牡荆等6种乡土植物的抗旱性
|
摘要
采用PEG6000模拟胁迫方法,以1/2 Hoagland's营养液[9]添加PEG6000(5%、10%、20%)制成胁迫溶液,不添加PEG6000的1/2 Hoagland's营养液为对照,对华南边坡常见的野生灌木茅梅(Rubus parvifolius)、地桃花(Urena lobata)、牛茄子(So Lanum surattense)、黄花稔(Sida acuta)、牡荆(Vitex negundo var.cannabifolia)和空心泡(Rubus rosaefolius)等乡土植物进行干旱胁迫试验,测定各植物的叶片相对含水量、相对电导率、丙二醛含量、可溶性糖含量和脯氨酸含量,探讨各物种在不同强度干旱胁迫下生理指标的变化规律。结果表明:各物种的叶片相对含水量随着胁迫程度加剧均有不同幅度的下降;相对电导率和丙二醛含量均随胁迫时间延长而增加;脯氨酸含量和可溶性糖含量均成倍累积,以出现高峰的时间越迟,增幅越小越抗旱。通过主成分分析进行综合评价得出,6种灌木抗旱性强弱依次排序为:牡荆>黄花稔>茅梅>地桃花>空心泡>牛茄子。
Six native shrub species of South China,Rubus parvifolius,Urena lobata,So Lanum surattense,Sida acuta,Vitex negundo var. cannabifolia and Rubus rosaefolius were treated under PEG6000 stress. The changes of relative water content,relative electrical conductivity,the content of soluble sugar,free proline,MDA were discussed. Results showed that: the relative water content were all decreased; relative electrical conductivity and content of MDA increased with prolonging duration; the contents of free proline and soluble sugar increased with prolonging duration,and which had a a smaller increase showed stronger drought resistance. The drought resistance of plants was evaluated by principal component analysis. The drought resistance order follow: V. negundo var. cannabifolia >S. acuta > R. parvifolius > U. lobata > R. rosaefolius > S. surattense.
Six native shrub species of South China,Rubus parvifolius,Urena lobata,So Lanum surattense,Sida acuta,Vitex negundo var. cannabifolia and Rubus rosaefolius were treated under PEG6000 stress. The changes of relative water content,relative electrical conductivity,the content of soluble sugar,free proline,MDA were discussed. Results showed that: the relative water content were all decreased; relative electrical conductivity and content of MDA increased with prolonging duration; the contents of free proline and soluble sugar increased with prolonging duration,and which had a a smaller increase showed stronger drought resistance. The drought resistance of plants was evaluated by principal component analysis. The drought resistance order follow: V. negundo var. cannabifolia >S. acuta > R. parvifolius > U. lobata > R. rosaefolius > S. surattense.
引文
[1]孙书存,包维楷.恢复生态学[M].北京:化学工业出版社,2005:128-170.
[2]常英俏,徐文远,穆立蔷,等.干旱胁迫对3种观赏灌木叶片解剖结构的影响及抗旱性分析[J].东北林业大学学报,2012,40(3):36-40.
[3]颜淑云,周志宇,邹丽娜,等.干旱胁迫对紫穗槐幼苗生理生化特性的影响[J].干旱区研究,2011,28(1):139-145.
[4]Manivannan P,Jaleel C A,Sankar B,et al.Growth,biochemical modifications and proline metabolism in Helianthus annuus L.as induced by drought stress[J].Colloids and Surfaces B:Biointerfaces,2007,59(2):141-149.
[5]王昌腾.丽水生态示范区悬钩子植物资源及其开发利用[J].中国林副特产,2005(2):52-53.
[6]唐小清,李许文,张莎,等.广州市生态景观林带建设树种筛选评价[J].中国园林,2015(3):76-80.
[7]刘月莉,伍钧,唐亚,等.四川甘洛铅锌矿区优势植物的重金属含量[J].生态学报,2009,29(4):2020-2024.
[8]路端正,王九丽,谢磊.黄荆种以下分类群的聚类与演化趋势分析[J].北京林业大学学报,2015,37(2):55-56.
[9]Hoagland D R,Arnon D I.The water-culture method for growing plants without soil[J].Circular.California Agricultural Experiment Station,1950,347(2):23-32.
[10]白宝璋,汤学军.植物生理学测试技术[M].北京:科学技术出版社,1993:76-157.
[11]李合生.植物生理生化实验原理和技术[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2000:261-263.
[12]陈建勋,王晓峰.植物生理学实验指导[M].广州:华南理工大学出版社,2002:55-56,66-67,74.
[13]谭雪红,高艳鹏,郭小平,等.五种高速公路边坡绿化植物的生理特性及抗旱性综合评价[J].生态学报,2012,32(16):5076-5086.
[14]户连荣,郎南军,郑科.植物抗旱性研究进展及发展趋势[J].安徽农业科学,2008,36(7):2652-2654.
[15]王勋陵,王静.植物形态结构与环境[M].兰州:兰州大学出版社,1989:105-138.
[16]肖用森,王正直,郭绍川.渗透胁迫下稻苗中游离脯氨酸积累与膜脂过氧化的关系[J].武汉植物学研究,1996,14(4):334-340.
[17]杨帆,苗灵凤,胥晓,等.植物对干旱胁迫的响应研究进展[J].应用与环境生物学报,2007,13(4):586-591.
[18]王霞,侯平.植物对干旱胁迫的适应机理[J].干旱区研究,2001,18(2):43-45.
[19]Hare P D,Cress W A,Van Staden J.Dissecting the roles of osmolyte accumulation during stress[J].Plant,Cell&Environment,1998,21(6):535-553.
[20]杜金友,胡冬南,李伟,等.干旱胁迫条件下胡枝子渗透物质的变化[J].福建林学院学报,2006,26(4):349-352.
[21]史玉炜,王燕凌,李文兵,等.水分胁迫对刚毛柽柳可溶性蛋白、可溶性糖和脯氨酸含量变化的影响[J].新疆农业大学学报,2007,30(2):5-8.
[22]蒋明义,郭绍川,张学明.氧化胁迫下稻苗体内积累的脯氨酸的抗氧化作用[J].植物生理学报,1997,23(4):347-352.
[23]王邦锡.不同植物在水分胁迫条件下Pro的积累与抗旱性的关系[J].植物生理学报,1989,15(1):46-51.
[24]周兴元,曹福亮,陈国庆.四种暖季型草坪草几种生理指标与抗旱性的关系研究[J].草原与草坪,2003(4):29-32.
[25]余晓华,张巨明,王明祖,等.四种结缕草属草坪草对土壤干旱胁迫的响应及抗旱性研究[J].北方园艺,2008(5):121-124.
[26]席嘉宾,罗耀,张巨明.几种常绿草坪草对干旱胁迫的生理响应[J].草原与草坪,2011,31(2):28-31.
[27]史燕山,骆建霞,王煦,等.五种草本植物抗旱性研究[J].西北农林科技大学学报:自然科学版,2005,33(5):130-134.
[2]常英俏,徐文远,穆立蔷,等.干旱胁迫对3种观赏灌木叶片解剖结构的影响及抗旱性分析[J].东北林业大学学报,2012,40(3):36-40.
[3]颜淑云,周志宇,邹丽娜,等.干旱胁迫对紫穗槐幼苗生理生化特性的影响[J].干旱区研究,2011,28(1):139-145.
[4]Manivannan P,Jaleel C A,Sankar B,et al.Growth,biochemical modifications and proline metabolism in Helianthus annuus L.as induced by drought stress[J].Colloids and Surfaces B:Biointerfaces,2007,59(2):141-149.
[5]王昌腾.丽水生态示范区悬钩子植物资源及其开发利用[J].中国林副特产,2005(2):52-53.
[6]唐小清,李许文,张莎,等.广州市生态景观林带建设树种筛选评价[J].中国园林,2015(3):76-80.
[7]刘月莉,伍钧,唐亚,等.四川甘洛铅锌矿区优势植物的重金属含量[J].生态学报,2009,29(4):2020-2024.
[8]路端正,王九丽,谢磊.黄荆种以下分类群的聚类与演化趋势分析[J].北京林业大学学报,2015,37(2):55-56.
[9]Hoagland D R,Arnon D I.The water-culture method for growing plants without soil[J].Circular.California Agricultural Experiment Station,1950,347(2):23-32.
[10]白宝璋,汤学军.植物生理学测试技术[M].北京:科学技术出版社,1993:76-157.
[11]李合生.植物生理生化实验原理和技术[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2000:261-263.
[12]陈建勋,王晓峰.植物生理学实验指导[M].广州:华南理工大学出版社,2002:55-56,66-67,74.
[13]谭雪红,高艳鹏,郭小平,等.五种高速公路边坡绿化植物的生理特性及抗旱性综合评价[J].生态学报,2012,32(16):5076-5086.
[14]户连荣,郎南军,郑科.植物抗旱性研究进展及发展趋势[J].安徽农业科学,2008,36(7):2652-2654.
[15]王勋陵,王静.植物形态结构与环境[M].兰州:兰州大学出版社,1989:105-138.
[16]肖用森,王正直,郭绍川.渗透胁迫下稻苗中游离脯氨酸积累与膜脂过氧化的关系[J].武汉植物学研究,1996,14(4):334-340.
[17]杨帆,苗灵凤,胥晓,等.植物对干旱胁迫的响应研究进展[J].应用与环境生物学报,2007,13(4):586-591.
[18]王霞,侯平.植物对干旱胁迫的适应机理[J].干旱区研究,2001,18(2):43-45.
[19]Hare P D,Cress W A,Van Staden J.Dissecting the roles of osmolyte accumulation during stress[J].Plant,Cell&Environment,1998,21(6):535-553.
[20]杜金友,胡冬南,李伟,等.干旱胁迫条件下胡枝子渗透物质的变化[J].福建林学院学报,2006,26(4):349-352.
[21]史玉炜,王燕凌,李文兵,等.水分胁迫对刚毛柽柳可溶性蛋白、可溶性糖和脯氨酸含量变化的影响[J].新疆农业大学学报,2007,30(2):5-8.
[22]蒋明义,郭绍川,张学明.氧化胁迫下稻苗体内积累的脯氨酸的抗氧化作用[J].植物生理学报,1997,23(4):347-352.
[23]王邦锡.不同植物在水分胁迫条件下Pro的积累与抗旱性的关系[J].植物生理学报,1989,15(1):46-51.
[24]周兴元,曹福亮,陈国庆.四种暖季型草坪草几种生理指标与抗旱性的关系研究[J].草原与草坪,2003(4):29-32.
[25]余晓华,张巨明,王明祖,等.四种结缕草属草坪草对土壤干旱胁迫的响应及抗旱性研究[J].北方园艺,2008(5):121-124.
[26]席嘉宾,罗耀,张巨明.几种常绿草坪草对干旱胁迫的生理响应[J].草原与草坪,2011,31(2):28-31.
[27]史燕山,骆建霞,王煦,等.五种草本植物抗旱性研究[J].西北农林科技大学学报:自然科学版,2005,33(5):130-134.