JIA-2020-1326 小麦灌浆期源库关系及其对源库操纵的响应

doi:10.1016/S2095-3119(21)63640-7

Journal of Integrative Agriculture ›› 2022, Vol. 21 ›› Issue (6): 1593-1605.DOI: 10.1016/S2095-3119(21)63640-7

所属专题：麦类耕作栽培合辑Triticeae Crops Physiology · Biochemistry · Cultivation · Tillage

JIA-2020-1326 小麦灌浆期源库关系及其对源库操纵的响应

收稿日期:2020-06-30 接受日期:2021-02-04 出版日期:2022-06-01 发布日期:2021-02-04

Source–sink relations and responses to sink–source manipulations during grain filling in wheat

WU Xiao-li^{1, 2, 3*}, LIU Miao^{1, 2, 3*}, LI Chao-su^{1, 2, 3}, Allen David (Jack) MCHUGH⁴, LI Ming¹, XIONG Tao¹, LIU Yu-bin⁵, TANG Yong-lu^1,2,3

¹ Crop Research Institute of Sichuan Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Chengdu 610066, P.R.China
² Key Laboratory of Crop Ecophysiology and Farming System in Southwest China, Ministry of Agriculture, Chengdu 611130, P.R.China
³ Sichuan Provincial Key Laboratory of Water-Saving Agriculture in Hill Areas of Southern China, Chengdu 610066, P.R.China
⁴ The International Wheat and Maize Improvement Centre (CIMMYT), P.R.China
⁵ Xichang Agricultural Science Research Institute, Liangshan 618300, P.R.China

Received:2020-06-30 Accepted:2021-02-04 Online:2022-06-01 Published:2021-02-04
About author:WU Xiao-li, E-mail: wuxiaolicjq@y126.com; Correspondence TANG Yong-lu, Tel: +86-28-84504601, E-mail: ttyycc88@163.com * These authors contributed equally to this study.
Supported by:
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31571590, 31972960), the earmarked fund for China Agriculture Research System of MOF and MARA (CARS-3-22), and the Key Project of Crop Breeding of Sichuan Province, China (2021YFYZ0005).

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

2015-2017年连续2个生长季，选择西南地区广泛使用的小麦品种9个进行源库关系分析，其中3个具有不同株型品种进行花后源库操作处理：对照（Ct）、去除旗叶和倒二叶（Lr）和去除一侧小穗（Sr），设置2个施氮水平（N+, 150 kg ha^-1; N-, 60 kg ha^-1），研究两种氮水平下不同品种在冠层水平和单株水平上的源库关系。结果表明，Lr显著降低了3个品种的单粒重，而Sr使单粒重显著增加，表明小麦产量潜力在灌浆期受源限制较大，但源库平衡明显受气候变化和氮素亏缺的影响。籽粒产量与库容量（SICA）、粒数、生物量、SPAD值和叶面积指数呈显著正相关关系，表明源限制程度随着SICA的增加而增加。因此，当SICA增加时，育种家应更加关注源限制的影响，尤其在环境较好的条件下。川麦104属半紧凑型品种，穗子大小适中、上部叶片狭长，在源库平衡关系中表现较好，因为川麦104在Lr后籽粒重降幅小、Sr后籽粒重增幅大；花后干物质积累减少幅度最低、源库操作后灌浆期的光合产物向籽粒转移最多。

Abstract: The source–sink ratio during grain filling is a critical factor that affects crop yield in wheat, and the main objective of this study was to determine the source–sink relations at both the canopy scale and the individual culm level under two nitrogen (N) levels at the post-jointing stage. Nine widely-used cultivars were chosen for analyzing source–sink relations in southwestern China; and three typical cultivars of different plant types were subjected to artificial manipulation of the grain-filling source–sink ratio to supplement crop growth measurements. A field experiment was conducted over two consecutive seasons under two N rates (N+, 150 kg ha^–1; N–, 60 kg ha^–1), and three manipulations were imposed after anthesis: control (Ct), removal of flag and penultimate leaves (Lr) and removal of spikelets on one side of each spike (Sr). The results showed that the single grain weights in the three cultivars were significantly decreased by Lr and increased by Sr, which demonstrated that wheat grain yield potential seems more source-limited than sink-limited during grain filling, but the source–sink balance was obviously changed by climatic variations and N deficient environments. Grain yield was highly associated with sink capacity (SICA), grain number, biomass, SPAD values, and leaf area index during grain filling, indicating a higher degree of source limitation with an increase in sink capacity. Therefore, source limitation should be taken into account by breeders when SICA is increased, especially under non-limiting conditions. Chuanmai 104, a half-compact type with a mid-sized spike and a long narrow upper leaf, showed relatively better performance in source–sink relations. Since this cultivar showed the characteristics of a lower reduction in grain weight after Lr, a larger increase after Sr, and a lower reduction in post-anthesis dry matter accumulation, then the greater current photosynthesis during grain filling contributed to the grain after source and sink manipulation.

