Classification and Identification of Drought Resistance of Different Genotypes of Peanut

doi:10.7668/hbnxb.20195384

Abstract

Abstract:

This study investigated the impacts of drought on the agronomic,physiological,and biochemical characteristics of peanuts developed a classification methodology for drought resistance,screened the varieties of peanut with drought resistant.Agronomic traits of 27 peanut germplasms under drought stress were measured 30 days after sowing,and drought resistance was graded by correlation analysis,principal component analysis,cluster analysis,and membership function method.Drought-resistant peanut JNH3,intermediate L231,and drought-sensitive L236 were selected for determination of physiological and biochemical indexes and microstructure observation,and different drought-resistant peanut germplasms were identified.The results showed that after drought treatment,the decrease in main stem height ranged from 2.26% to 34.06%,the length of first branches decreased from 1.11% to 57.20%,the main stem base coarse decreased from 1.54% to 38.36%,and the root-shoot ratio decreased from 65.01% to 92.83% under different environments.According to the comprehensive weighted membership function,peanut materials were grouped into three types:drought-resistant,intermediate,and drought-sensitive.Among them, the above-mentioned traits of the intermediate type and the drought-sensitive type peanuts reached a significant level compared with the control. Under drought stress,ROS in functional leaves of peanut increased,and different expressions of ROS were found by NBT and DAB staining,among which NBT and DAB staining were JNH3,L231,and L236 from light to deep,conforming to the classification of drought resistance type.Compared with the control,the POD activity of JNH3,L231,and L236 increased by 42.71%,26.04% and 20.59% respectively,among different varieties,and CAT activity trend was consistent with the above.The SOD activity of JNH3,L231,and L236 increased by 48.01%,63.49% and 73.15% respectively,among different varieties,and the MDA activity trend was consistent with the above.The proline content of JNH3,L231,and L236 was increased by 1.1,1.07 and 1.03 times,and the soluble sugar content of JNH3,L231,and L236 was increased by 44.06%,31.54%,and 38.62% respectively,among different varieties.Under drought stress,peanut root growth was limited,the total root length and total root area were significantly reduced,the root tip cells were partially necrosis,and the degrees were shallow to deep in JNH3,L231,and L236 respectively.

Key words: Peanut, Drought stress, Agronomic trait, Reactive oxygen species

CLC Number:

S565.2

BAI Yujie, ZHAO Ran, CUI Shunli, HOU Mingyu, LI Xiukun, LIU Lifeng, LIU Yingru. Classification and Identification of Drought Resistance of Different Genotypes of Peanut[J]. Acta Agriculturae Boreali-Sinica, 2025, 40(4): 107-118. doi: 10.7668/hbnxb.20195384.

