Effect of water deficiency on relationships between metabolism, physiology, biomass, and yield of upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.)

  • Tohir A Bozorov
  • Rustam M Usmanov
  • Honglan Yang
  • Shukhrat A Hamdullaev
  • Sardorbek Musayev
  • Jaloliddin Shavkiev
  • Saidgani Nabiev
  • Daoyuan Zhang
  • Alisher A Abdullaev
Article
  • 9 Downloads

Abstract

Drought is a common abiotic stress that considerably limits crop production. The objective of this study is to explore the influence of water deficiency on the yield, physiologic and metabolomic attributes in upland cotton cultivars (Gossypium hirsutum L). Cotton cultivars, ‘Ishonch’ and ‘Tashkent-6’ were selected to study the relationships among their physiologic, metabolomic and yield attributes during water deficiency. Deficit irrigation was designed by modifying the traditional watering protocol to reduce water use. Results indicate that cotton cultivars respond differently to water deficit stress. Water deficit significantly influenced plant height, the number of internodes, and sympodial branches in both cultivars. However, yield components such as the number of bolls, boll seed, lint mass, and individual plant yield were significantly reduced only in ‘Tashkent-6’. The leaf area decreased and the specific leaf weight increased in ‘Ishonch’ under deficit irrigation conditions. However, ‘Tashkent-6’ demonstrated significant water loss compared to ‘Ishonch’, and both cultivars showed reduced transpiration rates. Untargeted metabolite profiles of leaves showed clear separation in ‘Ishonch’, but not in ‘Tashkent-6’ under deficit irrigation compared to full irrigation. The individual metabolites such as proline and galactinol showed strong association with yield under water deficit stress. Moreover, this study indicates that leaf area and transpiration intensity influence yield during water deficiency. In summary, the correlation among morpho-physiologic, metabolic, and yield components significantly varied between the two cultivars under water deficiency. The flowering stage was sensitive to water stress for both cultivars. The direct relationship between physiology, metabolism, and yield may be a useful selection criterion for determining candidate parents for cotton drought tolerance breeding.

Keywords

irrigation cotton drought tolerance metabolite profiling yield 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work is supported by Committee of Science and Technology of Uzbekistan (F5-T025), CAS PIFI fellowships (2017PB0051, 2017VBA0017) and the High Technology Research and Development Program of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region (201411104). We would like to show our gratitude to the employees of Zangi-Ata experimental field station for growing and maintaining cotton plants and Dr. Andrew J WOOD for language editing.

