In order to explore the response of Quercus robur physiological indicators and the strength of cold resistance under low temperature stress, the common Q. robur, fast-growing Q. robur, split-leaf Q. robur and weeping Q. robur were used as experimental materials. The cell membrane permeability, SOD activity, POD activity and soluble protein at different temperatures were measured, and the fitted Logistic- DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1000-1565.2024.04.0094种夏栎对低温胁迫的生理响应及抗寒性评价姜恒1,2,张志刚3,杨建军1,2,李斌4,王兴胜4,张晓红4(1.新疆大学 生态与环境学院,绿洲生态教育部重点实验室,新疆 乌鲁木齐 830017;2.自然资源部 荒漠-绿洲生态监测与修复工程技术创新中心,新疆 乌鲁木齐 830002;3.新疆林业科学院 造林治沙研究所,新疆林木资源与利用国家林草局重点实验室,新疆 乌鲁木齐 830000;4. 伊犁州林木良种繁育试验中心,新疆 察布查尔 835311)摘 要:为探究低温胁迫下夏栎(Quercus robur)生理指标的响应及抗寒性,以普通夏栎、速生夏栎、裂叶夏栎和垂枝夏栎为实验材料,测定在不同温度下细胞膜通透性、超氧化物歧化酶(SOD)、过氧化物酶(POD)、可溶性蛋白等指标,并利用拟合Logistic方程计算半致死温度,结合隶属函数法对4种夏栎综合评价.结果表明:4种夏栎细胞膜通透性均随着温度降低而增加,SOD和POD活性以及可溶性蛋白、脯氨酸和丙二醛(MDA)含量均逐渐下降;4种夏栎半致死温度为-41.9~-38.2 ℃,其中普通夏栎半致死温度最低,速生夏栎半致死温度最高;4种夏栎抗寒性强弱为普通夏栎>垂枝夏栎>裂叶夏栎>速生夏栎.综上可知,普通夏栎抗寒性最强,在不同地区推广和繁育具有显著优势.关键词:夏栎;抗寒性;隶属函数法;生理指标;半致死温度中图分类号:Q945.79 文献标志码:A 文章编号:1000-1565(2024)04-0406-08Physiological response and cold resistance evaluation of four species of Quercus robur to low temperature stressJIANG Heng1,2, ZHANG Zhigang3, YANG Jianjun1,2, LI Bin4, WANG Xingsheng4, ZHANG Xiaohong4(1. Key Laboratory of Oasis Ecology of Education Ministry, College of Ecology and Environment, Xinjiang University,Urumqi 830017,China; 2.Technology Innovation Center for Ecological Monitoring and Restoration of Desert-Oasis, Ministry of Natural Resources(MNR), Urumqi 830002,China; 3. Key Laboratory of Forest Resources and Utilization in Xinjiang of National Forestry and Grassland Administration, Institute of Afforestation and Desertification Control, Xinjiang Academy of Forestry, Urumqi 830000,China; 4. Yili Prefecture Forest Tree Breeding Experiment Center, Chabchal 835311, China)Abstract: In order to explore the response of Quercus robur physiological indicators and the strength of cold resistance under low temperature stress, the common Q. robur, fast-growing Q. robur, split-leaf Q. robur and weeping Q. robur were used as experimental materials. The cell membrane permeability, SOD activity, POD activity and soluble protein at different temperatures were measured, and the fitted Logistic- 收稿日期:2024-01-09;修回日期:2024-05-08 基金项目:新疆三农骨干人才培养项目(2022SNGGNT082);新疆维吾尔自治区2023年度重大科技专项(2023A02008) 第一作者:姜恒(1998—),男,新疆大学在读硕士研究生,主要从事生态修复研究.E-mail:670551763@qq.com 通信作者:杨建军(1978—),男,新疆大学教授,博士生导师,主要从事干旱区水土保持与荒漠化防治研究.E-mail:yjj@xiu.edu.cn张晓红(1972—),女,伊犁州林木良种繁育试验中心高级工程师,主要从事林木良种选育与推广研究. E-mail:1436787731@qq.com 第4期姜恒等:4种夏栎对低温胁迫的生理响应及抗寒性评价河北大学学报(自然科学版) 第44卷equation was used to calculate the half-lethal temperature. And the function method was used for comprehensive evaluation of the four Q. robur species. The results showed that the cell membrane permeability of the four species of Q. robur showed an increasing trend as the temperature decreased, and the SOD activity, POD activity, soluble protein content, proline content and MDA content showed a decreasing trend as a whole, and the cell membrane permeability was calculated by combining the Logistic equation. The semi-lethal temperature of four species of Q. robur ranged from -41.9 ℃ to -38.2 ℃. The common Q. robur had the highest semi-lethal temperature and the fast-growing Q. robur had the lowest semi-lethal temperature. This is consistent with the evaluation by the membership function method. The four species of Q. robur had strong cold resistance. The cold resistance ranking of the four Q. robur species was common Q. robur> weeping Q. robur>split-leaf Q. robur > fast growing Q. robur. The study show that common Q. robur is the most resistant to cold and has significant advantages for promotion and breeding in different regions.
