干旱胁迫对刺槐幼树水分特性及干物质积累与分配的影响
|
摘要
本研究以1年生实生刺槐苗为试材,采用随机区组实验设计和旱棚盆栽法,分别在刺槐幼树生长初期,生长盛期和生长后期,设置5种土壤水分含量(分别为田间持水量的100%(CK),87.8%,70%,52.2%,40%)和4个干旱胁迫历时(15 d,30 d,45 d,60d)试验。通过分析刺槐幼树叶片水分特性、干物质积累与分配在不同生长阶段对不同胁迫形式的响应机制,以期提高该树种水分利用效率,充分发挥其生产潜力,为刺槐幼林营造中的水分管理提供科学依据。得出的主要研究结论如下:
1.干旱胁迫对树木具有整体性的影响,树木对干旱胁迫的响应则表型出协同性响应。受干旱胁迫影响,刺槐幼树叶片水分状况趋于恶化,生长趋于衰弱,单株总叶面积下降,各器官干物质积累减少,干物质分配策略发生相应改变。但干旱胁迫对刺槐叶片性状,如比叶面积(SLA)和叶片干物质含量(LDMC)则无明显影响。
2.土壤水分对刺槐幼树的干物质积累与分配影响总体上表现为40%(相对土壤含水量)>52.2%>70%>87.8%>对照。重度干旱胁迫下刺槐凌晨叶水势和清晨叶片相对含水量显著降低,中轻度和轻微胁迫对其影响则不大。刺槐幼树叶生长对干旱胁迫十分敏感,轻度干旱胁迫处理下,刺槐幼树单株总叶面积增长基本停止;重度和中度干旱胁迫处理则使刺槐部分叶片早衰脱落,单株总叶面积不断降低,使胁迫后期总叶面积小于前期。重度干旱胁迫处理下刺槐叶、茎、枝、地上部及单株总干物质积累,叶、地上部干物质分配比率显著下降,细根、粗根分配比率和根冠比上升;而轻度干旱胁迫对幼树干物质积累和分配的影响较小。
3.随着干旱历时的延长,干旱对刺槐幼树生长的影响增大,但对刺槐叶片水分状况的影响不明显。短期(15 d)干旱胁迫处理对刺槐生长影响不大,长期(45～60 d)干旱胁迫处理则引起叶、茎、地上部、单株总干物质积累,叶、地上部干物质分配显著变化。
4.干旱胁迫对刺槐幼树不同器官的影响程度存在明显差异,干物质积累影响程度表现为叶>茎>粗根>细根;地上部>地下部;干物质分配表现为:叶>细根>粗根>茎。受树木本身生长特性和气候因素的季节性变化影响,不同生长阶段之间干旱胁迫对刺槐干物质积累与分配的影响存在明显差异,综合分析得出其影响程度大小表现为生长初期>生长盛期>生长后期。
5.干旱后复水激发了刺槐幼树地上生长,其表现出明显的补偿生长;而地下部干物质积累却较对照有所下降;干物质分配策略亦发生了相应变化。重度和中度干旱胁迫处理后复水,刺槐叶、茎枝、地上部及单株总干物质积累无明显补偿生长效应;轻度干旱胁迫后复水,刺槐叶、地上部和总干物质量均表现出了较强的补偿生长,基本能够恢复到正常供水水平。复水后刺槐叶、地上部干物质分配比率较胁迫后明显上升,可达到或超过正常供水水平;粗根、地下部干物质分配比率及根冠比在复水后,均有所降低,仍接近或略高于对照;而复水对刺槐茎枝、细根干物质分配影响不大。
In this paper, a port experiment was conducted at the early growth, fast growth stage and late growth stage, respectively under five soil moisture regimes (40%, 52.2%, 70%, 87.8, and 100% of field water-holding capacity). We tested the early morning water potential, leaf relative soil water content, special leaf area, leaf dry matter content and leaf area and the dry matter accumulation and partitioning of young trees. In order to investigate effects of drought stress on the leaf moisture status,and dry matter accumulation and partitioning of young Robinia pseudoacacia at its different growth stages. The main results as follows:
1. Drought stress had an overall impact on the trees and trees had a synergistic response to water deficit. Affected by drought stress, the leaves water status tended to deteriorate, and young trees growth was in decline. The total leaf area, the dry matte accumulation of different organs of young trees was reduced under drought stress, and the dry matter partitioning corresponding changes. However, drought stress had no significant effect on special leaf area and leaf dry matter content.
2. The effects of soil moisture on the young trees followed by 40% of field water-holding capacity >52.2%>70%>87.8%>CK (100% 40% of field water-holding capacity). The early morning leaf water potential and relative leaf water content of R. pseudoacacia declined significantly under sever drought stress, and with less effect under medium and mild drought stress. Young trees leaves were very sensitive to drought stress. Total leaf area stop growing under mild drought stress, and decreased remarkably under sever and medium drought stress with some leaves shriveled and fell. The dry matter accumulation of leaf, stem, branch, total shoot, and total dry matter accumulation of R. pseudoacacia seedlings, the dry matter partitioning ratio of leaf, total shoot had a remarkable decrease, the course root dry matter partitioning and total root/ total shoot ratio raised under sever drought stress. But mild drought stress had less effect on the dry matter accumulation and partitioning of R. pseudoacacia seedlings.
3. The effects of drought stress became worse on young trees growth with the extending drought stress time, but no significant impact on young trees leaf moisture status. Short-term (15 d) drought stress had no remarkable effect on young tress growth, however, long-term (45～60 d) drought stress had significantly declined the leaf, stem, total shoot dry matter accumulation, and leaf, total shoot dry matter partitioning ratio of R. pseudoacacia seedlings.
4. Drought stress had different effects on different parts of R. pseudoacacia seedlings, for the dry matter accumulation, the effects leaf> stem>course root> fine root; total shoot>total root; and for the dry matter partitioning ratio, the effect leaf>fine root>course root>stem. As affected by the inherited growth characteristics of R. pseudoacacia itself and the variation of weather conditions of among seasons, drought stress had different extents of effects on the dry matter partitioning of R. pseudoacacia seedlings at its different growth stages, with the most significant effect occurred of early growth stage and the least at late growth stage.
5. Rewatering simulated the aboveground growth of R. pseudoacacia seedlings, which had an obvious compensatory growth. However, the underground growth rate slowed by rewatering. The dry matter partitioning ratio had corresponding changes after rewatering. Rewatering after sever drought stress, the leaf, stem, total shoot had no obvious compensatory growth phenomenon, but the compensatory phenomenon happened under mild drought stress. The leaf and total shoot dry matter partitioning ratio increased after rewatering, and the course root and total root dry matter partitioning decreased but still higher or approaching CK treatment after rewatering. However, rewatering had no remarkable effects on the stem and fine root dry matter partitioning ratio.
1.干旱胁迫对树木具有整体性的影响,树木对干旱胁迫的响应则表型出协同性响应。受干旱胁迫影响,刺槐幼树叶片水分状况趋于恶化,生长趋于衰弱,单株总叶面积下降,各器官干物质积累减少,干物质分配策略发生相应改变。但干旱胁迫对刺槐叶片性状,如比叶面积(SLA)和叶片干物质含量(LDMC)则无明显影响。
2.土壤水分对刺槐幼树的干物质积累与分配影响总体上表现为40%(相对土壤含水量)>52.2%>70%>87.8%>对照。重度干旱胁迫下刺槐凌晨叶水势和清晨叶片相对含水量显著降低,中轻度和轻微胁迫对其影响则不大。刺槐幼树叶生长对干旱胁迫十分敏感,轻度干旱胁迫处理下,刺槐幼树单株总叶面积增长基本停止;重度和中度干旱胁迫处理则使刺槐部分叶片早衰脱落,单株总叶面积不断降低,使胁迫后期总叶面积小于前期。重度干旱胁迫处理下刺槐叶、茎、枝、地上部及单株总干物质积累,叶、地上部干物质分配比率显著下降,细根、粗根分配比率和根冠比上升;而轻度干旱胁迫对幼树干物质积累和分配的影响较小。
3.随着干旱历时的延长,干旱对刺槐幼树生长的影响增大,但对刺槐叶片水分状况的影响不明显。短期(15 d)干旱胁迫处理对刺槐生长影响不大,长期(45～60 d)干旱胁迫处理则引起叶、茎、地上部、单株总干物质积累,叶、地上部干物质分配显著变化。
4.干旱胁迫对刺槐幼树不同器官的影响程度存在明显差异,干物质积累影响程度表现为叶>茎>粗根>细根;地上部>地下部;干物质分配表现为:叶>细根>粗根>茎。受树木本身生长特性和气候因素的季节性变化影响,不同生长阶段之间干旱胁迫对刺槐干物质积累与分配的影响存在明显差异,综合分析得出其影响程度大小表现为生长初期>生长盛期>生长后期。
5.干旱后复水激发了刺槐幼树地上生长,其表现出明显的补偿生长;而地下部干物质积累却较对照有所下降;干物质分配策略亦发生了相应变化。重度和中度干旱胁迫处理后复水,刺槐叶、茎枝、地上部及单株总干物质积累无明显补偿生长效应;轻度干旱胁迫后复水,刺槐叶、地上部和总干物质量均表现出了较强的补偿生长,基本能够恢复到正常供水水平。复水后刺槐叶、地上部干物质分配比率较胁迫后明显上升,可达到或超过正常供水水平;粗根、地下部干物质分配比率及根冠比在复水后,均有所降低,仍接近或略高于对照;而复水对刺槐茎枝、细根干物质分配影响不大。
In this paper, a port experiment was conducted at the early growth, fast growth stage and late growth stage, respectively under five soil moisture regimes (40%, 52.2%, 70%, 87.8, and 100% of field water-holding capacity). We tested the early morning water potential, leaf relative soil water content, special leaf area, leaf dry matter content and leaf area and the dry matter accumulation and partitioning of young trees. In order to investigate effects of drought stress on the leaf moisture status,and dry matter accumulation and partitioning of young Robinia pseudoacacia at its different growth stages. The main results as follows:
1. Drought stress had an overall impact on the trees and trees had a synergistic response to water deficit. Affected by drought stress, the leaves water status tended to deteriorate, and young trees growth was in decline. The total leaf area, the dry matte accumulation of different organs of young trees was reduced under drought stress, and the dry matter partitioning corresponding changes. However, drought stress had no significant effect on special leaf area and leaf dry matter content.
2. The effects of soil moisture on the young trees followed by 40% of field water-holding capacity >52.2%>70%>87.8%>CK (100% 40% of field water-holding capacity). The early morning leaf water potential and relative leaf water content of R. pseudoacacia declined significantly under sever drought stress, and with less effect under medium and mild drought stress. Young trees leaves were very sensitive to drought stress. Total leaf area stop growing under mild drought stress, and decreased remarkably under sever and medium drought stress with some leaves shriveled and fell. The dry matter accumulation of leaf, stem, branch, total shoot, and total dry matter accumulation of R. pseudoacacia seedlings, the dry matter partitioning ratio of leaf, total shoot had a remarkable decrease, the course root dry matter partitioning and total root/ total shoot ratio raised under sever drought stress. But mild drought stress had less effect on the dry matter accumulation and partitioning of R. pseudoacacia seedlings.
3. The effects of drought stress became worse on young trees growth with the extending drought stress time, but no significant impact on young trees leaf moisture status. Short-term (15 d) drought stress had no remarkable effect on young tress growth, however, long-term (45～60 d) drought stress had significantly declined the leaf, stem, total shoot dry matter accumulation, and leaf, total shoot dry matter partitioning ratio of R. pseudoacacia seedlings.
4. Drought stress had different effects on different parts of R. pseudoacacia seedlings, for the dry matter accumulation, the effects leaf> stem>course root> fine root; total shoot>total root; and for the dry matter partitioning ratio, the effect leaf>fine root>course root>stem. As affected by the inherited growth characteristics of R. pseudoacacia itself and the variation of weather conditions of among seasons, drought stress had different extents of effects on the dry matter partitioning of R. pseudoacacia seedlings at its different growth stages, with the most significant effect occurred of early growth stage and the least at late growth stage.
5. Rewatering simulated the aboveground growth of R. pseudoacacia seedlings, which had an obvious compensatory growth. However, the underground growth rate slowed by rewatering. The dry matter partitioning ratio had corresponding changes after rewatering. Rewatering after sever drought stress, the leaf, stem, total shoot had no obvious compensatory growth phenomenon, but the compensatory phenomenon happened under mild drought stress. The leaf and total shoot dry matter partitioning ratio increased after rewatering, and the course root and total root dry matter partitioning decreased but still higher or approaching CK treatment after rewatering. However, rewatering had no remarkable effects on the stem and fine root dry matter partitioning ratio.
引文
宝乐,刘艳红. 2009.东灵山地区不同森林群落叶功能性状比较.生态学报,29(7):3692~3702.
白永飞. 1999.降水量季节分配对克氏针茅草原群落初级生产力的影响.植物生态学报,23 (2):155~160.
陈辉蓉,吴振斌,贺锋,程旺元. 2006.植物抗逆性研究进展.环境污染治理技术与设备,2(3):7~13.
陈善福,舒庆尧. 1999.植物耐干旱胁迫的生物学机理及其基因工程研究进展.植物学通报,16(5):555~560.
蔡学彩,李镇清,陈佐忠,王义凤,汪诗平,王艳芬. 2005.内蒙古草原大针茅群落地上生物量与降水量的关系.生态学报,25(7):1657~1662.
陈晓远,高志红. 2001.干湿变化条件下小麦的补偿效应研究.内蒙古农业大学学报,22(2):62~66.
陈晓远,罗远培. 2001.开花期复水对受旱冬小麦的补偿效应研究.作物学报,27 (4):512~516.
董安祥,白虎志,雷小斌. 2006.中国西北地区干旱气候学的新进展及其主要科学问题.干旱气象. 24(4):57~62.
邓勋飞,张后勇,何勇,徐林娟. 2005.水稻叶水势与不同水分处理定量关系研究.浙江大学学报:农业与生命科学版,31(5):581~586.
代红军. 2007.干湿变化与植物补偿效应的生理机制研究.安徽农业科学,35(32):10222~10224.
付爱红,陈亚宁,李卫红,张宏锋. 2005.干旱、盐胁迫下的植物水势研究与进展.中国沙漠,25(5):744~749.
关军锋,马春红,李广敏. 2004.干旱胁迫下小麦根冠生物量变化及其抗旱性的关系.河北农业大学报,27(1):1~5.
郭相平,张烈君,王琴,郝树荣,王为木. 2005.作为水分胁迫补偿效应研究进展.河海大学学报(自然科学版),33(6):634~647.
胡继超,曹卫星,罗卫红,朱艳. 2004.小麦水分胁迫影响因子的定量研究Ⅱ.模型的建立与测试.作物学报,30(5):460~464.
胡田田,康绍忠. 2005.植物抗旱性中的补偿效应及其在农业节水中的应用.生态学报,25(4):885~891.
韩蕊莲,侯庆春. 1996.作物对缺水环境的感知及其反应.西北植物学报,16(6):67~72.
黄占斌. 2000.干湿变化与作物补偿效应规律研究.生态农业研究,8(1):30~33.
蒋瑾,戴枫年. 1988.土壤湿度对植物形态结构和生理特性的影响.中国科学院沙坡头沙漠科学研究站.流沙治理研究.银川:宁夏人民出版社:251~263.
蒋礼学,李彦. 2008.三种荒漠灌木根系的构形特征与叶性因子对干旱生境的适应性比较.中国沙漠,28(6):1118~1124.
吉增宝. 2009.干旱及旱后复水对刺槐和侧柏苗木有机渗透调节物质的影响[硕士论文].杨凌:西北农林科技大学.
廖光瑶. 1999. SPAC的水势热力学系统.四川林业科技,12(1):47~52.
刘颖慧,贾海坤,高琼. 2006.植物同化物分配及其模型研究综述.生态学报,26(6):1981~1992.
李吉跃. 1990.太行山区主要造林树种耐旱特性的研究.北京:北京林业大学.
李吉跃. 1991.植物耐旱性及其机理.北京林业大学学报,13(3):92~97.
