两种野生大豆不同生育期光合特性及染色体核型比较

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2020-0565

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为获得高光效的野生大豆材料及其最佳的生长条件。以丁扒山（丁豆）与凯里学院（凯豆）两种野生大豆为试材,研究其不同生育期光合特性和染色体核型分析。结果表明丁豆叶绿素含量盛花期和结荚期低于凯豆,丁豆叶绿素含量为结荚期显著高于营养期和盛花期,凯豆叶绿素含量为盛花期和结荚期显著高于营养期。凯豆的光合速率、气孔导度、胞间CO₂、蒸腾速率均高于丁豆,凯豆光合速率和气孔导度均为盛花期>结荚期>营养期,丁豆光合速率为盛花期>营养期>结荚期。凯豆结荚期的胞间CO₂浓度呈下降趋势,营养期和盛花期的胞间CO₂浓度呈先下降后上升的趋势。丁豆营养期呈先下降后上升再下降的趋势,其盛花期呈下降趋势,结荚期呈双峰曲线。两种野生大豆蒸腾速率均为结荚期>盛花期>营养期。丁豆LCP为结荚期>盛花期>营养期,LSP和P_max为盛花期>结荚期>营养期。丁豆核型公式为：2n=24m+12sm+4st,凯豆核型公式为：2n=22m+16sm+2st。凯豆较丁豆光合效能利用率高,且两者光合利用效能均为盛花期>结荚期>营养期,丁豆的染色体为2B型,凯豆为2C型。

关键词: 野生大豆, 光合特性, 光响应曲线, 核型分析

Abstract:

To obtain high light efficiency of wild soybean materials and understand their best growth conditions, photosynthetic characteristics and chromosomal karyotype analysis of Dingpashan (Dingdou) and Kaili University (Kaidou) wild soybean at different growth stages were studied. The results show that Dingdou’s chlorophyll content at the flowering stage and the pod setting stage is lower than that of Kaidou. Dingdou’s chlorophyll content in the pod setting stage is significantly higher than that of the vegetative stage and the flowering stage. Kaidou’s chlorophyll content at the flowering stage and the pod setting stage is significantly higher than that at the vegetative stage. The photosynthetic rate, stomatal conductance, intercellular CO₂ and transpiration rate of Kaidou are all higher than those of Dingdou. The photosynthetic rate and stomatal conductance of Kaidou are both higher at the pod setting stage than that at the flowering stage and the vegetative stage. The photosynthetic rate of Dingdou is higher at the flowering stage than that at the vegetative stage and the pod setting stage. The intercellular CO₂concentration of Kaidou shows a decreasing trend at the pod setting stage, while the intercellular CO₂ concentration in the vegetative stage and the flowering stage has a decreasing trend first and then an increasing trend.The intercellular CO₂ concentration at Dingdou’s vegetative stage shows a trend of first decreasing then increasing and decreasing again, that at its flowering stage shows a trend of decreasing, and at the pod setting stage has a bimodal curve. The transpiration rate of the two wild soybean varieties is higher at pod setting stage than that at the flowering stage and the vegetative stage. Dingdou’s LCP is higher at the pod setting stage than that at the flowering stage and the vegetative stage, while LSP and P_max are higher at the flowering stage than that at the pod setting stage and the vegetative stage. The karyotype formula of Dingdou is 2n=24m+12sm+ 4st; the karyotype formula of Kaidou is 2n=22m+ 16sm + 2st. Therefore, the photosynthetic efficiency of Kaidou is higher than that of Dingdou, and the photosynthetic efficiency of both the two varieties are higher at the flowering stage than that at the pod setting stage and the vegetative stage. Dingdou’s chromosome type is 2B, and Kaidou is 2C.

Key words: wild soybean, photosynthetic characteristics, light response curve, karyotype analysis

中图分类号:

S565.1

田鑫, 钟程, 罗欢, 李雪飘. 两种野生大豆不同生育期光合特性及染色体核型比较[J]. 中国农学通报, 2021, 37(27): 32-38.

Tian Xin, Zhong Cheng, Luo Huan, Li Xuepiao. Photosynthetic Characteristics and Chromosome Karyotypes of Two Wild Soybean Varieties: Comparison at Different Growth Stages[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2021, 37(27): 32-38.

图/表 10

参考文献 30

[1]	金晓飞, 曹凤臣, 徐丽娟, 等. 浅谈利用野生大豆创制育种资源和新品种[J]. 东北农业科学, 2017, 42(01):12-15.
[2]	徐艳平, 胡翠美, 张文会, 等. 干旱胁迫对野生大豆幼苗光合作用相关指标的影响[J]. 大豆科学, 2013, 32(03):341-344,348.
[3]	王冰冰. 河北省野生大豆抗草甘膦种质评价及基因克隆[D]. 秦皇岛:河北科技师范学院, 2019.
[4]	董秋平, 赵恢, 张小芳, 等. 低磷胁迫下不同野生大豆的形态和生理响应差异[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2017, 45(09):79-83.
[5]	索荣臻, 王明玖, 赵天启, 等. 野生大豆与栽培大豆杂交后代不同品种(系)的光合特性比较与聚类分析[J]. 中国油料作物学报, 2020, 42(02):255-263.
[6]	李玉姗, 宋羽, 马艳, 等. 新疆地区不同番茄品种的光合特异性比较及高光效品种筛选[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2019, 56(10):1815-1827.
[7]	Sakoda K, Tanaka Y, Long S P, et al. Genetic and physiological diversity in the leaf photosynthetic capacity of soybean[J]. Crop Science, 2016, 56(5):2731-2741. doi: 10.2135/cropsci2016.02.0122 URL
[8]	王娜. 野生大豆与栽培大豆杂交新品系特征特性研究[D]. 呼和浩特:内蒙古农业大学, 2019.
[9]	索荣臻. 野生大豆与栽培大豆杂交后代品种(品系)光合特性的研究[D]. 呼和浩特:内蒙古农业大学, 2018.
[10]	董秋平, 赵恢, 张小芳, 等. 低磷胁迫下不同野生大豆的形态和生理响应差异[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2017, 45(09):79-83.
[11]	Ahmad Q N, Britten E J, Byth D E. A quantitative method of karyotypic analysis applied to the soybean, Glycine max[J]. Cytologia, 1983, 48(4):879-892. doi: 10.1508/cytologia.48.879 URL
[12]	Ladizinsky G, Newell C A, Hymowitz T. Giemsa staining of soybean chromosomes[J]. Journal of Heredity, 1979(6):415-416.
[13]	郑惠玉, 陈端阳. 中国野生大豆根尖染色体细胞学观察初报[J]. 吉林农业科学, 1983(04):34-37.
[14]	钟珍萍, 刘德金, 陈启锋. 大豆种间的核型分析[J]. 福建农学院学报, 1993(02):155-158.
[15]	Fehr W R. Stages of soybean development[J]. Special Report, 1977:1-12
[16]	叶子飘, 于强. 一个光合作用光响应新模型与传统模型的比较[J]. 沈阳农业大学学报, 2007, 38(6).
[17]	李懋学, 陈瑞阳. 关于植物核型分析的标准化问题[J]. 武汉植物学研究, 1985(3):297-302.
[18]	Arano H. Cytological studies in subfamily Caeduideae (Compositae) of Japan. IX. The Karyotype analysis and phylogenetic consideration on Peryaand Ainsliea[J]. Bot May Tokyo, 1963, 76:32-39.
[21]	耿显胜, 肖世奇, 葛晓改. 植物的光合午休[J]. 生物学教学, 2010, 35(12):59-60.
[22]	尚刘群, 陈虹, 潘存德. 新疆南疆盆地2个核桃主栽品种果实不同生育时期光合生理特性[J]. 中国农学通报, 2018, 34(14):61-68.
[23]	刘冰, 白子裕, 孙禹, 等. 杂交大豆叶片光合相关参数日变化及其与环境因子关系[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2019, 47(4):69-71.
[24]	吴廷娟, 田梦平, 董诚明, 等. 不同地黄种质资源光合日动态特性的比较[J]. 北方园艺, 2020(05):115-120.
[25]	张琪. 不同树莓品种光合特性及耐高温研究[D]. 合肥:安徽农业大学, 2018.
[26]	寿惠霞, 王志安, 沈晓霞. 野生大豆和栽培大豆的根尖细胞核型与进化[J]. 浙江农业大学学报, 1997, 23(4):447-450.
[27]	钟珍萍, 刘德金, 陈启锋. 大豆种间的核型分析[J]. 福建农学院学报, 1993(02):155-158.
[28]	王建波, 利容千, 曾于申. 我国大豆属3个种的核型研究[J]. 中国油料, 1986(04):29-32,89.
[29]	王仁雷, 华春, 刘友良, 等. 盐胁迫对水稻光合特性的影响[J]. 南京农业大学学报, 2002, 25(12):11-14.
[30]	李大勇, 王晓慧, 张治安, 等. 半野生和栽培大豆叶片某些光合特性的比较[J]. 中国油料作物学报, 2006(02):172-175.

PAR/[μmol/(m²·s)]	V25-Pn/[μmol/(m²·s)]		R3-Pn/[μmol/(m²·s)]		R5-Pn/[μmol/(m²·s)]
PAR/[μmol/(m²·s)]	丁豆	凯豆	丁豆	凯豆	丁豆	凯豆
0	-0.6827	-1.4225	-0.7529	-0.7749	-0.8810	-1.4072
20	0.7807	0.5269	0.4610	0.3941	0.5952	0.3729
50	2.0747	2.5050	1.5989	1.3280	1.9366	1.9376
100	4.0974	4.4593	3.6500	2.6467	3.8208	4.1088
200	5.3105	5.9800	5.2742	7.2110	5.7061	7.6145
400	6.7687	10.8114	7.5497	11.5366	7.8741	11.4563
800	7.9696	13.9560	10.2199	16.3491	9.9025	15.5567
1200	8.6306	14.8648	11.3047	17.8705	10.6866	17.8271
1600	8.0092	15.1412	11.8100	20.1412	11.1006	17.6903
2000	7.8777	14.8488	11.3395	19.6072	10.4052	17.0275

PAR/[μmol/(m²·s)]	V25-Pn/[μmol/(m²·s)]		R3-Pn/[μmol/(m²·s)]		R5-Pn/[μmol/(m²·s)]
PAR/[μmol/(m²·s)]	丁豆	凯豆	丁豆	凯豆	丁豆	凯豆
0	-0.6827	-1.4225	-0.7529	-0.7749	-0.8810	-1.4072
20	0.7807	0.5269	0.4610	0.3941	0.5952	0.3729
50	2.0747	2.5050	1.5989	1.3280	1.9366	1.9376
100	4.0974	4.4593	3.6500	2.6467	3.8208	4.1088
200	5.3105	5.9800	5.2742	7.2110	5.7061	7.6145
400	6.7687	10.8114	7.5497	11.5366	7.8741	11.4563
800	7.9696	13.9560	10.2199	16.3491	9.9025	15.5567
1200	8.6306	14.8648	11.3047	17.8705	10.6866	17.8271
1600	8.0092	15.1412	11.8100	20.1412	11.1006	17.6903
2000	7.8777	14.8488	11.3395	19.6072	10.4052	17.0275

名称	时期	LCP	LSP	P_max	Rd	R²
丁豆	营养期	8.5143	1067.6232	7.8613	0.5962	0.9949
	盛花期	10.9833	1502.2111	10.3656	0.5114	0.9965
	结荚期	11.3364	1323.1997	9.9716	0.6561	0.9972
凯豆	营养期	13.6770	1639.6078	15.2097	0.7858	0.9941
	盛花期	18.1563	2000.0000	19.2078	0.8892	0.9971
	结荚期	16.9639	1827.4400	18.9893	0.9811	0.9983

名称	时期	LCP	LSP	P_max	Rd	R²
丁豆	营养期	8.5143	1067.6232	7.8613	0.5962	0.9949
	盛花期	10.9833	1502.2111	10.3656	0.5114	0.9965
	结荚期	11.3364	1323.1997	9.9716	0.6561	0.9972
凯豆	营养期	13.6770	1639.6078	15.2097	0.7858	0.9941
	盛花期	18.1563	2000.0000	19.2078	0.8892	0.9971
	结荚期	16.9639	1827.4400	18.9893	0.9811	0.9983

名称	染色体数	类型	臂比(L/S)	核型公式	最长/最短	类型	不对称系数/%
丁豆	24	m	1.30~1.69	2n=24m+12sm+2st	2.71	2B	61.93
	12	sm	1.71~2.83
	4	st	3.13~3.40
凯豆	22	m	1.24~1.66	2n=22m+16sm+2st	5.32	2C	64.31
	16	sm	2.00~2.52
	2	st	3.17~3.40