涝渍对3个树种生长、组织孔隙度和渗漏氧的影响

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1258.2012.00982

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为了了解落羽杉(Taxodium distichum)、乌桕(Sapium sebiferum)和美国山核桃(Carya illinoensis)等树种的耐涝机制, 采用盆栽模拟涝渍环境的试验方法, 设置了淹水、渍水和对照3个处理, 测定了一年生落羽杉、乌桕和美国山核桃实生苗的生长、组织孔隙度、根氧消耗等指标。结果表明, 涝渍处理抑制了落羽杉、乌桕和美国山核桃的生物量和生物量增量(渍水处理下落羽杉的生长得到了促进), 增加了3树种的根冠比, 从生物量和生物量增量下降幅度来评价, 落羽杉的耐涝性最强, 其次为美国山核桃。淹水和渍水处理下, 落羽杉、乌桕和美国山核桃的根、茎和叶中的组织孔隙度显著增加, 且随着处理时间的延长, 各器官的组织孔隙度有增加的趋势, 3个树种中, 落羽杉的根、茎和叶中的组织孔隙度均较其他2个树种高。淹水和渍水处理下, 移除茎明显增加了落羽杉、美国山核桃和乌桕的根的氧消耗, 表明涝渍处理增强了O₂在3个树种体内的运输并通过根系扩散到涝渍土壤中的能力, 并且随着处理时间的延长, 3个树种体内运输O₂并扩散到土壤中的能力有逐渐增强的趋势。因此, 涝渍环境总体上抑制了落羽杉、乌桕和美国山核桃等树种的生长, 但各树种为了适应这种生长环境, 形成了大量的通气组织, 从而导致各器官组织孔隙度的增加, 增强了O₂通过植物体运输到根系并扩散到土壤中的能力, 解决了根系及根际缺氧的矛盾。

关键词: 组织孔隙度, 渗漏氧, 根氧消耗, 涝渍

Abstract:

Aims Flooding reduces soil oxygen content, and leads to oxygen deprivation in the root system of plants. Since oxygen is essential for mitochondrial respiration, this process cannot be maintained under anoxic conditions and must be replaced by other pathways. Our objective was to understand flooding adaptation mechanisms of baldcypress (Taxodium distichum), Chinese tallow tree (Sapium sebiferum) and pecan (Carya illinoensis) under waterlogged conditions.
Methods One-year seedlings of baldcypress, Chinese tallow tree and pecan were grown in pots, and three treatments were implemented: CK (control, common soil water content), WA (waterlogging, water level equal with soil surface) and FL (flooding, water level 8 cm above soil surface). Treatments lasted 65 days, and indexes of growth, porosity and root oxygen consumption were determined at different times after treatment.
Important findings We found that WA and FL treatments inhibited growth of both Chinese tallow tree and pecan,but biomass and biomass increment of baldcypress increased under WA condition, indicating that baldcypress was more tolerant to flooding. Root/shoot ratio of the three tree species increased significantly under WA and FL treatments, which was primarily due to the decrease of stem and leaf biomass. WA and FL treatments also stimulated aerenchyma formation in the roots, stems and leaves of the three tree species, thereby the porosity in the roots, stems and leaves of the three tree species increased significantly under WA and FL conditions. The aerenchyma formation and increased porosity enhanced O₂ diffusion to roots and rhizosphere. Our results indicate that baldcypress, Chinese tallow tree and pecan exhibit several adaptive mechanisms in response to waterlogging, including formation of new roots, aerenchyma formation, increased porosity of the roots, stems and leaves, and increased O₂ release into the rhizosphere.

Key words: porosity, radial oxygen loss, root O₂ consumption, waterlogging

汪贵斌, 曹福亮, 王媛. 涝渍对3个树种生长、组织孔隙度和渗漏氧的影响. 植物生态学报, 2012, 36(9): 982-991. DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1258.2012.00982

WANG Gui-Bin, CAO Fu-Liang, WANG Yuan. Effects of waterlogging on growth, porosity and radial oxygen loss of three tree species. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 2012, 36(9): 982-991. DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1258.2012.00982

导出引用管理器 EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

链接本文: https://www.plant-ecology.com/CN/10.3724/SP.J.1258.2012.00982

https://www.plant-ecology.com/CN/Y2012/V36/I9/982

图/表 6

参考文献 37

1	Armstrong J, Armstrong W ( 2001). Rice and phragmites: effects of organic acids on growth, root permeability, and radial oxygen loss to the rhizosphere. American Journal of Botany, 88, 1359-1370.
2	Armstrong J, Amtrong J, Beckett PM ( 1992). Phragmites australis: venturi- and humidity-induced pressure flows enhance rhizome aeration and rhizosphere oxidation. New Phytologist, 120, 197-207.
3	Armstrong W ( 1972). A re-examination of the functional significance of aerenchyma. Physiologia Plantarum, 27, 173-177.
4	Armstrong W (1979). Aeration in higher plants. In: Woolhouse HW ed. Advances in Botanical Research, Vol. 7. Academic Press, London. 225-332.
5	Armstrong W, Brandle R, Jackson MB ( 1994). Mechanisms of flood tolerance in plants. Acta Botanica Neerlandica, 43, 307-358.
6	Armstrong W, Drew MC (2002). Root growth and metabolism under oxygen deficiency. In: Waisel Y, Eshel A, Kafkafi U eds. Plant Roots: the Hidden Half 3rd edn. Marcel Dekker, New York. 729-761.
7	Cao FL ( 曹福亮), Cai JF ( 蔡金峰), Wang GB ( 汪贵斌), Zhang WX ( 张往祥 ) ( 2010). Effects of waterlogging stress on the growth and photosynthesis of Sapium sebiferum. Scientia Silvae Sinicae (林业科学), 46(10), 57-61. (in Chinese with English abstract)
8	Colmer TD ( 2002). Aerenchyma and an inducible barrier to radial oxygen loss facilitate root aeration in upland, paddy and deep-water rice (Oryza sativa L.). Annals of Botany, 91, 301-309.
9	Dong HZ ( 董合忠), Li WJ ( 李维江), Tang W ( 唐薇), Li ZH ( 李振怀), Zhang DM ( 张冬梅 ) ( 2003). Effects of water- deficit and water-logging on some physiological characteristics of cotton seedlings. Acta Botanica Boreale- Occidentalia Sinica (西北植物学报), 23, 1695-1699. (in Chinese with English abstract)
10	Drew MC, Jackson MB, Giffard S ( 1979). Ethylene-promoted adventitious rooting and development of cortical air spaces (aerenchyma) in roots may be adaptive responses to flooding in Zea mays L. Planta, 147, 83-88.
11	Ferreira CS, Piedade MTF, Franco AC, Gonçalves JFC, Junk WJ ( 2009). Adaptive strategies to tolerate prolonged flooding in seedlings of floodplain and upland populations of Himatanthus sucuuba, a Central Amazon tree. Aquatic Botany, 90, 246-252.
12	Gibbs J, Greenway H ( 2003). Mechanisms of anoxia tolerance in plants. I. Growth, survival and anaerobic catabolism. Functional Plant Biology, 30, 1-47.
13	Jackson MB, Colmer TD ( 2005). Response and adaptation by plants to flooding stress. Annals of Botany, 96, 501-505.
14	Jackson MB, Drew MC (1984). Effects of flooding on growth and metabolism of herbaceous plants. In: Kozlowski TT ed. Flooding and Plant Growth. Academic Press, New York.
15	Kawase M ( 1981). Anatomical and morphological adaptations of plants to waterlogging. HortScience, 16, 8-12.
16	Kawase M, Whitmoyer RE ( 1980). Aerenchyma development in waterlogged plants. American Journal of Botany, 67, 18-22.
17	Kludze HK, DeLaune RD ( 1995). Straw application effects on methane and oxygen exchange and growth in rice. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 59, 824-830.
18	Kludze HK, DeLaune RD, Patrick WH ( 1993). Aerenchyma formation and methane and oxygen exchange in rice. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 57, 386-391.
19	Kolb RM, Joly CA ( 2009). Flooding tolerance of Tabebuia cassinoides: metabolic, morphological and growth responses. Flora, 204, 528-535.
20	Kozlowski TT ( 1997). Responses of woody plants to flooding and salinity. Tree Physiology Monograph, ( 1), 1-29.
21	Kreuzwieser J, Papadopoulou E, Rennenberg H ( 2004). Interaction of flooding with carbon metabolism of forest trees. Plant Biology, 6, 299-306.
22	Li SW, Pezeshki SR, Douglas Shields F Jr ( 2006). Partial flooding enhances aeration in adventitious roots of black willow ( Salix nigra) cuttings. Journal of Plant Physiology, 163, 619-628.
23	Liao WY ( 廖文燕), Gao HD ( 高捍东 ) ( 2011). Physiological responses of Pseudolarix kaempferi seedlings to waterlogging stress. China Forestry Science and Technology (林业科技开发), 25(3), 27-31. (in Chinese with English abstract)
24	Pezeshki SR ( 2001). Wetland plant responses to soil flooding. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 46, 299-312.
25	Pezeshki SR, Pardue JH, DeLaune RD ( 1996). Leaf gas exchange and growth of flood-tolerant and flood-sensitive tree species under low soil redox conditions. Tree Physiology, 16, 453-458.
26	Rijnders JGHM, Armstrong W, Darwent MJ, Blom CWPM, Voesenek LACJ ( 2000). The role of oxygen in submergence-induced petiole elongation in Rumex palustris: in situ measurements of oxygen in petioles of intact plants using micro-electrodes. New Phytologist, 147, 497-504.
27	Shimamura S, Mochizuki T, Nada Y, Fukuyama M ( 2003). Formation and function of secondary aerenchyma in hypocotyl, roots and nodules of soybean ( Glycine max) under flooded conditions. Plant and Soil, 251, 351-359.
28	Suralta RR, Yamauchi A ( 2008). Root growth, aerenchyma development, and oxygen transport in rice genotypes subjected to drought and waterlogging. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 64, 75-82.
29	Tessnow U, Baynes Y ( 1978). Experimental effects of Isoetes lacustins L. on the distribution of Eh, pH, Fe and Mn in lack sediment. Verhandlungen der Internationalen Vereinigung für Theoretische and Angewandte Limnologie, 20, 58-62.
30	Ueckert J, Hurek T, Fendrik I, Niemann EG ( 1990). Radial gas diffusion from roots of rice (Oryza sativa L.) and Kallar grass (Leptochloa fusca (L.) Kunth), and the effects of inoculation with Azospirillum brasilense Cd. Plant and Soil, 122, 59-65.
31	Visser EJW, Bögemann GM ( 2003). Measurement of porosity in very small samples of plant tissue. Plant and Soil, 253, 81-90.
32	Wang GB ( 汪贵斌), Cao FL ( 曹福亮), Zhang XY ( 张晓燕), Zhang WX ( 张往祥 ) ( 2010). Effects of waterlogging on the growth and energy-metabolic enzyme activities of different tree species. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology (应用生态学报), 21, 590-596. (in Chinese with English abstract) URL PMID
33	Watkin ELJ, Thomson CJ, Greenway H ( 1998). Root development and aerenchyma formation in two wheat cultivars and one triticale cultivar grown in stagnant agar and aerated nutrient solution. Annals of Botany, 81, 349-354.
34	Xiao Y, Jie ZL, Wang M, Lin GH, Wang WQ ( 2009). Leaf and stem anatomical responses to periodical waterlogging in simulated tidal floods in mangrove Avicennia marina seedlings. Aquatic Botany, 91, 231-237.
35	Yin DM, Chen SM, Chen FD, Guan ZY, Fang WM ( 2010). Morpho-anatomical and physiological responses of two Dendranthema species to waterlogging. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 68, 122-130.
36	Zhang LE ( 张留恩), Liao BW ( 廖宝文), Guan W ( 管伟 ) ( 2011). Effects of simulated tide inundation on seed germination and seedling growth of mangrove species Acanthus ilicifolius. Chinese Journal of Ecology (生态学杂志), 30, 2165-2172. (in Chinese with English abstract)
37	Zhang XL ( 张晓磊), Ma FY ( 马风云), Chen YT ( 陈益泰), Shi X ( 施翔), Sun HJ ( 孙海菁 ) ( 2010). Variation in growth and physiological characteristics of different Quercus avutissima provenances under water logging stress. Journal of Southwest Forestry University (西南林学院学报), 30(6), 16-33. (in Chinese with English abstract)

树种 Tree species	处理 Treatment	生物量 Biomass (g·plant^-1)	生物量增量 Biomass increase (g·plant^-1)	相对生长率 Relative growth ratio (%)	根冠比 Root/shoot
落羽杉 T. distichum	对照 CK	81.2 ± 5.5^b	70.9 ± 4.2^b	730.9 ± 40.1^b	0.50 ± 0.04^c
	淹水 WA	109.6 ± 8.5^a	99.3 ± 5.8^a	964.1 ± 53.4^a	0.63 ± 0.03^b
	渍水 FL	55.4 ± 6.9^c	45.1 ± 2.6^c	437.9 ± 25.6^c	0.96 ± 0.05^a
乌桕 S. sebiferum	对照 CK	202.6 ± 14.4^a	194.6 ± 9.8^a	2432.5 ± 150.3^a	0.27 ± 0.02^c
	淹水 WA	102.6 ± 7.9^b	94.6 ± 5.6^b	1182.5 ± 63.5^b	0.37 ± 0.02^b
	渍水 FL	57.6 ± 3.5^c	49.6 ± 3.1^c	620.0 ± 38.6^c	0.84 ± 0.04^a
美国山核桃 C. illinoensis	对照 CK	97.9 ± 7.1^a	89.2 ± 5.6^a	1025.2 ± 63.2^a	1.34 ± 0.06^b
	淹水 WA	81.7 ± 8.4^b	73.0 ± 4.1^b	839.1 ± 48.7^b	2.41 ± 0.1^a
	渍水 FL	53.7 ± 6.7^c	45.0 ± 2.8^c	517.2 ± 34.6^c	2.85 ± 0.2^a

树种 Tree species	处理 Treatment	生物量 Biomass (g·plant^-1)	生物量增量 Biomass increase (g·plant^-1)	相对生长率 Relative growth ratio (%)	根冠比 Root/shoot
落羽杉 T. distichum	对照 CK	81.2 ± 5.5^b	70.9 ± 4.2^b	730.9 ± 40.1^b	0.50 ± 0.04^c
	淹水 WA	109.6 ± 8.5^a	99.3 ± 5.8^a	964.1 ± 53.4^a	0.63 ± 0.03^b
	渍水 FL	55.4 ± 6.9^c	45.1 ± 2.6^c	437.9 ± 25.6^c	0.96 ± 0.05^a
乌桕 S. sebiferum	对照 CK	202.6 ± 14.4^a	194.6 ± 9.8^a	2432.5 ± 150.3^a	0.27 ± 0.02^c
	淹水 WA	102.6 ± 7.9^b	94.6 ± 5.6^b	1182.5 ± 63.5^b	0.37 ± 0.02^b
	渍水 FL	57.6 ± 3.5^c	49.6 ± 3.1^c	620.0 ± 38.6^c	0.84 ± 0.04^a
美国山核桃 C. illinoensis	对照 CK	97.9 ± 7.1^a	89.2 ± 5.6^a	1025.2 ± 63.2^a	1.34 ± 0.06^b
	淹水 WA	81.7 ± 8.4^b	73.0 ± 4.1^b	839.1 ± 48.7^b	2.41 ± 0.1^a
	渍水 FL	53.7 ± 6.7^c	45.0 ± 2.8^c	517.2 ± 34.6^c	2.85 ± 0.2^a

树种 Tree species	器官 Organ	处理 Treatment	组织孔隙度 Porosity (%)
树种 Tree species	器官 Organ	处理 Treatment	16 days	31 days	46 days	61 days
落羽杉 T. distichum	根 Root	对照 CK	18.25 ± 1.17^b	19.49 ± 1.43^b	19.07 ± 1.98^b	19.46 ± 1.39^b
		淹水 WA	21.22 ± 2.08^ab	31.43 ± 1.49^a	32.10 ± 0.90^a	33.68 ± 2.06^a
		渍水 FL	24.67 ± 1.66^a	33.37 ± 0.53^a	33.86 ± 0.91^a	34.44 ± 1.83^a
	茎 Stem	对照 CK	29.61 ± 1.14^bc	33.76 ± 2.95^b	35.63 ± 1.09^b	36.59 ± 1.90^b
		淹水 WA	31.57 ± 1.57^b	41.70 ± 1.21^ab	43.52 ± 2.04^a	42.68 ± 1.68^a
		渍水 FL	36.53 ± 2.04^a	43.09 ± 5.05^a	46.33 ± 5.10^a	47.09 ± 1.82^a
	叶 Leaf	对照 CK	16.97 ± 1.12^c	18.64 ± 0.40^c	17.96 ± 0.80^b	19.29 ± 1.52^b
		淹水 WA	20.43 ± 0.71^b	22.99 ± 0.67^b	23.55 ± 1.26^a	27.68 ± 0.80^a
		渍水 FL	22.22 ± 0.75^a	24.59 ± 1.06^a	23.66 ± 1.03^a	26.19 ± 0.61^a
乌桕 S. sebiferum	根 Root	对照 CK	5.95 ± 0.09^b	6.51 ± 0.85^b	6.81 ± 0.49^b	7.26 ± 0.68^b
		淹水 WA	8.96 ± 0.76^a	9.18 ± 0.74^a	9.45 ± 0.45^a	9.50 ± 0.63^a
		渍水 FL	8.57 ± 0.44^a	9.11 ± 1.61^a	9.41 ± 1.13^a	9.40 ± 0.76^a
	茎 Stem	对照 CK	10.46 ± 1.00^b	10.69 ± 1.06^b	12.77 ± 1.03^b	11.34 ± 0.41^b
		淹水 WA	16.8 ± 0.49^a	17.88 ± 1.66^a	18.14 ± 0.44^a	18.31 ± 0.36^a
		渍水 FL	17.83 ± 1.47^a	17.80 ± 1.78^a	17.85 ± 1.49^a	18.09 ± 0.47^a
	叶 Leaf	对照 CK	12.07 ± 0.80^c	12.55 ± 1.67^b	13.31 ± 1.40^b	13.41 ± 4.30^c
		淹水 WA	14.21 ± 0.49^b	15.95 ± 1.08^a	17.70 ± 1.83^a	17.27 ± 0.50^b
		渍水 FL	15.89 ± 0.23^a	14.60 ± 0.72^ab	18.28 ± 1.27^a	19.11 ± 0.87^a
美国山核桃 C. illinoensis	根 Root	对照 CK	10.39 ± 0.78^c	11.40 ± 0.59^c	11.33 ± 0.83^b	10.95 ± 0.12^c
		淹水 WA	14.81 ± 0.55^b	15.82 ± 0.42^b	15.62 ± 1.09^a	15.93 ± 0.67^b
		渍水 FL	17.10 ± 0.91^a	17.19 ± 0.84^a	17.66 ± 1.84^a	17.41 ± 0.52^a
	茎 Stem	对照 CK	18.12 ± 0.94^b	18.36 ± 0.29^b	19.13 ± 0.23^b	19.36 ± 0.59^b
		淹水 WA	20.26 ± 0.86^b	24.91 ± 0.40^a	25.49 ± 1.03^a	25.70 ± 0.99^a
		渍水 FL	25.00 ± 2.50^a	25.61 ± 2.01^a	26.44 ± 0.58^a	26.77 ± 0.90^a
	叶 Leaf	对照 CK	7.68 ± 0.63^b	7.31 ± 0.14^b	8.13 ± 0.30^b	8.09 ± 0.84^b
		淹水 WA	8.96 ± 0.59^a	9.68 ± 0.53^a	12.21 ± 1.56^a	10.20 ± 1.62^ab
		渍水 FL	9.13 ± 0.28^a	9.67 ± 0.60^a	10.92 ± 0.99^a	11.36 ± 1.37^a

树种 Tree species	器官 Organ	处理 Treatment	组织孔隙度 Porosity (%)
树种 Tree species	器官 Organ	处理 Treatment	16 days	31 days	46 days	61 days
落羽杉 T. distichum	根 Root	对照 CK	18.25 ± 1.17^b	19.49 ± 1.43^b	19.07 ± 1.98^b	19.46 ± 1.39^b
		淹水 WA	21.22 ± 2.08^ab	31.43 ± 1.49^a	32.10 ± 0.90^a	33.68 ± 2.06^a
		渍水 FL	24.67 ± 1.66^a	33.37 ± 0.53^a	33.86 ± 0.91^a	34.44 ± 1.83^a
	茎 Stem	对照 CK	29.61 ± 1.14^bc	33.76 ± 2.95^b	35.63 ± 1.09^b	36.59 ± 1.90^b
		淹水 WA	31.57 ± 1.57^b	41.70 ± 1.21^ab	43.52 ± 2.04^a	42.68 ± 1.68^a
		渍水 FL	36.53 ± 2.04^a	43.09 ± 5.05^a	46.33 ± 5.10^a	47.09 ± 1.82^a
	叶 Leaf	对照 CK	16.97 ± 1.12^c	18.64 ± 0.40^c	17.96 ± 0.80^b	19.29 ± 1.52^b
		淹水 WA	20.43 ± 0.71^b	22.99 ± 0.67^b	23.55 ± 1.26^a	27.68 ± 0.80^a
		渍水 FL	22.22 ± 0.75^a	24.59 ± 1.06^a	23.66 ± 1.03^a	26.19 ± 0.61^a
乌桕 S. sebiferum	根 Root	对照 CK	5.95 ± 0.09^b	6.51 ± 0.85^b	6.81 ± 0.49^b	7.26 ± 0.68^b
		淹水 WA	8.96 ± 0.76^a	9.18 ± 0.74^a	9.45 ± 0.45^a	9.50 ± 0.63^a
		渍水 FL	8.57 ± 0.44^a	9.11 ± 1.61^a	9.41 ± 1.13^a	9.40 ± 0.76^a
	茎 Stem	对照 CK	10.46 ± 1.00^b	10.69 ± 1.06^b	12.77 ± 1.03^b	11.34 ± 0.41^b
		淹水 WA	16.8 ± 0.49^a	17.88 ± 1.66^a	18.14 ± 0.44^a	18.31 ± 0.36^a
		渍水 FL	17.83 ± 1.47^a	17.80 ± 1.78^a	17.85 ± 1.49^a	18.09 ± 0.47^a
	叶 Leaf	对照 CK	12.07 ± 0.80^c	12.55 ± 1.67^b	13.31 ± 1.40^b	13.41 ± 4.30^c
		淹水 WA	14.21 ± 0.49^b	15.95 ± 1.08^a	17.70 ± 1.83^a	17.27 ± 0.50^b
		渍水 FL	15.89 ± 0.23^a	14.60 ± 0.72^ab	18.28 ± 1.27^a	19.11 ± 0.87^a
美国山核桃 C. illinoensis	根 Root	对照 CK	10.39 ± 0.78^c	11.40 ± 0.59^c	11.33 ± 0.83^b	10.95 ± 0.12^c
		淹水 WA	14.81 ± 0.55^b	15.82 ± 0.42^b	15.62 ± 1.09^a	15.93 ± 0.67^b
		渍水 FL	17.10 ± 0.91^a	17.19 ± 0.84^a	17.66 ± 1.84^a	17.41 ± 0.52^a
	茎 Stem	对照 CK	18.12 ± 0.94^b	18.36 ± 0.29^b	19.13 ± 0.23^b	19.36 ± 0.59^b
		淹水 WA	20.26 ± 0.86^b	24.91 ± 0.40^a	25.49 ± 1.03^a	25.70 ± 0.99^a
		渍水 FL	25.00 ± 2.50^a	25.61 ± 2.01^a	26.44 ± 0.58^a	26.77 ± 0.90^a
	叶 Leaf	对照 CK	7.68 ± 0.63^b	7.31 ± 0.14^b	8.13 ± 0.30^b	8.09 ± 0.84^b
		淹水 WA	8.96 ± 0.59^a	9.68 ± 0.53^a	12.21 ± 1.56^a	10.20 ± 1.62^ab
		渍水 FL	9.13 ± 0.28^a	9.67 ± 0.60^a	10.92 ± 0.99^a	11.36 ± 1.37^a

树种 Tree species	处理 Treatment	处理时间 Treatment time (d)
树种 Tree species	处理 Treatment	16	31	46	61
落羽杉 T. distichum	对照 CK	0.32 ± 0.02^b	0.19 ± 0.02^b	0.29 ± 0.03^b	0.45 ± 0.03^b
	淹水 WA	1.00 ± 0.10^a	0.98 ± 0.12^a	1.06 ± 0.12^a	2.28 ± 0.34^a
	渍水 FL	1.16 ± 0.09^a	1.17 ± 0.18^a	1.11 ± 0.09^a	2.59 ± 0.29^a
乌桕 S. sebiferum	对照 CK	0.06 ± 0.01^b	0.04 ± 0.01^c	0.07 ± 0.02^b	0.10 ± 0.02^b
	淹水 WA	0.25 ± 0.03^a	0.57 ± 0.03^b	0.83 ± 0.11^a	0.78 ± 0.11^a
	渍水 FL	0.29 ± 0.03^a	0.91 ± 0.06^a	1.01 ± 0.20^a	0.76 ± 0.13^a
美国山核桃 C. illinoensis	对照 CK	0.06 ± 0.01^b	0.08 ± 0.02^b	0.10 ± 0.02^b	0.12 ± 0.02^b
	淹水 WA	0.49 ± 0.06^a	0.56 ± 0.10^a	0.59 ± 0.03^a	1.09 ± 0.17^a
	渍水 FL	0.66 ± 0.15^a	0.61 ± 0.11^a	0.69 ± 0.10^a	1.27 ± 0.15^a