/ / Recommend / Download Citations

URL: http://www.hbnxb.net/EN/10.7668/hbnxb.20195384

http://www.hbnxb.net/EN/Y2025/V40/I4/107

Figures/Tables 13

References 30

[1]	梁煜莹, 张加羽, 姜骁, 王露欢, 张晓吉, 刘齐妹, 薛云云, 迟晓元, 白冬梅. 花生品质与气候环境的关系研究[J]. 植物遗传资源学报, 2024, 25(2):227-244.doi:10.13430/j.cnki.jpgr.20230728001.
	Liang Y Y, Zhang J Y, Jiang X, Wang L H, Zhang X J, Liu Q M, Xue Y Y, Chi X Y, Bai D M. Study on the relationship between peanut quality and climatic environments[J]. Journal of Plant Genetic Resources, 2024, 25(2):227-244.
[2]	代小冬, 杜培, 秦利, 刘华, 张忠信, 高伟, 刘娟, 徐静, 董文召, 张新友. 花生抗旱性研究进展[J]. 热带作物学报, 2021, 42(6):1788-1794.doi:10.3969/j.issn.1000-2561.2021.06.039.
	Dai X D, Du P, Qin L, Liu H, Zhang Z X, Gao W, Liu J, Xu J, Dong W Z, Zhang X Y. Research progress and prospect of drought resistance in peanut(Arachis hypogaea L.)[J]. Chinese Journal of Tropical Crops, 2021, 42(6):1788-1794.
[3]	Pruthvi V, Narasimhan R, Nataraja K N. Simultaneous expression of abiotic stress responsive transcription factors,AtDREB2A,AtHB7 and AtABF3 improves salinity and drought tolerance in peanut(Arachis hypogaea L.)[J]. PLoS One, 2014, 9(12):e111152.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0111152.
[4]	陈雷, 杨明达, 贺群岭, 李帅, 王宏青, 张枫叶, 张梦圆, 吴继华. 基于不同生育时期干旱对花生抗旱性的综合评定[J]. 花生学报, 2024, 53(2):31-38,46.doi:10.14001/j.issn.1002-4093.2024.02.004.
	Chen L, Yang M D, He Q L, Li S, Wang H Q, Zhang F Y, Zhang M Y, Wu J H. Comprehensive evaluation on drought resistance of peanuts at different growth stages[J]. Journal of Peanut Science, 2024, 53(2):31-38,46.
[5]	郑婷, 张克坤, 张培安, 贾海锋, 房经贵. 葡萄营养生长与生殖生长间的转变研究进展[J]. 植物生理学报, 2020, 56(7):1361-1372.doi:10.13592/j.cnki.ppj.2019.0589.
	Zheng T, Zhang K K, Zhang P A, Jia H F, Fang J G. Recent progress in the study of transition between vegetative and reproductive growth in grapevine[J]. Plant Physiology Journal, 2020, 56(7):1361-1372.
[6]	李国卫, 秦圣豪, 刘译阳, 张佳蕾, 韩燕, 万书波. 花生株型相关性状研究进展[J]. 中国油料作物学报, 2020, 42(6):934-939.doi:10.19802/j.issn.1007-9084.2020212.
	Li G W, Qin S H, Liu Y Y, Zhang J L, Han Y, Wan S B. Advances in plant architecture studies of peanut[J]. Chinese Journal of Oil Crop Sciences, 2020, 42(6):934-939.
[7]	董奇琦, 艾鑫, 张艳正, 张克朝, 周东英, 王晓光, 蒋春姬, 赵姝丽, 钟超, 王婧, 于海秋, 赵新华. 干旱胁迫对不同耐性花生品种生理特性及产量的影响[J]. 沈阳农业大学学报, 2020, 51(1):18-26.doi:10.3969/j.issn.1000-1700.2020.01.003.
	Dong Q Q, Ai X, Zhang Y Z, Zhang K Z, Zhou D Y, Wang X G, Jiang C J, Zhao S L, Zhong C, Wang J, Yu H Q, Zhao X H. Effect of drought stress on physiological characteristics and yield in different tolerant peanut[J]. Journal of Shenyang Agricultural University, 2020, 51(1):18-26.
[8]	曲杰. 干旱胁迫对不同类型花生根冠比和产量及品质的影响[J]. 农业科技通讯, 2014(6):129-132.doi:10.3969/j.issn.1000-6400.2014.06.046.
	Qu J. Effects of drought stress on root-shoot ratio,yield and quality of different types of peanuts[J]. Bulletin of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2014(6):129-132.
[9]	霍勇锦, 徐紫薇, 王燃, 王欢颜, 刘剑君, 苏新宏, 张威, 杨铁钊, 夏宗良. 干旱胁迫下嫁接对烟草抗氧化酶活性、膜脂过氧化及胁迫响应基因表达的影响[J]. 烟草科技, 2016, 49(8):14-20.doi:10.16135/j.issn1002-0861.2015.0528.
	Huo Y J, Xu Z W, Wang R, Wang H Y, Liu J J, Su X H, Zhang W, Yang T Z, Xia Z L. Effects of grafting on antioxidant enzyme activities,membrane lipid peroxidation and stress-responsive gene expression in tobacco under drought stress[J]. Tobacco Science & Technology, 2016, 49(8):14-20.
