Crops ›› 2023, Vol. 39 ›› Issue (4): 224-229.doi: 10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2023.04.032

;

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Effects of Water Stress on Growth of Different Wheat Varieties at Seedling Stage and Selection of Drought Resistant Varieties

Fu Xiaoyi1,2(), Wang Hongguang1, Liu Zhilian1, Li Dongxiao1, He Mingqi2, Li Ruiqi1()   

  1. 1College of Agronomy, Hebei Agricultural University, Baoding 071000, Hebei, China
    2Shijiazhuang Academy of Agricultural and Forestry Sciences, Shijiazhuang 050041, Hebei, China
  • Received:2022-03-28 Revised:2022-06-27 Online:2023-08-15 Published:2023-08-15
  • Contact: Li Ruiqi E-mail:jfuxiaoyi@163.com;li-rq69@163.com

RichHTML

11

PDF (PC)

359

Abstract:

In order to explore the drought resistance of wheat in seedling period, using 14 different wheat varieties as materials, the differences of plant height, the maximum root length, root number, the total root length, total root surface area, root volume, and dry matter accumulation under normal water (CK) and drought stress (15% PEG 6000) treatments were studied. The results showed that under drought stress, plant height, average root length, maximum root length, average root number and dry matter accumulation among different varieties were seriously inhibited, there were significant differences between treatments and varieties. The average root length of JM22 was the longest under the CK treatment, followed by SM22, H0628 and JM418. Under drought treatment, the average root length of SM22, SM26 and HN825 were longer, and that of JM325 was the shortest. Under the CK treatment, JM418 and SM26 had longer root length, JM325 had the minimum root length; SM22 had the most number of roots under the CK treatment, GY5766 had the least root number. Under drought treatment, SX828 had the most root number, SM26 was the second, and GY2018 was the least. Under the two treatments, SM26 and JM418 had the same trend in the total root volume and dry matter accumulation, which were significantly different from other varieties. These results showed that JM418 and SM26 were the varieties with strong drought resistance at seedling stage.

Key words: Wheat, Seedling, Water stress, Drought resistant variety, Selection

Table 1

Response of plant height, average root length, maximum root length and average root number to drought stress in different drought-resistant wheat varieties"

品种
Variety		 株高
Plant height (cm)		 平均根长
Average root length (cm)		 最大根长
Maximum root length (cm)		 平均根条数
Average root number
CK1 15% PEG6000 CK1 15% PEG6000 CK1 15% PEG6000 CK1 15% PEG6000
济麦22 JM22 7.34±0.19ab 0.80±0.02e 6.28±0.05a 2.76±0.08b 9.80±0.04bc 4.51±0.10d 4.40±0.05e 3.00±0.07bc
石新828 SX828 5.64±0.11f 1.18±0.00b 4.98±0.07d 2.31±0.08de 8.70±0.10e 4.73±0.10cd 5.61±0.01b 3.70±0.11a
河农825 HN825 5.00±0.08g 0.90±0.03d 4.03±0.03h 3.17±0.01a 7.80±0.06f 4.64±0.16cd 5.22±0.03bc 3.00±0.11bc
石麦26 SM26 7.12±0.02b 1.40±0.01a 5.62±0.14bc 3.16±0.02a 10.00±0.11ab 5.01±0.10b 5.03±0.05cd 3.20±0.11b
衡4399 H4399 6.46±0.04cd 0.90±0.03d 4.82±0.08de 1.87±0.00f 8.73±0.09e 2.52±0.07i 5.04±0.05d 3.03±0.07bc
衡0628 H0628 6.52±0.08cd 0.73±0.01f 5.62±0.08bc 2.33±0.01de 9.71±0.06cd 4.21±0.07e 4.41±0.01e 3.02±0.12bc
冀麦418 JM418 6.70±0.05c 0.80±0.01e 5.54±0.04c 2.55±0.02c 10.21±0.18a 4.84±0.06bc 4.28±0.01e 3.04±0.17bc
藁优5766 GY5766 5.80±0.06ef 0.86±0.02d 4.38±0.04g 1.80±0.01f 7.81±0.11f 3.11±0.04g 3.76±0.13f 3.28±0.07b
尧麦16 YM16 5.48±0.07f 1.20±0.01b 4.67±0.05ef 2.69±0.01b 8.03±0.05f 4.53±0.07d 5.02±0.01d 3.04±0.01bc
晋麦47 JM47 7.60±0.00a 1.22±0.04b 4.61±0.04f 2.43±0.01d 8.54±0.06e 4.04±0.03ef 5.04±0.13d 3.03±0.12bc
科农1006 KN1006 4.46±0.05h 0.63±0.01g 3.69±0.04i 2.23±0.03e 7.81±0.06f 3.81±0.00f 5.43±0.05b 3.32±0.04b
石麦22 SM22 7.30±0.06ab 0.76±0.00ef 5.74±0.06b 3.20±0.07a 9.50±0.04d 5.41±0.01a 6.02±0.05a 3.04±0.01bc
冀麦325 JM325 6.58±0.04cd 0.58±0.01g 4.81±0.06de 1.50±0.04g 7.54±0.12g 2.81±0.08h 5.04±0.05d 2.84±0.08c
藁优2018 GY2018 6.20±0.00de 0.97±0.03c 4.78±0.03ef 2.40±0.00d 8.53±0.05e 3.23±0.05g 4.33±0.07e 2.02±0.01d

