欢迎访问作物学报，今天是
作物学报

作物学报 ›› 2011, Vol. 37 ›› Issue (07): 1259-1265.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2011.01259

• 耕作栽培·生理生化 • 上一篇    下一篇

不同水氮处理对玉米氮素诊断指标的影响

朱娟娟1,梁银丽1,2,Tremblay Nicolas3,*   

  1. 1 西北农林科技大学生命科学学院, 陕西杨陵 712100; 2 中国科学院水利部水土保持研究所, 陕西杨陵 712100; 3 加拿大农业与农业食品部园艺研究与发展中心, St-Jean-sur-Richelieu, J3B 3E6, Canada
  • 收稿日期:2010-12-20 修回日期:2011-03-27 出版日期:2011-07-12 网络出版日期:2011-05-11
  • 通讯作者: Nicolas.Tremblay@agr.gc.ca, Tel: +1-450-515-2102, Fax: +1-450-346-7740
  • 基金资助:

    This work was supported by SAGES funding from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the Knowledge Innovation Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (KZCX2-YW-443-3).

Responses of Corn (Zea mays L.) Nitrogen Status Indicators to Nitrogen Rates and Soil Moisture

ZHU Juan-Juan1,LIANG Yin-Li1,2,Tremblay Nicolas3,*   

  1. 1 College of Life Science, Northwest A&F University, Yangling 712100, China; 2 Institute of Soil Water and Conservation, Chinese Academy of Sciences and Ministry of Water Resources, Yangling 712100, China; 3 Horticulture Research and Development Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 430 Bloul. Gouin, St-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Quebec, J3B 3E6, Canada
  • Received:2010-12-20 Revised:2011-03-27 Published:2011-07-12 Published online:2011-05-11
  • Contact: Nicolas.Tremblay@agr.gc.ca, Tel: +1-450-515-2102, Fax: +1-450-346-7740
  • Supported by:

    This work was supported by SAGES funding from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the Knowledge Innovation Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (KZCX2-YW-443-3).

PDF

1628

被引次数

9

摘要： SPAD-502叶绿素仪与Dualex-3多酚仪均可诊断作物的氮素营养状况, 为了探讨不同水分条件下该指标对作物施氮量的响应, 以玉米品种Pioneer 38B84为研究对象, 在温室盆栽条件下, 研究3个土壤水分水平(干旱、干旱后复水和水分良好)和4个施氮水平(0、50、50+75和200 kg hm-2), 即12个处理对植物含氮量、SPAD值、Dualex值以及SPAD/Dualex比值的影响。结果表明, 植物含氮量、SPAD值和SPAD/Dualex比值均随施氮量的增加而增加, Dualex值随施氮量的增加而减少。干旱胁迫初期, 植物含氮量、SPAD值和SPAD/Dualex比值迅速下降, Dualex值迅速增加;随着干旱胁迫时间的推进, 各指标逐渐呈相反趋势变化。干旱复水后, 植物含氮量、Dualex值和SPAD/Dualex比值逐渐恢复, 然而SPAD值恢复较小。SPAD值(r=0.92)、Dualex值(r= -0.86)及SPAD/Dualex(r=0.63)值与植物含氮量呈极显著的相关性, 但试验后期, 由于生长阶段的不同, SPAD值和Dualex值与植物含氮量在干旱条件下(SPAD:r=0.90;Dualex:r= -0.83)的相关性高于在水分良好条件下(SPAD:r=0.39; Dualex:r= -0.44)。通过比较不同水分条件下, SPAD值、Dualex值和SPAD/Dualex值对不同施氮量的响应, 发现Dualex值在不同水分条件下均能较好地反应施氮水平。

