检索
E-mail
RSS
高级检索 图表检索

当期目录 我要投稿 过刊浏览
高级检索 图表检索

作物杂志,2026, 第3期: 132–140 doi: 10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2026.03.018

• 遗传育种·种质资源·生物技术 • 上一篇    下一篇

甘蓝型油菜耐湿性综合评价体系的构建与应用

杨玉恒(), 昝晓飞, 余青青, 代兵兵, 周锰林, 田露申, 邓武明, 宋稀()   

  1. 南充市农业科学院， 637000， 四川南充
  • 收稿日期:2025-10-17 修回日期:2025-12-14 出版日期:2026-06-15 发布日期:2026-06-17
  • 通讯作者: 宋稀，主要从事油菜遗传育种与栽培技术研究，E-mail：xixi420.haha@163.com
  • 作者简介:杨玉恒，主要从事油菜遗传育种与栽培技术研究，E-mail：89105004@qq.com
  • 基金资助:
    国家现代农业产业技术体系四川油菜创新团队(SCCXTD-2025-3);南充市农业科学院青年基金项目

Construction and Application of a Comprehensive Evaluation System for Waterlogging Tolerance of Brassica napus L.

Yang Yuheng(), Zan Xiaofei, Yu Qingqing, Dai Bingbing, Zhou Menglin, Tian Lushen, Deng Wuming, Song Xi()   

  1. Nanchong Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Nanchong 637000, Sichuan, China
  • Received:2025-10-17 Revised:2025-12-14 Online:2026-06-15 Published:2026-06-17

RichHTML

1

PDF (PC)

39

摘要：

选取耐湿性有明显差异的21份甘蓝型油菜品种（系），在萌发期和苗期分别进行淹水胁迫，通过测定萌发期生理指标、苗期长势及成熟期产量和品质性状的变化，构建了甘蓝型油菜耐湿性综合评价体系，并利用该体系鉴定筛选出4个具有较强耐渍性甘蓝型油菜品种（系）（NY18、ZS11、AGREV012、ZS4/W757），2个耐渍性较弱的品种（系）[M417（CV）和ZS4///南A2/B94076//中双5号]。本研究为油菜耐渍种质筛选、育种改良和耐渍机理研究提供了参考依据。

关键词: 甘蓝型油菜, 品种（系）, 耐湿性, 鉴定体系

Abstract:

A total of 21 Brassica napus L. varieties (lines) with obvious differences in waterlogging tolerance were selected and subjected to waterlogging stress at the germination and seedling stages, respectively. By determining physiological indices at the germination stage, seedling growth vigor, as well as yield and quality traits at the maturity stage, a comprehensive evaluation system for waterlogging tolerance of B. napus L. was established. Using this evaluation system, four varieties (lines) with strong waterlogging tolerance (NY18, ZS11, AGREV012, ZS4/W757) and two varieties (lines) with weak waterlogging tolerance (M417 (CV), ZS4///Nan A2/B94076//Zhongshuang No.5) were identified. This study provides a reference for waterlogging-tolerant germplasm screening, rape seed breeding improvement and research on waterlogging tolerance mechanistic.

Key words: Brassica napus L., Variety (line), Waterlogging tolerance, Identification system

表1

供试材料

编号
Code		 品种（系）
Variety (line)		 编号
Code		 品种（系）
Variety (line)
1 M417（CV） 12 ZS9
2 ZS4///南A2/B94076//中双5号 13 ZS6/W757
3 F219 14 T8
4 T8 15 R896-2
5 NY18 16 WY29
6 18C 17 ZS4/W757
7 Z254 18 FC03（CV）
8 ZS11 19 130532-1
9 AGREV012 20 德油早1号
10 D57 21 楚0708（CV）
11 AGREV012

表2

21份油菜品种（系）淹水前绿叶数、苗高的方差分析

变异来源
Source of variation		 自由度
df		 F值F-value
绿叶数
Number of
green leaves		 苗高
Seedling
height
淹水处理Flooding treatment 3 2.302 1.853
材料Material 20 2.411** 3.894**
淹水处理×材料
Flooding treatment×material		 60
 0.310
 0.522
误差Error 84

表3

21份油菜品种（系）淹水后绿叶数、苗高的方差分析

变异来源
Source of variation		 自由度
df		 F值F-value
绿叶数
Number of
green leaves		 苗高
Seedling
height
淹水处理Flooding treatment 2 9.974** 12.939**
材料Material 20 2.299** 2.731**
淹水处理×材料
Flooding treatment×material		 40
 0.542
 0.414
误差Error 63

表4

淹水处理绿叶数、苗高与CK差值均值成对比较

处理
Treatment		 绿叶数Number of green leaves 苗高Seedling height
（对照-处理）均值
(Control-treatment) mean		 处理
Treatment		 均值差
Mean difference		 （对照-处理）均值
(Control-treatment) mean		 处理
Treatment		 均值差
Mean difference
T3 0.919 T3-T2 0.516* 1.739 T3-T2 1.748**
T2 0.406 T3-T1 0.910** -0.009 T3-T1 2.510**
T1 0.010 T2-T1 0.397* -0.771 T2-T1 0.761

表5

21份油菜品种（系）2个试验周期成熟期农艺性状

处理
Treatment		 试验周期
Test cycle		 株高
Plant height
(cm)		 一次有效分枝高度
Primary effective
branch height (cm)		 主花序长度
Main inflorescence
length (cm)		 一次有效分枝数
Number of primary
effective branches		 主花序无效角果数
Invalid pods in main
inflorescence
T0 (CK) 1 73.503±20.542 51.658±12.004 20.636±9.730 0.379±0.823 3.800±3.536
2 152.784±25.845 54.730±19.472 57.681±8.932 6.410±1.140 7.863±5.684
T1 1 80.952±14.288 54.098±10.769 24.771±7.655 0.467±0.795 3.993±2.576
2 142.906±27.475 49.815±19.225 55.291±9.951 5.972±1.523 6.061±5.688
T2 1 70.279±17.362 50.153±12.198 19.729±7.158 0.139±0.228 4.023±2.728
2 138.369±26.673 43.163±16.680 56.008±10.628 6.060±1.313 6.357±5.190
T3 1 67.752±20.096 46.324±11.371 21.404±11.801 0.251±0.552 4.436±3.631
2 128.920±22.014 36.526±15.216 53.220±10.775 5.954±1.676 6.832±4.467
处理
Treatment		 试验周期
Test cycle		 主花序有效角果数
Effective pods
in main inflorescence		 一分枝有效角果数
Number of pods
per primary branch		 每果粒数
Number of seeds
per pod		 单株角果数
Number of pods
per plant
T0 (CK) 1 19.314±9.457 2.478±6.932 13.816±4.069 21.019±14.361
2 68.932±19.045 257.756±105.979 13.727±5.971 326.687±14.361
T1 1 23.152±6.392 3.117±6.617 16.313±2.556 26.195±11.141
2 64.548±16.998 202.609±85.321 13.924±5.413 299.119±113.963
T2 1 19.685±7.730 0.563±1.244 13.973±3.750 20.248±8.425
2 58.516±15.245 248.655±119.895 11.919±5.370 307.171±129.735
T3 1 18.704±8.881 2.110±5.323 14.402±3.403 20.263±12.378
2 51.271±19.225 247.254±168.329 12.822±7.727 20.281±12.439

表6

21份油菜品种（系）经济产量及千粒重

处理
Treatment		 经济产量（g/株）
Economic yield (g/plant)		 千粒重
1000-grain weight (g)
T0 (CK) 149.885±68.782 3.491±0.569
T1 143.129±61.904 3.569±0.561
T2 114.744±51.910 3.293±0.520
T3 107.316±47.155 3.376±0.606

表7

21份油菜品种（系）的品质性状

处理
Treatment		 试验周期
Test cycle		 芥酸
Erucic acid		 硫苷
Sulfur glycoside		 含油量
Oil content		 蛋白质含量
Protein content		 亚麻酸
Linolenic acid		 亚油酸
Linoleic acid		 花生烯酸
Arachidonic acid
T0 1 0.294±0.580 36.554±12.045 43.779±3.373 17.753±2.531 8.810±2.107 18.035±1.908 3.676±2.135
2 0.738±0.423 29.032±6.202 42.896±3.977 24.193±2.175 10.022±1.194 16.843±1.948 0.566±1.125
T1 1 0.310±0.529 31.125±11.523 42.414±3.458 18.939±2.201 10.258±1.501 18.896±1.969 2.301±1.185
2 0.548±0.380 28.026±6.528 43.560±2.987 23.138±2.041 9.874±0.941 15.957±1.784 0.100±1.234
T2 1 0.232±0.455 33.913±11.791 43.675±3.299 18.257±2.097 9.391±1.987 18.446±1.871 2.894±1.617
2 0.694±0.378 29.883±7.206 42.326±3.047 23.707±2.259 9.844±1.035 16.794±1.822 0.141±1.092
T3 1 0.243±0.529 35.553±12.446 43.554±2.968 18.179±1.834 8.535±2.173 18.290±1.699 3.196±1.642
2 0.620±0.360 27.915±5.861 41.799±4.592 23.999±2.236 9.906±1.299 16.793±2.123 0.041±1.145

表8

2个试验周期21份油菜品种（系）品质性状的方差分析

变异来源
Source of variation		 自由度
df		 试验
周期
Test
cycle		 F值F-value
芥酸
Erucic
acid		 硫苷
Sulfur
glycoside		 含油量
Oil
content		 蛋白质含量
Protein
content		 亚麻酸
Linolenic
acid		 亚油酸
Linoleic
acid		 花生烯酸
Arachidonic
acid
淹水处理
Flooding treatment		 3 1 0.754 2.257 7.997** 8.248** 8.489** 5.565** 8.386**
2 3.763* 2.936* 4.161** 4.491** 0.280 8.748** 4.427**
材料
Material		 20 1 1.914** 4.381** 33.253** 22.688** 4.118** 21.264** 6.290**
2 7.665** 14.733** 11.813** 14.011** 15.581** 33.059** 17.935**
淹水处理×材料
Flooding treatment×material		 60 1 0.890 0.871 1.415 1.620* 0.883 1.127 1.143
2 2.392** 1.971** 2.319** 2.390** 2.019** 3.640** 1.470
误差Error 84

表9

12份油菜品种（系）萌发期淹水胁迫下生理指标测定

处理
Treatment		 可溶性蛋白
SP (μg/g)		 丙二醛
MDA (nmol/mg prot)		 脯氨酸
Pro (U/g)		 过氧化物酶
POD (U/g)		 铜锌超氧化物歧化酶
Cu-Zn SOD (U/g)		 超氧化物歧化酶
T-SOD (U/g)
CK 1.732±0.439 0.132±0.055 1.062±0.718 575.103±136.912 645.564±80.982 843.571±91.819
24H 1.836±0.541 0.340±0.100 1.267±0.819 609.713±167.402 647.650±59.027 866.106±82.568

表10

主成分因子特征值、贡献率及累计贡献率

主成分因子
Principal
component factor		 特征值
Eigenvalue		 贡献率
Contribution
rate (%)		 累计贡献率
Cumulative
contribution rate (%)		 主成分因子
Principal
component factor		 特征值
Eigenvalue		 贡献率
Contribution
rate (%)		 累计贡献率
Cumulative
contribution rate (%)
PC1 3.90 35.42 35.42 PC7 0.46 4.21 94.57
PC2 2.05 18.67 54.09 PC8 0.28 2.56 97.12
PC3 1.64 14.88 68.98 PC9 0.17 1.51 98.63
PC4 1.11 10.06 79.04 PC10 0.10 0.94 99.57
PC5 0.65 5.95 84.99 PC11 0.05 0.43 100.00
PC6 0.59 5.37 90.36

表11

主成分因子特征向量值

性状
Trait		 主成分因子Principal component factor
PC1 PC2 PC3 PC4 PC5 PC6 PC7
绿叶数Number of green leaves 0.3929 0.2128 -0.0759 -0.1498 0.0844 0.4908 -0.1435
苗高Seedling height 0.2332 0.4287 -0.2843 0.0364 0.0457 0.2717 0.6460
株高Plant height 0.3737 0.2555 0.0860 0.2959 0.2839 -0.3418 -0.1828
一次有效分枝数Number of primary effective branches 0.1794 0.2095 0.5243 0.3526 -0.5204 0.0418 -0.1179
每果粒数Number of seeds per pod 0.2907 -0.4206 -0.2628 0.2647 0.0237 0.0953 -0.2795
含油量Oil content 0.3874 0.0649 0.3521 -0.0780 -0.0237 -0.3491 0.2855
蛋白质含量Protein content -0.3353 0.2889 0.3061 0.1071 0.0176 0.5179 -0.2268
亚油酸Linoleic acid -0.0636 -0.3242 0.4603 0.2619 0.6509 0.2025 0.2899
花生烯酸Arachidonic acid 0.1817 -0.5294 0.1504 -0.1017 -0.4251 0.2594 0.3360
经济产量Economic yield 0.4578 -0.1079 -0.0810 0.0537 0.0995 0.2434 -0.2684
千粒重1000-grain weight 0.1604 0.0141 0.3215 -0.7713 0.1537 -0.0031 -0.1864

表12

各性状隶属函数值、主成分因子综合值

编号
Code		 隶属函数分析MF analysis 主成分分析PCA
平均隶属值
Average
membership
value		 排名
Ranking		 农艺性状平均
隶属函数值
Agronomic trait average
membership
value		 排名
Ranking		 品质性状平均
隶属函数值
Quality trait average
membership
value		 排名
Ranking		 产量性状平均
隶属函数值
Yield trait average
membership
value		 排名
Ranking		 主成分因子
综合值
Comprehensive
value of PCA		 排名
Ranking
8 0.701 1 0.804 3 0.550 7 0.743 2 2.825 5
11 0.650 2 0.579 5 0.779 1 0.569 4 5.228 2
15 0.648 3 0.867 1 0.403 18 0.593 3 4.338 4
14 0.637 4 0.830 2 0.469 16 0.492 5 4.991 3
17 0.596 5 0.649 4 0.629 4 0.399 9 6.882 1
5 0.517 6 0.503 6 0.575 6 0.435 6 2.285 6
19 0.476 7 0.312 17 0.538 8 0.763 1 -2.560 18
18 0.463 8 0.353 15 0.743 2 0.179 19 1.891 7
7 0.463 9 0.445 9 0.513 11 0.409 8 -0.519 9
10 0.454 10 0.462 7 0.526 9 0.290 13 -0.647 11
4 0.438 11 0.391 13 0.511 12 0.409 7 0.551 8
12 0.429 12 0.423 10 0.524 10 0.252 17 -2.112 15
21 0.418 13 0.410 11 0.496 13 0.284 15 -2.177 16
6 0.412 14 0.306 18 0.590 5 0.323 12 -1.149 12
16 0.405 15 0.447 8 0.414 17 0.284 14 -1.387 14
2 0.402 16 0.269 20 0.655 3 0.227 18 -2.476 17
3 0.392 17 0.407 12 0.493 14 0.153 20 -0.631 10
13 0.352 18 0.238 21 0.477 15 0.386 10 -5.498 21
9 0.318 19 0.377 14 0.242 20 0.323 11 -4.458 20
1 0.300 20 0.287 19 0.335 19 0.265 16 -4.227 19
20 0.249 21 0.315 16 0.230 21 0.119 21 -1.150 13

图1

各性状间WTC相关性分析 PC：蛋白质含量；LA：亚油酸；AA：花生烯酸；NSPP：每果粒数；EY：经济产量；TSW：千粒重；NGL：绿叶数；SH：苗高；PH：株高；OC：含油量；NEB：一次有效分枝数；SPC：可溶性蛋白含量。

[1] Abdallah M, Dubousset L, Meuriot F, et al. Effect of mineral sulphur availability on nitrogen and sulphur uptake and remobilization during the vegetative growth of Brassica napus L. Journal of Experimental Botany, 2010, 61(10):2635-2646.
doi: 10.1093/jxb/erq096 pmid: 20403880
[2] Fan C M, Tian J H, Hu Z M, et al. Advances of oilseed rape breeding. Journal of Plant Genetic Resources, 2018, 19(3):447-454.
[3] Li X H, Li Q B, Yang T W, et al. Responses of plant development, biomass and seed production of direct sown oilseed rape (Brassica napus) to nitrogen application at different stages in Yangtze River Basin. Field Crops Research, 2016, 194:12-20.
doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2016.04.024
[4] Xu M Y, Ma H Q, Zeng L Z, et al. The effect of waterlogging on yield and seed quality at the early flowering stage in Brassica napus L. Field Crops Research, 2015, 180:238-245.
doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2015.06.007
[5] Guo R F, Zhu Y Q, Liu Y B. A comparison study of precipitation in the poyang and the dongting lake basins from 1960-2015. Scientific Reports, 2020, 10(1):3381.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-60243-8 pmid: 32099049
[6] Men S N, Chen H L, Chen S H, et al. Effects of supplemental nitrogen application on physiological characteristics, dry matter and nitrogen accumulation of winter rapeseed (Brassica napus L.) under waterlogging stress. Scientific Reports, 2020, 10(1):10201.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-67260-7
[7] Yan L Y, Kang Y P, Lei Y, et al. First report of Sclerotinia sclerotiorum causing sclerotinia blight on peanut (Arachis hypogaea) in Northeastern China. Plant Disease, 2013, 98(1):156-157.
[8] Akhtar N, Ilyas N, Mashwani Z U R, et al. Synergistic effects of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria and silicon dioxide nano-particles for amelioration of drought stress in wheat. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, 2021, 166:160-176.
doi: 10.1016/j.plaphy.2021.05.039 pmid: 34116336
[9] Ploschuk R A, Miralles D J, Colmer T D, et al. Waterlogging of winter crops at early and late stages: impacts on leaf physiology, growth and yield. Frontiers in Plant Science, 2018, 9:1863.
doi: 10.3389/fpls.2018.01863 pmid: 30619425
[10] Yan K, Zhao S J, Cui M X, et al. Vulnerability of photosynthesis and photosystem I in Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.) exposed to waterlogging. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, 2018, 125:239-246.
doi: 10.1016/j.plaphy.2018.02.017
[11] Manghwar H, Hussain A, Alam I, et al. Waterlogging stress in plants: unraveling the mechanisms and impacts on growth, development, and productivity. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 2024, 224:105824.
doi: 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2024.105824
[12] Zeng R E, Chen T T, Zhang H, et al. Effect of waterlogging stress on grain nutritional quality and pod yield of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 2023, 209(2):286-299.
doi: 10.1111/jac.v209.2
[13] Yasumoto S, Terakado Y, Matsuzaki M, et al. Effects of high water table and short-term flooding on growth, yield, and seed quality of sunflower. Plant Production Science, 2011, 14(3):233-248.
doi: 10.1626/pps.14.233
[14] Zou X L, Hu C W, Zeng L, et al. A comparison of screening methods to identify waterlogging tolerance in the field in Brassica napus L. during plant ontogeny. PLoS One, 2014, 9 (3):e89731.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0089731
[15] Hussain M A, Naeem A, Pitann B, et al. High sulfur (S) supplementation imparts waterlogging tolerance to oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.) through upregulating S metabolism and antioxidant pathways. Journal of Plant Growth Regulation, 2023, 42(12):7591-7605.
doi: 10.1007/s00344-023-11034-8
[16] Li J J, Zhang Y T, Chen Y H, et al. The roles of cell wall polysaccharides in response to waterlogging stress in Brassica napus L. root. BMC Biology, 2024, 22(1):191.
doi: 10.1186/s12915-024-01972-4
[17] 李浩杰, 柴靓, 蒲晓斌, 等. 室内水淹和田间模拟湿害对甘蓝型油菜耐湿性鉴定. 西南农业学报, 2016, 29(6):1250-1256.
[18] 唐章林, 王霖, 张娅茹, 等. 甘蓝型油菜种质资源苗期耐湿性综合评价与筛选. 西南大学学报(自然科学版), 2022, 44(12):19-28.
[19] Hare M, Saengkham M, Tatsapong P, et al. Waterlogging tolerance of some tropical pasture grasses. Tropical Grasslands, 2004, 38(4):227-233.
[20] Langan P, Cavel E, Henchy J, et al. Evaluating waterlogging stress response and recovery in barley (Hordeum vulgare L.): an image-based phenotyping approach. Plant Methods, 2024, 20(1):146.
doi: 10.1186/s13007-024-01256-6
[21] Tang Q Y, Zhang C X. Data Processing system (DPS) software with experimental design, statistical analysis and data mining developed for use in entomological research. Insect Science, 2013, 20(2):254-260.
doi: 10.1111/ins.2013.20.issue-2
[22] Chang T, Wu J J, Wu X P, et al. Comprehensive evaluation of high-oleic rapeseed (Brassica napus) based on quality, resistance, and yield traits: a new method for rapid identification of high-oleic acid rapeseed germplasm. PLoS One, 2022, 17(8):e0272798.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0272798
[23] Koij F S, Saba J. Using cluster analysis and principal component analysis to group lines and determine important traits in white bean. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 2015, 29:38-40.
doi: 10.1016/j.proenv.2015.07.145
[24] Zhou X Y, Xu J S, Xie L L, et al. Physiological mechanisms in response to waterlogging during seedling stage of Brassica napus L. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2024, 50(4):1015-1029.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2024.34116
[25] Yang H J, Bai C Y, Ai X Y, et al. Conversion of lipids into carbohydrates rescues energy insufficiency in rapeseed germination under waterlogging stress. Physiologia Plantarum, 2024, 176(5):e14576.
doi: 10.1111/ppl.v176.5
[26] Zhang X K. Physiological reaction differences of rapeseed (Brassica napus L.) with different waterlogging-tolerance to anoxia. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2007, 40(3):485-491.
[27] Hong B, Zhou B Q, Peng Z C, et al. Tissue-specific transcriptome and metabolome analysis reveals the response mechanism of Brassica napus to waterlogging stress. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 2023, 24(7):6015.
doi: 10.3390/ijms24076015
[28] 吴鹏博, 李立军, 张艳丽. 油菜苗期耐盐碱性综合评价与根际土壤有机酸含量比较. 作物杂志, 2022(1):110-115.
[29] Zhang Y J, Liu G Y, Dong H Z, et al. Waterlogging stress in cotton: damage, adaptability, alleviation strategies, and mechanisms. The Crop Journal, 2021, 9(2):257-270.
doi: 10.1016/j.cj.2020.08.005
[30] Barickman T C, Simpson C R, Sams C E. Waterlogging causes early modification in the physiological performance, carotenoids, chlorophylls, proline, and soluble sugars of cucumber plants. Plants, 2019, 8(6):160.
doi: 10.3390/plants8060160
