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

Research Articles

Vol. 13 No. 3 (2026)

Distinct fibre quality and anatomical responses of upland and Pima cotton under deficit irrigation in Greece: A preliminary study

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.15515
Submitted
12 May 2026
Published
28-09-2026 — Updated on 30-09-2026
Versions

Abstract

Cotton production in Mediterranean environments is increasingly constrained by water scarcity, affecting both yield and fibre quality. This study evaluated the response of two cotton species, Gossypium hirsutum Cav. (upland) and Gossypium barbadense L. (Pima) to full and deficit irrigation. A field experiment with two factors {irrigation level [full (C) - 600 mm and reduced (D) - 450 mm] and genotype [G. hirsutum (U) and G. barbadense (P)]} and 3 replicates was laid out at the Agricultural University of Athens. Crop and lint yields, fibre quality traits and anatomical characteristics (upper half mean length (UHML), uniformity index (UI), short fibre index (SF), micronaire (Mic), maturity (Mat), elongation (Elg), strength (Str), reflectance (Rd), yellowness (+b), trash content (TrCnt), trash area (TrAr) and spinning consistency index (SCI)) were measured. Deficit irrigation reduced yield, particularly in upland cotton, with reductions approaching 39 %. Pima cotton exhibited higher uniformity (4 %), Str (40 %) and SCI (53 %), while upland cotton showed higher Elg (11 %) and Rd (5 %). Water deficit increased Mic in upland cotton and reduced fibre Str and spinning performance in both species, with more pronounced effects in Pima. Anatomical analyses revealed thinner fibres in Pima and increased convolution density under drought. Overall, genotype exerted a stronger influence on fibre quality than irrigation level, whereas yield was more sensitive to water limitation. These findings highlight the importance of species selection to sustain fibre quality under limited water availability and the use of Pima for improved textile performance in water-stressed environments.

