不同抗旱性狗牙根种质的抗旱生理响应差异分析

doi:10.13304/j.nykjdb.2021.0986

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为揭示狗牙根抗旱生理机制，筛选不同干旱胁迫下影响其抗旱性的关键指标，探明不同抗旱性狗牙根对干旱胁迫的响应差异，以2种类型不同抗旱性狗牙根（Cynodon dactylon）种质（敏旱种质：C10和C32；抗旱种质：C118和C138）为供试材料，研究其在渐进式缓慢干旱胁迫下叶片相对含水量、相对电导率、光合色素含量、抗氧化酶活性及渗调物质含量等的变化规律。结果表明，随着土壤含水量降低、干旱胁迫加剧，供试狗牙根叶片的相对含水量不断下降，相对电导率及丙二醛、可溶性蛋白、脯氨酸含量呈升高趋势，光合色素含量及3种抗氧化酶活性呈现先升后降趋势。与敏旱材料相比，抗旱狗牙根种质在中、重度干旱胁迫下能够维持较高的抗氧化酶活性，积累更多的脯氨酸和可溶性蛋白，导致其相对电导率及丙二醛含量增加缓慢。即使同为抗旱类型，不同种质对干旱的响应机制也存在差异，C118具有较高的叶绿素含量，而C138维持较高的类胡萝卜素含量。灰色关联分析表明，中度干旱下，相对电导率、类胡萝卜素含量及超氧化物歧化酶活性受狗牙根的抗旱性影响较大；而重度干旱下，脯氨酸和可溶性蛋白含量与抗旱性的关联度更高。以上结果明确了不同抗旱性狗牙根种质的干旱生理响应机制，为选育耐旱草种及节水技术奠定基础。

关键词: 干旱胁迫, 生理生化, 狗牙根, 抗旱差异

Abstract:

In order to reveal the physiological mechanism of Cynodon dactylon drought resistance， screen the key indicators affected drought resistance under different drought stresses， and explore the different response of different drought-resistant Cynodon dactylon to drought stress， 2 types of different drought-resistant Cynodon dactylon were used as experimental materials. The changing laws of leaf relative water content， relative electrical conductivity， photosynthetic pigment content， antioxidant enzyme activity and osmotic adjustment substance content under gradual slow drought stress were analyzed. The results showed that， with the decrease of soil water content and the intensification of drought stress， the relative water content of the tested Cynodon dactylon leaves continued to decrease， while the relative electrical conductivity and the contents of malondialdehyde， soluble proteinand proline showed an increasing trend. The pigment content and the activities of 3 antioxidant enzymes showed a trend of first increasing and then decreasing. Compared with drought-sensitive materials， the drought-resistant Cynodon dactylon maintained higher activities of antioxidant enzymes under moderate to severe drought stress， and accumulated more proline and soluble protein contents， which lead to a slow increase of electrical conductivity and malondialdehyde. It showed that the different germplasm with same drought-resistant had different response mechanism to drought. C118 showed high chlorophyll content， while C138 showed high carotenoid content. Grey correlation analysis indicated that， under moderate drought （14 d）?， relative conductivity， carotenoids content and superoxide dismutase activity had greater impact on the drought resistance of Cynodon dactylon； while under severe drought （20 d）， the contents of proline and soluble protein showed high correlation with resistant to drought. The above results clarified the physiological response mechanism of different drought-resistant Cynodon dactylon to drought， which laid the foundation for the selection of drought-tolerant grass species and water-saving technology.

Key words: drought stress, physiology and biochemistry, Cynodon dactylon, differences in drought resistance

中图分类号:

张一龙, 孙晓梵, 李硕, 李培英, 孙宗玖. 不同抗旱性狗牙根种质的抗旱生理响应差异分析[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2023, 25(6): 59-70.

