草业学报 ›› 2026, Vol. 35 ›› Issue (9): 75-86.DOI: 10.11686/cyxb2025387
金敏1(
), 李敏1, 黑金霞1, 张桂银1, 张峰举2, 陈淑娟3, 毛桂莲1(
)
收稿日期:2025-09-23
修回日期:2025-11-05
出版日期:2026-09-20
发布日期:2026-07-27
通讯作者:
毛桂莲
作者简介:Corresponding author. E-mail: fransis-0327@163.com基金资助:
Min JIN1(
), Min LI1, Jin-xia HEI1, Gui-yin ZHANG1, Feng-ju ZHANG2, Shu-juan CHEN3, Gui-lian MAO1(
)
Received:2025-09-23
Revised:2025-11-05
Online:2026-09-20
Published:2026-07-27
Contact:
Gui-lian MAO
摘要:
为了评价不同浓度NaCl处理对4种耐盐植物的耐盐性,为“以种适地”策略的盐碱地改良提供种质资源,本研究设置CK(0)、T1(100 mmol·L-1)、T2(200 mmol·L-1)、T3(300 mmol·L-1)、T4(400 mmol·L-1)共5个浓度的NaCl处理,对野榆钱菠菜、盐地碱蓬、盐角草和田菁4种耐盐植物的根系形态、生理特性进行分析研究,并评价其耐盐性。结果表明:1)根系响应:NaCl显著抑制盐地碱蓬、野榆钱菠菜和田菁的根长、根表面积和根体积(P<0.05),但促进根直径的扩张及根系活力的提升,表明植物通过增强根系代谢活性和导水组织厚度降低水分运输障碍,从而维持耐盐性。2)氧化应激:盐胁迫下植物体内的膜脂过氧化产物丙二醛(MDA)和过氧化氢(H2O2)含量整体上升,其中田菁响应最显著(T2处理下地上部H2O2含量较CK提高68%,T1处理地上部MDA含量较CK提高61%)。野榆钱菠菜地上部和地下部的过氧化物酶(POD)活性在T1处理下分别较CK提高36%、8%,而盐地碱蓬地下部过氧化氢酶(CAT)活性在T2处理达到峰值(增幅为12%),说明3种保护酶[超氧化物歧化酶(SOD)、POD、CAT]需协同清除活性氧以减轻膜损伤。3)离子调控:盐地碱蓬和盐角草在Na+和Ca2+吸收中表现最优(T2处理下盐地碱蓬地上部的Na+含量增幅为8.3%,Ca2+含量增幅为98%)。田菁地上部的Na+显著低于地下部,暗示其通过选择性离子吸收抵御盐胁迫。4)耐盐性评价:主成分分析筛选出SOD活性、Na+、K+含量、POD活性及根系活力作为耐盐性评价的核心指标,隶属函数综合评价结果表明4种植物耐盐性排序为盐角草>盐地碱蓬>野榆钱菠菜=田菁。
金敏, 李敏, 黑金霞, 张桂银, 张峰举, 陈淑娟, 毛桂莲. 不同浓度NaCl 处理对4种耐盐植物根系形态的影响及耐盐性评价[J]. 草业学报, 2026, 35(9): 75-86.
Min JIN, Min LI, Jin-xia HEI, Gui-yin ZHANG, Feng-ju ZHANG, Shu-juan CHEN, Gui-lian MAO. Effects of different concentrations of NaCl on the root morphology of four salt-tolerant plant species and assessment of their salt tolerance[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2026, 35(9): 75-86.
图1 不同浓度NaCl处理对4种植物根系活力的影响T1~T4分别代表100、200、300和400 mmol·L-1 NaCl处理,不同小写字母表示不同NaCl处理间差异显著(P<0.05),下同。T1-T4 represent treatments with 100, 200, 300, and 400 mmol·L-1 NaCl, respectively. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among different NaCl treatments (P<0.05), the same below.
