Effects of drought stress and planting density on physiological characteristics and yield of onion bulblets

doi:10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2024.09.016

Abstract

Abstract:

【Objective】 This project aims to study the effects of drought stress and sowing density on the physiological characteristics and yield of onion bulblets in order to explore the use of onion bulblets as sowing materials in the hope of laying a theoretical and technical foundation for the mechanized planting of onion. 【Methods】 ' Baixue ' was used as the experimental material, and the flat-bottom seedling tray was used for sowing. Three sowing densities were designed : 1.5 cm × 1.5 cm(A₁), 2 cm × 2 cm(A₂) and 2.5 cm × 2.5 cm(A₃). Three kinds of drought stress : 8 % field capacity(B₁), 13 % field capacity(B₂) and natural drought(B₃). 【Results】 With the increase of drought stress duration, the plant height and pseudostem diameter of onion seedlings increased first and then decreased. Appropriate drought stress promoted the growth of the transverse diameter of underground onion bulblets. The soluble solids content of onion treated with (2 cm × 2 cm) * natural drought (T₆) was the highest, which was 20.17 %. The soluble sugar content of 8 % (T₄) treatment of (2 cm × 2 cm) * field capacity was the highest, which was 6.73 %. With the increase of sowing density, soluble protein content and CAT activity showed an increasing trend, but the difference was not significant. The POD activity of (2 cm × 2 cm) * natural drought (T₆) treatment was the highest, which was 23.6 (U/(g·min)); the highest SOD activity was 7,560 (U/(g·h)) under (1.5 cm × 1.5 cm) * natural drought (T₃) treatment. The number of bulblets in (1.5 cm × 1.5 cm) * 3 drought (T₁-T₃) treatments was significantly higher than those in other treatments, and the number of bulblets per square centimeter was 36.13, 35.05 and 35.48, respectively. The bulk density, total porosity, water holding porosity and EC values of the seedling substrate before and after drought were within the ideal range. The comprehensive evaluation value from high to low was T₉ > T₈ > T₇ > T₁ > T₆ > T₄ > T₅ > T₂ > T₃. 【Conclusion】 The comprehensive performance of (2.5 cm × 2.5 cm)* natural drought (T₉) treatment is good and ranks first, which can be used as a combination for cultivating onion bulblets.

Key words: onion bulblets; drought stress; density of crop; physiological and biochemical characteristics; principal component

摘要：

【目的】研究干旱胁迫和播种密度对洋葱小鳞茎生理特性及产出鳞茎个数的影响,为实现洋葱的机械化定植奠定理论和技术基础。【方法】以洋葱品种白雪为材料,采用平底育苗盘播种,设计3种播种密度处理:1.5 cm×1.5 cm(A₁)、2 cm×2 cm(A₂)和2.5 cm×2.5 cm(A₃);3种干旱胁迫:田间持水量8%(B₁)、田间持水量13%(B₂)和自然干旱(B₃)。【结果】随着干旱胁迫时长的增加,洋葱幼苗株高和假茎粗呈先增加后降低的趋势。适当干旱胁迫能促进地下部洋葱小鳞茎横径的生长。(2 cm×2 cm)*自然干旱(T₆)处理的洋葱可溶性固形物含量最大,为20.17%。(2 cm×2 cm)*田间持水量的8%(T₄)处理的可溶性糖含量最大,为6.73%。随着播种密度的增加,可溶性蛋白含量和CAT活性呈增加趋势,但是差异不显著。(2 cm×2 cm)*自然干旱(T₆)处理的POD活性最高,为23.6 U/(g·min);(1.5 cm×1.5 cm)*自然干旱(T₃)处理的SOD活性最高,为7.560 U/(g·h)。(1.5 cm×1.5 cm)*3个干旱(T₁~T₃)处理的小鳞茎个数显著多于其他处理的小鳞茎个数,产出鳞茎个数分别为36.13、35.05和35.48个/dm²。干旱前后育苗基质的容重、总孔隙度、持水孔隙度及EC值均在理想范围内。主成分综合评价值由高到低为T₉>T₈>T₇>T₁>T₆>T₄>T₅>T₂>T₃。【结论】(2.5 cm×2.5 cm)*自然干旱(T₉)处理的综合表现良好,排名第1,可作为培育洋葱小鳞茎的组合。

关键词: 洋葱小鳞茎, 干旱胁迫, 播种密度, 生理生化, 主成分

CLC Number:

S633.2

Areziguli Tuxun, GAO Jie. Effects of drought stress and planting density on physiological characteristics and yield of onion bulblets[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 61(9): 2211-2222.

阿热孜姑·吐逊, 高杰. 干旱胁迫和播种密度对洋葱小鳞茎生理特性及产出鳞茎个数的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2024, 61(9): 2211-2222.

Figures/Tables 14

References 25

[1]	弓志青, 靳琼, 陈相艳, 等. 不同品种洋葱粉营养成分分析[J]. 食品科学技术学报, 2014, 32(5): 46-49.
	GONG Zhiqing, JIN Qiong, CHEN Xiangyan, et al. Nutrient analysis of different cultivars of onion powder[J]. Journal of Food Science and Technology, 2014, 32(5): 46-49.
[2]	付东青, 王彦超, 宋磊, 等. 施氮量和种植密度对石河子复播早熟饲用燕麦生产性能的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(10): 2364-2371.
	FU Dongqing, WANG Yanchao, SONG Lei, et al. Effects of nitrogen application rate and planting density on production performance of early maturing forage oat in Shihezi, Xinjiang[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(10): 2364-2371.
[3]	胡俊杰, 宁显宝, 建德锋. 不同育苗模式对北方洋葱育苗效果的影响[J]. 北方园艺, 2005, (5): 58-59.
	HU Junjie, NING Xianbao, JIAN Defeng. Effect of different seeding model on the seeding effect of north Allium cepa L[J]. Northern Horticulture, 2005, (5): 58-59.
[4]	胡俊杰, 金伊洙, 郭树义. 育苗措施对北方洋葱育苗效果的影响[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2010, 38(21): 11106-11107.
	HU Junjie, JIN Yizhu, GUO Shuyi. Effects of countermeasures on culture seedling effects of north onion[J]. Journal of Anhui Agricultural Sciences, 2010, 38(21): 11106-11107.
[5]	刘鑫, 付丽娟, 于静, 等. 5种外源物质对干旱胁迫下笔筒树幼苗生长的缓解效应[J]. 西北植物学报, 2022, 42(7): 1169-1179.
	LIU Xin, FU Lijuan, YU Jing, et al. Alleviation effect of five exogenous substances on Sphaeropteris lepifera seedlings under drought stress[J]. Acta Botanica Boreali-Occidentalia Sinica, 2022, 42(7): 1169-1179.
[6]	程智慧. 蔬菜栽培学各论(2版)[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2021.
	CHENG Zhihui. Various theories on vegetable cultivation (2nd ed.)[M]. Beijing: Science Press, 2021.
[7]	高俊凤. 植物生理学实验指导[M]. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2006.
	GAO Junfeng. Experimental guidance for plant physiology[M]. Beijing: Higher Education Press, 2006.
[8]	石连旋, 颜宏. 植物生理学实验指导[M]. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2013.
	SHI Lianxuan, YAN Hong. Experimental instruction of plant physiology[M]. Beijing: Higher Education Press, 2013.
[9]	郭世荣, 孙锦. 无土栽培学(3版)[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2018.
	GUO Shirong, SUN Jin. Soilless culture(3rd ed)[M]. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 2018.
[10]	李阳, 齐曼·尤努斯, 祝燕. 水分胁迫对大果沙枣光合特性及生物量分配的影响[J]. 西北植物学报, 2006, 26(12): 2493-2499.
	Li Yang, Qiman Younusi, Zhu Yan. Effects of water stress on photosynthetic characteristics and biomass partition of Elaeagnus moorcroftii[J]. Acta Botanica Boreali-Occidentalia Sinica, 2006, 26(12): 2493-2499.
[11]	刘硕, 樊仙, 全怡吉, 等. 干旱胁迫对甘蔗光合生理特性的影响[J]. 西南农业学报, 2022, 35(8): 1776-1785.
	LIU Shuo, FAN Xian, QUAN Yiji, et al. Effects of drought stress on photosynthetic and physiological characteristics of sugarcane[J]. Southwest China Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 35(8): 1776-1785.
[12]	王雪梅, 闫帮国, 史亮涛, 等. 水分和种植密度对干热河谷车桑子生长性状及种内相互关系的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2020, 40(21): 7767-7776.
	WANG Xuemei, YAN Bangguo, SHI Liangtao, et al. Effects of water and planting density on the growth characteristics and intraspecific relationships of Dodonaea viscosa in a dry-hot valley[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2020, 40(21): 7767-7776.
