中国水稻科学 ›› 2023, Vol. 37 ›› Issue (2): 153-165.DOI: 10.16819/j.1001-7216.2023.221005
周振玲1,2,*(), 林兵1, 周群2, 杨波2, 刘艳2, 周天阳1, 王宝祥2, 顾骏飞1, 徐大勇2, 杨建昌1
收稿日期:
2022-10-24
修回日期:
2023-01-05
出版日期:
2023-03-10
发布日期:
2023-03-10
通讯作者:
周振玲
基金资助:
ZHOU Zhenling1,2,*(), LIN Bing1, ZHOU Qun2, YANG Bo2, LIU Yan2, ZHOU Tianyang1, WANG Baoxiang2, GU Junfei1, XU Dayong2, YANG Jianchang1
Received:
2022-10-24
Revised:
2023-01-05
Online:
2023-03-10
Published:
2023-03-10
Contact:
ZHOU Zhenling
摘要:
【目的】阐明耐盐性不同水稻品种对盐胁迫的响应差异及其生理机制。【方法】耐盐水稻品种连鉴5号、盐稻16Z38和盐敏感水稻品种华粳5号、连粳17号生长于盆钵,盆栽土设置2个不同盐浓度处理:0 g/kg (对照);3 g/kg(盐胁迫)。【结果】与对照相比,在盐胁迫下两类品种均有不同程度的减产,耐盐品种减产的幅度明显小于盐敏感品种。耐盐水稻品种具有较高的产量主要在于较高的颖花量和结实率。与盐敏感品种相比,耐盐水稻品种在分蘖中期、拔节期、抽穗期和灌浆中期叶片中超氧化物歧化酶等抗氧化酶活性较高,拔节期和抽穗期具有较高根系脯氨酸含量、脯氨酸合成酶活性和较高的K+/Na+值,分蘖至拔节以及抽穗至成熟期具有较高的作物生长率,抽穗期具有较高的叶面积指数和叶片SPAD值,抽穗至灌浆中期具有较高的根系氧化力。【结论】在盐胁迫下耐盐水稻品种较高的总颖花量、较强的抗氧化和渗透调节能力、较高的根系氧化力和K+/Na+值是其获得较高产量的重要原因。在盐胁迫下叶片超氧化物歧化酶活性较强和根系氧化力较高可作为评定水稻品种耐盐性的重要生理指标。
周振玲, 林兵, 周群, 杨波, 刘艳, 周天阳, 王宝祥, 顾骏飞, 徐大勇, 杨建昌. 耐盐性不同水稻品种对盐胁迫的响应及其生理机制[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2023, 37(2): 153-165.
ZHOU Zhenling, LIN Bing, ZHOU Qun, YANG Bo, LIU Yan, ZHOU Tianyang, WANG Baoxiang, GU Junfei, XU Dayong, YANG Jianchang. Responses of Rice Varieties Differing in Salt Tolerance to Salt Stress and Their Physiological Mechanisms[J]. Chinese Journal OF Rice Science, 2023, 37(2): 153-165.
品种 Variety | 处理 Treatment | 每盆穗数 Panicles per pot | 每穗粒数 Spikelets per panicle | 结实率 Seed setting rate/% | 千粒重 1000-grain weight/g | 产量 Grain yeild /(g·pot−1) | 减产率 Yield reduction rate/% |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2020 | |||||||
连鉴5号 | CK | 22.5 b | 157.3 a | 85.8 a | 25.6 cd | 77.8 a | |
Lianjian 5 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫Salt stress | 16.8 d | 132.1 c | 83.4 b | 24.3 d | 45.0 c | 42.2 d |
盐稻16 Z38 | CK | 21.2 c | 143.1 b | 82.1 bc | 26.2 c | 65.4 b | |
Yandao16 Z38 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫Salt stress | 16.0 e | 110.4 e | 80.5 c | 24.7 d | 35.0 d | 46.4 c |
华粳5号 | CK | 23.5 a | 125.7 d | 86.1 a | 29.7 a | 75.5 a | |
Huajing 5 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫Salt stress | 15.3 f | 97.2 g | 67.6 d | 27.9 b | 28.0 e | 62.9 b |
连粳17号 | CK | 23.2 a | 138.7 b | 86.5 a | 27.6 b | 76.8 a | |
Lianjing 17 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫Salt stress | 14.1 g | 101.4 f | 63.5 e | 26.3 c | 23.9 f | 68.9 a |
2021 | |||||||
连鉴5号 | CK | 22.7 b | 159.0 a | 86.7 a | 25.9 cd | 81.2 a | |
Lianjian 5 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫Salt stress | 17.1 d | 134.7 c | 85.1 b | 24.8 d | 48.7 d | 40.1 d |
盐稻16 Z38 | CK | 21.6 c | 145.8 b | 83.7 bc | 26.7 c | 70.4 c | |
Yandao16 Z38 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫Salt stress | 16.3 e | 112.6 e | 82.1 c | 25.2 d | 38.0 e | 46.0 c |
华粳5号 | CK | 23.7 a | 126.8 d | 86.9 a | 30.0 a | 78.3 b | |
Huajing 5 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫Salt stress | 15.4 f | 98.0 g | 68.1 d | 28.1 b | 29.0 f | 63.0 b |
连粳17号 | CK | 23.6 a | 141.2 b | 88.1 a | 28.1 b | 82.5 a | |
Lianjing 17 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫Salt stress | 14.3 g | 102.7 f | 64.3 e | 26.6 c | 25.1 g | 69.5 a |
表1 盐胁迫对不同水稻品种产量及构成因素的影响
Table 1. Effects of salt stress on grain yield and its components of different rice varieties.
