img

官方微信

  • CN 62-1070/P
  • ISSN 1000-694X
  • 双月刊 创刊于1981年
高级检索
生物与土壤

野生早熟禾(Poa L.)对模拟干旱的生理响应

  • 董 沁 ,
  • 鲁存海 ,
  • 白小明 ,
  • 贺佳圆 ,
  • 雷娅伟 ,
  • 吕优伟
展开
  • 甘肃农业大学 草业学院/草业生态系统教育部重点实验室/甘肃省草业工程实验室/中-美草地畜牧业可持续发展研究中心, 甘肃 兰州 730070

收稿日期: 2013-04-01

  修回日期: 2013-06-12

  网络出版日期: 2013-06-12

Physiological Responses of Seven Wild Poa species to Simulative Drought Stress

  • DONG Qin ,
  • LU Cun-hai ,
  • BAI Xiao-ming ,
  • HE Jia-yuan ,
  • LEI Ya-wei ,
  • L You-wei
Expand
  • College of Pratacultural Science, Gansu Agricultural University/Key Laboratory of Grassland Ecosystem(Gansu Agricultural University), Ministry of Education/Pratacultural Engineering Laboratory of Gansu Province/Sino-U.S. Centers for Grazingland Ecosystem Sustainability, Lanzhou 730070, Gansu, China

Received date: 2013-04-01

  Revised date: 2013-06-12

  Online published: 2013-06-12

摘要

以采集于甘肃境内的7种野生早熟禾(Poa L.)为材料,采用盆栽模拟自然干旱条件,研究了叶片游离脯氨酸(F-pro)、可溶性糖(SS)、可溶性蛋白(SP)和丙二醛(MDA)含量及过氧化氢酶(CAT)和超氧化物歧化酶(SOD)活性对干旱胁迫的生理响应,分析了生理指标及采集地年均降水量与抗旱性的关系,以期为早熟禾抗旱品种的选育提供依据。结果表明:随干旱胁迫时间的延长,叶片F-pro、SS和MDA含量逐渐增加,CAT活性和SP含量逐渐减少,SOD活性呈先增强后减弱的趋势。MDA含量与抗旱综合评价值极显著负相关(p<0.01),CAT活性与抗旱综合评价值显著正相关(p<0.05),二者可作为野生早熟禾抗旱性评价的主要指标。材料采集地的年均降水量与抗旱综合评价值负相关,但相关性不显著(p>0.05)。采用标准差系数赋予权重法对抗旱性进行综合评价,可将7个材料分为3类:第1类抗旱,为草地早熟禾(Poa pratensis);第2类中等抗旱,包括长稃早熟禾(Poa dolichachyra)、细叶早熟禾(Poa anqustifolia)、冷地早熟禾(Poa crymophila)和波伐早熟禾(Poa poophaqorum);第3类抗旱性弱,包括垂枝早熟禾(Poa declinata)和小药早熟禾(Poa micrandra)。

本文引用格式

董 沁 , 鲁存海 , 白小明 , 贺佳圆 , 雷娅伟 , 吕优伟 . 野生早熟禾(Poa L.)对模拟干旱的生理响应[J]. 中国沙漠, 2013 , 33(6) : 1743 -1749 . DOI: 10.7522/j.issn.1000-694X.2013.00260

Abstract

In this study, seven species of Wild Poa in Gansu province were selected to measure the physiological responsive indices of malondialdehyde (MDA), soluble protein (SP), catalase (CAT), superoxide dismutase (SOD), free proline and soluble sugar (SS) under simulated drought stress. Further, the relationship between drought resistance and physiological indicators, mean annual precipitation of source and was evaluated. The results showed that the contents of free proline, SS and MDA in leaves increased gradually with increasing drought stress, the CAT and SP showed a decreasing trend with increasing drought stress, while the SOD activity increased a little and then decreased slowly. The comprehensive evaluation values were negatively correlated to the contents of MDA (p<0.01), but positively correlated to CAT. This implied that the contents of MDA and CAT could be served as the main indicators in evaluating the drought resistance of wild Poa genus. The mean annual precipitation of source land was negatively correlated with comprehensive value, but it was not significant (p>0.05). The drought resistant capacities of the seven species were evaluated by standard deviation coefficient allocation weighted method, the seven species were thereby classified into three type: the first category was drought resisted, including P. pratensis, the second category was medium drought resisted, including P. dolichachyra, P. anqustifolia, P. crymophila and P. poophaqorum, and the drought resistance of the third category was weak, including P. declinata and P, micrandra.

参考文献

[1]高涵,吴伟,刘秀萍,等.水分胁迫下几种冷季型草坪草抗旱机理研究[J].水土保持研究,2006,13(3):126-128.

[2]焦树英,李永强,沙依拉,等.干旱胁迫对3种狼尾草种子萌发和幼苗生长的影响[J].西北植物学报,2009,29(2):308-313.

[3]Huang B R,Fry J D.Root anatomical physiological and Morphological responses to drought stress for tall fescue cultivars[J].Crop Science,1998,38(4):1017-1022.

[4]Beard J B.Turfgrass water stress:drought resistance components,physiological mechanisms,and species-genotype diversity[C]//Sports Turf Research Institute.Proceedings of the International Turfgrass Research Conference.Vol.6.1989:23-28.

