沙棘苗期叶水势与气孔导度对水分胁迫的响应
|
摘要
为研究沙棘苗期叶水势和气孔导度对不同程度水分胁迫的响应规律,本研究通过盆栽控水试验,以1年生沙棘实生苗为试验材料,设置了4种土壤田间含水量:75%~80%(W_1,充分供水)、55%~60%(W_2,轻度水分胁迫)、35%~40%(W_3,中度水分胁迫)、25%~30%(W_4,重度水分胁迫),选择晴朗无风的天气,于6:00-18:00每隔2 h测量叶水势、气孔导度(Gs)、气象因子和叶温。结果表明,各处理日平均叶水势差异显著(P<0.05):W_1(-1.77 MPa)>W_2(-1.90 MPa)>W_3(-2.11 MPa)>W_4(-2.34 MPa)。沙棘日平均叶水势与土壤含水量,平均叶水势与气孔导度均呈显著线性正相关关系(P<0.05)。本研究结果有助于进一步认识沙棘苗期的抗旱机理,为西北荒漠地区沙棘造林提供技术支撑。
In order to study the response of leaf water potential and stomatal conductance to different degree of water stress in sea-buckthorn at the seedling stage,four kinds of soil water content were set up by potted water control experiment with 1 year old sea-buckthorn seedling,which were 75% ~ 80% of field capacity( W_1,full water supply),55% ~ 60% of field capacity( W_2,light water stress),35% ~ 40% of field capacity( W_3,medial water stress),25% ~ 30% of field capacity( W4,severe water stress). The leaf water potential,stomatal conductance,leaf temperature and meteorological factors were measured every 2 hours from 6: 00 to 18: 00 in cloudless and windless days.The results showed that the difference in leaf water potentials of four treatments was significant( P < 0. 05),following the order of W_1(-1. 77 MPa) > W_2(-1. 90 MPa) > W_3(-2. 11 MPa) > W_4(-2. 34 MPa). Moreover,positive linear correlation was found between the mean values of leaf water potential and soil water content( P < 0. 05). The values of stomatal conductance and leaf water potential had a significant linear correlation( P < 0. 05). The study contributes to better understanding on drought resistance mechanism of sea-buckthorn and provides technical support for sea-buckthorn afforestation in the northwest desert region.
In order to study the response of leaf water potential and stomatal conductance to different degree of water stress in sea-buckthorn at the seedling stage,four kinds of soil water content were set up by potted water control experiment with 1 year old sea-buckthorn seedling,which were 75% ~ 80% of field capacity( W_1,full water supply),55% ~ 60% of field capacity( W_2,light water stress),35% ~ 40% of field capacity( W_3,medial water stress),25% ~ 30% of field capacity( W4,severe water stress). The leaf water potential,stomatal conductance,leaf temperature and meteorological factors were measured every 2 hours from 6: 00 to 18: 00 in cloudless and windless days.The results showed that the difference in leaf water potentials of four treatments was significant( P < 0. 05),following the order of W_1(-1. 77 MPa) > W_2(-1. 90 MPa) > W_3(-2. 11 MPa) > W_4(-2. 34 MPa). Moreover,positive linear correlation was found between the mean values of leaf water potential and soil water content( P < 0. 05). The values of stomatal conductance and leaf water potential had a significant linear correlation( P < 0. 05). The study contributes to better understanding on drought resistance mechanism of sea-buckthorn and provides technical support for sea-buckthorn afforestation in the northwest desert region.