品种 Variety | 处理 Treatment | 每盆穗数 Panicles per pot | 每穗粒数 Spikelets per panicle | 结实率 Seed setting rate/% | 千粒重 1000-grain weight/g | 产量 Grain yeild /(g·pot−1) | 减产率 Yield reduction rate/% |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2020 | |||||||
连鉴5号 | CK | 22.5 b | 157.3 a | 85.8 a | 25.6 cd | 77.8 a | |
Lianjian 5 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫Salt stress | 16.8 d | 132.1 c | 83.4 b | 24.3 d | 45.0 c | 42.2 d |
盐稻16 Z38 | CK | 21.2 c | 143.1 b | 82.1 bc | 26.2 c | 65.4 b | |
Yandao16 Z38 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫Salt stress | 16.0 e | 110.4 e | 80.5 c | 24.7 d | 35.0 d | 46.4 c |
华粳5号 | CK | 23.5 a | 125.7 d | 86.1 a | 29.7 a | 75.5 a | |
Huajing 5 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫Salt stress | 15.3 f | 97.2 g | 67.6 d | 27.9 b | 28.0 e | 62.9 b |
连粳17号 | CK | 23.2 a | 138.7 b | 86.5 a | 27.6 b | 76.8 a | |
Lianjing 17 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫Salt stress | 14.1 g | 101.4 f | 63.5 e | 26.3 c | 23.9 f | 68.9 a |
2021 | |||||||
连鉴5号 | CK | 22.7 b | 159.0 a | 86.7 a | 25.9 cd | 81.2 a | |
Lianjian 5 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫Salt stress | 17.1 d | 134.7 c | 85.1 b | 24.8 d | 48.7 d | 40.1 d |
盐稻16 Z38 | CK | 21.6 c | 145.8 b | 83.7 bc | 26.7 c | 70.4 c | |
Yandao16 Z38 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫Salt stress | 16.3 e | 112.6 e | 82.1 c | 25.2 d | 38.0 e | 46.0 c |
华粳5号 | CK | 23.7 a | 126.8 d | 86.9 a | 30.0 a | 78.3 b | |
Huajing 5 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫Salt stress | 15.4 f | 98.0 g | 68.1 d | 28.1 b | 29.0 f | 63.0 b |
连粳17号 | CK | 23.6 a | 141.2 b | 88.1 a | 28.1 b | 82.5 a | |
Lianjing 17 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫Salt stress | 14.3 g | 102.7 f | 64.3 e | 26.6 c | 25.1 g | 69.5 a |
品种 Variety | 处理 Treatment | 干物质量Biomass/(g·pot−1) | 作物生长率CGR/(g·pot−1 d−1) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
分蘖中期 Mid-tillering(MT) | 拔节期Jointing(JT) | 抽穗期 Heading(HD) | 成熟期Maturity(MA) | 分蘖-拔节 MT-JT | 拔节-抽穗 JT-HD | 抽穗-成熟 HD-MA | |||
2020 | |||||||||
连鉴5号 Lianjian 5 | CK | 16.4 b | 64.9 c | 117.2 b | 168.3 a | 1.21 b | 1.74 a | 0.85 a | |
3 g/kg盐胁迫Salt stress | 12.1 d | 46.5 d | 72.5 c | 106.8 c | 0.86 c | 1.04 d | 0.53 c | ||
盐稻16 Z38 Yandao16 Z38 | CK | 18.5 a | 70.2 a | 120.7 ab | 159.7 b | 1.29 a | 1.68 a | 0.65 b | |
3 g/kg盐胁迫Salt stress | 13.0 c | 47.8 d | 71.3 c | 94.1 d | 0.87 c | 0.94 e | 0.35 d | ||
华粳5号 Huajing 5 | CK | 16.1 b | 68.7 b | 124.3 a | 162.2 b | 1.32 a | 1.63b | 0.63 b | |
3 g/kg盐胁迫Salt stress | 7.2 e | 26.7 e | 51.1 d | 70.8 e | 0.49 d | 0.81 f | 0.30 f | ||
连粳17号 Lianjing 17 | CK | 17.9 a | 70.7 a | 122.2 a | 173.6 a | 1.32 a | 1.47 c | 0.86 a | |
3 g/kg盐胁迫Salt stress | 6.1 f | 20.1 f | 40.6 e | 61.4 f | 0.35 e | 0.68 g | 0.32 e | ||
2021 | |||||||||
连鉴5号 | CK | 16.7 c | 65.9 b | 118.9 b | 171.2 a | 1.23 b | 1.77 a | 0.87 a | |
Lianjian 5 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫Salt stress | 12.3 e | 47.1 c | 72.4 c | 108.3 c | 0.87 c | 1.01 d | 0.55 d | |
盐稻16 Z38 | CK | 19.3 a | 70.5 a | 121.1 ab | 162.6 b | 1.28 ab | 1.69 ab | 0.69 b | |
Yandao16 Z38 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫Salt stress | 13.2 d | 47.8 c | 71.5 c | 95.9 d | 0.87 c | 0.95 e | 0.38 e | |
华粳5号 | CK | 16.4 c | 69.4 a | 125.8 a | 164.4 b | 1.33 a | 1.61 b | 0.64 c | |
Huajing 5 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫Salt stress | 7.3 f | 27.1 d | 51.9 d | 72.1 e | 0.50 d | 0.83 f | 0.31 f | |
连粳17号 | CK | 18.1 b | 71.5 a | 123.5 a | 175.7 a | 1.34 a | 1.49 c | 0.87 a | |
Lianjing 17 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫Salt stress | 6.2 g | 20.3 e | 41.1 e | 62.2 f | 0.35 e | 0.69 g | 0.32 f |
表2 盐胁迫对不同水稻品种各生育期的干物质量和作物生长率的影响
Table 2. Effects of salt stress on dry matter weight and crop growth rate (CGR) of different rice varieties at different growth stages.
品种 Variety | 处理 Treatment | 干物质量Biomass/(g·pot−1) | 作物生长率CGR/(g·pot−1 d−1) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
分蘖中期 Mid-tillering(MT) | 拔节期Jointing(JT) | 抽穗期 Heading(HD) | 成熟期Maturity(MA) | 分蘖-拔节 MT-JT | 拔节-抽穗 JT-HD | 抽穗-成熟 HD-MA | |||
2020 | |||||||||
连鉴5号 Lianjian 5 | CK | 16.4 b | 64.9 c | 117.2 b | 168.3 a | 1.21 b | 1.74 a | 0.85 a | |
3 g/kg盐胁迫Salt stress | 12.1 d | 46.5 d | 72.5 c | 106.8 c | 0.86 c | 1.04 d | 0.53 c | ||
盐稻16 Z38 Yandao16 Z38 | CK | 18.5 a | 70.2 a | 120.7 ab | 159.7 b | 1.29 a | 1.68 a | 0.65 b | |
3 g/kg盐胁迫Salt stress | 13.0 c | 47.8 d | 71.3 c | 94.1 d | 0.87 c | 0.94 e | 0.35 d | ||
华粳5号 Huajing 5 | CK | 16.1 b | 68.7 b | 124.3 a | 162.2 b | 1.32 a | 1.63b | 0.63 b | |
3 g/kg盐胁迫Salt stress | 7.2 e | 26.7 e | 51.1 d | 70.8 e | 0.49 d | 0.81 f | 0.30 f | ||
连粳17号 Lianjing 17 | CK | 17.9 a | 70.7 a | 122.2 a | 173.6 a | 1.32 a | 1.47 c | 0.86 a | |
3 g/kg盐胁迫Salt stress | 6.1 f | 20.1 f | 40.6 e | 61.4 f | 0.35 e | 0.68 g | 0.32 e | ||
2021 | |||||||||
连鉴5号 | CK | 16.7 c | 65.9 b | 118.9 b | 171.2 a | 1.23 b | 1.77 a | 0.87 a | |
Lianjian 5 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫Salt stress | 12.3 e | 47.1 c | 72.4 c | 108.3 c | 0.87 c | 1.01 d | 0.55 d | |
盐稻16 Z38 | CK | 19.3 a | 70.5 a | 121.1 ab | 162.6 b | 1.28 ab | 1.69 ab | 0.69 b | |
Yandao16 Z38 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫Salt stress | 13.2 d | 47.8 c | 71.5 c | 95.9 d | 0.87 c | 0.95 e | 0.38 e | |
华粳5号 | CK | 16.4 c | 69.4 a | 125.8 a | 164.4 b | 1.33 a | 1.61 b | 0.64 c | |
Huajing 5 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫Salt stress | 7.3 f | 27.1 d | 51.9 d | 72.1 e | 0.50 d | 0.83 f | 0.31 f | |
连粳17号 | CK | 18.1 b | 71.5 a | 123.5 a | 175.7 a | 1.34 a | 1.49 c | 0.87 a | |
Lianjing 17 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫Salt stress | 6.2 g | 20.3 e | 41.1 e | 62.2 f | 0.35 e | 0.69 g | 0.32 f |
品种 Variety | 处理 Treatment | 分蘖中期 Mid-tillering(MT) | 拔节期 Jointing(JT) | 抽穗期 Heading(HD) | 成熟期 Maturity(MA) | 茎蘖成穗率 Productive tiller rate/% |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2020 | ||||||
连鉴5号 | CK | 15.8 bc | 33.6 b | 24.0 c | 22.5 b | 67.0 a |
Lianjian 5 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫 Salt stress | 14.3 d | 30.5 d | 21.8 d | 16.8 d | 55.1 c |
盐稻16 Z38 | CK | 16.0 b | 34.1 b | 26.4 a | 21.2 c | 62.2 b |
Yandao16 Z38 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫 Salt stress | 14.7 cd | 31.2 cd | 21.7 d | 16.0 e | 51.3 d |
华粳5号 | CK | 17.0 a | 36.1 a | 25.6 ab | 23.5 a | 65.1 ab |
Huajing 5 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫 Salt stress | 15.2 c | 32.3 c | 25.0 b | 15.3 f | 47.4 e |
连粳17号 | CK | 17.4 a | 37.1 a | 25.2 b | 23.2 a | 62.5 b |
Lianjing 17 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫 Salt stress | 14.8 c | 31.5 cd | 25.3 b | 14.1 g | 44.8 f |
2021 | ||||||
连鉴5号 | CK | 15.9 bc | 33.9 b | 24.2 c | 22.7 b | 67.0 a |
Lianjian 5 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫 Salt stress | 14.4 d | 30.8 d | 22.0 d | 17.1 d | 55.5 c |
盐稻16 Z38 | CK | 16.2 b | 34.6 b | 26.8 a | 21.6 c | 62.4 b |
Yandao16 Z38 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫 Salt stress | 14.9 cd | 31.7 cd | 22.1 d | 16.3 e | 51.4 d |
华粳5号 | CK | 17.2 a | 36.6 a | 26.0 ab | 23.7 a | 64.8 ab |
Huajing 5 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫 Salt stress | 15.3 c | 32.6 c | 25.2 b | 15.4 f | 47.2 e |
连粳17号 | CK | 17.6 a | 37.5 a | 25.5 b | 23.6 a | 62.9 b |
Lianjing 17 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫 Salt stress | 15.0 c | 31.8 cd | 25.6 b | 14.3 g | 45.0 f |
表3 盐胁迫对不同水稻品种的茎蘖数的影响
Table 3. Effects of salt stress on the number of tillers of different rice varieties at different growth stages.
