Crops ›› 2016, Vol. 32 ›› Issue (1): 135-139.doi: 10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2016.01.025

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Analysis of Soluble Substances, Filling Rate and Yield of Wheat under the Coastal Saline at Post Floral Stage

Meng Xianghao,Zhang Yumei,Xue Yuansai,Liu Yiguo,Zhang Hongsheng,Lin Qi,Mu Ping   

  1. College of Agronomy and Plant Protection,Qingdao Agricultural University,Shandong Provincial Key Laboratory of Dry Farming Techniques,Water-Saving Innovation Team,Qingdao 266109,Shandong,China
  • Received:2015-09-20 Revised:2015-12-16 Online:2016-02-15 Published:2018-08-25
  • Contact: Qi Lin

RichHTML

3

PDF (PC)

159

Abstract:

In order to study the effect of coastal saline on wheat yield, eight wheat varieties were planted in saline-alkali soil under farming field conditions. The experiment studied the dynamic changes of flag leaf soluble substances and the grain filling rate at post floral stage, as well as the factors of yield formation, such as the spike number, thousand-grain weight and the grain number per spike. The results suggested that the soluble substance, grain filling rate and the yield showed varying differences among these eight wheat varieties. Under saline-alkali stress, the content of soluble protein reduced, instead, the soluble sugar content increased, and the filling rate showed a single peak curve trend over time. The differences in grain number per spike and 1000-grain weight were not significant among varieties, but there was significant difference in spike number under coastal saline.

Key words: Coastal saline wheat, Soluble substances, Grain filling rate, Yield components

Table1

Changes in soil salinity and pH after flowering of wheat %"

盐碱指标
Salinity index		 花后天数Days after anthesis
0d 7d 14d 21d 28d 35d
含盐量Salinity content 0.21 0.23 0.27 0.22 0.28 0.31

Table 2

Dynamic changes of soluble protein content in wheat flag leaf mg/g?FW"

品种（系）
Varieties（lines）		 花后天数Days after anthesis
0d 7d 14d 21d 28d
德盐911 Deyan 911 18.53±2.17cdCDE 16.48±1.61cC 10.76±0.27bB 6.87±0.58aA 5.00±0.21aBC
青麦6 Qingmai 6 28.62±0.94aA 29.31±1.72aA 14.86±0.87abA 10.49±1.31aA 7.22±0.17aA
德抗961 Dekang 961 25.52±0.68abAB 19.39±0.47bcBC 15.14±1.10aA 10.11±0.33abAB 7.25±0.19aA
烟农836 Yannong 836 20.92±0.92cBCD 22.40±0.92bB 11.63±0.48dAB 6.93±0.89cC 3.77±0.12cC
4211 20.83±1.53cBCD 19.50±0.61bcBC 12.60±0.96abcdAB 6.97±0.12cC 4.38±0.34bcBC
青麦w04 Qingmai w04 21.88±1.48bcBC 22.72±0.63bB 14.49±1.50abcA 10.32±0.49aA 7.11±0.73aA
德盐989 Deyan 989 15.24±0.99dDE 17.05±0.72cC 12.35±0.30bcdAB 8.21±0.47bcABC 5.35±0.06bB
济麦22 Jimai 22 14.63±2.34dE 18.17±1.30cBC 12.27±0.87cdAB 7.55±0.70bBC 3.94±0.27cC

Table 3

Dynamic changes of Soluble sugar content in wheat flag leaf mg/g"