[13]	Huang Y X, Zhao X Y, Zhang H X, et al. Allometric effects of Agriophyllum squarrosum in response to soil nutrients, water, and population density in the horqin sandy land of China[J]. Journal of Plant Biology, 2009, 52(3): 210-219.
[14]	安慧, 上官周平. 密度对刺槐幼苗生物量及异速生长模式的影响[J]. 林业科学, 2008, 44(3): 151-155.
	AN Hui, SHANGGUAN Zhouping. Effects of density on biomass and allometric pattern of Robinia pseudoacacia seedling[J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2008, 44(3): 151-155.
[15]	邵惠芳, 陈征, 许嘉阳, 等. 两种烟草幼苗叶片对不同强度干旱胁迫的生理响应比较[J]. 植物生理学报, 2016, 52(12): 1861-1871.
	SHAO Huifang, CHEN Zheng, XU Jiayang, et al. Physiological responses of two tobacco cultivar leaves to different drought stresses during seedling stage[J]. Plant Physiology Journal, 2016, 52(12): 1861-1871.
[16]	李晓青, 荆月婷, 冯全福, 等. PEG模拟干旱胁迫对不同烤烟品种生理特性的影响[J]. 中国烟草科学, 2016, 37(3): 15-21.
	LI Xiaoqing, JING Yueting, FENG Quanfu, et al. Effects of drought stress simulated by PEG on physiological characteristics in different flue-cured tobacco cultivars[J]. Chinese Tobacco Science, 2016, 37(3): 15-21.
[17]	余叔文, 汤章城. 植物生理与分子生物学(2版)[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 1998.
	YU Shuwen, TANG Zhangcheng. Plant physiology and molecular biology(2nd ed.)[M]. Beijing: Science Press, 1998.
[18]	魏良民. 几种旱生植物碳水化合物和蛋白质变化的研究[J]. 干旱区研究, 1991, (4):38-41.
	WEI Liangming. A Study on Carbohydrate and Protein of Several Xerophytes[J]. Arid Zone Research, 1991, (4):38-41.
[19]	吕朝燕, 高智席, 徐兴线, 等. 干旱胁迫及复水对桫椤生理特性的影响[J]. 林业资源管理, 2022, (5): 160-168.
	LYU Zhaoyan, GAO Zhixi, XU Xingxian, et al. Effects of drought stress and rehydration on the physiological characteristics of Alsophila spinulosa[J]. Forest Resources Management, 2022, (5): 160-168.
[20]	Gupta A, Rico-Medina A, Caño-Delgado A I. The physiology of plant responses to drought[J]. Science, 2020, 368(6488): 266-269.
[21]	王卓敏, 郑欣颖, 薛立. 樟树幼苗对干旱胁迫和种植密度的生理响应[J]. 生态学杂志, 2017, 36(6): 1495-1502.
	WANG Zhuomin, ZHENG Xinying, XUE Li. Physiological responses of Cinnamomum camphora seedlings to drought stress and planting density[J]. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2017, 36(6): 1495-1502.
[22]	闫振华, 刘东尧, 贾绪存, 等. 花期高温干旱对玉米雄穗发育、生理特性和产量影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54(17):3592-3608.
	YAN Zhenhua, LIU Dongao, JIA Xucun, et al. Maize Tassel Development, Physiological Traits and Yield Under Heat and Drought Stress During Flowering Stage[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2021, 54(17):3592-3608.
[23]	段媛媛, 刘晓洪, 唐涛, 等. 种植密度对湖北贝母生长及品质的影响[J/OL]. 中国农业科技导报:1-10[2023-03-18].
	DUAN Yuanyuan, LIU Xiaohong, TANG Tao, et al. Effects of Planting Density on Growth and Nutritional Quality of Fritillaria hupehensis[J/OL]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology: 1-10[2023-03-18].
[24]	Ge M H, Chen G, Hong J, et al. Screening for formulas of complex substrates for seedling cultivation of tomato and marrow squash[J]. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 2012, 16: 606-615.
[25]	于秀针, 张彩虹, 姜鲁艳, 等. 不同配比椰糠与沙土对番茄育苗效果的影响[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2020, 48(6): 45-47.
	YU Xiuzhen, ZHANG Caihong, JIANG Luyan, et al. Effects of different proportions of coco coir and sandy soil on seedling raising effect of tomato seedlings[J]. Journal of Anhui Agricultural Sciences, 2020, 48(6): 45-47.

