植物生态学报 ›› 2005, Vol. 29 ›› Issue (6): 1000-1006.DOI: 10.17521/cjpe.2005.0125
收稿日期:
2005-01-12
接受日期:
2005-07-02
出版日期:
2005-01-12
发布日期:
2005-09-30
通讯作者:
刘兆普
作者简介:
*E-mail:sea@njau.edu.cn基金资助:
TANG Qi-Zhi, LIU Zhao-Pu*(), LIU Ling, ZHENG Qing-Song, CHEN Ming-Da
Received:
2005-01-12
Accepted:
2005-07-02
Online:
2005-01-12
Published:
2005-09-30
Contact:
LIU Zhao-Pu
摘要:
在对油葵(Helianthus annuus)室内海水砂培试验研究油葵耐海水生物学特征的基础上,为获取半干旱海侵区海水大田灌溉的技术参数,以指导当地大田海水灌溉的实际应用,2002(干旱年)、2003年(丰水年)在山东莱州受海水入侵最严重的半干旱地区进行了不同浓度海水补充灌溉‘油葵G101’的田间小区试验,着重研究了当地不同雨水条件下在油葵始蕾期、始花期海水灌溉两水的模式对夏播油葵产量结构及其主要形态指标、植株体内离子分布规律的影响。结果表明:1)在当地的土壤条件下,无论是干旱年份(2002年),还是丰水年份(2003年),在油葵生长期内(约100 d),补充灌溉两水,40%比例的海水灌溉是夏播油葵保证一定经济产量的安全指标,在干旱年份,海水比例超过40%时,油葵籽产量即显著下降,而在丰水年份,即使用60%比例的海水灌溉,油葵籽产量与40%处理也无显著差异。综合考虑油葵经济产量、节省淡水用量等因素,40%海水补充灌溉两水可视为该海侵地区灌溉油葵适宜的海水补充灌溉额度。2)干旱年份,20%海水灌溉处理下,初花期油葵除茎秆直径和葵盘鲜重外,其它各生理生态指标与淡水灌溉处理无显著性差异(p=0.05)。而在丰水年份,即使用40% 的海水灌溉,‘油葵G101’主要形态指标与淡水灌溉也无显著差异。3)0~40%比例海水灌溉处理, 夏播油葵叶片能保持相对较高的Ca2+、Mg2+含量,而根系吸收的K+向葵盘的选择性运输能力很强。Na+主要积累在根部、茎部,而叶和葵盘中含量较低。Cl-在茎中含量最高。
唐奇志, 刘兆普, 刘玲, 郑青松, 陈铭达. 海侵地区不同降雨条件下海水灌溉‘油葵G101’的研究. 植物生态学报, 2005, 29(6): 1000-1006. DOI: 10.17521/cjpe.2005.0125
TANG Qi-Zhi, LIU Zhao-Pu, LIU Ling, ZHENG Qing-Song, CHEN Ming-Da. EFFECTS OF IRRIGATION WITH DILUTED SEAWATER ON ‘OLEIC SUNFLOWER G101’ GROWN IN SALINIZED SOILS, LAIZHOU, CHINA. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 2005, 29(6): 1000-1006. DOI: 10.17521/cjpe.2005.0125
海水灌溉浓度 Seawater concentration (%) | 株高 Stem height (cm) | 茎杆直径 Stem diameter (cm) | 葵盘直径 Disc diameter (cm) | 重量 Fresh weight1) | |||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
根 Root | 茎 Stem | 叶 Leaf | 葵盘 Disc | ||||||||||||||||
2002 | |||||||||||||||||||
淡水Freshwater | 142a | 2.185a | 15.0a | 49.6a | 283a | 272a | 273a | ||||||||||||
20 | 135a | 1.918b | 13.7ab | 58.1a | 257ab | 275a | 210b | ||||||||||||
40 | 124b | 1.798bc | 13.0b | 44.8a | 211b | 236b | 215b | ||||||||||||
60 | 103d | 1.336d | 8.4c | 18.9b | 90.6c | 110c | 85c | ||||||||||||
80 | 69e | 1.022e | 5.7d | 10.5c | 40.4c | 51d | 35d | ||||||||||||
2003 | |||||||||||||||||||
淡水Freshwater | 15.183a | 60.735a | 52.078a | 48.763a | |||||||||||||||
10 | 14.935ab | 55.998a | 50.923a | 48.3a | |||||||||||||||
20 | 13.678ab | 65.025a | 58.83a | 50.935a | |||||||||||||||
40 | 13.568ab | 55.713a | 53.32a | 47.3a | |||||||||||||||
60 | 12.773b | 44.748b | 40.035b | 37.863b | |||||||||||||||
80 | 10.09c | 46.520b | 40.015b | 39.573b | |||||||||||||||
雨养种植 Growth with rain | 10.69c | 44.483b | 38.86b | 28.063c |
表1 2002、2003年海水灌溉油葵初花期主要形态指标
Table 1 Effect of seawater irrigation on primary growing indexes of oil sunflowers in early floresence in 2002 and 2003
