Abstract
Background: Legumes are under explored crops in comparison to staple cereal crops and decreasing agricultural lands along with waste lands and poor water resources are the main constraints for sustainable agricultural production. Chickpea is the third most important food legume, known for its high nutritive values, generally considered as relatively salt sensitive crop. Existence of large genetic variation provides opportunity to explore variations and exploit the available salinity tolerance in chickpea. Methods: A Randomised block design experiment was conducted to explore the salinity tolerance in 10 chickpea genotypes including CSG-8962 (Karnal Chana-1), as salt tolerant check during 2018-19 and 2019-20 under control and salinity ECiw 6 dS/m and ECiw 9 dS/m. The leachate was collected from time to time to monitor the buildup of the desired salinity. At harvesting stage, yield and yield attributing traits were recorded and yield indices were calculated to identify the potential of chickpea genotypes against salinity stress. Result: Saline irrigation water significantly decreased the number of pods/plant by 21.29% under ECiw 6 dS/m and 53.29% under ECiw 9 dS/m. Genotypes ICCV 10, CSG 8962 and DCP 92-3 retained maximum number of filled pods at ECiw 6 dS/m, while under higher salinity of ECiw 9 dS/m, CSG 8962, ICCV 10 and KWR108 had the highest filled pods. Saline water of 6 dS/m caused reduction of 36.1% - 65.0% in grain yield, which further increased to 81.0% - 98.5% with saline water of 9 dS/m. Genotypes S7 and ICCV - 10 had percent grain yield reduction of 36.13% and 41.24% respectively whereas the salt tolerant check had a percent reduction of 46.94% at ECiw 6 dS/m. Based on studied yield indices, genotypes S7, KWR108 and CSG 8962 showed relatively higher tolerance than other studied genotypes, whereas BG 256 and ICC 4463 were the most salt sensitive chickpea genotypes.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 11
Claim · model-written summary
Saline irrigation reduced pods per plant by 21.29% at ECiw 6 dS/m.
- Taxon
- Chickpea
Cicer arietinumt0 - Treatment
- Saline irrigation watere0
- Outcome
- number of pods/plante0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 21.29%e0
- Qualifier
- ECiw 6 dS/me0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Saline irrigation water significantly decreased the number of pods/plant by 21.29% under ECiw 6 dS/m”
t0“Chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
Saline irrigation reduced pods per plant by 53.29% at ECiw 9 dS/m.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- Saline irrigation watere0
- Outcome
- number of pods/plante0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 53.29%e0
- Qualifier
- ECiw 9 dS/me0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Saline irrigation water significantly decreased the number of pods/plant by 21.29% under ECiw 6 dS/m and 53.29% under ECiw 9 dS/m”
t0“Chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
ICCV 10, CSG 8962 and DCP 92-3 retained the most filled pods at ECiw 6 dS/m.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Material
- ICCV 10, CSG 8962 and DCP 92-3e0
- Outcome
- number of filled podse0
- Direction
- maximume0
- Qualifier
- ECiw 6 dS/me0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Genotypes ICCV 10, CSG 8962 and DCP 92-3 retained maximum number of filled pods at ECiw 6 dS/m”
t0“Chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
CSG 8962, ICCV 10 and KWR108 retained the most filled pods at ECiw 9 dS/m.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Material
- CSG 8962, ICCV 10 and KWR108e0
- Outcome
- filled podse0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Qualifier
- ECiw 9 dS/me0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“under higher salinity of ECiw 9 dS/m, CSG 8962, ICCV 10 and KWR108 had the highest filled pods”
t0“Chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
Grain yield fell 36.1% to 65.0% with 6 dS/m saline water.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- Saline water of 6 dS/me0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- 36.1% - 65.0%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Saline water of 6 dS/m caused reduction of 36.1% - 65.0% in grain yield”
t0“Chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
Grain yield fell 81.0% to 98.5% with 9 dS/m saline water.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- saline water of 9 dS/me0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- 81.0% - 98.5%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Saline water of 6 dS/m caused reduction of 36.1% - 65.0% in grain yield, which further increased to 81.0% - 98.5% with saline water of 9 dS/m”
t0“Chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
S7 grain yield fell 36.13% at ECiw 6 dS/m.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Material
- S7e0
- Outcome
- percent grain yield reductione0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- 36.13%e0
- Qualifier
- ECiw 6 dS/me0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Genotypes S7 and ICCV - 10 had percent grain yield reduction of 36.13% and 41.24% respectively whereas the salt tolerant check had a percent reduction of 46.94% at ECiw 6 dS/m”
t0“Chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
ICCV - 10 grain yield fell 41.24% at ECiw 6 dS/m.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Material
- ICCV - 10e0
- Outcome
- percent grain yield reductione0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- 41.24%e0
- Qualifier
- ECiw 6 dS/me0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Genotypes S7 and ICCV - 10 had percent grain yield reduction of 36.13% and 41.24% respectively whereas the salt tolerant check had a percent reduction of 46.94% at ECiw 6 dS/m”
t0“Chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
The salt tolerant check grain yield fell 46.94% at ECiw 6 dS/m.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Material
- salt tolerant checke0
- Outcome
- percent reductione0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- 46.94%e0
- Qualifier
- ECiw 6 dS/me0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the salt tolerant check had a percent reduction of 46.94% at ECiw 6 dS/m”
t0“Chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
S7, KWR108 and CSG 8962 were relatively more salt tolerant than other genotypes.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Material
- S7, KWR108 and CSG 8962e0
- Outcome
- tolerancee0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- other studied genotypese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“genotypes S7, KWR108 and CSG 8962 showed relatively higher tolerance than other studied genotypes”
t0“Chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
BG 256 and ICC 4463 were the most salt sensitive.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume0
- Material
- BG 256 and ICC 4463e0
- Outcome
- salt sensitivee0
- Direction
- moste0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“BG 256 and ICC 4463 were the most salt sensitive chickpea genotypes”
The same questions in other papers
salinity · yield · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
22 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
23 papers more in this group
See all 27 papers →irrigation · yield · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 113 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
120 papers more in this group
See all 124 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.