Response of cool-season grain legumes to waterlogging at flowering
1
2
3
4
5
Silvia Pampana1, Alessandro Masoni, and Iduna Arduini
6
Department of Agriculture, Food and Environment, University of Pisa, via del
7
Borghetto 80, 56124 Pisa, Italy
8
9
10
1
To whom correspondence should be addressed (e-mail: [email protected]).
11
12
13
14
15
Short title: PAMPANA ET AL. - RESPONSE OF GRAIN LEGUMES TO
16
WATERLOGGING
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1
1
Soil flooding and submergence, collectively termed waterlogging, are major abiotic
2
stresses, which severely constrain crop growth and productivity in many regions. Cool-
3
season grain legumes can be exposed to submersion both at the vegetative and
4
reproductive stages. Limited research has been carried out on these crops with
5
waterlogging imposed at flowering. We evaluated how waterlogging periods of 0, 5, 10,
6
15, and 20 days at flowering affected seed yield, biomass of shoots, roots and nodules,
7
and N uptake of faba bean (Vicia faba L. var. minor), pea (Pisum sativum L.), and white
8
lupin (Lupinus albus L.). Faba bean tolerated submersion better than pea and white
9
lupin. Pea and white lupin plants did not survive 10 days of submersion, and after 5
10
days the seed yield, shoot and root biomass and N uptake had more than halved. Faba
11
bean survived 20 days of waterlogging although seed and biomass production and total
12
N uptake were severely reduced. Shoot dry weight and seed yield decreased linearly
13
with the duration of waterlogging, which negatively affected seed more than the
14
vegetative plant part weight. In all three crops waterlogging at flowering led to damage,
15
which could not be recovered during seed filling.
16
17
Key words: waterlogging, legumes, flowering, duration, yield, roots, N content
18
19
20
La stagnation superficielle et souterraine représente l'un des principaux facteurs de
21
stress abiotique qui limite fortement la croissance et la productivité des cultures dans
22
beaucoup des régions. Les légumineuses à grains automnales peuvent être exposées à la
23
stagnation dans la phase et végétative et reproductive. L’étendue de la recherche des
24
effets de la stagnation imposée au moment de la floraison sur ces cultures a été vraiment
2
1
limitée. Par conséquent nous avons évalué comment les périodes de stagnation
2
imposées à 0, 5, 10, 15 et 20 jours de la floraison influencent la production des grains et
3
de la biomasse de tiges, racines et des nodules ainsi que l’absorption de N par la
4
féverole (Vicia faba L. var. minor), le pois (Pisum sativum L.) et le lupin blanc (Lupinus
5
albus L.). La féverole peut tolérer la submersion bien plus que le pois et le lupin blanc.
6
Les plants de pois et de lupin n’arrivent pas à survivre au delà de 10 jours de stagnation
7
et, après 5 jours, la production des grains est réduite de moitié, ainsi que la biomasse de
8
tiges et racines et l’absorption de N. La féverole peut survivre à 20 jours de submersion,
9
même si la production des grains et des biomasses, comme l’absorption de N sont
10
fortement réduits. Le poids sec des tiges et la production des grains décroissent
11
linéairement avec la durée de la stagnation, ce qui influence négativement le poids des
12
grains par rapport à la partie végétative. La stagnation cause aux trois cultures des
13
dommages qui ne pourront pas être réparés avec le remplissage des grains.
14
15
Mots clés: stagnation, légumineuses, floraison, durée, production, racines, teneur en N
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Soil flooding and submergence, collectively termed waterlogging, are major abiotic
3
1
stresses, which severely constrain crop growth and productivity in many regions.
2
Waterlogging causes soil oxygen deficiency, which inhibits root respiration leading to
3
decreased shoot and root growth (Jackson and Drew 1984; Jayasundara et al. 1998;
4
Rhine et al. 2010). In legumes, waterlogging can reduce photosynthesis, plant growth,
5
grain yield, the formation, function and survival of nodules, biological nitrogen fixation
6
(BNF), and cause plant death during or some weeks after the end of waterlogging
7
(Minchin and Summerfield 1976; Bacanamwo and Purcell 1999; Davies et al. 2000).
