大茎野生种57NG208与南涧果蔗正反交F_1代材料的耐旱性评价
|
摘要
选用大茎野生种57NG208与南涧果蔗正反交所得的12个后代为试验材料,采用桶栽试验的方法,在甘蔗拔节初期设正常供水(CK)、轻度胁迫和重度胁迫3处理进行人工水分胁迫,分别测定3处理的形态指标及生理生化指标,利用隶属函数分析﹑灰色关联度分析和聚类分析,综合评价12份参试材料在不同水分胁迫下耐旱性的强弱。结果表明:不同水分胁迫处理对供试甘蔗主要测定指标均有显著影响;在不同水分胁迫下甘蔗叶片中的PMP、MDA含量、Pro含量、SOD和POD酶活性数值升高,CHL含量和Hight数值降低,变化幅度因水分胁迫程度及参试材料的差异而不同;隶属函数分析结果表明,在不同水分胁迫下,大茎野生种57NG208与南涧果蔗正交材料排在前5位的数量比其反交多;聚类分析表明,所有参试材料在轻度、重度水分胁迫下,均可分为4大类别,云瑞2012-9-11和云瑞2012-38-81的耐旱性较好,无论轻度、重度水分胁迫处理均聚为一类;灰色关联度分析表明,在不同程度的水分胁迫下,各项测定指标与耐旱性间的关联度不同,CHL、Pro和POD等3项生理生化指标与甘蔗耐旱性关联度较高,是甘蔗耐旱性评价的优良指标。
In this study, twelve progenies from reciprocal crosses between Saccharum Robustum 57NG208 and Nanjian chewing cane were selected as the test materials. The materials were treated by artificial water stress including normal water supply(as the control), mild water stress and severe water stress at the early elongation stage. The morphological indexes, physiological and biochemical indexes related to drought resistance were measured. The drought tolerance at jointing stage was comprehensively evaluated by membership function analysis, grey correlation analysis and cluster analysis. The results showed that different water stress degrees had significant effects on the indexes selected. Under different water stress, PMP, contents of MDA and proline, activities of SOD and POD data raised, while the contents of CHL and Hight value declined with different extents depending on difference of tested materials and stress degree. The results of fuzzy membership function analysis indicated that, under different water stress degrees, the number of orthogonality materials was more than reverse cross materials in the first five. All materials tested were classified into four groups under mild water stress and severe water stress by cluster analysis. The drought resistance of Yunrui 2012-9-11 and Yunrui 2012-38-81 was strong in mild and severe water stress and clustered in a same group. The grey relation analysis revealed that the correlation between physiological indexes and membership value was different because of different water stress degrees. Three physiological and biochemical indexes including CHL, Pro and POD had a close correlation on drought tolerance of sugarcane. This could be selected as an excellent indicator on the evaluation of drought tolerance of sugarcane.
In this study, twelve progenies from reciprocal crosses between Saccharum Robustum 57NG208 and Nanjian chewing cane were selected as the test materials. The materials were treated by artificial water stress including normal water supply(as the control), mild water stress and severe water stress at the early elongation stage. The morphological indexes, physiological and biochemical indexes related to drought resistance were measured. The drought tolerance at jointing stage was comprehensively evaluated by membership function analysis, grey correlation analysis and cluster analysis. The results showed that different water stress degrees had significant effects on the indexes selected. Under different water stress, PMP, contents of MDA and proline, activities of SOD and POD data raised, while the contents of CHL and Hight value declined with different extents depending on difference of tested materials and stress degree. The results of fuzzy membership function analysis indicated that, under different water stress degrees, the number of orthogonality materials was more than reverse cross materials in the first five. All materials tested were classified into four groups under mild water stress and severe water stress by cluster analysis. The drought resistance of Yunrui 2012-9-11 and Yunrui 2012-38-81 was strong in mild and severe water stress and clustered in a same group. The grey relation analysis revealed that the correlation between physiological indexes and membership value was different because of different water stress degrees. Three physiological and biochemical indexes including CHL, Pro and POD had a close correlation on drought tolerance of sugarcane. This could be selected as an excellent indicator on the evaluation of drought tolerance of sugarcane.
