甘肃野生草地早熟禾萌发期抗旱性鉴定与评价

doi:10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2016.05.017

草地学报 ›› 2016, Vol. 24 ›› Issue (5): 1041-1049.DOI: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2016.05.017

甘肃野生草地早熟禾萌发期抗旱性鉴定与评价

牛奎举¹, 金小煜¹, 李慧萍¹, 徐海鹏¹, 金宁², 马晖玲¹

1. 甘肃农业大学草业学院草业生态系统教育部重点实验室中-美草地畜牧业可持续发展研究中心, 甘肃兰州 730070;
2. 甘肃农业大学园艺学院, 甘肃兰州 730070

收稿日期:2015-10-12 修回日期:2016-03-04 出版日期:2016-10-15 发布日期:2017-01-13
通讯作者: 马晖玲
作者简介:牛奎举(1991-),男,甘肃通渭人,博士,研究方向为牧草、草坪草种质资源及育种,E-mail:niukuiju@163.com
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金（31160482）资助

Identification and Evaluation of Wild Poa pratensis Varieties from Gansu for Drought Resistance During Germination Stage

NIU Kui-ju¹, JIN Xiao-yu¹, LI Hui-ping¹, XU Hai-peng¹, JIN Ning², MA Hui-ling¹

1. Pratacultural College, Gansu Agricultural University/Key laboratory of Grassland Ecosystem/Ministry of Education/Sino-U. S. Centers for Grazingland Ecosystem Sustainability, Lanzhou 730070, China;
2. Horticulture College, Gansu Agricultural University, Lanzhou 730070, China

Received:2015-10-12 Revised:2016-03-04 Online:2016-10-15 Published:2017-01-13

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

采用-0.1，-0.3，-0.5和-0.7 MPa的聚乙二醇6000（PEG-6000）模拟不同程度的干旱胁迫，在萌发期分别处理8份野生草地早熟禾（Poa pratensis）种质和2个商用品种21 d，并测定发芽率、发芽势和活力指数等7个鉴定指标，并以其相对值作为评价指标，利用隶属函数法和聚类分析对供试的10份种质材料进行了综合评价和分类，同时，对各鉴定指标在草地早熟禾萌发期抗旱性评价中的作用进行了比较分析。结果表明，用于草地早熟禾萌发期抗旱性研究的适宜PEG-6000浓度为-0.1～-0.3 MPa，种子活力指数和发芽率受干旱胁迫的影响较大，且与抗旱性的关系最为密切，可作为草地早熟禾种质萌发期抗旱性鉴定的重要指标。10份种质材料抗旱性由强到弱依次为：秦州 > 西和 > 陇西 > 安定 > 渭源 > 天祝 > 榆中 > MidnightⅡ > 清水 > Baron；聚类分析可把供试材料按抗旱性强弱分为三类，其中清水和Baron属于干旱敏感种质；安定、渭源和MidnightⅡ等属于中等抗旱种质；秦州、西和和陇西属于抗旱种质，可作为抗旱育种材料。

关键词: 野生草地早熟禾, 萌发期, 抗旱性, 隶属函数, 聚类分析

Abstract:

Different concentrations of PEG-6000 (-0.1, -0.3, -0.5 and-0.7 MPa) was used to simulate drought stress environment. Germination rate, germination potential, vigor index and other four identification indices of 8 wild Poa pratensis varieties and 2 cultivars were measured under drought stress during germination stage. According to the relative value of seven identification indices as evaluation indices, drought resistance of Poa pratensis varieties was comprehensively evaluated and classified by the methods of membership function and cluster analysis. Furthermore, the role of each identification indices in evaluating drought resistance of different varieties was compared. The results showed that -0.1~-0.3MPa PEG-6000 was the optimum osmotic stress concentration to study drought resistance of Poa pratensis at germination stage. Seed vigor index and germination rate were more susceptible to drought resistance and closer to the comprehensive evaluation value of drought resistance, and it could be used as the most important indices for identification of drought resistance of Poa pratensis. The drought resistance of all varieties decreased in the order as:Qinzhou, Xihe, Longxi, Anding,Weiyuan, Tianzhu, Yuzhong, MidnightⅡ, Qingshui and Baron. The cluster analysis showed that Qingshui and Baron were sensitive to drought stress; three varieties had medium drought tolerance, for example Anding,Weyuan and MidnightⅡ; Qinzhou, Xihe and Longxi were the highest drought tolerant, which can be used to breeding new drought tolerant cultivars in the future.

