干旱胁迫对甘蔗4个生理指标遗传变异的影响

doi:10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2017.01.003

中国农业科学 ›› 2017, Vol. 50 ›› Issue (1): 28-37.doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2017.01.003

• 作物遗传育种·种质资源·分子遗传学 • 上一篇下一篇

干旱胁迫对甘蔗4个生理指标遗传变异的影响

赵培方¹，赵俊¹，刘家勇¹，昝逢刚¹，夏红明¹，P.A. Jackson², J. Basnayake³, N.G. Inman-Bamber⁴, 杨昆¹，赵丽萍¹，覃伟¹，陈学宽¹，赵兴东⁵，范源洪¹

¹云南省农业科学院甘蔗研究所/云南省甘蔗遗传改良重点实验室，中国云南开远 661699；²CSIRO Plant Industry，ATSIP，Private Mail Bag PO，Aitkenvale，QLD，4814，Australia；³Sugar Research Australia，PO Box 117，Ayr，QLD，4807，Australia；⁴Crop Science Consulting，Townsville，Australia；⁵云南省玉溪市元江县经济作物工作站，中国云南元江 653300

收稿日期:2016-06-27 出版日期:2017-01-01 发布日期:2017-01-01
通讯作者: 范源洪，Tel：0871-65195022；E-mail：fyhysri@vip.sohu.com
作者简介:赵培方，Tel：0873-3166326；E-mail：hnzpf@163.com。赵俊，E-mail：junzhao_ky@126.com。赵培方和赵俊为同等贡献作者。
基金资助:
云南省高端科技人才引进计划（2012HA001）、云南省委组织部海外高层次人才引进计划

Genetic Variation of Four Physiological Indexes as Impacted by Water Stress in Sugarcane

ZHAO Peifang¹, ZHAO Jun¹, LIU Jiayong¹, ZAN Fenggang¹, XIA Hongming¹, P.A. Jackson², J. Basnayake³, N.G. Inman-Bamber⁴, YANG Kun¹, ZHAO Liping¹, QIN Wei¹, CHEN Xuekuan¹, Zhao Xingdong ⁵, FAN Yuanhong¹

¹Sugarcane Research Institute, Yunnan Academy of Agricultural Sciences / Yunnan Province Key Laboratory of Sugarcane Genetic Improvement, Kaiyuan 661699, Yunnan, China; ² CSIRO Plant Industry, ATSIP, Private Mail Bag PO, Aitkenvale, QLD, 4814, Australia; ³ Sugar Research Australia, PO Box 117, Ayr, QLD, 4807, Australia; ⁴ Crop Science Consulting, Townsville, Australia; ⁵Cash Crop Research Station of Yuanjiang County of Yuxi Prefectural, Yuanjiang 653300, Yunnan, China

Received:2016-06-27 Online:2017-01-01 Published:2017-01-01

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 【目的】研究干旱胁迫对气孔导度（Gs）、PSⅡ原初光能转化效率（Fv/Fm）、叶片伸长速率（leaf elongation，LE）和叶片相对含水量（relative water content，RWC）4个甘蔗生理指标遗传变异的影响，为其在甘蔗育种程序早期阶段的应用提供参考。【方法】采用裂区设计，以自然干旱和人工灌溉为主区，不同甘蔗基因型为副区，在云南省红河州开远市和玉溪市元江县2个试验点先后对22个和18个甘蔗基因型同时开展田间试验，主要在2个生长季甘蔗拔节前期先后13次、18次、15次和10次分别对4个生理指标Gs、Fv/Fm、LE、RWC进行测量。采用软件GenStat计算各指标各次测量的遗传方差分量（s_g²）和环境方差分量（s_e²），并计算广义遗传力（h_b²），采用SAS9.1对每次测量干旱和灌溉处理下获得遗传方法分量和广义遗传力进行成对t测验。【结果】四项生理指标受干旱影响极显著，13次Gs、18次Fv/Fm、15次LE和10次RWC处理间差异均为极显著。在干旱和灌溉处理下，13次Gs基因型间分别10次和11次差异显著，广义遗传力范围分别为0.19—0.68和0.19—0.82，13次平均分别为0.49和0.53，灌溉条件下的遗传方差显著高于干旱胁迫下的遗传方差；18次Fv/Fm基因型间分别17次和16次差异显著，广义遗传力范围分别为0.26—0.83和0.16—0.85，平均值分别为0.64和0.58，干旱条件下的遗传方差极显著高于灌溉条件下的遗传方差；15次LE基因型间分别14次和10次差异显著，广义遗传力范围分别为0.09—0.89和0.09—0.81，平均值分别为0.58和0.50，干旱处理下平均遗传方差和遗传力较高；10次RWC基因型间分别8次和6次差异显著，广义遗传力范围分别为0.10—0.76和0.16—0.77，平均值分别为0.57和0.47，干旱条件下平均遗传方差和广义遗传力较高。总之，除Gs，其他3个指标在干旱条件下获得广义遗传力均高于灌溉条件下的广义遗传力。【结论】干旱胁迫影响Gs、Fv/Fm、LE和RWC的遗传变异和广义遗传力，在灌溉条件下测量Gs和在干旱条件下测量其他3个指标更易获得较高的遗传变异和广义遗传力，但所有4个生理指标均能在灌溉条件下获得较高的广义遗传力。

关键词: 甘蔗, 干旱胁迫, 生理指标, 遗传变异

Abstract:

【Objective】Understanding of the genetic variations in response to drought conditions of four physiological indexes, namely stomatal conductance (Gs), original light energy transformation efficiency of PSII (Fv/Fm), leaf elongation (LE) and leaf relative water content (RWC) could help their adaption to the current breeding program.【Method】The genetic variation (s_g²), broad sense heritability (h_b²) under rainfed and irrigated conditions for four physiological indexes, namely Gs, Fv/Fm, LE and RWC were measured for 13, 18, 15 and 10 times, respectively, from two sets of field trials in 22 and 18 genotypes which were consistently conducted at two locations in Kaiyuan and Yuanjiang counties of Yunnan province in the crop growing periods of 2013 and 2014. In the trials, rainfed and irrigated treatments were set as the main plot, and genotype was used as the sub-plot. The s_g² and error variation (s_e²) for each index at each measurement was determined using software GenStat, and h_b² was calculated. Paired t tests for the differences of s_g² and h_b² between drought and irrigated treatments were processed using software SAS9.1.【Result】The mean differences between drought and irrigated treatments were all significant (P＜0.01) in 13, 18, 15 and 10 measurements of Gs Fv/Fm, LE and RWC, respectively. Under drought and irrigated treatments, the differences in Gs among the genotypes was significant in 10 and 11 out of 13 measurements with the ranges of h_b² at 0.19-0.68 and 0.19-0.82, and grand means of 0.49 and 0.53, respectively, overall significantly higher s_g² and h_b²were found under the irrigated treatment. The differences in Fv/Fm, among the genotypes were significant in 17 and 16 out of 18 measurements with the ranges of h_b² at 0.26-0.83 and 0.16-0.85, and grand means of 0.64 and 0.58, respectively, overall higher s_g² and h_b² were found under the drought treatment. The differences in LE among the genotypes were significant in 14 and 10 out of 15 measurements with the ranges of h_b² at 0.09-0.89 and 0.09-0.81, and grand means of 0.58 and 0.50, respectively, overall higher s_g² and h_b² were found under the drought treatment. The differences in RWC among the genotypes were significant in 8 and 6 out of 10 measurements with the ranges of h_b² at 0.10-0.76 and 0.16-0.77, and grand means of 0.57 and 0.47, respectively, overall higher s_g² and h_b² were found under the drought treatment. 【Conclusion】The s_g² and h_b² of Gs, Fv/Fm, LE and RWC were impacted by water stress, in general, much higher s_g² and h_b² of Gs could be obtained under irrigated conditions and that of Fv/Fm, LE and RWC under drought conditions. However, higher h_b² could be obtained under irrigated conditions for all the four physiological indexes.

Key words: sugarcane, water stress, physiological index, genetic variation

赵培方，赵俊，刘家勇，昝逢刚，夏红明，P.A. Jackson, J. Basnayake, N.G. Inman-Bamber, 杨昆，赵丽萍，覃伟，陈学宽，赵兴东，范源洪. 干旱胁迫对甘蔗4个生理指标遗传变异的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2017, 50(1): 28-37.

ZHAO PeiFang, ZHAO Jun, LIU JiaYong, ZAN FengGang, XIA HongMing, P.A. Jackson, J. Basnayake, N.G. Inman-Bamber, YANG Kun, ZHAO LiPing, QIN Wei, CHEN XueKuan, ZHAO XingDong, FAN YuanHong. Genetic Variation of Four Physiological Indexes as Impacted by Water Stress in Sugarcane[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2017, 50(1): 28-37.

0
/ / 推荐

导出引用管理器 EndNote|Reference Manager|ProCite|BibTeX|RefWorks

链接本文: https://www.chinaagrisci.com/CN/10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2017.01.003

https://www.chinaagrisci.com/CN/Y2017/V50/I1/28

参考文献

[1] 张风娟, 李健, 杜成忠, 杨丽涛, 李杨瑞, 邢永秀. 不同甘蔗品种叶片气孔对水分胁迫的响应. 广西植物, 2014(6): 821-827.

Zhang F J, Li J, Du C Z, Yang L T, Li Y R, Xing Y X. Stomatal response to water stress in leaves of different sugarcane cultivars. Guihaia, 2014(6): 821-827. (in Chinese)

[2] 吴才文, 范源洪, 陈学宽, 刘家勇, 赵俊, 赵培方, 夏红明, 杨昆. 云南抗旱甘蔗品种的选育及效果. 中国糖料, 2012(4): 37-39.

Wu C W, Fan Y H, Chen X K, Liu J Y, Zhao J, Zhao P F, Xia H M, Yang K. Breeding of drought-resistant sugarcane varieties in Yunnan. Sugar crops of China, 2012(4): 37-39. (in Chinese)

[3] Inman-Bamber N G, Smith D M. Water relations in sugarcane and response to water deficits. Field Crops Research, 2005, 92: 185-202.

[4] Graça J P D, Rodrigues F A, Farias J R B, de Oliveira M C N, Zingaretti C B H, Sonia M Z. Physiological parameters in sugarcane cultivars submitted to water deficit. Brazilian Journal of Plant Physiology, 2010, 22(3): 187-197.

[5] Zhao D, Glaz B, Jack C. Sugarcane response to water-deficit stress during early growth on organic and sand soils. American Journal of Agricultural and Biological Sciences, 2010, 5(3): 403-414.

[6] 罗俊, 张木清, 林彦铨, 张华, 陈如凯. 甘蔗苗期叶绿素荧光参数与抗旱性关系研究. 中国农业科学, 2004, 37(11): 1718-1721.

Luo J, Zhang M Q, Lin Y Q, Zhang H, Chen R K. Studies on the relationship of chlorophyll fluorescence characters and drought tolerance in seedling of sugarcane under water stress. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2004, 37(11): 1718-1721. (in Chinese)

[7] Silva de A M, John L J, Silva J A G D, Sharma V. Use of physiological parameters as fast tools to screen for drought tolerance in sugarcane. Brazilian Journal of Plant Physiology, 2007, 19(3): 193-201.

[8] Begum M K, Alam M R, Islam M S, Arefin M S. Effect of water stress on physiological characters and juice quality of sugarcane. Sugar Tech, 2012, 14(2): 161-167.

[9] Basnayake J, Jackson P A, Inman-Bamber N G, Lakshmanan P. Sugarcane for water-limited environments. Genetic variation in cane yield and sugar content in response to water stress. Journal of Experimental Botany, 2012, 63(16): 6023-6033.

[10] Silva M d A, Jifon J L, Silva J A G d, Dos Santos C M, Sharma V. Relationships between physiological traits and productivity of sugarcane in response to water deficit. Journal of Agricultural Science, 2012, 152(1): 104-118.

[11] 金伟, 杨丽涛, 英潘, 杨建波, 罗超有, 李杨瑞. 不同甘蔗品种对干旱和复水的生态生理响应. 南方农业学报, 2012, 43(12): 1945-1951.

Jin W, Yang L T, Ying P, Yang J B, Luo C Y, Li Y R. Eco-physiological responses of different sugarcane varieties to drought and re-watering. Journal of Southern Agriculture, 2012, 43(12): 1945-1951. (in Chinese)

[12] 潘方胤, 杨俊贤, 吴文龙, 刘福业, 吴建涛, 彭冬永, 陈勇生. 甘蔗育种中抗旱品系筛选及简易鉴定. 广东农业科学, 2012(16): 10-12.

