Effect of Canopy Temperature on Physiological Characteristic and Grain Quality at Filling Stage in Rice

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1001G7216.2015.05.007

Abstract

Abstract:

A field experiment was conducted to illuminate the daily variation of canopy temperature and its relationship with soil water content, physiological characteristics and grain quality with Liaojing 294 and Kaijing 1 as materials during filling stage at five gradient soil water contents.The results showed that: 1) The canopy temperature, lower than air temperature, was significantly positively correlated with air temperature. The gradient soil water stress led to a gradual increase in the canopy temperature and canopy-air temperature difference. That is to say, the canopy temperature and the absolute value of the canopy-air temperature difference increased as the soil water potential declined. 2) Under the same conditions, the canopy temperature of drought susceptive variety Liaojing 294 was lower than that of the drought resistant variety Kaijing 1. 3) The canopy-air temperature difference was significantly negatively correlated with filled grain number per panicle, 1000-grain weight, seed-setting rate, grain yield, percentage of head rice, protein content, amylase content, fatty acid content and taste value. But it was significantly positivel correlated with unfilled grain number, chalkiness degree, chalkiness rate and broken rice rate. 4) As the soil water potential decreased, the photosynthetic rate, stomatal conductance and transpiration rate decreased, and photosynthetic performance of the drought resistant Kaijing 1 was better. Correlation analysis showed that there was a significant or extremely significant negative correlation between the photosynthetic performance and the canopy-air temperature difference. 5)For Kaijing 1, the stomatal density was significantly greater than that of Liaojing 294, and the stomatal length and width were extremely significantly less than Liaojing 294. Comprehensive analysis showed that there was no significant impact on grain yield compare with control with canopy-air temperature differernce of 0.9 ℃ and 0.8 ℃ for Liaojing 294 and Kaijing 1, respectively. The critical water content could be used as a rice water-saving threshold at the filling stage (soil water potential treatment S₂, -0.02--0.03 MP).

Key words: rice, canopy temperature, soil water potential, photosynthetic character, stomata, yield, quality

摘要：

在大田环境下,以辽粳294、开粳1号为材料,在灌浆期设置5个水分梯度处理,研究了水稻冠层温度日变化特征及其与土壤水分状况、产量生理特性、稻米品质之间的关系。结果表明:1)冠层温度低于气温,但与其显著正相关。梯度水分处理导致冠层温度和冠气温度差逐级升高,即土壤水势降低,冠层温度升高,冠气温度差绝对值增大;2)相同环境条件下,抗旱性弱的品种辽粳294的冠层温度低于抗旱性强的品种开粳1号;3)水分胁迫下水稻冠气温度差与每穗实粒数、千粒重、结实率、产量、整精米率、蛋白质含量、直链淀粉、脂肪酸和食味值呈显著负相关,与秕粒数、垩白度、垩白粒、碎米率呈显著正相关;4)光合速率、气孔导度及蒸腾速率随土壤水势降低而下降,且抗旱性强的品种开粳1号的光合性能较强。相关性分析表明,两个品种冠气温度差与其光合性能显著或极显著负相关;5)开粳1号的气孔密度显著大于辽粳294,而气孔长度和气孔宽度极显著小于辽粳294。综合分析表明,在灌浆期辽粳294和开粳1号在土壤水势为-0.02~-0.03 MP时,平均冠气温度差分别维持在0.9℃和0.8℃时对产量影响不显著(达到水分临界水平),可作为水稻灌浆期的节水灌溉指标。

关键词: 水稻, 冠层温度, 土壤水势, 光合性能, 气孔, 产量, 品质

CLC Number:

Ji-ping GAO, Yang-hui SUI, Wen-zhong ZHANG, Chen YAO, Ming-chao GAO, Ming-hui ZHAO, Zheng-jin XU. Effect of Canopy Temperature on Physiological Characteristic and Grain Quality at Filling Stage in Rice[J]. Chinese Journal OF Rice Science, 2015, 29(5): 501-510.

高继平, 隋阳辉, 张文忠, 姚晨, 高明超. 水稻灌浆期冠层温度对植株生理性状及稻米品质的影响[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2015, 29(5): 501-510.

Figures/Tables 9

References 39

[1]	González-Dugo M P, Moran M S, Mateos L, et al. Canopy temperature variability as an indicator of crop water stress severity.Irrig Sci, 2006, 24: 233-240.
[2]	Mahn J R, Young A W, Payton P.Deficit irrigation in a production setting: Canopy temperature as an adjunct to ET estimates.Irrig Sci, 2012, 30: 127-137.
[3]	Tumer N C, O'Toole J C, Cruz R T, et al. Response of seven diverse rice cultivars to water deficits: Ⅰ.Stress development, canopy temperature, leaf rolling and growth.Fileld Crops Res, 1986, 13: 257-271.
[4]	Balota M, Payne W A, Evett S R, et al.Canopy temperature depression sampling to assess grain yield variation and genotypicdifferentiation in winter wheat.Crop Sci,2007, 47: 1518-1529.
[5]	Feng B L, Yu H, Hu Y G, et al.The physiological characteristics of the low canopy temperature wheat genotypes under simulated drought condition.Acta Physiol Plant, 2009, 31: 1229-1235.
[6]	张嵩午, 王长发. 小麦低温基因型的研究现状和未来发展. 中国农业科学, 2008, 41(9): 2573-2580.
[7]	Jackson R D, Idso S B, Reginato R J.Canopy temperature as a crop water stress indicator.Water Resce Res, 1981, 17: 1133-1138.
[8]	Idso S B, Jackson R D, Pinter P J J, et al. Normalizing the stress degree day for environmental variability.Agric Meteorol, 1981, 24: 45-55.
[9]	杨建昌, 王维, 王志琴, 等.水稻旱秧大田期需水特性与节水灌溉指标研究. 中国农业科学, 2000, 33(2): 34-42.
[10]	陶龙兴, 王熹, 黄效林, 等. 水稻灌浆期间土壤含水量对根系生理活性的影响. 中国农业科学, 2004, 37(11): 1616-1620.
[11]	蔡焕杰, 康绍忠. 棉花冠层温度的变化规律及其用于缺水诊断研究. 灌溉排水, 1997, 16(1): 1-5.
[12]	程旺大, 姚海根, 赵国平, 等. 冠层温度在作物水分状况探测中的应用. 中国农学通报, 2000, 16(5): 42-44.
[13]	梁银丽, 张成娥. 冠层温度-气温差与作物水分亏缺关系的研究. 生态农业研究, 2000, 8(1): 24-26.
[14]	袁国富, 罗毅, 孙晓敏, 等. 作物冠层表面温度诊断冬小麦水分胁迫的试验研究. 农业工程学报, 2002, 18(6): 13-17.
[15]	王纯枝, 宇振荣, 孙丹峰, 等. 夏玉米冠气温差及其影响因素探析. 土壤通报, 2006, 37(4): 651-657.
