花前渍水锻炼调控花后小麦耐渍性的生理机制研究

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1006.2022.11005

作物学报 ›› 2022, Vol. 48 ›› Issue (1): 151-164.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2022.11005

所属专题：小麦：耕作栽培·生理生化

花前渍水锻炼调控花后小麦耐渍性的生理机制研究

马博闻(), 李庆, 蔡剑, 周琴, 黄梅, 戴廷波, 王笑^*(), 姜东^*()

南京农业大学农学院 / 农业部作物生理生态与生产管理重点实验室, 江苏南京 210095

收稿日期:2021-01-10 接受日期:2021-04-14 出版日期:2022-01-12 网络出版日期:2021-06-02
通讯作者: 王笑,姜东
作者简介:E-mail: 2017101016@njau.edu.cn, Tel: 025-84399623
基金资助:
国家重点研发计划项目(2016YFD0300107);国家重点研发计划项目(2017YFD0300205);国家自然科学基金项目(31771693);国家自然科学基金项目(U1803235);国家现代农业产业技术体系建设专项(CARS-03);江苏省协同创新中心项目资助(JCIC-MCP)

Physiological mechanisms of pre-anthesis waterlogging priming on waterlogging stress tolerance under post-anthesis in wheat

MA Bo-Wen(), LI Qing, CAI Jian, ZHOU Qin, HUANG Mei, DAI Ting-Bo, WANG Xiao^*(), JIANG Dong^*()

College Agronomy, Nanjing Agricultural University / Key Laboratory of Crop Physiology Ecology and Production Management of Ministry of Agriculture, Nanjing 210095, Jiangsu, China

Received:2021-01-10 Accepted:2021-04-14 Published:2022-01-12 Published online:2021-06-02
Contact: WANG Xiao,JIANG Dong
Supported by:
National Key Research and Development Program of China(2016YFD0300107);National Key Research and Development Program of China(2017YFD0300205);National Natural Science Foundation of China(31771693);National Natural Science Foundation of China(U1803235);China Agriculture Research System(CARS-03);Jiangsu Collaborative Innovation Center for Modern Crop Production(JCIC-MCP)

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

采用对渍水胁迫和渍水锻炼响应差异的小麦品种为材料, 在四叶一心期和六叶一心期分别进行渍水锻炼2 d; 在开花后7 d进行渍水胁迫5 d, 分析不同小麦品种对渍水胁迫响应的差异及其生理机制。结果表明, 花后渍水胁迫显著降低旗叶叶绿素含量(SPAD)和实际光化学效率(Φ_PSII), 抑制花后光合同化物积累(PAA), 导致籽粒千粒重和产量降低; 与不耐渍型品种相比, 耐渍型品种在渍水胁迫下可维持较高的SPAD、Φ_PSII和PAA, 超氧化物歧化酶(SOD)、过氧化氢酶(CAT)、抗坏血酸过氧化物酶(APX)以及谷胱甘肽还原酶(GR)酶活性提高, 过氧化氢(H₂O₂)、超氧阴离子自由基(O₂^?)和丙二醛(MDA)含量较低。与花前未进行渍水锻炼和花后渍水处理(NW)相比, 花前渍水锻炼和花后渍水处理(PW)下, 渍水锻炼敏感型品种较渍水锻炼不敏感品种显著提高了花后渍水胁迫下小麦旗叶SPAD (8.8%)和Φ_PSII (17.6%)、降低非调节性能量耗散Φ_NO (10.7%)和调节性能量耗散Φ_NPQ (16.5%), 提升SOD (15.8%)、CAT (17.8%)、APX (8.9%)以及GR (30.7%)酶活性, 增加了叶片可溶性糖(17.5%)和蔗糖含量(21.6%), 促进花前贮藏物质向籽粒的转运率REP (20.0%), 同步提升PAA (10.8%)。与不耐渍型品种相比, 耐渍型小麦品种在花后渍水胁迫下旗叶的光合能力、抗氧化能力和干物质向籽粒的转运能力更强。花前渍水锻炼提高了各品种小麦花后渍水胁迫下旗叶的光合能力、抗氧化能力和干物质向籽粒的转运能力, 增强了小麦耐渍性; 与渍水锻炼不敏感型品种相比, 渍水锻炼敏感型品种的光合能力和抗氧化酶活性增幅较大。