品种 Variety | 处理 Treatment | 分蘖中期 Mid-tillering(MT) | 拔节期 Jointing(JT) | 抽穗期 Heading(HD) | 成熟期 Maturity(MA) | 茎蘖成穗率 Productive tiller rate/% |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2020 | ||||||
连鉴5号 | CK | 15.8 bc | 33.6 b | 24.0 c | 22.5 b | 67.0 a |
Lianjian 5 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫 Salt stress | 14.3 d | 30.5 d | 21.8 d | 16.8 d | 55.1 c |
盐稻16 Z38 | CK | 16.0 b | 34.1 b | 26.4 a | 21.2 c | 62.2 b |
Yandao16 Z38 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫 Salt stress | 14.7 cd | 31.2 cd | 21.7 d | 16.0 e | 51.3 d |
华粳5号 | CK | 17.0 a | 36.1 a | 25.6 ab | 23.5 a | 65.1 ab |
Huajing 5 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫 Salt stress | 15.2 c | 32.3 c | 25.0 b | 15.3 f | 47.4 e |
连粳17号 | CK | 17.4 a | 37.1 a | 25.2 b | 23.2 a | 62.5 b |
Lianjing 17 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫 Salt stress | 14.8 c | 31.5 cd | 25.3 b | 14.1 g | 44.8 f |
2021 | ||||||
连鉴5号 | CK | 15.9 bc | 33.9 b | 24.2 c | 22.7 b | 67.0 a |
Lianjian 5 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫 Salt stress | 14.4 d | 30.8 d | 22.0 d | 17.1 d | 55.5 c |
盐稻16 Z38 | CK | 16.2 b | 34.6 b | 26.8 a | 21.6 c | 62.4 b |
Yandao16 Z38 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫 Salt stress | 14.9 cd | 31.7 cd | 22.1 d | 16.3 e | 51.4 d |
华粳5号 | CK | 17.2 a | 36.6 a | 26.0 ab | 23.7 a | 64.8 ab |
Huajing 5 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫 Salt stress | 15.3 c | 32.6 c | 25.2 b | 15.4 f | 47.2 e |
连粳17号 | CK | 17.6 a | 37.5 a | 25.5 b | 23.6 a | 62.9 b |
Lianjing 17 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫 Salt stress | 15.0 c | 31.8 cd | 25.6 b | 14.3 g | 45.0 f |
品种 Variety | 处理 Treatment | 分蘖中期 Mid-tillering(MT) | 拔节期 Jointing(JT) | 抽穗期 Heading(HD) | 灌浆中期 Mid grain filling (MF) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2020 | |||||
连鉴5号 | CK | 0.133 a | 0.188 a | 0.285 a | 0.137 a |
Lianjian 5 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫 Salt stress | 0.130 a | 0.157 c | 0.280 a | 0.123 c |
盐稻16 Z38 | CK | 0.121 b | 0.170 b | 0.257 c | 0.124 c |
Yandao16 Z38 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫 Salt stress | 0.114 c | 0.142 d | 0.249 c | 0.122 c |
华粳5号 | CK | 0.135 a | 0.158 c | 0.273 b | 0.123 c |
Huajing 5 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫 Salt stress | 0.124 b | 0.129 e | 0.228 d | 0.113 d |
连粳17号 | CK | 0.133 a | 0.162 c | 0.277 ab | 0.131 b |
Lianjing 17 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫 Salt stress | 0.113 c | 0.129 e | 0.205 e | 0.111 d |
2021 | |||||
连鉴5号 | CK | 0.133 a | 0.188 a | 0.285 a | 0.136 a |
Lianjian 5 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫 Salt stress | 0.131 a | 0.156 c | 0.280 a | 0.121 c |
盐稻16 Z38 | CK | 0.121 b | 0.170 b | 0.255 c | 0.123 c |
Yandao16 Z38 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫 Salt stress | 0.113 c | 0.141 d | 0.249 c | 0.121 c |
华粳5号 | CK | 0.134 a | 0.157 c | 0.271 b | 0.122 c |
Huajing 5 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫 Salt stress | 0.125 b | 0.129 e | 0.230 d | 0.114 d |
连粳17号 | CK | 0.132 a | 0.161 c | 0.276 ab | 0.130 b |
Lianjing 17 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫 Salt stress | 0.113 c | 0.130 e | 0.205 e | 0.111 d |
表4 盐胁迫对不同水稻品种单株叶面积指数的影响
Table 4. Effects of salt stress on leaf area index per plant of different rice varieties at different growth stages.
