Volume 67 PLANT BREEDING AND SEED SCIENCE 2013 DOI 10.2478/v10129-011-0066-2 Ayda Hosseinzadeh-Mahootchi, Kazem Ghassemi-Golezani* Department of Plant Eco-Physiology, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran (*Corresponding author e-mail: golezani@gmail.com) THE IMPACT OF SEED PRIMING AND AGING ON PHYSIOLOGICAL PERFORMANCE OF CHICKPEA UNDER DIFFERENT IRRIGATION TREATMENTS ABSTRACT A sub-sample of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L. cv.ILC482) seeds was kept as control and two other subsamples were aged at 40 °C for 3 and 5 days. Consequently, three seed lots with different levels of vigor were provided. These seed lots were soaked in distilled water at 15°C for 12 and 18 hours and then dried back to initial moisture content at a room temperature of 20-22°C. Then seeds were sown in the field as split plot factorial based on RCB design. Hydro-priming improved leaf chlorophyll content index of plants from different seed lots. Hydro-priming also enhanced stomatal conductance of plants from all seed lots under all irrigation levels, but this advantage for plants from low vigor seed lots particularly under limited irrigations was higher than that for other treatments. Plants from high vigor seed lot under different irrigation treatments had higher relative water content, compared with those from low vigor seed lots. Hydro-priming improved relative water content, membrane stability and grain yield of chickpea plants from different seed lots under various irrigation treatments. It was concluded that hydro-priming to some extent can repair aged seeds and improve their performance under different irrigation treatments. Key words: chickpea, hydro-priming, membrane stability, relative water content, stomatal conductance INTRODUCTION Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) is an important food legume crop which is grown in semi-arid regions (Labidi et al., 2009). Drought is perhaps the major factor negatively affects plant growth and development and causes a sharp decrease of plants productivity (Pan et al., 2002). Water deficit affects many physiological processes associated with plant growth and development (Toker and Cagirgan, 1998). In drought stress conditions, plants Communicated by Andrzej Anioł 14 Ayda Hosseinzadeh-Mahootchi, Kazem Ghassemi-Golezani close their stomata to avoid further water loss (Dulai et al., 2006). This limits CO2 assimilation which may promote an imbalance between photochemical activity at photosystem II (PSII) and electron requirement for photosynthesis, leading to a photoinhibitory damage of PSII reaction centers (Long et al., 1994). Drought stress affects photosystem efficiency (Fv/Fm) and decreases quantum yield of photosystem II (Ahmed et al., 2002). Investigations based on assessments of chlorophyll a fluorescence have shown that PSII is quite resistant to water deficits, being either unaffected (Shangguan et al., 2000) or affected only under very severe drought conditions (Saccardy et al., 1998). In fact, photo damage may be prevented through processes of thermal deactivation, down regulating PSII photochemistry, in a so-called dynamic photo inhibition (Osmond, 1994), that brings the electron transport capacity into balance with carbon metabolism (Epron et al., 1992). Another plant response to drought stress is change in photosynthetic pigment content. Leaf chlorophyll content play important role in harvesting light. The content of both chlorophylls a and b changes under drought stress (Farooq et al., 2009). The effects of drought stress on membrane stability index (MSI) and relative water content (RWC) have also been decreased under water deficit (Bayoumi et al., 2008). RWC is a reliable parameter for quantifying the plant drought stress response (Bayoumi et al., 2008). The deleterious effects of water deficit on plants may be somewhat reduced by sowing high vigor seed lots or by priming of seeds before sowing (Ghassemi-Golezani et al., 2012). Maximum seed vigor is achieved at or slightly after mass maturity (end of seed filling period), which is previously termed physiological maturity (Shaw and Loomis, 1950). Thereafter seeds begin to deteriorate on the mother plant (Ghassemi-Golezani and Mazloomi-Oskooyi, 2008; GhassemiGolezani and Hossinzadeh-Mahootchy, 2009). When deterioration is advanced, rate and uniformity of seed germination and seedling emergence and tolerance to