Effect of Drought Stress on Leaf Area in Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.

Cetin Karademir * Emine Karademir * Osman Copur ** Oktay Gencer ***

* : GAP International Agricultural Research and Training Center, Diyarbakır, Turkey

**: Harran University, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Field Crop, Sanliurfa, Turkey
***: Çukurova University, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Field Crop, Adana, Turkey

Abstract: The objective of this study was to determine the effect of drought stress on cotton

leaf area characteristic. The experiment was carried out at the GAP International Agricultural

Research and Training Center in 2010 cotton growing season with the aim of evaluating 12

cotton genotypes for leaf area development under irrigated and water stress conditions. The

experiment was laid out as a randomized split block design with four replications. Significant

differences were observed among genotypes, treatments and genotypes x treatments

interaction for leaf area. The mean leaf area of genotypes changed from 67.15 to 82.02 cm2,

mean of control was 84.82 cm2, while the mean of water stress treatment was 62.59 cm 2. The

result of this study indicated that leaf area decreased approximately 30% under drought stress

condition.

Key Words: Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.), Drought Stress, Leaf Area

Introduction

Water stress is the most important factor limiting crop productivity that adversely affects fruit

production, square and boll shedding, lint yield, and fiber quality properties in cotton (El-Zik

and Thaxton, 1989). As the global climate changes continue, water shortage and drought have

become an increasingly serious constraint limiting crop production worldwide.

The demand for drought tolerant genotypes will be exacerbated as water resources and the

funds to access them become more limited (Longenberger et al., 2006). Previous studies revealed

that 2-4 °C increase in temperature and the expected 30% decrease in precipitation may

adversely affect crop productivity and water availability by the year 2050 (Ben-Asher et al.,
2007). Thus, screening cotton varieties for resistance to drought stress conditions and improving

cotton tolerance to this stress conditions will be mitigate negative consequences of this adversity.

Cotton is normally not classified as a drought tolerant crop as some other plants species such as

sorghum which is cultivated in areas normally too hot and dry to grow other crops (Poehlman,

1986). Nevertheless cotton has mechanisms that make it well adapted to semi-arid regions

(Malik et al., 2006). An understanding of the response of cultivars to water deficits is also

important to model cotton growth and estimate irrigation needs (Pace et al., 1999). Previous

studies reported variation in drought resistance among and within species (Penna et al., 1998).

Water-deficit stress adversely affects plant performance and yield development throughout the

world (Boyer, 1982).

Leaf area is a determinant factor in radiation interception, photosynthesis, biomass

accumulation, transpiration and energy transfer by crop canopies. It is also important with

respect to crop-weed competition and soil erosion (Jonckheere et al., 2004). Therefore, leaf area

is measured in many different studies. There are plenty of investigations on relationship between

drought and leaf area or leaf area index in cotton. Water-deficit stress reduces cell and leaf

expansion, stem elongation, and leaf area index (Jordan et al., 1970; McMichael and Hesketh,

1982; Turner et al., 1986; Ball et al., 1994; Gerik et al., 1996). Genotypes with smaller leaf area

have an advantage under condition of water stress (G. S. Chaturvedi et al,.2012). Leaf, stem and

root growth rate are very sensitive to water stress because they are dependent on cell expansion

(Hsiao, 1976; Hearn, 1994). Krieg and Sung (1986) reported that water stress caused a reduction

in the whole plant leaf area by decreasing the initiation of new leaves, with no significant

changes in leaf size of leaf abscission. Both the main stem and sympodial branches developed

significantly less leaves; however, the effect was less severe on the main-stem leaves. Impaired

mitosis, cell elongation and development result in reduced plant height, leaf area and crop

growth under drought (Nonami, 1998; Kaya et al., 2006; Hussain, 2008). Pettigrew (2004)
reported that water-deficit stress resulted in a decrease in leaf size. Available reports showed that

drought tolerant species reduced the water loss either by reducing the leaf area or limiting

stomatal opening (Gillani,. 2010). Crop cultivars selected for yield under water-limited

environments often have constitutively reduced leaf area associated with smaller leaves (Blum

2005). In many cases, water deficit reduces growth, and leaf area development and duration

(Alishah et al,.2009).Significantly fewer nodes and lower dry weights of stems and leaves of

water-stressed plants compared to those of the control were reported by Pace et al (1999)(Table 1)

Table 1. Plant height, stem and leaf dry weight, leaf area, and node number in drought
stressed and well-watered control plants of Stonevelle 506 and Tamcot HQ95 at the end of the
drought, 49 days after planting. The drought treatment was imposed by withholding water for
13 d. (From Pace et al., 1999).

