EVALUATION OF SELECTED SINGLE CROSS MAIZE (ZEA MAYS L.) HYBRIDS AND THEIR PARENTS FOR PHYSIOLOGICAL TRAITS UNDER DROUGHT STRESS

AKSHATA PATIL¹*, U.V. MUMMIGATTI², V.P. CHIMMAD^3
1Department of Crop Physiology, College of Agriculture, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, 580001, Karnataka, India
²Professor, Department of Crop Physiology, College of Agriculture, Vijaypur, 586101, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, 580001, Karnataka, India
³Professor and Head, Department of Crop Physiology, College of Agriculture, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, 580001, Karnataka, India
* Corresponding Author : akshata.patil5548@gmail.com

Received : 02-02-2019     Accepted : 12-02-2019     Published : 15-02-2019
Volume : 11     Issue : 3       Pages : 7864 - 7869
Int J Agr Sci 11.3 (2019):7864-7869

Keywords : Hybrid lines, Grain yield, Drought susceptibility index
Academic Editor : Kadir Muhammad, Naserzadeh Yousef
Conflict of Interest : None declared
Acknowledgements/Funding : Authors are thankful to College of Agriculture, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, 580001, Karnataka
Author Contribution : All authors equally contributed

The present study was conducted at Main Agricultural Research Station (MARS), Dharwad the experiment was evaluation of selected single cross maize (Zea mays L.) hybrids and their parents for physiological traits under drought stress. Plant height, relative water content, gas exchange (net photosynthesis rate, stomatal conductance, transpiration rate and leaf temperature) and grain yield per plant ultimately hybrids which are least susceptibility index for drought with different soil moisture availability. Identified the hybrids shown least drought susceptibility index and highest grain yield under drought stress condition viz., DMIL 516 × DMIL 230 (6,338 kg per ha), DMIL 715 × DMIL 607 (3,665 kg per ha), CML 425 × DMIL 516 (3,905 kg per ha), CML 425 × DMIL 607 (3,052 kg per ha), NC 468 × DMIL 692 (3,641 kg per ha) and DMIL 553 × DMIL 447 (3.687 kg per ha) were identified as drought tolerant hybrids for commercial cultivation. Similarly, among the parents shown least drought susceptibility index viz., DMIL 230 (0.65 %), DMIL 715 (0.53 %) and DMIL 516 (0.56 %) showed least drought susceptibility index with least change in physiological parameters under two moisture levels. We found that all these physiological traits, grain yield and drought susceptibility index (DSI) were inhibited by drought stress.

1. Adjei G. B. and Kirkhan M. B. (1980) Euphytica, 29, 255-260.
2. Alishaha A. O. and Ahmadikhahb A. (2009) Int. J. Plant Prod., 3 (1), 17-26.
3. Anonymous (2016) New Delhi, 29.
4. Aroca R. (2012) Int,symp., (23), 154
5. Alam S.M., Pessarakli M. (1999) Handbook of plant and crop stress, (2), pp,285–313.
6. Barrs H. D. and Weatherly P. E. (1962) Australian J. Bio. Sci., 15, 413-428.
7. Byrne P. F., Bolanos J., Edmeades G. O. and Eaton D. L. (1995) Crop Sci., 35, 63-69.
8. Chen J., Gu W. L. and Dai J. Y. (1990) Plant Physiol. Communic., (6), 39-41.
9. Demirevska K, Dimitrov R, Stamenova M, Feller U. (2009) Acta Physiol Plant. (31), 1129–1138.
10. Edmeades G. O., Bolanos J., Elings A., Ribaut J. M., Baniziger M. and Westgate M. E. (2000b) (SSA Special Publication 29) CSSA, Madison, WI, 43-73.
11. Edmeades G. O., Cooper M., Lafitte R., Zinselmeier C., Ribaut J. M., Habben J. E., Lofler C. and Banziger M. (2001) Abiotic stress and staple crops, pp. 137-154.
12. Fischer K. S., Edmeades G. O. and Johnson E. C. (1989) Field Crops Res., 22, 227-243.
13. Hemalatha Devi G. V. (1989) Ph. D. Thesis, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, 144.
14. Iswaran V. (1980) A laboratory. Hand book for Agricultural Analysis, 85-86.
15. Kirkham M. B. (1988) Plant and Soil, 105 (1), 19–24.
16. Luo Y., Hao Z., Xie C., Crossa J., Araus J. L., Gao S., Vivek B. S. and Xu Y. (2011) Field Crop Res., 124, 37-45.
17. Meena Kumari, Sain Dass, Vimala, Y. and Arora, P. (2004) Indian J. Plant Physiol., 9, 203-207.
18. O’Regan B. P., Cress W. A., Staden J. Van. and Van Staden J. (1993) Plant Physiology, 59, 98-104.
19. Pace P. F., Cralle H. T., Halawany S. H. M., Cothren J. T. and Senseman S. A. (1999) J. Cotton Sci., 3, 183–187.
20. Pelleschi S., Ruelle D., Rocher J. P., Prioul J. L. and Mathis P. (1995) international confferance. Vol. IVth. Proc. of the Xth International Photosynthesis Congress, Montpeltier, France, 120-25 August 1995, pp. 701- 704.
21. Subba Rao M. and Singh R. D. (1993) In, Abstract of 4th Annu. Conf. of Purvanchal Acad. of Sci., Jaipur (U. P.), March 26-28, 1993, 66.
22. Turner N. C. (1979) In, Stress Physiol. in Crop Plants (H. Mussel and R. C. Staples, eds.). Wiley Int., New York, 48-52.
23. Watanabe H. and Yoshida S. (1970) Soil Sci. Plant Nutr., 16, 163-166.
24. Yang X., Chen X., Ge Q., Li B., Tong Y., Zhang A., Li Z., Kuang T., Lu C. (2006) Plant. Sci., 171, 389–397.
25. Yordanov I., Velikova V. and Tsonev T. (2003) Bulgarian J. Plant. Physiol., 29, 187–206.
26. Zhao T.J., Sun S., Liu Y., Liu J.M., Liu Q., Yan Y.B., Zhou H.M. (2006) J Biol Chem., (281), 10752–10759.