鸭茅种子萌发对渗透胁迫响应与耐旱性评价

doi:10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2013.04.017

›› 2013, Vol. 21 ›› Issue (4): 737-743.DOI: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2013.04.017

鸭茅种子萌发对渗透胁迫响应与耐旱性评价

季杨^1,2, 张新全¹, 彭燕¹, 汪霞¹, 梁小玉^1,2, 赵欣欣¹, 黄琳凯¹, 马迎梅¹

1. 四川农业大学动物科技学院, 四川雅安 625014;
2. 四川省畜牧科学研究院, 四川成都 610066

收稿日期:2013-01-11 修回日期:2013-03-28 出版日期:2013-08-15 发布日期:2013-08-14
通讯作者: 张新全
作者简介:季杨(1983- ),男,四川崇州人,博士研究生,研究方向为种质资源创新及牧草育种,E-mail:jiyang221@163.com
基金资助:
国家"十二五"科技支撑计划课题(2011BAD17B03);教育部博导基金(20105103110006);国家现代牧草产业技术体系(CARS-35-05)资助

Seed Germination Response to Osmotic Stress and Tolerance Evaluation of Orchardgrass

JI Yang^1,2, ZHANG Xin-quan¹, PENG Yan¹, WANG Xia¹, LIANG Xiao-yu^1,2, ZHAO Xin-xin¹, HUANG Lin-kai¹, MA Ying-mei¹

1. Department of Grassland Science, Sichuan Agricultural University, Ya'an, Sichuan Province 625014, China;
2. Sichuan Animal Science Academy, Chengdu, Sichuan Province 610066, China

Received:2013-01-11 Revised:2013-03-28 Online:2013-08-15 Published:2013-08-14

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 根据不同鸭茅(Dactylis glomerata L.)品种萌发期对干旱胁迫的响应,评价9份南方主推鸭茅种质材料抗旱性差异,为其耐旱胁迫人工调控提供依据。PEG(PEG-6000)模拟干旱胁迫条件,分别以5%,10%和13%(-0.1 MPa,-0.2 MPa和-0.3 MPa)聚乙二醇溶液作渗透介质,采用人工气候箱内培养皿培养进行萌发期抗旱性研究,测定萌发抗旱指数、活力抗旱指数、相对发芽率、相对发芽势、相对胚芽长(干重)和相对胚根长(干重)6个指标,应用模糊隶属函数法进行耐旱性综合评价,并结合种子萌发期贮藏物质转运率与萌发抗旱指数相关性分析进行。结果表明:9个鸭茅材料耐旱隶属函数平均值范围为0.139~0.935。宝兴平均值最高,为0.935,其耐旱性最高,其次为02-116和斯巴达,平均值分别为0.883和0.824,而01998材料平均值最低,为0.139。胚根、胚芽在不同渗透胁迫条件下生长受到不同程度的抑制,贮藏物质转运效率降低,胚根、胚芽干重和贮藏物质与萌发抗旱指数相关性显著。13%PEG渗透溶液浓度胁迫处理8 d可作为研究鸭茅萌芽期抗旱性鉴定的水分胁迫适宜浓度。因此,采用模糊隶属法进行鸭茅耐旱性的综合评价时,贮藏物质转运效率可作为萌芽期抗旱性鉴定的重要指标。