[10]	Rivero R M, Ruiz J M, Sánchez E, Romero L. Does grafting provide tomato plants an advantage against H₂O₂ production under conditions of thermal shock?[J]. Physiologia Plantarum, 2003, 117(1):44-50.doi:10.1034/j.1399-3054.2003.1170105.x.
[11]	任婧瑶, 王婧, 艾鑫, 赵姝丽, 李仍媛, 蒋春姬, 赵新华, 殷冬梅, 于海秋. 干旱胁迫下花生苗期耐旱生理应答特性分析[J]. 中国油料作物学报, 2022, 44(1):138-146.doi:10.19802/j.issn.1007-9084.2020300.
	Ren J Y, Wang J, Ai X, Zhao S L, Li R Y, Jiang C J, Zhao X H, Yin D M, Yu H Q. Physiological response of peanut at seedling stage under drought stress[J]. Chinese Journal of Oil Crop Sciences, 2022, 44(1):138-146.
[12]	丁红, 成波, 张冠初, 徐扬, 秦斐斐, 张智猛, 于遒功. 施用氮肥对干旱胁迫下花生生理特性的影响[J]. 花生学报, 2021, 50(2):64-68,72.doi:10.14001/j.issn.1002-4093.2021.02.011.
	Ding H, Cheng B, Zhang G C, Xu Y, Qin F F, Zhang Z M, Yu Q G. Effects of nitrogen fertilizer application on physiological characteristics of peanut leaves under drought stress[J]. Journal of Peanut Science, 2021, 50(2):64-68,72.
[13]	刘海东, 陈庆政, 林秀芳, 祁俊程, 叶万余, 吴春玲. 干旱胁迫对花生生理特性与产质量的影响[J]. 贵州农业科学, 2022, 50(12):25-34.
	Liu H D, Chen Q Z, Lin X F, Qi J C, Ye W Y, Wu C L. Effects of drought stress on physiological characteristics,yield and quality of peanut[J]. Guizhou Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 50(12):25-34.
[14]	金欣欣, 宋亚辉, 程增书, 王瑾, 李玉荣, 苏俏. 花针期灌溉对花生植株生长及产量的影响[J]. 华北农学报, 2021, 36(6):124-131.doi:10.7668/hbnxb.20192504.
	Jin X X, Song Y H, Cheng Z S, Wang J, Li Y R, Su Q. Effects of irrigation on growth and yield of peanut at anthesis[J]. Acta Agriculturae Boreali-Sinica, 2021, 36(6):124-131.
[15]	王淑君, 夏桂敏, 李永发, 王玮志, 迟道才. 生物炭基肥和水分胁迫对花生生理及产量的影响[J]. 中国油料作物学报, 2017, 39(6):827-833.doi:10.7505/j.issn.1007-9084.2017.06.014.
	Wang S J, Xia G M, Li Y F, Wang W Z, Chi D C. Effects of biochar-based fertilizer and water stress on physiological characteristics and yield of peanut[J]. Chinese Journal of Oil Crop Sciences, 2017, 39(6):827-833.
[16]	张冠初, 史晓龙, 慈敦伟, 丁红, 杨吉顺, 田家明, 张智猛, 戴良香. 干旱和盐胁迫对花生干物质积累及光合特性的影响[J]. 核农学报, 2019, 33(5):999-1005.doi:10.11869/j.issn.100-8551.2019.05.0999.
	Zhang G C, Shi X L, Ci D W, Ding H, Yang J S, Tian J M, Zhang Z M, Dai L X. Effect of drought and salt stress on accumulation of plant dry weight and photosynthetic characteristics[J]. Journal of Nuclear Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 33(5):999-1005.
[17]	王彩, 万勇善, 刘风珍, 张昆. 苗期PEG渗透胁迫条件下花生品种抗旱性的研究[J]. 山东农业科学, 2018, 50(6):65-71.doi:10.14083/j.issn.1001-4942.2018.06.011.
	Wang C, Wan Y S, Liu F Z, Zhang K. Study on drought resistance of peanut varieties at seedling stage under PEG6000 osmotic stress[J]. Shandong Agricultural Sciences, 2018, 50(6):65-71.
[18]	Li H X, Xiao Y, Cao L L, Yan X, Li C, Shi H Y, Wang J W, Ye Y H. Cerebroside C increases tolerance to chilling injury and alters lipid composition in wheat roots[J]. PLoS One, 2013, 8(9):e73380.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0073380.
[19]	Grellet Bournonville C F, Díaz-Ricci J C. Quantitative determination of superoxide in plant leaves using a modified NBT staining method[J]. Phytochemical Analysis, 2011, 22(3):268-271.doi:10.1002/pca.1275.
[20]	刘庆庭, 胡平, 郑明轩, 林志超, 李志昂, 李桃. 作物组织结构与力学性能研究[J]. 华南农业大学学报, 2024, 45(3):446-456.doi:10.7671/j.issn.1001-411X.202303006.
	Liu Q T, Hu P, Zheng M X, Lin Z C, Li Z A, Li T. Research on crop tissue structure and mechanical properties[J]. Journal of South China Agricultural University, 2024, 45(3):446-456.
[21]	Zhang Y, Tang H R, Luo Y. Variation in antioxidant enzyme activities of two strawberry cultivars with short-term low temperature stress[J]. World Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2008, 4(4):458-462.
[22]	于天一, 王春晓, 孙学武, 孙秀山, 郑永美, 吴正锋, 沈浦, 王才斌. 碱胁迫对花生幼苗根系形态及干物质累积的影响[J]. 中国油料作物学报, 2017, 39(2):190-196.doi:10.7505/j.issn.1007-9084.2017.02.008.
	Yu T Y, Wang C X, Sun X W, Sun X S, Zheng Y M, Wu Z F, Shen P, Wang C B. Effects of alkaline stress on root morphology and dry matter accumulation characteristics of peanut seedling[J]. Chinese Journal of Oil Crop Sciences, 2017, 39(2):190-196.
[23]	盖志佳, 张敬涛, 刘婧琦, 蔡丽君, 杜佳兴, 孟庆英, 谷维, 陈磊. 低温胁迫对大豆幼苗形态生理指标及籽粒产量的影响[J]. 农学学报, 2019, 9(12):1-4.
	Gai Z J, Zhang J T, Liu J Q, Cai L J, Du J X, Meng Q Y, Gu W, Chen L. Cold stress affects morphological and physiological indexes of soybean seedling and seed yield[J]. Journal of Agriculture, 2019, 9(12):1-4.
[24]	Huang S B, Van Aken O, Schwarzländer M, Belt K, Millar A H. The roles of mitochondrial reactive oxygen species in cellular signaling and stress response in plants[J]. Plant Physiology, 2016, 171(3):1551-1559.doi:10.1104/pp.16.00166.
[25]	Wang J, Yu Y, Jiang C J, Sun Z X, Wang X N, Wang Z Y, Ren J Y, Wang Z H, Wang X G, Yang Z Z, Zhao S L, Zhong C, Zhang H, Liu X B, Kang S L, Zhao X H, Yu H Q. Comparative analysis of physiology-anatomy and transcriptome-metabolome involving acute drought stress response of root between two distinct peanut cultivars at seedling stage[J]. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 2023,214:105442.doi:10.1016/j.envexpbot.2023.105442.
[26]	Ben Ahmed C, Ben Rouina B, Sensoy S, Boukhris M, Ben Abdallah F. Changes in gas exchange,proline accumulation and antioxidative enzyme activities in three olive cultivars under contrasting water availability regimes[J]. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 2009, 67(2):345-352.doi:10.1016/j.envexpbot.2009.07.006.
[27]	李仍媛, 张鹤, 蒋春姬, 任婧瑶, 艾鑫, 赵新华, 王婧, 赵姝丽, 于海秋. 开花下针期干旱胁迫对花生氮代谢的影响[J]. 中国油料作物学报, 2023, 45(5):988-995.doi:10.19802/j.issn.1007-9084.2022157.
	Li R Y, Zhang H, Jiang C J, Ren J Y, Ai X, Zhao X H, Wang J, Zhao S L, Yu H Q. Effects of drought stress on nitrogen metabolism at anthesis stage of peanut[J]. Chinese Journal of Oil Crop Sciences, 2023, 45(5):988-995.
[28]	Rejeth R, Manikanta C L N, Beena R, Stephen R, Manju R V, Viji M M. Water stress mediated root trait dynamics and identification of microsatellite markers associated with root traits in rice(Oryza sativa L.)[J]. Physiology and Molecular Biology of Plants, 2020, 26(6):1225-1236.doi:10.1007/s12298-020-00809-y.
[29]	李楠, 杨秀丽, 宁东贤, 赵玉坤, 杨丽萍. 花生抗旱性鉴定指标及评价研究进展[J]. 农业与技术, 2020, 40(11):11-14.doi:10.19754/j.nyyjs.20200615004.
	Li N, Yang X L, Ning D X, Zhao Y K, Yang L P. Research progress on identification indexes and evaluation of drought resistance of peanut[J]. Agriculture and Technology, 2020, 40(11):11-14.
[30]	王荣荣, 王海琪, 蒋桂英, 尹豪杰, 谢冰莹, 张婷. 2个不同抗旱性小麦品种耗水特征及根系生理特性对开花期干旱的响应[J]. 水土保持学报, 2022, 36(4):253-264.doi:10.13870/j.cnki.stbcxb.2022.04.032.
	Wang R R, Wang H Q, Jiang G Y, Yin H J, Xie B Y, Zhang T. Response of water consumption and root physiological characteristics of two different drought-tolerant wheat varieties to anthesis stage drought[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2022, 36(4):253-264.

