J. Agric. Res. 2019, 57(3)

Morpho-physiological screening of BT cotton genotypes for water stress

145

J Agric. Res., 2019, Vol. 57(3):145-157www.jar.com.pkAgriculture DepartmentGovernment of Punjab

MORPHO-PHYSIOLOGICAL SCREENING OF NEWLY BRED BT COTTON GENOTYPES FOR WATER STRESS TOLERANCE

Sohail Kamaran, * 1 Tariq Manzoor Khan 2, Ali Bakhsh 3, Nisar Hussain 4, Abdul Manan 5, Raees Abbas 6 and Mujahid Iqbal 7

PLANT BREEDING AND GENETICS

ABSTRACTThis study was conducted at University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Paksitan during the year 2018 to screen out 30 newly developed Bt cotton genotypes for water stress tolerance. Experiment was conducted in polythene bags under greenhouse conditions with two moisture levels i.e control (100% FC) and water shortage (50% FC) to screen out these genotypes on the basis of morpho-physiological parameters. Results depicted highly genotypic differences for each parameter for both treatments i.e. control (100%FC) and water stress (50%FC) conditions. Stress influenced all the genotypes for each parameter. However CIM-600, FH-114, CIM-602, CIM-606, IUB-222, MNH-456, FH-113 and MNH-142 demonstrated better performance under stressed conditions. It is finally recommended that these lines could be utilized as tolerant parent in the development of tolerant to water stress cultivars.

KEYWORDS: Gossypium hirsutum; water stress; cellular injury; tolerant; Pakistan.

1, 3 Assistant Professor, Department of Plant Breeding and Genetics, Ghazi University, Dera Ghazi Khan, 2 Associate Professor, Department of Plant Breeding and Genetics, University of Agric, Faisalabad,4 Assistant Professor, Department of Agriculture Extension, Ghazi University, Dera Ghazi Khan,5 Assistant Professor, Department of Horticulture, Ghazi University, Dera Ghazi Khan, 6 Assistant Professor, Department of Agric. Extension and Rural Development, University of Sargodha, Sargodha, 7 B.Sc. (Hons.) Student, Department of Soil and Environmental Science, Ghazi University, Dera Ghazi Khan, Pakistan.

*Corresponding author email: skamran@gudgk.edu.pk

Article received on:13/12/2018Accepted for publication:14/10/2019

INTRODUCTIONCotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) is a valuable commodity that provides raw material to the textile sector. It is cultivated in a very diverse range of environment all over the world. Cotton production is negatively affected by almost all the abiotic stresses and most importantly water shortage. In this way, it is a big task for cotton breeders to screen and select cotton lines that can adapt to restricting water environments without reducing yield and could be used as potential parents in drought tolerant breeding program.Understanding plant response to drought stress is a primary step for breeding cultivars with enhanced tolerance against water stress (Pace et al., 1999; Joshi et al., 2016). Cotton has reasonable amount of variability hence, improvement is possible (Saeed et al., 2011; Baloch et al., 2011; Riaz et al., 2013). Physiological traits like relative water content, excised leaf water loss and cell membrane stability have positive linkage with bolls per plant, boll weight and seed cotton yield. So these traits could be used for screening cotton germplasm against water deficit stress (Saleem et al., 2015). Stomatal conductance is reduced due to accelerated biosynthesis of abscisic acid (ABA) to minimize transpirational water losses (Giday et al., 2014).

Plants that have evolved some mechanisms to avoid water stress are better adapted to stressful condition. The mechanisms include closing of stomata to reduce water losses and maintains water uptake through deep rooting system (Turner et al., 2001; Feki and Brini, 2016). During dehydration stress or soil drying, root penetrates deeper to extract water that contributes to biomass production and economic yield (Subbarao et al., 2000; Turner et al., 2001). A deep and dense root system extracts more water from far-reaching depths (Aslam et al., 2015), and cuticle on epidermis of leaves helps to maintain high tissue water and hence called drought avoidance trait under water stressed environment (Gollan et al., 1986; Turner, 1986; Ludlow and Muchow, 1990). Water stress causes water loss from plant tissues which seriously impairs membrane structure and function (Almeselmani, 2012). Cell membrane is the first target of plant stresses (Conde et al., 2011) and the ability of plants to maintain membrane integrity under drought is what determines tolerance towards drought (Karim and Rahman, 2015). Relative water content (RWC) of leaves has been reported as direct indicator of plant water contents under water deficit conditions (Lugojan and Ciulca, 2011). Wang et al. (2007) reported that the rate of transpiration decreased

