Integrative Assessments on Physiological Response and Cold Tolerance of Different Sugarcane Varieties to Low Temperature

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1000-2561.2020.01.009

Abstract

Abstract:

Three sugarcane hybrid varieties (ROC22, Co281, KQ01-1390) and three original breeding varieties (28NG16, 57NG155, 96NG16) were used to assess the ability of cold tolerance through investigating the effects of low temperature on mature sugarcane appearance, relative permeability of leave plasma, contents of osmotic adjustment substances and activities of antioxidant enzymes in sugarcane stems. Treated at -3 ℃ for three days at nigh, symptoms such as withered and curly leaves, broken and black growth point, black and soft lateral bud appeared. Moreover, water boiling symptom in inner stem tissues was observed after ripping sugarcane stem. The relative electrical conductivity of the leaves increased, the contents of malonaldehyde (MAD) and proline (Pro), and the activities of catalase (CAT) increased, but the activity of superoxide dismutase (SOD) and peroxidase (POD) decreased in sugarcane stems under cold stress. Membership function method was used to assess the ability of cold tolerance, the results showed the order of cold tolerance was KQ01-1390>Co281>ROC22>28NG16>57NG155>96NG16, indicating that the original breeding were more sensitive to low temperature and showed weaker ability of cold tolerance than the hybrid varieties.

Key words: sugarcane, variety, low temperature stress, physiological character

CLC Number:

S566.1

QUAN Yiji,FAN Xian,LI Rudan,YANG Shaolin,DENG Jun. Integrative Assessments on Physiological Response and Cold Tolerance of Different Sugarcane Varieties to Low Temperature[J]. Chinese Journal of Tropical Crops, 2020, 41(1): 63-68.

Figures/Tables 7

References 28

[1]	张保青, 杨丽涛, 李杨瑞 . 自然条件下甘蔗品种抗寒生理生化特性的比较[J]. 作物学报, 2011,37(3):496-505.
[2]	肖祎, 刘军, 周英明 , 等. 云引甘蔗品种抗寒性试验[J]. 中国糖料, 2015,37(6):33-35, 38.
[3]	张光弟, 俞晓艳, 李欣 , 等. 贺兰山东麓葡萄自然越冬抗寒性观察[J]. 中外葡萄与葡萄酒, 2018,220(4):18-23.
[4]	刘翠兰, 燕丽萍, 王开芳 , 等. 竹子基因资源收集保存及抗寒性初步评价[J]. 中国农学通报, 2018,34(24):159-164.
[5]	宋广树, 孙忠富, 孙蕾 , 等. 东北中部地区水稻不同生育时期低温处理下生理变化及耐冷性比较[J]. 生态学报, 2011,31(13):3788-3795.
[6]	史红梅, 张桂香, 张海燕 , 等. 低温胁迫对高粱幼苗脯氨酸积累的影响[J]. 山西农业科学, 2014,42(9):945-947.
[7]	李杨洋 . 5种小麦主要性状相关分析与抗寒能力初探[D]. 郑州: 郑州大学, 2018.
[8]	蒋安, 郭彦军, 范彦 , 等. 低温胁迫对墨西哥玉米幼苗抗寒性的影响[J]. 草业科学, 2010,27(3):89-92.
[9]	李凤梅, 张洪亮, 崔健 , 等. 低温胁迫对砧用南瓜生理生化指标的影响[J]. 青岛科技大学学报(自然科学版), 2019,40(3):43-51.
[10]	Anwar A, Bai L Q, Miao L , et al. 24-Epibrassinolide ameliorates endogenous hormone levels to enhance low-temperature stress tolerance in cucumber seedlings[J]. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 2018,19(9):2497.
[11]	李春燕, 陈思思, 徐雯 , 等. 苗期低温胁迫对扬麦16叶片抗氧化酶和渗透调节物质的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2011,37(12):2293-2298.
[12]	李杨瑞, 方锋学, 吴建明 , 等. 2010/2011榨季广西甘蔗生产冻害调查及防御对策[J]. 南方农业学报, 2011,42(1):37-42.
[13]	全怡吉, 张跃彬, 邓军 , 等. 甘蔗霜冻研究进展[J]. 中国糖料, 2018,40(4):74-77, 80.
[14]	陆思思, 李素丽, 李琼 , 等. 低温胁迫对不同抗寒性甘蔗品种节间几种酶活性的影响[J]. 西南农业学报, 2013,26(3):968-972.
[15]	陈荣发, 刘文娟, 张保青 , 等. 低温胁迫对甘蔗幼苗根系线粒体生理生化作用的影响[J]. 南方农业学报, 2015,46(8):1385-1390.
[16]	Zhang B Q, Yang L T, Li Y R . Physiological and biochemical characteristics related to cold resistance in sugarcane[J]. Sugar Tech, 2015,17(1):49-58.
[17]	黄有总, 徐建云, 陈超君 , 等. 几个甘蔗新品种的抗旱性和抗寒性比较研究[J]. 广西农业生物科学, 2002,21(2):101-104.
[18]	陆国盈, 韦晖, 蒋明明 , 等. 冰水浸苗对不同甘蔗品种生理生化特性的影响[J]. 广西农业科学, 2010,41(2):113-116.
[19]	吴才文, Jackson P, 刘家勇 , 等. 甘蔗野生种割手密远缘杂交后代品质性状的遗传研究[J]. 植物遗传资源学报, 2011,12(1):59-63.
[20]	Yang R Z, LI Y R, Wang Z W , et al. Evaluation of cold tolerance of sugarcane under drought frost condition[J]. Agricultural Science & Technology, 2011,24(9):52-57.
[21]	曹哲群, 肖芙荣, 陈疏影 , 等. 7个蔗茅野生种及其后代材料苗期耐寒性鉴定[J]. 作物杂志, 2017(5):43-48.
[22]	梁强, 黄伟华, 李德洋 , 等. 广西地方标准《甘蔗霜冻灾害调查规范》的建立[J]. 中国糖料, 2016,38(3):40-45, 49.
[23]	李合生 . 植物生理生化实验原理和技术[M]. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2000.
[24]	杨洋, 王先宏, 杨清辉 . 不同采集地割手密种质资源的耐寒性评价[J]. 热带作物学报, 2019,40(4):638-648.
[25]	孙富, 杨丽涛, 谢晓娜 , 等. 低温胁迫对不同抗寒性甘蔗品种幼苗叶绿体生理代谢的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2012,38(4):732-739.
[26]	张保青 . 低温胁迫下甘蔗后期生理特性及差异蛋白质组学研究[D]. 南宁: 广西大学, 2013.
[27]	马翎健, 胡银岗, 奚亚军 , 等. 小麦幼穗分化及抗寒性杂种优势研究[J]. 西北植物学报, 2000(1):86-91.
[28]	张新, 陈国平, 潘凤英 , 等. 宿生棉耐冷相关性状的种间杂种优势及细胞质效应分析[J]. 西南农业学报, 2011,24(5):1669-1675.

