内生菌对干旱胁迫下甘蔗的生理响应及抗旱性评价

doi:10.13560/j.cnki.biotech.bull.1985.2023-0818

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

探究接种内生菌对干旱胁迫下甘蔗的生理响应及缓解干旱胁迫的效果，为开发利用甘蔗抗旱性功能菌株和甘蔗抗旱栽培技术的推广提供研究基础。选择体外耐旱性较强的4株甘蔗内生菌为目标菌株，盆栽试验设2个土壤含水量，分别为正常浇水（CK：土壤含水量25%-30%）和中度干旱胁迫（土壤含水量10%-12.5%），并分别设接种单一内生菌和组合内生菌及不接种内生菌的处理，共8个处理。测定甘蔗苗期的生理生化指标，并对各处理进行抗旱性综合评价。结果表明，与CK相比，干旱胁迫促进甘蔗植株脯氨酸（proline, Pro）、可溶性蛋白（soluble protein, SP）、可溶性糖（soluble sugar, SS）、丙二醛（malondialdehyde, MDA）的积累，超氧化物歧化酶（superoxide dismutase, SOD）、过氧化物酶（peroxidase, POD）活性的升高；并降低了叶片相对含水量（leaf relative water content, RWC）、离体失水率（water loss rate in vitro, RWL）和叶绿素（chlorophyll, ChI）的含量。干旱胁迫下，与未接种内生菌的处理相比，接种内生菌能有效的缓解干旱胁迫，其中，ZM菌株单独接种处理（ZD）的抗旱性综合评价值D值最高，且通过灰色关联性分析可知SOD、ChI、RWC、Pro与各处理的D值密切相关。ZM菌株接种缓解甘蔗苗期干旱胁迫的效果最佳，且通过增加ChI、RWC、Pro等含量和SOD酶活性来提高甘蔗苗期的抗旱性。

关键词: 甘蔗, 接种内生菌, 抗旱性, 生理响应, 综合性评价

Abstract:

This work aims to explore the physiological response of inoculated endophytic bacteria to sugarcane under drought stress and the effect of alleviating drought-tolerant, and to provide research basis for the development and utilization of sugarcane drought-tolerant functional strains and the promotion of drought resistance cultivation techniques in sugarcane. Four sugarcane endophytes with strong in vitro drought tolerance were selected as the target strains. Two soil water contents were set up in pot experiment, namely normal watering（CK: soil water content 25%-30%）and moderate drought stress（soil water content 10%-12.5%）, and a total of 8 treatments were inoculated with single endophyte, combined endophyte and no endophyte, respectively. Physiological and biochemical indexes of sugarcane seedling stage were determined, and drought resistance of each treatment was evaluated comprehensively. Compared with CK, drought stress promoted the accumulation of proline（Pro）, soluble protein（SP）, soluble sugar（SS）and malondialdehyde（MDA）in sugarcane plants. The activity of superoxide dismutase（SOD）and peroxidase（POD）increased. The contents of leaf relative water content（RWC）, water loss rate in vitro（RWL）and chlorophyll（ChI）decreased. Compared with the treatment without inoculation, the inoculation of endophytic bacteria effectively alleviated drought stress under drought stress, among which ZM strain inoculated alone（ZD）had the highest comprehensive evaluation value of drought resistance D, and the gray correlation analysis showed that SOD, ChI, RWC and Pro were closely related to the D values of each treatment. ZM strain inoculation has the best effect on alleviating drought stress of sugarcane seedling, and can improve the drought resistance of sugarcane seedling by increasing the contents of ChI, RWC, Pro and SOD activity.

Key words: sugarcane, inoculate endophytic bacteria, drought resistance, physiological response, comprehensive evaluation

罗艳菊, 谢林艳, 邹清林, 李四杰, 刘涵, 刘鲁峰, 何丽莲, 李富生. 内生菌对干旱胁迫下甘蔗的生理响应及抗旱性评价[J]. 生物技术通报, 2023, 39(12): 219-228.

LUO Yan-ju, XIE Lin-yan, ZOU Qing-lin, LI Si-jie, LIU Han, LIU Lu-feng, HE Li-lian, LI Fu-sheng. Physiological Response and Drought Resistance Evaluation of Endophytic Bacteria to Sugarcane Under Drought Stress[J]. Biotechnology Bulletin, 2023, 39(12): 219-228.

