植物生态学报 ›› 2013, Vol. 37 ›› Issue (9): 830-838.DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1258.2013.00087
赵哈林1,*(), 曲浩1, 周瑞莲2, 李瑾1, 潘成臣1, 王进2
收稿日期:
2013-01-29
接受日期:
2013-06-28
出版日期:
2013-01-29
发布日期:
2013-09-02
通讯作者:
赵哈林
作者简介:
*E-mail: resdiv@lzb.ac.cn基金资助:
ZHAO Ha-Lin1,*(), QU Hao1, ZHOU Rui-Lian2, LI Jin1, PAN Cheng-Chen1, WANG Jin2
Received:
2013-01-29
Accepted:
2013-06-28
Online:
2013-01-29
Published:
2013-09-02
Contact:
ZHAO Ha-Lin
摘要:
为了解沙埋对沙生植物生长的影响及其生理响应特征, 比较不同沙生植物耐沙埋能力及其机制, 2010年在内蒙古科尔沁沙地研究了不同深度沙埋下沙蓬(Agriophyllum squarrosum)和盐蒿(Artemisia halodendron)幼苗的存活率、株高等生长特性及其渗透调节物质含量, 保护酶活性和膜透性的变化, 得到以下结果: 沙蓬和盐蒿幼苗均具有较强的耐沙埋能力, 其中沙蓬幼苗最大耐沙埋深度超过幼苗10 cm, 盐蒿幼苗最大耐沙埋深度超过其株高8 cm; 随着沙埋深度增加, 沙蓬和盐蒿幼苗的存活率和株高均显著下降, 沙蓬的下降幅度显著小于盐蒿; 沙埋处理下两种植物均未表现出受水分胁迫, 沙埋导致其光合面积下降, 幼苗顶土困难, 是影响其存活和高生长的主要生态机制; 随着沙埋深度增加, 沙蓬幼苗丙二醛(MDA)含量显著增加, 盐蒿幼苗MDA含量下降, 虽然二者膜透性均呈增加趋势, 但沙蓬膜透性增加幅度显著低于盐蒿, 说明细胞膜受损是导致二者幼苗存活率下降和生长受到抑制的主要生理机制, 沙蓬膜透性受损程度较低是其耐沙埋能力较强的主要生理机制; 沙埋胁迫下, 虽然两种植物都通过提高过氧化物酶活性和脯氨酸含量减轻细胞膜受损程度, 但沙蓬体内超氧化物歧化酶也表现出重要协调作用, 使之酶促系统在保护细胞膜免受胁迫损伤过程中的作用更有效。
赵哈林, 曲浩, 周瑞莲, 李瑾, 潘成臣, 王进. 沙埋对两种沙生植物幼苗生长的影响及其生理响应差异. 植物生态学报, 2013, 37(9): 830-838. DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1258.2013.00087
ZHAO Ha-Lin, QU Hao, ZHOU Rui-Lian, LI Jin, PAN Cheng-Chen, WANG Jin. Effects of sand burial on growth in two psammophyte seedlings and differences in their physiological responses. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 2013, 37(9): 830-838. DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1258.2013.00087
沙埋深度 Sand burial depth (cm) | 细沙 Fine sand (%) | 黏粉粒 Clay + silt (%) | 容重 Bulk density (g·cm-3) | 温度 Temperature (℃) | 含水量 Moisture (%) | 硬度 Hardness (kg·cm-2) | 光照强度 Light intensity (lx) | 有机碳 Organic carbon (g·kg-1) | 全氮 Total nitrogen (g·kg-1) | pH |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 | 72.96a | 0.18a | 1.58a | 33.2a | 4.5a | 0.121a | 67 900a | 0.68a | 0.088a | 8.31a |
10 | 70.0a | 1.2a | 1.60a | 21.2b | 16.2b | 0.159b | 80b | 0.73b | 0.102b | 8.45a |
20 | 69.1a | 1.6a | 1.56a | 20.8b | 20.7b | 0.187c | 0c | 0.65a | 0.098b | 8.29a |
表1 不同沙埋深度下土壤理化特性的比较
Table 1 Comparison on soil physical-chemical properties in different sand burial depths
沙埋深度 Sand burial depth (cm) | 细沙 Fine sand (%) | 黏粉粒 Clay + silt (%) | 容重 Bulk density (g·cm-3) | 温度 Temperature (℃) | 含水量 Moisture (%) | 硬度 Hardness (kg·cm-2) | 光照强度 Light intensity (lx) | 有机碳 Organic carbon (g·kg-1) | 全氮 Total nitrogen (g·kg-1) | pH |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 | 72.96a | 0.18a | 1.58a | 33.2a | 4.5a | 0.121a | 67 900a | 0.68a | 0.088a | 8.31a |
10 | 70.0a | 1.2a | 1.60a | 21.2b | 16.2b | 0.159b | 80b | 0.73b | 0.102b | 8.45a |
20 | 69.1a | 1.6a | 1.56a | 20.8b | 20.7b | 0.187c | 0c | 0.65a | 0.098b | 8.29a |
图1 不同沙埋深度下两种植物的存活率(A)和株高(B)(平均值±标准偏差)。CK、A、B、C、D、E、F、G、H、I, 沙埋深度分别为株高的0%、25%、50%、75%、100%及株高以上2、4、6、8、10 cm。
Fig. 1 Survival rate (A) and plant height (B) of the two species in different treatments (mean ± SD). CK, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, sand burial depth 0% and 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% of seedling height and 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 cm above seedlings, respectively. Ah, Artemisia halodendron; As, Agriophyllum squarrosum.
