马铃薯苗期耐碱性鉴定方法及86份种质资源耐碱性综合评价

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1006.2023.24278

作物学报 ›› 2023, Vol. 49 ›› Issue (11): 2923-2934.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2023.24278

• 作物遗传育种·种质资源·分子遗传学 • 上一篇下一篇

马铃薯苗期耐碱性鉴定方法及86份种质资源耐碱性综合评价

赵朋(), 陈广侠, 张宴萍, 杨晓慧, 刘芳, 董道峰

山东省农业科学院蔬菜研究所, 山东济南 250100

收稿日期:2022-12-19 接受日期:2023-04-17 出版日期:2023-11-12 网络出版日期:2023-05-06
通讯作者: 董道峰, E-mail: feng-dd@126.com
作者简介:E-mail: zhaopeng@nwafu.edu.cn
基金资助:
由山东省农业科学院创新人才及团队引进工程(“333工程”)项目(CXGC2021B17);山东省农业良种工程(2020LZGC003);山东省农业科学院创新工程-马铃薯种质资源创新及利用项目(CXGC2022C03)

Alkaline tolerance identification method of potato seedlings and comprehensive assessment of alkaline tolerance of 86 kinds of potato germplasms

ZHAO Peng(), CHEN Guang-Xia, ZHANG Yan-Ping, YANG Xiao-Hui, LIU Fang, DONG Dao-Feng

Institute of Vegetables, Shandong Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Jinan 250100, Shandong, China

Received:2022-12-19 Accepted:2023-04-17 Published:2023-11-12 Published online:2023-05-06
Supported by:
Innovative Talents and Teams Introduction Project of Shandong Academy of Agricultural Sciences (“Project 333”)(CXGC2021B17);Agricultural Variety Improvement Project of Shandong Province(2020LZGC003);Innovative Project of Shandong Academy of Agricultural Sciences—Innovation and Utilization of Potato Germplasm Resources(CXGC2022C03)

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

我国土地盐碱化问题十分严重, 盐碱地面积达1亿公顷, 其中可利用盐碱地约0.33亿公顷。选育耐盐碱农作物新品种是提高盐碱地利用率的有效手段。马铃薯耐盐碱研究集中在耐盐性, 而耐碱性研究相对较少。本研究对5个马铃薯品种(系)组培苗在不同浓度NaHCO₃模拟碱胁迫下的株高、茎叶鲜重、根鲜重、生根率指标进行测定, 统计不同浓度碱胁迫下各指标的变异系数, 结合有效生长率, 确定了马铃薯组培苗耐碱性鉴定最适浓度为5 mmol L^-1 NaHCO₃。对86个马铃薯品种(系)进行5 mmol L^-1 NaHCO₃碱胁迫, 测定株高、茎叶鲜重、根鲜重、生根率指标耐碱系数, 通过主成分分析和隶属函数转换, 得出耐碱性综合评价A值, 中薯3号A值最低, 北方008 A值最高。耐碱性综合评价聚类分析结果表明86份马铃薯品种(系)可分为5组, 其中强耐碱马铃薯品种(系)为北方008、SDP632、SDP562、SDP274、SDP869和SDP750。通过逐步回归分析建立了耐碱性综合评价A值与各表型指标耐碱系数之间的回归方程, A = 0.214X₁ + 0.341X₂ + 0.398X₃ - 0.177X₄ - 0.026, 4个自变量依次为株高、茎叶鲜重、根鲜重、生根率的耐碱系数。本研究建立的马铃薯组培苗耐碱性综合评价体系有助于马铃薯种质资源耐碱性初步评估, 筛选出的碱胁迫敏感与高耐受种质材料为进一步研究马铃薯耐碱胁迫分子调控机理和抗碱胁迫育种奠定了基础。

关键词: 马铃薯, 苗期, 耐碱性, 综合评价

Abstract:

China is facing a serious land salinization problem. The area of saline-alkaline land reaches 100 million hectares, of which about 33 million hectares of saline-alkaline land could be used. Previous researches mostly concentrate on saline tolerance in potato, only a few research focuses on alkaline tolerance. In this study, the morphological traits such as plant height, shoot fresh weight, root fresh weight, and rooting rate of five different varieties of potato tissue culture seedlings under different concentrations of NaHCO₃ simulated alkaline stress were measured, the corresponding coefficient of variation values were also calculated. Combined with coefficient of variation and the effective growth rate, the suitable simulated alkaline stress for alkaline tolerance assessment of potato tissue culture seedling was 5 mmol L^-1 NaHCO₃. Eighty-six kinds of tetraploid potato germplasms were treated with 5 mmol L^-1 NaHCO₃, alkaline tolerance coefficient of phenotypes including plant height, shoot fresh weight, root fresh weight, and rooting rate were measured. After principal component analysis and conversion by membership function, comprehensive assessment of alkaline tolerance (defined as A-value) was calculated. The A-values of Zhongshu 3 and Beifang 008 were the lowest and highest, respectively. Cluster analysis of comprehensive assessment of alkaline tolerance indicated that 86 kinds of tetraploid potato germplasms could be classified into 5 groups. Among them, the potato varieties (lines) with strong alkaline tolerance were Beifang 008, SDP632, SDP562, SDP274, SDP869, and SDP750. The regression equation between A-values and alkaline tolerance coefficients of phenotypes was established by stepwise regression analysis, A = 0.214X₁ + 0.341X₂ + 0.398X₃ - 0.177X₄ - 0.026. The four independent variables were the alkaline-tolerance coefficient of plant height, fresh weight of stem and leaf, fresh weight of root, and rooting rate. The comprehensive assessment system of alkaline tolerance of potato tissue culture seedlings established in this study could be helpful for the preliminary assessment of potato alkaline tolerance. The identified alkaline stress sensitive and tolerant gremplasms could be further used for the study of molecular regulation mechanism of alkaline stress tolerance and alkaline resistance breeding.