图/表 10

参考文献 28

[1]	吴建明, 李燕娇, 邓宇驰, 等. 中国甘蔗栽培的研究进展[J]. 广西科学, 2022, 29(4): 613-626.
	Wu JM, Li YJ, Deng YC, et al. Research progress in sugarcane cultivation in China[J]. Guangxi Sci, 2022, 29(4): 613-626.
[2]	de Abreu LGF, Grassi MCB, de Carvalho LM, et al. Energy cane vs sugarcane: Watching the race in plant development[J]. Ind Crops Prod, 2020, 156: 112868. doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2020.112868 URL
[3]	蒋雨珂. 干旱锻炼对甘蔗根系形态建成及其根际微生物群落的影响[D]. 南宁: 广西大学, 2021.
	Jiang YK. effects of drought exercise on root morphogenesis and rhizosphere microbial community of sugarcane[D]. Nangning: Guangxi University, 2021.
[4]	Misra V, Solomon S, Mall AK, et al. Morphological assessment of water stressed sugarcane: A comparison of waterlogged and drought affected crop[J]. Saudi J Biol Sci, 2020, 27(5): 1228-1236. doi: 10.1016/j.sjbs.2020.02.007 URL
[5]	Ferreira THS, Tsunada MS, Bassi D, et al. Sugarcane water stress tolerance mechanisms and its implications on developing biotechnology solutions[J]. Front plant sci, 2017, 8: 1077. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2017.01077 pmid: 28690620
[6]	李佩婷, 赵振丽, 黄潮华, 等. 基于转录组及WGCNA的甘蔗干旱响应调控网络分析[J]. 作物学报, 2022, 48(7): 1583-1600. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2022.14121
	Li PT, Zhao ZL, Huang CH, et al. Analysis of drought response regulatory network in sugarcane based on transcriptomes and WGCNA[J]. Acta Agrono Sin, 2022, 48(7): 1583-1600.
[7]	Guga SR, Ma YN, Dao RA, et al. Drought monitoring of sugarcane and dynamic variation characteristics under global warming: A case study of Guangxi, China[J]. Agric Water Manag, 2023, 275: 108035. doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2022.108035 URL
[8]	Wang JF, Hou WP, Christensen MJ, et al. Role of Epichloe endophytes in improving host grass resistance ability and soil properties[J]. J Agric Food Chem, 2020, 68(26): 6944-6955. doi: 10.1021/acs.jafc.0c01396 URL
[9]	Zuo YL, Hu QN, Qin L, et al. Species identity and combinations differ in their overall benefits to Astragalus adsurgens plants inoculated with single or multiple endophytic fungi under drought conditions[J]. Front Plant Sci, 2022, 13: 933738. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2022.933738 URL
[10]	张文英, 蒿若超, 汪嫒嫒, 等. 内生真菌印度梨形孢诱导提高玉米苗期抗旱性研究初探[J]. 玉米科学, 2013, 21(5): 127-130.
	Zhang WY, Hao RCh, Wang AA, et al. Conferring drought tolerance in maize seeding by endophytic fungus Piriformospora indica[J]. J Maize Sci, 2013, 21(5): 127-130.
[11]	Morales-Quintana L, Moya M, Santelices-Moya R, et al. Improvement in the physiological and biochemical performance of strawberries under drought stress through symbiosis with Antarctic fungal endophytes[J]. Front Microbiol, 2022, 13: 939955. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.939955 URL
[12]	Khan Z, Rho H, Firrincieli A, et al. Growth enhancement and drought tolerance of hybrid poplar upon inoculation with endophyte consortia[J]. Curr Plant Biol, 2016, 6: 38-47. doi: 10.1016/j.cpb.2016.08.001 URL
[13]	Scudeletti D, Crusciol CAC, Bossolani JW, et al. Trichoderma asperellum inoculation as a tool for attenuating drought stress in sugarcane[J]. Front Plant Sci, 2021, 12: 645542. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2021.645542 URL
[14]	谷书杰, 钱禛锋, 娄永明, 等. 接种内生菌对干旱胁迫下甘蔗的生理影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(6): 42-47. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-0416
