油茶炭疽病的发生与植株内含物和酶活性的关系研究
|
摘要
本文对在舒城县河棚镇选择四个不同感病品种的油茶单株的炭疽病发病率进行了定期调查,同时对其果实和叶片内含物(单宁、花青素、可溶性总糖、还原糖), pH、缓冲容量及三种酶(苯丙氨酸解氨酶、多酚氧化酶、过氧化物酶)活性进行了测定分析,主要研究结果如下:
1.在对油茶林的病害调查中发现,不同品种油茶发病率差异极为显著。高抗植株叶片全年累计发病率为11.4%,果实累计发病率为17.8%,;而高感植株叶片(尤其是新叶)发病率在30%以上,果实发病率高达100%,发病率是高抗植株的4倍,基本上绝产。
2.在发病季节,所有油茶品种的果实单宁含量大致呈下降趋势,与果实成熟度、累计发病率呈负相关,一元回归的相关系数最高达到0.9237;单宁含量与品种抗病性之间也呈负相关,8、9月份的相关系数达到R2=0.8314。抗病植株Ⅰ、Ⅱ叶片的新增发病率与叶片单宁含量呈反比;感病植株Ⅲ、Ⅳ叶片的新增发病率与叶片单宁含量呈正比。
3.油茶各单株果实的pH值在抗病单株和感病单株间差异不显著(方差分析结果分别为F=2.351,p=0.1109),在发病季节, pH值与新增发病率呈显著的正相关,与抗病性呈负相关。叶片滤液的pH值在5~9月间变化很小,且抗病单株和感病单株间差异不显著(方差分析结果分别为F=0.1410,p=0.9342),相关系数最高值仅为0.6955(一元回归)。但pH值总体上还是呈现上升趋势,即与叶片成熟度呈正相关,发病率呈显著的正相关,与新增发病率也呈显著的正相关。
4.油茶叶片和果实滤液的缓冲容量在5~9月间变化量很大,其趋势呈现上升态势,且与果实和叶片发病率呈明显的正相关,相关系数最高达到0.935。果实的缓冲容量与抗病性呈正相关,叶片前四个月油茶植株缓冲容量与抗病性成正比,9月份呈反比。
5.油茶果实和叶片的花青素含量在生长季节总体上呈波浪式的上升趋势,而各感病等级的植株之间花青素含量差异在5~6月、8~9月较为显著,这一期间也正是病害发生的盛期。但果实5个月份平均花青素含量与最终发病率呈负相关,即花青素含量越高,果实的抗病性也越强。
6.油茶果实和叶片中的可溶性总糖含量呈递增趋势,与成熟度和发病率呈正相关。不同感病品种的单株之间的果实可溶性糖含量差异均极显著,且除品种Ⅱ外可溶性糖含量与抗病性呈正相关(9月),果实可溶性糖含量与果实的新增发病率也呈显著的正相关。叶片可溶性糖含量与抗病性也呈负相关。
7.油茶果实和叶片中的还原糖含量总体上呈V型曲线。果实的还原糖含量与抗病性无明显相关性。叶片的还原糖含量与发病率呈微弱的正相关。
8.油茶健康果实中PPO活性与各品种的发病率呈正相关,相关系数最高的为R2=0.86;油茶健康果实中多酚氧化酶活性与抗病性呈负相关(8、9月),健康叶片中PPO活性与抗病性呈正相关(9月)。
9.油茶健康果实中的POD活性与不同感病品种的抗病性呈负相关(7、8、9月);但与果实的成熟度及发病率呈正相关。油茶健康叶片中的POD活性与各单株的发病率呈弱的正相关,最大相关系数R2为0.6808;感病植株叶片过氧化物酶活性在发病的两个高峰期5～6月、8～9月POD活性忽然下降,并且与新增发病率呈反比。
10.油茶健康果实和叶片中的PAL活性与感病率和叶片果实的成熟度呈正相关,与抗病性也呈显著的正相关,最大相关系数分别达到0.944和0.9987(二元回归)。
In this paper, the inclusions such as tannin, procyanidins, soluble sugar and reducing sugar and pH, buffer capacity and enzymatic activity (PAL, PPO, POD) of fruits and leaves of four different camellia varieties were determinated and analyzed in HePeng town, ShuCheng country. Main results are as follows:
1. It was found that the different of incidence rate of different camellia varieties was difference in disease survey. The cumulative incidence rate of highly resistance plants’leaves was 11.4% all year round, and the incidence rate of fruits are 17.8%. But the incidence rate of most highly susceptible (especially the fresh leaves) about 50%,the most high of the incidence rate of fruits arrive 100%,four times of highly resistance plants, and it almost must yield.
2. The tannin content of fruits exposed features as downward trend. Fruits maturity and incidence were negative effect on tannin content, the highest correlation coefficient of Simple Liner Regression was 0.9237; tannin content was negative effect on resistance and the correlation coefficient of simple liner regression was0.9325 in September. The tannin content of resistance plants’leaves was negative effect on additional incidence rate, and the tannin content of susceptible plants’leaves was positive effect on additional incidence rate.
3. There were small difference in the fruits’pH value and the results of the analysis of variance Were F=2.351,p=0.1109,the pH value was negative effect on resistance and positive effect on additional incidence rate . There were also small changes in the leaves’pH range from May to September, and there were no significant difference between resistance plants and susceptible plants, the results of the analysis of variance Were F=0.1410,p=0.9342, the highest correlation coefficient of Simple Liner Regression was 0.6955; The pH value of leaves exposed features as upward trend, which was negative effect on leaves maturity, incidence and added incidence rate.
4. There were big changes in the leaves’buffer capacity from May to September, and there were significant difference between resistance plants and susceptible plants, the highest correlation coefficient of Simple Liner Regression was 0.935; The buffer capacity value of leaves and fruits exposed features as upward trend on the whole, which were positive effect on maturity and incidence . The buffer capacity of fruits was positive effect on resistance, and the buffer capacity of leaves was positive effect on resistance from May to August and negative on resistance in September.
5. The anthocyanin content of fruits and leaves were positive effect on maturity and incidence. The fruits’anthocyanin content of different susceptible were positive effect on resistance from June to August, but there were negative effect on resistance in September. and have no significant relationship with resistance. The fruits’anthocyanins content was positive effect on resistance.
6. Total soluble sugar content of fruits and leaves was increasing trend, which were positive effect on maturity and incidence. The soluble sugar content of fruit from different susceptible plants had significantly differences, which have positive effect on resistance except VarietyⅠand positive effect on additional incidence. On the contrary, the total soluble sugar content of leaves was negative effect on resistance.
7. The reducing sugar content of fruits and leaves of Camellia oleifera was V-curve between May and September on the whole. The fruits’reducing sugar content had no significant relationship with resistance. But the leaves’reducing sugar content showed a weak positive correlation with incidence.
8. PPO enzymatic activity of camellia healthy fruits were positive effect on maturity and incidence, the highest Correlation coefficient of Simple Liner Regression was 0.86, but resistance was negative effect on PPO enzymatic activity of fruits in August and September and positive effect on PPO enzymatic activity of leaves in September.
9. POD enzymatic activity of camellia healthy fruits was negative effect on resistance in different susceptible from July to September, but it was positive effect on maturity and incidence between May and September. POD enzymatic activity of camellia healthy leaves showed a weak positive correlation with resistance, the highest Correlation coefficient of Simple Liner Regression was 0.6808; furthermore, there was negative effect on additional incidence between May and September.
10. PAL enzymatic activity of camellia healthy fruits and leaves were positive effect on maturity, incidence and resistance, the Correlation coefficient of Binary logistic regression was 0.6955.
1.在对油茶林的病害调查中发现,不同品种油茶发病率差异极为显著。高抗植株叶片全年累计发病率为11.4%,果实累计发病率为17.8%,;而高感植株叶片(尤其是新叶)发病率在30%以上,果实发病率高达100%,发病率是高抗植株的4倍,基本上绝产。
2.在发病季节,所有油茶品种的果实单宁含量大致呈下降趋势,与果实成熟度、累计发病率呈负相关,一元回归的相关系数最高达到0.9237;单宁含量与品种抗病性之间也呈负相关,8、9月份的相关系数达到R2=0.8314。抗病植株Ⅰ、Ⅱ叶片的新增发病率与叶片单宁含量呈反比;感病植株Ⅲ、Ⅳ叶片的新增发病率与叶片单宁含量呈正比。
3.油茶各单株果实的pH值在抗病单株和感病单株间差异不显著(方差分析结果分别为F=2.351,p=0.1109),在发病季节, pH值与新增发病率呈显著的正相关,与抗病性呈负相关。叶片滤液的pH值在5~9月间变化很小,且抗病单株和感病单株间差异不显著(方差分析结果分别为F=0.1410,p=0.9342),相关系数最高值仅为0.6955(一元回归)。但pH值总体上还是呈现上升趋势,即与叶片成熟度呈正相关,发病率呈显著的正相关,与新增发病率也呈显著的正相关。
4.油茶叶片和果实滤液的缓冲容量在5~9月间变化量很大,其趋势呈现上升态势,且与果实和叶片发病率呈明显的正相关,相关系数最高达到0.935。果实的缓冲容量与抗病性呈正相关,叶片前四个月油茶植株缓冲容量与抗病性成正比,9月份呈反比。
5.油茶果实和叶片的花青素含量在生长季节总体上呈波浪式的上升趋势,而各感病等级的植株之间花青素含量差异在5~6月、8~9月较为显著,这一期间也正是病害发生的盛期。但果实5个月份平均花青素含量与最终发病率呈负相关,即花青素含量越高,果实的抗病性也越强。
6.油茶果实和叶片中的可溶性总糖含量呈递增趋势,与成熟度和发病率呈正相关。不同感病品种的单株之间的果实可溶性糖含量差异均极显著,且除品种Ⅱ外可溶性糖含量与抗病性呈正相关(9月),果实可溶性糖含量与果实的新增发病率也呈显著的正相关。叶片可溶性糖含量与抗病性也呈负相关。
7.油茶果实和叶片中的还原糖含量总体上呈V型曲线。果实的还原糖含量与抗病性无明显相关性。叶片的还原糖含量与发病率呈微弱的正相关。
8.油茶健康果实中PPO活性与各品种的发病率呈正相关,相关系数最高的为R2=0.86;油茶健康果实中多酚氧化酶活性与抗病性呈负相关(8、9月),健康叶片中PPO活性与抗病性呈正相关(9月)。
9.油茶健康果实中的POD活性与不同感病品种的抗病性呈负相关(7、8、9月);但与果实的成熟度及发病率呈正相关。油茶健康叶片中的POD活性与各单株的发病率呈弱的正相关,最大相关系数R2为0.6808;感病植株叶片过氧化物酶活性在发病的两个高峰期5～6月、8～9月POD活性忽然下降,并且与新增发病率呈反比。
10.油茶健康果实和叶片中的PAL活性与感病率和叶片果实的成熟度呈正相关,与抗病性也呈显著的正相关,最大相关系数分别达到0.944和0.9987(二元回归)。
In this paper, the inclusions such as tannin, procyanidins, soluble sugar and reducing sugar and pH, buffer capacity and enzymatic activity (PAL, PPO, POD) of fruits and leaves of four different camellia varieties were determinated and analyzed in HePeng town, ShuCheng country. Main results are as follows:
1. It was found that the different of incidence rate of different camellia varieties was difference in disease survey. The cumulative incidence rate of highly resistance plants’leaves was 11.4% all year round, and the incidence rate of fruits are 17.8%. But the incidence rate of most highly susceptible (especially the fresh leaves) about 50%,the most high of the incidence rate of fruits arrive 100%,four times of highly resistance plants, and it almost must yield.
2. The tannin content of fruits exposed features as downward trend. Fruits maturity and incidence were negative effect on tannin content, the highest correlation coefficient of Simple Liner Regression was 0.9237; tannin content was negative effect on resistance and the correlation coefficient of simple liner regression was0.9325 in September. The tannin content of resistance plants’leaves was negative effect on additional incidence rate, and the tannin content of susceptible plants’leaves was positive effect on additional incidence rate.
3. There were small difference in the fruits’pH value and the results of the analysis of variance Were F=2.351,p=0.1109,the pH value was negative effect on resistance and positive effect on additional incidence rate . There were also small changes in the leaves’pH range from May to September, and there were no significant difference between resistance plants and susceptible plants, the results of the analysis of variance Were F=0.1410,p=0.9342, the highest correlation coefficient of Simple Liner Regression was 0.6955; The pH value of leaves exposed features as upward trend, which was negative effect on leaves maturity, incidence and added incidence rate.
4. There were big changes in the leaves’buffer capacity from May to September, and there were significant difference between resistance plants and susceptible plants, the highest correlation coefficient of Simple Liner Regression was 0.935; The buffer capacity value of leaves and fruits exposed features as upward trend on the whole, which were positive effect on maturity and incidence . The buffer capacity of fruits was positive effect on resistance, and the buffer capacity of leaves was positive effect on resistance from May to August and negative on resistance in September.
5. The anthocyanin content of fruits and leaves were positive effect on maturity and incidence. The fruits’anthocyanin content of different susceptible were positive effect on resistance from June to August, but there were negative effect on resistance in September. and have no significant relationship with resistance. The fruits’anthocyanins content was positive effect on resistance.
6. Total soluble sugar content of fruits and leaves was increasing trend, which were positive effect on maturity and incidence. The soluble sugar content of fruit from different susceptible plants had significantly differences, which have positive effect on resistance except VarietyⅠand positive effect on additional incidence. On the contrary, the total soluble sugar content of leaves was negative effect on resistance.
7. The reducing sugar content of fruits and leaves of Camellia oleifera was V-curve between May and September on the whole. The fruits’reducing sugar content had no significant relationship with resistance. But the leaves’reducing sugar content showed a weak positive correlation with incidence.
8. PPO enzymatic activity of camellia healthy fruits were positive effect on maturity and incidence, the highest Correlation coefficient of Simple Liner Regression was 0.86, but resistance was negative effect on PPO enzymatic activity of fruits in August and September and positive effect on PPO enzymatic activity of leaves in September.
9. POD enzymatic activity of camellia healthy fruits was negative effect on resistance in different susceptible from July to September, but it was positive effect on maturity and incidence between May and September. POD enzymatic activity of camellia healthy leaves showed a weak positive correlation with resistance, the highest Correlation coefficient of Simple Liner Regression was 0.6808; furthermore, there was negative effect on additional incidence between May and September.
10. PAL enzymatic activity of camellia healthy fruits and leaves were positive effect on maturity, incidence and resistance, the Correlation coefficient of Binary logistic regression was 0.6955.
引文
[1]李合生.现代植物生理学(第2版)[M].高等教育出版社, 363~363
[2]王敬文.油茶抗炭疽病菌Colletotrichum camelliae机制的研究:I.油茶皂甙在抗炭疽病[J].林业科学, 1989, (1): 22~28
[3]孙丽艳,韩一凡.对云斑天牛有不同抗性的杨树品种中化学物质的分析[J].林业科学, 1995, 31(4): 338~345
[4]Kerling, L R. Reactions of elm wood to attracks of Ophiostoma ulmi (Buism) Nannf [M]. Forestry Abstracts, 1995, Vol, 56: 1743
[5]赵仕光,朱玮.杨树溃疡病菌毒素对杨树树皮愈伤组织超微结构的影响[J].林业科学研究, 1998, 11(3): 253～259
[6]殷培军,马志卿,冯俊涛等. VFB诱导烟草叶片生理生化变化与TMV抗性的关系[J].西北农业学报, 2005, 14(2): 91~95
[7]邢会琴,李敏权,徐秉良.过氧化物酶和苯丙氨酸解氨酶与苜蓿白粉病抗性的关系[J].草地学报, 2007, 15(4): 376~380
[8] Yamada, T, Ito, S. Factors affecting the age-related resistant of hinoki stem to seirdium unicorne infection [J]. Journal of the Japanese Forestry Society, 1995, 77(1): 66~71
[9]赵仕光,景耀,杨俊秀等.用愈伤组织测定杨树对溃疡病的抗性[J].森林病虫通讯, 1993(4): 1~4
[10]苏开君,潭松山.杉木抗炭疽病机制的初步研究[J].中南林学院, 1987(1): 18~26
[11]叶建仁,周明显,李传道等.松针过氧化物酶及其对松针褐斑病抗性[J].南京林业大学学报, 1978(4): 27~36
[12]万贤崇,汪安琳.黑杨派无性系对杨树褐斑病抗性比较[J].南京林业大学学报, 1987(1): 18~26
[13]郭文硕,黄宗安.锥栗对栗疫病抗性与过氧化物酶的关系[J].福建林学院学报, 2000, 20(1): 5~8
[14]黄世文,王玲,王全永.纹枯病菌对不同水稻品种叶片中抗病性相关酶活性的影响[J].中国水稻科学, 2008, 22(2): 2l9~222
[15]向玉英,围舜明,侯艳.杨树溃疡病与树皮酚类化合物关系的研究[J].森林病虫通讯, 1993(1): 5~7
[16]陈志谊.水稻纹枯病抗性机制的研究[J].中国农业科学, 1992, 25(4): 41~46
[17]刘娟.小麦在叶锈病菌侵染过程中过氧化物酶及多酚氧化酶活性变化[J].河北农业大学学报, 1998, 12(3): 41~46
[18] Wahlstrom, K T, Johansson, M. Structural responses in bark to mechanical wouding and Armillaria ostoyae infection in seedings of Pinus sylvestris [J]. European Journal of ForestPathology, 1992, 22(2-3): 56~76
[19]于汉寿.在细胞水平水稻品种与白叶枯病菌菌株的互作研究[J].南京农业大学学报, 1994, 20(3): 351~356
[20]王生荣.不同黄瓜品种感染赤星病菌后一些酶含量的变化[J].山东农业大学学报, 1999, 5(30): 179~182
[21]叶茂炳.苯丙氨酸解氨酶和绿原酸与小麦抗赤酶病性的关系[J].南京农业大学学报, 1990, 16(3): 103~107
[22]郭文硕.杉木对炭疽病的抗性与苯丙氨酸解氨酶的关系[J].应用与环境生物学报, 2002, 8(6): 592~595
[23]郭文硕,林清洪.油桐品种抗黑斑病与超氧化物歧化酶之间的关系[J].林业科学研究(专刊), 1996, 161~163
[24]万贤崇,沈伯葵,方炎明.松树对枯梢病抗性机制研究[J].林业科学研究(专刊), 1996, 59~62
[25]Cahill, D M, Bennett, I J, Mccomb, J A. Mechanism of resistance to phytophthora cinnamomi in clonal, micropropagated [J]. Eucalyptus marginata.Plant Pathology, 1993, 42(6): 865~872
[26] Guo Q, Zhao BL. Shen SR et al. ESR study on the structure-antioxidant activity relationship of tea catechins and their epimers [J]. Biochim Biophys Acta, 1999, 1427:13~23
[27]Rioux, D, Ouelletle, G B. Barrier zone formation in host and non-host trees inoculated with Opiostoma ulmi, I. [J] Anatomy and biochemistry. Canadian Journal of Botany, 1991, 69(9): 2055~2073
[28] Bos, M A, Vennat B, Meunier M T et al. Procyanidins from tormentil: antioxidant properties towards lipoperoxidation and anti-elastase activity [J]. Biol Pharm Bull, 1996, 19: 146~148
[29] Terao, J, Piskula M, Yao G. Protective effect of epicatechin, epicatechin gallate and quercetin on lipid peroxidation in phospholipid bilayers [J]. Arch Biochem Biophys, 1994, 308: 278~284
[30]胡小平,孙卉等.植物芪类植保素研究进展[J].西北农林科技大学学报, 2003, 31(1): 157~160
[31]邵素琴,李建中.植物诱抗剂研究进展[J].农药, 2002, 41(6): 12~14
[32]郑世英.植物抗病的物质代谢基础.德州学院学报[J], 2001, 17(4): 74~76
[33]余萍,林玉满.甘薯薯瘟病原细菌对甘薯植保素的诱导初探[J].福建师范大学学报自然学版, 1996, 12(2): 67~71
[34]李兴红等.棉花黄萎病抗病机制的研究进展[J].河北农业大学学报, 1995, 18(4): 118~123
[35]檀根甲,李增智,薛莲.苹果果实中几种生化物质的含量与抗采后炭疽病的关系[J].植物生理学通讯, 2007, 43(5): 857~860
[36]刁毅.植物诱导抗病性的结构抗性机制[J].攀枝花学院学报综合版, 2006, 23(1): 116~118
[37]毛爱军,王永健,冯兰香等.水杨酸诱导辣椒抗疫病生化机制的研究[J].中国农学通报, 2005, 21(5): 219~222,468
[38]陈庆河,翁启勇,胡方平等.青枯无致病力菌株诱导番茄抗青枯病的生化机制[J].福建农林大学学报自然科学版, 2003, 32(3): 296~300
[39]宾金华,姜胜.茉莉酸甲酯诱导烟草幼苗抗炭疽病与PAL活性及细胞壁物质的关系[J].植物生理学报, 2000, 26(1): 1~6
[40]宾金华,潘瑞积.茉莉酸甲酯诱导烟草幼苗抗病与氧化酶活性和木质素含量的关系[J].应用与环境生物学报, 1999, 5(2): 160~164
[41]胡景江,朱伟.杨树细菌壁HRGP和木质素的诱导积累与其对溃疡病抗性的关系[J].植物病理学报, 1999, 29(2): 151~156
[42]骆桂芬,邹艳华.黄瓜叶片中木质素含量与抗霜霉病的关系[J].吉林农业大学学报, 1995, 17(2): 18~21
[43]Bmhvande S S, Sathe, S K,Salunkhe,D K Chemistry and Safety of plant Polyphenols In Nutritional and Tecological aspect of Food Safety [J]. Friedman, M. Ed, plenum New York, 1984, 457~495
[44]Nicholson R L, Hammerschmidt R. Phenol compounds and their roles in disease resistance [J]. Ann Rev Phytopathol, 1992, 30: 369~389
[45]Vance C P, Kirk T K, Sherwood R T. Lignification as a mechanism of disease resistance [J]. Ann Rev Phytopathol, 1980, 18: 259~288
[64]Har, R D, Harris P J. Phenolic constituents of the cell walls of dicotyledons [J]. Biochem System Ecol, 1981, 9: 189~203
[47] Sarig, P, Zutkhi Y, Lisker N . Natural and induced resistance of table grapes to bunch rots [M]. Proceedings of the international postharvest science conference, 1998, 1, 1
[48]刘莉华,宛晓春,李大祥.黄酮类化合物抗氧化活性构效关系的研究进展(综述)[J].安徽农业大学学报, 2002, 29(3): 265~270
[49] Cahill, D M, Bennett, I J, McComb, J A. Mechanisms of resistance to Phytophthora cinnamomi in clonal, micropropagated Eucalyptus marginata [J]. Plant Pathology, 1993, 42(6): 685~872
[50]向玉英,围舜明,侯艳.杨树溃疡病与树皮酚类化合物关系的研究[J].森林病虫通讯, 1993(1): 5~7
[51]覃正亚,王永安,苏立刚等.湖南省油茶林经挤效益研究[J].经挤林研究. 2002, 20(4): 4～9
[52]陈学泽.湖南油茶林红垠的物理化学性质研究[J].经济林研究, 2004, 22(1): 43～45
[53]吴玉柱,季延平.山东杨树主要品种对溃疡病抗性研究[J].森林病虫通讯, 2000, 4: 10~13
[54]吴献忠.棉铃不同生育期单宁含量对铃炭疽病的影响[J].莱阳农学院学报, 1991, 8(1): 51~54
[55]刘国坤,吴祖建,谢联辉等.植物单宁对烟草花叶病毒的抑制活性[J].福建农林大学学报(自然科学版), 2003, 32(3): 292~295
[56]林益明,黄舒静,黄玉杰等.不同温度处理对两种木麻黄单宁提前的影响[J].厦门大学学报自然科学版, 2007, 46(4): 583~586
[57]彭丽莎,卢向阳,洪亚辉.谷物单宁提取方法的改进及高粱稻单宁含量的分析[J].湖南农业大学学报, 1999, 25(1): 13~15
[58]何洪英.单宁的生理活性[J].饮料工业, 2001, 4(5): 19~21
[59]朱南山,张彬,李丽力.单宁的抗营养作用机理及处理措施[J].中国饲料, 2006, 17: 26~29
[60]陈红英,林南英,谢金伦.塔拉粉中单宁含量的测定[J].云南化工, 2006, 33(1): 44~45
[61]宋凤鸣,郑重.棉酚和单宁含量对棉花对枯萎病抗性之间的关系[J].浙江农业大学学报, 1997, 23(5): 529~532
[62]甘莉,吕金殿.棉花品种中糖基单宁含量与抗黄萎病的关系[J].陕西农业科学, 1989, 6: 13~14
[63]沈永波,李光旭等.苹果果实内含物与轮纹病抗性的关系[J].北方果树, 2003(6): 9~10
[64]宋凤鸣,郑重.棉花感染枯萎病后糖含量及蔗糖酶活性的变化及其与抗病性的关系[J].浙江农业学报, 1996, 8(2): 91~95
