Changes in protective enzyme activities in cells of Hemarthria compressa under water stress

Abstract

Abstract: Two national varieties “Guangyi” and “Chonggao” were used to study the changes of superoxide dismutase (SOD), peroxidase isoenzyme (POD), catalase (CAT) and malondialdehyde (MDA) in roots. The results showed that the MDA content and the activities of superoxide dismutase, peroxidase isoenzyme, and catalase in the roots increased during water stress, with a peak at 14 days. After that, the content of malondialdehyde and the activities of the three kinds of protective enzymes declined significantly. The study also showed that the initial rise in the content of malondialdehyde was mainly caused by drought stress. However, the rises in the three kinds of protective enzymes activities may result from the rise of malondialdehyde. After 14 days of drought stress, the reduction in content of the three protective enzymes may due to their tolerance and adaptability after experiencing the drought-threshold period. During the study, the roots of “Chonggao” always had a higher MDA than “Guangyi”. Based on the drooping and wilting status of the two grasses, we conclude that “Guangyi” has a greater drought resistance than “Chonggao”.

CLC Number:

GUI Shi-chang, YANG Feng, ZHANG Bao-yi, ZHANG Xin-quan,
HUANG Lin-kai, MA Xiao. Changes in protective enzyme activities in cells of Hemarthria compressa under water stress[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2010, 19(5): 278-282.

References

[1] 吴仁润, 卢欣石. 中国热带亚热带牧草种质资源[M]. 北京: 中国科学技术出版社, 1992: 127-128.
[2] 董宽虎, 沈益新. 饲草生产学[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2003: 152-155.
[3] 杨春华, 张新全, 李向林, 等. 牛鞭草属种质资源及育种研究[J]. 草业学报, 2004, 13(2): 7-12.
[4] 吴彦奇, 杜逸. 牛鞭草的研究[J]. 四川农业大学学报, 1992, 10(2): 260-265.
[5] 陈灵鹫, 杨春华, 傅鲜桃, 等. 扁穗牛鞭草光合特性研究[J]. 四川农业大学学报, 2007, 25(4): 484-489.
[6] 曾祥刚, 李权, 曾勇. 扁穗牛鞭草的化学除杂方法[J]. 贵州畜牧兽医, 2006, 30(6): 31-33.
[7] 杨菲, 黄乾明, 杨春华. 扁穗牛鞭草水浸液化感作用及化学成分分析[J]. 四川农业大学学报, 2008, 26(3): 232-237.
[8] 杨春华, 张新全, 李向林, 等. 牛鞭草资源农艺性状和育种研究[J]. 四川草原, 2004, (6): 8-12.
[9] 荣丽, 李贤伟, 朱天辉, 等. 光皮桦细根与扁穗牛鞭草草根分解的土壤微生物数量及优势类群[J]. 草业学报, 2009, 18(4): 117-124.
[10] 邹旭恺, 高辉. 2006年夏季川渝高温干旱分析[J]. 气候变化研究进展, 2007, 3(3): 149-154.
[11] 中科院南京土壤研究所土壤物理研究所. 土壤物理性质测定法[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 1978.
[12] 高天鹏, 方向文, 李金花, 等. 水分对柠条萌蘖株和未平茬株光合参数及调渗透物质的影响[J]. 草业科学, 2009, 26(5): 103-109.
[13] 万里强,石永红,李向林, 等. 高温干旱胁迫下三个多年生黑麦草品种叶绿体和线粒体超微结构的变化[J]. 草业学报, 2009, 18(1): 25-31.
[14] 李合生. 现代植物生理学[M]. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2006: 353-354.
[15] 关连珠. 普通土壤学[M]. 北京: 中国农业大学出版社, 2007: 5-6.
[16] 王忠华, 李旭晨, 夏英武. 作物抗旱的作用机制及其基因工程改良研究进展[J]. 生物技术通报, 2002, (1): 16-19.
[17] Scandalios J G. Oxygen stress and superoxide dismutases[J]. Plant Physiology, 1993, 101: 7-15.
[18] Griffiths H, ParryM A J. Plant responses to water stress[J]. Annals of Botany, 2002, 89: 801-802.
[19] 蒋明义, 荆家海, 王韶唐. 水分胁迫与植物膜脂过氧化[J]. 西北农业大学学报, 1991, 19(2): 88-96.
[20] 祈娟, 徐柱, 王海清, 等. 旱作条件下披碱草属植物叶的生理生化特征分析[J]. 草业学报, 2009, 18(1): 39-45.
[21] Sen G A, Webb R P, Holaday A S. Over-expression of superoxide dismutase protects plant from oxidative stress. Induction of ascorbate peroxidase in superoxide dismutase-over expressing plants[J]. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, 1993, 103: 949-957.
[22] 钟鹏, 朱占林, 李志刚, 等. PEG处理对大豆幼苗活力及膜系统修复的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2004, (4): 260-263.
[23] 李付广, 李凤莲, 李秀兰. 盐胁迫对棉花幼苗保护酶系统活性的影响[J]. 河北农业大学学报, 1994, 17(3): 52-55.
[24] Price A H, Atherton N M, Hendry G A F. Plants under drought-stress generate activated oxygen[J]. Free Radical Research Communication, 1989, 8: 61-66.
[25] Babbs C F, Pham J A, Coolbaugh R C. Lethal hydroxyl radical production in paraquat-treated plants[J]. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, 1989, 90: 1267-1275.
[26] 李造哲. 10种苜蓿品种幼苗抗旱性的研究[J]. 中国草地, 1991, (3): 1-3.
[27] 王代军. 温度胁迫下几种冷季型草坪草抗性机制的研究[J]. 草业科学, 1998, (1): 21-25.
[28] 宋凤斌,戴俊英. 水分胁迫对玉米活性氧清除酶活性的影响[J]. 吉林农业大学学报, 1995, 17(3): 9-15.
[29] Dhindsa R S. Protein synthesis during rehydration of rapidly dried Tortula ruralis: Evidence for oxidation injury[J]. Plant Physiology, 1987, 85: 1094-1098.
[30] 李建武, 王蒂. 水分胁迫对马铃薯试管苗抗氧化酶活性的影响[J]. 北方园艺, 2008, (1): 7-9.
[31] 任丽花, 翁伯琦, 黄炎和, 等. 水分胁迫对闽引圆叶决明活性氧代谢的影响[J]. 福建农业学报, 2008, 23(1): 63-67.
[32] 王霞, 侯平, 尹林克, 等. 土壤水分胁迫对怪柳体内膜保护酶及膜脂过氧化的影响[J]. 干旱区研究, 2002, 19(3): 17-21.
[33] 王启明. 干旱胁迫对大豆苗期叶片保护酶活性和膜脂过氧化作用的影响[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2006, 25(4): 918-921.
[34] 葛体达, 隋方功, 白莉萍, 等. 水分胁迫下夏玉米根叶保护酶活性变化及其对膜脂过氧化作用的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2005, 38(5): 922-928.
[35] 王贞红, 张文辉, 何景峰, 等. 瑞典能源柳无性系保护酶活性对水分胁迫的响应[J]. 西北林学院学报, 2008, 23(2): 21-23.
[36] 唐晓敏, 王文全, 马春英. 长期水分胁迫下干草叶片的抗旱生理响应[J]. 河北农业大学学报, 2008, 31(2): 16-21.