Fig.1 Effects of different concentrations of NaCl treatment on the root activity of the four plants
图3 不同浓度NaCl处理对4种植物丙二醛和过氧化氢含量的影响
Fig.3 Effects of different concentrations of NaCl treatment on malondialdehyde and hydrogen peroxide content in the four plants
图6 生理指标的相关性分析X1~X10分别表示根系活力,超氧化物歧化酶、过氧化物酶和过氧化氢酶活性,丙二醛、过氧化氢、钠离子、钾离子、钙离子和镁离子含量。*表示相关性在0.05水平上显著。X1-X10 represent root activity, superoxide dismutase (SOD), peroxidase (POD) and catalase (CAT) activity, malondialdehyde (MDA), hydrogen peroxide (H2O2),Na+, K+, Ca2+, and Mg2+ content, respectively. * indicates that the correlation is significant at the 0.05 level.
Fig.6 Correlation analysis of physiological indicators
元件 Element | 初始特征值Initial eigenvalue | ||
|---|---|---|---|
特征值 Eigenvalue | 方差贡献率Variance contribution rate (%) | 累积贡献率Accumulation contribution rate (%) | |
| X1 | 3.535 | 35.353 | 35.353 |
| X2 | 1.643 | 16.426 | 51.779 |
| X3 | 1.570 | 15.695 | 67.474 |
| X4 | 0.937 | 9.374 | 76.848 |
| X5 | 0.837 | 8.374 | 85.222 |
| X6 | 0.589 | 5.891 | 91.113 |
| X7 | 0.371 | 3.706 | 94.820 |
| X8 | 0.274 | 2.738 | 97.558 |
| X9 | 0.191 | 1.909 | 99.467 |
| X10 | 0.053 | 0.533 | 100.000 |
元件 Element | 提取平方和载入Extract square sum load | ||
特征值 Eigenvalue | 方差贡献率Variance contribution rate (%) | 累积贡献率Accumulation contribution rate (%) | |
| X1 | 3.535 | 35.353 | 35.353 |
| X2 | 1.643 | 16.426 | 51.779 |
| X3 | 1.570 | 15.695 | 67.474 |
表1 各指标主成分的方差贡献率
Table 1 Variance contribution rates of principal components for each index
元件 Element | 初始特征值Initial eigenvalue | ||
|---|---|---|---|
特征值 Eigenvalue | 方差贡献率Variance contribution rate (%) | 累积贡献率Accumulation contribution rate (%) | |
| X1 | 3.535 | 35.353 | 35.353 |
| X2 | 1.643 | 16.426 | 51.779 |
| X3 | 1.570 | 15.695 | 67.474 |
| X4 | 0.937 | 9.374 | 76.848 |
| X5 | 0.837 | 8.374 | 85.222 |
| X6 | 0.589 | 5.891 | 91.113 |
| X7 | 0.371 | 3.706 | 94.820 |
| X8 | 0.274 | 2.738 | 97.558 |
| X9 | 0.191 | 1.909 | 99.467 |
| X10 | 0.053 | 0.533 | 100.000 |
元件 Element | 提取平方和载入Extract square sum load | ||
特征值 Eigenvalue | 方差贡献率Variance contribution rate (%) | 累积贡献率Accumulation contribution rate (%) | |
| X1 | 3.535 | 35.353 | 35.353 |
| X2 | 1.643 | 16.426 | 51.779 |
| X3 | 1.570 | 15.695 | 67.474 |
指标 Item | 主成分Principal component | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | |
| 根系活力Root activity | 0.398 | 0.604 | 0.009 |
| 超氧化物歧化酶Superoxide dismutase | 0.791 | -0.110 | -0.119 |
| 过氧化物酶Peroxidase | 0.003 | 0.684 | 0.069 |
| 过氧化氢酶Catalase | 0.582 | -0.508 | 0.445 |
