| Literature DB >> 35845681 |
Tanzeela Rehman1, Bushra Tabassum1, Samina Yousaf2, Ghulam Sarwar3, Uzma Qaisar1.
Abstract
Survival of living organisms depends on the availability of water resources required for agriculture. In the current scenario of limited water resources, it is our priority to maximise the yield potential of crops with a minimum supply of available water. In this study, we evaluated seven cultivated varieties of Gossypium hirsutum (FH-114, FH-152, FH-326, FH-492, FH-942, VH-327 and FH-NOOR) for their tolerance, yield potential and fibre quality under water shortages. We also studied the effect of drought stress on osmoregulation, chlorophyll content, antioxidant (peroxidase and catalase) activity, lipid peroxidation and secondary metabolite accumulation in the varieties under study. It was revealed that three varieties (FH-114, FH-152 and VH-327) exhibited a lower stress susceptibility index and more tolerance to drought stress. All the varieties demonstrated enhanced proline and malondialdehyde content, but no significant change in chlorophyll content was observed under limited water supply. Antioxidant activity offered by catalase and phenolic content was enhanced in FH-492 whilst peroxidase activity increased in FH-114 and FH-326. Phenolic content was highest in FH-942 and decreased significantly in the remaining varieties. Ginning outturn of the cotton varieties increased in VH-327 (19.8%) and FH-326 (3.7%), was not affected in FH-114 and FH-492 and was reduced in FH-152, FH-942 and FH-NOOR. All cotton varieties tested showed an increase in micronaire thickness when exposed to drought stress as early as the seedling stage. This study highlights the evaluation and screening of cotton varieties for their response to drought stress in terms of yield and fibre quality when exposed to water shortages during plant development and can help in devising irrigation plans.Entities:
Keywords: Gossypium hirsutum; antioxidants; drought stress; fibre quality; stress susceptibility index; yield potential
Year: 2022 PMID: 35845681 PMCID: PMC9280337 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2022.906444
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 6.627
Figure 1Effect of water scarcity on the phenomics of seven cultivated varieties of Gossypium hirsutum. The shown plant is the representative of all replicates.
Figure 2Effect of drought stress on the shoot length of cultivated varieties of Gossypium hirsutum. Bar heights represent the average of replicated values and error bars represent standard deviation (A), sorting of cotton varieties on the basis of stress susceptibility index (B).
Stress susceptibility indices for shoot length (SL) under water limited conditions in comparison with irrigated control.
| Varieties | SL of irrigated plant (cm ± SD) | SL of drought stressed plant (cm ± SD) | Decrease in SL (%) | SI | SSI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FH-114 | 54.667 (±3.786) | 36.33 (±0.577) | 33.543 | 0.468 | 0.716 |
| FH-152 | 75.667 (±4.509) | 43.33 (±0.557) | 42.73 | 0.913 | |
| FH-326 | 84.33 (±3.055) | 34.33 (±3.512) | 59.29 | 1.266 | |
| FH-492 | 62.33 (±1.155) | 31.33 (±4.509) | 49.73 | 1.062 | |
| FH-942 | 84.33 (±1.528) | 42.22 (±4.041) | 49.93 | 1.067 | |
| VH-327 | 67.33 (±1.528) | 40.33 (±2.309) | 40.145 | 0.856 | |
| FH-NOOR | 58.00 (±1.00) | 30.66 (±3.05) | 47.137 | 1.007 |
SL, Shoot length; SD, Standard Deviation; SI, Stress index; SSI, Stress susceptibility index.
Figure 3Stress susceptibility index of cultivated varieties of Gossypium hirsutum on exposure to drought.
Figure 4Effect of drought on metabolites of cultivated varieties of Gossypium hirsutum. Proline content (A), malondialdehyde content, MDA (B), catalase activity (C), peroxidase activity (D) and total phenolic content (E). Values were means ± SE of biological replicates (n = 3) while letters on bars indicate Tukey HSD comparison. Similar letters indicate no significant difference while non-similar letters indicate significant differences with 95% confidence level.
Figure 5Dendrogram representing the clustering (A) and Biplot showing contribution (B) of various physiological parameters in drought response.
Principal component analysis of biochemical modulations in cotton under drought stress.
| F1 | F2 | F3 | F4 | F5 | F6 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eigenvalue | 2.776 | 1.481 | 1.004 | 0.469 | 0.208 | 0.061 |
| Variability (%) | 46.269 | 24.689 | 16.732 | 7.822 | 3.474 | 1.013 |
| Cumulative (%) | 46.269 | 70.958 | 87.690 | 95.513 | 98.987 | 100.000 |
Contribution of biochemical variables (%) in principal components under drought conditions.
| F1 | F2 | F3 | F4 | F5 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chlorophyll | 18.241 | 25.670 | 1.308 | 6.666 | 26.867 |
| Proline content | 33.261 | 0.000 | 0.917 | 6.354 | 1.000 |
| MDA content | 14.266 | 24.350 | 0.718 | 42.979 | 15.962 |
| Peroxidase activity | 14.170 | 5.195 | 41.445 | 12.244 | 26.905 |
| Phenolic content | 5.006 | 16.415 | 54.623 | 8.272 | 14.311 |
| Catalase activity | 15.056 | 28.370 | 0.990 | 23.486 | 14.955 |
Consequences of drought stress on the yield parameters on cultivated varieties of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum).
