植物生态学报 ›› 2008, Vol. 32 ›› Issue (5): 1002-1006.DOI: 10.3773/j.issn.1005-264x.2008.05.004
邱宗波1,2, 刘晓1, 李方民1, 田向军1, 岳明1,*()
收稿日期:
2007-02-08
接受日期:
2007-04-26
出版日期:
2008-02-08
发布日期:
2008-09-30
通讯作者:
岳明
作者简介:
*(yueming@nwu.edu.cn)基金资助:
QIU Zong-Bo1,2, LIU Xiao1, LI Fang-Min1, TIAN Xiang-Jun1, YUE Ming1,*()
Received:
2007-02-08
Accepted:
2007-04-26
Online:
2008-02-08
Published:
2008-09-30
Contact:
YUE Ming
摘要:
用He-Ne激光(5.23 mW·mm-2)处理经5%、10%、15% PEG6000胁迫的小麦幼苗, 分析了干旱胁迫条件下激光处理对小麦幼苗保护酶活性及脂质过氧化作用的影响。适度干旱胁迫的小麦幼苗经He-Ne激光辐照后, 丙二醛(MDA)含量和超氧自由基(O2-.)产生速率显著降低(p<0.05), 而过氧化物酶(POD)活性和抗坏血酸(AsA)、谷胱甘肽(GSH)含量却显著增加(p<0.05)。总体上看, 5%和10% PEG6000胁迫的小麦幼苗经激光辐照3 min后抗旱性增强。
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. 植物生态学报, 2008, 32(5): 1002-1006. DOI: 10.3773/j.issn.1005-264x.2008.05.004
QIU Zong-Bo, LIU Xiao, LI Fang-Min, TIAN Xiang-Jun, YUE Ming. INFLUENCE OF He-Ne LASER IRRADIATION ON PROTECTIVE ENZYME ACTIVITIES AND LIPID PEROXIDATION IN WHEAT SEEDLINGS BY DROUGHT STRESS DAMAGE. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 2008, 32(5): 1002-1006. DOI: 10.3773/j.issn.1005-264x.2008.05.004
PEG浓度 PEG content (%) | 激光处理时间Treatment time of laser (min) | PEG胁迫处理天数 Time of drought stress (d) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3 | 6 | 9 | 12 | 15 | ||
0 | 0 | 22.58±1.62 | 27.10±2.05 | 30.13±3.62 | 34.51±3.62 | 32.68±3.06 |
5 | 0 | 31.61±2.85a | 49.70±2.67a | 52.69±17.10a | 54.76±4.52a | 54.19±9.64a |
5 | 1 | 30.11±2.61a | 49.68±4.57a | 52.73±13.79a | 53.63±2.67a | 53.38±2.67a |
5 | 3 | 28.09±2.65a | 48.71±3.89a | 51.18±10.43a | 53.19±7.82a | 51.29±4.52a |
10 | 0 | 34.62±11.37a | 52.69±9.40a | 52.72±11.37a | 56.73±2.67a | 62.76±5.21a |
10 | 1 | 30.60±2.61a | 49.68±4.51a | 48.17±2.61a | 55.27±5.25a | 58.71±4.51a |
10 | 3 | 23.08±2.61b | 44.19±5.64b | 42.15±2.67b | 44.73±2.67b | 49.14±2.67b |
15 | 0 | 35.59±2.67a | 54.63±2.67a | 54.65±4.51a | 58.17±2.67a | 65.23±7.82a |
15 | 1 | 34.59±6.89a | 55.16±6.98a | 54.68±7.82a | 56.67±2.67a | 66.20±9.41a |
15 | 3 | 37.09±8.72a | 54.70±6.89a | 57.66±6.89a | 59.68±4.57a | 67.22±18.25a |
表1 He-Ne激光对干旱胁迫小麦幼苗MDA含量的影响
Table 1 The influence of He-Ne laser on MDA content in wheat seedlings under drought stress (μmol·g-1FW)
PEG浓度 PEG content (%) | 激光处理时间Treatment time of laser (min) | PEG胁迫处理天数 Time of drought stress (d) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3 | 6 | 9 | 12 | 15 | ||
0 | 0 | 22.58±1.62 | 27.10±2.05 | 30.13±3.62 | 34.51±3.62 | 32.68±3.06 |