References

  1. AbdelGadir A H, Dougherty M, Fulton J P, et al. 2012. Effect of different deficit-irrigation capabilities on cotton yield in the tennessee valley. Irrigation & Drainage Systems Engineering, 1(1): 102, doi: 10.4172/2168-9768.1000102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abouziena H, Amin A A, Abd El-Kader A A, et al. 2016. Effects of benzoic acid and thiourea on growth and productivity of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Plants. Ponte Academic Journal, 72(4): 132–149, doi: 10.21506/j.ponte.2016.4.26.Google Scholar
  3. Agrawala S, Barlow M, Cullen H, et al. 2001. The drought and humanitarian crisis in central and southwest asia: a climate perspective. IRI Special Report 01-11. Palisades: International Research Institute for Climate Prediction.Google Scholar
  4. Alves A C A, Setter T L. 2004. Response of cassava leaf area expansion to water deficit: cell proliferation, cell expansion and delayed development. Annals of Botany, 94(4): 605–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Amid B T, Mirhosseini H, Poorazarang H, et al. 2013. Implications of partial conjugation of whey protein isolate to durian seed gum through maillard reactions: foaming properties, water holding capacity and interfacial activity. Molecules, 18(12): 15110–15125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baboev S K, Buranov A K, Bozorov T A, et al. 2017. Biological and agronomical assessment of wheat landraces cultivated in mountain areas of Uzbekistan. Sel’skokhozyaistvennaya Biologiya, 52(3): 553–560, doi: 10.15389/agrobiology.2017.3.553eng.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Basal H, Dagdelen N, Unay A, et al. 2009. Effects of deficit drip irrigation ratios on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) yield and fibre quality. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 195(1): 19–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Benavides-Mendoza A, Burgos-Limón D, Ramírez H, et al. 2012. Benzoic acid effect in the growth and yield of tomato in calcareous soil. In: Prioceedings of the 28th International Horticultural Congress on Science and Horticulture for People (IHC2010): International Symposium on Environmental, Edaphic, and Genetic Factors Affecting Plants, Seeds and Turfgrass. Lisboa, Portugal: ISHS, 938: 251–256.Google Scholar
  9. Bohnert H J, Nelson D E, Jensen R G. 1995. Adaptations to environmental stresses. The Plant Cell, 7(7): 1099–1111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Borsani O, Valpuesta V, Botella M A. 2001. Evidence for a role of salicylic acid in the oxidative damage generated by NaCl and osmotic stress in Arabidopsis seedlings. Plant Physiology, 126(3): 1024–1030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boyer J S. 1982. Plant productivity and environment. Science, 218(4571): 443–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bozorov T A, Usmanov R M, Nabiev S, et al. 2016. Metabolome profiling during water deficiency in medium-fiber cotton varieties of Gossypium hirsutum L. species. Problems of Modern Science and Education, 33(75): 10–12.Google Scholar
  13. Bray E A. 1997. Plant responses to water deficit. Trends in Plant Science, 2(2): 48–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Burke J J. 2002. Moisture sensitivity of cotton pollen: an emasculation tool for hybrid production. Agronomy Journal, 94(4): 883–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chen Y, Liu Z H, Feng L, et al. 2013. Genome-wide functional analysis of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) in response to drought. PLoS ONE, 8(11): e80879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dai A G. 2011. Drought under global warming: a review. WIREs Climate Change, 2(1): 45–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. De Fátima Fumis T, Pedras J F. 2002. Proline, diamine and polyamines accumulation in wheat cultivars submitted to water deficits. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira, 37(4): 449–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dhanda S S, Sethi G S. 1998. Inheritance of excised-leaf water loss and relative water content in bread wheat (Triticum aestivum). Euphytica, 104(1): 39–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Duan L X, Chen T L, Li M, et al. 2012. Use of the metabolomics approach to characterize Chinese medicinal material Huangqi. Molecular Plant, 5(2): 376–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Garnier E, Shipley B, Roumet C, et al. 2011. A Standardized protocol for the determination of specific leaf area and leaf dry matter content. Functional Ecology, 15(5): 688–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gerik T J, Faver K L, Thaxton P M, et al. 1996. Late season water stress in cotton: I. plant growth, water use, and yield. Crop Science, 36(4): 914–921.Google Scholar
  22. Grimes D W, Dickens W L, Anderson W D. 1969. Functions for cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) production from irrigation and nitrogen fertilization variables: II. yield components and quality characteristics. Agronomy Journal, 61(5): 773–776.Google Scholar
  23. Guimarães E R, Mutton M A, Mutton M J R, et al. 2008. Free proline accumulation in sugarcane under water restriction and spittlebug infestation. Scientia Agricola, 65(6): 628–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jaleel C A, Manivannan P, Wahid A, et al. 2009. Drought stress in plants: a review on morphological characteristics and pigments composition. International Journal of Agriculture & Biology, 11(1): 100–105.Google Scholar
