Analysis of Leaf Anatomical Structure and Drought Resistance of 17 Grape Rootstock Varieties

doi:10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2022.08.010

Abstract

Abstract:

【Objective】 To explore the relationship between leaf anatomical structure indexes and drought resistance of grape rootstocks, and to provide a convenient and effective method for screening grape varieties with drought resistance.【Methods】 The perennial field vines of 17 grape rootstock varieties were treated with drought stress（21d）, the relative moisture content and electrical conductivity of stem and leaf were measured, and the anatomical structure characteristics of the leaves were observed and compared, and the drought resistance of grape rootstock varieties was evaluated by principal component analysis and cluster analysis. 【Result】The results show that, the relative water content of leaves of 17 grape rootstock varieties decreased greatly under drought stress, while the relative water content of stem nodes showed two trends of small increase and decrease, and the relative electrical conductivity of leaves and stem nodes showed different degrees of increase. And the order of sensitivity of leaf anatomical structure indexes to drought stress was:R/S> CTR> SR> TUE> TL> TLE> TP> TS. 【Conclusion】 The index of leaf anatomical structure is closely related to the drought resistance of grape rootstocks and can be used to identify their drought resistance. Combined with principal component analysis and cluster analysis comprehensive evaluation obtain, 1103P, 5BB and Riparia9 have highly drought resistant, 3309C, Riparia2, Riparia10 and Amurensis×Riparia4 have strong drought resistance, 1613C, Dogridge, Beta and Amurensis×Riparia1 have moderate drought resistance, Amurensis×Riparia3, Riparia7, Riparia Glorie, 101-14MG and Riparia4 have weak drought resistance, Ganzia has the weakest drought resistance.

Key words: grape rootstock; drought tolerance; anatomical structure; principal component analysis; cluster analysis

摘要：

【目的】研究叶片解剖结构指标与葡萄砧木抗旱性之间的关系,为抗旱性葡萄品种的筛选提供便捷有效的方法。【方法】以17个葡萄砧木品种多年生田间树为材料进行干旱胁迫处理（21 d）,测定其茎叶相对含水量和电导率,观测比较其叶片解剖结构特征,并结合主成分分析法和聚类分析法对各葡萄砧木品种的抗旱性进行了综合评价。【结果】干旱胁迫导致17个葡萄砧木品种的叶片相对含水量大幅度下降,茎相对含水量则出现小幅度的上升和下降两种趋势,叶片和茎的相对电导率均呈现不同程度的增加;而各项叶片解剖结构指标对干旱胁迫敏感程度的顺序为栅海比>细胞结构紧实度>细胞结构疏松度>上表皮细胞厚度>叶片厚度>下表皮细胞厚度>栅栏组织厚度>海绵组织厚度。【结论】叶片解剖结构指标与葡萄砧木品种的抗旱性关系密切,可用来鉴定其抗旱性。1103P、5BB和河岸9号的抗旱性极强,3309C、河岸2号、河岸10号和山河4号的抗旱性较强,1613C、Dogridge、贝达和山河1号的抗旱性中等,山河3号、河岸7号、Riparia Glorie、101-14MG和河岸4号的抗旱性较弱,Ganzia的抗旱性最弱。

关键词: 葡萄砧木, 抗旱性, 解剖结构, 主成分分析, 聚类分析

CLC Number:

S663.1

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.

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.

Figures/Tables 8

References 24

[1]	贺普超. 葡萄学[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 1992.
	HE Puchao. Viticulture[M]. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 1992.
[2]	陈豫英, 冯建民, 陈楠, 等. 西北地区东部可利用降水的时空变化特征[J]. 干旱区地理, 2012, 35(1):56-66.
	CHEN Yuying, FENG Jianmin, CHEN Nan, et al. Spatio-temporal variation characteristic of the utilizable precipitation in eastern part of Northwest China[J]. Arid Land Geography, 2012, 35(1):56-66.
[3]	李芳兰, 包维楷. 植物叶片形态解剖结构对环境变化的响应与适应[J]. 植物学通报, 2005, 22(S1):118-127.
	LI Fanglan, BAO Weikai. Responses of the morphological and anatomical structure of the plant leaf to environmental change[J]. Chinese Bulletin of Botany, 2005, 22(S1):118-127.
[4]	李永华, 卢琦, 吴波, 等. 干旱区叶片形态特征与植物响应和适应的关系[J]. 植物生态学报, 2012, 36(1):88-98.
	LI Yonghua, LU Qi, WU Bo, et al. A review of leaf morphology plasticity linked to plant response and adaptation characteristics in arid ecosystems[J]. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 2012, 36(1):88-98. DOI URL
[5]	吴亚维, 郑伟, 杨华, 等. 4个苹果新品种(材料)叶片形态解剖结构与抗旱性综合评价[J]. 贵州农业科学, 2014, 42(11):217-221.
	WU Yawei, ZHENG Wei, YANG Hua, et al. Comprehensive evalution on leaf morphological anatomy structure and drought resistance of four new apple varieties/lines[J]. Guizhou Agricultural Sciences, 2014, 42(11):217-221.
[6]	樊卫国, 李迎春. 部分梨砧木的叶片组织结构与抗旱性的关系[J]. 果树学报, 2007, 25(1):17-21.
	FAN Weiguo, LI Yingchun. Study on the relationship between lamina anatomical structure and drought resistance of pear rootstocks[J]. Journal of Fruit Science, 2007, 25(1):17-21.
[7]	郭素娟, 武燕奇. 板栗叶片解剖结构特征及其与抗旱性的关系[J]. 西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版), 2018, 46(9):51-59.
	GUO Sujuan, WU Yanqi. Leaf anatomical structure characteristics and drought resistance of Chinese chestnut[J]. Journal of Northwest A & F University(Natural Science Edition), 2018, 46(9):51-59.
[8]	王金印, 郝喜龙, 刘志华. 葡萄叶片和根系解剖结构与抗旱性关系[J]. 北方园艺, 2017,(12):43-45.
	WANG Jinyin, HAO Xilong, LIU Zhihua. Relationship between anatomical structure of grape leaf and root and drought resistance[J]. Northern Horticulture, 2017,(12):43-45.
[9]	厉广辉, 张昆, 刘风珍, 等. 不同抗旱性花生品种的叶片形态及生理特性[J]. 中国农业科学, 2014, 47(4):644-654.
	LI Guanghui, ZHANG Kun, LIU Fengzhen, et al. Morphological and physiological traits of leaf in different drought resistant peanut cultivars[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2014, 47(4):644-654.
[10]	潘昕, 邱权, 李吉跃, 等. 基于叶片解剖结构对青藏高原25种灌木的抗旱性评价[J]. 华南农业大学学报, 2015, 36(2):61-68.
	PAN Xin, QIU Quan, LI Jiyue, et al. Drought resistance evaluation based on leaf anatomical structures of 25 shrubs on the Tibetan Plateau[J]. Journal of South China Agricultural University, 2015, 36(2):61-68.
[11]	王静, 刘海隆, 王玲. 气候变化背景下玛纳斯河流域绿洲适宜规模研究[J]. 干旱区地理, 2019, 42(1):113-120.
	WANG Jing, LIU Hailong, WANG Ling. Suitable oasis scale in Manas River Basin in the context of climate change[J]. Arid Land Geography, 2019, 42(1):113-120.
[12]	张蜀秋. 植物生理学实验技术教程[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2011.
	ZHANG Shuqiu. Plant physiology[M]. Beijing: Science Press, 2011.
