This study evaluated the physiological and yield responses of four mungbean varieties under different soil moisture regimes. Key findings: - Net photosynthesis, xylem water potential, and yield decreased with increasing water stress for all varieties. However, varieties Pant Mung-1 and Pant Mung-3 maintained higher photosynthesis and xylem water potential under stress. - Pant Mung-1 and Pant Mung-3 showed the highest yield under all moisture regimes, followed by Pant Mung-2, with SML-668 having the lowest yield. - Physiological parameters like photosynthesis and water potential remained higher during the vegetative and reproductive stages in Pant Mung

2. “Physiological and Molecular Responses of Pulse Crop to
Carbon Assimilation, Carbon Allocation and It’s Partitioning
during Water Stress ”
Presented by
Miss. Priyanka Jagdish Bonde
Regd No.-ADPD/15/0212
Department of Agricultural Botany
(Plant Physiology)
Dr. Balasaheb Sawant Konkan Krishi Vidyapeeth , Dapoli
Course instructor
Dr. M.M. Burondkar
Associate Professor
Department of Agricultural Botany
College of Agriculture, Dapoli
Doctoral Seminar- I

5. Great bengal famine of 1770
Chalisa famine 1783
Doji bara famine 1791
Agra famine of 1837-38
Orissa famine of 1866
Bihar famine of 1873-74
Indian famine of 1899-1900
 Maharashtra Drought 2013
Drought Famines in India

6. Present Status of Drought Area in India

7. Introduction
 Pulses are the important protein rich part of Indian diet.
 Food legume crops play important roles in conservation farming systems.
 Legumes are only second to cereals in terms of contribution to food
security.
 Drought during the vegetative phase resulting in lowest yield reduction
(15.5%).
 Drought that occurred during reproductive stages (i.e., from flowering to
maturity) resulted in yield reduction (43.4%).
 The selection and promotion of drought-resistant legume species could
provide an approach to minimize the impact of droughts.

8. Stress
 Stress in biology is any change in environmental conditions that might
reduce or adversely change plant’s growth or development.
(Levitt,1980).
 stresses that impact upon seed that can affect plant reproduction and
productivity hence agriculture and biodiversity.
Types of Stress
 Abiotic Stress
 Biotic Stress

9. Versatility of Abiotic Stresses
12-12-2022 9
STRESS
ABIOTIC
WATER DEFICIT/Drought
EXCESS
TENPERATURE HIGH
LOW
SALT/ION
TOXICITY
DIFFICIENCY
AIR POLLUTION
OTHERS
BIOTIC

10. Drought
A drought is a period of below-average precipitation in a
given region, resulting in prolonged shortages in its water supply,
whether atmospheric, surface water or ground water.
Types of Drought
 Metrological
 Agricultural
 Hydrological

11.  Functioning of stomata
 Carbohydrate metabolism in green leaves
 Photosynthetic activity
 Osmotic pressure
 Permeability
 Biochemical effect
Impact of Drought on plant

12. Illustration of the response of plants to water stress.
Stomatal response, ROS scavenging, metabolic changes and photosynthesis are all
affected when plants are subjected to water stress.
These collective responses lead to an adjustment in the growth rate of plants as an
adaptive response for survival.

13. Model for the role of signaling factors in stomatal
closure and retrograde signaling during water stress

14. t
Drought Stress
Physiological Responses Biochemical Responses Molecular Responses
Recognition of root
signal
Loss of turgor &
osmotic adjustment
Reduced leaf water
potential (ᴪ)
Decrease in stomatal
conductance to CO2
Reduced internal CO2
concentration
Decline in net
photosynthesis
Reduced growth rates
Transient decrease in
photochemical
efficiency
Decrease efficiency of
Rubisco
Accumulation of
stress metabolites like
MDHA, Glutathione,
pro, glybet, polyamines
and α tocopherol
Increase in
antioxidative enzymes
like SOD, CAT, APX,
POD, GR & MDHAR
 Reduced ROS
accumulation
Stress responsive
gene expression
Increase expression
in ABA biosynthetic
genes
Expression of ABA
responsive gene
Synthesis of specific
proteins like LEA, DSP,
RAB, dehydrins
Drought stress
tolerance

15. Case Study I
Effects of water stress on physiological processes and yield
attributes of different mungbean (L.) varieties
R.K.Naresh1, Purushottam2, S.P.Singh3, Ashish Dwivedi1 and Vineet Kumar3

