藜麦对低氮胁迫的响应研究

doi:10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2023.03.031

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to explore the response mechanism of quinoa to low nitrogen environment and select quinoa varieties with low nitrogen tolerance. The agronomic traits, some physiological characteristics and nitrogen utilization indexes of nine different genotypes of quinoa under different nitrogen levels treatments (normal N supply and low N stress) were determined by pot cultivation, and the comprehensive low nitrogen tolerance capacities of the lines were evaluated by principal component analysis and cluster analysis. The results showed that under low nitrogen stress, the shoot growth of the quinoa was inhibited, plant height, thick stem, and shoot dry weight showed a downward trend. The primary root length and root-shoot ratio rose increased obviously, while root volume, root surface area and average root diameter decreased. Chlorophyll content, maximum fluorescence parameter (F_m) and maximum photochemical efficiency (F_v/F_m) were reduced, while the initial fluorescence parameter F_o was increased. Root activity, nitrate reductase activity, glutamine synthase activity, glutamate synthase activity, and soluble protein content decreased, while the activities of superoxide dismutase and peroxidase, the contents of malondialdehyde, soluble sugar and free proline were increased. The total nitrogen content and nitrogen accumulation were reduced, while the nitrogen utilization efficiency was increased. The 26 individual indicators were transformed into four independent comprehensive indicators (cumulative contribute rate was 83.959%) by principal component analysis, and nine quinoa lines were classified into low-nitrogen tolerance, intermediate and low nitrogen sensitive types by cluster analysis, and one low-nitrogen- resistant line BL22 was selected.

Key words: Quinoa, Low nitrogen stress, Comprehensive evaluation, Variety screening

Guo Hongxia, Wang Chuangyun, Deng Yan, Zhao Li, Zhang Liguang, Guo Hongxia, Qin Lixia, Gao Fei, Xi Ruizhen. Response of Quinoa to Low Nitrogen Stress[J].Crops, 2023, 39(3): 221-229.

Figures/Tables 12

Table 1

Fig.1

Table 2

Effects of low nitrogen stress on the root growth of quinoa"

处理 Treatment	藜麦品系 Quinoa line	最大根长 Maximum root length (cm)	根系平均直径 Root average diameter (mm)	根系表面积 Root surface area (cm²)	根系体积 Root volume (cm³)	根系干重 Root dry weight (g)	根冠比 Root-shoot ratio
CK	HL58	12.43±0.16abA	0.32±0.01aAB	48.58±2.39aA	0.65±0.02aAB	0.21±0.01aAB	0.14±0.00bB
	G68	10.98±0.31cdBCD	0.22±0.01dDE	45.48±0.08abAB	0.58±0.01bBC	0.16±0.01deDE	0.11±0.01dC
	A29	10.43±0.25deCDE	0.26±0.02cCD	45.32±0.70abAB	0.55±0.02bcCD	0.18±0.01bcBCD	0.14±0.01bB
	G36	12.87±0.35aA	0.34±0.01aA	36.69±2.10cC	0.44±0.03eE	0.15±0.01eE	0.12±0.01cdBC
	BL23	9.99±0.48eDE	0.21±0.01dE	45.28±1.22abAB	0.54±0.02bcCD	0.18±0.01cdCD	0.14±0.00bB
	A86	11.99±0.17bAB	0.29±0.01bBC	45.85±1.88abAB	0.70±0.01aA	0.22±0.01aA	0.14±0.00bcB
	HL93	11.25±0.28cBC	0.27±0.02bcC	48.04±0.75aA	0.58±0.02bBCD	0.20±0.01abABC	0.17±0.01aA
	BL77	9.86±0.34eE	0.28±0.01bcBC	36.51±1.51cC	0.46±0.04deE	0.16±0.01eDE	0.11±0.00dC
	BL22	10.48±0.39deCDE	0.25±0.02cCD	42.81±0.86bB	0.50±0.02cdDE	0.20±0.01aAB	0.14±0.01bB
LN	HL58	12.77±0.28abAB	0.29±0.02aA	46.67±1.30aA	0.62±0.02aA	0.22±0.01abAB	0.15±0.01bcdBC
	G68	11.93±0.34bcBC	0.26±0.02abAB	40.35±0.78cB	0.51±0.01bcBC	0.17±0.01defEF	0.13±0.00fgD
	A29	11.10±0.42cdCD	0.23±0.02bcdABC	41.65±1.47bcAB	0.51±0.02bcBC	0.19±0.01cdCDE	0.16±0.00bAB
	G36	13.35±0.58aA	0.27±0.03abA	34.03±3.48dC	0.36±0.02fE	0.16±0.00fF	0.14±0.00efCD
	BL23	10.59±0.14dD	0.20±0.01dC	42.20±0.47bcAB	0.43±0.03eD	0.18±0.00deDEF	0.15±0.00cdeBC
	A86	13.15±0.56aAB	0.25±0.01abABC	41.65±0.92bcAB	0.53±0.03bBC	0.24±0.01aA	0.16±0.01bcB
	HL93	11.32±0.20cdCD	0.26±0.01abAB	43.92±1.00abAB	0.56±0.02bAB	0.21±0.00bcBC	0.18±0.00aA
	BL77	10.55±0.44dD	0.21±0.01cdBC	39.47±0.80cB	0.44±0.02deD	0.17±0.01efEF	0.12±0.00gD
	BL22	10.56±0.08dD	0.24±0.01bcABC	41.40±1.58bcB	0.48±0.02cdCD	0.21±0.01cBCD	0.14±0.01deBC

Table 2

Fig.2

Fig.3

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Table 6

Table 7

Table 8

Fig.4

References 30

[1]	张定一, 张永清, 杨武德, 等. 不同基因型小麦对低氮胁迫的生物学响应. 作物学报, 2006, 32(9):1349-1354.
[2]	Diaz C, Salibacolombani V, Loudet O. Leaf yellowing and anthocyanin accumulation are two genetically independent strategies in response to nitrogen limitation in Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant Cell Physiology, 2006, 47:74-83. doi: 10.1093/pcp/pci225
[3]	张卫峰, 马林, 黄高强, 等. 中国氮肥发展、贡献和挑战. 中国农业科学, 2013, 46(15):3161-3171. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2013.15.010
[4]	张福锁, 王激清, 张卫峰, 等. 中国主要粮食作物肥料利用率现状与提高途径. 土壤学报, 2008, 45(5):915-924.
[5]	Zhu Z L, Chen D L. Nitrogen fertilizer use in China:contributions to food production,impacts on the environment and best management strategies. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 2002, 63:117-127. doi: 10.1023/A:1021107026067
[6]	Ju X T, Xing G X, Chen X P, et al. Reducing environmental risk by improving N management in intensive Chinese agricultural systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2009, 106(9):3041-3046.
[7]	Liu X J, Zhang Y, Han W X, et al. Enhanced nitrogen deposition over China. Nature, 2013, 494:459-463. doi: 10.1038/nature11917
[8]	谢孟林, 李强, 查丽, 等. 氮胁迫对不同耐低氮性玉米品种幼苗根系形态和生理特征的影响. 中国生态农业学报, 2015, 23(8):946-953.
[9]	冯云超, 余志江, 霍仕平, 等. 低氮对不同类型玉米品种籽粒产量与品质的影响. 华北农学报, 2016, 31(增1):381-387.
[10]	李强, 马晓君, 程秋博, 等. 氮肥对不同耐低氮性玉米品种氮素吸收利用及氮素平衡的影响. 水土保持学报, 2016, 30(3):171-176,183.
[11]	布哈丽且木·阿不力孜, 白志刚, 黄洁, 等. 氮肥运筹对不同类型水稻产量和氮素吸收的影响. 中国稻米, 2018, 24(4):64-67. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-8082.2018.04.015
[12]	Woldemichael G M. Identification and biological activities of triterpenoid saponins from Chenopodium quinoa. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 2001, 49(5):2327-2332. doi: 10.1021/jf0013499 pmid: 11368598
[13]	Bhargava A, Shukla S, Ohri D, et al. Chenopodium quinoa-An Indian perspective. Industrial Crops and Products, 2006, 23(1):73-87. doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2005.04.002
[14]	申瑞玲, 张亚蕊, 景新俊, 等. 藜麦淀粉-硬脂酸复合物的制备及性质研究. 河南农业科学, 2018, 47(2):135-139. doi: 10.15933/j.cnki.1004-3268.2018.02.026
[15]	李荣波. 药食同源植物藜麦. 农村百事通, 2018(1):28-28.
[16]	刘珍珍. 海西州藜麦产业发展的现状及建议初探. 青海农林科技, 2017(4):42-43,80.
[17]	Schilick G, Bubenheim D L. Quinoa: An emerging “new” crop with potential for CELSS. Washington: National Aeronautics and Space Administration,Ames Research Center, 1993.
[18]	Quinoa FAO. An ancient crop to contribute to worldfood security. San Diego:Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean, 2011.
[19]	温日宇, 刘建霞, 李顺, 等. 低温胁迫对不同藜麦幼苗生理生化特性的影响. 种子, 2019(5):53-56.
[20]	刘文瑜, 杨发荣, 黄杰, 等. NaCl胁迫对藜麦幼苗生长和抗氧化酶活性的影响. 西北植物学报, 2017, 37(9):1797-1804.
[21]	康小华, 沈宝云, 王海龙, 等. 不同氮肥施用量及基追比对藜麦产量及经济性状的影响. 农学学报, 2017, 7(12):34-37. doi: 10.11923/j.issn.2095-4050.cjas17060002
[22]	陈富, 权小兵, 张小静, 等. 肥料配施对藜麦产量及农艺性状的影响. 农业科技通讯, 2018(10):65-68.
[23]	张志良, 翟伟菁, 李小芳. 植物生理学实验指导(第4版). 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2009.
[24]	鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析(第2版). 北京: 中国农业出版社, 1986.
[25]	张楚. 苦荞耐低氮基因型的筛选及其生理机制的初步研究. 临汾:山西师范大学, 2018.
[26]	张美俊, 乔治军, 杨武德, 等. 不同糜子品种对低氮胁迫的生物学响应. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2014, 20(3):661-669.
[27]	李强, 罗延宏, 谭杰, 等. 玉米杂交种苗期耐低氮指标的筛选与综合评价. 中国生态农业学报, 2014, 22(10):1190-1199.
[28]	陈二影, 杨延兵, 秦岭, 等. 谷子苗期氮高效品种筛选及相关特性分析. 中国农业科学, 2016, 49(17):3287-3297. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2016.17.004
[29]	匡艺, 李廷轩. 氮素对不同氮效率小黑麦基因型叶片保护酶活性和膜脂过氧化的影响. 草业学报, 2011, 20(6):93-100.
[30]	王贺正, 张均, 吴金芝, 等. 不同氮素水平对小麦旗叶生理特性和产量的影响. 草业学报, 2013, 22(4):69-75. doi: 10.11686/cyxb20130408