Key words: Wild Poa pratensis, Germination stage, Drought resistance, Membership function, Cluster analysis

中图分类号:

S543.9

牛奎举, 金小煜, 李慧萍, 徐海鹏, 金宁, 马晖玲. 甘肃野生草地早熟禾萌发期抗旱性鉴定与评价[J]. 草地学报, 2016, 24(5): 1041-1049.

NIU Kui-ju, JIN Xiao-yu, LI Hui-ping, XU Hai-peng, JIN Ning, MA Hui-ling. Identification and Evaluation of Wild Poa pratensis Varieties from Gansu for Drought Resistance During Germination Stage[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2016, 24(5): 1041-1049.

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.1007-0435.2016.05.017

https://manu40.magtech.com.cn/Jweb_cdxb/CN/Y2016/V24/I5/1041

参考文献

[1] 孙吉雄. 草坪学[M]. 北京:中国农业出版社,2008,78-113
[2] 朱慧森,王保平,董晓燕,等. 干旱及复水对山西野生草地早熟禾幼苗生长与生理特性的影响[J]. 草业学报,2015,24(7):79-88
[3] 董沁,鲁存海,白小明,等. 野生早熟禾(Poa L.)对模拟干旱的生理响应[J]. 中国沙漠,2013,33(6):1743-1749
[4] Xu C,Huang B. Proteins and Metabolites Regulated by Trinexapac-ethyl in Relation to Drought Tolerance in Kentucky Bluegrass[J]. Journal of Plant Growth Regulation,2012,31(1):25-37
[5] Xu P, Wang Z. Physiological mechanism of hypertolerance of cadmium in Kentucky bluegrass and tall fescue:Chemical forms and tissue distribution[J]. Environmental and Experimental Botany,2013,96:35-42
[6] 俞玲,马晖玲. 甘肃几种早熟禾内源激素水平及干旱适应性[J]. 中国沙漠,2015,35(1):182-188
[7] Xu L, Yu J, Han L, et al. Photosynthetic enzyme activities and gene expression associated with drought tolerance and post-drought recovery in Kentucky blue grass[J]. Environmental and Experimental Botany,2013,89:28-35
[8] Xu C, Huang B. Comparative Analysis of Proteomic Responses to Single and Simultaneous Drought and Heat Stress for Two Kentucky Bluegrass Cultivars[J]. Crop Science,2012,52(3):1246-1260
[9] Puyang X, An M, Han L, et al. Protective effect of spermidine on salt stress induced oxidative damage in two Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis L.) cultivars[J]. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety,2015,117:96-106
[10] 安勐颍,孙珊珊,濮阳雪华,等. 外源亚精胺调控草地早熟禾幼苗耐盐性的研究[J]. 草业学报,2014,23(6):207-216
[11] Guo Q, Meng L, Mao P, et al. Role of exogenous salicylic acid in alleviating cadmium-induced toxicity in Kentucky bluegrass[J]. Biochemical Systematics and Ecology,2013,50:269-276
[12] Bae E J,Lee K S,Huh M R,et al. Silicon significantly alleviates the growth inhibitory effects of NaCl in salt-sensitive ‘Perfection’ and ‘Midnight’ Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis L.)[J]. Horticulture, Environment, and Biotechnology,2012,53(6):477-483
[13] 陈雅君,祖元刚,刘慧民,等. 早熟禾种质资源及其遗传改良研究进展[J]. 园艺学报,2008,35(11):1701-1708
[14] 白小明,王靖婷,贺佳圆,等. 8个野生早熟禾种子萌发期耐盐性研究[J]. 草地学报,2013,21(3):546-555
[15] 吕优伟. 甘肃省13个野生早熟禾种质材料耐热性研究[D]. 兰州:甘肃农业大学,2013,48-50
[16] 方强恩,孙英,白小明,等. 甘肃早熟禾属野生植物资源分布研究[J]. 中国草地学报,2010,32(6):39-45
[17] 兰州农业部牧草与草坪草种子质量监督检验测试中心. GB/T 2930.4-2001. 牧草种子检验规程-发芽试验[S]. 北京:中国标准出版社,2001
[18] Michel B E, Kaufmann M R. The osmotic potential of polyethylene glycol 6000[J]. Plant Physiol,1973,51(5):914-916
[19] 陈新,宋高原,张宗文,等. PEG-6000胁迫下裸燕麦萌发期抗旱性鉴定与评价[J]. 植物遗传资源学报,2014,15(6):1188-1195
[20] 齐华,许晶,孟显华,等. 水分胁迫下燕麦萌芽期抗旱指标的研究[J]. 种子,2009,28(7):7-10
[21] 王艺陶,周宇飞,李丰先,等. 基于主成分和SOM聚类分析的高粱品种萌发期抗旱性鉴定与分类[J]. 作物学报,2014,40(1):110-121
[22] 李丰先,周宇飞,王艺陶,等. 高粱品种萌发期耐碱性筛选与综合鉴定[J]. 中国农业科学,2013,46(9):1762-1771
[23] 王士强,胡银岗,佘奎军,等. 小麦抗旱相关农艺性状和生理生化性状的灰色关联度分析[J]. 中国农业科学. 2007,40(11):2452-2459
[24] 肖红,徐长林,鱼小军,等. 不同产地扁蓿豆种子萌发期抗旱性综合评价[J]. 干旱地区农业研究,2014,32(5):73-77
[25] Abdel-Ghani A H, Neumann K,Wabila C, et al. Diversity of germination and seedling traits in a spring barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) collection under drought simulated conditions[J]. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution,2015,62(2):275-292
[26] H Huang, S Song. Change in desiccation tolerance of maize embryos during development and germination at different water potential PEG-6000 in relation to oxidative process.[J]. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry,2013,68:61-70
[27] Vassilevska-Ivanova R, Shtereva L, Kraptchev B, et al. Response of sunflower (Helianthus annuus L) genotypes to PEG-mediated water stress[J]. Open Life Sciences,2014,9(12):1206-1214
[28] 安永平,强爱玲,张媛媛,等. 渗透胁迫下水稻种子萌发特性及抗旱性鉴定指标研究[J]. 植物遗传资源学报,2006,7(4):421-426
[29] 鞠乐,齐军仓,贺雪,等. 大麦种子萌发期对渗透胁迫的响应及抗旱性鉴定指标的筛选[J]. 干旱地区农业研究,2013,31(1):172-176
[30] 李翠,梁燕,张纪涛,等. 渗透胁迫对番茄种子萌发特性的影响[J]. 干旱地区农业研究,2011,29(2):173-179
[31] 陈培元,山仑. 旱地农业生理生态基础[M]. 北京:科学出版社,1998:1-17
[32] 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
[33] 陈新,张宗文,吴斌. 裸燕麦萌发期耐盐性综合评价与耐盐种质筛选[J]. 中国农业科学,2014,47(10):2038-2046
[34] 孙璐,周宇飞,汪澈,等. 高粱品种萌发期耐盐性筛选与鉴定[J]. 中国农业科学,2012,45(9):1714-1722

