5种造林树种对干旱胁迫的抗性应答

doi:10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202002019

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） ›› 2021, Vol. 45 ›› Issue (2): 111-119.doi: 10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202002019

5种造林树种对干旱胁迫的抗性应答

洪震¹(), 刘术新², 洪琮浩³, 雷小华⁴

1.华东药用植物园科研管理中心,浙江丽水 323000
2.丽水职业技术学院,浙江丽水 323000
3.北京林业大学生物科学与技术学院,北京 100083
4.丽水市莲都区城区林业工作中心站,浙江丽水 323000

收稿日期:2020-02-19 接受日期:2020-06-20 出版日期:2021-03-30 发布日期:2021-04-09
基金资助:
浙江省丽水市重点研发计划项目(2016ZDYF08)

Resistance response of five afforestation tree species under drought stress

HONG Zhen¹(), LIU Shuxin², HONG Conghao³, LEI Xiaohua⁴

1. Scientific Research and Management Center of East China Pharmaceutical Botanical Garden, Lishui 323000, China
2. Lishui Vocational & Technical College, Lishui 323000, China
3. College of Biological Sciences and Biotechnology, Beijing 100083, China
4. Center of Lishui City Liandu District Urban Forestry Working Station, Lishui 323000, China

Received:2020-02-19 Accepted:2020-06-20 Online:2021-03-30 Published:2021-04-09

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

【目的】探究不同造林树种的抗旱性,为科学配置乡土树种和外来树种及困难立地造林提供依据。【方法】以5个树种,枫香(Liquidambar formosana)、黄连木(Pistacia chinesis)、长序榆(Ulmus elongata)、黄山栾树(Koelreuteria bipinnata )和娜塔栎(Quercus texana)1年生实生苗为试验材料,通过盆栽试验研究适宜水分、轻度干旱、中度干旱和重度干旱(即土壤含水量分别为田间持水量的75%~80%、55%~60%、40%~45%和30%~35%)条件下的生理响应及抗旱性差异。【结果】①随着干旱程度的增加,5个树种出现不同程度的干旱胁迫症状,主要表现为叶片发黄、萎蔫,严重时枝条顶端出现干枯。胁迫30 d时,重度胁迫下,长序榆和黄山栾树部分幼苗死亡,黄连木整株叶片变黄或变红;枫香和娜塔栎中下部叶片变黄干枯;②5个树种叶绿素总量与叶片相对含水量呈下降的趋势;相对电导率和丙二醛(MDA)含量呈上升的趋势;游离脯氨酸、可溶性糖和可溶性蛋白含量呈增加的趋势;③ 娜塔栎的超氧化物歧化酶(SOD)活性、过氧化物酶(POD)活性和过氧化氢酶(CAT)活性均升高;枫香、黄连木、黄山栾树的SOD、POD和CAT活性均呈现先升高后降低的变化趋势;长序榆的SOD和CAT活性呈现先升高后降低的变化趋势,而POD活性则是随着胁迫程度的增加而升高;④ 隶属函数分析表明,中度和重度胁迫条件下,5个树种抗旱能力由强到弱依次是娜塔栎、枫香、黄连木、长序榆、黄山栾树。【结论】娜塔栎在5个树种中抗旱性最强,可在干旱地区的造林中推广应用。

关键词: 造林树种, 干旱胁迫, 生理响应, 抗旱性评价, 隶属函数法

Abstract:

【Objective】To select species for afforestation in difficult sites by evaluating the drought resistance of five native and alien tree species. 【Methods】Pot experiments were conducted to study the physiological response and drought resistance of 1-year-old seedlings of Liquidambar formosana, Pistacia chinensis, Ulmus elongata, Koelreuteria bipinnata, and Quercus texana under conditions of appropriate humidity and light, moderate, and severe drought (75%-80%, 55%-60%, 40%-45% and 30%-35% of the soil field capacity).【Result】With the increase of drought extent, five species showed different levels of symptoms of drought stress and major symptoms are yellow leaves and wilting. Severely affected branches’ tops dried up with the increasing time of continuing drought. After sereve drought stress for 30 days, partial seedings of U. elongata and K. bipinnata died, whole leaves of P. chinensis turned yellow or red, and leaves in the middle and lower portions of L. formosana and Q. texana turned yellow and dry. The chlorophyll and relative water content in the leaves of the five tree species decreased; the relative conductance and malondialdehyde (MDA) concentration in leaves increased; the content of free proline, soluble sugar and protein in leaves increased. The SOD, POD, and CAT activities in the leaves of Q. texana increased, whereas it increased and then decreased in L. formosana, P. chinensis, and K. bipinnata trees. With the increasing drought extent, the SOD and CAT activities in the leaves of U. elongate increased at first and then decreased, while the activity of POD increased with the increasing drought stress. Membership function analysis showed that under moderate and severe drought stress, drought resistance levels were Q. texana > L. formosana > P. chinensis > U. elongate > K. bipinnata.【Conclusion】Q. texana has the strongest drought resistance among the five tree species, which provides a competitive advantage for afforestation usage in difficult sites.