海水灌溉浓度 Seawater concentration (%) | 株高 Stem height (cm) | 茎杆直径 Stem diameter (cm) | 葵盘直径 Disc diameter (cm) | 重量 Fresh weight1) | |||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
根 Root | 茎 Stem | 叶 Leaf | 葵盘 Disc | ||||||||||||||||
2002 | |||||||||||||||||||
淡水Freshwater | 142a | 2.185a | 15.0a | 49.6a | 283a | 272a | 273a | ||||||||||||
20 | 135a | 1.918b | 13.7ab | 58.1a | 257ab | 275a | 210b | ||||||||||||
40 | 124b | 1.798bc | 13.0b | 44.8a | 211b | 236b | 215b | ||||||||||||
60 | 103d | 1.336d | 8.4c | 18.9b | 90.6c | 110c | 85c | ||||||||||||
80 | 69e | 1.022e | 5.7d | 10.5c | 40.4c | 51d | 35d | ||||||||||||
2003 | |||||||||||||||||||
淡水Freshwater | 15.183a | 60.735a | 52.078a | 48.763a | |||||||||||||||
10 | 14.935ab | 55.998a | 50.923a | 48.3a | |||||||||||||||
20 | 13.678ab | 65.025a | 58.83a | 50.935a | |||||||||||||||
40 | 13.568ab | 55.713a | 53.32a | 47.3a | |||||||||||||||
60 | 12.773b | 44.748b | 40.035b | 37.863b | |||||||||||||||
80 | 10.09c | 46.520b | 40.015b | 39.573b | |||||||||||||||
雨养种植 Growth with rain | 10.69c | 44.483b | 38.86b | 28.063c |
海水灌溉浓度 Seawater concentration(%) | 节省淡水量 Saving water(m3·hm-2) | 平均产量 Mean of yield(kg·hm-2) | 差异显著性 Significance level | |
---|---|---|---|---|
p=0.05 | p=0.01 | |||
2002 | ||||
20 | 200 | 2 942 | a | A |
淡水 Freshwater | - | 2 922 | a | A |
40 | 400 | 2 676 | a | A |
60 | 600 | 2 027 | b | A |
80 | 800 | 1 423 | c | B |
2003 | ||||
淡水 Freshwater | - | 3 302.475 | a | A |
10 | 100 | 3 302.325 | a | A |
20 | 200 | 3 241.650 | a | AB |
40 | 400 | 3 193.000 | ab | ABC |
60 | 600 | 2 934.975 | bc | BC |
雨养种植 Growth with rain | - | 2 921.175 | c | C |
80 | 800 | 2 523.500 | d | D |
表2 不同年份海水灌溉对油葵籽粒产量的影响及节省淡水量
Table 2 Effect of seawater irrigation on the yield of oil sunflowers in 2002 and 2003
海水灌溉浓度 Seawater concentration(%) | 节省淡水量 Saving water(m3·hm-2) | 平均产量 Mean of yield(kg·hm-2) | 差异显著性 Significance level | |
---|---|---|---|---|
p=0.05 | p=0.01 | |||
2002 | ||||
20 | 200 | 2 942 | a | A |
淡水 Freshwater | - | 2 922 | a | A |
40 | 400 | 2 676 | a | A |
60 | 600 | 2 027 | b | A |
80 | 800 | 1 423 | c | B |
2003 | ||||
淡水 Freshwater | - | 3 302.475 | a | A |
10 | 100 | 3 302.325 | a | A |
20 | 200 | 3 241.650 | a | AB |
40 | 400 | 3 193.000 | ab | ABC |
60 | 600 | 2 934.975 | bc | BC |
雨养种植 Growth with rain | - | 2 921.175 | c | C |
80 | 800 | 2 523.500 | d | D |
2002 | 2003 | ||
---|---|---|---|
日期 Date | 降雨量 Rainfall (mm) | 日期 Date | 降雨量 Rainfall (mm) |
7.20~7.31 | 40.00 | 7.15~7.25 | 72.50 |
8.01~8.10(灌1水 Once-watered) | 10.00 | 7.26~8.06(灌1水 Once-watered) | 44.70 |
8.11~9.01 | 23.00 | 8.06~8.25 | 76.50 |
9.02~9.14(灌2水 Twice-watered) | 5.70 | 8.26~9.09(灌2水 Twice-watered) | 49.80 |
9.15~9.27 | 39.00 | 9.10~9.25 | 40.30 |
9.28~10.27(收获 Harvest) | 54.00 | 9.26~10.25(收获 Harvest) | 63.00 |
