中国农业科技导报 ›› 2024, Vol. 26 ›› Issue (2): 90-99.DOI: 10.13304/j.nykjdb.2023.0519
孟盼盼1(), 何海燕1, 曹钰昕1, 张丽欣1, 吕清豪1, 祁瑞林2(
), 张红瑞1(
)
收稿日期:
2023-07-05
接受日期:
2023-09-27
出版日期:
2024-02-15
发布日期:
2024-02-04
通讯作者:
祁瑞林,张红瑞
作者简介:
孟盼盼 E-mail:mmeng4520@163.com
基金资助:
Panpan MENG1(), Haiyan HE1, Yuxin CAO1, Lixin ZHANG1, Qinghao LYU1, Ruilin QI2(
), Hongrui ZHANG1(
)
Received:
2023-07-05
Accepted:
2023-09-27
Online:
2024-02-15
Published:
2024-02-04
Contact:
Ruilin QI,Hongrui ZHANG
摘要:
为研究干旱胁迫对不同栽培类型药菊分枝期生长的影响,并评价不同药菊种质资源的抗旱性,以5个栽培类型药菊为试验材料,分别测定其农艺性状、生物积累量、生理特性等相关指标,并利用隶属函数法、主成分分析、相关分析进行抗旱性综合评价和抗旱鉴定指标筛选。结果表明,干旱胁迫下药菊分枝期的生长受到抑制,株高降低、茎粗减小、分枝数变少、生物量积累减少;渗透物质脯氨酸、可溶性糖、可溶性蛋白含量普遍增加;抗逆酶活性增强,膜脂过氧化程度加剧。抗旱性综合评价表明,各栽培类型药菊在分枝期的抗旱性强弱依次为:怀菊(‘怀白菊’)>滁菊>亳菊>皇菊>杭菊(‘大洋菊’)。研究结果为药菊种质选育、高产高效栽培奠定了基础。
中图分类号:
孟盼盼, 何海燕, 曹钰昕, 张丽欣, 吕清豪, 祁瑞林, 张红瑞. 5个栽培类型药菊分枝期抗旱性综合评价[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2024, 26(2): 90-99.
Panpan MENG, Haiyan HE, Yuxin CAO, Lixin ZHANG, Qinghao LYU, Ruilin QI, Hongrui ZHANG. Comprehensive Evaluation of 5 Cultivation Types of Medicinal Chrysanthemum morifolium Ramat. at Branching Stage[J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2024, 26(2): 90-99.
栽培类型 Cultivation type | 处理 Treatment | 株高 Height/cm | 茎粗 Stem diameter/mm | 叶长 Leaf length/cm | 叶宽 Leaf width/cm | 分枝数 Number of branches | 叶厚 Leaf thickness/mm |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
亳菊Boju | CK | 55.55±1.53 a | 7.11±0.33 a | 4.89±0.17 a | 4.48±0.12 a | 8.56±0.21 a | 0.65±0.07 a |
D | 45.46±1.00 b | 6.25±0.41 b | 4.53±0.18 a | 3.88±0.08 b | 6.71±0.97 b | 0.50±0.06 b | |
滁菊Chuju | CK | 54.03±1.77 a | 8.21±0.63 a | 4.53±0.26 a | 4.30±0.24 a | 7.13±1.70 a | 0.61±0.05 a |
D | 45.29±3.13 b | 7.14±0.51 b | 4.15±0.34 a | 3.84±0.26 b | 5.73±1.17 b | 0.49±0.08 b | |
杭菊Hangju | CK | 56.17±1.65 a | 9.55±0.76 a | 6.24±0.49 a | 5.78±0.28 a | 7.83±1.06 a | 0.51±0.03 a |
D | 42.66±3.06 b | 8.16±0.42 b | 5.82±0.30 a | 4.82±0.21 b | 5.88±0.85 b | 0.38±0.04 b | |
皇菊Huangju | CK | 66.54±3.78 a | 10.53±0.76 a | 5.28±0.30 a | 4.50±0.22 a | 11.78±1.15 a | 0.64±0.06 a |
D | 52.43±3.73 b | 8.48±0.54 b | 4.52±0.77 b | 3.65±0.29 b | 9.97±1.56 b | 0.43±0.04 b | |
怀菊Huaiju | CK | 61.56±2.95 a | 8.53±0.47 a | 4.98±0.38 a | 4.77±0.18 a | 7.56±0.88 a | 0.68±0.07 a |
D | 51.51±3.61 b | 7.11±0.61 b | 4.43±0.41 b | 4.14±0.12 b | 6.10±0.72 b | 0.56±0.04 b |
表1 干旱胁迫下药菊分枝期农艺性状
Table 1 Agronomic traits of medicinal C. morifolium during branching stage under drought stress
栽培类型 Cultivation type | 处理 Treatment | 株高 Height/cm | 茎粗 Stem diameter/mm | 叶长 Leaf length/cm | 叶宽 Leaf width/cm | 分枝数 Number of branches | 叶厚 Leaf thickness/mm |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
亳菊Boju | CK | 55.55±1.53 a | 7.11±0.33 a | 4.89±0.17 a | 4.48±0.12 a | 8.56±0.21 a | 0.65±0.07 a |
D | 45.46±1.00 b | 6.25±0.41 b | 4.53±0.18 a | 3.88±0.08 b | 6.71±0.97 b | 0.50±0.06 b | |
滁菊Chuju | CK | 54.03±1.77 a | 8.21±0.63 a | 4.53±0.26 a | 4.30±0.24 a | 7.13±1.70 a | 0.61±0.05 a |
