Effects of Physiological Characteristics of Different Tea Cultivars under Drought Treatment and Evaluation on Their Drought Resistance

SHEN Siyan; XU Yanxia; MA Chunlei; CHEN Liang

doi:10.13305/j.cnki.jts.2019.02.006

2019 , Vol. 39 >Issue 2: 171 - 180

DOI: https://doi.org/10.13305/j.cnki.jts.2019.02.006

Effects of Physiological Characteristics of Different Tea Cultivars under Drought Treatment and Evaluation on Their Drought Resistance

SHEN Siyan ,
XU Yanxia ,
MA Chunlei ,
CHEN Liang

Expand

1. Tea Research Institute of the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, National Center for Tea Improvement, Key Laboratory of Tea Plant Biology and Resources Utilization, Ministry of Agriculture, Hangzhou 310008, China;
2. Graduate School of Chinese Academy of Agriculture Science, Beijing 100081, China

Received date: 2018-10-17

Online published: 2019-06-13

Fold

Abstract

In this study, two-year-old tea seedlings of four tea cultivars (Longjing 43, Zhuyeqi, Ningzhou 2 and Baiye 1) were used for natural drought test in pots. Their growth and adaptation under drought stress and after re-watering were determined. The effects of drought treatment on the physiological characteristics of different tea cultivars were evaluated, and their drought tolerances were comprehensively evaluated by subordinate function method. The results show that during drought treatment, soil volumetric water content of the four cultivars decreased gradually. Tea plants showed dehydration symptoms, with relative water content, superoxide dismutase activity, net photosynthetic rate and transpiration rate of leaves decreased, malondialdehyde, chlorophyll and carotenoid contents increased, the activities of peroxidase and catalase increased first and then decreased, water use efficiency increased first and then decreased. After re-watering, soil volumetric and relative water contents of four cultivars increased, whereas malondialdehyde content decreased. Peroxidase activities of tea cultivars decreased, except Longjing 43. The superoxide dismutase activities showed an opposite trend. Catalase activities of four cultivars decreased, but net photosynthetic rate was not significantly changed. Transpiration rate and water use efficiency increased. Except for Zhuyeqi, the amount of chlorophyll and carotenoids reduced. The drought resistance of four cultivars was comprehensively evaluated by subordinate function value, and the results show that Longjing 43>Ningzhou 2>Zhuyeqi>Baiye 1. This study provided a reference and theoretical basis for the screening of drought-tolerant tea cultivars and drought-resistant breeding.

Key words： natural drought treatment; drought stress; physiological index; subordinate function method; drought resistance

Cite this article

SHEN Siyan , XU Yanxia , MA Chunlei , CHEN Liang . Effects of Physiological Characteristics of Different Tea Cultivars under Drought Treatment and Evaluation on Their Drought Resistance[J]. Journal of Tea Science, 2019 , 39(2) : 171 -180 . DOI: 10.13305/j.cnki.jts.2019.02.006

References

[1] Lawlor D W.Limitation to photosynthesis in water-stressed leaves: Stomata vs. metabolism and the role of ATP[J]. Annals of Botany, 2002, 89(7): 871-885.
[2] 骆耀平. 茶树栽培学[M]. 5版. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2015: 98-100.
[3] 孙世利, 骆耀平. 茶树抗旱性研究进展[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2006, 1(1): 89-91.
[4] Cheruiyot EK, Mumera LM, Ng'Etich WK, et al. High fertilizer rates increase susceptibility of tea to water stress[J]. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 2009, 33(1): 115-129.
[5] 马蕊. 云南普洱茶大幅减产干旱导致云南茶价上涨[J]. 中国茶叶, 2010, 32(4): 33.
[6] 周琳, 徐辉, 朱旭君, 等. 脱落酸对干旱胁迫下茶树生理特性的影响[J]. 茶叶科学, 2014, 34(5): 473-480.
[7] Muoki R C, Paul A, Kumar S.A shared response of thaumatin like protein, chitinase, and late embryogenesis abundant protein3 to environmental stresses in tea [Camellia sinensis (L.) O. Kuntze][J]. Functional & Integrative Genomics, 2012, 12(3): 565-571.
[8] Upadhyaya H, Panda S K, Dutta B K.Variation of physiological and antioxidative responses in tea cultivars subjected to elevated water stress followed by rehydration recovery[J]. Acta Physiologiae Plantarum, 2008, 30(4): 457-468.
[9] 魏永胜, 梁宗锁, 山仑, 等. 利用隶属函数值法评价苜蓿抗旱性[J]. 草业科学, 2005, 22(6): 33-36.
[10] Lichtenthaler H K, Wellburn A R.Determinations of total carotenoids and chlorophylls a and b of leaf extracts in different solvents[J]. Biochem Soc Trans, 1983, 11(5): 591-592.
[11] 吴晓凤, 倪沛, 杨涛, 等. 10种菊科植物的抗旱性与抗盐性评价[J]. 生态学杂志, 2018, 37(7): 1959-1968.
[12] 刘洪顺, 朱永兴. 湖南试验区季节性干旱与茶树生长[J]. 茶叶通讯, 1993(4): 44-46.
[13] Rab M A, Chandra S, Fisher P D, et al.Modelling and prediction of soil water contents at field capacity and permanent wilting point of dryland cropping soils[J]. Soil Research, 2011, 49(5): 389-407.
[14] 单长卷, 韩蕊莲, 梁宗锁. 干旱胁迫下黄土高原4种乡土禾草抗氧化特性[J]. 生态学报, 2012, 32(4): 1174-1184.
[15] 刘声传, 陈亮. 茶树耐旱机理及抗旱节水研究进展[J]. 茶叶科学, 2014, 34(2): 111-121.
[16] 王利界, 周智彬, 常青, 等. 盐旱交叉胁迫对灰胡杨(Populus pruinosa)幼苗生长和生理生化特性的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2018, 38(19): 1-8.
[17] 刘玉英, 徐泽, 罗云米. 干旱胁迫对不同茶树品种生理特性的影响[J]. 西南农业学报, 2010, 23(2): 387-389.
[18] 牛素贞, 宋勤飞, 樊卫国, 等. 干旱胁迫对喀斯特地区野生茶树幼苗生理特性及根系生长的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2017, 37(21): 7333-7341.
[19] 张庆华, 向发云, 曾祥国, 等. 干旱胁迫下不同品种草莓生理响应及抗旱性评价[J]. 北方园艺, 2018(2): 30-37.
[20] 刘锦春, 钟章成, 何跃军. 干旱胁迫及复水对喀斯特地区柏木幼苗活性氧清除系统的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2011, 22(11): 2836-2840.
[21] 孙存华, 李扬, 贺鸿雁, 等. 藜对干旱胁迫的生理生化反应[J]. 生态学报, 2005, 25(10): 2556-2561.
[22] 韩瑞宏. 苗期紫花苜蓿(Medicago sativa)对干旱胁迫的适应机制研究[D]. 北京: 北京林业大学, 2006.
[23] 刘玉英, 王三根, 徐泽, 等. 不同茶树品种干旱胁迫下抗氧化能力的比较研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2006, 22(4): 264-264.
[24] 单宁伟, 金基石, 赵喜亭, 等. 切花月季Samantha失水胁迫耐性与其超氧化物歧化酶之间的关联[J]. 中国农业科学, 2005, 38(7): 1431-1438.
[25] 吴芹, 张光灿, 裴斌, 等. 3个树种对不同程度土壤干旱的生理生化响应[J]. 生态学报, 2013, 33(12): 3648-3656.
[26] 王彬, 李长鼎, 马仲泽, 等. 4个高羊茅品种幼苗期抗旱性比较研究[J]. 农业科学研究, 2011, 32(3): 22-26.
[27] 王小萍, 王云, 唐晓波,等. 干旱胁迫对茶树生理指标的影响[J]. 西南农业学报, 2014, 27(3): 1037-1040.
[28] 姜英淑, 陈书明, 王秋玉, 等. 干旱胁迫对2个欧李种源生理特征的影响[J]. 林业科学, 2009, 45(6): 6-10.
[29] 魏鹏. 茶树抗旱性部分生理生化指标的研究[D]. 重庆: 西南农业大学, 2003.
[30] 杨淑红, 宋德才, 刘艳萍, 等. 土壤干旱胁迫和复水后3个杨树品种叶片部分生理指标变化及抗旱性评价[J]. 植物资源与环境学报, 2014, 23(3): 65-73.
[31] 郭郁频, 米福贵, 闫利军, 等. 不同早熟禾品种对干旱胁迫的生理响应及抗旱性评价[J]. 草业学报, 2014, 23(4): 220-228.
[32] 黄华, 梁宗锁, 韩蕊莲, 等. 干旱胁迫条件下油松幼苗生长及抗旱性的研究[J]. 西北林学院学报, 2004, 19(2): 1-4.
[33] Krause G H, Weis E.Chlorophyll fluorescence and photosynthesis: the basics[J]. Annual Review of Plant Physiology, 1991, 42(42): 313-349.
[34] 孙慧珍, 康绍忠, 李志军. 梨树叶片蒸腾特性研究[J]. 西北植物学报, 2007, 27(11): 2275-2280.
[35] 井大炜, 邢尚军, 杜振宇, 等. 干旱胁迫对杨树幼苗生长、光合特性及活性氧代谢的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2013, 24(7): 1809-1816.
[36] 关春景, 焦孟月, 张彦妮. 8个矮牵牛品种抗旱性综合评价分析[J]. 西北林学院学报, 2018, 33(2): 62-69.
[37] 张燕红, 吴永波, 刘璇, 等. 高温和干旱胁迫对杨树幼苗光合性能和抗氧化酶系统的影响[J]. 东北林业大学学报, 2017, 45(11): 32-38.
[38] 黄拯, 钟秋平, 曹林青, 等. 干旱胁迫对油茶成林光合作用的影响[J]. 经济林研究, 2017, 35(4): 72-79.
[39] 袭梅. 干旱胁迫对龙葵解剖结构和生理特性的影响[D]. 南京: 南京农业大学, 2010.
[40] Netto L A, Jayaram K M, Puthur J T.Clonal variation of tea [Camellia sinensis (L.) O. Kuntze] in countering water deficiency[J]. Physiology & Molecular Biology of Plants, 2010, 16(4): 359-367.
[41] 郭春芳, 罗玲娜, 何水平, 等. 土壤水分胁迫下茶树部分渗透调节物质的变化[J]. 中国农学通报, 2015, 31(28): 126-131.
[42] 区智, 邹旭, 周长梅, 等. PEG模拟干旱胁迫对灯台树幼苗生理特性的影响[J]. 西南农业学报, 2018, 31(6): 1180-1184.
[43] 范苏鲁, 苑兆和, 冯立娟, 等. 干旱胁迫对大丽花生理生化指标的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2011, 22(3): 651-657.
[44] 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.
[45] 罗俊杰, 欧巧明, 叶春雷, 等. 主要胡麻品种抗旱相关指标分析及综合评价[J]. 核农学报, 2014, 28(11): 2115-2125.

Options

Outlines

模态框（Modal）标题

Abstract

Cite this article

References