欢迎访问作物学报，今天是
作物学报

作物学报 ›› 2025, Vol. 51 ›› Issue (3): 835-844.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2025.44099

• 研究简报 • 上一篇    

苏丹草种子萌发期耐盐性评价及耐盐种质筛选

蒋优1,2(), 马雪融1,2, 张博1,2, 李陈建1,2,*()   

  1. 1西部干旱荒漠区草地资源与生态实验室, 新疆乌鲁木齐 830052
    2新疆农业大学草业学院, 新疆乌鲁木齐 830052
  • 收稿日期:2024-06-19 接受日期:2024-10-25 出版日期:2025-03-12 网络出版日期:2024-11-11
  • 通讯作者: *李陈建, E-mail: 378952150@qq.com
  • 作者简介:E-mail: 2012279855@qq.com
  • 基金资助:
    新疆维吾尔自治区自然科学基金项目(2022D01A72)

Evaluation of salt tolerance and screening of salt-tolerant germplasm of Sorghum sudanese during seed germination period

JIANG You1,2(), MA Xue-Rong1,2, ZHANG Bo1,2, LI Chen-Jian1,2,*()   

  1. 1Laboratory of Grassland Resources and Ecology in Western Arid Desert Region, Urumqi 830052, Xinjiang, China
    2College of Grassland Science, Xinjiang Agricultural University, Urumqi 830052, Xinjiang, China
  • Received:2024-06-19 Accepted:2024-10-25 Published:2025-03-12 Published online:2024-11-11
  • Contact: *E-mail: 378952150@qq.com
  • Supported by:
    Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region Natural Science Foundation(2022D01A72)

RichHTML

14

PDF

120

摘要：

盐碱地在我国分布较为广泛, 选育耐盐牧草种质资源是开发利用盐碱地的重要手段。本研究以94份苏丹草种质资源为材料, 通过室内模拟盐胁迫环境, 于萌发期测定发芽势、发芽率、根长、芽长等11项指标, 并对各个测量指标的相对值进行相关性分析、主成分分析和聚类分析, 利用隶属函数法对苏丹草耐盐性进行综合评价。结果表明, 盐胁迫下各指标存在广泛变异, 经过主成分分析后, 11项指标降维至3个综合指标, 累计方差贡献率高达85.807%; 通过聚类分析将94份种质资源分为五大类, 最终筛选出高耐种质包括NX035、GS0218、SCH03-128、GS0227、GS479、GS477、283和GS1289, 高敏种质00276、B478; 并构建了逐步回归模型D=0.402RGI+0.397RRDW+ 0.261RGR-0.01 (R2=0.949, P < 0.01), 在200 mmol L-1 NaCl盐胁迫下, 相对发芽指数、相对根干重及相对发芽率可以作为苏丹草萌发期耐盐性评价关键指标。这些成果为未来苏丹草耐盐性育种提供了重要的材料基础。

关键词: 苏丹草, 萌发期, 耐盐性评价, 聚类分析

Abstract:

Saline-alkali soil is widely distributed across China, and breeding salt-tolerant forage grass germplasm is crucial for the development and utilization of such soils. In this experiment, 94 genetic resources of Sorghum sudanense were subjected to salt stress in a controlled indoor environment. During the germination phase, various parameters such as seed viability, growth rate, root elongation, and shoot development were carefully assessed. Correlation analysis, principal component analysis, and cluster analysis were conducted on the relative values of each indicator, and the membership function method was applied for a comprehensive evaluation of salt tolerance in Sorghum sudanense. The results revealed significant variation in the measured indicators under salt stress. After principal component analysis, the 11 indicators were reduced to three composite indicators, with a cumulative variance contribution rate of 85.807%. Cluster analysis grouped the 94 germplasm resources into five major clusters. Among these, highly salt-tolerant germplasm included NX035, GS0218, SCH03-128, GS0227, GS479, GS477, 283, and GS1289, while highly sensitive germplasm included 00276 and B478. A stepwise regression model, D=0.402RGI+0.397RRDW+0.261RGR- 0.01 (R2=0.949, P < 0.01) was constructed, indicating that the relative germination index, relative root dry weight, and relative germination rate can serve as key indicators for evaluating salt tolerance in Sorghum sudanense during the germination stage under 200 mmol L-1 NaCl salt stress. These findings provide a valuable material base for future breeding of Sorghum sudanense with enhanced salt tolerance.