李绍华.1993.果树生长发育、产量和果实品质对水分胁迫反应的繁感期及节水灌溉.植物生理学讯, 29(1):10~16.
李树华,许兴,米海莉,何军,魏玉清,王具宏. 2003.水分胁迫对牛心朴子植株生长及渗透调节物质积累的影响.西北植物学报,23(4):592~596.
黎燕琼,郑绍伟,陈泓,刘军,吴永波,慕长龙. 2007.林木抗旱性研究及其进展.世界林业研究,20(1):10~15.
李军,王学春,邵明安,赵玉娟,李小芳. 2010.黄土高原半干旱和半湿润地区刺槐林地生物量与土壤干燥化效应的模拟.植物生态学报,34 (3):330~339.
刘长成,魏雅芬,刘玉国,郭柯. 2009.贵州普定喀斯特次生林乔灌层地上生物量.植物生态学报,33 (4):698~705.
刘庚山,郭安红,任三学,安顺清,赵花荣. 2004.夏玉米苗期有限水分胁迫拔节期复水的补偿效应.生态学杂志,23 (3):24~29.
刘金环,曾德慧,Don Koo Lee. 2006.科尔沁沙地东南部地区主要植物叶片性状及其相互关系.生态学杂,25 (8):921~925.
李继文,王进鑫,张慕黎,吉增宝,薛设. 2009.干旱及复水对刺槐叶水势的影响.西北林学院学报, 24(3):33~36.
罗梦,郭春会. 2006.水分胁迫对长柄扁桃叶片含水量及保护酶活性的影响.干旱地区农业研究, 6(24):103~106.
刘晓英,罗远培,石元春. 2001.水分胁迫后复水对冬小麦叶面积的激发作用.中国农业科学,34(4):422~428.
李玉霖,崔建垣,苏永中. 2005.不同沙丘生境主要植物比叶面积和叶干物质含量的比较.生态学报,25(2):304~311.
李阳,齐曼·尤努斯,祝燕. 2006.水分胁迫对大果沙枣光合特性及生物量分配的影响.西北植物学报, 26 (12):2493~2499.
孟婷婷,倪健,王国宏. 2007.植物功能性状与环境和生态系统功能.植物生态学报,31(1):150~165.
牛俊义,闫志利,林瑞敏,席玲玲,周海燕,蒋娟. 2009.干旱胁迫及复水对豌豆叶片内源激素含量的影响.干旱地区农业研究,27(6):154~159.
庞云龙. 2008.旱后复水对侧柏和元宝枫幼树生长及生理特性的影响[硕士论文].杨凌:西北农林科技大学.
祁建,马克明,张育新. 2008.北京东灵山不同坡位辽东栎(Quercus liaotungensis)叶属性的比较.生态学报,28(1):122~128.
钱晓晴,沈其荣,王娟娟,柏彦超,周明耀,杨建昌. 2003.不同水分供应及氮素形态对旱作水稻铁素营养特征的影响.中国农业学报,36(10):1184~1190.
任丽花,王义祥,翁伯琦,方金梅,应朝阳,黄毅斌. 2005.土壤水分胁迫对圆叶决明叶片含水量和光合特性的影响.厦门大学学报自然科学版,44(增刊):28~33.
山仑,邓西平,苏佩,张岁岐,黄占斌,张正斌. 2000.作物对多变低水环境的适应与调节.中国农业科技导报,(2):66~69.
山仑,苏佩. 2000.不同类型作物对干湿交替环境的反应.西北植物学报,20(2):164~170.
山仑,张岁歧. 1999.节水农业及其生物学基础.水土保持研究,6(1):2~13.
孙启祥,张建锋. 2007.林木根系衰老研究评述.水土保持研究,14(1):72~75.
孙书存,陈灵芝. 2000.辽东栎幼苗对干旱和去叶的生态反应的初步研究.生态学报,20(5):893~897.
邵玺文,韩梅,韩忠明,孔伟伟,杨利民.不同施水量对黄芩干物质积累与分配的影响. 2006.水土保持学报,20(5):175~182.
孙宪芝,郑成淑,王秀峰. 2007.木本植物抗旱机理研究进展.西北植物学报,27(3):0629~0634.
唐建维,庞家平,陈明勇,郭贤明,曾荣. 2009.西双版纳橡胶林的生物量及其模型.生态学杂志, 28(10):1942~1948.
汤亮,朱艳,鞠昌华,曹卫星. 2007.油菜地上部干物质分配与产量形成模拟模型.应用生态学报,18(3):526~530.
田有亮,郭连生. 2006.几种针阔叶树种生长水势阈和生命水势阈的研究.干旱区资源与环境,20(1):1991~1995.
王进鑫,黄宝龙,王明春,王迪海. 2005a.不同供水条件下侧柏和刺槐幼树的蒸腾耗水与土壤水分应力订正.应用生态学报,16(3):419~425.
王进鑫,黄宝龙,王明春,王迪海. 2005b.侧柏幼树不同生长阶段对水分的敏感性与蒸腾效率.生态学报,25(4):711~718.
王丽娜,克热木·伊力,侯江涛. 2006.水分胁迫对扁桃砧木叶片脯氨酸、可溶性蛋白质、质膜透性、相对含水量的影响.新疆农业大学学报,29(3):53~58.
韦兰英,安惠,上官周平. 2008.刺槐叶片可塑生长的密度依赖性.植物生态学报,28(9):1856~1861.
王淼,代力民,姬兰柱,李秋荣,郭玉强. 2002.土壤水分状况对长白山阔叶红松林主要树种叶片生理生态特性的影响.生态学杂志,21(1):1~5.
