SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Harran Tarım ve Gıda Bilimleri Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 30 Sayı: 2

Dynamics of drought tolerance in advanced chickpea lines (F₆-F₈) Derived derived from wild and cultivated parents

Yabani ve kültür ebeveynlerden türetilmiş ileri nohut hatlarında (F₆-F₈) kuraklık toleransının dinamikleri

Gülbeyaz Şahin(Ulus Orman İşletme Müdürlüğü)0009-0000-1675-1229
Kübra Yıldız(HARRAN ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-2958-7058
Elif Tiryaki(HARRAN ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0009-0008-2110-3849
Sertan Çevik(HARRAN ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-1259-7863
Ayşin Güzel Değer(MERSİN ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-6336-1872
Pages
944–955
Publication Date
2026-06-29
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Overall, the study underscores the strategic value of wild germplasm introgression and the necessity of generation-specific selection for enhancing drought resilience in chickpea.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Drought stress significantly limits chickpea productivity in arid and semi-arid regions.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Among hybrids, the F₇ generation represented a physiological optimum, characterized by exceptionally high proline accumulation (241.02 units) and superior biomass stability relative to other hybrid lines, indicating effective integration of wild-derived stress-resilience and cultivated growth traits.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Overall, the study underscores the strategic value of wild germplasm introgression and the necessity of generation-specific selection for enhancing drought resilience in chickpea.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Cicer arietinum · Cicer echinospermum · ileri ıslah hatları

Abstract

Drought stress significantly limits chickpea productivity in arid and semi-arid regions. This study evaluated drought tolerance dynamics through morpho-physiological and biochemical responses in advanced interspecific chickpea lines (F₆-F₈) derived from cultivated (Cicer arietinum cv. Gökce) and wild (Cicer echinospermum, Karabahce) parents under well-watered and drought conditions. Morphological traits (plant height, root collar diameter, fresh biomass) and physiological-biochemical parameters-including relative water content (RWC), malondialdehyde (MDA), hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂), proline accumulation, and catalase (CAT) activity were assessed. Drought stress suppressed growth across all genotypes; however, the wild parent exhibited greater resilience, evidenced by a robust antioxidant system and minimal membrane damage. Among hybrids, the F₇ generation represented a physiological optimum, characterized by exceptionally high proline accumulation (241.02 units) and superior biomass stability relative to other hybrid lines, indicating effective integration of wild-derived stress-resilience and cultivated growth traits. In contrast, F₈ exhibited a significant loss of tolerance, marked by peak oxidative damage (14.43 nmol g⁻¹ FW MDA) and severely reduced water retention. These results reveal that drought tolerance in these lines is modulated nonlinearly by adaptive traits, highlighting F₇ as a critical window for selection in breeding programs. Overall, the study underscores the strategic value of wild germplasm introgression and the necessity of generation-specific selection for enhancing drought resilience in chickpea.

Özet

Kuraklık stresi, kurak ve yarı kurak bölgelerde nohut verimliliğini önemli ölçüde sınırlamaktadır. Bu çalışmada, kültür nohudu (Cicer arietinum cv. Gökce) ve yabani akrabası (Cicer echinospermum, Karabahce) arasında elde edilen ileri kademe türler arası hatlar (F₆-F₈) üzerinde, kontrol ve kuraklık koşulları altında morfo-fizyolojik ve biyokimyasal yanıtlar aracılığıyla kuraklık tolerans dinamikleri değerlendirilmiştir. Bitki boyu, kök boğazı çapı ve taze biyokütle gibi morfolojik özelliklerin yanı sıra nispi su içeriği (RWC), malondialdehit (MDA), hidrojen peroksit (H₂O₂), prolin birikimi ve katalaz (CAT) aktivitesi ölçülmüştür. Kuraklık stresi tüm genotiplerde büyümeyi baskılamış; ancak yabani ebeveyn, güçlü bir antioksidan sistem ve minimum membran hasarı sayesinde üstün bir dayanıklılık sergilemiştir. Hibritler arasında F₇ kuşağı, istisnai düzeydeki prolin birikimi (241,02 birim) ve diğer hibrit hatlara kıyasla sergilediği yüksek biyokütle stabilitesi ile fizyolojik bir optimum olarak öne çıkmış; bu durum yabani kaynaklı stres direnci ile kültürel büyüme özelliklerinin etkili bir entegrasyonuna işaret etmiştir. Buna karşılık F₈ nesli, en yüksek oksidatif hasar (14,43 nmol g⁻¹ FW MDA) ve ciddi düzeyde azalmış su tutma kapasitesi ile karakterize edilen belirgin bir tolerans kaybı göstermiştir. Bulgular, bu hatlarda kuraklık toleransının adaptif özelliklerin doğrusal olmayan bir modülasyonu ile belirlendiğini ortaya koymakta ve ıslah programları için F₇ neslinin kritik bir seçim penceresi olduğunu vurgulamaktadır. Genel olarak çalışma, yabani germplazm introgresyonunun stratejik değerini ve nohutta kuraklığa dayanıklılığı artırmak için nesle özgü seçim yapılması gerektiğini göstermektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Şahin, G., Yıldız, K., Tiryaki, E., Çevik, S., Değer, A. G. (2026). Dynamics of drought tolerance in advanced chickpea lines (F₆-F₈) Derived derived from wild and cultivated parents. Harran Tarım ve Gıda Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 30 Sayı: 2, 944–955. https://ajindex.com/articles/1348288

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (47)

  1. Abbo, S., Lev-Yadun, S., & Gopher, A. (2012). Plant Domestication and Crop Evolution in the Near East: On Events and Processes. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 31(3), 241–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352689.2011.645428 Aebi, H. E., Catalase. Methods of Enzymatic Analysis (1974), pp. 673–684. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-091302-2.50032-3
  2. Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA). (2025, October 16). Agricultural market reports – 2024. https://www.daera-ni.gov.uk/publications/agricultural-market-reports-2024., Access date: 05.01.2026
  3. Alexieva, V., Sergiev, I., Mapelli, S., & Karanov, E. (2001). The effect of drought and ultraviolet radiation on growth and stress markers in pea and wheat. Plant, Cell & Environment, 24(12), 1337–1344. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3040.2001.00778.x
  4. Ali, S., Mir, R. A., Haque, M. A., Danishuddin, Almalki, M. A., Alfredan, M., Khalifa, A., Mahmoudi, H., Shahid, M., Tyagi, A., & Mir, Z. A. (2025). Exploring physiological and molecular dynamics of drought stress responses in plants: Challenges and future directions. Frontiers in Plant Science, 16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2025.1565635
  5. Anjum, S.A., Xie, X.Y., Wang, L.C., Saleem, M.F., Man, C., Lei, W., 2011. Morphological, physiological and biochemical responses of plants to drought stress. Afr. J Agric. Res. 6, 2026–2032. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJAR10.027.
  6. Apel, K., & Hirt, H. (2004). Reactıve Oxygen Species: Metabolism, Oxidative Stress, and Signal Transduction. Annual Review of Plant Biology, 55(Volume 55, 2004), 373–399. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.arplant.55.031903.141701
  7. Asati, R., Tripathi, M. K., Yadav, R. K., Tripathi, N., Sikarwar, R. S., Tiwari, P. N., Asati, R., Tripathi, M. K., Yadav, R. K., Tripathi, N., Sikarwar, R. S., & Tiwari, P. N. (2024). Investigation of Drought Stress on Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) Genotypes Employing Various Physiological Enzymatic and Non-Enzymatic Biochemical Parameters. Plants, 13(19). https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13192746
  8. Babalik, Z., & Baydar, N. G. (2021). Asmalarda Kuraklık ve Tuz Stresi. Avrupa Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi, 21, 358–368. https://doi.org/10.31590/ejosat.784997
  9. Bates, L. S., Waldren, R. P., & Teare, I. D. (1973). Rapid determination of free proline for water-stress studies. Plant and Soil, 39(1), 205–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00018060
  10. Berger, J. D., Ali, M., Basu, P. S., Chaudhary, B. D., Chaturvedi, S. K., Deshmukh, P. S., Dharmaraj, P. S., Dwivedi, S. K., Gangadhar, G. C., Gaur, P. M., Kumar, J., Pannu, R. K., Siddique, K. H. M., Singh, D. N., Singh, D. P., Singh, S. J., Turner, N. C., Yadava, H. S., & Yadav, S. S. (2006). Genotype by environment studies demonstrate the critical role of phenology in adaptation of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) to high and low yielding environments of India. Field Crops Research, 98(2), 230–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2006.02.007
  11. Blum A (2011) Plant breeding for water-limited environments. Springer, New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7491-4
  12. Bradford, M. M. (1976). A rapid and sensitive method for the quantitation of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein-dye binding. Analytical Biochemistry, 72(1), 248–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-2697(76)90527-3
  13. Canci, H., & Toker, C. (2009). Evaluation of Yield Criteria for Drought and Heat Resistance in Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 195(1), 47–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-037X.2008.00345.x
  14. Çevik, S. (2021). Effects of Severe Drought Stress on Some Physiological and Biochemical Parameters of AMF Inoculated C. arietinum. Yuzuncu Yıl University Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 31(3), 597–605. https://doi.org/10.29133/yyutbd.870384
  15. Croser, J. S., Ahmad, F., Clarke, H. J., & Siddique, K. H. M. (2003). Utilisation of wild Cicer in chickpea improvement-Progress, constraints, and prospects. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 54(5), 429–444. https://doi.org/10.1071/AR02157
