新疆农业科学 ›› 2022, Vol. 59 ›› Issue (7): 1666-1679.DOI: 10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2022.07.013
白世践(), 户金鸽, 李超, 蔡军社(), 王勇, 赵荣华, 陈光
收稿日期:
2021-09-13
出版日期:
2022-07-20
发布日期:
2022-08-04
通信作者:
蔡军社
作者简介:
白世践(1986 -),男,云南石屏人,高级农艺师,研究方向为葡萄种质资源评价与栽培,(E-mail) 594748964@qq.com
基金资助:
BAI Shijian(), HU Jinge, LI Chao, CAI Junshe(), WANG Yong, ZHAO Ronghua, CHEN Guang
Received:
2021-09-13
Online:
2022-07-20
Published:
2022-08-04
Correspondence author:
CAI Junshe
Supported by:
摘要:
【目的】研究葡萄砧木品种苗期对混合盐碱胁迫的生理响应,评价不同葡萄砧木耐盐碱性,筛选强耐盐碱品种。【方法】以SO4、5BB、3309M、110R、101-14 MG、河岸7号、St.George、5C、1103P等9个葡萄砧木苗为试材,采用盆栽技术,定期浇灌混合盐碱液(100 mmol/L,NaCl∶Na2SO4∶NaHCO3 =1∶2∶1)进行盐碱胁迫,浇灌清水为对照,研究混合盐碱胁迫对叶片光合特性、植株生长及叶片、根系生理指标的影响,根据混合盐碱胁迫和浇灌清水条件下各项指标的耐混合盐碱系数,采用主成分分析、聚类分析方法综合评价葡萄砧木品种耐盐碱性。【结果】在混合盐碱液(100 mmol/L,NaCl∶Na2SO4 ∶NaHCO3=1∶2∶1)胁迫处理下,5BB、110R、5C、101-14MG和1103P净光合速率均显著降低,以110R、5C、101-14MG、1103P降幅较大;110R、5C、1103P、St.George气孔导度降幅较大,胞间CO2浓度升幅也较大。各葡萄砧木叶绿素质量分数、单叶质量、新梢干物质、总根长、根系表面积、根系活力与对照相比均显著降低。叶绿素质量分数以河岸7号降幅最小;植株生长指标以河岸7号和5BB降幅较小;根系生长指标以河岸7号、3309M降幅较小;根系活力以3309M、河岸7号、101-14MG降幅较小,均在30%以下。其他指标各品种间表现各异;相对含水量以1103P降幅最大;叶片相对电导率以3309M、101-14MG升幅较大,丙二醛含量升幅也较大,河岸7号、5C变幅较小。不同砧木品种11个混合盐碱系数指标转换为5个相互独立的综合指标,提取信息量达93.315%,9个葡萄砧木品种按照耐盐碱性的强弱分为3类。第Ⅰ类属于强耐盐碱型。第Ⅱ类属于中度耐盐碱型,第Ⅲ类属于不耐盐碱型。【结论】河岸7号属于强耐盐碱品种,5BB、5C、St.George 、3309M属于中度耐盐碱品种,SO4、1103P、101-14MG、110R属于不耐盐碱品种。
中图分类号:
白世践, 户金鸽, 李超, 蔡军社, 王勇, 赵荣华, 陈光. 葡萄砧木苗期对混合盐碱的生理响应及耐盐碱性评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(7): 1666-1679.
BAI Shijian, HU Jinge, LI Chao, CAI Junshe, WANG Yong, ZHAO Ronghua, CHEN Guang. Physiological Response to Complex Saline-alkali and Its Tolerance Capacity Evaluation of Grape Rootstocks at Seedling Stage[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 59(7): 1666-1679.
品种 Varieties | 来源 Origin | 品种 Varieties | 来源 Origin |
---|---|---|---|
3309M | 河岸葡萄 × 沙地葡萄 | 101-14MG | 河岸葡萄 × 沙地葡萄 |
5BB | 冬葡萄 × 河岸葡萄 | 1103p | 冬葡萄×沙地葡萄 |
SO4 | 冬葡萄 × 河岸葡萄 | 河岸7号 | 河岸葡萄 |
110R | 冬葡萄×沙地葡萄 | St.George | 沙地葡萄 |
5C | 冬葡萄 × 河岸葡萄 |
表1 供试品种及来源
Table 1 Materials and their origins
品种 Varieties | 来源 Origin | 品种 Varieties | 来源 Origin |
---|---|---|---|
3309M | 河岸葡萄 × 沙地葡萄 | 101-14MG | 河岸葡萄 × 沙地葡萄 |
5BB | 冬葡萄 × 河岸葡萄 | 1103p | 冬葡萄×沙地葡萄 |
SO4 | 冬葡萄 × 河岸葡萄 | 河岸7号 | 河岸葡萄 |
110R | 冬葡萄×沙地葡萄 | St.George | 沙地葡萄 |
5C | 冬葡萄 × 河岸葡萄 |
砧木 Rootstock | 净光合速率Pn Net photosynthetic rate (μmol/(m2·s)) | 蒸腾速率Tr Transpiration rate (mmol/(m2·s)) | 气孔导度Gs Stomatal conductance (mmol/(m2·s)) | 胞间CO2浓度Ci Intercellular CO2 concentration (μmol/mol) | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CK | T | 变幅 Variation | CK | T | 变幅 Variation | CK | T | 变幅 Variation | CK | T | 变幅 Variation | |
3309M | 5.99a | 5.84a | 2.51 | 2.40a | 2.30a | 4.03 | 49.09a | 46.61a | 5.05 | 275.43a | 285.67a | -3.72 |
5BB | 8.71a | 7.88b | 9.53 | 3.18a | 3.01b | 5.14 | 50.39b | 58.96a | -17.01 | 243.30a | 221.97b | 8.77 |
SO4 | 3.38a | 3.33a | 1.58 | 2.88a | 2.89a | -0.23 | 48.33a | 40.56b | 16.08 | 347.37a | 356.53a | -2.64 |
110R | 5.99a | 3.40b | 43.33 | 2.16a | 2.04b | 5.56 | 48.2a | 30.13b | 37.49 | 169.63b | 346.73a | -104.40 |
5C | 7.70a | 6.22b | 19.14 | 3.28a | 3.27a | 0.20 | 51.96a | 41.27b | 20.57 | 177.63b | 310.77a | -74.95 |
101-14MG | 4.11a | 2.95b | 28.22 | 2.74a | 2.51b | 8.39 | 37.73a | 34.52a | 8.51 | 276.80b | 359.07a | -29.72 |
1103P | 4.20a | 3.63b | 13.72 | 2.61a | 2.31b | 15.33 | 55.21a | 39.39b | 28.65 | 307.47b | 354.10a | -15.17 |
河岸7号 Hean 7 | 7.90b | 9.58a | -21.27 | 2.37b | 3.12a | -31.92 | 44.17a | 37.61b | 14.85 | 314.60b | 346.97a | -10.29 |
St.George | 3.03a | 3.30a | -9.02 | 1.76a | 1.74a | 1.14 | 56.06a | 31.61b | 43.61 | 312.17b | 364.83a | -16.87 |
表2 混合盐碱胁迫下葡萄砧木光合特性变化
Table 2 Effects of complex salt-alkali stress on photosynthetic characteristics of grape rootstocks
砧木 Rootstock | 净光合速率Pn Net photosynthetic rate (μmol/(m2·s)) | 蒸腾速率Tr Transpiration rate (mmol/(m2·s)) | 气孔导度Gs Stomatal conductance (mmol/(m2·s)) | 胞间CO2浓度Ci Intercellular CO2 concentration (μmol/mol) | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CK | T | 变幅 Variation | CK | T | 变幅 Variation | CK | T | 变幅 Variation | CK | T | 变幅 Variation | |
3309M | 5.99a | 5.84a | 2.51 | 2.40a | 2.30a | 4.03 | 49.09a | 46.61a | 5.05 | 275.43a | 285.67a | -3.72 |
5BB | 8.71a | 7.88b | 9.53 | 3.18a | 3.01b | 5.14 | 50.39b | 58.96a | -17.01 | 243.30a | 221.97b | 8.77 |
SO4 | 3.38a | 3.33a | 1.58 | 2.88a | 2.89a | -0.23 | 48.33a | 40.56b | 16.08 | 347.37a | 356.53a | -2.64 |
110R | 5.99a | 3.40b | 43.33 | 2.16a | 2.04b | 5.56 | 48.2a | 30.13b | 37.49 | 169.63b | 346.73a | -104.40 |
5C | 7.70a | 6.22b | 19.14 | 3.28a | 3.27a | 0.20 | 51.96a | 41.27b | 20.57 | 177.63b | 310.77a | -74.95 |
101-14MG | 4.11a | 2.95b | 28.22 | 2.74a | 2.51b | 8.39 | 37.73a | 34.52a | 8.51 | 276.80b | 359.07a | -29.72 |
