The interdependencies between the growth traits of the upper leaves and the productivity of the ear of winter wheat under conditions of the ecologically safe fertilizer systems
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32636/01308521.2020-(67)-1-4Keywords:
winter wheat, upper leaves (before-flag, flag leaves), eco-physiological and morpho-anatomical growth traits, source-sink relations, ecologically safe fertilizer systems, two-dimensional correlationAbstract
The formation of physiological, morphological growth traits of the upper leaf blades (UL; AGRUL, RGRUL, NARUL, SLAUL, LMAUL, LDMCUL, LDWUL, LADUL, BMDUL; booting – milk ripeness), winter wheat ear productivity (GDM) under the conditions of the base alternative, ecologically safe fertilizer systems (BFS, ESFS, respectively) are studied. In a number of cases, clear changes in the indicated growth traits were established under the conditions of BFS (var. 2), ESFS (var. 3–7), relative to control (var. 1), and in the conditions of ESFS, relative to BFS. At such comparisons, the most expressive and reliable are the variability of the traits LADUL, BMDUL, LDWUL.
By means of methods of the correlation analysis, it is established, that the estimated potential correlation coefficients (the ordered data sampling; pairwise comparison of options: var. 1–2, 2–3 ... 2–7) and the corresponding coefficients between the average values of the studied growth traits of UL and GDM (comparison of lines of var. 1–7, 2–7) are: r*, r*(M) = -0,97–0,99; p = 0,024–0,980; P <0,001–0,010. As a result of comparison of sizes r* and r*(M), was expressed the point of view about a possibility of nonlinear interdependencies of GDM – AGRUL, RGRUL, NARUL. Moreover, the traits of AGRUL, RGRUL, NARUL, LMAUL, LDMCUL, LDWUL, LADUL, BMDUL are potentially directed to the formation of a high-productive winter wheat ear under conditions of BFS, ESFS (r* = 0,63–0,97; P <0,001–0,010); the potential and actual direction of SLAUL is the opposite (r*, r*(M) = -0,54 – -0,97; p = 0,733; P <0,001–0,050). The most significant contribution to the formation of GDM are made by LADUL, BMDUL, LDWUL: r*, r*(M) = 0,83–0,99; P <0.001–0.010.
Hypotheses are proposed concerning strategies for the formation of a source – sink relationship between an ear and an UL of winter wheat in terms of leaf economics under conditions of BFS, ESFS. It is summarized, that the type of specified strategies partially depends on the way of comparing of the studied fertilizer systems (control – BFS, ESFS; BFS – ESFS), and, therefore, from degree and method of ecologization of growing technologies, the level of plants nutrients provision. The common feature of the formation of the examined strategies (discounting resources over time, and the opposition to this), obviously, is the central, coordinating role of the sink (ear).
References
1. Головко Т. К., Табаленкова Г. Н. Донорно-акцепторные связи в растении картофеля. Физиология растений. 2019. Т. 66, № 4. С. 313–320.
2. Громова С. Н., Костылев П. И. Роль флагового листа и остей в формировании продуктивности озимой пшеницы (обзор). Зерновое хозяйство России. 2018. № 4. С. 32–34.
3. Киризий Д. А. Роль акцепторов ассимилятов в регуляции фотосинтеза и распределения углерода в растении. Физиология и биохимия культурных растений. 2003. Т. 35, № 5. С. 382–391.
4. Лакин Г. Ф. Биометрия. Москва, 1990. 352 с.
5. Лепехов С. Б., Коробейников Н. И. Сопряжённость площади двух верхних листьев с массой зерна главного колоса яровой пшеницы. Вестник АГАУ. 2012. № 97 (11). С. 57–60.
6. Майсурян Н. А. Практикум по растениеводству. Москва, 1970. 446 с.
7. Моргун В. В., Прядкіна Г. А. Эффективность фотосинтеза и перспективы повышения продуктивности озимой пшеницы. Физиология растений и генетика. 2014. Т. 46, № 4. С. 279–301.
8. Прядкіна Г. О., Швартау В. В., Михальська Л. М. Потужність фотосинтетичного апарату, зернова продуктивність та якість зерна інтенсивних сортів м’якої озимої пшениці за різного рівня мінерального живлення. Физиология и биохимия культурных растений. 2011. Т. 43, № 2. С. 158–163.
9. Сирота Ф. Н. Основи аналітичної хімії та сільськогосподарський аналіз. Київ, 1970. 222 с.
10. Тооминг Х. Г. Солнечная радиация и формирование урожая. Ленинград, 1977. 200 с.
11. Торнли Дж. Г. М. Математические модели в физиологии растений / пер. с англ. Д. М. Гродзинского. Киев, 1982. 312 с.
12. Флаговый лист как фактор повышения продуктивности яровой твердой пшеницы / В. С. Юсов и др. Евразийский союз ученых. 2015. № 2/4. С. 76–79.
13. A handbook of protocols for standardised and easy measurement of plant functional traits worldwide / J. H. C. Cor-nelissen et al. Austral. J. Bot. 2003. V. 51, N 4. P. 335–380.
14. Causes and consequences of variation in leaf mass per area (LMA): a meta-analysis / H. Poorter et al. New Phytol. 2009. V. 183, N 4. P. 565–588.
15. Development of a critical nitrogen dilution curve based on leaf area duration in wheat / X. Wang et al. Front. Plant Sci. 2017. V. 8. P. 1517–1527.
16. Distelfeld A., Avni R., Fischer A. M. Senescence, nutrient remobilization, and yield in wheat and barley. J. Exp. Bot. 2014. V. 65, N 14. P. 3783–3798.
17. El Wazziki H., El Yousfi B., Serghat S. Contributions of three upper leaves of wheat, either healthy or inoculated by Bipolaris sorokiniana, to yield and yield components. Austral. J. Crop Sci. 2015. V. 9, N 7. P. 629–637.
18. Grassein F., Till-Bottraud I., Lavorel S. Plant resource-use strategies: the importance of phenotypic plasticity in response to a productivity gradient for two subalpine species. Ann. Bot. 2010. V. 106, N 4. P. 637–645.
19. Hikosaka K. Leaf canopy as a dynamic system: ecophysiology and optimality in leaf turnover. Ann. Bot. 2005. V. 95, N 3. P. 521–533.
20. How can we make plants grow faster? A source-sink perspective on growth rate / A. White et al. J. Exp. Bot. 2015. V. 67, N 1. P. 31–45.
21. Hunt R. Basic growth analysis: plant growth analysis for beginners. London, 1990. 112 p.
22. Is leaf dry matter content a better predictor of soil fertility than specific leaf area? / J. G. Hodgson et al. Ann. Bot. 2011. V. 108, N 7. P. 1337–1345.
23. Körner C. Paradigm shift in plant growth control. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2015. V. 25. P. 107–114.
24. Kuryata V. G., Kravets O. O. Features of morphogenesis, accumulation and redistribution of assimilate and nitrogen containing compounds in tomatoes under retardants treatment. Ukr. J. Ecol. 2018. V. 8, N 1. P. 356–362.
25. Lawlor D. W., Paul M. J. Source/sink interactions underpin crop yield: the case for trehalose 6-phosphate/SnRK1 in improvement of wheat. Front. Plant Sci. 2014. V. 5. P. 418–431.
26. Lifetime return on investment increases with leaf lifespan among 10 Australian woodlandspecies / D. S. Falster et al. New Phytol. 2012. V. 193, N 2. P. 409–419.
27. Maize canopy photosynthetic efficiency, plant growth, and yield responses to tillage depth / J. Sun et al. Agronomy. 2019. V. 9, N 1. P. 3–20.
28. Mason C. M., Donovan L. A. Evolution of the leaf economics spectrum in herbs: evidence from environmental divergences in leaf physiology across Helianthus (Asteraceae). Evolution. 2015. V. 69, N 10. P. 2705–2720.
29. Modrzyński J., Chmura D. J., Tjoelker M. G. Seedling growth and biomass allocation in relation to leaf habit and shade tolerance among 10 temperate tree species. Tree Physiol. 2015. V. 35, N 8. P. 879–893.
30. Net Assimilation rate determines the growth rates of 14 species of subtropical forest trees / X. Li et al. PLoS One. 2016. V. 11, N 3. P. e0150644.
31. New handbook for standardised measurement of plant functional traits worldwide / N. Pérez-Harguindeguy et al. Austral. J. Bot. 2013. V. 61, N 3. P. 167–234.
32. Pallardy S. G. Vegetative growth. Physiology of woody plants. Third edition. New York : Academic Press, 2008. P. 39–86.
33. Partitioning the components of relative growth rate: how important is plant size variation? / M. Rees et al. Am. Nat. 2010. V. 176, N 6. P. E152–E161.
34. Phenotypic plasticity and growth temperature: understanding interspecific variability / O. K. Atkin et al. J. Exp. Bot. 2006. V. 57, N 2. P. 267–281.
35. Plant growth analysis / R. Pandey et al. Plant growth analysis: manual of ICAR sponsored training programme for technical staff of ICAR Institutes on “Physiological techniques to analyze the impact of climate change on crop plants”. New Delhi, 16–25 January 2017. New Delhi : Division of Plant Physiology, IARI, 2017. P. 103–107.
36. Poorter H., Lambers H., Evans J. R. Trait correlation networks: a whole-plant perspective on the recently criticized leaf economic spectrum. New Phytol. 2014. V. 201, N 2. P. 378–382.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 О. Л. ДУБИЦЬКИЙ, О. Й. КАЧМАР, А. О. ДУБИЦЬКА, О. В. ВАВРИНОВИЧ, М. М. ЩЕРБА (Автор)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