Yilong ZHANG, Xiaofan SUN, Shuo LI, Peiying LI, Zongjiu SUN. Physiological Response of Different Drought-resistant Cynodon dactylon Germplasm to Drought[J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2023, 25(6): 59-70.

图/表 9

表1 供试材料来源及抗旱性

Table 1 Origins and drought resistances of test materials

编号Code	采集地点 Collection location	抗旱类型 Drought resistance type
C10	莎车县Shache county	敏旱型Drought sensitive
C32	托克逊县Tuokexun county	敏旱型Drought sensitive
C118	莎车县Shache county	抗旱型Drought resistant
C138	疏勒县Shule county	抗旱型Drought resistant

图1 干旱胁迫下不同狗牙根的土壤含水量和叶片相对含水量注：不同英文字母表示同一处理时间不同材料间在P<0.05水平差异显著；不同希腊字母表示同一材料不同处理时间在P<0.05水平差异显著。

Fig. 1 Soil water content and relative leaf water content of different bermudagrass under drought stressNote： Different English letters indicate significant differences between different materials under same treatment time at P<0.05 level； different Greece letters indicate significant differences between different treatment times of same material at P<0.05 level.

图2 干旱胁迫下不同狗牙根叶片相对电导率和丙二醛含量注：不同英文字母表示同一处理时间不同材料间在P<0.05水平差异显著；不同希腊字母表示同一材料不同处理时间在P<0.05水平差异显著。

Fig. 2 Relative electrical conductivity and malondialdehyde content of different bermudagrass leaves under drought stressNote： Different English letters indicate significant differences between different materials under same treatment time at P<0.05 level； different Greece letters indicate significant differences between different treatment times of same material at P<0.05 level.

图3 干旱胁迫下不同狗牙根光合色素含量注：不同英文字母表示同一处理时间不同材料间在P<0.05水平差异显著；不同希腊字母表示同一材料不同处理时间在P<0.05水平差异显著。

Fig. 3 Photosynthetic pigment content of different bermudagrass under drought stressNote： Different English letters indicate significant differences between different materials under same treatment time at P<0.05 level； different Greece letters indicate significant differences between different treatment times of same material at P<0.05 level.

图4 干旱胁迫下不同狗牙根叶片抗氧化酶活性注：不同英文字母表示同一处理时间不同材料间在P<0.05水平差异显著；不同希腊字母表示同一材料不同处理时间在P<0.05水平差异显著。

Fig. 4 Antioxidant enzyme activities of different bermudagrass leaves under drought stressNote： Different English letters indicate significant differences between different materials under same treatment time at P<0.05 level； different Greece letters indicate significant differences between different treatment times of same material at P<0.05 level.

图5 干旱胁迫下不同狗牙根叶片可溶性蛋白和脯氨酸含量注：不同英文字母表示同一处理时间不同材料间在P<0.05水平差异显著；不同希腊字母表示同一材料不同处理时间在P<0.05水平差异显著。

Fig. 5 Soluble protein and proline content of different bermudagrass leaves under drought stressNote： Different English letters indicate significant differences between different materials under same treatment time at P<0.05 level； different Greece letters indicate significant differences between different treatment times of same material at P<0.05 level.

图6 4份狗牙根干旱处理7~20 d时各指标的热图聚类分析注：Clb—叶绿素b含量；Cla—叶绿素a含量；Cl（a+b）—叶绿素（a+b）含量；SOD—超氧化物歧化酶活性；Car—类胡萝卜素含量；SWC—土壤水分含量；RWC—叶片相对水分含量；POD—过氧化物酶活性；CAT—过氧化氢酶活性；Pro—脯氨酸含量；SP—可溶性蛋白含量；EC—相对电导率；MDA—丙二醛含量；7 d、14 d、20 d表示干旱处理时间。

Fig. 6 Heat map cluster analysis of each index of 4 bermudagrass under drought treatment for 7~20 dNote： Clb—Chlorophyll b content；Cla—Chlorophyll a content；Cl（a+b）—Chlorophyll （a+b） content；SOD—Superoxide dismutase activity；Car—Carotenoid content；SWC—Soil water content；RWC—Relative water content in leaf；POD—Peroxidase activity；CAT—Catalase activity；Pro—Proline content；SP—Soluble protein content；EC—electrical conductivity；MDA—Malondialdehyde content； and 7 d， 14 d， 20 d represent the drought treatment time.

