Aminopolysaccharide Water-soluble Fertilizer: Effects on Physiological Characteristics, Yield and Grain Quality of Wheat

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2020-0094

Abstract

Abstract:

To analyze the effects of aminopolysaccharide water-soluble fertilizer on physiological characteristics, yield and grain quality of wheat, ‘Huaimai 33’ was used as the experimental material to study the effects of spraying aminopolysaccharide water-soluble fertilizer at different growth stages and with usage times of once, twice and three times on wheat yield and quality. The net photosynthetic rate (P_n), transpiration rate (T_r), intercellular CO₂concentration (C_i), stomatal conductance (G_s), the contents of chlorophyll (Chl), soluble sugar, soluble protein, malondialdehyde (MDA) and antioxidant enzyme activities in flag leaves were determined after 12 days’ treatment, and the root activity was also determined. The results showed that aminopolysaccharide water-soluble fertilizer significantly increased the contents of Chl, soluble sugar, soluble protein and the activities of superoxide dismutase (SOD) and peroxidase (POD), P_n and G_s in flag leaves, also increased the root activity and decreased the contents of C_i, T_r and MDA in flag leaves. Aminopolysaccharide water-soluble fertilizer increased 1000-grain weight, grain yield, and it also increased total protein, total starch and amylopectin content of grain, while it decreased the ratio of amylose to amylopectin. There was no significant difference in grain yield and grain quality between spraying three times and two times (P<0.05), but there was significant difference between them and the control or spraying once (P<0.05). Obviously, the aminopolysaccharide water-soluble fertilizer can significantly improve the antioxidant capacity of wheat flag leaves and grain filling ability, also increase the grain yield and quality of wheat. In addition, spraying twice after heading stage is suitable.

Key words: wheat, aminopolysaccharide, physiological characteristics, yield, grain quality

CLC Number:

S512.1
S311

Du Xiaofeng, Gu Dalu, Zhong Xiujuan, Liang Shuanglin, Peng Jie, Yang Wenfei, Wu Chuanwan. Aminopolysaccharide Water-soluble Fertilizer: Effects on Physiological Characteristics, Yield and Grain Quality of Wheat[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2021, 37(6): 16-23.

