Effects of Supplemental Irrigation with Brackish Water on Canopy Photosynthesis and Yield of Cotton

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2026-0008

Abstract

Abstract:

The cotton growing area in southern Xinjiang is facing the combined stress of fresh water shortage, soil salinization and seasonal drought, and the safe and efficient utilization technology of brackish water is urgently needed. To elucidate the mechanism by which brackish water supplementary irrigation affects canopy photosynthesis and yield of cotton in southern Xinjiang, using cultivar ‘Xinluzhong 88’ as the test material, three treatments were established: conventional irrigation (CK), brackish water supplementary irrigation+ subsoiling (SWS), and brackish water supplementary irrigation+ subsoiling+ soil conditioner (SWST). The effects of these treatments on leaf area index (LAI), chlorophyll content (SPAD), canopy interception rate (FIPAR), net photosynthetic rate (Pn), transpiration rate (Tr), stomatal conductance (Gs), intercellular CO₂ concentration (Ci), dry-matter accumulation, and seed-cotton yield were investigated. SWST produced the highest LAI and SPAD at both budding and boll-opening stages, increasing LAI by 30.39% and SPAD by 14.63% compared with CK. The interception rate showed an increasing trend with cotton growth. The interception rate of SWST during the fluffing stage reached 0.95 at a vertical height of 60-70 cm. This treatment sustained high photosynthetic efficiency and stimulated dry-matter accumulation, thereby boosting yield. During the bud stage and floret stage, the levels of Tr, Pn and Gs in SWST-treated samples were significantly higher than those in CK-treated samples, with no significant difference observed between SWST and SWS treatments (P<0.05). The water use efficiency (WUEi) of SWST was 11.4% higher than that of CK, while the carbon uptake (Ci) decreased by 6.29%. Dry-matter accumulation entered the rapid phase 5 days earlier in SWST than in CK, resulting in an 18.42% yield increase and the highest growth characteristic value (88.71). Supplemental irrigation with brackish water at a mineralization degree of 4.5 g/L, combined with deep loosening and the application of a soil conditioner, significantly increased cotton LAI, SPAD values and WUEi, optimized canopy structure, increased the interception rate of cotton populations while enhancing dry matter accumulation, finally producing the highest seed-cotton yield of 7557.65 kg/hm². In the future, multi-year positioning and different salinity gradient tests can be carried out to improve the regional adaptation technology model.

Key words: cotton, brackish water, replenishment irrigation, deep loosening, soil conditioner, canopy light interception, photosynthetic efficiency, dry-matter accumulation, yield

CLC Number:

S562，S273.4

CHENG Yanmiao, LIU Zhengxing, CUI Jianping, WANG Liang, ZHANG Na, LIN Tao, TIAN Liwen, GUO Rensong, ZHAO Qiang. Effects of Supplemental Irrigation with Brackish Water on Canopy Photosynthesis and Yield of Cotton[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2026, 42(10): 13-20.