Related Articles 15

[1]	Xu Xuewen, Wang Xingpeng, Wang Hongbo, Li Guohui, Tang Maosong, Cao Zhenxi. Effects of Salicylic Acid Application on the Growth and Physiological Characteristics of Cotton Seedlings under Salt Stress [J]. Crops, 2023, 39(3): 188-194.
[2]	Chen Cuiping, Yan Dianhai, Zhang Shumiao, Zuo Haonan, Gao Sen, Liu Yang. Fingerprint Construction and Genetic Diversity Analysis of Quinoa Based on SSR Markers [J]. Crops, 2023, 39(3): 35-42.
[3]	Liang Ping, Zhang Yongqing, Zhang Meng, Xue Xiaojiao, Li Pingping, Zhang Wenyan, Wang Dan, Zhao Gang. Effects of PAM Application Depth on the Growth and Physiological Indexes of Quinoa under Saline Alkali Stress [J]. Crops, 2023, 39(2): 178-185.
[4]	Mei Li. Research Progress and Development Prospect of Adaptive Cultivation of Quinoa in Beijing [J]. Crops, 2022, 38(6): 14-22.
[5]	Guo Huanle, Tang Bin, Li Han, Cao Zhongyang, Zeng Qiang, Liu Liangwu, Chen Zhihui. Comprehensive Evaluation of Phenotypic Traits and Classification of Maize Landraces in Hunan Province [J]. Crops, 2022, 38(6): 33-41.
[6]	Li Wangsheng, Wang Xueqian, Yin Xilong, Shi Yang, Liu Dali, Tan Wenbo, Xing Wang. Comprehensive Evaluation of Drought Tolerance of Sugar Beet Germplasms at Seedling Stage [J]. Crops, 2022, 38(6): 54-60.
[7]	Hou Jingjing, Jin Fang, Zhao Li, Wang Bin. Comprehensive Evaluation of Agronomic and Quality Traits of 16 New Oil Flax Lines [J]. Crops, 2022, 38(5): 42-48.
[8]	Lü Jianzhen, Ren Ying, Wang Hongyong, Zhang Tingjun, Ma Jianping, Zhao Kai. Comprehensive Phenotype Evaluation of 264 Major Foxtail Millet Bred Varieties (Lines) [J]. Crops, 2022, 38(4): 22-31.
[9]	Zhang Chunyan, Zhuang Kezhang, Wu Ronghua, Li Jing, Li Xinxin, Wang Heng, Dong Xichen, Xu Geng, Wu Benhua. Comprehensive Evaluation of 11 Feed Oat Varieties in Southern Shandong by DTOPSIS Method Based on Entropy Weighting [J]. Crops, 2022, 38(4): 62-68.
[10]	Xu Shiying, Wang Ning, Cheng Hao, Feng Wanjun. Dynamic Changes of Seedling Traits among Maize Hybrids and Their Parents in Response to Low Nitrogen Stress [J]. Crops, 2022, 38(4): 90-98.
[11]	Wang Siyu, Zuo Wenbo, Zhu Kaili, Guo Huimin, Xing Bao, Guo Yuqing, Bao Yuying, Yang Xiushi, Ren Guixing. Analysis and Evaluation of Agronomic Characteristics and Nutritional Qualities of 71 Quinoa Accessions [J]. Crops, 2022, 38(3): 63-72.
[12]	Gao Zhanning, Wang Shujie, Feng Hui, Xue Zhenggang, Yang Yongqian, Song Xiaopeng, Jie Yuanfen. Comprehensive Evaluation of Two-Rowed Barley Varieties (Lines) [J]. Crops, 2022, 38(1): 70-76.
[13]	Wang Yuting, Miao Xingfen, Wang Di. Screening and Evaluation of Atrazine-Resistant Germplasm Resources of Foxtail Millet at Germination Stage [J]. Crops, 2021, 37(5): 194-204.
[14]	Liu Xin, Yang Fang, Deng Junbo, Wang Aiai, He Nian, Chen Yan. Phenotypic Analysis and Comprehensive Evaluation of Soybean Strains in Jianghan Plain of China [J]. Crops, 2021, 37(5): 57-63.
[15]	Guo Qiang, Ma Wenqing, Qin Changxian, Shi Zesheng, Peng Chong, Bi Dejin, He Hongliang, Liang Yongjian, Tang Liqiu. Comprehensive Evaluation of New Sugarcane Clones by DTOPSIS Method [J]. Crops, 2021, 37(4): 32-37.

Metrics

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed

Comments

Recommended 0

No Suggested Reading articles found!

材料 Material	相关信息 Relevant information
HL58	红藜，千粒重3.27g，生育期约120d
G68	白藜，千粒重3.19g，生育期约120d，高秆
A29	白藜，千粒重3.34g，生育期约120d，矮秆
G36	白藜，千粒重3.26g，生育期约120d，高秆
BL23	白藜，千粒重3.07g，生育期约120d
A86	白藜，千粒重3.15g，生育期约120d，矮秆
HL93	红藜，千粒重3.21g，生育期约120d
BL77	白藜，千粒重3.16g，生育期约120d
BL22	白藜，千粒重3.46g，生育期约120d

处理 Treatment	藜麦品系 Quinoa line	NR活性 NR activity (U/g)	POD活性 POD activity (U/g)	SOD活性 SOD activity (U/g)	MDA含量 MDA content (nmol/g)
CK	HL58	0.54±0.02aA	722.93±29.78bB	145.56±6.00abA	25.61±1.06aA
	G68	0.42±0.02cC	836.99±34.48aA	118.50±4.88cC	21.28±0.87cBC
	A29	0.16±0.01eE	661.04±27.23cdBC	139.07±5.73bAB	18.65±0.77dDE
	G36	0.48±0.02bB	619.38±25.51dC	113.99±3.16cCD	16.59±0.68eE
	BL23	0.18±0.01eE	716.67±19.87bcB	145.92±6.01abA	19.28±0.79dCD
	A86	0.24±0.01dD	881.64±36.32aA	97.70±1.37dD	10.01±0.41gG
	HL93	0.40±0.02cC	617.29±25.43dC	123.48±7.44cBC	19.09±0.66dCDE
	BL77	0.17±0.01eE	616.73±12.89dC	117.52±4.84cC	23.38±0.96bAB
	BL22	0.40±0.02cC	608.14±20.98dC	153.10±6.31aA	13.49±0.56fF
LN	HL58	0.47±0.01aA	748.98±18.16bcABC	153.39±3.72abA	31.89±0.77bB
	G68	0.19±0.01cC	782.80±18.98abAB	106.41±2.58eDE	36.04±0.87aA
	A29	0.11±0.00eD	678.92±16.46cdBCD	148.93±1.56abA	28.24±0.31cBC
	G36	0.40±0.01bB	641.99±15.56dCD	122.05±2.96dCD	25.45±0.62dCD
	BL23	0.14±0.00dD	730.46±12.84bcBCD	142.33±3.45bcAB	19.84±0.28eEF
	A86	0.06±0.00fE	853.51±23.49aA	100.16±2.43eE	23.78±0.58dDE
	HL93	0.39±0.01bB	629.56±15.26dD	125.67±3.05dBC	17.98±0.44eF
	BL77	0.12±0.00deD	637.34±9.05dD	130.04±3.15cdBC	38.13±0.92aA
	BL22	0.39±0.01bB	625.04±15.15dD	158.97±0.84aA	13.70±0.33fG

处理 Treatment	藜麦品系 Quinoa line	根系活力 Root activity [μg(h·g)]	GS活性 GS activity (U/g)	GOGTA活性 GOGTA activity (U/g)
CK	HL58	76.03±3.13aA	65.61±2.70cdBC	26.47±1.59bBC
	G68	63.04±1.75bB	69.67±0.98bcABC	29.80±1.23aAB
	A29	47.52±1.96cC	63.22±3.81dC	23.18±0.95cCD
	G36	40.22±0.56efDE	61.56±2.54dC	29.85±1.23aAB
	BL23	43.68±2.63cdeCDE	66.88±2.75bcdBC	20.23±0.83dD
	A86	42.62±1.76deCDE	75.98±3.13aA	30.76±1.27aA
	HL93	46.16±1.90cdCD	72.12±2.97abAB	28.65±0.79abAB
	BL77	36.94±1.52fE	70.06±2.89abcABC	23.02±0.95cCD
	BL22	61.99±2.55bB	64.71±1.79cdBC	23.35±0.33cCD
LN	HL58	80.52±0.84aA	59.18±1.43cdB	21.82±0.53cdCD
	G68	44.73±1.08cC	60.74±1.47cdB	33.29±0.81aA
	A29	41.08±0.91cC	58.96±1.43dB	20.34±0.11eDE
	G36	31.29±0.76dD	65.49±1.59bcB	24.56±0.60cBC
	BL23	41.23±1.00cC	61.30±0.32bcdB	18.47±0.45eE
	A86	29.88±0.72dD	66.92±1.18bAB	24.09±0.25cC
	HL93	42.60±0.22cC	74.70±1.81aA	27.83±0.67bB
	BL77	31.57±0.77dD	64.49±0.67bcdB	20.46±0.50deDE
	BL22	59.63±1.45bB	63.24±1.53bcdB	23.43±0.57cCD