8
The impact on legumes of a waterlogging event depends on the stage of growth and
9
duration of submergence (Jayasundara et al. 1998). The ability to survive and recover
10
following waterlogging generally decreases with increasing plant age and declines
11
sharply as reproductive growth approaches (Jayasundara et al. 1998). Waterlogging
12
duration has been recognised as a major factor in plant survival following oxygen
13
deprivation stress (Striker 2008), and the reduction in plant growth increases with the
14
length of the waterlogging period.
15
Management practices to reduce the effects of waterlogging include species choice
16
and the proper design of field drainage systems to discharge excess water. The
17
knowledge of waterlogging tolerance of legumes assists agronomists to choose the best
18
legume to grow and to determine the required characteristics of the drainage system
19
(e.g. volume, depth and spacing of drains). Waterlogging affects all grain legumes,
20
however the capacity to tolerate it varies: faba bean is the most tolerant, followed by the
21
relatively tolerant cowpea, soybean, field bean and pea and finally chickpea (Minchin
22
and Summerfield 1976; Jackson 1979; Siddique et al. 2000; Solaiman et al. 2007).
23
Waterlogging is especially dangerous for cool-season grain legumes, which can be
24
exposed to submersion both at the vegetative stage and at the beginning of reproduction.
4
1
Limited data are available on the seed yield loss resulting from waterlogging in cool-
2
season grain legumes and very little research has been carried out with waterlogging
3
imposed at flowering. However in faba bean, pea and chickpea, the reductions in grain
4
yield can vary from negligible to almost 100% depending on the growth stage when
5
plants are waterlogged and the duration of the stress (Jayasundara et al. 1998).
6
7
8
9
Our aim was to evaluate how waterlogging imposed at the beginning of flowering
affects the shoot and root growth and seed yield of faba bean, pea, and white lupin.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Site Characteristics and Experimental Design
10
The research was carried out from November to July in two consecutive years (2013
11
and 2014), at the Research Centre of the Department of Agriculture, Food and
12
Environment of the University of Pisa, Italy, which is located at a distance of
13
approximately 10 km from the sea (43° 40′ N, 10° 19′ E) and 1 m above sea level.
14
According to Köppen the climate of the area is hot-summer Mediterranean (Csa) with
15
mean annual maximum and minimum daily air temperatures of 20.2°C and 9.5°C
16
respectively, and a mean cumulative rainfall of 971 mm per year.
17
In each year, experimental treatments consisted of three legume crops and five
18
waterlogging treatments imposed at the beginning of flowering. The legume crops were
19
faba bean (Vicia faba L. var. minor) cv. Chiaro di Torrelama, pea (Pisum sativum L.)
20
cv. Iceberg, and white lupin (Lupinus albus L.) cv. Multitalia. The five waterlogging
21
treatments were one well-drained control and four waterlogging durations of, 5, 10, 15,
22
and 20 days. Five to 20 days of waterlogging were used because preliminary
23
experiments on faba bean showed that they induced severe waterlogging symptoms but
5
1
did not actually kill the plants.
2
3
Experimental Equipment and Crop Management
4
Plants were grown in boxes of 0.50 x 0.50 m and 0.6 m depth, spaced 20 cm apart, and
5
embedded in expanded clay to avoid daily fluctuations in soil temperature. A 50 mm
6
diameter hole was drilled in the bottom of each box. In each year a total of 75 boxes
7
were used (5 waterlogging periods x 3 species x 5 replicates). In both years,
8
approximately six months before seeding, growth boxes were filled with soil collected
9
from a field previously cultivated with rapeseed. The main properties of the soil were
10
similar in the two years and were approximately: 74.8% sand (2 mm > ∅ > 0.05 mm),
11
21.9% silt (0.05 m > ∅ > 0.002 mm), 3.3% clay (∅ < 0.002 mm), 8.1 pH (saturated
12
paste method), 1.5% organic matter (Walkley and Black method), 0.6 g kg-1 total
13
nitrogen (Kjeldahl method), 11.9 mg kg-1 available P (Olsen method), and 122.1 mg kg-
14
1
available K (BaCl2-TEA method).
