山西小麦苗期耐低磷特性及遗传分析

doi:10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2024.05.001

中国农业科学 ›› 2024, Vol. 57 ›› Issue (5): 831-845.doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2024.05.001

• 作物遗传育种·种质资源·分子遗传学 • 上一篇下一篇

山西小麦苗期耐低磷特性及遗传分析

卫乃翠¹^,²(), 陶金博²(), 苑名杨², 张彧³, 开梦想², 乔玲¹, 武棒棒¹, 郝宇琼¹, 郑兴卫¹, 王娟玲², 赵佳佳¹(), 郑军¹()

¹ 山西农业大学小麦研究所/农业农村部有机旱作农业重点实验室（部省共建），山西临汾 041000
² 山西农业大学农学院，山西太谷 030801
³ 临汾市第二中学校，山西临汾 041000

收稿日期:2023-08-02 接受日期:2023-09-26 出版日期:2024-03-01 发布日期:2024-03-06
通信作者:
赵佳佳，E-mail：jjzh1990@163.com。
郑军，E-mail：sxnkyzj@126.com
联系方式: 卫乃翠，E-mail：cuiuiui_999@163.com。陶金博，E-mail：tx10190245@163.com。卫乃翠和陶金博为同等贡献作者。
基金资助:
山西省小麦种业创新良种联合攻关(YZGG-02-01); 山西省科技重大专项计划揭榜挂帅项目(202201140601025-2-04); 山西农业大学生物育种工程(YZGC013)

Seedling Characterization and Genetic Analysis of Low Phosphorus Tolerance in Shanxi Varieties

WEI NaiCui¹^,²(), TAO JinBo²(), YUAN MingYang², ZHANG Yu³, KAI MengXiang², QIAO Ling¹, WU BangBang¹, HAO YuQiong¹, ZHENG XingWei¹, WANG JuanLing², ZHAO JiaJia¹(), ZHENG Jun¹()

¹ Institute of Wheat Research, Shanxi Agriculture University/Key Laboratory of Sustainable Dryland Agriculture (Co-construction by Ministry and Province), Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Linfen 041000, Shanxi
² College of Agriculture, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu 030801, Shanxi
³ Linfen Second Middle School, Linfen 041000, Shanxi

Received:2023-08-02 Accepted:2023-09-26 Published:2024-03-01 Online:2024-03-06

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

【目的】干旱与半干旱地区的水肥资源贫乏，而小麦不同基因型间的磷效率差异很大，因此，鉴选耐低磷种质、挖掘磷代谢遗传位点有助于小麦的遗传改良。【方法】以282份山西小麦品种为材料，在正常磷（0.2 mmol·L^-1）、中度低磷（0.1 mmol·L^-1）和低磷胁迫（0.01 mmol·L^-1）3个磷浓度条件下对苗期根部鲜重、茎叶部鲜重、植株鲜重、根部干重、茎叶部干重、植株干重，最大根长、总根长、根表面积、根体积、根直径和根尖数共12个形态指标进行考查，运用主成分分析、隶属函数分析及聚类分析等方法综合评价苗期不同品种的耐低磷特性，在此基础上，分析苗期性状演变趋势及生物量分配等特征，并利用全基因组关联分析挖掘小麦耐低磷位点。【结果】苗期不同性状对低磷的响应程度不同，磷浓度降低导致生物量分配策略发生变化，与根部生长情况比较，地上部生长受磷浓度变化影响小；磷浓度降低会抑制地上部生长，地上部干重和鲜重显著降低，而低磷促进了根系生长，根部干重和鲜重、最大根长、总根长、根体积和根尖数等指标显著增加。根据耐低磷综合D值与形态指标相关分析发现最大根长和根直径可作为苗期耐低磷的筛选指标，D值聚类分析筛选到晋麦46、晋麦61、有芒大红茎、红秃麦、红和尚、白壳红、白线麦、火烧头和白山麦共9份耐低磷品种。性状演变分析发现品种耐低磷能力没有受到直接选择。耐低磷能力随年代变化先降后升，2010年之前品种耐低磷能力呈下降趋势，2010年后品种耐低磷能力有所提升。关联分析检测到8个R²>10%的稳定位点，其中，1A_545074550、2B_489279799、6A_166899658和6A_273060644未见报道。【结论】苗期最大根长和根直径可作为苗期耐低磷的筛选指标。通过综合评价山西小麦苗期耐低磷能力，筛选到9份耐低磷品种。在1A、2B和6A染色体上检测到4个与耐低磷相关的新位点。

关键词: 小麦苗期, 耐低磷, 种质鉴选, 特征演变, 关联分析

Abstract:

【Objective】In arid and semi-arid regions, the water and nutrients are scarce in the soil. The phosphorus use efficiency between different wheat genotypes varies greatly. Therefore, identification of low phosphorus-tolerant germplasm and mapping of related loci is helpful for genetic improvement of wheat. 【Method】Using 282 Shanxi wheat varieties as materials, twelve seedling morphological indicators were investigated under three phosphorus concentrations, including SDW, RDW, DW, SFW, RFW, FW, MRL, TRL, RS, RV, RD, and RN. Principal component analysis, membership function analysis, and cluster analysis were used to comprehensively evaluate the low phosphorus tolerance characteristics of different varieties at the seedling stage. On this basis, the trait evolution trend and biomass allocation at seedling stage were analyzed. At the same time, GWAS was used to identify significant loci related to the low phosphorus-related traits. 【Result】The response of different traits to low phosphorus at the seedling stage was different. Lower phosphorus concentrations led to changes in biomass allocation strategy, and shoot growth was less affected by change in phosphorus concentrations than root growth. The decrease in phosphorus concentration inhibited the growth of shoot, and SDW and SFW were significantly reduced. In contrast, low phosphorus promoted root growth, and the indicators of RDW, RFW, MRL, TRL, RV and RN increased significantly. According to the correlation analysis between D-value and morphological indicators, it was found that MRL and RD could be used as selection indicators for low phosphorus tolerance at seedling stage. Based on D-value clustering analysis, 9 low phosphorus tolerant varieties were selected, including Jinmai 46, Jinmai 61, Youmangdahongjing, Hongtumai, Hongheshang, Baikehong, Baixianmai, Huoshaotou, Baishanmai. Analysing trends in trait evolution showed that cultivars were not directly selected for their ability to tolerate low phosphorus. The ability to tolerate low phosphorus decreased first and then increased over time. Before 2010, there was a decreasing trend in the ability of varieties to tolerate low phosphorus, and after 2010, there was an increase in the ability of varieties to tolerate low phosphorus. GWAS stably detected eight loci with R²>10% in three environments, in which 1A_545074550, 2B_489279799, 6A_166899658 and 6A_273060644 were not reported previously.【Conclusion】The MRL and RD can be used as selection indicators for low phosphorus tolerance at seedling stage. A total of nine varieties were selected through comprehensive evaluation of ability in Shanxi wheat to tolerate low phosphorus during seedling stage. Association analysis detected four novel loci associated with low phosphorus tolerance on chromosomes 1A, 2B and 6A, and the results provide germplasm resources and QTL for future low phosphorus tolerance wheat breeding.

Key words: seedling stage, low phosphorus tolerance, germplasm identification, trait evolution, association analysis

卫乃翠, 陶金博, 苑名杨, 张彧, 开梦想, 乔玲, 武棒棒, 郝宇琼, 郑兴卫, 王娟玲, 赵佳佳, 郑军. 山西小麦苗期耐低磷特性及遗传分析[J]. 中国农业科学, 2024, 57(5): 831-845.

WEI NaiCui, TAO JinBo, YUAN MingYang, ZHANG Yu, KAI MengXiang, QIAO Ling, WU BangBang, HAO YuQiong, ZHENG XingWei, WANG JuanLing, ZHAO JiaJia, ZHENG Jun. Seedling Characterization and Genetic Analysis of Low Phosphorus Tolerance in Shanxi Varieties[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2024, 57(5): 831-845.

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.0578-1752.2024.05.001

https://www.chinaagrisci.com/CN/Y2024/V57/I5/831

图/表 10

图1

表1

图2

图3

表2

图4

图5

图6

表3

各形态指标耐低磷系数运行GWAS在3个及以上环境下被重复检测到的显著性位点"

性状 Traits	染色体 Chr.	物理位置 Position (Mb)	标记 Marker	环境 Environment	<BOLD>P</BOLD>值 <BOLD>P</BOLD> value	表型变异解释率 R² (%)	参考文献 References
茎叶部干重 SDW	7A	679.74	7A_679744088	MLP1	2.95E-04	5.98	[37]
				MLPAV	2.73E-04	6.41	[37]
				LP2	1.54E-04	6.66	[37]
				LPAV	1.08E-04	7.77	[37]
根部干重 RDW	2A	720.06	2A_720056407	MLP1	9.83E-04	5.04
		723.57	2A_723574066	LP1	1.20E-04	6.79
		728.13	2A_728131289	LP2	6.98E-04	5.49
	2B	771.81	2B_771807820	LP2	2.97E-05	8.32	[36]
		776.28	2B_776277662	MLP1	4.33E-04	5.67	[36]
				LP1	1.54E-06	10.25	[36]
	3A	697.27	3A_697265307	MLP1	3.35E-04	5.85	[37]
				MLPAV	2.52E-06	8.22	[37]
				LP2	1.42E-05	8.55	[37]
	6A	166.90	6A_166899658	MLP1	1.08E-06	10.26
				LP1	7.76E-04	5.35
				LP2	2.69E-04	6.23
		273.06	6A_273060644	LP2	7.72E-04	5.41
		273.49	6A_273485987	MLP1	9.90E-07	10.33
				LP1	8.29E-04	5.30
		596.50	6A_596501004	LP2	7.98E-05	7.18
		598.86	6A_598861692	MLPAV	1.19E-04	5.68
		599.26	6A_599260920	MLP1	6.01E-04	5.41
	7A	679.74	7A_679744223	MLP1	3.45E-10	16.79	[37]
				MLPAV	1.16E-05	7.21	[37]
				LP2	3.31E-04	6.08	[37]
		85.63	7A_85627950	MLP1	3.46E-12	20.69	[38]
				LP1	1.74E-04	6.50	[38]
				LPAV	1.95E-04	6.96	[38]
		85.66	7A_85658080	LPAV	1.03E-05	12.24	[38]
				MLPAV	9.70E-05	5.81	[38]
植株干重 DW	2B	485.17	2B_485169465	LPAV	1.51E-04	7.53
		489.28	2B_489279799	LP1	1.08E-06	10.09
				LP2	9.54E-04	5.26
		768.06	2B_768059955	LP1	5.27E-04	5.41	[36]
				LPAV	8.65E-04	5.99	[36]
		771.81	2B_771807820	LP2	7.56E-09	15.13	[36]
	7A	679.74	7A_679744088	MLP1	1.43E-04	6.45	[37]
				MLPAV	1.71E-04	6.75	[37]
				LPAV	8.41E-04	6.02	[37]
		679.74	7A_679744223	MLP1	2.19E-04	6.13	[37]
				LP2	3.36E-04	6.08	[37]
				LPAV	3.58E-04	6.77	[37]
茎叶部鲜重 SFW	1A	15.43	1A_15432092	MLPAV	9.54E-04	5.41
				LP1	9.40E-04	5.24
				LPAV	0.001	5.80
	7A	85.66	7A_85658291	MLP1	8.30E-04	5.28	[38]
				LP2	8.11E-04	5.16	[38]
				LPAV	2.38E-05	9.09	[38]
最大根长 MRL	1A	545.07	1A_545074550	MLP1	1.71E-08	13.23
				MLPAV	1.42E-07	11.12
				LP1	1.26E-04	6.24
		545.33	1A_545329345	MLP1	5.66E-09	14.11
				MLPAV	9.67E-08	11.41
				LP1	7.30E-05	6.63
		545.52	1A_545517460	MLP1	1.03E-09	16.52
				MLPAV	4.18E-08	13.20
				LP1	7.88E-05	6.98

表3

图7

参考文献 38

[1]	QIU H B, MEI X P, LIU C X, WANG J G, WANG G Q, WANG X, LIU Z, CAI Y L. Fine mapping of quantitative trait loci for acid phosphatase activity in maize leaf under low phosphorus stress. Molecular Breeding, 2013, 32(3): 629-639. doi: 10.1007/s11032-013-9895-z
[2]	HAN Z S, LIU Y L, DENG X, LIU D M, LIU Y, HU Y K, YAN Y M. Genome-wide identification and expression analysis of expansin gene family in common wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). BMC Genomics, 2019, 20(1): 101. doi: 10.1186/s12864-019-5455-1
[3]	栗振义, 张绮芯, 仝宗永, 李跃, 徐洪雨, 万修福, 毕舒贻, 曹婧, 何峰, 万里强, 李向林. 不同紫花苜蓿品种对低磷环境的形态与生理响应分析. 中国农业科学, 2017, 50(20): 3898-3907. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2017.20.006.
	LI Z Y, ZHANG Q X, TONG Z Y, LI Y, XU H Y, WAN X F, BI S Y, CAO J, HE F, WAN L Q, LI X L. Analysis of morphological and physiological responses to low Pi stress in different alfalfas. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2017, 50(20): 3898-3907. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2017.20.006. (in Chinese)
[4]	YUAN Y Y, GAO M G, ZHANG M X, ZHENG H H, ZHOU X W, GUO Y, ZHAO Y, KONG F M, LI S S. QTL mapping for phosphorus efficiency and morphological traits at seedling and maturity stages in wheat. Frontiers in Plant Science, 2017, 8: 614. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2017.00614 pmid: 28484481
[5]	袁园园, 董贝, 曹晓慧, 郑洪蕊. 黄淮麦区小麦成株期磷高效基因型的鉴定和筛选. 麦类作物学报, 2017, 37(1): 56-65.
	YUAN Y Y, DONG B, CAO X H, ZHENG H R. Identification and screening of high phosphorus use efficiency genotypes of wheat at adult stage in Huang-Huai wheat area. Journal of Triticeae Crops, 2017, 37(1): 56-65. (in Chinese)
[6]	柏栋阴, 冯国华, 张会云, 陈荣振, 王晓军. 低磷胁迫下磷高效基因型小麦的筛选. 麦类作物学报, 2007, 27(3): 407-410, 415.
	BAI D Y, FENG G H, ZHANG H Y, CHEN R Z, WANG X J. Screening of wheat genotypes with high phosphorus efficiency under low phosphorus stress. Journal of Triticeae Crops, 2007, 27(3): 407-410, 415. (in Chinese)
[7]	阳显斌, 张锡洲, 李廷轩, 吴德勇. 小麦磷素利用效率的品种差异. 应用生态学报, 2012, 23(1): 60-66.
	YANG X B, ZHANG X Z, LI T X, WU D Y. Differences in phosphorus utilization efficiency among wheat cultivars. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2012, 23(1): 60-66. (in Chinese)
[8]	DHARMATEJA P, KUMAR M, PANDEY R, MANDAL P K, BABU P, BAINSLA N K, GAIKWAD K B, TOMAR V, KRANTHI KUMAR K, DHAR N, ANSARI R, SAIFI N, YADAV R. Deciphering the change in root system architectural traits under limiting and non-limiting phosphorus in Indian bread wheat germplasm. PLoS ONE, 2021, 16(10): e0255840. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0255840
[9]	刘露露, 汪军成, 姚立蓉, 孟亚雄, 李葆春, 杨轲, 司二静, 王化俊, 马小乐, 尚勋武, 李兴茂. 不同春小麦品种耐低磷性评价及种质筛选. 中国生态农业学报, 2020, 28(7): 999-1009.
	LIU L L, WANG J C, YAO L R, MENG Y X, LI B C, YANG K, SI E J, WANG H J, MA X L, SHANG X W, LI X M. Evaluation of low phosphorus tolerance and germplasm screening of spring wheat. Chinese Journal of Eco Agriculture, 2020, 28(7): 999-1009. (in Chinese)
[10]	孔忠新, 杨丽丽, 张政值, 马正强. 小麦耐低磷基因型的筛选. 麦类作物学报, 2010, 30(4): 591-595.
	KONG Z X, YANG L L, ZHANG Z Z, MA Z Q. Screening of wheat germplasms tolerant to low phosphorus. Journal of Triticeae Crops, 2010, 30(4): 591-595. (in Chinese)
[11]	DHARMATEJA P, YADAV R, KUMAR M, BABU P, JAIN N, MANDAL P K, PANDEY R, SHRIVASTAVA M, GAIKWAD K B, BAINSLA N K, TOMAR V, SUGUMAR S, SAIFI N, RANJAN R. Genome-wide association studies reveal putative QTLs for physiological traits under contrasting phosphorous conditions in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Frontiers in Genetics, 2022, 13: 984720. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2022.984720
[12]	周思远, 毕惠惠, 程西永, 张旭睿, 闰永行, 王航辉, 毛培钧, 李海霞, 许海霞. 小麦耐低磷相关性状的全基因组关联分析. 植物遗传资源学报, 2020, 21(2): 431-445. doi: 10.13430/j.cnki.jpgr.20190509001
	ZHOU S Y, BI H H, CHENG X Y, ZHANG X R, RUN Y H, WANG H H, MAO P J, LI H X, XU H X. Genome-wide association study of low-phosphorus tolerance related traits in wheat. Journal of Plant Genetic Resources, 2020, 21(2): 431-445. (in Chinese)
[13]	SAFDAR L B, UMER M J, ALMAS F, UDDIN S, SAFDAR Q T A, BLIGHE K, QURAISHI U M. Gene, 2021, 768: 145301. doi: 10.1016/j.gene.2020.145301
[14]	WANG J, SUN J H, MIAO J, GUO J K, SHI Z L, HE M Q, CHEN Y, ZHAO X Q, LI B, HAN F P, TONG Y P, LI Z S. A phosphate starvation response regulator Ta-PHR1 is involved in phosphate signalling and increases grain yield in wheat. Annals of Botany, 2013, 111(6): 1139-1153. doi: 10.1093/aob/mct080
[15]	OUYANG X, HONG X, ZHAO X Q, ZHANG W, HE X, MA W Y, TENG W, TONG Y P. Knock out of the phosphate2 gene TaPHO2-A1 improves phosphorus uptake and grain yield under low phosphorus conditions in common wheat. Scientific Reports, 2016, 6: 29850. doi: 10.1038/srep29850
[16]	GUO C J, GUO L, LI X J, GU J T, ZHAO M, DUAN W W, MA C Y, LU W J, XIAO K. TaPT2, a high-affinity phosphate transporter gene in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), is crucial in plant Pi uptake under phosphorus deprivation. Acta Physiologiae Plantarum, 2014, 36(6): 1373-1384. doi: 10.1007/s11738-014-1516-x
[17]	ZHENG X W, LIU C, QIAO L, ZHAO J J, HAN R, WANG X L, GE C, ZHANG W Y, ZHANG S W, QIAO L Y, ZHENG J, HAO C Y. The MYB transcription factor TaPHR3-A1is involved in phosphate signaling and governs yield-related traits in bread wheat. Journal of Experimental Botany, 2020, 71(19): 5808-5822. doi: 10.1093/jxb/eraa355
[18]	EL MAZLOUZI M, MOREL C, ROBERT T, YAN B F, MOLLIER A. Phosphorus uptake and partitioning in two durum wheat cultivars with contrasting biomass allocation as affected by different P supply during grain filling. Plant and Soil, 2020, 449(1): 179-192. doi: 10.1007/s11104-020-04444-0
[19]	黄晨晨, 宋晓, 黄绍敏, 张珂珂, 岳克. 不同磷效率小麦根系形态、磷素转运及产量的差异分析. 华北农学报, 2021, 36(2): 169-175. doi: 10.7668/hbnxb.20191728
	HUANG C C, SONG X, HUANG S M, ZHANG K K, YUE K. Analysis of differences in root morphology, phosphorus transport and yield of wheat with different phosphorus efficiency. Acta Agriculturae Boreali-Sinica, 2021, 36(2): 169-175. (in Chinese) doi: 10.7668/hbnxb.20191728
[20]	赵佳佳, 乔玲, 武棒棒, 葛川, 乔麟轶, 张树伟, 闫素仙, 郑兴卫, 郑军. 山西省小麦苗期根系性状及抗旱特性分析. 作物学报, 2021, 47(4): 714-727. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2021.01048
	ZHAO J J, QIAO L, WU B B, GE C, QIAO L Y, ZHANG S W, YAN S X, ZHENG X W, ZHENG J. Seedling root characteristics and drought resistance of wheat in Shanxi province. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2021, 47(4): 714-727. (in Chinese) doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2021.01048
[21]	ZHENG X W, QIAO L, LIU Y, WEI N C, ZHAO J J, WU B B, YANG B, WANG J L, ZHENG J. Genome-wide association study of grain number in common wheat from Shanxi under different water regimes. Frontiers in Plant Science, 2021, 12: 806295. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2021.806295
[22]	REDDY V R P, ASKI M S, MISHRA G P, DIKSHIT H K, SINGH A, PANDEY R, SINGH M P, GAYACHARAN, RAMTEKEY V, PRITI, RAI N, NAIR R M. Genetic variation for root architectural traits in response to phosphorus deficiency in mungbean at the seedling stage. PLoS ONE, 2020, 15(6): e0221008. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0221008
[23]	ZHANG Z W, ERSOZ E, LAI C Q, TODHUNTER R J, TIWARI H K, GORE M A, BRADBURY P J, YU J M, ARNETT D K, ORDOVAS J M, BUCKLER E S. Mixed linear model approach adapted for genome-wide association studies. Nature Genetics, 2010, 42(4): 355-360. doi: 10.1038/ng.546 pmid: 20208535
[24]	ZHANG X H, WARBURTON M L, SETTER T, LIU H J, XUE Y D, YANG N, YAN J B, XIAO Y J. Genome-wide association studies of drought-related metabolic changes in maize using an enlarged SNP panel. Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 2016, 129(8): 1449-1463. doi: 10.1007/s00122-016-2716-0 pmid: 27121008
[25]	VANDAMME E, ROSE T, SAITO K, JEONG K, WISSUWA M. Integration of P acquisition efficiency, P utilization efficiency and low grain P concentrations into P-efficient rice genotypes for specific target environments. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 2016, 104(3): 413-427. doi: 10.1007/s10705-015-9716-3
[26]	WANG X R, SHEN J B, LIAO H. Acquisition or utilization, which is more critical for enhancing phosphorus efficiency in modern crops? Plant Science, 2010, 179(4): 302-306. doi: 10.1016/j.plantsci.2010.06.007
[27]	NIU Y F, CHAI R S, JIN G L, WANG H, TANG C X, ZHANG Y S. Responses of root architecture development to low phosphorus availability: A review. Annals of Botany, 2013, 112(2): 391-408. doi: 10.1093/aob/mcs285 pmid: 23267006
[28]	MENG X X, LIU N, ZHANG L, YANG J, ZHANG M F. Genotypic differences in phosphorus uptake and utilization of watermelon under low phosphorus stress. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 2014, 37(2): 312-326. doi: 10.1080/01904167.2013.852225
[29]	FUKAKI H, TASAKA M. Hormone interactions during lateral root formation. Plant Molecular Biology, 2009, 69(4): 437-449. doi: 10.1007/s11103-008-9417-2 pmid: 18982413
[30]	LIN D L, YAO H Y, JIA L H, TAN J F, XU Z H, ZHENG W M, XUE H W. Phospholipase D-derived phosphatidic acid promotes root hair development under phosphorus deficiency by suppressing vacuolar degradation of PIN‐FORMED2. The New Phytologist, 2020, 226(1): 142-155. doi: 10.1111/nph.v226.1
[31]	秦晓梁. 小麦选育过程中根冠比值和异速生长关系的演化[D]. 兰州: 兰州大学, 2013.
	QIN X L. Evolution of root to shoot ratio and allometric relationship in demostration and selection of wheat[D]. Lanzhou: Lanzhou University, 2013. (in Chinese)
[32]	SANDAÑA P, PINOCHET D. Ecophysiological determinants of biomass and grain yield of wheat under P deficiency. Field Crops Research, 2011, 120(2): 311-319. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2010.11.005
[33]	李朴芳. 人工选择压力下麦类作物株型塑性及其逆境适应机制[D]. 兰州: 兰州大学, 2014.
	LI P F, Plant architecture plasticity and its response to adverse stresses in dryland Triticeae crops under artificial selection pressure[D]. Lanzhou: Lanzhou University, 2014. (in Chinese)
[34]	李朴芳, 程正国, 赵鸿, 张小丰, 李冀南, 王绍明, 熊友才. 旱地小麦理想株型研究进展. 生态学报, 2011, 31(9): 2631-2640.
	LI P F, CHENG Z G, ZHAO H, ZHANG X F, LI J N, WANG S M, XIONG Y C. Current progress in plant ideotype research of dryland wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2011, 31(9): 2631-2640. (in Chinese)
[35]	田中伟, 樊永惠, 殷美, 王方瑞, 蔡剑, 姜东, 戴廷波. 长江中下游小麦品种根系改良特征及其与产量的关系. 作物学报, 2015, 41(4): 613-622.
	TIAN Z W, FAN Y H, YIN M, WANG F R, CAI J, JIANG D, DAI T B. Genetic improvement of root growth and its relationship with grain yield of wheat cultivars in the Middle-Lower Yangtze River. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2015, 41(4): 613-622. (in Chinese) doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2015.00613
[36]	WU F K, YANG X L, WANG Z Q, DENG M, MA J, CHEN G Y, WEI Y M, LIU Y X. Identification of major quantitative trait loci for root diameter in synthetic hexaploid wheat under phosphorus-deficient conditions. Journal of Applied Genetics, 2017, 58(4): 437-447. doi: 10.1007/s13353-017-0406-5 pmid: 28887804
[37]	SU J Y, XIAO Y M, LI M, LIU Q Y, LI B, TONG Y P, JIA J Z, LI Z S. Mapping QTLs for phosphorus-deficiency tolerance at wheat seedling stage. Plant and Soil, 2006, 281(1): 25-36. doi: 10.1007/s11104-005-3771-5
[38]	GUO Y, KONG F M, XU Y F, ZHAO Y, LIANG X, WANG Y Y, AN D G, LI S S. QTL mapping for seedling traits in wheat grown under varying concentrations of N, P and K nutrients. Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 2012, 124: 851-865. doi: 10.1007/s00122-011-1749-7 pmid: 22089330

性状 Traits	CK			MLP			LP
性状 Traits	变幅 Range	均值 Mean	变异系数 CV (%)	变幅 Range	均值 Mean	变异系数 CV (%)	变幅 Range	均值 Mean	变异系数 CV (%)
茎叶部干重SDW (mg)	6.13-32.31	13.71	27.04	3.98-18.01	10.87	19.87	7.24-27.05	12.78	18.77
根部干重RDW (mg)	1.41-7.47	3.83	32.73	1.12-10.49	3.86	25.74	2.46-38.74	5.37	55.15
植株干重DW (mg)	8.51-39.78	17.55	26.75	5.10-24.23	14.73	19.70	10.81-60.23	18.15	24.73
茎叶部鲜重SFW (mg)	77.69-356.73	158.54	29.20	49.80-214.49	142.33	19.58	69.39-241.62	139.49	17.39
根部鲜重RFW (mg)	27.66-103.15	54.70	32.99	15.13-91.01	55.43	24.91	23.58-107.42	67.53	23.40
植株鲜重FW (mg)	110.81-459.88	213.24	29.13	64.93-305.50	197.76	19.89	99.60-343.94	207.02	18.06
最大根长MRL (cm)	3.10-21.40	10.53	24.67	3.65-17.20	11.30	19.36	4.95-20.70	14.19	17.00
总根长TRL (cm)	7.00-67.19	32.99	33.63	5.39-62.68	32.97	26.16	16.88-88.69	50.90	27.01
根表面积RS (cm²)	1.31-8.74	4.73	32.53	0.90-7.87	4.65	24.47	2.67-10.07	6.27	22.76
根体积RV (cm³)	0.02-0.18	0.07	37.13	0.02-0.14	0.07	29.12	0.03-0.15	0.08	25.45
根直径RD (cm)	0.37-1.03	0.61	19.85	0.38-1.06	0.62	17.42	0.33-0.90	0.49	17.19
根尖数RN	3.33-31.00	9.43	41.90	2.83-18.83	8.60	31.45	5.17-37.17	16.51	33.15

性状 Traits	D值_MLP D values _MLP	D值_LP D values _LP	性状 Traits	D值_MLP D values _MLP	D值_LP D values _LP
茎叶部干重SDW	0.277**	0.079	最大根长MRL	0.155*	-0.222**
根部干重RDW	0.068	-0.121	总根长TRL	0.150*	-0.121
植株干重DW	0.229**	0.012	根表面积RS	0.055	-0.148*
茎叶部鲜重SFW	0.177**	-0.036	根体积RV	-0.044	-0.11
根部鲜重RFW	0.035	-0.131*	根直径RD	-0.214**	0.156*
植株鲜重FW	0.138*	-0.079	根尖数RN	0.149*	-0.056

山西小麦苗期耐低磷特性及遗传分析

Seedling Characterization and Genetic Analysis of Low Phosphorus Tolerance in Shanxi Varieties

RichHTML

PDF

赞

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 10

参考文献 38

相关文章 15

Metrics

本文评价

推荐阅读 0

[1]	张颖, 石婷瑞, 曹瑞, 潘文秋, 宋卫宁, 王利, 聂小军. ICARDA引进-小麦苗期抗旱性的全基因组关联分析[J]. 中国农业科学, 2024, 57(9): 1658-1673.
[2]	林蔚, 吴水金, 李跃森. 转录组和蛋白质组关联分析解析巴西蕉幼苗响应低温的分子机制[J]. 中国农业科学, 2024, 57(8): 1575-1591.
[3]	赵真坚, 王凯, 陈栋, 申琦, 余杨, 崔晟頔, 王俊戈, 陈子旸, 禹世欣, 陈佳苗, 王翔枫, 唐国庆. 基因组和DNA甲基化组联合分析筛选猪肉质性状关键基因[J]. 中国农业科学, 2024, 57(7): 1394-1406.
[4]	李法计, 程敦公, 余晓丛, 闻伟锷, 刘金栋, 翟胜男, 刘爱峰, 郭军, 曹新有, 刘成, 宋健民, 刘建军, 李豪圣. 冠层活性相关性状全基因组关联分析及其对产量性状遗传效应的解析[J]. 中国农业科学, 2024, 57(4): 627-637.
[5]	熊楚雯, 郭智滨, 周强华, 程艳波, 马启彬, 蔡占东, 年海. 大豆转录因子NAC1耐低磷胁迫的功能研究[J]. 中国农业科学, 2024, 57(3): 442-453.
[6]	郭军, 邵丹, 窦套存, 马猛, 卢建, 胡玉萍, 王星果, 王强, 李永峰, 郭伟, 童海兵, 曲亮. 鸡产蛋期剩余采食量的随机回归分析及遗传标记筛选[J]. 中国农业科学, 2024, 57(22): 4568-4577.
[7]	郭军, 曲亮, 邵丹, 马猛, 窦套存, 卢建, 胡玉萍, 王星果, 王强, 李永峰, 郭伟, 童海兵. 基于一步法全基因组关联分析解析蛋黄比率遗传结构[J]. 中国农业科学, 2024, 57(21): 4356-4366.
[8]	白冰楠, 乔丹, 葛群, 栾玉娟, 刘小芳, 卢全伟, 牛皓, 龚举武, 巩万奎, ELAMEER ELSAMMAN, 闫浩亮, 李俊文, 刘爱英, 石玉真, 王海泽, 袁有禄. 陆地棉棉籽相关性状的QTN挖掘及候选基因筛选[J]. 中国农业科学, 2024, 57(15): 2901-2913.
[9]	桂翠林, 马亮, 王银莹, 谢富贵, 赵彩宏, 王文淼, 李鑫, 王青, 高夕全. 玉米镰孢菌复合病原茎腐病抗性种质资源鉴定及抗性基因挖掘[J]. 中国农业科学, 2024, 57(13): 2509-2524.
[10]	张玉梅, 丁文涛, 蓝新隆, 李清华, 胡润芳, 郭娜, 林国强, 赵晋铭. 大豆地方种质资源鲜籽粒可溶性糖含量的全基因组关联分析[J]. 中国农业科学, 2024, 57(11): 2079-2091.
[11]	寿鑫月, 刘智, 陈玥含, 李晨辉, 孙宾成, 孙如建, 韩德志, 鹿文成, 申永辉, 王晓波, 闫龙. 冀北坝上大豆结瘤相关性状全基因组关联分析[J]. 中国农业科学, 2024, 57(11): 2102-2113.
[12]	骆娜, 安炳星, 魏立民, 文杰, 赵桂苹. 全基因组关联分析筛选文昌鸡体尺性状相关分子标记[J]. 中国农业科学, 2024, 57(10): 2046-2060.
[13]	李盛有, 王昌陵, 闫春娟, 张立军, 孙旭刚, 曹永强, 王文斌, 宋书宏. 大豆种质抗旱性评价及抗旱候选基因的挖掘[J]. 中国农业科学, 2024, 57(10): 1857-1869.
[14]	谭力治, 赵毅强. 全基因组关联分析中混合模型的原理、优化与应用[J]. 中国农业科学, 2023, 56(9): 1617-1632.
[15]	王慧玲, 闫爱玲, 王晓玥, 刘振华, 任建成, 徐海英, 孙磊. 葡萄果粒质量相关性状全基因组关联分析[J]. 中国农业科学, 2023, 56(8): 1561-1573.