1103P | 4.20a | 3.63b | 13.72 | 2.61a | 2.31b | 15.33 | 55.21a | 39.39b | 28.65 | 307.47b | 354.10a | -15.17 |
河岸7号 Hean 7 | 7.90b | 9.58a | -21.27 | 2.37b | 3.12a | -31.92 | 44.17a | 37.61b | 14.85 | 314.60b | 346.97a | -10.29 |
St.George | 3.03a | 3.30a | -9.02 | 1.76a | 1.74a | 1.14 | 56.06a | 31.61b | 43.61 | 312.17b | 364.83a | -16.87 |
砧木 Rootstock | 叶绿素a Chlorophyll.a (mg/g) | 叶绿素b Chlorophyll.b (mg/g) | 叶绿素a+b Chlorophyll.(a+b) (mg/g) | 叶绿素a/b Chlorophyll.(a/b) | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CK | T | 变幅 Variation | CK | T | 变幅 Variation | CK | T | 变幅 Variation | CK | T | 变幅 Variation | |
3309M | 1.67a | 1.02b | 38.65 | 0.43a | 0.26b | 39.82 | 2.10a | 1.28b | 38.89 | 3.92a | 3.99a | -1.98 |
5BB | 1.85a | 1.21b | 34.37 | 0.70a | 0.38b | 46.01 | 2.55a | 1.59b | 37.55 | 2.77b | 3.23a | -16.82 |
SO4 | 1.83a | 1.16b | 36.86 | 0.54a | 0.37b | 30.99 | 2.37a | 1.53b | 35.53 | 3.42a | 3.13b | 8.51 |
110R | 1.95a | 1.01b | 47.99 | 0.55a | 0.27b | 50.45 | 2.50a | 1.29b | 48.54 | 3.51a | 3.69a | -4.94 |
5C | 1.87a | 1.22b | 34.81 | 0.50a | 0.39b | 22.66 | 2.38a | 1.61b | 32.24 | 3.78a | 3.14b | 16.97 |
101-14MG | 1.32a | 0.82b | 38.21 | 0.34a | 0.24b | 28.85 | 1.66a | 1.05b | 36.31 | 3.92a | 3.41b | 13.11 |
1103P | 1.53a | 0.99b | 35.11 | 0.38a | 0.31b | 19.63 | 1.91a | 1.30b | 32.01 | 3.98a | 3.21b | 19.26 |
河岸7号 Hean 7 | 1.85a | 1.63b | 12.18 | 0.51a | 0.43b | 15.49 | 2.36a | 2.06b | 12.90 | 3.64a | 3.78a | -3.93 |
St.George | 1.28a | 0.71b | 44.62 | 0.29a | 0.18b | 38.94 | 1.58a | 0.89b | 43.56 | 4.36a | 3.96b | 9.35 |
表3 混合盐碱胁迫下葡萄砧木叶绿素质量分数变化
Table 3 Effects of complex salt-alkali stress on chlorophyll mass fraction in leaves of grape rootstocks
砧木 Rootstock | 叶绿素a Chlorophyll.a (mg/g) | 叶绿素b Chlorophyll.b (mg/g) | 叶绿素a+b Chlorophyll.(a+b) (mg/g) | 叶绿素a/b Chlorophyll.(a/b) | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CK | T | 变幅 Variation | CK | T | 变幅 Variation | CK | T | 变幅 Variation | CK | T | 变幅 Variation | |
3309M | 1.67a | 1.02b | 38.65 | 0.43a | 0.26b | 39.82 | 2.10a | 1.28b | 38.89 | 3.92a | 3.99a | -1.98 |
5BB | 1.85a | 1.21b | 34.37 | 0.70a | 0.38b | 46.01 | 2.55a | 1.59b | 37.55 | 2.77b | 3.23a | -16.82 |
SO4 | 1.83a | 1.16b | 36.86 | 0.54a | 0.37b | 30.99 | 2.37a | 1.53b | 35.53 | 3.42a | 3.13b | 8.51 |
110R | 1.95a | 1.01b | 47.99 | 0.55a | 0.27b | 50.45 | 2.50a | 1.29b | 48.54 | 3.51a | 3.69a | -4.94 |
5C | 1.87a | 1.22b | 34.81 | 0.50a | 0.39b | 22.66 | 2.38a | 1.61b | 32.24 | 3.78a | 3.14b | 16.97 |
101-14MG | 1.32a | 0.82b | 38.21 | 0.34a | 0.24b | 28.85 | 1.66a | 1.05b | 36.31 | 3.92a | 3.41b | 13.11 |
1103P | 1.53a | 0.99b | 35.11 | 0.38a | 0.31b | 19.63 | 1.91a | 1.30b | 32.01 | 3.98a | 3.21b | 19.26 |
河岸7号 Hean 7 | 1.85a | 1.63b | 12.18 | 0.51a | 0.43b | 15.49 | 2.36a | 2.06b | 12.90 | 3.64a | 3.78a | -3.93 |
St.George | 1.28a | 0.71b | 44.62 | 0.29a | 0.18b | 38.94 | 1.58a | 0.89b | 43.56 | 4.36a | 3.96b | 9.35 |
砧木 Rootstock | 新梢长度 Shoot length(cm) | 新梢粗度 Shoot thickness(cm) | 叶片数 Number of leaves | 单叶质量 Single leaf mass(g) | 新梢干物质 Shoot dry matter(g) | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CK | T | 变幅 Varia- tion | CK | T | 变幅 Varia- tion | CK | T | 变幅 Varia- tion | CK | T | 变幅 Varia- tion | CK | T | 变幅 Varia- tion | |
3309M | 147.25a | 107.25b | 27.16 | 3.20a | 3.22a | -0.52 | 24.00a | 19.25b | 19.79 | 2.53a | 1.67b | 33.86 | 13.27a | 8.89b | 32.04 |
5BB | 152.25a | 134.75a | 11.49 | 3.58a | 2.98b | 16.74 | 27.00a | 22.75b | 15.74 | 1.86a | 1.46b | 21.78 | 11.69a | 10.64b | 8.99 |
SO4 | 153.00a | 93.75b | 38.73 | 3.74a | 3.10a | 17.10 | 29.25a | 26.75b | 8.55 | 2.50a | 1.55b | 37.86 | 13.60a | 6.8b | 50.00 |
110R | 170.50a | 84.50b | 50.44 | 3.55a | 3.06b | 13.80 | 26.00a | 19.25b | 25.96 | 2.09a | 1.49b | 28.72 | 10.33a | 4.96b | 51.98 |
5C | 173.75a | 124.75b | 28.20 | 3.46a | 3.16a | 9.83 | 29.75a | 26.00b | 12.61 | 2.41a | 1.72b | 28.67 | 13.63a | 11.04b | 19.00 |
101- 14MG | 128.00a | 62.00b | 51.56 | 3.97a | 3.91b | 16.62 | 26.00a | 23.00b | 11.54 | 1.22a | 0.66b | 45.96 | 3.22a | 2.45b | 23.91 |
1103P | 164.25a | 80.00b | 51.29 | 3.64a | 2.94b | 19.27 | 29.50a | 18.75b | 36.44 | 1.04a | 0.73b | 30.32 | 6.29a | 2.83b | 55.01 |
河岸7号 Hean 7 | 196.00a | 143.00b | 27.04 | 3.42a | 3.33a | 2.85 | 30.75a | 24.25b | 21.14 | 1.93a | 1.42b | 26.59 | 15.90a | 11.45b | 27.99 |
St.George | 162.00a | 102.25b | 36.88 | 3.70a | 3.26a | 11.09 | 37.25a | 36.00a | 3.36 | 1.00a | 0.63b | 37.61 | 10.08a | 5.24b | 48.02 |
表4 混合盐碱胁迫下葡萄砧木新梢生长变化
Table 4 Effects of complex salt-alkali stress on shoot growth of grape rootstocks
砧木 Rootstock | 新梢长度 Shoot length(cm) | 新梢粗度 Shoot thickness(cm) | 叶片数 Number of leaves | 单叶质量 Single leaf mass(g) | 新梢干物质 Shoot dry matter(g) | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CK | T | 变幅 Varia- tion | CK | T | 变幅 Varia- tion | CK | T | 变幅 Varia- tion | CK | T | 变幅 Varia- tion | CK | T | 变幅 Varia- tion | |
