植物生态学报 ›› 2006, Vol. 30 ›› Issue (2): 307-313.DOI: 10.17521/cjpe.2006.0041
接受日期:
2005-04-05
发布日期:
2006-03-30
通讯作者:
刘兆普
作者简介:
*E-mail: sea@njau.edu.cn基金资助:
LONG Xiao_Hua, LIU Zhao_Pu*(), XU Wen_Jun
Accepted:
2005-04-05
Published:
2006-03-30
Contact:
LIU Zhao_Pu
摘要:
种植抗盐耐海水植物是合理利用和开发海涂资源的有效措施之一。该试验研究了海水处理下菊芋(Helianthus tuberosus)幼苗生长发育、渗透物质积累、保护性酶活性、膜透性和离子吸收分布情况及磷素对其影响。结果表明:1)10%海水对菊芋幼苗生长发育没有抑制作用,甚至有一定的促进作用,25%海水胁迫对菊芋幼苗形态发育上具有一定抑制作用,增加磷素浓度后,能显著缓解其抑制作用;2)10%和25%海水处理下,脯氨酸和可溶性糖含量较对照显著增加,随着时间的延长,先增加后降低,增加磷素浓度后,能显著增加菊芋幼苗叶片脯氨酸和可溶性糖含量;3)海水处理下菊芋幼苗叶片SOD、POD和CAT活性都显著增加,增加磷素浓度后,能显著增强菊芋幼苗叶片SOD、POD和CAT活性;4)10%海水处理菊芋幼苗叶片MDA含量与对照差异不大,甚至小于对照,25%海水处理能显著增加MDA含量及膜透性,增加磷素浓度后,均降低了MDA含量和膜透性;5)随着海水浓度增加和时间延长,菊芋幼苗地上部和根部Na+和Cl-含量显著增加,增加磷素浓度后,均能降低地上部和根部Na+和Cl-含量,而地上部和根部K+、Ca2+和Mg2+含量较对照增加,增加磷素浓度后,均能增加K+、Ca2+和Mg2+含量。由此可见,磷素能够改善菊芋幼苗的营养状况,同时能够增强其抗盐性。
隆小华, 刘兆普, 徐文君. 海水处理下菊芋幼苗生理生化特性及磷效应的研究. 植物生态学报, 2006, 30(2): 307-313. DOI: 10.17521/cjpe.2006.0041
LONG Xiao_Hua, LIU Zhao_Pu, XU Wen_Jun. EFFECTS OF SEAWATER TREATMENTS ON THE PHYSIOLOGICAL AND BIOCHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF HELIANTHUS TUBEROSUS SEEDLINGS AND RESPONSE TO PHOSPHORUS SUPPLY. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 2006, 30(2): 307-313. DOI: 10.17521/cjpe.2006.0041
pH | 阴离子 Anion(g·L-1) | 阳离子 Cation(g·L-1) | 含盐量 Salinity(g·L-1) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C | HC | Cl- | S | Ca2+ | Mg2+ | K+ | Na+ | ||
8.30 | - | 0.132 | 17.52 | 3.867 | 0.785 | 1.027 | 0.596 | 9.480 | 33.33 |
表1 莱州湾海水基本离子组成
Table 1 Basic ion contents of Laizhou bay seawater
pH | 阴离子 Anion(g·L-1) | 阳离子 Cation(g·L-1) | 含盐量 Salinity(g·L-1) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C | HC | Cl- | S | Ca2+ | Mg2+ | K+ | Na+ | ||
8.30 | - | 0.132 | 17.52 | 3.867 | 0.785 | 1.027 | 0.596 | 9.480 | 33.33 |
处理 Treatment | 天数 Days | S0 | S1 | S1P | S2 | S2P | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
地上部 Shoot | 根 Root | 地上部 Shoot | 根 Root | 地上部 Shoot | 根 Root | 地上部 Shoot | 根 Root | 地上部 Shoot | 根 Root | ||
鲜重 Fresh weight (g·plant-1) | 4 | 3.48b | 3.30c | 3.56b | 3.54b | 3.84a | 3.67a | 3.36c | 3.65a | 3.48b | 3.73a |
8 | 4.26cd | 4.35cd | 4.58b | 4.68b | 4.67a | 4.85a | 4.18d | 4.23d | 4.32c | 4.46c | |
12 | 5.58a | 5.03ab | 5.59a | 4.96b | 5.68a | 5.12a | 4.59c | 4.37d | 4.73b | 4.62c | |
干重 Dry weight (g·plant-1) | 4 | 0.42b | 0.19c | 0.43ab | 0.20bc | 0.45a | 0.21ab | 0.38d | 0.21a | 0.39cd | 0.22a |
8 | 0.49b | 0.25b | 0.53a | 0.26b | 0.54a | 0.28a | 0.46c | 0.25b | 0.48bc | 0.27ab | |
12 | 0.59a | 0.33a | 0.58a | 0.32a | 0.59a | 0.33a | 0.53b | 0.30b | 0.55b | 0.32a |
表2 不同处理对菊芋幼苗地上部和根鲜重及干重的影响
Table 2 Effects of different treatment on biomass fresh weight and dry weight of shoot and root of Helianthus tuberosus seedlings
处理 Treatment | 天数 Days | S0 | S1 | S1P | S2 | S2P | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
地上部 Shoot | 根 Root | 地上部 Shoot | 根 Root | 地上部 Shoot | 根 Root | 地上部 Shoot | 根 Root | 地上部 Shoot | 根 Root | ||
鲜重 Fresh weight (g·plant-1) | 4 | 3.48b | 3.30c | 3.56b | 3.54b | 3.84a | 3.67a | 3.36c | 3.65a | 3.48b | 3.73a |
8 | 4.26cd | 4.35cd | 4.58b | 4.68b | 4.67a | 4.85a | 4.18d | 4.23d | 4.32c | 4.46c | |
12 | 5.58a | 5.03ab | 5.59a | 4.96b | 5.68a | 5.12a | 4.59c | 4.37d | 4.73b | 4.62c | |
干重 Dry weight (g·plant-1) | 4 | 0.42b | 0.19c | 0.43ab | 0.20bc | 0.45a | 0.21ab | 0.38d | 0.21a | 0.39cd | 0.22a |
8 | 0.49b | 0.25b | 0.53a | 0.26b | 0.54a | 0.28a | 0.46c | 0.25b | 0.48bc | 0.27ab | |
12 | 0.59a | 0.33a | 0.58a | 0.32a | 0.59a | 0.33a | 0.53b | 0.30b | 0.55b | 0.32a |
处理Treatment | 天数Days | S0 | S1 | S1P | S2 | S2P |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
脯氨酸 Proline (μg·g-1 FW) | 4 | 17.12cd | 15.92d | 24.21b | 17.38c | 41.72a |
8 | 8.97e | 16.95d | 41.64c | 281.23b | 431.08a | |
12 | 5.20e | 14.37d | 23.73c | 118.91b | 233.68a | |
可溶性糖 Soluble_suger(%) | 4 | 0.55d | 0.74c | 0.89bc | 0.98b | 1.17a |
8 | 0.87e | 1.65d | 2.93b | 2.17c | 3.32a | |
12 | 0.90e | 1.01de | 1.16cd | 1.57b | 1.91a |
表3 不同处理对菊芋幼苗叶片脯氨酸及可溶性糖含量的影响
Table 3 Effects of different treatment on proline and soluble_suger content in leaf of Helianthus tuberosus seedlings
处理Treatment | 天数Days | S0 | S1 | S1P | S2 | S2P |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
脯氨酸 Proline (μg·g-1 FW) | 4 | 17.12cd | 15.92d | 24.21b | 17.38c | 41.72a |
8 | 8.97e | 16.95d | 41.64c | 281.23b | 431.08a | |
12 | 5.20e | 14.37d | 23.73c | 118.91b | 233.68a | |
可溶性糖 Soluble_suger(%) | 4 | 0.55d | 0.74c | 0.89bc | 0.98b | 1.17a |
8 | 0.87e | 1.65d | 2.93b | 2.17c | 3.32a | |
12 | 0.90e | 1.01de | 1.16cd | 1.57b | 1.91a |
处理Treatment | 天数Days | S0 | S1 | S1P | S2 | S2P |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SOD (U·mg-1 protein) | 4 | 3.88b | 3.37d | 3.68c | 3.78bc | 4.26a |
8 | 3.98d | 3.62e | 4.15cd | 5.05b | 5.66a | |
12 | 4.28e | 4.99d | 5.73c | 6.11b | 7.94a | |
POD (mg-1 protein·min-1) | 4 | 0.023d | 0.046c | 0.058b | 0.062b | 0.088a |
8 | 0.304d | 0.400c | 0.496a | 0.393c | 0.432b | |
12 | 0.316d | 0.337d | 0.427a | 0.359c | 0.402b | |
CAT (mg-1 protein·min-1) | 4 | 0.080b | 0.062c | 0.084b | 0.075bc | 0.147a |
8 | 0.152c | 0.116d | 0.186b | 0.198b | 0.262a | |
12 | 0.236d | 0.366c | 0.490b | 0.469b | 0.602a |
表4 不同处理对菊芋幼苗叶片SOD, POD和CAT活性的影响
Table 4 Effects of different treatment on SOD, POD and CAT activity in leaf of Helianthus tuberosus seedlings
处理Treatment | 天数Days | S0 | S1 | S1P | S2 | S2P |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SOD (U·mg-1 protein) | 4 | 3.88b | 3.37d | 3.68c | 3.78bc | 4.26a |
8 | 3.98d | 3.62e | 4.15cd | 5.05b | 5.66a | |
12 | 4.28e | 4.99d | 5.73c | 6.11b | 7.94a | |
POD (mg-1 protein·min-1) | 4 | 0.023d | 0.046c | 0.058b | 0.062b | 0.088a |
8 | 0.304d | 0.400c | 0.496a | 0.393c | 0.432b | |
12 | 0.316d | 0.337d | 0.427a | 0.359c | 0.402b | |
CAT (mg-1 protein·min-1) | 4 | 0.080b | 0.062c | 0.084b | 0.075bc | 0.147a |
8 | 0.152c | 0.116d | 0.186b | 0.198b | 0.262a | |
12 | 0.236d | 0.366c | 0.490b | 0.469b | 0.602a |
处理Treatment | 天数Days | S0 | S1 | S1P | S2 | S2P |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MDA (nmol·g-1 FW) | 4 | 4.72c | 4.82b | 4.84b | 5.38a | 4.85b |
8 | 5.77c | 5.38de | 5.15e | 9.19a | 8.10b | |
12 | 3.70de | 4.91c | 3.39e | 7.53a | 5.77b | |
膜透性 ELP(%) | 4 | 4.99bc | 5.03b | 4.87cd | 5.24a | 4.74d |
8 | 5.08d | 5.31bc | 5.15cd | 5.88a | 5.32b | |
12 | 5.20d | 5.47c | 5.17d | 6.74a | 6.03b |
表5 不同处理对菊芋幼苗叶片MDA含量和膜透性的影响
Table 5 Effects of different treatment on MDA content and electrolytic leakage percentage (ELP) in leaf of Helianthus tuberosus seedlings
处理Treatment | 天数Days | S0 | S1 | S1P | S2 | S2P |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MDA (nmol·g-1 FW) | 4 | 4.72c | 4.82b | 4.84b | 5.38a | 4.85b |
8 | 5.77c | 5.38de | 5.15e | 9.19a | 8.10b | |
12 | 3.70de | 4.91c | 3.39e | 7.53a | 5.77b | |
膜透性 ELP(%) | 4 | 4.99bc | 5.03b | 4.87cd | 5.24a | 4.74d |
8 | 5.08d | 5.31bc | 5.15cd | 5.88a | 5.32b | |
12 | 5.20d | 5.47c | 5.17d | 6.74a | 6.03b |
处理 Treatment | 天数 Days | S0 | S1 | S1P | S2 | S2P | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
地上部 Shoot | 根 Root | 地上部 Shoot | 根 Root | 地上部 Shoot | 根 Root | 地上部 Shoot | 根 Root | 地上部 Shoot | 根 Root | ||
K+ (mmol· g-1 DW) | 4 | 1.24c | 1.16d | 1.44b | 1.61c | 1.43b | 1.94a | 1.45b | 1.65c | 1.61a | 1.77b |
8 | 1.12c | 1.29c | 1.10c | 1.32c | 1.20b | 1.48b | 1.14c | 1.45b | 1.38a | 1.64a | |
12 | 1.04c | 1.20c | 1.05c | 1.41b | 1.18b | 1.52a | 1.21b | 1.40b | 1.49a | 1.47ab | |
Na+ (mmol· g-1 DW) | 4 | 0.05d | 0.16d | 0.17c | 0.73b | 0.16c | 0.52c | 0.71a | 1.07a | 0.53b | 0.79b |
8 | 0.06e | 0.31d | 0.41c | 1.13b | 0.28d | 0.91c | 1.05a | 1.32a | 0.61b | 1.05bc | |
12 | 0.07d | 0.28e | 0.55c | 1.48bc | 0.44c | 1.17d | 1.29a | 1.99a | 1.04b | 1.35c | |
Ca2+ (mmol· g-1 DW) | 4 | 0.13b | 0.13c | 0.14b | 0.14bc | 0.13b | 0.15b | 0.13b | 0.14bc | 0.17a | 0.18a |
8 | 0.13d | 0.12d | 0.15cd | 0.13d | 0.17bc | 0.17bc | 0.18b | 0.16c | 0.23a | 0.19a | |
12 | 0.14d | 0.15d | 0.18c | 0.18c | 0.21b | 0.20b | 0.22b | 0.19bc | 0.30a | 0.23a | |
Mg2+ (mmol· g-1 DW) | 4 | 0.10e | 0.23d | 0.15d | 0.24d | 0.20c | 0.33b | 0.23b | 0.27c | 0.26a | 0.37a |
8 | 0.18e | 0.31d | 0.19de | 0.33cd | 0.21cd | 0.39b | 0.27b | 0.37b | 0.32a | 0.46a | |
12 | 0.20d | 0.35e | 0.22cd | 0.41d | 0.25c | 0.45c | 0.41b | 0.49b | 0.47a | 0.54a | |
Cl- (mmol· g-1 DW) | 4 | 0.21e | 0.27e | 0.87c | 1.06cd | 0.74d | 0.96d | 1.19a | 1.66a | 1.01b | 1.29b |
8 | 0.26e | 0.37e | 1.16c | 1.70bc | 0.88d | 1.26d | 1.93a | 2.02a | 1.53b | 1.54c | |
12 | 0.27e | 0.31e | 1.33c | 2.06b | 1.02d | 1.58d | 2.06a | 2.26a | 1.65b | 1.79c |
表6 不同处理对菊芋幼苗地上部和根K+、Na+、Ca2+、Mg2+和Cl-含量的影响
Table 6 Effects of different treatment on K+、Na+、Ca2+、Mg2+ and Cl- content in shoot and root of Helianthus tuberosus seedlings
处理 Treatment | 天数 Days | S0 | S1 | S1P | S2 | S2P | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
地上部 Shoot | 根 Root | 地上部 Shoot | 根 Root | 地上部 Shoot | 根 Root | 地上部 Shoot | 根 Root | 地上部 Shoot | 根 Root | ||
K+ (mmol· g-1 DW) | 4 | 1.24c | 1.16d | 1.44b | 1.61c | 1.43b | 1.94a | 1.45b | 1.65c | 1.61a | 1.77b |
8 | 1.12c | 1.29c | 1.10c | 1.32c | 1.20b | 1.48b | 1.14c | 1.45b | 1.38a | 1.64a | |
12 | 1.04c | 1.20c | 1.05c | 1.41b | 1.18b | 1.52a | 1.21b | 1.40b | 1.49a | 1.47ab | |
Na+ (mmol· g-1 DW) | 4 | 0.05d | 0.16d | 0.17c | 0.73b | 0.16c | 0.52c | 0.71a | 1.07a | 0.53b | 0.79b |
8 | 0.06e | 0.31d | 0.41c | 1.13b | 0.28d | 0.91c | 1.05a | 1.32a | 0.61b | 1.05bc | |
12 | 0.07d | 0.28e | 0.55c | 1.48bc | 0.44c | 1.17d | 1.29a | 1.99a | 1.04b | 1.35c | |
Ca2+ (mmol· g-1 DW) | 4 | 0.13b | 0.13c | 0.14b | 0.14bc | 0.13b | 0.15b | 0.13b | 0.14bc | 0.17a | 0.18a |
8 | 0.13d | 0.12d | 0.15cd | 0.13d | 0.17bc | 0.17bc | 0.18b | 0.16c | 0.23a | 0.19a | |
