模拟不同程度酸雨对秃瓣杜英和青冈光合生理特征的影响
|
摘要
为比较秃瓣杜英Elaeocarpus glabripetalus和青冈Cyclobalanopsis glauca对酸雨胁迫的抗性强弱及差异,通过盆栽法,以蒸馏水(pH值7.0)处理作为对照组,研究在轻度酸雨(pH值5.6)、重度酸雨(pH值2.5)胁迫下,秃瓣杜英和青冈的光合指标、叶绿素和生物量差异。结果表明:1)在无酸雨胁迫下,秃瓣杜英和青冈的最大净光合速率(Pnmax)、暗呼吸速率(Rd)、光饱和点(LSP)、光补偿点(LCP)无显著差异。2)在轻度酸雨胁迫下,秃瓣杜英的Pnmax和LSP显著升高(P <0.05),叶绿素a、叶绿素b、叶绿素a+b的含量以及茎干质量、根干质量、总干质量指标都显著下降(P <0.05),其他参数无显著变化;青冈的Pnmax、Rd、LSP、叶绿素a、叶绿素b和叶绿素a+b的含量以及叶干质量、根干质量、总干质量都显著下降(P <0.05),其他参数无显著变化。3)在重度酸雨胁迫下,秃瓣杜英的Pnmax和LSP进一步升高(P <0.05),叶绿素a、叶绿素b和叶绿素a+b的含量以及生物量指标都进一步显著下降(P <0.05),Rd和LCP出现显著下降(P <0.05),其他参数无显著变化;青冈幼苗的Pnmax、Rd、LSP以及叶干质量、根干质量、总干质量指标都显著低于对照组(P <0.05),但叶绿素a含量显著增加(P <0.05),其余参数无显著变化。综上可得,秃瓣杜英与青冈相比更能适应在酸雨环境下生存,具有更为成熟的酸雨防御机制,而青冈对酸雨表现更为敏感。
In order to compare the resistance to acid rain stress between Elaeocarpus glabripetalus Merr. and Cyclobalanopsis glauca, the pot culture method was used by taking distilled water(pH7.0) as a control group, the differences in photosynthetic indexes, chlorophyll and biomass of E. glabripetalus and C. glauca under mild acid rain(pH5.6) and severe acid rain(pH2.5) were studied. The results are as follows. 1) There were no significant differences in Pnmax, Rd, LSP, and LCP between E. glabripetalus and C. glauca without acid rain stress(P > 0.05). 2) Under mild acid rain stress, Pnmax and LSP of E. glabripetalus increased significantly(P < 0.05), but the contents of chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b, and chlorophyll a+b, stem dry weight, root dry weight and total dry weight of E. glabripetaluswere all significantly decreased(P < 0.05), and no significant change occurred in other parameters(P > 0.05). Pnmax, Rd, LSP of C. glauca and the contents of chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b and chlorophyll a+b, as well as leaf dry weight, root dry weight and total dry weight were all a significant decrease(P < 0.05), and no significant change occurred in other parameters(P > 0.05). 3) Under severe acid rain stress, Pnmax and LSP of E. glabripetalus increased further(P < 0.05), and the contents of chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b and chlorophyll a+b, as well as the biomass index decreased further(P < 0.05), meanwhile, there was a significant decrease in Rd and LCP(P < 0.05), and no significant change happened in other parameters(P > 0.05); Rd, LSP, leaf dry weight, root dry weight and total dry weight of C. glauca, Pnmax were significantly lower than the controls(P < 0.05), but the content of chlorophyll a was significantly increased(P < 0.05), and no significant change took place in other parameters(P > 0.05). In summary, compared with C. glauca, E. glabripetalus was more adaptable to survive in an acid rain environment and had a more mature defense mechanism against acid rain, while C. glauca was more sensitive to acid rain.