[65]高海燕,赵镭,吴继红等.利用缓冲容量检测苹果汁中原果实含量的方法研究[J].中国食品学报, 2007,7(3): 122~126
[66]李青青,赵辉,于志明等.染色木材pH值与缓冲容量的比较分析[J].木材工业, 2006, 20(6): 17~19
[67]Harvey E.Arjona.紫果西番莲和粉色西番莲的生长与化学成分[J].福建热作科技, 1992, 3-4: 73~74
[68]杨江帆,郑德勇,叶乃兴等.乌龙茶多糖的单糖组成及结构的研究[J].茶叶科学技术, 2007, 4: 1~3
[69]郝桂堂,戴军,陈尚卫等.夏枯草多糖的分离、纯化及结构初步分析[J].天然产物研究与开发, 2007, 19: 591~594,625
[70]李娟,王红,王晋焜等.毛细管气相色谱法测定多糖的单糖组成[J].化学研究与应用, 2005, 19(5): 521~523
[71]杜敏华,田龙.小跟蒜多糖的提取纯化及其单糖组分的鉴定[J].食品工业科技, 2007, 4(28): 77~80
[72]孙明礼,张静.半枝莲粗多糖提取工艺及单糖组分的研究[J].食品工业科技2008, 2(29):65~67,70
[73]彭凌,朱必凤,高建林等.油茶肉质果多糖的分离纯化及单糖组成研究[J].北方园艺, 2008(3): 46~47
[74]宋茹,韦荣编.微波法萃取柑桔皮多糖的研究[J].粮油食品科技, 2008, 2(16): 24~26
[75]朱银玲,谭竹钧,李伟才等.杨桃多糖的提取研究[J].食品工业科技, 2008, 3: 105~107
[76]李海燕,刘惕若.辣椒品种对疫病的抗性研究——氨酸、丙二醛与可溶性糖在抗病中的作用[J].中国农学通报, 2006, 22(11): 315~317
[77]杨光道,段琳,束庆龙等.油茶果皮花青素糖含量和PAL活性与炭疽病的关系[J].林业科学, 2007, 43(6): 100~104
[78]贺立红,韩锡军.茉莉酸甲酯对烟草幼苗可溶性物质含量的影响及与诱导抗病的关系[J].华南师范大学学报(自然科学版), 2002, 4, 88~94
[79]段琳,杨光道,束庆龙等.油茶果皮颜色对炭疽病的抗性的影响[J].经济林研究, 2005, 23(2): 9~12
[80]蒋选利.过氧化物酶与植物抗病性研究进展[J].西北农林科技大学学报, 2001, 29(6): 124~129
[81]樊自红.过氧化物酶和苯丙氨酸解氨酶与毛白杨抗锈性的关系[J].植物病理学报, 1989, 19(2): 95~100
[82]杨家书.植物苯丙酸类代谢与小麦对白粉病抗性的关系[J].植物病理学报, 1986, 16(3): 169~174
[83]潘建菁.青枯菌侵染后烟株体内过氧化物酶活性的变化及其与抗病性的关系[J].中国烟草科学, 2004, 3: 28~30
[84]叶建人,黄素红.抗松针褐斑病湿地松体内氧化酶的变化[J].南京林业大学报, 1994, 19(1): 8~14
[85]胡青平,徐建国.辣椒感染清枯菌后POD活性及同工酶的变化[J].西北大学学报, 2007, 37(3): 425~428
[86]江昌俊.苯丙氨酸解氨酶的研究进展[J].安徽农业大学学报, 2001, 28(4): 425~430
[87]王敬文,薛应龙.植物苯丙氨酸解氨酶的研究Ⅰ[J].植物生理学报, 1981, 7(4): 373~375
[88]王敬文,薛应龙.植物苯丙氨酸解氨酶的研究Ⅱ[J].植物生理学报, 1982, 8(1): 35~37
[89]王敬文,薛应龙.植物苯丙氨酸解氨酶的研究Ⅲ[J].植物生理学报, 1982, 8(3): 373~275
[90]秦国政,田世平,刘海波等.拮抗菌与病原菌处理对采后桃果实多酚氧化酶、过氧化物酶及苯丙氨酸解氨酶的诱导[J].中国农业科学, 2003, 36(1): 89~93
[91]杨艳丽,谭挺.马铃薯不同品种组织汁液pH值与抗病性的相关分析[J].云南农业大学学报, 2008, 23(2): 253~256
[92]张欣.与植物抗病性有关酶的研究进展[J].华南热带农业大学学报, 2000, 6(1): 41~44
[93]徐东生,孟志卿.月季抗黑斑病机理研究[J].安徽农业科学, 2007, 35(27): 8532~8533
[94]李惠华,谢志南,赖瑞云等.不同番木瓜品种植株感染环斑花叶病毒后PAL、PPO、POD活性的变化[J].亚热带植物科学, 2007, 36(4): 1~4
[95]束庆龙,张良富.中国油茶栽培与病虫害防治[M]. 2009, 5: 73~78
[2]王敬文.油茶抗炭疽病菌Colletotrichum camelliae机制的研究:I.油茶皂甙在抗炭疽病[J].林业科学, 1989, (1): 22~28
[3]孙丽艳,韩一凡.对云斑天牛有不同抗性的杨树品种中化学物质的分析[J].林业科学, 1995, 31(4): 338~345
[4]Kerling, L R. Reactions of elm wood to attracks of Ophiostoma ulmi (Buism) Nannf [M]. Forestry Abstracts, 1995, Vol, 56: 1743
[5]赵仕光,朱玮.杨树溃疡病菌毒素对杨树树皮愈伤组织超微结构的影响[J].林业科学研究, 1998, 11(3): 253～259
[6]殷培军,马志卿,冯俊涛等. VFB诱导烟草叶片生理生化变化与TMV抗性的关系[J].西北农业学报, 2005, 14(2): 91~95
[7]邢会琴,李敏权,徐秉良.过氧化物酶和苯丙氨酸解氨酶与苜蓿白粉病抗性的关系[J].草地学报, 2007, 15(4): 376~380
[8] Yamada, T, Ito, S. Factors affecting the age-related resistant of hinoki stem to seirdium unicorne infection [J]. Journal of the Japanese Forestry Society, 1995, 77(1): 66~71
[9]赵仕光,景耀,杨俊秀等.用愈伤组织测定杨树对溃疡病的抗性[J].森林病虫通讯, 1993(4): 1~4
[10]苏开君,潭松山.杉木抗炭疽病机制的初步研究[J].中南林学院, 1987(1): 18~26
[11]叶建仁,周明显,李传道等.松针过氧化物酶及其对松针褐斑病抗性[J].南京林业大学学报, 1978(4): 27~36
[12]万贤崇,汪安琳.黑杨派无性系对杨树褐斑病抗性比较[J].南京林业大学学报, 1987(1): 18~26
[13]郭文硕,黄宗安.锥栗对栗疫病抗性与过氧化物酶的关系[J].福建林学院学报, 2000, 20(1): 5~8
[14]黄世文,王玲,王全永.纹枯病菌对不同水稻品种叶片中抗病性相关酶活性的影响[J].中国水稻科学, 2008, 22(2): 2l9~222
[15]向玉英,围舜明,侯艳.杨树溃疡病与树皮酚类化合物关系的研究[J].森林病虫通讯, 1993(1): 5~7
[16]陈志谊.水稻纹枯病抗性机制的研究[J].中国农业科学, 1992, 25(4): 41~46
[17]刘娟.小麦在叶锈病菌侵染过程中过氧化物酶及多酚氧化酶活性变化[J].河北农业大学学报, 1998, 12(3): 41~46