environmental stresses decreases (Khan et al., 2003). The slower rate of emergence frequently associated with low-vigor seeds resulting in smaller plants, compared with high-vigor seeds (Ellis and Roberts, 1981; Ghassemi Golezani et al., 2010b). One of the simple and suitable methods which can improve seedling vigor and establishment and consequently crop performance in the field is seed priming (McDonald, 2000). Priming appears to reverse the detrimental effects of seed deterioration (McDonald, 2000). The early improvements may increase the rate and uniformity of seed germination and seedling emergence (Farooq et al., 2005, Ghassemi-Golezani et al., 2010a), especially under stressful conditions (Ghassemi-Golezani et al., 2012). Some of the deleterious effects of low-vigor seed lots and environmental stresses such as water limitation on crop performance may be also overcome by seed priming (Demir et al., 2006), via improving seedling vigor (Ghassemi- Relationship between root and yield related morphological characters in pea (P.sativum L.)… 15 Golezani, 1992) and stand establishment (Finch-Savage, 2000). Thus, this research was carried out to investigate the effects of seed vigor on some physiological characteristics and yield of chickpea under different irrigation treatments. MATERIALS AND METHODS Seeds of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L. cv.ILC482) were obtained from Dry -land Agricultural Research Institute of Maragheh, Iran. These seeds were divided into three sub-samples. A sub-sample was kept as control with 100% germination (V1). The other sub-samples with about 20% moisture content were artificially aged at 40°C for 3 and 5 days, reducing seed germination to %98 and 89% (V2 and V3, respectively). Consequently, three seed lots with different levels of vigor were provided. Then, each seed lot was divided into three sub-samples, one of which was kept as control (unprimed, P 1) and two other samples were soaked in distilled water at 15°C for 12 (P2) and 18 (P3) hours and then dried back to initial moisture content at a room temperature of 20-22°C for 24 hours. The field experiment was conducted at the Research Farm of the University of Tabriz (Latitude 38˚05’ N, Lon-gitude 46˚17’ E, Altitude 1360 m above sea level) in 2011. All the seeds were treated with benomyl at a rate of 2 g × kg-1 before sowing. Seeds were hand sown in about 4 cm depth with a density of 60 seeds × m-2. Each plot consisted of 8 rows with 4 m length, spaced 25 cm apart. The experiment was arranged as split plot factorial, based on RCB design with three replications. All plots were irrigated immediately after sowing and subsequent irrigations were carried out after 70 (I1), 120 (I2) and 170 (I3) mm evaporation from class A pan. Weeds were controlled by hand during crop growth and development. Plants were protected from heliothis caterpillar attack by spraying Diazinon at a rate of 2 ml × l-1 before flowering. Photochemical efficiency of photosystem II (Fv/Fm) was measured using a portable chlorophyll fluorometer. Measurements were made after 20 min dark adaptation (Maxwell et al., 2000) from 3 plants. Chlorophyll content index of leaves was measured every week by a chlorophyll meter (CCM200). Relative water content was determined according to Barr and Weatherley (1962). Fresh weight of the youngest fully expanded leaf was recorded within 24 h after excision. Turgid weight was obtained after soaking the leaf for 24 h in distilled water. After that, the leaves were quickly and carefully dried with tissue paper prior to determination of turgid weight. Leaf dry weight was obtained after drying the sample for 48 h at 75°C. Relative water content was calculated from the following equation: 16 Ayda Hosseinzadeh-Mahootchi, Kazem Ghassemi-Golezani Leaf samples (0.1 g) were taken in 10 ml double-distilled water in glass vials and kept at 40ºC for 10 min. Initial conductivity (C1) was recorded with a conductivity meter after transferring the sample to 25ºC. The samples were kept at 100ºC for 30 min and cooled at 25ºC. Final conductivity (C2) was measured according to Sairam (1994). The membrane stability index (MSI) was calculated as: Stomatal conductance of leaves was determined using a portable prometer (Delta-T AP4, Cambridge, UK). The measurements were taken on the surface of the leaf at the flowering stage. Finally, plants of 1 m2 in the middle part of each plot were harvested and grain yield was recorded. Analysis of variance of the data appropriate to the experimental design and comparison of means at p≤0.05 were carried out, using MSTATC software. RESULTS Chlorophyll Content Index (CCI) Fig.1. Changes in leaf chlorophyll content index (CCI) of chickpea at different stages of growth and development affected by seed vigor Chlorophyll content index of chickpea leaves diminished with progressing plant development (Fig. 1). At the most stages of development, leaf chloro- Relationship between root and yield related morphological characters in pea (P.sativum L.)