关键词: 氮素, 诊断指标, 干旱, 复水

Abstract: Plants usually experience fluctuating water supply during their life cycle due to continuous changes in climatic factors. Soil water content (SWC) is one of the most critical factors affecting nitrogen (N) availability, movement, and uptake by crops. Consequently, SWC levels may confound the assessment of crop N status. The present study compared the sensitivity of tissue N concentration, SPAD readings, Dualex readings, and SPAD/Dualex ratios for assessing corn (Zea mays L.) N status under different water supply conditions. A greenhouse trial was conducted with four N fertilizer application rates (0, 50, 50+75, and 200 kg ha-1) and three watering levels (drought, drought followed by rewatering, and fully-watered). Tissue N concentration, SPAD, Dualex, and SPAD/Dualex values were influenced significantly by N rates and by SWC. Tissue N concentration, SPAD, and SPAD/Dualex increased with N rates, whereas Dualex decreased. In the first phase of reaction to drought, tissue N concentration, SPAD and SPAD/Dualex decreased rapidly but Dualex increased; however, the opposite pattern of response was observed in the long term. Under rewatering, tissue N concentration, Dualex and SPAD/Dualex gradually recovered, whereas SPAD values did not change significantly as they did in the drought treatment. There were highly significant relationships between SPAD (r=0.92), Dualex (r= -0.86), or SPAD/Dualex (r=0.63) and tissue N concentration. However, SPAD and Dualex were better predictors of tissue N concentration under drought conditions (SPAD:r=0.90;Dualex:r= -0.83) than under fully-watered conditions (SPAD:r=0.39; Dualex:r= -0.44) at the end of the trial. Among the indicators, Dualex was better able to discriminate N treatments, with consistent results across SWC levels.

