干旱胁迫及复水处理对‘秋福’红树莓苗期生理特性的影响
|
摘要
为了研究红树莓苗期的抗旱性,从而给红树莓生产上的水分管理提供理论依据,以盆栽‘秋福’红树莓组培苗为材料,研究了不同时间的自然干旱胁迫及复水处理对其叶片和根系生理指标的影响情况。结果表明:随着干旱胁迫时间的延长,叶片相对含水量呈现下降的变化趋势;叶片相对电导率和丙二醛含量随着干旱胁迫时间的延长均呈增加的变化趋势,当干旱胁迫时间为25 d时均达到最大值,分别为52.95%和11.94μmol·g~(-1);随着干旱胁迫时间的延长,其根系活力表现出先升高后下降的变化趋势,当干旱胁迫时间为10 d时,其根系活力最高,为358.21μg·g~(-1)h~(-1),较对照组增加96.33%;根系渗透调节物质脯氨酸、可溶性蛋白质、可溶性糖的含量随着干旱胁迫时间的增加均呈现出先升高后下降的变化趋势,当干旱胁迫时间为20 d时均达到最大值。干旱胁迫后复水处理5 d,其各项生理指标均可得以不同程度的恢复。
In order to study drought resistance in Rubus idaeus seedlings and to provide some theoretical bases for water management in R. idaeus production, using potted ‘Autumn Bliss' R. idaeus tissue culture seedlings as materials,effects of natural drought stress for different durations and rewatering treatment on physiological indexes of leaves and roots were studied. The results showed that, with prolongation of drought stress, relative water content in leaves showed a downward trend. Relative conductivity and malondialdehyde content in leaves were increased with prolongation of drought stress. When drought stress time was 25 d, which reached the maximum values and were 52.95% and 11.94μmol·g~(-1), respectively. Root activity was increased firstly and then decreased with prolongation of drought stress. When drought stress time was 10 d, root activity was the highest(358.21 μg·g~(-1) h~(-1)), which was 96.33% higher than that of the control. Contents of osmotic adjustments in roots, including proline, soluble protein and soluble sugar, were increased firstly and then decreased with prolongation of drought stress, and reached the maximum when drought stress time was20 d. After rewatering for 5 d, all physiological indexes were recoveried at different degrees.
In order to study drought resistance in Rubus idaeus seedlings and to provide some theoretical bases for water management in R. idaeus production, using potted ‘Autumn Bliss' R. idaeus tissue culture seedlings as materials,effects of natural drought stress for different durations and rewatering treatment on physiological indexes of leaves and roots were studied. The results showed that, with prolongation of drought stress, relative water content in leaves showed a downward trend. Relative conductivity and malondialdehyde content in leaves were increased with prolongation of drought stress. When drought stress time was 25 d, which reached the maximum values and were 52.95% and 11.94μmol·g~(-1), respectively. Root activity was increased firstly and then decreased with prolongation of drought stress. When drought stress time was 10 d, root activity was the highest(358.21 μg·g~(-1) h~(-1)), which was 96.33% higher than that of the control. Contents of osmotic adjustments in roots, including proline, soluble protein and soluble sugar, were increased firstly and then decreased with prolongation of drought stress, and reached the maximum when drought stress time was20 d. After rewatering for 5 d, all physiological indexes were recoveried at different degrees.
引文
[1]姚觉,于晓英,邱收,等.植物抗旱机理研究进展[J].华北农学报,2007,22(S1):51-56.
[2]张青,彭祚登.七叶树幼苗对水分胁迫和复水的生理响应[J].中南林业科技大学学报,2018,38(4):46-53.
[3]武燕奇,郭素娟.5个板栗品种(系)对持续干旱胁迫和复水的生理响应[J].中南林业科技大学学报,2017,37(10):67-74.
[4]张彦妮,雷蕾,夏斌.干旱胁迫及复水对黄连花幼苗生长和生理特性的影响[J].草业科学,2016,33(9):1681-1689.
[5]张清华,王彦辉,郭浩.树莓栽培实用技术[M].北京:中国林业出版社,2013:4.
[6]郭芳,刘海鹏,李保国,等.应用响应面法优化红树莓组培苗增殖培养条件[J].江苏农业科学,2017,45(18):56-59.
[7]崔雪艳,董敬超.红树莓海尔特兹初代培养中防止外植体褐化的研究[J].现代农业科技,2011(22):13-124.
[8]朴日子.曹后男,陈艳秋.等.无刺红树莓组织培养快速繁殖技术研究[J].吉林农业大学学报,2006.28(4):411-414.
[9]张利利.秋果型红树莓延后栽培条件及修剪方式研究[D].南京:南京农业大学,2015.
[10]代志国,高庆玉,代永霞,等.红树莓优质丰产栽培技术[J].北方园艺,2009(2):160-162.
[11]马寿鹏,冯建森,茹菊霞,等.河西走廊荒漠化地区树莓栽培关键技术[J].中国园艺文摘,2017(3):179-180.
[12]王迎,齐国辉,张雪梅,等.不同结果期红树莓果实中主要功能性成分含量变化[J].食品工业科技,2017(23):40-43.
[13]李小萍.梁琪.辛秀兰.等.红树莓果中鞣花酸提取物的抗氧化性研究[J].食品科技,2010,35(5):182-185.
[14]郭军战.彭少兵.水分胁迫对树莓、黑毒不同品种生长及膜脂过氧化作用的影响[J].西北林学院学报.2004,19(4):12-15.
[15]桂毓.刘婷.杨静慧.等.不同树莓品种叶片解剖结构与抗旱性的关系[J].北方园艺,2016(21):36-40.
[16]高俊凤.植物生理学实验指导[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2006.
[17]邹琦.植物生理学实验指导[M].北京:中国农业出版社,2000.
[18]白宝璋,金锦子,白菘,等.玉米根系活力TTC测定法的改良[J],玉米科学,1994,2(4):44-47.
[19]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.
[20]许建军.干旱对华北蓝盆花叶结构和生理特性的影响[D].哈尔滨:东北林业大学,2016.
[21]彭远英,颜红海,郭来春,等.燕麦属不同倍性种质资源抗旱性状评价及筛选[J].生态学报,2011,31(9):2478-4791.
[22]张露婷,吴江,梅丽,等.喜树种源耐盐能力评价及耐盐指标筛选[J].林业科学,2011,47(11):66-72.
[23]卫星,王政权,张国珍,等.水曲柳苗木不同根序对干旱胁迫的生理生化反应[J].林业科学,2009,45(6):16-21.
[24]张旭东,王智威,韩清芳,等.玉米早期根系构型及其生理特性对土壤水分的响应[J].生态学报,2016,36(10):2969-2977.
[25]闫江艳,张永清,冯晓敏,等.干旱胁迫及复水对不同黍稷品种根系生理特性的影响[J].西北植物学报,2012,32(2):0348-0354.
[26]庞海颖,牛东伟,李彦慧.施用保水剂对仁用杏抗旱生理特性的影响[J].河北农业大学学报,2017,40(4):43-49.
[27]郝树荣,郭相平,王为木.水稻拔节期水分胁迫及复水对叶片叶绿体色素的影响[J].河海大学学报(自然科学版),2006,34(4):397-400.
[28]潘昕,邱权,李吉跃,等.干旱胁迫对青藏高原6种植物生理指标的影响[J].生态学报,2014,34(13):3558-3567.
[29]程宇飞,刘卫东.4个品种新西兰麻的抗旱生理研究及评价[J].经济林研究,2017,35(4):164-170.
[30]吴敏,张文辉,周建云,等.干旱胁迫对栓皮栎幼苗细根的生长与生理生化指标的影响[J].生态学报,2014,34(15):4223-4233.
[2]张青,彭祚登.七叶树幼苗对水分胁迫和复水的生理响应[J].中南林业科技大学学报,2018,38(4):46-53.
[3]武燕奇,郭素娟.5个板栗品种(系)对持续干旱胁迫和复水的生理响应[J].中南林业科技大学学报,2017,37(10):67-74.
