maximum SY (44365kg/h) was observed in I1 x Partow ; while, the minimum SY (1783kg/h) was produced in I3 x kps1(Table3).

Harvest Index (HI):

Significant differenes (p [less than or equal to] 0.01) were found in the drought stress levels, cultivars and interaction between drought stress and cultivars to HI%. The maximum (32.3%) HI was obtained by I2 and the minimum (23.5%) HI was obtaind by I1, the maximum (30.9%) cultivars for HI x vc, and minimum (24.9%), HI x cn. The results showed a significant difference (p [less than or equal to] 0.05) for interaction between drought stress and cultivars to HI. The maximum and minimum HI were produced by I2 x vc (36.7%) and I1 x cn (23.5%), respectively. The same results regarding HI of Mungbean cultivar was also reported by Abbasi et al. [1] and Ahmad [2], identifying different 100Gw in Mung bean cultivars.

Biomass (B):

The results revealed that different cultivars and drought stress levels and interaction between drought stress and cultivars had a significant effect (P [less than or equal to] 0.01) on Biomass. According to cultivars, the maximum B (14020kg/h) was produced in plots with vc; while, the minimum B (10500kg/h) was obtained from plots planted with cn cultivar (Table 2). The variation in B among different Mungbean cultivars occurred due to varying potential cultivars for this parameter [19]. According to drought stress, the maximum B (16166kg/h) was produced in plots with I1; while, the minimum B (10322kg/h) was obtained from plots planted with I3 (Table2). For interaction between drought stress and cultivars to B, the maximum and minimum B were produced by I1 x vc (19390k g/h) and I3 x kp (7503kg/h) B, respectively. These results were also reported by Abbasi et al. [1] and Sadeghipor et al. [14].

Leaf Area Index (LAI):

The drought stress showed that cultivar treatments, drought stress, and interaction had a significant effect (P [less than or equal to] 0.01) on Leaf Area Index. According to cultivars, the largest LAI (5.807) was obtained using Ih; while, the minimum LAI (5.137) was obtained from plots planted with kp cultivar (Table 2). According to drought stress, the maximum LAI (8.023) was produced in I1; while, the minimum LAI (3.641) was obtained from plots planted with I3 (Table 2). For interaction between drought stress and cultivars to LAI, the maximum and minimum LAI was obtained by I1 x Ih (8.577) and I3 x kp (1.953) LAI, respectively. These findings are quite in agreement with those of Nielsen and Nilson [12]. Thomas et al [18].


Shortage of water causes interferences in the biochemical activities, production of photosynthetical materials, shortage of seed capacity, reduction of seed size, and, ultimately, a decrease in seed yield. The results of this study indicated that drought stress has an in/direct effect on plant vital processes, inflicting its life. Accordingly, optimal conditions for production would be watering the plant at 120 mm evaporation level from the pan. Furthermore, each attribute was found to have a direct and significant effect on seed yield, indicating that all the attributes, that is, P, HI, LAI, and B should be controlled; otherwise, the plant growth would be impaired. Likewise, differences were found in the tolerance to stress level between the cultivars and lines; however, this attribute ranked lower compared to Partow cultivar due to seed size, better marketability, indeterminate growth, and VC seed attrition. Compared to Partow cultivar (about 8%), the atrition level was found to be lower (2%) for the promissing line, and mechanized harvesting can be performed in the area. These findings were compatible with, Ahmad [2], Bismillah Khan [4], Maqsood et al [11], Nielsen and Nilson [12] and Thomas et al. [18].


seeds to pod ratio (SP), Weight of 100 Grains (100GW), Seed Yield (SY), Leaf Area Index (LAI), Harvest Index (HI), Biomass (B), number of pods per plant (P/P), number of seeds per pod (S/P), Cultivars: Partow(Pa),Indian heap(Ih), Promising lines: Vc6172(Vc), Kps1(Kp) and Cn95(Cn).


[1.] Abbasi, P., 2003. Effects of different levels salinity and water stress on growth characteristics and physiological traits Aeluropus spp. Ph.D. Thesis. Islamic Azad University of Tehran. Iran.

[2.] Ahmed, S., 2006. Changes of endogenous ABA and ACC, and their correlations to photosynthesis and water relation, during water logging. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 57: 278-284.

[3.] Bekele, S., 2007. Regulated deficit irrigation scheduling of Onion in se me-arid region of Ethiopia. Agri. Water Manage., 89(1-2):148-152.

[4.] Bismillah Khan, M.M. Asif, N. Hussain and M. Aziz, 2003. Impact of different levels of phosphorus on growth and yield of Mungbean genotypes. Asian J. plant Sci., 2(9): 677-679.

[5.] Ferrat, J.L., C.L. Lovatt, 1992. Relationship between relative water content, Nitrogen Pools, and growth of Phaseolus vulgaris. gray during water deficit. Crop science., 39: 467-473.