Key words: Sorghum sudanense, germination stage, evaluation salt tolerance, cluster analysis

表1

94份供试材料名称"

编号
Code		 种质
Germplasm		 编号
Code		 种质
Germplasm		 编号
Code		 种质
Germplasm		 编号
Code		 种质
Germplasm
1 525 25 GS1307 49 GS0228 73 JS2006-35
2 GS0227 26 SCH03-128 50 GS0225 74 JS0320
3 NM05-019 27 CHQ2003-465 51 GS200038 75 NM05-226
4 GS0226 28 GS537 52 2689 76 CHQ2003-466
5 1838 29 GS0233 53 新草1号 Xincao 1 77 SCH03-110
6 GS0221 30 2794 54 GS0356 78 CHQ03-103
7 GS479 31 521 55 新苏3号Xinsu 3 79 JS0326
8 HN796 32 新苏2号 Xinsu 2 56 526 80 NM05-109
9 B471 33 2708 57 97-3 81 1839
10 1836 34 283 58 97-1 82 B470
11 02447 35 1841 59 CHQ03-141 83 1837
12 奇台 Qitai 36 SCH03-128 60 GS1306 84 00278
13 CHQ2003-460 37 GS0218 61 282 85 00276
14 GS0234 38 277 62 CHQ03-66 86 JS2004-182
15 2716 39 GS200039 63 SCH03-12 87 00435
16 SCH-02-65 40 GS0116 64 1840 88 HZK0-1
17 GS1289 41 GS0222 65 KLW133 89 NSL4221
18 523 42 GS525 66 2689 90 GS553
19 GS477 43 JS0337 67 盐池Yanchi 91 B478
20 GS527 44 CHQ03-124 68 CHQ03-131 92 B475
21 452 45 2707 69 GS0231 93 JS0324
22 GS0229 46 519 70 NX035 94 JS2004-179
23 1962 47 SCH2005-250 71 GS0236
24 GS0220 48 CHQ2003-439 72 GS0235

图1

8份供试材料在不同盐浓度下的发芽率"

表2

供试材料各指标耐盐变异分析"

指标Index 最大值Max. 最小值Min. 极差Range 均值Average 标准差SD 变异系数CV (%)
相对发芽指数RGI 0.81 0 0.81 0.33 0.14 41.10
相对发芽势RGP 1.22 0 1.22 0.58 0.26 44.66
相对发芽率RGR 1.40 0 1.40 0.72 0.26 35.66
相对根长RRL 0.74 0 0.74 0.22 0.14 65.57
相对芽长RSL 0.95 0 0.95 0.29 0.13 46.14
相对根鲜重RRFW 2.76 0 2.76 0.44 0.35 77.93
相对芽鲜重RSFW 1.13 0 1.13 0.31 0.16 51.07
相对根干重RRDW 1.14 0 1.14 0.34 0.20 59.45
相对芽干重RSDW 0.92 0 0.92 0.38 0.17 44.95
相对根冠比RRCR 5.05 0 5.05 0.81 0.63 77.25
相对活力指数RVI 0.63 0 0.63 0.12 0.09 75.19

表3

供试材料各指标间的相关性"

