Effects of different delinting modes on seed vigor and seedling characteristics of cotton under PEG stress

doi:10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2023.07.001

Abstract

Abstract:

【Objective】 To study the effects of different delinting modes on cotton seed vigor and seedling characteristics under PEG stress in the hope of providing theoretical support for producing cotton seeds with high vigor.【Methods】 Xinluzao 64 was used as the experimental material and three delinting treatments including T₁ (sulfuric acid), T₂ (laser) and T₃ (laser) were set.Then standard germination test was carried out under four modes CK (0%), P₅ (5%), P₁₅ (15%) and P₂₅ (25%) of PEG-8000 concentration.【Results】 With the increase of PEG-8000 concentration, the germination rate, germination potential, germination index, vigor index, dry weight of vegetative organs, plant length, contents of soluble sugar and peroxidase decreased at seedling stage.While the contents of malondialdehyde and proline significantly increased.Simultaneously, the average of stem diameter, volume and average diameter of root increased first and then decreased at seedling stage.Significant effects were found on cotton seed germination rate and germination potential under different delinting methods.Among them, germination rate, germination potential, root volume, average root diameter, the contents of proline and peroxidase showed T₁ > T₂ > T₃ under three delinting methods.The germination index, vigor index, average stem diameter, root length and root surface area were performed as T₁ > T₃ > T₂.The contents of soluble sugar and malondialdehyde indicated T₃ > T₂ > T₁ among three delinting modes.【Conclusion】 Compared with delinting method of sulfuric acid depilation, the germination rate and germination potential of cotton seeds are reduced using laser depilation method, the seed vitality and drought resistance is improved.

Key words: cotton; delinting mode; drought stress; seed vigor

摘要：

【目的】研究不同脱绒方式对PEG胁迫下棉花种子活力及幼苗性状的影响,为生产高活力棉花种子提供理论依据。【方法】以新陆早64号棉籽为材料,设T₁(硫酸脱绒)、T₂(激光脱短绒)、T₃(激光脱长绒)3个脱绒处理,在CK(0%)、P₅(5%)、P₁₅(15%)和P₂₅(25%)4个PEG-8000浓度模拟干旱处理下,进行标准发芽试验。【结果】随着PEG-8000浓度的升高,各处理棉花种子发芽率、发芽势、发芽指数、活力指数、幼苗营养器官干重、苗长、可溶性糖含量及过氧化物酶活性下降,丙二醛、脯氨酸含量显著增加,幼苗茎平均直径、根体积及平均直径呈先增加后减少的趋势。不同脱绒方式对棉花种子发芽率和发芽势影响显著,其中,发芽率、发芽势、根体积、根平均直径、脯氨酸含量、过氧化物酶活性表现为T₁>T₂>T₃,发芽指数、活力指数、幼苗茎平均直径、根长、根表面积等表现为T₁>T₃>T₂,可溶性糖和丙二醛含量表现为T₃>T₂>T₁。【结论】与硫酸脱绒方式相比,激光脱绒降低了棉籽的发芽率和发芽势,但提高了种子活力及抗旱性。

关键词: 棉花, 脱绒方式, 干旱胁迫, 种子活力

CLC Number:

S562

Mierzhati Mutalifu, SHI Xiunan, BO Junbing, Zubaidai Abudukerimu, Wulejialehasi Azhati, SHI Shubing. Effects of different delinting modes on seed vigor and seedling characteristics of cotton under PEG stress[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 60(7): 1561-1568.

米尔扎提·木塔力甫, 石秀楠, 柏军兵, 祖拜代·阿布都克日木, 吾勒加勒哈斯·阿扎提, 石书兵. 不同脱绒方式及PEG胁迫下对棉花种子活力及幼苗性状的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(7): 1561-1568.

Figures/Tables 5

References 24

[1]	张战备, 段国琪, 张慧杰, 等. 摩擦脱绒棉子的活力研究[J]. 棉花学报, 2006,(3):155-159.
	ZHANG Zhanbei, DUAN Guoqi, ZHANG Huijie, et al. Vigor evaluation on mechanically delinted cotton seed[J]. Cotton Science, 2006,(3):155-159.
[2]	王云秋, 肖苏林, 贾军. 浸种时间对不同类型棉种发芽率的影响[J]. 中国棉花, 1998,(6):13,15.
	WANG Yunqiu, XIAO Sulin, JIA Jun. Effect of soaking time on germination rate of different cotton varieties[J]. China Cotton, 1998,(6):13,15.
[3]	石鸿熙, 洪继仁, 蒋志华, 等. 棉花的生长和组织解剖[J]. 上海农业学报, 1989,(3):80.
	SHI Hongxi, HONG Jiren, JIANG Zhihua, et al. Growth and tissue anatomy of cotton[J]. Acta Agriculturae Shanghai, 1989,(3):80.
[4]	林彰文. 种子处理对玉米种子萌发及幼苗期生理生化的影响[D]. 长沙: 湖南农业大学, 2003.
	LIN Zhangwen. The effects of seed treatment on the Physiology and biochemistry During seed germination and in seedlings of maize[D]. Changsha: Hunan Agricultural University, 2003.
[5]	范月仙, 李生泉, 冯文新. 棉苗抗冷性与其可溶性糖含量变化关系的研究[J]. 棉花学报, 1995,(2):126-127.
	FAN Yuexian, LI Shengquan, FENG Wenxin. Study on the relationship between cold resistance and soluble sugar content of cotton seedlings[J]. Cotton Science, 1995,(2):126-127.
[6]	王延琴, 杨伟华, 许红霞, 等. 不同加工形式棉种贮存后对其发芽率的影响[J]. 中国棉花, 2005,(5):15.
	WANG Yanqin, YANG Weihua, XU Hongxia, et al. Effects of different processed cotton seeds on germination rate after storage[J]. China Cotton, 2005,(5):15.
[7]	吴沛良. 棉种脱绒处理技术的应用与发展[J]. 中国棉花, 1993,(1):11-13.
	WU Peiliang. Application and development of cotton seed delint treatment technology[J]. China Cotton, 1993,(1):11-13.
[8]	张灿义. 探讨加强玉米种子产业发展的对策[J]. 种子科技, 2019, 37(18):135,137.
	ZHANG Canyi. To discuss the countermeasures to strengthen the development of corn seed industry[J]. Seed Science & Technology, 2005, 37(18):135,137.
[9]	张殿忠. 棉花种子生产环节中的质量控制[J]. 中国农业文摘-农业工程, 2017, 29(2):65,75.
	ZHANG Dianzhong. Quality control in cotton seed production[J]. Agricultural Science and Engineering in China, 2017, 29(2):65,75.
[10]	郑宏. 谈谈我国棉花种子脱绒技术[J]. 农机质量与监督, 2000,(6):17-18.
	ZHENG Hong. The technology of cotton seed develvet in China is discussed[J]. Agricultural Machinery Quality & Supervision, 2000,(6):17-18.
[11]	刘秀生, 李长兴. 新型棉种脱绒加工技术及设备[J]. 粮油加工与食品机械, 1998,(6):22,24.
	LIU Xiusheng, LI Changxing. New cotton seed deflapping processing technology and equipment[J]. Cereals and Oils Processing, 1998,(6):22,24.
[12]	周玉堂, 姚碧蕊. 棉种过量式稀硫酸脱绒过程中的质量控制[J]. 种子科技, 2005,(5):298-299.
	ZHOU Yutang, YAO Birui. Quality control of excessive dilute sulfuric acid deflocking of cotton seed[J]. Seed Science & Technology, 2005,(5):298-299.
[13]	曲永祯. 棉花种子加工[J]. 农业工程, 1981,(3):12,22.
	QU Yongzhen. Cotton seed processing[J]. Agricultural Engineering Technology, 1981,(3):12,22.
[14]	宋勤璟. 施磷量对春小麦种子活力及产量的影响[D]. 乌鲁木齐: 新疆农业大学, 2016.
	SONG Qinjing. Effect of Different Phosphate Application on Seed Vigor and Yield of Spring Wheat[D]. Urumqi: Xinjiang Agricultural University, 2016.
[15]	王方, 李忠旺, 欧巧明. 干旱胁迫对棉花种子品质与活力的影响[J]. 甘肃农业科技, 2019,(1):58-62.
	WANG Fang, LI Zhongwang, OU Qiaoming. Effects of drought stress on seed quality and vigor of Cotton[J]. Gansu Agricultural Science and Technology, 2019,(1):58-62.
[16]	刘明分, 王丽英, 张彦才. 不同脱绒方式对棉花种子活力及萌发期生理特性的影响[J]. 华北农学报, 2007,(S1):67-70. DOI
	LIU Mingfen, WANG Liying, ZHANG Yancai. Effects of Different Delinted Ways on the Vigor and Physiological Characteristics in the Germinating Process[J]. Acta Agriculturae Boreali-Sinica, 2007,(S1):67-70.
[17]	张敏敏, 裴怀弟, 刘新星. PEG-6000模拟干旱胁迫对彩棉种子萌发的影响[J]. 甘肃农业科技, 2019,(12):51-54.
	ZHANG Minmin, PEI Huaidi, LIU Xinxing. Effect of PEG-6000 Simulated Drought Stress on Germination of Colored Cotton Seed[J]. Gansu Agricultural Science and Technology, 2019,(12):51-54.
[18]	胡明芳, 田长彦, 马英杰. 不同水肥条件下棉花苗期的生长、养分吸收与水分利用状况[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2002,(3):35-37.
	HU Mingfang, TIAN Changyan, MA Yingjie. Growth, nutrient absorption and water use of cotton at seedling stage under different water and fertilizer conditions[J]. Agricultural Research in the Arid Areas, 2002,(3):35-37.
[19]	李东晓. 干旱对棉花叶片的衰老生理及抗氧化酶同工酶谱特征的影响[D]. 保定: 河北农业大学, 2010.
	LI Dongxiao. Effects of drought on senescence physiology and isozyme characteristics of antioxidant enzymes in Cotton leaves[D]. Baoding: Hebei Agricultural University, 2010.
[20]	裴斌, 张光灿, 张淑勇. 土壤干旱胁迫对沙棘叶片光合作用和抗氧化酶活性的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2013, 33(5):1386-1396.
	PEI Bin, ZHANG Guangcan, ZHANG Shuyong. Effects of soil drought stress on photosynthetic characteristics and antioxidantenzyme activities in Hippophae rhamnoides Linn[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2013, 33(5):1386-1396. DOI URL
[21]	张弢. 干旱胁迫对黄瓜幼苗生理指标的影响[J]. 南方农业学报, 2011, 42(12):1466-1468.
	ZHANG Tao. Effect of drought stress on some physiological indices in cucumber seedlings[J]. Journal of Southern Agriculture, 2011, 42(12):1466-1468.
[22]	丁玲. 干旱胁迫对黄瓜幼苗抗氧化系统及光合特性的影响[D]. 杭州: 浙江农林大学, 2013.
	DING Ling. Effects of Drought Stress on Antioxidant System andPhotosynthetic Characteristics in Cucumber Seedlings[D]. Hangzhou: Zhejiang A&F University, 2013.
[23]	张新兰. 不同品种苜蓿叶片离体干旱胁迫过程中抗氧化酶活性动态[J]. 草业科学, 2008,(2):77-83.
	ZHANG Xinlan. Dynamics of antioxidant enzyme activity in different alfalfa leaves during drought stress in vitro[J]. Pratacultural Science, 2008,(2):77-83.
[24]	胡根海, 董娜, 晁毛妮, 等. PEG模拟干旱胁迫对不同抗逆性棉花的生理特性的影响[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2017, 35(5):223-228.
	HU Genhai, DONG Na, CHAO Maoni, et al. Effects of PEG simulated drought stress on physiological characteristics of cotton with different stress resistance[J]. Agricultural Research in the Arid Areas, 2017, 35(5):223-228.

项目 Items	处理 Treatment	CK	P₅	P₁₅	P₂₅	均值 Average
发芽势 Germination potential (%)	T₁	74.00^a	65.55^b	65.34^b	51.11^c	64.00^a
	T₂	60.22^{a b}	65.33^a	58.67^b	45.55^c	57.44^b
	T₃	61.56^a	63.56^a	57.56^a	39.33^b	55.50^b
	均值	65.26^a	64.81^a	60.52^b	45.33^c
发芽率 Germination percentage (%)	T₁	89.78^a	89.33^a	79.33^b	59.11^c	79.39^a
	T₂	79.11^a	84.40^a	78.00^a	53.11^b	73.67^b
	T₃	78.22^a	76.22^a	74.22^a	48.44^b	69.27^c
	均值	82.37^a	83.33^a	77.18^b	53.56^c
发芽指数 Germination index	T₁	86.95^a	82.02^a	86.37^a	63.54^b	79.72^a
	T₂	60.88^b	83.26^a	76.69^a	56.41^b	69.31^b
	T₃	84.21^a	81.49^a	75.44^a	48.22^b	72.34^b
	均值	77.35^a	82.26^a	79.50^a	56.06^b
活力指数 Vigor index	T₁	7.98^a	7.60^a	3.97^b	3.41^b	5.74^a
	T₂	5.47^a	6.67^a	3.77^b	2.75^b	4.665^b
	T₃	7.71^a	7.35^a	3.97^b	2.44^c	5.37^a
	均值	7.05^a	7.21^a	3.90^b	2.87^c

项目 Items	处理 Treatment	CK	P₅	P₁₅	P₂₅	均值 Average
发芽势 Germination potential (%)	T₁	74.00^a	65.55^b	65.34^b	51.11^c	64.00^a
	T₂	60.22^{a b}	65.33^a	58.67^b	45.55^c	57.44^b
	T₃	61.56^a	63.56^a	57.56^a	39.33^b	55.50^b
	均值	65.26^a	64.81^a	60.52^b	45.33^c
发芽率 Germination percentage (%)	T₁	89.78^a	89.33^a	79.33^b	59.11^c	79.39^a
	T₂	79.11^a	84.40^a	78.00^a	53.11^b	73.67^b
	T₃	78.22^a	76.22^a	74.22^a	48.44^b	69.27^c
	均值	82.37^a	83.33^a	77.18^b	53.56^c
发芽指数 Germination index	T₁	86.95^a	82.02^a	86.37^a	63.54^b	79.72^a
	T₂	60.88^b	83.26^a	76.69^a	56.41^b	69.31^b
	T₃	84.21^a	81.49^a	75.44^a	48.22^b	72.34^b
	均值	77.35^a	82.26^a	79.50^a	56.06^b
活力指数 Vigor index	T₁	7.98^a	7.60^a	3.97^b	3.41^b	5.74^a
	T₂	5.47^a	6.67^a	3.77^b	2.75^b	4.665^b
	T₃	7.71^a	7.35^a	3.97^b	2.44^c	5.37^a
	均值	7.05^a	7.21^a	3.90^b	2.87^c

项目 Items	处理 Treatment	CK	P₅	P₁₅	P₂₅	均值 Average
叶 Leaf (g)	T₁	0.29^a	0.30^a	0.14^b	0.17^b	0.23^a
	T₂	0.29^a	0.28^a	0.16^b	0.16^b	0.22^a
	T₃	0.30^a	0.30^a	0.16^b	0.16^b	0.23^a
	均值	0.29^a	0.29^a	0.15^b	0.16^b
茎 Stem (g)	T₁	0.12^a	0.12^a	0.04^b	0.05^b	0.08^a
	T₂	0.11^a	0.07^b	0.05^c	0.05^bc	0.07^b
	T₃	0.11^a	0.11^a	0.05^b	0.05^b	0.08^ab
	均值	0.11^a	0.10^a	0.05^b	0.05^b
根 Root (g)	T₁	0.05^a	0.04^a	0.04^a	0.05^a	0.05^a
	T₂	0.06^a	0.05^bc	0.04^ab	0.04^b	0.05^a
	T₃	0.05^a	0.04^a	0.05^a	0.05^a	0.05^a
	均值	0.05^a	0.04^a	0.04^a	0.05^a

项目 Items	处理 Treatment	CK	P₅	P₁₅	P₂₅	均值 Average
叶 Leaf (g)	T₁	0.29^a	0.30^a	0.14^b	0.17^b	0.23^a
	T₂	0.29^a	0.28^a	0.16^b	0.16^b	0.22^a
	T₃	0.30^a	0.30^a	0.16^b	0.16^b	0.23^a
	均值	0.29^a	0.29^a	0.15^b	0.16^b
茎 Stem (g)	T₁	0.12^a	0.12^a	0.04^b	0.05^b	0.08^a
	T₂	0.11^a	0.07^b	0.05^c	0.05^bc	0.07^b
	T₃	0.11^a	0.11^a	0.05^b	0.05^b	0.08^ab
	均值	0.11^a	0.10^a	0.05^b	0.05^b
根 Root (g)	T₁	0.05^a	0.04^a	0.04^a	0.05^a	0.05^a
	T₂	0.06^a	0.05^bc	0.04^ab	0.04^b	0.05^a
	T₃	0.05^a	0.04^a	0.05^a	0.05^a	0.05^a
	均值	0.05^a	0.04^a	0.04^a	0.05^a

项目 Items	处理 Treatment	CK	P₅	P₁₅	P₂₅	均值 Average
长度 Length (cm)	T₁	7.61^a	9.68^a	10.74^a	9.63^a	9.41^a
	T₂	10.96^a	8.86^a	9.91^a	9.06^a	9.70^a
	T₃	11.28^a	10.19^a	9.08^a	9.55^a	10.03^a
	均值	9.95^a	9.58^a	9.91^a	9.42^a
表面积 Surface area (cm²)	T₁	5.86^a	6.20^a	4.54^a	4.93^a	5.38^a
	T₂	5.86^a	5.13^ab	4.83^ab	3.73^b	4.89^a
	T₃	5.09^ab	6.78^a	4.17^b	4.55^b	5.15^a
	均值	5.60^a	6.04^a	4.52^b	4.40^b
体积 Volume (cm³)	T₁	0.27^ab	0.33^a	0.17^b	0.21^b	0.24^a
	T₂	0.27^a	0.25^ab	0.20^ab	0.15^b	0.22^a
	T₃	0.20^b	0.38^a	0.17^b	0.18^b	0.23^a
	均值	0.25^b	0.32^a	0.18^c	0.18^c
茎平均直径(mm) Mean size	T₁	0.26^b	0.31^a	0.19^c	0.25^b	0.25^a
	T₂	0.25^ab	0.26^a	0.22^ab	0.20^b	0.23^a
	T₃	0.19^b	0.34^a	0.20^b	0.21^b	0.24^a
	均值	0.23^b	0.30^a	0.20^b	0.22^b