植物生态学报 ›› 2007, Vol. 31 ›› Issue (4): 576-587.DOI: 10.17521/cjpe.2007.0074
收稿日期:
2006-07-16
接受日期:
2007-01-05
出版日期:
2007-07-16
发布日期:
2007-07-30
作者简介:
E-mail: wangqiong800@torm.com
基金资助:
Received:
2006-07-16
Accepted:
2007-01-05
Online:
2007-07-16
Published:
2007-07-30
摘要:
为研究克隆植物在不同生境中对小生境的利用能力和对不同尺度异质性生境的等级可塑性及其格局差异,比较了林缘和荒草坡不同草本层盖度小生境中积雪草(Centella asiatica)分株种群、克隆片段和叶水平的形态和生理特征。在分株种群水平,林缘和荒草坡积雪草被测的分株种群特征差异均不显著,不同草本层盖度小生境间积雪草根冠比差异显著,即在盖度小的小生境中其根冠比显著大于盖度大的小生境。在克隆片段水平,林缘和荒草坡生境显著影响积雪草的根干重、花果干重、一级匍匐茎节间长和总匍匐茎节间长,而不同草本层盖度小生境则显著影响花果干重、根冠比、一级匍匐茎数、二级匍匐茎节间长和总匍匐茎节间长。荒草坡积雪草拥有更大的根干重和花果干重,但一级匍匐茎节间长和总匍匐茎节间长较短。草本层盖度小的小生境中积雪草的根冠比和一级匍匐茎数显著高于盖度大的小生境,而花果干重、二级匍匐茎节间长和总匍匐茎节间长则相反。在叶水平,荒草坡和草本层盖度大的小生境中,积雪草的叶片长、叶片宽和叶面积都较大,而草本层盖度大的小生境中积雪草叶柄长和比叶柄长都显著大于盖度小的小生境;林缘和荒草坡生境与不同草本层盖度小生境对4个叶绿素指标影响均不显著,林缘和荒草坡生境与不同草本层盖度小生境的交互作用对所有测量特征均无显著影响。上述结果表明,积雪草对不同生境和有草本层盖度差异的小生境的反应存在等级可塑性,但是二者的等级差异格局不同;等级反应格局的差异反映出积雪草对不同生境条件有不同的生态适应对策,且对生境小尺度异质性的可塑性强于对大尺度异质性的可塑性。
王琼, 廖咏梅. 林缘和荒草坡不同草本层盖度小生境中积雪草的等级可塑性. 植物生态学报, 2007, 31(4): 576-587. DOI: 10.17521/cjpe.2007.0074
WANG Qiong, LIAO Yong-Mei. HIERARCHICAL PLASTICITY OF CENTELLA ASIATICA IN RESPONSES TO MICROSITES WITH DIFFERENT HERBACEOUS COVERAGE OF FOREST EDGE AND ABANDONED GRASSLAND SLOPE. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 2007, 31(4): 576-587. DOI: 10.17521/cjpe.2007.0074
环境因子 Environmental factors | 生境(林缘 vs 荒草坡) Habitat (Forest edge vs abandoned grassland slope) | 小生境(不同草本层盖度) Microsite (Different herbaceous coverage) | 生境×小生境 Habitat×microsite |
---|---|---|---|
土壤砾石含量1(%) Rocks and gravel content | 14.923 (0.005) | 0.817 (0.393) | 1.415 (0.268) |
土壤pH值2 Soil pH value | 0.000 (0.002) | 14.000 (0.589) | |
土壤含水量1(%) Soil water content | 0.049 (0.831) | 0.287 (0.607) | 0.333 (0.580) |
土壤有机质含量1(%) Soil organic matter content | 37.698 (0.000) | 0.373 (0.559) | 0.460 (0.517) |
草本层上方相对光强1(%) Relative light intensity outside herb layer | 56.918 (0.000) | 2.249 (0.138) | 1.661 (0.201) |
草本层内部相对光强2(%) Relative light intensity within herb layer | 5 755.500 (0.309) | 4 687.500 (0.002) | |
草本层地上部分生物量2(g) Above-ground biomass of herb layer | 10.000 (0.240) | 1.000 (0.004) |
表1 林缘和荒草坡不同小生境环境因子差异的显著性检验
Table 1 Significance tests of environmental factor difference between microsites of forest edge and abandoned grassland slope
环境因子 Environmental factors | 生境(林缘 vs 荒草坡) Habitat (Forest edge vs abandoned grassland slope) | 小生境(不同草本层盖度) Microsite (Different herbaceous coverage) | 生境×小生境 Habitat×microsite |
---|---|---|---|
土壤砾石含量1(%) Rocks and gravel content | 14.923 (0.005) | 0.817 (0.393) | 1.415 (0.268) |
土壤pH值2 Soil pH value | 0.000 (0.002) | 14.000 (0.589) | |
土壤含水量1(%) Soil water content | 0.049 (0.831) | 0.287 (0.607) | 0.333 (0.580) |
土壤有机质含量1(%) Soil organic matter content | 37.698 (0.000) | 0.373 (0.559) | 0.460 (0.517) |
草本层上方相对光强1(%) Relative light intensity outside herb layer | 56.918 (0.000) | 2.249 (0.138) | 1.661 (0.201) |
草本层内部相对光强2(%) Relative light intensity within herb layer | 5 755.500 (0.309) | 4 687.500 (0.002) | |
草本层地上部分生物量2(g) Above-ground biomass of herb layer | 10.000 (0.240) | 1.000 (0.004) |
环境因子 Environmental factors | 荒草坡 Abandoned grassland slope | 林缘 Forest edge | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
盖度小的小生境 Microsite with low coverage | 盖度大的小生境 Microsite with high coverage | 盖度小的小生境 Microsite with low coverage | 盖度大的小生境 Microsite with high coverage | ||
土壤砾石含量(%) Rocks and gravel content | 30.12±4.86 | 22.83±1.53 | 12.54±4.66 | 13.53±0.85 | |
土壤pH值 Soil pH value | 5.12±0.66 | 4.01±0.14 | 3.32±0.13 | 3.28±0.12 | |
土壤含水量(%) Soil water content | 2.61±0.01 | 2.36±0.28 | 2.43±0.28 | 2.44±0.19 | |
土壤有机质含量(%) Soil organic matter content | 3.95±0.07 | 3.97±0.26 | 2.67±0.10 | 2.36±0.37 | |
草本层上方相对光强(%) Relative light intensity outside herb layer | 83.29±2.94 | 90.60±2.39 | 66.89±3.24 | 67.44±1.63 | |
草本层内部相对光强(%) Relative light intensity within herb layer | 53.68±1.93 | 47.21±2.71 | 57.50±1.72 | 49.51±1.81 | |
草本层地上部分生物量(g) Above-ground biomass of herb layer | 46.31±22.67 | 241.54±34.62 | 13.68±8.90 | 98.30±7.66 | |