[18] Wahlstrom, K T, Johansson, M. Structural responses in bark to mechanical wouding and Armillaria ostoyae infection in seedings of Pinus sylvestris [J]. European Journal of ForestPathology, 1992, 22(2-3): 56~76
[19]于汉寿.在细胞水平水稻品种与白叶枯病菌菌株的互作研究[J].南京农业大学学报, 1994, 20(3): 351~356
[20]王生荣.不同黄瓜品种感染赤星病菌后一些酶含量的变化[J].山东农业大学学报, 1999, 5(30): 179~182
[21]叶茂炳.苯丙氨酸解氨酶和绿原酸与小麦抗赤酶病性的关系[J].南京农业大学学报, 1990, 16(3): 103~107
[22]郭文硕.杉木对炭疽病的抗性与苯丙氨酸解氨酶的关系[J].应用与环境生物学报, 2002, 8(6): 592~595
[23]郭文硕,林清洪.油桐品种抗黑斑病与超氧化物歧化酶之间的关系[J].林业科学研究(专刊), 1996, 161~163
[24]万贤崇,沈伯葵,方炎明.松树对枯梢病抗性机制研究[J].林业科学研究(专刊), 1996, 59~62
[25]Cahill, D M, Bennett, I J, Mccomb, J A. Mechanism of resistance to phytophthora cinnamomi in clonal, micropropagated [J]. Eucalyptus marginata.Plant Pathology, 1993, 42(6): 865~872
[26] Guo Q, Zhao BL. Shen SR et al. ESR study on the structure-antioxidant activity relationship of tea catechins and their epimers [J]. Biochim Biophys Acta, 1999, 1427:13~23
[27]Rioux, D, Ouelletle, G B. Barrier zone formation in host and non-host trees inoculated with Opiostoma ulmi, I. [J] Anatomy and biochemistry. Canadian Journal of Botany, 1991, 69(9): 2055~2073
[28] Bos, M A, Vennat B, Meunier M T et al. Procyanidins from tormentil: antioxidant properties towards lipoperoxidation and anti-elastase activity [J]. Biol Pharm Bull, 1996, 19: 146~148
[29] Terao, J, Piskula M, Yao G. Protective effect of epicatechin, epicatechin gallate and quercetin on lipid peroxidation in phospholipid bilayers [J]. Arch Biochem Biophys, 1994, 308: 278~284
[30]胡小平,孙卉等.植物芪类植保素研究进展[J].西北农林科技大学学报, 2003, 31(1): 157~160
[31]邵素琴,李建中.植物诱抗剂研究进展[J].农药, 2002, 41(6): 12~14
[32]郑世英.植物抗病的物质代谢基础.德州学院学报[J], 2001, 17(4): 74~76
[33]余萍,林玉满.甘薯薯瘟病原细菌对甘薯植保素的诱导初探[J].福建师范大学学报自然学版, 1996, 12(2): 67~71
[34]李兴红等.棉花黄萎病抗病机制的研究进展[J].河北农业大学学报, 1995, 18(4): 118~123
[35]檀根甲,李增智,薛莲.苹果果实中几种生化物质的含量与抗采后炭疽病的关系[J].植物生理学通讯, 2007, 43(5): 857~860
[36]刁毅.植物诱导抗病性的结构抗性机制[J].攀枝花学院学报综合版, 2006, 23(1): 116~118
[37]毛爱军,王永健,冯兰香等.水杨酸诱导辣椒抗疫病生化机制的研究[J].中国农学通报, 2005, 21(5): 219~222,468
[38]陈庆河,翁启勇,胡方平等.青枯无致病力菌株诱导番茄抗青枯病的生化机制[J].福建农林大学学报自然科学版, 2003, 32(3): 296~300
[39]宾金华,姜胜.茉莉酸甲酯诱导烟草幼苗抗炭疽病与PAL活性及细胞壁物质的关系[J].植物生理学报, 2000, 26(1): 1~6
[40]宾金华,潘瑞积.茉莉酸甲酯诱导烟草幼苗抗病与氧化酶活性和木质素含量的关系[J].应用与环境生物学报, 1999, 5(2): 160~164
[41]胡景江,朱伟.杨树细菌壁HRGP和木质素的诱导积累与其对溃疡病抗性的关系[J].植物病理学报, 1999, 29(2): 151~156
[42]骆桂芬,邹艳华.黄瓜叶片中木质素含量与抗霜霉病的关系[J].吉林农业大学学报, 1995, 17(2): 18~21
[43]Bmhvande S S, Sathe, S K,Salunkhe,D K Chemistry and Safety of plant Polyphenols In Nutritional and Tecological aspect of Food Safety [J]. Friedman, M. Ed, plenum New York, 1984, 457~495
[44]Nicholson R L, Hammerschmidt R. Phenol compounds and their roles in disease resistance [J]. Ann Rev Phytopathol, 1992, 30: 369~389
[45]Vance C P, Kirk T K, Sherwood R T. Lignification as a mechanism of disease resistance [J]. Ann Rev Phytopathol, 1980, 18: 259~288
[64]Har, R D, Harris P J. Phenolic constituents of the cell walls of dicotyledons [J]. Biochem System Ecol, 1981, 9: 189~203
[47] Sarig, P, Zutkhi Y, Lisker N . Natural and induced resistance of table grapes to bunch rots [M]. Proceedings of the international postharvest science conference, 1998, 1, 1