王淼,代力民,姬兰柱. 2001.长白山阔叶红松林主要树种对干旱胁迫的生态反应及生物量分配的初步研究.应用生态学报,12(4):496~500.
王平,王天慧,周道玮,张红香. 2007.植物地上竞争与地下竞争研究进展.生态学报,27(8):3489~3499.
王霞,侯平,尹林克,冯大千,潘伯荣. 1999.水分胁迫对柽柳组织含水量和膜透性的影响.干旱区研究,16(2):12~15.
王云龙,许振柱,周广胜. 2004.水分胁迫对羊草光合产物分配及其气体交换特征的影响.植物生态学报,28(6):803~809.
王英姿,洪伟,吴承祯,郑关关,范海兰,陈灿,李键. 2009.灵石山米槠林优势种群不同叶龄叶属性的研究.福建林学院学报,29 (3):203~209.
王泽港,梁建生,曹显祖,吕冰. 1999.半根干旱胁迫处理对水稻叶片光合特性和糖代谢的影响.江苏农业研究,20(3):21~26.
肖冬梅,王淼,姬兰柱. 2004.水分胁迫对长白山阔叶红松林主要树种生长及生物量分配的影响.生态学杂志,23(5):93~97.
薛设. 2009.干旱胁迫及旱后复水对刺槐和侧柏苗木活性氧代谢的影响研究[硕士论文].杨凌:西北农林科技大学.
惠文红,王维生,马文良. 2003.影响干旱地区造林成活率的因素及提高对策.甘肃科技,(19):64~65.
向小亮,宁书菊,魏道智. 2009.根系的研究进展.中国农学通报,25(17):105~112.
谢寅峰,沈惠娟,罗爱珍,祝晓东. 1997.南方7个造林树种幼苗抗旱生理指标的比较.南京林业大学学报, 23(4):13~16.
叶冬梅. 2002.樟子松水分生态阈值的研究. [硕士论文].呼和浩特:内蒙古农业大学.喻方圆,徐锡增,Robert D. Guy. 2003.水分和热胁迫对5种苗木生长及生物量的影响.南京林业大学学报,27(4):10~14.
杨敏生,裴保华,张树常. 1997.树木抗旱性研究进展.河北林果研究,12(1):87~93.
尧婷婷,孟婷婷,倪健,阎顺,冯晓华,王国宏. 2010.新疆准噶尔荒漠植物叶片功能性状的进化和环境驱动机制初探.生物多样性,18 (2):201~211.
宇万太,于永强. 2001.植物地下生物量研究进展.应用生态学报,12(6):927~932.
张建国. 1993.中国北方主要造林树种耐早特性及其机理的研究.北京:北京林业大学.
张建国,李吉跃,姜金璞. 1994.京西山区人工林水分参数的研究(Ⅰ).北京林业大学学报,16(1):1~12
张林,罗天祥. 2004.植物叶寿命及其相关叶性状的生态学研究进展.植物生态学,28(6):844~852.
张林,罗天祥,邓坤枚,李文华. 2008.云南松比叶面积和叶干物质含量随冠层高度的垂直变化规律.北京林业大学学报,30(1):40~44.
张喜英. 1997.叶水势反映冬小麦和夏玉米水分亏缺程度的试验.植物生理学通讯,33(4):249~253.
郑晓翾,赵家明,张玉刚,吴雅琼,靳甜甜,刘国华. 2007.呼伦贝尔草原生物量变化及其与环境因子的关系.生态学杂志,26 (4):533~538.
张振中. 2001.以树木生物量为原料的林产工业评价.林业勘查设计,2:75~76.
Bidel L P R,Pagès L,Rivière L M,Pelloux G,Lorendeau J Y. 2000. MassFlowDyn I:A carbon transport and partitioning model for root system architecture. Annals of Botany,85:869~886.
French R J,Turner N C. 1991. Water deficit change dry matter partitioning and seed yield in narrow-leafed lupins (Lupinus angustifolius L.). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research,42:471~484.
Garnier E. 1992. Growth analysis of cogeneric annual and perennial grass species. Journal of Ecology, 80:665~675
Garkoti SC. 2008. Estimates of biomass and primary productivity in a high altitude maple forest of the west central Himalayas. Ecological Research,23:41~49.
Garnier E,Laurent G,Bellmann S,et al. 2001. Consistency of species ranking based on functional leaf traits. New Phytologist. 152:69~83.
Grime JP,Campbell B D,Mackey J M L. 1991. Root plasticity,nitrogen capture and competitive ability. Atkinson D,ed. Plant Root Growth:an Ecological Perspective. Oxford:Blackwell Scientific Publications:381~397.
Hsiao T C. 1973. Plant responses to water stress. Ann. Rer. Plant physiol,24:519~570.
Jackson R B,Money H A,Schulze E D.1997. A global budget for fine root biomass,surface area,and nutrient contents. Ecology,94(14):7362~7366.
Juan J G,Eran P,Larry D N. 1999. Mass exodus from senescing soybean chloroplasts. Plant Cell Physiology,40:986~992.
Larcher W. 1983. Physiological Plant Ecology. Berlin:Springer-Verlag.
Myers B J. 1989. Water stress and seedlings growth of two eucalypt species from contrasting habitats. Tree Physiology. 5:207~218.
Niinemetsü. 2001. Global-scale climatic controls of leaf dry mass per area,density,and thickness in trees and shrubs. Ecology,82:453~469.