5 | 0 | 31.61±2.85a | 49.70±2.67a | 52.69±17.10a | 54.76±4.52a | 54.19±9.64a |
5 | 1 | 30.11±2.61a | 49.68±4.57a | 52.73±13.79a | 53.63±2.67a | 53.38±2.67a |
5 | 3 | 28.09±2.65a | 48.71±3.89a | 51.18±10.43a | 53.19±7.82a | 51.29±4.52a |
10 | 0 | 34.62±11.37a | 52.69±9.40a | 52.72±11.37a | 56.73±2.67a | 62.76±5.21a |
10 | 1 | 30.60±2.61a | 49.68±4.51a | 48.17±2.61a | 55.27±5.25a | 58.71±4.51a |
10 | 3 | 23.08±2.61b | 44.19±5.64b | 42.15±2.67b | 44.73±2.67b | 49.14±2.67b |
15 | 0 | 35.59±2.67a | 54.63±2.67a | 54.65±4.51a | 58.17±2.67a | 65.23±7.82a |
15 | 1 | 34.59±6.89a | 55.16±6.98a | 54.68±7.82a | 56.67±2.67a | 66.20±9.41a |
15 | 3 | 37.09±8.72a | 54.70±6.89a | 57.66±6.89a | 59.68±4.57a | 67.22±18.25a |
PEG浓度 PEG content (%) | 激光处理时间Treatment time of laser (min) | PEG胁迫处理天数 Time of drought stress (d) | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3 | 6 | 9 | 12 | 15 | 12d | 15d | |||||
0 | 0 | 1.61±0.62 | 2.44±0.35 | 3.12±0.38 | 3.83±0.28 | 3.52±0.26 | |||||
5 | 0 | 3.22±0.54a | 3.08±0.23a | 4.50±0.10a | 4.68±0.09a | 4.06±0.80a | |||||
5 | 1 | 2.85±1.08a | 2.89±0.06a | 4.26±0.50a | 4.41±0.30a | 3.69±0.52a | |||||
5 | 3 | 1.04±0.13b | 2.61±0.31b | 2.64±0.60b | 3.65±0.80b | 3.02±0.14b | |||||
10 | 0 | 3.45±0.27a | 3.48±0.09a | 4.83±0.30a | 5.05±0.40a | 4.85±0.40a | |||||
10 | 1 | 3.27±0.95a | 3.23±0.09a | 4.28±0.15a | 4.89±0.08a | 4.61±0.58a | |||||
10 | 3 | 3.10±0.59a | 3.11±0.04a | 4.22±0.41a | 4.72±0.48a | 4.49±0.04a | |||||
15 | 0 | 3.48±1.49a | 4.21±0.21a | 4.68±0.53a | 5.62±0.34a | 5.55±0.48a | |||||
15 | 1 | 3.13±0.54a | 4.06±0.56a | 4.86±0.10a | 5.69±0.28a | 5.60±0.52a | |||||
15 | 3 | 3.29±0.82a | 4.05±0.06a | 4.71±0.72a | 5.49±0.62a | 5.49±0.82a |
表2 He-Ne激光对干旱胁迫小麦幼苗O2-.产生速率的影响
Table 2 The influence of He-Ne laser on the production rate of O2-.in wheat seedlings under drought stress (nmol·min-1·g-1FW)
PEG浓度 PEG content (%) | 激光处理时间Treatment time of laser (min) | PEG胁迫处理天数 Time of drought stress (d) | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3 | 6 | 9 | 12 | 15 | 12d | 15d | |||||
0 | 0 | 1.61±0.62 | 2.44±0.35 | 3.12±0.38 | 3.83±0.28 | 3.52±0.26 | |||||
5 | 0 | 3.22±0.54a | 3.08±0.23a | 4.50±0.10a | 4.68±0.09a | 4.06±0.80a | |||||
5 | 1 | 2.85±1.08a | 2.89±0.06a | 4.26±0.50a | 4.41±0.30a | 3.69±0.52a | |||||
5 | 3 | 1.04±0.13b | 2.61±0.31b | 2.64±0.60b | 3.65±0.80b | 3.02±0.14b | |||||
10 | 0 | 3.45±0.27a | 3.48±0.09a | 4.83±0.30a | 5.05±0.40a | 4.85±0.40a | |||||
10 | 1 | 3.27±0.95a | 3.23±0.09a | 4.28±0.15a | 4.89±0.08a | 4.61±0.58a | |||||
10 | 3 | 3.10±0.59a | 3.11±0.04a | 4.22±0.41a | 4.72±0.48a | 4.49±0.04a | |||||
15 | 0 | 3.48±1.49a | 4.21±0.21a | 4.68±0.53a | 5.62±0.34a | 5.55±0.48a | |||||
15 | 1 | 3.13±0.54a | 4.06±0.56a | 4.86±0.10a | 5.69±0.28a | 5.60±0.52a | |||||
15 | 3 | 3.29±0.82a | 4.05±0.06a | 4.71±0.72a | 5.49±0.62a | 5.49±0.82a |
PEG浓度 PEG content (%) | 激光处理时间Treatment time of laser (min) | PEG胁迫处理天数 Time of drought stress (d) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3 | 6 | 9 | 12 | 15 | 9d | 12d | 15d | |
0 | 0 | 8.40±0.85 | 9.42±0.65 | 10.21±1.28 | 10.43±2.65 | 11.27±2.36 | ||
5 | 0 | 8.53±0.92b | 8.13±0.58b | 10.47±1.61b | 11.20±1.72b | 15.13±1.31b | ||
5 | 1 | 8.93±1.36b | 8.60±0.53b | 10.97±1.49b | 12.47±2.39b | 16.20±1.89a | ||
5 | 3 | 10.93±1.64a | 12.60±1.72a | 13.23±1.44a | 14.33±1.98a | 17.53±1.77a | ||
10 | 0 | 10.30±1.90a | 11.47±1.61a | 13.57±1.63a | 14.47±1.12a | 24.87±1.66a | ||
10 | 1 | 12.40±1.60a | 11.40±1.59a | 13.80±1.58a | 16.20±1.87a | 26.00±1.58a | ||
10 | 3 | 10.53±1.64a | 11.53±1.57a | 13.07±1.15a | 15.40±1.72a | 25.07±1.67a | ||
15 | 0 | 12.70±1.46a | 12.10±1.75a | 12.73±1.64a | 12.40±1.02a | 18.00±2.27a | ||
15 | 1 | 12.00±1.87a | 12.60±2.86a | 13.73±0.95a | 13.27±2.53a | 18.67±1.45a | ||
15 | 3 | 12.27±1.60a | 12.80±1.58a | 12.80±1.20a | 13.87±1.92a | 18.53±1.84a |
表3 He-Ne激光对干旱胁迫小麦幼苗POD活性的影响
Table 3 The influence of He-Ne laser on POD activity in wheat seedlings under drought stress (U·mg-1protein)
PEG浓度 PEG content (%) | 激光处理时间Treatment time of laser (min) | PEG胁迫处理天数 Time of drought stress (d) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3 | 6 | 9 | 12 | 15 | 9d | 12d | 15d | |
0 | 0 | 8.40±0.85 | 9.42±0.65 | 10.21±1.28 | 10.43±2.65 | 11.27±2.36 | ||
5 | 0 | 8.53±0.92b | 8.13±0.58b | 10.47±1.61b | 11.20±1.72b | 15.13±1.31b | ||
5 | 1 | 8.93±1.36b | 8.60±0.53b | 10.97±1.49b | 12.47±2.39b | 16.20±1.89a | ||
5 | 3 | 10.93±1.64a | 12.60±1.72a | 13.23±1.44a | 14.33±1.98a | 17.53±1.77a | ||
10 | 0 | 10.30±1.90a | 11.47±1.61a | 13.57±1.63a | 14.47±1.12a | 24.87±1.66a | ||
10 | 1 | 12.40±1.60a | 11.40±1.59a | 13.80±1.58a | 16.20±1.87a | 26.00±1.58a | ||
10 | 3 | 10.53±1.64a | 11.53±1.57a | 13.07±1.15a | 15.40±1.72a | 25.07±1.67a | ||
15 | 0 | 12.70±1.46a | 12.10±1.75a | 12.73±1.64a | 12.40±1.02a | 18.00±2.27a | ||
15 | 1 | 12.00±1.87a | 12.60±2.86a | 13.73±0.95a | 13.27±2.53a | 18.67±1.45a | ||
15 | 3 | 12.27±1.60a | 12.80±1.58a | 12.80±1.20a | 13.87±1.92a | 18.53±1.84a |
PEG浓度 PEG content (%) | 激光处理时间Treatment time of laser (min) | PEG胁迫处理天数 Time of drought stress (d) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3 | 6 | 9 | 12 | 15 | ||
0 | 0 | 9.02±1.02 | 9.36±0.87 | 9.92±2.31 | 9.26±2.05 | 8.93±1.86 |
5 | 0 | 7.18±0.40b | 8.34±1.01b | 8.40±2.26b | 7.24±1.07b | 6.21±0.49b |
5 | 1 | 8.75±0.50ab | 9.42±1.07ab | 10.19±1.02ab | 7.83±1.04ab | 7.25±1.01ab |
5 | 3 | 10.02±1.27a | 10.39±2.11a | 10.50±2.01a | 9.19±0.53a | 8.49±1.14a |
10 | 0 | 7.84±1.02a | 8.14±1.69a | 8.82±1.01a | 8.54±0.67a | 7.68±1.01a |
10 | 1 | 8.77±1.01a | 8.90±1.03a | 10.04±1.01a | 8.50±1.25a | 7.83±0.68a |
10 | 3 | 8.57±1.07a | 9.54±1.01a | 10.16±0.58a | 8.92±1.15a | 8.43±0.78a |
15 | 0 | 8.05±1.01a | 9.51±+1.01a | 10.09±0.72a | 7.13±1.01a | 7.12±0.71a |
15 | 1 | 8.33±1.13a | 9.91±1.01a | 10.12±1.01a | 7.21±1.04a | 7.21±1.06a |
15 | 3 | 8.99±1.03a | 9.48±1.07a | 10.27±1.11a | 7.43±1.06a | 7.39±1.04a |
表4 He-Ne激光对干旱胁迫小麦幼苗AsA含量的影响
Table 4 The influence of He-Ne laser on AsA concentration in wheat seedlings under drought stress (μg·g-1FW )
PEG浓度 PEG content (%) | 激光处理时间Treatment time of laser (min) | PEG胁迫处理天数 Time of drought stress (d) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3 | 6 | 9 | 12 | 15 | ||
0 | 0 | 9.02±1.02 | 9.36±0.87 | 9.92±2.31 | 9.26±2.05 | 8.93±1.86 |
5 | 0 | 7.18±0.40b | 8.34±1.01b | 8.40±2.26b | 7.24±1.07b | 6.21±0.49b |
5 | 1 | 8.75±0.50ab | 9.42±1.07ab | 10.19±1.02ab | 7.83±1.04ab | 7.25±1.01ab |
5 | 3 | 10.02±1.27a | 10.39±2.11a | 10.50±2.01a | 9.19±0.53a | 8.49±1.14a |
10 | 0 | 7.84±1.02a | 8.14±1.69a | 8.82±1.01a | 8.54±0.67a | 7.68±1.01a |
10 | 1 | 8.77±1.01a | 8.90±1.03a | 10.04±1.01a | 8.50±1.25a | 7.83±0.68a |
10 | 3 | 8.57±1.07a | 9.54±1.01a | 10.16±0.58a | 8.92±1.15a | 8.43±0.78a |
15 | 0 | 8.05±1.01a | 9.51±+1.01a | 10.09±0.72a | 7.13±1.01a | 7.12±0.71a |
15 | 1 | 8.33±1.13a | 9.91±1.01a | 10.12±1.01a | 7.21±1.04a | 7.21±1.06a |
15 | 3 | 8.99±1.03a | 9.48±1.07a | 10.27±1.11a | 7.43±1.06a | 7.39±1.04a |
PEG浓度 PEG content (%) | 激光处理时间Treatment time of laser (min) | PEG胁迫处理天数 Time of drought stress (d) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3 | 6 | 9 | 12 | 15 | ||
0 | 0 | 2.17±0.16 | 2.68±0.36 | 2.78±0.28 | 2.18±0.19 | 2.34±.0.17 |
5 | 0 | 0.69±0.08a | 0.93±0.14a | 1.27±0.13a | 0.84±0.09a | 0.11±0.01a |
5 | 1 | 0.73±0.04a | 1.24±0.21a | 1.32±0.09a | 0.95±0.07a | 0.12±0.01a |
5 | 3 | 0.73±0.03a | 1.15±0.18a | 1.35±0.31a | 0.98±0.15a | 0.11±0.01a |
