Effects of drought stress on water content and biomass distribution in summer maize(Zea mays L.)

被引:26
作者
Yan, Siying [1 ]
Weng, Baisha [1 ,2 ]
Jing, Lanshu [1 ,3 ]
Bi, Wuxia [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] China Inst Water Resources & Hydropower Res, State Key Lab Simulat & Regulat Water Cycle River, Beijing, Peoples R China
[2] China Inst Water Resources & Hydropower Res, Yinshanbeilu Grassland Ecohydrol Natl Observat & R, Beijing, Peoples R China
[3] Hohai Univ, Coll Hydrol & Water Resources, Nanjing, Peoples R China
来源
FRONTIERS IN PLANT SCIENCE | 2023年 / 14卷
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
drought; water content; biomass; allometric growth; correlation; GROWTH PROMOTING BACTERIA; ALLOCATION; PLANTS; MAIZE; LEAF; PHOTOSYNTHESIS; ARCHITECTURE; COMPONENTS; GENOTYPES; PATTERNS;
D O I
10.3389/fpls.2023.1118131
中图分类号
Q94 [植物学];
学科分类号
071001 ;
摘要
The resource allocation of different component organs of crops under drought stress is a strategy for the coordinated growth of crops, which also reflects the adaptability of crops to drought condition. In this study, maize variety namely 'Denghai 618', under the ventilation shed, two treatment groups of light drought (LD) and moderate drought (MD), and the same rehydration after drought are set, as well as the normal water supply for control in shed (CS). The drought experiment was conducted in the jointing-tasseling stage in 2021. The effects of different drought stress on the water content and biomass allocation of each component organ were analyzed. The results showed that (1) during the drought period, the water content of each component organ of summer maize decreased in general, but the Water content distribution ratio (WCDR) of the root increased by 1.83%-2.35%. The WCDR of stem increased by 0.52%-1.40%. (2) Under different drought treatments, the root biomass (RB) increased 33.94% similar to 46.09%, and fruit biomass (FB) increased 1.46% similar to 2.49%, the leaf biomass (LB) decreased by 8.2% and 1.46% respectively under LD and MD. (3) The allometric growth model constructed under sufficient water is not suitable for drought stress; the allometric exponent alpha under drought stress is lower than that of the CS: CS (alpha=1.175) > MD (alpha = 1.136) > LD (alpha = 1.048), which also indicates that the impact of existing climate change on grain yield may be underestimated. This study is helpful to understand the adaptive strategies of the coordinated growth of maize component organs under drought stress and provide a reference for the prediction of grain yield under climate change.
引用
收藏
页数:14
相关论文
共 58 条
[1]   Arbuscular Mycorrhiza Symbiosis Enhances Water Status and Soil-Plant Hydraulic Conductance Under Drought [J].
Abdalla, Mohanned ;
Ahmed, Mutez Ali .
FRONTIERS IN PLANT SCIENCE, 2021, 12
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2006, GBT204812006
[3]  
Boutraa T., 2010, Research Journal of Agriculture and Biological Sciences, V6, P20
[4]  
David O. A., 2018, Vegetos, V31, P82, DOI 10.5958/2229-4473.2018.00098.8
[5]   The effect of plant growth promoting bacteria on growth and nutrient uptake of maize in two different soils [J].
Egamberdiyeva, Dilfuza .
APPLIED SOIL ECOLOGY, 2007, 36 (2-3) :184-189
[6]   Improving production and fruit quality of tomato under abiotic stress: Genes for the future of tomato breeding for a sustainable agriculture [J].
Egea, Isabel ;
Estrada, Yanira ;
Flores, Francisco B. ;
Bolarin, Maria C. .
ENVIRONMENTAL AND EXPERIMENTAL BOTANY, 2022, 204
[7]   Global allocation rules for patterns of biomass partitioning in seed plants [J].
Enquist, BJ ;
Niklas, KJ .
SCIENCE, 2002, 295 (5559) :1517-1520
[8]   施氮对干旱胁迫下毛竹幼苗生物量和根系形态的影响 [J].
高歌 ;
李正才 ;
葛晓改 ;
黄润霞 ;
李爱博 .
生态学杂志, 2022, 41 (05) :858-864
[9]  
Garbin Mário L., 2008, Braz. J. Plant Physiol., V20, P295, DOI 10.1590/S1677-04202008000400005
[10]   Interspecific differences in root architecture among maize and triticale genotypes grown under drought, waterlogging and soil compaction [J].
Grzesiak, Maciej T. ;
Ostrowska, Agnieszka ;
Hura, Katarzyna ;
Rut, Grzegorz ;
Janowiak, Franciszek ;
Rzepka, Andrzej ;
Hura, Tomasz ;
Grzesiak, Stanisaw .
ACTA PHYSIOLOGIAE PLANTARUM, 2014, 36 (12) :3249-3261