不同楸树品种对茎腐病的抗性差异研究

doi:10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202203017

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） ›› 2024, Vol. 48 ›› Issue (2): 155-165.doi: 10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202203017

不同楸树品种对茎腐病的抗性差异研究

祝艳艳(), 贾瑞瑞, 付钰, 常林, 岳远征, 杨秀莲, 王良桂^*()

南京林业大学风景院林学院,江苏省风景园林重点实验室,江苏南京 210037

收稿日期:2022-03-06 修回日期:2022-04-19 出版日期:2024-03-30 发布日期:2024-04-08
通讯作者: *王良桂(wlg@njfu.com.cn),教授。
作者简介:祝艳艳(3151680171@qq.com)。
基金资助:
江苏省农业科技自主创新资金项目(CX(19)2038);江苏省林业科技创新与推广项目(LYKJ(20019)05)

Differences in resistance of Catalpa bungei cultivars to stem rot

ZHU Yanyan(), JIA Ruirui, FU Yu, CHANG Lin, YUE Yuanzheng, YANG Xiulian, WANG Lianggui^*()

College of Landscape Architecture, Nanjing Forestry University,Jiangsu Provincial Key Laboratory of Landscape Architecture,Nanjing 210037,China

Received:2022-03-06 Revised:2022-04-19 Online:2024-03-30 Published:2024-04-08

1. 不同楸树品种对茎腐病的抗性差异研究.zip(32849KB)

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

【目的】探究不同品种和不同繁殖方式楸树(Catalpa bungei)苗对烟草疫霉(Phytophthora nicotianae)(菌株QS.1)侵染的抗性差异,为楸树引种栽培、抗病育种提供依据。【方法】以‘洛楸1号’组培苗(LQ-Z)、‘金丝楸’(JSQ)、‘楸杂1号’(QZ)、‘豫楸1号’(YQ)的1年生组培苗,以及‘洛楸1号’扦插苗(LQ-Q)、‘楸树5-8’(Q5-8)、‘楸树8-1’(Q8-1)的1年生扦插苗,6个生产上推广的楸树品种为试验材料,用烟草疫霉(菌株QS.1)进行侵染,测定楸树相关渗透物质含量、保护酶活性和光合气体参数等变化,分析不同处理楸树幼苗感染烟草疫霉(菌株QS.1)后的生理指标变化。【结果】菌株QS.1侵染后2~4 d,供试的各楸树品种均感病。楸树品种组培苗中,‘楸杂1号’和‘豫楸1号’对菌株QS.1侵染的抗性最弱,‘金丝楸’的抗病力最强;楸树品种扦插苗中,‘楸树5-8’和‘楸树8-1’对菌株QS.1侵染抗性较强;‘洛楸1号’扦插苗抗病性大于组培苗,除‘金丝楸’外,楸树品种的扦插苗较组培苗具有更高的抗性。【结论】不同楸树品种在接菌后感染致病存在差异,不同楸树品种的抗烟草疫霉(菌株QS.1)致病能力与光合性能的维持及防御相关酶活性的调节有关。

关键词: 楸树品种, 烟草疫霉(菌株QS.1), 抗性差异, 生理指标, 繁殖方式

Abstract:

【Objective】 To investigate the differences in resistance to Phytophthora nicotianae (strain QS.1) infestation by Catalpa bungei cultivars and breeding methods, providing basis for C. bungei introduction and cultivation and disease resistance breeding. 【Method】 The annual seedlings of ‘Jinsiqiu’ (JSQ),‘Qiuza 1 hao’ (QZ),‘Yuqiu 1 hao’ (YQ),‘Luoqiu 1 hao’ (LQ-Z)tissue cultured seedlings,and cutting seedling‘Luoqiu 1 hao’(LQ-Q),‘Qiu5-8’(Q5-8), ‘Qiu 8-1’(Q8-1),six C. bungei cultivars were used as experimental materials and infested with P. nicotianae strain QS.1 to determine relevant osmotic substance content,protective enzyme activity and photosynthetic gas parameters. 【Result】 After infection 2-4 d by strain QS.1,all C. bungei cultivars tested were susceptible to the disease and in the case of seedlings ‘Qiuza 1 hao’ and ‘Yuqiu 1 hao’ had the weakest resistance to the disease caused by the strain QS.1,while ‘Jinsiqiu’ had the strongest resistance to the disease; as far as the cuttings of C. bungei cultivars were concerned,Q5-8 and Q8-1 were more resistant to the infection of strain QS.1; ‘Luoqiu 1 hao’ cuttings were more resistant to the disease than the histoculture seedlings,and the cuttings of other species had stronger resistance to QS.1 infection than the histoculture seedlings,except for‘JSQ’.【Conclusion】 There were differences in infection pathogenesis among different C. bungei cultivars after inoculation. The pathogenic ability of different C. bungei cultivars against P. nicotianae strain QS.1 is related to the maintenance of photosynthetic performance and the regulation of defense-related enzyme activities.

