, 214:8 | Cite as

Quantitative trait locus mapping of drought and salt tolerance in an introgressed recombinant inbred line population of Upland cotton under the greenhouse and field conditions

  • Abdelraheem Abdelraheem
  • David D. Fang
  • Jinfa Zhang


Drought and salt tolerances are complex traits and controlled by multiple genes, environmental factors and their interactions. Drought and salt stresses can result in more than 50% yield loss in Upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). G. barbadense L. (the source of Pima cotton) carries desirable traits such as tolerance to abiotic and biotic stress along with high fiber quality. However, few studies have been reported on mapping quantitative trait loci (QTL) for abiotic stress tolerance using a permanent bi-parental population in multiple tests. The transfer of drought and salt tolerance from Pima to Upland cotton has been a challenge due to interspecific hybrid breakdown. This issue may be overcome by using introgression lines with genes transferred from Pima to Upland cotton. In this study, four replicated tests were conducted in the greenhouse each for drought and salt tolerance along with another test conducted in a field for drought tolerance using an Upland recombinant inbred line population of TM-1/NM24016 that has a stable introgression from Pima cotton. The objectives of the study were to investigate the genetic basis of drought and salt tolerance and to identify genetic markers associated with the abiotic stress tolerance. A total of 1004 polymorphic DNA marker loci including RGA-AFLP, SSR and GBS-SNP markers were used to construct a genetic map spanning 2221.28 cM. This population together with its two parents was evaluated for morphological, physiological, yield and fiber quality traits. The results showed that drought under greenhouse and field conditions and salt stress in the greenhouse reduced cotton plant growth at the seedling stage, and decreased lint yield and fiber quality traits in the field. A total of 165 QTL for salt and drought tolerance were detected on most of the cotton chromosomes, each explaining 5.98–21.43% of the phenotypic variation. Among these, common QTL for salt and drought tolerance were detected under both the greenhouse and field conditions. This study represents the first study to report consistent abiotic stress tolerance QTL from multiple tests in the greenhouse and the field that will be useful to understand the genetic basis of drought and salt tolerance and to breeding for abiotic stress tolerance using molecular marker-assisted selection in cotton.


Upland cotton Pima cotton Introgression lines Drought tolerance Salt tolerance 

Supplementary material

10681_2017_2095_MOESM1_ESM.docx (141 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 142 kb)


  1. Abdelraheem A, Zhang JF (2016) Quantitative trait locus analysis of drought and salt tolerance in an introgressed recombinant unbarred line population of Upland cotton. In: Western Society of Crop Science annual meeting, 12–13 July 2016, Albuquerque, NMGoogle Scholar
  2. Abdelraheem A, Hughs SE, Jones DC, Zhang JF (2015a) Genetic analysis and quantitative trait locus mapping of PEG-induced osmotic stress in cotton. Plant Breed 134:110–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Abdelraheem A, Mahdy Z, Zhang JF (2015b) The first linkage map for a recombinant inbred line population in cotton (Gossypium barbadense) and its use in studies of PEG-induced dehydration tolerance. Euphytica 205:941–958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Abdelraheem A, Percy R, Gore M, Dever J, Fang D, Zhang JF (2016) Genetic analysis for yield, fiber quality and abiotic stress tolerance in Pima cotton. In: Proceedings of Beltwide cotton conference, 4–6 January 2016, New Orleans, LAGoogle Scholar
  5. Abdelraheem A, Liu F, Song M, Zhang JF (2017) A meta-analysis of quantitative trait loci for abiotic and biotic stress resistance in tetraploid cotton. Mol Genet Genomics 292:1221–1235CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Abul-Naas AA, Omran MS (1974) Salt tolerance of seventeen cotton cultivars during germination and early seedling development. Z Acker Pflanz 140:229–236Google Scholar
  7. Adams N (2011) Identification of cotton germplasm and molecular markers for drought tolerance. MS Thesis, New Mexico State University, Las CrucesGoogle Scholar