Key words: potato, seedling stage, alkaline stress tolerance, the comprehensive assessment

赵朋, 陈广侠, 张宴萍, 杨晓慧, 刘芳, 董道峰. 马铃薯苗期耐碱性鉴定方法及86份种质资源耐碱性综合评价[J]. 作物学报, 2023, 49(11): 2923-2934.

ZHAO Peng, CHEN Guang-Xia, ZHANG Yan-Ping, YANG Xiao-Hui, LIU Fang, DONG Dao-Feng. Alkaline tolerance identification method of potato seedlings and comprehensive assessment of alkaline tolerance of 86 kinds of potato germplasms[J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2023, 49(11): 2923-2934.

图/表 9

表1

供试马铃薯品种与种质材料"

名称 Name	类别 Category	名称 Name	类别 Category	名称 Name	类别 Category	名称 Name	类别 Category	名称 Name	类别 Category
大西洋Atlantic	栽培品种 Variety	SDP287	种质资源 Germplasm	SDP373	种质资源 Germplasm	SDP472	种质资源 Germplasm	SDP590	种质资源 Germplasm
宾杰 Bintje	栽培品种 Variety	SDP288	种质资源 Germplasm	SDP374	种质资源 Germplasm	SDP474	种质资源 Germplasm	SDP606	种质资源 Germplasm
底西瑞Desiree	栽培品种 Variety	SDP289	种质资源 Germplasm	SDP386	种质资源 Germplasm	SDP491	种质资源 Germplasm	SDP610	种质资源 Germplasm
费乌瑞它Favorita	栽培品种 Variety	SDP290	种质资源 Germplasm	SDP389	种质资源 Germplasm	SDP493	种质资源 Germplasm	SDP614	种质资源 Germplasm
米拉 Mira	栽培品种 Variety	SDP291	种质资源 Germplasm	SDP397	种质资源 Germplasm	SDP506	种质资源 Germplasm	SDP632	种质资源 Germplasm
夏波蒂Shepody	栽培品种 Variety	SDP292	种质资源 Germplasm	SDP398	种质资源 Germplasm	SDP527	种质资源 Germplasm	SDP671	种质资源 Germplasm
Sierra	栽培品种 Variety	SDP293	种质资源 Germplasm	SDP402	种质资源 Germplasm	SDP528	种质资源 Germplasm	SDP706	种质资源 Germplasm
北方001 Beifang 001	栽培品种 Variety	SDP297	种质资源 Germplasm	SDP404	种质资源 Germplasm	SDP531	种质资源 Germplasm	SDP707	种质资源 Germplasm
北方003 Beifang 003	栽培品种 Variety	SDP331	种质资源 Germplasm	SDP408	种质资源 Germplasm	SDP537	种质资源 Germplasm	SDP736	种质资源 Germplasm
北方007 Beifang 007	栽培品种 Variety	SDP334	种质资源 Germplasm	SDP414	种质资源 Germplasm	SDP539	种质资源 Germplasm	SDP744	种质资源 Germplasm
北方008 Beifang 008	栽培品种 Variety	SDP347	种质资源 Germplasm	SDP416	种质资源 Germplasm	SDP553	种质资源 Germplasm	SDP750	种质资源 Germplasm
黑金刚 Heijingang	栽培品种 Variety	SDP348	种质资源 Germplasm	SDP425	种质资源 Germplasm	SDP554	种质资源 Germplasm	SDP831	种质资源 Germplasm
陇薯9号 Longshu 9	栽培品种 Variety	SDP350	种质资源 Germplasm	SDP428	种质资源 Germplasm	SDP560	种质资源 Germplasm	SDP869	种质资源 Germplasm
闽薯1号 Minshu 1	栽培品种 Variety	SDP351	种质资源 Germplasm	SDP429	种质资源 Germplasm	SDP562	种质资源 Germplasm	SDP322Y	种质资源 Germplasm
青薯9号 Qingshu 9	栽培品种 Variety	SDP352	种质资源 Germplasm	SDP447	种质资源 Germplasm	SDP572	种质资源 Germplasm
希森3号 Xisen 3	栽培品种 Variety	SDP353	种质资源 Germplasm	SDP449	种质资源 Germplasm	SDP578	种质资源 Germplasm
中薯3号 Zhongshu 3	栽培品种 Variety	SDP365	种质资源 Germplasm	SDP458	种质资源 Germplasm	SDP583	种质资源 Germplasm
SDP274	种质资源 Germplasm	SDP371	种质资源 Germplasm	SDP461	种质资源 Germplasm	SDP584	种质资源 Germplasm

表1

表2

马铃薯组培苗在不同浓度NaHCO3胁迫下表型"

