旱作水稻在水分胁迫下的光合生理响应与优化灌溉策略

doi:10.16819/j.1001-7216.2026.250304

中国水稻科学 ›› 2026, Vol. 40 ›› Issue (3): 360-374.DOI: 10.16819/j.1001-7216.2026.250304

旱作水稻在水分胁迫下的光合生理响应与优化灌溉策略

杨青青¹, 何进宇¹^,²^,³^,^*(), 杨海林¹, 李欣欣¹, 温鑫雨¹, 鲍宪远¹, 张登毓¹, 杨佳鹤¹, 崔烜玮¹

¹ 宁夏大学土木与水利工程学院，银川 750021
² 旱区现代农业水资源高效利用教育部工程研究中心/宁夏回族自治区黄河水联网数字治水重点实验室/宁夏水利科学研究院，银川 750021
³ 中国水利水电科学研究院，北京 100038

收稿日期:2025-03-05 修回日期:2025-04-16 出版日期:2026-05-10 发布日期:2026-05-13
通讯作者: *email: hejinyy2017@163.com
基金资助:
国家重点研发计划资助项目(2021YFD1900601-02-04);宁夏重点研发项目（引才专项）(2018BEB04013);宁夏自然科学基金资助项目(2022AAC03091);宁夏高等学校一流学科建设项目(NXYLXK2021A03);宁夏留学回国人员创新创业项目

Photosynthetic Physiological Response and Optimized Irrigation Strategy of Dryland Rice Under Water Stress

YANG Qingqing¹, HE Jinyu¹^,²^,³^,^*(), YANG Hailin¹, LI Xinxin¹, WEN Xinyu¹, BAO Xianyuan¹, ZHANG Dengyu¹, YANG Jiahe¹, CUI Xuanwei¹

¹ School of Civil and Hydraulic Engineering, Ningxia University, Yinchuan 750021, China
² Engineering Research Center for Efficient Utilization of Modern Agricultural Water Resources in Arid Areas, Ministry of Education/Key Laboratory of the Internet of Water and Digital Water Governance of the Yellow River/Ningxia Academy of Water Sciences, Yinchuan 750021, China
³ China Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower Research, Beijing 100038, China

Received:2025-03-05 Revised:2025-04-16 Online:2026-05-10 Published:2026-05-13

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

【目的】在西北干旱地区水资源短缺与光照资源丰富的特殊地缘条件下，为解决如何提高资源综合利用的问题，探讨农田土壤水分与作物光合作用间的关系，旨在形成土壤水分-光照互补机制，从而促进资源的可持续利用。【方法】于2019−2021年，分别在宁夏引黄灌区3个典型试验点开展水稻大田试验。以传统充分灌溉为对照(CK)，设置不同水分水平的滴灌处理，分析不同程度水分胁迫对水稻关键生育阶段光合作用、关键生长指标及产量构成的影响。【结果】水分胁迫降低水稻光合速率和蒸腾速率，并对产量构成产生负面影响，但能提高水分利用效率。其中，净光合速率最大值出现在孕穗期，水分胁迫处理较CK显著下降4.5%~26.6%；最小值出现在乳熟期，水分胁迫较CK显著下降4.2%~46.9%。蒸腾速率最大值在孕穗期，水分胁迫处理较CK显著下降2.2%~16.8%；蒸腾速率最小值在苗期，水分胁迫处理较CK显著下降7.5%~40.7%，水分胁迫处理水稻株高、秸秆高度、秸秆干质量、饱籽率、千粒重、产量较CK分别下降2.2%~24.3%、0.3%~12.6%、0.8%~11.6%、0.5%~7.9%、0.3%~9.2%、2.3%~71.5%。但耗水量下降33%~46%，轻度胁迫产量水平上的水分利用效率比CK提高1.9%~21.5%，单叶水平水分利用效率较CK下降2.1%~6.8%。说明轻度水分胁迫能够在降低水分消耗的同时维持较高产量，有助于提高水资源的利用率。利用TOPSIS模型引入信息量权重法和熵权法对不同水分胁迫处理进行评价，发现水分下限占田间持水量的90%~100%可以实现产量、品质和水分利用效率的最优化。【结论】在干旱和半干旱地区，应进一步推广精准调控的非充分灌溉策略，以充分挖掘水稻的抗旱潜力。这是节水型农业的有效手段，减少水资源消耗，同时维持稳定的粮食生产。