Key words: Indicators, N status, drought, water recovery

[1]Argenta G, Ferreira da Silva P R, Sangoi L. Leaf relative chlorophyll content as an indicator parameter to predict nitrogen fertilization in maize. Ciência Rural, Santa Maria, 2004, 34: 1379–1387
[2]Piekielek W P, Fox R H, Toth J D, Macneal K E. Use of a chlorophyll meter at the early dent stages of corn to evaluate nitrogen sufficiency. Agron J, 1995, 87: 403–408
[3]Vidal I, Longeri L, Hètier J M. Nitrogen uptake and chlorophyll meter measurements in spring wheat. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst, 1999, 55: 1–6
[4]Tremblay N, Fortier É, Mellgren R, Belec C, Jenni S. The Dualex—a new tool to determine nitrogen sufficiency in broccoli. Acta Hortic, 2009, 824: 121–131
[5]Schröder J J, Neeteson J J, Oenema O, Struik P C. Does the crop or the soil indicate how to save nitrogen in maize production? Reviewing the state of the art. Field Crops Res, 2000, 66: 151–164
[6]Blackmer T M, Schepers J S. Use of a chlorophyll meter to monitor nitrogen status and schedule fertigation for corn. J Prod Agric, 1995, 8: 56–60
[7]Samborski S M, Tremblay N, Fallon E. Strategies to make use of plant sensors-based diagnostic information for nitrogen recommendations. Agron J, 2009, 101: 800–816
[8]Goulas Y, Cerovic Z G, Cartelat A, Moya I. Dualex: a new instrument for field measurements of epidermal ultraviolet absorbance by chlorophyll fluorescence. Appl Opt, 2004, 43: 4488–4496
[9]Cartelat A, Cerovic Z G, Goulas Y, Meyer S, Lelarge C, Prioul J L, Barbottinc A, Jeuffroy M H, Gate P, Agati G, Moya I. Optically assessed contents of leaf polyphenolics and chlorophyll as indicators of nitrogen deficiency in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Field Crops Res, 2005, 91: 35–49
[10]Tremblay N, Wang Z, Bèlec C. Evaluation of the Dualex for the assessment of corn nitrogen status. J Plant Nutr, 2007, 30: 1355–1369
[11]Ksouri R, Megdiche W, Debez A, Falleh H, Grignon C, Abdelly C. Salinity effects on polyphenol content and antioxidant activities in leaves of the halophyte Cakile maritime. Plant Physiol. Biochem, 2007, 45: 244–249
[12]Jones C G, Hartley S E. A protein competition model of phenolic allocation. OIKOS, 1999, 86: 27–44
[13]Meyer S, Cerovic Z G, Goulas Y, Montpied P, Demotes-Mainard S, Bidel L P R, Moya I, Dreyer E. Relationships between optically assessed polyphenols and chlorophyll contents and leaf mass per area ratio in woody plants: a signature of the carbon-nitrogen balance within leaves? Plant Cell Environ, 2006, 29: 1338–1348
[14]Cheruiyot E K, Mumera L M, Ngètich W K, Hassanali A, Wachira F. Polyphenols as potential indicators for drought tolerance in tea (Camellia sinensis L.). Biosci Biotechnol Biochem, 2007, 71: 2190–2197
[15]Liao C F H, Bartholomew WV. Relation between nitrate absorption and water transpiration by maize. Soil Sci Soc Am Proc, 1974, 38: 472–479
[16]Buljovcic Z, Engels C. Nitrate uptake ability by maize roots during and after drought stress. Plant Soil, 2001, 229: 125–135
[17]Martìnez D E, Guiamet J J. Distortion of the SPAD-502 chlorophyll meter readings by changes in irradiance and leaf water status. Agron J, 2004, 24:41–46
[18]Scalabrelli G, Saracini E, Remorini D, Massai R. Changes in leaf phenolic compounds in two grapevine varieties (Vitis vinifera L.) grown in different water conditions. Acta Hortic, 2007, 754: 295–299
[19]Estiarte M, Penuelas J, Kimball B A, Hendrix D L, Pinter P J, Wall G W, LaMorte R L, Hunsaker D J. Free-air CO2 enrichment of wheat: leaf flavonoid concentration throughout the growth cycle. Physiol Plant, 1999, 105: 423–433
[20]Isaac R A, Johnson W C. Determination of total nitrogen in plant tissue using a block digester. J Assoc Off Anal Chem, 1976, 59: 98–100
[21]Lachat Instruments. 2005. Methods list for automated ion analyzers (flow injection analyses, ion chromatography)
