云南哈尼族地方水稻‘月亮谷’对褐飞虱取食危害的生理反应

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-0467

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

旨在明确褐飞虱取食危害胁迫下,云南元阳哈尼族水稻地方品种‘月亮谷’的化学防御生理特征。以‘月亮谷’,‘TN1’及‘RHT’稻株为材料,褐飞虱取食胁迫后,采用分光光度计法测定稻株内可溶性糖、丙二醛(MDA)、过氧化氢(H₂O₂)、多酚氧化酶(PPO)和过氧化物酶(POD)的变化。褐飞虱取食胁迫3~96 h后,‘月亮谷’稻株内可溶性糖平均含量下降42.85%（P<0.05,下同）;H₂O₂平均含量增加9.39%;MDA平均含量增加10.77%;多酚氧化酶(PPO)平均活性增加49.96%;过氧化物酶(POD)平均活性下降14.75%。褐飞虱取食胁迫后,云南元阳哈尼族地方水稻品种‘月亮谷’植株内可溶性糖、丙二醛、过氧化氢和主要防御酶较感虫品种‘TN1’反应敏感,且与抗虫品种‘RHT’反应相近。本研究表明,云南哈尼族地方水稻品种‘月亮谷’可作为良好的抗褐飞虱育种材料应用于水稻育种或作为抗性品种推广种植。

关键词: 褐飞虱, 水稻, 月亮谷, 次生产物, 防御酶, 防御反应

Abstract:

Abstract: The purpose of this study is to investigate the physiological characteristics of chemical defense of rice variety ‘Acuce’ of Hani nationality in Yuanyang of Yunnan Province under the feeding stress of brown planthopper. ‘Acuce’, ‘TN1’ and ‘RHT’ were used as materials in this study, the changes of soluble sugar, malondialdehyde (MDA), hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂), polyphenol oxidase (PPO) and peroxidase (POD) in rice plants were determined by spectrophotometer after feeding stress of brown planthopper. After 3-96 h feeding stress, the average soluble sugar content in ‘Acuce’ was decreased by 42.85% (P<0.05, the same below); the average content of H₂O₂ was increased by 9.39%; the average content of MDA was increased by 10.77%; the average activity of polyphenol oxidase (PPO) was increased by 49.96%, while the average activity of peroxidase (POD) was decreased by 14.75%. After feeding stress of brown planthopper, the soluble sugar, malondialdehyde (MDA), hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂) and main defense enzymes in ‘Acuce’ were more sensitive compared with those of the susceptible variety ‘TN1’ and similar to those of the resistant variety ‘RHT’. This study shows that the Hani rice variety ‘Acuce’ in Yunnan can be used as a good breeding material for resistance to brown planthopper or be promoted as a resistant rice variety.

Key words: brown planthopper, rice, ‘Acuce’, secondary products, defense enzyme, defense response

中图分类号:

S511

黄钰, 陈斌, 肖关丽. 云南哈尼族地方水稻‘月亮谷’对褐飞虱取食危害的生理反应[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(9): 123-129.

HUANG Yu, CHEN Bin, XIAO Guanli. The Physiological Response of the Local Rice Variety of ‘Acuce’ of Hani Nationality in Yunnan Against the Feeding of Nilaparvata lugens Stål[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(9): 123-129.

图/表 7

参考文献 34

[1]	TIAN Z, QIAN Q, LIU Q, et al. Allelic diversities in rice starch biosynthesis lead to a diverse array of rice eating and cooking qualities[J]. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 2009, 106(51):21760-21765. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0912396106 URL
[2]	吴碧球, 黄所生, 胡大星, 等. 苗龄、光照强度和施氮量对水稻营养物质的影响及其与抗褐飞虱的关系[J]. 西南农业学报, 2017, 30(5):1048-1056.
[3]	李毅, 张嘉娇, 杜波, 等. 水稻与褐飞虱化学关系的研究进展[J]. 植物生理学报, 2018, 54(4):528-538.
[4]	李春凤, 龚德平, 蔡美仲, 等. 水稻褐飞虱的危害与综合防治[J]. 现代农业研究, 2019(9):77-78,8.
[5]	梁燕, 吴建祥, 齐会会, 等. 西南稻区稻飞虱及引起水稻矮缩病病毒的分布研究. 西南农业学报, 2014, 27(4):1466-1471.
[6]	程家安, 朱金良, 祝增荣, 等. 稻田飞虱灾变与环境调控[J]. 环境昆虫学报, 2008, 30(2):176-182.
[7]	夏青, 沈梅. 元阳梯田红米百年不衰的原因及特性探析——以月亮谷为例[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2014, 42(30):10826-10828.
[8]	张海静, 严盈, 彭露, 等. 韧皮部取食昆虫诱导的植物防御反应[J]. 昆虫学报, 2012, 55(6):736-748.
[9]	侯子强, 林金盛, 马林, 等. 昆虫唾液介导的植物与植食性昆虫防御与反防御研究进展[J]. 湖北民族大学学报:自然科学版, 2020, 38(3):277-282,289.
[10]	陈威, 周强, 李欣, 等. 不同水稻品种对虫害胁迫的生理响应[J]. 生态学报, 2006, 26(7):2161-2166.
[11]	段灿星, 彭高松, 王晓鸣, 等. 抗感水稻品种受灰飞虱为害后的生理反应差异[J]. 应用昆虫学报, 2013, 50(1):145-153.
[12]	李再园, 许博, 王福莲, 等. 不同施氮水平下水稻植株在白背飞虱为害后的生理变化[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2018, 32(5):501-508.
[13]	刘裕强, 江玲, 孙立宏, 等. 褐飞虱刺吸诱导的水稻一些防御性酶活性的变化[J]. 植物生理与分子生物学学报, 2005, 31(6):643-650.
[14]	孙凯, 钟乐荣, 丁文兵, 等. 水稻对白背飞虱取食胁迫的生理反应[J]. 湖南农业大学学报:自然科学版, 2014, 40(5):501-505.
[15]	段灿星, 余娇娇, 李万昌, 等. 灰飞虱胁迫对水稻叶片中防御酶活性及细胞超微结构的影响[J]. 植物生理学报, 2012, 48(10):971-978.
[16]	张金锋, 薛庆中. 稻飞虱为害胁迫对水稻植株内主要保护酶活性的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2004, 37(10):1487-1491.
[17]	吴碧球, 李成, 孙祖雄, 等. 苗龄、光照强度和施氮量对抗褐飞虱水稻品种主要防御酶活性的影响[J]. 环境昆虫学报, 2016, 38(6):1121-1133.
[18]	陈灿, 张晓丽, 刘百龙, 等. 稻飞虱诱导下水稻挥发物分析[J]. 南方农业学报, 2021, 52(01):37-44.
[19]	梁斌, 彭绍裘, 肖放华, 等. 云南地方稻种资源的抗瘟性研究[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2001, 15(2):68-71.
[20]	张文龙, 尚刚林, 杨勤忠, 等. 云南省水稻地方品种的稻瘟病抗性鉴定及抗瘟基因型分析[J/OL]. 分子植物育种, http://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/46.1068.S.20200910.1658.008.html. . 2021-04-12.
[21]	董超, 阿新祥, 汤翠凤, 等. 云南哈尼族地区稻作地方品种的表型多样性分析及优异资源筛选[J]. 南方农业学报, 2020, 51(5):1013-1021.
[22]	元阳县志编辑委员会. 元阳县志[M]. 贵阳: 贵州民族出版社 1990:94-127.
[23]	朱有勇. 元阳梯田红米稻作文化——一项亟待研究和保护的农业科学文化遗产[J]. 学术探索, 2009(3):14-15,23.
[24]	董超, 徐福荣, 杨文毅, 等. 云南元阳哈尼梯田水稻地方品种月亮谷的遗传变异分析[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2013, 27(2):137-144.
[25]	温娟, 郅军锐, 吕召云, 等. 二斑叶螨为害对番茄叶片主要营养物质和防御酶活性的影响[J]. 环境昆虫学报, 2017, 39(1):172-180.
[26]	DUFFEY S S, STOUT M J. Antinutritive and toxic components of plant defense against insects[J]. Archives of Insect Biochemistry and Physiology, 1996, 32(1):3-37. doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6327 URL
[27]	BAILLY C, BENAMAR A, CORBINEAU F, et al. Changes in malondialdehyde content and in superoxide dismutase, catalase and glutathione reductase activities in sunflower seeds as related to deterioration during accelerated aging[J]. Physiologia Plantarum, 1996, 97(1):104-110. doi: 10.1111/ppl.1996.97.issue-1 URL
[28]	沈登荣, 何超, 徐慧琼, 等. 端大蓟马取食对豆科植物防御酶活性及丙二醛含量的影响[J]. 安徽农业大学学报, 2017, 44(4):716-719.
[29]	武德功, 王俊, 张露雨, 等. 抗、感玉米幼苗玉米蚜为害后不同时间的生理响应[J]. 江苏农业学报, 2018, 34(3):493-502.
[30]	毛红, 陈瀚, 刘小侠, 等. 绿盲蝽取食与机械损伤对棉花叶片内防御性酶活性的影响[J]. 应用昆虫学报, 2011, 48(5):1431-1436.
[31]	陈丽慧, 帕提玛·乌木尔汗, 崔燕华, 等. 棉蚜取食对不同品种棉花防御酶活性的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2015, 52(10):1866-1871.
[32]	梁郸娜, 胡其靖, 曹磊, 等. 蚜虫侵染对黄瓜叶片中丙二醛含量及保护酶活性的影响[J]. 江苏农业学报, 2016, 32(2):278-284.
[33]	TSCHARNTKE T, THIESSEN S, DOLCH R, et al. Herbivory, induced resistance and interplant signal transfer in Alnus glutinosa[J]. Biochemical Systematics and Ecology, 2001, 29(10):1025-1047. doi: 10.1016/S0305-1978(01)00048-5 URL
[34]	THIPYAPONG P, MELKONIAN J, WOLFE D W, et al. Suppression of polyphenol oxidases increases stress tolerance in tomato[J]. Plant Science, 2004, 167(4):693-703. doi: 10.1016/j.plantsci.2004.04.008 URL

	处理时间/h		Acuce			TN1	RHT	方差分析
可溶性糖	0		—			—	—	—
	3		-80.22±0.67c(c)			-56.02±0.37c(b)	-42.11±0.18c(a)	F=1808.141,P<0.05
	6		-67.81±0.97c(b)			-45.39±0.19c(a)	-45.17±0.51e(a)	F=409.699,P<0.05
	12		-35.28±13.03b(b)			18.81±3.14a(a)	-45.82±0.53e(b)	F=20.044,P<0.05
	24		-37.69±0.58b(a)			-48.2±1.07c(b)	-49.25±0.09f(b)	F=81.623,P<0.05
	48		-10.93±0.73a(a)			-24.31±14.61b(a)	-27.71±0.77b(a)	F=1.101,P<0.05
	72		-32.62±0.81b(c)			12.15±0.82a(a)	-22.71±0.23a(b)	F=1192.222,P<0.05
	96		-35.4±0.11b(b)			-9.49±0.53b(b)	-43.45±0.21d(c)	F=2780.297,P<0.05
	平均		-42.85±1.52(b)			-21.78±1.97(a)	-39.46±0.05(b)	F=61.686,P<0.05
H₂O₂	0		—			—	—	—
	3		-14.59±0.07e(b)			-1.87±2.16(a)	2.21±5.04a(a)	F=7.672,P<0.05
	6		26.66±0.44c(a)			24.52±2.44c(a)	-31.61±0.35d(b)	F=520.806,P<0.05
	12		-50.68±0.18f(c)			34.83±2.71b(a)	-1.1±0.72a(b)	F=698.090,P<0.05
	24		18.73±0.3d(b)			33.81±2.45b(a)	-55.79±0.16e(c)	F=1126.169,P<0.05
	48		28.05±0.08b(b)			65.44±3.33a(a)	-13.8±0.47(c)	F=417.837,P<0.05
	72		18.69±0.1d(b)			69.29±3.43a(a)	-15.07±0.28b(c)	F=417.837,P<0.05
	96		38.87±0.54a(b)			69.73±3.38a(a)	-23.03±0.51c(c)	F=559.335,P<0.05
	平均		9.39±0.07(b)			42.25±2.84(a)	-19.74±1.01(c)	F=318.141,P<0.05
MDA		0		—	—		—	—
		3		-12.43±0.18c(c)	45.05±1.41c(b)		60.47±0.4b(a)	F=2020.895,P<0.05
		6		20.86±1.61b(b)	-51.86±16.48d(c)		79.48±8.62a(a)	F=37.249,P<0.05
		12		15.09±9.48b(b)	48.42±2.96c(a)		61.88±0.68b(a)	F=17.557,P<0.05
		24		12.83±2.61b(b)	45.61±4.15c(a)		-40.67±1.17d(c)	F=223.801,P<0.05
		48		-29.66±0.85d(c)	141.33±4.76b(a)		20.41±0.51c(b)	F=980.293,P<0.05
		72		15.68±2.21b(b)	216.92±18.8a(a)		18.62±1.5c(b)	F=110.649,P<0.05
		96		53.06±7.11a(b)	169.19±10.49b(a)		26.01±0.55c(c)	F=107.897,P<0.05
		平均		10.77±0.83(c)	87.81±7.42(a)		32.31±1.45(b)	F=82.045,P<0.05

	处理时间/h		Acuce			TN1	RHT	方差分析
可溶性糖	0		—			—	—	—
	3		-80.22±0.67c(c)			-56.02±0.37c(b)	-42.11±0.18c(a)	F=1808.141,P<0.05
	6		-67.81±0.97c(b)			-45.39±0.19c(a)	-45.17±0.51e(a)	F=409.699,P<0.05
	12		-35.28±13.03b(b)			18.81±3.14a(a)	-45.82±0.53e(b)	F=20.044,P<0.05
	24		-37.69±0.58b(a)			-48.2±1.07c(b)	-49.25±0.09f(b)	F=81.623,P<0.05
	48		-10.93±0.73a(a)			-24.31±14.61b(a)	-27.71±0.77b(a)	F=1.101,P<0.05
	72		-32.62±0.81b(c)			12.15±0.82a(a)	-22.71±0.23a(b)	F=1192.222,P<0.05
	96		-35.4±0.11b(b)			-9.49±0.53b(b)	-43.45±0.21d(c)	F=2780.297,P<0.05
	平均		-42.85±1.52(b)			-21.78±1.97(a)	-39.46±0.05(b)	F=61.686,P<0.05
H₂O₂	0		—			—	—	—
	3		-14.59±0.07e(b)			-1.87±2.16(a)	2.21±5.04a(a)	F=7.672,P<0.05
	6		26.66±0.44c(a)			24.52±2.44c(a)	-31.61±0.35d(b)	F=520.806,P<0.05
	12		-50.68±0.18f(c)			34.83±2.71b(a)	-1.1±0.72a(b)	F=698.090,P<0.05
	24		18.73±0.3d(b)			33.81±2.45b(a)	-55.79±0.16e(c)	F=1126.169,P<0.05
	48		28.05±0.08b(b)			65.44±3.33a(a)	-13.8±0.47(c)	F=417.837,P<0.05
	72		18.69±0.1d(b)			69.29±3.43a(a)	-15.07±0.28b(c)	F=417.837,P<0.05
	96		38.87±0.54a(b)			69.73±3.38a(a)	-23.03±0.51c(c)	F=559.335,P<0.05
	平均		9.39±0.07(b)			42.25±2.84(a)	-19.74±1.01(c)	F=318.141,P<0.05
MDA		0		—	—		—	—
		3		-12.43±0.18c(c)	45.05±1.41c(b)		60.47±0.4b(a)	F=2020.895,P<0.05
		6		20.86±1.61b(b)	-51.86±16.48d(c)		79.48±8.62a(a)	F=37.249,P<0.05
		12		15.09±9.48b(b)	48.42±2.96c(a)		61.88±0.68b(a)	F=17.557,P<0.05
		24		12.83±2.61b(b)	45.61±4.15c(a)		-40.67±1.17d(c)	F=223.801,P<0.05
		48		-29.66±0.85d(c)	141.33±4.76b(a)		20.41±0.51c(b)	F=980.293,P<0.05
		72		15.68±2.21b(b)	216.92±18.8a(a)		18.62±1.5c(b)	F=110.649,P<0.05
		96		53.06±7.11a(b)	169.19±10.49b(a)		26.01±0.55c(c)	F=107.897,P<0.05
		平均		10.77±0.83(c)	87.81±7.42(a)		32.31±1.45(b)	F=82.045,P<0.05

	处理时间/h	Acuce	TN1	RHT	方差分析
PPO	0	—	—	—	—
	3	22.02±29.06ab(b)	133.61±27.22bc(a)	-68.15±5.6c(c)	F=18.9560,P<0.05
	6	27.68±14.15ab(b)	360.2±79.95a(a)	9.94±47abc(b)	F=13.2680,P<0.05
	12	51.31±24.34ab(a)	14.23±4.94c(a)	8.42±35.33abc(a)	F=0.8710,P>0.05
	24	130.91±75.86a(a)	229.9±39.13ab(b)	-66.78±11.77c(b)	F=9.2200,P<0.05
	48	-4.65±22.32b(b)	357.66±26.55a(a)	78.61±23.6a(b)	F=61.3750,P<0.05
	72	139.19±47.08a(ab)	249±46.35ab(a)	58.25±16.76ab(b)	F=5.9190,P<0.05
	96	-16.77±24.67b(b)	348.46±37.34a(a)	-14.05±21.16bc(b)	F=54.0250,P<0.05
	平均	49.96±13.24(b)	241.87±28.09(a)	0.89±10.05(b)	F=45.6710,P<0.05
POD	0	—	—	—	—
	3	-48.98±1.27e(b)	-59.5±0.96e(c)	-43.22±0.71d(a)	F=67.3850,P<0.05
	6	55.37±1.48a(a)	-7.79±1.47a(c)	37.02±1.8a(b)	F=418.1330,P<0.05
	12	-13.43±3.25c(a)	-13.24±0.62bc(a)	-44.83±0.75d(b)	F=86.3310,P<0.05
	24	-79.42±0.3f(c)	-33.84±0.87c(b)	1.91±4.68c(a)	F=218.7080,P<0.05
	48	-11.52±1.63c(b)	-90.1±0.06f(c)	24.42±1.43bc(a)	F=2187.7250,P<0.05
	72	-26.63±0.34d(b)	-61.97±0.53e(c)	2.12±3.28c(a)	F=276.0560,P<0.05
	96	21.4±1.02b(b)	-48.61±0.92d(c)	34.82±4.16a(a)	F=313.0850,P<0.05
	平均	-14.75±0.99(b)	-45.01±0.77(c)	1.75±2.35(a)	F=237.2630,P<0.05

	处理时间/h	Acuce	TN1	RHT	方差分析
PPO	0	—	—	—	—
	3	22.02±29.06ab(b)	133.61±27.22bc(a)	-68.15±5.6c(c)	F=18.9560,P<0.05
	6	27.68±14.15ab(b)	360.2±79.95a(a)	9.94±47abc(b)	F=13.2680,P<0.05
	12	51.31±24.34ab(a)	14.23±4.94c(a)	8.42±35.33abc(a)	F=0.8710,P>0.05
	24	130.91±75.86a(a)	229.9±39.13ab(b)	-66.78±11.77c(b)	F=9.2200,P<0.05
	48	-4.65±22.32b(b)	357.66±26.55a(a)	78.61±23.6a(b)	F=61.3750,P<0.05
	72	139.19±47.08a(ab)	249±46.35ab(a)	58.25±16.76ab(b)	F=5.9190,P<0.05
	96	-16.77±24.67b(b)	348.46±37.34a(a)	-14.05±21.16bc(b)	F=54.0250,P<0.05
	平均	49.96±13.24(b)	241.87±28.09(a)	0.89±10.05(b)	F=45.6710,P<0.05
POD	0	—	—	—	—
	3	-48.98±1.27e(b)	-59.5±0.96e(c)	-43.22±0.71d(a)	F=67.3850,P<0.05
	6	55.37±1.48a(a)	-7.79±1.47a(c)	37.02±1.8a(b)	F=418.1330,P<0.05
	12	-13.43±3.25c(a)	-13.24±0.62bc(a)	-44.83±0.75d(b)	F=86.3310,P<0.05
	24	-79.42±0.3f(c)	-33.84±0.87c(b)	1.91±4.68c(a)	F=218.7080,P<0.05
	48	-11.52±1.63c(b)	-90.1±0.06f(c)	24.42±1.43bc(a)	F=2187.7250,P<0.05
	72	-26.63±0.34d(b)	-61.97±0.53e(c)	2.12±3.28c(a)	F=276.0560,P<0.05
	96	21.4±1.02b(b)	-48.61±0.92d(c)	34.82±4.16a(a)	F=313.0850,P<0.05
	平均	-14.75±0.99(b)	-45.01±0.77(c)	1.75±2.35(a)	F=237.2630,P<0.05