关键词: 旱作水稻, 水分胁迫, 光合作用, 生理特性, TOPSIS模型

Abstract:

【Objective】Given the challenges of water scarcity and abundant light resources in the arid northwest region, this study aims to investigate the relationship between farmland soil moisture and crop photosynthesis to improve comprehensive resource utilization. The goal is to establish a complementary soil moisture-light mechanism, thereby promoting sustainable resource utilization.【Method】From 2019 to 2021, field experiments were conducted at three typical experimental sites in the Yellow River irrigation area of Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region. Using traditional full irrigation as the control, different drip irrigation treatments with varying water levels were established to analyze the effects of different degrees of water stress on photosynthesis, key growth indicators, and yield components during critical growth stages of rice.【Results】Water stress reduced the photosynthetic rate and the transpiration rate of rice and negatively affected yield components, but improved water use efficiency. The maximum net photosynthetic rate occurred at the booting stage, during which that under water stress treatments decreased significantly by 4.5%-26.6% compared to CK. The minimum value appeared at the milk-ripe stage, with a significant decrease of 4.2%-46.9% under water stress compared to CK. The maximum transpiration rate was observed at the booting stage, decreasing by 2.2%-16.8% under water stress relative to CK. The minimum transpiration rate occurred at the seedling stage, decreasing by 7.5%-40.7% under water stress compared to CK. Under water stress, rice plant height, straw height, straw dry weight, filled grain rate, 1000-grain weight, and yield decreased by 2.2%-24.3%, 0.3%-12.6%, 0.8%-11.6%, 0.5%-7.9%, 0.3%-9.2%, and 2.3%-71.5%, respectively, compared to CK. However, water consumption decreased by 33%-46%. Under mild stress, water use efficiency at the yield level increased by 1.9%-21.5% compared to CK, while leaf-level water use efficiency decreased by 2.1%-6.8%. These results indicate that mild water stress can reduce water consumption while maintaining relatively high yield, thereby improving water resource utilization efficiency. Using the TOPSIS model combined with the information weight method and entropy weight method to evaluate different water stress treatments, it was found that maintaining the soil moisture lower limit at 90%-100% of field capacity can optimize yield, quality, and water use efficiency.【Conclusion】In arid and semi-arid regions, precisely regulated deficit irrigation strategies should be further promoted to maximize the drought resistance potential of rice. As an effective approach for water-saving agriculture, this can reduce water consumption while maintaining stable grain production.

Key words: dryland rice, water stress, photosynthesis, physiological characteristics, TOPSIS model

杨青青, 何进宇, 杨海林, 李欣欣, 温鑫雨, 鲍宪远, 张登毓, 杨佳鹤, 崔烜玮. 旱作水稻在水分胁迫下的光合生理响应与优化灌溉策略[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2026, 40(3): 360-374.

YANG Qingqing, HE Jinyu, YANG Hailin, LI Xinxin, WEN Xinyu, BAO Xianyuan, ZHANG Dengyu, YANG Jiahe, CUI Xuanwei. Photosynthetic Physiological Response and Optimized Irrigation Strategy of Dryland Rice Under Water Stress[J]. Chinese Journal OF Rice Science, 2026, 40(3): 360-374.