Key words: Catalpa bungei cultivars, Phtophthora nicotianae (strain QS.1), resistance difference, physiological index, propagation method

中图分类号:

S763.7

祝艳艳,贾瑞瑞,付钰,等. 不同楸树品种对茎腐病的抗性差异研究[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2024, 48(2): 155-165.

ZHU Yanyan, JIA Ruirui, FU Yu, CHANG Lin, YUE Yuanzheng, YANG Xiulian, WANG Lianggui. Differences in resistance of Catalpa bungei cultivars to stem rot[J].Journal of Nanjing Forestry University (Natural Science Edition), 2024, 48(2): 155-165.DOI: 10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202203017.

图/表 18

图1

表1

图2

图3

图4

图5

图6

图7

图8

图9

图10

图11

图12

图13

图14

表2

表3

表4

参考文献 29

[1]	HUANG W L, YE N L, XIAN B H. Investigation of stem base rot of sweetpotato and the pathogeny identification[J]. Chinese Agri Cultural Science Bulletin, 2019, 35(18):135141.
[2]	CHANG L, LIU K, WANG L G, et al. First report of Phytophthora nicotianae causing stem canker of Catalpa bungei (Chinese Catalpa) in China[J]. Plant Dis, 2022, 106(4):1309.DOI: 10.1094/PDIS-08-21-1778-PDN.
[3]	CLINE E T, FARR D F, ROSSMAN A Y. A synopsis of Phytophthora with accurate scientific names,host range,and geographic distribution[J]. Plant Heath Prog, 2008, 9(1):32.DOI: 10.1094/php-2008-0318-01-rs.
[4]	BAI G, YANG D H, CHAO P J, et al. Genome-wide identification and expression analysis of NtbHLH gene family in tobacco (Ni-cotiana tabacum) and the role of NtbHLH86 in drought adaptation[J]. Plant Divers, 2021, 43(6):510-522.DOI: 10.1016/j.pld.2020.10.004.
[5]	BOUGHALLEB-M’HAMDI N, BENFRADJ N, MIGLIORINI D, et al. Phytophthora nicotianae and P.cryptogea causing gummosis of citrus crops in Tunisia[J]. Trop Plant Pathol, 2018, 43(1):36-48.DOI: 10.1007/s40858-017-0180-2.
[6]	林霞. 樱桃抗茎腐病机理与效应因子PnAvh241功能初步研究[D]. 烟台: 烟台大学, 2019.
	LIN X. Study on the cherry resistance mechanism of stem rot disease and the function of the RxLR effector PnAvh241[D]. Yantai: Yantai University, 2019.
[7]	陈瑞泰, 朱贤朝, 王智发, 等. 全国16个主产烟省(区)烟草侵染性病害调研报告[J]. 中国烟草科学, 1997, 18(4):1-7.
	CHEN R T, ZHU X C, WANG Z F, et al. A report of investigating and studying tobacco infectious diseases of 16 main tobacco producing provinces(regions)in China[J]. Chin Tob Sci, 1997, 18(4):1-7.
[8]	PANABI R F, GUL S, ALI G, et al. Phytophthora nicotianae diseases worldwide: new knowledge of a long-recognised pathogen[J]. Phytopathol Mediterr, 2016, 55(1):20-40.DOI: 10.14601/Phytopathol_Mediterr-16423.
[9]	ZHANG C S, FENG C, ZHENG Y F, et al. Root exudates metabolic profiling suggests distinct defense mechanisms between resistant and susceptible tobacco cultivars against black shank di-sease[J]. Front Plant Sci, 2020, 11:559775.DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2020.559775.
[10]	李合生, 孙群, 赵世杰. 植物生理生化实验原理和技术[M]. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2000.
	LI H S, SUN Q, ZHAO S J. Principles and techniques of plant physiological and piochemical pxperiments[M]. Beijing: Higher Education Press, 2000.
[11]	杨兰芳, 庞静, 彭小兰, 等. 紫外分光光度法测定植物过氧化氢酶活性[J]. 现代农业科技, 2009(20):364-366.
	YANG L F, PANG J, PENG X L, et al. Measurement of catalase activity in plants by ultraviolet spectrophotometry[J]. Mod Agric Sci Technol, 2009(20):364-366.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-5739.2009.20.247.
[12]	DODDS P N, RATHJEN J P. Plant immunity:towards an integrated view of plant-pathogen interactions[J]. Nat Rev Genet, 2010, 11(8):539-548.DOI: 10.1038/nrg2812.
[13]	赵小虎, 陈翠莲, 焦春香, 等. 不同油菜品种对油菜菌核病敏感性差异的生理生化特性研究[J]. 华中农业大学学报, 2006, 25(5):488-492.
	ZHAO X H, CHEN C L, JIAO C X, et al. Physiological and biochemical reaction responses to Sclerotium blight inoculation among different rapeseed varieties[J]. J Huazhong Agric Univ (Nat Sci Ed), 2006, 25(5):488-492.DOI: 10.13300/j.cnki.hnlkxb.2006.05.007.
[14]	李赤, 于莉, 刘付东标, 等. 富贵竹中可溶性糖、蛋白质含量与细菌性茎腐病的关系[J]. 吉林农业大学学报, 2007, 29(6):620-622.
	LI C, YU L, LIU F D B, et al. Relation between contents of soluble sugar and protein in Dracaena sanderiana Virens and bacterial stem rot[J]. J Jilin Agric Univ, 2007, 29(6):620-622.DOI: 10.13327/j.jjlau.2007.06.011.
[15]	杨汉波, 曹广黎, 韩珊, 等. 核桃对炭疽病菌抗性相关的生理生化响应差异研究[J]. 四川农业大学学报, 2020, 38(4):463-470.
	YANG H B, CAO G L, HAN S, et al. Study on the difference in physiological and biochemical response of walnut (Juglans spp.) to anthracnose resistance[J]. J Sichuan Agric Univ, 2020, 38(4):463-470.DOI: 10.16036/j.issn.1000-2650.2020.04.012.
[16]	ALI S, KHAN A S, ANJUM M A, et al. Effect of postharvest oxalic acid application on enzymatic browning and quality of lotus (Nelumbo nucifera Gaertn.) root slices[J]. Food Chem, 2020, 312:126051.DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2019.126051.
[17]	朱学明, 史祥鹏, 雍道敬, 等. 内生放线菌A-1诱导苹果对炭疽叶枯病的抗性[J]. 植物生理学报, 2015, 51(6):949-954.
	ZHU X M, SHI X P, YONG D J, et al. Induction of resistance against Glomerella cingulata in apple by endophytic actinomycetes strain A-1[J]. Plant Physiol J, 2015, 51(6):949-954.DOI: 10.13592/j.cnki.ppj.2015.0129.
[18]	王莎莎, 盛业龙, 马文广, 等. 抗氧化系统参与不同抗性烟草品种幼苗对干旱和低温综合抗性的形成[J]. 生物技术通报, 2014(1):132-142.
	WANG S S, SHENG Y L, MA W G, et al. Involvement of antioxidant defense system in drought and chilling comprehensive resistance formation in different resistant varieties of tobacco seedlings[J]. Biotechnol Bull, 2014(1):132-142.DOI: 10.13560/j.cnki.biotech.bull.1985.2014.01.025.
[19]	刘杜玲, 张博勇, 孙红梅, 等. 早实核桃不同品种抗寒性综合评价[J]. 园艺学报, 2015, 34(3):967-974.
	LIU D L, ZHANG B Y, SUN H M, et al. Comprehensive evaluation on cold resistance of early fruiting walnut cultivars[J]. Acta Hortic Sin, 2015, 34(3):967-974.DOI: 10.16420/j.issn.0513-353x.2014-0917.
[20]	张燕梅, 李栋梁, 李俊峰, 等. 烟草疫霉侵染后剑麻H.11648叶片细胞超微结构和防御酶活性研究[J]. 热带作物学报, 2018, 39(6):1161-1165.
	ZHANG Y M, LI D L, LI J F, et al. Changes in ultrastructure and activities of defense-related enzymes in leaves of sisal H.11648 after Phytophthora nicotianae Breda infection[J]. Chin J Trop Crops, 2018, 39(6):1161-1165.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2561.2018.06.018.
[21]	MAGBANUA Z V, DE MORAES C M, BROOKS T D, et al. Is ca-talase activity one of the factors associated with maize resistance to Aspergillus flavus?[J]. Mol Plant Microbe Interact, 2007, 20(6):697-706.DOI: 10.1094/MPMI-20-6-0697.
[22]	YANG H, LUO P G. Changes in photosynthesis could provide important insight into the interaction between wheat and fungal pathogens[J]. Int J Mol Sci, 2021, 22(16):8865.DOI: 10.3390/ijms22168865.
[23]	MOHSENZADEH S, MALBOOBI M A, RAZAVI K, et al. Physiological and molecular responses of Aeluropus lagopoides (Poaceae) to water deficit[J]. Environ Exp Bot, 2006, 56(3):314-322.DOI: 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2005.03.008.
[24]	BERGER S, SINHA A K, ROITSCH T. Plant physiology meets phytopathology:plant primary metabolism and plant-pathogen interactions[J]. J Exp Bot, 2007, 58(15/16):4019-4026.DOI: 10.1093/jxb/erm298.
[25]	KRETSCHMER M, DAMOO D, DJAMEI A, et al. Chloroplasts and plant immunity:where are the fungal effectors?[J]. Pathogens, 2019, 9(1):19.DOI: 10.3390/pathogens9010019.
[26]	马迎莉, 高雨, 袁婷婷, 等. 重金属铬胁迫对髯毛箬竹光合特性的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2019, 43(1):54-60.
	MA Y L, GAO Y, YUAN T T, et al. Effects of heavy metal chromium stress on the photosynthetic characteristics of Indocalamus barbatus McClure[J]. J Nanjing For Univ (Nat Sci Ed), 2019, 43(1):54-60.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2006.201712013.
[27]	STEWART J D, ZINE EL ABIDINE A, BERNIER P Y. Stomatal and mesophyll limitations of photosynthesis in black spruce seedlings during multiple cycles of drought[J]. Tree Physiol, 1995, 15(1):57-64.DOI: 10.1093/treephys/15.1.57.
[28]	FARQUHAR G D, SHARKEY T D. Stomatal conductance and photosynthesis[J]. Annu Rev Plant Physiol, 1982, 33:317-345.DOI: 10.1146/annurev.pp.33.060182.001533.
[29]	WAHID A, GELANI S, ASHRAF M, et al. Heat tolerance in plants:an overview[J]. Environ Exp Bot, 2007, 61(3):199-223.