Fig.1

Response of total root length, total root surface area and total root volume to drought stress in different drought-resistant wheat varieties Different letters above the columns indicate significant difference (P < 0.05) among varieties"

Table 2

Response of dry matter accumulating to drought stress in different drought-resistant wheat varieties"

品种
Variety		 CK2 15% PEG 6000
单株茎干重
Shoot dry weight
per plant (g)		 单株根干重
Root dry weight
per plant (g)		 根冠比
Root-shoot
ratio		 单株茎干重
Shoot dry weight
per plant (g)		 单株根干重
Root dry weight
per plant (g)		 根冠比
Root-shoot
ratio
济麦22 JM22 0.85±0.02ghi 0.41±0.02efg 0.48 0.55±0.01d 0.35±0.01def 0.64
石新828 SX828 0.87±0.02gh 0.45±0.01def 0.52 0.60±0.01d 0.31±0.01fg 0.52
河农825 HN825 0.96±0.03ef 0.47±0.02cd 0.49 0.55±0.01d 0.34±0.02ef 0.62
石麦26 SM26 1.20±0.02a 0.59±0.01a 0.49 0.88±0.03ab 0.45±0.02ab 0.51
衡4399 H4399 1.00±0.01de 0.47±0.01cd 0.47 0.69±0.03c 0.36±0.02de 0.52
衡0628 H0628 1.21±0.04a 0.53±0.02b 0.44 0.84±0.02b 0.41±0.02bc 0.49
冀麦418 JM418 1.12±0.04b 0.56±0.01ab 0.50 0.92±0.01a 0.46±0.01a 0.50
藁优5766 GY5766 0.74±0.02j 0.33±0.02h 0.45 0.56±0.02d 0.27±0.01g 0.48
尧麦16 YM16 1.07±0.03bcd 0.60±0.02a 0.56 0.93±0.02a 0.45±0.01ab 0.48
晋麦47 JM47 1.09±0.02bc 0.51±0.02bc 0.47 0.88±0.02ab 0.39±0.01cd 0.44
科农1006 KN1006 0.81±0.02hij 0.39±0.02g 0.48 0.69±0.02c 0.34±0.01ef 0.49
石麦22 SM22 0.92±0.02fg 0.51±0.02bc 0.55 0.74±0.02c 0.41±0.01bc 0.55
冀麦325 JM325 0.79±0.02ij 0.46±0.02cde 0.58 0.72±0.03c 0.35±0.01def 0.49
藁优2018 GY2018 1.02±0.02cde 0.40±0.01fg 0.39 0.73±0.01c 0.36±0.02de 0.49
[1] 张杰, 张强, 赵建华, 等. 作物干旱指标对西北半干早区春小麦缺水特征的反映. 生态学报, 2008, 28(4):1646-1654.
[2] Godfray H C J, Beddington J R, Crute I R, et al. Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science, 2010, 327:812-818.
doi: 10.1126/science.1185383 pmid: 20110467
[3] Peleg Z, Apse M P, Blumwald E. Engineering salinity and water- stress tolerance in crop plants: getting closer to the field. Advances in Botanical Research, 2011, 57:405-443.
[4] 郑桂萍, 李金峰, 钱永德, 等. 农作物综合抗旱性指标的评价分析. 中国农学通报, 2005, 21(10):109-121.
[5] 李艳, 王青, 李凤兰, 等. 植物诱导抗旱研究进展. 作物杂志, 2007(4):16-19.
[6] 田梦雨, 李丹丹, 戴廷波, 等. 水分胁迫下不同基因型小麦苗期的形态生理差异. 应用生态学报, 2010, 21(1):41-47.
[7] 梁银丽, 杨翠玲. 不同抗旱型小麦根系形态与生理特性对渗透胁迫的反应. 西北农业学报, 1995, 4(4):31-36.
[8] 张大勇, 姜新华. 对作物生产的生态学思考. 植物生态学报, 2000, 24(3):383-384.
[9] 关军锋, 马春红. 干早胁迫下小麦根冠生物量变化及其与耐旱性的关系. 河北农业大学学报, 2004, 27(1):1-5.
[10] 杨建设. 不同小麦品种苗期耐旱生理特性研究初报. 陕西农业科学, 1992(6):7-9.
[11] 赖运平, 李俊, 张泽全, 等. 小麦苗期抗旱相关形态指标的灰色关联度分析. 麦类作物学报, 2009, 29(6):1055-1059.