图/表 17

参考文献 34

[1]	郑洁, 胡美君, 郭延平. 光质对植物光合作用的调控及其机理[J]. 应用生态学报, 2008, 19(7): 1619-1624.
	Zheng J, Hu M J, Guo Y P. Regulation of photosynthesis by light and its mechanism in plants[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology quality, 2008, 19(7): 1619-1624. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[2]	Ma F J, Li D D, Cai J, Dong J, Dai T B. Responses of wheat seedlings root growth and leaf photosynthesis to drought stress[J]. The Journal of Applied Ecology, 23(3): 724-730.
[3]	Sun G, Meng Y, Wang Y, Zhao M, Wei S, Gu W. Exogenous hemin optimized maize leaf photosynthesis, root development, grain filling, and resource utilization on alleviating cadmium stress under field condition[J]. Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 2022, 22(1): 631-646.
[4]	朱士江, 孙爱华, 张忠学, 王忠波, 杜平. 不同节水灌溉模式对水稻分蘖、株高及产量的影响[J]. 节水灌溉, 2013(12): 16-19.
	Zhu S J, Sun A H, Zhang Z X, Wang Z B, Du P. Effects of Different Water-saving Irrigation Modes on Tillering, Plant Height and Yield of Rice[J]. Water Saving Irrigation, 2013, (12): 16-19. (in Chinese)
[5]	Rahman M S, Yoshida S. Effect of water stress on grain filling in rice[J]. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 1985, 31(4): 497-511.
[6]	侯丹平, 谭金松, 毕庆宇, 张安宁, 刘毅, 王飞名, 刘国兰, 余新桥, 毕俊国, 罗利军. 水分胁迫对节水抗旱稻产量形成和根系形态生理特性的影响[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2021, 35 (1): 27-37.
	Hou D P, Tan J S, Bi Q Y, Zhang A N, Liu Y, Wang F M, Liu G L, Yu X Q, Bi J G, Luo L J. Effects of water stress on yield formation and root morphological and physiological characteristics of water-saving and drought-resistant rice[J]. Chinese Journal of Rice Science, 2021, 35(1): 27-37. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[7]	何进宇, 田军仓, 马波, 沈晖. 膜下滴灌旱作水稻水分生产函数研究[J]. 西北农业学报, 2015, 24 (11): 41-48.
	He J Y, Tian J C, Ma B, Shen H. Study on the water production function of dryland rice under drip irrigation under film[J]. Acta Agriculturae Boreali-occidentalis Sinica, 2015, 24(11): 41-48. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[8]	杨晓龙, 王彪, 汪本福, 张枝盛, 张作林, 杨蓝天, 程建平, 李阳. 不同水分管理方式对旱直播水稻产量和稻米品质的影响[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2023, 37 (3): 285-294.
	Yang X L, Wang B, Wang B F, Zhang Z S, Zhang Z L, Yang L T, Cheng J P, Li Y. Effects of different water management methods on yield and grain quality of direct dry-seeded rice[J]. Chinese Journal of Rice Science, 2023, 37(3): 285-294. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[9]	George T, Magbanua R, Garrity D P, Tubaña B S, Quiton J. Rapid yield loss of rice cropped successively in aerobic soil[J]. Agronomy Journal, 2002, 94(5): 981-989.
[10]	Liu E K, Mei X R, Yan C R, Gong D Z, Zhang Y Q. Effects of water stress on photosynthetic characteristics, dry matter translocation and WUE in two winter wheat genotypes[J]. Agricultural Water Management, 2016, 167: 75-85.
[11]	鲁如坤. 土壤农业化学分析方法[M]. 北京: 中国农业科学技术出版社, 2000.
	Lu R K. Methods of soil agrochemical analysis[M]. Beijing: China Agricultural Science and Technology Press, 2000. (in Chinese)
[12]	Jiang M Y, Zhang J H. Abscisic acid and antioxidant defense in plant cells. Acta Botanica Sinica, 2004, 46(1): 1-9.
[13]	于靖, 徐淑琴, 高婷. 分蘖期不同程度水分胁迫对水稻需水规律及生长发育的影响[J]. 节水灌溉, 2012, (7):21-23.
	Yu J, Xu S Q, Gao T. Effects of different degrees of water stress during the tillering stage on the water requirement law and growth and development of rice[J]. Water Saving Irrigation, 2012, (7): 21-23. (in Chinese)
[14]	胡衍平, 刘卫东, 庞文胜, 张珉, 刘敏婕, 吴其军, 黄明军, 张雕, 李党仁. 水分胁迫对山乌桕幼苗生长及生理生化的影响[J]. 中南林业科技大学学报, 2023, 43 (8): 62-72.
	Hu Y P, Liu W D, Pang W S, Zhang M, Liu M J, Wu Q J, Huang M J, Zhang D, Li D R. Effects of water stress on the growth and physiological and biochemical characteristics of sapium discolor seedlings[J]. Journal of Central South University of Forestry & Technology, 2023, 43(8): 62-72. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[15]	He J, Ma B, Tian J. Water production function and optimal irrigation schedule for rice (Oryza sativa L.) cultivation with drip irrigation under plastic film-mulched[J]. Scientific Reports, 2022, 12(1): 17243.
[16]	孙彩霞, 郝健均, 王杰, 缪璐, 陈振华, 齐华. 两个品种转基因抗虫棉光合生理的CO₂响应[J]. 生态学报, 2010, 30 (2): 504-510.
	Sun C X, Hao J J, Wang J, Miao L, Chen Z H, Qi H. CO₂ responses of photosynthetic physiology in two varieties of transgenic insect-resistant cotton[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2010, 30(2): 504-510. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[17]	徐玉坤, 薛龙飞. 不同施肥模式对马铃薯光合特性及产量品质的影响[J]. 中国农业大学学报, 2022, 27(6): 83-90.
	Xu Y K, Xue L F. Effects of different fertilization modes on photosynthetic characteristics, yield and quality of potato[J]. Journal of China Agricultural University, 2022, 27 (6): 83-90. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[18]	潘念, 苏旺, 周云, 王舰. 土壤水分胁迫对马铃薯生长发育光合特性和产量的影响[J]. 河北农业科学, 2022, 26 (1): 70-75+94.