J. Agric. Res. 2019, 57(3)

S. Kamaran et al.

146

due to deficiency of sufficient moisture while the leaf temperature increased under drought stress conditions. Although relative water content reduces under water stress conditions but relatively, tolerant genotypes show less reduction so, plant germplasm could be screened for drought tolerance through relative water content comparison under normal and water deficit (Golabadi et al., 2006) conditions.Previous literature showed that species adapted to dry environments lose less water from cuticular layer under stress conditions (Clarke and McCaig, 1982). So, excised leaf water loss could be used as selection standard of water deficit tolerant and susceptible genotypes (Liu et al., 2015). Rana et al. (2013) found that reduced excised leaf water loss and water retention had significant correlation with grain yield in wheat (Hasheminasab et al., 2014). Munjal and Dhanda (2005) screened 30 wheat genotypes on the basis of excised leaf water loss (ELWL) under two watering regimes (stressed and normal watering conditions) and found that tolerant genotypes displayed low ELWL values. Literature also suggested that genotypes show variable response to excised leaf water loss due to genotypic variability among the germplasm hence, can be used for screening the genotypes for water deficit tolerance (Clark and McCaig, 1982; Araghi and Assad 1998; Dhanda and Sethi 2002).Physiological and biochemical parameters help plants to cope with stress conditions. Proline is an important compatible solute that most of the plants accumulate to lower osmotic potential thereby maintaining cell turgor (Ajithkumar and Panneerselvam, 2013). Plants tend to accumulate proline to avoid cell injury and membrane leakage when exposed to stress (Anjum et al., 2011 literature showed that proline has a vital role in cell signaling to modulate mitochondrial functions and plant recovery from stress (Szabados and Savoure´, 2010). Tolerant plants grown under water stressed conditions, accumulate higher concentrations of proline than sensitive plants. It also preserves the quaternary structure of complex proteins, increases membrane stability and lipid membranes oxidation or photo-inhibition under water stress (Horváth et al., 2007; Hossain et al., 2014). Pakistan is a developing country and its economy is dependent on agriculture. But present scenarios of rising population and global climate change are drawing very bad picture. Cotton is grown in dry areas where its production has deep effect on the water supply systems of the country. Evidently, to deliver 1 kg of cotton it takes between 7000–29,000 L of water and 0.3 to 1 kg of oil (Vats et al., 2016)). It is computed that it can take 2700 L of water to produce

the cotton expected to make a T-shirt and a pant (Vats and Rissanen, 2016). Pakistan is moving from water abundant to water scarce country. Recently a disastrous decline of 9.6 % (11.69 MAF) is expected to reach up to 30 MAF by the year 2025 (GOP, 2016-17). Water resources of the country are declining but demand for water is increasing due to the present scenario of global warming causing shortfall in precipitation (meteorological drought) whereas evapotranspirational water losses have increased that is leading towards agricultural drought (Mishra et al., 2010). Agricultural drought will put normal plant growth and development under danger (Manivannan et al., 2008; IPCC 2014). So, it is needed to develop tolerant varieties that can cope with drought conditions with no or minimum loss of yield and quality. Present study was targeted to screen out cotton germplasm for breeding against drought stress.

MATERIALS AND METHODSThis study was conducted at University of Agriculture, Faisalabad during the year 2018. Thirty genotypes/cultivars of upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) were taken from the germplasm available at both public and private agricultural research institutes of Pakistan (Table 1) to select the tolerant and susceptible parents for crossing. Experiment was carried out under greenhouse conditions to reduce the chance of error. Temperature in greenhouse was maintained at 29±2°C at day and 24±2°C at night with relative humidity approximately 44-49% and a photoperiod of 14 hours. Experiment was conducted in polythene bags (size 16.25 ×21.25 cm) containing 1kg soil, peat and sand (1:1:1) having 72% water holding capacity, 8.1 pH and 0.12-017 dSm-1 ECe. Field capacity of bags was calculated on weight basis by following formulae

Saturated soil weight-Dry soil weightField capacity (F.C) = ——————————————————

Saturated soil weight

Experimental material was separated into two sets i.e. control (100% of FC) and water stressed (50% of FC). Each genotype was replicated three times in each group making a sample size of 90 bags in each set. In each bag, four seeds were sown by chocka method and after germination; seedlings were thinned to one plant per bag. Initially, plants in both sets were treated normal until first true leaf and thereafter, seedlings under normal condition were watered daily to keep the soil at field capacity while stressed plants were monitored and watered at wilting. Effect of drought

J. Agric. Res. 2019, 57(3)

Morpho-physiological screening of BT cotton genotypes for water stress

147

was monitored visually and with soil moisture meter (HH2 Theta Probe Type, Delta-T device, Cambridge, England).After 60 days data were recorded for morho-physiological traits. Stomatal conductance was measured by using IRGA (Infrared gas analyzer) and Li- Cor LI- 6000 portable photosynthesis system was used for transpiration rate. Clark and Townley-Smith (1986) procedure was used to estimate relative water content as under:-

Fresh weight – Dry weightRelative water content (%) = ———————————————

Turgid weight – Dry weight

Excised leaf water loss was measured by Clarke and McCaig (1982) procedure. Formulae is given as Fresh weight –Wilted weight

Excised leaf water loss (%) = —————————————— Dry weight

Cellular membrane stability was calculated by Blum and Ebercon, 1981 procedure by using the following formula:

CMS%= [{1-(T1/T2)]/ [1-(C1/C2)}] x100

Amount of free proline was calculated in (m mol g-) by using the following formula:

[(mg proline / ml × ml toluene)] mmoles proline/g fresh weight = —————————————————

[(115.5 mg / mmole)] / [(g sample /5)

