Selection of Salt-tolerant Silage Maize Varieties in Saline-alkali Land of Ningxia Yellow River Irrigation Area

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2024-0687

Abstract

Abstract:

Soil salinization is a global ecological environment problem, which seriously restricts the sustainable development of agriculture, especially in the Ningxia Yellow River Irrigation area, which significantly affects the yield and quality of maize. This study aimed to analyze the response mechanism of different silage maize varieties under salt stress, and then screen out high yield and good quality varieties with strong salt-tolerance ability. Nine silage maize varieties were used as test materials. The germination test of salt-tolerant seeds in indoor hydroponics and in-situ identification test in the field were carried out. Salt tolerance was evaluated by analyzing the agronomic traits and physiological and biochemical indexes of different varieties using principal component analysis and membership function method. The results showed that 180 mmol/L NaCl treatment could effectively distinguish the differences of salt tolerance among varieties, with an average salt damage index of 42.16% and a coefficient of variation of 51.16%. Correlation analysis showed that dry matter, ear diameter, axis diameter and grain yield could significantly affect the nutritional quality of silage maize, and starch content was positively correlated with grain weight per cob (P<0.05). The cumulative contribution rate of the four principal components extracted by principal component analysis reached 91.483%. It fully reflects the comprehensive salt tolerance of the variety. Of which, ‘Kehe 699’, ‘Yinyu 238’ and ‘Huayi 1204’ had the best salt tolerance, with D-values of 0.607, 0.591 and 0.531, respectively. Among them, the plant height of ‘Kehe 699’ was 325.17 cm, dry matter mass was 290.27 g, and the grain yield reached 9.82 t/hm², which were significantly higher than the control variety. The comprehensive evaluation showed that the above three varieties had outstanding salt tolerance, biomass accumulation ability and yield potential, and were suitable for planting as whole-plant silage maize varieties in moderate saline-alkali land of the Ningxia Yellow River Irrigation Area.

Key words: silage maize, salt tolerance, yield, nutritional quality, variety selection

QI Ruchun, WANG Jing, ZHANG Jinmei, LIU Jili, SUN Haojie. Selection of Salt-tolerant Silage Maize Varieties in Saline-alkali Land of Ningxia Yellow River Irrigation Area[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2025, 41(24): 20-29.

Figures/Tables 11

References 41

[1]	JIANG D, LU B, LIU L, et al. Exogenous melatonin improves salt stress adaptation of cotton seedlings by regulating active oxygen metabolism[J]. PeerJ, 2020, 11(8):e10486.
[2]	NEUPANE D, ADHIKARI P, BHATTARAI D, et al. Does climate change affect the yield of the top three cereals and food security in the world[J]. Earth, 2022, 3(1):45-71.
[3]	LI W Y, WANG C, SHI H H, et al. Genome-wide analysis of ethylene-response factor family in adzuki bean and functional determination of VaERF3 under saline-alkaline stress[J]. Plant physiology and biochemistry, 2020,147:215-222.
[4]	雷璟阳, 孙怡欣, 王月, 等. 稻渔共作对盐碱地稻田土壤质量与水稻生长的影响研究[J]. 农业科学研究, 2024, 45(4):56-61.
[5]	RAMAZAN S, NAZIR I, YOUSUF W, et al. Environmental stress tolerance in maize (Zea mays): role of polyamine metabolism[J]. Functional plant biology, 2023, 50(2):85-96.
[6]	MUNNS R. Genes and salt tolerance: bringing them together[J]. The new phytologist, 2005, 167(3):645-663.
[7]	SONG J, FAN H, ZHAO Y, et al. Effect of salinity on germination, seedling emergence, seedling growth and ion accumulation of a euhalophyte Suaeda salsa in an intertidal zone and on saline inland[J]. Aquatic botany, 2008, 88(4):331-337.
[8]	CHEN F, FANG P, PENG Y, et al. Comparative proteomics of salt-tolerant and salt-sensitive maize inbred lines to reveal the molecular mechanism of salt tolerance[J]. International journal of molecular sciences, 2019, 20(19):4725.
[9]	GHATAK A, CHATURVEDI P, NAGLER M, et al. Comprehensive tissue-specific proteome analysis of drought stress responses in Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R.Br.(Pearl millet)[J]. Journal of proteomics, 2016,143:122-135.
[10]	赵小强, 彭云玲, 李健英, 等. 16份玉米自交系的耐盐性评价[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2014, 32(5):40-45,51.
[11]	祁通, 黄建, 徐菲, 等. 复合盐胁迫对7个玉米品种萌发的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(8):1855-1863. doi: 10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2022.08.005
[12]	YU Y, ZHANG S Q, GUO Y L, et al. Comprehensive evaluation of saline-alkaline tolerance of 31 maize inbred lines at germination stage[J]. Journal of northeast agricultural university, 2018, 49(9):9-19.
[13]	ZHANG H Y, ZHAO H J. Comprehensive evaluation of salt tolerance of different corn varieties at the germination and seedling stages[J]. Journal of maize sciences, 2016, 24(5):61-67.
[14]	王琳琳, 李素艳, 孙向阳, 等. 不同隔盐材料对滨海盐渍土水盐动态和树木生长的影响[J]. 水土保持通报, 2015, 35(4):141-147,151.
[15]	孙雪丽, 李秋凤, 刘英财, 等. 全株青贮玉米对西门塔尔杂交牛生产性能、表观消化率及血液生化指标的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2018, 27(9):201-209. doi: 10.11686/cyxb2017417
[16]	李克昌. 宁夏草产业发展现状和展望[C]. 第四届中国草业大会.青海西宁, 2016.
[17]	张治华, 陈彩芳, 王微. 宁夏农业特色优势产业优化调整的实践经验、存在问题及对策建议[J]. 宁夏农林科技, 2021, 62(12):35-39.
[18]	高昌鹏, 周玉香, 杨万宗, 等. 荞麦秸秆饲粮中添加过瘤胃赖氨酸和蛋氨酸对滩羊生长性能和消化代谢的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2020, 32(1):310-320. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-267x.2020.01.038
[19]	崔士友, 张蛟蛟, 冒宇翔. 不同盐分逆境下玉米产量及相关性状的表现[J]. 农学学报, 2016, 6(3):6-11. doi: 10.11923/j.issn.2095-4050.cjas15090011
[20]	孙浩, 张保望, 李宗新, 等. 夏玉米品种盐碱胁迫耐受能力评价[J]. 玉米科学, 2016, 24(1):81-87.
[21]	崔超, 王海燕, 王靖, 等. 不同基因型青贮玉米产量及生理特性的差异性比较[J]. 饲料研究, 2021, 44(1):96-99.
[22]	张会丽, 许兴, 朱林. 不同青贮玉米品种耐盐性比较[J]. 河南农业科学, 2017, 46(9):30-36.
[23]	林语梵, 朱鸿福, 王丽慧, 等. 宁夏黄灌区专用青贮玉米品种生产性能和营养价值研究[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(8):40-48. doi: 10.11686/cyxb2018820
[24]	曹立娟, 张顺香, 姚亚妮, 等. 14个青贮玉米品种在宁夏雨养区的生产性能和营养价值综合评价[J]. 草业科学, 2022, 39(5):977-987.
[25]	李渊浩. 宁夏不同生态区青贮玉米品种和种植密度对产量与品质影响研究[D]. 银川: 宁夏大学, 2022.
[26]	刘学, 周璇, 曾兴, 等. 玉米芽期和苗期耐盐性鉴定方法的比较分析[J]. 玉米科学, 2015, 23(1):115-121.
[27]	肖志明, 樊霞, 马东霞, 等. GB/T 6432-2018饲料中粗蛋白的测定-凯氏定氮法[S]. 北京: 国家市场监督管理总局;中国国家标准化管理委员会, 2018.
[28]	黄婷, 王思思, 高俊峰, 等. GB/T 20194-2018动物饲料中淀粉含量的测定-旋光法[S]. 武汉: 国家市场监督管理总局;中国国家标准化管理委员会, 2018.
[29]	农业部饲料质量监督检验测试中心西安,NY/T 1459-2007饲料中酸性洗涤纤维的测定[S]. 西安: 行业标准-农业. 2007.
[30]	张凤枰, 张芸, 张茹, 等. GB/T 20806-2022饲料中中性洗涤纤维(NDF)的测定[S]. 四川: 国家市场监督管理总局;国家标准化管理委员会. 2023.
[31]	盖旭, 李伟, 刘庆超, 等. 不同菌剂及发酵时间的花生壳基质对矮牵牛生长发育的影响[J]. 土壤通报, 2018, 49(5):1157-1164.
[32]	余鸣, 李存福, 玉柱, 等. GB/T 25882-2010青贮玉米品质分级[S]. 北京: 中华人民共和国国家质量监督检验检疫总局;中国国家标准化管理委员会. 2011.
[33]	张海艳, 赵海军. 不同品种玉米萌发期和苗期耐盐性综合评价[J]. 玉米科学, 2016, 24(5):61-67.
[34]	汤华, 柳晓磊, 罗秋芸. 玉米耐盐早期筛选体系的初步研究[J]. 海南大学学报(自然科学版), 2007(2):169-172,176.
[35]	高英波, 张慧, 薛艳芳, 等. 不同夏玉米品种耐盐性综合评价与耐盐品种筛选[J]. 玉米科学, 2020, 28(2):33-40.
[36]	李强强, 赵玥, 李璠, 等. 作物源库关系及其生理调控途径的研究进展[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2020, 48(9):50-56.
[37]	孟亚轩, 刘瑶, 孙颖琦, 等. 青贮玉米不同器官与产量和品质的相关性分析[J]. 黑龙江畜牧兽医, 2022(7):86-91.
[38]	刘晓, 王博, 朱晓艳, 等. 21个粮饲兼用型青贮玉米在河南的品种比较试验[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(8):49-60. doi: 10.11686/cyxb2018539
[39]	王腾飞, 常怡然, 邓雪, 等. 饲用燕麦品种在宁夏雨养区的适应性评价[J]. 草地学报, 2022, 30(7):1755-1762. doi: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2022.07.017
[40]	郭春明, 任景全, 曹铁华, 等. 春玉米穗分化期低温对产量构成因素的影响[J]. 应用气象学报, 2018, 29(4):505-512.
[41]	张恩盈, 魏志刚, 宋希云. 8个玉米品种淀粉含量和穗部性状的灰关联度分析[J]. 山东农业科学, 2011(10):15-17,25.

