Morphological Adaptability of Different Rye Varieties (Lines) to Persistent Drought Stress

doi:10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2020.01.014

Acta Agrestia Sinica ›› 2020, Vol. 28 ›› Issue (1): 122-129.DOI: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2020.01.014

Previous Articles Next Articles

Morphological Adaptability of Different Rye Varieties (Lines) to Persistent Drought Stress

YANG Dan, ZHANG Shu-yun, TIAN Xin-hui, DU Wen-hua

Pratacultural Science College of Gansu Agricultural University, Grassland Ecosystem Key Laboratory of Ministry of Education, Si-no-U. S. Research Centers for Sustainable Grassland and Livestock Management, Lanzhou, Gansu Province 730070, China

Received:2019-08-26 Revised:2019-10-16 Online:2020-02-15 Published:2020-01-18

不同黑麦品种(品系)对持续干旱胁迫的形态适应性研究

杨丹, 张舒芸, 田新会, 杜文华

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研究中心, 甘肃兰州, 730070

通讯作者: 杜文华
作者简介:杨丹(1993-),女,甘肃皋兰县人,博士研究生,主要从事草种质资源及育种栽培研究,E-mail:1152569596@qq.com
基金资助:
甘肃省草地畜牧业可持续发展创新团队项目（2017C-11）；国家重点研发计划（2018YFD0502402-3）；西藏饲草产业专项（XZ201801NA02）共同资助

Abstract

Abstract: In order to screen the drought-tolerant rye germplasm for arid and semi-arid regions of northwestern China,we conducted the two factors randomized block field experiment. Rye lines of C15,C33,C39,Z7 and Z27 were used as the experimental materials,and rye varieties of ‘Ganyin No. 1’ and Black Feeding were used as the controls. During the experiment,the rainfall was controlled using the rain shelter. After these rye seedlings were at three-leaf stage,the plant height,the number of tillers and leaves,biomass of aboveground and underground were determined on day 7,14,21,35,49 and 63 under normal irrigation and drought stress. Results showed that with the increase of the drought stress days,averaged relative tiller number,aboveground biomass and underground biomass of rye materials decreased,but the averaged relative plant height and leaf number increased. Among the 7 materials,the averaged relative tiller number,and biomass of underground and aboveground of C15 were the highest,the averaged relative leaf number of C33 was the highest,and the averaged relative plant height of CK2 was the highest,respectively. From the interaction of rye materials and drought stress days,the most significant difference was found between the relative values of morphological indexes of rye materials under severe drought (63 d) and light drought (7 d),the subordinate function method was used to evaluate the drought tolerance of rye germplasm resources. The results showed that C15 > C33 > CK1 > CK2 > C39 > Z27 > Z7. Among which,C15 belongs to the strong drought resistance type,C33 belongs to the moderate drought resistance type,CK1 and CK2 belong to the intermediate type,C39 and Z27 belong to the moderately drought sensitive type,and Z7 belongs to the drought sensitive type. It indicates that C15 has the strongest drought resistance,and can be used as the basic material for breeding new drought-resistant rye varieties and developing drought-resistant germplasm resources in arid and semi-arid areas of northwest China.

Key words: Rye, Morphological index, Drought resistance, Comprehensive evaluation

摘要： 为筛选适应我国西北干旱半干旱区的抗旱黑麦（Secale cereale L.）种质，本研究采用两因素随机区组试验设计，以黑麦品系C15，C33，C39，Z7和Z27为试验材料，‘甘引1号’黑麦品种（CK1）和黑饲麦品种（CK2）为对照，通过防雨棚遮雨法控制降雨，于三叶期测定上述材料在正常灌水和干旱胁迫第7 d，14 d，21 d，35 d，49 d，63 d的株高、分蘖数、叶片数、地上生物量和地下生物量。结果表明：随着胁迫天数增加，供试黑麦材料的平均相对分蘖数、地上生物量和地下生物量总体呈下降趋势，而相对株高和叶片数呈上升趋势。7份黑麦材料中，C15的平均相对分蘖数，地下生物量和地上生物量最大；C33的平均相对叶片数最多；CK2的平均相对株高最高。从黑麦材料与干旱胁迫天数间的交互作用来看，重度干旱胁迫（第63 d）下各黑麦材料形态指标的相对值与轻度干旱（第7 d）的相对值差异最明显。基于隶属函数的综合评价表明：供试黑麦材料抗旱性强弱依次为：C15 > C33 > CK1 > CK2 > C39 > Z27 > Z7，可见，C15属于强抗旱型，C33属于中抗旱型，CK1和CK2属于中间型，C39和Z27属于干旱较敏感型，Z7属于干旱敏感型。说明在干旱胁迫下，参试材料C15的抗旱性最强，可作为我国西北干旱半干旱区抗旱黑麦新品种选育和抗旱种质资源开发利用的基础材料。

关键词: 黑麦, 形态指标, 抗旱性, 综合评价

CLC Number:

S512.5

YANG Dan, ZHANG Shu-yun, TIAN Xin-hui, DU Wen-hua. Morphological Adaptability of Different Rye Varieties (Lines) to Persistent Drought Stress[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2020, 28(1): 122-129.