Analysis of variance (Steel et al., 1997) was performed and traits showing significant mean squares were used in graphical presentation.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Root length (cm): Performance of cotton genotypes for root length presented CIM-602 at the top under normal conditions of water supply as well as water deficit and BH-184 at the bottom under normal irrigating conditions (Fig.1). MNH-988 showed smallest root length among all genotypes thus showing its sensitivity to drought stress (Fig.1). Higher root length (cm) was found for CIM-602 (51.57±1.12) followed by CIM-606 (49.33±9.58), IUB-222 (49.31±4.35), FH-114 (48.91±4.13) and FH-142 (48.00±2.94) while lower for BH-184 (30.17±0.68), MNH-988 (30.88±4.22), AGC-777 (31.00±4.19) and BH-178 (31.33±4.21) under normal conditions. Under stressed conditions, genotypes CIM-602 (48.60±4.96), FH-114 (45.37±3.19), IUB-222 (45.13±3.73) followed by MNH-456 (44.47±7.57) got maximum root length while genotypes MNH-998 (23.13±4.93), NIBGE-3 (27.07±1.97) and TARZAN-1 (29.16±1.6) got minimum root length.

Shoot length (cm): The genotype FH-114 got maximum shoot length (cm) under both water regimes i.e. normal and water deficit while lower shoot length was achieved by AGC-777 under normal conditions of water supply and TARZAN-1 under drought conditions (Fig. 2). Higher shoot length was found for FH-114 (29.00±4.67) followed by IUB-13 (28.42±0.15), BH-178 (28.32±3.62), BH-180 (27.61±0.69) and CIM-602 (27.44±3.56) while lower for AGC-777 (18.09±2.85), VH-301 (19.66±2.66), NIAB-824 (20.01±1.66) and CIM-606 (20.31±3.02) under normal conditions. Under drought conditions FH-114 (28.13±5.11), IUB-13 (26.88±0.15) showed maximum shoot length followed by BH-180 (26.57±0.78) while TARZAN-1 (16.23±0.92), AGC-777 (17.34±1.79) and VH-301 (17.90±1.61) showed smaller shoot length under water deficit conditions.

Table 1. Germplasm used for screening against drought stress Sr. No Genotype Origin Sr. No Genotype Origin1 FH-113 AARI, Faisalabad 16 TARZAN-1 4B, Pvt. Ltd2 FH-114 AARI, Faisalabad 17 IUB-222 IUB, Bahawalpur3 BH-178 RARI, Bahawalpur 18 KZ-181 Kanzoo Pvt. Ltd4 FH-118 AARI, Faisalabad 19 LEADER-1 Suncrop Pvt. Ltd5 MNH-886 CRS, Multan 20 AGC-777 Allah Din Pvt. Ltd6 CIM-598 CCRI, Multan 21 MM-58 MMRI, Sahiwal7 CIM-600 CCRI, Multan 22 A-555 Allah Din Pvt. Ltd8 CIM-606 CCRI, Multan 23 NIAB-824 NIAB, Fsd9 BH-184 Bahawalpur 24 NIBGE-901 NIBGE, Fsd10 FH-142 AARI, Faisalabad 25 NIBGE-3 NIBGE, Fsd11 LALAZAR AARI, Faisalabad 26 MNH-988 CRS, Multan12 CIM-602 CCRI, Multan 27 IUB-13 IUB,Bahawalpur13 VH-259 ARI, Vehari 28 BH-180 CRS, Bahawalpur14 CEMB-33 CEMB, Lahore 29 MNH-456 CRS, Multan15 BS-52 RARI Bahawalpur 30 VH-301 ARI, Vehari

J. Agric. Res. 2019, 57(3)

S. Kamaran et al.

148

Fresh root weight (g): Genotype CIM-602 showed maximum fresh root weight (g) (0.52±0.05) followed by LALAZAR (0.47±0.01), VH-259 (0.47±0.04), IUB-222 (0.47±0.03), FH-114 (0.47±0.025) and MNH-456 (0.46±0.01) while minimum weight was gained by BH-178 (0.26±0.09), AGC-777 (0.29±0.06) and NIBGE-3 (0.33±0.005) (Fig. 3) values under normal irrigated conditions. On the other hand, CIM-602 (0.59±0.12), MNH-456 (0.48±0.13), IUB-222 (0.46±0.03) and FH-114 (0.44±0.03) gained maximum root fresh weight under water deficit conditions representing fitness under water shortage while BH-178 (0.21±0.05) and TARZAN-1 (0.24±0.02) achieved minimum fresh root weight. Dry root weight (g): Mean performance of genotypes for root dry weight (g) showed that MNH-456 (0.08±0.02), MNH-886 (0.08±0.05), VH-259 (0.08±1.2), IUB-222 (0.080.05) and FH-114 (0.08±0.21) topped the list while AGC-777 and BH-178 were at the bottom

with least value (0.04±0.002) for root dry weights under normal supply of water (Fig. 4). On the other hand, under drought conditions, FH-114, CIM-602 and FH-142 showed maximum dry root weight gain (0.08±0.002) and BH-178 gained least value of dry root weight (0.03±0.03).