表2 干旱胁迫下狗牙根的隶属函数D值及排序

Table 2 Membership function D value and ranking of bermudagrass under drought stress

材料 Accession	7 d		14 d		20 d
材料 Accession	D值D value	排序Ranking	D值D value	排序Ranking	D值D value	排序Ranking
C10	0.482 2	4	0.435 9	3	0.268 4	4
C32	0.575 7	1	0.372 3	4	0.396 6	3
C118	0.483 5	3	0.510 5	2	0.538 6	2
C138	0.562 6	2	0.677 2	1	0.807 2	1

表3 不同干旱时间下各指标与狗牙根抗旱的关联度

Table 3 Correlations between various indicators and bermudagrass drought resistance under different drought times

干旱胁迫时间 Days after drought treatment/d	特征向量 Eigen vector	X₁	X₂	X₃	X₄	X₅	X₆	X₇	X₈	X₉	X₁₀	X₁₁	X₁₂
7	ΨC10	0.624 0	0.514 5	0.516 6	0.508 5	0.648 0	0.520 7	0.569 8	0.754 3	0.577 8	0.839 2	0.614 4	0.512 0
	ΨC32	0.620 0	0.510 3	0.734 0	0.624 1	0.550 1	0.605 0	0.749 1	0.500 2	0.972 4	0.729 6	0.571 6	0.748 5
	ΨC118	0.644 0	0.710 8	0.734 1	0.551 8	0.589 4	0.677 2	0.563 3	0.667 2	0.345 7	0.893 1	0.654 5	0.504 0
	ΨC138	0.635 1	0.787 5	0.520 9	0.834 0	0.564 7	0.653 7	0.583 1	0.569 4	0.555 0	0.785 0	0.597 0	0.559 0
	关联度Relevance	0.630 8	0.630 8	0.626 4	0.629 6	0.588 0	0.614 1	0.616 3	0.622 8	0.612 7	0.811 7	0.609 4	0.580 9
	排序Ranking	3	2	5	4	11	8	7	6	9	1	10	12
14	ΨC10	0.606 9	0.409 4	0.428 3	0.369 4	0.498 0	0.357 1	0.663 0	0.615 3	0.488 5	0.396 0	0.530 1	0.729 2
	ΨC32	0.503 6	0.379 1	0.512 2	0.535 2	0.479 2	0.465 1	0.551 4	0.424 8	0.594 8	0.449 1	0.372 0	0.517 2
	ΨC118	0.623 7	0.725 0	0.731 2	0.653 8	0.564 3	0.653 6	0.533 2	0.591 0	0.392 0	0.670 0	0.674 0	0.429 2
	ΨC138	0.573 5	0.978 9	0.547 6	0.727 0	0.619 6	1.000 0	0.584 1	0.552 8	0.832 6	0.808 8	0.703 0	0.541 8
	关联度 Relevance	0.576 9	0.623 1	0.554 8	0.571 3	0.540 3	0.618 9	0.582 9	0.545 9	0.577 0	0.581 0	0.569 8	0.554 3
	排序Ranking	6	1	9	7	12	2	3	11	5	4	8	10
20	ΨC10	0.658 0	0.666 0	0.369 5	0.376 1	0.448 5	0.490 2	0.453 9	0.525 1	0.409 3	0.350 4	0.611 1	0.657 0
	ΨC32	0.563 9	0.400 6	0.734 5	0.504 1	0.472 0	0.466 7	0.633 7	0.381 3	0.522 0	0.494 4	0.645 0	0.562 8
	ΨC118	0.649 0	0.657 6	0.664 6	0.637 9	0.573 2	0.591 6	0.475 7	0.591 0	0.474 8	0.651 0	0.606 7	0.687 0
	ΨC138	0.582 7	0.668 0	0.519 4	0.776 7	0.711 7	0.615 5	0.619 4	0.655 6	0.569 0	0.921 2	0.672 7	0.643 6
	关联度 Relevance	0.613 4	0.598 0	0.572 0	0.573 7	0.551 3	0.541 0	0.545 7	0.538 3	0.493 7	0.604 2	0.633 9	0.637 6
	排序Ranking	3	5	7	6	8	10	9	11	12	4	2	1

参考文献 31

1	FENG Q, SHINOZAKIKAZUO, KAZUKO Y S. Achievements and challenges in understanding plant abiotic stress responses and tolerance [J]. Plant Cell Physiol., 2011, 52(9):1569-1582.
2	朱烨,刘懿,王文,等.基于土壤含水率的骤发干旱和缓慢干旱时空特征分析[J].农业工程学报,2021,37(2):114-122.
	ZHU Y, LIU Y, WANG W, et al.. Analysis of spatio-temporal characteristics of flash drought and slowly-evolving drought using soil moisture percentile [J]. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng., 2021, 37(2):114-122.
3	温琦,赵文博,张幽静,等.植物干旱胁迫响应的研究进展[J].江苏农业科学,2020,48(12):11-15.
	WEN Q, ZHAO W B, ZHANG Y J, et al.. Research progress of plant response to drought stress [J]. Jiangsu Agric. Sci., 2020, 48(12):11-15.
4	ANJUM S A, XIE Y. Morphological, physiological and biochemical responses of plants to drought stress [J]. AFR JAGR Res., 2011, 6(9):2026-2032.
5	宋娅丽,王莎,王克勤,等.3种冷季型草坪草苗期对干旱胁迫的生理响应[J].草原与草坪,2018,38(3):9-16.
	SONG Y L, WANG S, WANG K Q, et al.. Physiological and ecological responses of three cool-season turfgrasses to drought stress at seedling stage [J]. Grassland Turf, 2018, 38(3): 9-16.
6	孙明伟,徐月乔,王贵,等.松嫩草地两种生态型羊草根际效应和光合生理对干旱胁迫的响应[J].中国草地学报, 2021,43(5):8-17.
	SUN M W, XU Y Q, WANG G, et al.. Responses of the rhizosphere effect and photosynthetic physiology of two ecotypes of Leymus chinensis to drought stress in Songnen grassland [J]. Chin. J. Grassland, 2021, 43(5):8-17.
7	张娜.不同抗旱性燕麦品种对水分胁迫的生理响应机制研究[D].呼和浩特:内蒙古农业大学,2012.
	ZHANG N. Drought resistance of different oat cultivars to water stress physiological response mechanism [D]. Hohhot: Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, 2012.
8	KATUWAL K B, SCHWARTZ B, JESPERSEN D. Desiccation avoidance and drought tolerance strategies in bermudagrasses [J]. Environ. Exp. Bot., 2019, 171(10):39-47.
9	ZHOU Y, LAMBRIDES C J, FUKAI S. Drought resistance of bermudagrass (Cynodon spp) ecotypes collected from different climatic zones [J]. Environ. Exp. Bot., 2013, 85:22-29.
10	段敏敏,张向向,孙宗玖,等.水分胁迫下两种抗旱类型狗牙根种质的生理生态响应差异[J].中国草地学报,2018,40(3):8-13.
	DUAN M M, ZHANG X X, SUN Z J, et al.. Response resistance difference in physiology and ecology of two drought resistance type Cynodon dactylon germplasm to water stress [J]. Chin. J. Grassland, 2018, 40(3):8-13.
11	AJTAHED S S, REZAEI A, TAFRESHI S. Identifying superior drought-tolerant bermudagrass accessions and their defensive responses to mild and severe drought conditions [J]. Euphytica, 2021, 217(1):2-21.
12	曾令霜,李培英,孙晓梵,等.新疆不同生境狗牙根种质抗旱性综合评价[J].草业学报,2020,29(8):155-169.
	ZENG L S, LI P Y, SUN X F, et al.. A multi-trait evaluation of drought resistance of bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) germplasm from different habitats in Xinjiang [J]. Acta Pratac. Sin., 2020, 29(8):155-169.
13	李合生.植物生理生化实验原理和技术[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2000:1-275.
14	ALAN R W. The spectral determination of chlorophylls a and b, as will as total carotenoids, using various solvents with spectrophoto meters of different resolution[J]. Plant Physiol., 1994, 144(3):307-313.
15	王永军.超高产夏玉米群体质量与个体生理功能研究[D].泰安:山东农业大学,2008.
	WANG Y J. Study on population quality and individual physiology function of super high-yielding maize (Zea mays) [D]. Tai’an: Shandong Agricultural University, 2008.
16	王燕凌.植物生理学实验指导[M].北京:中国农业出版社,2014:1-287.
17	刘一明,郇恒福,丁西朋,等. 55份不同生态型假俭草的耐盐性评价[J].草业科学,2017,34(11):2261-2271.
	LIU Y M, HUAN H F, DING X P,et al.. Evaluation of salinity tolerance of 55 centipedegrass ecotypes [J]. Pratac. Sci., 2017, 34(11):2261-2271.
18	伏兵哲,高雪芹,高永发,等. 21个苜蓿品种主要农艺性状关联分析与综合评价[J].草业学报,2015,24(11):174-182.
	FU B Z, GAO X Q, GAO Y F, et al.. Correlation analysis of the main agronomic traits and performance of 21 alfalfa varieties [J]. Acta Pratac. Sin., 2015, 24(11):174-182.
19	CAUDLE K L, JOHNSON L C, BAER S G, et al.. A comparison of seasonal foliar chlorophyll change among ecotypes and cultivars of Andropogon gerardii (Poaceae) by using nondestructive and destructive methods [J]. Photosynthetica, 2014, 52(4):511-518.
20	王平,王沛,孙万斌,等. 8份披碱草属牧草苗期抗旱性综合评价[J].草地学报,2020,28(2):109-116.
	WANG P, WANG P, SUN W B, et al.. Comprehensive evaluation of drought resistance of eight Elymus germplasms at seedling stage [J]. Acta Agrestia Sin., 2020, 28(2): 397-404.
21	胡杨,李钢铁,李星,等.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.
	HU Y, LI G T, LI X, et al.. Growth and physiological index of tamarix leptostachys bunge seedlings under soil drought stress [J]. J. Agric. Sci. Technol., 2021, 23(6):43-50.
22	杨喜珍,杨利,覃亚,等.PEG-8000模拟干旱胁迫对马铃薯组培苗叶绿素和类胡萝卜素含量的影响[J].中国马铃薯,2019,33(4):193-202.
	YANG X Z, YANG L, QIN Y, et al.. Effects of PEG-8000 strees on carotenoid of potato contents of chlorophyll and plantlets in vitro [J]. Chin. Potato J., 2019, 33(4):193-202.
23	王凯悦, 陈芳泉, 黄五星. 植物干旱胁迫响应机制研究进展[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2019, 21(2): 19-25.
	WANG K Y, CHEN F Q, HUANG W X. Research advance on drought stress response mechanism in plants [J]. J. Agric. Sci. Technol., 2019, 21(2):19-25.
24	张然,李佳缙,王铭,等. 11份草地早熟禾种质材料对PEG-6000胁迫的生理响应和耐旱性评价[J].草原与草坪,2021,41(2):113-121.
	ZHANG R, LI J J, WANG M, et al.. Physiological kentucky responses to drought stress in 11 different bluegrass germplasm and the evaluation of their drought tolerance [J]. Grassland Turf, 2021, 41(2):113-121.
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	赵春程,李晓宁,张寅坤,等.4个多年生黑麦草品种对干旱胁迫的生理响应[J].草业科学,2020,37(4):669-677.
	ZHAO C C, LI X N, ZHANG Y K, et al.. Physiological correspondence of four varieties of perennial ryegrass to drought stress [J]. Pratac. Sci., 2020, 37(4):669-677.
27	李州,彭燕,苏星源.不同叶型白三叶抗氧化保护及渗透调节生理对干旱胁迫的响应[J].草业学报,2013,22(2):257-263.
	LI Z, PENG Y, SU X Y. Physiological responses of white clover by different leaf types associated with anti-oxidative enzyme protection and osmotic adjustment under drought stress [J]. Acta Pratac. Sin., 2013, 22(2):257-263.
28	赵福庚,孙诚,刘友良.盐胁迫激活大麦幼苗脯氨酸合成的鸟氨酸途径[J].植物学报,2001,43(1):36-40.
	ZHAO F G, SUN C, LIU Y L. Ornithine pathway in proline biosynthesis activated by salt stress in barley seedlings [J]. J. Acta Bot. Sin., 2001, 43(1):36-40.
29	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.
	GU 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.
30	李江艳,张鲜花,袁小强.鸭茅种质资源苗期抗旱指标筛选及抗旱评价[J].中国农业科技导报,2021,11(1):215-226.
	LI J Y, ZHANG X H, YUAN X Q. Drought resistance index screening and drought resistance evaluation of Dactylis glomerata germplasm resources during seedling [J]. J. Agric. Sci. Technol., 2021, 11(1):215-226.
31	田小霞,许明爽,郑明利,等.黄花草木樨苗期抗旱性鉴定及抗旱指标筛选[J].干旱区资源与环境,2021,35(10):120-127.
	TIAN X X, XU M S, ZHENG M L, et al.. Drought resistance identification and drought resistance index screening of melilotus officinalis seedling [J]. J. Arid Land Resour. Environ., 2021, 35(10):120-127.

[1]	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.
[2]	陆青, 梁婷, 王伟伟, 汪德州, 吴娴, 王小燕, 唐益苗. 小麦热激蛋白基因TaHSP90-1的克隆与表达分析[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2022, 24(8): 44-54.
[3]	王莉莉, 殷丛培, 李峰, 杨志敏, 刘芳明, 林柏松, 刘晓静, 刘海军, 孙靖, 单东东, 崔江慧, 张振清. 马铃薯根际土壤细菌群落结构及其对干旱胁迫的响应[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2022, 24(6): 58-69.
[4]	王方玲, 张明月, 周亚茹, 管庆林, 李欣燕, 钟秋, 赵铭钦. 干旱胁迫下TS-PAA保水剂对雪茄烟生长发育和光合特性的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2022, 24(4): 162-172.
[5]	李江艳, 张鲜花, 袁小强. 鸭茅种质资源苗期抗旱指标筛选及抗旱评价[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2022, 24(3): 84-94.
[6]	孙晓春, 黄文静, 李铂. 水杨酸对干旱胁迫下桔梗幼苗生理生化指标及相关基因表达的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2022, 24(1): 63-70.
[7]	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.
[8]	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.
[9]	孙艳, 蒲文宣, 吴长征, 黄平俊, 孙铭雪, 宋德安, 刘来华. 植物响应亚适低温的生长发育及分子机制研究进展[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2021, 23(5): 18-26.
[10]	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.
[11]	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.
[12]	张茂,徐彦红,席溢*,裴应杰,黄本用,杨克超,李金孟. 铅、锌、镉胁迫对多年生黑麦草生长及生理生化特性的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2021, 23(3): 41-50.
[13]	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.
[14]	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.
[15]	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.