猕猴桃种质资源对缺铁渍水复合胁迫的耐性筛选评价及生理差异分析

doi:10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2026.15.011

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

【目的】筛选耐受缺铁渍水复合胁迫种质资源，解析其在缺铁、渍水及其复合胁迫下的生理生化差异，以期为猕猴桃抗性育种提供科学依据和材料基础。【方法】以来自4个猕猴桃种（中华猕猴桃，Actinidia chinensis，Ac；大籽猕猴桃，A. macrosperma，Am；葛枣猕猴桃，A. polygama，Ap；对萼猕猴桃，A. valvata，Av）的17份种质组培苗为试材，通过观测植株生长参数、叶片光合能力、各部位生物量等评价不同种质对缺铁渍水复合胁迫耐受性的差异，并分析Av1和Av5（来自相同猕猴桃种且耐性差异较大）对缺铁、渍水及其复合胁迫生理响应的异同。【结果】基于权重的隶属函数综合评价和聚类分析表明，17份猕猴桃基因型的缺铁渍水耐性可分为3组：高耐受型（Av1、Av2、Am1、Av3、Av4、Am2、Ap1、Am3和Av5）、中等耐受型（Acd1、XX、Ap2、YX、Acd2和HWD）和低耐受型（QH和QM）。对猕猴桃种来说，Av和Am耐受性较强，Ap次之，Ac最弱。Av与Am的高耐受性与其地上部表现优异相关，如株高、新叶数、叶面积、叶长、叶宽、地上部鲜重、整株鲜重等；Ap的高耐受性则与根系表现良好有关，如根体积、根鲜重、根干重等。复合胁迫提高了Av1和Av5猕猴桃根系质子分泌、三价铁螯合物还原酶活性和铁含量。尽管复合胁迫增加了Av1新叶铁含量，但使Av5新叶铁含量下降，进而引起Av5根系产生更强烈的缺铁生理响应。渍水和复合胁迫处理均提高了2个基因型植株的根系孔隙度。复合胁迫增加了Av1根和茎的皮层比例，降低了内皮层与韧皮部之比。此外，复合胁迫提高了植株各器官的碳氮比，在Av1中尤为突出。【结论】猕猴桃对缺铁渍水复合胁迫的耐受性在不同种和相同种不同基因型之间均存在较大差异。与Av5相比，Av1能更高效地吸收和转运铁、调整根和茎各部位组织结构的比例、提高各器官碳氮比，从而更好地耐受缺铁渍水复合胁迫。

关键词: 猕猴桃, 种质资源, 耐缺铁性, 耐涝性, 复合胁迫

Abstract:

【Objective】To screen kiwifruit germplasm with tolerance to combined stress of iron (Fe) deficiency and waterlogging, and to clarify physiological and biochemical differences under single or combined stresses of the two factors, so as to provide a scientific basis and genetic resources for the breeding of kiwifruit germplasm tolerant to Fe deficiency and waterlogging.【Method】Seventeen tissue-cultured kiwifruit genotypes belonging to four species, namely Actinidia chinensis (Ac), A. macrosperma (Am), A. polygama (Ap) and A. valvata (Av), were used to determine plant growth parameters, leaf net photosynthetic rate (Pn), and biomass in various parts for assessing the tolerance differences under combined stress of Fe deficiency and waterlogging. Moreover, two tolerance-contrasting genotypes (Av1 and Av5) from the same kiwifruit species were analyzed for the similarities and differences in physiological responses to combined stress.【Result】Using the weight-based membership function method and cluster analysis, the combined tolerance of the seventeen kiwifruit genotypes was classified into three groups: High tolerant, including Av1, Av2, Am1, Av3, Av4, Am2, Ap1, Am3, and Av5; Medium tolerant, including Acd1, XX, Ap2, YX, Acd2, and HWD; And low tolerant, including QH and QM. Across kiwifruit species, the greatest tolerance was observed in Av and Am, followed by Ap, and then Ac. The superior tolerance of Av and Am was related to their excellent aboveground performance, including plant height, new leaf number, leaf area, leaf length and width, fresh weight of aboveground parts and whole plant; and that of Ap was associated with its good root performance, including root volume and root fresh and dry weight. Combined stress enhanced proton extrusion, ferric chelate reductase activity and Fe concentration in roots of both genotypes. However, in new leaves, combined stress decreased Fe concentration in Av5 but increased that in Av1, which contributed to more positive root physiological regulation in Av5. Both waterlogging and combined stresses increased root porosity of both genotypes. In Av1, combined stress increased cortex proportion and decreased the ratio of the endodermis to phloem of roots and stems. Additionally, combined stress increased C/N in various plant organs, particularly for Av1.【Conclusion】The tolerance in combined Fe deficiency and waterlogging stress differed substantially among four kiwifruit species or different genotypes within the same species. Compared with Av5, Av1 is better able to uptake and transport Fe, to adjust anatomical structures of roots and stems, and to raise C/N in various plant organs, thereby performing better in tolerance to combined stress of Fe deficiency and waterlogging.