品种 Variety | 处理 Treatment | 分蘖中期 Mid-tillering(MT) | 拔节期 Jointing(JT) | 抽穗期 Heading(HD) | 灌浆中期 Mid grain filling (MF) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2020 | |||||
连鉴5号 | CK | 0.133 a | 0.188 a | 0.285 a | 0.137 a |
Lianjian 5 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫 Salt stress | 0.130 a | 0.157 c | 0.280 a | 0.123 c |
盐稻16 Z38 | CK | 0.121 b | 0.170 b | 0.257 c | 0.124 c |
Yandao16 Z38 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫 Salt stress | 0.114 c | 0.142 d | 0.249 c | 0.122 c |
华粳5号 | CK | 0.135 a | 0.158 c | 0.273 b | 0.123 c |
Huajing 5 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫 Salt stress | 0.124 b | 0.129 e | 0.228 d | 0.113 d |
连粳17号 | CK | 0.133 a | 0.162 c | 0.277 ab | 0.131 b |
Lianjing 17 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫 Salt stress | 0.113 c | 0.129 e | 0.205 e | 0.111 d |
2021 | |||||
连鉴5号 | CK | 0.133 a | 0.188 a | 0.285 a | 0.136 a |
Lianjian 5 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫 Salt stress | 0.131 a | 0.156 c | 0.280 a | 0.121 c |
盐稻16 Z38 | CK | 0.121 b | 0.170 b | 0.255 c | 0.123 c |
Yandao16 Z38 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫 Salt stress | 0.113 c | 0.141 d | 0.249 c | 0.121 c |
华粳5号 | CK | 0.134 a | 0.157 c | 0.271 b | 0.122 c |
Huajing 5 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫 Salt stress | 0.125 b | 0.129 e | 0.230 d | 0.114 d |
连粳17号 | CK | 0.132 a | 0.161 c | 0.276 ab | 0.130 b |
Lianjing 17 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫 Salt stress | 0.113 c | 0.130 e | 0.205 e | 0.111 d |
品种 Variety | 处理 Treatment | 分蘖中期 Mid-tillering(MT) | 拔节期 Jointing(JT) | 抽穗期 Heading(HD) | 灌浆中期 Mid grain filling (MF) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2020 | |||||
连鉴5号 | CK | 41.3 b | 46.1 b | 42.3 b | 38.8 a |
Lianjian 5 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫Salt stress | 39.6 bc | 44.3 bc | 42.7 b | 35.4 c |
盐稻16 Z38 | CK | 42.3 ab | 47.3 b | 44.6 ab | 37.5 ab |
Yandao16 Z38 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫Salt stress | 41.0 b | 45.8 bc | 42.6 b | 37.1 b |
华粳5号 | CK | 44.6 a | 49.8 a | 46.4 a | 37.4 ab |
Huajing 5 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫Salt stress | 38.5 c | 44.0 c | 40.6 c | 33.3 d |
连粳17号 | CK | 45.4 a | 50.7 a | 45.0 a | 39.1 a |
Lianjing 17 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫Salt stress | 38.1 c | 43.5 c | 40.8 c | 32.1 d |
2021 | |||||
连鉴5号 | CK | 41.8 b | 46.7 bc | 42.7 b | 39.3 a |
Lianjian 5 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫Salt stress | 40.0 bc | 45.1 c | 43.1 b | 35.7 c |
盐稻16 Z38 | CK | 42.8 ab | 48.0 b | 45.0 ab | 38.0 ab |
Yandao16 Z38 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫Salt stress | 41.5 b | 46.4 bc | 43.3 b | 37.5 b |
华粳5号 | CK | 45.1 a | 50.4 a | 47.1 a | 37.9 ab |
Huajing 5 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫Salt stress | 38.8 c | 44.5 c | 41.0 c | 33.8 d |
连粳17号 | CK | 45.9 a | 51.3 a | 45.7 a | 39.6 a |
Lianjing 17 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫Salt stress | 38.5 c | 44.2 c | 41.1 c | 32.6 d |
表5 盐胁迫对不同水稻品种叶片SPAD值的影响
Table 5. Effects of salt stress on SPAD values of rice leaves of different rice varieties at different growth stages.
品种 Variety | 处理 Treatment | 分蘖中期 Mid-tillering(MT) | 拔节期 Jointing(JT) | 抽穗期 Heading(HD) | 灌浆中期 Mid grain filling (MF) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2020 | |||||
连鉴5号 | CK | 41.3 b | 46.1 b | 42.3 b | 38.8 a |
Lianjian 5 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫Salt stress | 39.6 bc | 44.3 bc | 42.7 b | 35.4 c |
盐稻16 Z38 | CK | 42.3 ab | 47.3 b | 44.6 ab | 37.5 ab |
Yandao16 Z38 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫Salt stress | 41.0 b | 45.8 bc | 42.6 b | 37.1 b |
华粳5号 | CK | 44.6 a | 49.8 a | 46.4 a | 37.4 ab |
Huajing 5 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫Salt stress | 38.5 c | 44.0 c | 40.6 c | 33.3 d |
连粳17号 | CK | 45.4 a | 50.7 a | 45.0 a | 39.1 a |
Lianjing 17 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫Salt stress | 38.1 c | 43.5 c | 40.8 c | 32.1 d |
2021 | |||||
连鉴5号 | CK | 41.8 b | 46.7 bc | 42.7 b | 39.3 a |
Lianjian 5 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫Salt stress | 40.0 bc | 45.1 c | 43.1 b | 35.7 c |
盐稻16 Z38 | CK | 42.8 ab | 48.0 b | 45.0 ab | 38.0 ab |
Yandao16 Z38 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫Salt stress | 41.5 b | 46.4 bc | 43.3 b | 37.5 b |
华粳5号 | CK | 45.1 a | 50.4 a | 47.1 a | 37.9 ab |
Huajing 5 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫Salt stress | 38.8 c | 44.5 c | 41.0 c | 33.8 d |
连粳17号 | CK | 45.9 a | 51.3 a | 45.7 a | 39.6 a |
Lianjing 17 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫Salt stress | 38.5 c | 44.2 c | 41.1 c | 32.6 d |
图1 盐胁迫对水稻主要生育时期叶片超氧化物歧化酶(SOD)、过氧化物酶(POD)、过氧化氢酶(CAT)活性的影响 不同小写字母表示在不同品种间差异达显著水平(P=0.05)。LJ5-连鉴5号;YD-盐稻16Z38;HG5-华粳5号;LJ17-连粳17号; MT-分蘖中期;JT-拔节期;HD-抽穗期;MF-灌浆中期。
Fig. 1. Effects of salt stress on activities of superoxide dismutase (SOD)、peroxidase (POD)、catalase (CAT) in rice leaves. Different lowercase letters indicate significant difference among rice varieties at P = 0.05. LJ5, Lianjian 5; YD, Yandao 16 Z38; HG5, Huajing 5; LJ17, Lianjing 17; MT, Mid-tillering; JT, Jointing stage; HD, Heading stage; MF, Mid grain filling.
图2 盐胁迫对水稻主要生育时期叶片丙二醛(MDA)含量的影响 不同小写字母表示在不同品种间差异达显著水平(P=0.05)。LJ5-连鉴5号;YD-盐稻16Z38;HG5-华粳5号;LJ17-连粳17号;MT-分蘖中期;JT-拔节期;HD-抽穗期;MF-灌浆中期。
Fig. 2. Effects of salt stress on malondialdehyde (MDA) content in rice leaves at main growth stages. Different lowercase letters indicate significant difference among rice varieties at P = 0.05. LJ5, Lianjian 5; YD, Yandao 16Z38; HG5, Huajing 5; LJ17, Lianjing 17; MT, Mid-tillering stage; JT, Jointing stage; HD, Heading stage; MF, Mid grain filling stage.
图3 盐胁迫对水稻主要生育时期根系脯氨酸合成酶(P5CS)活性(A, B)和脯氨酸含量(C, D)的影响 不同小写字母表示不同品种间差异达显著水平(P=0.05);LJ5-连鉴5号;YD-盐稻16Z38;HG5-华粳5号;LJ17-连粳17号;JT-拔节期;HD-抽穗期。
Fig. 3. Effects of salt stress on pyrroline-5-carboxylic acid synthetase (P5CS) activity (A, B) and proline content (C, D) in rice roots at main growth stages. 1 Different lowercase letters indicate significant difference among rice varieties at P = 0.05. LJ5, Lianjian 5; YD, Yandao 16Z38; HG5, Huajing 5; LJ17, Lianjing 17; JT, Jointing stage; HD, Heading stage.
图4 盐胁迫对水稻主要生育时期叶片(A, B, E, F, I, J)和根系(C, D, G, H, K, L) K+含量(A, B, C, D)、Na+含量(E, F, G, H)及 K+/Na+值(I, J, K, L)的影响 不同小写字母表示品种间差异显著(P=0.05)。LJ5-连鉴5号;YD-盐稻16Z38;HG5-华粳5号;LJ17-连粳17号;PI-穗分化期;HD-抽穗期。
Fig. 4. Effects of salt stress on K+ content (A, B, C, D), Na+ content (E, F, G, H), and K+/Na+ ratio (I, J, K, L) in rice leaves (A, B, E, F, I, J) and roots (C, D, G, H, K, L) at main growth stages. Different lowercase letters indicate significant difference among rice varieties at P = 0.05. LJ5, Lianjian 5; YD, Yandao 16Z38; HG5, Huajing 5; LJ17, Lianjing 17; PI, Panicle initiation stage; HD, Heading stage.
