盐碱胁迫下S-诱抗素对玉米萌发及生长的影响

doi:10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2022.05.024

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

以玉米品种登海605为材料,探讨了S-诱抗素（S-ABA）浸种处理对盐碱胁迫下玉米种子萌发及活性的影响,以及S-ABA拌种和喷雾处理对盐碱胁迫下玉米生长的影响。结果表明,不同浓度NaCl处理均会对玉米种子萌发产生抑制作用,S-ABA浸种处理能减小盐胁迫对种子的伤害,其中NaCl浓度为90mmol/L条件下S-ABA浸种浓度6mg/L时效果最好,发芽率高达95.00%,与对照相比,α-淀粉酶活性提高率为83.33%;温室盐碱土壤培养条件下,S-ABA拌种和喷雾处理均可显著提高玉米的抗盐碱能力,其中S-ABA拌种浓度2.0mg/10kg和喷雾浓度50mg/L时抗盐碱效果最佳,与对照相比,各项生长指标显著提高;且经过2种处理的结合,玉米的抗盐碱能力得到进一步提升,效果要优于拌种或者喷雾单独处理。

关键词: 玉米, 盐碱胁迫, S-诱抗素, 种子处理, 生理特性

Abstract:

Taking Denghai 605 as material, the effects of S-ABA soaking on corn seed germination and activity, and the effects of S-ABA seed dressing and spraying on corn growth under salt-alkali stress were studied. The result indicated: treatments with different concentrations of NaCl could inhibit the germination of corn seeds. Seed soaking with S-ABA could reduce the damage of salt stress to seeds. The best effect was obtained when the concentration of S-ABA was 6mg/L under the condition of 90mmol/L NaCl concentration, and the germination rate was as high as 95.00%. Compared with the control, the increase rate of α-amylase activity was 83.33%; under the conditions of greenhouse saline-alkali soil culture, S-ABA seed dressing and spraying treatment both could significantly improve the salt-alkali resistance of corn. The salt-alkali resistance of the treatment was the best when the S-ABA seed dressing concentration was 2.0mg/10kg and the S-ABA spraying concentration was 50mg/L. Compared with the control, each growth index was significantly improved. Through the combination of the two treatments, the salt-alkali resistance of maize had been further improved, and the effect was better than any single treatment in seed dressing or spraying.

Key words: Maize, Salt-alkali stress, S-ABA, Seed treatment, Physiological characteristics

张建业, 杜庆志, 刘翔, 邓佳辉, 焦芹, 龚洛, 姜兴印. 盐碱胁迫下S-诱抗素对玉米萌发及生长的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2022 (5): 167–173

Zhang Jianye, Du Qingzhi, Liu Xiang, Deng Jiahui, Jiao Qin, Gong Luo, Jiang Xingyin. The Effects of S-ABA on Germination and Growth of Maize under Salt-Alkali Stress[J]. Crops, 2022(5): 167–173

