Crops ›› 2025, Vol. 41 ›› Issue (4): 142-149.doi: 10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2025.04.018

Previous Articles     Next Articles

The Effect of Ramie Extract on Waterlogging Stress of Rapeseed Seed Germination and Pod Stage

Qu Hongyue1(), Zhu Linxin1, He Yejun1, Shao Mingyu1, Han Xinran1, Jie Yucheng1,2, Xing Hucheng1,2()   

  1. 1Institute of Ramie, Hunan Agricultural University, Changsha 410128, Hunan, China
    2Hunan Provincial Engineering Technology Research Center of Grass Crop Germplasm Innovation and Utilization, Changsha 410128, Hunan, China
  • Received:2024-03-14 Revised:2024-06-08 Online:2025-08-15 Published:2025-08-12

RichHTML

2

PDF (PC)

117

Abstract:

The water, anhydrous ethanol, and petroleum ether extracts from ramie stems and roots were used to treat rapeseed under waterlogging condition to investigate seed germination, rapeseed yield and quality. The results showed that the treatment with anhydrous ethanol and petroleum ether solvent extracts could promote the germination of rapeseed seeds under waterlogging condition, and strong promoting effects were observed at concentrations of 400 g/L and 4 g/L, respectively. The allelopathic promoting effect of ramie organic solvent extract treatment on rapeseed root length and seedling height was stronger than that of water extract treatment. The treatment with organic solvent extract of ramie exhibited a favorable recovery effect on rapeseed under waterlogging stress during the podding stage, and the recovery effect of the solvent extract of ramie roots was better than that of the extract of stems. Ramie solvent extract had a promoting effect on the SOD and POD activities of rapeseed.

Key words: Ramie, Solvent extract, Rapeseed, Waterlogging stress, Mitigative effect

Table 1

Solvent extract from stems and roots of ramie"

材料
Material		 溶剂
Solvent		 浓度
Concentration (g/L)		 处理
Treatment
茎Stem 水 0.04 T1
4 T2
400 T3
无水乙醇 0.04 T4
4 T5
400 T6
石油醚 0.04 T7
4 T8
400 T9
根Root 水 0.04 T10
4 T11
400 T12
无水乙醇 0.04 T13
4 T14
400 T15
石油醚 0.04 T16
4 T17
400 T18

Fig.1

The effect of solvent extract from ramie stem and root on germination potential and germination rate of rapeseed seeds under waterlogging stress Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among different treatments (P < 0.05)."

Table 2

The effect of solvent extract from ramie stem and root on root length and seedling height of rapeseed under waterlogging stress"

处理
Treatment		 根长
Root length (mm)		 根长化感指数
RI of root length		 苗高
Seedling height (mm)		 苗高化感指数
RI of seedling height		 综合敏感指数
SI
CK1 80.70±12.46a － 84.00±12.14a － －
CK2 34.60±19.00h － 40.73±14.84i － －
T1 44.70±23.33g 0.29 43.97±17.32hi 0.08 0.19
T2 47.33±16.07fg 0.37 53.10±17.19efgh 0.30 0.34
T3 53.63±19.39cdefg 0.55 60.43±17.63bcdef 0.48 0.52
T4 58.00±18.65cde 0.68 59.73±14.36bcdef 0.47 0.58
T5 52.17±13.71efg 0.51 50.00±16.71fghi 0.23 0.37
T6 67.47±18.11b 0.95 59.37±17.82bcdef 0.48 0.72
T7 63.13±13.93bc 0.82 64.23±18.99bcd 0.58 0.70
T8 58.47±15.42bcde 0.69 59.83±18.65bcdef 0.47 0.58
T9 63.03±14.20bcd 0.83 61.30±20.29bcde 0.48 0.66
T10 54.07±13.50cdef 0.56 46.03±15.64ghi 0.13 0.35
T11 58.57±13.38bcde 0.69 53.13±13.60efgh 0.30 0.50
T12 51.47±13.14efg 0.49 50.43±15.83fghi 0.24 0.37
T13 53.47±12.26defg 0.55 55.97±14.68cdefg 0.37 0.46
T14 57.00±14.95cde 0.65 55.53±15.67defg 0.36 0.51
T15 55.43±14.26cdef 0.60 53.73±18.26efgh 0.32 0.46
T16 57.33±13.64cde 0.66 53.77±18.48efgh 0.32 0.49
T17 59.03±14.55bcde 0.71 66.13±18.76bc 0.62 0.67
T18 54.93±15.26cdef 0.59 69.17±24.44b 0.70 0.65

