Crops ›› 2026, Vol. 42 ›› Issue (1): 182-188.doi: 10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2026.01.023

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Physiological Response of Quinoa Seedlings with Drought Resistance to Drought Stress

Gao Yanmei1(), Feng Pengrui1(), Chen Weiwei1, Zhang Meng1, Zhang Yongqing1,2()   

  1. 1College of Life Science, Shanxi Normal University, Taiyuan 030031, Shanxi, China
    2College of Geography Science, Shanxi Normal University, Taiyuan 030031, Shanxi, China
  • Received:2024-07-22 Revised:2024-09-24 Online:2026-02-15 Published:2026-02-10

RichHTML

1

PDF (PC)

29

Abstract:

To investigate the response of drought-resistant quinoa seedlings to drought stress, the strongly drought-resistant quinoa variety Longli No.1 (LL1) and the new breeding line LQ18 were selected as experimental materials. PEG-6000 solution was used to simulate drought environment. Three treatments were set: normal irrigation (CK), mild drought stress (5% PEG-6000), and severe drought stress (20% PEG-6000). We investigated quinoa seed germination rate, germination potential, germination index; seedling plant height, leaf area, root length, aboveground and underground dry weights; soluble protein and proline contents; superoxide dismutase (SOD) and peroxidase (POD) activities; and malondialdehyde (MDA) content. The results showed that severe drought stress reduced plant height, leaf area, and aboveground dry weight in both varieties (lines), but increased root length, underground dry weight, and root-shoot ratio. Specifically, the reductions in leaf area and aboveground dry weight, as well as the increases in root length, underground dry weight, and root-shoot ratio were all smaller in LQ18 than in LL1. Under drought stress, the soluble protein content of LL1 gradually decreased, while that of LQ18 first increased and then decreased to a level with no significant difference from CK. Under severe drought stress, the proline content of both varieties (lines) significantly increased, and the proline content of LQ18 was significantly higher than that of LL1. Drought stress influenced the activities of SOD and POD and increased MDA content in both varieties (lines). Under severe stress, the SOD activity of LQ18 decreased slightly, whereas its POD activity increased significantly; furthermore, its MDA content remained significantly lower than that of LL1.

Key words: Quinoa, Drought stress, Seed germination, Seedling growth, Physiological characteristics

Fig.1

Effects of drought stress on germination rate, germination potential and germination index of two quinoa variety (line) Different lowercase letters indicate significant difference at P < 0.05 level, the same below."

Table 1

Effects of drought stress on plant height, leaf area, and root length of two quinoa variety (line)"

品种（系）
Variety
(line)		 处理
Treatment		 株高
Plant height
(cm)		 叶面积
Leaf area
(cm2)		 根长
Root length
(cm)
LL1 CK 13.22±1.02a 22.92±6.04ab 18.64±0.79c
5% PEG-6000 13.40±0.69a 17.26±4.99cd 21.70±1.81b
20% PEG-6000 11.57±0.78b 14.92±3.43d 26.20±1.36a
LQ18 CK 9.41±0.84c 25.13±1.02a 16.49±0.40c
5% PEG-6000 9.27±0.98c 19.69±3.34bc 18.77±0.47c
20% PEG-6000 8.04±0.49d 17.75±2.86cd 22.31±1.86b

Table 2

Effects of drought stress on the biomass of two quinoa variety (line) seedlings"

品种（系）
Variety (line)		 处理
Treatment		 地上部干重
Aboveground dry weight (g)		 地下部干重
Underground dry weight (g)		 总干重
Total dry weight (g)		 根冠比
Root-shoot ratio (%)
LL1 CK 0.23±0.02a 0.016±0.001bc 0.25±0.02a 7.11±0.01d
5% PEG-6000 0.16±0.01ab 0.022±0.004a 0.18±0.00bc 14.50±0.03b
20% PEG-6000 0.14±0.02c 0.026±0.003a 0.16±0.02bc 18.82±0.03a
LQ18 CK 0.16±0.00b 0.016±0.002c 0.18±0.00b 9.72±0.02cd
5% PEG-6000 0.15±0.01ab 0.017±0.002bc 0.17±0.01bc 11.33±0.01bc
20% PEG-6000 0.14±0.01ab 0.021±0.003ab 0.16±0.01c 14.55±0.01b