草本层其它优势种 Other dominant herb species | 苍耳、地果 Xanthium sibiticum, Ficus tikoua | 野菊、一年蓬、 Dendranthema indicum, Erigeron annuus, Humulus scandens | 丝茅、地果 Imperata koenigii, Ficus tikoua | 丝茅 Imperata koenigii |
表2 林缘和荒草坡不同小生境的环境特征(平均值±标准误)
Table 2 Environmental characteristics of different microsites of forest edge and abandoned grassland slope (means±SE)
环境因子 Environmental factors | 荒草坡 Abandoned grassland slope | 林缘 Forest edge | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
盖度小的小生境 Microsite with low coverage | 盖度大的小生境 Microsite with high coverage | 盖度小的小生境 Microsite with low coverage | 盖度大的小生境 Microsite with high coverage | ||
土壤砾石含量(%) Rocks and gravel content | 30.12±4.86 | 22.83±1.53 | 12.54±4.66 | 13.53±0.85 | |
土壤pH值 Soil pH value | 5.12±0.66 | 4.01±0.14 | 3.32±0.13 | 3.28±0.12 | |
土壤含水量(%) Soil water content | 2.61±0.01 | 2.36±0.28 | 2.43±0.28 | 2.44±0.19 | |
土壤有机质含量(%) Soil organic matter content | 3.95±0.07 | 3.97±0.26 | 2.67±0.10 | 2.36±0.37 | |
草本层上方相对光强(%) Relative light intensity outside herb layer | 83.29±2.94 | 90.60±2.39 | 66.89±3.24 | 67.44±1.63 | |
草本层内部相对光强(%) Relative light intensity within herb layer | 53.68±1.93 | 47.21±2.71 | 57.50±1.72 | 49.51±1.81 | |
草本层地上部分生物量(g) Above-ground biomass of herb layer | 46.31±22.67 | 241.54±34.62 | 13.68±8.90 | 98.30±7.66 | |
草本层其它优势种 Other dominant herb species | 苍耳、地果 Xanthium sibiticum, Ficus tikoua | 野菊、一年蓬、 Dendranthema indicum, Erigeron annuus, Humulus scandens | 丝茅、地果 Imperata koenigii, Ficus tikoua | 丝茅 Imperata koenigii |
指标 Traits | 数据转换 Data transformation | 生境 (林缘 vs 荒草坡) Habitat (Forest edge vs abandoned grassland slope) | 小生境(不同草本层盖度) Microsite (Different herbaceous coverage) | 生境×小生境 Habitat×microsite |
---|---|---|---|---|
根干重2 (g·m-2) Root dry weight | 未转换 No transformation | 8.000 (0.132) | 12.000 (0.394) | |
茎干重2 (g·m-2) Stolon dry weight | 未转换 No transformation | 17.000 (0.937) | 12.000 (0.394) | |
叶片干重1 (g·m-2) Lamina dry weight | 原始数据×1 000的对数 Logarithm of raw data×1 000 转换 Transformation | 0.714 (0.423) | 0.778 (0.403) | 0.940 (0.361) |
叶柄干重1 (g·m-2) Petiole dry weight | 同上 See the above | 0.499 (0.500) | 2.181 (0.178) | 0.726 (0.419) |
花果干重1 (g·m-2) Flower and fruit dry weight | 同上 See the above | 2.635 (0.149) | 1.082 (0.333) | 1.726 (0.230) |
总干重1 (g·m-2) Total dry weight | 同上 See the above | 0.407 (0.541) | 0.575 (0.470) | 0.595 (0.463) |
根冠比2 Root-shoot ratio | 未转换 No transformation | 14.000 (0.589) | 5.000 (0.041) | |
分株密度1 (株·m-2) Ramet density (No·m-2) | 平方根转换 Square root transformation | 3.547 (0.096) | 2.739 (0.137) | 0.092 (0.770) |
分株平均间距1 (m) Mean ramet distance | 未转换 No transformation | 3.404 (0.102) | 0.906 (0.369) | 0.020 (0.892) |
匍匐茎总长度1 (cm·m-2) Total stolon length | 对数转换 Logarithm transformation | 3.387 (0.103) | 0.328 (0.583) | 0.028 (0.872) |
表3 林缘和荒草坡生境与不同草本层盖度小生境对积雪草分株种群特征的影响
Table 3 Effects of forest edge and abandoned grassland slope habitats and microsites with different herbaceous coverage on the characteristics of ramet population of Centella asiatica
指标 Traits | 数据转换 Data transformation | 生境 (林缘 vs 荒草坡) Habitat (Forest edge vs abandoned grassland slope) | 小生境(不同草本层盖度) Microsite (Different herbaceous coverage) | 生境×小生境 Habitat×microsite |
---|---|---|---|---|
根干重2 (g·m-2) Root dry weight | 未转换 No transformation | 8.000 (0.132) | 12.000 (0.394) | |
茎干重2 (g·m-2) Stolon dry weight | 未转换 No transformation | 17.000 (0.937) | 12.000 (0.394) | |
叶片干重1 (g·m-2) Lamina dry weight | 原始数据×1 000的对数 Logarithm of raw data×1 000 转换 Transformation | 0.714 (0.423) | 0.778 (0.403) | 0.940 (0.361) |
叶柄干重1 (g·m-2) Petiole dry weight | 同上 See the above | 0.499 (0.500) | 2.181 (0.178) | 0.726 (0.419) |
花果干重1 (g·m-2) Flower and fruit dry weight | 同上 See the above | 2.635 (0.149) | 1.082 (0.333) | 1.726 (0.230) |
总干重1 (g·m-2) Total dry weight | 同上 See the above | 0.407 (0.541) | 0.575 (0.470) | 0.595 (0.463) |
根冠比2 Root-shoot ratio | 未转换 No transformation | 14.000 (0.589) | 5.000 (0.041) | |
分株密度1 (株·m-2) Ramet density (No·m-2) | 平方根转换 Square root transformation | 3.547 (0.096) | 2.739 (0.137) | 0.092 (0.770) |
分株平均间距1 (m) Mean ramet distance | 未转换 No transformation | 3.404 (0.102) | 0.906 (0.369) | 0.020 (0.892) |
匍匐茎总长度1 (cm·m-2) Total stolon length | 对数转换 Logarithm transformation | 3.387 (0.103) | 0.328 (0.583) | 0.028 (0.872) |
图1 荒草坡和林缘积雪草在两种小生境中的分株种群特征 SCL: 荒草坡盖度小Low coverage on abandoned grassland slope SCH: 荒草坡盖度大 High coverage on abandoned grassland slope ECL: 林缘盖度小 Low coverage on forest edge ECH: 林缘盖度大 High coverage on forest edge A、B、D图中,用相同字母标记的柱体间无显著差异;C图中,不同小写字母表示4种小生境中积雪草相应部分的生物量具有显著差异,不同大写字母表示同一小生境中5个部分生物量具有显著性差异(p=0.05)
Fig.1 The characteristics of Centella asiatica ramet population at two microsites of abandoned grassland slope and forest edge The bars sharing the same letter are not significant difference in figure A, B and D. Significant differences between corresponding biomass at four microsites are indicated by different lower-case letters. Different capital letters stand for the significant difference among biomass of 5 parts at the same microsite in figure C (p=0.05)
图2 积雪草克隆片段水平的生物量(A)和根冠比(B) A图图例同图1C B图图例同图1A
Fig.2 Biomass (A) and root-shoot ratio (B) of Centella asiatica at the level of clonal fragment Legends in Fig.2A see Fig.1C Legends in Fig.2B see Fig.1A
指标 Traits | 数据转换 Data transformation | 数据分析方法 Methods of data analyses | 生境(林缘 vs 荒草坡) Habitat (Forest edge vs abandoned grassland slope) | 小生境(不同草本层盖度) Microsite (Different herbaceous coverage) | 生境×小生境 Habitat×Microsite |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
根干重1) (g) | 原始数据×1 000的对数转换 Logarithm of raw data×1 000 | 双因素方差分析 Two-Way ANOVA | 5.128 (0.034) | 1.763 (0.198) | 0.348 (0.561) |
茎干重2) (g) | 同上 See the above | 双因素方差分析 Two-Way ANOVA | 0.820 (0.375) | 1.961 (0.175) | 0.582 (0.454) |
叶片干重3) (g) | 同上 See the above | 双因素方差分析 Two-Way ANOVA | 3.170 (0.089) | 1.216 (0.282) | 0.192 (0.665) |
叶柄干重4) (g) | 同上 See the above | 双因素方差分析 Two-Way ANOVA | 1.257 (0.274) | 2.154 (0.156) | 0.001 (0.976) |
花果干重5) (g) | 未转换 No transformation | 非参数检验 Nonparametric test | 10.000 (0.000) | 43.500 (0.041) | |
总干重6) (g) | 原始数据×1 000的对数转换 Logarithm of raw data×1 000 | 双因素方差分析 Two-Way ANOVA | 2.630 (0.119) | 0.889 (0.356) | 0.032 (0.860) |
根冠比7) | 未转换 No transformation | 双因素方差分析 Two-Way ANOVA | 2.424 (0.134) | 21.487 (0.000) | 0.229 (0.637) |
一级分株数8) | 未转换 No transformation | 非参数检验 Nonparametric test | 422.500 (0.476) | 364.000 (0.105) | |
二级分株数9) | 未转换 No transformation | 非参数检验 Nonparametric test | 218.000 (0.410) | 236.500 (0.433) | |
总分株数10) | 未转换 No transformation | 非参数检验 Nonparametric test | 446.000 (0.706) | 436.500 (0.553) | |
一级匍匐茎数11) | 未转换 No transformation | 非参数检验 Nonparametric test | 459.500 (0.850) | 323.500 (0.025) | |
二级匍匐茎数12) | 未转换 No transformation | 非参数检验 Nonparametric test | 230.000 (0.574) | 264.500 (0.854) | |
匍匐茎总数13) | 未转换 No transformation | 非参数检验 Nonparametric test | 428.000 (0.525) | 423.000 (0.431) | |
一级匍匐茎节间长14) (cm) | 未转换 No transformation | 非参数检验 Nonparametric test | 72.500 (0.009) | 101.000 (0.089) | |
二级匍匐茎节间长15) (cm) | 未转换 No transformation | 非参数检验 Nonparametric test | 61.000 (0.243) | 33.000 (0.004) | |
总匍匐茎节间长16) (cm) | 未转换 No transformation | 非参数检验 Nonparametric test | 80.000 (0.019) | 84.000 (0.022) | |
一级匍匐茎比茎长17) (cm·mg-1) | 未转换 No transformation | 双因素方差分析 Two-Way ANOVA | 1.196 (0.286) | 0.711 (0.408) | 0.296 (0.592) |
二级匍匐茎比茎长18) (cm·mg-1) | 未转换 No transformation | 双因素方差分析 Two-Way ANOVA | 0.511 (0.487) | 0.011 (0.920) | 0.712(0.413) |
总的比茎长19) (cm·mg-1) | 未转换 No transformation | 双因素方差分析 Two-Way ANOVA | 1.509 (0.232) | 1.222 (0.281) | 0.139 (0.713) |
分枝强度20) (%) | 两次平方根转换 Double square root transformation | 双因素方差分析 Two-Way ANOVA | 0.712 (0.403) | 1.974 (0.167) | 0.001 (0.979) |
表4 林缘和荒草坡生境与不同草本层盖度小生境对积雪草克隆片段生长特征的影响
Table 4 Effects of forest edge and abandoned grassland slope habitats and microsite with different herbaceous coverage on the growth characteristics of clonal fragment of Centella asiatica
