See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/305713507

Screening for drought tolerance in mungbean

Article in Legume Research - An International Journal · July 2016

DOI: 10.18805/lr.v0iOF.11045

CITATIONS READS

8 1,372

4 authors, including:

Dr.Prakash Muthukrishnan Sunil Kumar Bakthavatchalam

Urumu Dhanalakshmi College, Trichy, TN, India Annamalai University
67 PUBLICATIONS 543 CITATIONS 49 PUBLICATIONS 195 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

J. Gokulakrishnan
Annamalai University
25 PUBLICATIONS 93 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Evolving a high yielding, drought tolerant green gram (rice fallow pulse) through molecular manipulation View project

Identification of stable maize hybrids across new environments View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sunil Kumar Bakthavatchalam on 05 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Legume Research, 40 (3) 2017 : 423-428 AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATION CENTRE
Print ISSN:0250-5371 / Online ISSN:0976-0571 www.arccjournals.com/www.legumeresearch.in

Screening for drought tolerance in mungbean

M. Prakash*, B. Sunilkumar, G . Sathiyanarayanan and J. Gokulakrishnan
Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding, Faculty of Agriculture,
Annamalai University, Annamalai Nagar-608 002, India.
Received: 05-09-2015 Accepted: 13-02-2016 DOI:10.18805/lr.v0iOF.11045
ABSTRACT
Field experiments were conducted to screen the mungbean genotypes based on root characters and root penetration ability.
Observations on root and shoot characters viz., root length, shoot length, number of roots, root diameter, fresh weight of
root, fresh weight of shoot, dry weight of root, dry weight of shoot, root volume, growth and yield parameters viz., plant
height, number of branches, number of pods per plant, number of seeds per pod, 100 seed weight, seed yield per plant were
recorded. Based on the root characters, the genotypes HUM 1, VMGG 67, VMGG 82, VMGG 83 and VMGG 90 were
found to be promising. They also performed well in the field experiments. These genotypes were crossed with high yielding
varieties like VBN 1, VBN 2, VBN 3 and KM 2 to get F1.Among the 20 crosses obtained, three crosses VMGG-83/VBN 2,
VMGG-90/VBN 3 and VMGG-83/VBN 1 were found to perform well in F2 and they will be forwarded to next generation.
Key words: Drought, Growth, Mungbean, Photosynthesis, Root study, Yield.
INTRODUCTION of different genotypes. Eventhough different workers used
Moisture stress is a major constraint to crop different methods to evaluate genetic differences in drought
production worldwide. In developing countries, large arable tolerance (Bidinger et al., 1982), the present investigation
land experiences moisture stress. Moisture stress is a major has been planned to find out the simple technique using root
constraint in the production and yield stability of mungbean. parameters to identify the genotypes tolerant to drought.
For developing high yielding varieties under moisture stress Roots play an important role in water stress
conditions, the common methods employed are direct tolerance by reduction in leaf expansion and promotion of
selection and heterosis breeding. However, this approach is root growth. Root length at seedling stage provides a fair
time consuming and labor intensive, because yield is a estimate about the root growth in field (Ali et al., 2011;
highly quantitative trait. The alternative strategy that has Rajendran et al., 2011). Vincent (2014) also proposed roots
succeeded in a few crops is using secondary traits like root- as a major avenue of research to improve crop adaptation
related traits. under water stress conditions. In general, deeper and more
Pulses play a vital role in providing a balanced profuse root systems could be able to tap extra water from
protein component in the diet of the people and also play a the soil profile and alleviate drought effects. Root traits like
major role in crop rotation, diversification and productivity root length, number and root depth, have long been seen as
by enriching the soil fertility. They also play an important important traits to improve crop adaptation to water stress.
role in Indian agriculture constituting the major source of With this background, studies were undertaken to screen the
essential amino acids for predominantly vegetarian mungbean genotypes based on root characters and root
population of India (Arumugam et al., 2010). In the global penetration ability in a specialized structure. The genotypes
scenario, India is the largest producer of pulses in the world best performed were crossed with high yielding varieties to
with 25% share in global production. The area under pulses get crosses which are moisture stress tolerant and high
crops in India during 2011-12 was around 23.63 million ha yielding.
with production of 14.76 million tonnes and productivity of MATERIALS AND METHODS
about 625 Kg.ha-1 (Anonymous, 2011). Eighty nine genotypes of mungbean obtained from
These are grown mostly in marginal and rainfed various sources were evaluated for root characters and
areas and the major constraint for higher productivity is sowing was taken up in a specialized structure (with sand
inadequacy of moisture. Hence, developing a moisture stress and bricks) meant to study root characters. The experiments
tolerant mungbean is necessary for cultivation in these areas. were conducted at the Department of Genetics and Plant
Even though it thrives moderately under drought prone Breeding, Faculty of Agriculture, Annamalai University,
condition, greater variability exists for yield performance Annamalai Nagar (11°24’N latitude and 79°44’E longitude

*Corresponding author’s e-mail: geeth_prakash@yahoo.co.in

424 LEGUME RESEARCH - An International Journal
with an altitude of +5.79 mts above mean sea level) from also measured and expressed in g plant -1. Ten normal
2012-2014. seedlings used for growth measurements were placed in a
Root Study : Seeds of eighty nine genotypes were sown in paper cover and dried under shade for 24h and then kept in
line to sand medium made specially to study root characters. hot air oven at 100oC for 24h. The dried seedlings were
At peak vegetative stage, the seedlings were pulled out from cooled in a desiccator for 30 minutes and the dry weight of
the structure by washing the roots with water. Root and shoot root and shoot were recorded and was expressed in mg.
characters viz., root length, shoot length, number of roots, Root penetration study: Root penetration study was
root diameter, fresh weight of root, fresh weight of shoot, conducted to screen drought tolerant and susceptible
dry weight of root, dry weight of shoot, and root volume genotypes. In this study, a controlled environment was
were recorded (Table 1). Ten normal seedlings were taken created by using a thin layer of paraffin wax and white
at random and the length between collar region to tip of the petroleum ether in 2:1 ratio to simulate a hard pan. A thermo
primary root were measured and the mean value was recorded cool was made with holes and its bottom was covered with
as root length in centimeter. The same seedlings taken for wire mesh. Then the wire mesh was wrapped with aluminium
measuring root length were used for shoot length foil to prevent leakage of paraffin wax solution. The 2:1
measurement. The length between the collar region to tip of mixture of paraffin wax and white petroleum ether was
the primary shoot was measured in centimeter and the mean poured into the holes of thermo cool to form 2-3 mm thin
value was recorded as shoot length in centimeter. Number layer and the entire set up was kept in room temperature for
of roots per plant was counted and expressed as number per 20-30 minutes to allow it to cool. Then the aluminium foil
plant. Root diameter was measured using a vernier caliper was removed. Two-third of the holes in thermo cool were
and expressed in cm. Fresh weight of shoot and root were filled with sand and sowing was taken up. The entire set up

Table 1: Mean value of root characters in mungbean.

