干旱胁迫下偏关苜蓿显微结构响应特征研究

doi:10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2015.04.016

草地学报 ›› 2015, Vol. 23 ›› Issue (4): 771-779.DOI: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2015.04.016

干旱胁迫下偏关苜蓿显微结构响应特征研究

朱慧森¹, 张垚², 董宽虎¹, 杨武德³, 赵祥¹

1. 山西农业大学动物科技学院, 山西太谷 030801;
2. 浙江大学遥感与信息技术应用研究所, 浙江杭州 310058;
3. 山西农业大学农学院, 山西太谷 030801

收稿日期:2015-03-25 修回日期:2015-06-27 出版日期:2015-08-15 发布日期:2015-08-26
通讯作者: 董宽虎
作者简介:朱慧森(1977-),女,山西晋中人,博士,主要从事牧草及草坪草抗逆生理生态研究,E-mail:zhuhuisen@126.com
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金(31402131);博士后科学基金(2014M561204)资助

Effect of Drought Stress on Microstructural Characteristic Changes of Medicago sativa ‘Pianguan’

ZHU Hui-sen¹, ZHANG Yao², DONG Kuan-hu¹, YANG Wu-de³, ZHAO Xiang¹

1. College of Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, Shanxi Province 030801, China;
2. Institute of Agricultural Remote Sensing & Information Application, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province 310058, China;
3. College of Agronomy, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, Shanxi Province 030801, China

Received:2015-03-25 Revised:2015-06-27 Online:2015-08-15 Published:2015-08-26

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

以山西地方优良种质——偏关苜蓿(Medicago sativa‘Pianguan’)为材料,采用20% PEG模拟干旱胁迫0, 24, 48, 72 h后,观测根、茎、叶各器官显微结构特征参数。利用单位干旱时间内各显微结构参数相对响应关系及干旱时间与干旱指标实测值关系,获取能够在显微结构尺度上定量评价植物体各组织对干旱胁迫响应关系的干旱指数:干旱响应率(RR)和干旱响应度(RD),旨在为干旱胁迫与细胞响应的其他相关研究提供方法学参考。结果表明:叶片海绵组织厚度和栅栏组织厚度、茎韧皮部厚度和筛管直径及髓腔直径、根直径和表皮厚度分别对干旱胁迫有相对较高的响应特征,其中叶片海绵组织厚度、栅栏组织厚度和茎髓腔直径的响应特征最高。综合响应率和响应度分析得出各器官对PEG的耐受性依次为根> 茎> 叶。

关键词: 偏关苜蓿, 干旱胁迫, 显微结构, 响应率, 响应度

Abstract:

The objective of this study was to provide a methodological reference to other relevant research. The microstructural characteristic changes of leaves, stems, and roots in Medicago sativa ‘Pianguan’ that under drought stress condition were evaluated after 0, 24, 48 and 72 h of 20% PEG treatment. Drought response degree (RD) and response ratio (RR) were calculated based on two equations: one was deduced based on the response of a unit's relative value for the observed microstructural characteristic parameters at unit drought time, and the other was deduced based on the linear relative degree between the raw value of thickness of drought indices and drought time. The results demonstrated that compared with the baseline at 0 h, leaf spongy parenchyma thickness, palisade parenchyma thickness, stem phloem thickness, sieve tube diameter, pith cavity diameter, root diameter, and epidermis thickness had significantly higher response characteristics under drought stress. According to the calculation results, the response characteristics of leaf spongy parenchyma thickness, palisade parenchyma thickness, and stem pith cavity diameter were the highest among all test indices. The results of both RD and RR analyses indicated that roots had the greatest tolerance to PEG, followed by stems and leaves.

Key words: Medicago sativa ‘Pianguan’, Drought stress, Microstructure, Response ratio, Response degree

中图分类号:

Q945.78

朱慧森, 张垚, 董宽虎, 杨武德, 赵祥. 干旱胁迫下偏关苜蓿显微结构响应特征研究[J]. 草地学报, 2015, 23(4): 771-779.