10 | 0 | 0.69±0.03a | 1.21±0.25a | 1.35±0.27a | 0.84±0.08a | 0.10±0.01a |
10 | 1 | 0.62±0.04a | 1.33±0.14a | 1.36±0.16a | 0.88±0.13a | 0.15±0.04a |
10 | 3 | 0.66±0.06a | 1.40±0.12a | 1.42±0.13a | 0.89±0.08a | 0.18±0.06a |
15 | 0 | 1.01±0.15b | 1.19±0.18b | 1.49±0.12b | 1.05±0.01b | 0.14±0.03a |
15 | 1 | 1.20±0.14b | 1.63±0.21a | 1.64±0.24ab | 1.21±0.06ab | 0.12±0.06a |
15 | 3 | 1.62±0.14a | 1.67±0.35a | 1.72±0.26a | 1.30±0.02a | 0.14±0.07a |
表5 He-Ne激光对干旱胁迫小麦幼苗GSH含量的影响
Table 5 The influence of He-Ne laser on GSH concentration in wheat seedlings under drought stress (μg·g-1FW )
PEG浓度 PEG content (%) | 激光处理时间Treatment time of laser (min) | PEG胁迫处理天数 Time of drought stress (d) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3 | 6 | 9 | 12 | 15 | ||
0 | 0 | 2.17±0.16 | 2.68±0.36 | 2.78±0.28 | 2.18±0.19 | 2.34±.0.17 |
5 | 0 | 0.69±0.08a | 0.93±0.14a | 1.27±0.13a | 0.84±0.09a | 0.11±0.01a |
5 | 1 | 0.73±0.04a | 1.24±0.21a | 1.32±0.09a | 0.95±0.07a | 0.12±0.01a |
5 | 3 | 0.73±0.03a | 1.15±0.18a | 1.35±0.31a | 0.98±0.15a | 0.11±0.01a |
10 | 0 | 0.69±0.03a | 1.21±0.25a | 1.35±0.27a | 0.84±0.08a | 0.10±0.01a |
10 | 1 | 0.62±0.04a | 1.33±0.14a | 1.36±0.16a | 0.88±0.13a | 0.15±0.04a |
10 | 3 | 0.66±0.06a | 1.40±0.12a | 1.42±0.13a | 0.89±0.08a | 0.18±0.06a |
15 | 0 | 1.01±0.15b | 1.19±0.18b | 1.49±0.12b | 1.05±0.01b | 0.14±0.03a |
15 | 1 | 1.20±0.14b | 1.63±0.21a | 1.64±0.24ab | 1.21±0.06ab | 0.12±0.06a |
15 | 3 | 1.62±0.14a | 1.67±0.35a | 1.72±0.26a | 1.30±0.02a | 0.14±0.07a |
[1] | Cai SW (蔡素雯), Qi Z (齐智), Ma XL (马小来) (2000). Effect of He-Ne laser irradiation on soluble protein synthesis of corn seedlings. Chinese Journal of Lasers (中国激光), 27,284-288. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[2] | Han R (韩榕), Wang XL (王勋陵), Yue M (岳明) (2002). Influence of He-Ne laser irradiation on the damage and repair of wheat seedling by enhanced UV-B radiation. Chinese Journal of Lasers (中国激光), 29,859-863. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[3] | Lin ZF (林植芳), Li SS (李双顺), Lin GZ (林桂珠) (1984). Relationship between superoxide dismutase as well as lipid peroxidation and the senescence in rice leaves. Acta Botanica Sinica(植物学报), 26,605-615. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[4] |
Qi Z, Yue M, Han R (2002). The damage repair role of He-Ne laser in plant exposed to different intensities of ultraviolet-B irradiation. Photochemistry and Photobiology, 75,680-687.