引文
[1]陈贝贝,曾诚,高海银,刘春红,李根前,代光辉.中国沙棘人工林持久性对土壤水分状况的响应[J].中南林业科技大学学报,2016,36(7):67-71
[2]陈文思,朱清科,刘蕾蕾,马欢,赵维军,王瑜.陕北半干旱黄土区沙棘人工林的死亡率及适宜地形因子[J].林业科学,2016,52(5):9-16
[3]张增悦,姜准,李甜江,肖智勇,李根前.毛乌素沙地中国沙棘人工林早衰原因与特点[J].西北林学院学报,2016,31(6):1-6
[4]李丽霞,梁宗锁,王俊峰.土壤水分和风速对沙棘苗木水分状况和成活率影响的实验研究[J].沙棘,1999,12(4):18-21
[5]王丁,姚健,杨雪,薛建辉.干旱胁迫条件下6种喀斯特主要造林树种苗木叶片水势及吸水潜能变化[J].生态学报,2011,31(8):2216-2226
[6]罗英,罗明华.干旱胁迫对丹参幼苗气体交换特征和保护酶活性的影响[J].核农学报,2011,25(2):375-381
[7]杨茂生,高国雄.沙棘造林技术[J].沙棘,2004,17(3):42-46
[8]Hsiao T C.Plant responses to water stress[J].Annual Review of Plant Physiology,1973,24:519-570
[9]阮成江,李代琼.黄土丘陵区沙棘抗旱性的分析[J].植物资源与环境学报,2000,9(3):54-56
[10]李继文,王进鑫,张慕黎,吉增宝,薛设.干旱及复水对刺槐叶水势的影响[J].西北林学院学报,2009,24(3):33-36
[11]Teskey R O,Hinckley T M.Influence of temperature and water potential on root growth of white oak[J].Physiologia Plantarum,1981,52(3):363-369
[12]Sobrado M A,Turner N C.Comparison of the water relations characteristics of Heilianthus annuus and Helianthus petiolaris when subjected to water deficits[J].Oecologia,1983,58(3):309-313
[13]蒋瑾,戴枫年.沙坡头地区主要固沙植物生物学、生理学特性的研究[J].林业科学,1983,19(2):113-121
[14]巩玉霞.库布齐沙地基于SPAC系统的主要造林灌木耐旱特性研究[D].北京:北京林业大学,2007
[15]徐林娟,徐正浩,李舸,何勇,谢法权,孙映宏,袁侠凡.不同土壤水分供给下水稻叶水势的变化规律[J].核农学报,2011,25(3):553-558
[16]曹庆平,赵平,倪广艳,朱丽薇,牛俊峰,曾小平.华南荷木林冠层气孔导度对水汽压亏缺的响应[J].生态学杂志,2013,32(7):1770-1779
[17]徐莲珍.三个树种抗旱生理生态特性的研究[D].杨凌:西北农林科技大学,2008:6-7
[18]陈德龙,叶映微,刘丽红,张敏,刘天宇,汪俏梅.植物保卫细胞的激素信号转导网络研究进展[J].核农学报,2016,30(1):65-71
[19]汤章城.植物对水分胁迫的反应和适应性-Ⅱ植物对干旱的反应和适应性[J].植物生理学通讯,1983(4):1-7
[20]左应梅,陈秋波,邓权权,唐建,罗海伟,巫铁凯,杨重法.土壤水分、光照和空气湿度对木薯气孔导度的影响[J].生态学杂志,2011,30(4):689-693
[21]司建华,常宗强,苏永红,席海洋,冯起.胡杨叶片气孔导度特征及其对环境因子的响应[J].西北植物学报,2008,28(1):125-130
[22]高洁,曹坤芳,王焕校.干热河谷9种造林树种在旱季的水分关系和气孔导度[J].植物生态学报,2004,28(2):186-190
[23]杨鑫光,傅华,张洪荣,赵纪东.水分胁迫对霸王苗期叶水势和生物量的影响[J].草业学报,2006,15(2):37-41
[24]李吉跃,张建国.北方主要造林树种耐旱机理及其分类模型的研究(I)-苗木叶水势与土壤含水量的关系及分类[J].北京林业大学学报,1993,15(3):1-11
[25]田丽,王进鑫,庞云龙.不同供水条件下气象因素对侧柏和刺槐叶水势的影响[J].西北林学院学报,2008,23(3):25-28
[26]张岁岐,李金虎,山仑.干旱下植物气孔运动的调控[J].西北植物学报,2001,21(6):1263-1270
[27]阮成江,李代琼.黄土丘陵区沙棘气孔导度及其影响因子[J].西北植物学报,2001,21(6):1078-1084
[28]Davies W J,Kozlowski T T.Stomatal responses of five woody angiosperms to light and humidity[J].Canadian Journal of Botanyrevue Canadienne de Botanique,1974,52:1525-1534