… 17 phyll content index of plants from low vigor seed lots (V2 and V3) was lower than that for plants from high vigor seed lot (V1). CCI of plants from all seed lots decreased with increasing plant senescence at later stages of development. Reduction in CCI of V3 plants was started earlier than that of plants from other seed lots. The rate of reduction was also much higher for V3 than for V2 and V1 plants (Fig. 1). The analysis of variance of data showed significant effects of irrigation level and seed vigor on maximum chlorophyll content index. Interaction of seed vigor × hydro-priming duration for this trait was also significant (Table 1). Maximum chlorophyll content of chickpea was decreased with increasing water limitation (Table 2). Hydro-priming improved leaf CCI of plants from different seed lots (Table 2), but this beneficial effect of hydropriming for plants from high vigor seed lot was higher than that for plants from other seed lots. Table 1 Analysis of variance of the data of chickpea plants from different seed lots under different irrigation treatments MS S.O.V D.F. RWC MSI Replication 2 0.219 33.309 11.751 Irrigation level 2 11.392* 880.805* 467.195* Error 4 0.666 0.066 212.846 48.925 32.534 Vigor 2 8.217** 0.002ns 6189.123** 107.531* I×V 4 0.629ns 0.001ns 2081.420 Priming Duration 2 0.790ns 0.009ns I×P 4 1.210ns V×P 4 I×V×P 8 Error C.V [%] 48 CCI Fv/Fm Stomatal conductance 0.080 703.494 0. 207ns 216294.827** Grain yield 853.758 285003.114** 788.110 10.814ns 117851.113** 60.095ns 23.202ns 20394.316** 4688.346** 97.379* 26.933ns 50978.050** 0.055ns 2802.531* 14.784ns 8.746ns 1100.462ns 2.119* 0.032ns 3455.605** 74.978* 33.598* 604.905ns 0.991ns 0.023ns 3288.040** 67.162* 15.210ns 1321.139ns 0.836 0.034 856.284 27.251 11.254 2051.446 8.44 3.98 14.47 27.61 9.04 ns, *,**: No significant and significant at p≤0.05 and p≤0.01, respectively 14.72 Ayda Hosseinzadeh-Mahootchi, Kazem Ghassemi-Golezani 18 Table 2 Means of maximum chlorophyll content index, stomatal conductance, relative water content, membrane stability and grain yield for different irrigation treatments Treatments CCI Fv/Fm Stomatal Conductance [mmol × m-2 × s-1] RWC [%] MSI [%] Grain yield [g × m-2] Irrigation I1 6.975a 0.7624a 410.9a 67.73a 89.02a 418.387a I2 6.307b 0.6350a 327.9b 61.53b 82.55b 289.290b I3 5.676c 0.5946a 232.0c 56.32b 81.25b 215.392c Different letters at each column indicate significant difference at p≤ 0.05 I1, I2 and I3: Irrigation after 70,120 and 170 mm evaporation from class A pan, respectively Table 3 Means of maximum chlorophyll content index and membrane stability for different unprimed and primed seed lots Traits CCI MSI (%) Treatment P1 P2 P3 v1 6.448bc 6.804ab 7.570a v2 5.864bc 6.134bc 6.394bc v3 6.340bc 5.734c 5.587c v1 81.90b 87.46a 86.78a v2 83.22b 85.42ab 85.14ab v3 82.06b 85.05ab 85.44ab Different letters at each column indicate significant difference at p≤ 0.05 V1, V2and V3: Seed lots with 100, 85 and 74% viability, respectively P1, P2 and P3: non-primed, primed for 12 and 18 hours, respectively Fv/Fm Efficiency of photosystem II (Fv/Fm) was not significantly affected by water limitation, seed vigor and hydro-priming duration. Stomatal conductance Irrigation treatments, seed vigor and hydro-priming duration had significant effects on stomatal conductance (SC) of chickpea leaves. Interactions of irrigation × hydro-priming, seed vigor × hydro-priming and irrigation ×vigor× hydro-priming for SC were also statistically significant (Table 1). Stomatal conductance of plants from all seed lots significantly decreased with decreasing water availability (Table 2). Hydro-priming improved stomatal conductance of plants from all seed lots un- Relationship between root and yield related morphological characters in pea (P.sativum L.)