作物杂志, 2018, 34(5): 10-16 doi: 10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2018.05.002

遗传育种·种质资源·生物技术

应用多元分析法综合评价胡麻材料抗旱适应性

吴瑞香, 杨建春, 王利琴, 郭秀娟

山西省农业科学院高寒区作物研究所,037008,山西大同

Evaluation of the Adaptability of Flax Drought Resistance Based on Multiple Statistics Analysis

Wu Ruixiang, Yang Jianchun, Wang Liqin, Guo Xiujuan

High Latitude and Cold Weather Crops Institute, Shanxi Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Datong 037008, Shanxi, China

收稿日期: 2018-05-15   修回日期: 2018-08-13   网络出版日期: 2018-10-15

基金资助: 山西省农业科学院所长青年引导专项.  yydzx17
国家特色油料产业技术体系胡麻大同综合试验站.  CARS-14-2-06

Received: 2018-05-15   Revised: 2018-08-13   Online: 2018-10-15

作者简介 About authors

吴瑞香,副研究员,主要从事胡麻栽培育种以及干旱胁迫下生理生化研究 。

摘要

以16份目前国内主要胡麻抗旱品种及优良品系为试验材料,用晋亚10号为对照,设自然干旱和正常灌溉2个处理,对各材料的株高、工艺长度、分茎数等9项形态指标进行比较,同时结合亚麻酸含量、含油率,通过计算抗旱系数、隶属函数值以及抗旱性度量值(D值)来比较品种(系)的抗旱性,最终利用D值的大小来对品种(系)的抗旱适应性进行评价和聚类,大致分为3类。最终筛选出抗旱适应性强的2075-20、冀张亚1号、423、24005-8、伊亚6号、9718、内亚9号、内44、坝选3号、陇亚10号是适合山西大同地区种植的胡麻品种(系)。

关键词: 胡麻 ; 抗旱适应性 ; 隶属函数 ; 聚类分析

Abstract

16 major domestic flax varieties and superior strains were used as experiment materials and Jinya 10 as the control in our study to evaluate nine main agronomic traits including plant height, processing length and the number of stem under natural drought and normal irrigation in Datong. The drought resistance of the species was compared by calculating the drought resistance coefficient combined with linolenic acid, oil content, the subordinate function value and the drought resistance comprehensive evaluation values (D value). According to the D value, the drought-resistant adaptability of the species was evaluated and grouped into three categories. In conclusion, the varieties with strong adaptability to drought were selected out: 2075-20, Jizhangya 1, 423, 24005-8, Yiya 6, 9718, Neiya 9, Nei 44, Baxuan 3 and Longya 10 as recommended flax varieties to be planted in Datong region of Shanxi.

Keywords: Flax ; Drought resisant adaptability ; Subordinate function ; Cluster analysis

PDF (1542KB) 元数据 多维度评价 相关文章 导出 EndNote| Ris| Bibtex  收藏本文

本文引用格式

吴瑞香, 杨建春, 王利琴, 郭秀娟. 应用多元分析法综合评价胡麻材料抗旱适应性[J]. 作物杂志, 2018, 34(5): 10-16 doi:10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2018.05.002

Wu Ruixiang, Yang Jianchun, Wang Liqin, Guo Xiujuan. Evaluation of the Adaptability of Flax Drought Resistance Based on Multiple Statistics Analysis[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(5): 10-16 doi:10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2018.05.002

胡麻(Linum usitatissimum L.)即油用亚麻,是世界五大油料作物之一,也是我国西北和华北高寒干旱地区的主要食用油来源,是我国的重要经济作物。耐寒、耐旱、耐瘠薄,营养价值丰富,大多种植在高寒干旱的旱作农业生态区域,是发展旱作农业的理想作物[1]。2012年山西省胡麻全年播种面积317 860hm2,胡麻子产量70 263t,是我国胡麻的第二大产区[2],但是2011-2016年,山西春旱、伏旱频发,灌溉用水短缺使得胡麻减产严重,经济效益低下,干旱成为制约胡麻生产的主要因素。干旱不仅降低产量,还造成子粒不饱满,来年发芽率低,发芽势弱,降低品种的抗逆性,增加病害的发生。因此胡麻品种的抗旱适应性研究与利用变得尤为重要。培育筛选抗旱性强、高产、稳产的胡麻新品种,提高旱地胡麻水分利用率已成为当前胡麻发展的主要趋势[3]

作物的抗旱性是受多基因控制的数量性状,不仅与自身的基因组成有关,而且与外界环境因素的变化息息相关,国内外很多学者从生理生化指标、光合指标对胡麻的抗旱性与评价方法进行了研究,对作物的抗旱机理及遗传改良等方面也做了大量的研究[4]。祁旭升等[5]、罗俊杰等[6]采用隶属函数、因子分析、灰色关联度分析等统计分析方法对胡麻的种质资源及重要栽培品种进行了抗旱性综合评价,评价是以抗旱和敏感品种作为对照来进行。而作物对当地干旱环境的适应性直接体现在产量上,但是其各个不同性状的抗旱性能间接反映出品种对环境的适应性及其经济性能[7],因此,本研究在干旱和灌溉条件下,对与胡麻产量密切相关的株高、工艺长度、分茎数、主茎分枝数、单株果数、单果粒数、单株粒重、千粒重、小区产量等9个农艺性状及加工时品质要求的亚麻酸含量和含油率进行分析研究,以这些指标的抗旱系数作为抗旱适应性鉴定主要参数,结合隶属函数、主成分分析方法,以当地主栽品种晋亚10号为对照,对目前国内表现良好的胡麻品种或品系在山西大同地区的表现进行综合评价[8,9,10,11,12],筛选出适合大同地区气候环境种植的优良胡麻品种或品系,为大同地区推广节水抗旱、高效节能的胡麻种植模式提供理论与实践依据。

1 材料与方法

1.1 试验材料

试验分别于2016、2017年在山西省农业科学院高寒区作物研究所试验基地大同东王庄(40.6°N,114.2°E)进行,海拔1 044.6m,属温带大陆性季风气候,年平均气温6.4℃,无霜期129d左右、生育期(4-9月),降雨量为310mm左右,蒸发量为835mm,平均降水量、蒸发量如图1。全年平均日照时数1 540.1h,春季雨水少,风沙大,蒸发量大。

图1

图1   降雨量和蒸发量对比

Fig.1   Comparison of rainfall and evaporation


所选试验地土壤为砂壤栗钙土,肥力中等偏下,含有机质16.77g/kg、全氮0.81g/kg、全磷0.74g/kg、全钾21.2g/kg、碱解氮65.45mg/kg、速效磷3.7mg/kg、速效钾61mg/kg,全盐0.55g/kg。前茬为马铃薯,春季667m2施鸡粪500kg、N:P:K=18:18:18复合肥20kg。秋耕春浇,旋耕机翻地,人工整地作畦,开沟播种。

选用423、内亚9号、内44、定亚21号、伊亚6号、陇亚14号、陇亚10号、2004M1-15、张亚2号、冀张亚1号、坝选3号、宁亚17号、9718、24005-8、2075-20、同亚白1号等为试验材料,以晋亚10号作为对照。17份供试材料由国家特色油料产业技术体系胡麻大同试验站提供。

1.2 试验方法

试验设自然干旱(D)、灌溉(W)2个处理,干旱区与灌溉区处理间隔5m,种植保护行,干旱区与灌溉区处理供试材料均采用随机区组排列,排列方式相同,处理间小区均用培土分离,3次重复,小区面积13.34m2,2年均于4月28日开沟撒播,种植密度900万/hm2,所有处理均在播前进行灌溉,以保证出苗率。干旱处理整个生育期不再灌水,以当地本年度的自然降雨量为水分的唯一供给来源,灌溉采用喷灌的方式,分2次进行,一次在分茎期灌水80mm,一次在快速生长期灌水40mm,以满足整个生育期的需水要求。灌溉量用水表计量,灌水量(mm)根据m3/hm2的灌水量换算。播前深施复合肥及有机肥,按当地大田生产管理,方法相同。

1.3 考察性状及方法

1.3.1 考察性状 在胡麻成熟后每小区取样20株,参照《胡麻种质资源描述规范和数据标准》[13],分别对株高、工艺长度、分茎数、主茎分枝数、单株果数、单果粒数、单株粒重、千粒重、小区产量等9个性状进行考察,对收获的子粒进行品质测定,然后2年求其平均作为各项性状指标的代表值。

1.3.2 考察方法 为避免各个品种(系)间的基本性状差异,以每个性状3次重复测定值的平均值为基础数据,采用性状相对值来进行品种抗旱性的综合评价,按公式(1)和(2)分别计算各项的抗旱系数(drought resistance coefficient,DC)及综合抗旱系数(comprehensive drought resistance coefficient,CDC),式中xi、CKi表示干旱、对照处理的性状测定值。

$DC=\frac{x_{i}}{CK_{i}}, i=1,2,3...,n$
$CDC=\frac{1}{n}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}, i=1,2,3...,n$
$\mu(x_{i})=\frac{x_{i}-x_{i\quad min}}{x_{i\quad max}-x_{i\quad min}}$
$D=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}[\mu(x_{i})(|r_{i}|/\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}|r_{i}|)]$

公式(3)中,xi为某一基因型品种第i个性状值,xi maxxi min分别表示i性状最大值和最小值,µ(xi)表示品种i性状抗旱性隶属函数值。公式(4)中,ri为第i个性状与综合抗旱系数的相关系数,表示第i个指标在所有指标中的重要程度,对各性状隶属函数赋予相应的权重系数,通过计算加权隶属函数值,作为抗旱性度量值(drought resistance comprehensive evaluation values, D值),该值越大所代表的抗旱性越强[6]

2 结果与分析

2.1 干旱胁迫对不同性状指标的影响

表1看出,9个形态及产量性状都不同程度受干旱胁迫的影响。变异系数介于0.08~0.31,说明本试验所选胡麻材料类型较丰富,所选主要农艺性状对于干旱胁迫反应较为敏感,采用隶属函数法对17个胡麻材料的抗旱性进行评价时,表1中的11个性状指标具有代表性。变异系数最大的是干旱胁迫下的单株粒重和小区产量,说明其受干旱胁迫的影响最大,对胁迫敏感。干旱胁迫对株高、千粒重、工艺长度影响最小。方差分析结果表明,各个品种的每个性状在不同处理差异性表现不一致,在处理与对照间株高、分茎数、主茎分枝数、单株果数、单果粒数、单株粒重、小区产量表现差异极显著,工艺长度、千粒重表现差异显著,亚麻酸含量和含油率差异不显著。

表1   干旱胁迫和正常灌溉条件下性状测定值差异分析

Table 1  Analysis of the difference characters under drought stress and normal irrigation

品种(系)
Cultivar (Line)
株高(cm)
Plant height
工艺长度(cm)
Processing lengh
分茎数
Stem number
主茎分枝数
Main stem branches
单株果数
Fruits per plant
单果粒数
Seeds per fruit
单株粒重(g)
Seed weight per plant
千粒重(g)
1000-grain weight
小区产量(kg)
Grain yield
of plot
亚麻酸含量(%)
Linolenic acid
content
含油率(%)
Oil content
DWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDW
42350.0854.8327.3330.380.870.973.753.9017.7021.087.187.620.560.664.774.860.991.3251.050.241.2741.34
内亚9号Neiya 950.0953.1027.8830.690.750.923.864.6213.6918.016.036.230.540.604.905.260.570.9947.245.140.9240.58
定亚21号Dingya 2152.9860.3031.7234.520.871.333.564.2311.3916.876.626.890.320.525.215.280.490.6348.347.639.1439.67
伊亚6号Yiya 657.4059.1337.4335.460.650.913.954.0316.0718.816.237.310.370.675.595.871.071.2345.342.939.1237.94
陇亚14号Longya 1453.8958.9330.8030.240.701.383.703.8615.0524.625.996.840.350.825.296.380.550.9544.742.840.9041.14
内44 Nei 4449.9853.8729.9531.300.861.183.453.7813.8321.376.706.960.530.684.594.970.630.8248.246.940.3738.07
2004M1-1546.9651.6026.4831.830.471.023.763.7314.1421.155.987.390.280.514.425.080.511.1049.949.940.2941.40
张亚2号Zhangya 247.2855.8028.7734.340.821.273.283.7115.4022.404.646.030.410.555.445.890.550.7750.851.439.5541.25
宁亚17号Ningya 1743.7548.3126.7727.650.500.873.133.8913.8817.345.866.720.390.606.106.220.560.6543.044.238.2037.90
晋亚10号Jinya 1048.3753.9329.8630.860.861.033.313.4210.3415.076.297.200.350.484.845.100.640.9447.846.240.1538.87
陇亚10号Longya 1053.8257.9232.5034.800.971.383.373.8715.8019.686.196.790.530.675.425.820.650.9245.143.438.9239.19
24005-855.2058.0831.1832.840.921.053.373.8916.1321.016.437.010.450.545.235.730.900.9448.248.938.8839.10
2075-2052.5756.9828.3827.551.171.423.704.1017.7520.666.057.170.640.705.646.111.201.2546.746.640.1639.05
冀张亚1号Jizhangya 154.3057.9328.7530.771.021.174.414.8520.5221.575.906.130.871.115.846.540.911.1745.343.338.5538.68
坝选3号Baxuan 343.2847.1225.3229.670.750.873.524.0613.0714.226.827.170.430.454.525.040.811.2445.445.140.3144.40
同亚白1号Tongyabai 158.0064.9833.0738.131.181.983.884.1317.5322.586.666.870.490.704.775.290.560.7250.349.641.3140.91
971849.8552.8732.0234.200.650.823.153.5713.2518.676.786.890.540.755.535.770.730.9439.840.538.2038.06
平均Average51.0555.6329.8932.070.821.153.593.9815.0319.716.266.900.470.655.185.600.720.9846.8846.1539.7839.86
变异系数CV0.080.080.100.090.230.250.090.090.170.140.090.060.300.250.090.090.310.220.060.070.030.04
F0.003**0.003*1.780**0.011**0.286**0.598**0.005**0.428*0.036**0.1944.022

Note: D, drought-stress treatment; W, irrigated treatment; * and ** represent significant difference at 0.05 and 0.01 probability level, respectively

注:D,自然干旱处理;W,正常灌溉处理。*和**分别表示0.05和0.01水平差异显著

新窗口打开| 下载CSV


2.2 参试品种的抗旱系数分析

参试品种测定性状的抗旱系数(表2)表明,各个考察性状抗旱系数由高到低依次为亚麻酸含量、含油率、工艺长度、千粒重、株高、主茎分枝数、单果粒数、单株果数、单株粒重、小区产量、分茎数,其中变异系数较大的是单株粒重、分茎数、小区产量、单株果数。说明不同胡麻材料不同性状间的抗旱性存在明显差异。采用综合抗旱系数公式(2)获得供试品种CDC值,CDC值介于0.779~0.928,变异系数为4.82%。根据综合抗旱系数值大小对供试胡麻材料进行抗旱性排序,按抗旱性由强到弱的顺序为2075-20>冀张亚1号>423>24005-8>伊亚6号>坝选3号>内亚9号>9718>内44>晋亚10号>陇亚10号>同亚白1号>宁亚17号>定亚21号>张亚2号>陇亚14号>2004M1-15。

表2   参试品种(系)各性状的抗旱系数

Table 2  Drought resistance coefficient of various trait of different varieties (lines)

品种(系)
Cultivar (Line)
株高
Plant
height
工艺长度
Processing
lengh
分茎数
Stem
number
主茎分枝数
Main stem
branches
单株果数
Fruits per
plant
单果粒数
Seeds per
fruit
单株粒重
Seed weight
per plant
千粒重
1000-grain
weight
小区产量
Grain yield
of plot
亚麻酸含量
Linolenic
acid content
含油率
Oil
content
CDC
4230.910.900.900.960.840.940.850.980.751.021.000.914
内亚9号Neiya 90.940.910.810.840.760.970.910.930.581.051.010.882
定亚21号Dingya 210.880.920.660.840.680.960.610.990.781.010.990.847
伊亚6号Yiya 60.971.060.710.980.850.850.560.950.871.061.030.899
陇亚14号Longya 140.911.020.510.960.610.880.420.830.581.040.990.796
内44 Nei 440.930.960.730.910.650.960.780.920.771.031.060.881
2004M1-150.910.830.471.010.670.810.550.870.471.020.970.779
张亚2号Zhangya 20.850.840.640.890.690.770.740.920.710.990.960.818
宁亚17号Ningya 170.910.970.570.810.800.870.650.980.870.971.010.855
晋亚10号Jinya 100.900.970.830.970.690.870.740.950.681.031.030.878
陇亚10号Longya 100.930.930.700.870.800.910.800.930.711.040.990.875
24005-80.950.950.870.870.770.920.840.910.950.990.990.909
2075-200.921.030.820.900.860.840.910.920.961.001.030.928
冀张亚1号Jizhangya 10.940.930.870.910.950.960.780.890.781.051.000.915
坝选3号Baxuan 30.880.850.760.920.930.960.960.900.651.010.910.884
同亚白1号Tongyabai 10.890.870.600.940.780.970.690.900.771.011.010.858
97180.940.940.800.880.710.980.720.960.780.981.000.881
平均Average0.920.930.720.910.770.910.740.930.741.021.000.871
变异系数CV (%)3.277.5018.036.6113.056.6119.544.3217.472.553.324.82

新窗口打开| 下载CSV


2.3 隶属函数分析及抗旱性评价

相同性状不同材料间的抗旱性存在差异,同一材料不同性状间抗旱性表现也并不相同,若仅采用单一性状对材料抗旱性进行评价,则不能准确评价出各个参试材料的抗旱性,因此采用隶属函数法进行综合分析[14,15,16]

通过公式(3)计算各个性状的隶属函数值(表3),通过综合隶属函数值(comprehensive subordinate function value,CSV)的大小来判断材料的抗旱性强弱。按抗旱性强弱顺序伊亚6号>冀张亚1号>423>2075-20>内44>24005-8>内亚9号>晋亚10号>9718>陇亚10号>坝选3号>同亚白1号>定亚21号>宁亚17号>陇亚14号>2004M1-15>张亚2号。与CDC值大小顺序相比,材料抗旱性强弱顺序发生了变化,那么材料本身所代表的抗性不能真实具体地表达出来,说明用以上2种方法都不能精确的说明材料的抗旱性,还需要更准确的统计方法来进行评价。通过对隶属函数值进行主成分分析,其中KMO检验度量值为0.428,表示不接受因子分析,不能进行主成分提取,说明这11个性状指标在抗旱贡献率上占有非常重要的地位,不能忽略或代替。

表3   不同品种(系)性状抗旱系数隶属函数

Table 3  Subordinate function value on drought resistance coefficient of different varieties (lines)

品种(系)
Cultivar (Line)
株高
Plant
height
工艺长度
Processing lengh
分茎数
Stem number
主茎分枝数
Main stem branches
单株果数
Fruits per
plant
单果粒数
Seeds per
fruit
单株粒重
Seed weight per plant
千粒重
1000-grain weight
小区产量
Grain yield
of plot
亚麻酸含量
Linolenic
acid content
含油率
Oil
content
综合
隶属值
CSV
4230.530.301.000.760.680.820.800.960.570.520.597.53
内亚9号Neiya 90.780.340.790.130.440.940.910.630.220.890.666.73
定亚21号Dingya 210.240.390.430.160.190.910.361.000.630.500.525.33
伊亚6号 Yiya 61.000.980.560.850.720.390.260.770.811.000.818.17
陇亚14号Longya 140.540.820.090.740.000.500.010.000.230.860.574.36
内44 Nei 440.650.550.600.510.110.920.660.580.600.661.006.84
2004M1-150.500.010.001.000.170.190.250.250.000.520.433.32
张亚2号Zhangya 20.000.030.410.380.230.000.590.580.500.180.333.21
宁亚17号Ningya 170.460.600.240.000.560.480.430.950.810.000.665.19
晋亚10号Jinya 100.390.600.840.780.220.490.590.740.440.740.826.65
陇亚10号Longya 100.660.450.550.310.570.670.710.640.480.800.566.40
24005-80.840.520.940.280.460.700.780.510.980.150.576.73
2075-200.600.870.820.460.730.350.920.581.000.350.797.47
冀张亚1号Jizhangya 10.730.450.940.501.000.920.660.390.630.880.587.68
坝选3号Baxuan 30.260.100.680.540.940.901.000.420.380.410.005.63
同亚白1号Tongyabai 10.350.160.290.650.490.950.510.450.620.500.675.63
97180.770.460.760.370.291.000.560.810.630.120.636.40

新窗口打开| 下载CSV


2.4 抗旱性状的综合评价

不同基因型材料抗旱性与综合抗旱系数的相关分析如表4,株高与工艺长度、含油率、CDC呈显著正相关关系,工艺长度与小区产量呈显著正相关,与含油率呈极显著正相关关系,分茎数与单株果数呈显著正相关,与单株粒重、CDC呈极显著正相关关系;单株果数与单株粒重呈显著正相关,与CDC呈极显著正相关关系;单株粒重与CDC呈极显著正相关关系;小区产量与CDC呈极显著正相关关系。其中株高与CDC呈显著正相关,相关系数为0.491;分茎数、单株果数、单株粒重、小区产量均与CDC呈现极显著正相关关系,相关系数分别为0.890、0.689、0.694及0.677。

表4   各性状抗旱系数间的相关系数

Table 4  The correlation coefficient of drought resistance coefficient between various characters

工艺长度
Processing
lengh
分茎数
Stem
number
主茎分枝数
Main stem
branches
单株果数
Fruits per
plant
单果粒数
Seeds per
fruit
单株粒重
Seed weight
per plant
千粒重
1000-grain
weight
小区产量Grain yield
of plot
亚麻酸含量
Linolenic
acid content
含油率
Oil
content
综合抗
旱系数
CDC
株高Plant height0.589*0.3620.0210.2300.2420.0180.0160.3040.3590.527*0.491*
工艺长度Processing lengh0.160-0.0040.018-0.085-0.2410.0990.514*0.2820.653**0.363
分茎数Stem number-0.1560.504*0.4180.745**0.3640.4350.0540.1760.890**
主茎分枝数Main stem branches-0.075-0.302-0.335-0.439-0.3790.4210.031-0.208
单株果数Fruits per plant0.2110.556*0.1280.3880.048-0.2360.689**
单果粒数Seeds Per fruit0.3360.1760.0650.1330.0570.422
单株粒重Seed weight per plant0.2220.246-0.178-0.1460.694**
千粒重1000-grain weight0.444-0.2800.2390.406
小区产量Grain yield of plot-0.3700.3790.677**
亚麻酸含量Linolenic acid content0.2760.052
含油率Oil content0.311

Note: *and**represent significant correlation at 0.05 and 0.01 probability level, respectively

注:“*”和“**”分别表示相关显著、极显著

新窗口打开| 下载CSV


通过公式(4)计算各个品种(系)的抗旱性度量值D(表5),通过抗旱性度量值D的大小对品种(系)的抗旱适应性进行排序,结果2075-20>冀张亚1号>423>24005-8>伊亚6号>9718>内亚9号>内44>坝选3号>陇亚10号>晋亚10号>宁亚17>同亚白1号>定亚21>张亚2号>陇亚14号>2004M1-15。与据CDC值、隶属函数值所得的顺序相比,排序结果又发生了变化,但是D值的计算包括了不同基因型材料各个性状所占的系数权重,方法更为精确可靠,因此最终以D值的大小作为判断的标准。

表5   不同品种(系)性状的抗旱度量值D

Table 5  Drought resistance comprehensive evaluation values of different varieties (lines)

