葡萄砧木对渗透胁迫的抗性差异及生理响应机理

doi:10.16420/j.issn.0513-353x.2021-0165

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

对10个葡萄砧木品种的干旱、涝害以及盐胁迫的耐受性进行研究,以筛选综合抗性较强的品种。砧木‘520A’综合表现最好,对3种胁迫均有较强的抗性;‘420A’对2种胁迫有较强的抗性;‘3309M’‘1103P’和‘110R’分别只对其中的1种胁迫有较强的抗性;‘贝达’和‘101-14’则对3种胁迫的抗性均较弱。渗透胁迫下砧木的抗性与其可溶性糖、脯氨酸、MDA以及Ca²⁺的积累呈正相关,而与总叶绿素含量呈负相关。

关键词: 葡萄, 砧木, 干旱, 涝害, 盐胁迫, 抗性, 生理响应

Abstract:

In order to select the grape rootstock cultivated varieties with strong comprehensive resistance,the tolerance of 10 grape rootstocks to drought,waterlogging and salt stress were studied. The results showed that‘520A’had the best comprehensive performance and strong resistance to three kinds of stress;‘420A’had strong resistance to two kinds of stress,‘3309M’‘1103P’and‘110R’had strong resistance to only one of them,while‘Beta’and‘101-14’had weak resistance to three kinds of stress. In addition,the increase of resistance to osmotic stress was positively correlated with the accumulation of soluble sugar,proline,MDA and Ca²⁺,but negatively correlated with chlorophyll.

Key words: grape, rootstock, drought, waterlogging, salt stress, resistance, physiological response

中图分类号:

S663.1

刘众杰, 郑婷, 赵方贵, 傅伟红, 诸葛雅贤, 张志昌, 房经贵. 葡萄砧木对渗透胁迫的抗性差异及生理响应机理[J]. 园艺学报, 2022, 49(5): 984-994.

LIU Zhongjie, ZHENG Ting, ZHAO Fanggui, FU Weihong, ZHUGE Yaxian, ZHANG Zhichang, FANG Jinggui. Resistance Difference and Physiological Response Mechanism of Grape Rootstocks to Osmotic Stress[J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2022, 49(5): 984-994.

