Clones of Sophora japonica: Growth and Physiological Responses to Stress and Comprehensive Evaluation on Saline-alkaline Tolerance

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-0038

Abstract

Abstract:

The paper aims to explore the adaptability of clones of Sophora japonica to saline environment, and select the excellent clones with characteristics of fast-growth and strong saline-alkaline resistance. Five new clones of potted plants were used as test materials to study the effects of different salt concentrations (0‰, 2‰, 4‰, 6‰) on their growth and physiological and biochemical indexes. The salt stress experiment was conducted by pot culture method, and the physiological indexes of the clones under different treatments were evaluated by principal component analysis. The results showed that the growth of above-ground and root were inhibited apparently under salt stress. The two clones ‘Huaxia’ and ‘Huashuo’ showed fast-growth under 4‰ and 6‰ concentration. The chlorophyll content decreased obviously in all clones, and the chlorophyll content of ‘Huaxia’ and ‘Huashuo’ showed the smallest decline under stress. The content of the proline in five clones showed the trend of increasing gradually with the increase of concentration, and that of ‘Huaxia’ and ‘Huashuo’ was significantly higher than the other clones. The cell membrane permeability and MDA content had a steady increase with the increase of concentration, and that of ‘Huaxia’, ‘Huashuo’ and ‘Yanhong No.3’ were significantly lower than others under 4‰ concentration stress, and ‘Huaxia’ and ‘Yanhong No.3’ were the lowest under 6‰ concentration stress. SOD activity, CAT activity and POD activity firstly increased and then decreased, SOD activity reached the maximum at a concentration of 2‰, and CAT activity and POD activity reached the maximum at a concentration of 4‰, and that of ‘Huaxia’ was always higher than the other clones at a concentration of 6‰. Under 6‰ concentration stress, the correlation of MDA with electrical conductivity, SOD, POD, biomass, chlorophyll, proline and malondialdehyde was significant or extremely significant. It indicated that using the growth and physiological indexes to evaluate the salt-resistance of five clones could therefore reflect the response of stress. By principal component analysis, the sequence of salt resistance in five clones was as follows: ‘Huaxia’>‘Huashuo’>‘Luhuai No.1’> ‘Yanhong No.3’> clone 564. Therefore, it is preliminarily considered that ‘Huaxia’ and ‘Huashuo’ have significant saline-alkaline resistance and fast-growing, which could be used as the important testing materials for afforestation in saline area and breeding resource in resistance research.

Key words: Sophora japonica, NaCl stress, growth, physiological index, salt tolerance

CLC Number:

S718.43

Fu Yinyin, Yan Wenxiao, Wang Youxiao, Pang Caihong, Li Shuangyun, Zhou Jilei, Min Xufeng, Liu Shengfang, Zang Zhenrong, Qi Yukun, Xia Yang. Clones of Sophora japonica: Growth and Physiological Responses to Stress and Comprehensive Evaluation on Saline-alkaline Tolerance[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2021, 37(34): 43-51.

Figures/Tables 13

References 32

[1]	王遵亲, 祝寿泉, 俞仁培, 等. 中国盐渍土[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 1993.
[2]	朱建峰, 崔振荣, 吴春红, 等. 我国盐碱地绿化研究进展与展望[J]. 世界林业研究, 2018, 31(4):70-75.
[3]	赵可夫, 冯立田. 中国盐生植物资源[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2013.
[4]	Kovda V A. Loss of productive land due to salinization[J]. AMBIO, 1983, 12(2):91-93.
[5]	董红云, 朱振林, 李新华, 等. 山东省盐碱地分布、改良利用现状与治理成效潜力分析[J]. 山东农业科学, 2017, 49(5):134-139.
[6]	付力成, 庄定云, 郭志强, 等. 东南沿海新生盐碱地的形成原因及六维改良法探讨[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2020, 61(1):157-161.
[7]	Ren Z, Gao J, Li L, et al. A rice quantitative trait locus for salt tolerance encodes a sodium transporter[J]. Nature Genetics, 2005, 37(10):1141-1146. doi: 10.1038/ng1643 URL
[8]	姜琳, 王有婧, 周薇, 等. 植物抵抗盐胁迫的生理机制[J]. 北方园艺, 2016(23):190-194.
[9]	郑万钧. 中国树木志[M]. 北京: 中国林业出版社, 1985:1339-1348.
[10]	陈景和. 山东木本植物特征及分布[M]. 济南: 山东大学出版社, 2013.
[11]	宁亚茹, 晋梦珂, 王秀萍, 等. 盐胁迫对黄蜀葵生长生理指标及总黄酮含量的影响[J]. 中药材, 2020(2):259-263.
[12]	楚乐乐, 罗成科, 李芳兰, 等. 盐胁迫下OsDSR2 RNAi转基因水稻的生理特性及转录组学分析[J]. 植物遗传资源学报, 2020, 21(4):954-965.
[13]	张红, 王文浩, 刘文俊, 等. 向日葵对盐碱胁迫的响应机制及缓解措施研究进展[J]. 山西农业科学, 2020, 48(2):268-271.
[14]	马书荣, 李韫, 石美玉, 等. 盐碱胁迫对蒙古柳无性系生理特性的影响[J]. 分子植物育种, 2021(3).
[15]	王因花, 燕丽萍, 吴德军, 等. 绒毛白蜡‘青碧’不同半同胞家系的耐盐性评价[J]. 中南林业科技大学学报, 2020(3):30-38.
[16]	赵瑞, 陈少良. 杨树耐盐性调控的离子平衡与活性氧平衡信号网络[J]. 中国科学:生命科学, 2020, 50(2):75-83.
[17]	张川红, 沈应柏, 尹伟伦. 盐胁迫对国槐和核桃幼苗光合作用的影响[J]. 林业科学研究, 2002(1):41-46.
[18]	张川红, 尹伟伦, 沈应柏. 盐胁迫对国槐与核桃气孔的影响[J]. 北京林业大学学报, 2002(2):1-7.
[19]	赵可夫. 植物抗盐机理[M]. 北京: 中国科学技术出版社, 1993.
[20]	Chandran A K N, Kim J, Yoo Y, et al. Transcriptome analysis of rice-seedling roots under soil-salt stress using RNA-Seq method[J]. Plant Biotechnology Reports, 2019, 13(6).
[21]	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, 2010:134-261.
[22]	余叔文, 汤章城. 植物生理与分子生物学[M]. 上海: 科学出版社, 1998:752-769.
[23]	杨敏生, 梁海永, 王进茂, 等. 水分胁迫下白杨双交杂种无性系苗木生长研究[J]. 河北农业大学学报, 2002(4):1-6.
[24]	林雪锋, 颉洪涛, 虞木奎, 等. 盐胁迫下3种海滨植物形态和生理响应特征及耐盐性差异[J]. 林业科学研究, 2018, 31(3):95-103.
[25]	Tang Z C. The Accumulation of Free Proline and Its Roles in Water-Stressed Sorghum Seedlings[J]. Acta Phytophysiologica Sinica, 1989, 15(1):105-110.
[26]	Kemble A R, Macpherson H T. Liberation of amino acids in perennial rye grass during wilting[J]. Biochemical Journal, 1954, 58(1):46. doi: 10.1042/bj0580046 URL
[27]	刘旻霞, 马建祖. 6种植物在逆境胁迫下脯氨酸的累积特点研究[J]. 草业科学, 2010, 27(4):134-138.
[28]	Furlan A L, Bianucci E, Giordano W, et al. Proline metabolic dynamics and implications in drought tolerance of peanut plants[J]. Elsevier Masson SAS, 2020, 151.
[29]	Moran J F B M I I. Drought induces oxidative stress in pea plants[J]. Planta, 1994, 194(3):346-352.
[30]	Upham B L, Jahnke L S. Photooxidative reactions in chloroplast thylakoids. Evidence for a Fenton-type reaction promoted by superoxide or ascorbate[J]. Photosynjournal Research, 1986, 8(3):235-247.
[31]	朱会娟, 王瑞刚, 陈少良, 等. NaCl胁迫下胡杨(Populus euphratica)和群众杨(P. popularis)抗氧化能力及耐盐性[J]. 生态学报, 2007(10):4113-4121.
[32]	杨传宝, 倪惠菁, 李善文, 等. 白杨派无性系苗期对NaHCO₃胁迫的生长生理响应及耐盐碱性综合评价[J]. 植物生理学报, 2016(10):1555-1564.

	苗高增长量	地径增长量	生物量	叶绿素	MDA	SOD	细胞膜透性	脯氨酸	CAT	POD
苗高增长量	1
地径增长量	0.294	1
生物量	0.431^*	0.314	1
叶绿素	0.544^**	0.237	0.219	1
MDA	-0.658^**	-0.238	-0.466^*	-0.373	1
SOD	-0.107	0.228	-0.083	-0.278	0.503^*	1
细胞膜透性	-0.238	0.017	-0.375	-0.098	0.582^**	0.365	1
脯氨酸	0.492^*	0.269	0.384	0.150	-0.181	0.246	-0.347	1
CAT	0.235	0.309	0.144	0.210	-0.220	-0.010	-0.286	0.463^*	1
POD	0.372	0.230	0.308	0.023	-0.799^**	-0.352	-0.437^*	-0.142	0.082	1

	苗高增长量	地径增长量	生物量	叶绿素	MDA	SOD	细胞膜透性	脯氨酸	CAT	POD
苗高增长量	1
地径增长量	0.294	1
生物量	0.431^*	0.314	1
叶绿素	0.544^**	0.237	0.219	1
MDA	-0.658^**	-0.238	-0.466^*	-0.373	1
SOD	-0.107	0.228	-0.083	-0.278	0.503^*	1
细胞膜透性	-0.238	0.017	-0.375	-0.098	0.582^**	0.365	1
脯氨酸	0.492^*	0.269	0.384	0.150	-0.181	0.246	-0.347	1
CAT	0.235	0.309	0.144	0.210	-0.220	-0.010	-0.286	0.463^*	1
POD	0.372	0.230	0.308	0.023	-0.799^**	-0.352	-0.437^*	-0.142	0.082	1

测定指标	4‰NaCl处理			6‰NaCl处理
测定指标	主成分1	主成分2	主成分3	主成分1	主成分2	主成分3
苗高增长量(X₁)	0.630	0.764	0.129	0.980	0.134	0.086
地径增长量(X₂)	0.897	-0.087	-0.291	0.694	0.576	0.431
生物量(X₃)	0.936	-0.223	0.249	0.922	0.014	0.333
叶绿素(X₄)	-0.723	0.114	-0.423	0.940	0.012	-0.222
丙二醛(X₅)	-0.626	-0.581	0.499	-0.859	0.479	-0.177
超氧化物岐化酶(X₆)	-0.351	0.741	0.569	-0.227	0.840	0.284
细胞膜透性(X₇)	0.396	-0.809	0.414	-0.693	0.467	0.388
脯氨酸(X₈)	-0.834	0.428	0.232	0.723	0.610	-0.320
过氧化氢酶(X₉)	0.387	0.184	0.716	0.806	0.382	-0.391
过氧化物酶(X₁₀)	0.873	0.448	-0.108	0.608	-0.625	0.402
特征值	4.882	2.613	1.665	5.986	2.412	1.033
累计贡献率/%	48.823	74.95	91.597	59.861	83.978	94.306

测定指标	4‰NaCl处理			6‰NaCl处理
测定指标	主成分1	主成分2	主成分3	主成分1	主成分2	主成分3
苗高增长量(X₁)	0.630	0.764	0.129	0.980	0.134	0.086
地径增长量(X₂)	0.897	-0.087	-0.291	0.694	0.576	0.431
生物量(X₃)	0.936	-0.223	0.249	0.922	0.014	0.333
叶绿素(X₄)	-0.723	0.114	-0.423	0.940	0.012	-0.222
丙二醛(X₅)	-0.626	-0.581	0.499	-0.859	0.479	-0.177
超氧化物岐化酶(X₆)	-0.351	0.741	0.569	-0.227	0.840	0.284
细胞膜透性(X₇)	0.396	-0.809	0.414	-0.693	0.467	0.388
脯氨酸(X₈)	-0.834	0.428	0.232	0.723	0.610	-0.320
过氧化氢酶(X₉)	0.387	0.184	0.716	0.806	0.382	-0.391
过氧化物酶(X₁₀)	0.873	0.448	-0.108	0.608	-0.625	0.402
特征值	4.882	2.613	1.665	5.986	2.412	1.033
累计贡献率/%	48.823	74.95	91.597	59.861	83.978	94.306

项目	无性系564	华夏	鲁槐1号	华硕	嫣红3号
4‰NaCl处理	-1.84	2.59	0.72	2.82	-4.27
6‰NaCl处理	-2.29	4.54	1.04	0.1	-3.37
平均值	-4.13	7.13	1.76	2.92	-7.64
排序	4	1	3	2	5