Chin J Plan Ecolo ›› 2016, Vol. 40 ›› Issue (2): 140-150.doi: 10.17521/cjpe.2015.1107

• Research Articles • Previous Articles     Next Articles

Effects of peach branches returning on autotoxins and microbes in soil and tree growth of peaches

Jiang-Hong ZHANG1, Fu-Tian PENG1,*(), Xiao-Mei JIANG1, Min-Ji LI1, Zhong-Tang WANG2   

  1. 1State Key Laboratory of Crop Biology, College of Horticulture Science and Engineering, Shandong Agricultural University, Tai'an, Shandong 271018, China
    and
    2Shandong Institute of Pomology, Tai'an, Shandong 271018, China
  • Online:2016-03-08 Published:2016-02-10
  • Contact: Fu-Tian PENG E-mail:pft@sdau.edu.cn

Abstract:

Aims This study aimed to investigate the effects of branch returning on the growth of peach (Amygdalus persica "Chunmei/Maotao") saplings, soil enzyme activity, and soil contents of phenolic acids and amygdalin, thereby providing scientific evidence against the application of branch returning for peach trees. Methods One-year-old potted peach tree (Amygdalus persica "Chunmei/Maotao") was used in this study with four agricultural treatments applied, including soil coverage by fragmented peach tree branches (fragment treatment;1.5 and 22.5 g·kg-1) and applying leachate solutions of peach tree branches to soil (leachate treatment; 1.5 and 22.5 g·kg-1). No branch addition was used as control (CK). Solid phase extraction, high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), biological high-throughput sequencing was used to determine the content of autotoxic substances, and microbial community structure in soil. Soil coverage and leachate solution treatments of 30 g and 450 g branches applied to the peach trees were described as 1.5 and 22.5 g·kg-1, respectively in this paper.Important findings Compared with CK, the phenolic acid and amygdalin contents significantly increased after both fragment and leachate treatments in high quantities (22.5 g·kg-1). Soil microbial community structure altered in both treatments, with the proportion of fungi (particularly Agaricomycetes, Tubeufia and Cystofilobasidiaceae) increased significantly and bacteria decreased accordingly. Invertase activity in both high-quantity treatments exceeded that in the CK significantly. The activity of catalase and urease was higher at first and then decreased relative to CK under high-quantity fragment and leachate treatments. Specifically, the effect of leachate treatment on enzyme activity was higher than the fragment treatment in the short term. Chlorophyll content, ground diameter (diameter of 5 cm from the ground) growth and net photosynthesis rate of plants were lower in high-quantity fragment and leachate treatments than those in CK, with earlier retardation of new shoot growth. We observed an increase in soil phenolic acids and enzymes in treatments in normal pruning quantity, while no inhibition effect was found on the tree growth. In conclusion, autotoxins (such as phenolic acid and amygdalin) inhibited the growth of peach trees both directly and indirectly through changing soil enzyme activity and microbial community.

Key words: autotoxins, branch returning, microbial community, peach tree, plant growth

Table 1

Phenolic acid and amygdalin content of peach tree branches"

物质种类
Material types
平均含量
Mean content
没食子酸 Gallic acid (ng·g-1) 110.46
儿茶素 Catechins (ng·g-1) 2 359.61
丁香酸 Syringic acid (ng·g-1) 5 084.21
绿原酸 Chlorogenic acid (ng·g-1) 505.01
苯甲酸 Benzoic acid (ng·g-1) 3 707.04
对羟基苯甲酸 p-Hydroxybenzoic acid (ng·g-1) 964.72
香豆素 Coumarin (ng·g-1) 21.63
阿魏酸 Ferulic acid (ng·g-1) 96.89
肉桂酸 Cinnamic acid (ng·g-1) 142.94
香草醛 Vanillin (ng·g-1) 1 274.60
香豆酸 Cumaric acid (ng·g-1) 1 217.56
苦杏仁苷 Amygdalin (mg·g-1) 17.24

