【作者】 郭三红；

【导师】 许如根；

【作者基本信息】 扬州大学 ， 作物遗传育种， 2007， 硕士

【摘要】 本文以中澳合作构建的大麦遗传群体(泰兴9425×Franklin)的77个加倍单倍体(DH)系及亲本为材料,分别于2005年3月和12月对参试材料进行拔节期湿害和苗期湿害处理。研究了不同时期湿害对大麦株高、穗长、穗下节间长、主穗粒数、单株穗数、单株粒数、单株干重、单株粒重、千粒重等9个单株性状及苗期湿害对叶龄、分蘖、黄叶数等3个幼苗性状影响的差异性,运用秩次分析和动态聚类分析等方法对大麦DH系耐湿性及其稳定性进行了分析与分类。结果表明:1、在不同湿害条件下,各单株性状在DH系间的差异均达极显著水平;除拔节期湿害对大麦千粒重未产生显著的影响外,苗期湿害和拔节期湿害对DH系的其余各单株性状的影响均达显著或极显著水平,说明无论是苗期湿害还是拔节期湿害对大麦单株性状的影响是普遍存在的,且其影响程度在DH系间存在显著的遗传差异。2、从不同湿害处理DH群体主要性状受湿率的平均值及变化情况来看,在不同湿害处理下,各性状的变异系数几乎均在50%以上,部分性状变异系数超过100%;除拔节期湿害处理千粒重和苗期湿害处理单株穗数受湿率的平均值小于0外,其余各性状受湿率的平均值均大于0;单株穗数和千粒重2性状受不同湿害影响的差异较大,其余性状基本表现一致。说明不同湿害对该群体绝大部分单株性状均产生了一定的湿害,各单株性状的受湿率在DH系间均存在较大的差异,DH系的耐湿性与湿害处理的时期及年份的气候等因素有关。3、群体耐湿性聚类分析和稳定性分析表明,中耐湿性和低耐湿性的品系,在不同年份不同湿害处理方式中稳定性比较好,分别表现出稳定的中等耐湿性和低耐湿性。大部分高耐湿性品系因年份和湿害处理不同而异,但也有少部分具有稳定的高耐湿性,如TF085和TF133。4、首次运用动态聚类方法将大麦耐湿生理指标和单株性状指标相结合,对大麦DH系的耐湿性进行鉴定,鉴定出TF050、TF109、TF122、TF123、TF137和TF150等6个DH系为苗期和成熟期耐湿性均较好的品系。更多还原

【Abstract】 77 barley DH lines (Taixing9425×Franklin) which were constructed by Cooperation Item between China and Australia and their parents were used as material for researching the waterlogging tolerance in barley. Waterlogging treatments were carried respectively at seedling stage (03/2005) and booting stage (12/2005). The differences of the influence of waterlogging in 9 barley plant traits (plant high(PH), spike length(SL), the top 1st internode length (TFIL), kernels of main spike(KMS),spikes per plant(SP),kernels per plant(KP), dry weight per plant(DWP), kernel weight per plant(KWP),and kilo-grain weight(KGW)), 3 young plant traits (leaf age(LA), the tiller number(TN) and the yellow-leaf number(YLN)) were studied. The rank analysis and dynamic clustering were used to study the waterlogging-tolerance and tolerance stability of the different DH lines. The results were as follows:1. Plant traits in different lines were reached significantly differences with different waterlogging treatments. Both of the two different waterlogging treatments were significantly restrained the plant traits except KGW at booting stage waterlogging treatment. It was showed that waterlogging tolerance widely influenced the plant traits, whatever the stage of treatments. There were significant genetic differences among the DH lines.2. Different waterlogging treatments made different influence on plant traits. The average percent of waterlogging influence in plant traits showed that, 1). Most coefficients of variation in plant traits were exceeded 50%, few were even exceeded 100%; 2). The waterlogging influence percent of all the plant traits were higher than 0 except KGW at booting stage and SP at seedling stage waterlogging treatment; 3). The most different influences in plant traits were SP and KGW. All the above implied that different waterlogging treatments influenced most of the plant traits, but the degree of influence were different on traits; the percentage of waterlogging influence on plant traits were different between DH lines; the waterlogging tolerance of DH lines was related with the waterlogging treatment stage and the different climate of years.3. The clustering analysis and stability analysis of waterlogging tolerance in DH population indicated that, the mid-tolerance and low-tolerance lines had better stability in different waterlogging treatments and years. Most high-tolerance lines were instability in different years and waterlogging treatments, but there were also many stabled high-tolerance lines ( TF085 and TF133 ).4. Dynamic clustering was firstly used to identify the waterlogging tolerance combining of physiologist index and plant traits indexes. 6 stabled lines were identified high-tolerance at seedling and maturing stage, including TF050、TF109、TF122、TF123、TF137 and TF150.更多还原