品种(系)
Cultivar (Line)
株高
Plant
height
工艺长度
Processing
lengh
分茎数
Stem
number
主茎分枝数
Main stem
branches
单株果数
Fruits per
plant
单果粒数
Seeds per
fruit
单株粒重
Seed weight
per plant
千粒重
1000-grain
weight
小区产量
Grain yield
of plot
亚麻酸含量
Linolenic
acid content
含油率
Oil
content
D值
4230.0500.0210.1710.0300.0900.0660.1060.0750.0740.0050.0360.725
内亚9号Neiya 90.0730.0240.1350.0050.0580.0760.1210.0490.0290.0090.0400.619
定亚21号Dingya 210.0230.0270.0740.0060.0250.0740.0480.0780.0820.0050.0310.472
伊亚6号Yiya 60.0940.0700.0960.0340.0950.0320.0350.0600.1050.0100.0490.679
陇亚14号Longya 140.0510.0570.0150.0300.0000.0410.0010.0000.0300.0090.0340.267
内44 Nei 440.0610.0390.1030.0200.0150.0750.0880.0450.0780.0070.0600.589
2004M1-150.0470.0010.0000.0400.0220.0150.0330.0200.0000.0050.0260.209
张亚2号Zhangya 20.0000.0000.0700.0150.0300.0000.0780.0450.0650.0020.0200.326
宁亚17号Ningya 170.0430.0420.0410.0000.0740.0390.0570.0740.1050.0000.0390.515
晋亚10号Jinya 100.0370.0420.1440.0310.0290.0400.0780.0580.0570.0070.0490.572
陇亚10号Longya 100.0620.0320.0940.0120.0750.0540.0940.0500.0620.0080.0340.578
24005-80.0790.0360.1610.0110.0610.0570.1040.0400.1270.0020.0340.711
2075-200.0560.0610.1400.0180.0960.0280.1220.0450.1300.0040.0480.749
冀张亚1号Jizhangya 10.0690.0320.1610.0200.1320.0750.0880.0300.0820.0090.0350.731
坝选3号Baxuan 30.0240.0070.1160.0220.1240.0730.1330.0330.0490.0040.0000.586
同亚白1号Tongyabai 10.0330.0110.0500.0260.0650.0770.0680.0350.0810.0050.0400.490
97180.0720.0320.1300.0150.0380.0810.0740.0630.0820.0010.0380.627

新窗口打开| 下载CSV


2.5 不同供试材料抗旱适应性的聚类分析

以抗旱度量值计算结果为指标,采用欧氏平方距离进行系统聚类分析,从图2可以看出,供试材料在距离11.5处大致被划分为3类,其中第Ⅰ类有11个品种(系)(2075-20、冀张亚1号、423、24005-8、伊亚6号、9718、内亚9号、内44、坝选3号、陇亚10号、晋亚10号),此类与本地品种晋亚10号归为一类,被认为比较抗旱,较适应大同的气候条件,适合在此地区种植。第Ⅱ类有4个品种(定亚21号、宁亚17号、张亚2号、同亚白1号),这一类被认为抗旱性一般,不适应大同的气候条件,不适宜在大同地区被推广种植。第Ⅲ类有陇亚14号、2004M1-15,这2个材料被认为极不抗旱,不能够在山西大同地区进行种植。

图2

图2   胡麻品种(系)抗旱性聚类

Fig.2   System clustering graph of flax varieties (lines) on drought resistance


3 结论与讨论

一般认为,植物的抗旱性是受多种因素影响的复杂数量性状,由多基因控制且易与环境互作,各单项指标不仅相互独立又相互之间具有不同程度的相关性[17,18]。作物最终表现出的适应性是多种因素相互作用的结果,机理复杂,表型性状是内部生理结构变化的体现,农艺和产量性状是最直观的体现。不同品种生长发育的不同阶段,抗旱机理不尽相同[19,20,21,22]。国外学者针对不同作物从不同角度对抗旱性进行了研究[23,24]。利用隶属函数计算的抗旱性度量值既消除了品种之间固有差异的影响,同时不同指标也可直接进行比较,指标间可比性强,是目前使用的一种较可靠的评价方法。

大同地区最近几年的天气特点是春旱严重,出苗期、枞形期受影响比较大,往往在胡麻出苗后,受极热天气影响,地表干旱、温度过高形成“小老苗”,前期营养生长受到影响,间接影响到后期的产量,而到生育后期,往往雨量较多,造成胡麻倒伏及返青,直接造成胡麻减产。因此必须筛选出一批生育期适中、苗期抗旱、成株期抗倒伏、不易返青的品种来进行推广种植。

本研究采用不同的抗旱鉴定方法对目前国内主栽胡麻品种(系)进行了抗旱适应性筛选,综合3次不同的结果,以当地主推品种晋亚10号为对照,得出2075-20、冀张亚1号、423、24005-8、伊亚6号、9718、内亚9号、内44、坝选3号、陇亚10号等抗旱效果明显,对大同地区气候适应性较强,可以在大同地区进行推广种植。

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
作者已声明无竞争性利益关系。

参考文献

党占海, 赵蓉英, 王敏 .

国际视野下胡麻研究的可视化分析

中国麻业科学, 2010,32(6):305-313.

[本文引用: 1]

杨建春, 吴瑞香, 王利琴 , .

山西胡麻产业现状与发展对策

农业科技通讯, 2017(7):10-14.

[本文引用: 1]

陈玉梁, 石有太, 罗俊杰 , .

干旱胁迫对彩色棉花农艺、品质性状及水分利用效率的影响

作物学报, 2013,39(11):2074-2082.

DOI:10.3724/SP.J.1006.2013.02074      Magsci     [本文引用: 1]

<div style="margin: 6pt 0cm 0pt"><span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black">为了探索干旱胁迫对彩色棉花主要性状的影响及其水分利用机理,选用</span><span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black">7</span><span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black">个不同色彩的棉花品种</span><span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black">(</span><span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black">系</span><span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black">)</span><span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black">,在常规灌溉、胁迫灌溉和生育期不灌溉</span><span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black">3</span><span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black">种环境条件下,调查其农艺性状、品质性状、水分利用效率</span><span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black">(WUE)</span><span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black">及产量。结果表明,干旱胁迫下不同色彩棉花品种的单株成铃数、单铃重、株高、花铃期叶片数、有效果枝数、收获指数、果节数、籽指、茎粗和果茎节间长度减少,衣分增加;灌水量减少一半,参试棉花品种的产量均降低,不灌溉处理的籽棉产量与常规灌溉间差异显著</span><span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black">(<em>P&lt;</em>0.05)</span><span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black">;籽棉产量的降低幅度品种间存在较大差异</span><span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black">(<em>P&lt;</em>0.05)</span><span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black">,棕色棉的减产幅度高于绿色棉。常规灌溉处理下,白色棉花水分利用效率高于棕色棉花和绿色棉花,而后二者差异不显著;干旱胁迫下,棕色棉花的水分利用效率高于绿色棉花。与水分利用效率相关的主要农艺性状、品质指标是:叶片数、单株成铃数、有效果枝数、果节数、株高、收获指数、单铃重、主茎节间长度、茎粗、籽指、衣分。</span></div>

Kasuga M, Liu Q, Miura S , et al.

Improving plant drought,salt,and freexing tolerance by gene transfer of a single stress-inducible transcription factor

Nature Biotechnology, 1999,17:287-291.

DOI:10.1038/7036      URL     [本文引用: 1]

祁旭升, 王兴荣, 许军 , .

胡麻种质资源成株期抗旱性评价

中国农业科学, 2010,43(15):3076-3087.

Magsci     [本文引用: 1]

<P><FONT face=Verdana>【目的】了解不同类型胡麻种质的成株期抗旱性表现,挖掘抗旱基因资源,为抗旱育种提供科技支撑。【方法】在年降雨量不足40 mm的敦煌市,设干旱胁迫和正常灌水2个处理进行试验研究,考查与抗旱性相关的7个农艺性状,采用综合抗旱系数与隶属函数相结合的方法,对其抗旱性进行综合评价。【结果】被考查的农艺性状对干旱胁迫的反应程度各异,其中株高和千粒重迟钝,单株粒数和单株粒重敏感;根据抗旱性量度值(D值)的聚类结果,将供试种质划分为5级,其中1级抗旱型2份、2级22份、3级69份、4级72份、5级27份;供试种质的抗旱性强弱与其地理来源、选育条件和利用生境息息相关。【结论】选择多个农艺性状,采用综合抗旱系数与隶属函数相结合的方法,综合评估胡麻成株期抗旱性是可行的,不仅可以避免单一指标的片面性和不稳定性,而且可以较好地揭示指标性状与抗旱性的关系。<BR></FONT></P>

罗俊杰, 欧巧明, 叶春雷 , .

重要胡麻栽培品种的抗旱性综合评价及指标筛选

作物学报, 2014,40(7):1259-1273.

DOI:10.3724/SP.J.1006.2014.01259      Magsci     [本文引用: 2]

<p>以15份国内胡麻栽培品种为材料, 设自然降雨和正常灌水2个处理, 考察与抗旱性相关的7个农艺性状、8个生理生化指标及产量指标, 采用综合抗旱系数、因子分析、隶属函数、<span>聚类分析和灰色关联度分析相结合的方法</span>, 对其抗旱性进行综合评价、抗旱型划分和评价指标筛选。结果显示, 相关性状<span>指标对干旱胁迫的反应及关联程度各异</span>, 可优先选择与抗旱性关系密切的产量及其相关性状、光合作用因子、叶片抗氧化因子等相关生理生化性状;因子分析表明, 6个公因子可代表胡麻抗旱性90.89%的原始数据信息量。基于抗旱性度量值(drought resistance comprehensive evaluation values, D值)和加权抗旱系数(<span>weight drought resistance coefficient, WDC</span>值)的各品种抗旱性排序相近, 位居前6位的抗旱品种相同。各品种D值与综合抗旱系数(<span>comprehensive drought resistance coefficient, CDC</span>值)、WDC值、产量抗旱系数(yield <span>drought resistance coefficient, Y</span>值)之间均呈极显著正相关, 而各品种Y值与CDC、WDC值间极显著正相关;据D值将供试品种划分为5个抗旱级别, 可较好地反映品种的选育条件及适应地区。试验结果说明以D值为主要参数, 以WDC为辅助评价参数, 评价以产量为主要考量目标的胡麻抗旱性是适宜且准确的;以抗旱性综合评价方法进行胡麻抗旱性综合评价、抗旱型划分、评价指标筛选是准确的。</p>

田山君, 杨世民, 孔凡磊 , .

西南地区玉米苗期抗旱品种筛选

草业学报, 2014,23(1):50-57.

DOI:10.11686/cyxb20140107      Magsci     [本文引用: 1]

为筛选抗旱性强的玉米品种应用于生产,本研究采用盆栽和营养液2种不同培养方式,对30个西南地区大面积种植的杂交玉米品种进行PEG模拟干旱胁迫的苗期试验,通过隶属函数法筛选品种,使用干旱变异指数对抗旱指标进行筛选和评价。结果表明,雅玉10号、正红311等8个品种在几次试验重复中表现均为良好,被归类为抗旱品种。指标中叶面积、根冠比、根系性状(根系体积、根分支数、根长)、相对电导率、离体叶片失水速率、脯氨酸、叶绿素和叶绿素荧光参数(最大光化学效率、实际光化学效率、原初光能捕获效率、光化学淬灭系数)对干旱胁迫较为敏感,可作为玉米苗期抗旱性的评价指标。

刘三雄, 黎用朝, 吴俊 , .

应用隶属函数法综合评价水稻主栽品种抗旱性的研究

杂交水稻, 2015,30(1):74-78.

[本文引用: 1]

韩瑞宏, 卢欣石, 高桂娟 , .

紫花苜蓿抗旱性主成分及隶属函数分析

草地学报, 2006,14(2):142-146.

Magsci     [本文引用: 1]

应用主成分及隶属函数分析法对国内外10个紫花苜蓿种质资源的抗旱性进行评价,结果表明:17个差异显著的抗旱指标通过主成分分析归纳成生物量因子、株型因子、根系因子和胁迫指数因子4个主成分;10个紫花苜蓿种质资源的抗旱性顺序由强到弱依次为:陇东、BL-02-388、敖汉、BL-02-312、BL-02-344、公农1号、中苜1号、BL-02-353、新疆大叶和BL-02-329。

陈荣敏, 杨学举, 梁凤山 , .

利用隶属函数法综合评价冬小麦的抗旱性

河北农业大学学报, 2002,25(2):7-9.

[本文引用: 1]

石永红, 万里强, 刘建宁 , .

多年生黑麦草抗旱性主成分及隶属函数分析

草地学报, 2010,18(5):669-672.

Magsci     [本文引用: 1]

在日光温室PEG-6000模拟干旱胁迫条件下,通过测定6个多年生黑麦草(<i>Lolium perenne</i> L.)品种的相对含水量(RWS)、细胞质外渗率(RPP)、游离脯氨酸(Pro)、叶绿素(Chl)、超氧化物歧化酶(SOD)活性、过氧化氢酶(CAT)活性和丙二醛(MDA)含量等7个理化指标,利用主成分及隶属函数分析法对其抗旱性进行综合评价。结果表明:7个差异显著的抗旱指标应用主成分分析归纳成3个主成分,通过综合隶属函数值评定的抗旱性强弱顺序为:欧必克&gt;多福&gt;努依&gt;卓越&gt;凤凰&gt;雅晴。

王志泰, 马瑞, 马彦军 , .