[1] 白永强,李永华,朱强,等.夏橡高效育苗技术试验[J].林业科技通讯, 2022(10): 70. DOI:10.13456/j.cnki.lykt.2022.01.21.0001.
[2] 石海燕,张志刚,李宏,等.IAA对幼苗期夏橡生长及光合特性的影响[J].河北大学学报(自然科学版), 2022, 42(5): 519-529. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1000-1565.2022.05.011.
[3] 李文明,辛建攀,魏驰宇,等.植物抗寒性研究进展[J].江苏农业科学, 2017, 45(12): 6-11. DOI:10.15889/j.issn.1002-1302.2017.12.002.
[4] HU L, XIAOFENG W, SHUJIANG C, et al. Dynamic analysis and evaluation of Xinjiang forest resources: based on RS and GIS[J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2005, 15(3): 346-352. DOI:10.1007/BF02837522.
[5] 李呈呈,吴其超,马燕,等.6个彩叶桂品种对低温胁迫的生理响应及抗寒性评价[J].浙江农林大学学报, 2021, 38(4): 828-836. DOI:10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.20200606.
[6] 牟开萍,李维芳,杨文新,等.20个月季品种的抗寒性综合评价[J].草原与草坪, 2021, 41(6): 58-66. DOI:10.13817/j.cnki.cyycp.2021.06.009.
[7] 贾金辉,徐凌,刘慧纯,等.8个酿酒葡萄品种的抗寒性比较[J].中国果树,2021(7):39-44.DOI:10.16626/j.cnki.issn1000-8047.2021.07.008.
[8] 杨振亚,台秀国,曹振玉,等.4个引种栎类树种苗期抗寒性初步研究[J].山东大学学报(理学版), 2016, 51(5): 43-47,60. DOI:10.6040/j.issn.1671-9352.0.2015.573.
[9] 李素琼,史开奇,张晓红.夏橡白粉病防治[J].农业与技术, 2024, 44(3): 55-57. DOI:10.19754/j.nyyjs.20240215013.
[10] 郭英,李开花.珍贵树种夏橡育苗栽培技术[J].农村科技,2016(4): 69-70. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1002-6193.2016.04.041.
[11] 单兴宇.夏橡的育苗和栽培技术[J].现代农机, 2021(3): 109-110. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1674-5604.2021.03.060.
[12] 杨梅花,黄祥,韩彦奇,等.8种睡莲对低温胁迫的生理响应及抗寒性评价[J].江苏农业科学, 2022, 50(23): 123-128. DOI:10.15889/j.issn.1002-1302.2022.23.018.
[13] 井俊丽,刘铭潇,魏欣,等.几种苹果中间砧的抗寒性评价[J].果树学报, 2022, 39(6): 970-981. DOI:10.13925/j.cnki.gsxb.20210444.
[14] 刘晓东,任伟嘉,何淼.苦水玫瑰和冷香玫瑰抗寒性[J].东北林业大学学报, 2012, 40(11): 28-30,34. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1000-5382.2012.11.007.
[15] 井俊丽,刘铭潇,高美娜,等.不同苹果中间砧枝条在越冬期间的生理特性变化及抗寒性比较[J].河北农业大学学报, 2022, 45(4): 25-31. DOI:10.13320/j.cnki.jauh.2022.0056.
