Effects of exogenous butyric acid on yield and quality of barley under drought stress

doi:10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2023.09.011

Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences ›› 2023, Vol. 60 ›› Issue (9): 2173-2181.DOI: 10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2023.09.011

• Crop Genetics and Breeding·Germplasm Resources·Molecular Genetics·Soil Fertilizer • Previous Articles Next Articles

Effects of exogenous butyric acid on yield and quality of barley under drought stress

XIANG Li¹(), WANG Xian², DONG Yusheng¹, GUO Xiaoling¹, FANG Furong², CHEN Zhijun¹, MA Yanming³(), MIAO Yu¹()

1. Xinjiang academy of agricultural sciences genetic stability of wheat and barley test station,Qi tai Xinjiang 831800,China
2. Institute of Food Crops, Xinjiang Academy of Agricultural Sciences,Urumqi 830091,China
3. Research Institute of Crop Germplasm ResourcesXinjiang Academy of Agricultural Sciences,Urumqi 830091,China

Received:2022-11-24 Online:2023-09-20 Published:2023-09-19
Correspondence author: MA Yanming (1971-), female, born in Kuitun, Xinjiang, ph. D. Her research interest is germplasm resources of wheat crops, (E-mail) ymma213@sina.com; MIAO Yu (1978 -), male, born in Qitai, Xinjiang, senior agronomist, bachelor's degree, research direction is barley genetic breeding and cultivation,(E-mail) 13653542@qq.com
Supported by:
China Agriculture Research System(CARS-05-020B);Innovation Ability Training Project for Young Sci-Tech Backbone Talents Sponsored by Xinjiang Academy of Agricultural Sciences(xjnkq-2020012)

外源丁酸对干旱胁迫下大麦产量及品质的影响

向莉¹(), 王仙², 董裕生¹, 郭小玲¹, 方伏荣², 陈智军¹, 马艳明³(), 苗雨¹()

1.新疆农业科学院奇台麦类试验站,新疆奇台 831800
2.新疆农业科学院粮食作物研究所,乌鲁木齐 830091
3.新疆农业科学院农作物品种资源研究所,乌鲁木齐 830091

通讯作者: 马艳明(1971-),女,新疆奎屯人,研究员,博士,研究方向为麦类作物种质资源,(E-mail) ymma213@sina.com; 苗雨(1978-),男,新疆奇台人,高级农艺师,研究方向为大麦遗传育种与栽培,(E-mail) 13653542@qq.com
作者简介:向莉(1984-),女,新疆福海人,高级农艺师,硕士,研究方向为大麦遗传育种与栽培,(E-mail) 44340471@qq.com
基金资助:
国家大麦青稞产业技术体系(CARS-05-020B);新疆农业科学院青年科技骨干创新能力培养项目(xjnkq-2020012)

Abstract

Abstract:

【Objective】 To investigate the effects of exogenous butyric acid on the growth period, agronomic traits, yield and quality of barley under different drought stress in the hope of providing a theoretical basis for the study of barley drought resistance.【Methods】 Xinpi 4 was used as experimental material.The effects of exogenous butyric acid on the growth period, agronomic traits, yield and quality of barley under drought stress were compared and analyzed by water treatment and γ-aminobutyric acid treatment.【Results】 Exogenous butyric acid seed dressing had no effect on seedling emergence stage and heading stage, but spraying it at flowering stage had a certain effect on maturity stage, and slightly delayed the maturity stage.Under drought stress, seedling emergence stage was not affected, heading stage and maturity stage were advanced.Exogenous butyric acid had no significant difference in basic seedling under drought stress, but had significant difference in maximum total stem number, panicle number and tiller percentage.Plant height, panicle length, panicle grain number and 1000-grain weight increased with exogenous butyric acid treatment.Exogenous butyric acid treatment could improve the yield of barley under drought stress, and the three application techniques of seed dressing, spraying at flowering stage and spraying at seed dressing and flowering stage could reduce the drought loss of barley by 7.0%, 6.3% and 18.3%, respectively.Exogenous butyric acid could increase amylose starch ratio, but has no significant effect on protein content.【Conclusion】 Exogenous butyric acid seed dressing can increase the total number of stem and panicle of barley, while spraying can increase the 1000-grain weight of barley.The yield, drought resistance and amylose ratio of barley under drought stress are improved by seed dressing and spraying at flowering stage.

Key words: barley; exogenous butyric acid; drought stress; agronomic trait; yield

摘要：

【目的】研究外源丁酸对不同程度干旱胁迫下大麦生育期、农艺性状及产量和品质的影响,为大麦抗旱研究提供科学依据。【方法】以新啤4号为材料,采用水分处理和γ-氨基丁酸处理两因素试验设计,比较分析干旱胁迫下外源丁酸对大麦生育期、农艺性状和产量、品质的差异。【结果】外源丁酸拌种处理对出苗期、抽穗期没有影响,开花期喷施对成熟期有一定的影响,成熟期略有推迟。干旱胁迫处理下对出苗期没有影响,抽穗期和成熟期均提前。外源丁酸对干旱胁迫下大麦基本苗差异不显著,对最高总茎数、成穗数、分蘖成穗率差异显著;株高、穗长、穗粒数、千粒重均随着外源丁酸处理而不断增加;外源丁酸处理能提高干旱胁迫下大麦的产量,拌种、花期喷洒、拌种+花期喷洒3种丁酸施用技术,可分别减少大麦受旱损失的7.0%、6.3%和18.3%。外源丁酸可提高直链淀粉的比例,但对蛋白质含量无显著影响。【结论】外源丁酸拌种可增加大麦的总茎数和总穗数,喷洒则可提高千粒重。拌种和花期喷施均可以提高干旱胁迫下大麦的产量、抗旱性和直链淀粉比例。

关键词: 大麦, 外源丁酸, 干旱胁迫, 农艺性状, 产量

CLC Number:

S512.3

XIANG Li, WANG Xian, DONG Yusheng, GUO Xiaoling, FANG Furong, CHEN Zhijun, MA Yanming, MIAO Yu. Effects of exogenous butyric acid on yield and quality of barley under drought stress[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 60(9): 2173-2181.

向莉, 王仙, 董裕生, 郭小玲, 方伏荣, 陈智军, 马艳明, 苗雨. 外源丁酸对干旱胁迫下大麦产量及品质的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(9): 2173-2181.

Figures/Tables 8

References 11

[1]	刘宪锋, 傅伯杰. 干旱对作物产量影响研究进展与展望[J]. 地理学报, 2021, 76(11):2632-2646. DOI
	LIU Xianfeng, FU Bojie. Research progress and prospect on effects of drought on crop yield[J]. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2021, 76(11):2632-2646. DOI
[2]	唐晓川, 张元成, 钟秀丽, 等. 水杨酸和α-萘乙酸浸种对冬小麦幼苗抗旱性的影响[J]. 中国农业气象, 2014,(2):162-167.
	TANG Xiaochuan, ZHANG Yuancheng, ZHONG Xiuli, et al. Effects of soaking seeds with salicylic acid and α -naphthylacetic acid on drought resistance of winter wheat seedlings[J]. Chinese Journal of Agrometeorology, 2014(2):162-167.
[3]	傅华龙, 何天久, 吴巧玉. 植物生长调节剂的研究与应用[J]. 生物加工工程, 2008, 6(4):7-11.
	FU Hualong, HE Tianjiu, WU Qiaoyu. Research and application of plant growth regulator[J]. Bioprocessing Engineering, 2008, 6(4):7-11.
[4]	Barutcular C, Yildirim M. Evaluation of spad chlorophyll in spring wheat genotypes under different environments[J]. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 2016, 25: 258-1266.
[5]	陈健辉, 李荣华, 郭培国, 等. 干旱胁迫对不同耐旱性大麦品种叶片超微结构的影响[J]. 植物学报, 2011, 46(1):28-36. DOI
	CHEN Jianhui, LI Ronghua, GUO Peiguo, et al. Effects of drought stress on leaf ultrastructure of different drought-tolerant barley cultivars[J]. Acta Botanica Sinica, 2011, 46(1):28-36.
[6]	房文静, 张雪芬, 郑有飞. 冬小麦灌浆期干旱对灌浆速率的影响[J]. 中国农业气象, 2006, 27(2):98-101.
	FANG Wenjing, ZHANG Xuefen, ZHENG Youfei. Effect of drought on grain filling rate in winter wheat[J]. Chinese Journal of Agrometeorology, 2006, 27(2):98-101.
[7]	马宇, 巴图, 吕二锁, 等. 大麦育种与栽培技术研究现状分析[J]. 北方农业学报, 2020, 48(5):21-25. DOI
	MA Yu, BA Tu, LYU Ersuo, et al. Analysis on research status of barley breeding and cultivation techniques[J]. Journal of Northern Agriculture, 2020, 48(5):21-25. DOI
[8]	李楠楠, 李彤彤, 侯春燕, 等. γ-氨基丁酸在植物抵抗逆境胁迫中的作用[J]. 植物生理学报, 2020, 56 (2):134-140.
	LI Nannan, LI Tongtong, HOU Chunyan, et al. Effects of γ -aminobutyric acid on plant resistance to stress[J]. Acta Phytophysiologica Sinica, 2020, 56(2):134-140.
[9]	杨娜, 伍宏. 叶喷γ-氨基丁酸对小麦产量和品质的影响[J]. 中国粮油学报, 2018, 33(3):8-12,20.
	YANG Na, WU Hong. Effects of leaf spraying γ -aminobutyric acid on yield and quality of wheat[J]. Chinese Journal of Cereals and Oils, 2018, 33(3):8-12,20.
[10]	于立尧, 姚琪, 李彭丽. 外源γ-氨基丁酸对干旱胁迫下甜瓜幼苗生长的影响[J]. 上海交通大学学报(农业科学版), 2018, 36(5):22-27.
	YU Liyao, YAO Qi, LI Pengli. Effects of exogenous γ -aminobutyric acid on the growth of Melon seedlings under drought stress[J]. Journal of Shanghai Jiao Tong University (Agricultural Sciences Ed.), 2018, 36(5):22-27.
[11]	谷海涛, 贾琰, 张博. 孕穗期干旱胁迫下外源γ-氨基丁酸对寒地粳稻籽粒氮素形成及产量的影响[J]. 华北农学报, 2018, 33(5):209-217. DOI
	GU Haitao, JIA Yan, ZHANG Bo. Effects of exogenous γ -aminobutyric acid on grain nitrogen formation and yield of japonica rice under drought stress at booting stage[J]. Acta Agriculturae Boreali-Sinica, 2018, 33(5):209-217.

	水分处理 Water treat	测定值 Measured value
	水分处理 Water treat	N	B	P	BP	平均 Average
基本苗 Basciseedhng number (plant/m²)	W₁	342.6	363.0	346.4	361.8	353.4
	W₂	312.0	355.7	339.9	349.1	339.2
	W₃	358.4	365.7	352.8	331.5	352.1
	W₄	338.9	348.2	328.7	348.2	341.0
	W₀	326.9	353.7	312.9	337.1	332.6
	平均	335.7	357.2	336.1	345.5	343.7
	比对照N增减%	0.0	6.4	0.1	2.9	2.4
最高总茎数 Maxtotal stems (Ear/m²)	W₁	996.8	1 054.2	974.6	1 091.6	1 029.3
	W₂	988.8	1 005.6	1 022.7	1 032.9	1 012.5
	W₃	953.3	1 039.4	973.2	1 032.0	999.5
	W₄	918.2	1 001.4	973.2	1 046.9	984.9
	W₀	894.9	969.5	955.5	1 013.4	958.3
	平均	950.4	1 014.0	979.8	1 043.3	996.9
	比对照N增减%	0.0	6.7	3.1	9.8	4.9
成穗数 Panicle number (Ear/m²)	W₁	791.6	886.1	875.0	935.0	871.9
	W₂	707.4	826.8	814.8	882.2	807.8
	W₃	702.2	817.8	806.1	863.0	797.3
	W₄	641.6	736.1	676.8	815.0	717.3
	W₀	579.6	655.5	596.3	676.4	626.9
	平均	684.5	784.4	753.8	834.3	764.2
	比对照N增减%	0.0	14.6	10.1	21.9	11.7
分蘖成穗率 Tiller panicle rate(%)	W₁	79.4	84.1	89.8	85.7	84.7
	W₂	71.5	82.2	79.7	85.4	79.7
	W₃	73.7	78.7	82.8	83.6	79.7
	W₄	69.9	73.5	69.5	77.9	72.7
	W₀	64.8	67.6	62.4	66.7	65.4
	平均	71.9	77.2	76.8	79.9	76.4
	比对照N增减%	0.0	7.5	7.0	11.1	6.4
株高 Plant height (cm)	W₁	92.5	92.8	93.2	93.0	92.9
	W₂	91.8	92.0	92.5	92.8	92.3
	W₃	88.5	88.0	90.5	90.0	89.3
	W₄	78.0	79.5	80.0	81.5	79.8
	W₀	50.0	62.0	62.5	62.0	61.6
	平均	82.2	82.9	83.7	83.9	83.2
	比对照N增减%	0.0	0.9	1.9	2.1	1.2

	水分处理 Water treat	测定值 Measured value
	水分处理 Water treat	N	B	P	BP	平均 Average
基本苗 Basciseedhng number (plant/m²)	W₁	342.6	363.0	346.4	361.8	353.4
	W₂	312.0	355.7	339.9	349.1	339.2
	W₃	358.4	365.7	352.8	331.5	352.1
	W₄	338.9	348.2	328.7	348.2	341.0
	W₀	326.9	353.7	312.9	337.1	332.6
	平均	335.7	357.2	336.1	345.5	343.7
	比对照N增减%	0.0	6.4	0.1	2.9	2.4
最高总茎数 Maxtotal stems (Ear/m²)	W₁	996.8	1 054.2	974.6	1 091.6	1 029.3
	W₂	988.8	1 005.6	1 022.7	1 032.9	1 012.5
	W₃	953.3	1 039.4	973.2	1 032.0	999.5
	W₄	918.2	1 001.4	973.2	1 046.9	984.9
	W₀	894.9	969.5	955.5	1 013.4	958.3
	平均	950.4	1 014.0	979.8	1 043.3	996.9
	比对照N增减%	0.0	6.7	3.1	9.8	4.9
成穗数 Panicle number (Ear/m²)	W₁	791.6	886.1	875.0	935.0	871.9
	W₂	707.4	826.8	814.8	882.2	807.8
	W₃	702.2	817.8	806.1	863.0	797.3
	W₄	641.6	736.1	676.8	815.0	717.3
	W₀	579.6	655.5	596.3	676.4	626.9
	平均	684.5	784.4	753.8	834.3	764.2
	比对照N增减%	0.0	14.6	10.1	21.9	11.7
分蘖成穗率 Tiller panicle rate(%)	W₁	79.4	84.1	89.8	85.7	84.7
	W₂	71.5	82.2	79.7	85.4	79.7
	W₃	73.7	78.7	82.8	83.6	79.7
	W₄	69.9	73.5	69.5	77.9	72.7
	W₀	64.8	67.6	62.4	66.7	65.4
	平均	71.9	77.2	76.8	79.9	76.4
	比对照N增减%	0.0	7.5	7.0	11.1	6.4
株高 Plant height (cm)	W₁	92.5	92.8	93.2	93.0	92.9
	W₂	91.8	92.0	92.5	92.8	92.3
	W₃	88.5	88.0	90.5	90.0	89.3
	W₄	78.0	79.5	80.0	81.5	79.8
	W₀	50.0	62.0	62.5	62.0	61.6
	平均	82.2	82.9	83.7	83.9	83.2
	比对照N增减%	0.0	0.9	1.9	2.1	1.2

	水分处理 Water treat	测定值Measured value
	水分处理 Water treat	N	B	P	BP	平均Average
主穗长度 Length of mainpanicle (cm)	W₁	7.9	8.4	8.4	8.7	8.3
	W₂	7.2	7.4	7.7	7.7	7.5
	W₃	7.1	7.6	7.2	7.1	7.3
	W₄	6.1	6.6	7.2	7.1	6.8
	W₀	5.2	6.1	6.7	6.7	6.2
	平均	6.7	7.2	7.4	7.5	7.2
	比对照N增减%	0.0	7.9	11.2	1 1.9	7.8
主穗粒数 Grain number Perpanicle	W₁	23.5	23.7	23.9	24.5	23.9
	W₂	22.6	23.7	23.9	24.3	23.6
	W₃	21.7	23.6	23.5	23.9	23.2
	W₄	19.9	22.3	21.7	23.0	21.7
	W₀	17.1	18.0	18.1	18.8	18.0
	平均	20.9	22.3	22.3	22.9	22.1
	比对照N增减%	0.0	6.4	6.3	9.2	5.5
千粒重 Kilo-grain weight (g)	W₁	52.1	52.3	52.7	52.9	52.5
	W₂	46.9	49.7	50.4.	50.0	49.2
	W₃	46.9	47.4	48.9	49.6	48.2
	W₄	41.8	45.3	47.8	48.0	45.7
	W₀	37.7	40.2	42.1	42.9	40.7
	平均	45.1	47.0	48.4	48.7	47.3
	比对照N增减%	0.0	4.2	7.3	8.0	4.9
产量 Yield (kg/hm²)	W₁	5 583.6	5 723.6	5 875.4	6 042.0	5 806.1
	W₂	4 465.2	5 208.6	5 000.3	5 375.3	5 012.3
	W₃	3 666.9	4133.6	3 925.2	4 441.8	4 041.9
	W₄	3 458.6	3 458.6	3 625.2	4 083.6	3 656.5
	W₀	1 625.1	2 000.1	2 083.5	2 375.1	2 021.0
	平均	3 759.9	4 104.9	4 101.9	4 463.6.	4 107.5
	比对照N增减%	0.0	9.2	9.1	18.7	9.2

	水分处理 Water treat	测定值Measured value
	水分处理 Water treat	N	B	P	BP	平均Average
主穗长度 Length of mainpanicle (cm)	W₁	7.9	8.4	8.4	8.7	8.3
	W₂	7.2	7.4	7.7	7.7	7.5
	W₃	7.1	7.6	7.2	7.1	7.3
	W₄	6.1	6.6	7.2	7.1	6.8
	W₀	5.2	6.1	6.7	6.7	6.2
	平均	6.7	7.2	7.4	7.5	7.2
	比对照N增减%	0.0	7.9	11.2	1 1.9	7.8
主穗粒数 Grain number Perpanicle	W₁	23.5	23.7	23.9	24.5	23.9
	W₂	22.6	23.7	23.9	24.3	23.6
	W₃	21.7	23.6	23.5	23.9	23.2
	W₄	19.9	22.3	21.7	23.0	21.7
	W₀	17.1	18.0	18.1	18.8	18.0
	平均	20.9	22.3	22.3	22.9	22.1
	比对照N增减%	0.0	6.4	6.3	9.2	5.5
千粒重 Kilo-grain weight (g)	W₁	52.1	52.3	52.7	52.9	52.5
	W₂	46.9	49.7	50.4.	50.0	49.2
	W₃	46.9	47.4	48.9	49.6	48.2
	W₄	41.8	45.3	47.8	48.0	45.7
	W₀	37.7	40.2	42.1	42.9	40.7
	平均	45.1	47.0	48.4	48.7	47.3
	比对照N增减%	0.0	4.2	7.3	8.0	4.9
产量 Yield (kg/hm²)	W₁	5 583.6	5 723.6	5 875.4	6 042.0	5 806.1
	W₂	4 465.2	5 208.6	5 000.3	5 375.3	5 012.3
	W₃	3 666.9	4133.6	3 925.2	4 441.8	4 041.9
	W₄	3 458.6	3 458.6	3 625.2	4 083.6	3 656.5
	W₀	1 625.1	2 000.1	2 083.5	2 375.1	2 021.0
	平均	3 759.9	4 104.9	4 101.9	4 463.6.	4 107.5
	比对照N增减%	0.0	9.2	9.1	18.7	9.2

	水分处理 Water treat	测定值Measured value
	水分处理 Water treat	N	B	P	BP	平均Average
直链淀粉含量 Amybse (%)	W₁	27.8	30.3	30.9	31.0	30.0
	W₂	28.4	28.6	28.8	29.8	28.9
	W₃	28.4	27.6	31.1	29.6	29.2
	W₄	31.0	30.0	29.9	28.1	29.8
	W₀	26.9	27.6	28.8	26.5	27.5
	平均	28.5	28.8	29.9	29.0	29.1
	比对照N增减%	0.0	1.1	4.9	1.8	2.0
支链淀粉 Amybpectin (%)	W₁	74.0	71.9	71.5	7 1.0	72.1
	W₂	74.0	73.4	74.5	73.0	73.7
	W₃	75.2	74.9	71.6	73.8	73.9
	W₄	71.9	73.5	73.3	75.3	73.5
	W₀	77.4	76.7	75.9	78.6	77.1
	平均	74.5	74.1	73.4	74.3	74.1
	比对照N增减%	0.0	-0.6	-1.5	-0.2	-0.6
蛋白质 Protein (%)	W₁	11.8	10.9	11.1	11.4	11.3
	W₂	11.7	11.8	12.0	12.5	12.0
	W₃	12.3	12.3	12.3	1 1.8	12.2
	W₄	12.1	12.7	12.3	12.2	12.3
	W₀	12.3	12.6	12.7	12.5	12.5
	平均	12.0	12.1	12.1	12.1	12.1
	比对照N增减%	0.0	0.1	0.2	0.1	0.1
β-葡聚糖含量 β-dextan (%)	W₁	4.2	3.4	4.0	4.0	3.9
	W₂	4.0	4.0	4.3	4.1	4.1
	W₃	4.3	3.9	4.3	4.4	4.2
	W₄	4.1	4.2	4.2	4.4	4.2
	W₀	4.7	4.6	4.8	4.9	4.7
	平均	4.3	4.0	4.3	4.3	4.2
	比对照N增减%	0.0	-5.9	1.6	2.1	-0.6