  16. Davey, M. W., Stals, E., Panis, B., Keulemans, J., & Swennen, R. L. (2005). High-throughput determination of malondialdehyde in plant tissues. Analytical Biochemistry, 347(2), 201–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ab.2005.09.041
  17. Falconer, D. & Mackay, T. Introduction to Quantitative Genetics 4th edn. (Longman Scientific & Technical, Harlow, UK, 1996).
  18. Farooq, M., Wahid, A., Kobayashi, N., Fujita, D., & Basra, S. M. A. (2009). Plant Drought Stress: Effects, Mechanisms and Management. In E. Lichtfouse, M. Navarrete, P. Debaeke, S. Véronique, & C. Alberola (Eds.), Sustainable Agriculture (pp. 153–188). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2666-8_12
  19. Fazeli-Nasab, B., Vessal, S., Bagheri, A., & Malekzadeh-Shafaroudi, S. (2025). Evaluation of drought-tolerant chickpea genotypes (Cicer arietinum L.) using morphophysiological and phytochemical traits. Frontiers in Plant Science, 16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2025.1529177
  20. Grasso, N., Lynch, N. L., Arendt, E. K., & O’Mahony, J. A. (2022). Chickpea protein ingredients: A review of composition, functionality, and applications. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 21(1), 435–452. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12878
  21. Hatfield, J. L., Boote, K. J., Kimball, B. A., Ziska, L. H., Izaurralde, R. C., Ort, D., Thomson, A. M., & Wolfe, D. (2011). Climate Impacts on Agriculture: Implications for Crop Production. Agronomy Journal, 103(2), 351–370. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2010.0303
  22. Hossain, M. A., Hoque, Md. A., Burritt, D. J., & Fujita, M. (2014). Proline Protects Plants Against Abiotic Oxidative Stress: Biochemical and Molecular Mechanisms. In Oxidative Damage to Plants (pp. 477–522). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-799963-0.00016-2
  23. Hussain, M., Malik, M. A., Farooq, M., Ashraf, M. Y., & Cheema, M. A. (2008). Improving Drought Tolerance by Exogenous Application of Glycinebetaine and Salicylic Acid in Sunflower. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 194(3), 193–199. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-037X.2008.00305.x
  24. IPCC, I. P. on C. C. (2021). Climate Change 2021 – The Physical Science Basis: Working Group I Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University. IPCC, I. P. on C. C. (2023). Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, H. Lee and J. Romero (eds.)]. (p. 184 pp). Geneva, Switzerland,.
  25. Jukanti, A. K., Gaur, P. M., Gowda, C. L. L., & Chibbar, R. N. (2012). Nutritional quality and health benefits of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.): A review. British Journal of Nutrition, 108(S1), S11–S26. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114512000797
  26. Kashiwagi, J., Krishnamurthy, L., Crouch, J. H., & Serraj, R. (2006). Variability of root length density and its contributions to seed yield in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) under terminal drought stress. Field Crops Research, 95(2), 171–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2005.02.012
  27. Koseoglu, K., Adak, A., Sari, D., Sari, H., Oncu Ceylan, F., & Toker, C. (2017). Transgressive segregations for yield criteria in reciprocal interspecific crosses between Cicer arietinum L. and C. reticula- tum Ladiz. Euphytica, 213, 116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-017- 1903-7
  28. Kumari, J., Gayacharan, Sheelamary, Singh, T. P., Kumar, A., Sarker, A., Malhotra, N., & Singh, M. (2022). Evaluation and identification of drought tolerant wild annual Cicer accessions for enhancing genetic gains towards chickpea improvement. Indian Journal of Genetics and Plant Breeding (The), 82(4), 430–439.
  29. Lynch, M., & Walsh, B. (1999). Genetics and Analysis of Quantitative Traits. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 74(2), 225–225. https://doi.org/10.1086/393101
  30. Maqbool, M. A., Aslam, M., & Ali, H. (2017). Breeding for improved drought tolerance in Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Plant Breeding, 136(3), 300–318. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbr.12477
  31. Merga, B., & Haji, J. (2019). Economic importance of chickpea: Production, value, and world trade. Cogent Food & Agriculture, 5(1), 1615718. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2019.1615718