16. Materials and Methods
 The study was carried out at Crop Research Centre of Sardar
Vallabhbhai Patel University of Agriculture and Technology in Meerut,
Uttar Pradesh, India
 Experimental design was the split plot design while the moisture regime
was the main plot and varieties were the sub-plot with three replications.
 Each variety was tested for soil moisture regime.
The treatments were applied as follows:
Soil moisture regime as main plot
Irrigation at 0.2 bar soil moisture tension I1
Irrigation at 0.4 bar soil moisture tension I2
Irrigation at 0.6 bar soil moisture tension I3
Irrigation at 0.8 bar soil moisture tension I4
No post planting irrigation (control) I5.
Varieties as sub plot: Pant mung -1(V1); pant mung -2 (V2); pant
mung-3 (V3); SML-668 (V4)

17. Variety Pant Mung-1 Pant Mung-2
Treatment 350-
300
300-
250
250-
200
200-
150
150-
100
350-
300
300-
250
250-
200
200-
150
150-
100
I1
I2
I3
I4
I5
5.74
7.31
3.32
3.20
2.16
3.63
4.86
2.85
2.60
2.11
3.15
4.26
2.30
1.78
1.28
1.57
2.87
0.90
0.80
0.38
0.75
1.12
0.22
0.20
0.10
4.49
9.96
4.37
4.13
2.56
3.63
5.90
2.40
2.63
1.44
3.08
3.49
2.07
1.56
0.90
1.60
2.64
1.21
1.10
0.86
1.28
1.75
1.13
0.75
0.55
Variety Pant Mung-3 SML-668
Treatment 350-
300
300-
250
250-
200
200-
150
150-
100
350-
300
300-
250
250-
200
200-
150
150-
100
I1
I2
I3
I4
I5
6.70
9.72
5.41
3.66
2.77
5.56
7.62
3.82
3.55
2.22
3.74
6.20
3.30
2.51
1.36
2.26
4.25
1.86
1.72
0.62
1.24
2.43
0.90
0.82
0.13
6.38
7.75
7.12
4.43
3.87
4.88
6.10
3.82
2.11
2.52
3.64
4.47
3.24
1.63
2.13
2.26
3.67
2.23
1.18
1.15
2.11
2.54
1.25
0.94
0.65
Effect of different treatments on the rate of net photosynthesis (mg CO2 dm-2 hr-1) at
different external
CO2 concentrations (ppm) during vegetative stage

18. Variety Pant Mung-1 Pant Mung-2
Treatment 350-
300
300-
250
250-
200
200-
150
150-
100
350-
300
300-
250
250-
200
200-
150
150-
100
I1
I2
I3
I4
I5
7.83
9.10
5.62
5.62
3.20
6.41
7.51
3.90
4.33
2.40
4.87
5.89
3.21
3.12
1.84
3.37
4.56
2.43
2.43
1.33
1.44
2.09
1.23
1.14
0.59
7.79
9.10
6.50
5.25
3.21
6.41
7.15
5.71
4.51
2.38
4.63
5.83
4.25
3.17
1.91
3.20
4.53
3.37
2.35
1.32
1.62
2.13
1.92
1.35
0.59
Effect of different treatments on the rate of net photosynthesis (mg CO2 dm-2 hr-1) at different
external
CO2 concentrations (ppm) during Early pod setting stage
Variety Pant Mung-3 SML-668
Treatment 350-
300
300-
250
250-
200
200-
150
150-
100
350-
300
300-
250
250-
200
200-
150
150-
100
I1
I2
I3
I4
I5
9.13
9.66
8.75
7.26
5.64
7.24
7.61
7.40
5.43
4.13
6.05
6.25
6.09
4.28
3.60
4.68
5.09
4.58
2.96
2.50
2.63
3.33
3.10
1.24
1.22
9.95
10.3
8.73
7.26
5.67
8.22
8.95
7.14
5.46
4.16
5.85
7.77
5.94
4.26
3.58
5.09
6.39
4.70
2.96
2.35
3.08
3.91
2.66
1.30
1.25

19. Variety Pant Mung-1 Pant Mung-2
Treatment 350-300 300-
250
250-
200
200-150 150-100 350-300 300-
250
250-200 200-
150
150-
100
I1
I2
I3
I4
I5
8.91
9.85
7.77
6.51
5.67
7.73
8.36
6.86
5.52
4.72
5.87
6.41
5.44
4.61
3.38
4.36
5.08
4.11
3.23
2.59
2.36
2.46
2.15
1.45
1.24
9.32
10.23
8.94
6.65
5.93
7.26
9.85
7.73
6.09
4.68
6.11
8.26
5.87
4.09
3.48
4.46
6.46
4.39
3.09
2.41
2.44
3.10
2.39
1.15
1.28
Effect of different treatments on the rate of net photosynthesis (mg CO2 dm-2 hr-1)
at different
external CO2 concentrations (ppm) during Active pod filling stage
Variety Pant Mung-3 SML-668
Treatment 350-300 300-250 250-
200
200-
150
150-100 350-300 300-
250
250-200 200-
150
150-
100
I1
I2
I3
I4
I5
9.15
11.15
9.07
8.36
5.43
7.20
8.16
7.40
6.66
4.45
6.11
6.71
5.50
5.10
2.45
4.27
5.11
4.21
4.09
1.61
1.94
2.64
1.87
1.66
0.90
9.85
11.26
9.33
8.97
5.93
8.36
9.85
7.96
7.76
4.71
6.41
8.23
6.10
5.87
3.48
5.08
6.46
4.46
4.34
2.37
2.09
3.09
2.45
2.37
1.27

