Effects of drought stress on the physiological characteristics of new lines of Festuca arundinacea induced by spaceflight and their comprehensive evaluation

doi:10.11686/cyxb2016502

Abstract

Abstract: In this study, the ecophysiological characteristics of 14 lines of Festuca arundinacea, including some induced by spaceflight, were studied in a pot experiment. The plants were subjected to drought stress conditions, and physiological and biochemical indices including soluble protein content, chlorophyll (Chl) content, and the activities of superoxide dismutase (SOD), peroxidase (POD), and catalase (CAT) activity were determined. These indexes of the 14 F. arundinacea were used to quantitatively evaluate their drought tolerance. The soluble protein content and Chl content increased, and the activities of SOD, POD, and CAT decreased under drought conditions. The drought resistance of the 14 F. arundinacea lines was calculated using the subordinate function, and the lines were ranked, from most drought tolerant to least drought tolerant, as follows: SP5-32>SP5-75>F. arundinacea cv. Shuicheng>SP5-60>SP5-94>SP5-97>SP5-89>SP5-71>SP5-7>SP5-85>SP5-42>SP5-5>F. arundinacea cv. Qiancao No.1>SP5-88. The average subordinate function of SP5-32, the most drought tolerant line, was 0.533. A grey correlative analysis was conducted to determine which indices were most strongly related to drought resistance. The indices were ranked, from strongest correlation with drought resistance to weakest, as follows: POD activity>soluble protein content>SOD activity>catalase activity>Chl content (correlation coefficients, 0.55-0.65). Therefore, SP5-32 is more suitable for cultivation in drought-affected areas as its antioxidant enzyme activity, soluble protein content, and chlorophyll content are unaffected by drought stress.

LI Juan, LEI Xia, WANG Xiao-Li, MOU Qiong, YANG Chun-Yan, WU Jia-Hai. Effects of drought stress on the physiological characteristics of new lines of Festuca arundinacea induced by spaceflight and their comprehensive evaluation[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2017, 26(10): 87-98.

References

[1] Peng K S, Xu X B, Hu J H, et al . The harm of drought to the west region and its prevention strategy. Journal of Shijiazhuang University of Economics, 2002, 25(3): 257-262.
彭珂珊, 徐宣斌, 胡晋辉, 等. 干旱是西部地区生态系统受损的关键因素. 石家庄经济学院学报, 2002, 25(3): 257-262.
[2] Jiang H, Bi Y F, Chen L X, et al . Physiological characteristics of alfalfa under dry-farming conditions. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2012, 20(6): 1077-1080.
姜华, 毕玉芬, 陈连仙, 等. 干旱条件下紫花苜蓿生理特性的研究. 草地学报, 2012, 20(6): 1077-1080.
[3] Tang Z C. Response and adaptability of plant to water stress. Plant Physiology communications, 1983, 98(4): 1-7.
汤章程. 植物对水分胁迫的反应和适应性. 植物生理学通讯, 1983, 98(4): 1-7.
[4] Yang C Y, Zhong L, Li C Q, et al . Research progress of tall fescue in genetic breeding. Guizhou Agricultural Science, 2013, 41(6): 13-16.
杨春燕, 钟理, 李辰琼, 等. 高羊茅遗传育种研究进展. 贵州农业科学, 2013, 41(6): 13-16.
[5] Zhou F, Effect of different treatment on four tall fescue varieties seed germination. Southwest Horticulture, 2006, 2: 25-26.
邹芬. 不同处理对四个高羊茅品种种子发芽的影响. 西南园艺, 2006, 2: 25-26
[6] Wang Y, Guo H L, Chen J B, et al . Preliminary evaluation of drought resistance for the hybrid zoysiagrass ‘Suzhi No.1’. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2016, 25(5): 30-39.
汪毅, 郭海林, 陈静波, 等. 国审品种‘苏植1号’杂交结缕草抗旱性初步评价与分析. 草业学报, 2016, 25(5): 30-39.
[7] Yang H S, Chang G Z, Zhou X H. Performance of Hangmu No.1 alfalfa in the Lanzhou region. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2015, 24(9): 138-145.
杨红善, 常根柱, 周学辉. 航天诱变航苜1号紫花苜蓿兰州品种比较试验. 草业学报, 2015, 24(9): 138-145.
[8] Xu Y Y, Jia J F, Niu B T. The influences of space condition on three legume forages. Chinese Journal of Space Science, 1996, 16(Suppl): 136-141.
徐云远, 贾敬芬, 牛炳韬. 空间条件对3种豆科牧草的影响. 空间科学学报, 1996, 16(增刊): 136-141.
[9] Han L, Sun Z Y, Qian Y Q, et al . Change in biological characteristics of Poa pratensis carried by Shenzhou-3 spaceship. Pratacultural Science, 2004, 21(4): 17-19.
韩蕾, 孙振元, 钱永强, 等. 神州三号飞船搭载对草地早熟禾生物学特性的影响. 草业科学, 2004, 21(4): 17-19.
[10] Hu H G, Liu J X, Guo H L. Spaceflight mutation breeding of china and its application in grass. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2006, 15(1): 15-21.
胡化广, 刘建秀, 郭海林. 我国植物空间诱变育种及其在草类植物育种中的应用. 草业学报, 2006, 15(1): 15-21.
[11] Zhang Y Q, Jia W L, Yang L L, et al . A study on character mutation of 60 Co ray irradiation in Festuca arundinacea . Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2005, 14(4): 65-71.
张彦芹, 贾炜珑, 杨丽莉, 等. 60 Co辐射高羊茅性状变异研究. 草业学报, 2005, 14(4): 65-71.
[12] Xuan J P, Guo A G, Liu J X, et al . Analysis on morphological vaniation of mutants of Cynodon dactylon induced by radiation. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2005, 14(6): 107-111.
宣继萍, 郭爱桂, 刘建秀, 等. 狗牙根辐射诱变后代外部性状变异分析. 草业学报, 2005, 14(6): 107-111.
[13] Duther F R,Hess E L,Halstead R W.Progress in plant research in space. Advances in Space Research, 1994, 14(8): 159-162.
[14] Li H S, The Principles and Techniques of Plant Physiology and Biochemistry Experiment[M]. Beijing: Higher Education Press, 2000: 109-261.
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: 109-261.
[15] Huang C L, Chen X, Gao G L. Physiological response of seedlings of three azales species of drought stress and ebaluation of drought resistance. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2011, 47(6): 48-55.
黄承玲, 陈训, 高贵龙. 3种高山杜鹃对持续干旱的生理响应及抗旱性评价. 林业科学, 2011, 47(6): 48-55.
[16] Wei Y S, Liang Z S, Shan L. Comprehensive evaluation on alfalfa drought resistance traits by subordinate function values analysis. Pratacultural Science, 2005, 22(6): 33-36.
魏永胜, 梁宗锁, 山仑, 等. 利用隶属函数值法评价苜蓿抗旱性. 草业科学, 2005, 22(6): 33-36.
[17] Zhong P F, Su S P, Li Y. Comprehensive evaluation of drought resistance of Reaumuria soongorica from four geographical populations. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2011, 20(5): 26-33.
种培芳, 苏世平, 李毅. 4个地理种群红砂的抗旱性综合评价. 草业学报, 2011, 20(5): 26-33.
[18] Zhao L L, Chen C, Wang P C. A comprehensive assessment of drought resistance of Lotus corniculatus during seed germination stage. Guizhou Agricultural Sciences, 2012, 40(9): 56-60.
赵丽丽, 陈超, 王普昶. 百脉根种子萌发期抗旱性综合评价. 贵州农业科学, 2012, 40(9): 56-60.
[19] Marie Pierre R, Vartavian N, Sallantin M, et al . Characterization of a novel protein induced by progressive or rapid drought and salinity in Brassica napusleaves . Plant Physiology, 1992, 100: 1486-1493.
[20] Huang C B, Zeng F J, Lei J Q. Comparison of drought resistance among three Calligonum in the Southern Fringe of the Taklamakan Desert. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2014, 23(3): 136-143.
黄彩变, 曾凡江, 雷加强. 塔克拉玛干沙漠南缘3个沙拐枣种的抗旱特性比较. 草业学报, 2014, 23(3): 136-143.
[21] Liu E E, Wang P H, Guo Z F. Drought-induced proteins in plants. Plant Physiology Communications, 2001, 37(2): 155-160.
刘娥娥, 汪沛洪, 郭振飞. 植物的干旱诱导蛋白. 植物生理学通讯, 2001, 37(2): 155-160.
[22] Wu Z H, Zeng F H, Ma S J, et al . Effects of exogenous ABA on soluble protein in Cynodon dactylon under PEG stress. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2004, 13(5): 75-78.
吴志华, 曾富华, 马生健, 等. ABA对PEG胁迫下狗牙根可溶性蛋白质的影响. 草业学报, 2004, 13(5): 75-78.
[23] Xiong L M, Schumaker K S, Zhu J K. Cell signaling during sold drought and salt stress. Plant Cell, 2002, 14: 165-183.
[24] Han J M. The responses of rice seedlings to the osmotic stress and relation to the osmotic adjustment. Journal of Agricultural University of Hebei, 1990, 13(1): 17-21.
韩建民. 抗旱性不同的水稻品种对渗透胁迫的反应及其与渗透调节的关系. 河北农业大学学报, 1990, 13(1): 17-21.
[25] Li D Q, Zou Q, Cheng B S. Osmotic adjustment and osmotica of wheat cultivars with different drought resistance under soil drought. Acta Phytophysiologica Sinica, 1992, 18(1): 37-43.
李德全, 邹琦, 程炳嵩. 土壤干旱下不同抗旱性小麦品种的渗透调节和渗透调节物质. 植物生理学报, 1992, 18(1): 37-43.
[26] Zhao T H, Shen X Y, Yang D G, et al . Effect of water stress on proteins in seedlings leaves of different drought-resistant Maize Hybrids. Journal of Shenyang Agricultural University, 2002, 33(6): 408-410.
赵天宏, 沈秀瑛, 杨德光, 等. 水分胁迫对不同抗旱性玉米幼苗叶片蛋白质的影响. 沈阳农业大学学报, 2002, 33(6): 408-410.
[27] Ma Y J, Ma R, Cao Z Z, et al . Effects of PEG stress on physiological characteristics of the Lespedeza seedling leaves. Journal of Desert Research, 2012, 32(6): 1662-1668.
马彦军, 马瑞, 曹致中, 等. PEG胁迫对胡枝子幼苗叶片生理特性的影响. 中国沙漠, 2012, 32(6): 1662-1668.
[28] Gill S S, Tuteja N. Reactive oxygen species and antioxidant machinery in abiotic stress tolerance in crop plants. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, 2010, 48(12): 909-930.
[29] Yao Y C, Wang Y N, Zhao X F. Study on the charaters of SOD eneymes in seedling of date plum persimmon under different low teperature. Journal of Beijing Agricultural College, 1994, 9(2): 49-55.
姚允聪, 王有年, 赵晓芳. 低温条件下君迁子幼苗SOD同工酶谱带与活性研究. 北京农学院学报, 1994, 9(2): 49-55.
[30] Hu Y B, Cheng J. Research on alleopathy of aqueous extract from Astragalus strictus . Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2013, 22(6): 136-142.
胡远彬, 程俊. 茎直黄芪水浸提液化感作用研究. 草业学报, 2013, 22(6): 136-142.
[31] Zou C J, Han S J, Xu W D, et al . Eco-physiological responses of Prcea mongolica ecotypes to drought stress. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2003, 14(9): 1446-1450.
邹春静, 韩士杰, 徐文铎, 等. 沙地云杉生态型对干旱胁迫的生理生态响应. 应用生态学报, 2003, 14(9): 1446-1450.
[32] Aygul Abduwayit, Wang Z, Muhtar Zari, et al . Effect of drought stress on plant growth and photosynthetic characteristics of three alfalfa varieties. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2016, 32(14): 7-12.
阿衣古力·阿布都瓦依提, 王铮, 木合塔尔·扎热, 等. 干旱胁迫对3个苜蓿品种的生长及光合特性的影响. 中国农学通报, 2016, 32(14): 7-12.
[33] Sun L X, Sun P, Cai S Z, et al . Physiological responses of four cold-season turfgrasses to oxidative stress of SO 2 . Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2014, 23(4): 237-244.
孙凌霞, 孙萍, 蔡仕珍, 等. 四种冷季型草坪草对二氧化硫胁迫的生理响应研究. 草业学报, 2014, 23(4): 237-244.
[34] Xue X D, Dong X Y, Duan Y X, et al . A comparison of salt resistance of three kinds of Zoysia at different salt concentrations. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2013, 22(6): 315-320.
薛秀栋, 董晓颖, 段艳欣, 等. 不同盐浓度下3种结缕草的耐盐性比较研究. 草业学报, 2013, 22(6): 315-320.
[35] Dasgupta J, Beweley J D. Variations in protein synthesis in different regions of greening leaves of barley seedling and effects of imposed water stress. Journal of Experimental Botany, 1984, 35: 1450-1459.