| Literature DB >> 35186046 |
Chunyan Tong1,2, Guotang Yang1,3, Hongwei Li1, Bin Li1, Zhensheng Li1, Qi Zheng1.
Abstract
To accelerate the exploitation and use of marginal soils and develop salt-tolerant forage germplasm suitable for the coastal regions of China, seven lines of decaploid tall wheatgrass [Thinopyrum ponticum (Podp.) Barkworth and D. R. Dewey, 2n = 10x = 70] were transplanted under low (.3%) and high (.5%) salt conditions for a comprehensive analysis at the adult-plant stage. Differences were observed among these materials, especially in terms of grass yield, agronomic characteristics, and physiological and biochemical indices. Line C2 grew best with the highest shoot total fresh and dry weights under all conditions except for the milk-ripe stage in Dongying in 2019. The total membership value of C2 also reflected its excellent performance after transplanting. As superior germplasm, its relatively high antioxidant enzyme activities and chlorophyll a/b ratio suggested C2 may maintain normal metabolic and physiological functions under saline conditions. Furthermore, decaploid tall wheatgrass as a forage grass species has a high nutritive value beneficial for animal husbandry. Accordingly, line C2 may be used as excellent germplasm to develop salt-tolerant cultivars in the Circum-Bohai sea.Entities:
Keywords: Thinopyrum ponticum; adult-plant stage; agronomic traits; nutrient content; physiological index; salt tolerance
Year: 2022 PMID: 35186046 PMCID: PMC8855210 DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2022.832013
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Genet ISSN: 1664-8021 Impact factor: 4.599
FIGURE 1Comparison of biomass of seven Th. ponticum lines at the flowering stage at Haixing station in 2018 (A), at the flowering stage at Dongying station in 2018 (B), at the milk-ripe stage at Haixing station in 2018 (C), at the milk-ripe stage at Dongying station in 2018 (D), at the flowering stage at Dongying station in 2019 (E), and at the milk-ripe stage at Dongying station in 2019 (F). STFW, shoot total fresh weight; STDW, shoot total dry weight. Different letters indicate a significant difference between seven Th. ponticum lines at p < .05 level.
FIGURE 2Comparison of main agronomic traits of seven Th. ponticum lines at Haixing station at different growing stages. (A) Plant height (PH). (B) Tiller number (TN). (C) Spikelet number per spike (SNPS). (D) Spike number (SN). (E) Leaf fresh weight (LFW). (F) Stem fresh weight (SFW). Different letters indicate a significant difference between seven Th. ponticum lines at p < .05 level.
FIGURE 3Comparison of main agricultural traits of seven Th. ponticum lines at Dongying station during different growth periods. (A) Plant height (PH). (B) Tiller number (TN). (C) Spikelet number per spike (SNPS). (D) Spike number (SN). (E) Leaf fresh weight (LFW). (F) Stem fresh weight (SFW). Different letters indicate a significant difference between seven Th. ponticum lines at p < .05 level.
Membership function analyses of salt tolerance in seven Th. ponticum lines.
| Stages | Lines | PH | TN | SNPS | SN | LFW | SFW | STFW | STDW | TMV | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18HF | C1 | .05 | .58 | .99 | .47 | .42 | .42 | .42 | .37 | .46 | 5 |
| C2 | .86 | 1.00 | .30 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | .89 | 1 | |
| C3 | .30 | .18 | .20 | .82 | .69 | .65 | .66 | .64 | .52 | 4 | |
| C4 | 1.00 | .00 | .60 | .63 | .54 | .71 | .66 | .51 | .58 | 3 | |
| C5 | .70 | .11 | .57 | .72 | .73 | .80 | .79 | .69 | .64 | 2 | |
| C6 | .00 | .24 | .00 | .41 | .43 | .41 | .42 | .39 | .29 | 6 | |
| C7 | .41 | .24 | 1.00 | .00 | .00 | .00 | .00 | .00 | .21 | 7 | |
| 18HM | C1 | .77 | .33 | .39 | .28 | .44 | .48 | .47 | .48 | .46 | 2 |
| C2 | .78 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | .97 | 1 | |
| C3 | .86 | .28 | .86 | .32 | .16 | .39 | .35 | .34 | .44 | 3 | |
| C4 | 1.00 | .39 | .76 | .35 | .15 | .28 | .26 | .27 | .43 | 4 | |
| C5 | .43 | .41 | .55 | .22 | .28 | .22 | .23 | .21 | .32 | 5 | |
| C6 | .45 | .04 | .00 | .22 | .33 | .23 | .24 | .21 | .21 | 6 | |
| C7 | .00 | .00 | .66 | .00 | .00 | .00 | .00 | .00 | .08 | 7 | |
| 18DF | C1 | .18 | .00 | .00 | .00 | .00 | .00 | .00 | .00 | .02 | 7 |
| C2 | 1.00 | 1.00 | .82 | .38 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | .90 | 1 | |
| C3 | .73 | .34 | .82 | .28 | .54 | .71 | .64 | .75 | .60 | 5 | |
| C4 | .00 | .77 | .83 | .96 | .71 | .69 | .70 | .55 | .65 | 4 | |
| C5 | .90 | .63 | 1.00 | .92 | .75 | .89 | .83 | .93 | .85 | 2 | |
| C6 | .99 | .29 | .66 | .27 | .46 | .64 | .56 | .64 | .56 | 6 | |
| C7 | .76 | .46 | .83 | 1.00 | .30 | .91 | .66 | .81 | .72 | 3 | |
| 18DM | C1 | .56 | .00 | .30 | .09 | 1.00 | .34 | .56 | .48 | .42 | 3 |
| C2 | .58 | .50 | 1.00 | 1.00 | .55 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | .83 | 1 | |
| C3 | .98 | .28 | .45 | .08 | .27 | .06 | .11 | .12 | .30 | 5 | |
| C4 | .00 | .52 | .24 | .52 | .38 | .24 | .30 | .25 | .31 | 4 | |
| C5 | .53 | .01 | .70 | .06 | .18 | .00 | .03 | .00 | .19 | 7 | |
| C6 | 1.00 | .01 | .53 | .00 | .00 | .03 | .00 | .00 | .20 | 6 | |
| C7 | .85 | 1.00 | .00 | .40 | .45 | .42 | .47 | .64 | .53 | 2 |
Annotation: 18HF and 18HM mean investigation at the flowering and milk-ripe stages in Haixing in 2018, respectively. 18DF and 18DM indicate investigation at the flowering and milk-ripe stages in Dongying in 2018, respectively. PH, plant height; TN, tiller number; SNPS, spikelet number per spike; SN, spikelet number; LFW, leaf fresh weight; STW, stem fresh weight; STFW, shoot total fresh weight; STDW, shoot total dry weight; TMV, total membership value.
Comparison of nutrient content for seven Th. ponticum lines at the adult-plant stage.
| Lines | Dry matter (%FW) | Curd protein (%DM) | Neutral detergent fiber (%DM) | Acid detergent fiber (%DM) | Ether extract (%DM) | Water-soluble carbohydrates (%DM) | Tannin content (mg/g FW) | Ash (%DM) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1 | 40.66 ± .26 | 13.15 ± .63 | 56.30 ± 3.12 | 29.86 ± .86 | 3.57 ± .16 | 1.88 ± .17 | 2.00 ± .18cd | 9.69 ± .76a |
| C2 | 39.17 ± 1.77 | 13.37 ± 1.05 | 56.21 ± .40 | 30.24 ± .61 | 3.44 ± .12 | 1.88 ± .03 | 2.29 ± .11a | 9.14 ± .59ab |
| C3 | 42.59 ± 4.29 | 14.01 ± .41 | 54.80 ± 1.78 | 29.21 ± .78 | 3.67 ± .24 | 2.07 ± .31 | 1.51 ± .07f | 8.98 ± .32ab |
| C4 | 41.65 ± 3.42 | 14.45 ± .17 | 55.06 ± 3.22 | 29.46 ± 1.24 | 3.42 ± .85 | 2.30 ± .45 | 1.92 ± .04d | 8.87 ± .55ab |
| C5 | 41.49 ± 4.41 | 14.23 ± .41 | 54.11 ± 1.27 | 29.12 ± .75 | 3.49 ± 1.49 | 2.06 ± .41 | 2.13 ± .09b | 9.75 ± .70a |
| C6 | 40.10 ± 1.13 | 13.86 ± .83 | 53.21 ± 3.01 | 28.18 ± 2.13 | 3.86 ± .85 | 2.04 ± .18 | 1.69 ± .04e | 8.46 ± .19b |
| C7 | 42.85 ± 3.38 | 14.38 ± .87 | 54.55 ± 2.95 | 28.61 ± .99 | 3.45 ± 1.16 | 2.39 ± .46 | 2.10 ± .08bc | 8.57 ± .55b |
Annotation: different letters indicate a significant difference between seven Th. ponticum lines at p < .05 level
FIGURE 4Comparison of the content of proline (A), chlorophyll a/b ratio (B), activities of CAT (C), and SOD (D) in the seven Th. ponticum lines. Different letters indicate a significant difference between seven Th. ponticum lines at p < .05 level.