Response of Morphological Traits and Chlorophyll Fluorescence of Paeonia lactiflora Leaves to Drought Stress and Evaluation of Drought Resistance

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2025-0287

Abstract

Abstract:

The study aims to clarify the difference of drought resistance among different herbaceous peony varieties, and screen the varieties with excellent drought resistance. In this study, three herbaceous peony varieties ‘Sandianhong’, ‘Chunxiao’ and ‘Shala’ were used as experimental materials. The potted natural drought method was used to set 0 day (non-drought treatment), 7 days (moderate drought), and 14 days (severe drought) treatments. Leaf length, leaf width, leaf area, leaf circumference, leaf thickness, relative chlorophyll content, leaf nitrogen content, and chlorophyll fluorescence parameters were measured to comprehensively evaluate drought resistance through correlation analysis and principal component analysis. The results indicated that: (1) under drought stress, the leaf length, leaf width, leaf area and leaf circumference of the three P. lactiflora cultivars decreased gradually with the increase of drought stress, and the leaf thickness increased. (2) The relative chlorophyll content (SPAD) and leaf nitrogen content (LNC) of the three P. lactiflora varieties gradually decreased with the increase of drought duration, and the SPAD and LNC of the 14 days drought were significantly different from those of the 0 day drought (P<0.05). (3) The F₀ and F₀/Fm of three P. lactiflora varieties increased after 7 days of drought, and decreased after 14 days; Fv/F₀ decreased after 7 days of drought, but increased after 14 days; Fv, Fm, Fv/Fm and PI_abs decreased with the increase of drought duration. (4) The chlorophyll fluorescence O-J-I-P curves of the three P. lactiflora varieties gradually increased with time, and gradually became gentle when passing through the P point. Under drought stress, the leaf morphological traits and chlorophyll fluorescence parameters of P. lactiflora changed synergistically to adapt to drought environment. The drought resistance of three P. lactiflora varieties was ‘Shala’> ‘Chunxiao’> ‘Sandianhong’.

Key words: Paeonia lactiflora, drought stress, leaf morphological traits, chlorophyll fluorescence, kinetic curve, comprehensive evaluation, principal component analysis

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.

