Rooting Agent (GGR-6): Effects on the Response of Festuca rubra and Poa pratensis to Drought Stress

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2020-0458

Abstract

Abstract:

To explore the physiological role of rooting agent (GGR-6) on plant growth and drought tolerance, two high quality turfgrass, Festuca rubra ‘Rubra’ and Poa pratensis ‘Merit’ were used as the materials in this study. The controlling water method was adopted, and the two kinds of turfgrass were irrigated with different concentrations of GGR-6 at different periods after sowing. The results showed that the activities of antioxidant enzymes in F. rubra and P. pratensis increased first and then decreased under drought stress, and the content of free proline increased to maintain osmotic balance, but the content of MDA in leaf kept at a low level. The drought tolerance of P. pratensis was higher than that of F. rubra. GGR-6 irrigation could obviously promote the growth of the two kinds of turfgrass seedlings, and improve their drought resistance. For F. rubra, GGR-6 irrigation with low concentrations (0.1 g/L, 0.2 g/L) one week after sowing had a better effect. For P. pratensis, GGR-6 irrigation with low concentrations (0.1 g/L, 0.2 g/L) two weeks after sowing, and high concentration (0.3 g/L) after three weeks had better effects. The results suggest that GGR-6 plays an important role in the drought tolerance of plant, and the study provides a scientific basis for the use of exogenous substances to improve plant drought resistance.

Key words: rooting agent, GGR-6, drought stress, Festuca rubra, Poa pratensis, turfgrass, osmotic adjustment

CLC Number:

Q945.32

Wang Jinghong, Chen Ai, Zhang Wen, Zhao Yi, Tian Jingyao, Wang Zhensheng, Xu Gudan, Lin Jixiang. Rooting Agent (GGR-6): Effects on the Response of Festuca rubra and Poa pratensis to Drought Stress[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2021, 37(15): 47-54.

Figures/Tables 9

References 29

[1]	初晓辉, 岳信龙, 任健, 等. 水分胁迫下4种冷季型草坪草抗旱性比较研究[J]. 草原与草坪, 2012,32(04):15-19.
[2]	钟迪恒. 干旱胁迫下草坪植物中膜脂组分和渗透调节的研究[J]. 上海:上海交通大学, 2011:11-39.
[3]	陈雅君, 孙晓阳, 李勋, 等. 基于组学技术的草坪草抗逆性研究进展[J]. 中国草地学报, 2018,40(06):99-106.
[4]	孙建明. 高羊茅不同基因型抗旱性评价及其生理调节机理研究[J]. 上海:上海交通大学, 2013:1-11.
[5]	夏颖. 三种豆科草坪草对干旱胁迫的生理响应[D]. 雅安:四川农业大学, 2015.
[6]	王宁, 袁美丽, 陈浩, 等. 干旱胁迫及复水对入侵植物节节麦幼苗生长及生理特性的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2019,28(01):70-78.
[7]	李京蓉, 周学斌, 马真, 等. 6种高寒牧区禾本科牧草抗旱性研究与评价[J]. 草地学报, 2018,26(03):659-665.
[8]	宋娅丽, 王克勤, 王莎, 等. 3种冷季型草坪草对持续干旱、高温及其互作的生理生态响应[J]. 草地学报, 2018,26(03):705-717.
[9]	尚明娟, 曹允馨, 王刚, 等. 干旱胁迫下多年生黑麦草对污泥处理的生理生化响应[J]. 草原与草坪, 2018,38(02):25-32.
[10]	Mohammad Nur Alam. 外源褪黑素和油菜素内酯提高草坪草高羊茅抗热和抗旱性的机制[D]. 武汉:中国科学院大学(中国科学院武汉植物园), 2018:3-48.
[11]	王竞红, 陈鹏, 陈艾, 等. 3种观赏草苗期对干旱胁迫的响应及抗旱性评价[J]. 草业科学, 2019,36(05):1266-1274.
[12]	张翠梅, 师尚礼, 刘珍, 等. 干旱胁迫对不同抗旱性苜蓿品种根系形态及解剖结构的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2019,28(05):79-89.
[13]	覃世杰, 谭长强, 侯文娟, 等. 植物生长调节剂GGR6对中国无忧花生理生化的影响[J]. 北方园艺, 2014,22:72-75.
[14]	Lebedev V, Arkaev M, Dremova M, et al. Effects of Growth Regulators and Gelling Agents on Ex Vitro Rooting of Raspberry[J]. Plants (Basel, Switzerland), 2018(08):1-9.
[15]	Paradikovi N, Zeljkovi S, Tkalec M, et al. Influence of rooting powder on propagation of sage (Salvia officinalis L.) and rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis L.) with green cuttings[J]. Poljoprivreda, 2013,19(2):10-15.
[16]	Li H, Hu T, Fu J, et al. Identification of genes associated with adaptation to Nacl toxicity in perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.)[J]. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf, 2012,79:153-162. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2011.12.011 URL
[17]	李本峰, 杜红梅. 褪黑素预处理提高多年生黑麦草抗旱性的机理分析[J]. 草业科学, 2019(03):666-676.
[18]	李鑫. 硅调节早熟禾抗旱性及其生理变化规律的研究[D]. 哈尔滨:东北农业大学, 2013, 9-10.
[19]	马娇, 宗人旭, 刘金平, 等. 丝茅侵入量对3种冷季型草坪草竞争力及生长潜力影响的差异[J]. 草业学报, 2016,25(07):140-147.
[20]	王学奎. 植物生理生化试验原理和技术[M]. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2006:89.
[21]	李合生. 植物生理生化实验园林和测定技术[M]. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2003:164-167.
[22]	李龙, 姚云峰, 秦富仓, 等. 黄花甸子流域人工林土壤有机碳密度分布特征[J]. 西北农林科技大学学报:自然科学版, 2016, 44-77.
[23]	刘登望, 王建国, 李林, 等. 不同花生品种对旱涝胁迫的响应及生理机制[J]. 生态学报, 2015,35(11):3817-3824.
[24]	谢小玉, 马仲炼, 白鹏, 等. 辣椒开花结果期对干旱胁迫的形态与生理响应[J]. 生态学报, 2014,34(13):3797-3805.
[25]	刘承, 李佐同, 杨克军, 等. 水分胁迫及复水对不同耐旱性玉米生理特性的影响[J]. 植物生理学报, 2015,51(5):702-708.
[26]	张仁和, 郑友军, 马国胜, 等. 干旱胁迫对玉米苗期叶片光合作用和保护酶的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2014,31(5):1303-1311.
[27]	Yan Z, Zhou L, Ya-Ping L, et al. Chitosan and spermine enhance drought resistance in white clover, associated with changes in endogenous phytohormones and polyamines, and antioxidant metabolism[J]. Functional Plant Biology, 2018,28(04):11-19.
[28]	曾伟航, 程碧真, 彭燕, 等. 甘露糖浸种对干旱胁迫下白三叶种子萌发及抗旱性的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2019,28(07):112-122.
[29]	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, 2018,13(8):07-18.

组别	干旱胁迫初始时间	干旱时间/d
1	4月19日	15
2	4月22日	12
3	4月24日	10
4	4月26日	8
5	4月28日	6

组别	干旱胁迫初始时间	干旱时间/d
1	4月19日	15
2	4月22日	12
3	4月24日	10
4	4月26日	8
5	4月28日	6

周期	处理浓度	干旱天数
周期	处理浓度	0 d	6 d	8 d	10 d	12 d	15 d
W1	A	2.12±0.80 d	2.75±0.48b	2.87±0.86b	2.90±0.78b	3.68±0.48a	5.03±1.06a
	B	2.09±0.55d	2.35±0.65c	2.88±0.35b	2.75±0.90b	3.97±0.28a	4.10±0.58a
	C	2.27±0.22c	2.36±0.68c	2.62±0.08b	2.72±0.27b	3.54±0.97a	3.72±0.88a
	D	2.39±0.13c	3.48±1.14c	3.57±1.08c	3.77±1.39c	4.84±1.09b	3.93±0.12a
W2	A	2.13±0.05d	2.61±0.16 d	2.860±19d	3.98±0.10c	4.23±0.04b	5.45±0.12a
	B	2.07±0.17d	2.29±0.23d	2.30±0.18 d	2.55±0.02c	3.17±0.1b	4.02±0.09a
	C	1.90±0.04c	2.30±0.01b	2.29±0.08b	2.50±0.13b	3.12±0.27a	3.47±0.03a
	D	1.92±0.05d	2.58±0.13c	2.64±0.07c	2.71±0.17c	3.23±0.20b	5.45±0.10a
W3	A	2.13±0.05c	2.29±0.23c	2.86±0.19c	4.34±0.10b	5.45±0.12a	6.95±0.15a
	B	2.07±0.17e	2.31±0.08 d	2.33±0.18 d	3.72±0.11c	4.02±0.09b	6.83±0.11a
	C	1.90±0.04d	2.3±0.01c	2.30±0.08c	3.52±0.07b	3.67±0.03b	4.30±0.04a
	D	1.92±0.05e	2.58±0.13d	3.34±0.07c	5.11±0.13b	5.95±0.10ab	6.09±0.16a