Key words: source-sink relations , source-sink manipulation , grain weight , nitrogen levels

. JIA-2020-1326 小麦灌浆期源库关系及其对源库操纵的响应[J]. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2022, 21(6): 1593-1605.

WU Xiao-li, LIU Miao, LI Chao-su, Allen David (Jack) MCHUGH, LI Ming, XIONG Tao, LIU Yu-bin, TANG Yong-lu. Source–sink relations and responses to sink–source manipulations during grain filling in wheat[J]. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2022, 21(6): 1593-1605.

参考文献

Abbate P E, Andrade F H, Culot J P, Bindraban P S. 1997. Grain yield in wheat: Effects of radiation during spike growth period. Field Crops Research, 54, 245–257.
Abbate P E, Lázaro L, Montenegro A A, Bariffi J H, Gutheim F. 2005. Potential yield of Argentine vs. foreign wheat cultivars. In: 7th International Wheat Conference. Mar del Plata, Bs. As, Argentina.
Alam M S, Rahman A H M M, Nesa M N, Khan S K, Siddquie N A. 2008. Effect of source and/or sink restriction on the grain yield in wheat. Journal of Applied Sciences Research, 4, 258–261.
Alonso M P, Abbate P E, Mirabella N E, Merlos F A, Panelo J S, Pontaroli A C. 2018. Analysis of sink/source relations in bread wheat recombinant inbred lines and commercial cultivars under a high yield potential environment. European Journal of Agronomy, 93, 82–87.
Araus J L, Brown H R, Febrero A, Bort J, Serret M D. 1993. Ear photosynthesis, carbon isotope discrimination and the contribution of respiratory CO2 to differences in grain mass in durum wheat. Plant, Cell & Environment, 16, 383–392.
Arduini I, Masoni A, Ercoli L, Mariotti M. 2006. Grain yield, and dry matter and nitrogen accumulation and remobilization in durum wheat as affected by variety and seeding rate. European Journal of Agronomy, 25, 309–318.
Asseng S, Kassiea B T, Labrab M H, Amadorb C, Calderini D F. 2017. Simulating the impact of source–sink manipulations in wheat. Field Crops Research, 202, 47–56.
Birsin M A. 2005. Effects of removal of some photosynthetic structures on some yield components in wheat. Tarim Bilimleri Dergisi, 11, 364–367.
Borrás L, Slafer G A, Otegui M E. 2004. Seed dry weight response to source–sink manipulations in wheat, maize and soybean: A quantitative reappraisal. Field Crops Research, 86, 131–146.
Calderini D F, Reynolds M P, Slafer G A. 2006. Source–sink effects on grain weight of bread wheat, durum wheat, and triticale at different locations. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 57, 227–233.
Cantarero M G, Abbate P E, Balzarini S M. 2016. Effect of water stress during thespike growth period on wheat yield in contrasting weather. International Journal of Environmental and Agricultural Research, 2, 22–37.
Clarke J M. 1978. The effects of leaf removal on yield and yield components of Brassica napus. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 58, 1103–1105.
CIMMYT. 2017. Global Wheat Research. [2017-05-09]. http://www.cimmyt.org/globalwheat-research
Duan D D, Zhao C J, Li Z H, Yang G J, Zhao Y, Qiao X J, Zhang Y H, Zhang L X, Yang W D. 2019. Estimating total leaf nitrogen concentration in winter wheat by canopy hyperspectral data and nitrogen vertical distribution. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 18, 1562–1570.
Felekari H, Ghobadi M E, Ghobadi M, Honarmand S J, Saeidi M. 2014. The effect of post anthesis source and sink limitation in wheat cultivars under moderate condition. International Journal of Biosciences, 5, 52–59.
Fischer R A. 2011. Wheat physiology: A review of recent developments. Crop & Pasture Science, 62, 95–114.
Fischer R A, HilleRisLambers D. 1978. Effect of environment and cultivar on source limitation to grain weight in wheat. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 29, 443–458.
Fischer R A. 2007. Understanding the physiological basis of yield potential in wheat. Journal of Agricultural Science, 145, 99–113.
Freyman S, Charnetski W A, Crookston R K. 1973. Role of leavesin the formation of the seed in rape. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 53, 693–694.
Gifford R M, Bremner P M, Jones D B. 1973. Assessing photosynthetic limitation to grain yield in a field crop. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 24, 297–307.
González F G, Miralles D J, Slafe G A. 2011. Wheat floret survival as related to pre-anthesis spike growth. Journal of Experimental Botany, 62, 4889–4901.
Gourdji S M, Sibley A M, Lobell D B. 2013. Global crop exposure to critical high temperatures in the reproductive period: historical trends and future projections. Environmental Research Letters, 8, 024041.
Iqbal N, Masooda A, Khan N A. 2012. Analyzing the significance of defoliation in growth, photosyntheticcompensation and source–sink relations. Photosynthetica, 50, 161–170.
Khaliq I, Irshad A, Ahsan M. 2008. Awns and flag leaf contribution towards grain yield in spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Cereal Research Communications, 36, 65–76.