Table 2

Effects of branch returning on the content of soil phenolic acids under peach tree (means ± SD)"

酚酸种类 Phenolic acids species (ng·g-1) CK T1 T2 T3 T4
没食子酸 Gallic acid 960.28 ± 44.59c 1 016.93 ± 1.43bc 1 123.53 ± 7.01a 1 083.38 ± 11.349ab 1 160.95 ± 60.26a
儿茶素 Catechins 228.41 ± 18.42c 298.88 ± 5.63b 391.84 ± 21.52a 258.61 ± 32.43bc 352.44 ± 23.83a
丁香酸 Syringic acid 10.71 ± 1.60d 17.13 ± 3.54c 53.52 ± 3.12a 13.85 ± 1.30cd 32.62 ± 2.29b
绿原酸 Syringic acid 32.55 ± 3.36d 37.35 ± 0.94c 53.07 ± 1.26a 34.02 ± 0.38cd 45.03 ± 3.99b
苯甲酸 Benzoic acid 17.48 ± 0.91c 20.54 ± 2.91bc 29.56 ± 3.97a 16.21 ± 3.12c 24.44 ± 1.58b
对羟基苯甲酸 p-Hydroxybenzoic acid 13.62 ± 2.60ab 13.93 ± 3.36ab 10.68 ± 0.58b 18.43 ± 2.02ab 15.39 ± 4.84ab
香豆素 Coumarin 15.98 ± 1.71c 24.60 ± 5.27b 33.41 ± 3.31a 16.38 ± 4.13c 32.36 ± 3.77a
阿魏酸 Ferulic acid 15.40 ± 0.89a 17.49 ± 1.63a 16.30 ± 1.74a 17.59 ± 1.58a 16.29 ± 2.33a
肉桂酸 Cinnamic acid 4.88 ± 0.44b 4.81 ± 0.70b 5.83 ± 0.36a 5.65 ± 0.58ab 5.94 ± 0.18a
香草醛 Vanillin 14.04 ± 1.48c 16.92 ± 0.71ab 17.56 ± 0.66a 15.78 ± 0.31b 16.76 ± 0.64ab
香豆酸 Cumaric acid 8.17 ± 0.77a 9.75 ± 1.00a 9.30 ± 1.02a 8.92 ± 0.87a 8.10 ± 0.84a
酚酸总量 Phenolic acid 1 321.51 ± 58.43a 1 478.30 ± 7.07b 1 744.60 ± 94.27c 1 492.68 ± 30.72b 1 710.32 ± 50.30c

Fig. 1

Effects of branch returning on the amygdalin content of soils under peach tree (means ± SD). CK, no branch addition as control; T1, T2, T3 and T4 represent treatment of coverage by fragmented peach tree branches in 1.5 g·kg-1 and 22.5 g·kg-1, and treatment of peach tree branch leachate application of 1.5 g·kg-1 and 22.5 g·kg-1, respectively. Different letters in the figure denote significant difference at a level of p < 0.05."

Fig. 2

Effects of high-quantity returning treatment on soil fungi (A), bacteria (B) and the fungi:bacteria ratio (C). CK, no branches addition as control; T2 and T4 represent branch fragment application and branch leachate application in 22.5 g·kg-1, respectively."

Fig. 3

Effects of branch returning on the soil invertase (A), catalase (B) and urease (C) activity (means ± SD). CK, no branches addition as control; T1, T2, T3 and T4 represent treatment of coverage by fragmented peach tree branches in 1.5 g·kg-1 and 22.5 g·kg-1, and treatment of peach tree branch leachate application of 1.5 g·kg-1 and 22.5 g·kg-1, respectively. Different letters in the figure denote significant difference at a level of p < 0.05."