品种（系）
Varieties（lines）		 花后天数 Days after anthesis
0d 7d 14d 21d 28d
德盐911 Deyan 911 82.11±3.23bABC 143.25±4.12abA 187.75±13.10abcdABC 244.06±3.89abAB 278.26±3.51bA
青麦6 Qingmai 6 87.03±4.48abAB 142.72±7.25abA 200.65±4.90abcABC 258.29±6.05aA 298.64±5.80aA
德抗961 Dekang 961 67.73±2.18dC 151.42±1.45aA 211.98±6.87aA 247.50±11.29abAB 294.79±4.00abA
烟农836 Yannong 836 76.97±3.26bcdBC 137.18±9.78abA 175.84±10.63cdBC 217.14±3.86cC 245.59±5.62cB
4211 69.55±6.29cdC 139.50±1.96abA 201.90±9.27abABC 232.92±5.83bcBC 251.99±4.45cB
青麦w04 Qingmai w04 93.21±1.85aA 148.68±6.31aA 210.17±9.76aAB 245.56±6.12abAB 297.89±9.38aA
德盐989 Deyan 989 69.34±2.73dC 145.06±4.13abA 179.96±3.12bcdABC 232.79±3.45bcBC 242.74±5.87cB
济麦22 Jimai 22 80.14±2.52bcABC 132.08±1.63bA 173.48±3.79dC 235.23±3.75bcABC 246.37±5.06cB

"

品种（系）
Varieties（lines）		 花后天数 Days after anthesis
7d 14d 21d 28d 35d
德盐911 Deyan 911 0.73±0.004cB 1.93±0.135abAB 1.47±0.017dD 0.84±0.025fE 0.31±0.007dDE
青麦6 Qingmai 6 0.62±0.012fE 1.45±0.010dCD 1.93±0.045aA 1.56±0.036aA 0.57±0.011aA
德抗961 Dekang 961 0.70±0.001dC 1.92±0.039abAB 1.60±0.042cBC 1.21±0.044cC 0.45±0.025dBC
烟农836 Yannong 836 0.79±0.001aA 1.44±0.015dD 0.97±0.005fF 0.40±0.010hG 0.11±0.007fF
4211 0.77±0.004bA 1.77±0.070bcB 1.29±0.034eE 0.96±0.042eD 0.36±0.015cdCD
青麦w04 Qingmai w04 0.65±0.002eD 1.71±0.036cBC 1.71±0.016bB 1.43±0.021bB 0.54±0.064aAB
德盐989 Deyan 989 0.73±0.012cB 1.75±0.070bcB 1.54±0.018cdCD 1.14±0.028dC 0.41±0.008bcCD
济麦22 Jimai 22 0.78±0.004abA 2.07±0.039aA 1.26±0.005eE 0.60±0.027gF 0.22±0.014eEF

Table 5

Yield and yield components in wheat"