Key words: afforestation tree species, drought stress, physiological responses, evaluation of drought resistance, subordinate function method

中图分类号:

S718.4

洪震,刘术新,洪琮浩,等. 5种造林树种对干旱胁迫的抗性应答[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2021, 45(2): 111-119.

HONG Zhen, LIU Shuxin, HONG Conghao, LEI Xiaohua. Resistance response of five afforestation tree species under drought stress[J].Journal of Nanjing Forestry University (Natural Science Edition), 2021, 45(2): 111-119.DOI: 10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202002019.

图/表 5

表1

干旱胁迫对5个树种苗木形态特征的影响"

树种 species	处理 treatments	形态特征 morphological characteristics
树种 species	处理 treatments	10 d	20 d	30 d
枫香 L. formosana	T1	正常	3株老叶出现黄斑	6株老叶出现焦边
	T2	正常	4株叶片萎蔫下垂, 顶部叶片脉间褶皱	9株叶片萎蔫下垂, 上部叶片脉间褶皱
	T3	正常	6株叶片萎蔫下垂, 顶部叶片脉间褶皱	9株老叶失绿黄化,叶缘出现坏死斑, 上部叶片脉间褶皱
黄连木 P. chinensis	T1	正常	1株老叶变黄	3株下部叶片变黄,2株叶片全部变黄
	T2	正常	2株老叶变黄	6株中下部叶片变黄变红, 4株全部叶片变黄变红
	T3	2株下部老叶出现萎蔫, 下部叶片开始变黄	2株中下部叶片全部变黄	全部株中下部叶片变黄,6株全部叶片变黄变红,1株顶端干枯
长序榆 U. elongata	T1	1株老叶出现黄化叶斑	2株老叶叶缘干枯	2株叶片全部黄化, 其余株全部叶片有黄化叶斑
	T2	1株大部分老叶出现黄化叶斑	5株叶片全部出现黄化叶斑,叶片不完整	2株死亡,其余株叶片黄化斑增多
	T3	2株下部老叶变黄,1株下部老叶干枯,1株下部老叶出现黄化叶斑	5株老叶全部脱落, 顶部叶片萎蔫	3株死亡,其余株叶片黄斑焦灼
黄山栾树 K. bipinnata	T1	3株中上部成熟叶片出现黄色叶斑,其中1株全部叶片萎蔫	6株叶片失绿出现黄色叶斑	全部植株脉间失绿出现黄斑
	T2	3株成熟叶片全部出现黄色叶斑,并且新叶焦边	7株叶片脉间失绿严重, 叶斑数量增多	2株死亡,其余株叶片脉间失绿黄斑增多
	T3	2株叶片全部变黄, 1株成熟叶片焦灼	8株叶片脉间失绿黄色叶斑多, 4株叶片全部变黄,下部叶片干枯	4株死亡,其余株叶片萎蔫, 中下部叶片变黄
娜塔栎 Q. texana	T1	1株下部老叶萎蔫	1株下部老叶叶缘失绿	2株老叶叶缘焦边
	T2	1株下部老叶萎蔫叶缘失绿	3株下部老叶枯黄	3株下部老叶干枯面积加大
	T3	1株下部老叶萎蔫失绿, 1株下部老叶边缘焦边	4株中下部叶片变黄, 下部老叶干枯,2株下部叶片焦边	6株中下部叶片变红, 下部老叶干枯

