Effects of Salt Stress on Fluorescence Characteristics of Wheat Seedlings and Comprehensive Evaluation

doi:10.11923/j.issn.2095-4050.cjas2022-0001

Abstract

Abstract:

To explore the salt tolerance of four wheat materials (‘Jimai 32’, ‘Tainong 18’, ‘Dekang 961’, ‘Shiluan 02-1’) at the seedling stage and screen out excellent germplasm resources with high stress resistance, water culture experiment was used in this research, NaCl stress concentrations were set as 0, 100, and 200 mmol/L, and the growth characteristics, photosynthetic characteristics, chlorophyll fluorescence parameters, malondialdehyde (MDA) content, and proline content were measured. The four wheat materials were evaluated by principal component analysis and membership function analysis for salt tolerance. The results showed that with the increase of salt concentration, leaf fresh weight, root fresh weight, total root length, total root surface area, total root volume, net photosynthetic rate (Pn), transpiration rate (Tr), stomatal conductance (Gs), photosystem Ⅱ maximum photosynthetic efficiency (Fv/Fm), photosystem Ⅱ actual photosynthesis efficiency (ΦPSⅡ) and photochemical quenching (qP) of each variety decreased in varying degrees compared with those of the control, while root average diameter, intercellular CO₂ concentration (Ci), malondialdehyde (MDA) concentration, non-photochemical quenching (NPQ) and proline content increased in varying degrees. The salt tolerance of the 4 varieties from strong to weak was ‘Jimai 32’> ‘Dekang 961’>‘Tainong 18’>‘Shiluan 02-1’. According to the multi-trait index of salt tolerance, ‘Jimai 32’ and ‘Dekang 961’ were screened to have high salt tolerance.

Key words: salt stress, wheat, fluorescence characteristics, principal component analysis, membership function method

SUN Qin, XU Xuexin, DENG Xiao, ZHU Zixin, ZHANG Yulu, GAO Guolong, GAI Hongmei, ZHAO Changxing. Effects of Salt Stress on Fluorescence Characteristics of Wheat Seedlings and Comprehensive Evaluation[J]. Journal of Agriculture, 2022, 12(6): 5-13.

Figures/Tables 7

References 37

[1]	豆昕桐, 王英杰, 王华忠, 等. 两个小麦品种对NaCl胁迫的生理响应及耐盐性差异[J]. 生态学报, 2021, 41(12):4976-4992.
[2]	REN Y, WANG W, HE J, et al. Nitric oxide alleviates salt stress in seed germination and early seedling growth of pakchoi (Brassica chinensis L.) by enhancing physiological and biochemical parameters[J]. Ecotoxicology and environmental safety, 2020, 187:109785-109797. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2019.109785 URL
[3]	LATEF A A. Changes of antioxidative enzymes in salinity tolerance among different wheat cultivars[J]. Cereal research communications, 2010, 38(1):43-55. doi: 10.1556/CRC.38.2010.1.5 URL
[4]	ZEESHAN M, LU M, SEHAR S, et al. Comparison of biochemical, anatomical, morphological, and physiological responses to salinity stress in wheat and barley genotypes deferring in salinity tolerance[J]. Agronomy, 2020, 10(1):127-137. doi: 10.3390/agronomy10010127 URL
[5]	丁海荣, 洪立洲, 杨智青, 等. 盐碱地及其生物措施改良研究现状[J]. 现代农业科技, 2010(6): 3:299-302.
[6]	FILIPPOU P, ANTONIOU C, OBATA T, et al. Kresoxim-methyl primes Medicago truncatula plants against abiotic stress factors via altered reactive oxygen and nitrogen species signalling leading to downstream transcriptional and metabolic readjustment[J]. Journal of experimental botany, 2016, 67(5):1259-1274. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erv516 URL
[7]	MUNNS R, TESTER M. Mechanisms of salinity tolerance[J]. Annual review of plant biology, 2008, 59:651-681. doi: 10.1146/annurev.arplant.59.032607.092911 URL
[8]	裴自友, 温辉芹, 任永康, 等. 小麦的耐盐性及其改良研究进展[J]. 作物研究, 2012, 26(1):93-98.
[9]	李泽, 谭晓风, 卢锟, 等. 干旱胁迫对两种油桐幼苗生长、气体交换及叶绿素荧光参数的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2017, 37(5):1515-1524.
[10]	樊秦, 李彦忠. 苜蓿茎点霉对紫花苜蓿光合生理的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2017, 26(1):112-121.
[11]	ASHRAF M. Some important physiological selection criteria for salt tolerance in plants[J]. Flora-Morphology, distribution, functional ecology of plants, 2004, 199(5):361-376.
[12]	NABIPOUR M. Chlorophyll fluorescence as criterion for the diagnosis salt stress in wheat (Triticum aestivum) plants[J]. World academy of science engineering & technology, 2010, 4:184-186.
[13]	SIRINGAM K, JUNTAWONG N, CHAUM S, et al. Relationships between sodium ion accumulation and physiological characteristics in rice (Oryza sativa L. spp. indica) seedlings grown under iso-osmotic salinity stress[J]. Pakistan journal of botany, 2009, 41(4):1837-1850.
[14]	钱永强, 周晓星, 韩蕾, 等. Cd²⁺胁迫对银芽柳PSⅡ叶绿素荧光光响应曲线的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2011, 31(20):6134-6142.
[15]	司廉邦, 李嘉敏, 黎桂英, 等. 茶多酚对盐胁迫下小麦幼苗叶片生理特性的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2020, 40(11):3747-3755.
[16]	黄有总, 张国平. 叶绿素荧光测定技术在麦类作物耐盐性鉴定中的应用[J]. 麦类作物学报, 2004, 24(3):114-116.
[17]	郭超, 胡思远, 郑青焕, 等. 部分美国小麦种质资源的耐盐性鉴定[J]. 麦类作物学报, 2015(8):1076-1084.
[18]	彭玉梅, 石国亮, 崔辉梅. 加工番茄幼苗期耐盐生理指标筛选及耐盐性综合评价[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2014, 32(5):61-65.
[19]	彭智, 李龙, 柳玉平, 等. 小麦芽期和苗期耐盐性综合评价[J]. 植物遗传资源学报, 2017, 18(4):638-645.
[20]	乔佩, 卢存福, 李红梅, 等. 盐胁迫对诱变小麦种子萌发及幼苗生理特性的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2013, 21(6):720-727.
[21]	陆启环, 张弢, 穆平, 等. 两个小麦新品种的耐盐性分析[J]. 华北农学报, 2017, 32(2):151-156.
[22]	宫文萍, 李洪振, 付希强, 等. 部分CIMMYT小麦种质的耐盐性鉴定与评价[J]. 麦类作物学报, 2018, 38(9):1065-1071.
[23]	TIAN S, GUO R, ZOU X, et al. Priming with the green leaf volatile (Z)-3-hexeny-1-yl acetate enhances salinity stress tolerance in peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) seedlings[J]. Frontiers in plant science, 2019, 10:785-795. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2019.00785 URL
[24]	黄玲, 杨文平, 刘虎彪, 等. 盐胁迫对百农4199幼苗生长和生理特性的影响[J]. 河南科技学院学报:自然科学版, 2020, 48(6):1-10.
[25]	郑国琦, 许兴, 徐兆桢, 等. 盐胁迫对枸杞光合作用的气孔与非气孔限制[J]. 西北农业学报, 2002, 11(3):87-90.
[26]	李紫薇, 马天意, 梁国婷, 等. 蒺藜苜蓿叶片光合作用对盐胁迫的响应[J]. 西北植物学报, 2014, 34(10):2070-2077.
[27]	张浩, 付伟, 吴子龙, 等. 蚓粪对盐胁迫下小麦幼苗生长及光合特性的影响[J]. 麦类作物学报, 2020, 40(11):1357-1363.
[28]	方怡然, 薛立. 盐胁迫对植物叶绿素荧光影响的研究进展[J]. 生态科学, 2019, 38(3):225-234.
[29]	吴长艾, 孟庆伟, 邹琦. 小麦不同品种叶片对光氧化胁迫响应的比较研究[J]. 作物学报, 2003(3):339-344.
[30]	秦红艳, 艾军, 许培磊, 等. 盐胁迫对山葡萄叶绿素荧光参数及超微结构的影响[J]. 西北植物学报, 2013, 33(6):1159-1164.
[31]	史庆华, 朱祝军, KHALIDA Al-aghabary, 等. 渗Ca(NO₃)₂和NaCl胁迫对番茄光合作用的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2004, 10(2):188-191.
[32]	CHAVES M M, FLAXES J, PINHEIRO C. Photosynthesis under drought and salt stress regulation mechanism from whole plant to cell[J]. Annals of botany, 2009, 103:551-556. doi: 10.1093/aob/mcn125 URL
[33]	林恬逸, 周认, 柴明良. 油菜素甾醇对沟叶结缕草长期培养愈伤组织生长和再生的影响[J]. 核农学报, 2021, 35(1):83-92. doi: 10.11869/j.issn.100-8551.2021.01.0083
[34]	孟祥浩, 刘义国, 张玉梅, 等. 不同小麦品种苗期抗氧化特性及根系活力对盐胁迫的响应[J]. 麦类作物学报, 2015, 35(8):1168-1175
[35]	SILVEIRA J A G, de ALMEIDA Viégas R, da ROCHA I M A, et al. Proline accumulation and glutamine synthetase activity are increased by salt-induced proteolysis in cashew leaves[J]. Journal of plant physiology, 2003, 160(2):115-123. doi: 10.1078/0176-1617-00890 URL
[36]	王苗苗, 周向睿, 梁国玲, 等. 5份燕麦材料苗期耐盐性综合评价[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(8):143-154.
[37]	袁杰, 王学强, 贾春平, 等. 水稻苗期耐盐性的综合鉴定及评价[J]. 分子植物育种, 2020, 18(19):6474-6482.

