Identification of Salt Tolerance for Sweet Potato Tissue Culture Seedlings

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2022-0564

Abstract

Abstract:

Salt-tolerant germplasm of sweet potato is screened by evaluating the salt tolerance of sweet potato tissue culture seedlings. In this study, seven sweet potato varieties were used as test materials, and the stem segments of the test materials were inoculated into Murashige and Skoog (MS) media containing 0, 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 g/L NaCl, followed by the measurement of vine length, germination rate, rooting rate, root number and salt damage index after 30 days. The comprehensive evaluation of salt tolerance for sweet potato materials was carried out by using Statistic Package for Social Science (SPSS) cluster analysis and membership function. The results showed that ‘Funingzi No.4’ and ‘Funingzi No.5’ were sensitive materials. The root growth was completely inhibited and vine growth was inhibited by 90% in MS medium containing 2 g/L NaCl. ‘Funingzi No.3’, ‘Funingzi No.6’, ‘Funingshu No.12’, ‘Funingshu No. 20’ and ‘Funingshu No.23’ showed certain resistance to salt damage in the appropriate concentration range of salinity. All the indicators indicated that, the seven sweet potato varieties were ordered in terms of salt tolerance strength as follows: ‘Funingshu No.12’ > ‘Funingzi No.3’ > ‘Funingzi No.6’ > ‘Funingshu No. 20’ > ‘Funingshu No. 23’ > ‘Funingzi No.4’ > ‘Funingzi No.5’.

Key words: sweet potato, tissue culture seedlings, identification of salt tolerance, phenotypic response, membership function analysis

GUO Huihui, LIN Congfa, JIANG Yuanbin, XU Shaoxiang, LIN Zeyu, PAN Xianghua. Identification of Salt Tolerance for Sweet Potato Tissue Culture Seedlings[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2023, 39(12): 21-27.

Figures/Tables 8

References 30

[1]	高博文, 孙德玺, 袁高鹏, 等. 121份西瓜材料幼苗期耐盐性鉴定[J]. 果树学报, 2022, 4:1-24.
[2]	VINCENT D, ERGüL A, BOHLMAN M C, et al. Proteomic analysis reveals differences between Vitis vinifera L. cv. Chardonnay and cv. Cabernet sauvignon and their responses to water deficit and salinity[J]. Journal of experimental botany, 2007, 58(7):1873-1892. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erm012 URL
[3]	高翱, 张芸香, 郭晋平. 沙漠植物盐爪爪的耐盐碱性及其对碱性盐胁迫的响应[J]. 山西农业大学学报(自然科学版), 2017(4):248-253.
[4]	刘桂玲, 郑建利, 范维娟, 等. 黄河三角洲盐碱地条件下不同甘薯品种耐盐性[J]. 植物生理学报, 2011, 47(8):777-784.
[5]	SHIMUL M, EBNA H M S R, FOLKARD A. Potassium content is the main driver for salinity tolerance in sweet potato before tuber formation[J]. Journal of agronomy and crop science, 2022(4):1-17.
[6]	崔纪超, 中奕, 钟玉扬, 等. 不同甘薯品种苗期耐盐性试验[J]. 广东农业科学, 2020, 47(4):1-7.
[7]	马佩勇, 边小峰, 郭小丁, 等. 甘薯全生育期耐盐种质筛选与耐盐性评价[J]. 植物遗传资源学报, 2018, 19(3):546-553.
[8]	王文婷, 侯夫云, 王庆美, 等. 耐盐性甘薯品种的初步筛选[J]. 山东农业科学, 2012, 44(11):35-37.
[9]	韦建辰, 徐振彪, 贾文飞, 等. 盐胁迫对3个越橘品种组培苗生长的影响与耐盐性评价[J]. 西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版), 2021, 49(5):113-122.
[10]	胡爱双, 吴雅琴, 程和禾, 等. 八棱海棠耐盐株组培方法及其后代的耐盐性研究[J]. 中国果树, 2020(6):12-15.
[11]	周俊国, 朱月林, 刘正鲁, 等. 组培条件下中国南瓜杂交种耐盐材料的筛选[J]. 核农学报, 2007, 21(4):345-348.
[12]	丁宁, 胡琳, 周荣山. 金娃娃萱草组培苗耐盐性研究[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2015, 43(8):51-52.
[13]	秦红艳, 艾军, 李昌禹, 等. 山葡萄组培苗盐害指数和耐盐指数主成分分析[J]. 北方园艺, 2013,(16):18-21.
[14]	林丛发, 郭慧慧, 蒋元斌, 等. 紫甘薯福宁紫3号茎尖离体培养及种薯生产[J]. 农业科技通讯, 2017, 9:121-124.
[15]	曹齐卫, 杜连达, 杨宗辉, 等. 黄瓜耐盐种质资源的筛选与评价[J]. 核农学报, 2022, 36(5):0865-0875.
[16]	米永伟, 王国祥, 龚成文, 等. 盐胁迫对菘蓝幼苗生长和抗性生理的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2018, 27(6):43-51.
[17]	ASHRAFI E, RAZMJOO J, ZAHEDI M. Effect of salt stress on growth and ion accumulation of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) cultivars[J]. Journal of plant nutr, 2018, 41(7):1-14. doi: 10.1080/01904167.2017.1346665 URL
[18]	DALAL M, MAYANDI K. Identification and expression analysis of group 3 LEA family genes in sorghum [Sorghum bicolor(L.) Moench][J]. Acta physiol. plantarum, 2013, 35(3):979-984. doi: 10.1007/s11738-012-1123-7 URL
[19]	EDIGA A, PALLE SURENDER R, MERLA SRILAKSHMI S, et al. Salt tolerance and activity of antioxidative enzymes of transgenic finger millet overexpressing a vacuolar H(+)-pyrophosphatase gene (SbVPPase) from sorghum bicolor[J]. Journal of plant physiol, 2014, 171(10):789-798. doi: 10.1016/j.jplph.2014.02.001 URL
[20]	付茵茵, 闫文潇, 王友晓, 等. 国槐无性系对NaCl胁迫的生长生理响应及耐盐性综合评价[J]. 中国农学通报, 2021, 37(34):43-51. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-0038
[21]	熊明彪, 罗茂盛, 田应兵, 等. 小麦生长期土壤养分与根系活力变化及其相关性研究[J]. 土壤肥料, 2005(3):8-11.
[22]	马帅国, 田蓉蓉, 胡慧, 等. 粳稻种质资源苗期耐盐性综合评价与筛选[J]. 植物遗传资源学报, 2020, 21(5):1089-1101.
[23]	王建伟, 徐光龄, 陈艳丽, 等. 外源茉莉酸甲酯对盐胁迫下菜用甘薯生长生理的影响[J]. 中国瓜菜, 2022, 35(6):1-7.
[24]	邹德堂, 郭微, 孙健, 等. 水稻不同基因型耐盐相关性状主成分分析及综合评价[J]. 东北农业大学学报, 2018, 49(8):1-9.
[25]	任富莉, 潘映红, 张笑笑, 等. 基于多重表型的高粱耐盐性综合评价方法[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2019, 21(6):152-162. doi: 10.13304/j.nykjdb.2019.0069
[26]	金杭霞, 郭丹丹, 杨清华, 等. 利用模糊隶属函数法综合评价大豆萌发期耐盐性[J]. 分子植物育种, 2021, 19(24):8265-8271.
[27]	李振华, 刘荣, 张馨馨, 等. 外源脱落酸增强高羊茅耐盐性的作用[J]. 北方园艺, 2022(7):66-75.
[28]	肖强, 王刚, 衣艳君, 等. 外源脱落酸增强甘薯幼苗耐盐性的作用[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2016, 22(1):201-208.
[29]	魏龙. 外源褪黑素增强水稻幼苗耐盐性的生理功能和基因表达分析[D]. 南京: 南京农业大学, 2020.
[30]	陈小娟, 刘铠鸣, 宣明刚, 等. 增强作物耐盐胁迫能力的根际促生菌筛选、鉴定及田间应用效果[J]. 南京农业大学学报, 2020, 43(3):452-459.

级别	盐害症状
0	生长正常，未受盐害状
1	仅少数叶片有轻度褶皱萎缩
2	约半数叶片萎蔫或枯萎，根生长正常
3	芽及根生长受抑制
4	生长完全受抑制，无芽点，无根

级别	盐害症状
0	生长正常，未受盐害状
1	仅少数叶片有轻度褶皱萎缩
2	约半数叶片萎蔫或枯萎，根生长正常
3	芽及根生长受抑制
4	生长完全受抑制，无芽点，无根

种质	NaCl浓度/(g/L)
种质	0	2	4	6	8	10
福宁紫3号	0c	0c	27.78±4.81b	36.11±12.73b	97.22±4.81a	95.37±4.24a
福宁紫4、5号	0c	80.56±9.62b	88.89±4.81b	88.89±4.81b	88.89±4.81b	100a
福宁紫6号	0c	0c	66.67±36.32b	80.56±9.62ab	92.00±8.36ab	100a
福宁薯12号	0d	0d	0d	36.11±9.62c	75.00±22.05b	95.37±4.24a
福宁薯20号	0c	0c	72.22±19.24b	83.33±0.00ab	86.11±9.62ab	97.22±4.81a
福宁薯23号	0c	27.78±25.46b	86.11±4.82a	94.45±4.81a	100a	100a

种质	NaCl浓度/(g/L)
种质	0	2	4	6	8	10
福宁紫3号	0c	0c	27.78±4.81b	36.11±12.73b	97.22±4.81a	95.37±4.24a
福宁紫4、5号	0c	80.56±9.62b	88.89±4.81b	88.89±4.81b	88.89±4.81b	100a
福宁紫6号	0c	0c	66.67±36.32b	80.56±9.62ab	92.00±8.36ab	100a
福宁薯12号	0d	0d	0d	36.11±9.62c	75.00±22.05b	95.37±4.24a
福宁薯20号	0c	0c	72.22±19.24b	83.33±0.00ab	86.11±9.62ab	97.22±4.81a
福宁薯23号	0c	27.78±25.46b	86.11±4.82a	94.45±4.81a	100a	100a

种质	相对蔓长	相对发芽率	相对生根率	相对根数	盐害指数	平均隶属函数	综合排名
福宁紫3号	0.670	1.000	1.000	1.000	0.687	0.872	2
福宁紫4号	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	6
福宁紫5号	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	7
福宁紫6号	0.414	0.400	0.667	0.578	0.250	0.462	3
福宁薯12号	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	1
福宁薯20号	0.341	0.600	0.500	0.571	0.188	0.440	4
福宁薯23号	0.306	0.200	0.445	0.333	0.031	0.263	5