Fig. 4

Effects of branch returning on the net photosynthesis rate of peach trees (means ± SD). CK, no branches addition as control; T1, T2, T3 and T4 represent treatment of coverage by fragmented peach tree branches in 1.5 g·kg-1 and 22.5 g·kg-1, and treatment of peach tree branch leachate application of 1.5 g·kg-1 and 22.5 g·kg-1, respectively. Different letters in the figure denote significant difference at a level of p < 0.05."

Table 3

Effects of branch returning on the fresh treetop growth and ground diameter of peach tree (mean ± SD)"

处理
Treatment
新梢生长量 Fresh treetop growth (cm) 地径 Ground diameter (mm)
2013/06/22 2013/07/07 2013/07/23 2013/08/08 2013/06/18 2014/06/15
CK 8.33 ± 1.76a 4.67 ± 0.58a 5.17 ± 1.04a 2.5 ± 0.87a 11.50 ± 1.62a 17.70 ± 0.69a
T1 8.83 ± 1.04a 3.67 ± 1.53a 4.50 ± 1.50a 1.67 ± 0.58abc 11.24 ± 0.12a 17.40 ± 0.74a
T2 9.33 ± 0.58a 1.67 ± 0.76c 1.00 ± 1.00b 0.33 ± 0.29c 11.86 ± 1.06a 15.86 ± 0.66b
T3 9.17 ± 1.04a 4.00 ± 1.00a 4.50 ± 1.32a 2.00 ± 1.00abc 11.40 ± 0.23a 17.18 ± 0.57ab
T4 9.00 ± 1.50a 1.67 ± 1.53bc 1.83 ± 0.76b 0.83 ± 1.04bc 11.29 ± 0.60a 15.98 ± 0.88b

Table 4

Effects of branch returning on the Chlorophyll meter readings of peach tree (mean ± SD)"