	Pan N, Su W, Zhou Y, Wang J. Effects of soil water stress on the growth, photosynthetic characteristics and yield of potato[J]. Journal of Hebei Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 26(1): 70-75+94. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[19]	王婷, 海梅荣, 罗海琴, 郭华春, 达布希拉图. 水分胁迫对马铃薯光合生理特性和产量的影响[J]. 云南农业大学学报: 自然科学版, 2010, 25 (5): 737-742.
	Wang T, Hai M R, Luo H Q, Guo H C, Dabusihilatu. Effects of Water Stress on Photosynthetic Physiological Characteristics and Yield of Potato[J]. Journal of Yunnan Agricultural University: Natural Science, 2010, 25(5): 737-742. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[20]	夏江宝, 张光灿, 刘刚, 韩炜, 陈建, 刘霞. 不同土壤水分条件下紫藤叶片生理参数的光响应[J]. 应用生态学报, 2007(1): 30-34.
	Xia J B, Zhang G C, Liu G, Han W, Chen J, Liu X. Light response of physiological parameters of wisteria sinensis leaves under different soil moisture conditions[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2007(1): 30-34. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[21]	Tan Y, Liang Z S, Dong J E, Hao H Y, Ye Q. Effect of water stress on growth and accumulation of active components of Isatis indigotica[J]. China Journal of Chinese Materia Medica, 2008, 33(1): 19-22.
[22]	Qi Y, Zhang Q, Hu S, Wang R, Wang H, Zhang K, Zhao H, Zhao F, Chen F, Yang Y, Tang G, Hu Y. Applicability of stomatal conductance models comparison for persistent water stress processes of spring maize in water resources limited environmental zone[J]. Agricultural Water Management, 2023, 277: 108090.
[23]	刘溢健, 任建宏, 殷俐娜, 邓西平, 可庆波, 王仕稳. 马铃薯块茎膨大期不同程度干旱后复水的源库补偿效应[J]. 应用生态学报, 2019, 30 (11): 3777-3786.
	Liu Y J, Ren J H, Yin L N, Deng X P, Ke Q B, Wang S W. Source-sink compensation effect of rewatering after different degrees of drought during potato tuber expansion[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2019, 30 (11): 3777-3786. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[24]	刘素军, 蒙美莲, 苏日古嘎. 干旱胁迫及复水对马铃薯糖代谢途径中基因表达影响的研究[J]. 作物杂志, 2023 (1): 38-45.
	Liu S J, Meng M L, Suriguga. Study on the Effects of Drought stress and rewatering on the gene expression in the sugar metabolism pathway of potato[J]. Crops, 2023, (1): 38-45. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[25]	Li J, Zhou C, Liang Z, Miao Q. Effect of water stress in partial root zone on response of photosynthesis of Aconitum barbatum[J]. China Journal of Chinese Materia Medica, 2012, 37(9): 1184-1190.
[26]	何进宇, 刘飞杨, 杨佳鹤, 崔烜玮. 干旱地区水盐胁迫对水稻产量构成及稻谷品质的影响研究[J]. 节水灌溉, 2024(1): 33-43.
	He J Y, Liu F Y, Yang J H, Cui X W. Study on the Effects of water and salt stress on the yield components and grain quality of rice in arid regions[J]. Water Saving Irrigation, 2024 (1): 33-43. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[27]	雷俊, 蔡迪花, 齐月, 赵福年, 张凯, 姚玉璧, 张新刚, 仇喜红. 水分胁迫对半干旱区马铃薯产量形成的影响研究[J]. 干旱气象, 2023, 41 (2): 233-240.
	Lei J, Cai D H, Qi Y, Zhao F N, Zhang K, Yao Y B, Zhang X G, Qiu X H. Study on the influence of water stress on the yield formation of potato in semi - arid areas[J]. Journal of Arid Meteorology, 2023, 41(2): 233-240. (in Chinese)
[28]	Pandey V, Shukla A. Acclimation and tolerance strategies of rice under drought stress[J]. Rice Science, 2015, 22(4):147-161.
[29]	Bunnag S, Pongthai P. Selection of rice (Oryza sativa L.) cultivars tolerant to drought stress at the vegetative stage under field conditions[J]. American Journal of Plant Sciences, 2013, 4(9): 1701-1708.
[30]	段素梅, 杨安中, 黄义德. 分蘖期水分胁迫处理时间对水稻产量和生理指标的影响[J]. 中国稻米, 2017, 23(1): 36-42.
	Duan S M, Yang A Z, Huang Y D. Effects of drought treatment time at tillering stage on rice yield and physiological indexes[J]. China Rice, 2017, 23 (1): 36-42. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[31]	Zhao W, Liu L, Shen Q, Yang J, Han X, Tian F, Wu J. Effects of water stress on photosynthesis, yield, and water use efficiency in winter wheat[J]. Water, 2020, 12(8): 2127.
[32]	董梅, 秦景, 贺康宁, 张益源, 李安超, 孙晓涵, 郭倩倩. 银水牛果和沙棘幼苗在不同土壤水分条件下的光响应研究[J]. 水土保持通报, 2011, 31 (1): 81-86.
	Dong M, Qin J, He K N, Zhang Y Y, Li A C, Sun X H, Guo Q Q. Study on the light response of shepherdia argentea and hippophae rhamnoides seedlings under different soil moisture conditions[J]. Bulletin of Soil and Water Conservation, 2011, 31(1): 81-86. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[33]	刘刚, 张光灿, 刘霞. 土壤水分胁迫胁迫对黄栌叶片光合作用的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2010, 21(7): 1697-1701.
	Liu G, Zhang G C, Liu X. Effects of soil water stress on photosynthesis of cotinus coggygria leaves[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2010, 21(7): 1697-1701. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[34]	薛子钰, 张芮, 孙丽娜, 邵显显, 赵霞, 张梅花. 覆膜和水分胁迫对春玉米生长、水分利用效率及土壤养分的影响[J]. 甘肃农业大学学报, 2025(6): 183-196.
	Xue Z Y, Zhang R, Sun L N, Shao X X, Zhao X, Zhang M H. Effects of film-mulching and water stress on the growth, water use efficiency and soil nutrients of spring maize[J]. Journal of Gansu Agricultural University, 2025(6): 183-196. (in Chinese with English abstract)

