干旱胁迫对不同年代谷子苗期根系表型的影响

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2022-0232

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

作为种植于中国西北干旱和半干旱区域重要的粮食作物，谷子具有较高的营养价值。但近年来干旱频发，导致谷子品种退化、品质下降。因根系是运输有机质的重要器官，对植物生长发育的全过程至关重要，选取3个不同年代的6个谷子品种为研究对象，采用土培法人工模拟干旱环境（出苗10天后一组停止浇水至收获；另一组正常浇水，70%±5% FWC），探究品种更替过程中干旱胁迫对谷子苗期根系表型的影响机理。结果表明，不同年代谷子幼苗根系对干旱胁迫的响应机制存在差异，随年代推进，谷子根系干质量、根长、根表面积和根体积呈先降后升趋势。自20世纪70年代以来，1970s—1980s和2000s—2010s谷子在干旱环境中的生长速率分别显著提升了18.1%和30.1%(P<0.05)，根冠比有降低趋势并稳定在0.21左右，根条数稳定在9~10条。干旱胁迫下，1960s—1970s谷子的生物量总干重、根宽度、根总长、根表面积和根体积分别显著降低37.6%、47.9%、36.8%、40.1%和30.6%(P<0.05)，根密度无显著差异(P>0.05)；1970s—1980s谷子的总干重、根宽度和根条数分别显著增加59.8%、21.4%和27%(P<0.05)，根表面积、根体积和根总长没有显著差异(P>0.05)；2000s—2010s谷子的根宽度、根总长和根长比分别显著降低28.5%、15.3%和35.9%(P<0.05)，根表面积、根体积和比根长无显著差异(P>0.05)。本研究结果表明，干旱胁迫下，现代品种苗期根系的敏感度降低，表型差异缩小，耐性提高。

关键词: 谷子, 干旱胁迫, 品种更替, 根系表型

Abstract:

Millet is an important food crop grown in arid and semi-arid regions of northwest China and has high nutritional value. However, in recent years, frequent droughts have led to the degradation of millet varieties and the decline of quality. Because the root system is an important organ to transport organic matter and is critical to the whole process of plant growth and development, six varieties of millet of three different decades were selected as the research objects, and the soil culture method was used to simulate the drought environment (10 days after emergence, one group stopped watering until harvest, another group was irrigated normally, 70%±5% FWC) to explore the mechanism of drought stress on millet seedling root phenotype in the process of variety replacement. The results showed that the response mechanism of millet seedling roots to drought stress was different in varieties of different decades. With the advance of the variety replacement, the root dry mass, root length, root surface area and root volume of millet seedlings decreased first and then increased. The growth rate of millet in drought environment increased by 18.1% and 30.1% in 1970s—1980s varieties and 2000s—2010s varieties, respectively (P<0.05). The root-shoot ratio tended to decrease and stabilized at about 0.21, and the number of roots stabilized at 9-10. Under drought stress, the total dry biomass, root width, total root length, root surface area and root volume of the 1960s—1970s varieties decreased significantly by 37.6%, 47.9%, 36.8%, 40.1% and 30.6% (P<0.05) respectively, while the root density had no significant difference (P>0.05). For varieties of 1970s—1980s, the total dry mass, root width and root number increased by 59.8%, 21.4% and 27% (P<0.05), respectively, while the root surface area, root volume and total root length had no significant difference (P>0.05). For varieties of 2000s—2010s, the root width, total root length and ratio of root length decreased significantly by 28.5%, 15.3% and 35.9% (P<0.05), while the root surface area, root volume and specific root length had no significant difference (P>0.05). The results of this study showed that under drought stress, the root sensitivity of modern millet varieties at seedling stage decreased, the phenotypic difference was narrowed, and the tolerance was improved.

Key words: millet, drought stress, variety replacement, root phenotype

杨小霞, 严加坤. 干旱胁迫对不同年代谷子苗期根系表型的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2023, 39(7): 24-32.

YANG Xiaoxia, YAN Jiakun. Effects of Drought Stress on Root Phenotype of Foxtail Millet Seedlings of Varieties of Different Decades[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2023, 39(7): 24-32.