关键词: 小麦, 渍水胁迫, 渍水锻炼, 荧光参数, 抗氧化能力

Abstract:

In order to investigate the responses and mechanisms of different wheat varieties to waterlogging stress and waterlogging priming, waterlogging priming was conducted for two days at the four-leaf and six-leaf stages, respectively, and waterlogging stress was performed for five days at post-anthesis using wheat varieties with different responses to waterlogging stress and waterlogging priming as experimental materials. Results showed that waterlogging stress significantly reduced chlorophyll content (SPAD) and actual photochemical efficiency (Φ_PSII), inhibited the accumulation of post-anthesis photosynthetic assimilation accumulation (PAA), decreased kernel weight and grain yield. Compared with the waterlogging-sensitive varieties, the waterlogging-tolerance varieties could maintain higher SPAD, Φ_PSII and PAA, and higher activities of superoxide dismutase (SOD), Catalase (CAT), ascorbate peroxidase (APX) and glutathione reductase (GR), lower contents of H₂O₂, O₂^?production rate and malondialdehyde (MDA) under post-anthesis waterlogging stress. Compared with non-primed plants, primed plants could maintain higher chlorophyll fluorescence performance and higher activities of antioxidant enzymes. Compared with the waterlogging priming-insensitive varieties, the priming-sensitive varieties increased SPAD (8.8%) and Φ_PSII (17.6%), decreased the non-regulated energy dissipation Φ_NO (10.7%) and the regulation energy dissipation Φ_NPQ (16.5%), increased the activities of SOD (15.8%), CAT (17.8%), APX (8.9%) and GR (30.7%), increased the contents of total soluble sugar (17.5%) and sucrose (21.6%), increased remobilization efficiency of pre-anthesis stored dry matter (REP, 20.0%) and PAA (10.8%). The waterlogging tolerant varieties could maintain higher photosynthesis rate, dry matter translocation capacity and activities of antioxidant enzymes. Compared with waterlogging sensitive varieties, the increase amplitude of photosynthetic ability and antioxidant enzyme activity of priming-sensitive cultivars was higher under waterlogging stress.

Key words: wheat, waterlogging stress, waterlogging priming, fluorescence parameters, antioxidant capacity

马博闻, 李庆, 蔡剑, 周琴, 黄梅, 戴廷波, 王笑, 姜东. 花前渍水锻炼调控花后小麦耐渍性的生理机制研究[J]. 作物学报, 2022, 48(1): 151-164.

MA Bo-Wen, LI Qing, CAI Jian, ZHOU Qin, HUANG Mei, DAI Ting-Bo, WANG Xiao, JIANG Dong. Physiological mechanisms of pre-anthesis waterlogging priming on waterlogging stress tolerance under post-anthesis in wheat[J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2022, 48(1): 151-164.

导出引用管理器 EndNote|Reference Manager|ProCite|BibTeX|RefWorks

链接本文: https://zwxb.chinacrops.org/CN/10.3724/SP.J.1006.2022.11005

https://zwxb.chinacrops.org/CN/Y2022/V48/I1/151

图/表 12

表1

表2

图1

表3

渍水锻炼对花后渍水胁迫下小麦产量及其构成因素的影响"

