基于植株各器官生理响应对12种苜蓿抗旱性的综合评价

doi:10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2020.05.017

草地学报 ›› 2020, Vol. 28 ›› Issue (5): 1319-1328.DOI: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2020.05.017

基于植株各器官生理响应对12种苜蓿抗旱性的综合评价

李佳欢, 刘希强, 吕进英, 任成, 王开丽, 黄顶, 邓波, 王堃

中国农业大学草业科学与技术学院, 北京 100193

收稿日期:2020-03-15 修回日期:2020-05-08 出版日期:2020-10-15 发布日期:2020-09-19
通讯作者: 王堃
作者简介:李佳欢(1992-),女,内蒙古通辽人,博士研究生,主要从事草地生态与管理方面研究,E-mail:410243571@qq.com
基金资助:
国家重点研发计划—草原生态保护与建设通用技术标准研究（2018YFF0213405）；国家重点研发计划—四川红原社区饲草稳产提质关键技术研究（2018YFD0502402-5）共同资助

Drought Resistance Evaluation of 12 Alfalfa Varieties Based on Physiological Response of Four Plant Organs

LI Jia-huan, LIU Xi-qiang, LV Jin-ying, REN Cheng, WANG Kai-li, HUANG Ding, DENG Bo, WANG Kun

College of Grassland Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193

Received:2020-03-15 Revised:2020-05-08 Online:2020-10-15 Published:2020-09-19

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 为筛选抗旱性强的苜蓿（Medicago sativa L.）品种，本试验以12个苜蓿品种为材料，利用聚乙二醇（Polyethylene glycol，PEG-6000）模拟干旱处理，设置了100 g·L^-1和200 g·L^-1两个胁迫梯度，分别测定叶片、茎、根颈、根系4个器官的渗透调节物质含量、抗氧化酶活性和植株根冠比，通过主成分分析计算植株各器官生理指标在抗旱性评价过程中所占权重，结合抗旱系数评价苜蓿品种的抗旱性。结果表明，在100 g·L^-1和200 g·L^-1 PEG模拟干旱胁迫下，植株的生长受到抑制，生物量、株高、叶面积、根长均减小，根冠比增加；各器官脯氨酸、可溶性糖、可溶性蛋白含量增加；超氧化物歧化酶、过氧化物酶、过氧化氢酶活性提高；在所有的生理指标中，脯氨酸、可溶性糖、过氧化氢酶活性对干旱胁迫的响应较敏感。不同器官生理调节物质的抗旱系数存在差异，叶片各指标对干旱胁迫的响应小于茎和根系，根颈脯氨酸和可溶性糖含量对干旱胁迫的响应大于叶片、茎和根系。在评价品种抗旱性时，根系可溶性蛋白含量、根颈脯氨酸含量、根颈可溶性糖含量、根系可溶性糖含量及根系过氧化氢酶活性占权重较大。综合分析得出，100 g·L^-1 PEG处理时，‘公农1号’、‘中苜1号’和‘前景’的抗旱性比较强；200 g·L^-1PEG处理时，‘骑士2’、‘东苜1号’、‘巨能2’和‘斯贝德’的抗旱性较强，可作为苜蓿抗旱栽培的参考品种。

关键词: 苜蓿, 不同器官, 抗旱性, 主成分分析, 综合评价

Abstract: Drought is a major environmental stress that limits alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) growth in northern China. Drought tolerance evaluation can provide reference for varieties selection. Here,we measured plant root-shoot ratio and analyzed proline content,soluble sugar content,soluble protein content,SOD activity,POD activity,CAT activity of four part of plants (leaf,stem,root collar,root) under two PEG6000-simulated drought levels (100,200 g L^-1). Results showed that plant biomass,plant height,leaf area and root length decreased while root-shoot ratio increased. Proline,soluble sugar and soluble protein contents increased with the increase of PEG content. Activity of SOD,POD and CAT showed the similar trends. Proline,soluble sugar and CAT activity are more responsive to drought stress. The responses of leaves to drought stress were less than those of stem and root. The responses of root collar proline and soluble sugar content to drought stress were the greatest among four organs. In the evaluation of varieties’ drought resistance,root soluble protein,root collar proline,root collar soluble sugar,root soluble sugar and root CAT activity accounted for a large proportion. When treated with 100 g·L^-1PEG,‘Gongnong No.1’,‘Zhongmu No.1’ and ‘Vision’ were more drought-resistant. When treated with 200 g·L^-1 PEG,‘2010’,‘Dongmu No.1’,‘Magna graze 2’ and ‘Spyder’ had strong drought resistance.

