马尾松不同叶型幼苗对干旱及复水的生长及生理响应
|
摘要
为了探讨马尾松不同叶型幼苗对持续干旱胁迫及复水处理的适应能力,采用温室盆栽方法模拟土壤干旱条件,分别对干旱胁迫0、7、14、21、28 d及胁迫14、21、28 d复水后幼苗生长速率、叶片中光合色素质量分数、渗透调节物质质量分数、MDA质量摩尔浓度及保护酶活性的变化进行分析,并采用模糊数学隶属函数法对3种叶型幼苗抗旱性进行综合评价,以期为马尾松苗木质量评价及干旱立地造林幼苗的选用提供理论支撑。结果表明:随着干旱胁迫持续进行,3种叶型幼苗生长所受抑制程度不同;叶绿素、类胡萝卜素质量分数显著下降;游离脯氨酸、MDA质量摩尔浓度、可溶性糖和可溶性蛋白质量分数均呈现升高趋势,显著高于对照,其中游离脯氨酸质量分数增幅最大;SOD、POD活性呈先升后降变化,在中度干旱胁迫(21 d)时均达到最高,但3种叶型幼苗保护酶活性增幅不同,表现出不同的清除过氧化物能力;随着干旱胁迫的持续,幼苗复水后各指标恢复能力各异。通过隶属函数法分析得出:3种叶型幼苗对不同干旱处理的主动响应及适应能力不同,在轻度干旱胁迫下,幼苗抗旱性由强到弱的顺序为Ⅰ类型、Ⅲ类型、Ⅱ类型;中度干旱胁迫下,幼苗抗旱性由强到弱的顺序为Ⅱ类型、Ⅰ类型、Ⅲ类型;重度干旱胁迫条件下,幼苗抗旱性由强到弱的顺序为Ⅲ类型、Ⅱ类型、Ⅰ类型。
To understand the responses of seedlings with different leaf shapes to drought stress and re-watering,we studied the one-year seedlings of Pinus massoniana in common garden simulating soil drought condition. We compared the growing rate,photosynthetic pigments contents,osmotic adjustment substances contents,MDA molality and protective enzyme activities by drought stress( last for 0,7,14,21 and 28 d,respectively) and re-watering( at the 14,21 and 28 d after drought stress treated) treatments. Drought resistance of the three types of seedlings was evaluated by membership function method. The contents of chlorophyll and carotenoid dropped when the drought stress was going on. While the free proline,MDA molality,soluble sugar and soluble protein contents increased,significantly higher than the control check( CK). The SOD and POD activities increased under the drought treatments and reached on the peak in the moderate drought dress,and then decreased. The growth rates of protective enzymes activities were different on the seedlings indicating variations on capability to elimination of peroxide. The responses to the drought and re-watering showed differences on the levels of drought dress. With the membership function method,the list of drought resistance from high to low for the three types of seedlings was type Ⅰ,type Ⅲ and type Ⅱ under the slight drought. That ranked in descending order as type Ⅱ,type Ⅰand type Ⅲ under the moderate drought,as that for type Ⅲ,type Ⅱ and type Ⅰ under the heavy drought dress.
To understand the responses of seedlings with different leaf shapes to drought stress and re-watering,we studied the one-year seedlings of Pinus massoniana in common garden simulating soil drought condition. We compared the growing rate,photosynthetic pigments contents,osmotic adjustment substances contents,MDA molality and protective enzyme activities by drought stress( last for 0,7,14,21 and 28 d,respectively) and re-watering( at the 14,21 and 28 d after drought stress treated) treatments. Drought resistance of the three types of seedlings was evaluated by membership function method. The contents of chlorophyll and carotenoid dropped when the drought stress was going on. While the free proline,MDA molality,soluble sugar and soluble protein contents increased,significantly higher than the control check( CK). The SOD and POD activities increased under the drought treatments and reached on the peak in the moderate drought dress,and then decreased. The growth rates of protective enzymes activities were different on the seedlings indicating variations on capability to elimination of peroxide. The responses to the drought and re-watering showed differences on the levels of drought dress. With the membership function method,the list of drought resistance from high to low for the three types of seedlings was type Ⅰ,type Ⅲ and type Ⅱ under the slight drought. That ranked in descending order as type Ⅱ,type Ⅰand type Ⅲ under the moderate drought,as that for type Ⅲ,type Ⅱ and type Ⅰ under the heavy drought dress.
引文
[1]AROCA R.Plant responses to drought stress[M].Berlin:From Morphological to Molecular Features Springer,2012:460-461.
[2]欧立军,陈波,邹学.干旱对辣椒光合作用及相关生理特性的影响[J].生态学报,2012,32(8):2612-2619.
[3]安玉艳,梁宗锁.植物应对干旱胁迫的阶段性策略[J].应用生态学报,2012,23(10):2907-2915.
[4]ANJUM S A,XIE X,WANG L,et al.Morphological,physiological and biochemical responses of plants to drought stress[J].African Journal of Agricultural Research,2011,6(9):2026-2032.
[5]罗桑,卓玛,辛福梅,等.干旱胁迫对香柏幼苗生长和生理指标的影响[J].西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版),2015,43(5):51-57,70.
[6]武燕奇,郭素娟.5个板栗品种对干旱胁迫的生理响应及抗旱性评价[J].东北林业大学学报,2017,45(1):20-24,29.
[7]丁贵杰,周志春,王章荣.马尾松纸浆用材林培育与利用[M].北京:中国林业出版社,2006:15-20.
[8]周政贤.中国马尾松[M].北京:中国林业出版社,2001:10-13.
[9]秦国峰,周志春.中国马尾松优良种质资源[M].北京:中国林业出版社,2012:47-52.
[10]国家质量技术监督局.主要造林树种苗木质量分级:GB6000-1999[M].北京:中国标准出版社,1999.
[11]施积炎,丁贵杰.水分胁迫对不同种源马尾松种子发芽的影响[J].山地农业生物学报,2000,19(5):332-337.
[12]韩文萍,丁贵杰,鲍斌.不同种源马尾松对干旱胁迫的生理生态响应[J].中南林业科技大学学报,2012,32(5):25-29.
[13]王艺,丁贵杰.水分胁迫下外生菌根对马尾松幼苗养分吸收的影响[J].林业科学研究,2013,26(2):227-233.
[14]尹晓阳,朱忠荣.马尾松菌根化苗水分胁迫生理与耐旱性研究[J].林业资源管理,2008,6(3):63-67.
[15]爦KRAN D T,GNES R S.Spectrophotometric determination of chlorophyll-A,B and total carotenoid contents of some algae species using different solvents[J].Turkish Journal of Botany,1998,22(1):13-17.
[16]赵世杰,史国安,董新纯.植物生理实验技术[M].北京:中国农业科学与技术出版社,2002:83-135.
[17]赵雪,张秀珍,牟洪香,等.干旱胁迫对不同种源文冠果幼苗水分生理特性及渗透调节物质的影响[J].东北林业大学学报,2017,45(6):17-21.
[18]BAYLEY A D,KIETZKA J W.Stock quality and field performance of Pinus patula seedlings produced under two nursery growing regimes during seven different nursery production periods[J].New Forests,1997,13(1/2/3):341-356.
[19]冯慧芳,薛立,任向荣,等.4种阔叶幼苗对PEG模拟干旱的生理响应[J].生态学报,2011,31(2):371-382.
[20]李永华,卢琦,吴波,等.干旱区叶片形态特征与植物响应和适应的关系[J].植物生态学报,2012,36(1):88-98.
[21]李州,王晓娟,彭丹丹,等.Na+对水分胁迫下白三叶抗氧化防御和有机渗透调节物质的影响[J].草业学报,2014,23(5):175-183.
[22]邵惠芳,陈征,许嘉阳,等.两种烟草幼苗叶片对不同强度干旱胁迫的生理响应比较[J].植物生理学报,2016,52(12):1861-1871.
[23]范苏鲁,苑兆和,冯立娟,等.干旱胁迫对大丽花生理生化指标的影响[J].应用生态学报,2011,22(3):651-657.
[24]安玉艳,梁宗锁,郝文芳.杠柳幼苗对不同强度干旱胁迫的生长与生理响应[J].生态学报,2011,31(3):716-725.
[25]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.
[26]胡晓健,欧阳献,喻方圆.干旱胁迫对不同种源马尾松苗木生长及生物量的影响[J].江西农业大学学报,2010,32(3):510-516.
[27]潘昕,邱权,李吉跃,等.干旱胁迫对青藏高原6种植物生理指标的影响[J].生态学报,2014,34(13):3558-3567.
[28]宋丽梅,代微然,任健,等.干旱胁迫及复水处理对百脉根叶片丙二醛质量分数及抗氧化酶活性的影响[J].云南农业大学学报(自然科学版),2014,29(1):37-42.
[29]罗银玲,毕廷菊,苏志龙,等.棒叶落地生根对干旱与复水的生理响应[J].热带亚热带植物学报,2014,22(4):391-398.
[30]王艺,丁贵杰.马尾松菌根化苗木对干旱的生理响应及抗旱性评价[J].应用生态学报,2013,24(3):639-645.
[31]李嫱.干旱胁迫和旱后复水对翠菊生长发育影响的研究[D].长春:吉林农业大学,2012.
[2]欧立军,陈波,邹学.干旱对辣椒光合作用及相关生理特性的影响[J].生态学报,2012,32(8):2612-2619.
[3]安玉艳,梁宗锁.植物应对干旱胁迫的阶段性策略[J].应用生态学报,2012,23(10):2907-2915.
[4]ANJUM S A,XIE X,WANG L,et al.Morphological,physiological and biochemical responses of plants to drought stress[J].African Journal of Agricultural Research,2011,6(9):2026-2032.
[5]罗桑,卓玛,辛福梅,等.干旱胁迫对香柏幼苗生长和生理指标的影响[J].西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版),2015,43(5):51-57,70.
[6]武燕奇,郭素娟.5个板栗品种对干旱胁迫的生理响应及抗旱性评价[J].东北林业大学学报,2017,45(1):20-24,29.
[7]丁贵杰,周志春,王章荣.马尾松纸浆用材林培育与利用[M].北京:中国林业出版社,2006:15-20.
[8]周政贤.中国马尾松[M].北京:中国林业出版社,2001:10-13.
[9]秦国峰,周志春.中国马尾松优良种质资源[M].北京:中国林业出版社,2012:47-52.
[10]国家质量技术监督局.主要造林树种苗木质量分级:GB6000-1999[M].北京:中国标准出版社,1999.
[11]施积炎,丁贵杰.水分胁迫对不同种源马尾松种子发芽的影响[J].山地农业生物学报,2000,19(5):332-337.
[12]韩文萍,丁贵杰,鲍斌.不同种源马尾松对干旱胁迫的生理生态响应[J].中南林业科技大学学报,2012,32(5):25-29.
[13]王艺,丁贵杰.水分胁迫下外生菌根对马尾松幼苗养分吸收的影响[J].林业科学研究,2013,26(2):227-233.
[14]尹晓阳,朱忠荣.马尾松菌根化苗水分胁迫生理与耐旱性研究[J].林业资源管理,2008,6(3):63-67.
[15]爦KRAN D T,GNES R S.Spectrophotometric determination of chlorophyll-A,B and total carotenoid contents of some algae species using different solvents[J].Turkish Journal of Botany,1998,22(1):13-17.
[16]赵世杰,史国安,董新纯.植物生理实验技术[M].北京:中国农业科学与技术出版社,2002:83-135.
[17]赵雪,张秀珍,牟洪香,等.干旱胁迫对不同种源文冠果幼苗水分生理特性及渗透调节物质的影响[J].东北林业大学学报,2017,45(6):17-21.
[18]BAYLEY A D,KIETZKA J W.Stock quality and field performance of Pinus patula seedlings produced under two nursery growing regimes during seven different nursery production periods[J].New Forests,1997,13(1/2/3):341-356.
[19]冯慧芳,薛立,任向荣,等.4种阔叶幼苗对PEG模拟干旱的生理响应[J].生态学报,2011,31(2):371-382.
[20]李永华,卢琦,吴波,等.干旱区叶片形态特征与植物响应和适应的关系[J].植物生态学报,2012,36(1):88-98.
[21]李州,王晓娟,彭丹丹,等.Na+对水分胁迫下白三叶抗氧化防御和有机渗透调节物质的影响[J].草业学报,2014,23(5):175-183.
[22]邵惠芳,陈征,许嘉阳,等.两种烟草幼苗叶片对不同强度干旱胁迫的生理响应比较[J].植物生理学报,2016,52(12):1861-1871.
[23]范苏鲁,苑兆和,冯立娟,等.干旱胁迫对大丽花生理生化指标的影响[J].应用生态学报,2011,22(3):651-657.
[24]安玉艳,梁宗锁,郝文芳.杠柳幼苗对不同强度干旱胁迫的生长与生理响应[J].生态学报,2011,31(3):716-725.
[25]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.
[26]胡晓健,欧阳献,喻方圆.干旱胁迫对不同种源马尾松苗木生长及生物量的影响[J].江西农业大学学报,2010,32(3):510-516.
[27]潘昕,邱权,李吉跃,等.干旱胁迫对青藏高原6种植物生理指标的影响[J].生态学报,2014,34(13):3558-3567.
[28]宋丽梅,代微然,任健,等.干旱胁迫及复水处理对百脉根叶片丙二醛质量分数及抗氧化酶活性的影响[J].云南农业大学学报(自然科学版),2014,29(1):37-42.
[29]罗银玲,毕廷菊,苏志龙,等.棒叶落地生根对干旱与复水的生理响应[J].热带亚热带植物学报,2014,22(4):391-398.
[30]王艺,丁贵杰.马尾松菌根化苗木对干旱的生理响应及抗旱性评价[J].应用生态学报,2013,24(3):639-645.
[31]李嫱.干旱胁迫和旱后复水对翠菊生长发育影响的研究[D].长春:吉林农业大学,2012.