图/表 9

参考文献 31

[1]	Bailey-Serres J, Chang R. 2005. Sensing and signalling in response to oxygen deprivation in plants and other organisms. Annals of Botany, 96:507-518. pmid: 16051633
[2]	Bailey-Serres J, Fukao T, Gibbs D J, Holdsworth M J. 2012. Making sense of low oxygen sensing. Trends in Plant Science, 17:129-138. doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2011.12.004 pmid: 22280796
[3]	Benito B, Haro R, Amtmann A, Cuin T, Dreyer I. 2014. The twins K⁺ and Na⁺ in plants. Journal of Plant Physiology, 171:723-731. doi: 10.1016/j.jplph.2013.10.014 URL
[4]	Bose J, Munns R, Shabala S, Gilliham M, Pogson B, Tyerman S. 2017. Chloroplast function and ion regulation in plants growing on saline soils:lessons from halophytes. Journal of Experimental Botany, 68:3129-3143. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erx142 URL
[5]	Chaves M, Oliveira M. 2004. Mechanisms underlying plant resilience to water deficits:prospects for water-saving agriculture. Journal of Experimental Botany, 55:2365-2384. pmid: 15475377
[6]	de Herralde F, Del Mar Alsina M, Aranda X, Save R, Biel C. 2006. Effects of rootstock and irrigation regime on hydraulic architecture of Vitis vinifera L. cv. Tempranillo. OENO One, 40:133-139. doi: 10.20870/oeno-one.2006.40.3.868 URL
[7]	Demmig-Adams B, Adams Iii W W. 2006. Photoprotection in an ecological context:the remarkable complexity of thermal energy dissipation. New Phytologist, 172:11-21. pmid: 16945085
[8]	Farooq M, Wahid A, Kobayashi N, Fujita D, Basra S M A. 2009. Plant drought stress:effects,mechanisms and management. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 29:185-212. doi: 10.1051/agro:2008021 URL
[9]	Ferris H, Zheng L, Walker M. 2012. Resistance of grape rootstocks to plant-parasitic nematodes. Journal of Nematology, 44:377. pmid: 23482972
[10]	Fiedler S, Vepraskas M J, Richardson J. 2007. Soil redox potential:importance,field measurements,and observations. Advances in Agronomy, 94:1-54.
[11]	Flexas J, Diaz‐Espejo A, Galmes J, Kaldenhoff R, Medrano H, Ribas-Carbo M. 2007. Rapid variations of mesophyll conductance in response to changes in CO₂concentration around leaves. Plant,Cell & Environment, 30:1284-1298.
[12]	Haider M S, Kurjogi M M, Khalil-Ur-Rehman M, Fiaz M, Pervaiz T, Jiu S, Jia H, Wang C, Fang J. 2017. Grapevine immune signaling network in response to drought stress as revealed by transcriptomic analysis. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, 121:187-195. doi: 10.1016/j.plaphy.2017.10.026 URL
[13]	Jogaiah S, Ramteke S D, Sharma J, Upadhyay A K. 2014. Moisture and salinity stress induced changes in biochemical constituents and water relations of different grape rootstock cultivars. International Journal of Agronomy, DOI: 10.1155/2014/789087. doi: 10.1155/2014/789087 URL
[14]	Kawai Y, Benz J, Kliewer W M. 1996. Effect of flooding on shoot and root growth of rooted cuttings of four grape rootstocks. Journal of the Japanese Society for Horticultural Science, 65:455-461.
[15]	Keller M. 2010. Managing grapevines to optimise fruit development in a challenging environment:a climate change primer for viticulturists. Australian Journal of Grape & Wine Research, 16:56-69.
[16]	Medici A, Laloi M, Atanassova R. 2014. Profiling of sugar transporter genes in grapevine coping with water deficit. FEBS Letters, 588:3989-3997. doi: 10.1016/j.febslet.2014.09.016 pmid: 25261250
[17]	Miras-Avalos J M, Intrigliolo D S. 2017. Grape composition under abiotic constrains:water stress and salinity. Front Plant Sci, 8:851. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2017.00851 URL
[18]	Munns R, Tester M. 2008. Mechanisms of salinity tolerance. Annu Rev Plant Biol, 59:651-681. doi: 10.1146/annurev.arplant.59.032607.092911 pmid: 18444910
[19]	Peccoux A, Loveys B, Zhu J, Gambetta GA, Serge D, Philippe V, Schultz H R, Nathalie O, Dai Z. 2018. Dissecting the rootstock control of scion transpiration using model-assisted analyses in grapevine. Tree Physiology, 38:1026-1040. doi: 10.1093/treephys/tpx153 URL
[20]	Rivero R M, Ruiz J M, Romero L. 2003. Role of grafting in horticultural plants under stress conditions. Journal of Food Agriculture and Environment, 1:70-74.
[21]	Ruperti B, Botton A, Populin F, Eccher G, Meggio F. 2019. Flooding responses on grapevine:a physiological,transcriptional,and metabolic perspective. Frontiers in Plant Science, 10:339. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2019.00339 URL
[22]	Samson C, Casteran P. 1971. Techniques for propagation of grapes. Techniques de Multiplication de la Vigne, 2:3-34.
[23]	Schmull M, Thomas F M. 2000. Morphological and physiological reactions of young deciduous trees(Quercus robur L.,Q. petraea[Matt.] Liebl.,Fagus sylvatica L.)to waterlogging. Plant and Soil, 225:227-242. doi: 10.1023/A:1026516027096 URL
[24]	Schultz H R, Matthews M A. 1993. Growth,osmotic adjustment,and cell-wall mechanics of expanding grape leaves during water deficits. Crop Science, 33:287-294. doi: 10.2135/cropsci1993.0011183X003300020015x URL
[25]	Serra I, Strever A, Myburgh P, Deloire A. 2014. the interaction between rootstocks and cultivars(Vitis vinifera L.)to enhance drought tolerance in grapevine. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 20:1-14. doi: 10.1111/ajgw.12054 URL
[26]	Sharma D K, Dubey A, Srivastav M, Singh AK, Sairam RK, Pandey RN, Dahuja A, Kaur C. 2011. Effect of putrescine and paclobutrazol on growth,physiochemical parameters,and nutrient acquisition of salt-sensitive citrus rootstock Karna khatta(Citrus karna Raf.)under NaCl stress. Journal of Plant Growth Regulation, 30:301-311. doi: 10.1007/s00344-011-9192-1 URL
[27]	Sucu S, Yağcı A, Yıldırım K. 2018. Changes in morphological,physiological traits and enzyme activity of grafted and ungrafted grapevine rootstocks under drought stress. Erwerbs-Obstbau, 60:127-136. doi: 10.1007/s10341-017-0345-7 URL
[28]	Tombesi S, Nardini A, Frioni T, Soccolini M, Zadra C, Farinelli D, Poni S, Palliotti A. 2015. Stomatal closure is induced by hydraulic signals and maintained by ABA in drought-stressed grapevine. Scientific Reports, 5:1-12.
[29]	Walker R R, Blackmore D H, Clingeleffer P R, Correll R. 2004. Rootstock effects on salt tolerance of irrigated field‐grown grapevines(Vitis vinifera L. cv. Sultana)2. Ion concentrations in leaves and juice. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 10:90-99. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-0238.2004.tb00011.x URL
[30]	Yeung E, Van Veen H, Vashisht D, Sobral P, Hummel M, Rankenberg T, Steffens B, Steffen A, Sauter M, de Vries M, Schuurink R C, Bazin J, Bailey J, Voesenek L, Sasidharan R. 2018. A stress recovery signaling network for enhanced flooding tolerance in Arabidopsis thaliana. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115:E6085-E6094.
[31]	Zheng T, Dong T, Muhammad H, Jin H, Jia H, Fang J. 2020. Brassinosteroid regulates 3-Hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl CoA reductase to promote grape fruit development. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 68 (43):11987-11996. doi: 10.1021/acs.jafc.0c04466 pmid: 33059448