20. 30 DAS 40 DAS
I1 I2 I3 I4 I5 I1 I2 I3 I4 I5
V1 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
V2 1.0 1.5 1.5 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.0 3.0
V3 0.5 1.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.5 2.5
V4 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 1.5 2.5
50 DAS 60 DAS
I1 I2 I3 I4 I5 I1 I2 I3 I4 I5
V1 1.5 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.5 2.0 3.0 3.5 3.5 4.5
V2 1.5 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.5 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.5
V3 1.5 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.5
V4 1.0 1.5 1.5 2.5 3.0 1.5 2.5 2.5 3.0 4.0
Seasonal variation in xylem water potential (XWP,- bar) during 0630-0700 h under
I1,I2,I3,I4 and I5 condition

21. 30 DAS 40 DAS
I1 I2 I3 I4 I5 I1 I2 I3 I4 I5
V1 0.23 0.24 0.24 0.25 0.25 0.19 0.21 0.30 0.31 0.33
V2 0.21 0.23 0.22 0.23 0.24 0.18 0.19 0.26 0.27 0.29
V3 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.22 0.23 0.17 0.19 0.23 0.25 0.26
V4 0.17 0.19 0.18 0.19 0.20 0.17 0.18 0.21 0.22 0.24
50 DAS 60 DAS
I1 I2 I3 I4 I5 I1 I2 I3 I4 I5
V1 0.19 0.20 0.28 0.32 0.34 0.17 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.31
V2 0.19 0.19 0.24 0.27 0.29 0.18 0.17 0.22 0.26 0.27
V3 0.16 0.18 0.21 0.26 0.27 0.15 0.16 0.20 0.23 0.26
V4 0.15 0.17 0.20 0.23 0.26 0.14 0.17 0.19 0.21 0.24
Seasonal variation in leaf diffusive resistance (LDR) (sec cm-1) during
1300-1330 h under I1,I2,I3,I4 and I5 condition

22. Seasonal variation in transpiration rate (TR μg cm-2 sec-1) during
1300-1330 h underI1,I2,I3,I4 and I5 condition
30 DAS 40 DAS
I1 I2 I3 I4 I5 I1 I2 I3 I4 I5
V1 24.3 23.4 23.0 23.5 23.0 26.2 24.0 22.5 22.0 21.5
V2 25.1 24.3 24.0 24.2 24.0 27.0 24.5 23.6 23.2 22.3
V3 25.5 24.6 24.2 23.5 23.0 28.0 25.0 24.0 23.0 22.5
V4 25.3 24.5 24.0 24.0 23.5 28.5 26.5 23.5 22.3 21.3
50 DAS 60 DAS
I1 I2 I3 I4 I5 I1 I2 I3 I4 I5
V1 28.0 26.0 23.5 20.2 18.3 26.5 24.5 21.0 17.5 17.2
V2 31.0 29.0 24.0 20.5 18.2 28.5 25.5 22.5 18.5 17.0
V3 31.5 29.5 24.5 21.0 18.5 30.2 26.5 23.5 19.0 17.5
V4 33.5 31.5 25.5 21.5 19.5 31.5 28.5 24.3 20.0 19.0

23. 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
I1 I2 I3 I4 I5
pant mung-1
pant mung-2
pant mung-3
SML-668
0
50
100
150
200
250
I1 I2 I3 I4 I5
pant mung-1
pant mung-2
pant mung-3
SML-668
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
I1 I2 I3 I4 I5
pant mung-1
pant mung-2
pant mung-3
SML-668
Effect of different treatments on free proline content μg/g fresh weight at
vegetative stage, early pod setting stage and active pod filling stage