Genotypes Root length Shoot length Number of Root diameter Root fresh Shoot fresh Root dry Shoot dry Root
(cm) (cm) roots (cm) weight (g) weight (g) weight (g) weight (g) volume
CGG-09-03 33.61 21.70 4.41 0.31 2.11 8.18 0.225 0.91 1.1
CGG-09-07 26.22 17.55 3.71 0.22 1.32 3.31 0.213 0.51 0.54
CGG-09-14 51.87 19.82 5.72 0.37 4.12 11.52 0.618 1.35 3.51
CGG-09-15 52.66 32.28 5.21 0.35 5.25 11.74 0.587 1.71 5.25
CGG-09-17 42.47 24.73 3.64 0.33 2.11 6.93 0.419 0.58 1.45
CGG-09-18 41.41 28.40 4.60 0.38 2.14 9.16 0.385 1.41 3.54
CGG-09-23 35.53 24.61 4.35 0.34 2.14 6.21 0.349 0.38 1.41
CGG-09-24 53.48 28.51 5.72 0.31 5.12 5.15 0.576 0.71 1.74
RM8-653 44.35 24.48 5.14 0.31 2.52 6.12 0.426 0.85 2.65
RM8-659 50.15 26.48 5.14 0.41 3.41 11.23 0.428 1.82 4.41
RM8-661 44.25 34.45 4.41 0.38 3.15 12.15 0.448 2.35 5.26
RM8-662 38.25 24.42 3.14 0.34 3.42 10.56 0.344 1.41 5.26
RM8-664 51.42 25.24 3.45 0.44 3.41 11.87 0.472 1.52 4.71
RM8-665 48.52 34.54 5.12 0.41 3.36 10.66 0.445 1.51 6.48
RM8-667 48.25 17.86 3.42 0.32 2.74 8.56 0.445 0.74 3.51
RM8-668 42.41 19.84 4.36 0.34 2.51 8.51 0.513 1.41 2.79
CO-6 45.19 22.41 4.74 0.34 3.41 15.80 0.519 1.58 5.28
CO-7 47.77 22.42 4.11 0.34 2.89 7.62 0.416 1.04 3.25
AU-CULTURE-1 48.56 27.15 3.74 0.54 3.45 11.50 0.455 1.25 5.74
HUM 1 55.21 32.14 6.84 0.55 4.86 11.21 0.778 2.14 5.12
CGG-09-04 48.27 29.87 4.56 0.53 3.15 12.65 0.449 2.64 9.52
CGG-09-05 42.43 24.22 3.46 0.34 2.52 6.82 0.519 1.25 2.64
CGG-09-06 47.18 28.52 4.23 0.41 3.41 11.28 0.519 2.24 3.43
CGG-09-08 39.86 25.23 4.74 0.34 2.54 6.51 0.525 1.02 2.51
CGG-09-09 38.52 34.13 4.16 0.34 3.41 10.40 0.422 1.41 5.74
CGG-09-10 44.17 24.23 4.42 0.34 1.16 4.91 0.416 1.42 3.23
CGG-09-12 53.70 24.26 5.43 0.31 2.37 7.15 0.659 1.25 3.49
CGG-09-13 54.11 25.77 5.51 0.30 1.65 4.32 0.628 1.45 3.25
CGG-09-16 51.21 32.71 5.34 0.31 3.28 11.25 0.642 1.82 3.49
CGG-09-19 44.75 14.97 2.41 0.27 1.71 3.45 0.356 0.65 1.58
CGG-09-20 41.43 22.78 3.14 0.29 2.64 6.47 0.399 0.49 2.51

