Combined Drought and Heat Stress Influences the Root Water Relation and Determine the Dry Root Rot Disease Development Under Field Conditions: A Study Using Contrasting Chickpea Genotypes
Open accessAbstract
Abiotic stressors such as drought and heat predispose chickpea plants to pathogens of key importance leading to significant crop loss under field conditions. In this study, we have investigated the influence of drought and high temperature on the incidence and severity of dry root rot disease (caused by Macrophomina phaseolina) in chickpea, under extensive on- and off-season field trials and greenhouse conditions. We explored the association between drought tolerance and dry root rot resistance in two chickpea genotypes, ICC 4958 and JG 62, with contrasting resistance to dry root rot. In addition, we extensively analyzed various patho-morphological and root architecture traits altered by combined stresses under field and greenhouse conditions in these genotypes. We further observed the role of edaphic factors in dry root rot incidence under field conditions. Altogether, our results suggest a strong negative correlation between the plant water relations and dry root rot severity in chickpeas, indicating an association between drought tolerance and dry root rot resistance. Additionally, the significant role of heat stress in altering the dynamics of dry root rot and the importance of combinatorial screening of chickpea germplasm for dry root rot resistance, drought, and heat stress have been revealed.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
RS (clay red soil) may be unsuitable for growing fava beans in pots due to its tendency to compact and retain excess water, leading to poor drainage and increased risk of root rot.
“RS (clay red soil) may be unsuitable for growing fava beans in pots due to its tendency to compact and retain excess water, leading to poor drainage and increased risk of root rot (Athow, 2022; Chilakala et al., 2022).”
From Fava bean plant performance and fertility dynamics in Mars regolith simulant-based substrates for space farming (2025) · cites this paper as Chilakala et al., 2022
The Results and Discussion sections on edaphic factors report a positive correlation between clay content and dry root rot in chickpea and note that clay increases overall water retention. They do not address clay red soil compacting, poor drainage, or the suitability of pots for fava beans. The Discussion on root water relations instead associates more severe dry root rot with moisture deficit, not excess water. (LLM, conf=0.90)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 25
- Baird R. E. Watson C. E. Scruggs M. (2003). Relative longevity of Macrophomina phaseolina and associated mycobiota on residual soybean roots in the soil. Plant Dis. 87 563– 566. 10.1094/PDIS.2003.87.5.563 30812959 · DOI
- Cabral R. N. Marouelli W. A. Café-Filho A. C. (2020). Irrigation management strategies for reducing verticillium wilt severity in eggplants. Summa Phytopathol. 46 9– 13. 10.1590/0100-5405/190000 · DOI
- Chai Y. N. Schachtman D. P. (2022). Root exudates impact plant performance under abiotic stress. Trends Plant Sci. 27 80– 91. 10.1016/j.tplants.2021.08.003 34481715 · DOI
- de Sousa Linhares C. M. Ambrósio M. M. Q. Castro G. Torres S. B. Esteras C. De Sousa Nunes G. H. (2020). Effect of temperature on disease severity of charcoal rot of melons caused by Macrophomina phaseolina: implications for selection of resistance sources. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 158 431– 441. 10.1007/s10658-020-02083-w · DOI
- Deokar A. A. Kondawar V. Jain P. K. Karuppayil S. M. Raju N. Vadez V. (2011). Comparative analysis of expressed sequence tags (ESTs) between drought-tolerant and-susceptible genotypes of chickpea under terminal drought stress. BMC Plant Biol. 11: 70. 10.1186/1471-2229-11-70 21513527 PMC3110109 · DOI
- Galkovskyi T. Mileyko Y. Bucksch A. Moore B. Symonova O. Price C. A. (2012). GiA Roots: software for the high throughput analysis of plant root system architecture. BMC Plant Biol. 12: 116. 10.1186/1471-2229-12-116 22834569 PMC3444351 · DOI
- González L. González-Vilar M. (2001). “ Determination of relative water content,” in Handbook of Plant Ecophysiology Techniques, ed. Reigosa Roger M. J. (Dordrecht: Springer), 207– 212. 10.1007/0-306-48057-3_14 · DOI
- Irulappan V. Senthil-Kumar M. (2021). Dry root rot disease assays in chickpea: a detailed methodology. J. Vis. Exp. 167: e61702. 10.3791/61702 33522503 · DOI
- Irulappan V. Kandpal M. Saini K. Rai A. Ranjan A. Sinharoy S. (2022). Drought stress exacerbates fungal colonization and endodermal invasion and dampens defense responses to increase dry root rot in chickpea. Mol. Plant Microbe Interact. 10.1094/MPMI-07-21-0195-FI 35253477 · DOI
- 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 Res. 95 171– 181. 10.1016/j.fcr.2005.02.012 · DOI
- Kumar M. N. Jane W.-N. Verslues P. E. (2012). Role of the putative osmosensor Arabidopsis histidine Kinase1 in dehydration avoidance and low-water-potential response. Plant Physiol. 161 942– 953. 10.1104/pp.112.209791 23184230 PMC3561031 · DOI
- Lynch J. P. Chimungu J. G. Brown K. M. (2014). Root anatomical phenes associated with water acquisition from drying soil: targets for crop improvement. J. Exp.l Bot. 65 6155– 6166. 10.1093/jxb/eru162 24759880 · DOI