Fresh shoot weight (g): Maximum value (1.95±0.01) for fresh shoot weight was gained by FH-113 followed by FH-114 (1.94±0.1) and MNH-456 (1.92±0.12) under normal water conditions while A-555 gained minimum fresh shoot weight (1.15±0.11) (Fig. 5). When drought was imposed similar behavior was shown by genotypes FH-114, FH-113 and MNH-456 keeping them at the top, while two genotypes A-555 and CIM-598 showed minimum shoot fresh weights. Dry shoot weight under the normal irrigated conditions showed that FH-114, CIM-602 and MNH-456 gained maximum weight while AGC-777 and CIM-598 showed minimum.

J. Agric. Res. 2019, 57(3)

Morpho-physiological screening of BT cotton genotypes for water stress

149

Dry shoot weight (g): FH-114, CIM-602 and MNH-456 gained maximum dry shoot weight and A-555 gained minimum value of dry weight (0.13±0.13) under water-deficit environments (Fig. 6).

Relative water content (%): Highest values of relative water content under normal conditions were observed in CIM- 602 (73.98±2.535), FH-114 (72.04±7.275), VH-259 (71.21±12.655), FH-113 (69.83±2.46) and IUB-222 (69.01±7.83) while lowest value was found in A-555 (50.81±2.95), TARZAN-1 (45.9±1.39), AGC-777 (44.91±6.715) and BS-52 (43.12±3.985). Under water limiting environments drought, highest water content was maintained by CIM-602 (69.43±1.66) and lowest by

TARZAN-1 with a value of (35.18±2.36) (Fig. 7).

Membrane stability (%): Highest values of membrane stability( % ) under normal irrigation regime was observed in VH-301 (91.38±6.99) followed by FH-114 (85.21±3.085), BH-178 (81.03±1.065), MNH-886 (79.1±4.39), CIM-598 (73.54±6.055) and CIM-602 (73.51±2.815) while lowest value was found in VH-301 (47.98±2.34) and MNH-456 (51.02±3.54). Under deficit irrigation, highest value of membrane stability was observed in VH-301 (97.53±3.13), FH-114 (91.04±4.78), MNH-988 (87.37±12.89), LEADER-1 (84.71±21.26), MM-58 (83.05±12.89) and A-555 (81.23±2.98) and lowest in TARZAN-1 (51.04±3.67) (Fig. 8).

J. Agric. Res. 2019, 57(3)

S. Kamaran et al.

150

Transportation rate: Under normal irrigating conditions, highest transpiration rate was seen in CIM- 602 (11±6.28), BS-52 (11±6.19), FH-114 (10.55±0.375), IR-3 (10.03±0.095), CIM-600 (10.02±0.24), IUB-222 (10.02±0.212), FH-118 (10.01±0.185) and CIM-598 (9.87±6.04) while lowest value of transpiration was observed in LEADER-1 (8±0.82) (Fig. 9). FH-113 (8.01±6.29) and BH-184 (8.41±0.295). Under water stress conditions, lowest transpiration rate was found in FH-114 (11.05±0.245), CIM-602 (12.03±0.83), IR-901 (12.03±0.38), VH-259 (12.07±0.01), TARZAN-1 (12.09±0.55) and LALAZAR (12.18±0.015) while FH-113 (13.29±0.555), BS-52 (13.19±0.435), BH-178 (13.08±0.445), CIM-606 (13.08±0.325) and A-555 (13.08±0.435) (Fig. 9) showed highest rate of transpiration.

Proline content: Highest amount of proline was accumulated in FH-113 (298.31±3.55) followed by CIM-602 (296.36±17.65), FH-142 (296.36±33.85), MNH-886 (291.12±28.03) and NIAB-824 (271.12±15.03) while the genotypes FH-114 (222.01±5.89), BH-180 (221.22±0.395), BS-52 (221.06±2.35), CEMB-33 (216.36±24.38) and VH-301 (210.23±9.885) showed lowest values of proline content under normal conditions (Fig. 10). Under water stress conditions, high proline content was observed in FH-114 (531.01±23.075) followed by FH-113 (503.88±13.565), CIM-602 (499.88±4.435), BH-184 (498.44±4.28) and CIM-606 (493.33±3.715) (Fig. 10). Genotypes VH-301 (403.91±20.045), TARZAN-1 (287.51±15.215) and BS-52 (377.46±38.28) contained lowest proline contents under stressed conditions.

Stomatal condictance: Stomatal conductance under normal was found higher in genotype BH-180 (85.4±4.173) followed by IUB-13 (85±0.2), LALAZAR (79±3.125), IR-NIBGE-901 (78.51±1.89), NIAB-824 (77.12±0.695) and A-555 (77.12±1.5) while lowest value was displayed by IUB-222 (49.71±6.145) and VH-301 (51±2.65) Fig. 11. Under water limited conditions, lowest stomatal conductance was found in CEMB-33 (39.25±1.25), CIM-606 (41.21±8.145), IUB-222 (41.75±6.73) and FH-142 (42.71±6.27) while the genotypes that showed maximum value of stomatal conductance were FH-114 (67.79±12.27), BH-180 (66.47±0.67), FH-113 (63.56±0.655) and IR-NIBGE-901 (253.25±4.86) (Fig. 11).

