新疆农业科学 ›› 2022, Vol. 59 ›› Issue (10): 2486-2494.DOI: 10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2022.10.017
收稿日期:
2021-11-13
出版日期:
2022-10-20
发布日期:
2022-12-21
通信作者:
刁明
作者简介:
廖扭(1994-),女,甘肃陇南人,硕士研究生,研究方向为耐盐碱番茄重新设计与快速驯化,(E-mail)ln18899538523@163.com
基金资助:
LIAO Niu(), DIAO Ming(), CUI Hongxin, NIU Ning, LIU Huiying
Received:
2021-11-13
Online:
2022-10-20
Published:
2022-12-21
Correspondence author:
DIAO Ming
Supported by:
摘要:
【目的】测定10个不同番茄种质的主要植株及叶片生理性状,筛选优异的耐盐碱种质,为优异耐盐新品种改良提供参考依据。【方法】以10个不同番茄种质为试材,采用花期盐水滴灌处理,以清水滴灌为对照,采用NaCl配置的盐水(6 ms/cm)全生育期滴灌盐胁迫处理。测定盐胁迫后番茄植株的株高、茎粗、相对叶绿素含量(SPAD)值、叶片丙二醛(MDA)含量、可溶性蛋白、超氧化物歧化酶(SOD)、过氧化氢酶(CAT)和过氧化物酶(POD)活性。【结果】花期盐水滴灌胁迫下,不同参试番茄材料的株高、茎粗和SPAD值均不同程度降低、可溶性蛋白含量、SOD、POD和CAT 酶活性不同程度提高。采用隶属函数法和主成分分析法对10个不同番茄种质的耐盐性进行综合评价,由强到弱依次为C3>C1>C5>C9>C8> C2>C7>C6>C10>C4。【结论】花期盐水滴灌胁迫导致所有参试番茄材料叶片氧化损伤发生,生长受到抑制,并通过渗透调节和抗氧化酶促系统响应盐胁迫逆境。不同番茄材料对盐水滴灌胁迫的敏感性和耐受性存在差异。材料的耐盐性由强到弱依次为C3>C1>C5>C9>C8>C2>C7>C6>C10>C4。
中图分类号:
廖扭, 刁明, 崔洪鑫, 牛宁, 刘慧英. 花期盐水滴灌对10份番茄种质的主要性状影响及耐盐性评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(10): 2486-2494.
LIAO Niu, DIAO Ming, CUI Hongxin, NIU Ning, LIU Huiying. Effect of Drip Irrigation with Saltwater during Flowering on Main Characters of 10 Tomato Germplasm and Evaluation of Salt Tolerance[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 59(10): 2486-2494.
材料 Material | 株高Plant height(cm) | 茎粗Stem diameter(mm) | SPAD值 SPAD valus | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CK | NaCl | 变化量 Variance | CK | NaCl | 变化量 Variance | CK | NaCl | 变化量 Variance | |
C1 | 77.30±7.02bcd | 55.76±3.91d | 21.55ab | 15.25±0.75abc | 14.36±0.82a | 0.89c | 55.4±2.31e | 42.5±2.67e | 12.98bc |
C2 | 82.83±8.58b | 62.52±1.23bc | 20.31abc | 15.56±1.51ab | 13.45±1.25abc | 2.12ab | 52.6±4.13e | 45.1±2.51de | 7.50d |
C3 | 74.29±5.76cd | 57.35±2.56cd | 16.94abc | 16.00±1.07a | 14.00±1.33ab | 2.01ab | 72.0±1.83a | 53.4±3.12bc | 18.63a |
C4 | 73.33±2.14d | 57.88±3.78cd | 15.45bc | 14.31±1.08cd | 13.70±1.78abc | 0.61bc | 54.7±1.90e | 46.5±0.97d | 8.22d |
C5 | 81.95±3.19b | 59.52±5.61bcd | 22.43a | 11.66±1.68e | 9.67±0.78f | 1.99abc | 61.1±2.40d | 45.8±4.19de | 15.27ab |
C6 | 60.94±4.62e | 46.28±4.82e | 14.65c | 14.52±1.67bcd | 11.60±1.23e | 2.92a | 65.8±1.84b | 59.2±3.74b | 6.68d |
C7 | 71.49±10.48d | 55.08±2.36d | 16.42abc | 14.02±1.32d | 12.30±1.23de | 1.71ab | 67.4±0.96b | 59.5±3.25a | 7.95d |
C8 | 92.72±1.61a | 71.09±6.57a | 21.63ab | 14.34±0.94cd | 12.96±1.22bcd | 1.38bc | 62.2±3.05cd | 52.0±3.47c | 10.22cd |