品种（系）
Varieties（lines）		 穗数 穗粒数 千粒重 理论产量
Spike number(104/hm2) Grains number per spike 1000-grains weight(g) Grain yield (kg/hm2)
德盐911 Deyan 911 673.67±15.70bcAB 30.63±0.73aA 39.19±1.42bA 6 873.67±502.71abcA
青麦6 Qingmai 6 725.16±8.28aA 31.12±0.54aA 39.99±1.11bA 7 670.85±401.41abA
德抗961 Dekang 961 644.35±8.50cdBC 32.52±2.02aA 40.12±1.82aA 7 181.64±180.52abcA
烟农836 Yannong 836 591.54±10.59eC 29.21±2.25aA 42.45±1.06aA 6 234.65±420.85cB
4211 709.35±14.50abA 29.71±1.44aA 39.35±1.53bA 7 048.99±146.11abcA
青麦w04 Qingmai w04 730.61±4.83aA 31.21±2.22aA 40.23±1.62aA 7 857.14±770.68aA
德盐989 Demai 989 696.16±20.80abAB 30.21±1.37aA 39.89±1.84bA 7 130.87±212.50abcA
济麦22 Jimai 22 604.52±20.02deC 29.12±1.71aA 42.82±0.22aA 6 407.19±599.28bcB
[1] 赵春 . 盐胁迫下小麦苗期渗透调节物质含量的变化研究. 安徽农业科学, 2009,37(24):11473-11474.
[2] Munns R . Comparative physiology of salt and water stress.Plant, Cell & Environment, 2002,25(2):239-250.
[3] Ashraf M . Some important physiological selection criteria for salt tolerance in plants.Flora-Morphology,Distribution, Functional Ecology of Plants, 2004,199(5):361-376.
[4] 张国伟, 路海玲, 张雷 . 棉花萌发期和苗期耐盐性评价及耐盐指标筛选. 应用生态学报, 2011,22(8):2045-2053.
[5] 向春阳, 杜锦 . 不同高油玉米品种耐盐性的比较研究.作物杂志, 2011(4):47-49.
[6] 韩猛, 张立军, 张中保 , 等. BADH基因转入玉米自交系的研究.作物杂志, 2015(2):64-69.
[7] 郭房庆, 周建明, 汤章城 . NaCl 胁迫下小麦突变体和野生型叶片中一些有机溶质累积和基因表达差异. 植物生理学报, 1999,25(3):263-268.
[8] 许兴, 李树华, 惠红霞 , 等. NaCl胁迫对小麦幼苗生长、叶绿素含量及Na +、K+吸收的影响 . 西北植物学报, 2002,22(2):278-284.
[9] 朱维琴, 吴良欢, 陶勤南 . 干旱逆境下不同品种水稻叶片有机渗透调节物质变化研究. 土壤通报, 2003,34(1):25-28.
[10] Sivakumar P, Sharmila P, Jain V , et al. Sugars have potential to curtail oxygenase activity of Rubisco. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, 2002,298(2):247-250.
doi: 10.1016/S0006-291X(02)02437-3
[11] 房稳静, 张雪芬, 郑有飞 . 冬小麦灌浆期干旱对灌浆速率的影响.中国农业气象, 2006(2):98-101.
[12] 孟祥浩, 林琪, 刘义国 , 等. 盐胁迫对小麦萌发的影响及耐盐指标的筛选. 华北农学报, 2014,29(4):175-180.
doi: 10.7668/hbnxb.2014.04.031
[13] 孟祥浩, 刘义国, 张玉梅 , 等. 不同小麦品种苗期抗氧化特性及根系活力对盐胁迫的响应. 麦类作物学报, 2015,38(8):1168-1175.
[14] 鲍士旦 . 土壤农化分析.3版.北京: 中国农业出版社, 2007: 187-189.
[15] 钱嘉渊 . 酶的测定方法.北京: 中国轻工业出版社, 1992: 186-194.
[16] 林植芳, 李双顺, 林桂珠 , 等. 水稻叶片的衰老与超氧化物歧化酶活性及膜质过氧化作用的关系. 植物学报, 1984,26(6):605-615.
[17] 赵可夫, 李军 . 盐浓度对3种单子叶盐生植物渗透调节及其在渗透调节中的影响. 植物学报, 1999,41(12):1287-1292.
[18] Ehdaie B, Alloush G A, Madore M A , et al. Genotypic variation for stem reserves and mobilization in wheat. Crop Science, 2006,46(5):2093-2103.
doi: 10.2135/cropsci2006.01.0013
[19] Plaut Z, Butow B J, Blumenthal C S , et al. Transport of dry matter into developing wheat kernels and its contribution to grain yield under post-anthesis water deficit and elevated temperature. Field Crops Research, 2004,86(2):185-198.
doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2003.08.005
[20] 左文博, 吴静利, 杨奇 . 干旱胁迫对小麦根系活力和可溶性糖含量的影响. 华北农学报, 2010,25(6):191-193.
doi: 10.7668/hbnxb.2010.06.037
[21] 张雅倩 . 不同肥水类型冬小麦抗旱性研究. 青岛:青岛农业大学, 2011.
[22] 张敏 . 不同小麦品种耐盐差异的生理生化机制研究. 泰安:山东农业大学, 2007.
[23] El-Samad H M A, Shaddad M A K . Salt tolerance of soybean cultivars. Biologia Plantarum, 1997,39(2):263-269.
doi: 10.1023/A:1000309407275
[24] 张士功, 高吉寅, 宋景芝 . 外源甜菜碱对盐胁迫下小麦幼苗体内几种与抗逆能力有关物质含量以及钾钠吸收和运输的影响. 植物生理学通讯, 2000,36(1):23-26.
[25] 杨素欣, 王振镒 . 盐胁迫下小麦愈伤组织生理生化特性的变化. 西北农业大学学报, 1999,27(2):48-52.
