111份紫花苜蓿种质资源萌发期抗旱性鉴定评价

doi:10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2025.10.003

中国农业科学 ›› 2025, Vol. 58 ›› Issue (10): 1896-1907.doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2025.10.003

• 作物遗传育种·种质资源·分子遗传学 • 上一篇下一篇

111份紫花苜蓿种质资源萌发期抗旱性鉴定评价

陈彩锦¹^,²^,³(), 马琳³, 包明芳¹^,², 张国辉², 蒋庆雪³, 杨天辉⁴, 王川⁴, 王晓春⁴, 高婷⁴, 王学敏³(), 刘文辉¹()

¹ 青海大学畜牧兽医科学院，西宁 810016
² 宁夏农林科学院固原分院，宁夏固原 756000
³ 中国农业科学院北京畜牧兽医研究所，北京 100193
⁴ 宁夏农林科学院动物科学研究所，银川 750002

收稿日期:2024-11-13 接受日期:2024-12-23 出版日期:2025-05-16 发布日期:2025-05-21
通信作者:
王学敏，E-mail：wangxuemin@caas.cn。
刘文辉，E-mail：qhliuwenhui@163.com
联系方式: 陈彩锦，E-mail：ccj401224@126.com。
基金资助:
宁夏回族自治区重点研发计划(2022BBF02029); 农业种质资源普查收集、保护鉴定服务项目(19240485); 财政部和农业农村部国家现代农业产业技术体系(CARS-34); 固原市创新驱动科技研发“拨改投”项目(2024BGTYF01-33); 宁夏农业种质资源库基础条件建设项目(2022DPC05001); 宁夏生态农业产业专家服务基地项目(2420000001)

Identification and Evaluation of Drought Resistance for 111 Germplasm Resources of Alfalfa During Germination Stage

CHEN CaiJin¹^,²^,³(), MA Lin³, BAO MingFang¹^,², ZHANG GuoHui², JIANG QingXue³, YANG TianHui⁴, WANG Chuan⁴, WANG XiaoChun⁴, GAO Ting⁴, WANG XueMin³(), LIU WenHui¹()

¹ Academy of Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine of Qinghai University, Xining 810016
² Guyuan Branch, Ningxia Academy of Agricultural and Forestry Sciences, Guyuan 756000, Ningxia
³ Institute of Animal Scince, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100193
⁴ Institute of Animal Science, Ningxia Academy of Agricultural and Forestry Sciences, Yinchuan 750002

Received:2024-11-13 Accepted:2024-12-23 Published:2025-05-16 Online:2025-05-21

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

【目的】鉴定评价苜蓿种质资源的抗旱性，筛选出不同抗旱性苜蓿种质材料，为进一步开展苜蓿抗旱资源的创制和育种利用奠定基础。【方法】以收集的111份苜蓿种质资源为试验材料，以PEG-6000溶液模拟干旱胁迫条件，设置干旱胁迫（13% PEG-6000溶液）和对照（蒸馏水）2个处理，以萌发期的发芽势、发芽率、发芽指数、活力指数、萌发指数、根长、芽长、鲜重和干重9个指标为测定指标，利用综合抗旱系数（CDC值）和抗旱性度量值（D值）对萌发期苜蓿的抗旱性进行综合评价，同时，采用单项抗旱系数、相关性分析、主成分分析和逐步回归分析筛选影响萌发的主要抗旱鉴定指标。【结果】通过研究苜蓿种质资源9个指标的单项抗旱系数对干旱胁迫的响应，发现活力指数、鲜重和萌发指数可作为萌发期抗旱性筛选的重要指标。各指标的单项抗旱系数中发芽指数与萌发指数、发芽率和活力指数的相关性最高，分别是0.9838、0.9495和0.9338。主成分分析将9个指标转换成3个主成分，累计贡献率是87.287%。采用CDC值和D值2种方法对萌发期的苜蓿进行抗旱性鉴定，发现2种方法评价结果基本一致，但D值评价方法利用权重系数来反映每个抗旱指标对品种整体抗旱性的影响程度，因而评价结果更具全面性、可靠性和准确性。利用D值对111份苜蓿种质资源进行抗旱性的聚类划分，供试材料划分为5类，第Ⅰ类具有强抗旱性，包含1份材料；第Ⅱ类具有较强抗旱性，包含5份材料；第Ⅲ类具有中等抗旱性，包含55份材料；第Ⅳ类具有弱抗旱性，包含37份材料；第Ⅴ类具有干旱敏感性，包含13份材料。【结论】D值评价方法是评价苜蓿萌发期抗旱性最可靠的方法；筛选出AG37强抗旱性种质1份，AG19、AG5、AG13等较强抗旱性种质5份；确定出活力指数和萌发指数2个指标是评价苜蓿萌发期抗旱性的理想指标。

关键词: 苜蓿, 萌发期, 种质资源, 抗旱性, 综合评价

Abstract:

【Objective】 To identify and evaluate the drought resistance of alfalfa germplasm resources, screen out different drought-resistant alfalfa germplasm materials, and lay a foundation for further development of drought-resistant alfalfa resources creation and breeding utilization. 【Method】 In this study, A total of 111 alfalfa germplasm resources were used as experimental materials, and drought stress conditions were simulated using a 13% PEG-6000 solution. Two treatments were established: drought stress (13% PEG-6000) and a control (distilled water). Drought tolerance at germination stage were comprehensively evaluated by the comprehensive drought resistance coefficient (CDC value) and drought resistance coefficient (D value) using nine indicators, including germination potential, germination rate, germination index, vitality index, promptness index, root length, bud length, fresh weight and dry weight. Meanwhile, single drought tolerance coefficients, correlation analysis, principal component analysis and stepwise regression analysis were conducted to identify the key indicators influencing drought resistance during germination. 【Result】 Analysis of the single drought tolerance coefficients for the nine indicators showed that vitality index, fresh weight, and promptness index were key indicators for screening drought resistance at the germination stage. The single drought tolerance coefficients of the indicators had the highest correlation among germination index and promptness index, germination rate, vitality index, with coefficients of 0.9838, 0.9495 and 0.9338, respectively. Principal component analysis transformed the nine indicators into three principal components with a cumulative contribution of 87.287%. Drought resistance of alfalfa at germination stage was identified using two methods with CDC value and D value, and it was found that the evaluation results of the two methods were highly consistent; however, the D value method was more comprehensive, reliable, and accurate, as it used the weighting coefficients to reflect the degree of influence of each indicator to the overall drought resistance of the varieties. Based on the D value, the 111 alfalfa germplasm resources were clustered into five categories: ClassⅠ(strongest drought resistance, 1 accession), Class Ⅱ (strong drought resistance, 5 accessions), Class Ⅲ (moderate drought resistance, 55 accessions), Class Ⅳ (weak drought resistance, 37 accessions), and Class Ⅴ (drought-sensitive, 13 accessions). 【Conclusion】 The D value evaluation method was found to be the most reliable for assessing drought resistance in alfalfa during the germination stage; The study identified AG37 as the strongest drought resistance germplasm, along with five strong drought resistance accessions, including AG19, AG5, AG13 and other. Vitality index and promptness index were determined to be the most suitable indicators for evaluating drought resistance in alfalfa at the germination stage.

Key words: Medicago sativa L., germination stage, germplasm resources, drought resistance, comprehensive assessment

陈彩锦, 马琳, 包明芳, 张国辉, 蒋庆雪, 杨天辉, 王川, 王晓春, 高婷, 王学敏, 刘文辉. 111份紫花苜蓿种质资源萌发期抗旱性鉴定评价[J]. 中国农业科学, 2025, 58(10): 1896-1907.

CHEN CaiJin, MA Lin, BAO MingFang, ZHANG GuoHui, JIANG QingXue, YANG TianHui, WANG Chuan, WANG XiaoChun, GAO Ting, WANG XueMin, LIU WenHui. Identification and Evaluation of Drought Resistance for 111 Germplasm Resources of Alfalfa During Germination Stage[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2025, 58(10): 1896-1907.

图/表 6

表1

图1

表2

表3

表4

图2

参考文献 52

[1]	MA Q L, XU X, WANG W J, ZHAO L J, MA D M, XIE Y Z. Comparative analysis of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) seedling transcriptomes reveals genotype-specific drought tolerance mechanisms. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, 2021, 166: 203-214.
[2]	QIU Z B, YUAN M M, HE Y Y, LI Y F, ZHANG L. Physiological and transcriptome analysis of He-Ne laser pretreated wheat seedlings in response to drought stress. Scientific Reports, 2017, 7(1): 6108. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-06518-z pmid: 28733678
[3]	HAN Y S, YANG H, WU M Y, YI H L. Enhanced drought tolerance of foxtail millet seedlings by sulfur dioxide fumigation. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 2019, 178: 9-16. doi: S0147-6513(19)30419-1 pmid: 30980964
[4]	ZHANG T J, KESOJU S, GREENE S L, FRANSEN S, HU J G, YU L X. Genetic diversity and phenotypic variation for drought resistance in alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) germplasm collected for drought tolerance. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, 2018, 65(2): 471-484.
[5]	董舒超, 洪骏, 凌嘉怡, 谢紫欣, 张胜军, 赵丽萍, 宋刘霞, 王银磊, 赵统敏. 番茄抗旱性的全基因组关联分析. 园艺学报, 2024, 51(2): 229-238.
	DONG S C, HONG J, LING J Y, XIE Z X, ZHANG S J, ZHAO L P, SONG L X, WANG Y L, ZHAO T M. Genome-wide association studies of drought tolerance in tomato. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2024, 51(2): 229-238. (in Chinese) doi: 10.16420/j.issn.0513-353x.2023-0694
[6]	ERICE G, LOUAHLIA S, IRIGOYEN J J, SANCHEZ-DIAZ M, AVICE J C. Biomass partitioning, morphology and water status of four alfalfa genotypes submitted to progressive drought and subsequent recovery. Journal of Plant Physiology, 2010, 167(2): 114-120. doi: 10.1016/j.jplph.2009.07.016 pmid: 19744745
[7]	MAGHSOODI M, RAZMJOO J, GHEYSARI M. Application of biochemical markers for the assessment of drought tolerance in alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) cultivars. Grassland Science, 2017, 63(1): 3-14.
[8]	张翠梅, 师尚礼, 吴芳. 干旱胁迫对不同抗旱性苜蓿品种根系生长及生理特性影响. 中国农业科学, 2018, 51(5): 868-882. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2018.05.006.
	ZHANG C M, SHI S L, WU F. Effects of drought stress on root and physiological responses of different drought-tolerant alfalfa varieties. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2018, 51(5): 868-882. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2018.05.006. (in Chinese)
[9]	BOYER J S. Plant productivity and environment. Science, 1982, 218(4571): 443-448. doi: 10.1126/science.218.4571.443 pmid: 17808529
[10]	BASBAG M, AYDIN A, SAKIROGLU M. Evaluating agronomic performance and investigating molecular structure of drought and heat tolerant wild alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) collection from the southeastern Turkey. Biochemical Genetics, 2017, 55(1): 63-76.
[11]	摆福红, 王凯彬, 马小红, 王晓敏, 程国新, 郭猛, 高艳明, 李建设, 伏小刚. 不同萝卜品种种子萌发期抗旱性综合评价及抗旱指标筛选. 西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版), 2024, 52(8): 70-81, 90.
	BAI F H, WANG K B, MA X H, WANG X M, CHENG G X, GUO M, GAO Y M, LI J S, FU X G. Comprehensive evaluation of drought resistance of different radish varieties at seed germination stage and screening of drought resistance indexes. Journal of Northwest A & F University (Natural Science Edition), 2024, 52(8): 70-81, 90. (in Chinese)
[12]	王志恒, 黄思麒, 李成虎, 周吴艳, 胡韩, 徐中伟, 马维亮, 魏玉清. 13种藜麦萌发期抗逆性综合评价. 西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版), 2021, 49(1): 25-36.
	WANG Z H, HUANG S Q, LI C H, ZHOU W Y, HU H, XU Z W, MA W L, WEI Y Q. Comprehensive evaluation of stress resistance during germination of 13 quinoa species. Journal of Northwest A&F University (Natural Science Edition), 2021, 49(1): 25-36. (in Chinese)
[13]	OBANOR F O, WALTER M, JONES E E, JASPERS M V. Effect of temperature, relative humidity, leaf wetness and leaf age on Spilocaea oleagina conidium germination on olive leaves. European Journal of Plant Pathology, 2008, 120(3): 211-222.
[14]	GUO Y, WANG R, TONG Z J, LIU X P, ZHANG J Q. Dynamic evaluation and regionalization of maize drought vulnerability in the Midwest of Jilin Province. Sustainability, 2019, 11(15): 4234.
