不同倍性马铃薯品种的抗旱性

doi:10.7522/j.issn.1000-694X.2016.00047

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 通过沙基培养试验，对“陇薯3号”（四倍体）、“大西洋”（四倍体）、“2-27”（二倍体）、“富利亚”（二倍体）、“03129-488”（六倍体）和“03120-565”（六倍体）6个不同倍性马铃薯品种的抗旱性进行了比较分析。利用10%PEG6000处理马铃薯试管幼苗，测定分析与品种抗旱性有关的多项生理生化指标，并将各性状的抗旱系数作为衡量各单项抗旱能力的指标。同时，利用主成分分析、隶属函数评价法、综合评价法、聚类分析法对马铃薯抗旱性进行评价。结果表明：6个马铃薯品种的可溶性糖含量和SOD活性与干旱胁迫处理时间具有较高的正相关性（R²分别为0.87、0.92），且可溶性糖含量和SOD活性之间有较高的负相关性（R²=-0.83）。“大西洋”和“富利亚”的叶绿素变化不同于其他4个品种，而与干旱胁迫时间呈负相关关系，分别低于对照6.06%和11.85%。在胁迫72h条件下，“陇薯3号”的根系活力最高，而干旱处理后“03129-488”和“2-27”的根系活力较对照明显降低了78.26%和52.17%；与“陇薯3号”和“03120-565”相比，其他4个品种的脯氨酸含量与胁迫时间呈负相关关系，随处理时间的延长而不同程度的下降，降幅26.48%~54.98%。隶属函数与综合评价反映出各品种马铃薯抗旱性为“陇薯3号”> “2-27”> “03129-488”> “大西洋”> “富利亚”> “03120-565”，结果能够反映抗性较强的四倍体“陇薯3号”的抗旱特性，二倍体“2-27”和六倍体“03129-488”抗旱性也强于对照“大西洋”。

关键词: 马铃薯, 抗旱性, 主成分分析, 隶属函数, 综合评价

Abstract: In order to extract the quality from different ploidy potato varieties of droughtresistance and on this basis to provide basis for further screening of drought resistance genes, the drought resistance of six varieties of potatoes "Longshu-3", (tetraploid) "Atlantic" (tetraploid), "2-27" (Diploid), "Solanumphureja" (Diploid), "03129-488" (hexaploid) and "03120-565" (hexaploid) were investigated by sand culture experiment. Simulated drought stress with 10% PEG (6000) treated different varieties of potato seedlings, after 0, 24, 48 and 72 h, some physiological and biochemical indexes related to drought resistance were measured. The drought resistance coefficient of potato varieties shape as a measure of each single index of drought resistance capacity, and using principal component analysis, membership function evaluation method, comprehensive evaluation method, the clustering analysis of potato drought resistance were evaluated. The results showed that the soluble sugar content and SOD activity of six varieties of potatoes had a positive correlation with drought stress time (R²=0.87,0.92), and high negative correlation between soluble sugar and SOD. In addition, the chlorophyll change trend of "Atlantic" and "Solanumphureja" were different from potato cultivars and negatively related to drought stress time which were markedly decreased by 6.06% and 11.85% compared with the contrast. Besides, the root activity of "Longshu-3" was highest under the condition of stress 72 h, while the "03129-488" and "2-27" after drought stress was lower than that of contrast by 78.26% and 52.17%. Compared with "Longshu-3" and "03120-565", the proline content of other four varieties were negatively related with the stress time, and had decreased in varying degrees with a drop of 26.48%-54.98% as the extension of processing time .The results of comprehensive evaluation was"Longshu-3"> "2-27"> "03129-488"> "Atlantic"> "Solanumphureja"> "03120-565". Stronger resistance to comprehensive evaluation results can truthfully reaction of tetraploid drought-resistant characteristics of "Longshu3".Diploid "2-27" and hexaploid "03129-488" drought resistance is also stronger than contrast "Atlantic", based on the excavation of the drought resistance related genes. The comprehensive evaluation can reflect the relationship between reaction of physiological index and drought resistance of potato. The aim is to provide the theoretical basis for the selection of drought tolerant potato in arid and semi-arid regions.

Key words: potato, drought resistance, principal component analysis, subordinate function, comprehensive evaluation

中图分类号:

S532
Q945.78

杨宏羽, 平海涛, 王蒂, 王丽, 刘玉汇, 白江平, 余斌, 张俊莲. 不同倍性马铃薯品种的抗旱性[J]. 中国沙漠, 2016, 36(4): 1041-1049.

Yang Hongyu, Ping Haitao, Wang Di, Wang Li, Liu Yuhui, Bai Jiangping, Yu Bin, Zhang Junlian. Drought Resistance of Different Ploidy Potato Varieties[J]. JOURNAL OF DESERT RESEARCH, 2016, 36(4): 1041-1049.

