不同种植模式对水稻籽粒淀粉含量及淀粉关键酶活性的影响

doi:10.16819/j.1001-7216.2024.230908

中国水稻科学 ›› 2024, Vol. 38 ›› Issue (3): 303-315.DOI: 10.16819/j.1001-7216.2024.230908

不同种植模式对水稻籽粒淀粉含量及淀粉关键酶活性的影响

周甜¹, 吴少华¹, 康建宏¹^,^*(), 吴宏亮¹, 杨生龙²^,^*(), 王星强¹, 李昱³, 黄玉峰⁴

1.宁夏大学农学院, 银川 750021
2.宁夏农林科学院农作物研究所, 银川 750021
3.宁夏中卫市农业技术推广与培训中心, 宁夏中卫 755000
4.宁夏回族自治区原种场, 宁夏贺兰 750200

收稿日期:2023-09-18 修回日期:2024-02-01 出版日期:2024-05-10 发布日期:2024-05-13
通讯作者: *email: kangjianhong@163.com; shlyangnx@163.com
基金资助:
宁夏农林科学院科技创新引导项目(NKYJ-20-06);宁夏农林科学院对外合作项目(DW-X-2018001);宁夏回族自治区水稻育种专项(2018NYYZ03002);2020年宁夏回族自治区青年拔尖人才培养工程资助项目

Effects of Planting Patterns on Starch Content and Activities of Key Starch Enzymes in Rice Grains

ZHOU Tian¹, WU Shaohua¹, KANG Jianhong¹^,^*(), WU Hongliang¹, YANG Shenglong²^,^*(), WANG Xingqiang¹, LI Yu³, HUANG Yufeng⁴

1. College of Agriculture, Ningxia University, Yinchuan 750021, China
2. Ningxia Academy of Agriculture and Forestry Research Institute, Yinchuan 750021, China
3. Ningxia Zhongwei Agricultural Technology Popularization and Training Center, Zhongwei 755000, China
4. Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region Original Seed Farm, Helan 750200, China

Received:2023-09-18 Revised:2024-02-01 Online:2024-05-10 Published:2024-05-13
Contact: *email: kangjianhong@163.com; shlyangnx@163.com

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

【目的】研究不同种植方式对水稻籽粒淀粉形成及关键酶活性的影响，为宁夏水稻直播栽培技术提供参考。【方法】2020－2021年在宁夏回族自治区原种场，选取富源四号(FY4)、宁粳28号(NJ28)、宁粳43号(NJ43)和宁粳50号(NJ50)为试验材料，设置保墒旱直播(Z1)、旱播后上水(Z2)以及插秧(Z3)三种种植方式，采用裂区设计，研究不同种植方式对水稻产量、淀粉含量及关键酶活性的影响。【结果】不同种植方式下，直播稻具有更高的直链淀粉和总淀粉含量，插秧稻具有更高的支链淀粉含量，总淀粉含量表现为Z2>Z1>Z3，支链淀粉含量表现为Z3>Z2>Z1。2021年Z1种植方式下 NJ28直链淀粉含量最高达到21.90%，Z3种植方式下 NJ28支链淀粉含量最高达到51.64%。籽粒淀粉合成积累主要与淀粉合成关键酶活性有关，与Z3相比，Z1和Z2显著降低了AGP和GBSS活性；插秧显著提高了FY4和NJ43的UGP和SBE活性，直播显著提高了NJ28和NJ50的UGP和SBE活性；不同种植方式下，Z1对SSS活性的提高更显著。在Z3种植方式下，NJ43的AGP活性最大值为28.53 U/(g·min)，较Z2和Z1提高了4.1%和8.4%，NJ28的GBSS活性最大值为10.36 U/(g·min)，较Z2和Z1处理提高了11.2%和13.5%。在Z1种植方式下，NJ50的SSS活性最大值为20.05 U/(g·min)。与插秧稻相比，直播稻千粒重和结实率显著高于插秧稻，但直播稻穗长和穗粒数显著降低，使得插秧稻产量均显著高于直播稻。2020年Z3种植方式下NJ50 产量高达898 kg/666.7m²，较Z1和Z2高了30.7%和39.4%。【结论】与插秧种植相比直播方式下水稻产量降低，但直播处理显著提高千粒重以及结实率，同时直播方式可以提高水稻籽粒淀粉形成关键酶的活性，增加直链淀粉含量，使得水稻籽粒总淀粉含量增加。

关键词: 水稻, 直播, 淀粉, 淀粉合成关键酶, 产量

Abstract:

【Objective】 The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of different planting methods on starch formation and key enzyme activities in rice grains, aiming to provide insights for improving direct seeding techniques for rice cultivation in Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region.【Methods】 The experiment was conducted at the original seed farm of Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region from 2020 to 2021. Fuyuan 4 (FY4), Ningjing 28 (NJ28), Ningjing 43 (NJ43), and Ningjing 50 (NJ50) were selected as experimental materials. Soil moisture conservation, dry direct seeding (Z1), watering after sowing (Z2), and transplanting (Z3) were chosen as planting methods. A split-zone design was employed to study the effects of planting methods on rice yield, starch content, and key enzyme activities.【Results】 Under different planting methods, direct-seeded rice exhibited higher amylose content and total starch content, while transplanted rice showed higher amylopectin content. The total starch content followed the order: Z2 > Z1 > Z3, while the amylopectin content followed the order: Z3 > Z2 > Z1. In 2021, the highest amylose content of NJ28 under Z1 planting mode was 21.90%, while the highest amylopectin content of NJ28 under Z3 planting mode was 51.64%. Starch synthesis and accumulation in grains are primarily influenced by the activity of key enzymes in starch synthesis. Compared to Z3, Z1 and Z2 significantly reduced the activities of AGP and GBSS. Transplanting notably increased UGP and SBE activities of FY4 and NJ43, while direct seeding increased UGP and SBE activities of NJ28 and NJ50. Additionally, under different planting methods, Z1 significantly increased the activity of SSS enzyme. Under Z3 planting mode, the maximum AGP activity of NJ43 was 28.53 U·g^-1·min^-1, which was 4.1% and 8.4% higher than that of Z2 and Z1, the maximum GBSS activity of NJ28 was 10.36 U·g^-1·min^-1, which was 11.2% and 13.5% higher than that of Z2 and Z1 treatment respectively. Similarly, under Z1 planting mode, the maximum SSS activity of NJ50 was 20.05 U·g^-1·min^-1. Moreover, compared to transplanted rice, the 1000-grain weight and seed setting rate of directly seeded rice were significantly higher, although the panicle length and grain number were lower. Consequently, the yield of transplanted rice was significantly higher than that of directly seeded rice. In 2020, the yield of NJ50 under Z3 planting mode reached 898 kg/666.7 m², which was 30.7% and 39.4% higher than that of Z1 and Z2, respectively.【Conclusion】 The findings indicate that while the yield of rice under direct seeding was lower compared to transplanting, the 1000-grain weight and seed setting rate were significantly increased by direct seeding. Additionally, direct seeding led to higher activity of key enzymes involved in starch formation and increased amylose content in rice grains, consequently enhancing the total starch content in rice grains.

Key words: rice, direct seeding, starch, key enzymes of starch synthesis, yield

周甜, 吴少华, 康建宏, 吴宏亮, 杨生龙, 王星强, 李昱, 黄玉峰. 不同种植模式对水稻籽粒淀粉含量及淀粉关键酶活性的影响[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2024, 38(3): 303-315.

ZHOU Tian, WU Shaohua, KANG Jianhong, WU Hongliang, YANG Shenglong, WANG Xingqiang, LI Yu, HUANG Yufeng. Effects of Planting Patterns on Starch Content and Activities of Key Starch Enzymes in Rice Grains[J]. Chinese Journal OF Rice Science, 2024, 38(3): 303-315.

图/表 12

参考文献 28

[1]	朱德峰, 张玉屏, 陈惠哲, 王亚梁. 中国水稻栽培技术发展与展望[J]. 中国稻米, 2021, 27(4): 45-49.
	Zhu D F, Zhang Y P, Chen H Z, Wang Y L. Development and prospect of rice cultivation techniques in China[J]. China Rice, 2021, 27(4): 45-49. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[2]	吴汉, 吴含, 钱娜, 柯健, 郭爽爽. 江淮地区不同灌溉与种植方式对水稻产量及水分利用效率的影响[J]. 灌溉排水学报, 2022, 41(6): 39-46.
	Wu H, Wu H, Qian N, Ke J, Guo S S. Effects of different irrigation and plantingpatterns on rice yield and water use efficiency in Jianghuai region[J]. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage, 2022, 41(6): 39-46. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[3]	Liu H, Hussain S, Zheng M, Peng S, Huang J, Cui K, Nie L. Dry direct-seeded rice as an alternative to transplanted-flooded rice in Central China[J]. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 2015, 35(1): 285-294.
[4]	张洪程, 胡雅杰, 杨建昌, 戴其根, 霍中洋, 许轲, 魏海燕, 高辉, 郭保卫, 邢志鹏, 胡群. 中国特色水稻栽培学发展与展望[J]. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54(7): 1301-1321.
	Zhang H C, Hu Y J, Yang J C, Dai Q G, Huo Z Y, Xu K, Wei H Y, Gao H, Guo B W, Xing Z P, Hu Q. Development and prospect of rice cultivation with Chinese characteristics[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2021, 54(7): 1301-1321. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[5]	轧宗杰, 卢树昌, 侯琨. 水稻旱直播栽培发展现状、问题及应用前景[J]. 作物杂志, 2020(2): 9-15.
	Gan Z J, Lu S C, Hou K. Development status, problems and application prospect of dry direct seeding cultivation of rice[J]. Crops, 2020, 36(2): 9-15. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[6]	唐荣莉, 唐兴隆, 张巫军, 段秀建, 李经勇, 姚雄. 丘陵山区单季中稻不同种植方式的经济与生态可持续性评估[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2023, 31(1): 90-101.
	Tang R L, Tang X L, Zhang W J, Duan X J, Li J Y, Yao X. Evaluation of economic and ecological sustainability of different planting patterns of single cropping medium rice in hilly and mountainous areas[J]. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2023, 31(1): 90-101. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[7]	匡炜, 魏征, 戴力, 赵杨, 梁玉刚, 罗先富, 张玉烛, 方宝华. 不同种植方式对双季稻生育期及产量的影响[J]. 华北农学报, 2022, 37(6): 142-149.
	Kuang W, Wei Z, Dai L, Zhao Y, Liang Y G, Luo X F, Zhang Y C, Fang B H. Effects of different planting patterns on growth period and yield of double cropping rice[J]. Acta Agriculturae Boreali-Sinica, 2022, 37(6): 142-149. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[8]	张晓丽, 陶伟, 高国庆, 陈雷, 郭辉, 张华, 唐茂艳, 梁天锋. 直播栽培对双季早稻生育期、抗倒伏能力及产量效益的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2023, 56(2): 249-263.
	Zhang X L, Tao W, Gao G Q, Chen L, Guo Hi, Zhang H, Tang M Y, Liang T F. Effects of direct seeding cultivation on growth period, lodging resistance and yield benefit of double cropping early rice[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2023, 56(2): 249-263. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[9]	孙永健, 郑洪帧, 徐徽, 杨志远, 贾现文, 程洪彪, 马均. 机械旱直播方式促进水稻生长发育提高产量[J]. 农业工程学报, 2014, 30(20): 10-18.
	Sun Y J, Zheng H F, Xu H, Jerry Y, Jia X W, Cheng H B, Ma J. Mechanical dry direct seeding promotes the growth and development of rice and increases its yield.[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2014, 30(20): 10-18. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[10]	Verma D K, Srivastav P P. Isolation, modification, and characterization of rice starch with emphasis on functional properties and industrial application: A review[J]. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 2022, 62(24): 6577-6604.
[11]	Gilbert R G, Witt T, Hasjim J. What is being learned about starch properties from multiple-level characterization[J]. Cereal Chemistry, 2013, 90(4): 312-325.
[12]	彭立功, 龚静, 兰艳, 王锦, 隋晓东, 丁春邦, 李天. 水分胁迫对宜香优2115籽粒淀粉合成及产量的影响[J]. 华北农学报, 2021, 36(5): 77-86.
	Peng L G, Gong J, Lan Y, Wang J, Sui X D, Ding C B, Li T. Effects of water stress on starch synthesis and yield of Yixiangyou 2115[J]. Acta Agriculturae Boreali-Sinica, 2021, 36(5): 77-86. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[13]	赵宏伟, 吕艳超, 许晶, 夏楠, 贾琰, 邹德堂. 施氮量对盐胁迫下寒地粳稻籽粒淀粉积累及相关酶活性的影响. 东北农业大学学报, 2015, 46(8): 1-8.
	Zhao H W, Lu Y C, Xu J, Xia N, Jia J, Zou D T. Effects of nitrogen application rate on grain starch accumulation and related enzyme activities of japonica rice under salt stress[J]. Journal of Northeast Agricultural University, 2015, 46(8): 1-8. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[14]	程方民, 蒋德安, 吴平, 石春海. 早籼稻籽粒灌浆过程中淀粉合成酶的变化及温度效应特征[J]. 作物学报, 2001(2): 201-206.
	Cheng F M, Jiang D, Wu P, Shi C H. Changes of starch synthase and characteristics of temperature effect during grain filling in early indica rice[J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2001(2): 201-206.
[15]	Doehlert D C, Kuo T M, Felker F C. Enzymes of sucrose and hexose metabolism in developing kernels of two inbreds of maize[J]. Plant Physiology (Bethesda), 1988, 86(4): 1013-1019.
