Crops ›› 2025, Vol. 41 ›› Issue (5): 61-66.doi: 10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2025.05.009

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Response and Tolerance Evaluation of Oat to Mixed Saline-Alkali Stress at Germination Stage

Chen Ping1,2(), Luo Yuanyuan2, Wang Juan2, Sun Quan3(), Ma Lingfang2, Ma Wenli2, Xie Jingbo2   

  1. 1 College of Forestry and Prataculture, Ningxia University, Yinchuan 750021, Ningxia, China
    2 Ningxia Reclamation Agricultural, Forestry and Animal Husbandry Technology Extension and Service Center, Yinchuan 750021, Ningxia, China
    3 College of Agriculture, Ningxia University, Yinchuan 750021, Ningxia, China
  • Received:2025-02-10 Revised:2025-03-14 Online:2025-10-15 Published:2025-10-21

RichHTML

1

PDF (PC)

329

Abstract:

In order to evaluate the saline-alkali tolerance of different oat varieties and screen out oat varieties with saline-alkali tolerant characteristics, this study utilized stress solutions with three salts NaCl, Na2SO4, and NaHCO3 at concentrations of 0.8% and 1.2% based on a molar ratio of 1:1:1, and using the distilled water treatment as control. A comprehensive evaluation and screening of the saline-alkali tolerance of 18 oat varieties were conducted using the membership function method. The results showed that under saline-alkali stress, different oat varieties exhibited different tolerances to the stress. Indicators such as germination rate, germination potential, root length, shoot fresh weight, and root fresh weight were all affected to different degrees and were intercorrelated. Through principal component analysis, three principal components with eigenvalues greater than 1 were identified, which could explain 74.20% of the information from the saline-alkali tolerance indicators. Combined with the membership function analysis, a comprehensive evaluation (D-value) for saline-alkali tolerance was obtained for different oat varieties. Based on the D-value, cluster analysis was conducted, categorizing the 18 oat varieties into three classes, including six high saline-alkali tolerance types, five medium saline-alkali tolerance types, and seven saline-alkali sensitive types.

Key words: Oat, Saline-alkali stress, Principal component analysis, Membership function, Regression analysis

Table 1

Basic information of the test materials"

编号
Code		 名称
Name		 产地
Origin		 编号
Code		 名称
Name		 产地
Origin
Y1 甜燕1号 加拿大 Y10 白燕7号 中国
Y2 甜燕3号 加拿大 Y11 甜燕60 加拿大
Y3 牧王 加拿大 Y12 莫妮达 加拿大
Y4 青优 中国 Y13 牧思特 加拿大
Y5 喜韵 加拿大 Y14 青引2号 中国青海
Y6 大富翁 加拿大 Y15 挑战者 加拿大
Y7 牧乐思 中国 Y16 莫妮卡 中国
Y8 甜燕70 加拿大 Y17 白燕2号 中国
Y9 三星 加拿大 Y18 喜越 中国

Table 2

Effects of saline-alkali stress on salt damage rate of different oat varieties at germination stage"

指标Index 范围Range 标准偏差Standard deviation 平均值Mean 变异系数CV (%)
S1 S2 S1 S2 S1 S2 S1 S2
总发芽指数盐害率
Total germination index salt damage rate (%)		 10.2~57.0
 15.4~69.9
 15.6
 17.2
 37.8
 51.1
 41.3
 33.6
发芽率盐害率Germination rate salt damage rate (%) 0.0~56.6 4.1~61.5 16.5 18.1 22.4 29.9 73.9 5.0
发芽势盐害率Germination potential salt damage rate (%) 6.9~100.0 10.3~100.0 31.1 31.1 62.3 82.5 49.9 37.7
根长盐害率Root length salt damage rate (%) 55.5~88.4 75.6~95.1 9.7 6.0 74.0 88.5 13.1 6.8
芽鲜重盐害率Shoot fresh weight salt damage rate (%) 0.6~62.2 3.4~71.4 20.0 20.5 24.9 37.7 80.5 54.3
根鲜重盐害率Root fresh weight salt damage rate (%) 4.8~68.8 30.5~80.5 18.9 15.7 37.5 61.2 50.5 25.7
芽干重盐害率Shoot dry weight salt damage rate (%) 0.4~44.0 9.0~59.4 15.8 14.8 18.9 30.5 83.8 48.6
根干重盐害率Root dry weight salt damage rate (%) 14.5~58.8 17.0~78.4 12.4 16.6 35.6 58.9 34.9 28.2

Table 3

Correlation analysis of saline-alkali tolerance coefficient of different oat varieties"

指标Index Z1 Z2 Z3 Z4 Z5 Z6 Z7
Z1 1
Z2 -0.216 1
Z3 -0.173 0.474** 1
Z4 -0.011 0.061 0.371* 1
Z5 0.294 0.025 0.489** 0.242 1
Z6 0.329* 0.015 -0.043 0.320* 0.092 1
Z7 0.441** 0.090 0.308* 0.186 0.710** 0.283 1

Table 4

Principal component analysis of saline-alkali tolerance coefficient of different oat varieties under 1.2% high saline-alkali stress"

指标
Index		 主成分因子
Principal component factor
PC1 PC2 PC3
Z1 0.052 0.750 0.145
Z2 0.362 0.552 0.189
Z3 0.844 -0.267 0.056
Z4 0.448 -0.588 0.459
Z5 0.830 0.014 -0.310
Z6 0.062 0.140 0.869
Z7 0.798 0.287 -0.157
特征值Eigenvalue 2.377 1.385 1.147
贡献率Contribution rate (%) 34.64 23.98 15.58
累计贡献率
Cumulative contribution rate (%)		 34.64
 58.62
 74.20

Table 5

The comprehensive indicator values, indicator weight, μ(Xj), D-value and comprehensive evaluation of different oat varieties"

编号Code 品种Variety PC1 PC2 PC3 μ(X1) μ(X2) μ(X3) D值D-value 排名Rank
Y1 甜燕1 2.31 -0.82 0.45 0.967 0.304 0.468 -0.060 9
Y2 甜燕3 0.50 -0.32 0.03 0.429 0.395 0.165 -0.280 14
Y3 牧王 2.42 0.85 1.19 1.000 0.607 1.000 0.430 2
Y4 青优 -0.94 0.71 -0.20 0.000 0.582 0.000 -0.510 18
Y5 喜韵 1.26 0.14 0.19 0.655 0.478 0.281 -0.080 11
Y6 大富翁 0.80 1.24 0.54 0.518 0.678 0.532 0.095 7
Y7 牧乐思 0.72 -0.01 0.32 0.494 0.451 0.374 -0.320 16
Y8 甜燕 1.71 -1.21 0.27 0.789 0.233 0.338 0.290 4
Y9 三星 1.63 1.34 0.50 0.765 0.696 0.504 -0.205 12
Y10 白燕7 1.70 0.33 0.82 0.786 0.513 0.734 0.245 6
Y11 甜燕 1.26 0.41 0.52 0.655 0.527 0.518 -0.225 13
Y12 莫妮达 2.18 1.00 0.92 0.929 0.635 0.806 0.410 3
Y13 牧思特 1.25 0.73 0.67 0.652 0.585 0.626 0.265 5
Y14 青引2 1.79 -2.49 0.33 0.813 0.000 0.381 -0.321 17
Y15 挑战者 0.28 3.01 0.66 0.363 1.000 0.619 0.550 1
Y16 莫妮卡 1.70 -0.30 0.28 0.786 0.398 0.345 0.070 8
Y17 白燕2 1.44 -0.82 0.24 0.708 0.304 0.317 -0.065 10
Y18 喜越 -0.34 1.17 0.37 0.179 0.665 0.410 -0.285 15
权重Weight 0.474 0.283 0.243

Fig.1

Clustering dendrogram of 18 oat varieties based on D-value"

