• MF KHAN Pulses Section, Regional Agriculture Research Institute, Bahawalpur, Pakistan
  • T MANZOOR Department of Plant Breeding and Genetics, University of Agriculture Faisalabad, Pakistan




cotton, drought, root length, shoot length, hybrids


The present studies clearly indicated that expressivity of some of the genes was changed due to the simulated drought conditions. The root increases in length in response to drought thus utilizes more photosynthates changing the sink and ultimately reducing the shoot growth. The shift due to drought indicated that the growth and morphological development of root system are under genetic control but may be modified by environmental influences. To screen out drought tolerant and drought susceptible genotypes on the basis of morphological seedling traits such as root characters and root / shoot length ratio. After screening, three drought tolerant genotypes namely BH-124,149-F and DPL-26 and three drought susceptible genotypes i.e. CIM-446, FH-945 and VH-28 were identified which may be used in further hybridization programme to develop drought tolerance varieties and hybrids.


Download data is not yet available.


Aaliya, K., Qamar, Z., Ahmad, N. I., Ali, Q., Munim, F. A., & Husnain, T. (2016). Transformation, evaluation of gtgene and multivariate genetic analysis for morpho-physiological and yield attributing traits in Zea mays. Genetika, 48(1), 423-433.

Abbas, H. G., Mahmood, A., & Ali, Q. (2015). Genetic variability and correlation analysis for various yield traits of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Journal of Agricultural Research, 53(4), 481-491.

Abbas, H. G., Mahmood, A., & Ali, Q. (2016). Zero tillage: a potential technology to improve cotton yield. Genetika, 48(2), 761-776.

Ahmad, H. M., Ahsan, M., Ali, Q., & Javed, I. (2012). Genetic variability, heritability and correlation studies of various quantitative traits of mung bean (Vigna radiate L.) at different radiation levels. International Research Journal of Microbiology, 3(11), 352-362.

Al-Hamdani, S.H. and T.W. Barger, 2003. Influence of water stress on selected physiological responses o three sorghum genotypes. Italy J. Agron., 7:15-22.

Ali, F., Ahsan, M., Ali, Q., & Kanwal, N. (2017). Phenotypic stability of Zea mays grain yield and its attributing traits under drought stress. Frontiers in plant science, 8, 1397.

Ali, Q., Ahsan, M., Ali, F., Aslam, M., Khan, N. H., Munzoor, M., ... & Muhammad, S. (2013). Heritability, heterosis and heterobeltiosis studies for morphological traits of maize (Zea mays L.) seedlings. Advancements in Life Sciences, 1(1):52-63.

Ali, Q., Ahsan, M., Kanwal, N., Ali, F., Ali, A., Ahmed, W., ... & Saleem, M. (2016). Screening for drought tolerance: comparison of maize hybrids under water deficit condition. Advancements in Life Sciences, 3(2), 51-58.

Ali, Q., Ali, A., Ahsan, M., Nasir, I. A., Abbas, H. G., & Ashraf, M. A. (2014a). Line× Tester analysis for morpho-physiological traits of Zea mays L seedlings. Advancements in Life sciences, 1(4), 242-253.

Ali, Q., Ali, A., Awan, M. F., Tariq, M., Ali, S., Samiullah, T. R., ... & Hussain, T. (2014b). Combining ability analysis for various physiological, grain yield and quality traits of Zea mays L. Life Sci J, 11(8s), 540-551.

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

Basal, H., C.W. Smith, P.S. Thaxton, and J.K. Hemphill. 2005. Seedling drought tolerance in upland cotton. Crop sci. 45(2): 766-771.

Genty, B., J.M. Briantais and J.B. Vieira da Silva. 1987. Effects of drought on primary photo synthetic processes of cotton leaves. Plant Physiology, 83: 360-364.

Hafeez, M. N., Khan, M. A., Sarwar, B., Hassan, S., Ali, Q., Husnain, T., & Rashid, B. (2021). Mutant Gossypium universal stress protein-2 (GUSP-2) gene confers resistance to various abiotic stresses in E. coli BL-21 and CIM-496-Gossypium hirsutum. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 20466.

Javed, I., Ahsan, M., Ahmad, H. M., & Ali, Q. (2016). Role of mutation breeding to improve Mungbean (Vigna radiata L. Wilczek) yield: An overview. Nature Science, 14(1), 63-77

Leidi, E.O., Lopez.J. Gorham and J.C. Gutierrez. 1999. Variation in carbon isotoj discrimination and other traits to drought tolerance in upland cotton cultiva: under dryland conditions. Field Crops Res. 61:109-123.

Longenberger, P.S., C.W. Smith, P.S. Thaxton and B.L. McMichael. 2006. Developme of a screening method for drought tolerance in cotton seedlings. Crop Sci. 4: 2104-2110.

Malik, R.S., J.S. Dhankar, and N.C. Turner. 1979. Influence of soil water deficits on re growth and cotton seedlings. Plant Soil 53:109-115.

McMichael, B.L., and J.E. Quisenberry. 1991. Genetic variation for root-she relationships among cotton germplasm. Environ. Exp. Bot. 31:461-470.

Nepo-muceno, A.L., D.M. Oosterhuis, and J.M. Stewart. 1998. Physiological response cotton leaves and roots to water deficit induced by polyethylene glycol. Envirc Exp.Bot, 40(1): 29-41.

Puspito, A. N., Rao, A. Q., Hafeez, M. N., Iqbal, M. S., Bajwa, K. S., Ali, Q., ... & Husnain, T. (2015). Transformation and evaluation of Cry1Ac+ Cry2A and GTGene in Gossypium hirsutum L. Frontiers in Plant Science, 6, 943

Saranga, Y., C.X. Jiang, R.J. Wright, D. Yakir and A.H. Patcrson. 2004. Genetic dissection of cotton physiological responses to arid conditions and their inter¬relationships with productivity. Plant Cell and Environment, 27: 263-277,

Singh, P. 2004. Cotton Breeding. 2nd ed. Kalyani Publishers, New Delhi: 1, 2, 6. 147, ,148, 149, and 162.

Steel, R.G.D., J.H. Torrie and D.A. Dickey. 1997. Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A biometrical approach. 3rd ed. WCB/McGraw Hill, Inc. New York, USA.

Zafar, M. M., Mustafa, G., Shoukat, F., Idrees, A., Ali, A., Sharif, F., ... & Li, F. (2022). Heterologous expression of cry3Bb1 and cry3 genes for enhanced resistance against insect pests in cotton. Scientific Reports, 12(1), 10878.




How to Cite

KHAN, M., & MANZOOR, T. (2023). EVALUATION OF COTTON GENOTYPES SEEDLINGS FOR DROUGHT STRESS TOLERANCE. Biological and Clinical Sciences Research Journal, 2023(1), 269. https://doi.org/10.54112/bcsrj.v2023i1.269