contd.......
 Volume 40 Issue 3 (June 2017) 425
CGG-09-21 44.28 21.27 4.14 0.28 1.42 3.41 0.325 0.52 2.14
CGG-09-22 35.85 24.55 3.24 0.30 2.85 5.45 0.245 0.64 1.68
RM8-651 38.55 21.56 2.21 0.24 1.27 3.54 0.271 0.27 0.48
RM8-652 38.75 17.62 2.41 0.21 0.74 2.22 0.324 0.44 2.14
RM8-654 34.25 21.54 2.74 0.23 1.54 4.25 0.326 0.58 1.58
RM8-655 42.15 19.41 4.41 0.27 2.10 6.13 0.453 0.65 1.67
RM8-656 47.21 21.45 5.12 0.34 1.58 3.12 0.236 0.45 2.11
RM8-657 39.14 19.58 3.74 0.31 1.45 6.98 0.272 0.85 2.56
RM8-658 38.46 20.41 4.52 0.30 2.65 5.42 0.423 0.67 2.47
RM8-660 39.41 20.21 4.42 0.35 1.99 6.74 0.554 0.44 2.29
PUSA 9972 41.21 25.04 4.49 0.34 2.24 5.68 0.268 0.94 1.15
IPM 02-3 (BLACK)26.90 17.87 2.26 0.45 1.65 3.20 0.308 0.89 0.89
ML 5 34.26 26.82 4.84 0.32 3.47 9.50 0.466 0.98 2.38
VMGG 67 58.82 35.45 8.26 0.62 5.13 12.54 0.845 1.85 4.68
IPM 02-14 40.24 33.22 2.78 0.27 4.99 10.62 0.753 1.43 3.85
CO GG 912 39.26 25.30 3.88 0.39 2.17 5.91 0.313 0.69 0.58
PUSA 9072 41.31 32.26 3.34 0.58 2.90 10.39 0.463 1.81 2.68
PDM 178 41.39 21.36 3.56 0.33 1.92 5.49 0.184 0.45 0.96
IPM 02-03 (RED) 42.87 24.26 4.28 0.23 2.18 7.62 0.285 0.54 0.98
IPM 02-10 44.56 23.27 4.30 0.29 2.28 8.50 0.353 0.83 2.56
IPM 02-17 45.40 27.83 3.66 0.42 4.50 10.63 0.441 1.40 3.87
PDM 54 51.25 33.25 4.78 0.62 5.99 10.93 0.450 2.25 4.40
PDM 288 42.50 23.10 3.50 0.32 5.08 9.51 0.511 1.38 3.81
ML 512 42.71 26.48 4.40 0.39 4.38 10.12 0.515 1.34 3.48
PANT MUNG 5 45.68 24.16 4.76 0.47 4.71 11.58 0.432 1.23 5.38
IPM 05-3-22 41.60 22.15 4.18 0.36 3.99 7.60 0.430 0.52 3.36
PDM 262 38.12 26.74 3.94 0.37 3.41 11.94 0.461 1.41 2.66
IPM 05-2-8 39.8 30.15 4.46 0.43 4.71 10.23 0.525 1.26 4.66
IPM 02-16 42.17 23.42 3.99 0.42 3.82 9.35 0.441 0.96 3.46
ML 1257 42.26 30.15 3.98 0.56 3.71 11.15 0.527 1.57 4.71
IPM 02-1 41.57 32.17 4.17 0.54 3.90 11.54 0.551 2.57 4.11
IPM 306-1 43.88 23.46 4.78 0.28 3.11 7.96 0.466 1.06 2.75
SML 48 43.58 31.28 4.19 0.34 2.82 7.96 0.422 1.77 2.58
IPM 3-2 40.61 24.33 3.30 0.28 3.19 8.78 0.416 1.34 2.76
SML 191 42.66 31.32 3.98 0.47 4.82 8.24 0.537 1.78 5.88
UPM 98-1 43.27 25.33 4.54 0.28 2.28 7.89 0.322 0.96 3.17
PUSA BOLD 2 41.41 27.41 3.89 0.42 2.46 6.33 0.538 0.95 3.63
PDM 5 41.71 26.37 4.26 0.37 2.37 7.62 0.297 1.16 4.30
B-9 40.01 35.81 1.17 0.38 4.22 8.09 0.543 1.84 4.69
ML 682 40.85 18.87 3.11 0.25 1.70 4.76 0.184 0.35 1.54
PDM 11 42.50 25.08 4.84 0.31 2.26 5.07 0.394 0.81 2.83
VMGG 90 58.64 34.65 8.12 0.62 5.25 12.88 0.866 2.25 5.26
IPM 306-6 42.90 19.17 4.15 0.26 1.73 3.58 0.229 0.38 3.35
IPM 9901-03 39.25 25.75 3.75 0.41 1.36 3.83 0.330 0.43 2.58
IPM 9901-125 34.35 16.96 4.83 0.24 1.53 4.10 0.169 0.37 0.79
IPM 02-19 48.25 18.42 4.29 0.23 1.66 2.63 0.207 0.45 2.12
IPM 02-23 37.92 25.23 3.52 0.34 3.03 7.84 0.441 1.04 2.03
V 3518 37.44 25.30 3.37 0.35 3.01 7.90 0.452 0.98 1.89
AMULYA 41.93 28.82 3.64 0.38 3.32 8.40 0.497 1.20 2.33
HUM 12 51.22 27.49 5.81 0.38 2.94 9.41 0.624 1.07 1.98
SML 47 50.95 26.59 8.99 0.32 4.92 6.78 0.565 0.73 1.09
IPM 9901-10 52.10 24.16 5.70 0.30 4.94 7.32 0.771 0.76 1.50
IPM 2K14-9 50.42 23.23 5.61 0.32 4.28 7.16 0.637 0.67 1.75
PDM 87 54.58 24.72 6.07 0.33 4.13 9.14 0.672 1.05 2.47
PDM 139 52.50 25.48 5.72 0.35 5.73 9.53 0.768 1.23 3.06