[2005-4-8] http://www. lachatinstruments.com/ applications/MethodsList.PDF.
[22]SAS Institute. SAS for windows. V.9.1. SAS Inst., Cary, NC, 2003
[23]Little T M, Hills F J. Agricultural Experimentation: Design and Analysis. Paperback. Wiley, 1978
[24]Hedeker D, Gibbons R D. Longitudinal data analysis. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Hoboken, 2006
[25]Klaus H, Oscar K. Design and Analysis of Experiments. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, 2008
[26]Elwadie M E, Pierce F J, Qi J. Remote sensing of canopy dynamics and biophysical variables estimation of corn in Michigan. Agron J, 2005, 97: 99–105
[27]Schlemmer M R, Francis D D, Shanahan J F, Schepers J S. Remotely measuring chlorophyll content in corn leaves with differing nitrogen levels and relative water content. Agron J, 2005, 97: 106–112
[28]Sanchez R A, Hall A J, Trapani N, de Hunau R C. Effects of water stress on the chlorophyll content, nitrogen level and photosynthesis of leaves of two maize genotypes. Photosynth Res, 1983, 4: 35–47
[29]Muh J, Franke J, Borken W. Drying–rewetting events reduce C and N losses from a Norway spruce forest floor. Soil Biol Biochem, 2010, 42: 1303–1312
[30]Horner J D. Nonlinear effects of water deficits on foliar tannin concentration. Biochem Syst Ecol, 1990, 18: 211–213
[31]Nicolas M, Simpson R J, Lambers H, Dalling M J. Effects of drought on partitioning of nitrogen in two wheat varieties differing in drought-tolerance. Ann. Bot, 1985, 55: 743–754
[32]Liu R X, Zhou Z G, Guo W Q, Chen B L, Oosterhuis D M. Effects of N fertilization on root development and activity of water-stressed cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) plants. Agric Water Manag, 2008, 95: 1261–1270
[1] 杨宗桃, 杨婷, 王禹童, 艾静, 李燕烨, 刘家勇, 邓军, 赵勇, 张跃彬. 甘蔗CLC基因家族鉴定与表达分析[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(3): 722-734.
[2] 于天一, 王春晓, 肖丽, 钟召迪, 王宣仓, 赵勇, 路亚, 吴月, 吴正锋. 不同结瘤特性花生品种氮素累积、产量及品质特性对氮肥用量的响应[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(3): 881-894.
[3] 刘宁, 樊平, 王成, 陈琪琪, 成庆悦, 铁夏娜, 汤菁莎, 刘彬彬, 谢鸿堃, 王嘉悦, 施园青, 马均. 减氮配施有机肥对机插稻产量形成与氮素利用的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(3): 866-880.
[4] 杨飚, 杜帅康, 张继旺, 石瑛, 张丽莉. 马铃薯III类POD基因家族的全基因组鉴定及其表达谱分析[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(2): 405-420.
[5] 孔娜, 刘涛, 刘文婷, 陈刚, 文利超, 邓智超, 郭梅, 李伟, 郭永峰. 烟草NtCEP7基因克隆及其编码小肽在苗期抗旱中的作用分析[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(1): 249-261.
[6] 刘海波, 张蕾, 王立琦, 石晓丽, 周文莹, 崔国贤, 佘玮. 苎麻BnGCL1基因响应干旱胁迫的功能研究[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(1): 14-27.
[7] 姬炫彤, 卞春松, 金黎平, 李森, 秦军红, 李广存. 不同耐旱型马铃薯根际微生物对干旱的响应[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(1): 165-177.
[8] 胡城祯, 高维东, 孔斌雪, 王建飞, 车卓, 杨德龙, 陈涛. 小麦TaAPC11基因家族鉴定及TaAPC11-5B参与干旱胁迫的生物学功能研究[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(1): 148-164.
[9] 王雅致, 杨飚, 季香林, 石瑛, 张丽莉. 二倍体马铃薯抗旱资源鉴定及抗旱基因初步筛选[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(1): 72-84.
[10] 何鹏旭, 姚立蓉, 陈远玲, 闫妍, 张宏, 汪军成, 李葆春, 杨轲, 司二静, 孟亚雄, 马小乐, 王化俊. 大麦干旱胁迫萌发生理及分子机理的差异性与相关性研究[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(9): 2412-2432.
[11] 尤根基, 谢昊, 梁毓文, 李龙, 王玉茹, 蒋晨炀, 郭剑, 李广浩, 陆大雷. 氮肥减施措施对江淮春玉米产量和氮素吸收利用的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(8): 2152-2163.
[12] 闫喆林, 任强, 樊志龙, 殷文, 孙亚丽, 范虹, 何蔚, 胡发龙, 闫丽娟, 柴强. 氮肥后移优化绿洲灌区小麦间作玉米种间关系提高氮素利用效率[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(8): 2190-2203.
[13] 霍建喆, 于爱忠, 王玉珑, 王鹏飞, 尹波, 刘亚龙, 张冬玲, 姜科强, 庞小能, 王凤. 有机肥替代化肥对绿洲灌区甜玉米产量、品质及氮素利用的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(7): 1887-1900.
[14] 张建鹏, 王国瑞, 别海, 叶飞宇, 马晨晨, 梁小菡, 鲁晓民, 尚霄丽, 曹丽茹. 转录因子ZmMYB153通过ABA信号调节气孔运动增强玉米苗期抗旱性[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(7): 1827-1837.
[15] 陆雯佳, 汪军成, 姚立蓉, 张宏, 司二静, 杨轲, 孟亚雄, 李葆春, 马小乐, 王化俊. 大麦PRX基因家族全基因组鉴定及其干旱胁迫下的表达分析[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(5): 1198-1214.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!
京ICP备15008789号-2