Figures/Tables 7

References 29

[1]	Schwessinger B. Fundamental Wheat Stripe Rust Research in the 21st Century[J]. The New Phytologist, 2016,213(04):1625-1631. doi: 10.1111/nph.2017.213.issue-4 URL
[2]	Zhao H M, Zhang X L, Zhang S C, et al. Effects of Agricultural Biomass Burning on Regional Haze in China: A Review[J]. Atmosphere, 2017,8(5):1-9. doi: 10.3390/atmos8010001 URL
[3]	刘娜, 金昕, 谢昶琰, 等. 诱导条件下不同配施钙肥处理减缓‘黄冠梨’果面褐斑病的研究[J]. 南京农业大学学报, 2017,40(05):867-873.
[4]	Januš kaitiené I, Kaciené G. The effect of foliar spray fertilizers on the tolerance of Hordeum vulgare to UV-B radiation and drought stress[J]. Cereal Research Communications, 2017,45(03):1-11.
[5]	沈浦, 冯昊, 罗盛, 等. 缺氮胁迫下含Na⁺叶面肥对花生生长的抑制及补氮后的恢复效应[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2016,22(06):1620-1627.
[6]	Lü X, Li T, Wen X, et al. Effect of potassium foliage application post-anjournal on grain filling of wheat under drought stress[J]. Field Crops Research, 2017(206):95-105.
[7]	张春明, 兰汝佳, 甘淳丹, 等. 新型微量元素型叶面肥对春小麦旗叶衰老、籽粒产量和品质的影响[J]. 生态与农村环境学报, 2019,35(01):121-127.
[8]	赵海燕, 甘淳丹, 兰汝佳, 等. 喷施新型腐殖酸型叶面肥对小麦旗叶抗氧化和产量及品质的影响[J]. 南京农业大学学报, 2018,41(04):685-690.
[9]	李云, 黄斌, 张先平, 等. 不同时期喷施不同叶面肥对冬小麦产量及品质的影响[J]. 陕西农业科学2018, 64(02):55-58.
[10]	贾晓燕. 氨基多糖纳米微粒在Caco-2细胞模型中的吸收机制及其在荷瘤小鼠体内分布的研究[D]. 杭州:浙江大学, 2009: 1-125.
[11]	许英蕾. 氨基多糖纳米微粒抗人肝细胞癌的作用与机理研究[D]. 杭州:浙江大学, 2009: 1-114.
[12]	杜文理. 载金属离子氨基多糖纳米微粒的抗菌作用及其对大鼠免疫功能的影响[D]. 杭州:浙江大学, 2008: 1-143.
[13]	Zeng D F, Mei X. Application of natural aminopolysaccharide in seed film-coating for pest control and cotton growth[J]. Russian Agricultural Sciences, 2011,37(01):20-24. doi: 10.3103/S106836741101023X URL
[14]	王玮, 汪国莲, 梁双林, 等. 叶面喷施氨基多糖硒肥对西瓜生长及产量品质的影响[J]. 江苏农业学报, 2019,35(06):1413-1420.
[15]	文廷刚, 杜小凤, 吴传万, 等. 不同分子量氨基多糖对西瓜产量和品质的影响[J]. 江西农业学报, 2015,27(03):36-39.
[16]	高俊凤. 植物生理学实验指导[M]. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2006: 196-197.
[17]	李合生. 植物生理生化实验原理和技术[M]. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2000: 165-185.
[18]	Zhang Y J, Zhang X, Chen C J, et al. Effects of fungicides JS399-19,azoxystrobin,tebuconazloe,and carbendazim on the physiological and biochemical indices and grain yield of winter wheat[J]. Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology, 2010,98(02):151-157. doi: 10.1016/j.pestbp.2010.04.007 URL
[19]	宋欣欣, 贺德先. 小麦生育后期主茎和分蘖次生根对籽粒产量和品质的影响[J]. 麦类作物学报, 2011,31(02):281-285.
[20]	GB/T 5009.9-2008.食品中淀粉的测定[S].
[21]	Mohammadkhani A, Stoddard F L, Marshall D R, et al. Starch extraction and amylose analysis from half seeds[J]. Starch-Starke, 1999,51(2-3):62-66. doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)1521-379X URL
[22]	雷振生, 林作揖. 黄淮海麦区高产小麦品种产量结构及其生理基础的研究[J]. 华北农学报, 1996,11(1):70-75. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-7091.1996.01.013 URL
[23]	周运刚, 王俊刚, 马天文, 等. 不同DPC(缩节胺)处理对棉花生理生化特性的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2014,47(6):1142-1146.
[24]	姜东, 于振文, 苏波, 等. 不同施氮时期对小麦根系衰老的影响[J]. 作物学报, 1997,23(2):181-190.
[25]	朱荣, 康建宏, 慕宇, 等. 喷施叶面肥对花后干旱春小麦光合特性的影响[J]. 西南农业学报, 2017,30(7):1593-1599.
[26]	王卫东, 赵丹阳, 任瑞兰, 等. “金太龙”叶面肥对冬小麦产量及干热风抗性的影响[J]. 麦类作物学报, 2017,37(04):554-558.
[27]	李云, 黄斌, 张先平, 等. 不同时期喷施不同叶面肥对冬小麦产量及品质的影响[J]. 陕西农业科学2018, 64(02):55-58.
[28]	Man J, Yu Z, Shi Y. Radiation interception, chlorophyll fluorescence and senescence of flag leaves in winter wheat under supplemental irrigation[J]. Scientific Reports, 2017(07):77-67.
[29]	程红玉, 肖占文, 宗盈晓, 等. ALA叶面肥对春小麦光合特性和灌浆速率的影响[J]. 麦类作物学报, 2018,38(05):572-577.

