Please wait a minute...
img

Wechat

Adv search
JOURNAL OF DESERT RESEARCH
Biology and Soil     
Effects of PEG Stress on Physiological Characteristics of the Lespedeza Seedlings Leaves
MA Yan-jun1, MA Rui1, CAO Zhi-zhong2, LI -Yi1
1.College of Forestry, Gansu Agricultural University, Lanzhou 730070, China;
2.Pratacultural College of Gansu Agricultural University, Lanzhou 730070, China
Download:  PDF (2595KB) 
Export:  BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
Abstract  

The drought resistance of 5 kinds of 2-year Lespedeza seedlings was studied in an artificial drought stress experiment with PEG(polyethyleneglycol) treatment, and was evaluated by the principal component analysis and the membership function. With the increase of PEG concentration, the leaf water content, relative water content, free water content and conventional irreducible water content decreased for all the 5 kinds of Lespedeza; the critical water saturation deficiency increased with the PEG concentration increase in L. inschanica (Maxim.) Schindl and L. cuneata G.don, the other three came to the maximum when the PEG concentration was 12%. The activity of SOD, POD and CAT gradually increased with increase of PEG concentration, and began to decline when the activity came to the peak; MDA content increased gradually; Soluble protein content increased firstly, then decreased, and increased after that; Free proline content in leaves continuously increased; Chlorophyll a, b and total chlorophyll contents increased firstly and then decreased; Relative electric conductivity of all five kinds of Lespedeza continuously increased. According to the principal component analysis results, the water content, relative water content, critical water saturation deficiency, free water content, conventional irreducible water content and MDA, Chlorophyll a, b and total chlorophyll contents, SOD, SP and Pro were chosen to assess the drought-resistance of the 5 kinds of Lespedeza by membership function. Results showed that the drought resistance of 5 kinds of Lespedeza obeyed the following order: L. daurica (Laxm.)Schindl>L. potaninii Vass>L. juncea(Linnf.) Pers>L. cuneata G.don>L. inschanica(Maxim.) Schindl.

Key words:  Lespedeza      PEG treatment      membership function      drought resistance     
Received:  09 March 2012      Published:  24 June 2012
ZTFLH:  Q945  

Cite this article: 

MA Yan-jun1, MA Rui1, CAO Zhi-zhong2, LI -Yi1. Effects of PEG Stress on Physiological Characteristics of the Lespedeza Seedlings Leaves. JOURNAL OF DESERT RESEARCH, 2012, 32(6): 1662-1668.

URL: 

http://www.desert.ac.cn/EN/     OR     http://www.desert.ac.cn/EN/Y2012/V32/I6/1662

[1]黎祜琛,印治军.树木抗旱性及抗旱造林技术研究综述[J].世界林业研究,2003,16(4):17-22.

[2]李磊,贾志清,朱雅娟,等.我国干旱区植物抗旱机理研究进展[J].中国沙漠,2010,30(5):1053-1059.

[3]万里强,李向林,石永红,等.PEG胁迫下4个黑麦草品种生理生化指标响应与比较研究[J].草业学报,2010,19(1):83-88.

[4]中国植物志编写委员会.中国植物志 (第四十一卷)[M].北京:科学出版社,1999.

[5]中国饲用植物志编辑委员会.中国饲用植物志(第一、二卷)[M].北京:农业出版社,1989.

[6]赵杨,陈晓阳,骈瑞琪,等.胡枝子属研究进展[J].西北林学院学报,2006,21(2):71-75.

[7]奚同行,林圣玉.胡枝子的开发利用价值及发展前景[J].中国水土保持,1995,(5):42-44.

[8]胡卉芳,王照兰,史万光,等.PEG胁迫下达乌里胡枝子种子萌发期的抗旱性差异[J].中国草地学报,2007,29(6):86-91.

[9]史威威,赵祥,董宽虎,等.PEG引发达乌里胡枝子种子发芽的影响[J].草业与畜牧,2008,(1):21-26.

[10]高琼,陈晓阳,杜金友,等.不同种源胡枝子的耐旱性差异的研究[J].北华大学学报,2005,6(3):257-260.

[11]赵祥,侯志兵,董宽虎,等.水分胁迫及复水对达乌里胡枝子酶促防御系统影响[J].草地学报,2010,18(2):199-204.

[12]赵祥,董宽虎,张垚,等.达乌里胡枝子根解剖结构与其抗旱性的关系[J].草地学报,2011,19(1):13-19.

[13]马彦军,曹致中,李毅.八种胡枝子属植物种子萌发期抗旱性的比较[J].甘肃农业大学学报,2009,44(5):124-128.

[14]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.

[15]韩瑞宏,卢欣石,高桂娟,等.紫花苜蓿抗旱性主成分及隶属函数分析[J].草地学报,2006,14(2):142-146.

[16]何晓群.现代统计分析方法与应用[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,1998.

[17]Munné-Bosch S,Alegre L.Drought induced change in the redox state of α-tocopherol, ascorbate and the diterpene carnosic acid in chloroplasts of labiatae species differing in carnosic acid contents[J].Plant physiology,2003,131(4):1816-1825.

[18]季孔庶,孙志勇,方彦.林木抗旱性研究进展[J].南京林业大学学报,2006,30(6):123-128.

[19]潘向艳, 季孔庶, 方彦.淹水胁迫下杂交鹅掌楸无性系几种酶活性的变化[J].西北林学院学报,2007,22(3):43-46.

[20]曲涛,南志标.作物和牧草对干旱胁迫的响应及机理研究进展[J].草业学报,2008,17(2):126-135.

 [21]Demir Y,Kocacaliskan I.Effect of Nacl and proline on bean seedlings cultured in vitro[J].Biologia Plantarum,2002,45(4):597-599 .

[22]Demiral T,Türkan I.Comparative lipid peroxidation, antioxidant defense systems and proline content in roots of two rice cultivars differing in salt tolerance[J].Environmental and Experimental Botany,2005,53:247-257.

[23]黄海霞,王刚,陈年来.荒漠灌木逆境适应性研究进展[J].中国沙漠,2010,30(5):1060-1068.

[24]徐新宇.作物的抗旱能力和体内游离氨基酸含量的关系[J].国外农业科技,1983,(9):19-23.

[25]王邦锡,黄久常,王辉.不同植物在水分胁迫条件下脯氨酸累积与抗旱性的关系[J].植物生理与分子生物学学报,1989,15(1):46-51.

[26]杨俊,马健,王婷婷,等.5种荒漠植物抗旱性及其与抗旱指标相关性的定量评价[J].干旱区资源与环境,2009,23(6):143-146.

[27]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,2010,30(3):546-551.

[28]谢贤健,兰代萍,白景文.三种野生岩生草本植物的抗旱性综合评价[J].草业学报,2009,18(4):75-80.

[29]田魏龙,蒋志荣.不同沙棘品种对干旱胁迫的生理生化响应[J].中国沙漠,2011,31(5):1215-1220.

[30]邱真静,李毅,种培芳,等.基于PEG胁迫响应的不同地理种源沙拐枣抗旱性评价[J].中国沙漠,2011,31(5):1231-1237.

No Suggested Reading articles found!