处理
Treatment
叶片SPAD值 Chlorophyll meter readings
2013/06/22 2013/07/22 2013/08/22 2014/05/15 2014/06/15
CK 40.37 ± 0.15b 41.63 ± 0.50ab 41.90 ± 2.17a 40.40 ± 0.76a 41.20 ± 0.89a
T1 40.10 ± 1.32b 42.27 ± 1.31a 42.60 ± 1.31a 39.97 ± 1.93ab 41.77 ± 1.26a
T2 39.53 ± 0.61b 40.17 ± 0.35b 41.27 ± 1.19a 36.97 ± 0.21c 37.87 ± 0.35c
T3 40.37 ± 1.30b 41.27 ± 0.40ab 40.43 ± 1.88a 41.13 ± 1.29a 40.53 ± 1.12ab
T4 42.47 ± 0.95a 42.73 ± 1.05a 41.83 ± 1.02a 38.00 ± 0.36bc 39.00 ± 1.09bc
[1] Amato KR, Yeoman CJ, Kent A, Righini N, Carbonero F, Estrada A, Gaskins HR, Stumpf RM, Yildirim S, Torralba M, Gillis M, Wilson BA, Nelson KE, White BA, Leigh SR (2013). Habitat degradation impacts black howler monkey (Alouatta pigra) gastrointestinal microbiomes.International Society for Microbial Ecology, 7, 1344-1353.
[2] Baziramakenga R, Leroux GD, Simard RR (1995). Effects of benzoic and cinnamic acids on membrane permeability of soybean roots.Journal of Chemical Ecology, 21, 1271-1285.
[3] Börner H (1960). Liberation of organic substances from higher plants and their role in the soil sickness problem.Botanical Review, 26, 393-424.
[4] Cao GQ, Lin SZ, Du L, Lin GL, Liu Y (2003). The bioassay of ferulic acid and cinnamic acid allelopathic to Chinese fir.Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 11(2), 8-10.(in Chinese with English abstract)[曹光球, 林思祖, 杜玲, 林桂莲, 刘雁 (2003). 阿魏酸与肉桂酸对杉木化感作用的生物评价. 中国生态农业学报,11(2)8-10.]
[5] Caporaso JG, Lauber CL, Walters WA, Berg-Lyons D, Lozupone CA, Turnbaugh PJ, Fierer N, Knight R (2011). Global patterns of 16S rRNA diversity at a depth of millions of sequences per sample.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(Suppl. 1), 4516-4522.
[6] Chen H, Hao HR, Xiong J, Qi XH, Zhang ZY, Lin WX (2007). Effects of successive cropping Rehmannia glutinosa on rhizosphere soil microbial flora and enzyme activities.Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 18, 2755-2759.(in Chinese with English abstract)[陈慧, 郝慧荣, 熊君, 齐晓辉, 张重义, 林文雄 (2007). 地黄连作对根际微生物区系及土壤酶活性的影响 . 应用生态学报,18, 2755-2759.]
[7] Chen XH, Li CH, He SJ (2002). Preliminary study on phenolic acids movement in Soil-Chinese fir seedlings system.Journal of Huazhong Agricultural University, 21, 235-237.(in Chinese with English abstract)[陈秀华, 李传涵, 何绍江 (2002). 酚酸在土壤--杉木苗间运移的初步探讨 . 华中农业大学学报,21, 235-237.]
[8] Desmond RL, Daniele B (2008). The Peach: Botany, Production and Uses. CABI Publishing Press, London. 4-6.
[9] Guan SY (1986). Soil Enzyme and Its Methodology.Agriculture Press , Beijing. 260-360.(in Chinese)[关松荫 (1986). 土壤酶及其研究法. 中国农业出版社, 北京. 260-360.]
[10] Han XZ, Zhu LQ, Yang MF, Yu Q, Bian XM (2012). Effects of different amount of wheat straw returning on rice growth, soil microbial biomass and enzyme activity.Journal of Agro-Environment Science, 31, 2129-2199.(in Chinese with English abstract)[韩新忠, 朱利群, 杨敏芳, 俞琦, 卞新民 (2012). 不同小麦秸秆还田量对水稻生长,土壤微生物生物量及酶活性的影响. 农业环境科学学报, 31, 2129-2199.]
[11] Hu XJ, Zheng HH, Jia JY, Wu E, Xing JJ, Zhang KY (2011). Temporal change of the phenolic acids in soil with returning wheat residues and their effects on the seedling growth and the yield of summer corn.Chinese Journal of Ecology, 20(3), 9-11.(in Chinese with English abstract)[胡晓军, 郑皓皓, 贾敬业, 吴萼, 邢建军, 张克银 (2011). 麦秸还田耕层酚酸的时间变化及其对夏玉米幼苗生长和产量的影响. 生态学杂志, 20(3), 9-11.]
[12] Larkin RP (2003). Characterization of soil microbial communities under different potato cropping systems by microbial population dynamics, substrate utilization, and fatty acid profiles.Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 35, 1451-1466.
[13] Li JP, Li MQ, Hui NN, Wang L, Ma YQ, Qi YH (2013). Population dynamics of main fungal pathogens in soil of continuously cropped potato.Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 22(4), 147-152.(in Chinese with English abstract)[李继平, 李敏权, 惠娜娜, 王立, 马永强, 漆永红 (2013). 马铃薯连作田土壤中主要病原真菌的种群动态变化规律 . 草业学报,22(4), 147-152.]
[14] Li PD, Wang XX, Li YL, Wang HW, Liang FY, Dai CC (2010). The contents of phenolic acids in continuous cropping peanut and their allelopathy.Acta Ecologica Sinica, 20, 2128-2134.(in Chinese with English abstract)[李培栋, 王兴祥, 李奕林, 王宏伟, 梁飞燕, 戴传超 (2010). 连作花生土壤中酚酸类物质的检测及其对花生的化感作用. 生态学报,20, 2128-2134.]
[15] Li XR, Li L (2013). Review of the advances on plant allelochemicals and soil microorganisms.Guangdong Agricultural Sciences, 40, 178-181.(in Chinese with English abstract)[李小蓉, 李蕾 (2013). 植物化感物质与土壤微生物的研究进展. 广东农业科学, 40, 178-181.]
[16] Lin MZ, Wang HB, Lin HF (2012). Effects of Pseudostellariae heterophylla continuous cropping on rhizosphere soil microorganisms.Chinese Journal of Ecology, 31, 106-111.(in Chinese with English abstract)[林茂兹, 王海斌, 林辉锋 (2012). 太子参连作对根际土壤微生物的影响 . 生态学杂志,31, 106-111.]
[17] Liu JB, Zhang ZY, Liu ZJ (2006). Peach continuous cropping disease and its prevention and control technology.The Journal of Hebei Forestry Science and Technology, (2), 67.(in Chinese)[刘嘉彬, 张泽勇, 刘振京 (2006). 桃树重茬病及其防治技术 . 河北林业科技,(2), 67.]
[18] Liu JG, Bian XM, Li YB, Zhang W, Li S (2008). Effects of long-term continuous cropping of cotton and returning cotton stalk into field on soil biological activities.Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 19, 1027-1032.(in Chinese with English abstract)[刘建国, 卞新民, 李彦斌, 张伟, 李崧 (2008). 长期连作和秸秆还田对棉田土壤生物活性的影响. 应用生态学报, (19), 1027-1032.]
[19] Liu SH, Liu SQ, Zhang ZK, Wei H, Qi JJ, Duan JF (2010). Influence of garlic continuous cropping on rhizosphere soil microorganisms and enzyme activities.Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 43, 1000-1006.(in Chinese with English abstract)[刘素慧, 刘世琦, 张自坤, 尉辉, 齐建建, 段吉锋 (2010). 大蒜连作对其根际土壤微生物和酶活性的影响. 中国农业科学, 43, 1000-1006.]
[20] Lü WG, Shen QR, Yu TY, Zhu HT (2006). The effect of added phenolic acids on soil enzyme activities and nutrients.Plant Nutrition and Fertilizer Science, 12, 845-849.(in Chinese with English abstract)[吕卫光, 沈其荣, 余廷园, 诸海涛 (2006). 酚酸化合物对土壤酶活性和土壤养分的影响. 植物营养与肥料学报, 12, 845-849.]
[21] Lu WT, Jia ZK, Zhang P, Wang W, Hou XQ, Yang BP, Li YP (2011). Effects of straw returning on soil labile organic carbon and enzyme activity in semi-arid areas of southern Ningxia, China.Journal of Agro-Environment Science, 30, 522-528.(in Chinese with English abstract)[路文涛, 贾志宽, 张鹏, 王维, 侯贤清, 杨保平, 李永平 (2011). 秸秆还田对宁南旱作农田土壤活性有机碳及酶活性的影响. 农业环境科学学报, 30, 522-528.]