指标 Traits | 数据转换 Data transformation | 数据分析方法 Methods of data analyses | 生境(林缘 vs 荒草坡) Habitat (Forest edge vs abandoned grassland slope) | 小生境(不同草本层盖度) Microsite (Different herbaceous coverage) | 生境×小生境 Habitat×Microsite |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
根干重1) (g) | 原始数据×1 000的对数转换 Logarithm of raw data×1 000 | 双因素方差分析 Two-Way ANOVA | 5.128 (0.034) | 1.763 (0.198) | 0.348 (0.561) |
茎干重2) (g) | 同上 See the above | 双因素方差分析 Two-Way ANOVA | 0.820 (0.375) | 1.961 (0.175) | 0.582 (0.454) |
叶片干重3) (g) | 同上 See the above | 双因素方差分析 Two-Way ANOVA | 3.170 (0.089) | 1.216 (0.282) | 0.192 (0.665) |
叶柄干重4) (g) | 同上 See the above | 双因素方差分析 Two-Way ANOVA | 1.257 (0.274) | 2.154 (0.156) | 0.001 (0.976) |
花果干重5) (g) | 未转换 No transformation | 非参数检验 Nonparametric test | 10.000 (0.000) | 43.500 (0.041) | |
总干重6) (g) | 原始数据×1 000的对数转换 Logarithm of raw data×1 000 | 双因素方差分析 Two-Way ANOVA | 2.630 (0.119) | 0.889 (0.356) | 0.032 (0.860) |
根冠比7) | 未转换 No transformation | 双因素方差分析 Two-Way ANOVA | 2.424 (0.134) | 21.487 (0.000) | 0.229 (0.637) |
一级分株数8) | 未转换 No transformation | 非参数检验 Nonparametric test | 422.500 (0.476) | 364.000 (0.105) | |
二级分株数9) | 未转换 No transformation | 非参数检验 Nonparametric test | 218.000 (0.410) | 236.500 (0.433) | |
总分株数10) | 未转换 No transformation | 非参数检验 Nonparametric test | 446.000 (0.706) | 436.500 (0.553) | |
一级匍匐茎数11) | 未转换 No transformation | 非参数检验 Nonparametric test | 459.500 (0.850) | 323.500 (0.025) | |
二级匍匐茎数12) | 未转换 No transformation | 非参数检验 Nonparametric test | 230.000 (0.574) | 264.500 (0.854) | |
匍匐茎总数13) | 未转换 No transformation | 非参数检验 Nonparametric test | 428.000 (0.525) | 423.000 (0.431) | |
一级匍匐茎节间长14) (cm) | 未转换 No transformation | 非参数检验 Nonparametric test | 72.500 (0.009) | 101.000 (0.089) | |
二级匍匐茎节间长15) (cm) | 未转换 No transformation | 非参数检验 Nonparametric test | 61.000 (0.243) | 33.000 (0.004) | |
总匍匐茎节间长16) (cm) | 未转换 No transformation | 非参数检验 Nonparametric test | 80.000 (0.019) | 84.000 (0.022) | |
一级匍匐茎比茎长17) (cm·mg-1) | 未转换 No transformation | 双因素方差分析 Two-Way ANOVA | 1.196 (0.286) | 0.711 (0.408) | 0.296 (0.592) |
二级匍匐茎比茎长18) (cm·mg-1) | 未转换 No transformation | 双因素方差分析 Two-Way ANOVA | 0.511 (0.487) | 0.011 (0.920) | 0.712(0.413) |
总的比茎长19) (cm·mg-1) | 未转换 No transformation | 双因素方差分析 Two-Way ANOVA | 1.509 (0.232) | 1.222 (0.281) | 0.139 (0.713) |
分枝强度20) (%) | 两次平方根转换 Double square root transformation | 双因素方差分析 Two-Way ANOVA | 0.712 (0.403) | 1.974 (0.167) | 0.001 (0.979) |
指标 Traits | 荒草坡 Abandoned grassland slope | 林缘 Forest edge | F值或χ2值 F-value or χ2 value | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
盖度小的小生境 Microsite with low coverage | 盖度大的小生境 Microsite with high coverage | 盖度小的小生境 Microsite with low coverage | 盖度大的小生境 Microsite with high coverage | ||||
一级分株数8) | 11.08±1.64 | 10.20±1.87 | 12.88±1.62 | 10.28±1.33 | 3.341ns | ||
二级分株数9) | 7.14±3.96 | 8.10±1.82 | 5.86±1.50 | 5.44±1.48 | 2.297ns | ||
总分株数10) | 15.33±3.01 | 15.93±3.16 | 18.00±2.97 | 15.39±2.68 | 0.924ns | ||
一级匍匐茎数11) | 3.17±0.51 | 2.67±0.42 | 3.35±0.24 | 2.33±0.39 | 5.975ns | ||
二级匍匐茎数12) | 3.57±1.00 | 4.10±0.80 | 3.57±0.64 | 3.38±0.61 | 0.886ns | ||
总匍匐茎数13) | 5.33±0.99 | 5.60±0.99 | 6.47±0.81 | 5.50±0.89 | 1.800ns | ||
一级匍匐茎节间长14)(cm) | 2.451 6±0.085 2b | 2.658 4±0.058 5b | 2.710 0±0.087 6b | 2.986 6±0.116 4a | 5.244** | ||
二级匍匐茎节间长15) (cm) | 5.537 0±0.564 3 | 6.800 6±0.375 7 | 6.075 4±0.379 8 | 8.051 7±0.470 5 | 11.641** | ||
总匍匐茎节间长16) (cm) | 5.998 1±0.450 7 | 7.009 7±0.303 0 | 7.048 0±0.402 0 | 8.758 3±0.568 2 | 11.653** | ||
一级匍匐茎比茎长17) (cm·mg-1) | 0.462 6±0.019 3a | 0.573 4±0.102 4a | 0.593 3±0.055 5a | 0.617 2±0.061 5a | 0.533ns | ||
二级匍匐茎比茎长18) (cm·g-1) | - | 0.666 1±0.064 1a | 0.748 8±0.046 9a | 0.876 7±0.098 2a | 1.544ns | ||
总的比茎长19)(cm·mg-1) | 0.481 6±0.036 6a | 0.594 2±0.084 5a | 0.603 6±0.054 5a | 0.659 4±0.065 1a | 0.771ns | ||
分枝强度20)(%) | 0.155 7±0.038 5a | 0.191 8±0.028 5a | 0.131 1±0.024 5a | 0.179 1±0.030 8a | 3.082ns |
表5 积雪草克隆片段水平的形态特征
Table 5 Morphological characteristics of Centella asiatica at the level of clonal fragment
