Effects of drought stress on yield and dry matter accumulation and distribution of Avena sativa cv. Qingyan No.1

doi:10.11686/cyxb2020168

Abstract

Abstract:

This study aimed to clarify the response of Avena sativa cv. Qingyan No. 1 to different drought stress treatments during crop development. We set up a pot experiment comprising different drought stress intensities （75%， 60%， 45% and 30% field water capacity） and times （0， 1， 2 and 3 times） with respect to crop development， to understand the effects on dry matter accumulation and allocation to plant organs and the changes in yield and yield components. Our results indicated that the plant traits were significantly decreased were length of spikelets （Ls）， seed number per spikelet （SNs）， seed weight per inflorescence （SWi）， hundred kernel weight （HKW） and yield. Number of spikelets （Ns） and seed number per inflorescence （SNi） increased or decreased in different treatments， but empty floret number （Ef） did not show any significant difference between treatments. Dry matter accumulation was inhibited by drought stress， and the proportional allocation to stems and roots was higher than to spikelets under drought stress. The overall effects of differing severity of water deficit were as follows： Imposition of drought three times， moderate and severe stress intensity had the greatest influence. With respect to timing of drought， stress applied at seedling-joint stage， booting-heading stage and flowering-milk stage drought （SM） and seedling-joint stage， booting-heading stage （SH） had the greatest influence. Correlation analysis and path analysis of various indicators found that Ns， SNi， SNs， SWi， HKW， Ls， dry weight of spikelets， dry weight of stem， dry weight of root， dry weight of leaf， spikelet distribution index and yield as having significant positive correlations， with correlation coefficients ranging from 0.368 to 0.922. The stem distribution index， root distribution index and leaf distribution index were negatively correlated with yield， with correlation coefficients ranging from -0.673 to -0.299. Ef displayed a small non-significant negative correlation with yield （-0.021）. Path analysis found that SWi， HKW and SNi had important effects on increase of oat yield.

Key words: oat, drought stress, yield, dry matter accumulation and distribution

Kai-qiang LIU, Wen-hui LIU, Zhi-feng JIA, Guo-ling LIANG, Xiang MA. Effects of drought stress on yield and dry matter accumulation and distribution of Avena sativa cv. Qingyan No.1[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(3): 177-188.