[13]	Bouslama M, Schapaugh W T. Stress tolerance in soybeans. I. Evaluation of three screening techniques for heat and drought tolerance[J]. Crop Science, 1984, 24(5):933-937. DOI URL
[14]	方炎明. 植物学[M]. 北京: 中国林业出版社, 2006.
	FANG Yanming. Botany[M]. Beijing: China Forestry Press, 2006.
[15]	许雯博, 彭玉梅, 王清风, 等. 葡萄幼苗在PEG-6000模拟干旱胁迫条件下生理生化的响应[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2014, 51(8):1504-1511.
	XU Wenbo, PENG Yumei, WANG Qingfeng, et al. Response of polythylene glycol(PEG-6000) simulated water stress on characteristics of the physiological indicators in grape[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2014, 51(8):1504-1511.
[16]	MARSHALL J, RUTLEDGE R, BLUMWALD E, et al. Reduction in turgid water volume in jack pine, white spruce and black spruce in response to drought and paclobutrazol[J]. Tree Physiology, 2000, 20(10):701-707. PMID
[17]	潘学军, 张文娥, 杨秀永, 等. 贵州喀斯特山区野生葡萄实生苗抗旱机理研究[J]. 西北植物学报, 2010, 30(5):955-961.
	PAN Xuejun, ZHANG Wene, YANG Xiuyong, et al. Drought-resistance mechanism of four kinds of wild Vitis seedlings in karst regions of Guizhou province[J]. Acta Botanica Boreali-Occidentalia Sinica, 2010, 30(5):955-961.
[18]	R.H.WARING, S.W.RUNNING. Sapwood water storage: its contribution to transpiration and effect upon water conductance through the stems of old‐growth Douglas‐fir[J]. Plant Cell & Environment, 1978, 1:131-140.
[19]	孙琪, 蔡年辉, 和润喜, 等. 干旱胁迫下云南松苗木的水分及其生理变化[J]. 西部林业科学, 2017, 46(2):96-100.
	SUN Qi, CAI Nianhui, HE Runxi, et al. Effects of drought stress on the seedling physiology of Pinus yunnanensis Franch.[J]. Journal of West China Forestry Science, 2017, 46(2):96-100.
[20]	温国, 孙皓浦, 党江波, 等. 多倍体与二倍体枇杷叶片特征及抗旱性初步分析[J]. 果树学报, 2019, 36(8):968-979.
	WEN Guo, SUN Haopu, DANG Jiangbo, et al. A preliminary study on leaf characteristics and drought resistance of polyploid and diploid loquat[J]. Journal of Fruit Science, 2019, 36(8):968-979.
[21]	徐扬, 陈小红, 赵安玖. 川西高原4种苹果属植物叶片解剖结构与其抗旱性分析[J]. 西北植物学报, 2015, 35(11):2227-2234.
	XU Yang, CHEN Xiaohong, ZHAO Anjiu. Drought resistance evaluation and leaf anatomical structures of four species of Malus plants in Western Sichuan Plateau[J]. Acta Botanica Boreali-Occidentalia Sinica, 2015, 35(11):2227-2234.
[22]	孟庆杰, 王光全, 董绍锋, 等. 桃叶片组织解剖结构特征与其抗旱性关系的研究[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2004, 22(3):123-126.
	MENG Qingjie, WANG Guangquan, DONG Shaofeng, et al. Relation between leaf tissue parameters and drought resistance of peaches[J]. Agricultural Research in the Arid Areas, 2004, 22(3):123-126.
[23]	逯永满, 姜彦成. 中国海罂粟属(Glaucium L.)叶片特征及其抗旱性[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2010, 47(10):2063-2067.
	LU Yongman, JIANG Yancheng. Studies on characters and drought resistance of leaf of Chinese Glaucium L.[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2010, 47(10):2063-2067.
[24]	李嘉诚, 罗达, 史彦江, 等. 平欧杂种榛叶片解剖结构的抗旱性研究[J]. 西北植物学报, 2019, 39(3):462-471.
	LI Jiacheng, LUO Da, SHI Yanjiang, et al. Study on drought resistance of leaf anatomical structure of Corylus heterophylla×Corylus avellana[J]. Acta Botanica Boreali-Occidentalia Sinica, 2019, 39(3):462-471.

