苦荞苗期耐盐碱性的生理响应机制与种质综合评价

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1006.2026.61036

作物学报 ›› 2026, Vol. 52 ›› Issue (11): 3202-3220.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2026.61036

• 作物遗传育种·种质资源·分子遗传学 • 上一篇下一篇

苦荞苗期耐盐碱性的生理响应机制与种质综合评价

黄丽霞^1,2，赵敏^1,2，谷梦媛^1,2，张卫卫^1,2，甄一越^1,2，刘龙龙¹，马名川¹，刘璋¹，徐世锐¹，秦路军³，张丽君^1,*

1 山西农业大学农业基因资源研究中心, 山西太原 030031; 2 山西农业大学农学院, 山西晋中 030801; 3 长治市农业农村局, 山西长治046000

收稿日期:2026-05-06 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:2026-08-25
通讯作者: 张丽君, E-mail: 15034054161@163.com
基金资助:
本研究由财政部和农业农村部国家现代农业产业技术体系建设专项(CARS-07-A-2), 山西农业大学农业科技创新工程(YGC20201), 山西省重点研发计划项目(2022ZDYF110)和山西省现代产业技术体系建设项目(2025CYJSTX03-11)资助。

Physiological response mechanisms and comprehensive germplasm evaluation of salt-alkali tolerance in Tartary buckwheat (Fagopyrum tataricum) at the seedling stage

Huang Li-Xia^1,2,Zhao Min^1,2,Gu Meng-Yuan^1,2,Zhang Wei-Wei^1,2,Zhen Yi-Yue^1,2,Liu Long-Long¹,Ma Ming-Chuan¹,Liu Zhang¹,Xu Shi-Rui¹,Qin Lu-Jun³,Zhang Li-Jun^1,*

1 Research Center for Agricultural Genetic Resources, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taiyuan 030031, Shanxi, China; 2 College of Agriculture, Shanxi Agricultural University, Jinzhong 030801, Shanxi, China; 3 Changzhi Agricultural and Rural Bureau, Changzhi 046000, Shanxi, China

Received:2026-05-06 Revised:2026-08-21 Accepted:2026-08-21 Published:2026-11-12 Published online:2026-08-25
Supported by:
This study was supported by the China Agriculture Research System of MOF and MARA (CARS-07-A-2), the Agricultural Science and Technology Innovation Project of Shanxi Agricultural University (YGC20201), the Shanxi Provincial Key Research and Development Program Project (2022ZDYF110), and the Shanxi Provincial Modern Industrial Technology System Construction Project (2025CYJSTX03-11).

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

土壤盐渍化是制约苦荞生长的重要非生物胁迫。为构建苦荞苗期耐盐碱性综合评价体系并筛选优异种质，本研究系统比较了中性盐(NaCl、Na₂SO₄)与碱性盐(NaHCO₃、Na₂CO₃)的胁迫效应。以160份苦荞种质为材料，于苗期设置4种盐分胁迫处理，每种盐设3个浓度梯度，测定14个农艺性状及甜菜碱(GB)、活性氧(ROS)、Na⁺/H⁺逆向转运蛋白(NHX) 3个生理指标。采用主成分分析、隶属函数法计算综合耐盐指数(D值)，结合聚类分析及逐步回归构建鉴定模型，并分析生理响应机制。结果表明，碱性盐对苦荞的抑制强度显著强于中性盐，抑制梯度为Na₂CO₃ > NaHCO₃ > Na₂SO₄ ≈ NaCl。主成分分析提取3个主成分，累计方差贡献率达76.40%~80.78%，其中，第一主成分(贡献率55.72%~59.65%)的核心载荷指标为地下部鲜重、地下部干重、根投影面积等根系性状。基于D值的聚类分析将种质划分为高耐至极敏5个等级，依据农艺性状筛选出7份在4种盐胁迫下均表现高耐的种质，进一步整合生理指标后获得5份兼具优良农艺性状与生理抗性的耐盐碱种质。逐步回归构建了高精度鉴定模型(R² = 0.992~0.997, P < 0.01)，确定株高、最长根长、茎粗、地上部鲜重、地下部鲜重、地下部干重、根表面积、根体积、叶面积9个指标为苗期耐盐碱核心鉴定指标。生理机制分析表明，苦荞采用“动态策略切换”适应不同盐害：在NaCl胁迫下耐盐性与NHX含量呈正相关，在Na₂SO₄及碱性盐胁迫下则与ROS积累呈显著负相关，GB在中性盐与碱性盐胁迫下发挥差异化的抗氧化调节作用。本研究构建了苦荞苗期耐盐碱性综合评价体系，筛选出优异种质及核心鉴定指标，为苦荞耐盐碱机制解析及分子育种提供了理论依据和优异种质资源。

关键词: 苦荞, 苗期, 耐盐碱性, 种质筛选, 综合评价, 生理机制

Abstract:

Soil salinization is a major abiotic stress that severely restricts buckwheat growth. To construct a comprehensive evaluation system for salt-alkali tolerance at the seedling stage and to screen elite germplasm, this study systematically compared the stress effects of neutral salts (NaCl, Na₂SO₄) and alkaline salts (NaHCO₃, Na₂CO₃). Seedlings of 160 buckwheat accessions were exposed to three concentrations of each salt. Fourteen agronomic traits and three physiological indicators—glycine betaine (GB), reactive oxygen species (ROS), and Na⁺/H⁺ antiporter (NHX)—were measured. Principal component analysis and the membership function method were used to calculate the comprehensive salt tolerance index (D-value). Cluster analysis and stepwise regression were then employed to construct an identification model, and the underlying physiological response mechanisms were investigated. Alkaline salts inhibited growth more severely than neutral salts, with the inhibitory effect ranked as Na₂CO₃ > NaHCO₃ > Na₂SO₄≈ NaCl. Principal component analysis extracted three principal components that cumulatively explained 76.40%–80.78% of the total variance. The first principal component (PC1, explaining 55.72%–59.65% of the variance) was dominated by root traits, including root fresh weight, root dry weight, and root projected area. Based on the D-value, cluster analysis classified the germplasm into five grades ranging from highly tolerant to extremely sensitive. Screening by agronomic traits alone identified seven accessions that consistently exhibited high tolerance across all four salt stresses. Integration of physiological indicators further identified five accessions that combined superior agronomic performance with physiological resistance. Stepwise regression generated a high-precision identification model (R² = 0.992–0.997, P < 0.01) and pinpointed nine core indicators for evaluating seedling salt-alkali tolerance: plant height, longest root length, stem diameter, shoot fresh weight, root fresh weight, root dry weight, root surface area, root volume, and leaf area. Physiological analysis revealed a “dynamic strategy switching” mechanism by which buckwheat adapts to different salt stresses. Under NaCl stress, tolerance was positively correlated with NHX content, whereas under Na₂SO₄ and alkaline salt stresses, it was significantly negatively correlated with ROS accumulation. Glycine betaine played distinct antioxidant regulatory roles under neutral versus alkaline salt stresses. This study established a comprehensive evaluation system for seedling salt-alkali tolerance in buckwheat, identified elite germplasm and core indicators, and provided a theoretical basis and valuable germplasm resources for elucidating salt-alkali tolerance mechanisms and for molecular breeding.

Key words: buckwheat, seedling stage, salt-alkali tolerance, germplasm screening, comprehensive evaluation, physiological mechanism

黄丽霞, 赵敏, 谷梦媛, 张卫卫, 甄一越, 刘龙龙, 马名川, 刘璋, 徐世锐, 秦路军, 张丽君. 苦荞苗期耐盐碱性的生理响应机制与种质综合评价[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(11): 3202-3220.

Huang Li-Xia, Zhao Min, Gu Meng-Yuan, Zhang Wei-Wei, Zhen Yi-Yue, Liu Long-Long, Ma Ming-Chuan, Liu Zhang, Xu Shi-Rui, Qin Lu-Jun, Zhang Li-Jun. Physiological response mechanisms and comprehensive germplasm evaluation of salt-alkali tolerance in Tartary buckwheat (Fagopyrum tataricum) at the seedling stage[J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2026, 52(11): 3202-3220.

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.1006.2026.61036

https://zwxb.chinacrops.org/CN/Y2026/V52/I11/3202

参考文献

[1] Mukhopadhyay R, Sarkar B, Jat H S, et al. Soil salinity under climate change: challenges for sustainable agriculture and food security. J Environ Manag, 2020, 280: 111736.

[2] Wu J, Sun M T, Pang A Q, et al. Succinic acid synthesis regulated by succinyl-coenzyme a ligase (SUCLA) plays an important role in root response to alkaline salt stress in Leymus chinensis. Plant Physiol Biochem, 2025, 220: 109485.

[3] Flowers T J, Munns R, Colmer T D. Sodium chloride toxicity and the cellular basis of salt tolerance in halophytes. Ann Bot, 2015, 115: 419–431.

[4] Lu Y, Zeng F J, Zhang Z H, et al. Differences in growth, ionomic and antioxidative enzymes system responded to neutral and alkali salt exposure in halophyte Haloxylon ammodendron seedlings. Plant Physiol Biochem, 2025, 220: 109492.

[5] 胡志康, 舒雨, 王会, 等. 甘蓝型油菜苗期耐碱性种质综合鉴定与评价. 作物学报, 2025, 51: 2681–2692.

Hu Z K, Shu Y, Wang H, et al. Comprehensive evaluation of alkaline tolerance in Brassica napus at the seedling stage. Acta Agron Sin, 2025, 51: 2681–2692 (in Chinese with English abstract).

[6] He Y Q, Zhang K X, Shi Y L, et al. Genomic insight into the origin, domestication, dispersal, diversification and human selection of Tartary buckwheat. Genome Biol, 2024, 25: 61.

[7] 李春花, 加央多拉, 吴晗, 等. 46份甜荞种质萌发期耐盐资源评价与筛选. 种子, 2024, 43(5): 1–6.

Li C H, Jia Y D L, Wu H, et al. Evaluation and screening of salt tolerance of 46 Fagopyrum esculentum Moench. germplasm at the germination stage. Seed, 2024, 43(5): 1–6 (in Chinese with English abstract).

[8] 李妍, 张超, 王士岭, 等. NaCl胁迫对荞麦生长及抗氧化酶活性的影响. 现代农业科技, 2021(1): 9–11.

Li Y, Zhang C, Wang S L, et al. Effect of NaCl stress on growth and antioxidase activity of Fagopyrum esculentum. Mod Agric Sci Technol, 2021(1): 9–11. (in Chinese with English abstract).

[9] Lu X, He Y Q, Weng W F, et al. Domestication of Tartary buckwheat shaped a regulatory module for seedling salt tolerance by targeting the magnesium transporter gene FtMGT2. Adv Sci, 2026, 13: e11570.

[10] Zhao J L, Wu Q, Wu H L, et al. FtNAC31, a Tartary buckwheat NAC transcription factor, enhances salt and drought tolerance in transgenic Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol Biochem, 2022, 191: 20–33.

[11] 王宏凯, 赵靖怡, 郭宏娜, 等. 小麦种质资源耐盐性鉴定. 麦类作物学报, 2024, 44: 253–260.

Wang H K, Zhao J Y, Guo H N, et al. Identification of salt tolerance of wheat germplasm resources. J Triticeae Crops, 2024, 44: 253–260 (in Chinese with English abstract).

[12] 刘倩倩, 李冉, 周婷芳, 等. 211份玉米自交系萌发期耐盐性鉴定. 作物杂志, 2024(4): 62–70.

Liu Q Q, Li R, Zhou T F, et al. Identification of salt tolerance of 211 maize inbred lines at germination stage. Crops, 2024(4): 62–70 (in Chinese with English abstract).

[13] 孙现军, 于太飞, 胡正, 等. 基于“标准差系数加权法”的水稻全生育期耐盐碱鉴定与资源筛选. 作物学报, 2025, 51: 3369–3376.

Sun X J, Yu T F, Hu Z, et al. Assessment of salt-alkali tolerance throughout the rice growth period and germplasm screening based on the coefficient of standard deviation weighting method. Acta Agron Sin, 2025, 51: 3369–3376 (in Chinese with English abstract).

[14] Li J, Yang Y Q. How do plants maintain pH and ion homeostasis under saline-alkali stress? Front Plant Sci, 2023, 14: 1217193.

[15] Guo R, Shi L X, Yan C R, et al. Ionomic and metabolic responses to neutral salt or alkaline salt stresses in maize (Zea mays L.) seedlings. BMC Plant Biol, 2017, 17: 41.

[16] Guo H J, Huang Z J, Li M Q, et al. Growth, ionic homeostasis, and physiological responses of cotton under different salt and alkali stresses. Sci Rep, 2020, 10: 21844.

[17] Liu D, Ma Y, Rui M M, et al. Is high pH the key factor of alkali stress on plant growth and physiology? A case study with wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) seedlings. Agronomy, 2022, 12: 1820.

[18] Karlova R, Boer D, Hayes S, et al. Root plasticity under abiotic stress. Plant Physiol, 2021, 187: 1057–1070.

[19] Liu C Y, Qiu Q C, Zou B X, et al. Comparative transcriptome and genome analysis unravels the response of Tatary buckwheat root to nitrogen deficiency. Plant Physiol Biochem, 2023, 196: 647–660.

[20] Hou Y K, Yuan Y W, Gao S, et al. Single-nucleus transcriptomics uncovers the spatiotemporal development of roots and a histone deacetylase 2B-centered regulatory network in Tartary buckwheat. Int J Biol Macromol, 2025, 330: 148271.

[21] Chen J X, Tang L, Guo W L, et al. Oxalic acid secretion alleviates saline-alkali stress in alfalfa by improving photosynthetic characteristics and antioxidant activity. Plant Physiol Biochem, 2024, 208: 108475.

[22] Lynch J P. Root phenotypes for improved nutrient capture: an underexploited opportunity for global agriculture. New Phytol, 2019, 223: 548–564.

[23] Wang X Y, Cheng R, Zhu H, et al. Seed germination and early seedling growth of six wetland plant species in saline-alkaline environment. Int J Phytorem, 2020, 22: 1185–1194.

[24] Chen S Y, Li Y J, Zhang W L, et al. Evaluation of saline-alkali tolerance of Oenothera L. germplasms and their morpho-physiological responses to saline-alkali stress. Physiol Plant, 2025, 177: e70541.

[25] Peng X X, Zhou X L, Sun Z H, et al. Comprehensive evaluation of compound saline-alkali tolerance and gene mining by GWAS in Vicia faba L. BMC Plant Biol, 2025, 25: 1239.

[26] Cheng Y Z, Zhang J, Liu Z Y, et al. Genetic diversity analysis and core germplasm collection construction of Tartary buckwheat based on SSR markers. Plants, 2025, 14: 771.

[27] Zhang X, Yang F, Ma H Y, et al. Evaluation of the saline-alkaline tolerance of rice (Oryza sativa L.) mutants induced by heavy-ion beam mutagenesis. Biology, 2022, 11: 126.

[28] Wang C L, Wei X T, Wang Y M, et al. Metabolomics and transcriptomic analysis revealed the response mechanism of maize to saline-alkali stress. Plant Biotechnol J, 2025, 23: 5397–5416.

[29] Sobh M, Zargar T B, Basal O, et al. Evaluation of salinity tolerance potentials of two contrasting soybean genotypes based on physiological and biochemical responses. Plants, 2025, 15: 10.

[30] Chen T H, Murata N. Glycinebetaine: an effective protectant against abiotic stress in plants. Trends Plant Sci, 2008, 13: 499–505.

[31] Chen T H, Murata N. Glycinebetaine protects plants against abiotic stress: mechanisms and biotechnological applications. Plant Cell Environ, 2011, 34: 1–20.

[32] Abogadallah G M. Antioxidative defense under salt stress. Plant Signal Behav, 2010, 5: 369–374.

[33] Wang C L, Wang Y M, Cao X, et al. Unraveling saline-alkali stress tolerance: contrasting morpho-physiological, biochemical, and ionic responses in maize (Zea mays L.) genotypes. Plant Physiol Biochem, 2025, 229: 110349.

[34] Apse M P, Blumwald E. Na⁺transport in plants. FEBS Lett, 2007, 581: 2247–2254.

[35] Munns R, Tester M. Mechanisms of salinity tolerance. Annu Rev Plant Biol, 2008, 59: 651–681.

[36] Ashraf M, Foolad M R. Roles of Glycine betaine and proline in improving plant abiotic stress resistance. Environ Exp Bot, 2007, 59: 206–216.

[37] Huot B, Yao J, Montgomery B L, et al. Growth-defense tradeoffs in plants: a balancing act to optimize fitness. Mol Plant, 2014, 7: 1267–1287.

[38] Zhu J K. Abiotic stress signaling and responses in plants. Cell, 2016, 167: 313–324.

[39] Mittler R. Abiotic stress, the field environment and stress combination. Trends Plant Sci, 2006, 11: 15–19.

Metrics

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed

苦荞苗期耐盐碱性的生理响应机制与种质综合评价

Physiological response mechanisms and comprehensive germplasm evaluation of salt-alkali tolerance in Tartary buckwheat (Fagopyrum tataricum) at the seedling stage

PDF

文章附图附表

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

Metrics

本文评价

推荐阅读 10

关于本刊

在线期刊

作者中心

相关单位

联系我们

[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]	肖瑞雪, 李晓鹏. 高粱SAR基因负调控耐盐碱性的功能解析[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(9): 2618-2627.
[3]	向钰鑫, 张捷语, 李贵珍, 王琳, 刘涵, 秦宇星, 马根, 向达兵. 氮密互作对苦荞冠层光环境、产量及品质的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(8): 2480-2495.
[4]	姜存仓, 窦佳艺, 鲁克嵩, 肖思赟, 刘冰, 毕嘉榆. 硼对作物盐胁迫的缓解效应及其机制研究进展[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(7): 1929-1942.
[5]	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.
[6]	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.
[7]	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.
[8]	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.
[9]	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.
[10]	亓青松, 牛翔雨, 刘冰可, 康禄, 王琛, 封德顺. 小偃麦辐射诱变种质芽期和苗期耐盐鉴定、筛选及耐盐指标评价[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(2): 389-404.
[11]	鲁雅妮, 丁超杰, 张煜, 杜习军, 齐学礼, 胡琳, 许为钢. 河南省200份小麦品种苗期茎基腐病抗性鉴定与全基因组关联分析[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(2): 363-375.
[12]	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.
[13]	黄丽霞, 张卫卫, 甄一越, 王秋宝, 田洪岭, 李国栋, 刘龙龙, 张丽君. 盐胁迫下苦荞萌发期耐盐碱性评价及种质筛选[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(2): 459-479.
[14]	吴帅霞, 尚随腾, 于冰洁, 苗昊翠, 万丽云, 侯献飞, 李强, 贾东海, 顾元国. 花生种质资源抗旱性鉴定及综合评价[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(11): 3318-3333.
[15]	薛文浩, 王欣茹, 王梦辰, 常汝镇, 关荣霞, 邱丽娟. 大豆出苗期耐碱性鉴定方法建立及耐碱、耐盐种质筛选[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(11): 3449-3463.