  25. Keinänen M, Oldham N J, Baldwin I T. 2001. Rapid HPLC screening of jasmonate-induced increases in tobacco alkaloids, phenolics, and diterpene glycosides in Nicotiana attenuata. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 49(8): 3553–3558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kirda C. 2002. Deficit irrigation scheduling based on plant growth stages showing water stress tolerance. In: Deficit Irrigation Practices. Rome: FAO, 22: 1–3.Google Scholar
  27. Kulmatov R. 2014. Problems of sustainable use and management of water and land resources in Uzbekistan. Journal of Water Resource and Protection, 6(1): 35–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Laffray D, Louguet P. 1990. Stomatal responses and drought resistance. Bulletin de la Société Botanique de France. Actualités Botaniques, 137(1): 47–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Leidi E O, López J M, López M, et al. 1993. Searching for tolerance to water stress in cotton genotypes: photosynthesis, stomatal conductance and transpiration. Photosynthetica, 28(3): 383–390.Google Scholar
  30. Levi A, Paterson A H, Cakmak I, et al. 2011. Metabolite and mineral analyses of cotton near-isogenic lines introgressed with QTLs for productivity and drought-related traits. Physiologia Plantarum, 141(3): 265–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Loka D A, Oosterhuis D M, Pilon C. 2015. Endogenous levels of polyamines under water-deficit stress during cotton’s reproductive development. American Journal of Plant Sciences, 6(2): 344–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lu X K, Wang X G, Chen X G, et al. 2017. Single-base resolution methylomes of upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) reveal epigenome modifications in response to drought stress. BMC Genomics, 18: 297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mammadova A, Aliyev R, Babayeva S, et al. 2015. Adaptive reaction of cotton accessions of G. hirsutum L. and G. barbadense L. species to drought stress. Genetika, 47(2): 617–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Maniou F, Chorianopoulou S N, Bouranis D L. 2014. New insights into trophic aerenchyma formation strategy in maize (Zea mays L.) organs during sulfate deprivation. Frontiers in Plant Science, 5: 581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McGarry R C, Prewitt S F, Culpepper S, et al. 2016. Monopodial and sympodial branching architecture in cotton is differentially regulated by the Gossypium hirsutum single flower truss and self-pruning orthologs. The New Phytologist, 212(1): 244–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McMichael B L, Jordan W R, Powell R D. 1973. Abscission processes in cotton: induction by plant water deficit. Agronomy Journal, 65(2): 202–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McMichael B L, Elmore C D. 1977. Proline accumulation in water stressed cotton leaves. Crop Science, 17(6): 905–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McMichael B L, Hesketh J D. 1982. Field investigations of the response of cotton to water deficits. Field Crops Research, 5: 319–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Meyer E, Aspinwall M J, Lowry D B, et al. 2014. Integrating transcriptional, metabolomic, and physiological responses to drought stress and recovery in switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.). BMC Genomics, 15: 527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nepomuceno A L, Oosterhuis D M, Stewart J M. 1998. Physiological responses of cotton leaves and roots to water deficit induced by polyethylene glycol. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 40(1): 29–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nishizawa A, Yabuta Y, Shigeoka S. 2008. Galactinol and raffinose constitute a novel function to protect plants from oxidative damage. Plant Physiology, 147(3): 1251–1263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Obata T, Fernie A R. 2012. The use of metabolomics to dissect plant responses to abiotic stresses. Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, 69(19): 3225–3243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Obata T, Witt S, Lisec J, et al. 2015. Metabolite profiles of maize leaves in drought, heat, and combined stress field trials reveal the relationship between metabolism and grain yield. Plant Physiology, 169(4): 2665–2683.Google Scholar
  44. Onder D, Akiscan Y, Onder S, et al. 2009. Effect of different irrigation water level on cotton yield and yield components. African Journal of Biotechnology, 8(8): 1536–1544.Google Scholar
  45. Orgaz F, Mateos L, Fereres E. 1992. Season length and cultivar determine the optimum evapotranspiration deficit in cotton. Agronomy Journal, 84(4): 700–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pace P F, Cralle H T, El-Halawany S H M, et al. 1999. Drought-induced changes in shoot and root growth of young cotton plants. Journal of Cotton Science, 3(4): 183–187.Google Scholar
  47. Patil M D, Biradar D P, Patil V C, et al. 2011. Response of cotton genotypes to drought mitigation practices. American-Eurasian Journal of Agricultural & Environmental, 11(3): 360–364.Google Scholar