Plant Part Treatment

Drought Control
Plant height (cm) 20.0* 27.9
Stem dry weight (g) 1.13* 1.39
Leaf dry weight (g) 1.41* 2.16
2
Leaf area (cm ) 56* 153
Node number 7.8* 9.4
* Means in a row are significantly different at the 0.05 probability level.

The objective of this study was to determine the effect of drought stress on cotton leaf area

characteristic.

Materials and methods

The experiment was carried out at the GAP International Agricultural Research and Training

Center’s experimental area during 2010 growing season in Diyarbakır/Turkey. In the study,

twelve cotton genotypes were observed in terms of leaf area characteristic under water stress and

non-stress conditions. Eight advanced cotton lines (BMR-25, SMR-15, TMR-26, BST-1, SER-

21, SST-8, CMR-24, SER-18) developed for tolerance to drought stress, and four commercial

cotton varieties (Stoneville 468, BA 119, GW-Teks and Şahin 2000) were used as plant material.
 The experiment was carried out under field condition as a randomized split block design

(RSBD) with two blocks, one well watered and the other water stress applied, with four

replications in each block. Genotypes were randomized within each of the main blocks and

replications. Each sub plot consisted of four rows of 12 m length, between and within the row

spacing were 0.70 m and 0.20 m respectively. Between main plots 4.2 m space is left for

avoiding edge interference between the treatments.

Seeds of these cotton genotypes were planted with combine cotton drilling machine on 7 th

May, 2010 and all plots were treated with 20-20-0 composite fertilizer to provide 70 kg N ha-1

and 70 kg P2O5 ha-1. Just before flowering, 70 kg N ha-1 were applied as ammonium nitrate as

an additional N dose. Herbicides were used twice in both the years. In both years, insect were

monitored throughout the experiment and no insect control was necessary during these growing

season. Plants were grown under recommended cultural practices for commercial production; the

experiment was thinned and hoed three times by hand and two times with a machine.

Experimental plots were irrigated by drip irrigation method. Water treatments consisted of

two regimes, one of the well watered and the other water-stressed. Throughout the growing

season, 378 mm water was given in water stress treatment and 756 mm water was given in non-

stress treatment. In the stress application, plants were subjected to water stress from flowering

stage to 10% boll opening period.

Measurements were taken on five leaves per plot with the average of the five leaves used for

statistical analysis. For measuring leaf area five plants were selected randomly from each plot

and labeled. 80 days after planting (peak flowering stage) fifth fully expanded leaf below the

terminal was cut from each plant and copied on the pages, later copied pages were scanned and

leaf area calculated as cm2 leaf-1 with Net.Cad 5.1 GIS computer program.

Plots were harvested twice by hand and the obtained seed cotton from the four rows of the

plots were weighed and calculated for seed cotton yield and fiber yield. The first harvest was 7th
October, 2010 and the second harvest was done on 9th November, 2010. After the harvest, seed

cotton samples were ginned on a mini-laboratory roller-gin for lint quality. Fiber quality

properties were determined by High Volume Instrument (HVI Spectrum). Statistical analysis

were performed using JMP 5.0.1 statistical software (http://www.jmp.com) and the means were

grouped with LSD(0.05) test.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The analysis of variance of the investigated characteristics and the obtained findings from the

cotton genotypes are presented in Table 1. Significant differences were obtained among

genotypes and treatments for seed cotton yield, fiber yield and leaf area. Treatment x genotype

interactions was non-significant for all the measured traits. Seed cotton yield, fiber yield and leaf

area were consistently affected by water treatment.

Among the genotypes, highest seed cotton yield was obtained from SER-18, Stoneville 468

BA 119 and SST-8 in water stress conditions. Stoneville 468 also had the highest yield under

well watered conditions. This situation indicates drought tolerance of these genotypes (SER-18,

Stoneville 468 and SST-8) as compared to others. These genotypes also maintained higher fiber

yield under stress conditions. These seed cotton yield and fiber yield reductions are similar to

those reported by (El-Fouly et al., 1971; Marur, 1991; Cook and El-Zik, 1993;Rajamani, 1994;

Pettigrew, 2004b; Bölek, 2007;Alishah and Ahmadikhah, 2009).

