Effects of Different Functional Fertilizers on Cotton Seed Germination Characteristics

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2026-0428

Abstract

Abstract:

This study aimed to investigate the effects of different functional fertilizers applied as seed soaking on cotton seed germination and salt-alkali tolerance, and to identify the optimal functional fertilizer for cotton cultivation in saline-alkali soils of Xinjiang. Two salt concentrations (0 and 50 mmol/L Na₂SO₄) were established, and four types of functional fertilizers, including peptide amino acids, fulvic acid, poly-γ-glutamic acid, and alginate oligosaccharides, along with seven combined formulations and a control group (CK), were tested. Seven traits, including germination potential, germination rate, germination index, fresh weight, dry weight, hypocotyl length, and root length, were measured. Correlation analysis, principal component analysis (PCA), and the membership function method were employed for comprehensive evaluation of salt tolerance. The results showed that: (1) compared with the non-salt treatments, the low-salt treatments increased average germination potential, germination rate, and germination index by 58.87%, 45.48%, and 43.08%, respectively. However, under low-salt conditions, fresh weight, hypocotyl length, and root length decreased by 39.00%, 57.22%, and 42.14%, respectively. (2) Compared with CK under non-salt conditions, treatment T9 (the combination of fulvic acid, poly-γ-glutamic acid, and alginate oligosaccharides) significantly increased germination potential, germination rate, and germination index (P<0.05), by 94.43%, 76.66%, and 84.75%, respectively. Treatment T7 significantly increased fresh weight, hypocotyl length, and root length (P<0.05), by 5.58%, 21.56%, and 4.46%, respectively, compared with CK. Under low-salt conditions, treatment ST8 significantly increased germination potential, germination rate, and germination index compared with SK (salt-stressed control), by 41.95%, 27.27%, and 29.09%, respectively. Treatment ST11 significantly increased fresh weight, hypocotyl length, and root length (P<0.05), by 6.99%, 42.74%, and 108.00%, respectively, compared with SK. (3) Correlation analysis indicated that germination rate was an important indicator for evaluating salt-alkali tolerance during germination. PCA transformed the seven traits into three independent comprehensive components, with a cumulative contribution rate of 81.668%. Based on the comprehensive salt-tolerance evaluation (D values), the treatments with the best salt tolerance during germination under non-salt and low-salt conditions were T9 and ST9, respectively. In conclusion, treatment T9, the combined formulation of fulvic acid, poly-γ-glutamic acid, and alginate oligosaccharides, was identified as the optimal formulation.

Key words: functional fertilizers, salt stress, seed germination, cotton, salt tolerance evaluation

CLC Number:

S562.041

ZHU Xiaojiang, BIAN Qingyong, FU Yanbo, MENG Ajing, WANG Zhiguo, RAO Xiaojuan, KAN Dexing, WU Chen, WU Yang, LI Ning. Effects of Different Functional Fertilizers on Cotton Seed Germination Characteristics[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2026, 42(16): 37-45.

Figures/Tables 7

References 28

[1]	刘毅. 全区棉花播种面积超140万亩[N]. 新疆日报(汉),2023-04-10(001).
[2]	祁通, 孙阳讯, 黄建, 等. 两种盐生植物在南北疆地区的适生性及吸盐能力[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2017(1):144-148.
[3]	刘蕾. 新疆土壤盐分的组成和分布特征[J]. 干旱环境监测, 2009, 23(4):227-229.
[4]	孟晨, 鲁雪莉, 王菊英, 等. 不同类型低盐对小黑麦种子萌发的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2023, 32(12):171-180. doi: 10.11686/cyxb2023068
[5]	杨淑萍, 危常州, 梁永超. 低盐对不同基因型海岛棉种子萌发特性的影响[J]. 中国棉花, 2012, 39(12):6-10. doi: 10.11963/issn.1000-632X.20121203
[6]	ZHU G Z, GAO W W, SONG X H, et al. Genome-wide association reveals genetic variation of lint yield components under salty field conditions in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.)[J]. BMC plant biology, 2020, 20(1):23. doi: 10.1186/s12870-019-2187-y
[7]	徐佳陵, 曾文官, 袁延超, 等. 陆地棉种质资源萌发出苗期耐盐性鉴定[J]. 山东农业科学, 2017, 49(9):32-36.
[8]	蔡杨, 张凤华, 孙鲁鹏. 3株促生菌的耐盐碱能力及其浸种对棉花抗盐碱能力的增强作用[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2025, 53(10):260-267.
[9]	戴海芳, 武辉, 阿曼古丽·买买提阿力, 等. 不同基因型棉花苗期耐盐性分析及其鉴定指标筛选[J]. 中国农业科学, 2014, 47(7):1290-1300.
[10]	廉雨璇. 水低盐对4种耐盐植物苗期生理生化特性和成活水势阈值的影响[D]. 泰安: 山东农业大学, 2023.
[11]	王聪. 盐分差异分布对棉花幼苗根系形态及生理功能的影响[D]. 保定: 河北农业大学, 2023.
[12]	钱峰. 陆地棉Hsp90基因家族分析及低盐下功能探究[D]. 杭州: 浙江农林大学, 2024.
[13]	李双男, 郭慧娟, 王晶, 等. 不同盐碱胁迫对棉花种子萌发的影响[J]. 种子, 2018, 37(1):38-45.
[14]	董志多, 付秋萍, 黄建, 等. 新疆棉花萌发期的耐盐能力分析[J]. 中国农业科技导报(中英文), 2025, 27(4):57-67.
[15]	陈佳林, 安秋双, 宋武, 等. 不同浓度NaCl溶液胁迫对棉花种子萌发特性的影响[J]. 智慧农业导刊, 2025, 5(12):31-35.
[16]	薛应钰, 叶巍, 杨树, 等. 一株溶磷菌的分离鉴定及溶磷促生作用[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2019, 37(4):253-262.
[17]	张国伟, 路海玲, 张雷, 等. 棉花萌发期和苗期耐盐性评价及耐盐指标筛选[J]. 应用生态学报, 2011, 22(8):2045-2053.
[18]	YUAN Y C, XING H X, ZENG W G, et al. Genome-wide association and differential expression analysis of salt tolerance in Gossypium hirsutum L. at the germination stage[J]. BMC plant biology, 2019, 394(19):394-405.
[19]	李志博, 魏亦农. 北疆主栽棉花种子对渗透胁迫的响应及其萌发力差异评价[J]. 种子, 2010, 29(7):1-4.
[20]	罗静, 孙绘健, 杜珊珊, 等. 25个不同基因型陆地棉品种种子萌发期耐盐性评价[J]. 中国棉花, 2024, 51(7):23-30. doi: 10.11963/cc20230209
[21]	胡根海, 李春平, 王清连, 等. 陆地棉种子萌发耐盐性的快速评价[J]. 种子, 2014, 33(5):13-15.
[22]	刘小培, 唐中杰, 宋跃, 等. 滴施改良剂对棉花种子萌发、幼苗生长及盐碱土结构的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2024(8):111-118.
[23]	王晓歌, 高利英, 邓永胜, 等. 棉花萌发出苗期耐盐性鉴定和评价[J]. 山东农业科学, 2025, 57(2):29-37.
[24]	张佳蕾, 李向东, 杨传婷, 等. 多效唑和海藻肥对不同品质类型花生产量和品质的影响[J]. 中国油料作物学报, 2015, 37(3):322-328. doi: 10.7505/j.issn.1007-9084.2015.03.010
[25]	张幸新, 黄祥, 王梅, 等. 不同苦豆子种质萌发期耐盐性评价[J]. 新疆农业大学学报, 2024, 47(3):199-206.
[26]	吴文超, 曲延英, 高文伟, 等. 不同棉花品种对盐、旱胁迫的光合响应及抗逆性评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2016, 53(9):1569-1579.
[27]	库尼都孜阿依·吐尔汗, 任毅, 颜安, 等. 新疆冬小麦品种萌发期耐盐性综合评价及耐盐种质的筛选[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2020, 57(1):20-31. doi: 10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2020.01.003
[28]	王明泉. 寒地玉米种质资源苗期耐盐性评价与耐盐机制研究[D]. 大庆: 黑龙江八一农垦大学, 2019.

改良剂	养分含量	推荐量/(kg/hm²)
小分子肽氨基酸	有机质≥120 g/L、N+P₂O₅+K₂O≥60 g/L	45
黄腐酸	腐殖酸≥30 g/L、N+P₂O₅+K₂O≥200 g/L	45
聚谷氨酸	氨基酸≥10%、Fe+Mn+Zn+B≥2.0 g/L	150
海藻寡糖	Fe+Zn+B≥10%	7.5

改良剂	养分含量	推荐量/(kg/hm²)
小分子肽氨基酸	有机质≥120 g/L、N+P₂O₅+K₂O≥60 g/L	45
黄腐酸	腐殖酸≥30 g/L、N+P₂O₅+K₂O≥200 g/L	45
聚谷氨酸	氨基酸≥10%、Fe+Mn+Zn+B≥2.0 g/L	150
海藻寡糖	Fe+Zn+B≥10%	7.5

处理		功能肥	肥料用量
无盐	有盐	功能肥	肥料用量
T1	ST1	小分子肽	0.4
T2	ST2	海藻寡糖	0.4
T3	ST3	聚谷氨酸	0.4
T4	ST4	黄腐酸	0.4
T5	ST5	黄腐酸＋聚谷氨酸	0.2+0.2
T6	ST6	黄腐酸＋小分子肽	0.2+0.2
T7	ST7	黄腐酸＋海藻寡糖	0.2+0.2
T8	ST8	黄腐酸＋海藻寡糖＋肽氨基酸	0.13+0.13+0.13
T9	ST9	黄腐酸＋聚谷氨酸＋海藻寡糖	0.13+0.13+0.13
T10	ST10	黄腐酸＋小分子肽＋聚谷氨酸	0.13+0.13+0.13
T11	ST11	黄腐酸＋小分子肽＋海藻寡糖＋聚谷氨酸	0.1+0.1+0.1+0.1
CK	SK	无功能肥(空白对照)	0

处理		功能肥	肥料用量
无盐	有盐	功能肥	肥料用量
T1	ST1	小分子肽	0.4
T2	ST2	海藻寡糖	0.4
T3	ST3	聚谷氨酸	0.4
T4	ST4	黄腐酸	0.4
T5	ST5	黄腐酸＋聚谷氨酸	0.2+0.2
T6	ST6	黄腐酸＋小分子肽	0.2+0.2
T7	ST7	黄腐酸＋海藻寡糖	0.2+0.2
T8	ST8	黄腐酸＋海藻寡糖＋肽氨基酸	0.13+0.13+0.13
T9	ST9	黄腐酸＋聚谷氨酸＋海藻寡糖	0.13+0.13+0.13
T10	ST10	黄腐酸＋小分子肽＋聚谷氨酸	0.13+0.13+0.13
T11	ST11	黄腐酸＋小分子肽＋海藻寡糖＋聚谷氨酸	0.1+0.1+0.1+0.1
CK	SK	无功能肥(空白对照)	0

盐胁迫程度	处理编号	发芽势/%	发芽率/%	发芽指数	盐胁迫程度	处理编号	发芽势/%	发芽率/%	发芽指数
无盐	T1	20.00±2.88cd	45.00±14.43b	10.04±2.20bc	低盐	ST1	46.66±15.89b	65.00±13.23	15.27±4.87bc
	T2	11.66±4.40d	36.67±11.67b	5.64±1.12c		ST2	55.00±5.00ab	86.67±1.67	20.82±1.64ab
	T3	26.66±1.66bcd	41.67±4.41b	10.44±0.63bc		ST3	53.33±4.40ab	80.00±5.77	19.11±2.75b
	T4	41.66±8.33ab	68.33±20.48ab	19.05±4.41ab		ST4	48.33±6.00ab	78.33±6.01	18.92±1.68b
	T5	43.33±10.13ab	75.00±11.55ab	18.87±4.61ab		ST5	53.33±4.40ab	88.33±1.67	21.29±2.92ab
	T6	33.33±8.81bc	45.00±13.23b	13.35±5.09abc		ST6	55.00±7.63ab	86.67±1.67	22.25±1.25ab
	T7	25.00±5.00bcd	48.33±12.02b	11.72±2.85bc		ST7	43.33±8.33bc	91.67±3.33	19.20±1.28b
	T8	25.00±2.88bcd	45.00±5.00b	11.48±2.09bc		ST8	73.33±3.33a	93.33±1.67	27.96±0.29a
	T9	58.33±1.66a	88.33±4.41a	22.89±0.43a		ST9	56.66±8.81ab	88.33±1.67	21.31±2.04ab
	T10	30.00±7.63bcd	50.00±8.66b	12.88±3.14bc		ST10	61.66±8.83ab	78.33±4.41	21.24±1.37ab
	T11	45.00±7.73ab	70.00±10.00ab	18.63±3.00ab		ST11	21.66±6.00c	55.00±8.66	10.50±2.41c
	CK	30.00±5.00bcd	50.00±8.66b	12.39±0.75bc		SK	51.66±7.26ab	73.33±6.01	21.66±2.01ab