Optimization of Salt Tolerance Identification System at Germination Stage of Flax and Comprehensive Assessment of Salt Tolerance of 150 Germplasms

doi:10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2022.06.015

Abstract

Abstract:

【Objective】 This study aims to optimize flax germination salt tolerance identification system and the comprehensive evaluation of germplasm resources of salt resistance, salt resistance for flax germplasm resources evaluation and salt-tolerant varieties to lay the relevant foundation.【Method】 This study selects the shoot long, root length and germination rate as flax germination salt resistance identification of phenotypic traits. Firstly, 30 flax germplasm were treated with 13 NaCl concentration gradients, and the stress concentration was determined by analyzing the changes of different indexes. Then, 150 flax germplasm were stressed with the determined concentration, and the relative shoot length, relative root length and relative germination rate were counted respectively. The salt tolerance of tested flax in germination stage was comprehensively evaluated by membership function method, and the salt tolerance grade was divided by cluster analysis.【Result】 The appropriate NaCl concentration is 100 mmol/L when the relative shoot length or relative root length is taken as the index, and 220 mmol/L when the relative germination rate is taken as the index; the 150 flax germplasm were divided into five salt tolerance grades: 3 high-tolerance, 36 tolerance, 67 moderate-tolerance, 33 sensitivity and 11 high-sensitivity; all indexes of oil flax subgroup were significantly higher than those of fiber flax and dual-purpose flax. 【Conclusion】 The optimum screening concentration of different salt tolerance indexes is different. Three selected flax germplasm with high tolerance can be used for salt tolerance breeding and follow-up research. Oil flax is more salt-tolerant than dual-purpose flax and fiber flax.

Key words: flax (Linum usitatissimum L.); germination stage; salt-tolerance; concentration screening; comprehensive evaluation

摘要：

【目的】 优化亚麻萌发期耐盐鉴定体系并综合评价种质资源耐盐性,为亚麻种质资源耐盐性评价及耐盐品种培育奠定基础。【方法】 选用芽长、根长和发芽率作为亚麻萌发期耐盐性鉴定的表型性状。利用13个NaCl浓度梯度胁迫处理30份亚麻种质,分析不同指标变化确定胁迫浓度。用确定的浓度对150份亚麻种质进行胁迫,分别统计相对芽长、相对根长和相对发芽率,利用隶属函数法对供试亚麻萌发期耐盐性进行综合评价,结合聚类分析划分耐盐等级。【结果】 以相对芽长或相对根长为指标时适宜的NaCl胁迫浓度为100 mmol/L,以相对发芽率为指标时适宜的NaCl胁迫浓度为220 mmol/L;150份亚麻种质分划为5个耐盐等级:高耐3份、耐盐36份、中耐67份、敏感33份、高敏11份;油用亚麻亚群中各指标均显著高于纤维亚麻和兼用亚麻。【结论】 不同耐盐指标的最适筛选浓度不同。筛选出的3份高耐亚麻种质可用于亚麻耐盐育种及后续研究。油用亚麻相比兼用和纤用亚麻更耐盐。

关键词: 亚麻, 萌发期, 耐盐性, 浓度筛选, 综合评价

CLC Number:

S563.2

LI Xiao, GUO Dongliang, LI Gongze, XUE Min, JIANG Haixia, YE Jiali, XIE Liqiong. Optimization of Salt Tolerance Identification System at Germination Stage of Flax and Comprehensive Assessment of Salt Tolerance of 150 Germplasms[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 59(6): 1438-1449.

李枭, 郭栋良, 李恭泽, 薛敏, 江海霞, 叶佳丽, 谢丽琼. 亚麻萌发期耐盐鉴定体系优化及150份种质耐盐性综合评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(6): 1438-1449.