处理	株高/cm	茎基宽/mm	单株地上部干重/g
CK	76.61±1.45b	4.98±0.33a	11.23±0.36d
T1	80.68±1.67ab	5.21±0.48a	12.76±0.38abc
T2	78.87±1.62ab	5.11±0.26a	11.98±0.46cd
T3	78.96±1.36ab	5.23±0.45a	12.46±0.37abc
T4	81.23±1.44a	5.46±0.22a	13.11±0.41ab
T5	81.15±1.62a	5.55±0.36a	13.28±0.36a
T6	79.89±1.78ab	5.31±0.23a	12.11±0.22bcd
T7	81.47±1.41a	5.62±0.31a	13.36±0.28a

处理	株高/cm	茎基宽/mm	单株地上部干重/g
CK	76.61±1.45b	4.98±0.33a	11.23±0.36d
T1	80.68±1.67ab	5.21±0.48a	12.76±0.38abc
T2	78.87±1.62ab	5.11±0.26a	11.98±0.46cd
T3	78.96±1.36ab	5.23±0.45a	12.46±0.37abc
T4	81.23±1.44a	5.46±0.22a	13.11±0.41ab
T5	81.15±1.62a	5.55±0.36a	13.28±0.36a
T6	79.89±1.78ab	5.31±0.23a	12.11±0.22bcd
T7	81.47±1.41a	5.62±0.31a	13.36±0.28a

处理	单位面积穗数/(×10⁴/hm²)	穗粒数	千粒质量/g	产量/(kg/hm²)
CK	583.35±11.26a	33.48±1.96a	38.43±0.88c	7582.16±165.49d
T1	617.25±15.63a	35.23±1.59a	39.14±0.56bc	7898.55±158.78bcd
T2	615.60±14.35a	34.08±2.01a	38.96±0.61bc	7711.26±119.86cd
T3	610.80±9.89a	35.19±1.63a	39.89±0.59abc	7923.45±156.35bcd
T4	618.45±16.56a	36.68±1.35a	41.11±0.72a	8256.78±189.56ab
T5	613.35±18.78a	34.15±1.78a	40.12±0.81abc	8115.92±125.66abc
T6	608.40±19.65a	34.56±1.25a	40.78±0.65ab	8219.86±132.55ab
T7	618.90±21.14a	36.45±1.85a	41.16±0.55a	8465.48±112.35a

处理	单位面积穗数/(×10⁴/hm²)	穗粒数	千粒质量/g	产量/(kg/hm²)
CK	583.35±11.26a	33.48±1.96a	38.43±0.88c	7582.16±165.49d
T1	617.25±15.63a	35.23±1.59a	39.14±0.56bc	7898.55±158.78bcd
T2	615.60±14.35a	34.08±2.01a	38.96±0.61bc	7711.26±119.86cd
T3	610.80±9.89a	35.19±1.63a	39.89±0.59abc	7923.45±156.35bcd
T4	618.45±16.56a	36.68±1.35a	41.11±0.72a	8256.78±189.56ab
T5	613.35±18.78a	34.15±1.78a	40.12±0.81abc	8115.92±125.66abc
T6	608.40±19.65a	34.56±1.25a	40.78±0.65ab	8219.86±132.55ab
T7	618.90±21.14a	36.45±1.85a	41.16±0.55a	8465.48±112.35a

处理	蛋白质含量/%	淀粉含量/%	直链淀粉含量/%	支链淀粉含量/%	容重/(g/L)	直/支比
CK	13.86±0.26c	63.59±1.45c	13.91±0.57a	49.68±1.19d	769.56±6.01e	0.28
T1	14.11±0.21bc	64.55±1.58bc	13.37±0.43a	51.18±1.06cd	783.88±5.11de	0.26
T2	14.36±0.17abc	65.78±1.36abc	13.42±0.78a	52.36±1.35bcd	780.12±4.78e	0.26
T3	14.56±0.14ab	67.25±1.45abc	12.63±0.52a	54.62±1.24ab	798.58±4.89cd	0.23
T4	14.22±0.16abc	66.88±1.31abc	12.40±0.61a	54.48±1.31abc	823.22±5.14a	0.23
T5	14.69±0.21a	67.89±1.22ab	12.56±0.75a	55.33±1.15ab	803.25±6.15bc	0.23
T6	14.26±0.11abc	68.26±1.16ab	13.12±0.48a	55.14±0.98ab	816.24±4.58ab	0.24
T7	14.68±0.12a	68.88±1.23a	12.99±0.66a	55.89±1.23a	824.16±5.12a	0.23