Excised leaf water loss: The genotypes that showed highest value of excised leaf water loss under normal conditions was MNH-988 (3.24±0.96) followed by CEMB-33 (2.9±9.83), TARZAN-1 (2.39±0.475), BH-184 (1.98±0.375), KZ-181 (1.89±0.24), LEADER-1 (1.71±0.01), NIAB-824 (1.69±0.165), BH-180 (1.51±0.085), BS-52 (1.44±0.73), IR-3 (1.43±0.905) and A-555 (1.41±0.085) against lowest excised leaf water loss in FH-118 (1.01±0.135) (Fig. 12). Under water stress, MNH-988 (3.07±0.93), CEMB-33 (2.41±0.55), FH-118 (2.31±0.295) and TARZAN-1 (2.14±0.53) showed highest while lowest value was shown by AGC-777 (1.08±0.315), BS-52 (1.08±0.665), IR-901 (1.09 ± 0.43), FH-114 (1.13±0.06), IR-3 (1.21±0.93) and CIM-602 (1.22±0.03).

J. Agric. Res. 2019, 57(3)

Morpho-physiological screening of BT cotton genotypes for water stress

151

J. Agric. Res. 2019, 57(3)

S. Kamaran et al.

152

J. Agric. Res. 2019, 57(3)

Morpho-physiological screening of BT cotton genotypes for water stress

153

In Pakistan, average yield of cotton is low compared to other cotton producing countries because of huge difference between the potential yield and actual yield. These yield differences are due to different factors. Of these water shortage is critical factor. Cotton production showed a decline during the last two years. So, it is imperative to breed cotton having tolerance against water stress and for this purpose, existence of variability in the genotypes is the prerequisite to start a breeding program (Therthappa, 2005; Ahmad et al., 2007).

Water stress tolerance can’t be credited to a genotype, because of its superiority for a single trait. Due to the complex nature of abiotic stresses a genotype is said to be associated with stress tolerance if it shows lesser growth and yield losses, therefore different parameters were examined. Previously, researchers screened crop plants for water stress tolerance on the basis of transpiration rates (Quisenberry et al., 1982; Kumar and Singh, 1998), turgor pressure maintenance (Quisenberry et al., 1982), osmotic adjustment of leaf and root (Nepomuceno et al., 1998), stomatal conductance and photosynthesis (Nepomuceno et al., 1998; Ashraf and Harris, 2013), biomass accumulation (Quisenberry et al., 1982), cell membrane stability (Blum and Ebercon, 1981), excised leaf water loss (Quisenberry et al., 1982) root growth and root-to-shoot ratio (Quisenberry et al., 1981; McMichael and Quisenberry, 1991; Araujo et al., 2005). All the genotypes showed different level of membrane leakage due to drought stress, so, it could be used as a standard for screening crop plants against drought stress (Moussa and Aziz, 2008; Azhar et al., 2011). Khan et al. (2009) isolated tolerant and susceptible cotton genotypes on the basis of relative cell injury and cellular membrane leakage. Cellular membrane stability aids to continue normal plant growth and development through normal cellular processes under water limiting environments. Azhar et al. (2008) separated tolerant and sensitive cotton genotypes on the basis of cell membrane integrity under water-deficit stress. To make the study more reliable morpho-physiological characters should be exploited to screen and develop drought tolerant cotton cultivars. Tolerant genotypes developed longer roots to get water from drying soil while sensitive genotypes were unable to get water because of smaller roots. So, long rooting trait may be used as a selectioncriteria for drought tolerance in cotton (Eissa et al., 1983).

Tolerant genotypes accumulated compatible solutes as drought avoiding strategy to develop longer roots, higher root biomass, maintain higher relative water content and reduced excised leaf water loss. Drought avoider plants gain more root weight and rooting density under moisture stress. Findings revealed that relative water contents decreased under water deficit conditions in susceptible genotypes while tolerant genotypes maintained higher water contents. Relative water content always decreases under drought stress (Zlatev and Lidon, 2012) but drought avoiders maintain higher relative water content compared (Shaw et al., 2002). Many studies have proven relative water content as drought related trait (Harris, 1973; Matin et al., 1989; Shaw et al., 2002). Relative water content had positive association with cellular membrane stability (Ahmad et al., 2009). So, it could be predicted that genes involved in maintaining higher relative water content may also contribute towards cell membrane integrity.Drought tolerant genotypes showed lower excised leaf water loss compared with sensitive genotypes. Previous studies showed that lower excised leaf water loss is due to cuticular thickness and time to stomatal closure that varies from one plant species (Harris, 1973; Matin et al., 1989; Ahmad et al., 2009). So it may be suggested that due to the complex nature of traits, selection of plants should be exercised at different plant growth stages. From these findings it may be predicted that genes that help to maintain relative water content and membrane stability can also contribute in accumulation of proline for osmotic adjustment under drought. Plant breeders may use excised leaf water loss as screening tool for the development of tolerant cotton breeding material. However, apt morphological and physiological characters could be combined to breed cotton tolerant against drought stress conditions and environments without sacrificing yield.

