«Previous Article|Table of Contents|Next Article»

《北方园艺》[ISSN:1001-0009/CN:23-1247/S]

Issue:

2024年23

Page:

48-57

Research Field:

Publishing date:

Info

Title:

Evaluation of Drought Resistance of Four Garden Chrysanthemum Varieties Under Simulated Drought Stress With PEG 6000

Author(s):

LU Jing1; 2; YANG Xiaoying3; HAO Chunlei4; ZHANG Li2

(1.Ningxia Technical College of Wine and Desertification Prevention，Yinchuan，Ningxia 750199;2.College of Enology and Horticulture,Ningxia University,Yinchuan，Ningxia 750021;3.Colege of Civil Architecture,Yinchuan University of Energy，Yinchuan,Ningxia 750100;4.Ningxia Shengxu Haochun Agricultural Technology Co.Ltd.,Yinchuan，Ningxia 750001)

Keywords:

garden Chrysanthemum; drought stress; drought resistance

PACS:

1001-0009(2024)23-0048-10

DOI:

10.11937/bfyy.20242232

Abstract:

Four varieties of garden Chrysanthemum were used as the test materials，and PEG 6000 was used to simulate drought stress.The effects of different concentration gradients (10%，15%，20%，and 25%) on the growth，photosynthetic，and physiological indicators of Chrysanthemum were studied,in order to provide reference for establishing a drought resistance evaluation system for garden Chrysanthemum.The results showed that drought stress significantly suppressed plant height and biomass.At a PEG 6000 concentration of 25%，the Pn，Tr and Gs of all four cultivars reached their lowest values.Ci generally exhibited an initial increase followed by a decrease.Relative electrical conductivity，MDA，Pro，soluble sugar contents，and POD activity all increased significantly，indicating an escalating level of cell membrane damage in Chrysanthemum plants.The levels of soluble protein and SOD in ‘Hong Zhenzhu’‘Mingliu Qianqiu’ and ‘Beimeihong’ initially rose before declining.CAT activity in ‘Hong Zhenzhu’ and ‘Mingliu Qianqiu’ also displayed an initial increase followed by a decrease.The drought resistance ranking among the four garden Chrysanthemum varieties was as follows,‘Huangjin Shidai’>‘Hong Zhenzhu’>‘Beimeihong’>‘Mingliu Qianqiu’.

References:

［1］李鸿渐,邵健文．中国菊花品种资源的调查收集与分类［J］．南京农业大学学报,1990,13(1):30-36.［2］李宸阳．园林小菊综合评价及花期促控技术的研究［D］．南京:南京农业大学,2019.［3］周迎雪,李沛曈,苏江硕,等.37份菊花近缘种的抗旱性评价［J］．南京农业大学学报,2023,46(6):1060-1068.［4］李沛曈.37份菊属植物的遗传多样性和耐旱性鉴定［D］．南京:南京农业大学,2020.［5］吴盼婷,王江民,沈佳逾,等．不同菊花品种根系、地上部和叶片相关指标分析及抗逆性评价［J］．植物资源与环境学报,2017,26(2):46-54.［6］顾菁．菊属野生种抗旱生理机理及抗旱蛋白质组学研究［D］．南京:南京农业大学,2013.［7］SOUSA L F,MENEZES-SILVA P E,BATISTA P F,et al．Environmental vulnerability index in Dipteryx alata:Influence of abiotic stresses on central processes of plant physiology and metabolism［J］．Acta Physiologiae Plantarum,2024,46(3):31.［8］IWUALA E,UNUNG O,ADEKOYA M,et al．Drought and salinity synergistically modulate the physiology and growth pattern of the facultative halophyte red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle)［J］．Acta Physiologiae Plantarum,2023,45(11):131.［9］KHAN R,MA X,HUSSAIN Q,et al．Transcriptome and anatomical studies reveal alterations in leaf thickness under long-term drought stress in tobacco［J］．Journal of Plant Physiology,2023,281:153920.［10］杨小英,王利凯,马小梅,等．干旱胁迫对八仙花生理特性及叶片结构的影响［J］．北方园艺,2023(11):75-80.［11］王洋,于森淼,王旌扬,等．干旱胁迫和复水对萱草的生理特性的影响［J］．中国农学通报,2023,39(19):58-64.［12］虎淘淘,罗艳,虎瑛,等．六个切花彩菊品种对碱胁迫的生理响应及耐碱性评价［J］．北方园艺,2023(17):86-93.［13］党昕,沙晓蓉,靳磊.干旱胁迫对兰州百合农艺性状及其鳞茎品质的影响［J/OL］.首都师范大学学报(自然科学版),(2024-03-20)［2024-09-23］.http://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/11.3189.N.20230626.1742.004.html.［14］徐梦琦,高艳菊,张志浩,等．干旱胁迫对疏叶骆驼刺幼苗生长和生理的影响［J］．干旱区研究,2023,40(2):257-267.［15］赵永平,姬苗苗,朱亚,等．干旱胁迫对不同基因型甜叶菊幼苗生理特性的影响［J］．江西农业学报,2018,30(10):41-44.［16］赵永平,钟娇娇,朱亚．PEG-6000模拟干旱胁迫对金盏花幼苗生理特性的影响［J］．陕西农业科学,2017,63(5):32-35.［17］韩忠明,王云贺,胥苗苗,等．干旱胁迫对防风生理特性及品质的影响［J］．西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版),2017,45(11):100-106.［18］王自布,潘木引,冉晓燕．PEG-6000模拟干旱胁迫对菊花的生理响应［J］．贵州师范学院学报,2019,35(3):18-22.［19］吴建慧,李雪,王玲.2种委陵菜叶片结构和生理指标对干旱胁迫的生理响应［J］．草地学报,2015,23(1):125-129.［20］孔兰静．三种观赏草对土壤干旱胁迫的生理响应［D］．泰安:山东农业大学,2009.［21］时丽冉,陈红艳,崔兴国．干旱胁迫对地被菊膜脂过氧化和抗氧化酶活性的影响［J］．北方园艺,2010(9):96-98.［22］时丽冉,王玉平,刘国荣,等．干旱胁迫对地被菊光合生理特性及水分利用率的影响［J］．河南农业科学,2011,40(3):119-121.

Memo

Memo:

-

Common functions

Last Update: 2024-12-16