12 | 0.14d | 0.15d | 0.18c | 0.18c | 0.21b | 0.20b | 0.22b | 0.19bc | 0.30a | 0.23a | |
Mg2+ (mmol· g-1 DW) | 4 | 0.10e | 0.23d | 0.15d | 0.24d | 0.20c | 0.33b | 0.23b | 0.27c | 0.26a | 0.37a |
8 | 0.18e | 0.31d | 0.19de | 0.33cd | 0.21cd | 0.39b | 0.27b | 0.37b | 0.32a | 0.46a | |
12 | 0.20d | 0.35e | 0.22cd | 0.41d | 0.25c | 0.45c | 0.41b | 0.49b | 0.47a | 0.54a | |
Cl- (mmol· g-1 DW) | 4 | 0.21e | 0.27e | 0.87c | 1.06cd | 0.74d | 0.96d | 1.19a | 1.66a | 1.01b | 1.29b |
8 | 0.26e | 0.37e | 1.16c | 1.70bc | 0.88d | 1.26d | 1.93a | 2.02a | 1.53b | 1.54c | |
12 | 0.27e | 0.31e | 1.33c | 2.06b | 1.02d | 1.58d | 2.06a | 2.26a | 1.65b | 1.79c |
[1] | Chance B, Maehly AC (1955). Assay of catalases and peroxidases. In: Colouick SP, Kaplan NO eds. Methods in Enzymology. Academic Press Publisher, New York,746-755. |
[2] | Chu L (储玲), Liu DY (刘登义), Wang YB (王友保) (2004). Effect of copper pollution on seedling growth and activate oxygen metabolism of Trifolium pratense. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology (应用生态学报), 15,119-122. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[3] | Demir Y, Kocacaliskan I (2001). Effects of NaCl and proline on polyphenol oxidase activity in bean seedings. Bilogia Plantarum, 44,607-609. |
[4] | Dhindsa RS, Plumb_Dhindsa P, Thorpe TA (1981). Leafs enescence correlated with increased levels of membrane permeability and lipid peroxidation, and decreased levels of superoxide dismutase and catalase. Journal of Experimental Botany, 32,93-101. |
[5] | Fedina IS, Georgieva K, Grigoreva I (2002). Light_dark changes in proline content of barley leaves under salt stress. Biologia Plantarum, 45,59-63. |
[6] | Heath RL, Packer L (1968). Photoperoxidation in isolated chloroplast. I. Kinetics and stoichemistry of fatty acid peroxidation. Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics, 25,189-198. |
[7] | Hunt J (1982). Dilute hydrochloric acid extraction of plant material for routine cation anaslysis. Communication in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 13,49-55. |
[8] | IrigoyenJJ,Emerich DW, Sanchez_Diaz M (1992). Water stress induced changes in concentrations of proline and total soluble sugars in nodulated alfalfa ( M. sativa) plants . Physiologia Plantarum, 84,55-60. |