利用隶属函数法分析胡枝子抗旱性

干旱区资源与环境, 2013(9):119-123.

[本文引用: 1]

王玉富, 粟建光 .

亚麻种质资源描述规范和数据标准

北京: 中国农业出版社, 2006.

[本文引用: 1]

程建峰, 潘晓云, 刘宜柏 , .

水稻抗旱性鉴定的形态指标

生态学报, 2005,25(11):3117-3125.

Magsci     [本文引用: 1]

随着全球水资源的日益匮乏和旱灾的日趋严重,水资源短缺正成为制约我国农业发展的重要因素。培育抗旱栽培稻品种并实现水稻旱种,不但可较大程度地节约水资源,且有利于稳产增产、节约能源和减少环境污染,故栽培稻抗旱性研究作为稻作科学研究的重要课题显得愈来愈重要。水稻抗旱性机制较为复杂,国内外学者提出了一系列与抗旱性有关的形态、发育、生理与生化等的鉴定方法与指标,且有的已利用分子标记对一些指标进行了基因定位;但因大多数指标与产量的关系尚不甚清楚,致使有些指标在抗旱性研究中的应用价值受到质疑。本研究以旱作和淹水试验为处理,采用模糊隶属函数分析,以穗颈节粗为指标进行水稻抗旱性的单因子间接评定和以穗颈节粗、单本株有效穗、实粒数/穗、谷粒宽或结实率为指标进行水稻抗旱性的综合间接评定。以认同的采用产量抗旱系数(旱作下产量与淹水下产量之比)为鉴定指标的直接评定为依据,对上述两种间接评定的结果进行判别分析,从而验证试验中被采用指标和方法的准确性和可靠性。结果表明,以旱作穗颈节粗为指标的水稻抗旱性单一间接评定与以产量抗旱系数为指标的水稻抗旱性直接评定的吻合度为88.2%~100.0%,达极显著水平,即穗颈节粗可作为水稻抗旱性鉴定与评价的单一间接评定指标;且吻合度随品种类型而变,其中以籼型杂交稻的评定为最高(100.0%),其次是常规籼稻(91.7%),常规粳稻稍低(88.2%)。以旱作多个抗旱性状为指标的综合间接评定与以产量抗旱系数为指标的水稻抗旱性直接评定的吻合度均达100%,即穗颈节粗为指标的水稻抗旱性单一间接评定和以穗颈节粗、单本株有效穗、实粒数/穗、谷粒宽和结实率为指标的综合间接评定均是非常客观、简便易行、准确可靠和易被育种者接受的评定指标和方法,可应用于生产实践。

石有太, 陈玉梁, 罗俊杰 , .

不同色彩棉花抗旱性鉴定指标及评价

作物杂志, 2013(1):62-67.

[本文引用: 1]

王瑾, 李玉荣, 张嘉楠 , .

中国花生主栽品种抗旱性鉴定及其遗传多样性分析

中国农业科技导报, 2015,17(1):57-64.

[本文引用: 1]

李龙, 王兰芬, 武晶 , .

普通菜豆品种苗期抗旱性鉴定

作物学报, 2015,41(6):963-971.

DOI:10.3724/SP.J.1006.2015.00963      Magsci     [本文引用: 1]

<p><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: 宋体; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-ascii-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-hansi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">以不同来源的普通菜豆品种,采用盆栽法,设正常供水和反复干旱</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; mso-fareast-font-family: 宋体; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">2</span><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: 宋体; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-ascii-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-hansi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">种处理,测定</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; mso-fareast-font-family: 宋体; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">11</span><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: 宋体; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-ascii-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-hansi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">项生理指标,采用灰色关联度理论进行苗期抗旱性指标筛选,通过加权抗旱指数</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; mso-fareast-font-family: 宋体; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">(weighted drought-resistance index, WDI</span><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: 宋体; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-ascii-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-hansi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">值</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; mso-fareast-font-family: 宋体; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">)</span><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: 宋体; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-ascii-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-hansi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">和抗旱度量值</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; mso-fareast-font-family: 宋体; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">D (drought resistance comprehensive evaluation values, D</span><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: 宋体; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-ascii-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-hansi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">值</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; mso-fareast-font-family: 宋体; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">) </span><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: 宋体; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-ascii-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-hansi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">对供试材料进行抗旱性综合评价并通过聚类分析划分抗旱等级。结果表明,不同指标与综合抗旱指数的关联度大小依次为叶片相对含水量</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; mso-fareast-font-family: 宋体; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">(0.7726)</span><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: 宋体; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-ascii-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-hansi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">、</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; mso-fareast-font-family: 宋体; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">PSII</span><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: 宋体; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-ascii-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-hansi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">最大量子产量</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; mso-fareast-font-family: 宋体; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">(0.7607)</span><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: 宋体; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-ascii-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-hansi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">、叶绿素含量</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; mso-fareast-font-family: 宋体; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">(0.7435)</span><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: 宋体; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-ascii-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-hansi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">、反复干旱存活率</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; mso-fareast-font-family: 宋体; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">(0.7341)</span><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: 宋体; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-ascii-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-hansi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">、生物量</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; mso-fareast-font-family: 宋体; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">(0.7329)</span><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: 宋体; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-ascii-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-hansi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">、茎叶干重</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; mso-fareast-font-family: 宋体; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">(0.7314)</span><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: 宋体; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-ascii-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-hansi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">、根干重</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; mso-fareast-font-family: 宋体; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">(0.7192)</span><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: 宋体; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-ascii-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-hansi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">、气孔导度</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; mso-fareast-font-family: 宋体; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">(0.7159)</span><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: 宋体; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-ascii-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-hansi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">、根冠比</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; mso-fareast-font-family: 宋体; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">(0.7092)</span><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: 宋体; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-ascii-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-hansi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">、株高</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; mso-fareast-font-family: 宋体; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">(0.7086)</span><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: 宋体; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-ascii-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-hansi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">、叶面积</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; mso-fareast-font-family: 宋体; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">(0.6910)</span><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: 宋体; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-ascii-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-hansi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">。基于加权抗旱指数和抗旱度量值</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; mso-fareast-font-family: 宋体; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">D</span><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: 宋体; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-ascii-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-hansi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">的评价结果</span><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: 宋体; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-ascii-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-hansi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">存在一定差异,但不同材料的抗旱性排序大体一致。根据抗旱度量值</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; mso-fareast-font-family: 宋体; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">D</span><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: 宋体; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-ascii-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-hansi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">将供试材料分为高抗、中抗、较敏感和敏感</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; mso-fareast-font-family: 宋体; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">4</span><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: 宋体; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-ascii-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-hansi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">个级别,各占总数的</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; mso-fareast-font-family: 宋体; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">10%</span><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: 宋体; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-ascii-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-hansi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">、</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; mso-fareast-font-family: 宋体; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">6%</span><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: 宋体; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-ascii-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-hansi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">、</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; mso-fareast-font-family: 宋体; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">58%</span><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: 宋体; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-ascii-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-hansi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">和</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; mso-fareast-font-family: 宋体; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">26%</span><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: 宋体; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-ascii-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-hansi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">。综上所述,叶片相对含水量、</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; mso-fareast-font-family: 宋体; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">PSII</span><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: 宋体; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-ascii-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-hansi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">最大量子产量和叶绿素含量等</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; mso-fareast-font-family: 宋体; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">10</span><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: 宋体; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-ascii-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-hansi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">项指标可用于普通菜豆苗期抗旱性综合评价;加权抗旱指数与抗旱度量值</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; mso-fareast-font-family: 宋体; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">D</span><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: 宋体; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-ascii-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-hansi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">两种综合指标</span><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: 宋体; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-ascii-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-hansi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">相结合能够提高鉴定结果的可靠性;</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; mso-fareast-font-family: 宋体; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">50</span><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: 宋体; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-ascii-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-hansi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">个参试普通菜豆品种中,<span style="mso-bookmark: OLE_LINK8">白金德利豆、跃进豆、兔子腿、圆白菜豆和</span></span><span style="mso-bookmark: OLE_LINK7"><span style="mso-bookmark: OLE_LINK8"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; mso-fareast-font-family: 宋体; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">260205</span></span></span><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: 宋体; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-ascii-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-hansi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">抗旱性强。</span><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; mso-fareast-font-family: 宋体; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"></span></p>