引文
[1]吴才文,赵俊,刘家勇.现代甘蔗种业[M].北京:中国农业出版社,2014.
[2]张跃彬.中国甘蔗产业发展技术[M].北京:中国农业出版社,2011.
[3]罗俊,张木清,林彦铨,等.甘蔗苗期叶绿素荧光参数与抗旱性关系研究[J].中国农业科学,2004,37(11):1718-1721.
[4]Passioura J B.Scaling up:the essence of effective agricultural research[J].Functional Plant Biology,2010,37(7):585-591.
[5]景蕊莲.作物抗旱节水研究进展[J].中国农业科技导报,2007,9(1):1-5.
[6]景蕊莲,昌小平.小麦抗旱种质资源的遗传多样性[J].西北植物学报,2003,23(3):410-416.
[7]高三基,罗俊,陈如凯,等.甘蔗品种抗旱性光合生理指标及其综合评价[J].作物学报,2002,28(1):94-98.
[8]卢会文,杨清辉,肖关丽,等.云南省主栽甘蔗品种抗旱性鉴定[J].亚热带农业研究,2012,8(1):8-12.
[9]桃联安,楚连璧,杨李和,等.云南野生甘蔗血缘后代抗旱性鉴定分析研究[J].甘蔗糖业,2006(3):7-11.
[10]桃联安,杨李和,经艳芬,等.云南割手密血缘F2代抗旱性隶属函数法综合评价[J].西南农业学报,2011,24(5):1676-1680.
[11]许文花,杨清辉.甘蔗割手密无性系抗旱性鉴定[J].亚热带农业研究,2005,1(1):22-26.
[12]边芯,董立华,孙有芳,等.云南割手密及其血缘F1代材料抗旱相关性状的主成分分析[J].干旱地区农业研究,2014,32(3):56-61.
[13]经艳芬,董立华,孙有芳,等.云南不同生态型割手密及其血缘F1代种质材料的抗旱性遗传分析[C]//中国作物学会甘蔗专业委员会第15次学术研讨会,2014.
[14]王尊欣,蔡文伟,曾军,等.海南7个区试甘蔗品种抗旱性的主成分分析及综合评价[J].广东农业科学,2014,41(10):9-13.
[15]朱建荣,边芯,郎荣斌,等.57NG208与南涧果蔗正反交后代的遗传变异分析[J].湖南农业大学学报(自然科学版),2015,41(2):119-124.
[16]张宪政.作物生理研究法[M].北京:农业出版社,1992.
[17]李忠光,龚明.植物生理学综合性和设计性实验教程[M].华中科技大学出版社,2014:52-144.
[18]王学奎.植物生理生化实验原理和技术[M].第2版.北京:高等教育出版社,2006.
[19]付凤玲,李晚忱,潘光堂.模糊隶属法对玉米苗期耐旱性的拟合分析[J].干旱地区农业研究,2003,21(1):83-85.
[20]唐启义.DPS数据处理系统[M].北京:科学出版社,2010:93-95.
[21]G?bel C,Feussner I.Methods for the analysis of oxylipins in plants[J].Phytochemistry,2009,70(13-14):1485.
[22]祁旭升,王兴荣,许军,等.胡麻种质资源成株期抗旱性评价[J].中国农业科学,2010,43(15):3076-3087.
[23]田春艳,桃联安,俞华先,等.5种气候生态型割手密F1和F2杂种的耐旱性评价[J].中国农业科学,2017,50(22):4408-4421.
[24]王兴荣,张彦军,李玥,等.干旱胁迫对大豆生长的影响及抗旱性评价方法与指标筛选[J].植物遗传资源学报,2018(1):49-56.
[25]王晓庆,唐茂昌,黄洁,等.14份木薯种质的苗期耐旱性评价[J].湖南农业大学学报(自然科学版),2012,38(4):366-372.
[26]李源,刘贵波,高洪文,等.苗期干旱胁迫对苜蓿种质生长特性的影响[J].河北农业科学,2010,14(7):1-4.
[27]王兰芬,武晶,景蕊莲,等.绿豆种质资源苗期抗旱性鉴定[J].作物学报,2015,41(1):145-153.
