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]	Yuancheng ZHOU, Yongli CAO, Zhen WANG, Zhirong JIA, Yong YAO, Aiping CHEN. Screening and Evaluation of Drought Resistance Indexes in Different Barley Varieties [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2022, 24(2): 86-92.
[2]	WU Zishuai, LI Hu, HUANG Qiuyao, CHEN Chuanhua, LUO Qunchang, ZHOU Xinmin, WU Jiaju, LIU Guanglin. Influences of Nitrogen Fertilizer Application Rate and Planting Density on the Yield and Rice Quality of Guiyu 11 [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2021, 23(8): 154-162.
[3]	LI Junjie, DU Pufang, SHI Tingrui, HOU Peijia, CHAI Xinyu, ZHAO Rui, WANG Yu, LI Hongxia. LI Junjie, DU Pufang, SHI Tingrui, HOU Peijia, CHAI Xinyu, ZHAO Rui, WANG Yu, LI Hongxia* [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2021, 23(7): 21-32.
[4]	JIAN Tiancai, KANG Jianhong, WU Hongliang, LIU Genhong, GAO Di, MA Xueying, LI Xin. Antioxidative Characteristics Study of Nitrogen in Alleviating Premature Senescence of Spring Wheat at High Temperature after Anthesis [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2021, 23(7): 33-44.
[5]	LIU Qianjie, CHENG Yunxia, JIA Kai, SHI Zhenyu, ZHANG Jing, WEI Shaowei, WU Hui*. Influences of Nitrogen Application on Nitrogen Metabolism Enzymes Activities, Yield and Quality of Tomato in Composite Sand Culture [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2021, 23(4): 183-191.
[6]	LI Jinglin, LIU Shaodong, ZHANG Siping, CHEN Jing, LIU Ruihua, SHEN Qian, LI Yang, MA Huijuan, ZHAO Xinhua, PANG Chaoyou. Identification of Drought Tolerance During Whole Growth Period in Cotton Germplasm Resources and Resistance Index Screening [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2021, 23(10): 52-65.
[7]	LAN Yuchen1, GUO Xiaohong1*, LI Meng 2, ZHAO Yang3, LI Xiaolei3, JIANG Hongfang1, WANG Heying1, XU Lingqi1, ZHANG Xiaoning1, LYU Yandong1. Influences of the Interaction between Nitrogen Fertilizer Application Rate and Transpanting Density on Kenjing 7 Rice Quality [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2021, 23(1): 136-145.
[8]	TIAN Guisheng, WANG Zhibin, LI Xiaokun*, ZHU Dandan, ZHANG Jianglin, LIU Qiuxia. Impact of Rice-Ratoon Rice-Rapeseed/Green Manure Rotation Cropping System and Nitrogen Application on Yield and Grain-Filling Properties of Rice [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2021, 23(1): 146-153.
[9]	TAN Jinghong, WU Qixia*, ZHU Jianqiang, KE Xinyao, MA Hongyu. Study on the Optimal Nitrogen Application Rate for Transplanted Cotton following Wheat Harvest in Jianghan Plain [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2020, 22(9): 122-131.
[10]	LI Huixia1§, ZHENG Zhiyin2§, TIAN Gang1, LIU Xin1, WANG Yuwen1, LIU Hong1, SHI Guanyan3*. Drought Resistance Analysis of 7 Foxtail Millet Hybrids and Their Parents [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2020, 22(7): 20-28.
[11]	LIU Kouzhu1, GAO Zhenzhen1, XIA Susu1, LI Jianhua2, DUN Songyang2, LI Hongliang2, WANG Jing2, DUAN Weidong3, SHI Hongzhi1*. Optimization of Tobacco Upper Six Leaves Cultivation Measures in Central Henan Based on Output Value and Sensory Indexes [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2020, 22(2): 158-165.
[12]	WANG Zhenhua, LIU Xin*, YU Aili, CHENG Kai, LI Huixia, TIAN Gang, WANG Yuwen,CHEN Xinxia, ZHANG Peng, LIU Hong. Changes of Physiological Response to Drought Stress and Selection of Drought Resistance Indexes in Different Germination Stages of Millet#br# [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2020, 22(12): 39-49.
[13]	CHU Xu1, LI Shuai1, ZHAO Yanan1, YE Youliang1, SUN Xiaomei2, HUANG Yufang1*. Effects of Nitrogen Application Amount and Planting Density on Maize Yield, Phosphorus and Potassium Uptake and Utilization [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2020, 22(12): 115-126.
[14]	LI Jichao, ZHANG Jinyu, YANG Tianmei, YANG Meiquan, YANG Weize, XU Zongliang, ZUO Yingmei*. Comprehensive Evaluation and Physiological Mechanism of Drought Resistance of Paris polyphylla Smith var. yunnanensis (Franch.) Hand.-Mazz Germplasm Resources [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2020, 22(10): 49-59.
[15]	ZHOU Yu1,2, CHEN Mengmeng1, LIU Qing1, MA Xinchao1, GENG Yangyang1,2, YANG Ping1,2, MA Guocai3, XUAN Zhengying1,2*. Effects of Different Proportions of Yellow Sand and Slag on the Growth and Physiological Characteristics of Greenhouse Cucumber Plants [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2019, 21(9): 117-124.