图/表 9

表1

表2

表3

图1

图2

图3

图4

图5

图6

参考文献 22

[1]	郭皓升. 中国玉米产业面临的挑战与机遇. 现代管理科学, 2020(2):31-33.
[2]	Chinnusamy V, Jagendorf A, Zhu J K. Understanding and improving salt tolerance in plants. Crop Science, 2005, 45(2):437-448. doi: 10.2135/cropsci2005.0437
[3]	范惠玲, 白生文, 朱雪峰, 等. 油菜及其近缘种种子萌发期耐盐碱性差异. 作物杂志, 2019(3):178-184.
[4]	Zhang W J, Yuan N, Su H B, et al. Epistatic association mapping for alkaline and salinity tolerance traits in the soybean germination stage. PLoS ONE, 2014, 9(1):e84750. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0084750
[5]	Cheng T L, Chen J H, Zhang J B, et al. Physiological and proteomic analyses of leaves from the halophyte Tangut Nitraria reveals diverse response pathways critical for high salinity tolerance. Frontiers in Plant Science, 2015, 6:30-42.
[6]	Lu N W, Duan B L, Li C Y. Physiological responses to drought and enhanced UV-B radiation in two contrasting. Picea Asperata Populations, 2007, 37(7):1253-1262.
[7]	Yang T, Poovaiah B W. Hydrogen peroxide homeostasis: activation of plant catalase by calcium/calmodulin. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2002, 99(6):4097-4102.
[8]	Shaheen H L, Iqbal M, Azeem M, e al. K-priming positively modulates growth and nutrient status of salt-stressed cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) seedlings. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science, 2016, 62(6):759-768. doi: 10.1080/03650340.2015.1095292
[9]	Ruiz K B, Biondi S, Martinez E A, et al. Quinoa-a model crop for understanding salt-tolerance mechanisms in halophytes. Plant Biosystems, 2016, 150(2):357-371. doi: 10.1080/11263504.2015.1027317
[10]	曹荷莉, 丁日升, 薛富岚. 不同水盐胁迫对番茄生长发育和产量的影响研究. 灌溉排水学报, 2019, 38(2):29-35.
[11]	Liu B S, Kang C L, Wang X, et al. Physiological and morphological responses of Leymus chinensis to saline-alkali stress. Grassland Science, 2015, 61(4):217-226. doi: 10.1111/grs.12099
[12]	Hoai N T T, Shim I S, Kobayashi K, et al. Accumulation of some nitrogen compounds in response to salt stress and their relationships with salt tolerance in rice (Oryza sativa L.) seedlings. Plant Growth Regulation, 2003, 41(2):159-164. doi: 10.1023/A:1027305522741
[13]	Ahmad P, Jaleel C A, Salem M A, et al. Roles of enzymatic and nonenzymatic antioxidants in plants during abiotic stress. Critical Reviews in Biotechnology, 2020, 30:161-175. doi: 10.3109/07388550903524243
[14]	Niu X, Bressan R A, Paul M, et al. Ion Homeostasis in NaCl Stress Environments. Plant Physiology, 1995, 109(3):735-742. pmid: 12228628
[15]	Feng X, Xu Y Q, Peng L, et al. TaEXPB7-B,a β-expansin gene involved in low-temperature stress and abscisic acid responses,promotes growth and cold resistance in Arabidopsis thaliana. Journal of Plant Physiology, 2019, 240:153004. doi: 10.1016/j.jplph.2019.153004
[16]	Yan Y, Liu W, Wei Y W, et al. MeCIPK 23 interacts with Whirly transcription factors to activate abscisic acid biosynthesis and regulate drought resistance in cassava. Plant Biotechnology Journal, 2020, 18(7):1504-1506. doi: 10.1111/pbi.13321 pmid: 31858710
[17]	Yang T, Lv R, Li J, et al. Phytochrome A and B negatively regulate salt stress tolerance of nicotiana tobacum via abscisic acid-jasmonic acid synergistic cross talk. Plant and Cell Physiology, 2018, 59(11):2381-2393.
[18]	彭云玲, 李伟丽, 王坤泽, 等. NaCl胁迫对玉米耐盐系与盐敏感系萌发和幼苗生长的影响. 草业学报, 2012, 21(4):62-71.
[19]	单皓, 张虎, 崔爱民, 等. 外源生长调节物质对盐胁迫下玉米种子萌发的影响. 中国农业科技导报, 2018, 20(8):82-90. doi: 10.13304/j.nykjdb.2018.0288
[20]	Jiang M, Zhang J. Water stress-induced abscisic acid accumulation triggers the increased generation of reactive oxygen species and up-regulates the activities of antioxidant enzymes in maize leaves. Journal of Experimental Botany, 2002, 53(379):2401-2410. pmid: 12432032
[21]	Zong Y Z, Wang W F, Xue Q W, et al. Interactive effects of elevated CO₂ and drought on photosynthetic capacity and PSII performance in maize. Photosynthetica, 2014, 52(1):63-70. doi: 10.1007/s11099-014-0009-x
[22]	罗青红, 寇云玲, 史彦江, 等. 6种杂交榛对新疆盐碱土的生理适应性研究. 西北植物学报, 2013, 33(9):1867-1873.

相关文章 15

[1]	张东霞, 秦安振. 冬小麦-夏玉米作物蒸散量及其水热关系研究[J]. 作物杂志, 2022, (6): 145–151
[2]	侯雪, 陈雨洁, 李春苗, 方淑梅, 梁喜龙, 郑殿峰. 调环酸钙对盐碱胁迫下绿豆苗期生长的调控作用[J]. 作物杂志, 2022, (6): 174–180
[3]	乔江方, 张盼盼, 邵运辉, 刘京宝, 李川, 张美微, 黄璐. 不同种植密度和品种对夏玉米物质生产和产量构成的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2022, (6): 186–192
[4]	张瑞栋, 梁晓红, 刘静, 南怀林, 王颂宇, 曹雄. 种子引发对干旱胁迫下高粱种子发芽及生理特性的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2022, (6): 234–240
[5]	郭欢乐, 汤彬, 李涵, 曹钟洋, 曾强, 刘良武, 陈志辉. 湖南省玉米地方品种表型性状综合评价及类群划分[J]. 作物杂志, 2022, (6): 33–41
[6]	续创业, 张建军, 周刚, 张铠鹏, 朱晓惠, 王甲玺, 党翼, 赵刚, 王磊, 李尚中, 樊廷录. 陇东旱塬密植高产机械粒收玉米新品种筛选与评价[J]. 作物杂志, 2022, (5): 104–110
[7]	李龙, 肖让, 张永玲. 氮磷钾配施对制种玉米产量及经济效益的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2022, (5): 111–117
[8]	历艳璐, 王俊鹏, 于欣志, 魏宏磊, 陈麒宇, 赵洪祥, 徐晨, 边少锋, 张治安. 冷凉区不同地膜覆盖对玉米干物质和氮素积累与分配的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2022, (5): 124–129
[9]	董扬. 糜子对不同除草剂的生理响应机制研究[J]. 作物杂志, 2022, (5): 255–260
[10]	周超, 张田田, 杨丽娜, 张勇, 马冲, 代伟程, 吴翠霞, 宋敏. 根部吸收氟啶虫酰胺在玉米植株中的分布特点及对玉米蚜虫活性效果评价[J]. 作物杂志, 2022, (5): 261–266
[11]	段梦冉, 刘丰泽, 葛建镕, 易红梅, 杨洪明, 高玉倩, 岳鹏武, 马文宇, 班秀丽, 王凤格. 吉林省主推玉米品种的SSR分子标记纯度鉴定[J]. 作物杂志, 2022, (5): 34–41
[12]	朱航, 崔方庆, 卢传礼, 陈卫卫, 李旭辉, 陆思奇, 张湘博, 赵华, 齐永文. 不同籽粒颜色玉米自交系类胡萝卜素含量分析[J]. 作物杂志, 2022, (5): 62–68
[13]	邹小云, 官梅, 官春云. 甘蓝型油菜氮素高效吸收的植株形态与生理特性研究[J]. 作物杂志, 2022, (5): 97–103
[14]	王元元, 谷子寒, 陈平平, 易镇邪. 镉污染稻田玉米对水稻的季节性替代种植可行性研究[J]. 作物杂志, 2022, (4): 187–192
[15]	王家保, 冀怀远, 梅家法, 陶志国, 疏志峰, 江三桥. 玉米新品种荃科玉900的选育与栽培制种技术[J]. 作物杂志, 2022, (4): 267–270

Metrics

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed

处理 Treatment	发芽势 Germination potential (%)	发芽率 Germination percentage (%)	根长 Root length (cm)	芽长 Bud length (cm)	根鲜重 Root fresh weight (g)	芽鲜重 Bud fresh weight (g)	α-淀粉酶活性 α-amylase activity [mg/(min·g)]
Y0	95.00±0.17a	96.67±0.38a	15.35±0.24a	7.83±0.15a	3.45±0.03a	2.34±0.05a	4.14±0.29a
Y1	80.00±0.42b	93.33±0.25a	9.84±0.20b	6.39±0.20b	3.06±0.03b	1.97±0.01b	3.31±0.11b
Y2	76.67±1.04b	90.00±0.13a	7.58±0.19c	4.61±0.13c	2.27±0.01c	1.47±0.04c	2.15±0.14c
Y3	48.33±0.50c	78.33±0.33b	4.25±0.41d	2.37±0.08d	1.23±0.01d	0.74±0.02d	1.83±0.11d
Y4	33.33±0.50d	71.67±0.22c	3.13±0.14e	1.21±0.18e	0.46±0.03e	0.36±0.04e	1.21±0.13e
Y5	20.00±0.42e	55.00±0.63d	2.01±0.16f	0.68±0.36f	0.41±0.03f	0.18±0.03f	0.85±0.07f

处理 Treatment	发芽势 Germination potential (%)	发芽率Germination percentage (%)	根长 Root length (cm)	芽长 Bud length (cm)	根鲜重 Root fresh weight (g)	芽鲜重 Bud fresh weight (g)	α-淀粉酶活性 α-amylase activity [mg/(min·g)]
T0	93.33±0.38a	98.33±0.19a	15.13±0.18a	7.75±0.12a	3.56±0.02a	2.35±0.03a	4.06±0.11a
T1	46.67±0.20e	73.33±0.28d	3.83±0.10f	2.14±0.09f	1.19±0.02f	0.69±0.03f	1.74±0.23e
T2	58.33±0.21d	80.00±0.07c	4.42±0.05e	2.88±0.10e	1.62±0.02e	0.96±0.02e	2.06±0.11d
T3	63.33±0.20c	90.00±0.07b	5.10±0.06d	3.30±0.07d	1.92±0.01d	1.35±0.02d	2.53±0.21c
T4	73.33±0.28b	95.00±0.07a	6.52±0.08b	4.23±0.09b	2.53±0.02b	1.63±0.02b	3.19±0.17b
T5	66.67±0.15c	88.33±0.20b	5.97±0.14c	3.84±0.06c	2.22±0.02c	1.47±0.01c	2.92±0.14b

处理 Treatment	发芽势 Germination potential (%)	发芽率 Germination percentage (%)	株高 Plant height (cm)	根长 Root length (cm)	地上鲜重 Aboveground fresh weight (g)	地下鲜重 Underground fresh weight (g)
S1	85.00±0.48a	98.33±0.29a	42.39±0.07a	43.47±0.17a	3.18±0.07a	5.08±0.04a
S2	26.67±0.44f	66.67±0.25d	32.27±0.16e	25.41±0.19f	2.08±0.12e	2.56±0.05e
S3	43.33±0.28e	83.33±0.18c	35.67±0.10d	27.81±0.06e	2.31±0.03d	2.62±0.03e
S4	51.67±0.23d	86.67±0.23bc	36.80±0.18c	29.67±0.17d	2.42±0.08d	2.99±0.08d
S5	61.67±0.21c	88.33±0.29bc	37.52±0.22c	33.52±0.10b	2.57±0.05c	3.25±0.03c
S6	70.00±0.09b	91.67±0.21b	40.45±0.32b	33.33±0.12b	2.87±0.02b	3.73±0.02b
S7	55.00±0.09d	86.67±0.23bc	37.32±0.07c	30.62±0.02c	2.80±0.05b	3.63±0.01b