[26] 刘丰明, 陈明灿, 郭香风 . 高产小麦粒重形成的灌浆特性分析. 麦类作物学报, 1997,17(6):38-41.
[27] 李树华, 许兴, 惠红霞 , 等. 不同小麦品种(系)对盐碱条件下的生理及农艺性状反应. 麦类作物学报, 2000,20(4):63-67.
doi: 10.7606/j.issn.1009-1041.2000.04.153
[28] 申玉香, 郭文善, 周影 , 等. 盐分胁迫对小麦花后剑叶衰老特性和产量的影响. 扬州大学学报(农业与生命科学版), 2007,28(1):59-63.
[1] Ying Chen,Manli Zhang,Xianping Liu,Guijin Dai,Shougui Hou. Effects of Biochar on Chlorophyll Fluorescence at Full Heading Stage and Yield Components of Rice [J]. Crops, 2016, 32(3): 94-98.
[2] Huatao Liu,Xuefang Huang,Mingjing Huang,Baoliang Chi,Xiuqing Zheng,Junfeng Chen. Effects of Drought Stress at Jointing Stage on Yield and Drought Resistance in Spring Maize [J]. Crops, 2016, 32(2): 89-94.
[3] Xiaoli Gao. Effects of Phosphorus on Pea Yield and Its Components [J]. Crops, 2016, 32(1): 125-128.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] Guangcai Zhao,Xuhong Chang,Demei Wang,Zhiqiang Tao,Yanjie Wang,Yushuang Yang,Yingjie Zhu. General Situation and Development of Wheat Production[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 1 -7 .
[2] Baoquan Quan,Dongmei Bai,Yuexia Tian,Yunyun Xue. Effects of Different Leaf-Peg Ratio on Photosynthesis and Yield of Peanut[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 102 -105 .
[3] Xuefang Huang,Mingjing Huang,Huatao Liu,Cong Zhao,Juanling Wang. Effects of Annual Precipitation and Population Density on Tiller-Earing and Yield of Zhangzagu 5 under Film Mulching and Hole Sowing[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 106 -113 .
[4] Wenhui Huang, Hui Wang, Desheng Mei. Research Progress on Lodging Resistance of Crops[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 13 -19 .
[5] Yun Zhao,Cailong Xu,Xu Yang,Suzhen Li,Jing Zhou,Jicun Li,Tianfu Han,Cunxiang Wu. Effects of Sowing Methods on Seedling Stand and Production Profit of Summer Soybean under Wheat-Soybean System[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 114 -120 .
[6] Mei Lu,Min Sun,Aixia Ren,Miaomiao Lei,Lingzhu Xue,Zhiqiang Gao. Effects of Spraying Foliar Fertilizers on Dryland Wheat Growth and the Correlation with Yield Formation[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 121 -125 .
[7] Xiaofei Wang,Haijun Xu,Mengqiao Guo,Yu Xiao,Xinyu Cheng,Shuxia Liu,Xiangjun Guan,Yaokun Wu,Weihua Zhao,Guojiang Wei. Effects of Sowing Date, Density and Fertilizer Utilization Rate on the Yield of Oilseed Perilla frutescens in Cold Area[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 126 -130 .
[8] Pengjin Zhu,Xinhua Pang,Chun Liang,Qinliang Tan,Lin Yan,Quanguang Zhou,Kewei Ou. Effects of Cold Stress on Reactive Oxygen Metabolism and Antioxidant Enzyme Activities of Sugarcane Seedlings[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 131 -137 .
[9] Jie Gao,Qingfeng Li,Qiu Peng,Xiaoyan Jiao,Jinsong Wang. Effects of Different Nutrient Combinations on Plant Production and Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium Utilization Characteristics in Waxy Sorghum[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 138 -142 .
[10] Na Shang,Zhongxu Yang,Qiuzhi Li,Huihui Yin,Shihong Wang,Haitao Li,Tong Li,Han Zhang. Response of Cotton with Vegetative Branches to Plant Density in the Western of Shandong Province[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 143 -148 .