采用随机区组试验设计,研究了人工模拟淹水胁迫对永康、邵武、南丹、南昌、泾县5个种源的枫香(Liquidambar formosana)2年生苗生长的影响。经过120 d的淹水处理, 5个种源枫香的存活率均为100%,永康、泾县和南昌种源出现了少量不定根,而邵武和南丹种源未产生不定根。淹水抑制了枫香的干物质生产能力,其中对永康种源的抑制效应最明显,淹水胁迫下其干质量只有对照的64%; 而对南昌种源干物质积累的影响最小,其生物量积累达对照的90%; 同时发现,淹水胁迫下枫香种源地上部生物量积累和苗高生长变化不大,而根系生物量明显下降,导致根冠比下降,说明淹水胁迫对枫香地下部影响远远大于地上部,从而改变了干物质分配模式。随着淹水时间的延长,枫香叶绿素含量明显下降。淹水胁迫下不同种源枫香根系形态学参数也发生了变化,其中南丹种源的根系总长(TL)、根长密度(RLD)以及比根长(SRL)均有所增加,这可能是根系在缺氧环境下的一种适应性变化。根据5个种源在淹水胁迫下的生长状况和生物量积累,可以认为南昌和南丹种源较适合在低湿地推广。
Abstract
The 2-year-old seedlings of 5 sweet gum(Liquidambar formosana Hance)provenances from Yongkang, Shaowu, Nandan, Nanchang, Jingxian were investigated under waterlogging stress. We studied the influence of the seedlings after the treatment of waterlogging. The results showed that, throughout the 120-day waterlogging period, the survival rates of seedlings of 5 formosan sweet gum provenances were 100%. Seedlings from Yongkang, Jingxian and Shaowu developed adventitious roots at the stem base, whereas no adventitious root was observed in Nanchang and Nandan. The dry matter production of 5 formosan sweet gum provenances seedlings were greatly inhibited under waterlogging stress, seedlings from Yongkang produced only 64% dry matter compared with that of CK, while little influence was found in seedlings from Nanchang, of which 90% of dry matter were produced compared with that of CK. We also found the shoot biomass and seedling height changed very little, Whereas root biomass decreased significantly, which resulted obviously in decrement of root-shoot ratio. With the prolonging of waterlogging stress, chlorophyll content in leaves of 5 formosan sweet gum provenances decreased significantly. Root morphology indexes also changed under waterlogging stress, interestingly, the total length of root, root length density and specific root length of Nandan provenance increased under waterlogging stress, which would be considered as the adaptation of roots in conquering anoxic environment. According to the growth and biomass accumulation of 5 formosan sweet gum provenances under waterlogging stress, we can conclude gum species from Nanchang and Nandan provenances would be more suitable for planting in intermittent flooding areas.
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
参考文献
[1] 衣英华,樊大勇,谢宗强,等.模拟淹水对枫杨和栓皮栎气体交换、叶绿素荧光和水势的影响[J].植物生态学报,2006,30(6):960-968.
[2] Close D C,Davidson N J.Long-term waterlogging:nutrient,gas exchange photochemical and pigment characteristics of Eucalyptus nitens saplings[J].Russian Journal of Plant Physiology,2003,50:843-847.
[3] Jackson M B. Ethylene as a growth promoting hormone under flooded conditions [C]//Wareing P F. Plant Growth Regulators. London: Academic Press, 1982.
[4] 潘向艳,季孔庶,方彦.淹水胁迫下杂交鹅掌楸无性系叶片内源激素含量的变化[J].南京林业大学学报:自然科学版,2008,32(1):29-32.
[5] Kozlowski T T. Responses of woody plants to flooding and salinity[J]. Tree Physiol Monogr,1997,17(1):1-29.
[6] 何贵平,陈益泰,唐雪元,等.枫香地理种源幼林生长性状变异研究[J].江西农业大学学报,2005,27(4):585-589.
[7] 施季森,成铁龙,王洪云.中国枫香育种研究现状[J].林业科技开发,2002,16(3):17-19.
[8] 冷华妮,陈益泰,段红平,等.磷胁迫对不同种源枫香生长及氮、磷吸收利用率的影响[J].应用生态学报,2009,20(4):754-760.
[9] 徐庆,潘云芬,程元启,等.安徽升金湖淡水森林湿地适生树种筛选[J].林业科学,2008,44(12):7-14.
[10] Smethurst C F,Shabala S. Screening methods for waterlogging tolerance in Lucerne:comparative analysis of waterlogging effects on chlorophyll fluorescence, photosynthesis, biomass and chlorophyll content[J]. Functional Plant Biology, 2003, 30(3):335-343.
[11] Jie Song. Root morphology is related to the phenotypic variation in waterlogging tolerance of two populations of Suaeda salsa under salinity[J]. Plant and Soil, 2009,324(1-2):231-240.
[12] 徐锡增,唐罗忠,程淑婉.涝渍胁迫下杨树内源激素及其他生理反应[J].南京林业大学学报,1999,23(1):1-5.
[13] Jackson M B, Colmer T D. Response and adaptation by plants to flooding stress[J]. Annals of Botany, 2005, 96(4): 501-505.
[14] Gravatt, D A, Kirby C J. Patterns of photosynthesis and starch allocation in seedlings of four bottomland hardwood tree species subjected to flooding[J]. Tree Physiol, 1998, 18(6): 411-417.
[15] Kozlowski T T. Response of woody plants to flooding[C]// Kozlowski T T. Flooding and Plant Growth. Orlando: Academic Press,1984.
[16] Frye J, Grosse W. Growth response to flooding and recovery of deciduous trees[J]. Zeitschrift für Naturforschung, 1992, 47: 683-689.
[17] Glenz C, Schlaepfer R, Iorgulescu I, et al. Flooding tolerance of Central European tree and shrub species[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 2006,285(1-3):1-13.
[18] Drew M C. Soil aeration and plant root metabolism[J]. Soil Sci, 1992, 154(4):259-268.
[19] Hughes F M, Harris T, Richards K, et al. Woody riparian species response to different soil moisture conditions: laboratory experiments on Alnus incana (L.)Moench[J]. Global Ecol Biogeography Lett, 1997(6): 247-256.
[20] Naidoo G, Naidoo S. Waterlogging responses of Sporobolus virginicus (L.)Kunth[J]. Oecologia,1992, 90(3):445-450.
[21] Joly C A. Flooding tolerance: a reinterpretation of Craw-ford’s metabolic theory[J]. Proc R Soc Edinburgh,1994,102:343-354.
[22] Rubio G, Oesterheld M, Alvarez C R, et al. Mechanisms for the increase in phosphorus uptake of waterlogged plants: soil phosphorus availability,root morphology and uptake kinetics[J]. Oecologia, 1997,112(2):150-155.
基金
收稿日期:2011-03-29 修回日期:2011-08-10 基金项目:“十一五”国家科技支撑计划(2006BAD03A0105); 中央级公益性科研院所基本科研业务费专项资金项目(FISF6144); 浙江省林木种业重点创新团队项目(2011R09035-02) 第一作者:孙海菁,副研究员,博士。*通信作者:陈益泰,研究员。E-mail: ytc.yalin@yahoo.com.cn。引文格式:孙海菁,王树凤,陈益泰. 不同枫香种源对淹水胁迫的响应[J]. 南京林业大学学报:自然科学版,2012,36(3):43-48.
PDF(2797129 KB)