Figures/Tables 7

References 28

[1]	王振华, 王菲, 吕德生, 等. 不同土质下灌水盐度对滴灌棉花生理及产量品质的影响[J]. 农业工程学报, 2023, 39(24):69-78.
[2]	潘洁. 2024年全国棉花产量比上年增长9.7%[J]. 棉花科学, 2025, 47(1):2.
[3]	马芳霞, 王忆芸, 燕鹏, 等. 秸秆还田对长期连作棉田土壤有机氮组分的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2018, 27(8):1459-1465. doi: 10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2018.08.011
[4]	陈翔宇, 魏江生, 马淑花, 等. 土壤调理剂界面改性对黄灌区盐碱离子迁移特性的影响[J]. 水土保持通报, 2023, 43(6):98-105.
[5]	MA Z L, LIU J, WEN Y, et al. Optimizing cotton yield through appropriate irrigation water salinity: Coordinating above- and below-ground growth and enhancing photosynthetic capacity[J]. European journal of agronomy, 2024, 154:127095. doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2024.127095 URL
[6]	郑春莲, 冯棣, 李科江, 等. 咸水沟灌对土壤水盐变化与棉花生长及产量的影响[J]. 农业工程学报, 2020, 36(13):92-101.
[7]	冯国艺, 祁虹, 张谦, 等. “池-田”蓄引水模式改善环渤海棉田水盐运移提高棉花产量[J]. 农业工程学报, 2020, 36(12):80-89.
[8]	王娟红, 车庆轩, 周乐儒, 等. 干播湿出和咸水补灌对棉花养分吸收和干物质积累的影响[J]. 灌溉排水学报, 2025, 44(10):8-19.
[9]	庞桂斌, 张立志, 丛鑫, 等. 微咸水灌溉下冬小麦光合作用与光响应曲线模拟[J]. 农业机械学报, 2021, 52(11):333-342.
[10]	XIAO C, JI Q Y, ZHANG F C, et al. Effects of various soil water potential thresholds for drip irrigation on soil salinity, seed cotton yield and water productivity of cotton in Northwest China[J]. Agricultural water management, 2023, 279:108172. doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2023.108172 URL
[11]	WEN Y J, DARAPUNENI M K, CHEN D H, et al. Phenotypical responses of cotton and relation to lint yield under deficit irrigation schemes in semi-arid environments[J]. Agronomy journal, 2018, 110(4):1339-1353. doi: 10.2134/agronj2017.12.0735 URL
[12]	张紫淇, 杨丽莉, 何新林, 等. 滴灌水盐氮调控对棉田水肥盐运移及棉花产量的影响[J]. 干旱区研究, 2024, 41(5):876-893. doi: 10.13866/j.azr.2024.05.15
[13]	许建新, 孙文彦, 李燕青, 等. 秸秆还田对微咸水补灌的土壤盐分抑制及作物产量的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2012(6):29-33.
[14]	李荣, 刘婷婷, 马晓明, 等. 深松施氮对旱作马铃薯根系生长与氮素利用特征的影响[J]. 农业机械学报, 2025, 56(11):696-707.
[15]	KUMAR S, SAINI S K, BHATNAGAR A. Effect of subsoiling and preparatory tillage on sugar yield, juice quality and economics of sugarcane (Saccharum species hybrid) in sugarcane plant-ratoon cropping system[J]. Sugar tech, 2012, 14(4):398-404. doi: 10.1007/s12355-012-0170-0 URL
[16]	胡琛, 屠春宝, 胡山懿, 等. 土壤调理剂对土壤和作物影响的研究进展[J]. 现代农业科技, 2025(2):147-151.
[17]	郭丽琢, 陈文涛, 高玉红, 等. 不同改良剂对土壤盐渍化特性及燕麦生物排盐作用的影响[J]. 麦类作物学报, 2024, 44(12):1619-1629.
[18]	王琪, 武辰冉, 张玉兰, 等. 磷素调节剂对土壤磷素有效性和玉米产量的影响[J]. 生态学杂志, 2025, 44(6):1963-1970.
[19]	李长江, 丛海涛, 李青梅, 等. 不同土壤调节剂对新增耕地土壤质量以及玉米产量的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2023(9):50-58.
[20]	蒋磊, 刘小龙, 郭帅, 等. 基于Logistic回归分析的土壤盐渍化易发性评价——以新疆南疆塔里木灌区为例[J]. 干旱区地理, 2023, 46(11):1858-1867. doi: 10.12118/j.issn.1000-6060.2023.073
[21]	李万精, 杨广, 雷杰, 等. 不同矿化度(微)咸水膜下滴灌棉田土壤水盐分布及棉花生长特性研究[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2022, 40(3):95-103.
[22]	丛鑫, 王通, 庞桂斌, 等. 微咸水灌溉下冬枣光合生理性状与光响应模型研究[J]. 灌溉排水学报, 2024, 43(6):18-25.
[23]	庞桂斌, 徐征和, 王海霞, 等. 微咸水灌溉对冬小麦光合特征及产量的影响[J]. 灌溉排水学报, 2018, 37(1):35-41.
[24]	秦小婉, 王振华, 雷雨, 等. 灌水量和矿化度对膜下滴灌棉花光合特性与产量的影响[J]. 农业资源与环境学报, 2024, 41(6):1285-1294.
[25]	马君, 师维军, 郭仁松, 等. 微咸水对滴灌棉花冠层光合特征及产量品质的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2017, 33(24):52-56. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb17050031
[26]	王春雷. 深松对不同种植密度下春玉米冠层光合特性及产量的影响[J]. 北方农业学报, 2020, 48(6):22-29. doi: 10.12190/j.issn.2096-1197.2020.06.04
[27]	赖虹雨. 生物炭施加对微咸水滴灌棉田土壤改良及棉花生长应用技术研究[D]. 石河子: 石河子大学, 2024.
[28]	张安琪. 咸水膜下滴灌对土壤环境和棉花生长的影响[D]. 泰安: 山东农业大学, 2020.

处理	模拟方程	相关系数(R²)	V_m/(kg/d)	t₀/d	t₁/d	t₂/d	∆t/d	GT
CK	$y=\frac{10361.45}{1+{\mathrm{e}}^{5.4854-0.069795t}}$	0.9651	271.20	79	60	97	37	68.23
SWS	$y=\frac{11616.57}{1+{\mathrm{e}}^{6.0654-0.077483t}}$	0.9858	337.53	78	61	95	34	76.50
SWST	$y=\frac{13471.09}{1+{\mathrm{e}}^{4.8765-0.064229t}}$	0.9986	324.46	76	55	96	41	88.71

处理	模拟方程	相关系数(R²)	V_m/(kg/d)	t₀/d	t₁/d	t₂/d	∆t/d	GT
CK	$y=\frac{10361.45}{1+{\mathrm{e}}^{5.4854-0.069795t}}$	0.9651	271.20	79	60	97	37	68.23
SWS	$y=\frac{11616.57}{1+{\mathrm{e}}^{6.0654-0.077483t}}$	0.9858	337.53	78	61	95	34	76.50
SWST	$y=\frac{13471.09}{1+{\mathrm{e}}^{4.8765-0.064229t}}$	0.9986	324.46	76	55	96	41	88.71

处理	株数/(10⁴株/hm²)	单株铃数/(个/株)	单铃重/g	籽棉产量/(kg/hm²)	衣分/%	皮棉产量/(kg/hm²)
CK	21.65±0.87a	5.10±0.17b	6.03±0.29b	6382.15±127b	43.24±2.58ab	2996.25±64b
SWS	21.80±1.02a	5.50±0.56a	6.30±0.58a	7200.88±156a	44.88±3.11a	3232.33±91ab
SWST	20.83±1.15ab	5.43±0.43a	6.31±0.34a	7557.65±148a	45.36±2.15a	3428.75±95a

处理	株数/(10⁴株/hm²)	单株铃数/(个/株)	单铃重/g	籽棉产量/(kg/hm²)	衣分/%	皮棉产量/(kg/hm²)
CK	21.65±0.87a	5.10±0.17b	6.03±0.29b	6382.15±127b	43.24±2.58ab	2996.25±64b
SWS	21.80±1.02a	5.50±0.56a	6.30±0.58a	7200.88±156a	44.88±3.11a	3232.33±91ab
SWST	20.83±1.15ab	5.43±0.43a	6.31±0.34a	7557.65±148a	45.36±2.15a	3428.75±95a