黄淮南片冬小麦品种节水丰产性鉴选研究
Research on the Selection of Water-Saving and High-Yielding Winter Wheat Varieties in the Southern Huanghuai Region
DOI: 10.12677/HJAS.2023.1310125, PDF,    国家科技经费支持
作者: 张学品, 赵 严, 丁志强, 田文仲, 吴少辉, 杨 莉, 顾晶晶, 温红霞, 冯伟森*:洛阳市农林科学院,河南 洛阳;河南省抗旱节水小麦育种工程技术研究中心,河南 洛阳
关键词: 小麦品种产量水分利用效率抗氧化酶活性Wheat Variety Yield Water Use Efficiency Antioxidant Enzyme Activity
摘要: 为了筛选出同等水分供应条件下,水分利用效率高、稳定高输出、具有较好节水性和抗旱性的小麦新品种,设置全生育期不灌水(W0)、拔节水(W1)、拔节水+开花水(W2) 3个灌水处理,采用10个主要推广冬小麦品种,研究了不同品种产量、水分利用效率及超氧化物歧化酶(SOD)和过氧化氢酶(CAT)活性的差异,结果表明:依据籽粒产量和水分利用效率2个因子将供试品种分为高水分利用效率组(I组)、中水分利用效率组(II组)和低水分利用效率组(III组)。随着灌水次数的增加,参试品种的产量平均值均有不同程度的增加,两年平均产量W0条件下,I组和II组分别比III组高22.53%、19.12%;W1条件下,I组和II组分别比III组高11.21%、6.62%。水分利用效率(两年平均)随着灌水次数的增加逐渐降低,W0条件下水分利用效率,I组和II组分别比III组高22.20%、20.76%;W1条件下,I组和II组分别比III组高17.7%、11.02%;W2条件下,I组和II组分别比III组高9.33%、9.13%。成穗数、穗粒数随灌溉次数的增加,均有不同程度的增加,千粒重没有一致性的规律。不同品种和处理的小麦旗叶SOD和CAT活性表现一致,拔节期最低,扬花期最高,后逐渐下降;各处理间,随着灌水次数的增加,SOD和CAT活性表现整体下降趋势,W0较其他处理一直保持较高的水平,W1次之,W2最低。各品种间,拔节期、扬花期和灌浆期CAT活性均表现为I组 > II组 > III组,SOD活性,不同品种三个测定时期的表现不尽相同。通过综合评价,洛旱22、洛旱19、周麦27和淮麦33在不同水分处理水平下均表现出较高的产量和水分利用效率,属于抗旱、节水、丰产性好的小麦品种,洛旱22和洛旱19可以在黄淮麦区旱肥地或扩灌区推广种植,周麦27和淮麦33在节水灌溉区推广种植。
Abstract: To select new wheat varieties with high water use efficiency, stable and high output, good water-saving and drought resistance under the same water supply conditions, three irrigation treat-ments were set including no irrigation throughout the entire growth period (W0), irrigation at jointing stage (W1), and irrigation at jointing and flowering stages (W2). Ten major winter wheat varieties were used to study the differences in yield, water use efficiency, and the activities of su-peroxide dismutase (SOD) and catalase (CAT). The results showed that the tested varieties could be classified into three groups based on grain yield and water use efficiency comprising high water use efficiency group (Group I), moderate water use efficiency group (Group II), and low water use effi-ciency group (Group III). With the increase in irrigation frequency, the average yield of the tested varieties showed varying degrees of increase. The average yields over two years, under W0 conditions, were 22.53% higher for Group I and 19.12% higher for Group II compared to Group III; under W1 conditions, they were 11.21% higher for Group I and 6.62% higher for Group II compared to Group III. Water use efficiency (average over two years) gradually decreased with the increase in ir-rigation frequency. Under W0 conditions, water use efficiency was 22.20% higher for Group I and 20.76% higher for Group II compared to Group III; under W1 conditions, it was 17.7% higher for Group I and 11.02% higher for Group II compared to Group III; under W2 conditions, it was 9.33% higher for Group I and 9.13% higher for Group II compared to Group III. The number of spikes and grains per spike increased to varying degrees with the increase in irrigation frequency, while the thousand-grain weight did not show a consistent pattern. The SOD and CAT activities of wheat flag leaves of different varieties and treatments were consistent, and the lowest jointing stage was the highest at the flowering stage, and then gradually decreased; among the treatments, with the in-crease of irrigation times, the SoD and CAT activities showed an overall downward trend, and W0 was higher than other treatments. W1 is the second and W2 is the lowest. The CAT activity of each variety at the jointing stage, flowering stage and filling stage all showed the expression Group I > Group II >Group III, the performance of SOD activity in the three test periods of different varieties is not the same. Through comprehensive evaluation, varieties such as Luohan 22, Luohan 19, Zhoumai 27, and Huaimai 33 showed higher yields and water use efficiency at different water treatment levels. They are drought-resistant, water-saving, and high-yielding wheat varieties. Luohan 22 and Luohan 19 can be promoted for cultivation in dry and fertilized areas or expanded irrigation areas in the Huang-Huai region, while Zhoumai 27 and Huaimai 33 can be promoted for cultivation in water-saving irrigation areas.
