SCREENING OF COTTON CULTIVARS FOR DROUGHT TOLERANCE UNDER FIELD CONDITIONS

SCREENING OF COTTON CULTIVARS FOR DROUGHT TOLERANCE UNDER FIELD CONDITIONS

To develop cotton germplasm with improved yield under drought conditions is one of the major goals for cotton breeders. The main purpose of this study was to evaluate 96 cotton genotypes for drought tolerance by measuring yield performance under deficit (water-limited) and full irrigation conditions. The field experiment was conducted under full (FI-100) and deficit (DI-50) irrigation conditions during the two growing seasons of 2011 and 2012 at the Agricultural Research Station of Adnan Menderes University, Aydin, Turkey. The mean data on performance of 96 different cotton genotypes showed the existance of considerable genotypic variations for yield, yield components, and drought tolerance indices. Correlation and regression analysis indicated that cotton genotypes characterizied with high GMP and low DSI could be selected as a potentially droght-tolerant genotypes. It is concluded from the present studies that, based on biplot analysis, 20 genotypes were found highly susceptile to water stress, 26 genotypes were highly susceptible to water stress but produced high yield in full irrigation, and 23 genotypes were not only water stress tolerant but also give maximum seed cotton yield. However, GC 555, Nieves, DAK-66/3, MS-30/1, Nazilli M-503, Zeta 2, Eva, NIAB 999, and Delta Diomand were found highly water stress tolerant because of maximum GMP and minimum DSI values. These genotypes could be exploited as genetic resources in breeding programs aiming to improve drought tolerance in cotton.