Osada N, Pooter H,Villar R,Warton D. 2005. Assessing the generality of global leaf trait relationships. New Phytologist,166: 485~496.
Turner N C. 1986. Adaptation to water deficits:A Changing perspective. Aust J Plant Physiol. 13:175~190.
Wenkert W,etal. 1978. Leaf elongation and turgor maintenance at low water potentials in the elongation region of maize leave. Agron.J.,70:761~764.
Wilson P,Thompson K,Hodgson J. 1999. Specific leaf area and leaf dry matter content as alternative predictors of plant strategies. New Phytologist,143:155~162.
Wright I J,Reich P B,Cornelissen J H,Falster D S,Garnier E,Hikosaka K,Lamont B B,Lee W,Oleksyn J,Wsetoby M. 1998. A leaf-height-seed (LHS) plant ecology strategy scheme. Plant and Soil,199:213~227.
Wright I J,Reich P B,Westoby M. 2001. Strategy shifts in leaf physiology,structure and nutrient content between species of high- and low-rainfall and high- and low-nutrient habitats . Functional Ecology,15:423~434.
白永飞. 1999.降水量季节分配对克氏针茅草原群落初级生产力的影响.植物生态学报,23 (2):155~160.
陈辉蓉,吴振斌,贺锋,程旺元. 2006.植物抗逆性研究进展.环境污染治理技术与设备,2(3):7~13.
陈善福,舒庆尧. 1999.植物耐干旱胁迫的生物学机理及其基因工程研究进展.植物学通报,16(5):555~560.
蔡学彩,李镇清,陈佐忠,王义凤,汪诗平,王艳芬. 2005.内蒙古草原大针茅群落地上生物量与降水量的关系.生态学报,25(7):1657~1662.
陈晓远,高志红. 2001.干湿变化条件下小麦的补偿效应研究.内蒙古农业大学学报,22(2):62~66.
陈晓远,罗远培. 2001.开花期复水对受旱冬小麦的补偿效应研究.作物学报,27 (4):512~516.
董安祥,白虎志,雷小斌. 2006.中国西北地区干旱气候学的新进展及其主要科学问题.干旱气象. 24(4):57~62.
邓勋飞,张后勇,何勇,徐林娟. 2005.水稻叶水势与不同水分处理定量关系研究.浙江大学学报:农业与生命科学版,31(5):581~586.
代红军. 2007.干湿变化与植物补偿效应的生理机制研究.安徽农业科学,35(32):10222~10224.
付爱红,陈亚宁,李卫红,张宏锋. 2005.干旱、盐胁迫下的植物水势研究与进展.中国沙漠,25(5):744~749.
关军锋,马春红,李广敏. 2004.干旱胁迫下小麦根冠生物量变化及其抗旱性的关系.河北农业大学报,27(1):1~5.
郭相平,张烈君,王琴,郝树荣,王为木. 2005.作为水分胁迫补偿效应研究进展.河海大学学报(自然科学版),33(6):634~647.
胡继超,曹卫星,罗卫红,朱艳. 2004.小麦水分胁迫影响因子的定量研究Ⅱ.模型的建立与测试.作物学报,30(5):460~464.
胡田田,康绍忠. 2005.植物抗旱性中的补偿效应及其在农业节水中的应用.生态学报,25(4):885~891.
韩蕊莲,侯庆春. 1996.作物对缺水环境的感知及其反应.西北植物学报,16(6):67~72.
黄占斌. 2000.干湿变化与作物补偿效应规律研究.生态农业研究,8(1):30~33.
蒋瑾,戴枫年. 1988.土壤湿度对植物形态结构和生理特性的影响.中国科学院沙坡头沙漠科学研究站.流沙治理研究.银川:宁夏人民出版社:251~263.
蒋礼学,李彦. 2008.三种荒漠灌木根系的构形特征与叶性因子对干旱生境的适应性比较.中国沙漠,28(6):1118~1124.
吉增宝. 2009.干旱及旱后复水对刺槐和侧柏苗木有机渗透调节物质的影响[硕士论文].杨凌:西北农林科技大学.
廖光瑶. 1999. SPAC的水势热力学系统.四川林业科技,12(1):47~52.
刘颖慧,贾海坤,高琼. 2006.植物同化物分配及其模型研究综述.生态学报,26(6):1981~1992.
李吉跃. 1990.太行山区主要造林树种耐旱特性的研究.北京:北京林业大学.
李吉跃. 1991.植物耐旱性及其机理.北京林业大学学报,13(3):92~97.
李绍华.1993.果树生长发育、产量和果实品质对水分胁迫反应的繁感期及节水灌溉.植物生理学讯, 29(1):10~16.
李树华,许兴,米海莉,何军,魏玉清,王具宏. 2003.水分胁迫对牛心朴子植株生长及渗透调节物质积累的影响.西北植物学报,23(4):592~596.
黎燕琼,郑绍伟,陈泓,刘军,吴永波,慕长龙. 2007.林木抗旱性研究及其进展.世界林业研究,20(1):10~15.
李军,王学春,邵明安,赵玉娟,李小芳. 2010.黄土高原半干旱和半湿润地区刺槐林地生物量与土壤干燥化效应的模拟.植物生态学报,34 (3):330~339.
刘长成,魏雅芬,刘玉国,郭柯. 2009.贵州普定喀斯特次生林乔灌层地上生物量.植物生态学报,33 (4):698~705.
刘庚山,郭安红,任三学,安顺清,赵花荣. 2004.夏玉米苗期有限水分胁迫拔节期复水的补偿效应.生态学杂志,23 (3):24~29.
刘金环,曾德慧,Don Koo Lee. 2006.科尔沁沙地东南部地区主要植物叶片性状及其相互关系.生态学杂,25 (8):921~925.
李继文,王进鑫,张慕黎,吉增宝,薛设. 2009.干旱及复水对刺槐叶水势的影响.西北林学院学报, 24(3):33~36.
罗梦,郭春会. 2006.水分胁迫对长柄扁桃叶片含水量及保护酶活性的影响.干旱地区农业研究, 6(24):103~106.
刘晓英,罗远培,石元春. 2001.水分胁迫后复水对冬小麦叶面积的激发作用.中国农业科学,34(4):422~428.
李玉霖,崔建垣,苏永中. 2005.不同沙丘生境主要植物比叶面积和叶干物质含量的比较.生态学报,25(2):304~311.
李阳,齐曼·尤努斯,祝燕. 2006.水分胁迫对大果沙枣光合特性及生物量分配的影响.西北植物学报, 26 (12):2493~2499.
孟婷婷,倪健,王国宏. 2007.植物功能性状与环境和生态系统功能.植物生态学报,31(1):150~165.
牛俊义,闫志利,林瑞敏,席玲玲,周海燕,蒋娟. 2009.干旱胁迫及复水对豌豆叶片内源激素含量的影响.干旱地区农业研究,27(6):154~159.
庞云龙. 2008.旱后复水对侧柏和元宝枫幼树生长及生理特性的影响[硕士论文].杨凌:西北农林科技大学.
祁建,马克明,张育新. 2008.北京东灵山不同坡位辽东栎(Quercus liaotungensis)叶属性的比较.生态学报,28(1):122~128.
钱晓晴,沈其荣,王娟娟,柏彦超,周明耀,杨建昌. 2003.不同水分供应及氮素形态对旱作水稻铁素营养特征的影响.中国农业学报,36(10):1184~1190.
任丽花,王义祥,翁伯琦,方金梅,应朝阳,黄毅斌. 2005.土壤水分胁迫对圆叶决明叶片含水量和光合特性的影响.厦门大学学报自然科学版,44(增刊):28~33.
山仑,邓西平,苏佩,张岁岐,黄占斌,张正斌. 2000.作物对多变低水环境的适应与调节.中国农业科技导报,(2):66~69.
山仑,苏佩. 2000.不同类型作物对干湿交替环境的反应.西北植物学报,20(2):164~170.
山仑,张岁歧. 1999.节水农业及其生物学基础.水土保持研究,6(1):2~13.
孙启祥,张建锋. 2007.林木根系衰老研究评述.水土保持研究,14(1):72~75.
孙书存,陈灵芝. 2000.辽东栎幼苗对干旱和去叶的生态反应的初步研究.生态学报,20(5):893~897.
邵玺文,韩梅,韩忠明,孔伟伟,杨利民.不同施水量对黄芩干物质积累与分配的影响. 2006.水土保持学报,20(5):175~182.
孙宪芝,郑成淑,王秀峰. 2007.木本植物抗旱机理研究进展.西北植物学报,27(3):0629~0634.
唐建维,庞家平,陈明勇,郭贤明,曾荣. 2009.西双版纳橡胶林的生物量及其模型.生态学杂志, 28(10):1942~1948.
汤亮,朱艳,鞠昌华,曹卫星. 2007.油菜地上部干物质分配与产量形成模拟模型.应用生态学报,18(3):526~530.
田有亮,郭连生. 2006.几种针阔叶树种生长水势阈和生命水势阈的研究.干旱区资源与环境,20(1):1991~1995.
王进鑫,黄宝龙,王明春,王迪海. 2005a.不同供水条件下侧柏和刺槐幼树的蒸腾耗水与土壤水分应力订正.应用生态学报,16(3):419~425.
王进鑫,黄宝龙,王明春,王迪海. 2005b.侧柏幼树不同生长阶段对水分的敏感性与蒸腾效率.生态学报,25(4):711~718.
王丽娜,克热木·伊力,侯江涛. 2006.水分胁迫对扁桃砧木叶片脯氨酸、可溶性蛋白质、质膜透性、相对含水量的影响.新疆农业大学学报,29(3):53~58.
韦兰英,安惠,上官周平. 2008.刺槐叶片可塑生长的密度依赖性.植物生态学报,28(9):1856~1861.
王淼,代力民,姬兰柱,李秋荣,郭玉强. 2002.土壤水分状况对长白山阔叶红松林主要树种叶片生理生态特性的影响.生态学杂志,21(1):1~5.
王淼,代力民,姬兰柱. 2001.长白山阔叶红松林主要树种对干旱胁迫的生态反应及生物量分配的初步研究.应用生态学报,12(4):496~500.
王平,王天慧,周道玮,张红香. 2007.植物地上竞争与地下竞争研究进展.生态学报,27(8):3489~3499.
王霞,侯平,尹林克,冯大千,潘伯荣. 1999.水分胁迫对柽柳组织含水量和膜透性的影响.干旱区研究,16(2):12~15.
王云龙,许振柱,周广胜. 2004.水分胁迫对羊草光合产物分配及其气体交换特征的影响.植物生态学报,28(6):803~809.
王英姿,洪伟,吴承祯,郑关关,范海兰,陈灿,李键. 2009.灵石山米槠林优势种群不同叶龄叶属性的研究.福建林学院学报,29 (3):203~209.
王泽港,梁建生,曹显祖,吕冰. 1999.半根干旱胁迫处理对水稻叶片光合特性和糖代谢的影响.江苏农业研究,20(3):21~26.