图/表 7

参考文献 52

[1]	KRISHNAMURTHY L, UPADHYAYA H D, KASHIWAGI J, et al. Variation in drought-tolerance components and their interrelationships in the core collection of foxtail millet (Setaria italica L.) germplasm[J]. Crop and pasture science, 2016, 67(8):834-846. doi: 10.1071/CP15338 URL
[2]	代小冬, 朱灿灿, 秦娜, 等. 不同基因型谷子品种(系)对干旱胁迫的响应及抗旱性评价[J]. 中国农学通报, 2017, 33(34):15-19. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb17010047
[3]	SUN Y Y, ZHANG N N, YAN J K, et al. Effects of soft rock and biochar applications on millet (Setaria italica L.) crop performance in sandy soil[J]. Agronomy, 2020, 10(5):669. doi: 10.3390/agronomy10050669 URL
[4]	王瑞, 李齐霞, 祁丽婷, 等. 不同产地谷子籽粒营养品质与食味品质的比较研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2020, 36(3):154-157. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb18090054
[5]	YAN J K, ZHANG N N, KANG F R, et al. Cultivar replacement increases water use efficiency in foxtail millet in Shaanxi Province, China[J]. Plant physiology and biochemistry, 2021, 164(23):73-81. doi: 10.1016/j.plaphy.2021.04.036 URL
[6]	刘鑫, 李会霞, 田岗, 等. 全生育期水分控制对谷子生长发育及品质的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2021(5):181-186.
[7]	YANG Y B, JIA G Q, DENG L G, et al. Genetic variation of yellow pigment and its components in foxtail millet (Setaria italica L.) from different eco-regions in China[J]. Journal of integrative agriculture, 2017, 16(11):2459-2469. doi: 10.1016/S2095-3119(16)61598-8 URL
[8]	严加坤, 张宁宁, 张岁岐. 谷子对干旱胁迫的生理生态响应[J]. 生态学报, 2021, 41(21):1-11.
[9]	吕建珍. 谷子种质资源遗传多样性研究进展[J]. 河北农业大学学报, 2020, 43(5):40-45.
[10]	NADEEM F, AHMAD Z, UL HASSAN M, et al. Adaptation of foxtail millet (Setaria italica L.) to abiotic stresses: a special perspective of responses to nitrogen and phosphate limitations[J]. Frontiers in plant science, 2020, 11:187. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2020.00187 URL
[11]	姚延琴, 刘来喜, 党云萍, 等. 陕北谷子生产现状及原因分析[J]. 现代食品, 2016(14):26-27.
[12]	史关燕, 王啸旗, 韩渊怀, 等. 谷子产量和品质相关性状的杂种优势及遗传特性分析[J]. 热带亚热带植物学报, 2021, 29(4):349-359.
[13]	STROCK C F, BURRIDGE J, MASSAS A S F, et al. Seedling root architecture and its relationship with seed yield across diverse environments in Phaseolus vulgaris[J]. Field crops research, 2019, 237:53-64. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2019.04.012 URL
[14]	YAN J K, ZHANG S Q. Effects of dwarfing genes on water use efficiency of bread wheat[J]. Frontiers of agricultural science and engineering, 2017, 4(2):126-134. doi: 10.15302/J-FASE-2017134
[15]	YE Z Q, WANG J M, WANG W J, et al. Effects of root phenotypic changes on the deep rooting of Populus euphratica seedlings under drought stresses[J]. Peer journal, 2019, 7:e6513. doi: 10.7717/peerj.6513 URL
[16]	POORTER H, NIKLAS K J, REICH P B, et al. Biomass allocation to leaves, stems and roots: Meta-analyses of interspecific variation and environmental control[J]. New phytologist, 2012, 193(1):30-50. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2011.03952.x pmid: 22085245
[17]	DANAKUMARA T, KUMARI J, SINGH A K, et al. Genetic dissection of seedling root system architectural traits in a diverse panel of hexaploid wheat through multi-locus genome wide association mapping for improving drought tolerance[J]. International journal of molecular sciences, 2021, 22(13):7188. doi: 10.3390/ijms22137188 URL
[18]	刘桂红, 王珏, 杜金哲, 等. 谷子萌芽期抗旱性鉴定研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2013, 29(3):86-91.
[19]	AIDOO M K, BDOLACH E, FAIT A, et al. Tolerance to high soil temperature in foxtail millet (Setaria italica L.) is related to shoot and root growth and metabolism[J]. Plant physiology and biochemistry, 2016, 106:73-81. doi: 10.1016/j.plaphy.2016.04.038 URL
[20]	TRAN T T, KANO-NAKATA M, SURALTA R R, et al. Root plasticity and its functional roles were triggered by water deficit but not by the resulting changes in the forms of soil N in rice[J]. Plant and soil, 2014, 386:65-76. doi: 10.1007/s11104-014-2240-4 URL
[21]	齐健, 宋凤斌, 刘胜群. 苗期玉米根叶对干旱胁迫的生理响应[J]. 生态环境, 2006, 15(6):1264-1268.
[22]	潘晓迪, 张颖, 邵萌, 等. 作物根系结构对干旱胁迫的适应性研究进展[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2017, 19(2):51-58. doi: 10.13304/j.nykjdb.2016.404