年份 Year | 品种 Variety | 处理 Treatment | 分蘖中期 Mid-tillering(MT) | 拔节期 Jointing(JT) | 抽穗期 Heading(HD) | 灌浆中期 Mid grain filling (MF) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2020 | 连鉴5号 | CK | 864.2 b | 795.0 b | 607.3 b | 419.9 b |
Lianjian 5 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫Salt stress | 681.5 c | 632.8 c | 473.5 c | 288.8 c | |
盐稻16 Z38 | CK | 909.9 ab | 838.6 a | 624.2 b | 402.4 b | |
Yandao16 Z38 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫Salt stress | 642.2 d | 593.0 d | 461.9 c | 288.0 c | |
华粳5号 | CK | 905.3 ab | 832.8 ab | 607.3 b | 415.1 b | |
Huajing 5 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫Salt stress | 636.5 d | 590.4 d | 429.9 d | 254.7 d | |
连粳17号 | CK | 921.3 a | 853.1 a | 656.7 a | 455.2 a | |
Lianjing 17 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫Salt stress | 614.0 d | 565.4 d | 404.9 e | 244.8 d | |
2021 | 连鉴5号 | CK | 878.9 b | 807.7 b | 617.6 b | 427.0 b |
Lianjian 5 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫Salt stress | 686.3 c | 639.1 c | 481.1 c | 293.4 c | |
盐稻16 Z38 | CK | 923.5 a | 852.0 a | 634.8 b | 408.0 b | |
Yandao16 Z38 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫Salt stress | 650.6 d | 599.5 d | 468.4 c | 292.9 c | |
华粳5号 | CK | 920.6 a | 847.0 ab | 613.4 b | 419.7 b | |
Huajing 5 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫Salt stress | 641.5 d | 598.1 d | 432.9 d | 258.3 d | |
连粳17号 | CK | 930.6 a | 862.5 a | 661.3 a | 460.7 a | |
Lianjing 17 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫Salt stress | 623.8 d | 573.9 d | 411.4 e | 248.7 d |
表6 盐胁迫对不同时期水稻品种根系氧化力的影响
Table 6. Effects of salt stress on root oxidation activity of different rice varieties at different growth stages. μg/(g·h)
年份 Year | 品种 Variety | 处理 Treatment | 分蘖中期 Mid-tillering(MT) | 拔节期 Jointing(JT) | 抽穗期 Heading(HD) | 灌浆中期 Mid grain filling (MF) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2020 | 连鉴5号 | CK | 864.2 b | 795.0 b | 607.3 b | 419.9 b |
Lianjian 5 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫Salt stress | 681.5 c | 632.8 c | 473.5 c | 288.8 c | |
盐稻16 Z38 | CK | 909.9 ab | 838.6 a | 624.2 b | 402.4 b | |
Yandao16 Z38 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫Salt stress | 642.2 d | 593.0 d | 461.9 c | 288.0 c | |
华粳5号 | CK | 905.3 ab | 832.8 ab | 607.3 b | 415.1 b | |
Huajing 5 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫Salt stress | 636.5 d | 590.4 d | 429.9 d | 254.7 d | |
连粳17号 | CK | 921.3 a | 853.1 a | 656.7 a | 455.2 a | |
Lianjing 17 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫Salt stress | 614.0 d | 565.4 d | 404.9 e | 244.8 d | |
2021 | 连鉴5号 | CK | 878.9 b | 807.7 b | 617.6 b | 427.0 b |
Lianjian 5 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫Salt stress | 686.3 c | 639.1 c | 481.1 c | 293.4 c | |
盐稻16 Z38 | CK | 923.5 a | 852.0 a | 634.8 b | 408.0 b | |
Yandao16 Z38 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫Salt stress | 650.6 d | 599.5 d | 468.4 c | 292.9 c | |
华粳5号 | CK | 920.6 a | 847.0 ab | 613.4 b | 419.7 b | |
Huajing 5 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫Salt stress | 641.5 d | 598.1 d | 432.9 d | 258.3 d | |
连粳17号 | CK | 930.6 a | 862.5 a | 661.3 a | 460.7 a | |
Lianjing 17 | 3 g/kg盐胁迫Salt stress | 623.8 d | 573.9 d | 411.4 e | 248.7 d |
生理性状 Physiological index | 产量 Yield | 结实率 Seed setting rate | 总颖花量 Total number of spikelets |
---|---|---|---|
超氧化物歧化酶活性 SOD activity | 0.921** | 0.801* | 0.721 |
过氧化物酶活性 POD activity | 0.828* | 0.841* | 0.702 |
过氧化氢酶活性 CAT activity | 0.902** | 0.796* | 0.741 |
脯氨酸含量 Proline content | 0.889* | 0.920** | 0.435 |
脯氨酸合成酶活性 P5CS activity | 0.857* | 0.721 | 0.533 |
根系氧化力 Root oxidation activity | 0.918** | 0.768* | 0.797* |
K+含量 K+ content | 0.784* | 0.839* | 0.730 |
Na+含量 Na+ content | −0.833* | −0.732 | −0.775* |
表7 盐胁迫下水稻抗氧化酶活性、渗透调节物质含量及K+、Na+含量与产量及其构成因素的相关性分析
Table 7. Correlation of osmotic regulatory substances contents, antioxidant enzyme activities, K+, Na+ contents with grain yield and its components under salt stress.
生理性状 Physiological index | 产量 Yield | 结实率 Seed setting rate | 总颖花量 Total number of spikelets |
---|---|---|---|
超氧化物歧化酶活性 SOD activity | 0.921** | 0.801* | 0.721 |
过氧化物酶活性 POD activity | 0.828* | 0.841* | 0.702 |
过氧化氢酶活性 CAT activity | 0.902** | 0.796* | 0.741 |
脯氨酸含量 Proline content | 0.889* | 0.920** | 0.435 |
脯氨酸合成酶活性 P5CS activity | 0.857* | 0.721 | 0.533 |
根系氧化力 Root oxidation activity | 0.918** | 0.768* | 0.797* |
K+含量 K+ content | 0.784* | 0.839* | 0.730 |
Na+含量 Na+ content | −0.833* | −0.732 | −0.775* |
[1] | 袁隆平. 耐盐碱水稻遗传与栽培学[M]. 济南: 山东科学技术出版社, 2022: 1-2. |
Yuan L P. Saline Alkali Tolerant Rice Genetics and Cultivation[M]. Ji’nan: Shandong Science and Technology Press, 2022: 1-2. (in Chinese) | |
[2] | 梁银培, 孙健, 索艺宁, 刘化龙, 王敬国, 郑洪亮, 孙晓雪, 邹德堂. 水稻耐盐性和耐碱性相关性状的QTL定位及环境互作分析[J]. 中国农业科学, 2017, 50(10): 1747-1762. |
Liang Y P, Sun J, Suo Y N, Liu H L, Wang J G, Zhang H L, Sun X X, Zou D T. QTL mapping and QTL×environment interaction analysis of salt and alkali tolerance-related traits in rice(Oryza sativa L.)[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2017, 50(10): 1747-1762. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[3] | 张瑞珍, 邵玺文, 童淑媛, 汪恒武, 齐春燕, 孙长占. 盐碱胁迫对水稻源库与产量的影响[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2006(1): 116-118. |
Zhang R Z, Shao X W, Wang H W, Qi C Y, Sun C Z. Effect of saline-alkali stress on source-sink and yield of rice[J]. Chinese Journal of Rice Science, 2006(1): 116-118. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[4] | Yoshida S, Forno D, Cock J, Gomez K. Laboratory manual for physiological studies of rice//Laboratory Manual for Physiological Studies of Rice[M]. Manila, Philippines: International Rice Research Institute, 1976. |
[5] | 胡时开, 陶红剑, 钱前, 郭龙彪. 水稻耐盐性的遗传和分子育种的研究进展[J]. 分子植物育种, 2010, 8(4): 629-640. |
Hu K L, Tao H J, Qian Q, Guo L B. Advances in genetics and molecular breeding of salt-tolerance in rice[J]. Molecular Plant Breeding, 2010, 8(4): 629-640. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[6] | 周汝倫, 侯家龙, 方宗熙, 王明珍, 宋景芝, 刘惠令. 耐盐水稻品种选育初报[J]. 中国农业科学, 1983, 16(5): 7-13. |
Zhou R L, Hou J L, Fang Z X, Wang M Z, Song J Z, Liu H L. First report on breeding of salt-tolerant rice plants[J]. Chinese Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 1983, 16(5): 7-13. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[7] | 郭望模, 应存山, 李金珠, 汤志明. 水稻耐盐品种在新垦海涂上的适应性评价[J]. 作物品种资源, 1993(2): 19-20. |
Guo W M, Ying C S, Li J Z, Tang Z M. Adaptability evaluation of rice varieties with salt-tolerance on newly reclaimed coastal land[J]. Crop Variety Resources, 1993(2): 19-20. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[8] | 吴荣生, 王志霞, 蒋荷, 王根来, 顾平, 陈炳泉. 太湖流域稻种资源耐盐性筛选鉴定[J]. 江苏农业科学, 1989(1): 8-9. |
Wu R S, Wang Z X, Jiang H, Wang G L, Gu P, Chen B Q. Screening and identification of salt-tolerance of rice seed resources in Taihu Lake Basin[J]. Jiangsu Agricultural Sciences, 1989(1): 8-9. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[9] | 贾宝艳, 周婵婵, 孙晓雪, 董立强, 黄元财, 王岩, 王术. 辽宁省水稻种质资源的耐盐性鉴定评价[J]. 作物杂志, 2013(4): 57-62. |
Jia B Y, Zhou C C, Shun X X, Dong L Q, Huang Y C, Wang Y, Wang S. The evaluation of salt tolerance of rice varieties in Liaoning Province[J]. Crops, 2013(4): 57-62. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[10] | 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[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2021, 49(17): 75-79. |
Liu Y, Wang B X, Xing Y G, Cheng T M, Xu B, Yang B, Shun 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[J]. Jiangsu Agricultural Sciences, 2021, 49(17): 75-79. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[11] | 耿雷跃, 马小定, 崔迪, 张启星, 韩冰, 韩龙植. 水稻全生育期耐盐性鉴定评价方法研究[J]. 植物遗传资源学报, 2019, 20(2): 267-275. |
Geng L Y, Ma X D, Cui D, Zhang Q X, Han B, Han L Z. Identification and evaluation method for saline tolerance in rice during the whole growth stage[J]. Journal of Plant Genetic Resources, 2019, 20(2): 267-275. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[12] | 张瑞, 王洋, Shahid H, 刘永昊, 邵星宇, 杨硕, 陈英龙, 韦还和, 戴其根. 水培条件下水稻全生育期耐盐筛选鉴定[J]. 植物遗传资源学报, 2021, 22(6): 1567-1581. |
Zhang R, Wang Y, Shahid H, Liu Y H, Shao X Y, Yang S, Cheng Y L, Wei H H, Dai Q G. Identification of salt-tolerant rice cultivars in the growth period under hydroponic conditions[J]. Journal of Plant Genetic Resources, 2021, 22(6): 1567-1581. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[13] | 袁隆平. 耐盐碱水稻遗传与栽培学[M]. 山东: 科学技术出版社, 2022: 181. |
Yuan L P. Saline Alkali Tolerant Rice Genetics and Cultivation[M]. Shandong: Science and Technology Press, 2022: 181. | |
[14] | 王林叶, 吕川根, 吉冰璇, 曾彦达, 张启军, 张美萍. 水稻资源海稻86的耐盐特性及其光合生理机制[C]// 中国作物学会. 2019年中国作物学会学术年会论文摘要集. 杭州, 2019. |
Wang L Y, Lu C G, Ji B X, Zeng Y D, Zhang Q J, Zhang M P. Salt tolerance characteristics and photosynthetic physiological mechanism of rice resource Haidao 86[C]// Chinese Crop Society. Abstracts of Academic Annual Meeting of Chinese Crop Society in 2019. Hangzhou, 2019. | |
[15] | Zhang R, Hussain S, Wang Y, Liu Y H, Li Q, Chen Y L, Wei H H, Gao P L, Dai Q G. Comprehensive evaluation of salt tolerance in rice (Oryza sativa L.) germplasm at the germination stage[J]. Agronomy, 2021, 11(8): 1569. |
[16] | 刘奕媺, 于洋, 方军. 盐碱胁迫及植物耐盐碱分子机制研究[J]. 土壤与作物, 2018, 7(2): 201-211. |
Liu Y M, Yu Y, Fang J. Saline-alkali stress and molecular mechanism of saline-alkali tolerance in plants[J]. Soil and Crop, 2018, 7(2): 201-211. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[17] | 许阳东, 朱宽宇, 章星传, 王志琴, 杨建昌. 绿色超级稻品种的农艺与生理性状分析[J]. 作物学报, 2019, 45: 70-80. |
Xu Y D, Zhu K Y, Zhang X C, Wang Z Q, Yang J J. Analysis in agronomic and physiological traits of green super rice[J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2019, 45: 70-80. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[18] | 杨建昌, 王志琴, 朱庆森. 不同土壤水分状况下氮素营养对水稻产量的影响及其生理机制的研究[J]. 中国农业科学, 1996, 29(4): 58-66. |
Yang J C, Wang Z Q, Zhu Q S. Effects of nitrogen nutrition on rice yield under different soil water conditions and its physiological mechanism[J]. Chinese Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 1996, 29(4): 58-66. | |
[19] | 张宪政. 作物生理研究法[M]. 北京: 农业出版社, 1992: 119-218. |
Zhang X Z. Research Method of Crop Physiology[M]. Beijing: Agricultural Press, 1992: 119-218. (in Chinese) | |
[20] | Song S Q, Lei Y B, Tian X R. Proline metabolism and cross-tolerance to salinity and heat stress in germinating wheat seeds[J]. Russian Journal of Plant Physiology, 2005, 52(6): 793-800. |
[21] | 王学奎. 植物生理生化试验原理和技术[M]. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2006: 167-170. |
Wang X K. Principles and Techniques of Plant Physiological and Biochemical Experiments[M]. Beijing: Higher Education Press, 2006,pp:167-170. (in Chinese) | |
[22] | Berry J, Bjorkman O. Photosynthetic response and adaptation to temperature in higher plants[J]. Annual Review of Plant Physiology, 1980, 31: 491-543. |
[23] | 赵世杰, 许长成, 邹琦, 孟庆伟. 植物组织中丙二醛测定方法的改进[J]. 植物生理学通讯, 1994, 30(3): 207-210. |
Zhao S J, Xu C C, Zou Q, Meng Q W. Improvement of determination method of malondialdehyde in plant tissue[J]. Plant Physiology Communication, 1994, 30(3): 207-210. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[24] | 许更文. 灌溉方式与施氮量对水稻产量影响的互作效应及其生理基础[D]. 扬州: 扬州大学, 2017. |
Xu G W. Interaction between irrigation regimes and nitrogen rates on grain yield of rice and its physiological basis[D]. Yangzhou: Yangzhou University, 2017. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[25] | 韦还和, 葛佳琳, 张徐彬, 孟天瑶, 陆钰, 李心月, 陶源, 丁恩浩, 陈英龙, 戴其根. 盐胁迫下粳稻品种南粳9108分蘖特性及其与群体生产力的关系[J]. 作物学报, 2020, 46(8): 1238-1247. |
Wei H H, Ge J L, Zhang X B, Meng T Y, Lu Y, Li X Y, Tao Y, Ding E H, Chen Y L, Dai Q G. Tillering characteristics and its relationships with population productivity of japonica rice Nanjing 9108 under salinity stress[J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2020, 46(8): 1238-1247. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[26] | Aisha S, Ansari R F. Rice Cultivation in Saline Soil[M]. Dordrect, the Netherland: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002: 38-56. |
[27] | 李红宇, 潘世驹, 钱永德, 马艳, 司洋, 高尚, 郑桂萍, 姜玉伟, 周健. 混合盐碱胁迫对寒地水稻产量和品质的影响[J]. 南方农业学报, 2015, 46(12): 2100-2105. |
Li H Y, Pan S J, Qian Y D, Ma Y, Si Y, Gao S, Zheng G P, Jiang Y W, Zhou J. Effects of saline-alkali stress on yield and quality of rice in cold region[J]. Journal of Southern Agriculture, 2015, 46(12): 2100-2105. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[28] | Waszczak C, Carmody M, Kangasjärvi J. Reactive oxygen species in plant signaling[J]. Annual Review of Plant Biology, 2018, 69(1): 209-236. |
[29] |
Hanin M, Ebel C, Ngom M, Laplaze L, Masmoudi K. New insights on plant salt tolerance mechanisms and their potential use for breeding[J]. Frontiers in Plant Science, 2016, 7: 1787.