CANCLUSIONThe study concludes that CIM-602, MNH-456, CIM-606, IUB-222, FH-114, FH-113, CIM-600, and MNH-142 proved as drought tolerant genotypes. So, these could be used in cotton breeding against drought stress as tolerant parents. Further, it revealed that accumulation of osmolytes, increased stomatal and cuticular resistance, changes in leaf area, leaf angle and anatomy are some of the avoidance mechanisms in cotton plant.

J. Agric. Res. 2019, 57(3)

S. Kamaran et al.

154

REFERENCESAhmad, N., I. Munir, I. Khan, W. Ali, W. Muhammad, R

Habib, R. Khan and Z. Swati. 2007. PCR-based genetic diversity of rapeseed germplasm using RAPD markers. Biotechnol. 6(3): 334-338.

Ahmad, R.T., T.A. Malik, I.A. Khan and M.J. Jaskani. 2009. Genetic analysis of some morpho-physiological traits related to drought stress in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Int. J. Agric. Biol. 11(4): 235-240.

Ajithkumar, I.P. and R. Panneerselvam. 2013. Osmolyte accumulation, photosynthetic pigment and growth of Setaria italica (L.) P. Beauv. Under drought stress. Asian Pacific J. Reprod. 2(3): 220-224.

Almeselmani, M. 2012. Physiological parameters for evaluating drought tolerance in durum wheat varieties grown in the fields in Syria. J. Biol. Today’s World. 1(2): 53-63.

Anjum, S.A., X.Y. Xie, L.C. Wang, M.F. Saleem, C. Man and W. Lei. 2011. Morphological, physiological and biochemical responses of plants to drought stress. Afri. J. Agric. Res. 6(9): 2026-2032.

Araghi, G. S. and M.T. Assad. 1998. Evaluation of four screening techniques for drought resistance and their relationship to yield reduction ratio in wheat. Euphytica. 103(3): 293-299.

Araujo, A.P., I.F. Antunes and M.G. Teixeira. 2005. Inheritance of root traits and phosphorus uptake in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) under limited soil phosphorus supply. Euphytica. 145: 33-40.

Ashraf, M. and P.J.C. Harris. 2013. Photosynthesis under stressful environments: an overview. Photosynthetica. 51(2): 163-190.

Aslam, M., M.A. Maqbool and R. Cengiz. 2015. Mechanisms of Drought Resistance. In Drought Stress in Maize (Zea mays L.). Springer International Publishing. p. 19-36.

Azhar, F.M., Z. Ali, M.M. Akhtar, A.A. Khan and R. Trethowan. 2008. Genetic variability of heat tolerance, and its effect on yield and fiber quality traits in upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Plant Breed. Vol. 1-7.

Azhar, N., B. Hussain, M.Y. Ashraf, and K.Y. Abbasi. 2011. Water stress mediated changes in growth, physiology and secondary metabolites of desi ajwain (Trachyspermum ammi L.). Pak. J. Bot. 43(1): 15-19.

Baloch, M.J., N.U. Khan, W.A. Jatoi, G. Hassan, A.A. Khakhwani, Z.A. Soomro and N.F. Veesar. 2011.

Drought tolerance studies through WSSI and stomata in upland cotton. Pak. J. Bot. 43(5): 2479-2484.

Benjamin, J.G. and D.C. Nielsen. 2006. Water deficit effects on root distribution of soybean, field pea and chickpea. Field Crops Res. 97(2): 248-253.

Blum, A. and A. Ebercon. 1981. Cell membrane stability as a measure of drought and heat tolerance in wheat. Crop Sci. 21(1): 43-47.

Clarke, J.M. and T.F. Townley-Smith. 1986. Heritability and relationship to yield of excised leaf water retention in durum wheat. Crop Sci. 26: 289-292.

Clarke, J.M. and T.N. McCaig. 1982. Evaluation of techniques for screening for drought resistance in wheat. Crop Sci. 22(3): 503-506.

Clarke, J.M. and T.N. McCaig. 1982. Excised leaf water retention capability as an indicator of drought resistance of Triticum genotypes. Can. J. Plant Sci. 62: 571-578.

Claussen, W. 2005. Proline as a measure of stress in tomato plants. Plant Sci. 168(1): 241-248.

Conde, A., M.M. Chaves and H. Gerós. 2011. Membrane transport, sensing and signaling in plant adaptation to environmental stress. Plant Cell Physiol. 52(9): 1583-1602.

Dhanda, S.S. and G.S. Sethi. 2002. Tolerance to drought stress among selected Indian wheat cultivars. J. Agric. Sci. 139(03): 319-326.

Eissa, A.M., J.N. Jenkins and C.E. Vaughan. 1983. Inheritance of seedling root length and relative root weight in cotton. Crop Sci. 23(6): 107-111.

Feki, K. and F. Brini. 2016. Role of proteins in alleviating drought stress in plants. Water Stress and Crop Plants: A Sustainable Approach. 2: 165.

Giday, H., D. Fanourakis, K.H. Kjaer, I.S. Fomsgaard and C.O. Ottosen. 2014. Threshold response of stomatal closing ability to leaf abscisic acid concentration during growth. J. Exp. Bot. 65(15): 4361-4370.

