淹水处理下杨树不同无性系苗木根系形态变化

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1000-2006.201808044

国家林草科技领军期刊
中国精品科技期刊
中国高校百佳科技期刊
江苏省新闻出版政府奖期刊奖
RCCSE林学权威期刊（A+）
CSCD核心期刊
Scopus数据库收录期刊
中文核心期刊
SCD核心期刊

作者加群：102861116

微信公众号：南京林业大学学报

高级检索

南京林业大学学报（自然科学版） ›› 2019, Vol. 43 ›› Issue (5): 1-8.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2006.201808044

淹水处理下杨树不同无性系苗木根系形态变化

赵小军(), 程方, 张康, 黄开栋, 倪云, 孟晓, 唐罗忠^*()

南京林业大学,南方现代林业协同创新中心,南京林业大学林学院,江苏南京 210037

收稿日期:2018-08-23 修回日期:2019-01-02 出版日期:2019-10-08 发布日期:2019-10-08
通讯作者: 唐罗忠
基金资助:
“十二五”国家科技支撑计划(2015BAD09B02);江苏高校优势学科建设工程资助项目(PAPD)

Root morphology of different poplar clone stecklings under waterlogging and flooding treatment

ZHAO Xiaojun(), CHENG Fang, ZHANG Kang, HUANG Kaidong, NI Yun, MENG Xiao, TANG Luozhong^*()

Co-Innovation Center for the Sustainable Forestry in Southern China,College of Forestry, Nanjing Forestry University,Nanjing 210037,China

Received:2018-08-23 Revised:2019-01-02 Online:2019-10-08 Published:2019-10-08
Contact: TANG Luozhong

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

【目的】了解淹水处理下不同杨树无性系苗木根系的形态变化规律,揭示杨树对淹水胁迫的根系适应策略,为筛选耐水的杨树无性系提供依据。【方法】选用3804杨、1388杨、895杨、110杨和328杨5个杨树无性系,设置对照、渍水和淹水3种处理,测定苗木根系的生物量、长度、数量、表面积、体积等指标。【结果】①渍水处理下杨树根生物量与对照无显著差异,但淹水处理下的根生物量却显著小于对照。②渍水和淹水处理下的多数杨树无性系苗木一级根数量与对照之间没有显著差异,但总根长、总根投影面积、总根表面积和总根体积却大于对照。③与对照相比,渍水和淹水处理下的杨树苗木根系平均直径有所减小,但根尖数、分叉数和交叉数却增大。④主成分分析提取出的2个主成分累积贡献率为88.58%,可较好地反映杨树苗木根系形态特征。【结论】隶属函数法分析表明,在渍水处理下5个杨树无性系根系形态表现的优劣顺序是1388杨>895杨>3804杨>110杨>328杨;在淹水处理下的优劣顺序是1388杨>895杨>110杨>328杨>3804杨。所以,从根系形态表现看,1388杨和895杨的耐水性较强。

关键词: 杨树无性系, 渍水处理, 淹水处理, 根系形态, 综合评价

Abstract:

【Objective】 In this study, the root morphology of different poplar (Populus sp.) clone seedlings under waterlogging and flooding treatment was explored, and the adaptive strategies of the poplar root system were elucidated to provide a scientific basis for the selection of poplar clones. 【Method】 Five poplar clones, i.e., 3804, 1388, 895, 110 and 328, were selected, and three treatments, i.e., control, waterlogging and flooding, were set up to determine the effects of different treatments on root characteristics such as biomass, total length, quantity, surface area and volume. 【Result】 ① There was no significant difference between the control and waterlogging groups in terms of poplar root biomass; however, in the flooding group, root biomass was significantly lower than that in the control group. ② No significant difference was found in terms of the number of first-order roots of most poplar clone stecklings between the treatment and control groups, but the total root length, projection area, surface area and volume were greater in the treatment groups than in the control group. ③ Compared with the control group, the treatment groups had decreased average root diameter but had increased number of root tips, root forks and root crossings. ④ The cumulative contribution rate of the two principal components extracted by principal component analysis was 88.58%, which may reflect the root morphological characteristics of poplar clone stecklings. 【Conclusion】 Subordinate function analysis showed that the order of the poplar clone stecklings based on root morphological performance for both treatment was as follows: waterlogging treatment, poplar 1388 > poplar 895>poplar 3804>poplar 110>poplar 328 and flooding treatment, poplar 1388>poplar 895>poplar 110>poplar 328>poplar 3804. In conclusion, based on the root morphology, we suggest that poplar 1388 and poplar 895 are more resistant to waterlogging and flooding among all studied poplar clone stecklings.