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.

0
/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://manu40.magtech.com.cn/Jweb_cdxb/EN/10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2020.01.014

https://manu40.magtech.com.cn/Jweb_cdxb/EN/Y2020/V28/I1/122

References

[1] 段娜,王佳,刘芳,等. 植物抗旱性研究进展[J]. 分子植物育种,2018,16(15):5093-5099
[2] 何江峰,陆振翔,朱树声,等. 干旱胁迫对小黑麦生物量及淀粉特性影响的研究[J]. 干旱区资源与环境,2013,27(6):102-106
[3] 李龙,毛新国,王景一,等. 小麦种质资源抗旱性鉴定评价[J]. 作物学报,2018,44(7):988-999
[4] 申瑞玲,祝红蕾,李红. 黑麦的营养保健功能及其在食品中的应用[J]. 河南工业大学学报(自然科学版),2008,29(5):79-82
[5] 郭建文,田新会,杜文华. 黑麦种子产量及其构成因素研究[J]. 甘肃农业科技,2017(4):20-25
[6] 孟祥君,韩天虎,陈兴荣,等. 甘引1号黑麦在甘肃不同区域适应性研究[J]. 中国草食动物科学,2016,36(1):45-48
[7] 罗影,赵军,王剑虹,等. 转基因小麦抗旱性鉴定及相关指标灰色关联度分析[J]. 干旱地区农业研究,2015(1):48-53
[8] 张海燕,解备涛,汪宝卿,等. 不同甘薯品种抗旱性评价及耐旱指标筛选[J]. 作物学报,2019,45(3):419-430
[9] 任永波,吴中军. 作物抗旱研究方法与抗旱性鉴定指标[J]. 西昌农业高等专科学校学报,2001(1):1-5
[10] Hassan M I,Mohamed E A,El-Rawy M A,et al. Evaluating interspecific wheat hybrids based on heat and drought stress tolerance[J]. Journal of Crop Science and Biotechnology,2016,19(1):85-98
[11] 杨子光. 小麦品种抗旱性形态指标比较研究[J]. 安徽农业科学,2010,38(9):4489-4490
[12] 赵海明,游永亮,李源,等. 多年生黑麦草种质苗期抗旱性综合评价[J]. 草原与草坪,2016,36(6):8-15
[13] 王曙光,孙黛珍,周福平,等. 六倍体小黑麦萌发期抗旱性分析[J]. 中国生态农业学报,2008,16(6):1403-1408
[14] 蔺军. 黑麦和燕麦种子萌发期耐盐性、抗旱性比较[J]. 中国草食动物科学,2016,36(4):31-34
[15] Villegas D,L F García del Moral,Rharrabti Y,et al. Morphological Traits above the Flag Leaf Node as Indicators of Drought Susceptibility Index in Durum Wheat[J]. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science,2007,193(2):103-116
[16] 张微,李春艳,曹连莆,等. 春性小黑麦材料抗旱性的比较研究[J]. 石河子大学学报(自然科学版),2009,27(5):529-535
[17] 王军娥,薛晋轩,景维坤,等. 利用隶属函数法对8种不同石竹属材料主要观赏性状的综合评价[J]. 山西农业大学学报,2016,36(10):709-714
[18] 韩瑞宏,卢欣石,高桂娟,等. 紫花苜蓿抗旱性主成分及隶属函数分析[J]. 草地学报,2006,14(2):142-146
[19] 陈荣敏,杨学举,梁凤山,等. 利用隶属函数法综合评价冬小麦的抗旱性[J]. 河北农业大学学报,2002,25(2):7-9
[20] 李亮,夏新莉,尹伟伦,等. 用隶属函数值法对10个沙棘品种抗旱性的综合评价[J]. 山东林业科技,2007(1):59-60
[21] 杨进文,朱俊刚,王曙光,等. 用GGE双标图及隶属函数综合分析山西小麦地方品种抗旱性[J]. 应用生态学报,2013,24(4):1031-1038
[22] 姚景珍,席吉龙,张建诚,等. 应用隶属函数法综合评价山西旱地小麦品种的抗旱性[J]. 陕西农业科学,2014,60(11):1-4
[23] 何雪银,文仁来,吴翠荣,等. 模糊隶属函数法对玉米苗期抗旱性的分析[J]. 西南农业学报,2008,21(1):52-56
[24] 翟新秘,秦利军,项阳. 隶属函数分析法对25份贵州玉米种质抗旱性评价研究[J]. 种子,2018,37(9):51-55
[25] 毛培春,孟林,高洪文,等. 20份无芒雀麦种质材料苗期抗旱性综合评价及光合特性分析[J]. 草地学报,2011,19(4):619-624
[26] 田小霞,毛培春,孟林,等. 无芒雀麦苗期耐盐指标筛选及耐盐性综合评价[J]. 干旱区资源与环境,2017,31(10):156-161
[27] 韩瑞宏,卢欣石,高桂娟,等. 紫花苜蓿抗旱性主成分及隶属函数分析[J]. 草地学报,2006,14(2):142-146
[28] 魏永胜,梁宗锁,山仑,等. 利用隶属函数值法评价苜蓿抗旱性[J]. 草业科学,2005,22(6):33-36
[29] 庞丹波,李生宝,潘占兵,等. 基于主成分分析和隶属函数的紫花苜蓿引种初步评价[J]. 西南农业学报,2015,28(6):2815-2819
[30] 王高英,宋志林,罗国政,等. 土壤田间持水量测定对比试验分析[J]. 陕西水利,2011(3):26-28
[31] 张学礼,胡振琪,初士立. 土壤含水量测定方法研究进展[J]. 土壤通报,2005,36(1):118-123
[32] 张仁和,郑友军,马国胜,等. 干旱胁迫对玉米苗期叶片光合作用和保护酶的影响[J]. 生态学报,2011,31(5):1303-1311
[33] 王成孜,高丽敏,孙玉明,等. 弱光胁迫对分蘖期超级稻与常规稻叶片光合特性的影响[J]. 南京农业大学学报,2019,42(1):111-117
[34] 谢楠,李源,赵海明,等. 饲用黑麦、小黑麦品种的抗旱性评价[J]. 中国草地学报,2011,33(6):82-88
[35] 谢贤健,兰代萍,白景文. 三种野生岩生草本植物的抗旱性综合评价[J]. 草业学报,2009(4):77-82
[36] 郝培彤,李玉龙,宁亚明,等. 不同干旱处理对科尔沁沙地不同苜蓿品种生产性能的影响[J]. 草地学报,2018,26(6):1368-1373
[37] 朱志龙. 氮肥水平和播种密度互作对燕麦产量和干物质累积转运的影响[D]. 沈阳:辽宁大学,2011:15-17
[38] 高婷. 宁夏3个区域苜蓿品种生产力与品质对刈割制度的响应[D]. 呼和浩特:中国农业科学院草原研究所,2016:21-23
[39] 周青平,颜红波,梁国玲,等. 不同燕麦品种饲草和籽粒生产性能分析[J]. 草业科学,2015,24(10):120-130
[40] 白璐,贾永红,杨安娜,等. 新疆春小麦品种萌发期抗旱性评价[J]. 中国农学通报,2018,34(22):20-24
[41] 王瑾,刘桂茹,杨学举. PEG胁迫下不同抗旱性小麦品种幼苗形态及主要理化特性的比较[J]. 河北农业大学学报,2005(5):6-10
[42] 张仟雨,李萍,宗毓铮,等. 干旱对大豆生理及产量影响的研究[J]. 华北农学报,2016,31(5):140-145
[43] 白鹏,冉春艳,谢小玉. 干旱胁迫对油菜蕾薹期生理特性及农艺性状的影响[J]. 中国农业科学,2014,47(18):3566-3576
[44] 周建松,沈学根,徐杰,等. 不同定植期对龙茭2号秋茭产量的影响[J]. 现代农业科技,2010(9):114-115
[45] 汪灿,周棱波,张国兵,等. 酒用糯高粱资源成株期抗旱性鉴定及抗旱指标筛选[J]. 中国农业科学,2017,50(8):1388-1402
[46] Bongers P F. Leaf Traits Are Good Predictors of Plant Performance across 53 Rain Forest Species[J]. Ecology,2006,87(7):1733-1743
[47] 麻雪艳,周广胜. 干旱对夏玉米苗期叶片权衡生长的影响[J]. 生态学报,2018(1):1759-1769
[48] 何广礼,忠乃. 干旱胁迫对盆栽小黑麦生物学特性及叶绿素含量的影响[J]. 畜牧与饲料科学,2010,31(10):54-56
[49] 刘兆晔,于经川,辛庆国. 小麦株高问题的探讨[J]. 山东农业科学,2014(3):130-134
[50] 杜彩艳. 干旱胁迫对玉米苗期植株生长和保护酶活性的影响[J]. 干旱地区农业研究,2015,33(3):124-129
[51] 关军锋,马春红,李广敏. 干旱胁迫下小麦根冠生物量变化及其与抗旱性的关系[J]. 河北农业大学学报,2004(1):1-5