项目
Item		 相对发芽指数RGI 相对
发芽势RGP		 相对
发芽率RGR		 相对
根长RRL		 相对
芽长
RSL		 相对
根鲜重RRFW		 相对
芽鲜重RSFW		 相对
根干重RRDW		 相对
芽干重RSDW		 相对
根冠比RRCR		 相对
活力指数RVI
相对发芽指数RGI 1.000
相对发芽势RGP 0.627** 1.000
相对发芽率RGR 0.699** 0.878** 1.000
相对根长RRL 0.673** 0.343** 0.314** 1.000
相对芽长RSL 0.540** 0.338** 0.351** 0.488** 1.000
相对根鲜重RRFW 0.336** 0.215* 0.162 0.608** 0.322** 1.000
相对芽鲜重RSFW 0.463** 0.305** 0.340** 0.405** 0.881** 0.398** 1.000
相对根干重RRDW 0.600** 0.415** 0.338** 0.842** 0.402** 0.609** 0.323** 1.000
相对芽干重RSDW 0.516** 0.330** 0.347** 0.451** 0.845** 0.253* 0.861** 0.451** 1.000
相对根冠比RRCR 0.222* 0.091 0.084 0.607** -0.254* 0.434** -0.271** 0.499** -0.226* 1.000
相对活力指数RVI 0.801** 0.460** 0.481** 0.702** 0.786** 0.594** 0.820** 0.616** 0.719** 0.055 1.000

表4

各指标的主成分分析"

指标
Index		 特征向量Eigen vector
1 2 3
相对发芽指数RGI 0.837 0.109 0.293
相对发芽势RGP 0.628 0.053 0.698
相对发芽率RGR 0.631 0.003 0.729
相对根长RRL 0.794 0.463 -0.227
相对芽长RSL 0.793 -0.478 -0.201
相对根鲜重RRFW 0.598 0.395 -0.379
相对芽鲜重RSFW 0.770 -0.519 -0.243
相对根干重RRDW 0.753 0.459 -0.149
相对芽干重RSDW 0.770 -0.469 -0.183
相对根冠比RRCR 0.184 0.918 -0.076
相对活力指数RVI 0.934 -0.113 -0.132
特征值Eigen value 5.770 2.170 1.477
贡献率Contribution ratio (%) 52.454 19.724 13.429
累计贡献率Cumulative contribution ratio (%) 52.454 72.178 85.607
权重Weight (%) 61.000 23.000 16.000

表5

各材料综合指标值、隶属函数值、D值、排序及预测值"

编号
Code		 综合指标值Comprehensive index 隶属函数值Subordinate function value D值
D-value		 排序
Rank		 预测值
Predictive value
CI (1) CI (2) CI (3) μ (1) μ (2) μ (3)
1 0.310 1.388 0.262 0.491 0.697 0.602 0.556 17 0.635
2 1.472 1.535 0.018 0.725 0.725 0.544 0.697 4 0.724
3 0.650 0.035 -0.336 0.559 0.440 0.461 0.517 29 0.523
4 0.419 -1.032 -1.766 0.513 0.237 0.126 0.389 66 0.418
5 0.414 -0.015 -0.191 0.512 0.430 0.495 0.490 36 0.485
6 0.774 0.207 0.915 0.584 0.473 0.755 0.585 10 0.617
7 0.812 2.101 0.692 0.592 0.833 0.702 0.665 5 0.621
8 -0.046 0.912 -0.145 0.419 0.607 0.506 0.476 44 0.480
9 1.167 -0.651 0.036 0.664 0.309 0.548 0.564 12 0.566
10 -0.925 1.732 -1.102 0.242 0.763 0.282 0.368 72 0.343
11 -0.885 -0.574 -0.386 0.250 0.324 0.450 0.298 81 0.288
12 -0.132 -0.843 0.705 0.402 0.273 0.705 0.420 58 0.438
13 -0.148 0.575 -0.524 0.399 0.543 0.417 0.435 52 0.481
14 0.860 -0.676 -1.225 0.602 0.305 0.253 0.479 42 0.517
15 0.959 -0.255 0.055 0.622 0.385 0.553 0.556 16 0.582
16 -1.770 0.008 -0.138 0.071 0.435 0.508 0.224 88 0.291
17 1.596 0.487 -0.521 0.750 0.526 0.418 0.646 8 0.654
18 0.472 0.336 -0.221 0.524 0.497 0.488 0.512 32 0.538
19 0.586 2.643 0.740 0.546 0.936 0.713 0.662 6 0.611
20 -1.385 1.022 0.521 0.149 0.628 0.662 0.340 78 0.345
21 1.155 -0.713 -0.024 0.661 0.298 0.535 0.558 15 0.549
22 0.729 -2.277 0.357 0.575 0.000 0.624 0.450 49 0.462
23 0.419 -0.396 0.413 0.513 0.358 0.637 0.497 35 0.501
24 1.075 0.694 -0.472 0.645 0.565 0.429 0.593 9 0.593
25 0.962 -0.481 -1.870 0.622 0.342 0.102 0.476 43 0.454
26 2.563 -0.276 -1.081 0.945 0.381 0.287 0.712 3 0.668
27 1.656 -0.929 -1.299 0.762 0.257 0.236 0.563 13 0.556
28 0.836 0.002 -0.804 0.597 0.434 0.352 0.521 26 0.566
29 0.981 -0.451 -2.033 0.626 0.347 0.064 0.474 46 0.454
30 1.000 -1.292 -0.037 0.630 0.187 0.531 0.513 31 0.496
31 -0.244 1.276 0.244 0.379 0.676 0.597 0.482 40 0.496
32 0.819 0.390 -2.305 0.594 0.508 0.000 0.481 41 0.459
33 0.972 -0.893 -0.708 0.624 0.263 0.374 0.502 33 0.488
34 2.178 0.151 -1.686 0.868 0.462 0.145 0.661 7 0.591
35 0.256 -0.732 -0.817 0.480 0.294 0.349 0.417 60 0.410
36 -1.042 -0.307 -1.314 0.218 0.375 0.232 0.256 85 0.281
37 2.834 0.123 -0.553 1.000 0.457 0.410 0.782 2 0.738
38 -0.657 0.854 -1.360 0.296 0.596 0.221 0.353 75 0.329
39 -0.097 -0.024 -0.418 0.409 0.429 0.442 0.419 59 0.388
40 -1.039 0.135 0.993 0.219 0.459 0.773 0.361 73 0.382
41 0.948 -0.987 0.269 0.620 0.246 0.603 0.531 24 0.552
42 -0.574 -0.549 0.772 0.313 0.329 0.721 0.380 69 0.351
43 -1.060 0.105 0.458 0.215 0.453 0.647 0.338 79 0.380
44 -1.043 -0.475 1.225 0.218 0.343 0.827 0.342 77 0.359
45 0.085 -0.861 -0.260 0.445 0.269 0.479 0.410 61 0.430
46 0.706 -0.686 0.876 0.571 0.303 0.745 0.536 22 0.548
47 -1.434 -0.903 0.145 0.139 0.262 0.574 0.236 86 0.253
48 -0.901 -0.732 -0.768 0.247 0.294 0.360 0.275 84 0.240
49 -0.863 0.486 0.415 0.254 0.526 0.637 0.377 70 0.383
50 -1.342 -1.037 -0.892 0.158 0.236 0.331 0.203 90 0.194
51 -1.157 -2.031 -0.006 0.195 0.047 0.539 0.215 89 0.237
52 -0.800 0.768 0.032 0.267 0.580 0.548 0.383 68 0.357
53 0.494 -0.660 1.861 0.528 0.308 0.976 0.548 20 0.526
54 0.008 -1.194 -0.178 0.430 0.206 0.498 0.389 65 0.391
55 -0.232 -0.682 -0.330 0.382 0.304 0.463 0.376 71 0.380
56 0.024 1.228 1.309 0.433 0.667 0.847 0.552 19 0.535
57 -0.682 0.387 1.226 0.291 0.507 0.827 0.425 55 0.422
58 -1.045 -0.899 -0.077 0.218 0.262 0.522 0.276 83 0.333
59 -0.390 -0.115 1.258 0.350 0.412 0.835 0.440 51 0.478
60 -0.058 1.488 -0.916 0.417 0.716 0.325 0.471 47 0.462
61 0.523 0.078 0.753 0.534 0.448 0.717 0.543 21 0.526
62 -0.634 2.675 -1.625 0.300 0.943 0.159 0.426 54 0.295
63 0.209 1.078 0.078 0.471 0.639 0.558 0.523 25 0.518
64 -0.950 0.091 -0.172 0.237 0.451 0.500 0.327 80 0.307
65 0.148 -0.611 0.964 0.458 0.317 0.766 0.474 45 0.474
66 -1.182 1.137 -0.141 0.190 0.650 0.507 0.346 76 0.325
67 -0.548 0.526 -0.031 0.318 0.533 0.533 0.401 62 0.391
68 -0.404 0.062 0.627 0.347 0.445 0.687 0.423 57 0.474
69 -0.213 -0.492 -0.362 0.385 0.340 0.455 0.386 67 0.424
70 1.787 2.977 0.363 0.789 1.000 0.625 0.812 1 0.800
71 0.006 -0.850 -0.495 0.430 0.272 0.424 0.392 64 0.404
72 -1.292 2.527 -1.020 0.168 0.914 0.301 0.361 74 0.311
73 0.084 -0.777 1.738 0.445 0.286 0.947 0.487 37 0.481
74 -0.163 -0.126 1.647 0.396 0.409 0.926 0.482 39 0.466
75 -0.414 -0.336 0.488 0.345 0.369 0.654 0.399 63 0.375
76 0.691 -0.739 0.967 0.568 0.293 0.767 0.536 23 0.526
77 0.884 -1.096 1.209 0.607 0.225 0.823 0.553 18 0.576
78 0.137 -0.276 -0.294 0.456 0.381 0.471 0.441 50 0.457
79 0.237 -1.070 1.909 0.476 0.230 0.988 0.500 34 0.482
80 -0.843 -1.224 0.192 0.258 0.200 0.585 0.296 82 0.330
81 0.401 -0.391 1.040 0.509 0.359 0.784 0.518 28 0.493
82 0.196 -0.042 -0.401 0.468 0.425 0.446 0.455 48 0.429
83 0.587 -1.081 1.291 0.547 0.228 0.843 0.520 27 0.541
84 -1.472 0.150 -1.037 0.132 0.462 0.297 0.234 87 0.251
85 -1.962 -0.495 -1.898 0.033 0.339 0.095 0.113 93 0.113
86 -0.900 1.152 1.314 0.247 0.653 0.848 0.435 53 0.475
87 -1.898 -0.033 -1.282 0.046 0.427 0.240 0.164 92 0.139
88 -0.387 0.099 0.559 0.350 0.452 0.671 0.424 56 0.419
89 -0.034 -0.335 1.497 0.421 0.370 0.891 0.483 38 0.487
90 0.145 0.718 1.741 0.458 0.570 0.948 0.561 14 0.523
91 -2.124 -0.993 -1.237 0 0.244 0.250 0.096 94 0.118
92 -1.696 -0.523 -0.918 0.086 0.334 0.325 0.181 91 0.199
93 -0.270 0.680 1.963 0.374 0.563 1.000 0.516 30 0.528
94 0.117 1.097 1.538 0.452 0.642 0.900 0.566 11 0.552

图2

盐胁迫下苏丹草种质D值系统聚类"

[1] 杨志新, 郑旭, 陈来宝, 于泳鑫, 张凤华, 李鲁华, 王家平. 干旱区盐碱地食叶草根系形态分布适应策略研究. 草业学报, 2022, 31(7): 15-27.
doi: 10.11686/cyxb2021231
Yang Z X, Zheng X, Chen L B, Yu Y X, Zhang F H, Li L H, Wang J P. Morphological adaptation strategies of Rumex hanus planted in saline-alkali land of arid areas. Acta Pratac Sin, 2022, 31(7): 15-27 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[2] 王娅琳, 魏琳, 李娜, 张骞, 常涛, 罗崇亮, 赵娜, 徐世晓. 3种牧草种子萌发期耐盐性综合评价. 草业科学, 2023, 40: 3104-3113.
Wang Y L, Wei L, Li N, Zhang Q, Chang T, Luo C L, Zhao N, Xu S X. Comprehensive evaluation of salt tolerance of three forage seed varieties during germination. Pratac Sci, 2023, 40: 3104-3113 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[3] 洪森荣, 刘佳凝, 袁昕, 曾芷仪, 木也赛尔·吐鲁洪, 杨开泰, 谢欣. 苏丹草和高丹草转录组测序及其差异基因表达分析. 草地学报, 2024, 32: 714-725.
doi: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2024.03.007
Hong S R, Liu J N, Yuan X, Zeng Z Y, Mu Yesai·Turuhong, Yang K T, Xie X. Transcriptome sequencing and their differential gene expression analysis of Sorghum sudanense (Piper) stapf. and Sorghum bicolor (linn.) moench. × Sorghum sudanense (Piper) stapf. Acta Agrest Sin, 2024, 32: 714-725 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[4] 徐玉鹏, 武之新, 赵忠祥. 苏丹草的适应性及在我国农牧业生产中的发展前景. 草业科学, 2003, 20: 23-25.
Xu Y P, Wu Z X, Zhao Z X. The adaptability and the developing foreground of Sudan grass in the produce of agriculture and animal husbandry in China. Pratac Sci, 2003, 20: 23-25 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[5] 谭皓, 雷菲. 盐胁迫对苏丹草幼苗生长和渗透调节物质含量的影响. 南方农业, 2019, 13(28): 28-30.
Tan H, Lei F. Effects of salt stress on the growth and osmotic adjustment substances of Sorghum sudanense (Piper) Stapf. seedlings. South China Agric, 2019, 13(28): 28-30 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[6] 李妍. NaCl胁迫对苏丹草种子萌发及幼苗生长的影响. 现代农业科技, 2010, (12): 301.
Li Y. Effects of NaCl stress on seed germination and seedling growth of Sudan grass. Mod Agric Sci Technol, 2010, (12): 301 (in Chinese).
[7] Sui N, Yang Z, Liu M L, Wang B S. Identification and transcriptomic profiling of genes involved in increasing sugar content during salt stress in sweet Sorghum leaves. BMC Genomics, 2015, 16: 534.
doi: 10.1186/s12864-015-1760-5 pmid: 26186930
[8] 段雅娟, 曹士亮, 于滔, 李文跃, 杨耿斌, 王成波, 刘宝民, 刘长华. 玉米自交系萌发期耐盐性鉴定. 作物杂志, 2022, (1): 213-219.
Duan Y J, Cao S L, Yu T, Li W Y, Yang G B, Wang C B, Liu B M, Liu C H. Identification of salt tolerance during germination of maize inbred lines. Crops, 2022, (1): 213-219 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[9] 杜磊, 雄东毕, 赵海红, 李成奇. 棉花萌发期和苗期耐盐性差异研究及种质鉴定. 种子, 2023, 42(2): 59-63.
Du L, Xiong D B, Zhao H H, Li C Q. Research on salt tolerance differences of cotton in germination and seedling stages and germplasm identification. Seed, 2023, 42(2): 59-63 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[10] 王萌, 鲁雪莉, 王菊英, 张梦超, 宋奕汝, 孟晨, 张莉, 徐宗昌. 小黑麦种质萌发期苗期耐盐资源评价与筛选. 草业学报, 2024, 33(5): 58-68.
doi: 10.11686/cyxb2023228
Wang M, Lu X L, Wang J Y, Zhang M C, Song Y R, Meng C, Zhang L, Xu Z C. Evaluation and screening of the salt tolerance of Triticale germplasm at the germination and seedling stages. Acta Pratac Sin, 2024, 33(5): 58-68 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[11] 朱琨, 刘骅峻, 冯成龙, 李波, 刘鑫宇, 马浩然. 盐胁迫对不同苜蓿品种种子萌发的耐盐性综合评价. 草地学报, 2023, 31: 3724-3733.
doi: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2023.12.017
Zhu K, Liu H J, Feng C L, Li B, Liu X Y, Ma H R. Comprehensive evaluation on the salt tolerance of seed germination of different alfalfa varieties under salt stress. Acta Agrest Sin, 2023, 31: 3724-3733 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[12] 王萌, 刘文君, 鲁雪莉, 陈庆山, 杨明亮, 吕波, 徐宗昌. 大豆种质资源萌发期耐盐性评价和耐盐机理解析. 中国农学通报, 2023, 39(26): 8-16.
doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2022-0834
Wang M, Liu W J, Lu X L, Chen Q S, Yang M L, Lyu B, Xu Z C. soybean germplasm resources at germination: salt tolerance evaluation and mechanism analysis. Chin Agric Sci Bull, 2023, 39(26): 8-16 (in Chinese with English abstract).
doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2022-0834
[13] 李雪颖, 高志昊, 兰剑, 胡海英. NaCl胁迫下25份饲用型小黑麦种子的萌发特性及耐盐性评价. 草原与草坪, 2023, 43(4): 65-71.
Li X Y, Gao Z H, Lan J, Hu H Y. Evaluation of germination characteristics and salt tolerance of 25 forage Titicale seeds under NaCl stress. Grassland Turf, 2023, 43(4): 65-71 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[14] 杨紫贻, 唐芳, 王亚文, 米福贵. 30份苜蓿种质萌发期耐盐性评价. 草原与草业, 2021, 33(2): 6-14.
Yang Z Y, Tang F, Wang Y W, Mi F G. Evaluation of 30 alfalfa germplasms during the germination period. Grassland Pratac, 2021, 33(2): 6-14 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[15] 张蒙, 周经明, 马玮, 疏琴, 段颖, 王长林. 砧用中国南瓜种子萌发期耐盐性鉴定评价. 中国瓜菜, 2023, 36(1): 26-34.
Zhang M, Zhou J M, Ma W, Shu Q, Duan Y, Wang C L. A comprehensive evaluation on salt tolerance of pumpkin (Cucurbita moschata) as rootstock in seed germination stage. China Cucurb Veget, 2023, 36(1): 26-34 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[16] 李航, 刘丽, 黄乾, 刘文豪, 司爱君, 孔宪辉, 王旭文, 赵福相, 梅拥军, 余渝. 棉花种质资源萌发期耐盐性鉴定及筛选. 作物学报, 2024, 50: 1147-1157.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2024.34148
Li H, Liu L, Huang Q, Liu W H, Si A J, Kong X H, Wang X W, Zhao F X, Mei Y J, Yu Y. Identification and screening of salt tolerance of cotton germplasm resources at germination stage. Acta Agron Sin, 2024, 50: 1147-1157 (in Chinese with English abstract).
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2024.34148
[17] Ding T L, Yang Z, Wei X C, Yuan F, Yin S S, Wang B S. Evaluation of salt-tolerant germplasm and screening of the salt-tolerance traits of sweet Sorghum in the germination stage. Funct Plant Biol, 2018, 45: 1073-1081.
doi: 10.1071/FP18009 pmid: 32291006
[18] 徐晓雪, 孙飞, 肖梦颖, 张瑞栋, 周宇飞, 黄瑞冬. 高粱品种萌发期耐盐性筛选与鉴定. 种子, 2020, 39(8): 6-11.
Xu X X, Sun F, Xiao M Y, Zhang R D, Zhou Y F, Huang R D. Screening and identification of salt-tolerant Sorghum varieties at germination stage. Seed, 2020, 39(8): 6-11 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[1] 刘欣玥, 郭潇阳, 王欣茹, 辛大伟, 关荣霞, 邱丽娟. 大豆萌发期耐盐性鉴定方法建立及耐盐大豆资源筛选[J]. 作物学报, 2024, 50(8): 2122-2130.
[2] 李晓菲, 高华伟, 广慧, 石宇欣, 谷勇哲, 齐照明, 邱丽娟. 大豆种质资源萌发期耐莠去津鉴定评价及优异种质筛选[J]. 作物学报, 2024, 50(7): 1699-1709.
[3] 李航, 刘丽, 黄乾, 刘文豪, 司爱君, 孔宪辉, 王旭文, 赵福相, 梅拥军, 余渝. 棉花种质资源萌发期耐盐性鉴定及筛选[J]. 作物学报, 2024, 50(5): 1147-1157.
[4] 许乃银, 王扬, 王丹涛, 宁贺佳, 杨晓妮, 乔银桃. 棉花纤维质量指数的构建与WGT双标图分析[J]. 作物学报, 2023, 49(5): 1262-1271.
[5] 郭宏, 于霁雯, 裴文锋, 关永虎, 李航, 李长喜, 刘金伟, 王伟, 王宝全, 梅拥军. 南疆陆地棉杂种F2的遗传分析及遗传主效聚类[J]. 作物学报, 2023, 49(3): 608-621.
[6] 李阿蕾, 戴志刚, 陈基权, 邓灿辉, 唐蜻, 程超华, 许英, 张小雨, 粟建光, 杨泽茂. 239份长果种黄麻种质资源萌发期耐镉性评价及耐镉资源筛选[J]. 作物学报, 2023, 49(10): 2677-2686.
[7] 张以忠, 曾文艺, 邓琳琼, 张贺翠, 刘倩莹, 左同鸿, 谢琴琴, 胡燈科, 袁崇墨, 廉小平, 朱利泉. 甘蓝S-位点基因SRK、SLG和SP11/SCR密码子偏好性分析[J]. 作物学报, 2022, 48(5): 1152-1168.
[8] 王瑞莉,王刘艳,叶桑,郜欢欢,雷维,吴家怡,袁芳,孟丽姣,唐章林,李加纳,周清元,崔翠. 铝毒胁迫下甘蓝型油菜种子萌发期相关性状的QTL定位[J]. 作物学报, 2020, 46(6): 832-843.
[9] 郜欢欢,叶桑,王倩,王刘艳,王瑞莉,陈柳依,唐章林,李加纳,周清元,崔翠. 甘蓝型油菜种子萌发期耐铝毒特性综合评价及其种质筛选[J]. 作物学报, 2019, 45(9): 1416-1430.
[10] 崔翠,程闯,赵愉风,郜欢欢,王瑞莉,王刘艳,周清元. 52份豌豆种质萌发期耐铝毒性的综合评价与筛选[J]. 作物学报, 2019, 45(5): 798-805.
[11] 张春宵,李淑芳,金峰学,刘文平,李万军,刘杰,李晓辉. 用3种方法定位玉米萌发期和苗期的耐盐和耐碱相关性状QTL[J]. 作物学报, 2019, 45(4): 508-521.
[12] 张笑笑,潘映红,任富莉,蒲伟军,王道平,李玉斌,陆平,李桂英,朱莉. 基于多重表型分析的准确评价高粱抗旱性方法的建立[J]. 作物学报, 2019, 45(11): 1735-1745.
[13] 王倩,崔翠,叶桑,崔明圣,赵愉风,林呐,唐章林,李加纳,周清元. 甘蓝型油菜种子萌发期耐苯磺隆种质筛选与综合评价[J]. 作物学报, 2018, 44(8): 1169-1184.
[14] 张贵合,郭华春. 马铃薯不同品种(系)的光合特性比较与聚类分析[J]. 作物学报, 2017, 43(07): 1067-1076.
[15] 王瑞云,季煦,陆平,刘敏轩,许月,王纶,王海岗,乔治军. 利用荧光SSR分析中国糜子遗传多样性[J]. 作物学报, 2017, 43(04): 530-548.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

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