15
Crops were sown on 20 November 2012 and 18 November 2013, within the optimum
16
planting time for cool-season legume production in central Italy. Before sowing, faba
17
bean and pea seeds were inoculated with Rhizobium leguminosarum biovar. viciae, and
18
white lupin seeds with Bradyrhizobium lupinus. The seeding rate was 56 seeds m-2 (14
19
plants per box) for faba bean and pea, and 40 seeds m-2 for white lupin (10 plants per
20
box). For all crops, a 30-cm row spacing was used. Before planting, all legume crops
21
were fertilised with urea, triple mineral phosphate and potassium sulphate, at rates of 30
22
kg ha-1 of N, 65 kg ha-1 of P and 125 kg ha-1 of K. The crops were kept free of weeds by
23
hand hoeing when necessary.
24
The beginning of flowering occurred on 29 March 2013 and 13 March 2014 for faba
6
1
bean and on 3 April 2013 and 20 March 2014 for pea and white lupin. Waterlogging
2
was imposed by placing boxes into containers (10 m x 2.5 m x 0.8 m) with a 3 cm layer
3
of free water above the surface of the box throughout the period of each waterlogging
4
treatment (in this condition the soil in the boxes was completely saturated by water). At
5
the end of each waterlogging period, boxes were taken out of the containers and
6
remained without irrigation for 10 days, and left to drain freely, after which they were
7
maintained near to field capacity until the plants reached maturity. Control boxes were
8
watered near to field capacity throughout the growing season..
9
10
Sampling Procedures and Measurements
11
Crops were harvested at maturity: 4 July 2013 and 23 June 2014 for pea and faba bean,
12
and 8 July 2013 and 1 July 2014 for white lupin. Waterlogging did not influence the
13
cycle length of the three legume crops and the maturity stage was simultaneously
14
reached in both surviving waterlogged and control plants. All plants from each box
15
were manually cut at ground level and aerial parts were partitioned into shoots and
16
pods. The number of pods was counted, pods were divided into pod walls and seeds,
17
and seed yield and mean seed weight were recorded. Roots were separated from the soil
18
by gently washing by a low flow from sprinklers in order to minimise loss or damage.
19
Nodules were subsequently separated from the roots; fresh weight and number were
20
recorded. One sample of roots was stored in a refrigerator until the length of the roots
21
was estimated with the line intersection method (Tennant 1975). For dry weight
22
determination, samples of all plant parts were oven dried at 60°C to constant weight. All
23
plant parts were analysed for nitrogen concentration (Kjeldahl method), and N contents
24
were calculated.
7
1
2
Statistical Analysis
3
Results were subjected to analysis of variance. The effect of year, waterlogging
4
duration, crop, and their interactions were analysed using a split-split-plot design with
5
year designed as whole plots, waterlogging duration as sub-plots and crop as sub-sub-
6
plots. Significantly different means were separated at the 0.05 probability level by the
7
least significant difference test (Steel et al. 1997).
8
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
9
10
Weather Conditions
11
Daily minimum and maximum temperatures and rainfall during both growing seasons
12
were obtained from a meteorological station located within 100 m from the trial site.
13
The weather during the experiment was typical of the autumn-spring growing season in
14
central Italy and maximum and minimum temperatures did not differ from the 20-year
15
average for the area and were similar in the two years (Fig. 1). During the legume
16
growing season the daily mean temperature was 11.6°C in 2013 and 12.7°C in 2014.
17
The heat accumulated over both the vegetative (1,014°C in 2013 and 1,055°C in 2014)
18
and the reproductive periods (1,736°C in 2013 and 1,760°C in 2014) were very similar
19
in the two years. Rainfall was 1,130 mm in 2013 and 855 mm in 2014. Compared with
20
2014, 2013 had more precipitation before the flowering stage, while after flowering the
21
two years had similar values (153 and 194 mm).
22
Despite the different rainfall conditions between the two years, the analysis of
23
variance revealed no significant differences between years or “Year x Waterlogging
24
duration x Crop” interaction, “Year x Waterlogging duration” interaction, “Year x
8
1
Crop” interaction for all the parameters measured. Accordingly, the following results
2
are averaged over the two years.
3
4
Seed and Shoot Dry Weight
5
Faba bean overall exhibited a higher tolerance to waterlogging than pea and white lupin.
6
Although all three crops showed the same symptoms of excessive water stress, in pea
7
and white lupin, the plant response was more rapid than in faba bean, and after only 24
8
hours they showed a general yellowing of the leaves, shoot wilting, and abscission of
9
leaflets of lower leaves. In the subsequent 4-5 d of waterlogging, pea and white lupin
10
showed abscission of leaflets of the other leaves, cessation of flowering, and death of
11
many recently opened flowers. Similar symptoms have been recorded in chickpea,
12
grasspea, lentil, mungbean, pea, pigeon pea, and soybean (Takele and McDavid 1995;
13
Cowie et al. 1996b; Bacanamwo and Purcell 1999; Kumar et al 2013; Malik et al. 2015)
14
. Shoot wilting seems to be a common feature of plants subjected to waterlogging
15
(Cowie et al. 1996a), which has been attributed to higher resistance to mass flow of
16
water through the roots (Jackson and Drew 1984). Yellowing of the plant might be due
17
to a reduction in leaf nitrogen, caused by the cessation of biological nitrogen fixation
18
during waterlogging, to the production of toxic substances, such as nitrites and
19
sulphides, which move from the soil through roots to the leaves (Kumar et al. 2013) or
20
of reactive oxygen species (ROS), which cause severe damage to membranes, DNA and
21
proteins in plant cells (Ahmed et al. 2002).
22
Five days of waterlogging led to the death of 30% of white lupin plants and 10 d led
23
to the death of all pea and white lupin plants. In both treatments plant death occurred
24
during the 7 d following the end of waterlogging. These results are in accordance with
9
1
Cowie et al. (1996a) who observed that chickpea plants were unable to recover when
2
waterlogging was imposed 6 d after flowering had begun. In faba bean, the symptoms
3
of waterlogging stress appeared with about 10 d of waterlogging and all plants survived
4
even with 20 d of submersion.
5
After five days of waterlogging, white lupin plants were infected by Macrophomina
6
phaseolina, which is one of the most damaging seed and soil borne pathogens
7
(Srivastava and Singh 1990). Faba bean and pea plants remained disease-free
8
throughout the entire experiment.
9
Shoot dry weight (stems + leaves + pod walls) of pea and white lupin plants
10
waterlogged for five days was 52-60% lower than the control (Fig. 2). In faba bean
11
shoot dry weight decreased progressively with the increase in waterlogging duration,
12
and with 20 days of submersion there was a 41% reduction. Despite with 5 d of
13
waterlogging faba bean plants did not show visible symptoms of stress, at maturity
14
shoot dry weight was significantly lower than control.
15
Five-day waterlogging reduced seed yield of pea and white lupin by 60% in
16
comparison with control (Fig. 2). In pea, the lower grain yield was due to a reduction in
17
both the number of seeds per plant and mean seed weight, while in white lupin, this was
18
only due to the number of seeds per plant (Table 1). In faba bean, seed yield
19
progressively decreased with an increased duration of waterlogging and was halved by
20
the 20-day long waterlogging (Fig. 2). Similarly to pea, in faba bean the reduction in
21
seed weight was due to both the number of seeds per plant and mean seed weight. Our
22
results on faba bean are in accordance with Scott et al. (1989) who found that shoot dry
23
weight and seed yield of soybean decreased linearly with the duration of waterlogging
24
at flowering.
10
1
In all crops, the decrease in the number of seeds per plant was related to the number
2
of pods per plant, while the number of seeds per pod was unchanged by waterlogging.
3
Therefore, in all legumes, waterlogging markedly affected the number of flowers per
4
plant but did not affect the number of eggs per flower. The reduction in mean seed
5
weight observed in pea and faba bean was probably due to a decrease in photosynthesis
6
and nitrogen supply to seeds (BNF and N remobilisation) during seed filling, both
7
resulting from reduced shoot and nodulated root growth. This finding is confirmed by
8
the shoot/seed ratio, which increased in all three crops with the increase in waterlogging
9
duration. This thus showed that waterlogging negatively affected seed more than the
10
vegetative plant part weight.
11
12
Root and Nodule Dry Weight
13
In barley, faba bean, lupin, pea, and soybean the submersion of soil reduces the growth
14
of roots by inhibiting aerobic respiration (Jackson and Drew 1984, Bacanamwo and
15
Purcell 1999; Davies et al. 2000). In our research, waterlogging affected both taproot
16
and rootlets of pea and white lupin. At maturity, the taproot of both crops when
17
waterlogged had a lower dry weight than the control by about 35%, and rootlets by
18
about 25%. Waterlogging also reduced the length of the roots of these crops, which with
19
5 d of submersion was approximately one-third lower than control. The taproot of faba
20
bean was more resistant to waterlogging than pea and white lupin since it was
21
unaffected by 5-d submersion, however after 20 d of waterlogging it was half the
22
amount of the control. Waterlogging progressively reduced rootlet dry weight and
23
length of faba bean, which after 20 days were about one-third of the control (Fig. 3).
24
These findings confirm that waterlogging causes the dieback of the primary root system
11
1
of legume species (Henshaw et al. 2007) and show that the period subsequent to
2
submersion is not sufficient for a full recovery of the roots. Lentil, field pea, soybean
3
and faba bean produce aerenchyma within roots to facilitate the aeration of flooded
4
tissue (Thomas et al. 2005; Stoddard et al. 2006; Solaiman et al. 2007). Waterlogged
5
plants of faba bean, soybean, and mungbean produce adventitious roots to enhance
6
oxygen transport from the stem to the roots and to reduce flooding injury (Henshaw et
7
al. 2007; Solaiman et al. 2007; Islam et al. 2010). We monitored the root system only at
8
maturity and did not observe adventitious roots in any of the crop. Probably this is
9
because the development of adventitious roots is related to better O2 supply near the soil
10
surface (Jackson and Drew 1984) while in our research water was maintained 3 cm
11
above the soil surface.
12
The species utilized in this research, faba bean, pea and white lupin, have
13
indeterminate nodules with irregular size, shape, and clustering, which is a consequence
14
of indeterminate growth allowed by a persistent meristem (Sprent 1980). Relatively
15
little information is available on nodulation in cool season grain legumes in responses to
16
waterlogging. However the reduced root growth, particularly loss of root hairs under
17
waterlogging, may inevitably reduce nodule initiation. In pea and white lupin, 5-day
18
waterlogging approximately halved the number of nodules and reduced their weight by
19
one-third (Fig. 4). In faba bean, the nodule number and weight decreased with the
20
increase in waterlogging duration. Both parameters were affected by waterlogging
21
already after 5 d (about 80% of control) and were approximately half the amount of the
22
control after 20 d. The nodule cutback during waterlogging could be partially attributed
23
to the dieback of the root system and partially to the detachment of nodules resulting
24
from the reduction in energy supply from shoots to nodules. In all crops, however, we
12
1
found that the ratio between nodule dry weight and number (mean nodule weight)
2
increased with waterlogging duration, which is consistent with the hypothesis that the
3
smaller nodules were preferentially detached during submersion (Fig. 4).
4
5
Nitrogen Concentration and Content
6
In all crops waterlogging did not affect nitrogen concentration in any of the plant parts.