图2 叶片的相对含水量(RWC) (A)、丙二醛(MDA)含量(B)和膜透性(C) (平均值±标准偏差)。沙埋处理同图1。
Fig. 2 Relative water content (RWC) (A), malonaldehyde (MDA) content (B) and membrane permeability (C) of leaves (mean ± SD). Sand burial treatment see Ah,Artemisia halodendron; As,Agriophyllum squarrosum.
图3 超氧化物歧化酶(SOD) (A)、过氧化氢酶(CAT) (B)和过氧化物酶(POD) (C)的活性(平均值±标准偏差)。沙埋处理同图1。
Fig. 3 Activities of superoxide dismutase (SOD) (A), catalase (CAT) (B) and peroxidase (POD) (C) (mean ± SD). Sand burial treatment see Ah,Artemisia halodendron; As,Agrio- phyllum squarrosum.
图4 不同沙埋处理下脯氨酸(A)和可溶性糖(B)含量的变化(平均值±标准偏差)。沙埋处理同图1。
Fig. 4 Variation of proline (A) and soluble sugar (B) content in different sand burial treatments (mean ± SD). Sand burial treatment see Ah,Artemisia halodendron; As,Agriophyllum squarrosum.
项目 Item | 物种 Species | 存活率 Survival rate | 株高 Plant height | 脯氨酸含量 Proline content | 可溶性糖 含量 Soluble sugar content | SOD活性 SOD activity | CAT活性 CAT activity | POD活性 POD activity | MDA含量 MDA content | PF |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
株高 Plant height | 沙蓬 As | 0.861** | 1.000 | |||||||
盐蒿 Ah | 0.844** | 1.000 | ||||||||
MDA含量 MDA content | 沙蓬 As | -0.897** | -0.777** | 0.285 | -0.388 | 0.171 | -0.748* | 0.372 | 1.000 | |
盐蒿 Ah | -0.221 | -0.173 | -0.024 | -0.548 | 0.445 | -0.289 | 0.504 | 1.000 | ||
PF | 沙蓬 As | -0.862** | -0.880** | 0.687* | 0.011 | 0.282 | -0.781* | 0.674* | 0.842** | 1.000 |
盐蒿 Ah | -0.771* | -0.825** | 0.512 | 0.085 | 0.520 | -0.284 | 0.106 | 0.400 | 1.000 | |
FWC | 沙蓬 As | -0.175 | -0.457 | 0.902** | 0.457 | 0.841** | -0.365 | 0.762* | 0.175 | 0.568 |
盐蒿 Ah | 0.443 | 0.335 | 0.051 | -0.294 | 0.491 | 0.277 | -0.036 | 0.526 | -0.170 |
表2 植物生理生态特性之间的相关分析
Table 2 Correlation analysis among plant growth properties and physiological indexes
项目 Item | 物种 Species | 存活率 Survival rate | 株高 Plant height | 脯氨酸含量 Proline content | 可溶性糖 含量 Soluble sugar content | SOD活性 SOD activity | CAT活性 CAT activity | POD活性 POD activity | MDA含量 MDA content | PF |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
株高 Plant height | 沙蓬 As | 0.861** | 1.000 | |||||||
盐蒿 Ah | 0.844** | 1.000 | ||||||||
MDA含量 MDA content | 沙蓬 As | -0.897** | -0.777** | 0.285 | -0.388 | 0.171 | -0.748* | 0.372 | 1.000 | |
盐蒿 Ah | -0.221 | -0.173 | -0.024 | -0.548 | 0.445 | -0.289 | 0.504 | 1.000 | ||
PF | 沙蓬 As | -0.862** | -0.880** | 0.687* | 0.011 | 0.282 | -0.781* | 0.674* | 0.842** | 1.000 |
盐蒿 Ah | -0.771* | -0.825** | 0.512 | 0.085 | 0.520 | -0.284 | 0.106 | 0.400 | 1.000 | |
FWC | 沙蓬 As | -0.175 | -0.457 | 0.902** | 0.457 | 0.841** | -0.365 | 0.762* | 0.175 | 0.568 |
盐蒿 Ah | 0.443 | 0.335 | 0.051 | -0.294 | 0.491 | 0.277 | -0.036 | 0.526 | -0.170 |
[1] | Bao SD (2000). Soil and Agricultural Chemistry Analysis. China Agricultural Press, Beijing. (in Chinese) |
[鲍士旦 (2000). 土壤农业化学分析. 中国农业出版社, 北京.] | |
[2] | Benvenuti S, Macchia M, Miele S (2001). Light, temperature and burial depth effects on Rumex obtusifolius seed germination and emergence. Weed Research, 41, 177-186. |
[3] | Harris D, Davy AJ (1988). Carbon and nutrient allocation in Elymus farctus seedlings after burial with sand. Annals of Botany, 61, 147-157. |
[4] |
Izanloo A, Condon AG, Langridge P, Tester M, Schnurbusch T (2008). Different mechanisms of adaptation to cyclic water stress in two south Australian bread wheat cultivars. Journal of Experimental Botany, 59, 3327-3346.