  48. Peel M F, Finlayson B L, McMahon B T. 2007. Updated world map of the Köppen–Geiger climate classification. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions, 4: 439–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pettigrew W T. 2004. Moisture deficit effects on cotton lint yield, yield components, and boll distribution. Agronomy Journal, 96(2): 377–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Plaut Z, Ben-Hur M, Meiri A. 1992. Yield and vegetative growth as related to plant water potential of cotton irrigated with a moving sprinkler system at different frequencies and wetting depths. Irrigation Science, 13(1): 39–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pucholt P, Sjödin P, Weih M, et al. 2015. Genome-wide transcriptional and physiological responses to drought stress in leaves and roots of two willow genotypes. BMC Plant Biology, 15: 244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Radin J W, Reaves L L, Mauney J R, et al. 1992. Yield enhancement in cotton by frequent irrigations during fruiting. Agronomy Journal, 84(4): 551–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Saini H S, Lalonde S. 1997. Injuries to reproductive development under water stress, and their consequences for crop productivity. Journal of Crop Production, 1(1): 223–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sampathkumar T, Pandian B J, Rangaswamy M V, et al. 2013. Influence of deficit irrigation on growth, yield and yield parameters of cotton–maize cropping sequence. Agricultural Water Management, 130: 90–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sawada H, Shim I S, Usui K. 2006. Induction of benzoic acid 2-hydroxylase and salicylic acid biosynthesis—Modulation by salt stress in rice seedlings. Plant Science, 171(2): 263–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Saxena A, Cramer C S. 2013. Metabolomics: a potential tool for breeding nutraceutical vegetables. Advances in Crop Science and Technology, 1: 106.Google Scholar
  57. Smart R E, Bingham G E. 1974. Rapid estimates of relative water content. Plant Physiology, 53(2): 258–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Snider J L, Oosterhuis D M, Loka D A, et al. 2011. High temperature limits in vivo pollen tube growth rates by altering diurnal carbohydrate balance in field-grown Gossypium hirsutum pistils. Journal of Plant Physiology, 168(11): 1168–1175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Snowden C, Ritchie G, Thompson T. 2013. Water use efficiency and irrigation response of cotton cultivars on subsurface drip in west texas. The Journal of Cotton Science, 17(1): 1–9.Google Scholar
  60. Soomro M H, Markhand G S, Soomro B A. 2011. Screening pakistani cotton for drought tolerance. Pakistan Journal of Botany, 44(1): 383–388.Google Scholar
  61. Tahara M, Carver B F, Johnson R C, et al. 1990. Relationship between relative water content during reproductive development and winter wheat grain yield. Euphytica, 49(3): 255–262.Google Scholar
  62. Taji T, Ohsumi C, Iuchi S, et al. 2002. Important roles of drought- and cold-inducible genes for galactinol synthase in stress tolerance in Arabidopsis thaliana. The Plant Journal, 29(4): 417–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tiwari R S, Picchioni G A, Steiner R L, et al. 2013. Genetic variation in salt tolerance during seed germination in a backcross inbred line population and advanced breeding lines derived from Upland cotton×Pima cotton. Crop Science, 53(5): 1974–1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Trolinder N L, McMichael B L, Upchurch D R. 1993. Water relations of cotton flower petals and fruit. Plant, Cell & Environment, 16(6): 755–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Ullah A, Sun H, Yang X Y, et al. 2017. Drought coping strategies in cotton: increased crop per drop. Plant Biotechnology Journal, 15(3): 271–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Ullah I, Mehboob-ur-Rahman, Ashraf M, et al. 2008. Genotypic variation for drought tolerance in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.): leaf gas exchange and productivity. Flora–Morphology, Distribution, Functional Ecology of Plants, 203(2): 105–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Witt S, Galicia L, Lisec J, et al. 2012. Metabolic and phenotypic responses of greenhouse-grown maize hybrids to experimentally controlled drought stress. Molecular Plant, 5(2): 401–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Xu Z Z, Zhou G S. 2008. Responses of leaf stomatal density to water status and its relationship with photosynthesis in a grass. Journal of Experimental Botany, 59(12): 3317–3325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Zhang H Y, Ni Z Y, Chen Q J, et al. 2016. Proteomic responses of drought-tolerant and drought-sensitive cotton varieties to drought stress. Molecular Genetics and Genomics, 291(3): 1293–1303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography, the Chinese Academy of Sciences and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tohir A Bozorov
    • 1
    • 2
  • Rustam M Usmanov
    • 1
  • Honglan Yang
    • 2
  • Shukhrat A Hamdullaev
    • 1
  • Sardorbek Musayev
    • 3
  • Jaloliddin Shavkiev
    • 1
  • Saidgani Nabiev
    • 1
  • Daoyuan Zhang
    • 2
  • Alisher A Abdullaev
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Genetics and Plants Experimental BiologyUzbek Academy of SciencesYukori-YuzUzbekistan
  2. 2.Key Lab of Biogeography and Bioresource in Arid Land, Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and GeographyChinese Academy of SciencesUrumqiChina
  3. 3.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of ConnecticutStorrsUSA

Personalised recommendations