Morphological Adaptability of Different Rye Varieties (Lines) to Persistent Drought Stress

不同黑麦品种(品系)对持续干旱胁迫的形态适应性研究

PDF

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

References

Related Articles 15

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments

[1]	ZHANG Xin-fei, SHE Mu-zi, LI Han-yu, JING Song, JIANG Hui-na, GAO Hao, ZHU Yan-xiao, FU Juan-juan. Growth Promotion Mechanisms of flavobacterium succinicans and Their Physiological Regulation on the Growth and Stress Tolerance in Lolium perenne [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(8): 1704-1711.
[2]	SUN Wei, LIU Yu-ling, WANG De-ping, ZHAO Min, YANG He-long, SONG Qian, XIAO Hong, WANG Kai-li, CAO Jing, RONG Yu-ping. Effects of Reseeding Leymus Chinensis (Trin.)Tzvel. and Medicago Falcata L. on Plant Community Characteristics of Degraded Meadow Steppe [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(8): 1809-1817.
[3]	LI Chun-pin, QIU Yi-hui, XIA Hou-yin, TAN Lu-na, XU Huan-yu, ZHANG Han-wen, GAO Jing-hui. Membership Function Analysis of Low Transpiration and Yield Traits in Alfalfa Multi-paternal Hybrid F₁Generation [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(7): 1416-1422.
[4]	FU Zhi-hui, GE Gen-tu, JIA Yu-shan, WANG Zhi-jun, LYU Shi-jie, HOU Mei-ling, NAN Ding-han, YI Ru-le, A Xi-da, JIN Guo. Effects of Cutting Times and Varieties on the Yield and Nutrient Value of Italian Ryegrass Planted in Northern Regions [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(7): 1571-1577.
[5]	FAN Bo-bo, ZHANG Xue-feng, YU Zhuo, ZHAO Yan, MA Yan-hong. Bioinformatics and Expression Analysis of NAC Transcription Factors Related to Drought Resistance of Agropyron mongolicum Keng [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(6): 1183-1192.
[6]	LI Man-you, MA Zhong-ren, WANG Bing, YANG Yu-qi, SHEN Xiao-tian, CAO Li-juan, LI Xiao-yun, LAN Jian. Study on the Mixed Planting Mode of Two Alfalfa Varieties in Different Row Ratios in the Yellow River Irrigation Area in Ningxia [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(4): 798-804.
[7]	YOU Si-Han, DU Shuai, ZHOU Zhong-Yi, Gegentu, WAN Tao, JIA Yu-Shan. Mixed Silage of Sorghum Hybrid Sudan Grass and Perennial Ryegrass with Different Proportions [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(4): 821-827.
[8]	WANG Wei-qiang, LIU Jing, TIAN Xin-hui, DU Wen-hua. Adaptability Evaluation of Secale cereale ‘Gannong No.2’ in Different Regions of Qinghai Province [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(3): 504-514.
[9]	DUAN Meng-qi, PENG Chun, ZHANG Rui, GAO Ya-nan, LI Li-jing, ZHAO Zhi-wei, XU Li-xin. Effects of Ethephon on Physiological Indexes of Perennial Ryegrass under Drought Conditions [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(2): 333-341.
[10]	LI Si-da, LIU Wen-hui, ZHANG Yong-chao, QIN Yan, LI Wen. Study on the Relationship Between Productive Performance and Interspecies of Mixed Grassland with Poa pratensis var.anceps Gaund. ‘Qinghai’ [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(12): 2827-2837.
[11]	XIE Nan, LIU Zhen-yu, FENG Wei, ZHI Jian-fei, LI Meng, DU Zi-xuan, LIU Zhong-kuan. The Production Performance and Forage Quality of Forage Millet in Saline Alkali Dryland Around Bohai Sea [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(1): 60-71.
[12]	SHI Yan-hua, HUANG Yu-ting, SHU Fang-zhi, LU Ye, LIU Da-lin. Alleviation of Exogenous Glutamic Acid on Seedling Growth of Italian Ryegrass under Aluminum Stress [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2020, 28(6): 1605-1614.
[13]	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.
[14]	YU Xin-rong, ZHANG Zhi-wei, ZHOU Yu, LIU Peng, YAO Hong-bin, MIAO Yan-jun, FU Juan-juan. Effects of Melatonin on Growth and Antioxidant System of Perennial Ryegrass Seedlings Under Cold and Drought Stresses [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2020, 28(5): 1337-1345.
[15]	WU Rui-xin, Li Yuan, YOU Yong-liang, LIU Gui-bo, ZHAO Hai-ming. Study on Drought Resistance Identification and Evaluation Methods of Alfalfa during Whole Growth Period [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2020, 28(5): 1444-1453.