[4]张彦妮,雷蕾,夏斌.干旱胁迫及复水对黄连花幼苗生长和生理特性的影响[J].草业科学,2016,33(9):1681-1689.
[5]张清华,王彦辉,郭浩.树莓栽培实用技术[M].北京:中国林业出版社,2013:4.
[6]郭芳,刘海鹏,李保国,等.应用响应面法优化红树莓组培苗增殖培养条件[J].江苏农业科学,2017,45(18):56-59.
[7]崔雪艳,董敬超.红树莓海尔特兹初代培养中防止外植体褐化的研究[J].现代农业科技,2011(22):13-124.
[8]朴日子.曹后男,陈艳秋.等.无刺红树莓组织培养快速繁殖技术研究[J].吉林农业大学学报,2006.28(4):411-414.
[9]张利利.秋果型红树莓延后栽培条件及修剪方式研究[D].南京:南京农业大学,2015.
[10]代志国,高庆玉,代永霞,等.红树莓优质丰产栽培技术[J].北方园艺,2009(2):160-162.
[11]马寿鹏,冯建森,茹菊霞,等.河西走廊荒漠化地区树莓栽培关键技术[J].中国园艺文摘,2017(3):179-180.
[12]王迎,齐国辉,张雪梅,等.不同结果期红树莓果实中主要功能性成分含量变化[J].食品工业科技,2017(23):40-43.
[13]李小萍.梁琪.辛秀兰.等.红树莓果中鞣花酸提取物的抗氧化性研究[J].食品科技,2010,35(5):182-185.
[14]郭军战.彭少兵.水分胁迫对树莓、黑毒不同品种生长及膜脂过氧化作用的影响[J].西北林学院学报.2004,19(4):12-15.
[15]桂毓.刘婷.杨静慧.等.不同树莓品种叶片解剖结构与抗旱性的关系[J].北方园艺,2016(21):36-40.
[16]高俊凤.植物生理学实验指导[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2006.
[17]邹琦.植物生理学实验指导[M].北京:中国农业出版社,2000.
[18]白宝璋,金锦子,白菘,等.玉米根系活力TTC测定法的改良[J],玉米科学,1994,2(4):44-47.
[19]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.
[20]许建军.干旱对华北蓝盆花叶结构和生理特性的影响[D].哈尔滨:东北林业大学,2016.
[21]彭远英,颜红海,郭来春,等.燕麦属不同倍性种质资源抗旱性状评价及筛选[J].生态学报,2011,31(9):2478-4791.
[22]张露婷,吴江,梅丽,等.喜树种源耐盐能力评价及耐盐指标筛选[J].林业科学,2011,47(11):66-72.
[23]卫星,王政权,张国珍,等.水曲柳苗木不同根序对干旱胁迫的生理生化反应[J].林业科学,2009,45(6):16-21.
[24]张旭东,王智威,韩清芳,等.玉米早期根系构型及其生理特性对土壤水分的响应[J].生态学报,2016,36(10):2969-2977.
[25]闫江艳,张永清,冯晓敏,等.干旱胁迫及复水对不同黍稷品种根系生理特性的影响[J].西北植物学报,2012,32(2):0348-0354.
[26]庞海颖,牛东伟,李彦慧.施用保水剂对仁用杏抗旱生理特性的影响[J].河北农业大学学报,2017,40(4):43-49.
[27]郝树荣,郭相平,王为木.水稻拔节期水分胁迫及复水对叶片叶绿体色素的影响[J].河海大学学报(自然科学版),2006,34(4):397-400.
[28]潘昕,邱权,李吉跃,等.干旱胁迫对青藏高原6种植物生理指标的影响[J].生态学报,2014,34(13):3558-3567.
[29]程宇飞,刘卫东.4个品种新西兰麻的抗旱生理研究及评价[J].经济林研究,2017,35(4):164-170.
[30]吴敏,张文辉,周建云,等.干旱胁迫对栓皮栎幼苗细根的生长与生理生化指标的影响[J].生态学报,2014,34(15):4223-4233.