C9 | 81.10±2.50bc | 65.18±7.19b | 15.92bc | 14.09±1.17cd | 11.62±0.71e | 2.46ab | 66.6±2.45b | 56.5±2.33ab | 10.09cd |
C10 | 55.48±1.59e | 40.49±6.40f | 15.00c | 14.69±1.27bcd | 12.64±1.09cde | 2.05ab | 64.5±1.62bc | 57.4±1.99b | 7.12d |
表1 盐胁迫下番茄株高、茎粗、SPAD值变化
Table 1 Changes of tomato plant height, stem diameter and SPAD value under salt stress
材料 Material | 株高Plant height(cm) | 茎粗Stem diameter(mm) | SPAD值 SPAD valus | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CK | NaCl | 变化量 Variance | CK | NaCl | 变化量 Variance | CK | NaCl | 变化量 Variance | |
C1 | 77.30±7.02bcd | 55.76±3.91d | 21.55ab | 15.25±0.75abc | 14.36±0.82a | 0.89c | 55.4±2.31e | 42.5±2.67e | 12.98bc |
C2 | 82.83±8.58b | 62.52±1.23bc | 20.31abc | 15.56±1.51ab | 13.45±1.25abc | 2.12ab | 52.6±4.13e | 45.1±2.51de | 7.50d |
C3 | 74.29±5.76cd | 57.35±2.56cd | 16.94abc | 16.00±1.07a | 14.00±1.33ab | 2.01ab | 72.0±1.83a | 53.4±3.12bc | 18.63a |
C4 | 73.33±2.14d | 57.88±3.78cd | 15.45bc | 14.31±1.08cd | 13.70±1.78abc | 0.61bc | 54.7±1.90e | 46.5±0.97d | 8.22d |
C5 | 81.95±3.19b | 59.52±5.61bcd | 22.43a | 11.66±1.68e | 9.67±0.78f | 1.99abc | 61.1±2.40d | 45.8±4.19de | 15.27ab |
C6 | 60.94±4.62e | 46.28±4.82e | 14.65c | 14.52±1.67bcd | 11.60±1.23e | 2.92a | 65.8±1.84b | 59.2±3.74b | 6.68d |
C7 | 71.49±10.48d | 55.08±2.36d | 16.42abc | 14.02±1.32d | 12.30±1.23de | 1.71ab | 67.4±0.96b | 59.5±3.25a | 7.95d |
C8 | 92.72±1.61a | 71.09±6.57a | 21.63ab | 14.34±0.94cd | 12.96±1.22bcd | 1.38bc | 62.2±3.05cd | 52.0±3.47c | 10.22cd |
C9 | 81.10±2.50bc | 65.18±7.19b | 15.92bc | 14.09±1.17cd | 11.62±0.71e | 2.46ab | 66.6±2.45b | 56.5±2.33ab | 10.09cd |
C10 | 55.48±1.59e | 40.49±6.40f | 15.00c | 14.69±1.27bcd | 12.64±1.09cde | 2.05ab | 64.5±1.62bc | 57.4±1.99b | 7.12d |
材料 Material | POD活性(U/g)POD activity | SOD活性(U/g)SOD activity | CAT活性(U/g)CAT activity | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CK | NaCl | 增量 Incremet | CK | NaCl | 增量 Incremet | CK | NaCl | 增量 Incremet | |
C1 | 350.03±20.93cd | 422.68±32.58d | 72.65abc | 374.52±18.73de | 672.00±32.78cd | 297.48c | 74.09±3.80bcd | 90.32±2.29c | 16.23de |
C2 | 300.753±12.48d | 392.77±63.16d | 92.02a | 443.84±18.43bc | 533.07±8.51e | 89.23e | 69.44±5.01d | 104.87±4.40b | 36.44c |
C3 | 418.523±53.08c | 500.61±37.47c | 82.09ab | 317.09±46.75e | 729.42±38.19c | 412.33b | 79.40±3.97b | 89.05±2.65c | 9.65e |
C4 | 336.063±15.09cd | 399.49±43.02d | 63.43abc | 497.04±14.86b | 668.14±58.01cd | 171.10de | 70.98±5.24cd | 93.35±3.66c | 22.37d |