  8. Akhtar J, Saqib ZA, Sarfraz M, Saleem I, Haq MA (2010) Evaluating salt tolerant cotton genotypes at different levels of NaCl stress in solution and soil culture. Pak J Bot 42:2857–2866Google Scholar
  9. Allen RD, Aleman L (2011) Abiotic stress and cotton fiber development. In: Oosterhuis DM (ed) Stress physiology in cotton. The Cotton Foundation, Candova, pp 149–160Google Scholar
  10. Ashraf M (2002) Salt tolerance of cotton: some new advances. Crit Rev Plant Sci 21:1–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Babar M, Saranga Y, Lgbal Z, Arif M, Zafar Y, Lubbers E, Chee E (2009) Identification of QTL and impact of selection from various environments (dry vs irrigated) on the genetic relationships among the selected cotton lines from F6 population using a phylogenetic approach. Afr J Biotechnol 8:4802–4810Google Scholar
  12. Bajaj S, Wang W, Hughs E, Percy RG, Ulloa M, Zhang JF (2008) Evaluation of cotton germplasm and breeding populations for salt tolerance. In: Proceedings of Beltwide cotton conference, pp 876–880Google Scholar
  13. Barrick B, Steiner R, Picchioni G, Ulery A, Zhang JF (2015) Salinity responses of selected introgressed cotton lines grown in two soils from organic and conventional cotton production. J Cotton Sci 19:268–278Google Scholar
  14. Bartels D, Sunkar R (2005) Drought and salt tolerance in plants. Crit Rev Plant Sci 24:23–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Basal H, Hemphill JK, Smith CW (2006) Shoot and root characteristics of converted race stocks accessions of upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) grown under salt stress conditions. Am J Plant Physiol 1:99–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Blenda A, Fang DD, Rami JF, Garsmeur O, Luo F, Lacape JM (2012) A high density consensus genetic map of tetraploid cotton that integrates multiple component maps through molecular marker redundancy check. PLoS ONE 7:e45739CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Blum A (2011) Drought tolerance—is it really a complex trait? Funct Plant Biol 38:753–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bray EA, Bailey-Serres J, Weretilnyk E (2000) Responses to abiotic stresses. In: Buchanan BB, Gruissem W, Jones R (eds) Biochemistry and molecular biology of plants. American Society of Plant Physiologists, Rockville, pp 1158–1249Google Scholar
  19. Burke JJ, Gamble PE, Hatfield JL, Quisenberry LE (1985) Plant morphological and biochemical responses to field water deficits. I. Responses of glutathione reductase activity and paraquat sensitivity. Plant Physiol 79:415–419CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Campbell BT, Saha S, Percy RG, Frelichowski J, Jenkins JN, Park W, Mayee CD, Gotmare V, Dessauw D, Giband M, Du X, Jia Y, Constable G, Dillon S, Abdurakhmonov IY, Abdukarimov A, Rizaeva SM, Abdullaev A, Barroso PAV, Pádua JG, Hoffmann LV, Podolnaya L (2010) Status of the global cotton germplasm resources. Crop Sci 50:1161–1179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cantrell RG, Davis DD (2000) Registration of NM24016, an interspecific derived cotton genetic stock. Crop Sci 40:1208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Chen W, Hou Z, Wu L, Liang Y, Wei C (2010) Effects of salinity and nitrogen on cotton growth in arid environment. Plant Soil 326:61–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Churhill GA, Doerge RW (1994) Empirical threshold values for quantitative trait mapping. Genetics 138:963–971Google Scholar
  24. Constable GA, Hearn AB (1981) Irrigation of crops in a subhumid climate, 6: effects of irrigation and nitrogen fertilizer on growth, yield and quality of cotton. Irrig Sci 2:17–28Google Scholar
  25. Dabbert T (2014) Genetic analysis of cotton evaluated under high temperature and water deficit. PhD Dissertation, The University of Arizona, MaricpaGoogle Scholar
  26. Dong H (2012) Technology and field management for controlling soil salinity effects on cotton. Aust J Crop Sci 6:333–341Google Scholar
  27. Falconer DS, Mackay TFC (1996) Introduction to quantitative genetics. Addison Wesley Longman, EssexGoogle Scholar