编号	品种名称	来源
1	JK929	宁夏钧凯种业有限公司
2	大京九23	河南大京九种业有限公司
3	华亦1204	宁夏丰禾种苗有限公司
4	京科青贮932	北京市农林科学院玉米研究中心
5	科河699	内蒙古巴彦淖尔市科河种业有限公司
6	屯玉168	北京屯玉种业有限责任公司
7	西蒙青贮707	内蒙古西蒙种业有限公司
8	银玉238	宁夏农林科学院农作物研究所
9	正大12号	襄樊正大农业开发有限公司

编号	品种名称	来源
1	JK929	宁夏钧凯种业有限公司
2	大京九23	河南大京九种业有限公司
3	华亦1204	宁夏丰禾种苗有限公司
4	京科青贮932	北京市农林科学院玉米研究中心
5	科河699	内蒙古巴彦淖尔市科河种业有限公司
6	屯玉168	北京屯玉种业有限责任公司
7	西蒙青贮707	内蒙古西蒙种业有限公司
8	银玉238	宁夏农林科学院农作物研究所
9	正大12号	襄樊正大农业开发有限公司

项目	NaCl溶液				平均值
项目	60 mmol/L	120 mmol/L	180 mmol/L	240 mmol/L	平均值
最大值	55.56	84.00	91.67	100.00	82.81
最小值	0.00	0.00	7.41	0.00	1.85
平均值	16.57	39.53	42.16	64.50	40.69
标准差	27.51	26.85	21.57	28.68	26.15
变异系数/%	166.04	67.94	51.16	44.47	82.40

项目	NaCl溶液				平均值
项目	60 mmol/L	120 mmol/L	180 mmol/L	240 mmol/L	平均值
最大值	55.56	84.00	91.67	100.00	82.81
最小值	0.00	0.00	7.41	0.00	1.85
平均值	16.57	39.53	42.16	64.50	40.69
标准差	27.51	26.85	21.57	28.68	26.15
变异系数/%	166.04	67.94	51.16	44.47	82.40

品种	出苗率/%	株高/cm	茎粗/mm	全株干物质量/g
JK929	66.80±12.49a	323.33±1.86ab	23.56±0.06a	283.60±26.89a
大京九23	59.87±12.96a	301.17±9.18cde	23.79±1.24a	242.48±8.88abc
华亦1204	73.88±9.13a	278.33±5.55fg	23.52±1.16a	232.39±16.78abc
京科青贮932	64.35±19.02a	305.67±7.51bcd	21.48±0.81a	212.13±10.91bc
科河699	67.21±9.77a	325.17±1.01a	23.62±1.05a	290.27±5.36a
屯玉168	53.88±5.35a	272.67±7.06g	22.45±2.69a	193.12±34.41c
西蒙青贮707	86.26±2.29a	293.00±6.03def	22.91±1.65a	193.84±21.21c
银玉238	74.70±10.49a	312.00±4.93abc	23.77±0.97a	281.69±3.49a
正大12号	67.89±7.23a	285.50±2.60efg	22.04±0.56a	267.35±3.06ab