[31] Malik A I, Colmer T D, Lambers H, et al. Short-term waterlogging has long-term effects on the growth and physiology of wheat. New Phytologist, 2002, 153(2):225-236.
doi: 10.1046/j.0028-646X.2001.00318.x
[32] Wei W L, Li D H, Wang L H, et al. Morpho-anatomical and physiological responses to waterlogging of sesame (Sesamum indicum L.). Plant Science, 2013, 208:102-111.
doi: 10.1016/j.plantsci.2013.03.014
[33] Zhou W J, Lin X Q. Effects of waterlogging at different growth stages on physiological characteristics and seed yield of winter rape (Brassica napus L.). Field Crops Research, 1995, 44(2):103-110.
doi: 10.1016/0378-4290(95)00075-5
[34] Wollmer A C, Pitann B, Mühling K H. Waterlogging events during stem elongation or flowering affect yield of oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.) but not seed quality. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 2018, 204(2):165-174.
doi: 10.1111/jac.2018.204.issue-2
[35] Yang X Y, Xiao R H, Zhang L X, et al. Effects of waterlogging at different growth stages on the stress-resistance physiological characteristics and yield formation of sweet potato. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2025, 51(3):744-754.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2025.44116
[36] Hasanuzzaman M, Bhuyan M H M B, Zulfiqar F, et al. Reactive oxygen species and antioxidant defense in plants under abiotic stress: revisiting the crucial role of a universal defense regulator. Antioxidants, 2020, 9(8):681.
doi: 10.3390/antiox9080681
[37] Qiu T C, Li Y X, Bai Q Y, et al. The OsFBX388-OsFIP1-OsCatA module regulates ROS homeostasis and disease resistance in rice. New Phytologist, 2025, 247(6):2871-2884.
doi: 10.1111/nph.70383 pmid: 40650454
[38] Demidchik V. Mechanisms of oxidative stress in plants: from classical chemistry to cell biology. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 2015, 109:212-228.
doi: 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2014.06.021
[39] 邓超众, 胡佩敏, 熊勤学, 等. 基于小麦渍害过程探讨胁迫量化方案的综述. 作物杂志, 2025(6):1-10.
[40] 杨丹丹, 韩雪, 孔欣欣, 等. 71份冬小麦苗期渗透胁迫抗性鉴定及相关农艺性状指标分析. 作物杂志, 2025(1):243-249.
[1] 吴淼淼, 王素华, 田静, 袁星星, 陈新, 王丽侠. 2022-2024年国家食用豆产业技术体系普通豇豆新品种（系）联合鉴定分析[J]. 作物杂志, 2026, (3): 102–109
[2] 胡亮亮, 曹榕, 陈天晓, 宋倩楠, 王素华, 程须珍, 王丽侠, 陈红霖. 小豆新品种（系）多点联合鉴定及产量与生态适应性评价[J]. 作物杂志, 2026, (2): 74–81
[3] 周喜旺, 刘鸿燕, 王娜, 魏志平, 王希恩, 岳维云, 王伟, 汪石俊, 孙振宇, 张耀辉. 73份甘肃陇南冬小麦品种（系）抗条锈病基因分子检测[J]. 作物杂志, 2026, (2): 82–89
[4] 江莹芬, 荣松柏, 李成, 吴新杰, 费维新, 陈凤祥. 一种简化的甘蓝型油菜混播混收高效制种技术[J]. 作物杂志, 2025, (6): 263–266
[5] 吴立国, 李晓慧, 赵清, 陈小龙, 潘静, 刘旺清, 白海波, 李前荣. 宁夏春小麦品种（系）农艺性状遗传多样性分析[J]. 作物杂志, 2025, (5): 147–154
[6] 窦阳, 陈君燚, 任淑敏, 康国章, 王黎明. 121份自选小麦新品种（系）高分子量麦谷蛋白亚基组成分析[J]. 作物杂志, 2025, (4): 75–79
[7] 龙卫华, 李亚珍, 王亚坤, 王永峰, 黄镇, 尼玛次仁, 张幸果. 油饲兼用型油菜品系在拉萨地区的适应性分析[J]. 作物杂志, 2025, (3): 190–194
[8] 李坤杰, 刘念, 丁磊, 朱燕, 蒙大庆, 范其新, 李迎春, 陈军. 甘蓝型油菜LPAT家族基因鉴定与表达模式分析[J]. 作物杂志, 2025, (2): 29–39
[9] 胡晴园, 公丹, 潘晓威, 王素华, 王丽侠. 国家食用豆产业技术体系2019-2021年普通豇豆新品种（系）联合鉴定分析[J]. 作物杂志, 2024, (3): 76–81
[10] 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
[11] 林晓阳, 杜德志, 柳海东, 李钧. 特早熟甘蓝型春油菜恢复系核心种质构建[J]. 作物杂志, 2022, (1): 31–37
[12] 葛昌斌, 张宏套, 廖平安, 曹燕燕, 黄杰, 乔冀良, 郭春强, 王君, 秦素研, 张兰, 夏明聪, 程斌, 张立异. 贵协3号小麦衍生品种（系）的赤霉病抗性评价及农艺性状分析[J]. 作物杂志, 2022, (1): 96–101
[13] 于天一, 郑亚萍, 邱少芬, 姜大奇, 吴正锋, 郑永美, 孙学武, 沈浦, 王才斌, 张建成. 酸化土壤施钙对不同花生品种（系）钙吸收、利用及产量的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2021, (4): 80–85
[14] 张晓艳, 王晓楠, 曹焜, 孙宇峰. 5个工业大麻品种（系）纤维产量及产量构成因素的相关性分析[J]. 作物杂志, 2020, (4): 121–126
[15] 公丹,潘晓威,王素华,王丽侠,程须珍. 国家食用豆产业技术体系绿豆新品种（系）联合鉴定[J]. 作物杂志, 2019, (4): 30–36
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!