- Marquez N. Giachero M. L. Declerck S. Ducasse D. A. (2021). Macrophomina phaseolina: general characteristics of pathogenicity and methods of control. Front. Plant Sci. 12: 634397. 10.3389/fpls.2021.634397 33968098 PMC8100579 · DOI
- Mayek-Pérez N. García-Espinosa R. López-Castañeda C. Acosta-Gallegos J. A. Simpson J. (2002). Water relations, histopathology and growth of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) during pathogenesis of Macrophomina phaseolina under drought stress. Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol. 60 185– 195. 10.1006/pmpp.2001.0388 · DOI
- Rai A. Irulappan V. Senthil-Kumar M. (2022). Dry root rot of chickpea: a disease favored by drought. Plant Dis. 106, 346– 356. 10.1094/PDIS-07-21-1410-FE 34649462 · DOI
- Reichert J. M. Albuquerque J. A. Kaiser D. R. Reinert D. J. Urach F. L. Carlesso R. (2009). Estimation of water retention and availability in soils of Rio Grande do Sul. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Solo 33 1547– 1560. 10.1590/s0100-06832009000600004 · DOI
- Sharath Chandran U. S. Tarafdar A. Mahesha H. S. Sharma M. (2021). Temperature and soil moisture stress modulate the host defense response in chickpea during dry root rot Incidence. Front. Plant Sci. 12: 653265. 10.3389/fpls.2021.653265 34149753 PMC8213392 · DOI
- Sharma M. Ghosh R. Pande S. (2015). Dry root rot (Rhizoctonia bataticola (Taub.) Butler): an emerging disease of chickpea–where do we stand? Arch. Phytopathol. Plant Prot. 48 797– 812. 10.1080/03235408.2016.1140564 · DOI
- Sharma M. Pande S. (2013). Unravelling effects of temperature and soil moisture stress response on development of dry root rot [Rhizoctonia bataticola (Taub.)] butler in chickpea. Am. J. Plant Sci. 4 584– 589. 10.4236/ajps.2013.43076 · DOI
- Sinha R. Irulappan V. Mohan-Raju B. Suganthi A. Senthil-Kumar M. (2019). Impact of drought stress on simultaneously occurring pathogen infection in field-grown chickpea. Sci. Rep. 9: 5577. 10.1038/s41598-019-41463-z 30944350 PMC6447570 · DOI
- Sinha R. Irulappan V. Patil B. S. Reddy P. C. O. Ramegowda V. Mohan-Raju B. (2021). Low soil moisture predisposes field-grown chickpea plants to dry root rot disease: evidence from simulation modeling and correlation analysis. Sci. Rep. 11: 6568. 10.1038/s41598-021-85928-6 33753791 PMC7985499 · DOI
- Wang W. Ding G.-D. White P. J. Wang X.-H. Jin K.-M. Xu F.-S. (2019). Mapping and cloning of quantitative trait loci for phosphorus efficiency in crops: opportunities and challenges. Plant Soil 439 91– 112. 10.1007/s11104-018-3706-6 · DOI
- Xiong R. Liu S. Considine M. J. Siddique K. H. M. Lam H.-M. Chen Y. (2021). Root system architecture, physiological and transcriptional traits of soybean (Glycine max L.) in response to water deficit: a review. Physiol. Plant. 172 405– 418. 10.1111/ppl.13201 32880966 · DOI
- Yasmin H. Naz R. Nosheen A. Hassan M. N. Ilyas N. Sajjad M. (2020). Identification of new biocontrol agent against charcoal rot disease caused by Macrophomina phaseolina in soybean (Glycine max L.). Sustainability 12: 6856. 10.3390/su12176856 · DOI
- Zhan A. Schneider H. Lynch J. P. (2015). Reduced lateral root branching density improves drought tolerance in maize. Plant Physiol. 168 1603– 1615. 10.1104/pp.15.00187 26077764 PMC4528736 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Caporale, A. G., Paradiso, R., Arouna, N., Amitrano, C., Tagliamonte, S., Chiacchio, M. F., Vitaglione, P., De Pascale, S., & Adamo, P. (2025) · Frontiers in Plant Science · doi:10.3389/fpls.2025.1676285 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Chilakala, A. R., Mali, K. V., Irulappan, V., Patil, B. S., Pandey, P., Rangappa, K., Ramegowda, V., Kumar, M. N., Puli, C. O. R., Mohan-Raju, B., & Senthil-Kumar, M.
- Affiliations
- National Institute of Plant Genome Research (IN)
- Indian Council of Agricultural Research (IN)
- University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore (IN)
- Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IN)
- Yogi Vemana University (IN)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Frontiers in Plant Science
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2022-05-09
- Volume
- 13
- Pages
- 890551-890551
- ISSN
- 1664-462X (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC9128860
- OpenAlex
- W4229455387
- Cited by
- 44
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 16 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 12
- FWCI
- 3.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Frontiers in Plant Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Department of Biotechnology, Ministry of Science and Technology, India (DBT/2015/NIPGR/430)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Genetic and Environmental Crop Studies
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Plant Disease Management Techniques
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Plant Stress Responses and Tolerance
- Keywords
- chickpea, drought stress, heat stress, dry root rot, Macrophomina phaseolina, root water relations, drought tolerance, disease resistance, root architecture, soil factors, abiotic stress, germplasm screening
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
