| 蒙小玉,黄欣艳,张绿萍,吴亚维.苹果砧木资源的无融合生殖能力评价研究[J].中国南方果树,2025,54(1): |
| 苹果砧木资源的无融合生殖能力评价研究 |
| Research on apomixis reproductive capacity of apple rootstock resources |
| 投稿时间：2024-08-06 修订日期：2024-09-25 |
| DOI：10.13938/j.issn.1007-1431.20240415 |
| 中文关键词: 苹果砧木 无融合生殖 无融合生殖率 |
| 英文关键词:Apple rootstock Apomixis Apomixis rate |
| 基金项目:贵州省科技支撑计划项目（黔科合支撑[2020]1Y025） |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 118 |
| 全文下载次数: 0 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 本研究以‘平邑甜茶’、‘湖北海棠’、‘青砧1号’、‘青砧2号’、‘丽江山荆子’、‘毛山荆子109’、‘毛山荆子1012’以及‘西府海棠’作为试验材料，通过去雄套袋、切除柱头、套袋自交和自然授粉4种处理，测定无融合生殖坐果率、结籽率、种子千粒重以及果实性状，评价不同苹果砧木的无融合生殖能力。结果表明：‘西府海棠’在去雄套袋和切除柱头两种无融合处理后均不能正常坐果、结籽，其余7个砧木资源坐果率在4.05%~93.28%之间，结籽率在12.37%~64.92%之间。综合分析表明，‘西府海棠’不具备无融合生殖能力，其余7个砧木资源均属于兼性无融合生殖，其中‘平邑甜茶’的无融合生殖坐果率为65.15%~86.81%、无融合生殖处理后的结籽率为64.92%~62.90%，无融合生殖能力最强。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| In this study, ‘Malus hupehensis var. mengshanensis’, ‘Malus hupehensis Rehd.’, ‘Qingzhen No.1’, ‘Qingzhen No.2’, ‘Malus rockii Rehder’, ‘Mandshurica 109’, ‘Mandshurica 1012’ and ‘Malus.micromalus Makino’ were used as experimental materials, and four treatments including emasculation and bagging, removal of stigma, bagging selfing and natural pollination were carried out. The fruit setting rate, seed setting rate, 1000-grain weight and fruit traits of apomixis were determined to evaluate the apomixis of different apple rootstocks. The results showed that ‘Malus micromalus’ could not fruit and seed normally after two apomixis treatments of emasculation and bagging, removal of stigma, and the fruit setting rate of the remaining seven rootstock resources was between 4.05% ~93.28%, and the seed setting rate was between 12.37% ~ 64.92%. Comprehensive analysis showed that ‘Malus micromalus’ did not have the ability of apomixis, and the remaining seven rootstock resources belonged to facultative apomixis rootstocks, among them, the fruit setting rate of ‘Malus hupehensis(pamp)’ was 65.15% ~ 86.81%, and the seed setting rate after apomixis treatment was 64.92% ~ 62.90%, which ability of apomixis is strongest. In different treatments, the fruit setting rate of apomixis treatment (33.76% -93.28%) was significantly higher than that of emasculation bagging method(4.05% - 65.15%). |
| 查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 关闭 |
|
|
|