… 19 der all irrigation levels, but this advantage for plants from low vigor seed lots particularly under limited irrigations was higher than that for other treatments (Fig. 2). Fig. 2. Stomatal conductance of chickpea plants from various seed lots under different irrigation treatments I1, I2 and I3: Irrigation after 70,120 and 170 mm evaporation from class A pan, respectively V1, V2and V3: Seed lots with 100, 85 and 74% viability, respectively P1, P2 and P3: non-primed, primed for 12 and 18 hours, respectively Relative Water Content (RWC) Irrigation treatments, seed vigor and hydro-priming duration had significant effects on relative water content (RWC) of chickpea leaves (Table 1). Interactions of seed vigor × hydro-priming and irrigation × vigor × hydropriming for RWC were also statistically different (Table 1). Leaf relative water content was decreased as water deficit increased. However, there was no significant difference between plants under I2 and I3 (Table 2). Plants from high vigor seed lot (V1) under different irrigation treatments had higher relative water content, compared with those from low vigor seed lots. Hydro-priming improved relative water content of chickpea plants from different seed lots under various irrigation treatments. This improvement for plants from low vigor seed lot under severe water limitation was greater than that under other irrigation treatments (Fig.3). 20 Ayda Hosseinzadeh-Mahootchi, Kazem Ghassemi-Golezani Fig. 3. Relative water content of chickpea plants from various seed lots under different irrigation treatments I1, I2 and I3: Irrigation after 70,120 and 170 mm evaporation from class A pan, respectively V1 , V2and V3: Seed lots with 100, 85 and 74% viability, respectively P1, P2 and P3: non-primed, primed for 12 and 18 hours, respectively Membrane Stability Index (MSI) Membrane stability index of chickpea leaves was significantly influenced by irrigation levels. However, no significant effects of seed vigor and hydro -priming duration on this trait were found (Table 1). Interaction of seed vigor × hydro-priming for MSI was also significant. Membrane stability of chickpea leaves was decreased with increasing water severity (Table 2). Hydro-priming enhanced membrane stability of chickpea plants from all seed lots (Table3). Grain yield Grain yield was significantly influenced by irrigation treatments, seed vigor and hydro-priming duration (Table 1). Interaction of irrigation × seed vigor for grain yield was also significant (Table 1). Grain yield among plants from various seed lots diminished with increasing water limitation (Figure 4, Table 2). Plants from high vigor seed lot (V1) under different irrigation treatments had higher grain yield, compared with those from low vigor seed lots (Fig. 4). Hydro-priming significantly enhanced grain yield from 258.19 g/m2 to 339.55 g/m2. Relationship between root and yield related morphological characters in pea (P.sativum L.)… 21 Fig. 4. Mean grain yield of chickpea for different seed lots under different irrigation treatments Different letters at each column indicate significant difference at p≤ 0.05 I1, I2 and I3 : Irrigation after 70,120 and 170 mm evaporation from class A pan, respectively V1, V2and V3: Seed lots with 100, 85 and 74% viability, respectively Relative water content, membrane stability index, chlorophyll content index and stomatal conductance had significant and positive correlations with each other and also with grain yield. RWC and stomatal conductance showed the highest positive correlations with grain yield (Table 4). Table 4 Correlation coefficients among some physiological parameters of chickpea Traits 1. Relative water content 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2. Membrane stability index 0.650** 1 3. Fv/Fm 0.363ns 0.550** 1 4. Chlorophyll content index 0.680** 0.528** 0.348 ns 5. Stomatal conductance 0.790** 0.771** 0.505** 0.670** 6. Grain yield 0.809** 0.696** 0.355 ns 0.747** ns ,**: no significant and significant at and p≤0.01 1 1 0.808** 1 22 Ayda Hosseinzadeh-Mahootchi, Kazem Ghassemi-Golezani DISCUSSION Greater beneficial effect of hydro-priming on chlorophyll content of plants from V1 and V2 seed lots (Fig.1) could be attributed to early improvements in rate and uniformity of seed germination and seedling emergence (Farooq et al., 2005, Ghassemi-Golezani et al., 2010a). Rapid emergence of seedlings could lead to the production of