Crops ›› 2016, Vol. 32 ›› Issue (3): 158-162.doi: 10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2016.03.029

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Drought Resistance of Three Forage Species in Vicia during Germination Period

Ren Yongxia1,Guo Yupin1,Liu Guihe1,Sun Fang2,Cao Chunmei1,Xiao Caiyue1   

  1. 1College of Animal Science and Technology,Hebei North University,Zhangjiiakou 075000,Hebei,China
    2College of Economics and Management,Hebei North University,Zhangjiakou 075000,Hebei,China
  • Received:2016-05-06 Revised:2016-05-23 Online:2016-06-15 Published:2018-08-26
  • Contact: Yupin Guo

RichHTML

3

PDF (PC)

239

Abstract:

In this paper, seeds of Vicia villosa Roth., V. sativa L.and V. villosa var. glubrescens were taken as the materials. The germination test was determined with different concentrations (0, 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%) of polyethylene glycol (PEG-6000) to simulate drought stress. The relative germination potential, relative germination persentage, relative germination index, relative vigor index, relative shoot length and drought resistance index were studied. The results showed that (1) The three species had different biological seed characteristics. Seed water content and seed vitality of V.villosa var. glabrescent was higher than the others. (2) With the increasing concentration of PEG-6000, five indexes tended to decline. (3) 5% PEG could promote seed germination of V. Villosa Roth. (4) For drought resistance of three forage species, the order was V. sativa L. > V. villosa var. glabrescens > V. Villosa Roth.

Key words: Legumes, Biological characteristics, PEG stress, Germination period, Drought resistance

Table 1

Comparation biological characteristic of three herbage species %"

供试材料Test materials 含水量Water content 吸水率Water absorption rate 电导率Electrical conductivity
毛叶苕子Vicia villosaRoth. 0.097±0.01ab 82.67±4.16a 23.26±6.93a
箭筈豌豆V.sativa L. 0.090±0.00b 91.00±4.58a 23.12±2.34a
光叶苕子V.villosavar.glabrescens 0.100±0.00a 83.33±5.13a 15.99±0.35a

Table 2

Effects of different concentration PEG on relative germination energy of three herbage species"

供试材料
Test materials		 PEG浓度PEG concentration(%)
0（CK） 5 10 15 20
毛叶苕子Vicia villosaRoth. 100.00±0.00ab 128.75±101.95a 31.50±29.95bc 19.75±24.36c 0.00±0.00c
箭筈豌豆V.sativa L. 100.00±0.00a 99.50±1.00a 94.50±5.80a 31.75±34.79b 0.00±0.00c
光叶苕子V.villosavar.glabrescens 100.00±0.00a 91.00±31.39a 72.75±26.74a 11.00±6.73b 0.00±0.00b

Table 3

Effects of different concentration PEG on relative germination rate of three herbage species"

供试材料
Test materials		 PEG浓度PEG concentration(%)
0（CK） 5 10 15 20
毛叶苕子Vicia villosaRoth. 100.00±0.00ab 167.75±107.73a 93.25±52.75ab 79.50±39.25b 3.25±6.50c
箭筈豌豆V.sativa L. 100.00±0.00a 100.50±1.91a 100.50±4.12a 89.75±10.72b 28.75±11.62c
光叶苕子V.villosavar.glabrescens 100.00±0.00a 86.50±17.52a 90.25±21.91a 25.50±11.62b 23.75±45.52b

Table 4

Effects of different concentration PEG on relative germination index of three herbage species"

供试材料
Test materials		 PEG浓度PEG concentration(%)
0（CK） 5 10 15 20
毛叶苕子Vicia villosaRoth. 1.00±0.00ab 1.46±1.03a 0.68±0.44abc 0.52±0.29bc 0.02±0.04c
箭筈豌豆V.sativa L. 1.00±0.00a 0.87±0.08a 0.89±0.17a 0.49±0.19b 0.25±0.15c
光叶苕子V.villosavar.glabrescens 1.00±0.00a 0.87±0.24ab 0.78±0.21b 0.18±0.08c 0.01±0.02c

Table 5

Effects of different concentration PEG on relative vitality index of three herbage species"

供试材料
Test materials		 PEG浓度PEG concentration(%)
0（CK） 5 10 15 20
毛叶苕子Vicia villosaRoth. 1.00±0.00ab 1.92±1.27a 0.66±0.79ab 0.27±0.29b 0.00±0.00b
箭筈豌豆V.sativa L. 1.00±0.00a 0.79±0.12b 0.63±0.08c 0.17±0.09d 0.00±0.00e
光叶苕子V.villosavar.glabrescens 1.00±0.00a 0.80±0.17a 0.56±0.23b 0.03±0.02c 0.00±0.00c

Table 6

Effects of different concentration PEG on drought resistance index of three herbage species"

供试材料
Test materials		 PEG浓度PEG concentration(%)
0（CK） 5 10 15 20
毛叶苕子Vicia villosaRoth. 1.00±0.00ab 1.44±1.04a 0.53±0.54bc 0.50±0.31bc 0.02±0.03c
箭筈豌豆V.sativa L. 1.00±0.00a 0.91±0.04ab 0.78±0.09b 0.49±0.24c 0.13±0.10d
光叶苕子V.villosavar.glabrescens 1.00±0.00a 0.87±0.24a 0.80±0.21a 0.17±0.07b 0.01±0.01b

Table 7

Subordinate function values of drought resistance and comprehensive evaluation of three herbage species"

供试材料
Test materials		 相对发芽势
Relative
germination energy		 相对发芽率
Relative
germination rate		 相对发芽指数
Relative
germination index		 相对活力指数Relative
vitality index		 抗旱指数
Drought
resistance index		 平均
Average		 排序
Sort
毛叶苕子
Vicia villosaRoth.		 0.2138
 0.3939
 0.2522
 0.1270
 0.2407
 0.2455
 3
箭筈豌豆
V.sativa L.		 0.6515
 0.8067
 0.6125
 0.5175
 0.6625
 0.6501
 1
光叶苕子
V.villosavar.glabrescens		 0.3714
 0.5610
 0.4690
 0.4636
 0.4676
 0.4665
 2
[1] 田光兰, 张晓琦, 葛亚龙 , 等.豆科植物毛苕子在农牧业应用的现状.农业工程技术(农产品加工业),2014(3):37.
[2] 霍雅馨, 王娜, 张吉宇 , 等.3种诱变因子对箭筈豌豆种子萌发的影响.草业科学,2014(3):438-445.
[3] 柳茜, 王红梅, 傅平 , 多花黑麦草+光叶紫花苕混播草地生产力特征.草业科学,2013(10):1584-1588.
doi: 10.11829\j.issn.1001-0629.2013-0013
[4] 张宏亮, 韩梅, 郭石生 , 等. 几种因素变化对箭筈豌豆和毛苕子生长的影响. 安徽农业科学, 2010,38(31):17499-17503.
[5] 陈鹏飞, 白史且, 杨富裕 , 等.添加剂和水分对光叶紫花苕青贮品质的影响.草业学报,2013(2):80-86.
[6] 史静, 陈本建 . 毛苕子种子萌发对温度的响应. 青海草业, 2012,21(3-4):8-10.
[7] 张东杰 . 盐分对箭筈豌豆种子萌发的胁迫作用.黑龙江畜牧兽医,2010(19):103-104.
[8] 刘勇, 王彦荣 . 温度和水分对箭筈豌豆幼苗生长的影响. 草业科学, 2014,31(7):1302-1309.
doi: DOI:10.11829\j.issn.1001-0629.2013-0210
[9] 张晨妮, 周青平, 颜红波 , 等. PEG-6000对老芒麦种质材料萌发期抗旱性影响的研究. 草业科学, 2010,27(1):119-123.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-4705.2010.01.011
[10] 李培英, 孙宗玖, 阿布来提 . PEG模拟干旱胁迫下29份偃麦草种质种子萌发期抗旱性评价. 中国草地学报, 2010,32(1):32-39.
[11] 秦文静, 梁宗锁 . 四种豆科牧草萌发期对干旱胁迫的响应及抗旱性评价. 草业学报, 2010,19(4):61-70.
[12] 王东娟, 石凤翔, 李志勇 , 等. 雀麦属3种多年生牧草在PEG胁迫下种子活力与抗旱性研究. 种子, 2009,28(5):31-34.
[13] 申仕康, 王跃 . 乡土树种茶梨种子萌发特性及其对人工繁育的启示. 生态学杂志, 2009,28(11):2165-2170.
[14] 曹凤娇, 李立芹 . PEG-6000胁迫对黑麦种子萌发及幼苗生长的影响. 安徽农业科学, 2012,40(25):12431-12433.
[15] 刘贵河, 郭郁频, 任永霞 , 等. PEG胁迫下5种牧草饲料作物种子萌发期的抗旱性研究. 种子, 2013,32(11):15-19.
[1] Shuguang Wang,Yugang Shi,Huawei Shi,Yaping Cao,Daizhen Sun. Research on Relationship between Photosynthetic Characteristics and Drought Resistance in Spring Wheat [J]. Crops, 2017, 33(6): 23-29.
[2] Guolong Li,Yaqing Sun,Shiqin Shao,Yongfeng Zhang. Response of Antioxidant System to Drought Stress in Sugar Beet Leaves at Seedling Stage [J]. Crops, 2017, 33(5): 73-79.
[3] Jixia Liu,Junjian Shan,Yuanchun Ma,Baoan Zeng. Pathogenicity and Biological Characteristics of Verticillium wilt of Sunflower in Ningxia [J]. Crops, 2017, 33(4): 161-164.
[4] Wenwen Ji,Zeyan Zhang,Yaowen Zhang,Daizhen Sun. Identification of Drought Resistance of Adzuki Bean Germplasm Resources from Different Places in Budding Stage [J]. Crops, 2017, 33(3): 54-59.
[5] Chang Xu,Jinghui Liu,Yanming Yang,Xue Bai,Bin Ma,Xinglong Zhang,Mengyuan Sun,Mengyu Zhang. Effects of Bacterial Manure and Nitrogen and Phosphorus Fertilizer Combination on Drought Resistance Physiological Indexes and Yield of Potato under Plastic-Mulching [J]. Crops, 2017, 33(1): 94-99.
