Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology ›› 2023, Vol. 25 ›› Issue (7): 63-76.DOI: 10.13304/j.nykjdb.2021.0847
• BIOTECHNOLOGY & LIFE SCIENCE • Previous Articles Next Articles
Qianqian LU(), Abuduwaili Abulimiti, Yixing HOU, Zhihui LI, Shuang WANG, Long ZHOU(
)
Received:
2021-09-29
Accepted:
2021-12-09
Online:
2023-07-15
Published:
2023-08-25
Contact:
Long ZHOU
卢倩倩(), 阿布都外力·阿不力米提, 侯毅兴, 李志慧, 王爽, 周龙(
)
通讯作者:
周龙
作者简介:
卢倩倩 E-mail:2214466796@qq.com;
基金资助:
CLC Number:
Qianqian LU, Abuduwaili Abulimiti, Yixing HOU, Zhihui LI, Shuang WANG, Long ZHOU. Research of the Photosynthetic Characteristics of 7 Table Grape Varieties Under Compound Salt-alkali Stress[J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2023, 25(7): 63-76.
卢倩倩, 阿布都外力·阿不力米提, 侯毅兴, 李志慧, 王爽, 周龙. 复合盐碱胁迫下7个鲜食葡萄品种光合特性研究[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2023, 25(7): 63-76.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: https://nkdb.magtechjournal.com/EN/10.13304/j.nykjdb.2021.0847
Fig. 1 SPAD value of grape leaves under different treatmentsNote: Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between different treatments of same variety at P<0.05 level.
指标 Index | T1 | T2 | T3 | 平均 Mean | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PC1 | PC2 | PC3 | PC4 | PC1 | PC2 | PC3 | PC4 | PC1 | PC2 | PC3 | PC4 | PC1 | PC2 | PC3 | PC4 | |
净光合速率Pn | 0.52 | 0.42 | -0.64 | 0.13 | 0.97 | 0.11 | -0.13 | 0.10 | 0.70 | 0.01 | 0.43 | 0.52 | 0.68 | 0.25 | 0.59 | -0.32 |
PSⅡ实际光化学效率ΦPSⅡ | -0.27 | -0.49 | 0.63 | 0.35 | 0.31 | 0.34 | 0.22 | 0.82 | 0.46 | -0.67 | -0.58 | 0.03 | -0.16 | -0.69 | 0.23 | 0.65 |
PSⅡ最大光能转换效率Fv/Fm | 0.52 | 0.16 | 0.51 | 0.65 | 0.70 | 0.61 | 0.21 | -0.05 | 0.69 | -0.07 | -0.33 | 0.23 | 0.62 | 0.47 | 0.21 | 0.51 |
水分利用效率WUE | -0.52 | -0.35 | -0.53 | 0.36 | -0.63 | 0.04 | -0.48 | 0.46 | -0.49 | -0.41 | 0.71 | -0.10 | -0.60 | -0.42 | 0.41 | -0.43 |
气孔导度Gs | 0.86 | 0.11 | 0.42 | -0.04 | 0.95 | -0.03 | -0.11 | -0.17 | 0.90 | 0.17 | 0.05 | 0.30 | 0.85 | 0.35 | 0.19 | -0.10 |
胞间CO2浓度Ci | 0.19 | -0.71 | 0.31 | -0.51 | 0.41 | -0.71 | 0.50 | 0.28 | 0.80 | 0.25 | 0.19 | -0.29 | 0.72 | -0.14 | -0.59 | -0.05 |
蒸腾速率Tr | 0.93 | 0.07 | 0.18 | -0.28 | 0.96 | -0.12 | 0.20 | -0.12 | 0.88 | 0.36 | 0.12 | 0.28 | 0.91 | 0.35 | 0.10 | -0.05 |
初始荧光Fo | -0.67 | 0.57 | 0.30 | -0.31 | -0.90 | 0.28 | 0.32 | -0.14 | -0.80 | 0.37 | 0.01 | 0.28 | -0.81 | 0.52 | -0.25 | -0.11 |
最大荧光Fm | 0.00 | 0.89 | 0.14 | 0.37 | 0.02 | 0.87 | 0.48 | -0.01 | -0.92 | 0.15 | -0.08 | 0.27 | -0.39 | 0.86 | 0.22 | 0.15 |
非光化学猝灭系数NPQ | -0.17 | 0.90 | 0.07 | -0.39 | -0.45 | 0.01 | 0.84 | -0.05 | -0.65 | 0.63 | -0.29 | 0.22 | -0.47 | 0.79 | -0.37 | 0.05 |
SPAD值 SPAD value | -0.59 | 0.18 | 0.70 | 0.03 | 0.07 | 0.86 | -0.37 | -0.06 | -0.47 | -0.70 | 0.05 | 0.54 | -0.77 | 0.28 | 0.49 | 0.13 |
特征值 Eigenvalue | 3.33 | 3.05 | 2.25 | 1.42 | 4.90 | 2.58 | 1.81 | 1.05 | 5.77 | 1.89 | 1.29 | 1.08 | 4.90 | 2.92 | 1.50 | 1.04 |
贡献率 Contribution rate/% | 30.31 | 27.72 | 20.42 | 12.91 | 44.51 | 23.45 | 16.42 | 9.55 | 52.49 | 17.15 | 11.71 | 9.83 | 44.57 | 26.58 | 13.62 | 9.49 |
累计贡献率 Cumulative contribution rate/% | 30.31 | 58.03 | 78.45 | 91.36 | 44.51 | 67.96 | 84.38 | 93.92 | 52.49 | 69.64 | 81.35 | 91.18 | 44.57 | 71.15 | 84.77 | 94.26 |
Table 1 Eigenvalues, contribution and loading matrix of components of 7 grape varieties under different salt-alkali stress
指标 Index | T1 | T2 | T3 | 平均 Mean | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PC1 | PC2 | PC3 | PC4 | PC1 | PC2 | PC3 | PC4 | PC1 | PC2 | PC3 | PC4 | PC1 | PC2 | PC3 | PC4 | |
净光合速率Pn | 0.52 | 0.42 | -0.64 | 0.13 | 0.97 | 0.11 | -0.13 | 0.10 | 0.70 | 0.01 | 0.43 | 0.52 | 0.68 | 0.25 | 0.59 | -0.32 |
PSⅡ实际光化学效率ΦPSⅡ | -0.27 | -0.49 | 0.63 | 0.35 | 0.31 | 0.34 | 0.22 | 0.82 | 0.46 | -0.67 | -0.58 | 0.03 | -0.16 | -0.69 | 0.23 | 0.65 |
PSⅡ最大光能转换效率Fv/Fm | 0.52 | 0.16 | 0.51 | 0.65 | 0.70 | 0.61 | 0.21 | -0.05 | 0.69 | -0.07 | -0.33 | 0.23 | 0.62 | 0.47 | 0.21 | 0.51 |
水分利用效率WUE | -0.52 | -0.35 | -0.53 | 0.36 | -0.63 | 0.04 | -0.48 | 0.46 | -0.49 | -0.41 | 0.71 | -0.10 | -0.60 | -0.42 | 0.41 | -0.43 |
气孔导度Gs | 0.86 | 0.11 | 0.42 | -0.04 | 0.95 | -0.03 | -0.11 | -0.17 | 0.90 | 0.17 | 0.05 | 0.30 | 0.85 | 0.35 | 0.19 | -0.10 |
胞间CO2浓度Ci | 0.19 | -0.71 | 0.31 | -0.51 | 0.41 | -0.71 | 0.50 | 0.28 | 0.80 | 0.25 | 0.19 | -0.29 | 0.72 | -0.14 | -0.59 | -0.05 |
蒸腾速率Tr | 0.93 | 0.07 | 0.18 | -0.28 | 0.96 | -0.12 | 0.20 | -0.12 | 0.88 | 0.36 | 0.12 | 0.28 | 0.91 | 0.35 | 0.10 | -0.05 |
初始荧光Fo | -0.67 | 0.57 | 0.30 | -0.31 | -0.90 | 0.28 | 0.32 | -0.14 | -0.80 | 0.37 | 0.01 | 0.28 | -0.81 | 0.52 | -0.25 | -0.11 |
最大荧光Fm | 0.00 | 0.89 | 0.14 | 0.37 | 0.02 | 0.87 | 0.48 | -0.01 | -0.92 | 0.15 | -0.08 | 0.27 | -0.39 | 0.86 | 0.22 | 0.15 |
非光化学猝灭系数NPQ | -0.17 | 0.90 | 0.07 | -0.39 | -0.45 | 0.01 | 0.84 | -0.05 | -0.65 | 0.63 | -0.29 | 0.22 | -0.47 | 0.79 | -0.37 | 0.05 |
SPAD值 SPAD value | -0.59 | 0.18 | 0.70 | 0.03 | 0.07 | 0.86 | -0.37 | -0.06 | -0.47 | -0.70 | 0.05 | 0.54 | -0.77 | 0.28 | 0.49 | 0.13 |