肖冬梅,王淼,姬兰柱. 2004.水分胁迫对长白山阔叶红松林主要树种生长及生物量分配的影响.生态学杂志,23(5):93~97.
薛设. 2009.干旱胁迫及旱后复水对刺槐和侧柏苗木活性氧代谢的影响研究[硕士论文].杨凌:西北农林科技大学.
惠文红,王维生,马文良. 2003.影响干旱地区造林成活率的因素及提高对策.甘肃科技,(19):64~65.
向小亮,宁书菊,魏道智. 2009.根系的研究进展.中国农学通报,25(17):105~112.
谢寅峰,沈惠娟,罗爱珍,祝晓东. 1997.南方7个造林树种幼苗抗旱生理指标的比较.南京林业大学学报, 23(4):13~16.
叶冬梅. 2002.樟子松水分生态阈值的研究. [硕士论文].呼和浩特:内蒙古农业大学.喻方圆,徐锡增,Robert D. Guy. 2003.水分和热胁迫对5种苗木生长及生物量的影响.南京林业大学学报,27(4):10~14.
杨敏生,裴保华,张树常. 1997.树木抗旱性研究进展.河北林果研究,12(1):87~93.
尧婷婷,孟婷婷,倪健,阎顺,冯晓华,王国宏. 2010.新疆准噶尔荒漠植物叶片功能性状的进化和环境驱动机制初探.生物多样性,18 (2):201~211.
宇万太,于永强. 2001.植物地下生物量研究进展.应用生态学报,12(6):927~932.
张建国. 1993.中国北方主要造林树种耐早特性及其机理的研究.北京:北京林业大学.
张建国,李吉跃,姜金璞. 1994.京西山区人工林水分参数的研究(Ⅰ).北京林业大学学报,16(1):1~12
张林,罗天祥. 2004.植物叶寿命及其相关叶性状的生态学研究进展.植物生态学,28(6):844~852.
张林,罗天祥,邓坤枚,李文华. 2008.云南松比叶面积和叶干物质含量随冠层高度的垂直变化规律.北京林业大学学报,30(1):40~44.
张喜英. 1997.叶水势反映冬小麦和夏玉米水分亏缺程度的试验.植物生理学通讯,33(4):249~253.
郑晓翾,赵家明,张玉刚,吴雅琼,靳甜甜,刘国华. 2007.呼伦贝尔草原生物量变化及其与环境因子的关系.生态学杂志,26 (4):533~538.
张振中. 2001.以树木生物量为原料的林产工业评价.林业勘查设计,2:75~76.
Bidel L P R,Pagès L,Rivière L M,Pelloux G,Lorendeau J Y. 2000. MassFlowDyn I:A carbon transport and partitioning model for root system architecture. Annals of Botany,85:869~886.
French R J,Turner N C. 1991. Water deficit change dry matter partitioning and seed yield in narrow-leafed lupins (Lupinus angustifolius L.). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research,42:471~484.
Garnier E. 1992. Growth analysis of cogeneric annual and perennial grass species. Journal of Ecology, 80:665~675
Garkoti SC. 2008. Estimates of biomass and primary productivity in a high altitude maple forest of the west central Himalayas. Ecological Research,23:41~49.
Garnier E,Laurent G,Bellmann S,et al. 2001. Consistency of species ranking based on functional leaf traits. New Phytologist. 152:69~83.
Grime JP,Campbell B D,Mackey J M L. 1991. Root plasticity,nitrogen capture and competitive ability. Atkinson D,ed. Plant Root Growth:an Ecological Perspective. Oxford:Blackwell Scientific Publications:381~397.
Hsiao T C. 1973. Plant responses to water stress. Ann. Rer. Plant physiol,24:519~570.
Jackson R B,Money H A,Schulze E D.1997. A global budget for fine root biomass,surface area,and nutrient contents. Ecology,94(14):7362~7366.
Juan J G,Eran P,Larry D N. 1999. Mass exodus from senescing soybean chloroplasts. Plant Cell Physiology,40:986~992.
Larcher W. 1983. Physiological Plant Ecology. Berlin:Springer-Verlag.
Myers B J. 1989. Water stress and seedlings growth of two eucalypt species from contrasting habitats. Tree Physiology. 5:207~218.
Niinemetsü. 2001. Global-scale climatic controls of leaf dry mass per area,density,and thickness in trees and shrubs. Ecology,82:453~469.
Osada N, Pooter H,Villar R,Warton D. 2005. Assessing the generality of global leaf trait relationships. New Phytologist,166: 485~496.
Turner N C. 1986. Adaptation to water deficits:A Changing perspective. Aust J Plant Physiol. 13:175~190.
Wenkert W,etal. 1978. Leaf elongation and turgor maintenance at low water potentials in the elongation region of maize leave. Agron.J.,70:761~764.
Wilson P,Thompson K,Hodgson J. 1999. Specific leaf area and leaf dry matter content as alternative predictors of plant strategies. New Phytologist,143:155~162.
Wright I J,Reich P B,Cornelissen J H,Falster D S,Garnier E,Hikosaka K,Lamont B B,Lee W,Oleksyn J,Wsetoby M. 1998. A leaf-height-seed (LHS) plant ecology strategy scheme. Plant and Soil,199:213~227.
Wright I J,Reich P B,Westoby M. 2001. Strategy shifts in leaf physiology,structure and nutrient content between species of high- and low-rainfall and high- and low-nutrient habitats . Functional Ecology,15:423~434.