7
Accordingly, the reductions in N content of different plant parts were similar to those of
8
the dry weight (data not shown). Five-day long soil waterlogging reduced total N uptake
9
by 57% in pea and 69% in white lupin (Fig. 5). In faba bean, total N uptake reduction
10
after five days of waterlogging was only 17%, however it increased to 48% with
11
prolonged waterlogging up to 20 days.
12
Jayasundara et al. (1998) reported that waterlogging markedly reduces the N uptake
13
in field bean, lentil, chickpea and faba bean and this reduction appears at least partly
14
responsible for the premature chlorosis and leaf senescence of waterlogged plants. In
15
cool-season grain legumes BNF represents more than 80% of N uptake from flowering
16
to maturity (Pampana et al. 2015). In cowpea and soybean, waterlogging decreased
17
BNF relatively more than biomass accumulation, and the decrease in BNF was
18
responsible for decreased vegetative growth and nitrogen content (Minchin and
19
Summerfield 1976; Bacanamwo and Purcell 1999). Biological nitrogen fixation
20
measurements were not taken in this study, however the large reduction in both nodule
21
number and dry matter indicated that waterlogging was likely to have reduced BNF.
22
Moreover, Pampana et al. (2015) showed that remobilised N supplies half of seed N
23
content at maturity in pea and white lupin and one third in faba bean. The abscission of
24
leaves and the dieback of roots caused by waterlogging may have reduced the amount
13
1
of remobilised N.
2
In conclusion, waterlogging imposed at flowering markedly affected seed yield and
3
biomass of shoots, roots and nodules of all three legume crops but faba bean tolerated
4
submersion stress better than pea and white lupin. The growth of the latter two crops
5
had markedly decreased already with only five days of submersion, and died with more
6
than five days. Faba bean survived even with 20 d of waterlogging although its seed and
7
biomass production were severely reduced. Faba bean continued to retain nodules, but
8
these tended to be only the larger nodules. These findings highlight that in all three
9
crops, waterlogging at flowering damaged the plant growth, which could not be
10
recovered during seed filling.
11
12
13
14
15
Ahmed, S., Nawata E., Hosokawa, M., Domae, Y., and Sakuratani, T. 2002.
16
Alterations in photosynthesis and some antioxidant enzymatic activities of
17
mungbean subjected to waterlogging. Plant Sci. 163: 117-123.
18
19
20
21
Bacanamwo, M. and Purcell, L.C. 1999. Soybean dry matter and N accumulation
responses to flooding stress, N sources and hypoxia. J. Exp. Bot. 50: 689-696.
Cowie, A.L., Jessop, R.S., and MacLeod, D.A. 1996a. Effects of waterlogging on
chickpeas I. Influence of timing of waterlogging. Plant Soil 183: 97-103.
22
Cowie, A.L., Jessop, R.S., and MacLeod, D.A. 1996b. Effects of waterlogging on
23
chickpeas. II. Possible causes of decreased tolerance of waterlogging at flowering.
24
Plant Soil 183: 105-115.
14
1
Davies, C.L., Turner, D.W., and Dracup, M. 2000. Yellow lupin (Lupinus luteus)
2
tolerates waterlogging better than narrow-leafed lupin (L. angustifolius). I. Shoot
3
and root growth in a controlled environment. Austr. J. Agric. Res. 51: 701-
4
709.Henshaw, T.L., Gilbert, R.A., Scholberg, J.M.S., and Sinclair, T.R. 2007.
5
Soya bean (Glycine max L. Merr.) genotype response to early-season flooding: I.
6
Root and nodule development. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 193: 177-188.
7
Islam, M.R., Hamid, A., Khaliq, Q.A., Haque, M.M., Ahmed, J.U., and Karim,
8
M.A. 2010. Effects of soil flooding on roots, photosynthesis and water relations in
9
mungbean (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek). Bangladesh J. Botany 39: 241-243.
10
11
12
13
Jayasundara, S., Thomson, B.D., and Tang, C. 1998. Responses of cool season grain
legumes to soil abiotic stresses. Adv. Agron. 63: 77-151.
Jackson, M.B. 1979. Rapid injury to peas by soil waterlogging. J. Sci. Food Agric. 30:
143-152.
14
Jackson, M.B. and Drew, M.C. 1984. Effects of flooding on growth and metabolisms
15
of herbaceous plants. Pages 47-128 in T. T. Kozlowski, ed. Flooding and plant
16
growth. Academic Press, London, UK.
17
Kumar, P., Pal, M., Joshi, R., and Sairam, R.K. 2013. Yield, growth and
18
physiological responses of mung bean [Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek] genotypes to
19
waterlogging at vegetative stage. Physiol. Mol. Biol. Plants 19: 209-220.
20
21
Malik, A.I., Ailewe, T.I., and Erskine W. 2015. Tolerance of three grain legume
species to transient waterlogging. AoB Plants 7: 1-11.
22
Minchin, F.R. and Summerfield, R.J. 1976. Symbiotic nitrogen fixation and
23
vegetative growth of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.) in waterlogged
24
conditions. Plant Soil 45: 113-117.
15
1
Pampana, S., Masoni, A., and Arduini, I. 2015. Grain legumes differ in nitrogen
2
accumulation and remobilisation during seed filling. Acta Agr. Scand. B-S P. In
3
press (DOI: 10.1080/09064710.2015.1080854).
4
Rhine, M.D., Stevens, G., Shannon, G., Wrather, A., and Sleper, D. 2010. Yield and
5
nutritional responses to waterlogging of soybean cultivars. Irrigation Sci. 28: 135-
6
142.
7
8
Scott, H.D., De Angulo, J., Daniels, M.B., and Wood, L.S. 1989. Flood duration
effects on soybean growth and yield. Agron. J. 81: 631-636.
9
Siddique, K.H.M., Brinsmead, R.B., Knight, R., Knights, E.J., Paull, J.G., and
10
Rose, I.A. 2000. Adaptation of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) and faba bean (Vicia
11
faba L.) to Australia. Pages 289-303 in R. Knight, ed. Linking research and
12
marketing opportunities for pulses in the 21st century. Kluwer Academic
13
Publishers. Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
14
Solaiman, Z., Colmer, T.D., Loss, S.P., Thomson, B.D., and Siddique, K.H.M.
15
2007. Growth responses of cool-season grain legumes to transient waterlogging.
16
Aust. J. Agric. Res. 58: 406-412.
17
18
Sprent, J.I. 1980. Root nodule anatomy, type of export product and evolutionary origin
in some Leguminosae. Plant Cell Environ. 3: 35-43.
19
Srivastava, A.K. and Singh, R.B. 1990. Effect of organic amendment on interaction of
20
Macrophomina phaseolina and Melpidogyne incognita on fresh bean (Phaseolus
21
vulgaris). New Agriculturist 1: 99-100.
22
Steel, R.G.D., Torrie, J.H., and Dickey, D.A. 1997. Principles and procedures of
23
statistics: a biometrical approach. 3rd Ed. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. 672 pp.
24
Stoddard, F.L., Balko, C., Erskine, W., Khan, H. R., Link, W., and Sarker, A.
16
1
2006. Screening techniques and sources of resistance to abiotic stresses in cool
2
season food legumes. Euphytica 147: 167-186.
3
Striker, G.G. 2008. Visiting the methodological aspects of flooding experiments:
4
quantitative evidence from agricultural and ecophysiological studies. J. Agron.
5
Crop Sci. 194: 249-255.
6
7
8
9
Takele, A., McDavid, C.R. 1995. The response of pigeonpea cultivars to short
durations of waterlogging. African Crop Sci. J. 3:51-58.
Tennant, D. 1975. A test of a modified line intersect method for estimating root length.
J. Ecol. 63: 995-1001.
10
Thomas, A.L., Guerreiro, A.M.C., and Sodek, L. 2005. Aerenchyma formation and
11
recovery from hypoxia of the flooded root system of nodulated soybean. Ann. Bot.
12
96: 1191-1198.
13
14
15
Figure captions
16
Fig. 1. Rainfall, maximum, and minimum temperature in 2012-2013 and 2013-2014.