谢小玉, 张霞, 张兵 .

油菜苗期抗旱性评价及抗旱相关指标变化分析

中国农业科学, 2013,46(3):476-485.

DOI:10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2013.03.004      Magsci     [本文引用: 1]

【目的】探讨甘蓝型油菜苗期的抗旱性,为甘蓝型油菜抗旱种质的筛选提供可借鉴的指标、方法,同时为抗旱育种、栽培提供材料和理论依据。【方法】在遮雨网室对油菜苗期进行干旱胁迫,于胁迫的第0、5、10、15、20、25天分别取样测定叶片相对含水量、丙二醛(MDA)含量和保护性酶活性等的变化。采用综合抗旱系数、抗旱指数、聚类分析、灰色关联度分析相结合的方法,对其抗旱性进行综合评价,并对不同类型种质抗旱相关指标的变化进行分析。【结果】被考查的各指标对干旱胁迫的反应程度各异,其中脯氨酸含量、POD活性对干旱胁迫的反应迟钝,而叶片相对含水量反应敏感;根据抗旱性量度值(D值)的聚类结果,将10个油菜种质划分为抗旱性强、抗旱性中等和抗旱性差3个抗旱级别。抗旱相关指标的变化表现为,随干旱胁迫时间的延长和胁迫程度的增大,叶片的相对含水量和叶面积下降幅度变大,而丙二醛(MDA)、脯氨酸、可溶性糖、可溶性蛋白含量和SOD、POD活性相对值总体表现出上升趋势。MDA含量相对值与品种抗旱性呈负相关,而脯氨酸、可溶性糖、可溶性蛋白质含量和POD活性相对值与品种抗旱性呈正相关。10个参试油菜种质中,94005、中双11号和中双9号抗旱性强。【结论】采用综合抗旱系数、聚类分析、灰色关联度等相结合的方法对油菜苗期抗旱性进行评估,可以较好地揭示指标性状与抗旱性的关系。油菜在连续干旱胁迫下,其叶片相对含水量、丙二醛、叶面积可作为油菜抗旱种质筛选的依据。

赵俊, 白亚东, 赵兴东 , .

灌溉与干旱条件下甘蔗工农艺性状的相关性分析与品种抗旱性评价

湖南农业大学学报(自然科学版), 2016,42(6):579-586.

[本文引用: 1]

兰巨生 .

农作物综合抗旱性评价方法的研究

西北农业学报, 1998,7(3):85-87.

[本文引用: 1]

郑桂萍, 李金峰, 钱永德 , .

农作物综合抗旱性指标的评价分析

中国农学通报, 2005,21(10):109-110.

Magsci     [本文引用: 1]

阐述了作物综合抗旱性指标的研究进展、各指标应用的局限性。目前评价作物抗旱性的综合指标都仅仅是从产量方面去考察,为此,本着作物产量与品质并重的原则,提出了作物的“综合抗旱指数”(CDI),数学表达式如下:CDI =(DC或DI×100+I)/2。通过对两个水稻品种不同生育时期、不同程度的控水处理,发现长穗期综合抗旱指数最小,因此,长穗期不仅是水稻产量的水分敏感期,也是品质的水分敏感期。

刘秀英, 黄国勤 .

不同旱稻品种在南方红壤地区抗旱适应性评价

云南农业大学学报(自然科学版), 2010,25(1):49-58.

[本文引用: 1]

Condon A G, Richards R A, Rebetzke G J , et al.

Breeding for high water use efficiency

Journal of Experimental Botany, 2004,55:2447-2460.

DOI:10.1093/jxb/erh277      URL     [本文引用: 1]

Subrahmanyam D, Subash N, Haris A , et al.

Influence of water stress on leaf photosynthetic characteristics in wheat cultivars differing in their susceptibility to drought

Photosynthetica, 2006,44:125-129.

DOI:10.1007/s11099-005-0167-y      URL     [本文引用: 1]

/