莲藕资源耐盐性评价
|
摘要
为研究不同莲藕资源的耐盐性,以莲藕E1、E2、E3、E4、H2、H5和H8为材料,用0.6%NaCl处理种藕,测定7种不同莲藕资源的盐害指数、叶绿素含量、质膜相对透性、根系活力、丙二醛含量、SOD和POD含量等系列指标并对耐盐能力进行综合评价。结果显示:采用NaCl处理后,H5盐害指数最低;E1叶绿素含量最低,E2、E4、H5和H8叶绿素含量较高,耐盐性相对较强;H2和E3质膜相对透性差异不显著,但显著高于其他莲藕资源;H5的根系活力最高,其次为H8,E3根系活力最低;E4的MDA含量最高,并且显著高于其他莲藕资源,H5的MDA含量最低;莲藕资源叶片中SOD和POD含量差异显著,E3、E1的POD含量较低,差异不显著,H5的POD含量最高,H8的POD含量其次,二者之间差异不显著;H5、E2、E1和H2的SOD含量高于其他莲藕资源,H5的SOD含量最高,E4的SOD含量最低。7份莲藕资源耐盐能力差异明显,顺序依次是:H5>H8>E2>E4(E1)>E3>H2。H5、H8品种耐盐能力相对较强,E1、E2和E4品种耐盐性相对中等,E3和H2品种耐盐性相对较弱。
For the study of the salt tolerance of different lotus root resources(E1, E2, E3, E4, H2, H5 and H8) dealt with 0.6%NaCl, a range of indicators which contained salt injury index, chlorophyll content,plasma membrane relative permeability, root activity and content of MDA, SOD and POD were determinated and the salt tolerance ability was evaluated comprehensively. The results showed that the salt injury index of H5 was the lowest. The chlorophyll content of E1 was the lowest and E2, E4, H5 and H8 were higher,whose salt tolerance were relatively strong. The plasma membrane relative permeability of H2 and E3 were not significantly different but significantly higher than other lotus root resources. The root activity of H5 was the highest, followed by H8, and root activity of E3 was the lowest. MDA content of E4 was the highest and was significantly higher than that of other lotus root resources and MDA content of H5 was the lowest. POD and SOD content of lotus root resources were significantly different. The POD content of E3 and E1 was lower while the POD content of H5 was the highest, followed by H8 with no significant difference. The SOD content of H5, E2, E1 and H2 was higher than that of other lotus root resources and that of H5 and E4 was the highest and the lowest separately. The salt tolerances of seven lotus roots were significantly different,and the descending order of that was H5, H8, E2, E4(E1), E3 and H2. The salt tolerances of H5 and H8 were relatively strong, those of E1, E2 and E4 were relatively moderate, and those of E3 and H2 were relatively weak.
For the study of the salt tolerance of different lotus root resources(E1, E2, E3, E4, H2, H5 and H8) dealt with 0.6%NaCl, a range of indicators which contained salt injury index, chlorophyll content,plasma membrane relative permeability, root activity and content of MDA, SOD and POD were determinated and the salt tolerance ability was evaluated comprehensively. The results showed that the salt injury index of H5 was the lowest. The chlorophyll content of E1 was the lowest and E2, E4, H5 and H8 were higher,whose salt tolerance were relatively strong. The plasma membrane relative permeability of H2 and E3 were not significantly different but significantly higher than other lotus root resources. The root activity of H5 was the highest, followed by H8, and root activity of E3 was the lowest. MDA content of E4 was the highest and was significantly higher than that of other lotus root resources and MDA content of H5 was the lowest. POD and SOD content of lotus root resources were significantly different. The POD content of E3 and E1 was lower while the POD content of H5 was the highest, followed by H8 with no significant difference. The SOD content of H5, E2, E1 and H2 was higher than that of other lotus root resources and that of H5 and E4 was the highest and the lowest separately. The salt tolerances of seven lotus roots were significantly different,and the descending order of that was H5, H8, E2, E4(E1), E3 and H2. The salt tolerances of H5 and H8 were relatively strong, those of E1, E2 and E4 were relatively moderate, and those of E3 and H2 were relatively weak.
引文
[1]张长贵,董加宝,王祯旭,等.莲藕的营养保健功能及其开发利用[J].中国食物与营养,2006(1):24-26.
[2]中国农业科学院蔬菜花卉研究所.中国蔬菜栽培学:第2版[M].北京:中国农业出版社,2009:7.
[3]胡德斌.莲藕系列食品加工技术[J].现代农业,2002(7):41.
[4]李彦,张英鹏,孙明,等.盐分胁迫对植物的影响及植物耐盐机理研究进展[J].中国农学通报,2008,24(1):258-265.
[5]张金锦,段增强.设施菜地土壤次生盐渍化的成因、危害及其分类与分级标准的研究进展[J].土壤,2011,43(3):361-366.
[6]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,2000.
[7]张志良,瞿伟箐.植物生理学实验指导[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2003.