特征值 Eigenvalue | 3.33 | 3.05 | 2.25 | 1.42 | 4.90 | 2.58 | 1.81 | 1.05 | 5.77 | 1.89 | 1.29 | 1.08 | 4.90 | 2.92 | 1.50 | 1.04 |
贡献率 Contribution rate/% | 30.31 | 27.72 | 20.42 | 12.91 | 44.51 | 23.45 | 16.42 | 9.55 | 52.49 | 17.15 | 11.71 | 9.83 | 44.57 | 26.58 | 13.62 | 9.49 |
累计贡献率 Cumulative contribution rate/% | 30.31 | 58.03 | 78.45 | 91.36 | 44.51 | 67.96 | 84.38 | 93.92 | 52.49 | 69.64 | 81.35 | 91.18 | 44.57 | 71.15 | 84.77 | 94.26 |
指标 Index | T1 | T2 | T3 | 平均Mean | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PC1 | PC2 | PC3 | PC4 | PC1 | PC2 | PC3 | PC4 | PC1 | PC2 | PC3 | PC4 | PC1 | PC2 | PC3 | PC4 | |
总得分公式 Total scoring formula | F=0.39 F1+0.35 F2+0.26 F3+0.17 F4 | F=0.47 F1+0.25 F2+0.18 F3+0.10 F4 | F=0.58 F1+0.19 F2+0.13 F3+0.11 F4 | F=0.47 F1+0.28 F2+0.14 F3+0.10 F4 | ||||||||||||
Pn | 0.16 | 0.14 | -0.28 | 0.09 | 0.20 | 0.04 | -0.07 | 0.10 | 0.12 | 0.00 | 0.34 | 0.48 | 0.14 | 0.09 | 0.40 | -0.30 |
ΦPSⅡ | -0.08 | -0.16 | 0.28 | 0.25 | 0.06 | 0.13 | 0.12 | 0.78 | 0.08 | -0.36 | -0.45 | 0.02 | -0.03 | -0.24 | 0.15 | 0.63 |
Fv/Fm | 0.16 | 0.05 | 0.23 | 0.46 | 0.14 | 0.24 | 0.12 | -0.05 | 0.12 | -0.04 | -0.26 | 0.22 | 0.13 | 0.16 | 0.14 | 0.49 |
WUE | -0.16 | -0.11 | -0.24 | 0.26 | -0.13 | 0.02 | -0.27 | 0.44 | -0.09 | -0.22 | 0.55 | -0.09 | -0.12 | -0.15 | 0.27 | -0.42 |
Gs | 0.26 | 0.04 | 0.19 | -0.03 | 0.19 | -0.01 | -0.06 | -0.17 | 0.16 | 0.09 | 0.04 | 0.28 | 0.17 | 0.12 | 0.13 | -0.09 |
Ci | 0.06 | -0.23 | 0.14 | -0.36 | 0.08 | -0.27 | 0.27 | 0.27 | 0.14 | 0.13 | 0.15 | -0.27 | 0.15 | -0.05 | -0.39 | -0.04 |
Tr | 0.28 | 0.02 | 0.08 | -0.19 | 0.20 | -0.05 | 0.11 | -0.12 | 0.15 | 0.19 | 0.09 | 0.26 | 0.19 | 0.12 | 0.06 | -0.04 |
Fo | -0.20 | 0.19 | 0.13 | -0.22 | -0.18 | 0.11 | 0.18 | -0.13 | -0.14 | 0.20 | 0.01 | 0.26 | -0.16 | 0.18 | -0.17 | -0.10 |
Fm | 0.00 | 0.29 | 0.06 | 0.26 | 0.01 | 0.34 | 0.27 | -0.01 | -0.16 | 0.08 | -0.06 | 0.25 | -0.08 | 0.30 | 0.14 | 0.15 |
NPQ | -0.05 | 0.30 | 0.03 | -0.28 | -0.09 | 0.00 | 0.46 | -0.05 | -0.11 | 0.33 | -0.23 | 0.21 | -0.10 | 0.27 | -0.25 | 0.05 |
SPAD值 SPAD value | -0.18 | 0.06 | 0.31 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.33 | -0.20 | -0.06 | -0.08 | -0.37 | 0.04 | 0.50 | -0.16 | 0.10 | 0.33 | 0.12 |
Table 2 Scoring system matrix and total scoring formula of 7 grape varieties under different saline-alkali stress
指标 Index | T1 | T2 | T3 | 平均Mean | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PC1 | PC2 | PC3 | PC4 | PC1 | PC2 | PC3 | PC4 | PC1 | PC2 | PC3 | PC4 | PC1 | PC2 | PC3 | PC4 | |
