|Table of Contents|

Physiological Response of Three Grape Varieties Seedling to NaCl Stress and Comprehensive Evaluation of Salt Tolerance

《北方园艺》[ISSN:1001-0009/CN:23-1247/S]

Issue:
2022年01
Page:
16-23
Research Field:
Publishing date:

Info

Title:
Physiological Response of Three Grape Varieties Seedling to NaCl Stress and Comprehensive Evaluation of Salt Tolerance
Author(s):
Hainiken·SHANTAI1WU Tianzhong1Bulemasi·SANTAI2Yiliminu′er1
(1.Institute of Afforestation and Desertification Control,Xinjiang Academy of Forestry Sciences,Urumqi,Xinjiang 830054;2.Aletai State-owned Forest Administration,Aletai, Xinjiang 836500)
Keywords:
grapesalt stressphysiological responsesalt tolerancecomprehensive evaluation
PACS:
-
DOI:
10.11937/bfyy.20211321
Abstract:
The cuttings of annual ‘Hongti’‘Qingpitu’ and ‘Fram’ were used as experimental materials,and the physiological indexes of seedling leaves of three grape varieties were measured under different concentrations of salt stress in pot culture to evaluate the physiological response of three grape varieties to NaCl stress,in order to provide a reference for its promotion in Xinjiang.The results showed that with the increase of NaCl concentration,the physiological and biochemical indexes of three grape varieties seedlings showed different changes.MDA content of ‘Hongti’ and ‘Qingpitu’ seedlings increased at 0.4% NaCl concentration,and decreased at 0.6% NaCl concentration.MDA content of ‘Fram’ seedlings increased at 0.2% NaCl concentration,and the lowest at 0.4%.The degree of salt tolerance of the seedlings of three grape varieties was not consistent.The order of salt tolerance was ‘Fram’>‘Qingpitu’ and ‘Hongti’.

References:

[1]周万海,师希雄,曹孜义.盐胁迫对不同葡萄砧木苗期生长特性的影响[J].甘肃农业大学学报,2009,44(2):60-63,67.[2]车永梅,刘香凝,肖培连,等.酿酒葡萄品种耐盐性的研究[J].北方园艺,2015(23):18-22.[3]古丽加汗·克热木,齐曼·尤努斯,布阿依夏姆·依提,等.三个葡萄品种对NaCl胁迫反应的差异[J].新疆农业科学,2011,48(11):1983-1987.[4]孙锋,骆强伟,廖康,等.新疆葡萄育种方向与研究进展[J].农业科技通讯,2014(12):141-142,145.[5]樊秀彩,刘崇怀,潘兴,等.水培条件下葡萄砧木对氯化钠的耐性鉴定[J].果树学报,2004(2):128-131.[6]YANG S L,YANO T,AYDIN M,et al.Short term effects of saline irrigation on evapotranspiration from lysimeter-grown citrus trees[J].Agricultural Water Management,2002,56(2):131-141.[7]张有福,蔺海明,贾恢先.紫花苜蓿和饲用玉米对引黄灌区土壤盐分的抑制效应[J].甘肃农业大学学报,2004(2):168-172.[8]王继和,杨自辉,胡明贵,等.干旱区盐渍化土地综合治理技术研究[J].中国生态农业学报,2001(1):74-76.[9]王善仙,刘宛,李培军,等.盐碱土植物改良研究进展[J].中国农学通报,2011,27(24):1-7.[10]李源,刘贵波,高洪文,等.紫花苜蓿种质耐盐性综合评价及盐胁迫下的生理反应[J].草业学报,2010,19(4):79-86.[11]田长彦,买文选,赵振勇.新疆干旱区盐碱地生态治理关键技术研究[J].生态学报,2016,36(22):7064-7068.[12]张亚冰,刘崇怀,孙海生,等.葡萄砧木耐盐性与丙二醛和脯氨酸关系的研究[J].西北植物学报,2006(8):1709-1712.[13]杨升,张华新,刘涛.盐胁迫对16种幼苗渗透调节物质的影响[J].林业科学研究,2012,25(3):269-277.[14]李会云,郭修武.盐胁迫对葡萄砧木叶片保护酶活性和丙二醛含量的影响[J].果树学报,2008(2):240-243.[15]黄相玲,林妃妃,张明月,等.盐胁迫对小叶榄仁幼苗生长和渗透调节物质含量的影响[J].南方农业学报,2018,49(7):1364-1369.[16]樊秀彩,张亚冰,刘崇怀,等.NaCl胁迫对葡萄幼苗叶片有机渗透调节物质和膜脂过氧化的影响[J].果树学报,2007(6):765-769.[17]GARRATT L C,JANAGOUDAR B S,LOWE K C,et al.Salinity tolerance and antioxidant status in cotton cultures[J].Free Radical Biology Medicine,2002,33(4):502-511.[18]孙宗玖,李培英,阿不来提,等.种子萌发期38份偃麦草种质耐盐性评价[J].草业科学,2012,29(7):1105-1113.[19]袁军伟,李敏敏,尹勇刚,等.不同砧木嫁接的赤霞珠葡萄对盐胁迫的生理响应[J].中国农业大学学报,2019,24(8):48-59.[20]朱燕芳,王延秀,陈佰鸿,等.四种苹果砧木幼苗对NaCl胁迫的生理响应、根系生长及耐盐性评价[J].甘肃农业大学学报,2017,52(2):48-53.[21]郝玉杰.NaCl胁迫对两个葡萄品种生长及生理特性的影响[D].石河子:石河子大学,2017.[22]王玉丽.葎叶蛇葡萄新品种‘东岳红’耐旱性、耐盐性研究[D].泰安:山东农业大学,2017.[23]徐静,董宽虎,高文俊,等.NaCl和Na2SO4胁迫下冰草幼苗的生长及生理响应[J].中国草地学报,2011(1):38-43.[24]克热木·伊力,侯江涛,买合木提,等.盐胁迫对扁桃光合特性和叶绿体超微结构的影响[J].西北植物学报,2006(11):2220-2226.[25]汪贵斌,曹福亮.盐分和水分胁迫对落羽杉幼苗的生长量及营养元素含量的影响[J].林业科学,2004(6):56-62.[26]王诗雅.构树幼苗与杂交构树幼苗对盐碱胁迫的生理响应研究[D].银川:宁夏大学,2019.[27]贺苏华,尹恒,吴莉英,等.干旱胁迫对4个红檐木品种渗透调节物质含量的影响[J].江苏林业科技,2008(4):29-31.[28]杜金友,胡冬南,李伟,等.干旱胁迫条件下胡枝子渗透物质的变化[J].福建林学院学报,2006(4):349-352.[29]王海珍,梁宗锁,韩蕊莲,等.辽东栎(Quercus liaotungensis)幼苗对土壤干旱的生理生态适应性研究[J].植物研究,2005(3):311-316.[30]MAHONEY J M,ROOD S B.Response of a hybrid poplar to water table decline in different substrates[J].Forest Ecology and Management,1992,54(1):141-156.

Memo

Memo:
-
Last Update: 2022-03-31