灌溉水矿化度对冬枣生长及产量品质的影响

doi:10.16420/j.issn.0513-353x.2024-0404

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为明确不同矿化度微咸水灌溉对冬枣自然生产条件下的灌溉效果与适用性，2020—2022年在山东省滨州市沾化区开展为期3年的冬枣灌溉水矿化度田间试验，供试枣品种为‘沾冬2号’，设置5个矿化度（含盐量）水平：1（对照）、2、3、4和5 g · L^-1，研究不同矿化度灌溉水处理对冬枣的生理特性、生长、产量和果实品质的影响。在生理方面，总体上叶片叶绿素相对含量（SPAD）、净光合速率（P_n）、蒸腾速率（T_r）、暗呼吸速率（R_d）和表观量子效率（α）峰值出现在3或4 g · L^-1矿化度处理，且相比对照显著升高；5 g · L^-1处理的SPAD、P_n、T_r、α、初始荧光（F₀）、PSⅡ最大量子产率（F_v/F_m）与3或4 g · L^-1相比显著下降，而最大荧光（F_m）显著上升。在生长和产量方面，随灌溉水矿化度升高枣吊长度和产量均呈现降低趋势，4和5 g · L^-1处理的产量较1 g · L^-1显著降低。在品质方面，随灌溉水矿化度的升高，可溶性糖、可溶性固形物（TSS）、可滴定酸与维生素C显著增加，综合评价4 g · L^-1处理的品质最佳。相关性分析发现，枣吊长度和F_v/F_m是影响产量的主要因素；基于随机算法对影响果实品质的叶片生理指标的重要性排序，T_r、P_n,max、R_d、F_v/F_m与F_m是影响品质的主要因素。从3年灌溉周期后的土壤盐分平衡状况分析，4和5 g · L^-1矿化度处理存在土壤盐分积累过度的潜在风险。结果表明，在山东省滨州地区对‘沾冬2号’果园进行2 ~ 3 g · L^-1微咸水灌溉，植株可通过调节自身光合特性来抵抗盐胁迫，维持正常生长并可提高果实品质。

关键词: 枣, 盐胁迫, 生理指标, 产量, 品质

Abstract:

To investigate the irrigation effects and applicability of slight saline water on natural production conditions of Ziziphus jujuba‘Dongzao’，a three-year field experiment on irrigation water salinity was conducted in Zhanhua District，Binzhou City from 2020 to 2022. The experimental variety was Ziziphus jujuba‘Zhandong 2’，with five salinity levels[1（the control），2，3，4，and 5 g · L^-1]set for irrigation water. The study revealed the effects of irrigation mineralization on the physiological characteristics，growth，yield and fruit quality of‘Dongzao’jujube. The results indicated that，physiologically，the peak values of relative chlorophyll content，net photosynthetic rate，transpiration rate，dark respiration rate，and apparent quantum efficiency in leaves occurred at salinity levels of 3 or 4 g · L^-1，and these values were significantly higher compared to the 1 g · L^-1 treatment. For the 5 g · L^-1 treatment，relative chlorophyll content，net photosynthetic rate，transpiration rate，apparent quantum efficiency，initial fluorescence，and maximum quantum yield of PSⅡ decreased significantly compared to the 3 or 4 g · L^-1 treatments，while maximum fluorescence increased significantly. Regarding quality，as irrigation water salinity increases，the content of soluble sugars，total soluble solids，titratable acidity，and vitamin C content significantly increased，with the best quality observed under the 4 g · L^-1 treatment. Correlation analysis revealed that jujube hanging length and the maximum quantum yield of PSII were the main factors affecting yield. Based on a random algorithm，the importance ranking of physiological indicators influencing fruit quality indicated that maximum net photosynthetic rate，apparent quantum efficiency，dark respiration rate，and maximum fluorescence were the primary factors influencing fruit quality. Analysis of soil salt balance after the three-year irrigation cycle showed that 3 or 4 g · L^-1treatments had potential risks of soil salt accumulation. In‘Zhandong 2’orchards in Binzhou，Shandong，fruits can resist salt stress by adjusting its own photosynthetic and fluorescence characteristics，maintaining normal growth，and promoting quality treated with 2-3 g · L^-1slightly saline water.

Key words: Ziziphus jujuba, salt stress, physiological indicator, yield, quality

丛鑫, 胡乾元, 庞桂斌, 徐立荣, 徐征和, 刘鸿飞, 裴向丽. 灌溉水矿化度对冬枣生长及产量品质的影响[J]. 园艺学报, 2025, 52(3): 714-726.

CONG Xin, HU Qianyuan, PANG Guibin, XU Lirong, XU Zhenghe, LIU Hongfei, PEI Xiangli. Effect of the Salinity of Irrigation Water on Growth，Yield，and Quality of Ziziphus jujuba‘Dongzao’[J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2025, 52(3): 714-726.

图/表 13

参考文献 25

[1]	Abdelgawad K F, El-Mogy M M, Mohamed I A M, Garchery C, Stevens R. 2019. Increasing ascorbic acid content and salinity tolerance of cherry tomato plants by suppressed expression of the ascorbate oxidase gene. Agronomy-Basel, 98:51.
[2]	Ai-Ismaily S S, Ai-Yahyai R A, Ai-Rawahy S A. 2014. Mixed fertilizer can improve fruit yield and quality of field-grown tomatoes irrigated with saline water. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 37:1981-1996.
[3]	Baath G S, Shukla M K, Bosland P W, Steiner R L, Walker S J. 2017. Irrigation water salinity influences at various growth stages of Capsicum annuum. Agricultural Water Management, 179:246-253.
[4]	Braz R D, De Lacerda C F, De Assis R N, Ferreira J F D, De Oliveira A C, Ribeiro A D. 2019. Growth and physiology of maize under water salinity and nitrogen fertilization in two soils. Revista Brasileirade Engenharia Agricolae Ambiental, 23:907-913.
[5]	Gao Hui, Zhao Liang, Liu Bin, Fu Tonggang, Liu Jintong. 2023. Study on shallow mild saline groundwater use safety in winter wheat irrigation based on the subsurface drainage system in the coastal area of Hebei Province in China. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 31 (7):1102-1109. (in Chinese)
	高会, 赵亮, 刘斌, 付同刚, 刘金铜. 2023. 河北滨海盐碱地浅层轻度咸水资源冬小麦灌溉安全利用研究. 中国生态农业学报(中英文), 31 (7):1102-1109.
[6]	Jiang X J, Lin H T, Shi J, Neethirajan S, Lin Y F, Chen Y H, Wang H, Lin Y X. 2018. Effects of a novel chitosan formulation treatment on quality attributes and storage behavior of harvested litchi fruit. Food Chemistry, 252:134-141. doi: S0308-8146(18)30104-3 pmid: 29478523
[7]	Li Shaoxiong, Liu Shuhui, Zhao Chunlong, Duan Zhiwen. 2024. The effect of brackish water irrigation on soil enzymatic activities and yield of greenhouse cucumber. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage, 43 (6):26-33. (in Chinese)
	李少雄, 刘淑慧, 赵春龙, 段志文. 2024. 微咸水滴灌对温室黄瓜土壤酶活性和产量的影响. 灌溉排水学报, 43 (6):26-33.
[8]	Li Xuefu, Ni Zhimin, Wu Yueyan, Li Meiqin, Liu Rong, Rao Huiyun. 2015. Effects of salt stress on photosynthetic characteristics and leaf cell structure of‘Yinhong’grape seedlings. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 35 (13):4436-4444. (in Chinese)
	李学孚, 倪智敏, 吴月燕, 李美芹, 刘蓉, 饶慧云. 2015. 盐胁迫对‘鄞红’葡萄光合特性及叶片细胞结构的影响. 生态学报, 35 (13):4436-4444.
[9]	Li Zhanjun, Wang Lixian, Li Zhanhui, Wang Zhongxia, Guo Junhua, Li Wenjie. 2023. Current situation and development countermeasures of Zhanhua winter jujube industry. China Fruit & Vegetable, 43 (7):71-74,84. (in Chinese)
	李占俊, 王立仙, 李占辉, 王仲霞, 郭俊华, 李文杰. 2023. 山东沾化冬枣产业现状及发展对策. 中国果菜, 43 (7):71-74,84.
[10]	Liang Wenbin, Nie Dongling, Wu Sizheng, Bai Wenfu, Shen Suzhen. 2015. Effects of shading on the growth and photosynthesis of Macropanax rosthornii seedlings. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 34 (2):413-419. (in Chinese)
	梁文斌, 聂东伶, 吴思政, 柏文富, 沈素贞. 2015. 遮荫对短梗大参苗木光合作用及生长的影响. 生态学杂志, 34 (2):413-419.
[11]	Lima G S, De Fernandes C G J, Soares L A A, Gheyi H R, Fernandes P D. 2020. Gas exchange,chloroplast pigments and growth of passion fruit cultivated with saline water and potassium fertilization. Revista Caatinga, 33:184-194.
[12]	Ma Jjiaying, Wang Xingpeng, Wang Hongbo, Wang Xuecheng, Li Chaoyang. 2022. Effects of brackish water irrigation on soil water and salt distribution and yield and quality of facility tomatoes. Agricultural Research in the Arid Area, 40 (3):104-112. (in Chinese)
	马嘉莹, 王兴鹏, 王洪博, 王海瑞, 王学成, 李朝阳. 2022. 咸水灌溉对土壤水盐分布及设施番茄产量和品质的影响. 干旱地区农业研究, 40 (3):104-112.
[13]	Moya C, Oyanedel E, Verdugo G. 2017. Increased electrical conductivity in nutrient solution management enhances dietary and organoleptic qualities in soilless culture tomato. HortScience, 52:868-872.
[14]	Pei Shuyao, Cao Hongxia, Zhang Zeyu, Zhao Fangyang, Li Zhijun. 2024. Physiological response of potted tomatoes to NaCl and Na₂SO₄ brackish water irrigation. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 57 (3):570-583. (in Chinese)
	裴书瑶, 曹红霞, 张泽宇, 赵方洋, 李志军. 2024. 盆栽番茄对NaCl和Na₂SO₄微咸水灌溉的生理响应. 中国农业科学, 57 (3):570-583. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2024.03.011
[15]	Peng Ling, Feng Lu, Song Aiyun, Dong Linshui, Li Qingjun, Liu Jingtao. 2023. Interaction of different concentrations of salt and nitrogen treatment on fruit quality formation of Ziziphus jujuba‘Dongzao’. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 50 (10):2192-2206. (in Chinese)
	彭玲, 冯璐, 宋爱云, 董林水, 李庆军, 刘京涛. 2023. 不同浓度盐和氮处理对冬枣果实品质形成的交互作用. 园艺学报, 50 (10):2192-2206. doi: 10.16420/j.issn.0513-353x.2022-0740 URL
[16]	Shin Y K, Bhandari S R, Cho M C, Lee J G. 2020. Evaluation of chlorophyll fluorescence parameters and proline content in tomato seedlings grown under different salt stress conditions. Horticulture,Environment,and Biotechnology, 61 (3):433-443.
[17]	Wang Tianyu, Wang Jintong, Xu Zhenghe, Pang Guibin, Liu Jinkai. 2017. Effects of saline water irrigation on water-salt dynamic in root district and winter jujube yield. Water Saving Irrigation,(6):46-49,54. (in Chinese)
	王天宇, 王金童, 徐征和, 庞桂斌, 刘精凯. 2017. 微咸水灌溉对冬枣根区土壤水盐动态及效益的影响. 节水灌溉,(6):46-49,54.
[18]	Wang Zhihua, Hou Hongyan, Xu Defang, Lou Jinhua, Li Yaling, Wei Lixing. 2022. Effects on yield and quality of rice under brackish water irrigation in the Yellow River Delta. North Rice, 52 (6):24-28,41. (in Chinese)
	王智华, 侯红燕, 徐德芳, 娄金华, 李亚玲, 魏立兴. 2022. 微咸水灌溉对黄河三角洲地区水稻产量和品质的影响. 北方水稻, 52 (6):24-28,41.
[19]	Wu Qifeng, Zheng Guoyu, Xin Lang, Liang Yakang, Wang Zhifeng. 2024. Construction of water-salt production function and its yield prediction for facility tomatoes under saline water irrigation. Journal of Northeast Agricultural University, 55 (2):57-68. (in Chinese)
	吴奇峰, 郑国玉, 辛朗, 梁亚康, 王之风. 2024. 咸水灌溉下设施番茄水盐生产函数构建及产量预测. 东北农业大学学报, 55 (2):57-68.
[20]	Xu Chengxiang, Ma Yanping, Xu Xizeng. 2011. A study on salt tolerance of 15 jujube tree varieties. Guangdong Agricultural Sciences, 38 (16):31-32. (in Chinese)
	徐呈祥, 马艳萍, 徐锡增. 2011. 15个枣树品种耐盐性研究. 广东农业科学, 38 (16):31-32.
[21]	Yao Lingbai, Han Haixia. 2016. Effects of salt stress on growth and index of physiology and biochemical of Paphanus sativus L.var. radculus Pers. Northern Horticulture,(13):5-8. (in Chinese)
	姚岭柏, 韩海霞. 2016. 盐胁迫对樱桃萝卜生长及生理生化指标的影响. 北方园艺,(13):5-8.
[22]	Zhang Shiqing. 2016. The effect of soil properties,growth and fruit quality of jujube which caused by drip irrigation with slightly saline water[M. D. Dissertation]. Alar: Tarim University. (in Chinese)
	张世卿. 2016. 微咸水滴灌对枣园土壤、枣树生长和红枣果实品质的影响[硕士论文]. 阿拉尔: 塔里木大学.
[23]	Zhou Xiaojin, Huang Haixia, Zhang Junxia, Ma Budong, Lu Gang, Qi Jianwei, Zhang Ting, Zhu Zhu. 2023. Effects of salt stress on photosynthetic characteristics of Gymnocarpos przewalskii seedlings. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 32 (2):75-83. (in Chinese) doi: 10.11686/cyxb2022041
	周晓瑾, 黄海霞, 张君霞, 马步东, 陆刚, 齐建伟, 张婷, 朱珠. 2023. 盐胁迫对裸果木幼苗光合特性的影响. 草业学报, 32 (2):75-83. doi: 10.11686/cyxb2022041
[24]	Zou Qi. 2000. Plant physiology experiment guidance. Beijing: China Agriculture Press. (in Chinese)
	邹琦. 2000. 植物生理学实验指导. 北京: 中国农业出版社.
[25]	Zuo Qiang, Wu Xun, Shi Jianchu, Wang Quanjiu, Liu Zhaohui, Zhu Anning, Yin Dongqin, Feng Quanlong, Ji Wenjun, Kang Shaozhong. 2023. Constraints and coordinated allocation strategies of water and land resources for sustainable use of coastal saline-alkali land in the Yellow River Delta. Strategic Study of CAE, 25 (4):169-179. (in Chinese) doi: 10.15302/J-SSCAE-2023.07.028
	左强, 吴训, 石建初, 王全九, 刘兆辉, 朱安宁, 尹冬勤, 冯权泷, 纪文君, 康绍忠. 2023. 黄河三角洲滨海盐碱地可持续利用的水土资源约束与均衡配置策略. 中国工程科学, 25 (4):169-179. doi: 10.15302/J-SSCAE-2023.07.028

水质类型 Type of water quality	TDS/ (g · L^-1)	EC/ (μS · cm^-1)	pH	K⁺/ (mg · L^-1)	Na⁺/ (mg · L^-1)	Ca²⁺/ (mg · L^-1)	Mg²⁺/ (mg · L^-1)	Cl^-/ (mg · L^-1)	SO₄^2-/ (mg · L^-1)	HCO₃^-/ (mg · L^-1)	CO₃^2-/ (mg · L^-1)
淡水 Fresh water	0.70	1 400	7.2	6.99	127	61.4	24.5	150	193	20.8	117
咸水 Saline water	4.60	9 500	8.4	30.3	1071	212	221	1 785	853	21.3	394

水质类型 Type of water quality	TDS/ (g · L^-1)	EC/ (μS · cm^-1)	pH	K⁺/ (mg · L^-1)	Na⁺/ (mg · L^-1)	Ca²⁺/ (mg · L^-1)	Mg²⁺/ (mg · L^-1)	Cl^-/ (mg · L^-1)	SO₄^2-/ (mg · L^-1)	HCO₃^-/ (mg · L^-1)	CO₃^2-/ (mg · L^-1)
淡水 Fresh water	0.70	1 400	7.2	6.99	127	61.4	24.5	150	193	20.8	117
咸水 Saline water	4.60	9 500	8.4	30.3	1071	212	221	1 785	853	21.3	394

生育期 Growing period	2020		2021		2022
生育期 Growing period	降水量 Precipitation	灌溉量 Irrigation amount	降水量 Precipitation	灌溉量 Irrigation amount	降水量 Precipitation	灌溉量 Irrigation amount
萌芽—展叶期Sprout leaves period	57.6	48	60.3	48	203.8	24
开花—幼果期Blossom-young fruit period	70.5	48	124.8	24	76.1	48
果实膨大期Developing fruit period	244.9	48	268.4	24	384.9	24
着色—成熟期Fruit ripe period	55.3	24	120.1	0	103.7	24
全生育期Whole growth period	428.3	168	573.6	96	768.5	120

生育期 Growing period	2020		2021		2022
生育期 Growing period	降水量 Precipitation	灌溉量 Irrigation amount	降水量 Precipitation	灌溉量 Irrigation amount	降水量 Precipitation	灌溉量 Irrigation amount
萌芽—展叶期Sprout leaves period	57.6	48	60.3	48	203.8	24
开花—幼果期Blossom-young fruit period	70.5	48	124.8	24	76.1	48
果实膨大期Developing fruit period	244.9	48	268.4	24	384.9	24
着色—成熟期Fruit ripe period	55.3	24	120.1	0	103.7	24
全生育期Whole growth period	428.3	168	573.6	96	768.5	120

年 Year	矿化度/（g · L^-1）Salinity	P_n,max/(μmoL · m^-2 · s^-1)	I_sat/(μmoL · m^-2 · s^-1)	I_c/(μmoL · m^-2 · s^-1)	R_d/(μmoL · m^-2 · s^-1)	α
2020	1（对照control）	19.90 ± 0.85 c	1 242.89 ± 102.62 a	61.14 ± 5.48 c	4.41 ± 0.06 b	0.0806 ± 0.0057 bc
	2	20.19 ± 0.91 c	1 073.15 ± 49.41 b	63.98 ± 6.14 c	4.18 ± 0.06 b	0.0710 ± 0.0035 c
	3	28.65 ± 0.84 a	950.19 ± 87.71 bc	112.38 ± 2.57 b	13.85 ± 0.91 a	0.1474 ± 0.0124 a
	4	29.02 ± 0.74 a	915.48 ± 20.36 c	115.37 ± 4.98 b	15.85 ± 1.65 a	0.1684 ± 0.0098 a
	5	25.11 ± 0.45 b	1 494.97 ± 150.41 a	155.79 ± 2.64 a	12.89 ± 1.34 a	0.1031 ± 0.0192 bc
2021	1（对照control）	8.99 ± 1.12 c	1 859.22 ± 86.52 a	108.43 ± 7.47 b	2.59 ± 0.08 c	0.0276 ± 0.0001 d
	2	15.68 ± 0.34 b	1 930.57 ± 62.88 a	100.19 ± 8.96 b	3.44 ± 0.04 c	0.0381 ± 0.0004 c
	3	21.93 ± 0.78 a	874.33 ± 20.16 c	175.89 ± 8.25 a	20.05 ± 0.18 a	0.1489 ± 0.0018 a
	4	21.18 ± 1.24 a	937.60 ± 114.48 c	99.80 ± 13.98 b	11.49 ± 1.49 b	0.1455 ± 0.0016 a
	5	19.39 ± 1.59 a	1 302.94 ± 31.80 b	126.90 ± 14.54 b	8.99 ± 1.18 b	0.0866 ± 0.0002 b
2022	1（对照control）	15.56 ± 0.28 a	1 219.47 ± 48.92 c	17.29 ± 6.67 c	0.68 ± 0.01 c	0.0401 ± 0.0001 a
	2	7.93 ± 1.98 b	1 148.68 ± 90.20 c	30.90 ± 6.64 bc	0.64 ± 0.02 c	0.0212 ± 0.0009 c
	3	12.17 ± 2.47 b	1 713.03 ± 78.16 a	37.38 ± 5.98 b	1.49 ± 0.05 b	0.0429 ± 0.0001 a
	4	8.74 ± 0.98 b	1 474.51 ± 62.2 b	64.12 ± 3.45 a	1.91 ± 0.04 a	0.0335 ± 0.0003 b
	5	8.59 ± 1.21 b	994.32 ± 81.27 c	43.91 ± 3.55 b	1.44 ± 0.04 b	0.0353 ± 0.0004 b