Chinese Bulletin of Botany ›› 2018, Vol. 53 ›› Issue (1): 51-58.DOI: 10.11983/CBB17015
• EXPERIMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS • Previous Articles Next Articles
Shuhua Guo, Heng Zhai, Ning Han, Yuanpeng Du*()
Received:
2017-01-19
Accepted:
2017-03-06
Online:
2018-01-01
Published:
2018-08-10
Contact:
Yuanpeng Du
Shuhua Guo, Heng Zhai, Ning Han, Yuanpeng Du. Evaluation on Alkaline Salt Tolerance of Grape F1 Generation Hybrids[J]. Chinese Bulletin of Botany, 2018, 53(1): 51-58.
Figure 1 The growth of grape seedlings after alkaline salt treatment(A1)-(H1) Represent the growth of the controls of A11, A14, A15, A17, B24, B26, Crimson and 1103P; (A2)-(H2) Represent the growth of A11, A14, A15, A17, B24, B26, Crimson, and 1103P after 8-day NaHCO3 treatment.
Figure 2 The effect of alkaline salt stress on the plant growth of different grape strains(A) Plant height; (B) Leaf water content; (C) Plant water content. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences at P<0.05 level.
Figure 3 The effect of alkaline salt stress on the root activity of different grape strainsDifferent lowercase letters indicate significant differences at P<0.05 level.
Figure 4 The effect of alkaline salt stress on the leaf malondial- dehyde (MDA) content (A) and electrical conductivity (B) of different grape strains Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences at P<0.05 level.
Figure 5 The effect of alkaline salt stress on the leaf soluble sugar (A) and free proline content (B) of different grape strains Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences at P<0.05 level.
Strain | X1 | X2 | X3 | X4 | X5 | X6 | X7 | X8 | X9 | X10 | X11 | X12 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A11 | 0.17 | 1.48 | 1.84 | 0.35 | 0.92 | 1.07 | 1.01 | 0.94 | 0.93 | 0.92 | 1.51 | 1.63 |
A14 | 0.32 | 1.93 | 1.40 | 0.75 | 0.89 | 1.09 | 0.79 | 0.81 | 0.97 | 0.91 | 1.85 | 1.99 |
A15 | 0.60 | 1.29 | 1.53 | 0.72 | 0.97 | 1.06 | 1.01 | 0.92 | 0.93 | 0.91 | 1.97 | 2.34 |
A17 | 0.17 | 1.22 | 1.46 | 0.27 | 0.84 | 1.00 | 1.03 | 0.93 | 0.92 | 0.94 | 1.62 | 1.11 |
B24 | 0.19 | 1.69 | 1.21 | 0.31 | 0.99 | 1.06 | 1.05 | 0.93 | 0.93 | 0.94 | 1.75 | 1.91 |
B26 | 0.43 | 1.06 | 1.41 | 0.57 | 0.72 | 0.68 | 0.73 | 1.00 | 0.98 | 0.94 | 1.13 | 2.00 |
Crimson | 0.36 | 1.59 | 1.42 | 0.40 | 0.96 | 1.11 | 1.14 | 0.95 | 0.96 | 0.99 | 1.67 | 1.43 |
1103P | 0.34 | 1.31 | 1.20 | 0.57 | 0.85 | 0.86 | 0.92 | 0.99 | 0.93 | 0.91 | 1.93 | 2.00 |
Table 1 Alkali resistance coefficient of each grape strain under 100 mmol∙L-1 NaHCO3 treatment