性状 Trait	品种/指标Variety/indicator	NaHCO₃浓度 NaHCO₃ concentration
性状 Trait	品种/指标Variety/indicator	0 mmol L^-1	2.5 mmol L^-1	5.0 mmol L^-1	7.5 mmol L^-1	10.0 mmol L^-1
株高 Plant height (mm)	宾杰Bintje	71.7±5.2 a	68.5±4.5 a	33.8±5.1 b	16.8±7.3 c	3.3±0.5 d
	SDP289	87.1±3.1 a	85.1±3.3 a	54.6±6.8 b	19.4±5.2 c	3.1±0.4 d
	SDP292	75.6±5.4 a	76.6±1.2 a	33.0±1.5 b	9.8±1.5 c	13.3±3.4 c
	SDP293	82.9±3.6 a	90.3±7.1 a	74.9±9.4 a	45.1±11.5 b	6.2±0.3 c
	SDP297	76.9±7.1 a	73.4±7.7 a	69.1±5.3 a	27.0±3.7 b	10.3±0.8 c
	平均值 Mean	78.9	78.8	53.1	23.6	7.2
	标准差 SD	5.5	7.9	17.4	12.1	4.0
	变异系数 CV	6.9%	10.0%	32.8%	51.2%	55.0%
茎叶鲜重 Shoot fresh weight (mg)	宾杰Bintje	90.3±7.9 a	53.5±10.7 b	46.8±12.3 b	9.5±3.4 c	3.4±0.3 c
	SDP289	250.7±56.7 a	145.0±2.7 b	161.3±5.4 b	51.3±11.0 c	9.7±3.5 c
	SDP292	200.0±34.3 a	122.9±7.7 b	82.3±19.8 bc	48.9±11.1 cd	10.9±3.1 d
	SDP293	168.8±14.5 ab	172.0±19.0 a	133.9±25.1 b	56.3±7.4 c	9.4±2.3 d
	SDP297	234.5±25.2 a	132.9±5.4 c	181.6±19.5 b	42.8±5.5 d	26.8±7.9 d
	平均值 Mean	188.9	125.3	121.2	41.8	12.0
	标准差 SD	56.8	39.5	49.9	16.7	7.8
	变异系数 CV	30.1%	31.5%	41.2%	40.0%	65.0%
根鲜重 Root fresh weight (mg)	宾杰 Bintje	39.1±0.3 a	18.3±3.1 b	7.8±0.9 c	9.0±1.1 c	0.0±0.0 d
	SDP289	102.4±11.9 a	32.3±8.0 b	39.6±2.6 b	6.3±2.8 c	0.0±0.0 c
	SDP292	86.3±3.5 a	31.3±1.9 b	19.2±6.1 c	0.0±0.0 d	0.0±0.0 d
	SDP293	70.0±5.8 a	49.6±1.9 b	59.0±8.9 ab	7.4±2.0 c	0.0±0.0 c
	SDP297	61.1±6.8 a	30.3±3.5 b	33.7±4.6 b	0.7±0.2 c	0.0±0.0 c
	平均值 Mean	71.8	32.4	31.9	4.7	0.0
	标准差 SD	21.6	10.0	17.5	3.7	0.0
	变异系数 CV	30.1%	30.9%	55.0%	78.2%	0.0%
生根率 Rooting rate (%)	宾杰 Bintje	100.0±0.0 a	100.0±0.0 a	66.7±4.7 b	23.3±4.7 c	0.0±0.0 d
	SDP289	100.0±0.0 a	93.3±9.4 a	80.0±8.2 b	33.3±4.7 c	0.0±0.0 d
	SDP292	100.0±0.0 a	86.7±4.7 b	56.7±4.7c	0.0±0.0 d	0.0±0.0 d
	SDP293	100.0±0.0 a	100.0±0.0 a	86.7±9.4 b	40.0±8.2 c	0.0±0.0 d
	SDP297	100.0±0.0 a	100.0±0.0 a	76.7±9.4 b	36.7±9.4 c	0.0±0.0 d
	平均值 Mean	100.0	96.0	73.3	26.7	0.0
	标准差 SD	0.0	5.3	10.5	14.5	0.0
	变异系数 CV	0	5.6%	14.4%	54.2%	0
有效生长率Effective growth rate (%)	宾杰Bintje	100.0±0.0 a	100.0±0.0 a	80.0±8.2 b	53.3±4.7 c	0.0±0.0 d
	SDP289	100.0±0.0 a	100.0±0.0 a	93.3±9.4 a	50.0±8.2 b	6.7±4.7 c
	SDP292	100.0±0.0 a	100.0±0.0 a	76.7±4.7 b	36.7±4.7 c	16.7±4.7 d
	SDP293	100.0±0.0 a	100.0±0.0 a	100.0±0.0 a	86.7±9.4 a	53.3±9.4 b
	SDP297	100.0±0.0 a	100.0±0.0 a	100.0±0.0 a	63.3±9.4 b	30.0±8.2 c
	平均值 Mean	100.0	100.0	90.0	58.0	21.3

表2

表3

图1

表4

86份马铃薯品种(系)表型指标耐碱系数"

品种(系) Variety (line)	株高 Plant height	茎叶鲜重 Shoot fresh weight	根鲜重 Root fresh weight	生根率 Rooting rate	品种(系) Variety (line)	株高 Plant height	茎叶鲜重 Shoot fresh weight	根鲜重 Root fresh weight	生根率 Rooting rate
大西洋Atlantic	0.886	0.988	0.718	1.000	SDP404	0.821	0.627	0.537	1.000
宾杰Bintje	0.432	0.639	0.323	0.467	SDP408	0.838	1.021	0.777	1.000
底西瑞Desiree	0.587	0.614	0.312	0.500	SDP414	0.789	0.793	0.553	0.938
费乌瑞它Favorita	0.775	1.039	0.725	0.600	SDP416	0.884	0.812	0.869	1.000
米拉Mira	0.813	1.021	0.317	0.867	SDP425	1.008	0.949	0.402	0.875
夏波蒂Shepody	0.725	0.797	0.709	0.500	SDP428	0.530	0.618	0.033	0.938
Sierra	0.951	0.842	0.823	1.000	SDP429	0.763	0.707	0.560	1.000
北方001 Beifang 001	0.529	0.620	0.505	1.000	SDP447	1.066	1.164	0.564	1.000
北方003 Beifang 003	0.971	0.955	0.762	1.000	SDP449	0.762	0.707	0.297	0.813
北方007 Beifang 007	0.828	0.886	0.874	0.600	SDP458	0.973	0.808	0.807	0.938
北方008 Beifang 008	0.979	1.417	0.601	0.300	SDP461	0.575	0.914	0.288	0.875
黑金刚Heijingang	0.845	1.023	0.592	1.000	SDP472	0.727	0.928	0.307	0.750
陇薯9号Longshu 9	0.341	0.452	0.329	0.563	SDP474	0.426	0.478	0.786	0.545
闽薯1号Minshu 1	0.542	0.659	0.241	0.824	SDP491	0.358	0.594	0.074	0.333
青薯9号Qingshu 9	0.760	0.717	0.270	0.727	SDP493	0.710	1.009	0.950	0.985
希森3号Xisen 3	0.432	0.570	0.495	0.438	SDP506	0.916	1.082	0.768	1.000
中薯3号Zhongshu 3	0.076	0.091	0.128	0.250	SDP527	0.564	0.912	0.462	0.647
SDP274	1.035	1.229	0.827	1.000	SDP528	0.593	0.948	0.700	0.750
SDP287	0.585	0.635	0.323	0.813	SDP531	0.252	0.524	0.264	0.375
SDP288	0.284	0.420	0.219	0.375	SDP537	0.676	0.543	0.484	0.688
SDP289	0.197	0.331	0.241	0.375	SDP539	0.081	0.182	0.059	0.083
SDP290	0.563	0.570	0.452	0.500	SDP553	0.802	0.740	0.400	1.000
SDP291	0.240	0.210	0.116	0.438	SDP554	0.534	0.534	0.333	0.750
SDP292	0.135	0.169	0.102	0.188	SDP560	0.831	0.931	0.644	1.000
SDP293	0.857	0.759	0.302	0.941	SDP562	1.199	1.478	0.610	1.000
SDP297	0.752	0.676	0.514	0.938	SDP572	0.577	0.631	0.460	1.000
SDP331	0.707	0.883	0.415	0.667	SDP578	0.908	0.968	0.542	0.910
SDP334	0.692	0.797	0.487	0.933	SDP583	0.752	0.781	0.601	0.938
SDP347	0.683	1.238	0.260	0.533	SDP584	0.910	0.881	0.669	1.000
SDP348	0.813	0.932	0.884	1.000	SDP590	0.794	0.999	0.745	0.667
SDP350	0.627	0.629	0.307	0.688	SDP606	0.243	0.236	0.234	0.551
SDP351	0.664	0.801	0.508	0.688	SDP610	0.657	0.549	0.260	1.000
SDP352	0.925	0.991	0.825	1.000	SDP614	0.493	0.868	0.298	0.938
SDP353	0.440	0.407	0.248	0.500	SDP632	1.122	1.275	0.812	0.889
SDP365	0.818	0.85	0.564	1.000	SDP671	0.683	0.674	0.418	0.882
SDP371	0.786	0.756	0.499	1.000	SDP706	0.616	0.716	0.403	0.407
SDP373	0.607	0.720	0.342	1.000	SDP707	0.613	0.562	0.568	0.750
SDP374	0.664	0.627	0.367	0.750	SDP736	0.554	0.777	0.344	0.926
SDP386	0.837	0.895	0.883	0.882	SDP744	0.289	0.321	0.245	0.500
SDP389	0.567	0.604	0.380	0.813	SDP750	1.024	1.140	0.868	0.969
SDP397	0.393	0.616	0.266	0.667	SDP831	0.887	0.922	1.043	1.000
SDP398	0.396	0.598	0.346	0.750	SDP869	0.837	1.061	0.951	0.727
SDP402	0.709	0.821	0.512	0.938	SDP322Y	0.651	1.109	1.005	1.000

