树莓茎对低温胁迫的生理响应

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2022-0933

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

探究抗低温的野生树莓资源牛叠肚与低温敏感型树莓栽培品种抗寒性产生差异的原因，为选育抗寒品种提供理论依据。以野生树莓资源牛叠肚1号、牛叠肚2号和栽培品种‘波拉娜’、‘菲尔杜德’和‘海尔特兹’初生茎为试验材料，探究其在自然越冬过程中相对含水量、渗透调节物质、抗氧化酶活性以及膜透性的差异。同时应用主成分分析进行抗寒性综合评价。结果表明，牛叠肚茎相对含水量在自然越冬过程中变幅不大，2021年1月11日达到最低值47.77%，而树莓栽培品种茎相对含水量在低温期（1月11日）迅速下降，最低值仅为12.83%。树莓茎的SOD活性在越冬期波动变化，且野生资源牛叠肚SOD活性在越冬多数时期均显著高于栽培品种。牛叠肚茎可溶性蛋白含量、脯氨酸含量在越冬期显著高于树莓栽培品种，茎的相对电导率和MDA含量均显著低于树莓栽培品种。抗寒性由强到弱为牛叠肚2号、牛叠肚1号、‘波拉娜’、‘菲尔杜德’和‘海尔特兹’。野生树莓资源牛叠肚抗寒性明显优于树莓栽培品种，其原因主要在于低温胁迫下茎保水能力强，抗膜脂过氧化水平高，高渗透调节物质和抗氧化酶系统发挥了作用。

关键词: 树莓, 茎, 低温胁迫, 生理特性, 抗寒性

Abstract:

The paper aims to explore the reasons for the difference in cold resistance between wild Rubus idaeus resources with low temperature resistance and low temperature sensitive R. idaeus cultivars, and to provide theoretical basis for breeding cold-resistant varieties. At the same time, principal component analysis was used to evaluate the cold resistance. The primary stems of wild R. idaeus resources R. crataegifolius 1, R. crataegifolius 2, and cultivars of R. idaeus of ‘Polana’, ‘Fertodi’, and ‘Heritage’ were used as experimental materials to explore the differences in relative water content, osmotic adjustment substances, antioxidant enzyme activity and membrane permeability during natural overwintering. The relative water content of the stem of the R. crataegifolius did not change much during the natural overwintering process, and reached the lowest value of 47.77% on January 11, 2021, while the relative water content of the stem of the R. idaeus cultivar decreased rapidly during the low temperature period (January 11), and the lowest value was only 12.83%. The SOD activity of R. idaeus stems fluctuated during the overwintering period, and the SOD activity of wild resources was significantly higher than that of cultivated varieties during most overwintering periods. The soluble protein content and proline content of R. crataegifolius stems were significantly higher than those of R. idaeus cultivars during the overwintering period, and the relative conductivity and MDA content of stems were significantly lower than those of R. idaeus cultivars. The cold resistance from strong to weak was R. crataegifolius 2, R. crataegifolius 1, ‘Polana’, ‘Fertodi’, and ‘Heritage’. The cold resistance of wild R. idaeus resources is significantly better than that of R. idaeus cultivars, mainly due to the strong water retention capacity of stems, high resistance to membrane lipid peroxidation, and the role of high osmotic regulatory substances and antioxidant enzyme systems under low temperature stress.

Key words: Rubus idaeus, stem, low temperature stress, physiological characteristics, cold resistance

王鑫月, 张立业, 张雪梅. 树莓茎对低温胁迫的生理响应[J]. 中国农学通报, 2023, 39(34): 63-72.

WANG Xinyue, ZHANG Liye, ZHANG Xuemei. Physiological Response of Rubus idaeus Stems to Cryogenic Stress[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2023, 39(34): 63-72.

