Evaluation of salt-alkali tolerance of different lotus varieties and screening of identification indexes

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.2023.01.11

Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis ›› 2023, Vol. 35 ›› Issue (1): 103-111.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.2023.01.11

• Horticultural Science • Previous Articles Next Articles

Evaluation of salt-alkali tolerance of different lotus varieties and screening of identification indexes

LIU Yiping¹^,²(), ZHANG Yiqi¹, SU Shaowen¹, LIU Hongli¹^,², HE Dan¹^,², KONG Dezheng¹^,²^,^*()

1. College of Landscape Architecture and Art, Henan Agricultural University, Zhengzhou 450000, China
2. Henan Provincial Engineering Research Center of High-Quality Flowers and Vegetables Seedling, Zhengzhou 450000, China

Received:2021-08-05 Online:2023-01-25 Published:2023-02-21

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to study the tolerance of different lotus varieties to saline-alkali stress and to screen resistant varieties, using pot culture method, 20 lotus varieties were used as experimental materials, and 100 mmol·L^-1 (NaCl∶NaHCO₃=2∶1) hybrid saline-alkali stress treatment, 7 d after measuring the plant height, leaf area, photosynthetic pigments, chlorophyll fluorescence parameters, content of malondialdehyde, activity of antioxidant enzyme and content of osmotic regulatory substances, the saline-alkali tolerance of 20 lotus species was evaluated comprehensively by means of saline-alkali tolerance coefficient, correlation analysis, principal component analysis, membership function method and cluster analysis. The results showed that there were significant differences in the variation coefficients of saline-alkali tolerance among different lotus varieties. Except superoxide dismutase activity and peroxidase activity, the saline-alkali coefficients of other single indexes were significantly or extremely significantly correlated. The 12 single indexes were converted into 5 comprehensive indexes by using principal component analysis. The contribution rates of each comprehensive index were 36.175%, 18.709%, 13.470%, 11.379%, 6.610%, and the cumulative contribution rate reached 86.344%. With saline resistance value (D value) based on clustering analysis, 20 lotus varieties could be divided into four categories, first, there was strong salt-tolerant type, a total of four lotus varieties, and the second category of salt-tolerant type, a total of five lotus varieties, and the third category was not salt-tolerant type, a total of eight lotus varieties, the fourth category for sensitive type, a total of three varieties of lotus. The optimal evaluation model of salinity and alkali tolerance of lotus was established by stepwise regression analysis, D=0.453+0.148X₁+0.122X₂-0.122X₇-0.033X₈+0.093X₁₁+0.037X₁₂(R²=0.992), and the estimation accuracy was above 95.45%. Plant height, leaf area, malondialdehyde, proline, soluble sugar and soluble protein were selected as evaluation indexes of the saline-alkali tolerance of lotus. The saline-alkali tolerance of lotus could be determined by measuring these 5 indexes under the same conditions.

Key words: Nelumbo nucifera, saline-alkali stress, saline-alkali resistance, comprehensive evaluation, appraisal indicators

CLC Number:

S682.32

LIU Yiping, ZHANG Yiqi, SU Shaowen, LIU Hongli, HE Dan, KONG Dezheng. Evaluation of salt-alkali tolerance of different lotus varieties and screening of identification indexes[J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2023, 35(1): 103-111.

Figures/Tables 7

References 35

[1]	LI R L, SHI F C, FUKUDA K, et al. Effects of salt and alkali stresses on germination, growth, photosynthesis and ion accumulation in alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.)[J]. Soil Science & Plant Nutrition, 2010, 56(5): 725-733.
[2]	GENG G, LV C H, STEVANATO P, et al. Transcriptome analysis of salt-sensitive and tolerant genotypes reveals salt-tolerance metabolic pathways in sugar beet[J]. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 2019, 20(23): 5910. DOI URL
[3]	张建锋, 张旭东, 周金星, 等. 世界盐碱地资源及其改良利用的基本措施[J]. 水土保持研究, 2005, 12(6): 28-30.
	ZHANG J F, ZHANG X D, ZHOU J X, et al. World resources of saline soil and main amelioration measures[J]. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 2005, 12(6): 28-30. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[4]	YIN Z P, ZHANG H, ZHAO Q, et al. Physiological and comparative proteomic analyses of saline-alkali NaHCO₃-responses in leaves of halophyte Puccinellia tenuiflora[J]. Plant and Soil, 2019, 437(1/2): 137-158. DOI URL
[5]	王宝山. 逆境植物生物学[M]. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2010.
[6]	LIU B S, KANG C L, WANG X, et al. Physiological and morphological responses of Leymus chinensis to saline-alkali stress[J]. Grassland Science, 2015, 61(4): 217-226. DOI URL
[7]	王佺珍, 刘倩, 高娅妮, 等. 植物对盐碱胁迫的响应机制研究进展[J]. 生态学报, 2017, 37(16): 5565-5577.
	WANG Q Z, LIU Q, GAO Y N, et al. Review on the mechanisms of the response to salinity-alkalinity stress in plants[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2017, 37(16): 5565-5577. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[8]	闫永庆, 王文杰, 朱虹, 等. 混合盐碱胁迫对青山杨渗透调节物质及活性氧代谢的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2009, 20(9): 2085-2091.
	YAN Y Q, WANG W J, ZHU H, et al. Effects of salt-alkali stress on osmoregulation substance and active oxygen metabolism of Qingshan poplar (Populus pseudo-cathayana×P. deltoides)[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2009, 20(9): 2085-2091. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[9]	李子英, 丛日春, 杨庆山, 等. 盐碱胁迫对柳树幼苗生长和渗透调节物质含量的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2017, 37(24): 8511-8517.
	LI Z Y, CONG R C, YANG Q S, et al. Effects of saline-alkali stress on growth and osmotic adjustment substances in willow seedlings[J]. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 2017, 37(24): 8511-8517. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[10]	李子英, 李佳迪, 刘铎, 等. 混合盐碱胁迫对柳树幼苗生理指标的影响[J]. 东北林业大学学报, 2021, 49(4): 1-4.
	LI Z Y, LI J D, LIU D, et al. Effects of mixed saline-alkali stress on the physiological indexes of willow seedlings[J]. Journal of Northeast Forestry University, 2021, 49(4): 1-4. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[11]	SHEN-MILLER J. Sacred lotus, the long-living fruits of China antique[J]. Seed Science Research, 2002, 12: 131-143. DOI URL
[12]	王其超, 张行言. 中国荷花品种图志[M]. 北京: 中国林业出版社, 2005.
[13]	LIU R J, SHE H T, WANG Y P, et al. Comparative physiological analysis of lotus(Nelumbo nucifera) cultivars in response to salt stress and cloning of NnCIPK genes[J]. Scientia Horticulturae, 2014, 173: 29-36. DOI URL
[14]	赵文, 董双林, 申屠青春, 等. 盐碱池塘水生大型植物的研究[J]. 植物研究, 2001, 21(1): 140-146.
	ZHAO W, DONG S L, SHENTU Q C, et al. Studies of aquatic macrophytes in saline-alkaline ponds[J]. Bulletin of Botanical Research, 2001, 21(1): 140-146. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[15]	刘艺平, 苏少文, 张琳, 等. 外源钙对荷花适应盐胁迫的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2020, 32(2): 243-252. DOI
	LIU Y P, SU S W, ZHANG L, et al. Effect of exogenous calcium on lotus adaptation to salt stress[J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2020, 32(2): 243-252. (in Chinese with English abstract) DOI
[16]	CHENG L B, LI S Y, HUSSAIN J, et al. Isolation and functional characterization of a salt responsive transcriptional factor, LrbZIP from lotus root (Nelumbo nucifera Gaertn)[J]. Molecular Biology Reports, 2013, 40(6): 4033-4045. DOI URL
[17]	CHENG L B, HUI L C, YIN L, et al. Overexpression of NnDREB2, isolated from lotus improves salt tolerance in transgenic Arabidopsis thaliana[J]. Acta Physiologiae Plantarum, 2015, 37(12): 1-12. DOI URL
[18]	YE X X, WANG H, CAO X L, et al. Transcriptome profiling of Puccinellia tenuiflora during seed germination under a long-term saline-alkali stress[J]. BMC Genomics, 2019, 20(1): 589. DOI URL
[19]	SHI D C, WANG D L. Effects of various salt-alkaline mixed stresses on Aneurolepidium chinense (Trin.) Kitag[J]. Plant and Soil, 2005, 271(1/2): 15-26. DOI URL
[20]	黄海军, 刘敏, 薛梦洁, 等. 荷花品种的耐盐性评价[J]. 山东林业科技, 2020, 50(6): 16-22.
	HUANG H J, LIU M, XUE M J, et al. Evaluation of salt tolerance of lotus cultivars[J]. Journal of Shandong Forestry Science and Technology, 2020, 50(6): 16-22. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[21]	李红宇, 李逸, 司洋, 等. 北方粳稻耐盐碱相关性状主成分分析及综合评价[J]. 核农学报, 2020, 34(8): 1862-1871. DOI
	LI H Y, LI Y, SI Y, et al. Principal component analysis and comprehensive evaluation of saline-alkaline tolerance related traits of northern japonica rice[J]. Journal of Nuclear Agricultural Sciences, 2020, 34(8): 1862-1871. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[22]	张新草, 薛项潇, 姜深, 等. 大豆种质发芽期耐盐碱性鉴定及指标筛选[J]. 西北农业学报, 2020, 29(3): 374-381.
	ZHANG X C, XUE X X, JIANG S, et al. Identification of mixed saline-alkali tolerance and screening of indicators in soybean at germination stage[J]. Acta Agriculturae Boreali-Occidentalis Sinica, 2020, 29(3): 374-381. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[23]	贾旭梅, 朱燕芳, 王海, 等. 垂丝海棠应对盐碱复合胁迫的生理响应[J]. 生态学报, 2019, 39(17): 6349-6361.
	JIA X M, ZHU Y F, WANG H, et al. Study on physiological response of Malus halliana to saline-alkali stress[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2019, 39(17): 6349-6361. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[24]	波钦诺克. 植物生物化学分析方法[M]. 荆家海, 丁钟荣,译. 北京: 科学出版社, 1981.
[25]	李合生. 植物生理生化实验原理和技术[M]. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2000.
[26]	王秀丽, 关小克, 张凤荣, 等. 资源环境约束下的天津市盐渍土农业利用研究[J]. 自然资源学报, 2016, 31(10): 1764-1772.
	WANG X L, GUAN X K, ZHANG F R, et al. Agricultural utilization of saline-alkaline soil under the constraint of resources and environment in Tianjin[J]. Journal of Natural Resources, 2016, 31(10): 1764-1772. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[27]	QADIR M, QUILLÉROU E, NANGIA V, et al. Economics of salt-induced land degradation and restoration[J]. Natural Resources Forum, 2014, 38(4): 282-295. DOI URL
[28]	刘妍妍, 吴纪中, 许璋阳, 等. 人工海水胁迫下小麦芽期和苗期的耐盐性鉴定方法[J]. 植物生理学报, 2014, 50(2): 214-222.
	LIU Y Y, WU J Z, XU Z Y, et al. Identification methods of salt-tolerance at germination and seedling stage of wheat under artificial sea water stress[J]. Plant Physiology Journal, 2014, 50(2): 214-222. (in Chinese with English abstract) DOI URL
[29]	李萍, 燕佳琦, 张鹤, 等. 146份甘蓝型油菜种质芽期耐盐性筛选及评价[J]. 西北农业学报, 2021, 30(6): 848-859.
	LI P, YAN J Q, ZHANG H, et al. Screening and evaluation of salt tolerance for 146 Brassica napus germplasms at germination stage[J]. Acta Agriculturae Boreali-Occidentalis Sinica, 2021, 30(6): 848-859. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[30]	徐银萍, 潘永东, 刘强德, 等. 大麦种质资源成株期抗旱性鉴定及抗旱指标筛选[J]. 作物学报, 2020, 46(3): 448-461. DOI
	XU Y P, PAN Y D, LIU Q D, et al. Drought resistance identification and drought resistance indexes screening of barley resources at mature period[J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2020, 46(3): 448-461. (in Chinese with English abstract) DOI URL
[31]	武燕奇, 郭素娟. 5个板栗品种对干旱胁迫的生理响应及抗旱性评价[J]. 东北林业大学学报, 2017, 45(1): 20-24.
	WU Y Q, GUO S J. Physiological response of five Chinese chestnut varieties of drought stress and evaluation of drought resistance[J]. Journal of Northeast Forestry University, 2017, 45(1): 20-24. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[32]	武晓玲, 梁海媛, 杨峰, 等. 大豆苗期耐荫性综合评价及其鉴定指标的筛选[J]. 中国农业科学, 2015, 48(13): 2497-2507.
	WU X L, LIANG H Y, YANG F, et al. Comprehensive evaluation and screening identification indexes of shade tolerance at seedling in soybean[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2015, 48(13): 2497-2507. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[33]	王瑞, 李培英, 孙宗玖, 等. 水培下42份偃麦草种质苗期耐盐性评价[J]. 中国草地学报, 2020, 42(5): 22-30.
	WANG R, LI P Y, SUN Z J, et al. Evaluation of salt tolerance of 42 Elytrigia repens at seedling stage under hydroponic condition[J]. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2020, 42(5): 22-30. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[34]	张鹏, 徐晨, 徐克章, 等. 大豆品种耐盐性的快速鉴定法及不同时期耐盐性的研究[J]. 中国油料作物学报, 2013, 35(5): 572-578.
	ZHANG P, XU C, XU K Z, et al. Fast identification method of salt-tolerance and research on salt-tolerance at different stages of soybean cultivars[J]. Chinese Journal of Oil Crop Sciences, 2013, 35(5): 572-578. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[35]	张会丽, 朱林, 许兴. 不同青贮玉米大喇叭口期和成熟期耐盐碱性综合评价[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2019, 37(1): 240-249.
	ZHANG H L, ZHU L, XU X. Comprehensive evaluation of saline-alkali tolerance of silage maize at stages of fourteenth leaf and maturity[J]. Agricultural Research in the Arid Areas, 2019, 37(1): 240-249. (in Chinese with English abstract)

编号 No.	名称 Name	编号 No.	名称 Name
Ne1	红牡丹Hongmudan	Ne11	牡丹莲Mudanlian
Ne2	披针红Pizhenhong	Ne12	高风亮节Gaofengliangjie
Ne3	黄菊花Huangjuhua	Ne13	瑰丽Guili
Ne4	紫光阁Ziguangge	Ne14	红思莲Hongsilian
Ne5	云雾仙子Yunwuxianzi	Ne15	金陵女神Jinlingnvshen
Ne6	鹤顶红Hedinghong	Ne16	友谊牡丹Youyimudan
Ne7	千瓣莲Qianbanlian	Ne17	统帅Tongshuai
Ne8	心血Xinxue	Ne18	墨红一号Mohong No.1
Ne9	黄帅Huangshuai	Ne19	火炬Huoju
Ne10	金秋Jinqiu	Ne20	台湾磨盘莲Taiwanmopanlian

编号 No.	名称 Name	编号 No.	名称 Name
Ne1	红牡丹Hongmudan	Ne11	牡丹莲Mudanlian
Ne2	披针红Pizhenhong	Ne12	高风亮节Gaofengliangjie
Ne3	黄菊花Huangjuhua	Ne13	瑰丽Guili
Ne4	紫光阁Ziguangge	Ne14	红思莲Hongsilian
Ne5	云雾仙子Yunwuxianzi	Ne15	金陵女神Jinlingnvshen
Ne6	鹤顶红Hedinghong	Ne16	友谊牡丹Youyimudan
Ne7	千瓣莲Qianbanlian	Ne17	统帅Tongshuai
Ne8	心血Xinxue	Ne18	墨红一号Mohong No.1
Ne9	黄帅Huangshuai	Ne19	火炬Huoju
Ne10	金秋Jinqiu	Ne20	台湾磨盘莲Taiwanmopanlian

品种Variety	X₁	X₂	X₃	X₄	X₅	X₆	X₇	X₈	X₉	X₁₀	X₁₁	X₁₂	X₁₃	X₁₄
Ne1	0.612	0.552	0.864	0.791	0.810	1.092	1.097	3.460	1.689	1.659	1.215	2.194	0.961	0.949
Ne2	0.574	0.761	0.891	0.838	0.860	1.063	1.249	8.164	0.948	1.000	0.919	1.164	0.976	0.896
Ne3	0.830	0.912	0.969	0.908	0.940	1.068	1.073	7.539	1.309	1.333	1.520	1.092	0.981	0.958
Ne4	0.720	0.876	0.960	0.908	0.927	1.057	1.180	8.402	1.247	1.667	1.401	1.267	0.999	1.035
Ne5	0.712	0.745	1.018	1.041	1.027	0.978	1.031	6.990	1.385	1.125	1.169	1.174	0.955	1.255
Ne6	0.570	0.456	0.794	0.842	0.814	0.943	1.406	5.416	1.415	1.143	1.084	1.345	1.044	1.066
Ne7	0.523	0.623	1.054	0.740	0.890	1.423	1.011	4.227	1.819	1.455	2.145	1.067	0.962	0.855
Ne8	0.412	0.538	0.726	0.782	0.754	0.929	1.209	6.413	1.317	1.400	1.365	1.085	0.970	0.895
Ne9	0.810	0.822	0.908	0.961	0.942	0.946	1.232	1.301	1.526	1.750	2.304	1.525	0.988	0.955
Ne10	0.623	0.581	0.894	0.946	0.912	0.945	1.156	5.315	1.064	1.500	1.257	1.078	0.984	0.953
Ne11	0.730	0.456	0.860	0.802	0.827	1.072	1.423	1.916	1.195	2.125	1.047	1.464	1.002	0.996
Ne12	0.760	0.736	0.884	0.836	0.855	1.058	1.205	6.274	1.129	1.086	1.418	1.115	0.986	0.955
Ne13	0.542	0.714	1.086	1.049	1.066	1.035	1.245	1.142	1.228	1.949	1.959	1.061	0.984	0.958
Ne14	0.410	0.512	0.777	0.794	0.786	0.979	1.250	1.922	1.144	1.210	1.228	1.335	1.028	1.110
Ne15	0.790	0.890	0.984	0.917	0.958	1.073	1.042	2.731	1.226	1.113	2.919	2.075	0.992	1.015
Ne16	0.680	0.712	0.875	0.746	0.808	1.172	1.108	2.915	1.189	1.750	1.492	1.114	0.888	0.941
Ne17	0.590	0.576	0.989	0.775	0.882	1.276	0.798	1.112	1.355	0.952	1.404	1.586	0.969	1.020
Ne18	0.516	0.812	0.756	0.659	0.704	1.147	1.285	6.586	1.071	1.083	1.317	1.368	0.874	0.761
Ne19	0.691	0.791	0.694	0.595	0.639	1.166	1.539	4.919	1.121	1.111	0.981	1.232	0.845	0.869
Ne20	0.450	0.401	0.730	0.638	0.701	1.143	1.194	9.435	1.045	1.033	1.028	1.002	0.974	0.904
平均值Mean	0.627	0.673	0.886	0.828	0.855	1.078	1.187	4.809	1.271	1.372	1.459	1.317	0.968	0.967
标准差	0.129	0.157	0.113	0.123	0.109	0.122	0.163	2.641	0.217	0.344	0.506	0.325	0.048	0.104
Standard deviation
变异系数	20.53	23.32	12.80	14.87	12.72	11.31	13.77	54.91	17.11	25.08	34.68	24.69	4.98	10.72
Coefficient of variation/%

品种Variety	X₁	X₂	X₃	X₄	X₅	X₆	X₇	X₈	X₉	X₁₀	X₁₁	X₁₂	X₁₃	X₁₄
Ne1	0.612	0.552	0.864	0.791	0.810	1.092	1.097	3.460	1.689	1.659	1.215	2.194	0.961	0.949
Ne2	0.574	0.761	0.891	0.838	0.860	1.063	1.249	8.164	0.948	1.000	0.919	1.164	0.976	0.896
Ne3	0.830	0.912	0.969	0.908	0.940	1.068	1.073	7.539	1.309	1.333	1.520	1.092	0.981	0.958
Ne4	0.720	0.876	0.960	0.908	0.927	1.057	1.180	8.402	1.247	1.667	1.401	1.267	0.999	1.035
Ne5	0.712	0.745	1.018	1.041	1.027	0.978	1.031	6.990	1.385	1.125	1.169	1.174	0.955	1.255
Ne6	0.570	0.456	0.794	0.842	0.814	0.943	1.406	5.416	1.415	1.143	1.084	1.345	1.044	1.066
Ne7	0.523	0.623	1.054	0.740	0.890	1.423	1.011	4.227	1.819	1.455	2.145	1.067	0.962	0.855
Ne8	0.412	0.538	0.726	0.782	0.754	0.929	1.209	6.413	1.317	1.400	1.365	1.085	0.970	0.895
Ne9	0.810	0.822	0.908	0.961	0.942	0.946	1.232	1.301	1.526	1.750	2.304	1.525	0.988	0.955
Ne10	0.623	0.581	0.894	0.946	0.912	0.945	1.156	5.315	1.064	1.500	1.257	1.078	0.984	0.953
Ne11	0.730	0.456	0.860	0.802	0.827	1.072	1.423	1.916	1.195	2.125	1.047	1.464	1.002	0.996
Ne12	0.760	0.736	0.884	0.836	0.855	1.058	1.205	6.274	1.129	1.086	1.418	1.115	0.986	0.955
Ne13	0.542	0.714	1.086	1.049	1.066	1.035	1.245	1.142	1.228	1.949	1.959	1.061	0.984	0.958
Ne14	0.410	0.512	0.777	0.794	0.786	0.979	1.250	1.922	1.144	1.210	1.228	1.335	1.028	1.110
Ne15	0.790	0.890	0.984	0.917	0.958	1.073	1.042	2.731	1.226	1.113	2.919	2.075	0.992	1.015
Ne16	0.680	0.712	0.875	0.746	0.808	1.172	1.108	2.915	1.189	1.750	1.492	1.114	0.888	0.941
Ne17	0.590	0.576	0.989	0.775	0.882	1.276	0.798	1.112	1.355	0.952	1.404	1.586	0.969	1.020
Ne18	0.516	0.812	0.756	0.659	0.704	1.147	1.285	6.586	1.071	1.083	1.317	1.368	0.874	0.761
Ne19	0.691	0.791	0.694	0.595	0.639	1.166	1.539	4.919	1.121	1.111	0.981	1.232	0.845	0.869
Ne20	0.450	0.401	0.730	0.638	0.701	1.143	1.194	9.435	1.045	1.033	1.028	1.002	0.974	0.904
平均值Mean	0.627	0.673	0.886	0.828	0.855	1.078	1.187	4.809	1.271	1.372	1.459	1.317	0.968	0.967
标准差	0.129	0.157	0.113	0.123	0.109	0.122	0.163	2.641	0.217	0.344	0.506	0.325	0.048	0.104
Standard deviation
变异系数	20.53	23.32	12.80	14.87	12.72	11.31	13.77	54.91	17.11	25.08	34.68	24.69	4.98	10.72
Coefficient of variation/%

指标	X₁	X₂	X₃	X₄	X₅	X₆	X₇	X₈	X₉	X₁₀	X₁₁	X₁₂	X₁₃	X₁₄
Index
X₁	1.00
X₂	0.63^**	1.00
X₃	0.38	0.38	1.00
X₄	0.40	0.31	0.70^**	1.00
X₅	0.42	0.37	0.91^**	0.93^**	1.00
X₆	-0.09	0.02	0.23	-0.53^*	-0.19	1.00
X₇	-0.06	-0.12	-0.62^**	-0.26	-0.48^*	-0.36	1.00
X₈	-0.08	0.12	-0.27	-0.17	-0.23	-0.09	0.10	1.00
X₉	0.08	-0.08	0.39	0.14	0.27	0.28	-0.37	-0.32	1.00
X₁₀	0.21	-0.06	0.27	0.32	0.31	-0.13	0.17	-0.44	0.27	1.00
X₁₁	0.33	0.45^*	0.548^*	0.38	0.52^*	0.14	-0.38	-0.44	0.38	0.19	1.00
X₁₂	0.25	0.05	0.06	0.03	0.04	0.00	-0.18	-0.45^*	0.34	0.05	0.33	1.00
X₁₃	-0.03	-0.33	0.27	0.53^*	0.45^*	-0.44	-0.12	-0.09	0.15	0.12	0.13	0.10	1.00
X₁₄	0.22	-0.09	0.33	0.59^**	0.51^*	-0.42	-0.23	-0.14	0.12	-0.02	-0.04	0.13	0.52^*	1.00

Evaluation of salt-alkali tolerance of different lotus varieties and screening of identification indexes

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 7

References 35

Related Articles 15

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments

主成分Principle factor		CI₁	CI₂	CI₃	CI₄	CI₅
特征值Eigenvalue		4.341	2.245	1.616	1.366	0.793
贡献率Contribution rate/%		36.175	18.709	13.470	11.379	6.610
累计贡献率Cumulative contribution rate/%		36.175	54.884	68.354	79.734	86.344
特征向量Eigenvector	X₁	0.125	0.112	0.293	0.284	0.348
	X₂	0.098	0.228	0.409	0.114	0.015
	X₃	0.200	0.110	-0.038	-0.251	-0.061
	X₄	0.204	-0.154	0.120	-0.021	-0.175
	X₅	0.220	-0.031	0.048	-0.145	-0.145
	X₆	-0.043	0.344	-0.196	-0.273	0.150
	X₇	-0.120	-0.145	0.216	0.347	-0.444
	X₈	-0.079	-0.074	0.378	-0.321	0.359
	X₁₁	0.146	0.208	-0.096	0.139	-0.464
	X₁₂	0.059	0.084	-0.271	0.485	0.472
	X₁₃	0.107	-0.293	-0.182	-0.044	-0.115
	X₁₄	0.128	-0.252	-0.057	0.001	0.533

品种 Cultivar	CI₁	CI₂	CI₃	CI₄	CI₅	u(X₁)	u(X₂)	u(X₃)	u(X₄)	u(X₅)	D值 D value	综合评价 Comprehensive valuation
Ne1	0.723	0.019	0.896	0.049	1.701	0.607	0.571	0.254	0.792	0.543	0.564	Ⅱ
Ne2	0.268	-0.463	3.102	-1.945	2.913	0.214	0.120	0.917	0.164	0.889	0.349	Ⅳ
Ne3	0.524	-0.229	2.930	-1.701	2.550	0.435	0.339	0.865	0.241	0.785	0.483	Ⅲ
Ne4	0.426	-0.368	3.191	-1.902	2.951	0.351	0.209	0.944	0.178	0.900	0.432	Ⅲ
Ne5	0.590	-0.416	2.646	-1.603	2.638	0.492	0.165	0.780	0.272	0.810	0.461	Ⅲ
Ne6	0.475	-0.417	1.910	-0.873	1.936	0.393	0.164	0.559	0.502	0.610	0.400	Ⅲ
Ne7	0.757	0.242	1.317	-0.811	1.007	0.636	0.780	0.381	0.521	0.345	0.590	Ⅱ
Ne8	0.366	-0.361	2.293	-1.350	2.013	0.299	0.216	0.674	0.352	0.632	0.372	Ⅳ
Ne9	1.130	0.327	0.403	0.707	0.045	0.957	0.859	0.106	1.000	0.070	0.741	Ⅰ
Ne10	0.583	-0.287	1.971	-1.043	1.733	0.487	0.285	0.577	0.448	0.552	0.457	Ⅲ
Ne11	0.760	-0.053	0.589	0.305	0.788	0.639	0.504	0.162	0.873	0.282	0.538	Ⅱ
Ne12	0.519	-0.222	2.383	-1.254	2.094	0.431	0.346	0.701	0.382	0.655	0.465	Ⅲ
Ne13	1.096	0.205	0.374	0.313	-0.201	0.929	0.745	0.098	0.876	0	0.681	Ⅰ
Ne14	0.758	-0.099	0.507	0.172	0.667	0.637	0.460	0.138	0.831	0.248	0.517	Ⅱ
Ne15	1.179	0.479	0.679	0.481	0.663	1.000	1.000	0.189	0.929	0.247	0.806	Ⅰ
Ne16	0.746	0.127	1.036	-0.241	0.912	0.626	0.672	0.296	0.701	0.318	0.571	Ⅱ
Ne17	0.975	0.284	0.049	0.335	0.658	0.824	0.819	0.000	0.883	0.245	0.657	Ⅰ
Ne18	0.326	-0.136	2.410	-1.241	2.237	0.264	0.426	0.709	0.386	0.696	0.418	Ⅲ
Ne19	0.360	-0.123	1.933	-0.660	1.765	0.294	0.438	0.566	0.569	0.561	0.424	Ⅲ
Ne20	0.019	-0.592	3.379	-2.466	3.302	0	0	1.000	0	1.000	0.233	Ⅳ
权重	0.418	0.217	0.156	0.132	0.077
Index weight

品种 Variety	原始值 Original value	回归值 Regression	拟合误差 Fitting error	估计精度 Evaluation accuracy/%
Ne1	0.564	0.557	0.006	98.85
Ne2	0.349	0.338	0.011	96.77
Ne3	0.483	0.489	-0.006	98.68
Ne4	0.432	0.422	0.010	97.77
Ne5	0.461	0.445	0.016	96.43
Ne6	0.400	0.393	0.007	98.23
Ne7	0.590	0.582	0.007	98.75
Ne8	0.372	0.388	-0.015	96.01
Ne9	0.741	0.751	-0.010	98.67
Ne10	0.457	0.456	0.001	99.88
Ne11	0.538	0.531	0.007	98.67
Ne12	0.465	0.474	-0.009	98.08
Ne13	0.681	0.652	0.028	95.83
Ne14	0.517	0.524	-0.007	98.64
Ne15	0.806	0.810	-0.004	99.56
Ne16	0.571	0.589	-0.018	96.91
Ne17	0.657	0.666	-0.008	98.74
Ne18	0.418	0.427	-0.009	97.81
Ne19	0.424	0.439	-0.014	96.79
Ne20	0.233	0.244	-0.011	95.45

[1]	YANG Hailong, WANG Hui, LEI Jinchao, CAI Jinyang. Analysis and evaluation of phenotypic diversities of early indica rice germplasm resources in Zhejiang Province [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2022, 34(8): 1571-1581.
[2]	YANG Lei, HONG Lin, LIU Zhaojun, YANG Haijian, WANG Wu. Comprehensive evaluation of fruit quality and nutrition of six kumquat varieties [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2022, 34(3): 534-547.
[3]	MO Yanling, ZHANG Wenjing, LUO Yalan, ZENG Jing, CHEN Jingjing, LIU Yihua. Identification and evaluation of agronomic traits and nutritional quality traits in wide handle mustard germplam resources [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2022, 34(2): 317-328.
[4]	ZHOU Beining, MAO Lian, HUA Zhuangzhuang, LU Jianguo. Effects on photochemical fluorescence properties under salt-alkaline stresses about Sinocalycanthus chinensis [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2021, 33(8): 1416-1425.
[5]	HE Peng, ZHANG Tao, SONG Haiyun, ZHENG Shufang, QIN Zhenshi, TAN Qiujin, HUANG Xiyun, TANG Xiuhua, XU Peng, CHEN Haisheng, WANG Wenlin. Determination of suitable harvesting time of Macadamia integrifolia cv. HAES695 for processing of slotted nut [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2021, 33(8): 1489-1496.
[6]	ZHANG Faming, DING Feng, WANG Ping. Evaluation of high-quality agricultural development level in major grain producing areas in China and its spatial and temporal evolution [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2021, 33(1): 150-160.
[7]	NIU Suzhen, AN Hongwei, SONG Qinfei, CHEN Zhengwu. Analysis and evaluation of soil nutrients of wild tea germplasm in Guizhou [J]. , 2020, 32(6): 1039-1048.
[8]	CHEN Yue, ZHANG Dunyu, DING Mingliang, WANG Lingxian, XIAO Suqin, KE Xue, CHENG Zaiquan. Phenotypic diversity of rice resources in multiple provinces and screening of excellent resources [J]. , 2019, 31(11): 1779-1789.
[9]	MAO Xiaobao, FU Linlin, MAO Xiaohong, AIHAITI Adila. Evaluation of agricultural sustainable development level in Zhejiang Province [J]. , 2019, 31(11): 1926-1934.
[10]	LI Chunlan, YANG Yonghua, YANG Zhenkun, WANG Jinqiu, LIAO Weibiao. Comparison on the drought-resistance of five ornamental crabapple cultivars [J]. , 2017, 29(5): 782-790.
[11]	CHEN Ying, WANG Dong, WANG Shunran. Time arrangement of excellent-criterion farmland construction in loess hill and gully region:A case study of Maiji District, Tianshui City [J]. , 2017, 29(4): 660-667.
[12]	YE Shuang, XIONG Bo, QIU Xia, SUN Guochao, HUANG Shengjia, FU Jialing, WANG Zhihui. Establishment of comprehensive evaluation system of fruit quality and its application on Huangguogan fruit [J]. , 2017, 29(12): 2038-2050.
[13]	FU Bin, DOU Xuecheng. Analysis and evaluation of crop variety safety and diagnosis of obstacle factors based on AHP-fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method—Taking Hexi seed production base as an example [J]. , 2017, 29(10): 1611-1619.
[14]	LIU Guo-wei, REN Yan-yun, GAO Yuan-yuan, ZHANG Long-ping, LIU Yan-zhi, XU Xiang-wen, GAO Fa-rui, MA Jing-yu, ZHANG Lian-qiu. Cluster analysis and evaluation of agronomic characters in garlic variety resources based on principal components [J]. , 2016, 28(9): 1508-1513.
[15]	YUAN Huifang1， XIAO Rongcai1， HUANG Jing1， LI Yueying2， YUE Hai1， TIAN Yaohua1，*. Physiological responses of Citrus maxima cv. ‘Dongshizao’ to different waterretention measures and comprehensive evaluation [J]. , 2016, 28(4): 586-.