豌豆与根瘤共生对水分胁迫的生理响应

doi:10.11686/cyxb2018608

草业学报 ›› 2019, Vol. 28 ›› Issue (9): 96-109.DOI: 10.11686/cyxb2018608

豌豆与根瘤共生对水分胁迫的生理响应

马蕾^1,2, 马绍英³, 陈贵平¹, 柴强^1,2,*, 李胜^2,4,*

1.甘肃农业大学农学院,甘肃兰州 730070;
2.甘肃省干旱生境作物学重点实验室,甘肃兰州730070;
3.甘肃农业大学基础教学实验中心,甘肃兰州730070;
4.甘肃农业大学生命科学技术学院,甘肃兰州730070

收稿日期:2018-09-13 修回日期:2018-11-06 出版日期:2019-09-20 发布日期:2019-09-20
通讯作者: *E-mail: Chaiq@gsau.edu.cn, lish@gsau.edu.cn
作者简介:马蕾(1993-),女,甘肃定西人,在读硕士。E-mail: 2467972188@qq.com
基金资助:
国家绿肥产业技术体系(CARS-22-G-12),H₂O₂胁迫下豌豆幼苗初生根水平性弯曲机理研究(GAU-XKJS-2018-173),国家自然基金(31460382)和国家现代农业食用豆产业技术体系(CARS-08)资助

Physiological responses of pea and nodule symbiosis to water stress

MA Lei^1,2, MA Shao-ying³, CHEN Gui-ping¹, CHAI Qiang^1,2,*, LI Sheng^2,4,*

1.College of Agronomy, Gansu Agricultural University, Lanzhou 730070, China;
2.Gansu Provincial Key Laboratory of Arid Land Crop Science, Lanzhou 730070, China;
3.Basic Experimental Educational Center of Gansu Agricultural University, Lanzhou 730070, China;
4.College of Life Science and Technology, Gansu Agricultural University, Lanzhou 730070, China

Received:2018-09-13 Revised:2018-11-06 Online:2019-09-20 Published:2019-09-20
Contact: *E-mail: Chaiq@gsau.edu.cn, lish@gsau.edu.cn

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 为了研究在水分胁迫条件下接种根瘤菌对豌豆植株的抗旱性影响,本试验以抗旱性品种‘定豌8号’和非抗旱性品种‘陇豌6号’两个豌豆品种为试验材料,在充分供水(田间持水量的75%)、轻度胁迫(田间持水量的55%)、重度胁迫(田间持水量的35%)3个不同水分胁迫条件下,研究了接种与不接种根瘤菌豌豆植株地上部和根系超氧化物歧化酶(SOD)、过氧化氢酶(CAT)、过氧化物酶(POD)、脯氨酸(Pro)、可溶性糖、丙二醛(MDA)等抗旱指标对水分胁迫的响应。结果表明:根瘤共生的豌豆植株在遭受水分胁迫后,SOD、CAT、POD活性及Pro和可溶性糖含量均高于不接菌处理,而MDA含量低于不接菌处理。接种15735菌的‘定豌8号’的3种酶活性及Pro、可溶性糖含量均高于接种Da99菌株,同时高于接种15735菌株的陇豌6号。经隶属函数综合分析表明:在3个不同的水分胁迫条件下,接种15735菌的‘定豌8号’的隶属函数平均值最大,抗旱性最强。而Da99菌株与‘陇豌6号’共生后在充分和轻度水分胁迫条件下表现出较强的抗旱性,但在重度胁迫下,Da99菌株与定豌8号表现出更强抗旱性。因此,在水分胁迫下接种两种根瘤菌均可提高豌豆的抗旱性,且15735菌对两种豌豆的抗旱性效应强于Da99菌,同时15735菌与‘定豌8号’更匹配,表现出更强的抗旱性。

关键词: 豌豆, 水分胁迫, 根瘤共生, 生理指标

Abstract: This research investigated the effect of rhizobia inoculation on drought response of pea (Pisum sativum) plants under water stress. A drought-resistant variety ‘Ding wan 8’ and a non-drought resistant variety ‘Long wan 6’ were compared with or without inoculation with rhizobia strains ‘15735’ or ‘Da99’, and under three different water supply conditions: adequate water supply (soil at 75% field capacity), mild stress (soil at 55% field capacity), and severe stress (soil at 35% field capacity), the superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT), peroxidase (POD) activity, and proline (Pro), soluble sugar and malondialdehyde (MDA) content in aboveground and root tissues of pea plants under the three water treatments were assayed. It was found after water stress that SOD, POD and CAT activities, and Pro and soluble sugar contents in pea plants inoculated with rhizobia were higher than those without rhizobia inoculation, and in line with those results the content of MDA was lower. Additionally, these responses were more pronounced in ‘Ding wan 8’ inoculated with rhizobium ‘15735’ than in the same variety inoculated with rhizobium ‘Da99’, and also higher than in ‘Long wan 6’ inoculated with rhizobium ‘15735’. A subordination function analysis showed that ‘Ding wan 8’ inoculated with ‘15735’ strain had the highest average score and the strongest drought resistance under the three water treatments. Variety ‘Long wan 6’ inoculated with the ‘Da99’ rhizobium strain showed stronger drought resistance under sufficient water and mild water stress treatments. However, under severe water stress, variety ‘Ding wan 8’ inoculated with ‘Da99’ rhizobium strain showed stronger drought resistance. The results indicate that inoculation with rhizobia enhanced the drought-resistance of pea plants, and the rhizobium strain ‘15735’ had a stronger effect than strain ‘Da99’, while, the variety ‘Ding wan 8’ inoculated with rhizobium strain ‘15735’ still showed greater tolerance to drought than ‘Long wan 6’.

Key words: pea, water stress, symbiotic rhizobium, physiological index

马蕾, 马绍英, 陈贵平, 柴强, 李胜. 豌豆与根瘤共生对水分胁迫的生理响应[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(9): 96-109.

MA Lei, MA Shao-ying, CHEN Gui-ping, CHAI Qiang, LI Sheng. Physiological responses of pea and nodule symbiosis to water stress[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2019, 28(9): 96-109.

