欢迎访问作物学报,今天是

作物学报 ›› 2018, Vol. 44 ›› Issue (01): 126-136.

• 耕作栽培·生理生化 • 上一篇    下一篇

不同时期干旱胁迫对甘薯内源激素的影响及其与块根产量的关系

张海燕1,2,段文学2,解备涛2,董顺旭2,汪宝卿2,史春余1,*,张立明3,*   

  1. 1 山东农业大学农学院, 山东泰安 271018; 2 山东省农业科学院作物研究所, 山东济南 250100; 3 山东省农业科学院, 山东济南 250100
  • 收稿日期:2017-04-23 修回日期:2017-09-10 出版日期:2018-01-12 网络出版日期:2017-10-27
  • 通讯作者: 史春余, E-mail: scyu@sdau.edu.cn; 张立明, E-mail: zhanglm11@sina.com
  • 基金资助:

    本研究由国家现代农业产业技术体系建设专项(CARS-10-B08), 山东省薯类产业创新团队项目(SDAIT-16-09), 山东省重点研发计划项目(2016GNC111002)和农业部黄淮海薯类科学观测实验站资助。

Effects of Drought Stress at Different Growth Stages on Endogenous Hormones and Its Relationship with Storage Root Yield in Sweetpotato

ZHANG Hai-Yan1,2,DUAN Wen-Xue2,XIE Bei-Tao2,DONG Shun-Xu2,WANG Bao-Qing2,SHI Chun-Yu1,*,ZHANG Li-Ming3,*   

  1. 1 Agronomy College, Shandong Agricultural University, Tai’an 271018, Shandong, China; 2 Crop Research Institute of Shandong Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Jinan 250100, Shandong, China; 3 Shandong Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Jinan 250100, Shandong, China
  • Received:2017-04-23 Revised:2017-09-10 Published:2018-01-12 Published online:2017-10-27
  • Contact: Shi Chunyu,E-mail: scyu@sdau.edu.cn; Zheng Liming,E-mail: zhanglm11@sina.com
  • Supported by:

    This study was supported by the China Agriculture Research System (CARS-10- B08), Shandong Province Modern Agricultural Technology System Tubers and Root Crops Innovation Team (SDAIT-16-09), Shandong Province Key Research and Development Project(2016GNC111002), and Scientific Observing and Experimental Station of Tubers and Root Crops in Huang-Huai-Hai Region, Ministry of Agriculture, P. R. China.

摘要:

在人工控水条件下, 以抗旱品种济薯21和不抗旱品种济紫薯1号为试验材料, 设置全生育期干旱胁迫(DS)、发根分枝期干旱胁迫(DS1)、蔓薯并长期干旱胁迫(DS2)、快速膨大期干旱胁迫(DS3) 4个处理, 全生育期正常灌水(WW)为对照, 研究其对甘薯内源激素及块根产量的影响。结果表明, 与对照相比, 2个品种不同年份的所有干旱胁迫处理的鲜薯和薯干产量均显著下降。其中, DS薯干产量减产幅度最大, 济薯21和济紫薯1号3年平均分别减产44.62%和56.21%; 其次是DS1, 减产32.03%和44.03%; 再次是DS2, 减产30.41%和39.39%; DS3的减产幅度最小, 为13.66%和17.88%。抗旱品种济薯21的减产幅度小于不抗旱品种济紫薯1号。干旱胁迫抑制了甘薯地上部生长及块根的形成和膨大, 两个品种的单株叶片数、蔓长、地上部干重、地下部干重和块根淀粉率, 与对照相比, 各时期均表现为, DS的减少幅度最大, 其次是DS1和DS2, DS3的减少幅度最小。不同时期干旱胁迫均引起叶片和块根中GA、IAA和ZR含量下降, ABA含量上升。地上部干重与叶片GA、IAA和ZR含量呈显著正相关, 与ABA含量呈显著负相关; 地下部干重与块根GA、IAA和ZR含量呈显著正相关, 与ABA含量呈显著负相关。总之, 不同时期干旱胁迫均导致甘薯产量下降, 且胁迫时间越早, 对甘薯内源激素和块根产量的影响越大, 发根分枝期是甘薯对水分最敏感的时期。