合计 Total | 171.70 | 合计 Total | 346.80 |
表3 2002、2003年油葵生长期的降雨量
Table 3 Rainfall of oil sunflower in 2002 and 2003
2002 | 2003 | ||
---|---|---|---|
日期 Date | 降雨量 Rainfall (mm) | 日期 Date | 降雨量 Rainfall (mm) |
7.20~7.31 | 40.00 | 7.15~7.25 | 72.50 |
8.01~8.10(灌1水 Once-watered) | 10.00 | 7.26~8.06(灌1水 Once-watered) | 44.70 |
8.11~9.01 | 23.00 | 8.06~8.25 | 76.50 |
9.02~9.14(灌2水 Twice-watered) | 5.70 | 8.26~9.09(灌2水 Twice-watered) | 49.80 |
9.15~9.27 | 39.00 | 9.10~9.25 | 40.30 |
9.28~10.27(收获 Harvest) | 54.00 | 9.26~10.25(收获 Harvest) | 63.00 |
合计 Total | 171.70 | 合计 Total | 346.80 |
部位 Part | 海水灌溉浓度 Seawater concentration for irrigation (%) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
淡水 Freshwater | 20 | 40 | 60 | 80 | ||
Na+/K+ | 根 Root | 3.74 | 7.98 | 10.2 | 14.6 | 23.3 |
茎 Stem | 0.38 | 0.26 | 0.40 | 0.92 | 2.85 | |
叶 Leaf | 0.13 | 0.11 | 0.22 | 0.31 | 0.61 | |
葵盘 Disc | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.05 | 0.07 | |
离子吸收 SK,Na | 根 Root | 2.72 | 6.27 | 7.01 | 5.29 | 4.30 |
茎 Stem | 9.88 | 30.8 | 25.3 | 15.8 | 8.17 | |
叶 Leaf | 29.7 | 72.6 | 46.2 | 47.6 | 37.8 | |
葵盘 Disc | 274 | 640 | 535 | 268 | 312 |
表4 不同浓度海水灌溉对成熟期油葵体内Na+/K+及SK,Na的影响
Table 4 Effect of seawater irrigation on Na+/K+ and SK,Na of oil sunflowers in autumn
部位 Part | 海水灌溉浓度 Seawater concentration for irrigation (%) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
淡水 Freshwater | 20 | 40 | 60 | 80 | ||
Na+/K+ | 根 Root | 3.74 | 7.98 | 10.2 | 14.6 | 23.3 |
茎 Stem | 0.38 | 0.26 | 0.40 | 0.92 | 2.85 | |
叶 Leaf | 0.13 | 0.11 | 0.22 | 0.31 | 0.61 | |
葵盘 Disc | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.05 | 0.07 | |
离子吸收 SK,Na | 根 Root | 2.72 | 6.27 | 7.01 | 5.29 | 4.30 |
茎 Stem | 9.88 | 30.8 | 25.3 | 15.8 | 8.17 | |
叶 Leaf | 29.7 | 72.6 | 46.2 | 47.6 | 37.8 | |
葵盘 Disc | 274 | 640 | 535 | 268 | 312 |
[1] | Ashraf M (1999). Interactive effect of salt (NaCl) and nitrogen form on growth, water relations and photosynthetic capacity of sunflower ( Helianthus annuus L.). Annals of Applied Biology, 135,509-513. |
[2] | Delgado IC, Sanchez AJ (1997). Influence of phosphorus on the growth and nutrient transport in sunflower plants in saline conditions. Phyton (Buenos Aires), 61,117-125. |
[3] | Flagella Z, Cantore V, Giuliani MM, Tarantino E, de Caro A (2002a). Crop salt tolerance: physiological, yield and quality aspects. Recent Research Developments in Plant Biology, 2,155-158. |
[4] |
Flagella Z, Rotunno T, Tarantino E, di Caterina R, de Caro A (2002b). Changes in seed yield and oil fatty acid composition of high oleic sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) hybrids in relation to the sowing date and the water regime. European Journal of Agronomy, 17,221-230.