24. Treatment
Number of pods plant-1 Number of grains pod-1
V1 V2 V3 V4 V1 V2 V3 V4
I1 12.9 14.0 14.2 14.5 7.2 7.1 7.6 7.5
I2 21.7 21.5 22.3 22.7 7.5 7.8 7.9 8.8
I3 10.8 11.0 12.6 12.6 6.6 6.8 6.9 8.0
I4 10.0 10.0 10.3 10.8 5.9 6.1 6.4 6.8
I5 9.0 9.0 8.9 9.3 3.7 4.2 6.1 6.2
Treatment
1000 grain weight (g) grains yield (q/ha)
V1 V2 V3 V4 V1 V2 V3 V4
I1 36.2 37.4 37.3 37.9 9.86 10.23 11.25 11.67
I2 36.4 37.6 37.7 38.1 13.87 15.24 18.18 18.58
I3 35.5 36.5 36.7 37.1 6.86 7.08 9.38 9.58
I4 35.2 36.8 36.9 36.6 5.90 5.95 6.58 6.66
I5 34.8 36.0 36.0 36.2 3.37 3.50 3.61 4.15
Yield attributes and grain yield (q/ha) as affected by different treatments

25. CASE STUDY II
STUDIES ON MORPHOLOGICALAND PHYSIOLOGICAL
TRAITS ON MINERAL COMPOSITION IN CLUSTER
BEAN GENOTYPES UNDER DROUGHT STRESS
R. Seenaiah1, T. Madhu Babu 2, P.Akbar Basha3, A. Srihari4, J.
Suvarna5, M.Vijay Sankar Babu6, S.Thimma Naik7.

26.  Cluster bean seeds were procured from Regional Agricultural
Research Station, Rekulakunta Agricultural University (ANGRAU),
Ananthapuramu, India.
 RGC-1025, RGC-936, HG365, GC-1031, JG-2, JG-1 were grown in
departmental Botanical garden with Randomized block designed plot
maintained under optimum temp for 39-48 days in field condition.
 After germination, seedlings were thinned to 15 cm in between plant to
plant and rows 30cm maintained for 39 days. 39-day-old plants were
subjected to drought stress.
 Only control plants irrigated once 4 days and treated plants without
water up to 39-48 days.
 The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of drought on
morphological and physiological effect on root growth, shoot growth,
leaf area, relative water content(R.W.C) and Chlorophyll SPAD
reading values variations.
Materials and Methods

27. Variety Stress Control
RGC-1025 57.3±1.11 65.2±0.74
RGC-936 58.7±0.37 64.6±0.33
HG-365 55.8±0.535 65.6±0.20
Gc-1031 51.3±0.73 58±0.816
JG-1 51.5±1.69 62.3±0.326
JG-2 50.3±393 62.5±0.56
Variety Stress Control
RGC-1025 18.6±0.3 20.6±0.4
RGC-936 19.2±0.07 20.2±0.16
HG-365 16.3±0.24 18.3±0.24
Gc-1031 15.2±0.10 18.1±0.18
JG-1 15.5±1.04 19.16±0.60
JG-2 17.8±0.64 22.6±1.52
Morphological and physiological characters under controlled and drought conditions
Shoot length in (cm) Root length in (cm)
Variety Stress Control
RGC-1025 26.57±0.69 34.84±0.64
RGC-936 22.13±0.12 29.58±0.38
HG-365 25.35±0.43 33.59±0.47
Gc-1031 25.07±0.68 33.74±0.61
JG-1 24.08±0.74 36.08±0.60
JG-2 23.04±0.21 37.71±0.78
Variety Stress Control
RGC-1025 71.32±0.02 85.05±0.28
RGC-936 71.8±0.53 82.20±0.93
HG-365 67.59±4.08 79.25±0.77
Gc-1031 67.70±0.71 83.44±0.22
JG-1 68.14±0.62 76.44±1.14
JG-2 67.36±0.89 82.70±0.52
Leaf area in cm2 Relative water in (RWC) %

28. Variety Stress Control
RGC-1025 56.77±0.43 53.77±0.43
RGC-936 48.3±0.53 45.36±0.41
HG-365 55.64±0.53 48.61±0.55
Gc-1031 62.80±0.75 56.14±0.21
JG-1 56.383±1.04 48.38±0.59
JG-2 52.51±0.67 46.51±1.35
Chlorophyll SPAD nm/cm2

29. Case study III
Effective Use of Water and Increased Dry Matter Partitioned To
Grain Contribute To Yield of Common Bean Improved for
Drought Resistance
Jose A.Polania 1, 2*, CharlottePoschenrieder 2, StephenBeebe1 and IdupulapatiM.Rao1*

30.  Two field trials were conducted during the dry season (from June to
September in both 2012 and 2013), at the main experiment station of
the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) in Palmira,
Colombia,
 A set of 36 bean genotypes belonging to the Middle American gene
pool were evaluated under field conditions with two levels of water
supply (irrigated and drought) over two seasons. Eight bean lines
(NCB 280, NCB 226, SEN 56, SCR 2, SCR 16, SMC 141, RCB 593,
and BFS 67) were identified as resistant to drought stress.
Materials and Methods

