文献类型：期刊文献

中文题名：不同种源鹅掌楸抗寒性综合评价

英文题名：Comprehensive evaluation on cold resistance of Liriodendron chinense from four provenances

作者：陆畅[1,2] 李斌[1,2] 刘儒[3] 夏良放[3] 祝良[4] 林富荣[1,2] 郑勇奇[1,2]

第一作者：陆畅

机构：[1]中国林业科学研究院国家林木遗传育种重点实验室;[2]中国林业科学研究院林业研究所;[3]中国林业科学研究院亚热带林业实验中心;[4]北京十三陵林场

年份：2016

卷号：33

期号：3

起止页码：455-461

中文期刊名：浙江农林大学学报

外文期刊名：Journal of Zhejiang A & F University

收录：CSTPCD;;北大核心:【北大核心2014】；CSCD:【CSCD2015_2016】；

基金："十二五"国家科学技术支撑计划项目(2013BAD01B06)

语种：中文

中文关键词：树木生理学;鹅掌楸;抗寒性;生理指标;隶属函数

外文关键词：plant physiology; Liriodendron chinense; cold resistance; physiology indicator; subordinate function

分类号：S718.43

摘要：采集鹅掌楸Liriodendron chinense 4个种源的秋季和冬季的枝条和叶芽,测量抗寒生理指标,使用隶属函数分析法综合评价种源的抗寒性。结果显示:鹅掌楸不同种源的各抗寒生理指标均表现出明显的季节变化。具体为,鹅掌楸冬季叶芽中的丙二醛质量摩尔浓度、可溶性蛋白质量分数、超氧化物歧化酶(SOD)活性、可溶性糖质量分数、脯氨酸质量分数均高于秋季叶芽,相对电导率和含水量均低于秋季叶芽。根据测量的生理指标数据,计算出鹅掌楸4个种源的隶属函数值作为抗寒性的综合评价值,大小分别为云南勐腊0.021,贵州黎平0.286,安徽大别山0.834,浙江富阳0.488。对4个鹅掌楸种源的抗寒性进行了综合排序:安徽大别山>浙江富阳>贵州黎平>云南勐腊。对各抗寒生理指标与隶属函数值进行相关性分析,结果显示:相对电导率、含水量均与隶属函数值呈显著性负相关,脯氨酸质量分数分别与隶属函数值呈显著性正相关。在今后的鹅掌楸抗寒性评价时,上述指标可以被用作较好的评价指标。
Abstract： Branches and leaf buds of four Liriodendron chinense provenances were collected both in autumn and winter to measure cold-resistant physiological indicators. Subordinate function analysis was used to evaluate the cold resistance of Liriodendron chinense provenances comprehensively. Cold-resistant physiological indica- tors of different provenances showed obvious seasonal variation, and had the same trend in the four provenances. Specifically, MDA content, soluble protein content, SOD activity, soluble sugar content, proline content of leaf bud in winter were higher than those in autumn; relative electric conductivity and water content in winter were lower than those in autumn. According to the measurement data of physiological indicators, subordinate function values of four provenances were calculated as the comprehensive evaluation values of cold resistance. The cold-resistant ability of four provenances was sorted as： Dabie shah （0.834） 〉 Fuyang （0.488） 〉 Liping（0.286） 〉Mengla （0.021）. Correlation analysis showed that relative electric conductivity and water content had significantly negative correlation with the subordinate function value, while proline content had significant positive correlation with the subordinate function value. Therefore, these indicators can be used as suitable evaluation indicators. [ Ch, 6 tab. 24 ref.]