DOI URL |
[5] | Flower TJ, Yeo AR (1998). Ion relation of salt tolerance. In: Baker DD, Hall JL eds. Solute Transport in Cell and Tissues. John Wiley and Sons. Inc, New York,392-416. |
[6] | Gøksoy AT, Demir AO, Turan ZM, Dagüstü N (2004). Responses of sunflower ( Helianthus annuus L.) to full and limited irrigation at different growth stages. Field Crops Research, 87,167-178. |
[7] | Legha PK, Gajendra G (1999). Influence of nitrogen and sulphur on growth, yield and oil content of sunflower ( Helianthus annuus) grown in spring season. Indian Journal of Agronomy, 44,409-412. |
[8] | Li PH, Chen M, Wang BS (2002). Effect of K+ nutrition on growth and activity of leaf tonoplast V-H +-ATPase and V-H +-PPase of Suaeda salsa under NaCl stress. Acta Botanica Sinica (植物学报), 44,433-440. |
[9] | Lin QF (林栖凤), Li GY (李冠一) (2000). Research progress in salt tolerance in plant. Advances of Bioengineering (生物工程进展), 20(2),20-25. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[10] | Liu YL (刘友良), Wang LJ (汪良驹) (1998). Responses salt stress in plants and its salt tolerance. In: Yu SW (余叔文), Tang ZC (汤章城) eds. Plant Physiology and Molecular Biology (植物生理与分子生物学). Science Press, Beijing,752-769. (in Chinese) |
[11] |
Liu ZP (刘兆普), Liu L (刘玲), Chen MD (陈铭达), Deng LQ (邓力群), Zhao GM (赵耕毛), Tang QZ (唐奇志), Xia TX (夏天翔) (2003). Study on the irrigation systems in agriculture by seawater. Journal of Natural Resources (自然资源学报), 18,423-429. (in Chinese with English abstract)
DOI URL |
[12] | Maathuis FJM, Amtmann A (1999). K+ nutrition and Na+ toxicity: the basis of cellular K+/Na+ ratio. Annals of Botany, 84,123-133. |
[13] | Razi H, Assad MT (1999). Comparison of selection criteria in normal and limited irrigation in sunflower. Euphytica, 105,83-90. |
[14] | Tang QZ (唐奇志), Liu ZP (刘兆普) (2004). Effect of seawater on growth and leaves oxidative metabolism of sunflower seedlings. Chinese Bulletin of Botany (植物学通报), 21,650-655. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[15] | Wang BS (王宝山), Zhao KF (赵可夫) (1995). Comparison of extractive methods of Na and K in wheat leaves. Plant Physiology Communication (植物生理学通讯), 31,50-52. (in Chinese) |