品种 Variety	处理 Treatment	2019				2020
		穗数	穗粒数	千粒重	产量	穗数	穗粒数	千粒重	产量
		Spikes	Kernels	1000-kernel	Grain yield	Spikes	Kernels	1000-kernel	Grain yield
		pot^-1	spike^-1	weight (g)	(g plot^-1)	pot^-1	spike^-1	weight (g)	(g plot^-1)
1	CK	22.5 a	38.0 a	52.1 a	44.5 a	24.7 a	37.8 a	49.9 a	46.6 a
	PW	22.5 a	40.6 a	47.9 ab	43.7 ab	24.7 a	37.9 a	49.3 a	46.1 a
	NW	22.0 a	41.1 a	45.5 b	41.1 b	24.7 a	37.5 a	46.9 b	43.3 b
2	CK	26.0 a	40.3 a	33.4 a	35.0 a	24.3 a	39.5 a	33.7 a	32.3 a
	PW	26.5 a	42.3 a	30.1 a	33.7 ab	24.7 a	40.6 a	30.8 b	30.8 ab
	NW	26.0 a	44.9 a	28.1a	32.5 b	24.3 a	40.1 a	29.9 c	29.2 b
3	CK	20.5 a	42.2 a	37.2 a	32.2 a	20.0 a	42.1 b	37.0 a	31.1 a
	PW	21.0 a	42.0 a	35.5 a	31.2 a	20.0 a	42.8 ab	35.1 a	30.0 a
	NW	20.5 a	43.7 a	33.3 a	29.8 b	19.3 a	43.5 a	32.0 b	26.9 b
4	CK	21.5 a	34.8 a	44.0 a	32.8 a	18.3 a	35.5 a	44.1 a	28.7 a
	PW	20.5 a	35.6 a	43.4 a	31.7 a	19.3 a	33.9 a	43.6 a	28.6 a
	NW	20.5 a	38.6 a	37.8 b	29.9 b	19.0 a	34.2 a	40.0 b	26.0 a
5	CK	22.0 a	36.6 a	51.8 a	41.7 a	23.0 a	38.3 a	51.4 a	45.3 a
	PW	22.5 a	36.3 a	46.2 ab	37.7 ab	23.3 a	38.7 a	40.7 b	36.7 b
	NW	22.0 a	37.3 a	40.4 b	33.1 b	21.7 a	39.9 a	38.3 c	33.1 b
6	CK	19.5 a	27.8 a	61.6 a	33.4 a	26.3 a	28.6 a	59.2 a	44.7 a
	PW	20.5 a	27.4 a	47.6 b	26.7 b	26.7 a	28.1 a	55.3 b	41.3 b
	NW	20.5 a	26.6 a	45.7 b	24.9 b	25.7 a	29.3 a	47.7 c	35.9 c
7	CK	24.0 a	42.7 a	45.6 a	46.7 a	29.3 a	42.3 a	44.1 a	54.7 a
	PW	24.0 a	43.5 a	36.9 b	38.5 b	29.3 a	43.8 a	37.4 b	48.1 b
	NW	23.5 a	41.9 a	34.4 b	33.9 b	30.0 a	42.7 a	33.0 c	42.3 c
8	CK	17.0 a	40.1 a	50.3 a	34.3 a	21.3 a	38.2 a	47.4 a	38.6 a
	PW	17.0 a	40.4 a	38.6 b	26.5 b	22.0 a	37.3 a	39.7 b	32.6 b
	NW	16.5 a	38.9 a	34.8 b	22.3 c	21.3 a	37.5 a	37.5 c	29.9 b
9	CK	21.5 a	31.7 a	49.0 a	33.3 a	32.7 a	31.7 a	44.7 a	46.1 a
	PW	22.0 a	33.9 a	43.4 a	32.3 a	33.0 a	31.6 a	42.3 b	44.1 a
	NW	22.0 a	32.2 a	44.7 a	31.7 a	32.3 a	31.6 a	42.2 b	43.1 a
10	CK	22.0 a	37.6 a	50.0 a	41.1 a	22.7 a	38.7 a	47.9 a	42.0 a
	PW	21.5 a	39.8 a	45.2 b	38.5 a	23.0 a	37.8 a	47.1 a	40.9 a
	NW	21.5 a	39.7 a	45.9 b	39.1 a	23.0 a	37.3 a	46.5 a	39.8 a
11	CK	23.0 a	29.3 a	43.1 a	29.0 a	24.7 a	29.5 a	41.4 a	30.1 a
	PW	22.5 a	31.4 a	39.6 b	27.9 a	23.7 a	30.1 a	40.6 a	28.9 a
	NW	23.0 a	32.3 a	37.3 b	27.7 a	23.3 a	31.2 a	37.3 b	27.2 a
12	CK	20.5 a	48.2 a	31.3 a	32.4 a	12.7 a	49.6 a	32.6 a	20.4 a
	PW	19.5 a	51.9 a	30.2 a	30.6 a	12.0 a	50.7 a	33.2 a	20.2 a
	NW	19.5 a	50.3 a	30.1 a	31.5 a	12.0 a	51.3 a	31.2 b	19.2 a
13	CK	23.0 a	40.2 a	53.2 a	49.2 a	26.3 a	40.1 a	48.8 a	51.6 a
	PW	22.5 a	41.0 a	37.2 b	34.2 b	26.0 a	39.6 a	40.4 b	41.5 b
	NW	23.0 a	40.1 a	36.5 b	33.6 b	24.7 a	41.0 a	41.7 b	42.2 b
14	CK	23.5 a	27.3 a	62.9 a	40.4 a	28.7 a	26.2 a	54.3 a	40.7 a
	PW	23.5 a	26.5 a	43.2 b	26.9 b	28.3 a	25.9 a	45.3 b	33.2 b
品种 Variety	处理 Treatment	2019				2020
		穗数	穗粒数	千粒重	产量	穗数	穗粒数	千粒重	产量
		Spikes	Kernels	1000-kernel	Grain yield	Spikes	Kernels	1000-kernel	Grain yield
		pot^-1	spike^-1	weight (g)	(g plot^-1)	pot^-1	spike^-1	weight (g)	(g plot^-1)
	NW	23.5 a	26.6 a	41.6 b	26.0 b	27.3 a	27.1 a	45.7 b	33.9 b
15	CK	27.5 a	24.9 a	53.6 a	36.8 a	35.0 a	24.1 a	51.4 a	43.3 a
	PW	26.5 a	24.3 a	43.8 b	28.2 b	35.0 a	24.6 a	36.8 b	31.7 b
	NW	25.0 a	25.3 a	43.0 b	27.1 b	36.0 a	23.7 a	35.1 c	30.0 b
16	CK	19.0 a	35.6 a	51.8 a	35.0 a	16.7 a	36.2 a	50.1 a	30.1 a
	PW	19.0 a	35.0 a	43.4 b	28.8 b	16.3 a	35.7 a	40.1 b	23.4 b
	NW	20.0 a	34.6 a	42.1 b	29.1 b	16.3 a	36.7 a	37.6 c	22.6 b