指标 Traits | 荒草坡 Abandoned grassland slope | 林缘 Forest edge | F值或χ2值 F-value or χ2 value | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
盖度小的小生境 Microsite with low coverage | 盖度大的小生境 Microsite with high coverage | 盖度小的小生境 Microsite with low coverage | 盖度大的小生境 Microsite with high coverage | ||||
一级分株数8) | 11.08±1.64 | 10.20±1.87 | 12.88±1.62 | 10.28±1.33 | 3.341ns | ||
二级分株数9) | 7.14±3.96 | 8.10±1.82 | 5.86±1.50 | 5.44±1.48 | 2.297ns | ||
总分株数10) | 15.33±3.01 | 15.93±3.16 | 18.00±2.97 | 15.39±2.68 | 0.924ns | ||
一级匍匐茎数11) | 3.17±0.51 | 2.67±0.42 | 3.35±0.24 | 2.33±0.39 | 5.975ns | ||
二级匍匐茎数12) | 3.57±1.00 | 4.10±0.80 | 3.57±0.64 | 3.38±0.61 | 0.886ns | ||
总匍匐茎数13) | 5.33±0.99 | 5.60±0.99 | 6.47±0.81 | 5.50±0.89 | 1.800ns | ||
一级匍匐茎节间长14)(cm) | 2.451 6±0.085 2b | 2.658 4±0.058 5b | 2.710 0±0.087 6b | 2.986 6±0.116 4a | 5.244** | ||
二级匍匐茎节间长15) (cm) | 5.537 0±0.564 3 | 6.800 6±0.375 7 | 6.075 4±0.379 8 | 8.051 7±0.470 5 | 11.641** | ||
总匍匐茎节间长16) (cm) | 5.998 1±0.450 7 | 7.009 7±0.303 0 | 7.048 0±0.402 0 | 8.758 3±0.568 2 | 11.653** | ||
一级匍匐茎比茎长17) (cm·mg-1) | 0.462 6±0.019 3a | 0.573 4±0.102 4a | 0.593 3±0.055 5a | 0.617 2±0.061 5a | 0.533ns | ||
二级匍匐茎比茎长18) (cm·g-1) | - | 0.666 1±0.064 1a | 0.748 8±0.046 9a | 0.876 7±0.098 2a | 1.544ns | ||
总的比茎长19)(cm·mg-1) | 0.481 6±0.036 6a | 0.594 2±0.084 5a | 0.603 6±0.054 5a | 0.659 4±0.065 1a | 0.771ns | ||
分枝强度20)(%) | 0.155 7±0.038 5a | 0.191 8±0.028 5a | 0.131 1±0.024 5a | 0.179 1±0.030 8a | 3.082ns |
指标 Traits | 数据转换 Data transformation | 数据分析方法 Methods of data analyses | 生境(林缘 vs 荒草坡) Habitat (forest edge vs abandoned grassland slope) | 小生境(不同草本层 盖度)Microsite (different herbaceous coverage) | 生境×小生境 Habitats×Microsite |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
叶片长1) (cm) | 未转换 No transformation | 双因素方差分析 Two-Way ANOVA | 49.823 (0.000) | 43.129 (0.000) | 0.891 (0.357) |
叶片宽2) (cm) | 未转换 No transformation | 双因素方差分析 Two-Way ANOVA | 45.266 (0.000) | 38.021 (0.000) | 1.792 (0.196) |
单叶面积3) (cm2) | 平方根转换 Square root transformation | 双因素方差分析 Two-Way ANOVA | 24.062 (0.000) | 24.015 (0.000) | 0.234 (0.634) |
单叶片干重4) (mg) | 对数转换 Logarithm transformation | 双因素方差分析 Two-Way ANOVA | 1.300 (0.287) | 2.124 (0.183) | 4.179 (0.075) |
比叶面积5) (cm2·mg-1) | 未转换 No transformation | 非参数检验 Nonparametric test | 13.000 (0.485) | 12.000 (0.394) | |
叶柄长6)(cm) | 平方根转换 Square root transformation | 双因素方差分析 Two-Way ANOVA | 2.592 (0.126) | 6.466 (0.021) | 0.061 (0.807) |
比叶柄长7) (cm·g-1) | 未转换 No transformation | 双因素方差分析 Two-Way ANOVA | 2.706 (0.139) | 35.391 (0.000) | 1.414 (0.268) |
叶绿素a含量8) (mg·g-1 FW) | 平方根转换 Square root transformation | 双因素方差分析 Two-Way ANOVA | 0.485 (0.495) | 0.027 (0.872) | 0.347 (0.563) |
叶绿素b含量9) (mg·g-1 FW) | 平方根转换 Square root transformation | 双因素方差分析 Two-Way ANOVA | 0.333 (0.571) | 0.037 (0.849) | 0.165 (0.690) |
总叶绿素含量10) (mg·g-1 FW) | 平方根转换 Square root transformation | 双因素方差分析 Two-Way ANOVA | 0.447 (0.512) | 0.028 (0.868) | 0.301 (0.590) |
叶绿素a/b值11) | 平方根转换 Square root transformation | 双因素方差分析 Two-Way ANOVA | 0.734 (0.403) | 0.007 (0.933) | 0.679 (0.421) |
表6 林缘和荒草坡生境与不同草本层盖度小生境对叶水平生长特征的影响
Table 6 Effects of forest edge and abandoned grassland slope habitats and microsite with different herbaceous coverage on the growth characteristics at the level of leaf
指标 Traits | 数据转换 Data transformation | 数据分析方法 Methods of data analyses | 生境(林缘 vs 荒草坡) Habitat (forest edge vs abandoned grassland slope) | 小生境(不同草本层 盖度)Microsite (different herbaceous coverage) | 生境×小生境 Habitats×Microsite |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
叶片长1) (cm) | 未转换 No transformation | 双因素方差分析 Two-Way ANOVA | 49.823 (0.000) | 43.129 (0.000) | 0.891 (0.357) |
叶片宽2) (cm) | 未转换 No transformation | 双因素方差分析 Two-Way ANOVA | 45.266 (0.000) | 38.021 (0.000) | 1.792 (0.196) |
单叶面积3) (cm2) | 平方根转换 Square root transformation | 双因素方差分析 Two-Way ANOVA | 24.062 (0.000) | 24.015 (0.000) | 0.234 (0.634) |
单叶片干重4) (mg) | 对数转换 Logarithm transformation | 双因素方差分析 Two-Way ANOVA | 1.300 (0.287) | 2.124 (0.183) | 4.179 (0.075) |
比叶面积5) (cm2·mg-1) | 未转换 No transformation | 非参数检验 Nonparametric test | 13.000 (0.485) | 12.000 (0.394) | |
叶柄长6)(cm) | 平方根转换 Square root transformation | 双因素方差分析 Two-Way ANOVA | 2.592 (0.126) | 6.466 (0.021) | 0.061 (0.807) |
比叶柄长7) (cm·g-1) | 未转换 No transformation | 双因素方差分析 Two-Way ANOVA | 2.706 (0.139) | 35.391 (0.000) | 1.414 (0.268) |
叶绿素a含量8) (mg·g-1 FW) | 平方根转换 Square root transformation | 双因素方差分析 Two-Way ANOVA | 0.485 (0.495) | 0.027 (0.872) | 0.347 (0.563) |
叶绿素b含量9) (mg·g-1 FW) | 平方根转换 Square root transformation | 双因素方差分析 Two-Way ANOVA | 0.333 (0.571) | 0.037 (0.849) | 0.165 (0.690) |
总叶绿素含量10) (mg·g-1 FW) | 平方根转换 Square root transformation | 双因素方差分析 Two-Way ANOVA | 0.447 (0.512) | 0.028 (0.868) | 0.301 (0.590) |
叶绿素a/b值11) | 平方根转换 Square root transformation | 双因素方差分析 Two-Way ANOVA | 0.734 (0.403) | 0.007 (0.933) | 0.679 (0.421) |
指标 Traits | 荒草坡 Abandoned grassland slope | 林缘 Forest edge | F值或χ2值 F-value or χ2 value | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
盖度小的小生境 Microsite with low coverage | 盖度大的小生境 Microsite with high coverage | 盖度小的小生境 Microsite with low coverage | 盖度大的小生境 Microsite with high coverage | ||||
叶片长1) (cm) | 1.907 5±0.079 5b | 2.391 7±0.079 0a | 1.513 3±0.053 0c | 1.875 8±0.035 5b | 31.281*** | ||
叶片宽2) (cm) | 3.405 8±0.126 8b | 4.300 6±0.173 9a | 2.763 3±0.084 8c | 3.338 8±0.058 0b | 28.360*** | ||
单叶面积3) (cm2) | 2.315 6±0.111 5b | 2.886 2±0.158 2a | 1.847 0±0.076 2c | 2.315 1±0.040 8b | 16.104*** | ||
单叶片重4) (mg) | 1.417 3±0.062 8a | 1.368 2±0.086 6a | 1.150 4±0.008 1a | 1.444 0±0.128 9a | 2.534ns | ||
比叶面积5) (cm2·mg-1) | 0.213 2±0.004 8 | 0.425 0±0.164 3 | 0.263 3±0.008 7 | 0.226 2±0.060 5 | 4.128ns | ||
叶柄长6) (cm) | 2.959 5±0.156 | 3.425 6±0.346 2a | 2.459 5±0.094 2b | 3.156 9±0.219 | 3.616* | ||
比叶柄长7) (cm·g-1) | 51.753 8±2.801 1b | 77.146 7±8.126 1a | 36.633 2±3.900 7b | 74.715 7±4.975 1a | 13.170** | ||
叶绿素a含量8) (mg·g-1 FW) | 1.003 0±0.139 4a | 0.957 2±0.111 1a | 0.864 4±0.074 3a | 0.945 6±0.107 6a | 0.446ns | ||
叶绿素b含量9) (mg·g-1 FW) | 0.622 8±0.064 1a | 0.611 9±0.057 2a | 0.603 2±0.049 6a | 0.600 8±0.023 5a | 0.279ns | ||
总叶绿素含量10) (mg·g-1 FW) | 1.181 3±0.151 8a | 1.136 4±0.124 3a | 1.037 7±0.078 2a | 1.122 3±0.117 3a | 0.179ns | ||
叶绿素a/b值11) | 1.588 3±0.073 1a | 1.548 2±0.039 3a | 1.497 2±0.054 0a | 1.541 1±0.025 6a | 0.254ns |
表7 积雪草叶水平的生长特征
Table 7 Growth characteristics of Centella asiatica at the level of leaf
指标 Traits | 荒草坡 Abandoned grassland slope | 林缘 Forest edge | F值或χ2值 F-value or χ2 value | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
盖度小的小生境 Microsite with low coverage | 盖度大的小生境 Microsite with high coverage | 盖度小的小生境 Microsite with low coverage | 盖度大的小生境 Microsite with high coverage | ||||
叶片长1) (cm) | 1.907 5±0.079 5b | 2.391 7±0.079 0a | 1.513 3±0.053 0c | 1.875 8±0.035 5b | 31.281*** | ||
叶片宽2) (cm) | 3.405 8±0.126 8b | 4.300 6±0.173 9a | 2.763 3±0.084 8c | 3.338 8±0.058 0b | 28.360*** | ||
单叶面积3) (cm2) | 2.315 6±0.111 5b | 2.886 2±0.158 2a | 1.847 0±0.076 2c | 2.315 1±0.040 8b | 16.104*** | ||
单叶片重4) (mg) | 1.417 3±0.062 8a | 1.368 2±0.086 6a | 1.150 4±0.008 1a | 1.444 0±0.128 9a | 2.534ns | ||
比叶面积5) (cm2·mg-1) | 0.213 2±0.004 8 | 0.425 0±0.164 3 | 0.263 3±0.008 7 | 0.226 2±0.060 5 | 4.128ns | ||
叶柄长6) (cm) | 2.959 5±0.156 | 3.425 6±0.346 2a | 2.459 5±0.094 2b | 3.156 9±0.219 | 3.616* | ||
比叶柄长7) (cm·g-1) | 51.753 8±2.801 1b | 77.146 7±8.126 1a | 36.633 2±3.900 7b | 74.715 7±4.975 1a | 13.170** | ||
叶绿素a含量8) (mg·g-1 FW) | 1.003 0±0.139 4a | 0.957 2±0.111 1a | 0.864 4±0.074 3a | 0.945 6±0.107 6a | 0.446ns | ||
叶绿素b含量9) (mg·g-1 FW) | 0.622 8±0.064 1a | 0.611 9±0.057 2a | 0.603 2±0.049 6a | 0.600 8±0.023 5a | 0.279ns | ||
总叶绿素含量10) (mg·g-1 FW) | 1.181 3±0.151 8a | 1.136 4±0.124 3a | 1.037 7±0.078 2a | 1.122 3±0.117 3a | 0.179ns | ||
叶绿素a/b值11) | 1.588 3±0.073 1a | 1.548 2±0.039 3a | 1.497 2±0.054 0a | 1.541 1±0.025 6a | 0.254ns |
[1] |
Alpert P (1999). Effects of clonal integration on plant plasticity in Fragaria chiloensis. Plant Ecology, 141, 99-106.
DOI URL |
[2] |
Babu TD, Kuttan G, Padikkala J (1995). Cytotoxic and anti-tumour properties of certain taxa of Umbelliferae with special reference to Centella asiatica (L.) Urban. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 48, 53-57.
DOI URL PMID |
[3] | Chen JS (陈劲松), Dong M (董鸣), Yu D (于丹) (2003). The characteristics of stoloniferous herb Fragaria vesca L. ramet population and their variation along an altitudinal gradient in the eastern edge of the Qing-Zang Plateau in China. Acta Ecologica Sinica (生态学报), 23, 428-435. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[4] | Chen JS (陈劲松), Dong M (董鸣), Yu D (于丹), Liu Q (刘庆) (2004). Clonal architecture and ramet population characteristics of Lysimachia congestiflora growing under different light conditions. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology (应用生态学报), 15, 1383-1388. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[5] | Chen YF (陈玉福), Dong M (董鸣) (2000). Genet characters of Hedysarum laeve and the characters of its ramet population in different habitats in Mu Us Sandland. Acta Phytoecologica Sinica (植物生态学报), 24, 40-45. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[6] | Compiling Committee of the History of Nanchong County, (四川省南充县志编纂委员会) (1993). The History of Nanchong County (南充县志). The History of Nanchong County (南充县志). Sichuan People's Publishing House, Chengdu, 69-80. (in Chinese) |
[7] | Delectis Florae Reipublicae Popularis Sinicae Agendae Academiae Sinicae Edita (中国科学院中国植物志编辑委员会) ( 1979). Flora Reipublicae Popularis Sinicae (中国植物志) Tomus 55(1). Science Press, Beijing, 31-33. (in Chinese) |
[8] |
Dong M (1993). Morphological plasticity in the stoloniferous herb Lamiastrum galeobdolon (L.) Ehrend. & Polatschek in response to partial shading. New Phytologist, 124, 291-300.
DOI URL |
[9] |
Dong M (1995). Morphological responses to local light conditions in clonal herbs from contrasting habitats, and their modification due to physiological integration. Oecologia, 101, 282-288.
DOI URL PMID |
[10] | Dong M (董鸣) (1996). Clonal growth in plants in relation to resource heterogeneity: foraging behavior. Acta Botanica Sinica (植物学报), 38, 828-835. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[11] | Du RQ (杜荣骞) (2003). Biostatistics (生物统计学) 2nd edn. Higher Education Press, Beijing, 61-144. (in Chinese) |
[12] | Eriksson O, Jerling L (1990). Hierarchical selection and risk spreading in clonal plants. In: van Groenendael J, de Kroon H eds. Clonal Growth in Plants: Regulation and Function. SPB Academic Publishing, the Hague, 79-94. |
[13] | He WM (何维明), Dong M (董鸣) (2002). Ramets and genets in the tillering clonal herb Panicum miliaceum in hierarchical response to heterogeneous nutrient environments. Acta Ecologica Sinica (生态学报), 22, 169-175. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[14] |
Hegazy AK (1994). Trade-off between sexual and vegetative reproduction of the weedy Heliotropium curassavicum. Journal of Arid Environments, 27, 209-220.
DOI URL |
[15] |
Herben T, During HJ, Krahulec F (1995). Spatiotemporal dynamics in mountain grasslands: species autocorrelation in space and time. Folia Geobot Phytotax, 30, 185-196.
DOI URL |
[16] | Hutchings MJ, de Kroon H (1994). Foraging in plants: the role of morphological plasticity in resource acquisition. Advances in Ecological Research, 25, 159-238. |
[17] |
Kleijn D, van Groenendael JM (1999). The exploitation of heterogeneity by a clonal plant in habitats with contrasting productivity levels. Journal of Ecology, 87, 873-884.
DOI URL PMID |
[18] |
Leeflang L (2000). Response of Trifolium repens to a mosaic of bare and vegetated patches. Plant Species Biology, 15, 59-65.
DOI URL |
[19] | Liu FH (刘凤红), Liu J (刘建), Dong M (董鸣) (2005). Response of biomass allocation to small-scale variation of vegetation coverage in dominant clonal semi-shrubs in the Mu Us Sandland. Acta Ecologica Sinica (生态学报), 25, 3415-3419. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[20] | Ma WL (马万里), Zhong ZC (钟章成) (1998). Morphological adaptability of clonal herb Iris japonica to changed light condition. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology (应用生态学报), 9, 23-26. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[21] |
Navas ML, Garnier E (2002). Plasticity of whole plant and leaf traits in Rubia peregrina in response to light, nutrient and water availability. Acta Oecologica, 23, 375-383.
DOI URL |
[22] | Pan RC (潘瑞炽) (2001). Plant Physiology (植物生理学) 4th edn. Higher Education Press, Beijing, 42, 92-93. (in Chinese) |
[23] |
Robinson D, Rorison IH (1988). Plasticity in grass species in relation to nitrogen supply. Functional Ecology, 2, 249-257.
DOI URL |
[24] |
Singh P, Singh JS (2002). Recruitment and competitive interaction between ramets and seedlings in a perennial medicinal herb, Centella asiatica. Basic and Applied Ecology, 3, 65-76.
DOI URL |
[25] | Song LX (宋利霞), Tao JP (陶建平), Wang W (王微), Xi Y (席一), Wang YJ (王永健), Ran CY (冉春燕) (2006). The ramet population structures of the clonal bamboo Fargesia nitida in different canopy conditions of sulbalpine dark coniferous forest in Wolong Nature Reserve, China. Acta Ecologica Sinica (生态学报), 26, 730-736. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[26] | Su JM (苏金明), Fu RH (傅荣华), Zhou JB (周建斌), Zhang LH (张莲花) (2002). Statistical Software SPSS Series: Application and Actual Combat (统计软件SPSS系列——应用实战篇). Publishing House of Electronics Industry, Beijing, 207-286. (in Chinese) |
[27] | Zhang SM (张淑敏), Chen YF (陈玉福), Dong M (董鸣) (2000). Clonal plasticity in response to partial neutral shading in the stoloniferous herb Potentilla reptans var. sericophylla. Acta Botanica Sinica (植物学报), 42, 89-94. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[28] |
Zhang XQ, Liu J, Welham CVJ, Liu CC, Li DN, Chen L, Wang RQ (2006). The effects of clonal integration on morphological plasticity and placement of daughter ramets in black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia). Flora, 201, 547-554.
DOI URL |
[29] | Zhang ZL (张志良), Qu WJ (瞿伟箐) (2003). Guide to Experiment of Plant Physiology (植物生理实验指导) 3rd edn. Higher Education Press, Beijing, 67-70. (in Chinese) |
[30] | Zhou SB (周守标), Zhu SD (朱胜东), Yu DQ (余大芹), Wang DH (王道惠), Liu WJ (刘文杰) (1998). Rising lawn star—Centella asiatica (L.) Urban. Plants (植物杂志), (2), 19. (in Chinese) |
[1] | 杨丽婷, 谢燕燕, 左珂怡, 徐森, 谷瑞, 陈双林, 郭子武. 分株比例对异质光环境下美丽箬竹克隆系统光合生理的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2022, 46(1): 88-101. |
[2] | 叶学华, 薛建国, 谢秀芳, 黄振英. 外部干扰对根茎型克隆植物甘草自然种群植株生长及主要药用成分含量的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2020, 44(9): 951-961. |
[3] | 王意锟, 金爱武, 朱强根, 邱永华, 季新良, 张四海. 施肥对毛竹种群不同年龄分株间胸径大小关系的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2014, 38(3): 289-297. |
[4] | 彭一可, 罗芳丽, 李红丽, 于飞海. 根状茎型植物扁秆荆三棱对土壤养分异质性尺度和对比度的生长响应[J]. 植物生态学报, 2013, 37(4): 335-343. |
[5] | 罗维成, 曾凡江, 刘波, 宋聪, 彭守兰, Stefan K. ARNDT. 疏叶骆驼刺母株与子株间的水分整合[J]. 植物生态学报, 2013, 37(2): 164-172. |
[6] | 葛俊, 邢福. 克隆植物对种间竞争的适应策略[J]. 植物生态学报, 2012, 36(6): 587-596. |
[7] | 朱志红, 席博, 李英年, 臧岳铭, 王文娟, 刘建秀, 郭华. 高寒草甸不同生境粗喙薹草补偿生长研究[J]. 植物生态学报, 2010, 34(3): 348-358. |
[8] | 张道远, 王建成, 施翔. 根茎型木本克隆植物准噶尔无叶豆的种群数量动态[J]. 植物生态学报, 2009, 33(5): 893-900. |
[9] | 张淑敏, 于飞海, 董鸣. 土壤养分水平影响绢毛匍匐委陵菜匍匐茎生物量投资[J]. 植物生态学报, 2007, 31(4): 652-657. |
[10] | 魏晓慧, 殷东生, 祝宁. 自然条件下风箱果的克隆构型[J]. 植物生态学报, 2007, 31(4): 625-629. |
[11] | 张丽丽, 董鸣, 李仁强, 王艳红, 崔清国, 何维明. 土壤养分斑块对比度改变活血丹克隆整合强度和方向[J]. 植物生态学报, 2007, 31(4): 619-624. |
[12] | 陆建英, 马瑞君, 孙坤. 珠芽蓼种群克隆多样性及克隆结构的初步研究[J]. 植物生态学报, 2007, 31(4): 561-567. |
[13] | 蔡颖, 关保华, 安树青, 申瑞玲, 蒋金辉, 董蕾. 克隆植物乌菱对底泥磷含量及植株密度的表型可塑性响应[J]. 植物生态学报, 2007, 31(4): 599-606. |
[14] | 严雪, 于丹, 李永科. CO2浓度升高对沉水克隆植物生长速率及营养元素积累的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2003, 27(4): 435-440. |
[15] | 宋明华, 陈玉福, 董鸣. 鄂尔多斯高原风蚀沙化梁地克隆植物的分布及其与物种多样性的关系[J]. 植物生态学报, 2002, 26(4): 396-402. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||
Copyright © 2022 版权所有 《植物生态学报》编辑部
地址: 北京香山南辛村20号, 邮编: 100093
Tel.: 010-62836134, 62836138; Fax: 010-82599431; E-mail: apes@ibcas.ac.cn, cjpe@ibcas.ac.cn
备案号: 京ICP备16067583号-19