菜用豌豆品种资源萌发期耐旱性鉴定
|
摘要
为研究菜用豌豆种子萌发期的耐旱性,本试验以31份菜用豌豆品种资源为试验材料,通过2.5%PEG溶液模拟干旱胁迫处理萌发期豌豆种子,统计种子发芽势和发芽率,测定鲜重、干重、根长、芽长等指标,并采用相关性分析、主成分分析、聚类分析、灰色关联度分析及逐步回归分析等方法相结合,对31份菜用豌豆品种资源进行萌发期耐旱性鉴定及耐旱指标筛选。结果表明,2.5%PEG-6000模拟干旱胁迫对菜用豌豆种质资源萌发期各测定指标均有极显著影响;根据综合抗旱系数值(CDC值)、耐旱性度量值(D值)、加权关联度(WDC值)大小对供试种质进行排序,其中耐旱性最强的4个品种依次为16110、16055、16140、16107;耐旱性最弱的3个品种依次为16106、16175、16177。通过聚类分析,在欧氏距离D~2=8.5处将31份豌豆品种资源划分为4种类型:第Ⅰ类包括16054、16142等20个品种;第Ⅱ类包括16140、16079和16055 3个品种;第Ⅲ类包括16175、16104等6个品种;第Ⅳ类包括16110和16107 2个品种。逐步回归分析表明,与D值密切相关的指标为发芽指数、活力指数、发芽势、根长,这些可作为豌豆种质资源萌发期耐旱性鉴定综合选择指标。本试验结果为进一步研究菜用豌豆萌发期耐旱性机理及干旱调控缓解机制提供了理论参考,也为菜用豌豆耐旱品种选育及其推广应用奠定了基础。
In order to study the drought tolerance of vegetable pea seeds during germination period, 31 vegetable pea varieties were used as experimental materials and were treated with 2.5% PEG-6000 solution to simulate drought stress. The seed germination energy(GE) and germination rate(GR) were counted, and fresh weight(FW), dry weight(DW), root length(RL), buds length(BL) and storage material transfer rate(STR) were measured. Then, correlation analysis, principal component analysis, cluster analysis, grey correlation analysis and stepwise regression analysis were used to identify drought tolerance and screen drought tolerance index of 31 vegetable pea varieties during seeds germination stage. The results showed that 2.5% PEG had significant effect on indexes measured during germination of vegetable pea. The germplasm were sorted according to the comprehensive drought resistance coefficient value(CDC), drought tolerance evaluation value(D) and weighted drought tolerance coefficient value(WDC). As a result, there were 4 varieties including 16110, 16055, 16140 and 16107 showed stronger drought tolerance while 3 varieties including 16106,16175 and 16177 showed drought sensitivity. By cluster analysis, 31 pea germplasm can be divided into 4 group at Euclidean distance D~2=8.5, in which the first group includes 20 varieties such as 16054, 16142, 16138 and so on, the second group includes 16140, 16079 and 16055, the third group contains 6 varieties, such as 16175,16104 and etc, and the fourth group contains 16110 and 16107. Also, stepwise regression analysis showed that the indexes closely related to D value were germination index, vigor index, germination potential and root length, which could be used as indicators of drought tolerance of pea germplasm resources during germination period. The results provide a theoretical reference for further study on drought tolerance mechanism and drought mitigation mechanism of vegetable pea during germination, and laid a foundation for breeding and popularizing the drought-tolerant varieties of vegetable pea.
In order to study the drought tolerance of vegetable pea seeds during germination period, 31 vegetable pea varieties were used as experimental materials and were treated with 2.5% PEG-6000 solution to simulate drought stress. The seed germination energy(GE) and germination rate(GR) were counted, and fresh weight(FW), dry weight(DW), root length(RL), buds length(BL) and storage material transfer rate(STR) were measured. Then, correlation analysis, principal component analysis, cluster analysis, grey correlation analysis and stepwise regression analysis were used to identify drought tolerance and screen drought tolerance index of 31 vegetable pea varieties during seeds germination stage. The results showed that 2.5% PEG had significant effect on indexes measured during germination of vegetable pea. The germplasm were sorted according to the comprehensive drought resistance coefficient value(CDC), drought tolerance evaluation value(D) and weighted drought tolerance coefficient value(WDC). As a result, there were 4 varieties including 16110, 16055, 16140 and 16107 showed stronger drought tolerance while 3 varieties including 16106,16175 and 16177 showed drought sensitivity. By cluster analysis, 31 pea germplasm can be divided into 4 group at Euclidean distance D~2=8.5, in which the first group includes 20 varieties such as 16054, 16142, 16138 and so on, the second group includes 16140, 16079 and 16055, the third group contains 6 varieties, such as 16175,16104 and etc, and the fourth group contains 16110 and 16107. Also, stepwise regression analysis showed that the indexes closely related to D value were germination index, vigor index, germination potential and root length, which could be used as indicators of drought tolerance of pea germplasm resources during germination period. The results provide a theoretical reference for further study on drought tolerance mechanism and drought mitigation mechanism of vegetable pea during germination, and laid a foundation for breeding and popularizing the drought-tolerant varieties of vegetable pea.
引文
[1] Rice E L. Allelopathy (2nd Ed) [ M ]. New York: Academic Press Inc., 1984: 309-315
[2] 张维. 干旱胁迫及氮素形态对豌豆生长及共生固氮性能的影响[D]. 兰州:甘肃农业大学, 2014
[3] 张红萍, 牛俊义, 轩春香, 王军强, 白全琴, 付凯红. 干旱胁迫及复水对豌豆叶片脯氨酸和丙二醛含量的影响[J]. 甘肃农业大学学报, 2008, 43(5):50-54
[4] 宗绪晓. 豌豆生产技术[M]. 北京:北京教育出版社,2016:1-2
[5] 王延鹏. 植物间化感作用研究概况[J]. 山东林业科技, 2008(3):84-88
[6] 郑敏娜, 李荫藩, 梁秀芝, 薛龙飞, 张小娟. 水分胁迫对豌豆种子萌发和幼苗生长发育的影响[J]. 山西农业科学, 2012, 40(3):212-216
[7] 闫志利, 轩春香, 牛俊义, 席玲玲, 刘建华, 赵天武. 干旱胁迫及复水对豌豆根系内源激素含量的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2009, 17(2):297-301
[8] 郑勇. 缙云山阔叶木本植物种子及幼苗生长特性研究[D]. 重庆:西南大学, 2010
[9] 陈凤娟, 胡丽涛, 刘国华. 干旱胁迫对豌豆幼苗生理生化指标的影响[J]. 现代农技, 2011(12):111-114
[10] Osman H S. Enhancing antioxidant-yield relationship of pea plant under drought at different growth stages by exogenously applied glycine betaine and prolin[J]. Annals of Agricultural Sciences, 2015, 60(2):389-402
[11] Jin J, Lauricella D, Armstrong R, Sale P, Tang C. Phosphorus application and elevated CO2enhance drought tolerance in field pea grown in a phosphorus-deficient vertisol[J]. Annals of Botany, 2015, 116 (6):975
[12] Bewley J D, Black M. Seeds: Physiology of Development and Germination[M]. New York: Plenum Press, 1994: 199-257
[13] Gul B, Weber D J. Effect of salinity, light, and temperature on germination in Allenrolfea occidentalis[J]. Canadian Journal of Botany, 1999(77):240-246
[14] 闫锋, 崔秀辉, 李清泉, 王成, 曾玲玲, 刘峰, 马波, 袁明. 绿豆品种的灰色关联度分析及综合评价[J]. 中国种业, 2011(S2):31-33
[15] 罗俊杰, 欧巧明, 叶春雷, 王方, 王镛臻, 陈玉梁. 重要胡麻栽培品种的抗旱性综合评价及指标筛选[J]. 作物学报, 2014, 40(7): 1259-1273
[16] 罗俊杰, 欧巧明, 叶春雷, 王方, 王镛臻. 主要胡麻品种抗旱相关指标分析及综合评价[J]. 核农学报, 2014, 28(11):2115-2125
[17] 王兰芬, 武晶, 景蕊莲, 程须珍, 王述民. 绿豆种质资源芽期抗旱性鉴定[J]. 植物遗传资源学报, 2014, 15(3):498-503
[18] 汪灿, 周棱波, 张国兵, 张立异, 徐燕, 高旭, 姜讷, 邵明波. 薏苡种质资源苗期抗旱性鉴定及抗旱指标筛选[J]. 中国农业科学, 2017, 50(15):2872-2887
[19] 汪灿, 周棱波, 张国兵, 张立异, 徐燕, 高旭, 姜讷, 邵明波. 薏苡种质资源萌发期抗旱性鉴定及抗旱指标筛选[J]. 植物遗传资源学报, 2017, 18(5):846-859
[20] 汪灿, 周棱波, 张国兵, 张立异, 徐燕, 高旭, 姜讷, 邵明波. 薏苡种质资源成株期抗旱性鉴定及抗旱指标筛选[J]. 作物学报, 2017, 43(9):1381-1394
[21] 汪灿, 周棱波, 张国兵, 徐燕, 张立异, 高旭, 高杰, 姜讷, 邵明波. 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
[22] 唐启义. DPS 数据处理系统: 实验设计、统计分析及数据挖掘 [M]. 第2版. 北京: 科学出版社, 2010:784-789
[23] 吴奇, 周宇飞, 高悦, 张姣, 陈冰嬬, 许文娟, 黄瑞冬. 不同高粱品种萌发期抗旱性筛选与鉴定[J]. 作物学报, 2016, 42(8):1233-1246
[24] 徐宁, 陈冰嬬, 王明海, 包淑英, 王桂芳, 郭中校. 绿豆品种资源萌发期耐碱性鉴定[J]. 作物学报, 2017, 43(1):112-121
[25] 曾彦军, 王彦荣, 保平, 塔拉腾, 苏勒德. 几种生态因子对红砂和霸王种子萌发与幼苗生长的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2005(5):24-31
