苜蓿叶片及根系对水分亏缺的生理生化响应

doi:10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2007.04.001

›› 2007, Vol. 15 ›› Issue (4): 299-305.DOI: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2007.04.001

• 研究论文 • 下一篇

苜蓿叶片及根系对水分亏缺的生理生化响应

李文娆^1,3,4, 张岁岐^1,2, 山仑^1,2,4

1. 中国科学院教育部水土保持与生态环境研究中心黄土高原土壤侵蚀与旱地农业国家重点实验室, 陕西, 杨凌, 712100;
2. 西北农林科技大学, 陕西, 杨凌, 712100;
3. 中国科学院研究生院, 北京, 100039;
4. 河南大学生命科学学院, 河南, 开封, 475001

收稿日期:2007-01-09 修回日期:2007-05-14 出版日期:2007-08-15 发布日期:2007-08-15
通讯作者: 张岁岐,E-mail:sqzhang@ms.iswc.ac.cn
作者简介:李文娆(1980- )女,内蒙古通辽市人,博士研究生,研究方向为植物水分生理生态,E-mail:wrli2004@126.com
基金资助:
中国科学院知识创新工程重要方向项目(KZCX3-SW-444和KSCX2-YW-N-003);中国科学院水土保持研究所领域前沿科研专项经费资助项目(SW05101)

Physiological and Biochemical Responses of Leaves and Roots of Alfalfa(Medicago sativa L.) to Water Stress

LI Wen-rao^1,3,4, ZHANG Sui-qi^1,2, SHAN Lun^1,2,4

1. State Key Lab.of Soil Erosion and Dryland Farmings on Loess Plateau, Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, Chinese Academy of Sciences and Ministry of Education, Yangling, Shaanxi Province 712100, China;
2. Northwest Sci-Tech University of Agriculture and Forestry, Yangling, Shaanxi Province 712100, China;
3. Graduate School, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100039, China;
4. College of Life Sciences, Henan University, Kaifeng, Henan Province 475001, China

Received:2007-01-09 Revised:2007-05-14 Online:2007-08-15 Published:2007-08-15

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 利用PEG-6000模拟研究水分胁迫(ψ_s=-0.2 MPa)48 h,后复水48 h,阿尔冈金和陇东苜蓿(Medicago sativa L.)品种幼苗根系与叶片的渗透调节作用及抗氧化酶活性的变化。结果表明:叶片的渗透调节能力及抗氧化酶活性均强于根系;受到水分胁迫后,叶片与根系水势、渗透势及饱和渗透势明显下降并随着时间的延长而逐渐降低;但抗氧化酶(SOD、POD和CAT)活性显著增强并随着胁迫的延续而保持高活性;细胞膜相对透性在胁迫中后期逐渐增大,MDA开始累积;叶片脯氨酸、可溶性糖、K⁺和可溶性蛋白含量随着胁迫时间的延长亦逐渐累积,根系可溶性糖含量逐渐显著升高,脯氨酸含量没有明显变化,而可溶性蛋白和K⁺含量呈现下降趋势;复水后产生一定的恢复补偿效应,但叶片生理代谢未能恢复到正常水平;陇东与阿尔冈金苜蓿抗氧化酶活性间存在差异,且二者对水分胁迫的适应能力亦略有差别。

关键词: 紫花苜蓿, 干旱胁迫和复水, 渗透调节, 氧化酶活性

Abstract: The changes of osmotic adjustment and anti-oxidative enzyme activities in seedling leaves and roots of two cultivars of alfalfa(Medicago sativa L.cv.Longdong and M.sativa L.cv.Algonquin) was studied under water stress mimicked by PEG-6000 solution(ψ_s=-0.2 MPa,stress period 48 h,then rehydration 48 h).The results show that the osmotic adjustment capability and anti-oxidative enzymes activity were stronger in leaves than those in roots.Water potential,osmotic potential,and saturated osmotic potential in roots and leaves were significantly decreased along with the progress of water stress.However,the activities of anti-oxidative enzymes(SOD,POD,and CAT) in both leaves and roots significantly increased under water stress and maintained high activity during period of water stress,the membrane permeability and MDA increased obviously since middle period of water stress.Simultaneously,the contents of free proline,soluble sugar,K⁺,and soluble protein in leaves accumulated gradually with the progress of water stress.Soluble sugar content in roots was increased gradually under water stress and the contents of K⁺ and soluble protein were declined gradually,while no significant changes for free proline content.After rehydration,physiological metabolism in leaves did not recover to the control level although the repair and compensation mechanism was induced.In addition,there were differences in anti-oxidative enzyme activities and enduring capability to water stress between two tested alfalfa cultivars.