表3

图2

图3

图4

图5

图6

图7

图8

图9

参考文献 31

[1]	Singh G, Kumar P, Gupta V, Tyagi B S, Singh C, Kumar S A, Singh G P. Multivariate approach to identify and characterize bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) germplasm for waterlogging tolerance in India. Field Crops Res, 2018, 221:81-89.
[2]	Chen Y Y, Huang J F, Song X D, Gao P. Spatiotemporal characteristics of winter wheat waterlogging in the middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze River, China. Adv Meteorol, 2018, 9:1-11.
[3]	任正隆. 中国南方小麦优质高效生产的若干问题. 四川农业大学学报, 2002, 20:299-303.
	Ren Z L. Several limiting factors of wheat production in south area of China and the new approach of wheat breeding. J Sichuan Agric Univ, 2002, 20:299-303 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[4]	Crisp P A, Ganguly D, Eichten S R. Reconsidering plant memory: intersections between stress recovery, RNA turnover, and epigenetics. Sci Adv, 2016, 2:e1501340.
[5]	Wang X, Liu F L, Jiang D. Priming: a promising strategy for crop production in response to future climate. J Integr Agric, 2017, 16:2709-2716.
[6]	李同花, 王笑, 蔡剑, 周琴, 戴廷波, 姜东. 不同小麦品种对干旱锻炼响应的综合评价. 麦类作物学报, 2018, 38(1):65-73.
	Li T H, Wang X, Cai J, Zhou Q, Dai T B, Jiang D. Comprehensive evaluation of drought priming on plant tolerance in different wheat cultivars. J Triticeae Crops, 2018, 38(1):65-73 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[7]	Zhou W G, Chen F, Meng Y J, Chandrasekaran U, Shu K. Plant waterlogging/flooding stress responses: from seed germination to maturation. Plant Physiol Bioch, 2020, 148:228-236.
[8]	Herzog M, Striker G G, Colmer T D, Pedersen O. Mechanisms of waterlogging tolerance in wheat: a review of root and shoot physiology. Plant Cell Environ, 2016, 39:1068-1086.
[9]	Li C Y, Jiang D, Wollenweber B, Li Y, Dai T B, Cao W X. Waterlogging pretreatment during vegetative growth improves tolerance to waterlogging after anthesis in wheat. Plant Sci, 2011, 180:672-678.
[10]	Wang X, Huang M, Zhou Q, Cai J, Dai T B, Jiang D. Physiological and proteomic mechanisms of waterlogging priming improve tolerance to waterlogging stress in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Environ Exp Bot, 2016, 132:175-182.
[11]	Moya J L, Ros R, Picazo I. Influence of cadmium and nickel on growth, net photosynthesis and carbohydrate distribution in rice plants. Photosynth Res, 1993, 36:75-80.
[12]	张永清, 苗果园, 李慧明. 冬小麦根系对不同生育时期渍水胁迫的生物学响应. 麦类作物学报, 2005, 25(4):59-63.
	Zhang Y Q, Miao G Y, Li H M. Biological response of winter wheat root system to waterlogging stress at different growth stages. J Triticeae Crops, 2005, 25(4):59-63 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[13]	Du Z Y, Bramlage W J. Modified thiobarbituric acid assay for measuring lipid oxidation in sugar-rich plant-tissue extracts. J Agric Food Chem, 1992, 40:1566-1570.
[14]	Vwioko E, Adinkwu O, El-Esawi M A. Comparative physiological, biochemical, and genetic responses to prolonged waterlogging stress in okra and maize given exogenous ethylene priming. Front Physiol, 2017, 8:1-10.
[15]	Tan W, Liu J, Dai T B, Cao W X, Jiang D. Alterations in photosynthesis and antioxidant enzyme activity in winter wheat subjected to post-anthesis waterlogging. Photosynthetica, 2008, 46:21-27.
[16]	Liu N, Lin Z F, Guan L L, Gaughan G, Lin G Z. Antioxidant enzymes regulate reactive oxygen species during pod elongation in Pisum sativum and Brassica chinensis. PLoS One, 2014: e875882.
[17]	Thomas M A. Measuring activities of the enzymes superoxide dismutase and glutathione reductase in lichens. In: Kranner I C, Beckett R P, Varma A K, eds. Protocols in Lichenology. Springer Lab Manuals. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-56359-1_12.
[18]	Foyer C H, Halliwell B. The presence of glutathione and glutathione reductase in chloroplasts: a proposed role in ascorbic acid metabolism. Planta, 1976, 133:21-25.
[19]	Mishra S, Agrawal S B. Interactive effects between supplemental ultraviolet-B radiation and heavy metals on the growth and biochemical characteristics of Spinacia oleracea L. Brazilian J Plant Physiol, 2006, 18:307-314.
[20]	姜东, 陶勤南, 张国平. 渍水对小麦扬麦5号旗叶和根系衰老的影响. 应用生态学报, 2002, 13:1519-1521.
	Jiang D, Tao Q N, Zhang G P. Effect of waterlogging on senescence of flag leaf and root of wheat Yangmai 5. J Appl Ecol, 2002, 13:1519-1521 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[21]	武文明, 陈洪俭, 李金才, 魏凤珍, 王世济, 周向红. 氮肥运筹对孕穗期受渍冬小麦旗叶叶绿素荧光与籽粒灌浆特性的影响. 作物学报, 2012, 38:1088-1096.
	Wu W M, Chen H J, Li J C, Wei F Z, Wang S J, Zhou X H. Effects of nitrogen fertilization application regime on dry matter, nitrogen accumulation and transportation in summer maize under waterlogging at the seedling Stage. Acta Agron Sin, 2012, 38:1088-1096 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[22]	胡继超, 曹卫星, 姜东, 罗卫红. 小麦水分胁迫影响因子的定量研究: I. 干旱和渍水胁迫对光合、蒸腾及干物质积累与分配的影响. 作物学报, 2004, 30:315-320.
	Hu J C, Cao W X, Jiang D, Luo W H. Quantification of water stress factor for crop growth simulation: I. Effects of drought and waterlogging stress on photosynthesis, transpiration and dry matter partitioning in winter wheat. Acta Agron Sin, 2004, 30:315-320 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[23]	姜东, 谢祝捷, 曹卫星, 戴廷波, 荆奇. 花后干旱和渍水对冬小麦光合特性和物质运转的影响. 作物学报, 2004, 30:175-182.
	Jiang D, Xie Z J, Cao W X, Dai T B, Jing Q. Effects of post-anthesis drought and waterlogging on photosynthetic characteristics, assimilates transportation in winter wheat. Acta Agron Sin, 2004, 30:175-182 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[24]	Wang X, Cai J, Liu F, Jin M, Yu H, Jiang D, Wollenweber B, Dai T B, Cao W X. Pre-anthesis high temperature acclimation alleviates the negative effects of post-anthesis heat stress on stem stored carbohydrates remobilization and grain starch accumulation in wheat. J Cereal Sci, 2012, 55:331-336.
[25]	Bansal R, Srivastava J P. Antioxidative responses to short term waterlogging stress in pigeon pea. Ind J Plant Physiol, 2015, 20:182-185.
[26]	Candan N, Tarhan L. Tolerance or sensitivity responses of mentha pulegium to osmotic and waterlogging stress in terms of antioxidant defense systems and membrane lipid peroxidation. Environ Exp Bot, 2012, 75:83-88.
[27]	Sairam R K, Kumutha D, Ezhilmathi K, Chinnusamy V, Meena R C. Waterlogging induced oxidative stress and antioxidant activity in pigeonpea genotypes. Biol Plant, 2009, 53:75-84.
[28]	Oukarroum A, Bussotti F, Goltsev V, Kalaji H M. Correlation between reactive oxygen species production and photochemistry of photosystems I and II in Lemna gibba L. plants under salt stress. Environ Exp Bot, 2015, 109:80-88.
[29]	Kafi M, Stewart W S, Borland A M. Carbohydrate and proline contents in leaves, roots, and apices of salt-tolerant and salt sensitive wheat varieties. Russ J Plant Physl, 2003, 50:155-162.
[30]	Hossain A, Uddin S N. Mechanisms of waterlogging tolerance in wheat: Morphological and metabolic adaptations under hypoxia or anoxia. Aust J Crop Sci, 2011, 5:1094-1101.
[31]	Ren B Z, Zhang J W, Dong S, Liu P, Zhao B. Responses of carbon metabolism and antioxidant system of summer maize to waterlogging at different stages. J Agron Crop Sci, 2018, 204:505-514.

