植物生态学报 ›› 2005, Vol. 29 ›› Issue (5): 740-746.DOI: 10.17521/cjpe.2005.0098
雷抒情1(), 王海洋1,2,*(
), 杜国祯2, 潘声旺1
收稿日期:
2004-12-20
接受日期:
2005-04-19
出版日期:
2005-12-20
发布日期:
2005-08-30
通讯作者:
王海洋
作者简介:
E-mail: dike07@sina.com.
基金资助:
LEI Shu-Qing1(), WANG Hai-Yang1,2,*(
), DU Guo-Zhen2, PAN Sheng-Wang1
Received:
2004-12-20
Accepted:
2005-04-19
Online:
2005-12-20
Published:
2005-08-30
Contact:
WANG Hai-Yang
About author:
* E-mail: haiyang@swau.edu.cn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。
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
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
处理 Treatment | 刈割/对照 Clipping/Control | 补偿指数Compensation index | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
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 |
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 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
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
处理 Treatment | 刈割/对照 Clipping/Control | 补偿指数Compensation index | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
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 |
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 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
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 |
[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. |
[1] | 葛萍, 李昂, 王银柳, 姜良超, 牛国祥, 哈斯木其尔, 王彦兵, 薛建国, 赵威, 黄建辉. 草甸草原温室气体排放对氮添加量的非线性响应[J]. 植物生态学报, 2023, 47(11): 1483-1492. |
[2] | 裴广廷, 孙建飞, 贺同鑫, 胡宝清. 长期人为干扰对桂西北喀斯特草地土壤微生物多样性及群落结构的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2021, 45(1): 74-84. |
[3] | 叶学华, 薛建国, 谢秀芳, 黄振英. 外部干扰对根茎型克隆植物甘草自然种群植株生长及主要药用成分含量的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2020, 44(9): 951-961. |
[4] | 胡姝娅,刁华杰,王惠玲,薄元超,申颜,孙伟,董宽虎,黄建辉,王常慧. 北方农牧交错带温性盐碱化草地土壤呼吸对不同形态氮添加和刈割的响应[J]. 植物生态学报, 2020, 44(1): 70-79. |
[5] | 孔彬彬, 卫欣华, 杜家丽, 李英年, 朱志红. 刈割和施肥对高寒草甸物种多样性和功能多样性时间动态及其关系的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2016, 40(3): 187-199. |
[6] | 潘石玉, 孔彬彬, 姚天华, 卫欣华, 李英年, 朱志红. 刈割和施肥对高寒草甸功能多样性与地上净初级生产力关系的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2015, 39(9): 867-877. |
[7] | 高本强,袁自强,王斌先,高慧,张荣. 施肥和刈割对亚高山草甸物种多样性与生产力及其关系的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2014, 38(5): 417-424. |
[8] | 魏宇航,周晓波,陈劲松,谌利民,李娇,刘庆. 模拟采食干扰下克隆整合对两种箭竹分株种群更新的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2013, 37(8): 699-708. |
[9] | 李燕,朱志红. 高寒草甸对刈割、施肥和浇水发生响应的最优植物性状集和功能型[J]. 植物生态学报, 2013, 37(5): 384-396. |
[10] | 王海东, 张璐璐, 朱志红. 刈割、施肥对高寒草甸物种多样性与生态系统功能关系的影响及群落稳定性机制[J]. 植物生态学报, 2013, 37(4): 279-295. |
[11] | 隗溟,廖学群,李冬霞,段海龙. 水稻分蘖节位生产力比较[J]. 植物生态学报, 2012, 36(4): 324-332. |
[12] | 张璐璐, 周晓松, 李英年, 袁芙蓉, 樊瑞俭, 朱志红. 刈割、施肥和浇水对矮嵩草补偿生长的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2011, 35(6): 641-652. |
[13] | 刘滨扬, 刘蔚秋, 张以顺, 雷纯义. 低温胁迫后苔藓植物对模拟氮沉降条件的生理响应[J]. 植物生态学报, 2011, 35(3): 268-274. |
[14] | 王静, 赵萌莉, Walter WILLMS, 王忠武, 韩国栋. 内蒙古典型草原不同功能群生产力对凋落物添加的响应[J]. 植物生态学报, 2010, 34(8): 907-914. |
[15] | 温家石, 葛滢, 焦荔, 邓志平, 彭长辉, 常杰. 城市土地利用是否会降低区域碳吸收能力?——台州市案例研究[J]. 植物生态学报, 2010, 34(6): 651-660. |
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