试验点 Experimental sites	有机质含量 Organic matter content (g·kg^-1)	有效磷含量 Available phosphorus content(mg·kg^-1)	全盐量 Total salt content (g·kg^-1)	碱解氮含量 Alkali-hydrolysable nitrogen content (mg·kg^-1)	速效钾含量Available potassium content (mg·kg^-1)	田间持水量 Field capacity (%)	土壤容重 Bulk density of soil(g·cm^-3)	pH值 pH value
宁夏银川市洪广镇 Hongguang Town, Yinchuan City, Ningxia	12.6	9.3	0.092	53.0	114	25.2	1.51	8.48
宁夏银川市平吉堡 Pingjibao, Yinchuan City, Ningxia	12.2	9.8	0.098	55.0	111	25.7	1.49	8.43
宁夏银川市芦花镇 Luhua Town, Yinchuan City, Ningxia	12.4	9.5	0.095	51.0	109	25.4	1.53	8.41

试验点 Experimental sites	有机质含量 Organic matter content (g·kg^-1)	有效磷含量 Available phosphorus content(mg·kg^-1)	全盐量 Total salt content (g·kg^-1)	碱解氮含量 Alkali-hydrolysable nitrogen content (mg·kg^-1)	速效钾含量Available potassium content (mg·kg^-1)	田间持水量 Field capacity (%)	土壤容重 Bulk density of soil(g·cm^-3)	pH值 pH value
宁夏银川市洪广镇 Hongguang Town, Yinchuan City, Ningxia	12.6	9.3	0.092	53.0	114	25.2	1.51	8.48
宁夏银川市平吉堡 Pingjibao, Yinchuan City, Ningxia	12.2	9.8	0.098	55.0	111	25.7	1.49	8.43
宁夏银川市芦花镇 Luhua Town, Yinchuan City, Ningxia	12.4	9.5	0.095	51.0	109	25.4	1.53	8.41

处理 Treatment	2019-06-10	2019-06-30	2019-07-20	2019-08-10	2019-08-30	2019-09-20
CK	10.19±0.13 a	20.38±0.16 a	45.88±0.26 a	73.43±0.21 a	93.83±0.21 a	99.90±0.20 a
M1	10.13±0.13 a	19.35±0.15 b	44.83±0.21 b	71.33±0.21 b	87.72±0.20 b	93.80±0.20 b
M2	10.11±0.09 a	18.35±0.15 c	43.83±0.21 c	67.27±0.25 c	83.62±0.20 c	88.77±0.25 c
M3	10.15±0.10 a	17.35±0.15 d	40.77±0.15 d	63.22±0.20 d	77.52±0.20 d	84.62±0.20 d
M4	10.10±0.10 a	16.27±0.15 e	38.72±0.20 e	61.20±0.20 e	72.40±0.20 e	77.50±0.20 e
M5	10.13±0.08 a	16.27±0.15 e	36.70±0.20 f	58.12±0.20 f	65.22±0.20 f	72.40±0.20 f
F值 F value	0.288	361.452	934.034	2367.379	7975.176	7095.524
P值 P value	0.911	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
处理 Treatment	2020-06-14	2020-07-02	2020-07-14	2020-08-03	2020-08-13	2020-09-03
CK	32.67±0.19 b	49.05±0.18 a	69.25±0.20 a	78.38±0.21 a	81.12±0.16 a	98.42±0.16 a
M1	33.45±0.18 a	45.90±0.16 b	67.92±0.16 b	73.72±0.16 b	77.44±0.17 b	93.93±0.14 b
M2	32.85±0.19 b	45.08±0.21 c	61.82±0.16 c	64.07±0.21 c	69.03±0.17 c	86.52±0.16 c
M3	30.97±0.25 c	42.85±0.20 d	59.83±0.21 d	63.77±0.21 c	67.32±0.16 d	84.37±0.21 d
M4	30.22±0.16 d	40.12±0.16 e	57.92±0.16 e	60.37±0.21 d	65.62±0.16 e	80.17±0.21 e
M5	27.63±0.17 e	37.77±0.21 f	56.98±0.21 f	59.05±0.20 e	64.42±0.16 f	78.83±0.17 f
F值 F value	255.362	942.845	1531.445	3004.815	3382.897	1369.774
P值 P value	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
处理 Treatment	2021-06-20	2021-07-10	2021-07-30	2021-08-10	2021-08-20	2021-09-01
CK	35.55±0.18 a	46.73±0.17 a	60.98±0.21 a	81.28±0.21 a	90.48±0.21 a	96.57±0.21 a
M1	35.57±0.16 a	45.75±0.19 b	59.97±0.21 b	79.27±0.21 b	87.42±0.16 b	94.52±0.16 b
M2	35.53±0.17 a	43.73±0.17 c	56.92±0.16 c	76.22±0.16 c	85.42±0.16 c	93.52±0.16 c
M3	35.58±0.17 a	41.67±0.21 d	54.92±0.16 d	70.12±0.16 d	81.32±0.16 d	89.42±0.16 d
M4	33.53±0.17 b	39.63±0.17 e	51.82±0.16 e	66.03±0.17 e	76.23±0.17 e	83.33±0.17 e
M5	32.53±0.17 c	37.63±0.17 f	46.73±0.17 f	62.02±0.16 f	71.13±0.17 f	79.23±0.17 f
F值 F value	123.852	779.314	1736.832	3589.577	3466.298	3099.944
P值 P value	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001