Table 3

The effect of solvent extract from ramie stem and root on agronomic traits and yield of rapeseed under waterlogging stress during the podding stage"

处理
Treatment		 株高
Plant height
(cm)		 茎粗
Stem diameter
(mm)		 含油率
Oil content
(%)		 一次有效分枝数
Number of primary
productive branches		 单株有效角果数
Effective pod
number per plant		 角果粒数
Kernel number
per pod		 千粒重
1000-grain
weight (g)		 单株产量
Yield per
plant (g)
T0 170.37±1.17de 7.17±0.19cdef 35.94±1.06abcde 6.0±0.2a 68.9±2.5ab 25.65±1.24abcdef 3.76±0.31cdef 5.65±0.57bcd
T0’ 165.89±1.39ghi 6.52±0.25ghi 34.33±0.12efg 5.7±0.2a 64.5±1.3efg 24.46±0.15cdef 3.35±0.31g 4.48±0.30f
T1 160.47±0.97j 6.08±0.14ij 35.21±1.03cdef 6.0±0.5a 66.7±1.0bcdef 24.41±1.24def 3.32±0.06g 4.59±0.08ef
T2 170.22±1.08de 7.46±0.22bc 34.66±0.77defg 5.7±0.6a 63.8±2.6fg 23.77±1.43ef 3.51±0.15efg 4.52±0.27ef
T3 173.51±1.01bc 6.95±0.26defg 35.84±0.61abcdef 6.3±0.6a 67.4±1.8bcde 23.56±1.23ef 3.47±0.18fg 4.67±0.13ef
T4 166.83±0.87fgh 6.43±0.34hi 36.13±0.48abcde 6.0±0.4a 63.1±1.3gh 24.15±1.64def 3.79±0.13bcdef 4.92±0.60def
T5 163.46±0.64i 6.78±0.11fgh 35.55±0.69bcdef 6.0±0.7a 60.4±2.1hi 23.42±1.36f 3.63±0.08defg 4.36±0.31f
T6 165.42±0.79ghi 6.83±0.12efgh 36.24±0.57abcd 5.0±0.2a 59.8±2.4i 23.92±1.67ef 3.82±0.05bcdef 4.63±0.20ef
T7 168.74±0.89ef 7.51±0.18bc 37.13±0.71ab 6.0±0.5a 65.4±1.8cdefg 26.29±0.48abcd 3.84±0.06bcde 5.61±0.35bcd
T8 171.54±0.56cd 7.26±0.25cde 37.44±0.66a 6.0±0.2a 68.3±1.4abc 26.95±0.37ab 3.92±0.07abcd 6.13±0.15abc
T9 170.63±1.47de 7.48±0.36bc 36.84±0.84abc 6.3±0.2a 71.3±0.9a 25.89±2.38abcde 3.79±0.09bcdef 5.94±0.48abc
T10 164.23±2.31hi 5.84±0.18j 34.01±0.80fg 5.0±0.8a 64.6±1.4defg 25.23±0.90bcdef 3.84±0.34bcde 5.34±0.78cde
T11 168.94±0.84def 6.49±0.28hi 33.14±1.37g 5.7±0.6a 62.4±1.3ghi 25.47±1.09abcdef 3.64±0.20defg 4.93±0.58def
T12 167.35±0.93fg 6.74±0.14fgh 35.19±1.20cdef 5.3±1.1a 67.3±1.9bcde 26.36±0.49abcd 3.85±0.19bcde 5.82±0.56abc
T13 164.53±1.45hi 5.31±0.35k 36.12±1.23abcde 5.0±0.6a 69.2±0.4ab 25.71±1.34abcdef 4.13±0.14ab 6.26±0.57ab
T14 174.59±2.28b 7.39±0.18bcd 36.71±1.40abc 6.0±1.0a 69.2±0.7ab 25.69±0.57abcdef 4.14±0.25ab 6.27±0.58ab
T15 177.45±1.87a 7.84±0.15b 37.21±1.33ab 6.7±0.6a 67.8±1.1bcd 27.62±1.20a 4.11±0.11abc 6.54±0.01a
T16 171.56±0.58cd 7.24±0.13cde 36.13±0.58abcde 6.0±0.6a 65.6±1.7cdefg 26.46±0.6abcd 3.96±0.15abcd 5.84±0.24abc
T17 175.84±1.69ab 8.46±0.21a 36.92±0.51abc 6.3±0.8a 69.3±0.8ab 26.78±1.44abc 4.07±0.06abc 6.42±0.33ab
T18 167.32±1.12fg 5.32±0.05k 36.47±1.13abcd 5.7±0.4a 68.4±0.6abc 25.36±0.40abcdef 4.23±0.11a 6.23±0.01ab