[12] 卫云宗, 刘新月, 张久刚. 小麦苗期抗旱类型研究. 中国生态农业学报, 2008, 16(6):1409-1412.
[13] 金善宝. 中国小麦学. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 1996:754-758.
[14] 冯广龙, 罗远培, 刘建利, 等. 不同水分条件下冬小麦根与冠生长及功能间的动态消长关系. 干旱地区农业研究, 1997, 5(2):73-79.
[15] 杨贵羽, 罗远培, 李保国, 等. 不同土壤水分处理对冬小麦根冠生长的影响. 干旱地区农业研究, 2003, 21(3):104-109.
[16] 单长卷, 郝文芳, 张慧成. 土壤干早对冬小麦幼苗生理特性的影响. 河北农业大学学报, 2006, 29(4):6-10.
[17] 李伟, 闫文利, 刘旭, 等. 干旱胁迫对4份小麦品种种子萌发及幼苗形态的影响. 农业科技通讯, 2018(7):119-122.
[18] 姜淑欣, 刘党校, 庞红喜, 等. PEG胁迫及复水对不同抗旱性小麦幼苗脯氨酸代谢关键酶活性的影响. 西北植物学报, 2014, 34(8):1581-1587.
[19] Gajri P R, Prihar S S. Rooting, water use and yield relations in wheat on loamy sand and sandy loam soils. Field Crops Research, 1985, 12:115-132.
doi: 10.1016/0378-4290(85)90058-9
[20] 梁银丽, 陈培元. 水分胁迫和氮素营养对小麦根苗生长及水分利用效率的效应. 西北植物学报, 1995, 15(1):21-25.
[21] 梁银丽, 陈培元. 土壤水分和氮磷营养对小麦根系生理特性的调节作用. 植物生态学报, 1996, 20(3):255-262.
[1] Liu Chen, Wang Weini, Liao Shipeng, Ren Tao, Guo Chen, Xu Yuanyuan, Yu Daohai, Liu Junmei, Zhang Haoqiang, Sun Xia, Lu Jianwei. Study on Optimal Nitrogen Application Rate for Relay Cropped Rapeseed after Wheat under Different Planting Patterns in the Yellow River Irrigation Region [J]. Crops, 2026, 42(1): 104-110.
[2] Jia Yonghong, Wei Haipeng, Zeng Chaowu, Liu Jun, Chen Yanni, Li Jianjiang, Liang Xiaodong. Identification of Disease Resistant Genes in Xinjiang Spring Wheat Materials Based on KASP Technology [J]. Crops, 2026, 42(1): 15-19.
[3] Gao Yanmei, Feng Pengrui, Chen Weiwei, Zhang Meng, Zhang Yongqing. Physiological Response of Quinoa Seedlings with Drought Resistance to Drought Stress [J]. Crops, 2026, 42(1): 182-188.
[4] Ye Xiaojuan, Liu Qiang. Simulation of Spring Wheat Yield Response to Precipitation, Nitrogen Application, and Straw Mulching under Different Precipitation Year Types [J]. Crops, 2026, 42(1): 217-224.
[5] Wang Yunjiang, Wang Yuying, Liu Chang, Jing Xueyan, Yang Chen, Sun Caixia, Wang Chunping. Effects of Nitrogen Application Rate on Major Mineral Element Content and Bioavailability in Wheat Grains [J]. Crops, 2026, 42(1): 240-248.
[6] Wu Yening, Hu Haochi, Wang Chunyong, Xie Rui, Zhang Yonghu, Wen Rui, Jin Xiaolei. Genetic Diversity and Population Structure Analysis of 104 Tartary Buckwheat Germplasm Resources Based on SSR Markers [J]. Crops, 2026, 42(1): 26-32.
[7] Yu Qiuzhu, Qiu Junhua, Du Hanmei, Wang Anhu. Comprehensive Evaluation of Growth, Development, and Selenium Response Characteristics in Different Tartary Buckwheat Germplasm Resources [J]. Crops, 2026, 42(1): 72-84.