关键词: 甘薯, 干旱胁迫, 内源激素, 产量

Abstract:

Field experiments were conducted under a rain exclusion shelter using two sweetpotato (Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam) cultivars (Jishu 21, drought-tolerant, and Jizishu 1, drought-sensitive) with four drought stress treatments during the whole growth period (DS), root branching stage (DS1), the intermediate stage (storage root initiation) (DS2), and the final stage (storage root bulking) (DS3). A sep-arate well watered experiment was as a control (WW). Compared with the control, the fresh and dry weight of two cultivars in all treatments decreased significantly in three years. The dry weight of DS treatment had the highest decrease, with an average of 44.62% and 56.21% for Jishu 21 and Jizishu 1, respectively. The impact of DS1 was the second, with an average decrease of 32.03% and 44.03% for Jishu 21 and Jizishu 1, respectively, followed by DS2, with an average decrease of 30.41% and 39.39%, respectively. The impact of DS3 was the lowest, with an average decrease of 13.66% and 17.88%, respectively. The impact of drought stress on dry weight of Jishu 21 was lower than that of Jizishu 1. The drought stress significantly inhibited the growth of aboveground part, and the formation and bulking of storage roots. Number of leaves per plant, vine length, dry weight of aboveground and underground parts, and starch content were decreased under drought stress, compared with the control. DS had the highest impact, followed by DS1 and DS2; DS3 had the lowest impact. GA, IAA, and ZR contents in leaves and roots of both cultivars decreased, while ABA content increased. There were significant positive correlations between dry weight of aboveground part and GA, IAA, and ZR contents in leaves, dry weight of underground part and GA, IAA, and ZR contents in storage roots. However, ABA content in leaves and storage roots was negatively correlated with dry weight of aboveground part and underground part, respectively. In summary, drought stress applied during different growth stages reduced the yield of fresh and dry roots. The earlier the application of drought stress, the greater influence on levels of endogenous hormones and storage root yields. Root branching stage of sweetpotato is most sensitive to drought stress.

Key words: sweetpotato, drought stress, endogenous hormone, yield

[1]张宪初, 王胜亮, 吕军杰, 张春强. 旱地水分田供需状况及增产措施研究. 干旱地区农业研究, 1999, 17(4): 93–97 Zhang X C, Wang S L, Lyu J J, Zhang C Q. Research on field water supply and requirement condition of dryland sweet potato and yield-increasing method. Agric Res Arid Areas, 1999, 17(4): 93–97 (in Chinese with English abstract) [2]Lewthwaite S L, Triggs C M. Sweetpotato cultivar response to prolonged drought. Agron New Zeal, 2012, 42: 1–10 [3]江苏省农业科学院, 山东省农业科学院. 中国甘薯栽培学. 上海: 上海科学技术出版社, 1984. pp 51–56 Jiangsu Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Shandong Academy of Agricultural Sciences. Chinese Sweetpotato Cultivation. Shanghai: Shanghai Scientific and Technical Publishers, 1984. pp 51–56 (in Chinese) [4]张天年, 吴旭银, 武宝悦, 王文颇. 不同土壤含水量对甘薯生长的影响. 河北农业技术师范学院学报, 1993, 7(3): 11–17 Zhang T N, Wu X Y, Wu B Y, Wang W P. The influence of different soil water content on growth of sweet potato. J Hebei Agrotech Teachers Coll, 1993, 7(3): 11–17 (in Chinese with English abstract) [5]肖利贞. 土壤干旱对甘薯生育及产量的影响. 华北农学报, 1995, 10(2) : 106–110 Xiao L Z. Influence of soil aridity on the growth, development and yield of sweet potato. Acta Agric Boreali-Sin, 1995, 10(2): 106–110 (in Chinese with English abstract) [6]李长志, 李欢, 刘庆, 史衍玺. 不同生长时期干旱胁迫甘薯根系生长及荧光生理的特性比较. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2016, 22: 511–517 Li C Z, Li H, Liu Q, Shi Y X. Comparison of root development and fluorescent physiological characteristics of sweet potato exposure to drought stress in different growth stages. J Plant Nutr Fert, 2016, 22: 511–517 (in Chinese with English abstract) [7]郑海青, 王玉泉. 闽东南甘薯生产与气象条件关系的研究. 中国农业气象, 1996, 17(3): 14–18 Zheng H Q, Wang Y Q. Study on the relation between the production of sweet potato and meteorological conditions in southeast of Fujian. Chin J Agrometeorol, 1996, 17(3): 14–18 (in Chinese with English abstract) [8]Velikova V, Yordanov I, Tsonev T. Plant responses to drought, acclimation, and stress tolerance. Photosynthetica, 2000, 38: 171–186 [9]Shao H B, Chu L Y, Jaleel C A, Manlvannan P, Panneerselvam R, Shao M A. Understanding water deficit stress-induced changes in the basic metabolism of higher plants-biotechnologically and sustainably improving agriculture and ecoenvironment in arid regions of the globe. Crit Rev Biotech, 2009, 29: 131–151 [10]Pustovoitova T N. Changes in the levels of IAA and ABA in cucumber leaves under progressive soil drought. Russ J Plant Physiol, 2004, 51: 513–517 [11]Xie Z J, Jiang D, Jiang D, Cao W X, Dai T B, Jing Q. Relationships of endogenous plant hormones to accumulation of grain protein and starch in winter wheat under different post-anthesis soil water statuses. Plant Growth Regul, 2003, 41: 117–127 [12]徐云姬, 顾道健, 张博博, 张耗, 王志琴, 杨建昌. 玉米果穗不同部位籽粒激素含量及其与胚乳发育和籽粒灌浆的关系. 作物学报, 2013, 39: 1452–1461 Xu Y J, Gu D J, Zhang B B, Zhang H, Wang Z Q, Yang J C. Hormone contents in kernels at different positions on an ear and their relationship with endosperm development and kernel filling in maize. Acta Agron Sin, 2013, 39: 1452–1461 (in Chinese with English abstract) [13]罗宏海, 韩焕勇, 张亚黎, 张旺锋. 干旱和复水对膜下滴灌棉花根系及叶片内源激素含量的影响. 应用生态学报, 2013, 24: 1009-1016 Luo H H, Han H Y, Zhang Y L, Zhang W F. Effects of drought and re-watering on endogenous hormone contents of cotton roots and leaves under drip irrigation with mulch. Chin J Appl Ecol, 2013, 24: 1009–1016 (in Chinese with English abstract) [14]周宇飞, 王德权, 陆樟镳, 王娜, 王艺陶, 李丰先, 许文娟, 黄瑞冬. 