参考文献

[1] 陈志成,王志伟,王荣荣,等.3种阔叶树种对持续干旱的生理响应及抗旱性评价[J].中国水土保持科学,2013(2):65-71.
[2] 秦玉芝,陈珏,刘明月,等.聚乙二醇模拟干旱对马铃薯幼苗生长与细胞膜透性的影响[J].湖南农业大学学报:自然科学版,2011(6):627-631.
[3] 姚春馨,丁玉梅,周晓罡,等.马铃薯抗旱相关表型效应分析与抗旱指标初探[J].作物研究,2012(5):474-477.
[4] 汤章城.逆境条件下植物脯氨酸的累积及其可能的意义[J].植物生理学通讯,1984(1):15-21.
[5] 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(5):944-949.
[6] 张灿军,姚宇卿,王育红,等.旱稻抗旱性鉴定方法与指标研究-Ⅰ鉴定方法与评价指标[J].干旱地区农业研究,2005(3):33-36.
[7] 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(6):191-193.
[8] 田丰,张永成,张凤军,等.不同品种马铃薯叶片游离脯氨酸含量、水势与抗旱性的研究[J].作物杂志,2009(2):73-76.
[9] 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.
[10] 祁旭升,刘章雄,关荣霞,等.大豆成株期抗旱性鉴定评价方法研究[J].作物学报,2012,38(4):665-674.
[11] Fischer R A,Maurer R.Drought-resistance in spring wheat cultivars 1:Grain yield responses[J].Australian Journal of Agricultural Research,1978,29:897-912
[12] Blum A,Jordan W R.Breeding crop varieties for stress environments[J].Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences,1985(2):199-238.
[13] 兰巨生,胡福顺,张景瑞.作物抗旱指数的概念和统计方法[J].华北农学报,1990,5(2):20-25.
[14] 李贵全,张海燕,季兰,等.不同大豆品种抗旱性综合评价[J].应用生态学报,2006,17(12):2408-2412.
[15] 赵红梅,郭程瑾,段巍巍,等.小麦品种抗旱性评价指标研究[J].植物遗传资源学报,2007,8(1):76-81.
[16] 汪军成,孟亚雄,徐先良,等.大麦苗期抗旱性鉴定及评价[J].干旱地区农业研究,2013,31(4):135-143.
[17] 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,2002.
[18] 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(5):944-949.
[19] 毛娟,白江平,张俊莲,等.水分胁迫下马铃薯SnRK2基因的表达模式与生理响应[J].中国沙漠,2014,34(2):481-487.
[20] 赵丽英,邓西平,山仑.活性氧清除系统对干旱胁迫的响应机制[J].西北植物学报,2005(2):413-418.
[21] 单长卷,赵新亮,汤菊香.水杨酸对干旱胁迫下小麦幼苗抗氧化特性的影响[J].麦类作物学报,2014(1):91-95.
[22] 郎多勇,崔佳佳,周达,等.干旱胁迫对银柴胡生长及生理生化特性的影响[J].中国中药杂志,2014(11):1995-1999.
[23] 徐宗才,田丰,刘云.不同品种马铃薯叶片生理特性与抗旱性研究[J].干旱地区农业研究,2008(5):153-155.
[24] 杨再强,刘朝霞,韩秀君,等.水分胁迫对番茄保护酶活性及果实产量的影响[J].东北农业大学学报,2014(3):40-45.
[25] 赵海超,抗艳红,龚学臣,等.干旱胁迫对不同马铃薯品种苗期生理生化指标的影响[J].作物杂志,2013(6):63-69.
[26] 黄承建,赵思毅,王龙昌,等.干旱胁迫对苎麻叶绿素含量的影响[J].中国麻业科学,2012(5):208-212.
[27] 刘瑞显,王友华,陈兵林,等.花铃期干旱胁迫下氮素水平对棉花光合作用与叶绿素荧光特性的影响[J].作物学报,2008(4):675-683.
[28] 韩博,李志勇,郭浩,等.干旱胁迫下5种幼苗光合特性的研究[J].林业科学研究,2014(1):92-98.
[29] 郝岗平,杜希华,史仁玖.干旱胁迫下外源一氧化氮促进银杏可溶性糖、脯氨酸和次生代谢产物合成[J].植物生理与分子生物学学报,2007(6):499-506.
[30] 胡晓健,喻方圆,刘建兵,等.干旱胁迫对不同种源马尾松苗木针叶内可溶性糖含量的影响[J].南京林业大学学报:自然科学版,2009(5):55-59.
[31] 刘瑞香,杨劼,高丽.中国沙棘和俄罗斯沙棘叶片在不同土壤水分条件下脯氨酸、可溶性糖及内源激素含量的变化[J].水土保持学报,2005(3):148-151.
[32] 孙萍,段喜华.干旱胁迫对长春花光合特性及可溶性糖的影响[J].东北林业大学学报,2010(8):54-56.
[33] 焦志丽,李勇,吕典秋,等.不同程度干旱胁迫对马铃薯幼苗生长和生理特性的影响[J].中国马铃薯,2011(6):329-333.
[34] 董守坤,赵坤,刘丽君,等.干旱胁迫对春大豆叶绿素含量和根系活力的影响[J].大豆科学,2011(6):949-953.
[35] 康霞,徐刚,王玉萍.根癌农杆菌(Agrobacterium tume faciens)介导的马铃薯高效遗传转化体系筛选及优化[J].中国沙漠,2016,36(1):225-231.
[36] 徐兴友,张风娟,龙茹,等.6种野生耐旱花卉幼苗叶片脱水和根系含水量与根系活力对干旱胁迫的反应[J].水土保持学报,2007(1):180-184.
[37] 敬礼恒,刘利成,梅坤,等.水稻抗旱性能鉴定方法及评价指标研究进展[J].中国农学通报,2013(12):1-5.
[38] 廖伟彪,肖洪浪,张美玲,等.4种藤本月季抗旱性综合评价[J].中国沙漠,2010(3):546-551.
[39] 申慧芳,李国柱.不同抗旱性绿豆突变体水分胁迫下的生理响应[J].华北农学报,2007(6):98-102.
[40] 孙静,曾俊,王银杰,等.20个切花菊品种抗旱性评价与筛选[J].南京农业大学学报,2013(1):24-28.
[41] 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(3):476-485.