[16]	Nakamura Y N I O, Yuki K, Park S Y, Ohya T. Carbohydrate metabolism in the developing endosperm of rice grains[J]. Plant Cell Physiology, 1989, 30(6): 833-839.
[17]	李太贵, 沈波, 陈能, 罗玉坤. Q酶在水稻籽粒垩白形成中作用的研究[J]. 作物学报, 1997(3): 338-344.
	Li T G, Shen B, Chen N, Luo Y K. Study on the role of Q enzyme in the formation of rice grain chalkiness[J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 1997, 23(3): 338-344. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[18]	雷振山, 李猛, 卫云飞, 季新, 刘娟, 王付娟, 刘秋员. 不同种植方式对豫南地区优质食味粳稻产量及品质的影响[J]. 河南农业科学, 2023, 52(2): 12-20.
	Lei Z S, Li M, Wei Y F, Ji X, Liu J, Wang F J, Liu Q J. Effects of different planting patterns on yield and quality of high-quality taste japonica rice in southern Henan[J]. Journal of Henan Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 52(2): 12-20. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[19]	胡雅杰, 薛建涛, 吴培, 李娈, 丛舒敏, 余恩唯, 倪嘉颢, 张洪程. 施氮量和直播密度对稻米食味品质和淀粉结构的影响[J]. 中国粮油学报, 2022, 37(2): 7-13.
	Hu Y J, Xue J T, Wu P, Li L, Cong S M, Yu E W, Ni J H, Zhang H C. Effects of nitrogen application rate and direct seeding density on eating quality and starch structure of rice[J]. Journal of the Chinese Cereals and Oils Association, 2022, 37(2): 7-13. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[20]	Wang W, Peng S, Liu H, Tao Y, Huang J, Cui K, Nie L. The possibility of replacing puddled transplanted flooded rice with dry seeded rice in central China: A review[J]. Field Crop Research, 2017, 214: 310-320.
[21]	刘东华. 干旱胁迫对稻谷品质性状及W_X基因表达的影响[D]. 武汉: 华中农业大学, 2014.
	Liu D H. Effects of drought stress on grain quality traits and Wendy X gene expression in rice[D]. Wuhan: Huazhong Agricultural University, 2014. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[22]	陈婷婷, 许更文, 钱希旸, 王志琴, 张耗, 杨建昌. 花后轻干-湿交替灌溉提高水稻籽粒淀粉合成相关基因的表达[J]. 中国农业科学, 2015, 48(7): 1288-1299.
	Chen T T, Xu G W, Qian X Y, Wang Z Q, Zhang H, Yang J C. Light dry-wet alternate irrigation after anthesis increased the expression of genes related to starch synthesis in rice grains[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2015, 48(7): 1288-1299. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[23]	王维, 蔡一霞, 蔡昆争, 张建华, 杨建昌, 朱庆森. 水分胁迫对贪青水稻籽粒充实及其淀粉合成关键酶活性的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2006(7): 972-979.
	Wang W, Cai Y X, Cai K Z, Zhang J H, Yang J C, Zhu Q S. Effects of Water stress on Grain filling and activities of key enzymes in starch synthesis of greedy green rice[J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2006(7): 972-979. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[24]	韩燕, 徐亚楠, 宋吉青, 柳斌辉, 韩伟, 斋藤信, 白文波. 轻度干热风条件下喷施复合寡糖提高冬小麦叶片生理活性和籽粒淀粉合成关键酶活性[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2022, 28(12): 2324-2333.
	Han Y, Xu Y N, Song J Q, Liu B H, Han W, Saito S, Bai W B. Spraying compound oligosaccharides under mild dry and hot air conditions increased the physiological activities of winter wheat leaves and the activities of key enzymes in grain starch synthesis. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Fertilizers, 2022, 28(12): 2324-2333. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[25]	王春雨, 余华清, 何艳, 郭长春, 张绍文, 杨志远, 马均. 播栽方式与施氮量对杂交籼稻氮肥利用特征及产量的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2017, 25(12): 1792-1801.
	Wang C Y, Yu H Q, He Y, Guo C C, Zhang S W, Yang Z Y, Ma J. Effects of sowing methods and nitrogen application rates on nitrogen utilization characteristics and yield of Indica Hybrid Rice[J]. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2017, 25(12): 1792-1801. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[26]	唐志强, 张丽颖, 何娜, 马作斌, 赵明珠, 王昌华, 郑文静, 银永安, 王辉. 机械旱直播对水稻生育进程、光合特性及产量的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2021(5): 87-94.
	Tang Z Q, Zhang L Y, He N, Ma Z B, Zhao M Z, Wang C H, Zheng W J, Yin Y A, Wang H. Effects of mechanical dry direct seeding on growth process, photosynthetic characteristics and yield of rice[J]. Crops, 2021, (5): 87-94. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[27]	徐令旗, 郭晓红, 张佳柠, 赵洋, 李晓蕾, 刘绍峰, 崔致远, 安懿亮, 吕艳东. 不同有机肥对旱直播水稻品质的影响[J]. 华北农学报, 2022, 37(1): 137-146.
	Xu L Q, Guo X H, Zhang J N, Zhao Y, Li X L, Liu S F, Cui Z Y, An Y L, Lü Y D. Effects of different organic fertilizers on the quality of dry direct seeding rice[J]. Acta Agriculturae Boreali-Sinica, 2022, 37 (1): 137-146. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[28]	徐令旗, 郭晓红, 兰宇辰, 崔致远, 张佳柠, 吕艳东. 不同有机肥对旱直播水稻干物质积累和产量的影响[J]. 华北农学报, 2021, 36(2): 188-195
	Xu L Q, Guo X H, Lan Y C, Cui Z Y, Zhang J N, Lu Y D. Effects of different organic fertilizers on dry matter accumulation and yield of dry direct seeding rice[J]. Acta Agriculturae Boreali-Sinica, 2021, 36(2): 188-195. (in Chinese with English abstract)

年份 Year	有机质 Organic matter(g/kg)	全氮 Total N(g/kg)	全磷 Total P(g/kg)	碱解氮 Alkeline N(mg/kg)	有效磷 Available P(mg/kg)	速效钾 Available K(mg/kg)	pH值 pH value
2020	21.8	0.73	0.87	52.82	21.62	165.28	8.42
2021	20.5	0.70	0.98	53.91	22.58	160.51	8.37

年份 Year	有机质 Organic matter(g/kg)	全氮 Total N(g/kg)	全磷 Total P(g/kg)	碱解氮 Alkeline N(mg/kg)	有效磷 Available P(mg/kg)	速效钾 Available K(mg/kg)	pH值 pH value
2020	21.8	0.73	0.87	52.82	21.62	165.28	8.42
2021	20.5	0.70	0.98	53.91	22.58	160.51	8.37

淀粉 Starch	处理 Treatment		a	b	k	R²	T_max (d)	V_max (mg·g⁻¹·d⁻¹)	P (d)
直链淀粉 Amylose	FY4	Z1	19.281	58.589	0.349	0.991	11.663	1.682	17.959
		Z2	19.473	60.270	0.362	0.988	11.323	1.762	17.392
		Z3	18.647	62.991	0.360	0.999	11.508	1.678	17.612
	NJ28	Z1	20.567	35.813	0.304	0.992	11.771	1.563	18.998
		Z2	19.686	63.800	0.376	0.984	11.053	1.850	16.896
		Z3	19.351	151.392	0.474	0.995	10.590	2.293	15.226
	NJ43	Z1	19.508	110.349	0.431	0.986	10.913	2.102	16.011
		Z2	19.580	93.890	0.385	0.984	11.798	1.885	17.505
		Z3	18.487	58.831	0.382	0.993	10.667	1.766	16.419
	NJ50	Z1	19.405	33.744	0.309	0.994	11.388	1.499	18.498
		Z2	20.138	69.300	0.392	0.997	10.812	1.974	16.418
		Z3	19.081	99.355	0.442	0.997	10.404	2.108	15.375
支链淀粉 Amylopectin	FY4	Z1	48.446	13.557	0.149	0.983	17.496	1.805	32.242
		Z2	48.867	13.600	0.148	0.986	17.636	1.808	32.482
		Z3	48.586	14.583	0.153	0.988	17.515	1.858	31.876
	NJ28	Z1	48.904	11.363	0.133	0.984	18.273	1.626	34.794
		Z2	48.251	11.170	0.136	0.981	17.744	1.641	33.900
		Z3	49.631	10.515	0.126	0.978	18.673	1.563	36.111
	NJ43	Z1	49.095	13.104	0.149	0.988	17.268	1.829	32.014
		Z2	48.175	13.414	0.157	0.984	16.537	1.891	30.532
		Z3	48.335	13.457	0.156	0.990	16.663	1.885	30.748
	NJ50	Z1	47.257	13.003	0.152	0.986	16.876	1.796	31.332
		Z2	47.700	11.823	0.143	0.979	17.273	1.705	32.638
		Z3	48.211	12.563	0.142	0.981	17.822	1.711	33.296
总淀粉 Total starch	FY4	Z1	66.844	16.092	0.184	0.985	15.100	3.075	27.041
		Z2	67.423	15.195	0.179	0.985	15.201	3.017	27.476
		Z3	65.970	17.278	0.190	0.989	14.997	3.134	26.561
	NJ28	Z1	68.074	13.013	0.167	0.982	15.365	2.842	28.522
		Z2	66.912	12.886	0.171	0.978	14.948	2.860	27.797
		Z3	66.476	13.017	0.175	0.976	14.664	2.908	27.220
	NJ43	Z1	68.097	14.407	0.180	0.986	14.821	3.064	27.027
		Z2	67.562	16.166	0.187	0.987	14.882	3.159	26.632
		Z3	66.240	14.337	0.184	0.989	14.472	3.047	26.413
	NJ50	Z1	65.880	14.527	0.183	0.986	14.623	3.014	26.630
		Z2	66.152	14.768	0.189	0.979	14.246	3.126	25.871
		Z3	65.444	14.938	0.188	0.978	14.382	3.076	26.070

淀粉 Starch	处理 Treatment		a	b	k	R²	T_max (d)	V_max (mg·g⁻¹·d⁻¹)	P (d)
直链淀粉 Amylose	FY4	Z1	19.281	58.589	0.349	0.991	11.663	1.682	17.959
		Z2	19.473	60.270	0.362	0.988	11.323	1.762	17.392
		Z3	18.647	62.991	0.360	0.999	11.508	1.678	17.612
	NJ28	Z1	20.567	35.813	0.304	0.992	11.771	1.563	18.998
		Z2	19.686	63.800	0.376	0.984	11.053	1.850	16.896
		Z3	19.351	151.392	0.474	0.995	10.590	2.293	15.226
	NJ43	Z1	19.508	110.349	0.431	0.986	10.913	2.102	16.011
		Z2	19.580	93.890	0.385	0.984	11.798	1.885	17.505
		Z3	18.487	58.831	0.382	0.993	10.667	1.766	16.419
	NJ50	Z1	19.405	33.744	0.309	0.994	11.388	1.499	18.498
		Z2	20.138	69.300	0.392	0.997	10.812	1.974	16.418
		Z3	19.081	99.355	0.442	0.997	10.404	2.108	15.375
支链淀粉 Amylopectin	FY4	Z1	48.446	13.557	0.149	0.983	17.496	1.805	32.242
		Z2	48.867	13.600	0.148	0.986	17.636	1.808	32.482
		Z3	48.586	14.583	0.153	0.988	17.515	1.858	31.876
	NJ28	Z1	48.904	11.363	0.133	0.984	18.273	1.626	34.794
		Z2	48.251	11.170	0.136	0.981	17.744	1.641	33.900
		Z3	49.631	10.515	0.126	0.978	18.673	1.563	36.111
	NJ43	Z1	49.095	13.104	0.149	0.988	17.268	1.829	32.014
		Z2	48.175	13.414	0.157	0.984	16.537	1.891	30.532
		Z3	48.335	13.457	0.156	0.990	16.663	1.885	30.748
	NJ50	Z1	47.257	13.003	0.152	0.986	16.876	1.796	31.332
		Z2	47.700	11.823	0.143	0.979	17.273	1.705	32.638
		Z3	48.211	12.563	0.142	0.981	17.822	1.711	33.296
总淀粉 Total starch	FY4	Z1	66.844	16.092	0.184	0.985	15.100	3.075	27.041
		Z2	67.423	15.195	0.179	0.985	15.201	3.017	27.476
		Z3	65.970	17.278	0.190	0.989	14.997	3.134	26.561
	NJ28	Z1	68.074	13.013	0.167	0.982	15.365	2.842	28.522
		Z2	66.912	12.886	0.171	0.978	14.948	2.860	27.797
		Z3	66.476	13.017	0.175	0.976	14.664	2.908	27.220
	NJ43	Z1	68.097	14.407	0.180	0.986	14.821	3.064	27.027
		Z2	67.562	16.166	0.187	0.987	14.882	3.159	26.632
		Z3	66.240	14.337	0.184	0.989	14.472	3.047	26.413
	NJ50	Z1	65.880	14.527	0.183	0.986	14.623	3.014	26.630
		Z2	66.152	14.768	0.189	0.979	14.246	3.126	25.871
		Z3	65.444	14.938	0.188	0.978	14.382	3.076	26.070

变量 Variable	作用因子 Effect of factors	相关系数 Correlation coefficient	直接通径系数 Direct path coefficients	间接通径系数 Indirect path coefficients
变量 Variable	作用因子 Effect of factors	相关系数 Correlation coefficient	直接通径系数 Direct path coefficients	合计 Total	AGP	UGP	SSS	GBSS	SBE
直连淀粉 Amylose	AGP	0.703	0.337	0.366		−0.015	0.054	0.239	0.088
	UDPG	0.118	0.191	−0.073	−0.008		0.040	−0.037	−0.068
	SSS	0.283	0.225	0.058	0.036	0.047		0.062	−0.086
	GBSS	0.939	0.489	0.450	0.347	−0.094	0.134		0.064
	SBE	0.355	0.545	−0.190	0.142	−0.193	−0.209	0.071
支链淀粉	AGP	0.011	0.010	0.001		0.000	0.000	0.001	0.000
Amylopectin	UDPG	0.132	0.214	−0.082	−0.009		0.045	−0.041	−0.076
	SSS	0.081	0.064	0.017	0.010	0.013		0.018	−0.025
	GBSS	0.248	0.129	0.119	0.091	−0.025	0.035		0.017
	SBE	0.458	0.702	−0.244	0.183	−0.249	−0.270	0.091
总淀粉 Total starch	AGP	0.498	0.239	0.259		−0.011	0.038	0.169	0.062
	UDPG	0.096	0.156	−0.060	−0.007		0.032	−0.030	−0.055
	SSS	0.082	0.065	0.017	0.010	0.014		0.018	−0.025
	GBSS	0.302	0.157	0.145	0.111	−0.030	0.043		0.020
	SBE	0.367	0.563	−0.196	0.146	−0.199	−0.216	0.073

不同种植模式对水稻籽粒淀粉含量及淀粉关键酶活性的影响

Effects of Planting Patterns on Starch Content and Activities of Key Starch Enzymes in Rice Grains

RichHTML

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 12

参考文献 28

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

年份 Year	处理 Treatment		穗长 Panicle length (cm)	穗粒数 Grain number per panicle	千粒重 1000-grain weight (g)	结实率 Seed setting rate (%)	产量 Yield (kg/666.7m²)
2020	FY4	Z1	16.51±0.59 b	96.50±23.50 b	26.29±1.19 a	93.65±6.56 a	655.40±154.50 c
		Z2	14.50±0.80 c	83.67±33.76 c	25.36±5.16 b	90.44±2.55 b	661.40±72.60 b
		Z3	19.67±3.07 a	159.00±44.40 a	24.23±1.34 c	72.19±12.28 c	808.80±60.40 a
	NJ28	Z1	18.40±2.00 a	99.14±14.86 c	28.06±7.25 a	88.90±0.28 b	699.30±107.40 b
		Z2	17.67±0.27 b	115.50±20.10 b	26.30±0.81 b	91.77±2.31 a	565.40±318.90 c
		Z3	17.13±0.13 b	122.38±8.62 a	25.70±0.50 c	86.31±2.69 c	890.10±132.60 a
	NJ43	Z1	15.00±0.30 c	94.00±12.60 c	25.38±0.47 a	87.59±2.14 b	546.40±20.00 b
		Z2	15.62±3.58 b	106.00±28.40 b	26.37±3.46 a	89.81±0.53 a	515.60±266.10 c
		Z3	17.00±0.25 a	145.80±5.27 a	26.20±2.11 a	80.66±6.43 c	738.80±97.50 a
	NJ50	Z1	15.71±3.49 c	97.86±13.74 c	29.56±0.75 a	93.43±1.88 a	622.20±225.20 b
		Z2	16.67±4.33 b	107.00±85.80 b	26.50±3.39 b	89.88±6.62 c	544.00±212.90 c
		Z3	19.75±0.25 a	155.50±16.90 a	26.30±2.09 b	92.60±2.30 b	898.00±138.20 a
2021	FY4	Z1	17.10±0.60 b	95.00±11.20 c	25.51±1.89 b	94.48±0.40 a	664.45±93.35 c
		Z2	17.89±0.41 ab	115.67±23.47 b	27.03±0.12 a	95.91±8.40 a	687.12±33.93 b
		Z3	19.69±2.39 a	107.89±22.09 a	24.76±0.45 c	86.74±6.53 b	821.10±73.10 a
	NJ28	Z1	19.77±0.27 a	113.23±23.37 b	28.52±0.99 a	92.17±4.03 a	740.42±11.62 b
		Z2	15.24±4.43 c	119.40±22.93 a	28.68±0.14 a	93.92±6.76 a	752.63±133.19 a
		Z3	17.47±2.03 b	103.94±27.46 c	27.60±0.60 a	92.64±3.68 a	636.07±161.31 c
	NJ43	Z1	16.43±1.87 b	104.39±25.41 c	28.08±1.23 a	85.94±3.15 b	635.63±111.84 b
		Z2	15.56±2.34 b	110.39±23.21 a	26.41±0.58 b	94.62±0.20 a	705.33±77.33 a
		Z3	19.60±0.20 a	109.43±7.57 b	26.60±0.31 b	82.87±11.06 c	620.88±46.42 c
	NJ50	Z1	17.84±1.56 b	98.35±24.65 c	29.87±1.94 a	94.66±4.91 b	701.67±115.88 c
		Z2	17.70±2.30 b	102.91±39.29 b	28.66±0.46 c	96.90±5.76 a	728.63±94.04 b
		Z3	19.40±1.80 a	110.04±55.76 a	29.27±0.36 b	91.67±0.31 c	738.93±26.27 a
品种 Variety(V)			NS	NS	**	NS	NS
种植方式Growing method(G)			**	NS	NS	**	NS
品种×种植方式V×G			NS	NS	NS	NS	NS

[1]	郭展, 张运波. 水稻对干旱胁迫的生理生化响应及分子调控研究进展 [J]. 中国水稻科学, 2024, 38(4): 335-349.
[2]	韦还和, 马唯一, 左博源, 汪璐璐, 朱旺, 耿孝宇, 张翔, 孟天瑶, 陈英龙, 高平磊, 许轲, 霍中洋, 戴其根. 盐、干旱及其复合胁迫对水稻产量和品质形成影响的研究进展 [J]. 中国水稻科学, 2024, 38(4): 350-363.
[3]	许丹洁, 林巧霞, 李正康, 庄小倩, 凌宇, 赖美玲, 陈晓婷, 鲁国东. OsOPR10正调控水稻对稻瘟病和白叶枯病的抗性 [J]. 中国水稻科学, 2024, 38(4): 364-374.
[4]	候小琴, 王莹, 余贝, 符卫蒙, 奉保华, 沈煜潮, 谢杭军, 王焕然, 许用强, 武志海, 王建军, 陶龙兴, 符冠富. 黄腐酸钾提高水稻秧苗耐盐性的作用途径分析 [J]. 中国水稻科学, 2024, 38(4): 409-421.
[5]	吕宙, 易秉怀, 陈平平, 周文新, 唐文帮, 易镇邪. 施氮量与移栽密度对小粒型杂交水稻产量形成的影响 [J]. 中国水稻科学, 2024, 38(4): 422-436.
[6]	胡继杰, 胡志华, 张均华, 曹小闯, 金千瑜, 章志远, 朱练峰. 根际饱和溶解氧对水稻分蘖期光合及生长特性的影响 [J]. 中国水稻科学, 2024, 38(4): 437-446.
[7]	吴玥, 梁铖玮, 赵辰妃, 孙健, 马殿荣. 直播稻田杂草稻灾害发生及生态型的演变特征 [J]. 中国水稻科学, 2024, 38(4): 447-455.
[8]	刘福祥, 甄浩洋, 彭焕, 郑刘春, 彭德良, 文艳华. 广东省水稻孢囊线虫病调查与鉴定 [J]. 中国水稻科学, 2024, 38(4): 456-462.
[9]	陈浩田, 秦缘, 钟笑涵, 林晨语, 秦竞航, 杨建昌, 张伟杨. 水稻根系和土壤性状与稻田甲烷排放关系的研究进展[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2024, 38(3): 233-245.
[10]	缪军, 冉金晖, 徐梦彬, 卜柳冰, 王平, 梁国华, 周勇. 过量表达异三聚体G蛋白γ亚基基因RGG2提高水稻抗旱性[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2024, 38(3): 246-255.
[11]	尹潇潇, 张芷菡, 颜绣莲, 廖蓉, 杨思葭, 郭岱铭, 樊晶, 赵志学, 王文明. 多个稻曲病菌效应因子的信号肽验证和表达分析[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2024, 38(3): 256-265.
[12]	朱裕敬, 桂金鑫, 龚成云, 罗新阳, 石居斌, 张海清, 贺记外. 全基因组关联分析定位水稻分蘖角度QTL[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2024, 38(3): 266-276.
[13]	赵艺婷, 谢可冉, 高逖, 崔克辉. 水稻分蘖期干旱锻炼对幼穗分化期高温下穗发育和产量形成的影响[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2024, 38(3): 277-289.
[14]	魏倩倩, 汪玉磊, 孔海民, 徐青山, 颜玉莲, 潘林, 迟春欣, 孔亚丽, 田文昊, 朱练峰, 曹小闯, 张均华, 朱春权. 信号分子硫化氢参与硫肥缓解铝对水稻生长抑制作用的机制[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2024, 38(3): 290-302.
[15]	肖正午, 方升亮, 曹威, 胡丽琴, 黎星, 解嘉鑫, 廖成静, 康玉灵, 胡玉萍, 张珂骞, 曹放波, 陈佳娜, 黄敏. 米粉质构特性与稻米理化性状的关系[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2024, 38(3): 316-323.