Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Early Access

Assessing drought tolerance of cotton (Gossypium spp.) RIL populations using agrophysiological and stress indices

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.12847
Submitted
21 November 2025
Published
24-02-2026

Abstract

In this study, 80 samples (F6) of recombinant inbred line (RIL) populations derived from the wild cotton species Gossypium tomentosum and Gossypium mustelinum were comprehensively evaluated under control and drought conditions. The main objective of the study was to identify lines that were tolerant, sensitive and stable to drought stress conditions. The stress tolerance of the lines was assessed using physiological and yield-based stress indices. The main evaluated physiological parameters were relative leaf water content (RWC), excised leaf water loss (ELWL) and yield (Yp, Ys). Stress indices, including STI, GMP, MP, SSI, YI, YSI and TOL, were also calculated. Based on the obtained data, the level of stress tolerance of RIL samples was determined using principal component analysis (PCA). According to the results of the analysis, RIL-36 (STI = 1.44, YSI = 1.44, SSI = –2.07, TOL = –12.15), RIL-45 (Ys = 58.17, YI = 1.62, GMP = 59.90) and RIL-27 (Ys = 56.93, STI = 1.20, YSI = 1.20) were found to be resistant lines. RIL-25 (YSI = 1.24, SSI = –1.12), RIL-63 (SSI = –0.47), RIL-76 (YSI = 1.10) and RIL-24 (YSI = 1.05) lines also showed positive results. In contrast, RIL-19 (Ys = 19.66, STI = 0.39, SSI = 2.90), RIL-07 (YSI = 0.47, TOL = 33.94), RIL-06, RIL-39 and RIL-72 were evaluated as sensitive lines with low Ys and high SSI. In conclusion, the integration of agrophysiological parameters with the stress tolerance index has been shown to be effective in differentiating drought-tolerant, tolerant, sensitive and stable RIL genotypes. The inclusion of wild Gossypium species in the breeding stock will expand the genetic base of cultivated cotton and increase the possibility of creating water-stress-tolerant varieties.