Key words: Alfalfa, Water stress and rehydration, Osmotic adjustment, Anti-oxidative enzyme activity

中图分类号:

李文娆, 张岁岐, 山仑. 苜蓿叶片及根系对水分亏缺的生理生化响应[J]. , 2007, 15(4): 299-305.

LI Wen-rao, ZHANG Sui-qi, SHAN Lun. Physiological and Biochemical Responses of Leaves and Roots of Alfalfa(Medicago sativa L.) to Water Stress[J]. , 2007, 15(4): 299-305.

0
/ / 推荐

导出引用管理器 EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

链接本文: https://manu40.magtech.com.cn/Jweb_cdxb/CN/10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2007.04.001

https://manu40.magtech.com.cn/Jweb_cdxb/CN/Y2007/V15/I4/299

参考文献

[1] Lei Y B,Yin C Y,Li C Y.Differences in some morphological,physiological,and biochemical responses to drought stress in two contrasting populations of Populus przewalskii[J].Physiol.Plant.,2006,127(2):182-191
[2] Luan S.Signaling drought in guard cells[J].Plant Cell Environ.2002,25:229-237
[3] Yin C Y,Peng Y H,Zang R G,et al.Adaptive responses of Populus kangdingensis to drought stress[J].Physiol.Plant.,2005,123:445-451
[4] 郭正刚,张自和,王锁民,等.不同紫花苜蓿品种在黄土高原丘陵区适应性的研究[J].草业学报,2003,12(4):45-50
[5] 赵金梅,周禾,王秀艳.水分胁迫下苜蓿品种抗旱生理生化指标变化及其相互关系[J].草地学报,2005,13(3):184-189
[6] Irigoyen J J,Emerich D W,Sánchez-Díaz M.Alfalfa leaf senescence induced by drought stress:photosynthesis,hydrogen peroxide metabolism,lipid peroxidation and ethylene evolution[J].Physiol.Plant.,1992,84:67-72
[7] 刘建新,王鑫,王凤琴.水分胁迫对苜蓿幼苗渗透调节物质积累和保护酶活性的影响[J].草业科学,2005,23(3):18-21
[8] 田福平,陈子萱,张自和,等.紫花苜蓿体内钾的积累与抗旱性的研究[J].四川草原,2006,1:19-22
[9] 周瑞莲,张承烈,金巨和.干旱胁迫下紫花苜蓿叶片含水量、质膜透性SOD、CAT活性变化与抗旱性关系研究[J].中国草地,1991,2:20-24.
[10] Irigoyen J J,Emerich D W,Sánchez-Díaz M.Water stress induced changes in concentrations of praline and total soluble sugars in nodulated alfalfa (Medicago stiva) plants[J].Physiol.Plant.,1992,84:55-60
[11] 山仑,陈培元.旱地农业生理生态基础[M].北京:科学出版社,1998.25-58
[12] Sharp R E,Poroyko V,Hejlek L G,etal.Root growth maintenance during water deficits:physiology to functional genomics[J].J.Exp.Bot.,2004,55:2343-2351
[13] 高俊凤.植物生理学实验技术[M].西安:世界图书出版公司,2000.69-210
[14] 王玮,张枫,李德全.外源ABA对渗透胁迫下玉米幼苗根系渗透调节的影响[J].作物学报,2002,28(1):121-126
[15] Tan Y,Liang Z S,Shao H B,et al.Effect of water deficits on the activity of anti-oxidative enzymes and osmoregulation among three different genotypes of Radix astragali at seeding stage[J].Colloids Surf.B:Biointerfaces,2006,49:59-64
[16] 康俊梅,杨青川,樊奋成.干旱对苜蓿叶片可溶性蛋白的影响[J].草地学报,2005,13(3):199-202
[17] 张明生,谢波,谈锋,等.甘薯膜脂过氧化作用和膜保护系统的变化与品种抗旱性的关系[J].中国农业科学,2003,36(1):13-16
[18] 李德全,邹琦,程炳嵩.植物在水分胁迫下的渗透调节作用[J].//邹琦.作物抗旱生理生态研究[M].济南:山东科学技术出版社,1994.3-12
[19] 赵丽英,邓西平,山仑.持续干旱及复水对玉米幼苗生理生化指标的影响研究[J].中国生态农业学报,2004,12(3):59-61
[20] 韩瑞宏,卢欣石,高桂娟,等.紫花苜蓿抗旱性主成分及隶属函数分析[J].草地学报,2006,14(2):142-146

苜蓿叶片及根系对水分亏缺的生理生化响应

Physiological and Biochemical Responses of Leaves and Roots of Alfalfa(Medicago sativa L.) to Water Stress

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	王静, 刘晓静, 程甜甜, 童长春, 汪雪. 不同氮效率紫花苜蓿叶特征及其产量效应研究[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(9): 1941-1949.
[2]	孟宣辰, 马鹏程, 马杰, 段珍, 韩阳阳, 张吉宇. 黄土高原半干旱区紫花苜蓿覆膜垄沟和施肥效应研究[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(9): 2098-2106.
[3]	佟莉蓉, 倪顺刚, 任星远, 刘嘉欣, 闻静, 王娟, 宋雨. 褪黑素对干旱胁迫下达乌里胡枝子幼苗生长及叶片水分生理的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(8): 1682-1688.
[4]	王宝强, 赵颖, 朱晓林, 王旺田, 魏小红. 盐碱胁迫对藜麦幼苗叶片光合特性及抗氧化系统的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(8): 1689-1696.
[5]	陈雷, 暴雪艳, 郭刚, 霍文婕, 李清宏, 许庆方, 王聪, 刘强. 单宁酸和乳酸菌对紫花苜蓿青贮品质和体外瘤胃发酵的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(8): 1853-1858.
[6]	李春萍, 邱轶辉, 夏厚胤, 谭璐娜, 许环宇, 张瀚文, 高景慧. 紫花苜蓿多父本F₁代低蒸腾及产量性状的隶属函数分析[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(7): 1416-1422.
[7]	李天琦, 林志玲, 卢轩, 黄佳媛, 杨宁, 沃野, 高凯, 柳小妮, 王显国. 灌溉量对科尔沁沙地紫花苜蓿土壤速效养分分布及淋失的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(7): 1454-1461.
[8]	李鹏珍, 赵得琴, 邓波, 杨军, 赵国华, 赵亮. 生物炭与干旱胁迫对接种紫花苜蓿光合效率及生长的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(6): 1257-1264.
[9]	王文静, 麻冬梅, 赵丽娟, 马巧利. 2,4-表油菜素内酯对盐胁迫下紫花苜蓿生理指标及根系离子积累的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(6): 1363-1368.
[10]	潘新怡, 史昆, 龚攀, 韦宝, 吴欣明, 王赞. 紫花苜蓿花青苷合成的转录组分析[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(5): 866-875.
[11]	其美拉姆, 普布卓玛, 崔彤彤, 张新飞, 姜惠娜, 付娟娟, 呼天明. 外源钙对低温胁迫下西藏野生垂穗披碱草生理及相关基因表达的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(5): 919-928.
[12]	黄荣, 姚博, 张玉娟, 贾倩英, 李向阳, 张宏, 张振粉. 成团泛菌CQ10脂多糖对紫花苜蓿种子萌发及苗期生长的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(5): 965-971.
[13]	徐洪雨, 甄莉丽, 李钰莹, 董宽虎, 李向林. 低温干旱环境对紫花苜蓿根颈耐寒性的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(4): 724-733.
[14]	李满有, 马忠仁, 王斌, 杨雨琦, 沈笑天, 曹立娟, 李小云, 兰剑. 宁夏引黄灌区2个苜蓿品种不同行比混播模式研究[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(4): 798-804.
[15]	侯红雁, 申晨, 霍文婕, 刘强, 张拴林, 王聪, 陈雷, 许庆方, 王永新, 王忠豪, 郭刚. 同型发酵乳杆菌对低水分紫花苜蓿青贮发酵品质及体外消化率的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(4): 835-841.