| Varieties | Bolls/Plant (no.) | Avg Boll weight (g) | GOT (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Irrigated | Stressed | Irrigated | Stressed | Irrigated | Stressed | |
| FH-114 | 35.0 ± 1.50 | 20.00 ± 0.5 | 3.60 ± 0.18 | 3.30 ± 0.3 | 38.03 ± 0.45 | 37.60 ± 0.36 |
| FH-152 | 18 ± 1.00 | 31.00 ± 0.5 | 4.87 ± 0.06 | 4.53 ± 0.25 | 44.91 ± 0.16 | 42.45 ± 0.22 |
| FH-326 | 25.00 ± 0.66 | 7.00 ± 0.2 | 3.83 ± 0.21 | 4.07 ± 0.06 | 38.35 ± 0.74 | 39.78 ± 0.8 |
| FH-492 | 13.00 ± 0.10 | 16.00 ± 0.8 | 3.00 ± 0.1 | 3.80 ± 0.1 | 43.32 ± 0.17 | 42.87 ± 0.64 |
| FH-942 | 28.00 ± 0.20 | 9.00 ± 0.25 | 4.20 ± 0.1 | 4.07 ± 0.06 | 43.05 ± 0.37 | 41.50 ± 0.44 |
| VH-327 | 17.00 ± 0.43 | 28.00 ± 0.89 | 3.90 ± 0.05 | 3.57 ± 0.21 | 35.57 ± 0.55 | 43.17 ± 0.47 |
| FH-NOOR | 20 ± 0.50 | 21.00 ± 0.25 | 3.73 ± 0.21 | 4.07 ± 0.06 | 44.67 ± 1 | 38.25 ± 0.51 |
Consequences of drought stress on the fibre quality parameters of cultivated varieties of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum).
| Varieties | Micronaire (μg/in) | UHML (mm) | Breaking strength (g/tex) | Uniformity index (%) | Short fibre (%) | Fibre elongation (%) | Fibre maturity (%) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Irrigated | Stressed | Irrigated | Stressed | Irrigated | Stressed | Irrigated | Stressed | Irrigated | Stressed | Irrigated | Stressed | Irrigated | Stressed | |
| FH-114 | 3.88 ± 0.1 | 4.34 ± 0.1 | 27.48 ± 0.45 | 30.40 ± 0.87 | 26.87 ± 0.81 | 31.80 ± 0.1 | 83.92 ± 0.52 | 84.92 ± 0.08 | 6.70 ± 0.1 | 7.43 ± 0.15 | 5.73 ± 0.15 | 4.13 ± 0.15 | 87.00 ± 0.50 | 87.03 ± 1.55 |
| FH-152 | 3.68 ± 1 | 3.83 ± 0.05 | 26.85 ± 0.36 | 29.97 ± 0.16 | 28.83 ± 0.06 | 32.92 ± 0.03 | 84.84 ± 0.42 | 85.90 ± 0.05 | 5.80 ± 0.1 | 6.13 ± 0.15 | 3.88 ± 0.1 | 4.40 ± 0.36 | 86 ± 1 | 86.04 ± 0.06 |
| FH-326 | 3.76 ± 0.2 | 4.15 ± 0.13 | 27.48 ± 0.19 | 29.08 ± 0.51 | 28.60 ± 0.3 | 29.55 ± 0.58 | 84.45 ± 0.74 | 83.67 ± 0.95 | 7.53 ± 0.15 | 7.05 ± 0.4 | 4.68 ± 0.25 | 6.60 ± 0.35 | 86.04 ± 0.06 | 85.97 ± 1.12 |
| FH-492 | 3.81 ± 0.1 | 4.19 ± 0.19 | 28.38 ± 0.06 | 29.42 ± 0.09 | 26.60 ± 0.26 | 31.30 ± 0.95 | 84.55 ± 0.56 | 85.90 ± 0.53 | 7.20 ± 0.2 | 6.07 ± 0.21 | 3.83 ± 0.15 | 5.20 ± 0.1 | 87.03 ± 1.55 | 85.97 ± 1.46 |
| FH-942 | 4.42 ± 0.2 | 4.50 ± 0.20 | 26.33 ± 0.14 | 27.97 ± 0.06 | 26.33 ± 0.21 | 31.87 ± 0.72 | 82.83 ± 0.06 | 84.37 ± 0.06 | 7.78 ± 0.11 | 6.10 ± 0.36 | 5.37 ± 0.21 | 7.23 ± 0.21 | 87.03 ± 1.5 | 86.03 ± 0.15 |
| VH-327 | 3.96 ± 0.02 | 4.50 ± 0.2 | 29.08 ± 0.51 | 25.63 ± 0.47 | 30.27 ± 0.15 | 33.19 ± 0.78 | 84.55 ± 0.56 | 84.33 ± 0.15 | 7.20 ± 0.2 | 7.70 ± 0.1 | 3.83 ± 0.15 | 5.60 ± 0.44 | 87.03 ± 1.55 | 86.97 ± 0.55 |
| FH-NOOR | 3.67 ± 0.25 | 4.50 ± 0.20 | 28.57 ± 0.31 | 29.08 ± 0.51 | 30.73 ± 0.31 | 33.19 ± 0.78 | 83.57 ± 0.59 | 85.30 ± 0.87 | 7.57 ± 0.21 | 4.90 ± 0.1 | 6.20 ± 0.21 | 5.07 ± 0.15 | 85.00 ± 1 | 87.95 ± 0.07 |
Figure 6Principal component analysis (A) and dendrogram (B) of fibre quality parameters of cultivated varieties of Gossypium hirsutum.