EFFECT OF DROUGHT STRESS ON GAS EXCHANGE, CHLOROPHYLL AND YIELD CHARACTERS OF PEARL MILLET GENOTYPES

M. VISHNUVENI¹, C.N. CHANDRASEKHAR²*, P. JEYAKUMAR³, R. RAVIKESAVAN⁴, D. SUDHAKAR^5
1Department of Crop Physiology, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, 641003, Tamil Nadu, India
²Department of Crop Physiology, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, 641003, Tamil Nadu, India
³Department of Crop Physiology, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, 641003, Tamil Nadu, India
⁴Professor and Head, Department of Millets and Professor, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, 641003, Tamil Nadu, India
⁵Professor, Department of CPMB & B, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, 641003, Tamil Nadu, India
* Corresponding Author : sarvendhra@gmail.com

Received : 01-06-2019     Accepted : 12-06-2019     Published : 15-06-2019
Volume : 11     Issue : 11       Pages : 8582 - 8585
Int J Agr Sci 11.11 (2019):8582-8585

Keywords : Transpiration rate, SPAD value, Chlorophyll, Pearl millet, Drought
Conflict of Interest : None declared
Acknowledgements/Funding : Authors are thankful to Department of Crop Physiology, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, 641003, Tamil Nadu, India
Author Contribution : All authors equally contributed

Plant faces several drought stress impacts on growth and development during its life period. Due to this, the agricultural production has become decreased which lead to insufficient to meet peoples economic demand during the upcoming years. Scientist has developed several mitigation strategies. In this screening of drought tolerant genotypes is important for the creation of tolerant varieties to face the problem. An experiment was conducted in pearl millet genotypes to study the physiological and biochemical changes under drought stress in glass house, Department of Crop Physiology, TNAU, Coimbatore. Drought stress was imposed at panicle emergence stage. The physiological and biochemical parameters like gas exchange parameters like transpiration and photosynthetic rate, chlorophyll characters like chlorophyll index (SPAD), chlorophyll content and chlorophyll fluorescence and yield characters were recorded. The pearl millet genotypes show significant variation under drought stress. Among the ten peal millet genotypes PT 5721 and PT 5746 shows the superior performance in drought stress. Likewise, the genotype PT 5756 recorded much lower tolerance capacity to withstand under drought stress.

1. Safriel U., Adeel Z., Niemeijer D., Puigdefabregas J., White R and Lal R. (2005) Dry land systems in Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and Human Well-Being, Current State and Trends, Findings of the Condition and Trends Working Group, Vol.1, eds R.Hassan, R.Scholes, and N.Ash (Washington, DC, Island Press), 623–662
2. Hoekstra A.Y. andMekonnen M.M. (2012) Proceeding for National Academy of Sciences, 109(22), 1425.
3. Turral H., Burke J andFaurs J.M. (2011) Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; Rome. Climate Change, Water and Food Security.
4. Sposito G (2013) Vadose Zone Journal, 12(4).
5. Anu Sehgal S and Kwatra A. (2006) Journal of Food Science and Technology, 43, 312-313.
6. Rahdari P., Tavakoli S and Hosseini S.M. (2012) Stress Physiology and Biology, 8(1), 182-193.
7. Kulshreshtha K., Rai A., Mohanty C.S., Roy R.K. and Sharma S.C. (2009) International Journal of Environmental and Research, 3,137-142.
8. Anjum S.A., Xiao-yu, Xie L.C., Wang M.F., Saleem C., Man and Lei W. (2011) African Journal of Agricultural Research, 6(9), 2026-2032.
9. Minolta C. 1989. Manual for Chlorophyll meter SPAD-502. Minolta Cameraco, Osaka, Japan.
10. Monje, O.A. andBughree B. (1992) Horticultural Sciences, 27,71-89.
11. Arnon D.I. (1949). Plant Physiology, 24,1-15.
12. Krause G.H. and Weis E. (1984). Photosynthetica Research, 5,139-157.
13. Gomez K.A. and Gomez A.A. (1984). Statistical procedures for agricultural research. 2nd 285 Ed. John Wiley and sons, NewYork, USA, pp. 680.
14. Tezara W, MitchellW.J., Driscoll S.D. and LawlorD.W. (2002). Journal of Experimental Botany, 53, 1781-1791.
15. Chaves M.M., MarocoJ.P. and PereiraJ.S. (2003). Functional Plant Biology, 30, 239-264.
16. Dai H.P., Jia G.L., Lu C., Wei A.Z., Feng B.L. and Zhang S.W. (2011) Journal of Food and Agricultural Environment, 9, 177-180.
17. Kutner, T.C.S., Pinto E., Okamoto O.K., Latorre L.R. and Colepicolo P. (2002). Plant Physiology journal, 114, 566–571.
18. Lichtenthaler, H.K., Langsdorf G., Lenk S and Buschmann C. (2005). Photosynthetica, 43, 355-369.
19. Gitelson, A.A., Buschmann C and Lichtenthaler H.K. (1998) Journal of Plant Physiology, 152, 283–296.
20. Schreiber, U., EndoT., Mi H and Asada K. (1995) Plant Cell Physiology, 36, 873-882.
21. Richardson, A.D., Duigan S.P. and BerlynG.P. (2002). New Phytology, 153, 185–194.
22. Hayatu M. and Mukhtar F.B. (2010). Journal of pure and applied Science and technology, 3(2), 69-75.
23. Mirbahar A.A., Markhand G.S., Mahar A.R, Saeed A. and Kanhar N.A. (2009). Pakistan Journal of Botany, 41, 1303-1310.
24. Kilic H and Yagbasanlar T. (2010). National Botany Horticulture Agrobot Cluj, 38(1), 164-170.
25. Emam Y and ZavarehM. (2004). Center for Academic Publication. pp. 75.
26. Yadav O.P. and Bhatnagar S.K.(2001). Field Crops Research, 70, 201-208
27. Bray E.A., Bailey-Serres J. and Weretilny K.E. (2000). American Society of Plant Physiologists. pp. 1158–1249.
28. Lauer J (2003). Agronomy, 10(22), 153-155.
29. Bunty Sharma, Laxman Kumar Chugh, Ram Kumar Sheoran, Vivek K Singh and Meenakshi Sood (2018). Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry, 7(6), 1983-1987.