不同品种（系）大豆花荚期抗旱性指标筛选及其评价

doi:10.12190/j.issn.2096-1197.2025.02.05

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 【目的】筛选山西省不同大豆品种（系）抗旱性指标,完善抗旱大豆种质资源。【方法】通过盆栽试验对花荚期15份大豆品种（系）进行干旱胁迫处理,测定并计算农艺性状[株高（PH）、茎粗（SD）]、光合参数[气孔导度（G_s）、净光合速率（P_n）、叶绿素相对含量（SPAD）]、生理生化指标[脯氨酸（Pro）含量、可溶性蛋白（Sp）含量、丙二醛（MDA）含量]的抗旱系数（X）、抗旱隶属函数值[B（X）]和抗旱性度量值（D值）,运用主成分分析、回归分析对其抗旱性进行综合评价,最后通过大田验证试验计算抗旱指数（DHI）。【结果】干旱胁迫对大豆农艺性状、光合参数、生理生化指标均有显著影响,不同大豆品种（系）各单项指标抗旱系数绝对平均值由高到低为Pro含量>MDA含量>Sp含量>SPAD>SD>PH>P_n>G_s。主成分分析表明,3个主成分贡献率为84.321%,可代表绝大部分数据信息;不同大豆品种（系）的D值依次为Y13>Y4>Y10>Y6>Y9>Y15>Y3>Y11>Y14>Y12>Y1>Y2=Y7>Y8>Y5;回归方程为：D值=-3.459+0.756PH+1.299SD+0.858SPAD+0.382Pro含量+0.693Sp含量+0.397P_n。DHI结果表明,Y13的抗旱性最强,Y5的抗旱性最弱。【结论】长1807（Y13）抗旱性最好,可作为山西省耐旱品种的备选材料;株高、茎粗、叶绿素相对含量、脯氨酸含量、可溶性蛋白含量和净光合速率对抗旱性度量值（D值）具有显著的统计学意义,可作为花荚期不同大豆品种（系）抗旱性指标。

关键词: 大豆, 花荚期, 干旱胁迫, 抗旱性指标, 综合评价

Abstract: 【Objective】To screen drought resistance indicators for different soybean varieties（lines） in Shanxi Province and improve the drought-resistant soybean germplasm resources.【Methods】Through pot experiments,15 soybean varieties（lines） at the flowering and podding stage were subjected to drought stress. Drought resistance coefficients（X）,drought resistance membership function values[B（X）],and drought resistance measurement values（D-values） were determined and calculated for various agronomic traits[plant height（PH）,stem diameter（SD）],photosynthetic parameters[stomatal conductance（G_s）,net photosynthetic rate（P_n）,relative chlorophyll content（SPAD）],and physiological and biochemical indicators[proline（Pro） content,soluble protein（Sp） content,malondialdehyde（MDA） content]. Principal component analysis and regression analysis were employed to comprehensively evaluate their drought resistance. Finally,a field validation experiment was conducted to calculate the drought resistance index（DHI）.【Results】Drought stress significantly affected soybean agronomic traits,photosynthetic parameters,and physiological and biochemical indicators. The absolute mean values of drought resistance coefficients for individual indicators across different soybean varieties（lines）,from highest to lowest,were：Pro content>MDA content>Sp content>SPAD>SD>PH>P_n>G_s. Principal component analysis revealed that the first three principal components contributed 84.321% of the total variance,representing the majority of the data information. The D-values for different soybean varieties（lines） were,in descending order：Y13>Y4>Y10>Y6>Y9>Y15>Y3>Y11>Y14>Y12>Y1>Y2 =Y7>Y8>Y5.The regression equation was：D-value=-3.459+0.756PH+1.299SD+0.858SPAD+0.382Pro content+0.693Sp content+0.397P_n.DHI results indicated that Y13 exhibited the strongest drought resistance,while Y5 showed the weakest.【Conclusion】Chang 1807（Y13） demonstrates the best drought resistance and can serve as a potential candidate for drought-tolerant varieties in Shanxi Province. Plant height,stem diameter,relative chlorophyll content,proline content,soluble protein content,and net photosynthetic rate exhibit significant statistical correlations with the drought resistance measurement value（D-value）,thus serving as effective drought resistance indicators for different soybean varieties（lines） at the flowering and podding stage.

Key words: Soybean, Flowering and podding stage, Drought stress, Drought resistance indicators, Comprehensive evaluation

中图分类号:

S565.1

曹晋军, 郭政, 李丹, 李小霞, 靳鲲鹏, 李万星, 刘永忠. 不同品种（系）大豆花荚期抗旱性指标筛选及其评价[J]. 北方农业学报, 2025, 53(2): 48-56.