17
Fig. 2. Seed and shoot dry weight. Crop x waterlogging duration interaction. In this and
18
following figures vertical bars represent LSD (P≤0.05).
19
Fig. 3. Taproot and rootlet dry weight and root length. Crop x waterlogging duration
20
interaction.
21
Fig. 4. Nodule dry weight and number and mean nodule weight. Crop x waterlogging
22
duration interaction.
23
Fig. 5. Total nitrogen content. Crop x waterlogging duration interaction.
24
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Table 1. Seed yield components. Crop x waterlogging duration interaction.
Crop
Waterlogging Pod number Seed per pod Seed number
duration
Faba bean
Pea
Mean seed
weight
(d)
(n plant-1)
(n pod-1)
(n plant-1)
(mg)
0
16.4b
3.0a
49.3b
448.8a
5
15.6bc
3.0a
46.9bc
391.9b
10
13.9c
2.5a
35.0cd
384.2b
15
10.4d
3.0a
30.7d
380.8b
20
10.9d
2.7a
29.4de
346.4c
0
20.1a
4.4a
87.8a
186.2f
18
White lupin
1
5
11.0d
4.2 a
46.4bc
110.1g
0
11.6d
4.0a
46.7bc
278.5d
5
4.2e
3.8a
15.9e
253.7e
Values followed by different letters within columns are significantly different (P<0.05)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Fig. 1. Rainfall, maximum, and minimum temperature in 2012-2013 and 2013-2014.
19
30.0
Temperature (°C)
250.0
Rainfall
T max
T min
25.0
200.0
20.0
150.0
15.0
100.0
10.0
5.0
Rainfall (mm)
35.0
50.0
0.0
-5.0
0.0
35.0
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
250.0
Rainfall
T max
T min
30.0
Temperature (°C)
Dec
25.0
200.0
20.0
150.0
15.0
100.0
10.0
5.0
Rainfall (mm)
Nov
50.0
0.0
-5.0
0.0
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Fig. 2. Seed and shoot dry weight. Crop x waterlogging duration interaction. Vertical
20
1
bars represent LSD (P<0.05).
Seed DW (g plant-1)
25
Faba bean
Pea
White lupin
20
15
10
5
0
0
5
10
15
20
Waterlogging duration (d)
Shoot DW (g plant-1)
25
Faba bean
Pea
White lupin
20
15
10
5
0
0
5
10
15
20
Waterlogging duration (d)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Fig. 3. Taproot and rootlet dry weight and root length. Crop x waterlogging duration
21
1
interaction. Vertical bars represent LSD (P<0.05).
22
Taproot DW (g plant-1)
3.0
Faba bean
Pea
White lupin
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0
5
10
15
20
Waterlogging duration (d)
Rootlet DW (g plant-1)
10
Faba bean
Pea
White lupin
8
6
4
2
0
0
5
10
15
20
Waterlogging duration (d)
Root length (m plant-1)
350
Faba bean
Pea
White lupin
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
5
10
15
20
Waterlogging duration (d)
1
23
1
Fig. 4. Nodule dry weight and number and mean nodule weight. Crop x waterlogging
2
duration interaction. Vertical bars represent LSD (P<0.05).
24
Nodule DW (mg plant-1)
180
Faba bean
Pea
White lupin
150
120
90
60
30
0
0
5
10
15
20
Waterlogging duration (d)
Nodule number (n plant-1)
100
Faba bean
Pea
White lupin
80
60
40
20
0
0
5
10
15
20
Waterlogging duration (d)
MNW (mg nodule-1)
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
Faba bean
Pea
White lupin
2.0
1.5
1.0
0
5
10
15
20
Waterlogging duration (d)
1
25
1
Fig. 5. Total nitrogen content. Crop x waterlogging duration interaction. Vertical bars
2
represent LSD (P<0.05).
Total N content (g plant-1)
1.4
Faba bean
Pea
White lupin
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0
5
10
15
20
Waterlogging duration (d)
3
4
5
26