[16] 王睿哲,张蓓,郭铁群,等.5个梨品种在低温胁迫下的生理响应及抗寒性评价[J].山东农业科学, 2023, 55(2): 57-63. DOI:10.14083/j.issn.1001-4942.2023.02.008.
[17] 王伟强,田新会,杜文华.甘农4号小黑麦苗期抗寒性评价[J].甘肃农业大学学报, 2023, 58(1): 46-54. DOI:10.13432/j.cnki.jgsau.2023.01.006.
[18] 赵雪辉,陈双建,成继东,等.3个桃品种抗寒性分析研究[J].果树资源学报, 2020,1(6): 14-19. DOI:10.16010/j.cnki.14-1127/s.2020.06.004.
[19] 王金鑫,王延松,明文,等.不同果型翅果油树的抗寒性[J]. 东北林业大学学报, 2023, 51(6): 25-32. DOI:10.13759/j.cnki.dlxb.2023.06.014.
[20] 王召元,田启航,常瑞丰,等.桃不同品种对低温胁迫的生理响应及评价[J].中国农业大学学报, 2022, 27(2): 66-77. DOI:10.11841/j.issn.1007-4333.2022.02.07.
[21] 刘敏,靳娟,阿布都卡尤木·阿依麦提,等.新疆3个鲜食枣品种的抗寒性评价[J].新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(4): 916-924. DOI:10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2023.04.016.
[22] 刘在国,赵通,马超,等.7个平欧杂交榛子品种的生理解剖特性及其抗寒性研究[J].干旱地区农业研究, 2023, 41(5): 138-149. DOI:10.7606/j.issn.1000-7601.2023.05.15.
[23] 温日宇,刘建霞,李顺,等.低温胁迫对不同藜麦幼苗生理生化特性的影响[J].种子, 2019, 38(5): 53-56. DOI:10.16590/j.cnki.1001-4705.2019.05.053.
[24] 曹燕燕,葛昌斌,齐双丽,等.不同冬小麦品种(系)拔节期低温胁迫生理反应及抗寒性评价[J].江苏农业科学, 2022, 50(17): 59-66. DOI:10.15889/j.issn.1002-1302.2022.17.010.
[25] 徐功勋,周佳,吕德国,等.4个苹果品种的抗寒性评价[J].果树学报, 2023, 40(4): 669-679. DOI:10.13925/j.cnki.gsxb.20220359.
[26] 李桂荣,连艳会,程珊珊,等.低温胁迫对山葡萄等6个葡萄品种抗寒性的影响[J].江苏农业科学, 2019, 47(8): 130-134. DOI:10.15889/j.issn.1002-1302.2019.08.029.
[27] 戚建莉,吴文俊,姜成英,等.不同引进希腊品种油橄榄的抗寒性评价[J].经济林研究, 2023, 41(2): 49-57. DOI:10.14067/j.cnki.1003-8981.2023.02.006.
[28] 石林曌,倪天虹,裴云霞,等.湖北省主栽油茶品种苗期抗寒性评价[J].经济林研究, 2019, 37(4): 10-19. DOI:10.14067/j.cnki.1003-8981.2019.04.002.
[29] 王海鸥,高展,艾克拜尔·毛拉,等.自然越冬条件下17个葡萄砧木品种 几个生理指标变化分析[J].经济林研究, 2019, 37(4): 120-128. DOI:10.14067/j.cnki.1003-8981.2019.04.016.
[30] 雷梦瑶,高小峰,白清敏,等.不同品种石榴枝条的抗寒性评价[J].河南农业科学, 2023, 52(6): 120-130. DOI:10.15933/j.cnki.1004-3268.2023.06.013.
[31] 李桂荣,连艳会,程珊珊,等.低温胁迫下不同无核葡萄品种抗寒性的分析[J].西南农业学报, 2018, 31(11): 2399-2406. DOI:10.16213/j.cnki.scjas.2018.11.029.
[32] 孟诗原,吕桂云,张明忠,等.5种卫矛属植物对低温胁迫的生理响应及抗寒性评价[J].西北植物学报, 2020, 40(4): 624-634.
[33] 阳妮,蒋景龙,李丽,等.3个柑橘品种幼苗对低温胁迫的生理响应及其抗寒性评价[J].中国果树, 2020(5): 32-39, 143. DOI:10.16626/j.cnki.issn1000-8047.2020.05.006. (