Key words: poplar (Populus spp.) clone, waterlogging treatment, flooding treatment, root morphology, comprehensive evaluation

中图分类号:

S718

赵小军,程方,张康,等. 淹水处理下杨树不同无性系苗木根系形态变化[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2019, 43(5): 1-8.

ZHAO Xiaojun, CHENG Fang, ZHANG Kang, HUANG Kaidong, NI Yun, MENG Xiao, TANG Luozhong. Root morphology of different poplar clone stecklings under waterlogging and flooding treatment[J].Journal of Nanjing Forestry University (Natural Science Edition), 2019, 43(5): 1-8.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2006.201808044.

图/表 8

图1

图2

图3

图4

图5

表1

表2

表3

参考文献 22

[1]	李合生. 现代植物生理学[M]. 3版. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2012.
	LI H S. Modern plant physiology [M]. 3rd ed. Beijing: Higher Education Press, 2012.
[2]	汪贵斌, 蔡金峰, 何肖华. 涝渍胁迫对喜树幼苗形态和生理的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2009, 33(1):134-140. DOI: 10.3773/j.issn.1005-264X.2009.01.015. doi: 10.3773/j.issn.1005-264x.2009.01.015
	WANG G B, CAI J F, HE X H. Effects of waterlogging stress on morphology and physiology of Camptotheca acuminata [J]. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 2009, 33(1):134-140.
[3]	GOMES A R S, KOZLOWSKI T T. Effects of flooding on Eucalyptus camaldulensis and Eucalyptus globulus seedlings[J]. Oecologia, 1980, 46(2):139-142. DOI: 10.1007/BF00540117. doi: 10.1007/BF00540117
[4]	卢妍. 湿地植物对淹水条件的响应机制[J]. 自然灾害学报, 2010, 19(4):147-151. DOI: 10.13577/j.jnd.2010.0423.
	LU Y. Response mechanism of wetland plants to submerged conditions[J]. Journal of Natural Disasters, 2010, 19(4):147-151.
[5]	吴泽民, 孙启祥, 段文秀. 安徽长江滩地杨树人工林个体生长与水淹状况的关系[J]. 应用生态学报, 2000, 11(1):25-29. DOI: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.2000.0007.
	WU Z M, SUN Q X, DUAN W X. Relationship between flooded situation and poplar growth on beach land of Yangtze River in Anhui[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2000, 11(1):25-29.
[6]	汤玉喜, 吴立勋, 徐世凤, 等. 滩地淹水胁迫对杨树生长影响的研究[J]. 湖南林业科技, 2002, 29(1):14-17. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-5710.2002.01.004.
	TANG Y X, WU L X, XU S F. et al. The effect on poplar growth from beach flooding[J]. Hunan Forestry Science and Technology, 2002, 29(1):14-17.
[7]	唐罗忠, 徐锡增, 方升佐. 土壤涝渍对杨树和柳树苗期生长及生理性状影响的研究[J]. 应用生态学报, 1998, 9(5):471-474. DOI: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.1998.0101.
	TANG L Z, XU X Z, FANG S Z. Influence of soil waterlogging on growth and physiological properties of poplar and willow seedlings[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 1998, 9(5):471-474.
[8]	GONG J R, ZHANG X S, HUANG Y M, et al. The effects of flooding on several hybrid poplar clones in Northern China[J]. Agroforestry Systems, 2007, 69(1):77-88. DOI: 10.1007/s10457-006-9019-4. doi: 10.1007/s10457-006-9019-4
[9]	IMADA S, YAMANAKA N, TAMAI S. Water table depth affects Populus alba fine root growth and whole plant biomass[J]. Functional Ecology, 2008, 22(6):1018-1026. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2435.2008.01454.x. doi: 10.1111/fec.2008.22.issue-6
[10]	徐锡增, 唐罗忠, 程淑婉. 涝渍胁迫下杨树内源激素及其它生理反应[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 1999, 23(1):1-5. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2006.1999.01.001.
	XU X Z, TANG L Z, CHENG S W. A study on hormones and other physiological effects of poplar clones under flooding stress[J]. Journal of Nanjing Forestry University (Natural Sciences Edition), 1999, 23(1):1-5.
[11]	高健, 侯成林, 吴泽民. 淹水胁迫对I-69/55杨蒸腾作用的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2000, 11(4):518-522. DOI: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.2000.0127.
	GAO J, HOU C L, WU Z M. Effect of flooding stress on transpiration of poplar I-69/55[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2000, 11(4):518-522.
[12]	杜克兵, 许林, 涂炳坤, 等. 淹水胁迫对2种杨树1年生苗叶片超微结构和光合特性的影响[J]. 林业科学, 2010, 46(6):58-64. DOI: 10.11707/j.1001-7488.20100609.
	DU K B, XU L, TU B K, et al. Influences of soil flooding on ultrastructure and photosynthetic capacity of leaves of one-year oldseedlings of two poplar clones[J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2010, 46(6):58-64.
[13]	洪光宇, 鲍雅静, 周延林, 等. 退化草原羊草种群根系形态特征对水分梯度的响应[J]. 中国草地学报, 2013, 35(1):73-78. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-5021.2013.01.012.
	HONG G Y, BAO Y J, ZHOU Y L, et al. Response of root system of Leymus chinensis population to water gradient in degraded grassland [J]. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2013, 35(1):73-78.
[14]	李帅, 赵国靖, 徐伟洲, 等. 白羊草根系形态特征对土壤水分阶段变化的响应[J]. 草业学报, 2016, 25(2):169-177. DOI: 10.11686/cyxb2015171.
	LI S, ZHAO G J, XU W Z, et al. Responses of old world bluestem root systems to changes in soil water conditions[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2016, 25(2):169-177.
[15]	DASA K K, PANDAA D, SARKARA R K, et al. Submergence tolerance in relation to variable floodwater conditions in rice[J]. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 2009, 66(3):425-434. DOI: 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2009.02.015. doi: 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2009.02.015
[16]	朱桂才, 高树杰, 张霞. 李氏禾根系生长对淹水胁迫及解除的响应[J]. 长江大学学报(自然科学版), 2010, 7(4):52-55. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-1409(S).2010.04.015.
	ZHU G C, GAO S J, ZHANG X. Response of Leersia herxandra root growth status subjected to flooding stress and rescission [J]. Journal of Yangtze University (Natural Science Edition), 2010, 7(4):52-55.
[17]	BAYUELOJIMENEZ J S, GALLARDOVALDEZ M, PEREZDECELIS V A, et al. Genotypic variation for root traits of maize (Zea mays L.) from the Purhepecha plateau under contrasting phosphorus availability[J]. Field Crops Research, 2011, 121(3):350-362. DOI: 10.1016/j.fcr.2011.01.001. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2011.01.001
[18]	蔡丽平, 吴鹏飞, 侯晓龙, 等. 类芦根系对不同强度干旱胁迫的形态学响应[J]. 中国农学通报, 2012, 28(28):44-48. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-6850.2012.28.008.
	CAI L P, WU P F, HOU X L, et al. Morphological response to different drought stress in the roots of Neyraudia reynaudiana [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2012, 28(28):44-48.
[19]	任爱天, 鲁为华, 杨洁晶, 等. 棉花、苜蓿细根生长和死亡的季节变化[J]. 草业学报, 2015, 24(6):213-219. DOI: 10.11686/cyxb2014319.
	REN A T, LU W H, YANG J J, et al. Seasonal change patterns in the production and mortality of fine roots in cotton and alfalfa[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2015, 24(6):213-219.
[20]	CLARK L J, PRICE A H, STEELE K A, et al. Evidence from near-isogenic lines that root penetration increases with root diameter and bending stiffness in rice[J]. Functional Plant Biology, 2008, 35(11):1163-1171. DOI: 10.1071/FP08132. doi: 10.1071/FP08132
[21]	BAILEY-SERRES J, VOESENEK L A C J. Flooding stress: acclimations and genetic diversity[J]. Annual Review of Plant Biology, 2008, 59:313-339. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.arplant.59.032607.092752. doi: 10.1146/annurev.arplant.59.032607.092752
[22]	SAIRAM R K, KUMUTHA D, EZHILMATHI K, et al. Physiology and biochemistry of waterlogging tolerance in plants[J]. Biologia Plantarum, 2008, 52(3):401-412. DOI: 10.1007/s10535-008-0084-6. doi: 10.1007/s10535-008-0084-6

成分 component	初始特征值initial eigenvalue
成分 component	特征值 eigenvalue	贡献率/% contribution rate	累积贡献率/% cumulative contribution rate
1	9.27	77.26	77.26
2	1.36	11.32	88.58
3	0.63	5.22	93.80
4	0.30	2.52	96.32
5	0.24	2.02	98.34
6	0.10	0.83	99.17
7	0.07	0.57	99.74
8	0.02	0.18	99.92
9	0.01	0.06	99.97
10	0.00	0.02	99.99
11	0.00	0.00	100.00
12	0.00	0.00	100.00

指标index	主成分 principal component
指标index	1	2
根生物量root biomass(X₁)	0.79	0.44
一级根数量number of first order root(X₂)	0.74	0.33
平均根长average root length(X₃)	0.78	0.42
最长根长maximum root length(X₄)	0.85	0.21
总根长total root length(X₅)	0.99	-0.13
总根投影面积total root projection area(X₆)	0.99	-0.05
总根表面积total root surface area(X₇)	0.99	-0.05
总根体积total root volume(X₈)	0.99	0.04
根平均直径root average diameter(X₉)	-0.44	0.84
根尖数root tips number(X₁₀)	0.91	-0.18
根系分叉数root forks number(X₁₁)	0.96	-0.19
根系交叉数root crossings number(X₁₂)	0.95	-0.21

指标index	渍水waterlogging					淹水flooding
指标index	3804杨 poplar 3804	1388杨 poplar 1388	895杨 poplar 895	110杨 poplar 110	328杨 poplar 328	3804杨 poplar 3804	1388杨 poplar 1388	895杨 poplar 895	110杨 poplar 110	328杨 poplar 328
根生物量root biomass	0.99	1.00	0.65	0.53	0.00	0.13	1.00	0.69	0.50	0.00
一级根数量number of first order root	1.00	0.55	0.48	0.00	0.37	0.44	0.57	1.00	0.00	0.23
平均根长average root length	0.28	0.46	0.76	1.00	0.00	0.00	0.69	1.00	0.42	0.02
最长根长maximum root length	0.44	0.63	1.00	0.55	0.00	0.00	0.61	1.00	0.47	0.11
总根长total root length	0.77	1.00	0.86	0.74	0.00	0.00	1.00	0.82	0.25	0.97
总根投影面积total root projection area	0.83	1.00	0.66	0.48	0.00	0.00	1.00	0.73	0.15	0.09
总根表面积total root surface area	0.71	1.00	0.76	0.55	0.00	0.00	1.00	0.78	0.16	0.99
总根体积total root volume	0.85	1.00	0.65	0.35	0.00	0.00	1.00	0.95	0.09	0.08
根平均直径root average diameter	0.55	0.50	0.64	1.00	0.00	0.00	0.83	0.47	1.00	0.40
根尖数root tips number	0.95	1.00	0.92	0.72	0.00	0.37	1.00	0.66	0.01	0.00
根系分叉数root forks number	0.61	1.00	0.56	0.46	0.00	0.00	1.00	0.37	0.34	0.19
根系交叉数root crossings number	0.16	1.00	0.69	0.37	0.00	0.00	1.00	0.72	0.45	0.28
平均值average value	0.68	0.85	0.72	0.56	0.03	0.08	0.89	0.85	0.32	0.28
排序rank	3	1	2	4	5	5	1	2	3	4