Figures/Tables 9

References 27

[1]	廖岩, 彭友贵, 陈桂珠. 植物耐盐性机理研究进展[J]. 生态学报, 2007,(5): 2077-2089.
	LIAO Yan, PENG Yougui, CHEN Guizhu. Research advances in plant salt-tolerance mechanism[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2007,(5): 2077-2089.
[2]	吴淑杭, 周德平, 姜震方. 盐碱地改良与利用研究进展[J]. 上海农业科技, 2007,(2): 23-25.
	WU Shuhang, ZHOU Deping, JIANG Zhenfang. Research progress on improvement and utilization of saline-alkali land[J]. Shanghai Agricultural Science and Technology, 2007,(2): 23-25.
[3]	李彬, 王志春, 孙志高, 等. 中国盐碱地资源与可持续利用研究[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2005,(2): 154-158.
	LI Bin, WANG Zhichun, SUN Zhigao, et al. Resources and sustainable resource exploitation of salinized land in China[J]. Agricultural Research in the Arid Areas, 2005,(2): 154-158.
[4]	杨真, 王宝山. 中国盐渍土资源现状及改良利用对策[J]. 山东农业科学, 2015, 47(4): 125-130.
	YANG Zhen, WANG Baoshan. Present Status of Saline Soil Resources andCountermeasures for Improvement and Utilization in China[J]. Shandong Agricultural Sciences, 2015, 47(4): 125-130.
[5]	赵利, 赵玮, 李闻娟, 等. 不同环境下胡麻脂肪酸含量的遗传分析[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2018, 36(6): 48-55.
	ZHAO Li, ZHAO Wei, LI Wenjuan, et al. Genetic analysis of fatty acid contents in flax (Linum usitatissimun L.) grown under different environmental conditions[J]. Agricultural Research in the Arid Areas, 2018, 36(6): 48-55.
[6]	郭媛, 邱财生, 龙松华, 等. 盐碱胁迫对不同地区亚麻主栽品种种子萌发的影响[J]. 种子, 2013, 32(12): 1-5.
	GUO Yuan, QIU Caisheng, LONG Songhua, et al. The Effect of Salinity-Alkalinity Stress on Seed Cermination of Main FlaxCultivars in Different Region ( Linum usitatissimum L.)[J]. Seed, 2013, 32(12): 1-5.
[7]	于莹, 程莉莉, 赵东升, 等. 亚麻品种萌发期耐盐性鉴定[J]. 黑龙江农业科学, 2015,(1): 1-5.
	YU Ying, CHENG Lili, ZHAO Dongsheng, et al. Salt Tolerance Identification of FlaxVarieties at Germination Stage[J]. Heilongjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2015,(1): 1-5.
[8]	Zaghdoudi M, Baatour O, Bensalem N, et al. Effect of saline conditions on germination and enzymatic activity in two varieties of Linum usitatissimum seeds[J]. Journal of New Sciences, 2015, 20(1):780-787.
[9]	Datir S S. Salt-Induced Physiological and Biochemical Changes in two varieties of Linum usitatissimum L.[J]. International Journal of Current Microbiology & Applied Sciences, 2015, 4(9): 296-304.
[10]	赵玮, 齐燕妮, 张建平, 等. 胡麻资源萌发期耐盐综合性评价[J]. 植物研究, 2019, 39(6): 955-963.
	ZHAO Wei, QI Yanni, ZHANG Jianping, et al. Comprehensive Evaluation for Salinity Tolerance of Flax Resources During Germination[J]. Bulletin of Botanical Research, 2019. 39(6): 955-963.
[11]	Guo D, Jiang H, Yan W, et al. Resequencing 200 Flax Cultivated Accessions Identifies Candidate Genes Related to Seed Size and Weight and Reveals Signatures of Artificial Selection[J]. Frontiers in Plant Science, 2020, 10: 1682. DOI URL
[12]	郭栋良, 江海霞, 钟俐, 等. 不同地区亚麻萌发期耐盐碱性遗传多样性分析[J]. 新疆大学学报(自然科学版), 2018, 35(3): 360-365.
	GUO Dongliang, JIANG Haixia, ZHONG Li, et al. Genetic Diversity Analysis of Saline-alkali Tolerance of Flax(Linum Usitatissimum L.) from Different Regions during theGermination Period[J]. Journal of Xinjiang University(Natural Science Ed.), 2018, 35(3): 360-365.
[13]	陈新, 张宗文, 吴斌. 裸燕麦萌发期耐盐性综合评价与耐盐种质筛选[J]. 中国农业科学, 2014, 47(10): 2038-2046.
	CHEN Xin, ZHANG Zongwen, WU Bin. Comprehensive Evaluation of Salt Tolerance and Screening for Salt Tolerant Accessions of Naked Oat (Avena nuda L.)at Germination Stage[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2014, 47(10): 2038-2046.
[14]	马晓军, 金峰学, 杨姗, 等. 作物耐盐碱数量性状基因座(QTL)定位[J]. 分子植物育种, 2015, 13(1): 221-227.