	Gu SJ, Qian ZF, Lou YM, et al. Physiological effects of endophytic bacteria inoculated on sugarcane under drought stress[J]. Chin Agric Sci Bull, 2022, 38(6): 42-47.
[15]	杜成忠. 不同甘蔗品种抗旱性的生理和分子机制[D]. 南宁: 广西大学, 2015.
	Du CZ. Physiological and molecular mechanisms of drought resistance of different sugarcane varieties[D]. Nanning: Guangxi University, 2015.
[16]	蔺豆豆, 赵桂琴, 琚泽亮, 等. 15份燕麦材料苗期抗旱性综合评价[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(11): 108-121. doi: 10.11686/cyxb2021219
	Lin DD, Zhao GQ, Ju ZL, et al. Comprehensive evaluation of drought resistance of 15 oat materials at seedling stage[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sin, 21, 30(11): 108-121.
[17]	李懿洋. 甘肃省产业结构与经济增长的灰色关联分析[J]. 企业经济, 2011(5): 20-23.
	Li YY. Grey correlation analysis between industrial structure and economic growth in Gansu Province[J]. Enterp Econ, 2011(5): 20-23.
[18]	方自豪. 中蔗品种(系)苗期抗旱性综合评价及抗旱指标筛选[D]. 福州: 福建农林大学, 2022.
	Fang ZH. Comprehensive evaluation of drought resistance of medium sugarcane varieties(lines)at seedling stage and screening of drought resistance indexes[D]. Fuzhou: Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, 2022.
[19]	李小玉, 田宏先, 王瑞霞. 灰色关联度分析和主成分分析在油菜抗旱育种中的应用[J]. 种子, 2021, 40(9): 92-97.
	Li XY, Tian HX, Wang RX. Aplication of grey correlation degree analysis and principal component analysis in drought resistance breeding of Brassica juncea L.[J]. Seed, 2019, 40(9): 92-97.
[20]	何永涛, 胡宇, 段慧荣, 等. 披碱草属4个牧草品种苗期抗旱性综合评价[J]. 中国草地学报, 2023, 45(1): 77-87.
	He YT, Hu Y, Duan HR, et al. Comprehensive evaluation of drought resistance of four Eymus varieties at seedling stage[J]. Chin J Grassland, 2023, 45(1): 77-87.
[21]	刘硕. 不同甘蔗品种伸长期对干旱胁迫生理及形态响应研究[D]. 昆明: 云南大学, 2022.
	Liu S. Physiological and morphological responses of different sugarcane varieties to drought stress during elongation period[D]. Kunming: Yunnan University, 2022.
[22]	李海碧, 周会, 韦金菊, 等. 甘蔗常用亲本的田间抗旱指标筛选及抗旱性评价[J]. 南方农业学报, 2023, 54(1): 46-55.
	Li HB, Zhou H, Wei JJ, et al. Drought resistance index screening and drought resistance evaluation of commonly-used sugarcane parents in field[J]. J South Agric Sci, 2019, 54(1): 46-55.
[23]	谭秦亮, 程琴, 潘成列, 等. 干旱胁迫对甘蔗新品种桂热2号生理指标的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2022(3): 161-167.
	Tan QL, Cheng Q, Pan CL, et al. Effects of drought stress on physiological indexes of a new sugarcane variety Gure 2[J]. Crops, 2022(3): 161-167.
[24]	刘硕, 樊仙, 杨绍林, 等. 干旱胁迫对甘蔗光合日变化及相关特性的影响[J]. 南方农业学报, 2022, 53(2): 430-440.
	Liu S, Fan X, Yang SL, et al. Effects of drought stress on diurnal changes and related characteristics of sugarcane photosynthesis[J]. J South Agric Sci, 2022, 53(2): 430-440.
[25]	Liu N, Jacquemyn H, Liu Q, et al. Effects of a dark septate fungal endophyte on the growth and physiological response of seedlings to drought in an epiphytic orchid[J]. Fron Microbiol, 2022, 13: 961172.
[26]	Wang Z, Solanki MK, Yu ZX, et al. Draft genome analysis offers insights into the mechanism by which streptomyces chartreusis WZS021 increases drought tolerance in sugarcane[J]. Front Microbiol, 2018, 9: 3262. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.03262 URL
[27]	Wu HH, Zou YN, Rahman M, et al. Mycorrhizas alter sucrose and proline metabolism in trifoliate orange exposed to drought stress[J]. Sci rep, 2017, 7(1): 1-10. doi: 10.1038/s41598-016-0028-x
[28]	李其勇, 朱从桦, 李星月, 等. 水稻芽期抗旱性综合评价及鉴定指标鉴选[J]. 西北农业学报, 2023, 32(1): 18-32.
	Li QY, Zhu CH, Li XY, et al. Comprehensive evaluation and identification index of drought resistance at germination stage of rice[J]. Acta Agric Boreali-occidentalis Sin, 2023, 32(1): 18-32.