Significant differences were observed among genotypes and treatments for leaf area. The

mean leaf area of genotypes changed from 67.15 to 82.02 cm 2, mean of control was 84.82 cm 2,

while the mean of water stress treatment was 62.59 cm2. These results indicated that there was

nearly 30% of reduction in leaf area when comparing the stress and non-stress treatment. Similar

results were reported by Jordan et al., 1970; McMichael and Hesketh, 1982; Turner et al., 1986;

Ball et al., 1994; Gerik et al., 1996; Krieg and Sung,.1986; Nonami, 1998; Kaya et al., 2006;

Hussain, 2008; Pettigrew, 2004; Gillani,. 2010; Alishah et al,.2009; Pace et al.,1999.
Table 1; Average values of seed cotton yields, fiber yields and leaf area of cotton genotypes

Genotype Seed Cotton Yield (kg ha-1) Fiber Yield (kg ha-1) Leaf Area(cm2 leaf
Stress Normal Avarege Stress Normal Avarege Stress Normal Av
1-BMR-25 2076,2 2764,8 2420,5 cd 865,9 1143,5 1004,7 c 57,92 86,85 72
2-SMR -15 1835,4 2968,0 2401,7 cd 728,1 1141,9 935,0 cd 70,70 86,72 78
3-TMR-26 2003,9 2840,1 2422,0 cd 812,7 1152,8 982,8 cd 65,27 90,90 78
4-BST-1 1962,9 2622,7 2292,8 cd 806,6 1069,0 937,8 cd 65,62 85,55 75
5-SER-21 1945,8 2780,6 2363,2 cd 807,9 1144,6 976,3 cd 62,58 74,89 68
6-SST-8 2064,4 2815,9 2440,1 cd 826,9 1142,1 984,5 cd 53,26 85,59 69
7-CMR-24 1935,5 2542,3 2238,9 d 790,2 1060,5 925,4 d 62,57 80,06 71
8-SER-18 2307,5 3147,9 2727,7 ab 946,9 1288,2 1117,5 b 68,20 95,84 82
9-STV 468 2419,0 3246,3 2832,6 a 1081,0 1439,4 1260,2 a 60,99 73,54 67
10-BA 119 2184,2 2834,6 2509,4 bc 968,9 1269,3 1119,1 b 56,94 77,37 67
11-TEKS 1849,4 2724,5 2286,9 cd 793,6 1164,9 979,3 cd 64,26 86,08 75
12-ŞAHİN 2000 1980,2 2733,8 2357,0 cd 807,4 1088,5 948,0 cd 62,79 94,47 78

Mean 2047,0 B 2836,7 A 2441,9 853,0 B 1175,4 A 101,42 62,59 B 84,82 A

CV (%) 9,24 9,03 9.53
LSD 0,05
Genotype 22,44** 7,18** 6,37**
Treatment 9,15** 2,93** 2,89**
G x T. NS NS NS

CONCLUSION

From this study, it can be concluded that the water stress significantly affected cotton yield,

fiber yield and leaf area characteristic. Leaf area decreased almost 30% due to water stress

treatment. As seen in this study the leaf area can be the indicator of stress in terms of

physiological studies. Physiological parameters such as leaf hairiness, leaf water content, root

length, fast root growth, root/shoot ratio, chlorophyll content, photosynthesis and stomatal

conductance should be measured in order to learn the mechanism of the drought stress.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to thanks Mr. Hikmet OGURLU for measuring leaf area by Net.Cad 5.1 GIS

computer program
REFERENCES

Alishah O, Ahmadikhah A (2009). The effects of drought stress on improved cotton varieties
in Golesatn Province of Iran. International J. Plant Prod., 3(1): 17-26.

Ball, R.A., D.M. Oosterhuis, and A. Maromoustakos. 1994. Growth dynamics of the cotton
plant during water-deficit stress. Agron. J. 86:788-795.

Ben-Asher J, Alpert P, Shechter M (2007). Effect of global warming on the secondary factors
affecting water use efficiency and irrigation management. http://pdfcast.org/pdf/effect-of-
global-warming-on-thesecondary-factors-affecting-water-use-efficiency-and-
irrigationmanagement.

Boyer, J.S. 1982. Plant productivity and environment. Science. 218:443-448.

Bölek Y (2007). Yield and yield components of eight cotton genotypes under irrigated and
non-irrigated conditions. KSU J. Sci. Eng., 10(1) : 126-133.

Blum A (2005) Drought resistance, water-use efficiency, and yield potential—are they
compatible, dissonant, or mutually exclusive Aust J Agric Res 56:1159–1168

Cook CG, El-Zik KM (1993). Fruiting and lint yield of cotton cultivars under irrigated and
non-irrigated conditions. Field Crops Res., 33: 411-421.

