8份披碱草属牧草苗期抗旱性综合评价

doi:10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2020.02.013

草地学报 ›› 2020, Vol. 28 ›› Issue (2): 397-404.DOI: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2020.02.013

8份披碱草属牧草苗期抗旱性综合评价

王平¹, 王沛¹, 孙万斌², 陈玖红¹, 张伟¹, 周青平¹

1. 西南民族大学青藏高原研究院, 四川成都 610041;
2. 甘肃农业大学草业学院, 甘肃兰州 730070

收稿日期:2019-12-02 修回日期:2020-01-02 出版日期:2020-04-15 发布日期:2020-04-11
通讯作者: 周青平
作者简介:王平(1993-),男,甘肃天水人,硕士研究生,主要从事牧草逆境生理研究,E-mail:wangpingswmu@yeah.net
基金资助:
国家牧草产业技术体系（CAR-34）；国家自然科学基金项目（31802122）；青藏高原生态畜牧协调创新中心开放基金（QZGYXT04）资助

Comprehensive Evaluation of Drought Resistance of Eight Elymus Germplasms at Seedling Stage

WANG Ping¹, WANG Pei¹, SUN Wan-bin², CHEN Jiu-hong¹, ZHANG Wei¹, ZHOU Qing-ping¹

1. Institute of Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau, Southwest Minzu University, Chengdu, Sichuan Province 610041, China;
2. Pratacultural College, Gansu Agricultural University, Lanzhou, Gansu Province 730070, China

Received:2019-12-02 Revised:2020-01-02 Online:2020-04-15 Published:2020-04-11

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 本试验对室内盆栽的8份披碱草属（Elymus L.）牧草进行干旱处理，通过分析干旱胁迫和复水下各种质资源叶片的相对电导率、相对含水量、丙二醛、叶绿素等8项生理指标的干旱胁迫指数，探究各种质资源间苗期抗旱性的差异。结果表明，在干旱及复水处理下，各种质表现出了不同程度的干旱适应性，其中E05的干旱适应性较强，表现为各项指标在干旱处理下变化较小，且在复水处理下恢复较明显。对各种质资源相对含水量、叶绿素含量、相对电导率和丙二醛四项生理指标进行隶属函数分析，得出其抗旱性从强到弱依次为：E05 > E08 > E06 > E01 > E03 > E07 > E02 > E04。综上所述，采集地年均降水量较少（319.25 mm）的垂穗披碱草（E. nutans，编号E05）在长期适应干旱少雨的过程中，表现出更强的抗旱能力。

关键词: 披碱草属, 抗旱性, 干旱胁迫, 复水, 隶属函数

Abstract: The aim of this work was to explore the drought resistance ability of eight Elymus germplasms,theygrown in pots were treated by drought stress and rewatered. The drought response indexes including relative conductivity (REC),relative water content (RWC),malondialdehyde (MDA) and chlorophyll (Chl) in leaves among eight germplasms were analyzed. The result showed that the eight germplasms had different degrees of drought adaptability. When compared with other germplasms,the indexes of E05 were slightly influenced by drought treatment and recovered obviously under rewater treatment,which indicated that E05 had stronger drought adaptability. Based on the subordinate function analysis of four physiological characteristics (REC,RWC,MDA and Chl), the rank order of drought resistance in these Elymus germplasms were as follows:E. nutans (E05) > E. nutans (E08) > E. nutans (E06) > E. sibiricus (E01) > E. sibiricus (E03) > E. nutans (E07) > E. sibiricus (E02) > E. sibiricus (E04). In summary,E. nutans (E05) with less annual precipitation (319.25 mm) in the collection area showed stronger drought resistance during the long-term adaptation to drought.

Key words: Elymus, Drought resistance, Drought stress, Rewater, Subordination function

中图分类号:

Q945.78

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.

WANG Ping, WANG Pei, SUN Wan-bin, CHEN Jiu-hong, ZHANG Wei, ZHOU Qing-ping. Comprehensive Evaluation of Drought Resistance of Eight Elymus Germplasms at Seedling Stage[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2020, 28(2): 397-404.

