植物学报 ›› 2017, Vol. 52 ›› Issue (4): 520-529.DOI: 10.11983/CBB16138
收稿日期:
2016-06-27
接受日期:
2016-11-11
出版日期:
2017-07-01
发布日期:
2017-05-05
通讯作者:
胡建斌
作者简介:
# 共同第一作者
基金资助:
Yafeng Zhou, Yanbin Xu, Yanling Wang, Qiong Li, Jianbin Hu*
Received:
2016-06-27
Accepted:
2016-11-11
Online:
2017-07-01
Published:
2017-05-05
Contact:
Hu Jianbin
About author:
# Co-first authors
摘要: 为了构建甜瓜(Cucumis melo)种质耐冷性的评价体系并筛选耐冷种质, 以19份遗传背景差异明显的甜瓜种质为实验材料, 测定低温胁迫下幼苗的9个形态指标和8个生理指标, 利用主成分分析、聚类分析及回归分析等多元统计方法对各指标的耐冷系数(α值)进行综合评价。结果表明, 低温胁迫下甜瓜幼苗的形态和生理指标发生了明显的变化, 其α值的变异系数均大于10%, 生理指标的α值变化更为明显。利用主成分分析将原有的17个指标转换为7个独立的综合指标, 其累计贡献率达84.64%, 以此计算各种质的隶属函数值, 并以主成分的贡献率进行加权, 最终获得所有种质耐冷性的综合评价值(D值)。基于D值的聚类分析将所有种质按耐冷性强弱划分为3类, 其中Oujin为耐冷性最强的种质, Xujin1等11份种质具有中等耐冷性, Qiuxiang等7份种质耐冷性较弱。通过逐步回归分析建立了甜瓜幼苗耐冷性评价的数学模型: D=0.048+0.048POD- 0.119SOD+0.097PRO+0.042CRI+0.084RDW+0.206OFW。模型的预测精度大于93.0%。该耐冷性评价体系可广泛用于不同甜瓜种质耐冷性的快速鉴定和预测。
周亚峰, 许彦宾, 王艳玲, 李琼, 胡建斌. 基于主成分-聚类分析构建甜瓜幼苗耐冷性综合评价体系. 植物学报, 2017, 52(4): 520-529.
Yafeng Zhou, Yanbin Xu, Yanling Wang, Qiong Li, Jianbin Hu. Establishment of a Comprehensive Evaluation System for Chilling Tolerance in Melon Seedlings Based on Principal Component Analysis and Cluster Analysis. Chinese Bulletin of Botany, 2017, 52(4): 520-529.
No. | Accession | Subsp. | Origin | No. | Accession | Subsp. | Origin |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Qiuxiang | melo | Taiwan, China | 11 | Yangjiaomi | agrestis | Shandong, China |
2 | Xujin1 | melo | Shaanxi, China | 12 | Tianxiangjiao | agrestis | Liaoning, China |
3 | West | melo | Sweden | 13 | Hongzicui | agrestis | Henan, China |
4 | Thumb | melo | Gansu, China | 14 | Hamasu | agrestis | Liaoning, China |
5 | Jinfeng | melo | Henan, China | 15 | Mapao | agrestis | Henan, China |
6 | PI313973 | melo | Russian | 16 | Changxiuyu | agrestis | Shanghai, China |
7 | Nafl-Tukauie | melo | France | 17 | De Luneville | melo | France |
8 | Oujin | melo | Beijing, China | 18 | Sliver honey | melo | Korea |
9 | Xuanan1 | melo | Henan, China | 19 | Golden gem | melo | Korea |
10 | Hongchengcui | melo | Inner Mongolia, China |
表1 供试的19份甜瓜种质
Table 1 Nineteen melon germplasms used in this study
No. | Accession | Subsp. | Origin | No. | Accession | Subsp. | Origin |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Qiuxiang | melo | Taiwan, China | 11 | Yangjiaomi | agrestis | Shandong, China |
2 | Xujin1 | melo | Shaanxi, China | 12 | Tianxiangjiao | agrestis | Liaoning, China |
3 | West | melo | Sweden | 13 | Hongzicui | agrestis | Henan, China |
4 | Thumb | melo | Gansu, China | 14 | Hamasu | agrestis | Liaoning, China |
5 | Jinfeng | melo | Henan, China | 15 | Mapao | agrestis | Henan, China |