甘肃野生草地早熟禾萌发期抗旱性鉴定与评价

Identification and Evaluation of Wild Poa pratensis Varieties from Gansu for Drought Resistance During Germination Stage

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]	李红, 李波, 方志坚, 杨曌, 张超, 冯成龙, 金姗姗, 王思琦, 石婉莹. 冻融和冻融+苏打盐碱复合胁迫下苜蓿幼苗的生理响应[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(7): 1469-1476.
[3]	张荟荟, 梁维维, 张学洲, 阿斯娅·曼力克, 朱昊, 魏鹏, 康帅, 李学森. 新疆野生老芒麦种质资源形态及生长特性分析[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(4): 701-708.
[4]	梁国玲, 刘文辉, 马祥. 590份皮燕麦种质资源穗部性状遗传多样性分析[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(3): 495-503.
[5]	李波, 李晨阳, 李红, 杨曌. 短期低温胁迫对‘龙牧807’苜蓿幼苗生理代谢的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(3): 515-521.
[6]	张琦, 魏臻武, 闫天芳, 耿小丽. 燕麦种质资源农艺性状遗传多样性的鉴定评价[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(2): 309-316.
[7]	魏少萍, 李景峰, 梁鹏飞, 陈洁, 刘鑫, 南丽丽. 红豆草种子形态和营养成分遗传变异分析[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(11): 2530-2537.
[8]	张然, 马祥, 朱瑞婷, 牛奎举, 赵春旭, 马晖玲. 青海野生草地早熟禾响应干旱胁迫的代谢通路及转录调控分析[J]. 草地学报, 2020, 28(6): 1508-1518.
[9]	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.
[10]	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.
[11]	赵春旭, 张然, 牛奎举, 朱瑞婷, 王勇, 马祥, 马晖玲. 青海野生草地早熟禾响应低温胁迫的代谢组学研究[J]. 草地学报, 2020, 28(4): 904-914.
[12]	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.
[13]	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.
[14]	赵春旭, 马祥, 董文科, 牛奎举, 张然, 马晖玲. 低温胁迫下不同青海野生草地早熟禾的转录组比较分析[J]. 草地学报, 2020, 28(2): 305-318.
[15]	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.