Effects of Saline-alkali Resistant Agents on Osmotic Adjustment Substances and Root Activity of Double-cropping Rice under Saline-alkali Stress
-
摘要:
目的 为筛选合适的抗盐碱剂供盐碱地水稻生产应用。 方法 本研究以早稻品种陵两优942和晚稻品种Y两优911为材料,采用盆栽土培法研究了几种抗盐碱剂(T1微纳米硅、T2矿源黄腐酸钾、T3盐碱、T4松土精 + 矿源黄腐酸钾)对盐碱胁迫条件下(CK1盐碱胁迫、CK2无盐碱胁迫)水稻渗透调节物质、根系活力及产量的影响。 结果 水稻的SPAD值、渗透调节物质、根系活力和产量会受到盐碱胁迫的显著影响,中度胁迫造成的影响高于轻度胁迫造成影响;施用抗盐碱剂有利于缓解盐碱胁迫的不利影响,且在盐碱胁迫较重时效果更明显。在中度盐碱胁迫下,与CK1相比,施用抗盐碱剂T1、T2、T3、T4,叶片SPAD、根系活力、产量显著增加,叶片游离脯氨酸含量、可溶性糖含量显著下降;与CK2 相比,CK1减产40.8%,施用抗盐碱剂则使Y两优911在盐碱胁迫条件下减产幅度显著减小,T1、T4、T3、T2分别比CK1产量高出53.9%、31.1%、21.1%、16.3%。 结论 不同处理间综合表现以T1(微纳米硅)和T4处理(松土精 + 矿源黄腐酸钾)表现最佳,是盐碱地水稻增产增收的有效措施。 Abstract:Objective The suitable saline-alkali resistant agents were screened for rice production in saline-alkali soil. Methods The early rice variety Lingliangyou 942 and late rice variety Yliangyou 911 were taken as materials, the effects of several saline-alkali resistant agents (T1 micro-nano silicon, T2 mineral source fulvic acid potassium, T3 saline-alkali, T4 Soilfix IR + mineral source fulvic acid potassium) on osmotic adjustment substances, root activity and yield of rice under saline-alkali stress (CK1 saline-alkali stress and CK2 non-saline-alkali stress) were studied by pot culture method. Results The results showed that the SPAD value, osmotic adjustment substance, root activity and yield of rice were affected by saline-alkali stress, and the effect caused by moderate stress was higher than that caused by mild stress. Application of saline-alkali resistant agents was beneficial to alleviate the effect of saline-alkali stress, and the effect was more significant when saline-alkali stress was serious. Under moderate saline-alkali stress, compared with CK1, SPAD value, root activity, and yield of leaves were significantly increased when T1, T2, T3, and T4 were applied, while free proline content and soluble sugar content of leaves decreased significantly. Compared with CK2, the yield of CK1 decreased by 40.8%, and the yield of Yliangyou 911 was significantly reduced under saline-alkali stress by applying salt-alkali resistant agents. The yields of T1, T4, T3, and T2 were higher than those of CK1 by 53.9%, 31.1%, 21.1%, and 16.3%, respectively. T1 and T4 had the best comprehensive performance among different treatments. Conclusion The application of T1 and T4 is an effective measure to increase rice yield and income in saline-alkali soil. -
Key words:
- Rice /
- Saline-alkali stress /
- Salt-alkali resistant agent /
- Osmotic adjustment
-
表 1 供试土壤理化性质