[15]	曹敏, 张瑞, 钟婷, 虞道耿, 陈银华, 骆凯. 几种环境因子对崖州硬皮豆种子萌发的影响. 草业科学, 2019, 36(12): 3085-3092.
	CAO M, ZHANG R, ZHONG T, YU D G, CHEN Y H, LUO K. Effects of several environmental factors on seed germination of Macrotyloma uniflorum ‘Yazhou’. Pratacultural Science, 2019, 36(12): 3085-3092. (in Chinese)
[16]	王亚楠, 赵思明, 曹兵. PEG-6000模拟干旱胁迫下10种草本植物萌发期抗旱性比较. 草地学报, 2020, 28(4): 983-989. doi: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2020.04.015
	WANG Y N, ZHAO S M, CAO B. Study on drought resistance of ten herbaceous plants under PEG-6000 simulated drought stress. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2020, 28(4): 983-989. (in Chinese)
[17]	周洁仪, 赵文武, 杨杨, 谢文辉, 赵丽丽. 2种狼尾草属牧草萌发期和苗期抗旱性综合评价. 中国草地学报, 2023, 45(8): 50-59.
	ZHOU J Y, ZHAO W W, YANG Y, XIE W H, ZHAO L L. Comprehensive evaluation of drought resistance of two different Pennisetum species during seed germination and seedling growth stages. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2023, 45(8): 50-59. (in Chinese)
[18]	罗冬, 王明玖, 李元恒, 陈海军, 杨勇. 四种豆科牧草种子萌发和幼苗生长对干旱的响应及抗旱性评价. 生态环境学报, 2015, 24(2): 224-230. doi: 10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2015.02.007
	LUO D, WANG M J, LI Y H, CHEN H J, YANG Y. Four legumes response to simulated drought in the stages of seed germination and seedling growth and drought resistance assessment. Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 2015, 24(2): 224-230. (in Chinese)
[19]	张艳福, 姚卫杰, 郭其强, 边巴多吉, 李慧娥. 干旱胁迫对砂生槐种子萌发和幼苗生长的影响. 西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版), 2015, 43(10): 45-56.
	ZHANG Y F, YAO W J, GUO Q Q, BIANBA D J, LI H E. Effect of drought stress on seed germination and seedling growth of Sophora moorcroftiana, Journal of Northwest A & F University (Natural Science Edition), 2015, 43(10): 45-56. (in Chinese)
[20]	YU A L, ZHAO J F, WANG Z H, CHENG K, ZHANG P, TIAN G, LIU X, GUO E H, DU Y W, WANG Y W. Transcriptome and metabolite analysis reveal the drought tolerance of foxtail millet significantly correlated with phenylpropanoids-related pathways during germination process under PEG stress. BMC Plant Biology, 2020, 20(1): 274. doi: 10.1186/s12870-020-02483-4 pmid: 32539796
[21]	王焱. 紫花苜蓿种质资源表型性状鉴定及抗旱性评价[D]. 银川: 宁夏大学, 2018.
	WANG Y. Identification of phenotypic traits and evaluation of drought resistance of alfalfa germplasm resources[D]. Yinchuan: Ningxia University, 2018. (in Chinese)
[22]	高立杰, 李运起, 张洪杰, 敖特根白音. 14种紫花苜蓿萌发期抗旱性比较试验. 黑龙江畜牧兽医, 2017(15): 6-11, 283.
	GAO L J, LI Y Q, ZHANG H J, AO T. Drought resistance comparison test for fourteen varieties of Medicago sativa in germination period. Heilongjiang Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, 2017(15): 6-11, 283. (in Chinese)
[23]	朱志明, 杨晓婉, 李健荣, 周兴隆, 郭军成. 干旱胁迫对不同玉米自交系种子萌发的影响及种质的抗旱性比较. 宁夏大学学报(自然科学版), 2019, 40(4): 375-382, 387.
	ZHU Z M, YANG X W, LI J R, ZHOU X L, GUO J C. Effects of drought stress on seed germination of different maize inbred lines and comparison of drought resistance of germplasm. Journal of Ningxia University (Natural Science Edition), 2019, 40(4): 375-382, 387. (in Chinese)
[24]	郭效龙, 宋希云, 裴玉贺, 郭新梅. 玉米自交系萌发期和苗期抗旱性指标的筛选. 植物生理学报, 2018, 54(11): 1719-1726.
	GUO X L, SONG X Y, PEI Y H, GUO X M. Screening of drought resistance indexes of maize inbred lines. Plant Physiology Journal, 2018, 54(11): 1719-1726. (in Chinese)
[25]	洪越, 徐文伊, 王嘉杰, 刘瑞, 王婷, 晏迪, 连艺佳, 岳焕芳, 王晔, 段留生, 李润枝. 不同玉米品种萌发期抗旱性综合评价. 北京农学院学报, 2023, 38(3): 1-7.
	HONG Y, XU W Y, WANG J J, LIU R, WANG T, YAN D, LIAN Y J, YUE H F, WANG Y, DUAN L S, LI R Z. Comprehensive evaluation of drought tolerance of different maize varieties at germination stage. Journal of Beijing University of Agriculture, 2023, 38(3): 1-7. (in Chinese)
[26]	杨子光, 张灿军, 冀天会, 郭军伟, 孟丽梅, 张珂. 小麦抗旱性鉴定方法及评价指标研究Ⅴ苗期抗旱指标的比较研究. 中国农学通报, 2008, 24(1): 156-159.
	YANG Z G, ZHANG C J, JI T H, GUO J W, MENG L M, ZHANG K. Study on resistance drought identify method and evaluation index of wheat Ⅴ the comparative study on resistance drought index of wheat in seedling. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2008, 24(1): 156-159. (in Chinese)
[27]	黄爱花, 邹成林, 苏义成, 翟瑞宁, 莫润秀, 黄开健, 谭华. 玉米种子萌发特性对不同浓度PEG-6000的响应. 西南农业学报, 2021, 34(12): 2628-2633.