Strain | X1 | X2 | X3 | X4 | X5 | X6 | X7 | X8 | X9 | X10 | X11 | X12 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A11 | 0.17 | 1.48 | 1.84 | 0.35 | 0.92 | 1.07 | 1.01 | 0.94 | 0.93 | 0.92 | 1.51 | 1.63 |
A14 | 0.32 | 1.93 | 1.40 | 0.75 | 0.89 | 1.09 | 0.79 | 0.81 | 0.97 | 0.91 | 1.85 | 1.99 |
A15 | 0.60 | 1.29 | 1.53 | 0.72 | 0.97 | 1.06 | 1.01 | 0.92 | 0.93 | 0.91 | 1.97 | 2.34 |
A17 | 0.17 | 1.22 | 1.46 | 0.27 | 0.84 | 1.00 | 1.03 | 0.93 | 0.92 | 0.94 | 1.62 | 1.11 |
B24 | 0.19 | 1.69 | 1.21 | 0.31 | 0.99 | 1.06 | 1.05 | 0.93 | 0.93 | 0.94 | 1.75 | 1.91 |
B26 | 0.43 | 1.06 | 1.41 | 0.57 | 0.72 | 0.68 | 0.73 | 1.00 | 0.98 | 0.94 | 1.13 | 2.00 |
Crimson | 0.36 | 1.59 | 1.42 | 0.40 | 0.96 | 1.11 | 1.14 | 0.95 | 0.96 | 0.99 | 1.67 | 1.43 |
1103P | 0.34 | 1.31 | 1.20 | 0.57 | 0.85 | 0.86 | 0.92 | 0.99 | 0.93 | 0.91 | 1.93 | 2.00 |
X1 | X2 | X3 | X4 | X5 | X6 | X7 | X8 | X9 | X10 | X11 | X12 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
X1 | 1 | |||||||||||
X2 | -0.293 | 1 | ||||||||||
X3 | -0.08 | -0.099 | 1 | |||||||||
X4 | 0.769* | 0.099 | -0.109 | 1 | ||||||||
X5 | -0.047 | 0.6 | 0.069 | -0.138 | 1 | |||||||
X6 | -0.227 | 0.715* | 0.272 | -0.155 | 0.877** | 1 | ||||||
X7 | -0.241 | -0.139 | 0.128 | -0.607 | 0.749* | 0.667 | 1 | |||||
X8 | 0.089 | -0.774* | -0.109 | -0.351 | -0.375 | -0.651 | 0.098 | 1 | ||||
X9 | 0.337 | 0.148 | -0.101 | 0.463 | -0.439 | -0.347 | -0.621 | -0.121 | 1 | |||
X10 | -0.137 | 0.014 | -0.097 | -0.529 | 0.11 | 0.116 | 0.488 | 0.285 | 0.262 | 1 | ||
X11 | 0.18 | 0.445 | -0.287 | 0.318 | 0.658 | 0.586 | 0.358 | -0.4443 | -0.471 | -0.359 | 1 | |
X12 | 0.684 | 0.035 | -0.206 | 0.779* | 0.065 | -0.219 | -0.458 | -0.072 | -0.215 | -0.581 | 0.285 | 1 |
Table 2 Correlation matrix of every single index under 100 mmol∙L-1 NaHCO3 stress
X1 | X2 | X3 | X4 | X5 | X6 | X7 | X8 | X9 | X10 | X11 | X12 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
X1 | 1 | |||||||||||
X2 | -0.293 | 1 | ||||||||||
X3 | -0.08 | -0.099 | 1 | |||||||||
X4 | 0.769* | 0.099 | -0.109 | 1 | ||||||||
X5 | -0.047 | 0.6 | 0.069 | -0.138 | 1 | |||||||
X6 | -0.227 | 0.715* | 0.272 | -0.155 | 0.877** | 1 | ||||||
X7 | -0.241 | -0.139 | 0.128 | -0.607 | 0.749* | 0.667 | 1 | |||||
X8 | 0.089 | -0.774* | -0.109 | -0.351 | -0.375 | -0.651 | 0.098 | 1 | ||||
X9 | 0.337 | 0.148 | -0.101 | 0.463 | -0.439 | -0.347 | -0.621 | -0.121 | 1 | |||
X10 | -0.137 | 0.014 | -0.097 | -0.529 | 0.11 | 0.116 | 0.488 | 0.285 | 0.262 | 1 | ||
X11 | 0.18 | 0.445 | -0.287 | 0.318 | 0.658 | 0.586 | 0.358 | -0.4443 | -0.471 | -0.359 | 1 | |
X12 | 0.684 | 0.035 | -0.206 | 0.779* | 0.065 | -0.219 | -0.458 | -0.072 | -0.215 | -0.581 | 0.285 | 1 |
Index | A11 | A14 | A15 | A17 | B24 | B26 | Crimson | 1103P |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CI1 | 1.78 | 1.65 | 1.43 | 1.79 | 1.86 | 0.72 | 1.92 | 1.36 |
CI2 | 1.49 | 2.34 | 2.34 | 1.17 | 1.84 | 1.53 | 1.60 | 1.96 |
CI3 | -0.02 | -0.08 | 0.39 | 0.04 | 0.07 | 0.13 | 0.02 | 0.30 |
CI4 | 0.63 | 0.84 | 0.90 | 0.72 | 0.91 | 0.79 | 0.89 | 0.91 |
CI5 | 1.20 | 0.96 | 1.20 | 1.00 | 0.86 | 1.11 | 1.06 | 0.89 |
D value | 2.65 | 2.89 | 2.79 | 2.52 | 2.91 | 1.65 | 2.66 | 2.51 |
Alkali resistance evaluation | Middle | Strong | Strong | Middle | Strong | Weak | Middle | Weak |
Table 3 Comprehensive index value, D value and comprehensive evaluation of different grape strains under 100 mmol∙L-1 NaHCO3 stress
Index | A11 | A14 | A15 | A17 | B24 | B26 | Crimson | 1103P |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CI1 | 1.78 | 1.65 | 1.43 | 1.79 | 1.86 | 0.72 | 1.92 | 1.36 |
CI2 | 1.49 | 2.34 | 2.34 | 1.17 | 1.84 | 1.53 | 1.60 | 1.96 |
CI3 | -0.02 | -0.08 | 0.39 | 0.04 | 0.07 | 0.13 | 0.02 | 0.30 |
CI4 | 0.63 | 0.84 | 0.90 | 0.72 | 0.91 | 0.79 | 0.89 | 0.91 |
CI5 | 1.20 | 0.96 | 1.20 | 1.00 | 0.86 | 1.11 | 1.06 | 0.89 |
D value | 2.65 | 2.89 | 2.79 | 2.52 | 2.91 | 1.65 | 2.66 | 2.51 |
Alkali resistance evaluation | Middle | Strong | Strong | Middle | Strong | Weak | Middle | Weak |
[1] | 陈少裕 (1991). 膜脂过氧化对植物细胞的伤害. 植物生理学通讯 27, 84-90. |
[2] | 樊秀彩, 张亚冰, 刘崇怀, 潘兴, 郭景南, 李民, 王姣 (2007). NaCl胁迫对葡萄幼苗叶片有机渗透调节物质和膜脂过氧化的影响. 果树学报 24, 765-769. |
[3] | 郭瑞, 李峰, 周际, 李昊儒, 夏旭, 刘琪 (2016). 亚麻响应盐、碱胁迫的生理特征. 植物生态学报 40, 69-79. |
[4] | 马凯, 汪良驹, 王业遴, 姜卫兵, 顾平 (1997). 十八种果树盐害症状与耐盐性研究. 果树科学 14, 1-5. |
[5] | 秦红艳, 沈育杰, 艾军, 李昌禹, 王振兴, 杨义明, 范书田 (2010). 盐胁迫对不同葡萄品种叶片中叶绿素荧光参数的影响. 中外葡萄与葡萄酒 (5), 35-38. |
[6] | 石德成 (1992). 胁迫下植物的胁变反应及数学分析. 植物学报 34, 386-393. |
[7] | 石德成, 盛艳敏, 赵可夫 (1998). 不同盐浓度的混合盐对羊草苗的胁迫效应. 植物学报 40, 1136-1142. |
[8] | 王海英, 孙建设, 王旭静 (2000). 果树耐盐性研究进展. 河北农业大学学报 23(2), 54-58. |
[9] | 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. |
[10] | 武维华 (2008).植物生理学(第2版). 北京: 科学技术出版社. pp. 448-449. |
[11] | 许兰杰, 梁慧珍, 余永亮, 杨红旗, 董薇, 牛永光, 芦海灵, 曹杰, 吕爱淑 (2016). 盐碱胁迫下芝麻种子萌发过程中营养物质的动态变化规律. 河南农业科学 45(4), 43-48. |
[12] | 张宪政 (1989). 植物生理学实验技术. 沈阳: 辽宁科学技术出版社. pp. 329-330. |
[13] | 赵世杰, 史国安, 董新纯 (2002).植物生理学实验指导. 北京: 中国农业科学技术出版社. pp. 45-48, 55-57, 84-85, 130-133, 142-143. |
[14] | 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. |
[15] | 周万海, 师希雄, 曹孜义 (2009). 盐胁迫对不同葡萄砧木苗期生长特性的影响. 甘肃农业大学学报 44, 60-63. |
[16] | Carroll B (2006). Rootstocks for grape production. In: Division of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources. Stillwater: Oklahoma State University. HLA-6253-4. |
[17] | Mehanna HT, Fayed TA, Rashedy AA (2010). Response of two grapevine rootstocks to some salt tolerance treatments under saline water conditions.J Hortic Sci Ornament Plants 2, 93-106. |
