PEG胁迫下4个黑麦草品种生理生化指标响应与比较研究

草业学报 ›› 2010, Vol. 19 ›› Issue (1): 83-88.

PEG胁迫下4个黑麦草品种生理生化指标响应与比较研究

万里强¹,李向林^1*,石永红²,何峰¹,贾亚雄¹

1.中国农业科学院北京畜牧兽医研究所,北京100193;
2.山西省农业科学院畜牧兽医研究所,山西太原030032

收稿日期:2009-03-09 出版日期:2010-01-25 发布日期:2010-02-20
作者简介:万里强(1973-),男,甘肃礼县人,副研究员,博士。E-mail:wlq@iascaas.net.cn
基金资助:
中国农业科学院北京畜牧兽医研究所基本科研业务费专项基金创新团队项目(2009td-2),国家科技支撑计划(2006BAD16B07)和“948”项目(2006-G38)资助

A study on the response and on the comparison of physiological and biochemicalindexes of four Lolium perenne varieties under PEG stress

WAN Li-qiang¹, LI Xiang-lin¹, SHI Yong-hong², HE Feng¹, JIA Ya-xiong¹

1.Institute of Animal Science, CAAS, Beijing 100193, China;
2.Animal Husbandry and Veterinary
Institute, Shanxi Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Taiyuan 030032, China

Received:2009-03-09 Online:2010-01-25 Published:2010-02-20

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 利用不同浓度PEG-6000溶液模拟干旱胁迫,比较研究4个多年生黑麦草品种叶片生理生化指标响应。结果表明,不同PEG胁迫处理下,品种“欧必克”叶片相对含水量均最高且降幅最小,叶片电导率均最低,MDA含量增幅较小,叶片细胞膜系统有较强的忍耐干旱的能力;而品种“凤凰”忍耐干旱的性能相对较弱。胁迫下各品种叶片游离脯氨酸含量显著增加,随渗透胁迫加剧,品种“欧必克”脯氨酸含量急剧上升。低浓度胁迫下(5%PEG),各品种叶片SOD活性均提高,胁迫加剧时SOD活性则下降。PEG渗透胁迫导致4个多年生黑麦草品种叶片相对含水量下降、细胞膜透性增大、MDA含量增加、脯氨酸含量上升而SOD活性下降,但4个品种对应指标的变化幅度存在差异,品种“欧必克”的抗旱性最强,而“凤凰”的抗旱性最弱。

Abstract: Response of physiological and biochemical indexes in leaves of four Lolium perenne varieties was compared under simulated drought stress using different concentrations of PEG solution. “Oupec”, with the highest relative water content and least decreasing changes, the lowest electrical conductivities,and the smallest increasing rates of MDA contents under PEG stress had more tolerant membrane systems and was the most resistant to osmotic stress, while the resistance of “Polim” was relatively weaker. Proline accumulation in leaves of the four varieties increased and “Oupec” with rapid increases in proline contents had the strongest resistance to PEG stress. Activities of superoxide dismutase (SOD) in leaves of the four varieties increased during the initial stress stages (5% PEG) and decreased continuously with more severe stress. “Oupec” and “Polim” had the strongest and the weakest drought resistance respectively. The four L. perenne varieties had reduced relative water contents and activities of superoxide dismutase (SOD), increased permeability of plasma, MDA contents and proline accumulation under PEG stress and had differences in rates of change for the response indices.

中图分类号:

万里强,李向林,石永红²,何峰,贾亚雄. PEG胁迫下4个黑麦草品种生理生化指标响应与比较研究[J]. 草业学报, 2010, 19(1): 83-88.

WAN Li-qiang, LI Xiang-lin, SHI Yong-hong, HE Feng, JIA Ya-xiong. A study on the response and on the comparison of physiological and biochemicalindexes of four Lolium perenne varieties under PEG stress[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2010, 19(1): 83-88.