PMID |
[30] |
You J, Chan Z. ROS regulation during abiotic stress responses in crop plants[J]. Frontiers in Plant Science, 2015, 6: 1092.
PMID |
[31] | 荆培培. 水稻品种耐盐性及其生理特征的研究[D]. 扬州: 扬州大学, 2018. |
Jing P P. Studies on salt tolerance of rice varieties and It’s related physiological traits[D]. Yangzhou: Yangzhou University, 2018. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[32] | Xie Z Y, Wang C C, Zhu S B, Wang W S, Xu J L, Zhao X Q. Characterizing the metabolites related to rice salt tolerance with introgression lines exhibiting contrasting performances in response to saline conditions[J]. Plant Growth Regulation, 2020, 92: 157-176. |
[33] | 王旭明, 赵夏夏, 陈景阳, 许江环, 周柏霖, 王盼盼, 莫素, 莫俊杰, 谢平, 周鸿凯. 盐胁迫下海水稻抗逆生理响应分析[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2019, 27(5): 747-756. |
Wang X M, Zhao X X, Chen J Y, Xu J H, Zhou B L, Wang P P, Mo S, Mo J J, Xie P, Zhou H K. Physiological adversity resistance of sea rice to salinity stress[J]. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2019, 27(5): 747-756. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[34] | 齐琪, 马书荣, 徐维东. 盐胁迫对植物生长的影响及耐盐生理机制研究进展[J]. 分子植物育种, 2020, 18: 2741-2746. |
Qi Q, Ma S R, Xu W D. Advances in the effects of salt stress on plant growth and physiological mechanisms of salt tolerance[J]. Molecular Plant Breeding, 2020, 18: 2741-2746. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[35] | 张韫璐, 王琦, 王金缘, 王宇楠, 刘凯月, 耿梦恬, 郭晴雪, 马莲菊. 干旱预处理对盐胁迫下水稻幼苗抗氧化酶活性及AsA-GSH循环的影响[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2018, 46(7): 58-60 |
Zhang Y L, Wang Q, Wang J Y, Wang Y N, Liu K Y, Geng M T, Guo Q X, Ma L J. Effects of PEG pretreatment on antioxidant enzyme activity and AsA-GSH cycle under salt stress in rice seedlings[J]. Jiangsu Agricultural Sciences, 2018, 46(7): 58-60. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[36] | Gerona M E B, Deocampo M P, Egdane J A, Ismail A M, Dionisio-Sese M L. Physiological responses of contrasting rice genotypes to salt stress at reproductive stage[J]. Rice Science, 2019, 26(4): 207-219. |
[37] | Noctor G, Foyer C H. Ascorbate and glutathione: Keeping active oxygen under control[J]. Annual Review Plant Biology, 1998, 49: 249-279. |
[38] | 华春, 王仁雷, 刘友良. 外源 AsA 对盐胁迫下水稻叶绿体活性氧清除系统的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2004, 30(7): 692-696. |
Hua C, Wang R L, Liu Y L. Effect of exogenous ascorbic acid on active oxygen scavenging system in chloroplasts of rice under salt stress[J]. Crops, 2004, 30(7): 692-696. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[39] | 华春, 王仁雷, 刘友良. 外源GSH对盐胁迫下水稻叶绿体活性氧清除系统的影响[J]. 植物生理与分子生物学学报, 2003, 29(5): 415-420. |
Hua C, Wang R L, Liu Y L. Effects of Exogenous Glutathione on active oxygen scavenging system in chloroplasts of rice under salt stress[J]. Journal of Plant Physiology and Molecular Biology, 2003, 29(5): 415-420. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[40] | Munns R. Comparative physiology of salt and water stress[J]. Plant, Cell and Environment, 2002, 25: 239-250. |
[41] | Hong Y, Devaiah S P, Bahn S C, Thamasandra B N, Li M, Welti R, Wang X. Phospholipase D epsilon and phosphatidic acid enhance Arabidopsis nitrogen signaling and growth[J]. The Plant Journal, 2009, 58(3): 376-387. |
[42] | Cha Um S, Charoenpanich A, Roytrakul S, Kirdmanee C. Sugar accumulation, photosynthesis and growth of two indica rice varieties in response to salt stress[J]. Acta Physiologiae Plantarum, 2009, 31: 477-486. |
[43] | 瞿礼嘉, 顾红雅, 胡萍. 现代生物技术导论[M]. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 1998: 68-93. |
Qu L J, Gu H Y, Hu P. Introduction to Modern Biotechnology[M]. Beijing: Higher Education Press, 1998: 68-93. (in Chinese) | |
[44] | 徐晨, 凌风楼, 徐克章. 盐胁迫对不同水稻品种光合特性和生理生化特性的影响[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2013, 27(3): 280-286. |
Xu C, Ling F L, Xu K Z. Effect of salt stress on physiological and biochemical traits of different rice varieties[J]. Chinese Journal of Rice Science, 2013, 27(3): 280-286. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[45] | 颜佳倩, 顾逸彪, 薛张逸. 耐盐性不同水稻品种对盐胁迫的响应差异及其机制[J]. 作物学报, 2022, 48(6): 1463-1475. |
Yan J Q, Gu Y B, Xue Z Y. Different responses of rice cultivars to salt stress and the underlying mechanisms[J]. The Crop Journal, 2022, 48(6): 1463-1475. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[46] | 王鑫月. 盐胁迫和铝胁迫对水稻膜脂组分和含量的影响[D]. 咸阳: 中国科学院大学, 2016. |
Wang X Y. Effect of salt stress and aluminum stress on the composition and content of membrane lipids in rice[D]. Xianyang: University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 2016. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[47] | Gu J F, Zhou Z X, Li Z K, Chen Y, Wang Z Q, Zhang H, Yang J C. Photosynthetic properties and potentials for improvement of photosynthesis in pale green leaf rice under high light conditions[J]. Frontier in Plant Science, 2017, 8: 1082. |
[48] | 陈晨, 龚海青, 张敬智, 郜红建. 水稻根系形态与氮素吸收累积的相关性分析[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2017, 23: 333-341. |
Chen C, Gong H Q, Zhang J Z, Hao H J. Correlation between root morphology and nitrogen uptake of rice[J]. Plant Nutrition Fertilizer Science, 2017, 23: 333-341. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[49] | Zhu K Y, Zhou Q, Shen Y, Yan J Q, Xu Y J, Wang Z Q, Yang J C. Agronomic and physiological performance of an indica-japonica rice variety with a high yield and high nitrogen use efficiency[J]. Crop Science, 2020, 60: 1556- 1568. |