Fig.2

Effects of drought stress on the contents of SP and Pro of two quinoa variety (line) seedlings"

Fig.3

Effects of drought stress on the SOD, POD activities and MDA content of two quinoa variety (line) seedlings"

[1] 田计均, 唐媛, 董雨, 等. 水分胁迫对不同发育时期藜麦生理的影响. 生物学杂志, 2020, 37(6):73-76.
[2] 郭浩彬, 李敏杰, 张陆燕, 等. 美拉德反应优化藜麦多肽抗氧化活性的研究. 中国调味品, 2023, 48(12):59-68.
[3] Alvar-Beltrán J, Verdi L, Marta A D, et al. The effect of heat stress on quinoa (cv. Titicaca) under controlled climatic conditions. The Journal of Agricultural Science, 2020, 158(4):255-261.
doi: 10.1017/S0021859620000556
[4] 王洋. 藜麦抗旱种质资源鉴选及抗旱生理和分子机制研究. 呼和浩特:内蒙古农业大学, 2022.
[5] 刘文瑜, 何斌, 杨发荣, 等. 不同品种藜麦幼苗对干旱胁迫和复水的生理响应. 草业科学, 2019, 36(10):2656-2666.
[6] 吴龙龙, 田仓, 张露, 等. 稻田水氮氧环境因子对水稻生长发育、光合作用和氮利用的调控研究进展. 应用生态学报, 2021, 32(4):1498-1508.
doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.202104.020
[7] 姚庆, 秦培友, 苗昊翠, 等. PEG模拟干旱胁迫下藜麦萌发期抗旱性评价. 新疆农业科学, 2019, 56(9):1588-1596.
doi: 10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2019.09.003
[8] 王启学, 王兴, 余轩, 等. 荒漠区湿地植物群落分类排序及其与土壤环境因子的关系. 草业科学, 2023, 40(1):37-45.
[9] Sun Y, Liu F L, Bendevis M, et al. Sensitivity of two quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) varieties to progressive drought stress. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 2014, 200(1):12-23.
doi: 10.1111/jac.2013.200.issue-1
[10] García-Caparrós P, De Filippis L, Gul A, et al. Oxidative stress and antioxidant metabolism under adverse environmental conditions: a review. The Botanical Review, 2020, 87(4):1-46.
doi: 10.1007/s12229-020-09244-w
[11] Hinojosa L, Sanad M N M E, Jarvis D E, et al. Impact of heat and drought stress on peroxisome proliferation in quinoa. The Plant Journal, 2019, 99(6):1144-1158.
doi: 10.1111/tpj.14411 pmid: 31108001
[12] Zhu X L, Liu W Y Q, Wang B, et al. Molecular and physiological responses of two quinoa genotypes to drought stress. Frontiers in Genetics, 2024,15,1439046.
[13] 陈雅琦, 苏楷淇, 陈泰祥, 等. 混合盐碱胁迫对醉马草种子萌发及幼苗生理特性的影响. 草业学报, 2021, 30(3):137-157.
doi: 10.11686/cyxb2020416
[14] 朱丽丽, 张业猛, 张发玉, 等. 不同类型藜麦萌发期抗旱性差异分析及萌发进程模型拟合. 种子, 2023, 42(5):9-17.
[15] Okami M, Kato Y, Kobayashi N, et al. Morphological traits associated with vegetative growth of rice (Oryza sativa L.) during the recovery phase after early-season drought. European Journal of Agronomy, 2015,64:58-66.
[16] Hammerschmidt R, Nuckles E M, Kuć J A. Association of enhanced peroxidase activity with induced systemic resistance of cucumber to Colletotrichum lagenarium. Physiological Plant Pathology, 1982,20:73-76.
[17] Du Z, Bramlage W J. Modified thiobarbituric acid assay for measuring lipid oxidation in sugar-rich plant tissue extracts. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 2002, 40(9):1566-1570.
doi: 10.1021/jf00021a018
[18] Beyer W F, Fridovich I. Assaying for superoxide dismutase activity: some large consequences of minor changes in conditions. Analytical Biochemistry, 1987, 161(2):559-566.
doi: 10.1016/0003-2697(87)90489-1 pmid: 3034103
[19] Bates L S, Waldren R P, Teare I D. Rapid determination of free proline for water-stress studies. Plant and Soil, 1973,39:205-207.
[20] 王占军, 季波, 纪童, 等. 5种豆科牧草抗旱性研究与评价. 草业学报, 2023, 32(10):187-199.
doi: 10.11686/cyxb2021048
[21] 李佩婷, 赵振丽, 黄潮华, 等. 基于转录组及WGCNA的甘蔗干旱响应调控网络分析. 作物学报, 2022, 48(7):1583-1611.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2022.14121
[22] 王晓雨, 王小平, 史文宇, 等. 拔节期冬小麦光合特性、干物质积累和产量对干旱胁迫的响应. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60 (9):2163-2172.
doi: 10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2023.09.010
[23] 张俊杰, 陈金平, 汤钰镂, 等. 花期前后干旱胁迫对复水后夏玉米光合特性与产量的影响. 作物学报, 2023, 49(5):1397-1409.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2023.23003
[24] 单皓, 罗海婧, 张松, 等. 不同抗旱性小豆根系对干旱―复水的生理生态响应. 干旱地区农业研究, 2023, 41(1):94-100,127.
[25] 刘文瑜, 杨发荣, 谢志军, 等. 不同品种藜麦幼苗对干旱胁迫的生理响应及耐旱性评价. 干旱地区农业研究, 2021, 39(6):10-18.
[26] 邓杨, 王瑶, 郭洋楠, 等. 干旱胁迫下柳枝稷在露天矿区土壤中的种子萌发和生长特性. 生态学报, 2022, 42(22):9175-9185.
[27] 袁野梅, 柳隽瑶, 高秀丽, 等. 温带草原7种针茅植物根系特征及其对环境因子变化的适应. 生态学报, 2022, 42(21):8784-8794.
[28] 魏志敏, 赵宇, 崔纪菡, 等. 干旱胁迫对不同品系藜麦苗期生长特性的影响. 农业技术与装备, 2024(5):177-179.
[29] 沈文远, 陈昕钰, 余徐润, 等. 根际温度胁迫对小麦根系形态及生理影响的研究进展. 作物杂志, 2022(6):23-32.
[30] Qi Y, Ma L L, Ghani M I, et al. Effects of drought stress induced by hypertonic polyethylene glycol (PEG-6000) on Passiflora edulis Sims. physiological properties. Plants, 2023, 12(12):1-14.
doi: 10.3390/plants12010001
[31] Chen R, Hu X T, Chen D Y, et al. Heat and drought priming induce tolerance to subsequent heat and drought stress by regulating leaf photosynthesis, root morphology, and antioxidant defense in maize seedlings. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 2022,202:1-16.
[32] 刘牧野, 郭丽珠, 岳跃森, 等. 干旱胁迫下不同性别野牛草生理及抗氧化酶基因表达差异. 草业学报, 2023, 32(10):93-103.
doi: 10.11686/cyxb2023019
[33] 李伟成, 盛海燕, 高贵宾, 等. 高温干旱对髯毛箬竹的叶和细根的生理生态影响. 环境科学研究, 2017, 30(12):1908-1918.
[34] Ozturk M, Turkyilmaz Unal B, García-Caparrós P, et al. Osmoregulation and its actions during the drought stress in plants. Physiologia Plantarum, 2020, 172(2):1321-1335.
doi: 10.1111/ppl.v172.2
[35] 张平, 张慧, 刘俊娜, 等. 干旱及复水处理对抗旱性不同小麦品种/系苗期生理生化指标的影响. 西北农业学报, 2020, 29(12):1795-1802.
[36] Gujjar R S, Roytrakul S, Chuekong W, et al. A synthetic cytokinin influences the accumulation of leaf soluble sugars and sugar transporters, and enhances the drought adaptability in rice. 3 Biotech, 2021, 11(8):369-369.
[37] 秦岭, 陈二影, 张艳亭, 等. 干旱及复水对谷子脯氨酸积累和SiP5CR基因表达的影响. 分子植物育种, 2018, 16(22):7460-7465.
[1] Sun Rumeng, Zhang Nan, Yin Jia, Ru Yan, Jing Wenjiang, Zhang Hao. Research Progress on Response of Rice Root Exudates to Drought Stress [J]. Crops, 2026, 42(1): 1-8.
[2] Liu Qing, Sun Luhong, Gao Shiwei, Liu Yuqiang, Chang Huilin, Ma Cheng, Wang Jingze, Wang Cuiling, Nie Shoujun. Effects of Chromium Stress on Physiological Traits and Morphological Characteristics of Rice Leaves [J]. Crops, 2026, 42(1): 143-151.