Figures/Tables 9

References 38

[1]	孙宜, 孙猛, 王扬, 等. 3个紫薇品种形态和生理特性对干旱胁迫的响应[J]. 贵州农业科学, 2023,51:93-102.
[2]	张一龙, 喻启坤, 李雯, 等. 不同抗旱性狗牙根地上地下表型特征及内源激素对干旱胁迫的响应[J]. 草业学报, 2023,32:163-178.
[3]	ANDRÉ A D, FIKE J H, BATTAGLIA M L, et al. Effects of biochar on soil fertility and crop productivity in arid regions: A review[J]. Arabian journal of geosciences, 2020, 13(14):1-17. doi: 10.1007/s12517-019-5007-7
[4]	胡晓健, 杨春霞, 谭世才, 等. 干旱胁迫对不同种源马尾松幼苗中脯氨酸及内源激素含量的影响[J]. 南方林业科学, 2020,48:24-28.
[5]	韩蓉, 田青, 孙一梅, 等. 兰州市42种园林木本植物叶片碳氮磷化学计量特征[J]. 北京林业大学学报, 2023, 45(7):110-119.
[6]	周宇飞, 王德权, 陆樟镳, 等. 干旱胁迫对持绿性高粱光合特性和内源激素ABA、CTK含量的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2014,47:655-663.
[7]	MARIA-SONIA M C, SOPHIA R. Leaf functional traits of four evergreen species growing in Mediterranean environmental conditions[J]. Acta physiologiae plantarum, 2016,39:34.
[8]	谭炯锐, 查同刚, 张泽宇, 等. 猪毛菜响应干旱胁迫的叶片结构、生理及转录组分析[J]. 草业学报, 2024,33:75-88.
[9]	杨建伟, 刘嘉翔, 孙桂芳, 等. 干旱胁迫对6种灌木生理特征的影响[J]. 林业与生态科学, 2023,38:507-516.
[10]	周洁, 杨晓东, 王雅芸, 等. 梭梭和骆驼刺对干旱的适应策略差异[J]. 植物生态学报, 2022,46:1064-1076.
[11]	柴成武, 王方琳, 赵鹏, 等. 干旱胁迫对沙蒿叶片水分含量、光合特性及抗氧化酶的影响[J]. 西北林学院学报, 2025,40:42-50.
[12]	魏臣杰, 李舒琦, 邓飞, 等. 干旱胁迫下γ-氨基丁酸喷施对燕麦幼苗生长及叶绿素荧光参数的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2025,33:489-497.
[13]	贾瑞丰, 杨曾奖, 徐大平, 等. 干旱胁迫对降香黄檀幼苗生长及内源激素含量的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2013,22:1136-1140.
[14]	王琪, 刘建鑫, 张建军, 等水分胁迫对芍药生长和生理生化特性影响的研究[J]. 植物遗传资源学报, 2014,15:1270-1277.
[15]	李婷婷. 芍药对干旱胁迫的响应及PM19L和MYB108基因功能的初步研究[D]. 扬州: 扬州大学, 2021.
[16]	张维, 贺亚玲, 吴泽昂, 等. 模拟增温对梭梭光合生理生态特征的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2017,25:296-302.
[17]	HAYAT S, HAYAT Q, ALYEMENI M N, et al. Role of proline under changing environments[J]. Plant signaling & behavior, 2012,7:1456-1466.
[18]	杨建. 芍药对干旱和土壤盐度逆境胁迫的抗性生理响应研究[D]. 太原: 山西农业大学, 2021.
[19]	LI T, WANG R, ZHAO D, et al. Effects of drought stress on physiological responses and gene expression changes in herbaceous peony (Paeonia lactiflora Pall.)[J]. Plant signaling & behavior, 2020,15:1746034.
[20]	MOHAMMADI M H S, ETEMADI N, ARAB M M, et al. Molecular and physiological responses of Iranian perennial ryegrass as affected by trinexapac ethyl, paclobutrazol and abscisic acid under drought stress[J]. Plant physiology and biochemistry, 2017,111:129-143.
[21]	YUAN Y, ZENG L, KONG D, et al. Abscisic acid -induced transcription factor PsMYB306 negatively regulates tree peony bud dormancy release[J]. Plant physiology, 2024,194:2471-2499.
[22]	王靖, 李宝强, 孔令国, 等. 山东省主栽小麦品种萌发期抗旱性综合评价[J]. 中国农学通报, 2025, 41(17):1-5. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2024-0435
[23]	覃兰丽, 陈观榕, 李燕婷, 等. 广西喀斯特地区五个桑树品种叶功能性状及其抗旱性评价[J]. 广西植物, 2025, 45(6):1060-1070.
[24]	麻云霞, 李钢铁, 张宏武, 等. 酸枣幼苗光合特征和生理生化指标对不同强度干旱胁迫的响应[J]. 干旱区资源与环境, 2018,32:164-169.
[25]	MUHAMMAD M U, FAHIM N, SADIA M, et al. Sulfate-mediated drought tolerance in maize involves regulation at physiological and biochemical levels[J]. Scientific reports, 2020,10:1147.
[26]	GIACOMO P, LAURI L, HENDRIK P, et al. Global patterns of biomass allocation in woody species with different tolerances of shade and drought: Evidence for multiple strategies[J]. New phytologist, 2022, 29(1):308-322.
[27]	杜少波, 毛晓宁, 鄂崇毅, 等. 两种柳属植物在干旱胁迫下的生理响应研究[J]. 内蒙古农业大学学报(自然科学版), 2025, 46(2):29-37.
[28]	曾松, 欧静, 田奥, 等. 干旱胁迫对马缨杜鹃生长和光合生理特征的影响[J]. 西南农业学报, 2023, 36(12):2670-2677.
[29]	赵东敏. 干旱胁迫下不同固氮类型荒漠植物的生态适应性与物质能量代谢规律研究[D]. 北京: 北京林业大学, 2024.
[30]	EDYTA L, MAGDALENA R, KATARZYNA M, et al. Photosynthesis and sucrose metabolism in leaves of Arabidopsis thaliana AOS, EIN4 and RCD1 mutants as affected by wounding[J]. Acta physiologiae plantarum, 2017,39:17.
[31]	黄俊玲, 王妍. 干热河谷乡土树种叶绿素荧光特征对水分胁迫的响应[J]. 西北植物学报, 2015,35:2505-2512.
[32]	吴敏, 邓平, 赵英, 等. 喀斯特干旱环境对青冈栎叶片生长及叶绿素荧光动力学参数的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2019,30:4071-4081.
[33]	闫小莉, 刘贵梅, 李小玉, 等. 不同水平氮添加和铵硝态氮比环境下木荷幼苗光合及叶绿素荧光特性[J]. 植物生态学报, 2025, 49(4):624-637. doi: 10.17521/cjpe.2024.0379
[34]	GAO Y, LIU W, WANG X, et al. Comparative phytotoxicity of usnic acid, salicylic acid, cinnamic acid and benzoic acid on photosynthetic apparatus of Chlamydomonas reinhardtii[J]. Plant physiology and biochemistry, 2018,128:1-12.
[35]	ZHANG S, ZHANG Y, XIONG K et al. Changes of leaf functional traits in karst rocky desertification ecological environment and the driving factors[J]. Global ecology and conservation,2020:e01381.
[36]	LI S, YU G, LI X, et al. Carbon storage and its spatial pattern of terrestrial ecosystem in China[J]. Journal of resources and ecology, 2010,1:97-109.
[37]	PRTER B R, CHRISTOPHER U, MICHAEL B W, et al. Leaf lifespan as a determinant of leaf structure and function among 23 amazonian tree species[J]. Oecologia, 1991,86:16-24.
[38]	吴芳, 张静, 杨红善, 等. 12份紫花苜蓿品种(品系)苗期抗旱性综合评价[J]. 中国草地学报, 2025, 47(6):66-77.

参数	定义
F₀	初始荧光
Fm	最大荧光
Fv	可变荧光
F₀/Fm	初始荧光与最大荧光的比值
Fv/F₀	潜在光化学效率
Fv/Fm	最大光化学效率
PI_abs	以吸收光能为基础的性能指数
ABS/RC	单位反应中心吸收的能量
TR₀/RC	单位反应中心捕获的能量
ET₀/RC	单位反应中心用于电子传递的能量
DI₀/RC	单位反应中心热耗散掉的能量

参数	定义
F₀	初始荧光
Fm	最大荧光
Fv	可变荧光
F₀/Fm	初始荧光与最大荧光的比值
Fv/F₀	潜在光化学效率
Fv/Fm	最大光化学效率
PI_abs	以吸收光能为基础的性能指数
ABS/RC	单位反应中心吸收的能量
TR₀/RC	单位反应中心捕获的能量
ET₀/RC	单位反应中心用于电子传递的能量
DI₀/RC	单位反应中心热耗散掉的能量

指标	主成分1	主成分2
SPAD	-0.901	-0.434
LNC	-0.905	-0.426
F₀	0.804	0.594
Fm	-0.729	0.685
Fv	-0.779	0.628
F₀/Fm	0.991	-0.136
Fv/Fm	-0.911	0.413
Fv/F₀	-0.975	0.221
PI_abs	-0.989	-0.150
LA	0.999	0.037
LL	0.893	0.451
LW	0.966	0.259
LC	-0.168	0.986
LT	0.624	-0.782
ABS/RC	0.963	0.271
DI₀/RC	0.993	0.115
TR₀/RC	0.943	0.334
ET₀/RC	-0.469	0.883
特征值	13.320	4.680
贡献率/%	74.002	25.998
累计贡献率/%	74.002	100.000

指标	主成分1	主成分2
SPAD	-0.901	-0.434
LNC	-0.905	-0.426
F₀	0.804	0.594
Fm	-0.729	0.685
Fv	-0.779	0.628
F₀/Fm	0.991	-0.136
Fv/Fm	-0.911	0.413
Fv/F₀	-0.975	0.221
PI_abs	-0.989	-0.150
LA	0.999	0.037
LL	0.893	0.451
LW	0.966	0.259
LC	-0.168	0.986
LT	0.624	-0.782
ABS/RC	0.963	0.271
DI₀/RC	0.993	0.115
TR₀/RC	0.943	0.334
ET₀/RC	-0.469	0.883
特征值	13.320	4.680
贡献率/%	74.002	25.998
累计贡献率/%	74.002	100.000

品种	主成分1得分	主成分2得分	综合得分	排名
三点红	-3.723	-1.171	-3.059	3
春晓	-3.572	1.326	-2.298	2
沙拉	-0.151	-2.496	-0.761	1