不同时期干旱胁迫对甘薯生长和抗氧化能力的影响

doi:10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2020.06.005

中国农业科学 ›› 2020, Vol. 53 ›› Issue (6): 1126-1139.doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2020.06.005

• 耕作栽培·生理生化·农业信息技术 • 上一篇下一篇

不同时期干旱胁迫对甘薯生长和抗氧化能力的影响

张海燕¹,解备涛¹,汪宝卿¹,董顺旭¹,段文学¹(),张立明²()

1 山东省农业科学院作物研究所/农业农村部黄淮海薯类科学观测实验站/特色作物山东省工程实验室,济南 250100
2 山东省农业科学院,济南 250100

收稿日期:2019-08-19 接受日期:2019-09-19 出版日期:2020-03-16 发布日期:2020-04-09
通讯作者: 段文学,张立明
作者简介:张海燕,E-mail：zhang_haiyan02@163.com。|解备涛,E-mail：279151695@qq.com。
基金资助:
国家现代农业产业技术体系建设专项(CARS-10-B08);山东省薯类产业创新团队项目(SDAIT-16-09);山东省农业科学院农业科技创新工程项目(CXGC2016A05);山东省农业重大应用技术创新项目(SD2019zz022)

Effects of Drought Treatments at Different Growth Stages on Growth and the Activity of Antioxidant Enzymes in Sweetpotato

HaiYan ZHANG¹,BeiTao XIE¹,BaoQing WANG¹,ShunXu DONG¹,WenXue DUAN¹(),LiMing ZHANG²()

1 Crop Research Institute, Shandong Academy of Agricultural Sciences/Scientific Observation and Experimental Station of Tubers and Root Crops in Huang-Huai-Hai Region, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs/Shandong Engineering Laboratory of Featured Crops, Jinan 250100
2 Shandong Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Jinan 250100

Received:2019-08-19 Accepted:2019-09-19 Online:2020-03-16 Published:2020-04-09
Contact: WenXue DUAN,LiMing ZHANG

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

【目的】研究不同时期干旱胁迫导致甘薯减产的机理,为旱作地区甘薯生产提供理论依据和技术支撑。【方法】在人工控水条件下,以抗旱品种济薯21和不抗旱品种济紫薯1号为试验材料,每个品种设4个水分处理,分别为WW（全生育期正常灌水,对照）、DS1（发根分枝期干旱胁迫）、DS2（蔓薯并长期干旱胁迫）和DS3（快速膨大期干旱胁迫）,研究不同时期干旱胁迫对甘薯生长和抗氧化能力的影响。【结果】干旱胁迫导致甘薯薯干产量显著下降,早期干旱胁迫薯干产量下降幅度最大,济薯21（抗旱品种）的DS1、DS2和DS3处理产量分别比对照减产32.24%、30.68%和13.76%,济紫薯1号（不抗旱品种）分别比对照减产44.02%、39.54%和17.87%。功能叶、纤维根和块根抗氧化酶活性均在干旱胁迫后升高,且干旱胁迫时间越早,抗氧化酶活性升高的幅度越大;各生育时期纤维根的酶活性均高于块根和功能叶,说明甘薯纤维根对干旱胁迫的敏感性最强。干旱胁迫可导致甘薯功能叶相对电导率升高,功能叶、纤维根和块根的MDA含量升高,且胁迫时间越早,升高的幅度越大。【结论】干旱胁迫时间越早,功能叶、纤维根和块根的抗氧化酶系统受破坏程度越大,从而抑制了甘薯叶片和根系的正常生长,限制了块根的形成和膨大,发根分枝期是甘薯块根产量对水分最敏感的时期。

关键词: 甘薯, 干旱胁迫, 产量, 抗氧化能力

Abstract:

【Objective】 The aim of this study was to investigate the mechanism of yield reduction of sweetpotato (Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam) caused by drought stress at different growth stages, so as to provide theoretical basis and technical support for production of sweetpotato in dryland areas. 【Method】 Field experiments were conducted under a rain exclusion shelter to investigate the effects of drought treatments at different growth stages on growth and the activity of antioxidant enzymes in sweetpotato. Two sweetpotato cultivars (JS 21, a drought-tolerant cultivar, and JZ 1, a drought-sensitive cultivar) were subjected to four drought stress treatments respectively, including WW (well watered during the whole growth period, constructed as a control), DS1 (drought stress during the establishment stage), DS2 (drought stress during the intermediate stage), and DS3 (drought stress during the final stage). 【Result】 Drought stress resulted in significant decrease of dry weight in sweetpotato, and which declined most under the earliest drought stress. Compared with the control, the dry weight of storage roots of DS1, DS2 and DS3 in drought-tolerant cultivar (JS 21) were 32.24%, 30.68% and 13.76%, respectively, while 44.02%, 39.54% and 17.87% in drought-sensitive cultivar (JZ 1), respectively. The activity of antioxidant enzymes of functional leaves, fibrous roots and storage roots increased after drought stress. Similarly, the earlier of the drought stress, the greater influence on the activity of antioxidant enzymes was observed in sweetpotato. The enzyme activity in the fibrous roots in each stage was higher than that in the storage roots and the functional leaves. Our results indicated that the fibrous roots were the most sensitive to drought stress. Drought stress could lead to the increase of the relative electrical conductivity of functional leaves, and the MDA content in functional leaves, fibrous roots and storage roots of sweetpotato. The earlier the application of the drought stress in sweetpotato, the greater the increase of the MDA content was observed. 【Conclusion】 The earlier of the drought stress, the greater influence on the activity of antioxidant enzymes was observed in sweetpotato, and could not be renovated. Therefore, the normal growth of leaves and roots were inhibited, and the formation and bulking of storage roots were limited. Establishment stage of sweetpotato was the most sensitive to drought stress.

Key words: sweetpotato, drought stress, yield, activity of antioxidant enzymes

张海燕,解备涛,汪宝卿,董顺旭,段文学,张立明. 不同时期干旱胁迫对甘薯生长和抗氧化能力的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2020, 53(6): 1126-1139.

HaiYan ZHANG,BeiTao XIE,BaoQing WANG,ShunXu DONG,WenXue DUAN,LiMing ZHANG. Effects of Drought Treatments at Different Growth Stages on Growth and the Activity of Antioxidant Enzymes in Sweetpotato[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2020, 53(6): 1126-1139.

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.0578-1752.2020.06.005

https://www.chinaagrisci.com/CN/Y2020/V53/I6/1126

图/表 13

表1

表2

表3

表4

图1

图2

图3

表5

不同时期干旱胁迫对甘薯功能叶SOD、POD、CAT和APX活性的影响"

处理 Treatment	酶活性 Enzymatic activity	栽植后天数 Days after planting（d）
		济薯21 JS 21				济紫薯1号 JZ 1
		40	60	80	100	40	60	80	100
WW	SOD酶活性 SOD activity	250.56±27.15b	406.31±26.62b	385.77±26.75b	306.22±27.15c	183.21±28.01b	289.29±27.43b	256.07±27.57b	181.75±26.15c
DS1		320.43±25.39a	361.52±25.93c	328.00±25.40c	286.58±25.39d	214.00±26.12a	249.21±26.70c	214.13±26.13c	142.27±26.12d
DS2		255.91±26.80b	445.00±27.23a	393.03±26.49b	325.25±26.80b	171.68±27.63b	299.81±28.09a	259.81±22.23b	214.27±21.63b
DS3		254.23±25.21b	410.24±26.31b	420.97±25.14a	369.18±25.21a	178.41±25.93b	281.66±27.11b	291.86±21.85a	235.48±20.93a
WW	POD酶活性 POD activity	305.25±27.07b	396.21±17.14b	362.00±27.19c	290.50±27.08a	280.55±17.15b	349.75±15.30b	318.50±20.25b	277.50±17.31b
DS1		405.90±27.23a	373.28±11.07c	296.49±21.21d	169.25±17.24c	352.69±21.29a	334.50±17.89c	231.75±22.12c	162.25±10.18c
DS2		317.74±17.25b	421.76±17.16a	382.25±27.27b	267.25±27.05b	276.81±22.30b	388.73±16.13a	323.00±23.01b	308.75±17.24a
DS3		315.25±27.17b	406.50±17.28b	395.75±17.09a	299.25±17.32a	252.80±25.06b	348.69±15.24b	367.00±17.25a	318.50±17.68a
WW	CAT酶活性 CAT activity	19.45±3.15b	35.76±1.62b	29.37±2.75b	24.46±3.15b	17.91±3.94b	29.87±1.43b	23.55±2.57b	19.32±3.25a
DS1		30.67±1.80a	28.25±1.93c	25.45±1.40c	20.89±3.39c	23.24±2.12a	19.89±1.70c	14.33±3.13c	10.45±3.12b
DS2		20.38±1.58b	40.42±3.23a	33.67±1.49a	27.20±2.80a	17.84±1.63b	35.67±1.09a	25.52±2.29b	20.56±1.63a
DS3		19.78±0.63b	33.21±2.31b	35.21±2.14a	29.53±3.21a	18.35±2.93b	30.41±2.11b	29.56±1.85a	21.87±2.93a
WW	APX酶活性 APX activity	9.73±1.20b	18.88±0.81b	16.69±1.38a	14.23±1.58a	8.95±2.01b	16.94±0.72a	13.78±1.79ab	11.66±1.02a
DS1		15.34±0.61a	14.12±0.97c	12.73±0.70b	10.45±1.70bc	11.62±1.06a	9.95±0.85b	7.17±0.56c	5.23±1.09c
DS2		10.19±1.21b	20.21±1.62a	15.84±0.75a	11.60±1.40b	8.92±0.81b	17.84±0.54a	12.76±0.45b	9.28±0.81b
DS3		9.89±1.06b	16.61±1.16bc	17.61±1.07a	12.77±1.61ab	9.18±1.46b	16.21±1.06a	14.78±0.93a	10.94±1.96ab

表5

图4

图5

表6

不同时期干旱胁迫对甘薯纤维根SOD、POD、CAT和APX活性的影响"

处理 Treatment	酶活性 Enzymatic activity	栽植后天数 Days after planting (d)
		济薯21 JS 21				济紫薯1号 JZ 1
		40	60	80	100	40	60	80	100
WW	SOD酶活性 SOD activity	1429.78±289.17b	3253.62±216.59b	3079.03±219.65c	2402.85±209.17b	957.32±209.41b	2658.95±251.61b	2376.57±290.23b	1944.87±209.41c
DS1		2223.62±247.28a	2372.93±230.24c	2088.02±193.45d	1835.93±247.28d	1218.98±264.59a	1318.31±248.45c	1120.07±264.85c	1009.31±264.59d
DS2		1475.21±280.84b	3582.50±201.07a	3140.79±247.52b	2564.61±280.84c	859.25±245.56b	2848.40±244.89a	2408.41±229.61b	2121.29±245.63b
DS3		1460.97±243.04b	3287.04±219.26b	3378.28±273.46a	2938.00±243.04a	916.50±260.21b	2694.14±211.45b	2580.82±258.27a	2201.61±260.05a
WW	POD酶活性 POD activity	1115.75±101.22b	1388.63±61.41b	1286.00±241.38b	1071.50±81.24c	1041.64±71.44b	1249.25±91.89b	1155.5±81.76b	1092.5±71.89a
DS1		1417.70±90.68a	1319.84±83.21bc	1089.47±84.45c	707.75±71.73d	1258.07±72.15a	1103.50±81.77c	795.25±93.35c	586.75±50.54b
DS2		1153.207±71.76b	1565.29±77.47a	1446.75±83.62a	1201.75±89.16a	1030.42±98.69b	1366.19±71.39a	1169.00±65.89b	1126.25±71.73a
DS3		1145.75±89.54b	1419.50±65.85b	1387.25±75.81a	1107.75±71.97b	958.40±45.62b	1186.06±71.73bc	1301.00±75.76a	1155.5±84.56a
WW	CAT酶活性 CAT activity	90.35±12.45b	149.27±7.86b	130.11±71.28b	125.38±12.45a	85.72±11.52b	131.61±7.30b	122.65±10.05b	109.96±11.23a
DS1		134.69±9.17a	125.00±8.80c	113.80±8.13c	95.56±11.17b	104.95±9.35a	91.56±8.11c	69.32±7.38c	53.80±9.35b
DS2		93.51±8.40b	173.68±12.69a	146.68±7.20a	128.80±10.40a	83.37±7.88b	145.68±6.26a	124.08±9.88b	114.24±7.88a
DS3		91.12±6.64b	144.86±9.94b	152.84±7.47a	130.12±9.64a	85.42±8.78b	133.64±5.32b	130.24±8.56a	119.48±6.78a
WW	APX酶活性 APX activity	35.12±4.15b	64.76±2.62b	59.37±8.43a	54.79±4.15a	33.57±4.21b	49.87±2.43b	47.88±3.57b	44.65±3.06a
DS1		49.90±3.39a	46.67±2.93c	42.93±2.71c	36.85±3.38b	39.98±3.05a	35.52±2.15c	28.11±4.13c	22.93±4.12c
DS2		36.17±2.80b	72.89±4.23a	53.89±2.40b	47.93±2.45a	32.79±2.63b	53.56±2.75a	44.36±3.29b	39.08±2.63b
DS3		35.37±2.21b	63.29±3.31b	60.95±2.49a	49.37±3.21a	33.47±3.11b	49.55±4.15b	50.41±2.85a	40.83±4.59b

表6

图6

表7

不同时期干旱胁迫对甘薯块根SOD、POD、CAT和APX活性的影响"

处理 Treatment	酶活性 Enzymatic activity	栽植后天数 Days after planting (d)
		济薯21 JS 21				济紫薯1号 JZ 1
		60	80	100	120	60	80	100	120
WW	SOD酶活性 SOD activity	1578.09±187.11b	2234.70±158.95b	2021.72±150.98 c	1684.19±123.11a	707.68±40.21b	1591.09±131.47b	1208.37±133.62b	799.62±78.21b
DS1		1962.34±145.01a	1888.36±168.39c	1604.01±160.16d	1276.19±120.01c	1176.99±71.21a	970.67±120.18c	877.69±121.37c	582.49±51.21c
DS2		1507.49±141.72b	2547.50±148.34a	2161.69±179.62b	1488.86±131.72b	744.22±97.88b	1648.97±141.53a	1328.97±125.66b	878.48±44.23b
DS3		1598.28±157.26b	2256.32±174.22b	2315.36±156.19a	1530.47±117.26b	781.26±78.27b	1549.15±126.42b	1605.24±135.68a	995.16±38.27a
WW	POD酶活性 POD activity	557.88±85.46b	694.32±74.28b	643.00±54.38c	535.75±44.16b	520.82±44.31b	624.63±54.59b	577.75±41.54b	516.25±34.59a
DS1		708.85±94.54a	659.92±82.14c	544.73±82.42d	353.88±34.48c	629.03±55.57a	601.75±34.51c	447.63±54.69c	343.38±30.36b
DS2		576.60±74.51b	752.65±94.31a	673.38±74.54b	588.88±44.10a	515.21±56.78b	673.10±64.26a	584.50±35.68b	523.13±44.49a
DS3		572.88±84.33b	709.75±95.13b	693.63±74.18a	568.88±34.65a	479.20±58.91b	593.03±81.01c	640.50±70.15a	537.75±34.21a
WW	CAT酶活性 CAT activity	56.90±4.45b	89.52±2.86b	76.74±4.25b	66.92±2.45b	53.81±5.98b	75.74±2.30a	63.10±4.72a	58.64±2.45a
DS1		79.35±4.17a	74.50±3.87c	68.90±2.20c	59.78±4.17c	64.47±4.35a	57.78±3.12b	46.66±5.48b	38.90±2.35b
DS2		58.76±3.45b	98.84±4.69a	85.34±2.47a	70.40±2.46a	53.69±2.88b	79.34±1.26a	68.04±3.88a	52.12±2.88a
DS3		57.56±2.61b	84.43±4.94b	88.42±4.43a	72.06±4.65a	54.71±2.78b	74.82±6.45a	70.12±2.56a	55.74±4.78a
WW	APX酶活性 APX activity	17.08±1.09b	30.17±1.21b	28.91±1.17a	24.86±0.97a	16.05±1.67b	26.25±1.53a	24.26±1.81a	21.44±1.67a
DS1		26.93±1.45a	24.78±2.54c	22.29±1.47b	18.24±1.45b	20.32±1.95a	19.35±1.07b	15.40±0.92b	12.96±1.35b
DS2		17.78±1.89b	33.60±1.19a	27.60±1.65a	22.62±2.27a	15.53±0.82b	29.37±0.84a	21.57±3.26a	18.39±1.92a
DS3		17.25±1.56b	29.19±2.39b	30.96±2.85a	23.92±2.09a	15.98±1.52b	26.70±1.88a	25.94±2.37a	19.55±1.55a

表7

参考文献 44

[1]	李长志, 李欢, 刘庆, 史衍玺 . 不同生长时期干旱胁迫甘薯根系生长及荧光生理的特性比较. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2016,22(2):511-517.
	LI C Z, LI H, LIU Q, SHI Y X . Comparison of root development and fluorescent physiological characteristics of sweet potato exposure to drought stress in different growth stages. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Fertilizer, 2016,22(2):511-517. (in Chinese)
[2]	张海燕, 段文学, 解备涛, 董顺旭, 汪宝卿, 史春余, 张立明 . 不同时期干旱胁迫对甘薯内源激素的影响及其与块根产量的关系. 作物学报, 2018,44(1):126-136.
	ZHANG H Y, DUAN W X, XIE B T, DONG S X, WANG B Q, SHI C Y, ZHANG L M . Effects of drought stress at different growth stages on endogenous hormones and its relationship with storage root yield in sweetpotato. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2018,44(1):126-136. (in Chinese)
[3]	VILLORDON A Q . Characterization of lateral root development at the onset of storage root initiation in ‘Beauregard’ sweetpotato adventitious roots. Hortscience, 2012,47(7):961-968.
[4]	CHOWDHORY S R, SINGH R, KUNDU D K, ANTONY E, THAKUR A K, VERMA H N . Growth, dry matter partitioning and yield of sweet potato ( Ipomoea batatas L.) as influence by soil mechanical impedance and mineral nutrition under different irrigation regimes. Advances in Horticultural Science, 2000,16(1):25-29.
[5]	FANG Y J, XIONG L Z . General mechanisms of drought response and their application in drought resistance improvement in plants. Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, 2015,72(4):673-689.
[6]	REDDY A R, CHAITANYA K V, VIVEKANANDAN M . Drought- induced responses of photosynthesis and antioxidant metabolism in higher plants. Journal of Plant Physiology, 2004,161(11):1189-1202.
[7]	KIM Y H, JEONG J C, LEE H S, KWAK S S . Comparative characterization of sweetpotato antioxidant genes from expressed sequence tags of dehydration-treated fibrous roots under different abiotic stress conditions. Molecular Biology Reports, 2013,40(4):2887-2896.
[8]	SRIVALLI B, SHARMA G, KHANNA CHOPRA R . Antioxidative defense system in an upland rice cultivar subjected to increasing intensity of water stress followed by recovery. Physiologia Plantarum, 2003,119(4):503-512.
[9]	GUO Z F, OU W, LU S L, ZHONG Q . Differential responses of antioxidative system to chilling and drought in four rice cultivars differing in sensitivity. Plant Physiology Biochemistry, 2006,44(11/12):828-836.
[10]	LI Z, ZHOU H, PENG Y, ZHANG X, MA X, HUANG L, YAN Y . Exogenously applied spermidine improves drought tolerance in creeping bentgrass associated with changes in antioxidant defense, endogenous polyamines and phytohormones. Plant Growth Regulation, 2015,76(1):71-82.
[11]	陈京 . 抗旱性不同的甘薯品种对渗透胁迫的生理响应. 作物学报, 1999,25(2):232-236.
	CHEN J . Physiological response for different drought resistance of sweet potato under osmotic stress. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 1999,25(2):232-236. (in Chinese)
[12]	GILL S S, TUTEJA N . Reactive oxygen species and antioxidant machinery in abiotic stress tolerance in crop plants. Plant Physiology Biochemistry, 2010,48(12):909-930.
[13]	李文卿, 潘廷国, 柯玉琴, 陈凤翔 . 土壤水分胁迫对甘薯苗期活性氧代谢的影响. 福建农业学报, 2000,15(4):45-50.
	LI W Q, PAN T G, KE Y Q, CHEN F X . Effects of soil water stress on metabolism of active oxygen in leaves of sweet potato seedling. Fujian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2000,15(4):45-50. (in Chinese)
[14]	何冰, 许鸿原, 陈京 . 干旱胁迫对甘薯叶片质膜透性及抗氧化酶类的影响. 广西农业大学学报, 1997,16(4):287-290.
	HE B, XU H Y, CHEN J . Effects of drought stress on the permeability of plasma membrane and antioxidation enzymes of the leaves of sweet potato, Journal of Guangxi Agricultural University, 1997,16(4):287-290. (in Chinese)
[15]	张明生, 谈锋, 张启堂 . 快速鉴定甘薯品种抗旱性的生理指标及方法的筛选. 中国农业科学, 2001,34(3):260-265.
	ZHANG M S, TAN F, ZHANG Q T . Physiological indices for rapid identification of sweet potato drought resistance and selection of methods. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2001,34(3):260-265. (in Chinese)
[16]	陈京, 王支槐, 周启贵 . PEG处理对甘薯叶肉细胞超微结构的影响. 西南师范大学学报(自然科学版), 1997,22(4):398-404.
	CHEN J, WANG Z H, ZHOU Q G . Effects of PEG treatment on ultrastructure in mesophyll cells of sweet potato. Journal of Southwest China Normal University (Natural Science), 1997,22(4):398-404. (in Chinese)
[17]	李锦树, 王洪春, 王文英, 朱亚芳 . 干旱对玉米叶片细胞透性及膜脂的影响. 植物生理学报, 1983,9(3):223-230.
	LI J S, WANG H C, WANG W Y, ZHU Y F . Effect of drought on the permeability and membrane lipid composition from maize leaves. Acta Phytophysiologia Sinica, 1983,9(3):223-230. (in Chinese)
[18]	DHINDSA R S, MATOWE W . Drought tolerance in two mosses: Correlated with enzymatic defence against lipid peroxidation. Journal of Experimental Botany, 1981,32(1):79-91.
[19]	山仑, 康绍忠, 吴普特 . 中国节水农业. 北京:中国农业出版社, 2004: 229-230.
	SHAN L, KANG S Z, WU P T . Water Saving Agriculture in China. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 2004: 229-230. (in Chinese).
[20]	王留梅, 毛守民, 潘明华, 周利霞 . 甘薯叶面积系数田间速测方法初探. 中国农学通报, 2001, 17(6):82-90.
	WANG L M, MAO S M, PAN M H, ZHOU L X . Field measurement method of leaf area index of sweet potato. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2001,17(6):82-90. ( in Chinese).
[21]	李合生 . 植物生理生化实验原理和技术. 北京: 高等教育出版社 2000: 184-185.
	LI H S. Principles and Techniques of Plant Physiological and Biochemical Experiment. Beijing: Higher Education Press, 2000: 184-185. (in Chinese)
[22]	张丹, 刘国顺, 章建新, 徐敏 . 打顶时期对烤烟根系活力及烟碱积累规律的影响. 中国烟草科学, 2006,27(1):38-41.
	ZHANG D, LIU G S, ZHANG J X, XU M . Effect of different topping time on activity of root system and accumulation of nicotine in tobacco plants. Chinese Tobacco Science, 2006,27(1):38-41. (in Chinese)
[23]	陈建勋, 王晓峰 . 植物生理学实验指导(第二版). 广州：华南理工大学出版社, 2006: 64-66.
	CHEN J X, WANG X F . Guidance of Plant Physiological Experiment(2nd edition). Guangzhou: South China University of Technology Publishers, 2006: 64-66. (in Chinese)
[24]	马富举, 李丹丹, 蔡剑, 姜东, 曹卫星, 戴廷波 . 干旱胁迫对小麦幼苗根系生长和叶片光合作用的影响. 应用生态学报, 2012,23(3):724-730.
	MA F J, LI D D, CAI J, JIANG D, CAO W X, DAI T B . Responses of wheat seedlings root growth and leaf photosynthesis to drought stress. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2012,23(3):724-730. (in Chinese)
[25]	PINHEIRO C, CHAVES M M . Photosynthesis and drought: Can we make metabolic connections from available data. Journal of Experimental Botany, 2011,62:869-882.
[26]	井大炜, 邢尚军, 杜振宇, 刘方春 . 干旱胁迫对杨树幼苗生长、光合特性及活性氧代谢的影响. 应用生态学报, 2013,24(7) : 1809-1816.
	JING D W, XING S J, DU Z Y, LIU F C, . Effects of drought stress on the growth,photosynthetic characteristics,and active oxygen metabolism of poplar seedlings. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2013,24(7) : 1809-1816. ( in Chinese)
[27]	张明生, 谢波, 戚金亮, 谈锋, 张启堂, 杨永华 . 甘薯植株形态、生长势和产量与品种抗旱性的关系. 热带作物学报, 2006,27(1):39-43.
	ZHANG M S, XIE B, QI J L, TAN F, ZHANG Q T, YANG Y H . Relationship of drought resistance of sweet potato with its plant type, growth vigour and yield under water stress. Chinese Journal of Tropical Crops, 2006,27(1):39-43. (in Chinese)
[28]	谈锋, 张启堂, 陈京, 李坤培 . 甘薯品种抗旱适应性的数量分析. 作物学报, 1991,17(5):394-398.
	TAN F, ZHANG Q T, CHEN J, LI K P . Quantitative analysis of adaptability of drought resistance in sweet potato cultivars. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 1991,17(5):394-398. (in Chinese)
[29]	张海燕, 解备涛, 汪宝卿, 董顺旭, 段文学, 张立明 . 不同甘薯品种抗旱性评价及耐旱指标筛选. 作物学报, 2019,45(3):419-430.
	ZHANG H Y, XIE B T, WANG B Q, DONG S X, DUAN W X, ZHANG L M . Evaluation of drought tolerance and screening for drought-tolerant indicators in sweetpotato cultivars. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2019,45(3):419-430. (in Chinese)
[30]	许育彬, 程雯蔚, 陈越, 华千勇 . 不同施肥条件下干旱对甘薯生长发育和光合作用的影响. 西北农业学报, 2007,16(2):59-64.
	XU Y B, CHENG W W, CHEN Y, HUANG Q Y . Effect of drought on growth and development and photosynthesis of sweet potato under different fertilization conditions. Acta Agriculturae Boreali-Occidentalis Sinica, 2007,16(2):59-64. (in Chinese)
[31]	孙哲, 史春余, 刘桂玲, 高俊杰, 柳洪鹃, 郑建利, 张鹏 . 干旱胁迫与正常供水钾肥影响甘薯光合特性及块根产量的差异. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2016,22(4):1071-1078.
	SUN Z, SHI C Y, LIU G L, GAO J J, LIU H J, ZHENG J L, ZHANG P . Effect difference of potassium fertilizer on leaf photosynthetic characteristics and storage root yield of sweet potato under drought stress and normal water condition. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Fertilizer, 2016,22(4):1071-1078. (in Chinese)
[32]	张海燕, 解备涛, 段文学, 董顺旭, 汪宝卿, 张立明, 史春余 . 不同时期干旱胁迫对甘薯光合效率和耗水特性的影响. 应用生态学报, 2018,29(6):1943-1950.
	ZHANG H Y, XIE B T, DUAN W X, DONG S X, WANG B Q, ZHANG L M, SHI C Y . Effects of drought stress at different growth stages on photosynthetic efficiency and water consumption characteristics in sweet potato. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2018,29(6):1943-1950. (in Chinese)
[33]	李璇, 岳红, 王升, 黄璐琦, 马炯, 郭兰萍 . 影响植物抗氧化酶活性的因素及其研究热点和现状. 中国中药杂志, 2013,38(7):973-978.
	LI X, YUE H, WANG S, HUANG L Q, MA J, GUO L P . Research of different effects on activity of plant antioxidant enzymes. China Journal of Chinese Materia Medica, 2013,38(7):973-978. (in Chinese)
[34]	NELSON D M, HU F S, TIAN J, STEFANOVA I, BROWN T A . Response of C₃ and C₄ plants to middle-holocene climatic variation near the prairie-forest ecotone of Minnesota. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2004,101(2):562-567.
[35]	UZILDAY B, TURKAN I, SEKMEN A H, OZGUR R, KARAKAYA H C . Comparison of ROS formation and antioxidant enzymes in Cleome gynandra (C₄) and Cleome spinosa (C₃) under drought stress. Plant Science, 2012,182:59-70.
[36]	NAYYAR H, GUPTA D . Differential sensitivity of C₃ and C₄ plants to water deficit stress: association with oxidative stressand antioxidants. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 2006,58(1):106-113.
[37]	HU L X, LI H Y, PANG H C, FU J . Responses of antioxidant gene,protein and enzymes to salinity stress in two genotypes of perennial ryegrass ( Lolium perenne) differing in salt tolerance. Journal of Plant Physiology, 2012,169(2):146-156.
[38]	MISRA N, GUPTA A K . Effect of salinity and different nitrogen sources on the activity of antioxidant enzymes and indole alkaloid content in Catharanthus roseus seedlings. Journal of Plant Physiology, 2006,163(1):11-18.
[39]	JIANG L, YANG H . Prometryne-induced oxidative stress and impact on antioxidant enzymes in wheat. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 2009,72(6):1687-1693.
[40]	ALMESELMANI M, DESHMUKH P S, SAIRAM R K, KUSHWAHA S R, SINGH T P . Protective role of antioxidant enzymes under high temperature stress. Plant Science, 2006,171(3):382-388.
[41]	OHE M, RAPOLU M, MIEDA T, MIYAGAWA Y . Decline in leaf photooxidative-stress tolerance with age in tobacco. Plant Science, 2005,168(6):1487-1493.
[42]	汪宝卿, 姜瑶, 解备涛, 董顺旭, 张海燕, 王庆美, 张立明 . 2个不同耐旱性甘薯品种的苗期根系蛋白组差异分析. 核农学报, 2017,31(2):232-240.
	WANG B Q, JIANG Y, XIE B T, DONG S X, ZHANG H Y, WANG Q M, ZHANG L M . Proteomic analysis of roots in seedling stage of two sweetpotato varieties with different drought tolerance. Journal of Nuclear Agricultural Sciences, 2017,31(2):232-240. (in Chinese)
[43]	汪宝卿, 解备涛, 张海燕, 董顺旭, 段文学, 王庆美, 张立明 . 基于iTRAQ技术的不同耐旱性甘薯苗期根系差异蛋白分析. 核农学报, 2017,31(10):1904-1912.
	WANG B Q, XIE B T, ZHANG H Y, DONG S X, DUAN W X, WANG Q M, ZHANG L M . Analysis of differential proteome in roots during seedling stage of sweetpotato with different drought tolerance based on iTRAQ method. Journal of Nuclear Agricultural Sciences, 2017,31(10):1904-1912. (in Chinese)
[44]	KIM Y H, PARK S C, JI C Y, LEE J J, JEONG J C, LEE H S, KWAK S S . Diverse antioxidant enzyme levels in different sweetpotato root types during storage root formation. Plant Growth Regulation, 2015,75(1):155-164.

处理 Treatment	发根分枝期 Establishment stage (Planting-30 d)	蔓薯并长期 Intermediate stage (30-60 d)	快速膨大期 Final stage (60-90 d)
WW	75%±5%	75%±5%	75%±5%
DS1	35%±5%	75%±5%	75%±5%
DS2	75%±5%	35%±5%	75%±5%
DS3	75%±5%	75%±5%	35%±5%

处理 Treatment		栽植后天数 Days after planting (d)
		济薯21 JS 21				济紫薯1号 JZ 1
		40	60	80	100	40	60	80	100
地上部生物量 Biomass of aboveground part	WW	18.93±1.65a	58.56±2.45a	79.76±2.15a	87.24±2.77a	19.52±1.84a	62.79±2.04a	75.72±2.14a	85.13±2.63a
	DS1	13.49±1.4b	40.43±1.31c	46.43±1.87d	61.79±3.48d	13.38±0.69b	36.20±2.64c	42.24±3.56d	53.27±1.73d
	DS2	18.21±1.74a	46.49±2.26b	60.52±2.74c	73.31±3.14c	23.65±1.37a	43.56±3.15b	56.34±2.46c	68.87±3.04c
	DS3	19.56±1.88a	59.54±2.04a	70.24±2.34b	79.73±1.65b	21.61±1.04a	59.74±3.05a	66.75±3.12b	77.28±3.18b
地下部生物量 Biomass of underground part	WW	1.43±0.58a	5.39±0.36a	17.89±0.59a	31.13±0.69a	1.65±0.25a	6.82±0.79a	15.36±1.08a	30.96±1.05a
	DS1	0.83±0.35b	3.95±0.90c	11.21±0.69d	20.96±1.16d	0.81±0.25bc	3.43±0.25c	7.83±0.48d	16.26±1.12d
	DS2	1.27±0.19a	4.71±0.68b	13.72±0.66c	24.65±1.19c	1.26±0.24ab	4.41±0.57b	10.66±0.17c	22.23±0.98c
	DS3	1.36±0.77a	5.72±1.02a	16.18±0.39b	28.44±1.48b	1.73±0.38a	6.28±0.47a	13.75±1.07b	26.97±1.06b

