|Table of Contents|

Adaptation of Seedlings of Three Bitter Gourd Varieties Under Waterlogging Stress

《北方园艺》[ISSN:1001-0009/CN:23-1247/S]

Issue:
2024年11
Page:
1-8
Research Field:
Publishing date:

Info

Title:
Adaptation of Seedlings of Three Bitter Gourd Varieties Under Waterlogging Stress
Author(s):
NI TianhongXIONG TingtingPENG FuxingLIU Songhu
(College of Horticulture,Xinyang Agriculture and Forestry University,Xinyang,Henan 464000)
Keywords:
waterlogging stressbitter gourdseedling growthphysiological characteristics
PACS:
S 642.5
DOI:
10.11937/bfyy.20234059
Abstract:
‘Lyulong’‘Lyuxianfeng’ and ‘Liangku 1’ were used as test materials.The effects of different waterlogging stress treatment times on the growth and physiology of seedlings of three bitter gourd varieties were investigated by using pots to simulate waterlogging stress environment,in order to screen out waterlogging-tolerant bitter gourd varieties and provide reference for the production and breeding of bitter gourd.The results showed that compared with the control,waterlogging stress inhibited the growth of bitter gourd seedlings,and the plant height growth,biomass,relative chlorophyll content and root vigor were all significantly decreased.The malondialdehyde,proline,soluble sugar content and relative conductivity in leaves were all significantly increased.Among them,the number,length and dry weight of adventitious roots induced at the stem base of ‘Liangku 1’ were significantly higher than those of ‘Lyulong’ and ‘Lyuxianfeng’,and at 14 days of waterlogging,the changes in physiological indexes of ‘Liangku 1’ were smaller than those of the other two varieties.Through membership function analysis,the waterlogging resistance of three varieties was ranked as ‘Liangku 1’>‘Lyulong’>‘Lyuxianfeng’.These results indicated that,compared with ‘Lyulong’ and ‘Lyuxianfeng’,‘Liangku 1’ was more adaptable to growth and had stronger tolerance under waterlogging stress.

References:

[1]MUKASSABI T A,POLWART A,COLESHAW T,et al.How long can young scots pine seedlings survive waterlogging[J].Trees,2012,26(5):1641-1649.[2]VARTAPETIAN B B,JACKSON M B.Plant adaptations to anaerobic stress[J].Annals of Botany,1997,79(1):3-20.[3]于斌,朱进,周国林,等.淹水胁迫对丝瓜和苦瓜幼苗形态及不定根解剖结构的影响[J].中国蔬菜,2018(4):37-42.[4]汪祖程.黄瓜耐热耐渍性指标鉴定及抗性材料筛选的研究[D].武汉:华中农业大学,2008.[5]郑佳秋,郭军,梅燚,等.辣椒幼苗形态及生理特性对涝害胁迫的响应[J].西南农业学报,2016,29(3):536-540.[6]王阳,汪李平,杨静,等.甜瓜幼苗对淹水胁迫响应的形态差异及根系生理指标的比较[J].现代园艺,2017(2):7-8.[7]张金铭,杨衍,戚志强,等.苦瓜干物质分配和养分吸收规律研究[J].北方园艺,2021(1):7-14.[8]王学奎,黄见良.植物生理生化实验原理与技术[M].3版.北京:高等教育出版社,2015.[9]孙慧,吴中能,刘俊龙,等.淹水胁迫对4个杨树品种幼苗生长及生理特性的影响[J].西部林业科学,2020,49(2):62-67.[10]董斌,洪文泓,黄永芳,等.广西4个油茶品种苗期对干旱胁迫的生理响应[J].中南林业科技大学学报,2018,38(2):1-8.[11]张丽,李正丽,李群,等.水杨酸对低氧胁迫苦瓜幼苗生理特性的影响[J].分子植物育种,2022,20(5):1664-1671.[12]陈丽英.淹水胁迫对2种杨树生理特性的影响[D].武汉:华中农业大学,2012.[13]王华.淹水胁迫对不结球白菜形态特征及生理生化特性的影响[D].南京:南京农业大学,2013.[14]杜克兵,彭婵,赵天宇,等.滇楸优良无性系对水淹胁迫的生理响应及综合评价[J].中南林业科技大学学报,2021,41(6):1-10.[15]DU K,XU L,WU H,et al.Ecophysiological and morphological adaption to soil flooding of two poplar clones differing in flood-tolerance[J].Flora-Morphology,Distribution,Functional Ecology of Plants,2012,207(2):96-106.[16]尤垂淮,孙青慧,陈晟,等.镁营养对苦瓜生长发育及生理代谢的影响[J].热带作物学报,2021,42(12):3545-3552.[17]何楠,王伟伟,赵胜杰,等.淹水胁迫对不同倍性西瓜幼苗生理的影响[J].中国瓜菜,2022,35(5):51-56.[18]刘青柏,陆洁,刘权钢,等.土壤水分胁迫对不同酸枣无性系抗旱性的影响[J].北方园艺,2023(4):16-24.[19]倪天虹,赵天宇,张新叶,等.梓树对淹水胁迫的适应性研究[J].江西农业大学学报,2021,43(3):610-620.[20]NAHAR M N E N,ISLAM M M,HOQUE M A,et al.Exogenous proline enhances the sensitivity of tobacco BY-2 cells to arsenate[J].Bioscience,Biotechnology,and Biochemistry,2017,81(9):1726-1731.[21]张永平,刁倩楠,张文献,等.淹水胁迫及胁迫解除对甜瓜幼苗呼吸等生理代谢的影响[J].中国蔬菜,2019(11):41-48.[22]朱进,李文静,徐兰婷.淹水胁迫对不同丝瓜品种根系呼吸生理和通气组织的影响[J].中国瓜菜,2022,35(8):62-69.

Memo

Memo:
-
Last Update: 2024-06-26