欢迎访问作物学报,今天是

作物学报 ›› 2006, Vol. 32 ›› Issue (04): 601-606.

• 研究论文 • 上一篇    下一篇

不同施肥水平下黍子根系对干旱胁迫的反应

张永清;苗果园   

  1. 山西农业大学农学院,山西太谷030801
  • 收稿日期:2005-02-01 修回日期:1900-01-01 出版日期:2006-04-12 网络出版日期:2006-04-12
  • 通讯作者: 苗果园

The Biological Response of Broomcorn Millet Root to Drought Stress with Different Fertilization Levels

ZHANG Yong-Qing and MIAO Guo-Yuan   

  1. College of Agriculture, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu 030801, Shanxi, China
  • Received:2005-02-01 Revised:1900-01-01 Published:2006-04-12 Published online:2006-04-12
  • Contact: MIAO Guo-Yuan

摘要:

不同施肥水平下黍子根系对干旱胁迫的生物学响应研究表明,无论施肥与否,拔节期或抽穗期干旱胁迫均会使黍子根重、根长、根活力、次生根数、根系SOD活性及株高与地上部干重明显降低,MDA含量明显增高;水分胁迫解除后,黍子根系增长迅速,表现出明显的补偿效应和根系对水分反应敏感的特点,但干旱造成的不利影响在后期未能完全补偿。抽穗期干旱胁迫对黍子的影响大于拔节期,这是由于拔节期胁迫后恢复水分供应,根系有较长的时间与空间进行补偿的结果。通过施肥改善土壤肥力,可以肥促根、以肥调水、提高土壤水分利用效率和增加产量,在一定程度上缓解干旱胁迫的影响。

关键词: 黍子, 根系, 干旱胁迫, 生物学响应

Abstract:

The pot-experiment was conducted on the Experimental Farm of Shanxi Agricultural University. The results indicated that the content of MDA and root-shoot ratio were increased, but the dry weight of root, total root length, secondary root number, root activity, the SOD activity of root, the height of plant and aboveground dry weight of broomcorn millet decreased significantly with drought treatment regardless of fertilizing or not. After the drought treatment plant was rehydrated and root weight accumulated rapidly, indicating that root system was move sensitive to the change of soil environment than the aboveground part. However, no matter how rapidly the weight of root accumulated after drought released, the dry weight increment could not compensated that of the decreasing during the period of drought treatment. Rewatering after drought during jointing stage had more compensatory effects than that during booting stage because of more time space for the former. The booting stage of broomcorn millet was sensitive to water deficiency. The growth, the yield, the water use efficiency and drought resistance of broomcorn millet were enhanced by the application of fertilizer and FA

Key words: Broomcorn millet, Roots, Water stress, Biological response

中图分类号: 

  • s516
[1] 孙思敏, 韩贝, 陈林, 孙伟男, 张献龙, 杨细燕. 棉花苗期根系分型及根系性状的关联分析[J]. 作物学报, 2022, 48(5): 1081-1090.
[2] 王霞, 尹晓雨, 于晓明, 刘晓丹. 干旱锻炼对B73自交后代当代干旱胁迫记忆基因表达及其启动子区DNA甲基化的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2022, 48(5): 1191-1198.
[3] 丁红, 徐扬, 张冠初, 秦斐斐, 戴良香, 张智猛. 不同生育期干旱与氮肥施用对花生氮素吸收利用的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2022, 48(3): 695-703.
[4] 许德蓉, 孙超, 毕真真, 秦天元, 王一好, 李成举, 范又方, 刘寅笃, 张俊莲, 白江平. 马铃薯StDRO1基因的多态性鉴定及其与根系性状的关联分析[J]. 作物学报, 2022, 48(1): 76-85.
[5] 张明聪, 何松榆, 秦彬, 王孟雪, 金喜军, 任春元, 吴耀坤, 张玉先. 外源褪黑素对干旱胁迫下春大豆品种绥农26形态、光合生理及产量的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2021, 47(9): 1791-1805.
[6] 李洁, 付惠, 姚晓华, 吴昆仑. 不同耐旱性青稞叶片差异蛋白分析[J]. 作物学报, 2021, 47(7): 1248-1258.
[7] 李鹏程, 毕真真, 孙超, 秦天元, 梁文君, 王一好, 许德蓉, 刘玉汇, 张俊莲, 白江平. DNA甲基化参与调控马铃薯响应干旱胁迫的关键基因挖掘[J]. 作物学报, 2021, 47(4): 599-612.
[8] 赵佳佳, 乔玲, 武棒棒, 葛川, 乔麟轶, 张树伟, 闫素仙, 郑兴卫, 郑军. 山西省小麦苗期根系性状及抗旱特性分析[J]. 作物学报, 2021, 47(4): 714-727.
[9] 秦天元, 刘玉汇, 孙超, 毕真真, 李安一, 许德蓉, 王一好, 张俊莲, 白江平. 马铃薯StIgt基因家族的鉴定及其对干旱胁迫的响应分析[J]. 作物学报, 2021, 47(4): 780-786.
[10] 靳义荣, 刘金栋, 刘彩云, 贾德新, 刘鹏, 王雅美. 普通小麦氮素利用效率相关性状全基因组关联分析[J]. 作物学报, 2021, 47(3): 394-404.
[11] 周练, 刘朝显, 熊雨涵, 周京, 蔡一林. 质膜内在蛋白ZmPIP1;1参与玉米耐旱性和光合作用的功能分析[J]. 作物学报, 2021, 47(3): 472-480.
[12] 刘亚文, 张红燕, 曹丹, 李兰芝. 基于多平台基因表达数据的水稻干旱和盐胁迫相关基因预测[J]. 作物学报, 2021, 47(12): 2423-2439.
[13] 秦天元, 孙超, 毕真真, 梁文君, 李鹏程, 张俊莲, 白江平. 基于WGCNA的马铃薯根系抗旱相关共表达模块鉴定和核心基因发掘[J]. 作物学报, 2020, 46(7): 1033-1051.
[14] 白伟,孙占祥,张立祯,郑家明,冯良山,蔡倩,向午燕,冯晨,张哲. 耕层构造对土壤三相比和春玉米根系形态的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2020, 46(5): 759-771.
[15] 张海燕, 汪宝卿, 冯向阳, 李广亮, 解备涛, 董顺旭, 段文学, 张立明. 不同时期干旱胁迫对甘薯生长和渗透调节能力的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2020, 46(11): 1760-1770.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!