[22] Ma K, Zhang L, Du Q, Song NL (2010). Effect of potato continuous cropping on soil microorganism community structure and function.Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 24, 229-233.[马琨, 张丽, 杜茜, 宋乃平 (2010). 马铃薯连作栽培对土壤微生物群落的影响 . 水土保持学报,24, 229-233.]
[23] Ma YH, Wang XF, Wei M, Qi YF, Li TL (2005). Accumulation of phenolic acids in continuously cropped cucumber soil and their effects on soil microbes and enzyme activities. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 16, 2149-2153.[马云华, 王秀峰, 魏珉, 亓延凤, 李天来 (2005). 黄瓜连作土壤酚酸类物质积累对土壤微生物和酶活性的影响. 应用生态学报, 16, 2149-2153.]
[24] Mu P, Zhang EH, Wang HN, Fang YF (2012). Effects of continuous straw return to soil on maize growth and soil chemical and physical characteristics.Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 20, 291-296.(in Chinese with English abstract) [慕平, 张恩和, 王汉宁, 方永丰 (2012). 不同年限全量玉米秸秆还田对玉米生长发育及土壤理化性状的影响. 中国生态农业学报, 20, 291-296.]
[25] Patrick ZA (1955). The peach replant problem in Ontario: II Toxic substances from microbial decomposition products of peach root residues.Canadian Journal of Botany, 33, 461-486.
[26] Patrick ZA (1971). Phytotoxic substances associated with the decomposition in soil of plant residues.Soil Science, 111, 13-18.
[27] Qiao PL, Zhou XG, Wu FZ (2014). T-RFLP analysis of cucumber rhizosphere microbial communities in different cropping seasons.Chinese Journal of Ecology, 33, 2640-2649.(in Chinese with English abstract)[乔蓬蕾, 周新刚, 吴凤芝 (2014). 不同连作茬次黄瓜根际土壤微生物群落的T-RFLP分析 . 生态学杂志, 33, 2640-2649.]
[28] Tang CS, Young CC (1982). Collection and identification of allelopathic compounds from the undisturbed root system of bigalta limpograss (Hemarthria altissima). Plant Physiology, 69, 155-160.
[29] Wang QQ (2012). Variations of Phenolic Acids in Soil of Apple Orchards and the Effect of Phloridzin on the Tricarboxylic Acid Cycle. Master degree dissertation, Shandong Agricultural University, Taian.(in Chinese with English abstract)[王青青 (2012). 苹果园土壤酚酸类物质变化及根皮苷对TCA循环影响的研究. 硕士学位论文, 山东农业大学, 泰安.]
[30] Wang SL, Chen LC, Liao LP, Huang ZQ (2002). Effects of three kinds of allelochemicals on growth of Chinese fir seedlings.Chinese Journal of Applied & Environmental Biology, 8, 588-591.(in Chinese with English abstract)[汪思龙, 陈龙池, 廖利平, 黄志群 (2002). 几种化感物质对杉木幼苗生长的影响. 应用与环境生物学报, 8, 588-591.]
[31] Wang YP, Wang HT, Xu T, Ni GP, Jiang YZ (2013). Effects of exogenous phenolic acid on soil nutrient availability and enzyme activities in a poplar plantation.Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 24, 667-674.(in Chinese with English abstract)[王延平, 王华田, 许坛, 倪桂萍, 姜岳忠 (2013). 酚酸对杨树人工林土壤养分有效性及酶活性的影响. 应用生态学报, 24, 667-674.]
[32] Xiao H (2004). Effect of Soil Pasteurization and Rotation on Apple Replant Problem. Master degree dissertation, Shandong Agricultural University, Taian.(in Chinese)[肖宏 (2004). 土壤消毒和轮作对克服苹果连作障碍效果的研究. 硕士学位论文, 山东农业大学, 泰安.]
[33] Yang XH, Luo XS (1991). The research progress of fruit tree problem of replantation.Journal of Fruit Science, 8, 239-244.(in Chinese)[杨兴洪, 罗新书 (1991). 果树再植问题研究进展. 果树科学, 8, 239-244.]