[28]张翠梅,师尚礼,吴芳.干旱胁迫对不同抗旱性苜蓿品种根系生长及生理特性影响[J].中国农业科学,2018,51(5):868-882.
[29]高晓宁,赵冰,刘旭梅,等.4个杜鹃花品种对干旱胁迫的生理响应及抗旱性评价[J].浙江农林大学学报,2017,34(4):597-607.
[30]赵俊,白亚东,赵兴东,等.灌溉与干旱条件下甘蔗工农艺性状的相关性分析与品种抗旱性评价[J].湖南农业大学学报(自然科学版),2016,42(6):579-586.
[31]李广敏,关军锋.作物抗旱生理与节水技术研究[M].北京:气象出版社,2001.
[32]叶燕萍,李杨瑞,唐军,等.干旱和灌溉条件下两个甘蔗品种的几个抗旱生理指标研究[J].中国糖料,2003(1):1-5.
[33]韦汉文,黄有总,方良宝,等.引进甘蔗新品种对干旱胁迫的生理响应及抗旱性评判[J].广西糖业,2010(1):7-11.
[34]罗俊,张木清,林彦铨,等.甘蔗苗期叶绿素荧光参数与抗旱性关系研究[J].中国农业科学,2004,37(11):1718-1721.
[35]兰靖,陈永,陆玉朵,等.6个甘蔗品种(系)的抗旱性差异评价[J].西南农业学报,2014,27(4):1374-1381.
[36]杨建波,诸葛少军,黎海涛,等.干旱胁迫对甘蔗生长生理的影响及品种抗旱性评价[J].南方农业学报,2012,43(8):1114-1120.
[37]周桂,李杨瑞,杨丽涛,等.干旱胁迫下甘蔗叶类黄酮及相关酶活性的变化[J].干旱地区农业研究,2009,27(6):185-188.
[38]陆国盈,劳丽萍,韩世健,等.5个甘蔗新品种(系)的抗旱性研究[J].安徽农业科学,2011,39(3):1341-1345.
[39]白向历,齐华,刘明,等.玉米抗旱性与生理生化指标关系的研究[J].玉米科学,2007,15(5):79-83.
[2]张跃彬.中国甘蔗产业发展技术[M].北京:中国农业出版社,2011.
[3]罗俊,张木清,林彦铨,等.甘蔗苗期叶绿素荧光参数与抗旱性关系研究[J].中国农业科学,2004,37(11):1718-1721.
[4]Passioura J B.Scaling up:the essence of effective agricultural research[J].Functional Plant Biology,2010,37(7):585-591.
[5]景蕊莲.作物抗旱节水研究进展[J].中国农业科技导报,2007,9(1):1-5.
[6]景蕊莲,昌小平.小麦抗旱种质资源的遗传多样性[J].西北植物学报,2003,23(3):410-416.
[7]高三基,罗俊,陈如凯,等.甘蔗品种抗旱性光合生理指标及其综合评价[J].作物学报,2002,28(1):94-98.
[8]卢会文,杨清辉,肖关丽,等.云南省主栽甘蔗品种抗旱性鉴定[J].亚热带农业研究,2012,8(1):8-12.
[9]桃联安,楚连璧,杨李和,等.云南野生甘蔗血缘后代抗旱性鉴定分析研究[J].甘蔗糖业,2006(3):7-11.
[10]桃联安,杨李和,经艳芬,等.云南割手密血缘F2代抗旱性隶属函数法综合评价[J].西南农业学报,2011,24(5):1676-1680.
[11]许文花,杨清辉.甘蔗割手密无性系抗旱性鉴定[J].亚热带农业研究,2005,1(1):22-26.
[12]边芯,董立华,孙有芳,等.云南割手密及其血缘F1代材料抗旱相关性状的主成分分析[J].干旱地区农业研究,2014,32(3):56-61.
[13]经艳芬,董立华,孙有芳,等.云南不同生态型割手密及其血缘F1代种质材料的抗旱性遗传分析[C]//中国作物学会甘蔗专业委员会第15次学术研讨会,2014.
[14]王尊欣,蔡文伟,曾军,等.海南7个区试甘蔗品种抗旱性的主成分分析及综合评价[J].广东农业科学,2014,41(10):9-13.
