Fig 1.
A schematic outlining of mechanism of chromium (Cr) toxicity in soil and the potential deleterious effects of Cr pollution on morphological and physiological aspects of chickpea plants.
Fig 2.
Germination performance of seeds in two chickpea varieties under different chromium (Cr) treatments.
(a) Pusa 2085. (b) Pusa Green 112.
Fig 3.
Effects of various chromium (Cr) concentrations on the morpho-physiological traits of two chickpea varieties under hydroponic conditions.
(a) Pusa 2085. (b) Pusa Green 112.
Fig 4.
Effects of the various chromium (Cr) concentrations on two chickpea varieties (Pusa 2085 and Pusa Green 112) 21 days after treatment (DAT).
(a) root length (cm). (b) shoot length (cm). (c) plant fresh weight (g). (d) plant dry weight (g). Values are means ± standard errors from three independent experiments. Error bars with the same letters are not significantly different at p ≤ 0.05.
Fig 5.
Effects of various chromium (Cr) concentrations on two chickpea varieties (Pusa 2085 and Pusa Green 112).
(a) Malondialdehyde (MDA), roots. (b) MDA, shoots. (c) H2O2, roots. (d) Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), shoots. (e) electrolyte leakage (EL), roots. (f) electrolyte leakage, shoots.
Fig 6.
Effects of the various chromium (Cr) concentrations on the proline contents in roots and shoots of two chickpea varieties (Pusa 2085 and Pusa Green 112) 21 days after treatment (DAT).
Values are means ± standard errors from three independent experiments. Error bars with the same letters are not significantly different at p ≤ 0.05.
Fig 7.
Effects of the various chromium (Cr) concentrations on the activities (units mg-1 protein) of antioxidative enzymes: Superoxide dismutase (SOD), Peroxidase (POD), Catalase (CAT), and Ascorbate Peroxidase (APX) in the leaves of two chickpea varieties (Pusa 2085 and Pusa Green 112) 21 days after treatment (DAT).
Values are means ± standard errors from three independent experiments. Error bars with the same letters are not significantly different at p ≤ 0.05.
Fig 8.
Fig 9.
Violin plots showing the distributions of three plant growth parameters examined in two chickpea varieties, Pusa 2085 and Pusa Green 112, grown in pots under different chromium (Cr) concentrations.
(a–b) plant height (PH) (cm). (c–d) plant fresh weight (PFW) (g). (e–f) plant dry weight (PDW) (g).
Fig 10.
Violin plots showing the distributions of the number of primary branches per plant (NPBPP) and the number of secondary branches per plant (NSBPP) in two chickpea varieties, Pusa 2085 and Pusa Green 112, grown in pots under different chromium (Cr) concentrations.
Fig 11.
Violin plots showing the distributions of the number of pods per plant (NPPP) and the yield-related traits in two chickpea varieties, Pusa 2085 and Pusa Green 112, grown in pots under different chromium (Cr) concentrations.
Fig 12.
Effects of various chromium (Cr) concentrations on the seeds per pod in two chickpea varieties grown under potted conditions.
(a) Pusa 2085. (b) Pusa Green 112.
Fig 13.
Effects of the chromium (Cr) treatments (control and 120 μM) on plant growth, above-ground biomass, and plant productivity in two chickpea varieties grown in pots.
(a) Pusa 2085. (b) Pusa Green 112.
Fig 14.
Effects of various chromium (Cr) concentrations on chlorophyll (Chl) contents of leaves in two chickpea varieties (Pusa 2085 and Pusa Green 112), grown in pots, 95 days after treatment (DAT).
(a) Chl a. (b) Chl b. (c) Total Chl. Values are means ± standard errors from three independent experiments. Error bars with the same letters are not significantly different at p ≤ 0.05.
Fig 15.
Chromium (Cr) accumulation in roots, stems, leaves, and seeds of Pusa 2085 and Pusa Green 112 chickpea seedlings grown in pots under different Cr concentrations (0, 30, 60, 90 and 120 μM).
Table 1.
Pearson correlation coefficients between different morpho-physiological traits and growth and yield-related attributes and Cr uptake from among parts of (i) Pusa 2085 and (ii) Pusa green 112 genotype under pots conditions.