IMPACT OF PINK-PIGMENTED FACULTATIVE METHYLOTROPH ON PHYSIOLOGICAL, GROWTH ANALYTICAL TRAITS AND YIELD OF TOMATO (Solanum lycopersicum) UNDER DROUGHT CONDITION

R. SIVAKUMAR¹*, P. CHANDRASEKARAN², S. SRIVIDHYA³, M. VIJAYAKUMAR^4
1Regional Research Station, Paiyur, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, 641003, Tamil Nadu, India
²Regional Research Station, Paiyur, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, 641003, Tamil Nadu, India
³Regional Research Station, Paiyur, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, 641003, Tamil Nadu, India
⁴Regional Research Station, Paiyur, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, 641003, Tamil Nadu, India
* Corresponding Author : sivatnau14@gmail.com

Received : 14-05-2018     Accepted : 25-05-2018     Published : 30-05-2018
Volume : 10     Issue : 5       Pages : 1205 - 1208
Int J Microbiol Res 10.5 (2018):1205-1208
DOI : http://dx.doi.org/10.9735/0975-5276.10.5.1205-1208

Keywords : PPFM, BL, water potential, leaf temperature, NAR, flower abscission, tomato
Conflict of Interest : None declared
Acknowledgements/Funding : Author thankful to Department of Crop Physiology, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, 641003, Tamil Nadu, India for providing Glass house, pots and labours for timely completion of Research work
Author Contribution : All author equally contributed

An experiment was conducted to assess the impact of Pink Pigmented Facultative Methylotroph and plant growth regulators on alleviating the drought stress effects on tomato through estimating leaf water potential, leaf temperature, stomatal conductance, net assimilation rate, relative growth rate and yield. Pot culture experiment was carried out in tomato variety PKM 1 with foliar spray of PPFM (1%), PPFM (2%), PPFM (3%) and growth regulators like brassinolide (1 ppm), salicylic acid (100 ppm), benzyl amino purine (100 ppm) and gibberellic acid (10 ppm) under drought condition created based on field capacity of soil. 50 per cent field capacity was maintained throughout the growth period for induction of drought and 100 per cent field capacity maintained as non-stress control. Among the PGRs and different concentrations of PPFM used, 2% PPFM was found to superior in improving drought tolerance. The highest leaf water potential of -0.89 MPa was registered by PPFM (2%) which can protect the plant under drought. Foliar spray of 2% PPFM recorded lowest leaf temperature (25.2°C) and highest stomatal conductance (0.40 mmol m-2 s-1) followed by brassinolide (25.5 and 0.38 respectively). Brassinolide registered its supremacy on higher net assimilation rate (0.646) followed by 2% PPFM (0.628). The higher fruit yield of 552.9 g was maintained by PPFM (2%) followed by brassinolide (509.4) under drought.

1. Malik M. and Bashir E. (1994) Horticulture. National Book Foundation, USA.
2. Khan S.H., Khan A., Litaf U., Shah A.S., Khan M.A., Bilal M. and Ali M.U. (2015) Journal of Food Processing and Technology, 6 (7), 465-470.
3. Mahesh B., Parshavaneni B., Ramakrishna B. and Rao S.S.R. (2013) American Journal of Plant Sciences, 4, 2305–2313.
4. Chandrasekaran P., Sivakumar R., Nandhitha G.K., Vishnuveni M., Boominathan P. and Senthilkumar M. (2017) International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences, 6 (6), 540-549.
5. Sivakumar R., Nandhitha G.K., Chandrasekaran P., Boominathan P. and Senthilkumar M. (2017) International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences, 6 (6), 1640-1651.
6. Farjam S., Siosemardeh A., Kazemi-Arbat H., Yarnia M. and Rokhzadi A. (2013) Journal of Applied Botany and Food Quality, 87, 80-86.
7. Peleg Z., Reguera M., Tumimbang E., Walia H. and Blumwald E. (2011) Plant Biotechnology Journal, 9, 747-758.
8. Williams S.R.F. (1946) Methods of growth analysis. In: Plant photosynthetic production manual methods (Sestak, Z., J. Catasky and P. J. Jouris (eds). Drow, JenkN.U.Publishers. The Hague, 348-391.
9. Gomez K.A. and Gomez A.A. (1984) Statistical procedures for agricultural research. (2nd Ed.) John Wiley and Sons, New York, USA.
10. Suresh K., Kumar M.K., Kantha D.L., Lakshmi R.P. and Sunil Kumar K. (2012) Indian Journal of Plant Physiology, 17 (3&4), 233-240.
11. Zhang M., Zhai Z. Tian X. Duan L. and Li Z. (2008) Plant Growth Regul., 56, 257-264.
12. Chartzoulakis K., Noitsakis B. and Therios I. (1993) Irrigation Science, 14, 1-5.
13. Cervantes-Martinez J., Lopez-Diaz S. and Rodriguez-Garay B. (2004) Plant Science, 166, 889-892.
14. AminA.A., Abd El-Kader A., Magda A.F., Shalaby,Fatma A.E., GharibEl-Sherbeny M., Rashad A. and Jaime A. (2013) Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 44, 1141-1155.
15. Krishna Surendar K., Vincent S., Mallika Vanagamudi and Vijayaraghavan H. (2013) Bulletin of Environment, Pharmacology and Life Sciences, 2 (4), 70-76.
16. Koenig R.L., Morris R.O. and Polacco J.C. (2002) Journal of Bacteriology, 184, 1832-1842.
17. Hornschuh M., Grotha R. and Kutschera U. (2002) Plant Biology, 4, 682-687.
18. Anurajan S. (2003) M.Sc. (Agriculture) Thesis, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore
19. Jones N.P. (2010) Ph.D. (Agriculture) Thesis, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad.
20. Ramazan A.K., Farzaneh N., Khadijeh R. and Farhad R. (2017) Physiology and Molecular Biology of Plants, 23 (3), 557–564.
21. Srivastava K., Kumar S., Prakash P. and Vaishampayan A. (2012) Sabrao Journal of Breeding Genetics, 44 (2), 263 – 276.
22. Wang W., Vinocur B. and Altman A. (2003) Planta, 218, 1-14.
23. Aloni B., Karni L., Zaidman Z., Riov Y. and Schaffer A. (1996) Annals of Botany, 78, 163-168.
24. Wang W., Vinocur B. and Altman A. (2003) Planta, 218, 1-14.
25. Shah N.H. and Paulsen G.M. (2011) Plant Soil, 257, 219-226.