[48]刘莉华,宛晓春,李大祥.黄酮类化合物抗氧化活性构效关系的研究进展(综述)[J].安徽农业大学学报, 2002, 29(3): 265~270
[49] Cahill, D M, Bennett, I J, McComb, J A. Mechanisms of resistance to Phytophthora cinnamomi in clonal, micropropagated Eucalyptus marginata [J]. Plant Pathology, 1993, 42(6): 685~872
[50]向玉英,围舜明,侯艳.杨树溃疡病与树皮酚类化合物关系的研究[J].森林病虫通讯, 1993(1): 5~7
[51]覃正亚,王永安,苏立刚等.湖南省油茶林经挤效益研究[J].经挤林研究. 2002, 20(4): 4～9
[52]陈学泽.湖南油茶林红垠的物理化学性质研究[J].经济林研究, 2004, 22(1): 43～45
[53]吴玉柱,季延平.山东杨树主要品种对溃疡病抗性研究[J].森林病虫通讯, 2000, 4: 10~13
[54]吴献忠.棉铃不同生育期单宁含量对铃炭疽病的影响[J].莱阳农学院学报, 1991, 8(1): 51~54
[55]刘国坤,吴祖建,谢联辉等.植物单宁对烟草花叶病毒的抑制活性[J].福建农林大学学报(自然科学版), 2003, 32(3): 292~295
[56]林益明,黄舒静,黄玉杰等.不同温度处理对两种木麻黄单宁提前的影响[J].厦门大学学报自然科学版, 2007, 46(4): 583~586
[57]彭丽莎,卢向阳,洪亚辉.谷物单宁提取方法的改进及高粱稻单宁含量的分析[J].湖南农业大学学报, 1999, 25(1): 13~15
[58]何洪英.单宁的生理活性[J].饮料工业, 2001, 4(5): 19~21
[59]朱南山,张彬,李丽力.单宁的抗营养作用机理及处理措施[J].中国饲料, 2006, 17: 26~29
[60]陈红英,林南英,谢金伦.塔拉粉中单宁含量的测定[J].云南化工, 2006, 33(1): 44~45
[61]宋凤鸣,郑重.棉酚和单宁含量对棉花对枯萎病抗性之间的关系[J].浙江农业大学学报, 1997, 23(5): 529~532
[62]甘莉,吕金殿.棉花品种中糖基单宁含量与抗黄萎病的关系[J].陕西农业科学, 1989, 6: 13~14
[63]沈永波,李光旭等.苹果果实内含物与轮纹病抗性的关系[J].北方果树, 2003(6): 9~10
[64]宋凤鸣,郑重.棉花感染枯萎病后糖含量及蔗糖酶活性的变化及其与抗病性的关系[J].浙江农业学报, 1996, 8(2): 91~95
[65]高海燕,赵镭,吴继红等.利用缓冲容量检测苹果汁中原果实含量的方法研究[J].中国食品学报, 2007,7(3): 122~126
[66]李青青,赵辉,于志明等.染色木材pH值与缓冲容量的比较分析[J].木材工业, 2006, 20(6): 17~19
[67]Harvey E.Arjona.紫果西番莲和粉色西番莲的生长与化学成分[J].福建热作科技, 1992, 3-4: 73~74
[68]杨江帆,郑德勇,叶乃兴等.乌龙茶多糖的单糖组成及结构的研究[J].茶叶科学技术, 2007, 4: 1~3
[69]郝桂堂,戴军,陈尚卫等.夏枯草多糖的分离、纯化及结构初步分析[J].天然产物研究与开发, 2007, 19: 591~594,625
[70]李娟,王红,王晋焜等.毛细管气相色谱法测定多糖的单糖组成[J].化学研究与应用, 2005, 19(5): 521~523
[71]杜敏华,田龙.小跟蒜多糖的提取纯化及其单糖组分的鉴定[J].食品工业科技, 2007, 4(28): 77~80
[72]孙明礼,张静.半枝莲粗多糖提取工艺及单糖组分的研究[J].食品工业科技2008, 2(29):65~67,70
[73]彭凌,朱必凤,高建林等.油茶肉质果多糖的分离纯化及单糖组成研究[J].北方园艺, 2008(3): 46~47
[74]宋茹,韦荣编.微波法萃取柑桔皮多糖的研究[J].粮油食品科技, 2008, 2(16): 24~26
[75]朱银玲,谭竹钧,李伟才等.杨桃多糖的提取研究[J].食品工业科技, 2008, 3: 105~107
[76]李海燕,刘惕若.辣椒品种对疫病的抗性研究——氨酸、丙二醛与可溶性糖在抗病中的作用[J].中国农学通报, 2006, 22(11): 315~317
[77]杨光道,段琳,束庆龙等.油茶果皮花青素糖含量和PAL活性与炭疽病的关系[J].林业科学, 2007, 43(6): 100~104
[78]贺立红,韩锡军.茉莉酸甲酯对烟草幼苗可溶性物质含量的影响及与诱导抗病的关系[J].华南师范大学学报(自然科学版), 2002, 4, 88~94
[79]段琳,杨光道,束庆龙等.油茶果皮颜色对炭疽病的抗性的影响[J].经济林研究, 2005, 23(2): 9~12
[80]蒋选利.过氧化物酶与植物抗病性研究进展[J].西北农林科技大学学报, 2001, 29(6): 124~129
[81]樊自红.过氧化物酶和苯丙氨酸解氨酶与毛白杨抗锈性的关系[J].植物病理学报, 1989, 19(2): 95~100
[82]杨家书.植物苯丙酸类代谢与小麦对白粉病抗性的关系[J].植物病理学报, 1986, 16(3): 169~174
[83]潘建菁.青枯菌侵染后烟株体内过氧化物酶活性的变化及其与抗病性的关系[J].中国烟草科学, 2004, 3: 28~30
[84]叶建人,黄素红.抗松针褐斑病湿地松体内氧化酶的变化[J].南京林业大学报, 1994, 19(1): 8~14
[85]胡青平,徐建国.辣椒感染清枯菌后POD活性及同工酶的变化[J].西北大学学报, 2007, 37(3): 425~428
[86]江昌俊.苯丙氨酸解氨酶的研究进展[J].安徽农业大学学报, 2001, 28(4): 425~430
[87]王敬文,薛应龙.植物苯丙氨酸解氨酶的研究Ⅰ[J].植物生理学报, 1981, 7(4): 373~375
[88]王敬文,薛应龙.植物苯丙氨酸解氨酶的研究Ⅱ[J].植物生理学报, 1982, 8(1): 35~37
[89]王敬文,薛应龙.植物苯丙氨酸解氨酶的研究Ⅲ[J].植物生理学报, 1982, 8(3): 373~275
[90]秦国政,田世平,刘海波等.拮抗菌与病原菌处理对采后桃果实多酚氧化酶、过氧化物酶及苯丙氨酸解氨酶的诱导[J].中国农业科学, 2003, 36(1): 89~93
[91]杨艳丽,谭挺.马铃薯不同品种组织汁液pH值与抗病性的相关分析[J].云南农业大学学报, 2008, 23(2): 253~256
[92]张欣.与植物抗病性有关酶的研究进展[J].华南热带农业大学学报, 2000, 6(1): 41~44
[93]徐东生,孟志卿.月季抗黑斑病机理研究[J].安徽农业科学, 2007, 35(27): 8532~8533
[94]李惠华,谢志南,赖瑞云等.不同番木瓜品种植株感染环斑花叶病毒后PAL、PPO、POD活性的变化[J].亚热带植物科学, 2007, 36(4): 1~4
[95]束庆龙,张良富.中国油茶栽培与病虫害防治[M]. 2009, 5: 73~78