不同水分条件下不同抗旱性苦荞根系生长规律研究

doi:10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2019.06.012

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为了探明不同抗旱性苦荞根系形态和生理特性与抗旱性的关系,为干旱胁迫下苦荞高产优质栽培管理及抗旱品种的筛选提供理论依据,采用人工控水的方法,研究并分析了正常供水、重度干旱条件下不同抗旱性苦荞品种迪庆苦荞（耐旱）、黑丰1号（旱敏感）根系生长形态和生理指标变化。结果表明,干旱胁迫显著增加了苦荞根冠比、根系丙二醛（MDA）和脯氨酸（Pro）含量,而最大根长、根体积、根表面积显著降低。随着生育期推进,各处理苦荞最大根长、根体积、根表面积、MDA含量等指标均呈现逐渐增加趋势,根冠比、Pro含量呈现先增后减趋势。品种之间方差分析结果表明,重度干旱胁迫条件下,各测定时期迪庆苦荞的根冠比、最大根长、根体积、根表面积、根系Pro含量均显著高于黑丰1号,MDA含量则显著低于黑丰1号。回归分析表明,不同处理苦荞根表面积、最大根长等指标在测定时期内随时间变化的数学模型均符合指数函数,根体积、MDA含量等指标均符合一元二次方程的规律。干旱胁迫下苦荞根系与地上部分的生长均受到抑制,且表现为对地上部的影响大于对根系;与黑丰1号相比,迪庆苦荞耐旱性更强。

关键词: 干旱胁迫, 苦荞, 根系形态, 生理指标, 数学模型

Abstract:

The purpose of this study was to find out the relationship between root morphology and physiology and drought resistance of Fagopyrum tataricum, to provide a theoretical basis for high-yield and high-quality cultivation and management and selection of drought-resistant varieties of Fagopyrum tataricum. The method of artificial water-control was adopted. Quantitative indices of root growth for different drought-resistant Fagopyrum tataricum varieties (Diqing tartary buckwheat and Heifeng 1) under normal water supply and severe drought were determined and analyzed, during which the change of root growth of Fagopyrum tataricum was simulated. Results showed that, root-shoot ratio, the contents of malonaldehyde (MDA) and proline (Pro) increase significantly under the drought stress condition, while maximum root length, root volume and root surface area showed adecreasing significantly. Under different water conditions, the root-shoot ratio of Fagopyrum tataricum decreased, the maximum root length, root volume and root surface area increased, MDA content increased, and Pro content increased first and then decreased with the development of growth period. The results of variances analysis showed that under severe drought stress, root-shoot ratio, maximum root length, root volume, root surface area and root Pro content of Diqing tartary buckwheat were significantly higher than Heifeng 1, and MDA content was significantly lower than Heifeng 1. By establishing regression analysis equation, it can be concluded that the mathematical models of root surface area and maximum root length treated with different treatments were the same during the whole growth period, and they all conformed to the exponential model, while the indexes of root volume and MDA content conformed to the unitary quadratic equation. Under drought stress, the growth of the roots and aerial parts of Tartary buckwheat was inhibited, and the effects on the shoots were greater than those of the roots. Compared with Heifeng 1, Diqing tartary buckwheat has stronger drought tolerance.

Key words: Drought stress, Tartary buckwheat, Root morphology, Physiological index, Mathematical model

杨甜,张永清,董馥慧,马星星,薛小娇. 不同水分条件下不同抗旱性苦荞根系生长规律研究[J]. 作物杂志, 2019 (6): 76–82

Yang Tian,Zhang Yongqing,Dong Fuhui,Ma Xingxing,Xue Xiaojiao. Research on the Root Growth of Different Drought-Resistant Fagopyrum tataricum under Different Water Conditions[J]. Crops, 2019(6): 76–82

图/表 6

图1

图2

图3

图4

表1

表2

参考文献 27

[1]	张雄, 王立祥 . 小杂粮在黄土高原旱作农业中的地位和作用. 西北农业学报, 2008,17(5):333-336.
[2]	张思祖 . 黄土高原沟壑区经济林地土壤水分特征研究. 杨凌:西北农林科技大学, 2011.
[3]	Fang Y, Xiong L . General mechanisms of drought response and their application in drought resistance improvement in plants. Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, 2015,72(4):673-689. doi: 10.1007/s00018-014-1767-0 pmid: 25336153
[4]	郎桂常 . 苦荞麦的营养价值及其开发应用. 中国粮油学报,1996(3):9-14.
[5]	Huang K F, Shi Z, Song Y X , et al. Research on variation in sucrose content among different tartary buckwheat genotypes. Agricultural Science and Technology, 2011,12(2):211-213.
[6]	李世贵 . 荞麦对环境条件的要求及其高产栽培技术. 现代农业科技, 2007( 21): 136, 138.
[7]	田秀红, 任涛 . 苦荞麦的营养保健作用与开发利用. 中国食物与营养,2007(10):44-45.
[8]	左光明 . 苦荞主要营养功能成分关键利用技术研究. 贵阳:贵州大学食品科学系, 2009.
[9]	赵刚, 唐宇, 马荣 . 苦荞麦的营养和药用价值及其开发应用. 农牧产品开发,1999(7):17-18.
[10]	徐笑宇, 方正武, 杨璞 , 等. 苦荞遗传多样性分析与核心种质筛选. 干旱地区农业研究, 2015,33(1):268-277.
[11]	汪灿, 胡丹, 杨浩 , 等. 苦荞主要农艺性状与产量关系的多重分析. 作物杂志,2013(6):18-22.
[12]	赵刚, 唐宇, 王安虎 . 苦荞的成分功能研究与开发利用. 四川农业大学学报, 2001,12(4):355-358.
[13]	张楚, 张永清, 路之娟 , 等. 低氮胁迫对不同苦荞品种苗期生长和根系生理特征的影响. 西北植物学报, 2017,37(7):1331-1339.
[14]	杨再强, 邱译萱, 刘朝霞 , 等. 土壤水分胁迫对设施番茄根系及地上部生长的影响. 生态学报, 2016,36(3):748-757. doi: 10.5846/stxb201403310606
[15]	梁银丽, 陈培元 . 土壤水分和磷营养对小麦根系生长生理特性的影响. 西北植物学报, 1994,14(5):56-60.
[16]	张永清, 苗果园 . 水分胁迫条件下有机肥对小麦根苗生长的影响. 作物学报, 2006,32(6):811-816.
[17]	张永清 . 几种谷类作物根土系统的研究. 晋中:山西农业大学, 2005.
[18]	张志良, 瞿伟菁, 李小方 . 植物生理实验指导(第4版). 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2009.
[19]	Wang S M, Wan C G, Wang Y R , et al. The characteristics of Na +,K + and free proline distribution in several drought-resistant plants of the Alxa Desert,China . Journal of Arid Environments, 2004,56(3):525-539. doi: 10.1016/S0140-1963(03)00063-6
[20]	苗果园, 高志强, 张云亭 , 等. 水肥对小麦根系整体影响及其与地上部相关的研究. 作物学报, 2002,28(4):445-450.
[21]	高海峰, 李小明, 张海波 , 等. 几种旱生植物地上部生长的节律及其变化. 干旱区研究,1985(1):59-64.
[22]	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. 中国农业科学, 2018,51(5):868-882. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2018.05.006
[23]	揭雨成, 黄丕生, 李宗道 . 干旱胁迫下苎麻的生理生化变化与抗旱性的关系. 中国农业科学,2000(6):33-39.
[24]	路之娟, 张永清, 张楚 . 干旱胁迫对不同苦荞品种苗期生长和生理特征的影响. 西北植物学报, 2018,38(1):112-120.
[25]	关军锋, 马春红, 李广敏 . 干旱胁迫下小麦根冠生物量变化及其与抗旱性的关系. 河北农业大学学报,2004(1):1-5.
[26]	路之娟, 张永清, 张楚 , 等. 不同基因型苦荞苗期抗旱性综合评价及指标筛选. 中国农业科学, 2017,50(17):3311-3322. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2017.17.006
[27]	杨连新, 王余龙, 黄建晔 , 等. 扬稻6号谷壳生长动态及其影响因素的研究. 作物学报, 2003,29(6):853-859.

相关文章 15

[1]	师赵康,赵泽群,张远航,徐世英,王宁,王伟杰,程皓,邢国芳,冯万军. 玉米自交系幼苗生物量积累及根系形态对两种氮素水平的反应及聚类分析[J]. 作物杂志, 2019, (5): 28–36
[2]	谷娇娇,胡博文,贾琰,沙汉景,李经纬,马超,赵宏伟. 盐胁迫对水稻根系相关性状及产量的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2019, (4): 176–182
[3]	马名川,刘龙龙,张丽君,崔林,周建萍. EMS诱变刺荞的形态突变体鉴定与分析[J]. 作物杂志, 2019, (3): 37–41
[4]	宋丽芳,冯美臣,张美俊,肖璐洁,王超,杨武德,宋晓彦. 外源硒对苦荞生长发育及子粒硒含量的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2019, (3): 150–154
[5]	代希茜,詹和明,崔兴洪,赵银月,单丹丹,张亮,王铁军. 玉米大豆间作种植密度耦合数学模型及其优化方案研究[J]. 作物杂志, 2019, (2): 128–135
[6]	崔娅松, 王艳, 杨丽娟, 吴朝昕, 周飘, 冉盼, 陈庆富. 米苦荞果壳率及其相关性状的遗传研究[J]. 作物杂志, 2019, (2): 51–60
[7]	温日宇,刘建霞,张珍华,郭耀东,代旭瑶,姜庆国,樊丽生. 干旱胁迫对不同藜麦种子萌发及生理特性的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2019, (1): 121–126
[8]	吴瑕,吕德国,杜国栋,杨凤军. 甜樱桃嫁接苗与组培苗枝条抗寒生理差异分析[J]. 作物杂志, 2019, (1): 168–174
[9]	赵鑫,陈少锋,王慧,刘三才,杨修仕,张宝林. 晋北地区不同苦荞品种产量和品质研究[J]. 作物杂志, 2018, (5): 27–32
[10]	张晓勇,杨友联,李树江,熊荣川,向红. 外源激素对低温胁迫下脱毒马铃薯扦插苗早衰的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2018, (4): 95–101
[11]	张姣,吴奇,周宇飞,王艺陶,张瑞栋,黄瑞冬. 苗期和灌浆期干旱-复水对高粱光合特性和物质生产的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2018, (3): 148–154
[12]	范昱,王红力,何凤,赖弟利,王佳俊,宋月,向达兵. 后熟对苦荞子粒营养品质的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2018, (1): 96–101
[13]	宋月,向达兵,黄后兵,范昱,韦爽,张赛. 苦荞品种抗倒性鉴定及评价方法的研究[J]. 作物杂志, 2017, (6): 65–71
[14]	李国龙,孙亚卿,邵世勤,张永丰. 甜菜幼苗叶片抗氧化系统对干旱胁迫的响应[J]. 作物杂志, 2017, (5): 73–79
[15]	郝曦煜,王红丹,尹智超,梁杰,尹凤祥,郝建军. PEG胁迫对小豆苗期抗旱生理指标的影响及抗旱鉴定体系建立[J]. 作物杂志, 2017, (4): 134–142

Metrics

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed

取样日期(月/日) Sampling date (Month/day)	迪庆苦荞Diqing tartary buckwheat			黑丰1号Heifeng 1
	正常供水 Normal water supply	重度干旱胁迫 Severe drought stress		正常供水 Normal water supply	重度干旱胁迫 Severe drought stress
	正常供水 Normal water supply	重度干旱胁迫 Severe drought stress	6/4	正常供水 Normal water supply	重度干旱胁迫 Severe drought stress	6.20±0.95Bb	7.54±0.12Ba	6.81±0.45Ab	9.12±1.59Aa
6/14	7.18±0.29Bb	8.12±0.10Ba		7.55±0.30Ab	9.59±0.07Aa
6/24	7.98±0.39Bb	9.81±0.21Ba		8.16±0.23Ab	11.32±0.50Aa
7/4	8.44±0.91Bb	12.66±0.20Ba		9.71±0.15Ab	15.40±0.79Aa
7/14	9.57±0.42Bb	14.54±0.37Ba		10.50±0.31Ab	18.65±0.58Aa
7/24	11.53±0.50Bb	15.70±0.44Ba		13.76±0.18Ab	21.11±0.94Aa
8/4	12.85±0.72Bb	16.59±0.14Ba		14.88±0.28Ab	22.07±0.68Aa
8/14	13.78±0.53Bb	17.27±0.29Ba		15.59±0.53Ab	22.67±0.76Aa

取样日期(月/日) Sampling date (Month/day)	迪庆苦荞Diqing tartary buckwheat		黑丰1号Heifeng 1
取样日期(月/日) Sampling date (Month/day)	正常供水 Normal water supply	重度干旱胁迫 Severe drought stress	正常供水 Normal water supply	重度干旱胁迫 Severe drought stress
6/4	23.26±0.39Ab	26.39±0.96Aa	23.53±1.01Ab	25.33±0.93Ba
6/14	26.36±0.49Ab	28.78±1.56Aa	25.03±0.84Bb	27.47±1.09Ba
6/24	28.70±0.40Ab	37.25±1.07Aa	27.14±0.92Bb	29.89±0.97Ba
7/4	31.82±0.59Ab	48.83±1.25Aa	29.71±1.21Bb	37.33±1.26Ba
7/14	36.24±0.67Ab	58.77±0.98Aa	32.49±0.98Bb	46.01±0.99Ba
7/24	39.91±0.58Ab	60.99±1.12Aa	30.60±1.32Bb	43.72±1.90Ba
8/4	36.48±0.99Ab	54.30±0.97Aa	27.53±1.01Bb	38.02±1.24Ba
8/14	33.49±1.01Ab	49.80±0.89Aa	26.30±1.22Bb	37.79±0.91Ba