Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-03T20:35:59.866Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tolerance of chloride and sulphate salinity in chickpea (Cicer arietinum)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

H. R. Manchanda  and
S. K. Sharma
H. R. Manchanda
Affiliation:
Department of Soil Science, Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar-125004, India
S. K. Sharma
Affiliation:
Department of Soil Science, Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar-125004, India
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Chickpea is the most important pulse crop of the arid and semi-arid areas. In India, it is cultivated during winter, depending on soil moisture stored from the preceding summer rain, which is often inadequate to ensure a satisfactory crop.

In most such areas, saline ground water is the only source of supplementary irrigation to which chickpea, like other pulses, is highly sensitive (Maas & Hoffman 1977). Field observations indicate (Manchanda et al. 1981) that chickpea is more sensitive to chloridedominated than to sulphate-dominated saline water irrigation. Since most saline ground water and saline soils are dominated by chloride or sulphate salts, this study evaluated the effects of these salts on the yield and mineral composition of chickpea at different electrical conductivities. (ECe).

Type
Short Note
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 113 , Issue 3 , December 1989 , pp. 407 - 410
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Chhabra, R., Ringoet, A. & Lamberts, D. (1976). Kinetics and interaction of chloride and phosphate absorption by intact tomato plants from a dilute nutrient solution. Zeitschrift fur Pflanzenphysiologie 78, 253–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cram, W. J. (1973). Internal factors regulating nitrate and chloride influx in plant cells. Journal of Experimental Botany 24, 328–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deane-Drummond, C. E. & Glass, A. D. M. (1982). Studies of nitrate influx into barley roots by the use of 36CIO3 as a tracer for nitrate. 1. Interactions with chloride and other ions. Canadian Journal of Botany 60, 2147–2153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longstreth, D. J. & Nobel, P. S. (1979). Salinity effects on leaf anatomy. Consequences for photosynthesis. Plant Physiology 63, 700–703.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maas, E. V. & Hoffman, G. J. (1977). Crop salt tolerance – current assessment. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Division, American Society of Civil Engineers 103, 115–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manchanda, H. R., Sharma, S. K., Dixit, M. L. & Singh, S. (1981). Possibility of growing chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) in chloride and sulphate dominant saline conditions. All-India Seminar on Water Resources – Its Development and Management, Chandigarh, India. Theme A/IV, 19–30.Google Scholar
Manchanda, H. R., Sharma, S. K. & Bhandari, D. K. (1982). Response of barley and wheat to phosphorus in the presence of chloride and sulphate salinity. Plant and Soil 66, 233–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meiri, A., Kamburoff, J. & Polakoff-Mayber, A. (1971). Response of bean plants to sodium chloride and sodium sulphate salinization. Annals of Botany 35, 837–847.Google Scholar
Munns, R. & Termaat, A. (1986). Whole-plant responses to salinity. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 13, 143–160.Google Scholar
Storey, R. & Wyn Jones, R. G. (1978). Salt stress and comparative physiology in the Gramineae. 1. Ion relation of two salt-and-water stressed barley cultivars, California Mariout and Arimar. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology, 5, 801–816.Google Scholar