Journal of Resources and Ecology >
Comparative Study of the Impact of Drought Stress on P.centrasiaticum at the Seedling Stage in Tibet
Received date: 2020-01-14
Accepted date: 2020-02-18
Online published: 2020-06-16
Supported by
The National Key Research and Development Program of China(2016YFC0502005)
The Tibet Science and Technology Major Projects of the Pratacultural Industry(XZ201901NA03)
The Lhasa Industrial Integration Project(XCKJ004)
Research and Demonstration on the De-velopment Model of Forage Industry in Dagze County(LSKJ2018006)
Copyright
Pennisetum centrasiaticum is widely distributed in arid and semi-arid areas of Tibet. Its rhizome system is developed and has strong resistance to adversity. In this study, the physiological characteristics and drought resistance of P.centrasiaticum seedlings from 12 drought-stressed sites in Tibet were examined at the Lhasa Plateau Ecosystem Research Station of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. PEG-6000 solution with five levels of water potential (0, -0.7, -1.4, -2.1, and -2.8 MPa) was used to simulate drought stress, and malondialdehyde (MDA), proline (Pro) and chlorophyll contents were determined. The balance between production and elimination of reactive oxygen species in P.centrasiaticum was destroyed, leading to membrane lipid peroxidation and the production of MDA, and accelerating the decomposition of chlorophyll. P.centrasiaticum absorbed water from the outside to resist drought by secreting proline and other osmotic regulating substances. The Pro and chlorophyll contents in P.centrasiaticum showed a temporary rising trend, and then decreased with the decrease in water potential. MDA content increased with the decrease in water potential. By using the membership function method, the drought resistance of P.centrasiaticum seedlings from the 12 areas was evaluated, and the results showed that the drought resistance at the sites went from strong to weak in this order: Xietongmen > Linzhou > Sog > Damxung > Tingri > Namling > Gyirong > Linzhi > Purang > Dingjie > Longzi > Sa’gya. The drought resistance of P.centrasiaticum was strong in Xietongmen, Linzhou and Sog. Whether P.centrasiaticum from these three areas is suitable for cultivation in arid and semi-arid areas of Tibet needs further study.
ZHANG Guangyu , WANG Jiangwei , ZHANG Haorui , FU Gang , SHEN Zhenxi . Comparative Study of the Impact of Drought Stress on P.centrasiaticum at the Seedling Stage in Tibet[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2020 , 11(3) : 322 -328 . DOI: 10.5814/j.issn.1674-764X.2020.03.010
Table 1 Locations where P.centrasiaticum seedlings were collected in 12 sites in Tibet |
Source of seedlings | Geographical coordinates | Elevation (m) | Compact form |
---|---|---|---|
Linzhi | 93° 94′ N, 29° 79′ E | 3117 | LZS |
Linzhou | 91° 08′ N, 29° 88′ E | 3889 | LZX |
Xietongmen | 88° 21′ N, 29° 42′ E | 3891 | XTM |
Sog | 93° 79′ N, 31° 83′ E | 3940 | SX |
Longzi | 92° 32′ N, 28° 42′ E | 3948 | LZ |
Namling | 89° 08′ N, 29° 64′ E | 3949 | NML |
Purang | 81° 16′ N, 30° 34′ E | 4061 | PL |
Dingjie | 87° 77′ N, 28° 37′ E | 4163 | DJ |
Gyirong | 85° 32′ N, 28° 89′ E | 4198 | JL |
Sa’gya | 87° 90′ N, 29° 00′ E | 4233 | SJ |
Damxung | 91° 05′ N, 30° 51′ E | 4333 | DX |
Tingri | 87° 04′ N, 28° 47′ E | 4413 | DR |
Fig. 1 Comparison of MDA content in P.centrasiaticum seedlings from different sites Note: Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences for Differences of MDA among the sites (P < 0.05). |
Fig. 2 Comparison of Pro content in P.centrasiaticum seedlings from different sites Note: Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences for Differences of Pro among the sites (P < 0.05). |
Fig. 3 Comparison of Chlorophyll content in P.centrasiaticum seedlings from different sites Note: Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences for Differences of chlorophyll among the sites (P < 0.05). |
Table 2 Membership function values of drought resistance indexes and comprehensive drought resistance ranking of P.centrasiaticum from 12 sites |
Sites | MDA | Pro | Chlorophyll | Average membership function value | Ranking |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Linzhi | 0.341 | 0.746 | 0.232 | 0.440 | 8 |
Linzhou | 0.460 | 0.768 | 0.515 | 0.581 | 2 |
Sog | 0.505 | 0.379 | 0.662 | 0.515 | 3 |
Xietongmen | 0.318 | 0.834 | 0.637 | 0.596 | 1 |
Longzi | 0.714 | 0.326 | 0.165 | 0.402 | 11 |
Namling | 0.737 | 0.398 | 0.207 | 0.448 | 6 |
Purang | 0.515 | 0.438 | 0.366 | 0.440 | 9 |
Dingjie | 0.647 | 0.390 | 0.263 | 0.433 | 10 |
Gyirong | 0.729 | 0.229 | 0.372 | 0.443 | 7 |
Sa’gya | 0.651 | 0.296 | 0.178 | 0.375 | 12 |
Damxung | 0.680 | 0.407 | 0.302 | 0.463 | 4 |
Tingri | 0.740 | 0.340 | 0.289 | 0.456 | 5 |
1 |
|
2 |
|
3 |
|
4 |
|
5 |
|
6 |
|
7 |
|
8 |
|
9 |
|
10 |
|
11 |
|
12 |
|
13 |
|
14 |
|
15 |
|
16 |
|
17 |
|
18 |
|
19 |
|
20 |
|
21 |
|
22 |
|
23 |
|
24 |
|
25 |
|
26 |
|
27 |
|
28 |
|
29 |
|
30 |
|
31 |
|
32 |
|
33 |
|
34 |
|
35 |
|
36 |
|
37 |
|
/
〈 |
|
〉 |