文章引用:张学品, 赵严, 丁志强, 田文仲, 吴少辉, 杨莉, 顾晶晶, 温红霞, 冯伟森. 黄淮南片冬小麦品种节水丰产性鉴选研究[J]. 农业科学, 2023, 13(10): 896-909. https://doi.org/10.12677/HJAS.2023.1310125

参考文献

[1] 姜文来. 中国21世纪水资源安全对策研究[J]. 水科学进展, 2001, 12(1): 66-71.
[2] 康绍忠. 水安全与粮食安全[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2014, 22(8): 880-885.
[3] 孟雨, 田文仲, 温鹏飞, 等. 基于不同发育阶段协同的小麦品种抗旱性综合评判[J]. 作物学报, 2023, 49(2): 570-582.
[4] 曾占奎, 王征宏, 王黎明, 等. 北部冬麦区小麦新品种(系)的节水生理特性与综合评判[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2019, 37(5): 137-143.
[5] 赵虹, 王西成, 曹廷杰, 等. 黄淮南片麦区小麦品种利用现状和发展趋势[J]. 河南农业科学, 2011, 40(8): 44-49.
[6] 武雪萍, 梅旭荣, 蔡典雄, 等. 节水农业关键技术发展趋势及国内外差异分析[J]. 中国农业资源与区划, 2005, 26(4): 28-32.
[7] 李鹏, 崔正勇, 高国强, 等. 10个山东省小麦品种节水丰产性鉴定与分析[J]. 山东农业科学, 2018, 50(3): 18-21.
[8] 蔡岳. 小麦节水高产育种方法的探讨[J]. 南方农业, 2018, 12(24): 180-181.
[9] 吴复学, 孙慧敏, 李海彦, 等. 测墒补灌对小麦水分利用特性和籽粒产量的影响[J]. 山东农业科学, 2017, 49(10): 23-26.
[10] 许骥坤, 石玉, 赵俊晔, 等. 测墒补灌对小麦水分利用特征和产量的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2015, 29(3): 77-281, 329.
[11] 王志敏, 王璞, 李绪厚, 等. 冬小麦节水省肥高产简化栽培理论与技术[J] 中国农业科技导报, 2006, 8(5): 38-44.
[12] 李兴茂, 倪胜利. 不同水分条件下广适性小麦品种中麦175的农艺和生理特性解析[J]. 中国农业科学, 2015, 48(21): 4374-4380.
[13] 张成军, 陈国祥, 黄春娟, 等. 干旱对高产小麦宁麦9号旗叶光合特性的影响[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2005, 23(3): 24-27.
[14] 袁蕊, 李萍, 胡晓雪, 等. 干旱胁迫对小麦生理特性及产量的影响[J]. 山西农业科学, 2016, 44(10): 1446-1449, 1466.
[15] 张伟杨, 钱希旸, 李银银, 等. 土壤干旱对小麦生理性状和产量的影响[J]. 麦类作物学报, 2016, 36(4): 491-500.
[16] 张军, 鲁敏, 孙树贵, 等. 7个冬小麦品种灌浆期抗旱性鉴定指标的综合评价[J]. 植物科学学报, 2014, 32(2): 148-157.
[17] Farooq, M., Wahid, A., Kobayashi, N., et al. (2009) Plant Drought Stress: Effects, Mechanisms and Management. In: Lichtfouse, E., Navarrete, M., Debaeke, P., Véronique, S. and Alberola, C., Eds., Sustainable Agriculture, Springer, Dordrecht, 153-188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[18] 田文仲, 冯伟森, 李俊红, 等. 不同时期轻度干旱对小麦产量性状及旗叶抗氧化酶活性的影响[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2021, 49(22): 99-104.
[19] 吴金芝, 黄明, 李友军, 等. 耕作方式和氮肥用量对旱地小麦产量、水分利用效率和种植效益的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2021, 35(5): 264-271.
[20] 肖永贵, 陈新民, 李思敏, 等. 水旱兼用型小麦品种中麦175节水特性分析[J]. 麦类作物学报, 2017, 37(2): 212-219.
[21] 张永丽, 于振文. 灌水量对不同小麦品种籽粒品质、产量及土壤硝态氮含量的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2007, 21(5): 155-158, 174.
[22] 董宝娣, 张正斌, 刘孟雨, 等. 小麦不同品种的水分利用特性及对灌溉制度的响应[J]. 农业工程学报, 2007, 23(9): 27-33.
[23] 王德梅, 于振文, 许振柱. 高产条件下不同小麦品种耗水特性和水分利用效率的差异[J]. 生态学报, 2009, 29(12): 6552-6560.
[24] 董宝娣, 刘孟雨, 张正斌, 等. 不同灌水对冬小麦农艺性状与水分利用效率的影响研究[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2004, 12(1): 140-143.
[25] 杨程, 张德奇, 时艳华, 等. 不同灌水处理对不同抗旱型小麦品种生长发育和产量的影响[J]. 河南农业科学, 2019, 48(5): 10-15.
[26] 傅晓艺, 贾丹, 何明琦, 等. 灌水和花后去叶对小麦千粒质量的影响[J]. 河北农业科学, 2014, 18(2): 18-21.
[27] 赵广才, 常旭虹, 刘利华, 等. 不同灌水处理对强筋小麦籽粒产量和蛋白质组分含量的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2007, 33(11): 1828-1833.