[6] Tongxin An,Mengli Chen,Feng Zhou,Jing Lu,Bozhi Wu,Lian'gen Zhang. Yield Benefit of Maize Planting Mode with Ditching and Pitting and Polythene Mulch Intercropping with Potato [J]. Crops, 2016, 32(5): 106-111.
[7] Huatao Liu,Xuefang Huang,Mingjing Huang,Baoliang Chi,Xiuqing Zheng,Junfeng Chen. Effects of Drought Stress at Jointing Stage on Yield and Drought Resistance in Spring Maize [J]. Crops, 2016, 32(2): 89-94.
[8] Xiaodong Dai,Xinzhi Xu,Cancan Zhu,Yufeng Yang,Chunyi Wang,Xiaoping Yang,Guohong Yang,Junxia Li. Seeding Stage Response to Different Water Availability and Drought Resistance Evaluation of Foxtail Millet [J]. Crops, 2016, 32(1): 140-143.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] Guangcai Zhao,Xuhong Chang,Demei Wang,Zhiqiang Tao,Yanjie Wang,Yushuang Yang,Yingjie Zhu. General Situation and Development of Wheat Production[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 1 -7 .
[2] Baoquan Quan,Dongmei Bai,Yuexia Tian,Yunyun Xue. Effects of Different Leaf-Peg Ratio on Photosynthesis and Yield of Peanut[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 102 -105 .
[3] Xuefang Huang,Mingjing Huang,Huatao Liu,Cong Zhao,Juanling Wang. Effects of Annual Precipitation and Population Density on Tiller-Earing and Yield of Zhangzagu 5 under Film Mulching and Hole Sowing[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 106 -113 .
[4] Wenhui Huang, Hui Wang, Desheng Mei. Research Progress on Lodging Resistance of Crops[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 13 -19 .
[5] Yun Zhao,Cailong Xu,Xu Yang,Suzhen Li,Jing Zhou,Jicun Li,Tianfu Han,Cunxiang Wu. Effects of Sowing Methods on Seedling Stand and Production Profit of Summer Soybean under Wheat-Soybean System[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 114 -120 .
[6] Mei Lu,Min Sun,Aixia Ren,Miaomiao Lei,Lingzhu Xue,Zhiqiang Gao. Effects of Spraying Foliar Fertilizers on Dryland Wheat Growth and the Correlation with Yield Formation[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 121 -125 .
[7] Xiaofei Wang,Haijun Xu,Mengqiao Guo,Yu Xiao,Xinyu Cheng,Shuxia Liu,Xiangjun Guan,Yaokun Wu,Weihua Zhao,Guojiang Wei. Effects of Sowing Date, Density and Fertilizer Utilization Rate on the Yield of Oilseed Perilla frutescens in Cold Area[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 126 -130 .
[8] Pengjin Zhu,Xinhua Pang,Chun Liang,Qinliang Tan,Lin Yan,Quanguang Zhou,Kewei Ou. Effects of Cold Stress on Reactive Oxygen Metabolism and Antioxidant Enzyme Activities of Sugarcane Seedlings[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 131 -137 .
[9] Jie Gao,Qingfeng Li,Qiu Peng,Xiaoyan Jiao,Jinsong Wang. Effects of Different Nutrient Combinations on Plant Production and Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium Utilization Characteristics in Waxy Sorghum[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 138 -142 .
[10] Na Shang,Zhongxu Yang,Qiuzhi Li,Huihui Yin,Shihong Wang,Haitao Li,Tong Li,Han Zhang. Response of Cotton with Vegetative Branches to Plant Density in the Western of Shandong Province[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 143 -148 .