表1

表2

表3

表4

表5

参考文献 38

[1]	洪震, 练发良, 刘术新, 等. 3 种乡土园林地被植物对干旱胁迫的生理响应[J]. 浙江农林大学学报, 2016,33(4):636-642.
	HONG Z, LIAN F L, LIU S X, et al. Physiological response of three native garden ground cover plant seedlings to increasing drought stress[J]. J Zhejiang A & F Univ, 2016,33(4):636-642. DOI: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2016.04.012.
[2]	何小三, 徐林初, 龚春, 等. 干旱胁迫对‘赣无 12’苗期光合特性的影响[J]. 中南林业科技大学学报, 2018,38(12):52-61.
	HE X S, XU L C, GONG C, et al. Effects of drought stress on photosynthetic characteristics of Camellia oleifera seedlings of ‘GanWu 12’[J]. J Central South For Univ, 2018,38(12):52-61. DOI: 10.14067/j.cnki.1673-923x.2018.12.007.
[3]	邓辉茗, 龙聪颖, 蔡仕珍, 等. 不同水分胁迫对绵毛水苏幼苗形态和生理特性的影响[J]. 西北植物学报, 2018,38(6):1099-1108.
	DENG H M, LONG C Y, CAI S Z, et al. Morphology and physiological characteristics of Stachys lanata seedling under water stress[J]. Acta Bot Boreali-Occidentalia Sin, 2018,38(6):1099-1108. DOI: 10.7606/j.issn.1000-4025.2018.06.1099.
[4]	郑鹏丽, 黄晓蓉, 费永俊, 等. 水分胁迫对桢楠幼树光合生理特性的影响[J]. 中南林业科技大学学报, 2019,39(10):64-70.
	ZHENG P L, HUANG X R, FEI Y J, et al. Effects of water stress on photosynthetic physiology characteristics of Phoebe zhennan seedlings[J]. J Central South Univ For Technol, 2019,39(10):64-70. DOI: 10.14067/j.cnki.1673-923x.2019.10.010.
[5]	LIPIEC J, DOUSSAN C, NOSALEWICZ A, et al. Effect of drought and heat stresses on plant growth and yield: a review[J]. International Agrophysics, 2013,27(4):463-477. DOI: 10.2478/intag-2013-0017.
[6]	FATHI A, TARI D B. Effect of drought stress and its mechanism in plants[J]. International Journal of Life Sciences, 2016,10(1):1-6. DOI: 10.3126/ijls.v10i1.14509.
[7]	刘盼盼, 许冲勇, 孙红梅, 等. 枫香优良无性系组织培养研究[J]. 林业与环境科学, 2019,35(2):14-19.
	LIU P P, XU C Y, SUN H M, et al. Tissue culture of superior clone of Liquidambar formosana[J]. For Environ Sci, 2019,35(2):14-19. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-4427.2019.02.003.
[8]	庞宏东, 胡兴宜, 胡文杰, 等. 淹水胁迫对枫杨等 3 个树种生理生化特性的影响[J]. 中南林业科技大学学报, 2018,38(10):15-20,26.
	PANG H D, HU X Y, HU W J, et al. Effects of waterlogging stress on the physiological and biochemical characteristics of three tree species[J]. J Central South Univ For Technol, 2018,38(10):15-20, 26. DOI: 10.14067/j.cnki.1673-923x.2018.10.003.
[9]	胡文杰, 庞宏东, 胡兴宜, 等. 9 年生枫香种源变异及优良种源选择[J]. 中南林业科技大学学报, 2019,39(3):40-46.
	HU W J, PANG H D, HU X Y, et al. Variation and selection of Liquidambar formosana based on a nine-year-old provenance test[J]. J Central South Univ For Technol, 2019,39(3):40-46. DOI: 10.14067/j.cnki.1673-923x.2019.03.007.
[10]	郭欢欢, 刘勇, 姚飞, 等. 黄连木苗期年生长节律、生物量分配及养分积累[J]. 中南林业科技大学学报, 2018,38(7):71-75.
	GUO H H, LIU Y, YAO F, et al. Seedling growth rhythm, biomass allocation and nutrient accumulation of Pistacia chinensis[J]. J Central South Univ For Technol, 2018,38(7):71-75.DOI: 10.14067/j.cnki.1673-923x.2018.07.012.
[11]	丁锡珍. 彩叶树种娜塔栎的繁育与栽培技术[J]. 现代园艺, 2017(16):38.
	DING X Z. Breeding and cultivation techniques of Quercus texana with colorful leaves[J]. Xiandai Hortic, 2017(16):38. DOI: CNKI:SUN:JXYA.O.2017-16-029.
[12]	李峰卿, 王秀花, 楚秀丽, 等. 缓释肥 N/P 比及加载量对浙江楠等 5 种珍贵树种 1 年生容器苗生长和养分库构建的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2020,44(1):72-80.
	LI F Q, WANG X H, CHU X L, et al. Effects of N/P ratio and loading on growth and construction of nutrients reserves of one-year-old seedlings for five kinds of precious tree species[J]. J Nanjing For Univ (Nat Sci Ed), 2020,44(1):72-80. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2006.201902007.
[13]	罗喻才, 陈琳, 彭巧华, 等. 我国极小种群野生植物长序榆(Ulmus elongate)的分布格局和群落调查[J]. 南方林业科学, 2018,46(1):1-4.
	LUO Y C, CHEN L, PENG Q H, et al. Distribution pattern and community survey of Ulmus elongate, one of plant species with extremely small populations in China[J]. Jiangxi For Sci Technol, 2018,46(1):1-4. DOI: 10.16259/j.cnki.36-1342/s.2018.01.001.
[14]	陈琳, 余泽平, 聂堂杰, 等. 江西官山8种珍贵野生植物资源及保护策略[J]. 中国野生植物资源, 2018,37(6):63-67.
	CHEN L, YU Z P, NIE T J, et al. Eight kinds of precious wild plant resources and protection strategies in Guanshan Nature Reserve,Jiangxi[J]. Chin Wild Plant Resour, 2018,37(6):63-67. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-9690.2018.06.016.
[15]	黄利斌, 梁珍海, 窦全琴, 等. 观赏栾树新品种‘金焰彩栾’[J]. 林业科学, 2015,51(5):165.
	HUANG L B, LIANG Z H, DOU Q Q, et al. A new variety of ornamental Koelreuteria bipinnata var.integrifoliola‘Jinyan’[J]. Sci Silvae Sin, 2015,51(5):165. DOI: 10.11707/j.1001-7488.20150520.
[16]	吕运舟, 董筱昀, 黄利斌. 黄山栾树实时荧光定量 PCR 内参基因的筛选[J]. 分子植物育种, 2019,17(2):553-560.
	LYU Y Z, DONG X Y, HUANG L B. The screening of reference genes for real-time fluorescent quantitative PCR of Koelreuteria bipinnata[J]. Mol Plant Breed, 2019,17(2):553-560. DOI: 10.13271/j.mpb.017.000553.
[17]	洪震, 刘术新, 练发良, 等. 4 个小叶蚊母树无性系幼苗在不同土壤类型上的生长差异[J]. 浙江农林大学学报, 2018,35(2):380-386.
	HONG Z, LIU S X, LIAN F L, et al. Growth difference of four Distylium buxifolium clone seedlings in different soil types[J]. J Zhejiang For Coll, 2018,35(2):380-386. DOI: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2018.02.025.
[18]	李玲. 植物生理学模块实验指导[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2009.
	LI L. Plant physiology module lab guide[M]. Beijing: Science Press, 2009.
[19]	娄晓瑞. 干旱胁迫对 10 种不同种源地墨西哥柏的影响[D]. 南京: 南京林业大学, 2012.
	LOU X R. The effect of drought stress on 10 different provenances Mexican cypress[D]. Nanjing: Nanjing Forest University, 2012.
[20]	刘菲, 周隆腾, 蒋燚, 等. 不同种源江南油杉幼苗对干旱胁迫的生理响应[J]. 中南林业科技大学学报, 2018,38(11):35-45.
	LIU F, ZHOU L T, JIANG Y, et al. Physiological response from different provenances of Keteleeria fortunei seedlings to drought stress[J]. J Central South Univ For Technol, 2018,38(11):35-45. DOI: 10.14067/j.cnki.1673-923x.2018.11.006.
[21]	赵琳, 郎南军, 温绍龙, 等. 云南干热河谷4种植物抗旱机理的研究[J]. 西部林业科学, 2006,35(2):9-16.
	ZHAO L, LANG N J, WEN S L, et al. A study on drought resistance mechanism of four kinds of plants in dry and hot valley of Yunnan Province[J]. J West China For Sci, 2006,35(2):9-16.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-8246.2006.02.002.
[22]	蒋志荣, 杨占彪, 汪君, 等. 兰州九州台四种绿化树种抗旱性机理比较研究[J]. 中国沙漠, 2006,26(4):553-558.
	JIANG Z R, YANG Z B, WANG J, et al. Comparison of drought resistant mechanism between four virescence species in Jiuzhoutai of Lanzhou City[J]. J Desert Res, 2006,26(4):553-558. DOI: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-694X.2006.04.009.
[23]	马书尚, 杨淑慎. 不良环境对植物细胞膜的伤害[J]. 植物生理学实验技术, 2000,1(1):199-201.
	MA S S, YANG S S. Damage to plant cell membrane by adverse environment[J]. Experimental techniques in plant physiology, 2000,1(1):199-201.
[24]	张海燕, 李贵全. 大豆抗旱性与生理生态指标关系的研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2005,21(8):140-142.
	ZHANG H Y, LI G Q. Study on the relationships between soybean drought-resistance and physiological and ecological indicators[J]. Chin Agric Sci Bull, 2005,21(8):140-142.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-6850.2005.08.040.
[25]	王爱国, 邵从本, 罗广华, 等. 丙二醛作为植物脂质过氧化指标的探讨[J]. 植物生理学通讯, 1986,22(2):55-57.
	WANG A G, SHAO C B, LUO G H, et al. Study on malondialdehyde as a lipid peroxidation index in plants[J]. Plant Physiology Communications. 1986,22(2):55-57. DOI: CNKI:SUN:ZWSL.0.1986-02-034.
[26]	GOMEZDELCAMPO M, RUIZ C, LISSARRAGUE J R. Effect of water stress on leaf area development, photosynjournal, and productivity in Chardonnay and Airén grapevines[J]. American Journal of Enology & Viticulture, 2002,53(2):138-143. DOI: 10.1016/S0304-4238(01)00277-1.
[27]	王宇超, 王得祥, 彭少兵, 等. 干旱胁迫对木本滨藜生理特性的影响[J]. 林业科学, 2010,46(1):61-67.
	WANG Y C, WANG D X, PENG S B, et al. Effects of drought stress on physiological characteristics of woody saltbush[J]. Sci Silvae Sin, 2010,46(1):61-67. DOI: 10.11707/j.1001-7488.20100110.
[28]	文瑛, 廖飞勇, 刘智慧. 不同水分胁迫对黄枝槐生理特性的影响研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2012,28(13):47-52.
	WEN Y, LIAO F Y, LIU Z H. The effect of water stress on the physiology of Sophora japonica ‘Golden stem’[J]. Chin Agric Sci Bull, 2012,28(13):47-52. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-6850.2012.13.008.
[29]	刘锦春, 钟章成, 何跃军. 干旱胁迫及复水对喀斯特地区柏木幼苗活性氧清除系统的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2011,22(11):2836-2840.
	LIU J C, ZHONG Z C, HE Y J. Effects of drought stress and re-watering on the active oxygen scavenging system of Cupressus funebris seedlings in Karst area[J]. Chin J App Ecol, 2011,22(11):2836-2840. DOI: CNKI:SUN:YYSB.0.2011-11-009.
[30]	任文伟, 钱吉, 马骏, 等. 不同地理种群羊草在聚乙二醇胁迫下含水量和游离脯氨酸含量的比较[J]. 生态学报, 2000,20(2):349-352.
	REN W W, QIAN J, MA J, et al. Comparative study of Leymus chinensis’s water content and free proline of different geographic populations under the force of different consistency PEG[J]. Acta Ecol Sin, 2000,20(2):349-352. DOI: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-0933.2000.02.028.
[31]	VERBRUGGEN N, HERMANS C. Proline accumulation in plants: a review[J]. Amino Acids, 2008,35(4):753-759. DOI: 10.1007/s00726-008-0061-6.
[32]	罗杰, 周光良, 胡庭兴, 等. 干旱胁迫对润楠幼苗生长和生理生化指标的影响[J]. 应用与环境生物学报, 2015,21(3):563-570.
	LUO J, ZHOU G L, HU T X, et al. Effects of drought stress on growth and physiological parameters of drought stress on growth and physiological parameters of Machilus achilus pingii seedlings[J]. Chin J Appl Environ Biol, 2015,21(3):563-570. DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1145.2014.11005.
[33]	姜英淑, 陈书明, 王秋玉, 等. 干旱胁迫对 2 个欧李种源生理特征的影响[J]. 林业科学, 2009,45(6):6-10.
	JIANG Y S, CHEN S M, WANG Q Y, et al. Effects of the drought stress on physiological characteristics of two Cerasus humilis provenances[J]. Sci Silvae Sin, 2009,45(6):6-10. DOI: 10.3321/j.issn:1001-7488.2009.06.002.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00726-008-0061-6.
[34]	刘方春, 邢尚军, 马海林, 等. 干旱对侧柏容器苗和裸根苗生长、营养及生理特性的影响[J]. 北京林业大学学报, 2014,36(5):68-73.
	LIU F C, XING S J, MA H L, et al. Effects of drought stress on growth, nutrition and physiological characteristics of Platycladus orientalis container and bareroot seedlings[J]. J Beijing For Univ, 2014,36(5):68-73. DOI: 10.13332/j.cnki.jbfu.2014.05.020.
[35]	崔婷茹, 于慧敏, 李会彬, 等. 干旱胁迫及复水对狼尾草幼苗生理特性的影响[J]. 草业科学, 2017,34(4):788-793.
	CUI T R, YU H M, LI H B, et al. Effect of drought stress and rewatering on physiological characteristics of Pennisetum alopecuroides seedlings[J]. Pratacultural Sci, 2017,34(4):788-793. DOI: 10.11829/j.issn.1001-0629.2016-0535.
[36]	冯晓敏, 张永清. 水分胁迫下不同耐旱性糜子叶片保护酶活性及膜脂过氧化特性[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2019,37(1):200-207.
	FENG X M, ZHANG Y Q. Characteristics of protective enzyme activities and lipid peroxidation in broomcorn millet leaves under soil water stress[J]. Agric Res Arid Areas, 2019,37(1):200-207. DOI: 10.7606/j.issn.1000-7601.2019.01.28.
[37]	刘遵春, 包东娥. 水分胁迫对金光杏梅幼苗生长及其生理指标的影响[J]. 河北农业大学学报, 2007,30(5):28-31, 88.
	LIU Z C, BAO D E. Effect of water stress on growth and physiological indexes in Jinguang plum seedlings[J]. J Agric Univ Hebei, 2007,30(5):28-31, 88. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-1573.2007.05.008.
[38]	赵兰, 邢新婷, 聂庆娟, 等. 4种地被观赏竹抗旱性综合评价研究[J]. 西北林学院学报, 2011,26(1):18-21.
	ZHAO L, XING X T, NIE Q J, et al. Comprehensive evaluation on drought resistance of four dwarf ornamental bamboo species[J]. J Northwest For Univ, 2011,26(1):18-21.