Lázaro L, Abbate P E. 2012. Cultivar effects on relationship between grain number and photothermal quotient on spike dry weight in wheat. Journal of Agricultural Science, 150, 442–459.
Lázaro L, Abbate P E, Cogliatti D H, Andrade F H. 2010. Relationship between yield, growth and spike weigth in wheat under phosphorus deficiency and shading. Journal of Agricultural Science, 148, 83–93.
Lobell D B, Sibley A, Ortiz-Monasterio J I. 2012. Extreme heat effects on wheat senescence in India. Nature Climate Change, 2, 186–189.
Long S P, Zhu X G, Naidu S L, Ort D R. 2006. Can improvement inphotosynthesis increase crop yields? Plant, Cell & Environment, 29, 315–330.
Ma Y Z, MacKown C T, Vansanford D A. 1996. Differential effects of partial spikelet removal and defoliation on kernel growth and assimilate partitioning among wheat cultivars. Field Crops Research, 47, 201–209.
Madani A, Shirani-Rad A, Pazoki A, Nourmohammadi G, Zarghami R, Mokhtassi-Bidgol A. 2010. The impact of source or sink limitations on yield formation of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) due to post-anthesis water and nitrogen deficiencies. Plant, Soil and Environment, 56, 218–227.
Miralles D J, Slafer G A. 1995. Individual grain weight responses to genetic reductionin culm length in wheat as affected by source–sink manipulations. Field Crops Research, 43, 55–66.
Miralles D J, Slafer G A. 2007. Sink limitations to yield in wheat: How could it be reduced? Journal of Agricultural Science, 145, 139–149.
Prystupa P, Savin R, Slafer G A. 2004. Grain number and its relationship with dry matter, N and P in the spikes at heading in response to N×P fertilization in barley. Field Crops Research, 90, 245–254.
Reynolds M, Foulkes J, Furbank R, Griffiths S, King J, Murchie E, Parry M, Slafer G. 2012. Achieving yield gains in wheat. Plant, Cell & Environment, 35, 1799–1823.
Serrago R A, Alzueta I, Savin R, Slafer G A. 2013. Understanding grain yield responses to source–sink ratios during grain filling in wheat and barley under contrasting environments. Field Crops Research, 150, 42–51.
Slafer G A, Savin R. 1994. Postanthesis green area duration in a semidwarf and astandard-height wheat cultivar as affected by sink strength. Crop & Pasture Science, 45, 1337–1346.
Tang Y L, Rosewarne G M, Li C S, Wu X L, Yang W Y, Wu C. 2015. Physiological factors underpinning grain yield improvements of synthetic-derived wheat in Southwestern China. Crop Science, 55, 98–112.
Tang Y L, Wu X L, Li C S, Yang W Y, Huang M B, Ma X L, Li S Z. 2017. Yield, growth, canopy traits and photosynthesis in high-yielding,synthetic hexaploid-derived wheats cultivars compared with non-synthetic wheats. Crop & Pasture Science, 68, 115–125.
Trujillo-Negrellos E, Amado C R, Reynolds M, Foulkes J. 2014. Quantifying source: Sink balance and associated traits in a panel of modern spring wheat genotypes. In: Reynolds M, Molero G, Quilligan E, Listman M, Braun H, eds. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop of Wheat Yield Consortium. CIMMYT, Cd. Obregón, Mexico. pp. 73–89.
Wu X L, Tang Y L, Li C S, Wu C. 2018. Characterization of the rate and duration of grain filling in wheat in southwestern China. Plant Production Science, 21, 358–369.
Yang X, Asseng S, Wong M T F, Yu Q, Li J, Liu E. 2013. Quantifying the interactive impacts of global dimming and warming on wheat yield and water use in China. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 182, 342–351.
Yordanova N, Kostadinova S. 2015. Effect of source–sink ratio on the dry mass and nitrogen accumulation and translocation in wheat and barley. In: 50th Croatian and 10th International Symposium on Agriculture. Opatija, Croatia. pp. 344–348.
Yu S M, Lo S F, Ho T H D. 2015. Source–sink communication: regulated by hormone, nutrient, and stress cross-signaling. Trends in Plant Science, 20, 844–857.
Zhang H, Turner N C, Poole M L. 2010. Source–sink balance and manipulating sink–source relations of wheat indicate that the yield potential of wheat is sink-limited in high-rainfall zones. Crop & Pasture Science, 61, 852–861.
Zhang Y, Zhang Y, Liu N, Su D, Xue Q, Stewart B, Wang Z. 2012. Effect of source–sink manipulation on accumulation of micronutrients and protein in wheat grains. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 175, 622–629.
Zhang Y H, Sun N N, Hong J P, Zhang Q, Wang C, Xue Q, Zhou S L, Huang Q, Wang Z M. 2014. Effect of source–sink manipulation on photosynthetic characteristics of flag leaf and the remobilization of dry mass and nitrogen in vegetative organs of wheat. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 13, 1680–1690.

JIA-2020-1326 小麦灌浆期源库关系及其对源库操纵的响应

Source–sink relations and responses to sink–source manipulations during grain filling in wheat

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 0

编辑推荐

Metrics