总得分公式 Total scoring formula | F=0.39 F1+0.35 F2+0.26 F3+0.17 F4 | F=0.47 F1+0.25 F2+0.18 F3+0.10 F4 | F=0.58 F1+0.19 F2+0.13 F3+0.11 F4 | F=0.47 F1+0.28 F2+0.14 F3+0.10 F4 | ||||||||||||
Pn | 0.16 | 0.14 | -0.28 | 0.09 | 0.20 | 0.04 | -0.07 | 0.10 | 0.12 | 0.00 | 0.34 | 0.48 | 0.14 | 0.09 | 0.40 | -0.30 |
ΦPSⅡ | -0.08 | -0.16 | 0.28 | 0.25 | 0.06 | 0.13 | 0.12 | 0.78 | 0.08 | -0.36 | -0.45 | 0.02 | -0.03 | -0.24 | 0.15 | 0.63 |
Fv/Fm | 0.16 | 0.05 | 0.23 | 0.46 | 0.14 | 0.24 | 0.12 | -0.05 | 0.12 | -0.04 | -0.26 | 0.22 | 0.13 | 0.16 | 0.14 | 0.49 |
WUE | -0.16 | -0.11 | -0.24 | 0.26 | -0.13 | 0.02 | -0.27 | 0.44 | -0.09 | -0.22 | 0.55 | -0.09 | -0.12 | -0.15 | 0.27 | -0.42 |
Gs | 0.26 | 0.04 | 0.19 | -0.03 | 0.19 | -0.01 | -0.06 | -0.17 | 0.16 | 0.09 | 0.04 | 0.28 | 0.17 | 0.12 | 0.13 | -0.09 |
Ci | 0.06 | -0.23 | 0.14 | -0.36 | 0.08 | -0.27 | 0.27 | 0.27 | 0.14 | 0.13 | 0.15 | -0.27 | 0.15 | -0.05 | -0.39 | -0.04 |
Tr | 0.28 | 0.02 | 0.08 | -0.19 | 0.20 | -0.05 | 0.11 | -0.12 | 0.15 | 0.19 | 0.09 | 0.26 | 0.19 | 0.12 | 0.06 | -0.04 |
Fo | -0.20 | 0.19 | 0.13 | -0.22 | -0.18 | 0.11 | 0.18 | -0.13 | -0.14 | 0.20 | 0.01 | 0.26 | -0.16 | 0.18 | -0.17 | -0.10 |
Fm | 0.00 | 0.29 | 0.06 | 0.26 | 0.01 | 0.34 | 0.27 | -0.01 | -0.16 | 0.08 | -0.06 | 0.25 | -0.08 | 0.30 | 0.14 | 0.15 |
NPQ | -0.05 | 0.30 | 0.03 | -0.28 | -0.09 | 0.00 | 0.46 | -0.05 | -0.11 | 0.33 | -0.23 | 0.21 | -0.10 | 0.27 | -0.25 | 0.05 |
SPAD值 SPAD value | -0.18 | 0.06 | 0.31 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.33 | -0.20 | -0.06 | -0.08 | -0.37 | 0.04 | 0.50 | -0.16 | 0.10 | 0.33 | 0.12 |
品种 Varietiy | T1 | T2 | T3 | 平均 Mean | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
得分 Score | 排名 Ranking | 得分 Score | 排名 Ranking | 得分 Score | 排名 Ranking | 得分 Score | 排名 Ranking | |
深红玫瑰 Crimson Rose | 68.33 | 4 | 67.57 | 7 | -9.09 | 3 | 31.99 | 5 |
浪漫红颜 Wagamichi | 56.52 | 6 | 75.02 | 3 | -4.73 | 2 | 31.99 | 4 |
丝路红玫瑰 Silk Road Red Rose | 70.27 | 3 | 72.21 | 4 | -15.00 | 7 | 34.23 | 3 |
阳光玫瑰 Shine Muscat | 70.57 | 2 | 79.29 | 2 | -13.28 | 6 | 36.78 | 2 |
黑脆无核 Blackcrunchy Seedless | 58.94 | 5 | 71.78 | 5 | -2.24 | 1 | 31.79 | 6 |
甜蜜蓝宝石 Sweet Sapphire | 47.41 | 7 | 70.19 | 6 | -9.56 | 4 | 31.43 | 7 |
早夏无核 Zaoxiawuhe | 82.91 | 1 | 91.42 | 1 | -12.71 | 5 | 41.69 | 1 |
Table 3 Comprehensive scores and ranks of 7 grape varieties with salt-alkali tolerance under different salt-alkali stress
