Physiological analysis of drought tolerance of cucumber (Cucumis sativus) genotypes

MOHAMED IBRAHIM FARAG; TUSAR KANTI BEHERA; ANILABH DAS MUNSHI; CHELLAPILLA BHARADWAJ; GOGRAJ SINGH JAT; MANOJ KHANNA; VISWANATHAN CHINNUSAMY

doi:10.56093/ijas.v89i9.93485

Authors

MOHAMED IBRAHIM FARAG Ph D Scholar, ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, Pusa, New Delhi 110 012, India
TUSAR KANTI BEHERA Professor and Principal Scientist, ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, Pusa, New Delhi 110 012, India
ANILABH DAS MUNSHI Principal Scientist, ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, Pusa, New Delhi 110 012, India
CHELLAPILLA BHARADWAJ Principal Scientist, ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, Pusa, New Delhi 110 012, India
GOGRAJ SINGH JAT Scientist, ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, Pusa, New Delhi 110 012, India
MANOJ KHANNA Principal Scientist, ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, Pusa, New Delhi 110 012, India
VISWANATHAN CHINNUSAMY Principal Scientist and Head, ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, Pusa, New Delhi 110 012, India

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v89i9.93485

Keywords:

Chlorophyll, Cucumber, Drought tolerance, Proline, Relative water content

Abstract

Drought is one of the major factors limiting the growth and productivity of cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) that adversely affects the desirable physiological and biochemical parameters. Thus, a field experiment was conducted during 2013â€“14 with 25 diverse genotypes of cucumber under four levels of irrigations, viz. 100% (control), 75%, 50% and 25% of the recommended irrigation. The yield reduction was as high as 51.97% under 25% of recommended irrigation. The physiological parameters such as proline, reducing sugars and phenol content increased significantly (P=0.05) as the drought stress increased from 100% irrigation to 25% irrigation level. In contrast, the relative water content (RWC), chlorophyll stability, membrane stability index (MSI) and fruit yield decreased signiï¬cantly (P=0.05) with the increase in the intensity of drought stress in all genotypes. Among 25 genotypes DGC-1, DGC-19 and WBC- 13 recorded better RWC, MSI, and lower yield reduction, while DGC-8, GS-3 and Barsati were highly sensitive to drought under all deficit irrigation levels (75%, 50% and 25%). These contrasting genotypes identified will be useful for mapping quantitative trait loci (QTLs) or genes for drought tolerance, and the best performing genotypes will be useful directly or as donors for genetic improvement in yield stability and water use efficiency in cucumber.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Abreu I N and Mazzafera P. 2005. Effect of water and temperature stress on the content of active constituents of Hypericum brasiliense Choisy. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry 43: 241–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2005.01.020

Allen R G. 2006. Crop Evapotranspiration-guidelines for computing crop water requirements. Rome: FAO Irrigation

and drainage. Paper No 56, pp 174.

Bailly C, Benamar A, Corbineau F and Cone D. 1996. Changes in malondialdehyde content and in superoxide dismutase, catalase and glutathione reductase activities in sunflower seeds as related to deterioration during accelerated aging. Physiologia Plantarum 97: 104–10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-3054.1996.tb00485.x

Barnes J D, Balaguer L, Manriguem E, Elivira S and Davison A W. 1992. Are appraisal of the use of dimethyl sulfoxide for the extraction of chlorophyll a and b in lichens and higher plants. Environmental and Experimental Botany 32: 85–90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0098-8472(92)90034-Y

Baroowa B, Gogoi N and Farooq M. 2016. Changes in physiological, biochemical and antioxidant enzyme activities

of green gram (Vigna radiata L.) genotypes under drought. Acta Physiologiae Plantarum 38: 219–28.

Barr H D and Weatherley P E. 1962. A re-examination of the relative turgidity technique for estimating water deficit DOI: https://doi.org/10.1071/BI9620413

in leaves. Australian Journal of Biological Sciences 15: 413–28.

Botia P, Navarro J M, Cerda A and Martinez V. 2005. Yield and fruit quality of two melon cultivars irrigated with saline DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2004.11.003

water at different stage of development. European Journal of Agronomy 23: 243–53.

Bray E A, Bailey-Serres J and Weretilnyk E. 2000. Responses to abiotic stresses, (In) Buchanan B B, W Gruissem and R L Jones (Eds.), Biochemistry and Molecular Biology of Plants, p 1158–1203. ASPP, Rockville.

Bray H G and Thorpe W V. 1954. Analysis of phenolic compounds of interest in metabolism. Methods of Biochemical Analysis 52: 1–27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470110171.ch2

Gomez K A and Gomez A A. 1984. Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. John Wiley and Sons, New York,

USA, p 680.

Hong Z L, Lakkineni K, Zhang Z M and Verma D P S. 2000. Removal of feedback inhibition of delta (1)-pyrroline-5-

carboxylate synthetase results in increased proline accumulation and protection of plants from osmotic stress. Plant Physiology 122: 1129–36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.122.4.1129

Kyparissis A, Petropoulou Y and Manetas Y. 1995. Summer survival of leaves in a soft-leaved shrub (Phlomis fruticosa

L., Labiatae) under Mediterranean field conditions: avoidance of photoinhibitory damage through decreased chlorophyll contents. Journal of Experimental Botany 12: 1825–31.

Liu S, LiH, Lv H, Ahammed G J, Xia X, Zhou J,Shi K, Asami T, Yu J and Zhou Y. 2016. Grafting cucumber onto Luffa

improves drought tolerance by increasing ABA biosynthesis and sensitivity. Scientific Reports 6: 20212.

Martinez V, Nunez J M, Ortiz A and Cerda A. 1994. Change in amino acid and organic acid composition in tomato and

cucumber plants in relation to salinity and nitrogen nutrition. Jourmal of Plant Nutrition 17: 1359–68.

Molinari H B C, Marur C J, Bespalho K J C, Kobayashi A K, Pileggi M, Pereira F P P and Vieira L G E. 2004. Osmotic

adjustment in transgenic citrus root stocks Carrizo citrange (Citrus sinensis O sb. × Poncirus trifoliate L. Raf.) over

producing proline. Plant Science 167: 1375–81.

Osakabe Y, Osakabe K, Shinozaki K and Tran L-S P. 2014. Response of plants to water stress. Frontiers in Plant Science doi: 10.3389/fpls.2014.00086. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2014.00086

Patane C, Scordia D, Testa G and Cosentino S L. 2016 Physiological screening for drought tolerance in mediterranean long-storage tomato. Plant Science 249: 25–34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plantsci.2016.05.006

SAS Institute. 2000. SAS User’s Guide, version 4.0.2. SAS Inst., Cary, NC, USA.

Somogyi M. 1995. Notes on sugar determination. Journal of Biochemistry 19: 19–23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9258(19)50870-5

Zhu J K. 2002. Salt and drought stress signal transduction in plants. Annual Review of Plant Biology 53: 247–73.