[6.] Ghosh, P.K., and K.M. Hati, 2004. Comparative effectivence of cattle manure, poultry manure, phosphocompost and fertilizer-NPK on three cropping system in vertisols of semi-arid tropics.[PI]. Dry matter yield, nodulation, chlorophyll content and enzyme activity, 95: 85-93.

[7.] Khattak, G.S.S., M.A. Haq, M. Ashraf, G.R. TTahir, 2001. Detection of epistasis and estimation of additive and dominance component of genetic variation mungbean Fild Crop Res.,72: 211-219.

[8.] Lopez, F.B., T.L. Setter, C.R. McDavid, 1988. Photosynthesis and Water vapor Exchange of Pigeon pea leaves in response to water deficit and recovery. Crop Sci., 28: 141-145.

[9.] Maroco, J.P., J.S. Periera, 2000. Growth, Photosynthesis and water use efficiency of two CH sahelian grasses subjected to water deficits. Journal of Arid Environment, 45: 119-137.

[10.] Miashita, K., 2004. Recovery response of photosynthesis, transpiration and stomatal 2484onductance in kidney bean following drought stress. Env and Exp Botany.

[11.] Maqsood, M., J. Iqbal, K. Rafiq and N. Yousaf, 2000. Response of two mung bean to different irrigation levels. Pak. J.Agric. Sci., 3: 1006-1007.

[12.] Nielsen, D.C. & N.O. Nelson, 1998. Black bean sensivity to water stress at various growth stages. Crop Sci., 38: 422-427.

[13.] Reddy, A.R., K.V. Chaitany and M. Vivekanandan, 2004. Drought-induced responses of photosynthesis and antioxidant metabolism in higher plants. J. Plant Physiol., 161: 1189-1202.

[14.] Sadeghipour, O., The influences of water stress on Biomass and Harvest index in three mung bean cultivars. Asian jornal of plant science .ISSN.1682-3974.

[15.] Siddiqui, M.H., F.C. Oad and U.A. Buriro, 2007. Response of Cotton cultivars to varying irrigation regimes. Asian J. Plant Sci., 6(1): 153-157.

[16.] Taiz and zeiger, Kafi, Zand and Abbasi, 2009. Plant physiology.

[17.] Taylor, S. and G.L. Ashcroft, 1972. Physical edaphology-the physics of irrigated and nonoirrigated soils. Freeman, Sanfrancisco.

[18.] Thomas., M.J. Robertson, 2003. The effect of timing and severity of water deficit on growth development, yield accumulation and nitrogen fixation of mung bean. Field Crop Res., 86(1): 67-80.

[19.] Ward, K., R. Scarth, J. Daun, 1992. Effects of genotype and environment on seed chlorophyll degradation during ripening in four cultivars of oilseed rape. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 72: 643-649.

(1) Zarifinia, Nasser, (2) Amir Aynehband, (3) Shahram Lak, (4) Adel Modhej, (5) Ali Akbar Ghanbari & (6) Reza Sekhavat

(1) PhD. student of physiology, Islamic Azad University, Science & Research branch in Khuzestan;

(2,3,4) Professor of Science and Research branch of Khuzestan;

(5) Researcher in Seed and Plant Improvement Institute, Karaj, Pulse crops department;

(6) Researcher in Safiabad Agricultural Research Center of Dezful

Corresponding Author

Zarifinia, Nasser, PhD. student of physiology, Islamic Azad University, Science & Research branch in Khuzestan
Table 1: Interaction effects of water stress levels and cultivar
on agronomic traits of mungbean (2010-2011)

Variation     Df   Sp         100Gw      SY/h          LAI

Y(Year)       1    50.5ns     1.003ns    226402ns      5730490 **
Rep x Y       4    11.6ns     0.275ns    92195ns       983628ns
A             2    17.8ns     0.777 *    10446092 **   185513134 **
A x Y         2    0.0001ns   0.0001ns   128.6ns       9302.5ns
A x rep x Y   8    27.9ns     0.187ns    176791ns      1303663ns
B             4    41.6 *     55.7 **    421375 **     4561791 **
A x B         8    29.01ns    0.502 **   1705110 **    31463958 **
Y x B         4    0.0001ns   0.0003ns   132.9ns       24365ns
Y x A x B     8    0.0001ns   0.0009ns   67ns          26365ns
Error         48   16.43      0.225      236293        970495
CV%                0.062      0.0757     0.1661        0.1912

Variation     Df   HI%        B(kg/h)      S/p        P/P

Y(Year)       1    22.5ns     56250ns      4.14ns     2.88ns
Rep x Y       4    2.16ns     51837ns      0.026ns    10.85ns
A             2    537.9 **   3443441 **   20.84 **   70.02 *
A x Y         2    0.0001ns   0.001ns      0.0008ns   0.0005ns
A x rep x Y   8    4.79       4441ns       0.448ns    11.12ns
B             4    144.8 **   558409 **    1.65ns     280.89 **
A x B         8    87.6 **    174220 **    1.79 *     18.82ns
Y x B         4    0.0001ns   0.001ns      0.171ns    0.0032ns
Y x A x B     8    0.0001ns   0.001ns      0.109ns    0.0006ns
Error         48   6.61       21371        0.741      17.02
CV%                0.092      0.1177       0.0944     0.1695

Significant probability level of 5% and 1% *, **--insignificant
ns--water stress A--cultivar B--interaction between water stress
and cultivar AB

Table 2: Mean comparison of yield and yield components of
mungbean cultivar grown under water stress levels conditions
(Average values of 2010 and 2011 seasons)

Treatment   Sp (%)   S/p      p/p      100G w (g)   SY(Kg/h)

I1          64.5a    9.5b     24.3ab   6.5a         3458a
I2          66a      9.4b     25.9a    6.3ab        3300b
I3          65.5a    10a      22.8b    6.1b         2291c
Partow      67a      10.04a   26.3b    3.68d        3482a
Hendi       63b      10.03a   25.4b    5.19c        3271ab
Vc6172      66.1a    8.03c    29.4a    7.83a        2978b
Kps1        64.7ab   7.73c    21.2c    7.22b        2287d
Cn95        65.9ab   9.4b     19.6c    7.36b        2614c

Treatment   LAI     HI%   B(kg/h)

I1          8023a   24c   16330a
I2          3758    32a   1061b
I3          3676b   28b   1033b
Partow      5208a   25c   13410a
Hendi       5806a   27b   13650a
Vc6172      5305a   31a   14020a
Kps1        5137a   31a   10510b
Cn95        4404b   25c   10500b

Table 2: Mean interaction comparison of agronomic
traits of mungbean cultivar grown under water
stress levels conditions (Average values of 2010
and 2011 seasons)

Treatment   S p(%)   S/p     P/P      100Gw (g)

I1 xPa      64.4a    9ab     28.4ab   3.7d
I1xIh       63a      9.6a    25.6b    5.2c
I1xvc       68.5a    7.8c    28.7ab   7.6a
I1xKP       60.8a    8.4b    19.8c    6.6b
I1xcn       65.8a    9.7a    18.9c    7.3a
I2x Pa      68.8a    10.3a   25b      3.7d
I2xIh       64a      9.8a    26.9ab   5.3c
I2xvc       65.5a    8b      33.3a    8 a
I2xKP       67.3a    7.2c    23.4b    7.7a
I2xcn       65.9a    8.7ab   21.1c    7.1a
I3x Pa      67.9a    10.8a   25.1b    3.6d
I3xIh       62.2a    10.7a   23.7b    5.1c
I3xvc       64.3a    8.3b    26.2ab   7.9a
I3xKP       66a      7.6c    20.4c    7.4a
I3xcn       66a      9.7a    18.8c    7.7a

Treatment   SY(Kg/h)   LAI     HI%     B(kg/h)

I1 xPa      4365a      4978c   21e     17440a
I1xIh       3045b      8577a   25de    17000a
I1xvc       3789ab     7904a   25de    19390a
I1xKP       2964b      3464c   24de    15990ab
I1xcn       3124b      6194b   24de    11800b
I2x Pa      3626ab     6517b   27d     11350b
I2xIh       4160a      4312c   28d     13490b
I2xvc       3031b      3919c   37.4a   11540b
I2xKP       2114c      1846e   37b     8020e
I2xcn       2550c      2188d   27d     9130d
I3x Pa      2455c      3830c   28d     11450b
I3xIh       2607c      3521c   29d     10460c
I3xvc       2113c      4094c   27d     11120b
I3xKP       1783d      2103d   31c     7500d
I3xcn       2168c      4830c   25de    10560c

Table 12: Correlation coefficients between examined traits in
mung bean cultivars

                  Seed            HI(%)       LAI         B(kg/h)

HI%               0.331 **
LAI               0.480 **        0.433 **-
Biomass           0.516 **        0.504 **-   0.678 **
100 seed w(g)     -0.014ns        0.332 **    0.141ns     0.248 **-
SP(%)             0.051ns-        0.113ns     0.322 **-   0.027ns
p/p               0.0277ns        0.317 **    -0.0187ns   0.371 **
Seed Yield        0.077ns         0.307 **    0.385 **    0.658 **

                  100s w(g)   SP(%)      p/p

100 seed w(g)
SP(%)             0.044ns
p/p               -0.615ns    0.132ns
Seed Yield        0.388 **-   0.325 **   0.715 **
COPYRIGHT 2012 American-Eurasian Network for Scientific Information
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2012 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Zarifinia; Nasser; Aynehband, Amir; Lak, Shahram; Modhej, Adel; Ghanbari, Ali Akbar; Sekhavat, Reza
Publication:Advances in Environmental Biology
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:7IRAN
Date:Aug 1, 2012
Previous Article:Expression pattern analysis of pyridoxal kinase gene from Aeluropus Lagopoides (alaSOS4) under salinity, calcium and abscisic acid treatments.
Next Article:Effect of split application of nitrogen fertilizer on growth and yield of hybrid rice(GRH1).

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters