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

Research Articles

Vol. 12 No. 3 (2025)

Comparative analysis of salt tolerance in cotton cultivars under saline water stress

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.6980
Submitted
30 December 2024
Published
09-08-2025 — Updated on 22-08-2025
Versions

Abstract

Soil salinity imposes multiple stresses on cotton (Gossypium spp.) and the use of saline water for irrigation is common in coastal regions. However, the effects of borewell saline water (NaCl) on cotton cultivars remains underexplored. A pot experiment conducted during 2017-2018 aimed to evaluate the morphological, biochemical and physiological responses of six cotton cultivars- G. herbaceum (G-Cot 25, Jayadhar), G. arboreum (Phule dhanwantry, Roja) and G. hirsutum (Suraj, LRA-5166) subjected to NaCl treatments (100, 150 and 200 mM) and a control. All cultivars exhibited a progressive decline in growth parameters with increasing salinity. Among them, Jayadhar and Suraj demonstrated the highest tolerance, maintaining superior growth and physiological performance under NaCl stress. Relative water content decreased significantly across all cultivars; however, G-Cot 25 and LRA-5166 retained higher water content under saline conditions. Biochemically, NaCl stress resulted in reduced levels of total chlorophyll and carotenoids, alongside an increase in protein content, suggesting adaptive responses to salinity. Jayadhar, Suraj and Phule Dhanwantry exhibited greater chlorophyll retention, indicating enhanced biochemical stability. Malondialdehyde (MDA) levels increased under salinity, signifying lipid peroxidation; however, Jayadhar and Suraj accumulated lower MDA levels, suggesting reduced oxidative damage. Proline content increased in all cultivars, with Jayadhar and Suraj showing the highest accumulation, reflecting improved osmotic adjustment. Activities of antioxidant enzyme including superoxide dismutase, catalase and peroxidase were significantly enhanced, particularly in G-Cot 25, Jayadhar and Phule dhanwantry respectively. These findings indicate that antioxidant defense mechanisms play a crucial role in mitigating oxidative damage by scavenging reactive oxygen species under saline conditions. Based on an integrative assessment, the G. herbaceum cultivar Jayadhar demonstrated the highest tolerance to salinity.