LGG 410 53.00 25.15 5.35 0.37 4.38 8.29 0.591 1.33 3.26
VMGG 82 53.69 33.56 7.65 0.58 5.13 12.68 0.888 2.34 5.45
VMGG 83 57.46 33.85 7.22 0.68 5.34 13.47 0.812 1.88 5.23
CD(p=0.5) 3.6 2.8 1.4 0.6 0.7 1.6 0.3 0.7 1.1
426 LEGUME RESEARCH - An International Journal
was kept in coarse sand bed for allowing root development. was recorded from ten seedlings selected at random which
After 18 days, thermo cool set up was removed and root were uprooted with the intact root system and were washed
penetration, root growth were observed. The roots of the to remove the soil particles, dried under shade for 24h and
genotypes which have penetrated 2:1 mixture of paraffin wax then in the hot air oven maintained at 100oC for 24h. The
and white petroleum ether, and which have long and more dried plants were cooled in a desiccator for 30 minutes and
number of roots were identified as drought tolerant. the mean weight was recorded in grams. Number of days
Based on the root characters studied and root taken from sowing to 50 per cent flowering was recorded
penetration ability. the genotypes HUM 1, VMGG 67, and the mean value is expressed as days to 50% flowering
VMGG 82, VMGG 83 and VMGG 90 were found to be in whole number.
promising. The above genotypes also performed well in the Yield parameters: Numbers of days taken from sowing to
field experiments. These genotypes were crossed with high 50 per cent flowering in each genotype was recorded and
yielding varieties like VBN 1, VBN 2, VBN 3 and KM 2 to the mean value was expressed as days to 50% flowering in
get F1. Among the crosses, VMGG-83/VBN 2, VMGG-90/ whole number. Total number of pods in marked ten plants in
VBN 3 and VMGG-83/VBN 1were found to perform well each genotype was counted and mean number per plant was
in F2 (Tables 2 and 3). recorded replication wise and the mean was expressed in
Field Study whole number. The pods from ten randomly selected plants
Growth parameters : Field experiment was conducted earlier tagged were separately harvested and the seeds from
during early summer by adopting randomized block design each pod were separated, counted and averaged out to get
with three replications. The crop was raised with the spacing number of seeds per pod. Hundred seeds collected from the
of 30 × 10 cm and recommended package of practices for matured pods were weighed and expressed in grams. Seeds
mungbean were followed. The experiment was carried out from the five marked plants were collected manually,
under natural conditions and there was no rainfall during cleaned, dried to constant moisture content and weighed.
the experimental period. The moisture stress was induced The mean seed yield was recorded and expressed as g plant-1.
by withholding irrigation at 25 DAS. All the growth and All the data were analysed statistically with appropriate tools
yield parameters were recorded. and expressed as mean values.
The height of the plant was measured from the RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
ground level to the tip of the plant and expressed in cm plant-1. The results obtained for the nine root and shoot