31. Phenotypic differences in days to flowering, days to physiological maturity
and leaf stomatal conductance of genotypes of common bean grown under
irrigated and drought conditions
Genotype
Days to flowering
Days to physiological
maturity
Leaf stomatal conductance
(mmol m-2 s-1)
Irrigated Drought Irrigated Drought Irrigated Drought
BFS67 35 36 60 62 311 485
NCB226 31 33 64 62 331 442
NCB280 30 31 56 57 417 629
RCB593 31 33 56 58 357 328
SCR2 32 32 61 60 436 395
SEN56 32 32 60 58 335 492
SER16 31 32 56 57 383 310
SMC141 37 38 62 63 327 510

32. Phenotypic differences in canopy biomass, pod partitioning index, grain
yield and drought response index (DRI) of genotypes of common bean
grown under irrigated and drought conditions
Genotype
Canopy biomass
(kg ha-1)
Pod partitioning index
(%)
Grain yield
(kg ha-1) DRI
Irrigated Drought Irrigated Drought Irrigated Drought
NCB280 4695 3165 87 74 2922 1457 0.70
NCB226 3742 3051 101 69 2973 1316 0.56
SEN56 4988 3063 80 74 2898 1330 0.54
SCR2 4554 3636 76 66 2495 1272 0.61
BFS67 4763 2992 74 62 2662 1163 0.57
RCB593 4560 3329 74 52 2519 1321 0.35
SCR16 4709 2935 86 74 2744 1310 -0.27
SMC141 3894 2298 82 87 2592 1189 -0.88

33. Case Study IV
Identification of Leaf Based Physiological
Markers for Drought Susceptibility during
Early Seedling Development of Mungbean
Puspendu Dutta1,2, Pintoo Bandopadhyay3, A. K. Bera1

34.  Mungbean (Vigna radiata L. Wilczek) cultivars, K 851 (drought tolerant) and
PDM 84-139 (drought susceptible) were selected from a laboratory screening with
sixteen mungbean cultivars collected from the Project Coordinator, All Indian
Coordinated Research Project on MULLaRP, Indian Institute of Pulses Research,
Kalyanpur, Kanpur, U.P., India.
 A range of four external water potentials (viz. −1.0, −2.0, −3.0 and −4.0 bars) were
prepared by using polyethylene glycol (PEG) 6000 as per methods of Michel and
Kaufmann.
 The present study aimed for quickly identifying reliable physiological markers for
drought susceptibility through evaluation of physiological and biochemical
changes in leaves of two contrasting mungbean ( Vigna radiata L. Wilczek)
cultivars i.e. K 851 (drought tolerant) and PDM 84-139 (drought susceptible)
during seedling development.
Materials and Methods

35. Cultivar WP
(bars)
LA
(cm2)
RLWC
(%)
Stomatal frequency Stomatal Index
upper lower upper lower
K-851 0.0 2.320
-
76.38 28.728
(5.358)
45.144
(6.718)
25.51
(5.050)
29.55
(5.436)
-1.0 1.433
-38.23*
76.00 22.700
(4.762)
33.748
(5.808)
17.55
(4.188)
28.21
(5.311)
-2.0 0.843
-63.60*
73.40 25.075
(5.006)
34.199
(5.847)
20.21
(4.495)
30.69
(5.540)
-3.0 0.738
-68.19*
66.10 24.624
(4.899)
25.075
(5.006)
23.02
(4.797)
28.27
(5.317)
-4.0 0.505
-78.23*
61.81 23.707
(4.867)
21.887
(4.676)
20.34
(4.509)
28.48
(5.336)
PDM 84-
139
0.0 1.218
-
74.56 26.908
(5.186)
30.547
(5.526)
21.77
(4.665)
25.26
(5.025)
-1.0 0.805
-33.91*
70.59 30.096
(5.485)
28.728
(5.358)
25.36
(5.035)
29.44
(5.425)
-2.0 0.513
-57.88*
70.00 20.971
(4.577)
26.908
(5.186)
21.13
(4.535)
31.79
(5.638)
-3.0 0.328
-73.07*
60.78 20.971
(4.577)
25.540
(5.052)
18.73
(4.327)
31.34
(5.598)
-4.0 0.255
-79.06*
57.69 20.068
(4.477)
26.443
(5.141)
18.15
(4.529)
31.76
(5.635)
Effect of different moisture stresses on leaf area (cm2), relative leaf water content
(%), stomatal frequency and stomatal index and of six days old seedlings of two
mungbean cultivars

