淹水胁迫对枫杨等3个树种生理生化特性的影响
|
摘要
通过模拟季节性淹水发生的情况,以枫杨、落羽杉和枫香为试验材料,研究这3个树种在淹水胁迫下的适应性和生理调节机制。结果表明:(1)枫杨等3个树种可耐长期水淹,对淹水胁迫具有很强的适应性。(2)不同淹水深度胁迫下,枫杨SOD、POD、CAT活性无显著差异,MDA含量随淹水深度增加呈现出递减趋势。枫香随淹水深度增加,SOD、POD活性逐渐减少,且渍水与深度淹水间存在显著差异(P <0.05);CAT活性随淹水深度增加而逐渐增加,但不同淹水深度间无显著差异。落羽杉在渍水时SOD活性显著高于轻度淹水,深度淹水时CAT活性极显著(P <0.01)高于渍水和轻度淹水时;MDA含量随淹水深度增加呈现出逐渐增加趋势,但无显著差异。(3)随淹水时间的延长,3个树种的SOD、POD、CAT保护酶活性多呈现出降低-升高-降低的波状起伏变化;枫杨、枫香的MDA含量呈现出先升高后降低的趋势,落羽杉的MDA含量变化不明显。(4)淹水胁迫解除后,枫杨等3个树种的SOD、POD、CAT酶活性及MDA含量普遍呈现先升高后降低的趋势。
By simulating the seasonal flooding happened, the research, aimed to understand in different waterlogging stress tolerance and adaptation mechanisms of three tree species(i.e. Pterocarya stenoptera, Taxodium distichum, Liquidambar formosana), was conducted. The results show that:(1)The three tree species all showed perfect ability tolerant to flooding for a long time.(2)Under different depth stress, the SOD, POD, CAT activity of Pterocarya stenoptera had no significant difference, and the MDA content showed a decreasing with flooding depth increase. For Liquidambar formosana, the SOD and POD activity gradually reduced with flooding depth increase, and had significant difference(P < 0.05) between waterlogging and flooding deeper. The CAT activity increased with flooding depth increase, but has no significant difference between different depth. For Taxodium distichum, the SOD activity was significantly higher in waterlogging than mild flooded, and the CAT activity was significantly(P < 0.01) in flooding deeper than waterloggingand mild flooded. The MDA content was increased with flooding depth increase, but there was no significant difference between different depth.(3)With increasing inundation duration,the SOD, POD, CAT activity of three tree species showed wave-like carves: down-up-down, and the MDA content of Pterocarya stenoptera and Liquidambar formosana exhibited increase first and then decrease.(4)After waterlogging stress relieved, the SOD, POD, CAT activity and MDA content of three tree species generally increased first and then decreased.
By simulating the seasonal flooding happened, the research, aimed to understand in different waterlogging stress tolerance and adaptation mechanisms of three tree species(i.e. Pterocarya stenoptera, Taxodium distichum, Liquidambar formosana), was conducted. The results show that:(1)The three tree species all showed perfect ability tolerant to flooding for a long time.(2)Under different depth stress, the SOD, POD, CAT activity of Pterocarya stenoptera had no significant difference, and the MDA content showed a decreasing with flooding depth increase. For Liquidambar formosana, the SOD and POD activity gradually reduced with flooding depth increase, and had significant difference(P < 0.05) between waterlogging and flooding deeper. The CAT activity increased with flooding depth increase, but has no significant difference between different depth. For Taxodium distichum, the SOD activity was significantly higher in waterlogging than mild flooded, and the CAT activity was significantly(P < 0.01) in flooding deeper than waterloggingand mild flooded. The MDA content was increased with flooding depth increase, but there was no significant difference between different depth.(3)With increasing inundation duration,the SOD, POD, CAT activity of three tree species showed wave-like carves: down-up-down, and the MDA content of Pterocarya stenoptera and Liquidambar formosana exhibited increase first and then decrease.(4)After waterlogging stress relieved, the SOD, POD, CAT activity and MDA content of three tree species generally increased first and then decreased.
引文
[1]杜克兵,许林,涂炳坤,等.淹水胁迫对2种杨树1年生苗叶片超微结构和光合特性的影响[J].林业科学,2010,46(6):58-46.
