Show simple item record

dc.contributorMalhotra, Ren_US
dc.contributorSaxena, Mohan C.en_US
dc.creatorSingh, K. Ben_US
dc.date1995-09-01en_US
dc.date.accessioned2021-06-30T22:34:52Z
dc.date.available2021-06-30T22:34:52Z
dc.identifierhttps://mel.cgiar.org/dspace/limiteden_US
dc.identifier.citationK. B Singh, R Malhotra, Mohan C. Saxena. (1/9/1995). Additional Sources of Tolerance to Cold in Cultivated and Wild Cicer Species. Crop Science, 35 (5), pp. 1491-1497.en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/13300
dc.description.abstractCold tolerance is an important prerequisite for winter sowing of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) in Mediterranean environments. Cold-tolerant lines identified earlier at ICARDA are sometimes not tolerant enough to tolerate exceptionally cold winters which occur occasionally. The objectives of this study were to identify sources of increased cold tolerance and to ascertain associations of cold tolerance with other plant traits. Cold tolerance of 4284 kabuli and 2137 desi germplasm lines, 857 breeding lines, and 59 lines of seven annual wild Cicer species was evaluated during the five winters from 1987 to 1992 at ICARDA sites at Tel Hadya and Breda in Syria. The susceptible check was killed in all 5 yr, indicating the severity of cold winters. Eleven kabuli but no desi germplasm lines, and 14 breeding lines, were tolerant. Among the cultigens, a germplasm line (ILC 8262), a mutant (ILC 8617), and a breeding line (FLIP 87-82C) were the best sources of cold tolerance, with a consistent rating of three (1-9 scale, where 1 = free from damage and 9 = all plants killed) over years and locations. Among wild species, 26 lines of C. reticulation, 10 of C. bijugum, four of C. echinospermum, two of C. pinnatifidum, and one of C. judaicum were cold tolerant. Five lines of C. bijugum and four of C. reticulatum had a rating of two, reflecting their better cold tolerance than the cultigen. Correlation studies on 2970 lines indicated that prostrate growth habit during winter months was positively associated with cold tolerance. Some late-flowering lines were susceptible, others were tolerant to cold; whereas, all early-flowering lines were susceptible to cold. Cold tolerance had no association with anthocyanin pigmentation on the stem. Older plants were more susceptible to cold than younger plants.en_US
dc.languageenen_US
dc.publisherCrop Science Society of Americaen_US
dc.rightsCopyrighted; all rights reserveden_US
dc.sourceCrop Science;35,(1995) Pagination 1491,1497en_US
dc.subjectwild cicer speciesen_US
dc.subjectchickpeaen_US
dc.subjectChickpeaen_US
dc.titleAdditional Sources of Tolerance to Cold in Cultivated and Wild Cicer Speciesen_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
cg.subject.agrovoctoleranceen_US
cg.contributor.centerInternational Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas - ICARDAen_US
cg.contributor.funderInternational Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas - ICARDAen_US
cg.contributor.funderInternational Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics - ICRISATen_US
cg.contributor.projectCommunication and Documentation Information Services (CODIS)en_US
cg.contributor.project-lead-instituteInternational Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas - ICARDAen_US
cg.date.embargo-end-dateTimelessen_US
cg.coverage.regionGlobalen_US
cg.contactunkown@unknown3.comen_US
cg.identifier.doihttps://dx.doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1995.0011183X003500050037xen_US
dc.identifier.statusTimeless limited accessen_US
mel.impact-factor1.878en_US


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record


DSpace software copyright © 2002-2016  DuraSpace
Disclaimer:
MELSpace content providers and partners accept no liability to any consequence resulting from use of the content or data made available in this repository. Users of this content assume full responsibility for compliance with all relevant national or international regulations and legislation.
Theme by 
Atmire NV