[16] | Wang BS (王宝山), Zhao KF (赵可夫), Zou Q (邹奇) (1997). Advances in mechanism of crop salt tolerance and strategies for raising crop salt tolerance. Chinese Bulletin of Botany (植物学通报), 14 (Suppl.),25-30. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[17] | Yu BJ (於丙军), Luo QY (罗庆云), Liu YL (刘友良) (2003). Re-transporttation of ions in Glycine soja and Glycine max seedling under NaCl stress. Journal of Plant Physiology and Molecular Biology (植物生理与分子生物学报), 29,39-44. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[18] | Zhao GM (赵耕毛), Liu ZP (刘兆普), Chen MD (陈铭达) (2003). Study on salinity situation of seashore saline soil under seawater irrigation. Scientia Agricultura Sinica (中国农业科学), 36,676-680. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[1] | 刘建新, 刘瑞瑞, 刘秀丽, 贾海燕, 卜婷, 李娜. 外源硫化氢对盐碱胁迫下裸燕麦光合碳代谢的调控[J]. 植物生态学报, 2023, 47(3): 374-388. |
[2] | 张玉林, 尹本丰, 陶冶, 李永刚, 周晓兵, 张元明. 早春首次降雨时间及降雨量对古尔班通古特沙漠两种短命植物形态特征与叶绿素荧光的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2022, 46(4): 428-439. |
[3] | 熊淑萍, 曹文博, 曹锐, 张志勇, 付新露, 徐赛俊, 潘虎强, 王小纯, 马新明. 水平结构配置对冬小麦冠层垂直结构、微环境及产量的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2022, 46(2): 188-196. |
[4] | 孙浩哲, 王襄平, 张树斌, 吴鹏, 杨蕾. 阔叶红松林不同演替阶段凋落物产量及其稳定性的影响因素[J]. 植物生态学报, 2021, 45(6): 594-605. |
[5] | 杨德春, 胡雷, 宋小艳, 王长庭. 降雨变化对高寒草甸不同植物功能群凋落物质量及其分解的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2021, 45(12): 1314-1328. |
[6] | 刘雪飞, 吴林, 王涵, 洪柳, 熊莉军. 鄂西南亚高山湿地泥炭藓的生长与分解[J]. 植物生态学报, 2020, 44(3): 228-235. |
[7] | 刘璐, 赵常明, 徐文婷, 申国珍, 谢宗强. 神农架常绿落叶阔叶混交林凋落物动态及影响因素[J]. 植物生态学报, 2018, 42(6): 619-628. |
[8] | 张鑫, 邢亚娟, 闫国永, 王庆贵. 细根对降水变化响应的meta分析[J]. 植物生态学报, 2018, 42(2): 164-172. |
[9] | 郑成岩, 邓艾兴, LATIFMANESHHojatollah, 宋振伟, 张俊, 王利, 张卫建. 增温对青藏高原冬小麦干物质积累转运及氮吸收利用的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2017, 41(10): 1060-1068. |
[10] | 王丹, 乔匀周, 董宝娣, 葛静, 杨萍果, 刘孟雨. 昼夜不对称性与对称性升温对大豆产量和水分利用的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2016, 40(8): 827-833. |
[11] | 邹长明, 王允青, 刘英, 张晓红, 唐杉. 四种豆科作物的光合生理和生长发育对弱光的响应[J]. 植物生态学报, 2015, 39(9): 909-916. |
[12] | 孟德云, 侯林琳, 杨莎, 孟静静, 郭峰, 李新国, 万书波. 外源多胺对盆栽花生盐胁迫的缓解作用[J]. 植物生态学报, 2015, 39(12): 1209-1215. |
[13] | 陈云玉, 熊德成, 黄锦学, 王韦韦, 胡双成, 邓飞, 许辰森, 冯建新, 史顺增, 钟波元, 陈光水. 中亚热带不同演替阶段的马尾松和米槠人工林的细根生产量研究[J]. 植物生态学报, 2015, 39(11): 1071-1081. |
[14] | 张佳蕾, 郭峰, 孟静静, 于晓霞, 杨莎, 张思斌, 耿耘, 李新国, 万书波. 酸性土施用钙肥对花生产量和品质及相关代谢酶活性的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2015, 39(11): 1101-1109. |
[15] | 熊淑萍, 王静, 王小纯, 丁世杰, 马新明. 耕作方式及施氮量对砂姜黑土区小麦氮代谢及籽粒产量和蛋白质含量的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2014, 38(7): 767-775. |
阅读次数 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
全文 2412
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
摘要 5310
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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 51La