ZHU Hui-sen, ZHANG Yao, DONG Kuan-hu, YANG Wu-de, ZHAO Xiang. Effect of Drought Stress on Microstructural Characteristic Changes of Medicago sativa ‘Pianguan’[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2015, 23(4): 771-779.

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.1007-0435.2015.04.016

https://manu40.magtech.com.cn/Jweb_cdxb/CN/Y2015/V23/I4/771

参考文献

[1] Gallé A, Haldimann P, Feller U. Photosynthetic performance and water relations in young pubescent oak (Quercus pubescens) trees during drought stress and recovery[J]. New Phytologist,2007,174(4):799-810
[2] Kulkarni M, Schneider B, Raveh E, et al. Leaf anatomical characteristics and physiological responses to short-term drought in Ziziphus mauritiana (Lamk.)[J]. Scientia Horticulturae,2010,124(3):316-322
[3] Yang S J. Plant Biology[M]. 2th ed. Beijing: Higher Education Press,2010
[4] Olmos E, Sánchez-Blanco M J, Ferrández T, et al. Subcellular effects of drought stress in Rosmarinus officinalis[J]. Plant Biology,2007,9(1):77-84
[5] Guerfel M, Baccouri O, Boujnah D, et al. Impacts of water stress on gas exchange, water relations, chlorophyll content and leaf structure in the two main Tunisian olive (Olea europaea L.) cultivars[J]. Scientia Horticulturae,2009,119(3):257-263
[6] Makbul S, Guler N S, Durmus N, et al. Changes in anatomical and physiological parameters of soybean under drought stress[J]. Turkish Journal of Botany,2011,35(4):369-377
[7] Dong K H, Zhu H S, Tong L R, et al. Shanxi forage germplasm resources[M]. Bei Jing:Science and Technology Press,2010:137
[8] Zhu H S, Liu Y X, Dong K H, et al. Effect of PEG stress on key enzymes involved in proline metabolism of Medicago sativa cv. Pianguan[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica,2011,19(6):1000-1004,1024
[9] Li Z L. Plant Production Technology[M]. 2th ed. Bei Jing: Science Press,2002
[10] Esau K. Plant anatomy[M]. Blackburn Press,1965:130-132,196-197,311-314
[11] Asuero A G, González G. Fitting straight lines with replicated observations by linear regression. III. Weighting data[J]. Critical Reviews In Analytical Chemistry,2007,37(3):143-172
[12] Huang J F, Wang X Z, Wang F M. Hyperspectral experiment for paddy rice remote sensing[M]. Hangzhou: Zhejiang university press,2010:48
[13] Pan X J, Zhang W E, Yang X Y, et al. Correlation between drought resistance and leaf anatomical structure of wild vitis quinquangularis seedlings in Karst Mountainous Areas[J]. Guizhou Agricultural Sciences,2010,38(9):176-178
[14] Li H Y, Li Z Y, Shi W G, et al. A study on leaf anatomic traits and drought resistant of Medicago rutenica in Inner Mongolia[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica,2012,21(3):138-146
[15] Karaba A, Dixit S, Greco R, et al. Improvement of water use efficiency in rice by expression of HARDY, an Arabidopsis drought and salt tolerance gene[J]. PNAS,2007,104(39):15270-15275
[16] Hu Y, Chu H J, Li J Q. Response of leaf anatomy characteristics and its plasticity to different soil water conditions of Medicago ruthenica in four populations[J]. Plant Science Journal,2011,29(2):218-225

[17] Li H Y, Li Z Y, Shi W G, et al. Leaf anatomic indexes and the relations with drought resistance of the six forage of Leguminosae[J]. Acta Botanica Boreali-Occidentalia Sinica,2010,30:1989-1994
[18] Chen Y, Chen Y J, Zhou Y, et al. Stem structure associated with drought resistance in different Clover cultivars[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica,2012,20(4):686-691
[19] Zhao X, Dong K H, Zhang Y, et al. Anatomical structure of Lespedeza davurica stem from different population[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica,2010,18(5):615-621
[20] Zhao C Y, Yan Y Y, Yimamu Y, et al. Effects of soil moisture on cotton root length density and yield under drip irrigation with plastic mulch in Aksu Oasis farmland[J]. Journal of Arid Land,2010,2:243-249
[21] Zeng F, Song C, Guo H, et al. Responses of root growth of Alhagi sparsifolia Shap.(Fabaceae) to different simulated groundwater depths in the southern fringe of the Taklimakan Desert, China[J]. Journal of Arid Land,2013,5:220-232
[22] Zhao X, Dong K H, Zhang Y, et al. Drought resistance and root anatomy of Lespedeza davurica (Laxm.) Schindl[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica,2011,19(1):13-19
[23] Shao H B, Chu LY, Jaleel C A, et al. Water-deficit stress-induced anatomical changes in higher plants[J]. Comptes Rendus Biologies,2008,331(3):215-225

干旱胁迫下偏关苜蓿显微结构响应特征研究

Effect of Drought Stress on Microstructural Characteristic Changes of Medicago sativa ‘Pianguan’

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]	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.
[2]	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.
[3]	梁佳, 马依努·吾斯曼, 方志刚. 外源生长物质对干旱胁迫条件下甜高粱种子萌发的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(3): 610-617.
[4]	温雅洁, 周生英, 方强恩, 胡桂馨. 蓟马为害对苜蓿叶茎显微结构的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(12): 2703-2710.
[5]	叶晓倩, 刘瑞曦, 冯金慧, 邓仕明, 李吉涛, 邓志军. 车前种子黏液对其劣变和萌发抗逆性的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(12): 2728-2732.
[6]	余淑艳, 周燕飞, 黄薇, 王星, 高雪芹, 伏兵哲. 干旱、盐及旱盐复合胁迫对沙芦草光合和生理特性的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(11): 2399-2406.
[7]	齐晨汐, 易观涛, 付晓璇, 王海龙, 王佳琳, 吴建慧. 丛枝菌根真菌对干旱胁迫下鹅绒委陵菜生理指标的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(11): 2407-2412.
[8]	秦立刚, 李雪, 李韦瑶, 胡尧, 李俊, 崔国文. PEG干旱胁迫对3种葱属植物种子萌发期渗透调节物质及酶活性的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(1): 72-79.
[9]	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.
[10]	刘凯强, 刘文辉, 贾志锋, 马祥, 梁国玲. 干旱胁迫对‘青燕1号’燕麦器官生长及水分利用效率的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2020, 28(6): 1552-1562.
[11]	王晓雪, 李越, 张斌, 贾举庆, 冯美臣, 张美俊, 杨武德. 干旱胁迫及复水对燕麦根系生长及生理特性的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2020, 28(6): 1588-1596.
[12]	李春艳, 王曦, 周胜花, 李希, 钟华, 董宽虎. 白羊草R2R3-MYB转录因子的挖掘及对干旱胁迫反应的研究[J]. 草地学报, 2020, 28(6): 1784-1790.
[13]	陈爱萍, 隋晓青, 王玉祥, 靳瑰丽, 王堃, 安沙舟. 干旱胁迫及复水对伊犁绢蒿幼苗生长及生理特性的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2020, 28(5): 1216-1225.
[14]	罗小燕, 李欣勇, 张瑜, 王文强, 丁西朋. 8种山蚂蝗种子萌发期耐盐耐旱性差异分析[J]. 草地学报, 2020, 28(5): 1329-1336.
[15]	尉欣荣, 张智伟, 周雨, 刘鹏, 姚宏斌, 苗彦军, 付娟娟. 褪黑素对低温和干旱胁迫下多年生黑麦草幼苗生长和抗氧化系统的调节作用[J]. 草地学报, 2020, 28(5): 1337-1345.