草甘膦抗性与敏感牛筋草生物型对干旱胁迫的生理响应

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2022-1015

中国农学通报 ›› 2023, Vol. 39 ›› Issue (29): 123-128.doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2022-1015

草甘膦抗性与敏感牛筋草生物型对干旱胁迫的生理响应

郭文磊(), 张纯, 张泰劼, 田兴山()

广东省农业科学院植物保护研究所/农业农村部华南果蔬绿色防控重点实验室/广东省植物保护新技术重点实验室，广州 510640

收稿日期:2022-12-12 修回日期:2023-03-15 出版日期:2023-10-15 发布日期:2023-10-11
通讯作者: 田兴山，男，1964年出生，河南信阳人，研究员，博士，主要从事农田杂草抗药性及防控技术方面的研究。通信地址：510640 广东省广州市天河区金颖路7号，E-mail：xstian@tom.com
作者简介:
郭文磊，男，1989年出生，山东菏泽人，副研究员，博士，研究方向：农田杂草抗药性与防控技术。通信地址：510640 广东省广州市天河区金颖路7号，E-mail：nongzhida@126.com
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金青年项目“基于EPSPS基因复增的抗草甘膦牛筋草与敏感生物型间适合度差异性机理”(31901900); 广州市基础与应用基础研究项目“基于EPSPS基因多样性的草甘膦抗敏生物型生态适合度差异性研究”(202201010517); 广东省科技计划项目“广东省农田生态系统除草剂安全使用科学观测研究站”(2019B121201003); 广东省现代农业产业技术体系共性关键技术研发创新团队“植物重大灾害预警共性关键技术研发创新团队建设项目”(2022KJ113); 广东省现代农业产业技术体系共性关键技术研发创新团队“植物重大灾害预警共性关键技术研发创新团队建设项目”(2023KJ113); 科技创新战略专项资金（高水平农科院建设）项目(R2017YJ-YB1003)

Physiological Responses to Drought Stress in Glyphosate-resistant and -susceptible Biotypes of Eleusine indica

GUO Wenlei(), ZHANG Chun, ZHANG Taijie, TIAN Xingshan()

Institute of Plant Protection, Guangdong Academy of Agricultural Sciences/ Key Laboratory of Green Prevention and Control on Fruits and Vegetables in South China, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs/ Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of High Technology for Plant Protection, Guangzhou 510640

Received:2022-12-12 Revised:2023-03-15 Published-:2023-10-15 Online:2023-10-11

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为了明确草甘膦抗性(R)与敏感(S)牛筋草生物型对干旱胁迫的响应差异，以基于EPSPS基因复增的牛筋草R生物型和S生物型作为研究材料，分析比较了两者在正常水分(CK)和干旱胁迫(DS)处理下的相关生理指标。结果表明：在CK处理下，R和S生物型的根系形态参数、叶绿素荧光参数和光合作用参数均无显著性差异。在DS处理下，S生物型的根长度、根尖数、分枝数和交叉数为R生物型的2倍以上，且S生物型(56.4%)的根冠比显著高于R生物型(48.2%)。干旱处理后4~96 h，S生物型的Fv/Fm、Y(Ⅱ)和ETR(Ⅱ)值均显著高于R生物型。在DS处理下，S生物型[24.5 μmol/(m²·s)]的净光合速率显著高于R生物型[20.5 μmol/(m²·s)]。本研究表明牛筋草R和S生物型对干旱胁迫的响应存在显著差异，R生物型对干旱胁迫的适应能力略低于S生物型。

关键词: 牛筋草, 草甘膦抗性, 干旱胁迫, 根系形态, 叶绿素荧光

Abstract:

In order to specify the response difference of glyphosate-resistant (R) and -susceptible (S) biotypes of Eleusine indica to drought stress, using the R biotype with EPSPS gene amplification and the S biotype as research materials, the physiological indicators of the two biotypes were analyzed and compared under normal water (CK) and drought stress (DS) treatments. The results showed that, under CK treatment, there were no significant differences in root morphological parameters, chlorophyll fluorescence parameters and photosynthetic parameters between the R and S biotype. However, under DS treatment, the root length, root tip number, root fork number and root crossing number of the S biotype were 2 times higher than that of the R biotype, and the S biotype (56.4%) had higher root:shoot ratio than the R biotype (48.2%). At 4 to 96 h after DS treatment, values of the Fv/Fm, Y (Ⅱ) and ETR (Ⅱ) of the S biotype were higher than that of the R biotype. Under DS treatment, the net photosynthetic rate of the S biotype [24.5 μmol/(m²·s)] was significantly higher than that of the R biotype [20.5 μmol/(m²·s)]. This study showed that there were significant differences in the responses to drought stress between the R and S biotype of E. indica, and the adaptability of the R biotype to drought stress was slightly lower than that of the S biotype.

Key words: Eleusine indica, glyphosate resistance, drought stress, root morphology, chlorophyll fluorescence

郭文磊, 张纯, 张泰劼, 田兴山. 草甘膦抗性与敏感牛筋草生物型对干旱胁迫的生理响应[J]. 中国农学通报, 2023, 39(29): 123-128.

GUO Wenlei, ZHANG Chun, ZHANG Taijie, TIAN Xingshan. Physiological Responses to Drought Stress in Glyphosate-resistant and -susceptible Biotypes of Eleusine indica[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2023, 39(29): 123-128.