处理 Treatment	栽植后天数 Days after planting (d)
	济薯21 JS 21				济紫薯1号 JZ 1
	40	60	80	100	40	60	80	100
WW	1.73±0.03a	4.01±0.45a	5.63±0.25a	5.21±0.38a	1.65±0.34a	4.25±0.45a	6.43±0.31a	5.85±0.34a
DS1	1.25±0.24b	2.15±0.31c	2.78±0.18d	2.08±0.05d	1.14±0.15b	2.61±0.15c	2.77±0.37d	2.33±0.21d
DS2	1.72±0.02a	3.22±0.27b	3.88±0.25c	3.27±0.04c	1.63±0.43a	3.45±0.26b	3.82±0.26c	3.46±0.25c
DS3	1.77±0.16a	3.99±0.19a	4.97±0.45b	4.54±0.25b	1.69±0.47a	4.36±0.36a	5.12±0.13b	4.63±0.19b

不同时期干旱胁迫对甘薯生长和抗氧化能力的影响

Effects of Drought Treatments at Different Growth Stages on Growth and the Activity of Antioxidant Enzymes in Sweetpotato

RichHTML

PDF

赞

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 13

参考文献 44

相关文章 15

Metrics

本文评价

推荐阅读 0

处理 Treatment	济薯21 JS 21		济紫薯1号 JZ 1
处理 Treatment	薯干产量 Dry weight (kg·hm^-2)	相比对照 Compared with CK (%)	薯干产量 Dry weight (kg·hm^-2）	相比对照 Compared with CK (%)
WW	3210.02±149.60a	—	4192.22±117.21a	—
DS1	2175.14±104.54c	32.24	2346.95±94.03c	44.02
DS2	2225.24±134.03c	30.68	2534.54±95.57c	39.54
DS3	2768.43±143.75b	13.76	3443.27±111.90b	17.87

[1]	张晓丽, 陶伟, 高国庆, 陈雷, 郭辉, 张华, 唐茂艳, 梁天锋. 直播栽培对双季早稻生育期、抗倒伏能力及产量效益的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2023, 56(2): 249-263.
[2]	严艳鸽, 张水勤, 李燕婷, 赵秉强, 袁亮. 葡聚糖改性尿素对冬小麦产量和肥料氮去向的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2023, 56(2): 287-299.
[3]	徐久凯, 袁亮, 温延臣, 张水勤, 李燕婷, 李海燕, 赵秉强. 畜禽有机肥氮在冬小麦季对化肥氮的相对替代当量[J]. 中国农业科学, 2023, 56(2): 300-313.
[4]	王彩香,袁文敏,刘娟娟,谢晓宇,马麒,巨吉生,陈炟,王宁,冯克云,宿俊吉. 西北内陆早熟陆地棉品种的综合评价及育种演化[J]. 中国农业科学, 2023, 56(1): 1-16.
[5]	赵政鑫,王晓云,田雅洁,王锐,彭青,蔡焕杰. 未来气候条件下秸秆还田和氮肥种类对夏玉米产量及土壤氨挥发的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2023, 56(1): 104-117.
[6]	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.
[7]	张玮,严玲玲,傅志强,徐莹,郭慧娟,周梦瑶,龙攀. 播期对湖南省双季稻产量和光热资源利用效率的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2023, 56(1): 31-45.
[8]	熊伟仡,徐开未,刘明鹏,肖华,裴丽珍,彭丹丹,陈远学. 不同氮用量对四川春玉米光合特性、氮利用效率及产量的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2022, 55(9): 1735-1748.
[9]	李易玲,彭西红,陈平,杜青,任俊波,杨雪丽,雷鹿,雍太文,杨文钰. 减量施氮对套作玉米大豆叶片持绿、光合特性和系统产量的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2022, 55(9): 1749-1762.
[10]	王浩琳,马悦,李永华,李超,赵明琴,苑爱静,邱炜红,何刚,石美,王朝辉. 基于小麦产量与籽粒锰含量的磷肥优化管理[J]. 中国农业科学, 2022, 55(9): 1800-1810.
[11]	桂润飞,王在满,潘圣刚,张明华,唐湘如,莫钊文. 香稻分蘖期减氮侧深施液体肥对产量和氮素利用的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2022, 55(8): 1529-1545.
[12]	廖萍,孟轶,翁文安,黄山,曾勇军,张洪程. 杂交稻对产量和氮素利用率影响的荟萃分析[J]. 中国农业科学, 2022, 55(8): 1546-1556.
[13]	李前,秦裕波,尹彩侠,孔丽丽,王蒙,侯云鹏,孙博,赵胤凯,徐晨,刘志全. 滴灌施肥模式对玉米产量、养分吸收及经济效益的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2022, 55(8): 1604-1616.
[14]	秦羽青,程宏波,柴雨葳,马建涛,李瑞,李亚伟,常磊,柴守玺. 中国北方地区小麦覆盖栽培增产效应的荟萃（Meta）分析[J]. 中国农业科学, 2022, 55(6): 1095-1109.
[15]	谭先明,张佳伟,王仲林,谌俊旭,杨峰,杨文钰. 基于PLS的不同水氮条件下带状套作玉米产量预测[J]. 中国农业科学, 2022, 55(6): 1127-1138.