[2]陈文思,朱清科,刘蕾蕾,马欢,赵维军,王瑜.陕北半干旱黄土区沙棘人工林的死亡率及适宜地形因子[J].林业科学,2016,52(5):9-16
[3]张增悦,姜准,李甜江,肖智勇,李根前.毛乌素沙地中国沙棘人工林早衰原因与特点[J].西北林学院学报,2016,31(6):1-6
[4]李丽霞,梁宗锁,王俊峰.土壤水分和风速对沙棘苗木水分状况和成活率影响的实验研究[J].沙棘,1999,12(4):18-21
[5]王丁,姚健,杨雪,薛建辉.干旱胁迫条件下6种喀斯特主要造林树种苗木叶片水势及吸水潜能变化[J].生态学报,2011,31(8):2216-2226
[6]罗英,罗明华.干旱胁迫对丹参幼苗气体交换特征和保护酶活性的影响[J].核农学报,2011,25(2):375-381
[7]杨茂生,高国雄.沙棘造林技术[J].沙棘,2004,17(3):42-46
[8]Hsiao T C.Plant responses to water stress[J].Annual Review of Plant Physiology,1973,24:519-570
[9]阮成江,李代琼.黄土丘陵区沙棘抗旱性的分析[J].植物资源与环境学报,2000,9(3):54-56
[10]李继文,王进鑫,张慕黎,吉增宝,薛设.干旱及复水对刺槐叶水势的影响[J].西北林学院学报,2009,24(3):33-36
[11]Teskey R O,Hinckley T M.Influence of temperature and water potential on root growth of white oak[J].Physiologia Plantarum,1981,52(3):363-369
[12]Sobrado M A,Turner N C.Comparison of the water relations characteristics of Heilianthus annuus and Helianthus petiolaris when subjected to water deficits[J].Oecologia,1983,58(3):309-313
[13]蒋瑾,戴枫年.沙坡头地区主要固沙植物生物学、生理学特性的研究[J].林业科学,1983,19(2):113-121
[14]巩玉霞.库布齐沙地基于SPAC系统的主要造林灌木耐旱特性研究[D].北京:北京林业大学,2007
[15]徐林娟,徐正浩,李舸,何勇,谢法权,孙映宏,袁侠凡.不同土壤水分供给下水稻叶水势的变化规律[J].核农学报,2011,25(3):553-558
[16]曹庆平,赵平,倪广艳,朱丽薇,牛俊峰,曾小平.华南荷木林冠层气孔导度对水汽压亏缺的响应[J].生态学杂志,2013,32(7):1770-1779
[17]徐莲珍.三个树种抗旱生理生态特性的研究[D].杨凌:西北农林科技大学,2008:6-7
[18]陈德龙,叶映微,刘丽红,张敏,刘天宇,汪俏梅.植物保卫细胞的激素信号转导网络研究进展[J].核农学报,2016,30(1):65-71
[19]汤章城.植物对水分胁迫的反应和适应性-Ⅱ植物对干旱的反应和适应性[J].植物生理学通讯,1983(4):1-7
[20]左应梅,陈秋波,邓权权,唐建,罗海伟,巫铁凯,杨重法.土壤水分、光照和空气湿度对木薯气孔导度的影响[J].生态学杂志,2011,30(4):689-693
[21]司建华,常宗强,苏永红,席海洋,冯起.胡杨叶片气孔导度特征及其对环境因子的响应[J].西北植物学报,2008,28(1):125-130
[22]高洁,曹坤芳,王焕校.干热河谷9种造林树种在旱季的水分关系和气孔导度[J].植物生态学报,2004,28(2):186-190
[23]杨鑫光,傅华,张洪荣,赵纪东.水分胁迫对霸王苗期叶水势和生物量的影响[J].草业学报,2006,15(2):37-41
[24]李吉跃,张建国.北方主要造林树种耐旱机理及其分类模型的研究(I)-苗木叶水势与土壤含水量的关系及分类[J].北京林业大学学报,1993,15(3):1-11
[25]田丽,王进鑫,庞云龙.不同供水条件下气象因素对侧柏和刺槐叶水势的影响[J].西北林学院学报,2008,23(3):25-28
[26]张岁岐,李金虎,山仑.干旱下植物气孔运动的调控[J].西北植物学报,2001,21(6):1263-1270
[27]阮成江,李代琼.黄土丘陵区沙棘气孔导度及其影响因子[J].西北植物学报,2001,21(6):1078-1084
[28]Davies W J,Kozlowski T T.Stomatal responses of five woody angiosperms to light and humidity[J].Canadian Journal of Botanyrevue Canadienne de Botanique,1974,52:1525-1534