Key words: Actinidia, germplasm resources, iron deficiency tolerance, waterlogging tolerance, combinatorial stress

冯亚青, 孙亚涵, 周巧慧, 林芃, 李佳翌, 王惠申, 刘涛, 刘占德, 王南南. 猕猴桃种质资源对缺铁渍水复合胁迫的耐性筛选评价及生理差异分析[J]. 中国农业科学, 2026, 59(15): 3387-3399.

FENG YaQing, SUN YaHan, ZHOU QiaoHui, LIN Peng, LI JiaYi, WANG HuiShen, LIU Tao, LIU ZhanDe, WANG NanNan. Screening Evaluation and Physiological Difference Analysis of Kiwifruit Germplasm Resources for Tolerance to Combined Stress of Iron Deficiency and Waterlogging[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2026, 59(15): 3387-3399.

图/表 10

图1

图2

图3

图4

表1

图5

图6

图7

图8

图9

参考文献 40

[1]	李岚欣, 孙洁, 辛奇, 赵泽众, 刘帮迪, 姜微波. 乡村振兴背景下我国猕猴桃产业技术高质量发展分析[J]. 保鲜与加工, 2022, 22(7): 82-90.
	Li L X, Sun J, Xin Q, Zhao Z Z, Liu B D, Jiang W B. Analysis and review of high-quality development kiwifruit industry technology under rural revitalization in China[J]. Storage and Process, 2022, 22(7): 82-90.(in Chinese)
[2]	陕西省统计局. 12-22各市(区)茶、桑、果面积及产量(2024年)[EB/OL]. [2026-02-28]. http://tjj.shaanxi.gov.cn/upload/2025/zk/indexch.htm.
	Statistics Bureau of Shaanxi Province. 12-22 area and output of tea plantation cocoon, orchards by city(district)(2024)[EB/OL]. [2026-02-28]. http://tjj.shaanxi.gov.cn/upload/2025/zk/indexch.htm.(in Chinese)
[3]	United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization[EB/OL]. [2026-02-28]. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC.
[4]	Wang N N, He H H, Lacroix C, Morris C, Liu Z D, Ma F W. Soil fertility, leaf nutrients and their relationship in kiwifruit orchards of China’s central Shaanxi Province[J]. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 2019, 65(4): 369-376.
[5]	张西玲, 郝苏娟, 王西锐. 气候资源变化对陕西省猕猴桃生产的影响分析[J]. 中国果树, 2019(5): 70-73.
	Zhang X L, Hao S J, Wang X R. Effect of climate resources change on kiwifruit production in Shaanxi Province[J]. China Fruits, 2019(5): 70-73.(in Chinese)
[6]	刘旭峰, 樊秀芳, 张林森, 姚春潮, 龙周侠, 王西玲. 陕西关中猕猴桃产区缺铁性黄化病发生原因研究[J]. 西北农业学报, 2002, 11(2): 57-59.
	Liu X F, Fan X F, Zhang L S, Yao C C, Long Z X, Wang X L. Inducing factors of iron deficiency chlorosis of kiwis in Guanzhong area of Shaanxi[J]. Acta Agriculturae Boreali-Occidentalis Sinica, 2002, 11(2): 57-59.(in Chinese)
[7]	王南南, 董晓珂, 牛友怡, 陈元磊, 洪蔚金, 马百全, 袁雨婷, 冯亚青, 刘占德. 基于缺铁诊断指标筛选的猕猴桃叶片黄化诱因分析[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2024, 30(3): 550-562.
	Wang N N, Dong X K, Niu Y Y, Chen Y L, Hong W J, Ma B Q, Yuan Y T, Feng Y Q, Liu Z D. Analysis of the inducing factors of kiwifruit leaf chlorosis based on selection of diagnostic indicators for iron deficiency[J]. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Fertilizers, 2024, 30(3): 550-562.(in Chinese)
[8]	Wang N N, Yao C C, Li M J, Li C Y, Liu Z D, Ma F W. Anatomical and physiological responses of two kiwifruit cultivars to bicarbonate[J]. Scientia Horticulturae, 2019, 243: 528-536.
[9]	Chen Y L, Bao W W, Hong W J, Dong X K, Gong M Y, Cheng Q Q, Mao K, Yao C C, Liu Z D, Wang N N. Evaluation of eleven kiwifruit genotypes for bicarbonate tolerance and characterization of two tolerance-contrasting genotypes[J]. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, 2023, 194: 202-213.
[10]	Wang N N, Jiao X Y, Guo T L, Li C Y, Liu Z D, Ma F W. Time course of physiological responses in kiwifruit induced by bicarbonate[J]. Trees, 2019, 33(6): 1711-1722.
[11]	Wang N N, Dong X K, Chen Y L, Ma B Q, Yao C C, Ma F W, Liu Z D. Direct and bicarbonate-induced iron deficiency differently affect iron translocation in kiwifruit roots[J]. Plants, 2020, 9(11): 1578.
[12]	Li Z, Zhong Y P, Bai D F, Lin M M, Qi X J, Fang J B. Comparative analysis of physiological traits of three Actinidia valvata Dunn genotypes during waterlogging and post-waterlogging recovery[J]. Horticulture, Environment, and Biotechnology, 2020, 61(5): 825-836.
[13]	Bai D F, Li Z, Gu S C, Li Q H, Sun L M, Qi X J, Fang J B, Zhong Y P, Hu C G. Effects of kiwifruit rootstocks with opposite tolerance on physiological responses of grafting combinations under waterlogging stress[J]. Plants, 2022, 11(16): 2098.
[14]	Xu Z Y, Ye L Z, Shen Q F, Zhang G P. Advances in the study of waterlogging tolerance in plants[J]. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2024, 23(9): 2877-2897.
[15]	白丹凤, 李志, 齐秀娟, 陈锦永, 顾红, 黄武权, 任建杰, 钟云鹏, 方金豹. 4种基因型猕猴桃对淹水胁迫的生理响应及耐涝性评价[J]. 果树学报, 2019, 36(2): 163-173.
	Bai D F, Li Z, Qi X J, Chen J Y, Gu H, Huang W Q, Ren J J, Zhong Y P, Fang J B. Physiological responses and tolerance evaluation of four species of Actinidia to waterlogging stress[J]. Journal of Fruit Science, 2019, 36(2): 163-173.(in Chinese)
[16]	Pan J W, Sharif R, Xu X W, Chen X H. Mechanisms of waterlogging tolerance in plants: Research progress and prospects[J]. Frontiers in Plant Science, 2020, 11: 627331.
[17]	Baldi E, Pastore C, Chiarelli G, Quartieri M, Spinelli F, Toselli M. Molecular responses to drought and waterlogging stresses of kiwifruit (Actinidia chinensis var. deliciosa) potted vines[J]. Horticulturae, 2024, 10(8): 834.
[18]	Suzuki N, Rivero R M, Shulaev V, Blumwald E, Mittler R. Abiotic and biotic stress combinations[J]. The New Phytologist, 2014, 203(1): 32-43.
[19]	Tahjib-Ul-Arif M, Hasan M T, Rahman M A, Nuruzzaman M, Rahman A M S, Hasanuzzaman M, Haque M R, Hossain M A, Abdel Hamed Abdel Latef A, Murata Y, Brestic M. Plant response to combined salinity and waterlogging stress: Current research progress and future prospects[J]. Plant Stress, 2023, 7: 100137.
[20]	武芮, 洪蔚金, 刘颖濯, 姚春潮, 刘占德, 王南南. 30份猕猴桃种质对碱胁迫生理响应的初步评价[J]. 中国果树, 2024(12): 60-68.