品种 Variety	侧芽受损率 Lateral bud damage rate/%	节间受损率 Internode damage rate/%	蔗茎“上水”率 Water boiling symptom rate of stem/%	生长点受损率 Growth point damage rate/%
ROC22	85.19±25.66	100.00±0.00	58.50±6.90	100.00±0.00
Co281	100.00±0.00	100.00±0.00	62.77±9.91	100.00±0.00
KQ01-1390	63.13±11.91	100.00±0.00	69.70±16.59	100.00±0.00
57NG155	51.50±19.80	100.00±0.00	100.00±0.00	100.00±0.00
28NG16	36.94±16.87	100.00±0.00	62.10±8.41	100.00±0.00
96NG16	60.88±20.00	100.00±0.00	66.23±2.52	100.00±0.00

品种 Variety	侧芽受损率 Lateral bud damage rate/%	节间受损率 Internode damage rate/%	蔗茎“上水”率 Water boiling symptom rate of stem/%	生长点受损率 Growth point damage rate/%
ROC22	85.19±25.66	100.00±0.00	58.50±6.90	100.00±0.00
Co281	100.00±0.00	100.00±0.00	62.77±9.91	100.00±0.00
KQ01-1390	63.13±11.91	100.00±0.00	69.70±16.59	100.00±0.00
57NG155	51.50±19.80	100.00±0.00	100.00±0.00	100.00±0.00
28NG16	36.94±16.87	100.00±0.00	62.10±8.41	100.00±0.00
96NG16	60.88±20.00	100.00±0.00	66.23±2.52	100.00±0.00

品种 Variety	相对电导率 Relative conductivity	MDA	Pro	SOD	CAT	POD	平均隶属度 Average membership
ROC22	0.190	0.000	0.055	0.219	0.024	0.054	0.090
Co281	0.139	0.030	0.250	0.243	0.000	0.000	0.110
KQ01-1390	0.094	0.019	0.093	0.320	0.048	0.099	0.112
57NG155	0.133	0.019	0.013	0.060	0.080	0.120	0.071
28NG16	0.171	0.050	0.000	0.208	0.007	0.007	0.074
96NG16	0.000	0.010	0.004	0.000	0.007	0.037	0.009

品种 Variety	相对电导率 Relative conductivity	MDA	Pro	SOD	CAT	POD	平均隶属度 Average membership
ROC22	0.190	0.000	0.055	0.219	0.024	0.054	0.090
Co281	0.139	0.030	0.250	0.243	0.000	0.000	0.110
KQ01-1390	0.094	0.019	0.093	0.320	0.048	0.099	0.112
57NG155	0.133	0.019	0.013	0.060	0.080	0.120	0.071
28NG16	0.171	0.050	0.000	0.208	0.007	0.007	0.074
96NG16	0.000	0.010	0.004	0.000	0.007	0.037	0.009