图/表 6

参考文献 31

[1]	DUKE S O, POWLES S B. Glyphosate: a once-in-a-century herbicide[J]. Pest management science, 2008, 64:319-325. doi: 10.1002/ps.1518 pmid: 18273882
[2]	杨彩宏, 田兴山, 冯莉, 等. 牛筋草对草甘膦的抗药性[J]. 中国农业科学, 2012, 45(10):2093-2098. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2012.10.023
[3]	ZHU J W, WANG J, DITOMMASO A, et al. Weed research status, challenges, and opportunities in China[J]. Crop protection, 2020, 134:104449. doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2018.02.001 URL
[4]	HEAP I, DUKE S O. Overview of glyphosate-resistant weeds worldwide[J]. Pest management science, 2018, 74(5):1040-1049. doi: 10.1002/ps.4760 pmid: 29024306
[5]	BAERSON S R, RODRIGUEZ D J, TRAN M, et al. Glyphosate-resistant goosegrass. Identification of a mutation in the target enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase[J]. Plant physiology, 2002, 129:1265-1275. pmid: 12114580
[6]	CHEN J C, HUANG H J, ZHANG C X, et al. Mutations and amplification of EPSPS gene confer resistance to glyphosate in goosegrass (Eleusine indica)[J]. Planta, 2015, 242:859-868. doi: 10.1007/s00425-015-2324-2 pmid: 25998526
[7]	YU Q, JALALUDIN A, HAN H, et al. Evolution of a double amino acid substitution in the 5-Enolpyruvylshikimate-3-Phosphate synthase in Eleusine indica conferring high level glyphosate resistance[J]. Plant physiology, 2015, 167:1440-1447. doi: 10.1104/pp.15.00146 URL
[8]	BAUCOM R S. Evolutionary and ecological insights from herbicide-resistant weeds: what have we learned about plant adaptation, and what is left to uncover?[J]. New phytologist, 2019, 223: 68-82. doi: 10.1111/nph.15723 pmid: 30710343
[9]	KESHTKAR E, ABDOLSHAHI R, SASANFAR H, et al. Assessing fitness costs from a herbicide resistance management perspective: A review and insight[J]. Weed science, 2019, 67(2):137-148. doi: 10.1017/wsc.2018.63 URL
[10]	WANG Y H, HAN H P, CHEN J Y, et al. A dinitroaniline herbicide resistance mutation can be nearly lethal to plants[J]. Pest management science, 2022, 78(4): 1547-1554. doi: 10.1002/ps.6773 pmid: 34981627
[11]	HAN H P, VILA-AIUB M M, JALALUDIN A, et al. A double EPSPS gene mutation endowing glyphosate resistance shows a remarkably high resistance cost[J]. Plant cell and environment, 2017, 40(12):3031-3042. doi: 10.1111/pce.v40.12 URL
[12]	COCKERTON H. Investigating the cost of adaptation in Amaranthus tuberculatus populations with evolved resistance to glyphosate[D]. England: university of warwick, 2013.
[13]	CHANDI A, JORDAN D L, YORK A C, et al. Response of herbicide resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) accessions to drought stress[J]. International journal of agronomy, 2013: 823913.
[14]	WU C X, DAVIS A S, TRANEL P J. Limited fitness costs of herbicide-resistance traits in Amaranthus tuberculatus facilitate resistance evolution[J]. Pest management science, 2018, 74:293-301. doi: 10.1002/ps.2018.74.issue-2 URL
[15]	MARTIN S L, BENEDICT L, SAUDER C A, et al. Glyphosate resistance reduces kochia fitness: Comparison of segregating resistant and susceptible F₂ populations[J]. Plant science, 2017, 261:69-79. doi: 10.1016/j.plantsci.2017.04.010 URL
[16]	YANG X, LI L, JIANG X, et al. Genetically engineered rice endogenous 5-enolpyruvoylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS) transgene alters phenology and fitness of crop-wild hybrid offspring[J]. Scientific reports, 2017, 7:6834. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-07089-9 pmid: 28754953
[17]	FANG J, NAN P, GU Z Y, et al. Overexpressing exogenous 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS) genes increases fecundity and auxin content of transgenic Arabidopsis plants[J]. Frontiers in plant science, 2018, 9:233. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2018.00233 URL
[18]	LI Z L, LI X J, CUI H L, et al. Vegetative and fecundity fitness benefit found in a glyphosate-resistant Eleusine indica population caused by 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase overexpression[J]. Frontiers in plant science, 2021, 12:776990. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2021.776990 URL
[19]	ZHANG C, YU C J, YU Q, et al. Evolution of multiple target-site resistance mechanisms in individual plants of glyphosate-resistant Eleusine indica from China[J]. Pest management science, 2021, 77:4810-4817. doi: 10.1002/ps.v77.10 URL
[20]	宋殿秀, 崔良基, 王德兴, 等. 17份食用向日葵杂交种苗期抗旱性综合评价[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2021, 39(3):18-22.
[21]	段居琦, 袁佳双, 徐新武, 等. 对IPCC AR6报告中有关农业系统结论的解读[J]. 气候变化研究进展, 2022, 18(4):422-432.
[22]	PATTERSON E L, PETTINGA D J, RAVET K, et al. Glyphosate resistance and EPSPS gene duplication: Convergent evolution in multiple plant species[J]. Journal of heredity, 2017, 109:117-125. doi: 10.1093/jhered/esx087 URL
[23]	ZHANG C, FENG L, TIAN X S. Alterations in the 5′ untranslated region of the 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS) gene influence EPSPS overexpression in glyphosate-resistant Eleusine indica[J]. Pest management science, 2018, 74:2561-2568. doi: 10.1002/ps.2018.74.issue-11 URL
[24]	VILA-AIUB M M, YU Q, POWLES S B. Do plants pay a fitness cost to be resistant to glyphosate?[J]. New phytologist, 2019, 223:532-547. doi: 10.1111/nph.2019.223.issue-2 URL
[25]	GIACOMINI D, WESTRA P, WARD S M. Impact of genetic background in fitness cost studies: An example from glyphosate-resistant palmer amaranth[J]. Weed science, 2014, 62:29-37. doi: 10.1614/WS-D-13-00066.1 URL
[26]	VILA-AIUB M M, GOH S S, GAINES T A, et al. No fitness cost of glyphosate resistance endowed by massive EPSPS gene amplification in Amaranthus palmeri[J]. Planta, 2014, 239:793-801. doi: 10.1007/s00425-013-2022-x URL
[27]	OSIPITAN O A, DILLE J A. No impact of increased EPSPS gene copy number on growth and fecundity of glyphosate-resistant Kochia (Bassia scoparia)[J]. Weed science, 2019, 67:22-28. doi: 10.1017/wsc.2018.82 URL
[28]	YANNICCARI M, VILA-AIUB M M, ISTILART C, et al. Glyphosate resistance in perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L. ) is associated with a fitness penalty[J]. Weed science, 2016, 64:71-79. doi: 10.1614/WS-D-15-00065.1 URL
[29]	PURRINGTON C B, BERGELSON J. Exploring the physiological basis of costs of herbicide resistance in Arabidopsis thaliana[J]. American naturalist, 1999, 154:S82-S91 doi: 10.1086/303285 URL
[30]	KOUAME KB-J, SAVIN M C, RANGANI G, et al. Transpiration responses of herbicide-resistant and -susceptible palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri (S.) Wats.) to progressively drying soil[J]. Agriculture, 2022, 12:335. doi: 10.3390/agriculture12030335 URL
[31]	ZHANG T J, FENG L, TIAN X S, et al. Differential response of two biotypes of goosegrass (Eleusine indica) with different sensitivities to glyphosate to elevated CO₂ concentrations[J]. International journal of agriculture and biology, 2015, 17(5):976-982. doi: 10.17957/IJAB URL