Pan F Y, Yang J X, Wu W L, Liu F Y, Wu J T, Peng D Y, Chen Y S. Breeding and simple identification of drought-tolerant sugarcane line. Guangdong Agricultural Sciences, 2012(16): 10-12. (in Chinese)

[13] 陈义强, 邓祖湖, 郭春芳, 陈如凯, 张木清. 甘蔗常用亲本及其衍生品种的抗旱性评价. 中国农业科学, 2007, 40(6): 1108-1117.

Chen Y Q, Deng Z H, Guo C F, Chen R K, Zhang M Q. Drought resistant evaluations of commonly used parents and their derived varieties. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2007, 40(6): 1108-1117. (in Chinese)

[14] Silva M D A, Soares R A B, Landell M G D A, Campana M P. Agronomic performance of sugarcane families in response to water stress. Bragantia, 2008, 67(3): 655-661.

[15] Tardieu F. Virtual plants: modelling as a tool for the genomics of tolerance to water deficit. Trends in Plant Science, 2003, 8(1): 9-14.

[16] Basnayake J, Jackson P A, Inman-Bamber N G, Lakshmanan P. Sugarcane for water-limited environments. Variation in stomatal conductance and its genetic correlation with crop productivity. Journal of Experimental Botany, 2015, 66(13): 3945-3958.

[17] Sliva M A, Silva J A G, Da Jifon J L, Sharma V. Use of physiological parameters to detect differences in drought tolerance among sugarcane genotypes. Proceedings of International Society of Sugar Cane Technologist, 2007, 26: 541-547.

[18] Inman-Bamber N G. Sugarcane water stress criteria for irrigation and drying off. Field Crops Research, 2004, 89(1): 107-122.

[19] Jackson P A, McRae T A. Gains from selection of broadly adapted and specifically adapted sugarcane families. Field Crops Research, 1998, 59(3): 151-162.

[20] Jackson P A, McRae T A. Selection of sugarcane clones in small plots: Effects of plot size and selection criteria. Crop Science, 2001, 41(2): 315-322.

[21] Stringer J K, Cullis B R, Thompson R. Joint modeling of spatial variability and within-row interplot competition to increase the efficiency of plant improvement. Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Statistics, 2011, 16(2): 269-281.

[22] Zhao P F, Liu J Y, Yang K, Xia H M, Wu C W, Chen X K, Zhao J, Yang H C, Li J, Zan F G, Wu Z D, Yao L, Li F Q, Zhao L P. Registration of ‘YZ05-51’ sugarcane. Journal of Plant Registration, 2015, 9(2): 172-178.

[23] Sinclair T R. Is transpiration efficiency a viable plant trait in breeding for crop improvement? Functional Plant Biology, 2012, 39(5): 359-365.

[24] Condon A G, Richards R A, Rebetzke G J, Farquhar G D. Breeding for high water-use efficiency. Journal of Experimental Botany, 2004, 55(407): 2447-2460.

[25] Fischer R A, Rees D, Sayre K D, Lu Z M, Condon A G, Saavedra A L. Wheat yield progress associated with higher stomatal conductance and photosynthetic rate, and cooler canopies. Crop Science, 1998, 38(6): 1467-1475.

[26] Jiang G M, Sun J Z, Liu H Q, Qu C M, Wang K J, Guo R J, Bai K Z, Gao L M, Kuang T Y. Changes in the rate of photosynthesis accompanying the yield increase in wheat cultivars released in the past 50 years. Journal of Plant Research, 2003, 116(5): 347-354.

[27] Zheng T C, Zhang X K, Yin G H, Wang L N, Han Y L, Chen L, Huang F, Tang J W, Xia X C, He Z H. Genetic gains in grain yield, net photosynthesis and stomatal conductance achieved in Henan Province of China between 1981 and 2008. Field Crops Research, 2011, 122(3): 225-233.

[28] Horie T, Matsuura S, Takai T, Kuwasaki K, Ohsumi A, Shiraiwa T. Genotypic difference in canopy diffusive conductance measured by a new remote-sensing method and its association with the difference in rice yield potential. Plant Cell and Environment, 2006, 29(4): 653-660.

[29] Prashar A, Yildiz J, McNicol J W, Bryan G J, Jones H G. Infra-red thermography for high throughput field phenotyping in solanum tuberosum. PloS one, 2013, 8: e658166.

[30] Luo J, Pan Y B, XU L P, Zhang Y Y, Zhang H, Chen R K, Que Y X. Photosynthetic and canopy characteristics of different varieties at the early elongation stage and their relationships with the cane yield in sugarcane. The Scientific World Journal, 2014(2014): 707095.

[31] Furbank R T, Tester M. Phenomics-technologies to relieve the phenotyping bottleneck. Trends in Plant Science, 2011, 16(12): 635-644.

[32] Silva M D A, Jifon J L, Sharma V, Da Silva J A G, Caputo M M, Damaj M B, Guimaraes E R, Ferro M I T. Use of physiological parameters in screening drought tolerance in sugarcane genotypes. Sugar Tech, 2011, 13(3): 191-197.

干旱胁迫对甘蔗4个生理指标遗传变异的影响

Genetic Variation of Four Physiological Indexes as Impacted by Water Stress in Sugarcane

RichHTML

PDF

赞

可视化

被引次数

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

Metrics

本文评价

推荐阅读 0

[1]	胡盛,李阳阳,唐章林,李加纳,曲存民,刘列钊. 干旱胁迫下甘蓝型油菜籽粒含油量和蛋白质含量变化的全基因组关联分析[J]. 中国农业科学, 2023, 56(1): 17-30.
[2]	董桑婕,姜小春,王羚羽,林锐,齐振宇,喻景权,周艳虹. 远红光补光对辣椒幼苗生长和非生物胁迫抗性的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2022, 55(6): 1189-1198.
[3]	张建军, 党翼, 赵刚, 王磊, 樊廷录, 李尚中. 覆膜时期和施氮量对陇东旱塬玉米产量和水氮利用效率的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2022, 55(3): 479-490.
[4]	李宁,柳坤,刘彤彤,史雨刚,王曙光,杨进文,孙黛珍. 小麦响应干旱胁迫环状RNA的鉴定[J]. 中国农业科学, 2022, 55(23): 4583-4599.
[5]	刘浩,庞婕,李欢欢,强小嫚,张莹莹,宋嘉雯. 叶面喷施硒与土壤水分耦合对番茄产量和品质的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2022, 55(22): 4433-4444.
[6]	黄勋和,翁茁先,李威娜,王庆,何丹林,罗威,张细权,杜炳旺. 中国地方品种黄鸡线粒体DNA D-loop遗传多样性研究[J]. 中国农业科学, 2022, 55(22): 4526-4538.
[7]	杜金霞,李奕莎,李美霖,陈文浛,张木清. 甘蔗不同基因型对白条病抗性的评价[J]. 中国农业科学, 2022, 55(21): 4118-4130.
[8]	李刚,白阳,贾子颖,马正阳,张祥池,李春艳,李诚. 两种磷素水平下小麦苗期对干旱胁迫的离子组和代谢组响应[J]. 中国农业科学, 2022, 55(2): 280-294.
[9]	汝晨,胡笑涛,吕梦薇,陈滇豫,王文娥,宋天媛. 花后高温干旱胁迫下氮素对冬小麦氮积累与代谢酶、蛋白质含量及水氮利用效率的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2022, 55(17): 3303-3320.
[10]	孟雨,温鹏飞,丁志强,田文仲,张学品,贺利,段剑钊,刘万代,冯伟. 基于热红外图像的小麦品种抗旱性鉴定与评价[J]. 中国农业科学, 2022, 55(13): 2538-2551.
[11]	李浩,韦本辉,黄金玲,李志刚,王令强,梁晓莹,李素丽. 粉垄对甘蔗根系结构发育及呼吸代谢相关酶活性的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54(3): 522-532.
[12]	孟蕊,刘晔,赵爽,房伟民,蒋甲福,陈素梅,陈发棣,管志勇. 砧穗互作对菊花嫁接苗耐盐性的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54(3): 629-642.
[13]	朱芳芳,董亚辉,任真真,王志勇,苏慧慧,库丽霞,陈彦惠. 过表达ZmIBH1-1提高玉米苗期抗旱性[J]. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54(21): 4500-4513.
[14]	薛仁风,丰明,黄宇宁,Matthew BLAIR,Walter MESSIER,葛维德. PvEG261对普通菜豆镰孢菌枯萎病抗性和抗旱性的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54(20): 4274-4285.
[15]	庄昕波,陈银基,周光宏. 改性甘蔗膳食纤维对猪肉肌原纤维蛋白凝胶特性的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54(15): 3320-3330.