Physiological responses of new sugarcane lines to drought stress and evaluation of their drought resistances
-
摘要:目的
探究甘蔗10个优良新品系的抗旱性能，为抗旱品种选育及推广应用提供科学依据。
方法在人工干旱胁迫和正常供水处理下测定甘蔗伸长初期的根系活力，叶片脯氨酸、可溶性蛋白、可溶性糖、丙二醛(MDA)含量，叶片超氧化物歧化酶(SOD)、过氧化物酶(POD)、过氧化氢酶(CAT)活性8项生理指标的变化；采用主成分分析与聚类分析方法综合评价甘蔗伸长初期的抗旱性。
结果受干旱胁迫后，甘蔗根系活力降低，叶片可溶性蛋白、可溶性糖、脯氨酸、MDA含量升高，叶片SOD、POD、CAT活性增强。聚类分析将包括对照品种ROC22在内的11个甘蔗品系分成抗旱性强、中度抗旱和抗旱性弱3类。抗旱性强的新品系为A6−13115和A3−1320，中度抗旱的新品系为A13−1396和A6−13122，抗旱性弱的新品系为A6−13111、A11−1390、A1−1305、A7−13120、A7−13104和A4−1316。
结论采用主成分和聚类分析方法对多个指标综合评价能提高甘蔗抗旱评价的可靠性、准确性。甘蔗新品系A6−13115和A3−13120抗旱性强。
Abstract:ObjectiveTo explore the drought resistances of 10 fine sugarcane lines and provide references for breeding, popularization and application of drought resistant cultivars.
MethodChanges of sugarcane root vitality, leaf proline and soluble protein and soluble sugar contents, leaf superoxide dismutase (SOD), peroxidase (POD), catalase (CAT) activities at early elongation stage were measured under artificial drought stress and normal water supply treatments. Principal component analysis and cluster analysis were used to comprehensively evaluate the drought resistances of sugarcane lines at early elongation stage.
ResultUnder drought stress, root activities of tested sugarcane lines decreased, while the contents of leaf soluble protein, soluble sugar, proline and malondialdehyde increased, as well as the activities of leaf SOD, POD and CAT . Cluster analysis divided 11 sugarcane lines including the control cultivar ROC22 into three categories, including strong drought resistance, moderate drought resistance and weak drought resistance. New sugarcane lines with strong drought resistance were A6-13115 and A3-1320, with moderate drought resistance were A13-1396 and A6-13122, with weak drought resistance were A6-13111, A11-1390, A1-1305, A7-13120, A7-13104 and A4-1316.
ConclusionUsing principal component analysis and cluster analysis, the comprehensive evaluation of multiple indicators, and can improve the reliability and accuracy of sugarcane drought resistance evaluation. New sugarcane lines A6-13115 and A3-1320 have strong drought resistance.
-
-
![]()
图 1 干旱胁迫对甘蔗根系活力的影响
相同品系(品种)柱形图上的不同小写字母，表示差异显著(P<0.05，Duncan’ s法)
Figure 1. Effect of drought stress on root vitality of sugarcane
Different lowercase letters on bars of the same sugarcane line (cultivar) indicate significant differences (P<0.05, Duncan’ s method)
![]()
图 2 干旱胁迫对甘蔗叶片渗透调节物质含量和抗氧化酶活性的影响
各图中相同性状相同品系(品种)柱形图上的不同小写字母，表示差异显著(P<0.05，Duncan’ s法)
Figure 2. Effects of drought stress on osmotic regulating substance content and antioxidant enzyme activity in sugarcane leaves
Different lowercase letters on bars of the same trait and line (cultivar) in each figure indicate significant differences (P<0.05, Duncan’ s method)
![]()
图 3 干旱胁迫对甘蔗叶片MDA含量的影响
相同品系(品种)柱形图上的不同小写字母，表示差异显著(P<0.05，Duncan’ s法)
Figure 3. Effect of drought stress on MDA content in sugarcane leaves
Different lowercase letters on bars of the same line (cultivar) indicate significant differences (P<0.05, Duncan’ s method)
![]()
图 4 基于D值的不同甘蔗品系抗旱性聚类分析
H：抗旱性强；M：中度抗旱；L：抗旱性弱
Figure 4. Drought resistance clustering analyses of different sugarcane lines based on D values
H：High drought resistance；M：Medium drought resistance；L：Low drought resistance
表 1 甘蔗品系各单项指标的抗旱系数
Table 1 Drought resistance coefficient for each individual indicator of sugarcane lines
% 品系
Line根系活力
Root activityw(可溶性蛋白)
Soluble protein contentw(可溶性糖)
Soluble sugar contentw(脯氨酸)
Proline contentSOD活性
SOD activityPOD活性
POD activityCAT活性
CAT activityb(MDA)
MDA contentA6−13115 54.28 148.88 168.17 160.87 195.48 174.42 118.83 186.03 A3−1320 64.79 163.23 185.45 176.92 181.38 159.45 120.10 168.60 A6−13111 56.81 134.78 140.18 153.14 166.04 135.24 113.82 117.97 A13−1396 53.33 130.56 157.28 163.88 179.55 152.22 117.89 184.74 A1−1305 47.64 132.09 158.66 128.31 132.78 125.59 111.03 119.73 A11−1390 57.84 131.50 161.01 142.47 154.76 144.48 114.01 111.45 A7−13120 48.30 128.24 122.47 134.36 141.13 124.09 109.70 146.73 A6−13122 67.15 130.01 151.96 165.32 170.19 158.70 128.36 159.61 A7−13104 52.69 125.66 136.60 146.59 132.39 127.89 112.05 133.73 A4−1316 46.63 124.63 133.94 122.63 148.11 133.02 112.46 120.99 ROC22 65.35 153.54 161.69 157.26 163.16 165.51 123.90 121.85 
下载: 导出CSV
表 2 各综合指标的系数及贡献率
Table 2 Coefficient and contribution rate of each comprehensive indicator
生理指标
Physiological index主成分 Principal component CI1 CI2 根系活力 Root activity 0.34 −0.50 可溶性蛋白含量 Soluble protein content 0.34 −0.19 可溶性糖含量 Soluble sugar content 0.34 −0.13 脯氨酸含量 Proline content 0.39 0.06 SOD活性 SOD activity 0.37 0.33 POD活性 POD activity 0.40 0.04 CAT活性 CAT activity 0.36 −0.22 MDA含量 MDA content 0.27 0.73 特征值 Characteristic value 5.49 1.01 贡献率/% Contribution rate 68.62 12.64 累积贡献率/% Cumulative contribution rate 68.62 81.26
下载: 导出CSV
表 3 甘蔗品系的综合指标值、Wj值、UXj值、D值及排序
Table 3 The comprehensive index values, Wj values, UXj values, D values and ranking of tested sugarcane lines
品系 Line CI1 CI2 UX1 UX2 D 排序 Rank A6−13115 2.64 1.45 0.86 0.96 0.879 2 A3−1320 3.53 −0.23 1.00 0.43 0.886 1 A6−13111 −0.72 −0.40 0.32 0.38 0.333 6 A13−1396 1.11 1.57 0.61 1.00 0.691 3 A1−1305 −2.41 −0.37 0.05 0.39 0.118 10 A11−1390 −0.65 −0.93 0.33 0.21 0.308 7 A7−13120 −2.73 0.78 0.00 0.75 0.150 9 A6−13122 2.05 −0.40 0.76 0.38 0.687 4 A7−13104 −2.10 −0.06 0.10 0.49 0.178 8 A4−1316 −2.71 0.19 0.00 0.56 0.115 11 ROC22 1.99 −1.60 0.75 0.00 0.603 5 Wj 0.84 0.16
下载: 导出CSV
-
[1] 王继华, 张木清, 曹干. 甘蔗抗旱育种研究进展[J]. 广东农业科学, 2010, 37(12): 34-51. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-874X.2010.12.012 [2] 毕黎明, 刘伟丽, 李杨瑞. 甘蔗抗旱性研究进展与展望[J]. 南方农业学报, 2006, 37(5): 522-527. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.2095-1191.2006.05.015 [3] 边芯, 郎荣斌, 桃联安, 等. 干旱胁迫对持绿性甘蔗细茎野生种叶片生理和生物量的影响[J]. 中国糖料, 2017, 39(3): 5-8. [4] 谢金兰, 吴建明, 黄杏, 等. 我国甘蔗新品种(系)的抗旱性研究[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2015, 43(3): 108-112. [5] SANCHEZ F J, MANZANARES M, DE ANDRES E F, et al. Turgor maintenance, osmotic adjustment and soluble sugar and proline accumulation in 49 pea cultivars in response to water stress[J]. Field Crops Res, 1998, 59(3): 225-235. doi: 10.1016/S0378-4290(98)00125-7
[6] 刘艳, 陈贵林, 蔡贵芳, 等. 干旱胁迫对甘草幼苗生长和渗透调节物质含量的影响[J]. 西北植物学报, 2011, 31(11): 2259-2264. [7] 刘瑞显, 王友华, 陈兵林, 等. 花铃期干旱胁迫下氮素水平对棉花光合作用与叶绿素荧光特性的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2008, 34(4): 675-683. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0496-3490.2008.04.020 [8] 张绪成, 上官周平. 不同抗旱性小麦叶片膜脂过氧化的氮素调控机制[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2007, 13(1): 106-112. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1008-505X.2007.01.018 [9] 潘相文, 李文滨, 李艳华, 等. 主成分分析在大豆抗旱性评价上的应用[J]. 大豆科学, 2006, 25(4): 379-382. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-9841.2006.04.009 [10] 胡树平, 苏治军, 于晓芳, 等. 玉米自交系抗旱相关性状的主成分分析与模糊聚类[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2016, 34(6): 81-88. doi: 10.7606/j.issn.1000-7601.2016.06.13 [11] 陈云风. 不同水稻杂交组合根系活力及其产量相关性[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2015, 43(12): 93-94. [12] 高俊凤. 植物生理学实验指导[M]. 西安: 世界图书出版社, 2006: 142-143. [13] 刘海英, 王华华, 崔长海, 等. 可溶性糖含量测定(蒽酮法)实验的改进[J]. 实验室科学, 2013, 16(2): 19-20. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-4305.2013.02.007 [14] 张志良, 瞿伟菁. 植物生理学实验指导 [M]. (3版). 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2003: 123-124. [15] HAMMERSCHMIDT R, NUCKLES E M, KUĆ J. Association of enhanced peroxidase activity with induced systemic resistance of cucumber to Colletotrichum lagenarium[J]. Physiol Plant Pathol, 1982, 20(1): 73-76. doi: 10.1016/0048-4059(82)90025-X
[16] 职明星, 李秀菊. 脯氨酸测定方法的改进[J]. 河南科技学院学报(自然科学版), 2005, 33(4): 10-12. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-6060-B.2005.04.003 [17] 张志良, 瞿伟菁, 李小方. 植物生理学实验指导 [M]. (4版). 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2009: 212-213. [18] 胡标林, 余守武, 万勇, 等. 东乡普通野生稻全生育期抗旱性鉴定[J]. 作物学报, 2007, 33(3): 425-432. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0496-3490.2007.03.012 [19] 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. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0578-1752.2003.11.026 [20] 刘莹, 盖钧镒, 吕慧能,等. 大豆耐旱种质鉴定和相关根系性状的遗传与QTL定位[J]. 遗传学报, 2005, 32(8): 855-863. [21] 杨瑰丽, 杨美娜, 黄翠红, 等. 水稻幼穗分化期的抗旱性研究与综合评价[J]. 华北农学报, 2015, 30(6): 140-145. doi: 10.7668/hbnxb.2015.06.021 [22] 徐建欣, 杨洁, 徐志军. 海南山栏稻品种全生育期抗旱性鉴定与评价[J]. 热带作物学报, 2018, 39(1): 55-60. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2561.2018.01.009 [23] 白志英, 李存东, 孙红春, 等. 小麦代换系抗旱生理指标的主成分分析及综合评价[J]. 中国农业科学, 2008, 41(12): 4264-4272. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2008.12.043 [24] DEVI M A, GIRIDHAR P. Variations in physiological response, lipid peroxidation, antioxidant enzyme activities, proline and isoflavones content in soybean varieties subjected to drought stress[J]. Proc Natl Acad Sci, India, Sect B Biol Sci, 2015, 85(1): 35-44. doi: 10.1007/s40011-013-0244-0
[25] HUSEYNOVA I M, ALIYEVA D R, MAMMADOV A C, et al. Hydrogen peroxide generation and antioxidant enzyme activities in the leaves and roots of wheat cultivars subjected to long-term soil drought stress[J]. Photosynth Res, 2015, 125(1/2): 279-289.
[26] 王一, 曹敏建, 李春红, 等. 模拟干旱对不同耐性玉米自交系幼苗根系和水分利用效率的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2011(6): 50-52. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-7283.2011.06.012 [27] 丁红, 张智猛, 戴良香, 等. 干旱胁迫对花生生育中后期根系生长特征的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2013, 21(12): 1477-1483. [28] 王川, 谢惠民, 王娜, 等. 小麦品种可溶性糖和保护性酶与抗旱性关系研究[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2011, 29(5): 94-99. [29] 张明生, 谢波, 谈锋, 等. 甘薯可溶性蛋白、叶绿素及ATP含量变化与品种抗旱性关系的研究[J]. 中国农业科学, 2003, 36(1): 13-16. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0578-1752.2003.01.003 [30] 王军, 周美学, 许如根, 等. 大麦耐湿性鉴定指标和评价方法研究[J]. 中国农业科学, 2007, 40(10): 2145-2152. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0578-1752.2007.10.004 [31] 檀小辉, 廖洁, 刘铭, 等. 广西28个区试甘蔗品种抗旱性分析[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2011, 39(21): 12687-12690. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0517-6611.2011.21.020
计量
- 文章访问数: 1437
- HTML全文浏览量: 8
- PDF下载量: 1320