树种 species	处理 treatments	叶片相对含水量/% LRWC	相对电导率/% REC	叶绿素总含量/ (mg·g^-1) total chlorophyll content
枫香 L. formosana	CK	71.45±0.93 a	28.90±0.60 c	4.45±0.14 a
	T1	70.87±0.74 a	30.94±1.80 c	3.97±0.27 b
	T2	69.37±1.17 ab	34.76±0.72 b	3.62±0.15 c
	T3	67.40±1.77 b	39.83±1.03 a	3.20±0.24 d
黄连木 P. chinensis	CK	66.53±1.85 a	25.77±0.67 d	5.80±0.11 a
	T1	61.40±2.62 ab	32.29±0.52 c	5.32±0.18 b
	T2	60.53±3.20 b	34.36±0.59 b	4.34±0.11 c
	T3	58.84±3.76 c	36.06±0.55 a	3.12±0.40 d
长序榆 U. elongata	CK	68.87±0.91 a	43.13±2.26 c	5.72±0.19 a
	T1	67.16±1.04 a	47.85±2.33 b	5.36±0.09 b
	T2	63.92±0.59 c	61.21±1.09 a	5.03±0.12 c
	T3	63.03±0.74 c	62.01±0.71 a	3.20±0.23 d
黄山栾树 K. bipinnata	CK	68.04±0.67 a	23.55±1.12 d	5.86±0.12 a
	T1	66.83±0.82 a	27.64±1.32 c	4.07±0.08 b
	T2	61.57±1.91 b	30.16±0.45 a	3.87±0.12 b
	T3	59.23±2.50 b	32.99±1.59 b	3.45±0.19 c
娜塔栎 Q. texana	CK	59.86±0.91 a	35.10±0.80 c	5.34±0.18 a
	T1	56.74±1.51 b	38.39±0.75 b	4.91±0.26 b
	T2	55.23±2.63 b	38.50±0.57 b	4.90±0.04 b
	T3	54.26±1.09 b	50.54±2.17 a	3.99±0.20 c

树种 species	处理 treatments	游离脯氨酸 freeproline	可溶性糖 soluble sugar	可溶性蛋白 soluble protein
枫香 L. formosana	CK	0.05±0.00 c	40.38±0.14 c	17.05±1.93 c
	T1	0.08±0.00 c	43.75±0.50 c	20.64±1.08 b
	T2	0.12±0.03 b	55.70±1.46 b	29.17±0.96 a
	T3	0.18±0.01 a	79.62±3.74 a	29.75±2.17 a
黄连木 P. chinensis	CK	0.95±0.02 b	49.86±2.89 c	24.05±3.07 d
	T1	0.96±0.00 ab	57.43±0.56 b	30.10±0.92 c
	T2	0.97±0.00 ab	58.45±0.34 b	37.04±0.88 b
	T3	0.98±0.01 a	63.52±0.77 a	42.09±2.92 a
长序榆 U. elongata	CK	0.68±0.01 c	26.44±0.81 c	42.27±1.04 b
	T1	0.95±0.19 b	28.77±4.14 c	47.61±6.89 ab
	T2	0.96±0.00 b	65.72±2.49 b	51.12±5.12 ab
	T3	1.04±0.19 a	84.82±4.59 a	53.38±4.13 a
黄山栾树 K. bipinnata	CK	0.16±0.00 c	21.93±1.11 a	39.64±5.41 c
	T1	0.21±0.01 b	25.35±1.58 c	47.64±2.14 b
	T2	0.26±0.03 a	34.79±2.29 b	51.77±0.88 ab
	T3	0.25±0.01 a	53.83±0.24 a	55.51±4.07 a
娜塔栎 Q. texana	CK	0.09±0.02 d	50.00±4.53 b	41.49±1.33 c
	T1	0.15±0.03 c	50.15±1.32 b	45.76±0.60 b
	T2	0.22±0.01 b	57.08±4.33 b	46.54±1.51 b
	T3	0.27±0.01 a	67.76±9.30 a	51.35±2.05 a