Table 4

The effect of solvent extract from ramie stem and root on SOD and POD activity in rapeseed under waterlogging stress during the podding stage"

处理
Treatment		 SOD
(U/g)		 SOD
化感指数
RI of SOD		 POD
(U/g)		 POD
化感指数
RI of POD
T0 55.18±6.17jk － 947±57g －
T0’ 75.94±2.43ghijk － 1143±57efg －
T1 88.43±11.16efghi 0.16 653±57h -0.43
T2 117.47±14.90cde 0.55 653±150h -0.43
T3 102.15±23.89cdefg 0.35 1013±150fg -0.11
T4 226.74±15.85a 1.99 1274±98ef 0.11
T5 84.39±8.73fghij 0.11 1143±57efg 0.00
T6 208.26±18.35ab 1.74 1176±98efg 0.03
T7 60.54±6.28ijk -0.20 3397±204a 1.97
T8 62.13±1.23ijk -0.18 2287±150c 1.00
T9 70.21±4.56hijk -0.08 2254±98c 0.97
T10 189.98±30.41b 1.50 523±57h -0.54
T11 54.43±8.47jk -0.28 1307±204e 0.14
T12 52.02±5.84k -0.32 1013±150fg -0.11
T13 96.53±28.77defgh 0.27 1111±57efg -0.03
T14 80.30±6.20fghijk 0.06 1143±57efg 0.00
T15 128.04±18.39c 0.69 1176±98efg 0.03
T16 80.32±6.64fghijk 0.06 3005±283b 1.63
T17 108.19±15.28cdef 0.42 1764±98d 0.54
T18 124.88±16.82cd 0.64 1960±98d 0.71
[1] 孙文韬, 张志浩, 张古月, 等. 耐渍甘蓝型油菜(Brassica napus)种质筛选与评价. 西北农业学报, 2023, 32(6):855-865.
[2] 杨海云, 艾雪莹, Maria B, 等. 油菜响应水分胁迫的生理机制及栽培调控措施研究进展. 华中农业大学学报, 2021, 40(2):6-16.
[3] 杨奕涵, 马玉申, 揭红东, 等. 不同生育期渍水对油菜农艺性状和产量的影响. 安徽农业科学, 2022, 50(16):20-22.
[4] 李继军, 陈雅慧, 王艺瑾, 等. 甘蓝型油菜种质资源田间耐渍性评价和耐渍种质资源筛选. 作物学报, 2023, 49(12):3162-3175.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2023.34034
[5] 黄万勇, 吉陈丽. 渍害对作物生理生长指标的影响研究现状. 浙江水利科技, 2019, 47(3):12-15.
[6] 杨威, 朱建强, 吴启侠, 等. 油菜对渍涝胁迫的响应及排水指标研究. 灌溉排水学报, 2016, 35(10):27-30.
[7] 周香玉. 渍水胁迫对不同耐渍性甘蓝型油菜生理生化指标影响. 荆州: 长江大学, 2023.
[8] 陈鹏运. 湖南油菜生产主要气象灾害与应对措施. 农业科技通讯, 2021(10):216-220.
[9] 李亚玲, 唐朝霞. 苎麻植物的多功能开发与利用. 四川农业科技, 2014(3):45-46.
[10] 王梓薇, 白玉超, 付虹雨, 等. 苎麻秸秆水浸提液对苎麻生理生化和根际微生物的影响. 分子植物育种, 2025, 23(7):2296-2306.
[11] 朱林欣, 何也君, 陈浩, 等. 苎麻浸提液对4种田间杂草的化感作用. 草业科学, 2023, 40(8):2038-2047.
[12] 刘楠楠, 杨瑞芳, 李林林, 等. 苎麻根际土壤水浸提液对拟南芥幼苗生长的化感效应. 中国麻业科学, 2017, 39(2):64-68.
[13] 湛瑊, 刘登望, 李林, 等. 花生种子发芽期呼吸酶活性对淹水的响应. 花生学报, 2019, 48(4):63-66,74.
[14] 谭筱玉, 程勇, 郑普英, 等. 油菜湿害及耐湿性机理研究进展. 中国油料作物学报, 2011, 33(3):306-310.
[15] 戴思薇, 朱建强. 南方平原地区油菜涝渍灾害的形成、发生机制及其防治. 长江大学学报(自然科学版), 2015, 12(9):1-4,86.
[16] 曾亮, 柴继宽, 赵桂琴, 等. 燕麦根浸提液对5种植物的潜在化感作用. 草业科学, 2023, 40(8):2048-2057.
[17] 杨浩娜, 周成言, 邬腊梅, 等. 植物化感物质的作用机理研究进展. 湖南农业科学, 2022(3):108-112.
[18] 李赟, 白玉超, 付虹雨, 等. 苎麻土壤水浸提液物质成分鉴定及其对根际微生物的影响. 分子植物育种,(2025-06-09) [2024-05-18]. http://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/46.1068.S.20220916.1216.038.html.
[19] 卢玉鹏, 黄国华, 高柱, 等. 中华猕猴桃叶浸提液对4种生草化感作用及化感物质鉴定. 江苏农业科学, 2023, 51(22):237-244.
[20] 高兴祥, 李美, 高宗军, 等. 苍耳对不同植物幼苗的化感作用研究. 草业学报, 2009, 18(2):95-101.
[21] 迟铭, 刘增文. 杜仲叶水提取物对几种农作物的化感作用. 西北农业学报, 2011, 20(6):168-173.
[22] 闫兴富, 方苏, 杜茜, 等. 苦豆子浸提物对沙棘和枸杞种子萌发的化感效应. 中国种业, 2011(3):30-32.
[23] 陈锡, 曾晓芳, 赵德刚. 朝仓花椒叶水浸提物对白菜种子萌发及幼苗生长的影响. 种子, 2016, 35(2):37-41.
[24] 惠文森, 向首富. 藜营养器官水浸提液对紫花苜蓿的化感作用研究. 草业与畜牧, 2013(3):1-3,49.
[25] 朱强, 张得怀, 王雪剑, 等. 狗尾草水提取物对6种植物的化感作用. 杂草科学, 2013, 31(4):25-30.
[26] 刘淑贞, 马瑞昆, 贾秀领, 等. 植物浸提物ZT—1在小麦栽培上的应用. 河北农业科技, 1990(4):8.
[27] 陶红, 陈和, 陈健, 等. 洋葱水浸提物对叶菜类蔬菜的化感作用研究. 现代农业科技, 2015(11):87-89,91.
[28] Tian X Q, Li Z, Liu Y H, et al. Role of tillage measures in mitigating waterlogging damage in rapeseed. BMC Plant Biology, 2023, 23(1):231.
doi: 10.1186/s12870-023-04250-7 pmid: 37122012
[29] 罗裳, 王志远, 李长威, 等. 过氧化钙缓解冬油菜苗期渍害胁迫的效应研究. 浙江大学学报(农业与生命科学版), 2023, 49(4):516-525.
[30] 胡超, 万林, 张利艳, 等. 独脚金内酯缓解油菜渍水胁迫的生理机制. 中国油料作物学报, 2017, 39(4):467-475.
[31] 秦巧燕, 朱建强, 贾陈忠, 等. 脱落酸对花荚期油菜渍害的修复效应. 江苏农业科学, 2018, 46(9):73-76.
[32] 王曾桢, 朱建强, 戴思薇. 叶面化学调控和营养调控减轻油菜花果期渍涝危害的效果. 江苏农业科学, 2016, 44(2):136-138.
[1] Liu Xuanxuan, Guo Ruishi, Dong Mengmeng, Zhu Keying, Zhu Xiaopin, Wang Li, Wang Ning. Preliminary Study on the Waterlogging Tolerance Mechanisms in Two Cotton Varieties at Seedling Stage during Waterlogging Stress and Recovery Period [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(4): 126-134.
[2] Jin Ping, Liu Haidong. Development Status and Countermeasures of Rapeseed Seed Industry Development in Qinghai Province [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(3): 11-15.
[3] Yang Zepeng, Wan Kejun, Zheng Shenghua, Ao Yuqin, Ma Mingkun, Wan Xue, Li Shanshan, Song Xin, Wang Changtao, Chen Shanghong, Liu Dinghui, Chen Honglin. Effects of Nitrogen Fertilizer and Seeding Amount Configuration on Yield Formation of Rapeseed by Aerial Seeding [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(3): 225-232.
[4] Huang Chengjian, Li Xiang, Liu Xiaokang, Pan Tingjie, Lei Ning, Luo Fang, Zhao Siyi. Effects of Different Crops Planting on Heavy Metals in Soils and Crops [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(2): 180-188.
[5] Long Weihua, Xian Zhihui, Zhang Zheng, Alibieligen·Hazitai , Zulehumaer·Wusimanjiang , Pu Huiming, Hu Maolong. Adaptability Analysis of Non-Transgenic Herbicide-Resistant Hybrid Rapeseed Lines from Lower Reaches of the Yangtze River in Ili River Valley, Xinjiang [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(1): 111-116.
