欢迎访问作物学报,今天是

作物学报 ›› 2026, Vol. 52 ›› Issue (11): 3449-3463.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2026.65038

• 研究简报 • 上一篇    下一篇

大豆出苗期耐碱性鉴定方法建立及耐碱、耐盐种质筛选

薛文浩,王欣茹,王梦辰,常汝镇,关荣霞*,邱丽娟*   

  1. 中国农业科学院作物科学研究所 / 农作物基因资源与基因改良国家重大科学工程 / 农业农村部作物基因资源与种质创制重点实验室, 北京 100081
  • 收稿日期:2026-05-28 修回日期:2026-08-21 接受日期:2026-08-21 出版日期:2026-11-12 网络出版日期:2026-08-31
  • 通讯作者: 关荣霞, E-mail: guanrongxia@caas.cn; 邱丽娟, E-mail: qiulijuan@caas.cn
  • 基金资助:
    本研究由科技创新2030-重大项目(2023ZD0403601)和国家自然科学基金项目(31830066)资助。

Development of an alkali tolerance phenotyping method for soybean at the emergence stage and screening of alkali- and salt-tolerant germplasm accessions

Xue Wen-Hao,Wang Xin-Ru,Wang Meng-Chen,Chang Ru-Zhen,Guan Rong-Xia*,Qiu Li-Juan*   

  1. Institute of Crop Sciences, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences / National Key Facility for Crop Gene Resources and Genetic Improvement
  • Received:2026-05-28 Revised:2026-08-21 Accepted:2026-08-21 Published:2026-11-12 Published online:2026-08-31
  • Supported by:
    This study was supported by the Science and Technology Innovation 2030-Major Projects (2023ZD0403601) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31830066).

摘要: 土壤碱化是影响大豆生长发育及产量的主要非生物胁迫之一。建立高效的大豆耐碱性鉴定方法、筛选耐碱大豆资源,对于提高苏打盐碱地大豆产量具有重要意义。本研究以蛭石为育苗基质,设置0、30、35、40 mmol L?1混合碱溶液(NaHCO3∶Na2CO3 = 9∶1 (摩尔比))开展梯度胁迫处理;通过比较株高、叶面积、根长、根体积等地上、地下部表型性状,筛选适宜的耐碱鉴定指标,旨在建立一套高效的大豆出苗期耐碱性评价方法。结果表明,35 mmol L?1和40 mmol L?1碱溶液处理显著抑制大豆幼苗地上部生长与根系发育,且不同种质间表型差异明显。相关分析表明,相对叶面积与多个根系性状显著相关,能客观反映大豆出苗期耐碱水平。最终确定35 mmol L?1混合碱溶液为处理浓度,将处理10 d后的相对叶面积定义为耐碱系数(ATC),以此作为大豆出苗期耐碱性评价指标。利用该方法对52份大豆种质进行出苗期耐碱性评价,根据耐碱系数将其划分为4个抗性等级,鉴定出1级高度耐碱种质12份,2级耐碱种质10份。同步完成52份种质的出苗期、苗期耐盐性鉴定,筛选出绥中黄101、东农豆254、山宁33三份出苗期兼具耐碱、耐盐特性,且苗期耐盐的优异种质。本研究建立的大豆出苗期耐碱性鉴定方法操作简便,可实现无损、高通量检测,为耐碱大豆种质的高效鉴定、耐碱关键基因挖掘及耐碱大豆新品种培育提供了技术支撑。