URL PMID |
[5] |
Jouili H, El Ferjani E (2003). Changes in antioxidant and lignifying enzyme activities in sunflower roots ( Helianthus annuus L.) stressed with copper excess. Comptes Rendus Biologies, 326, 639-644.
DOI URL PMID |
[6] | Li HJ, Wang P, Baoyin DLGE, Tian PF (2012). Response of seed germination and seedling emergence of Pugionium gaerth to different sand burial depth. Journal of Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, 33(3),39-44. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[李海静, 王萍, 宝音德力格尔, 田鹏飞 (2012). 沙埋深度对沙芥属植物种子萌发和出苗的影响. 内蒙古农业大学学报, 33(3),39-44.] | |
[7] | Li QY, Fang HY (2008). Effects of sand burial depth on seedling emergence and growth of Reaumuria soongorica. Bulletin of Soil and Water Conservation, 28, 30-33. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[李秋艳, 方海燕 (2008). 沙埋对红砂幼苗出土和生长的影响. 水土保持通报, 28, 30-33.] | |
[8] | Li WT, Zhang C, Wang F, Zheng MQ, Zheng TR, Zhang F (2010). Effects of sand burial and water supply on seedlings growth of two dominant psammophytes in Mu Us sandland. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 30, 1192-1199. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[李文婷, 张超, 王飞, 郑明清, 郑元润, 张峰 (2010). 沙埋与供水对毛乌素沙地两种重要沙生植物幼苗生长的影响. 生态学报, 30, 1192-1199.] | |
[9] | Liu B, Liu ZM, Guan DX (2008). Seedling growth variation in response to sand burial in four Artemisia species from different habitats in the semi-arid dune field. Trees, 22, 41-47. |
[10] | Liu SE, Feng ZW, Zhao DC (1959). On some matters of principle in China plant division. Acta Botanica Sinica, 8, 87-105. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[刘慎谔, 冯宗炜, 赵大昌 (1959). 关于中国植物区划的若干原则问题. 植物学报, 8, 87-105.] | |
[11] | Luisa MM, Maun MA (1999). Responses of dune mosses to experimental burial by sand under natural and greenhouse conditions. Plant Ecology, 145, 209-219. |
[12] | Martínez ML, Moreno-Casasola P (1996). Effects of burial by sand on seedling growth and survival in six tropical sand dune species from the Gulf of Mexico. Journal of Coastal Research, 12, 406-419. |
[13] | Maun MA (1996). The effects of burial by sand on survival and growth of Calamovilfa longifolia. Écoscience, 3, 93-100. |
[14] | Maun MA, Lapierre J (1984). The effects of burial by sand on Ammophila breviligulata. Journal of Ecology, 72, 827-839. |
[15] | Mi ZY, Zhou DD, Wu YD (2005). Influence of wind erosion and sand bury on the morphological characteristics of Salix psammophila. Inner Mongolia Forestry Science & Technology, (1),9-13. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[米志英, 周丹丹, 吴亚东 (2005). 风蚀沙埋对沙柳形态特征的影响. 内蒙古林业科技, (1),9-13.] | |
[16] | Pagter M, Bragato C, Brix H (2005). Tolerance and physiological responses of Phragmites australis to water deficit. Aquatic Botany, 81, 285-299. |
[17] | Qayyum A, Razzaq A, Ahmad M, Jenks MA (2011). Water stress causes differential effects on germination indices, total soluble sugar and proline content in wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.) genotypes. African Journal of Biotechnology, 10, 14038-14045. |
[18] |
Shi L, Zhang ZJ, Zhang CY (2004). Effects of sand burial on survival, growth, gas exchange and biomass allocation of Ulmus pumila seedlings in the Hunshandak Sandland, China. Annals of Botany, 94, 553-560.