[9] | Lin P (林鹏), Wang WQ (王文卿) (1999). Changes in the caloric values of Kandelia candel seedings under salt stress . Acta Phytoecologica Sinica (植物生态学报), 23,466-470. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[10] | Liu HX (刘鸿先), Zeng SX (曾韶西), Wang YR (王以柔), Li P (李平), Chen DF (陈德峰), Guo JY (郭俊彦) (1985). The effect of low temperature on superoxide dismutase in various organelles of cucumber seedling cotyledon with different cold tolerance. Acta Phytophysiol Sinica (植物生理学报), 11,48-57. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[11] | Liu ZP (刘兆普), Liu L (刘玲), Chen MD (陈铭达) (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) |
[12] | Long XH (隆小华), Liu ZP (刘兆普), Chen MD (陈铭达) (2005). Coupling effect of salt and fertilizer application on Helianthus tuberosus irrigated with seawater in semiarid region . Acta Pedologica Sinica (土壤学报), 42,91-97. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[13] | Long XH (隆小华), Liu ZP (刘兆普), Liu L (刘玲) (2004). Effects of different concentrations of seawater on growths, developments and absorption of P of Helianthus tuberosus seedlings . Bulletin of botanical research (植物研究), 24,331-334. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[14] | Lu JL (陆景陵) (1994). Plant Nutrition (植物营养学). China Agricultural University Press, Beijing,32-33. (in Chinese) |
[15] | Peng CL (彭长连), Lin ZF (林植芳), Ling GZ (林桂珠) (2000). Photosynthesis and water use efficiency in wheat varieties differing in phosphate use efficiency. Acta Agronomica Sinica (作物学报), 26,543-548. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[16] | Ren HX (任红旭), Chen X (陈雄), Wang YF (王亚馥) (2001). Changes in antioxidative enzymes and polyamines in wheat seedings with different drought resistance under drought and salt stress. Acta Phytoecologica Sinica (植物生态学报), 25,709-715. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[17] | Shao J (邵晶), Liu L (刘玲), Liu ZP (刘兆普), Zheng QS (郑青松) (2005). Alleviatory effects of phosphorus on growth inhibition of seawater_stressed aloe seedlings. Scientia Agricultura Sinica (中国农业科学), 38,843-848. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[18] | Tanaka Y, Hibino T, Hayashi Y (1998). Salt tolerance of transgenetic rice overpression yeast mitochondrial Mn_SOD in chloroplasts. Plant Science, 148,131-138. |
[19] |
Tiwari BS, Belenghi B, Levine A (2002). Oxidative stress increased respiration and generation of reactive oxygen species, resulting in ATP depletion, opening of mintochondrial permeability trensition, and programmed cell death. Plant Physiology, 128,1271-1281.