参考文献

[1] Cui Y.Effects of water stress on physiology and biochemistry of pea. Shenyang: Shenyang Agricultural University, 2017.
崔月. 水分胁迫对豌豆生理生化的影响. 沈阳: 沈阳农业大学, 2017.
[2] Hirschi M, Seneviratne S I, Alexandrov V, et al. Observational evidence for soil-moisture impact on hot extremes in southeastern Europe. Nature Geoscience, 2011, 4(1): 17-21.
[3] Zeng X H, Ma H C, Wu J R, et al. Research advances in drought-resistance of rhizobium. Journal of Southwest Forestry University (Natural Science), 2005, 25(3): 80-83.
曾小红, 马焕成, 伍建榕, 等. 根瘤菌的抗旱性研究进展. 西南林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2005, 25(3): 80-83.
[4] Shi Z Z, Li S, Ma S Y, et al. Response of the antioxidant system to water stress in different wheat varieties. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2015, 24(7): 68-78.
时振振, 李胜, 马绍英, 等. 不同品种小麦抗氧化系统对水分胁迫的响应. 草业学报, 2015, 24(7): 68-78.
[5] Zheng S Y, Zheng J F, Xu J, et al. Effects of exogenous silicon on plant growth and activity of anti-oxidative enzymes in wheat seedlings under drought stress. Agricultural Research in the Arid Areas, 2017, 35(2): 74-78.
郑世英, 郑建峰, 徐建, 等. 外源硅对PEG胁迫下小麦幼苗生长及抗氧化酶活性的影响. 干旱地区农业研究, 2017, 35(2): 74-78.
[6] Gu J Q, Yan Z L, Niu J Y, et al. Effects of drought stress and rewater on protective enzyme activity and membrance lipid peroxidation in pea leaves during seedling stage. Agricultural Research in the Arid Areas, 2012, 30(3): 159-164.
顾建勤, 闫志利, 牛俊义, 等. 干旱胁迫及复水对豌豆苗期保护酶活性及膜脂过氧化的影响. 干旱地区农业研究, 2012, 30(3): 159-164.
[7] Zhang Y J, Xu W X, Ren Y, et al. Drought stress: Effects on physiological and biochemical indexes of different spring wheat varieties (lines). Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2018, 34(12): 7-12.
张永杰, 徐文修, 任毅, 等. 干旱胁迫对春小麦不同品种(系)苗期生理生化指标的影响. 中国农学通报, 2018, 34(12): 7-12.
[8] Zhao Z N, Zhao B X.Physiological response and drought resistance evaluation of different soybean varieties to drought stress at germination stage. Agricultural Research in the Arid Areas, 2018, 36(2): 131-136.
赵振宁, 赵宝勰. 不同大豆品种在萌发期对干旱胁迫的生理响应及抗旱性评价. 干旱地区农业研究, 2018, 36(2): 131-136.
[9] Ji Y, Zhang X Q, Peng Y, et al. Effect of drought stress on lipid peroxidation, osmotic adjustment and activities of protective enzymes in the roots and leaves of orchardgrass. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2014, 23(3): 144-151.
季杨, 张新全, 彭燕, 等. 干旱胁迫对鸭茅根、叶保护酶活性、渗透物质含量及膜质过氧化作用的影响. 草业学报, 2014, 23(3): 144-151.
[10] Zhang P, Yang P Z, Wang W D, et al. Study on physiological change of alfalfa with symbiotic rhizobium under drought stress. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2013, 21(5): 938-944.
张攀, 杨培志, 王卫栋, 等. 干旱胁迫下根瘤菌共生紫花苜蓿抗旱生理变化研究. 草地学报, 2013, 21(5): 938-944.
[11] Li S S, Zhang Z Q, Wang Y F, et al. Effects of symbiotic rhizobium in alfalfa on physiological change under cold stress. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2016, 24(2): 377-383.
李莎莎, 张志强, 王亚芳, 等. 根瘤菌共生对低温胁迫下紫花苜蓿抗寒生理变化的影响. 草地学报, 2016, 24(2): 377-383.
[12] Cheng G, Li S.Plant physiology experiment. Beijing：Higher Education Press, 2016.
陈刚, 李胜. 植物生理学实验. 北京:高等教育出版社, 2016.
[13] Jin J Y, Zhang W H, Yuan L.Physiological responses of three forages to drought stress and evaluation of their drought resistance. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2015, 24(10): 157-165.
靳军英, 张卫华, 袁玲. 三种牧草对干旱胁迫的生理响应及抗旱性评价. 草业学报, 2015, 24(10): 157-165.
[14] Bartoli C G, Gómez F, Martínez D E, et al. Mitochondria are the main target for oxidative damage in leaves of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Journal of Experimental Botany, 2004, 55(403): 1663-1669.
[15] Zhao Y H, Cao Y F, Sun W Y, et al. The research advances in drought resistance in wheat. Plant Physiology Journal, 2016, 52(12): 1795-1803.
赵燕昊, 曹跃芬, 孙威怡, 等. 小麦抗旱研究进展. 植物生理学报, 2016, 52(12): 1795-1803.
[16] Yang L, He Z J, Zhao W J, et al. Growth, physiological, and biochemical responses of Rhodiola kirilowii seedlings to water and shading. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2017, 37(14): 4706-4714.
杨柳, 何正军, 赵文吉, 等. 狭叶红景天幼苗对水分及遮阴的生长及生理生化响应. 生态学报, 2017, 37(14): 4706-4714.
[17] Wang C, Xie H M, Wang N, et al. Study on the relation of soluble sugar, protective enzyme and drought resistance in wheat. Agricultural Research in the Arid Areas, 2011, 29(5): 94-99.
王川, 谢惠民, 王娜, 等. 小麦品种可溶性糖和保护性酶与抗旱性关系研究. 干旱地区农业研究, 2011, 29(5): 94-99.
[18] Dong Q, Lu C H, Bai X M, et al. Physiological responses of seven wild poa species to simulative drought stress. Journal of Desert Research, 2013, 33(6): 1743-1749.
董沁, 鲁存海, 白小明, 等. 野生早熟禾(Poa nankoensis L.)对模拟干旱的生理响应. 中国沙漠, 2013, 33(6): 1743-1749.
[19] Peng M, Kuc J.Peroxidase-generated hydrogen peroxide as a source of antifungal activity in vitro and on tobacco leaf disks. Phytopathology, 1992, 82(6): 696-699.
[20] Martinez C, Baccou J C, Bresson E, et al. Salicylic acid mediated by the oxidative burst is a key molecule in local and systemic responses of cotton challenged by an avirulent race of Xanthomonas campestris pvmalvacearum. Plant Physiology, 2000, 122(3): 757-766.
[21] He J S, Zhang L, Liu Q L, et al. Physiological and biochemical response of typical shrubs to drought stress in the Minjiang river dry valley. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2018, 38(7): 2362-2371.
何建社, 张利, 刘千里, 等. 岷江干旱河谷区典型灌木对干旱胁迫的生理生化响应. 生态学报, 2018, 38(7): 2362-2371.
[22] Zhao C, Wang H Y, Liu M Z, et al. Effect of drought on the contents of soluble sugars, starch and enzyme activities in cassava stem. Plant Physiology Journal, 2017, 53(5): 795-806.
赵超, 王海燕, 刘美珍, 等. 干旱胁迫下木薯茎杆可溶性糖、淀粉及相关酶的代谢规律. 植物生理学报, 2017, 53(5): 795-806.
[23] Finkel T, Holbrook N J.Oxidants, oxidative stress and the biology of ageing. Nature, 2000, 408: 239-247.
[24] Chandra B R, Safiullah P M, Blum A, et al. Comparison of measurement methods of osmotic adjustment in rice cultivars. Crop Science, 1999, 39(1): 150-158.
[25] Hsiao T C, O’Toole J C, Yambao E B, et al. Influence of osmotic adjustment on leaf rolling and tissue death in rice. Plant Physiology, 1984, 75(2): 338-341.
[26] Yan Z L, Niu J Y, Xi L L, et al. Effect of soil water on protective enzyme activity and membrane lipid peroxidation in pea. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2009, 17(3): 554-559.
闫志利, 牛俊义, 席玲玲, 等. 水分条件对豌豆保护酶活性及膜脂过氧化的影响. 中国生态农业学报, 2009, 17(3): 554-559.

豌豆与根瘤共生对水分胁迫的生理响应

Physiological responses of pea and nodule symbiosis to water stress

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

[1]	张宇君, 尚以顺, 王普昶, 丁磊磊, 张文, 邹超. 干旱胁迫下保水剂对盘江白刺花幼苗生长和生理特性的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(7): 90-98.
[2]	王琼, 段廷玉, 南志标. 箭筈豌豆炭疽病病原菌分离鉴定[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(6): 127-136.
[3]	杨宁, 马绍英, 马蕾, 张旭辉, 王娜, 李胜, 柴强. 重茬豌豆幼苗对接种复合根瘤菌的生理响应[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(6): 144-152.
[4]	马亚玲, 刘辉, 刘阳, 李春杰. 两种色型豌豆蚜生物学特征对不同大豆品种的响应[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(3): 96-102.
[5]	徐洪雨, 李向林. 控水处理对紫花苜蓿抗寒性影响的代谢组学分析[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(1): 106-116.
[6]	李应德, 丁婷婷, 段廷玉. AM真菌对紫花苜蓿应答蚜虫胁迫的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(1): 155-162.
[7]	张朝铖, 蒋倩, 吴志, 何新杰, 蒋凯, 高静雅, 李翔, 王宁. 4种观赏草的耐阴特性研究及评价[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(7): 60-72.
[8]	吴潇, 何秀娟, 吴超, 董玉锋, 张燕, 徐宇, 秦卫东, 吕俊, 王三根, 宗学凤. 遮荫处理对葛根光合及抗氧化特性的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(5): 68-78.
[9]	闵学阳, 韦兴燚, 刘文献, 张正社, 金小煜, NDAYAMBAZABoniface, 吴洪林, 李昱, 王彦荣. 箭筈豌豆品种间遗传差异的SSR分析及指纹图谱构建[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(4): 116-128.
[10]	梁坤伦, 贾存智, 孙金豪, 王明艳, 傅华, 毛祝新. 高寒地区垂穗披碱草种质对低温胁迫的生理响应及其耐寒性评价[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(3): 111-121.
[11]	李州, 彭燕, 尹淑霞, 韩烈保. 甘露糖对白三叶抗旱性、糖及糖醇类代谢物积累的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(12): 85-93.
[12]	闵学阳, 刘文献, 王彦荣, 林晓珊, 齐晓, 张正社, 聂斌. 箭筈豌豆新品种DUS测试指南研制—测试性状评价和参照品种筛选[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(11): 133-146.
[13]	张建军, 党翼, 赵刚, 樊廷录, 王磊, 程万莉, 李尚中, 王淑英, 雷康宁, 张朝伟. 秸秆还田与氮肥减施对旱地春玉米产量及生理指标的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(10): 156-165.
[14]	王富强, 向洁, 郭宝光, 余成群, 沈振西, 邵小明. 拉萨河谷区箭筈豌豆和黑麦混、间播建植方式研究[J]. 草业学报, 2018, 27(8): 39-49.
[15]	刘洪庆, 付丹丹, 武海杰, 苗福泓, 孙娟, 杨国锋. 不同轮作模式对后茬作物小麦产量及生理指标的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2018, 27(8): 59-66.