干旱胁迫下不同甘蔗品种叶片抗氧化酶活性和渗透调节物质含量的变化
|
摘要
我国80%以上的甘蔗种植在旱地,干旱缺水是影响甘蔗生产的主要因子。研究不同甘蔗品种的抗旱生理生化特性对于抗旱甘蔗品种选育和抗旱栽培技术研发具有重要意义。本研究采用桶栽方式,对抗旱性有差异的F172(抗旱性强)和YL6(不抗旱)2个甘蔗品种在苗期及伸长期分别进行不同程度的干旱胁迫及复水处理,探讨了不同甘蔗品种抗旱性与叶片抗氧化酶活性和渗透调节物质含量的关系。结果表明:抗旱性较强的甘蔗品种F172在干旱胁迫条件下叶片中氧自由基清除酶系中的超氧化物歧化酶(SOD)、过氧化物酶(POD)和抗氧化保护酶过氧化氢酶(CAT)活性及非可溶性蛋白(ISP)、可溶性糖(SS)含量显著提高;与不抗旱甘蔗品种YL6相比,甘蔗品种F172叶片中丙二醛(MDA)、非可溶性糖(ISS)含量相对比较稳定;而不抗旱甘蔗品种YL6在干旱胁迫条件下叶片中氧自由基清除酶反应较迟钝,MDA和ISS含量上升幅度相对较大,而可溶性蛋白(SP)、ISP含量下降。说明甘蔗叶片抗氧化酶活性和渗透调节物质含量的差异是品种耐干旱胁迫存在差异的生理基础。
Over 80% of sugarcane is grown in poor upland field in China, and drought stress has become an important factor limiting the sugarcane production. Investigating the physiological mechanisms of sugarcane drought resistance is important to breed new drought resistant sugarcane varieties and develop drought resistant farming technologies. In the present study, pot culture was used to grow two sugarcane varieties, drought resistant F172 and drought sensitive YL6, and different drought stress and re-watering treatments were applied at seedling and elongating stages, respectively. The relationships between the drought resistance and the activities of antioxidant enzymes and the contents of osmotic substances in different sugarcane varieties were investigated. The results showed that the activity of oxygen radical scavenging enzyme system including superoxide dismutase(SOD) and peroxidase, the activity of antioxidant protective enzyme catalase(CAT), and the contents of insoluble protein(ISP), soluble sugar(SS) in the leaves of the drought resistant variety F172 were significantly increased under drought stress, and the contents of malondialdehyde(MDA) and insoluble sugar(ISS) were relatively stable compared with the drought sensitive variety YL6. The oxygen radical scavenging enzyme system in the drought sensitive variety YL6 was lagged in response to drought stress with significant increases in MAD and ISS and decreases in SP and ISP in leaves. It indicates that the differences in the activities of antioxidant enzymes and the contents of osmotic regulation substances in the leaves are the physiological foundation of the difference in resistance of sugarcane varieties to drought stress.
Over 80% of sugarcane is grown in poor upland field in China, and drought stress has become an important factor limiting the sugarcane production. Investigating the physiological mechanisms of sugarcane drought resistance is important to breed new drought resistant sugarcane varieties and develop drought resistant farming technologies. In the present study, pot culture was used to grow two sugarcane varieties, drought resistant F172 and drought sensitive YL6, and different drought stress and re-watering treatments were applied at seedling and elongating stages, respectively. The relationships between the drought resistance and the activities of antioxidant enzymes and the contents of osmotic substances in different sugarcane varieties were investigated. The results showed that the activity of oxygen radical scavenging enzyme system including superoxide dismutase(SOD) and peroxidase, the activity of antioxidant protective enzyme catalase(CAT), and the contents of insoluble protein(ISP), soluble sugar(SS) in the leaves of the drought resistant variety F172 were significantly increased under drought stress, and the contents of malondialdehyde(MDA) and insoluble sugar(ISS) were relatively stable compared with the drought sensitive variety YL6. The oxygen radical scavenging enzyme system in the drought sensitive variety YL6 was lagged in response to drought stress with significant increases in MAD and ISS and decreases in SP and ISP in leaves. It indicates that the differences in the activities of antioxidant enzymes and the contents of osmotic regulation substances in the leaves are the physiological foundation of the difference in resistance of sugarcane varieties to drought stress.
