20份山西糜子种质资源抗旱性综合评价

王海岗,陈凌,王君杰,曹晓宁,董俊丽,王纶,杨天育,乔治军

中国农学通报. 2014, 30(36): 115-119

PDF(552 KB)
PDF(552 KB)
中国农学通报 ›› 2014, Vol. 30 ›› Issue (36) : 115-119. DOI: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.2014-2437
农学 农业基础科学

20份山西糜子种质资源抗旱性综合评价

  • 王海岗1,陈凌1,王君杰1,曹晓宁1,董俊丽1,王纶1,杨天育2,乔治军1
作者信息 +

Comprehensive Assessment of Drought Resistance of 20 Proso Millet Germplasm Resources
in Whole Growth Period

  • Wang Haigang1, Chen Ling1, Wang Junjie1, Cao Xiaoning1,Dong Junli1, Wang Lun1, Yang Tianyu2, Qiao Zhijun1
Author information +
History +

摘要

为了明确山西省生产上应用的糜子品种抗旱性,对全生育期进行抗旱鉴定,测定不同处理下糜子的株高、穗长、茎粗、穗重、穗粒重、株草重、主茎节数、千粒重、有效穗9个性状。采用主成分分析和逐步回归分析法进行全生育期抗旱综合评价并筛选抗旱指标。结果表明:9个表型性状间存在着一定相关性;穗重和株草重2个指标在正常供水与干旱胁迫处理下变异系数减小最大;农家种黄糜子抗旱性最强(D=0.87),综合抗旱D值与产量隶属函数值存在显著相关(r=0.5159,P<0.05);穗重和株草重对抗旱性影响显著,可作为生育期抗旱性鉴定综合指标。

Abstract

In order to clarify drought resistance of proso millet applied in field production in Shanxi, we identified its drought resistance during the whole growth period and measured nine traits, including plant height, panicle length, stem diameter, panicle weight, grain weight per spike, straw weight per plant, node numbers of main stem, 1000-grain weight and effective panicles, under different treatments. Principal component analysis and stepwise regression analysis were used for comprehensive evaluation of drought resistance during the whole growth period and screening the drought index. The results showed that there were correlations among 9 phenotypic traits. The coefficient of variation of panicle weight and straw weight per plant sharply reduced under normal water supply and drought stress. Landrace‘yellow millet’had the strongest drought resistance (D=0.87), integrated drought D value and membership function value of yield had significant correlation (r=0.5159, P<0.05). Panicle weight and straw weight per plant had significant impact on drought resistance and could be taken as comprehensive indexes of drought resistance identification in growth period.

关键词

糜子;全生育期;抗旱;综合评价

Key words

proso millet; whole growth period; drought resistance; comprehensive assessment

引用本文

导出引用
王海岗,陈凌,王君杰,曹晓宁,董俊丽,王纶,杨天育,乔治军. 20份山西糜子种质资源抗旱性综合评价. 中国农学通报. 2014, 30(36): 115-119 https://doi.org/10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.2014-2437
Wang Haigang,Chen Ling,Wang Junjie,Cao Xiaoning,Dong Junli,Wang Lun,Yang Tianyu and Qiao Zhijun. Comprehensive Assessment of Drought Resistance of 20 Proso Millet Germplasm Resources
in Whole Growth Period. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin. 2014, 30(36): 115-119 https://doi.org/10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.2014-2437

参考文献

[1] 山仑,郭礼坤.春播谷类作物成苗期间的抗旱性及其需水条件[J].作物学报,1984,10(4):257-263.
[2] 王纶,温琪汾,曹厉萍,等.黍稷抗旱种质筛选及抗旱机理研究[J].山西农业科学,2007,35(4):31-34.
[3] 贾根良,代惠萍,冯佰利,等.PEG模拟干旱胁迫对糜子幼苗生理特性的影响[J].西北植物学报,2008,28(10):2073-2079.
[4] 张盼盼,冯佰利,王鹏科,等.糜子芽期抗旱性指标鉴选与利用研究[J].河北农业科学,2010,14(11):22-27.
[5] 冯晓敏,张永清.水分胁迫对糜子植株苗期生长和光合特性的影响[J].作物学报,2012,38(8):1513-1521.
[6] 张美俊,杨武德,乔治军,等.不同糜子品种萌发期对干旱胁迫的响应及抗旱性评价[J].草地学报,2013,21(2):302-307.
[7] 刘天鹏,董孔军,何继红,等.糜子育成品种芽期抗旱性鉴定与评价研究[J].植物遗传资源学报,2014,15(4):746-752.
[8] 胡标林,余守武,万勇,等.东乡野生稻全生育期抗旱性鉴定[J].作物学报,2007,33(3):426-433.
[9] 胡标林,扬平,万勇,等.东乡野生稻BILs群体苗期抗旱性综合评价及其遗传分析[J].植物遗传资源学报,2013,14(2):249-256.
[10] 鲁守平,孙群,洪露,等.不同种源地乌拉尔甘草发芽期抗旱性鉴定[J].植物遗传资源学报,2007,8(2):189-194.
[11] 武仙山,昌小平,景蕊莲.小麦灌浆期抗旱性鉴定指标的综合评价[J].麦类作物学报,2008,28(4):626-632.
[12] 路贵和,戴景瑞,张书奎,等.不同干旱胁迫条件下我国玉米骨干自交系的抗旱性比较研究[J].作物学报,2005,31(10):1284-1288.
[13] 张健,池宝亮,黄雪芳,等.以活力抗旱指数作为玉米萌芽期抗旱性评价指标的初探[J].华北农学报,2007,22(1):22-25.
[14] 李贵全,李慧峰,张海燕,等.大豆花荚期抗旱性的鉴定与综合评价[J].中国生态农业学报,2007,15(6):96-100.
[15] 谢建坤,胡标林,万勇,等.东乡野生稻与栽培稻苗期抗旱性的比较研究[J].生态学报,2010,30(6):1665-1674.
[16] 王育红,姚宇卿,张灿军,等.早稻抗旱性鉴定方法与指标研究—Ⅳ旱稻苗期抗旱性[J].干旱地区农业研究,2005,23(4):134-137.
PDF(552 KB)

文章所在专题

资源与环境

34

Accesses

0

Citation

Detail

段落导航
相关文章

/