3309M | 147.25a | 107.25b | 27.16 | 3.20a | 3.22a | -0.52 | 24.00a | 19.25b | 19.79 | 2.53a | 1.67b | 33.86 | 13.27a | 8.89b | 32.04 |
5BB | 152.25a | 134.75a | 11.49 | 3.58a | 2.98b | 16.74 | 27.00a | 22.75b | 15.74 | 1.86a | 1.46b | 21.78 | 11.69a | 10.64b | 8.99 |
SO4 | 153.00a | 93.75b | 38.73 | 3.74a | 3.10a | 17.10 | 29.25a | 26.75b | 8.55 | 2.50a | 1.55b | 37.86 | 13.60a | 6.8b | 50.00 |
110R | 170.50a | 84.50b | 50.44 | 3.55a | 3.06b | 13.80 | 26.00a | 19.25b | 25.96 | 2.09a | 1.49b | 28.72 | 10.33a | 4.96b | 51.98 |
5C | 173.75a | 124.75b | 28.20 | 3.46a | 3.16a | 9.83 | 29.75a | 26.00b | 12.61 | 2.41a | 1.72b | 28.67 | 13.63a | 11.04b | 19.00 |
101- 14MG | 128.00a | 62.00b | 51.56 | 3.97a | 3.91b | 16.62 | 26.00a | 23.00b | 11.54 | 1.22a | 0.66b | 45.96 | 3.22a | 2.45b | 23.91 |
1103P | 164.25a | 80.00b | 51.29 | 3.64a | 2.94b | 19.27 | 29.50a | 18.75b | 36.44 | 1.04a | 0.73b | 30.32 | 6.29a | 2.83b | 55.01 |
河岸7号 Hean 7 | 196.00a | 143.00b | 27.04 | 3.42a | 3.33a | 2.85 | 30.75a | 24.25b | 21.14 | 1.93a | 1.42b | 26.59 | 15.90a | 11.45b | 27.99 |
St.George | 162.00a | 102.25b | 36.88 | 3.70a | 3.26a | 11.09 | 37.25a | 36.00a | 3.36 | 1.00a | 0.63b | 37.61 | 10.08a | 5.24b | 48.02 |
砧木 Rootstock | 总根长 Total root length(cm) | 总表面积 Total surface area(cm2) | 根体积 Root volume(cm3) | 平均根直径 Average root diameter(mm) | 地下部干物质 Under ground dry matter(g) | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CK | T | 变幅 Variation | CK | T | 变幅 Variation | CK | T | 变幅 Variation | CK | T | 变幅 Variation | CK | T | 变幅 Variation | |
3309M | 1 785.89a | 1 034.26b | 42.09 | 298.26a | 175.39b | 41.20 | 5.13a | 3.01b | 41.34 | 0.98a | 0.93a | 4.68 | 9.50a | 7.79b | 18.03 |
5BB | 1 390.74a | 534.85b | 61.54 | 237.85a | 100.85b | 57.60 | 4.26a | 2.23b | 47.76 | 0.96a | 0.54b | 43.75 | 9.04a | 7.35b | 18.72 |
SO4 | 1 916.84a | 525.10b | 72.61 | 336.14a | 98.49b | 70.70 | 6.51a | 2.24b | 65.56 | 1.43a | 0.65b | 54.32 | 9.48a | 6.93b | 26.93 |
110R | 1 347.98a | 345.91b | 74.34 | 221.66a | 64.26b | 71.01 | 3.82a | 1.35b | 64.64 | 0.96a | 0.60b | 37.89 | 8.20a | 4.73b | 42.32 |
5C | 1 355.71a | 444.61b | 67.20 | 242.15a | 89.96b | 62.85 | 4.68a | 2.04b | 56.48 | 1.02a | 0.64b | 37.19 | 8.20a | 5.20b | 36.60 |
101-14MG | 687.55a | 315.51b | 54.11 | 123.84a | 66.59b | 46.23 | 2.48a | 2.11a | 15.11 | 0.57a | 0.68a | -20.37 | 5.61a | 5.41a | 3.71 |
1103P | 1 049.86a | 258.06b | 75.42 | 203.54a | 54.14b | 73.40 | 4.27a | 1.36b | 68.19 | 1.16a | 0.68b | 40.84 | 6.36a | 3.53b | 44.40 |
河岸7号 Hean 7 | 1 313.48a | 789.34b | 39.90 | 198.40a | 123.78b | 37.61 | 3.04a | 1.95b | 35.78 | 0.87a | 0.89a | -3.27 | 8.26a | 7.95a | 3.78 |
St.George | 1 186.57a | 576.25b | 51.44 | 222.88a | 100.06b | 55.11 | 4.16a | 2.02b | 51.40 | 1.09a | 0.61b | 43.67 | 6.53a | 5.98b | 8.55 |
表5 混合盐碱胁迫下葡萄砧木根系生长变化
Table 5 Effects of complex salt-alkali stress on root growth of grape rootstocks
砧木 Rootstock | 总根长 Total root length(cm) | 总表面积 Total surface area(cm2) | 根体积 Root volume(cm3) | 平均根直径 Average root diameter(mm) | 地下部干物质 Under ground dry matter(g) | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CK | T | 变幅 Variation | CK | T | 变幅 Variation | CK | T | 变幅 Variation | CK | T | 变幅 Variation | CK | T | 变幅 Variation | |
3309M | 1 785.89a | 1 034.26b | 42.09 | 298.26a | 175.39b | 41.20 | 5.13a | 3.01b | 41.34 | 0.98a | 0.93a | 4.68 | 9.50a | 7.79b | 18.03 |
5BB | 1 390.74a | 534.85b | 61.54 | 237.85a | 100.85b | 57.60 | 4.26a | 2.23b | 47.76 | 0.96a | 0.54b | 43.75 | 9.04a | 7.35b | 18.72 |
SO4 | 1 916.84a | 525.10b | 72.61 | 336.14a | 98.49b | 70.70 | 6.51a | 2.24b | 65.56 | 1.43a | 0.65b | 54.32 | 9.48a | 6.93b | 26.93 |
110R | 1 347.98a | 345.91b | 74.34 | 221.66a | 64.26b | 71.01 | 3.82a | 1.35b | 64.64 | 0.96a | 0.60b | 37.89 | 8.20a | 4.73b | 42.32 |
5C | 1 355.71a | 444.61b | 67.20 | 242.15a | 89.96b | 62.85 | 4.68a | 2.04b | 56.48 | 1.02a | 0.64b | 37.19 | 8.20a | 5.20b | 36.60 |
101-14MG | 687.55a | 315.51b | 54.11 | 123.84a | 66.59b | 46.23 | 2.48a | 2.11a | 15.11 | 0.57a | 0.68a | -20.37 | 5.61a | 5.41a | 3.71 |
1103P | 1 049.86a | 258.06b | 75.42 | 203.54a | 54.14b | 73.40 | 4.27a | 1.36b | 68.19 | 1.16a | 0.68b | 40.84 | 6.36a | 3.53b | 44.40 |
河岸7号 Hean 7 | 1 313.48a | 789.34b | 39.90 | 198.40a | 123.78b | 37.61 | 3.04a | 1.95b | 35.78 | 0.87a | 0.89a | -3.27 | 8.26a | 7.95a | 3.78 |
St.George | 1 186.57a | 576.25b | 51.44 | 222.88a | 100.06b | 55.11 | 4.16a | 2.02b | 51.40 | 1.09a | 0.61b | 43.67 | 6.53a | 5.98b | 8.55 |
