Physiological Response Of Banana (Musa Spp.) Genotypes To Flooding Stress At Vegetative Stage
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29284/1g4dxj35Keywords:
Chlorophyll, Flood, FCRD, Genotypes, Musa spp. NEM and ProlineAbstract
Cauvery Delta zone has a total geographical area of 14.47 lakh ha. The average rainfall of Cauvery Delta zone is 1268.38mm with a range of 544.7mm to 2098mm. However, the Cauvery Delta zone has periodically experienced with intermittent flood during the monsoon, particularly North East monsoon. Inundation of water in banana growing area of Cauvery Delta zone is very common that affects growth, yield and physiological function of banana crop. In the present investigation work on “Physiological response of banana (Musa spp.) genotypes to flooding stress at vegetative stage” was carried out at Horticultural Research Block, Department of Horticulture, Central University of Tamil Nadu, Thiruvarur during the period of 2024-2025. The pot culture experiment was laid out in Factorial Randomized Block Design (FCRD) with two factors and it was replicated twice. The planting time of season I is January, 2024 and season II is July, 2024 and the flooding treatment was given initial vegetative stage of 5th month after planting of suckers for Season –I (June, 2024) and Season- II (November, 2024) with 5cm soil flooding was maintained in each treatment combinations. The following physiological parameters viz., leaf area (cm2), leaf area index, chlorophyll ‘a’ and ‘b’ content, total chlorophyll content (mg/g), chlorophyll stability index, relative water content and proline content (µg/mg) were recorded in before flooding, at the time of flooding and 15 days after flooding and the statistical analysis of pooled mean of both season 5th month after flooding work done. In this present study results showed that, among the six genotypes screened the genotype Karpooravalli (V5) recorded highest leaf area (cm2), leaf area index, chlorophyll ‘a’ and ‘b’ content, total chlorophyll content (mg/g), chlorophyll stability index and proline content (µg/mg) was notice during before flooded condition, 96hrs after flooded condition and 15 days after flooded condition. It was followed by Monthan (V6) respectively.
References
1. Ahmed, S., Nawata, E., Hosokawa, M., Domae, Y. and Sakuratani, T. (2002). Alterations in photosynthesis and some antioxidant enzymatic activities of mungbean subjected to flooding. Pl. Sci., 163: 117–123.
2. Arnon, D.I. (1949). Copper enzymes in isolated chloroplast: polyphenol oxidase in Beta vulgaris. Pl. Physiol., 24:1–15
3. Barrs, H.D. and Weatherley, P.E. (1962). A re-examination of the relative turgidity technique for estimating water deficits in leaves. Australian J. Biol. Sci., 24:519-570.
4. Bates, L.S., Waldren, R.P. and Teare I.D. (1973). Rapid determination of free proline for waterstress studies. Pl. Soil. 39:205.
5. Cho, J.W. and Yamakawa, T. (2006). Effects on growth and seed yield of small seed soybean cultivars of flooding conditions in paddy field. J. Fac. Agr., Kyushu Univ., 51 (2): 189–193.
6. Crop Production Guide Horticulture Crops. (2020). Directorate of Horticulture and Plantation Crops, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005 and Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore - 641 003. pp. 7-13.
7. Davies, B.H. (1976). Carotenoids In: Chemistry and biochemistry of plant pigments. Goodwin, T W. (Ed.) Academic Press, London, p. 38-165.
8. DHPC, (2019). Department of Horticulture and Plantation Crops report, Government of Tamil Nadu.
9. Herzog, M., Striker, G.G., Colmer, T.D. and Pedersen, O. (2016). Mechanisms of flooding tolerance in wheat A review of root and shoot physiology. Pl. Cell and Environ., 39 (5): 1068-1086. https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.12676
10. Kuo, C.G. and Chen, B.W. (1980). Physiological responses of tomato cultivars to flooding. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci., 105(5):751-755.
11. Liu, P., Sun, F., Gao, R. and Dong, H. (2012). RAP2,6L overexpression delays flooding induced premature senescence by increasing stomatal closure more than antioxidant enzyme activity. Pl. Mol. Biol., 79(6): 609–622. DOI 10.1007/s11103-012-9936-8.
12. Murray, D.B. (1960). The effect of deficiencies of the major nutrients on growth and leaf analysis of the banana. Trop. Agric. Trinidad, 37: 97-106.
13. NDMA, (2023). National Disaster Management Authority. Annual Report (2022-2023), Government of India, New Delhi.
14. Ploschuk, R. A., Miralles, D.J., Colmer, T.D., Ploschuk, E.L. and Striker, G.G. (2018). Flooding of winter crops at early and late stages: Impacts on leaf physiology, growth and yield. Frontiers in Pl. Sci., 9:1863. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.01863
15. Popat, R., Patel, H. and Popat, P. (2024). Agri Analyze [Online tool]. www.agrianalyze.com
16. Rangaswamy, R. (1995). A Text Book of Agricultural Statistics. p.486. New Age International (P) Ltd Publishers, New Delhi.
17. Romina, P., Abeledo, L.G. and Miralles, D.J. (2014). Identifying the critical period for flooding on yield and its components in wheat and barley. Pant and Soil. 378: 265–277. DOI10.1007/s11104-014-2028-6.
18. Setter, T.L. and I. Waters. (2003). Review of prospects for germplasm improvement for flooding tolerance in wheat, barley and oats. Pl. & Soil. 253:1–34.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024573305997
19. Shao, G.C., Lan, J.J., Yu, S.E., Liu, N., Guo, R.Q. and She, D.L. (2013). Photosynthesis and growth of winter wheat in response to flooding at different growth stages. Photosynthetica. 51(3): 429–437. DOI 10.1007/s11099-013-0039-9.
20. Sharma, S., Sharma, J., Soni, V., Kalaji, H.M. and Elsheerym N.I. (2021). Flooding tolerance: A review on regulative morpho-physiological homeostasis of crop plants. J. Water and Land Develop., 49 (IV-VI): 16-28.
https://doi.org/10.24425/jwld.2021.137092
21. Shaw, R. E., Meyer, W.S., McNeill, A. and Tyerman, S.D. (2013). Flooding in Australian agricultural landscapes: A review of plant responses and crop models. Crop and Pasture Sci., 64 (6): 549-562.
22. Sivasubramaniawn, K. (1992). Chlorophyll stability index: methods for determining drought hardness of Acacia species. Nitrogen Fixing Tree Research Reports, 10:111-11.
23. Stover, R.H. and Simmonds, N.W. (1987). Bananas. 3rd ed., Longman Scientific and Technical, London.
24. Tong, C., Hill, C.B., Zhou, G., Zhang, X.Q., Jia, Y. and Li, C. (2021). Opportunities for improving flooding tolerance in cereal crops–physiological traits and genetic mechanisms. Plants. 10 (8): 1560. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10081560
25. Voesenek L.A. and Bailey-Serres, J. (2013). Flooding tolerance: O2 sensing and survival strategies. Current Opinion in Pl. Biol., 16(5): 647–653. DOI
10.1016/j.pbi.2013.06.008.
26. Voesenek, L. A. and Bailey-Serres, J. (2015). Flood adaptive traits and processes: An overview. New Phytologist. 206 (1): 57-73. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13209
27. Williams, R.F. (1946). The physiology of plant growth with special reference to the concept of net assimilation rate. Ann. Bot. 10: 41-71.
28. Wu, X., Tang, Y., Li, C., Mchugh, A.D., Li, Z. and Wu, C. (2018). Individual and combined effects of soil flooding and compaction on physiological characteristics of wheat in south-western China. Field Crops Res., 215:163–172. DOI10.1016/j.fcr.2017.10.016.
29. www. nhb.gov.in
30. www.agrianaiyze.com
31. www.ndma.gov.in
32. www.nrsc.gov.in/nrscnew/
33. Xu, X., Ji, J., Xu, Q., Qi, X. and Chen, X. (2017). Inheritance and quantitative trail loci mapping of adventitious root numbers in cucumber seedlings under flooding conditions. Mol. Gene. Genomics. 292(2): 353–364. DOI10.1007/s00438-016-1280-2.
34. Zhou, M.Z. (2010). Improvement of plant flooding tolerance. In: Flooding signalling and tolerance in plants. Mancuso, S, Heidelberg, S.S, editors. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. p.267–85.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