  32. Negussu, M., Karalija, E., Vergata, C., Buti, M., Subašić, M., Pollastri, S., Loreto, F., & Martinelli, F. (2023). Drought tolerance mechanisms in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) investigated by physiological and transcriptomic analysis. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 215, 105488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2023.105488
  33. Ohkawa, H., Ohishi, N., & Yagi, K. (1979). Assay for lipid peroxides in animal tissues by thiobarbituric acid reaction. Analytical Biochemistry, 95(2), 351–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-2697(79)90738-3
  34. Oztürk, M., Duran, A., & Hakkı, E. E. (2011). ‘Revision of the genus Cicer L. in Turkey via morphological, palynological, cytotaxonomical, molecular phylogenetic methods and analyses of seed protein and element contents (Doctoral dissertation, Thesis, The Graduate School Of Natural and Applied Science Of Selçuk University).
  35. Rajanna, G. A., Suman, A., Venkatesh, P., Rajanna, G. A., Suman, A., & Venkatesh, P. (2023). Mitigating Drought Stress Effects in Arid and Semi-Arid Agro-Ecosystems through Bioirrigation Strategies-A Review. Sustainability, 15(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043542
  36. Rani, A., Devi, P., Jha, U. C., Sharma, K. D., Siddique, K. H. M., & Nayyar, H. (2020). Developing Climate-Resilient Chickpea Involving Physiological and Molecular Approaches With a Focus on Temperature and Drought Stresses. Frontiers in Plant Science, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2019.01759
  37. Rasool, S., Latef, A. A. H. A., & Ahmad, P. (2015). Chickpea. In Legumes under Environmental Stress (pp. 67–79). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118917091.ch4
  38. Salantur, A., Yazar, S., Dönmez, E., & Akar, T. (2011). Determination of Plant Regeneration Response of Winter Bread Wheat F2 Population under Anther Culture. Tarla Bitkileri Merkez Araştırma Enstitüsü Dergisi, 20(1), 15–21.
  39. Sari, D., Sari, H., Eker, T., Ikten, C., Uzun, B., & Toker, C. (2022). Intraspecific versus interspecific crosses for superior progeny in Cicer species. Crop Science, 62(6), 2122–2137. https://doi.org/10.1002/csc2.20765
  40. Saxena, K. B., Saxena, R. K., & Varshney, R. K. (2021). Genetic Enhancement in Major Food Legumes: An Overview. In K. B. Saxena, R. K. Saxena, & R. K. Varshney (Eds.), Genetic Enhancement in Major Food Legumes: Advances in Major Food Legumes (pp. 1–6). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64500-7_1
  41. Smart, R. E., & Bingham, G. E. (1974). Rapid Estimates of Relative Water Content. Plant Physiology, 53(2), 258–260. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.53.2.258
  42. Taiz L And EZeiger, 2006. Plant Physiolgy, Fourth Edition. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Publishers. Sunderland, Massachussetts, USA.
  43. Torero, M. (2022, January 19). The State Of Food And Agrıculture 2021: Making agrifood systems more resilient to shocks and stresses.
  44. Vardharajula, S., Zulfikar Ali, S., Grover, M., Reddy, G., & Bandi, V. (2011). Drought-tolerant plant growth promoting Bacillus spp.: Effect on growth, osmolytes, and antioxidant status of maize under drought stress. Journal of Plant Interactions, 6(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/17429145.2010.535178
  45. Varshney, R. K., Thudi, M., Nayak, S. N., Gaur, P. M., Kashiwagi, J., Krishnamurthy, L., Jaganathan, D., Koppolu, J., Bohra, A., Tripathi, S., Rathore, A., Jukanti, A. K., Jayalakshmi, V., Vemula, A., Singh, S. J., Yasin, M., Sheshshayee, M. S., & Viswanatha, K. P. (2014). Genetic dissection of drought tolerance in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 127(2), 445–462. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-013-2230-6
  46. Wahab, A., Abdi, G., Saleem, M. H., Ali, B., Ullah, S., Shah, W., Mumtaz, S., Yasin, G., Muresan, C. C., Marc, R. A., Wahab, A., Abdi, G., Saleem, M. H., Ali, B., Ullah, S., Shah, W., Mumtaz, S., Yasin, G., Muresan, C. C., & Marc, R. A. (2022). Plants’ Physio-Biochemical and Phyto-Hormonal Responses to Alleviate the Adverse Effects of Drought Stress: A Comprehensive Review. Plants, 11(13). https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11131620
  47. Yu, X., Liu, Y., Cao, P., Zeng, X., Xu, B., Luo, F., Yang, X., Wang, X., Wang, X., Xiao, X., Yang, L., Lei, T., Yu, X., Liu, Y., Cao, P., Zeng, X., Xu, B., Luo, F., Yang, X., … Lei, T. (2023). Morphological Structure and Physiological and Biochemical Responses to Drought Stress of Iris japonica. Plants, 12(21). https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12213729