引文
[1]李杨瑞.现代甘蔗学[M].北京:中国农业出版社,2010:1-24.
[2]Li Y R,Song X P,Wu J M,et al.Sugar industry and improved sugarcane farming technologies in China[J].Sugar Tech,2016,18(6):603-611.
[3]陈少裕.膜脂过氧化与植物逆境胁迫[J].植物学通报,1989(4):211-217.
[4]文建成,陈学宽,符菊芬,等.质膜透性与丙二醛(MDA)含量的变化评价甘蔗品种抗旱性初探[J].甘蔗,1998(3):1-5.
[5]Kar M,Mishra D.Catalase,peroxidase,and polyphenoloxidase activities during rice leaf senescence[J].Plant Physiology,1976,57(2):315-319.
[6]Gill S S,Tuteja N.Reactive oxygen species and antioxidant machinery in abiotic stress tolerance in crop plants[J].Plant Physiology and Biochemistry,2010,48:909-930.
[7]Farooq M,Wahid A,Lee D J.Exogenously applied polyamines increase drought tolerance of rice by improving leaf water status,photosynthesis and membrane properties[J].Acta Physiologiae Plantarum,2009,31(5):937-945.
[8]Mittler R,Vanderauwera S,Suzuki N,et al.ROS signaling:the new wave[J].Trends Plant Sci,2011,16(6):300-309.
[9]Türkan I,Bor M,?zdemir F,et al.Differential responses of lipid peroxidation and antioxidants in the leaves of drought-tolerant P.acutifolius gray and drought-sensitive P.vulgaris L.subjected to polyethylene glycol mediated water stress[J].Plant Science,2005,168(1):223-231.
[10]刘锦春,钟章成,何跃军.干旱胁迫及复水对喀斯特地区柏木幼苗活性氧清除系统的影响[J].应用生态学报,2011,22(11):2836-2 840.
[11]Uzilday B,Turkan I,Sekmen A H,et al.Comparison of ROS formation and antioxidant enzymes in Cleome gynandra(C?)and Cleome spinosa(C?)under drought stress[J].Plant Sci,2012,182(1):59-70.
[12]Droillard M J,Paulin A,Massot J C.Free radical production,catalase and superoxide dismutase activities and membrane integrity during senescence of petals of cut carnations(Dianthus caryophyllus)[J].Physiologia Plantarum,1987,71(2):197-202.
[13]Neill S J,Desikan R,Clarke A,et al.Hydrogen peroxide and nitric oxide as signalling molecules in plants[J].J Exp Bot,2002,53(372):1 237-1 247.
[15]Willekens H,Chamnongpol S,Davey M,et al.Catalase is a sink for H2O2 and is indispensable for stress defence in C3 plants[J].EMBO J,1997,16(16):4 806-4 816.
[16]Loss S P,Siddique K H M.Morphological and physiological traits associated with wheat yieldincreases in mediterranean environments[J].Advances in Agronomy,1994,52(8):229-276.
[17]赵瑞雪,朱慧森,程钰宏,等.植物脯氨酸及其合成酶系研究进展[J].草业科学,2008,25(2):90-97.
[18]霍仕平,晏庆九,宋光英,等.玉米抗旱鉴定的形态和生理生化指标研究进展[J].干旱地区农业研究,1995,13(3):67-73.
[19]韩蕊莲,李丽霞,梁宗锁.干旱胁迫下沙棘叶片细胞膜透性与渗透调节物质研究[J].西北植物学报,2003,23(1):23-27.
[20]Blokhina O,Virolainen E,Fagerstedt K V.Antioxidants,oxidative damage and oxygen deprivation stress:a review[J].Annals of Botang,2003,91(2):179-194.
[21]罗明珠,刘子凡,梁计南,等.甘蔗抗旱性与叶片某些生理、生化性状的关系[J].亚热带农业研究,2005,(1):14-16.
[22]Zhang F J,Zhang K K,Du C Z,et al.Effect of drought stress on anatomical structure and chloroplast ultrastructure in leaves of sugarcane[J].Sugar Tech,2014,17(1):41-48.
[23]杨建波,诸葛少军,黎海涛,等.干旱胁迫对甘蔗生长生理的影响及品种抗旱性评价[J].南方农业学报,2012,43(8):1114-1 120.