处理	生物型	根长度/cm	根表面积/cm²	平均根直径/cm	根体积/cm³	根尖数	分枝数	交叉数
CK	R	602.9±81.0	58.4±8.1	0.33±0.04	0.49±0.05	2592.0±418.5	4548.8±408.5	1741.3±199.9
	S	825.9±101.3	68.2±6.1	0.26±0.01	0.45±0.04	3000.0±301.9	5874.7±942.2	2419.0±609.5
	P值	0.072	0.242	0.088	0.466	0.326	0.142	0.209
DS	R	315.9±41.2	27.1±3.4	0.28±0.04	0.19±0.05	990.3±265.0	1611.3±197.0	553.8±73.7
	S	677.9±78.9	48.6±11.5	0.23±0.03	0.26±0.07	2254.7±370.7	4724.7±973.2	1900.0±227.6
	P值	0.001	0.030	0.197	0.269	0.007	0.003	<0.001

处理	生物型	根长度/cm	根表面积/cm²	平均根直径/cm	根体积/cm³	根尖数	分枝数	交叉数
CK	R	602.9±81.0	58.4±8.1	0.33±0.04	0.49±0.05	2592.0±418.5	4548.8±408.5	1741.3±199.9
	S	825.9±101.3	68.2±6.1	0.26±0.01	0.45±0.04	3000.0±301.9	5874.7±942.2	2419.0±609.5
	P值	0.072	0.242	0.088	0.466	0.326	0.142	0.209
DS	R	315.9±41.2	27.1±3.4	0.28±0.04	0.19±0.05	990.3±265.0	1611.3±197.0	553.8±73.7
	S	677.9±78.9	48.6±11.5	0.23±0.03	0.26±0.07	2254.7±370.7	4724.7±973.2	1900.0±227.6
	P值	0.001	0.030	0.197	0.269	0.007	0.003	<0.001

处理	生物型	根系干重/g	地上部干重/g	根冠比/%
CK	R	0.076±0.013	0.261±0.04	29.1±2.1
	S	0.074±0.013	0.231±0.029	31.7±2.0
	P值	0.809	0.279	0.128
DS	R	0.058±0.019	0.119±0.034	48.2±6.7
	S	0.068±0.025	0.121±0.041	56.4±3.6
	P值	0.406	0.938	0.019