关键词: 大豆, 出苗期, 耐碱性, 相对叶面积, 鉴定方法

Abstract: Soil alkalization is one of the major abiotic stresses restricting soybean growth, development, and yield. Developing efficient evaluation methods for soybean alkali tolerance and screening alkali-tolerant germplasm resources is crucial for improving soybean productivity on sodic soils. In this study, vermiculite was used as the seedling substrate, and gradient treatments were conducted with mixed alkali solutions (0, 30, 35, and 40 mmol L?1 NaHCO3:Na2CO3 = 9:1, molar ratio). By comparing aboveground and belowground phenotypic traits including plant height, leaf area, root length, and root volume, we aimed to identify suitable evaluation indices and establish an efficient evaluation method for alkali tolerance at the soybean emergence stage. The results showed that treatments with 35 mmol L?1 and 40 mmol L?1 mixed alkali solutions significantly inhibited the aboveground growth and root development of soybean seedlings, with significant phenotypic differences observed among the tested germplasm accessions. Correlation analysis indicated that relative leaf area was significantly correlated with multiple root traits and could reliably reflect the alkali tolerance of different accessions. Ultimately, 35 mmol L?1 mixed alkali solution was selected as the treatment concentration. The relative leaf area measured 10 days after alkali treatment was defined as the alkali tolerance coefficient (ATC), which served as the evaluation index for soybean alkali tolerance at the emergence stage. This method was used to evaluate the alkali tolerance of 52 soybean germplasm accessions, which were classified into four grades according to ATC values. Twelve grade 1 highly alkali-tolerant accessions and ten grade 2 alkali-tolerant accessions were identified. Meanwhile, salt tolerance identification at both emergence and seedling stages was carried out on all 52 accessions. Three elite soybean accessions, namely SZH101, DND254, and SN33, were finally identified. These accessions exhibited both alkali and salt tolerance at the emergence stage and stable salt tolerance at the seedling stage. This study presents a simple, non-destructive, and high-throughput method for evaluating alkali tolerance in soybean at the emergence stage, which is highly valuable for efficient identification of alkali-tolerant soybean germplasm, mining of key alkali-tolerance genes, and accelerated breeding of alkali-tolerant varieties.

Key words: soybean, emergence stage, alkali tolerance, relative leaf area, phenotyping method