DOI URL PMID |
[5] | Qi Zi, Yue M, Wang XL (2000). Laser pretreatment protects cells of broad bean from UV-B radiation damage. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology B: Biology, 59,33-37. |
[6] | Wang AG (王爱国), Luo GH (罗广华) (1990). Quantitative relation between the reaction of hydroxylamine and superoxide anion radicals in plants. Plant Physiology Communications (植物生理学通讯), 6,55-57. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[7] | Yuan ZX (袁朝兴), Ding J (丁静) (1990). Effect of water stress on IAA, IAA-POD and POD activity in cotton leaves. Acta Phytophysiologia Sinica (植物生理学报), 16,37-42. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[8] | Zeng SX (曾韶西), Wang YR (王以柔) (1990). Effects of chilling stress on the activity of ascorbic acid peroxidase and glutathione content in cotyledons of cucumber seedlings. Acta Phytophysiologia Sinica (植物生理学报), 16,37-42. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[9] | Zhang ZS (张宗申), Li RQ (利容千), Wang JB (王建波) (2001). Effects of Ca 2+pretreatment on plasma lemma permeability, GSH and contents, and calcium distribution in pepper mesophyll cells under heat stress. Acta Phytoecologica Sinica (植物生态学报), 25,230-234. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[1] | 陈图强, 徐贵青, 刘深思, 李彦. 干旱胁迫下梭梭水力性状调整与非结构性碳水化合物动态[J]. 植物生态学报, 2023, 47(10): 1407-1421. |
[2] | 周洁, 杨晓东, 王雅芸, 隆彦昕, 王妍, 李浡睿, 孙启兴, 孙楠. 梭梭和骆驼刺对干旱的适应策略差异[J]. 植物生态学报, 2022, 46(9): 1064-1076. |
[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] | 刘丽燕, 冯锦霞, 刘文鑫, 万贤崇. 干旱胁迫对转PtPIP2;8基因84K杨苗木光合、生长和根系结构的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2020, 44(6): 677-686. |
[5] | 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. |
[6] | 王曦,胡红玲,胡庭兴,张城浩,王鑫,刘丹. 干旱胁迫对桢楠幼树渗透调节与活性氧代谢的影响及施氮的缓解效应[J]. 植物生态学报, 2018, 42(2): 240-251. |
[7] | 罗丹丹, 王传宽, 金鹰. 植物水分调节对策: 等水与非等水行为[J]. 植物生态学报, 2017, 41(9): 1020-1032. |
[8] | 郭瑞, 周际, 杨帆, 李峰. 小麦根系在碱胁迫下的生理代谢反应[J]. 植物生态学报, 2017, 41(6): 683-692. |
[9] | 徐静馨, 郑有飞, 麦博儒, 赵辉, 储仲芳, 黄积庆, 袁月. 基于涡度相关法的麦田O3干沉降及不同沉降通道分配的特征[J]. 植物生态学报, 2017, 41(6): 670-682. |
[10] | 高林, 王晓菲, 顾行发, 田庆久, 焦俊男, 王培燕, 李丹. 植冠下土壤类型差异对遥感估算冬小麦叶面积指数的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2017, 41(12): 1273-1288. |
[11] | 岑宇, 刘美珍. 凝结水对干旱胁迫下羊草和冰草生理生态特征及叶片形态的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2017, 41(11): 1199-1207. |
[12] | 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. |
[13] | 郭瑞, 周际, 杨帆, 李峰, 李昊如, 夏旭, 刘琪. 拔节孕穗期小麦干旱胁迫下生长代谢变化规律[J]. 植物生态学报, 2016, 40(12): 1319-1327. |
[14] | 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. |
[15] | 安东升, 曹娟, 黄小华, 周娟, 窦美安. 基于Lake模型的叶绿素荧光参数在甘蔗苗期抗旱性研究中的应用[J]. 植物生态学报, 2015, 39(4): 398-406. |
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