6 | PI313973 | melo | Russian | 16 | Changxiuyu | agrestis | Shanghai, China |
7 | Nafl-Tukauie | melo | France | 17 | De Luneville | melo | France |
8 | Oujin | melo | Beijing, China | 18 | Sliver honey | melo | Korea |
9 | Xuanan1 | melo | Henan, China | 19 | Golden gem | melo | Korea |
10 | Hongchengcui | melo | Inner Mongolia, China |
No. | CII | PLH | STD | LAG | PMG | ODW | OFW | RDW | RFW |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 0.289 | 0.714 | 0.878 | 0.428 | 0.750 | 0.906 | 0.850 | 1.737 | 1.278 |
2 | 0.324 | 0.711 | 0.964 | 0.815 | 0.665 | 0.543 | 0.826 | 1.803 | 1.456 |
3 | 0.231 | 0.537 | 0.849 | 0.947 | 0.800 | 0.872 | 0.833 | 1.336 | 1.440 |
4 | 0.306 | 0.846 | 0.825 | 0.259 | 0.489 | 0.566 | 0.780 | 1.164 | 1.223 |
5 | 0.425 | 0.849 | 0.778 | 0.446 | 0.514 | 0.559 | 0.624 | 1.152 | 1.099 |
6 | 0.432 | 0.723 | 1.146 | 0.702 | 0.973 | 0.632 | 0.786 | 1.955 | 1.960 |
7 | 0.283 | 0.843 | 0.902 | 0.884 | 0.497 | 0.626 | 0.739 | 1.111 | 1.410 |
8 | 0.237 | 0.885 | 1.142 | 0.525 | 0.818 | 0.787 | 0.837 | 1.722 | 1.364 |
9 | 0.416 | 0.936 | 0.888 | 0.558 | 0.777 | 0.822 | 0.818 | 1.802 | 1.200 |
10 | 0.317 | 0.820 | 1.213 | 0.725 | 0.703 | 0.724 | 0.812 | 1.117 | 1.236 |
11 | 0.561 | 0.890 | 0.882 | 0.440 | 0.595 | 0.529 | 0.658 | 1.217 | 1.031 |
12 | 0.323 | 0.942 | 0.838 | 0.620 | 0.612 | 0.679 | 0.840 | 1.116 | 1.410 |
13 | 0.241 | 0.838 | 0.911 | 0.953 | 0.546 | 0.453 | 0.536 | 1.351 | 1.277 |
14 | 0.237 | 0.999 | 1.070 | 0.732 | 0.517 | 0.654 | 0.724 | 1.478 | 1.160 |
15 | 0.612 | 0.967 | 0.896 | 0.791 | 0.618 | 0.825 | 0.672 | 1.188 | 1.303 |
16 | 0.325 | 0.799 | 0.877 | 0.682 | 0.612 | 0.679 | 0.714 | 1.450 | 1.365 |
17 | 0.276 | 0.949 | 0.904 | 0.393 | 0.902 | 0.738 | 0.833 | 1.110 | 1.594 |
18 | 0.372 | 0.821 | 0.803 | 0.711 | 0.569 | 0.544 | 0.811 | 1.364 | 1.008 |
19 | 0.327 | 0.817 | 0.765 | 0.712 | 0.486 | 0.557 | 0.761 | 1.418 | 1.156 |
CV | 0.307 | 0.132 | 0.139 | 0.298 | 0.223 | 0.194 | 0.114 | 0.199 | 0.169 |
表2 不同甜瓜种质幼苗的形态指标的耐冷系数α
Table 2 Chilling-resistance coefficient α value of morphological characters of 19 melon germplasm seedlings
No. | CII | PLH | STD | LAG | PMG | ODW | OFW | RDW | RFW |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 0.289 | 0.714 | 0.878 | 0.428 | 0.750 | 0.906 | 0.850 | 1.737 | 1.278 |
2 | 0.324 | 0.711 | 0.964 | 0.815 | 0.665 | 0.543 | 0.826 | 1.803 | 1.456 |
3 | 0.231 | 0.537 | 0.849 | 0.947 | 0.800 | 0.872 | 0.833 | 1.336 | 1.440 |
4 | 0.306 | 0.846 | 0.825 | 0.259 | 0.489 | 0.566 | 0.780 | 1.164 | 1.223 |
5 | 0.425 | 0.849 | 0.778 | 0.446 | 0.514 | 0.559 | 0.624 | 1.152 | 1.099 |
6 | 0.432 | 0.723 | 1.146 | 0.702 | 0.973 | 0.632 | 0.786 | 1.955 | 1.960 |
7 | 0.283 | 0.843 | 0.902 | 0.884 | 0.497 | 0.626 | 0.739 | 1.111 | 1.410 |
8 | 0.237 | 0.885 | 1.142 | 0.525 | 0.818 | 0.787 | 0.837 | 1.722 | 1.364 |
9 | 0.416 | 0.936 | 0.888 | 0.558 | 0.777 | 0.822 | 0.818 | 1.802 | 1.200 |
10 | 0.317 | 0.820 | 1.213 | 0.725 | 0.703 | 0.724 | 0.812 | 1.117 | 1.236 |
11 | 0.561 | 0.890 | 0.882 | 0.440 | 0.595 | 0.529 | 0.658 | 1.217 | 1.031 |
12 | 0.323 | 0.942 | 0.838 | 0.620 | 0.612 | 0.679 | 0.840 | 1.116 | 1.410 |
13 | 0.241 | 0.838 | 0.911 | 0.953 | 0.546 | 0.453 | 0.536 | 1.351 | 1.277 |
14 | 0.237 | 0.999 | 1.070 | 0.732 | 0.517 | 0.654 | 0.724 | 1.478 | 1.160 |
15 | 0.612 | 0.967 | 0.896 | 0.791 | 0.618 | 0.825 | 0.672 | 1.188 | 1.303 |
16 | 0.325 | 0.799 | 0.877 | 0.682 | 0.612 | 0.679 | 0.714 | 1.450 | 1.365 |
17 | 0.276 | 0.949 | 0.904 | 0.393 | 0.902 | 0.738 | 0.833 | 1.110 | 1.594 |
18 | 0.372 | 0.821 | 0.803 | 0.711 | 0.569 | 0.544 | 0.811 | 1.364 | 1.008 |
19 | 0.327 | 0.817 | 0.765 | 0.712 | 0.486 | 0.557 | 0.761 | 1.418 | 1.156 |
CV | 0.307 | 0.132 | 0.139 | 0.298 | 0.223 | 0.194 | 0.114 | 0.199 | 0.169 |
No. | CHL | REC | SPC | SSC | H2O2 | SOD | POD | PRO |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 0.658 | 1.085 | 2.201 | 1.257 | 1.804 | 1.831 | 1.226 | 3.267 |
2 | 0.932 | 1.208 | 1.067 | 1.340 | 1.010 | 0.937 | 0.739 | 3.491 |
3 | 0.749 | 1.045 | 1.022 | 1.013 | 1.114 | 1.242 | 2.200 | 1.386 |
4 | 0.928 | 1.211 | 1.005 | 1.005 | 1.856 | 1.020 | 1.960 | 3.627 |
5 | 0.686 | 1.009 | 1.081 | 0.987 | 1.308 | 1.552 | 1.127 | 1.127 |
6 | 0.823 | 1.032 | 1.034 | 0.819 | 1.069 | 0.501 | 0.575 | 3.145 |
7 | 0.892 | 1.281 | 1.001 | 1.088 | 1.152 | 1.054 | 1.508 | 3.350 |
8 | 0.909 | 1.048 | 1.750 | 1.869 | 1.034 | 0.919 | 2.875 | 4.712 |
9 | 0.756 | 1.052 | 1.004 | 1.112 | 1.427 | 1.086 | 2.351 | 2.614 |
10 | 0.763 | 1.042 | 1.262 | 1.551 | 1.046 | 0.753 | 1.260 | 3.821 |
11 | 0.833 | 1.046 | 1.248 | 1.157 | 1.268 | 1.494 | 1.591 | 2.096 |
12 | 0.818 | 1.169 | 1.084 | 1.254 | 1.214 | 0.957 | 1.800 | 1.416 |
13 | 0.739 | 1.028 | 1.067 | 1.152 | 1.075 | 1.182 | 1.537 | 2.851 |
14 | 0.879 | 1.128 | 1.376 | 1.145 | 1.481 | 1.779 | 1.456 | 2.039 |
15 | 0.779 | 1.069 | 1.112 | 1.229 | 1.729 | 1.348 | 0.619 | 2.772 |
16 | 0.809 | 1.061 | 1.088 | 0.849 | 1.614 | 1.736 | 2.242 | 1.680 |
17 | 0.646 | 1.079 | 1.031 | 1.292 | 1.866 | 1.048 | 1.214 | 1.439 |
18 | 0.747 | 1.163 | 1.726 | 1.383 | 1.843 | 1.242 | 3.302 | 1.417 |
19 | 0.821 | 1.037 | 1.115 | 1.202 | 1.824 | 0.701 | 1.232 | 3.003 |
CV | 0.108 | 0.270 | 0.265 | 0.202 | 0.234 | 0.315 | 0.450 | 0.392 |
表3 不同甜瓜种质幼苗的生理指标的耐冷系数α
Table 3 Chilling-resistance coefficient α value of physiological characters of 19 melon germplasm seedlings