[6] Lü Weisheng, Wang Xinyue, Chen Ming, Deng Xueyun, Zhang Chen, Li Zijing, Luo Junyuan, Liu Xiaosan, Xiao Guobin. The Effect and the Residual Effect of Special Controlled-Release Nitrogen Fertilizer for Rapeseed (Brassica napus L.) under Rapeseed-Sesame Rotation System in Red-Soil Dryland [J]. Crops, 2024, 40(6): 113-119.
[7] Tian Xiaoqin, Wang Dan, Li Zhuo, Liu Yonghong, Li Wei. Effects of Ridge and Mulching on Yield and Water Use Efficiency of Rapeseed [J]. Crops, 2023, 39(5): 204-211.
[8] Zhao Caixia, Yuan Yuting. Adaptability Analysis of High-Quality Rapeseed Dadi 95 in Main Agricultural Areas in Tibet [J]. Crops, 2023, 39(2): 51-56.
[9] Tao Yueyue, Sun Hua, Wang Haihou, Lu Changying, Shen Mingxing. Effects of Harvest Date and Drying Days on the Yield, Crude Protein Content and Moisture of Forage Rapeseed [J]. Crops, 2022, 38(5): 215-220.
[10] Wu Pengbo, Li Lijun, Zhang Yanli. Comprehensive Evaluation of Saline-Alkali Tolerance and Comparison of Rhizosphere Soil Organic Acid Content at Rapeseed Seedling Stage [J]. Crops, 2022, 38(1): 110-115.
[11] Li Xinhao, Li Jun, Wan Lin, Liu Lixin, Liu Junquan, Ma Ni. Effects of No-Tillage and Drilling on Growth, Root System and Yield of Rapeseed (Brassica napus L.) in Hilly Area [J]. Crops, 2021, 37(6): 139-144.
[12] Xiong Tinghao, Zi Tao, Zhang Ai, Hu Yuqian, Peng Zhi, Song Haixing. Effects of Different Organic Fertilizer Dosages on Nutrient Utilization and Yield of Rapeseed under Chemical Fertilizer Reduction [J]. Crops, 2021, 37(3): 133-139.
[13] Qin Lu, Wang Jianqiang, Han Peipei, Li Yinshui, Gu Chiming, Hu Xiaojia, Xie Lihua, Liao Xing. Difference in Nitrogen Absorption and Transportation and Utilization of Rapeseed Germplasms with Contrasting Nitrogen Efficiency [J]. Crops, 2021, 37(3): 28-33.
[14] Yi Zhenxie, Wang Yuanyuan, Gu Zihan, Shuai Zeyu, Tu Naimei, Chen Pingping. Study on the Feasibility of Alternative Planting of Rapeseed-Middle Rice to Double Cropping Rice in Cadmium Polluted Rice Area [J]. Crops, 2021, 37(3): 65-69.
[15] Zheng Fei, Wang Lixia, Liu Ruixiang, Kong Lingjie, Chen Yanping, Yuan Jianhua, Cui Yakun. Morphological and Physiological Differences of Maize Inbred Lines at Seedling Stage under Waterlogging Stress [J]. Crops, 2020, 36(4): 158-163.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!