处理 Treatment	藜麦品系 Quinoa line	可溶性蛋白 Soluble protein (mg/g)	可溶性糖 Soluble sugar (mg/g)	Pro (μg/g)
CK	HL58	6.31±0.26cdCD	1.84±0.07eDE	92.78±3.82cdCDE
	G68	6.83±0.28cBC	1.62±0.06fE	90.97±3.14dDE
	A29	4.70±0.19eE	2.48±0.10abAB	105.41±4.34bBC
	G36	4.17±0.17eE	2.60±0.10aA	110.00±4.53bAB
	BL23	3.11±0.13fF	2.21±0.09cdBC	84.78±2.35deE
	A86	8.62±0.36aA	2.07±0.08dCD	101.51±5.52bcBCD
	HL93	7.60±0.31bB	2.43±0.09abAB	120.04±4.94aA
	BL77	5.92±0.24dD	2.35±0.09bcAB	106.37±4.38bB
	BL22	5.81±0.20dD	1.60±0.06fE	79.56±3.28eE
LN	HL58	5.41±0.13cB	2.41±0.04eE	100.98±2.45cBC
	G68	5.21±0.13cdBC	2.58±0.05dCD	70.21±1.70eE
	A29	3.85±0.09eD	3.21±0.05abA	114.66±2.78bAB
	G36	3.36±0.08efD	3.08±0.04bAB	127.03±3.08aA
	BL23	3.18±0.08fD	2.55±0.04dD	94.16±2.28cCD
	A86	7.11±0.18bA	2.84±0.04cBC	82.09±1.99dDE
	HL93	7.89±0.19aA	2.64±0.05dCD	117.09±3.22abAB
	BL77	4.72±0.10dC	3.35±0.06aA	115.02±2.79bAB
	BL22	5.74±0.14cB	1.65±0.03fF	82.61±2.00dDE

处理 Treatment	藜麦品系 Quinoa line	全氮含量 N content (mg/g)	氮积累量（mg/株） N accumulation (mg/plant)	氮利用效率 N utilization efficiency (g/g)
CK	HL58	1.84±0.08bBC	3.17±0.05bB	542.85±22.36efDE
	G68	1.68±0.07cCD	2.66±0.13cdC	596.13±24.56deCD
	A29	1.22±0.05efF	1.79±0.05eD	823.47±33.92aAB
	G36	1.32±0.05eEF	1.74±0.05eD	759.14±31.27bB
	BL23	1.16±0.05fF	1.68±0.03eD	859.91±35.42aA
	A86	2.07±0.09aA	3.68±0.04aA	483.43±19.91fE
	HL93	1.99±0.08abAB	2.81±0.09cC	503.47±20.74fE
	BL77	1.63±0.07cdCD	2.51±0.19dC	615.00±25.33cdCD
	BL22	1.50±0.06dDE	2.50±0.13dC	665.55±27.41cC
LN	HL58	1.60±0.06bB	2.77±0.07aA	624.32±23.63dCD
	G68	1.30±0.05dC	2.02±0.03dD	772.96±29.26bB
	A29	1.12±0.04eD	1.56±0.03eE	893.52±33.82aA
	G36	1.05±0.04eD	1.37±0.07fE	954.84±36.14aA
	BL23	1.08±0.04eD	1.55±0.02eE	927.56±35.11aA
	A86	1.39±0.05cdC	2.43±0.09bcB	721.43±27.31bcB
	HL93	1.80±0.07aA	2.54±0.08bB	556.53±21.06eD
	BL77	1.39±0.06cdC	2.13±0.13dCD	718.14±31.97bcBC
	BL22	1.44±0.05cBC	2.35±0.07cBC	693.95±21.60cBC

Response of Quinoa to Low Nitrogen Stress

RichHTML

PDF (PC)