[24]金伟,杨丽涛,英潘,等.不同甘蔗品种对干旱和复水的生态生理响应[J].南方农业学报,2012,43(12):1 945-1 951.
[25]朱理环,邢永秀,杨丽涛,等.干旱胁迫对苗期甘蔗叶片水分和叶绿素荧光参数的影响[J].安徽农业科学,2010,38(23):12570-12 573.
[26]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.
[27]胡秀丽,李艳辉,杨海荣,等.HSP70可提高干旱高温复合胁迫诱导的玉米叶片抗氧化防护能力[J].作物学报,2010,36(4):636-644.
[28]杜润峰,郝文芳,王龙飞.达乌里胡枝子抗氧化保护系统及膜脂过氧化对干旱胁迫及复水的动态响应[J].草业学报,2012,21(2):51-61.
[29]黄子锋,王凤兰,黄宇航.干旱胁迫和复水对一品红生理特性的影响[J].广东农业科学,2014,41(5):100-104.
[30]梁新华,史大刚.干旱胁迫对光果甘草幼苗根系MDA含量及保护酶POD、CAT活性的影响[J].干旱地区农业研究,2006,24(3):108-110.
[31]李明,王根轩.干旱胁迫对甘草幼苗保护酶活性及脂质过氧化作用的影响[J].生态学报,2002,22(4):503-507.
[32]赵天宏,沈秀瑛,杨德光,等.水分胁迫对不同抗旱性玉米幼苗叶片蛋白质的影响[J].沈阳农业大学学报,2002,33(6):408-410.
[33]吴凯朝,黄诚梅,邓智年,等.干旱后复水对甘蔗伸长期生理生化特性的影响[J].南方农业学报,2015,46(7):1 166-1 172.
[34]吉增宝,王进鑫,李继文,等.不同季节干旱及复水对刺槐幼苗可溶性糖含量的影响[J].西北植物学报,2009,29(7):1358-1 363.
[35]阿力木·沙比尔,阿不来提·阿不都热依木,齐曼·尤努斯,等.干旱胁迫与复水对3份新疆狗牙根新品系渗透调节物质的影响[J].新疆农业大学学报,2009,32(6):12-15.
[2]Li Y R,Song X P,Wu J M,et al.Sugar industry and improved sugarcane farming technologies in China[J].Sugar Tech,2016,18(6):603-611.
[3]陈少裕.膜脂过氧化与植物逆境胁迫[J].植物学通报,1989(4):211-217.
[4]文建成,陈学宽,符菊芬,等.质膜透性与丙二醛(MDA)含量的变化评价甘蔗品种抗旱性初探[J].甘蔗,1998(3):1-5.
[5]Kar M,Mishra D.Catalase,peroxidase,and polyphenoloxidase activities during rice leaf senescence[J].Plant Physiology,1976,57(2):315-319.
[6]Gill S S,Tuteja N.Reactive oxygen species and antioxidant machinery in abiotic stress tolerance in crop plants[J].Plant Physiology and Biochemistry,2010,48:909-930.
[7]Farooq M,Wahid A,Lee D J.Exogenously applied polyamines increase drought tolerance of rice by improving leaf water status,photosynthesis and membrane properties[J].Acta Physiologiae Plantarum,2009,31(5):937-945.
[8]Mittler R,Vanderauwera S,Suzuki N,et al.ROS signaling:the new wave[J].Trends Plant Sci,2011,16(6):300-309.
[9]Türkan I,Bor M,?zdemir F,et al.Differential responses of lipid peroxidation and antioxidants in the leaves of drought-tolerant P.acutifolius gray and drought-sensitive P.vulgaris L.subjected to polyethylene glycol mediated water stress[J].Plant Science,2005,168(1):223-231.
[10]刘锦春,钟章成,何跃军.干旱胁迫及复水对喀斯特地区柏木幼苗活性氧清除系统的影响[J].应用生态学报,2011,22(11):2836-2 840.
[11]Uzilday B,Turkan I,Sekmen A H,et al.Comparison of ROS formation and antioxidant enzymes in Cleome gynandra(C?)and Cleome spinosa(C?)under drought stress[J].Plant Sci,2012,182(1):59-70.