[23]	张玲, 王树凤, 陈益泰, 等. 3种枫香的根系构型及功能特征对干旱的响应[J]. 土壤, 2013, 45(6):1119-1126.
[24]	ZEGADA-LIZARAZU W, IIJIMA M. Deep root water uptake ability and water use efficiency of pearl millet in comparison to other millet species[J]. Plant production science, 2015, 8(4):454-460. doi: 10.1626/pps.8.454 URL
[25]	裴冬, 张喜英, 王峻. 高梁、谷子根系发育及其抗旱性研究[J]. 中国生态农业学报(中英文), 2002, 10(4):28-30.
[26]	GRZESIAK M T, HORDYŃSKA N, MAKSYMOWICZ A, et al. Variation among spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) genotypes in response to the drought stress. II- root system structure[J]. Plants, 2019, 8(12):584. doi: 10.3390/plants8120584 URL
[27]	秦岭, 陈二影, 杨延兵, 等. 干旱和复水对不同耐旱型谷子品种苗期生理指标的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2019, 21(3):146-151. doi: 10.13304/j.nykjdb.2018.0111
[28]	李顺国, 刘斐, 刘猛, 等. 中国谷子产业和种业发展现状与未来展望[J]. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54(3):459-470. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2021.03.001
[29]	张文英, 智慧, 柳斌辉, 等. 谷子孕穗期抗旱指标筛选[J]. 植物遗传资源学报, 2012, 13(5):765-772.
[30]	陈民志, 杨延龙, 王宇轩, 等. 新疆早熟陆地棉品种更替过程中的株型特征及主要经济性状的演变[J]. 中国农业科学, 2019, 52(19):3279-3290. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2019.19.001
[31]	郑爱泉, 范学科, 冯帆, 等. 不同育成年份冬小麦苗期根冠生物量分配[J]. 西北农业学报, 2020, 29(6):851-859.
[32]	张宁宁, 严加坤, 王小林, 等. 陕北谷子品种更替过程中产量及农艺性状的演变[J]. 应用生态学报, 2021, 32(4):1337-1344. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.202104.039
[33]	刘梅, 吴广俊, 路笃旭, 等. 不同年代玉米品种氮素利用效率与其根系特征的关系[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2017, 23(1):71-82.
[34]	王云, 乔玲, 闫素仙, 等. 山西省不同年代旱地小麦产量构成因素及抗旱性特征分析[J]. 作物杂志, 2021(5):43-49.
[35]	刘佳, 薛惠云, 李倩, 等. 不同年代小麦品种根系形态差异性分析[J]. 山东农业科学, 2021, 53(3):15-21.
[36]	王娅玲, 李维峰. 干旱胁迫对植物生长及其生理的影响概述[J]. 南方农业, 2015, 9(6):37-39.
[37]	CHEN D Q, WANG S W, CAO B B, et al. Genotypic variation in growth and physiological response to drought stress and re-watering reveals the critical role of recovery in drought adaptation in maize seedlings[J]. Frontiers in plant science, 2016, 6:1241.
[38]	代小冬, 徐心志, 朱灿灿, 等. 谷子苗期对不同程度干旱胁迫的响应及抗旱性评价[J]. 作物杂志, 2016(1):140-143.
[39]	王振华, 刘鑫, 余爱丽, 等. 不同谷子品种萌发期对干旱胁迫生理响应的变化及抗旱指标筛选[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2020, 22(12):39-49. doi: 10.13304/j.nykjdb.2019.0749
[40]	王永丽, 王珏, 杜金哲, 等. 不同时期干旱胁迫对谷子农艺性状的影响[J]. 华北农学报, 2012, 27(6):125-129. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-7091.2012.06.025
[41]	樊仙全, 杨绍林, 李如丹, 等. 甘蔗苗期抗旱性鉴定评价研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(3):17-24. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-0216
[42]	GUO D L, MITCHELL R J, HENDRICKS J J. Fine root branch orders respond differentially to carbon source-sink manipulations in a longleaf pine forest[J]. Oecologia, 2004, 140(3):450-457. pmid: 15179577
[43]	王光玲. 谷子品种抗旱性生态鉴定的研究[J]. 黑龙江农业科学, 1989(2):21-24.
[44]	SHARP R E, POROYKO V, HEJLEK L G, et al. Root growth maintenance during water deficits: physiology to functional genomics[J]. Journal of experimental botany, 2004, 55:2343-2351. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erh276 pmid: 15448181
[45]	王思思. 干旱对我国不同年代玉米杂交种苗期生理特性的影响[D]. 泰安: 山东农业大学, 2009.
[46]	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.
[47]	KHONGHINTAISONG J, SONGSRI P, TOOMSAN B, et al. Rooting and physiological trait responses to early drought stress of sugarcane cultivars[J]. Sugar technique, 2018, 20(4):396-406.
[48]	CHEN R, XIONG X P, CHENG W H. Root characteristics of spring wheat under drip irrigation and their relationship with aboveground biomass and yield[J]. Scientific reports, 2021, 11:4913. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-84208-7 pmid: 33649480
[49]	葛体达, 隋方功, 李金政, 等. 干旱对夏玉米根冠生长的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2005, 21(1):103-109.
[50]	汪堃, 南丽丽, 师尚礼, 等. 干旱胁迫对不同根型苜蓿根系生长及根际土壤细菌的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2021, 41(19):7735-7742.
[51]	宋凤斌, 戴俊英. 玉米茎叶和根系的生长对干旱胁迫的反应和适应性[J]. 干旱区研究, 2005, 22(2):256-258.
[52]	BRISTIEL P, ROUMET C, VIOLLE C, et al. Coping with drought: root trait variability within the perennial grass Dactylis glomerata captures a trade-off between dehydration avoidance and dehydration tolerance[J]. Plant and soil, 2019, 434(1):327-342. doi: 10.1007/s11104-018-3854-8

	根干重	茎干重	根冠比	根长	根体积	根表面积	根密度	比根长	根宽度	根条数	根生长速度
根干重	1.000	0.944^**	0.144	0.867^**	0.804^**	0.886^**	0.495^*	-0.820^**	0.071	0.099	-0.319
茎干重		1.000	-0.138	0.740^**	0.708^**	0.797^**	0.539^**	-0.813^**	-0.055	0.118	-0.474^*
根冠比			1.000	0.423^*	0.300	0.164	-0.080	-0.067	0.356	-0.050	0.353
根长				1.000	0.703^**	0.799^**	0.500^*	-0.585^**	0.376	0.055	-0.070
根体积					1.000	0.645^**	-0.051	-0.668^**	0.036	-0.184	-0.146
根表面积						1.000	0.515^*	-0.670^**	0.294	0.265	-0.132
根密度							1.000	-0.431^*	0.122	0.428^*	-0.278
比根长								1.000	0.388	-0.134	0.326
根宽度									1.000	0.120	0.329
根条数										1.000	0.231
根生长速度											1.000

	根干重	茎干重	根冠比	根长	根体积	根表面积	根密度	比根长	根宽度	根条数	根生长速度
根干重	1.000	0.944^**	0.144	0.867^**	0.804^**	0.886^**	0.495^*	-0.820^**	0.071	0.099	-0.319
茎干重		1.000	-0.138	0.740^**	0.708^**	0.797^**	0.539^**	-0.813^**	-0.055	0.118	-0.474^*
根冠比			1.000	0.423^*	0.300	0.164	-0.080	-0.067	0.356	-0.050	0.353
根长				1.000	0.703^**	0.799^**	0.500^*	-0.585^**	0.376	0.055	-0.070
根体积					1.000	0.645^**	-0.051	-0.668^**	0.036	-0.184	-0.146
根表面积						1.000	0.515^*	-0.670^**	0.294	0.265	-0.132
根密度							1.000	-0.431^*	0.122	0.428^*	-0.278
比根长								1.000	0.388	-0.134	0.326
根宽度									1.000	0.120	0.329
根条数										1.000	0.231
根生长速度											1.000