D | 45.29±3.13 b | 7.14±0.51 b | 4.15±0.34 a | 3.84±0.26 b | 5.73±1.17 b | 0.49±0.08 b | |
杭菊Hangju | CK | 56.17±1.65 a | 9.55±0.76 a | 6.24±0.49 a | 5.78±0.28 a | 7.83±1.06 a | 0.51±0.03 a |
D | 42.66±3.06 b | 8.16±0.42 b | 5.82±0.30 a | 4.82±0.21 b | 5.88±0.85 b | 0.38±0.04 b | |
皇菊Huangju | CK | 66.54±3.78 a | 10.53±0.76 a | 5.28±0.30 a | 4.50±0.22 a | 11.78±1.15 a | 0.64±0.06 a |
D | 52.43±3.73 b | 8.48±0.54 b | 4.52±0.77 b | 3.65±0.29 b | 9.97±1.56 b | 0.43±0.04 b | |
怀菊Huaiju | CK | 61.56±2.95 a | 8.53±0.47 a | 4.98±0.38 a | 4.77±0.18 a | 7.56±0.88 a | 0.68±0.07 a |
D | 51.51±3.61 b | 7.11±0.61 b | 4.43±0.41 b | 4.14±0.12 b | 6.10±0.72 b | 0.56±0.04 b |
栽培类型 Cultivation type | 处理 Treatment | 叶鲜重 Fresh weight of leaves/g | 叶干重 Dry weight of leaves/g | 地上部干重 Aboveground dry weight/g | 地下部干重 Underground dry weight/g | 根冠比 Root shoot ratio | 叶片相对含水量 Relative water content in leaves |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
亳菊Boju | CK | 0.67±0.10 a | 0.11±0.01 a | 49.41±1.22 a | 12.62±0.04 a | 0.26±0.06 b | 0.84±0.01 a |
D | 0.40±0.05 b | 0.08±0.01 b | 29.83±0.79 b | 10.39±0.03 b | 0.32±0.13 a | 0.70±0.01 b | |
滁菊Chuju | CK | 0.52±0.05 a | 0.10±0.01 a | 52.80±1.15 a | 15.57±0.05 a | 0.29±0.05 a | 0.84±0.01 a |
D | 0.46±0.03 b | 0.07±0.00 b | 40.78±0.51 b | 13.34±0.08 b | 0.30±0.05 a | 0.72±0.01 b | |
杭菊Hangju | CK | 1.13±0.04 a | 0.18±0.01 a | 88.50±1.43 a | 18.26±0.20 a | 0.20±0.01 a | 0.84±0.02 a |
D | 0.64±0.05 b | 0.15±0.01 b | 66.73±1.11 b | 13.46±0.14 b | 0.22±0.03 a | 0.70±0.01 b | |
皇菊Huangju | CK | 0.56±0.01 a | 0.13±0.00 a | 75.30±0.89 a | 17.36±0.13 a | 0.22±0.02 b | 0.77±0.00 a |
D | 0.36±0.03 b | 0.09±0.01 b | 48.63±0.23 b | 11.97±0.02 b | 0.26±0.01 a | 0.61±0.01 b | |
怀菊Huaiju | CK | 0.58±0.08 a | 0.11±0.01 a | 56.40±1.16 a | 15.34±0.10 a | 0.27±0.04 a | 0.82±0.01 a |
D | 0.50±0.03 b | 0.09±0.01 b | 40.44±1.13 b | 12.04±0.08 b | 0.27±0.08 a | 0.69±0.01 b |
表2 干旱胁迫下药菊分枝期生物量和叶片含水量
Table 2 Biomass and leaf water content of medicinal C. morifolium during branching stage under drought stress
栽培类型 Cultivation type | 处理 Treatment | 叶鲜重 Fresh weight of leaves/g | 叶干重 Dry weight of leaves/g | 地上部干重 Aboveground dry weight/g | 地下部干重 Underground dry weight/g | 根冠比 Root shoot ratio | 叶片相对含水量 Relative water content in leaves |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
亳菊Boju | CK | 0.67±0.10 a | 0.11±0.01 a | 49.41±1.22 a | 12.62±0.04 a | 0.26±0.06 b | 0.84±0.01 a |
D | 0.40±0.05 b | 0.08±0.01 b | 29.83±0.79 b | 10.39±0.03 b | 0.32±0.13 a | 0.70±0.01 b | |
滁菊Chuju | CK | 0.52±0.05 a | 0.10±0.01 a | 52.80±1.15 a | 15.57±0.05 a | 0.29±0.05 a | 0.84±0.01 a |
D | 0.46±0.03 b | 0.07±0.00 b | 40.78±0.51 b | 13.34±0.08 b | 0.30±0.05 a | 0.72±0.01 b | |
杭菊Hangju | CK | 1.13±0.04 a | 0.18±0.01 a | 88.50±1.43 a | 18.26±0.20 a | 0.20±0.01 a | 0.84±0.02 a |
D | 0.64±0.05 b | 0.15±0.01 b | 66.73±1.11 b | 13.46±0.14 b | 0.22±0.03 a | 0.70±0.01 b | |
