Principal Component and Cluster Analysis of Leaf Physiological Traits of 52 Helianthus tuberosus Germplasm Resources in Southern Xinjiang

doi:10.11923/j.issn.2095-4050.cjas15060015

PDF(1346 KB)

Journal of Agriculture ›› 2016, Vol. 6 ›› Issue (1) : 66-72. DOI: 10.11923/j.issn.2095-4050.cjas15060015

Principal Component and Cluster Analysis of Leaf Physiological Traits of 52 Helianthus tuberosus Germplasm Resources in Southern Xinjiang

吴全忠 and 艾买尔江?吾斯曼

Author information +

History +

Abstract

The study aims to provide reference for evaluating, classifying, utilizing, parental selection and introduction of germplasm resources of Helianthus tuberosus. The physiological indexes (specific leaf weight, SLW; Chl.a; Chl.b; Car.; Chl. (a b); Chl.a/b; acid sucrose invertase, ASI; soluble protein content, SPC; starch content, SC; soluble sugar content, SSC) of 53 H. tuberosus cultivars’leaves were measured and analyzed by correlation analysis, principal component analysis and cluster analysis. The results showed that variation coefficients of starch content and soluble protein content were high, but those of acid invertase activity, specific leaf weight, chlorophyll a/b were low. Photosynthesis index of H. tuberosus leaves had different levels of correlation. All factors were distributed into 5 principal components by principal component analysis, with cumulative contribution of 90.301% . These materials classified as photosynthetic capacity, photosynthate, shade tolerance, protection of carotenoids and composite indicator of enzyme activity. All the 53 H. tuberosus cultivars were divided into 5 groups by cluster analysis. Group I had lower starch and soluble sugar content in leaves; group II had higher chlorophyll a/b content; group III had higher acid invertase activity and starch content; group IV had highercarotenoids content; group V had higher chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b, chlorophyll (a b), specific leaf weight, starch and soluble sugar content. Five varieties, including‘Beichun 29’,‘Beichun 32’,‘Beichun 15’,‘Beichun 52’and‘Nanchun 56’, with good productive characters were selected for future demonstration and extension.

Key words

Helianthus tuberosus L.; Germplasm Resources; Physiological Indexes of Leaves; Correlation; Principal Component Analysis; Cluster Analysis

Cite this article

EndNote

Ris (Procite)

Bibtex

Download Citations

吴全忠 and 艾买尔江?吾斯曼. Principal Component and Cluster Analysis of Leaf Physiological Traits of 52 Helianthus tuberosus Germplasm Resources in Southern Xinjiang[J]. Journal of Agriculture. 2016, 6(1): 66-72 https://doi.org/10.11923/j.issn.2095-4050.cjas15060015

References

[1] 刘祖昕,谢光辉.菊芋作为能源植物的研究进展[J].中国农业大学学报，2012,17(6):122-132
[2] 寇一翾,吕世奇,刘建全,等.寡糖类能源植物菊芋及其综合利用研究进展[J].生命科学,2014,26(5):451-457
[3] Chang W C, Jia HJ,Aw W P,et al.Beneficial effects of soluble dietary Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus) in the prevention of the onset of type 2 diabetes and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in high-fructose diet-fed rats[J].BRITISH JOURNAL OF NUTRITION，2014,112(5):709-717
[4] Eva Johansson, Thomas Prade, Irini Angelidaki, et al. Economically Viable Components from Jerusalem Artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.) in a Biorefinery Concept. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2015, 16, 8997-9016
[5] 郭秋娟,金邦荃,陈和平.绿原酸生物活性与提取方法的研究进展[J].食品工业科技,2009,30(8) :346-348
[6] 刘海伟,刘兆普,刘玲,等.菊芋叶片提取物抑菌活性与化学成分的研究[J].天然产物研究与开发,2007,19(3):405-409
[7] 韩睿,王丽慧,钟启文,等.菊芋叶片提取物抑菌活性研究[J].现代农业科技,2010,(5):120-122
[8] 李屹,韩睿,王丽慧,等.菊芋叶片提取物对辣椒疫霉菌的抑菌效果及盆栽验证试验[J].江苏农业科学,2015,43(1):139-141
[9] 谌馥佳.菊芋叶片化学成分分析及抑菌活性成分研究[D].南京:南京农业大学,2013 [指导教师：刘兆普教授等]
[10] 刘海伟,刘兆普,刘玲.菊芋叶片提取物对棉铃虫生长发育的影响[J].天然产物研究与开发,2007,33(1):90-93
[11] 俞梦妮,包婉君,谌馥佳,等.菊芋叶蛋白提取工艺研究及氨基酸分析[J].草业科学,2015,32(1): 125-131
[12] 马胜超.41份菊芋资源遗传多样性的SRAP分析[D].西宁:青海大学,2014 [指导教师：李莉研究员]
[13] 马胜超,韩睿,任鹏鸿,等. 三十份菊芋资源亲缘关系的SRAP分析[J]. 浙江农业学报,2014,26(5):1212-1217
[14] 赵孟良,韩睿,李莉.24个菊芋品种( 系) 遗传多样性的ISSＲ标记分析[J].植物资源与环境学报,2013,22( 4) : 44-49
[15] 寇一翾.菊芋种质资源多样性及高产量形成机理研究[D].兰州:兰州大学,2013 [指导教师:刘建全\赵长明教授]
[16]Ruttanaprasert R., Baterng P., Jogloy S., et al. Genotypic variability for tuber yield, biomass, and drought tolerance in Jerusalem artichoke germplasm. Turk. J. Agric. For. 2014, 38, 570–580.
[17]Anon Janket, Sanun Jogloy, Nimitr Vorasoot, et al. Genetic diversity of water use efficiency in Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.) Germplasm. AJCS, 2013,7(11):1670-1681
[18]曾军.菊芋种质资源的评价与杂交可能性研究[D].兰州:兰州大学,2011[指导教师:刘健全教授]
[19]黄高峰.干旱胁迫下菊芋生理生化响应与主栽品种抗旱性比较[D].西宁:青海大学,2011[指导教师:李莉研究员]
[20]董洁,董秋丽,夏方山,等.不同盐碱度对菊芋光合特性的影响[J].中国草地学报,2012,34( 4) :42-47
[21]钟启文,李屺,孙雪梅,等.干旱胁迫下菊芋苗期糖代谢响应研究[J].西南农业学报,2012,25( 4):1238-1241
[22]黄高峰,王丽慧,方云花,等.干旱胁迫对菊芋苗期叶片保护酶活性及膜脂过氧化作用的影响[J].西南农业学报,2011,24( 2):552-555
[23]冯大伟,张洪霞,刘广洋,等不同品种菊芋对黄河三角洲土壤盐胁迫的响应研究[J].核农学报,2013,27( 1):1171-1176
[24]赵俊香,任翠梅,吴凤芝,等.16份菊芋种质苗期耐盐碱性筛选与综合鉴定[J].中国生态农业学报, 2015,23(5):620-627
[25]李辉，康健，赵耕毛,等.盐胁迫对菊芋干物质和糖分积累分配的影响[J].草业学报,2014,23(2):160-170
[26]赵孟良,王丽慧,孙雪梅,等.干旱胁迫下菊芋可溶性碳水化合物的积累及分配规律[J].江苏农业科学,2015,43( 2):340-343．
[27]吕世奇,寇一翾,杨彬,等.半干旱地区菊芋品系植株表型与光合特性分析[J].作物学报,2014,40(10):1857-1864
[28]王娇阳,赵永彬,冯春梅.浙江省丝瓜种质资源主成分分析和聚类分析[J].植物遗传资源学报,2014,15( 6) :1374-1379
[29]李春花,王艳青,卢文洁,等.云南薏苡种质资源农艺性状的主成分和聚类分析[J].植物遗传资源学报,2015,16(2):277-281
[30]王志强,郭松,刘声锋,等.西瓜种质资源果实主要数量性状的主成分分析[J].东北农业大学学报,2014,45(3):59-64
[31] 赵天荣,蔡建岗.主成分和聚类分析在蟹爪兰资源评价及育种中的应用[J].浙江农业学报,2014,26(2):319-324.
[32] 游书梅,曹应江,郑家奎,等.73份亚洲水稻恢复系农艺性状的主成分与聚类分析[J].植物遗传资源学报,2015,16(2):250-256.
[33] 王艺陶,周宇飞,李丰先,等.基于主成分和SOM聚类分析的高粱品种萌发期抗旱性鉴定与分类[J].作物学报,2014,40(1):110-121.
[34] 刘明,范君华.零型海岛棉不同叶位叶片光合色素含量分析[J].棉花学报,1999,11(5):225-229.
[35] 袁志发,周静宇.多元统计分析[M].北京:科学出版社,2003:188-201.
[36]Dan G. Bock, Nolan C. Kane, Daniel P. Ebert. et al. Genome skimming reveals the origin of the Jerusalem Artichoke tuber crop species: neither fromJerusalem nor an artichoke. New Phytologist, 2014, 201: 1021–1030.