References

  1. 1. Khan MA, Wahid A, Ahmad M, Tahir MT, Ahmed M, Ahmad S, et al. World cotton production and consumption: An overview. In: Cotton Production and Uses. Singapore: Springer; 2020. p. 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1472-2_1
  2. 2. Zhang Z, Huang J, Yao Y, Peters G, Macdonald B, La Rosa, et al. Environmental impacts of cotton and opportunities for improvement. Nat Rev Earth Environ. 2023;4(10):703–15. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-023-00476-z
  3. 3. Engonopoulos V, Kouneli V, Mavroeidis A, Karydogianni S, Beslemes D, Kakabouki I, et al. Cotton versus climate change: The case of Greek cotton production. Not Bot Horti Agrobot Cluj Napoca. 2021;49(4):12547. https://doi.org/10.15835/nbha49412547
  4. 4. Roussis I, Mavroeidis A, Stavropoulos P, Baginetas K, Kanatas P, Pantaleon K, et al. Zeolite and inorganic nitrogen fertilization effects on performance, lint yield and fibre quality of cotton cultivated in the Mediterranean region. Crops. 2025;5(3):27. https://doi.org/10.3390/crops5030027
  5. 5. Cramer W, Guiot J, Fader M, Garrabou J, Gattuso JP, Iglesias A, et al. Climate change and interconnected risks to sustainable development in the Mediterranean. Nat Clim Change. 2018;8(11):972–80. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0299-2
  6. 6. Mavroeidis A, Stavropoulos P, Roussis I, Folina A, Bilalis D, Kakabouki I. A "Teal" deal for European agriculture. Not Sci Biol. 2024;16(2):12015. https://doi.org/10.55779/nsb16212015
  7. 7. Ul-Allah S, Rehman A, Hussain M, Farooq M. Fibre yield and quality in cotton under drought: Effects and management. Agric Water Manag. 2021;255:106994. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2021.106994
  8. 8. Jans Y, von Bloh W, Schaphoff S, Müller C. Global cotton production under climate change: Implications for yield and water consumption. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci. 2021;25(4):2027–44. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-2027-2021
  9. 9. Sarwar MKS, Usman M, Asif F, Kalsoom R, Tabbusam S, Zeeshan M. Effect of drought stress and response in cotton. Trends Anim Plant Sci. 2024;4:61–73. https://doi.org/10.62324/TAPS/2024.048
  10. 10. Wang R, Ji S, Zhang P, Meng Y, Wang Y, Chen B, et al. Drought effects on cotton yield and fibre quality on different fruiting branches. Crop Sci. 2016;56(3):1265–76. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2015.08.0477
  11. 11. Bradow JM, Davidonis GH. Quantitation of fibre quality and the cotton production-processing interface: A physiologist's perspective. J Cotton Sci. 2000;4(1):34–64.
  12. 12. Gao M, Snider JL, Bai H, Hu W, Wang R, Meng Y, et al. Drought effects on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) fibre quality and fibre sucrose metabolism during the flowering and boll-formation period. J Agron Crop Sci. 2020;206(3):309–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/jac.12389
  13. 13. Wang H, Siddiqui MQ, Memon H. Physical structure, properties and quality of cotton. In: Wang H, Memon H, editors. Cotton Science and Processing Technology. Singapore: Springer; 2020. p. 79–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-9169-3_5
  14. 14. Zhang M, Zhang X, Guo L, Qi T, Liu G, Feng J, et al. Single-base resolution methylome of cotton cytoplasmic male sterility system reveals epigenomic changes in response to high-temperature stress during anther development. J Exp Bot. 2020;71(3):951–69. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erz470
  15. 15. Zafar MM, Chattha WS, Khan AI, Zafar S, Subhan M, Saleem H, et al. Drought and heat stress on cotton genotypes suggested agro-physiological and biochemical features for climate resilience. Front Plant Sci. 2023;14:1265700. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2023.1265700
  16. 16. Bresta P, Nikolopoulos D, Stavroulaki V, Vahamidis P, Economou G, Karabourniotis G. How does long-term drought acclimation modify structure-function relationships? A quantitative approach to leaf phenotypic plasticity of barley. Funct Plant Biol. 2018;45(12):1181–94. https://doi.org/10.1071/FP17283
  17. 17. Hasan MMU, Ma F, Prodhan ZH, Li F, Shen H, Chen Y, et al. Molecular and physio-biochemical characterization of cotton species for assessing drought stress tolerance. Int J Mol Sci. 2018;19(9):2636. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms19092636
  18. 18. Beslemes D, Mavroeidis A, Tigka E, Roussis I, Stavropoulos P, Vatougios D, et al. Performance of two cotton interspecific hybrids (Gossypium hirsutum L. × G. barbadense L.) in Greece: A comparative case study. Not Bot Horti Agrobot Cluj Napoca. 2024;52(1):13651. https://doi.org/10.15835/nbha52113651
  19. 19. Darawsheh MK, Beslemes D, Kouneli V, Tigka E, Bilalis D, Roussis I, et al. Environmental and regional effects on fibre quality of cotton cultivated in Greece. Agronomy. 2022;12:943. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12040943
  20. 20. Günaydin GK, Soydan AS, Palamutcu S. Evaluation of cotton fibre properties in compact yarn spinning processes and investigation of fibre and yarn properties. Fibres Text East Eur. 2018;26(3):23–34. https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0011.7299
  21. 21. Sahar A, Zafar MM, Razzaq A, Manan A, Haroon M, Sajid S, et al. Genetic variability for yield and fibre related traits in genetically modified cotton. J Cotton Res. 2021;4(1):19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42397-021-00094-4
  22. 22. Basit H, Mohibullah M, Afaqi N, Aziz S, Akbar S, Batool S, et al. Annual methodological archive research review: Genetic variability and heritability analysis for yield and fibre quality traits in cotton genotypes. AMARR. 2025;3(8):631–48.
  23. 23. Liu Y, Tao F, Yao H, Kincaid R. Feasibility study of assessing cotton fibre maturity from near infrared hyperspectral imaging technique. J Cotton Res. 2023;6(1):21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42397-023-00158-7
  24. 24. Cevheri Cİ, Çetin B, Şahin M, Çopur O. Comparison of fibre and yarn quality traits of colored and conventional cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) varieties. Int J Agric Environ Food Sci. 2025;9(4):1201–12. https://doi.org/10.31015/2025.4.22
  25. 25. Zardari MA, Mukwana LC, Memon NS, Soomro AA, Shaikh TA, Vistro R, et al. Variability in cotton fibre quality under innovated and traditional farming systems. RJSA. 2025;3(2):311–21. https://doi.org/10.71317/RJSA.003.02.0152
  26. 26. Shalaby MES, Younis AF. Cotton trash content and cleanability in relation to fibre quality. Int J Agric Environ Res. 2025;11(4):893–915. https://doi.org/10.51193/IJAER.2025.11401
  27. 27. Yusupaliyeva UN, Yuldashev NN. Color quality control in the production of cotton fibre. Eur Chem Bull. 2022;11(4). https://doi.org/10.31838/ecb/2022.11.04.008
  28. 28. Witt TW, Ulloa M, Schwartz RC, Ritchie GL. Response to deficit irrigation of morphological, yield and fibre quality traits of upland (Gossypium hirsutum L.) and Pima (G. barbadense L.) cotton in the Texas High Plains. Field Crops Res. 2020;249:107759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2020.107759
  29. 29. Cheng M, Wang H, Fan J, Zhang S, Wang Y, Li Y, et al. Water productivity and seed cotton yield in response to deficit irrigation: A global meta-analysis. Agric Water Manag. 2021;255:107027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2021.107027
  30. 30. Pettigrew WT. Moisture deficit effects on cotton lint yield, yield components and boll distribution. Agron J. 2004;96(2):377–83. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2004.3770
  31. 31. Morales-Aranibar L, Rivera MYN, Gonzales HHS, Aranibar CGM, Gutiérrez NL, Gomez FG, et al. Comparative analysis of key fibre characteristics in white Pima cotton (Gossypium barbadense L.): Native accessions from the Peruvian Amazon. Agrosyst Geosci Environ. 2024;7(2):20517. https://doi.org/10.1002/agg2.20517
  32. 32. Ullah A, Sun H, Yang X, Zhang X. Drought coping strategies in cotton: Increased crop per drop. Plant Biotechnol J. 2017;15(3):271–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.12688
  33. 33. Chen G, Zhang K, Wang Z, Wang Y, Wei J. Positive and negative properties of laser heat-mode resists. In: Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Thin Film Physics and Applications; 2019. Qingdao, China. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2539689
  34. 34. Loka DA, Oosterhuis DM, Baxevanos D, Noulas C, Hu W. Single and combined effects of heat and water stress and recovery on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) leaf physiology and sucrose metabolism. Plant Physiol Biochem. 2020;148:166–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2020.01.015
  35. 35. Haigler CH, Ivanova-Datcheva M, Hogan PS, Salnikov VV, Hwang S, Martin K, et al. Carbon partitioning to cellulose synthesis. Plant Mol Biol. 2001;47(1):29–51. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010615027986
  36. 36. Kim HJ, Triplett BA. Cotton fibre growth in planta and in vitro: Models for plant cell elongation and cell wall biogenesis. Plant Physiol. 2001;127(4):1361–66. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.010724
  37. 37. Haigler CH, Betancur L, Stiff MR, Tuttle JR. Cotton fibre: A powerful single-cell model for cell wall and cellulose research. Front Plant Sci. 2012;3:104. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2012.00104
  38. 38. Lacape JM, Llewellyn D, Jacobs J, Arioli T, Becker D, Calhoun S, et al. Meta-analysis of cotton fibre quality QTLs across diverse environments in a Gossypium hirsutum × Gossypium barbadense RIL population. BMC Plant Biol. 2010;10:132. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2229-10-132
  39. 39. Cao J, Cheng L, Zhang L, Liu X, Xu H. Further studies of mechanical damage on machine-harvested cotton fibre via coupling effect of moisture regains and low temperature. J Nat Fibres. 2024;21(1):2309913. https://doi.org/10.1080/15440478.2024.2309913
  40. 40. Velmurugan L, Kanagaraj R, Pandian KD. Determination of fibre yield and quality in cotton cultivars applied with biologically reclaimed greywater. Ind Crops Prod. 2023;201:116921. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2023.116921
  41. 41. Patil AM, Pawar BD, Wagh SG, Shinde H, Shelake RM, Markad NR, et al. Abiotic stress in cotton: Insights into plant responses and biotechnological solutions. Agriculture. 2024;14(9):1638. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14091638
  42. 42. Holladay SK, Bridges WC, Jones MA, Campbell BT. Yield performance and fibre quality of Pima cotton grown in the southeast United States. Crop Sci. 2021;61(4):2423–34. https://doi.org/10.1002/csc2.20505
  43. 43. Han Y, Yang Y, Luo H, Cui J, Kuang B, Zhang X, et al. Water stress reduces cellulose deposition in the cell wall and increases wax content, resulting in decreased fibre quality. Front Plant Sci. 2025;16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2025.1611390
  44. 44. Wan SJ. Fibre Quality Improvement of Upland Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) through Interspecific Introgression [master's thesis]. Athens (GA): University of Georgia; 2023.
  45. 45. Taiz L, Møller IM, Murphy A, Zeiger E. Plant Physiology and Development. Sunderland (MA): Sinauer Associates; 2023.https://doi.org/10.1093/hesc/9780197614204.001.0001
  46. 46. Toshpulatov AK, Turaev OS, Iskandarov AA, Khalikov KK, Arslanova SK, Safiullina AK, et al. Identification of stable meta-QTLs and candidate genes underlying fibre quality and agronomic traits in cotton. Plants. 2025;14:3252. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14213252
  47. 47. Avci U, Pattathil S, Singh B, Brown VL, Hahn MG, Haigler CH. Cotton fibre cell walls of Gossypium hirsutum and Gossypium barbadense have differences related to loosely bound xyloglucan. PLoS One. 2013;8(2). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0056315
  48. 48. Delhom CD, Knowlton J, Martin VB, Blake C. Engineering and ginning. J Cotton Sci. 2020;24:189–96. https://doi.org/10.56454/EEEG9440
  49. 49. Sui R, Byler RK, Fisher DK, Barnes EM, Delhom CD. Effect of supplemental irrigation and graded levels of nitrogen on cotton yield and quality. J Agric Sci. 2014;6(2):119. https://doi.org/10.5539/jas.v6n2p119

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.