烯效唑浸种对盐碱胁迫下藜麦农艺性状及生理特性的影响

doi:10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2024.02.029

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为了探究烯效唑浸种处理对盐碱胁迫下藜麦幼苗生长的缓解效应，以陇藜1号为试验材料，采用盆栽法研究不同浓度烯效唑（0、15、30、45和60 mg/L）浸种处理对不同程度盐碱胁迫（CK 0 g/kg、轻度盐碱3 g/kg、中度盐碱5 g/kg、重度盐碱7 g/kg）下藜麦苗期（播种后28 d）农艺性状及生理参数的影响。结果表明，藜麦幼苗渗透物质含量、抗氧化酶活性及根系活力在轻度盐碱胁迫（3 g/kg）下均有所提高，以应对盐碱环境，缓解氧化损伤；根冠比和壮苗指数在中度盐碱（5 g/kg）处理下达到最大；藜麦幼苗农艺参数、光合参数、渗透物质含量、抗氧化酶活性及根系活力在重度盐碱胁迫下明显下降，丙二醛含量在重度盐碱胁迫（7 g/kg）下达到最大，说明盐碱程度的加深显著影响藜麦幼苗的生长。在同一盐碱水平上，低浓度烯效唑浸种处理后，藜麦幼苗的根冠比、壮苗指数、叶绿素含量、渗透物质含量、抗氧化酶活性和根系活力均显著升高，丙二醛含量有所下降，且浸种浓度在15 mg/L时缓解盐胁迫效应最为显著。

关键词: 盐碱胁迫, 烯效唑, 藜麦, 壮苗指数, 生理特性

Abstract:

In order to investigate the mitigative effects of seed soaking with uniconazole on the growth of quinoa seedlings under saline-alkali stress, Longli 1 was used as experimental material, the effects of seed soaking with uniconazole (0, 15, 30, 45 and 60 mg/L) at different concentrations on the agronomic characteristics and physiological parameters of quinoa at seedling stage (28 d after sowing) under different saline-alkali stress (CK 0 g/kg, mild saline-alkali 3 g/kg, moderate saline-alkali 5 g/kg, heavy saline-alkali 7 g/kg) were studied by pot experiment. The results showed that the osmotic substance contents, antioxidant enzyme activities and root activity of quinoa seedlings were increased under low salinity (3 g/kg), so as to cope with saline-alkali environment and alleviate oxidative damage. The root-shoot ratio and seedling strength index reached the maximum under moderate saline-alkali (5 g/kg) treatment. The agronomic parameters, photosynthetic parameters, osmotic substance contents, antioxidant enzyme activities and root activity of quinoa seedlings decreased significantly under high salinity, and malondialdehyde content reached the maximum under heavy saline-alkali (7 g/kg), the results indicated that the growth of quinoa seedlings was significantly affected by salinity. At the same saline-alkali level, the root-shoot ratio, seedling strength index, chlorophyll content, osmotic substance contents, antioxidant enzyme activities and root activity of quinoa seedlings were significantly increased after seed soaking with low concentration of uniconazole, the content of malondialdehyde decreased, and the effect was the most significant when the concentration of seed soaking was 15 mg/L.

Key words: Saline-alkali stress, Uniconazole, Quinoa, Seedling strength index, Physiological characteristics

合佳敏, 张永清, 张萌, 梁萍, 王丹, 严翻翻. 烯效唑浸种对盐碱胁迫下藜麦农艺性状及生理特性的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2024 (2): 234–241

He Jiamin, Zhang Yongqing, Zhang Meng, Liang Ping, Wang Dan, Yan Fanfan. Effects of Seed Soaking with Uniconazole on Agronomic and Physiological Characteristics of Quinoa under Saline-Alkali Stress[J]. Crops, 2024(2): 234–241