No. | CHL | REC | SPC | SSC | H2O2 | SOD | POD | PRO |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 0.658 | 1.085 | 2.201 | 1.257 | 1.804 | 1.831 | 1.226 | 3.267 |
2 | 0.932 | 1.208 | 1.067 | 1.340 | 1.010 | 0.937 | 0.739 | 3.491 |
3 | 0.749 | 1.045 | 1.022 | 1.013 | 1.114 | 1.242 | 2.200 | 1.386 |
4 | 0.928 | 1.211 | 1.005 | 1.005 | 1.856 | 1.020 | 1.960 | 3.627 |
5 | 0.686 | 1.009 | 1.081 | 0.987 | 1.308 | 1.552 | 1.127 | 1.127 |
6 | 0.823 | 1.032 | 1.034 | 0.819 | 1.069 | 0.501 | 0.575 | 3.145 |
7 | 0.892 | 1.281 | 1.001 | 1.088 | 1.152 | 1.054 | 1.508 | 3.350 |
8 | 0.909 | 1.048 | 1.750 | 1.869 | 1.034 | 0.919 | 2.875 | 4.712 |
9 | 0.756 | 1.052 | 1.004 | 1.112 | 1.427 | 1.086 | 2.351 | 2.614 |
10 | 0.763 | 1.042 | 1.262 | 1.551 | 1.046 | 0.753 | 1.260 | 3.821 |
11 | 0.833 | 1.046 | 1.248 | 1.157 | 1.268 | 1.494 | 1.591 | 2.096 |
12 | 0.818 | 1.169 | 1.084 | 1.254 | 1.214 | 0.957 | 1.800 | 1.416 |
13 | 0.739 | 1.028 | 1.067 | 1.152 | 1.075 | 1.182 | 1.537 | 2.851 |
14 | 0.879 | 1.128 | 1.376 | 1.145 | 1.481 | 1.779 | 1.456 | 2.039 |
15 | 0.779 | 1.069 | 1.112 | 1.229 | 1.729 | 1.348 | 0.619 | 2.772 |
16 | 0.809 | 1.061 | 1.088 | 0.849 | 1.614 | 1.736 | 2.242 | 1.680 |
17 | 0.646 | 1.079 | 1.031 | 1.292 | 1.866 | 1.048 | 1.214 | 1.439 |
18 | 0.747 | 1.163 | 1.726 | 1.383 | 1.843 | 1.242 | 3.302 | 1.417 |
19 | 0.821 | 1.037 | 1.115 | 1.202 | 1.824 | 0.701 | 1.232 | 3.003 |
CV | 0.108 | 0.270 | 0.265 | 0.202 | 0.234 | 0.315 | 0.450 | 0.392 |
Principle components | CI1 | CI2 | CI3 | CI4 | CI5 | CI6 | CI7 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Eigen value | 3.531 | 2.687 | 2.199 | 1.964 | 1.499 | 1.295 | 1.015 |
Contributive ratio (%) | 20.77 | 15.80 | 12.93 | 11.55 | 8.82 | 7.62 | 7.15 |
Cumulative contributive ratio (%) | 20.77 | 36.58 | 49.51 | 61.06 | 69.88 | 77.50 | 84.64 |
PLH | -0.183 | 0.241 | 0.184 | -0.315 | -0.144 | -0.297 | -0.379 |
STD | 0.364 | 0.042 | 0.202 | -0.207 | 0.283 | 0.090 | -0.082 |
LAG | 0.001 | -0.263 | 0.183 | 0.521 | 0.042 | -0.061 | 0.223 |
PMG | 0.449 | 0.077 | -0.201 | 0.034 | -0.274 | -0.108 | 0.089 |
ODW | 0.272 | 0.146 | -0.482 | -0.054 | -0.055 | -0.136 | -0.179 |
OFW | 0.349 | 0.290 | -0.130 | 0.135 | -0.304 | 0.051 | 0.175 |
RDW | 0.268 | -0.013 | 0.073 | -0.322 | 0.412 | 0.159 | 0.344 |
RFW | 0.390 | -0.286 | 0.013 | 0.094 | -0.217 | -0.075 | -0.125 |
CII | 0.025 | 0.041 | -0.014 | 0.275 | 0.417 | -0.340 | 0.175 |
CHL | -0.208 | 0.253 | 0.185 | 0.195 | -0.322 | 0.246 | 0.342 |
REC | 0.082 | 0.256 | 0.260 | 0.331 | -0.109 | 0.316 | -0.367 |
SPC | -0.060 | 0.292 | -0.336 | -0.046 | 0.125 | 0.479 | 0.227 |
