|Table of Contents|

Effects of Chaetomium globosum ND35 on Physiological Characteristics ofMomordica charantia L.Under Drought Stress

《北方园艺》[ISSN:1001-0009/CN:23-1247/S]

Issue:
2018年03
Page:
16-21
Research Field:
Publishing date:

Info

Title:
Effects of Chaetomium globosum ND35 on Physiological Characteristics ofMomordica charantia L.Under Drought Stress
Author(s):
LI Ling1YIN Chenglin2TIAN Yehan1LIU Xiaoguang3GAO Kexiang1HE Bangling1
1.College of Plant Protection,Shandong Agricultural University/Shandong Provincial Key Laboratory for Biology of Vegetable Diseases and Insect Pests,Tai′an,Shandong 271018;2.Kingenta Ecological Engineering Group Co.Ltd.,Linyi,Shandong 276700;3.Institute of Life Sciences,Jiangsu University,Zhenjiang,Jiangsu 212013
Keywords:
Chaetomium globosum ND35Momordica charantia L.drought stressphysiological characteristics
PACS:
-
DOI:
10.11937/bfyy.20172621
Abstract:
Potted cultured ‘Changlyujian’ bitter gourd was used as test material,effect of Chaetomium globosum ND35 on physiological characteristic of bitter gourd under drought stress was investigated under different water treatments,in order to provide references for application of Chaetomium globosum ND35 in production of bitter gourd.The results showed that compared with control group non-inoculated,leaves relative water content increased 1.98%-5.19% in each group inoculated with C.globosum ND35;content of proline decreased 38.48%-58.58%;content of MDA decreased 6.89%-26.10%;content of protein increased 23.65%-27.24%.Under condition with water stress at middle and serious degrade,compared with control group non-inoculated,SOD activity in leaves of bitter gourd inoculated with C.globosum ND35 increased 42.32% and 45.72%,respectively.POD activity increased 28.47% and 21.73%,respectively.CAT activity decreased 69.44% and 49.15%,respectively.Inoculation with C.globosum ND35 was significantly able to improve the relative water content,protein content and antioxidant enzymes activities,but contents of proline and MDA were lower than that of non-inoculated group under different water treatment.

References:

[1]刘晓珍,宋文玲,张凯,等.内生真菌对菊花幼苗干旱胁迫生理的影响[J].园艺学报,2011,38(2):335-342.

