Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T20:39:24.863Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Standardization of screening technique and evaluation of muskmelon genotypes for drought tolerance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 July 2016

Sudhakar Pandey ,
Waquar Akhter Ansari ,
Neelam Atri ,
Bijendra Singh ,
Sunil Gupta  and
Kangila Venkataraman Bhat
Sudhakar Pandey*
Affiliation:
ICAR-Indian Institute of Vegetable Research, Post Box-01, P.O.-Jakhani (Shahanshahpur), Varanasi-221 305 (Uttar Pradesh), India
Waquar Akhter Ansari
Affiliation:
ICAR-Indian Institute of Vegetable Research, Post Box-01, P.O.-Jakhani (Shahanshahpur), Varanasi-221 305 (Uttar Pradesh), India Department of Botany, M.M.V, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi-221 005 (Uttar Pradesh), India
Neelam Atri
Affiliation:
Department of Botany, M.M.V, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi-221 005 (Uttar Pradesh), India
Bijendra Singh
Affiliation:
ICAR-Indian Institute of Vegetable Research, Post Box-01, P.O.-Jakhani (Shahanshahpur), Varanasi-221 305 (Uttar Pradesh), India
Sunil Gupta
Affiliation:
ICAR-Indian Institute of Vegetable Research, Post Box-01, P.O.-Jakhani (Shahanshahpur), Varanasi-221 305 (Uttar Pradesh), India
Kangila Venkataraman Bhat
Affiliation:
ICAR-National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (Pusa Campus), New Delhi-110012, India
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: sudhakariivr@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A five-point drought stress screening methodology for muskmelon based on visual observation has been standardized by modifying an earlier field screening method. The scale (1 to 5), were categorized into five groups, namely, highly drought tolerant (1), drought tolerant (2), average drought tolerant (3), drought susceptible (4) and highly drought susceptible (5). To validate and standardized the technique, 48 genotypes of muskmelon were evaluated for two successive years. Important physiological parameters, i.e.: relative water content (RWC), electrolyte leakage, photosynthetic efficiency (Fv/Fm), chlorophyll concentration index (CCI), root and shoot length were measured and correlated to make screening results more reliable. Drought tolerance efficiency of genotypes was calculated based on yield, and drought-tolerant genotypes were identified with better yield efficiency and ranking on visual scale. Whereas, yield efficiency of some drought-tolerant genotypes were less, althouth they came under drought-tolerant scale. Being a tolerant genotype, these may not be economical for commercial cultivation. Under water-deficit condition a significant positive correlation was observed between drought tolerance efficiency, and RWC, Fv/Fm, CCI and root length. Out of 48 genotypes, 14 genotypes were came under highly drought-tolerant category based on 5 point scale.

Keywords

muskmelonphotosynthetic efficiencywater-deficityield efficiency
Type
Research Article
Information
Plant Genetic Resources , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , February 2018 , pp. 1 - 8
Copyright
Copyright © NIAB 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

Authors contributed equally to the work and should be considered as joint first authors.