C5 | 408.463±37.82c | 417.59±14.59d | 9.12c | 571.60±35.79a | 962.99±29.87a | 391.39b | 52.30±2.59e | 105.29±4.93b | 52.99b |
C6 | 335.243±54.36cd | 368.99±43.41d | 33.75abc | 436.29±29.95bc | 869.83±90.60b | 434.54ab | 76.44±3.19bcd | 91.49±4.48c | 15.05de |
C7 | 352.89±39.89cd | 370.97±10.12d | 18.08bc | 448.75±21.33bc | 651.53±40.53cd | 202.77d | 77.33±5.80bc | 93.46±5.88c | 16.13de |
C8 | 634.50±16.36a | 696.15±54.16a | 61.65abc | 466.50±31.98bc | 991.88±59.11a | 525.38a | 87.17±2.29a | 159.42±6.62a | 72.25a |
C9 | 544.15±60.56b | 581.11±37.88b | 36.96abc | 419.91±47.05cd | 626.83±72.90d | 206.93d | 70.85±4.44cd | 109.82±6.72b | 38.97c |
C10 | 521.93±81.80b | 537.93±41.12bc | 16.00bc | 342.25±44.39e | 850.15±32.12b | 507.90a | 86.40±3.16a | 106.17±7.31b | 19.77d |
表2 盐胁迫下番茄POD、SOD、CAT活性的变化
Table 2 Changes in the POD, SOD and CAT activities of tomato under salt stress
材料 Material | POD活性(U/g)POD activity | SOD活性(U/g)SOD activity | CAT活性(U/g)CAT activity | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CK | NaCl | 增量 Incremet | CK | NaCl | 增量 Incremet | CK | NaCl | 增量 Incremet | |
C1 | 350.03±20.93cd | 422.68±32.58d | 72.65abc | 374.52±18.73de | 672.00±32.78cd | 297.48c | 74.09±3.80bcd | 90.32±2.29c | 16.23de |
C2 | 300.753±12.48d | 392.77±63.16d | 92.02a | 443.84±18.43bc | 533.07±8.51e | 89.23e | 69.44±5.01d | 104.87±4.40b | 36.44c |
C3 | 418.523±53.08c | 500.61±37.47c | 82.09ab | 317.09±46.75e | 729.42±38.19c | 412.33b | 79.40±3.97b | 89.05±2.65c | 9.65e |
C4 | 336.063±15.09cd | 399.49±43.02d | 63.43abc | 497.04±14.86b | 668.14±58.01cd | 171.10de | 70.98±5.24cd | 93.35±3.66c | 22.37d |
C5 | 408.463±37.82c | 417.59±14.59d | 9.12c | 571.60±35.79a | 962.99±29.87a | 391.39b | 52.30±2.59e | 105.29±4.93b | 52.99b |
C6 | 335.243±54.36cd | 368.99±43.41d | 33.75abc | 436.29±29.95bc | 869.83±90.60b | 434.54ab | 76.44±3.19bcd | 91.49±4.48c | 15.05de |
C7 | 352.89±39.89cd | 370.97±10.12d | 18.08bc | 448.75±21.33bc | 651.53±40.53cd | 202.77d | 77.33±5.80bc | 93.46±5.88c | 16.13de |
C8 | 634.50±16.36a | 696.15±54.16a | 61.65abc | 466.50±31.98bc | 991.88±59.11a | 525.38a | 87.17±2.29a | 159.42±6.62a | 72.25a |
C9 | 544.15±60.56b | 581.11±37.88b | 36.96abc | 419.91±47.05cd | 626.83±72.90d | 206.93d | 70.85±4.44cd | 109.82±6.72b | 38.97c |
C10 | 521.93±81.80b | 537.93±41.12bc | 16.00bc | 342.25±44.39e | 850.15±32.12b | 507.90a | 86.40±3.16a | 106.17±7.31b | 19.77d |
测定指标 Fluency indices | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 | C7 | C8 | C9 | C10 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
株高Plant height | 0.458 2 | 0.576 3 | 0.734 3 | 0.543 6 | 0.670 2 | 0.612 3 | 0.577 8 | 0.676 5 | 0.617 7 | 0.519 0 |
茎粗Stem diameter | 0.505 5 | 0.595 4 | 0.482 0 | 0.539 4 | 0.513 2 | 0.535 2 | 0.479 5 | 0.588 6 | 0.552 4 | 0.496 2 |
SPAD值 | 0.495 0 | 0.564 5 | 0.410 5 | 0.553 4 | 0.563 4 | 0.515 6 | 0.329 5 | 0.447 2 | 0.523 9 | 0.513 3 |
过氧化氢酶Catalase | 0.422 6 | 0.474 2 | 0.663 7 | 0.393 6 | 0.538 1 | 0.546 6 | 0.404 3 | 0.454 4 | 0.522 1 | 0.359 8 |
过氧化物酶Peroxidase | 0.405 7 | 0.437 0 | 0.474 9 | 0.415 0 | 0.500 7 | 0.590 5 | 0.542 6 | 0.381 9 | 0.509 4 | 0.570 4 |
超氧化物歧化酶 Superoxide dismutase | 0.495 9 | 0.443 9 | 0.478 8 | 0.333 4 | 0.483 1 | 0.451 1 | 0.335 9 | 0.391 6 | 0.373 0 | 0.421 9 |
丙二醛Malondialdehyde | 0.515 8 | 0.597 5 | 0.520 7 | 0.378 4 | 0.513 5 | 0.498 2 | 0.484 6 | 0.515 0 | 0.448 7 | 0.368 9 |
可溶性蛋白Soluble protein | 0.655 9 | 0.483 2 | 0.544 8 | 0.380 3 | 0.529 5 | 0.349 6 | 0.348 4 | 0.500 0 | 0.541 7 | 0.333 3 |
表3 指标隶属度值
Table 3 Membership values of indicators
测定指标 Fluency indices | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 | C7 | C8 | C9 | C10 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
株高Plant height | 0.458 2 | 0.576 3 | 0.734 3 | 0.543 6 | 0.670 2 | 0.612 3 | 0.577 8 | 0.676 5 | 0.617 7 | 0.519 0 |
茎粗Stem diameter | 0.505 5 | 0.595 4 | 0.482 0 | 0.539 4 | 0.513 2 | 0.535 2 | 0.479 5 | 0.588 6 | 0.552 4 | 0.496 2 |
SPAD值 | 0.495 0 | 0.564 5 | 0.410 5 | 0.553 4 | 0.563 4 | 0.515 6 | 0.329 5 | 0.447 2 | 0.523 9 | 0.513 3 |
过氧化氢酶Catalase | 0.422 6 | 0.474 2 | 0.663 7 | 0.393 6 | 0.538 1 | 0.546 6 | 0.404 3 | 0.454 4 | 0.522 1 | 0.359 8 |
过氧化物酶Peroxidase | 0.405 7 | 0.437 0 | 0.474 9 | 0.415 0 | 0.500 7 | 0.590 5 | 0.542 6 | 0.381 9 | 0.509 4 | 0.570 4 |
超氧化物歧化酶 Superoxide dismutase | 0.495 9 | 0.443 9 | 0.478 8 | 0.333 4 | 0.483 1 | 0.451 1 | 0.335 9 | 0.391 6 | 0.373 0 | 0.421 9 |
丙二醛Malondialdehyde | 0.515 8 | 0.597 5 | 0.520 7 | 0.378 4 | 0.513 5 | 0.498 2 | 0.484 6 | 0.515 0 | 0.448 7 | 0.368 9 |
可溶性蛋白Soluble protein | 0.655 9 | 0.483 2 | 0.544 8 | 0.380 3 | 0.529 5 | 0.349 6 | 0.348 4 | 0.500 0 | 0.541 7 | 0.333 3 |
耐盐性指标 Salt tolerance index | 第一主成分 First component | 第二主成分 Second component | 第三主成分 Third component | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
负荷量 Capacity | 权重 Weight | 负荷量 Capacity | 权重 Weight | 负荷量 Capacity | 权重 Weight | |
株高Plant height | 0.621 | 0.287 5 | 0.615 | 1.158 7 | -0.124 | -0.308 7 |
茎粗Stem diameter | 0.135 | 0.171 7 | -0.078 | -0.310 0 | -0.899 | -1.617 5 |
SPAD | 0.069 | 0.057 2 | -0.775 | -1.627 3 | 0.313 | 0.459 0 |
丙二醛Malondialdehyde | -0.682 | -0.375 2 | 0.122 | 0.428 0 | 0.155 | 0.448 1 |
可溶性蛋白Soluble protein | -0.031 | -0.109 6 | 0.832 | 1.819 2 | 0.314 | 0.636 6 |
超氧化物歧化酶 Superoxide dismutase | 0.416 | 0.154 7 | -0.202 | -0.435 4 | 0.681 | 1.076 5 |
过氧化物酶Peroxidase | 0.861 | 0.431 2 | -0.027 | -0.232 5 | 0.107 | -0.024 6 |
过氧化氢酶Catalase | 0.832 | 0.382 5 | 0.161 | 0.199 3 | 0.295 | 0.330 6 |
特征根 Characteristics of the root | 2.638 | 1.772 | 1.435 | |||
方差贡献率 Variance contribution rate | 32.972 | 22.156 | 17.933 | |||
累计方差贡献率 Cumulative variance contribution rate | 32.972 | 55.128 | 73.062 |
表4 指标因子主成分的特征根、方差贡献率与负荷量和权重
Table 4 Characteristic roots, variance contribution rate, load and weight of principal component of indicator factor
耐盐性指标 Salt tolerance index | 第一主成分 First component | 第二主成分 Second component | 第三主成分 Third component | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
负荷量 Capacity | 权重 Weight | 负荷量 Capacity | 权重 Weight | 负荷量 Capacity | 权重 Weight | |
株高Plant height | 0.621 | 0.287 5 | 0.615 | 1.158 7 | -0.124 | -0.308 7 |
茎粗Stem diameter | 0.135 | 0.171 7 | -0.078 | -0.310 0 | -0.899 | -1.617 5 |
SPAD | 0.069 | 0.057 2 | -0.775 | -1.627 3 | 0.313 | 0.459 0 |
丙二醛Malondialdehyde | -0.682 | -0.375 2 | 0.122 | 0.428 0 | 0.155 | 0.448 1 |
可溶性蛋白Soluble protein | -0.031 | -0.109 6 | 0.832 | 1.819 2 | 0.314 | 0.636 6 |
超氧化物歧化酶 Superoxide dismutase | 0.416 | 0.154 7 | -0.202 | -0.435 4 | 0.681 | 1.076 5 |
过氧化物酶Peroxidase | 0.861 | 0.431 2 | -0.027 | -0.232 5 | 0.107 | -0.024 6 |
过氧化氢酶Catalase | 0.832 | 0.382 5 | 0.161 | 0.199 3 | 0.295 | 0.330 6 |
特征根 Characteristics of the root | 2.638 | 1.772 | 1.435 | |||
方差贡献率 Variance contribution rate | 32.972 | 22.156 | 17.933 | |||
累计方差贡献率 Cumulative variance contribution rate | 32.972 | 55.128 | 73.062 |
[1] | 石玉林. 西北地区土壤荒漠化与水土资源利用研究[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2004: 335. |
SHI Yu lin. Research on Soil Desertification and Water and Soil Resources Utilization in Northwest China[M]. Beijing: Science Press, 2004: 335. | |
[2] | 蔺娟, 地里拜尔苏力坦, 艾尼瓦尔·买买提. 新疆盐渍化区土壤养分的空间结构和分布特征[J]. 干旱区资源与环境, 2007, 21(11):113-117. |
LIN Juan, Dilibyer Suritan, Ainival Maimat. Spatial structure and distribution characteristics of soil nutrients in the salinized area of Xinjiang[J]. Arid Land Resources and Environment, 2007, 21(11):113-117. | |
[3] | 费伟, 陈火英, 曹忠, 等. 盐胁迫对番茄幼苗生理特性的影响[J]. 上海交通大学学报( 农业科学版), 2005, 23(1):5-10. |
FEI Wei, CHEN Huoying, CAO Zhong, et al. Effects of salt stress on physiological characteristics of tomato seedlings[J]. Journal of Shanghai Jiaotong University (Agricultural Science Ed.), 2005, 23(1): 5-10. | |
[4] | 陈建林, 吴雪霞, 朱为民. NaCl 胁迫下不同番茄品种幼苗耐盐性研究[J]. 上海农业学报, 2008, 24(3):80-83 |
CHEN Jianlin, WU Xuexia, ZHU Weimin. Study on the salt tolerance of different tomato seedlings under NaCl stress[J]. Acta Agriculturae Shanghai, 2008, 24(3): 80-83. | |
[5] | 苏桐, 魏小红, 丁学智, 等. 外源 NO与蔗糖对盐胁迫下番茄( Lycopersicon esculentum Mill) 幼苗氧化损伤的保护效应[J]. 生态学报, 2008, 28(4):1558-1564. |
SU Tong, WEI Xiaohong, DING Xuezhi, et al. Protective effects of exogenous NO and sucrose on oxidative damage of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill) seedlings under salt stress[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2008, 28(4): 1558-1564. | |
[6] | 李彦, 张英鹏, 孙明, 等. 盐分胁迫对植物的影响及植物耐盐机理研究进展[J]. 中国农学通报, 2008,(1) : 258-265. |
LI Yan, ZHANG Yingpeng, SUN Ming et al. The effects of salt stress on plants and the mechanism of plant salt[J]. Chinese Agronomy Science Bulletin, 2008(1) : 258-265. | |
[7] | 刘翔, 许明, 李志文. 番茄苗期耐盐性鉴定指标初探[J]. 北方园艺, 2007,(3):4-7. |
LIU Xiang, XU Ming, LI Zhiwen. A preliminary study on the identification index of salt tolerance in tomato seedling stage[J]. Northern Horticulture, 2007,(3): 4-7. | |
[8] |
Munns R, Tester M. Mechanisms of salinity tolerance[J]. Annual Review of Plant Biology, 2008, 59(1) : 651-681.
DOI URL |
[9] |
Lu K X, Cao B H, Feng X P, et al. Photosynthetic response of salt-tolerant and sensitive soybean varieties[J]. Photosynthetica, 2009, 47(3) : 381-387.
DOI URL |
[10] |
FENG L L, HAN Y J, LIU G, et al. Overexpression of sedoheptulose-1-bisphosphatase enhances photosynthesis and growth under salt stress in transgenic rice plants[J]. Functional Plant Biology, 2007, 34(9) : 822-834.
DOI URL |
[11] |
Takahashi S, Murata N. How do environmental stresses accelerate photoinhibition[J]. Trends in Plant Science, 2008, 13 ( 4) : 178-182.
DOI PMID |
[12] |
Peng Y L, Gao Z W, Gao Y, et al. Eco-physiological characteristics of alfalfa seedlings in response to various mixed salt-alkaline stresses[J]. Journal of Integrative Plant Biology, 2008, 50: 29-39.
DOI URL |
[13] | 魏国强, 朱祝军. NaCl胁迫对不同品种黄瓜幼苗生长、叶绿素荧光特性和活性氧代谢的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2004, 37(11):1754-1759. |
WE Guoqiang, ZHU Zhujun. Effects of NaCl stress on the growth, chlorophyll fluorescence characteristics and reactive oxygen metabolism of different cucumber seedlings[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2004, 37(11):1754-1759. | |
[14] | 翟凤林. 植物的耐盐性及其改良[M]. 北京: 农业出版社, 1989:35-37 |
ZHAI Fenglin. Salt tolerance of plants and its improvement[M]. Beijing: Agricultural Press, 1989: 35-37. | |
[15] | 赵可夫. 植物抗性生理[M]. 北京: 中国科学技术出版社, 1989:86-88. |
ZHAO Kefu. Plant resistance physiology[M]. Beijing: China Science and Technology Press, 1989:86-88. | |
[16] | 杨婷. 番前盐胁迫下的生理生化特性及耐盐相关基因的分离[D]. 武汉: 华中农业大学硕士毕业论文, 2006. |
YANG Fu. Physiological and biochemical characteristics under salt stress in Fanqian and isolation of salt-tolerant related genes[D]. Wuhan: Huazhong Agricultural University, 2006. | |
[17] | 彭玉梅, 石国亮, 崔辉梅. 加工番茄幼苗期耐盐生理指标筛选及耐盐性综合评价[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2014, 32(5):61-66. |
PENG Yumei, SHI Guoliang, CUI Huimei. Screening of physiological indexes for salt tolerance and comprehensive evaluation of salt tolerance in processing tomato seedlings[J]. Agricultural Research in the Arid Areas, 2014, 32(5):61-66. | |
[18] | 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 prediction of physiological indexes for moisture tolerance of different wheat varieties[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2003, 36(11): 1378-1382. | |
[19] |
Sun J, Jia Y, Guo S, et al. Resistance of spinach plants to seawater stress is correlated with higher activity of xanthophyll cycle and better maintenance of chlorophyll metabolism[J]. Photosynthetica, 2010, 48: 567-579.
DOI URL |
[20] | Bake N R. Chlorophyll fluorescence: A probe of photo-synthesis in vivo[J]. Annual Review of Plant Biology, 2008,59. |
[21] | Li Z Y, Cong R C, Yang Q S,etal. Effects of saline-alkali stress on growth and osmotic adjustment substances in willow seedlings[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2017, 37(24) : 8511-8517. |
[22] |
毛建才, 翟文强, 张学军, 等. 短期 NaCl 胁迫下9个甜瓜品种抗性生理指标的综合评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2020, 57(8):1421-1430.
DOI |
MAO Jiancai, ZHAI Wenqiang, ZHANGG Xujun, et al. Comprehensive evaluation of resistance physiological indexes of 9 melon varieties under short-term NaCl stress[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2020, 57(8): 1421-1430.
DOI |
|
[23] | 张潭, 唐达, 李思思, 等. 盐碱胁迫对枸杞幼苗生物量积累和光合作用的影响[J]. 西北植物学报, 2017, 37( 12) : 2474-2482. |
ZHANG Tan, TANG Da, LI Sisi, et al. Effects of salinity stress on biomass accumulation and photosynt-hesis of lycium barbarum L.seedlings[J]. Acta Botanica Boreali-Occidentalia Sinica, 37(12) : 2474-2482. | |
[24] | 王文银, 高小刚, 牟静, 等. 盐胁迫对沙拐枣光合生理特性的影响[J]. 西北植物学报, 2017, 37(9) : 1805-1812. |
WANG Wenyin, GAO Xiaogan, MOU Jing, et al. Effects of salt stress on photosynthetic physiological characteristics of zizyphus japonicus[J]. Acta Botanica Boreali-Occidentalia Sinica, 2017, 37(9): 1805-1812. | |
[25] | 陈少裕. 膜脂过氧化对植物细胞的伤害[J]. 植物生理学通讯, 1991. 27(2):84-90. |
CHEN Shaoyu. The damage of membrane lipid peroxidation to plant cells[J]. Plant Physiology Communications, 1991, 27(2):84-90. | |
[26] | 许立志, 庞胜群, 刁明, 等. 隶属函数法评价不同加工番茄品种耐盐性[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2017, 54(5):833-842. |
XU Lizhi, PANG Shengqun, DIAO Ming, et al. Evaluation of salt tolerance of different processed tomato varieties by membership function method[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2017, 54(5):833-842. | |
[27] |
刘爱荣, 赵可夫. 盐胁迫下盐芥渗透调节物质的积累及其渗透调节作用[J]. 植物生理与分子生物学学报, 2005, 31(4):389-395.
PMID |
LIU Airong, ZHAO Kefu. The accumulation of salt mustard osmotic adjustment substances and their osmotic adjustment effects under salt stress[J]. Journal of Plant Physiology and Molecular Biology, 2005, 31(4): 389-395.
PMID |
|
[28] | 霍仕平, 晏庆九. 玉米抗旱鉴定的形态和生理生化指标研究进展[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 1995,(9);67-73. |
HUO Shiping, YAN Qingjiu. Research progress on morphological and physiological and biochemical indexes of drought resistance identification in maize[J]. Agricultural Research in Arid Areas, 1995,(9):67-73. |
[1] | 王丹丹, 李燕, 张庆银, 李世东, 庞永超, 马琨芝, 马龙, 牛瑞生, 钟增明, 齐连芬, 师建华. 不同微生物菌处理对番茄土壤微生物多样性的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(9): 2248-2257. |
[2] | 鞠乐, 齐军仓, 陈培育, 牛银亭, 阴志刚. 干旱胁迫对大麦种子萌发、幼苗生长及生理特性的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(8): 1879-1886. |
[3] | 蒲敏, 阮向阳, 肖乐乐, 索常凯, 陈国永, 冶军, 高波. 枸溶性钙镁肥对加工番茄钙、镁吸收及品质的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(8): 1987-1995. |
[4] | 魏迎凤, 张全成, 查慧, 王小丽, 王俊刚. 二甲戊灵对龙葵苗期主要生长发育和生理指标的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(8): 2013-2021. |
[5] | 柏玲, 冯国郡, 胡相伟, 赵云, 石书兵. 不同谷子品种萌发期抗旱鉴定及生理变化[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(7): 1630-1640. |
[6] | 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. |
[7] | 肖林刚, 马艳, 宋兵伟, 焦锐斌, 邢剑飞. 温室膜下微喷灌溉技术研究进展[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(7): 1731-1740. |
[8] | 刘江娜, 张西英, 李荣霞, 张小伟, 白云凤, 张爱萍. 番茄SlLCY-B2及其启动子的分子特征和sgRNA分析[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(6): 1460-1465. |
[9] | 王冠玉, 贾平平, 靳娟, 阿布都卡尤木·阿依麦提, 樊丁宇, 赵晓梅, 郝庆, 杨磊, 耿文娟. 高温胁迫对枣花器官生理特性的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(6): 1485-1491. |
[10] | 陈艳, 黄璐瑶, 邓昌蓉, 张彦君, 侯全刚, 邵登魁. 冷害对多茸毛型线辣椒幼苗生理水平的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(6): 1492-1498. |
[11] | 张燕红, 侯天钰, 巴音花, 赵彩月, 吕玉平, 布哈丽且木·阿不力孜, 赵志强, 李冬, 杜孝敬, 袁杰, 王奉斌. 水稻重组自交系群体芽期和苗期耐盐性鉴定与评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(5): 1041-1049. |
[12] | 哈力旦·依克热木, 刘娜, 刘联正, 周安定, 姜奇彦, 达买力江·合孜尔, 曹俊梅, 张新忠. 小麦近缘种芽期和苗期的耐盐性鉴定与评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(5): 1118-1126. |
[13] | 姚庆, 阿里别里根·哈孜太, 杨明花, 李强, 苗昊翠, 崔宏亮. 藜麦种子对萌发温度的响应及低温胁迫萌发能力鉴定[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(5): 1141-1149. |
[14] | 刘衍晨, 刘志刚, 白新慧, 乔鹏, 徐诚, 白慧敏, 张娟. 蛭石复混基质对辣椒育苗的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(5): 1190-1199. |
[15] | 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. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||