[1] FAO. Global Status of Salt-affected Soils: Main Report. Rome: FAO, 2024. pp 15–40.
[2] 宇振荣, 王建武. 中国土地盐碱化及其防治对策研究. 农村生态环境, 1997, 13(3): 1–5.
Yu Z R, Wang J W. Land salinization in China and the prevention countermeasures. Rural Eco Environ, 1997, 13(3): 1–5 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[3] 任鹏飞, 尚丽霞, 蔡勤安, 等. 植物耐碱性研究进展及其在大豆中的应用展望. 大豆科学, 2019, 38: 977–985.
Ren P F, Shang L X, Cai Q A, et al. Research progress of plant alkali tolerance and its application prospect in soybean. Soybean Sci, 2019, 38: 977–985 (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] 王佳丽, 黄贤金, 钟太洋, 等. 盐碱地可持续利用研究综述. 地理学报, 2011, 66: 673–684.
Wang J L, Huang X J, Zhong T Y, et al. Review on sustainable utilization of salt-affected land. Acta Geogr Sin, 2011, 66: 673–684 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[6] 王世睿, 黄迎新. 松嫩平原盐碱地改良治理研究进展. 土壤与作物, 2023, 12: 206–217.
Wang S R, Huang Y X. Research progress on saline-alkali land improvement in Songnen Plain. Soils Crops, 2023, 12: 206–217 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[7] Wang L, Seki K, Miyazaki T, et al. The causes of soil alkalinization in the Songnen Plain of Northeast China. Paddy Water Environ, 2009, 7: 259–270.
[8] Fan D L, Ruan J, Xu Q N, et al. From model plants to staple crops: molecular mechanisms of plant saline-alkali tolerance. Plants, 2026, 15: 532.
[9] 刘奕媺, 于洋, 方军. 盐碱胁迫及植物耐盐碱分子机制研究. 土壤与作物, 2018, 7: 201–211.
Liu Y M, Yu Y, Fang J. Saline-alkali stress and molecular mechanism of saline-alkali tolerance in plants. Soils Crops, 2018, 7: 201–211 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[10] Cao Y B, Song H F, Zhang L Y. New insight into plant saline-alkali tolerance mechanisms and application to breeding. Int J Mol Sci, 2022, 23: 16048.
[11] Sharshar A M, Esmail S M, Elmoghazy D E, et al. Effect of combined alkaline-saline and stripe rust stresses on physiological and yield traits in bread wheat. J Crop Heal, 2025, 77: 29.
[12] Guo R, Shi L X, Ding X M, et al. Effects of saline and alkaline stress on germination, seedling growth, and ion balance in wheat. Agron J, 2010, 102: 1252–1260.
[13] Guo S Q, Chen Y X, Ju Y L, et al. Fine-tuning gibberellin improves rice alkali–thermal tolerance and yield. Nature, 2025, 639: 162–171.
[14] 刘谢香, 常汝镇, 关荣霞, 等. 大豆出苗期耐盐性鉴定方法建立及耐盐种质筛选. 作物学报, 2020, 46: 1–8.
Liu X X, Chang R Z, Guan R X, et al. Establishment of screening method for salt tolerant soybean at emergence stage and screening of tolerant germplasm. Acta Agron Sin, 2020, 46: 1–8 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[15] 姜静涵, 关荣霞, 郭勇, 等. 大豆苗期耐盐性的简便鉴定方法. 作物学报, 2013, 39: 1248–1256.
Jiang J H, Guan R X, Guo Y, et al. Simple evaluation method of tolerance to salt at seedling stage in soybean. Acta Agron Sin, 2013, 39: 1248–1256 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[16] Zhang W J, Niu Y, Bu S H, et al. Epistatic association mapping for alkaline and salinity tolerance traits in the soybean germination stage. PLoS One, 2014, 9: e84750.
[17] 韩毅强, 高亚梅, 杜艳丽, 等. 大豆耐盐碱种质资源鉴定. 中国油料作物学报, 2021, 43: 1016–1024.
Han Y Q, Gao Y M, Du Y L, et al. Identification of saline-alkali tolerant germplasm resources of soybean during the whole growth stage. Chin J Oil Crop Sci, 2021, 43: 1016–1024 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[18] 徐玲秀. 大豆种质资源不同生育时期耐碱性评价. 东北农业大学硕士学位论文, 黑龙江哈尔滨, 2018.
Xu L X. Evaluation of Alkaline Tolerance of Soybean Germplasm Resources at Different Growth Stages. MS Thesis of Northeast Agricultural University, Harbin, Heilongjiang, China, 2018 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[19] Guan R X, Qu Y, Guo Y, et al. Salinity tolerance in soybean is modulated by natural variation in GmSALT3. Plant J, 2014, 80: 937–950.
[20] 朱建峰, 崔振荣, 吴春红, 等. 我国盐碱地绿化研究进展与展望. 世界林业研究, 2018, 31(4): 70–75.
Zhu J F, Cui Z R, Wu C H, et al. Research advances and prospect of saline and alkali land greening in China. World For Res, 2018, 31(4): 70–75 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[21] 那桂秋, 寇贺, 曹敏建. 不同大豆品种种子萌发期耐盐碱性鉴定. 大豆科学, 2009, 28: 352–356.
Na G Q, Kou H, Cao M J. Salt and alkaline tolerance evaluation of different soybean varieties at germination stage. Soybean Sci, 2009, 28: 352–356 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[22] 肖鑫辉, 李向华, 王克晶. 渤海湾津唐沿海野生大豆(Glycine soja)种群高盐碱胁迫反应. 植物遗传资源学报, 2010, 11: 290–297.
Xiao X H, Li X H, Wang K J. Response of the population of wild soybean (Glycine soja) in the Bohai Bay littoral bestriding Tianjin and Tangshan areas to high salinity soil stress. J Plant Genet Resour, 2010, 11: 290–297 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[23] 郑焕斌, 李明, 杨素欣, 等. 大豆种质资源苗期耐碱筛选及评价分析. 中国农业科技导报(中英文), 2025, 27(7): 54–71.
Zheng H B, Li M, Yang S X, et al. Alkaline tolerance screening and evaluation analysis of soybean germplasm resources at seedling stage. J Agric Sci Technol, 2025, 27(7): 54–71 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[24] 滕卫丽, 史飞飞, 林峰, 等. 大豆种质耐碱性状全基因组关联分析. 东北农业大学学报, 2023, 54(4): 1–13.
Teng W L, Shi F F, Lin F, et al. Genome-wide association analysis of alkali tolerance traits in soybean germplasm. J Northeast Agric Univ, 2023, 54(4): 1–13 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[25] Zhou S Q, Mou H W, Zhou J, et al. Development of an automated plant phenotyping system for evaluation of salt tolerance in soybean. Comput Electron Agric, 2021, 182: 106001.
[26] Manavalan L P, Cui I, Ambrose K V, et al. Systematic approach to validate and implement digital phenotyping tool for soybean: a case study with PlantEye. Plant Phenome J, 2021, 4: e20025.
[27] Fang S M, Hou X, Liang X L. Response mechanisms of plants under saline-alkali stress. Front Plant Sci, 2021, 12: 667458.
[28] Wang M, Qu Y Y, Lu X L, et al. Root-centered sodium sequestration and transcriptomic regulation under salt and alkali stress in wild soybean (Glycine soja). Front Plant Sci, 2025, 16: 1675559.
[29] 张海波, 崔继哲, 曹甜甜, 等. 大豆出苗期和苗期对盐胁迫的响应及耐盐指标评价. 生态学报, 2011, 31: 2805–2812.
Zhang H B, Cui J Z, Cao T T, et al. Response to salt stresses and assessment of salt tolerability of soybean varieties in emergence and seedling stages. Acta Ecol Sin, 2011, 31: 2805–2812 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[30] Jin T, Sun Y Y, Shan Z, et al. Natural variation in the promoter of GsERD15B affects salt tolerance in soybean. Plant Biotechnol J, 2021, 19: 1155–1169.
[31] Bibikova T N, Jacob T, Dahse I, et al. Localized changes in apoplastic and cytoplasmic pH are associated with root hair development in Arabidopsis thaliana. Development, 1998, 125: 2925–2934.
[32] 于天一, 王春晓, 孙学武, 等. 碱胁迫对花生幼苗根系形态及干物质累积的影响. 中国油料作物学报, 2017, 39: 190–196.
Yu T Y, Wang C X, Sun X W, et al. Effects of alkaline stress on root morphology and dry matter accumulation characteristics of peanut seedling. Chin J Oil Crop Sci, 2017, 39: 190–196 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[1] 余林峰, 李静, 张晟瑞, 马彩优, 郝兆艺, 李斌, 孙君明. 大豆单籽粒油分含量的傅里叶近红外预测模型构建[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(9): 2809-2821.
[2] 陈檬瑶, 陈强, 史晓蕾, 索文英, 张孟臣, 杨春燕, 闫龙, 张锴, 孟庆民. 大豆籽粒油分含量QTL定位及KASP标记开发[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(7): 1985-1996.
[3] 刘峰, 董宏伟, 张越, 李冉, 孙若男, 刘佳城, 孙树杰, 张旭东, 韩清芳. 玉豆间作减氮稳产的光合机制: 光合产物转化效率提升[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(7): 2095-2108.
[4] 金昱何, 王雪菲, 徐张一娃, 缪怡宁, 蒋云杰, 伊莹, 缪德麟, 朱静仪, 钟一帆, 陈铭亨, 方芳, 刘鹏. 外源激素对低温胁迫下大豆叶片叶绿素荧光参数及抗氧化酶系统的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(6): 1817-1829.
[5] 唐宽强, 李公允, 宋美毅, 赵雪, 常春玲. 大豆株高性状全基因组关联分析及预测模型构建[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(6): 1743-1756.
[6] 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.
[7] 张晴, 杨昱, 郭茜, 岳霈尧, 殷丛丛, 牛景萍, 赵晋忠, 杜维俊, 岳爱琴. 大豆GmARA6a的克隆及响应盐胁迫的功能分析[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(2): 480-493.
[8] 姜涛, 卢静静, 葛松豪, 翟骥鹏, 马子涵, 常香梅, 徐文修, 苏丽丽, 唐江华. 少免耕措施对北疆复播大豆光合及产量的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(11): 3352-3365.
[9] 张少润, 王敏, 雷新慧, 封亮, 刘席文, 杨峰, 王小春, 杨文钰. 玉米氮密互作对黄淮海夏大豆夏玉米带状间作冠层光截获和群体产量的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(10): 3110-3127.
[10] 陈兴华, 陈冉冉, 夏雨昕, 康壹然, 王创. 玉米杂交种苗期耐碱性综合评价与筛选[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(10): 3128-3141.
[11] 魏瑾, 廖春梅, 高丽诗, 张莹, 杨慧, 岳琳, 刘宝辉, 陈丽玉. 大豆GmbHLH119和GmbHLH120基因生物信息学及表达模式分析[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(10): 3023-3036.
[12] 王克晶, 李向华. 我国珍稀的大豆属多年生烟豆和短绒野大豆物种遗传资源濒危性评估分析[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(8): 2009-2019.
[13] 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.
[14] 贺红利, 张雨涵, 杨静, 程云清, 赵杨, 李星诺, 司洪亮, 张兴政, 杨向东. 大豆e1-as基因突变体的创制及生理分析[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(8): 2228-2239.
[15] 胡蒙, 沙丹, 张晟瑞, 谷勇哲, 张世碧, 李静, 孙君明, 邱丽娟, 李斌. 大豆分枝数QTL定位及候选基因筛选[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(7): 1747-1756.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] 王兰珍;米国华;陈范骏;张福锁. 不同产量结构小麦品种对缺磷反应的分析[J]. 作物学报, 2003, 29(06): 867 -870 .
[2] 袁美;杨光圣;傅廷栋;严红艳. 甘蓝型油菜生态型细胞质雄性不育两用系的研究Ⅲ. 8-8112AB的温度敏感性及其遗传[J]. 作物学报, 2003, 29(03): 330 -335 .
[3] 胡希远;李建平;宋喜芳. 空间统计分析在作物育种品系选择中的效果[J]. 作物学报, 2008, 34(03): 412 -417 .
[4] 柯丽萍;郑滔;吴学龙;何海燕;陈锦清. 甘蓝型油菜SLG基因片段的克隆及序列分析[J]. 作物学报, 2008, 34(05): 764 -769 .
[5] 吕丽华;陶洪斌;夏来坤; 张雅杰; 赵明; 赵久然;王璞. 不同种植密度下的夏玉米冠层结构及光合特性[J]. 作物学报, 2008, 34(03): 447 -455 .
[6] 田志坚;易蓉;陈建荣;郭清泉;张学文. 苎麻纤维素合成酶基因cDNA的克隆及表达分析[J]. 作物学报, 2008, 34(01): 76 -83 .
[7] 邱崇力. 普通小麦与六倍体小黑麦杂交不亲和性的研究 Ⅰ.杂种的胚胎发育[J]. 作物学报, 1986, (01): 49 -56 .
[8] 赵庆华;黄剑华;颜昌敬. 油菜花粉发芽的研究[J]. 作物学报, 1986, (01): 15 -20 .
[9] 王立新;李云伏;常利芳;黄 岚;李宏博;葛玲玲;刘丽华;姚 骥;赵昌平;姚 骥;赵昌平. 建立小麦品种DNA指纹的方法研究[J]. 作物学报, 2007, 33(10): 1738 -1740 .
[10] 勾玲;黄建军;张宾;李涛;孙锐;赵明. 群体密度对玉米茎秆抗倒力学和农艺性状的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2007, 33(10): 1688 -1695 .