关键词: 鸭茅, 渗透胁迫, 萌芽期, 抗旱性, 模糊隶属法

Abstract: In order to provide a theoretic guide to drought stress of manual manipulation and find the most drought tolerant variety for cultivation, nine orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata L.) germplasms were used to demonstrate their drought tolerance according to seed germination response to drought stress. Three concentrations with 5%, 10%, and 13% of PEG-6000 were used as the penetration media to orchardgrass seeds in growth chambers. Drought tolerant index, plant vigor tolerant index, relative seed germination rate, relative seed germination vigor, relative embryo bud length (dry weight), and relative radical length (dry weight) of nine orchardgrass germplasm were measured to evaluate their drought tolerant abilities. Fussy subordinate function was used to assess drought tolerance. Correlation analysis was carried out to reveal the relationship between storage substances transporting rate and drought tolerance at seed germination stage. The average drought tolerance index of nine orchardgrass germplasm ranged from 0.139 to 0.935. ‘Baoxing' was the most drought tolerant material with 0.935 drought tolerant index, while ‘02-116' and ‘Sparta' were the second order with 0.883 and 0.824 drought tolerant indices. Samples of ‘01998' were least drought tolerant with drought tolerant index of 0.139. Relative embryo bud length and relative radical length were inhibited to some extent, storage substance transporting rate decreased also. Additionally, storage substance transporting rate was positively correlated with the drought tolerance of seed germination. The PEG-6000 of 13% was considered as the appropriate concentration to test orchardgrass drought tolerance at seed germination stage. Orchardgrass drought tolerance evaluation and storage substance transporting rate from fussy subordinate function were indicators of orchardgrass drought tolerance at seed germination stage.

Key words: Dactylis glomerata L., Osmotic stress, Seed germination, Drought tolerance, Subordinative function method

中图分类号:

季杨, 张新全, 彭燕, 汪霞, 梁小玉, 赵欣欣, 黄琳凯, 马迎梅. 鸭茅种子萌发对渗透胁迫响应与耐旱性评价[J]. , 2013, 21(4): 737-743.

JI Yang, ZHANG Xin-quan, PENG Yan, WANG Xia, LIANG Xiao-yu, ZHAO Xin-xin, HUANG Lin-kai, MA Ying-mei. Seed Germination Response to Osmotic Stress and Tolerance Evaluation of Orchardgrass[J]. , 2013, 21(4): 737-743.

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.1007-0435.2013.04.017

https://manu40.magtech.com.cn/Jweb_cdxb/CN/Y2013/V21/I4/737

参考文献

[1] 李智念,王光明,曾之文.植物干旱胁迫中的ABA研究[J].干旱地区农业研究,2003,21(2):99-104
[2] 余健.中国旱情态势及防控对策[J].西北农业学报,2010,19(7):154-158
[3] Michel B E, Kaufmann M R. The osmotic potential of polyethylene glycol 6000[J]. Plant physiology,1973,51(5):914-916
[4] Perdomo P, Murphy J A, Berkowitz G A. Physiological changes associated with performance of Kentucky bluegrass cultivars during summer stress[J]. HortScience,1996,31(7):1182-1186
[5] Bonos S A, Murphy J A.Growth response and performance of Kentucky bluegrass under summer stress[J]. Crop Science,1999,39(3):770-774
[6] Huang B, Gao H. Physiological responses of diverse tall fescue cultivars to drought stress[J]. HortScience,1999,34(5):897-901
[7] 王赞,李源,吴欣明,等.PEG渗透胁迫下鸭茅种子萌发特性及抗旱性鉴定[J].中国草地学报,2008,30(1):50-55
[8] Morgan J M.Osmotic components and properties associated with genotypic differences in osmoregulation in wheat[J]. Functional Plant Biology,1992,19(1):67-76
[9] Mohammadkhani N, Heidari R. Drought-induced accumulation of soluble sugars and proline in two maize varieties[J]. World Applied Sciences Journal,2008,3(3):448-453
[10] Bouslama M, Schapaugh W T. Stress tolerance in soybeans. Ⅰ. Evaluation of three screening techniques for heat and drought tolerance[J]. Crop Science,1984,24(5):933-937
[11] 张健,池宝亮,黄学芳,等.以活力抗旱指数作为玉米萌芽期抗旱性评价指标的初探[J].华北农学报,2007,22(1):22-25
[12] Nunez M R, Calvo L. Effect of high temperatures on seed germination of Pinussylvestris and Pinushalepensis [J]. Forest Ecology and Management,2000,131(1):183-190
[13] 牛瑞明,王燕,吴桂丽,等.裸燕麦种子萌发对模拟干旱胁迫的响应及其耐旱性综合评价[J].麦类作物学报,2011,31(4):753-756
[14] 杨剑平,陈学珍,王文平,等.大豆实验室PEG模拟干旱体系的建立[J].中国农学通报,2003,19(3):65-68
[15] 王贺正,马均,李旭毅,等.水稻种质芽期抗旱性和抗旱性鉴定指标的筛选研究[J].西南农业学报,2004,17(5):594-599
[16] 揭雨成,黄丕生,李宗道.竺麻基因型抗旱性差异及其早期鉴定研究[J].作物学报,2000,26(6):942-946
[17] 吕德彬,杨建平.水分胁迫下不同小麦品种抗性反应与产量表现的相关研究[J].河南农业大学学报,1994,28(3):230-235
[18] 胡标林,余守武,万勇,等.东乡普通野生稻全生育期抗旱性鉴定[J].作物学报,2007,33(3):425-432
[19] 曾兵,张新全,彭燕,等.优良牧草鸭茅的温室抗旱性研究[J],湖北农业科学,2006,45(1):103-106
[20] 高杨,张新全,谢文刚.干旱胁迫下鸭茅新品系抗旱性研究[J].湖北农业科学,2007,46(6):981-984

鸭茅种子萌发对渗透胁迫响应与耐旱性评价

Seed Germination Response to Osmotic Stress and Tolerance Evaluation of Orchardgrass

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]	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.
[2]	安明珠, 韩博, 姜华, 段新慧, 文亦芾, 周凯. 鸭茅物种起源与系统发育分析研究进展[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(12): 2637-2644.
[3]	李佳欢, 刘希强, 吕进英, 任成, 王开丽, 黄顶, 邓波, 王堃. 基于植株各器官生理响应对12种苜蓿抗旱性的综合评价[J]. 草地学报, 2020, 28(5): 1319-1328.
[4]	武瑞鑫, 李源, 游永亮, 刘贵波, 赵海明. 紫花苜蓿全生育期抗旱性鉴定评价方法探讨[J]. 草地学报, 2020, 28(5): 1444-1453.
[5]	王亚楠, 赵思明, 曹兵. PEG-6000模拟干旱胁迫下10种草本植物萌发期抗旱性比较[J]. 草地学报, 2020, 28(4): 983-989.
[6]	李波, 刘畅, 李红, 杨曌. 外源氯化钙对‘龙牧807’苜蓿幼苗干旱缓解效应分析[J]. 草地学报, 2020, 28(4): 990-997.
[7]	王平, 王沛, 孙万斌, 陈玖红, 张伟, 周青平. 8份披碱草属牧草苗期抗旱性综合评价[J]. 草地学报, 2020, 28(2): 397-404.
[8]	梁欢, 韦宝, 陈静, 宫文龙, 马琳, 王学敏, 王赞. 基于叶绿素荧光参数的紫花苜蓿种质苗期抗旱性评价[J]. 草地学报, 2020, 28(1): 45-55.
[9]	杨丹, 张舒芸, 田新会, 杜文华. 不同黑麦品种(品系)对持续干旱胁迫的形态适应性研究[J]. 草地学报, 2020, 28(1): 122-129.
[10]	李昌华, 李小梅, 张新全, 黄琳凯, 周冀琼, 张帆, 李小铃, 闫艳红. 10个鸭茅品种在川中丘陵地区的适应性研究[J]. 草地学报, 2019, 27(2): 397-403.
[11]	李京蓉, 周学斌, 马真, 刘泽华, 石国玺, 王文颖, 张中华, 郭美玲, 姚步青, 张春辉, 马丽, 周华坤. 6种高寒牧区禾本科牧草抗旱性研究与评价[J]. 草地学报, 2018, 26(3): 659-665.
[12]	薛泽民, 薛琪, 高景慧. 渗透胁迫下紫花苜蓿幼苗气孔运动与光合作用的关系[J]. 草地学报, 2018, 26(2): 420-426.
[13]	见妮, 刘璐, 屈佳欣, 李凯, 王佺珍. 超声波对镉胁迫鸭茅和冰草种子萌发的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2018, 26(2): 427-434.
[14]	赵海明, 游永亮, 李源, 柳斌辉, 刘贵波, 武瑞鑫, 王桂峰. 紫花苜蓿资源抗旱性鉴定评价方法研究[J]. 草地学报, 2017, 25(6): 1308-1316.
[15]	陈丽霞, 田新会, 杜文华. 甘农1号小黑麦的田间抗旱性研究[J]. 草地学报, 2017, 25(5): 1079-1087.