SSC | 0.025 | 0.476 | 0.041 | 0.130 | 0.219 | -0.182 | -0.096 |
H2O2 | -0.088 | 0.324 | 0.228 | -0.307 | -0.178 | -0.204 | 0.323 |
SOD | -0.290 | 0.017 | -0.452 | 0.096 | 0.179 | 0.203 | -0.253 |
POD | 0.056 | 0.350 | -0.009 | 0.326 | 0.247 | -0.288 | -0.016 |
PRO | 0.250 | 0.075 | 0.352 | 0.007 | 0.180 | 0.364 | -0.263 |
表4 甜瓜17个单项指标的主成分分析
Table 4 Principal component analysis of 17 single indexes of melon
Principle components | CI1 | CI2 | CI3 | CI4 | CI5 | CI6 | CI7 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Eigen value | 3.531 | 2.687 | 2.199 | 1.964 | 1.499 | 1.295 | 1.015 |
Contributive ratio (%) | 20.77 | 15.80 | 12.93 | 11.55 | 8.82 | 7.62 | 7.15 |
Cumulative contributive ratio (%) | 20.77 | 36.58 | 49.51 | 61.06 | 69.88 | 77.50 | 84.64 |
PLH | -0.183 | 0.241 | 0.184 | -0.315 | -0.144 | -0.297 | -0.379 |
STD | 0.364 | 0.042 | 0.202 | -0.207 | 0.283 | 0.090 | -0.082 |
LAG | 0.001 | -0.263 | 0.183 | 0.521 | 0.042 | -0.061 | 0.223 |
PMG | 0.449 | 0.077 | -0.201 | 0.034 | -0.274 | -0.108 | 0.089 |
ODW | 0.272 | 0.146 | -0.482 | -0.054 | -0.055 | -0.136 | -0.179 |
OFW | 0.349 | 0.290 | -0.130 | 0.135 | -0.304 | 0.051 | 0.175 |
RDW | 0.268 | -0.013 | 0.073 | -0.322 | 0.412 | 0.159 | 0.344 |
RFW | 0.390 | -0.286 | 0.013 | 0.094 | -0.217 | -0.075 | -0.125 |
CII | 0.025 | 0.041 | -0.014 | 0.275 | 0.417 | -0.340 | 0.175 |
CHL | -0.208 | 0.253 | 0.185 | 0.195 | -0.322 | 0.246 | 0.342 |
REC | 0.082 | 0.256 | 0.260 | 0.331 | -0.109 | 0.316 | -0.367 |
SPC | -0.060 | 0.292 | -0.336 | -0.046 | 0.125 | 0.479 | 0.227 |
SSC | 0.025 | 0.476 | 0.041 | 0.130 | 0.219 | -0.182 | -0.096 |
H2O2 | -0.088 | 0.324 | 0.228 | -0.307 | -0.178 | -0.204 | 0.323 |
SOD | -0.290 | 0.017 | -0.452 | 0.096 | 0.179 | 0.203 | -0.253 |
POD | 0.056 | 0.350 | -0.009 | 0.326 | 0.247 | -0.288 | -0.016 |
PRO | 0.250 | 0.075 | 0.352 | 0.007 | 0.180 | 0.364 | -0.263 |
No. | μ(X1) | μ(X2) | μ(X3) | μ(X4) | μ(X5) | μ(X6) | μ(X7) | D | CRI | Comprehensive evaluation |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 0.499 | 0.450 | 0.000 | 0.328 | 0.509 | 1.000 | 0.525 | 0.439 | 3.461 | S |
2 | 0.754 | 0.240 | 1.000 | 0.372 | 0.344 | 0.962 | 0.477 | 0.596 | 3.086 | M |
3 | 0.596 | 0.294 | 0.328 | 0.749 | 0.522 | 0.378 | 0.737 | 0.504 | 4.325 | M |
4 | 0.453 | 0.449 | 0.915 | 0.423 | 0.333 | 0.702 | 0.322 | 0.518 | 3.264 | M |
5 | 0.000 | 0.267 | 0.380 | 0.469 | 0.445 | 0.491 | 0.677 | 0.320 | 2.351 | S |
6 | 0.999 | 0.000 | 0.845 | 0.177 | 0.080 | 0.957 | 0.606 | 0.544 | 2.317 | M |
7 | 0.589 | 0.310 | 0.988 | 0.554 | 0.391 | 0.748 | 0.253 | 0.558 | 3.538 | M |
8 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.727 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 0.455 | 0.822 | 4.213 | R |