36. Cultivar
WP
(bars)
Leaf Stem Root Total dry weight
K-851
0.0 4.3 12.8 3.4 20.5
-1.0
3.9
-(9.30)
11.7
-(8.59)
4.6
+(35.2)
20.2
-(1.46)
-2.0
4.0
-(6.97)
12.4
-(3.12)
3.6
+(5.88)
20
-(2.44)
-3.0
4.3
-(0.00)
10.6
-(17.2)
3.3
-(2.94)
18.2
-(11.2)
-4.0
3.0
-(30.2)
9.0
-(29.7)
3.7
+(8.82)
15.5
-(23.4)
PDM 84-139
0.0 4.6 10.4 3.6 18.6
-1.0
3.8
-(17.3)
9.6
-(7.69)
3.2
-(11.1)
16.6
-(10.7)
-2.0
3.6
-(21.7)
9.8
-(5.77)
3.0
-(16.7)
16.4
-(11.8)
-3.0
3.4
-(26.1)
8.4
-(19.2)
3.3
-(8.33)
15.1
-(18.8)
-4.0
2.4
-(47.8)
6.8
-(34.6)
3.2
-(11.1)
12.4
-(33.3)
Changes in dry weight (data expressed as mg seedling-1) of leaf, stem and root of six
days old seedlings of two mungbean cultivars grown under different water potentials.

37. Cultivar
WP
(bars)
Chl-a Chl-b Total chl Chl-a/b CSI
K-851
0.0 1.965 0.791 2.755 2.484 -
-1.0 1.925 0.721 2.644 2.674 0.959
-2.0 1.863 0.719 2.583 2.591 0.937
-3.0 1.618 0.594 2.212 2.723 0.802
-4.0 1.399 0.512 1.851 2.732 0.671
PDM 84-139
0.0 1.431 0.504 1.935 2.839 -
-1.0 1.296 0.445 1.741 2.912 0.899
-2.0 1.165 0.379 1.544 3.074 0.797
-3.0 0.967 0.310 1.227 3.119 0.634
-4.0 0.798 0.251 1.049 3.179 0.542
Changes in chlorophyll-a, chlorophyll-b, total chlorophyll, chlorophyll-a/b ratio and
chlorophyll stability index (CSI) in the 6 days old seedlings of two mungbean cultivars
grown under different osmotic potentials (data expressed as mg g-1 fresh weight).

38. Cultivar
WP
(bars)
Ascorbic
Acid
Phenol Proline
MDA
content
H2O2
K-851
0.0 2.00 1.900 114 142.78 2.72
-1.0 1.85 2.450 202 256.55 3.89
-2.0 1.52 2.571 567 345.67 4.25
-3.0 1.36 3.100 685 363.17 4.62
-4.0 1.08 3.000 743 368.46 6.18
PDM 84-139
0.0 2.00 1.650 47 150.91 2.59
-1.0 1.84 2.138 77 272.16 4.51
-2.0 1.44 2.225 144 386.78 5.26
-3.0 1.16 2.857 187 418.34 6.38
-4.0 0.82 2.642 252 465.55 6.93
Ascorbic acid (mg∙g-1 fresh weight), phenol (mg∙g-1 fresh weight), proline (μg∙g-1 fresh
weight), MDA (nmol∙g-1 fresh weight) and H2O2 (μmol∙g-1 fresh weight) content in leaves
of 6 days old mungbean seedlings grown under different water potentials

39. Case Study V
DREB1A overexpression in transgenic chickpea alters
key traits influencing plant water budget across water
regimes
Krithika Anbazhagan • Pooja Bhatnagar-Mathur • Vincent Vadez • Srinivas Reddy Dumbala •
P. B. Kavi Kishor • Kiran K. Sharma

40. Materials and Methods
 This study demonstrate the role of DREB1A transcription factor in better root
and shoot partition- ing and higher transpiration efficiency in transgenic
chickpea under drought stress
 They genetically engineered a desi-type chickpea variety to ectopically
overexpress AtDREB1A, a transcription factor known to be involved in abiotic
stress response, driven by the stress- inducible Atrd29A promoter.
 From several transgenic events of chickpea developed by Agrobacterium-
mediated genetic transformation, four single copy events (RD2, RD7, RD9 and
RD10) were characterized for DREB1A gene overex- pression and evaluated
under water stress in a biosafety greenhouse at T6 generation.
 Development of transgenic events.
 Molecular characterization of transgenic events
 Gene expression analysis in selected events
 Physiological characterization of transgenic events

