Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35820810›Full record

ArticleBMC plant biology2022

Differential seedling growth and tolerance indices reflect drought tolerance in cotton.

Tahir Mahmood, Muhammad Shahid Iqbal, Hongge Li, Mian Faisal Nazir, Shiguftah Khalid, Zareen Sarfraz, Daowu Hu, Chen Baojun, Xiaoli Geng, Sani Muhammad Tajo and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC plant biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Evaluating Drought Tolerance inInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Tahir MahmoodState Key Laboratory of Cotton Biology, Institute of Cotton Research (ICR), Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS), Anyang, 455000, China.
Muhammad Shahid IqbalState Key Laboratory of Cotton Biology, Institute of Cotton Research (ICR), Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS), Anyang, 455000, China.
Hongge LiSchool of Agricultural Sciences, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, 450001, China.
Mian Faisal NazirState Key Laboratory of Cotton Biology, Institute of Cotton Research (ICR), Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS), Anyang, 455000, China.
Shiguftah KhalidState Key Laboratory of Cotton Biology, Institute of Cotton Research (ICR), Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS), Anyang, 455000, China.
Zareen SarfrazState Key Laboratory of Cotton Biology, Institute of Cotton Research (ICR), Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS), Anyang, 455000, China.
Daowu HuState Key Laboratory of Cotton Biology, Institute of Cotton Research (ICR), Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS), Anyang, 455000, China.
Chen BaojunState Key Laboratory of Cotton Biology, Institute of Cotton Research (ICR), Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS), Anyang, 455000, China.
Xiaoli GengState Key Laboratory of Cotton Biology, Institute of Cotton Research (ICR), Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS), Anyang, 455000, China.
Sani Muhammad TajoState Key Laboratory of Cotton Biology, Institute of Cotton Research (ICR), Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS), Anyang, 455000, China.
Washu DevState Key Laboratory of Cotton Biology, Institute of Cotton Research (ICR), Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS), Anyang, 455000, China.
Zubair IqbalState Key Laboratory of Cotton Biology, Institute of Cotton Research (ICR), Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS), Anyang, 455000, China.
Pan ZhaoState Key Laboratory of Cotton Biology, Institute of Cotton Research (ICR), Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS), Anyang, 455000, China.
Guanjing HuState Key Laboratory of Cotton Biology, Institute of Cotton Research (ICR), Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS), Anyang, 455000, China. huguanjing@caas.cn.
Xiongming DuState Key Laboratory of Cotton Biology, Institute of Cotton Research (ICR), Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS), Anyang, 455000, China. duxiongming@caas.cn.

Funding

Central Public-interest Scientific Institution Basal Research Fund 1610162021012National Key Research and Development Program of China 2017YFE0105100
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCotton production is adversely effected by drought stress. It is exposed to drought stress at various critical growth stages grown under a water scarcity environment. Roots are the sensors of plants; they detect osmotic stress under drought stress and play an important role in plant drought tolerance mechanisms. The seedling stage is very sensitive to drought stress, and it needed to explore the methods and plant characteristics that contribute to drought tolerance in cotton.

resultsInitially, seedlings of 18 genotypes from three Gossypium species: G. hirsutum, G. barbadense, and G. arboreum, were evaluated for various seedling traits under control (NS) and drought stress (DS). Afterward, six genotypes, including two of each species, one tolerant and one susceptible, were identified based on the cumulative drought sensitivity response index (CDSRI). Finally, growth rates (GR) were examined for shoot and root growth parameters under control and DS in experimental hydroponic conditions. A significant variation of drought stress responses was observed across tested genotypes and species. CDSRI allowed here to identify the drought-sensitive and drought-resistant cultivar of each investigated species. Association among root and shoots growth traits disclosed influential effects of enduring the growth under DS. The traits including root length, volume, and root number were the best indicators with significantly higher differential responses in the tolerant genotypes. These root growth traits, coupled with the accumulation of photosynthates and proline, were also the key indicators of the resistance to drought stress.

conclusionTolerant genotypes have advanced growth rates and the capacity to cop with drought stress by encouraging characteristics, including root differential growth traits coupled with physiological traits such as chlorophyll and proline contents. Tolerant and elite genotypes of G. hirsutum were more tolerant of drought stress than obsolete genotypes of G. barbadense and G. arboreum. Identified genotypes have a strong genetic basis of drought tolerance, which can be used in cotton breeding programs.

Indexed as

GossypiumSeedlingsDroughtsPlant BreedingProlineProlineCottonDrought stress response indicesDrought toleranceGossypium sppRoot growthSeedling growth rateShoot growth

Identifiers

PMID35820810
PMCPMC9277823

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.