品种	叶鲜重	根鲜重	总根表面积	总根长	根平均直径	总根体积	Pn	Tr	Ci	Gs	Fv/Fm	ΦPSll	NPQ	qP	MDA	脯氨酸
冀麦32	135.4	160.9	160.4	152.2	228.8	176.7	144.3	139.7	217.9	144.0	186.1	180.3	259.0	183.8	391.4	460.2
泰农18	128.9	154.9	156.7	146.7	227.2	175.7	131.5	133.3	224.8	141.3	184.6	173.1	254.8	182.2	453.4	415.5
德抗961	130.5	155.0	168.7	148.5	224.6	183.0	129.9	134.4	224.7	142.4	187.8	173.9	255.0	178.8	440.7	436.9
师栾02-1	113.5	139.1	151.4	136.5	213.4	163.2	116.8	125.0	232.8	127.5	176.7	156.4	232.9	171.8	539.4	360.5

品种	叶鲜重	根鲜重	总根表面积	总根长	根平均直径	总根体积	Pn	Tr	Ci	Gs	Fv/Fm	ΦPSll	NPQ	qP	MDA	脯氨酸
冀麦32	135.4	160.9	160.4	152.2	228.8	176.7	144.3	139.7	217.9	144.0	186.1	180.3	259.0	183.8	391.4	460.2
泰农18	128.9	154.9	156.7	146.7	227.2	175.7	131.5	133.3	224.8	141.3	184.6	173.1	254.8	182.2	453.4	415.5
德抗961	130.5	155.0	168.7	148.5	224.6	183.0	129.9	134.4	224.7	142.4	187.8	173.9	255.0	178.8	440.7	436.9
师栾02-1	113.5	139.1	151.4	136.5	213.4	163.2	116.8	125.0	232.8	127.5	176.7	156.4	232.9	171.8	539.4	360.5