[18] | Verma SK, Singh SK, Krishna H (2010). The effect of certain rootstocks on the grape cultivar ‘Pusa Urvashi’ ( Vitis vinifera L.). Int J Fruit Sci 10, 16-28. |
[19] | Yang CW, Shi DC, Wang DL (2008). Comparative effects of salt and alkali stresses on growth, osmotic adjustment and ionic balance of an alkali-resistant halophyte Suaeda glauca(Bge.). Plant Growth Regul 56, 179-190. |
[1] | Hao Wang, Ming Wang, Ting Liang, Yuxin Yao, Yuanpeng Du, Zhen Gao. Effects of High Air and Root Zone Temperature on Photosynthetic Fluorescence Characteristics of Grape Leaves [J]. Chinese Bulletin of Botany, 2022, 57(2): 209-216. |
[2] | Xiaolong Wang,Fengzhi Liu,Xiangbin Shi,Xiaodi Wang,Xiaohao Ji,Zhiqiang Wang,Baoliang Wang,Xiaocui Zheng,Haibo Wang. Evolution and Expression of NCED Family Genes in Vitis vinifera [J]. Chinese Bulletin of Botany, 2019, 54(4): 474-485. |
[3] | Shuhua Guo, Yongjiang Sun, Yanjie Niu, Ning Han, Heng Zhai, Yuanpeng Du. Effect of Alkaline Salt Stress on Photosystem Activity of Grape F1 Generation Hybrids [J]. Chinese Bulletin of Botany, 2018, 53(2): 196-202. |
[4] | Fu Qingqing, Sun Lulong, Zhai Heng, Du Yuanpeng. Salt Tolerant Evaluation of F1-generation Hybrids in Grape [J]. Chinese Bulletin of Botany, 2017, 52(6): 733-742. |
[5] | Lulong Sun, Wei Song, Yuanpeng Du, Heng Zhai. Application of Photochemical Reflectance Index in Comparing Frost Resistance of Grapevine Cultivars [J]. Chinese Bulletin of Botany, 2017, 52(5): 543-549. |
[6] | Lulong Sun, Qingwei Geng, Hao Xing, Yuanpeng Du, Heng Zhai. Effects of Buffered Cooling in Root Zone on Frost Injury in Grape Leaf [J]. Chinese Bulletin of Botany, 2017, 52(3): 290-296. |
[7] | Lulong Sun, Qingwei Geng, Hao Xing, Yuanpeng Du, Heng Zhai. Effect of Low Temperature Treatments in Root of Grapevine on PSII Activity in Leaves [J]. Chinese Bulletin of Botany, 2017, 52(2): 159-166. |
[8] | ;SHI Li-Li DONG Qiu-Hong WANG Shi-Ping②. Residue of Streptomycin in Berry and the Effect of Expanding Residue of Streptomycin in Berry and the Effect of Expanding [J]. Chinese Bulletin of Botany, 2004, 21(04): 437-443. |
[9] | WANG Li-Jun ZHAN Ji-Cheng HUANG Wei-Dong. Preliminary Study on Signal Transduction Related with Salicylic acid During Heat Acclimation to Young Grape Plants [J]. Chinese Bulletin of Botany, 2002, 19(06): 710-715. |
[10] | Zhang Da-peng, Jiang Hong-ying, Chen Xing-li, Lou Cheng-hou. Regulating Effects of Canopy light (PAR) interception and Distribution on Photosynthate [J]. Chin J Plan Ecolo, 1995, 19(4): 302-310. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||