	MA Xiaojun, JIN Fengxue, YANG Shan, et al. Mapping QTLs for Salt & Alkaline Tolerance in Crops[J]. Molecular Plant Breeding, 2015, 13(1): 221-227.
[15]	郭远, 王文成, 徐颖莹, 等. 植物耐盐评价方法综述[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2017, 45(23): 18-23.
	GUO Yuan, WANG Wencheng, XU Yingying, et al. Plant salt tolerance evaluation methods were reviewed[J]. Jiangsu Agricultural Sciences, 2017, 45(23): 18-23.
[16]	张笛, 苗兴芬, 王雨婷. 100份谷子品种资源萌发期耐盐性评价及耐盐品种筛选[J]. 作物杂志, 2019,(6): 43-49.
	ZHANG Di, MIAO Xingfen, WANG Yuting. Evaluation and Screening of Salt Tolerance in 100 Foxtail Millet at Germination Stage[J]. Crops, 2019,(6): 43-49.
[17]	荆瑞勇, 王丽艳, 郑桂萍, 等. 水稻萌发期和幼苗期耐盐性鉴定指标筛选及综合评价[J]. 黑龙江八一农垦大学学报, 2019, 31(6): 1-6,19.
	JING Ruiyong, WANG Liyan, ZHENG Guiping, et al. Comprehensive Assessment and Selection of Identification Index of Rice Salt Tolerance at Germination Stage and Seedling Stage[J]. Journal of Heilongjiang Bayi Agricultural University, 2019, 31(6): 1-6,19.
[18]	陶金, 侯龙鱼, 杨杰, 等. 燕麦萌发耐盐性及指标筛选[J]. 草业科学, 2018, 35(10): 2414-2421.
	TAO Jin, HOU Longyu, YANG Jie, et al. Comparative studies on seed germination characteristics and indicators of oat varieties under salt stress[J]. Pratacultural Science, 2018, 35(10): 2414-2421.
[19]	张玉娟, 游均, 刘爱丽, 等. 芝麻发芽期耐盐性鉴定方法研究及耐盐候选基因的挖掘[J]. 中国农业科学, 2018, 51(12): 2235-2247.
	ZHANG Yujuan, YOU Jun, LIU Aili, et al. Screening Method for Salt Tolerance in Sesame (Sesamum indicum L.) and Identification of Candidate Salt-Tolerant Genes[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2018, 51(12): 2235-2247.
[20]	Qayyum M A, Akhtar J, Saqib Z A, et al. Phenotyping of linseed (Linum usitatissimum L.) genotypes for potential against NaCl stress[J]. Soil Environ, 2015, 34(2):200-206.
[21]	Moghaddam M, Babaei K, Pooya E S. Germination and growth response of flax (Linum usitatissimum) to salinity stress by different salt types and concentrations[J]. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 2018, 41(5): 563-573. DOI URL
[22]	张海艳. 不同品种玉米萌发期和苗期耐盐性综合评价[J]. 玉米科学, 2016, 24(5): 61-67.
	ZHANG Haiyan. Comprehensive Evaluation of Salt Tolerance of Different Corn Varieties at the Germination and Seedling Stages[J]. Journal of Maize Sciences, 2016, 24(5): 61-67.
[23]	慈敦伟, 杨吉顺, 丁红, 等. 盐胁迫对花生植株形态建成及物质积累的影响[J]. 花生学报, 2018, 47(1): 11-18.
	CI Dunwei, YANG Jishun, DING Hong, et al. Effects of Salt Stress on Plant Morphogenesis and Matter Accumulation of Peanut[J]. Journal of Peanut Science, 2018, 47(1): 11-18.
[24]	胡涛, 张鸽香, 郑福超, 等. 植物盐胁迫响应的研究进展[J]. 分子植物育种, 2018, 16(9): 3006-3015.
	HU Tao, ZHANG Gexiang, ZHEN Fuchao, et al. Research Progress in Plant Salt Stress Response[J]. Molecular Plant Breeding, 2018, 16(9): 3006-3015.
[25]	徐恒恒, 黎妮, 刘树君, 等. 种子萌发及其调控的研究进展[J]. 作物学报, 2014, 40(7): 1141-1156.
	XU Hengheng, LI Ni, LIU Shujun, et al. Research Progress in Seed Germination and Its Control[J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2014, 40(7): 1141-1156. DOI URL
[26]	Demissew Sertse, Frank M.You, Sridhar Ravichandran, et al. The genetic structure of flax illustrates environmental and anthropogenic selections that gave rise to its eco-geographical adaptation[J]. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 2019, 137:22-32. DOI PMID
[27]	Allaby R G, Peterson G W, Merriwether D A, et al. Evidence of the domestication history of flax ( Linum usitatissimum L.) from genetic diversity of the sad2 locus[J]. Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 2005, 112(1):58-65. DOI URL PMID

处理浓度 (mmol/L)	鉴定指标 Indicators	最大值 Max	最小值 Min	全距 Range	平均值 Average	标准差 Std.	变异系数 CV(%)
50	RSL	1.60	0.40	1.20	0.79	0.27	33.52
	RRL	1.00	0.36	0.65	0.71	0.12	16.94
	RGR	1.09	0.92	0.17	1.00	0.04	4.30
75	RSL	1.21	0.15	1.06	0.48	0.24	50.26
	RRL	0.74	0.17	0.57	0.43	0.17	39.48
	RGR	1.09	0.85	0.24	0.99	0.05	5.34
100	RSL	0.94	0.11	0.83	0.33	0.20	60.73
	RRL	0.70	0.07	0.63	0.18	0.13	70.59
	RGR	1.09	0.90	0.19	1.00	0.05	4.94
125	RSL	0.43	0.06	0.37	0.19	0.10	51.85
	RRL	0.28	0.04	0.24	0.09	0.05	57.06
	RGR	1.09	0.80	0.29	0.96	0.07	7.15
150	RSL	0.32	0.03	0.28	0.12	0.06	52.40
	RRL	0.14	0.03	0.11	0.05	0.02	44.43
	RGR	1.04	0.66	0.38	0.95	0.08	8.44
175	RSL	0.12	0.03	0.09	0.06	0.02	34.59
	RRL	0.06	0.01	0.04	0.03	0.01	29.31
	RGR	1.00	0.24	0.76	0.81	0.18	21.66
200	RGR	1.02	0.13	0.89	0.75	0.21	27.71
210	RGR	0.98	0.06	0.92	0.54	0.26	48.20
220	RGR	0.90	0.00	0.90	0.40	0.23	58.55
230	RGR	0.86	0.00	0.86	0.29	0.22	75.50
240	RGR	0.82	0.00	0.82	0.16	0.18	114.85
250	RGR	0.78	0.00	0.78	0.08	0.15	191.57

处理浓度 (mmol/L)	鉴定指标 Indicators	最大值 Max	最小值 Min	全距 Range	平均值 Average	标准差 Std.	变异系数 CV(%)
50	RSL	1.60	0.40	1.20	0.79	0.27	33.52
	RRL	1.00	0.36	0.65	0.71	0.12	16.94
	RGR	1.09	0.92	0.17	1.00	0.04	4.30
75	RSL	1.21	0.15	1.06	0.48	0.24	50.26
	RRL	0.74	0.17	0.57	0.43	0.17	39.48
	RGR	1.09	0.85	0.24	0.99	0.05	5.34
100	RSL	0.94	0.11	0.83	0.33	0.20	60.73
	RRL	0.70	0.07	0.63	0.18	0.13	70.59
	RGR	1.09	0.90	0.19	1.00	0.05	4.94
125	RSL	0.43	0.06	0.37	0.19	0.10	51.85
	RRL	0.28	0.04	0.24	0.09	0.05	57.06
	RGR	1.09	0.80	0.29	0.96	0.07	7.15
150	RSL	0.32	0.03	0.28	0.12	0.06	52.40
	RRL	0.14	0.03	0.11	0.05	0.02	44.43
	RGR	1.04	0.66	0.38	0.95	0.08	8.44
175	RSL	0.12	0.03	0.09	0.06	0.02	34.59
	RRL	0.06	0.01	0.04	0.03	0.01	29.31
	RGR	1.00	0.24	0.76	0.81	0.18	21.66
200	RGR	1.02	0.13	0.89	0.75	0.21	27.71
210	RGR	0.98	0.06	0.92	0.54	0.26	48.20
220	RGR	0.90	0.00	0.90	0.40	0.23	58.55
230	RGR	0.86	0.00	0.86	0.29	0.22	75.50
240	RGR	0.82	0.00	0.82	0.16	0.18	114.85
250	RGR	0.78	0.00	0.78	0.08	0.15	191.57

鉴定指标 Identification index	对照 Control					处理Treatment
鉴定指标 Identification index	最大值 Max	最小值 Min	平均值 Average	标准差 Std.	变异系数 CV(%)	最大值 Max	最小值 Min	平均值 Average	标准差 Std.	变异系数 CV(%)
SL(mm)	56.83	15.22	40.32	7.66	19.01	22.47	1.48	7.42	3.79	51.13
RL(mm)	93.83	29.33	66.37	12.11	18.25	37.47	2.15	12.86	6.71	52.14
GR(%)	100.00	44.00	91.96	7.17	7.79	90.00	2.00	56.03	22.16	39.56

鉴定指标 Identification index	对照 Control					处理Treatment
鉴定指标 Identification index	最大值 Max	最小值 Min	平均值 Average	标准差 Std.	变异系数 CV(%)	最大值 Max	最小值 Min	平均值 Average	标准差 Std.	变异系数 CV(%)
SL(mm)	56.83	15.22	40.32	7.66	19.01	22.47	1.48	7.42	3.79	51.13
RL(mm)	93.83	29.33	66.37	12.11	18.25	37.47	2.15	12.86	6.71	52.14
GR(%)	100.00	44.00	91.96	7.17	7.79	90.00	2.00	56.03	22.16	39.56

项目Item	RSL	RRL	RGR	μ(RSL)	μ(RRL)	μ(RGR)
最小值Min	0.036 1	0.039 4	0.027 0	0.000 0	0.000 0	0.000 0
最大值Max	0.615 7	0.601 0	0.954 5	1.000 0	1.000 0	1.000 0
平均值Average	0.190 5	0.197 5	0.606 6	0.266 5	0.281 5	0.624 8
标准差Std.	0.098 4	0.103 2	0.230 1	0.169 7	0.183 8	0.248 1
变异系数 CV	0.516 3	0.522 8	0.379 4	0.636 9	0.653 1	0.397 1
权重 Weight	-	-	-	0.364 0	0.368 6	0.267 5