欢迎访问作物学报，今天是
作物学报

作物学报 ›› 2026, Vol. 52 ›› Issue (10): 3128-3141.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2026.63008

• 研究简报 • 上一篇    下一篇

玉米杂交种苗期耐碱性综合评价与筛选

陈兴华1,2,3(), 陈冉冉1,2, 夏雨昕1, 康壹然2, 王创1,2,*()   

  1. 1 华中农业大学资源与环境学院 / 农业农村部长江中下游耕地保育重点实验室, 湖北武汉 430070
    2 华中农业大学襄州番茄科技小院, 湖北襄阳 441122
    3 荆州市农业技术推广中心, 湖北荆州 434025
  • 收稿日期:2026-01-11 接受日期:2026-07-15 出版日期:2026-10-12 网络出版日期:2026-07-23
  • 通讯作者: 王创, E-mail: chuang.wang@mail.hzau.edu.cn
  • 作者简介:陈兴华, E-mail: cxh19970227@163.com
  • 基金资助:
    国家重点研发计划项目(2022YFD1900705-4)

Comprehensive evaluation and screening of alkali-resistant hybrid maize varieties at the seedling stage

Chen Xing-Hua1,2,3(), Chen Ran-Ran1,2, Xia Yu-Xin1, Kang Yi-Ran2, Wang Chuang1,2,*()   

  1. 1 College of Resources and Environment, Huazhong Agricultural University / Microelement Research Center, Key Laboratory of Arable Land Conservation (Middle and Lower Reaches of Yangtze River), Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Wuhan 430070, Hubei, China
    2 Xiangzhou Tomato Science and Technology Village, Huazhong Agricultural University, Xiangyang 441122, Hubei, China
    3 Jingzhou Agricultural Technology Extension Center, Jingzhou 434025, Hubei, China
  • Received:2026-01-11 Accepted:2026-07-15 Published:2026-10-12 Published online:2026-07-23
  • Contact: Wang Chuang, E-mail: chuang.wang@mail.hzau.edu.cn
  • Supported by:
    National Key Research and Development Program of China(2022YFD1900705-4)

RichHTML

1

PDF

67

摘要：

为筛选合适的耐碱玉米杂交种, 本研究通过设置碱性土壤和对照土壤2个处理, 测定40份玉米杂交种的株高、SPAD值、茎粗、总鲜重等10项指标, 系统评价了玉米杂交种苗期耐碱能力, 并通过逐步回归分析筛选用于评价玉米杂交种苗期耐碱能力的关键指标。结果表明, 测定的10项指标均显著受到碱胁迫影响并且部分指标之间存在较强的相关性。利用隶属函数法和系统聚类分析法将40份玉米杂交种分成5类, 其中YK338和YD903等属于强耐碱品种, DK653、TL1、XY335和GY351等属于碱极敏感品种。进一步通过逐步回归分析建立了玉米苗期耐碱预测模型, 筛选出总鲜重、根系干重、总干重和茎粗可作为玉米苗期耐碱鉴定核心指标(R2 = 0.99)。通过对极端品种的分析表明, 在碱胁迫条件下耐碱玉米品种长势明显优于敏感品种, 耐碱品种通过维持低钠离子(Na+)、高钾离子(K+)含量及高效氮(N)、磷(P)养分吸收等特性来提升其抗性。综上所述, 本研究建立了土培条件下玉米耐碱综合评价体系, 筛选的耐碱品种和关键指标为耐碱玉米育种及盐碱地高效利用提供了理论依据与技术支撑。

关键词: 玉米杂交种, 幼苗期, 种质资源, 耐碱性, 综合评价

Abstract:

To screen suitable alkali-resistant hybrid maize varieties, two soil treatments, alkaline soil and control soil, were established in this study. A total of 10 indicators, including plant height, SPAD value, stem diameter, and total fresh weight, were measured in 40 hybrid maize varieties to systematically evaluate alkali tolerance at the seedling stage, and key indicators for alkali resistance evaluation were further identified using stepwise regression analysis. The results showed that all 10 measured indicators were significantly affected by alkali stress, and strong correlations were observed among some indicators. Based on membership function analysis and hierarchical clustering, the 40 hybrid maize varieties were classified into five groups. Among them, varieties such as YK338 and YD903 were identified as highly alkali-resistant, whereas DK653, TL1, XY335, and GY351 were extremely alkali-sensitive. Furthermore, a prediction model for alkali-resistant in maize seedlings was established using stepwise regression analysis, and total fresh weight, root dry weight, total dry weight, and stem diameter were identified as core indicators for evaluating alkali resistance in maize seedlings (R2 = 0.99). Analysis of extreme varieties showed that alkali-resistant maize varieties maintained significantly better growth performance than sensitive varieties under alkali stress. These alkali-resistant varieties enhanced their resistance by maintaining lower sodium ion (Na+) content, higher potassium ion (K+) content, and more efficient uptake of nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P). In conclusion, this study established a comprehensive evaluation system for alkali resistance in maize under soil culture conditions. The alkali-resistant varieties and core evaluation indicators identified here provide a theoretical basis and technical support for alkali-resistant maize breeding and the efficient utilization of saline-alkali land.

Key words: hybrid maize, seedling stage, germplasm resources, alkali resistance, comprehensive evaluation

表1

供试玉米杂交种"

编号
Number		 品种名称
Variety name		 亲本来源
Parental source		 编号
Number		 品种名称
Variety name		 亲本来源
Parental source
1 苏玉29 Suyu 29 (SY29) S95-1×JS0451 21 京丰86 Jingfeng 86 (JF86) JX027×J21
2 恩禾单1号 Enhedan 1 (EHD1) 12ED-27×12FW-07 22 蠡单26 Lidan 26 (LD26) L117×L813
3 华皖267 Huawan 267 (HW267) LH993×L239 23 延科338 Yanke 338 (YK338) 99A573×LH1805
4 高玉14022 Gaoyu 14022 (GY14022) KNL1088×FL306 24 泽玉5号 Zeyu 5 (ZY5) Z05×N601
5 康农玉868 Kangnongyu 868 (KNY868) SCL05×FL11144 25 东单816 Dongdan 816 (DD816) 16F39×16F35
6 先玉335 Xianyu 335 (XY335) PH6WC×PH4CV 26 农单476 Nongda 476 (ND476) NX3435×PH6WC
7 登海605 Denghai 605 (DH605) DH351×DH382 27 华玉11 Huayu 11 (HY11) Q736×Q1
8 迪卡653 Dika 653 (DK653) H3659Z×G4675Z 28 先玉1466 Xianyu 1466 (XY1466) PH1DP8×PH1T8W
9 先玉045 Xianyu 045 (XY045) PH1DP8×PHRKB 29 隆平206 Longping 206 (LP206) L239×L7221
10 高玉351 Gaoyu 351 (GY351) KNL1088×FL3095 30 鲁单9088 Ludan 9088 (LD9088) LX088×LX03-2
11 登海518 Denghai 518 (DH518) 521×Y365 31 中玉303 Zhongyu 303 (ZY303) CN3373×CNH3323
12 金玉666 Jinyu 666 (JY666) PCH6323×GD932 32 百农5号 Bainong 5 (BN5) BN03×BN09
13 腾龙1号 Tenglong 1 (TL1) W525×W020 33 蠡玉128 Liyu 128 (LY128) L953×L119
14 康农玉108 Kangnongyu 108 (KNY108) FL119×FL218 34 隆平243 Longping 243 (LP243) LG311×LA7359
15 DF818 X79×T18 35 湘玉10号 Xiangyu 10 (XY10) 7164×MB11
16 隆平208 Longping 208 (LP208) L238×L72-6 36 瑞华玉288 Ruihuayu 288 (RHY288) 288-1×W5-4
17 C1210 DJ773Z×D5752Z 37 名鼎26 Mingding 26 (MD26) JW1059×JW261
18 津北288 Jinbei 288 (JB288) BX144×BX143 38 承玉10号 Chengyu 10 (CY10) CX24×853
19 NK718 J464×J2416 39 YF3240 XA1237×X15673
20 豫单903 Yudan 903 (YD903) Y1122×Y14111 40 康农20 Kangnong 20 (KN20) FL706×FL598

表2

土壤基础理化性质"