___

  • Abdi, N., R. Darvishzadeh and H.H. Maleki. 2013. Effective selection criteria for screening drought tolerant recombinant inbred lines of sunflower. Genetika. 45:153-166.
  • Al-Hamdani, S.H. and T.W. Barger. 2003. Influence of water stress on selected physiological responses of three sorghum genotypes. Italy Journal Agronomy. 7: 15-22.
  • Anwar, J., G.M. Subhan, M. Hussain, J. Ahmad, M. Hussain and M. Munir. 2011. Drought tolerance indices and their correlation with yield in exotic wheat genotypes. Pak J Bot. 43:1527-1530.
  • Basal, H, N. Dagdelen, A. Unay and E. Yilmaz. 2009. Effects of defi cit drip irrigation ratios on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) yield and fiber quality. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 195: 19-29.
  • Basal, H. C.W. Smith, P.M. Thaxton and J.K. Hemphill. 2005. Seedling drought tolerance in upland cotton. Crop Sci. 45: 766-771.
  • Bednarz, C.W., J.Hook, R. Yager, S. Cromer, D. Cook, and I. Griner. 2002. Cotton crop water use and irrigation scheduling, p. 61-64, In A. S. Culpepper, ed. 2002 Georgia Cotton Research-Extension Report.
  • Cattivelli, L., F. Rizza, F.W. Badeck, E. Mazzucotelli, A.M. Mastrangelo, E. Francia, C. Marè, A. Tondelli and A.M. Stanca. 2008. Drought tolerance improvement in crop plants: An integrated view from breeding to genomics. Field Crops Research. 105: 1-14.
  • Fernandez, G.C.J. 1992. Effective selection criteria for assessing plant stress tolerance. p. 257-270. In C.G. Kuo (ed.) Adaptation of food crops to temperature and water stress. p. 531. In Proc. Int. Symp., Taipei, Taiwan. Aug13-18. Pp: 93- 410.
  • Fischer, R.A. and R. Maurer. 1978. Drought resistance in spring wheat cultivars. I. Grain yield responses. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 29: 897-912.
  • Gholipouri, A. M. Sedghi, R.S. Sharifi and N.M. Nazari. 2009. Evaluation of drought tolerance indices and their relationship with grain yield in wheat cultivars. Recent Res. Science Technolgy. 1: 195-198.
  • Guinn, G. and J.R. Mauney. 1984. Moisture effects on cotton. I. Effects of moisture status on flowering. Agronomy Journal. 76: 90-94.
  • Iqbal, M.J., N. Aziz, N.A. Saeed, Y. Zafer and K.A. Malik. 1997. Genetic Diversity evaluation of some elite cotton varieties by RAPD analysis. Theor. Appl. Genetic. 94: 139- 144.
  • Iqbal, M. N. Nisar, R.S.A. Khan and K. Hayat. 2005. Contribution of mepiquat chloride in drought tolerance in cotton seedlings. Asian J. PI. Science. 4: 530-532.
  • Khokhar, M.L., J.A. Teixeira da Silva and H. Spiertz. 2012. Evaluation of barley genotypes for yielding ability and drought tolerance under irrigated and water-stressed conditions. American-Eurasian J Agric Environ Sci. 12: 287- 292.
  • Lacape, M.J., J. Wery and D.J.M. Annerosa. 1998. Relationship between plant and soil water status in five field-growing cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) cultivars. Field Crops Res. 57:29-48.
  • Loka, D.A., D.M. Oosterhuis and G.L. Ritchie. 2011. Stress Physiology in Cotton: Water-deficit stress in cotton. The Cotton Foundation, Cordova, Tennessee (USA), pp: 37-72.
  • Massaci, A. S.M. Nabiev, L. Petrosanti, S.K. Nematov, T.N. Chernikova, K. Thor and J. Leipner. 2008. Response of the photosynthetic apparatus of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) to the onset of drought stress under field conditions studied by gas-exchange analysis and chlorophyll fluorescence imaging. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 46: 189-195.
  • Mert, M. 2005. Irrigation of cotton cultivars improves seed cotton yield, yield components and fibre properties in the Hatay region, Turkey. Acta Agronomy Scand. 55: 44-50.
  • Moinuddin, R.A. Fischer, K.D. Sayre and M.P. Reynolds. 2005. Osmotic Adjustment in wheat in relation to grain yield under water deficit environments. Agronomy Journal 97: 1062- 1071.
  • Ober, E.S., C.J.A. Clark, M. Le Bloa, A. Royal, K.W. Jaggard and J.D. Pidgeon. 2004. Assessing the genetic resources to improve drought tolerance in Sugar beet: Agronomic traits of diverse genotypes under droughted and irrigated conditions. Field Crops Research. 90: 213-234.
  • Pettigrew, W.T. 2004. Moisture deficit effects on cotton lint yield, yield components, and boll distribution. Agronomy Journal. 96: 377-383.
  • Passioura, J.B. 2006. The perils of pot experiments. Functional Plant Biology. 33:1075-1079.
  • Pettigrew, W.T. and W.R. Meredith. 1994. Leaf gas exchange parameters vary among cotton genotypes. Crop Sci. 34:700- 705.
  • 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: 889-895.
  • Ramirez-Vallejo, P. and J.D. Kelly. 1998. Traits related to drought resistance in common bean. Euphytica. 99: 127-136.
  • Rashid, A., J.C. Stark, A. Tanveer and T. Mustafa. 1999. Use of canopy temperature measurements as a screening tool for drought tolerance in spring wheat. J. Agron. Crop Science. 182: 231-237.
  • Ritchie, G.L., C.W. Bednarz, P.H. Jost and S.M. Brown. 2004. Cotton Growth and Development. Bulletin 1252.
  • Cooperative Extension Service and the University of Georgia College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Athens, GA, USA.
  • Rizza, F., F.W. Badeck, L. Cattivelli, L. Destri, O. Di Fonzo and N. Stanca. 2004. Use of a water stress index to identify barley genotypes adapted to rainfed and irrigated conditions. Crop Sci. 44: 2127-2137.
  • Rosielle, A.A. and J. Hamblin. 1981. Theoretical aspects of selection for yield in stress and non- stress environment. Crop Sci. 21: 943-946.
  • Sinclair, T.R. 2005. Theoretical analysis of soil and plant traits influencing daily plant water flux on drying soils. Agronomy Journal. 97: 1148-1152.
  • Terán, H. and S.P. Singh. 2002. Comparison of sources and lines selected for drought resistance in common bean. Crop Sci. 42: 64-70.
  • Tollenaar, M. and E.A. Lee. 2002. Yield stability and stress tolerance in maize. Field Crops Research. 75: 161-169.
  • Turner, N.C. 1997. Further progress in crop water relations. Advance Agronnomy 58: 293-338.
  • Ullah, I. M. Rahman and Y. Zafar. 2006. Genotypıc varıatıon for drought tolerance ın cotton (Gossypıum hırsutum L.) Seed cotton yıeld responses. Pak. J. Bot. 38: 1679-1687.
  • Voltas, J., H. Lopez-Corcoles and G. Borras. 2005. Use of biplot analysis and factorial regression for the investigation of superior genotypes in multi environment trials. Eur. Journal Agronomy. 22: 309-324.
  • Wang, C. A. Isoda and P. Wang. 2004. Growth and yield performance of some cotton cultivars in Xinjiang, China, an arid area with short growing period. J. Agronomy Crop Science. 190: 177-183.