元江干热河谷典型耐旱植物叶片解剖结构特征及抗旱性分析
|
摘要
为了解干热河谷植物对环境适应策略的差异性,以便筛选出优良的生态恢复植物,以元江干热河谷22种典型耐旱植物叶片为试材,采用常规石蜡切片法、光学显微技术对植物的解剖结构进行分析,并以解剖学数量性状、转换性状及多元性状为指标对供试植物进行聚类分析。结果表明:植物叶片对干热河谷的适应性表现出多样性;供试植物的叶片均有明显的旱生植物特征;叶片依据是否有海绵组织的分化分为等面叶和异面叶,其中异面叶的植物占多数,有13种,等面叶植物占9种;供试植物叶片解剖结构差异大,反映了植物长期适应干热环境的进化结果;聚类分析结果表明,主要依据海绵组织厚度、栅栏组织厚度、主脉直径的差异把22种植物分为5类,反映出供试植物在通气组织、输导组织以及同化组织发达程度上的差异。
With the 22 typical xerophytic species leaves in the dry-hot valleys of Yuanjiang River as test materials, to find its similarities and differences in the adaptation strategies of arid and hot environment and screen out excellent ecological restoration plants, using conventional paraffin section technique and optical microscopy technique to analyze the differences in leaf anatomy. And the tested plants were clustered by anatomical quantitative traits, transformation traits and multivariate traits. The results indicated that the adaptability to arid and hot environmental showed a diversity in leave structure. All the leaves of the tested tree species had obvious characteristics of xerophyte. The leaves were divided into isobilateral or bifacial leaves according to the differentiation of spongy tissues, among which the bifacial leaves plants were the majority, which were 13 kinds; there are 9 species of isobilateral leaves plants. The anatomical structure of the tested plants differs greatly, reflecting the evolutionary results of the plant's long-term adaptation to arid and hot environment. The results of cluster analysis show that the difference is mainly based on the thickness of sponge tissue, the thickness of palisade tissue and the diameter of main vein. The plants are divided into 5 categories, which mainly reflect the differences in the degree of development of the tested plants in aerated tissues, transport tissues and assimilated tissues.
With the 22 typical xerophytic species leaves in the dry-hot valleys of Yuanjiang River as test materials, to find its similarities and differences in the adaptation strategies of arid and hot environment and screen out excellent ecological restoration plants, using conventional paraffin section technique and optical microscopy technique to analyze the differences in leaf anatomy. And the tested plants were clustered by anatomical quantitative traits, transformation traits and multivariate traits. The results indicated that the adaptability to arid and hot environmental showed a diversity in leave structure. All the leaves of the tested tree species had obvious characteristics of xerophyte. The leaves were divided into isobilateral or bifacial leaves according to the differentiation of spongy tissues, among which the bifacial leaves plants were the majority, which were 13 kinds; there are 9 species of isobilateral leaves plants. The anatomical structure of the tested plants differs greatly, reflecting the evolutionary results of the plant's long-term adaptation to arid and hot environment. The results of cluster analysis show that the difference is mainly based on the thickness of sponge tissue, the thickness of palisade tissue and the diameter of main vein. The plants are divided into 5 categories, which mainly reflect the differences in the degree of development of the tested plants in aerated tissues, transport tissues and assimilated tissues.
引文
[1]宋富强,曹坤芳.元江干热河谷植物叶片解剖和养分含量特征[J].应用生态学报,2005,16(1):33-38.
[2]金振洲.滇川干热河谷与干暖河谷植物区系特征[M].昆明:云南科技出版社,2002.
[3]赵琳,郎南军,郑科,等.云南干热河谷生态环境特性研究[J].林业调查规划,2006,31(3):114-117.
[4]明庆忠,史正涛.三江并流区干热河谷成因新探析[J].中国沙漠,2007,27(1):99-104.
[5]李楠.岷江干热河谷土壤养分空间异质性研究[D].成都:四川师范大学,2016.
[6]孙玺雯.元江自然保护区干热河谷植被群落特征研究[D].昆明:西南林学院,2008.
[7]李昆,刘方炎,杨振寅,等.中国西南干热河谷植被恢复研究现状与发展趋势[J].世界林业研究,2011,24(4):55-60.
[8]孙景宽,张文辉,陆兆华,等.沙枣(Elaeagnus angustifolia)和孩儿拳头(Grewia biloba G.Don var.parvif lora)幼苗气体交换特征与保护酶对干旱胁迫的响应[J].生态学报,2009,29(3):1330-1340.
[9]葛娈,黄冬,马焕成,等.云南干热河谷不同居群叶片的旱生结构比较[J].干旱区资源与环境,2015,29(5):138-143.
[10]Muniz L F,Bombo A B,Filartiga A L,et al.Can climate and soil conditions change the morpho-anatomy among individuals from different localities?A case study in Aldama grandiflora(Asteraceae)[J].Brazilian Journal of Biology,2018,78(4):706-717.
[11]赵高卷,平盼,马焕成,等.干热河谷木棉科三种植物根茎叶水分传输的解剖结构比较研究[J].干旱区资源与环境,2016,30(1):162-168.
[12]葛娈,黄冬,马焕成,等.干热河谷两种植物的旱生结构特征与其分布规律的关系[J].西部林业科学,2016,45(4):107-113.
[13]唐军荣,葛娈,马焕成,等.干热河谷牛角瓜根茎叶的解剖结构[J].南方农业学报,2016,47(2):251-255.
[14]廖声熙,刘娟,和菊,等.印楝叶解剖结构与抗旱性关系初步研究[J].林业科学研究,2001,14(4):435-440.
[15]朱惠萍,廖声熙.干热河谷元谋段5种造林树种叶片解剖初步分析[J].现代农业科技,2014(9):167-168.
[16]李和平.植物显微技术[M].2版.北京:科学出版社,2009.
[17]吴涛,韩明跃,司马永康,等.木兰科6属27种植物的叶片比较解剖学研究[J].西部林业科学,2013,42(6):25-37.
[18]朱栗琼,徐艳霞,招礼军,等.喀斯特地区莎叶兰的解剖构造及其环境适应性[J].广西植物,2016,36(10):1179-1185,1164.
[19]杨忠顺.五种木本植物颉颃盐逆境演化结构比较研究[D].长春:东北师范大学,2004.
[20]蔡永立,宋永昌.浙江天童常绿阔叶林藤本植物的适应生态学Ⅰ.叶片解剖特征的比较[J].植物生态学报,2001,25(1):90-98.
[21]寇建村,杨文权,贾志宽,等.不同紫花苜蓿品种叶片旱生结构的比较[J].西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版),2008,36(8):67-72.
[22]张永福,刘成明.荔枝、龙眼与其属间杂种的茎、叶解剖结构比较[J].热带亚热带植物学报,2016(5):515-523.
[23]杜华栋,徐翠红,刘萍,等.陕北黄土高原优势植物叶片解剖结构的生态适应性[J].西北植物学报,2010,30(2):293-300.
[24]白潇,李毅,苏世平,等.不同居群唐古特白刺叶片解剖特征对生境的响应研究[J].西北植物学报,2013,33(10):1986-1993.
[25]迟丽华,宋凤斌.松嫩平原西部盐碱地区10种植物叶片结构特征及其生态适应性[J].生态环境,2006,(6):1269-1273.
[26]王勇,梁宗锁,龚春梅,等.干旱胁迫对黄土高原4种蒿属植物叶形态解剖学特征的影响[J].生态学报,2014(16):4535-4548.
[27]D?rken V M,Lepetit B.Morpho-anatomical and physiological differences between sun and shade leaves in Abies alba M ILL.(Pinaceae,Coniferales):a combined approach[J].Plant,Cell&Environment,2018,41:1683-1697.
[28]周玲玲,刘萍,王军,等.新疆2种盐生补血草营养器官的解剖学研究[J].西北植物学报,2007,27(6):1127-1133.
[29]郭改改,封斌,麻保林,等.不同区域长柄扁桃叶片解剖结构及其抗旱性分析[J].西北植物学报,2013,33(4):720-728.
[30]王金照.不同类型栓皮栎营养器官生态解剖学比较研究[D].杨凌:西北农林科技大学,2004.
[31]潘昕,邱权,李吉跃,等.基于叶片解剖结构对青藏高原25种灌木的抗旱性评价[J].华南农业大学学报,2015,36(2):61-68.
[32]沈广爽,石雪芹,古松,等.九种海滨沙生植物解剖构造及其生态适应性研究[J].广西植物,2014(2):263-268.
[33]李芳兰,包维楷,刘俊华,等.岷江上游干旱河谷海拔梯度上白刺花叶片生态解剖特征研究[J].应用生态学报,2006,17(1):5-10.
[2]金振洲.滇川干热河谷与干暖河谷植物区系特征[M].昆明:云南科技出版社,2002.
[3]赵琳,郎南军,郑科,等.云南干热河谷生态环境特性研究[J].林业调查规划,2006,31(3):114-117.
[4]明庆忠,史正涛.三江并流区干热河谷成因新探析[J].中国沙漠,2007,27(1):99-104.
[5]李楠.岷江干热河谷土壤养分空间异质性研究[D].成都:四川师范大学,2016.
[6]孙玺雯.元江自然保护区干热河谷植被群落特征研究[D].昆明:西南林学院,2008.
[7]李昆,刘方炎,杨振寅,等.中国西南干热河谷植被恢复研究现状与发展趋势[J].世界林业研究,2011,24(4):55-60.
[8]孙景宽,张文辉,陆兆华,等.沙枣(Elaeagnus angustifolia)和孩儿拳头(Grewia biloba G.Don var.parvif lora)幼苗气体交换特征与保护酶对干旱胁迫的响应[J].生态学报,2009,29(3):1330-1340.
[9]葛娈,黄冬,马焕成,等.云南干热河谷不同居群叶片的旱生结构比较[J].干旱区资源与环境,2015,29(5):138-143.
[10]Muniz L F,Bombo A B,Filartiga A L,et al.Can climate and soil conditions change the morpho-anatomy among individuals from different localities?A case study in Aldama grandiflora(Asteraceae)[J].Brazilian Journal of Biology,2018,78(4):706-717.
[11]赵高卷,平盼,马焕成,等.干热河谷木棉科三种植物根茎叶水分传输的解剖结构比较研究[J].干旱区资源与环境,2016,30(1):162-168.
[12]葛娈,黄冬,马焕成,等.干热河谷两种植物的旱生结构特征与其分布规律的关系[J].西部林业科学,2016,45(4):107-113.
[13]唐军荣,葛娈,马焕成,等.干热河谷牛角瓜根茎叶的解剖结构[J].南方农业学报,2016,47(2):251-255.
[14]廖声熙,刘娟,和菊,等.印楝叶解剖结构与抗旱性关系初步研究[J].林业科学研究,2001,14(4):435-440.
[15]朱惠萍,廖声熙.干热河谷元谋段5种造林树种叶片解剖初步分析[J].现代农业科技,2014(9):167-168.
[16]李和平.植物显微技术[M].2版.北京:科学出版社,2009.
[17]吴涛,韩明跃,司马永康,等.木兰科6属27种植物的叶片比较解剖学研究[J].西部林业科学,2013,42(6):25-37.
[18]朱栗琼,徐艳霞,招礼军,等.喀斯特地区莎叶兰的解剖构造及其环境适应性[J].广西植物,2016,36(10):1179-1185,1164.
[19]杨忠顺.五种木本植物颉颃盐逆境演化结构比较研究[D].长春:东北师范大学,2004.
[20]蔡永立,宋永昌.浙江天童常绿阔叶林藤本植物的适应生态学Ⅰ.叶片解剖特征的比较[J].植物生态学报,2001,25(1):90-98.
[21]寇建村,杨文权,贾志宽,等.不同紫花苜蓿品种叶片旱生结构的比较[J].西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版),2008,36(8):67-72.
[22]张永福,刘成明.荔枝、龙眼与其属间杂种的茎、叶解剖结构比较[J].热带亚热带植物学报,2016(5):515-523.
[23]杜华栋,徐翠红,刘萍,等.陕北黄土高原优势植物叶片解剖结构的生态适应性[J].西北植物学报,2010,30(2):293-300.
[24]白潇,李毅,苏世平,等.不同居群唐古特白刺叶片解剖特征对生境的响应研究[J].西北植物学报,2013,33(10):1986-1993.
[25]迟丽华,宋凤斌.松嫩平原西部盐碱地区10种植物叶片结构特征及其生态适应性[J].生态环境,2006,(6):1269-1273.
[26]王勇,梁宗锁,龚春梅,等.干旱胁迫对黄土高原4种蒿属植物叶形态解剖学特征的影响[J].生态学报,2014(16):4535-4548.
[27]D?rken V M,Lepetit B.Morpho-anatomical and physiological differences between sun and shade leaves in Abies alba M ILL.(Pinaceae,Coniferales):a combined approach[J].Plant,Cell&Environment,2018,41:1683-1697.
[28]周玲玲,刘萍,王军,等.新疆2种盐生补血草营养器官的解剖学研究[J].西北植物学报,2007,27(6):1127-1133.
[29]郭改改,封斌,麻保林,等.不同区域长柄扁桃叶片解剖结构及其抗旱性分析[J].西北植物学报,2013,33(4):720-728.
[30]王金照.不同类型栓皮栎营养器官生态解剖学比较研究[D].杨凌:西北农林科技大学,2004.
[31]潘昕,邱权,李吉跃,等.基于叶片解剖结构对青藏高原25种灌木的抗旱性评价[J].华南农业大学学报,2015,36(2):61-68.
[32]沈广爽,石雪芹,古松,等.九种海滨沙生植物解剖构造及其生态适应性研究[J].广西植物,2014(2):263-268.
[33]李芳兰,包维楷,刘俊华,等.岷江上游干旱河谷海拔梯度上白刺花叶片生态解剖特征研究[J].应用生态学报,2006,17(1):5-10.