处理 Treatment	2019-06-10	2019-06-30	2019-07-20	2019-08-10	2019-08-30	2019-09-20
CK	10.19±0.13 a	20.38±0.16 a	45.88±0.26 a	73.43±0.21 a	93.83±0.21 a	99.90±0.20 a
M1	10.13±0.13 a	19.35±0.15 b	44.83±0.21 b	71.33±0.21 b	87.72±0.20 b	93.80±0.20 b
M2	10.11±0.09 a	18.35±0.15 c	43.83±0.21 c	67.27±0.25 c	83.62±0.20 c	88.77±0.25 c
M3	10.15±0.10 a	17.35±0.15 d	40.77±0.15 d	63.22±0.20 d	77.52±0.20 d	84.62±0.20 d
M4	10.10±0.10 a	16.27±0.15 e	38.72±0.20 e	61.20±0.20 e	72.40±0.20 e	77.50±0.20 e
M5	10.13±0.08 a	16.27±0.15 e	36.70±0.20 f	58.12±0.20 f	65.22±0.20 f	72.40±0.20 f
F值 F value	0.288	361.452	934.034	2367.379	7975.176	7095.524
P值 P value	0.911	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
处理 Treatment	2020-06-14	2020-07-02	2020-07-14	2020-08-03	2020-08-13	2020-09-03
CK	32.67±0.19 b	49.05±0.18 a	69.25±0.20 a	78.38±0.21 a	81.12±0.16 a	98.42±0.16 a
M1	33.45±0.18 a	45.90±0.16 b	67.92±0.16 b	73.72±0.16 b	77.44±0.17 b	93.93±0.14 b
M2	32.85±0.19 b	45.08±0.21 c	61.82±0.16 c	64.07±0.21 c	69.03±0.17 c	86.52±0.16 c
M3	30.97±0.25 c	42.85±0.20 d	59.83±0.21 d	63.77±0.21 c	67.32±0.16 d	84.37±0.21 d
M4	30.22±0.16 d	40.12±0.16 e	57.92±0.16 e	60.37±0.21 d	65.62±0.16 e	80.17±0.21 e
M5	27.63±0.17 e	37.77±0.21 f	56.98±0.21 f	59.05±0.20 e	64.42±0.16 f	78.83±0.17 f
F值 F value	255.362	942.845	1531.445	3004.815	3382.897	1369.774
P值 P value	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
处理 Treatment	2021-06-20	2021-07-10	2021-07-30	2021-08-10	2021-08-20	2021-09-01
CK	35.55±0.18 a	46.73±0.17 a	60.98±0.21 a	81.28±0.21 a	90.48±0.21 a	96.57±0.21 a
M1	35.57±0.16 a	45.75±0.19 b	59.97±0.21 b	79.27±0.21 b	87.42±0.16 b	94.52±0.16 b
M2	35.53±0.17 a	43.73±0.17 c	56.92±0.16 c	76.22±0.16 c	85.42±0.16 c	93.52±0.16 c
M3	35.58±0.17 a	41.67±0.21 d	54.92±0.16 d	70.12±0.16 d	81.32±0.16 d	89.42±0.16 d
M4	33.53±0.17 b	39.63±0.17 e	51.82±0.16 e	66.03±0.17 e	76.23±0.17 e	83.33±0.17 e
M5	32.53±0.17 c	37.63±0.17 f	46.73±0.17 f	62.02±0.16 f	71.13±0.17 f	79.23±0.17 f
F值 F value	123.852	779.314	1736.832	3589.577	3466.298	3099.944
P值 P value	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001

年份 Year	处理 Treatment	正理想解距离 Distance to positive ideal solution D⁺		负理想解距离 Distance to negative ideal solution D⁻		相对接近度 Relative closeness C		排序结果 Ranking results
年份 Year	处理 Treatment	信息量法 Information value method	熵权法 Entropy weight method	信息量法Information value method	熵权法 Entropy weight method	信息量法Information value method	熵权法Entropy weight method	信息量法Information value method	熵权法Entropy weight method
2019	CK	16.512	11.715	34.682	29.094	0.677	0.713	2	1
	M1	13.753	11.275	29.680	23.796	0.683	0.679	1	2
	M2	14.551	14.861	25.178	17.736	0.634	0.544	3	3
	M3	20.539	22.017	19.910	11.667	0.492	0.346	4	4
	M4	26.457	25.053	16.157	10.644	0.379	0.298	5	5
	M5	34.682	29.094	16.512	11.715	0.323	0.287	6	6
2020	CK	17.267	10.776	31.231	27.662	0.644	0.720	2	1
	M1	14.456	10.430	26.256	23.832	0.645	0.696	1	2
	M2	19.970	20.029	17.622	14.655	0.469	0.423	3	3
	M3	24.260	24.157	13.984	9.492	0.366	0.282	4	4
	M4	29.423	27.942	13.675	8.273	0.317	0.228	6	6
	M5	31.435	28.415	17.072	9.692	0.352	0.254	5	5
2021	CK	18.316	12.330	36.564	28.635	0.666	0.699	3	1
	M1	13.406	12.682	34.764	24.014	0.722	0.654	1	2
	M2	12.494	12.866	32.043	20.744	0.719	0.617	2	3
	M3	15.068	21.574	28.985	13.286	0.658	0.381	4	4
	M4	26.490	24.905	19.615	11.974	0.425	0.325	5	5
	M5	37.792	27.894	18.163	12.713	0.325	0.313	6	6