URL PMID |
[20] | Xu ZB (徐质斌) (2000). Development prospect of seawater irrigating agriculture in Shandong Province. Development Forum (发展论坛), 8(1),24-25. (in Chinese) |
[21] | Yan XX, Zhao TE, Hu YJ (1994). Effect of moderate salt stress on cells in root tips of barley. Acta Agriculture Boreali_Sinica, 9(Suppl.),61-64. |
[22] | Yu BJ (於丙军), Luo QY (罗庆云), Liu YL (刘友良) (2001). Effects of salt stress on growth and ionic distribution of salt_born Glycinesoja. Acta Agronomica Sinica (作物学报), 27,776-780. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[23] | Zhang BD (张邦定) (1997). The exploitation and planting of Helianthus tuberosus. Science and Technology of Agriculture in Sichuan. (四川农业科技), (5),35-37. (in Chinese) |
[24] | Zhang HY (张海燕), Zhao KF (赵可夫) (1998). Effects of salt and water stresss on osmotic adjustment of Suaeda salsa seedings . Acta Botanic Sinica (植物学报), 40,56-61. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[1] | 徐丽娇, 郝志鹏, 谢伟, 李芳, 陈保冬. 丛枝菌根真菌根外菌丝跨膜H +和Ca 2+流对干旱胁迫的响应[J]. 植物生态学报, 2018, 42(7): 764-773. |
[2] | 秦书琪, 房凯, 王冠钦, 彭云峰, 张典业, 李飞, 周国英, 杨元合. 高寒草原土壤交换性盐基离子对氮添加的响应: 以紫花针茅草原为例[J]. 植物生态学报, 2018, 42(1): 95-104. |
[3] | 杨升, 张华新, 陈秋夏, 杨秀艳. 沙枣幼苗根尖离子流对NaCl胁迫的响应[J]. 植物生态学报, 2017, 41(4): 489-496. |
[4] | 张秋芳, 吕春平, 贝昭贤, 谢锦升, 吕茂奎, 林伟盛, 陈岳民, 杨玉盛. 野外模拟增温对亚热带杉木叶片膜脂过氧化及保护酶活性的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2016, 40(12): 1230-1237. |
[5] | 雍艳华, 张霞, 王绍明, 吴玲. 新疆典型盐生植物营养器官盐分积累与生态化学计量特征[J]. 植物生态学报, 2016, 40(12): 1267-1275. |
[6] | 郭瑞, 李峰, 周际, 李昊儒, 夏旭, 刘琪. 亚麻响应盐、碱胁迫的生理特征[J]. 植物生态学报, 2016, 40(1): 69-79. |
[7] | 陆嘉惠, 吕新, 梁永超, 林海荣. 新疆胀果甘草幼苗耐盐性及对NaCl胁迫的离子响应[J]. 植物生态学报, 2013, 37(9): 839-850. |
[8] | 刘芳,左照江,许改平,吴兴波,郑洁,高荣孚,张汝民,高岩. 迷迭香对干旱胁迫的生理响应及其诱导挥发性有机化合物的释放[J]. 植物生态学报, 2013, 37(5): 454-463. |
[9] | 陶先萍, 罗宏海, 杨海, 丁全盛, 张亚黎, 张旺锋. 根域限制下水氮供应对膜下滴灌棉花根系及叶片衰老特性的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2013, 37(3): 256-267. |
[10] | 张红香, 田雨, 周道玮, 郑伟, 王敏玲. 大麦种子对盐的发芽响应模型[J]. 植物生态学报, 2012, 36(8): 849-858. |
[11] | 高奔, 宋杰, 刘金萍, 隋娜, 范海, 王宝山. 盐胁迫对不同生境盐地碱蓬光合及离子积累的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2010, 34(6): 671-677. |
[12] | 姜超强, 郑青松, 刘兆普, 徐文君, 李洪燕, 李青. 转AtNHX1基因杨树Tr品系的耐盐性研究[J]. 植物生态学报, 2010, 34(5): 563-570. |
[13] | 闫永庆, 刘兴亮, 王崑, 樊金萍, 石溪婵. 白刺对不同浓度混合盐碱胁迫的生理响应[J]. 植物生态学报, 2010, 34(10): 1213-1219. |
[14] | 徐新武, 樊大勇, 谢宗强, 张守仁, 张想英. 不同冲洗液对毛白杨和油松枝条水力导度和抵抗空穴化能力测定值的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2009, 33(1): 150-160. |
[15] | 邱宗波, 刘晓, 李方民, 田向军, 岳明. He-Ne激光处理与干旱胁迫对小麦幼苗保护酶活性及脂质过氧化作用的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2008, 32(5): 1002-1006. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||
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