Key words: Alfalfa, Different organs, Drought resistance, Principal component analysis, Comprehensive evaluation

中图分类号:

S541.9

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.

LI Jia-huan, LIU Xi-qiang, LV Jin-ying, REN Cheng, WANG Kai-li, HUANG Ding, DENG Bo, WANG Kun. Drought Resistance Evaluation of 12 Alfalfa Varieties Based on Physiological Response of Four Plant Organs[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2020, 28(5): 1319-1328.

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.1007-0435.2020.05.017

https://manu40.magtech.com.cn/Jweb_cdxb/CN/Y2020/V28/I5/1319

参考文献

[1] Wassie M,Zhang W,Zhang Q,et al. Exogenous salicylic acid ameliorates heat stress-induced damages and improves growth and photosynthetic efficiency in alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.)[J]. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety,2020,191:1-20
[2] 徐洪雨,李向林. 控水处理对紫花苜蓿抗寒性影响的代谢组学分析[J]. 草业学报,2020,29(01):106-116
[3] 卢欣石. 苜蓿产业十年发展助推奶业提质升级[J]. 中国乳业,2019(04):10-12
[4] 张红晨. 我国苜蓿生产的区域优势与布局变化特征[J]. 农村经济与科技,2019,30(13):8-9
[5] 白志英,李存东,孙红春,等. 小麦代换系抗旱生理指标的主成分分析及综合评价[J]. 中国农业科学,2008,41(12):4264-4272
[6] 郭数进. 山西不同生态型大豆抗旱响应能力、遗传多样性及关联分析的研究[D]. 晋中:山西农业大学,2014:63-66
[7] 田治国. 万寿菊属植物耐热性与抗旱性的评价及生长生理特性的研究[D]. 咸阳:西北农林科技大学,2012:22-26
[8] Feyissa B A,Arshad M,Gruber M Y,et al. The interplay between miR156/SPL13 and DFR/WD40-1 regulate drought tolerance in alfalfa[J]. BMC Plant Biology,2019,19(1):1-19
[9] Varoquaux N,Cole B,Gao C,et al. Transcriptomic analysis of field-droughted sorghum from seedling to maturity reveals biotic and metabolic responses[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,2019,116(52):27124-27132
[10] 李正理,张新英. 植物解剖学[M]. 北京:高等教育出版社,1983:202-205
[11] 王学奎,黄见良. 植物生理生化实验原理和技术[M].第3版. 北京:高等教育出版社,2015:164-201
[12] 余前媛. 植物生理学实验教程[M]. 北京:北京理工大学出版社,2014:107-140
[13] 陈建勋,王晓峰. 植物生理学实验指导[M]. 广州:华南理工大学出版社,2006:154-160
[14] 朱志明,许兴,毛桂莲. 不同玉米自交系幼苗对水分胁迫的响应及其耐旱性评价[J]. 干旱地区农业研究,2018,36(02):176-185
[15] 徐少尉. 基于PCA-AHP的HK海绵住宅区项目施工阶段风险管理研究[D]. 郑州:郑州大学,2019:36-39
[16] 张桂鑫. 基于维度压缩和聚类分析的化工报警阈值优化研究[D]. 青岛:青岛科技大学,2017:51
[17] Borcard D.,Gillet F.,Legendre P. 数量生态学-R语言的应用[M].赖江山译. 北京:高等教育出版社,2014:106-118
[18] 梁欢,韦宝,陈静,等. 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(01):45-55
[19] Lemoine R,Sylvain L C,Rossitza A,et al. Source-to-sink transport of sugar and regulation by environmental factors[J]. Frontiers in Plant Science,2013(4):1-21
[20] Poorter H,Niklas K J,Reich P B,et al. Biomass allocation to leaves,stems and roots:meta-analyses of interspecific variation and environmental control[J]. New Phytologist,2012,193(1):30-50
[21] Tavakol E,Pakniyat H. Evaluation of some drought resistance criteria at seedling stage in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cultivars[J]. Pakistan Journal Biological Sciences,2007,10(7):1113-1117
[22] Martino C D,Delfine S,Pizzuto R,et al. Free Amino Acids and Glycine Betaine in Leaf Osmoregulation of Spinach Responding to Increasing Salt Stress[J]. New Phytologist,2003,158(3):455-463
[23] 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
[24] Abro A A,Memon S,Abro S A,et al. Influence of additional amino acids in growth of different wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) genotypes[J]. Journal of Plant Nutrition,2019,42(19):2539-2551
[25] Fariaszewska A,Aper J,Van Huylenbroeck J, et al. Physiological and Biochemical Responses of Forage Grass Varieties to Mild Drought Stress Under Field Conditions[J]. International Journal of Plant Production,2020,14(2):335-353
[26] Zhang C,Shi S. Physiological and Proteomic Responses of Contrasting Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) Varieties to PEG-Induced Osmotic Stress[J]. Frontiers in plant science,2018,9:242
[27] Nayyar H,Gupta D. Differential sensitivity of C3 and C4 plants to water deficit stress:Association with oxidative stress and antioxidants[J]. Environmental and Experimental Botany,2006,58(1-3):106-113
[28] Hosseini Boldaji S A,Khavari-Nejad R A,Hassan Sajedi R,et al. Water availability effects on antioxidant enzyme activities,lipid peroxidation,and reducing sugar contents of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.)[J]. Acta Physiologiae Plantarum,2012,34(3):1177-1186
[29] Sundar D,Perianayaguy B,Reddy A R. Localization of antioxidant enzymes in the cellular compartments of sorghum leaves[J]. Plant growth regulation,2004(44):157-163
[30] 季杨. 鸭茅对干旱胁迫的生理响应及分子机制研究[D]. 成都:四川农业大学,2013:25
[31] 史发超. 转PeaT1水稻抗旱功能分子机制[D]. 北京:中国农业大学,2018:18
[32] 张翠梅. 不同抗旱性紫花苜蓿响应干旱的生理及分子机制研究[D]. 兰州:甘肃农业大学,2019:68-78
[33] Ranjan A,Sawant S. Genome-wide transcriptomic comparison of cotton (Gossypium herbaceum) leaf and root under drought stress[J]. 3 Biotech,2015,5(4):585-596
[34] 李跃,毕舒贻,万修福,等. 紫花苜蓿幼苗生长及其叶片形态对水分胁迫的响应[J]. 草地学报,2017,25(06):1232-1238

基于植株各器官生理响应对12种苜蓿抗旱性的综合评价

Drought Resistance Evaluation of 12 Alfalfa Varieties Based on Physiological Response of Four Plant Organs

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]	杨冲, 王文颖, 刘攀, 毛旭峰, 董世魁, 周华坤, 陈哲, 索南吉, 靳磊, 马华清. 黄河源区高寒草地植物营养成分含量特征及营养价值评价[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(S1): 72-79.
[2]	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.
[3]	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.
[4]	孙伟, 刘玉玲, 王德平, 赵敏, 杨合龙, 宋倩, 肖红, 王开丽, 曹婧, 戎郁萍. 补播羊草和黄花苜蓿对退化草甸植物群落特征的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(8): 1809-1817.
[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.
[9]	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.
[10]	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.
[11]	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.
[12]	孙雷雷, 赵桂琴, 柴继宽, 刘富渊, 聂秀美, 王军. 贮藏方式和贮藏时间对苜蓿干草霉菌数量和种类的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(5): 884-893.
[13]	陈彩锦, 张尚沛, 师尚礼, 曾燕霞, 吴娟, 尚继红, 高婷, 张蓉. 基于GGE双标图对苜蓿品种丰产性和稳定性综合评价[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(5): 912-918.
[14]	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.
[15]	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.