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.1007-0435.2020.02.013

https://manu40.magtech.com.cn/Jweb_cdxb/CN/Y2020/V28/I2/397

参考文献

[1] Xu X K,Chen H,Levy J K. Spatiotemporal vegetation cover variations in the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau under global climate change[J]. Chinese Science Bulletin,2008,53(6):915-922
[2] Chen B X,Zhang X Z,Tao J,et al. The impact of climate change and anthropogenic activities on alpine grassland over the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau.[J].Agricultural and Forest Meteorology,2014,189/190:11-18
[3] 徐华军,杨晓光,王文峰,等. 气候变化背景下中国农业气候资源变化Ⅶ.青藏高原干旱半干旱区农业气候资源变化特征[J]. 应用生态学报,2011,22(07):1817-1824
[4] Li Y,Li Z,Li Z,et al. Numerical simulation of the effects of grassland degradation on the surface climate in overgrazing area of northwest china[J]. Advances in Meteorology,2013,2(2):1-9
[5] 余方玲,杨满业,干友民,等. 川西北高寒草地3种禾草种子萌发期抗旱性[J]. 草业科学,2011,28(6):993-997
[6] Wang,W B,Deng X P,Kwak S S,et al. Analysis of antioxidant enzyme activity during germination of alfalfa under salt and drought stresses[J]. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry,2009,47(7):570-577
[7] Eva Sánchez-Rodríguez,Rubio-Wilhelmi M M,Cervilla L M,et al. Genotypic differences in some physiological parameters symptomatic for oxidative stress under moderate drought in tomato plants[J]. Plant Science,2010,178(1):30-40
[8] Rivero R M,Kojima M,Gepstein A,et al. Delayed leaf senescence induces extreme drought tolerance in a flowering plant[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,2007,104(49):19631-19636
[9] 王霞,侯平,尹林克. 植物对干旱胁迫的适应机理[J]. 干旱区研究,2001,18(2):42-46
[10] Jin R,Shi H,Han C,et al. Physiological changes of purslane (Portulaca oleracea L.) after progressive drought stress and rehydration[J]. Scientia Horticulturae,2015,194:215-221
[11] 高悦,朱永铸,杨志民,等.干旱胁迫和复水对冰草相关抗性生理指标的影响[J]. 草地学报,2012,20(2):336-341
[12] 刘婷婷,陈道钳,王仕稳,等.不同品种高粱幼苗在干旱复水过程中的生理生态响应[J]. 草业学报,2018,27(6):100-110
[13] 刘文瑜,何斌,杨发荣,等.不同品种藜麦幼苗对干旱胁迫和复水的生理响应[J]. 草业科学,2019,(10):2656-2666
[14] 杜建雄,师尚礼,刘金荣,等.干旱胁迫和复水对草地早熟禾3个品种生理特性的影响[J]. 草地学报,2010,18(1):73-77
[15] Chen D,Chen D Q,Wu X, et al. Genotypic variation in growth and physiological response to drought stress and re-watering reveals the critical role of recovery in drought adaptation in maize seedlings. Frontiers in Plant Science,2015,6:1241
[16] 王贺正,李艳,马均,等. 水稻苗期抗旱性指标的筛选[J]. 作物学报,2007(09):1523-1529
[17] 刘金龙,王莹,许爱云,等. 干旱胁迫下5种禾本科牧草幼苗期的生理特性[J]. 草业科学,2018,35(05):1106-1115
[18] Wang W Y,Wang Q J,Wang H C. The effect of land management on plant community composition,species diversity,and productivity of alpine Kobersia steppe meadow[J]. Ecological research,2006,21(2):181-187
[19] Fu J J,Miao Y J,Shao L H,et al. De novo transcriptome sequencing and gene expression profiling of Elymus nutans under cold stress[J]. BMC Genomics,2016,17(1):870-889
[20] 张小娇.披碱草属(Elymus L.)野生种质材料生态适应性及其评价[D]. 兰州:甘肃农业大学,2014:1-2
[21] 陈有军,周青平,孙建,等. 六份乡土牧草苗期干旱胁迫的对比研究[J]. 西南民族大学学报(自然科学版),2016,42(6):598-603
[22] 李淑娟,周青平,颜红波. 披碱草属植物遗传多样性研究进展[J]. 草业与畜牧,2006,1(11):1-5
[23] 德英,赵来喜,穆怀彬. PEG6000渗透胁迫下应用电导法对披碱草属种质幼苗抗旱性初步研究[J]. 中国农学通报,2010,26(24):173-178
[24] 刘锦川,云锦凤. 披碱草属3种牧草幼苗对水分胁迫的响应[J]. 种子,2010,29(9):17-20
[25] 周晶,王传旗,包赛很那,等. 西藏野生垂穗披碱草对温度和水分的生理响应[J]. 种子,2019,38(8):65-69
[26] 赵景娣. 提高植物抗旱性的有效途径[J]. 畜牧与饲料科学,2009,30(2):50-51
[27] 王怡丹. 聚乙二醇6000模拟水分胁迫下蒙古冰草、扁穗冰草和滨麦抗旱性研究[D]. 吉林:延边大学,2008:13-14
[28] 王学奎,黄见良. 植物生理生化实验原理与技术[M]. 北京:高等教育出版社,2015:20-23
[29] 安永平. 水稻抗旱性指标筛选及主要抗旱性状的遗传分析[D]. 北京:中国农业科学院,2006:13-14
[30] Degenkolbe T,Do P T,Zuther E,et al. Expression profiling of rice cultivars differing in their tolerance to long-term drought stress[J]. Plant Molecular Biology,2009,69(1-2):133-153
[31] 赵景娣. 提高植物抗旱性的有效途径[J]. 畜牧与饲料科学,2009,30(2):50-51
[32] 李吉跃. 植物耐旱性及其机理[J]. 北京林业大学学报,1991(3):92-97
[33] 龚容,徐霞,田晓宇,等.三种锦鸡儿属植物水力结构特征及其干旱适应策略[J]. 生态学报,2018,38(14):4984-4993
[34] 邢生惠,吴广厚. 1961-2015年共和县气候变化特征分析[J]. 农业灾害研究,2017,7(9):33-35
[35] 陆江红.711雷达在昭苏县防雹工作中的作用及问题[J]. 新疆气象,2003,26(3):42-42
[36] 贾海娟,李毅,杨彩红,等.6个种源红砂幼苗主要水分参数与抗旱性研究[J]. 干旱区资源与环境,2016,30(8):182-187
[37] 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
[38] Xu J Q,Jin J J,Zhao H,et al. Drought stress tolerance analysis of Populus ussuriensis clones with different ploidies[J]. Journal of Forestry Research,2019,30(4):1267-1275
[39] 张小娇,祁娟,曹文侠,等. 干旱胁迫对垂穗披碱草苗期抗旱生理特性的影响[J]. 草原与草坪,2014(5):55-59
[40] 卢素锦,周青平,刘文辉,等. 披碱草属6种牧草苗期抗旱性鉴定[J]. 湖北农业科学,2013,52(8):1889-1892
[41] Ahmadi A,Joudi M. Effects of timing and defoliation intensity on growth,yield and gas exchange rate of wheat grown under well-watered and drought conditions[J]. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences,2007,10(21):3794-3800
[42] Caudle K L,Johnson L C,Baer S G,et al. A comparison of seasonal foliar chlorophyll change among ecotypes and cultivars of Andropogon gerardii (Poaceae) by using nondestructive and destructive methods[J]. Photosynthetica,2014,52(4):511-518
[43] 王沛,陈玖红,王平,等. 披碱草属植物抗逆性研究现状和存在的问题[J]. 草业学报,2019(05):151-162
[44] 李德全,邹琦. 植物渗透调节研究进展[J]. 山东农业大学学报(自然科学版),1991,(1):86-90
[45] 陈亚娟,李付广,刘传亮,等. 植物渗透调节研究进展及与棉花耐旱遗传改良[J]. 分子植物育种,2009,7(1):149-154
[46] 刘娥娥,宗会,郭振飞,等. 干旱、盐和低温胁迫对水稻幼苗脯氨酸含量的影响[J]. 热带亚热带植物学报,2000,8(3):235-238
[47] 李长慧,李淑娟,雷有升,等. 4种高原乡土禾草的抗旱生理比较[J]. 草业科学,2013,30(9):1386-1393
[48] 谭晓荣,吴兴泉,戴媛,等. 小麦幼苗叶片活性氧清除能力对干旱胁迫的响应[J]. 河南农业科学,2007,36(1):27-30
[49] Huseynova I M,Aliyeva D R,Aliyev J A. Subcellular localization and responses of superoxide dismutase isoforms in local wheat varieties subjected to continuous soil drought[J]. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry,2014,81:54-60
[50] 鞠乐,齐军仓,成禄艳,等. 大麦种子萌发期对干旱胁迫的生理响应及其抗旱性评价[J]. 西南农业学报,2013,26(01):93-98
[51] 孙清洋,李志勇,李鸿雁,等. 水分胁迫对老芒麦种质萌发及幼苗生理特性的影响[J]. 中国草地学报,2016,38(3):19-25
[52] 蒋明义,杨文英,徐江,等. 渗透胁迫诱导水稻幼苗的氧化伤害[J]. 作物学报,1994(6):733-738
[53] 刘晓英,罗远培. 考虑水分胁迫滞后影响的作物生长模型[J]. 水利学报,2002,33(6):32-37
[54] 苏珮,山仑. 拔节期复水对玉米苗期受旱胁迫的补偿效应[J]. 植物生理学通讯,1995:341-344
[55] 郭子锋,龚道枝,郝卫平,等.不同生育期玉米干旱-复水补偿效应的品种差异研究[J]. 玉米科学,2011,19(4):84-88
[56] 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
[57] 祁娟,徐柱,王海清,等. 披碱草与老芒麦苗期抗旱性综合评价[J]. 草地学报,2009,17(1):36-42

8份披碱草属牧草苗期抗旱性综合评价

Comprehensive Evaluation of Drought Resistance of Eight Elymus Germplasms at Seedling 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]	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.
[3]	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.
[4]	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.
[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]	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.
[7]	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.
[8]	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.
[9]	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.
[10]	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.
[11]	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.
[12]	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.
[13]	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.
[14]	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.
[15]	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.