CAO Jinjun, GUO Zheng, LI Dan, LI Xiaoxia, JIN Kunpeng, LI Wanxing, LIU Yongzhong. Screening and evaluation of drought resistance indicators for different soybean varieties（lines） at the flowering and podding stage[J]. Journal of Northern Agriculture, 2025, 53(2): 48-56.

参考文献

[1] 张立军,孙旭刚,王昌陵,等.盆栽条件下水肥调控对大豆生长和产量的影响[J].大豆科学,2014,33(3):398-403.
[2] 池宝亮. 山西旱地农业发展的水问题分析[J].山西农业科学,2010,38(1):31-34.
[3] 连东,张玉霞,朱爱民,等.不同饲用燕麦品种苗期抗旱生理特性研究[J].内蒙古民族大学学报(自然科学版),2018,33(5):427-434.
[4] 孙祖东,陈怀珠,杨守臻,等.大豆抗旱性研究进展[J].大豆科学,2001,20(3):221-226.
[5] 闫春娟,宋书宏,王文斌,等.不同降雨条件对不同耐旱型大豆根系的影响[J].大豆科学,2018,37(2):209-214.
[6] 任永波,吴中军,段拥军.作物抗旱研究方法与抗旱性鉴定指标[J].西昌农业高等专科学校学报,2001(1):1-5.
[7] 尹田夫,刘丽君,宋英淑,等.不同抗旱型大豆茸毛适旱变态与茎形态解剖的比较研究[J].大豆科学,1986,5(3):223-226.
[8] 孔照胜,武云帅,岳爱琴,等.不同大豆品种抗旱性生理指标综合分析[J].华北农学报,2001,16(3):40-45.
[9] 董守坤,赵坤,刘丽君,等.干旱胁迫对春大豆叶绿素含量和根系活力的影响[J].大豆科学,2011,30(6):949-953.
[10] 牛同旭,郑桂萍,李志彬,等.寒地水稻种质资源苗期抗旱性筛选与评价[J].安徽农学通报,2020,26(13):21-24.
[11] 庄克章,胡晓君,吴荣华,等.18个玉米杂交种萌发期抗旱性评价[J].种子,2020,39(3):68-71.
[12] 周福平,史红梅,张海燕,等.不同高粱品系灌浆期抗旱性鉴定及评价[J].山西农业科学,2019,47(11):1907-1912.
[13] 张宇君,赵丽丽,王普昶,等.燕麦萌发期抗旱指标体系构建及综合评价[J].核农学报,2017,31(11):2236-2242.
[14] 蔺豆豆,赵桂琴,琚泽亮,等.15份燕麦材料苗期抗旱性综合评价[J].草业学报,2021,30(11):108-121.
[15] 李洁,张小宁,晋凡生,等.普通菜豆种质资源苗期抗旱性综合评价[J].核农学报,2022,36(8):1516-1529.
[16] 汪明华,李佳佳,陆少奇,等.大豆品种耐高温特性的评价方法及耐高温种质筛选与鉴定[J].植物遗传资源学报,2019,20(4):891-902.
[17] 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.
[18] 任倩倩,孙纪霞,张德顺,等.干旱胁迫下不同绣球品种生理响应与抗旱性评价[J].浙江农业学报,2021,33(10):1852-1860.
[19] 高亚宁,张凯浩,杨鸿基,等.芜菁苗期抗旱性鉴定及抗旱指标的评价[J].西北农业学报,2023,32(2):310-319.
[20] 胡惠杰,王猛,尹小刚,等.气候变化下东北农作区大豆需水量时空变化特征分析[J].中国农业大学学报,2017,22(2):21-31.
[21] 路贵和,刘学义,任小俊,等.黄淮海地区大豆抗旱种质资源的多样性研究[J].中国农业科学,2001,34(3):251-255.
[22] 王兴荣,张彦军,陈光荣,等.干旱胁迫对大豆光合、产量及品质的影响[J].干旱地区农业研究,2023,41(2):150-159.
[23] 崔维佳,常志云,李宁,等.大豆生理生态干旱胁迫影响研究进展[J].安徽农业科学,2012,40(25):12516-12517.
[24] TÜRKAN I,BOR M,ÖZDEMIR F,et al.Differential responses of lipid peroxidation and antioxidants in the leaves of drought-tolerant P. acutifolius Gray and drought-sensitive P. vulgaris L. subjected to polyethylene glycol mediated water stress[J].Plant Science,2005,168(1):223-231.
[25] 兰巨生,胡福顺,张景瑞.作物抗旱指数的概念和统计方法[J].华北农学报,1990,5(2):20-25.