Crops ›› 2025, Vol. 41 ›› Issue (6): 172-180.doi: 10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2025.06.021

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Physiological Mechanism of Yield and Protein Formation in Barley under Different Cultivation Modes

Wang Shuqi1(), Li Jianbo1,2, Liu Zhiping3, Ma Yu3, Qu Jiahui3, Batu 3, Xu Shoujun1,2()   

  1. 1 College of Agriculture, Inner Mongolia University for Nationalities, Tongliao 028000, Inner Mongolia, China
    2 Forage Crop Engineering Center of Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, Tongliao 028000, Inner Mongolia, China
    3 Institute of Crop Breeding and Cultivation, Inner Mongolia Academy of Agricultural and Animal Husbandry Sciences, Hohhot 010000, Inner Mongolia, China
  • Received:2024-07-22 Revised:2024-09-24 Online:2025-12-15 Published:2025-12-12

RichHTML

1

PDF (PC)

112

Abstract:

Using barley variety Mengpimai 5 as the experimental material, three cultivation modes were established: high-yield and high-efficiency (M1), high-yield and high-quality (M2), and traditional farmer planting (M3). By measuring physiological indicators such as antioxidant enzyme activity, nitrogen metabolizing enzyme activity, malondialdehyde content, and grain protein content at different grain-filling stages, this study explored the physiological mechanisms of barley yield and protein formation under different cultivation modes. The results showed that the yield under the M1 mode was the highest, reaching 6835.93 and 6279.81 kg/ha in the two years, respectively. And its spike number, grains per spike, and 1000-grain weight were all significantly higher than those under the M3 mode. In 2021, the grain protein content under M1, M2, and M3 modes was 15.35%, 13.37%, and 11.50%, respectively. The activities of antioxidant enzymes and nitrogen metabolizing enzymes in barley leaves under the three cultivation modes showed the same trend over the two years, both increasing first and then decreasing with the advancement of the growth process. Correlation analysis showed that antioxidant enzyme activity exhibited an extremely significant correlation with spike number, grains per spike, and yield. Malondialdehyde content showed an extremely significant negative correlation with yield- related indicators and antioxidant enzyme activity. Grain protein content exhibited an extremely significant correlation with nitrogen metabolizing enzyme activity. Comprehensive analysis indicated that the M1 mode is a high-quality, high-yield, and high-efficiency cultivation mode for barley, and its yield and quality were significantly higher than those of the M2 and M3 modes.

Key words: Barley, Yield, Protein, Physiological mechanism, Antioxidant enzyme activity, Nitrogen metabolizing enzyme activity

Fig.1

Effects of different cultivation patterns on barley yield in 2020-2021 Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences (P < 0.05), the same below."

Fig.2

Effects of different cultivation patterns on barley yield components in 2020-2021"

Fig.3

Dynamic changes of grain protein content in barley under different cultivation modes in 2020-2021"

Fig.4

Dynamic changes of SOD activity in barley leaves under different cultivation modes in 2020-2021"

Fig.5

Dynamic changes of POD activity in barley leaves under different cultivation modes in 2020-2021"

Fig.6

Dynamic changes of CAT activity in barley leaves under different cultivation modes in 2020-2021"

Fig.7

Dynamic changes of MDA content in barley leaves under different cultivation modes in 2020-2021"

Fig.8

Dynamic changes of NR activity in barley leaves under different cultivation modes in 2020-2021"

Fig.9

Dynamic changes of GS activity in barley leaves under different cultivation modes in 2020-2021"

Fig.10

Dynamic changes of GOGAT activity in barley leaves under different cultivation modes in 2020-2021"

Fig.11

Correlation analysis of yield and its components, leaf antioxidant enzyme activity and MDA content under different cultivation modes X1: 1000-grain weight; X2: spike number; X3: grains per spike; X4: yield; X5: SOD activity; X6: POD activity; X7: CAT activity; X8: MDA content.“*”indicates significant correlation at P < 0.05 level,“**”indicates extremely significant correlation at P < 0.01 level. The same below."