淹水处理下杨树不同无性系苗木根系形态变化

Root morphology of different poplar clone stecklings under waterlogging and flooding treatment

RichHTML

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 8

参考文献 22

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

作者

读者

审稿

[1]	樊晓芸, 郭素娟, 李艳华, 江锡兵. 板栗果实褐变度与总酚和总黄酮的相关性研究[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2023, 47(6): 159-166.
[2]	张赟齐, 董宁光, 郝艳宾, 陈永浩, 张俊佩, 侯智霞, 苏淑钗, 吴佳庆, 齐建勋. 109份丰产核桃单株坚果表型多样性分析及性状评价[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2023, 47(3): 87-96.
[3]	李振双, 王倩, 朱媛, 杨富成, 梁俊峰, 陆俊锟. 外源信号物质对檀香幼苗生长和光合特性的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2022, 46(6): 271-278.
[4]	梁文超, 步行, 罗思谦, 谢寅峰, 张往祥, 胡加玲. 氮磷钾复合肥对增温促花后‘长寿冠’海棠生理特性的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2022, 46(5): 81-88.
[5]	刘泽茂, 晏昕, 吴文, 张于卉, 喻方圆. 竹炭添加对大叶榉树容器苗生长和营养状况的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2022, 46(2): 111-118.
[6]	李清顺, 金万洲, 王得军, 孙景梅, 李宏韬. 利用多树种立地形指数对林地质量进行综合评价[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2021, 45(6): 81-89.
[7]	王圳, 高亚军, 闫凡峰, 王晓伟, 李华清, 姜雷. 海滨城市道路绿化树种综合评价体系构建[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2021, 45(2): 187-196.
[8]	林司曦, 叶建仁. 栎树猝死病在中国的入侵风险评估[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2020, 44(6): 161-168.
[9]	杨阳, 施皓然, 及利, 杨立学. 指数施肥对紫椴实生苗生长和根系形态的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2020, 44(2): 91-97.
[10]	刘士玲, 陈琳, 杨保国, 贾宏炎, 庞圣江, 张培, 王晖. 氮磷肥对西南桦无性系生物量分配和根系形态的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2019, 43(5): 23-29.
[11]	翟大才,房震,吴锦菲,姚琦,柏晓辉,杨立春,镐青青,张艳. 不同采种地红豆树种子性状多样性分析[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2019, 43(04): 63-69.
[12]	杨祎凡,周婷,范俊俊,穆茜,张晶,张往祥,于忠明. 基于切花应用的观赏海棠品种评价与筛选[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2019, 43(04): 70-76.
[13]	潘艳艳,许贵友,董利虎,王成录,梁德洋,赵曦阳. 日本落叶松全同胞家系苗期生长性状遗传变异[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2019, 43(02): 14-22.
[14]	黄正金,卫云丽,张春红,闾连飞,李维林,吴文龙. 基于层次分析法的5个黑莓杂交品系综合评价[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2019, 43(01): 135-140.
[15]	韦如萍,胡德活,陈金慧,施季森. 低磷胁迫下杉木无性系根系形态及养分利用响应研究[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2018, 42(02): 1-8.