41. TREATMENT
GENO-
TYPE
SHOOT
DRY
WEIGHT
(g plant-1)
ROOT DRY
WEIGHT
(g plant-1)
TOTAL
PLANT
BIOMASS (g
plant-1)
ROOT
SHOOT
RATIO
(plant-1)
WW
C235 19.0 1.58 20.6 0.08
RD10 16.7 2.10 18.8 0.13
RD2 21.7 1.98 23.7 0.09
RD7 18.3 2.09 20.3 0.12
RD9 20.1 2.14 22.2 0.11
WS
C235 15.1 2.46 17.5 0.17
RD10 23.5 2.12 25.7 0.10
RD2 17.6 2.31 19.9 0.13
RD7 30.6 2.76 33.3 0.09
RD9 16.2 2.06 18.2 0.14
Biomass accumulation (shoot, root and total), of different transgenic events tested in
lysimetric system in the green house under both well-watered (WW) and water-
stressed (WS) conditions.

42. TREATMENT GENOTYPE
TOTAL
WATER
EXTRACT
ED
(kg plant-1)
TE
(g biomass
accumulated kg-1
water extracted
plant-1)
TOTAL
ROOTING
DEPTH
(m plant-1)
TOTA ROOT
LENGTH
(m plant-1)
WW
C235 12.9 1.67 108 254
RD10 13.7 1.42 124 328
RD2 10.9 2.17 112 226
RD7 11.6 1.77 115 193
RD9 10.8 2.04 105 204
WS
C235 5.58 2.94 108 208
RD10 6.00 4.36 109 215
RD2 6.25 3.20 128 255
RD7 6.12 5.49 128 205
RD9 5.53 3.29 137 226
Total water extracted, transpiration efficiency(TE) and root-related traits (total root
length, total rooting depth of different transgenic events tested in lysimetric system in
the green house under both well-watered (WW) and water-stressed (WS) conditions.

43. Case study VI
Differential accumulation of mRNAs in drought-tolerant
and susceptible common bean cultivars in response to
water deficit
Lourdes Montalvo-Hernández1, Elías Piedra-Ibarra1,4, Lidia Gómez-Silva1, Rosalía Lira-
Carmona2,Jorge A. Acosta-Gallegos3, Josefina Vazquez-Medrano4, Beatriz Xoconostle-
Cázares1 and Roberto Ruíz-Medrano1

44.  Two common bean (P. vulgaris L.) varieties with contrasting tolerance to
drought were selected. ‘Pinto Villa’ and ‘Carioca’.
 The plants were grown in a greenhouse subjected to natural solar radiation
with a temperature oscillation between 25°C and 35° C as described by Ray &
Sinclair (1998) during the summers of 2005 and 2006.
 For control experiment, 25 pots containing the plants were watered daily with
0.5 × Hoagland solution at field capacity during all the cycle of cultivation.
 Drought stress was applied to the remaining 25 plants, 20 d after germination
until the plants displayed morphological changes caused by water
deprivation, such as leaf reduction, dwarfism and premature flowering.
 Both control and stressed plants were collected when they were 40 d old.
 Quantification of photosynthetic parameters
 Quantification of differential expression using a macroarray
 mRNA in situ hybridization
Materials and Methods

45. Comparison of physiological parameters of irrigated and drought-
stressed common bean Phaseolus vulgaris ‘Pinto Villa’ and ‘Carioca
Photosynthetic parameter
Pinto Villa’ (tolerant) ‘Carioca’ (susceptible)
Irrigated Drought Irrigated Drought
Relative water content
(RWC)a
83 ±4.2 70±5.8 89±3.3 68±4.3
Intracellular CO2
(iC,µmol CO2 mol-1 air)
75.5 ± 2.1 0.0021±0.001 43.5±3.2 209±12
Transpiration
(mmol H2 O m-2 s-1)
1.54 ± 0.1 0.19±0.09 3.56±0.7 0.14±0.08
Photosynthesis (µmol m-2 s-1) 9.96±0.28 2.63±0.3 15.3±2.2 0.54±0.13
Conductivity
(mol H2 O m-2 s-1)
0.046±0.002 0.003±0.0003 0.073±0.01 0.024±0.001

46. Aquaporin (AQP)-encoding mRNA is differentially
accumulated in both Phaseolus vulgaris cultivars (‘Pinto Villa’ and
‘Carioca’) under drought conditions

47. Aquaporin (AQP) mRNA in situ
hybridization in transversal
sections of Phaseolus vulgaris
‘Pinto Villa’ and ‘Carioca’ leaves,
stems and roots grown under
normal and drought conditions.
Tissues and treatments are
indicated. Watered: ‘Carioca’
leaf displays the highest mRNA
accumulation in mesophyll and
parenchyma cells. Both cultivars
bear AQP mRNA in all the cell
types under irrigation, while
under drought conditions, only
‘Pinto Villa’ display mRNA
associated signal, now restricted
to the vascular cells in all the
tissues tested. LB, leaf blade; CV,
central vein; BS, bundle sheath;
P, parenchyma; PC, phloem
cells; CC, corticalcells. Bars, 100
μm.

