淹水胁迫下辣椒种子生理生化响应研究

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb17040163

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 为了促进辣椒抗涝品种的选育，解决辣椒生产上的涝害问题，通过研究淹水胁迫对辣椒种子生理生化的影响，为辣椒抗涝品种选育提供理论基础。以生产上对水涝敏感度低、中、高的3个辣椒品种‘S15’、‘A46’和‘A77’的种子为材料，研究淹水胁迫0 h、10 h、5天、10天、15天、20天后的种子发芽率和发芽势的变化，以及不同淹水时间对SOD、POD、CAT、GR、AMS和LPS等酶活力，PRO和可溶性糖含量，超氧阴离子、羟自由基含量的影响。研究发现，不同水涝敏感度种子对水涝的响应不一。淹水20天后，‘S15’的超氧阴离子、羟自由基含量最低，Pro和可溶性糖含量最高，谷胱甘肽还原酶活性最高；‘A77’的可溶性糖含量最低，SOD、CAT活性最低，超氧阴离子、羟自由基含量最高。隶属函数分析结果表明，不同种子对淹水胁迫的响应差异随着淹水时间的延长不再产生较大差异，5天可作为辣椒抗涝鉴定淹水胁迫的最佳时间。研究认为，不同辣椒种子表现出的耐涝性与生产实际一致；各项生理生化指标相关性不显著，均可作为辣椒品种抗涝性的鉴定指标。

关键词: 变异系数法, 变异系数法, 烤烟, 化学成分, 灰色关联

Abstract: The paper aims to promote the breeding of waterlogging resistant pepper varieties, and to solve the flooding problems of pepper in the production，to study the effects of flooding stress on the physiological and biochemical characteristics of pepper seeds, and to provide a theoretical basis for the breeding of waterlogging resistant pepper varieties. In this paper the author studied three hot pepper species ‘S15’, ‘A46’ and ‘A77’, which waterlogging sensitivity is low, medium and high in production. Their seeds were under waterlogging respectively for 0 h, 10 h, 5 d, 10 d, 15 d and 20 d. The investigations were carried out on the changes of SOD, POD, CAT and GR activities, proline and soluble sugar contents, superoxide anion and hydroxyl radical contents of the three, and their germination potential and germination rate after different waterlogging stress were also studied. The study found that different waterlogging sensitivity pepper seeds had different response to waterlogging. In the case of severe waterlogging stress, ‘S15’ had the lowest hydroxyl radical and superoxide anion content, the highest content of Pro and soluble sugar and the highest glutathione reductase activity. ‘A77’ had the lowest soluble sugar content, the lowest activity of SOD and CAT, but highest hydroxyl radical content. Waterlogging treatment for 5 days could be used as the best time for waterlogging identification of simulated flood stress. After comprehensive evaluation, different pepper seeds showed the same waterlogging resistance with the actual. The correlation analysis of physiological and biochemical indexes showed that there were no remarkable correlation between each index; all indexes could be used to evaluate the resistance of cultivars under waterlogging stress.

陈娟,刘周斌,危革,康林玉,王静,欧立军. 淹水胁迫下辣椒种子生理生化响应研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2018, 34(13): 68-75.

