大气NH3浓度升高对不同氮效率玉米生理指标及生物量的影响

doi:10.3773/j.issn.1005-264x.2008.01.024

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

该试验采用开顶式气室(Open top chambers)装置,在两种大气NH₃浓度水平(大气背景浓度值为10 nl·L^-1和高NH₃浓度1 000 nl·L^-1)和两种供氮介质水平(高供氮介质和低供氮介质)下,对两种氮效率玉米(Zea mays)基因型(‘氮高效5号’(NE5)和‘氮低效四单19’(SD19))的叶绿素指标值(SPAD值)、净光合速率(P_n)、气孔导度(G_s)、生物量和根冠比等生物学和生理学指标进行了测定。结果表明,大气NH₃浓度升高对两种氮效率玉米基因型各生理指标有显著影响(p<0.05)。与大气背景NH₃浓度相比,当大气NH₃浓度为1 000 nl·L^-1 时,生长在高供氮介质中氮高效5号的SPAD值、P_n和G_s分别降低7.0%、14.0%和6.5%,而氮低效四单19的对应指标分别降低9.0%、11.0%和6.9%;生长在低供氮介质中的两种氮效率玉米基因型各生理指标均显著增加(p<0.05):氮高效5号的SPAD值、P_n和G_s分别增加5.7%、7.1%和17%,氮低效四单19的对应指标分别增加7.0%、11.0%和22.0%。高供氮介质中NH₃浓度升高对氮低效基因型玉米冠层生物量抑制作用小于对氮高效基因型玉米的抑制效应,而低供氮介质中NH₃浓度升高对氮高效基因型玉米冠部的促进作用显著高于对氮低效基因型玉米的促进作用(p<0.05);两种大气NH₃营养下玉米根冠比的变化与采样时期有关。说明从大气中吸收NH₃有利于改善生长在低供氮介质上玉米的氮素营养状况,而且对氮低效基因型玉米的促进作用比对氮高效基因型玉米更加显著。

关键词: 玉米, NH₃浓度升高, 氮效率, 基因型, 生理指标

Abstract:

Aims The main aim of this study was to investigate the response of various physiology indexes, e.g., chlorophyll index value (stand for the relative content of chlorophyll, SPAD value), net photosynthetic rate (P_n), stomatal conductance (G_s), and root shoot ratio (R/S) in two genetypes of maize (Zea mays) to NH₃ concentration enrichment.
Methods We grew maize on Hoagland solution in PVC pots in open top chambers (OTCs). The experiment was a split-split plot design, which main treatments were two NH₃ concentrations (10 and 1 000 nl·L^-1). The sub-plot treatments of the experiment were two levels of nitrogen (high and low), and sub-sub-plot treatments were two N efficiency genotypes (high N efficiency, ‘NE5’, and low N efficiency, ‘SD19’). Air flow in OTCs was controlled by small fans and atmospheric NH₃ concentration was measured accurately by two methods (NH₃ determination tubes and GTL-C atmosphere detecting apparatus).
Important findings Under elevated atmospheric NH₃, there were significant differences (p<0. 05) for physiology indexes between the two varieties, ‘NE5’ and ‘SD19’. Under high N medium, compared with 10 nl·L^-1 atmospheric NH₃ concentration, the SPAD value, P_n and G_s of ‘NE5’ treated with 1 000 nl·L^-1 decreased 7.0%, 14.0% and 6.5%, respectively, and the corresponding targets of ‘SD19’ decreased 9.0%, 11.0% and 6.9%, respectively. Under low N medium, various physiology indexes of the two varieties significantly increased, i.e., the SPAD value, P_n and G_s of ‘NE5’ increased 5.7%, 7.1% and 17%, respectively, and the relative value of ‘SD19’ increased 7.0%, 11.0% and 22.0%, respectively. The results also demonstrated that under high N medium, the inhibition effect of increased atmospheric NH₃ on ‘SD19’ shoot biomass was obviously lower than that of ‘NE5’, while under low N medium, NH₃ concentration enrichment had more positive influence on ‘NE5’ (p<0. 05) than ‘SD19’. Moreover, the ratio of roots to shoots of ‘NE5’ and ‘SD19’ in the two atmospheric NH₃ concentrations was related to maize growth periods, i.e., there were different changes for their root and shoot biomass in three sampling time, but still obeying certain laws. All these results indicated that the absorbed atmospheric NH₃ by plants can improve crop nitrogen nutrition growing in low N medium, and there may be more significantly positive effect on low nitrogen efficiency genotypes.

