不同种源单叶蔓荆对干旱胁迫的生理响应与耐旱性评价
|
摘要
以19个不同种源单叶蔓荆当年生扦插苗为试材,在75%～80%(CK)、35%～40%(轻度干旱)、15%～20%(重度干旱)不同水分梯度下,研究不同干旱处理对单叶蔓荆叶片过氧化氢酶(CAT)、超氧化物歧化酶(SOD)、过氧化物酶(POD)活性,脯氨酸(Pro)、可溶性糖(SS)、可溶性蛋白(SP)、丙二醛(MDA)含量和枝条、叶面积增长量等生理生化及形态指标的影响。结果表明:随干旱胁迫程度加大,枝条、叶面积增长量降低;多数种源单叶蔓荆叶片CAT、SOD活性降低,POD活性升高;Pro、SP、MDA含量升高,SS含量呈不同的变化趋势。各指标变化趋势因种源不同而异,干旱胁迫对单叶蔓荆生理生化及形态指标均具有显著影响,且种源间差异显著。用聚类分析法将19个不同种源的单叶蔓荆耐旱性分为强、中、弱3类,采用隶属函数法加权重定量鉴定19个不同种源单叶蔓荆耐旱性,其中抗旱最强的有荣成(D19)、日照(D11)、幸福林场(D13),最弱的有大窑(D8)、大连(D15)、象山(D12)。
Using cutting seedlings of Vitex trifolia var. simplicifolia from 19 different provenances as test materials, this research investigated the physiological and morphological indices of leaf protective enzymes(CAT,SOD, POD), proline, soluble sugar, soluble protein, malondialdehyde(MDA) content, and the growth of branch and leaf area under different water gradient conditions(75%-80%, 35%-40%, 15%-20%). The results showed that when the drought stress increased, the growth of branch and leaf area decreased; the activity of CAT and SOD from most of the provenances decreased; the activity of POD increased; the content of proline, soluble protein and MDA increased, and the content of soluble sugar showed different trend. The variation trend of each index varied with different provenance, and drought stress had significant influence on the physiological and morphological indices of V. trifolia var. simplicifolia, with significant difference between provenances. Using the method of cluster analysis, seedlings of V. trifolia var. simplicifolia from the 19 different provenances were divided into 3 categories of strong, medium and weak for drought resistance. Investigation of more accurate identification and comparison for drought resistance of the 19 different provenances were carried out using subordinate function values analysis. The results showed that the highest drought resistance of the 19 different provenances were: Rongcheng(D19)、Rizhao(D11)、Xingfulinchang(D13), and the most drought sensitive provenances were Dayao(D8)、Dalian(D15)、Xiangshan(D12).
Using cutting seedlings of Vitex trifolia var. simplicifolia from 19 different provenances as test materials, this research investigated the physiological and morphological indices of leaf protective enzymes(CAT,SOD, POD), proline, soluble sugar, soluble protein, malondialdehyde(MDA) content, and the growth of branch and leaf area under different water gradient conditions(75%-80%, 35%-40%, 15%-20%). The results showed that when the drought stress increased, the growth of branch and leaf area decreased; the activity of CAT and SOD from most of the provenances decreased; the activity of POD increased; the content of proline, soluble protein and MDA increased, and the content of soluble sugar showed different trend. The variation trend of each index varied with different provenance, and drought stress had significant influence on the physiological and morphological indices of V. trifolia var. simplicifolia, with significant difference between provenances. Using the method of cluster analysis, seedlings of V. trifolia var. simplicifolia from the 19 different provenances were divided into 3 categories of strong, medium and weak for drought resistance. Investigation of more accurate identification and comparison for drought resistance of the 19 different provenances were carried out using subordinate function values analysis. The results showed that the highest drought resistance of the 19 different provenances were: Rongcheng(D19)、Rizhao(D11)、Xingfulinchang(D13), and the most drought sensitive provenances were Dayao(D8)、Dalian(D15)、Xiangshan(D12).
引文
[1]宋天英,方志伟,王福兴.药用固沙先锋植被单叶蔓荆综合效益研究[J].河北林果研究,1998(S1):30-32.
[2]杨洁,左长清.蔓荆在鄱阳湖风沙区的适应性及防风作用研究[J].水土保持研究,2004,11(1):47-49.
[3]周瑞莲,杨树德,左进城,等.海滨沙地单叶蔓荆匍匐茎对沙埋适应的生长对策[J].生态学报,2015,35(4):1165-1174.
[4]陈体强,朱金荣,吴锦忠,等.单叶蔓荆子化学成分研究初报[J].中国野生植物资源,2006,25(5):50-52.
[5]梁芳,周香珍,曹岚.我国单叶蔓荆药用植物资源调查[J].安徽农业科学,2011,39(35):21638-21640.
[6]王连红,姚明志,李保进,等.胶东沙质海岸单叶蔓荆现状及保护对策[J].浙江农业科学,2017,58(4):632-634.
[7]叶金山,王章荣.水分胁迫对杂种马褂木与双亲重要生理性状的影响[J].林业科学,2002,38(3):20-26.
[8]周瑞莲,王进,杨淑琴,等.滨海沙滩单叶蔓荆对沙埋的生理响应特征[J].生态学报,2013,33(6):1973-1980.
[9]解卫海,刘丹,孙金利,等.脱水和高氧压过程中单叶蔓荆叶片细胞膜透性分析[J].林业科学,2015,51(6):44-51.
[10]曹晓晓,刘庆超,刘庆华,等.盐胁迫对单叶蔓荆种子萌发及幼苗生长的影响[J].中国农学通讯,2011,27(8):53-57.
[11]李合生.植物生理生化实验原理和技术[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2002.
[12]张志良,瞿伟菁.植物生理学实验指导[M].3版.北京:高等教育出版社,2003:123-276.
[13]任文佼,李清河,王赛宵,等.盐胁迫下不同种源籽蒿的生理生化特性与耐盐性评价[J].东北林业大学学报,2013,41(2):10-13.
[14]张刚,魏典典,邬佳宝,等.干旱胁迫下不同种源文冠果幼苗的生理反应及其抗旱性分析[J].西北林学院学报,2014,29(1):1-7.
[15]刘凯月,雷赛娇,刘冬云.干旱胁迫对荆芥的形态及其生理指标的影响[J].西部林业科学,2018,47(2):39-43.
[16]井大炜,邢尚军,杜振宇,等.干旱胁迫对杨树幼苗生长、光合特性及活性氧代谢的影响[J].应用生态学报,2013,24(7):1809-1816.
[17]何丙辉,钟章成.不同光强与干旱胁迫对银杏枝叶构件生长的影响[J].广西师范大学学报(自然科学版),2005,23(3):66-69.
[18]吕海亮,毛子军,李娜.干旱对红松和蒙古栎幼苗生长的影响及种间竞争[J].植物研究,2014,34(3):364-371.
[19]陈文荣,曾玮玮,李云霞,等.高丛蓝莓对干旱胁迫的生理响应及其抗旱性综合评价[J].园艺学报,2012,39(4):637-646.
[20]Bian S,Jiang Y.Reactive oxygen species,antioxidant enzyme activities and gene expression patterns in leaves and roots of Kentucky bluegrass in response to drought stress and recovery[J].Scientia Horticulturae,2009,120(2):264-270.
[21]王红梅,包维楷,李芳兰,等.不同干旱胁迫强度下白刺花幼苗叶片的生理生化反应[J].应用与环境生物学报,2008,14(6):757-762.
[22]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.
[23]刘声传.茶树对干旱胁迫和复水响应的生理、分子机理[D].北京:中国农业科学院,2015.
[24]丁红,张智猛,戴良香,等.水分胁迫和氮肥对花生根系形态发育及叶片生理活性的影响[J].应用生态学报,2015,26(2):450-456.
[25]杨华庚,颜速亮,陈慧娟,等.干旱胁迫对中粒种咖啡幼苗膜脂过氧化、抗氧化酶活性和渗透调节物质含量的影响[J].热带作物学报,2014,35(5):944-949.
[26]程量,林良斌.作物耐旱性生理生化指标研究进展[J].中国农学通报,2014,30(3):27-31.
[27]杨方云,魏朝富,刘英.干旱胁迫下甜橙叶片保护酶体系的变化研究[J].植物营养与肥料学报,2006,12(1):119-124.
[28]杜金伟,崔世茂,金丽萍,等.水分胁迫对山杏渗透调节物质积累及保护酶活性的影响[J].内蒙古农业大学学报(自然科学版),2009,30(2):88-93.
[29]董建华,王秉忠.土壤干旱对小粒种咖啡有关生理参数的影响[J].热带作物学报,1996(1):50-56.