表4

表5

表6

表7

图2

参考文献 25

[26]	Foolad M R, Lin G Y. Absence of a genetic relationship between salt tolerance during seed germination and vegetative growth in tomato. Plant Breed, 1997, 116: 363-367. doi: 10.1111/pbr.1997.116.issue-4
[27]	江应红, 刘易, 邢斌德, 孙慧, 冯怀章. 盐胁迫对马铃薯出苗及苗期生物学性状的影响. 中国马铃薯, 2021, 35: 326-333.
	Jiang Y H, Liu Y, Xing B D, Sun H, Feng H Z. Effects of salt stress on biological characters of potato seedling emergence and seedling stage. Chin Potato J, 2021, 35: 326-333 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[28]	Ahmad R, Abdullah Z. Salinity induced changes in the growth and chemical composition of potato. Pak J Bot, 1979, 11: 103-112.
[29]	Morpurgo R. Correlation between potato clones grown in vivo and in vitro under sodium chloride stress conditions. Plant Breed, 1991, 107: 80-82. doi: 10.1111/pbr.1991.107.issue-1
[30]	Khrais T, Leclerc Y, Donnelly D J. Relative salinity tolerance of potato cultivars assessed by in vitro screening. Am J Potato Res, 1998, 75: 207-210. doi: 10.1007/BF02854214
[31]	Queirós F, Fidalgo F, Santos I, Salema R. In vitro selection of salt tolerant cell lines in Solanum tuberosum L. Biol Plant, 2007, 51: 728-734. doi: 10.1007/s10535-007-0149-y
[32]	Khan M S, Ahmad D, Adnan M, Khan M A. The effect of somaclonal variation on salt tolerance and glycoalkaloid content of potato tubers. Aust J Crop Sci, 2014, 8: 1597-1606.
[33]	包云飞, 程鹏, 熊兴耀, 洪亚辉. 马铃薯盐胁迫下生理生化变化研究. 见: 陈伊里, 屈冬玉主编. 马铃薯产业与科技扶贫(2011). 银川: 哈尔滨工程大学出版社, 2011. pp 166-168.
	Bao Y F, Cheng P, Xiong X Y, Hong Y H. Physiological and biochemical changes of potato under salt stress. In: Chen Y L, Qu D Y, eds. Potato Industry and Technology Poverty Alleviation (2011). Yinchuan: Harbin Engineering University Press, 2011. pp 166-168 (in Chinese)
[34]	杨少辉, 季静, 王罡, 宋英今. 盐胁迫对植物影响的研究进展. 分子植物育种, 2006, 4(增刊3): 139-142.
	Yang S H, Ji J, Wang G, Song Y J. Effects of salt stress on plants. Mol Plant Breed, 2006, 4(S3): 139-142 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[35]	刘艳, 王宝祥, 邢运高, 陈庭木, 徐波, 杨波, 孙志广, 刘金波, 迟铭, 李健, 卢百关, 方兆伟, 秦德荣, 徐大勇. 水稻品种资源苗期耐盐性评价指标分析. 江苏农业科学, 2021, 49(17): 75-79.
	Liu Y, Wang B X, Xing Y G, Chen T M, Xu B, Yang B, Sun Z G, Liu J B, Chi M, Li J, Lu B G, Fang Z W, Qin D R, Xu D Y. Analysis of evaluation indices for salt tolerance of rice germplasm resources at seedling stage. Jiangsu Agric Sci, 2021, 49(17): 75-79 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[36]	刘彤彤, 李宁, 魏良迪, 杨进文, 史雨刚, 王曙光, 孙黛珍. 山西省主推小麦品种芽期及苗期耐盐性的综合评价. 中国农业大学学报, 2022, 27(2): 22-33.
	Liu T T, Li N, Wei L D, Yang J W, Shi Y G, Wang S G, Sun D Z. Comprehensive evaluation of salt tolerance of wheat varieties in Shanxi province during germination and seedling stage. J China Agric Univ, 2022, 27(2): 22-33 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[37]	刘谢香, 常汝镇, 关荣霞, 邱丽娟. 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. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2020.94062
	Liu X X, Chang R Z, Guan R X, Qiu L J. 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). doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2020.94062
[38]	徐宁, 陈冰嬬, 王明海, 包淑英, 王桂芳, 郭中校. 绿豆品种资源萌发期耐碱性鉴定. 作物学报, 2017, 43: 112-121. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2017.00112
	Xu N, Chen B R, Wang M H, Bao S Y, Wang G F, Guo Z X. Identification of alkali tolerance of mungbean germplasm resources during germination. Acta Agron Sin, 2017, 43: 112-121 (in Chinese with English abstract). doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2017.00112
[39]	段文学, 张海燕, 解备涛, 汪宝卿, 张立明. 甘薯苗期耐盐性鉴定及其指标筛选. 作物学报, 2018, 44: 1237-1247. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2018.01237
	Duan W X, Zhang H Y, Xie B T, Wang B Q, Zhang L M. Identification of salt tolerance and screening for its indicators in sweet potato varieties during seedling stage. Acta Agron Sin, 2018, 44: 1237-1247 (in Chinese with English abstract). doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2018.01237
[40]	杨升, 张华新, 张丽. 植物耐盐生理生化指标及耐盐植物筛选综述. 西北林学院学报, 2010, 25(3): 59-65.
	Yang S, Zhang H X, Zhang L. Physiological and biochemical indices of salt tolerance and scanning of salt-tolerance plants: a review. J Northwest For Univ, 2010, 25(3): 59-65 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[41]	武永军, 何国强, 史艳茹, 梁宗锁. 不同pH值缓冲液处理下蚕豆叶片相对含水量、脯氨酸及丙二醛含量的变化. 干旱地区农业研究, 2009, 27(6): 169-172.
	Wu Y J, He G Q, Shi Y R, Liang Z S. Change of relative water content, proline content and malondialdehyde content of Vicia faba leaves under different pH buffer treatments. Agric Res Arid Areas, 2009, 27(6): 169-172 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[42]	王宝山. 生物自由基与植物膜伤害. 植物生理学通讯, 1988, (2): 12-16.
	Wang B S. Biological free radicals and membrane damage of plants. Plant Physiol Commun, 1988, (2): 12-16 (in Chinese).
[43]	彭振, 何守朴, 孙君灵, 许菲菲, 贾银华, 潘兆娥, 王立如, 杜雄明. 陆地棉苗期耐盐性的高效鉴定方法. 作物学报, 2014, 40: 476-486.
	Peng Z, He S P, Sun J L, Xu F F, Jia Y H, Pan Z E, Wang L R, Du X M. An efficient approach to identify salt tolerance of upland cotton at seedling stage. Acta Agron Sin, 2014, 40: 476-486 (in Chinese with English abstract). doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2014.00476
[1]	谢从华, 柳俊. 中国马铃薯从济荒作物到主粮之变迁. 华中农业大学学报, 2021, 40(4): 8-15.
	Xie C H, Liu J. Transition of potato from a famine relief crop to staple food in China. J Huazhong Agric Univ, 2021, 40(4): 8-15 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[2]	Maas E V, Hoffman G J. Crop salt tolerance-current assessment. J Irrig Drain Eng, 1977, 103: 115-134.
[3]	Ghosh S C, Asanuma K, Kusutani A, Toyota M. Effect of salt stress on some chemical components and yield of potato. Soil Sci Plant Nutr, 2001, 47: 467-475. doi: 10.1080/00380768.2001.10408411
[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]	商振芳, 谢思绮, 罗旺, 韦静静, 鹿荐, 张刚. 我国盐碱地现状及其改良技术研究进展. 见:2019中国环境科学学会科学技术年会论文集(第3卷). 西安: 中国环境科学学会, 2019. pp 386-395.
	Shang Z F, Xie S Q, Luo W, Wei J J, Lu J, Zhang G. Current situation of saline-alkaline land in China and research progress of corresponding improvement technology. In: Proceedings of the 2019 Science and Technology Annual Conference of Chinese Society for Environmental Science (Volume 3). Xi’an: Chinese Society for Environmental Science, 2019. pp 386-395 (in Chinese).
[6]	黄立华, 梁正伟. 直播羊草在不同pH土壤环境下的离子吸收特性. 中国草地学报, 2008, 160(1): 35-39.
	Huang L H, Liang Z W. Ionic absorption characteristics of Leymus chinensis seeded in various pH soils. Chin J Grassl, 2008, 160(1): 35-39 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[7]	曲元刚, 赵可夫. NaCl和Na₂CO₃对玉米生长和生理胁迫效应的比较研究. 作物学报, 2004, 30: 334-341.
	Qu Y G, Zhao K F. Comparative studies on growth and physiological reaction of Zea mays under NaCl and Na₂CO₃ stresses. Acta Agron Sin, 2004, 30: 334-341 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[8]	刘杰, 张美丽, 张义, 石德成. 人工模拟盐、碱环境对向日葵种子萌发及幼苗生长的影响. 作物学报, 2008, 34: 1818-1825. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2008.01818
	Liu J, Zhang M L, Zhang Y, Shi D C. Effects of simulated salt and alkali conditions on seed germination and seedling growth of sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.). Acta Agron Sin, 2008, 34: 1818-1825 (in Chinese with English abstract). doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2008.01818
[9]	王培伦, 孙慧生, 张振鸿, 马伟青, 郭奕明. 离体筛选耐盐碱马铃薯品种试验. 中国马铃薯, 1997, 11(4):197-200.
	Wang P L, Sun H S, Zhang Z H, Ma W Q, Guo Y M. Screening salt tolerant potato clones in vitro. Chin Potato J, 1997, 11(4): 197-200 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[10]	李保国. 新时代下盐碱地改良与利用的科学之路. 中国农业综合开发, 2022, (1): 8-9.
	Li B G. The scientific way to improve and utilize saline-alkali land in the new era. Agric Compreh Dev Chin, 2022, (1): 8-9 (in Chinese).
[11]	刘芳, 王培伦, 杨元军, 马伟清, 董道峰, 陈广侠. 不同马铃薯品种对盐胁迫反应的差异研究. 西南大学学报(自然科学版), 2010, 32(10): 47-53.
	Liu F, Wang P L, Yang Y J, Ma W Q, Dong D F, Chen G X. Genetic difference in response to salt stress of different potato varieties. J Southwest Univ (Nat Sci Edn), 2010, 32(10): 47-53 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[44]	高玉坤, 杨溥原, 项晓冬, 魏世林, 任根增, 殷丛培, 梁红凯, 崔江慧, 常金华. 不同耐盐高粱品种全生育期对盐胁迫的响应. 华北农学报, 2020, 35(6): 113-121. doi: 10.7668/hbnxb.20191411
	Gao Y K, Yang P Y, Xiang X D, Wei S L, Ren G Z, Yin C P, Liang H K, Cui J H, Chang J H. Response of different salt tolerant sorghum varieties to salt stress in the whole growth period. Acta Agric Boreali-Sin, 2020, 35(6): 113-121 (in Chinese with English abstract). doi: 10.7668/hbnxb.20191411
[45]	凌云鹤, 周瑶, 景兵, 李春莲, 肖恩时, 王中华. 盐胁迫对向日葵幼苗生长及生理特性的影响. 干旱地区农业研究, 2019, 37(4): 139-145.
	Ling Y H, Zhou Y, Jing B, Li C L, Xiao E S, Wang Z H. Effects of salt stress on growth and physiological characteristics of sunflower at seedling stage. Agric Res Arid Areas, 2019, 37(4): 139-145 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[46]	张景云, 缪南生, 白雅梅, 万新建, 吕文河. 盐胁迫下二倍体马铃薯叶绿素含量和抗氧化酶活性的变化. 作物杂志, 2014, (5): 59-63.
	Zhang J Y, Miao N S, Bai Y M, Wan X J, Lyu W H. Changes of chlorophyll content and antioxidant enzyme activity of diploid potato under salt stress. Crops, 2014, (5): 59-63 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[47]	郑飞, 陈艳萍, 孟庆长, 赵文明, 孔令杰, 袁建华. 7份玉米自交系耐盐性鉴定. 江苏农业科学, 2012, 40(12): 112-115.
	Zheng F, Chen Y P, Meng Q C, Zhao W M, Kong L J, Yuan J H. Salt tolerance identification of 7 maize inbred lines. Jiangsu Agric Sci, 2012, 40(12): 112-115 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[12]	李青, 秦玉芝, 胡新喜, 丁红映, 熊兴耀, 王万兴. 马铃薯耐盐性离体鉴定方法的建立及52份种质资源耐盐性评价. 植物遗传资源学报, 2018, 19: 587-597. doi: 10.13430/j.cnki.jpgr.20171029001
	Li Q, Qin Y Z, Hu X X, Ding H Y, Xiong X Y, Wang W X. Establishment of an optimized bioassay being valuable for determining salt tolerance in 52 potato germplasm accessions. J Plant Genet Resour, 2018, 19: 587-597 (in Chinese with English abstract). doi: 10.13430/j.cnki.jpgr.20171029001
[13]	尹江, 马恢, 崔红军. 马铃薯亲本材料试管苗的耐盐性筛选. 中国马铃薯, 2005, 19(1):13-16.
	Yin J, Ma H, Cui H J. Salt tolerance of plantlets in vitro in some potato germplasm. Chin Potato J, 2005, 19(1): 13-16 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[14]	梁春波, 韩秀峰, 邸宏, 陈伊里. 马铃薯新型栽培种耐盐性鉴定与筛选. 中国马铃薯, 2006, 20(2): 68-72.
	Liang C B, Han X F, Di H, Chen Y L. Identification and selection of salt-tolerant clones in neo-tuberosum. Chin Potato J, 2006, 20(2): 68-72 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[15]	裴怀弟, 张敏敏, 刘新星, 厚毅清, 陈玉梁. NaCl胁迫条件下马铃薯再生苗耐盐性研究. 甘肃农业科技, 2014, (11): 39-42.
	Pei H D, Zhang M M, Liu X X, Hou Y Q, Chen Y L. Research of NaCl tolerance on potato regeneration seedlings. Gansu Agric Sci Technol, 2014, (11): 39-42 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[16]	李欣, 张俊莲, 刘玉汇, 王丽, 余斌, 杨宏羽, 李丽霞, 黎雪梅, 王蒂. 四个引自国际马铃薯中心的马铃薯试管苗耐盐性鉴定. 甘肃农业大学学报, 2017, 52(1): 44-50.
	Li X, Zhang J L, Liu Y H, Wang L, Yu B, Yang H Y, Li L X, Li X M, Wang D. Identification of salt tolerance on four plantlets of potato lines from International Potato Center. J Gansu Agric Univ, 2017, 52(1): 44-50 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[17]	陈彦云, 李紫辰, 曹君迈, 徐胜明, 莫磊. 马铃薯脱毒苗对NaCl胁迫的响应及耐盐性评价. 西南农业学报, 2018, 31: 2052-2059.
	Chen Y Y, Li Z C, Cao J M, Xu S M, Mo L. Response of potato virus-free seedlings to NaCl stress and evaluation of salt tolerance. Southwest China J Agric Sci, 2018, 31: 2052-2059 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[18]	赵海红, 王士强, 胡喜平, 杜吉到, 申晓慧. 9个马铃薯品种苏打盐碱适应性盆栽试验. 中国马铃薯, 2010, 24(3): 129-132.
	Zhao H H, Wang S Q, Hu X P, Du J D, Shen X H. Evaluation for saline-sodic tolerance of nine potato cultivars in pot-experiment. Chin Potato J, 2010, 24(3): 129-132 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[19]	赵海红. 马铃薯抗苏打盐碱性研究离体试验. 中国马铃薯, 2010, 24(2): 65-68.
	Zhao H H. Evaluation and identification of potatoes with saline-sodic tolerance in vitro culture. Chin Potato J, 2010, 24(2): 65-68 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[20]	赵明辉, 白雅梅, 李文霞, 吕文河. 对NaCl敏感度不同的二倍体马铃薯在NaHCO₃胁迫下的表现. 核农学报, 2014, 28: 358-363. doi: 10.11869/j.issn.100-8551.2014.02.0358
	Zhao M H, Bai Y M, Li W X, Lyu W H. Performance of diploid potatoes with various levels of NaCl tolerance under stress of NaHCO₃. J Nucl Agric Sci, 2014, 28: 358-363 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[21]	赵明辉, 白雅梅, 吕文河. 离体条件下评价二倍体马铃薯(Solanum phureja × S. stenotomum)耐盐性. 核农学报, 2020, 34: 1-9. doi: 10.11869/j.issn.100-8551.2020.01.0001
	Zhao M H, Bai Y M, Lyu W H. In vitro evaluation of salt tolerance of diploid potato (Solanum phureja × S. stenotomum). J Nucl Agric Sci, 2020, 34: 1-9 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[22]	郭家鑫, 鲁晓宇, 陶一凡, 郭慧娟, 闵伟. 棉花在盐碱胁迫下代谢产物及通路的分析. 作物学报, 2022, 48: 2100-2114. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2022.14110
	Guo J X, Lu X Y, Tao Y F, Guo H J, Min W. Analysis of metabolites and pathways in cotton under salt alkali stresses. Acta Agron Sin, 2022, 48: 2100-2114 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[23]	Potiuri S D P, Devi Prasad P V, Influence of salinity on axillary bud cultures of six lowland tropical varieties of potato (Solanum tuberosum). Plant Cell Tissue Organ, 1993, 32: 185-191. doi: 10.1007/BF00029841
[24]	Flowers T J. Improving crop salt tolerance. J Exp Bot, 2004, 55: 307-319. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erh003 pmid: 14718494
[25]	Khatun S, Flowers T J. Effects of salinity on seed set in rice. Plant Cell Environ, 1995, 18: 61-67. doi: 10.1111/pce.1995.18.issue-1