  28. Fang H, Zhou S, Sanogo R, Flynn RG, Percy E, Hughs M, Ulloa DC, Jones Zhang JF (2013) Quantitative traits locus mapping for Verticillium wilt resistance in a back cross inbred line population of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum × Gossypium barbadense) based on RGA-AFLP analysis. Euphytica 194:79–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fang H, Zhou HP, Sanogo S, Lipka AE, Fang DD, Percy RG, Hughs SE, Jones DC, Gore MA, Zhang JF (2014) Quantitative trait locus analysis of Verticillium wilt resistance in an introgressed recombinant inbred population of upland cotton. Mol Breed 33:709–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Flowers TJ (2004) Improving crop salt tolerance. J Exp Bot 55:307–319CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Gore MA, Percy RG, Zhang JF, Fang DD, Carntrell RG (2012) Registration of the TM1/NM24016 cotton recombinant inbred mapping population. J Plant Reg 6:124–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gore MA, Fang DD, Poland JA, Zhang JF, Percy RG (2014) Linkage map construction and quantitative trait locus analysis of agronomic and fiber quality traits in cotton. Plant Genome 7:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gorham J, Läuchli A, Leidi EO (2010) Plant responses to salinity. In: Stewart JM, Oosterhuis DM, Heitholt JJ, Mauney JR (eds) Physiology of cotton. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 129–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Greenway H, Munns R (1980) Mechanisms of salt tolerance in nonhalophytes. Annu Rev Plant Physiol 31:149–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Grimes DW, Dickens WL, Anderson WD (1969) Functions for cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) production from irrigation and nitrogen fertilization variables. II. Yield components and quality characteristics. Agron J 61:773–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hanif M, Qayyum A, Malik W, Noor E, Murtaza N (2008) Assessment of variability for slat tolerance at seedling stage in Gossypium hirsutum L. J Food Agric Environ 6:134–138Google Scholar
  37. Hemphill JK, Basal H, Smith WC (2006) Screening method for salt tolerance in cotton. Am J Plant Pathol 1:107–112Google Scholar
  38. Higbie SM, Wang F, Stewart JM, Sterling TM, Lindemann WC, Hughs E, Zhang JF (2010) Physiological response to salt (NaCl) stress in selected cultivated tetraploid cottons. Int J Agron 1:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Holland JB, Frey KJ, Hammond EG (2001) Correlated responses of fatty acid composition, grain quality, and agronomic traits to nine cycles of recurrent selection for increased oil content in oat. Euphytica 122:69–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hulse-Kemp AM, Ashrafi H, Zheng X et al (2014) Development and bin mapping of gene-associated interspecific SNPs for cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) introgression breeding efforts. BMC Genomics 15:945CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Iqbal K, Azhar FM, Khan IA, Ullah E (2010) Assessment of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) germplasm under water stress condition. Int J Agric Biol 12:251–255Google Scholar
  42. Jiang CX, Wright RJ, El-Zik KM, Paterson AH (1998) Polyploid formation created unique avenues for response to selection in Gossypium (cotton). Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95:4419–4424CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Khan AH, Ashraf MY, Naqvi SSM, Khanzada B, Ali M (1995) Growth, ion and solute contents of sorghum grown under NaCl and Na2SO4 salinity stress. Acta Physiol Plant 17:261–268Google Scholar
  44. Khan NU, Marwat KB, Hassan G, Farhatullah BS, Makhdoom K, Ahmad W, Khan HU (2010) Genetic variation and heritability for cotton seed, fiber and oil traits in Gossypium hirsutum L. Pak J Bot 42:615–625Google Scholar