| 丙二醛Malondialdehyde | 0.167 | 0.425 | 0.714 |
| 过氧化氢Hydrogen peroxide | 0.705 | -0.346 | -0.228 |
| Na+ | -0.804 | -0.364 | 0.225 |
| K+ | 0.777 | 0.198 | 0.117 |
| Ca2+ | 0.411 | -0.258 | 0.705 |
| Mg2+ | 0.684 | -0.039 | -0.478 |
表2 主成分载荷矩阵
Table 2 Principal component loading matrix
指标 Item | 主成分Principal component | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | |
| 根系活力Root activity | 0.398 | 0.604 | 0.009 |
| 超氧化物歧化酶Superoxide dismutase | 0.791 | -0.110 | -0.119 |
| 过氧化物酶Peroxidase | 0.003 | 0.684 | 0.069 |
| 过氧化氢酶Catalase | 0.582 | -0.508 | 0.445 |
| 丙二醛Malondialdehyde | 0.167 | 0.425 | 0.714 |
| 过氧化氢Hydrogen peroxide | 0.705 | -0.346 | -0.228 |
| Na+ | -0.804 | -0.364 | 0.225 |
| K+ | 0.777 | 0.198 | 0.117 |
| Ca2+ | 0.411 | -0.258 | 0.705 |
| Mg2+ | 0.684 | -0.039 | -0.478 |
品种 Variety | 处理 Treatment | 综合指标值Comprehensive index value | 隶属函数值Membership function value | D值 D-value | 总和 Sum | 排名 Rank | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| X1 | X2 | X3 | μ1 | μ2 | μ3 | |||||
盐地碱蓬 S. salsa | CK | -0.88 | -0.19 | -1.14 | 0.19 | 0.43 | 0.27 | 0.27 | 2.61 | 2 |
| T1 | -0.99 | -0.58 | 0.61 | 0.16 | 0.34 | 0.76 | 0.34 | |||
| T2 | 0.45 | 1.35 | 1.29 | 0.59 | 0.81 | 0.94 | 0.72 | |||
| T3 | 1.39 | -1.95 | -0.07 | 0.86 | 0.00 | 0.57 | 0.59 | |||
| T4 | 1.18 | -0.34 | 0.52 | 0.80 | 0.40 | 0.73 | 0.69 | |||
盐角草 S. europaea | CK | -0.39 | 0.01 | -2.14 | 0.33 | 0.48 | 0.00 | 0.29 | 2.62 | 1 |
| T1 | -0.06 | 0.88 | -0.78 | 0.43 | 0.70 | 0.37 | 0.48 | |||
| T2 | 1.34 | 0.26 | -0.42 | 0.85 | 0.54 | 0.47 | 0.69 | |||
| T3 | -0.31 | -0.84 | 1.50 | 0.36 | 0.27 | 1.00 | 0.49 | |||
| T4 | 0.77 | 0.09 | 0.83 | 0.68 | 0.50 | 0.82 | 0.67 | |||
田菁 S. cannabina | CK | 1.07 | 0.95 | 0.13 | 0.77 | 0.72 | 0.62 | 0.72 | 2.29 | 3 |
| T1 | -0.83 | -1.27 | -0.68 | 0.21 | 0.17 | 0.40 | 0.24 | |||
| T2 | -1.09 | -1.16 | 0.52 | 0.13 | 0.19 | 0.73 | 0.28 | |||
| T3 | -1.19 | 0.74 | 0.06 | 0.10 | 0.66 | 0.61 | 0.35 | |||
| T4 | 0.55 | 0.73 | 1.10 | 0.62 | 0.66 | 0.89 | 0.69 | |||
野榆钱菠菜 A. aucheri | CK | -0.53 | 2.10 | -0.58 | 0.29 | 1.00 | 0.43 | 0.50 | 2.29 | 3 |
| T1 | -1.52 | -0.80 | 0.07 | 0.00 | 0.28 | 0.61 | 0.21 | |||
| T2 | 1.85 | -0.85 | -1.26 | 1.00 | 0.27 | 0.24 | 0.65 | |||
| T3 | -0.26 | 0.77 | -1.01 | 0.37 | 0.67 | 0.31 | 0.43 | |||
| T4 | -0.55 | 0.12 | 1.47 | 0.29 | 0.51 | 0.99 | 0.51 | |||
表3 盐胁迫下4种植物的隶属函数值及综合评价
Table 3 Membership function values and comprehensive evaluation of the four plants under salt stress
品种 Variety | 处理 Treatment | 综合指标值Comprehensive index value | 隶属函数值Membership function value | D值 D-value | 总和 Sum | 排名 Rank | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| X1 | X2 | X3 | μ1 | μ2 | μ3 | |||||
盐地碱蓬 S. salsa | CK | -0.88 | -0.19 | -1.14 | 0.19 | 0.43 | 0.27 | 0.27 | 2.61 | 2 |
| T1 | -0.99 | -0.58 | 0.61 | 0.16 | 0.34 | 0.76 | 0.34 | |||
| T2 | 0.45 | 1.35 | 1.29 | 0.59 | 0.81 | 0.94 | 0.72 | |||
| T3 | 1.39 | -1.95 | -0.07 | 0.86 | 0.00 | 0.57 | 0.59 | |||
| T4 | 1.18 | -0.34 | 0.52 | 0.80 | 0.40 | 0.73 | 0.69 | |||
盐角草 S. europaea | CK | -0.39 | 0.01 | -2.14 | 0.33 | 0.48 | 0.00 | 0.29 | 2.62 | 1 |
| T1 | -0.06 | 0.88 | -0.78 | 0.43 | 0.70 | 0.37 | 0.48 | |||
| T2 | 1.34 | 0.26 | -0.42 | 0.85 | 0.54 | 0.47 | 0.69 | |||
| T3 | -0.31 | -0.84 | 1.50 | 0.36 | 0.27 | 1.00 | 0.49 | |||
| T4 | 0.77 | 0.09 | 0.83 | 0.68 | 0.50 | 0.82 | 0.67 | |||
田菁 S. cannabina | CK | 1.07 | 0.95 | 0.13 | 0.77 | 0.72 | 0.62 | 0.72 | 2.29 | 3 |
| T1 | -0.83 | -1.27 | -0.68 | 0.21 | 0.17 | 0.40 | 0.24 | |||
| T2 | -1.09 | -1.16 | 0.52 | 0.13 | 0.19 | 0.73 | 0.28 | |||
| T3 | -1.19 | 0.74 | 0.06 | 0.10 | 0.66 | 0.61 | 0.35 | |||
| T4 | 0.55 | 0.73 | 1.10 | 0.62 | 0.66 | 0.89 | 0.69 | |||
野榆钱菠菜 A. aucheri | CK | -0.53 | 2.10 | -0.58 | 0.29 | 1.00 | 0.43 | 0.50 | 2.29 | 3 |
| T1 | -1.52 | -0.80 | 0.07 | 0.00 | 0.28 | 0.61 | 0.21 | |||
| T2 | 1.85 | -0.85 | -1.26 | 1.00 | 0.27 | 0.24 | 0.65 | |||
| T3 | -0.26 | 0.77 | -1.01 | 0.37 | 0.67 | 0.31 | 0.43 | |||
| T4 | -0.55 | 0.12 | 1.47 | 0.29 | 0.51 | 0.99 | 0.51 | |||
| [1] | Ma K, Rao L Y. Research lineage and hot spot analysis of soil salinization in China. Journal of China Agricultural University, 2023, 28(11): 90-102. |
| 马凯, 饶良懿. 我国土壤盐碱化问题研究脉络和热点分析. 中国农业大学学报, 2023, 28(11): 90-102. | |
| [2] | Zhu Q M, He L L, Wu T D, et al. Comprehensive evaluation on salt stress of 10 wild Ophiopogoneae germplasms in Southern region of Gansu Province. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2025, 33(5): 1588-1601. |
| 朱奇萌, 何琳琳, 吴廷达, 等. 甘肃南部地区10份野生沿阶草种质资源耐盐性综合评价. 草地学报, 2025, 33(5): 1588-1601. | |
| [3] | Guo M Y, Liu Y L, Li X X, et al. Growth and physiological responses of ‘Zhongmu No.3’ alfalfa cultivar to different saline-alkali stresses. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2026, 34(2): 509-517. |
| 郭美莹, 刘亚玲, 李晓霞, 等. ‘中苜3号’紫花苜蓿对不同盐碱胁迫的生长和生理响应. 草地学报, 2026, 34(2): 509-517. | |
| [4] | Shan L S. Studies on morphology and function of root of typical desert plant and its drought-resistant physiology characteristics on northwest China. Lanzhou: Gansu Agricultural University, 2013. |
| 单立山. 西北典型荒漠植物根系形态结构和功能及抗旱生理研究. 兰州: 甘肃农业大学, 2013. | |
| [5] | Zhou H H, Li W H. Responses and adaptation of xylem hydraulic conductivity to salt stress in Populus euphratica. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 2015, 39(1): 81-91. |
| 周洪华, 李卫红. 胡杨木质部水分传导对盐胁迫的响应与适应. 植物生态学报, 2015, 39(1): 81-91. | |
| [6] | Liu X, Liu X H, Song S, et al. Regulation of ion homeostasis for salinity tolerance in plants. Plant Physiology Journal, 2023, 59(4): 715-726. |
| 刘晓, 刘晓红, 宋姝, 等. 盐碱胁迫下植物体内离子平衡调控的机制. 植物生理学报, 2023, 59(4): 715-726. | |
| [7] | Bu X Q, Li S S, Duan Y N, et al. Effects of nitric oxide on stress resistance and feed quality of Suaeda salsa under saline-alkali stress. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2024, 33(9): 60-69. |
| 卜祥琪, 李姗姗, 段莹娜, 等. 一氧化氮对盐碱胁迫下盐地碱蓬抗逆性及饲用品质的影响. 草业学报, 2024, 33(9): 60-69. | |
| [8] | Li A Q, Zhao X D, Feng Y L, et al. Effect of NaCl stress with different concentrations on seed germination and seedlings growth of Suaeda salsa. Journal of Northwest Minzu University (Natural Science Edition), 2017, 38(4): 41-45. |
| 李爱卿, 赵晓东, 冯玉兰, 等. 不同浓度NaCl处理对盐地碱蓬萌发及生长的影响. 西北民族大学学报(自然科学版), 2017, 38(4): 41-45. | |
| [9] | Wang W H, Jiang L. Effects of sodium stress on seed germination and seedling growth of Atriplex aucheri. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2020, 42(6): 23-29. |
| 王伟华, 姜黎. 四种钠盐胁迫对野榆钱菠菜种子萌发特性和幼苗生长的影响. 中国草地学报, 2020, 42(6): 23-29. | |
| [10] | Lv S L, Tai F, Guo J, et al. Phosphatidylserine synthase from Salicornia europaea is involved in plant salt tolerance by regulating plasma membrane stability. Plant and Cell Physiology, 2020, 62(1): 66-79. |
| [11] | He T T, Liu C, Zhu X M, et al. Physiological response of Sesbania cannabina to salt stress and its effect on soil. Hunan Agricultural Sciences, 2021(10): 44-46. |
| 贺亭亭, 刘冲, 朱小梅, 等. 田菁在盐胁迫环境中的生理响应及其对土壤的影响. 湖南农业科学, 2021(10): 44-46. | |
| [12] | Li J X, Zhang T C, Ren X Y, et al. Responses of potato root architecture and physiological indexes to drought stress at different growth stages. Acta Botanica Boreali-Occidentalia Sinica, 2024, 44(12): 1848-1855. |
| 李佳欣, 张天赐, 任晓月, 等. 不同生育期马铃薯根系构型及生理指标对干旱胁迫的响应.西北植物学报, 2024, 44(12): 1848-1855. | |
| [13] | Wang Y Y, Chai C W, Ji Y F, et al. Effects of drought stress on protective enzyme activities and osmotic regulatory substances in desert plant Haloxylon ammodendron seedlings. Pratacultural Science, 2025, 42(2): 288-294. |
| 汪媛艳, 柴成武, 纪永福, 等. 干旱胁迫对荒漠植物梭梭幼苗保护酶活性和渗透调节物质的影响. 草业科学, 2025, 42(2): 288-294. | |
| [14] | Dai H J, Ke Y Q, Pan T G. Effects of NaCl stress on active oxygen metabolism in sweet potato leaves of seedling stage and its relation to salt-tolerance. Journal of Ningxia Agricultural Sciences, 2001, 22(1): 15-18. |
| 代红军, 柯玉琴, 潘廷国. NACl胁迫下甘薯苗期叶片活性氧代谢与甘薯耐盐性的关系. 宁夏农学院学报, 2001, 22(1): 15-18. | |
| [15] | Gao J F. Experimental guidance for pant physiology. Beijing: Higher Education Press, 2006: 203-214. |
| 高俊凤. 植物生理学实验指导. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2006: 203-214. | |
| [16] | Chen X M, Liu H J, Yang Z, et al. Effects of salt-alkali stress on seed germination traits of alfalfa and its salt tolerance evaluation. Heilongjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024(3): 64-70. |
| 陈雪梅, 刘骅峻, 杨曌, 等. 盐碱胁迫对苜蓿种子萌发性状的影响及耐盐碱性评价. 黑龙江农业科学, 2024(3): 64-70. | |
| [17] | Chen S Y, Tang Y, He T, et al. Xylem embolism characteristics and hydraulic safety risks of nine tree species in the Qinling Mountains. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 2024, 48(9): 1213-1222. |
| 陈思佚, 唐燕, 何腾, 等. 秦岭9个树种的木质部栓塞特性与水力安全风险. 植物生态学报, 2024, 48(9): 1213-1222. | |
| [18] | Knipfer T, Fricke W. Water uptake by seminal and adventitious roots in relation to whole-plant water flow in barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). Journal of Experimental Botany, 2011, 62(2): 717-733. |
| [19] | Yi L P, Ma J, Li Y. Effects of salt stress on root characteristics and vigor of three desert halophytes at seedling stage. Science in China (Series D): Earth Sciences, 2006, 36(Z2): 86-94. |
| 弋良朋, 马健, 李彦. 盐胁迫对3种荒漠盐生植物苗期根系特征及活力的影响. 中国科学(D辑): 地球科学, 2006, 36(Z2): 86-94. | |
| [20] | Li X L, Tian G Q, Zhang C, et al. Research advance in mechanism of adaptation to salinity stress and strategies of germplasm enhancement for salinity tolerance in sorghum. Journal of Plant Genetic Resources, 2025, 26(11): 2073-2084. |
| 李兴龙, 田国庆, 张晨, 等. 高粱在盐胁迫下的适应性生理分子机制及耐盐种质创新策略. 植物遗传资源学报, 2025, 26(11): 2073-2084. | |
| [21] | Li C H, Wei Y X, Sofia, et al. Effects of phosphorus application on photosynthetic characteristics, ion balance, and antioxidant capacity of tomato under salit and alkaline stress. Agricultural Research in the Arid Areas, 2025, 43(3): 34-44. |
| 李长虹, 魏雨欣, 索菲亚, 等. 施磷对盐碱胁迫下番茄光合特性、离子平衡和抗氧化能力的影响. 干旱地区农业研究, 2025, 43(3): 34-44. | |
| [22] | Zhang J P, Song Q J, Cregan P B, et al. Genome-wide association study for flowering time, maturity dates and plant height in early maturing soybean (Glycine max) germplasm. BMC Genomics, 2015, 16(1): 217. |
| [23] | Wang Y R, Yuan B C, Sun Y T, et al. Evaluation of salt tolerance of Centrosema pubescens germplasm during seedling stage under salt stress. Pratacultural Science, 2025, 42(10): 1-18. |
| 王燕茹, 袁秉琛, 孙郁婷, 等. 盐胁迫下蝴蝶豆种质苗期耐盐性评价. 草业科学, 2025, 42(10): 1-18. | |
| [24] | Wang X L, Yang J, Chen W F, et al. Effects of salt stress on the growth status and physiological characteristics of three shrubby plants. Subtropical Agriculture Research, 2024, 20(2): 135-144. |
| 王晓玲, 杨洁, 陈维峰, 等. 盐胁迫对3种灌木植物生长及生理特性的影响. 亚热带农业研究, 2024, 20(2): 135-144. |
| [1] | 余冬雯, 王晓彤, 马永龙, 吴轩, 杨金辉, 童玉花, 李淑霞. 2,4-表芸苔素内酯对干旱胁迫下紫花苜蓿生理特性的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2026, 35(9): 63-74. |
| [2] | 李若鸿, 李长然, 傅佳怡, 胡新雨, 毛培胜. 纳米铁引发和生物炭结壳包衣对中华羊茅种子萌发和幼苗生长耐盐性的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2026, 35(8): 32-44. |
| [3] | 杨金辉, 王晓彤, 马永龙, 余冬雯, 童玉花, 李淑霞. 喷施纳米氧化铈对紫花苜蓿幼苗耐盐性的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2026, 35(8): 45-54. |
| [4] | 魏明, 吴欣蕊, 吴璇, 李昊, 伍国强, 张伟杰, 程子义. 甜菜碱醛脱氢酶基因BvBADH2的克隆及在植物盐胁迫中的作用[J]. 草业学报, 2026, 35(5): 185-195. |
| [5] | 马祥, 李中兴, 杨容尘, 琚泽亮, 贾志锋, 杨培志. 盐胁迫对不同耐盐性燕麦糖类及内源激素含量变化的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2026, 35(3): 235-244. |
| [6] | 刘沂欣, 隋晓青, 王鑫尧, 郎梦卿, 孙凌子寅, 吉尔尔格. 外源褪黑素对盐胁迫下紫花苜蓿的缓解作用[J]. 草业学报, 2025, 34(9): 206-214. |
| [7] | 卢天一, 艾艳梅, 汪洋, 那萌, 徐尚起, 周际海. 镉污染土壤中水稻的镉富集特征和生长响应[J]. 草业学报, 2025, 34(8): 66-78. |
| [8] | 张晴晴, 马兴羽, 鲁艳, 赵广兴, 曾凡江, 黄彩变. 沙化盐渍土地不同生长时期油莎豆的耐盐性差异研究[J]. 草业学报, 2025, 34(6): 168-180. |
| [9] | 王梦琦, 王菲, 赵琬璐, 刘彦奇, 崔灿, 严俊鑫. 不同浓度硅、钙对留兰香幼苗生长和生理特性的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2025, 34(3): 154-163. |
| [10] | 孙守江, 刘昊臻, 徐淑涵, 张景鈜, 李淑霞, 张金青, 高雪芹, 伏兵哲. 苜蓿种子发芽特性和萌发早期抗氧化系统对老化的生理和分子响应研究[J]. 草业学报, 2025, 34(11): 195-204. |
| [11] | 闫玉龙, 杜学军, 王元月, 刘建立, 丁银贵, 魏源送. 脱硫石膏与粉煤灰配施对盐碱土改良效果研究[J]. 草业学报, 2025, 34(10): 30-40. |
| [12] | 田戈, 南丽丽, 王利群, 马香香, 何蓉, 郭佳雨. 盐胁迫下外源ABA对红豆草幼苗生长与生理特性的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2025, 34(10): 95-106. |
| [13] | 蔡文祺, 李淑霞, 王晓彤, 宋文学, 麻旭霞, 马小梅, 李小红, 代昕瑶. 外源褪黑素与乙烯交互对盐胁迫下紫花苜蓿幼苗生长和生理特性的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2025, 34(1): 80-93. |
| [14] | 张婷婷, 刘宇乐, 陈红, 许凌欣, 陈祥伟, 王恩姮, 严俊鑫. 不同外源物质对盐、碱及干旱胁迫下草木樨种子萌发、幼苗生长及生理的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2024, 33(8): 122-132. |
| [15] | 张震欢, 姚立蓉, 汪军成, 司二静, 张宏, 杨轲, 马小乐, 孟亚雄, 王化俊, 李葆春. 盐生草AKR基因家族成员的鉴定及根系盐胁迫响应基因HgAKR42639的耐盐分析[J]. 草业学报, 2024, 33(7): 68-83. |
| 阅读次数 | ||||||
|
全文 |
|
|||||
|
摘要 |
|
|||||