[12]Droillard M J,Paulin A,Massot J C.Free radical production,catalase and superoxide dismutase activities and membrane integrity during senescence of petals of cut carnations(Dianthus caryophyllus)[J].Physiologia Plantarum,1987,71(2):197-202.
[13]Neill S J,Desikan R,Clarke A,et al.Hydrogen peroxide and nitric oxide as signalling molecules in plants[J].J Exp Bot,2002,53(372):1 237-1 247.
[15]Willekens H,Chamnongpol S,Davey M,et al.Catalase is a sink for H2O2 and is indispensable for stress defence in C3 plants[J].EMBO J,1997,16(16):4 806-4 816.
[16]Loss S P,Siddique K H M.Morphological and physiological traits associated with wheat yieldincreases in mediterranean environments[J].Advances in Agronomy,1994,52(8):229-276.
[17]赵瑞雪,朱慧森,程钰宏,等.植物脯氨酸及其合成酶系研究进展[J].草业科学,2008,25(2):90-97.
[18]霍仕平,晏庆九,宋光英,等.玉米抗旱鉴定的形态和生理生化指标研究进展[J].干旱地区农业研究,1995,13(3):67-73.
[19]韩蕊莲,李丽霞,梁宗锁.干旱胁迫下沙棘叶片细胞膜透性与渗透调节物质研究[J].西北植物学报,2003,23(1):23-27.
[20]Blokhina O,Virolainen E,Fagerstedt K V.Antioxidants,oxidative damage and oxygen deprivation stress:a review[J].Annals of Botang,2003,91(2):179-194.
[21]罗明珠,刘子凡,梁计南,等.甘蔗抗旱性与叶片某些生理、生化性状的关系[J].亚热带农业研究,2005,(1):14-16.
[22]Zhang F J,Zhang K K,Du C Z,et al.Effect of drought stress on anatomical structure and chloroplast ultrastructure in leaves of sugarcane[J].Sugar Tech,2014,17(1):41-48.
[23]杨建波,诸葛少军,黎海涛,等.干旱胁迫对甘蔗生长生理的影响及品种抗旱性评价[J].南方农业学报,2012,43(8):1114-1 120.
[24]金伟,杨丽涛,英潘,等.不同甘蔗品种对干旱和复水的生态生理响应[J].南方农业学报,2012,43(12):1 945-1 951.
[25]朱理环,邢永秀,杨丽涛,等.干旱胁迫对苗期甘蔗叶片水分和叶绿素荧光参数的影响[J].安徽农业科学,2010,38(23):12570-12 573.
[26]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.
[27]胡秀丽,李艳辉,杨海荣,等.HSP70可提高干旱高温复合胁迫诱导的玉米叶片抗氧化防护能力[J].作物学报,2010,36(4):636-644.
[28]杜润峰,郝文芳,王龙飞.达乌里胡枝子抗氧化保护系统及膜脂过氧化对干旱胁迫及复水的动态响应[J].草业学报,2012,21(2):51-61.
[29]黄子锋,王凤兰,黄宇航.干旱胁迫和复水对一品红生理特性的影响[J].广东农业科学,2014,41(5):100-104.
[30]梁新华,史大刚.干旱胁迫对光果甘草幼苗根系MDA含量及保护酶POD、CAT活性的影响[J].干旱地区农业研究,2006,24(3):108-110.
[31]李明,王根轩.干旱胁迫对甘草幼苗保护酶活性及脂质过氧化作用的影响[J].生态学报,2002,22(4):503-507.
[32]赵天宏,沈秀瑛,杨德光,等.水分胁迫对不同抗旱性玉米幼苗叶片蛋白质的影响[J].沈阳农业大学学报,2002,33(6):408-410.
[33]吴凯朝,黄诚梅,邓智年,等.干旱后复水对甘蔗伸长期生理生化特性的影响[J].南方农业学报,2015,46(7):1 166-1 172.
[34]吉增宝,王进鑫,李继文,等.不同季节干旱及复水对刺槐幼苗可溶性糖含量的影响[J].西北植物学报,2009,29(7):1358-1 363.
[35]阿力木·沙比尔,阿不来提·阿不都热依木,齐曼·尤努斯,等.干旱胁迫与复水对3份新疆狗牙根新品系渗透调节物质的影响[J].新疆农业大学学报,2009,32(6):12-15.