[5]Carrow R N,Shearman R C,Watson J R.Chapter 30.turfgrass[M]//Lascano R J,Sojka R E.Irrigation of Agriculture Crops.Madison,Wisconsin,USA:American Society of Agronomy,Inc.,Crop Science Society of America,Inc.,Soil Science Society of merica,Inc.2007.

[6]郭爱桂,刘建秀,郭海林.几种暖季型草坪草抗旱性的初步鉴定[J].草业科学,2002,19(8):61-63.

[7]赵相勇,袁庆华,何胜江.高羊茅苗期抗旱性综合评价[J].贵州农业科学,2008,36(5):118-120.

[8]伍世平,王君健,于忠熙.八种草地早熟禾的抗逆性研究[J].武汉植物学研究,1995,13(1):75-80.

[9]孙彦,杨青,张英华.不同草坪草种及品种苗期抗旱性比较[J].草地学报,2001,9(1):16-20.

[10]谢晓蓉,刘金荣,李唯,等.干热对草地早熟禾生理反应与坪用质量的影响[J].草地学报,2007,15(6):572-576.

[11]韩德梁,余玲,王彦荣.2种野生早熟禾坪用性能评价[J].草业科学,2005,22(2):92-95.

[12]李进芳,颜红波,周青平.3种早熟禾苗期的短期抗旱性研究[J].草业科学,2007,24(5):37-40.

[13]方恩强,孙英,白小明,等.甘肃省早熟禾属野生植物资源分布研究[J].中国草地学报,2010,32(6):39-45.

[14]彭燕,张新全,周寿荣.我国主要草坪草种质资源研究进展[J].园艺学报,2005,32(1):359-364.

[15]邹琦.植物生理学实验指导[M].北京:中国农业出版社,2000:161-163,173-175.

[16]Jiang Y,Huang B R.Effects of drought or heat stress alone and in combination on Kentucky bluegrass[J].Crop Science,2000,40:1358-1362.

[17]贺佳圆.9个野生早熟禾种质材料抗寒性研究[D].兰州:甘肃农业大学,2012.

[18]王赞,李源,吴欣明,等.PEG渗透胁迫下鸭茅种子萌发特性及抗旱性鉴定[J].中国草地学报,2008,30(1):50-54.

[19]杜建雄,孙吉雄,刘金荣,等.25个草地早熟禾品种在干热胁迫下的生理响应[J].草原与草坪,2007,(3):41-44.

[20]赵世杰.植物组织中丙二醛测定方法的改进[J].植物生理学通讯,1994,30(3):207-210.

[21]张明生,谢波,谈锋,等.甘薯可溶性蛋白、叶绿素及ATP含量变化与品种抗旱性关系的研究[J].中国农业科学,2003,36(1):13-16.

[22]李妮亚,高俊凤,汪沛洪.小麦幼苗水分胁迫诱导蛋白的特征[J].植物生理学报,1998,24(1):65- 71.

[23]王赞,李源,高洪文,等.鸭茅苗期抗旱性综合评价[J].干旱地区农业研究,2007,25(6):31-36.

[24]龚吉蕊,张立新,赵爱芬,等.油蒿抗旱生理生化特性研究初报[J].中国沙漠,2002,22(4):387-391.

[25]蒋明义,荆家海,王韶唐.渗透胁迫对水稻幼苗膜脂过氧化及体内保护酶系统的影响[J].植物生理学报,1991,17(1):80-84.

[26]Salin M L.Toxic oxygen species and protective systems of the chloroplast[J].Plant Physiology,1988,72:681-689.

[27]Scandalios J G.Oxygen stress and superoxide dismutases[J].Plant Physiology,1993,101:7-12.

[28]Ramiro H L,Mariana N M,Celina M L,et al.Effect of photooxida2tive stress induced by paraquat in two wheat cultivars with differential tolerance to water stress[J].Plant Science,2003,164:841-848.

[29]武永军,项燕,曹让,等.干旱胁迫下蚕豆叶片抗氧化酶活性的变化[J].干旱地区农业研究,2009,27(5):188-190.

[30]马智宏,李征,王北洪,等.冷季型草坪草耐旱及耐寒性比较[J].草地学报,2002,10(4):318-321.

[31]张慧,何玉杰,陈铁山,等.长期水分胁迫对不同基因型烟草生长旺盛期生理特性的影响[J].西北农业学报,2009,18(2):144-148.

[32]孙铁军,苏日古嘎,马万里,等.10种禾草苗期抗旱性的比较研究[J].草业学报,2008,17(4):42-49.

[33]余玲,王彦荣,Trevor G,等.紫花苜蓿不同品种对干旱胁迫的生理响应[J].草业学报,2006,15(3):75-85.

[34]王绑锡,黄久常,王辉.不同植物在水分胁迫条件下脯氨酸积累与抗旱性的关系[J].植物生理学报,1989,15(1):46-51.

[35]祁娟,徐柱,王海清,等.披碱草与老芒麦苗期抗旱性综合评价[J].草地学报,2009,17(1):36-42.

[36]任君.牧草抗旱性综合评价指标体系AHP模型设计与应用的研究[J].草业学报,1998,7(3):34-40.

[37]南丽丽,师尚礼,朱新强,等.不同根型苜蓿苗期对干旱胁迫的生理耐受性分析[J].干旱地区农业研究,2011,29(5):91-95.

[38]Carrow R N.Drought avoidance characteristics of diverse tall fescue cultivars[J].Crop Science,1996,(36):371-377.

文章导航

/