[34] Ye JJ (2011). Determination of amygdal in Prunus persical (L.) Batsch produced in different areas by HPLC.Chinese Archives of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 29, 206-207.(in Chinese with English abstract)[叶晶晶 (2011). HPLC法测定不同产地桃仁中苦杏仁苷的含量. 中华中医药学刊, 29, 206-207.]
[35] Yin CM, Wang GS, Li YY, Che JS, Shen X, Chen XS, Mao ZQ, Wu SJ (2013). A new method for analysis of phenolic acids in the soil--Soil from replanted apple orchards was investigated.Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 46, 4612-4619.(in Chinese with English abstract) [尹承苗, 王功帅, 李园园, 车金水, 沈向, 陈学森, 毛志泉, 吴树敬 (2013). 一种分析土壤中酚酸类物质含量的新方法--以连作苹果园土壤为试材. 中国农业科学,46, 4612-4619.]
[36] Zhang BB, Ma RJ, Cai ZX, Song HF, Shen JH (2012). Effect of continuous cultivation on growth and leaf traits of replanted peach seedling. Southwest China Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 25, 1388-1392.(in Chinese with English abstract)[张斌斌, 马瑞娟, 蔡志翔, 宋宏峰, 沈江海 (2012). 连作对再植桃树幼苗生长及叶片性状的影响. 西南农业学报, 25, 1388-1392.]
[37] Zhao YY, Cheng LQ, Shang B (2006). Studies on yearly change of amygdalin content in peach. Journal of Yangtze University (Natural Science Edition), 3, 137-138, 141.(in Chinese with English abstract)[赵宇瑛, 程丽琴, 尚冰 (2006). 桃树体内苦杏仁甙含量年变化研究. 长江大学学报(自然版), 3, 137-138, 141.]
[38] Zhen LS, Gu J, Gao H, Qin QJ, Chen QL (2012). Effect of straws, manure and chemical fertilizer on soil properties and crop yields.Acta Botanica Boreali-Occidentalia Sinica, 32, 1811-1818.(in Chinese with English abstract)[甄丽莎, 谷洁, 高华, 秦清军, 陈强龙 (2012). 秸秆还田与施肥对土壤酶活性和作物产量的影响 . 西北植物学报, 32,1811-1818.]
[39] Zheng HH, Hu XJ, Jia JY, Wu E, Xing JJ (2001). Changes of the phenolic acid in plough layer and its effects on the growth and yield of summer corn with returning wheat straw. Eco-Agriculture Research, 9(4), 79-81.(in Chinese with English abstract) [郑皓皓, 胡晓军, 贾敬业, 吴萼, 邢建军 (2001). 麦秸还田耕层酚酸变化及其对夏玉米生长的影响 . 中国生态农业学报,9(4), 79-81.]
[1] . Advances in the Regulation of Plant Growth and Development by miR172-AP2 Module [J]. Chin Bull Bot, 2020, 55(2): 0-0.
[2] Guo Qianqian, Zhou Wenbin. Advances in the Mechanism Underlying Plant Response to Stress Combination [J]. Chin Bull Bot, 2019, 54(5): 662-673.
[3] Xueming Lei,Fangfang Shen,Xuechen Lei,Wenfei Liu,Honglang Duan,Houbao Fan,Jianping Wu. Assessing influence of simulated canopy nitrogen deposition and understory removal on soil microbial community structure in a Cunninghamia lanceolata plantation [J]. Biodiv Sci, 2018, 26(9): 962-971.
[4] Zhang Xuhong, Wang Di, Liang Zhenxu, Sun Meiyu, Zhang Jinzheng, Shi Lei. Callus Induction and Establishment of a Plant Regeneration System with Lilium martagon [J]. Chin Bull Bot, 2018, 53(6): 840-847.
[5] Zhou Zhi, Zhang Yongli, Wang Bianbian, Gai Shujie, Wang Ruozhong, Lu Xiangyang, Li Ruilian. The Effects of Different Phosphor Excitation-type LED Lighting on the Growth and Development of Arabidopsis [J]. Chin Bull Bot, 2018, 53(4): 502-508.
[6] Han Danlu, Lai Jianbin, Yang Chengwei. Research Advances in Functions of SUMO E3 Ligases in Plant Growth and Development [J]. Chin Bull Bot, 2018, 53(2): 175-184.