Fig.12

Correlation analysis of grain protein content and nitrogen metabolizing enzyme activity under different cultivation modes X9: grain protein content; X10: NR activity; X11: GS activity; X12: GOGAT activity."

[1] 张金汕, 董庆国, 方伏荣, 等. 种植密度和施氮量对啤用大麦生长、产量及品质的影响. 中国农业大学学报, 2016, 21(9):23-32.
[2] 胡梦芸, 门福圆, 张颖君, 等. 水氮互作对作物生理特性和氮素利用影响的研究进展. 麦类作物学报, 2016, 36(3):332-340.
[3] 徐寿军, 张凤英, 刘志萍, 等. 春大麦营养器官游离氨基酸含量变化特征及其与籽粒蛋白质含量相关分析. 核农学报, 2018, 32(1):131-140.
doi: 10.11869/j.issn.100-8551.2018.01.0131
[4] 刘凯强, 刘文辉, 贾志锋, 等. 不同播量、行距及播种方式对青燕1号燕麦饲草产量的影响. 草地学报, 2019, 27(4):1060-1067.
doi: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2019.04.034
[5] 王东, 于振文. 不同施氮量下子粒灌浆不同阶段遮光对小麦氮素积累和转移的影响. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2008, 14(4):615-622.
[6] 德木其格, 刘志萍, 王磊, 等. 不同施氮水平对大麦光合性能及氮素积累和转运的影响. 华北农学报, 2020, 35(3):126-135.
doi: 10.7668/hbnxb.20190653
[7] 陈军, 李静雯, 王立光, 等. 低醇溶蛋白转基因大麦氮素转移特征. 中国农业科技导报, 2023, 25(3):47-56.
doi: 10.13304/j.nykjdb.2021.0693
[8] 坚天才, 吴宏亮, 康建宏, 等. 氮素缓解春小麦花后高温早衰的荧光特性研究. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54(15):3355-3368.
doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2021.15.018
[9] 刘志萍, 德木其格, 马宇, 等. 不同密度下大麦灌浆期可溶性糖与淀粉含量的动态变化及相关分析. 华北农学报, 2022, 37(2):56-66.
doi: 10.7668/hbnxb.20192356
[10] 蔡剑, 姜东, 戴廷波, 等. 施氮水平对啤酒大麦植株氮素吸收与利用及籽粒蛋白质积累和产量的影响. 作物学报, 2009, 35(11):2116-2121.
[11] 闫洁, 曹连莆, 张薇, 等. 土壤水分胁迫对大麦籽粒内源激素及灌浆特性的影响. 石河子大学学报(自然科学版), 2005, 23(1):30-38.
[12] 张立勤, 马忠明, 杨君林, 等. 灌水和施肥对垄作沟灌啤酒大麦产量及水分利用效率的影响. 麦类作物学报, 2015, 35(10):1419-1425.
[13] 李成龙, 吕金印, 高俊凤. 水分亏缺对冬小麦主茎叶片保护酶活性的影响. 麦类作物学报, 2007, 27(1):84-87.
[14] 翟新然, 孙威峰, 左亚玺. 不同灌溉方式对大麦-玉米产量的影响. 种业导刊, 2023(5):29-30.
[15] 陈雪. 干旱胁迫对不同大麦生长发育、产量和品质的影响. 杭州:浙江大学, 2015.
[16] 杨恒山, 薛新伟, 张瑞富, 等. 灌溉方式对西辽河平原玉米产量及水分利用效率的影响. 农业工程学报, 2019, 35(21):69-77.
[17] 王海泽. 不同栽培模式对大麦产量和品质的影响. 通辽:内蒙古民族大学, 2022.
[18] 卢锦斌, 张利敏, 徐秀容. 改良凯氏定氮法的研究进展. 家畜生态学报, 2020, 41(12):84-87.
[19] Giannopolitis C N, Ries S K. Superoxide dismutases: I. Occurrence in higher plants. Plant Physiology, 1977, 59(2):309-314.
doi: 10.1104/pp.59.2.309 pmid: 16659839
[20] 孙群, 胡景江. 植物生理学研究技术. 杨凌: 西北农林科技大学出版社, 2006.
[21] Cakmak I, Marschner H. Magnesium deficiency and high light intensity enhance activities of superoxide dismutase, ascorbate peroxidase, and glutathione reductase in bean leaves. Plant Physiology, 1992, 98(4):1222-1227.
doi: 10.1104/pp.98.4.1222 pmid: 16668779
[22] 坚天才, 康建宏, 吴宏亮, 等. 氮素缓解春小麦花后高温早衰的抗氧化特性研究. 中国农业科技导报, 2021, 23(7):33-44.
[23] 杨中帅, 吴金芝, 黄明, 等. 垄沟种植及其施肥优化对旱地小麦产量和水肥利用效率的影响. 华北农学报, 2021, 36(5):157-166.
doi: 10.7668/hbnxb.20192122
[24] 韩磊. 不同栽培管理模式对冬小麦碳氮代谢及产量的影响. 郑州:河南农业大学, 2011.