参考文献

[1]邹学校. 辣椒遗传育种学[M]. 科学出版社, 2009.: 33-38.
[2]Sairam R K,Kumutha D,Ezhimathi K,et. al. Physiology and biochemistry of waterlogging tolerance in plants[J]. Biologia Plantarum, 2008, 52 (3)：401-412.
[3]马瑞娟, 张斌斌, 蔡志翔,等. 不同桃砧木品种对淹水的光合响应及其耐涝性评价[J]. 园艺学报, 2013, 40(3):409-416.
[4]Shin S, Kim S G, Jung G H, et al. Evaluation of waterlogging tolerance with the degree of foliar senescence at early vegetative stage of maize (Zea mays L.)[J]. Journal of Crop Science Biotechnology, 2016, 19(5):393-399.
[5]蔡能, 王晓明, 曾慧杰,等. 3个金银花新品种逆境条件下脯氨酸含量初步分析[J]. 中南林业科技大学学报, 2012, 32(5):161-165.
[6]Xu B, Cheng Y, Zou X, et al. Ethanol content in plants of Brassica napus, L. correlated with waterlogging tolerance index and regulated by lactate dehydrogenase, and citrate synthase[J]. Acta Physiologiae Plantarum, 2016, 38(3):81.
[7]路萍, 张利, 王萌,等. 涝胁迫对不同丹参品系苗期保护酶活性及脂质过氧化作用的影响[J]. 浙江大学学报农业与生命科学版, 2013, 39(1):56-61.
[8]尹冬梅, 管志勇, 陈素梅,等. 菊花及其近缘种属植物耐涝评价体系建立及耐涝性鉴定[J]. 植物遗传资源学报, 2009, 10(3):399-404.
[9]朱向涛, 金松恒, 哀建国,等. 牡丹不同品种耐涝性综合评价[J]. 核农学报, 2017, 31(3):607-613.
[10]郁万文, 蔡金峰, 高长忠. 不同桃砧类型对淹水胁迫的生理响应及耐涝性评价[J]. 中国果树, 2016(3):1-6.
[11]Majumder A L, Sengupta S, Goswami L. Osmolyte Regulation in Abiotic Stress[M]// Abiotic Stress Adaptation in Plants. Springer Netherlands, 2009:349-370.
[12]王树刚, 王振林, 王平,等. 不同小麦品种对低温胁迫的反应及抗冻性评价[J]. 生态学报, 2011, 31(4):1064-1072.
[13]王军, 周美学, 许如根,等. 大麦耐湿性鉴定指标和评价方法研究[J]. 中国农业科学, 2007, 40(10):2145-2152.
[14]徐小万, 雷建军, 罗少波,等. 辣椒苗期耐热耐湿鉴定方法的研究[J]. 核农学报, 2009, 23(5):884-890.
[15]郑佳秋, 顾闽峰, 祖艳侠,等. 辣椒品种苗期耐涝性评价[J]. 江苏农业学报, 2012, 28(2):457-458.
[16]郑佳秋, 郭军, 梅燚,等. 辣椒品种耐涝评价方法研究及耐涝性比较[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2015, 27(4):555-559.
[17]李合生. 植物生理生化实验原理和技术[M]. 高等教育出版社, 2000.
[18]周广生, 梅方竹, 周竹青,等. 小麦不同品种耐湿性生理指标综合评价及其预测[J]. 中国农业科学, 2003, 36(11):1378-1382.
[19]刘瑞君,靖静,李志,等．栽培×野生大豆2个重组自交家系群体种子耐淹性遗传分析[J]大豆科学,2013,32(5)：581-586.
[20]王欣,高贤明. 模拟水淹对三峡库区常见一年生草本植物种子萌发的影响[J]. 植物生态学报,2010,34(12)：1404-1413.
[21]Shetty S R, Chadha R, Babu S, et al. Tolerance or sensitivity responses of Mentha pulegium to osmotic and waterlogging stress in terms of antioxidant defense systems and membrane lipid peroxidation[J]. Environmental Experimental Botany, 2012, 75(1):83–88.
[22] 齐琳, 马娜, 吴雯雯,等. 无花果品种幼苗淹水胁迫的生理响应与耐涝性评估[J]. 园艺学报, 2015, 42(7):1273-1284.
[23]Irfan M, Hayat S, Hayat Q, et al. Physiological and biochemical changes in plants under waterlogging[J]. Protoplasma, 2010, 241(1):3-17.
[24]汪贵斌, 蔡金峰, 何肖华. 涝渍胁迫对喜树幼苗形态和生理的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2009, 33(1):134-140.
[25]马丽峰,李佐同,闫博巍等.没顶淹水对敏感性水稻幼苗生长及抗氧化酶活性的影响[J].植物生理学报,2015, 51 (7): 1082-1090.
[26]Gomathi R, Manohari G, Rakkiyappan P. Antioxidant Enzymes on Cell Membrane Integrity of Sugarcane Varieties Differing in Flooding Tolerance[J]. Sugar Tech, 2012, 14(3):261-265.
[27]Yordanova R Y, Christov K N, Popova L P. Antioxidative enzymes in barley plants subjected to soil flooding[J]. Environmental Experimental Botany, 2004, 51(2):93-101.
[28]姜玉东, 王子华, 高俊平. 谷胱甘肽对切花月季‘Samantha’失水胁迫耐性的影响[J]. 园艺学报, 2010, 37(4):597-606.
[29]柴家荣. 不同烟草类型种子萌发期脂肪酶及脂类物质动态研究[J]. 种子,2010, 29(8):31-33.
[30]Rosanam K, Carlosa J. Germination and anaerobic metabolism of seeds of Tabebuia cassinoides (Lam.) DC subjected to flooding and anoxia[J]. Flora - Morphology Distribution Functional Ecology of Plants, 2010, 205(2):112-117.
[31]Yildiztugay E, Ozfidan-Konakci C, Kucukoduk M, et al. Variations in osmotic adjustment and water relations of Sphaerophysa kotschyana : Glycine betaine, proline and choline accumulation in response to salinity[J]. Botanical Studies, 2014, 55(1):1-9.
[32]Yoshiba Y, Kiyosue T, Nakashima K, et al. Regulation of levels of proline as an osmolyte in plants under water stress.[J]. Plant Cell Physiology, 1997, 38(10):1095.
[33]Albrecht G, Mustroph A, Fox T C. Sugar and fructan accumulation during metabolic adjustment between respiration and fermentation under low oxygen conditions in wheat roots[J]. Physiologia Plantarum, 2004, 120(1):93-105.
[34]张学昆, 范其新, 陈洁,等. 不同耐湿基因型甘蓝型油菜苗期对缺氧胁迫的生理差异响应[J]. 中国农业科学, 2007, 40(3):485-49.
[35]Balakhnina T I. Plant Responses to Soil Flooding[M]// Stress Responses in Plants. Springer International Publishing, 2015, pp:115-142.