Key words: Zea mays, NH₃ concentration enrichment, N efficiency, genotypes, physiology indexes

陈小莉, 李世清, 任小龙, 强虹, 吉春容, 闫登明. 大气NH₃浓度升高对不同氮效率玉米生理指标及生物量的影响. 植物生态学报, 2008, 32(1): 204-211. DOI: 10.3773/j.issn.1005-264x.2008.01.024

CHEN Xiao-Li, LI Shi-Qing, REN Xiao-Long, QIANG Hong, JI Chun-Rong, YAN Deng-Ming. INFLUENCE OF INCREASED ATMOSPHERIC NH₃ ON PHYSIOLOGY INDEX AND BIOMASS OF MAIZE WITH DIFFERENT N EFFICIENCY. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 2008, 32(1): 204-211. DOI: 10.3773/j.issn.1005-264x.2008.01.024

导出引用管理器 EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

链接本文: https://www.plant-ecology.com/CN/10.3773/j.issn.1005-264x.2008.01.024

https://www.plant-ecology.com/CN/Y2008/V32/I1/204

图/表 4

参考文献 23

[1]	Beat H, Albrecht N (2002). Ammonia exchange with grasslands. Agrarforschung, 9, 280-285.
[2]	Dueck ThA, Dorèl FG, ter Horst R, van der Eerden LJ (1990). Effects of ammonia, ammonium sulphate and sulphur dioxide on the frost sensitivity of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.). Water, Air, & Soil Pollution, 54, 33-49.
[3]	Fangmeier A, Hadwiger-Fangmeier A, van der Eerden LJ (1994). Effects of atmospheric ammonia on vegetation—a review. Environmental Pollution, 86, 43-82.
[4]	Hanstein S, Mattsson M, Jaeger HJ (1999). Uptake and utilization of atmospheric ammonia in three native Poaceae species: leaf conductance, composition of apoplastic solution and interactions with root nitrogen supply. New Phytologist, 141, 71-83.
[5]	Hegg DA, Radke LF, Hobbs PV (1990). Emissions of some trace gases from biomass fires. Journal of Geophysical Research, 95, 560-567.
[6]	Husted S, Schjoerring JK (1996). Ammonia flux between oilseed rape plant and the atmosphere in response to changes in leaf temperature, light intensity, and air humidity. Plant Physiology, 112, 67-74.
[7]	Krupa SV (2003). Effects of atmospheric ammonia (NH₃) on terrestrial vegetation: a review. Environmental Pollution, 124, 179-221.
[8]	Li SX (李生秀), Li ZR (李宗让), Tian XH (田霄鸿), Wang ZH (王朝辉) (1995). Nitrogen loss from above-ground plants by volatilization. Plant Nutrition and Fertilizer Sciences (植物营养与肥料学报), 1(2), 18-25. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[9]	Li SQ (李世清), Zhao L (赵琳), Shao MA (邵明安), Zhang XC (张兴昌), Shangguan ZP (上官周平) (2004). Ammonia exchange between plant canopy and the atmosphere—a review. Acta Botanica Boreali-Occidentalia Sinica (西北植物学报), 24, 2154-2162. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[10]	Lockyer DR, Whitehead DC (1986). The uptake of gaseous ammonia by the leaves of Italian ryegrass. Journal of Experimental Botany, 37, 919-927.
[11]	Mengel K, Kirkby EA (1987). Principles of Plant Nutrition. International Potash Institute, Bern, Switzerland, 347-384.
[12]	Nadelhoffer KJ, Emmett BA, Gundersen P (1999). Nitrogen deposition makes a minor contribution to carbon sequestration in temperate forests. Nature, 398, 145-147.
[13]	O'Deen WA, Porter LK (1986). Continuous flow system for collecting volatile ammonia and amines from senescing winter wheat. Agronomy Journal, 78, 746-749.
[14]	Pearson J, Srewart GR (1993). The deposition of atmospheric ammonia and its effects on plants. New Phytologist, 125, 283-305.
[15]	Peng S, Garcia FV, Laza RC (1993). Adjustments for specific leaf weight improve chlorophyll meter's estimate of rice leaf nitrogen concentration. Agronomy Journal, 85, 987-990.
[16]	Pérez-Soba M, van der Eerden LJM (1993). Nitrogen uptake in needles of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) when exposed to gaseous ammonia and ammonium fertilizer in the soil. Plant and Soil, 153, 231-242.
[17]	Schjoerring JK, Poulsen MM, Husted S (1998). Soil-plant-atmosphere ammonia exchange associated with Calluna vulgaris and Deschampsia flexuosa. Atmospheric Environment, 32, 507-512.
[18]	van der Eerden LJM, Pérez-Soba M (1992). Physiological responses of Pinus sylvestris to atmospheric ammonia. Trees, 6, 48-53.
[19]	van Hove LWA, Van Kooten O, Van Wijk KJ, Vredenberg WJ, Aderna EH, Pieters GA (1991). Physiological effects of long term exposure to low concentrations of SO₂ and NH₃ on poplar leaves. Physiologia Plantarum, 82, 32-40.
[20]	Wedin DA, Tilman D (1996). Influence of nitrogen loading and species composition on the carbon balance of grasslands. Science, 274, 1720-1723.
[21]	Wang ZH (王朝辉), Tian XH (田霄鸿), Li SX (李生秀) (2001). Nitrogen losses from winter wheat plant by NH₃ volatilization in late growing stage. Acta Agronomica Sinica (作物学报), 27, 1-6. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[22]	Yin B, Shen RF, Zhu ZL (1996). Use of new water soluble film-forming material to ammonia loss from water solution. Pedosphere, 6, 329-334.
[23]	Zhao P (赵平), Sun GC (孙谷畴), Zeng XP (曾小平), Cai XA (蔡锡安), Peng SL (彭少麟) (2003). Variations of photosynthetic parameters in leaves of acacia auriculaeformis grown in different nitrogen sources under increased atmospheric NH₃. Acta Ecologica Sinica (生态学报), 23, 1386-1394. (in English with Chinese abstract)

基因型 Genotype	NH₃浓度 NH₃ concentration (nl·L^-1)	SPAD值 SPAD value							P_n (μmol CO₂·m^-2·s^-1)							G_s (mmol·m^-2·s^-1)
基因型 Genotype	NH₃浓度 NH₃ concentration (nl·L^-1)	6月10日 June 10	6月20日 June 20		6月30日 June 30		平均 Average		6月10日 June 10	6月20日 June 20		6月30日 June 30		平均 Average		6月10日 June 10	6月20日 June 20	6月30日 June 30	平均 Average
		高供氮介质 High N medium
NE5	10	43.6		45.4		47.1		45.4^a	23.6		25.8		26.5		25.3^b	0.20	0.24	0.26	0.23^b
SD19	10	38.2		40.0		42.3		40.2^b	26.3		29.1		29.8		28.4^a	0.28	0.32	0.33	0.31^a
NE5	1 000	40.1		42.1		44.5		42.2^a	19.9		21.8		23.6		21.8^b	0.11	0.14	0.18	0.14^b
SD19	1 000	34.7		36.6		38.4		36.6^b	22.3		25.6		28.0		25.3^a	0.27	0.31	0.29	0.29^a
		低供氮介质 Low N medium
NE5	10	37.6		39.6		41.6		39.6^a	21.0		23.3		26.4		23.6^a	0.17	0.19	0.22	0.19^a
SD19	10	33.9		35.9		37.9		35.9^a	17.5		19.3		21.5		19.4^b	0.11	0.13	0.18	0.14^a
NE5	1 000	40.0		42.0		44.0		42.0^a	22.1		25.3		28.8		25.4^a	0.19	0.24	0.26	0.23^a
SD19	1 000	36.3		38.3		40.3		38.3^b	18.9		21.8		24.3		21.7^b	0.15	0.18	0.21	0.18^b

基因型 Genotype	NH₃浓度 NH₃ concentration (nl·L^-1)	SPAD值 SPAD value							P_n (μmol CO₂·m^-2·s^-1)							G_s (mmol·m^-2·s^-1)
基因型 Genotype	NH₃浓度 NH₃ concentration (nl·L^-1)	6月10日 June 10	6月20日 June 20		6月30日 June 30		平均 Average		6月10日 June 10	6月20日 June 20		6月30日 June 30		平均 Average		6月10日 June 10	6月20日 June 20	6月30日 June 30	平均 Average
		高供氮介质 High N medium
NE5	10	43.6		45.4		47.1		45.4^a	23.6		25.8		26.5		25.3^b	0.20	0.24	0.26	0.23^b
SD19	10	38.2		40.0		42.3		40.2^b	26.3		29.1		29.8		28.4^a	0.28	0.32	0.33	0.31^a
NE5	1 000	40.1		42.1		44.5		42.2^a	19.9		21.8		23.6		21.8^b	0.11	0.14	0.18	0.14^b
SD19	1 000	34.7		36.6		38.4		36.6^b	22.3		25.6		28.0		25.3^a	0.27	0.31	0.29	0.29^a
		低供氮介质 Low N medium
NE5	10	37.6		39.6		41.6		39.6^a	21.0		23.3		26.4		23.6^a	0.17	0.19	0.22	0.19^a
SD19	10	33.9		35.9		37.9		35.9^a	17.5		19.3		21.5		19.4^b	0.11	0.13	0.18	0.14^a
NE5	1 000	40.0		42.0		44.0		42.0^a	22.1		25.3		28.8		25.4^a	0.19	0.24	0.26	0.23^a
SD19	1 000	36.3		38.3		40.3		38.3^b	18.9		21.8		24.3		21.7^b	0.15	0.18	0.21	0.18^b

基因型 Genotype	NH₃浓度 NH₃ concentration (nl·L^-1)	测定日期 Determination time
		6月10日 June 10			6月20日 June 20			6月30日 June 30
		根系 Roots	茎叶 Shoots	总量 Total	根系 Roots	茎叶 Shoots	总量 Total	根系 Roots	茎叶 Shoots	总量 Total
		高供氮介质 High N medium
NE5	10	0.15^a	0.44^a	0.59^a	5.75^a	9.49^a	15.24^a	50.90^a	246.36^a	297.26^a
SD19	10	0.24^b	0.65^b	0.89^b	5.97^b	12.4^b	18.37^b	34.82^b	194.55^b	229.37^b
NE5	1 000	0.14^a	0.36^a	0.50^a	5.44^a	8.83^a	14.27^a	44.26^a	207.33^a	251.59^a
SD19	1 000	0.22^b	0.61^b	0.83^b	5.61^b	11.7^b	17.31^b	24.12^b	164.53^b	188.65^b
						低供氮介质 Low N medium
NE5	10	0.19^a	0.46^a	0.65^a	6.33^a	10.04^a	16.37^a	36.8^a	147.74^a	184.54^a
SD19	10	0.17^b	0.34^b	0.51^b	5.89^b	9.62^a	15.51^a	37.3^a	125.50^b	162.80^b
NE5	1 000	0.21^a	0.50^a	0.71^a	6.67^a	11.60^a	18.27^a	39.5^a	156.16^a	195.66^a
SD19	1 000	0.19^b	0.43^b	0.62^b	6.22^b	9.80^b	16.02^b	44.8^b	134.83^b	179.63^b

基因型 Genotype	NH₃浓度 NH₃ concentration (nl·L^-1)	测定日期 Determination time
		6月10日 June 10			6月20日 June 20			6月30日 June 30
		根系 Roots	茎叶 Shoots	总量 Total	根系 Roots	茎叶 Shoots	总量 Total	根系 Roots	茎叶 Shoots	总量 Total
		高供氮介质 High N medium
NE5	10	0.15^a	0.44^a	0.59^a	5.75^a	9.49^a	15.24^a	50.90^a	246.36^a	297.26^a
SD19	10	0.24^b	0.65^b	0.89^b	5.97^b	12.4^b	18.37^b	34.82^b	194.55^b	229.37^b
NE5	1 000	0.14^a	0.36^a	0.50^a	5.44^a	8.83^a	14.27^a	44.26^a	207.33^a	251.59^a
SD19	1 000	0.22^b	0.61^b	0.83^b	5.61^b	11.7^b	17.31^b	24.12^b	164.53^b	188.65^b
						低供氮介质 Low N medium
NE5	10	0.19^a	0.46^a	0.65^a	6.33^a	10.04^a	16.37^a	36.8^a	147.74^a	184.54^a
SD19	10	0.17^b	0.34^b	0.51^b	5.89^b	9.62^a	15.51^a	37.3^a	125.50^b	162.80^b
NE5	1 000	0.21^a	0.50^a	0.71^a	6.67^a	11.60^a	18.27^a	39.5^a	156.16^a	195.66^a
SD19	1 000	0.19^b	0.43^b	0.62^b	6.22^b	9.80^b	16.02^b	44.8^b	134.83^b	179.63^b

基因型 Genotype	NH₃浓度 NH₃ concentration (nl·L^-1)	根冠比 Ratio of roots and shoots
		高供氮介质 High N medium							低供氮介质 Low N medium
		6月10日 June 10	6月20日 June 20		6月30日 June 30		平均 Average		6月10日 June 10	6月20日 June 20	6月30日 June 30	平均 Average
NE5	10	0.37		0.61		0.20		0.39^a	0.42	0.63	0.24	0.43^a
SD19	10	0.36		0.44		0.18		0.33^b	0.49	0.61	0.30	0.47^a
NE5	1 000	0.40		0.62		0.21		0.41^a	0.42	0.58	0.23	0.42^a
SD19	1 000	0.36		0.44		0.15		0.32^b	0.44	0.63	0.33	0.47^a

大气NH₃浓度升高对不同氮效率玉米生理指标及生物量的影响

INFLUENCE OF INCREASED ATMOSPHERIC NH₃ ON PHYSIOLOGY INDEX AND BIOMASS OF MAIZE WITH DIFFERENT N EFFICIENCY

全文

PDF (PC)

可视化

被引次数

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 4

参考文献 23

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

	p值 p value
	NH₃×N	NH₃×G	N×G	NH₃×N×G
SPAD值 SPAD value	<0.001	0.583	0.882	0.586
P_n (μmol CO₂·m^-2·s^-1)	0.097	0.600	0.029	0.009
G_s (mmol·m^-2·s^-1)	0.097	0.600	0.029	0.009
根冠比 Ratio of roots to shoots (R/C)	<0.001	0.871	<0.001	0.184

[1]	程可心, 杜尧, 李凯航, 王浩臣, 杨艳, 金一, 何晓青. 玉米与叶际微生物组的互作遗传机制[J]. 植物生态学报, 2024, 48(2): 215-228.
[2]	秦天姿, 任安芝, 樊晓雯, 高玉葆. 内生真菌种类和母本基因型对内生真菌-禾草共生体叶形状和叶面积的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2020, 44(6): 654-660.
[3]	张俪文, 韩广轩. 植物遗传多样性与生态系统功能关系的研究进展[J]. 植物生态学报, 2018, 42(10): 977-989.
[4]	杨雪, 申俊芳, 赵念席, 高玉葆. 不同基因型羊草数量性状的可塑性及遗传分化[J]. 植物生态学报, 2017, 41(3): 359-368.
[5]	李义博, 宋贺, 周莉, 许振柱, 周广胜. C₄植物玉米的光合-光响应曲线模拟研究[J]. 植物生态学报, 2017, 41(12): 1289-1300.
[6]	赵文赛, 孙永林, 刘西平. 干旱-复水-再干旱处理对玉米光合能力和生长的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2016, 40(6): 594-603.
[7]	孟凡超, 张佳华, 姚凤梅. CO₂浓度升高和降水增加协同作用对玉米产量及生长发育的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2014, 38(10): 1064-1073.
[8]	王艳哲, 邵立威, 刘秀位, 张小雨, 张喜英. 小麦和玉米根系取样位置优化确定及根系分布模拟[J]. 植物生态学报, 2013, 37(4): 365-372.
[9]	慈敦伟,戴良香,宋文武,张智猛. 花生萌发至苗期耐盐胁迫的基因型差异[J]. 植物生态学报, 2013, 37(11): 1018-1027.
[10]	李涛, 陈保冬. 丛枝菌根真菌通过上调根系及自身水孔蛋白基因表达提高玉米抗旱性[J]. 植物生态学报, 2012, 36(9): 973-981.
[11]	杨斌, 谢甫绨, 温学发, 孙晓敏, 王建林. 华北平原农田土壤蒸发δ¹⁸O的日变化特征及其影响因素[J]. 植物生态学报, 2012, 36(6): 539-549.
[12]	时鹏, 王淑平, 贾书刚, 高强, 孙晓强. 三种种植方式对土壤微生物群落组成的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2011, 35(9): 965-972.
[13]	王红丽, 张绪成, 宋尚有. 半干旱区旱地不同覆盖种植方式玉米田的土壤水分和产量效应[J]. 植物生态学报, 2011, 35(8): 825-833.
[14]	冯远娇, 金琼, 王建武. 机械损伤对Bt玉米化学防御的系统诱导效应[J]. 植物生态学报, 2010, 34(6): 695-703.
[15]	贾士芳, 李从锋, 董树亭, 张吉旺. 弱光胁迫影响夏玉米光合效率的生理机制初探[J]. 植物生态学报, 2010, 34(12): 1439-1447.