References

  1. 1. Riaz M, Farooq J, Sakhawat G, Mahmood A, Sadiq MA, Yaseen M. Genotypic variability for root and shoot parameters under water stress in cotton. Genet Mol Res. 2013;12(1):552–61. https://doi.org/10.4238/2013.february.27.4
  2. 2. Parida AK, Dagaonkar VS, Phalak MS, et al. Alterations in photosynthetic pigments, protein and osmotic components in cotton genotypes subjected to drought stress. Plant Biotechnol Rep. 2007;1:37–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11816-006-0004-1
  3. 3. Khusenov NN, Kholmuradova MM, Norbekov JK, Normamatov IS, Boykobilov UA, Makamov AKh, et al. Evaluation of agronomic traits of cotton RIL population under water-deficit environment. Plant Sci Today. 2025;12(4):1–9. https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.10120
  4. 4. Wiggins MS, Leib BG, Mueller TC, Main CL. Physiological growth, fiber quality, yield and stability of upland cotton varieties. J Cotton Sci. 2013;17(3):140–8.
  5. 5. Han HL, Kang FJ. Effect of soil moisture stress on cotton production. Trans CSAE. 2001;17:37–40.
  6. 6. Ball RA, Oosterhuis DM, Maromoustakos A. Growth dynamics of cotton during water-deficit stress. Agron J. 1994;86:788–95. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1994.00021962008600050008x
  7. 7. Ennahli S, Hugh JE. Physiological limitations to photosynthetic carbon assimilation in cotton under water stress. Crop Sci. 2005;45:2374–82. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2005.0147
  8. 8. Pettigrew WT. Environmental effects on cotton fiber carbohydrate concentration and quality. Crop Sci. 2001;41:1108–13. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2001.4141108x
  9. 9. Potikha TS, Collins CC, Johnson DI, Delmer DP, Levine A. Hydrogen peroxide involvement in cotton fiber secondary wall differentiation. Plant Physiol. 1999;119(3):849–58. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.119.3.849
  10. 10. Chaves MM, Flexas J, Pinheiro C. Photosynthesis under drought and salt stress. Ann Bot. 2009;103:551–60. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcn125
  11. 11. Saleem MA, Malik TA, Shakeel A, Amjad MW, Qayyum A. Genetics of physiological and agronomic traits in upland cotton under drought stress. Pak J Agric Sci. 2015;52:317–24.
  12. 12. Makamov A, Shavkiev J, Kholmuradova M, Boyqobilov U, Normamatov I, Norbekov J, et al. Cotton genotype appraisal under optimal and deficit irrigation. SABRAO J Breed Genet. 2023;55(1):74–89. https://doi.org/10.54910/sabrao2023.55.1.7
  13. 13. Mitra J. Genetics and improvement of drought resistance in crop plants. Curr Sci. 2001;80:758–62.
  14. 14. Sun F, Chen Q, Jiang M, Gao W, Qu Y. Screening drought tolerance indices for cotton using dimension reduction. Front Plant Sci. 2021;12:619926. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.619926
  15. 15. Yehia MB, Waleed M, El-Absy KM. Response of cotton genotypes to water-deficit stress using drought indices. Asian J Adv Agric Res. 2023;21(1):13–27. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajaar/2023/v21i1407
  16. 16. Fischer AT, Maurer R. Drought resistance in spring wheat cultivars. Aust J Agric Res. 1978;29:897–912. https://doi.org/10.1071/ar9780897
  17. 17. Clarke JM, De Pauw RM, Townley-Smith TM. Quantification of drought tolerance in wheat. Crop Sci. 1992;32:728–32. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1992.0011183X003200030029x
  18. 18. Guttieri MJ, Stark JC, O’Brien K, Souza E. Sensitivity of spring wheat yield and quality to moisture deficit. Crop Sci. 2001;41:327–35. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2001.412327x
  19. 19. Ullah I, Zafar Y. Genotypic variation for drought tolerance in cotton. Pak J Bot. 2006;38:1679–87.
  20. 20. Fernandez GCJ. Effective selection criteria for plant stress tolerance. In: Kuo CG, editor. Adaptation of food crops to temperature and water stress. Proceedings of an International Symposium; 1992 Aug 13–18; Taiwan. Shanhua: AVRDC; 1992. p. 257–70.
  21. 21. Ramirez P, Kelly JD. Traits related to drought resistance in common bean. Euphytica. 1998;99:127–36. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1018353200015
  22. 22. Rajmani A. Screening cotton genotypes for drought tolerance. Madras Agric J. 1994;81:465–8. https://doi.org/10.29321/maj.10.A01560
  23. 23. Zheng JY, Oluoch G, Khan MR, Wang XX, Cai XY, Zhou ZL, et al. Mapping QTLs for drought tolerance in cotton. Genet Mol Res. 2016;15(3). https://doi.org/10.4238/gmr.15038477
  24. 24. Barrs HD, Weatherley PE. Relative turgidity technique for estimating leaf water deficits. Aust J Biol Sci. 1962;15:413–28. https://doi.org/10.1071/BI9620413
  25. 25. Clarke JM, McCaig TN. Techniques for screening drought resistance in wheat. Crop Sci. 1982;22:503–6. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1982.0011183X002200030015x
  26. 26. Rosielle AA, Hamblin J. Selection for yield under stress and non-stress environments. Crop Sci. 1981;21:943–6. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1981.0011183X002100060033x
  27. 27. Kristin AS, Senra RR, Perez FI, Enriquez BC, Gallegos JAA, Vallego PR, et al. Improving common bean performance under drought stress. Crop Sci. 1997;37:43–50. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1997.0011183X003700010007x
  28. 28. Gavuzzi P, Rizza F, Palumbo M, Campaline RG, Ricciardi GL, Borghi B, et al. Predictors of drought and heat tolerance in cereals. Can J Plant Sci. 1997;77(4):523–31. https://doi.org/10.4141/P96-130
  29. 29. Nandhini K, Saraswathi R, Premalatha N. Identification of drought-tolerant cotton entries using stress indices. Crop Des. 2022;1(2):100014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropd.2022.100014
  30. 30. Guo C, Zhu L, Sun H, Han Q, Wang S, Zhu J, et al. Evaluation of drought-tolerant cotton varieties based on root architecture. BMC Plant Biol. 2024;24:127. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-024-04799-x

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.