Figures/Tables 9

References 28

1	Zhang X F， Kong H Y， Li P F， et al. Recent advances in research on drought-induced proteins and the related genes in wheat （Triticum aestivum L.）. Acta Ecologica Sinica， 2011， 31（9）： 2641-2653.
	张小丰，孔海燕，李朴芳，等. 小麦干旱诱导蛋白及相关基因研究进展. 生态学报， 2011， 31（9）： 2641-2653.
2	Chen J， Dai J Y. Effects of drought on photosynthesis and yield of different tolerance maize varieties. Acta Agronomica Sinica， 1996， 22（6）： 757-763.
	陈军，戴俊英. 干旱对不同耐性玉米品种光合作用及产量的影响. 作物学报， 1996， 22（6）： 757-763.
3	Liu Q M， Tang Y Q， Xiao R P， et al. Progress on molecular research of drought resistance in rice. Molecular Plant Breeding， 2019， 17（9）： 2841-2849.
	刘强明，唐永群，肖人鹏，等. 水稻耐旱的分子研究进展. 分子植物育种， 2019， 17（9）： 2841-2849.
4	Dong X S， Niu J Y， Gao Y H， et al. Comparative test of characteristics for potato varieties in semi^-arid region. Chinese Potato Journal， 2015， 29（3）： 129-132.
	董旭生，牛俊义，高玉红，等. 半干旱区马铃薯品种性状比较试验. 中国马铃薯， 2015， 29（3）： 129-132.
5	John M C， Ronald M D， Fred T S. Evaluation of methods for quantification of drought tolerance in wheat. Crop Science， 1992， 32（3）： 723-728.
6	Pragya M， Nisha S， Ajay J， et al. Identification of cis^-regulatory elements associated with salinity and drought stress tolerance in rice from co-expressed gene interaction networks. Bioinformation， 2018， 14（3）： 123-131.
7	Lou L L， Li X R， Chen J X， et al. Photosynthetic and ascorbate^-glutathione metabolism in the flag leaves as compared to spikes under drought stress of winter wheat （Triticum aestivum L.）. PLoS One， 2018， 13（3）： e0194625.
8	Wang L N， Wang Y R， Zhang W， et al. Comparative study on soil water utilization characteristics of Viola poapratensis and Poa pratensis L.populations under long-term soil drought stress. Journal of Northern Agriculture， 2008（1）： 28-30.
	王丽娜，王艳荣，张玮，等. 土壤持续干旱条件下早开堇菜与草地早熟禾对土壤水分利用特征的比较研究. 北方农业学报， 2008（1）： 28-30.
9	Du J X， Shi S L， Liu J R， et al. Effects of drought stress and rewatering on physiological characteristics of three kentucky bluegrass cultivars. Acta Agrestia Sinica， 2010， 18（1）： 73-77.
	杜建雄，师尚礼，刘金荣，等. 干旱胁迫和复水对草地早熟禾3个品种生理特性的影响. 草地学报， 2010， 18（1）： 73-77.
10	Lin Y C， Zeng Z H， Guo L C， et al. Response to water stress and re^-watering of oat at different growth stages. Journal of Triticeae Crops， 2012， 32（2）： 284-288.
	林叶春，曾昭海，郭来春，等. 裸燕麦不同生育时期对干旱胁迫后复水的响应. 麦类作物学报， 2012， 32（2）： 284-288.
11	Hou L Y， Zhu Z Y， Yang J， et al. Current status， problems and potentials of forage oat in China. Journal of Southwest University for Nationalities （Natural Science Edition）， 2019， 45（3）： 248-253.
	侯龙鱼，朱泽义，杨杰，等. 我国饲草用燕麦现状、问题和潜力. 西南民族大学学报（自然科学版）， 2019， 45（3）： 248-253.
12	Cui X X， Hou F J， Chang S H， et al. Comparison of yield and nutritional quality of two oat （Avena sativa） varieties grown in the alpine pastoral region of China. Pratacultural Science， 2018， 35（6）： 1489-1495.
	崔雄雄，侯扶江，常生华，等. 高寒牧区两个燕麦品种的产量与品质比较. 草业科学， 2018， 35（6）： 1489-1495.
13	Liang G L， Qin Y， Wei X X， et al. Evaluation on productivity and quality of oat strain I-D in the alpine regions of the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. Acta Agrestia Sinica， 2018， 26（4）： 130-140.
	梁国玲，秦燕，魏小星，等. 青藏高原高寒区I-D燕麦品系饲草生产性能及品质评价. 草地学报， 2018， 26（4）： 130-140.
14	Rgia A O， Mohammed H M， Jones P J. Cholesterol-lowering effects of oat β-glucan. Nutrition Reviews， 2011， 69（6）： 299-309.
15	Peter J W. Evaluation of oat bran as a soluble fibre source. Characterization of oat β-glucan and its effects on glycaemic response. Elsevier， 1994， 25（4）： 331-336.
16	Liu W Y， Zhou F， Yang R Q， et al. A study of Avena nuda L.seeding under drought stress. Journal of Shanxi Datong University （Social Science Edition）， 2013（4）： 53-55.
	刘文英，周凤，杨瑞卿，等. 干旱胁迫对裸燕麦幼苗生长的影响. 山西大同大学学报（自然科学版）， 2013（4）： 53-55.
17	Zhai M M. Research on the effect of yield and quality of forage oats in semi-arid areas of Western Liaoning Province. Shenyang： Liaoning University， 2014.
	翟苗苗. 饲草燕麦在辽西半干旱地区的产量与品质效应研究. 沈阳：辽宁大学， 2014.
18	Duggan B L， Domitruk D R， Fowler D B. Yield component variation in winter wheat grown under drought stress. Canadian Journal of Plant Science， 2000， 80（4）： 739-745.
19	Dong C C， Yong I J， Jung H N， et al. Early drought effect on canopy development and tuber growth of potato cultivars with different maturities. Field Crops Research， 2018， 215： 156-162.
20	Huang M， Wu J Z， Li Y J， et al. Differences of yield components and nitrogen uptake and utilization in winter wheat with different yield levels in drylands. Journal of Triticeae Crops， 2019， 39（2）： 41-48.
	黄明，吴金芝，李友军，等. 旱地不同产量水平小麦的产量构成及氮素吸收利用的差异. 麦类作物学报， 2019， 39（2）： 41-48.
21	Hu T H. Effects of LCO and TH17 on the morphological， physiological indicators of oat and soil rhizosphere environment under drought stress. Hohhot： Inner Mongolia Agricultural University， 2014.
	胡廷会. 干旱胁迫下LCO和TH17对燕麦形态、生理指标及根际土壤环境的影响. 呼和浩特：内蒙古农业大学， 2014.
22	Sun D Z， Zhou F P， Wang S G， et al. Drought resistance analysis of hexaploid triticale at grain filling stage. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin， 2007， 23（7）： 236-240.
	孙黛珍，周福平，王曙光，等. 六倍体小黑麦灌浆期抗旱性分析. 中国农学通报， 2007， 23（7）： 236-240.
23	Kumar R， Sarawgi A K， Ramos C， et al. Partitioning of dry matter during drought stress in rainfed lowland rice. Field Crops Research， 2006， 98（1）： 1-11.
24	Chen Z Q， Liu Y，Yin Y J， et al. Expression of AtGA2ox1 enhances drought tolerance in maize. Plant Growth Regulation， 2019， 89（2）： 203-215.
25	Jonathan H， Christopher H， Christian D， et al. Reducing stomatal density in barley improves drought tolerance without impacting on yield. Plant Physiology， 2017， 174（2）： 776-787.
26	Zhang M X. Anaiysis of different wheat varieties yield and its related factors in Huanghuai wheat area. Beijing： Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences， 2013.
	张明响. 黄淮麦区不同小麦品种的产量及其相关因素分析. 北京：中国农业科学院， 2013.
27	Tian J C， Deng Z Y， Hu R B， et al. Yield components of super wheat cultivars with different types and the path coefficient analysis on grain yield. Acta Agronomica Sinica， 2006， 32（11）： 1699-1705.
	田纪春，邓志英，胡瑞波，等. 不同类型超级小麦产量构成因素及籽粒产量的通径分析. 作物学报， 2006， 32（11）： 1699-1705.
28	Yue W. Correlation and grey correlation analysis of main agronomic traits and yield of oats. Liaoning Agricultural Sciences， 2017（2）： 33-36.
	岳武. 燕麦主要农艺性状与产量的相关性及灰色关联度分析. 辽宁农业科学， 2017（2）： 33-36.

处理 Treatments	胁迫程度Stress degree	胁迫次数Stress times	胁迫时期Stress period	代码 Code
1	75%	0	CK	T₁
2	60%	1	ST	T₂
3	45%	1	ST	T₃
4	30%	1	ST	T₄
5	60%	2	SF	T₅
6	45%	2	SF	T₆
7	30%	2	SF	T₇
8	60%	2	SH	T₈
9	45%	2	SH	T₉
10	30%	2	SH	T₁₀
11	60%	3	SM	T₁₁
12	45%	3	SM	T₁₂
13	30%	3	SM	T₁₃

处理 Treatments	胁迫程度Stress degree	胁迫次数Stress times	胁迫时期Stress period	代码 Code
1	75%	0	CK	T₁
2	60%	1	ST	T₂
3	45%	1	ST	T₃
4	30%	1	ST	T₄
5	60%	2	SF	T₅
6	45%	2	SF	T₆
7	30%	2	SF	T₇
8	60%	2	SH	T₈
9	45%	2	SH	T₉
10	30%	2	SH	T₁₀
11	60%	3	SM	T₁₁
12	45%	3	SM	T₁₂
13	30%	3	SM	T₁₃

因素Factors	穗长Ls	小穗数Ns	穗粒数SNi	小穗粒数SNs	单序籽粒重SWi	空铃数Ef	百粒重HKW	产量 Yield
胁迫程度Stress degree （SD）	28.111^**	23.949^**	52.099^**	0.066	52.368^**	0.482	52.247^**	40.760^**
胁迫次数Stress times （ST）	81.164^**	74.228^**	193.302^**	2.130	274.140^**	0.038	45.883^**	83.219^**
胁迫程度×胁迫次数SD×ST	1.901	1.601	1.361	1.550	8.625^**	0.263	2.934^*	4.670^**

因素Factors	穗长Ls	小穗数Ns	穗粒数SNi	小穗粒数SNs	单序籽粒重SWi	空铃数Ef	百粒重HKW	产量 Yield
胁迫程度Stress degree （SD）	28.111^**	23.949^**	52.099^**	0.066	52.368^**	0.482	52.247^**	40.760^**
胁迫次数Stress times （ST）	81.164^**	74.228^**	193.302^**	2.130	274.140^**	0.038	45.883^**	83.219^**
胁迫程度×胁迫次数SD×ST	1.901	1.601	1.361	1.550	8.625^**	0.263	2.934^*	4.670^**

指标 Index	胁迫次数Stress time	胁迫程度Stress degree			指标 Index	胁迫次数 Stress time	胁迫程度Stress degree
指标 Index	胁迫次数Stress time	60%FWC	45%FWC	30%FWC	指标 Index	胁迫次数 Stress time	60%FWC	45%FWC	30%FWC
穗干重DWs	1	0.73Aa	0.54Ba	0.31Ca	穗分配指数SDi	1	0.86Aa	0.78Bab	0.71Ca
	2	0.39Ab	0.29Bb	0.21Cb		2	0.85Aa	0.85Aa	0.75Aa
	3	0.29Ac	0.14Bc	0.09Cc		3	0.78Aa	0.67Bb	0.48Cb
茎干重DWst	1	1.03Aa	0.82Ba	0.52Ca	茎分配指数DIs	1	1.18Aa	1.14Aa	1.16Aa
	2	0.55Ab	0.36Bb	0.32Bb		2	1.16Aa	1.04Bb	1.14Aa
	3	0.45Ac	0.23Bc	0.23Bc		3	1.16Ba	1.11Ba	1.22Aa
根干重DWr	1	0.91Aa	0.93Aa	0.56Ba	根分配指数RDi	1	1.21Ab	1.50Ab	1.38Ab
	2	0.55ABc	0.59Ab	0.46Ba		2	1.33Bb	1.94Aa	1.85Aa
	3	0.68Ab	0.38Bc	0.32Bb		3	2.00Aa	2.04Aa	1.96Aa
叶干重DWl	1	0.77Aa	0.69Ba	0.47Ca	叶分配指数LDi	1	0.87Ca	0.97Ba	1.04Aa
	2	0.42Ab	0.31Bb	0.26Cb		2	0.90Aa	0.90Aa	0.91Ab
	3	0.32Ac	0.22Bc	0.22Cc		3	0.83Ca	1.01Ba	1.13Aa