Response of Drought Stress of Lyciumruthenicum Murr. Under Different Nitrogen Applications

doi:10.13304/j.nykjdb.2020.1085

Abstract

Abstract:

To evaluate the physiologic response of drought resistance under different nitrogen （N） applications of Lyciumruthenicum Murr. in arid land， this study used urea （46%） as the N source for 2 years （2018， 2019）， and set 5 N applications including 0 （CK）， 50 （N1）， 100 （N2）， 150 （N3） and 200 g·plant^-1 （N4）， and 3 different degree of drought stresses including 0 （30.8% and 29.3%， soil moiture）， 15 （21.7% and 21.1%， soil moiture） and 30 d （11.2% and 9.7%， soil moiture）. The activities of superoxide dismutase（SOD）， peroxidase （POD） and catalase （CAT） in leaf of Lyciumruthenicum Murr. were measured， and the contents of malondialdehyde （MDA）， proline （Pro） and soluble sugar （SS） were determined. In addition， the drought resistance of Lyciumruthenicum Murr. was comprehensively evaluated by membership function method. The results show that appropriate N application could increase the activities （SOD， POD and CAT） and the contents of Pro and SS content in the leaf of Lyciumruthenicum Murr.， and inhibite the synthesis of MDA. In general， the activities of SOD， POD， CAT and SS content were higher under N3 and N4 treatments， while the contents of Pro were higher and the MDA contents were lower under N2 and N3 treatments. According to the comprehensive evaluation of drought resistance， it showed that the appropriate amount of N application could enhance the drought resistance of Lyciumruthenicum Murr.， but excessive N application should reduce drought resistance. The drought resistant ability were stronger under N2 and N3 treatments after stress 0 and 15 d， and was strongest under N2 treatment after stress 30 d. Therefore， the drought resistance of Lyciumruthenicum Murr. could be improved by applying appropriate amount N in the arid land of Northwest， which provided theoretical basis and technical support for the cultivation pattern of Lyciumruthenicum in arid area.

Key words: Lyciumruthenicum Murr., arid land, nitrogen application, membership function, drought resistance

摘要：

为明确干旱区栽培黑果枸杞（Lyciumruthenicum Murr.）抗旱生理对施氮（N）的响应，以尿素（含氮量46%）为氮源，于2018—2019年，设置0（CK）、50（N1）、100（N2）、150（N3）和200 g·株^-1（N4）共5个施氮量梯度，在干旱胁迫0（土壤含水量30.8%和29.3%）、15（土壤含水量21.7%和21.1%）和30 d（土壤含水量11.2%和9.7%），对黑果枸杞叶片中超氧化物歧化酶（SOD）、过氧化物酶（POD）、过氧化氢酶（CAT）活性和丙二醛（MDA）、脯氨酸（Pro）、可溶性糖（SS）含量进行测定，并通过隶属函数法对黑果枸杞抗旱性进行综合评价。结果表明，适量施氮可以提高黑果枸杞叶片中SOD、POD、CAT活性和Pro、SS含量，降低MDA含量；当施氮量为150～200 g·株^-1时，叶片中SOD、POD和CAT活性与SS含量较高；当施氮量为100～150 g·株^-1时，叶片Pro含量较高，MDA含量较低。对黑果枸杞抗旱性的综合评价表明，适量施氮有利于增强黑果枸杞的抗旱性，在干旱胁迫0和15 d时，黑果枸杞在100～150 g·株^-1施氮量时抗旱能力最强；在干旱胁迫30 d，施氮量为100 g·株^-1时黑果枸杞的抗旱能力最强，为干旱区黑果枸杞的栽培模式提供了理论依据和技术支撑。

关键词: 黑果枸杞, 干旱区, 施氮量, 隶属函数, 抗旱性

CLC Number:

S567.1+9

Xingdong MA, Yehong GUO, Meiying LI, Xiaxia YU, Yingjie XU, Wenjuan ZHU, Jie FENG. Response of Drought Stress of Lyciumruthenicum Murr. Under Different Nitrogen Applications[J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2022, 24(2): 193-200.

马兴东, 郭晔红, 李梅英, 于霞霞, 徐英杰, 朱文娟, 冯洁. 不同施氮量下黑果枸杞对干旱胁迫的响应[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2022, 24(2): 193-200.

Figures/Tables 4

References 37

1	SHULAEV V， CORTES D， MILLER G， et al.. Metabolomics for plant stress response ［J］. Physiol. Plantarum， 2008， 132（2）：199-208.
2	王振华，刘鑫，余爱丽，等.不同谷子品种萌发期对干旱胁迫生理响应的变化及抗旱指标筛选［J］.中国农业科技导报，2020，22（12）：39-49.
	WANG Z H， LIU X， YU A L， et al.. Changes of physiological response to drought stress and selection of drought resistance indexes in different germination stages of millet ［J］. J. Agric. Sci. Technol.， 2020， 22（12）：39-49.
3	赵莉，牟书勇，张鲜花.干旱胁迫下新疆野生鸭茅（Dactylisglomerata L.）苗期抗旱性生理特性［J］.干旱区研究，2015，32（5）：122-126.
	ZHAO L， MOU S Y， ZHANG X H. On the physiological characteristic of drought resistance of native Dactylisglomerata in Xinjiang at seeding stage ［J］. Arid Zone Res.， 2015， 32（5）：122-126.
4	JAVAD F， ALI S. Exogenous nitric oxide improves the protective effects of TiO₂ nanoparticles on growth， antioxidant system， and photosynthetic performance of wheat seedlings under drought stress ［J］. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nut.， 2020， 20（2）：703-714.
5	YU X F， HAN J P， QIAN L L， et al.. Wheat PP2C-a10 regulates seed germination and drought tolerance in transgenic Arabidopsis ［J］. Plant Cell Rep.， 2020， 39（5）：635-651.
6	BASHIR A， RIZWAN M， ZIA U R M， et al.. Application of co-composted farm manure and biochar increased the wheat growth and decreased cadmium accumulation in plants under different water regimes ［J］. Chemosphere， 2020， 246（5）：125809-125821.
7	NASEER U， AZEEM K， SAJID M， et al.. Integrated effect of AlgalBiochar and plant growth promoting rhizobacteria on physiology and growth of maize under deficit irrigations ［J］. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nut.， 2020， 20（2）：346-356.
8	CHEN L， SUN H， WANG F J， et al.. Genome-wide identification of MAPK cascade genes reveals the GhMAP3K14-GhMKK11-GhMPK31 pathway is involved in the drought response in cotton ［J］. Plant Mol. Biol.， 2020， 103（1-2）：211-223.
9	时振振，李胜，马绍英，等.不同品种小麦抗氧化系统对水分胁迫的响应［J］.草业学报，2015，24（7）：68-78.
	SHI Z Z， LI S， MA S Y， et al.. Response of the antioxidant system to water stress in different wheat varieties ［J］. Acta Pratac. Sin.， 2015， 24（7）：68-78.
10	于霞霞，郭晔红，李欠，等.模糊数学法分析梭梭对寄生肉苁蓉的抗旱响应［J］.中成药，2020，42（4）：1066-1072.
	YU X X， GUO Y H， LI Q， et al.. Fuzzy mathematical method to analyze the response of Haloxylonammodendron to Cistanchedeserticola ［J］. Chin. Tradit. Patent Med.， 2020， 42（4）：1066-1072.
11	郑世英，郑建峰，徐建，等.外源硅PEG胁迫下小麦幼苗生长及抗氧化酶活性的影响［J］.干旱地区农业研究， 2017，35（2）：74-78.
	ZHENG S Y， ZHENG J F， XU J， et al.. Effects of exogenous silicon on plant growth and activity of anti-oxidative enzymes in wheat seedlings under drought stress ［J］. Agric. Res. Arid Areas， 2017， 35（2）：74-78.
12	顾建勤，闫志利，牛俊义，等.干旱胁迫及复水对豌豆苗期保护酶活性及膜脂过氧化的影响［J］.干旱地区农业研究，2012，30（3）：159-164.
	GU J Q， YAN Z L， NIU J Y， et al.. Effects of drought stress and rewater on protective enzyme activity and membrance lipid peroxidation in pea leaves during seedling stage ［J］. Agric. Res. Arid Areas， 2012， 30（3）：159-164.
13	季杨，张新全，彭燕，等.干旱胁迫对鸭茅根、叶保护酶活性、渗透物质含量及膜质过氧化作用的影响［J］.草业学报，2014，23（3）：144-151.
	JI Y， ZHANG X Q， PENG Y， et al.. Effect of drought stress on lipid peroxidation， osmotic adjustment and activities of protective enzymes in the roots and leaves of orchardgrass ［J］. Acta Pratac. Sin.， 2014， 23（3）：144-151.
14	赵振宁，赵宝勰.不同大豆品种在萌发期对干旱胁迫的生理响应及抗旱性评价［J］.干旱地区农业研究，2018，36（2）：131-136.
	ZHAO Z N， ZHAO B X. Physiological response and drought resistance evaluation of different soybean varieties to drought stress at germination stage ［J］. Agric. Res. Arid Areas， 2018， 36（2）：131-136.
15	张珍贤，王华，蔡传涛.施肥对干旱胁迫下幼龄期小粒咖啡光合特性及生长的影响［J］.中国生态农业学报，2015，23（7）：832-840.
	ZHANG Z X， WANG H， CAI C T. Effects of fertilization on photosynthetic characteristics and growth of young coffee grains under drought stress ［J］. Chin. J. Eco-Agric.， 2015， 23（7）：832-840.
16	陈军，叶春雷，李进京，等.播种量＋施肥量对水分胁迫下胡麻生长、产量及收获指数效应研究［J］.中国农业科技导报，2020，22（10）：139-148.
	CHEN J， YE C L， LI J J， et al.. Effect of seeding rate + fertilization amount on the growth， yield and harvest index of Flax under water stress ［J］. J. Agric. Sci. Technol.， 2020， 22（10）：139-148.
17	赵婷婷，郑顺林，万年鑫，等. 早期施氮对马铃薯苗期抗旱能力的影响［J］. 干旱区资源与环境， 2016， 30（5）： 185-190.
	ZHAO T T， ZHENG X L， WAN N X， et al.. Effect of early nitrogen application on drought resistance of potato seedlings ［J］. J. Arid Land Resour. Environ.， 2016， 30（5）：185-190.
18	匡可任，路安民.中国植物志［M］.北京：科学出版社，1978：10.
19	赵泽芳，卫海燕，郭彦龙，等.黑果枸杞分布对气候变化的响应及其种植适应性［J］.中国沙漠，2017，37（5）：1-8.
	ZHAO Z F， WEI H Y， GUO Y L， et al.. The response of Lyciumruthenicum distribution to climate change and its planting adaptability ［J］. J. Desert Res.， 2017， 37（5）：1-8.
20	宗莉，甘霖，康玉茹，等. 盐分、干旱及其交互胁迫对黑果枸杞发芽的影响［J］. 干旱区研究， 2015， 32（3）： 499-503.
	ZONG L， GAN L， KANG Y R， et al.. Effects of salt， drought and interactive stress on the germination of Lyciumruthenicum ［J］. Arid Zone Res.， 2015， 32（3）：499-503.
21	李永洁，李进，徐萍，等.黑果枸杞幼苗对干旱胁迫的生理响应［J］.干旱区研究，2014，31（4）：756-762.
	LI Y J， LI J， XU P， et al.. Physiological response of Lyciumruthenicum seedlings to drought stress ［J］. Arid Zone Res.， 2014， 31（4）：756-762.
22	郭有燕，刘宏军，孔东升，等.干旱胁迫对黑果枸杞幼苗光合特性的影响［J］.西北植物学报，2016，36（1）：124-130.
	GUO Y Y， LIU H J， KONG D S， et al.. Effects of drought stress on photosynthetic characteristics of Lyciumruthenicum seedlings ［J］. Acta Bot. Boreali-Occid. Sin.， 2016， 36（1）：124-130.
23	赵晶忠，孔东升，王立，等.低温层积处理对干旱和深埋胁迫下黑果枸杞出苗的影响研究［J］.草业学报，2017，26（12）：56-66.
	ZHAO J Z， KONG D S， WANG L， et al.. Study on the effect of low temperature stratification on the emergence of Lyciumruthenicum under drought and deep burial stress ［J］. Acta Pratac. Sin.， 2017， 26（12）：56-66.
24	可静，李进，李永洁.干旱胁迫下黑果枸杞幼苗对外源水杨酸的生理响应［J］.植物生理学报，2016，52（4）：497-504.
	KE J， LI J， LI Y J. Physiological response of Lyciumruthenicum seedlings to exogenous salicylic acid under drought stress ［J］. Plant Physiol. J.， 2016， 52（4）：497-504.
25	陈刚，李胜.植物生理学实验［M］.北京：高等教育出版社，2016：1-96.
26	杜秀敏，殷文璇，赵彦修，等.植物中活性氧的产生及清除机制［J］.生物工程学报，2001，17（2）：121-125.
	DU X M， YIN W X， ZHAO Y X， et al.. Mechanism of generation and removal of reactive oxygen species in plants ［J］. Chin. J. of Biotechnol.， 2001， 17（2）：121-125.
27	李璇，岳红，王升，等.影响植物抗氧化酶活性的因素及其研究热点和现状［J］.中国中药杂志，2013，38（7）：973-978.
	LI X， YUE H， WANG S， et al.. Factors affecting the activity of plant antioxidant enzymes and their research hotspots and current status ［J］. Chin. J. Chin. Materia Med.， 2013， 38（7）：973-978.
28	马蕾，马绍英，陈贵平，等.豌豆与根瘤共生对水分胁迫的生理响应［J］.草业学报，2019，28（9）：96-109.
	MA L， MA S Y， CHEN G P， et al.. Physiological response of pea and nodule symbiosis to water stress ［J］. Acta Pratac. Sin.， 2019， 28（9）：96-109.
29	李建荣.玉米耐旱性对生物炭及氮肥调控响应的生理机制［D］. 呼和浩特：内蒙古农业大学，2019.
	Li J R. Physiological mechanism of response of maize drought tolerance to biochar and nitrogen fertilizer regulation ［D］. Hohhot： Inner Mongolia Agricultural University， 2019.
30	FRIDORICH I. Superoxide dismutase ［J］. Annu. Rev. Biochem.， 1975， 44（1）：147-159.
31	DELAHIZE E， RYAN P R. Aluminum toxicity and tolerance in plants ［J］. Plant Physiol.， 1995， 107（2）：315-321.
32	李娜.落叶松幼苗对干旱胁迫及氮添加的生理生态响应［D］.哈尔滨：东北林业大学，2014.
	LI N. Physiological and ecological response of Larixgmelinii seedlings under soil drought stress and different nitrogen levels ［D］. Harbin： Northeast Forestry University， 2014.
33	HASIO T C. Water and plant life ［M］. New York： Academic Press， 1973：281-303.
34	TAYLOR C B. Proline and water deficit： ups， downs， ins and outs ［J］. Plant Cell， 1996， 8（9）：1221-1224.
35	MARTINEZ C， BACCOU J C， BRESSON E， et al.. Salicylic acid mediated by the oxidative burst is a key molecule in local and systemic responses of cotton challenged by an avirulent race of Xanthomonas campestris pvmalvacearum ［J］. Plant Physiol.， 2000， 122（3）：757-766.
36	KUHNS M R， GJERSTED D H. Photosynthate allocation in loblolly pine seedlings as affected by moisture stress ［J］. Can. J. Forest Res.， 1988， 18（2）：285-291.
37	王曦，胡红玲，胡庭兴，等.干旱胁迫对桢楠幼树渗透调节与活性氧代谢的影响及施氮的缓解效应［J］.植物生态学报，2018，42（2）：240-251.
	WANG X， HU H L， HU T X， et al.. Effects of drought stress on osmotic adjustment and active oxygen metabolism of Phoebe zhennan seedlings and the mitigating effect of nitrogen application ［J］. Chin. J. Plant Ecol.， 2018， 42（2）：240-251.

干旱胁迫天数 Drought stress days/d	年份 Year	氮处理 N treatment	SOD	POD	CAT	MDA	Pro	SS	综合评价值Comprehensive evaluation value	抗旱性排序Rank of drought-resistant
0		CK	0.455	0.429	0.350	0.366	0.165	0.255	0.337	3
		N1	0.367	0.588	0.467	0.411	0.375	0.379	0.431	2
	2018	N2	0.422	0.323	0.385	0.706	0.417	0.412	0.444	1
		N3	0.277	0.180	0.261	0.661	0.292	0.339	0.335	4
		N4	0.194	0.367	0.159	0.444	0.138	0.240	0.257	5
		CK	0.217	0.183	0.159	0.593	0.305	0.497	0.326	5
		N1	0.342	0.586	0.112	0.398	0.258	0.494	0.365	3
	2019	N2	0.442	0.295	0.313	0.599	0.301	0.614	0.427	2
		N3	0.520	0.361	0.278	0.613	0.417	0.511	0.450	1
		N4	0.213	0.192	0.396	0.443	0.287	0.483	0.336	4
15		CK	0.547	0.516	0.421	0.440	0.198	0.307	0.405	5
		N1	0.441	0.707	0.561	0.494	0.451	0.456	0.518	2
	2018	N2	0.507	0.388	0.463	0.849	0.501	0.495	0.534	1
		N3	0.333	0.516	0.314	0.795	0.351	0.708	0.503	3
		N4	0.233	0.441	0.491	0.534	0.666	0.289	0.442	4
		CK	0.561	0.220	0.191	0.713	0.367	0.598	0.442	4
		N1	0.411	0.705	0.135	0.478	0.310	0.594	0.439	5
	2019	N2	0.531	0.355	0.376	0.720	0.362	0.738	0.514	2
		N3	0.625	0.434	0.334	0.737	0.501	0.614	0.541	1
		N4	0.256	0.531	0.476	0.533	0.345	0.581	0.454	3
30		CK	0.552	0.409	0.579	0.605	0.273	0.422	0.473	4
		N1	0.607	0.472	0.572	0.390	0.320	0.527	0.481	3
	2018	N2	0.698	0.534	0.637	0.167	0.690	0.681	0.568	1
		N3	0.458	0.710	0.432	0.493	0.483	0.373	0.492	2
		N4	0.321	0.607	0.676	0.334	0.416	0.397	0.458	5
		CK	0.571	0.303	0.263	0.681	0.504	0.522	0.474	4
		N1	0.566	0.669	0.185	0.658	0.427	0.517	0.504	3
	2019	N2	0.531	0.488	0.518	0.691	0.498	0.415	0.523	1
		N3	0.560	0.597	0.460	0.314	0.590	0.545	0.511	2
		N4	0.352	0.230	0.155	0.433	0.475	0.299	0.324	5

干旱胁迫天数 Drought stress days/d	年份 Year	氮处理 N treatment	SOD	POD	CAT	MDA	Pro	SS	综合评价值Comprehensive evaluation value	抗旱性排序Rank of drought-resistant
0		CK	0.455	0.429	0.350	0.366	0.165	0.255	0.337	3
		N1	0.367	0.588	0.467	0.411	0.375	0.379	0.431	2
	2018	N2	0.422	0.323	0.385	0.706	0.417	0.412	0.444	1
		N3	0.277	0.180	0.261	0.661	0.292	0.339	0.335	4
		N4	0.194	0.367	0.159	0.444	0.138	0.240	0.257	5
		CK	0.217	0.183	0.159	0.593	0.305	0.497	0.326	5
		N1	0.342	0.586	0.112	0.398	0.258	0.494	0.365	3
	2019	N2	0.442	0.295	0.313	0.599	0.301	0.614	0.427	2
		N3	0.520	0.361	0.278	0.613	0.417	0.511	0.450	1
		N4	0.213	0.192	0.396	0.443	0.287	0.483	0.336	4
15		CK	0.547	0.516	0.421	0.440	0.198	0.307	0.405	5
		N1	0.441	0.707	0.561	0.494	0.451	0.456	0.518	2
	2018	N2	0.507	0.388	0.463	0.849	0.501	0.495	0.534	1
		N3	0.333	0.516	0.314	0.795	0.351	0.708	0.503	3
		N4	0.233	0.441	0.491	0.534	0.666	0.289	0.442	4
		CK	0.561	0.220	0.191	0.713	0.367	0.598	0.442	4
		N1	0.411	0.705	0.135	0.478	0.310	0.594	0.439	5
	2019	N2	0.531	0.355	0.376	0.720	0.362	0.738	0.514	2
		N3	0.625	0.434	0.334	0.737	0.501	0.614	0.541	1
		N4	0.256	0.531	0.476	0.533	0.345	0.581	0.454	3
30		CK	0.552	0.409	0.579	0.605	0.273	0.422	0.473	4
		N1	0.607	0.472	0.572	0.390	0.320	0.527	0.481	3
	2018	N2	0.698	0.534	0.637	0.167	0.690	0.681	0.568	1
		N3	0.458	0.710	0.432	0.493	0.483	0.373	0.492	2
		N4	0.321	0.607	0.676	0.334	0.416	0.397	0.458	5
		CK	0.571	0.303	0.263	0.681	0.504	0.522	0.474	4
		N1	0.566	0.669	0.185	0.658	0.427	0.517	0.504	3
	2019	N2	0.531	0.488	0.518	0.691	0.498	0.415	0.523	1
		N3	0.560	0.597	0.460	0.314	0.590	0.545	0.511	2
		N4	0.352	0.230	0.155	0.433	0.475	0.299	0.324	5

[1]	Junya DUAN, Yuanyuan ZHAO, Tingting WANG, Jianyu WEI, Zheng WANG, Dexun WANG, Juan LI, Hongzhi SHI. Effects of Nitrogen Reduction Combined with Polyaspartic Acid on Nitrogen Utilization， Yield and Quality of Flue-cured Tobacco [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2025, 27(3): 227-238.
[2]	Tingting NIE, Yiqiang DONG, Qinghe SU, Yongjuan ZHANG, Helong YANG, Shazhou AN. Effects of Nitrogen Application and Cattle Manure Addition on Vegetation Restoration in Coal Mine Replanting Area [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2025, 27(2): 218-227.
[3]	Jiangbo LI, Wenju GAO, Xiaodong YUN, Jieyin ZHAO, Shiwei GENG, Chunbin HAN, Quanjia CHEN, Qin CHEN. Effects of Different Water Stress Treatments on Core Germplasm Resources of Upland Cotton [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2024, 26(3): 26-39.
[4]	Panpan MENG, Haiyan HE, Yuxin CAO, Lixin ZHANG, Qinghao LYU, Ruilin QI, Hongrui ZHANG. Comprehensive Evaluation of 5 Cultivation Types of Medicinal Chrysanthemum morifolium Ramat. at Branching Stage [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2024, 26(2): 90-99.
[5]	Hongbin ZHENG, Cong WANG, Qiliang XI, Zhongwen ZHANG, Weimin WANG, Xin WANG, Jin GUO, Huanhuan HE, Weilong LU, Zicheng XU, Wenchao WANG, Wei JIA. Impact of Nitrogen Application Rate on Metabolism and Quality of Upper Leaves of Yunyan 121 [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2024, 26(10): 215-225.
[6]	Yuan HE, Xiaotong GU, Liqing FENG, Huijun DUAN, Yongsheng TAO. Screening and Evaluation of Drought Resistance Index for Maize Hybrids During Seedling and Germination Stages [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2024, 26(10): 30-40.
[7]	Zhigang ZHENG, Li XIANG, Gongyi LIU, Cai XU, Bin QIN, Weiqin WANG, Huabin ZHENG, Qiyuan TANG. Effects of Nitrogen Application Rate and Density on Growth and Yield of Orderly Machine-thrown Early Rice [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2023, 25(7): 132-143.
[8]	Yaxuan MENG, Wei MA, Xuhang YAO, Yingqi SUN, Xin ZHONG, Shan HUANG, Qiaoyun WENG, Yinghui LIU, Jincheng YUAN. Study on the Response Factors of Maize Yield to Nitrogen Fertilizer [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2023, 25(7): 153-160.
[9]	Zhonghua MA, Juan CHEN, Na WU, Benju MAN, Xiaogang WANG, Yongqing ZHE, Jili LIU. Effects of Salt Stress and Phosphorus Supply on Photosynthetic Characteristics and Total Biomass of Switchgrass at Seedling Stage [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2023, 25(6): 190-200.
[10]	Shijiang ZHU, Hu LI, Wen XU, Yating FENG. Effects of Soil Moisture Content on Fruit Quality in Citrus Orchards Within Three Gorges Reservoir Area [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2023, 25(6): 201-207.
[11]	Yilong ZHANG, Xiaofan SUN, Shuo LI, Peiying LI, Zongjiu SUN. Physiological Response of Different Drought-resistant Cynodon dactylon Germplasm to Drought [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2023, 25(6): 59-70.
[12]	Xiangdong WANG, Yue SONG, Yanzhi MA. Quality Comparison and Comprehensive Evaluation of Different Zingiber officinale Rosc. Varieties [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2023, 25(4): 56-66.
[13]	Shengwei GUO, Siwen BIAN, Jianwen DING, Xiaochen ZHANG, Xing YANG, Jin DU, Chunyang XIANG. Comprehensive Evaluation of Low Temperature Tolerance of Waxy Maize Varieties at Germination Stage [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2023, 25(2): 38-47.
[14]	Chengchuan YAN, Qingtao ZENG, Qin CHEN, Jincheng FU, Tingwei WANG, Quanjia CHEN, Yanying QU. Screening and Evaluation of Drought Resistance Indicators at Flowering and Boll Stage of Upland Cotton [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2022, 24(7): 46-57.
[15]	Jiangyan LI, Xianhua ZHANG, Xiaoqiang YUAN. Drought Resistance Index Screening and Drought Resistance Evaluation of Dactylisglomerata Germplasm Resources During Seedling [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2022, 24(3): 84-94.