皇菊Huangju | CK | 0.56±0.01 a | 0.13±0.00 a | 75.30±0.89 a | 17.36±0.13 a | 0.22±0.02 b | 0.77±0.00 a |
D | 0.36±0.03 b | 0.09±0.01 b | 48.63±0.23 b | 11.97±0.02 b | 0.26±0.01 a | 0.61±0.01 b | |
怀菊Huaiju | CK | 0.58±0.08 a | 0.11±0.01 a | 56.40±1.16 a | 15.34±0.10 a | 0.27±0.04 a | 0.82±0.01 a |
D | 0.50±0.03 b | 0.09±0.01 b | 40.44±1.13 b | 12.04±0.08 b | 0.27±0.08 a | 0.69±0.01 b |
栽培类型 Cultivation type | 组别 Group | 脯氨酸含量 Pro content/ (mg·g-1) | 可溶性糖 含量 SS content/(mg·g-1) | 可溶性蛋白含量 SP content/ (mg·g-1) | 丙二醛含量MDA content/ (mmol·g-1) | 超氧化物歧化酶活性 SOD activity /(U·g-1) | 过氧化物酶活性 POD activity/ (U·g-1·min-1) | 叶绿素绝对含量 Absolute chlorophyll content/(mg·g-1) | SPAD值 SPAD value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
杭菊 Hangju | CK | 65.86±8.76 b | 28.34±4.67 a | 25.81±3.37 b | 0.08±0.02 b | 478.49±24.16 b | 435.37±69.17 b | 1.76±0.12 a | 47.81±3.90 a |
D | 110.91±7.84 a | 30.61±2.74 a | 33.89±3.16 a | 0.10±0.02 a | 656.38±9.49 a | 791.11±35.99 a | 1.31±0.11 b | 38.80±1.85 b | |
滁菊 Chuju | CK | 33.20±3.23 b | 20.88±2.07 b | 26.53±4.12 b | 0.16±0.04 b | 498.58±21.34 b | 373.89±36.35 b | 2.14±0.19 a | 54.03±2.39 a |
D | 56.72±5.91 a | 26.65±0.86 a | 36.59±3.85 a | 0.19±0.02 a | 700.12±27.84 a | 681.78±41.64 a | 1.72±0.22 b | 46.47±2.89 b | |
亳菊 Boju | CK | 62.28±13.07 b | 27.28±2.55 a | 30.87±4.53 b | 0.19±0.02 b | 522.28±7.03 b | 552.04±27.72 b | 1.72±0.17 a | 47.58±4.95 a |
D | 95.44±10.34 a | 29.46±1.11 a | 42.16±5.82 a | 0.22±0.02 a | 706.37±29.42 a | 1 035.26±17.26 a | 1.22±0.07 b | 38.61±2.89 b | |
皇菊Huangju | CK | 100.45±6.82 b | 29.52±1.68 a | 26.48±3.13 b | 0.22±0.01 b | 501.24±9.85 b | 464.07±35.91 b | 2.19±0.19 a | 56.63±5.60 a |
D | 147.85±9.42 a | 32.96±1.05 a | 35.70±3.54 a | 0.29±0.03 a | 642.37±24.82 a | 800.59±41.64 a | 1.71±0.18 b | 47.01±3.08 b | |
怀菊 Huaiju | CK | 107.22±18.77 b | 25.09±1.04 a | 31.20±4.42 b | 0.22±0.02 b | 495.11±5.85 b | 541.48±42.53 b | 2.08±0.20 a | 61.86±4.13 a |
D | 167.11±9.36 a | 28.39±1.01 a | 40.07±3.69 a | 0.26±0.04 a | 669.05±35.35 a | 1 002.22±59.71 a | 1.60±0.15 b | 50.84±3.94 b |
表3 干旱胁迫下药菊分枝期生理特性
Table 3 Physiological characteristics of medicinal C. morifolium during branching stage under drought stress
栽培类型 Cultivation type | 组别 Group | 脯氨酸含量 Pro content/ (mg·g-1) | 可溶性糖 含量 SS content/(mg·g-1) | 可溶性蛋白含量 SP content/ (mg·g-1) | 丙二醛含量MDA content/ (mmol·g-1) | 超氧化物歧化酶活性 SOD activity /(U·g-1) | 过氧化物酶活性 POD activity/ (U·g-1·min-1) | 叶绿素绝对含量 Absolute chlorophyll content/(mg·g-1) | SPAD值 SPAD value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
杭菊 Hangju | CK | 65.86±8.76 b | 28.34±4.67 a | 25.81±3.37 b | 0.08±0.02 b | 478.49±24.16 b | 435.37±69.17 b | 1.76±0.12 a | 47.81±3.90 a |
D | 110.91±7.84 a | 30.61±2.74 a | 33.89±3.16 a | 0.10±0.02 a | 656.38±9.49 a | 791.11±35.99 a | 1.31±0.11 b | 38.80±1.85 b | |
滁菊 Chuju | CK | 33.20±3.23 b | 20.88±2.07 b | 26.53±4.12 b | 0.16±0.04 b | 498.58±21.34 b | 373.89±36.35 b | 2.14±0.19 a | 54.03±2.39 a |