干旱胁迫对持绿性高粱光合特性和内源激素ABA、CTK 含量的影响. 中国农业科学, 2014, 47: 655–663 Zhou Y F, Wang D Q, Lu Z B, Wang N, Wang Y T, Li F X, Xu W J, Huang R D. Effects of drought stress on photosynthetic characteristics and endogenous hormone ABA and CTK contents in green-stayed sorghum. Sci Agric Sin, 2014, 47: 655–663 (in Chinese with English abstract) [15]张明生, 谢波, 谈峰. 水分胁迫下甘薯内源激素的变化与品种抗旱性的关系. 中国农业科学, 2002, 35: 498–501 Zhang M S, Xie B, Tan F. Relationship between changes on endogenous hormone of sweetpotato under water stress and drought resistance. Sci Agric Sin, 2002, 35: 498–501 (in Chinese with English abstract) [16]王庆美, 张立明, 王振林. 甘薯内源激素变化与块根形成膨大的关系. 中国农业科学, 2005, 38: 2414–2420 Wang Q M, Zhang L M, Wang Z L. Formation and thickening of tuberous roots in relation to the endogenous hormone concentrations in sweetpotato. Sci Agric Sin, 2005, 38: 2414–2420 (in Chinese with English abstract) [17]Nakatani M, Komeichi M. Changes in the endogenous level of zeatin riboside, abscisic acid and indole acetic acid during formation and thickening of tuberous roots in sweetpotato. Jpn J Crop Sci, 1991, 60: 91–100 [18]钮福祥, 华希新, 郭小丁, 邬景禹, 李洪民, 丁成伟. 甘薯品种抗旱性生理指标及其综合评价初探. 作物学报, 1996, 22: 392–398 Niu F X, Hua X X, Guo X D, Wu J Y, Li H M, Ding C W. Studies on several physiological indexes of the drought re-sistance of sweet potato and its comprehensive evaluation. Acta Agron Sin, 1996, 22: 392–398 (in Chinese with English abstract) [19]陈京. 抗旱性不同的甘薯品种对渗透胁迫的生理响应. 作物学报, 1999, 25: 232–236 Chen J. Physiological response for different drought resis-tance of sweet potato under osmotic stress. Acta Agron Sin, 1999, 25: 232–236 (in Chinese with English abstract) [20]Zhang M S, Xie B, Tan F. Relationship between changes of endogenous hormone in sweet potato under water stress and variety drought-resistance. Agric Sci China, 2002, 1: 626–630 [21]张明生, 谢波, 戚金亮, 谈锋, 张启堂, 杨永华.甘薯植株形态、生长势和产量与品种抗旱性的关系. 热带作物学报, 2006, 27(1): 39–43 Zhang M S, Xie B, Qi J L, Tan F, Zhang Q T, Yang Y H. Relationship of drought resistance of sweet potato with its plant type, growth vigour and yield under water stress. Chin J Trop Crops, 2006, 27(1): 39–43 (in Chinese with English abstract) [22]张明生, 彭忠华, 谢波, 谈锋, 张启堂, 付玉凡, 杨春贤, 杨永华. 甘薯离体叶片失水速率及渗透调节物质与品种抗旱性的关系. 中国农业科学, 2004, 37: 152–156 Zhang M S, Peng Z H, Xie B, Tan F, Zhang Q T, Fu Y F, Yang C X, Yang Y H. Relationship between water loss rate of cutting leaves and osmotic regulators under water stress and drought resistance in sweet potato. Sci Agric Sin, 2004, 37: 152–156 (in Chinese with English abstract) [23]Kim S H, Mizuno K, Fujimural T. Regulated expression of ADP lucose pyrophosphorylase and chalcone synthase during root development in sweetpotato. Plant Growth Regul, 2002, 38: 173–179 [24]Chowdhury S R, Singh R, Kundu D K, Antony E, Thakur A K, Verma H N. Growth, dry matter and yield of sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas L.) as influence by soil mechanical impedance and mineral nutrition under different irrigation regimes. Adv Hortic Sci, 2002, 16: 25–29 [25]李冀南, 李朴芳, 孔海燕, 熊俊兰, 王绍明, 熊友才. 干旱胁迫下植物根源化学信号研究进展. 生态学报, 2011, 31: 2610–2620 Li J N, Li P F, Kong H Y, Xiong J L, Wang S M, Xiong Y C. Current progress in eco-physiology of root-sourced chemical signal in plant under drought stress. Acta Ecol Sin, 2011, 31: 2610–2620 (in Chinese with English abstract) [26]袁振, 汪宝卿, 姜瑶, 解备涛, 董顺旭, 张海燕, 段文学, 王庆美, 张立明. 甘薯耐旱性品种苗期筛选及耐旱性指标研究. 山东农业科学, 2015, 47(3): 22–26 Yuan Z, Wang B Q, Jiang Y, Xie B T, Dong S X, Zhang H Y, Duan W X, Wang Q M, Zhang L M. Seedling screening of drought resistance varietiesof sweetpotato and drought resistance index research. Shandong Agric Sci, 2015, 47(3): 22–26 (in Chinese with English abstract) [27]陈建勋, 王晓峰. 植物生理学实验指导(第2版). 广州: 华南理工大学出版社, 2006. pp 64–66 Chen J X, Wang X F. Guidance of Plant Physiological Experiment, 2nd edn. Guangzhou: South China University of Techno?logy Publishers, 2006. pp 64–66 (in Chinese) [28]谈锋, 张启堂, 陈京, 李坤培. 甘薯品种抗旱适应性的数量分析. 作物学报, 1991, 17: 394–398 Tan F, Zhang Q T, Chen J, Li K P. Quantitative analysis of adaptability of drought resistance in sweet potato cultivars. Acta Agron Sin, 1991, 17: 394–398 (in Chinese with English abstract) [29]赵春江, 康书江, 王纪华, 郭晓维, 李鸿祥. 植物内源激素对小麦叶片衰老的调控机理研究. 华北农学报, 2000, 15(2): 53–56 Zhao C J, Kang S J, Wang J H, Guo X W, Li H X. Hormone regulation mechanism on wheat leaf aging. Agron J North China, 2000, 15(2): 53–56 (in Chinese with English abstract) [30]段留生, 田晓莉. 作物化学控制原理与技术. 北京: 中国农业大学出版社, 2005. pp 40–45 Duan L S, Tian X L. Crop Chemical Regulation Mechanism and Technique. Beijing: China Agricultural University Press, 2005. pp 40–45 (in Chinese) [31]Schussler J R, Brenner M L, Brun W A. Relationship of endogenous abscisic acid to sucrose level and seed growth rate of soybeans. Plant Physiol, 1991, 96: 1308–1313 [32]Lee B T, Martin P, Bangerth F. Phytohormone levels in the florets of a single wheat spikelet during preanthesis development relationships to grain set. J Exp Bot, 1988, 39: 927–933 [33]Jackson M B. Positive and negative messages from roots induce foliar desiccation and stomatal closure inflooded pea plants. J Exp Bot, 1983, 34: 483–506 [34]Guan L Q, Scandalios J G. Effect of the plant growth regulator abscisic acid high osmoticum on the developmental ex-pression of the maize catalase genes. Physiol Plant, 1998, 104: 413–422 [35]沈元月, 黄从林, 张秀海, 曹呜庆. 植物抗旱的分子机制研究. 中国生态农业学报, 2002, 10(1): 30–34 Shen Y Y, Huang C L, Zhang X H, Cao M Q. Plant drought tolerance molecular mechanism. Chin J Eco-Agric, 2002, 10(1): 30–34 (in Chinese with English abstract) [36]李卓杰. 植物激素及其应用. 广州: 中山大学出版社, 1993. pp 10–56 Li Z J. Plant Hormone and Application. Guangzhou: Zhong-shan University Press, 1993. pp 10–56 (in Chinese) [37]张立明, 王庆美, 何钟佩. 脱毒和生长调节剂对甘薯内源激素含量及块根产量的影响. 中国农业科学, 2007, 40: 70–77 Zhang L M, Wang Q M, He Z P. Effects of virus-eliminating and plant growth regulators on the endogenous level of hor-mone and tuber root yield of sweetpotato. Sci Agric Sin, 2007, 40: 70–77 (in Chinese with English abstract) [38]Xu X, Lammeren A M V, Vermeer E, Vreuqdenhil D. The role of gibberellin abscisic acid, and sucrose in the regulation of potato tuber formation in vitro. Plant Physiol, 1998, 117: 575–584 [39]刘梦云, 毛雪飞, 门福义, 蒙美莲, 胡志全.马铃薯块茎内源激素变化与块茎增大生长的相关规律. 华北农学报, 1997, 12(2): 86–92 Lui M Y, Mao X F, Men F Y, Meng M L, Hu Z Q. Correlation law between the change of intrinsic hormones of potato tuber and growth of the tuber. Acta Agric Boreali-Sin, 1997, 12(2): 86–92 (in Chinese with English abstract) [40]李良俊, 潘恩超, 许超, 叶枝荣, 曹碚生. 莲藕膨大过程中内源激素、水杨酸和多胺含量的变化. 园艺学报, 2006, 33: 1106–1108 Li L J, Pan E C, Xu C, Ye Z R, Cao B S. Changes of endogenous hormones, polyamines and salicylic acid content during rhizome development of Nelumbo nucifera Gaertn. Acta Hortic Sin, 2006, 33: 1106–1108 (in Chinese with English abstract)

[1] 胡艳娟, 薛丹, 耿嫡, 朱末, 王天穹, 王晓雪. 水稻OsCDF1基因突变效应及其基因组变异分析[J]. 作物学报, 2023, 49(9): 2362-2372.
[2] 房孟颖, 任粱, 卢霖, 董学瑞, 武志海, 闫鹏, 董志强. 乙矮合剂对粒用高粱根系建构和产量的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2023, 49(9): 2528-2538.
[3] 李亦扬, 李远, 赵子胥, 张鼎顺, 杜嘉宁, 吴淑娟, 孙思琦, 陈媛, 张祥, 陈德华, 刘震宇. 土壤增氮对棉铃对位叶Bt杀虫蛋白含量影响及氮代谢机制[J]. 作物学报, 2023, 49(9): 2505-2516.
[4] 张丽华, 张经廷, 董志强, 侯万彬, 翟立超, 姚艳荣, 吕丽华, 赵一安, 贾秀领. 不同降水年型水分运筹对冬小麦产量及其构成的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2023, 49(9): 2539-2551.
[5] 张刁亮, 杨昭, 胡发龙, 殷文, 柴强, 樊志龙. 复种绿肥在不同灌水水平下对小麦籽粒品质和产量的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2023, 49(9): 2572-2581.
[6] 杨毅, 何志强, 林佳慧, 李洋, 陈飞, 吕长文, 唐道彬, 周全卢, 王季春. 椰糠施用量对土壤理化性状和甘薯产量的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2023, 49(9): 2517-2527.
[7] 苏一钧, 赵路宽, 唐芬, 戴习彬, 孙亚伟, 周志林, 刘亚菊, 曹清河. 378份甘薯引进种遗传多样性及群体结构分析[J]. 作物学报, 2023, 49(9): 2582-2593.
[8] 陈力, 王靖, 邱晓, 孙海莲, 张文浩, 王天佐. 不同耐旱性紫花苜蓿干旱胁迫下生理响应和转录调控的差异研究[J]. 作物学报, 2023, 49(8): 2122-2132.
[9] 曹玉军, 刘志铭, 兰天娇, 刘小丹, 魏雯雯, 姚凡云, 吕艳杰, 王立春, 王永军. 吉林省不同年代玉米品种光合生理特性对施氮量的响应[J]. 作物学报, 2023, 49(8): 2183-2195.
[10] 杨晓慧, 王碧胜, 孙筱璐, 侯靳锦, 徐梦杰, 王志军, 房全孝. 冬小麦对水分胁迫响应的模型模拟与节水滴灌制度优化[J]. 作物学报, 2023, 49(8): 2196-2209.
[11] 李宇星, 马亮亮, 张月, 秦博雅, 张文静, 马尚宇, 黄正来, 樊永惠. 外源海藻糖对灌浆期高温胁迫下小麦旗叶生理特性和产量的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2023, 49(8): 2210-2224.
[12] 贾瑞雪, 陈伊航, 张荣, 唐朝臣, 王章英. 超高效液相色谱法同时测定甘薯中13种类胡萝卜素的含量[J]. 作物学报, 2023, 49(8): 2259-2274.
[13] 刘世洁, 杨习文, 马耕, 冯昊翔, 韩志栋, 韩潇杰, 张晓燕, 贺德先, 马冬云, 谢迎新, 王丽芳, 王晨阳. 灌水和施氮对冬小麦根系特征及氮素利用的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2023, 49(8): 2296-2307.
[14] 魏正欣, 刘昌燕, 陈宏伟, 李莉, 孙龙清, 韩雪松, 焦春海, 沙爱华. 基于干旱胁迫转录组信息的蚕豆ASPAT基因家族分析[J]. 作物学报, 2023, 49(7): 1871-1881.
[15] 韦金贵, 郭瑶, 柴强, 殷文, 樊志龙, 胡发龙. 水氮减量密植玉米的产量及产量构成[J]. 作物学报, 2023, 49(7): 1919-1929.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!