不同品种高粱幼苗在干旱复水过程中的生理生态响应

doi:10.11686/cyxb2017410

草业学报 ›› 2018, Vol. 27 ›› Issue (6): 100-110.DOI: 10.11686/cyxb2017410

不同品种高粱幼苗在干旱复水过程中的生理生态响应

刘婷婷^1,2, 陈道钳³, 王仕稳^1,3,*, 殷俐娜^1,3, 邓西平^1,3

1.中国科学院水利部水土保持研究所黄土高原土壤侵蚀与旱地农业国家重点实验室,陕西杨陵 712100;
2.中国科学院大学,北京100049;
3.西北农林科技大学水土保持研究所,陕西杨陵 712100

收稿日期:2017-10-09 修回日期:2017-12-04 出版日期:2018-06-20 发布日期:2018-06-20
通讯作者: * E-mail: shiwenwang@nwsuaf.edu.cn
作者简介:刘婷婷(1990-),女,河南郑州人,在读硕士。E-mail:liutingtingUCAS@126.com
基金资助:
国家科技支撑计划(2015BAD22B01)和国家重点基础研究发展计划(973)项目(2015CB150402)资助

Physio-ecological responses to drought and subsequent re-watering in sorghum seedlings

LIU Ting-ting^1,2, CHEN Dao-qian³, WANG Shi-wen^1,3,*, YIN Li-na^1,3, DENG Xi-ping^1,3

1.Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, Chinese Academy of Sciences and Ministry of Water Resources, Yangling 712100, China;
2.University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China;
3.Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, Northwest A&F University, Yangling 712100, China

Received:2017-10-09 Revised:2017-12-04 Online:2018-06-20 Published:2018-06-20
Contact: * E-mail: shiwenwang@nwsuaf.edu.cn

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 干旱适应能力不仅包括干旱胁迫期间的抗旱能力,也包括水分胁迫解除之后的恢复能力。以8个高粱品种为材料,采用盆栽称重控水法对高粱幼苗进行干旱及复水处理,通过测定生物量、相对含水量、水势、渗透势、光合参数等生理指标的变化分析不同品种高粱抗旱能力和旱后复水恢复能力的大小及其与干旱适应性的关系,并筛选出能有效指示干旱适应能力的生理指标。结果显示,干旱胁迫条件下,“辽杂21”生物量与对照相比无显著差异,抗旱能力较强;“甘蔗籽”和“Moench.cv.Gadambalia”高粱生物量分别下降38%、34%,抗旱能力较差。各品种高粱的相对含水量、水势、渗透势、叶绿素含量、净光合速率、蒸腾速率、气孔导度等均有所下降,复水后,这些生理指标恢复到对照水平,各品种开始恢复生长。由各生理指标与抗旱能力、旱后复水恢复能力和干旱适应能力之间的相关分析结果表明,高粱的干旱适应性与复水恢复性呈显著正相关(r=0.85),与抗旱性的相关系数是0.46,复水恢复能力在高粱干旱适应性中起着更重要的作用。高粱的抗旱性和旱后复水恢复性具有不同的生理基础,在干旱胁迫期间维持较高的净光合速率、较低的蒸腾速率有助于提高抗旱性,维持较高叶片相对含水量有助于提高旱后复水的恢复能力,叶片相对含水量、净光合速率可以作为筛选高粱干旱适应性的生理指标。

关键词: 高粱, 干旱, 干旱适应性, 抗旱性, 复水恢复性, 干旱复水

Abstract: Adaption to drought in plants includes drought resistance during the drought period and post drought recovery. The aim of this study was to investigate the relationships between drought resistance and drought recovery and to determine the physiological parameters which could be used to indicate drought adaptability. Eight sorghum cultivars grown in pots were exposed to drought and re-watering treatments during the seedling stage. Biomass, relative water content, water potential, osmotic potential, and photosynthetic parameters were measured. The results showed that “LZ21”“ had the highest drought resistance; biomass production under drought stress was not different to the control (well watered), while “GZZ”“ and “Gadambalia”“ had poor drought resistance producing 38% and 34% less biomass under drought stress. Relative water content, water potential, osmotic potential, chlorophyll content and photosynthetic parameters decreased after imposition of drought but all parameters recovered fully after re-watering. Correlation analysis showed that drought adaption is more closely related to drought recovery (r=0.85) than drought resistance (r=0.46). Maintaining higher photosynthetic and lower transpiration rate contributed to drought resistance while maintaining high relative water content improves drought recovery. These results demonstrated that drought recovery ability is more important for drought adaption than drought resistance. The physiological basis of drought resistance and drought recovery are clearly different. Relative water content and photosynthetic rate could be used to select drought adapted cultivars in sorghum.

Key words: sorghum, drought, drought adaptation, drought resistance, drought recovery, re-watering

刘婷婷, 陈道钳, 王仕稳, 殷俐娜, 邓西平. 不同品种高粱幼苗在干旱复水过程中的生理生态响应[J]. 草业学报, 2018, 27(6): 100-110.

LIU Ting-ting, CHEN Dao-qian, WANG Shi-wen, YIN Li-na, DENG Xi-ping. Physio-ecological responses to drought and subsequent re-watering in sorghum seedlings[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2018, 27(6): 100-110.

参考文献

[1] Fukai S, Cooper M.Development of drought-resistant cultivars using physio-morphological traits in rice. Field Crops Research, 1995, 40(2): 67-86.
[2] Levitt J.Responses of plants to environmental stresses. Volume II. Water, radiation, salt, and other stresses. Academic Press, 1982, 51(15): 3642-3645.
[3] Datta S K D, Malabuyoc J A, Aragon E L. A field screening technique for evaluating rice germplasm for drought tolerance during the vegetative stage. Field Crop Research, 1988, 19(2): 123-134.
[4] Okami M, Kato Y, Kobayashi N, et al. Morphological traits associated with vegetative growth of rice during the recovery phase after early-season drought. European Journal of Agronomy, 2015, 64: 58-66.
[5] Jin W, Yang L T, Pan Y, et al. Eco-physiological responses of different sugarcane varieties to drought and re-watering. Journal of Southern Agriculture, 2012, 43(12): 1945-1951.
金伟, 杨丽涛, 潘英, 等. 不同甘蔗品种对干旱和复水的生态生理响应. 南方农业学报, 2012, 43(12): 1945-1951.
[6] Yan J Y, Zhang Y Q, Feng X M, et al. Effect of drought stress and rewatering on physiological characteristics of roots in different proso millet varieties. Acta Botanica Boreali-Occidentalia Sinica, 2012, 32(2): 348-354.
闫江艳, 张永清, 冯晓敏, 等. 干旱胁迫及复水对不同黍稷品种根系生理特性的影响. 西北植物学报, 2012, 32(2): 348-354.
[7] Chen D, Wang S, Cao B, et al. Genotypic variation in growth and physiological responseto drought. Frontiers in Plant Science, 2015, 6: 1241.
[8] Cao D, Chen D Q, Wu X, et al. Research on rewatering post-drought recovery capacity and physiological characteristics of different maize varieties. Acta Botanica Boreali-Occidentalia Sinica, 2015, 35(6): 1222-1228.
曹丹, 陈道钳, 吴茜, 等. 复水对旱后不同玉米品种植株生长恢复能力及其生理响应特性的影响. 西北植物学报, 2015, 35(6): 1222-1228.
[9] Shan L, Xu B C.Discussion on drought resistance of sorghum and its status in agriculture in arid and semiarid regions. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2009: 2342-2348.
山仑, 徐炳成. 论高粱的抗旱性及在旱区农业中的地位. 中国农业科学, 2009: 2342-2348.
[10] Su P, Shan L.Physiological study on high grain yield and low water consumption of Sorghum under highly varied and low water environment. Chinese Journal of Applied & Environmental Biology, 1997, 3(4): 305-308.
苏佩, 山仑. 多变低水环境下高粱高产节水生理基础的研究. 应用与环境生物学报, 1997, 3(4): 305-308.
[11] Cao C L, Bai W B, Zhang J H, et al. Expression of sorghum production traits and re-watering compensation effect under water stress. Chinese Agriculture Science Bulletin, 2016, 32(33): 81-88.
曹昌林, 白文斌, 张建华, 等. 水分胁迫下高粱产量性状表达及复水后补偿效应的研究. 中国农学通报, 2016, 32(33): 81-88.
[12] Zhou Y F, Wang D Q, Lu Z B, et al. Impacts of drought stress on leaf osmotic adjustment and chloroplast ultrastructure of stay-green sorghum. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2013, 24(9): 2545.
周宇飞, 王德权, 陆樟镳, 等. 干旱胁迫对持绿性高粱叶片渗透调节及叶绿体超微结构的影响. 应用生态学报, 2013, 24(9): 2545.
[13] Lu F, Zhang F, Duan Y H, et al. Effects of drought stress on material production and physiological characteristics of sorghum at seedling stage. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2015, (2): 149-153.
卢峰, 张飞, 段有厚, 等. 干旱胁迫对高粱苗期物质生产及生理特性的影响. 作物杂志, 2015, (2): 149-153.
[14] Yin L, Wang S, Liu P, et al. Silicon-mediated changes in polyamine and 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid are involved in silicon induced drought resistance in Sorghum bicolor L. Plant Physiology & Biochemistry, 2014, 80: 268.
[15] Gao J F.Plant physiological experiment instruction. Beijing: Higher Edutcation Press, 2006: 74-76.
高俊凤. 植物生理学实验指导. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2006: 74-76.
[16] Shan L, Su P, Guo L Q, et al. The response of different crops to drying wetting cycle in field.Acta Botanica Boreali-Occidentalia Sinica, 2000(2): 164-170.
山仑, 苏佩, 郭礼坤, 等. 不同类型作物对干湿交替环境的反应. 西北植物学报, 2000(2): 164-170.
[17] Perrone I, Pagliarani C, Lovisolo C, et al. Recovery from water stress affects grape leaf petiole transcriptome. Planta, 2012, 235(6): 1383.
[18] Guo Z F, Gong D Z, Hao W P, et al. Study on compensation of Maize varieties under drought stress and re-watering in different growth stages. Journal of Maize Sciences, 2011, 19(4): 84-88.
郭子锋, 龚道枝, 郝卫平, 等. 不同生育期玉米干旱-复水补偿效应的品种差异研究. 玉米科学, 2011, 19(4): 84-88.
[19] Du J X, Hou X Y, Liu J R, et al. A study on physiological response to drought and re-watering treatments in Kentucky bluegrass. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2010, 19(2): 31-38.
杜建雄, 侯向阳, 刘金荣, 等. 草地早熟禾对干旱及旱后复水的生理响应研究. 草业学报, 2010, 19(2): 31-38.
[20] Chen X R, Liu L Y, Zhong L, et al. Effects of rewatering after drought at heading on yield, δ⁽¹³)C and contents of endogenous hormone of leaf in double-season late hybrid rice. Journal of Nuclear Agricultural Sciences, 2013, 27(2): 240-246.
陈小荣, 刘灵燕, 钟蕾, 等. 抽穗后干旱复水对双季杂交晚稻产量形成和叶片δ⁽¹³)C及内源激素水平的影响. 核农学报, 2013, 27(2): 240-246.
[21] Li G H, Wan Y S, Liu F Z, et al. Photosynthetic characteristics in different peanut cultivars under conditions of drought and re-watering at seedling stage. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 2014, 38(7): 729-739.
厉广辉, 万勇善, 刘风珍, 等. 苗期干旱及复水条件下不同花生品种的光合特性. 植物生态学报, 2014, 38(7): 729-739.
[22] Fang Y, Xiong L.General mechanisms of drought response and their application in drought resistance improvement in plants. Cellular & Molecular Life Science, 2015, 72(4): 673-689.

不同品种高粱幼苗在干旱复水过程中的生理生态响应

Physio-ecological responses to drought and subsequent re-watering in sorghum seedlings

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]	再吐尼古丽·库尔班, 吐尔逊·吐尔洪, 涂振东, 王卉, 山其米克, 艾克拜尔·伊拉洪. 长期不同施肥处理对连作高粱生长规律及产量的影响研究[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(8): 81-92.
[2]	陆姣云, 熊军波, 张鹤山, 田宏, 杨惠敏, 刘洋. 水分胁迫对紫花苜蓿产量、品质和微量元素的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(8): 126-133.
[3]	曾令霜, 李培英, 孙晓梵, 孙宗玖. 新疆不同生境狗牙根种质抗旱性综合评价[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(8): 155-169.
[4]	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.
[5]	王泳超, 张颖蕾, 闫东良, 何灵芝, 李卓, 燕博文, 邵瑞鑫, 郭家萌, 杨青华. 干旱胁迫下γ-氨基丁酸保护玉米幼苗光合系统的生理响应[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(6): 191-203.
[6]	周恩光, 王虎成, 尚占环. 甜高粱的饲用价值及其绵羊体外瘤胃发酵产气性能研究[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(5): 43-49.
[7]	李柯, 周庄煜, 李四菊, 姚浩铮, 周莹, 缪雨静, 唐晓清, 王康才. 荆芥的生长、渗透调节和抗氧化能力对干旱胁迫的响应[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(5): 150-158.
[8]	高子奇, 王佳, 汤宇晨, 王迎春. 唐古特白刺类黄酮-3-O-葡萄糖基转移酶基因(NtUFGT)的克隆与功能分析[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(5): 159-170.
[9]	高丽敏, 田倩, 苏晶, 沈益新. 施氮水平对甜高粱干物质产量及氮肥利用率的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(4): 192-198.
[10]	张雪婷, 王新永, 杨文雄, 柳娜, 杨长刚. 河西绿洲灌区节水抗旱型玉米品种的评价方法探讨[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(2): 134-148.
[11]	赵小强, 陆晏天, 白明兴, 徐明霞, 彭云玲, 丁永福, 庄泽龙, 陈奋奇, 张大志. 不同株型玉米基因型对干旱胁迫的响应分析[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(2): 149-162.
[12]	何建军, 姚立蓉, 汪军成, 边秀秀, 司二静, 杨轲, 王化俊, 马小乐, 李葆春, 尚勋武, 孟亚雄. 干旱和盐胁迫对盐生植物盐生草种子萌发特性的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(11): 129-140.
[13]	李思忠, 张立明, 高卫时, 白晓山, 刘军, 董心久, 杨洪泽, 沙红, 高燕. 滴灌模式下旱后复水对甜菜叶丛期光合光响应特性的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(11): 198-204.
[14]	许爱云, 曹兵, 谢云. 干旱风沙区煤炭基地12种草本植物对干旱胁迫的生理生态响应及抗旱性评价[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(10): 22-34.
[15]	方彦杰, 张绪成, 于显枫, 侯慧芝, 王红丽, 马一凡, 张国平, 雷康宁. 立式深旋松耕对半干旱区饲草玉米水分利用和产量的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(10): 161-171.