References

  1. 1. ICAR-Central Soil Salinity Research Institute (CSSRI), 2018. Annual Report, 2017–18, Karnal (IN): CSSRI; 2018.
  2. 2. Ashraf M. Salt tolerance of cotton: Some new advances. Crit Rev Plant Sci. 2002;21(1);1–30. https://doi.org/10.
  3. 1080/0735-260291044160
  4. 3. Oosterhuis DM. Stress physiology in cotton. Cordova (TN): The Cotton Foundation, 2011; p. 1–175. ISBN: 978-0-939809-07-3.
  5. 4. Munns R, James RA, Lauchli A. Approaches to increasing the salt tolerance of wheat and other cereals. J Exp Bot. 2006;57(5):1025–43. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erj100
  6. 5. Khan AN, Qureshi RH, Ahmad N.Performance of cotton cultivars in saline medium at germination stage. Sarhad JAgric. 1995;11(5):643–46.
  7. 6. Hasanuzzaman M, Hossain MA, Da Silva J, Fujita M. Plant responses and tolerance to abiotic oxidative stress: Antioxidant defenses is a key factor. In: Bandi V, Shanker AK, Shanker C, Mandapaka M, editors. Crop stress and its management: perspectives and strategies, Berlin, Springer; 2012.261–316. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-
  8. 2220-0_8
  9. 7. Ahmad P, Umar S. Oxidative stress: role of antioxidants in plants. New Delhi: Studium Press; 2011. p.19–53.
  10. 8. Jafri AZ, Ahmad R. Plant growth and ionic distribution in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) under saline environment. Pak J Bot, 1994:26(1);105–14.
  11. 9. Sharif I, Aleem S, Farooq J, Rizwan M, Younas A, Sarwar G, et al. Salinity stress in cotton: effects, mechanisms of tolerance and its management strategies. Physiol Mol Biol Plants. 2019 Jul;25(4):807–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s122
  12. 98-019-00676-2
  13. 10. Zhang L, Ma H, Chen T, Pen J, Yu S, Zhao X. Morphological and physiological responses of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) plants to salinity. PLoS One. 2014:9(11);e112807. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0112807
  14. 11. Russ JD, Zaveri, ED, Damania R, Desbureaux, SG., Escurra JJ, Rodella AS. Salt of the earth: Quantifying the impact of water salinity on global agricultural productivity. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper:2020;(9144). https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-9144
  15. 12. Arnon DI. Copper enzymes in isolated chloroplasts. Polyphenoloxidase in Beta vulgaris. Plant Physiol, 1949:24(1);1. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.24.1.1
  16. 13. Bradford MM. A rapid and sensitive method for the quantitation of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein-dye binding. Anal Biochem:1976;72(1–2):248–54. https://doi.org/10.1006/abio.1976.9999
  17. 14. Heath RL, Packer L. Photoperoxidation in isolated chloroplasts I. Kinetics and stoichiometry of fatty acid peroxidation. Arch Biochem Biophys. 1968:125(1);189–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-9861(68)90654-1
  18. 15. Sadashivam S, Manickam A. Biochemical method for agricultural sciences, New Delhi: Wiley Eastern Ltd;1992. p.13–14.
  19. 16. Nicholas JC, Harper JE, Hageman RH. Nitrate reductase activity in soybeans (Glycine max [L.] Merr.): I. Effects of light and temperature. Plant Physiol. 1976:58(6);731–35. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.58.6.731
  20. 17. Bates LS, Waldren RP, Teare ID. Rapid determination of free proline for water-stress studies. Plant Soil.1973;39(1): 205–07. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00018060
  21. 18. Giannopolitis CN. Ries SK. Superoxide dismutases: I. Occurrence in higher plants. Plant Physiol. 1977;59(2):309–14. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.59.2.309
  22. 19. Bergmeyer HU. Katalase, In: Bergmeyer HU, editor. Methoden der enzymatischen Analyse, Weinheim. Verlag Chemie, 1970. p. 439–40. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783112719336
  23. 20. Jennings PH, Brannaman BL, Zscheile FP. Peroxidase and polyphenol oxidase activity associated with Helminthosporium leaf spot of maize. Phytopathology, 1969;59(7);963.
  24. 21. Barrs HD, Weatherley PE. A re-examination of the relative turgidity technique for estimating water deficits in leaves. Aust J Biol Sci.1962;24(1):519–70. https://doi.org/10.1071/BI9620413
  25. 22. Rafique A, Salim M, Hussain M, Sadia G. Morpho-physiological response of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) cultivars to variable edaphic conditions. Pak J Life Soc Sci, 2003;1(1):5–8.
  26. 23. Wang XP, Zhang GX, Lu XL, Wu XH, Liu YH, Cao CX. Study on identification methods and indices of salt tolerance of cotton seedlings. J Hebei Agric Sci. 2011:3;4.
  27. 24. Ramesh VN, Rao GG, Chinchmalatpure A, Sharma DK. Cultivating desi cotton for securing the livelihood of farmers in dry land saline areas of Gujarat. Indian farming 2016;66(1):31–33.
  28. 25. Cramer GR, Lynch J, Lauchli A, Epstein E. Influx of Na, K+, and Ca2+ into roots of salt-stressed cotton seedlings. Plant Physiol. 1987;83(3):510–16. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.83.3.510
  29. 26. Iskenderov MY. Effect of irrigation with saline water on some physiological and biochemical processes of cotton plants. Rus Agric Sci, 2016;42(5);317–20. https://doi.org/10.3103/S1068367416050098
  30. 27. Chen W, Jin M, Ferre TP, Liu Y, Xian Y, Shan T, et al. Spatial distribution of soil moisture, soil salinity, and root density beneath a cotton field under mulched drip irrigation with brackish and fresh water. Field Crops Res. 2018;215:207–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2017.10.019
  31. 28. Ashraf M, Ahmad S. Exploitation of intra-specific genetic variation for improvement of salt (NaCl) tolerance in upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) Hereditas. 1999;131;253–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-5223.1999.
  32. 00253.x
  33. 29. Shaheen HL, Shahbaz M, Ullah I, Iqbal MZ. Morpho-physiological responses of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) to salt stress. Int J Agric Biol. 2012;14(6):980‒84.
  34. 30. Qadir M, Shams M. Some agronomic and physiological aspects of salt tolerance in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). J Agron Crop Sci, 1997;179(2):101–06. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-037X.1997.tb00504.x
  35. 31. Saleh, B. Salt stress alters physiological indicators in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Soil Environ. 2012;31(2): 113–18.
  36. 32. Ahmad S, Khan N, Iqbal MZ, Hussain A, Hassan M. Salt tolerance of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Asian J Plant Sci. 2002;1(6):715–19. https://doi.org/10.3923/ajps.2002.715.719
  37. 33. Hassan S, Sadique S, Sarwar MB, Rashid B, Husnain T. Morpho-physiological, biochemical and developmental responses of diploid cotton (Gossypium arboreum L.) cultivars under varying NaCl stress. Int J Biosci, 2015;6(12):9–20. https://doi.org/10.12692/ijb/6.12.9-20
  38. 34. Meloni AD, Oliva MA, Martinez CA, Cambraia J. Photosynthesis and activity of superoxide dismutase, peroxidase and glutathione reductase in cotton under salt stress. Environ Exp Bot. 2003;49(1):69–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0098-8472(02)00058-8
  39. 35. Gossett RD, Stephen WB, Millhollon EP, Lucas MC. Antioxidant response to NaCl stress in a control and a NaCl-tolerant cotton cell line grown in the presence of paraquat, buthionine sulfoximine, and exogenous glutathione. Plant Physiol. 1996;112:803–09. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.112.2.803
  40. 36. Parvaiz A, Satyawati S. Salt stress and phyto-biochemical responses of plants review. Plant Soil Environ, 2008;54(3):89. https://doi.org/10.17221/2774-PSE
  41. 37. Zhang L, Chen B, Zhang G, Li J, Wang Y, Meng Y, et al. Effect of soil salinity, soil drought, and their combined action on the biochemical characteristics of cotton roots. Acta Physiol Plant. 2013;35(11):3167–79. https://doi.org/
  42. 10.1007/s11738-013-1350-6
  43. 38. Wei MIN, Guo HJ, Zhang W, Zhou GW, Jun YE, Hou ZA. Irrigation water salinity and N fertilization: Effects on ammonia oxidizer abundance, enzyme activity and cotton growth in a drip irrigated cotton field. J Integr Agric. 2016;15(5):1121–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(15)61158-3
  44. 39. Dong YJ, Jin SS, Liu S, Xu LL, Kong J. Effects of exogenous nitric oxide on growth of cotton seedlings under NaCl stress. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr. 2014;14(1):1–13. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-95162014005000001

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.