全 文 ： ACTA AGRONOMICA SINICA 2008, 34(1): 171−174 http://www.chinacrops.org/zwxb/
ISSN 0496-3490; CODEN TSHPA9 E-mail: xbzw@chinajournal.net.cn

:

 (30460063, 30260051)  2001BA507A0401
 :

(1979–), ,  , !#$%, &()*+,-%.#$/0
*
12*3(Corresponding author):

456/Tel70993-2057326E-mail7Zhwf_agr@shzu.edu.cn
Received(89:;): 2007-05-10; Accepted(<=:;>: 2007-07-31.
DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2008.00171
  
   *    
(  /,  832003)
 :  ,  ,  0~60 cm  !#$%
45%(&())*60%(+()), 75%(-./, 01), 23 !#$, 45678()90
:;<=>?@A$BC%DEFGHIJ, ()KLM:;N<=OP(Pn),QR(Gs), &():;TUVWX(qP)*PSYZ[\]$[A$(ФPS)KL, ^+()c9ef; ФPS, qPg Pn%hSij; NPQ9a 1~2 dklKLFmnopq, +()9
a<=rstu$g01vJkwx, paoyzL{01, |A$}L; &()9a<=rstu
$@|A$3eLF
: ; (); 9; <=>?; ; 
Effects of Rewatering after Drought Stress on Photosynthesis and Yield
during Flowering and Boll-Setting Stage of Cotton Under- Mulch-Drip
Irrigation in Xinjiang
LUO Hong-Hai, ZHANG Ya-Li, ZHANG Wang-Feng*, BAI Hui-Dong, HE Zai-Ju, DU Ming-Wei,
and ZHANG Hong-Zhi
(Shihezi University of Key Laboratory of Oasis Ecology Agriculture of Xinjiang Construction Crops/College of Agriculture, Shihezi 832003,
Xinjiang, China)
Abstract: In order to develop water saving irrigation stratagem and increase cotton yield in Xinjiang, we did the irrigation ex-
periment in the field, controlled the lower limit of soil relative moisture content in layer of 0–60 cm at 45%, 60%, and 75% (the
control) respectively of field water-holding capacity, which was the upper irrigation limit, and studied the effects of rewatering
after drought on photosynthesis and yield during flowering-boll stage of cotton under-mulch-drip irrigation. The result showed
that drought reduced the parameters of gas exchange. Photochemical quenching coefficient (qP) and PSY photochemical quan-
tum yield (ФPS) were reduced but non-photochemical quenching coefficient (NPQ) was increased significantly under moderate
drought. Net photosynthetic rate (Pn) and stomatal conductance (Gs) of three water treatments could be rapidly recovered within
three days after rewatering, and the recovery of mild drought treatment was the most rapid. The recovery of ФPS and qP in three
water treatments was similar to that of Pn which achieved the maximum in 2–3 days after rewatering. The NPQ of three water
treatments decreased significantly in 1–2 days after rewatering. From early flowering stage to early full boll stage, accumulation
of single plant photosynthate was not much different from that of mild drought treatment after rewatering and the control, but the
accumulation of single plant photosynthate was decreased significantly from later full boll stage to boll opening stage that let the
seed cotton yield in mild drought treatment after rewatering be lower than that in control. Accumulation of single plant photosyn-
thate and seed cotton yield in moderate drought treatment after rewatering was always lower than that in mild drought treatment
and control.
Keywords: Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.); Drought; Rewatering; Photosynthesis; Xinjiang; Under-Mulch-Drip irrigation
172      34

()~rA$€`%‚^rƒ„…†, 
‡ˆ‰Šƒ„…[&‹C%ŒeŽ[1]F45IJ, +,
&():;Q, ‘ CO2’K, <=OPK
L[2-3]; ()“”MZ[—˜%™š, <=›œžŒŸ[4-6]Fr+()9
a 1~2 d, N<=OP*QR,‘ CO2’ ¡c
9[7-9]; 9a 2~3 d, PSYZ[\]$ [A$, ¡c9, ¢^hirsutum L.)~£)?}¤%r[10]F¥()0:;
<= DE%45}¦ [11-12], §()9a<=
 c9%45}¨F<©ª«¬­, ®¯°±¥
²³%ª«´µF¶·¸ˆ¹uºO»Ž, R
¼¯°—$½¾¸¿¦ , ª«6ÀÁÂ¯
°Ã#IJ³FÅqŽ¹uÆÇÈÉ®
, Ê¢G=!>Ë, ̳<=>?,A
$BC%456Í, A2$¨ÎÏPЎ, Ñ
Òӝ678()ƒ„¢DE´s`AF
~A$BC%ÔÕ , Ö~!®×Ø%Ù
‚Õ[13]FÚÛÜG= ,  
ˆÝÞ , 45678()90:;<
=>?,A$BC%DE , !®×Ø
€/ØßàáF
1 
1.1 
ÛÜâã[ŽT¯TäÛÜå`ÈÃæç
è&éê, ëè¹u 9.0 m×3.7 m, ì 1.5 m, 6íî,
7ïðŽ!F/Û(Gossypium hirsutum L.)ñˆ
òÙóñˆôõ 13F4ö 22÷24øùú*û,
2Ëü ; !ˆÝÞ@×ýûþÝ
7Ž!
, ë 24×104ÒFp (6ö 15
ø)éêF Hsiao %Ý
þ&()*+(
),-./ (01 ) 3  Ø [14], 
0~60 cm !#$% 45%*60%, 75%,
23 !#$, 9 3 F
1.2  
ë 1 d { Õ(òÕ 2000÷2200) TDR
 0~60 cmi0$F 3 Ø7Õ
žÕ, W•:;,:
†<X, Êao!#$, m9a 1 d Ì
Ä 2!‡X%hS, o‡ Ø#$ž
 %F&& 45%*60%, 75% Øa
15~16*8~9, 6~7 džF Li-6400<=W
•:;X;  PAM 2100<(Ê<
:†<X;  PSYPRO )˵:
µ; :;**(,:;+, 12 ha%-,*
./:;i0$F{n*p*pq*p
a*yz, i0 1a 62*72*82*92*112 d, ë
Ø234ï¼%Ò 5~6Ò, 56ÒC7*:*
89:(;F<=‡ Ø23>I?Ò 30 Ò?@
AÒGX, 5<3 60~90 , /Bb?ˆ, dCDE
(OPQR)F
2 
2.1 
S 1IJ, ()KLM:;N<=OP(Pn)*
QR(Gs),‘ CO2 ’(Ci)F9a‡ Ø:;
X3¥678%c9, && Pn T%#
$UAVWXhS(S 1-a)F67 ØYJkw
x, 9a 3 d PnžVZ[q, +() Ø%c9\Ð
01; VZÐa, 01]klÎ^kl`{&_ 2 ØF&
() Pn`9bUL™c9FCi9a 1 d
fO2_, &aa{™b(S 1-b); 67 Ø 1~4 dwx
6Ž, 5 dda&()% CiklL{01FGs%hSg Pn
ï¼(S 1-c), +()g019a 1~2 dvklwx, 2
Økl`{&(); ‡ Ø9a 3~4 d c9žeŽ,
&a+,&()klL{01F
2.2  
67 Ø:; PSYeŽJkwx(S 2-a), 90 Fv/FmÖd¥JkDEFKS 2-b
Ãe, 9q, +(),01[% PSYZ[\]$[
A$(ФPS)vJkwx, § 2 Økl`{&()F9
a ФPSIf , 01,+()9a 3 deŽ, &ag


 1   PnCi Gs 
Fig. 1 Recovery of photosynthesis, intercellular CO2 concentration, and stomatal conductance of cotton leaves by rewatering after drought
 1 :    173


hKL, i+()9a 1~2 d kl`{01; &()
9a 2 deŽ, &abjKLFSaµg ФPSï¼(S 2-c), 9q, +(),01[
vJkwx, ¢&()klKLF9a 1~2 d+(
)kl`{01,&(), &akL{01; &()
qPL™2c9F^),01vJkwx, § 2 ØklL{&()F9
a 1~2 d NPQklKL, &abjl_žq%™F+
()NPQ9a 3 dbL{01, 3 da`{01; &
()9amn#}`ZF


 2   Fv/FmФPSqP NPQ 
Fig. 2 Recovery of Fv/Fm, ФPS, qP, and NPQ of cotton leaves by
rewatering after drought

2.3   
S 3-aIJ, :µT()8¿o¢KL, 9aº
O_`; ‡ Ø9a 2 d eŽ, 01g+()kl
`{&(), T%#$]ghKoq%
™, d&()Kp}ŽF:;i0$%hSa
µg:µï¼, d01e`(S 3-b)F9a 3 de`Z,
&aghKLF
2.4 
ÛÜIJ(S 4), 67 , Ò<=rst
uYJkwx , +()nopqq2Lr
<=rs@s89<=rstu$t½01™3L
8.1%, 11.2%; paoyz}01L 22.8%,
25.3%, i 2 ØwxklF&()` Ø
<=rstu$3klL{+(),01F


 3  (ψw)(RWC) 
Fig. 3 Recovery of water potential and relative water content of
cotton leaves by rewatering after drought



 4   
Fig. 4 Effect of rewatering after drought on cotton single plant
photosynthate accumulation at different growth stages
a ; b 
a: Photosynthate dry weight of aerial part; b: Photosynthate dry weight
of reproductive organ

2.5 

-./ A$e`, & +()(I
1)FA$œC…[&, AÒGXT%¿o¢¿o,
01,+()%kl`{&(), u 01k
l`{+,&()F670GHñsÖ¥J
k%DE, GH4,½¤3d+()}`, 01 [,
&()eL; vwxZ ØvJkwxF

1  !#$ 
Table 1 Effect of rewatering after drought on cotton yield and fiber quality
 Yield and yield components

 Cotton fiber quality


Treatment 
Boll numbers
per plant

Boll weight
(g)
!
Lint percentage
(%)
#
Seed cotton yield
(kg hm-2)
$#
Lint cotton yield
(kg hm-2)
%&
Length
(mm)
(&
Strength
(cN tex-1)
)*+,
Micronaire
45% 2.64±0.45 c 3.87±0.32 b 40.7±0.08 b 2 358.0±124.2 c 959.7±87.5 c 27.74±1.44 b 31.88±3.28 b 4.86±0.34 a
60% 4.56±0.37 b 5.28±0.14 a 40.8±0.11 b 4 176.0±108.7 b 1 703.8±79.6 b 30.47±0.87 a 34.68±1.55 a 4.84±0.12 a
75% 6.60±0.46 a 5.39±0.28 a 41.6±0.14 a 5 476.5±106.6 a 2 278.2±67.8 a 29.38±1.67 a 33.45±2.36 ab 4.74±0.12 a
-./01234567 P0.0589:;<=
Values followed by a different letter are significantly different at the 0.05 probability level.
174      34

3 
3.1    
  , 
  , ! qP#
ФPS$, NPQ$%&, Fv/Fm()*+, 0.83
-., /!01 PS234!56789
#:;<=>?6@ABCD346EFGH, PS
234!56CDIJ , KLM@NOPQ
RSTUV6WXY, Z[\=]^#PS234!5
6M_`IabcdeOf@gh4ijkl6_mn
oip 3 dq,  Pn#Gs#Cir ФPSqPsto, NPQ
$noip 1~2 d Pnuvwxy4, M@
zoi{Q Gs, {P| CO2 } 6~e, 
Ci €C, /‚Cƒ„&zoi
p…†wxy46‡ˆ‰Š ; ‚C6„&‹Œd‚
CŽ, ‘6’X“”•N–, oi
p 1~2 d ФPSr qP$&Bn!oip 2 d Pn#
Gsr CiM—to˜6 95%-.; NPQ ™&, qPr
ФPSš›,iœ‘to , KL!™ž6Ÿ 
@¡B¢de, “”£CD34!56Ÿ @GHn
3.2  
Constablea[15]¤¥¦§,¨yi 60%©ª,
«¬­®z¯ˆ6, Š§†°±²³´n)µ¶!,
·«01r!oip¸W¹º»¼B
noip½¾M@ž6…¸}¿À,
Á , Â6ÃÄ{P, ÅÆ»G
H, ǛÈ…»Bn!oip,
¸W¹ºH, È…»ÇnŠÉ, ,)µ¶01·
«ÊhË6·i̧ÊÍ+i»6 70%~75%n
,iÎÏlÐÑÒ, ÓÔÑÕÖ#‹×ØÙc, 
ÚÛÜhŒh6ÝÞ, ßj àoip Pn 6wxy
4, @„&…»‹ijáAyn
References
[1] Zhang Q-D(), Lu C-M(). Water Stress and Photosyn-
thesis. In: Lou C-H ( ), Wang X-C ( ) eds. Base on Crop
Yield Formative Physiology ( ). Beijing:
China Agriculture Press, 2000. pp 39−46 (in Chinese)
[2] Chaves M M. Effects of water deficits on carbon assimilation.
Exp Bot, 1991, 42: 1−16
[3] Cornic G. Drought stress inhibits photosynthesis by decreasing
stomatal aperture-not by affecting ATP synthesis. Trends Plant
Sci, 2000, 5: 187−188
[4] Krause G H, Weis E. Chlorophyll fluorescence and photosynthe-
sis: The basics. Annu Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol, 1991, 42:
313−349
[5] Long S P, Humphries S. Photoihibition of photosynthesis in na-
ture. Annu Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol, 1994, 45: 633−624
[6] Bukhov N G. Effects of water stress on the photosynthetic effi-
ciency of plants. In: Papageorgiou G, Govindjee eds. Advances in
Photosynthesis and Respiration. Netherlands: KAP Press, 2004.
pp 623−635
[7] Flexas J, Bota J, Galmés J, Medrano H, Ribas-Carbo M. Keeping
a positive carbon balance under adverse conditions: responses of
photosynthesis and respiration to water stress. Physiol Plant,
2006, 127: 343−352
[8] Souza R P, Machado E C, Silva J A B, Lagôa A M A, Silveira J A
G. Photosynthetic gas exchange, chlorophyll fluorescence and
some associated metabolic changes in cowpea during water stress
and recovery. Environ Exp Bot, 2004, 51: 45−56
[9] Miyashita K, Tanakamaru S, Maitani T, Kimura K. Recovery re-
sponses of photosynthesis, transpiration and stomatal conductance
in kidney bean following drought stress. Environ Exp Bot, 2005,
53: 205−214
[10] Turner N C, Hearn A B, Begg J E, Constable G A. Cotton:
Physiological and morphotogical response to water deficits and
their relationship to yield. Field Crops Res, 1986, 14: 153−170
[11] Nepomuceno A L, Dosterhuis D M, Stewart J M. Physiological
response of cotton leaves and roots to water deficit induced by
polyethylene glycol. Environ Exp Bot, 1998, 40: 29−41
[12] Ennahli S, Earl H. Physiological limitations to photosynthetic
carbon assimilation in cotton under water stress. Crop Sci, 2005,
45: 2374−2382
[13] Yu X-G (), Sun J-S (), Xiao J-F (), Liu Z-G (
!), Zhang J-Y (#$). A study on drought indices and lower
limit of suitable soil moisture of cotton. Acta Gossypii Sin (%&),
1999, 11(1): 35−38 (in Chinese with English abstract)
[14] Hsiao T C. Plant responses to water stress. Annu Rev Plant
Physiol, 1973, 24: 519−570
[15] Constable G A, Hearn A B. Irrigation for crops in a sub-humid
environment. Irri Sci, 1981, 3: 7−28