[25] 李文龙, 赵猛, 顾万荣, 等. 沼肥与钾肥配施对玉米叶片抗氧化酶及土壤酶活性的影响. 南方农业学报, 2017, 48(10):1782-1788.
[26] 赵远伟, 刘小京, 李存东, 等. 温度对盐胁迫小麦抗氧化机制的影响. 中国生态农业学报, 2014, 22(12):1460-1468.
[27] 孟亚雄, 王世红, 汪军成, 等. CoCl2对NaCl胁迫下大麦生长及幼苗生理指标的影响. 草业学报, 2014, 23(3):160-166.
doi: 10.11686/cyxb20140318
[28] Guo F, Wan S B, Wang C B, et al. Nitrogen metabolism and relative enzyme activities of the peanut relay-cropped with wheat. Plant Nutrition and Fertilizer Science, 2009, 15(2):416-421.
[29] 李春喜, 姜丽娜, 代西梅, 等. 小麦氮素营养与后期衰老关系的研究. 麦类作物学报, 2000, 20(2):39-41.
[30] 王瑜. 水磷耦合对冬小麦水、磷利用与产量的影响及其生理基础. 泰安:山东农业大学, 2012.
[31] 李金娜, 姜丽娜, 岳影, 等. 灌溉方式和施氮量对冬小麦籽粒氮代谢酶和蛋白质产量的影响. 麦类作物学报, 2018, 38(7):817-824.
[32] 张殿忠, 汪沛洪. 水分胁迫与植物氮代谢的关系水分胁迫时氮素对小麦叶片氮代谢的影响. 西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版), 1988, 16(4):15-21.
[33] Xie Z J, Jiang D, Cao W X, et al. Effects of Post-anthesis soil water status on the activities of key regulatory enzymes of starch and protein accumulation in wheat grains. Journal of Plant Physiology and Molecular Biology, 2003, 29(4):309-316.
[34] 卢红芳, 王晨阳, 郭天财, 等. 灌浆前期高温和干旱胁迫对小麦籽粒蛋白质含量和氮代谢关键酶活性的影响. 生态学报, 2014, 34(13):3612-3619.
[35] 曹翠玲, 李生秀. 水分胁迫下氮素对分蘖期小麦某些生理特性的影响. 核农学报, 2004, 18(5):402-405,401.
[36] 柳小宁, 潘永东, 包奇军, 等. 河西高海拔地区种植密度对啤酒大麦产量和品质的影响. 农业科技通讯, 2011(10):38-40.
[37] 刘帆, 杨俊青, 蔡秋华, 等. 凤大麦7号产量构成因素及其相关性和通径分析. 中国种业, 2017(10):47-49.
[38] 陈婷婷, 褚光, 华小龙, 等. 花后干湿交替灌溉对水稻强、弱势粒蛋白质表达的影响. 中国农业科学, 2013, 46(22):4665-4678.
doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2013.22.004
[39] 孟维伟, 王东, 于振文. 施氮量对小麦氮代谢相关酶活性和子粒蛋白质品质的影响. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2012, 18(1):10-17.
[40] 叶利庭, 宋文静, 吕华军, 等. 不同氮效率水稻生育后期氮素积累转运特征. 土壤学报, 2010, 47(2):303-310.
[41] 郭振清, 付陈陈, 李婧实, 等. 施氮对花后遮光条件下小麦产量与蛋白质含量的影响. 麦类作物学报, 2021, 41(7):883-890.
[1] 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.
[2] Gao Wenrui, Sun Yanjun, Han Bing, Zhang Xiaoqing, Wang Xiansheng, Zheng Zisong. Effects of Exogenous Organic Selenium on Yield and Fruit Quality of Facility Cherry Tomato [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(6): 140-147.
[3] Lan Xiu, Liang Zhenhua, Yang Haixia, Li Hengrui, Ruan Lixia, Wei Wanling, Chen Huixian, He Hongliang, Huang Ruolan, Zhao Chunhui, Tang Danfeng. Effects of Sugarcane and Platostoma palustre Intercropping on Soil Physicochemical Properties and Crop Yield [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(6): 156-163.
[4] Qin Nana, Huang Linhua, Chen Ying, Wang Shengmou, Xie Yong, Miao Kai, Li Wanming, Qi Lan. Effects of Foliar Propionyl Brassinolide Application on Photosynthesis, Agronomic Traits and Yield of Summer Soybean [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(6): 164-171.
[5] Yan Xiaowen, Liang Junchao, Zeng Pan, Zhou Hongying, Wang Zhiqi, Le Meiwang, Sun Jian. Effects of Late Sowing on Main Agronomic Traits and Yield of Autumn Sesame [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(6): 189-194.
[6] Zhang Aiying, Zhao Yuan, Liu Min, Xue Hongtao, Wang Guoliang, Wang Rui, Guo Erhu. Effects of Different Harvest Time and Harvesting Methods on Yield and Quality of Foxtail Millet [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(6): 195-202.
[7] Xia Yulan, Zhao Yuanyuan, Li Juan, Wang Dexun, Wang Tingting, Yang Chengwei, Shi Hongzhi. Effects of Different Topdressing Ratios of Potassium Fertilizer on the Growth, Yield and Quality of Honghuadajinyuan and Yunyan 300 [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(6): 225-230.
[8] Wang Zhanhai, Li Long, Zhao Haibo. The Impact of Combined Application of Organic and Inorganic Fertilizers on Facility Soil Environment and Tomato Quality [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(6): 231-239.
[9] Fan Guohua, Feng Xiaomin, Gao Xiang, Lü Huiqing, Yang Jing, Zhang Xuli, Hao Zhiping, Zhou Zhongyu, Zhang Li, Li Hong. Effects of Ridge Mulching and Organic Fertilizer Application on Yield Formation and Soil Organic Carbon Components of Small Black Bean [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(6): 240-247.
[10] Gao Meiping, Tao Yunrong, Jiang Huiping, Hu Yifeng, Lin Zhicheng, Fang Yanrong, Ouyang Xiu, Jiang Wen. Effects of Different Nitrogen Fertilizer Treatments on Yield, Starch Accumulation Rate and Starch Synthase Activity of Water Chestnut [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(6): 248-253.
[11] Zhang Henan, Xu Haoce, Liu Yinghui, Feng Xiaolei, Wang Feng, Yuan Jincheng, Zhao Zhihai. Analysis of High Yield, Stable Yield, and Adaptability of ʻZhangzagu 21ʼ Based on GGE Biplot [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(6): 51-57.
[12] Zhou Tingfang, Li Ran, Liu Qianqian, Zhang Ze, Wang Zhenhua, Ma Baoxin, Lu Ming, Zhang Lin, Han Yehui, Yang Bo, Li Mingshun, Zhang Degui, Weng Jianfeng, Yong Hongjun, Xu Jingyu, Han Jienan, Li Xinhai. Analysis of Salt Tolerance at Germination Stage of 118 Maize Hybrids in Northeast China [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(5): 1-10.
[13] Teng Wen, Ye Fan, Zhou Zhou, Wang Yule, Liu Lijun. Effects of Wheat and Rapeseed Straw Returning on Yield and Quality of Rice under Salt Stress [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(5): 11-18.
[14] 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.
[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!