Russian Federation
VAK Russia 4.1.2
VAK Russia 4.1.3
VAK Russia 4.1.4
VAK Russia 4.1.5
VAK Russia 4.2.1
VAK Russia 4.2.2
VAK Russia 4.2.3
VAK Russia 4.2.4
VAK Russia 4.2.5
VAK Russia 4.3.3
VAK Russia 4.3.5
UDC 631
The objective of the study is to evaluate the tolerance of seeds of different wheat varieties under the influence of one of the edaphic factors – soil acidity on the growth characteristics of seedlings and their weight. Objectives: to study the effect of soil acidity on the growth characteristics of roots and shoots of different spring wheat varieties, the accumulation of seedling biomass of different spring wheat varieties; to assess the influence of acid solution concentrations on spring wheat varieties and to establish their tolerance to soil acidity. The objects of the study are varieties of soft spring wheat (Krasnoyarskaya 12, Kantegirskaya 89, Omskaya 32, Tulunskaya 12); varieties of soft winter wheat (Zaryanitsa, Skipetr). The experience of germinating seeds of different wheat varieties using the roll crop method was used, which allows for long-term experiments in germinating seeds of agricultural crops. In the subtaiga zone of the Krasnoyarsk Region, acidic soils (sod-podzolic, gray forest, dark gray forest) are almost continuously distributed; soils of the taiga zone are strongly acidic (21 %), and soils of the subtaiga zone are moderately acidic and slightly acidic (from 19.3 to 56.1 % of the area). According to the results of the laboratory experiment, the Krasnoyarskaya 12, Omskaya 32 and Skipetr wheat varieties at pH 4.0 exceed the control in terms of root and shoot length of seedlings. The wheat varieties Omskaya 32 and Skipetr at pH 4.0 exceed the control in terms of sprout weight. In a laboratory experiment, the wheat varieties Krasnoyarskaya 12, Kantegirskaya 89, Zarnitsa, Omskaya 32, Skipetr and Tulunskaya 12 demonstrated both a common response to low pH values for the set of studied parameters, as evidenced by the results of discriminant analysis, and individual varietal specificity in response to an acidic environment, as evidenced by low values of the Kendall concordance coefficient. According to the results of cluster analysis, the greatest similarity in the reaction to an acidic environment at both pH 4.0 and pH 3.0 is observed in the pair of varieties Omskaya 32 and Tulunskaya 12, as well as in the pair Zaryanitsa and Kantegirskaya 89.
grain crops, wheat and its varieties (Krasnoyarskaya 12, Kantegirskaya 89, Zarnitsa, Omskaya 32, Skipetr and Tulunskaya 12, edaphic factors, degree of acidity, acidic soils, subtaiga zone, Krasnoyarsk Region
1. Voroncova VP. Yarovaya pshenica – osnovnaya kul'tura Vostochnoj Sibiri. Krasnoyarsk, 1982. 142 s..
2. Sistema zemledeliya Krasnoyarskogo kraya na landshaftnoj osnove: rukovodstvo. Krasnoyarsk; 2014. 596 p.
3. Halipskij AN. Rol' `ekotipa i fona vozdelyvaniya v `effektivnosti sortosmeny polevyh kul'tur v Krasnoyarskom krae [abstract dissertation]. Tyumen; 2009. 32 p.
4. Tandelov DP, Erysheva OV. Sostoyanie plodorodiya kislyh pochv Prienisejskoj Sibiri, `effektivnost' mineral'nyh udobrenij i himicheskih meliorantov. Krasnoyarsk; 2000. 312 p.
5. Tandelov YuP, Eryshova OV. Osobennosti kislyh pochv Krasnoyarskogo kraya i `effektivnost' izvestkovaniya. Krasnoyarsk: KSAU; 2003. 147 s.
6. Tandelov YuP. Plodorodie kislyh pochv zemledel'cheskoj territorii Krasnoyarskogo kraya. Krasnoyarsk; 2012. 161 s.
7. Klimov SV. Selekciya sel'skohozyajstvennyh kul'tur na ustojchivost' i kislotnost' pochvy // Sel'skoe hozyajstvo. 1984;(10):18-22.
8. Pavaleev TD, Totev T. Kislotnost' pochvy i metody ee ustraneniya. Moscow: Kolos;1983. 165 p.
9. Klimashevskij `EL. Pochvennaya kislotnost' – genotip – zadachi selekcii // Vestnik sel'skohozyajstvennoj nauki. 1983;(9):16-25.
