Dissection of Drought Tolerance in Upland Cotton Through Morpho-Physiological and Biochemical Traits at Seedling Stage.

Gossypium catalase root length stomatal conductance stress tolerance indices water stress

Journal

Frontiers in plant science
ISSN: 1664-462X
Titre abrégé: Front Plant Sci
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101568200

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2021
Historique:
received: 08 11 2020
accepted: 02 02 2021
entrez: 29 3 2021
pubmed: 30 3 2021
medline: 30 3 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Cotton is an important fiber and cash crop. Extreme water scarceness affects the growth, quality, and productivity of cotton. Water shortage has threatened the future scenario for cotton growers, so it is imperative to devise a solution to this problem. In this research, we have tried to machinate a solution for it. 23 genotypes have been screened out against drought tolerance at the seedling stage by evaluating the morphological, physiological, and biochemical traits in a triplicate completely randomized design plot experiment with two water regimes [50 and 100% field capacity]. Genotypic differences for all the morphological and physiological traits revealed highly significant differences except transpiration rate (TR). Moreover, the interaction between genotype and water regime (G × W) was highly significant for root length (RL, 5.163), shoot length (SL, 11.751), excised leaf water loss (ELWL, 0.041), and stomatal conductance (SC, 7.406). A positively strong correlation was found in TR with relative water content (RWC; 0.510) and SC (0.584) and RWC with photosynthesis (0.452) under drought conditions. A negative correlation was found in SC with SL (-0.428) and photosynthesis (-0.446). Traits like RL, SL, SC, photosynthesis, proline, catalase, and malondialdehyde were visible indicators, which can differentiate drought-tolerant genotypes from the susceptible ones. A wide range of diversity was found in all the morpho-physiological traits with the cumulative variance of four principal components (PCs) 83.09% and three PCs 73.41% under normal and water-stressed conditions, respectively, as per the principal component analysis. Hence, selection criteria can be established on the aforementioned traits for the development of drought-tolerant cultivars. Moreover, it was found that out of 23 experimental varieties, NIAB-135, NIAB-512, and CIM-554 could be used to devise breeding strategies for improving drought tolerance in cotton.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33777067
doi: 10.3389/fpls.2021.627107
pmc: PMC7994611
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

627107

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2021 Zahid, Khan, Hameed, Akhtar, Ditta, Hassan and Farid.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Références

Arch Biochem Biophys. 1968 Jun;125(3):850-7
pubmed: 5671047
J Exp Bot. 2001 May;52(358):1101-9
pubmed: 11432926
Plant Biol (Stuttg). 2004 May;6(3):269-79
pubmed: 15143435
Ann Bot. 2003 Sep;92(3):385-91
pubmed: 12871848
Methods Enzymol. 1976;45:469-75
pubmed: 1012010
Clin Biochem. 2004 Apr;37(4):277-85
pubmed: 15003729
Nat Protoc. 2007;2(4):875-7
pubmed: 17446889
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2005 Jan 10;118(1):47-51
pubmed: 15596272
Funct Plant Biol. 2003 Mar;30(3):239-264
pubmed: 32689007
Plant Physiol. 1949 Jan;24(1):1-15
pubmed: 16654194
Environ Exp Bot. 2001 Apr;45(2):105-114
pubmed: 11275219
Z Naturforsch C J Biosci. 2004 May-Jun;59(5-6):408-14
pubmed: 18998411
Cell. 1999 Nov 24;99(5):463-72
pubmed: 10589675
Science. 2006 Jan 6;311(5757):91-4
pubmed: 16400150
Plant Cell Environ. 2008 Sep;31(9):1325-34
pubmed: 18518917
J Exp Bot. 2003 Oct;54(391):2293-305
pubmed: 14504299
Cell Mol Life Sci. 2015 Feb;72(4):673-89
pubmed: 25336153
Int J Mol Sci. 2018 Sep 06;19(9):
pubmed: 30200561
Nat Genet. 2019 Apr;51(4):739-748
pubmed: 30886425
Plant Biotechnol J. 2017 Mar;15(3):271-284
pubmed: 28055133
J Plant Physiol. 2004 Nov;161(11):1189-202
pubmed: 15602811
Plant Physiol. 1977 Feb;59(2):309-14
pubmed: 16659839
Plant Cell Environ. 2002 Feb;25(2):275-294
pubmed: 11841670

Auteurs

Zobia Zahid (Z)

Plant Breeding and Genetics Division, Nuclear Institute for Agriculture and Biology, Faisalabad, Pakistan.
NIAB-C, Pakistan Institute of Engineering and Applied Science Nilore, Islamabad, Pakistan.

Muhammad Kashif Riaz Khan (MKR)

Plant Breeding and Genetics Division, Nuclear Institute for Agriculture and Biology, Faisalabad, Pakistan.
NIAB-C, Pakistan Institute of Engineering and Applied Science Nilore, Islamabad, Pakistan.

Amjad Hameed (A)

Plant Breeding and Genetics Division, Nuclear Institute for Agriculture and Biology, Faisalabad, Pakistan.
NIAB-C, Pakistan Institute of Engineering and Applied Science Nilore, Islamabad, Pakistan.

Muhammad Akhtar (M)

NIAB-C, Pakistan Institute of Engineering and Applied Science Nilore, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Soil and Environmental Sciences Division, Nuclear Institute for Agriculture and Biology, Faisalabad, Pakistan.

Allah Ditta (A)

Plant Breeding and Genetics Division, Nuclear Institute for Agriculture and Biology, Faisalabad, Pakistan.
NIAB-C, Pakistan Institute of Engineering and Applied Science Nilore, Islamabad, Pakistan.

Hafiz Mumtaz Hassan (HM)

Plant Breeding and Genetics Division, Nuclear Institute for Agriculture and Biology, Faisalabad, Pakistan.
NIAB-C, Pakistan Institute of Engineering and Applied Science Nilore, Islamabad, Pakistan.

Ghulam Farid (G)

Soil and Environmental Sciences Division, Nuclear Institute for Agriculture and Biology, Faisalabad, Pakistan.

Classifications MeSH