树种 species	处理 treatments	丙二醛含量/ (mmol·g^-1) MDA content	超氧化物歧化酶活性/ (U·g^-1) SOD activity	过氧化物酶活性/ (μg·g^-1·min^-1) POD activity	过氧化氢酶活性/ (U·g^-1) CAT activity
枫香 L. formosana	CK	4.65±0.96 c	446.88±11.76 a	3.27 ±0.19 c	129.91±6.98 d
	T1	7.84±0.87 b	475.90±10.81 a	5.81±1.16 a	140.35±4.38 c
	T2	10.57±0.85 a	301.96±37.82 b	5.26 ±0.53 ab	164.78±2.21 a
	T3	10.62±0.50 a	270.80±36.28 b	4.26 ±0.60 bc	152.47±0.71b
黄连木 P. chinensis	CK	3.59±0.23 b	709.80±24.49 c	3.67± 0.17 b	60.83±0.29 c
	T1	4.42±0.36 b	854.73±42.24 b	4.32±0.86 b	137.58±2.64 b
	T2	5.78±1.23 ab	1352.13±43.57 a	5.87±1.07 a	179.32±2.84 a
	T3	6.79±1.89 a	1287.30±24.51 a	5.68±0.39 a	168.61±22.19 a
长序榆 U. elongata	CK	15.31±1.34 c	388.62±23.55 b	17.49±2.38 b	40.45±2.00 c
	T1	16.74±2.07 c	411.23±33.76 b	20.43±6.68 ab	49.26±2.38 b
	T2	33.11±2.70 b	560.64±47.62 a	27.80±3.50 a	59.65±4.00 a
	T3	43.62±2.13 a	510.08±46.63 a	28.16±1.12 a	57.39±3.71 a
黄山栾树 K. bipinnata	CK	5.32±0.58 b	1 007.64±58.02 c	17.26±1.19 c	250.30±23.70 b
	T1	7.95±2.80 b	1 079.29±41.35 bc	23.12±3.24 b	284.21±14.36 a
	T2	19.09±4.25 a	1 264.01±119.46 a	34.56±2.42 a	287.16±18.56 a
	T3	25.33±5.56 a	1 173.25±24.50 ab	26.23±1.48 b	239.93±5.01b
娜塔栎 Q. texana	CK	9.60±1.29 b	608.33±89.93 c	15.10±4.34 b	26.54±2.45 c
	T1	12.55±3.50 ab	781.17±45.60 b	20.96±2.07b	41.03±1.50 b
	T2	12.99±3.48 ab	784.31±58.03 b	32.14±6.66 a	45.13±3.07 b
	T3	19.03±6.41 a	827.62±78.35 a	34.16±1.96 a	53.80±1.12 a

