Agricultural Research Management Information System

Home
Research Summary
Search
About Us
- ARMIS
- Brochure
Contact Us
Report
User Request
Data Input
Help
- Operation Manual
  - PDF
  - Video
- Program Area & Commodity
We have reached 37600 number of research entries at this moment.

- Logout

Research Detail

Home
Research
Detail

Effect of Drought Stress on Water Relation Traits of Four Soybean Genotypes

J.A. Chowdhury
Agronomy Division, Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute, Gazipur-1701, Bangladesh

M.A. Karim
Department of Agronomy, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Agricultural University Gazipur-1706, Bangladesh

Q.A. Khaliq
Department of Agronomy, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Agricultural University Gazipur-1706, Bangladesh

A.U. Ahmed*
Plant Pathology Division, Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute, Gazipur-1701, Bangladesh

A.T.M.A.I. Mondol
Soil Science Division, Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute, Gazipur-1701, Bangladesh

Abstract/ Executive Summary:

An experiment was conducted in a venyl house at the environmental stress site of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Agricultural University during September to December 2012 to know the internal water status under drought stress in soybean genotypes, viz. Shohag, BARI Soybean-6, BD2331 (relatively stress tolerant) and BGM2026 (susceptible). Drought (water) stress reduced the leaf water potential in all the genotypes though was more negative in tolerant genotypes than in susceptible ones. The lowest leaf water potential was obtained from BARI Soybean-6 (-1.58 MPa) and the highest in BGM2026 (-1.2 MPa). Relative water content (RWC) decreased remarkably in all the genotypes and reduction was more in susceptible than tolerant genotypes. At 8.00 am, RWC of stressed plants decreased by 9.58, 9.02, 8.90 and 13.90% in the genotype Shohag,, BARI Soybean-6, BD2331 and BGM2026 at vegetative stage, respectively. Drought stress decreased the exudation rate in all the genotypes of soybean and it was 24, 27, 22 and 12 mg h-1 in the genotype Shohag, BARI Soybean-6, BD2331 and BGM2026 at vegetative stage, respectively. Leaf temperatures in drought stressed plant were higher than in well-watered plants. Shohag, BARI Soybean-6, BD2331 and BGM2026 showed 4.7, 4.5 5.2 and 11.07% increase in leaf temperature due to water stress. At drought stressed treatment reduction in leaf water potential, relative water content, exudation rate and water retention capacity were noticed at the three growth stages in all the genotypes with a concurrent increase in leaf temperature. Genotypes BARI Soybean-6, Shohag and BD2331 showed considerably less reduction in relative water content, exudation rate and water retention capacity, high reduction in leaf water potential and less increase in leaf temperature during drought were considered as drought tolerant. However genotype BGM2026 showed considerably high reduction in relative water content, exudation rate and water retention capacity, low reduction in leaf water potential and high increase in leaf temperature was considered as drought susceptible.

Keywords: Drought, Stress, Soybean, Genotypes

Location: At the Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Agricultural University

Start Date: 00-09-2012

End Date: 00-12-2012

Program Area: Risk Management in Agriculture

Non-commodity: Drought

Objectives:

This study was initiated to determine and compare the variations in the internal water status of four soybean genotypes due to drought.

Methodology:

A pot experiment in a vinyl house was conducted at the Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Agricultural University during September to December 2012. Three relatively water stress tolerant (Shohag, BARI Soybean-6 and BD2331) and one susceptible (BGM-2026) genotypes, selected from the previous experiment, were used in this study to know the internal water status under drought stress in soybean. Seeds of tolerant and susceptible genotypes were sown in plastic pots. The soil of the pot was filled with mixture of soil and cow dung at a ratio of 4:1. Pot contained 12.0 kg of soil which was equivalent to 9 kg oven dry soil and holds about 28% moisture at field capacity (FC). Soil used in the pot was sandy loam. The soil of the pot was fertilized uniformly with 0.15, 0.18, 0.36 and 0.1 g urea, triple super phosphate, muriate of potash and gypsum corresponding to 24-30-60-15 kg NPKS per hectare, respectively. Six seeds pot-1 were sown on 3 September, 2012. After seedling establishment two uniform and healthy plants pot^-1 were allowed to grow. Two watering treatments of the plants viz. drought stress (water stress) (50% water of the FC) and non-stress (control) (80% water of FC) were applied at 21 days after emergence (DAE) and maintained throughout the growing season. The pots were arranged in a completely randomized design (factorial) with four replications (two plants pot^-1 considered as one replication). There were eight treatment combinations, including four genotypes and two water regime treatments (hereafter referred to as non-stress and water stress treatments). Normal management practices (Khan, 2013) were applied for all the treatments. Data were collected on the following parameters Relative water content (RWC) in leaf Relative water content (RWC) of leaves was measured at vegetative, flowering and pod development stages of each genotype at 8:00 am and 1:00 pm. Fully developed 3rd leaf from the top was used for RWC measurement. Immediately after cutting, leaves were sealed within plastic bags and kept in ice box and quickly transferred to the laboratory. The fresh weight of leaves from each treatment was recorded just after removal. Turgid weight (TW) was obtained after soaking leaves in distilled water in beakers for 24 hours at room temperature (about 20ºC) and under low light condition of the laboratory. After soaking, leaves were quickly and carefully blotted dried with tissue paper in preparation for determining turgid weight. Dry weight (DW) of the leaf was obtained after oven drying the leaf samples for 72 hour at 70ºC. RWC was calculated using the formula of Schonfeld et al. (1988): RWC (%) = (FW – DW) / (TW – DW) x 100 Where, FW = Fresh weight DW = Dry weight TW = Turgid weight

Water retention capacity (WRC) were calculated as follows (Sangakkara et al., 1996). Water retention capacity (WRC) = Turgid weight/ Dry weight

Leaf water potential Leaf water potential was measured at 6:30 am with the help of Scholander Pressure Bomb apparatus. The third uppermost fully expanded leaf was cut carefully with sharp blade from 4 replicated plants of each treatment. The petiole of cut leaf was set in the apparatus and pressure was applied to the leaf from a cylinder of compressed gas until xylem sap appeared at the cut surface of the leaf (detected by using a magnifying glass). The gas flow was immediately stopped and the pressure was noted in the gauge. Xylem exudation rate (XER) Xylem exudation rates at vegetative, flowering and pod development stages were measured at 9:00 am at 5 cm above from stem base. At first, dry cotton was weighed. A slanting cut on stem was made with a sharp knife. Then the weighed cotton was placed on the cut surface. The exudation of sap was collected from the stem for 1 hour at normal temperature. The final weight of the cotton with sap was taken. The exudation rate was calculated by deducting cotton weight from the sap containing cotton weight and expressed per hour basis as follows; Xylem exudation rate = {(Weight of cotton + sap) – (Weight of cotton) /Time} mg h^-1

Statistical analysis The data were analyzed by MSTAT-C statistical program. The difference between the treatments means were compared by Least Significant Difference (LSD) test (Gomez and Gomez, 1983).

Source of Information: SAARC J. Agri., 15(2): 163-175 (2017)

Article Link (Online Journal): DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3329/sja.v15i2.35146

Funding Source:

Budget:

Total Budget (Tk.) :

Achievement/Findings:

Based on findings of the present study it may concluded that high water stress tolerance of Shohag, BARI Soybean-6, BD2331 is associated with maintaining better plant water relations which is reflected by higher relative water content, water retention capacity, exudation rate, lower leaf water potential and leaf temperature than in case of BGM2026.

Knowledge Management: Journal