参考文献

[1] 苏振保. 草坪养护技术[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2001: 142-143.
[2] 徐炳成, 山仑, 黄占斌. 草坪草对干旱胁迫的反应及适应性研究进展[J]. 中国草地, 2001, 23(2): 55-61.
[3] 李培英. 优良草坪草研究[M]. 北京: 农业出版社, 2001: 132-145.
[4] 孙铁军, 苏日古嘎, 马万里, 等. 10种禾草苗期抗旱性的比较研究[J]. 草业学报, 2008, 17(4): 42-49.
[5] 冉飞, 包苏科, 石丽娜, 等. 干旱胁迫和复水对锡金微孔草抗氧化酶系统的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2008, 17(5): 156-160.
[6] 许桂芳. PEG胁迫对2种过路黄抗性生理生化指标的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2008, 17(1): 66-70.
[7] 卢少云, 陈斯平, 陈斯曼, 等. 三种暖季型草坪草在干旱条件下脯氨酸含量和抗氧化酶活性的变化[J]. 园艺学报, 2003, 30(3): 303-306.
[8] 马炜, 王彩云. 几种引进冷季型草坪草的生长及抗旱生理指标[J]. 草业科学, 2001, 18(2): 57-61.
[9] 赵昕, 李玉霖. 高温胁迫下冷季型草坪草几项生理指标的变化特征[J]. 草业学报, 2001, 10(4): 85-91.
[10] 段碧华, 尹伟伦, 韩宝平, 等. 不同PEG-6000浓度处理下几种冷季型草坪草抗旱性比较研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2005, 21(8): 247-251.
[11] Wang J P, Bughrara S S. Evaluation of drought tolerance for Atlas fescue, perennial ryegrass, and their progeny[J]. Euphytica, 2008, 164: 113-122.
[12] Abraham E M, Huang B R, Bonos S A, et al. Evaluation of drought resistance for Texas bluegrass, Kentucky bluegrass, and their hybrids[J]. Crop Science, 2004, 44: 1746-1753.
[13] Reddy T Y, Reddy V R, Anbumozhi V. Physiological responses of groundnut (Arachis hypogea L.) to drought stress and its amelioration: A critical review[J]. Plant Growth Regulation, 2003, 41: 75-88.
[14] Bruce W B, Edmeades G O, Barker T C. Molecular and physiological approaches to maize improvement for drought tolerance[J]. Journal of Experimental Botany, 2002, 53: 13-25.
[15] 袁颖, 周晓雷. 水分胁迫下四翅滨藜和绵毛优若藜保护酶活性变化[J]. 草业科学, 2008, 25(6): 39-44.
[16] Zhang J X, Kirkham M B. Drought-stress-induced changes in activities of superoxide dismutase, catalase, and peroxidase in wheat species[J]. Plant Cell Physiology, 1994, 35(5): 785-791.
[17] 朱杭申, 黄丕生. 土壤水分胁迫与水稻活性氧代谢[J]. 南京农业大学学报, 1994, 17(2): 7-11.
[18] 蒋明义, 荆家海, 王韶唐. 渗透胁迫对水稻幼苗膜脂过氧化及体内保护系统的影响[J]. 植物生理学报, 1991, 17(1): 80-84.
[19] 余玲,王彦荣,Garnett T, 等. 紫花苜蓿不同品种对干旱胁迫的生理响应[J]. 草业学报, 2006,15(3): 75-85.
[20] Levitt A D. Responses of Plant to Environmental Stresses(Volume 1)[M]. New York: Academic Press, 1990: 89-99.
[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, 2000: 46-57.
[22] 中国科学院上海植物生理研究所, 上海市植物生理学会. 现代植物生理学实验指南[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2004: 277-302.
[23] 王瑾, 刘桂茹, 杨学举. PEG胁迫下不同抗旱小麦品种幼苗形态及主要理化特性的比较[J]. 河北农业大学学报, 2005, 28(5): 6-10.
[24] 刘萍, 李明军. 植物生理学实验技术[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2007: 128-148.
[25] Steward C R, Hanson A D. Proline Accumulation as a Metabolic Response to Water Stress, Adaptatin of Plant to Water and High Temperature Stress[M]. New York: Academic Press, 1980: 173-189.
[26] 王玉刚, 阿不来提, 齐曼. 两狗牙根品种对干旱胁迫反应的差异[J]. 草业学报, 2006, 15(4): 58-64.
[27] 刘振光. 沟叶结缕草草坪水分及营养生态研究[M]. 北京: 中国农业科技出版社,1997: 158-169.
[28] 李予霞, 崔百明, 董新平, 等. PEG处理下葡萄试管苗脯氨酸及内源ABA含量变化的研究[J]. 石河子大学学报(自然科学版), 2004, 22(1): 43-45.
[29] 万劲. 两个鸢尾品种抗逆生理特性的研究[D]. 南京: 南京林业大学, 2004: 24-36.