|Table of Contents|

Physiological and Biochemical Characteristics of Different Peony Varieties Under Waterlogging Stress

《北方园艺》[ISSN:1001-0009/CN:23-1247/S]

Issue:
2025年9
Page:
95-103
Research Field:
Publishing date:

Info

Title:
Physiological and Biochemical Characteristics of Different Peony Varieties Under Waterlogging Stress
Author(s):
HUANG Xiaoling; ZHAN Misha; WANG Xiaoyu; ZHU Xiaotao
(Jiyang College,Zhejiang Agricultural and Forestry University，Zhuji，Zhejiang 311800)
Keywords:
peony; waterlogging stress; physiological response; waterlogging tolerance
PACS:
S 685.11
DOI:
10.11937/bfyy.20244224
Abstract:
Three peony varieties，‘Fengdan White’‘Juanye Red’，and ‘Luhe Red’，were used as the test materials,the effects of different levels of waterlogging stress on six physiological and biochemical indicators，included peroxidase (POD)，catalase (CAT)，superoxide dismutase (SOD) activity，malondialdehyde (MDA)，chlorophyll-a (Chl a)，and relative conductivity (REC) were studied through artificial simulation of waterlogging stress.The correlation between waterlogging resistance and various indicators was explored in different peony varieties,in order to provide reference for the breeding of flood tolerant peony varieties in the Jiangnan region.The results showed that with increasing waterlogging stress duration，Chl a content exhibited a declining trend.Activities of SOD，POD，and CAT initially increased before decreasing；notably，the POD activity in water-resistant varieties showed the most significant variation.Both MDA content and REC demonstrated an upward trend，intensifying with the severity of stress.After 15 days，the rate of increase in MDA was observed to be ‘Fengdanbai’<‘Luhehong’<‘Juanyehong’.It can be preliminarily concluded that ‘Fengdanbai’ exhibited the highest waterlogging tolerance，while ‘Juanyehong’ had the lowest.However，the activities of antioxidant enzymes and Chl a content varied under different stress levels，suggesting distinct response mechanisms among the varieties.Chl a content was positively correlated with the activities of SOD，POD，CAT，and MDA，whereas MDA content and REC were highly positively correlated.

References:

［1］王莲英．中国牡丹品种图志［M］．北京:中国林业出版社,1997．［2］王佳．杨山牡丹遗传多样性与江南牡丹品种资源研究［D］．北京:北京林业大学,2009.［3］朱向涛,王雁,吴倩,等．江南牡丹茎段愈伤组织诱导与植株再生［J］．核农学报,2015,29(1):56-62．［4］李子健,朱洁薇,于水燕,等．‘凤丹’牡丹栽培及产业发展综述［J］．北方园艺,2024(7):126-132．［5］陶良如,米银法．外源GA3对“白雪塔”牡丹花期生理效应的影响［J］．北方园艺,2024(20):37-45．［6］杜春,平怀磊,王文治,等．滇牡丹PdANR基因克隆及表达模式分析［J］．北方园艺,2022(24):42-52．［7］周佩,刘燕,柴梦娟,等．牡丹PsAP3基因的克隆与表达分析［J］．植物生理学报,2024,60(01):141-154．［8］李合生．植物生理生化实验原理和技术［M］．北京:高等教育出版社,2000.［9］赵世杰．植物生理学实验指导［M］．北京:中国农业科学技术出版社,2002.［10］范双喜,伊东正．钙素对叶用莴苣营养吸收和生长发育的影响［J］．园艺学报,2002,29(2):149-152.［11］GONG M,LI Y J,CHEN S Z．Abscisic acid-induced thermotolerance in maize seedlings is mediated by calcium and associated with antioxidant systems［J］．Journal of Plant Physiology,1998,153(3/4):488-496.［12］CHRISTIANSON J A,LLEWELLYN D J,DENNIS E S,et al．Global gene expression responses to waterlogging in roots and leaves of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L．)［J］．Plant & Cell Physiology,2010,51(1):21-37.［13］MORARD P,LACOSTE L,SILVESTRE J．Effect of oxygen deficiency on uptake of water and mineral nutrients by tomato plants in soilless culture［J］．Journal of Plant Nutrition,2000,23(8):1063-1078.［14］APEL K,HIRT H．Reactive oxygen species:metabolism,oxidative stress,and signal transduction［J］．Annual Review of Plant Biology,2004,55:373-399.［15］HOSSAIN Z,LPEZ-CLIMENT M F,ARBONA V,et al．Modulation of the antioxidant system in Citrus under waterlogging and subsequent drainage［J］．Journal of Plant Physiology,2009,166(13):1391-1404.［16］IRFAN M,HAYAT S,HAYAT Q,et al．Physiological and biochemical changes in plants under waterlogging［J］．Protoplasma,2010,241(1/2/3/4):3-17.［17］ARBONA V,HOSSAIN Z,LPEZ-CLIMENT M F,et al．Antioxidant enzymatic activity is linked to waterlogging stress tolerance in Citrus［J］．Physiologia Plantarum,2008,132(4):452-466.［18］胡晓辉,郭世荣,李璟,等．低氧胁迫对黄瓜幼苗根系无氧呼吸酶和抗氧化酶活性的影响［J］．武汉植物学研究,2005,23(4):337-341.［19］陈鹭真,林鹏,王文卿．红树植物淹水胁迫响应研究进展［J］．生态学报,2006,26(2):586-593.［20］石进校,刘应迪,陈军,等．土壤涝渍胁迫对淫羊藿叶片膜脂过氧化和SOD活性的影响［J］．生命科学研究,2002,6(S2):29-31.［21］汪贵斌,蔡金峰,何肖华．涝渍胁迫对喜树幼苗形态和生理的影响［J］．植物生态学报,2009,33(1):134-140.［22］何威．涝胁迫对豫楸1号4种砧木嫁接苗渗透调节物质的影响［J］．河南林业科技,2011,31(2):1-3,6.［23］张晓燕．不同树种在涝渍胁迫下生长及其生理特性的响应［D］．南京:南京林业大学,2008.［24］刘文革,阎志红,王川,等．西瓜幼苗抗氧化系统对淹水胁迫的响应［J］．果树学报,2006,23(6):860-864.［25］张义,李伟．涝渍对桃、李幼苗根系酶活性及渗透调节物质含量的影响［J］．河南农业科学,2012,41(10):127-130.［26］李纪元．涝渍胁迫对枫杨幼苗保护酶活性及膜脂过氧化物的影响［J］．安徽农业大学学报,2006,33(4):450-453.［27］王建华,刘鸿先,徐同．超氧物歧化酶(SOD)在植物逆境和衰老生理中的作用［J］．植物生理学通讯,1989,25(1):1-7.［28］朱向涛,金松恒,哀建国,等．牡丹不同品种耐涝性综合评价［J］．核农学报,2017,31(3):607-613．

Memo

Memo:
-
Last Update: 2025-05-16