El-Fouly M, El-Hamavi HA, Fawzi AFA (1971). Different effects of chlormequat on

chlorophyll, protein and yield in cotton grown under varying water regimes. Plant Soil, 35:
183-185.

El-Zik KM, Thaxton PM (1989). Genetic improvement for resistance to pests and stresses in
cotton. in integrated pest management systems and cotton production. John Wiley and Sons.
New York, USA.

Gerik, T.J., K.L. Faver, P.M. Thaxton, and K.M. El-Zik. 1996. Late season water stress in
cotton: I. Plant growth, water use and yield. Crop Sci. 36:914-921.

Gillani 2010; Inherıtance Pattern Of Drought Tolerance Attrıbutes In Cotton (Gossypium

Hirsutum L.) Department Of Plant Breedıng And Genetıcs.Unıversıty Of Agrıculture,
Faısalabad, Pakıstan.

G. S. Chaturvedi, Anuradha Singh and Raj Bahadur 2012: Screenıng Technıques For
Evaluatıng Crop Germplasm For Drought Tolerance . Plant Archives Vol. 12 No. 1, 2012 pp.
11-18
Hearn, A.B. 1994. The principles of cotton water relations and their application in
management. pp. 66-92. In: Constable G.A., and N.W. Forrester (eds.), Challenging the
Future. Proc. World Cotton Conf. Brisbane, Australia

Hussain, M., M.A. Malik, M. Farooq, M.Y. Ashraf, and M.A. Cheema. 2008a. Improving
drought tolerance by exogenous application of glycine betaine and salicylic acid in sunflower.
J. Agron. Crop Sci. 194:193-199.

Hsiao, T.C., E. Acevedo, E. Fereres, and D.W. Henderson. 1976. Stress metabolism: Water
stress, growth and osmotic adjustment. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. 273:479-500.

Jonckheere, I., Fleck, S., Nackaerts, K., Muys, B., Coppin, P., Weiss, M., Baret, F., 2004.
Review of methods for in situ leaf area index determination. I: Theories, sensors and
hemispherical photography. Agric. For. Meteorol. 121, 19-35.

Jordan, W.R. 1970. Growth of cotton seedlings in relation to maximum daily plant-water
potential. Agron. J. 62:699-701.

Kaya, M.D., G. Okçub, M. Ataka, Y. Çıkılı and O. Kolsarıcıa. 2006. Seed treatments to
overcome salt C drought stress during germination in sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.), Eur.
J. Agron., 24: 291–295.

Krieg, D.R., and F.J.M. Sung. 1986. Source-sink relationships as affected by water stress. pp.
73-78. In: J.R. Mauney and J.M. Stewart (eds.). Cotton Physiology. The Cotton Foundation,
Memphis, Tenn.

Longenberger PS, Smith CW, Thaxton PS, McMichael BL (2006). Development of a

screening method for drought tolerance in cotton seedlings. Crop Sci., 46: 2104–2110.

Malik TA, Ullah S, Malik S (2006). Genetic linkage studies of drought tolerant and
agronomic traits in cotton. Pak. J. Bot., 38: 1613-1619

Marur CJ (1991). Comparison of net photosynthetic rate, stomatal resistance and yield of two
cotton cultivars under water stress. Pesquisa Agropecuaria Brasileria, 26: 153-161.

McMichael, B.L., and J.D. Hesketh. 1982. Field investigations of the response of cotton to
water deficits. Field Crops Res. 5: 319- 333.

Nonami, H. 1998. Plant water relations and control of cell elongation at low water potentials,
J. Plant Res., 111: 373–382.

Poehlman JM (1986). Breeding Field Crops. 3rd edn. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, pp.
724, USA.

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: 183-187.

Penna JCV, Verhalen LM, Kirkham MB, Ronald WM (1998). Screening cotton genotypes for
seedling drought tolerance. Genetics and Molecular Biol., 21: 545-549.
Pettigrew, W.T. 2004. Physiological consequences of moisture deficit stress in cotton. Crop
Sci. 44:1265-1272.

Rajamani A (1994). Screening Gossypium hirsutum genotypes for drought tolerance. Madras
Agric. J., 81: 465-468.

Turner, N.C., A.B. Hearn, J.E. Begg, and G.A. Constable. 1986. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum
L.) physiological and morphological responses to water deficits and their relationship to yield.
Field Crops Res. 14:153-170.