刈割后两种不同体型植物的补偿式样对比研究

doi:10.17521/cjpe.2005.0098

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

对比了两种不同体型植物燕麦(Avena sativa)和油菜(Brassica campestris)在不同施肥水平下的刈割反应特点。结果表明:对于燕麦而言,在不施肥条件下,3个时期的轻度刈割处理与对照相比,其生物量、总生物量、果重、果数等都有增加,但只有某些指标出现超补偿;在施肥条件下,各种刈割处理后均没有发生超补偿。并且无论施肥与否,分蘖期与拔节期的补偿指数均高于抽穗期的补偿指数。可以认为,不施肥条件下营养期轻度刈割处理较有利于燕麦的补偿生长。对于油菜而言,花蕾期轻度刈割处理后植物补偿指数最大,且施肥条件下的补偿指数高于不施肥条件下的补偿指数。比较两种植物在不同资源下补偿反应的特点,可认为因休眠芽位置及其活动方式不同而所造成的体型差异对植物的补偿反应式样有很大影响。

关键词: 刈割, 补偿, 休眠芽, 体型

Abstract:

Identifying mechanisms of tolerance to herbivore damage will facilitate attempts to understand the role of tolerance in the evolutionary and ecological dynamics of plants and herbivores. Several external factors, such as water availability, nutrient availability, intensity of damage, and timing of damage, will affect the ability of individual plants to tolerate damage by mediating internal mechanisms. Though interspecific comparisons are useful for identifying possible mechanisms, direct comparisons between tolerance and putative mechanism have been made almost exclusively in interspecies or interpopulation studies.
This study compared the compensatory responses of Avena sativa and Brassica campestris, which belong to different growth forms, to clipping under two fertilization treatments. The results showed that, for Avena sativa, under no fertilization treatment, the biomass, total biomass, fruit weight and number of fruits were greater than in the control, but only some aspects resulted in overcompensation. Under fertilized conditions, clipping treatments did not cause any overcompensation. Whether fertilized or not, the index of compensation during the tillering stage and jointing stage were both higher than during the flowering stage. Thus, under the no fertilization treatment, the low clipping treatment during the vegetative stage was shown to benefit Avena sativa. With respect to Brassica campestris, the index of compensation was greatest in the low clipping treatment during the flower bud stage, and was enhanced under fertilization. These results indicate that clipping during the reproductive stage can help compensatory growth in Brassica campestris. The different responses to clipping were attributed to the different growth forms, which had different positions and activities of dormant buds.

Key words: Clipping, Compensation, Dormant bud, Growth form

雷抒情, 王海洋, 杜国祯, 潘声旺. 刈割后两种不同体型植物的补偿式样对比研究. 植物生态学报, 2005, 29(5): 740-746. DOI: 10.17521/cjpe.2005.0098

LEI Shu-Qing, WANG Hai-Yang, DU Guo-Zhen, PAN Sheng-Wang. COMPENSATORY GROWTH RESPONSES OF TWO PLANTS WITH DIFFERENT GROWTH FORMS AFTER CLIPPING. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 2005, 29(5): 740-746. DOI: 10.17521/cjpe.2005.0098

导出引用管理器 EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

链接本文: https://www.plant-ecology.com/CN/10.17521/cjpe.2005.0098

https://www.plant-ecology.com/CN/Y2005/V29/I5/740

图/表 4

图1 刈割时间、刈割强度及施肥处理对燕麦生长和生殖的影响 1. 分蘖期轻度刈割Tillering stage 2. 分蘖期重度刈割Tillering stage 3. 拔节期轻度刈割Jointing stage 4. 拔节期重度刈割Jointing stage high 5. 抽穗期轻度刈割Flowering stage 6. 抽穗期重度刈割Flowering stage 7. 对照CK

Fig.1 The effect of clipping time, clipping intensity and fertilization on growth and reproduction of Avena sativa

表1 燕麦施肥和不施肥条件下不同刈割处理与对照之间植物各指标的补偿指数

Table 1 The compensation index of Avena sativa between control plot (CK) and treatment clipped in different time and intensity under two levels of fertilization

处理 Treatment	刈割/对照 Clipping/Control	补偿指数Compensation index
处理 Treatment	刈割/对照 Clipping/Control	果重Fruit weight	果数No. of fruit	生物量 Biomass	总生物量Total biomass
不施肥	1/CK	1.500^**	1.502^**	1.426^**	1.464^**
Unfertilized	2/CK	1.060	1.247	1.031	1.094
	3/CK	1.689^**	1.766^**	1.515^**	1.590^**
	4/CK	0.764^*	0.963	0.745^**	0.900
	5/CK	0.981	1.236^*	1.188	1.361^**
	6/CK	0.213^**	0.374^**	0.460^**	0.791^*
	CK/CK	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000
施肥	1/CK	0.783	0.753^*	0.701^*	0.725^*
Fertilized	2/CK	0.601^**	0.771^*	0.579^**	0.620^**
	3/CK	0.894	0.990	0.761^*	0.828
	4/CK	0.551^**	0.771^*	0.560^**	0.704^**
	5/CK	0.468^**	0.569^**	0.651^*	0.836
	6/CK	0.118^**	0.225^**	0.355^**	0.707^**
	CK/CK	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000

图2 刈割时间、刈割强度及施肥处理对油菜生长和生殖的影响 1. 营养期轻度刈割Vegetative stage 2. 营养期重度刈割Vegetative stage 3. 花蕾期轻度刈割Flower bud stage 4. 花蕾期重度刈割Flower bud stage 5. 开花期轻度刈割Flowering stage 6. 开花期重度刈割Flowering stage 7. 对照CK

Fig.2 The effect of clipping time, clipping intensity and fertilization on growth and reproduction of Brassica campestris

表2 施肥和不施肥条件下不同刈割处理与对照之间植物各指标的补偿指数

Table 2 The compensation index of Brassica campestris between control plot (CK) and treatment plant clipped in different time and intensity under two levels of fertilization

处理 Treatment	刈割/对照 Clipping/Control	补偿指数Compensation index
处理 Treatment	刈割/对照 Clipping/Control	果重Fruit weight	果数No. of fruit	生物量 Biomass	总生物量Total biomass
不施肥	1/CK	0.963	0.984	0.899	1.008
Unfertilized	2/CK	0.193^**	0.236^**	0.539^**	0.680^*
	3/CK	0.506^**	0.779^*	1.179	1.264^*
	4/CK	0.240^**	0.528^**	0.858	1.034
	5/CK	0.364^**	0.444^**	0.836	0.939
	6/CK	0.096^**	0.086^**	0.616^*	0.999
	CK/CK	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000
施肥	1/CK	0.589^**	0.739^**	0.582^**	0.647^**
Fertilized	2/CK	0.223^**	0.280^**	0.371^**	0.450^**
	3/CK	1.165	1.444^**	1.392^**	1.431^**
	4/CK	0.320^**	0.431^**	0.596^**	0.694^**
	5/CK	1.089	1.240	1.306^*	1.437^**
	6/CK	0.175^**	0.196^**	0.507^**	0.775^*
	CK/CK	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000

参考文献 25

[1]	Belsky AJ (1986). Does herbivory benefit plants? A review of the evidence. American Naturalist, 127,870-892.
[2]	Belsky AJ, Carson WP, Jensen CL, Fox G (1993). Overcompensation by plants: herbivore optimization or red herring? Evolutionary Ecology, 7,109-121.
[3]	Bergelson J, Crawley MJ (1992). Herbivory and Ipomopsis aggregata: the disadvantages of being eaten. American Naturalist, 139,870-872.
[4]	Caldwell MM, Richards JH, Johnson DA, Nowack RS, Dzurec RS (1981). Coping with herbivory: photosynthetic capacity and resource allocation in two semiarid Agropyron bunchgrasses. Oecologia, 50,14-24. URL PMID
[5]	Chen H(陈红), Wang HY (王海洋), DU GZ(杜国祯) (2003). Impacts of clipping time, clipping intensity and fertilization on plant compensation of Avena sativa. Acta Botanica Boreali-occidentalia Sinica (西北植物学报), 23,969-975. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[6]	DU GZ(杜国祯), Wang G(王刚) (1995). Succession and changes of grassland quality of the artificial grassland communities in subalpine meadow in Gannan. Acta Botanica Sinica (植物学报), 37,306-313. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[7]	Evans AS (1991). Whole-plant responses of Brassica campestris to altered sink-source relations. American Journal of Botany, 78,394-400.
[8]	Hawkes CV, Sullivan JJ (2001). The impact of herb ivory on plants in different resource conditions: a meta-analysis. Ecology, 82,2045-2058.
[9]	Hilbert DW, Swift DM, Delting JK, Dyer MI (1981). Relative growth rates and the grazing optimization hypothesis. Oecologia, 51,14-48. DOI URL PMID
[10]	Huhta AP, Hellstrøm K, Rautio P, Tuomi J (2003). Grazing tolerance of Gentianella amarelle and other monocarpic herbs: why is tolerance highest at low damage levels ? Plant Ecology, 166,49-61.
[11]	Juenger T, Bergelson J (2000). The evolution of compensation to herbivory in scarlet gilia, Ipomopsis aggregata: herbivore-imposed natural selection and quantitative genetics of tolerance. Evolution, 54,764-777. URL PMID
[12]	Lehtilä K (2000). Modelling compensatory regrowth with bud dormancy and gradual activation of buds. Evolutionary Ecology, 14,315-330.
[13]	Lennartsson T, Tuomi J, Nilsson P (1998). Induction of overcompensation in the field gentian, Gentianella campestris. Ecology, 79,1061-1072.
[14]	Martínez Moreno D, Núňez-Farfán J, Terrazas T, Ruiz LM, Trinidad-Santos A, Trejo C, Larque-Saabedra A (1999). Plastic responses to clipping in two species of Amaranthus from the Sierra Norte de Puebla, Mexico. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, 46,225-234.
[15]	Maschinski J, Whitham TG (1989). The continuum of plant responses to herb ivory: the influence of plant association, nutrient availability, and timing. American Naturalist, 134,1-19.
[16]	Obeso JR (1998). Effects of the defoliation and girdling on fruit production in Ilex aquiafolium. Functional Ecology, 12,486-491.
[17]	Paige KN, Whitham TG (1987). Overcompensation in response to mammalian herbivory: the advantage of being eaten. American Naturalist, 129,407-416.
[18]	Rosenthal JP, Welter SC (1995). Tolerance to herbivory by a stemboring caterpillar in architecturally distinct maizes and wild relatives. Oecologia, 102,146-155. DOI URL PMID
[19]	Rosenthal JP, Kotanen PM (1994). Terrestrial plant tolerance to herbivory. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 9,145-148. DOI URL PMID
[20]	Tiffin P (2000). Mechanisms of tolerance to herbivore damage: what do we know? Evolutionary Ecology, 14,523-536.
[21]	Trumble JT, Kolodny-Hirsch DM, Ting IP (1993). Plant compensation for arthropod herbivory. Annual Review of Entomology, 38,93-119.
[22]	Tuomi J, Nilsson P, Åstrøm M (1994). Plant compensatory responses: bud dormancy as an adaptation to herbivory. Ecology, 75,1429-1436.
[23]	van der Meijden E, Wijin M, Verkaar HJ (1988). Denfense and regrowth, alternative plant strategies in the struggle against herbivores. Oikos, 51,355-363.
[24]	Wang HY(王海洋), Du GZ(杜国祯), Ren QJ(任青吉) (2003). The impacts of population density and fertilization on compensatory responses of Elymus nutans to mowing. Acta phytoecologica Sinica (植物生态学报), 27,477-483. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[25]	Weis AE, Simms EL, Hochberg ME (2000). Will plant vigor and tolerance be genetically correlated? Effects of intrinsic growth rate and self-limitation on regrowth. Evolutionary Ecology, 14,331-352.