Dynamics of Leaf SPAD Values and Its General Combining Ability and Genetic Effects of Late-season Hybrid Rice in South China

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2022-0920

Abstract

Abstract:

This study aims to reveal the dynamic changes in leaf SPAD values, and its general combining ability (GCA), genetic effects of South China late-season indica hybrid rice, in order to provide relevant scientific basis for the breeding of high efficient new hybrid varieties of South China. Three indica male sterile lines and six indica restorer lines widely used in South China were used to make 18 incomplete diallel cross combinations. Then, GCA and genetic effects of leaf SPAD values of these varieties at different developmental stages were analyzed. The results showed that the leaf SPAD values of hybrids and its parents showed a gradually decreasing trend after transplanting, reached the lowest point at the panicle initiation stage (43 or 50 DAT）, and rapidly decreased at the initial heading stage (60 DAT). There were significant differences in leaf SPAD values between different varieties and the same variety at different developmental stages. Especially, from the filling and fruiting stage to the wax ripening stage, the leaf SPAD values of ‘Rongfeng A’, ‘Wufeng A’, ‘Huazhan’, ‘Guanghui 308’ and their corresponding hybrids decreased rapidly, while that of ‘Minghui 63’, ‘Gui99’ and their corresponding hybrids still maintained relatively higher level, which displayed the same trend with the dynamic changes in GCA of their parents’ leaf SPAD values. Except for the early tilling stage in which the special combining ability (SCA) of the leaf SPAD value reached 70.76%, the GCA played a dominant role in the leaf SPAD value at all other developmental stages. The heritabilities of leaf SPAD value of hybrids in reproductive growth stage (21.90%-63.89%) were significantly higher than those in vegetative growth stage (8.02%-14.79%). The leaf SPAD value of hybrids was mainly attributed to additive effect, as well as dominant or/and epistatic effects at the same time. The dominant or/and epistatic effects increased from the initial heading stage to the flowering stage, reaching 18.37% and 22.02%, respectively. At the early and middle stages of development, the leaf SPAD value was less affected by environmental conditions, while at the later stage, it was more affected by environmental conditions.

Key words: hybrid rice, SPAD values, general combining ability (GCA), genetic effect, dynamic changes

LIAO Yilong, LIU Wuge, WANG Feng, LIU Dilin, KONG Le, LI Jinhua, HUO Xing, FU Chongyun, ZHU Manshan, ZENG Xueqin. Dynamics of Leaf SPAD Values and Its General Combining Ability and Genetic Effects of Late-season Hybrid Rice in South China[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2024, 40(3): 1-7.

Figures/Tables 3

References 33

[1]	屠曾平, 林秀珍, 蔡惟涓, 等. 水稻高光效育种的再探索[J]. 植物学报, 1995, 37(8):641-651.
[2]	屠曾平. 水稻光合特性研究与高光效育种[J]. 中国农业科学, 1997, 30(3):28-35.
[3]	艾天成, 李芳敏, 周治安, 等. 作物叶片叶绿素含量与SPAD值相关性研究[J]. 湖北农学院学报, 2000, 20(1):6-8.
[4]	李鹏程, 董合林, 刘爱忠, 等. 棉花上部叶片叶绿素SPAD值动态变化研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2012, 28(3):121-126.
[5]	贾小容, 陈春苑. 不同绿化植物叶绿素SPAD值对环境的响应[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2011, 39(4):206-208.
[6]	MARENCO R, ANTEZANA-VERA S, NASCIMENTO H. Relationship between specific leaf area, leaf thickness, leaf water content and SPAD-502 readings in six amazonian tree species[J]. Photosynthetica, 2009, 47(2):184-190. doi: 10.1007/s11099-009-0031-6 URL
[7]	UDDLING J, GELANG-ALFREDSSON J, PIIKKI K, et al. Evaluating the relationship between leaf chlorophyll concentration and SPAD-502 chlorophyll meter readings[J]. Photosynthesis research, 2007, 91(1):37-46. doi: 10.1007/s11120-006-9077-5 pmid: 17342446
[8]	LEON A P, VINA S Z, FREZZA D. Estimation of chlorophyll contents by correlations between SPAD-502 meter and chromameter in butterhead lettuce[J]. Communications in soil science and plant analysis, 2007, 38(19):2877-2885. doi: 10.1080/00103620701663115 URL
[9]	李媛媛, 常庆瑞, 刘秀英, 等. 基于高光谱和BP神经网络的玉米叶片SPAD值遥感估算[J]. 农业工程学报, 2016, 32(16):135-142.
[10]	李杰, 冯跃华, 麻井彪, 等. 2个超级杂交水稻剑叶主脉两侧SPAD值的差异表现[J]. 核农学报, 2017, 31(4):777-786. doi: 10.11869/j.issn.100-8551.2017.04.0777
[11]	PENG S, GARCIA F V, LAZA R C, et al. Increased N-use efficiency using a chlorophyll meter on high-yielding irrigated rice[J]. Field crops research, 1996, 47:243-252. doi: 10.1016/0378-4290(96)00018-4 URL
[12]	YANG W H, PENG S B, HUANG J L, et al. Using leaf color charts to estimate leaf nitrogen status of rice[J]. Agronomy journal, 2003, 95(1):212-217. doi: 10.2134/agronj2003.2120 URL
[13]	YANG H, YANG J, LV Y, et al. SPAD values and nitrogen nutrition index for the evaluation of rice nitrogen status[J]. Plant production science, 2014, 17(1):81-92. doi: 10.1626/pps.17.81 URL
[14]	HAWKINS J A, SAWYER J E, BARKER D W, et al. Using relative chlorophyll meter values to determine nitrogen application rates for corn[J]. Agronomy journal, 2007, 99(4):1034-1040. doi: 10.2134/agronj2006.0309 URL
[15]	于亚利, 贾文凯, 王春宏, 等. 春玉米叶片SPAD值与氮含量及产量的相关性研究[J]. 玉米科学, 2011, 19(4):89-92.
[16]	RAMESH K, CHANDRASEKARAN B, BALASUBRAMANIAN T N, et al. Chlorophyll dynamics in rice (Oryza sativa) before and after flowering based on SPAD meter monitoring and its relation with grain yield[J]. Journal of agronomy and crop science, 2002, 188(2):102-105. doi: 10.1046/j.1439-037X.2002.00532.x URL
[17]	欧阳杰, 王楚桃, 何光华, 等. 水稻灌浆中后期功能叶中叶绿素含量及其变化趋势与谷物产量关系研究[J]. 西南农业学报, 2012, 25(4):1201-1204.
[18]	BAIL M L, JEUFFROY M H, BOUCHARD C, et al. Is it possible to forecast the grain quality and yield of different varieties of winter wheat from Minolta SPAD meter measurements[J]. European journal of agronomy, 2005, 23(4):379-391. doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2005.02.003 URL
[19]	张丽, 张中东, 陶宏斌, 等. 利用玉米叶片SPAD值预测子粒蛋白质含量分析[J]. 玉米科学, 2014, 22(6):74-79.
[20]	王志东, 陈宜波, 龚蓉, 等. 优质籼稻剑叶SPAD值与稻米品质相关性研究[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2021, 35(1):89-97. doi: 10.16819/j.1001-7216.2021.0508
[21]	贺帆, 黄见良, 崔克辉, 等. 实时实地氮肥管理对水稻产量和稻米品质的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2007, 40(1):123-132.
[22]	朱寒, 时元智, 洪大林, 等. 水肥调控对水稻叶片SPAD值与产量的影响[J]. 中国农村水利水电, 2019, 62(11):50-53.
[23]	阿加拉铁, 曾龙军, 薛大伟, 等. 水稻灌浆期不同阶段叶绿素含量的QTL分析[J]. 作物学报, 2008, 34(1):61-66.
[24]	杨国华, 李绍清, 冯玲玲, 等. 水稻剑叶叶绿素含量相关性状的QTL分析[J]. 武汉大学学报(理学版), 2006, 52(6):751-756.
[25]	沈波, 庄杰云, 张克勤, 等. 水稻叶绿素含量的QTL及其与环境互作分析[J]. 中国农业科学, 2005, 38(10):1937-1943.
[26]	马洪文, 杨桂香, 殷延勃, 等. 基因×环境互作下杂交粳稻剑叶SPAD值遗传效应[J]. 宁夏农林科技, 2009(6):4-7.
[27]	丁颖. 中国水稻栽培学[M]. 北京: 北京农业出版社, 1961.
[28]	徐静斐, 孙五成, 程融, 等. 数量遗传学与水稻育种[M]. 安徽科学技术出版社, 1990:68-90.
[29]	ZHAO D L, OOSTERHUIS D M. Nitrogen application effect on leaf photo syesis, nonstructural carbohydrate concent -rations and yield of field-grown cotton[J]. Special report arkansas agricultural experiment station, 2000, 198(1):69-71.
[30]	刘贞琦. 不同株型水稻光合特性的研究[J]. 中国农业科学, 1980, 13(3):6-10.
[31]	孟军, 陈温福, 徐正进, 等. 水稻剑叶净光合速率与叶绿素含量的研究初报[J]. 沈阳农业大学学报, 2001, 32(4):247-249.
[32]	殷延勃, 马洪文. 粳稻剑叶不同发育时期SPAD值遗传效应分析[J]. 西北农业学报, 2008, 17(5):171-173.
[33]	唐亮, 徐正进. 水稻苗期干物重和叶绿素含量的遗传分析[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2007, 35(6):1633-1635.

亲本	15DAT	20DAT	30DAT	43DAT	50DAT	60DAT	76DAT	90DAT
天丰A	-0.255	-0.163	0.032	-0.624	-1.068	1.155	13.458	12.980
五丰A	0.769	-1.244	-1.737	-1.099	-1.415	-2.214	-2.652	-10.829
荣丰A	-0.514	1.406	1.705	1.723	2.483	1.059	-10.806	-2.151
广恢998	1.015	-2.556	0.291	-0.506	1.978	0.607	0.914	-8.510
广恢122	1.554	1.817	-0.131	-0.086	1.696	2.947	5.189	0.364
广恢308	-0.944	0.195	-0.047	2.456	1.133	-2.247	-16.293	-3.237
华占	-0.294	0.344	0.364	2.243	1.216	-2.138	-11.479	-24.720
桂99	0.126	0.248	0.353	0.299	0.033	2.860	15.869	20.836
明恢63	-1.594	-0.049	-0.829	-4.406	-6.056	-2.209	5.801	15.266

亲本	15DAT	20DAT	30DAT	43DAT	50DAT	60DAT	76DAT	90DAT
天丰A	-0.255	-0.163	0.032	-0.624	-1.068	1.155	13.458	12.980
五丰A	0.769	-1.244	-1.737	-1.099	-1.415	-2.214	-2.652	-10.829
荣丰A	-0.514	1.406	1.705	1.723	2.483	1.059	-10.806	-2.151
广恢998	1.015	-2.556	0.291	-0.506	1.978	0.607	0.914	-8.510
广恢122	1.554	1.817	-0.131	-0.086	1.696	2.947	5.189	0.364
广恢308	-0.944	0.195	-0.047	2.456	1.133	-2.247	-16.293	-3.237
华占	-0.294	0.344	0.364	2.243	1.216	-2.138	-11.479	-24.720
桂99	0.126	0.248	0.353	0.299	0.033	2.860	15.869	20.836
明恢63	-1.594	-0.049	-0.829	-4.406	-6.056	-2.209	5.801	15.266

遗传参数	15DAT	20DAT	30DAT	43DAT	50DAT	60DAT	76DAT	90DAT
一般配合力方差/%	29.24	100.00	100.00	82.75	69.09	74.03	92.05	88.59
特殊配合力方差/%	70.76	0.00	0.00	17.25	30.91	25.97	7.95	11.41
广义遗传力/%	14.79	11.85	8.02	36.06	59.30	56.15	63.89	21.90
狭义遗传力/%	4.32	11.85	8.02	29.84	40.93	34.13	58.82	19.40
显性+上位性效应/%	10.47	0.00	0.00	6.22	18.37	22.02	5.07	2.50
环境方差/%	1.35	2.92	3.94	1.85	1.61	1.57	11.71	26.30

遗传参数	15DAT	20DAT	30DAT	43DAT	50DAT	60DAT	76DAT	90DAT
一般配合力方差/%	29.24	100.00	100.00	82.75	69.09	74.03	92.05	88.59
特殊配合力方差/%	70.76	0.00	0.00	17.25	30.91	25.97	7.95	11.41
广义遗传力/%	14.79	11.85	8.02	36.06	59.30	56.15	63.89	21.90
狭义遗传力/%	4.32	11.85	8.02	29.84	40.93	34.13	58.82	19.40
显性+上位性效应/%	10.47	0.00	0.00	6.22	18.37	22.02	5.07	2.50
环境方差/%	1.35	2.92	3.94	1.85	1.61	1.57	11.71	26.30