Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences ›› 2022, Vol. 59 ›› Issue (7): 1666-1679.DOI: 10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2022.07.013
• Horticultural Special Local Products·Forestry·Physiology and Biochemistry • Previous Articles Next Articles
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:
白世践(), 户金鸽, 李超, 蔡军社(), 王勇, 赵荣华, 陈光
通讯作者:
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:
CLC Number:
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.
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.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: http://www.xjnykx.com/EN/10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2022.07.013
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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] | ZHAO Lianjia, LI Gan, XU Lin, YAN Guorong, LIU Ning, WANG Fan, DENG Chaohong, Abudukeyoumu Abudurezike, WANG Cong, WANG Wei. Analysis of the main characters of soybean varieties in Xinjiang and their correlation with yield [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 60(7): 1663-1670. |
[2] | LU Tao, ZENG Qingtao, ZHANG Wen, WANG Wenbo, WANG Zhengyang, YANG Rui, SUN Yuyan. Comprehensive evaluation of cotton yield and quality by principal component analysis and grey correlation analysis [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 60(5): 1099-1109. |
[3] | YANG Minghua, LIU Qiang, LIAO Biyong, PEN Yuncheng, Buayxam Namat, Dawulai Jiekeshan. Comprehensive evaluation of lodging resistance of NCII maize combinations [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 60(4): 832-840. |
[4] | LIU Min, JIN Juan, Abudoukayoumu Ayimaiti, FAN Dingyu, HAO Qing, YANG Lei, ZHAO Xiaomei, GENG Wenjuan. Evaluation of cold resistance of three fresh edible jujube cultivars in Xinjiang [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 60(4): 916-924. |
[5] | GUO Yang, GUO Junxian, SHI Yong, LIU Li, FANG Wenyan, LIU Yancen. Prediction of SPAD Value in Melon Leaves by Characteristic Wavelength Screening Combined with PCA-LSSVM [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 60(3): 616-623. |
[6] | MA Xu, ZHAO Ying, HAN Wei, WU Shengli, HAN Xiaoyan. Principal Component Analysis and Cluster Analysis of Amino Acids in Seabuckthorn Fruit [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 60(2): 378-388. |
[7] | CAO Yijie, SHI Zhiyong, Yusup Ablitip, Aisajan Mamat. Analysis of Amino Acid and Mineral Elements in the Rough-skinned Fruits of Korla Pear [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 60(2): 407-415. |
[8] | HU Jinge, BAI Shijian, CHEN Guang, CAI Junshe. Differential Evaluation of Heat Tolerance of 15 Grape Rootstocks [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 60(1): 86-95. |
[9] | YANG Minghua, WANG Qian, ZHOU Xinli, Aihemaitijiang Mahemuti, PEN Yuncheng, Aierjuma Tuluhan, Buayxam Namat, HOU Lili, LIU Qiang. Multiple Analysis on Character and Yield of Maize Hybrid Combinations [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 59(9): 2114-2122. |
[10] | LI Chunyu, TAN Zhanming, CHENG Yunxia, SHU Sheng, HE Tao, JIN Yujie, MA Xinchao, DU Jiageng, ZHANG Jing. The Influence of Water and Fertilizer Coupling on the Growth-development and Quality of Sand Culture Tomato [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 59(9): 2158-2169. |
[11] | YOU Jiahui, GAO Lin, FENG Linjiao, Maimaiti Maidiniayi, ZHOU Long, LI Shude. Analysis of Leaf Anatomical Structure and Drought Resistance of 17 Grape Rootstock Varieties [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 59(8): 1896-1906. |
[12] | FAN Dingyu, JIN Juan, Abudoukayoumu Ayimaiti, YANG Lei, ZHAO Xiaomei, HAO Qing. Comprehensive Evaluation of Fruit Quality Characteristics of 5 Fresh Jujube Varieties [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 59(8): 1956-1964. |
[13] | Buhaliqem Abliz, YUAN Jie, ZHANG Yanhong, ZHAO Zhiqiang, WEN Xiaorong, JIA Chunping, KANG Mintai, TANG Fusen, WANG Fengbin. Analysis of Rice Quality Traits of Different Japonica Rice Varieties (Lines) [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 59(6): 1347-1355. |
[14] | ZHANG Zhe, Rebiye Yusun, Maimaiti Moming, Wumaierjiang Kurban, AI Xiantao, GAO Shan. Analysis of Agronomic Characters of Cotton Varieties in Xinjiang [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 59(5): 1084-1092. |
[15] | MA Yue, LI Yushan, ZHAO Lianjia, GUO Yawen, SONG Yu, XU Hongjun. Comprehensive Evaluation of the Adaptability of 15 Tomato Germplasm Resources in Xinjiang [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 59(5): 1099-1109. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||