[30]杨玉珍,彭方仁,岑显超,等.干旱胁迫下不同种源香椿苗木的生理生化变化[J].南京林业大学学报(自然科学版),2008,32(1):24-28.
[31]Wang Z,Quebedeaux B,Stutte G W.Osmotic adjustment:effect of water stress on carbohydrates in leaves,stems and roots of apple[J].Functional Plant Biology,1995,22(22):747-754.
[32]Moustakas M,Sperdouli I,Kouna T,et al.Exogenous proline induces soluble sugar accumulation and alleviates drought stress effects on photosystem II functioning of Arabidopsis thaliana,leaves[J].Plant Growth Regulation,2011,65(2):315.
[33]高润梅,石晓东,王林,等.当年生华北落叶松幼苗的耐旱性[J].林业科学,2015,51(7):148-156.
[34]李波,贾秀峰,白庆武,等.干旱胁迫对苜蓿脯氨酸累积的影响[J].植物研究,2003,23(2):189-191.
[35]廖亮,吴家胜,吴江,等.干旱胁迫对桂花幼苗生长及生理生化特性的影响[J].西部林业科学,2018,47(2):54-58.
[36]鲍思伟,谈锋,廖志华.土壤干旱对蚕豆叶片渗透调节能力的影响[J].西南大学学报(自然科学版),2001,23(4):353-355.
[37]梁文斌,蒋丽娟,马倩,等.干旱胁迫下光皮树不同无性系苗木的生理生化变化[J].中南林业科技大学学报,2011,31(4):13-19.
[38]左文博,吴静利,杨奇,等.干旱胁迫对小麦根系活力和可溶性糖含量的影响[J].华北农学报,2010,25(6):191-193.
[39]祁建民,姜海青,陈美霞,等.干旱胁迫下红麻叶片的差异蛋白表达分析[J].中国农业科学,2012,45(17):3632-3638.
[40]陈少瑜,郎南军,贾利强,等.干旱胁迫对坡柳等抗旱树种幼苗膜脂过氧化及保护酶活性的影响[J].植物研究,2006,26(1):88-92.
[2]杨洁,左长清.蔓荆在鄱阳湖风沙区的适应性及防风作用研究[J].水土保持研究,2004,11(1):47-49.
[3]周瑞莲,杨树德,左进城,等.海滨沙地单叶蔓荆匍匐茎对沙埋适应的生长对策[J].生态学报,2015,35(4):1165-1174.
[4]陈体强,朱金荣,吴锦忠,等.单叶蔓荆子化学成分研究初报[J].中国野生植物资源,2006,25(5):50-52.
[5]梁芳,周香珍,曹岚.我国单叶蔓荆药用植物资源调查[J].安徽农业科学,2011,39(35):21638-21640.
[6]王连红,姚明志,李保进,等.胶东沙质海岸单叶蔓荆现状及保护对策[J].浙江农业科学,2017,58(4):632-634.
[7]叶金山,王章荣.水分胁迫对杂种马褂木与双亲重要生理性状的影响[J].林业科学,2002,38(3):20-26.
[8]周瑞莲,王进,杨淑琴,等.滨海沙滩单叶蔓荆对沙埋的生理响应特征[J].生态学报,2013,33(6):1973-1980.
[9]解卫海,刘丹,孙金利,等.脱水和高氧压过程中单叶蔓荆叶片细胞膜透性分析[J].林业科学,2015,51(6):44-51.
[10]曹晓晓,刘庆超,刘庆华,等.盐胁迫对单叶蔓荆种子萌发及幼苗生长的影响[J].中国农学通讯,2011,27(8):53-57.
[11]李合生.植物生理生化实验原理和技术[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2002.
[12]张志良,瞿伟菁.植物生理学实验指导[M].3版.北京:高等教育出版社,2003:123-276.
[13]任文佼,李清河,王赛宵,等.盐胁迫下不同种源籽蒿的生理生化特性与耐盐性评价[J].东北林业大学学报,2013,41(2):10-13.
[14]张刚,魏典典,邬佳宝,等.干旱胁迫下不同种源文冠果幼苗的生理反应及其抗旱性分析[J].西北林学院学报,2014,29(1):1-7.
[15]刘凯月,雷赛娇,刘冬云.干旱胁迫对荆芥的形态及其生理指标的影响[J].西部林业科学,2018,47(2):39-43.
