干旱胁迫对马铃薯品种生长及生理生化指标的影响

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-1175

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

研究了干旱胁迫下不同马铃薯品种的抗旱生理机制,为马铃薯抗旱育种和栽培提供理论依据。本试验以‘冀张薯8号’、‘冀张薯12号’、‘克新1号’为材料,在抗旱棚中研究不同干旱胁迫处理下马铃薯生长及生理生化指标的变化,并分析评价其抗旱性。结果表明：干旱胁迫下马铃薯的产量、株高、茎粗、茎叶鲜重等生长指标均显著降低;随着胁迫程度的增加,3个品种过氧化物酶活性均逐渐升高,超氧化物歧化酶活性均呈现先升高后降低的趋势,而可溶性蛋白含量均呈现逐渐增加的趋势,但品种间3个指标变化的幅度不同,‘冀张薯8号’、‘冀张薯12号’上升的幅度高于‘克新1号’;随着干旱胁迫程度的增加,3个品种的组织相对含水量均逐渐降低。通过抗旱性综合分析和评价,抗旱性从大到小依次为‘冀张薯8号’、‘冀张薯12号’、‘克新1号’。研究结果说明抗旱性强的马铃薯品种通过一系列的生理生化的变化,具备较强的抵御干旱胁迫的能力。

关键词: 马铃薯, 干旱胁迫, 生理生化指标, 生长, 抗旱评价

Abstract:

This experiment studied the physiological mechanism of different potato varieties under drought stress, so as to provide a theoretical basis for potato drought resistance breeding and cultivation. ‘Jizhangshu No.8’, ‘Jizhangshu No.12’ and ‘Kexin No.1’ were used to study the changes of potato growth and physiological and biochemical indexes under different drought stress treatments in the shed, and evaluate their drought resistance. The results showed that the growth indexes, such as yield, plant height, stem diameter and stem-leaf fresh weight, decreased significantly under drought stress. With the increase of stress degree, the peroxidase activity (POD) of the three varieties increased gradually, and the superoxide dismutase (SOD) activities increased first and then decreased,and the soluble protein content displayed an increasing trend. Additionally, the variation level of the three indexes were different among the three varieties, and the rising range of the indexes of ‘Jizhangshu No.8’ and ‘Jizhangshu No.12’ were higher than that of ‘Kexin No.1’. Moreover, the tissue relative water content decreased gradually when the drought stress was increased. The order of drought resistance from strong to low was ‘Jizhangshu No.8’, ‘Jizhangshu No.12 ’and ‘Kexin No.1’ through comprehensive analysis and evaluation. The results showed that potato varieties obtained strong drought resistance by a series of physiological and biochemical changes.

Key words: potato, drought stress, physiological and biochemical indexes, growth, drought resistance evaluation

中图分类号:

S532

张瑞玖, 马恢, 籍立杰, 任德志, 李双东, 张耀辉, 王莉红. 干旱胁迫对马铃薯品种生长及生理生化指标的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(15): 34-39.

ZHANG Ruijiu, MA Hui, JI Lijie, REN Dezhi, LI Shuangdong, ZHANG Yaohui, WANG Lihong. Effects of Drought Stress on Growth and Physiological and Biochemical Indexes of Potato Varieties[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(15): 34-39.

图/表 11

参考文献 25

[1]	BELANGER G, WALSH J R. Tuber growth and biomass partitioning of two potato cultivars grown under different n fertilization rates with and without irrigation[J]. Amer j of potato res, 2001, 78:109-117. doi: 10.1007/BF02874766 URL
[2]	DEBLONDE P M K, HAVERKORT A J, LEDENT J F, et al. Responses of early and late potato cultivars to moderate drought conditions: agronomic parameters and carbon isotope discrimination[J]. European journal of agronomy, 1999, 1:91-105. doi: 10.1016/S1161-0301(14)80006-3 URL
[3]	BELANGER G, WSLSH J R, RICHARDS J E, et al. Tuber growth and biomass partitioning of two potato cultivars grown under different N fertilization rates with and without irrigation[J]. American journal of potato research, 2001, 78(2):109-117. doi: 10.1007/BF02874766 URL
[4]	王婷, 海梅荣, 罗海琴,等. 水分胁迫对马铃薯光合生理特性和产量的影响[J]. 云南农业大学学报, 2010, 25(5):737-742.
[5]	刘玲玲, 李军, 李长辉,等. 马铃薯可溶性蛋白、叶绿素及ATP含量变化与品种抗旱性关系的研究[J]. 中国马铃薯, 2004, 18(4):201-204.
[6]	田丰, 张永成, 张凤军,等. 不同品种马铃薯叶片游离脯氨酸含量、水势与抗旱性的研究[J]. 作物杂志, 2009(2):73-76.
[7]	海桂荣, 陈勇, 周平,等. 干旱胁迫对马铃薯品种生理特性的影响[J]. 中国马铃薯, 2014, 28(4):199-204.
[8]	贾琼, 张冬红, 蒙美莲,等. PEG6000渗透胁迫对马铃薯生理特性的影响[J]. 中国马铃薯, 2009, 23(5):263-267.
[9]	陈建勋, 王晓峰. 植物生理学实验指导[M]. 北京: 华南理工大学出版社, 2000:119-122.
[10]	上海市植物生理协会. 现代植物生理学实验指南[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 1999:314-315.
[11]	邹琦. 植物生理学实验指导[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2000.
[12]	武新娟, 唐贵, 隋冬华,等. 20个马铃薯品种抗旱性鉴定及评价指标筛选[J]. 中国瓜菜, 2021, 34(3):47-51
[13]	梁丽娜, 刘雪, 唐勋,等. 干旱胁迫对马铃薯叶片生理生化指标的影响[J]. 基因组学与应用生物学, 2018, 37(3):1343-1348.
[14]	邓珍, 徐建飞, 段绍光,等. PEG-8000模拟干旱胁迫对11个马铃薯品种的组培苗生长指标的影响[J]. 华北农学报, 2014, 29(5):99-106.
[15]	DEBLONDE P M K, LEDENT J F. Effects of moderate drought conditions on green leaf number, stem height, leaf length and tuber yield of potato cultivars[J]. European journal of agronomy, 2001, 14(1):31-41. doi: 10.1016/S1161-0301(00)00081-2 URL
[16]	刘晚苟, 吴华伟. 水分胁迫对香蕉幼苗保护酶活性的影响[J]. 热带农业科学, 2011, 31(12):46-48
[17]	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.
[18]	DEVI R, KAUR N, GUPTA A K. Potential of antioxidant enzymes in depicting drought tolerance of wheat[J]. Indian journal of biochemistry and biophysics, 2012, 49(4):257-265
[19]	MIRZAEE M., MOIENI A., AND GHANATI F. Effects of drought stress on the lipid peroxidation and antioxidant enzyme activities in two canola (Brassica napus L.) cultivars[J]. Journal of agricultural science and technology, 2013, 15(3):593-602
[20]	陈军, 高贵珍, 徐礼生,等. 干旱胁迫下水杨酸浸种对小麦萌发期保护酶活性的影响[J]. 分子植物育种, 2015, 13(12):2854-2857
[21]	刘娥娥, 汪沛洪, 郭振飞. 植物干旱诱导蛋白[J]. 植物生理学通讯, 2001, 37(2):155-160.
[22]	李建武. 水分胁迫对马铃薯生理生化特性的影响[D]. 兰州: 甘肃农业大学, 2005.
[23]	赵雅静, 翁伯琦, 王义祥,等. 植物对干旱胁迫的生理生态响应及其研究进展[J]. 福建稻麦科技, 2009, 27(2):45-50.
[24]	何雪银, 文仁来, 吴翠荣,等. 模糊隶属函数法对玉米苗期抗旱性的分析[J]. 西南农业学报, 2008, 21(1):52-56
[25]	张文英, 智慧, 柳斌辉,等. 谷子全生育期抗旱性鉴定及抗旱指标筛选[J]. 植物遗传资源学报, 2010, 11(5):560-565.

品种名称	处理	大中薯率/%	产量/(kg/hm²)	抗旱系数	抗旱指数
冀张薯12号	A	91.22	47093.40 a	-	-
	B	84.89	40464.00 c	0.86	0.93
	C	79.31	30282.00 d	0.64	0.67
冀张薯8号	A	88.81	43707.60 b	-	-
	B	84.91	39330.00 c	0.90	0.95
	C	80.89	30782.70 d	0.70	0.75
克新1号	A	85.60	37551.60 c	-	-
	B	81.89	32285.40 d	0.86	0.74
	C	76.65	26202.00 e	0.70	0.63

品种名称	处理	大中薯率/%	产量/(kg/hm²)	抗旱系数	抗旱指数
冀张薯12号	A	91.22	47093.40 a	-	-
	B	84.89	40464.00 c	0.86	0.93
	C	79.31	30282.00 d	0.64	0.67
冀张薯8号	A	88.81	43707.60 b	-	-
	B	84.91	39330.00 c	0.90	0.95
	C	80.89	30782.70 d	0.70	0.75
克新1号	A	85.60	37551.60 c	-	-
	B	81.89	32285.40 d	0.86	0.74
	C	76.65	26202.00 e	0.70	0.63

品种名称	处理	株高/cm	茎粗/cm	茎叶鲜重/g
冀张薯12号	A	116.50	1.29	602.50
	B	97.00	1.18	388.33
	C	88.23	1.12	275.10
冀张薯8号	A	127.00	1.09	612.50
	B	111.67	1.03	426.67
	C	99.00	1.01	345.00
克新1号	A	102.00	1.07	471.67
	B	90.21	0.99	321.67
	C	88.00	0.97	240.00

品种名称	处理	株高/cm	茎粗/cm	茎叶鲜重/g
冀张薯12号	A	116.50	1.29	602.50
	B	97.00	1.18	388.33
	C	88.23	1.12	275.10
冀张薯8号	A	127.00	1.09	612.50
	B	111.67	1.03	426.67
	C	99.00	1.01	345.00
克新1号	A	102.00	1.07	471.67
	B	90.21	0.99	321.67
	C	88.00	0.97	240.00

品种名称	处理	POD活性/ [U/(mg·min)]	变化幅度 /±%	差异显著性
品种名称	处理	POD活性/ [U/(mg·min)]	变化幅度 /±%	0.05	0.01
冀张薯12号	A	0.89	-	b	B
	B	1.60	79.78	a	A
	C	1.83	105.62	a	A
冀张薯8号	A	0.42	-	bc	B
	B	0.54	28.57	bc	B
	C	0.86	104.76	b	B
克新1号	A	0.30	-	c	B
	B	0.41	36.67	bc	B
	C	0.51	70.00	bc	B