序号 No.	材料名称 Species name	序号 No.	材料名称 Species name	序号 No.
1	L978	10	CZ1-92	19	L632
2	L149	11	CZ2-88	20	L475
3	L220	12	CZ3-87	21	L479
4	L369	13	CZ3-89	22	L539
5	L379	14	C76-16	23	L592
6	L98	15	L249	24	L598
7	L147	16	L250	25	L231
8	L186	17	L196	26	L236
9	L810	18	L191	27	冀农花3号

序号 No.	材料名称 Species name	序号 No.	材料名称 Species name	序号 No.
1	L978	10	CZ1-92	19	L632
2	L149	11	CZ2-88	20	L475
3	L220	12	CZ3-87	21	L479
4	L369	13	CZ3-89	22	L539
5	L379	14	C76-16	23	L592
6	L98	15	L249	24	L598
7	L147	16	L250	25	L231
8	L186	17	L196	26	L236
9	L810	18	L191	27	冀农花3号

序号 No.	抗旱系数Drought resistance coefficient
序号 No.	主茎高 Height of main stem	第一对侧枝长 Length of first branches	主茎基粗 Main stem thickness	根干物质 Dried root weight	茎干物质 Dried stem weight	叶干物质 Dried leaf weight
1	0.83	0.74	0.87	0.44	0.50	0.18
2	0.82	0.60	0.80	0.42	0.41	0.17
3	0.94	0.85	0.94	0.80	0.94	0.91
4	0.80	0.56	0.85	0.59	0.52	0.49
5	0.94	0.90	0.96	0.86	0.89	0.83
6	0.92	0.91	0.94	0.81	0.83	0.87
7	0.87	0.79	0.80	0.65	0.73	0.70
8	0.87	0.76	0.85	0.57	0.61	0.64
9	0.76	0.55	0.76	0.45	0.64	0.53
10	0.84	0.51	0.81	0.49	0.57	0.30
11	0.83	0.43	0.81	0.60	0.60	0.36
12	0.94	0.97	0.96	0.97	0.93	0.85
13	0.86	0.86	0.86	0.74	0.81	0.66
14	0.87	0.87	0.87	0.73	0.65	0.73
15	0.80	0.62	0.82	0.73	0.44	0.24
16	0.92	0.92	0.93	0.82	0.82	0.85
17	0.92	0.94	0.97	0.88	0.88	0.94
18	0.77	0.77	0.70	0.48	0.47	0.61
19	0.85	0.80	0.87	0.73	0.74	0.52
20	0.75	0.52	0.71	0.41	0.64	0.40
21	0.95	0.93	0.94	0.83	0.89	0.94
22	0.74	0.57	0.76	0.66	0.50	0.40
23	0.97	0.92	0.96	0.77	0.95	0.97
24	0.73	0.68	0.76	0.45	0.46	0.34
25	0.83	0.73	0.87	0.79	0.70	0.52
26	0.66	0.44	0.62	0.46	0.56	0.26
27	0.98	0.99	0.98	0.99	0.98	0.98
平均值Mean	0.85	0.75	0.85	0.67	0.69	0.60
标准差s	0.08	0.17	0.09	0.18	0.18	0.26
变异系数CV	0.10	0.23	0.11	0.26	0.26	0.44

序号 No.	抗旱系数Drought resistance coefficient
序号 No.	主茎高 Height of main stem	第一对侧枝长 Length of first branches	主茎基粗 Main stem thickness	根干物质 Dried root weight	茎干物质 Dried stem weight	叶干物质 Dried leaf weight
1	0.83	0.74	0.87	0.44	0.50	0.18
2	0.82	0.60	0.80	0.42	0.41	0.17
3	0.94	0.85	0.94	0.80	0.94	0.91
4	0.80	0.56	0.85	0.59	0.52	0.49
5	0.94	0.90	0.96	0.86	0.89	0.83
6	0.92	0.91	0.94	0.81	0.83	0.87
7	0.87	0.79	0.80	0.65	0.73	0.70
8	0.87	0.76	0.85	0.57	0.61	0.64
9	0.76	0.55	0.76	0.45	0.64	0.53
10	0.84	0.51	0.81	0.49	0.57	0.30
11	0.83	0.43	0.81	0.60	0.60	0.36
12	0.94	0.97	0.96	0.97	0.93	0.85
13	0.86	0.86	0.86	0.74	0.81	0.66
14	0.87	0.87	0.87	0.73	0.65	0.73
15	0.80	0.62	0.82	0.73	0.44	0.24
16	0.92	0.92	0.93	0.82	0.82	0.85
17	0.92	0.94	0.97	0.88	0.88	0.94
18	0.77	0.77	0.70	0.48	0.47	0.61
19	0.85	0.80	0.87	0.73	0.74	0.52
20	0.75	0.52	0.71	0.41	0.64	0.40
21	0.95	0.93	0.94	0.83	0.89	0.94
22	0.74	0.57	0.76	0.66	0.50	0.40
23	0.97	0.92	0.96	0.77	0.95	0.97
24	0.73	0.68	0.76	0.45	0.46	0.34
25	0.83	0.73	0.87	0.79	0.70	0.52
26	0.66	0.44	0.62	0.46	0.56	0.26
27	0.98	0.99	0.98	0.99	0.98	0.98
平均值Mean	0.85	0.75	0.85	0.67	0.69	0.60
标准差s	0.08	0.17	0.09	0.18	0.18	0.26
变异系数CV	0.10	0.23	0.11	0.26	0.26	0.44

相关性 Correlation	主茎高 Height of main stem	第一对侧枝长 Length of first branches	主茎基粗 Main stem thickness	根干物质 Dried root weight	茎干物质 Dried stem weight	叶干物质 Dried leaf weight
主茎高Height of main stem	1.000
第一对侧枝长Length of first branches	0.839^*	1.000
主茎基粗Main stem thickness	0.941^*	0.815^*	1.000
根干物质Dried root weight	0.808^*	0.784^*	0.836^*	1.000
茎干物质Dried stem weight	0.835^*	0.766^*	0.774^*	0.825^*	1.000
叶干物质Dried leaf weight	0.822^*	0.849^*	0.750^*	0.801^*	0.902^*	1.000

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export