砧木 Rootstock name	来源 Source	亲本 Parent	砧木特性 Rootstock characteristic
520A	美国 America	Vitis berlandieri × V. riparia	生长旺盛,抗旱,抗寒,土壤适应性较广 Vigorous growth,drought resistance,cold resistance and wide soil adaptability
110R	法国 France	V. berlandieri × V. rupestris	抗旱,长势旺盛,不易生根,产枝量小 Drought resistance,vigorous growth,difficult to take root and small branch yield
贝达 Beta	美国 America	V. riparia × V. labrusca	长势旺盛,耐旱,耐湿,抗寒,抗病,产枝量中等 Vigorous growth,drought resistance,moisture resistance,cold resistance,disease resistance,medium branch yield
1103P	意大利 Italy	V. berlandieri × V. rupestris	长势旺盛,耐湿,耐盐碱土,较耐旱 Vigorous growth,moisture resistance,salt and alkaline soil resistance,drought resistance
抗砧3号 Kangzhen 3	中国 China	V. berlandieri × V. riparia	生长旺盛,耐盐碱,抗根瘤蚜,产条量高,土壤适应性广 It has strong growth,salt and alkali resistance,phylloxera resistance,high yield and wide soil adaptability
420A	法国 France	V. berlandieri × V. riparia	生长旺盛,抗旱,抗盐碱 Vigorous growth,drought resistance,salt and alkali resistance
5BB	奥地利 Austria	V. berlandieri × V. riparia	生长旺盛,抗根瘤蚜,扦插生根率高,嫁接亲和性较差 Vigorous growth,resistance to phylloxera,high rooting rate and poor grafting compatibility
101-14	法国 France	V. riparia × V. rupestris	生长较旺,抗根瘤蚜,适于肥沃土壤,扦插易生根,与欧洲葡萄嫁接亲和力好 It grows vigorously,is resistant to phylloxera,is suitable for fertile soil,is easy to take root by cutting,and has good grafting affinity with European grape varieties
3309C	法国 France	V. riparia × V. rupestris	生长较旺盛,抗旱,抗根瘤蚜 Strong growth,drought resistance and root rumen aphid resistance
SO4	德国 Germany	V. berlandieri × V. riparia	生长旺盛,抗旱,抗根瘤蚜能力较强,土壤适应性广 It has strong growth,drought resistance,strong resistance to phylloxera and wide soil adaptability

砧木 Rootstock name	来源 Source	亲本 Parent	砧木特性 Rootstock characteristic
520A	美国 America	Vitis berlandieri × V. riparia	生长旺盛,抗旱,抗寒,土壤适应性较广 Vigorous growth,drought resistance,cold resistance and wide soil adaptability
110R	法国 France	V. berlandieri × V. rupestris	抗旱,长势旺盛,不易生根,产枝量小 Drought resistance,vigorous growth,difficult to take root and small branch yield
贝达 Beta	美国 America	V. riparia × V. labrusca	长势旺盛,耐旱,耐湿,抗寒,抗病,产枝量中等 Vigorous growth,drought resistance,moisture resistance,cold resistance,disease resistance,medium branch yield
1103P	意大利 Italy	V. berlandieri × V. rupestris	长势旺盛,耐湿,耐盐碱土,较耐旱 Vigorous growth,moisture resistance,salt and alkaline soil resistance,drought resistance
抗砧3号 Kangzhen 3	中国 China	V. berlandieri × V. riparia	生长旺盛,耐盐碱,抗根瘤蚜,产条量高,土壤适应性广 It has strong growth,salt and alkali resistance,phylloxera resistance,high yield and wide soil adaptability
420A	法国 France	V. berlandieri × V. riparia	生长旺盛,抗旱,抗盐碱 Vigorous growth,drought resistance,salt and alkali resistance
5BB	奥地利 Austria	V. berlandieri × V. riparia	生长旺盛,抗根瘤蚜,扦插生根率高,嫁接亲和性较差 Vigorous growth,resistance to phylloxera,high rooting rate and poor grafting compatibility
101-14	法国 France	V. riparia × V. rupestris	生长较旺,抗根瘤蚜,适于肥沃土壤,扦插易生根,与欧洲葡萄嫁接亲和力好 It grows vigorously,is resistant to phylloxera,is suitable for fertile soil,is easy to take root by cutting,and has good grafting affinity with European grape varieties
3309C	法国 France	V. riparia × V. rupestris	生长较旺盛,抗旱,抗根瘤蚜 Strong growth,drought resistance and root rumen aphid resistance
SO4	德国 Germany	V. berlandieri × V. riparia	生长旺盛,抗旱,抗根瘤蚜能力较强,土壤适应性广 It has strong growth,drought resistance,strong resistance to phylloxera and wide soil adaptability

砧木 Rootstock	盐害指数Salt damage index			耐涝性 Salt tolerance
砧木 Rootstock	2 d	4 d	8 d	耐涝性 Salt tolerance
520A	0 ± h	2.8 ± 0.0 g	12.1 ± 0.4 j	强Strong
1103P	0 ± h	11.5 ± 0.3 f	18.8 ± 0.6 i	强Strong
3309C	0 ± h	1.8 ± 0.2 h	23.3 ± 0.8 h	强Strong
SO4	1.3 ± 0.2 f	11.5 ± 0.7 f	26.4 ± 0.7 g	中Medium
420A	2.5 ± 0.3 e	13.2 ± 0.1 e	26.7 ± 0.8 f	中Medium
110R	4.8 ± 0.2 d	13.2 ± 0.3 e	28.1 ± 0.9 e	中Medium
抗砧3号 Kangzhen 3	1.0 ± 0.1 g	17.1 ± 0.4 c	29.2 ± 1.2 d	中Medium
101-14	13.2 ± 0.3 b	36.9 ± 1.0 a	31.9 ± 1.3 c	弱Sensitive
贝达Beta	8.4 ± 0.2 c	15.3 ± 0.2 d	36.2 ± 1.1 b	弱Sensitive
5BB	15.2 ± 0.4 a	25.0 ± 0.1 b	40.0 ± 1.4 a	弱Sensitive

砧木 Rootstock	盐害指数Salt damage index			耐涝性 Salt tolerance
砧木 Rootstock	2 d	4 d	8 d	耐涝性 Salt tolerance
520A	0 ± h	2.8 ± 0.0 g	12.1 ± 0.4 j	强Strong
1103P	0 ± h	11.5 ± 0.3 f	18.8 ± 0.6 i	强Strong
3309C	0 ± h	1.8 ± 0.2 h	23.3 ± 0.8 h	强Strong
SO4	1.3 ± 0.2 f	11.5 ± 0.7 f	26.4 ± 0.7 g	中Medium
420A	2.5 ± 0.3 e	13.2 ± 0.1 e	26.7 ± 0.8 f	中Medium
110R	4.8 ± 0.2 d	13.2 ± 0.3 e	28.1 ± 0.9 e	中Medium
抗砧3号 Kangzhen 3	1.0 ± 0.1 g	17.1 ± 0.4 c	29.2 ± 1.2 d	中Medium
101-14	13.2 ± 0.3 b	36.9 ± 1.0 a	31.9 ± 1.3 c	弱Sensitive
贝达Beta	8.4 ± 0.2 c	15.3 ± 0.2 d	36.2 ± 1.1 b	弱Sensitive
5BB	15.2 ± 0.4 a	25.0 ± 0.1 b	40.0 ± 1.4 a	弱Sensitive

砧木 Rootstock	旱情指数Drought damage index			耐旱性 Drought tolerance
砧木 Rootstock	8 d	12 d	16 d	耐旱性 Drought tolerance
520A	3.1 ± 0.4 g	6.7 ± 0.3 j	19.6 ± 1.1 h	强Strong
420A	2.5 ± 0.2 h	14.6 ± 0.7 i	32.9 ± 1.9 g	强Strong
110R	3.1 ± 0.2 g	29.2 ± 1.3 h	34.2 ± 1.3 f	强Strong
1103P	13.3 ± 0.9 a	57.1 ± 2.5 d	77.1 ± 3.1 e	中Medium
贝达Beta	6.3 ± 0.4 f	47.9 ± 2.1 g	77.1 ± 2.9 e	中Medium
3309C	8.3 ± 0.5 e	56.3 ± 2.7 e	85.4 ± 4.1 d	中Medium
SO4	14.6 ± 0.8 b	50.0 ± 1.8 f	86.3 ± 3.9 c	中Medium
抗砧3号 Kangzhen 3	16.7 ± 0.8 d	65.8 ± 2.9 b	87.5 ± 4.5 b	弱Sensitive
5BB	33.3 ± 1.6 a	62.5 ± 3.1 c	87.5 ± 5.3 b	弱Sensitive
101-14	18.8 ± 1.0 c	81.3 ± 4.2 a	93.8 ± 5.5 a	弱Sensitive