砧木 Rootstock | 相对含水量 Relative water content(%) | 相对电导率 Relative conductivity(%) | 游离脯氨酸 Free proline(μg/g FW) | 丙二醛 MDA(μmol/g FW) | 根系活力 Root vitality(μg/g FW/h) | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CK | T | 变幅 Variation | CK | T | 变幅 Variation | CK | T | 变幅 Variation | CK | T | 变幅 Variation | CK | T | 变幅 Variation | |
3309M | 90.43b | 101.32a | -12.04 | 72.89b | 86.26a | -18.34 | 18.66b | 28.34a | -51.82 | 13.75b | 15.58a | -13.37 | 902.82a | 649.30b | 28.08 |
5BB | 93.20a | 95.20a | -2.15 | 87.26b | 93.65a | -7.32 | 15.24a | 11.34b | 25.63 | 17.35a | 18.12a | -4.42 | 376.76a | 227.46b | 39.63 |
SO4 | 95.41a | 92.80a | 2.74 | 87.79b | 94.21a | -7.31 | 11.92b | 31.17a | -161.42 | 17.05b | 19.61a | -15.01 | 319.01a | 180.28b | 43.49 |
110R | 90.36a | 93.02a | -2.94 | 85.79b | 92.50a | -7.82 | 25.89b | 61.36a | -136.96 | 19.28a | 17.88a | 7.24 | 551.41a | 320.42b | 41.89 |
5C | 95.69a | 93.04a | 2.77 | 91.09a | 91.69a | -0.66 | 15.83b | 68.00a | -329.55 | 30.07a | 21.70b | 27.83 | 748.59a | 264.79b | 64.63 |
101-14MG | 95.00a | 85.88b | 9.60 | 80.00b | 89.00a | -11.83 | 13.97a | 13.39a | 4.19 | 9.90b | 11.61a | -17.28 | 290.14a | 238.03b | 17.96 |
1103P | 82.99b | 95.16a | -14.66 | 85.93a | 87.61a | -1.96 | 27.85b | 51.00a | -83.15 | 11.11a | 10.96a | 1.41 | 286.62a | 158.45b | 44.72 |
河岸7号 Hean 7 | 89.40a | 91.49a | -2.34 | 86.82a | 86.38a | 0.51 | 35.08a | 38.01a | -8.36 | 9.24a | 9.61a | -4.00 | 323.24a | 252.82b | 21.79 |
St.George | 95.37a | 95.86a | -0.51 | 83.61a | 86.57a | -3.54 | 21.99a | 27.65a | -25.77 | 11.20a | 7.15b | 36.14 | 335.21a | 126.06b | 62.39 |
表6 混合盐碱胁迫下葡萄砧木叶片生理特性和根系活力变化
Table 6 Effects of complex salt-alkali stress on leaf physiological characteristics and root vitality of grape rootstocks
砧木 Rootstock | 相对含水量 Relative water content(%) | 相对电导率 Relative conductivity(%) | 游离脯氨酸 Free proline(μg/g FW) | 丙二醛 MDA(μmol/g FW) | 根系活力 Root vitality(μg/g FW/h) | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CK | T | 变幅 Variation | CK | T | 变幅 Variation | CK | T | 变幅 Variation | CK | T | 变幅 Variation | CK | T | 变幅 Variation | |
3309M | 90.43b | 101.32a | -12.04 | 72.89b | 86.26a | -18.34 | 18.66b | 28.34a | -51.82 | 13.75b | 15.58a | -13.37 | 902.82a | 649.30b | 28.08 |
5BB | 93.20a | 95.20a | -2.15 | 87.26b | 93.65a | -7.32 | 15.24a | 11.34b | 25.63 | 17.35a | 18.12a | -4.42 | 376.76a | 227.46b | 39.63 |
SO4 | 95.41a | 92.80a | 2.74 | 87.79b | 94.21a | -7.31 | 11.92b | 31.17a | -161.42 | 17.05b | 19.61a | -15.01 | 319.01a | 180.28b | 43.49 |
110R | 90.36a | 93.02a | -2.94 | 85.79b | 92.50a | -7.82 | 25.89b | 61.36a | -136.96 | 19.28a | 17.88a | 7.24 | 551.41a | 320.42b | 41.89 |
5C | 95.69a | 93.04a | 2.77 | 91.09a | 91.69a | -0.66 | 15.83b | 68.00a | -329.55 | 30.07a | 21.70b | 27.83 | 748.59a | 264.79b | 64.63 |
101-14MG | 95.00a | 85.88b | 9.60 | 80.00b | 89.00a | -11.83 | 13.97a | 13.39a | 4.19 | 9.90b | 11.61a | -17.28 | 290.14a | 238.03b | 17.96 |
1103P | 82.99b | 95.16a | -14.66 | 85.93a | 87.61a | -1.96 | 27.85b | 51.00a | -83.15 | 11.11a | 10.96a | 1.41 | 286.62a | 158.45b | 44.72 |
河岸7号 Hean 7 | 89.40a | 91.49a | -2.34 | 86.82a | 86.38a | 0.51 | 35.08a | 38.01a | -8.36 | 9.24a | 9.61a | -4.00 | 323.24a | 252.82b | 21.79 |
St.George | 95.37a | 95.86a | -0.51 | 83.61a | 86.57a | -3.54 | 21.99a | 27.65a | -25.77 | 11.20a | 7.15b | 36.14 | 335.21a | 126.06b | 62.39 |
砧木 Rootstock | 单叶质量 SLM | 相对 含水量 RWC | 相对 电导率 RC | 叶绿素 质量分数 CMF | 游离 脯氨酸 FP | 丙二醛 MDA | 新稍长度 SL | 叶片数 NL | 新梢粗度 ST | 新梢 干物质 SDM | 根系活力 RV | 根系 总表面积 TSA | 净光合 速率 Pn |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3309M | 0.66 | 1.12 | 1.18 | 0.61 | 1.52 | 1.13 | 0.73 | 0.80 | 1.01 | 0.67 | 0.72 | 0.59 | 0.97 |
5BB | 0.78 | 1.02 | 1.07 | 0.62 | 0.74 | 1.04 | 0.89 | 0.84 | 0.83 | 0.91 | 0.60 | 0.42 | 0.90 |
SO4 | 0.62 | 0.97 | 1.07 | 0.64 | 2.61 | 1.15 | 0.61 | 0.91 | 0.83 | 0.50 | 0.57 | 0.29 | 0.98 |
110R | 0.71 | 1.03 | 1.08 | 0.51 | 2.37 | 0.93 | 0.50 | 0.74 | 0.86 | 0.48 | 0.58 | 0.29 | 0.57 |
5C | 0.71 | 0.97 | 1.01 | 0.68 | 4.30 | 0.72 | 0.72 | 0.87 | 0.90 | 0.81 | 0.35 | 0.37 | 0.81 |
101-14MG | 0.54 | 0.90 | 0.88 | 0.64 | 0.96 | 1.17 | 0.48 | 0.88 | 0.83 | 0.76 | 0.82 | 0.54 | 0.72 |
1103P | 0.70 | 1.15 | 1.02 | 0.68 | 1.83 | 0.99 | 0.49 | 0.64 | 0.81 | 0.45 | 0.55 | 0.27 | 0.86 |
河岸7号 Hean 7 | 0.73 | 1.02 | 0.99 | 0.87 | 1.08 | 1.04 | 0.73 | 0.79 | 0.97 | 0.72 | 0.78 | 0.62 | 1.21 |
St.George | 0.62 | 1.01 | 1.04 | 0.56 | 1.26 | 0.64 | 0.63 | 0.97 | 0.89 | 0.52 | 0.38 | 0.45 | 1.09 |
平均值 Mean | 0.68 | 1.03 | 1.03 | 0.66 | 1.74 | 0.93 | 0.63 | 0.83 | 0.88 | 0.65 | 0.63 | 0.43 | 0.90 |
标准差 Deviation | 0.07 | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.10 | 1.11 | 0.23 | 0.14 | 0.09 | 0.06 | 0.16 | 0.20 | 0.13 | 0.18 |
变异系数 CV(%) | 10.57 | 7.16 | 7.68 | 15.56 | 63.90 | 25.23 | 22.01 | 11.17 | 7.28 | 24.19 | 30.86 | 29.49 | 20.04 |
表7 不同葡萄砧木品种各单项指标的耐混合盐碱系数
Table 7 Complex salt-alkali tolerance coefficient for each single index of different grape rootstock varieties
砧木 Rootstock | 单叶质量 SLM | 相对 含水量 RWC | 相对 电导率 RC | 叶绿素 质量分数 CMF | 游离 脯氨酸 FP | 丙二醛 MDA | 新稍长度 SL | 叶片数 NL | 新梢粗度 ST | 新梢 干物质 SDM | 根系活力 RV | 根系 总表面积 TSA | 净光合 速率 Pn |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3309M | 0.66 | 1.12 | 1.18 | 0.61 | 1.52 | 1.13 | 0.73 | 0.80 | 1.01 | 0.67 | 0.72 | 0.59 | 0.97 |
5BB | 0.78 | 1.02 | 1.07 | 0.62 | 0.74 | 1.04 | 0.89 | 0.84 | 0.83 | 0.91 | 0.60 | 0.42 | 0.90 |
SO4 | 0.62 | 0.97 | 1.07 | 0.64 | 2.61 | 1.15 | 0.61 | 0.91 | 0.83 | 0.50 | 0.57 | 0.29 | 0.98 |
110R | 0.71 | 1.03 | 1.08 | 0.51 | 2.37 | 0.93 | 0.50 | 0.74 | 0.86 | 0.48 | 0.58 | 0.29 | 0.57 |
5C | 0.71 | 0.97 | 1.01 | 0.68 | 4.30 | 0.72 | 0.72 | 0.87 | 0.90 | 0.81 | 0.35 | 0.37 | 0.81 |
101-14MG | 0.54 | 0.90 | 0.88 | 0.64 | 0.96 | 1.17 | 0.48 | 0.88 | 0.83 | 0.76 | 0.82 | 0.54 | 0.72 |
1103P | 0.70 | 1.15 | 1.02 | 0.68 | 1.83 | 0.99 | 0.49 | 0.64 | 0.81 | 0.45 | 0.55 | 0.27 | 0.86 |
河岸7号 Hean 7 | 0.73 | 1.02 | 0.99 | 0.87 | 1.08 | 1.04 | 0.73 | 0.79 | 0.97 | 0.72 | 0.78 | 0.62 | 1.21 |
St.George | 0.62 | 1.01 | 1.04 | 0.56 | 1.26 | 0.64 | 0.63 | 0.97 | 0.89 | 0.52 | 0.38 | 0.45 | 1.09 |
平均值 Mean | 0.68 | 1.03 | 1.03 | 0.66 | 1.74 | 0.93 | 0.63 | 0.83 | 0.88 | 0.65 | 0.63 | 0.43 | 0.90 |
标准差 Deviation | 0.07 | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.10 | 1.11 | 0.23 | 0.14 | 0.09 | 0.06 | 0.16 | 0.20 | 0.13 | 0.18 |
变异系数 CV(%) | 10.57 | 7.16 | 7.68 | 15.56 | 63.90 | 25.23 | 22.01 | 11.17 | 7.28 | 24.19 | 30.86 | 29.49 | 20.04 |
主成分 Principle factor | CI1 | CI2 | CI3 | CI4 | CI5 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
特征值 Eigen value | 3.060 | 2.599 | 2.226 | 1.231 | 1.148 | |
贡献率Contribution ratio(%) | 27.822 | 23.629 | 20.234 | 11.193 | 10.437 | |
累计贡献率Cumulative contribution ratio(%) | 27.822 | 51.451 | 71.685 | 82.878 | 93.315 | |
特征向量 Eigen vector | 单叶质量 LSM | 0.014 | 0.326 | 0.024 | -0.331* | 0.213 |
相对含水量 RWC | -0.098 | 0.295* | -0.187 | 0.206 | -0.028 | |
相对电导率 RC | 0.082 | -0.273 | -0.003 | -0.116 | 0.534* | |
叶绿素质量分数 CMF | 0.226 | 0.066 | -0.094 | 0.144 | 0.520* | |
丙二醛MDA | -0.12 | 0.059 | 0.337* | 0.109 | 0.303 | |
新梢长度 SL | 0.190 | 0.234* | 0.198 | -0.158 | -0.186 | |
叶片数 NL | 0.091 | -0.17 | 0.338* | 0.162 | -0.276 | |
新梢干物质 SDM | 0.24 | 0.023 | 0.124 | -0.47* | -0.039 | |
根系活力 RV | 0.184 | -0.084 | -0.337* | -0.042 | -0.178 | |
根系总表面积 TSA | 0.273* | -0.018 | -0.034 | 0.172 | -0.162 | |
净光合速率 Pn | 0.185 | 0.134 | 0.089 | 0.557* | 0.086 |
表8 各性状主成分的特征向量及贡献率
Table 8 Eigenvectors and percentage of accumulated contribution of principal components
主成分 Principle factor | CI1 | CI2 | CI3 | CI4 | CI5 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
特征值 Eigen value | 3.060 | 2.599 | 2.226 | 1.231 | 1.148 | |
贡献率Contribution ratio(%) | 27.822 | 23.629 | 20.234 | 11.193 | 10.437 | |
累计贡献率Cumulative contribution ratio(%) | 27.822 | 51.451 | 71.685 | 82.878 | 93.315 | |
特征向量 Eigen vector | 单叶质量 LSM | 0.014 | 0.326 | 0.024 | -0.331* | 0.213 |
相对含水量 RWC | -0.098 | 0.295* | -0.187 | 0.206 | -0.028 | |
相对电导率 RC | 0.082 | -0.273 | -0.003 | -0.116 | 0.534* | |
叶绿素质量分数 CMF | 0.226 | 0.066 | -0.094 | 0.144 | 0.520* | |
丙二醛MDA | -0.12 | 0.059 | 0.337* | 0.109 | 0.303 | |
新梢长度 SL | 0.190 | 0.234* | 0.198 | -0.158 | -0.186 | |
叶片数 NL | 0.091 | -0.17 | 0.338* | 0.162 | -0.276 | |
新梢干物质 SDM | 0.24 | 0.023 | 0.124 | -0.47* | -0.039 | |
根系活力 RV | 0.184 | -0.084 | -0.337* | -0.042 | -0.178 | |
根系总表面积 TSA | 0.273* | -0.018 | -0.034 | 0.172 | -0.162 | |
净光合速率 Pn | 0.185 | 0.134 | 0.089 | 0.557* | 0.086 |
砧木 Rootstock | CI1 | CI2 | CI3 | CI4 | CI5 | D |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3309M | 0.219 | 0.134 | 0.004 | 0.038 | -0.021 | 0.374 |
5BB | 0.242 | 0.148 | 0.092 | -0.045 | 0.019 | 0.455 |
SO4 | 0.131 | 0.029 | 0.055 | 0.043 | 0.022 | 0.280 |
110R | 0.023 | 0.062 | 0.014 | -0.012 | 0.033 | 0.120 |
5C | 0.161 | 0.082 | 0.149 | -0.020 | 0.069 | 0.440 |
101-14MG | 0.239 | -0.104 | 0.005 | -0.002 | 0.031 | 0.170 |
1103p | 0.051 | 0.116 | -0.033 | 0.033 | 0.084 | 0.251 |
河岸7号 Hean 7 | 0.333 | 0.110 | 0.014 | 0.041 | 0.071 | 0.570 |
St.George | 0.122 | 0.049 | 0.154 | 0.075 | 0.034 | 0.435 |
权重 Index weight | 0.298 | 0.253 | 0.217 | 0.120 | 0.112 |
表9 各葡萄砧木的综合指标值、权重、D值
Table 9 The value of each grape rootstock variety's comprehensive index, index weight, value D
砧木 Rootstock | CI1 | CI2 | CI3 | CI4 | CI5 | D |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3309M | 0.219 | 0.134 | 0.004 | 0.038 | -0.021 | 0.374 |
5BB | 0.242 | 0.148 | 0.092 | -0.045 | 0.019 | 0.455 |
SO4 | 0.131 | 0.029 | 0.055 | 0.043 | 0.022 | 0.280 |
110R | 0.023 | 0.062 | 0.014 | -0.012 | 0.033 | 0.120 |
5C | 0.161 | 0.082 | 0.149 | -0.020 | 0.069 | 0.440 |
101-14MG | 0.239 | -0.104 | 0.005 | -0.002 | 0.031 | 0.170 |
1103p | 0.051 | 0.116 | -0.033 | 0.033 | 0.084 | 0.251 |
河岸7号 Hean 7 | 0.333 | 0.110 | 0.014 | 0.041 | 0.071 | 0.570 |
St.George | 0.122 | 0.049 | 0.154 | 0.075 | 0.034 | 0.435 |
权重 Index weight | 0.298 | 0.253 | 0.217 | 0.120 | 0.112 |
砧木 Rootstock | D值 value D | 盐碱害指数 Salt-alkali injury index (%) | 排名 Ranking | 综合评价 Comprehensive valuation |
---|---|---|---|---|
河岸7号 Hean 7 | 0.57 | 0 | 1 | 强耐 |
5BB | 0.455 | 0 | 2 | 中度耐 |
5C | 0.440 | 38.45 | 3 | 中度耐 |
St.George | 0.435 | 45.78 | 4 | 中度耐 |
3309M | 0.374 | 29.17 | 5 | 中度耐 |
SO4 | 0.28 | 79.17 | 6 | 不耐 |
1103P | 0.251 | 66.67 | 7 | 不耐 |
101-14MG | 0.170 | 45.83 | 8 | 不耐 |
110R | 0.120 | 49.17 | 9 | 不耐 |
表10 各葡萄砧木品种耐盐碱性综合评价
Table 10 comprehensive valuation of salt-alkali stress tolerance of various grape rootstock varieties
砧木 Rootstock | D值 value D | 盐碱害指数 Salt-alkali injury index (%) | 排名 Ranking | 综合评价 Comprehensive valuation |
---|---|---|---|---|
河岸7号 Hean 7 | 0.57 | 0 | 1 | 强耐 |
5BB | 0.455 | 0 | 2 | 中度耐 |
5C | 0.440 | 38.45 | 3 | 中度耐 |
St.George | 0.435 | 45.78 | 4 | 中度耐 |
3309M | 0.374 | 29.17 | 5 | 中度耐 |
SO4 | 0.28 | 79.17 | 6 | 不耐 |
1103P | 0.251 | 66.67 | 7 | 不耐 |
101-14MG | 0.170 | 45.83 | 8 | 不耐 |
110R | 0.120 | 49.17 | 9 | 不耐 |
[1] | Wang J L, Huang X J, Zhong T Y, et al. Review on sustainable utilization of salt-affected land[J]. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2011, 66(5): 673-684. |
[2] | Yao R J, Yang J S, Liu G M, Characteristics and agro-biological management of saline-alkalized land in Northeast China[J]. Soils, 2006, 38(3): 256-262. |
[3] | 刘正详. 沙枣对氯化钠和硫酸钠胁迫差异性响应的生理机制[D]. 北京:中国林业科学研究院, 2013. |
XIU Zhengxiang. Physiological mechanism of differential responses of Elaeagnus angustifolia to NaCl and Na2SO4 Stress[D]. Beijing: Chinese Academy of Forestry, 2013. | |
[4] | Chen W C, Cui P J, Sun Y H, et al. Comparative effects of salt and alkali stresses on organic acid accumulation and ionic balance of sea-buckthorn(Hippophae rhamnoies L.)[J]. Industrial Crops and Products, 2009,(30): 351-358. |
[5] | 杜远鹏, 翟衡, 王忠跃, 等. 葡萄根瘤蚜抗性砧木研究进展(Ⅱ)[J]. 中外葡萄与葡萄酒, 2007,(4):24-28. |
DU Yunpeng, ZHAI Heng, WANG Zhongyue, et al. Grape aphis meliloti resistant rootstock research progress (Ⅱ)[J]. Sino-overseas Grapevine and Wine, 2007,(4): 24-28. | |
[6] | 杜远鹏, 晋学娟, 郭淑华, 等. 不同盐碱类型胁迫对红地球/贝达葡萄植株离子分布的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2015, 26(6): 1801-1806. |
DU Yunpeng, JIN Xuejuan, GUO S H, et al. Effects of different salt and alkali stresses on ion distribution in red globe /Beta grapevines[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2015, 26(6): 1801-1806. | |
[7] |
Zhang J L, Shi H. Physiological and molecular mech-anisms of plant salt tolerance[J]. Photosynth Research, 2013, 115 (1): 1-22.
DOI URL |
[8] | 王康君, 樊继伟, 陈凤, 等. 植物对盐胁迫的响应及耐盐调控的研究进展[J]. 江西农业学报, 2018, 30(12): 31-40. |
WANG Kangjun, FAN Jiwei, CHEN Feng, et al. Research advances in response of plants to salt stress and regulation of salinity tolerance[J]. Acta Agriculturae Jiangxi, 2018, 30(12): 31-40. | |
[9] | 刘奕媺, 于洋, 方军. 盐碱胁迫及植物耐盐碱分子机制研究[J]. 土壤与作物, 2018, 7(2): 201-211. |
LIU Yimei, YU Yang, FANG Jun. Saline-alkali stress and molec-ular mechanism of saline-alkali tolerance in plants[J]. Soils and Crops, 2018, 7 (2): 201-211. | |
[10] |
Yang C W, Zhang M R, Liu J, et al. Effects of buffer capacity on growth, photosynthesis, and solute accumu-lation of a glycophyte (wheat) and a halophyte (Chloris virgata)[J]. Photosynthetica, 2009, 47(1): 55-60.
DOI URL |
[11] | 李妍. Na+转运与高等植物耐盐性[J]. 科技情报开发与经济, 2007, 17(15): 179-180. |
LI Yan. Na + delivery and the salt tolerance of higher, plant[J]. Sci-Tech Information Development Economy, 2007, 17(15): 179-180. | |
[12] | 于昕, 岳倩宇, 于梦, 等. 复合盐碱处理下葡萄砧木SA15、SA17和1103P的生理响应分析[J]. 植物生理学报, 2020, 56(1): 57-65. |
YU Xin, YUE Qianyu, YU Meng, et al. Physiological responses of grape rootstocks SA15, SA17 and 1103P to salt-alkali stress[J]. Plant Physiology Journal, 2020, 56(1): 57-65. | |
[13] | 晋学娟, 翟衡. 不同盐碱胁迫对红地球/贝达嫁接苗生长及光合作用的影响[J]. 中外葡萄与葡萄酒, 2012,(3): 8-11. |
JIN Xuejun, ZHAI Heng. Effect of different salt and alkali stress on the growth and photosynthesis of Red Globe/Beta grafted seedlings[J]. Sino-overseas Grapevine and Wine, 2012,(3): 8-11. | |
[14] | Mehanna H T, Fayed T A, Rashedy A A. Response of two grapevine rootstocks to some salt tolerance treat-ments under saline water conditions[J]. Journal of Horticultural Science Ornamental Plants, 2010, 2(2): 93-106. |
[15] |
Chun J, Danny T, Xu J J, et al. Increased expression of mitichondria-localized carbonic anhydrase activity resulted in an increased biomass accumulation in Arabidopsis thaliana[J]. Journal of Plant Biology, 2014, 57(6): 366-374.
DOI URL |
[16] |
Barrs H D, Weatherlery P E. A re-examination of the relative turgidity technique for estimating water deficit in leaves[J]. Australian Journal of Biological Science, 1962, 15: 413-428.
DOI URL |
[17] | Su L Y, Dai Z W, Li S H, Xin H P. A novel system for evaluating drought-cold tolerance of grapevines using chlorophyll fluorescence[J]. BMC Plant Biolopy, 2015, 82(15):1-12. |
[18] | 赵世杰, 史国安, 董新纯. 植物生理实验学指导[M]. 北京: 中国农业科学技术出版社, 2002. |
ZHAO Shijie, SHI Guoan, DONG Xinchun. Techniques of Plant Physiological Experiment[M]. Beijing: China Agricultural Science and Technology Press, 2002. | |
[19] | 邹琦. 植物生理学实验指导[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2007:173-174. |
ZOU Qi. Plant Physiology Experiment Guidance[M]. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 2007: 173-174. | |
[20] | 高俊凤. 植物生理学指导[M]. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2006. |
GAO Junfeng. Experiment Techniques of Plant Physiology[M]. Beijing: Higher Education Press, 2006. | |
[21] | 周广生, 梅方竹, 周竹青, 等. 小麦不同品种耐湿性生理指标综合评价及其预测[J]. 中国农业科学, 2003, 36(11): 1378-1382. |
ZHOU Guangsheng, MEI Fangzhu, ZHOU Zhuqing, et al. Comprehensive evaluation and forecast on physiological indices of water logging resistance of different wheat varieties[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2003, 36(11): 1378-1382. | |
[22] |
Yang J Y, Zheng W, Tian Y. et al. Effects of various mixed salt-alkaline stresses on growth, photosynthesis,and photosynthetic pigment concentrations of Medicago ruthenica seedlings[J]. Photosynthetica, 2011, 49(2): 275-284.
DOI URL |
[23] | 秦玲, 康文怀, 齐艳玲, 等. 盐胁迫对酿酒葡萄叶片细胞结构及光合特性的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2012, 45(20): 4233-4241. |
QIN Ling, KANG Wenhuai, QI Yanling, et al. Effects of salt stress on Mesophyll Cell structures and photosynthetic characteristics in Leaves of Wine Grape (Vitis spp.)[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2012, 45(20): 4233-4241. | |
[24] | Kalaji H M, Jajoo A, Oukarroum A, et al. Chlorophyll a fluorescence as a tool to monitor physiological status of plants under abiotic stress conditions[J]. Acta Physiologiae Plantarum, 2016, (38): 102. |
[25] |
Li W Q, Liu X J, Khan M A, et al. The effect of plant growth regulators, nitric oxide, nitrate, nitrite and light on the germination of imorphic seeds of Suaeda salsa under saline conditions[J]. Journal of Plant Research, 2005, 118(3): 207-214.
DOI URL |
[26] |
Yao S X, Chen S S, Zhao J, et al. Effect of three salts on germination and seedling survival of dimorphic seeds of Chenopodium album[J]. Botanique, 2010, 88(9): 821-828.
DOI URL |
[27] | 朱新广, 张其德. NaCl对光合作用影响的研究进展[J]. 植物学通报, 1999, 16(4): 332-338. |
ZHU Xinguang, ZHANG Qide. Advances in the research on the effects of NaCl on photosynthesis[J]. Chinese Bulletin of Botany, 1999, 16(4): 332-338. | |
[28] |
Parida A K, Das A B. Salt tolerance and salinity effects on plants: a review[J]. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 2005, 60(3): 324-349.
PMID |
[29] | Lu N W, Duan B L, Li C Y. Physiological responses to drought and enhanced UV-B radiation in two contrasting[J]. Picea Asperata Populations, 2007, 37(7): 1253-1262. |
[30] | 许祥明, 叶和春, 李国凤. 植物抗盐机理的研究进展[J]. 应用与环境生物学报, 2000, 6(4): 379-387. |
XU Xiangming, YE Hechun, LI Guofeng. Progress in research of plant tolerance to saline stress[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied and Environmental Biology, 2000, 6(4): 379-387. | |
[31] | DINNENY J R. Traversing organizational scales in plant salt-stress responses[J]. Current Opinion in Plant Biology, 2015, (23): 70-75. |
[32] | 郭淑华, 牛彦杰, 翟衡, 等. 碱性盐胁迫对葡萄杂交砧木荧光特性、叶黄素循环与抗氰呼吸的影响[J]. 植物生理学报, 2017, 53(11): 2013-2021. |
GUO Shuhua, NIU Yanjie, ZHAI Heng, et al. Effect of alkaline salt stress on fluorescence characteristics, xanthophyll cycle and cyanide-resistant respiration of grape hybrid rootstocks[J]. Plant Physiology Journal, 2017, 53(11): 2013-2021. | |
[33] | 孙国荣, 关旸, 阎秀峰. 盐胁迫对星星草幼苗保护酶系统的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2001,(1), 34-38. |
SUN Guorong, GUAN Yang, YAN Xiufeng. Effect of Na2CO3 Stress on defensive enzyme system of puccinellia tenuiflora seedlings[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2001,(1): 34-38. | |
[34] | 廖宝文, 邱凤英, 张留恩, 等. 盐度对尖瓣海莲幼苗生长及其生理生态特性的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2010, 30(23): 6363-6371. |
LIAO Baowen, QIU Fengying, ZHANG Liuen, et al. Effect of salinity on the growth and eco-physiological characteristics of Bruguira Sexangula var rhynchopetala seedlings[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2010, 30(23): 6363-6371. | |
[35] | 肖强, 郑海雷, 陈瑶, 等. 盐度对互花米草生长及脯氨酸、可溶性糖和蛋白质含量的影响[J]. 生态学杂志, 2005, 24(4): 373-376. |
XIAO Qiang, ZHENG Hailei, CHEN Yao, et al. Effects of salinity on the growth and proline,soluble sugar and protein contents of Spartina alterniflora[J]. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2005, 24(4): 373-376. | |
[36] | 颜宏, 尹尚军. 外施 Ca2+ 、ABA 及 H3PO4 对盐碱胁迫的缓解效应[J]. 应用生态学报, 2000, 11(6): 889-892. |
YAN Hong, YI Shang-jun. Effects of Ca2+,ABA and H3PO4 on relaxing stress of Na2CO3 and NaCl[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2000, 11(6): 889-892. | |
[37] | 刘晓涵, 张晓帆, 李雪利, 等. 烟草幼苗对复合盐碱的生理响应[J]. 中国烟草学报, 2020, 26(1): 66-74. |
LIU Xiaohan, ZHANG Xiaofan, LI Xueli, et al. Physiological response of tobacco seedlings to compound saline-alkali[J]. Acta Tabacaria Sinica, 2020, 26(1): 66-74. | |
[38] | 张亚冰, 刘崇怀, 孙海生, 等. 葡萄砧木耐盐性与丙二醛、脯氨酸关系的研究[J]. 西北植物学报, 2006, 26(8): 1709-1712. |
ZHANG Yabing, LIU Chonghuai, SUN Haisheng, et al. Relation between salt tolerance of grape rootstock and MDA and proline contents in grape leaves[J]. Acta Botanica Boreali-Occidentalia Sinica, 2006, 26(8): 1709-1712. | |
[39] | 斯琴巴特尔, 吴红英. 不同逆境对对玉米幼苗根系活力及硝酸还原酶活性的影响[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2001, 19 (2): 67-70. |
Sechenbaterr , WU Hongying. Effect of different stress on roots activity and nitrate reductase activity in Zea mays L[J]. Agricultural Research in the Arid Areas, 2001, 19(2): 67-70. | |
[40] | 陈炳东, 黄高宝, 陈玉梁, 等. 盐胁迫对油葵根系活力和幼苗生长的影响[J]. 中国油料作物学报, 2008, 30(3): 327-330. |
CHEN Bingdong, HUANG Gaobao, CHEN Yuliang, et al. Effects of salt stress on root activity and seedling growth of oil-sunflower[J]. Chinese journal of Oil Crop Sciences, 2008, 30(3): 327-330. | |
[41] | 孟祥浩, 刘义国, 张玉梅, 等. 不同小麦品种苗期抗氧化特性及根系活力对盐胁迫的响应[J]. 麦类作物学报, 2015, 35(8): 1168-1175. |
MENG Xianghao, LIU Yiguo, ZHANG Yumei, et al. Responses of antioxidant properties and root activity of different wheat varieties to salt stress at seedling stage[J]. Journal of Triticeae Crops, 2015, 35(8): 1168-1175. | |
[42] |
郭淑华, 翟衡, 韩宁, 等. 葡萄种间杂交砧木育种F1代植株耐碱性盐能力分析[J]. 植物学报, 2018, 53(1): 51-58.
