Enhancing Drought Tolerance in Sorghum Plants through Bacterial Inoculation: A Study on Water Retention and Stomatal Conductance | Chapter 8 | Research Advances in Microbiology and Biotechnology Vol. 9

 The study evaluates the impact of moisture stress tolerant bacterial inoculants on the relative water content and stomatal conductance of sorghum leaves under drought conditions. Drought is one of the major abiotic stresses that adversely affects majority of the world’s crop growth and productivity. The relative water content (RWC) and stomatal conductance (SC) in sorghum (Sorghum bicolor, L.) leaves were assessed under water stress condition by sorghum seed priming with Serratia marcescens strain L1SC8, Pseudomonas putida strain L3SC1, Enterobacter cloacae strain L1CcC1 and Serratia marcescens strain L2FmA4. RWC was higher in leaves of seed priming plants. Water stress resulted in decreased RWC of plant leaves. Seed priming with Serratia marcescens strain L1SC8 showed higher RWC over untreated control followed by Enterobacter cloacae strain L1CcC1. However SC decreased in seed primed stressed plants leaves compared to non-primed stressed plant leaves. Pseudomonas putida strain L3SC1 showed lowest SC as compared to other treatments and control. All the bacterial inoculant increases the RWC. The increase in RWC was statistically significant over control. Thus, the moisture stress tolerant bacterial inoculants sustain the drought condition by increasing the RWC in plant. Thus, seed priming with moisture stress tolerant bacterial cultures increase the RWC while decrease the SC which was the major attributing factors for drought tolerance in sorghum. The findings provide valuable insights into potential strategies for enhancing drought tolerance in crop plants, with implications for agricultural productivity in water- stressed environments. Additionally, the study contributes to the understanding of the role of microbial inoculation in inducing physiological changes in plants to cope with water stress, which is a topic of increasing interest in agricultural research.

Author(s) Details:

Kalindee S. Shinde,
Department of Plant Pathology and Agricultural Microbiology, Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri-413722, Maharashtra, India.

Please see the link here: https://stm.bookpi.org/RAMB/article/view/13227

Investigating the Effect of In situ Water Harvesting and Stress Management Practices on Relative Leaf Water Content, Leaf Proline and Yield of Cotton under Rainfed Vertisol| Chapter 17 | New Perspectives in Agriculture and Crop Science Vol. 3

 During the rabi season of 2016-17, a field experiment was performed at the Regional Research Station, Aruppukottai, Tamil Nadu with the SVPR test variety - 2. The goal of the present work was to research the impact of In situ water harvesting, stress management practises on Relative Leaf Water Content (RLWC) physiological parameters, cotton yield of Proline and Seed cotton under rainfed Vertisol. The experiments were conducted with three replicates in a split plot configuration. Different In situ water harvesting steps, viz., Wide bed and furrows, Ridges and furrows, and Compartmental bundling were the main plot treatments. Soil application of pusa hydrogel @ 5 kg ha-1, Soil application of pusa hydrogel @ 5 kg ha-1 + 1 percent KCl foliar spray, Soil application of pusa hydrogel @ 5 kg ha-1 + 5 percent Kaolin foliar spray, Soil application of pusa hydrogel @ 5 kg ha-1 + PPFM foliar spray @ 500 ml ha-1, Soil application of pusa hydrogel @ 5 kg ha-1 The results of this study showed that pusa hydrogel @ 5 kg ha-1 + PPFM foliar spray @ 500 ml ha-1 wide bed and furrow and soil application reported higher RLWC, seed cotton yield and lower Proline content values. The higher RLWC means that water in the cell is better available, which increases the photosynthetic rate, the development of dry matter and high productivity. In the rainfed state, the higher proline content in leaves indicates more stressed moisture of crops.

Author(s) Details

Dr. A. Mohammed Ashraf
Department of Agronomy, Agricultural College & Research Institute, Madurai, 625104, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimb atore, 641003, Tamil Nadu, India.

T. Ragavan
Department of Agronomy, Agricultural College & Research Institute, Madurai, 625104, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimb atore, 641003, Tamil Nadu, India.

V. K. Paulpandi
Department of Agronomy, Agricultural College & Research Institute, Madurai, 625104, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimb atore, 641003, Tamil Nadu, India.

K. Balakrishnan
Department of Seed Science and Technology, Agricultural College and Research Institute, Madurai, 625104, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, 641003, India.

P. P. Mahendran

Department of Soils & Environment, Agricultural College & Research Institute, Madurai, 625104, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, 641003, Tamil Nadu, India.

View Book :- https://bp.bookpi.org/index.php/bpi/catalog/book/293