处理
Treatment		 pH 碱解氮
AN (mg kg-1)		 速效磷
AP (mg kg-1)		 速效钾
AK (mg kg-1)		 有机质
SOM (g kg-1)		 电导率
EC (μS cm-1)		 含盐量
SC (%)		 钠吸附比
SAR
(mmol L-1)		 交换性钠百分比
ESP (%)
AT 8.76 13.13 12.33 70.00 3.61 108.93 0.17 14.26 17.56
CK 6.89 63.00 12.87 151.97 11.13 81.77 0.07 6.56 7.98

图1

碱胁迫下不同玉米苗期长势情况 处理同表2。图下编号为表1中所对应品种的编号。标尺为10 cm。"

表3

碱胁迫下玉米各项指标变化"

指标
Index		 处理
Treatment		 平均值±标准误
Mean ± SE		 最小值
Minimum		 最大值
Maximum		 变异系数
CV (%)		 品种
Variety (V)		 处理
Treatment (T)		 品种×处理
V×T
株高PH (cm) CK 40.97±0.50 19.50 51.50 13.24 *** *** ***
AT 28.40±0.68 9.50 44.40 26.07
SPAD CK 23.64±0.21 18.40 29.70 9.94 *** *** ***
AT 22.24±0.36 14.40 34.20 17.65
茎粗SD (cm) CK 3.33±0.03 2.12 4.41 10.87 *** *** ***
AT 2.94±0.04 1.47 3.94 16.42
总鲜重TFW (g) CK 3.66±0.10 0.95 5.93 30.63 *** *** ***
AT 2.03±0.07 0.51 4.03 37.81
根系鲜重RFW (g) CK 1.35±0.05 0.20 2.49 37.53 *** *** ***
AT 0.59±0.03 0.11 1.39 47.13
地上部鲜重SFW (g) CK 2.31±0.06 0.54 4.53 29.42 *** *** ***
AT 1.44±0.05 0.35 2.81 38.20
总干重TDW (g) CK 0.52±0.02 0.14 1.07 32.50 *** *** ***
AT 0.28±0.01 0.09 0.59 41.03
根系干重RDW (g) CK 0.22±0.01 0.05 0.53 39.45 *** *** ***
AT 0.11±0.01 0.02 0.88 76.03
地上部干重SDW (g) CK 0.30±0.01 0.08 0.54 32.05 *** *** ***
AT 0.18±0.01 0.05 0.47 44.82
根冠比RSR CK 0.74±0.02 0.34 1.47 27.16 *** *** ***
AT 0.60±0.02 0.21 1.17 34.00

表4

碱胁迫下玉米各项指标的耐碱系数变化"

指标
Index		 平均值±标准误
Mean ± SE		 显著性
Significance		 最小值
Minimum		 最大值
Maximum		 变异系数
CV (%)
株高耐碱系数ARCPH 0.70±0.02 *** 0.21 1.19 31.89
SPAD耐碱系数ARCSPAD 0.95±0.02 *** 0.49 1.66 24.21
茎粗耐碱系数ARCSD 0.89±0.02 *** 0.36 1.35 22.44
总鲜重耐碱系数ARCTFW 0.56±0.03 *** 0.10 1.80 53.55
根系鲜重耐碱系数ARCRFW 0.44±0.03 *** 0.06 1.74 68.21
地上部鲜重耐碱系数ARCSFW 0.62±0.03 *** 0.13 1.93 51.17
总干重耐碱系数ARCTDW 0.55±0.03 *** 0.13 1.79 58.85
根系干重耐碱系数ARCRDW 0.47±0.03 *** 0.06 2.22 71.09
地上部干重耐碱系数ARCSDW 0.60±0.03 *** 0.14 1.49 57.19
根冠比耐碱系数ARCRSR 0.80±0.03 *** 0.23 1.63 42.12

表5

不同玉米品种综合评价D值及排序"

品种Variety D-value 排序Rank 品种Variety D-value 排序Rank
YK338 2.90 1 LD9088 1.25 21
YD903 2.78 2 BN5 1.25 22
DF818 2.60 3 XY1466 1.23 23
XY10 2.53 4 LP243 1.21 24
JF86 2.37 5 KN20 1.21 25
DH518 2.32 6 CY10 1.20 26
KNY108 2.25 7 HW267 1.15 27
LY128 2.00 8 YF3240 1.13 28
KNY868 1.91 9 JY666 1.11 29
LD26 1.89 10 C1210 1.08 30
DD816 1.89 11 ZY303 0.98 31
DH605 1.86 12 LP206 0.95 32
HY11 1.64 13 MD26 0.89 33
LP208 1.62 14 JB288 0.84 34
ND476 1.62 15 NK718 0.82 35
EHD1 1.39 16 SY29 0.79 36
XY045 1.36 17 GY351 0.71 37
RHY288 1.36 18 XY335 0.66 38
GY14022 1.35 19 TL1 0.61 39
ZY5 1.26 20 DK653 0.57 40

图2

40份玉米品种耐碱性聚类分析 I: 强耐碱品种; II: 耐碱品种; III: 中性品种; IV: 碱敏感品种; V: 碱极敏感品种。缩写同表1。"

图3

各指标耐碱系数相关性分析 缩写同表3和表4。*、**和***分别表示在0.05、0.01和0.001水平上相关性显著。"

表6

不同玉米品种各项指标耐碱系数与D值的灰色关联度分析"

指标Index 关联度Correlation degree 权重Weight (%) 排序Rank
茎粗SD 0.94 10.48 1
地上部鲜重SFW 0.92 10.33 2
总鲜重TFW 0.92 10.30 3
株高PH 0.91 10.16 4
总干重TDW 0.89 9.92 5
根系鲜重RFW 0.88 9.88 6
根冠比RSR 0.88 9.86 7
SPAD 0.88 9.83 8
地上部干重SDW 0.87 9.76 9
根系干重RDW 0.85 9.48 10

表7

不同玉米品种耐碱胁迫最优模型预测"

胁迫Stress 模型Model R2 F-value P-value
碱胁迫
Alkali stress		 D = -0.075+2.85×XTFW 0.90 371.20 ***
D = -0.041+1.38×XTFW+0.098×XRDW 0.96 464.62 ***
D = -0.058+1.49×XTFW+0.54×XRDW+0.84×XTDW 0.98 682.83 ***
D = -0.31+XTFW×1.38+XRDW×0.48+XTDW×0.83+XSD×0.39 0.99 706.37 ***

图4

极端品种在不同处理下的表型差异 a: 敏感品种和抗性品种生长情况; b: 敏感品种和抗性品种的茎粗(SD)、总鲜重(TFW)、总干重(TDW)和根系干重(RDW)。缩写同表1。处理同表2。柱子上不同小写字母表示相同处理下品种间在0.05水平差异显著。"

图5

不同处理下极端品种Na+、K+含量和Na+/K+差异 缩写同表1。处理同表2。柱子上不同小写字母表示相同处理下品种间在0.05水平差异显著。"

图6

不同处理下极端品种TN和TP含量差异 TN: 总氮含量; TP: 总磷含量。缩写同表1。处理同表2。柱子上不同小写字母表示相同处理下品种间在0.05水平差异显著。"

[1] FAO. Global Status of Salt-affected Soils:Main Report. Rome, Italy: FAO, 2024. pp 1-240. https://doi.org/10.4060/cd3044en.
[2] 赵作章, 陈劲松, 彭尔瑞, 等. 土壤盐渍化及治理研究进展. 中国农村水利水电, 2023(6): 202-208.
doi: 10.12396/znsd.221319
Zhao Z Z, Chen J S, Peng E R, et al. Research progress on soil salinization and management. China Rural Water Hydropower, 2023(6): 202-208 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[3] 李彬, 王志春, 孙志高, 等. 中国盐碱地资源与可持续利用研究. 干旱地区农业研究, 2005, 23(2): 154-158.
Li B, Wang Z C, Sun Z G, et al. Resources and sustainable resource exploitation of salinized land in China. Agric Res Arid Areas, 2005, 23(2): 154-158 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[4] 杨真, 王宝山. 中国盐渍土资源现状及改良利用对策. 山东农业科学, 2015, 47(4): 125-130.
Yang Z, Wang B S. Present status of saline soil resources and countermeasures for improvement and utilization in China. Shandong Agric Sci, 2015, 47(4): 125-130 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[5] 杨微. 盐碱化土壤中四种常见盐分对碱地肤的胁迫作用比较. 东北师范大学硕士学位论文, 吉林长春, 2007.
Yang W. Stress Comparison among Four Main Salts in Salt-alkalized Soil on Kochia Sieversiana. MS Thesis of Northeast Normal University, Changchun, Jilin, China, 2007 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[6] Yin Z P, Zhang H, Zhao Q, et al. Physiological and comparative proteomic analyses of saline-alkali NaHCO3-responses in leaves of halophyte Puccinellia tenuiflora. Plant Soil, 2019, 437: 137-158.
[7] 王振华, 刘文国, 高世斌, 等. 玉米种业的昨天、今天和明天. 中国畜牧业, 2021(19): 26-32.
Wang Z H, Liu W G, Gao S B, et al. Past, now and future of corn seed industry. China Anim Ind, 2021(19): 26-32 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[8] Hanks R J, Ashcroft G L, Rasmussen V P, et al. Corn production as influenced by irrigation and salinity-Utah studies. Irrig Sci, 1978, 1: 47-59.
doi: 10.1007/BF00269007
[9] 翁跃进. 作物耐盐品种及其栽培技术. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2003, pp 32-43.
Weng Y J. Salt-tolerant Crop Varieties and Their Cultivation Techniques. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 2003. pp 32-43 (in Chinese).
[10] 沈丹丹, 程文, 王志武, 等. 我国玉米耐盐种质研究现状与展望. 山东农业科学, 2018, 50(11): 163-167.
Shen D D, Cheng W, Wang Z W, et al. Research advances and prospects of salt tolerant maize germplasms in China. Shandong Agric Sci, 2018, 50(11): 163-167 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[11] Abid M, Zhang Y J, Li Z, et al. Effect of salt stress on growth, physiological and biochemical characters of four kiwifruit genotypes. Sci Hortic, 2020, 271: 109473.
doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2020.109473
[12] Fan Y P, Lu X K, Chen X G, et al. Cotton transcriptome analysis reveals novel biological pathways that eliminate reactive oxygen species (ROS) under sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3) alkaline stress. Genomics, 2021, 113: 1157-1169.
doi: 10.1016/j.ygeno.2021.02.022
[13] Sagervanshi A, Geilfus C M, Kaiser H, et al. Alkali salt stress causes fast leaf apoplastic alkalinization together with shifts in ion and metabolite composition and transcription of key genes during the early adaptive response of Vicia faba L. Plant Sci, 2022, 319: 111253.
doi: 10.1016/j.plantsci.2022.111253
[14] 李倩, 陈博, 贾秉鑫, 等. 基于主成分分析和隶属函数法筛选耐盐碱大豆品种. 种子, 2025, 44(5): 196-205.
Li Q, Chen B, Jia B X, et al. Selection of saline-alkali tolerant Glycine max varieties based on principal component analysis and membership tunction method. Seed, 2025, 44(5): 196-205 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[15] 王佺珍, 刘倩, 高娅妮, 等. 植物对盐碱胁迫的响应机制研究进展. 生态学报, 2017, 37: 5565-5577.
Wang Q Z, Liu Q, Gao Y N, et al. Review on the mechanisms of the response to salinity-alkalinity stress in plants. Acta Ecol Sin, 2017, 37: 5565-5577 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[16] 路旭平, 李芳兰, 马晓娟, 等. 不同碱敏感水稻品种根系对碱胁迫的生理响应策略. 中国生态农业学报(中英文), 2021, 29: 1171-1184.
Lu X P, Li F L, Ma X J, et al. Physiological response strategies of roots of different alkali-tolerant rice varieties to alkali stress. Chin J Eco-Agric, 2021, 29: 1171-1184 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[17] 常国伟, 王越, 邓杰, 等. 萌芽期玉米自交系耐苏打碱的等级评价. 种子, 2018, 37(2): 78-82.
Chang G W, Wang Y, Deng J, et al. Evaluation the resistance of soda alkali in maize inbred lines at germination stage. Seed, 2018, 37(2): 78-82 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[18] 张会丽, 袁闯, 朱林, 等. 利用隶属函数值法对玉米成熟期耐盐性的综合评价. 西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版), 2018, 46(2): 47-55.
Zhang H L, Yuan C, Zhu L, et al. Comprehensive evaluation of salt-tolerance of maize at mature period using subordinate function value analysis. J Northwest A&F Univ (Nat Sci Edn), 2018, 46(2): 47-55 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[19] 彭振, 何守朴, 孙君灵, 等. 陆地棉苗期耐盐性的高效鉴定方法. 作物学报, 2014, 40: 476-486.
Peng Z, He S P, Sun J L, et al. An efficient approach to identify salt tolerance of upland cotton at seedling stage. Acta Agron Sin, 2014, 40: 476-486 (in Chinese with English abstract).
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2014.00476
[20] 张凤银, 陈禅友, 胡志辉, 等. 外源水杨酸对盐胁迫下菜豆种子萌发和幼苗生理特性的影响. 东北农业大学学报, 2013, 44(10): 39-43.
Zhang F Y, Chen C Y, Hu Z H, et al. Effect of exogenous salicylic acid on seed germination and seedling physiological characteristics of kidney bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) under salt stress. J Northeast Agric Univ, 2013, 44(10): 39-43 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[21] 杨晓杰, 李旭业, 王海艳, 等. 玉米自交系耐盐种质的筛选及耐盐性评价. 玉米科学, 2014, 22(4): 19-25.
Yang X J, Li X Y, Wang H Y, et al. Screening of maize inbred line varieties with salt tolerance and the evaluation. J Maize Sci, 2014, 22(4): 19-25 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[22] 张海艳, 赵海军. 不同品种玉米萌发期和苗期耐盐性综合评价. 玉米科学, 2016, 24(5): 61-67.
Zhang H Y, Zhao H J. Comprehensive evaluation of salt tolerance of different corn varieties at the germination and seedling stages. J Maize Sci, 2016, 24(5): 61-67 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[23] 邹德堂, 郭微, 孙健, 等. 水稻不同基因型耐盐相关性状主成分分析及综合评价. 东北农业大学学报, 2018, 49(8): 1-9.
Zou D T, Guo W, Sun J, et al. Principal component analysis and comprehensive evaluation of salt tolerance related traits in different rice (Oryza sativa L.) genotypes. J Northeast Agric Univ, 2018, 49(8): 1-9 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[24] 杨海东. 崇明县横沙岛土壤养分变化与科学施肥建议. 上海农业科技, 2016(1): 96-97.
Yang H D. Changes of soil nutrients and suggestions on scientific fertilization in Hengsha island, Chongming County. Shanghai Agric Sci Technol, 2016(1): 96-97 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[25] 鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析(第3版). 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2000. pp 263-271.
Bao S D. Soil and Agricultural Chemistry Analysis, 3rd edn. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 2000. pp 263-271 (in Chinese).
[26] Fang Y J, Qin Y H, Xiong L Z. Determination of Na+, K+ content in rice leaf (Flame Photometric Method). Bio-protocol, 2018, e1010149.
[27] Talebi R, Fayaz F, Naji A M. Effective selection criteria for assessing drought stress tolerance in durum wheat (Triticum durum Desf.). Gen Appl Plant Physiol, 2009, 35: 64-74.
[28] Chen X H, Xia Y X, Chen L Q, et al. Multivariate analysis unveils antioxidant-nutrient trade-offs in maize hybrids: a hierarchical framework for acid soil tolerance evaluation. Plant Soil, 2025, 514: 2387-2401.
doi: 10.1007/s11104-025-07525-0
[29] 陈兴华, 夏雨昕, 李家鑫, 等. 杂交玉米苗期耐铝毒的多元综合评价及指标筛选. 华中农业大学学报, 2025, 44(5): 50-59.
Chen X H, Xia Y X, Li J X, et al. Comprehensive multivariate evaluation and screening of indicators for aluminum toxicity tolerance in hybrid maize seedlings. J Huazhong Agric Univ, 2025, 44(5): 50-59 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[30] Chen L F, Yu J H, Lu X, et al. Iris typhifolia responses to saline-alkali stress: germination, antioxidant activity, hormones, and photosynthetic performance. Horticulturae, 2024, 10: 588.
doi: 10.3390/horticulturae10060588
[31] 陈悦, 李赵嘉, 冯薇, 等. 不同玉米品种苗期响应盐碱胁迫的生理生化特性及耐盐碱性评价. 江苏农业科学, 2025, 53(12): 94-100.
Chen Y, Li Z J, Feng W, et al. Physiological and biochemical characteristics and saline-alkali tolerance evaluation of different maize cultivars in response to saline-alkali stress at seedling stage. Jiangsu Agric Sci, 2025, 53(12): 94-100 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[32] 邓杰, 孙丽芳, 王霞, 等. 89份玉米自交系萌发期耐盐碱性综合评价. 玉米科学, 2020, 28(4): 15-21.
Deng J, Sun L F, Wang X, et al. Comprehensive evaluation of salt tolerance and alkalinity of 89 maize inbred lines during germination. J Maize Sci, 2020, 28(4): 15-21 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[33] 孙现军, 胡正, 姜雪敏, 等. 大豆种质资源苗期耐盐性鉴定评价与筛选. 作物学报, 2024, 50: 2179-2186.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2024.44030
Sun X J, Hu Z, Jiang X M, et al. Identification, evaluation and screening of salt-tolerant of soybean germplasm resources at seedling stage. Acta Agron Sin, 2024, 50: 2179-2186 (in Chinese with English abstract).
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2024.44030
[34] 张静, 高文博, 晏林, 等. 燕麦种质资源耐盐碱性鉴定评价及耐盐碱种质筛选. 作物学报, 2023, 49: 1551-1561.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2023.21032
Zhang J, Gao W B, Yan L, et al. Identification and evaluation of salt-alkali tolerance and screening of salt-alkali tolerant germplasm of oat (Avena sativa L.). Acta Agron Sin, 2023, 49: 1551-1561 (in Chinese with English abstract).
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2023.21032
[35] 孙东雷, 卞能飞, 陈志德, 等. 花生萌发期耐盐性综合评价及耐盐种质筛选. 植物遗传资源学报, 2017, 18: 1079-1087.
doi: 10.13430/j.cnki.jpgr.2017.06.010
Sun D L, Bian N F, Chen Z D, et al. Comprehensive evaluation of salt tolerance and screening for salt tolerant accessions of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) at germination stage. J Plant Genet Resour, 2017, 18: 1079-1087 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[36] 徐芬芬, 彦有娟, 韦蓉香. NaCl和Na2CO3胁迫对水稻根系生长的影响. 杂交水稻, 2020, 35(3): 76-78.
Xu F F, Yan Y J, Wei R X. Effects of NaCl and Na2CO3 stress on growth of rice root. Hybrid Rice, 2020, 35(3): 76-78 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[37] Tian H J, Ding S Q, Zhang D, et al. Sodium bicarbonate tolerance during seedling stages of maize (Zea mays L.) lines. Food Energy Secur, 2024, 13: e70013.
[38] Wang G Y, Ahmad S, Wang Y, et al. Multivariate analysis compares and evaluates drought and flooding tolerances of maize germplasm. Plant Physiol, 2023, 193: 339-355.
doi: 10.1093/plphys/kiad317 pmid: 37249039
[39] Zhang Z, Li Y H, Liang S, et al. Antioxidant enzymes responses of different genotypes of Leymus chinensis to saline-alkali stress and comprehensive evaluation of saline-alkali tolerance. Pak J Bot, 2022, 54: 2025-2032.
[40] 齐儒春, 王静, 张晋美, 等. 宁夏引黄灌区盐碱地耐盐青贮玉米品种筛选. 中国农学通报, 2025, 41(24): 20-29.
doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2024-0687
Qi R C, Wang J, Zhang J M, et al. Selection of salt-tolerant silage maize varieties in saline-alkali land of Ningxia Yellow River irrigation area. Chin Agric Sci Bull, 2025, 41(24): 20-29 (in Chinese with English abstract).
doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2024-0687
[41] Capula-Rodríguez R, Valdez-Aguilar L A, Cartmill D L, et al. Supplementary calcium and potassium improve the response of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) to simultaneous alkalinity, salinity and boron stress. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal, 2016, 47: 505-511.
[42] Yan L, Gao G, Lu M, et al. Insight into the amelioration effect of Nitric acid-modified biochar on saline soil physicochemical properties and plant growth. Plants, 2024, 13: 3434.
doi: 10.3390/plants13233434
[43] Shaheen H L, Iqbal M, Azeem M, et al. K-priming positively modulates growth and nutrient status of salt-stressed cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) seedlings. Arch Agron Soil Sci, 2016, 62: 759-768.
doi: 10.1080/03650340.2015.1095292
[44] Kopittke P M. Interactions between Ca, Mg, Na and K: alleviation of toxicity in saline solutions. Plant Soil, 2012, 352: 353-362.
doi: 10.1007/s11104-011-1001-x
[45] Wang H, Lin X, Cao S, et al. Alkali tolerance in rice (Oryza sativa L.): growth, photosynthesis, nitrogen metabolism, and ion homeostasis. Photosynthetica, 2015, 53: 55-65.
doi: 10.1007/s11099-015-0079-4
[1] 王跃, 刘天鹏, 于筱菡, 薛亚鹏, 杨天育, 王瑞云, 刘敏轩. 基于表型性状的1547份糜子种质资源遗传多样性分析与优异种质筛选[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(9): 2628-2640.
[2] 曾健, 王茹梦, 王旭, 崔诗瑶, 何大卫, 李江鹤, 张振华, 龚盼. 芥菜型油菜苗期耐低氮种质筛选与综合评价[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(7): 2057-2072.
[3] 马小倩, 秦娜, 代书桃, 秦家范, 李小艳, 王淑婷, 刘忠玲, 李君霞. 175份谷子种质在2种环境下的表型变异分析[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(6): 1757-1773.
[4] 姚术, 郭凯悦, 翟慧慧, 姚佳慧, 邓文琪, 闫玲, 黄驰, 高阳, 俞嫣然, 赵振邦, 李英慧, 王晓波, 李佳佳. 大豆苗期耐低铁综合评价及优异种质筛选[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(5): 1373-1387.
[5] 徐建霞, 丁延庆, 曹宁, 程斌, 高旭, 李文贞, 王若若, 王磊, 张立异. 397份高粱种质资源在贵州表型多样性分析及综合评价[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(4): 1073-1087.
[6] 谭文清, 惠荣奎, 张凡丽, 覃磊, 毛舒香, 邓力超, 郭一鸣, 曲亮, 严明理. 油菜耐渍性快速鉴定及耐渍种质筛选[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(4): 1035-1045.
[7] 李诗晴, 王茜, 王素华, 张耀文, 王丽侠. 绿豆种质资源苗期耐盐性鉴定及相关基因发掘[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(2): 376-388.
[8] 王雅致, 杨飚, 季香林, 石瑛, 张丽莉. 二倍体马铃薯抗旱资源鉴定及抗旱基因初步筛选[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(1): 72-84.
[9] 胡润慧, 汪军成, 司二静, 张宏, 李兴茂, 马小乐, 孟亚雄, 王化俊, 刘青, 姚立蓉, 李葆春. 小麦苗期耐旱耐盐种质筛选及抗旱耐盐综合评价[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(9): 2371-2386.
[10] 孟然, 李赵嘉, 冯薇, 陈悦, 刘路平, 杨春燕, 鲁雪林, 王秀萍. 大豆不同生育时期耐盐性综合评价及耐盐种质筛选[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(8): 1991-2008.
[11] 梁红凯, 赵苏蒙, 陆琼, 周鹏, 智慧, 刁现民, 贺强. 谷子微核心种质的构建[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(6): 1435-1444.
[12] 旺姆, 卓嘎, 扎桑, 西若曲宗, 达瓦顿珠, 郭刚刚, 张京, 卓嘎, 伦珠朗杰. 基于6个表型性状的青稞种质遗传多样性分析及综合评价[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(6): 1526-1537.
[13] 金欣欣, 宋亚辉, 苏俏, 杨永庆, 李玉荣, 王瑾. 冀花系列高油酸花生抗旱性鉴定与综合评价[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(3): 797-811.
[14] 王润风, 李文佳, 廖泳俊, 鲁清, 刘浩, 李海芬, 李少雄, 梁炫强, 洪彦彬, 陈小平. 花生核心种质资源荚果成熟度评鉴及早熟种质筛选[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(2): 395-404.
[15] 李琰, 李雨晨, 于爱萍, 陈爱萍. 8份无芒雀麦种质资源的草产量与营养品质的综合评价[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(12): 3377-3386.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!
京ICP备15008789号-2