9 | 0.598 | 0.445 | 0.620 | 0.339 | 0.305 | 0.637 | 0.486 | 0.501 | 2.403 | M |
10 | 0.986 | 0.602 | 0.881 | 0.000 | 0.574 | 0.867 | 1.000 | 0.774 | 3.153 | M |
11 | 0.055 | 0.320 | 0.497 | 0.291 | 0.193 | 0.944 | 0.144 | 0.302 | 1.781 | S |
12 | 0.386 | 0.392 | 0.620 | 0.498 | 0.211 | 0.559 | 0.504 | 0.445 | 3.092 | S |
13 | 0.400 | 0.243 | 0.811 | 0.491 | 0.670 | 0.590 | 0.791 | 0.524 | 4.149 | M |
14 | 0.334 | 0.447 | 0.606 | 0.417 | 0.479 | 0.581 | 0.761 | 0.481 | 4.226 | M |
15 | 0.323 | 0.254 | 0.485 | 0.087 | 0.000 | 0.994 | 0.000 | 0.306 | 1.633 | S |
16 | 0.352 | 0.286 | 0.288 | 0.554 | 0.408 | 0.660 | 0.344 | 0.391 | 3.074 | S |
17 | 0.515 | 0.356 | 0.538 | 0.390 | 0.207 | 0.478 | 0.556 | 0.440 | 3.618 | S |
18 | 0.143 | 0.760 | 0.585 | 0.649 | 0.330 | 0.693 | 0.932 | 0.530 | 2.687 | M |
19 | 0.386 | 0.331 | 0.885 | 0.312 | 0.257 | 0.655 | 0.779 | 0.486 | 3.054 | M |
W | 0.245 | 0.187 | 0.153 | 0.136 | 0.104 | 0.090 | 0.084 |
表5 19份甜瓜种质的μ(X)、权重(W)、D值及综合评价
Table 5 The μ(X), index weight (W), and D value for each accession and their comprehensive evaluation of 19 melon germplasms
No. | μ(X1) | μ(X2) | μ(X3) | μ(X4) | μ(X5) | μ(X6) | μ(X7) | D | CRI | Comprehensive evaluation |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 0.499 | 0.450 | 0.000 | 0.328 | 0.509 | 1.000 | 0.525 | 0.439 | 3.461 | S |
2 | 0.754 | 0.240 | 1.000 | 0.372 | 0.344 | 0.962 | 0.477 | 0.596 | 3.086 | M |
3 | 0.596 | 0.294 | 0.328 | 0.749 | 0.522 | 0.378 | 0.737 | 0.504 | 4.325 | M |
4 | 0.453 | 0.449 | 0.915 | 0.423 | 0.333 | 0.702 | 0.322 | 0.518 | 3.264 | M |
5 | 0.000 | 0.267 | 0.380 | 0.469 | 0.445 | 0.491 | 0.677 | 0.320 | 2.351 | S |
6 | 0.999 | 0.000 | 0.845 | 0.177 | 0.080 | 0.957 | 0.606 | 0.544 | 2.317 | M |
7 | 0.589 | 0.310 | 0.988 | 0.554 | 0.391 | 0.748 | 0.253 | 0.558 | 3.538 | M |
8 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.727 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 0.455 | 0.822 | 4.213 | R |
9 | 0.598 | 0.445 | 0.620 | 0.339 | 0.305 | 0.637 | 0.486 | 0.501 | 2.403 | M |
10 | 0.986 | 0.602 | 0.881 | 0.000 | 0.574 | 0.867 | 1.000 | 0.774 | 3.153 | M |
11 | 0.055 | 0.320 | 0.497 | 0.291 | 0.193 | 0.944 | 0.144 | 0.302 | 1.781 | S |
12 | 0.386 | 0.392 | 0.620 | 0.498 | 0.211 | 0.559 | 0.504 | 0.445 | 3.092 | S |
13 | 0.400 | 0.243 | 0.811 | 0.491 | 0.670 | 0.590 | 0.791 | 0.524 | 4.149 | M |
14 | 0.334 | 0.447 | 0.606 | 0.417 | 0.479 | 0.581 | 0.761 | 0.481 | 4.226 | M |
15 | 0.323 | 0.254 | 0.485 | 0.087 | 0.000 | 0.994 | 0.000 | 0.306 | 1.633 | S |
16 | 0.352 | 0.286 | 0.288 | 0.554 | 0.408 | 0.660 | 0.344 | 0.391 | 3.074 | S |
17 | 0.515 | 0.356 | 0.538 | 0.390 | 0.207 | 0.478 | 0.556 | 0.440 | 3.618 | S |
18 | 0.143 | 0.760 | 0.585 | 0.649 | 0.330 | 0.693 | 0.932 | 0.530 | 2.687 | M |
19 | 0.386 | 0.331 | 0.885 | 0.312 | 0.257 | 0.655 | 0.779 | 0.486 | 3.054 | M |
W | 0.245 | 0.187 | 0.153 | 0.136 | 0.104 | 0.090 | 0.084 |
No. | Primary value | Regression | Difference | Evaluation accuracy (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 0.439 | 0.442 | -0.003 | 99.31 |
2 | 0.596 | 0.576 | 0.020 | 96.68 |
3 | 0.504 | 0.502 | 0.002 | 99.53 |
4 | 0.518 | 0.553 | -0.035 | 93.63 |
5 | 0.320 | 0.333 | -0.013 | 95.97 |
6 | 0.544 | 0.526 | 0.018 | 96.76 |
7 | 0.558 | 0.537 | 0.021 | 96.20 |
8 | 0.822 | 0.825 | -0.003 | 99.63 |
9 | 0.501 | 0.523 | -0.022 | 95.85 |
10 | 0.674 | 0.685 | -0.011 | 98.33 |
11 | 0.306 | 0.315 | -0.009 | 97.15 |
12 | 0.445 | 0.451 | -0.006 | 98.60 |
13 | 0.524 | 0.512 | 0.012 | 97.67 |
14 | 0.481 | 0.478 | 0.003 | 99.45 |
15 | 0.302 | 0.300 | 0.002 | 99.40 |
16 | 0.391 | 0.388 | 0.003 | 99.17 |
17 | 0.440 | 0.432 | 0.008 | 98.14 |
18 | 0.530 | 0.493 | 0.037 | 93.02 |
19 | 0.486 | 0.509 | -0.023 | 95.50 |
表6 19份甜瓜种质耐冷性评价回归方程的预测精度分析
Table 6 Analysis of forecast accuracy of the chilling tole- rance regression equation of 19 melon germplasms
No. | Primary value | Regression | Difference | Evaluation accuracy (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 0.439 | 0.442 | -0.003 | 99.31 |
2 | 0.596 | 0.576 | 0.020 | 96.68 |
3 | 0.504 | 0.502 | 0.002 | 99.53 |
4 | 0.518 | 0.553 | -0.035 | 93.63 |
5 | 0.320 | 0.333 | -0.013 | 95.97 |
6 | 0.544 | 0.526 | 0.018 | 96.76 |
7 | 0.558 | 0.537 | 0.021 | 96.20 |
8 | 0.822 | 0.825 | -0.003 | 99.63 |
9 | 0.501 | 0.523 | -0.022 | 95.85 |
10 | 0.674 | 0.685 | -0.011 | 98.33 |
11 | 0.306 | 0.315 | -0.009 | 97.15 |
12 | 0.445 | 0.451 | -0.006 | 98.60 |
13 | 0.524 | 0.512 | 0.012 | 97.67 |
14 | 0.481 | 0.478 | 0.003 | 99.45 |
15 | 0.302 | 0.300 | 0.002 | 99.40 |
16 | 0.391 | 0.388 | 0.003 | 99.17 |
17 | 0.440 | 0.432 | 0.008 | 98.14 |
18 | 0.530 | 0.493 | 0.037 | 93.02 |
19 | 0.486 | 0.509 | -0.023 | 95.50 |
Cluster | Average of each index | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
POD (U∙g-1∙ min-1) | SOD (U∙g-1∙ h-1) | PRO (μg∙g-1) | CRI | RDW (g) | OFW (g) | |
Cluster I | 10.057 | 53.765 | 29.203 | 4.213 | 0.033 | 1.308 |
Cluster II | 20.719 | 69.113 | 14.084 | 3.286 | 0.034 | 1.435 |
Cluster III | 14.148 | 56.713 | 12.307 | 2.666 | 0.022 | 1.106 |
表7 19份甜瓜种质耐冷性聚类图中各类别表现特征
Table 7 Description of each cluster in the chilling tolerance dendrogram of 19 melon germplasms
Cluster | Average of each index | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
POD (U∙g-1∙ min-1) | SOD (U∙g-1∙ h-1) | PRO (μg∙g-1) | CRI | RDW (g) | OFW (g) | |
Cluster I | 10.057 | 53.765 | 29.203 | 4.213 | 0.033 | 1.308 |
Cluster II | 20.719 | 69.113 | 14.084 | 3.286 | 0.034 | 1.435 |
Cluster III | 14.148 | 56.713 | 12.307 | 2.666 | 0.022 | 1.106 |
[1] | 高山, 钟开勒, 许端详, 林碧英, 陈中钐, 钟凤林 (2014). 不同基因型苦瓜幼苗耐低温弱光综合评价及鉴定指标筛选. 热带作物学报 35, 2191-2198. |
[2] | 和红云, 薛琳, 田丽萍, 陈远良 (2008). 低温胁迫对甜瓜幼苗根系活力及渗透调节物质的影响. 石河子大学学报(自然科学版) 26, 583-586. |
[3] | 胡建斌, 马双武, 王吉明, 苏艳, 李琼 (2013). 基于表型性状的甜瓜核心种质构建. 果树学报 30, 404-411. |
[4] | 黄锡志, 李红斌, 吕晓菡, 张跃建, 苗立祥 (2013). 不同厚皮甜瓜品种幼苗对低温胁迫的响应差异研究. 中国园艺文摘 29, 14-16. |
[5] | 李合生 (2000). 植物生理生化实验原理和技术. 北京: 高等教育出版社. pp. 119-261. |
[6] | 李琦, 别之龙, 牛蒙亮, 刘志雄, 张朝霞 (2011). 不同低温处理对甜瓜幼苗生长和根系生理特性的影响. 长江蔬菜 24, 25-29. |
[7] | 林德佩 (2010). 中国栽培甜瓜植物的起源、分类及进化. 中国瓜菜 23, 34-36. |
[8] | 龙海涛, 李丽梅, 谢泽虹, 刘帅, 李晓云, 邓斌, 刘海燕, 李玲 (2015). 综合隶属函数法评价花生品种抗旱性与AhNCED1基因表达的关系. 植物学报 50, 706-712. |
[9] | 逯明辉, 娄群峰, 陈劲枫 (2004). 黄瓜的冷害及耐冷性. 植物学报 21, 578-586. |
[10] | 苗永美, 高青海, 戈应祥, 居文军, 杨海林, 王万洋 (2013). 甜瓜耐低温鉴定指标的研究. 安徽科技学院学报 27, 39-44. |
[11] | 任军, 黄志霖, 曾立雄, 施征 (2013). 低温胁迫下植物生理反应机理研究进展. 世界林业研究 26, 15-20. |
[12] | 孙玉宏, 徐跃进, 彭金光, 周谟兵, 李煜华, 李爱成, 毛巧云 (2004). 甜瓜耐冷性鉴定指标的筛选. 中国蔬菜 41, 7-10. |
[13] | 王贺正, 李艳, 马均, 张荣萍, 李旭毅, 汪仁全 (2007). 水稻苗期抗旱性指标的筛选. 作物学报 33, 1523-1529. |
[14] | 王加蓬, 蔡焕杰, 王健, 陈新明 (2009). 温室膜下滴灌甜瓜初花期叶面积动态变化与增长模型研究. 节水灌溉 1, 27-30. |
[15] | 王军, 周美学, 许如根, 吕超, 黄祖六 (2007). 大麦耐湿性鉴定指标和评价方法研究.中国农业科学 40, 2145-2152. |
[16] | 吴梅梅, 张显, 郑俊鶱, 杨小振 (2014). 西瓜甜瓜抗寒性研究进展. 中国瓜菜 27, 1-5. |
[17] | 武雁军, 刘建辉 (2007). 低温胁迫对厚皮甜瓜幼苗抗寒性生理生化指标的影响. 西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版) 35, 139-143. |
[18] | 谢志坚 (1983). 农业科学中的模糊数学方法 . 武汉: 华中理工大学出版社. pp. 99-193. |
[19] | 徐小军, 张桂兰, 周亚峰, 邢燕, 胡建斌, 王盼乔 (2015). 甜瓜幼苗耐冷性相关生理指标的综合评价. 果树学报 32, 1187-1194. |
[20] | 周峰 (2012). 甜瓜耐低温、耐弱光鉴定方法和鉴定指标研究. 硕士论文. 扬州: 扬州大学. pp. 23-28. |
[21] | 周广生, 梅方竹, 周竹青, 朱旭彤 (2003). 小麦不同品种耐湿性生理指标综合评价及其预测. 中国农业科学 36, 1378-1382. |
[22] | 庄飞云, 陈劲枫, 钱春桃, 李式军, 任刚, 王志军 (2002). 甜瓜属种间杂交新种及其后代对低温的适应性反应. 南京农业大学学报 25, 27-30. |
[23] | Kerje T, Grum M (2000). The origin of melon,Cucumis melo: a review of the literature. ISHS Acta Hort 510, 37-44. |
[24] | Korkmaz A, Dufault RJ (2001). Developmental consequen- ces of cold temperature stress at transplanting on seedling and field growth and yield. II. Muskmelon.J Amer Soc Hortic Sci 126, 410-413. |
[25] | Korkmaz A, Uzunlu M, Demirkiran AR (2007). Acetyl salicylic acid alleviates chilling-induced damage in muskmelon seedlings.Can J Plant Sci 87, 581-585. |
[26] | Pitrat M (2008). Melon. In: Prohens J, Nuez F, eds. Hand- book of Plant Breeding, Vol. 1.New York:Springer. pp. 283-315. |
No related articles found! |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||