Table 1. Physical and chemical properties of tested soil
pH 全盐含量(%)
Total saltHCO3−
(mg kg−1)CO32−
(mg kg−1)SO42−
(mg kg−1)K +
(mg kg−1)Na +
(mg kg−1)Ca2 +
(mg kg−1)6.34 0.031 102 0 2.6 4.2 10.8 26 表 2 不同抗盐碱剂对水稻SPAD值的影响
Table 2. Effects of different salt resistant agents on SPAD of rice
品种
Cultivar处理
Treatment分蘖盛期
Tillering孕穗期
Booting抽穗期
Heading齐穗期
Full heading乳熟期
Milky maturity陵两优942(轻度盐碱胁迫) T1 44.9 a 47.0 ab 49.7 a 49.6 a 48.0 a T2 43.5 a 47.2 ab 48.7 ab 49.1 ab 47.8 a T3 43.9 a 46.6 ab 49.2 ab 47.7 ab 46.5 ab T4 45.1 a 48.2 a 49.5 a 49.8 a 48.4 a CK1 43.0 a 46.2 b 48.0 b 46.7 b 45.3 b CK2 44.5 a 46.7 ab 49.4 ab 49.7 a 48.2 a Y两优911(中度盐碱胁迫) T1 43.3 abc 45.9 a 46.2 a 45.7 b 42.1 a T2 42.7 abc 44.4 ab 44.6 a 44.4 b 40.9 a T3 42.0 bc 42.5 bc 45.0 a 44.9 b 41.3 a T4 44.6 a 44.7 a 45.7 a 45.5 b 41.4 a CK1 41.2 c 42.1 c 40.7 b 41.4 c 35.4 b CK2 43.8 ab 45.6 a 47.2 a 47.1 a 43.2 a 注:标不同小写字母表示差异显著(P < 0.05)。 表 3 不同抗盐碱剂对水稻根系活力的影响
Table 3. Effects of different salt resistant agents on roots vigor of rice
品种
Cultivar处理
Treatment孕穗期(g h−1)
Heading齐穗期(g h−1)
Full heading乳熟期(g h−1)
Milky maturity陵两优942(轻度盐碱胁迫) T1 1.01 a 0.90 a 0.30 a T2 1.12 a 0.90 a 0.27 a T3 1.00 a 0.88 a 0.27 a T4 1.05 a 0.91 a 0.27 a CK1 0.96 a 0.88 a 0.26 a CK2 1.19 a 0.95 a 0.33 a Y两优911(中度盐碱胁迫) T1 1.04 a 0.89 a 0.19 ab T2 0.91 a 0.73 ab 0.18 ab T3 1.03 a 0.82 a 0.18 ab T4 1.06 a 0.91 a 0.20 ab CK1 0.45 b 0.31 b 0.12 b CK2 1.08 a 0.75 ab 0.25 a 注:标不同小写字母表示差异显著(P < 0.05)。 表 4 不同抗盐碱剂对水稻叶片游离脯氨酸的影响
Table 4. Effects of different salt resistant agents on leaf free proline of rice
品种
Cultivar处理
Treatment分蘖盛期(μg g−1)
Tillering孕穗期(μg g−1)
Booting抽穗期(μg g−1)
Heading齐穗期(μg g−1)
Full heading乳熟期(μg g−1)
Milky maturity陵两优942(轻度盐碱胁迫) T1 143.35 a 161.64 a 170.63 a 144.00 a 117.89 a T2 146.69 a 162.32 a 182.18 a 147.10 a 129.25 a T3 146.16 a 162.21 a 173.90 a 146.42 a 121.28 a T4 140.55 a 157.51 a 168.61 a 140.36 a 114.62 a CK1 153.29 a 171.27 a 187.06 a 151.57 a 134.03 a CK2 137.74 a 155.85 a 167.91 a 136.17 a 105.67 a Y两优911(中度盐碱胁迫) T1 155.75 b 157.49 ab 172.85 b 153.08 ab 125.12 b T2 157.05 b 159.49 ab 175.16 b 155.15 ab 127.04 b T3 155.93 b 159.30 ab 172.88 b 155.92 ab 126.53 b T4 153.01 bc 154.14 ab 170.00 b 154.02 ab 124.56 b CK1 173.69 a 185.45 a 216.25 a 175.38 a 156.47 a CK2 140.78 c 139.13 b 157.51 b 139.50 b 112.92 b 注:标不同小写字母表示差异显著(P < 0.05)。 表 5 不同抗盐碱剂对水稻叶片可溶性糖的影响
Table 5. Effects of different salt resistant agents on leaf soluble sugar of rice
品种
Cultivar处理
Treatment分蘖盛期(mg g−1)
Tillering孕穗期(mg g−1)
Booting抽穗期(mg g−1)
Heading齐穗期(mg g−1)
Full heading乳熟期(mg g−1)
Milky maturity陵两优942(轻度盐碱胁迫) T1 0.57 a 0.54 a 0.81 ab 0.84 a 0.79 a T2 0.61 a 0.65 a 0.84 ab 0.88 a 0.82 a T3 0.63 a 0.58 a 0.86 ab 0.85 a 0.82 a T4 0.55 a 0.59 a 0.79 b 0.85 a 0.76 a CK1 0.68 a 0.69 a 0.87 a 0.88 a 0.80 a CK2 0.53 a 0.53 a 0.780 b 0.84 a 0.75 a Y两优911(中度盐碱胁迫) T1 0.34 bc 0.54 b 0.75 c 0.75 b 0.62 c T2 0.38 b 0.55 b 0.79 b 0.76 b 0.69 b T3 0.39 b 0.58 b 0.80 b 0.78 b 0.67 b T4 0.34 bc 0.55 b 0.76 bc 0.76 b 0.65 b CK1 0.59 a 0.68 a 0.94 a 0.90 a 0.77 a CK2 0.30 c 0.53 b 0.72 c 0.72 c 0.61 c 注:标不同小写字母表示差异显著(P < 0.05)。 表 6 不同抗盐碱剂对水稻产量及构成因素的影响
Table 6. Effects of different salt resistant agents on yield of rice
品种
Cultivar处理
Treatment有效穗(104 hm−2)
Panicles umber粒数/穗
Spikelets per panicle结实率(%)
Spikelet filling千粒重(g)
1000 grain-weight产量(kg hm−2)
Grain yield陵两优942(轻度盐碱胁迫) T1 260.4 a 124.7 a 68.0 20.33 a 6707.9 b T2 254.1 a 122.9 a 68.7 20.29 a 5741.6 c T3 247.8 a 120.4 a 66.7 20.27 a 6175.2 d T4 260.4 a 128.2 a 66.5 20.24 a 7078.2 a CK1 245.7 a 120.3 a 65.0 20.03 a 6067.2 c CK2 256.2 a 127 a 67.0 20.46 a 6659.7 b Y两优911(中度盐碱胁迫) T1 252 b 85 ab 64.2 20.82 ab 7259.2 b T2 218.4 c 80.6 ab 61.3 20.19 ab 5485.2 d T3 235.2 bc 78.4 ab 60.8 19.99 ab 5712.5 cd T4 243.6 b 88.7 ab 63.4 20.48 ab 6184.6 c CK1 151.2 d 71.1 b 61.2 19.28 b 4718.1 e CK2 296.1 a 90.4 a 65.6 21.55 a 7969.9 a 注:标不同小写字母表示差异显著(P < 0.05)。 -
[1] Jelte R, Timothy F. Crops for a Salinized World[J]. Science, 2008, 322(5907): 1478 − 1480. doi: 10.1126/science.1168572 [2] Wang J C, Yao L R, Li B C, et al. Comparative proteomic analysis of cultured suspension cells of the halophyte Halogeton glomeratus by iTRAQ provides insights into response mechanisms to salt stress[J]. Frontiers in Plant Science, 2016, 7: 110. [3] Pan C C, Zhao H L, Feng Q, et al. Temporal variations of ground-dwelling arthropods in relation to grassland salinization[J]. European Journal of Soil Biology, 2015, 68: 25 − 32. doi: 10.1016/j.ejsobi.2015.03.003 [4] 杨劲松. 中国盐渍土研究的发展历程与展望[J]. 土壤学报, 2008, (5): 837 − 845. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0564-3929.2008.05.010 [5] 马 晨, 马履一, 刘太祥, 等. 盐碱地改良利用技术研究进展[J]. 世界林业研究, 2010, 23(02): 28 − 32. [6] Sadiq M, Hassan G, Mehdi S M, et al. Amelioration of Saline-Sodic Soils with Tillage Implements and Sulfuric Acid Application[J]. Pedosphere, 2007, (02): 182 − 190. [7] 梁正伟, 杨 福, 王志春, 等. 盐碱胁迫对水稻主要生育性状的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2004, 13(1): 43 − 46. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-5906.2004.01.014 [8] 朱明霞, 高显颖, 邵玺文, 等. 