METHODS article

Front. Plant Sci., 02 October 2024

Sec. Crop and Product Physiology

Volume 15 - 2024 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2024.1422374

Effects of different cold-resistant agents and application methods on yield and cold-resistance of machine-transplanted early rice

  • College of Agronomy, Hunan Agricultural University, Changsha, China

Article metrics

View details

2

Citations

1,3k

Views

448

Downloads

Abstract

Cold stress is a critical factor affecting rice production worldwide. The application of cold-resistant agents may improve the cold resistance and yield of crops. To screen for suitable cold-resistant agents for machine-transplanted early rice, the effects of uniconazole, abscisic acid, and zinc-amino acids chelate and their spraying times (seed soaking stage, one leaf and one heart stage, two leaves and one heart stage, 7 days before the transplanting stage, and regreening stage) on the yield and cold resistance of machine-transplanted early rice were investigated. Moreover, the application method (spraying amount: 750 and 1125 g ha−1; spraying time: 7 days before the transplanting stage, transplanting stage, regreening stage, and transplanting stage and regreening stage) for the most suitable cold-resistant agent was optimized. The zinc-amino acids chelate was better than the other two cold-resistant agents for promoting rice tillering and increasing the leaf area index, dry matter weight, antioxidant enzyme activities (CAT, SOD, POD) and yield (i.e., 9.22% and 7.14% higher than uniconazole and abscisic acid, respectively), especially when it was applied in the regreening stage. The examination of spraying amounts and times indicated that the zinc-amino acids chelate dosage had no significant effect on the yield and cold resistance of early rice. However, the rice yield and antioxidant enzyme activities were highest when samples were sprayed once in the transplanting stage and the regreening stage. On the basis of the study results, 750 g ha−1 zinc-amino acids chelate applications in the transplanting and regreening stages of machine-transplanted early rice plants may be ideal for increasing cold stress resistance and yield.

1 Introduction

Rice is an important staple food crop consumed by a large proportion of the global population. Unfortunately, because of climate change, extreme weather conditions occur relatively frequently, with cold stress seriously affecting rice yield and quality (Huang et al., 2013). As one of the main grain-producing areas in China, the southern rice-growing region is susceptible to late spring cold conditions, which are mainly caused by long periods of rainfall, frequent intrusion of cold air, or radiative cooling due to cold anticyclones on clear nights (Qian and Zhang, 2012). Cold stress seriously affects the production of early rice (e.g., decreased seedling quality as well as delayed transplanting, regreening of tillers, and panicle differentiation) and may even affect the planting time of late rice (Ai et al., 2022; Crofts et al., 2022; Kwak et al., 2018; Zhou et al., 2018). Extreme low-temperature stress in Hunan province from 1981 to 2010 reportedly decreased early rice and late rice yields by 6.66% and 1.82%, respectively (Liu et al., 2019).

Mechanized rice planting is currently the simplest and most effective cultivation method for rice at least partly because it can decrease the required labor force and optimize the economic benefits of rice production (Li et al., 2022). Machine transplanting has significantly increased rice production efficiency by decreasing costs, time, and labor, thereby increasing productivity and profits. However, the problems associated with this approach include low seedling quality and limited seedling age elasticity, which seriously restricts the utility of machine-transplanted rice seedlings (Gao et al., 2022). In addition, early rice seedlings are susceptible to low-temperature stress in southern China, further limiting the development and application of machine-transplanting technology.

Cold-induced damages significantly affect rice plant growth, development, and physiological metabolism. Earlier research showed that rice plants are most susceptible to low-temperature stress at the seedling and panicle differentiation stages. An exposure to low temperatures will decrease the seedling establishment rate and lead to panicle degeneration, resulting in a significant decrease in rice yield (Zhang et al., 2022). Low temperatures can also directly affect antioxidant enzyme activities, chlorophyll contents, and photosynthetic rates in early rice leaves. Specifically, low-temperature stress during the rice seedling stage decreases superoxide dismutase (SOD) and peroxidase (POD) activities in leaves, while increasing the malondialdehyde content (Theocharis et al., 2012) and decreasing the photosynthetic capacity (Zsiros et al., 2019). Cold-induced damages to rice plants may be restricted by certain defensive measures, including the selection of cold-resistant varieties (Lee and Kwon, 2015), warm water irrigation (Zhang et al., 2020), or soil warming (Ge et al., 2015). However, there are potential issues and problems associated with these measures (e.g., varietal differences among rice-growing regions, high management costs, and detrimental effects on ecological systems). Foliar fertilizers are widely used to increase crop cold resistance and yield because of their low cost and the fact they are not particularly harmful to the environment. Gurav et al. (2019) determined that potassium dihydrogen phosphate can protect plant seedlings from low-temperature stress because it stabilizes the plant cell membrane structure to maintain its protective function and permeability. Li et al. (2015) observed that potassium and zinc in foliar fertilizers can decrease oxidative damage due to reactive oxygen species in plants under low temperature stress, and improve the growth and development of plants. Pretreatment of rice seedlings with SA (salicylic acid) induced enhanced cold tolerance, mainly manifested in increased antioxidant system activity, thereby improving the relationship between yield components and increasing grain yield (Huang et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2021a).

The effects of low temperatures on rice yield formation and physiological characteristics have been extensively studied (Crofts et al., 2022; Jia et al., 2022; Xu et al., 2020). Research on technical measures that affect low-temperature defense responses has mostly focused on cold-induced damages and the expression of cold tolerance-related genes during the seedling stage (Wang et al., 2021b; Yang et al., 2012). Relatively few studies have screened different types of cold-resistant agents useful for treating machine-transplanted early rice in subtropical regions. Furthermore, there are no reports on the effects of their application methods on the cold-resistance of rice. In the first year of this study, we examined the effects of different cold-resistant agents and their spraying times on the early rice yield and seedling cold resistance under machine-transplanted conditions to identify the most suitable cold-resistant agent. In the second year, we analyzed the techniques used to apply a selected cold-resistant agent to determine the optimal spraying amount and time for early rice. By identifying appropriate cold-resistant agents and application methods, we provide theoretical and technical support for improving the cultivation of stress-resistant and stable-yielding rice plants.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Test site and materials

This study was conducted at the Field Experiment Station of the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Bureau of Hengyang county, Hunan province, China (26° 97′ N, 111° 37′ E) in 2018 and 2019. The soil nutrient conditions were as follows: 1.46 g kg-1 total N, 0.61 g kg-1 total phosphorus, 18.87 g kg-1 total potassium, 158.44 mg kg-1 alkaline hydrolysis N, 8.93 mg kg-1 available phosphorus, 114.07 mg kg-1 available potassium, and 26.01 g kg-1 organic matter in 2018, and correspondingly 1.53 g kg-1, 0.57 g kg-1, 19.05 g kg-1, 169.12 mg kg-1, 9.73 mg kg-1, 109.95 mg kg-1 and 25.68 g kg-1 in 2019. Meteorological data of daily average temperature in Hengyang County, Hengyang City, Hunan Province, China were collected from March to July in 2018 and 2019 (Supplementary Figure S1). The data comes from the National Meteorological Science Data Center (http://data.cma.cn). For some missing data, the average value of the meteorological element in the adjacent 2 days on that day is used as a replacement.

Zhongjiazao 17, which is an indica type conventional early rice variety with a growth period of 109 days, was used in both years. The following cold-resistant agents were analyzed: uniconazole aqueous agent (180 mg L−1) produced by Chongqing Tuyouta Company (China), abscisic acid aqueous agent (15 mg L−1) produced by Henan Zhifu Company (China), and zinc-amino acids chelate (ZAC; i.e., compound foliar fertilizer) powder (amino acids ≥100 g kg−1; Zn ≥50 g kg−1) produced by Hunan Guonong Company (China).

2.2 Experimental design

A two-factor experiment involving different cold-resistant agents and spraying times was conducted in 2018. The cold-resistant agents were tested in the main area, whereas the spraying times were tested in the secondary area. The cold-resistant agents were uniconazole (C1: 75 ml m−2), abscisic acid (C2: 75 ml m−2), and ZAC (C3: 650 g ha−1). The spraying times included the seed soaking stage (D1), one leaf and one heart stage (D2), two leaves and one heart stage (D3), 7 days before the transplanting stage (D4), and regreening stage (D5; 7 days after the transplanting stage). Fifteen treatments were included in the experiment, with each treatment conducted three times for a total of 45 plots.

In 2019, a two-factor experiment with different spraying amounts and spraying times was conducted using ZAC. The spraying amounts were tested in the main area, whereas the spraying times were tested in the secondary area. The spraying amounts were 750 g ha−1 (B1) and 1125 g ha−1 (B2). The spraying times were 7 days before the transplanting stage (A1), transplanting stage (A2), regreening stage (A3), and transplanting stage and regreening stage (A4). For each spraying amount, plants were sprayed twice. A control treatment (CK) group was also included. The experiment comprised nine treatments, with each treatment conducted three times for a total of 27 plots.

In both years, early rice seeds were soaked on March 24 and sown on March 28, with the resulting seedlings transplanted on April 20. The size of the test seedling tray was 58 cm × 28 cm. The machine planting density was 30 cm × 11 cm. The study field area was 20 m2, and the surrounding area was separated by protective rows covered with polyethylene plastic films (0.3 m width and 0.3 m height). Independent irrigation and drainage outlets were provided. Other management measures were in accordance with local practices.

2.3 Measurement items and methods

Starting on day 5 after transplanting, 20 consecutive and representative rice plants with consistent growth were selected in each plot. The number of rice tillers was recorded every 5 days. To examine the leaf area and dry weight during critical growth stages (tillering, booting, heading, milky, and maturity), three plants were sampled from each plot. The leaf area was measured using a length–width coefficient method (Park et al., 2004). The plant samples at each stage were divided into the leaf, stem, and panicle and bagged, cured at 105°C for 30 min, and dried to a constant weight at 80°C. The dry matter weight of each plant part was recorded.

At maturity, 80 rice plants in each plot were examined to calculate the effective panicle number per plant. On the basis of the average effective panicle number, five plants per plot were sampled and examined in the laboratory to determine the number of grains per panicle, seed setting rate, and thousand-grain weight. Next, in each plot, 80 randomly selected rice plants were harvested, but not from the outer three rows. After threshing, the straw and empty grains were removed before grains were weighed and the moisture content was measured according to the drying method. The actual yield was calculated using a moisture content of 13.5%. The following formula was used: actual output = harvested output × (1 − moisture content)/0.865.

In 2018, rice leaves were collected at 7 days after the regreening stage, whereas in 2019, rice leaves were collected at the 7 days after the regreening stage, peak tillering stage, booting stage, and milky stage. Extract the test solution according to the method of Xie et al. (2008). Weigh a small amount of fresh rice leaves, cut them into pieces and put them in a mortar. Add liquid nitrogen to cover the leaves, let it stand for a few minutes and then quickly grind it into powder. Then use the One ten thousandth of the balance scale(AB135-S, Mettler Toledo, Zurich, Switzerland) to weigh 0.1 grams (± 0.0005g) of the sample and put it in a centrifuge tube. Add 1.5 ml of phosphate buffer (pH 7.8) and centrifuge at 10,000 r·min-1 at 4°C for 20 min. Then transfer the supernatant to a 20 ml graduated test tube and dilute to 15 ml with 62.5 mmol·L-1 phosphate buffer and mix well for later use. Repeat each treatment 3 times. The enzyme activities of CAT, SOD, and POD were determined according to the method of Munir et al. (2021). That is, a UV-visible spectrophotometer (UV2700, Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan) was used to measure the absorbance values of the corresponding indicators (SOD, POD, and CAT) of the extracted enzyme solution at different wavelengths, and then the enzyme activity was calculated.

2.4 Statistical analysis

One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used for Duncan’s multiple comparisons (P<0.05) of different treatments using SPSS 24 for Windows (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). Graphs were plotted by Origin 2023 (OriginLab, Northampton, MA, USA).

3 Results

3.1 Screening of suitable cold-resistant agents for machine-transplanted early rice

3.1.1 Rice tillering dynamics

The number of tillers initially increased up to the peak tillering stage and then decreased (Figure 1). In terms of the effects of cold-resistant agents, the number of tillers per plant was highest for C3 at each growth stage. For C3, C2, and C1, the number of tillers per plant in the peak tillering stage was 16.22, 15.47, and 15.08, respectively. There were no major differences in the number of tillers at each growth stage among the spraying times. In the peak tillering stage, the number of tillers was highest for D5 and D2 (16.01 and 15.66 tillers per plant, respectively), followed by D4 and D3 (15.60 and 15.50 tillers per plant, respectively). The D1 treatment resulted in the fewest tillers (15.17 tillers per plant). Among the combined treatments, the number of tillers at each growth stage was highest for C3D5 (16.57 tillers per plant). Considered together, these results suggest an ZAC treatment during the regreening stage may be ideal for maximizing the number of tillers.

Figure 1

Figure 1

Effects of different cold-resistant agents and their spraying times on rice tillering dynamics. C1: Uniconazole; C2: Abscisic acid; C3: Zinc-amino acids chelate; D1: Seed soaking stage; D2: One leaf and one heart stage; D3: Two leaves and one heart stage; D4: 7 days before the transplanting stage; D5: regreening stage.

3.1.2 Dry matter weight

The comparison of the effects of cold-resistant agents revealed the dry matter weight at each growth stage was highest for C3, followed by C2 and then C1 (Table 1). More specifically, the dry matter weight was significantly higher for C3 than for the other two treatments from the tillering stage to the full heading stage. Moreover, there was a significant difference in the dry matter weight between C3 and C1 in the milky stage and maturity stage. In terms of the spraying times, with the exception of the tillering stage, the dry matter weight was highest for D5, followed by D2. The differences in the dry matter weight between D5 and the other treatments were significant. For the combined treatments, C3D1 resulted in the highest dry matter weight in the tillering stage, whereas C3D5 produced the highest dry matter weight from the booting stage to the maturity stage.

Table 1

Treatment Peak tillering stage Booting stage Full-heading stage Milky stage Maturity stage
Cold-resistant C1 5.15 ± 0.52c 16.18 ± 0.44b 24.99 ± 0.64b 33.38 ± 0.94b 40.59 ± 1.25b
C2 5.50 ± 0.38b 16.35 ± 0.53b 25.84 ± 0.50b 35.37 ± 1.37ab 42.56 ± 1.17ab
C3 5.90 ± 0.69a 17.42 ± 0.48a 27.62 ± 1.13a 37.32 ± 1.22a 43.87 ± 1.40a
Spraying time D1 5.77 ± 0.34a 15.95 ± 0.75b 25.62 ± 0.65b 34.70 ± 0.93b 39.72 ± 1.26b
D2 5.11 ± 0.21b 17.76 ± 0.66a 26.76 ± 0.71ab 36.09 ± 0.97ab 44.81 ± 1.57a
D3 5.75 ± 0.37a 15.43 ± 0.73b 26.60 ± 0.57ab 34.42 ± 1.21b 40.53 ± 1.18b
D4 5.45 ± 0.29ab 15.76 ± 0.52b 24.57 ± 0.40c 33.94 ± 1.14b 40.74 ± 1.09b
D5 5.60 ± 0.26a 18.36 ± 0.91a 27.21 ± 0.83a 38.12 ± 1.05a 45.06 ± 1.49a
Cold-resistant×
Spraying time
C1D1 5.40 ± 0.18cd 16.00 ± 0.51cd 24.32 ± 0.38de 32.04 ± 0.95e 33.66 ± 0.91f
C1D2 4.32 ± 0.17f 18.65 ± 0.77a 25.42 ± 0.59cd 30.06 ± 0.62f 43.96 ± 1.13bc
C1D3 5.75 ± 0.25c 13.81 ± 0.48e 26.61 ± 0.51bc 34.24 ± 0.83cd 42.78 ± 1.03bc
C1D4 5.02 ± 0.15e 13.83 ± 0.32e 23.87 ± 0.55e 35.77 ± 1.07bc 39.27 ± 0.89e
C1D5 5.36 ± 0.21d 18.20 ± 0.65ab 24.75 ± 0.67de 34.79 ± 1.09bcd 42.91 ± 1.07bc
C2D1 4.31 ± 0.12f 16.76 ± 0.42bc 24.89 ± 0.31d 36.35 ± 1.14b 39.03 ± 0.94e
C2D2 5.45 ± 0.17cd 15.83 ± 0.38d 26.53 ± 0.47bc 35.90 ± 1.03bc 44.19 ± 1.18b
C2D3 5.70 ± 0.22c 15.15 ± 0.35d 25.76 ± 0.44cd 33.55 ± 0.89de 40.95 ± 0.81d
C2D4 6.25 ± 0.31b 15.68 ± 0.40d 23.80 ± 0.56e 30.56 ± 0.47f 40.94 ± 0.75d
C2D5 5.92 ± 0.27bc 18.35 ± 0.83ab 28.03 ± 0.91a 35.87 ± 1.31bc 46.19 ± 1.14a
C3D1 7.61 ± 0.43a 15.09 ± 0.51d 27.65 ± 0.65ab 35.02 ± 1.24bcd 45.67 ± 1.03ab
C3D2 5.57 ± 0.19c 18.41 ± 0.61a 28.22 ± 0.88a 43.01 ± 2.37a 46.52 ± 1.37a
C3D3 5.80 ± 0.20bc 17.35 ± 0.39b 27.63 ± 0.73ab 35.46 ± 1.12bc 37.85 ± 0.99e
C3D4 5.10 ± 0.10de 17.75 ± 0.52ab 26.03 ± 0.61c 35.81 ± 1.18bc 42.01 ± 0.93cd
C3D5 5.54 ± 0.14cd 18.91 ± 0.82a 28.77 ± 1.06a 43.40 ± 3.02a 46.60 ± 1.29a

Effects of different cold-resistant agents and their spraying times on the early rice dry matter weight (g plant-1).

C1: Uniconazole; C2: Abscisic acid; C3: Zinc-amino acids chelate; D1: Seed soaking stage; D2: One leaf and one heart stage; D3: Two leaves and one heart stage; D4: 7 days before the transplanting stage; D5: regreening stage. For each treatment (C, D, or C × D), different letters in the same column indicate significant differences (P < 0.05).

3.1.3 Leaf area index

The early rice leaf area index (LAI) was significantly higher for C3 than for the other two treatments in each growth stage (Table 2). The comparison of the spraying times indicated there were no significant differences in LAI among treatments in the tillering stage, but LAI was highest and lowest for D5 and D4, respectively, from the booting stage to the milky stage; this difference was significant. For the combined treatments, C3D1 resulted in the highest LAI in the tillering stage, but C3D5 produced the highest LAI from the booting stage to the milky stage. Accordingly, the early rice LAI was highest following the application of ZAC in the regreening stage.

Table 2

Treatment Peak tillering stage Booting stage Full-heading stage Milky stage
Cold-resistant C1 2.09 ± 0.17b 5.56 ± 0.15b 4.54 ± 0.18b 3.82 ± 0.22b
C2 2.24 ± 0.20b 5.62 ± 0.18b 4.74 ± 0.15b 3.76 ± 0.26b
C3 2.76 ± 0.29a 6.13 ± 0.22a 5.27 ± 0.23a 4.47 ± 0.31a
Spraying time D1 2.42 ± 0.22a 5.63 ± 0.28bc 5.10 ± 0.23a 3.81 ± 0.16c
D2 2.49 ± 0.19a 5.53 ± 0.33bc 4.83 ± 0.19ab 4.26 ± 0.19ab
D3 2.60 ± 0.27a 5.79 ± 0.25b 4.98 ± 0.20a 4.17 ± 0.11b
D4 2.35 ± 0.21a 5.26 ± 0.19c 4.60 ± 0.16b 3.77 ± 0.20c
D5 2.25 ± 0.24a 6.55 ± 0.41a 5.04 ± 0.25a 4.46 ± 0.17a
Cold-resistant
×
Spraying time
C1D1 2.34 ± 0.19de 6.04 ± 0.14b 4.83 ± 0.20cd 3.46 ± 0.14d
C1D2 1.91 ± 0.15e 4.97 ± 0.13e 4.73 ± 0.11de 3.81 ± 0.19c
C1D3 2.27 ± 0.23de 5.32 ± 0.20d 4.68 ± 0.15de 4.22 ± 0.18b
C1D4 2.04 ± 0.14e 5.39 ± 0.11d 4.26 ± 0.17f 3.72 ± 0.12c
C1D5 2.10 ± 0.20e 6.10 ± 0.15b 4.47 ± 0.18ef 4.30 ± 0.15ab
C2D1 1.64 ± 0.11f 5.27 ± 0.15d 4.42 ± 0.13ef 3.51 ± 0.17d
C2D2 2.78 ± 0.21bc 5.28 ± 0.15d 4.80 ± 0.22d 4.33 ± 0.20ab
C2D3 2.51 ± 0.21cd 5.57 ± 0.12cd 5.10 ± 0.16bc 3.71 ± 0.25c
C2D4 2.47 ± 0.17cd 5.50 ± 0.17cd 4.48 ± 0.12ef 3.54 ± 0.19c
C2D5 2.10 ± 0.22e 6.48 ± 0.21a 5.22 ± 0.17b 4.10 ± 0.14b
C3D1 3.28 ± 0.26a 5.57 ± 0.22cd 5.25 ± 0.19b 4.46 ± 0.19a
C3D2 2.68 ± 0.15cd 6.49 ± 0.19a 5.55 ± 0.25ab 4.64 ± 0.24a
C3D3 3.03 ± 0.16ab 5.85 ± 0.26bc 5.18 ± 0.15b 4.57 ± 0.17a
C3D4 2.56 ± 0.26cd 6.08 ± 0.17b 5.06 ± 0.18bc 4.06 ± 0.22b
C3D5 2.55 ± 0.24cd 6.65 ± 0.29a 5.72 ± 0.26a 4.89 ± 0.23a

Effects of different cold-resistant agents and their spraying times on the early rice LAI.

C1: Uniconazole; C2: Abscisic acid; C3: ZincAmino Acids Chelate; D1: Seed soaking stage; D2: One leaf and one heart stage; D3: Two leaves and one heart stage; D4: 7 days before the transplanting stage; D5: regreening stage. For each treatment (C, D, or C × D), different letters in the same column indicate significant differences (P < 0.05).

3.1.4 Yield and related components

The rice yield was significantly higher for C3 than for C1 and C2 (i.e., 9.22% and 7.14% higher, respectively; Table 3). In terms of the yield-related components, the number of grains per panicle and seed setting rate were significantly higher for C3 than for C1 and C2. For the spraying time treatments, D5 produced the highest rice yield, followed by D2 and D1. The rice yield was lowest for D3. Notably, the rice yields for D2 and D5 were significantly higher than those for D1 and D3. In terms of the yield-related components, there were no significant differences in the effective panicle number and thousand-grain weight between treatments. The number of grains per panicle was significantly higher for D2, D4, and D5 than for D1 and D3. The seed setting rate was significantly lower for D3 than for the other treatments. Among the combined treatments, C3D5 and C1D1 resulted in the highest and lowest early rice yields, respectively. The number of grains per panicle and seed setting rate were significantly higher for C3D5 than for the other treatments, except for C3D2.

Table 3

Treatment Effective panicle
(×104 ha-1)
Grains per
panicle
Seed setting rate (%) Thousand
-grain weight (g)
Theoretical
Yield (t ha-1)
Actual yield (t ha-1)
Cold-resistant C1 251.84 ± 9.22a 109.16 ± 1.87b 66.52 ± 2.04b 24.06 ± 1.67a 4.40 ± 0.21b 4.12 ± 0.15b
C2 263.36 ± 11.76a 107.02 ± 2.05b 64.84 ± 2.27b 24.15 ± 2.33a 4.43 ± 0.19b 4.20 ± 0.11b
C3 250.84 ± 7.31a 113.46 ± 2.27a 70.93 ± 2.35a 24.17 ± 1.73a 4.89 ± 0.24a 4.50 ± 0.17a
Spraying time D1 252.10 ± 8.65a 104.80 ± 2.46b 68.12 ± 1.87a 24.22 ± 1.93a 4.36 ± 0.17b 4.07 ± 0.12b
D2 254.60 ± 10.09a 111.83 ± 2.86a 67.47 ± 1.29a 24.06 ± 2.08a 4.78 ± 0.21a 4.41 ± 0.21a
D3 259.50 ± 10.59a 107.13 ± 2.05b 64.88 ± 1.15b 24.16 ± 2.31a 4.37 ± 0.20b 4.07 ± 0.10b
D4 249.60 ± 7.91a 113.13 ± 3.38a 67.71 ± 1.44a 24.20 ± 1.87a 4.63 ± 0.24ab 4.35 ± 0.17ab
D5 260.93 ± 11.48a 112.50 ± 3.10a 68.97 ± 2.21a 23.99 ± 2.15a 4.85 ± 0.27a 4.51 ± 0.26a
Cold-resistant×
Spraying time
C1D1 231.80 ± 11.24c 106.20 ± 4.31cd 62.09 ± 3.17def 24.38 ± 1.68a 3.73 ± 0.13f 3.42 ± 0.27e
C1D2 266.43 ± 10.93ab 111.48 ± 3.66bc 70.62 ± 4.75bc 23.75 ± 2.04a 4.97 ± 0.22b 4.81 ± 0.19b
C1D3 254.48 ± 7.15bc 115.58 ± 3.04b 66.83 ± 4.07cde 24.10 ± 1.47a 4.73 ± 0.20bc 4.50 ± 0.15bc
C1D4 232.40 ± 7.09c 111.34 ± 5.84bc 64.10 ± 2.89de 23.33 ± 3.08a 4.03 ± 0.17e 3.73 ± 0.17de
C1D5 275.19 ± 12.16a 101.40 ± 5.04de 68.95 ± 2.24cd 23.75 ± 2.59a 4.57 ± 0.11c 4.18 ± 0.16d
C2D1 266.46 ± 11.57ab 111.96 ± 4.61bc 69.62 ± 3.46bc 23.63 ± 1.61a 4.90 ± 0.30b 4.73 ± 0.20b
C2D2 243.28 ± 10.54c 101.57 ± 4.49de 57.10 ± 3.12f 24.08 ± 1.38a 3.40 ± 0.14g 3.19 ± 0.10f
C2D3 272.65 ± 9.05a 104.56 ± 6.10cde 66.25 ± 3.81cde 23.54 ± 1.95a 4.62 ± 0.18c 4.31 ± 0.11c
C2D4 272.13 ± 10.27a 106.20 ± 5.04cd 70.71 ± 2.59bc 24.41 ± 2.23a 4.99 ± 0.25b 4.75 ± 0.17b
C2D5 263.77 ± 7.35ab 111.05 ± 4.65bc 60.52 ± 4.09ef 24.10 ± 3.20a 4.26 ± 0.24de 4.05 ± 0.14d
C3D1 258.50 ± 8.17abc 96.36 ± 2.81e 72.66 ± 4.20abc 24.65 ± 2.81a 4.46 ± 0.23cd 3.96 ± 0.18d
C3D2 254.27 ± 9.68bc 122.69 ± 4.28a 74.69 ± 4.14ab 24.36 ± 3.05a 5.67 ± 0.38a 5.22 ± 0.21a
C3D3 252.53 ± 11.31bc 101.40 ± 5.04de 61.57 ± 2.76ef 23.84 ± 1.43a 3.76 ± 0.10f 3.49 ± 0.20e
C3D4 244.41 ± 9.25c 121.93 ± 3.35a 68.31 ± 2.42cd 23.86 ± 1.96a 4.86 ± 0.21b 4.57 ± 0.14b
C3D5 244.83 ± 10.40c 125.10 ± 6.44a 77.44 ± 3.60a 24.13 ± 3.21a 5.72 ± 0.32a 5.29 ± 0.27a

Effects of different cold-resistant agents and their spraying times on the early rice yield and related components.

C1: Uniconazole; C2: Abscisic acid; C3: Zinc-amino acids chelate; D1: Seed soaking stage; D2: One leaf and one heart stage; D3: Two leaves and one heart stage; D4: 7 days before the transplanting stage; D5: regreening stage. For each treatment (C, D, or C × D), different letters in the same column indicate significant differences (P < 0.05).

3.1.5 Rice leaf cold resistance characteristics

The CAT, SOD, and POD activities were highest for C3, followed by C2 and then C1, with significant differences between treatments (Table 4). Additionally, the CAT, SOD, and POD activities were highest for D5, followed by D2. The activities of these three enzymes were significantly lower for the other treatments. For the combined treatments, the CAT, SOD, and POD activities were highest and lowest for C3D5 and C1D3, respectively, with significant differences among treatments. Thus, the antioxidant capacity of leaves peaked when ZAC was applied at the regreening stage.

Table 4

Treatment CAT activity
[U·(g·min)-1]
SOD activity
(U g-1)
POD activity
[U·(g·min)-1]
Cold-resistant C1 103.25 ± 5.97c 105.19 ± 5.01c 123.64 ± 7.46c
C2 115.68 ± 4.57b 146.10 ± 5.74b 156.17 ± 8.09b
C3 128.49 ± 7.13a 158.54 ± 7.51a 181.41 ± 11.17a
Spraying time D1 103.37 ± 6.70c 116.10 ± 4.03c 143.19 ± 8.22b
D2 129.54 ± 4.94a 157.68 ± 10.26a 160.59 ± 5.21a
D3 93.66 ± 3.72d 123.50 ± 3.15b 138.83 ± 9.07b
D4 119.59 ± 5.65b 125.69 ± 5.28b 146.26 ± 8.39b
D5 132.91 ± 7.28a 160.06 ± 8.17a 179.84 ± 10.11a
Cold-resistant×
Spraying time
C1D1 90.79 ± 4.68g 98.67 ± 5.27f 112.40 ± 5.57f
C1D2 119.19 ± 4.66d 117.02 ± 9.12e 129.13 ± 9.03e
C1D3 87.89 ± 5.65g 93.24 ± 6.08f 106.03 ± 7.13f
C1D4 107.19 ± 7.35ef 95.87 ± 4.16f 115.88 ± 4.21f
C1D5 111.19 ± 4.46def 121.14 ± 7.37e 154.78 ± 8.72d
C2D1 107.29 ± 5.65ef 119.19 ± 8.41e 138.78 ± 7.83e
C2D2 128.90 ± 6.41c 176.97 ± 7.24ab 164.72 ± 9.86cd
C2D3 89.13 ± 4.73g 132.48 ± 7.10de 133.51 ± 9.29e
C2D4 115.83 ± 6.34de 128.74 ± 5.04de 161.12 ± 7.61cd
C2D5 137.29 ± 5.26bc 173.10 ± 4.66b 182.72 ± 8.17b
C3D1 112.02 ± 4.52de 130.43 ± 5.78de 178.38 ± 9.87bc
C3D2 140.53 ± 5.78ab 179.05 ± 5.62ab 191.51 ± 10.36ab
C3D3 103.95 ± 3.79f 144.78 ± 6.68cd 176.94 ± 7.06bc
C3D4 135.74 ± 7.61bc 152.47 ± 8.79c 158.19 ± 10.41d
C3D5 150.25 ± 7.40a 185.95 ± 8.57a 202.01 ± 11.09a

Effects of different cold-resistant agents and their spraying times on the early rice leaf antioxidant system.

C1: Uniconazole; C2: Abscisic acid; C3: Zinc-amino acids chelate; D1: Seed soaking stage; D2: One leaf and one heart stage; D3: Two leaves and one heart stage; D4: 7 days before the transplanting stage; D5: regreening stage. For each treatment (C, D, or C × D), different letters in the same column indicate significant differences (P < 0.05).

3.2 Analysis of zinc-amino acids chelate application methods

3.2.1 Rice tillering dynamics

The number of tillers increased up to the peak tillering stage and then decreased (Figure 2). Compared with CK, the ZAC treatment increased the number of tillers. More specifically, in the peak tillering period, the number of tillers was higher for B1 and B2 (16.39 and 16.40 tillers per plant, respectively) than for CK (14.40 tillers per plant). The comparison of spraying times indicated A4 resulted in the highest number of tillers in each stage. In the peak tillering stage, the number of tillers was higher for A4 (16.93 tillers per plant) than for A2, A1, and A3 (16.72, 16.32, and 15.62 tillers per plant, respectively). In response to the combined treatments, the number of tillers in each stage was highest for A4B2, followed by A4B1, with up to 17.30 and 16.59 tillers per plant, respectively, in the peak tillering stage. Thus, spraying once with ZAC in the transplanting and regreening stages may be optimal for increasing the number of tillers, but there were no significant differences in the number of tillers between the tested dosages.

Figure 2

Figure 2

Effects of different zinc-amino acids chelate spraying amounts and times on early rice tillering dynamics. CK: control treatment; A1: 7 days before the transplanting stage; A2: Transplanting stage; A3: Regreening stage; A4: Transplanting stage and regreening stage; B1: 750 g ha−1; B2: 1125 g ha−1.

3.2.2 Dry matter weight

Rice yield is influenced by the production and accumulation of specific substances. Spraying with ZAC increased the dry matter weight in the later stages (Table 5). In the milky and maturity stages, the dry matter weight was higher for B1 and B2 than for CK, but there was no significant difference between B1 and B2. In terms of the spraying time, there were no significant differences in the dry matter weight between the treatments at the peak tillering stage and booting stage. The dry matter weights from the full-heading stage to the maturity stage were highest for A4, followed by A3, A2, and A1. The dry matter weight for A4 was significantly higher than that for A2 and A1. For the combined treatments, there were no significant differences in the dry matter weight between treatments at the peak tillering stage and booting stage, but the differences between treatments increased significantly from the full-heading stage to the later growth stages. The dry matter weight from the full-heading stage to the maturity stage was highest for A4B2.

Table 5

Treatment Peak tillering stage Booting stage Full-heading stage Milky stage Maturity stage
Spraying time A1 8.80 ± 1.41a 19.88 ± 1.17a 28.29 ± 0.81b 34.28 ± 1.55b 42.54 ± 1.62c
A2 7.89 ± 1.27a 18.81 ± 1.27a 29.82 ± 0.69b 36.85 ± 1.78b 46.21 ± 2.02b
A3 7.37 ± 0.83a 19.55 ± 0.94a 30.26 ± 1.13ab 41.15 ± 2.12a 48.47 ± 2.14ab
A4 7.70 ± 1.30a 20.33 ± 2.41a 31.54 ± 1.02a 41.26 ± 2.04a 51.10 ± 2.59a
Spraying dosage B1 7.74 ± 0.76a 20.10 ± 1.61a 29.72 ± 0.57a 38.19 ± 1.79a 46.30 ± 2.38a
B2 8.14 ± 1.68a 19.19 ± 1.07a 29.96 ± 1.21a 38.98 ± 2.26a 47.85 ± 2.11a
Spraying time
×
Spraying dosage
CK 7.03 ± 0.97a 18.15 ± 0.89a 28.13 ± 1.33b 31.31 ± 1.49c 41.93 ± 2.05c
A1B1 9.28 ± 1.43a 20.84 ± 1.68a 28.22 ± 1.06b 34.03 ± 2.16bc 42.45 ± 1.57bc
A1B2 8.31 ± 1.55a 18.91 ± 0.72a 28.36 ± 0.89b 34.52 ± 1.73bc 42.63 ± 1.69bc
A2B1 6.88 ± 2.19a 19.54 ± 0.80a 28.84 ± 1.12b 36.44 ± 2.01b 45.66 ± 2.31b
A2B2 8.90 ± 1.36a 18.08 ± 1.10a 30.83 ± 1.45ab 37.25 ± 1.67b 46.75 ± 2.15b
A3B1 7.45 ± 0.82a 20.54 ± 1.08a 30.49 ± 1.26ab 41.28 ± 1.93a 48.62 ± 1.93ab
A3B2 7.28 ± 1.40a 18.56 ± 2.23a 30.03 ± 0.91ab 41.02 ± 2.06a 48.31 ± 2.10ab
A4B1 7.34 ± 2.14a 19.47 ± 2.52a 31.04 ± 1.05a 41.21 ± 1.70a 48.48 ± 1.87ab
A4B2 8.06 ± 2.25a 21.19 ± 1.58a 32.03 ± 1.83a 41.31 ± 2.12a 53.72 ± 3.04a

Effects of different ZAC spraying amounts and times on the dry matter weight of early rice (g plant-1).

CK: control treatment; A1: 7 days before the transplanting stage; A2: Transplanting stage; A3: Regreening stage; A4: Transplanting stage and regreening stage; B1: 750 g ha−1; B2: 1125 g ha−1. For each treatment (A, B, or A × B), different letters in the same column indicate significant differences (P < 0.05).

3.2.3 Leaf area index

Spraying with ZAC resulted in an increase in the LAI early rice, but there was no significant difference between B1 and B2 (Table 6). There were also no significant differences in LAI in the peak tillering stage among the spraying times. From the booting stage to the maturity stage, LAI was highest for A4, followed by A2, A3, and A1. Of these treatments, A4 and A2 resulted in a significantly higher LAI than A3 and A1. Among the combined treatments, A4B2 and A4B1 resulted in the highest LAI in each stage (the CK LAI was significantly lower).

Table 6

Treatment Peak tillering stage Booting stage Full-heading stage Milky stage
Spraying time A1 0.99 ± 0.16a 3.74 ± 0.22b 3.25 ± 0.18c 2.63 ± 0.17b
A2 1.03 ± 0.10a 4.58 ± 0.29a 4.24 ± 0.31a 3.32 ± 0.28a
A3 0.97 ± 0.08a 3.87 ± 0.40b 3.67 ± 0.22b 2.83 ± 0.20b
A4 1.08 ± 0.13a 4.89 ± 0.37a 4.43 ± 0.39a 3.56 ± 0.24a
Spraying dosage B1 0.99 ± 0.11a 4.21 ± 0.31a 3.80 ± 0.28a 3.02 ± 0.19a
B2 1.04 ± 0.14a 4.33 ± 0.28a 4.00 ± 0.20a 3.15 ± 0.26a
Spraying time×
Spraying dosage
CK 0.89 ± 0.09b 3.58 ± 0.15d 3.25 ± 0.15e 2.62 ± 0.16cd
A1B1 0.97 ± 0.11ab 3.64 ± 0.12d 3.28 ± 0.12e 2.40 ± 0.13d
A1B2 1.01 ± 0.13ab 3.83 ± 0.27cd 3.21 ± 0.11e 2.78 ± 0.16c
A2B1 0.98 ± 0.08ab 4.71 ± 0.30ab 4.03 ± 0.16c 3.26 ± 0.18ab
A2B2 1.08 ± 0.09a 4.43 ± 0.21b 4.44 ± 0.20ab 3.37 ± 0.26a
A3B1 0.94 ± 0.12ab 3.72 ± 0.17cd 3.72 ± 0.14d 2.76 ± 0.22c
A3B2 0.99 ± 0.10ab 4.02 ± 0.19c 3.61 ± 0.20d 2.90 ± 0.21bc
A4B1 1.08 ± 0.07a 4.76 ± 0.26ab 4.15 ± 0.19bc 3.53 ± 0.33a
A4B2 1.09 ± 0.12a 5.02 ± 0.34a 4.71 ± 0.33a 3.56 ± 0.25a

Effects of different ZAC spraying amounts and times on the early rice LAI.

CK: control treatment; A1: 7 days before the transplanting stage; A2: Transplanting stage; A3: Regreening stage; A4: Transplanting stage and regreening stage; B1: 750 g ha−1; B2: 1125 g ha−1. For each treatment (A, B, or A × B), different letters in the same column indicate significant differences (P < 0.05).

3.2.4 Yield and related components

The ZAC spray treatments increased the rice yield to some extent (Table 7), but the different dosages had no significant effect on yield. Compared with CK, B1 and B2 resulted in yield increases of 4.28% and 5.99%, respectively. Analyses of the yield components indicated the number of grains per panicle was slightly higher for B1 and B2 than for CK. Among the spraying times, A4 resulted in the highest rice yield, followed by A2, A3, and A1; the difference between A4 and A1 was significant. The rice yield for A4 was 9.54%, 3.67%, and 5.53% higher than that for A1, A2, and A3, respectively. In terms of the yield-related components, there were no significant differences in the number of grains per panicle, seed setting rate, and thousand-grain weight among treatments. The effective panicle number was highest for A4, followed by A2, A1, and A3; the difference between A4 and A1 was significant. For the combined treatments, the actual yield of rice was the highest in A4B2 and A4B1, and the lowest in A1B1, which were significantly higher than A1B1 by 11.40% and 9.89% respectively. The rice yields for A4B1 and A4B2 were 11.82% and 13.35% higher than that for CK, respectively. Both A4B1 and A4B2 mainly increased the effective panicle number (compared with the other treatments).

Table 7

Treatment Effective panicle
(×104 ha-1)
Grains per
panicle
Seed setting rate (%) Thousand-grain
weight (g)
Theoretical
Yield (t ha-1)
Actual yield
(t ha-1)
Spraying time A1 249.17 ± 10.59b 129.46 ± 5.59a 64.02 ± 3.86a 23.88 ± 1.41a 4.90 ± 0.19b 4.70 ± 0.14b
A2 267.51 ± 13.36ab 122.23 ± 3.47a 68.27 ± 2.69a 23.40 ± 2.83a 5.20 ± 0.22ab 4.91 ± 0.19ab
A3 254.46 ± 11.28ab 126.78 ± 4.10a 67.00 ± 4.11a 23.73 ± 1.39a 5.13 ± 0.15ab 4.88 ± 0.25ab
A4 281.25 ± 15.12a 121.55 ± 4.16a 66.39 ± 3.36a 23.84 ± 3.07a 5.40 ± 0.28a 5.15 ± 0.31a
Spraying dosage B1 265.17 ± 9.13a 123.25 ± 5.04a 65.69 ± 3.24a 23.79 ± 2.80a 5.08 ± 0.17a 4.87 ± 0.23a
B2 260.92 ± 12.81a 126.76 ± 4.29a 67.15 ± 5.08a 23.63 ± 1.45a 5.23 ± 0.26a 4.95 ± 0.30a
Spraying time
×
Spraying dosage
CK 257.29 ± 11.14bc 116.99 ± 3.46c 66.24 ± 2.45abc 23.60 ± 2.74a 4.72 ± 0.20c 4.57 ± 0.17c
A1B1 267.46 ± 9.52ab 124.47 ± 3.51bc 61.23 ± 2.52c 23.97 ± 1.24a 4.85 ± 0.17c 4.65 ± 0.21c
A1B2 231.37 ± 12.09c 134.45 ± 5.32a 66.80 ± 2.69ab 23.78 ± 2.55a 4.94 ± 0.21bc 4.75 ± 0.16bc
A2B1 261.06 ± 10.31b 119.81 ± 3.77bc 70.01 ± 3.61a 23.41 ± 2.43a 5.11 ± 0.15abc 4.87 ± 0.22abc
A2B2 274.93 ± 13.28ab 124.64 ± 4.24bc 66.52 ± 3.19abc 23.39 ± 1.25a 5.29 ± 0.23abc 4.96 ± 0.30abc
A3B1 260.45 ± 9.18b 127.16 ± 5.56ab 64.33 ± 2.04bc 23.88 ± 3.36a 5.06 ± 0.19abc 4.81 ± 0.24abc
A3B2 249.68 ± 13.56bc 126.40 ± 4.26ab 69.67 ± 3.27a 23.57 ± 2.61a 5.20 ± 0.24abc 4.93 ± 0.19abc
A4B1 272.57 ± 15.26ab 121.56 ± 5.27bc 67.18 ± 3.03ab 23.89 ± 1.77a 5.31 ± 0.26ab 5.11 ± 0.21ab
A4B2 289.23 ± 17.35a 121.53 ± 4.69bc 65.59 ± 2.28abc 23.78 ± 1.95a 5.49 ± 0.34a 5.18 ± 0.25a

Effects of different ZAC spraying amounts and times on the early rice yield and related components.

CK: control treatment; A1: 7 days before the transplanting stage; A2: Transplanting stage; A3: Regreening stage; A4: Transplanting stage and regreening stage; B1: 750 g ha−1; B2: 1125 g ha−1. For each treatment (A, B, or A × B), different letters in the same column indicate significant differences (P < 0.05).

3.2.5 Rice leaf cold resistance characteristics

Compared with the CK treatment, spraying with ZAC significantly increased the rice leaf antioxidant capacity in each stage (Table 8). For the combined treatments, the activities of SOD, POD and CAT in leaf at each stage were highest in A4B2 and A4B1, and lowest in A1B2 and A1B1. There were no significant differences between the spray dosages. Except for CAT activity, there were significant differences in SOD and POD activities from peak tillering stage to milky stage among the spraying times (A1, A2, A3, and A4).

Table 8

Enzyme Treatment 7 days after
the regreening stage
Peak tillering stage Booting stage Milky stage
SOD
(U g-1)
CK 74.73 ± 5.57d 81.32 ± 4.93e 92.82 ± 6.83e 59.11 ± 4.34d
A1B1 103.28 ± 7.26c 116.01 ± 6.19d 121.41 ± 10.56d 83.63 ± 8.05c
A1B2 107.29 ± 9.28c 125.43 ± 7.55d 126.43 ± 8.10d 80.20 ± 7.59c
A2B1 150.59 ± 12.90b 180.43 ± 10.11b 206.42 ± 10.60b 111.13 ± 8.32b
A2B2 179.11 ± 10.26b 185.21 ± 11.13b 211.31 ± 9.49b 113.70 ± 9.46b
A3B1 160.64 ± 9.06b 157.79 ± 9.87c 174.43 ± 10.25c 98.50 ± 10.20b
A3B2 157.75 ± 12.39b 155.63 ± 7.41c 180.41 ± 8.21c 101.30 ± 8.81b
A4B1 204.01 ± 14.17a 215.18 ± 18.38a 232.32 ± 13.18a 143.53 ± 14.12a
A4B2 215.42 ± 18.42a 220.77 ± 15.79a 236.42 ± 11.64a 157.35 ± 10.44a
POD
[U·(g·min)-1]
CK 83.32 ± 8.41c 98.32 ± 9.46e 143.73 ± 6.14e 84.68 ± 5.13e
A1B1 150.05 ± 10.39b 160.03 ± 11.84d 188.22 ± 5.58d 109.61 ± 7.51d
A1B2 155.78 ± 11.09b 167.68 ± 8.75d 184.58 ± 8.20d 106.72 ± 7.26d
A2B1 166.03 ± 13.36b 204.10 ± 9.89b 229.55 ± 9.78b 145.23 ± 9.68b
A2B2 176.25 ± 10.74b 209.60 ± 7.96b 231.94 ± 8.90b 150.03 ± 8.76b
A3B1 171.09 ± 12.34b 184.00 ± 7.38c 208.11 ± 10.32c 122.27 ± 7.98c
A3B2 160.17 ± 16.29b 185.91 ± 8.12c 209.88 ± 7.05c 125.67 ± 10.06c
A4B1 208.47 ± 15.90a 226.88 ± 9.07a 250.68 ± 9.27a 168.49 ± 11.25a
A4B2 200.69 ± 13.61a 229.21 ± 12.70a 253.99 ± 12.85a 167.34 ± 9.33a
CAT
[U·(g·min)-1]
CK 90.64 ± 6.48d 95.63 ± 6.11d 125.63 ± 7.26c 62.39 ± 4.31e
A1B1 112.02 ± 4.35c 128.75 ± 6.93c 189.75 ± 10.79b 78.30 ± 3.09d
A1B2 103.82 ± 5.18c 129.52 ± 7.42c 189.52 ± 9.21b 80.22 ± 6.11d
A2B1 127.05 ± 7.63b 146.20 ± 8.95b 196.00 ± 6.08b 108.36 ± 6.17b
A2B2 125.69 ± 6.10b 148.67 ± 6.76b 198.67 ± 9.26b 112.10 ± 5.64b
A3B1 133.62 ± 7.54b 146.37 ± 4.16b 196.37 ± 10.15b 87.54 ± 4.52c
A3B2 131.42 ± 9.09b 147.70 ± 8.71b 197.70 ± 8.43b 90.61 ± 5.26c
A4B1 153.43 ± 8.23a 163.11 ± 7.60a 240.17 ± 13.06a 127.85 ± 7.47a
A4B2 151.69 ± 10.58a 165.27 ± 10.53a 245.09 ± 11.55a 129.23 ± 7.02a

Effects of different ZAC spraying amounts and times on the early rice antioxidant enzyme activities.

CK: control treatment; A1: 7 days before the transplanting stage; A2: Transplanting stage; A3: Regreening stage; A4: Transplanting stage and regreening stage; B1: 750 g ha−1; B2: 1125 g ha−1. For each antioxidant enzyme (SOD, POD, and CAT), different letters in the same column indicate significant differences (P < 0.05).

4 Discussion

4.1 Screening of suitable cold-resistant agents for machine-transplanted early rice

Low temperatures seriously affect plant growth and threaten global food security. The application of foliar fertilizers can regulate various plant physiological processes and alleviate the harmful effects of adverse environmental conditions. Foliar fertilizers are quickly absorbed by plants, even at low dosages (i.e., high efficiency). Hence, they are commonly applied to increase crop quality and stress resistance. Compared with simple foliar fertilizers, compound foliar fertilizers provide plants with more diverse nutrients and plant growth-regulating substances (Niu et al., 2021). In the current study, the rice yield following the ZAC treatment was 9.22% and 7.14% higher than the rice yield resulting from the uniconazole and abscisic acid treatments, respectively. The comparison of spraying times revealed the spray application of foliar fertilizer during the regreening stage produced the highest early rice yield. Analyzing the yield related components, the ZAC treatment during the regreening stage significantly increased the number of grains per panicle and the seed setting rate of early rice, ultimately leading to the largest increase in yield.

Rice yield is mainly influenced by rice tillering, coordinated sink–source relationships, and the accumulation of dry matter. In this study, the number of tillers and dry matter weight were highest in each stage following the ZAC treatment. Moreover, the application of ZAC resulted in the highest LAI. In terms of the spraying time, the regreening stage was best for enhancing various yield-related parameters. Recent research showed that zinc fertilizers primarily improve photosynthetic activities in leaves and the absorption and utilization of nutrients (Prakash et al., 2022). Amino acids are essential nutrients for plant growth and development. It can convert inorganic substances to their organic chelated states, thereby significantly improving nutrient absorption, accumulation, and utilization rates of rice, while also promoting robust plant growth (Xie et al., 2015), ultimately enhancing the grain filling process and decreasing the number of empty grains (Navizaga et al., 2017). Therefore, compared with simple foliar fertilizers, compound foliar fertilizers are more effective for optimizing plant growth and development and increasing rice yields.

Antioxidant enzymes (i.e., CAT, SOD, and POD) are critical for balancing reactive oxygen species accumulation and removal when crops are subjected to stress (Shah and Nahakpam, 2012). They can inhibit membrane lipid peroxidation, minimize the damages to cell membranes caused by active oxygen, and delay cell aging (Xiao et al., 2011). Therefore, antioxidant enzyme activities can reflect the ability of crops to tolerate diverse stresses. Previous study showed that the application of various compounds, including paclobutrazol, abscisic acid, and uniconazole, can increase antioxidant enzyme activities and the production of secondary metabolites in rice (Wang et al., 2023). Additionally, cell membranes may be stabilized and the activities of intracellular substances may increase; these changes can increase the cold stress resistance of rice plants (Baninasab, 2009; Chen et al., 2017; Wu et al., 2023). In the present study, antioxidant enzyme activities were higher in the leaves treated with ZAC than in the leaves treated with the other cold-resistant agents. Accordingly, compared with abscisic acid and uniconazole, ZAC can more effectively maintain antioxidant enzyme activities, with beneficial effects on early rice performance under low-temperature stress conditions. Of the spraying times selected for this study, the treatments during the regreening stage resulted in the highest antioxidant enzyme activities.

Zinc is an activator and co-factor of many enzymes. During plant growth and development, CO2 fixation, biofilm maintenance, and auxin synthesis are all regulated by zinc-containing enzymes (Chantal et al., 2013). In plants, phytic acid and phosphoric acid combine with zinc ions to form insoluble chelates. The adsorption of zinc ions by the cell wall substantially decreases zinc transport and bioavailability in plants (Liu et al., 2023). As a better type of organic chelating agent, amino acids can convert inorganic zinc into its organic chelated state, significantly improving the zinc utilization rate in rice. In addition, amino acid foliar fertilizers are easily absorbed by crops. Notably, they can increase disease resistance and crop quality, which may be related to their positive effects on protective enzyme activities and cell stability (Kitir et al., 2019). Earlier research indicated that spraying plants with amino acid foliar fertilizers can promote leaf physiological activities and root growth and development, increase chlorophyll contents, and significantly improve the quality of vegetative tissues (Shehata et al., 2011). Hence, compared with simple foliar fertilizers, such as abscisic acid and uniconazole, amino acid-based compound foliar fertilizers contain more major nutrients, which can improve crop growth and development and increase stress resistance.

4.2 Zinc-amino acids chelate application methods

The application of cold-resistant agents is important for increasing early rice cold resistance and yield. However, different spraying times and dosages have diverse effects on rice cold resistance and yield. This study preliminarily demonstrated that compared with abscisic acid and uniconazole, ZAC had a better effect on early rice cold resistance and yield. Nevertheless, the ZAC dosage and spraying time may need to be further optimized for commercial rice production. In this study, compared with CK, the foliar spray application of ZAC increased the rice yield. More specifically, the actual yields after the B1 and B2 treatments increased by 4.28% and 5.99%, respectively. These results are consistent with those of earlier studies by Tian et al. (2015) and Song et al. (2008). According to the examination of specific yield-related components, the increase in the rice yield was mainly due to increases in the number of grains per panicle. There were no significant differences in rice yield between the tested dosages. Therefore, to minimize the cost of fertilizer applications, early rice plants should be treated with 750 g ha−1 ZAC (B1). There were significant differences in the early rice yield among ZAC spraying times. The rice yield was highest for A4, with an actual yield that was 9.54%, 3.67%, and 5.53% higher than those of A1, A2, and A3, respectively. The A4 treatment mainly increased the effective panicle number.

These results suggest that multiple applications of ZAC in the early rice growth stage may increase the final rice yield by increasing the effective panicle number. As one of the yield-related components, the effective panicle number depends on the tillering process during the vegetative growth phase, which may be related to the effects of arginine and glutamine on plant growth and development. One of the most significant characteristics of rice in the early vegetative growth stage is its strong tillering ability. Arginine is an essential amino acid for plants, but it also considerably promotes rice cell division (Itoh et al., 2005). Glutamine can effectively induce the accumulation of photosynthetic products in rice leaves, while also converting inorganic carbon to required organic carbohydrates, thereby ensuring the early nutritional needs of rice are met and inhibiting the formation of ineffective tillers (Ohashi et al., 2018).

In this study, compared with CK, the ZAC treatment positively modulated rice tillering and led to increases in LAI and the aboveground dry matter weight. Zinc is an essential element for rice growth. The application of zinc fertilizers will promote the growth and development of rice plants, improve stress resistance, increase the number of tillers, and increase the grain yield (Raza et al., 2023). In the present study, different ZAC application amounts had no significant effects on early rice yield-related characteristics. In contrast, there were differences in specific yield-related traits among the different application times, with A4 revealed as the best treatment. The tiller number, LAI, and dry matter weight at each growth stage increased most significantly. Furthermore, compared with CK, the ZAC treatment significantly increased CAT, SOD, and POD activities. There were no differences in the antioxidant enzyme activities following the B1 and B2 treatments (different dosages), but of the analyzed application times, the A4 treatment resulted in the highest antioxidant enzyme activities.

In the middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze River in China as well as in the South China region, low temperatures in spring (i.e., until the end of April) can affect early rice seedlings, which are transplanted during this period. Therefore, spraying early rice seedlings with cold-resistant agents may positively affect the subsequent plant growth and development. In this study, there were no significant differences in the early rice yield and antioxidant enzyme activities between the ZAC treatment dosages, implying dosages exceeding 750 g ha−1 have no additional beneficial effects. To maximize the effects of ZAC, plants should be sprayed once during the transplanting stage and the regreening stage. Spraying cold-resistant agents during the seedling stage can improve seedling quality by activating stress response mechanisms, leading to increased cold tolerance (Phutdhawong et al., 2014). Because rice seedlings have relatively small leaves, it may be difficult for the seedlings to fully absorb the cold-resistant agent. Hence, excessive or single spray applications may not be ideal. Alternatively, the application of a small amount of compound foliar fertilizer before and after the rice transplanting stage may be more effective for improving cold resistance than a single application of a relatively high fertilizer dosage, but this will need to be experimentally verified.

5 Conclusions

Among the three analyzed cold-resistant agents, ZAC was best for promoting rice tillering and increasing the plant LAI, dry matter weight, antioxidant enzyme activities, cold resistance, and yield. Although different amounts of ZAC had no significant effect on the early rice yield and cold resistance, there were differences among the effects of the tested spraying times. For each dosage, the early rice yield and cold resistance was highest when samples were treated with ZAC once during the transplanting stage and the regreening stage. Therefore, spraying early rice plants with 750 g ha−1 ZAC once during the transplanting stage and the regreening stage may be the ideal treatment for optimizing cold resistance and yield.

Statements

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.

Ethics statement

The author states that the rice involved in this study do not involve ethical relations. Experimental research on plants, including the collection of plant material, complies with relevant institutional, national, and international guidelines and legislation.

Author contributions

SY: Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – original draft. SQ: Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft. QS: Data curation, Methodology, Writing – original draft. PC: Methodology, Writing – review & editing. NT: Funding acquisition, Project administration, Resources, Writing – review & editing. WZ: Funding acquisition, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – review & editing. ZY: Funding acquisition, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – review & editing.

Funding

The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This research was financially supported by the National Key R&D Program of China (2018YFD0301005, 2017YFD0301501, 2023YFD2301400), the Hunan Provincial Natural Science Foundation Project (2022JJ30303, 2023JJ60227), and the Hunan Provincial Department of Agricultural and Rural Affairs Project grant number “XIANG CAI JIAN ZHI” (2023, No. 98).

Acknowledgments

Special thanks to reviewers for their valuable comments. In addition, the authors gratefully acknowledge every teacher, classmate, and friend who helped the authors with their experiment and writing.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls.2024.1422374/full#supplementary-material

References

  • 1

    Ai X. Xiong R. Tan X. Wang H. Zhang J. Zeng Y. et al . (2022). Effects of high temperature and strong light combine stress on yield and quality of early indica rice with different amylose content during grout filling. Phyton-International J. Exp. Bot.91, 12571267. doi: 10.32604/phyton.2022.018328

  • 2

    Baninasab B. (2009). Amelioration of chilling stress by paclobutrazol in watermelon seedlings. Scientia Hortic.121, 144148. doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2009.01.028

  • 3

    Chantal K. Shao X. Jing B. Yuan Y. Hou M. Liao L. (2013). Effects of effective microorganisms (EM) and bio-organic fertilizers on growth parameters and yield quality of flue-cured tobacco. J. Food Agric. Environ.11, 12121215. doi: 10.4067/S0718-58392020000300422

  • 4

    Chen J. Chen C. Tian Y. Zhang X. Dong W. Zhang B. et al . (2017). Differences in the impacts of nighttime warming on crop growth of rice-based cropping systems under field conditions. Eur. J. Agron.82, 8092. doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2016.10.006

  • 5

    Crofts N. Hareyama K. Miura S. Hosaka Y. Oitome N. F. Fujita N. (2022). Effect of heading date on the starch structure and grain yield of rice lines with low gelatinization temperature. Int. J. Mol. Sci.23, 10783. doi: 10.3390/ijms231810783

  • 6

    Gao H. Li Y. Zhou Y. Guo H. Chen L. Yang Q. et al . (2022). Influence of mechanical transplanting methods and planting geometry on grain yield and lodging resistance of indica rice taoyouxiangzhan under rice-crayfish rotation system. Agronomy-Basel12, 1029. doi: 10.3390/agronomy12051029

  • 7

    Ge L. Cang L. Liu H. Zhou D. (2015). Effects of different warming patterns on the translocations of cadmium and copper in a soil-rice seedling system. Environ. Sci. pollut. Res.22, 1583515843. doi: 10.1007/s11356-015-4760-8

  • 8

    Gurav P. P. Ray S. K. Choudhari P. L. Shirale A. O. Meena B. P. Biswas A. K. et al . (2019). Potassium in shrink-swell soils of India. Curr. Sci.117, 587596. doi: 10.18520/cs/v117/i4/587-596

  • 9

    Huang M. Jiang L. Zou Y. Zhang W. (2013). On-farm assessment of effect of low temperature at seedling stage on early-season rice quality. Field Crops Res.141, 6368. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2012.10.019

  • 10

    Huang C. Wang D. Sun. L. Wei L. (2016). Effects of exogenous salicylic acid on the physiological characteristics of Dendrobium officinale under chilling stress. Plant Growth Regul.79, 199208. doi: 10.1007/s10725-015-0125-z

  • 11

    Itoh J.-I. Nonomura K.-I. Ikeda K. Yamaki S. Inukai Y. Yamagishi H. et al . (2005). Rice plant development: from zygote to spikelet. Plant Cell Physiol.46, 2347. doi: 10.1093/pcp/pci501

  • 12

    Jia Y. Liu H. Wang H. Zou D. Qu Z. Wang J. et al . (2022). Effects of root characteristics on panicle formation in japonica rice under low temperature water stress at the reproductive stage. Field Crops Res.277, 108395. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2021.108395

  • 13

    Kitir N. Gunes A. Turan M. Yildirim E. Topcuoglu B. Turker M. et al . (2019). Bio-boron fertilizer applications affect amino acid and organic acid content and physiological properties of strawberry plant. Erwerbs-Obstbau61, 129137. doi: 10.1007/s10341-018-0409-3

  • 14

    Kwak J.-E. Lee J.-S. Won Y.-J. Park H.-M. Kim M. Lee C.-K. et al . (2018). Effects of ripening temperature on starch structure and storage protein characteristics of early maturing rice varieties during grain filling. Korean J. Crop Sci.63, 7785. doi: 10.7740/kjcs.2018.63.2.077

  • 15

    Lee J. Kwon S.-W. (2015). Analysis of quantitative trait loci associated with seed germination and coleoptile length under low temperature condition. J. Crop Sci. Biotechnol.18, 273278. doi: 10.1007/s12892-015-0114-9

  • 16

    Li Y. Dou Z. Guo H. Xu Q. Jiang J. Che Y. et al . (2022). Effects of mechanical transplanting methods and planting geometry on yield formation and canopy structure of indica rice under rice-crayfish rotation. Agriculture-Basel12, 1817. doi: 10.3390/agriculture12111817

  • 17

    Li H. Han K. Wang Q. Lu C. (2015). Pyrolysis of rice straw with ammonium dihydrogen phosphate: Properties and gaseous potassium release characteristics during combustion of the products. Bioresource Technol.197, 193200. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2015.08.070

  • 18

    Liu J. Feng X. Qiu G. Li H. Wang Y. Chen X. et al . (2023). Inhibition roles of calcium in cadmium uptake and translocation in rice: A review. Int. J. Mol. Sci.24, 11587. doi: 10.3390/ijms241411587

  • 19

    Liu S.-L. Wang X. Ma S.-T. Zhao X. Chen F. Xiao X.-P. et al . (2019). Extreme stress threatened double rice production in Southern China during 1981-2010. Theor. Appl. Climatology137, 19871996. doi: 10.1007/s00704-018-2719-7

  • 20

    Munir S. Qureshi M. K. Shahzad A. N. (2021). Antioxidant response of brassica plants in protection against alternaria brassicicola. Pakistan J. Bot.53, 749754. doi: 10.30848/PJB2021-2(39)

  • 21

    Navizaga C. Lenzo C. Zhang H. Braziene Z. Paltanavicius V. Petrauskiene J. et al . (2017). Efficiency evaluation of dairy wastewater derived zinc micronutrient containing sustainable fertilizers. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng.5, 66926699. doi: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.7b00933

  • 22

    Niu J. Liu C. Huang M. Liu K. Yan D. (2021). Effects of foliar fertilization: a review of current status and future perspectives. J Soil Sci Plant Nutrition. 21, 104118. doi: 10.1007/s42729-020-00346-3

  • 23

    Ohashi M. Ishiyama K. Kojima S. Konishi N. Sasaki K. Miyao M. et al . (2018). Outgrowth of rice tillers requires availability of glutamine in the basal portions of shoots. Rice11, 31. doi: 10.1186/s12284-018-0225-2

  • 24

    Park H. K. Choi W. Y. Back N. H. Kim S. S. Kim B. K. Kim K. K. (2004). Estimation of leaf area index by plant canopy analyzer in rice. Korean J. Crop Sci.49 (9), 463467.

  • 25

    Phutdhawong W. Winyakul C. Phutdhawong W. S. (2014). Synthesis of 3-indolylacetamide derivatives and evaluation of their plant growth regulator activity. Maejo Int. J. Sci. Technol.8, 181189. doi: 10.14456/mijst.2014.15

  • 26

    Prakash V. Rai P. Sharma N. C. Singh V. P. Tripathi D. K. Sharma S. et al . (2022). Application of zinc oxide nanoparticles as fertilizer boosts growth in rice plant and alleviates chromium stress by regulating genes involved in oxidative stress. Chemosphere303, 134554. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.134554

  • 27

    Qian W.-H. Zhang Z.-J. (2012). Precursors to predict low-temperature freezing-rain events in southern China. Chin. J. Geophysics-Chinese Edition55, 15011512. doi: 10.6038/j.issn.0001-5733.2012.05.007

  • 28

    Raza S. Zia-ur-Rehman M. Alghamdi S. A. Alghanem S. M. S. Usman M. Ahmed R. et al . (2023). Effects of zinc-enriched amino acids on rice plants (Oryza sativa L.) for adaptation in saline-sodic soil conditions: Growth, nutrient uptake and biofortification of zinc. South Afr. J. Bot.162, 370380. doi: 10.1016/j.sajb.2023.09.011

  • 29

    Shah K. Nahakpam S. (2012). Heat exposure alters the expression of SOD, POD, APX and CAT isozymes and mitigates low cadmium toxicity in seedlings of sensitive and tolerant rice cultivars. Plant Physiol. Biochem.57, 106113. doi: 10.1016/j.plaphy.2012.05.007

  • 30

    Shehata S. A. Gharib A. A. El-Mogy M. M. Abdel G. K. F. Shalaby E. A. (2011). Influence of compost, amino and humic acids on the growth, yield and chemical parameters of strawberries. J. Medicinal Plants Res.5, 23042308. doi: 10.5897/JMPR.9000789

  • 31

    Song L. Ding W. Shen J. Zhang Z. Bi Y. Zhang L. (2008). Nitric oxide mediates abscisic acid induced thermotolerance in the calluses from two ecotypes of reed under heat stress. Plant Sci.175, 826832. doi: 10.1016/j.plantsci.2008.08.005

  • 32

    Theocharis A. Clement C. Barka E. A. (2012). Physiological and molecular changes in plants grown at low temperatures. Planta235, 10911105. doi: 10.1007/s00425-012-1641-y

  • 33

    Tian X. Wang Z. Li X. Lv T. Liu H. Wang L. et al . (2015). Characterization and functional analysis of pyrabactin resistance-like abscisic acid receptor family in rice. Rice8, 28. doi: 10.1186/s12284-015-0061-6

  • 34

    Wang W. Chen L. Liu Y. Zeng Y. Wu Z. Tan X. et al . (2021b). Effects of humidity-cold combined stress at the seedling stage in direct-seeded indica rice. Environ. Exp. Bot.191, 104617. doi: 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2021.104617

  • 35

    Wang R. Mi K. Yuan X. Chen J. Pu J. Shi X. et al . (2023). Zinc oxide nanoparticles foliar application effectively enhanced zinc and aroma content in rice (Oryza sativa L.) grains. Rice16, 36. doi: 10.1186/s12284-023-00653-0

  • 36

    Wang Q. Song X. Wang Y. Yang X. Qin D. Xie T. (2021a). Exogenous salicylic acid improves chilling tolerance in maize seedlings by improving plant growth and physiological characteristics. Agronomy11, 1341. doi: 10.3390/agronomy11071341

  • 37

    Wu W. Li Z. Xi M. Tu D. Xu Y. Zhou Y. et al . (2023). Ratoon rice system of production: A rapid growth pattern of multiple cropping in China: A review. Plants (Basel Switzerland)12, 3446. doi: 10.3390/plants12193446

  • 38

    Xiao C. Wei H. Neng X. Jun L. Lan H. Fa C. (2011). Effects of elevated CO2 and transgenic Bt rice on yeast-like endosymbiote and its host brown planthopper. J. Appl. Entomology135, 333342. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0418.2010.01558.x

  • 39

    Xie Z. Duan L. Tian X. Wang B. Eneji A. E. Li Z. (2008). Coronatine alleviates salinity stress in cotton by improving the antioxidative defense system and radical-scavenging activity. J. Plant Physiol.165, 375384. doi: 10.1016/j.jplph.2007.06.001

  • 40

    Xie Y. Mao Y. Xu S. Zhou H. Duan X. Cui W. et al . (2015). Heme-heme oxygenase 1 system is involved in ammonium tolerance by regulating antioxidant defence in Oryza sativa. Plant Cell Environ.38, 129143. doi: 10.1111/pce.2015.38.issue-1

  • 41

    Xu J. Henry A. Sreenivasulu N. (2020). Rice yield formation under high day and night temperatures-A prerequisite to ensure future food security. Plant Cell Environ.43, 15951608. doi: 10.1111/pce.13748

  • 42

    Yang A. Dai X. Zhang W.-H. (2012). A R2R3-type MYB gene, OsMYB2, is involved in salt, cold, and dehydration tolerance in rice. J. Exp. Bot.63, 25412556. doi: 10.1093/jxb/err431

  • 43

    Zhang Z. Lou Y. Li J. Li R. Ma L. (2020). Impacts of nighttime warming on rice growth, physiological properties and yield under water saving irrigation. Int. J. Global Warming21, 105119. doi: 10.1504/IJGW.2020.108182

  • 44

    Zhang M. Zhao R. Huang K. Huang S. Wang H. Wei Z. et al . (2022). The OsWRKY63-OsWRKY76-OsDREB1B module regulates chilling tolerance in rice. Plant J.112, 383398. doi: 10.1111/tpj.v112.2

  • 45

    Zhou Y. Li X. Cao J. Li Y. Huang J. Peng S. (2018). High nitrogen input reduces yield loss from low temperature during the seedling stage in early-season rice. Field Crops Res.228, 6875. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2018.08.018

  • 46

    Zsiros O. Nagy V. Parducz A. Nagy G. Unnep R. El-Ramady H. et al . (2019). Effects of selenate and red Se-nanoparticles on the photosynthetic apparatus of Nicotiana tabacum. Photosynthesis Res.139, 449460. doi: 10.1007/s11120-018-0599-4

Summary

Keywords

rice yield, cold resistance characteristics, yield formation, application of cold-resistant agent, early rice

Citation

Yuan S, Qin S, Shi Q, Chen P, Tu N, Zhou W and Yi Z (2024) Effects of different cold-resistant agents and application methods on yield and cold-resistance of machine-transplanted early rice. Front. Plant Sci. 15:1422374. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2024.1422374

Received

23 April 2024

Accepted

18 September 2024

Published

02 October 2024

Volume

15 - 2024

Edited by

Dongliang Xiong, Huazhong Agricultural University, China

Reviewed by

Peng Jiang, Sichuan Academy of Agricultural Sciences, China

Jing Xiang, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, China

Baohua Feng, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, China

Updates

Copyright

*Correspondence: Wenxin Zhou, ; Zhenxie Yi,

Disclaimer

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Outline

Figures

Cite article

Copy to clipboard


Export citation file


Share article

Article metrics