Effects of exogenous butyric acid on yield and quality of barley under drought stress

外源丁酸对干旱胁迫下大麦产量及品质的影响

RichHTML

PDF

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 8

References 11

Related Articles 15

Recommended Articles

Metrics

[1]	SHEN Yuyang, WANG Xian, CHEN Li, GUO Xiaoling, MIAO Yu, DONG Yusheng, CHEN Zhijun, FANG Furong, XIANG Li, GAO Haifeng. Evaluation of chemical efficacy of broadleaf weed control in barley fields in the desert oasis area of Xinjiang [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 61(1): 184-189.
[2]	LUO Linyi, CHEN Ruijie, RUAN Xiangyang, REN Xiaohui, QU Ao, SU Haiting, YE Jun. Effects of microbial agents on soil nutrients,cotton yield and quality in drip irrigation cotton fields [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 61(1): 26-33.
[3]	WANG Heya, LUO Jingjing, AI Haifeng, LI Huaisheng, MENG Ling, WANG Peng. Effects of planting density and reduced fertilization on sunflower yield and relativity [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 61(1): 55-62.
[4]	CHEN Maoguang, LIN Tao, ZHANG Hao, LIU Haijun, WANG Yifan, TANG Qiuxiang. Effects of mulch film types on cotton growth and analysis of self-degradation recycling characteristics [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 60(9): 2101-2108.
[5]	YANG Guojiang, CHEN Yun, LIN Xiangqun, HE Jiangyong, LIU Shenglin, QU Yongqing. Effects of organic fertilizer replacement on the yield and nutrient absorption of cotton and nitrate nitrogen under chemical fertilizer reduction [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 60(9): 2138-2145.
[6]	CHEN Chuanxin, ZHNAG Yongqiang, NIE Shihui, KONG Depeng, Sailihan Sai, XU Qijiang, LEI Junjie. Effects of biomass charcoal application rate on the growth, development, and yield of winter wheat under drip irrigation [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 60(9): 2146-2151.
[7]	WANG Lihong, ZHANG Hongzhi, ZHANG Yueqiang, LI Jianfeng, WANG Zhong, GAO Xin, SHI Jia, WANG Chunsheng, XIA Jianqiang, FAN Zheru. Analysis of dry matter production, transport and nitrogen fertilizer utilization caused by yield Gap at different yield levels of winter wheat [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 60(9): 2152-2162.
[8]	WANG Xiaoyu, WANG Xiaoping, SHI Wenyu, LIU Meiyan, MA Jian, GUO Yunpeng, SONG Ruixin, WANG Qingtao. Responses of photosynthetic characteristics, dry matter accumulation and yield to drought stress in winter wheat at jointing stage [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 60(9): 2163-2172.
[9]	YANG Hongmei, ZHANG Yueqiang, SHI Yingwu, Omarjan Kurban, LIN Qing, WANG Ning, CHU Min, ZENG Jun. Effects of different types of foliar fertilizers on grain yield and 1uality of winter wheat [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 60(9): 2182-2188.
[10]	WANG Xin, LIN Tao, CUI Jianping, WU Fengquan, TANG Zhixuan, CUI Laiyuan, GUO Rensong, WANG Liang, ZHENG Zipiao. Effects of planting mode and irrigation quota on yield and fiber quality of machine-picked long-staple cotton [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 60(8): 1821-1829.
[11]	DONG Yanxue, JIA Yonghong, ZHANG Jinshan, LI Dandan, WANG Kai, LUO Siwei, WANG Runqi, SHI Shubing. Effects of different ecological conditions on dry matter accumulation and yield of spring wheat varieties [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 60(8): 1848-1857.
[12]	LI Huaisheng, AI Hongyu, MENG Ling, WANG Heya, ZHANG Lei, AI Haifeng. Effects of chasing rate during peak nutrient uptake of transport under n Reduction on spring wheat [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 60(8): 1866-1872.
[13]	JU Le, QI Juncang, CHEN Peiyu, NIU Yinting, YIN Zhigang. Effects of drought stress on seed germination, seedling growth and physiological characteristics of barley [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 60(8): 1879-1886.
[14]	ZHANG Chao, BAI Yungang, ZHENG Ming, XIAO Jun, DING Ping. Synergistic effect of water and fertilizer on grape in extreme arid area [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 60(8): 1931-1939.
[15]	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.