[8] Li Qingxin, Jin Xiuliang, Song Xiao, Zhang Keke, Guo Tengfei, Huang Shaomin, Yue Ke, Ding Shijie, Huang Ming, Li Youjun. Effects of Partial Replacement of Nitrogen Fertilizer with Organic Fertilizer on Growth of Winter Wheat and Soil Properties in Eastern Henan [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(6): 121-131.
[9] Chen Zhihao, Wang Ting, Chang Xuhong, Wang Yanjie, Liu Xiwei, Yang Yushuang, Wang Yujiao, Wang Demei, Zhao Guangcai. Comprehensive Analysis of Yield and Quality Traits of Wheat Lines in the Northern Huang-Huai Winter Wheat Region [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(6): 148-155.
[10] Chen Yi, Chen Xiao, Zhang Maoxing, Li Jing, Chang Jingjing, Li Jiawei, Lin Haiqing, Chen Xingping, Deng Xiaoliang, Xie Dasen, Guo Shaolong, Shen Zhongdeng, Zhang Baige. Response of Different Wax Gourd Varieties to Low-Salt Stress and Comprehensive Evaluation of Their Salt Tolerance [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(6): 58-66.
[11] Du Xiaoyu, Zou Shaokui, Li Nannan, Wang Lina, Zhang Qian, Lü Yongjun, Li Shuncheng, Han Yulin. Genetic Analysis of High-Yield Wheat Variety Zhoumai 27 and Its Parents [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(6): 67-72.
[12] Ma Qiang, Li Yankun, Wang Gui’e, Wen Tingting, Zhang Tianyu, Tian Jichun, Wang Yanxun. Analysis of Agronomic Traits and Quality Characteristics of Colored Wheat Varieties Approved in Shandong Province and Research on Improvement Direction [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(5): 113-119.
[13] Li Tianqi, Cao Yanyan, Ge Changbin, Li Leilei, Huang Jie, Liao Pingʼan. KASP Marker Detection and Analysis of Wheat Variety Luomai 906 and Its Derivative Lines [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(5): 128-134.
[14] Wu Liguo, Li Xiaohui, Zhao Qing, Chen Xiaolong, Pan Jing, Liu Wangqing, Bai Haibo, Li Qianrong. Genetic Diversity Analysis of Agronomic Traits of Spring Wheat Varieties (Lines) in Ningxia [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(5): 147-154.
[15] Li Xiaomin, Gong Hongyu, Tian Bingxin, Liu Donghua, Li Chunxi, Jiang Lina, Ma Jianhui. Effects of Different Row Spacing Arrangements and Planting Density Combinations on Canopy Structure and Nitrogen Utilization in Wheat on the Huang-Huai-Hai Plain [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(5): 171-176.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!