[1] 陈新, 张宗文, 吴斌. 裸燕麦萌发期耐盐性综合评价与耐盐种质筛选. 中国农业科学, 2014, 47(10):2038-2046.
doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2014.10.018
[2] 高彩婷, 刘景辉, 徐寿军, 等. 燕麦盐胁迫响应基因的差异表达与生理响应的关系. 西北植物学报, 2015, 35(7):1385-1393.
[3] 李俊伟, 刘景辉, 王俊英, 等. 盐与碱胁迫对燕麦离子平衡和有机酸含量的影响. 西北植物学报, 2022, 42(10):1700-1710.
[4] 孙墨可, 李俊伟, 张曼, 等. 碱胁迫对不同品种燕麦幼苗生长及生理特性的影响. 江苏农业科学, 2022, 50(17):109-114.
[5] 杜良宗, 谭昆, 周少梁. 土壤盐碱地改良的研究分析与发展概况. 土壤科学, 2021, 9(1):14-17.
[6] 武俊英, 刘景辉, 翟利剑, 等. 不同品种燕麦种子萌发和幼苗生长的耐盐性. 生态学杂志, 2009, 28(10):1960-1965.
[7] 蔡天革, 王鹏, 唐凤德. 盐胁迫对燕麦种子萌发和幼苗抗氧化酶的影响. 辽宁大学学报(自然科学版), 2016, 43(1):74-78.
[8] 蔺军. 黑麦和燕麦种子萌发期耐盐性、抗旱性比较. 中国草食动物科学, 2016, 36(4):31-34.
[9] Han L P, Liu H T, et al. Potential application of oat for phytoremediation of salt ions in coastal saline-alkali soil. Ecological Engineering, 2013, 61:274-281.
[10] 张宇君, 赵丽丽, 王普昶, 等. 燕麦萌发期抗旱指标体系构建及综合评价. 核农学报, 2017, 31(11):2236-2242.
doi: 10.11869/j.issn.100-8551.2017.11.2236
[11] Koyama M L, Levesley A, Koebner R M. Quantitative trait loci for component physiological traits determining salt tolerance in rice. Plant Physiology, 2001, 125(1):406-422.
doi: 10.1104/pp.125.1.406 pmid: 11154348
[12] 武辉, 侯丽丽, 周艳飞, 等. 不同棉花基因型幼苗耐寒性分析及其鉴定指标筛选. 中国农业科学, 2012, 45(9):1703-1713.
doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2012.09.005
[13] 马晓军, 金峰学, 杨姗, 等. 作物耐盐碱数量性状基因座(QTL)定位. 分子植物育种, 2015, 13(1):221-227.
[14] 冯钟慧. 水稻幼苗对碱胁迫的响应及脱落酸的调控机制研究. 长春:中国科学院大学(中国科学院东北地理与农业生态研究所), 2024.
[15] 席津妤. 玉米苗期耐盐碱种质评价和关联分析. 泰安:山东农业大学, 2024.
[16] 姚婷, 刘扬, 梁允刚, 等. 盐碱胁迫对小麦幼苗生长和根际细菌群落结构的影响. 微生物学通报, 2023, 50(10):4472-4484.
[17] 张新草, 薛项潇, 姜深, 等. 大豆种质发芽期耐盐碱性鉴定及指标筛选. 西北农业学报, 2020, 29(3):374-381.
[18] Kerepesi L, Galiba G. Osmotic and salt stress-induced alteration in soluble carbohydrate content in wheat seedlings. Crop Science, 2000, 40(2):482-487.
[19] 伏兵哲, 兰剑, 李小伟, 等. PEG-6000干旱胁迫对16个苜蓿品种种子萌发的影响. 种子, 2012, 31(4):10-14.
[20] Verma O P S, Yadava R B R. Salt tolerance of some oats (Avena sativa L.) varieties at germination and seedling stage. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 1986, 156:123-127.
[21] 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.
[22] 张静, 高文博, 晏林, 等. 燕麦种质资源耐盐碱性鉴定评价及耐盐碱种质筛选. 作物学报, 2023, 49(6):1551-1561.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2023.21032
[23] Croser C, Renault S, Franklin J, et al. The effect of salinity on the emergence and seedling growth of Picea mariana,Picea glauca,and Pinus banksiana. Environmental Pollution, 2001, 115(1):9-16.
pmid: 11586777
[24] 陈二影, 王润丰, 秦岭, 等. 谷子芽期耐盐碱综合鉴定及评价. 作物学报, 2020, 46(10):1591-1604.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2020.04064
[25] 张巧凤, 陈宗金, 吴纪中, 等. 小麦种质芽期和苗期的耐盐性鉴定评价. 植物遗传资源学报, 2013, 14(4):620-626.
doi: 10.13430/j.cnki.jpgr.2013.04.007
[26] 彭小星, 范惠玲, 滕长才, 等. 蚕豆种质资源芽期耐盐碱性鉴定评价及耐盐碱种质筛选. 西北农业学报, 2025, 34(2):222-231.
[27] 付鸾鸿, 于崧, 于立河, 等. 不同基因型燕麦萌发期耐盐碱性分析及其鉴定指标的筛选. 作物杂志, 2018(6):27-35.
[1] Wu Huijuan, Geng Xiaoli, Li Deming, Zhou Dongchang, Fu Ping, Liu Qian, Du Xiaocun. Effects of Foliar Spraying with Different Iron Fertilizers on Seed Yield and Its Components in Oat [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(5): 233-238.
[2] Xu Mingli, Wu Baichen, Liu Chang, Gao Xinhan, Yin Jiaqi, He Xue, Liu Ying, Yin Zequn, Miao Xingfen. Effect of Melatonin Soaking on Foxtail Millet Germination under Saline-Alkali Stress [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(5): 42-46.
[3] Yan Jingrong, Pang Chunhua, Zhang Yongqing, Wu Yueyue, Hou Yuchen, Wang Jiaqi, Qiao Man. Effects of Desulfurized Gypsum and Humic Acid Interaction on Soil and Quinoa Growth in Saline-Alkali Land [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(5): 47-53.
[4] Zhang Jindong, Wang Cheng, Lu Huan, Zeng Lingling, Zhang Gongliang, Sun Haoyue, Liu Yue, Yang Helin, Hou Xiaomin. Response of Mung Bean Genotypes to Exogenous Brassinosteroids under Saline-Alkali Stress [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(5): 54-60.
[5] Wang Yanwei, Wu Junxi, Wang Yan, Mu Tao, Langzhuoma , Miao Yanjun. Effects of Saline-Alkali Stress on Seed Germination of Urtica dioica L. [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(5): 67-73.
[6] Zhao Zhou, Zhang Li, Gao Xinlei, Qiu Hongyu. Effects of Compound Saline-Alkali Stress on Growth and Metabolism of Oat [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(5): 74-85.
[7] Zhou Qi, Zhang Jing, Wang Zhenlong, Shi Zhiguo, Deng Chaochao, Chang Hao, Liu Yang, Zhou Yanfang. Effects of Green Manure Incorporation and Nitrogen Fertilizer Reduction on Soil Quality, Oat Yield and Quality in Hexi Irrigation District of Gansu Province [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(4): 188-196.
[8] Zhang Zhengjie, Yang Guohua, Guo Ruihong, Cheng Kaihua, Mi Xingwang, Liu Fei. Comprehensive Evaluation of Regional Trials for the Spring Maize in Northwest China Based on DTOPSIS Method and Membership Function Method [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(3): 78-84.
[9] Zhao Fuyang, Ma Bo, Hu Jifang, Tan Kefei, Liu Chuanzeng, Yan Feng, Dong Yang, Hou Xiaomin, Li Qingquan, Han Yehui. Evaluation of Photoperiod Sensitivity of Japonica Rice in Cold Regions under Different Photoperiod Conditions [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(2): 135-140.
[10] Sun Yanjie, Wei Guocai, Wu Yuheng, Shi Yunqiang, Shao Yong, Liu Yingrui, Nan Yuantao, Zhang Weiyao. Genetic Diversity Analysis of 100 Maize Germplasm Resources by SNP Markers [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(2): 14-19.
[11] Zhang Lina, Yang Wenping, Su Miao, Zhang Zhixuan, Li Junhui, Aamir Ali, Chen Jie, Gao Zhiqiang, Yang Zhenping. Effect of Foliar Application of Selenium onNutritional Quality of Oat Grain [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(2): 196-206.
[12] Fan Huiling, Zhao Xiaojiang, Lu Yan. Identification and Comprehensive Evaluation of Salt Tolerance in Different Growth Periods under Na2SO4 Stress in White Mustard [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(2): 79-85.
[13] Luo Jianke, Zhang Kehou, Wang Zeyu, Zhang Pingzhen, Nan Ming. Research on the Production Performance of 18 Oat Varieties (Lines) in the Irrigation Area along the Yellow River in Baiyin City [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(2): 93-100.
[14] Chang Xiao, Zhang Yunlong, Xu Lingqing, Li Jiajia, Xing Wang, Liu Dali. Effects of Different Nitrogen Form Ratio on Key Enzymes of Nitrogen Assimilation in Sugar Beet [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(1): 235-242.
[15] Pang Minxuan, Wang Han, Li Zhitao, Shi Ningfan, Pu Zhuanfang, Zhang Feng, Yao Panfeng, Bi Zhenzhen, Bai Jiangping, Sun Chao. Effects of Applying Diquat-Dibromide on Potato Quality under Different Watering Treatments [J]. Crops, 2024, 40(6): 132-139.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!