[7] SHI Guo-Xi, WANG Wen-Ying, JIANG Sheng-Jing, CHENG Gang, YAO Bu-Qing, FENG Hu-Yuan, ZHOU Hua-Kun. Effects of the spreading of Ligularia virgaurea on soil physicochemical property and microbial functional diversity [J]. Chin J Plan Ecolo, 2018, 42(1): 126-132.
[8] WANG Jun, WANG Guan-Qin, LI Fei, PENG Yun-Feng, YANG Gui-Biao, YU Jian-Chun, ZHOU Guo-Ying, YANG Yuan-He. Effects of short-term experimental warming on soil microbes in a typical alpine steppe [J]. Chin J Plan Ecolo, 2018, 42(1): 116-125.
[9] Shanshan Li,Zhengwen Wang,Junjie Yang. Changes in soil microbial communities during litter decomposition [J]. Biodiv Sci, 2016, 24(2): 195-204.
[10] Xiangzhen Li,Liangdong Guo,Jiabao Li,Minjie Yao. Soil microbial diversity observation in China: current situation and future consideration [J]. Biodiv Sci, 2016, 24(11): 1240-1248.
[11] Jia Li, Jinxing Chen, Zhizheng Li. Chemical Changes Caused by LED Lamps in Nutrient Solution and Its Effect on Plant Growth [J]. Chin Bull Bot, 2016, 51(1): 58-67.
[12] Hongyan Ren, Li Wang, Qingxiu Ma, Guang Wu. Progress in Biosynthetic Pathways of Brassinosteroids [J]. Chin Bull Bot, 2015, 50(6): 768-778.
[13] LIANG Ru-Biao,LIANG Jin,QIAO Ming-Feng,XU Zhen-Feng,LIU Qing,YIN Hua-Jun. Effects of simulated exudate C:N stoichiometry on dynamics of carbon and microbial community composition in a subalpine coniferous forest of western Sichuan, China [J]. Chin J Plan Ecolo, 2015, 39(5): 466-476.
[14] Guizhi Zhang, Jishan Lin, Yanjie Li, Bingkai Hou. Research Advances in the Glycosylation of Plant Hormones [J]. Chin Bull Bot, 2014, 49(5): 515-523.
[15] Huan Feng, Shuli Yi, Jiaheng Xie, Mengqi Lei, Xuan Huang. Callus Induction and Plant Regeneration of Rosa hybrida [J]. Chin Bull Bot, 2014, 49(5): 595-602.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] Hu Shi-yi. Fertilization in Plants IV. Fertilization Barriers Inoompalibilty[J]. Chin Bull Bot, 1984, 2(23): 93 -99 .
[2] JIANG Gao-Ming. On the Restoration and Management of Degraded Ecosystems: with Special Reference of Protected Areas in the Restoration of Degraded Lands[J]. Chin Bull Bot, 2003, 20(03): 373 -382 .
[3] Zhang Xin-shi. Some Significant Disciplines in Modern Ecology[J]. Chin Bull Bot, 1990, 7(04): 1 -6 .
[4] . [J]. Chin Bull Bot, 1994, 11(专辑): 65 .
[5] ZHANG Xiao-Ying;YANG Shi-Jie. Plasmodesmata and Intercellular Trafficking of Macromolecules[J]. Chin Bull Bot, 1999, 16(02): 150 -156 .
[6] Chen Zheng. Arabidopsis thaliana as a Model Species for Plant Molecular Biology Studies[J]. Chin Bull Bot, 1994, 11(01): 6 -11 .
[7] . [J]. Chin Bull Bot, 1996, 13(专辑): 13 -16 .
[8] LEI Xiao-Yong HUANG LeiTIAN Mei-ShengHU Xiao-SongDAI Yao-Ren. Isolation and Identification of AOX (Alternative Oxidase) in ‘Royal Gala’ Apple Fruits[J]. Chin Bull Bot, 2002, 19(06): 739 -742 .
[9] Chunpeng Yao;Na Li. Research Advances on Abscisic Acid Receptor[J]. Chin Bull Bot, 2006, 23(6): 718 -724 .
[10] Li Wang, Qinqin Wang, Youqun Wang. Cytochemical Localization of ATPase and Acid Phosphatase in Minor Veins of the Leaf of Vicia faba During Different Developmental Stages[J]. Chin Bull Bot, 2014, 49(1): 78 -86 .