URL PMID |
[19] | Sykes MT, Wilson JB (1990). An experimental investigation into the response of New Zealand sand dune species to different depths of burial by sand. Acta Botanica Neerlandica, 39, 171-181. |
[20] | Wang J, Zhou RL, Zhao HL, Zhao YH, Hou YP (2012). Growth and physiological adaptation of Messerschmidia sibirica to sand burial on coastal sandy. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 32, 4291-4299. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[王进, 周瑞莲, 赵哈林, 赵彦宏, 侯玉萍 (2012). 海滨沙地砂引草对沙埋的生长和生理适应对策. 生态学报, 32, 4291-4299.] | |
[21] |
Yang HL, Cao ZP, Dong M, Ye YZ, Huang ZY (2007). Effects of sand burying on caryopsis germination and seedling growth of Bromus inermis Leyss. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 18, 2438-2443. (in Chinese with English abstract)
URL PMID |
[杨慧玲, 曹志平, 董鸣, 叶永忠, 黄振英 (2007). 沙埋对无芒雀麦种子萌发和幼苗生长的影响. 应用生态学报, 18, 2438-2443.]
PMID |
|
[22] | Zhang ZL, Zhai WJ (2003). Experimental Guide of Plant Physiology. Higher Education Press, Beijing. (in Chinese) |
[张志良, 瞿伟菁 (2003). 植物生理学实验指导. 高等教育出版社, 北京.] | |
[23] | Zhao HL (2012). Desert Ecology. Science Press, Beijing. (in Chinese) |
[赵哈林 (2012). 沙漠生态学. 科学出版社, 北京.] | |
[24] | Zhao HL, He YH, Yue GY (2010). Effects of wind blow and sand burial on the seedling growth and photosynthetic and transpiration rates of desert plants. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 29, 413-419. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[赵哈林, 何玉惠, 岳广阳 (2010). 风吹、沙埋对沙地植物幼苗生长和光合蒸腾特性的影响. 生态学杂志, 29, 413-419.] | |
[25] | Zhao HL, Zhao XY, Zhang TH (2004). Plants Adaption Strategies and Vegetation Stability in the Desertification Process. China Ocean Press, Beijing. (in Chinese) |
[赵哈林, 赵学勇, 张铜会 (2004). 沙漠化过程中植物的适应对策及植被稳定性机理. 海洋出版社, 北京.] | |
[26] | Zhou RL (2001). The physiological mechanism of plant succession in Kerqin Sandy Land. Arid Zone Research, 18(3),13-19. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[周瑞连 (2001). 科尔沁沙地植物演替的生理机制. 干旱区研究, 18(3),13-19.] | |
[27] | Zhou RL, Wang HO (1999). Correlation between resistance to dehydration and lipid peroxidation of desert plants under atmosphere dehydration and high temperature stresses. Journal of Desert Research, 19, 60-64. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[周瑞莲, 王海鸥 (1999). 在干旱、高温胁迫中沙生植物抗脱水性与膜脂过氧化关系的研究. 中国沙漠, 19, 60-64.] |
[1] | 陈定帅, 董正武, 高磊, 陈效民, 彭新华, 司炳成, 赵英. 不同降水条件下科尔沁沙地小叶锦鸡儿和盐蒿的水分利用动态[J]. 植物生态学报, 2017, 41(12): 1262-1272. |
[2] | 吕晋慧,任磊,李艳锋,王玄,赵夏陆,张春来. 不同基因型茶菊对盐胁迫的响应[J]. 植物生态学报, 2013, 37(7): 656-664. |
[3] | 王海翠, 胡林林, 李敏, 陈为峰, 王莹, 周佳佳. 多环芳烃(PAHs)对油菜生长的影响及其积累效应[J]. 植物生态学报, 2013, 37(12): 1123-1131. |
[4] | 李扬, 黄建辉. 库布齐沙漠中甘草对不同水分和养分供应的光合生理响应[J]. 植物生态学报, 2009, 33(6): 1112-1124. |
[5] | 刘滨扬, 刘蔚秋, 雷纯义, 张以顺. 三种苔藓植物对模拟N沉降的生理响应[J]. 植物生态学报, 2009, 33(1): 141-149. |
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