| 杜彩艳,段宗颜,张乃明,邱学礼,胡万里,陈安强,付斌,潘艳华,余小芬,陈拾华,杨艳鲜.云南主栽玉米品种抗旱性鉴定与评价[J].干旱地区农业研究,2015,33(4):181~189 |
| 云南主栽玉米品种抗旱性鉴定与评价 |
| Identification and evaluation of drought resistance in different maize varieties widely grown in Yunnan |
| |
| DOI：10.7606/j.issn.1000-7601.2015.04.28 |
| 中文关键词: 玉米 主栽品种 综合评价 干旱胁迫 抗旱性 |
| 英文关键词:maize varieties grown in production comprehensive evaluation water stress drought resistance |
| 基金项目:国家科技支撑计划(2012BAD40B02)；国家科技支撑计划（2012BAD40B01） |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 1411 |
| 全文下载次数: 893 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 以云南8个主栽玉米品种（甜糯888、云糯6号、云瑞999、云瑞6号、云瑞47、云瑞88、云优105、云甜玉2号）为试验材料，人工控水条件下，通过盆栽试验，在玉米植株的苗期、开花期和灌浆期，测定8个品种的株高、叶面积、根冠比、SOD、POD和MDA等与抗旱性有关的14个表型性状和生理生化指标，采用抗旱系数法和隶属函数值法，对各指标性状进行了干旱胁迫下的抗性评价和鉴定。结果表明，不同生育期相同指标性状评价不同玉米品种抗旱性存在明显差异，可将供试品种划分为抗旱性强、中和不抗旱3类，其中云瑞47、云优105、云甜玉2号3个品种具有较强抗旱能力，云瑞6号、云瑞88和云瑞999具有中等抗旱能力，而甜糯888、云糯6号抗旱性差；干旱胁迫下，玉米苗期各形态性状和生理生化指标及其综合D值均可作为鉴定品种抗旱性的依据；干旱胁迫至开花期，只有株高、叶面积、SOD和Pro与抗旱系数间为极显著相关；干旱胁迫至灌浆期，只有地上部鲜重、株高和MDA与抗旱系数间为极显著相关。无论在苗期、开花期或灌浆期，综合D值可作为鉴定品种抗旱性的指标，单一指标均不能准确判定某品种的抗旱性。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| This research took eight main maize varieties in Yunnan (Tiannuo888, Yunnuo6, Yunrui999, Yunrui6, Yunrui47, Yunrui88, Yunyou105, and Yuntianyu2) as materials to investigate possible influences caused by water stress. A pot experiment was conducted to examine 14 morphological and biochemical indexes (plant height, fresh weight, ratio of root to shoot, POD, and SOD etc.) that were related to drought resistance under two levels of water content (70%～80% and 50%～60% of field moisture capacity) at seedling, flowering and filling stages of the maize varieties. Capabilities in drought resistance of varieties under water stresses were scored by the drought coefficient and subordinate function value methods. The results showed that the same index of drought resistance characterized in different maize varieties at various stages existed differences, and 8 maize varieties were divided into three grades: high tolerant, weaker tolerant, and drought susceptible. The high-tolerant cultivars include Yunrui47, Yunyou105 and Yuntianyu2; The varieties with weaker drought resistance were Yunrui6, Yunrui88 and Yunrui999. However, Tiannuo888 and Yunnuo6 were drought susceptible. Moreover, all morphological and biochemical indexes and their comprehensive D-values could be taken as evaluation criteria at seedling stage of maize varieties under water stress. From seeding to flowering stages, under water stress, only plant height, leaf area, SOD and Pro showed significant correlations with drought resistance indexes. From flowering to filling stages, under water stress, significant correlations between shoot fresh weight, plant height and MDA and drought resistance could be observed. No matter what growth stages the maize varieties were at, seeding, florescence or filling stages, underwater stress, the comprehensive D-value of the indexes had a significant correlation with drought resistance, which could be used to identify maize drought resistance, nevertheless any single index. |
| 查看全文 查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| | |