vigorous plants (Ghassemi-Golezani et al., 2008a) with high chlorophyll content in their leaves (Ghassemi-Golezani et al., 2008b) as it was shown for plants from high vigor seed lots of chickpea (Table 2). Delayed emergence of seedlings from poor vigor seed lots resulted in inefficient use of environmental resources. Early decline in leaf chlorophyll content of these plants at later stages of growth (Fig. 1) closely related with poor resistance to stressful condition. The reduction of chlorophyll content was probably related to the enhanced activity of the enzyme chlorophyllase (Reddy and Vora, 1986) and inducing the destruction of chloroplast structure and the instability of pigment protein complex (Singh and Dubey, 1995). No significant effect of water stress on photosystem II efficiency (Fv/Fm) (Table 1) was a result of higher resistance of photosynthetic machinery to water limitation (Chaves et al., 2002). Photo damage may be prevented through processes of thermal deactivation, down regulating PSII photochemistry, in a so-called dynamic photo inhibition (Osmond, 1994), that brings the electron transport capacity into balance with carbon metabolism (Epron et al., 1992). Decreasing water availability decreased stomatal conductance of chickpea plants (Fig. 2), due to the closure stomata which decrease transpiration rate and loss of water. During drought, leaves are subjected to both heat and water deficiency stress (Clarke et al., 1993). As a consequence of the reduction in transpiration rates of leaves, leaf temperature increases (Kusvuran, 2012). Improved stomatal conductance of plants from primed seeds under all irrigation treatments (Fig. 2) was due to rapid emergence of plants and higher resistance of vigorous plants to unfavorable conditions (Ghassemi-Golezani et al., 2012). The decrease in leaf RWC (Fig. 3) could be related with low water availability under stress conditions (Shalhevet, 1993), or to poor root system, which is not able to compensate for water loss by transpiration (Gadallah, 2000). Higher RWC of plants from high vigor seed lot (V1) and the efficiency of seed hydro-priming for better RWC under stressful condition were the result of rapid and uniform seedling emergence (GhassemiGolezani et al., 2012). This can lead to the production of vigorous plants with a potential to use environmental resources efficiently. The resulting plants better tolerate drought stress, reduce pest damage and increase crop yield (Harris et al., 1999). Relationship between root and yield related morphological characters in pea (P.sativum L.)… 23 Membrane lipids peroxidation, membrane damage and ion leakage under water stress (Katsuhara et al., 2005) led to reduction in membrane stability index (MSI) of chickpea leaves (Table 2). Beneficial effects of hydropriming on membrane stability of chickpea plants (Table 3) could be attributed to maintenance of positive leaf turgor, efficient and longer use of plants from soil resources under water stress by early establishment of seedlings. Water limitation considerably reduced grain yield of chickpea, due to reductions in leaf, stomatal conductance, chlorophyll content, relative water content and membrane stability (Table 2). The earliest response to the leaf water deficit is stomata closure, which limits CO2 diffusion to chloroplasts and limits photosynthesis (Cronic and Masacci, 1996). Inhibition of chlorophyll synthesis due to water stress (Fig. 1, Sayed, 2003) and decrease of relative water content affected by low water potential (Fig. 2, Krouma, 2010) can influence plant growth (Ohashi et al., 2000) and field performance (Fig. 4). Lower grain yield of plants from low vigor seed lots (Fig. 4) related to slow emergence of seedlings from aged seeds, poor stand establishment and delayed flowering of plants (Ghassemi-Golezani et al., 2010b). The advantage of high vigor seeds in improving field performance and enhancement of grain yield of chickpea due to hydro-priming (Fig. 4) directly related with rapid seedling emergence, optimal stand establishment, efficient and longer use of plants from light and soil resources during growth and development and production of larger grains under all irrigation treatments (GhassemiGolezani et al., 2012). Decreasing the superiority of plants from high vigor seeds under low water supply (Figure 4) is the result of early emergence and high density of plants from these seeds