DOI |
GUO Shuhua, ZHAI Heng, HAN Ning, et al. Evaluation on alkaline salt tolerance of grape F 1 generation hybrids[J]. Chinese Bulletin of Botany, 2018, 53(1): 51-58. | |
[43] | 张晓磊, 刘晓静, 齐敏兴, 等. 混合盐碱对紫花苜蓿苗期根系特征的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2013, 21(3): 340-346. |
ZHANG Xiaolei, LIU Xiaojing, QI Minxing, et al. Alfalfa seeding root characteristics under complex saline-alkali stress[J]. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2013, 21(3): 340-346. | |
[44] | MUNNS R, Tester M. Mechanisms of salinity tolerance[J]. Annual Review of Plant Biollogy, 2008, (59): 651-681. |
[45] |
高建明, 夏卜贤, 袁庆华, 等. 高粱种质材料幼苗期耐盐碱性评价[J]. 应用生态学报, 2012, 23(5): 1303-1310.
PMID |
GAO Jianming, XIA Buxian, YUAN Qinghua, et al. Salt-alkaline tolerance of sorghum germplasm at seedling stage[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2012, 23(5): 1303-1310.
PMID |
|
[46] | 赵俊香, 任翠梅, 吴凤芝, 等. 16份菊芋种质苗期耐盐碱性筛选与综合鉴定[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2015, 23(5): 620-627. |
ZHAO Junxiang, REN Cuimei, WU Fengzhi, et al. Comprehensive identification of saline-alkaline tolerance of 16 Jerusalem artichoke accessions at seedling stage[J]. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2015, 23(5): 620-627. | |
[47] | 王振兴, 吕海燕, 秦红艳, 等. 盐碱胁迫对山葡萄光合特性及生长发育的影响[J]. 西北植物学报, 2017, 37(2): 339-345. |
WANG Zhenxing, LV Haiyan, QIN Hongyan, et al. Photosynthetic characteristics and growth development of Amur Grape(Vitis amurensis Rupr.) under saline-alkali stress[J]. Acta Botanica Boreali-Occidentalia Sinica, 2017, 37(2): 339-345. | |
[48] | CARROLL B. Rootstocks for grape production[D]. In:Divi-sion of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources. Stillwater: Oklahoma State University. 2006, HLA-6253-4. |
[49] | 袁军伟, 李敏敏, 贾楠, 等. 21份葡萄砧木品种资源耐盐性鉴定[J]. 西北农业学报, 2019, 28(4): 602-606. |
YUAN Junwei, LI Mimmin, JIA Nan, et al. Evaluation of salt stress tolerance in twenty-one grape rootstocks[J]. Acta Agriculturae Boreali-occidentalis Sinica, 2019, 28(4):602-606. | |
[50] | 吴晓梦, 张晓雪, 李众, 等. 葡萄砧木的耐盐性评价[J]. 中外葡萄与葡萄酒, 2017,(5): 14-18. |
WU Xiaomeng, ZHANG Xiaoxue, LI Zhong, et al. Evaluation of grape rootstock salt tolerance[J]. Sino-overseas Grapevine and Wine, 2017,(5): 14-18. | |
[51] | 沈莉, 张星, 张剑侠. 不同葡萄砧木品种(系)的耐碱性评价[J]. 北方园艺, 2019,(5): 45-55. |
SHEN Li, ZHANG Xing, ZHANG Jianxia. Identification of alkali resistance of different grape stock varieties (strains)[J]. Northern Horticulture, 2019,(5): 45-55. | |
[52] | 张星, 张剑侠. 葡萄砧木杂种的耐碱性鉴定[J]. 中外葡萄与葡萄酒, 2019,(3): 1-8. |
ZHANG Xing, ZHANG Jianxia. Identification of alkali tolerance of grape rootstock hybrids[J]. Sino-overseas Grapevine and Wine, 2019,(3): 1-8. |
[1] | 赵连佳, 李淦, 徐麟, 颜国荣, 刘宁, 王帆, 邓超宏, 阿布都克尤木·阿不都热孜克, 王聪, 王威. 不同大豆品种在新疆生态区主要农艺性状表现及产量的相关分析[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(7): 1663-1670. |
[2] | 杨明花, 刘强, 廖必勇, 彭云承, 布阿依夏木·那曼提, 达吾来·杰克山. 不完全双列杂交玉米组合抗倒伏综合评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(4): 832-840. |
[3] | 刘敏, 靳娟, 阿布都卡尤木·阿依麦提, 樊丁宇, 郝庆, 杨磊, 赵晓梅, 耿文娟. 新疆3个鲜食枣品种的抗寒性评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(4): 916-924. |
[4] | 郭阳, 郭俊先, 史勇, 刘丽, 方文艳, 刘彦岑. 特征波长筛选结合PCA-LSSVM对甜瓜叶片SPAD值的预测[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(3): 616-623. |
[5] | 马旭, 赵英, 韩炜, 武胜利, 韩晓燕. 14种沙棘果实中氨基酸组成的主成分分析与综合评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(2): 378-388. |
[6] | 曹艺洁, 史智勇, 玉苏甫·阿不力提甫, 艾沙江·买买提. 库尔勒香梨粗皮果矿质元素和氨基酸的含量分析[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(2): 407-415. |
[7] | 户金鸽, 白世践, 陈光, 蔡军社. 15个葡萄砧木耐热性差异评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(1): 86-95. |
[8] | 杨明花, 王倩, 周新丽, 艾合买提江·马合木提, 彭云承, 艾尔居玛·吐卢汗, 布阿依夏木·那曼提, 侯丽丽, 刘强. 玉米杂交组合性状及产量的多重分析[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(9): 2114-2122. |
[9] | 李春雨, 谭占明, 程云霞, 束胜, 何涛, 靳钰婕, 马新超, 杜佳庚, 张婧. 水肥耦合对沙培番茄生长发育及品质的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(9): 2158-2169. |
[10] | 由佳辉, 高林, 冯琳骄, 买迪妮阿依·买买提, 周龙, 李树德. 17个葡萄砧木品种叶片解剖结构与抗旱性分析[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(8): 1896-1906. |
[11] | 樊丁宇, 靳娟, 阿布都卡尤木·阿依麦提, 杨磊, 赵晓梅, 郝庆. 5个鲜食枣品种果实品质特性的综合评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(8): 1956-1964. |
[12] | 布哈丽且木·阿不力孜, 袁杰, 张燕红, 赵志强, 文孝荣, 贾春平, 康民泰, 唐福森, 王奉斌. 不同粳稻品种(系)稻米品质性状分析[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(6): 1347-1355. |
[13] | 张哲, 热比耶·玉荪, 买买提·莫明, 吾买尔江·库尔班, 艾先涛, 高山. 新疆棉花生产品种机采农艺性状分析[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(5): 1084-1092. |
[14] | 马越, 李玉姗, 赵连佳, 郭雅文, 宋羽, 许红军. 15份番茄种质资源在新疆适应性综合评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(5): 1099-1109. |
[15] | 毛红艳, 于明, 祖力皮牙·买买提. 微波消解-ICP-AES法测定新疆玉米矿物元素含量及主成分分析[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(5): 1270-1276. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||