Acta Prataculturae Sinica ›› 2023, Vol. 32 ›› Issue (1): 99-111.DOI: 10.11686/cyxb2022027
Previous Articles Next Articles
Rui-qiang LI(), Yu-xiang WANG, Yu-lan SUN, Lei ZHANG, Ai-ping CHEN()
Received:
2022-01-12
Revised:
2022-02-24
Online:
2023-01-20
Published:
2022-11-07
Contact:
Ai-ping CHEN
Rui-qiang LI, Yu-xiang WANG, Yu-lan SUN, Lei ZHANG, Ai-ping CHEN. Effects of salt stress on the growth, physiology, and biochemistry of five Bromus inermis varieties[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2023, 32(1): 99-111.
指标 Index | 材料Materials | 盐处理Salt treatment | 材料×处理Materials×salt treatment | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
自由度df | 均方 Mean square | F | 自由度 df | 均方 Mean square | F | 自由度 df | 均方 Mean square | F | |
株高Plant height | 4 | 777.57 | 192.95*** | 2 | 108.55 | 26.94*** | 8 | 127.83 | 31.72*** |
分蘖数Number of tillers | 4 | 3.04 | 44.23*** | 2 | 1.35 | 19.62*** | 8 | 0.61 | 8.81*** |
茎粗Stem diameter | 4 | 0.70 | 24.08*** | 2 | 0.33 | 11.23*** | 8 | 0.08 | 2.90*** |
地上生物量Aboveground biomass | 4 | 27.08 | 380.11*** | 2 | 5.50 | 77.26*** | 8 | 2.35 | 32.99*** |
地下生物量Underground biomass | 4 | 17.64 | 161.41*** | 2 | 23.55 | 215.44*** | 8 | 1.35 | 12.34*** |
根冠比Root-crown ratio | 4 | 0.18 | 422.46*** | 2 | 0.81 | 1914.21*** | 8 | 0.09 | 211.73*** |
丙二醛MDA | 4 | 474739.30 | 536.83*** | 2 | 407127.30 | 460.38*** | 8 | 66493.20 | 75.19*** |
脯氨酸Pro | 4 | 927.37 | 78.77*** | 2 | 2111.03 | 179.31*** | 8 | 839.68 | 71.32*** |
可溶性糖Soluble sugar | 4 | 89.81 | 50.43*** | 2 | 161.78 | 90.84*** | 8 | 23.82 | 13.38*** |
初始荧光Fo | 4 | 1813.89 | 4.88*** | 2 | 1490.82 | 4.01 | 8 | 926.55 | 2.49* |
最大荧光Fm | 4 | 82546.16 | 50.26** | 2 | 25138.70 | 15.31*** | 8 | 16645.65 | 10.14*** |
最大光化学效率Fv/Fm | 4 | 0.00 | 0.08 | 2 | 0.00 | 0.13 | 8 | 0.00 | 0.08 |
潜在光化学效率Fv/Fo | 4 | 0.30 | 1.26 | 2 | 0.39 | 1.68 | 8 | 0.12 | 0.50 |
Table 1 Two-factor analysis of variance on effects of salt stress and different materials on B. inermis seedlings
指标 Index | 材料Materials | 盐处理Salt treatment | 材料×处理Materials×salt treatment | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
自由度df | 均方 Mean square | F | 自由度 df | 均方 Mean square | F | 自由度 df | 均方 Mean square | F | |
株高Plant height | 4 | 777.57 | 192.95*** | 2 | 108.55 | 26.94*** | 8 | 127.83 | 31.72*** |
分蘖数Number of tillers | 4 | 3.04 | 44.23*** | 2 | 1.35 | 19.62*** | 8 | 0.61 | 8.81*** |
茎粗Stem diameter | 4 | 0.70 | 24.08*** | 2 | 0.33 | 11.23*** | 8 | 0.08 | 2.90*** |
地上生物量Aboveground biomass | 4 | 27.08 | 380.11*** | 2 | 5.50 | 77.26*** | 8 | 2.35 | 32.99*** |
地下生物量Underground biomass | 4 | 17.64 | 161.41*** | 2 | 23.55 | 215.44*** | 8 | 1.35 | 12.34*** |
根冠比Root-crown ratio | 4 | 0.18 | 422.46*** | 2 | 0.81 | 1914.21*** | 8 | 0.09 | 211.73*** |
丙二醛MDA | 4 | 474739.30 | 536.83*** | 2 | 407127.30 | 460.38*** | 8 | 66493.20 | 75.19*** |
脯氨酸Pro | 4 | 927.37 | 78.77*** | 2 | 2111.03 | 179.31*** | 8 | 839.68 | 71.32*** |
可溶性糖Soluble sugar | 4 | 89.81 | 50.43*** | 2 | 161.78 | 90.84*** | 8 | 23.82 | 13.38*** |
初始荧光Fo | 4 | 1813.89 | 4.88*** | 2 | 1490.82 | 4.01 | 8 | 926.55 | 2.49* |
最大荧光Fm | 4 | 82546.16 | 50.26** | 2 | 25138.70 | 15.31*** | 8 | 16645.65 | 10.14*** |
最大光化学效率Fv/Fm | 4 | 0.00 | 0.08 | 2 | 0.00 | 0.13 | 8 | 0.00 | 0.08 |
潜在光化学效率Fv/Fo | 4 | 0.30 | 1.26 | 2 | 0.39 | 1.68 | 8 | 0.12 | 0.50 |
材料 Materials | 盐处理 Salt treatment | 株高 Plant height (cm) | 茎粗 Stem diameter (mm) | 分蘖数 Number of tillers | 地上生物量 Aboveground biomass (g) | 地下生物量 Underground biomass (g) | 根冠比 Root-crown ratio |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
L1 | CK | 32.80±1.76a | 1.75±0.07b | 3.40±0.20b | 8.97±0.49a | 8.63±0.67a | 0.96±0.12b |
M盐M salt | 28.91±1.07a | 1.88±0.09b | 3.87±0.07ab | 7.95±1.06b | 8.00±1.16ab | 1.01±0.09a | |
A盐A salt | 28.34±1.22a | 2.31±0.09a | 4.10±0.30a | 8.89±0.36a | 7.29±0.08b | 0.82±0.09c | |
L2 | CK | 34.65±1.54c | 1.65±0.06a | 2.90±0.15a | 8.25±0.79c | 7.58±1.18a | 0.92±0.10a |
M盐M salt | 44.10±1.67b | 1.81±0.14a | 2.23±0.19b | 9.57±0.81b | 7.45±0.55a | 0.79±0.16b | |
A盐A salt | 56.52±2.04a | 1.89±0.17a | 2.87±0.12a | 10.19±1.15a | 5.13±0.45b | 0.50±0.12c | |
L3 | CK | 22.34±0.87a | 2.55±0.11a | 4.63±0.33a | 6.60±0.53b | 8.91±0.31a | 1.35±0.08a |
M盐M salt | 20.57±0.93a | 2.35±0.11a | 3.63±0.46b | 6.12±0.67b | 6.43±0.13b | 1.05±0.07b | |
A盐A salt | 24.57±0.87a | 2.64±0.08a | 4.17±0.50ab | 8.07±0.68a | 6.58±0.45b | 0.82±0.13c | |
L4 | CK | 44.02±8.84a | 2.10±0.12a | 4.23±0.52a | 5.13±0.52b | 6.02±0.64a | 1.17±0.05a |
M盐M salt | 33.21±1.14b | 2.19±0.05a | 3.23±0.19b | 5.90±0.23a | 4.29±0.21b | 0.73±0.18b | |
A盐A salt | 44.38±1.16a | 2.39±0.09a | 2.83±0.09b | 5.89±0.08a | 3.46±0.94c | 0.59±0.14c | |
L5 | CK | 35.07±1.33a | 2.22±0.12a | 3.30±0.06a | 6.55±0.25a | 7.38±0.73a | 1.13±0.09b |
M盐M salt | 24.92±0.98b | 1.70±0.07b | 2.53±0.15b | 3.68±0.29b | 4.98±0.66b | 1.35±0.09a | |
A盐A salt | 24.42±1.40b | 2.11±0.08a | 3.37±0.28a | 6.18±0.50a | 3.60±0.53c | 0.58±0.12c |
Table 2 Effects of salt stress on growth characteristics of 5 B. inermis seedlings
材料 Materials | 盐处理 Salt treatment | 株高 Plant height (cm) | 茎粗 Stem diameter (mm) | 分蘖数 Number of tillers | 地上生物量 Aboveground biomass (g) | 地下生物量 Underground biomass (g) | 根冠比 Root-crown ratio |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
L1 | CK | 32.80±1.76a | 1.75±0.07b | 3.40±0.20b | 8.97±0.49a | 8.63±0.67a | 0.96±0.12b |
M盐M salt | 28.91±1.07a | 1.88±0.09b | 3.87±0.07ab | 7.95±1.06b | 8.00±1.16ab | 1.01±0.09a | |
A盐A salt | 28.34±1.22a | 2.31±0.09a | 4.10±0.30a | 8.89±0.36a | 7.29±0.08b | 0.82±0.09c | |
L2 | CK | 34.65±1.54c | 1.65±0.06a | 2.90±0.15a | 8.25±0.79c | 7.58±1.18a | 0.92±0.10a |
M盐M salt | 44.10±1.67b | 1.81±0.14a | 2.23±0.19b | 9.57±0.81b | 7.45±0.55a | 0.79±0.16b | |
A盐A salt | 56.52±2.04a | 1.89±0.17a | 2.87±0.12a | 10.19±1.15a | 5.13±0.45b | 0.50±0.12c | |
L3 | CK | 22.34±0.87a | 2.55±0.11a | 4.63±0.33a | 6.60±0.53b | 8.91±0.31a | 1.35±0.08a |
M盐M salt | 20.57±0.93a | 2.35±0.11a | 3.63±0.46b | 6.12±0.67b | 6.43±0.13b | 1.05±0.07b | |
A盐A salt | 24.57±0.87a | 2.64±0.08a | 4.17±0.50ab | 8.07±0.68a | 6.58±0.45b | 0.82±0.13c | |
L4 | CK | 44.02±8.84a | 2.10±0.12a | 4.23±0.52a | 5.13±0.52b | 6.02±0.64a | 1.17±0.05a |
M盐M salt | 33.21±1.14b | 2.19±0.05a | 3.23±0.19b | 5.90±0.23a | 4.29±0.21b | 0.73±0.18b | |
A盐A salt | 44.38±1.16a | 2.39±0.09a | 2.83±0.09b | 5.89±0.08a | 3.46±0.94c | 0.59±0.14c | |
L5 | CK | 35.07±1.33a | 2.22±0.12a | 3.30±0.06a | 6.55±0.25a | 7.38±0.73a | 1.13±0.09b |
M盐M salt | 24.92±0.98b | 1.70±0.07b | 2.53±0.15b | 3.68±0.29b | 4.98±0.66b | 1.35±0.09a | |
A盐A salt | 24.42±1.40b | 2.11±0.08a | 3.37±0.28a | 6.18±0.50a | 3.60±0.53c | 0.58±0.12c |
指标 Index | 株高 Plant height | 分蘖数 Number of tillers | 茎粗 Stem diameter | 地上生物量 Aboveground biomass | 地下生物量 Underground biomass | 根冠比 Root-crown ratio | 丙二醛 MDA | 脯氨酸 Pro | 可溶性糖 Soluble sugar | 初始 荧光 Fo | 最大 荧光 Fm | 最大光化学效率 Fv/Fm |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
分蘖数Number of tillers | -0.585 | |||||||||||
茎粗Stem diameter | -0.375 | 0.592 | ||||||||||
地上生物量Aboveground biomass | 0.715 | -0.036 | -0.061 | |||||||||
地下生物量Underground biomass | 0.237 | 0.196 | -0.213 | 0.775* | ||||||||
根冠比Root-crown ratio | 0.738* | -0.109 | 0.298 | 0.582 | -0.046 | |||||||
丙二醛MDA | 0.510 | 0.340 | -0.076 | 0.652 | 0.431 | 0.581 | ||||||
脯氨酸Pro | 0.675 | -0.472 | -0.592 | 0.115 | -0.236 | 0.438 | 0.488 | |||||
可溶性糖Soluble sugar | 0.414 | -0.811* | -0.912** | -0.139 | -0.149 | -0.183 | -0.140 | 0.679 | ||||
初始荧光Fo | -0.968** | 0.695 | 0.587 | -0.595 | -0.200 | -0.572 | -0.434 | -0.768 | -0.624 | |||
最大荧光Fm | -0.847 | 0.722 | 0.097 | -0.534 | -0.016 | -0.695 | -0.058 | -0.359 | -0.285 | 0.777* | ||
最大光化学效率Fv/Fm | -0.435 | 0.553 | -0.208 | -0.375 | -0.064 | -0.385 | 0.352 | 0.217 | 0.025 | 0.331 | 0.823* | |
潜在光化学效率Fv/Fo | -0.366 | 0.402 | -0.418 | -0.333 | 0.038 | -0.487 | 0.309 | 0.266 | 0.208 | 0.219 | 0.778 | 0.972** |
Table 3 Correlation of salt tolerance coefficient of 5 B. inermis seedlings under neutral salt stress
指标 Index | 株高 Plant height | 分蘖数 Number of tillers | 茎粗 Stem diameter | 地上生物量 Aboveground biomass | 地下生物量 Underground biomass | 根冠比 Root-crown ratio | 丙二醛 MDA | 脯氨酸 Pro | 可溶性糖 Soluble sugar | 初始 荧光 Fo | 最大 荧光 Fm | 最大光化学效率 Fv/Fm |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
分蘖数Number of tillers | -0.585 | |||||||||||
茎粗Stem diameter | -0.375 | 0.592 | ||||||||||
地上生物量Aboveground biomass | 0.715 | -0.036 | -0.061 | |||||||||
地下生物量Underground biomass | 0.237 | 0.196 | -0.213 | 0.775* | ||||||||
根冠比Root-crown ratio | 0.738* | -0.109 | 0.298 | 0.582 | -0.046 | |||||||
丙二醛MDA | 0.510 | 0.340 | -0.076 | 0.652 | 0.431 | 0.581 | ||||||
脯氨酸Pro | 0.675 | -0.472 | -0.592 | 0.115 | -0.236 | 0.438 | 0.488 | |||||
可溶性糖Soluble sugar | 0.414 | -0.811* | -0.912** | -0.139 | -0.149 | -0.183 | -0.140 | 0.679 | ||||
初始荧光Fo | -0.968** | 0.695 | 0.587 | -0.595 | -0.200 | -0.572 | -0.434 | -0.768 | -0.624 | |||
最大荧光Fm | -0.847 | 0.722 | 0.097 | -0.534 | -0.016 | -0.695 | -0.058 | -0.359 | -0.285 | 0.777* | ||
最大光化学效率Fv/Fm | -0.435 | 0.553 | -0.208 | -0.375 | -0.064 | -0.385 | 0.352 | 0.217 | 0.025 | 0.331 | 0.823* | |
潜在光化学效率Fv/Fo | -0.366 | 0.402 | -0.418 | -0.333 | 0.038 | -0.487 | 0.309 | 0.266 | 0.208 | 0.219 | 0.778 | 0.972** |
指标 Index | 株高 Plant height | 分蘖数 Number of tillers | 茎粗 Stem diameter | 地上生物量 Aboveground biomass | 地下生物量 Underground biomass | 根冠比 Root-crown ratio | 丙二醛 MDA | 脯氨酸 Pro | 可溶性糖 Soluble sugar | 初始 荧光 Fo | 最大 荧光 Fm | 最大光化学效率Fv/Fm |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
分蘖数Number of tillers | -0.797 | |||||||||||
茎粗Stem diameter | -0.585 | 0.615 | ||||||||||
地上生物量Aboveground biomass | 0.390 | 0.176 | -0.355 | |||||||||
地下生物量Underground biomass | -0.298 | 0.809* | 0.341 | 0.670 | ||||||||
根冠比Root-crown ratio | 0.758 | -0.933** | -0.802 | 0.012 | -0.733 | |||||||
丙二醛MDA | 0.393 | 0.013 | -0.565 | 0.781 | 0.484 | 0.089 | ||||||
脯氨酸Pro | 0.797 | -0.492 | -0.174 | 0.442 | -0.080 | 0.488 | 0.057 | |||||
可溶性糖Soluble sugar | 0.823* | -0.826* | -0.295 | -0.101 | -0.509 | 0.603 | 0.128 | 0.518 | ||||
初始荧光Fo | -0.212 | 0.425 | 0.907** | -0.101 | 0.380 | -0.628 | -0.422 | 0.233 | -0.034 | |||
最大荧光Fm | -0.392 | 0.460 | 0.930** | -0.353 | 0.303 | -0.738 | -0.389 | -0.152 | -0.002 | 0.888** | ||
最大光化学效率Fv/Fm | 0.409 | 0.037 | 0.362 | 0.343 | 0.428 | -0.263 | 0.285 | 0.478 | 0.491 | 0.652 | 0.584 | |
潜在光化学效率Fv/Fo | 0.149 | 0.060 | 0.372 | -0.034 | 0.261 | -0.363 | 0.261 | -0.035 | 0.497 | 0.465 | 0.680 | 0.817* |
Table 4 Correlation of salt tolerance coefficient of 5 B. inermis seedlings under alkaline salt stress
指标 Index | 株高 Plant height | 分蘖数 Number of tillers | 茎粗 Stem diameter | 地上生物量 Aboveground biomass | 地下生物量 Underground biomass | 根冠比 Root-crown ratio | 丙二醛 MDA | 脯氨酸 Pro | 可溶性糖 Soluble sugar | 初始 荧光 Fo | 最大 荧光 Fm | 最大光化学效率Fv/Fm |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
分蘖数Number of tillers | -0.797 | |||||||||||
茎粗Stem diameter | -0.585 | 0.615 | ||||||||||
地上生物量Aboveground biomass | 0.390 | 0.176 | -0.355 | |||||||||
地下生物量Underground biomass | -0.298 | 0.809* | 0.341 | 0.670 | ||||||||
根冠比Root-crown ratio | 0.758 | -0.933** | -0.802 | 0.012 | -0.733 | |||||||
丙二醛MDA | 0.393 | 0.013 | -0.565 | 0.781 | 0.484 | 0.089 | ||||||
脯氨酸Pro | 0.797 | -0.492 | -0.174 | 0.442 | -0.080 | 0.488 | 0.057 | |||||
可溶性糖Soluble sugar | 0.823* | -0.826* | -0.295 | -0.101 | -0.509 | 0.603 | 0.128 | 0.518 | ||||
初始荧光Fo | -0.212 | 0.425 | 0.907** | -0.101 | 0.380 | -0.628 | -0.422 | 0.233 | -0.034 | |||
最大荧光Fm | -0.392 | 0.460 | 0.930** | -0.353 | 0.303 | -0.738 | -0.389 | -0.152 | -0.002 | 0.888** | ||
最大光化学效率Fv/Fm | 0.409 | 0.037 | 0.362 | 0.343 | 0.428 | -0.263 | 0.285 | 0.478 | 0.491 | 0.652 | 0.584 | |
潜在光化学效率Fv/Fo | 0.149 | 0.060 | 0.372 | -0.034 | 0.261 | -0.363 | 0.261 | -0.035 | 0.497 | 0.465 | 0.680 | 0.817* |
项目 Item | M盐M salt | A盐A salt | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
主成分1 Principal component 1 | 主成分2 Principal component 2 | 主成分3 Principal component 3 | 主成分1 Principal component 1 | 主成分2 Principal component 2 | 主成分3 Principal component 3 | |
脯氨酸Pro | 0.97 | -0.13 | 0.20 | 0.57 | 0.77 | -0.11 |
丙二醛MDA | 0.91 | -0.09 | 0.20 | -0.65 | 0.38 | -0.25 |
最大光化学效率Fv/Fm | 0.80 | 0.59 | -0.09 | 0.96 | 0.24 | -0.06 |
潜在光化学效率Fv/Fo | 0.66 | 0.65 | -0.12 | 0.72 | 0.43 | -0.46 |
最大荧光Fm | 0.02 | 0.93 | 0.34 | 0.88 | 0.03 | -0.33 |
分蘖数Number of tillers | -0.01 | 0.82 | -0.02 | -0.20 | -0.88 | 0.23 |
地上生物量Aboveground biomass | 0.16 | -0.18 | 0.97 | 0.59 | 0.57 | 0.57 |
茎粗Stem diameter | 0.09 | 0.32 | 0.92 | 0.74 | -0.48 | -0.25 |
株高Plant height | -0.66 | 0.07 | 0.73 | 0.46 | 0.43 | 0.61 |
地下生物量Underground biomass | -0.42 | 0.62 | 0.66 | 0.69 | -0.66 | 0.29 |
根冠比Root-crown ratio | 0.50 | -0.59 | 0.61 | -0.39 | 0.92 | -0.07 |
初始荧光Fo | 0.28 | 0.43 | -0.47 | 0.67 | -0.44 | -0.35 |
可溶性糖Soluble sugar | -0.39 | 0.56 | -0.29 | 0.97 | -0.02 | 0.20 |
特征值Eigenvalues | 3.95 | 3.70 | 3.63 | 6.11 | 3.96 | 1.47 |
贡献率Contribution rate (%) | 30.38 | 28.49 | 27.93 | 47.01 | 30.42 | 11.33 |
累计贡献率Cumulative contribution (%) | 30.38 | 58.87 | 86.80 | 47.01 | 77.43 | 88.76 |
Table 5 The characteristic vector and contribution rate of principal component analysis of salt tolerance coefficient in 5 B. inermis
项目 Item | M盐M salt | A盐A salt | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
主成分1 Principal component 1 | 主成分2 Principal component 2 | 主成分3 Principal component 3 | 主成分1 Principal component 1 | 主成分2 Principal component 2 | 主成分3 Principal component 3 | |
脯氨酸Pro | 0.97 | -0.13 | 0.20 | 0.57 | 0.77 | -0.11 |
丙二醛MDA | 0.91 | -0.09 | 0.20 | -0.65 | 0.38 | -0.25 |
最大光化学效率Fv/Fm | 0.80 | 0.59 | -0.09 | 0.96 | 0.24 | -0.06 |
潜在光化学效率Fv/Fo | 0.66 | 0.65 | -0.12 | 0.72 | 0.43 | -0.46 |
最大荧光Fm | 0.02 | 0.93 | 0.34 | 0.88 | 0.03 | -0.33 |
分蘖数Number of tillers | -0.01 | 0.82 | -0.02 | -0.20 | -0.88 | 0.23 |
地上生物量Aboveground biomass | 0.16 | -0.18 | 0.97 | 0.59 | 0.57 | 0.57 |
茎粗Stem diameter | 0.09 | 0.32 | 0.92 | 0.74 | -0.48 | -0.25 |
株高Plant height | -0.66 | 0.07 | 0.73 | 0.46 | 0.43 | 0.61 |
地下生物量Underground biomass | -0.42 | 0.62 | 0.66 | 0.69 | -0.66 | 0.29 |
根冠比Root-crown ratio | 0.50 | -0.59 | 0.61 | -0.39 | 0.92 | -0.07 |
初始荧光Fo | 0.28 | 0.43 | -0.47 | 0.67 | -0.44 | -0.35 |
可溶性糖Soluble sugar | -0.39 | 0.56 | -0.29 | 0.97 | -0.02 | 0.20 |
特征值Eigenvalues | 3.95 | 3.70 | 3.63 | 6.11 | 3.96 | 1.47 |
贡献率Contribution rate (%) | 30.38 | 28.49 | 27.93 | 47.01 | 30.42 | 11.33 |
累计贡献率Cumulative contribution (%) | 30.38 | 58.87 | 86.80 | 47.01 | 77.43 | 88.76 |
处理 Treatment | 材料 Materials | 主成分1 Principal component 1 | 主成分2 Principal component 2 | 主成分3 Principal component 3 | U(X1) | U(X2) | U(X3) | D值 D value | 耐盐性排名 Salt tolerance ranking |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M盐 M salt | L1 | 0.51 | 0.61 | 0.52 | 0.13 | 1.00 | 0.50 | 0.54 | 2 |
L2 | 0.47 | 0.52 | 0.65 | 0.04 | 0.19 | 0.99 | 0.39 | 3 | |
L3 | 0.45 | 0.45 | 0.51 | 0.00 | 0.08 | 0.46 | 0.18 | 4 | |
L4 | 0.90 | 0.40 | 0.65 | 1.00 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.67 | 1 | |
L5 | 0.55 | 0.52 | 0.39 | 0.22 | 0.19 | 0.00 | 0.14 | 5 | |
权重Weight | 0.35 | 0.33 | 0.32 | ||||||
A盐 A salt | L1 | 0.68 | -0.82 | -0.04 | 0.98 | 0.00 | 0.42 | 0.57 | 4 |
L2 | 0.30 | 0.36 | 0.13 | 0.85 | 0.80 | 0.95 | 0.85 | 2 | |
L3 | 0.33 | -0.03 | 0.15 | 0.86 | 0.54 | 1.00 | 0.77 | 3 | |
L4 | 0.73 | 0.65 | -0.17 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.00 | 0.87 | 1 | |
L5 | -2.05 | -0.03 | -0.04 | 0.00 | 0.53 | 0.41 | 0.24 | 5 | |
权重Weight | 0.53 | 0.34 | 0.13 |
Table 6 The comprehensive index value, weight, membership function value, D value and comprehensive evaluation of 5 B. inermis seedlings
处理 Treatment | 材料 Materials | 主成分1 Principal component 1 | 主成分2 Principal component 2 | 主成分3 Principal component 3 | U(X1) | U(X2) | U(X3) | D值 D value | 耐盐性排名 Salt tolerance ranking |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M盐 M salt | L1 | 0.51 | 0.61 | 0.52 | 0.13 | 1.00 | 0.50 | 0.54 | 2 |
L2 | 0.47 | 0.52 | 0.65 | 0.04 | 0.19 | 0.99 | 0.39 | 3 | |
L3 | 0.45 | 0.45 | 0.51 | 0.00 | 0.08 | 0.46 | 0.18 | 4 | |
L4 | 0.90 | 0.40 | 0.65 | 1.00 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.67 | 1 | |
L5 | 0.55 | 0.52 | 0.39 | 0.22 | 0.19 | 0.00 | 0.14 | 5 | |
权重Weight | 0.35 | 0.33 | 0.32 | ||||||
A盐 A salt | L1 | 0.68 | -0.82 | -0.04 | 0.98 | 0.00 | 0.42 | 0.57 | 4 |
L2 | 0.30 | 0.36 | 0.13 | 0.85 | 0.80 | 0.95 | 0.85 | 2 | |
L3 | 0.33 | -0.03 | 0.15 | 0.86 | 0.54 | 1.00 | 0.77 | 3 | |
L4 | 0.73 | 0.65 | -0.17 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.00 | 0.87 | 1 | |
L5 | -2.05 | -0.03 | -0.04 | 0.00 | 0.53 | 0.41 | 0.24 | 5 | |
权重Weight | 0.53 | 0.34 | 0.13 |
1 | Zhao K F, Li F Z, Zhang F S. Halophytes of China. Beijing: Science Press, 2013. |
赵可夫, 李法曾, 张福锁. 中国盐生植物. 北京: 科学出版社, 2013. | |
2 | Parihar P, Singh S, Singh R, et al. Effect of salinity stress on plants and its tolerance strategies: A review. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2015, 22(6): 4056-4075. |
3 | Zhang J L, Li H R, Guo S Y, et al. Research advances in higher plant adaptation to salt stress. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2015, 24(12): 220-236. |
张金林, 李惠茹, 郭姝媛, 等. 高等植物适应盐逆境研究进展. 草业学报, 2015, 24(12): 220-236. | |
4 | Zhang P H, Hou X D, Wang J. Causes and amelioration measures of saline-alkali land in Xinjiang region. Modern Agricultural Science and Technology, 2017(24): 178-180. |
张鹏辉, 侯宪东, 王健. 新疆地区盐碱地成因及治理措施. 现代农业科技, 2017(24): 178-180. | |
5 | Liu B, Kang C, Wang X, et al. Physiological and morphological responses of Leymus chinensis to saline‐alkali stress. Grassland Science, 2015, 61(4): 217-226. |
6 | Wang L Q. The physio-ecological mechanism of salt tolerance of medicinal halophyte Lycium ruthenicum. Lanzhou: Gansu Agricultural University, 2011. |
王龙强. 盐生药用植物黑果枸杞耐盐生理生态机制研究. 兰州: 甘肃农业大学, 2011. | |
7 | Wang Q Z, Liu Q, Gao Y N, et al. Review on the mechanisms of the response to salinity-alkalinity stress in plants. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2017, 37(16): 5565-5577. |
王佺珍, 刘倩, 高娅妮, 等. 植物对盐碱胁迫的响应机制研究进展. 生态学报, 2017, 37(16): 5565-5577. | |
8 | Thompson G L, Jenny K K. Applying biodiversity and ecosystem function theory to turfgrass management. Crop Science, 2017, 57(S1): 238-248. |
9 | Tang X L, Mu X M, Shao H B, et al. Global plant-responding mechanisms to salt stress: Physiological and molecular levels and implications in biotechnology. Critical Reviews in Biotechnology, 2015, 35(4): 425-437. |
10 | Fang Y R, Xue L. Research advances in the effect of salt stress on plant chlorophyll fluorescence. Ecological Science, 2019, 38(3): 225-234. |
方怡然, 薛立. 盐胁迫对植物叶绿素荧光影响的研究进展. 生态科学, 2019, 38(3): 225-234. | |
11 | Li K C, Huangfu J Y, Lu X S. Salt tolerance evaluation of 10 varieties of Lolium multiflorum Lam. at germination. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2010, 18(3): 388-393, 398. |
李孔晨, 皇甫江云, 卢欣石. 一年生黑麦草萌发期耐盐性综合评价. 草地学报, 2010, 18(3): 388-393, 398. | |
12 | Hoque M A, Banu M, Eiji O, et al. Exogenous proline and glycinebetaine increase NaCl-induced ascorbate-glutathione cycle enzyme activities, and proline improves salt tolerance more than glycinebetaine in tobacco Bright Yellow-2 suspension-cultured cells. Journal of Plant Physiology, 2007, 164(11): 1457-1468. |
13 | Yu H R, Jia Y S, Jia P F, et al. Comprehensive evaluation of growth, yield and quality of alfalfa in different saline-alkali soil. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2019, 41(4): 143-149. |
于浩然, 贾玉山, 贾鹏飞, 等. 不同盐碱度对紫花苜蓿产量及品质的影响. 中国草地学报, 2019, 41(4): 143-149. | |
14 | Gong K, Jin G L, Sui X Q, et al. Analysis on the distribution, breeding and utilization of Bromus inermis germplasm resources in China. Heilongjiang Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, 2019, 29(21): 32-36. |
宫珂, 靳瑰丽, 隋晓青, 等. 我国无芒雀麦种质资源分布、育种及利用现状分析. 黑龙江畜牧兽医, 2019, 29(21): 32-36. | |
15 | Li J G, Yu S, Xiao J, et al. Effect of salt stress on seed germination of Bromus inermis Leyss. Northern Horticulture, 2011(2): 25-27. |
李继光, 于爽, 肖杰, 等. 盐胁迫对无芒雀麦种子发芽势和发芽率的影响. 北方园艺, 2011(2): 25-27. | |
16 | Song J X, Li Q, Luo J, et al. Evaluation of salt tolerance at germination stage of 37 Bromus inermis varieties in Xinjiang. Seed, 2020, 39(4): 85-90. |
宋家兴, 李倩, 罗金, 等. 37份新疆无芒雀麦萌发期耐盐性评价. 种子, 2020, 39(4): 85-90. | |
17 | Han M, Zhang Y X, Pan D F, et al. Effects of saline-alkaloid stress on the seed germination and seedling growth of three Bromus inermis. Heilongjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2012(7): 119-122. |
韩萌, 张月学, 潘多锋, 等. 混合盐碱胁迫对3种无芒雀麦种子萌发及幼苗生长的影响. 黑龙江农业科学, 2012(7): 119-122. | |
18 | Xu B, Wang Y Z, Wang Y, et al. The effect of NaCl on germination and early seedling growth of ten accessions of Bromus inermis. Heilongjiang Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, 2017(9): 142-146. |
徐博, 王英哲, 王莹, 等. 盐胁迫对无芒雀麦种子萌发和早期生长的影响. 黑龙江畜牧兽医, 2017(9): 142-146. | |
19 | Lin D D, Zhao G Q, Ju Z L, et al. Comprehensive evaluation of drought resistance of 15 oat varieties at the seedling stage. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(11): 108-121. |
蔺豆豆, 赵桂琴, 琚泽亮, 等. 15份燕麦材料苗期抗旱性综合评价. 草业学报, 2021, 30(11): 108-121. | |
20 | Sun G Z, Wang Z, Zhang G, et al. Evaluation on salt-tolerance of Bromus inermis Leyss. at seedling stage. Journal of Grassland and Forage Science, 2007(3): 28-32. |
孙桂枝, 王赞, 张耿, 等. 11份无芒雀麦苗期耐盐性评价. 草业与畜牧, 2007(3): 28-32. | |
21 | Tian X X, Mao P C, Meng L, et al. Determination of indicators for salt-tolerant evaluation and comprehensive evaluation of salt-tolerant at the seedlings of Bromus inermis. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment, 2017, 31(10): 156-161. |
田小霞, 毛培春, 孟林, 等. 无芒雀麦苗期耐盐指标筛选及耐盐性综合评价. 干旱区资源与环境, 2017, 31(10): 156-161. | |
22 | Liu L. Constitute and distributing character of salinity in soil in Xinjiang. Arid Environmental Monitoring, 2009, 23(4): 227-229. |
刘蕾. 新疆土壤盐分的组成和分布特征. 干旱环境监测, 2009, 23(4): 227-229. | |
23 | Wang S M, Wan C G, Wang Y R, et al. The characteristics of Na+, K+ and free proline distribution in several drought-resistant plants of the Alxa Desert, China. Journal of Arid Environments, 2004, 56(3): 525-539. |
24 | Liu H Y, Wang H H, Cui C H, et al. Experiment improvement of the soluble sugar content determination by enthrone colorimetric method. Laboratory Science, 2013, 76(2): 19-20. |
刘海英, 王华华, 崔长海, 等. 可溶性糖含量测定(蒽酮法)实验的改进. 实验室科学, 2013, 76(2): 19-20. | |
25 | Li Z F, Wu X D. Experimental design scheme for the effect of drought stress on content of malondialdehyde of indoor ornamental plants. Tianjin Agricultural Sciences, 2016, 22(9): 49-51. |
李子芳, 吴锡冬. 植物丙二醛含量测定试验设计方案. 天津农业科学, 2016, 22(9): 49-51. | |
26 | Yousef F, Shafique F, Ali Q, et al. Effects of salt stress on the growth traits of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) and pea (Pisum sativum L.) seedlings. Biological and Clinical Sciences Research Journal, 2020, 29(1): 1-6. |
27 | Lin J X, Li Z L, Wang Y N, et al. Effects of various mixed salt-alkaline stress conditions on seed germination and early seedling growth of Leymus chinensis from Songnen grassland of China. Notulae Botanicae Horti Agrobotanici Cluj-Napoca, 2014, 42(1): 154-159. |
28 | He J J, Yao L R, Wang J C, et al. Effects of drought and salt stress on seed germination characteristics of Halogeton glomeratus. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2020, 29(11): 129-140. |
何建军, 姚立蓉, 汪军成, 等. 干旱和盐胁迫对盐生植物盐生草种子萌发特性的影响. 草业学报, 2020, 29(11): 129-140. | |
29 | Wei J N. The effects of silicon on growth and development of Kentucky bluegrass seedings under salt stress. Lanzhou: Lanzhou University, 2016. |
魏佳宁. 盐胁迫下硅肥对草地早熟禾苗期生长发育的影响. 兰州: 兰州大学, 2016. | |
30 | Cheng M S, Zou H H, Huang X F, et al. Effects of drought and salt stress on growth and physiology of Phyllostachys edulis seedlings. Acta Agriculturae Universitatis Jiangxiensis, 2021, 43(4): 842-852. |
程明圣, 邹欢欢, 黄孝风, 等. 干旱与盐胁迫对毛竹幼苗生长及生理的影响. 江西农业大学学报, 2021, 43(4): 842-852. | |
31 | Rosas U, Lara J A, Alejandro D, et al. Persistent adventitious and basal root development during salt stress tolerance in Echinocactus platyacanthus (Cactaceae) seedlings. Journal of Arid Environments, 2021, 187(10): 31-44. |
32 | Wang S F, Hu Y X, Sun H J, et al. Effects of salt stress on growth and root development of two oak seedlings. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2014, 34(4): 1021-1029. |
王树凤, 胡韵雪, 孙海菁, 等. 盐胁迫对2种栎树苗期生长和根系生长发育的影响. 生态学报, 2014, 34(4): 1021-1029. | |
33 | Rao L Y, Li S Y, Cui X, et al. Leaf morphology and chlorophyll fluorescence characteristics of mulberry seedlings under waterlogging stress. Scientific Reports, 2021, 11(1): 1-11. |
34 | Li Y Y, Nie C P, Yang C M, et al. Comparison of leaf structure and chlorophyll fluorescence characteristics of four vines. Molecular Plant Breeding, 2021, 12(28): 1-8. |
李焰焰, 聂传朋, 杨春苗, 等. 4种藤本植物的叶结构及叶绿素荧光特征比较. 分子植物育种, 2021, 12(28): 1-8. | |
35 | Ren Y Y, Zhu Y L, Zhang J T, et al. Effects of salinity on chlorophyll fluorescence characteristics and leaf anatomical structure of Robinia pseudoacacia L. cutting seedlings. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2018, 34(18): 29-35. |
任媛媛, 朱延林, 张江涛, 等. 盐胁迫对刺槐幼苗叶绿素荧光及叶片解剖结构的影响. 中国农学通报, 2018, 34(18): 29-35. | |
36 | Su L X, Bai T Y, Yu H, et al. Effects of salt stress on seedlings growth, photosynthesis and chlorophyll fluorescence of two species of Artocarpus. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2019, 52(12): 2140-2150. |
苏兰茜, 白亭玉, 鱼欢, 等. 盐胁迫对2种菠萝蜜属植物幼苗生长及光合荧光特性的影响. 中国农业科学, 2019, 52(12): 2140-2150. | |
37 | Chen Y Q, Su K Q, Chen T X, et al. Effects of complex saline-alkali stress on seed germination and seedling physiological characteristics of Achnatherum inebrians. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(3): 137-157. |
陈雅琦, 苏楷淇, 陈泰祥, 等. 混合盐碱胁迫对醉马草种子萌发及幼苗生理特性的影响. 草业学报, 2021, 30(3): 137-157. | |
38 | Sergey S, Alex M. Ion transport in halophytes. Advances in Botanical Research, 2011, 57: 151-199. |
39 | Yu S Y, Zhou Y F, Huang W, et al. Effects of drought, salt, and drought-salt combined stress on photosynthetic and physiological characteristics of Agropyron mongolicum. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(11): 2399-2406. |
余淑艳, 周燕飞, 黄薇, 等. 干旱、盐及旱盐复合胁迫对沙芦草光合和生理特性的影响. 草地学报, 2021, 29(11): 2399-2406. | |
40 | Liu W, Li J W, Xu R X, et al. Effect of NaCl stress on seed germination and seedling growth of pepper. Molecular Plant Breeding, 2021, 12(27): 1-14. |
刘微, 李佳薇, 徐若瑄, 等. NaCl胁迫对辣椒种子萌发及幼苗生长的影响. 分子植物育种, 2021, 12(27): 1-14. | |
41 | Guo J M, Chen Y Y, Lu P Z, et al. Roles of endophytic bacteria in Suaeda salsa grown in coastal wetlands: Plant growth characteristics and salt tolerance mechanisms. Environmental Pollution, 2021, 287: 1-10. |
42 | Lu A Q, Zhang F J, Xu X, et al. Effects of salt stress on growth and physiological characteristics of Echinochloa frumentacea seedlings. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(5): 84-93. |
陆安桥, 张峰举, 许兴, 等. 盐胁迫对湖南稷子苗期生长及生理特性的影响. 草业学报, 2021, 30(5): 84-93. | |
43 | Guo Y, Wang W C, Xu Y Y, et al. Review on evaluation methods of plant salt tolerance. Jiangsu Agricultural Sciences, 2017, 45(23): 18-23. |
郭远, 王文成, 徐颖莹, 等. 植物耐盐评价方法综述. 江苏农业科学, 2017, 45(23): 18-23. | |
44 | Wang M M, Zhou X R, Liang G L, et al. A multi-trait evaluation of salt tolerance of 5 oat germplasm lines at the seedling stage. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2020, 29(8): 143-154. |
王苗苗, 周向睿, 梁国玲, 等. 5份燕麦材料苗期耐盐性综合评价. 草业学报, 2020, 29(8): 143-154. | |
45 | Li Z, Yun L, Shi Z Y, et al. Physiological characteristics of Psathyrostachys juncea at seed germination and seedling growth stages under salt stress. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2019, 28(8): 119-129. |
李珍, 云岚, 石子英, 等. 盐胁迫对新麦草种子萌发及幼苗期生理特性的影响. 草业学报, 2019, 28(8): 119-129. |
[1] | Ying-xia CHEN, Yu DU, Yu-xiang WANG, Bo ZHANG, Abduriherman ADILE. Young spike differentiation and reproductive pattern of Bromus inermis in different habitats [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2023, 32(1): 112-121. |
[2] | Shan-shan WANG, Hai-tao GU, Hui-fang XIE, Shao-dong HE, Chang-bo GAN, Xiao-yong WEI, Guang-chao KONG. Evaluation of forage yield and quality traits of 113 forage hexaploid triticale germplasm lines [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2023, 32(1): 192-202. |
[3] | Zi-ying CHEN, Dan-na CHANG, Mei HAN, Zheng-peng LI, Qing-biao YAN, Jiu-dong ZHANG, Guo-peng ZHOU, Xiao-feng SUN, Wei-dong CAO. Capability evaluation of 47 common vetch cultivars (lines) as autumn green manure in Qinghai Province, Northwest China [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2022, 31(2): 39-51. |
[4] | Yuan-bo JIANG, Yan-xia KANG, Guang-ping QI, Min-hua YIN, Yan-lin MA, Jing-hai WANG, Qiong JIA, Yao KANG, Hong-bin ZHANG, Zhong-xia TANG, Ai-xia WANG. Irrigation scheduling based on yield and quality in Bromus inermis [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2022, 31(11): 158-171. |
[5] | Ting-mei WU, Hui-long LIN, Di FAN, Chang-ting JI, Yu-ting ZHAO, Jing-qiong WEI. Factors influencing the scale of herdsmen’s livestock farming in tundra alpine grassland-A case study from Qinghai Province [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(9): 117-126. |
[6] | Ji-xiang WANG, Huan-yu GONG, Xiang-jian TU, Zhen-xing GUO, Jia-nan ZHAO, Jian SHEN, Zhen-yi LI, Juan SUN. Screening of phosphite-tolerant alfalfa varieties and identification of phosphite tolerance indicators [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(5): 186-199. |
[7] | Yan PENG, Jing-yuan SUN, Su-jie MA, Xiang-tao WANG, Lei SUN, Xue-hong WEI. Effects of nitrogen and phosphorus addition on production performance and nutritive value of pasture species in Northern Tibet [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(5): 52-64. |
[8] | Wei ZHANG, Qing-ping ZHOU, You-jun CHEN, Jing PAN, Xiao-ming JIN, Wan-bin SUN, Zhi-feng JIA. Comparison of production performance and forage quality of ten introduced oat varieties in Hulunbuir, China [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(12): 129-142. |
[9] | Dou-dou LIN, Gui-qin ZHAO, Ze-liang JU, Wen-long GONG. Comprehensive evaluation of drought resistance of 15 oat varieties at the seedling stage [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(11): 108-121. |
[10] | WANG Miao-miao, ZHOU Xiang-rui, LIANG Guo-ling, ZHAO Gui-qin, JIAO Run-an, CHAI Ji-kuan, GAO Xue-mei, LI Juan-ning. A multi-trait evaluation of salt tolerance of 5 oat germplasm lines at the seedling stage [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2020, 29(8): 143-154. |
[11] | LEI Xiong, YOU Ming-hong, BAI Shi-qie, CHEN Li-li, DENG Pei-hua, XIONG Yi, XIONG Yan-li, YU Qing-qing, MA Xiao, YANG Jian, ZHANG Chang-bing. Genetic diversity analysis and multivariate evaluation of agronomic traits of 50 oat germplasm lines in northwest Sichuan [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2020, 29(7): 131-142. |
[12] | LIU Jiang, LV Tao, ZHANG Li-xin, YE Li-na, LIU Xiang-yang, DAI Xiang-rong, WANG Wei-wei, DING Ru. Soil quality assessment by principal component analysis in Glycyrrhiza uralensis stands of differing ages [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2020, 29(6): 162-171. |
[13] | LIU Shu-jun, YAO Xin-zhuan, ZHAO De-gang, LÜ Li-tang. An evaluation of soil nutrient status and balance in Meitan tea plantations [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2020, 29(11): 33-45. |
[14] | HU Na, LI Bao-chun, YAO Li-rong, WANG Jun-cheng, BIAN Xiu-xiu, HOU Jing-jing, SI Er-jing, YANG Ke, MENG Ya-xiong, MA Xiao-le, WANG Hua-jun. Effects of different heavy metals on the seed germination and establishment of Halogeton glomeratus [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2019, 28(6): 66-81. |
[15] | WANG Jian-li, MA Li-chao, SHEN Zhong-bao, LIU Jie-lin, ZHU Rui-fen, HAN Wei-bo, ZHONG Peng, DI Gui-li, HAN Gui-qing, GUO Chang-hong. An evaluation of agronomic traits and genetic diversity among 51 oat germplasm accessions [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2019, 28(2): 133-141. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||