Metrics

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed

年份 Year	有机质 Organic matter (g kg^-1)	全氮 Total nitrogen (g kg^-1)	速效氮 Available nitrogen (mg kg^-1)	速效磷 Available phosphorus (mg kg^-1)	速效钾 Available potassium (mg kg^-1)
2018-2019	17.63	1.02	28.03	18.90	130.66
2019-2020	16.34	0.99	30.95	23.02	137.46

编号 No.	品种名称 Variety	类型 Type	编号 No.	品种名称 Variety	类型 Type
1	淮麦22 Huaimai 22	锻炼敏感且耐渍 ST	9	师栾02-1 Shiluan 02-1	锻炼不敏感且耐渍 IT
2	齐大195 Qida 195	锻炼敏感且耐渍 ST	10	汶农17 Wennong 17	锻炼不敏感且耐渍 IT
3	扬麦20 Yangmai 20	锻炼敏感且耐渍 ST	11	周麦27 Zhoumai 27	锻炼不敏感且耐渍 IT
4	镇麦10 Zhenmai 10	锻炼敏感且耐渍 ST	12	扬麦9号 Yangmai 9	锻炼不敏感且耐渍 IT
5	衡4399 Heng 4399	锻炼敏感且不耐渍 SI	13	济麦22 Jimai 22	锻炼不敏感且不耐渍 II
6	京冬22 Jingdong 22	锻炼敏感且不耐渍 SI	14	济南矮6号 Jinanai 6	锻炼不敏感且不耐渍 II
7	鲁垦麦9号 Lukenmai 9	锻炼敏感且不耐渍 SI	15	石麦22 Shimai 22	锻炼不敏感且不耐渍 II
8	郑麦004 Zhengmai 004	锻炼敏感且不耐渍 SI	16	中麦175 Zhongmai 175	锻炼不敏感且不耐渍 II

花前渍水锻炼调控花后小麦耐渍性的生理机制研究

Physiological mechanisms of pre-anthesis waterlogging priming on waterlogging stress tolerance under post-anthesis in wheat