处理 Treatments	播种密度 Density of crop (cm)	干旱程度 Drought degree
T₁(A₁B₁)	1.5×1.5	田间持水量的8%
T₂(A₁B₂)	1.5×1.5	田间持水量的13%
T₃(A₁B₃)	1.5×1.5	自然干旱
T₄(A₂B₁)	2.0×2.0	田间持水量的8%
T₅(A₂B₂)	2.0×2.0	田间持水量的13%
T₆(A₂B₃)	2.0×2.0	自然干旱
T₇(A₃B₁)	2.5×2.5	田间持水量的8%
T₈(A₃B₂)	2.5×2.5	田间持水量的13%
T₉(A₃B₃)	2.5×2.5	自然干旱

处理 Treatments	播种密度 Density of crop (cm)	干旱程度 Drought degree
T₁(A₁B₁)	1.5×1.5	田间持水量的8%
T₂(A₁B₂)	1.5×1.5	田间持水量的13%
T₃(A₁B₃)	1.5×1.5	自然干旱
T₄(A₂B₁)	2.0×2.0	田间持水量的8%
T₅(A₂B₂)	2.0×2.0	田间持水量的13%
T₆(A₂B₃)	2.0×2.0	自然干旱
T₇(A₃B₁)	2.5×2.5	田间持水量的8%
T₈(A₃B₂)	2.5×2.5	田间持水量的13%
T₉(A₃B₃)	2.5×2.5	自然干旱

容重 Bulk density (g/cm³)	总孔隙度 Total porosity (%)	通气孔隙度 Aeration porosity (%)	持水孔隙度 Water holding porosity (%)	气水比 Air-water ratio	pH值 pH value	EC (mS/cm)
0.11±0.01^a	62.07±0.86^a	8.93±0.21^a	53.14±0.65^a	0.17±0^a	7.78±0.06^a	0.04±0.01^a
0.11±0.01^a	62.23±1.74^a	9.11±2.03^a	53.12±0.29^a	0.17±0.04^a	7.8±0.02^a	0.04±0.01^a
0.12±0^a	61.24±2.79^a	8.11±0.92^a	53.14±3.71^a	0.15±0.03^a	7.78±0.06^a	0.03±0^a

容重 Bulk density (g/cm³)	总孔隙度 Total porosity (%)	通气孔隙度 Aeration porosity (%)	持水孔隙度 Water holding porosity (%)	气水比 Air-water ratio	pH值 pH value	EC (mS/cm)
0.11±0.01^a	62.07±0.86^a	8.93±0.21^a	53.14±0.65^a	0.17±0^a	7.78±0.06^a	0.04±0.01^a
0.11±0.01^a	62.23±1.74^a	9.11±2.03^a	53.12±0.29^a	0.17±0.04^a	7.8±0.02^a	0.04±0.01^a
0.12±0^a	61.24±2.79^a	8.11±0.92^a	53.14±3.71^a	0.15±0.03^a	7.78±0.06^a	0.03±0^a

处理 Treatments	容重 Bulk density (g/cm³)	总孔隙度 Total porosity (%)	通气孔隙度 Aeration porosity (%)	持水孔隙度 Water holding porosity (%)	气水比 Air-water ratio	pH值 pH value	EC (mS/cm)
T₁	0.12±0^ab	66.55±1.11^bc	21±6.96^a	45.55±5.88^a	0.48±0.2^a	7.57±0.17^bc	0.11±0.02^cd
T₂	0.12±0.02^abc	66.68±0.56^bc	14.95±5.68^a	51.73±5.86^a	0.3±0.14^a	7.86±0.15^bc	0.13±0.04^abcd
T₃	0.11±0^bc	70.86±0.73^a	13.23±3.77^a	57.63±4.18^a	0.23±0.08^a	7.95±0.04^abc	0.17±0.01^ab
T₄	0.14±0.02^a	67.33±1.18^bc	16.8±5.73^a	50.53±5.97^a	0.34±0.14^a	8.22±0.13^ab	0.16±0.01^abc
T₅	0.11±0.01^bc	65.54±2.12^bc	13.84±4.13^a	51.7±3.97^a	0.27±0.09^a	7.76±0.24^bc	0.18±0.05^a
T₆	0.1±0.01^c	66.52±1.98^bc	16.17±6.49^a	50.35±8.36^a	0.34±0.2^a	8.68±1.17^a	0.15±0.03^abc
T₇	0.11±0.01^bc	67.94±0.9^b	19.32±1.55^a	48.61±2.33^a	0.4±0.05^a	7.86±0.07^bc	0.14±0.03^abc
T₈	0.11±0.01^abc	66.67±3.42^bc	15.78±8.6^a	50.88±10.88^a	0.34±0.23^a	7.35±0.21^c	0.12±0.03^bcd
T₉	0.12±0^ab	64.22±0.67^c	19.82±9.56^a	44.4±9.32^a	0.49±0.28^a	7.75±0.06^bc	0.08±0.01^d