不同浓度盐碱胁迫对水稻生长发育及产量的影响[J]. 吉林农业科学, 2014, 39(6): 12 − 16. [9] 王志春, 杨 福, 齐春艳, 等. 盐碱胁迫下水稻渗透调节的生理响应[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2010, 28(6): 153 − 157. [10] 王明华, 李 明, 高 祺, 等. 改良剂对苏打盐碱土玉米幼苗生长和生理特性的影响[J]. 生态学杂志, 2016, 35(11): 2966 − 2973. [11] 杨美英, 张婷婷, 武志海, 等. 盐碱土添加外源溶磷菌液对水稻渗透调节能力及光合指标的影响[J]. 西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版), 2016, 44(8): 66 − 74. [12] Liang X L, Fang S M, Ji W B, et al. The Positive Effects of Silicon on Rice Seedlings Under Saline-Alkali Mixed Stress[J]. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 2015, 46(17): 2127 − 2138. doi: 10.1080/00103624.2015.1059848 [13] 李 华, 朱鹏飞, 郁 伟, 等. 几种不同水稻品种在盐碱地的适应性研究[J]. 中国稻米, 2018, 24(06): 110 − 111. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-8082.2018.06.028 [14] 胡 慧, 马帅国, 田 蕾, 等. 脱硫石膏改良盐碱土对水稻叶绿素荧光特性的影响[J]. 核农学报, 2019, 33(12): 2439 − 2450. doi: 10.11869/j.issn.100-8551.2019.12.2439 [15] 王文杰, 关 宇, 祖元刚, 等. 施加改良剂对重度盐碱地土壤盐碱动态及草本植物生长的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2009, 29(6): 2835 − 2844. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-0933.2009.06.009 [16] 戴建军, 房秋娜, 汪丹妮, 等. 糠醛渣和石膏对盐碱土改良效果及水稻生长的影响[J]. 东北农业大学学报, 2021, 52(1): 37 − 45. [17] 王合云, 李红丽, 董 智, 等. 滨海盐碱地不同造林树种林地土壤盐碱化特征[J]. 土壤学报, 2015, 52(03): 706 − 712. [18] Qadir M, Oster J D. Crop and irrigation management strategies for saline-sodic soils and waters aimed at environmentally sustainable agriculture[J]. The Science of the total environment, 2004, 323(1 − 3): 1 − 19. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2003.10.012 [19] Tavakkoli E, Fatehi F, Coventry S, et al. Additive effects of Na + and Cl- ions on barley growth under salinity stress.[J]. Journal of experimental botany, 2011, 62(6): 2189 − 203. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erq422 [20] 郭 瑞, 李 峰, 周 际, 等. 亚麻响应盐、碱胁迫的生理特征[J]. 植物生态学报, 2016, 40(1): 69 − 79. [21] 李晓晴, 周蓓蓓, 杨 扬, 等. 有机酸改良剂对盐碱土水盐运移的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2021, 35(01): 307 − 313. [22] Cui Q, Xia J B, Yang H J, et al. Biochar and effective microorganisms promote Sesbania cannabina growth and soil quality in the coastal saline-alkali soil of the Yellow River Delta, China[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2021: 756. [23] 朱 虹, 王文杰, 祖元刚, 等. 树皮土基质和降盐碱剂对盐碱土的改良效应[J]. 林业科学, 2010, 46(7): 42 − 48. [24] Xu T, He K N, Wang H, et al. Effects of saline-alkali stress on seed germination of;and;in Qaidam Basin[J]. Acta Agricultu1rae Scandinavica, Section B — Soil & Plant Science, 2021, 71(5): 336 − 345. [25] 高惠敏, 王相平, 屈忠义, 等. 