[3] Yang Wengao, Yuan Wenjue, Li Zhaoguang, He Guiqing, He Qiongji, Wang Rui, Li Yan, Ye Lei, Hou Zhijiang. Effects of Winter Sowing Date on Agronomic Traits and Yield of Quinoa in Northwestern Yunnan, China [J]. Crops, 2026, 42(1): 257-265.
[4] Zhang Yemeng, Lu Kexin, Mao Wenyu, Zhang Xiaoyan, Li Wenjing, Yang Xiu. Identification and Expression Analysis of LEA Gene Family in Chenopodium quinoa Willd. under Salt Stress [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(6): 100-111.
[5] Liu Songtao, Jiang Chao, Shi Hanbo, Yan Linan, Zhao Haichao, Lu Haibo, Li Hui, Huang Zhihong. Cloning, Bioinformatics Analysis, and Functional Validation of ZmPOD Gene in Maize [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(6): 37-44.
[6] Li Ying, Zhao Yongwei, Chen Ying, Ma Weiming, Li Wenzhen, Zhang Haijie. Effects of Chemical Mutagens on Seed Germination and Main Agronomic Traits of M1 Generation of Flax ʻDingya 23ʼ [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(5): 155-164.
[7] Du Hanmei, Tan Lu, Li Shengchun, Wang Qinghai, Xu Zhou, Wu Dandan, Wang Anhu. Cadmium Tolerance of Tartary Buckwheat during Germination Stage and Its Effects on Physiological Characteristics of Seedlings [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(5): 209-220.
[8] 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.
[9] 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.
[10] 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.
[11] Sun Xianyin, Zhang Jibo, Lü Guangde, Qi Xiaolei, Sun Yingying, Mi Yong, Mu Qiuhuan, Yin Xundong, Wang Ruixia, Qian Zhaoguo, Gao Minggang. Comparison of High and Stable Yield Characteristics of Different Genotypes of Wheat under Dryland and Supplemental Irrigation Conditions [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(4): 104-110.
[12] Zhang Zhihan, Yao Jie, Zhang Zhantian, Bian Fuhua, Zhang Ziran, Chen Ping, Chen Haining, Liu Baoyou. Effects of 5-Aminolevulinic Acid on Cucumber Seedling Growth and Soil Enzyme Activities under Drought Stress [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(4): 245-250.
[13] Hou Xiaomin, Shen Huibo, Dong Shoukun, Yan Feng, Dong Yang, Zhao Fuyang, Li Qingquan, Zuo Yuetao. Physiological Effects of Mepiquat Chloride on Alleviating Drought Stress in Soybean Seedling Leaves [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(3): 133-140.
[14] Li Xiaoyu, Huang Jie, Yang Zhao, Chai Jikuan, Yang Farong, Wei Yuming, Liu Wenyu, Bai Weijun. Establishment and Application of a Comprehensive Evaluation System for Ornamental Quinoa Based on Analytic Hierarchy Process [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(3): 70-77.
[15] Zhang Shengchang, Wei Yuming, Ma Lina, Yang Zhao, Liu Wenyu, Huang Jie, Liu Huan, Yang Farong. Effects of Planting Density and Fertilization on Growth Characteristics of Forage Quinoa [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(2): 128-134.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!