48.  Combining genes from both wild and cultivated species shows promise to obtain genotypes with
higher levels of tolerance.
 Transgenic approaches have been shown to be powerful tools to help understand and
manipulate the responses of plants to stress, but this can be achieved only when studied by
precise physiological and biochemical investigation of transgenic plants under stress conditions.
 Utilization of Genome editing technology will make it possible to modify the regulation of key
genes that will convey improved stress tolerance while maintain- ing productivity.
 New molecular approaches, including the identification of gene variants associated with the
significant agronomic traits, will facilitate the molecular engineer- ing of plants with increased
tolerance to severe environmental stresses
 Understanding mechanisms include stomatal responses, ion transport, activation of stress
signaling pathways, and responses to protect photosynthesis from injury these key factors will
enable us to improve plant productivity during water stress.
 There is a need for further refinement of screening techniques and large-scale adoption of such
techniques to select for traits associated with drought tolerance in breeding/mapping
populations
 Drought reduces mass flow mineral nutrient uptake and translocation from root to the shoot
which altimetry affect the metabolic process in physiology. More attention needs to given for
the studies addressing the effect of drought in macro nutrient and micro nutrients at gene level
and by plant breeding programme.
Conclusion

49. Drought Tolerant Improved Varities of Pulses
Variety Source
Year of
Release/
Notification
Area of adoption
Zone/State
Ave.
yield
(Q/ha)
Days to
maturity
CHICK PEA
RSG-44
RAU,
Durgapura
1991 Rajasthan 20-23 135-150
Pusa 2024 IARI 2008 Delhi 25-28 145
Shubra
(IPCK
2004-29)
IIPR 2009 CZ 21.00 104-108
Ujjawal
(IPCK
2004-29)
IIPR 2010 CZ 20.00 103-111
PIGEON PEA
Pusa 2002 IARI 2008 Delhi 17 110-150
BLACK GRAM
Vamban-2 TNAU 1997 Tamilnadu 12
COW PEA
UPC 628 GBPUAT 2010
Uttarakhand, HP, J&K,
Punjab, Harya.,
Raj.,UP, MP, CG, Bihar,
Jharkhand, WB, Odisha,
Assam,Gujrat& MS
350-400
(Pods)
145-150

50. R.K.Naresh, Purushottam, S.P.Singh, Ashish Dwivedi and Vineet Kumar (2013). Effects of water stress on
physiological processes and yield attributes of different mungbean (L.) varieties . Afri.J. of Biochem.Res. 7(5);55-
62, DOI;10.5897/AJBR 13.0677
R. Seenaiah1, T. Madhu Babu , P.Akbar Basha, A. Srihari, J. Suvarna, M.Vijay Sankar Babu, S.Thimma
Naik (2015). STUDIES ON MORPHOLOGICAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL TRAITS ON MINERAL
COMPOSITION IN CLUSTER BEAN GENOTYPES UNDER DROUGHT STRESS. Inter. J. of Plant animal and
Env. Sci. 5(4) : 2231-4490
Jose A.Polania , Charlotte Poschenrieder , Stephen Beebe and Idupulapati M. Rao(2016). Effective Use of
Water and Increased Dry Matter Partitioned To Grain Contribute To Yield of Common Bean Improved for Drought
Resistance. Frontiers in Plant sci. doi : 10.3389/fpls.2016.00660
Puspendu Dutta, Pintoo Bandopadhyay, A. K. Bera (2016) Identification of Leaf Based Physiological Markers
for Drought Susceptibility during Early Seedling Development of Mungbean. American J. of Plant Sci.7,1921-1936
Lourdes Montalvo-Hernández1, Elías Piedra-Ibarra, Lidia Gómez-Silva, Rosalía Lira-Carmona ,Jorge A.
Acosta-Gallegos, Josefina Vazquez-Medrano, Beatriz Xoconostle-Cázares1 and Roberto Ruíz-Medrano
(2007) Differential accumulation of mRNAs in drought-tolerant and susceptible common bean cultivars in response
to water deficit. New Physiologist doi :10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.02247.X
Krithika Anbazhagan, Pooja Bhatnagar-Mathur, Vincent Vadez , Srinivas Reddy Dumbala, P. B. Kavi
Kishor, Kiran K. Sharma (2014). DREB1A overexpression in transgenic chickpea alters key traits influencing
plant water budget across water regimes. Plant Cell Rep. DOI 10.1007/s00299-014-1699-z
References