	叶鲜重	根鲜重	总根表面积	总根长	根平均直径	总根体积	Pn	Tr	Ci	Gs	Fv/Fm	ΦPSll	NPQ	qP	MDA
根鲜重	0.668^*
总根表面积	0.107	0.185
总根长	0.138	0.466	0.403
根平均直径	0.567	0.412	0.109	0.095
总根体积	0.192	0.269	0.799^**	0.188	0.021
Pn	0.112	0.518	0.457	0.877^**	0.135	0.414
Tr	0.429	0.111	0.064	0.225	0.331	0.106	0.328
Ci	-0.823^**	-0.690^*	0.12	-0.225	-0.322	-0.103	-0.251	-0.525
Gs	0.324	0.337	0.472	0.808^**	0.174	0.388	0.685^*	0.425	-0.418
Fv/Fm	0.631^*	0.373	0.530	0.223	0.455	0.288	0.185	0.173	-0.301	0.327
ΦPSll	0.511	0.239	0.275	0.285	0.791^**	-0.001	0.235	0.450	-0.266	0.447	0.637^*
NPQ	0.475	0.656^*	0.324	0.140	0.720^**	0.324	0.346	0.315	-0.402	0.192	0.464	0.611^*
qP	0.808^**	0.534	0.097	0.141	0.526	0.308	0.101	0.346	-0.641^*	0.421	0.274	0.449	0.384
MDA	-0.324	-0.578^*	-0.492	-0.337	-0.603^*	-0.438	-0.594^*	-0.193	0.284	-0.302	-0.534	-0.559	-0.847^**	-0.152
脯氨酸	0.377	0.645^*	0.373	0.385	0.667^*	0.133	0.472	-0.005	-0.232	0.196	0.605^*	0.607^*	0.761^**	0.124	-0.885^**

	叶鲜重	根鲜重	总根表面积	总根长	根平均直径	总根体积	Pn	Tr	Ci	Gs	Fv/Fm	ΦPSll	NPQ	qP	MDA
根鲜重	0.668^*
总根表面积	0.107	0.185
总根长	0.138	0.466	0.403
根平均直径	0.567	0.412	0.109	0.095
总根体积	0.192	0.269	0.799^**	0.188	0.021
Pn	0.112	0.518	0.457	0.877^**	0.135	0.414
Tr	0.429	0.111	0.064	0.225	0.331	0.106	0.328
Ci	-0.823^**	-0.690^*	0.12	-0.225	-0.322	-0.103	-0.251	-0.525
Gs	0.324	0.337	0.472	0.808^**	0.174	0.388	0.685^*	0.425	-0.418
Fv/Fm	0.631^*	0.373	0.530	0.223	0.455	0.288	0.185	0.173	-0.301	0.327
ΦPSll	0.511	0.239	0.275	0.285	0.791^**	-0.001	0.235	0.450	-0.266	0.447	0.637^*
NPQ	0.475	0.656^*	0.324	0.140	0.720^**	0.324	0.346	0.315	-0.402	0.192	0.464	0.611^*
qP	0.808^**	0.534	0.097	0.141	0.526	0.308	0.101	0.346	-0.641^*	0.421	0.274	0.449	0.384
MDA	-0.324	-0.578^*	-0.492	-0.337	-0.603^*	-0.438	-0.594^*	-0.193	0.284	-0.302	-0.534	-0.559	-0.847^**	-0.152
脯氨酸	0.377	0.645^*	0.373	0.385	0.667^*	0.133	0.472	-0.005	-0.232	0.196	0.605^*	0.607^*	0.761^**	0.124	-0.885^**

指标	主成分1	主成分2	主成分3	主成分4	主成分5
叶鲜重	0.106	-0.210	0.124	0.166	-0.078
根鲜重	0.110	-0.034	0.048	-0.085	-0.487
总根表面积	0.072	0.257	-0.078	0.365	0.126
总根长	0.079	0.228	0.178	-0.310	0.023
根平均直径	0.102	-0.169	-0.163	-0.084	0.177
总根体积	0.063	0.196	0.035	0.506	-0.118
Pn	0.090	0.247	0.114	-0.249	-0.080
Tr	0.066	-0.077	0.218	-0.060	0.370
Ci	-0.089	0.175	-0.247	0.029	0.224
Gs	0.090	0.157	0.261	-0.053	0.211
Fv/Fm	0.099	-0.016	-0.125	0.198	0.167
ΦPSll	0.105	-0.090	-0.103	-0.096	0.449
NPQ	0.115	-0.060	-0.187	-0.008	-0.102
qP	0.087	-0.175	0.201	0.228	-0.033
MDA	-0.116	-0.077	0.219	0.062	0.097
脯氨酸	0.110	0.026	-0.268	-0.193	-0.127
特征值	6.902	2.488	2.022	1.355	1.234
贡献率/%	43.135	15.550	12.639	8.469	7.715
累积贡献率/%	43.135	58.685	71.324	79.793	87.508