植物生态学报 ›› 2005, Vol. 29 ›› Issue (6): 1000-1006.DOI: 10.17521/cjpe.2005.0125 cstr: 32100.14.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
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
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] | 徐恩相, 周蕾, 章晓炜, 张国萍, 仲杜伟, 黄智, 刘派, 迟永刚. 基于不同生育阶段冠层光谱和碳通量的水稻产量估算[J]. 植物生态学报, 2026, 50(1): 82-93. |
| [2] | 李月琪, 麻仲花, 刘威帆, 苏明, 万猛虎, 李清云, 张丹, 刘吉利, 吴娜. 垂直深旋耕配施有机肥对盐碱地玉米叶片衰老特性及产量的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2026, 50(1): 222-236. |
| [3] | 李少伟, 何永涛, 孙维, 戴尔阜. 2016-2020年拉萨河谷典型农田生态系统长期监测样地作物收获期性状和产量数据集[J]. 植物生态学报, 2025, 49(8): 1321-1328. |
| [4] | 樊月玲, 蒋正德, 叶佳舒, 郑立臣, 陈欣. 2005-2015年下辽河平原农田长期观测样地主要农作物收获期性状和产量数据集[J]. 植物生态学报, 2025, 49(8): 1271-1282. |
| [5] | 王志波, 刘文胜, 吴瑞俊, 王国梁. 2018-2023年黄土高原丘陵沟壑区川台地农田长期监测样地作物收获期性状和产量数据集[J]. 植物生态学报, 2025, 49(8): 1301-1311. |
| [6] | 王书伟, 林静慧, 周伟, 单军, 赵旭, 颜晓元. 2004-2020年太湖平原典型农田生态系统长期监测样地作物收获期性状和产量数据集[J]. 植物生态学报, 2025, 49(8): 1283-1292. |
| [7] | 王鹏, 李向义, 高艳菊, 热甫开提·沙比提, 曾凡江. 2005-2010年塔克拉玛干沙漠南缘绿洲农田长期监测样地棉花收获期性状和产量数据集[J]. 植物生态学报, 2025, 49(8): 1329-1338. |
| [8] | 朱喜, 何志斌, 杜明武, 赵丽雯, 吴丹丹. 2004-2010年河西走廊中段绿洲农田生态系统长期监测样地作物性状和产量数据集[J]. 植物生态学报, 2025, 49(8): 1312-1320. |
| [9] | 张斌, 张浩成, 乔天, 吕治兵, 许亚男, 李雪芹, 原向阳, 冯美臣, 张美俊. 接种丛枝菌根真菌对干旱胁迫燕麦非结构性碳水化合物及碳氮磷化学计量特征的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2025, 49(7): 1082-1095. |
| [10] | 严文秀, 赵诗晗, 郑春燕, 张萍, 沈海花, 常锦峰, 徐亢. 基于多物候指标的人工饲草长势监测及产量估测[J]. 植物生态学报, 2025, 49(7): 1096-1109. |
| [11] | 唐远翔, 熊仕臣, 朱洪锋, 张新生, 游成铭, 刘思凝, 谭波, 徐振锋. 长期氮添加对四川盆地西缘常绿阔叶林优势树种凋落叶产量及碳氮磷归还的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2025, 49(5): 720-731. |
| [12] | 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. |
| [13] | 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. |
| [14] | 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. |
| [15] | 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. |
| 阅读次数 | ||||||
|
全文 |
|
|||||
|
摘要 |
|
|||||
Copyright © 2026 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