[15]朱建荣,边芯,郎荣斌,等.57NG208与南涧果蔗正反交后代的遗传变异分析[J].湖南农业大学学报(自然科学版),2015,41(2):119-124.
[16]张宪政.作物生理研究法[M].北京:农业出版社,1992.
[17]李忠光,龚明.植物生理学综合性和设计性实验教程[M].华中科技大学出版社,2014:52-144.
[18]王学奎.植物生理生化实验原理和技术[M].第2版.北京:高等教育出版社,2006.
[19]付凤玲,李晚忱,潘光堂.模糊隶属法对玉米苗期耐旱性的拟合分析[J].干旱地区农业研究,2003,21(1):83-85.
[20]唐启义.DPS数据处理系统[M].北京:科学出版社,2010:93-95.
[21]G?bel C,Feussner I.Methods for the analysis of oxylipins in plants[J].Phytochemistry,2009,70(13-14):1485.
[22]祁旭升,王兴荣,许军,等.胡麻种质资源成株期抗旱性评价[J].中国农业科学,2010,43(15):3076-3087.
[23]田春艳,桃联安,俞华先,等.5种气候生态型割手密F1和F2杂种的耐旱性评价[J].中国农业科学,2017,50(22):4408-4421.
[24]王兴荣,张彦军,李玥,等.干旱胁迫对大豆生长的影响及抗旱性评价方法与指标筛选[J].植物遗传资源学报,2018(1):49-56.
[25]王晓庆,唐茂昌,黄洁,等.14份木薯种质的苗期耐旱性评价[J].湖南农业大学学报(自然科学版),2012,38(4):366-372.
[26]李源,刘贵波,高洪文,等.苗期干旱胁迫对苜蓿种质生长特性的影响[J].河北农业科学,2010,14(7):1-4.
[27]王兰芬,武晶,景蕊莲,等.绿豆种质资源苗期抗旱性鉴定[J].作物学报,2015,41(1):145-153.
[28]张翠梅,师尚礼,吴芳.干旱胁迫对不同抗旱性苜蓿品种根系生长及生理特性影响[J].中国农业科学,2018,51(5):868-882.
[29]高晓宁,赵冰,刘旭梅,等.4个杜鹃花品种对干旱胁迫的生理响应及抗旱性评价[J].浙江农林大学学报,2017,34(4):597-607.
[30]赵俊,白亚东,赵兴东,等.灌溉与干旱条件下甘蔗工农艺性状的相关性分析与品种抗旱性评价[J].湖南农业大学学报(自然科学版),2016,42(6):579-586.
[31]李广敏,关军锋.作物抗旱生理与节水技术研究[M].北京:气象出版社,2001.
[32]叶燕萍,李杨瑞,唐军,等.干旱和灌溉条件下两个甘蔗品种的几个抗旱生理指标研究[J].中国糖料,2003(1):1-5.
[33]韦汉文,黄有总,方良宝,等.引进甘蔗新品种对干旱胁迫的生理响应及抗旱性评判[J].广西糖业,2010(1):7-11.
[34]罗俊,张木清,林彦铨,等.甘蔗苗期叶绿素荧光参数与抗旱性关系研究[J].中国农业科学,2004,37(11):1718-1721.
[35]兰靖,陈永,陆玉朵,等.6个甘蔗品种(系)的抗旱性差异评价[J].西南农业学报,2014,27(4):1374-1381.
[36]杨建波,诸葛少军,黎海涛,等.干旱胁迫对甘蔗生长生理的影响及品种抗旱性评价[J].南方农业学报,2012,43(8):1114-1120.
[37]周桂,李杨瑞,杨丽涛,等.干旱胁迫下甘蔗叶类黄酮及相关酶活性的变化[J].干旱地区农业研究,2009,27(6):185-188.
[38]陆国盈,劳丽萍,韩世健,等.5个甘蔗新品种(系)的抗旱性研究[J].安徽农业科学,2011,39(3):1341-1345.
[39]白向历,齐华,刘明,等.玉米抗旱性与生理生化指标关系的研究[J].玉米科学,2007,15(5):79-83.