品种 Varietiy | T1 | T2 | T3 | 平均 Mean | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
得分 Score | 排名 Ranking | 得分 Score | 排名 Ranking | 得分 Score | 排名 Ranking | 得分 Score | 排名 Ranking | |
深红玫瑰 Crimson Rose | 68.33 | 4 | 67.57 | 7 | -9.09 | 3 | 31.99 | 5 |
浪漫红颜 Wagamichi | 56.52 | 6 | 75.02 | 3 | -4.73 | 2 | 31.99 | 4 |
丝路红玫瑰 Silk Road Red Rose | 70.27 | 3 | 72.21 | 4 | -15.00 | 7 | 34.23 | 3 |
阳光玫瑰 Shine Muscat | 70.57 | 2 | 79.29 | 2 | -13.28 | 6 | 36.78 | 2 |
黑脆无核 Blackcrunchy Seedless | 58.94 | 5 | 71.78 | 5 | -2.24 | 1 | 31.79 | 6 |
甜蜜蓝宝石 Sweet Sapphire | 47.41 | 7 | 70.19 | 6 | -9.56 | 4 | 31.43 | 7 |
早夏无核 Zaoxiawuhe | 82.91 | 1 | 91.42 | 1 | -12.71 | 5 | 41.69 | 1 |
1 | 孙振元,刘金,赵梁军,等.盐碱土绿化技术[M].北京:中国林业出版社,2004:1-393. |
SUN Z Y, LIU J, ZHAO L J, et al.. Planting Techniques in Aaline-alkali Soils [M]. Beijing:China Forestry Publishing House, 2004:1-393. | |
2 | 田长彦,买文选,赵振勇.新疆干旱区盐碱地生态治理关键技术研究[J].生态学报,2016,36(22):7064-7068. |
TIAN C Y, MAI W X, ZHAO Z Y. Study on key technologies of ecological management of saline alkali land in arid area of Xinjiang [J]. Acta Ecol. Sin., 2016, 36(22):7064-7068. | |
3 | 蒲胜海,张计峰,丁峰,等.新疆葡萄产业发展现状及研究动态[J].北方园艺,2013(13):200-203. |
PU S H, ZHANG J F, DING F, et al.. Development status and research emphases of the grape industry in Xinjiang [J]. Northern Hortic., 2013(13):200-203. | |
4 | 王佺珍,刘倩,高娅妮,等.植物对盐碱胁迫的响应机制研究进展[J].生态学报,2017,37(16):5565-5577. |
WANG Q Z, LIU Q, GAO Y N, et al.. Review on the mechanisms of the response to salinity-alkalinity stress in plants [J]. Acta Ecol. Sin., 2017, 37(16):5565-5577. | |
5 | 房玉林,惠竹梅,高邦牢,等.盐胁迫下葡萄光合特性的研究[J].土壤通报,2006,37(5):881-884. |
FANG Y L, HUI Z M, GAO B L, et al.. Changes of grapevine photosynthetic properties under salt stress [J]. Chin. J. Soil Sci., 2006, 37(5):881-884. | |
6 | 邢庆振,郁松林,牛雅萍,等.盐胁迫对葡萄幼苗光合及叶绿素荧光特性的影响[J].干旱地区农业研究,2011,29(3):96-100. |
XING Q Z, YU S L, NIU Y P, et al.. Effects of salt stress on photosynthetic physiology and chlorophyll fluorescence characteristics of grape (Red Globe) seedlings [J]. Agric. Res. Arid Areas, 2011, 29(3):96-100. | |
7 | 尹勇刚,袁军伟,刘长江,等.NaCl胁迫对葡萄砧木光合特性与叶绿素荧光参数的影响[J].中国农业科技导报,2020,22(8):49-55. |
YIN Y G, YUAN J W, LIU C J, et al.. Effects of NaCl stress on leaf photosynthesis and chlorophyll fluorescence parameters of Vitis sp. rootstocks [J]. J. Agric. Sci. Technol., 2020, 22(8):49-55. | |
8 | 付晴晴,孙永江,翟衡,等.盐胁迫对葡萄种间杂交砧木F1株系光合特性的影响[J].植物生理学报,2017,53(9):1640-1648. |