	HUANG A H, ZOU C L, SU Y C, ZHAI R N, MO R X, HUANG K J, TAN H. Response of maize seed germination characteristics to different concentrations PEG-6000. Southwest China Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2021, 34(12): 2628-2633. (in Chinese)
[28]	TYSHCHENKO O, TYSHCHENKO A, PILIARSKA O, KUTS H, LYKHOVYD P. Evaluation of drought tolerance in alfalfa (Medicago sativa) genotypes in the conditions of osmotic stress. AgroLife Scientific Journal, 2020, 9(2): 352-358.
[29]	刘佳月. 紫花苜蓿与黄花苜蓿抗旱转录组学研究[D]. 北京: 中国农业科学院, 2018.
	LIU J Y. Study on drought-resistant transcriptomics of alfalfa and Medicago sativa[D]. Beijing: Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, 2018. (in Chinese)
[30]	MA Q L, KANG J M, LONG R C, ZHANG T J, XIONG J B, ZHANG K, WANG T H, YANG Q C, SUN Y. Comparative proteomic analysis of alfalfa revealed new salt and drought stress-related factors involved in seed germination. Molecular Biology Reports, 2017, 44(3): 261-272. doi: 10.1007/s11033-017-4104-5 pmid: 28597411
[31]	WANG W B, KIM Y H, LEE H S, KIM K Y, DENG X P, KWAK S S. Analysis of antioxidant enzyme activity during germination of alfalfa under salt and drought stresses. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, 2009, 47(7): 570-577.
[32]	TILAKI G D, BEHTARI B, BEHTARI B. Effect of salt and water stress on the germination of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) seed. Environmental Science, 2009: 1-7.
[33]	杨姝, 杜桂娟, 马凤江. 27份紫花苜蓿种质资源萌发期抗旱性评价. 辽宁农业科学, 2019(3): 7-12.
	YANG S, DU G J, MA F J. Evaluation of drought resistance for 27 alfalfa germplasm resources at seed germination stage. Liaoning Agricultural Sciences, 2019(3): 7-12. (in Chinese)
[34]	王赞, 李源, 吴欣明, 高洪文, 孙桂芝. PEG渗透胁迫下鸭茅种子萌发特性及抗旱性鉴定. 中国草地学报, 2008, 30(1): 50-55.
	WANG Z, LI Y, WU X M, GAO H W, SUN G Z. Study on germination characteristics and drought-resistance evaluation of Dactylis glomerata L. under osmotic stress. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2008, 30(1): 50-55. (in Chinese)
[35]	刘佳月, 杜建材, 王照兰, 崔乐乐, 赵彦慧. 紫花苜蓿和黄花苜蓿种子萌发期对PEG模拟干旱胁迫的响应. 中国草地学报, 2018, 40(3): 27-34, 61.
	LIU J Y, DU J C, WANG Z L, CUI L L, ZHAO Y H. Response of Medicago sativa L. and M. falcata L. to pegdrought stress in seed germination period. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2018, 40(3): 27-34, 61. (in Chinese)
[36]	王江银, 徐婉宁, 苏洋, 张博. PEG-6000模拟干旱胁迫下5份苜蓿材料萌发期抗旱性鉴定与比较. 畜牧与饲料科学, 2023, 44(2): 81-91.
	WANG J Y, XU W N, SU Y, ZHANG B. Characterization and comparison of drought resistance of five alfalfa varieties during germination period under PEG-6000 simulated drought stress. Animal Husbandry and Feed Science, 2023, 44(2): 81-91. (in Chinese)
[37]	惠雅佞, 罗永忠. 4个紫花苜蓿品种萌发期抗旱性比较. 草原与草坪, 2021, 41(6): 111-118.
	HUI Y N, LUO Y Z. Comparison of drought resistance among four alfalfa cultivars during germination. Grassland and Turf, 2021, 41(6): 111-118. (in Chinese)
[38]	张辰昊, 热孜亚·艾力, 晁跃辉, 申玉华, 张铁军. 21份杂花苜蓿种质萌发期抗旱性评价. 中国草地学报, 2022, 44(3): 58-65.
	ZHANG C H, AILI R Z Y, CHAO Y H, SHEN Y H, ZHANG T J. Evaluation of drought resistance of 21 variegated alfalfa cultivars during germination. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2022, 44(3): 58-65. (in Chinese)
[39]	高志昊, 李雪颖, 兰剑, 胡海英. 干旱胁迫条件下不同饲用燕麦品种种子萌发指标比较与评价. 草地学报, 2022, 30(5): 1210-1218. doi: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2022.05.023
	GAO Z H, LI X Y, LAN J, HU H Y. Comparison and evaluation of seed germination indexes of different forage-type oat cultivars under PEG-6000 stress. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2022, 30(5): 1210-1218. (in Chinese)
[40]	樊瑀, 董淑琦, 原向阳, 杨雪萍, 姚翔, 郭平毅, 杨雪芳. 谷子种质资源萌发期抗旱性综合评价及抗旱指标筛选. 中国农业大学学报, 2022, 27(6): 42-54.
	FAN Y, DONG S Q, YUAN X Y, YANG X P, YAO X, GUO P Y, YANG X F. Comprehensive evaluation of drought resistance of foxtail millet germplasm resources during germination period and drought resistance index screening. Journal of China Agricultural University, 2022, 27(6): 42-54. (in Chinese)
[41]	罗俊杰, 欧巧明, 叶春雷, 王方, 王镛臻, 陈玉梁. 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.
	LUO J J, OU Q M, YE C L, WANG F, WANG Y Z, CHEN Y L. Comprehensive valuation of drought resistance and screening of indices of important flax cultivars. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2014, 40(7): 1259-1273. (in Chinese)
[42]	朱丽丽, 张发玉, 安宁, 陈志国. 116份藜麦种质资源萌发期抗旱性综合评价. 干旱地区农业研究, 2024, 42(1): 23-31.
	ZHU L L, ZHANG F Y, AN N, CHEN Z G. Comprehensive evaluation of drought resistance of 116 quinoa germplasm resources during germination. Agricultural Research in the Arid Areas, 2024, 42(1): 23-31. (in Chinese)
[43]	陈碧云, 许鲲, 高桂珍, 闫贵欣, 李俊, 伍晓明. 中国白菜型油菜种质表型多样性分析. 中国油料作物学报, 2012, 34(1): 25-32.
	CHEN B Y, XU K, GAO G Z, YAN G X, LI J, WU X M. Analysis of phenotypic diversity in Chinese collection of Brassica rapa L. Chinese Journal of Oil Crop Sciences, 2012, 34(1): 25-32. (in Chinese)
[44]	王倩, 董孔军, 薛亚鹏, 刘少雄, 王若楠, 杨佳琪, 陆平, 王瑞云, 杨天育, 刘敏轩. 糜子核心种质成株期抗旱性鉴定评价与抗旱种质筛选. 中国农业科学, 2023, 56(21): 4163-4174. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2023.21.003.
	WANG Q, DONG K J, XUE Y P, LIU S X, WANG R N, YANG J Q, LU P, WANG R Y, YANG T Y, LIU M X. Identification and evaluation of drought tolerance and screening of drought-tolerant germplasm for core germplasms in proso millet at adult stage. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2023, 56(21): 4163-4174. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2023.21.003. (in Chinese)
[45]	任毅, 颜安, 张芳, 夏先春, 谢磊, 耿洪伟. 国内外301份小麦品种(系)种子萌发期抗旱性鉴定及评价. 干旱地区农业研究, 2019, 37(3): 1-14.
	REN Y, YAN A, ZHANG F, XIA X C, XIE L, GENG H W. Identification and evaluation of drought tolerance of 301 wheat varieties (lines) at germination stage. Agricultural Research in the Arid Areas, 2019, 37(3): 1-14. (in Chinese)
[46]	汪灿, 周棱波, 张国兵, 张立异, 徐燕, 高旭, 姜讷, 邵明波. 薏苡种质资源萌发期抗旱性鉴定及抗旱指标筛选. 植物遗传资源学报, 2017, 18(5): 846-859. doi: 10.13430/j.cnki.jpgr.2017.05.006
	WANG C, ZHOU L B, ZHANG G B, ZHANG L Y, XU Y, GAO X, JIANG N, SHAO M B. Identification and indices screening of drought resistance in Job’s tears germplasm resources at germination stage. Journal of Plant Genetic Resources, 2017, 18(5): 846-859. (in Chinese) doi: 10.13430/j.cnki.jpgr.2017.05.006
[47]	白金顺, 王雪翠, 王艳秋. 箭筈豌豆种质资源萌发期抗旱指标筛选及抗旱性评价. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2020, 26(12): 2253-2263.
	BAI J S, WANG X C, WANG Y Q. Screening of drought-resistance index and drought-resistance evaluation of common vetch (Vicia sativa L.) germplasms at germination stage. Plant Nutrition and Fertilizer Science, 2020, 26(12): 2253-2263. (in Chinese)
[48]	李欣勇, 张靖雪, 王文强, 盛伟, 虞道耿. 9种莎草科植物种子萌发期抗旱性评价. 草业科学, 2022, 39(6): 1208-1216.
	LI X Y, ZHANG J X, WANG W Q, SHENG W, YU D G. Evaluation of drought resistance of nine Cyperaceae species seeds during germination. Pratacultural Science, 2022, 39(6): 1208-1216. (in Chinese)
[49]	郝俊峰, 张玉霞, 贾玉山, 格根图, 田永雷, 李宇宇. PEG-6000胁迫下苜蓿萌发期抗旱性鉴定与评价. 西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版), 2020, 48(11): 23-32.
	HAO J F, ZHANG Y X, JIA Y S, GE G T, TIAN Y L, LI Y Y. Identification and evaluation of drought resistance of alfalfa at germination stage under PEG-6000 stress. Journal of Northwest A & F University (Natural Science Edition), 2020, 48(11): 23-32. (in Chinese)
[50]	安欣慧, 陈桂顺, 鞠晓影, 赵勇, 张树华, 杨学举. 不同小麦品种种子萌发期的抗旱性分析. 江苏农业科学, 2017, 45(14): 54-58.
	AN X H, CHEN G S, JU X Y, ZHAO Y, ZHANG S H, YANG X J. Analysis on drought resistance of different wheat varieties at germination stage. Jiangsu Agricultural Sciences, 2017, 45(14): 54-58. (in Chinese)
[51]	王永刚, 张胜军, 刘亚丽, 樊艳星, 郭彩琴, 马艳明. 新疆冬小麦品种资源萌发期耐旱性鉴定与筛选. 新疆农业科学, 2021, 58(11): 2024-2034. doi: 10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2021.11.007
	WANG Y G, ZHANG S J, LIU Y L, FAN Y X, GUO C Q, MA Y M. Identification and screening of drought tolerance in winter wheat cultivars in Xinjiang during germination period. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2021, 58(11): 2024-2034. (in Chinese) doi: 10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2021.11.007
[52]	王艺陶, 周宇飞, 李丰先, 依兵, 白薇, 闫彤, 许文娟, 高明超, 黄瑞冬. 基于主成分和SOM聚类分析的高粱品种萌发期抗旱性鉴定与分类. 作物学报, 2014, 40(1): 110-121.
	WANG Y T, ZHOU Y F, LI F X, YI B, BAI W, YAN T, XU W J, GAO M C, HUANG R D. Identification and classification of Sorghum cultivars for drought resistance during germination stage based on principal components analysis and self organizing map cluster analysis. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2014, 40(1): 110-121. (in Chinese)

指标 Index	范围 Range	均值 Mean	均方 Mean square	变异系数 CV (%)
相对发芽势RGE	0.00-2.20	0.72	0.2914	40.22
相对发芽率RGR	0.42-2.50	0.93	0.2621	28.24
相对发芽指数RGI	0.25-2.38	0.67	0.2580	38.38
相对活力指数RVI	0.13-1.57	0.43	0.1778	41.08
相对萌发指数RPI	0.13-2.40	0.65	0.2667	41.19
相对根长RRL	0.72-2.01	1.14	0.2510	22.09
相对芽长RBL	0.48-0.90	0.73	0.0751	10.28
相对鲜重RFW	0.45-1.43	0.64	0.1120	17.44
相对干重RDW	0.71-2.65	1.13	0.2533	22.51

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin度量值 Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measurement value	Bartlett球形度检验 Bartlett’s sphericity test
0.717	近似卡方Approximate Chi-squared value	1461.741
	自由度Degrees freedom	36
	显著性Significance	0.000

指标 Index	主成分Principal component
指标 Index	第1主成分PC1	第2主成分PC2	第3主成分PC3
相对发芽势RGE	0.857	-0.142	0.258
相对发芽率RGR	0.936	-0.058	-0.182
相对发芽指数RGI	0.984	-0.070	-0.095
相对活力指数RVI	0.962	0.203	0.077
相对萌发指数RPI	0.978	-0.108	0.011
相对根长RRL	0.659	0.042	-0.430
相对芽长RBL	0.218	-0.265	0.836
相对鲜重RFW	0.156	0.832	0.427
相对干重RDW	0.061	0.919	-0.121
特征值Eigenvalues	4.969	1.691	1.195
贡献率Contribution rate (%)	55.216	18.789	13.282
累计贡献率Cumulative contribution (%)	55.216	74.005	87.287

编号 Number	CDC值 CDC values	编号 Number	D值 D values
AG37	1.6950	AG37	0.6986
AG19	1.2631	AG19	0.4767
AG5	1.1567	AG5	0.4696
AG13	1.1415	AG13	0.4415
AG23	1.0490	AG26	0.4225
AG16	1.0418	AG111	0.4182
AG14	1.0338	AG10	0.3969
AG15	0.9978	AG8	0.3933
AG10	0.9768	AG16	0.3922
AG11	0.9758	AG88	0.3733

111份紫花苜蓿种质资源萌发期抗旱性鉴定评价

Identification and Evaluation of Drought Resistance for 111 Germplasm Resources of Alfalfa During Germination Stage

RichHTML

PDF

赞

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 6

参考文献 52

相关文章 15

Metrics

本文评价

推荐阅读 0

[1]	崔节浩, 张萌, 王沁, 于佳妍, 林琨, 李尚泽, 兰恒, 耿艳秋, 张强, 郭丽颖, 邵玺文. 粳稻资源抗倒伏性评价与生理机制[J]. 中国农业科学, 2026, 59(7): 1420-1438.
[2]	陈敏氡, 裘波音, 黄昊, 李永平, 温庆放. 松花菜种质花球质地品质的评价[J]. 中国农业科学, 2026, 59(6): 1302-1316.
[3]	陈敏, 焦紫岚, 乔承彬, 许昊, 张碧, 马东花, 孔维儒, 王敬文, 宋佳伟, 罗成科, 李培富, 田蕾. 不同亚种水稻种质资源对盐胁迫的形态生理响应及适应策略[J]. 中国农业科学, 2026, 59(4): 705-722.
[4]	郝琨, 陈洪德, 张威, 钟韵, 党美荣, 朱士江, 黄志坤, 金英. 基于柑橘产量、品质及水氮利用的涌泉根灌水氮综合评价[J]. 中国农业科学, 2026, 59(4): 862-873.
[5]	何治霖, 孙翠霞, 岳红丽, 谈月霞, 张耀海, 王福生, 刘思涛, 江东. 基于重测序枸橼、柠檬类种质资源的遗传多样性分析和别罗勒烯的全基因组关联分析[J]. 中国农业科学, 2026, 59(2): 386-401.
[6]	吕涛, 孙国清, 郭栋材, 陈全家, 蔡永生, 樊标星, 曲延英, 郑凯. 海岛棉纤维强度QTL紧密连锁InDel分子标记开发及效应评价[J]. 中国农业科学, 2025, 58(9): 1684-1701.
[7]	王文娟, 师尚礼, 康文娟, 杜媛媛, 殷辰. 干旱胁迫下陇中紫花苜蓿对外源精胺的生理响应[J]. 中国农业科学, 2025, 58(4): 676-691.
[8]	陈彩锦, 马琳, 蒋庆雪, 刘金晖, 苗童, 张志鹏, 孟翔, 马晓冉, 周昕越, 张建, 刘文辉, 王学敏. 244份饲用燕麦种质资源表型性状遗传多样性分析[J]. 中国农业科学, 2025, 58(23): 4825-4836.
[9]	高荣, 李恒宇, 陈丽娟, 马晖玲. 5‑AzaC缓解紫花苜蓿盐碱胁迫的生理效应及其对DNA甲基化酶基因表达的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2025, 58(21): 4482-4496.
[10]	吕缓缓, 李如月, 刘青松, 许蕾, 徐嫣然, 于浩洁, 郭长虹, 龙瑞才. 紫花苜蓿MsKTI3基因克隆及耐盐功能分析[J]. 中国农业科学, 2025, 58(21): 4497-4511.
[11]	杨永念, 曾祥翠, 刘青松, 李如月, 龙瑞才, 陈林, 王雪, 何飞, 康俊梅, 李明娜. 盐碱胁迫下的紫花苜蓿幼苗蛋白组差异分析[J]. 中国农业科学, 2025, 58(21): 4512-4527.
[12]	穆赢通, 路景诗, 张雨桐, 石凤翎. 基于转录组和WGCNA的直立型花苜蓿抗旱关键基因识别[J]. 中国农业科学, 2025, 58(21): 4528-4543.
[13]	黄红梅, 王思琦, 杨青川, 郭长虹, 王雪. 磷转运蛋白MsPT5调控紫花苜蓿磷吸收利用[J]. 中国农业科学, 2025, 58(21): 4544-4556.
[14]	陈天晓, 曹榕, 宋倩楠, 胡亮亮, 王素华, 王丽侠, 程须珍, 陈红霖. 小豆种质资源苗期耐盐性综合评价及耐盐种质筛选[J]. 中国农业科学, 2025, 58(21): 4317-4332.
[15]	徐修远, 张洪志, 徐丽君, 薛玮, 聂莹莹, 郭明英, 李金霞, 赵雅茹, 史明江. 基于¹³C脉冲标记揭示施氮对牧草光合碳分配的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2025, 58(21): 4346-4356.