品种 Varieties	亲本 Parents	品种 Varieties	亲本 Parents
山河1号Amurensis×Riparia1	山葡萄×河岸葡萄	101-14MG	河岸葡萄×沙地葡萄
山河3号Amurensis×Riparia3	山葡萄×河岸葡萄	3309C	河岸葡萄×沙地葡萄
山河4号Amurensis×Riparia4	山葡萄×河岸葡萄	1103P	冬葡萄×沙地葡萄
河岸2号Riparia2	河岸葡萄	贝达Beta	河岸葡萄×美洲葡萄
河岸4号Riparia4	河岸葡萄	Dogridge	香宾尼葡萄
河岸7号Riparia7	河岸葡萄	5BB	冬葡萄×河岸葡萄
河岸9号Riparia9	河岸葡萄	光荣Riparia Glorie	河岸葡萄
河岸10号Riparia10	河岸葡萄	Ganzia	不详
1613C	Solonis和Othello

品种 Varieties	亲本 Parents	品种 Varieties	亲本 Parents
山河1号Amurensis×Riparia1	山葡萄×河岸葡萄	101-14MG	河岸葡萄×沙地葡萄
山河3号Amurensis×Riparia3	山葡萄×河岸葡萄	3309C	河岸葡萄×沙地葡萄
山河4号Amurensis×Riparia4	山葡萄×河岸葡萄	1103P	冬葡萄×沙地葡萄
河岸2号Riparia2	河岸葡萄	贝达Beta	河岸葡萄×美洲葡萄
河岸4号Riparia4	河岸葡萄	Dogridge	香宾尼葡萄
河岸7号Riparia7	河岸葡萄	5BB	冬葡萄×河岸葡萄
河岸9号Riparia9	河岸葡萄	光荣Riparia Glorie	河岸葡萄
河岸10号Riparia10	河岸葡萄	Ganzia	不详
1613C	Solonis和Othello

品种名称 Varieties name	叶片相对含水量 RWCL（%）		茎相对含水量 RWCS（%）
品种名称 Varieties name	CK	处理Treatment	CK	处理Treatment
101-14MG	76.99±3.90 ^Aabc	42.99±3.96 ^BCDdef	91.32±1.65 ^Aab	92.21±0.28 ^ABCDabcde
1613C	75.25 ±3.65 ^Aabc	51.45±1.87 ^ABCDabcde	82.06±4.55 ^Ab	94.60±2.47 ^ABCabc
3309C	77.83±5.87 ^Aabc	55.88±3.01 ^ABab	92.91±4.81 ^Aa	88.93±1.42 ^BCDdef
1103P	69.45±4.49 ^Aabc	61.26±5.93 ^Aa	85.42±6.54 ^Aab	93.17±3.39 ^ABCDabcd
贝达Beta	71.66±3.18 ^Aabc	51.08±3.30 ^ABCDabcde	87.67±5.24 ^Aab	97.37±1.08 ^Aa
Dogridge	78.64±3.14 ^Aab	49.85±4.40 ^ABCDbcdef	86.45±4.08 ^Aab	89.24±3.82 ^BCDEcdef
Ganzia	77.20±1.11^Aabc	40.38±4.59 ^Df	95.06±0.69 ^Aa	86.63±2.45 ^DEef
Riparia Glorie	79.76±4.40 ^Aab	44.31±4.93 ^BCDcdef	90.05±1.83 ^Aab	90.95±4.50 ^ABCDEbcdef
河岸10号Riparia10	76.13±5.13 ^Aabc	53.97±2.89 ^ABCDabc	86.35±1.01 ^Aab	95.51±1.94 ^ABab
河岸9号Riparia9	69.71±4.14 ^Aabc	56.37±2.43 ^ABab	86.72±2.48 ^Aab	96.25±1.24 ^ABab
河岸7号Riparia7	70.99±2.73 ^Aabc	46.46±3.88 ^BCDbcdef	95.43±2.36 ^Aa	87.81±1.85 ^CDEdef
河岸4号Riparia4	78.81±3.25 ^Aab	41.74±3.20 ^CDef	82.69±3.28 ^Ab	83.63±0.95 ^Eg
河岸2号Riparia2	78.37±2.44 ^Aab	54.58±1.32 ^ABCab	88.11±2.26 ^Aab	86.43±2.85 ^Df
山河4号Amurensis×Riparia4	68.50±4.37 ^Ac	52.26±5.61 ^ABCDabcd	92.96±1.30 ^Aa	96.42±0.20 ^ABab
山河3号Amurensis×Riparia3	79.95±3.29 ^Aa	47.61±3.24 ^ABCDbcdef	86.37±3.20 ^Aab	95.99±0.91 ^ABab
山河1号Amurensis×Riparia1	68.18±4.68 ^Abc	48.16±4.94 ^ABCDbcdef	87.45±3.17 ^Aab	91.71±3.15 ^ABCDbcdef
5BB	70.37±5.37 ^Aabc	56.38±2.35 ^ABab	87.19±0.88 ^Aab	90.97±2.74 ^ABCDEbcdef

品种名称 Varieties name	叶片相对含水量 RWCL（%）		茎相对含水量 RWCS（%）
品种名称 Varieties name	CK	处理Treatment	CK	处理Treatment
101-14MG	76.99±3.90 ^Aabc	42.99±3.96 ^BCDdef	91.32±1.65 ^Aab	92.21±0.28 ^ABCDabcde
1613C	75.25 ±3.65 ^Aabc	51.45±1.87 ^ABCDabcde	82.06±4.55 ^Ab	94.60±2.47 ^ABCabc
3309C	77.83±5.87 ^Aabc	55.88±3.01 ^ABab	92.91±4.81 ^Aa	88.93±1.42 ^BCDdef
1103P	69.45±4.49 ^Aabc	61.26±5.93 ^Aa	85.42±6.54 ^Aab	93.17±3.39 ^ABCDabcd
贝达Beta	71.66±3.18 ^Aabc	51.08±3.30 ^ABCDabcde	87.67±5.24 ^Aab	97.37±1.08 ^Aa
Dogridge	78.64±3.14 ^Aab	49.85±4.40 ^ABCDbcdef	86.45±4.08 ^Aab	89.24±3.82 ^BCDEcdef
Ganzia	77.20±1.11^Aabc	40.38±4.59 ^Df	95.06±0.69 ^Aa	86.63±2.45 ^DEef
Riparia Glorie	79.76±4.40 ^Aab	44.31±4.93 ^BCDcdef	90.05±1.83 ^Aab	90.95±4.50 ^ABCDEbcdef
河岸10号Riparia10	76.13±5.13 ^Aabc	53.97±2.89 ^ABCDabc	86.35±1.01 ^Aab	95.51±1.94 ^ABab
河岸9号Riparia9	69.71±4.14 ^Aabc	56.37±2.43 ^ABab	86.72±2.48 ^Aab	96.25±1.24 ^ABab
河岸7号Riparia7	70.99±2.73 ^Aabc	46.46±3.88 ^BCDbcdef	95.43±2.36 ^Aa	87.81±1.85 ^CDEdef
河岸4号Riparia4	78.81±3.25 ^Aab	41.74±3.20 ^CDef	82.69±3.28 ^Ab	83.63±0.95 ^Eg
河岸2号Riparia2	78.37±2.44 ^Aab	54.58±1.32 ^ABCab	88.11±2.26 ^Aab	86.43±2.85 ^Df
山河4号Amurensis×Riparia4	68.50±4.37 ^Ac	52.26±5.61 ^ABCDabcd	92.96±1.30 ^Aa	96.42±0.20 ^ABab
山河3号Amurensis×Riparia3	79.95±3.29 ^Aa	47.61±3.24 ^ABCDbcdef	86.37±3.20 ^Aab	95.99±0.91 ^ABab
山河1号Amurensis×Riparia1	68.18±4.68 ^Abc	48.16±4.94 ^ABCDbcdef	87.45±3.17 ^Aab	91.71±3.15 ^ABCDbcdef
5BB	70.37±5.37 ^Aabc	56.38±2.35 ^ABab	87.19±0.88 ^Aab	90.97±2.74 ^ABCDEbcdef

品种名称 Varieties name	叶片相对电导率 RECL（%）		茎相对电导率 RECS（%）
品种名称 Varieties name	CK	处理Treatment	CK	处理Treatment
101-14MG	19.16±2.50 ^Aa	51.62±3.09 ^ABabcd	8.86±1.19 ^Ce	41.18±3.46 ^ABabcd
1613C	14.28±0.48 ^Aabc	42.67±3.85 ^CDEabcdef	11.26±2.60 ^BCbcde	36.73±2.99 ^ABCbcd
3309C	12.64±2.58 ^Ac	37.86±2.82 ^Edef	13.81±0.80 ^ABCbcde	37.12±2.42 ^ABCcde
1103P	19.13±3.88 ^Abc	39.28±2.95 ^ABabcd	11.74±1.62 ^BCbcde	34.36±2.66 ^Ce
贝达Beta	19.61±2.75 ^Aabc	48.02±3.88 ^Aab	19.10±2.89 ^Aa	44.62±3.81 ^ABabc
Dogridge	12.10±0.42 ^Aabc	41.68±3.87 ^Eef	15.35±1.59 ^ABCabc	41.81±2.74 ^ABabcd
Ganzia	11.89±1.40 ^Aabc	45.33±2.09 ^Eef	12.87±2.29 ^ABCbcde	46.74±3.75 ^Aab
Riparia Glorie	13.54±0.28 ^Aabc	45.32±3.11 ^DEbcdef	13.21±0.56 ^ABCbcde	45.05±2.39 ^ABabc
河岸10号Riparia10	18.26±1.84 ^Aabc	44.17±2.55 ^ABCDabcde	14.17±3.55 ^ABCbcd	38.38±3.18 ^ABCbcd
河岸9号Riparia9	14.54±1.69^Ac	38.30±1.95 ^BCDEabcdef	13.87±1.29 ^ABCbcde	37.08±3.53 ^ABCcde
河岸7号Riparia7	18.05±2.32 ^Aabc	49.49±2.80 ^ABCDabcde	13.47±3.75 ^ABCbcde	45.29±2.67 ^ABabc
河岸4号Riparia4	17.94±0.66 ^Aab	50.74±3.03 ^ABCDabcde	14.58±1.32 ^ABCabc	48.29±2.61 ^Aa
河岸2号Riparia2	12.72±2.42 ^Abc	39.30±3.11 ^Ecdef	9.31±1.01 ^Cde	33.86±2.07 ^BCde
山河4号Amurensis×Riparia4	19.23±2.90 ^Aabc	46.44±2.84 ^ABabc	11.26±0.82 ^BCbcde	36.28±2.61 ^ABCcde
山河3号Amurensis×Riparia3	18.77±0.52 ^Aabc	49.97±2.85 ^ABCabcd	9.20±0.42 ^Cde	39.12±3.60 ^ABCabcd
山河1号Amurensis×Riparia1	10.70±2.06 ^Aabc	40.63±2.69 ^Ee	16.18±2.64 ^ABab	44.16±2.46 ^ABabc
5BB	20.46±2.01 ^Aabc	42.75±1.13^Aa	11.06±2.75 ^BCcde	32.79±2.53 ^BCde