[16]	Patel N R, Mehta A N, Shekh A M.Canopy temperature and water stress quantification in rainfed pigeonpea.Agric Forest Meteorol, 2001, 109(3): 223-232.
[17]	张文忠, 韩亚东, 杜宏娟, 等. 水稻开花期冠层温度与土壤水分及产量结构的关系. 中国水稻科学, 2007, 21(1): 99-102.
[18]	韩亚东, 张文忠, 杨梅, 等. 孕穗期水稻叶温与水分状况关系的研究. 中国农学通报, 2006, 22(2): 214-216.
[19]	高继平, 韩亚东, 王晓通, 等. 水稻齐穗期冠层温度分异及其相关特性的研究. 沈阳农业大学学报, 2011, 42(4): 399-405.
[20]	陈佳, 张文忠, 赵晓彤, 等. 水稻灌浆期冠气温差与土壤水分及气象因子关系初探. 江苏农业科学, 2009(2): 284-285.
[21]	赵晓彤, 韩亚东, 高继平, 等. 水稻穗分化期不同土壤水势叶温及生理性状变化. 湖北农业科学, 2011, 50(1): 33-36.
[22]	高明超. 水稻冠层温度特性及基于冠层温度的水分胁迫指数研究. 沈阳: 沈阳农业大学, 2013.
[23]	刘云鹏, 申思, 潘余强, 等. 干旱胁迫下玉米叶-气温差与叶温差日变化特征及其品种差异. 中国农业大学学报, 2014, 19(5): 13-21.
[24]	刘婵, 范兴科. 基于冠层叶-气温差的温室土壤水分诊断. 干旱地区农业研究, 2012, 30(1): 90-93.
[25]	樊廷录, 宋尚有, 徐银萍, 等. 旱地冬小麦灌浆期冠层温度与产量和水分利用效率的关系. 生态学报, 2007, 27(11): 4491-4497.
[26]	彭致功, 杨培岭, 段爱旺, 等. 日光温室茄子冠气温差与环境因子之间的关系研究. 华中农学报, 2003, 18(4): 111-113.
[27]	冯佰利, 王长发, 苗芳, 等. 抗旱小麦的冷温特性研究. 西北农林科技大学学报: 自然科学版, 2002, 30(2): 6-10.
[28]	周春菊, 张嵩午, 王林权, 等. 施肥对小麦冠层温度的影响及其与生物学性状的关联. 生态学报, 2005, 25(1): 18-22.
[29]	刘亚, 丁俊强, 苏巴钱德, 等. 基于远红外热成像的叶温变化与玉米苗期耐旱性的研究. 中国农业科学, 2009, 42(6): 2192-2201.
[30]	胡单, 王长发. 大麦冠层温度及其与光合性能的关联. 西北农业学报, 2011, 20(2): 62-67.
[31]	赵刚, 樊廷录, 李尚中, 等. 不同品种冬小麦冠层温度与抗旱性和水分利用效率的关系研究. 农业现代化研究, 2010, 31(3): 334-337.
[32]	Liu Y, Subhash C, Yan J, et al.Maize leaf temperature responses to dought: Thermal imaging and quantitative traitloci(QTL)mapping.Environ Exp Bot, 2011, 71(2): 158-165.
[33]	李向阳, 朱云集, 郭天财. 不同小麦基因型灌浆期冠层和叶面温度与产量和品质关系的初步分析. 麦类作物学报, 2004, 24(2): 88-91.
[34]	董朋飞, 张绍芬, 刘天学, 等. 玉米灌浆期间气冠温差与产量的关系. 河南农业大学学报, 2007, 41(5): 487-491.
[35]	彭世彰, 徐俊增, 丁加丽, 等. 节水灌溉条件下水稻叶气温差变化规律与水分亏缺诊断试验研究. 水利学报, 2006, 37(12): 1503-1508.
[36]	张喜英, 裴冬, 陈素英. 用冠气温差指导冬小麦灌溉的指标研究. 中国生态农业学报, 2002, 10(2): 102-105.
[37]	刘凯, 张耗, 张慎凤, 等. 结实期土壤水分和灌溉方式对水稻产量与品质的影响及其生理原因. 作物学报, 2008, 34(2): 268-276.
[38]	董明辉, 谢裕林, 刘晓斌, 等. 结实期土壤水势对水稻籽粒品质及其粒间差异的影响. 中国生态农业学报, 2011, 19(2): 305-311.
[39]	郑桂萍, 李金峰, 钱永德, 等. 土壤水分对水稻产量与品质的影响. 作物学报, 2006, 32(8): 1261-1264.

品种与处理 Variety and treatment	时间 Time/(o’clock)									平均 Average	差值 Difference
品种与处理 Variety and treatment	8:00			9:00	10:00	11:00	12:00	13:00	14:00	15:00	16:00
辽粳294 Liaojing 294
对照CK	-5.0±1.6	-5.1±1.4	-5.1±1.5	-4.4±1.8	-5.0±2.4	-6.1±2.9	-2.9±1.2	-2.7±1.3	-1.0±0.7	-4.1±1.5	0.0
S₁	-4.0±1.7	-4.8±1.5	-4.8±1.3	-4.3±1.7	-4.6±2.6	-5.6±2.6	-2.9±1.3	-2.4±1.5	-0.9±0.6	-3.8±1.4	0.3
S2	-3.5±1.4	-3.9±1.5	-4.3±1.6	-3.7±1.6	-4.1±2.3	-4.2±2.8	-2.2±1.1	-2.3±1.1	-0.9±0.6	-3.2±1.1	0.9
S₃	-3.2±1.1	-3.5±1.3	-3.7±1.1	-3.3±1.2	-3.6±2.4	-3.6±2.7	-1.9±1.0	-2.1±1.0	-0.8±0.4	-2.9±1.0	1.2
S₄	-2.7±0.9	-3.3±1.1	-3.1±1.4	-2.5±1.0	-2.8±2.6	-3.0±2.5	-1.8±0.8	-1.6±0.7	-0.5±0.3	-2.4±0.9	1.7
开粳1号 Kaijing 1
对照CK	-6.3±1.2	-6.3±1.5	-4.9±1.4	-3.9±1.9	-6.6±2.3	-8.2±2.7	-5.5±1.7	-6.4±2.2	-5.0±1.5	-5.9±1.2	0.0
S₁	-5.8±1.5	-6.1±1.6	-4.7±1.3	-3.8±1.8	-6.5±2.1	-7.8±2.9	-5.3±1.8	-6.1±2.3	-4.7±1.3	-5.6±1.1	0.3
S₂	-5.3±1.5	-5.8±1.4	-4.2±1.3	-3.4±1.8	-6.1±2.3	-6.9±2.5	-5.0±1.5	-5.5±2.1	-4.1±1.5	-5.1±1.1	0.8
S₃	-5.1±1.2	-5.4±1.4	-3.6±1.5	-3.0±1.7	-5.6±1.9	-6.4±2.7	-4.8±1.5	-5.3±2.0	-3.9±1.4	-4.8±1.1	1.1
S₄	-4.6±1.3	-5.1±1.5	-3.0±1.6	-2.6±1.8	-5.3±2.1	-5.7±3.2	-4.3±1.7	-5.2±1.9	-3.7±1.4	-4.4±1.0	1.5

品种与处理 Variety and treatment	时间 Time/(o’clock)									平均 Average	差值 Difference
品种与处理 Variety and treatment	8:00			9:00	10:00	11:00	12:00	13:00	14:00	15:00	16:00
辽粳294 Liaojing 294
对照CK	-5.0±1.6	-5.1±1.4	-5.1±1.5	-4.4±1.8	-5.0±2.4	-6.1±2.9	-2.9±1.2	-2.7±1.3	-1.0±0.7	-4.1±1.5	0.0
S₁	-4.0±1.7	-4.8±1.5	-4.8±1.3	-4.3±1.7	-4.6±2.6	-5.6±2.6	-2.9±1.3	-2.4±1.5	-0.9±0.6	-3.8±1.4	0.3
S2	-3.5±1.4	-3.9±1.5	-4.3±1.6	-3.7±1.6	-4.1±2.3	-4.2±2.8	-2.2±1.1	-2.3±1.1	-0.9±0.6	-3.2±1.1	0.9
S₃	-3.2±1.1	-3.5±1.3	-3.7±1.1	-3.3±1.2	-3.6±2.4	-3.6±2.7	-1.9±1.0	-2.1±1.0	-0.8±0.4	-2.9±1.0	1.2
S₄	-2.7±0.9	-3.3±1.1	-3.1±1.4	-2.5±1.0	-2.8±2.6	-3.0±2.5	-1.8±0.8	-1.6±0.7	-0.5±0.3	-2.4±0.9	1.7
开粳1号 Kaijing 1
对照CK	-6.3±1.2	-6.3±1.5	-4.9±1.4	-3.9±1.9	-6.6±2.3	-8.2±2.7	-5.5±1.7	-6.4±2.2	-5.0±1.5	-5.9±1.2	0.0
S₁	-5.8±1.5	-6.1±1.6	-4.7±1.3	-3.8±1.8	-6.5±2.1	-7.8±2.9	-5.3±1.8	-6.1±2.3	-4.7±1.3	-5.6±1.1	0.3
S₂	-5.3±1.5	-5.8±1.4	-4.2±1.3	-3.4±1.8	-6.1±2.3	-6.9±2.5	-5.0±1.5	-5.5±2.1	-4.1±1.5	-5.1±1.1	0.8
S₃	-5.1±1.2	-5.4±1.4	-3.6±1.5	-3.0±1.7	-5.6±1.9	-6.4±2.7	-4.8±1.5	-5.3±2.0	-3.9±1.4	-4.8±1.1	1.1
S₄	-4.6±1.3	-5.1±1.5	-3.0±1.6	-2.6±1.8	-5.3±2.1	-5.7±3.2	-4.3±1.7	-5.2±1.9	-3.7±1.4	-4.4±1.0	1.5

品种与处理 Variety and treatment	每穗实粒数 FGP	每穗秕粒数 UGP	千粒重 TGW /g	结实率 SSR /%	理论产量 TY /(kg·667m^-2)	实测产量 AY /(kg·667m^-2)	实测增产率 AYGR /%
辽粳294 Liaojing 294
对照CK	73.7±5.31 aA	18.7±1.05 cC	24.8±0.15 aA	79.8±0.03 aA	472.3±28.3 aA	486.19	-
S₁	73.4±1.99 aA	17.6±0.58 cC	23.7±0.22 bcB	80.6±0.01 aA	453.3±14.0 aA	494.63	+1.74
S₂	76.1±4.53 aA	18.8±1.36 cC	23.9±0.21 bAB	80.2±0.04 aA	469.3±20.9 aAB	494.19	+1.65
S₃	66.2±3.34 bAB	28.6±3.14 bB	23.1±0.19 cB	69.9±0.03 bB	394.1±27.1 bB	442.28	-9.03
S₄	57.6±2.16 cB	37.4±3.60 aA	23.3±0.17 cB	60.3±0.02 cC	326.96±17.8 cC	387.81	-20.24
开粳1号 Kaijing 1
对照CK	70.7±2.89 abA	16.8±0.01 cC	27.4±0.13 aA	80.7±0.01 aA	556.6±15.3 aA	518.06	-
S₁	76.2±0.63 aA	18.3±0.0.1 cC	26.8±0.13 bcAB	80.5±0.01 aA	559.3±28.8 aA	536.75	+3.61
S₂	68.7±7.62 bA	17.4±0.02 cC	26.9±0.13 abAB	79.9±0.02 aA	528.6±32.3 aA	528.77	+2.07
S₃	57.4±2.23 cB	23.5±0.01 bB	26.7±0.14 bcAB	70.9±0.01 bB	436.5±34.3 bB	479.00	-7.54
S₄	51.1±5.29 cB	36.5±0.03 aA	26.3±0.14 cB	58.1±0.03 cC	376.3±15.8 cB	418.56	-19.21

品种与处理 Variety and treatment	每穗实粒数 FGP	每穗秕粒数 UGP	千粒重 TGW /g	结实率 SSR /%	理论产量 TY /(kg·667m^-2)	实测产量 AY /(kg·667m^-2)	实测增产率 AYGR /%
辽粳294 Liaojing 294
对照CK	73.7±5.31 aA	18.7±1.05 cC	24.8±0.15 aA	79.8±0.03 aA	472.3±28.3 aA	486.19	-
S₁	73.4±1.99 aA	17.6±0.58 cC	23.7±0.22 bcB	80.6±0.01 aA	453.3±14.0 aA	494.63	+1.74
S₂	76.1±4.53 aA	18.8±1.36 cC	23.9±0.21 bAB	80.2±0.04 aA	469.3±20.9 aAB	494.19	+1.65
S₃	66.2±3.34 bAB	28.6±3.14 bB	23.1±0.19 cB	69.9±0.03 bB	394.1±27.1 bB	442.28	-9.03
S₄	57.6±2.16 cB	37.4±3.60 aA	23.3±0.17 cB	60.3±0.02 cC	326.96±17.8 cC	387.81	-20.24
开粳1号 Kaijing 1
对照CK	70.7±2.89 abA	16.8±0.01 cC	27.4±0.13 aA	80.7±0.01 aA	556.6±15.3 aA	518.06	-
S₁	76.2±0.63 aA	18.3±0.0.1 cC	26.8±0.13 bcAB	80.5±0.01 aA	559.3±28.8 aA	536.75	+3.61
S₂	68.7±7.62 bA	17.4±0.02 cC	26.9±0.13 abAB	79.9±0.02 aA	528.6±32.3 aA	528.77	+2.07
S₃	57.4±2.23 cB	23.5±0.01 bB	26.7±0.14 bcAB	70.9±0.01 bB	436.5±34.3 bB	479.00	-7.54
S₄	51.1±5.29 cB	36.5±0.03 aA	26.3±0.14 cB	58.1±0.03 cC	376.3±15.8 cB	418.56	-19.21

相关因子 Correlation factor	辽粳294 Liaojing 294			开粳1号Kaijing 1
相关因子 Correlation factor	回归方程 Regression equation		r²	回归方程 Regression equation	r²
产量 TY	y= -78.196x +166.54	0.7801^*	y = -124.23x - 150.2		0.8998^*
实粒数FGP	y = -8.8358x+40.355	0.6833^*	y = -15.108x - 13.214		0.8371^*
秕粒数UGP	y = 10.958x +60.191	0.8041^*	y = 11.389x +81.319		0.7331^*
千粒重TGW	y = -0.7716x +21.207	0.6689^*	y = -0.5363x +24.047		0.7710^*
结实率SSR	y = -11.24x +37.29	0.7830^*	y = -14.02x +1.59		0.7935^*
糙米率BR	y = -0.5213x+79.043	0.9873^**	y = -0.408x +78.847		0.5235
精米率MR	y = -0.723x +71.657	0.8426^*	y = -0.3668x+71.835		0.5113
整精米率HR	y = -7.7346x +35.767	0.8297^*	y = -3.1471x +54.985		0.7960^*
碎米率BRR	y = 1.0368x+14.29	0.6265	y = 1.5927x +14.74		0.9640^**
长宽比LWR	y = 0.0063x+1.5951	0.0477	y = 0.0127x +1.5762		0.5485
垩白度C	y = 1.1694x+5.8116	0.9204^**	y = 0.8064x +8.7585		0.9457^**
垩白粒率CR	y = 2.2246x+10.902	0.8607^*	y = 0.9724x +13.216		0.7139^*
蛋白质含量PC	y = -0.3563x+7.264	0.7126^*	y = 0.2855x+10.008		0.9452^**
直链淀粉含量AC	y = -0.6927x +17.326	0.9848^**	y = -0.5704x +16.607		0.9370^**
脂肪酸含量 FA	y = -3.1777x +1.9234	0.8865^**	y = -3.3232x - 4.6111		0.9281^**
食味值Score	y = -1.7435x +66.644	0.9155^**	y = -2.5037x +56.242		0.8692^**