处理	生物型	根系干重/g	地上部干重/g	根冠比/%
CK	R	0.076±0.013	0.261±0.04	29.1±2.1
	S	0.074±0.013	0.231±0.029	31.7±2.0
	P值	0.809	0.279	0.128
DS	R	0.058±0.019	0.119±0.034	48.2±6.7
	S	0.068±0.025	0.121±0.041	56.4±3.6
	P值	0.406	0.938	0.019

处理	生物型	A/[μmol/(m²·s)]	Gs/[μmol/(m²·s)]
CK	R	22.6±1.1ab	0.18±0.02a
CK	S	24.4±1.7a	0.17±0.02a
DS	R	20.5±0.8b	0.13±0.01b
DS	S	24.5±0.3a	0.13±0.01b

草甘膦抗性与敏感牛筋草生物型对干旱胁迫的生理响应

Physiological Responses to Drought Stress in Glyphosate-resistant and -susceptible Biotypes of Eleusine indica

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 6

参考文献 31

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

关于本刊

作者中心

审者中心

在线期刊

联系我们

[1]	温玉洁, 赵雅杰, 朱孔艳, 赵榕, 王猛, 乔益民, 包海柱, 高聚林. 向日葵抗旱自交系叶片转录组SNP位点信息挖掘[J]. 中国农学通报, 2023, 39(9): 106-114.
[2]	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.
[3]	许淳皓, 景田兴, 杨益众. 蚜虫适应干旱的表现及相关机制研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2023, 39(29): 109-115.
[4]	陈雪, 吉春容, 巴特尔·巴克, 胡启瑞, 杨明凤, 郭燕云, 刘爱琳. 膜下滴灌条件下棉花花铃期光合特征参数对干旱胁迫的响应[J]. 中国农学通报, 2023, 39(19): 1-8.
[5]	王洋, 于森淼, 王旌扬, 宋海龙, 雷耀东, 张海燕, 刘波. 干旱胁迫和复水对萱草的生理特性的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2023, 39(19): 58-64.
[6]	谷书杰, 钱禛锋, 娄永明, 沈庆庆, 普凤雅, 曾丹, 马豪, 何丽莲, 李富生. 接种内生菌对干旱胁迫下甘蔗的生理影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(6): 42-47.
[7]	张彬, 李金秀, 王震, 石利朝, 李金榜. 干旱胁迫下‘宛麦632’的抗旱性分析[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(36): 12-16.
[8]	石杨, 尹希龙, 李王胜, 兴旺. PEG模拟干旱胁迫对耐旱型与干旱敏感型甜菜种质形态指标的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(29): 45-51.
[9]	赵佼娇, 哀建国. 杉木幼苗光合及叶绿素荧光特征对氮沉降的短期响应[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(29): 67-73.
[10]	陈敏敏, 聂功平, 李心, 周琳, 杨柳燕, 张永春. 自然高温条件下百合叶绿素荧光特性分析[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(29): 86-95.
[11]	王政, 刘久羽, 阚宏伟, 黄劭理, 李智, 董树超, 刘杨旭, 李晓婷, 杨晓斌, 李先才. 氮肥运筹对‘红大’烤烟根系形态与烟叶品质的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(25): 1-7.
[12]	李王胜, 王雪倩, 尹希龙, 石杨, 兴旺. 甜菜苗期抗旱性鉴定及指标筛选[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(21): 17-23.
[13]	连晓倩, 陶长铸, 郭昊澜, 李娜娜, 曹越, 吴鹏飞. 光照对芦苇生物生产力及光合能力的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(20): 47-52.
[14]	银珊珊, 周国彦, 顾博文, 武春成, 闫立英, 谢洋. 褪黑素引发对干旱胁迫下黄瓜幼苗生理特性的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(19): 30-36.
[15]	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.