In order to compare the resistance to acid rain stress between Elaeocarpus glabripetalus Merr. and Cyclobalanopsis glauca, the pot culture method was used by taking distilled water(pH7.0) as a control group, the differences in photosynthetic indexes, chlorophyll and biomass of E. glabripetalus and C. glauca under mild acid rain(pH5.6) and severe acid rain(pH2.5) were studied. The results are as follows. 1) There were no significant differences in Pnmax, Rd, LSP, and LCP between E. glabripetalus and C. glauca without acid rain stress(P > 0.05). 2) Under mild acid rain stress, Pnmax and LSP of E. glabripetalus increased significantly(P < 0.05), but the contents of chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b, and chlorophyll a+b, stem dry weight, root dry weight and total dry weight of E. glabripetaluswere all significantly decreased(P < 0.05), and no significant change occurred in other parameters(P > 0.05). Pnmax, Rd, LSP of C. glauca and the contents of chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b and chlorophyll a+b, as well as leaf dry weight, root dry weight and total dry weight were all a significant decrease(P < 0.05), and no significant change occurred in other parameters(P > 0.05). 3) Under severe acid rain stress, Pnmax and LSP of E. glabripetalus increased further(P < 0.05), and the contents of chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b and chlorophyll a+b, as well as the biomass index decreased further(P < 0.05), meanwhile, there was a significant decrease in Rd and LCP(P < 0.05), and no significant change happened in other parameters(P > 0.05); Rd, LSP, leaf dry weight, root dry weight and total dry weight of C. glauca, Pnmax were significantly lower than the controls(P < 0.05), but the content of chlorophyll a was significantly increased(P < 0.05), and no significant change took place in other parameters(P > 0.05). In summary, compared with C. glauca, E. glabripetalus was more adaptable to survive in an acid rain environment and had a more mature defense mechanism against acid rain, while C. glauca was more sensitive to acid rain.
引文
[1]GUO J H,LIU X J,ZHANG Y,et al.Significant acidification in major Chinese croplands[J].Science,2010,327(5968):1008-1010.
[2]周璇,郭丕斌,黎斌林,等.林业、环境政策对酸雨控制区SO2减排协同效应的测度[J].中南林业科技大学学报,2016,36(10):134-140.
[3]赵伟,康丽莉,林惠娟,等.临安大气本底站酸雨污染变化特征与影响因素分析[J].中国环境监测,2012,28(4):12-17.
[4]VELIKOVA V,YORDANOV I,EDREVA A.Oxidative stress and some antioxidant systems in acid rain-treated bean plants.Protective role of exogenous polyamines[J].Plant Science,2000,151(1):59-66.
[5]郭慧媛,马元丹,王丹,等.模拟酸雨对毛竹叶片抗氧化酶活性及释放绿叶挥发物的影响[J].植物生态学报,2014,38(8):896-903.
[6]季晓燕,江洪,洪江华,等.模拟酸雨对亚热带三个树种凋落叶分解速率及分解酶活性的影响[J].环境科学学报,2013,33(7):2027-2035.
[7]于晓鹏,伊力塔,余树全,等.不同酸雨胁迫梯度和处理方式对杨梅幼苗叶绿素荧光特性的影响[J].生态学杂志,2015,34(5):1246-1252.
[8]黄智勇,田大伦.模拟酸雨对盆栽广玉兰幼苗叶矿质元素含量的影响[J].中南林业科技大学学报,2007,27(1):35-39.
[9]田大伦,黄智勇,闫文德,等.模拟酸雨对3种盆栽灌木幼苗叶矿质元素含量的影响[J].中南林业科技大学学报,2007,27(1):1-8.
[10]金清,江洪,余树全,等.酸雨胁迫对亚热带典型树种幼苗生长与光合作用的影响[J].生态学报,2009,29(6):3322-3327.
[11]蒋馥蔚,江洪,李巍,等.不同起源时期的3种被子植物对酸雨胁迫响应的光合生理生态特征[J].植物生态学报,2009,33(1):125-133.
[12]殷秀敏,余树全,江洪,等.酸雨胁迫对秃瓣杜英幼苗叶片叶绿素荧光特性和生长的影响[J].应用生态学报,2010,21(6):1374-1380.
[13]李万超,江洪,曾波,等.模拟酸雨对青冈和木荷幼苗光合响应特性的影响[J].西南大学学报(自然科学版),2008,30(7):98-103.
[14]俞飞,宋琦,刘美华,等.模拟酸雨不同处理对秃瓣杜英幼苗生物量和生理的影响[J].林业科学,2016,52(5):92-100.
[15]黄梅玲,江洪,金清,等.UV-B辐射胁迫下不同起源时期的3种木本植物幼苗的生长及光合特性[J].生态学报,2010,30(8):1998-2009.
[16]邹琦.植物生理学实验指导[M].北京:中国农业出版社,2007.
[17]THO RNLEYJHM.Mathe maticalmo delsinplant physiology[J].Mathematical Models in Plant Physiology,1976.
[18]管铭,金则新,李月灵,等.千岛湖次生林优势种植物光合生理生态特性[J].生态学报,2015,35(7):2057-2066
[19]殷秀敏,伊力塔,余树全,等.酸雨胁迫对木荷叶片气体交换和叶绿素荧光参数的影响[J].生态环境学报,2010,19(7):1556-1562.
[20]LOOMIS R S,RABBINGE A,NG E.Explanatory Models in Crop Physiology[J].Ann.rev.plant Physiol,1979,30(1979):339-367.
[21]肖云旭.海南油茶5个无性系光合特性综合评价[D].长沙:中南林业科技大学,2015.
[22]刘兴洋,毛雪飞.逆境条件对植物光合生理影响的研究[J].河北农业科学,2008,12(7):12-14.
[23]鲁美娟,江洪,余树全,等.模拟酸雨对山核桃和杨梅光合生理特征的影响[J].生态学杂志,2009,28(8):1476-1481.
[24]CHEN S,BAI Y,ZHANG L,et al.Comparing physiological responses of two dominant grass species to nitrogen addition in Xilin River Basin of China[J].Environmental&Experimental Botany,2005,53(1):65-75.
[25]田大伦,付晓萍,方晰,等.模拟酸雨对樟树幼苗光合特性的影响[J].林业科学,2007,43(8):29-35.
[26]张瑞华,徐坤,董灿兴.光质对生姜叶片光合特性的影响[J].中国农业科学,2008,41(11):3722-3727.
[27]REICH P B,SCHOETTLE A W,STROO H F,et al.Effects of ozone and acid rain on white pine(Pinus strobus)seedlings[J].Canadian Journal of Botany,1988,66(8):1510-1516.
[28]王梓廷,王艳,宋洪,等.SO2及酸雨胁迫对不同时期冬小麦叶绿素含量的影响[J].西北农业学报,2012,21(4):131-136.
[29]周青,黄晓华.酸雨对陆地生态系统影响与防治研究[J].自然杂志,2002,24(6):315-320.
[30]李志国,翁忙玲,姜武,等.模拟酸雨对乐东拟单性木兰幼苗部分生理指标的影响[J].生态学杂志,2007,26(1):31-34.
[31]单运峰.酸雨、大气污染与植物[M].北京:中国环境科学出版社,1993.
[32]周青,曾庆玲,黄晓华,等.三类抗性种子萌发对酸雨胁迫响应[J].生态学报,2004,24(9):2029-2036.
[33]孔垂华,徐涛,胡飞,等.环境胁迫下植物的化感作用及其诱导机制[J].生态学报,2000,20(5):849-854.
[34]陈东菊,安敏敏,李丽兰,等.植保素及其在增强作物抗性中的作用[J].分子植物育种,2017,15(2):774-780.
[35]牛翠娟,娄安如,孙儒泳,等.基础生态学[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2015.
[2]周璇,郭丕斌,黎斌林,等.林业、环境政策对酸雨控制区SO2减排协同效应的测度[J].中南林业科技大学学报,2016,36(10):134-140.
[3]赵伟,康丽莉,林惠娟,等.临安大气本底站酸雨污染变化特征与影响因素分析[J].中国环境监测,2012,28(4):12-17.
[4]VELIKOVA V,YORDANOV I,EDREVA A.Oxidative stress and some antioxidant systems in acid rain-treated bean plants.Protective role of exogenous polyamines[J].Plant Science,2000,151(1):59-66.
[5]郭慧媛,马元丹,王丹,等.模拟酸雨对毛竹叶片抗氧化酶活性及释放绿叶挥发物的影响[J].植物生态学报,2014,38(8):896-903.
[6]季晓燕,江洪,洪江华,等.模拟酸雨对亚热带三个树种凋落叶分解速率及分解酶活性的影响[J].环境科学学报,2013,33(7):2027-2035.
[7]于晓鹏,伊力塔,余树全,等.不同酸雨胁迫梯度和处理方式对杨梅幼苗叶绿素荧光特性的影响[J].生态学杂志,2015,34(5):1246-1252.
[8]黄智勇,田大伦.模拟酸雨对盆栽广玉兰幼苗叶矿质元素含量的影响[J].中南林业科技大学学报,2007,27(1):35-39.
[9]田大伦,黄智勇,闫文德,等.模拟酸雨对3种盆栽灌木幼苗叶矿质元素含量的影响[J].中南林业科技大学学报,2007,27(1):1-8.
[10]金清,江洪,余树全,等.酸雨胁迫对亚热带典型树种幼苗生长与光合作用的影响[J].生态学报,2009,29(6):3322-3327.
[11]蒋馥蔚,江洪,李巍,等.不同起源时期的3种被子植物对酸雨胁迫响应的光合生理生态特征[J].植物生态学报,2009,33(1):125-133.
[12]殷秀敏,余树全,江洪,等.酸雨胁迫对秃瓣杜英幼苗叶片叶绿素荧光特性和生长的影响[J].应用生态学报,2010,21(6):1374-1380.
[13]李万超,江洪,曾波,等.模拟酸雨对青冈和木荷幼苗光合响应特性的影响[J].西南大学学报(自然科学版),2008,30(7):98-103.
[14]俞飞,宋琦,刘美华,等.模拟酸雨不同处理对秃瓣杜英幼苗生物量和生理的影响[J].林业科学,2016,52(5):92-100.
[15]黄梅玲,江洪,金清,等.UV-B辐射胁迫下不同起源时期的3种木本植物幼苗的生长及光合特性[J].生态学报,2010,30(8):1998-2009.
[16]邹琦.植物生理学实验指导[M].北京:中国农业出版社,2007.
[17]THO RNLEYJHM.Mathe maticalmo delsinplant physiology[J].Mathematical Models in Plant Physiology,1976.
[18]管铭,金则新,李月灵,等.千岛湖次生林优势种植物光合生理生态特性[J].生态学报,2015,35(7):2057-2066
[19]殷秀敏,伊力塔,余树全,等.酸雨胁迫对木荷叶片气体交换和叶绿素荧光参数的影响[J].生态环境学报,2010,19(7):1556-1562.
[20]LOOMIS R S,RABBINGE A,NG E.Explanatory Models in Crop Physiology[J].Ann.rev.plant Physiol,1979,30(1979):339-367.
[21]肖云旭.海南油茶5个无性系光合特性综合评价[D].长沙:中南林业科技大学,2015.
[22]刘兴洋,毛雪飞.逆境条件对植物光合生理影响的研究[J].河北农业科学,2008,12(7):12-14.
[23]鲁美娟,江洪,余树全,等.模拟酸雨对山核桃和杨梅光合生理特征的影响[J].生态学杂志,2009,28(8):1476-1481.
[24]CHEN S,BAI Y,ZHANG L,et al.Comparing physiological responses of two dominant grass species to nitrogen addition in Xilin River Basin of China[J].Environmental&Experimental Botany,2005,53(1):65-75.
[25]田大伦,付晓萍,方晰,等.模拟酸雨对樟树幼苗光合特性的影响[J].林业科学,2007,43(8):29-35.
[26]张瑞华,徐坤,董灿兴.光质对生姜叶片光合特性的影响[J].中国农业科学,2008,41(11):3722-3727.
[27]REICH P B,SCHOETTLE A W,STROO H F,et al.Effects of ozone and acid rain on white pine(Pinus strobus)seedlings[J].Canadian Journal of Botany,1988,66(8):1510-1516.
[28]王梓廷,王艳,宋洪,等.SO2及酸雨胁迫对不同时期冬小麦叶绿素含量的影响[J].西北农业学报,2012,21(4):131-136.
[29]周青,黄晓华.酸雨对陆地生态系统影响与防治研究[J].自然杂志,2002,24(6):315-320.
[30]李志国,翁忙玲,姜武,等.模拟酸雨对乐东拟单性木兰幼苗部分生理指标的影响[J].生态学杂志,2007,26(1):31-34.
[31]单运峰.酸雨、大气污染与植物[M].北京:中国环境科学出版社,1993.
[32]周青,曾庆玲,黄晓华,等.三类抗性种子萌发对酸雨胁迫响应[J].生态学报,2004,24(9):2029-2036.
[33]孔垂华,徐涛,胡飞,等.环境胁迫下植物的化感作用及其诱导机制[J].生态学报,2000,20(5):849-854.
[34]陈东菊,安敏敏,李丽兰,等.植保素及其在增强作物抗性中的作用[J].分子植物育种,2017,15(2):774-780.
[35]牛翠娟,娄安如,孙儒泳,等.基础生态学[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2015.