植物生态学报 2011, 35 (1): 100–109 doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1258.2011.00100 Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology http://www.plant-ecology.com
—————————————————— 收稿日期Received: 2010-05-27 接受日期Accepted: 2010-07-17 * 通讯作者Author for correspondence (E-mail: wansb@saas.ac.cn)
花生抗旱性鉴定指标的筛选与评价
张智猛1 万书波2* 戴良香1 宋文武1 陈 静1 石运庆1 1山东省花生研究所, 青岛 266100; 2山东省农业科学院, 济南 250100
摘 要 为确定鉴定花生(Arachis hypogaea)品种(系)抗旱性指标体系, 综合评价花生品种(系)的抗旱性, 在人工控水条件下, 通过盆栽试验, 测定了29个花生品种(系)苗期和花针期的株高、分枝数、生物累积量、叶片含水量和光合色素含量等与抗旱性有关的13个表观形态性状和生理性状的指标, 采用抗旱系数法和隶属函数值法, 对各指标性状进行了水分胁迫下的抗性评价和鉴定。结果表明, 29个花生品种(系)可划分为抗旱性较强、中等、较弱和不抗旱4类, 其中‘唐科8号’、‘冀花2号’、‘大唐油’、‘花育25号’、‘花育17号’、‘鲁花14号’、‘丰花1号’ 7个品种(系)具有较强的抗旱能力; 苗期同一品种(系)的主茎高、分枝数和生物累积量等形态指标和光合色素等生理指标的隶属函数值均有较大差别, 苗期各指标隶属函数值与品种(系)抗旱性无显著相关关系, 苗期单一形态指标不能作为鉴定品种(系)抗旱性的指标; 但苗期抗旱性综合评价值(D)与抗旱系数间存在显著相关关系, D的大小可作为抗旱性的鉴定指标。花针期形态指标和生理指标D值间, 以及各类指标D值与抗旱系数间均存在显著或极显著的相关关系, 此期植株形态指标、生理指标隶属函数值以及综合D值均可作为鉴定品种(系)抗旱性的指标。 关键词 花生, 综合评价, 抗旱性, 品种(系), 水分胁迫
Estimating and screening of drought resistance indexes of peanut ZHANG Zhi-Meng1, WAN Shu-Bo2*, DAI Liang-Xiang1, SONG Wen-Wu1, CHEN Jing1, and SHI Yun-Qing1 1Peanut Research Institute of Shandong Province, Qingdao 266100, China; and 2Shandong Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Jinan 250100, China
Abstract
Aims Our objective was to define an index of peanut (Arachis hypogaea) drought resistance and comprehen-sively evaluate drought resistance of peanut varieties under controlled water conditions. Methods The experiment was conducted on the farm of Qingdao Academy of Agricultural Science with 29 pea-nut varieties. Two levels of water content (80%–85% and 45%–50% of field moisture capacity) were used in a randomized complete block design with four replications. We measured 13 morphological and physiological characters such as plant height, branch numbers, biomass, leaf water content and photosynthetic pigment content in seedling and pod-pin stages. Important findings The 29 peanut cultivars can divided into four classes: high-, mid- and low-tolerant cultivars and intolerant cultivars. The high-tolerant cultivars included ‘Tangke 8’, ‘Jihua 2’, ‘Datangyou’, ‘Huayu 25’, ‘Huayu 17’, ‘Luhua 14’ and ‘Fenghua 1’. Subordinate function values of the morphological indexes including main stem height, branch number and biomass, and photosynthetic pigments contents of the same cultivars at seedling stage were different. In addition, the subordinate function value of the seedling stage was unrelated to drought resistance, so a single physiological index cannot be used to identify the drought resistance of peanut. But the values drought resistance comprehensive evaluation (D) of physiological indexes were significantly related to drought resistance and can be used to identify the drought resistance of peanut. At the pod-pin stage, the D values of morphological indexes and physiological indexes were both significantly related to drought resistance, so the subordinate function value and D value of morphological indexes and physiological indexes at this stage can serve as indexes for identifying peanut drought resistance. Key words Arachis hypogaea, comprehensive appraisal, drought resistance, varieties, water stress
干旱是影响农业生产和生态环境的重要因素, 对人类造成的损害相当于其他各种自然灾害造成的损失之和, 保护性耕作、有限灌溉、遗传改良和化学调控是今后我国旱地农业技术研究与发展的张智猛等: 花生抗旱性鉴定指标的筛选与评价
101
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1258.2011.00100 重要方向(山仑, 2002; 叶乃好等, 2004)。我国是水资源短缺的国家, 在重视利用工程技术进行旱作的同时, 挖掘利用抗旱种质资源具有重要的现实意义。对生产中种植较广的花生(Arachis hypogaea)品种(系)进行抗旱性评价与鉴定, 可为大田生产以及抗旱育种筛选有价值的品种(系)资源; 同时, 及时准确地对抗旱育种过程中的中间材料进行抗旱性的筛选与鉴定, 可减少抗旱育种中材料选择的盲目性, 提高选择效率, 加快育种进程, 有利于增产稳产, 而且可节约农业用水, 提高水分利用率(黎裕, 1993; 白莉萍等, 2004)。近年来, 研究花生抗旱性的工作较多, 对许多与抗旱性有关的生理生化、生态及光合指标, 如脯氨酸、丙二醛(MDA)、过氧化物酶(POD)、超氧化物歧化酶(SOD)、过氧化氢酶(CAT)、叶绿素含量、植株形态等进行了研究(关保华等, 2003; 姜慧芳和任小平, 2004; 严美玲等, 2007; 邵瑞鑫和上官周平, 2008), 利用单一性状指标鉴定花生抗旱性的局限性很大, 尚缺乏可用来鉴定花生抗旱性指标的综合评价体系。为全面、客观、准确地评价某品种(系)的抗旱能力, 需根据多个性状综合评价(王贺正, 2007; 李贵全等, 2007)。隶属函数值法客观合理, 运算简便, 克服了单一性状指标评价的局限性。本文利用隶属函数值综合评估的方法, 综合评价了我国北方花生产区近年来培育的29个花生新品种(系)的抗旱性, 为花生抗旱品种(系)筛选鉴定提供了技术方法和重要参考。 1 材料和试验地概况 1.1 供试材料 供试花生品种(系) 29个, 主要是我国北方花生产区近年来大面积生产应用或近年选育的新品种(系)。分别为‘G2’、‘鲁花14号’、‘丰花1号’、‘冀花2号’、‘冀花4号’、‘丰花6号’、‘花育22号’、‘TE-2’、‘大唐油’、‘阜花11号’、‘花育24号’、‘阜花10号’、‘唐油4号’、‘花育20号’、‘花育23号’、‘花育25号’、‘花育21号’、‘潍花8号’、‘鲁花11号’、‘花育16号’、‘花育19号’、‘唐科8号’、‘阜花13号’、‘花育17号’、‘花育27号’、‘潍花6号’、‘M5’、‘16-8’和‘M7’。 1.2 试验地概况 试验在青岛市农业科学院防雨大棚内进行。盆栽所用塑料盆高45 cm, 内径40 cm, 每盆装风干土25 kg。土壤吸湿水含量5.12%, 土壤容重1.13 g·cm3, 田间持水量25.86%。土壤pH值7.6, 土壤有机质含量16.7 g·kg–1、全N 1.81 g·kg–1、全P (P2O5) 0.81 g·kg–1、