  45. Knight H, Knight MR (2001) Abiotic stress signalling pathways: specificity and cross-talk. Trend Plant Sci 6:262–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kohel RJ, Richmond TR, Lewis CF (1970) Texas Marker-1. Description of a genetic standard for Gossypium hirsutum L. Crop Sci 10:670–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kosambi DD (1944) The estimation of map distances from recombination values. Ann Eugen 12:172–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kramer PJ (1983) Water deficits and plant growth. In: Kramer PJ (ed) Water relations of plants. Academic Press, New York, pp 342–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lacape JM, Llewellyn D, Jacobs J, Arioli T, Becker D, Calhoun S, Al-Ghazi Y, Liu S, Palaï O, Georges S, Giband M, de Assunc H, Barroso PA, Claverie M, Gawryziak G, Jean J, Vialle M, Viot C (2010) Meta-analysis of cotton fiber quality QTLs across diverse environments in a Gossypium hirsutum × G. barbadense RIL population. BMC Plant Biol 10:132CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. Läuchli A, Grattan SR (2007) Plant growth and development under salinity stress. In: Jenks MA, Hasegawa PM, Jain SM (eds) Advances in molecular breeding toward drought and salt tolerant crops. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 1–32Google Scholar
  51. Leidi EO, Saiz JF (1997) Is salinity tolerance related to Na accumulation in Upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) seedlings? Plant Soil 190:67–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Levi A, Ovnat L, Paterson AH, Saranga Y (2009) Photosynthesis of cotton near-isogenic lines introgressed with QTL for productivity and drought related traits. Plant Sci 177:88–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Li H, Ye G, Wang J (2007) A modified algorithm for the imporvement of composite interval mapping. Genetics 175:361–374CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. Loka DA, Oosterhuis DM, Ritchie GL (2011) Water deficit stress in cotton. In: Oosterhuis DM (ed) Stress physiology in cotton. The Cotton Foundation, Cordova, pp 37–72Google Scholar
  55. Lu ZM, Zeiger E (1994) Selection for higher yields and heat resistance in Pima cotton has caused genetically determined changes in stomatal conductance. Physiol Plant 92:273–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lu ZM, Radin JW, Turcotte EL, Percy RG, Zeiger E (1994) High yields in advanced lines of Pima cotton are associated with higher stomatal conductance, reduced leaf area and lower leaf temperature. Physiol Plant 92:266–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lu ZM, Percy RG, Qualset CO, Zeiger E (1998) Stomatal conductance predicts yields in irrigated Pima cotton and bread wheat grown at high temperatures. J Exp Bot 49:453–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lynch M, Walsh B (1998) Correlations between characters. In: Genetics and analysis of quantitative traits. Sinauer Associates, Inc, Sutherland, pp 629–656Google Scholar
  59. Maas EV (1986) Salt tolerance of plants. Appl Agric Res 1:12–26Google Scholar
  60. Maas EV, Hoffman GJ (1977) Crop salt tolerance—current assessment. J Irrig Drain Div Am Soc Civ Eng 103:115–134Google Scholar
  61. May OL, Green CC (1994) Genetic variation for fiber properties in elite Pee Dee cotton populations. Crop Sci 34:684–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Meloni DA, Oliva MA, Martinez CA, Cambraia J (2003) Photosynthesis and activity of superoxide dismutase, peroxidase and glutathione reductase in cotton under salt stress. Environ Exp Bot 49:69–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Mir RR, Zaman-Allah M, Sreenivasulu N, Trethowan R, Varshney RK (2012) Integrated genomics, physiology and breeding approaches for improving drought tolerance in crops. Theor Appl Genet 125:625–645CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  64. Reynolds MP, Trethowan RM (2007) Physiological interventions in breeding for adaptation to abiotic stress. In: Spiertz JHJ, Struik PC, van Laar HH (eds) Scale and complexity in plant systems research: gene–plant–crop relations, vol 21. Wageningen UR frontis series. Springer, Wageningen, pp 129–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Munns R (2002) Comparative physiology of salt and water stress. Plant Cell Environ 25:239–250CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Munns R, Tester M (2008) Mechanisms of salinity tolerance. Annu Rev Plant Biol 59:651–681CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Nepomuceno AL, Oosterhuis DM, Stewart JM (1998) Physiological response of cotton leaves and roots to water deficit induced by polyethylene glycol. Environ Exp Bot 40:29–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Niu GH, Rodriguez D, Dever J, Zhang JF (2013) Responses of five cotton genotypes to sodium chloride and sodium sulfate saline water irrigation. J Cotton Sci 17:233–244Google Scholar
  69. Oluoch G, Zheng J, Wang X, Khan MKR, Zhou Z, Cai X, Wang C, Wang Y, Li X, Wang H, Liu F, Wang K (2016) QTL mapping for salt tolerance at seedling stage in the interspecific cross of Gossypium tomentosum with Gossypium hirsutum. Euphytica 209:223–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Pace PF, Cralle HT, El-Halawany SHM, Cothren JT, Senseman SA (1999) Drought-induced changes in shoot and root growth of young cotton plants. J Cotton Sci 3:183–187Google Scholar
  71. Paterson AH, Saranga Y, Menz M, Jiang C, Wright RJ (2003) QTL analysis of genotype environment interactions affecting cotton fiber quality. Theor Appl Genet 106:384–396CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Penna JCV, Verhalen LM, Kirkham MB, McNew RW (1998) Screening cotton genotypes for seedling drought tolerance. Genet Mol Biol 21:545–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Percy RG, Cantrell RG, Zhang JF (2006) Genetic variation for agronomic and fiber properties in an introgressed recombinant inbred population of cotton. Crop Sci 46:1311–1317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Pettigrew WT (2004a) Moisture deficit effects on cotton lint yield, yield components, and boll distribution. Agron J 96:377–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Pettigrew WT (2004b) Physiological consequences of moisture deficit stress in cotton. Crop Sci 44:1265–1272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Qadir M, Shams M (1997) Some agronomic and physiological aspects of salt tolerance in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). J Agron Crop Sci 179:101–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Rodriguez-Uribe L, Higbie SM, Stewart JM, Wilkins T, Lindemann W, Sengupta-Gopalan C, Zhang JF (2011) Identification of salt responsive genes using microarray analysis in Upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Plant Sci 180:461–469CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. Rodriguez-Uribe L, Abdelraheem A, Tiwari R, Sengupta-Gopalan C, Hughs SE, Zhang JF (2014) Identification of drought-responsive genes in a drought-tolerant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) cultivar under reduced irrigation field conditions and development of candidate gene markers for drought tolerance. Mol Breed 34:1777–1796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Rong J, Abbey C, Bowers JE, Brbake CL, Chang C, Chee PW, Delmont A, Ding X, Garza JJ, Maler BS, Park CH, Pierce GJ, Rainey KM, Rastogi VK, Suhulzer SR, Trolinder NL, Wend JF, Wilkins TA, Williams-Coplin TP, Wing RA, Wright RA, Wright RG, Zho X, Zhu L, Oaterson AH (2004) A 3347-locus genetic recombination map of sequence-tagged sites reveals features of genome organization, transmission and evolution of cotton (Gossypium). Genetics 166:389–417CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  80. Rong J, Feltus FA, Waghmare VN, Pierce GJ, Chee PW, Draye X, Saranga Y, Wright RJ, Wilkins TA, May OL, Smith CW, Gannaway JR, Wendel JF, Paterson AH (2007) Meta-analysis of polyploid cotton QTLs shows unequal contributions of subgenomes to a complex network of genes and gene clusters implicated in lint fiber development. Genetics 176:2577–2588CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  81. Roy SJ, Tucker EJ, Tester M (2011) Genetic analysis of abiotic stress tolerance in crops. Curr Opin Plant Biol 14:232–239CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. Saeed M, Guo W, Ullah L, Tabbasam N, Zafar Y, Rahman MU, Zhang T (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 14:1–13Google Scholar
  83. Saeed M, Wangzhen G, Tianzhen Z (2014) Association mapping for salinity tolerance in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) germplasm from US and diverse regions of China. Aust J Crop Sci 8:338–346Google Scholar
  84. Saranga Y, Jiang CX, Wright RJ, Yakir D, Paterson AH (2004) Genetic dissection of cotton physiological responses to arid conditions and their inter-relationships with productivity. Plant Cell Environ 27:263–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. SAS Institute (2012) The SAS system for Windows, Release 9.3. SAS Inst., Cary, NCGoogle Scholar
