植物生态学报 ›› 1997, Vol. 21 ›› Issue (4): 386-392.

• 论文 • 上一篇    

广东中部两种常见灌木的生态学比较

任海,彭少麟,孙谷畴,余作岳   

  • 发布日期:1997-04-10
  • 通讯作者: 任海 彭

The Ecological Comparison of Psychotria rubra and Rhodomytrus tomentosa in South China

Ren Hai, Peng Shaoli, Sun Guchou and Yu Zuoyue   

  • Published:1997-04-10
  • Contact: Li Linghao

摘要: 通过对广东中部的阳生性灌木桃金娘和阴生性灌木九节的形态学、解剖学、植物生态学以及植物生理学等方面的比较发现:处于强光照下的桃金娘通过大的根系、多的枝叶和小的叶片在水分和养分竞争中处于优势,并利用小的枝角和叶毛来避免强光的伤害,而九节则是通过其叶、枝的最经济数量和最佳位置排列来充分利用阴暗不足的光线;桃金娘通过叶片和栅栏组织厚度以及短的小脉间距在强光下能继续进行光合作用并尽快运出光合产物,而九节的叶片则可充分利用森林底层有限的光照;在南亚热带,30%左右的透光率是林下耐荫性树种九节入侵和阳生性灌木桃金娘消亡的辐射条件;九节的生态对策为K对策,而桃金娘遵循r对策;九节和桃金娘的平均光合速率分别为5.9±1.6μmol CO2·m-2·s-1和11.9±0.4μmol CO2·m-2·s-1,光补偿点分别为0.005和0.012mmol·m-2·s-1,光饱和点分别为0.04和0.39μmol CO2·m-2·s-1,气孔传导率分别为0.053±0.037μmolCO2·m-2·s-1和0.101±0.013 mol·m-2·s-l,暗呼吸速率分别为0.42±0.0lμmol CO2·m-2·s-1和0.16±0.15μmolCO2·m-2·s-1,这些生理学差异、形态解剖学差异等与其生境差异有密切的关系。

Abstract: Psychotria rubra and Rhodomytus tomentosa are the common shrubs in south China. The morphological, physiological and ecological characters of the shrubs were compared in this paper. The results show that: the number of root system, branch ,leaf of Rhodomytus tomentosa were larger than that of Psychotria rubra,the branch angles and distance of intervascular of Rhodomytus tomentosa were smaller than that of Psychotria rubra; the thickness of leaf and palisade tissue of Rhodomytus tomentosa were smaller than that of Psychotria rubra; Rhodomytus tomentosa was suited to sunny environment while Psychotria rubra grew well in shaded environment. In lower-subtropics, the light-transmissibility of community of 30% was the light undition under which the Psychotria rubra was able to invade but Rhodomytus tomentosa was not able to grow. The ecological strategies of the Rhodomytus tomentosa and Psychotria rubra were of r-strategist and K-strategist,respectively. The average photosynthetic rate, light compensation point, light saturation point, conductance and dark respiration rate of Psychotria rubra and Rhodomytus tomentosa were 5.9±1.6 and 11.9±0.4μmol CO2·m-2·s-1,0.005 and 0.012m mol·m-2·s-1,0.04 and 0.39,0. 053±0.037 μmol CO2·m-2·S-1 and 0.101±0.013mol·m-2·s-1 ,0.42±0.01 and 0.16±0.15μmolCO2 ·m-2·s-1, respectively. The morphological difference and plant physiological characters of the shrubs were closely related with their habitat.