繁殖方式 propagation methods	楸树品种 varieties	发病率/% incidence rate	感病指数/% disease infected index	抗病评价 resistance evaluation
组培 tissue culture	JSQ	16.67	8.58±0.54 c	高抗
	QZ	70.37	62.04±0.80 a	高感
	YQ	68.96	61.76±0.66 a	高感
	LQ-Z	60.00	44.49±0.50 b	中抗
扦插 cutting	LQ-Q	28.00	9.51±0.64 c	高抗
	Q5-8	55.00	41.36±0.74 a	中抗
	Q8-1	44.00	38.36±0.79 b	中抗

相关因子 correlation factors	CAT	SOD	POD	Pro	SS	SP	REC	Chla	Chlb	Ci	Gs	Pn	Tr
CAT	1
SOD	0.662^**	1
POD	0.711^**	0.647^**	1
Pro	-0.040	-0.324	0.002	1
SS	0.461^*	0.298	0.605^**	0.340	1
SP	0.555^**	0.403^*	0.381^*	0.107	0.280	1
REC	-0.267	-0.578^**	-0.252	0.104	-0.184	-0.050	1
Chla	0.398^*	0.487^**	0.253	-0.384^*	0.097	0.512^**	-0.122	1
Chlb	0.391^*	0.496^**	0.253	-0.329	0.175	0.549^**	-0.104	0.952^**	1
Ci	0.155	0.281	0.194	0.128	0.221	0.256	-0.351	-0.115	0.003	1
Gs	0.273	0.451^*	0.021	-0.194	-0.160	0.560^**	-0.427^*	0.572^**	0.585^**	0.160	1
Pn	0.227	0.365	-0.102	-0.200	-0.228	0.411^*	-0.358	0.643^**	0.606^**	-0.136	0.879^**	1
Tr	0.213	0.433^*	0.060	-0.315	-0.132	0.309	-0.377^*	0.540^**	0.549^**	0.016	0.755^**	0.735^**	1