图/表 6

表1

图1

图2

图3

图4

图5

参考文献 47

[1]	杨永利. 盐生植物对盐碱地的改良作用及在绿化中的景观效果. 现代园林, 2004(10):34-38.
[2]	高淑梅, 周继伟. 松嫩平原盐碱土现状及改良措施. 现代化农业, 2011, 383(6):13-15.
[3]	杨瑞珍, 毕于运. 我国盐碱化耕地的防治. 干旱区资源与环境, 1996(3):22-30.
[4]	毛恋, 芦建国, 江海燕. 植物响应盐碱胁迫的机制. 分子植物育种, 2020, 18(10):3441-3448.
[5]	王佺珍, 刘倩, 高娅妮, 等. 植物对盐碱胁迫的响应机制研究进展. 生态学报, 2017, 37(16):5565-5577.
[6]	李丽丽, 姜奇彦, 牛风娟, 等. 藜麦耐盐机制研究进展. 中国农业科技导报, 2016, 18(2):31-40. doi: 10.13304/j.nykjdb.2015.437
[7]	徐月乔. 盐碱胁迫下灰绿型与黄绿型羊草根际效应和光合生理响应. 长春: 东北师范大学, 2019.
[8]	Juan A, Gonzalez M, Gallardo M, et al. Physiological responses of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) to drought and waterlogging stresses:dry matter partitioning. Botanical Studies, 2009, 50(1):35-42.
[9]	Jacobsen S E, Monteros C, Corcuera L J, et al. Frost resistance mechanisms in quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). European Journal of Agronomy, 2007, 26(4):471-475. doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2007.01.006
[10]	Jensen C R, Jacobsen S E, Andersen M N, et al. Leaf gas exchange and water relation characteristics of field quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) during soil drying. European Journal of Agronomy, 2000, 13(1):11-25. doi: 10.1016/S1161-0301(00)00055-1
[11]	赵颖, 魏小红, 赫亚龙, 等. 混合盐碱胁迫对藜麦种子萌发和幼苗抗氧化特性的影响. 草业学报, 2019, 28(2):156-167. doi: 10.11686/cyxb2018181
[12]	贺笑, 庞春花, 张永清, 等. 多效唑和矮壮素浸种对藜麦幼苗生长的影响. 河南农业科学, 2018, 47(1):26-31.
[13]	李琬, 项洪涛, 何宁, 等. 烯效唑(S₃₃₀₇)提高作物抗逆性研究进展. 中国农学通报, 2020, 36(20):101-106. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb20190500106
[14]	刘子记, 牛玉, 曹振木, 等. 多效唑对辣椒幼苗的矮化效应. 北方园艺, 2013(7):13-16.
[15]	Leul M, Zhou W J. Alleviation of waterlogging damage in winter rape by uniconazole application: effects on enzyme activity, lipid peroxidation, and membrane integrity. Journal of Plant Growth Regulation, 1999, 18(1):9-14. pmid: 10467014
[16]	Izumi K, Kamiya Y, Sakurai A, et al. Studies of sites of action of a new plant growth retardant(E)-1-(4-chlorophenyl)-4,4-dimethyl- 2-(1,2,4-triazol-1-yl)-1-penten-3-ol(S-3307) and comparative effects of its stereoisomers in a cell-free system from Cucurbita maxima. Plant and Cell Physiology, 1985, 26(5):821-827.
[17]	刘星贝. 烯效唑和赤霉素浸种对甜荞抗倒伏性能的影响及其机理研究. 重庆: 西南大学, 2017.
[18]	王玉洁. 烯效唑(S3307)对盐胁迫下黄瓜幼苗生理生化特性的影响. 兰州: 甘肃农业大学, 2007.
[19]	金喜军, 张盼盼, 屈春媛, 等. 烯效唑浸种对盐胁迫下糜子萌发和幼苗质量的调控效应. 干旱地区农业研究, 2015, 33(6):149-154.
[20]	傅福道, 金关荣, 李金先, 等. 亚麻喷施烯效唑的抗倒及增产效果. 中国麻业科学, 2003, 25(3):117-119.
[21]	杨崇庆, 曹秀霞, 张炜, 等. 叶面喷施烯效唑对旱地胡麻抗倒性和产量性状的影响. 干旱地区农业研究, 2017, 35(3):49-52.
[22]	张倩, 张海燕, 谭伟明, 等. 30%矮壮素-烯效唑微乳剂对水稻抗倒伏性状及产量的影响. 农药学学报, 2011, 13(2):144-148.
[23]	孟娜, 徐航, 魏明, 等. 叶面喷施烯效唑对盐胁迫下大豆幼苗生理及解剖结构的影响. 西北植物学报, 2017, 37(10):1988-1995.
[24]	李宁毅, 王吉振, 时彦平. 烯效唑(S3307)对矮牵牛幼苗耐盐性的调节效应. 沈阳农业大学学报, 2011, 42(6):668-671.
[25]	李煜昶, 岳铭秀, 董景华. 烯效唑对大豆的增产作用. 天津农业科学, 1998, 4(2):15-17.
[26]	关华, 杨文钰. 烯效唑对小麦苗期生长的调控效应. 种子, 2002(3):62-63.
[27]	谷增辉. 烯效唑对小麦的生理生态效应. 农业科技通讯, 2018 (10):185-187.
[28]	李小方, 张志良. 植物生理学实验指导. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2016.
[29]	修妤, 梁晓艳, 石瑞常, 等. 混合盐碱胁迫对藜麦苗期植株及根系生长特征的影响. 江苏农业科学, 2020, 48(4):89-94.
[30]	谢发顺, 罗家传, 张春初, 等. 小麦应用烯效唑拌种初探. 安徽农业科学, 2001, 29(3):306-307.
[31]	关华. 烯效唑对小麦种子萌发生理和壮苗的调控研究. 雅安: 四川农业大学, 2002.
[32]	李秋, 李立芹. 烯效唑对小麦幼苗生长的影响. 安徽农业科学, 2011, 39(10):5715-5716.
[33]	Duan L, Guan C, Li J, et al. Compensative effects of chemical regulation with uniconazole on physiological damages caused by water deficiency during the grain filling stage of wheat. Journal of Agronomy & Crop Science, 2008, 194(1):9-14.
[34]	He J, Lin L J, Ma Q Q, et al. Uniconazole (S-3307) strengthgthens the growth and cadmium accumulation of accumulator plant Malachium aquaticum. International Journal of Phytoremediation, 2017, 19(4):348-352. doi: 10.1080/15226514.2016.1225287
[35]	刘丽琴, 张永清, 李鑫, 等. 烯效唑浸种对红小豆种子萌发及幼苗生长的影响. 江苏农业科学, 2017, 45(3):64-70.
[36]	王艺臻, 丁国栋, 崔欣然, 等. 盐碱复合胁迫对油沙豆生长和光合特性的影响. 干旱区资源与环境, 2022, 36(5):146-152.
[37]	张景云, 吴凤芝. 盐胁迫对黄瓜不同耐盐品种叶绿素含量和叶绿体超微结构的影响. 中国蔬菜, 2009(10):13-16.
[38]	周静. 藜麦对NaHCO₃胁迫适应性机制研究. 长春: 东北师范大学, 2017.
[39]	Ilektra S, Michael M. Interaction of proline, sugars, and anthocyanins during photosynthetic acclimation of Arabidopsis thaliana to drought stress. Journal of Plant Physiology, 2012, 169(6):577-585. doi: 10.1016/j.jplph.2011.12.015
[40]	姚远, 徐月乔, 王贵, 等. 盐碱胁迫下松嫩草地2种生态型羊草根际效应及光合生理响应. 中国农业科学, 2020, 53(13):2584-2594. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2020.13.007
[41]	梁培鑫, 唐榕, 郭睿, 等. 混合盐碱胁迫对油莎豆生长及生理性状的影响. 干旱区资源与环境, 2022, 36(10):185-192.
[42]	刘铎, 丛日春, 党宏忠, 等. 柳树幼苗渗透调节物质对中、碱性钠盐响应的差异性. 生态环境学报, 2014, 23(9):1531-1535.
[43]	张敏, 王校常, 严蔚东, 等. 盐胁迫下转Bt基因棉的K⁺、Na⁺转运及SOD活性的变化. 土壤学报, 2005, 42(3):460-467.
[44]	Shabala L, Mackay A, Tian Y, et al. Oxidative stress protection and stomatal patterning as components of salinity tolerance mechanism in quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa). Physiologia Plantarum, 2012, 146(1):26-38. doi: 10.1111/ppl.2012.146.issue-1
[45]	许浩宇, 赵颖, 阮倩, 等. 不同混合盐碱下藜麦幼苗的抗性研究. 草业学报, 2023, 32(1):122-130. doi: 10.11686/cyxb2021500
[46]	庞春花, 张紫薇, 张永清. 水磷耦合对藜麦根系生长、生物量积累及产量的影响. 中国农业科学, 2017, 50(21):4107-4117. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2017.21.005
[47]	严青青, 张巨松, 徐海江, 等. 盐碱胁迫对海岛棉幼苗生物量分配和根系形态的影响. 生态学报, 2019, 39(20):7632-7640.

Metrics

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed

盐碱处理 Saline-alkali treatment (g/kg)	烯效唑处理 Uniconazole treatment (mg/L)	株高 Plant height (cm)	茎粗 Stem diameter (mm)	主根长 Main root length (cm)	生物量（g/株） Biomass (g/plant)
0	0	20.13±0.16Aa	1.56±0.03Ca	17.05±0.21Dc	2.76±0.03Ba
	15	17.65±0.12Ba	1.96±0.04Aa	26.37±0.17Ac	2.96±0.02Aa
	30	16.12±0.09Ca	1.73±0.03Ba	24.23±0.23Bc	2.74±0.04Ba
	45	14.94±0.10Da	1.63±0.03Ba	20.51±0.20Cc	2.59±0.03Ca
	60	13.12±0.08Ea	1.43±0.02Da	15.11±0.17Ec	2.51±0.01Ca
3	0	15.83±0.09Ab	1.41±0.02Db	21.47±0.28Da	2.52±0.02Bb
	15	14.54±0.08Bb	1.78±0.05Ab	31.51±0.31Aa	2.76±0.03Ab
	30	13.27±0.12Cb	1.65±0.03Bb	28.61±0.26Ba	2.51±0.02Bb
	45	12.13±0.07Db	1.51±0.04Cb	23.85±0.24Ca	2.35±0.04Cb
	60	11.03±0.05Eb	1.32±0.04Eb	17.15±0.15Ea	2.12±0.01Db
5	0	12.87±0.11Ac	1.29±0.06Cc	19.41±0.16Cb	2.17±0.02Bc
	15	11.41±0.09Bc	1.51±0.02Ac	28.32±0.13Ab	2.36±0.03Ac
	30	10.02±0.05Cc	1.38±0.05Bc	26.13±0.17Bb	2.20±0.02Bc
	45	9.26±0.08Dc	1.36±0.02Bc	20.93±0.16Cb	2.07±0.02Cc
	60	9.27±0.04Dc	1.14±0.02Dc	16.45±0.15Db	1.83±0.01Dc
7	0	9.87±0.08Ad	1.12±0.03Cd	10.26±0.14Dd	1.72±0.03Bd
	15	8.65±0.09Bd	1.38±0.02Ad	16.85±0.21Ad	1.88±0.03Ad
	30	7.42±0.12Cd	1.24±0.04Bd	14.46±0.12Bd	1.73±0.01Bd
	45	7.31±0.06Cd	1.13±0.06Cd	12.12±0.11Cd	1.69±0.02Bd
	60	6.17±0.04Dd	1.01±0.02Dd	8.01±0.12Ed	1.58±0.01Cd