Total number of branches in each plant was recorded and characters viz., root length, shoot length, number of roots,
expressed as number of branches. The biomass production root diameter, fresh weight of root, fresh weight of shoot,
Table 2. Performance of F1 generation of mungbean genotypes.
Hybrids Days to 50 Plant height Number of Number of Number of 100 Seed Seed
percent (cm) branches pods seeds weight yield
flowering per plant per plant per pod (g) (g pl-1)
HUM 1/VBN 1 29.67 56.67 2.00 16.22 9.26 3.40 5.08
HUM 1/VBN 2 28.14 61.70 1.63 17.88 9.45 3.07 4.38
HUM 1/VBN 3 29.12 54.13 1.67 16.44 9.88 3.04 4.30
HUM 1/KM 2 31.33 60.22 2.67 18.22 10.75 3.20 4.66
VMGG-67/VBN 1 34.46 51.11 2.00 18.12 10.74 3.40 5.26
VMGG-67/VBN 2 31.14 54.81 3.00 18.77 9.32 3.31 4.76
VMGG-67/VBN 3 29.54 36.77 3.67 20.42 11.66 3.14 5.65
VMGG-67/KM 2 28.63 60.91 3.33 19.88 11.41 3.20 5.60
VMGG-82/VBN 1 31.13 45.77 2.67 19.66 10.59 3.27 5.11
VMGG-82/VBN 2 29.67 36.11 3.33 18.11 9.34 3.33 5.35
VMGG-82/VBN 3 29.47 4366 2.66 19.55 10.35 3.16 5.30
VMGG-82/KM 2 28.89 36.00 2.22 14.44 9.91 3.10 4.81
VMGG-83/VBN 1 29.33 43.96 2.33 16.66 9.32 3.10 5.38
VMGG-83/VBN 2 31.55 40.66 2.44 16.88 10.75 3.42 4.52
VMGG-83/VBN 3 30.77 47.13 2.22 14.77 10.55 2.98 5.21
VMGG-83/KM 2 29.55 53.61 3.22 14.55 10.67 2.97 4.76
VMGG-90/VBN 1 29.66 53.30 2.55 14.88 10.36 3.28 4.59
VMGG-90/VBN 2 30.66 54.46 2.88 13.22 10.18 3.10 4.21
VMGG-90/VBN 3 28.89 54.91 1.88 14.66 10.72 3.26 4.45
VMGG-90/KM 2 29.33 43.11 1.33 12.66 8.77 2.94 3.79
CD(p=0.5) 3.14 5.22 0.02 1.57 2.24 1.15 1.49
 Volume 40 Issue 3 (June 2017) 427
dry weight of root, dry weight of shoot, and root volume consonance with the findings of the present study also.
were recorded (Table 1), plant height, number of branches, Sunilkumar et al. (2015) also studied influence of drought
number of pods plant-1, number of seeds pod-1, 100 seed stress on root distribution in mungbean.
weight and seed yield plant-1 (Tables 2 and 3) were presented Growth and yield parameters: HUM 1 X VBN 2 came to
in the following tables and discussed below. flowering earlier on 28.14 days followed by VMGG 67 X
Root characters: Water stress affects almost each and every VBN 2 which took 28.63 days for 50 % flowering. Among
developmental stage of the plant. Root length is an important the crosses, VMGG 83 X VBN 2 and HUM 1 X KM 2 took
trait against drought stress in plant varieties and in general, more number of days for 50 % flowering i.e., 31.55 and
varieties with longer root growth are supposed to have 31.33 days for 50 % flowering. In the case of plant height,
resistant ability for drought. Genotypes with faster elongation HUM 1 X VBN 2 recorded higher plant height ( 61.70cm)
rates were also be more able to deplete soil water 120 cm followed by VMGG 67 X KM 2 which recorded 60.91 cm.
below the surface. Under stress conditions, the number of Increase in biometric parameters may be traced to enhanced
lateral roots per unit of taproot length significantly increased, photosynthetic processes which might have been due to the
but no promotion of taproot length or diameter was observed. inherent potential of the genotype. A similar report was made
Significant reduction in seedling parameters may be by Grade et al. (2014).
attributed to their differential response in term of tolerance For all the other growth and yield parameters except
level to moisture stress. Similar observations were made by for 100 seed weight, i.e., number of branches, number of
Bibi et al. (2010) and Ali et al.(2011). Considerable decrease pods per plant, number of seeds per pod and seed yield,
in germination and fresh weight of seedlings of black gram VMGG 67 X VBN 3 recorded higher values of 3.67, 20.42,
(Vigna mungo L. Hepper) genotypes LBG20 and PU19 under 11.66, and 5.65 g pl-1 respectively which was followed by
stress was reported by Yadav et al. (2013). VMGG 67 X KM 2. In case of 100 seed weight, VMGG 67
For shoot length, root length and number of roots, X KM 2 recorded 3.20 g followed by VMGG 67 X VBN 3.
VMGG 67, VMGG90 and VMGG83 recorded first three Among the 20 F1 crosses, VMGG 90 X KM 2 recorded
places. In the case of root diameter, fresh weight of root and lowest values for all the growth and yield parameters. Higher
fresh weight of shootVMGG83, VMGG90 and VMGG67 yield recorded by VMGG 67 X VBN 3 could be due to
performed well. Higher dry weight of root, dry weight of increased yield attributing characters viz., number of pods
shoot and root volume were recorded in VMGG82 followed per plant and number of seeds per pod.
by VMGG90.HUM 1 performed well next to these genotypes Based upon the yield performance in F1 generation,
for most of the root characters. three crosses, VMGG 67 X VBN 3, VMGG 67 X KM 2 and
Liu et al. (2005) reported significant correlations VMGG 83 X VBN 1 were selected and forwarded to F2
in soybean between drought resistance and various root traits generation. In F2 generation, VMGG 67 X VBN 3, recorded
such as dry weight, total length, and volume and number of higher values for all the parameters i.e., number of branches,
lateral roots. Moisture stress suppressed shoot growth more number of pods per plant, number of seeds per pod, 100
than root growth and in certain cases root growth increased seed weight and seed yield, followed by VMGG 67 X KM
(Salih et al., 1999; 2000; Okçu et al., 2005; Bibi et al., 2010). 2.Increase in growth and yield parameters might have been
Osmotic membrane stability of the leaf segment was found contributed for enhanced yield in VMGG 67 X VBN 3
the most important trait, followed by root-to-shoot ratio and followed by VMGG 67 X KM 2 and VMGG 83 X VBN 1.
root length on the basis of their relationships with other traits Grade et al.(2014) also reported that increased yield could
for drought tolerance (Dhanda et al., 2004). Bibi et al. (2010) have been due to increased yield parameters like more
and Ali et al. (2011) also reported that significant reduction number of branches, more number of pods per plant, seeds
in seedling growth in terms of length, fresh and dry weight per pod and 100 seed weight. Reduction in biophysical
of shoot and root among the genotypes might be due to their charecters and seed yield in mungbean under moisture stress
differential response to moisture stress. These results are in condition was also reported by Sunilkumar et al. (2015a).