[16]井大炜,邢尚军,杜振宇,等.干旱胁迫对杨树幼苗生长、光合特性及活性氧代谢的影响[J].应用生态学报,2013,24(7):1809-1816.
[17]何丙辉,钟章成.不同光强与干旱胁迫对银杏枝叶构件生长的影响[J].广西师范大学学报(自然科学版),2005,23(3):66-69.
[18]吕海亮,毛子军,李娜.干旱对红松和蒙古栎幼苗生长的影响及种间竞争[J].植物研究,2014,34(3):364-371.
[19]陈文荣,曾玮玮,李云霞,等.高丛蓝莓对干旱胁迫的生理响应及其抗旱性综合评价[J].园艺学报,2012,39(4):637-646.
[20]Bian S,Jiang Y.Reactive oxygen species,antioxidant enzyme activities and gene expression patterns in leaves and roots of Kentucky bluegrass in response to drought stress and recovery[J].Scientia Horticulturae,2009,120(2):264-270.
[21]王红梅,包维楷,李芳兰,等.不同干旱胁迫强度下白刺花幼苗叶片的生理生化反应[J].应用与环境生物学报,2008,14(6):757-762.
[22]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.
[23]刘声传.茶树对干旱胁迫和复水响应的生理、分子机理[D].北京:中国农业科学院,2015.
[24]丁红,张智猛,戴良香,等.水分胁迫和氮肥对花生根系形态发育及叶片生理活性的影响[J].应用生态学报,2015,26(2):450-456.
[25]杨华庚,颜速亮,陈慧娟,等.干旱胁迫对中粒种咖啡幼苗膜脂过氧化、抗氧化酶活性和渗透调节物质含量的影响[J].热带作物学报,2014,35(5):944-949.
[26]程量,林良斌.作物耐旱性生理生化指标研究进展[J].中国农学通报,2014,30(3):27-31.
[27]杨方云,魏朝富,刘英.干旱胁迫下甜橙叶片保护酶体系的变化研究[J].植物营养与肥料学报,2006,12(1):119-124.
[28]杜金伟,崔世茂,金丽萍,等.水分胁迫对山杏渗透调节物质积累及保护酶活性的影响[J].内蒙古农业大学学报(自然科学版),2009,30(2):88-93.
[29]董建华,王秉忠.土壤干旱对小粒种咖啡有关生理参数的影响[J].热带作物学报,1996(1):50-56.
[30]杨玉珍,彭方仁,岑显超,等.干旱胁迫下不同种源香椿苗木的生理生化变化[J].南京林业大学学报(自然科学版),2008,32(1):24-28.
[31]Wang Z,Quebedeaux B,Stutte G W.Osmotic adjustment:effect of water stress on carbohydrates in leaves,stems and roots of apple[J].Functional Plant Biology,1995,22(22):747-754.
[32]Moustakas M,Sperdouli I,Kouna T,et al.Exogenous proline induces soluble sugar accumulation and alleviates drought stress effects on photosystem II functioning of Arabidopsis thaliana,leaves[J].Plant Growth Regulation,2011,65(2):315.
[33]高润梅,石晓东,王林,等.当年生华北落叶松幼苗的耐旱性[J].林业科学,2015,51(7):148-156.
[34]李波,贾秀峰,白庆武,等.干旱胁迫对苜蓿脯氨酸累积的影响[J].植物研究,2003,23(2):189-191.
[35]廖亮,吴家胜,吴江,等.干旱胁迫对桂花幼苗生长及生理生化特性的影响[J].西部林业科学,2018,47(2):54-58.
[36]鲍思伟,谈锋,廖志华.土壤干旱对蚕豆叶片渗透调节能力的影响[J].西南大学学报(自然科学版),2001,23(4):353-355.
[37]梁文斌,蒋丽娟,马倩,等.干旱胁迫下光皮树不同无性系苗木的生理生化变化[J].中南林业科技大学学报,2011,31(4):13-19.
[38]左文博,吴静利,杨奇,等.干旱胁迫对小麦根系活力和可溶性糖含量的影响[J].华北农学报,2010,25(6):191-193.
[39]祁建民,姜海青,陈美霞,等.干旱胁迫下红麻叶片的差异蛋白表达分析[J].中国农业科学,2012,45(17):3632-3638.
[40]陈少瑜,郎南军,贾利强,等.干旱胁迫对坡柳等抗旱树种幼苗膜脂过氧化及保护酶活性的影响[J].植物研究,2006,26(1):88-92.
© 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 |