[50] | 周群, 袁锐, 朱宽宇, 王志琴, 杨建昌. 不同施氮量下籼/粳杂交稻甬优2640产量和氮素吸收利用的特点[J]. 作物学报, 2022, 48(9): 2285-2299. |
Zhou Q, Yuan R, Zhu K Y, Wang Z Q, Yang J C. Characteristics of grain yield and nitrogen absorption and utilization of indica/japonica hybrid rice Yongyou 2640 under different nitrogen application rates[J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2022, 48(9): 2285-2299. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[51] | 万吉丽, 刘佳音, 张国栋, 米铁柱, 李继明. 袁隆平与海水稻[J]. 杂交水稻, 2022(5): 96-103. |
Wan J L, Liu J Y, Zhang G D, Mi T Z, Li J M. Yuan Longping and salt-water rice[J]. Hybrid Rice, 2022(5): 96-103. (in Chinese) | |
[52] | 陈希. 造福一方从“中国草”到“海水稻”[J]. 一带一路报道, 2019, 11: 52-57. |
Chen X. From “Chinese grass” to “sea rice” bringing benefits to the local people[J]. The Belt and Road Reports, 2019, 11: 52-57. (in both Chinese and English) | |
[53] | 王旭明, 赵夏夏, 陈景阳, 李震, 陈佳媚, 许江环, 周鸿凯. 低盐胁迫对5个海水稻种质若干生理生化指标的影响[J]. 热带农业科学, 2018, 38(8): 24-29. |
Wang X M, Zhao X X, Chen J Y, Li Z, Chen J M, Xu J H, Zhou H K. Effect of low salt stress on several physiological and biochemical indicators of five accessions of sea rice[J]. Chinese Journal of Tropical Agriculture, 2018, 38(8): 24-29. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[54] | 杨福, 梁正伟, 王志春. 水稻耐盐碱鉴定标准评价及建议与展望[J]. 植物遗传资源学报, 2011, 12(4): 625-628, 633. |
Yang F, Liang Z W, Wang Z C. Evaluation, suggestion and prospect on identification standards of saline-alkali tolerance in rice[J]. Journal of Plant Genetic Resources, 2011, 12(4): 625-628, 633. | |
[55] | 祁栋灵, 韩龙植, 张三元. 水稻耐盐/碱性鉴定评价方法[J]. 植物遗传资源学报, 2005, 6(2): 226-231. |
Qi D L, Han L Z, Zhang S Y. Methods of characterization and evaluation of salt or alkaline tolerance in rice[J]. Journal of Plant Genetic Resources, 2005, 6(2): 226-231. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[56] | 袁隆平. 耐盐碱水稻育种技术[M]. 山东: 科学技术出版社, 2019: 99-108. |
Yuan L P. Breeding Techniques of Salt and Saline Alkali Tolerant Rice[M]. Shandong: Science and Technology Press, 2019: 99-108. (in Chinese) | |
[57] | Zhou Y B, Liu C, Tang D Y, Yan L, Wang D, Yang Y Z, Gui J S, Zhao X Y, Li L G, Tang X D, Yu F, Li J L, Liu L L, Zhu Y H, Lin J Z, Liu X M. The receptor-like cytoplasmic kinase STRK1 phosphorylates and activates CatC, thereby regulating H2O2 homeostasis and improving salt tolerance in rice[J]. Plant Cell, 2018, 30(5): 1100-1118. |
[58] | 周毅, 崔丰磊, 杨萍, 张帆涛, 罗向东, 谢建坤. 水稻不同品种幼苗期耐盐性评价[J]. 江西农业大学学报, 2015, 37(5): 781-787. |
Zhou Y, Cui F L, Yang P, Zhang F T, Luo X D, Xie J K. Evaluation of salt tolerance of different rice varieties at seedling stage[J]. Acta Agriculturae Universitatis Jiangxiensis, 2015, 37(5): 781-787. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[59] |
Zhu J K. Plant salt tolerance[J]. Trends in Plant Science, 2001, 6(2): 66-71.
PMID |
[60] |
Ramon S, Rodriguez-Navarro A. Ion homeostasis during salt stress in plants[J]. Current Opinion in Cell Biology, 2001, 13: 399-404.
PMID |
[1] | 郭展, 张运波. 水稻对干旱胁迫的生理生化响应及分子调控研究进展[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2024, 38(4): 335-349. |
[2] | 韦还和, 马唯一, 左博源, 汪璐璐, 朱旺, 耿孝宇, 张翔, 孟天瑶, 陈英龙, 高平磊, 许轲, 霍中洋, 戴其根. 盐、干旱及其复合胁迫对水稻产量和品质形成影响的研究进展[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2024, 38(4): 350-363. |
[3] | 许丹洁, 林巧霞, 李正康, 庄小倩, 凌宇, 赖美玲, 陈晓婷, 鲁国东. OsOPR10正调控水稻对稻瘟病和白叶枯病的抗性[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2024, 38(4): 364-374. |
[4] | 候小琴, 王莹, 余贝, 符卫蒙, 奉保华, 沈煜潮, 谢杭军, 王焕然, 许用强, 武志海, 王建军, 陶龙兴, 符冠富. 黄腐酸钾提高水稻秧苗耐盐性的作用途径分析[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2024, 38(4): 409-421. |
[5] | 胡继杰, 胡志华, 张均华, 曹小闯, 金千瑜, 章志远, 朱练峰. 根际饱和溶解氧对水稻分蘖期光合及生长特性的影响[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2024, 38(4): 437-446. |
[6] | 刘福祥, 甄浩洋, 彭焕, 郑刘春, 彭德良, 文艳华. 广东省水稻孢囊线虫病调查与鉴定[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2024, 38(4): 456-461. |
[7] | 陈浩田, 秦缘, 钟笑涵, 林晨语, 秦竞航, 杨建昌, 张伟杨. 水稻根系和土壤性状与稻田甲烷排放关系的研究进展[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2024, 38(3): 233-245. |
[8] | 缪军, 冉金晖, 徐梦彬, 卜柳冰, 王平, 梁国华, 周勇. 过量表达异三聚体G蛋白γ亚基基因RGG2提高水稻抗旱性[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2024, 38(3): 246-255. |
[9] | 尹潇潇, 张芷菡, 颜绣莲, 廖蓉, 杨思葭, 郭岱铭, 樊晶, 赵志学, 王文明. 多个稻曲病菌效应因子的信号肽验证和表达分析[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2024, 38(3): 256-265. |
[10] | 朱裕敬, 桂金鑫, 龚成云, 罗新阳, 石居斌, 张海清, 贺记外. 全基因组关联分析定位水稻分蘖角度QTL[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2024, 38(3): 266-276. |
[11] | 魏倩倩, 汪玉磊, 孔海民, 徐青山, 颜玉莲, 潘林, 迟春欣, 孔亚丽, 田文昊, 朱练峰, 曹小闯, 张均华, 朱春权. 信号分子硫化氢参与硫肥缓解铝对水稻生长抑制作用的机制[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2024, 38(3): 290-302. |
[12] | 周甜, 吴少华, 康建宏, 吴宏亮, 杨生龙, 王星强, 李昱, 黄玉峰. 不同种植模式对水稻籽粒淀粉含量及淀粉关键酶活性的影响[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2024, 38(3): 303-315. |
[13] | 关雅琪, 鄂志国, 王磊, 申红芳. 影响中国水稻生产环节外包发展因素的实证研究:基于群体效应视角[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2024, 38(3): 324-334. |
[14] | 许用强, 姜宁, 奉保华, 肖晶晶, 陶龙兴, 符冠富. 水稻开花期高温热害响应机理及其调控技术研究进展[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2024, 38(2): 111-126. |
[15] | 吕海涛, 李建忠, 鲁艳辉, 徐红星, 郑许松, 吕仲贤. 稻田福寿螺的发生、危害及其防控技术研究进展[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2024, 38(2): 127-139. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||