Table 3: Performance of F2 generation of mungbean genotypes.

Hybrids Days to 50 Plant height Number of Number of Number of 100 Seed Seed
percent (cm pl-1) branches pods seeds weight yield
flowering per plant per plant per pod (g) (g pl-1)
VMGG67/VBN 3 28.16 54.27 2.64 18.47 10.55 3.61 5.52
VMGG 67/KM2 28.19 52.91 2.48 17.86 10.32 3.52 5.47
VMGG 83/VBN 1 29.48 59.76 2.34 16.96 9.82 3.24 5.36
428 LEGUME RESEARCH - An International Journal
REFERENCES
Ali, M.A., Abbas, A., Awan, S.I., Jabran, K. and Gardezi, S.D.A. (2011). Correlated response of various morpho-physiological
characters with grain yield in sorghum land races at different growth phases. The J. Anim. Plant Sci. 21: 671-679.
Anonymous. (2011). Agropedia.iitk.ac.in.
Arumugam, P.M., Anandhi, K. and Selvi, B. (2010). Stability analysis of yield in black gram. Legume Res., 33:70-71.
Bibi A, Sadaqat, H.A., Akram, H.M. and Mohammed, M.I. (2010). Physiological markers for screening sorghum (Sorghum
bicolor) germplasm under water stress condition. Int. J. Agric. Biol., 12: 451–455.
Bidinger, F.R., Mahalaxmi, V., Talukdar, B.J. and Algarswamy. G. (1982). Improvement of drought resistance in pearl
millet. Workshop on Principles and Methods of Crop Improvement for Drought Resistance with Emphasis on
Rice, IRRI, Los Banos, Phillipines, on May. 4-8th 1981. pp: 45-49.
Dhanda, S.S., Sethi, G.S. and Behl, R.K. (2004). Indices of drought tolerance in wheat genotypes at early stages of plant
growth. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 190: 1-6.
Grade, V.N., Chauvin, L.S., Jalap, D.N. and Koala, A.B.(2014). Response of green gram (Vigna radiata L). varieties to
integrated nutrient management in summer season. Agrl. Sci. Digest. 34: 36-40.
Liu, F., Anderson, M.N., Jacobson, S.E. and Jensen, C.R. (2005). Stomatal control and water use efficiency of soybean
(Glycine max L. Merr.) during progressive soil drying. Environ . Exp. Bot. 54: 33 – 40.
Okçu, G., Kaya, M.D. and M. Atak, M. (2005). Effects of salt and drought stresses on germination and seedling growth of
pea (Pisum sativum L.). Turk J. Agric. For. 29: 237-242.
Rajendran, R. A., Muthiah, A.R., Manickam, A., Shanmugasundaram, P. and John Joel, A. (2011). Indices of drought
tolerance in sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench) genotypes at early stages of plant growth. Res. J. Agric. &
Biol. Sci. 7: 42-46.
Salih, A. A., Ali, I.A., Lux, A., Luxova, M., Cohen, Y., Sugimoto, Y. and Inanaga, S. (1999). Rooting, water uptake, and
xylem structure adaptation to drought of two sorghum cultivars. Crop Sci. 39: 168–173.
Sunilkumar B., Sathiyanarayanan, G. and Prakash, M. (2015). Influence of drought stress on root distribution in Mungbean
[Vigna radiata (L.)Wilczek].International Journal of Tropical Agriculture. 33 : 837-843.
Sunilkumar B., Gokulakrishnan, J. and Prakash, M. (2015a). Effect of drought stress on seed yield and biophysical charecters
in mungbean [Vigna radiata (L.)Wilczek]. International Journal of Tropical Agriculture. 33 : 853-864.
Vincent Vadez. (2014). Root hydraulics: The forgotten side of roots in drought adaptation. Field Crops Research.
166:15-24.
Yadav, S.K., Jyothi Lakshmi, N., Vikram Singh, AmolPatil, Yogesh Kumar Tiwari, Nagendram, E., Sathish, P., Vanaja, M.,
Maheswari, M. and Venkateswarlu, B. (2013). In vitro screening of Vigna mungo genotypes for PEG induced
moisture deficit stress. Indian Journal of Plant Physiology.18: pp 55-60.

View publication stats