不同改良剂对河套灌区土壤盐碱指标及作物产量的影响研究[J]. 土壤通报, 2020, 51(5): 1172 − 1179. [26] 王文杰, 贺海升, 祖元刚, 等. 施加改良剂对重度盐碱地盐碱动态及杨树生长的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2009, 29(5): 2272 − 2278. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-0933.2009.05.011 [27] 王相平, 杨劲松, 张胜江, 等. 石膏和腐植酸配施对干旱盐碱区土壤改良及棉花生长的影响[J]. 土壤, 2020, 52(2): 327 − 332. [28] 贾娜尔·阿汗, 杨春武, 石德成, 等. 盐生植物碱地肤对盐碱胁迫的生理响应特点[J]. 西北植物学报, 2007, 27(1): 0079 − 0084. [29] 汪本福, 黄金鹏, 赵 锋, 等. 硅氮配施对水稻光合特性、叶绿素荧光及产量的影响[J]. 中国稻米, 2016, 22(1): 30 − 34. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-8082.2016.01.007 [30] Chen M M, Zhang S R, Liu L, et al. Combined organic amendments and mineral fertilizer application increase rice yield by improving soil structure, P availability and root growth in saline-alkaline soil[J]. Soil & Tillage Research, 2021: 212. [31] 宋 敏, 徐文竞, 彭向永, 等. 外源脯氨酸对镉胁迫下小麦幼苗生长的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2013, 24(1): 129 − 134. [32] Zhao Y, Ma Y Q, Weng Y J, et al. Variation of betaine and proline contents in wheat seedlings under salt stress[J]. Journal of Plant Physiology and Molecular Biology, 2005, 31(1): 103 − 106. [33] Mustafa Y, Hakan T. Effect of NaCl stress on chlorophyll biosynthesis, proline, lipid peroxidation and antioxidative enzymes in leaves of salt-tolerant and salt-sensitive barley cultivars[J]. Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2013. [34] Zhao Y Y, Song C C, Brummell D A, et al. Salicylic acid treatment mitigates chilling injury in peach fruit by regulation of sucrose metabolism and soluble sugar content[J]. Food chemistry, 2021, 358: 129867 − 129867. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2021.129867 [35] 朱 虹, 祖元刚, 王文杰, 等. 逆境胁迫条件下脯氨酸对植物生长的影响[J]. 东北林业大学学报, 2009, 37(4): 86 − 89. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-5382.2009.04.031 [36] Moradi A, Younesi O. Influence of Arbuscular Mycorrhiza on Membrane Lipid Peroxidation and Soluble Sugar Content of Soybean under Salt Stress[J]. Agriculturae Conspectus Scientificus, 2014, 79(4): 227 − 232. [37] Amin S, Hamidreza T, Majid G. Evaluation of proline, chlorophyll, soluble sugar content and uptake of nutrients in the German chamomile (Matricaria chamomilla L. ) under drought stress and organic fertilizer treatments[J]. Asian Pacific Journal of Tropical Biomedicine, 2016, 6(10): 886 − 891. doi: 10.1016/j.apjtb.2016.08.009 [38] 张明聪, 周 伟, 杜吉到, 等. 施用改良剂对苏打盐化草甸土土壤性状及水稻产量的影响[J]. 土壤通报, 2021, 52(3): 658 − 669. [39] 冉 成, 邵玺文, 朱 晶, 等. 生物炭对苏打盐碱稻田土壤养分及产量的影响[J]. 灌溉排水学报, 2019, 38(5): 46 − 51.