不同藜麦资源的抗旱性评价及渗透调节剂对其抗旱性的影响

doi:10.13304/j.nykjdb.2019.0853

中国农业科技导报 ›› 2020, Vol. 22 ›› Issue (9): 52-60.DOI: 10.13304/j.nykjdb.2019.0853

不同藜麦资源的抗旱性评价及渗透调节剂对其抗旱性的影响

杨瑞萍1,刘瑞香1,马迎梅1*,郭占斌2,张宏武2,白宇1,赵新宇1

1.内蒙古农业大学沙漠治理学院, 荒漠生态系统保护与修复国家林业局重点实验室, 呼和浩特 010011; 2.内蒙古益稷公司, 呼和浩特 010011; 3.内蒙古自治区巴彦淖尔市林业科学研究所, 内蒙古巴彦淖尔 015000

收稿日期:2019-10-15 出版日期:2020-09-15 发布日期:2020-04-09
通讯作者: *通信作者马迎梅 E-mail: mym_youxiang@sina.com
作者简介:杨瑞萍 E-mail: 1561614711@qq.com；
基金资助:
内蒙古自然科学基金项目（2018BS03003）；国家重点研发计划项目（2017YFC0506-01）；呼和浩特市应用技术研究与开发项目（2019-农-20）。

Evaluation of Different Chenopodium quinoa Resources and Effects of Osmotic Regulators on Their Drought Resistance

YANG Ruiping1, LIU Ruixiang1, MA Yingmei1*, Guo Zhanbin2, ZHANG Hongwu2, BAI Yu1, ZHAO Xinyu1

1.Key Laboratory of State Forestry Administration for Desert Ecosystem Protection and Restoration, College of Desert Control Science and Engineering, Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, Hohhot 010011, China; 2.Inner Mongolia Yiji Company, Hohhot 010011, China; 3.Institute of Forestry Sciences in Bayannaoer, Inner Mongolia Bayannaoer 015000, China

Received:2019-10-15 Online:2020-09-15 Published:2020-04-09

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 为了对藜麦资源进行抗旱性评价并研究渗透调节剂对藜麦幼苗抗旱性的影响，以黑藜(black quinoa)、白藜(white quinoa)、红藜(red quinoa )、蒙藜(mongolian quinoa)为试验材料，对其幼苗进行干旱胁迫（DS）和正常浇水（CK）处理，研究干旱胁迫对不同藜麦幼苗形态及生理指标的影响；同时用水、5%蔗糖和1%磷酸三种渗透调节剂对藜麦种子进行前处理后，对幼苗进行干旱胁迫和正常浇水处理，研究渗透调节剂处理种子对其幼苗的抗旱性指标影响，最后综合评价不同藜麦资源的抗旱性。结果表明： ①随着干旱胁迫时间的延长，藜麦叶片的相对含水量逐渐降低，藜麦幼苗生长受到抑制，生物量积累逐渐减少，而叶绿素含量则呈现先上升后降低的趋势。②渗透调节剂处理过的藜麦种子，其幼苗的抗旱性变化不同，5%蔗糖处理的幼苗抗旱能力较水处理显著高22.22%；而1%磷酸处理的幼苗抗旱能力显著低于水处理，表明5%蔗糖处理可以提高藜麦幼苗抗旱性，而1%磷酸对藜麦抗旱性影响不显著。③隶属函数法评价结果显示，4种藜麦资源的表现为红藜>白藜>蒙藜>黑藜。综上，在干旱半干旱地区种植藜麦，应优选抗旱性强的红藜和白藜，5%蔗糖可以作为提高藜麦抗旱性的渗透调节剂。研究结果为我国北方干旱半干旱地区的藜麦产业发展提供理论基础。

关键词: 藜麦, 干旱胁迫, 形态特征, 生理指标, 抗旱性评价

Abstract: In order to evaluate the drought resistance of Chenopodium quinoa resources and study the effects of osmotic regulators on drought resistance of quinoa seedlings, the seedlings of black quinoa, white quinoa, red quinoa and mongolian quinoa were treated with drought stress (DS) and watering (CK) to study the effects of drought stress on the morphological and physiological indexes of quinoa seedlings. Meanwhile, after pretreatment of quinoa seeds with water, 5% sucrose and 1% phosphoric acid, their seedlings were subjected to drought stress and watering treatments, and the effects of osmotic adjustment on the drought resistance indexes of seedlings were studied. Finally, the drought resistance of different quinoa resources was comprehensively evaluated. The results showed that: ① with the prolongation of drought stress time, the relative water content of quinoa leaves decreased gradually, the growth of quinoa seedlings was inhibited, the biomass accumulation decreased gradually, and the chlorophyll content increased first and then decreased. ② the drought resistance of quinoa seedlings from seeds treated with 5% sucrose was significantly higher by 22.22% than that of seedlings treated with water. However, the drought resistance of seedlings treated with 1% phosphoric acid was significantly lower than that of seedlings treated with water. It was indicated that 5% sucrose could improve the drought resistance of quinoa seedlings, while 1% phosphoric acid did not. ③ the membership function method drought resistance of four quinoa resources was comprehensively evaluated by, and the drought resistance performance was red quinoa > white quinoa > mongolian quinoa > black quinoa. To sum up, Red quinoa and White quinoa should be planted in arid and semi-arid areas, and 5% sucrose could be used as osmotic regulator to improve the drought resistance of C. quinoa, which provided theoretical basis for the development of C. quinoa industry in arid and semi-arid areas of Northern China.

Key words: quinoa, drought stress, morphological characteristics, physiological traits, traits evaluation

杨瑞萍1,刘瑞香1,马迎梅1*,郭占斌2,张宏武2,白宇1,赵新宇1. 不同藜麦资源的抗旱性评价及渗透调节剂对其抗旱性的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2020, 22(9): 52-60.

YANG Ruiping1, LIU Ruixiang1, MA Yingmei1*, Guo Zhanbin2, ZHANG Hongwu2, BAI Yu1, ZHAO Xinyu1. Evaluation of Different Chenopodium quinoa Resources and Effects of Osmotic Regulators on Their Drought Resistance[J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2020, 22(9): 52-60.

[1]	刘源, 张秀妍, 徐妙云, 郑红艳, 邹俊杰, 张兰, 王磊. 水稻干旱胁迫的small RNA转录组分析[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2021, 23(6): 23-32.
[2]	胡杨, 李钢铁, 李星, 贾守义. 干旱胁迫对细穗柽柳幼苗生长和生理生化指标的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2021, 23(6): 43-50.
[3]	霍川, 王世全, 沈俊宏, 曾鸿燕. 水稻高节位分蘖的形态特征及遗传行为[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2021, 23(5): 35-43.
[4]	张豪洋,金伊楠,孙燕鑫,李子玮,郭笑恒,许自成*. 植物microRNAs在干旱胁迫响应中的研究进展[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2021, 23(4): 27-36.
[5]	王得运1,2,刘培培1,陈云婷1,徐月莹1,周丽1,罗光明1*. 干旱胁迫对栀子内源激素含量的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2021, 23(4): 58-63.
[6]	苏雨萌§,张旭婷§,特日格乐,田敏,尚晓蕊,李国婧,王瑞刚*. 高通量测序鉴定中间锦鸡儿干旱条件下的microRNA[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2021, 23(3): 51-57.
[7]	张璐翔1,陈思蒙1,郑聪2,金伊楠1,韩艺3,许自成1,黄五星1,邵惠芳1*. 脱驯化时长对烟草幼苗抗旱性的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2021, 23(2): 57-64.
[8]	张嘉雯，卢绍浩，赵喆，赵铭钦*. 外源褪黑素对低温胁迫下烟草幼苗生理指标的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2020, 22(9): 78-86.
[9]	张琛,韩婷,马洁,杨涓,刘根红,郑国琦* . 起垄高度对黑果枸杞生长及生理特性的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2020, 22(9): 153-161.
[10]	宋晋辉,瓮巧云,吕爱枝,袁进成,刘颖慧*. 拔节期干旱胁迫对青贮玉米生育与品质的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2020, 22(6): 161-167.
[11]	邹芳，杨秀柳，黄思麒，王志恒，魏玉清*. 外源亚精胺对干旱胁迫下甜高粱幼苗生长及生理生化指标的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2020, 22(4): 44-52.
[12]	胡博,闫伟*,刘宇,郝艳玲. 三种桑生理特性对盐胁迫的响应[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2020, 22(4): 61-67.
[13]	郑淼,郭毅,王丽敏. 干旱胁迫对红宝石海棠根系形态及生理特性的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2020, 22(3): 24-30.
[14]	贺嘉豪1,陈建中2,徐坚强3,向金友4,杨懿德4,张学伟5,宁尚辉3,王林6,刘园7,杨洋4,景延秋1,程玉渊7. 外源褪黑素对烟草幼苗抗旱性生理机制的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2020, 22(2): 50-57.
[15]	邹苗1,王月林2,李钢铁1*,冯斐1,麻云霞1,赵雨兴3,石麟3,任余燕3. 干旱胁迫对酸枣幼苗生理特性的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2020, 22(2): 65-72.

不同藜麦资源的抗旱性评价及渗透调节剂对其抗旱性的影响

Evaluation of Different Chenopodium quinoa Resources and Effects of Osmotic Regulators on Their Drought Resistance

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics