Effect of NaCl and Na2SO4 Salt Stress on the Germination of Upland Cotton Seeds and Screening of Salt-tolerant Germplasm

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2025-0221

Abstract

Abstract:

In response to the salt stress caused by NaCl and Na₂SO₄ in saline soil that restricts cotton production, and the problem that single salt stress identification is not comprehensive, in order to screen stable salt-tolerant varieties and comprehensively evaluate the salt tolerance of different materials, this study used 75 land cotton varieties as the experimental materials and simulated salt stress with 150 mmol/L NaCl and Na₂SO₄. The five traits such as germination potential, germination rate, hypocotyl length, root length and fresh weight were measured. Principal component analysis, membership function method and cluster analysis were used to comprehensively evaluate the salt tolerance. The results revealed as follows. (1) Compared with the control group, both salt stresses had different degrees of inhibitory effects on various germination indicators, and the inhibitory effect of Na₂SO₄ was stronger than that of NaCl. (2) Cluster analysis showed that under the Euclidean distance of 5, both salt stresses could divide the tested materials into 5 salt tolerance grades. Under NaCl salt stress, there were 6 high-tolerance varieties (accounting for 8.00%), 13 salt-tolerant varieties (accounting for 17.33%), 22 medium-tolerant varieties (accounting for 29.33%), 25 sensitive varieties (accounting for 33.33%), and 9 highly-sensitive varieties (accounting for 12.00%); under Na₂SO₄ salt stress, there was only 1 high-tolerance variety (accounting for 1.33%), 6 salt-tolerant varieties (accounting for 8.00%), 16 medium-tolerant varieties (accounting for 21.33%), 37 sensitive varieties (accounting for 49.33%), and 15 highly-sensitive varieties (accounting for 20.00%). (3) Under both salt stress conditions, materials with consistent salt tolerance performance were 22 in total, including 1 high-tolerance variety and 1 salt-tolerant variety. The salt tolerance of different land cotton varieties at the germination stage showed significant differences. 'Zhongmiansuo 96B' and 'Xinluzhong 73' were stable salt-tolerant varieties under both salt stress conditions. In the future, combined with the identification of salt tolerance at the seedling stage and molecular marker analysis, the research on the salt tolerance mechanism can be deepened, providing more comprehensive support for cotton salt-tolerance breeding.

Key words: upland cotton, seed, germination period, NaCl, Na₂SO₄, correlation analysis, principal component analysis, membership function, cluster analysis

LUO Jing, DU Shanshan, YAO Qingqing, WANG Dongli, HE Zhongsheng, SUN Huijian, WANG Ruijun. Effect of NaCl and Na₂SO₄ Salt Stress on the Germination of Upland Cotton Seeds and Screening of Salt-tolerant Germplasm[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2026, 42(3): 48-56.

Figures/Tables 8

References 26

[1]	孙璐, 周宇飞, 李丰先, 等. 盐胁迫对高粱幼苗光合作用和荧光特性的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2012, 45(16):3265-3272. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2012.16.005
[2]	杨劲松. 中国盐渍土研究的发展历程与展望[J]. 土壤学报, 2008, 45(5):837-845.
[3]	孟晨, 鲁雪莉, 王菊英, 等. 不同类型盐胁迫对小黑麦种子萌发的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2023, 32(12):171-180. doi: 10.11686/cyxb2023068
[4]	罗静, 孙绘健, 杜珊珊, 等. 25个不同基因型陆地棉品种种子萌发期耐盐性评价[J]. 中国棉花, 2024, 51(7):23-30. doi: 10.11963/cc20230209
[5]	杨淑萍, 危常州, 梁永超. 盐胁迫对不同基因型海岛棉种子萌发特性的影响[J]. 中国棉花, 2012, 39(12):6-10. doi: 10.11963/issn.1000-632X.20121203
[6]	李双男, 郭慧娟, 王晶. 不同盐碱胁迫对棉花种子萌发的影响[J]. 种子, 2018, 37(1):38-45.
[7]	祁通, 孙阳讯, 黄建, 等. 两种盐生植物在南北疆地区的适生性及吸盐能力[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2017(1):144-148.
[8]	刘蕾. 新疆土壤盐分的组成和分布特征[J]. 干旱环境监测, 2009, 23(4):227-229.
[9]	徐佳陵, 曾文官, 袁延超, 等. 陆地棉种质资源萌发出苗期耐盐性鉴定[J]. 山东农业科学, 2017, 49(9):32-36.
[10]	王俊娟, 王德龙, 樊伟莉, 等. 陆地棉萌发至三叶期不同生育阶段耐盐特性[J]. 生态学报, 2011(13):3720-3727.
[11]	苏秀娟, 徐海江, 邓晓娟, 等. 盐胁迫对海岛棉种子活力的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2020, 57(9):1604-1614. doi: 10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2020.09.005
[12]	张国伟, 路海玲, 张雷, 等. 棉花萌发期和苗期耐盐性评价及耐盐指标筛选[J]. 应用生态学报, 2011, 22(8):2045-2053.
[13]	白灯莎·买买提艾力, 张少民, 孙良斌, 等. 新疆不同年代27个棉花品种(系)种子萌发阶段耐盐能力比较[J]. 西北农业学报, 2012, 21(1):72-79.
[14]	库尼都孜阿依·吐尔汗, 任毅, 颜安, 等. 新疆冬小麦品种萌发期耐盐性综合评价及耐盐种质的筛选[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2020, 57(1):20-31. doi: 10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2020.01.003
[15]	郑巨云, 曾辉, 王俊铎, 等. 陆地棉品种资源萌发期耐盐性的隶属函数法评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2018, 55(9):1579-1592. doi: 10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2018.09.002
[16]	白灯莎·买买提艾力, 李寒暝, 张少民, 等. 不同棉花品种种子萌发阶段耐盐性综合评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2011, 48(1):18-24.
[17]	徐宁, 陈冰嬬, 王明海, 等. 绿豆品种资源萌发期耐碱性鉴定[J]. 作物学报, 2017, 43(1):112-121.
[18]	严青青, 张巨松, 李星星, 等. 盐碱胁迫对海岛棉种子萌发及幼苗根系生长的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2019, 45(1):100-110. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2019.84067
[19]	王俊娟, 叶武威, 周大云, 等. 盐胁迫下不同耐盐类型棉花的萌发特性[J]. 棉花学报, 2007, 19(4):315-317.
[20]	吴文超, 曲延英, 高文伟, 等. 不同棉花品种对盐、旱胁迫的光合响应及抗逆性评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2016, 53(9):1569-1579.
[21]	王兰芬, 武晶, 景蕊莲, 等. 绿豆种质资源苗期抗旱性鉴定[J]. 作物学报, 2015, 41(1):145-153.
[22]	任毅, 颜安, 张芳, 等. 国内外301份小麦品种(系)种子萌发期抗旱性鉴定及评价[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2019, 37(3):1-14.
[23]	李衣, 潘磊, 吴华, 等. 60份豇豆品种资源的耐盐能力评判[J]. 植物遗传资源学报, 2016, 17(1):70-77.
[24]	张卫星, 赵致, 柏光晓, 等. 不同基因型玉米自己系的抗旱性研究与评价[J]. 玉米科学, 2007, 15(5):6-11.
[25]	罗静, 杜珊珊, 孙绘健, 等. 陆地棉种质资源种子萌发期耐盐性综合评价[J]. 中国农学通报, 2025, 41(3):25-35. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2024-0368
[26]	于莹, 程莉莉, 赵东升, 等. 亚麻品种萌发期耐盐性鉴定[J]. 黑龙江农业科学, 2015(1):1-5.

处理	统计参数	发芽势/%	发芽率/%	下胚轴长/cm	根长/cm	鲜重/g
NaCl胁迫	最小值	36.67	61.67	4.46	3.16	2.45
	最大值	100.00	100.00	8.88	11.05	6.92
	均值	74.53	86.78	6.87	6.31	4.60
	标准差	16.63	9.05	1.11	1.44	0.81
	变异系数/%	22.31	10.43	16.16	22.77	17.66
较对照变化	均值	-12.67	-6.29	-1.79	-1.34	-0.62
较对照变化	变异系数/%	10.37	4.34	6.13	-5.03	1.97
Na₂SO₄胁迫	最小值	0.00	50.00	0.65	1.86	1.01
	最大值	88.33	100.00	4.13	6.56	2.91
	均值	32.73	74.27	2.08	3.37	2.14
	标准差	23.05	14.36	0.71	0.98	0.44
	变异系数/%	70.43	19.33	34.01	29.02	20.69
较对照变化	均值	-54.47	-18.80	-6.58	-4.28	-3.08
较对照变化	变异系数/%	58.49	13.24	23.98	1.22	5.00
对照	最小值	46.67	73.33	6.43	3.01	3.49
	最大值	100.00	100.00	10.82	13.93	7.31
	均值	87.20	93.07	8.66	7.65	5.22
	标准差	10.41	5.66	0.87	2.13	0.82
	变异系数/%	11.94	6.09	10.03	27.80	15.69

处理	统计参数	发芽势/%	发芽率/%	下胚轴长/cm	根长/cm	鲜重/g
NaCl胁迫	最小值	36.67	61.67	4.46	3.16	2.45
	最大值	100.00	100.00	8.88	11.05	6.92
	均值	74.53	86.78	6.87	6.31	4.60
	标准差	16.63	9.05	1.11	1.44	0.81
	变异系数/%	22.31	10.43	16.16	22.77	17.66
较对照变化	均值	-12.67	-6.29	-1.79	-1.34	-0.62
较对照变化	变异系数/%	10.37	4.34	6.13	-5.03	1.97
Na₂SO₄胁迫	最小值	0.00	50.00	0.65	1.86	1.01
	最大值	88.33	100.00	4.13	6.56	2.91
	均值	32.73	74.27	2.08	3.37	2.14
	标准差	23.05	14.36	0.71	0.98	0.44
	变异系数/%	70.43	19.33	34.01	29.02	20.69
较对照变化	均值	-54.47	-18.80	-6.58	-4.28	-3.08
较对照变化	变异系数/%	58.49	13.24	23.98	1.22	5.00
对照	最小值	46.67	73.33	6.43	3.01	3.49
	最大值	100.00	100.00	10.82	13.93	7.31
	均值	87.20	93.07	8.66	7.65	5.22
	标准差	10.41	5.66	0.87	2.13	0.82
	变异系数/%	11.94	6.09	10.03	27.80	15.69

处理	测定指标	相对发芽势	相对发芽率	相对下胚轴长	相对根长	相对鲜重
NaCl胁迫	相对发芽势	1
	相对发芽率	0.745^**	1
	相对下胚轴长	0.292^*	0.378^**	1
	相对根长	0.096	0.146	0.161	1
	相对鲜重	0.207	0.241^*	0.605^**	0.228^*	1
Na₂SO₄胁迫	相对发芽势	1
	相对发芽率	0.446^**	1
	相对下胚轴长	0.641^**	0.417^**	1
	相对根长	0.562^**	0.306^**	0.534^**	1
	相对鲜重	0.558^**	0.260^*	0.717^**	0.623^**	1

处理	测定指标	相对发芽势	相对发芽率	相对下胚轴长	相对根长	相对鲜重
NaCl胁迫	相对发芽势	1
	相对发芽率	0.745^**	1
	相对下胚轴长	0.292^*	0.378^**	1
	相对根长	0.096	0.146	0.161	1
	相对鲜重	0.207	0.241^*	0.605^**	0.228^*	1
Na₂SO₄胁迫	相对发芽势	1
	相对发芽率	0.446^**	1
	相对下胚轴长	0.641^**	0.417^**	1
	相对根长	0.562^**	0.306^**	0.534^**	1
	相对鲜重	0.558^**	0.260^*	0.717^**	0.623^**	1

处理	主成分	特征根	贡献率/%	累计贡献率/%	特征向量
处理	主成分	特征根	贡献率/%	累计贡献率/%	发芽势	发芽率	下胚轴长	根长	鲜重
NaCl 胁迫	CI₁	2.316	46.323	46.323	0.747	0.798	0.745	0.350	0.667
	CI₂	1.162	23.424	69.565	-0.557	-0.478	0.378	0.406	0.561
	CI₃	0.891	17.825	87.390	0.071	0.080	-0.329	0.842	-0.250
Na₂SO₄胁迫	CI₁	3.060	61.204	61.204	0.827	0.575	0.862	0.782	0.830
	CI₂	0.814	16.288	77.492	0.102	0.785	-0.063	-0.242	-0.353
	CI₃	0.480	9.590	87.083	0.013	0.058	-0.379	0.549	-0.177

Effect of NaCl and Na₂SO₄ Salt Stress on the Germination of Upland Cotton Seeds and Screening of Salt-tolerant Germplasm

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 8

References 26

Related Articles 15

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments

For authors

For reviewers

Reader center

Contact us

序号	名称	NaCl 胁迫		Na₂SO₄胁迫		序号	名称	NaCl胁迫		Na₂SO₄胁迫
序号	名称	D值	排序	D值	排序	序号	名称	D值	排序	D值	排序
1	创棉501号	0.284	19	0.145	74	39	冀棉669	0.200	44	0.130	75
2	创棉508	0.158	61	0.526	21	40	快育2号	0.227	38	0.333	53
3	创棉512	0.200	45	0.258	64	41	农大棉8号	0.221	41	0.435	36
4	创棉519	0.242	35	0.446	32	42	农大棉12号	0.293	17	0.240	66
5	金垦1442	0.248	30	0.519	22	43	农大棉13号	0.241	36	0.255	65
6	新陆早42号	0.274	21	0.572	16	44	日辉棉6号	0.358	5	0.583	12
7	新陆早62号	0.321	9	0.350	48	45	神牛棉2号	0.246	33	0.185	70
8	新陆中55号	0.109	73	0.440	35	46	运8404	0.164	60	0.326	54
9	新陆中67号	0.259	27	0.163	71	47	中078	0.167	59	0.318	57
10	新陆中69号	0.170	58	0.583	13	48	中331-33	0.276	20	0.308	58
11	新6015	0.346	6	0.601	10	49	中773-72	0.309	13	0.350	49
12	新陆中54号	0.154	62	0.405	40	50	中5765	0.262	25	0.278	61
13	新陆中73号	0.322	8	0.696	4	51	中880327	0.152	64	0.454	30
14	新陆中76号	0.316	12	0.440	34	52	中893181	0.261	26	0.344	50
15	新陆中80号	0.114	72	0.341	51	53	中AR681-316	0.174	55	0.294	60
16	新陆中83号	0.117	71	0.615	8	54	中R03	0.399	3	0.207	68
17	新陆早57号	0.248	32	0.430	37	55	中R93-4	0.319	10	0.153	72
18	新陆早73号	0.412	1	0.742	3	56	中R773-309	0.255	29	0.612	9
19	新陆中81号	0.179	51	0.376	43	57	中R773-310	0.221	40	0.384	41
20	新陆中86号	0.318	11	0.455	29	58	中R773-314	0.263	24	0.430	38
21	中棉所96A	0.146	65	0.516	23	59	中R773-329	0.208	43	0.450	31
22	中棉所96B	0.372	4	0.824	1	60	中R971708	0.248	31	0.577	15
23	欣试518	0.272	23	0.260	63	61	中RO14121	0.124	68	0.381	42
24	新陆中87号	0.174	57	0.473	26	62	中资512	0.289	18	0.357	47
25	H33-1-4	0.302	14	0.321	55	63	中资04184	0.244	34	0.202	69
26	H216	0.119	70	0.599	11	64	新陆中102	0.179	50	0.296	59
27	H219	0.189	49	0.465	28	65	新陆中104	0.174	56	0.409	39
28	T115	0.198	46	0.578	14	66	新陆中106	0.142	66	0.488	24
29	新陆早64号	0.178	52	0.641	7	67	D27565	0.221	39	0.472	27
30	新陆早65号	0.153	63	0.235	67	68	HY169	0.293	16	0.483	25
31	新陆早81号	0.259	28	0.749	2	69	邯816	0.093	74	0.656	6
32	新陆早82号	0.191	48	0.545	19	70	邯903	0.175	54	0.569	17
33	Ari971	0.297	15	0.366	45	71	冀丰1271	0.081	75	0.685	5
34	澳引991	0.329	7	0.376	44	72	冀农大35号	0.273	22	0.444	33
35	邯258	0.212	42	0.337	52	73	冀农大37号	0.119	69	0.544	20
36	邯8266	0.400	2	0.361	46	74	中棉EB005	0.133	67	0.147	73
37	邯无198	0.195	47	0.267	62	75	鲁棉378	0.233	37	0.561	18
38	冀丰4号	0.178	53	0.321	56

耐盐类型	NaCl/Na₂SO₄盐胁迫	品种（系）数	品种（系）名称
高耐	6/1	1	中棉所96B
耐盐	13/6	1	新陆中73号
中耐	22/16	5	金垦1442、新陆早42号、中R773-309、中R971708、鲁棉378
敏感	25/37	14	新陆中54号、新陆中81号、新陆中87号、H219、邯258、冀丰4号、运8404、中078、中880327、中AR681-316、中R773-329、新陆中102、新陆中104、新陆中106
高感	9/15	1	中棉EB005

[1]	WEI Xiaojuan, YANG Deren, ZHANG Xing, LIU Kai, LAN Jinxuan. Preliminary Identifying Camellia Hybrids F₁ by Using SSR Molecular Makers [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2026, 42(3): 57-64.
[2]	LIU Sixi, HUANG Xiangqing, DAI Tingyun, SUN Jiawei, CHEN Huihuan, GAO Tian, TANG Xueqin, YANG Yuping, YAN Hong. Effects of Sowing Date and Seeding Rate on Population Growth and Yield of Winter Wheat in Chengdu Plain Area [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2026, 42(2): 32-39.
[3]	JI Bingyi. Evolution of Main Characteristics of Peanut Varieties Registered in Liaoning Province from 2017 to 2024 [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2026, 42(2): 40-49.
[4]	QUAN Shenchun, MA Yongpeng, LONG Yunxing, WANG Xi, GAO Chaowen, YUE Kai, PAN Zengrong, DENG Qiwei, LIU Yuanjian. Effects of Different Seedling-raising Substrates on Seed Germination and Seedling Growth of Panax japonicus [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2026, 42(1): 110-115.
[5]	WANG Wenli, YIN Xiaoning, JIN Haibo, MA Lei, NIU Junqiang, MA Ming. Effects of Microbial Agents on Apple Seedlings Growth and Rhizosphere Soil Microorganism [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2026, 42(1): 142-152.
[6]	JIANG Kunlian, FENG Changchun, HAN Lihong, SUN Long, HUANG Kanghui, JIANG Hong, CAI Yan. Effects of New Bio-organic Fertilizer on Growth of Flue-cured Tobacco [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2026, 42(1): 20-26.
[7]	XIA Jiamiao, DENG Xiaoxia, LIN Ruizhu, DU Yatong, WANG Jinghong, LIN Jixiang. Progress on Omics Techniques of Seed Dormancy and Dormancy Release [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2026, 42(1): 43-59.
[8]	YANG Shujiao, YANG Jianjun, WANG Sheng, WANG Youbing, LI Jinliang, HE Meng, ZHANG Ying, HU Changping, CUI Maohuan, JIANG Jianfa. Study on Flora Characteristics of Seed Plants in Jizu Mountains of Yunnan Province [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2026, 42(1): 50-55.
[9]	QI Shuokun, ZHANG Yiyang, MA Yu, LIU Haolin, SHI Juncong, WU Longguo. Effect of Brackish Water on Growth and Quality of Cherry Tomatoes [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2026, 42(1): 56-69.
[10]	XU Cunfa, SUN Yiwen, WANG Ning, WANG Jialei, YANG Chenye, CHEN Liyang, SHAN Chengjun. Quality Analysis and Comprehensive Evaluation of Different Varieties of Small Fruit Watermelon [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2026, 42(1): 70-76.
[11]	HUANG Rong, TANG Ling, WANG Weicheng, CHANG Qiang, LI Kuanying, HE Huan, PAN Yanhua. Response of Morphological Traits and Chlorophyll Fluorescence of Paeonia lactiflora Leaves to Drought Stress and Evaluation of Drought Resistance [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2026, 42(1): 92-102.
[12]	LIANG Wenzhao, ZHOU Shiyi, WEI Ruiyan, SHI Linya, LIU Naixin, YU Qingtao. Effect of Graphene Oxide on Rice Seed Germination Under Salt Stress [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2025, 41(9): 1-7.
[13]	JIANG Zijian, YANG Maolin, YANG Xiaoxu, LIU Chang, LIU Dajun, FENG Guojun. Effects of Abscisic Acid on Growth and Cold Resistance of Phaseolus vulgaris Seedlings Under Low Temperature Stress [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2025, 41(9): 38-46.
[14]	SU Zechun, YANG Wenhong, YANG Yanlin, YANG Zhengsong, HE Jianping, MU Yongqing, YU Ying, HE Jiawei. Evaluation of Drought Tolerance of Introduced Blueberry Varieties in Northwest Yunnan [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2025, 41(9): 56-64.
[15]	ZHANG Xiaohong, YAN Zheng, WEI Guangbiao. Different Strains of Sweet Potato: Comparison of Accumulation Ability of Exogenous Organic Selenium [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2025, 41(8): 31-38.