References

Bahadur, A, Singh, KP, Rai, A, Verma, A and Rai, M (2009) Physiological and yield response of okra (Abelmoschus esculentus) to irrigation scheduling and organic mulching. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 79: 813–815.Google Scholar
Boyer, JS (1968) Measurement of the water status of plants. Annual Review of Plant Physiology 9: 351–363.Google Scholar
Brestic, M, Zivcak, M and Olsovska, K (2007) Photosynthesis parameters may serve to better characterization and parametrization of wheat genotypes under climate change conditions. Acta Physiologiae Plantarum 29: S43–S43.Google Scholar
Cabello, MJ, Castellanos, MT, Romojaro, F, Martinez-Madrid, C and Ribas, F (2009) Yield and quality of melon grown under different irrigation and nitrogen rates. Agricultural Water Management 96: 866–874.Google Scholar
Clarke, JM, Townley, STF, McCaig, TN and Green, DG (1984) Growth analysis of spring wheat cultivars of varying drought resistance. Crop Science 24: 537–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coombs, J, Hall, DO, Long, SP and Scurlock, JMO (1987) Techniques in Bioproductivity and Photosynthesis. Oxford, UK, Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Dhillon, NP, Monforte, AJ, Pitrat, M, Pandey, S, Singh, PK, Reitsma, KR, Garcia-Mas, J, Sharma, A and McCreight, JD (2012) Melon landraces of India: contributions and importance. Plant Breeding Reviews 35: 85–150.Google Scholar
FAOSTAT database, Food and Agriculture Organization Corporate Statistical Database, (2013) Available at http://www.faostat.fao.org Google Scholar
Feng, XH and Wu, DK (2007) Planting cucurbits in gravel mulched land. China Cucurbits and Vegetables 1: 57–58.Google Scholar
Fischer, KS and Wood, G (1981) Breeding and selection for drought tolerance in tropical maize. – In: Proceedings of Symposium on Principles and Methods in Crop Improvement for Drought Resist. With Emphasis on Rice, IRRI, Philippines, 23–25 May, 1981.Google Scholar
Fleury, D, Jerreries, S, Kuchel, H and Langridge, P (2010) Genetic and genomic tools to improve drought tolerance in wheat. Journal of Experimental Botany 61: 3211–3222.Google Scholar
Gomez, F, Oliva, MA, Mielke, MS, de Almeida, AAF, Leita, HG and Aquino, LA (2008) Photosynthetic limitations in leaves of young Brazilian Green Dwarf coconut (Cocos macifera L.) ‘‘nana’’ palm under well-watered conditions or recovering from drought stress. Environmental and Experimental Botany 62: 195–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ibrahim, EA (2012) Variability, heritability and genetic advance in Egyptian sweet melon (Cucumis melo var. Aegyptiacus L.) under water stress condition. International Journal of Plant Breeding and Genetics 6: 238–244.Google Scholar
Jaleel, CA, Manivannan, P, Lakshmanan, GMA, Gomathinayagam, M and Panneerselvam, R (2008) Alterations in morphological parameters and photosynthetic pigment responses of Catharanthus roseus under soil water-deficits. Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces 61: 298–303.Google Scholar
Khare, N, Goyary, D, Singh, NK, Shah, P, Rathore, M, Anandhan, S, Sharma, D, Arif, M and Ahmed, Z (2010) Transgenic tomato cv. Pusa Uphar expressing a bacterial mannitol-1-phosphate dehydrogenase gene confers abiotic stress tolerance. Plant Cell Tissue and Organ Culture 103: 267–277.Google Scholar
Kusvuran, S, Dasgan, HY and Abak, K (2011) Responses of different melon genotypes to drought stress. Journal of Agricultural Science 21: 209–219.Google Scholar
Liu, DS, Yang, WB and Zhao, XQ (2008) Studies on watermelon drought tolerance identification indices and method in gravel-mulched land of northwest China. China Vegetables 7: 17–21.Google Scholar
Matsui, T and Singh, BB (2003) Root characteristics in cowpea related to drought tolerance at the seedling stage. Experimental Agriculture 39: 29–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maxwell, K and Johnson, GN (2000) Chlorophyll fluorescence a practical guide. Journal of Experimental Botany 51: 659–668.Google Scholar
Ndunguru, BJ, Ntare, BR, Williams, JH and Greenberg, DC (1995) Assessment of groundnut cultivars for end of season drought tolerance in a Sahelian environment. Journal of Agricultural Sciences 125: 79–85.Google Scholar
Ober, ES, Clark, CJA, LeBola, M, Royal, A, Jaggard, KW and Pidgeon, JD (2004) Assessing the genetic resources to improve drought tolerance in sugar beet: agronomic traits of diverse genotypes under droughted and irrigated conditions. Field Crop Research 90: 213–234.Google Scholar
Pandey, S, Rai, M, Prasanna, HC and Kalloo, G (2008) ‘Kashi Madhu’: a new muskmelon cultivar with high total soluble solids. HortScience 43: 245–246.Google Scholar
Parameshwarappa, SG and Salimath, PM (2008) Field screening of chickpea genotypes for drought resistance. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Science 21: 113–114.Google Scholar
Ranjbarfordoei, A, Samson, R and Damme, PV (2006) Chlorophyll fluorescence performance of sweet almond [Prunusdulcis (Miller) D. Webb] in response to salinity stress induced by NaCl. Photosynthetica 44: 513–522.Google Scholar
Sanchez, RE, Rubio-Wilhelmi, MM, Cervilla, LM, Blasco, B, Rios, JJ, Rosales, MA, Romero, L and Ruiz, JM (2010) Genotypic differences in some physiological parameters symptomatic for oxidative stress under moderate drought in tomato plants. Plant Science 178: 30–40.Google Scholar
Singh, AK and Dubey, RS (1995) Changes in chlorophyll a and b contents and activity of photosystem 1 and 2 in rice seedlings induced by NaCl. Photosynthetica 31: 489–499.Google Scholar
Srinivas, K, Hegde, DM and Havanagi, GV (1989) Plant water relations, canopy temperature, yield and water-use efficiency of watermelon (Citrullus Lanatus (Thunb.)) under drip and furrow irrigation. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 6: 115–124.Google Scholar
Tocker, C, Canci, H and Yildrin, T (2007) Evaluation of perennial wild Cicer species for drought resistance. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 54: 1781–1786.Google Scholar
Valentovic, P, Luxova, M, Kolarovic, L and Gasparikova, O (2006) Effect of osmotic stress on compatible solutes content, membrane stability and water relations in two maize cultivars. Plant Soil Environment 52: 186–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, H, Gong, G, Guo, S, Ren, Y, and Xu, Y (2011) Screening the USDA watermelon germplasm collection for drought tolerance at the seedling stage. HortScience 46: 1245–1248.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Pandey supplementary material

Tables S1-S2

Download Pandey supplementary material(File)
File 34.6 KB