Skip to main content Accessibility help

Waterlogging tolerance in pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.): genotypic variability and identification of tolerant genotypes

  • R. SULTANA (a1), M. I. VALES (a1), K. B. SAXENA (a1), A. RATHORE (a1), S. RAO (a2), S. K. RAO (a2), M. G. MULA (a1) and R. V. KUMAR (a1)...


Pigeonpea is an important legume crop of the semi-arid tropics. In India, pigeonpea is mostly grown in areas prone to waterlogging, resulting in major production losses. It is imperative to identify genotypes that show tolerance at critical crop growth stages to prevent these losses. A selection of 272 diverse pigeonpea accessions was evaluated for seed submergence tolerance for different durations (0, 120, 144, 168 and 192 h) under in vitro conditions in the laboratory. All genotypes exhibited high (0·79–0·98) survival rates for up to 120 h of submergence. After 192 h of submergence, the hybrids as a group exhibited significantly higher survival rates (0·79) than the germplasm (0·71), elite breeding lines (0·68) and commercial varieties (0·58). Ninety-six genotypes representing the phenotypic variation observed during laboratory screening were further evaluated for waterlogging tolerance at the early seedling stage using pots, and survival rates were recorded for 8 days after completion of the stress treatment. Forty-nine of these 96 genotypes, representing the phenotypic variation for waterlogging tolerance, were chosen in order to evaluate their performance under natural field conditions. The following cultivated varieties and hybrids were identified as tolerant after three levels of testing (in vitro, in pots and in the field): ICPH 2431, ICPH 2740, ICPH 2671, ICPH 4187, MAL 9, LRG 30, Maruti, ICPL 20128, ICPL 332, ICPL 20237, ICPL 20238, Asha and MAL 15. These materials can be used as sources of waterlogging tolerance in breeding programmes.


Corresponding author

*To whom all correspondence should be addressed. Email:


Hide All
Abebe, M., Mamo, T., Duffera, M. & Kidam, S. (1992). Durum wheat response to improved drainage of Vertisols in the central highlands of Ethiopia. In Seventh Regional Wheat Workshop for Eastern Central and Southern Africa, held in Nakuru, Kenya, 16–19 September 1991 (Eds Tanner, D. G. & Mwangi, W.), pp. 407414. Mexico: CIMMYT.
Chaudhary, A. K., Sultana, R., Pratap, A., Nadarajan, N. & Jha, U. C. (2011). Breeding for abiotic stresses in pigeonpea. Journal of Food Legumes 24, 165174.
Chauhan, Y. S., Silim, S. N., Kumar Rao, J. V. D. K. & Johansen, C. (1997). A pot technique to screen pigeonpea cultivars for resistance to waterlogging. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 178, 179183.
Cowie, A. L., Jessop, R. S. & Macleod, D. A. (1996). Effects of waterlogging on chickpeas. II. Possible causes of decreased tolerance of waterlogging at flowering. Plant and Soil 183, 105115.
De Jabrun, P. L. M., Byth, D. E. & Wallis, E. S. (1980). Imbibition by and effects of temperature on germination of mature seed of pigeonpea. In International Workshop in Pigeonpea. Proc. Int. Workshop on Pigeonpea held in Patancheru, India, 15–19 December 1980 Vol. 2 (Ed. Nene, Y. L.), pp. 181188. Patancheru, India: ICRISAT.
Dubey, S. D. & Asthana, A. N. (1987). Selection of plant type resistance to waterlogging in pigeonpea (abstract). In Food Legume Improvement for Asian Farming Systems. Proc. Int. Workshop held in Khon Kaen, Thailand, 1–5 September 1986 (Eds Wallis, E. S. & Byth, D. E.), p. 311. Canberra, Australia: ACIAR.
Duke, S. H. & Kakefuda, G. (1981). Role of the testa in preventing cellular rupture during imbibition of legume seeds. Plant Physiology 67, 449456.
FAO (2009). FAOSTAT. Rome: FAO. Available from: (verified 26 September. 2010).
Gomez, K. A. & Gomez, A. A. (1984). Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research, 2nd edn. London: John Wiley and Sons.
Hou, F. F. & Thseng, F. S. (1991). Studies on the flooding tolerance of soybean seed: varietal differences. Euphytica 57, 169173.
Jackson, M. B. (1990). Hormones and developmental change in plants subjected to submergence or soil waterlogging. Aquatic Botany 38, 4972.
Johnson, J., Cobb, B. G. & Drew, M. C. (1989). Hypoxic induction of anoxia tolerance in root tips of Zea mays. Plant Physiology 91, 837841.
Kennedy, R. A., Rumpho, M. E. & Fox, T. C. (1992). Anaerobic metabolism in plants. Plant Physiology 100, 16.
Khare, D., Rao, S., Lakhani, J. P. & Satpute, R. G. (2002). Tolerance for flooding during germination in pigeonpea. Seed Research 30, 8287.
Krishnamurthy, L., Upadhyaya, H. D., Saxena, K. B. & Vadez, V. (2012). Variation for temporary waterlogging response within the mini core pigeonpea germplasm.Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 150, 357364.
Laanbroek, H. J. (1990). Bacterial cycling of minerals that affect plant growth in waterlogged soils: a review. Aquatic Botany 38, 109125.
Levitt, J. (1980). Excess water or flooding stress. In Responses of Plants to Environmental Stresses. Vol. 2: Water, Radiation, Salt, and Other Stresses (Ed. Levitt, J.), pp. 213228. New York: Academic Press.
Matsunaga, R., Ito, O., Tobita, S., Rao, T. P. & Johansen, C. (1994). Response of short-duration pigeonpea to nitrogen application after short-term waterlogging on a vertisol. Field Crops Research 38, 167174.
Orchard, P. W. & Jessop, R. S. (1984). The response of sorghum and sunflower to short term waterlogging. I. Effects of stage of development and duration of waterlogging on growth and yield. Plant and Soil 81, 119132.
Perera, M., Pooni, H. S. & Saxena, K. B. (2001). Components of genetic variation in short-duration pigeonpea crosses under waterlogged conditions. Journal of Genetics and Breeding 55, 2138.
Ponnamperuma, F. N. (1972). The chemistry of submerged soil. Advances in Agronomy 24, 2995.
Powell, A. A. & Matthews, S. (1978). The damaging effect of water on dry pea embryos during imbibition. Journal of Experimental Botany 29, 12151229.
Rathore, T. R., Warsi, M. Z. K., Singh, N. N. & Vasal, S. K. (1997). Waterlogging problem for maize production in Asian region. TAMNET News Letter 4, 1314.
Reddy, S. J. & Virmani, S. M. (1981). Pigeonpea and its climatic environment. In Proc. Int. Workshop on Pigeonpea held in Patancheru, India, 15–19 December 1980, Vol. 1 (Ed. Nene, Y. L.), pp. 259270. Patancheru, India: ICRISAT.
Sachs, M. M., Freeling, M. & Okimoto, R. (1980). The anaerobic proteins in maize. Cell 20, 761767.
Sarode, S. B., Singh, M. N. & Singh, U. P. (2007). Genetics of waterlogging tolerance in pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp). Indian Journal of Genetics and Plant Breeding 67, 264265.
SAS Institute Inc (2008). SAS/STAT® 9·2 User's Guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.
Saxena, K. B. (2008). Genetic improvement in pigeonpea: a review. Tropical Plant Biology 1, 159178.
Saxena, K. B., Sultana, R., Mallikarjuna, N., Saxena, R. K., Kumar, R. V., Sawargaonkar, S. L. & Varshney, R. K. (2010). Male-sterility systems in pigeonpea and their role in enhancing yield. Plant Breeding 129, 125134.
Sultana, R., Singh, P. P., Singh, R. P., Singh, D. K., Jat, M. L., Dass, S., Zaidi, P. H. & Singh, I. (2009). Studies on gene effects of traits associated with excessive soil moisture tolerance in tropical maize (Zea mays L.). In Abstracts of Invited Papers: 4th World Congress on Conservation Agriculture, 4–7 February 2009, New Delhi, India, p. 81. New Delhi: 4th World Congress on Conservation Agriculture.
Takele, A. & McDavid, C. R. (1995). The response of pigeonpea cultivars to short durations of waterlogging. African Crop Science Journal 3, 5158.
Tsai, C. F., Chu, T. M. & Wang, C. Y. (1997). Effect of waterlogging on growth and development of sorghum plant: responses of seed germination. Chinese Agronomy Journal 7, 203212.
Vantoai, T. T., Beuerlein, J. E., Schmitthenner, A. F. & St. Martin, S. K. (1994). Genetic variability for flooding tolerance in soybeans. Crop Science 34, 11121115.
Vartapetian, B. B. & Jackson, M. B. (1997). Plant adaptations to anaerobic stress. Annals of Botany 79, 320.
Whiteman, P. C., Seitlheko, M., Siregar, M. E., Chudasama, A. K. & Javier, R. R. (1984). Short-term flooding tolerance of seventeen commercial tropical pasture legumes. Tropical Grasslands 18, 9196.


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed