PDF(1315 KB)
Effects of Elicitors on Growth and Yield of Flax
LUJiaojiao, SHIXuefen, WANGZhanxian, WANGShusheng, YANLiying
Chin Agric Sci Bull ›› 2026, Vol. 42 ›› Issue (10) : 144-149.
PDF(1315 KB)
Abbreviation (ISO4): Chin Agric Sci Bull
Editor in chief: Yulong YIN
PDF(1315 KB)
Effects of Elicitors on Growth and Yield of Flax
This study investigated the effects of different inducer treatments on the stress-resistant physiological indexes, agronomic traits, and yield of flax leaves, aiming to provide a theoretical basis and application references for the cultivation, quality improvement, and yield increase of flax. Using flax cultivar ‘Neiya 14’ as the test material, measurements and comparisons were carried out on the plant height, technical length, number of branches, yield components, and leaf physiological indicators of flax treated with different resistance inducers, including Aitaling, chitosan oligosaccharide, and plant immune proteins. The results indicated significant differences in the effects of different resistance inducers. Compared with other treatments, plant immune protein and Atailing treatments significantly enhanced flax stress resistance: the soluble sugar contents were 123.71 and 122.73 mg/g, proline contents were 64.08 and 62.62 μg/g, and SOD activities were 129.87 and 123.91 U/g, respectively, both significantly higher than the clear water control treatments. Aitaling, plant immune protein, and ‘Jiaojiang No.1’ promoted the growth and development of flax. Specifically, the treatment with ‘Jiaojiang No.1’ resulted in the highest plant height, reaching 63.77 cm; while the treatment with Aitaling achieved the longest berry length of 43.70 cm and the highest number of effective berries per plant at 28.83. The treatments with plant immune protein and Aitaling achieved the highest equivalent output, reaching 2530.13 and 2538.17 kg/hm2, respectively representing significant increases of 6.03% and 6.33% compared to the clear water control treatment. The treatments with Aitaling, plant immune protein, and ‘Jiaojiang No.1’ exhibited significant effects in promoting flax growth, increasing yield, and enhancing stress resistance, thus showing considerable application potential in flax cultivation.
flax / resistance inducer / agronomic traits / yield / physiological indicators / resistance / green cultivation
| [1] |
景娜, 高玉红, 张巧霞, 等. 氮肥运筹对旱地胡麻氮代谢及氮肥利用的调控效应[J]. 中国油料作物学报, 2024, 46(1):143-154.
|
| [2] |
崔彦芹, 郭元章, 李思达, 等. 播期对胡麻产量、品质、农艺性状的影响研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(30):41-50.
|
| [3] |
陈璐瑶, 胡祝, 乔汉桢, 等. 膨化亚麻籽及其副产物的营养价值及在畜禽生产中的应用研究进展[J]. 动物营养学报, 2025, 37(8):4999-5010.
|
| [4] |
邱德文. 植物免疫诱抗剂的研究进展与应用前景[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2014, 16(1):39-45.
|
| [5] |
郑家瑞, 李云洲. 植物诱导抗性研究进展[J]. 山地农业生物学报, 2022, 41(2):51-58.
|
| [6] |
|
| [7] |
叶远荣, 盛强, 董洁, 等. 植物免疫诱抗剂智能聪在加工辣椒上的应用效果[J]. 现代农业科技, 2025(16):54-57.
|
| [8] |
苗立祥, 杨肖芳, 张豫超, 等. 植物免疫诱导剂在草莓中的应用情况[J]. 蔬菜, 2021(1):24-28.
|
| [9] |
应武, 骆乐谈, 阮松林, 等. 不同生物刺激剂对鲜食玉米产量和品质的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2020, 36(17):89-94.
|
| [10] |
|
| [11] |
李嘉伦, 李洋洋, 姜凯岩. 氨基寡糖素用于大豆田杀菌剂、叶面肥减量[J]. 现代化农业, 2023(11):5-8.
|
| [12] |
蒋慧欣, 郭婷婷, 凌磊. 盐碱胁迫对不同品种燕麦幼苗生理指标的影响[J]. 现代农业科技, 2025(5):1-7.
|
| [13] |
万宣伍, 田卉, 张伟, 等. 植物诱导抗性的机理及应用[J]. 植物医学, 2022, 1(1):18-25.
|
| [14] |
|
| [15] |
|
| [16] |
陈静, 刘洋, 赵磊. 阿泰灵对小麦生长及抗逆性的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2020, 46(5):752-760.
|
| [17] |
|
| [18] |
刘佩瑶, 冉莉萍, 杨佳庆, 等. 小麦穗形态建成和生理特征及外界影响因素的研究进展[J]. 作物杂志, 2025(1):1-9.
|
| [19] |
|
| [20] |
付思蕊, 王胤, 陈雅奇, 等. 不同植物免疫诱抗剂对番茄的诱抗促生作用研究[J]. 蔬菜, 2023(2):43-48.
|
| [21] |
胡伟民, 肖文斐, 忻雅, 等. 免疫诱抗剂保康灵1号对鲜食糯玉米产量和抗病性的影响[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2016, 57(4):604-606.
|
| [22] |
张雄鹏, 林梅根, 张英财, 等. 灰葡萄孢菌植物免疫诱抗蛋白水溶肥的制备及其在小麦和玉米上的应用效果[J]. 河北农业科学, 2024, 28(6):54-58.
|
| [23] |
王佐乾, 李新怡, 常向前, 等. 免疫诱抗剂诱导抗性表达分析及其对稻曲病的防治效果[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2025, 53(18):123-129.
|
| [24] |
陈敏, 栾炳辉, 王洪涛, 等. 植物免疫诱抗剂对玉米耐盐性及产量的影响[J]. 作物研究, 2024, 38(1):16-19.
|
| [25] |
刘悦, 王立达, 兰英, 等. 植物免疫调节剂对玉米大斑病病害控制及田间产量的影响[J]. 黑龙江农业科学, 2025(9):27-31.
|
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |