Response to terminal water deficit stress of cowpea, pigeonpea, and soybean in pure stand and in competition
A. A. Likoswe A B and R. J. Lawn A CA School of Marine and Tropical Biology, James Cook University, Townsville, Qld 4811, Australia.
B Formerly Grain and Legume Development Project, PO Box 1034, Lilongwe, Malawi; now deceased.
C Corresponding author. Email: robert.lawn@jcu.edu.au
Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 59(1) 27-37 https://doi.org/10.1071/AR07155
Submitted: 17 April 2007 Accepted: 31 August 2007 Published: 14 January 2008
Abstract
The response to terminal water deficit stress of three grain legumes, soybean, cowpea and pigeonpea, was evaluated in plants grown in large tubes, in competition with either the same species or one of the other two species. The aim was to explore how species differences in drought response affected water use, growth and survival of plants in pure stand and in competition. Two plants, comprising the test species and its competitor, were grown in each tube. Water was withheld 26 days after sowing by which time each plant had at least three fully expanded trifoliolate leaves. Leaf water status and plant growth were measured through destructive samples when 80% and 90% of the estimated plant available water (PAW) was depleted and at plant death, while PAW depletion, node growth and leaf survival were monitored at 2–3 day intervals until the last plants died (61 days after water was withheld). In pure stand, the rate of PAW depletion was initially slowest in cowpea despite its much larger leaf area, and fastest in soybean. Node growth was most sensitive in cowpea, ceasing at 65% PAW depletion compared with 85% PAW depletion in pigeonpea and soybean, so that the latter two species produced relatively more nodes after water was withheld. However, senescence of the lower leaves was most rapid in soybean and slowest in cowpea. Cowpea and pigeonpea extracted almost all PAW and died an average 18 days and 14 days, respectively, after maximum PAW depletion. In contrast, soybean died before 90% of PAW was depleted and so in pure stand used less water. There were otherwise only minor differences between the species combinations in the timing and maximum level of PAW depletion. The ability of cowpea and pigeonpea to maintain leaf water status above lethal levels for longer was achieved through different means. Cowpea relied primarily on dehydration avoidance and maintained tissue water status higher for longer, whereas pigeonpea demonstrated greater dehydration tolerance. While significant levels of osmotic adjustment (OA) were identified in soybean and pigeonpea, OA appeared to be of limited benefit to leaf survival in soybean. Pigeonpea invested significantly more total dry matter (TDM) in roots than either cowpea or soybean. Cowpea survived longest in pure stand whereas pigeonpea and soybean survived shortest in pure stand, suggesting that the dehydration avoidance response of cowpea was more effective in competition with like plants whereas the dehydration tolerance strategies of pigeonpea and soybean were least effective when competing against like plants. On average, TDM per plant ranked in the order cowpea > soybean > pigeonpea, largely reflecting initial differences in plant size when water was withheld. However, there was an inverse relation between TDM of a species and that of its competitor, so that in effect, water not used by a given plant to produce TDM was used by its competitor and there were no differences in TDM production per tube.
Additional keywords: drought resistance, leaf water status, physiological traits.
Acknowledgments
The research reported here was conducted by AL in partial fulfilment of a MSc degree awarded by James Cook University in 1997. The provision of a scholarship and research funding to AL by the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations is acknowledged.
Barrs HD, Weatherley PE
(1962) A re-examination of the relative turgidity technique for estimating water deficit in leaves. Australian Journal of Biological Sciences 15, 413–428.
Bates LM, Hall AE
(1981) Stomatal closure with soil water depletion not associated with changes in bulk leaf water status. Oecologia 50, 62–65.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Blum A
(1998) Improving wheat grain filling under stress by stem reserve mobilization. Euphytica 100, 77–83.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Blum A
(2005) Drought resistance, water-use efficiency, and yield potential – are they compatible, dissonant, or mutually exclusive? Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 56, 1159–1168.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Cortes PM, Sinclair TR
(1986) Water relations of field-grown soybean under drought. Crop Science 26, 993–998.
Flower DJ, Ludlow MM
(1986) Contribution of osmotic adjustment to the dehydration tolerance of water-stressed pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.) leaves. Plant, Cell & Environment 9, 33–40.
Flower DJ, Ludlow MM
(1987) Variation among accessions of pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan) in osmotic adjustment and dehydration tolerance of leaves. Field Crops Research 17, 229–243.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Lawn RJ
(1982) Response of four grain legumes to water stress in south-eastern Queensland. I. Physiological response mechanisms. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 33, 481–496.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Lawn RJ, Imrie BC
(1991) Crop improvement for tropical Australia: designing plants for difficult climates. Field Crops Research 26, 113–139.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ludlow MM, Muchow RC
(1990) A critical evaluation of traits for improving crop yields in water-limited environments. Advances in Agronomy 43, 107–153.
Meyer RF, Boyer JS
(1972) Sensitivity of cell division and cell elongation to low water potentials in soybean hypocotyls. Planta 108, 77–87.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Morgan JM
(1977) Differences in osmoregulation between wheat genotypes. Nature 270, 234–235.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Morgan JM
(1992) Adaptation to water deficits in three grain legume species. Mechanisms of turgor maintenance. Field Crops Research 29, 91–106.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Morgan JM
(2000) Increases in grain yield of wheat by breeding for an osmoregulation gene: relationship to water supply and evaporative demand. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 51, 971–978.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Muchow RC
(1985a) Canopy development in grain legumes grown under different soil water regimes in a semi-arid tropical environment. Field Crops Research 11, 99–109.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Muchow RC
(1985b) Stomatal behaviour in grain legumes grown under different soil water regimes in a semi-arid tropical environment. Field Crops Research 11, 291–307.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Pajé M,
Ludlow MM, Lawn RJ
(1988) Variation among soybean (Glycine max L. Merr.) accessions in epidermal conductance of leaves. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 39, 363–373.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Shackel KA, Hall AE
(1979) Reversible leaflet movements in relation to drought adaptation of cowpeas, Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 6, 265–276.
Sinclair TR, Ludlow MM
(1986) Influence of soil water supply on the plant water balance of four tropical grain legumes. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 13, 329–341.
Sionit N, Kramer PJ
(1977) Effects of water stress during different stages of growth of soybean. Agronomy Journal 69, 274–278.
Sloane RJ,
Patterson RP, Carter TE
(1990) Field drought tolerance of a soybean plant introduction. Crop Science 30, 118–123.
Turner NC
(1981) Techniques and experimental approaches for the measurements of plant water status. Plant and Soil 58, 339–366.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Turner NC,
Begg JE,
Rawson HM,
English SD, Hearn AB
(1978) Agronomic and physiological responses of soybean and sorghum crops to water deficits. III. Components of leaf water potential, leaf conductance, 14CO2 photosynthesis and adaptation to water deficits. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 5, 179–194.
