估算不同基因型在膨压丧失点时水势的替代方法。
Alternative methods of estimating the water potential at turgor loss point in genotypes.
作者信息
Banks Jonathan M, Hirons Andrew D
机构信息
1School of Agriculture Policy and Development, The University of Reading, Reading, Berkshire RG6 6AR UK.
Bartlett Tree Experts, Research Laboratory, Reading, Berkshire RG2 9AF UK.
出版信息
Plant Methods. 2019 Apr 4;15:34. doi: 10.1186/s13007-019-0410-3. eCollection 2019.
BACKGROUND
Selecting for drought tolerance in urban tree species can have a significant influence on survival rates, aftercare requirements and performance. The water potential at turgor loss point (π) is gaining popularity as a trait to help determine drought tolerance to aid tree selection. Therefore, it is important to understand if differing methods used to measure or calculate π deliver consistent results.
RESULTS
The sensitivity of three methods used to determine this valuable selection parameter were evaluated. A classical pressure chamber, pressure-volume (P-V) curve method was compared with vapour-pressure osmometer (Vapro) and dewpoint hygrometer (WP4C) methods. These methods were evaluated using closely related cultivars of and 'Negenia'.
CONCLUSION
Both the osmometer and hygrometer methods ranked genotypes with a very high similarity (R = 1, R = 0.96) and were able to identify significant differences between cultivars. This is the first study to demonstrate suitability of the dewpoint hygrometer in comparison to the vapour-pressure osmometer to measure π. The P-V method was unable to identify differences between the cultivars tested. The Vapro and WP4C provide greater applicability than the conventional P-V method to studies requiring both high throughput and high sensitivity. Consistency of measurement type is however highly recommended in future studies as some differences were observed between Vapro and WP4C.
背景
在城市树木品种中选择耐旱性对成活率、后期养护要求和表现会产生重大影响。膨压丧失点处的水势（π）作为一种有助于确定耐旱性以辅助树木选择的性状，正越来越受到关注。因此，了解用于测量或计算π的不同方法是否能得出一致的结果很重要。
结果
对用于确定这一重要选择参数的三种方法的敏感性进行了评估。将经典的压力室、压力-容积（P-V）曲线法与蒸气压渗透仪（Vapro）和露点湿度仪（WP4C）法进行了比较。使用密切相关的品种和‘Negenia’对这些方法进行了评估。
结论
渗透仪法和湿度仪法对基因型的排名相似度非常高（R = 1，R = 0.96），并且能够识别品种间的显著差异。这是第一项证明露点湿度仪与蒸气压渗透仪相比适用于测量π的研究。P-V法无法识别所测试品种之间的差异。对于需要高通量和高灵敏度的研究，Vapro和WP4C比传统的P-V法具有更大的适用性。然而，由于在Vapro和WP4C之间观察到了一些差异，强烈建议在未来的研究中保持测量类型的一致性。
Zotero 插件