  86. Shen XL, Guo WZ, Lu QX, Zhu XF, Yuan YL, Zhang TZ (2007) Genetic mapping of quantitative trait loci for fiber quality and yield trait by RIL approach in upland cotton. Euphytica 155:371–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Shinozaki K, Yamaguchi-Shinozaki K (2000) Molecular responses to dehydration and low temperature: differences and cross-talk between two stress signalling pathways. Curr Opin Plant Biol 3:217–223CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. Stephens SG (1949) The cytogenetics of speciation in Gossypium I. selective elimination of the donor parent genotype in interspecific back crosses. Genetics 34:627–637PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  89. Sun YP, Niu GH, Zhang JF (2015) Growth responses of an introgression cotton line and its parent cotton genotypes to controlled drought using an automated irrigation system. J Cotton Sci 19:290–297Google Scholar
  90. Tavakkoli E, Fatehi F, Coventry S, Rengasamy P, McDonald GK (2011) Additive effects of Na+ and Cl ions on barley growth under salinity stress. J Exp Bot 62:2189–2203CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  91. Tiwari R (2012) Identification of molecular markers and quantitative trait loci for salt tolerance in a backcross inbred line population of cotton. PhD Dissertation, New Mexico State University, Las CrucesGoogle Scholar
  92. Tiwari RS, Picchioni G, Steiner RL, Hughs SE, Jones DC, Zhang JF (2013a) Genetic variation in salt tolerance at the seedling stage in an interspecific backcross inbred line population of cultivated tetraploid cotton. Euphytica 194:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Tiwari RS, Picchioni G, Steiner RL, Hughs SE, Jones DC, Zhang JF (2013b) Genetic variation in salt tolerance during seed germination in a backcross inbred line population and advanced breeding lines derived from Upland Cotton x Pima cotton. Crop Sci 53:1974–1982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Turner NC, Hearn AB, Begg JE, Constable GA (1986) Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) physiological and morphological responses to water deficits and their relationship to yield. Field Crops Res 14:153–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Ulloa M, Cantrell RG, Richard GP, Eduardo Z, Zhenmin Lu (2000) QTL analysis of stomatal conductance and relationship to lint yield in an interspecific cotton. J Cotton Sci 4:10–18Google Scholar
  96. Van Ooijen JW (2006) JoinMAP 4: Software for the calculation of genetic linkage maps in experimental populations. Kyazma B.V, WageningenGoogle Scholar
  97. Wang WX, Vinocur B, Altman A (2003) Plant responses to drought, salinity and extreme temperatures: towards genetic engineering fr stress tolerance. Planta 218:1–14CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. Xu S (2003) Theoretical basis of the Beavis effect. Genetics 165:2259–2268PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  99. Yu J, Zhang K, Li S, Yu S, Zhai H, Wu M, Li X, Fan S, Song M, Yang D (2013) Mapping quantitative trait loci for lint yield and fiber quality across environments in a Gossypium hirsutum × Gossypium barbadense backcross inbred line population. Theor Appl Genet 126(1):275–287CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. Zhang JF, Hughs SE (2012) Field screening for drought tolerance in cotton. In: Proceedings of Beltwide cotton conference, Orlando, FL, 3–6 January 2012. National Cotton Council America, Memphis, pp 713–718Google Scholar
  101. Zhang L, Ye W, Wang J, Fan B (2010) Studies of salinity tolerance with SSR markers on G. hirsutum L. Cotton Sci 22:175–180Google Scholar
  102. Zhang JF, Percy RG, McCarty JC Jr (2014) Introgression genetics and breeding between Upland and Pima cotton—a review. Euphytica 198:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Zhang T, Hu Y, Jiang W et al (2015) Sequencing of allotetraploid cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L. acc. TM-1) provides a resource for fiber improvement. Nat Biotechnol 33:531–537CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. Zhu JK (2011) Salt and drought stress signal transduction in plants. Annu Rev Plant Biol 53:247–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Abdelraheem Abdelraheem
    • 1
  • David D. Fang
    • 2
  • Jinfa Zhang
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Plant and Environmental SciencesNew Mexico State UniversityLas CrucesUSA
  2. 2.Cotton Fiber Bioscience Research UnitUSDA-ARS-SRRCNew OrleansUSA

Personalised recommendations