处理 Treatment	胁迫后叶绿素总含量Total chlorophyll content after stress	复水后叶绿素总含量 Total chlorophyll content after rehydration	胁迫后叶绿素a/b Chlorophyll a/b after stress	复水后叶绿素a/b Chlorophyll a/b after rehydration
CK	2.164±0.154b	1.902±0.045bc	2.575±0.325b	3.938±0.183abc
WD	1.517±0.006d	1.575±0.117e	2.482±0.055b	3.032±1.377c
K5	1.946±0.218c	2.156±0.105a	2.5572±0.290b	4.691±0.656ab
ZD	2.385±0.090a	1.847±0.049cd	2.850±0.285ab	3.699±0.166bc
DD	2.156±0.148b	1.994±0.096b	3.057±0.300a	5.259±2.098a
YD	1.582±0.115d	2.264±0.159a	3.079±0.087a	4.837±1.789ab
TD	1.625±0.066d	1.723±0.136d	2.566±0.771b	3.174±0.452c
FD	1.586±0.098d	1.718±0.122d	2.724±0.404ab	3.970±0.281abc

处理 Treatment	胁迫后叶绿素总含量Total chlorophyll content after stress	复水后叶绿素总含量 Total chlorophyll content after rehydration	胁迫后叶绿素a/b Chlorophyll a/b after stress	复水后叶绿素a/b Chlorophyll a/b after rehydration
CK	2.164±0.154b	1.902±0.045bc	2.575±0.325b	3.938±0.183abc
WD	1.517±0.006d	1.575±0.117e	2.482±0.055b	3.032±1.377c
K5	1.946±0.218c	2.156±0.105a	2.5572±0.290b	4.691±0.656ab
ZD	2.385±0.090a	1.847±0.049cd	2.850±0.285ab	3.699±0.166bc
DD	2.156±0.148b	1.994±0.096b	3.057±0.300a	5.259±2.098a
YD	1.582±0.115d	2.264±0.159a	3.079±0.087a	4.837±1.789ab
TD	1.625±0.066d	1.723±0.136d	2.566±0.771b	3.174±0.452c
FD	1.586±0.098d	1.718±0.122d	2.724±0.404ab	3.970±0.281abc

处理 Treatment	RWC	RWL	MDA	Pro	SS	SP	POD	SOD	ChI
相对含水量RWC	1.000
离体失水率RWL	0.706	1.000
丙二醛MDA	-0.837*	-0.566	1.000
脯氨酸Pro	0.083	-0.306	-0.014	1.000
可溶性糖 SS	0.403	0.225	-0.317	0.003	1.000
可溶性蛋白SP	0.835*	0.796*	-0.721	0.091	-0.082	1.000
过氧化物酶POD	0.079	-0.438	-0.255	0.295	-0.387	0.090	1.000
超氧化物歧化酶SOD	0.655	0.224	-0.476	0.528	-0.238	0.739	0.475	1.000
叶绿素ChI	0.291	-0.317	-0.055	0.848*	0.157	0.102	0.394	0.653	1.000

处理 Treatment	RWC	RWL	MDA	Pro	SS	SP	POD	SOD	ChI
相对含水量RWC	1.000
离体失水率RWL	0.706	1.000
丙二醛MDA	-0.837*	-0.566	1.000
脯氨酸Pro	0.083	-0.306	-0.014	1.000
可溶性糖 SS	0.403	0.225	-0.317	0.003	1.000
可溶性蛋白SP	0.835*	0.796*	-0.721	0.091	-0.082	1.000
过氧化物酶POD	0.079	-0.438	-0.255	0.295	-0.387	0.090	1.000
超氧化物歧化酶SOD	0.655	0.224	-0.476	0.528	-0.238	0.739	0.475	1.000
叶绿素ChI	0.291	-0.317	-0.055	0.848*	0.157	0.102	0.394	0.653	1.000

生理指标 Physiological index	主成分1 Principal component 1	主成分2 Principal component 2	主成分3 Principal component 3
相对含水量RWC	0.248	-0.079	0.109
离体失水率RWL	0.165	-0.270	-0.041
丙二醛MDA	-0.218	0.087	0.005
脯氨酸Pro	0.076	0.293	0.245
可溶性糖SS	0.045	-0.124	0.635
可溶性蛋白SP	0.239	-0.075	-0.202
过氧化物酶POD	0.061	0.252	-0.299
超氧化物歧化酶SOD	0.215	0.175	-0.145
总叶绿ChI	0.104	0.297	0.302
特征值eigenvalue	3.816	2.658	1.391
贡献率Contribution rate/%	42.402	29.533	15.452
累积贡献率Cumulative contribution rate/%	42.402	71.935	87.388