Golabadi, M., A. Arzani and S.M. Maibody. 2006. Assessment of drought tolerance in segregating populations in durum wheat. Afric. J. Agric. Res. 1(5): 162-171.

Gollan, T., R.A. Richards, H.M. Rawson, J.B. Passioura, D.A. Johnson and R. Munns. 1986. Soil water status affects the stomata1. Function. Plant Biol. 13(4): 459-464.

GoP. 2016-17. Economic Survey of Pakistan, Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan.

Harris, D.G. 1973. Photosynthesis, diffusion resistance

J. Agric. Res. 2019, 57(3)

Morpho-physiological screening of BT cotton genotypes for water stress

155

and relative plant water content of cotton as influenced by induced water stress. Crop Sci. 13(5): 570-572.

Hasheminasab, H., E. Farshadfar and H. Varvani. 2014. Application of physiological traits related to plant water status for predicting yield stability in wheat under drought stress condition. Annual Res. Rev. Biol. 4(5): 778-789.

Horváth, E., G. Szalai and T. Janda. 2007. Induction of abiotic stress tolerance by salicylic acid signaling. J. Plant Growth Reg. 26(3): 290-300.

Hossain, M.A., M.A. Hoque, D.J. Burritt and M. Fujita. 2014. Proline Protects Plants against Abiotic Oxidative Stress: Biochemical and Molecular Mechanisms. Oxidative damage to plants. Elsevier, San Diego, USA. Pp.477-522.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2014. Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability: Regional Aspects. Cambridge University Press.

Iqbal, K., F.M. Azhar, I.A. Khan and E. Ullah. 2011. Assessment of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) germplasm under water stress condition. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 12(2): 251-255.

Joshi, R., S.H. Wani, B. Singh, A. Bohra, Z.A. Dar, A.A. Lone, A. Pareek and S.L. Singla-Pareek. 2016. Transcription Factors and Plants Response to Drought Stress: Current Understanding and Future. Frontiers Plant Sci. Pp7.

Karim, M.R. and M.A. Rahman. 2015. Drought risk management for increased cereal production in Asian least developed countries. Weather Climate Extrem. 7: 24-35.

Khan, A.I., Y.B. Fu and I.A. Khan. 2009. Genetic diversity of Pakistani cotton cultivars as revealed by simple sequence repeat markers. Communications Biom. Crop Sci. 4(1): 21-30.

Kumar, A. and D.P. Singh. 1998. Use of Physiological Indices as a Screening Technique for Drought Tolerance in Oilseed Brassica Species. Annals Bot. 81(3): 413-420.

Lee, J.H., H.H. Kwon, H.W. Jang and T.W. Kim. 2016. Future Changes in Drought Characteristics under Extreme Climate Change over South Korea. Advances in Meteorol.

Liu, Y., X. Zhang, H. Tran, L. Shan, J. Kim, K. Childs, E.H. Ervin, T. Frazier and B. Zhao. 2015. Assessment of drought tolerance of 49 switch grass (Panicum virgatum) genotypes using physiological and morphological parameters. Biotechnol.

Biofuel. 8(1): 152.Ludlow, M.M. and R.C. Muchow. 1990. A critical

evaluation of traits for improving crop yields in water-limited environments. Adv. Agron. 43: 107-153.

Lugojan, C. and S. Ciulca. 2011. Evaluation of relative water content in winter wheat. J. Hort. Forest. Biotechnol. 15(2): 173-177.

Manivannan, P., C.A. Jaleel, R. Somasundaram and R. Panneerselvam. 2008. Osmoregulation and antioxidant metabolism in drought-stressed Helianthus annuus under triadimefon drenching. Comptes Rendus Biologies. 331(6): 418-425.

Matin, M.A., J.H. Brown and H. Ferguson. 1989. Leaf water potential, relative water content, and diffusive resistance as screening techniques for drought resistance in barley. Agron. J. 81(1): 100-105.

Mc Caig, T.N. and I. Romagosa. 1989. Measurement and use of excised-leaf water status in wheat. Crop Sci. 29(5): 1140-1145.

McMichael, B.L. and J.E. Quisenberry. 1991. Genetic variation for root-shoot relationships among cotton germplasm. Environ. Exp. Bot. 31(4): 461-470.

Mishra, V., K.A. Cherkauer and S. Shukla. 2010. Assessment of drought due to historic climate variability and projected future climate change in the midwestern United States. J. Hydrometeorol. 11(1): 46-68.

Moussa, H.R. and S.M. Abdel-Aziz. 2008. Comparative response of drought tolerant and drought sensitive maize genotypes to water stress. Aust. J. Crop Sci. 1(1): 31-36.

Munjal, R. and S.S. Dhanda. 2005. Physiological evaluation of wheat (Triticum aestivum L) genotypes for drought resistance. Indian J. Genet. Plant Breed. 65(4): 307-308.

Nayyar, H. and D.P. Walia. 2003. Water stress induced proline accumulation in contrasting wheat genotypes as affected by calcium and abscisic acid. Biologia Plantarum. 46(2): 275-279.

Nepomuceno, A.L., D.M. Oosterhuis, and J.M. Stewart. 1998. Physiological responses of cotton leaves and roots to water deficit induced by polyethylene glycol. Environ. Exp. Bot. 40(1): 29-41.

Pace, P.F., H.T. Cralle, S.H. El-Halawany, J.T. Cothren and S.A. Senseman. 1999. Drought-induced changes in shoot and root growth of young cotton plants. J. Cotton Sci. 3(4): 183-187.

Pirzad, A., M.R. Shakiba, S. Zehtab-Salmasi, S.A.

J. Agric. Res. 2019, 57(3)

S. Kamaran et al.

156

Mohammadi, R. Darvishzadeh and A. Samadi. 2011. Effect of water stress on leaf relative water content, chlorophyll, proline and soluble carbohydrates in Matricaria chamomilla L. J. Medicinal Plants Res. 5(12): 2483-2488.

Praba, M.L., J.E. Cairns, R.C. Babu and H.R. Lafitte. 2009. Identification of physiological traits underlying cultivar differences in drought tolerance in rice and wheat. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 195(1): 30-46.

Quisenberry, J.E., B. Roark and B.L. McMichael. 1982. Use of transpiration decline curves to identify drought-tolerant cotton germplasm. Crop Sci. 22(5): 918-922.

Quisenberry, J.E., W.R. Jordan, B.A. Roark and D.W. Fryrear. 1981. Exotic cottons as genetic sources for drought resistance. Crop Sci. 21(6): 889-895.

Radin, J.W., L.L. Reaves, J.R. Mauney and O.F. French. 1992. Yield enhancement in cotton by frequent irrigations during fruiting. Agron. J. 84(4): 551-557.

Rana, V., D. Singh, R. Dhiman and H.K. Chaudhary. 2013. Evaluation of drought tolerance among elite Indian bread wheat cultivars. Cereal Res. Communication 42(1): 91-101.

Rhodes, D. and Y. Samaras. 1994. Genetic Control of Osmoregulation in Plants. Cell. Mol. Physiol, Cell. p. 347-361.

Riaz, M., J. Farooq, G. Sakhawat, A. Mahmood, M.A. Sadiq and M. Yaseen. 2013. Genotypic variability for root/shoot parameters under water stress in some advanced lines of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Gene. Mol. Res. 12(1): 552-561.

Saeed, M., W. Guo, I. Ullah, N. Tabbasam, Y. Zafar and T. Zhang. 2011. QTL mapping for physiology, yield and plant architecture traits in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) grown under well-watered versus water-stress conditions. Electron. J. Biotechnol. 14(3): 3-4.

Saleem, M.A., T.A. Malik and A. Shakeel. 2015. Genetics of physiological and agronomic traits in upland cotton under drought stress. Pak. J. Agri. Sci. 52(2): 317-324.

Shaw, B., T.H. Thomas and D.T. Cooke. 2002. Responses of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) to drought and nutrient deficiency stress. Plant Growth Reg. 37(1): 77-83.

Steel, R.G.D., J.H. Torrie and D.A. Dickey. 1997. Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A Biotechnology approach. 3rd ed. McGraw Hill Book Co., New York, USA.

Subbarao, G.V., Y.S. Chauhan and C. Johansen. 2000. Patterns of osmotic adjustment in pigeonpea-its importance as a mechanism of drought resistance. European J. Agron. 12(3): 239-249.

Szabados, L. and A. Savoure. 2010. Proline: a multifunctional amino acid. Trends Plant Sci. 15(2): 89-97.

Therthappa, B.S. 2005. Application of Multivariate Techniques In Evaluation of Sunflower Genotypes (Helianthus annus L.) (Doctoral dissertation, UAS, Dharwad).

Turner, N.C. 1986. Crop water deficits: a decade of progress. Adv. Agron. 39: 1-51.

Turner, N.C., G.C. Wright and K.H.M. Siddique. 2001. Adaptation of grain legumes (pulses) to water-limited environments. Adv. Agron. 71: 193-231.

Vats, S. and M. Rissanen. 2016. Parameters affecting the upcycling of Waste Cotton and PES/CO Textiles. Recyc. 1(1): 166-177.

Walter, P. and D. Ron. 2011. The unfolded protein response: from stress pathway to homeostatic regulation. Science. 334(6059): 1081-1086.

Wang, C.Y., A. Isoda, M.S. Li and D.L. Wang. 2007. Growth and eco-physiological performance of cotton under water stress conditions. Agric. Sci. China. 6(8): 949-955.

Zlatev, Z. and F.C. Lidon. 2012. An overview on drought induced changes in plant growth, water relations and photosynthesis. Emirates J. Food Agric. 24(1): 57.

J. Agric. Res. 2019, 57(3)

Morpho-physiological screening of BT cotton genotypes for water stress

157

CONTRIBUTION OF AUTHORS

S. No. Author name Contribution Signature

1. Sohail Kamaran Conducted research, collected data and prepared manuscript

2. Tariq Manzoor Khan Supervisor

3. Ali Bakhsh Helped in data analysis

4. Nisar Hussain Helped in write-up

5. Abdul Manan Reviewed and incorporated valuable improvement

6. Raees Abbas Helped in germplasm collection and contributed in research

7. Mujahid Iqbal Recorded and analyzed data