	Wu R, Hong Y J, Liu Y Z, Yao C C, Liu Z D, Wang N N. Preliminary study of physiological response evaluation of alkaline stress in 30 kiwifruit germplasms[J]. China Fruits, 2024(12): 60-68.(in Chinese)
[21]	樊秀彩, 刘崇怀, 孙海生, 李民. 快速鉴定葡萄砧木种质耐碱性的方法[J]. 中外葡萄与葡萄酒, 2009(11): 48-49.
	Fan X C, Liu C H, Sun H S, Li M. Method for quickly identifying alkali tolerance of grape rootstock germplasm[J]. Sino-Overseas Grapevine & Wine, 2009(11): 48-49.(in Chinese)
[22]	Schmidt W, Michalke W, Schikora A. Proton pumping by tomato roots. Effect of Fe deficiency and hormones on the activity and distribution of plasma membrane H⁺-ATPase in rhizodermal cells[J]. Plant, Cell & Environment, 2003, 26(3): 361-370.
[23]	Wachsman G, Sparks E E, Benfey P N. Genes and networks regulating root anatomy and architecture[J]. The New Phytologist, 2015, 208(1): 26-38.
[24]	Schweingruber F H, Börner A. Stem anatomical structures of major taxonomic units[M]//The Plant Stem: A Microscopic Aspect. Cham: Springer, 2018: 81-120.
[25]	Yang X X, Li Y, Ren B B, Ding L, Gao C M, Shen Q R, Guo S W. Drought-induced root aerenchyma formation restricts water uptake in rice seedlings supplied with nitrate[J]. Plant & Cell Physiology, 2012, 53(3): 495-504.
[26]	Boxma R. Bicarbonate as the most important soil factor in lime-induced chlorosis in the Netherlands[J]. Plant and Soil, 1972, 37(2): 233-243.
[27]	Zhao Y Y, Chen Y L, Liu S Z, Li F, Sun M D, Liang Z X, Sun Z, Yu F T, Rengel Z, Li H G. Bicarbonate rather than high pH in growth medium induced Fe-deficiency chlorosis in dwarfing rootstock quince A (Cydonia oblonga Mill.) but did not impair Fe nutrition of vigorous rootstock Pyrus betulifolia[J]. Frontiers in Plant Science, 2023, 14: 1237327.
[28]	Tagliavini M, Rombolà A D. Iron deficiency and chlorosis in orchard and vineyard ecosystems[J]. European Journal of Agronomy, 2001, 15(2): 71-92.
[29]	Alhendawi R A, Römheld V, Kirkby E A, Marschner H. Influence of increasing bicarbonate concentrations on plant growth, organic acid accumulation in roots and iron uptake by barley, sorghum, and maize[J]. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 1997, 20(12): 1731-1753.
[30]	Rajan P, Natraj P, Kim M, Lee M, Jang Y J, Lee Y J, Kim S C. Climate change impacts on and response strategies for kiwifruit production: A comprehensive review[J]. Plants, 2024, 13(17): 2354.
[31]	Renziehausen T, Frings S, Schmidt-Schippers R. ‘Against all floods’: Plant adaptation to flooding stress and combined abiotic stresses[J]. The Plant Journal, 2024, 117(6): 1836-1855.
[32]	陈锦永, 方金豹, 齐秀娟, 顾红, 林苗苗, 张威远, 魏翠果. 猕猴桃砧木研究进展[J]. 果树学报, 2015, 32(5): 959-968.
	Chen J Y, Fang J B, Qi X J, Gu H, Lin M M, Zhang W Y, Wei C G. Research progress on rootstock of kiwifruit[J]. Journal of Fruit Science, 2015, 32(5): 959-968.(in Chinese)