D | 56.72±5.91 a | 26.65±0.86 a | 36.59±3.85 a | 0.19±0.02 a | 700.12±27.84 a | 681.78±41.64 a | 1.72±0.22 b | 46.47±2.89 b | |
亳菊 Boju | CK | 62.28±13.07 b | 27.28±2.55 a | 30.87±4.53 b | 0.19±0.02 b | 522.28±7.03 b | 552.04±27.72 b | 1.72±0.17 a | 47.58±4.95 a |
D | 95.44±10.34 a | 29.46±1.11 a | 42.16±5.82 a | 0.22±0.02 a | 706.37±29.42 a | 1 035.26±17.26 a | 1.22±0.07 b | 38.61±2.89 b | |
皇菊Huangju | CK | 100.45±6.82 b | 29.52±1.68 a | 26.48±3.13 b | 0.22±0.01 b | 501.24±9.85 b | 464.07±35.91 b | 2.19±0.19 a | 56.63±5.60 a |
D | 147.85±9.42 a | 32.96±1.05 a | 35.70±3.54 a | 0.29±0.03 a | 642.37±24.82 a | 800.59±41.64 a | 1.71±0.18 b | 47.01±3.08 b | |
怀菊 Huaiju | CK | 107.22±18.77 b | 25.09±1.04 a | 31.20±4.42 b | 0.22±0.02 b | 495.11±5.85 b | 541.48±42.53 b | 2.08±0.20 a | 61.86±4.13 a |
D | 167.11±9.36 a | 28.39±1.01 a | 40.07±3.69 a | 0.26±0.04 a | 669.05±35.35 a | 1 002.22±59.71 a | 1.60±0.15 b | 50.84±3.94 b |
图1 各测定指标相关性分析注:*和**分别表示在P<0.05和P<0.01水平显著相关。
Fig. 1 Correlation analysis of various measurement indicatorsNote: * and ** indicate significant correlations at P<0.05 and P<0.01 levels,respectively.
指标 Index | 综合指标值 Comprehensive index value | 指标 Index | 综合指标值 Comprehensive index value | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CI(1) | CI(2) | CI(3) | CI(1) | CI(2) | CI(3) | ||
株高 Height | 0.200 | 0.238 | 0.229 | 地下部干重 Underground dry weight | 0.296 | 0.029 | 0.239 |
茎粗 Stem diameter | 0.224 | -0.166 | 0.303 | 根冠比 Root shoot ratio | -0.201 | -0.098 | 0.428 |
叶长 Leaf length | 0.213 | -0.285 | 0.110 | SPAD | 0.134 | 0.339 | -0.048 |
叶宽 Leaf width | 0.309 | 0.088 | 0.130 | 超氧化物歧化酶活性 SOD activity | 0.313 | -0.073 | 0.114 |
分枝数 Number of branches | -0.151 | 0.367 | 0.052 | 过氧化物酶活性 POD activity | 0.211 | -0.284 | -0.191 |
叶厚 Leaf thickness | 0.294 | 0.032 | 0.038 | 可溶性糖含量 Soluble sugar content | 0.200 | 0.299 | -0.053 |
叶鲜重 Fresh weight of leaves | 0.202 | 0.295 | -0.107 | 可溶性蛋白含量 Soluble protein content | 0.010 | 0.027 | -0.179 |
叶片干重 Dry weight of leaves | 0.218 | -0.268 | -0.102 | 丙二醛含量 Malondialdehyde content | -0.163 | 0.113 | 0.476 |
叶片相对含水量 Relative water content | 0.313 | -0.101 | -0.109 | 脯氨酸含量 Proline content | 0.263 | 0.009 | 0.324 |
地上部干重 Aboveground dry weight | 0.212 | 0.186 | -0.356 | 叶绿素含量 Chlorophyll content | 0.061 | 0.416 | 0.057 |
表4 各综合指标的系数
Table 4 Coefficient of each comprehensive index
指标 Index | 综合指标值 Comprehensive index value | 指标 Index | 综合指标值 Comprehensive index value | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CI(1) | CI(2) | CI(3) | CI(1) | CI(2) | CI(3) | ||
株高 Height | 0.200 | 0.238 | 0.229 | 地下部干重 Underground dry weight | 0.296 | 0.029 | 0.239 |
茎粗 Stem diameter | 0.224 | -0.166 | 0.303 | 根冠比 Root shoot ratio | -0.201 | -0.098 | 0.428 |
叶长 Leaf length | 0.213 | -0.285 | 0.110 | SPAD | 0.134 | 0.339 | -0.048 |
叶宽 Leaf width | 0.309 | 0.088 | 0.130 | 超氧化物歧化酶活性 SOD activity | 0.313 | -0.073 | 0.114 |
分枝数 Number of branches | -0.151 | 0.367 | 0.052 | 过氧化物酶活性 POD activity | 0.211 | -0.284 | -0.191 |
叶厚 Leaf thickness | 0.294 | 0.032 | 0.038 | 可溶性糖含量 Soluble sugar content | 0.200 | 0.299 | -0.053 |
叶鲜重 Fresh weight of leaves | 0.202 | 0.295 | -0.107 | 可溶性蛋白含量 Soluble protein content | 0.010 | 0.027 | -0.179 |
叶片干重 Dry weight of leaves | 0.218 | -0.268 | -0.102 | 丙二醛含量 Malondialdehyde content | -0.163 | 0.113 | 0.476 |
叶片相对含水量 Relative water content | 0.313 | -0.101 | -0.109 | 脯氨酸含量 Proline content | 0.263 | 0.009 | 0.324 |
地上部干重 Aboveground dry weight | 0.212 | 0.186 | -0.356 | 叶绿素含量 Chlorophyll content | 0.061 | 0.416 | 0.057 |
栽培类型 Cultivation type | 综合指标值Comprehensive index value | 隶属函数值Subordinate function values | D值 D value | 排序 Ranking | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
F1 | F2 | F3 | μ (1) | μ(2) | μ(3) | |||
亳菊Boju | 3.032 | 0.564 | 1.701 | 0.477 | 0.192 | 1.000 | 0.510 | 3 |
滁菊Chuju | 3.149 | 0.722 | 1.422 | 0.726 | 0.705 | 0.006 | 0.545 | 2 |
杭菊Hangju | 3.011 | 0.505 | 1.420 | 0.433 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.185 | 5 |
皇菊Huangju | 2.807 | 0.723 | 1.518 | 0.000 | 0.708 | 0.349 | 0.318 | 4 |
怀菊Huaiju | 3.278 | 0.813 | 1.482 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.220 | 0.811 | 1 |
权重Weight/% | — | — | — | 51.68 | 27.67 | 20.66 | — | — |
表5 各栽培类型综合指标值、权重、隶属函数值、D值和综合评价
Table 5 Comprehensive index value,weight,μ(x),D value and comprehensive evaluation
栽培类型 Cultivation type | 综合指标值Comprehensive index value | 隶属函数值Subordinate function values | D值 D value | 排序 Ranking | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
F1 | F2 | F3 | μ (1) | μ(2) | μ(3) | |||
亳菊Boju | 3.032 | 0.564 | 1.701 | 0.477 | 0.192 | 1.000 | 0.510 | 3 |
滁菊Chuju | 3.149 | 0.722 | 1.422 | 0.726 | 0.705 | 0.006 | 0.545 | 2 |
杭菊Hangju | 3.011 | 0.505 | 1.420 | 0.433 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.185 | 5 |
皇菊Huangju | 2.807 | 0.723 | 1.518 | 0.000 | 0.708 | 0.349 | 0.318 | 4 |
怀菊Huaiju | 3.278 | 0.813 | 1.482 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.220 | 0.811 | 1 |
权重Weight/% | — | — | — | 51.68 | 27.67 | 20.66 | — | — |
1 | 樊瑀, 董淑琦, 原向阳, 等. 谷子种质资源萌发期抗旱性综合评价及抗旱指标筛选[J]. 中国农业大学学报, 2022, 27(6):42-54. |
FAN Y, DONG S Q, YUAN X Y, et al.. Comprehensive evaluation of drought resistance of foxtail millet germplasm resources during germination period and drought resistance index screening [J]. J. China Agric. Univ., 2022, 27(6):42-54.[2] 国家药典委员会. 中华人民共和国药典[M]. 北京:中国医药科技出版社, 2020:323-324. | |
3 | 胡同华. 亳菊抗旱转基因体系建立及抗旱性评价[D]. 合肥:安徽大学, 2016. |
HU T H. Establishment of drought resistance transgenic system and evaluation of drought resistance in Dendranthema morifolium ‘Bozhou’ [D]. Hefei: Anhui University, 2016. | |
4 | 段利萍. 外源褪黑素对茶菊干旱胁迫伤害的缓解作用及生理机制[D]. 泰安:山东农业大学, 2019. |
DUAN L P. Ameliorative effect and physiological mechanism of exogenous melatonin on drought stress injury of tea chrysanthemum [D]. Tai’an: Shandong Agricultural University, 2019. | |
5 | 孙静, 曾俊, 王银杰, 等. 20个切花菊品种抗旱性评价与筛选[J]. 南京农业大学学报, 2013, 36(1):24-28. |
SUN J, ZENG J, WANG Y J, et al.. Evaluation and screening of drought stress tolerance in 20 cut chrysanthemum varieties [J]. J. Nanjing Agric. Univ., 2013, 36(1):24-28. | |
6 | 李锦馨. 地被菊地栽抗旱性试验研究[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2008, 36(36):15974-15976. |
LI J X. Experimental study on drought resistance of ground-cover Chrysanthemum in field cultivation [J]. J. Anhui Agric. Sci., 2008, 36(36):15974-15976. | |
7 | 任磊, 赵夏陆, 许靖, 等. 4种茶菊对干旱胁迫的形态和生理响应[J]. 生态学报, 2015, 35(15):5131-5139. |
REN L, ZHAO X L, XU J, et al.. Varied morphological and physiological responses to drought stress among four tea Chrysanthemum cultivars [J]. Acta Ecol. Sin., 2015, 35(15):5131-5139. | |
8 | 陈嘉欣, 张玲玲, 张国庆, 等. 6种园林植物耐旱性分析[J]. 热带亚热带植物学报, 2020, 28(3):310-316. |
CHEN J X, ZHANG L L, ZHANG G Q, et al.. Drought tolerance of six garden species [J]. J. Trop. Subtrop. Bot., 2020, 28(3):310-316. | |
9 | 王学奎. 植物生理生化实验原理和技术[M].第2版.北京: 高等教育出版社, 2006:118-119, 172-173. |
10 | 杨静华. 考马斯亮蓝法测定苦荞麦中可溶性蛋白的含量[J]. 山西医药杂志, 2018, 47(2):206-207. |
11 | 陈建勋, 王晓峰. 植物生理学实验指导[M]. 广州:华南理工大学出版社, 2002:124. |
12 | 李玲. 植物生理学模块实验指导[M]. 北京:科学出版社, 2009:97-98. |
13 | 宋晓宇, 王纪华, 杨贵军, 等. 基于叶片及冠层叶绿素参数的冬小麦籽粒蛋白质含量预测研究[J]. 光谱学与光谱分析, 2014, 34(7):1917-1921. |
SONG X Y, WANG J H, YANG G J, et al.. Winter wheat GPC estimation based on leaf and canopy chlorophyll parameters [J]. Spectrosc. Spect. Anal., 2014, 34(7):1917-1921. | |
14 | 努尔凯麦尔·木拉提, 杨亚杰, 帕尔哈提·阿布都克日木, 等. 小麦叶绿素含量测定方法比较[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2021, 49(9):156-159. |
15 | 刘斌, 魏慧, 寇燕燕, 等. 灌溉制度对甜瓜/向日葵间作系统叶片水分状况和水分利用效率的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(2):19-25. |
LIU B, WEI H, KOU Y Y, et al.. Effects of irrigation system on leaf water status and water use efficiency of melon/sunflower intercropping system [J]. Chin. Agric. Sci. Bull., 2022, 38(2):19-25. | |
16 | 蔺豆豆, 赵桂琴, 琚泽亮, 等. 15份燕麦材料苗期抗旱性综合评价[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(11):108-121. |
LIN D D, ZHAO G Q, JU Z L, et al.. Comprehensive evaluation of drought resistance of 15 oat varieties at the seedling stage [J]. Acta Pratac. Sin., 2021, 30(11):108-121. | |
17 | 田小霞, 卫晓锋, 魏浩, 等. 6种牧草苗期耐旱性综合评价[J]. 干旱区研究, 2022, 39(3):978-985. |
TIAN X X, WEI X F, WEI H, et al.. Comprehensive evaluation of drought tolerance of six forage species at the seedling stage [J]. Arid Zone Res., 2022, 39(3):978-985. | |
18 | 张红瑞, 张丽欣, 王飞, 等. 丹参花果期抗旱性鉴定及抗旱指标筛选[J]. 山西农业科学, 2023, 51(5):502-508. |
ZHANG H R, ZHANG L X, WANG F, et al.. Identification of drought resistance and screening of drought resistant indexes of Salvia miltiorrhiza in flowering and fruiting stage [J]. J. Shanxi Agric. Sci., 2023, 51(5):502-508. | |
19 | 朱小慧. 甘蓝型油菜种质抗旱评价与生理机制研究[D]. 杨凌: 西北农林科技大学, 2022. |
ZHU X H. Drought resistance evaluation and physiological mechanism of Brassica napus germplasm. [D]. Yangling: Northwest A&F University, 2022. | |
20 | 白旭瑞. 小麦苗期抗旱性鉴定及抗旱品种筛选[D]. 保定:河北农业大学, 2021. |
BAI X R. Identification of drought resistance of wheat at seedling stage and selection of drought resistant varieties [D]. Baoding: Hebei Agricultural University, 2021. | |
21 | SILVA E C, SILVA M F A, NOGUEIRA R J M C, et al.. Growth evaluation and water relations of Erythrina velutina seedlings in response to drought stress [J]. Brazilian J. Plant Physiol., 2010, 22: 225-233. |
22 | 李亚莉, 张钦弟, 翟静娟, 等. 山西濒危植物翅果油树植冠的构型分析[J]. 植物资源与环境学报, 2007,16(4): 43-46. |
LI Y L, ZHANG Q D, ZHAI J J, et al.. Architectural analysis of crown geometry of endangered plant Elaeagnus mollis in Shanxi province [J]. J. Plant Resour. Environ., 2007, 16(4):43-46. | |
23 | 邱丹丹, 杨秀珍, 戴思兰, 等. 氮水平对小菊“东篱秋心”分枝和开花的影响[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2020, 48(18):157-161. |
QIU D D, YANG X Z, DAI S L, et al.. Effect of nitrogen level on branch and flowering of Chrysanthemum “Dong Li Qiu Xin” [J]. J. Anhui Agric. Sci., 2020, 48(18):157-161. | |
24 | 季杨, 张新全, 彭燕, 等. 干旱胁迫对鸭茅根、叶保护酶活性、渗透物质含量及膜质过氧化用的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2014, 23(3):144-151. |
JI Y, ZHANG X Q, PENG Y, et al.. Effects of drought stress on lipid peroxidation, osmotic adjustment and activities of protective enzymes in the roots and leaves of orchardgrass [J]. Acta Pratac. Sin., 2014, 23(3):144-151. | |
25 | 张翠梅, 师尚礼, 吴芳. 干旱胁迫对不同抗旱性苜蓿品种根系生长及生理特性影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2018, 51(5):868-882. |
ZHANG C M, SHI S L, WU F. Effects of drought stress on root and physiological responses of different drought-tolerant alfalfa varieties [J]. Sci. Agric. Sin., 2018, 51(5):868-882. | |
26 | 李雪, 田新会, 杜文华. 饲草型小黑麦苗期抗旱指标的筛选[J]. 草业科学, 2017, 34(3):539-546. |
LI X, TIAN X H, DU W H. Screening on the drought resistance index and conditions for × Triticale Wittmack at the seedling stage [J]. Pratac. Sci., 2017, 34(3):539-546. | |
27 | 寿晓清, 李燕, 罗充, 等. 不同叶用芥菜品种的抗旱性评价[J]. 分子植物育种, 2019, 17(5):1658-1666. |
SHOU X Q, LI Y, LUO C, et al.. Drought resistance evaluation of different leaf mustard varieties [J]. Mol. Plant Breeding, 2019, 17(5):1658-1666. | |
28 | 潘昕, 邱权, 李吉跃, 等. 干旱胁迫对青藏高原6种植物生理指标的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2014, 34(13):3558-3567. |
PAN X, QIU Q, LI J Y, et al.. Physiological indexes of six plant species from the Tibetan plateau under drought stress [J]. Acta Ecol. Sin., 2014, 34(13):3558-3567. | |
29 | 罗青红, 宁虎森, 何苗, 等. 5种沙地灌木对干旱胁迫的生理生态响应[J]. 林业科学, 2017, 53(11):29-42. |
LUO Q H, NING H S, HE M, et al.. Ecophysiological responses of five sandy shrubs to drought stress [J]. Sci. Silv. Sin., 2017, 53(11):29-42. | |
30 | 裴斌, 张光灿, 张淑勇, 等. 土壤干旱胁迫对沙棘叶片光合作用和抗氧化酶活性的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2013, 33(5):1386-1396. |
PEI B, ZHANG G C, ZHANG S Y, et al.. Effects of soil drought stress on photosynthetic characteristics and antioxidant enzyme activities in Hippophae rhamnoides Linn.seedings [J]. Acta Ecol. Sin., 2013, 33(5):1386-1396. | |
31 | 陈少裕. 膜脂过氧化与植物逆境胁迫[J]. 植物学报, 1989, 6(4):211-217. |
32 | 郭郁频, 米福贵, 闫利军, 等.不同早熟禾品种对干旱胁迫的生理响应及抗旱性评价[J]. 草业学报, 2014, 23(4):220-228. |
GUO Y P, MI F G, YAN L J, et al.. Physiological response to drought stresses and drought resistances evaluation of different Kentucky bluegrass varieties [J]. Acta Pratac. Sin., 2014, 23(4):220-228. | |
33 | 何永涛, 胡宇, 段慧荣, 等. 披碱草属4个牧草品种苗期抗旱性综合评价[J]. 中国草地学报,2023, 45(1):77-87.. |
HE Y T, HU Y, DUAN H R, et al.. Comprehensive evaluation of drought resistance of four Elymus varieties at seedling stage [J]. Chin. J. Grassl., 2023, 45(1):77-87. | |
34 | YU H Q, ZHANG Q, XU C Y, et al.. Modified palmer drought severity index:model improvement and application [J/OL]. Environ. Int., 2019, 130: 104951 [2023-06-03]. . |
35 | 周迎雪, 李沛曈, 苏江硕, 等. 37份菊属植物的抗旱性评价[J/OL]. 南京农业大学学报,2023 [2023-06-03]. . |
ZHOU Y X, LI P T, SU J S, et al.. Evaluation of drought resistance in 37 accessions of chrysanthemum related species [J/OL]. J. Nanjing Agric. Univ., 2023 [2023-06-03]. . |
[1] | 曹婷婷, 刘春, 范又维, 马力, 任志雨, 袁素霞, 张军云, 钱遵姚, 杨光炤. 不同氮素供应水平对微型盆栽月季生长发育的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2024, 26(2): 67-79. |
[2] | 李生梅, 庞博, 耿世伟, 宋武, 李红梅, 马茂森, 张茹, 王新燕, 高文伟. 棉花海陆回交群体盛铃期的光合特性及其生理基础[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2024, 26(1): 40-51. |
[3] | 卢倩倩, 阿布都外力·阿不力米提, 侯毅兴, 李志慧, 王爽, 周龙. 复合盐碱胁迫下7个鲜食葡萄品种光合特性研究[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2023, 25(7): 63-76. |
[4] | 麻仲花, 陈娟, 吴娜, 满本菊, 王晓港, 者永清, 刘吉利. 盐胁迫与供磷水平对柳枝稷苗期光合特性与总生物量的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2023, 25(6): 190-200. |
[5] | 王爽, 侯毅兴, 冯琳骄, 卢倩倩, 周龙. 干旱胁迫对鲜食葡萄叶片解剖结构的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2023, 25(6): 40-49. |
[6] | 郑淑琳, 石玉涛, 王飞权, 吴邦强, 李远华, 张渤, 叶乃兴. 不同茶树种质资源花器矿质元素含量分析与综合评价[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2023, 25(4): 178-188. |
[7] | 郭胜微, 边思文, 丁建文, 张晓辰, 杨兴, 杜锦, 向春阳. 糯玉米萌发期耐低温品种资源的综合评价[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2023, 25(2): 38-47. |
[8] | 张月欣, 麻云霞, 马秀枝, 张金旺, 王月林, 俞海生. 大青山不同林龄榆树林的土壤酶和养分特征[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2023, 25(12): 168-176. |
[9] | 刘宇鹏, 陈芳, 古书鸿, 王芳. 贵州不同产地冬荪营养成分及品质评价[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2023, 25(11): 143-153. |
[10] | 张会芳, 张建红, 刘海礁, 孙岩, 齐红志, 王楠, 段俊枝, 郭燕, 尹海燕. 近20年黄淮冬麦区南片小麦种质性状演变及其育种价值评价[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2023, 25(11): 28-41. |
[11] | 丁丁, 郑伶杰, 王红宝, 郑丽锦, 郭艳超. 滨海地区不同茶菊品种农艺性状及有效成分综合评价[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2023, 25(10): 45-53. |
[12] | 柴冠群, 刘桂华, 周玮, 张秀锦, 李龙品, 范成五. 贵州乌蒙山区设施土壤重金属污染风险评估与来源解析[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2022, 24(8): 144-153. |
[13] | 李夏夏, 张思语, 程智慧. 中国优质大蒜品种区域试验评价[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2022, 24(7): 58-68. |
[14] | 李俊杰, 杜蒲芳, 石婷瑞, 侯沛佳, 柴新宇, 赵瑞, 汪妤, 李红霞. 不同基因型小麦苗期耐低氮性评价及筛选[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2021, 23(7): 21-32. |
[15] | 王颖1,喻阳华2*. 中国农业可持续发展水平多尺度时空演变特征[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2021, 23(3): 8-17. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||