相关因子 correlation factors	因子载荷load
相关因子 correlation factors	1	2	3	4
CAT	0.822	-0.149	0.382	0.013
SOD	0.817	-0.207	0.411	-0.064
POD	0.802	-0.373	-0.247	0.287
Pro	0.779	0.328	-0.196	-0.344
SS	0.745	-0.524	-0.086	0.212
SP	0.726	-0.403	-0.198	0.017
REC	0.673	0.221	0.221	0.493
Chla	0.643	0.539	0.148	-0.078
Chlb	0.203	0.797	0.161	0.102
Ci	0.457	0.745	0.133	-0.249
Gs	-0.475	-0.150	0.727	0.176
Pn	0.169	0.420	-0.575	0.228
Tr	-0.309	0.392	-0.041	0.753
特征值eigenvalue	5.142	2.630	1.436	1.221
贡献率/% contribution rate	39.556	30.229	11.048	9.392
累计贡献率/% cumulative contribution rate	39.556	69.785	80.833	90.225

品种 species	各因子得分 score of each factor				综合得分 compre- hensive score	排序 sorting
品种 species	1	2	3	4	综合得分 compre- hensive score	排序 sorting
JSQ	0.991	1.645	1.196	-0.269	0.831	2
QZ	-1.964	-0.894	0.907	0.338	-0.827	6
YQ	-2.654	-0.434	0.325	0.663	-1.041	7
LQ-Z	0.795	-1.330	-0.567	0.596	0.040	4
LQ-Q	2.683	-0.538	-0.603	0.443	0.929	1
Q5-8	-0.048	-0.111	-1.174	-0.152	-0.185	5
Q8-1	0.198	1.663	-0.085	-1.619	0.253	3

不同楸树品种对茎腐病的抗性差异研究

Differences in resistance of Catalpa bungei cultivars to stem rot

RichHTML

PDF

详细数据

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 18

参考文献 29

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

作者

读者

审稿

[1]	张赞培, 谷月营, 尚旭岚, 王纪, 方升佐. 自然低温下23个青钱柳家系耐寒性评价[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2024, 48(4): 85-92.
[2]	陈菊艳, 邓伦秀, 李鹤, 龙海燕, 徐超然. 遮光对贵州原产两种金花茶生长发育和生理特性的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2022, 46(3): 83-90.
[3]	王瑞,陈隆升,王湘南,唐炜,彭映赫,张震,李安亮,陈永忠. 氮素形态对油茶苗木生长及生理指标的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2019, 43(04): 26-32.
[4]	岳晋军,王涛,彭镇华,李潞滨,顾小平,袁金玲,吴晓丽,刘正娥. 圣音竹及其回复突变体笋期的碳氮代谢特征分析[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2018, 42(01): 60-66.
[5]	戴前莉,李金花,胡建军,卢孟柱,GIUSEPPENervo. 增施铁对镉胁迫下柳树生长及光合生理性能的改善[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2017, 41(02): 63-72.
[6]	吴文浩,曹凡,刘壮壮,彭方仁2Symbolj@@,梁有旺,谭鹏鹏. NAA对薄壳山核桃扦插生过程中内源激素含量变化的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2016, 40(05): 191-196.
[7]	鲁路,张景波,陈金慧,周艳威,成铁龙. 比拉底白刺苗期抗旱性分析[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2015, 39(06): 51-55.
[8]	曹加杰,陆俊安,阮宏华. 水下光照补偿对沉水植物苦草生长及主要生理指标的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2014, 38(05): 102-106.
[9]	王曙光,林树燕,丁雨龙. 云南箭竹叶片对长期高温环境的适应性生理变化[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2014, 38(04): 87-90.
[10]	闫绍鹏,杨瑞华,王秋玉. 低温胁迫对欧美杂种山杨无性系的生理影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2013, 37(06): 161-164.
[11]	李园园，杨光，韦睿，孙延爽，郭玉华，张瑞萍，刘桂丰. 转TabZIP*基因白桦的获得及耐盐性分析[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2013, 37(05): 6-12.
[12]	刘奕琳,万福绪,娄晓瑞. 盐胁迫对10个墨西哥柏种源幼苗生理生化的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2013, 37(04): 29-33.
[13]	王斌. NaCl和Na₂SO₄胁迫下沼泽小叶桦的生理响应[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2013, 37(01): 132-136.
[14]	王树凤，孙海菁，陈益泰，袁媛. 模拟干旱胁迫下弗吉尼亚栎苗木叶片相关生理参数的分析[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2011, 35(06): 6-10.
[15]	李乃伟，束晓春，张明霞，夏冰，彭峰. 土壤含水量对红豆杉紫杉醇含量及相关生理指标的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2011, 35(03): 14-.