处理 treatments	树种 species	叶片相对含水量+ leaf relative water content +	相对电导率- relative conductivity -	叶绿素+ chloro- phyll +	脯氨酸+ free pro- line+	可溶性糖+ soluble sugar +	可溶性蛋白质+ soluble protein+	过氧化物酶活性+ POD activity+	超氧化物歧化酶活性+ SOD activity+	过氧化氢酶活性+ CAT activity+	丙二醛- MDA-	综合隶属函数值 subordinate function values	抗旱性 drought resistance
T1	枫香 L. formosana	0.45	0.51	0.59	0.49	0.40	0.48	0.50	0.56	0.67	0.56	0.52	2
	黄连木 P. chinesis	0.46	0.44	0.38	0.33	0.62	0.59	0.60	0.60	0.59	0.55	0.52	2
	长序榆 U. elongata	0.58	0.45	0.58	0.39	0.40	0.63	0.35	0.35	0.40	0.46	0.46	5
	黄山栾树 K. bipinnata	0.49	0.37	0.35	0.42	0.64	0.47	0.42	0.52	0.53	0.62	0.48	4
	娜塔栎 Q. texana	0.51	0.50	0.64	0.54	0.38	0.49	0.59	0.58	0.59	0.65	0.55	1
T2	枫香 L. formosana	0.41	0.55	0.56	0.51	0.66	0.37	0.66	0.61	0.60	0.54	0.55	2
	黄连木 P. chinesis	0.43	0.55	0.58	0.61	0.36	0.52	0.62	0.57	0.65	0.38	0.53	3
	长序榆 U. elongata	0.44	0.64	0.59	0.60	0.49	0.39	0.45	0.42	0.46	0.47	0.49	4
	黄山栾树 K. bipinnata	0.51	0.34	0.43	0.55	0.34	0.46	0.58	0.49	0.44	0.50	0.46	5
	娜塔栎 Q. texana	0.43	0.50	0.58	0.51	0.64	0.47	0.53	0.63	0.65	0.65	0.56	1
T3	枫香 L. formosana	0.38	0.44	0.48	0.53	0.61	0.53	0.59	0.64	0.67	0.54	0.54	1
	黄连木 P. chinesis	0.42	0.52	0.63	0.45	0.49	0.56	0.56	0.58	0.50	0.56	0.53	3
	长序榆 U. elongata	0.49	0.36	0.34	0.65	0.53	0.59	0.51	0.48	0.34	0.49	0.48	4
	黄山栾树 K. bipinnata	0.51	0.58	0.47	0.54	0.51	0.41	0.40	0.42	0.38	0.52	0.47	5
	娜塔栎 Q. texana	0.43	0.48	0.65	0.59	0.52	0.48	0.55	0.56	0.56	0.63	0.54	1

5种造林树种对干旱胁迫的抗性应答

Resistance response of five afforestation tree species under drought stress

RichHTML

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 5

参考文献 38

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

作者

读者

审稿

[1]	杜晋城, 李欣欣, 王泽亮, 刘偲, 钟毅, 王丽华. 聚乙二醇胁迫下3个油橄榄品种生理指标响应[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2024, 48(2): 137-143.
[2]	郭伟, 韩秀, 张利, 王迎, 杜辉, 燕语, 孙忠奎, 张林, 李国华, 罗磊. 青檀扦插苗对不同氮素水平的形态、光合生理响应和转录组分析[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2023, 47(5): 87-96.
[3]	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.
[4]	母洪娜, 王炜, 樊蕾, 吴楚, 郭晓华, 孙陶泽. 印度梨形孢对干旱胁迫下桂花生长及抗旱性的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2023, 47(2): 101-106.
[5]	黎梦娟, 朱礼明, 霍俊男, 张景波, 施季森, 成铁龙. 唐古特白刺NtCBL1、NtCBL2基因克隆及表达分析[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2021, 45(3): 93-99.
[6]	石欣隆, 杨月琴, 薛娴, 刘伟, 宋程威, 郭丽丽, 侯小改. 壳寡糖对干旱胁迫下‘凤丹’幼苗生长及生理特性的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2021, 45(2): 120-126.
[7]	马娟娟, 赵斌, 陈颖, 凌熙晨, 俞婕, 陈茜. 4个北美冬青品种苗对低温胁迫的生理响应及抗寒性比较[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2020, 44(5): 34-40.
[8]	张庆, 魏树和, 代惠萍, 贾根良. 硒对茶树镉毒害的缓解作用研究[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2020, 44(1): 200-204.
[9]	马洁怡,王金平,张金池,朱凌骏,袁钟鸣. 沿海造林树种根际丛枝菌根真菌与土壤因子的通径分析[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2019, 62(04): 139-147.
[10]	董珊珊,李宁冉,杨海燕,吴文龙,闾连飞,李维林. 蓝莓根系对土壤锰胁迫的生理响应[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2019, 62(03): 169-174.
[11]	李大培,王艺,张尚昆,赵翔,赵焕元,刘玉梅,杨桂燕1,2. 核桃V-ATPase c亚基基因(JrVHAc*4)的克隆和抗旱功能分析[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2019, 62(02): 79-85.
[12]	陈燕琼,沈,范佳露,陈茜,许欣玥,张迪,钱钢,陈颖. 茉莉酸甲酯对干旱及复水下落叶冬青苗叶片抗氧化水平的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2018, 61(06): 35-43.
[13]	叶波,张玲,王国明. 舟山海岛主要造林树种幼苗的光合特性[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2018, 61(03): 105-110.
[14]	倪霞,吴思思,周本智,鲁小珍,曹永慧. 模拟干旱处理下毛竹光响应特征分析[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2018, 61(02): 47-51.
[15]	丁少净，钟秋平，袁婷婷，曹林青，晏巢，袁雅琪，张训华，林建萍. 干旱胁迫对油茶花苞生长及产量的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2017, 60(05): 197-202.