硼胁迫下不同柑橘砧木叶片物质组成及结构的FTIR表征

doi:10.3964/j.issn.1000-0593(2017)05-1380-06

摘要
参考文献
相关文章 (15)

全文: PDF (2455 KB)
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

摘要：硼作为高等植物必需的微量元素，从缺乏到过量的范围很窄，因此缺硼和硼毒害导致作物产量及品质下降等问题一直是国内外关注的重点。以不同柑橘砧木(枳橙和枳壳)为材料，利用傅里叶红外光谱(FTIR)探讨低硼及高硼胁迫对不同砧木叶片物质组成和结构的影响及其差异。结果表明：(1)低硼及高硼胁迫均抑制了柑橘砧木地上部的生长，高硼时枳壳砧木叶片出现典型的硼中毒现象，而枳橙砧木叶片则无明显的硼毒症状，表明枳橙砧木比枳壳砧木更耐高硼胁迫；(2)低硼胁迫时，枳壳砧木叶片缺失1 153，1 053和1 028 cm^-1三个特征峰，而枳橙砧木叶片仅缺失1 055 cm^-1一个特征峰，且两种砧木叶片其他特征峰的相对吸光度较正常硼处理整体增加，表明缺硼导致枳壳砧木叶片纤维素糖苷及可溶性糖、核糖的结构发生变化且含量增加，仅改变枳橙砧木叶片可溶性糖的结构。因此，低硼胁迫对枳壳砧木影响大于枳橙砧木；(3)高硼胁迫时，枳壳砧木叶片1 153和1 053 cm^-1两个特征峰消失，增加1 622 cm^-1处特征峰；枳橙砧木叶片缺失1 024 cm^-1处特征峰，且其他特征峰的相对吸光度较正常处理整体降低，表明高硼改变枳壳砧木蛋白质、可溶性糖等碳水化合物的结构且含量减少，而枳橙砧木仅核糖的结构发生变化，说明高硼对枳壳砧木叶片多糖结构的影响大于枳橙砧木。因此，枳橙砧木比枳壳砧木更耐低硼和高硼胁迫，硼对不同砧木物质组成和结构的效应差异是其中一个关键因子。

关键词：硼胁迫；柑橘砧木；傅里叶红外光谱；物质成分和结构

Abstract：Boron (B) is an essential trace element for higher plants, the threshold between deficiency and toxicity is narrow, so the problems of yield and quality of crops due to B deficiency and B toxicity have been attracting great attention home and abroad. To investigate the effects on the component and structure changes in leaf of two kinds of citrus rootstocks (citrange and trifoliate orange) under B stress situations by using Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy. The results showed that: (1) the growth of citrus rootstock was inhibited by the low B and high B stress situations. Symptoms of B-toxicity were first appeared in old leaves as tip yellowing in trifoliate orange, in contrast, almost no visible symptoms occurred in citrange, suggesting that citrange was more tolerant to B-toxicity than trifoliate orange. (2) the characteristic peaks were at 1 153, 1 053 and 1 028 cm^-1 disappeared due to low B stress in trifoliate orange, but only 1 055 cm^-1 disappeared in citrange, and relative absorbance of other peaks was increased compared with control, suggesting that the structure of cellulose glycosides, soluble sugar and ribosome in leaf changed and other components increased under low B stress in trifoliate orange, only soluble sugar changed in citrange ones. Thus, the effect of low B stress on trifoliate orange is higher than that of citrange. (3) the characteristic peaks at 1 153, 1 053 cm^-1 disappeared due to high B stress in trifoliate orange, however, 1 024 cm^-1 disappeared in citrange, the relative absorbance of other peaks was reduced compared with control, indicated that the structure of protein and soluble sugar in leaf changed and other compositions reduced under high B stress in trifoliate orange, and ribosome changed in citrange ones. Therefore, the effect of high B stress on trifoliate orange is higher than that of citrange in polysaccharide structure. Results show that citrange was more tolerant to low B and high B stress than trifoliate orange, and one of the key factors contributing to the result is the differences of B effect on chemical composition and structure between two rootstocks.

Key words：Boron stress; Citrus rootstock; FTIR; Material composition and structure

收稿日期: 2016-06-03 修订日期: 2016-11-20

中图分类号:

S666

基金资助: 国家自然科学基金项目(41271320), 中央高校基本科研业务费专项(2013PY093)资助

通讯作者: 姜存仓 E-mail: jcc2000@mail.hzau.edu.cn

作者简介: 卢晓佩, 女，1990年生, 华中农业大学微量元素研究中心硕士研究生 e-mail: luxiaopei@webmail.hzau.edu.cn

引用本文:

卢晓佩，姜存仓，董肖昌，吴秀文，闫磊. 硼胁迫下不同柑橘砧木叶片物质组成及结构的FTIR表征[J]. 光谱学与光谱分析, 2017, 37(05): 1380-1385.
LU Xiao-pei, JIANG Cun-cang, DONG Xiao-chang, WU Xiu-wen, YAN Lei. FTIR Spectroscopic Characterization of Material Composition and Structure of Leaves of Different Citrus Rootstocks under Boron Stress. SPECTROSCOPY AND SPECTRAL ANALYSIS, 2017, 37(05): 1380-1385.

链接本文:

https://www.gpxygpfx.com/CN/10.3964/j.issn.1000-0593(2017)05-1380-06 或 https://www.gpxygpfx.com/CN/Y2017/V37/I05/1380

[1] Liu Guidong, Wang Ruidong, Liu Leichao, et al. Plant and Soil, 2013, 370: 555.
[2] JIAO Xiao-yan, WANG Jin-song, WU Ai-lian, et al(焦晓燕, 王劲松, 武爱莲, 等). Plant Nutrition and Fertilizer Science(植物营养与肥料学报), 2013, 19(3): 615.
[3] Pande N, Yarchan A. The Journal of the Indian Botanical Society, 2011, 3: 56.
[4] WANG Rui-dong, JIANG Cun-cang, LIU Gui-dong, et al(王瑞东, 姜存仓, 刘桂东, 等). Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin(中国农学通报), 2011, 27(18): 12.
[5] JIANG Cun-cang, WANG Yun-hua, LIU Gui-dong, et al(姜存仓, 王运华, 刘桂东, 等). Plant Nutrition and Fertilizer Science(植物营养与肥料学报), 2009, 15(3): 656.
[6] Robert J Reid. Spring New York, 2013, 333.
[7] PAN Guo-ping(潘国平). News of Citrus and Subtropical Fruit(柑橘与亚热带果树信息), 2004, 20(2): 42.
[8] WANG Cheng, JIANG Ze-ping, LI Wen-qing, et al(王成, 蒋泽平, 李文青, 等). Journal of Agro-Environment Science(中国环境科学学报), 2014, 33(4): 673.
[9] Papageorgiou S K, Kouvelos E P, Favvas E P, et al. Carbohydrate Research, 2010, 345(4)：469.
[10] XUE Sheng-guo, ZHU Feng, YE Chen, et al(薛生国, 朱锋, 叶晨, 等). Acta Ecologica Sinica(生态学报), 2011, 31(20): 6143.
[11] GONG Ning, LI Rong-hua, MENG Zhao-fu, et al(龚宁, 李荣华, 孟昭福, 等). Journal of Agro-Environment Science(农业环境科学学报)，2010, 29(1): 9.
[12] FU Chuan, YU Shun-hui, HUANG Yi-min, et al(付川, 余顺慧, 黄怡民, 等). Acta Ecologica Sinica(生态学报), 2014, 34(5): 1149.
[13] WANG Sheng-feng, LIU Yun-xia, GAO Li-li, et al(王盛锋, 刘云霞, 高丽丽, 等). Plant Nutrition and Fertilizer Science(植物营养与肥料学报), 2014, 20(4): 1005.
[14] Liu Guidong, Dong Xiaochang, Liu Leichao, et al. Scientia Horticulturae, 2014, 176: 54.
[15] Yang J, Yen H Y. Plant Physiol., 2002, 130: 1032.
[16] Christian Z, Mehmet S, Edgar P. Journal of Plant Physiology, 2014, (171): 656.
[17] WU Xiu-wen, HAO Yan-shu, LEI Jing, et al(吴秀文, 郝艳淑, 雷晶, 等). Spectroscopy and Spectral Analysis(光谱学与光谱分析), 2016, 36(3): 676.
[18] WANG Zhen-yu, ZHANG Fu-suo(王震宇, 张福锁). Plant Nutrition and Fertilizer Science(植物营养与肥料学报), 1995, 1(1): 52.
[19] Papadakis I E, Dimassi K N, Bosabalidis A M, et al. Plant Science, 2004, 166(2): 539.