[8]彭振,何守朴,孙君灵,等.陆地棉苗期耐盐性的高效鉴定方法[J].作物学报,2014,40(3):476-486.
[9]CHANDNAR,AZOOZM,AHMADP.Saltstressinplants-signalling,omicsandadaptations[M].NewYork:Springer,2013:1.
[10]熊雪,桂维阳,刘沫含,等.不同紫花苜蓿品种在均匀与不均匀胁迫下的耐盐性评价[J].草业学报,2018a,27(9):67-76.
[11]熊雪,罗建川,魏雨其,等.不均匀盐胁迫对紫花苜蓿生长特性的影响[J].中国农业科学,2018b,51(11):2072-2083.
[12]赵跃锋,任晓雪,陈昆.盐胁迫对茄子种子萌发、光合指标及叶绿素荧光参数的影响[J].天津农业科学,2018(8):4-6,10.
[13]张玲,王华,周静,等.N a C l胁迫对两个辣椒品种幼苗叶绿素荧光参数等生理特性的影响[J].浙江农业学报,2017,29(4):597-604.
[14]徐严,王文磊,许凯,等.不同盐度胁迫对坛紫菜叶状体生理指标的影响[J].应用海洋学学报,2018,37(3):380-386.
[15]邢建宏,潘德灼,谭芳林,等. N a C l胁迫对秋茄根系渗透调节物质含量的影响[J].生态环境学报,2017,26(11):1865-1871.
[16]张国新,王秀萍,姚玉涛,等.主成分分析及隶属函数法对菊芋苗期耐盐性评价[J].安徽农业科学,2018,46(30):77-79.
[17]高雪,朱林,苏莹.基于隶属函数法的甜高粱孕穗期耐盐性综合评价[J].南方农业学报,2018(9):1736-1744.
[18]于伟,刘卫东,柳李旺,等.隶属函数法对1 2个茄种幼苗期耐盐性的筛选与鉴定[J].江苏农业科学,2015,43(11):228-230.
[19]张国新,王秀萍,鲁雪林,等.隶属函数法鉴定水稻品种耐盐性[J].安徽农学通报(上半月刊),2011,17(1):36-37.
[2]中国农业科学院蔬菜花卉研究所.中国蔬菜栽培学:第2版[M].北京:中国农业出版社,2009:7.
[3]胡德斌.莲藕系列食品加工技术[J].现代农业,2002(7):41.
[4]李彦,张英鹏,孙明,等.盐分胁迫对植物的影响及植物耐盐机理研究进展[J].中国农学通报,2008,24(1):258-265.
[5]张金锦,段增强.设施菜地土壤次生盐渍化的成因、危害及其分类与分级标准的研究进展[J].土壤,2011,43(3):361-366.
[6]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,2000.
[7]张志良,瞿伟箐.植物生理学实验指导[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2003.
[8]彭振,何守朴,孙君灵,等.陆地棉苗期耐盐性的高效鉴定方法[J].作物学报,2014,40(3):476-486.
[9]CHANDNAR,AZOOZM,AHMADP.Saltstressinplants-signalling,omicsandadaptations[M].NewYork:Springer,2013:1.
[10]熊雪,桂维阳,刘沫含,等.不同紫花苜蓿品种在均匀与不均匀胁迫下的耐盐性评价[J].草业学报,2018a,27(9):67-76.
[11]熊雪,罗建川,魏雨其,等.不均匀盐胁迫对紫花苜蓿生长特性的影响[J].中国农业科学,2018b,51(11):2072-2083.
[12]赵跃锋,任晓雪,陈昆.盐胁迫对茄子种子萌发、光合指标及叶绿素荧光参数的影响[J].天津农业科学,2018(8):4-6,10.
[13]张玲,王华,周静,等.N a C l胁迫对两个辣椒品种幼苗叶绿素荧光参数等生理特性的影响[J].浙江农业学报,2017,29(4):597-604.
[14]徐严,王文磊,许凯,等.不同盐度胁迫对坛紫菜叶状体生理指标的影响[J].应用海洋学学报,2018,37(3):380-386.
[15]邢建宏,潘德灼,谭芳林,等. N a C l胁迫对秋茄根系渗透调节物质含量的影响[J].生态环境学报,2017,26(11):1865-1871.
[16]张国新,王秀萍,姚玉涛,等.主成分分析及隶属函数法对菊芋苗期耐盐性评价[J].安徽农业科学,2018,46(30):77-79.
[17]高雪,朱林,苏莹.基于隶属函数法的甜高粱孕穗期耐盐性综合评价[J].南方农业学报,2018(9):1736-1744.
[18]于伟,刘卫东,柳李旺,等.隶属函数法对1 2个茄种幼苗期耐盐性的筛选与鉴定[J].江苏农业科学,2015,43(11):228-230.
[19]张国新,王秀萍,鲁雪林,等.隶属函数法鉴定水稻品种耐盐性[J].安徽农学通报(上半月刊),2011,17(1):36-37.