周期	处理浓度	干旱天数
周期	处理浓度	0 d	6 d	8 d	10 d	12 d	15 d
W1	A	2.12±0.80 d	2.75±0.48b	2.87±0.86b	2.90±0.78b	3.68±0.48a	5.03±1.06a
	B	2.09±0.55d	2.35±0.65c	2.88±0.35b	2.75±0.90b	3.97±0.28a	4.10±0.58a
	C	2.27±0.22c	2.36±0.68c	2.62±0.08b	2.72±0.27b	3.54±0.97a	3.72±0.88a
	D	2.39±0.13c	3.48±1.14c	3.57±1.08c	3.77±1.39c	4.84±1.09b	3.93±0.12a
W2	A	2.13±0.05d	2.61±0.16 d	2.860±19d	3.98±0.10c	4.23±0.04b	5.45±0.12a
	B	2.07±0.17d	2.29±0.23d	2.30±0.18 d	2.55±0.02c	3.17±0.1b	4.02±0.09a
	C	1.90±0.04c	2.30±0.01b	2.29±0.08b	2.50±0.13b	3.12±0.27a	3.47±0.03a
	D	1.92±0.05d	2.58±0.13c	2.64±0.07c	2.71±0.17c	3.23±0.20b	5.45±0.10a
W3	A	2.13±0.05c	2.29±0.23c	2.86±0.19c	4.34±0.10b	5.45±0.12a	6.95±0.15a
	B	2.07±0.17e	2.31±0.08 d	2.33±0.18 d	3.72±0.11c	4.02±0.09b	6.83±0.11a
	C	1.90±0.04d	2.3±0.01c	2.30±0.08c	3.52±0.07b	3.67±0.03b	4.30±0.04a
	D	1.92±0.05e	2.58±0.13d	3.34±0.07c	5.11±0.13b	5.95±0.10ab	6.09±0.16a

周期	处理浓度	干旱天数
周期	处理浓度	0 d	6 d	8 d	10 d	12 d	15 d
W1	A	2.23±1.95e	2.15±1.29e	2.67±0.82d	3.15±0.35c	3.51±0.40b	4.73±1.06a
	B	2.92±2.32d	3.08±0.56c	3.57±1.04b	3.59±0.25b	4.37±0.69a	4.23±2.18a
	C	2.51±2.67c	2.49±1.21c	3.95±0.38b	3.99±0.40b	4.19±0.59b	4.77±1.35a
	D	3.38±0.51cd	3.13±0.14d	3.42±0.17c	4.05±0.88b	4.38±0.93a	4.87±1.15a
W2	A	2.23±0.17d	2.05±1.29d	2.67±0.82c	3.15±0.35b	3.51±0.40ab	3.73±1.06a
	B	2.47±0.06e	3.08±0.56 d	3.57±1.04c	3.79±0.25b	3.87±0.69ab	4.23±2.18a
	C	1.89±0.04e	2.49±1.21d	3.45±0.32bc	3.19±0.40c	3.79±0.59b	4.07±1.25a
	D	2.32±0.15 d	3.13±0.14c	3.42±0.17c	4.05±0.88b	4.38±0.93a	4.87±1.15a
W3	A	2.64±0.75c	2.25±1.29d	2.67±0.82c	3.15±0.35bc	3.51±0.40b	4.73±1.06a
	B	2.43±0.04e	3.08±0.56 d	3.57±1.04c	3.49±0.25c	4.37±0.69b	5.23±2.18a
	C	2.39±0.10e	2.49±1.21d	3.35±0.38c	3.89±0.40c	4.19±0.59b	5.17±1.35a
	D	2.39±0.05d	2.93±0.14d	3.42±0.17c	4.05±0.88b	4.38±0.93b	5.87±1.15a