[2]丛国强,尹成林,何邦令,等.水分胁迫下内生真菌球毛壳ND35对冬小麦苗期生长和抗旱性的影响[J].生态学报,2015,35(18):6120-6128.
[3]印敬明,刘晓光,万慧,等.螺旋毛壳(Chaetomium spirale)ND35防病促生作用初探[J].莱阳农学院学报(自然科学版),2006,23(4):272-275.
[4]孟庆果,刘晓光,高克祥,等.球毛壳ND35在杨树的定植及对酶活性的影响[J].植物保护学报,2009,36(1):91-92.
[5]林永胜,张伟光,张玉灿,等.苦瓜新品种“如玉33号”的选育[J].福建农业学报,2013,28(10):1004-1006.
[6]李梅,张斌,罗智敏,等.天津地区早春大棚专用苦瓜品种筛选[J].北方园艺,2015(3):39-41.
[7]王国莉,徐毓璇,黄梅花,等.基于SSR和SRAP标记的苦瓜品种鉴定及亲缘关系分析[J].分子植物育种,2016,14(2):501-510.
[8]黄月琴,万新建,张景云,等.苦瓜主要表型性状的评价及其遗传多样性分析[J].上海交通大学学报(农业科学版),2016,34(2):47-52.
[9]高山,林碧英,许端祥,等.苦瓜种质遗传多样性的 RAPD和 ISSR分析[J].植物遗传资源学报,2010,11(1):78-83.
[10]吴永枚,唐祖君,匡成兵,等.四川盆地苦瓜早熟高效栽培技术[J].长江蔬菜,2013(21):39-40.
[11]程世强,吴智明,曾晶,等.低温胁迫对苦瓜成苗及幼苗生理生化特性的影响[J].热带作物学报,2011,32(11):2099-2103.
[12]郭培国,李荣华,夏岩石,等.高温胁迫对苦瓜生理特性影响的分析[J].广州大学学报(自然科学版),2013,12(2):24-29.
[13]朱进,赵莉莉.淹水胁迫对苦瓜幼苗生长、丙二醛含量和SOD活性的影响[J].湖北农业科学,2016,55(3):655-657.
[14]李合生.植物生理生化试验原理和技术[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2001.
[15]高俊凤.植物生理学实验技术[M].西安:世界图书出版公司,2000.
[16]韩建秋,王秀峰,张志国.表土干旱对白三叶根系分布和根活力的影响[J].中国农学通报,2007,23(3):458-461.
[17]刘世鹏,刘济明,陈宗礼,等.模拟干旱胁迫对枣树幼苗的抗氧化系统和渗透调节的影响[J].西北植物学报,2006,26(9):1781-1787.
[18]COLOM M R,VAZZANA C.Photosynthesis and PSⅡfunctionality of drought-resistant and drought-sensitive weeping lovegrass plants[J].Environmental and Experimental Botany,2003,49:135-144.
[19]葛体达,隋方功,白莉萍,等.水分胁迫下夏玉米根叶保护酶活性变化及其对膜脂过氧化作用的影响[J].中国农业科学,2005,38(5):922-928.
[20]袁月,吕光辉,徐敏,等.干旱胁迫下不同胸径胡杨生理特点分析[J].新疆农业科学,2009,46(2):299.
[21]李妮亚,高俊凤,汪沛洪.小麦幼芽水分胁迫诱导蛋白的特征[J].植物生理学报,1998,24(1):65-71.
[22]俞建妹,唐树生,王凌晖.水分胁迫对桂花幼苗生长及生理特性的影响[J].安徽农业科学,2010,38(4):2107-2109.
[23]陈敏,陈亚宁,李卫红,等.塔里木河中游地区3种植物的抗旱机理研究[J].西北植物学报,2007,27(4):747-754.
[24]ZHANG J X,NGUYEN H T,BLUM A.Genetic analysis of osmotic adjustment in crop plants[J].Journal of Experimental Botany,1999,50:291-302.
[25]董丽华.草地早熟禾不同品种抗旱性研究[D].银川:宁夏大学,2005.
[26]李霞,阎秀峰,于涛.水分胁迫对黄檗幼苗保护酶活性及脂质过氧化作用的影响[J].应用生态学报,2005,16(12):2353-2356.
[27]谢志玉,张文辉,刘新成.干旱胁迫对文冠果幼苗生长和生理生化特征的影响[J].西北植物学报,2010,30(5):948-954.
[28]张鹏,孙明高,宋尚文,等.干旱胁迫对板栗幼苗保护酶活性的影响[J].山东农业大学学报(自然科学版),2010,41(1):6-10.
[29]王宇超,王得祥,彭少兵,等.干旱胁迫对木本滨藜生理特性的影响[J].林业科学,2010,46(1):61-67.
[30]张爱慧,朱士农,刘广勤,等.模拟干旱胁迫对黄瓜幼苗生长及生理特性影响的研究[J].江苏农业科学,2009(6):200.
[31]陈世苹,高玉葆,梁宇,等.水分胁迫下内生真菌感染对黑麦草叶内保护酶系统活力的影响[J].应用与环境生物学报,2001,7(4):348-354.
[32]金忠民,沙伟,臧威,等.干旱胁迫对白三叶幼苗保护酶的影响[J].东北林业大学学报,2010,38(7):52-53.
[33]任安芝,高玉葆,刘爽.青菜幼苗体内几种保护酶的活性对Pb、Cd、Cr胁迫的反应研究[J].应用生态学报,2002,13(4):510-512.
[34]SHUKLA N,AWASTHI R P,RAWAT L,et al.Biochemical and physiological responses of rice (Oryza sativa L.) as influenced by Trichoderma harzianum under drought stress[J].Plant Physiology and Biochemistry,2012,54:78-88.

Memo

Memo:
-
Last Update: 2018-02-09