which increased competition of individual plants for water and other resources under limited irrigation conditions (Ghassemi-Golezani et al., 2012). High positive correlations of stomatal conductance and relative water content with grain yield (Table 3) indicate that these parameters can be used to estimate potential field performance of chickpea under different irrigation conditions. REFERENCES Ahmed, S., Nawata, E., Hosokawa, M., Domae, Y. and Sakuratani, T. 2002. Alterations in photosynthesis and some antioxidant enzymatic activities of mungbean subjected to waterlogging. Plant Sci., 163: 117–123. Barr, H. and Weatherley, P. 1962. A re-examination of the relative turgidity technique for estimating water deficit in leaves. Aust. J. Biol. Sci., 15: 413–428. Bayoumi, T., Eid, M. and Metwali, E. 2008. Application of physiological and biochemical indices as a screening technique for drought tolerance in wheat genotypes. Afr. J. Biotech., 7: 2341–2352. Chaves, M.M., Pereira, J.S., Maroco, J., Rodrigues, M.L., Ricardo, C.P.P., Osorio, M.L., Carvalho, I., Faria, T. and Pinheiro, C. 2002. How plants cope with water stress in the field? Photosynthesis and growth. Ann. Bot., 89: 907-916. Clarke, N., Hetschkun, H., Jones, C., Boswell, E. and Marfaing, H. 1993. Identification of stress tolerance traits in sugar beet. In: Jackson M.B. and Black C.R. (eds.). Interacting Stress on Plants in a Changing Climate, Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Cornic, G. and Masacci, A. 1996. Leaf photosynthesis under drought stress. In: Baker, N. R. (ed.). Photosynthesis and the Environment, Kluwer Academic Publishers. 24 Ayda Hosseinzadeh-Mahootchi, Kazem Ghassemi-Golezani Demir Kaya, M., Okcu, G., Atak, M., Cikili, Y. and Kolsarici, O. 2006. Seed treatments to overcome salt and drought stress during germination in sunflower (Helianthus annus L.). J. Agron., 24: 291- 295. Dulai, S., Molnar, I., Pronay, J., Csernak, A., Tarnai, R. and Molnarlang, M. 2006. Effects of drought on photosynthetic parameters and heat stability of PSII in wheat and in Aegilops species originating from dry habitats. Act. Biol. Szeged., 50: 11–17. Ellis, R.H. and Roberts, E.H. 1981.The quantification of ageing and survival in orthodox seeds. Seed Sci. Technol., 9: 373-409. Epron, D., Dreyer, E. and Breda, N. 1992. Photosynthesis of oak trees (Quercus petraea (Matt.) Liebl.) during drought under field conditions: diurnal courses of net CO2 assimilation and photochemical efficiency of photosystem II. Plant Cell Environ., 15: 809–820. Farooq, M., Basra, S.M.A., Hafeez, K. and Ahmad, N. 2005. Thermal hardening: A new seed vigor enhancement tool in rice. J. Int. Plant Biol., 47: 184- 193. Farooq, M., Wahid, A., Kobayashi, N., Fujita, D. and Basra, S. 2009. Plant drought stress: effects, mechanisms and management. Agron. Sus. Dev., 29: 153–188. Finch-Savange, W.E. 2000. Influence of seed quality on crop establishment, growth and yield. In: FinchSavange, W.E. (ed.). Seed quality. Basic mechanisms and agricultural implications, The Haworth Press, New York. Gadallah, M. 2000. Effects of indole-3-acetic acid and zinc on the growth, osmotic potential and soluble carbon and nitrogen components of soybean plants growing under water deficit. J. Arid Environ., 44: 451– 467. Ghassemi-Golezani, K. 1992. .Effects of seed quality on cereal yields. PhD Thesis. University of Reading, UK. Ghassemi-Golezani, K., Aliloo, A.A., Valizadeh, M. and Moghaddam, M. 2008a. Effects of different priming techniques on seed invigoration and seedling establishment of lentil (Lens culinaris Medik).J. Food Agric. Environ., 6: 222-226. Ghassemi-Golezani, K., Chadordooz-Jeddi, A., Nasrullahzadeh, S. and Moghaddam, M. 2010a. Effects of hydro-priming duration on seedling vigor and grain yield of pinto bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) cultivars. Not. Bot. Hort. Agron., 38:109-113. Ghassemi-Golezani, K. and Hossinzadeh-Mahootchy, A. 2009. Changes in seed vigor of faba bean (Vicia fabaL.) cultivars during development and maturity. Seed Sci. Technol., 37:713-720. Ghassemi-Golezani, K., Hossseinzadeh-Mahootchy, A., Zehtab-Salmasi, S. and Tourchi, M. 2012. Improving field performance of aged chickpea seeds by hydro-priming under water stress. Int. J. Plant Animal Environ. Sci., 2: 168-176. Ghassemi-Golezani, K., Khomari, S., Dalil, B., Hosseinzadeh-Mahootchy, A. and Chadordooz-Jeddi, A. 2010b. Effects of seed aging on field performance of winter oil-seed rape. J. Food Agric. Environ., 8: 175-178. Ghassemi-Golezani, K. and Mazloomi- Oskooyi, R. 2008. Effect of water supply on seed quality development in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris var.). J. Plant Prod., 2: 117-124. Ghassemi-Golezani, K., Sheikhzadeh-Mosaddegh, P. and Valizadeh, M. 2008b. Effects of hydro-priming duration and limited irrigation on field performance of chickpea. Res. J. Seed Sci., 1:34-40. Harris, D., Joshi, A., Khan, P.A., Gothakar, P. and Sodhi, P.S. 1999. On-farm seed priming in semi-arid agriculture: Development and evaluation in corn, rice and chickpea in India using participatory methods. Exper. Agric., 35: 15–29. Katsuhara, M., Otsuka, T. and Ezaki, B. 2005. Salt stress-induced lipid peroxidation is reduced by glutathione S-transferase, but this reduction of lipid peroxides is not enough for a recovery of root growth in Arabidopsis. Plant Sci., 169: 369–373. Khan, M.M., Iqbal, M.J. Abbas, M. and Usman, M. 2003. Effect of accelerated ageing on viability, vigor and chromosomal damage in pea (Pisum sativum L.) seeds. J. Agric. Sci., 40:50-54. Krouma, A. 2010. Plant water relations and photosynthetic activity in three Tunisian chickpea genotypes subjected to drought. Turk. J. Agric. Forest., 34: 257-264. Kusvuran, S. 2012. Effects of drought and salt stresses on growth, stomatal conductance, leaf water and osmotic potentials of melon genotypes. Afr. J. Agric. Res., 7: 775-781. Labidi, N., Mahmoudi, H., Dorsaf, M., Slama, I. and Abdelly, C. 2009. Assessment of intervarietal differences in drought tolerance in chickpea using both nodule and plant traits as indicators. J. Plant Breed. Crop Sci., 1: 80–86. Long, S.P., Humphries, S. and Falkowski, P.G. 1994. Photoinhibition of photosynthesis in nature. Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol., 45: 633–662. Maxwell, K. and Johnson, G. 2000. Chlorophyll fluorescence a practical guide. J. Exper. Bot., 51: 659–668. McDonald, M.B. 2000. Seed priming. In: Black, M and Bewley J.D. (eds.). Seed technology and biological basis, Sheffield Academic Press, England. Relationship between root and yield related morphological characters in pea (P.sativum L.)… 25 Ohashi, Y., Saneoka, H. and Fujita, K. 2000. Effect of water stress on growth, photosynthsis and photoassimilate translation in soybean and tropical pasture legume siratro. Soil Sci. and Plant Nutr., 46: 417-425. Osmond, C.B. 1994. What is photoinhibition? Some insights from comparisons of shade and sun plants. In: Baker, N.R and Bowyer, J.R. (eds.). Photoinhibition of photosynthesis—from molecular mechanisms to the field, Scientific Publishers, Lancaster. Pan, X.Y., Wang, Y.F., Wang, G.X., Cao, Q.D. and Wang, J. 2002. Relationship between growth redundancy and size inequality in spring wheat populations mulched with clear plastic film. Act. Phyto. Sini., 26: 177-184. Reddy, M.P. and Vora, A.B. 1986. Changes in pigment composition, hill reaction activity and saccharides metabolism in Bajra leaves under NaCl salinity. Photosynthetica., 20: 331–334. Saccardy, K., Pineau, B., Roche, O. and Cornic, G., 1998. Photochemical efficiency of photosystem II and xantophyll cycle components in Zea mays leaves exposed to water stress and high light. Photosynthesis Res., 56: 57–66. Sairam, R. 1994. Effect of moisture stress on physiological activities of two contrasting wheat genotypes. Ind. J. Exper. Biol., 32: 593–594. Sayed, O.H. 2003. Chlorophyll fluorescence as a tool in cereal crop research. Photosynthetica., 41: 321-330. Shalhevet, J. 1993. Plants under salt and water stress. In: Fowden L., Mansfield Tand Stoddart, J. (eds.). Plant Adaptation to Environmental Stress, Chapman and Hall, London. Shangguan, Z., Shao, M. and Dyckmans, J. 2000. Effects of nitrogen nutrition and water deficit on net photosynthetic rate and chlorophyll fluorescence in winter wheat. J. Plant Physiol., 156: 46–51. Shaw, R.H. and Loomis, W.E. 1950. Bases for the prediction of corn yields. Plant Physiol., 25:225-244. Singh, A.K. and Dubey, R.S. 1995. Changes in chlorophyll a and b contents and activities of photosystems 1 and 2 in rice seedlings induced by NaCl. Photosythetica., 31: 489–499. Toker, C. and Agirgan, M. 1998. Assessment of response to drought stress of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) lines under rain field conditions. Turk. J. Agric. Forest., 22: 615–621.