FU Q Q, SUN Y J, ZHAI H, et al.. Effect of salt stress on photosynthetic characteristics in grape rootstock of interspecific F1 hybrids [J]. Plant Physiol. J., 2017, 53(9):1640-1648. | |
9 | 王振兴,吕海燕,秦红艳,等.盐碱胁迫对山葡萄光合特性及生长发育的影响[J].西北植物学报,2017,37(2):339-345. |
WANG Z X, LYU H Y, QIN H Y, et al.. Photosynthetic characteristics and growth development of amur grape (Vitis amurensis Rupr.) under saline-alkali stress [J]. Acta Bot. Bor-Occid. Sin., 2017, 37(2):339-345. | |
10 | 李文杨,岳建华,孟岩,等.葡萄叶片SPAD值与测定位置及光合色素含量的关系[J].经济林研究,2019,37(2):67-72, 81. |
LI W Y, YUE J H, MENG Y, et al.. Correlation between SPAD value and photosynthetic pigment content in Vitis vinifera leaves [J]. Non-wood For. Res., 2019, 37(2):67-72, 81. | |
11 | 刘春燕,周龙,贾舟楫,等.黄化对吐鲁番葡萄叶片光合及叶绿素荧光特性的影响[J].经济林研究,2018,36(2):115-120. |
LIU C Y, ZHOU L, JIA Z J, et al.. Effects of chlorosis on photosynthetic and chlorophyll fluorescence characteristics of turpan grape leaves [J]. Non-wood For. Res., 2018, 36(2):115-120. | |
12 | 张正斌,山仑.作物水分利用效率和蒸发蒸腾估算模型的研究进展[J].干旱地区农业研究,1997,15(1):76-81. |
ZHANG Z B, SHAN L. Research development in estimationmodels of crop water use efficiency and transpiration andevaporation [J]. Agric. Res. Arid Areas, 1997, 15(1):76-81. | |
13 | 朱新广,张其德.NaCl对光合作用影响的研究进展[J].植物学通报,1999,16(4):332-338. |
ZHU X G, ZHANG Q D. Advances in the research on the effects of NaCl on photosynthesis [J]. Chin. Bull. Bot., 1999, 16(4):332-338. | |
14 | 张瑞,贾旭梅,朱祖雷,等.‘烟富六号’苹果在不同砧木上响应盐碱胁迫的光合及生理特性[J].果树学报,2019,36(6):718-728. |
ZHANG R, JIA X M, ZHU Z L, et al.. Photosynthesis and physiological characteristics of ‘Yanfu 6’apple under saline-alkali stress on different rootstocks [J]. J. Fruit Sci., 2019, 36(6):718-728. | |
15 | 李学孚,倪智敏,吴月燕,等.盐胁迫对‘鄞红’葡萄光合特性及叶片细胞结构的影响[J].生态学报,2015,35(13):4436-4444. |
LI X F, NI Z M, WU Y Y, et al.. Effects of salt stress on photosynthetic characteristics and leaf cell structure of ‘Yinhong’ grape seedlings [J].Acta Ecol. Sin., 2015, 35(13):4366-4444. | |
16 | TOIVONEN P, DEELL J R. Chlorophyll fluorescence, fermentation product accumulation, and quality of stored broccoli in modified atmosphere packages and subsequent air storage [J]. Postharvest Biol. Technol., 2001, 23(1):61-69. |
17 | 李俊贞,何乐祖,赵春梅,等.盐胁迫对黄果厚壳桂幼苗荧光和生理特性的影响[J].山西农业科学,2021,49(8):919-923. |
LI J Z, HE L Z, ZHAO C M, et al.. Effects of salt stress on the photosynthetic and physiological characteristics of cryptocarya concinna seedlings [J]. J. Shanxi Agric. Sci., 2021, 49(8):919-923. | |
18 | 慈敦伟,戴良香,宋文武,等.花生萌发至苗期耐盐胁迫的基因型差异[J].植物生态学报,2013,37(11):1018-1027. |
CI D W, DAI L X, SONG W W, et al.. Genotypic differences in salt tolerance from germination to seedling stage in peanut [J]. Chin. J. Plant Ecol., 2013, 37(11):1018-1027. | |
19 | 郭卫珍,张亚利,奉树成.NaCl胁迫对2个山茶品种盐害及叶绿素荧光特性的影响[J].江苏农业学报,2021,37(3):562-569. |
GUO W Z, ZHANG Y L, FENG S C. Effects of NaCl stress on salt injury and chlorophyll fluorescence characteristics of two Camellia cultivars [J]. Jiangsu J. Agric. Sci., 2021, 37(3):562-569. | |
20 | 樊秀彩,刘崇怀,潘兴,等.水培条件下葡萄砧木对氯化钠的耐性鉴定[J].果树学报,2004,21(2):128-131. |
FAN X C, LIU C H, PAN X, et al.. Evaluation of salt tolerance of grape rootstocks under hydroponic culture conditions [J]. J. Fruit Sci., 2004, 21(2):128-131. |
[1] | Xiaodan WU, Li GAO, Tiangeng GONG, Xiangfeng KONG, Yuzhou JIANG, Guixia JIA. Effects of Microbial Fertilizer and Humic Acid Compound Fertilizer on Growth and Photosynthetic Characteristics of Lilium [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2025, 27(4): 221-229. |
[2] | Lintao CHEN, Zhaoxiang LIU, Ying LAN, Xiangwei MOU, Xu MA, Rijun WANG. Research on Rice Variety Identification Based on Hyperspectral Technology and Principal Component Analysis [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2025, 27(3): 104-111. |
[3] | Yanxia MA, Jingru CHEN, Xiaowei WANG, Yuxin ZHANG, Junfeng ZHANG, Jialin KUAI. Effects of Irrigation Lower Limit and Fertilizer Application Amount on Water Consumption and Photosynthetic Characteristics of Mini Chinese Cabbage Under Drip Irrigation [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2025, 27(3): 239-249. |
[4] | Ruyue WANG, Haifang HU, Shasha LUO, Ziyi ZHEN, Yeyong XU, Xiaojing HU. Fruit Quality Analysis of Prunus domestica × armeniaca at Different Harvest Maturity Levels [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2025, 27(2): 158-169. |
[5] | Baozhen ZENG, Yongjuan CHENG, Juanbo YANG, Lili CHE, Jing LIANG, Shixiong LU, Guoping LIANG, Zonghuan MA, Juan MAO. Determination of the Best Harvesting Period for ‘Muhe White’ Grape in Minqin District, Gansu Province [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2025, 27(2): 70-79. |
[6] | Ting WANG, Jinghan DU, Guangdi ZHANG, Jianglong WANG, Yinan JIA, Yu WANG, Wenyi BAO. Study on Quality and Volatile Substances of New Excellent Cabbage Varieties in Mountainous Area of Southern Ningxia [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2025, 27(1): 165-180. |
[7] | Xueqing WANG, Bo ZHANG, Liting HAN, Zhuanzhuan LYU, Jianjun CHEN, Zhulin ZHANG, Junqiang ZHANG, Jianmei DU. Effects of High Hydrostatic Pressure Processing on Volatile Compounds in Cabernet Sauvignon [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2024, 26(9): 146-158. |
[8] | Xianyin SUN, Qiuhuan MU, Yong MI, Guangde LYU, Xiaolei QI, Yingying SUN, Xundong YIN, Ruixia WANG, Ke WU, Zhaoguo QIAN, Yan ZHAO, Minggang GAO. Classification and Evaluation of New Wheat Lines Based on GT Biplot [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2024, 26(7): 14-24. |
[9] | Yutao SHI, Huizhen XIE, Shulin ZHENG, Guanhua YU, Feiquan WANG, Li LI, Bo ZHANG, Yuanhua LI, Shengcai LUO. Analysis of Biochemical Characteristics and Superoxide Anion Radical Scavenging Activity of Tea Polysaccharides of Local Tea Germplasms in Wuyishan [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2024, 26(5): 65-76. |
[10] | Yue PAN, Baoqing WANG, Jijiao WANG, Yong MA, Yalan LI. CO2 Response Model Fitting and Evaluation of Vitis amurensis [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2024, 26(4): 58-66. |
[11] | Zhongyi LI, Hongqin TANG, Wenbin DONG, Caihui WEI, Tieguang HE. Effects of Co-incorporation of Rice Straw and Chinese Milk Vetch on Photosynthetic Characteristics, Yield and Quality of Rice [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2024, 26(2): 171-180. |
[12] | Tingting CAO, Chun LIU, Youwei FAN, Li MA, Zhiyu REN, Suxia YUAN, Junyun ZHANG, Zunyao QIAN, Guangzhao YANG. Effects of Different Nitrogen Supply Level on Plant Growth and Development in Miniature Potted Rose [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2024, 26(2): 67-79. |
[13] | Panpan MENG, Haiyan HE, Yuxin CAO, Lixin ZHANG, Qinghao LYU, Ruilin QI, Hongrui ZHANG. Comprehensive Evaluation of 5 Cultivation Types of Medicinal Chrysanthemum morifolium Ramat. at Branching Stage [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2024, 26(2): 90-99. |
[14] | Shengmei LI, Bo PANG, Shiwei GENG, Wu SONG, Hongmei LI, Maosen MA, Ru ZHANG, Xinyan WANG, Wenwei GAO. Photosynthetic and Physiological Characteristics of Gossypium hirsutum L. × Gossypium barbadense L. Backross Populations in Full Boll Stage [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2024, 26(1): 40-51. |
[15] | Wei WANG, Qiang ZHAO, Abuduaini Munire·, Alimu·Amuli, Xinxin LI, Yangqing TIAN. Effects of Different Exogenous Substances on Chemical Capping and Yield and Quality of Cotton [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2023, 25(9): 57-68. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||