RichHTML

PDF

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 12

参考文献 31

相关文章 15

Metrics

本文评价

推荐阅读 0

关于本刊

在线期刊

作者中心

相关单位

联系我们

[1]	翟胜男, 曹新有, 李豪圣, 李吉虎, 李法计, 刘金栋, 夏先春, 吕莹莹, 马瑞峰, 王颖, 耿洪伟, 刘建军. 小麦Pod-A1、Pod-D1和Pod-2D位点等位变异对籽粒过氧化物酶活性的遗传效应分析[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(6): 1593-1603.
[2]	习千辉, 徐梓瑗, 刘梦梦, 王宏艺, 郎凯琳, 井震海, 陈锋, 赵磊. 小麦籽粒铜含量的全基因组关联分析及候选基因预测[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(6): 1604-1617.
[3]	毛嘉琦, 黄朋雨, 赵佳佳, 郑兴卫, 武棒棒, 郝宇琼, 屈非, 刘成, 马朋涛, 郑军. 山西小麦品种白粉病抗性评价及抗病基因分子检测[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(6): 1669-1681.
[4]	胡川, 赵凯男, 黄修利, 吴金芝, 任开明, 王贺正, 付国占, 黄明, 李友军. 一次灌溉下耕作方式和氮肥用量对旱地小麦产量和品质的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(6): 1830-1846.
[5]	陈雪燕, 何华川, 李政嘉, 董新盼, 李藕琪, 刘小云, 李丹萍, 陈志伟, 刘国霞, 吕胜源, 吴印莹, 赵振东, 曹新有, 万何平. 水培盐碱复合胁迫下‘济麦60’苗期根系有机酸分泌动态变化及其转录调控机制[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(6): 1859-1875.
[6]	高沛阳, 李瑾璇, 董宇奎, 石玉, 张振, 张永丽. 测墒补灌下小麦分蘖发生和成穗对施氮量的响应[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(6): 1847-1858.
[7]	张献丰, 郭利建, 李康春, 孔斌雪, 刘玉芳, 车卓, 杨德龙. 小麦ABHD6基因家族鉴定与粒重功能标记开发[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(6): 1711-1727.
[8]	王壮壮, 武紫君, 张永新, 张芯源, 袁丽雪, 陈如雪, 刘世举, 段剑钊, 冯伟, 王同朝, 王永华. 豫东南黏壤潮土区水氮优化协同提高冬小麦产量和氮素利用效率[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(5): 1501-1521.
[9]	何万龙, 耿洪伟, 张飞飞, 米克热阿依·阿巴白克热, 罗紫洋, 李鹏程, 周钊宇, 程宇坤. 基于深度学习的小麦重要病害图像识别系统的研究[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(5): 1401-1417.
[10]	张振, 冯连杰, 石玉, 于振文, 张永丽. 节水补灌下不同穗型小麦产量形成差异研究[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(5): 1522-1535.
[11]	侯思宇, 王国璀, 韦金贵, 谢玮欣, 殷文, 樊志龙, 柴强, 胡发龙. 绿肥配施化学氮肥对西北干旱灌区小麦干物质积累及产量形成的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(4): 1208-1219.
[12]	尚云秋, 赵竹, 陈欢, 丁永刚, 乔玉强, 李玮, 张向前, 曹承富, 杜世州. 长期定位耕作方式对雨养小麦籽粒灌浆和产量形成的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(4): 1236-1250.
[13]	乔宇馨, 李程越, 康晓玉, 张鑫琪, 贾绍辉, 刘倩, 曹亚丽, 史鑫蕊, 郝兴宇, 李萍. 基于APSIM模型的长期免耕秸秆覆盖对旱地小麦增产效应研究[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(4): 1181-1192.
[14]	李灿, 张喜伟, 朱博涛, 张沛沛. 小麦GSK激酶TaSK41的功能分析及互作蛋白的筛选[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(3): 677-687.
[15]	侯洁, 付朵朵, 武海峰, 郝宇琼, 郑兴卫, 武棒棒, 周凯, 李晓华, 郑军, 赵佳佳. 山西省小麦地方品种的染色体多样性及遗传效应分析[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(3): 746-763.