接骨木无性系苗期干旱胁迫响应及抗旱性综合评价

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb18120009

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为揭示不同种接骨木无性系的抗旱性,探讨其对干旱环境的适应能力,为干旱瘠薄山地造林提供材料。采用盆栽法进行自然干旱胁迫试验,运用主成分分析对不同处理下各无性系生理指标进行综合评价。结果表明：干旱胁迫下,无性系PT-1的生物量增量最大,PT-2的根冠比最大。在干旱胁迫逐增情况下,细胞膜透性逐增,当干旱达到中、重度时,无性系PT-1和PT-2的细胞膜透性最小。叶绿素含量及超氧化物岐化酶活性均随干旱程度增加呈先增后降趋势。随干旱胁迫增加可溶性糖和脯氨酸均随之增大。在重度干旱胁迫下,无性系PT-1的可溶性糖含量最大。主成分分析得出,各无性系抗旱能力由强到弱为：XY-2、JY-1、XY-1、XY-3、PT-1、PT-3、PT-2。其中,XY-2、JY-1具有较强抗旱性,可初步作为抗旱材料进行后续研究。

关键词: 接骨木, 无性系, 苗期, 抗旱性, 生理指标, 综合评价

Abstract:

The paper aims to reveal the drought resistance of different clones of Sambucus williamsii, to explore the adaptability of Sambucus williamsii to arid environment, and to provide experimental materials for afforestation in arid and barren mountains. We carried out the natural drought stress test by pot experiment method, and comprehensively evaluated the physiological indexes of each clone under different treatments by using the principal component analysis. The results showed that: the biomass increment of PT-1 was the largest, the root-shoot ratio of PT-2 was the largest under drought stress; with the increase of drought stress, the permeability of cell membrane increased, the permeability cell membrane of PT-2 and PT-1 was the smallest when the drought reached moderate and severe degree; the chlorophyll content and the SOD activity increased firstly and then decreased, the soluble sugar and proline increased with the increase of drought stress; under severe drought stress, the soluble sugar content of PT-1 was the highest. The principal component analysis showed that: the drought resistance ability from strong to weak was XY-2, JY-1, XY-1, XY-3, PT-1, PT-3, PT-2, among them, XY-2 and JY-1 had relatively strong drought resistance and could be further studied as drought-resistant clonal materials.

Key words: Sambucus williamsii, clone, seedling stage, drought resistance, physiological index, comprehensive evaluation

中图分类号:

S326

姚俊修, 刘学良, 李善文, 任飞, 李庆华, 吴海涛, 翟红莲, 吴德军. 接骨木无性系苗期干旱胁迫响应及抗旱性综合评价[J]. 中国农学通报, 2020, 36(9): 75-81.

Junxiu Yao, Xueliang Liu, Shanwen Li, Fei Ren, Qinghua Li, Haitao Wu, Honglian Zhai, Dejun Wu. Sambucus williamsii Clones at Seedling Stage: Response to Drought Stress and Comprehensive Evaluation of Drought Resistance[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2020, 36(9): 75-81.

图/表 11

参考文献 23

[1]	张景书. 干旱的定义及其逻辑分析[J].干旱地区农业研究,1993,11(3):97-100.
[2]	Apel K, Hir T H.Reactive oxygen species: metabolism, oxidative stress, and signal transduction[J].Annual Review of Plant Biology,2004,55:373-399.
[3]	Anjum S A, Xie X Y, Wang L C, et al.Morphological, physiological and biochemical responses of plants to drought stress[J].African Journal of Agricultural Research,2011,6(9):2026-2032.
[4]	White D A, Turner N C, Galbraith J H.Leaf water relations and stomatal behavior of four allopatric Eucalyptus species planted in Mediterranean southwestern Australia[J].Tree Physiology,2000,20(17):1157-1165.
[5]	郝广明,胡荣,高泰,等.接骨木研究综述[J].北华大学学报:自然科学版,2000,1(2):168-169.
[6]	胡荣,戚继忠,薛振平,等.药食两用木本新油源——接骨木油[J].林业科学,2005,41(1):65-70.
[7]	刘学良,姚俊修,吴海涛,等.接骨木花粉活力测定、培养基筛选及贮藏研究[J].山东农业科学,2018,50(3):129-131.
[8]	赵岩峰,肖峰,潘勤.接骨木的化学成分与药理作用[J].国外医药·植物药分册,2007,22(5):198-200.
[9]	赵京芬,周广芬.接骨木及其同属植物的化学成分和药理活性研究进展[J].中国冶金工业医学杂志,2010,27(4):398-400.
[10]	沈植国,朱云宝,刘天锋,等.优良木本油料树种接骨木栽培技术[J].江苏农业科学,2012,40(8):163-165.
[11]	程晓月,许宏刚,汉梅兰,等. 3种植物生长调节剂对金叶接骨木扦插生根的影响[J].甘肃农业大学学报,2016(4):108-112.
[12]	潘昕,邱权,李吉跃.干旱胁迫对青藏高原6种植物生理指标的影响[J].生态学报,2014,34(13):3558-3567.
[13]	Henkel P A.Physiology of plants under drought[J].Annual Review Plant Physiology,1964,15:363-386.
[14]	杨敏生,裴保华,朱之悌.白杨双交杂种无性系抗旱性鉴定指标分析[J].林业科学,2002,38(6):36-42.
[15]	Yang Minsheng.Studies on the growth of double crass clone of P. tomentosa under the conditions of water stress[J].20th session of the international poplar conmmission,1996.
[16]	耿东梅,单立山,李毅,等.土壤水分胁迫对红砂幼苗叶绿素荧光和抗氧化酶活性的影响[J].植物学报,2014,49(3):282-291.
[17]	潘昕,邱权,李吉跃,等.干旱胁迫对两种速生树种叶绿素含量的影响[J].桉树科技,2013,30(3):17-22.
[18]	白富丽.逆境胁迫对农作物3种保护酶活性的影响[J].中国农业信息,2015(13):58.
[19]	吴芹,张光灿,裴斌,等.3个树种对不同程度土壤干旱的生理生化响应[J].生态学报,2013,33(12):3648-3656.
[20]	Meier C E, Newton R J, Puryear J D, et al.Physiological response of loblolly Pine (Pinustaeda L.) seedlings to drought stress: Osmotic adjustment and tissue elastieity[J].Journal Plant Physiology,1992,140(6):754-760.
[21]	于同泉,秦岭,王有年.渗透胁迫板栗苗可溶性糖累积组分变化的研究[J].北京农学院学报,1996,11(6):43-47.
[22]	陈少瑜,郎南军,李吉跃,等.干旱胁迫下坡柳等幼苗质膜相对透性和脯氨酸含量的变化[J].广西植物,2006,26(1):80-84.
[23]	陈志成,王志伟,王荣荣.3种阔叶树种对持续干旱的生理响应及抗旱性评价[J].中国水土保持科学,2013,11(2):65-71

序号	简称	无性系	来源
1	JY-1	金叶接骨木优株	山东省林科院中试基地
2	XY-1	西洋接骨木优株	济南平阴县孔村
3	PT-1	接骨木优株	济南平阴县孔村
4	PT-2	接骨木优株	山东博华高效生态农业科技有限公司
5	PT-3	接骨木优株	江苏丰县
6	XY-2	西洋接骨木优株	山东省林科院中试基地
7	XY-3	西洋接骨木优株	山东省林科院中试基地

序号	简称	无性系	来源
1	JY-1	金叶接骨木优株	山东省林科院中试基地
2	XY-1	西洋接骨木优株	济南平阴县孔村
3	PT-1	接骨木优株	济南平阴县孔村
4	PT-2	接骨木优株	山东博华高效生态农业科技有限公司
5	PT-3	接骨木优株	江苏丰县
6	XY-2	西洋接骨木优株	山东省林科院中试基地
7	XY-3	西洋接骨木优株	山东省林科院中试基地

无性系	土壤相对含水量/%
无性系	无干旱(0 d)	轻度干旱(5 d)	中度干旱(10 d)	重度干旱(15 d)
JY-1	102.3	65.8	42.4	27.9
XY-1	101.2	64.2	43.5	21.3
PT-1	103.5	63.9	42.2	27.5
PT-2	100.4	63.1	39.3	25.9
PT-3	102.8	64.5	39.4	25.8
XY-2	102.4	67.2	40.5	30.4
XY-3	100.1	65.3	40.8	25.4

无性系	土壤相对含水量/%
无性系	无干旱(0 d)	轻度干旱(5 d)	中度干旱(10 d)	重度干旱(15 d)
JY-1	102.3	65.8	42.4	27.9
XY-1	101.2	64.2	43.5	21.3
PT-1	103.5	63.9	42.2	27.5
PT-2	100.4	63.1	39.3	25.9
PT-3	102.8	64.5	39.4	25.8
XY-2	102.4	67.2	40.5	30.4
XY-3	100.1	65.3	40.8	25.4

测定指标	中度干旱			重度干旱
测定指标	Prin1	Prin2	Prin3	Prin1	Prin2	Prin3
特征根	5.36	1.46	1.02	4.76	1.60	1.49
累计贡献率/%	59.56	75.80	87.09	52.94	70.66	87.28
苗高增量(X1)	0.89	0.06	0.09	0.78	-0.30	0.45
地径增量(X2)	0.15	0.89	-0.22	-0.02	0.81	-0.11
根冠比(X3)	-0.84	-0.27	-0.08	-0.97	0.00	-0.04
生物量增量(X4)	-0.81	-0.38	-0.33	-0.78	-0.35	-0.46
细胞膜透性(X5)	0.35	0.65	0.62	0.94	-0.03	0.23
叶绿素(X6)	0.13	-0.09	0.95	0.12	0.02	0.94
超氧化物岐化酶SOD(X7)	0.35	0.86	0.23	0.73	0.35	-0.39
可溶性糖(X8)	-0.76	-0.19	-0.46	-0.19	-0.75	-0.54
脯氨酸(X9)	0.77	0.51	0.00	0.78	0.51	0.04