[33]	Tahir J, Hoyte S, Bassett H, Brendolise C, Chatterjee A, Templeton K, Deng C, Crowhurst R, Montefiori M, Morgan E, Wotton A, Funnell K, Wiedow C, Knaebel M, Hedderley D, Vanneste J, McCallum J, Hoeata K, Nath A, Chagné D, et al. Multiple quantitative trait loci contribute to resistance to bacterial canker incited by Pseudomonas syringae pv. Actinidiae in kiwifruit (Actinidia chinensis)[J]. Horticulture Research, 2019, 6: 101.
[34]	Bao W W, Chen X, Li R N, Li M, Xie C J, Dou M R, Zhang K Z, Wang J, Gao Z X, Liu Z D, Xu Y. Comprehensive assessment of drought resistance and recovery in kiwifruit genotypes using multivariate analysis[J]. The Plant Journal, 2024, 119(1): 100-114.
[35]	Xing M Y, Wang W Q, Zhang C, Xi D J, Wang M C, Yin X R, Liu H, Liu X F. Identification and functional analyses of the transcription factors AcWRKY117 and AcWRKY29 involved in waterlogging response in kiwifruit plant[J]. Scientia Horticulturae, 2024, 324: 112568.
[36]	胡慧, 向小奇, 刘伟涛, 梁德娟, 段晓云. 对萼猕猴桃耐涝机理的初步研究[J]. 湖南农业科学, 2019(7): 75-77.
	Hu H, Xiang X Q, Liu W T, Liang D J, Duan X Y. Preliminary study on waterlogging tolerance mechanism of Actinidia valvata dunn[J]. Hunan Agricultural Sciences, 2019(7): 75-77.(in Chinese)
[37]	Davenport J R, Stevens R G. High soil moisture and low soil temperature are associated with chlorosis occurrence in concord grape[J]. HortScience, 2006, 41(2): 418-422.
[38]	Zuo Y, Ren L, Zhang F, Jiang R F. Bicarbonate concentration as affected by soil water content controls iron nutrition of peanut plants in a calcareous soil[J]. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, 2007, 45(5): 357-364.
[39]	Zhang J H, He N P, Liu C C, Xu L, Chen Z, Li Y, Wang R M, Yu G R, Sun W, Xiao C W, Chen H Y H, Reich P B. Variation and evolution of C: N ratio among different organs enable plants to adapt to N-limited environments[J]. Global Change Biology, 2020, 26(4): 2534-2543.
[40]	Donnini S, De Nisi P, Gabotti D, Tato L, Zocchi G. Adaptive strategies of Parietaria diffusa (M.& K.) to calcareous habitat with limited iron availability[J]. Plant, Cell & Environment, 2012, 35(6): 1171-1184.

参数Parameter	PC1	PC2	PC3	每个参数权重Weight per parameter (%)
整株干重Plant dry weight	0.903	-0.326	0.170	8.755
地上部干重Shoot dry weight	0.901	-0.226	0.224	8.561
整株鲜重Plant fresh weight	0.971	-0.030	-0.008	8.406
地上部鲜重Shoot fresh weight	0.940	0.125	0.022	8.392
根鲜重Root fresh weight	0.805	-0.515	-0.058	8.238
叶面积Leaf area	0.757	0.568	0.200	8.136
叶宽Leaf width	0.764	0.553	0.115	8.052
根体积Root volume	0.762	-0.556	-0.091	8.012
新叶数New leaf number	0.795	0.237	-0.318	7.798
根干重Root dry weight	0.727	-0.626	0.011	7.783
叶长Leaf length	0.691	0.584	0.279	7.710
株高Plant height	0.710	0.342	-0.430	7.468
SPAD	-0.162	-0.108	0.819	2.687
特征值Eigenvalue	8.009	2.296	1.179
贡献率Contribution (%)	61.609	17.662	9.069