10. Klimashevskij `EL. Geneticheskij aspekt mineral'nogo pitaniya rastenij. Moscow: Agropromizdat; 1991. 416 s.
11. Polonskij VI, Surin NA. Ocenka zernovyh kul'tur na ustojchivost' k neblagopriyatnym `ekologicheskim faktoram. Novosibirsk; 2003. 128 p.
12. Pleshkov LS, Zaslavskaya NV. Sposob diagnostiki ustojchivosti rastenij k dejstviyu alyuminiya i marganca. Moscow; 1988. 17 p.
13. Bugakov PS, Chuprova VV. Agrohimicheskaya harakteristika pochv zemledel'cheskoj zony Krasnoyarskogo kraya: uchebnoe posobie. Krasnoyarsk: KSAU; 1995. 176 s.
14. Demidenko GA, Shevcova LN. Baza dannyh Pochvenno-klimaticheskaya harakteristika prirodnyh zon (podzon) Prienisejskoj Sibiri. Svidetel'stvo o registracii bazy dannyh № 2023621735 ot 29.05.2023 g.
15. Vozbuckaya AE. Himiya pochv: uchebnoe posobie. 3-e izd., ispr. i dop. Moscow: Vysshaya shkola; 1968. 427 p.
16. Chuprova VV. `Ekologicheskoe pochvovedenie: uchebnoe posobie. Krasnoyarsk: KSAU, 2005. 171 p.
17. Keler VV. Var'irovanie soderzhaniya kolichestva klejkoviny v zerne myagkoj yarovoj pshenicy pod vliyaniem meteorologicheskih uslovij Krasnoyarskogo kraya. Bulletin of KSAU. 2020;2:58-62. DOI:https://doi.org/10.36718/1819-4036-2020-2-58-62. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/MQMOBD.
18. Keler VV, Martynova OV, Demeneva AA. Productivity and technological qualities of spring wheat grain in Krasnoyarsk Region. In: IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, Krasnoyarsk, 18–20 Nov 2020 g. Vol. 677. Krasnoyarsk; 2021. P. 32050. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/677/3/032050. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/CMUXRV.
19. Keler VV, Ovsyankina SV, Scheklein DM. Sortovaya specifika vospriimchivosti pshenicy k semennoj infekcii v Krasnoyarskom krae. Bulletin of KSAU. 2021;(8):3-10. DOI^https://doi.org/10.36718/1819-4036-2021-8-3-10. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/DTKWHB.
20. Ovchinnikova TG, Keler VV. Vliyanie intensifikacii predshestvennika na kolichestvo i kachestvo klejkoviny v yarovoj pshenice. In: Vserossijskaya (nacional'naya) nauchno-prakticheskaya konferenciya «Aktual'nye problemy agrarnoj nauki: prikladnye i issledovatel'skie aspekty», 4–5 Feb 2021. Vol. 2. Nal'chik: Kabardino-Balkarskij gosudarstvennyj agrarnyj universitet im. V.M. Kokova; 2021. p. 113–116. EDN CKZHEC.
21. Shram NV, Keler VV, Hizhnyak SV, et al. Vliyanie pogodnyh uslovij na nakoplenie belka v zerne myagkoj yarovoj pshenicy. Vestnik Buryatskoj gosudarstvennoj sel'skohozyajstvennoj akademii im. V.R. Filippova. 2023;(4):29-37. DOI:https://doi.org/10.34655/bgsha.2023.73.4.004. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/TRLHEO.
22. Sidorov AV, Neshuiaeva NA. Plehanova AL. Adaptivnyj sort myagkoj yarovoj pshenicy Krasnoyarskaya 12. Bulletin of KSAU. 2020;(4):10-15.
23. Dymina EV. Zavisimost' produktivnosti yarovoj pshenicy Kantegirskaya 89 ot gidrotermicheskogo rezhima vegetacionnogo perioda. Agrarnaya Rossiya. 2009;(5):2-3.
24. Dymina EV. Povyshenie bioresursnogo potenciala sortov myagkoj yarovoj pshenicy raznyh grupp spelosti v usloviyah severnoj lesostepi Priob'ya [abstract dissertation]. Novosibirsk; 2013. 40 p.
25. Fedulov YuP. Metody opredeleniya ustojchivosti rastenij: kurs lekcij. Krasnodar: KubGAU; 2015. 39 p.
26. Lipatnikova TYa. Agrohimicheskaya harakteristika pochv pashni yuga Krasnoyarskogo kraya. Agrohimicheskij Vestnik. 2017;(2):1-5.