图/表 9

参考文献 38

[1]	徐玉秀, 王友升, 王贵禧. 树莓的利用研究及其在我国的发展前景[J]. 经济林研究, 2003(1):64-66.
[2]	王柏茗, 聂江力, 苏雅, 等. 红树莓产业发展概况[J]. 现代园艺, 2021, 44(8):22-23.
[3]	LIU L L, JI H T, AN J P, et al. Response of biomass accumulation in wheat to low-temperature stress at jointing and booting stages[J]. Environmental and experimental botany, 2019, 157:46-57. doi: 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2018.09.026 URL
[4]	代汉萍, 杜潇, 张莹莹. 树莓越冬性研究[J]. 果树学报, 2012, 29(2):231-234.
[5]	付晴晴, 谭雅中, 翟衡, 等. NaCl胁迫对耐盐性不同葡萄株系叶片活性氧代谢及清除系统的影响[J]. 园艺学报, 2018, 45(1):30-40. doi: 10.16420/j.issn.0513-353x.2017-0388
[6]	ZANG D D, WANG C, JI X Y, et al. Tamarix hispida zinc finger protein ThZFP1 participates in salt and osmotic stress tolerance by increasing proline content and SOD and POD activities[J]. Plant science, 2015, 235:111-121. doi: 10.1016/j.plantsci.2015.02.016 URL
[7]	令凡. 低温胁迫对陇南不同品种油橄榄生理特性的影响及抗寒性筛选研究[D]. 兰州: 甘肃农业大学, 2015.
[8]	LA G X, LIU G S, FANG P. Effects of monosodium glutamate wastewater on yield and quality of tomato fruit, SOD, CAT, POD activities and MDA content in tomato leaves[J]. Mechanic automation and control engineering, 2011:6464-6467.
[9]	范宗民, 孙军利, 赵宝龙, 等. 不同砧木‘赤霞珠’葡萄枝条抗寒性比较[J]. 果树学报, 2020, 37(2):215-225.
[10]	YANG H B, YAO H, ZHANG J X, et al. Effect of regulated deficit irrigation on the content of soluble sugars, organic acids and endogenous hormones in Cabernet Sauvignon in the Ningxia region of China[J]. Food chemistry, 2020, 312:126020. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2019.126020 URL
[11]	马艺杰. 核桃抗寒性研究综述[A].// 甘肃现代思路寒旱农业发展论坛——2019年甘肃省学术年会第二分会场论文集[C]. 2019:50-53.
[12]	张翔, 杨勇, 刘学勇, 等. 外源水杨酸对低温胁迫下海滨雀稗抗寒生理特征的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(1):117-124. doi: 10.11686/cyxb2019293
[13]	白春雷, 徐和平. 低温锻炼对草莓组培苗抗寒性及抗氧化酶活性的影响[J]. 农业开发与装备, 2019(1):130-140.
[14]	LEE M W, HUFFAKER A, CRIPPEN D, et al. Plant elicitor peptides promote plant defences against nematodes in soybean[J]. Molecular plant pathology, 2018, 19(4):858-869. doi: 10.1111/mpp.12570 pmid: 28600875
[15]	RAJASHEKAR C B, PANDA M. Water stress is a component of cold acclimation process essential for inducing full freezing tolerance in strawberry[J]. Scientia horticulturae, 2014, 174:54-59. doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2014.05.007 URL
[16]	李瑞雪, 金晓玲, 胡希军, 等. 低温胁迫下6种木兰科植物的生理响应及抗寒相关基因差异表达[J]. 生态学报, 2019, 39(8):2883-2898.
[17]	CHENG T S, FLOROS J D, SHEWFELT R L, et al. The effect of high-temperature stress on ripening of tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum)[J]. Journal of plant physiology, 1988, 132(4):459-464. doi: 10.1016/S0176-1617(88)80063-4 URL
[18]	邹琦. 植物生理学实验指导[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2004:11-12.
[19]	李合生. 植物生理生化实验原理和技术[M]. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2000:184-260.
[20]	姜蓓蓓. 人工低温胁迫下两种水培色叶植物的抗寒性研究[D]. 长沙: 中南林业科技大学, 2018.
[21]	GUY C L. Cold accelimation and freezing stress tolerance: Role of protein metabolism[J]. Annual review of plant physiology and plant molecular biology, 1990, 41(1):187-223. doi: 10.1146/arplant.1990.41.issue-1 URL
[22]	SHONOSUKE S, TADASHI A. Amino acid pools in perennial plants at the wintering stage and at the beginning of growth[J]. Plant and cell physiology, 1983, 24(3):479-494.
[23]	王飞雪, 王新建. 不同苹果砧木实生后代自然越冬抗寒性研究[J]. 北方园艺, 2020(4):20-28.
[24]	樊丁宇, 靳娟, 杨磊, 等. 不同枣砧木1年生枝抗寒性研究[J]. 经济林研究, 2018, 36(2):195-199.
[25]	谢雨萱, 包苹, 郭莺, 等. 自然越冬期姜花属植物生理指标变化及抗寒性评价[J]. 热带亚热带植物学报, 2021, 29(5):509-518.
[26]	郭黄萍, 杨盛, 郝国伟, 等. 山西梨部分栽培品种抗寒性研究初报[J]. 山西农业科学, 2011, 39(10):1055-1057.
[27]	赵昶灵, 武绍波, 杜孝宇, 等. 人工低温条件下滇中砀山酥梨休眠花芽及其着生处枝条中糖类含量的变化(简报)[J]. 植物生理学通讯, 2000, 36(5):414-417.
[28]	力木·阿木提. 温185和新新2号早实核桃结果枝抽干和抗寒性差异分析[D]. 阿拉尔: 塔里木大学, 2017.
[29]	丁红映, 王明, 谢洁, 等. 植物低温胁迫响应及研究方法进展[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2019, 47(14):31-36.
[30]	LEIPNER J, FRACHEBOUD Y, STAMP P. Effect of growing season on the photosynthetic apparatus and leaf antioxidative defenses in two maize genotypes of different chilling tolerance[J]. Environmental and experimental botany, 1999, 42(2):129-139. doi: 10.1016/S0098-8472(99)00026-X URL
[31]	张玉霞, 丛百明, 王显国, 等. 苜蓿抗寒性与根系抗氧化酶活性相关性分析[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(2):244-249. doi: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2021.02.005
[32]	AO P X, LI Z G, FAN D M, et al. Involvement of antioxidant defense system in chill hardening-induced chilling tolerance in Jatropha curcas seedlings[J]. Acta physiologiae plantarum, 2013, 35(1):153-160. doi: 10.1007/s11738-012-1058-z URL
[33]	鲁金星, 姜寒玉, 李唯. 低温胁迫对砧木及酿酒葡萄枝条抗寒性的影响[J]. 果树学报, 2012, 29(6):1040-1046.
[34]	田娟. 20个紫薇品种抗寒性比较研究[D]. 北京: 北京林业大学, 2009.
[35]	LYONS J M, RAISON J K. Oxidative activity of mitochondria isolated from plant tissues sensitive and resistant to chilling injury[J]. Plant physiology, 1970, 45:386-389. pmid: 5427108
[36]	郭伟珍, 赵京献, 李莹, 等. 以电导法评价10个梨品种(系)的抗寒性[J]. 落叶果树, 2020, 52(6):18-22.
[37]	袁宗英, 赵欢欢, 杨铭鑫, 等. 自然越冬过程中大叶黄杨抗寒性生理指标的动态变化[J]. 现代园艺, 2020, 43(17):25-27.
[38]	徐龙, 唐燕, 王新建. 不同酸枣实生苗抗寒性差异比较[J]. 河南农业科学, 2012, 41(10):136-141.

月份	平均气温/℃	平均湿度/%
10月	14	47
11月	5.5	46
12月	-1.5	42
1月	-4	42
2月	0	42
3月	8	32

月份	平均气温/℃	平均湿度/%
10月	14	47
11月	5.5	46
12月	-1.5	42
1月	-4	42
2月	0	42
3月	8	32

日期	当日最高气温	当日最低气温	当日平均气温
2020-10-17	23	5	14
2020-11-04	16	2	9
2020-11-23	7	-3	2
2020-12-08	3	-6	-1.5
2020-12-26	5	-5	0
2021-01-11	2	-11	-4.5
2021-01-28	2	-10	-4
2021-02-18	10	-4	3
2021-03-07	9	-1	4
2021-03-25	22	10	16

日期	当日最高气温	当日最低气温	当日平均气温
2020-10-17	23	5	14
2020-11-04	16	2	9
2020-11-23	7	-3	2
2020-12-08	3	-6	-1.5
2020-12-26	5	-5	0
2021-01-11	2	-11	-4.5
2021-01-28	2	-10	-4
2021-02-18	10	-4	3
2021-03-07	9	-1	4
2021-03-25	22	10	16

	相对含水量	相对电导率	脯氨酸	可溶性蛋白	可溶性糖	淀粉	MDA	SOD	POD	CAT
相对含水量	1
相对电导率	-0.897^*	1
脯氨酸	0.992^**	-0.866	1
可溶性蛋白	0.803	-0.878	0.826	1
可溶性糖	-0.372	0.184	-0.459	-0.578	1
淀粉	-0.257	-0.146	-0.301	-0.014	0.665	1
MDA	-0.654	0.917^*	-0.600	-0.781	-0.002	0.426	1
SOD	0.984^**	-0.858	0.978^**	0.729	-0.279	-0.220	-0.589	1
POD	-0.984^**	0.932^*	-0.983^**	-0.895^*	0.444	0.193	0.726	-0.949^*	1
CAT	-0.591	0.335	-0.601	-0.131	-0.081	0.214	0.003	-0.720	0.473	1