Metrics

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed

指标 Indicator	株高 Plant height	茎叶鲜重 Shoot fresh weight	根鲜重 Root fresh weight
茎叶鲜重Shoot fresh weight	0.851^**
根鲜重Root fresh weight	0.687^**	0.644^**
生根率Rooting rate	0.706^**	0.537^**	0.507^**

综合指标 Comprehensive indicator	特征值 Eigen value	贡献率 Contribution ratio (%)	累计贡献率 Cumulative contribution ratio (%)	特征向量 Eigenvector
综合指标 Comprehensive indicator	特征值 Eigen value	贡献率 Contribution ratio (%)	累计贡献率 Cumulative contribution ratio (%)	株高 Plant height	茎叶鲜重 Shoot fresh weight	根鲜重 Root fresh weight	生根率 Rooting rate
PC1	2.980	74.501	74.501	0.246	0.492	0.611	-0.459
PC2	0.519	12.966	87.467	0.202	-0.170	-0.372	1.081

马铃薯苗期耐碱性鉴定方法及86份种质资源耐碱性综合评价

Alkaline tolerance identification method of potato seedlings and comprehensive assessment of alkaline tolerance of 86 kinds of potato germplasms

RichHTML

PDF

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 9

参考文献 25

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

品种(系) Variety (line)	A值 A-value	品种(系) Variety (line)	A值 A-value	品种(系) Variety (line)	A值 A-value	品种(系) Variety (line)	A值 A-value	品种(系) Variety (line)	A值 A-value
大西洋Atlantic	0.609	SDP287	0.300	SDP373	0.309	SDP472	0.435	SDP590	0.663
宾杰Bintje	0.330	SDP288	0.199	SDP374	0.343	SDP474	0.445	SDP606	0.102
底西瑞Desiree	0.345	SDP289	0.159	SDP386	0.654	SDP491	0.223	SDP610	0.228
费乌瑞它Favorita	0.676	SDP290	0.380	SDP389	0.309	SDP493	0.674	SDP614	0.328
米拉Mira	0.469	SDP291	0.066	SDP397	0.256	SDP506	0.668	SDP632	0.815
夏波蒂Shepody	0.595	SDP292	0.068	SDP398	0.268	SDP527	0.475	SDP671	0.360
Sierra	0.615	SDP293	0.370	SDP402	0.443	SDP528	0.570	SDP706	0.438
北方001 Beifang 001	0.323	SDP297	0.404	SDP404	0.400	SDP531	0.245	SDP707	0.390
北方003 Beifang 003	0.634	SDP331	0.473	SDP408	0.634	SDP537	0.375	SDP736	0.330
北方007 Beifang 007	0.695	SDP334	0.423	SDP414	0.467	SDP539	0.062	SDP744	0.154
北方008 Beifang 008	0.852	SDP347	0.551	SDP416	0.609	SDP553	0.380	SDP750	0.756
黑金刚Heijingang	0.562	SDP348	0.641	SDP425	0.518	SDP554	0.270	SDP831	0.716
陇薯9号Longshu 9	0.232	SDP350	0.323	SDP428	0.145	SDP560	0.549	SDP869	0.765
闽薯1号Minshu 1	0.265	SDP351	0.470	SDP429	0.424	SDP562	0.800	SDP322Y	0.714
青薯9号Qingshu 9	0.360	SDP352	0.661	SDP447	0.646	SDP572	0.319
希森3号Xisen 3	0.380	SDP353	0.217	SDP449	0.352	SDP578	0.553
中薯3号Zhongshu 3	0.028	SDP365	0.486	SDP458	0.613	SDP583	0.474
SDP274	0.767	SDP371	0.422	SDP461	0.368	SDP584	0.558

[1]	刘洁, 蔡诚诚, 刘石锋, 邓孟胜, 王雪枫, 温和, 李罗品, 严奉君, 王西瑶. 马铃薯StCYP85A3促进萌芽及根系伸长的功能解析[J]. 作物学报, 2023, 49(9): 2462-2471.
[2]	索海翠, 刘计涛, 王丽, 李成晨, 单建伟, 李小波. 马铃薯锌转运蛋白基因StZIP12调控锌吸收功能[J]. 作物学报, 2023, 49(7): 1994-2001.
[3]	赵喜娟, 刘圣宣, 刘腾飞, 郑洁, 杜鹃, 胡新喜, 宋波涛, 何长征. 转录组分析揭示光诱导转录因子StMYB113调控马铃薯块茎表皮叶绿素合成[J]. 作物学报, 2023, 49(7): 1860-1870.
[4]	张静, 高文博, 晏林, 张宗文, 周海涛, 吴斌. 燕麦种质资源耐盐碱性鉴定评价及耐盐碱种质筛选[J]. 作物学报, 2023, 49(6): 1551-1561.
[5]	王硕, 鲍天旸, 刘建刚, 段绍光, 简银巧, 李广存, 金黎平, 徐建飞. 基于RGB颜色空间评价马铃薯块茎绿化程度[J]. 作物学报, 2023, 49(4): 1102-1110.
[6]	李红艳, 李洁雅, 李响, 叶广继, 周云, 王舰. 过表达LrAN2基因对马铃薯中花青素和糖苷生物碱含量的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2023, 49(4): 988-995.
[7]	张卫娜, 余慧芳, 安珍, 柳文凯, 康益晨, 石铭福, 杨昕宇, 张茹艳, 王勇, 秦舒浩. StEFR1正调控马铃薯对晚疫病的抗性[J]. 作物学报, 2023, 49(4): 996-1005.
[8]	孙现军, 姜奇彦, 胡正, 李宏博, 庞斌双, 张风廷, 张胜全, 张辉. 小麦种质资源苗期耐盐性鉴定评价[J]. 作物学报, 2023, 49(4): 1132-1139.
[9]	孟雨, 田文仲, 温鹏飞, 丁志强, 张学品, 贺利, 段剑钊, 刘万代, 郭天财, 冯伟. 基于不同发育阶段协同的小麦品种抗旱性综合评判[J]. 作物学报, 2023, 49(2): 570-582.
[10]	李继军, 陈雅慧, 王艺瑾, 周志华, 郭子越, 张建, 涂金星, 姚璇, 郭亮. 甘蓝型油菜种质资源田间耐渍性评价和耐渍种质资源筛选[J]. 作物学报, 2023, 49(12): 3162-3175.
[11]	朱金勇, 刘震, 曾钰婷, 李志涛, 陈丽敏, 李泓阳, 史田斌, 张俊莲, 白江平, 刘玉汇. 马铃薯PAL基因家族的全基因组鉴定及其在非生物胁迫下和块茎花色素苷合成中的表达分析[J]. 作物学报, 2023, 49(11): 2978-2990.
[12]	巩慧玲, 林红霞, 任小丽, 李彤, 王晨霞, 白江平. StvacINV1负调控马铃薯的耐旱性[J]. 作物学报, 2023, 49(11): 3007-3016.
[13]	赵富贵, 张龙, 李丹, 韩固, 王楠, 侯贤清. 不同气候年型下耕作覆盖对宁南旱区土壤水热及马铃薯产量的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2023, 49(10): 2806-2819.
[14]	曹慧敏, 杨贤莉, 王立志, 李苹苹, 翟来圆, 姜树坤, 郑天清, 邱先进, 徐建龙. 利用双向导入系和重组自交系定位和挖掘水稻苗期耐冷QTL和有利等位基因[J]. 作物学报, 2023, 49(10): 2633-2642.
[15]	杜鹃, 彭晓君, 侯娟, 刘腾飞, 刘增, 宋波涛. 马铃薯淀粉酶StBAM9互作蛋白的鉴定及其互作机制分析[J]. 作物学报, 2023, 49(10): 2643-2653.