旱作水稻在水分胁迫下的光合生理响应与优化灌溉策略

Photosynthetic Physiological Response and Optimized Irrigation Strategy of Dryland Rice Under Water Stress

RichHTML

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 17

参考文献 34

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

[1]	丁国华, 李鑫, 曹良子, 周劲松, 雷蕾, 白良明, 洛育, 杨光, 崔志波, 赵明辉, 孙世臣. 孕穗期低温对寒地不同水稻材料光合系统的影响研究[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2025, 39(5): 679-689.
[2]	叶苗, 毛雨欣, 张德海, 康钰莹, 袁榕, 张祖建. 高光效水稻品种的叶片和冠层生理生态特征及其氮素调控机制研究进展[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2024, 38(6): 617-626.
[3]	董立强, 杨铁鑫, 李睿, 商文奇, 马亮, 李跃东, 隋国民. 株行距配置对超高产田水稻产量及根系形态生理特性的影响[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2023, 37(4): 392-404.
[4]	吴龙龙, 虞轶俊, 田仓, 张露, 黄晶, 朱练峰, 朱春权, 孔亚丽, 张均华, 曹小闯, 金千瑜. 干湿交替灌溉下施氮模式对水稻光合产物和氮转运的影响[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2022, 36(3): 295-307.
[5]	苏庆旺, 苍柏峰, 白晨阳, 李韫哲, 宋泽, 李俊材, 吴美康, 魏晓双, 崔菁菁, 武志海. 施硅量对旱作水稻产量和干物质积累的影响[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2022, 36(1): 87-95.
[6]	王文霞, 陈丽明, 王海霞, 刘有清, 吴自明, 曾勇军, 谭雪明, 潘晓华, 石庆华, 曾研华. 淹水缓解直播早籼稻苗期低温冷害的生理特性研究[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2021, 35(2): 166-176.
[7]	杨晓龙, 程建平, 汪本福, 李阳, 张枝盛, 李进兰, 李萍. 灌浆期干旱胁迫对水稻生理性状和产量的影响[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2021, 35(1): 38-46.
[8]	张玉屏, 王军可, 王亚梁, 陈燕华, 朱德峰, 陈惠哲, 向镜, 张义凯, 刘小军, 朱艳, 曹卫星. 水稻淀粉合成对夜温变化的响应[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2020, 34(6): 525-538.
[9]	李可, 禹晴, 徐云姬, 杨建昌. 水稻叶片早衰突变体的农艺与生理性状研究进展[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2020, 34(2): 104-114.
[10]	廖莎, 谭雪明, 李木英, 胡凯, 潘晓华, 石庆华. 芸薹素内酯对稻草基质育秧水稻秧苗生理特性及栽后生长的影响[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2020, 34(2): 181-190.
[11]	陈苏, 谢建坤, 黄文新, 陈登云, 彭晓剑, 付学琴. 根际促生细菌对干旱胁迫下水稻生理特性的影响[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2018, 32(5): 485-492.
[12]	朱宽宇1 展明飞1 陈静1 王志琴1 杨建昌1 赵步洪2,*. 不同氮肥水平下结实期灌溉方式对水稻弱势粒灌浆及产量的影响[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2018, 32(2): 155-168.
[13]	朱宽宇, 展明飞, 陈静, 王志琴, 杨建昌, 赵步洪. 不同氮肥水平下结实期灌溉方式对水稻弱势粒灌浆及产量的影响[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2018, 1(1): 155-168.
[14]	施勇烽, 贺彦, 郭丹, 吕向光, 黄奇娜, 吴建利. 水稻淡绿叶突变体HM133的遗传分析与基因定位[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2016, 30(6): 603-610.
[15]	李应洪, 王海月, 严奉君, 李娜, 孙永健, 代邹, 谢华英, 马均. 剪根处理对不同秧龄杂交稻幼苗生长及生理特性的影响[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2016, 30(6): 626-636.