[2]汪贵斌,蔡金峰,何肖华.涝渍胁迫对喜树幼苗形态和生理的影响[J].植物生态学报,2009,33(1):134-140.
[3]刘金祥,王铭铭.淹水胁迫对香根草生长及光合生理的影响[J].草业科学,2005,22(7):71-73.
[4]苏守香,彭镇华,孙启祥,等.淹水胁迫下枫香叶片对富氮水平的光合响应[J].安徽农业大学学报,2013,40(3):357-365.
[5]辛俊亮,黄白飞,杨中艺,等.铺地木蓝对不同程度淹水胁迫的生理响应[J].草业学报,2012,21(3):177-183.
[6]潘向艳,季孔庶,方彦.淹水胁迫下杂交鹅掌楸无性系几种酶活性的变化[J].西北林学院学报,2007,22(3):43-46.
[7]汤玉喜,刘友全,吴敏,等.淹水胁迫对美洲黑杨无性系保护酶系统的影响[J].中南林业科技大学学报,2008,28(3):1-5.
[8]张晓燕.不同树种在涝渍胁迫下生长及其生理特性的响应[D].南京:南京林业大学,2009.
[9]Sairam R K,Kumutha D,Ezhilmathi K,et a1.Waterlogging induced oxidative stress and antioxidant enzyme activities in pigeonpea[J].Biologia Plantarum,2009,53(3):493-504.
[10]Damanik RI,Maziah M,Ismail MR,et al.Responses of the antioxidative enzymes in Malaysian rice(Oryza sativa L.)cultivars under submergence condition[J].Acta Physiologiae Plantarum,2010,32(4):739-747.
[11]Wormuth D,Heiber I,Shaikali J,et a1.Redox regulation and antioxidative defence in Arabidopsis leaves viewed from a systems biology perspective[J].Journal of Biotechnology,2007,129(2):229-248.
[12]蔡志全,曹坤芳.遮荫下2种热带树苗叶片光合特性和抗氧化酶系统对自然降温的响[J].林业科学,2004,40(1):47-51.
[13]李纪元.涝渍胁迫对枫杨幼苗保护酶活性及膜脂过氧化物的影响[J].安徽农业大学学报,2006,33(4):450-453.
[14]李纪元,饶龙兵,潘德寿,等.人工淹水胁迫下枫杨种源MDA含量的地理变异[J].浙江林业科技,1999,19(4):22-27.
[15]孙海菁,王树凤,陈益泰.不同枫香种源对淹水胁迫的响应[J].南京林业大学学报(自然科学版),2012,36(3):43-48.
[16]苏守香,彭镇华,孙启祥,等.淹水胁迫下枫香光合生理特性对CO2浓度倍增的响应[J].河北农业大学学报,2013,36(4):42-48.
[17]刘春风,汪贵斌,曹福亮.淹水胁迫对落羽杉等4个树种苗木生长的影响[J].应用研究,2011,5(1):48-51.
[18]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,2003.
[19]徐庆,潘云芬,程元启,等.安徽升金湖淡水森林湿地适生树种筛选[J].林业科学,2008,44(12):7-14.
[20]方建民,刘洪剑,董广平.枫香等3种植物水浸液灭螺效果的初步研究[J].湿地科学与管理,2010,6(3):8-11.
[21]陈桂芳,娄利华,蔡孔瑜,等.淹水胁迫下水松主要生理生化指标的变化[J].重庆林业科技,2008(3):1-4.
[22]张往祥,张晓燕,曹福亮,等.涝渍胁迫下3个树种幼苗生理特性的响应[J].南京林业大学学报(自然科学版),2011,35(5):11-15.
[23]武燕奇,郭素娟.5个板栗品种(系)对持续干旱胁迫和复水的生理响应[J].中南林业科技大学学报,2017,37(10):67-74.
[24]张永峰,殷波.混合盐碱胁迫对苗期紫花苜蓿抗氧化酶活性及丙二醛含量的影响[J].草业学报,2009,18(1):46-50.
[25]韩蕊莲,李丽霞,梁宗锁,等.干旱胁追下沙棘膜脂过氧化保护体系研究[J].西北林学院学报,2002,17(4):1-5.
[2]汪贵斌,蔡金峰,何肖华.涝渍胁迫对喜树幼苗形态和生理的影响[J].植物生态学报,2009,33(1):134-140.
[3]刘金祥,王铭铭.淹水胁迫对香根草生长及光合生理的影响[J].草业科学,2005,22(7):71-73.
[4]苏守香,彭镇华,孙启祥,等.淹水胁迫下枫香叶片对富氮水平的光合响应[J].安徽农业大学学报,2013,40(3):357-365.
[5]辛俊亮,黄白飞,杨中艺,等.铺地木蓝对不同程度淹水胁迫的生理响应[J].草业学报,2012,21(3):177-183.
[6]潘向艳,季孔庶,方彦.淹水胁迫下杂交鹅掌楸无性系几种酶活性的变化[J].西北林学院学报,2007,22(3):43-46.
[7]汤玉喜,刘友全,吴敏,等.淹水胁迫对美洲黑杨无性系保护酶系统的影响[J].中南林业科技大学学报,2008,28(3):1-5.
[8]张晓燕.不同树种在涝渍胁迫下生长及其生理特性的响应[D].南京:南京林业大学,2009.
[9]Sairam R K,Kumutha D,Ezhilmathi K,et a1.Waterlogging induced oxidative stress and antioxidant enzyme activities in pigeonpea[J].Biologia Plantarum,2009,53(3):493-504.
[10]Damanik RI,Maziah M,Ismail MR,et al.Responses of the antioxidative enzymes in Malaysian rice(Oryza sativa L.)cultivars under submergence condition[J].Acta Physiologiae Plantarum,2010,32(4):739-747.
[11]Wormuth D,Heiber I,Shaikali J,et a1.Redox regulation and antioxidative defence in Arabidopsis leaves viewed from a systems biology perspective[J].Journal of Biotechnology,2007,129(2):229-248.
[12]蔡志全,曹坤芳.遮荫下2种热带树苗叶片光合特性和抗氧化酶系统对自然降温的响[J].林业科学,2004,40(1):47-51.
[13]李纪元.涝渍胁迫对枫杨幼苗保护酶活性及膜脂过氧化物的影响[J].安徽农业大学学报,2006,33(4):450-453.
[14]李纪元,饶龙兵,潘德寿,等.人工淹水胁迫下枫杨种源MDA含量的地理变异[J].浙江林业科技,1999,19(4):22-27.
[15]孙海菁,王树凤,陈益泰.不同枫香种源对淹水胁迫的响应[J].南京林业大学学报(自然科学版),2012,36(3):43-48.
[16]苏守香,彭镇华,孙启祥,等.淹水胁迫下枫香光合生理特性对CO2浓度倍增的响应[J].河北农业大学学报,2013,36(4):42-48.
[17]刘春风,汪贵斌,曹福亮.淹水胁迫对落羽杉等4个树种苗木生长的影响[J].应用研究,2011,5(1):48-51.
[18]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,2003.
[19]徐庆,潘云芬,程元启,等.安徽升金湖淡水森林湿地适生树种筛选[J].林业科学,2008,44(12):7-14.
[20]方建民,刘洪剑,董广平.枫香等3种植物水浸液灭螺效果的初步研究[J].湿地科学与管理,2010,6(3):8-11.
[21]陈桂芳,娄利华,蔡孔瑜,等.淹水胁迫下水松主要生理生化指标的变化[J].重庆林业科技,2008(3):1-4.
[22]张往祥,张晓燕,曹福亮,等.涝渍胁迫下3个树种幼苗生理特性的响应[J].南京林业大学学报(自然科学版),2011,35(5):11-15.
[23]武燕奇,郭素娟.5个板栗品种(系)对持续干旱胁迫和复水的生理响应[J].中南林业科技大学学报,2017,37(10):67-74.
[24]张永峰,殷波.混合盐碱胁迫对苗期紫花苜蓿抗氧化酶活性及丙二醛含量的影响[J].草业学报,2009,18(1):46-50.
[25]韩蕊莲,李丽霞,梁宗锁,等.干旱胁追下沙棘膜脂过氧化保护体系研究[J].西北林学院学报,2002,17(4):1-5.