[26] 陈学珍, 谢皓, 郝丹丹, 吴伟,百宝良,于同泉,路苹. 干旱胁迫下20个大豆品种芽期抗旱性鉴定初报[J]. 北京农学院学报, 2005, 20(3): 54-56
[27] 刘学义, 任冬莲, 李晋明, 曹雄. 大豆成苗期根毛与抗旱性的关系研究[J]. 山西农业科学, 1996, 24(1): 27-30
[28] 王利彬, 刘丽君, 裴宇峰, 董守坤, 孙聪姝, 祖伟, 阮英慧. 大豆种质资源芽期抗旱性鉴定[J]. 东北农业大学学报, 2012, 43(1):36-4
[29] 陈新, 宋高原, 张宗文, 吴斌. PEG-6000胁迫下裸燕麦萌发期抗旱性鉴定与评价[J]. 植物遗传资源学报, 2014, 15(6):1188-1195
[30] Bewley J D, Seed germation and dormancy[J]. Plant Cell, 1997, 9(7):1055-1066
[31] 刘海刚, 段曰汤, 沙毓沧, 袁理春, 陈艺齐, 杨子祥. PEG-6000处理对火龙果种子萌发的影响[J]. 江西农业学报, 2010, 22(11):50-52
[32] 刘光辉, 陈全家, 吴鹏昊, 曲延英, 高文伟, 杨军善, 杜荣光. 棉花花铃期抗旱性综合评价及指标筛选[J]. 植物遗传资源学报, 2016, 17(1):53-62
[33] 徐萍. 腹腔镜胆囊切除术住院费用的灰色关联分析[J]. 中国卫生统计, 2011, 28(5):596-598
[34] 朱宗河, 郑文寅, 张学坤. 甘蓝型油菜耐旱相关性状的主成分分析[J]. 中国农业科学, 2011, 44(9):1775-1787
[35] 谢小玉, 张霞, 张兵. 油菜苗期抗旱性评价及抗旱相关指标变化分析[J]. 中国农业科学, 2013, 46(3):476-485
[36] 徐宁, 王明海, 包淑英, 王桂芳, 郭中校. 18份绿豆品种资源苗期耐旱性鉴定[J]. 吉林农业科学, 2015, 40(6):17-20
[37] 祁旭升, 王兴荣, 许军, 张建平, 米君. 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
[38] 李国瑞, 马宏亮, 胡雯媚, 汤永禄, 荣晓椒, 樊高琼. 西南麦区小麦品种萌发期抗旱性的综合鉴定及评价[J]. 麦类作物学报, 2015, 35(4):479-487
[2] 张维. 干旱胁迫及氮素形态对豌豆生长及共生固氮性能的影响[D]. 兰州:甘肃农业大学, 2014
[3] 张红萍, 牛俊义, 轩春香, 王军强, 白全琴, 付凯红. 干旱胁迫及复水对豌豆叶片脯氨酸和丙二醛含量的影响[J]. 甘肃农业大学学报, 2008, 43(5):50-54
[4] 宗绪晓. 豌豆生产技术[M]. 北京:北京教育出版社,2016:1-2
[5] 王延鹏. 植物间化感作用研究概况[J]. 山东林业科技, 2008(3):84-88
[6] 郑敏娜, 李荫藩, 梁秀芝, 薛龙飞, 张小娟. 水分胁迫对豌豆种子萌发和幼苗生长发育的影响[J]. 山西农业科学, 2012, 40(3):212-216
[7] 闫志利, 轩春香, 牛俊义, 席玲玲, 刘建华, 赵天武. 干旱胁迫及复水对豌豆根系内源激素含量的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2009, 17(2):297-301
[8] 郑勇. 缙云山阔叶木本植物种子及幼苗生长特性研究[D]. 重庆:西南大学, 2010
[9] 陈凤娟, 胡丽涛, 刘国华. 干旱胁迫对豌豆幼苗生理生化指标的影响[J]. 现代农技, 2011(12):111-114
[10] Osman H S. Enhancing antioxidant-yield relationship of pea plant under drought at different growth stages by exogenously applied glycine betaine and prolin[J]. Annals of Agricultural Sciences, 2015, 60(2):389-402
[11] Jin J, Lauricella D, Armstrong R, Sale P, Tang C. Phosphorus application and elevated CO2enhance drought tolerance in field pea grown in a phosphorus-deficient vertisol[J]. Annals of Botany, 2015, 116 (6):975
[12] Bewley J D, Black M. Seeds: Physiology of Development and Germination[M]. New York: Plenum Press, 1994: 199-257
[13] Gul B, Weber D J. Effect of salinity, light, and temperature on germination in Allenrolfea occidentalis[J]. Canadian Journal of Botany, 1999(77):240-246
[14] 闫锋, 崔秀辉, 李清泉, 王成, 曾玲玲, 刘峰, 马波, 袁明. 绿豆品种的灰色关联度分析及综合评价[J]. 中国种业, 2011(S2):31-33
[15] 罗俊杰, 欧巧明, 叶春雷, 王方, 王镛臻, 陈玉梁. 重要胡麻栽培品种的抗旱性综合评价及指标筛选[J]. 作物学报, 2014, 40(7): 1259-1273
[16] 罗俊杰, 欧巧明, 叶春雷, 王方, 王镛臻. 主要胡麻品种抗旱相关指标分析及综合评价[J]. 核农学报, 2014, 28(11):2115-2125
[17] 王兰芬, 武晶, 景蕊莲, 程须珍, 王述民. 绿豆种质资源芽期抗旱性鉴定[J]. 植物遗传资源学报, 2014, 15(3):498-503
[18] 汪灿, 周棱波, 张国兵, 张立异, 徐燕, 高旭, 姜讷, 邵明波. 薏苡种质资源苗期抗旱性鉴定及抗旱指标筛选[J]. 中国农业科学, 2017, 50(15):2872-2887
[19] 汪灿, 周棱波, 张国兵, 张立异, 徐燕, 高旭, 姜讷, 邵明波. 薏苡种质资源萌发期抗旱性鉴定及抗旱指标筛选[J]. 植物遗传资源学报, 2017, 18(5):846-859
[20] 汪灿, 周棱波, 张国兵, 张立异, 徐燕, 高旭, 姜讷, 邵明波. 薏苡种质资源成株期抗旱性鉴定及抗旱指标筛选[J]. 作物学报, 2017, 43(9):1381-1394
[21] 汪灿, 周棱波, 张国兵, 徐燕, 张立异, 高旭, 高杰, 姜讷, 邵明波. 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
[22] 唐启义. DPS 数据处理系统: 实验设计、统计分析及数据挖掘 [M]. 第2版. 北京: 科学出版社, 2010:784-789
[23] 吴奇, 周宇飞, 高悦, 张姣, 陈冰嬬, 许文娟, 黄瑞冬. 不同高粱品种萌发期抗旱性筛选与鉴定[J]. 作物学报, 2016, 42(8):1233-1246
[24] 徐宁, 陈冰嬬, 王明海, 包淑英, 王桂芳, 郭中校. 绿豆品种资源萌发期耐碱性鉴定[J]. 作物学报, 2017, 43(1):112-121
[25] 曾彦军, 王彦荣, 保平, 塔拉腾, 苏勒德. 几种生态因子对红砂和霸王种子萌发与幼苗生长的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2005(5):24-31
[26] 陈学珍, 谢皓, 郝丹丹, 吴伟,百宝良,于同泉,路苹. 干旱胁迫下20个大豆品种芽期抗旱性鉴定初报[J]. 北京农学院学报, 2005, 20(3): 54-56
[27] 刘学义, 任冬莲, 李晋明, 曹雄. 大豆成苗期根毛与抗旱性的关系研究[J]. 山西农业科学, 1996, 24(1): 27-30
[28] 王利彬, 刘丽君, 裴宇峰, 董守坤, 孙聪姝, 祖伟, 阮英慧. 大豆种质资源芽期抗旱性鉴定[J]. 东北农业大学学报, 2012, 43(1):36-4
[29] 陈新, 宋高原, 张宗文, 吴斌. PEG-6000胁迫下裸燕麦萌发期抗旱性鉴定与评价[J]. 植物遗传资源学报, 2014, 15(6):1188-1195
[30] Bewley J D, Seed germation and dormancy[J]. Plant Cell, 1997, 9(7):1055-1066
[31] 刘海刚, 段曰汤, 沙毓沧, 袁理春, 陈艺齐, 杨子祥. PEG-6000处理对火龙果种子萌发的影响[J]. 江西农业学报, 2010, 22(11):50-52
[32] 刘光辉, 陈全家, 吴鹏昊, 曲延英, 高文伟, 杨军善, 杜荣光. 棉花花铃期抗旱性综合评价及指标筛选[J]. 植物遗传资源学报, 2016, 17(1):53-62
[33] 徐萍. 腹腔镜胆囊切除术住院费用的灰色关联分析[J]. 中国卫生统计, 2011, 28(5):596-598
[34] 朱宗河, 郑文寅, 张学坤. 甘蓝型油菜耐旱相关性状的主成分分析[J]. 中国农业科学, 2011, 44(9):1775-1787
[35] 谢小玉, 张霞, 张兵. 油菜苗期抗旱性评价及抗旱相关指标变化分析[J]. 中国农业科学, 2013, 46(3):476-485
[36] 徐宁, 王明海, 包淑英, 王桂芳, 郭中校. 18份绿豆品种资源苗期耐旱性鉴定[J]. 吉林农业科学, 2015, 40(6):17-20
[37] 祁旭升, 王兴荣, 许军, 张建平, 米君. 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
[38] 李国瑞, 马宏亮, 胡雯媚, 汤永禄, 荣晓椒, 樊高琼. 西南麦区小麦品种萌发期抗旱性的综合鉴定及评价[J]. 麦类作物学报, 2015, 35(4):479-487
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |