复合盐碱胁迫对OT百合生长和生理特性的影响

doi:10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202105041

国家林草科技领军期刊
中国精品科技期刊
中国高校百佳科技期刊
江苏省新闻出版政府奖期刊奖
RCCSE林学权威期刊（A+）
CSCD核心期刊
Scopus数据库收录期刊
中文核心期刊
SCD核心期刊

作者加群：102861116

微信公众号：南京林业大学学报

高级检索

南京林业大学学报（自然科学版） ›› 2022, Vol. 46 ›› Issue (4): 117-126.doi: 10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202105041

复合盐碱胁迫对OT百合生长和生理特性的影响

杨雨华(), 鉴晶晶, 邱小蝶, 王贵娇, 宗建伟()

河南牧业经济学院艺术学院,河南郑州 450046

收稿日期:2021-05-24 修回日期:2021-07-28 出版日期:2022-07-30 发布日期:2022-08-01
通讯作者: 宗建伟
基金资助:
河南省高校重点项目(21B220001);河南省科技攻关计划项目(192102110172);河南牧业经济学院博士科研启动资金项目(2018HNUAHEDF018);河南牧业经济学院博士科研启动资金项目(2018HNUAHEDF019)

Effects of combined saline-alkali stress on physiological and biochemical characteristics of OT hybrid lily

YANG Yuhua(), JIAN Jingjing, QIU Xiaodie, WANG Guijiao, ZONG Jianwei()

College of Art,Henan University of Animal Husbandry and Economy,Zhengzhou 450046,China

Received:2021-05-24 Revised:2021-07-28 Online:2022-07-30 Published:2022-08-01
Contact: ZONG Jianwei

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

【目的】揭示百合在复合盐碱胁迫下的生理响应特征。【方法】以OT杂种系百合‘红色宫殿’(Lilium ‘Red Palace’)种球为试验材料,用不同浓度的单盐(NaCl)、中性混合盐[m(NaCl):m(Na₂SO₄)=1:2]和碱性混合盐[m(NaCl): m(Na₂SO₄):m(Na₂CO₃):m(NaHCO₃)=5:23:9:3)进行胁迫处理,蒸馏水为对照(CK)。测定百合叶片及根、茎的形态指标、生物量、根冠比、相对电导率、丙二醛含量、可溶性蛋白含量、根系活力、相对含水量以及Na⁺、K⁺浓度变化。【结果】①与CK相比,3个不同盐碱处理组的百合地下生物量、总生物量和根冠比均有所降低,地上生物量和各形态指标均表现出对盐碱胁迫低促高抑的特点。②盐碱胁迫导致百合相对电导率、丙二醛含量上升;低浓胁迫促使百合根系活力升高,可溶性蛋白含量上升。当盐碱浓度高于一定值后,百合根系活力和可溶性蛋白含量均呈下降趋势。③各处理百合幼苗地上、地下的K⁺与Na⁺含量比值(记为K⁺/Na⁺值)均下降,其中碱性混合盐处理下K⁺/Na⁺值比中性混合盐和单盐处理的低。④双因素方差分析表明,盐浓度对各项指标的影响大于盐组合,且盐浓度、盐组合及其交互作用对鳞茎直径、总鲜质量、总干质量、根冠比、根系活力及相对含水量均存在极显著影响。【结论】3个盐碱处理组对百合的胁迫程度由强到弱依次为碱性混合盐>中性混合盐>单盐,这一结果可为选择适宜百合生长的土壤提供一定的理论依据。

关键词: 盐碱胁迫, OT杂种系百合, ‘红色宫殿’, 形态指标, 相对电导率, 根系活力

Abstract:

【Objective】 In this study, we aimed to investigate the physiological response of lily (Lilium) to combined saline-alkali stress in the seedling growth stage. 【Method】 The bulbs of Lilium ‘Red Palace’ were treated with single salt (NaCl), neutral mixed salt [m(NaCl):m(Na₂SO₄)=1:2], and alkali mixed salt [m(NaCl):m(Na₂SO₄):m(Na₂CO₃):m(NaHCO₃) = 5:23:9:3)]to study the morphological indicators, biomass, root-to-shoot ratios, relative conductivity, malondialdehyde content, soluble protein, root vigor, relative water content and Na⁺ and K⁺ contents in lily leaves and rhizomes. 【Result】 (1)Compared with CK, the underground and total biomass and the root-shoot ratio of lily decreased under the three saline-alkali treatments. The above-ground biomass and morphology indexes increased initially and then decreased. (2) Malondial dehyde(MDA) content and relative conductivity were enhanced by saline-alkali. Moreover, root activity and soluble protein content increased in a low-salt environment, but decreased when the saline-alkali concentration exceeded a certain value. (3) Although the K⁺/Na⁺ ratios in the aboveground and underground seedlings decreased after all treatments, the ratio was lower for the alkaline mixed salt treatment than for the neutral mixed salt or single salt treatment. (4) The Two-way analysis of variances showed that the salt concentration had a greater effect on various indexes than salt combination; salt concentration and combination and their interaction effects had significant effects on the bulb diameter, total fresh and dry weight, root-shoot ratios, root activity and relative water content. 【Conclusion】 The results indicated that the three saline-alkali treatments groups on lily decreased in the following order: alkali mixed salt> neutral mixed salt > single salt. These results can provide a theoretical basis for the selection of suitable soil for lily cultivation.

Key words: saline-alkali stress, OT hybrid lily, Lilium ‘Red Palace’, morphology index, relative conductivity, root activity

中图分类号:

S718

杨雨华,鉴晶晶,邱小蝶,等. 复合盐碱胁迫对OT百合生长和生理特性的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2022, 46(4): 117-126.

YANG Yuhua, JIAN Jingjing, QIU Xiaodie, WANG Guijiao, ZONG Jianwei. Effects of combined saline-alkali stress on physiological and biochemical characteristics of OT hybrid lily[J].Journal of Nanjing Forestry University (Natural Science Edition), 2022, 46(4): 117-126.DOI: 10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202105041.

图/表 8

图1

表1

图2

表2

图3

表3

表4

表5

参考文献 38

[1]	WU C S, LIU G H, HUANG C. Prediction of soil salinity in the Yellow River Delta using geographically weighted regression[J]. Arch Agron Soil Sci, 2017, 63(7):928-941.DOI:10.1080/03650340.2016.1249475.
[2]	LI S, HUANG Y, LI Y. Homeostatic responses and growth of Leymus chinensis under incrementally increasing saline-alkali stress[J]. Peer J, 2021, 9:e10768.DOI:10.7717/peerj.10768.
[3]	张世兴. 浇灌乙酸及草酸对葡萄盐碱胁迫的缓解作用[D]. 泰安: 山东农业大学, 2020.
	ZHANG S X. The effects of acetic acid and oxalic acid on the saline-alkali stress in grape[D]. Tai’an: Shandong Agricultural University, 2020.
[4]	李子英, 丛日春, 杨庆山, 等. 盐碱胁迫对柳树幼苗生长和渗透调节物质含量的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2017, 8(24):8511-8517.
	LI Z Y, CONG R C, YANG Q S, et al. Effects of saline-alkali stress on growth and osmotic adjustment substances in willow seedlings[J]. Acta Ecol Sin, 2017, 8(24):8511-8517.DOI:10.5846/stxb201611082263.
[5]	赵春旭, 赵鹏, 张然, 等. 外源硅对NaHCO₃胁迫下草地早熟禾萌发及幼苗生长的影响[J]. 草原与草坪, 2020, 40(2):45-52.
	ZHAO C X, ZHAO P, ZHANG R, et al. Effect of exogenous silicon on germination and seedling growth of Poa pratensis under NaHCO₃ stress[J]. Grassland Turf, 2020, 40(2):45-52.DOI:10.13817/j.cnki.cyycp.2020.02.007.
[6]	HARTUNG W, LEPORT L, Ratcliffe R G, et al. Abscisic acid concentration, root pH and anatomy do not explain growth differences of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) and lupin (Lupinus angustifolius L.) on acid and alkaline soils[J]. Plant & Soil, 2002, 240(1): 191-199. DOI: 10.1023/A:1015831610452
[7]	盛艳敏, 尹金植, 石德成, 等. 盐碱协同胁迫对向日葵抗氧化酶系统的影响[J]. 中国生物化学与分子生物学报, 2008, 24(8):704-711.
	SHENG Y M, YIN J Z, SHI D C, et al. Coordinative effects of salt and alkali stresses on sunflower antioxidative enzymes[J]. Chin J Biochem Mol Biol, 2008, 24(8):704-711. DOI:10.13865/j.cnki.cjbmb.2008.08.003.
[8]	邹春雷. 甜菜适应碱性盐胁迫的生理机制及其转录组分析[D]. 哈尔滨: 东北农业大学, 2019.
	ZOU C L. Physiological mechanism and transcriptom analysis of sugar beet(Beta vulgaris L.) in adaption to alkali-salt stress[D]. Harbin: Northeast Agricultural University, 2019.
[9]	GONG B, WANG X F, WEI M, et al. Overexpression of S-adenosylmethionine synthetase 1 enhances tomato callus tolerance to alkali stress through polyamine and hydrogen peroxide cross-linked networks[J]. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult (PCTOC), 2016, 124(2):377-391.DOI:10.1007/s11240-015-0901-5.
[10]	袁秀云, 张仙云, 马杰. 河南百合科野生花卉植物资源及观赏评价[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2009, 37(7):2935-2936.
	YUAN X Y, ZHANG X Y, MA J. Wild flower plant resources of Liliaceae in Henan and their ornamental evaluation[J]. J Anhui Agric Sci, 2009, 37(7):2935-2936.DOI:10.13989/j.cnki.0517-6611.2009.07.103.
[11]	乔宝营, 黄海帆, 张信栓, 等. 草莓叶面积简易测定方法[J]. 果树学报, 2004, 21(6):621-623.
	QIAO B Y, HUANG H F, ZHANG X S, et al. Simple methods for measuring the leaf area of strawberry[J]. J Fruit Sci, 2004, 21(6):621-623.DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1009-9980.2004.06.028.
[12]	赵春桥, 李继伟, 范希峰, 等. 不同盐胁迫对柳枝稷生物量、品质和光合生理的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2015, 35(19):6489-6495.
	ZHAO C Q, LI J W, FAN X F, et al. Effects of salt stress on biomass,quality,and photosynthetic physiology in switchgrass[J]. Acta Ecol Sin, 2015, 35(19):6489-6495.DOI:10.5846/stxb201402170269.
[13]	李合生. 现代植物生理学[M]. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2002.
	LI H S. Modern plant physiology[M]. Beijing: Higher Education Press, 2002.
[14]	邹琦. 植物生理学实验指导[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2000.
	ZOU Q. Direction for plant physiological and biochemical experiments[M]. Beijing: China Agricultural Press, 2000.
[15]	丁龙, 赵慧敏, 曾文静, 等. 五种西北旱区植物对干旱胁迫的生理响应[J]. 应用生态学报, 2017, 28(5):1455-1463.
	DING L, ZHAO H M, ZENG W J, et al. Physiological responses of five plants in northwest China arid area under drought stress[J]. Chin J Appl Ecol, 2017, 28(5):1455-1463.DOI:10.13287/j.1001-9332.201705.034.
[16]	佘建炜, 张康, 郑旭, 等. 海水处理对沼泽小叶桦苗木生长和生理的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2021, 45(5):102-108.
	SHE J W, ZHANG K, ZHENG X, et al. Effects of seawater on growth and physiology of Betula microphylla var.paludosa cutting seedlings[J]. J Nanjing For Univ (Nat Sci Ed), 2021, 45(5):102-108.
[17]	洪震, 刘术新, 洪琮浩, 等. 5种造林树种对干旱胁迫的抗性应答[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2021, 45(2):111-119.
	HONG Z, LIU S X, HONG C H, et al. Resistance response of five afforestation tree species under drought stress[J]. J Nanjing For Univ (Nat Sci Ed), 2021, 45(2):111-119.
[18]	严青青, 张巨松, 徐海江, 等. 盐碱胁迫对海岛棉幼苗生物量分配和根系形态的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2019, 39(20):7632-7640.
	YAN Q Q, ZHANG J S, XU H J, et al. Effects of saline-alkali stress on biomass allocation and root morphology of sea island cotton seedlings[J]. Acta Ecol Sin, 2019, 39(20):7632-7640.DOI: 10.5846/stxb201809091929.
[19]	孟长军. 盐胁迫对樱桃番茄幼苗形态指标的影响[J]. 吉林农业科学, 2012, 37(3):45-48.
	MENG C J. Effects of salt stress on morphological index of cherry tomato seedlings[J]. J Jilin Agric Sci, 2012, 37(3):45-48.DOI:10.16423/j.cnki.1003-8701.2012.03.014.
[20]	李子英. 盐柳幼苗对混合盐碱胁迫的生理响应[D]. 北京: 中国林业科学研究院, 2017.
	LI Z Y. Physiological responses of Salix psammophila seedlings to complex saline-alkali stress[D]. Beijing: Chinese Academy of Forestry, 2017.
[21]	陆海鹰, 张元明. 白梭梭幼苗生长和生物量分配对不同盐分类型和浓度的响应[J]. 干旱区研究, 2012, 29(2):194-202.
	LU H Y, ZHANG Y M. Response of growth and biomass allocation of Haloxylon persicum seedlings to different salt treatments[J]. Arid Zone Res, 2012, 29(2):194-202.DOI:10.13866/j.azr.2012.02.002.
[22]	刘少华, 朱学伸, 闫敏, 等. NaCl浸种对盐胁迫下杂交稻幼苗根系生长特性的影响[J]. 西南大学学报(自然科学版), 2020, 42(8):59-65.
	LIU S H, ZHU X S, YAN M, et al. Effect of NaCl seed soaking on the growth characteristics of hybrid rice seedling roots under salt stress[J]. J Southwest Univ (Nat Sci Ed), 2020, 42(8):59-65.DOI:10.13718/j.cnki.xdzk.2020.08.008.
[23]	程贝, 王卫华. 水培番茄侧根对盐胁迫的响应[J]. 中国蔬菜, 2019(8):47-53.
	CHENG B, WANG W H. Response of tomato lateral root to salt stress under hydroponic condition[J]. China Veg, 2019(8):47-53.
[24]	牛素贞, 宋勤飞, 樊卫国, 等. 干旱胁迫对喀斯特地区野生茶树幼苗生理特性及根系生长的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2017, 37(21):7333-7341.
	NIU S Z, SONG Q F, FAN W G, et al. Effects of drought stress on leaf physiological characteristics and root growth of the clone seedlings of wild tea plants[J]. Acta Ecol Sin, 2017, 37(21):7333-7341.DOI:10.5846/stxb201608161674.
[25]	贾旭梅, 朱燕芳, 王海, 等. 垂丝海棠应对盐碱复合胁迫的生理响应[J]. 生态学报, 2019, 39(17):6349-6361.
	JIA X M, ZHU Y F, WANG H, et al. Study on physiological response of Malus halliana to saline-alkali stress[J]. Acta Ecol Sin, 2019, 39(17):6349-6361.DOI:10.5846/stxb201804230919.
[26]	江钰娜, 方威, 吴瑜玮, 等. 盐胁迫对15种乔木柳插条表型和生理指标影响[J]. 西北林学院学报, 2021, 36(1):117-125.
	JIANG Y N, FANG W, WU Y W, et al. Effects of salt stress on the phenotype and growth physiological indexes of cuttings from 15 Arbor willow varieties[J]. J Northwest For Univ, 2021, 36(1):117-125.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-7461.2021.01.16.
[27]	李硕, 张毅, 姚棋, 等. 等渗盐胁迫下BR对番茄生长及渗透调节特性的影响[J]. 西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版), 2020, 48(4):130-136,145.
	LI S, ZHANG Y, YAO Q, et al. Effects of brassinolide on seedling growth and osmotic regulation characteristics of tomato under iso-osmotic salt stress[J]. J Northwest A F Univ (Nat Sci Ed), 2020, 48(4):130-136,145.DOI:10.13207/j.cnki.jnwafu.2020.04.017.
[28]	马梦茹. 盐胁迫对黑果枸杞光合生理特性及生长的影响[D]. 西宁: 青海大学, 2018.
	MA M R. Effects of salt stress on photosynthetic physiology and growth of Lycium ruthenicum Murray[D]. Xining: Qinghai University, 2018.
[29]	王伟, 万佳, 蔡梦影. 盐胁迫对黄山栾树幼苗生长的影响[J]. 南方林业科学, 2021, 49(1):12-14,20.
	WANG W, WAN J, CAI M Y. Effects of salt stress on growth characteristics of Koelreuteria bipinnata var.integrifoliola seedlings[J]. South China For Sci, 2021, 49(1):12-14,20.DOI:10.16259/j.cnki.36-1342/s.2021.01.003.
[30]	韩丽霞, 欧阳敦君, 刘文静, 等. 盐碱胁迫对流苏幼苗的生理影响[J]. 东北林业大学学报, 2020, 48(7):11-16.
	HAN L X, OUYANG D J, LIU W J, et al. Physiological response of threshold of Chionanthus retusue seedlings under salt-alkali stress[J]. J Northeast For Univ, 2020, 48(7):11-16.DOI:10.13759/j.cnki.dlxb.2020.07.003.
[31]	陆瑛, 鲁延芳, 占玉芳, 等. 盐胁迫对“宁杞1号”生长表现和生理指标的影响[J]. 林业科技通讯, 2018(5):70-75.
	LU Y, LU Y F, ZHAN Y F, et al. The influence of growth performance and physiological index in salt stress for 3 kinds of tree species[J]. For Sci Technol, 2018(5):70-75.DOI:10.13456/j.cnki.lykt.2018.05.021.
[32]	万劲, 石雷, 张金政, 等. 盐胁迫对鸢尾叶片生理指标的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2006, 30(1):57-60.
	WAN J, SHI L, ZHANG J Z, et al. Effects of salt stress on some physiological indexes in Irix leaves[J]. J Nanjing For Univ (Nat Sci Ed), 2006, 30(1): 57-60. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2006.2006.01.014.
[33]	严蓓, 孙锦, 郭世荣, 等. 钙对盐胁迫下黄瓜幼苗生长及可溶性蛋白质表达的影响[J]. 江苏农业学报, 2012, 28(4):841-845.
	YAN B, SUN J, GUO S R, et al. Effects of calcium on growth and expression of soluble protein in cucumber seedlings under salt stress[J]. Jiangsu J Agric Sci, 2012, 28(4):841-845.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-4440.2012.04.028.
[34]	赵明明. 几种冬青属植物抗寒性比较研究[D]. 南京: 南京林业大学, 2012.
	ZHAO M M. Comparative study on cold resistance of sevral Ilex tree[D]. Nanjing: Nanjing Forestry University, 2012.
[35]	高剑. 中性盐和碱性盐对龙葵(Solanum nigrum L.)的胁迫作用研究[D]. 牡丹江: 牡丹江师范学院, 2017.
	GAO J. Study on the stress effects of neutral salt and alkaline salts on Solanum nigrum L.[D]. Mudanjiang: Mudanjiang Normal University, 2017.
[36]	马德源, 战伟龑, 杨洪兵, 等. 荞麦主要拒Na⁺部位及其Na⁺/H⁺逆向转运活性的研究[J]. 中国农业科学, 2011, 44(1):185-191.
	MA D Y, ZHAN W Y, YANG H B, et al. Study on main Na⁺ exclusion localization and Na⁺/H⁺ antiport activity of buckwheat[J]. Sci Agric Sin, 2011, 44(1):185-191.DOI:10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2011.01.022.
[37]	周志林, 唐君, 曹清河, 等. NaCl胁迫对甘薯植株体内K⁺、Na⁺和Cl^-含量及生长的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2017, 19(4):17-23.
	ZHOU Z L, TANG J, CAO Q H, et al. Effect of NaCl stress on the content of K⁺,Na⁺and Cl^- and the growth of sweet potato plants[J]. J Agric Sci Technol, 2017, 19(4):17-23.DOI:10.13304/j.nykjdb.2016.501.
[38]	李茹玉, 柴薇薇, 郭晓农, 等. 盐处理对罗布麻(Apocynum venetum)幼苗渗透调节的影响[J]. 分子植物育种, 2020, 18(12):4105-4110.
	LI R Y, CHAI W W, GUO X N, et al. Effect of salt treatment on osmotic adjustment of Apocynum venetum seedlings[J]. Mol Plant Breed, 2020, 18(12):4105-4110.DOI:10.13271/j.mpb.018.004105.

处理 treatment	浓度/ (mmol·L^-1) concentration	地上部分生物量/g aboveground biomass		地下部分生物量/g underground biomass		总生物量/g total biomass		根冠比 ratio of root to shoot
处理 treatment	浓度/ (mmol·L^-1) concentration	鲜质量 fresh weight	干质量 dry weight	鲜质量 fresh weight	干质量 dry weight	鲜质量 fresh weight	干质量 dry weight	根冠比 ratio of root to shoot
单盐(Ⅰ) single salt	CK	45±1.54 b	6.09±0.10 b	80±2.65 a	26.93±0.41 a	125±1.21 a	33.01±0.48 a	4.42±0.06 a
	50	50±1.83 a	6.63±0.29 a	75±1.00 b	22.34±0.59 c	125±1.73 a	28.97±0.72 c	3.38±0.15 c
	100	48±1.67 ab	6.26±0.29 b	75±1.53 b	21.62±0.45 c	123±1.11 ab	27.88±0.20 d	3.46±0.22 c
	150	45±2.36 b	6.01±0.10 b	75±1.00 b	24.86±0.33 b	120±3.17 ab	30.87±0.43 b	4.14±0.01 b
	200	40±2.76 c	5.46±0.23 c	60±2.65 c	16.47±0.17 d	100±3.59 c	21.93±0.09 e	3.02±0.15 d
中性混合盐(Ⅱ) neutral mixed salt	CK	45±1.54 c	6.09±0.98 d	80±2.65 a	26.93±0.41 a	125±1.21 c	33.01±0.48 c	4.42±0.15 b
	50	55±1.37 b	9.56±0.21 b	72±1.73 b	26.37±1.39 b	127±1.84 bc	33.93±1.20 bc	2.55±0.28 b
	100	59±0.41 a	9.82±0.29 b	67±1.53 bc	24.80±0.16 b	128±1.54 b	34.62±0.26 b	2.53±0.50 b
	150	59±1.40 a	10.99±0.78 a	79±1.53 ac	27.95±0.53 a	139±0.36 a	38.95±0.38 a	2.55±0.50 ab
	200	42±0.65 d	7.78±0.21 c	58±0.58 c	16.02±0.91 c	101±0.54 d	23.79±0.70 d	2.06±0.58 a
碱性混合盐(Ⅲ) alkali mixed salt	CK	45±1.54 b	6.09±0.10 c	80±2.65 a	26.93±0.41 b	125±1.21 b	33.01±0.48 b	4.42±0.06 a
	50	65±2.17 a	8.75±0.22 a	85±3.61 a	31.85±0.73 a	150±1.46 a	40.60±0.81 a	3.64±0.10 b
	100	45±1.05 b	6.53±0.24 b	60±2.65 b	19.54±0.52 c	105±1.60 c	26.07±0.70 c	3.00±0.08 c
	150	45±1.23 b	6.35±0.17 bc	57±2.65 bc	18.60±0.07 cd	102±1.44 c	24.95±0.24 cd	2.93±0.07 c
	200	42±1.61 b	6.18±0.15 c	53±3.61 c	17.82±0.98 d	95±5.13 d	23.99±1.09 d	2.88±0.11 c

处理 treatment	浓度/ (mmol·L^-1) concentration	地上部分 aboveground section			地下部分 underground section
处理 treatment	浓度/ (mmol·L^-1) concentration	c(Na⁺) / (mmol·g^-1)	c(K⁺)/ (mmol·g^-1)	K⁺/Na⁺值 ratio of K⁺ to Na⁺	c(Na⁺) / (mmol·g^-1)	c(K⁺)/ (mmol·g^-1)	K⁺/Na⁺值 ratio of K⁺ to Na⁺
	0	1.69±0.13 e	14.19±0.25 ab	8.39±0.56 a	14.43±0.15 c	6.89±0.19 a	0.48±0.02 a
	50	1.98±0.09 d	14.28±0.24 a	7.21±0.13 b	14.66±0.14 bc	6.94±0.13 a	0.47±0.04 a
Ⅰ	100	2.26±0.12 c	14.30±0.28 a	6.33±0.21 c	15.57±0.35 b	6.95±0.07 a	0.45±0.03 a
	150	3.09±0.06 b	13.47±0.53 bc	4.36±0.12 d	16.69±0.92 a	6.60±0.33 a	0.40±0.04 b
	200	3.71±0.21 a	13.12±0.47 c	3.54±0.07 d	17.30±0.34 a	5.47±0.15 b	0.32±0.03 c
	0	1.69±0.13 d	14.19±0.25 a	8.39±0.56 a	14.43±0.15 d	6.89±0.19 a	0.48±0.02 a
	50	2.00±0.07 d	14.26±0.24 a	7.14±0.35 b	14.60±0.30 d	6.92±0.29 a	0.47±0.02 a
Ⅱ	100	2.35±0.20 c	13.90±0.14 a	5.92±0.45 c	15.16±0.27 c	6.55±0.17 ab	0.43±0.02 b
	150	3.19±0.24 b	13.12±0.30 b	4.12±0.28 d	16.30±0.32 b	6.13±0.42 bc	0.38±0.03 c
	200	3.86±0.12 a	11.89±0.24 c	3.08±0.12 e	20.19±0.30 a	5.68±0.17 c	0.28±0.01 d
	0	1.69±0.13 e	14.19±0.25 a	8.39±0.26 a	14.43±0.15 d	6.89±0.19 a	0.48±0.02 a
	50	2.67±0.08 d	14.20±0.22 a	5.32±0.11 b	16.60±0.50 c	6.90±0.24 a	0.42±0.05 b
Ⅲ	100	3.42±0.13 c	13.12±0.35 b	3.84±0.11 c	20.20±0.24 b	6.24±0.29 b	0.31±0.03 bc
	150	4.31±0.04 b	12.08±0.14 c	2.80±0.06 cd	20.70±0.50 b	5.93±0.26 b	0.29±0.03 bc
	200	4.99±0.09 a	10.90±0.38 d	2.18±0.17 d	21.77±0.71 a	4.89±0.47 c	0.22±0.03 c

胁变指标 strain index	盐浓度 salinity		盐处理 salt treatment		盐浓度×盐处理 salinity×salt treatment
胁变指标 strain index	F	P	F	P	F	P
相对电导率relative conductivity	7.216	0.001^**	0.960	0.527	1.970	0.138
丙二醛含量MDA content	0.816	0.530	0.891	0.588	0.288	0.882
可溶性蛋白含量soluble protein	0.837	0.517	0.364	0.978	0.293	0.879
总鲜质量total fresh weight	322.239	<0.001^**	62.796	<0.001^**	96.358	<0.001^**
总干质量total dry weight	434.150	<0.001^**	187.612	<0.001^**	150.211	<0.001^**
根冠比ratio of root to shoot	12.277	<0.001^**	92.936	<0.001^**	16.033	<0.001^**
根系活力root activity	557.806	<0.001^**	517.134	<0.001^**	691.707	<0.001^**
相对含水量relative water content	65.378	<0.001^**	20.139	<0.001^**	5.789	<0.001^**

处理 treatment	指标 index	总鲜质量 total fresh weight	总干质量 total dry weight	根冠比 ratio of root to shoot	相对电导率 relative conductivity	丙二醛含量 MDA content	可溶性蛋白含量 soluble protein content	根系活力 root activity	相对含水量 relative water content
	总鲜质量	1
	总干质量	0.994^**	1
	根冠比	0.662^**	0.676^**	1
Ⅰ	相对电导率	-0.422	-0.383	-0.485	1
	丙二醛含量	-0.189	-0.200	-0.288	-0.014	1
	可溶性蛋白含量	-0.347	-0.369	-0.189	-0.079	0.497	1
	根系活力	0.873^**	0.863^**	0.224	-0.174	-0.077	-0.354	1
	相对含水量	0.822^**	0.603^*	0.260	-0.257	-0.099	-0.656^**	0.829^**	1
	总鲜质量	1
	总干质量	0.987^**	1
	根冠比	-0.366	-0.347	1
Ⅱ	相对电导率	-0.422	-0.459	0.707^**	1
	丙二醛含量	-0.281	-0.226	0.096	0.029	1
	可溶性蛋白含量	-0.111	-0.110	-0.214	-0.207	0.263	1
	根系活力	0.516^*	0.529^*	0.399	0.316	0.066	0.111	1
	相对含水量	0.352	0.340	-0.684^**	-0.679^**	-0.008	-0.164	-0.397	1
	总鲜质量	1
	总干质量	0.844^**	1
	根冠比	0.560^*	0.883^**	1
Ⅲ	相对电导率	-0.492	-0.522^*	-0.522^*	1
	丙二醛含量	-0.015	0.017	0.017	-0.313	1
	可溶性蛋白含量	-0.504	-0.363	-0.363	0.014	-0.241	1
	根系活力	0.657^**	0.257	0.257	-0.306	0.022	-0.518^*	1
	相对含水量	0.849^**	0.818^**	0.739^**	-0.719^**	-0.298	-0.341	0.607^*	1

处理 treatment	总鲜质量 total fresh weight	总干质量 total dry weight	根冠比 ratio of root to shoot	相对电导率 relative conductivity	丙二醛含量 MDA content	可溶性蛋白含量 soluble protein content	根系活力 root activity	相对含水量 relative water content	平均值 mean
Ⅰ	0.251	0.404	0.527	0.538	0.462	0.405	0.564	0.360	0.439
Ⅱ	0.389	0.402	0.662	0.627	0.503	0.567	0.656	0.423	0.529
Ⅲ	0.629	0.655	0.681	0.670	0.542	0.529	0.729	0.397	0.604

复合盐碱胁迫对OT百合生长和生理特性的影响

Effects of combined saline-alkali stress on physiological and biochemical characteristics of OT hybrid lily

RichHTML

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 8

参考文献 38

相关文章 10

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

作者

读者

审稿

[1]	姜磊, 李焕勇, 张芹, 张会龙, 乔艳辉, 张华新, 杨秀艳. AM真菌对盐碱胁迫下杜梨幼苗生长与生理代谢的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2020, 44(6): 152-160.
[2]	王宁, 袁美丽. 入侵植物节节麦种子萌发及幼苗生长对盐碱胁迫的响应[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2020, 44(5): 167-173.
[3]	周思婕, 王平, 张敏, 陈舒展, 许雯, 朱丽婷, 何销勤, 龚书锐. 大气酸沉降对马尾松幼苗根系生理特性的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2020, 44(4): 111-118.
[4]	郭芳芸, 曹兵, 宋丽华, 哈蓉. CO₂浓度升高对宁夏枸杞果实发育期形态指标及糖分积累影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2020, 44(1): 105-110.
[5]	蔡军火,李金峰,魏绪英,张露. 石蒜叶期生物量、根系活力的动态变化及更替规律[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2018, 42(01): 55-59.
[6]	丁彦芬,高俊飞,张利. 配方施肥对榉树幼苗生长的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2014, 38(增刊): 35-38.
[7]	罗英,薛建辉,尹璐,吴殿鸣. 模拟酸雨对水芹根部NH⁺₄、NO^-₃、H⁺ 离子通量的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2012, 36(02): 101-105.
[8]	金钢，叶建仁*. 不同致病力线虫侵染后黑松的水势和根系活力的变化[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2009, 33(06): 53-.
[9]	吴薇,高捍东*,蔡伟建. 盐碱胁迫和No处理对杂交新美柳根系活力的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2008, 32(04): 59-62.
[10]	黄宝龙;刘成林. 湿地松苗木品质指标的选择与分级[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 1988, 12(03): 15-23.