栎类树种幼苗对淹水胁迫的响应
|
摘要
由于长江、黄河等流域生态环境不断恶化,洪涝灾害频繁发生,造成了巨大的经济损失。现有种植材料耐涝性的缺乏,使这些低湿地大部分处于荒芜或半荒芜状态而无法利用。栎类适应性很强,是优良的城乡绿化景观树种,目前对于栎类树种的研究已成为一个热点,但对于其耐涝性的研究不多,特别是对近几年引进的国外栎在我国的适应性研究不足。因此,结合我国南方特定的气候特点研究栎类的耐涝性,积极引进国外优良的耐涝栎类资源,选择优良耐涝栎类种源及无性系,对丰富我国造林绿化树种和减轻洪涝灾害无疑具有重要意义。本文研究了弗栎、水栎、苏玛栎、纳塔栎、麻栎、青冈栎6个栎类树种及贵州榕江、河南南召、浙江建德、安徽池州、广州乐昌、江西上饶6个麻栎种源在人工淹水胁迫下外部形态及相关生理生化指标的变化。研究结果如下:
1.除青冈栎外,淹水胁迫在一定程度上促进了其他栎类生物量的积累,并出现茎基部皮孔膨胀现象。叶片受害指数能够在一定程度上反映树种耐涝性。
2.淹水胁迫下,植物通过改变各器官构件生物量分配来适应土壤缺氧环境,根冠比、叶质比明显下降,茎质比明显上升。耐涝能力强的树种,根质比变化不大,茎质比较对照明显上升,原因与茎部形成发达通气组织有关。
3.叶片脯氨酸含量和可溶糖含量的变化与栎类树种的耐涝性密切相关,耐涝性强的栎类在淹水过程中Pro含量和可溶性糖含量的变化较对照不明显,特别是在淹水的后期会与对照趋于一致。而不耐涝栎类叶片中Pro含量和可溶性糖含量会随淹水时间的延长不断增加。
4.淹水胁迫下,不同栎类叶片MDA含量较对照最大增幅出现的时间不同,弗栎、水栎、苏玛栎分别在淹水第7d、14d、28d出现,在后期增幅减小;麻栎、青冈栎则在淹水后期才出现,可以利用该数据判断树种的耐涝能力。
5.通过对6个栎类树种的16个指标进行主成分分析,结果表明,以生物量、叶片受害指数所反映的生长、形态综合指标因子和以可溶性蛋白、可溶性糖、丙二醛、脯氨酸指标为主的生理调节因子可以初步构建一个耐涝评价体系。6个树种的耐涝能力由大到小为:纳塔栎>弗栎>水栎>苏玛栎>麻栎>青冈栎。
6.根据淹水胁迫下不同麻栎种源生长及生理生化变化初步得出上饶、建德2个种源具有一定的耐涝能力。
The deteriorating ecological environment in Yangtze River and Yellow River, and frequent waterlogging , had caused enormous economic losses. Currently, the lack of planting material of Waterlogging tolerance species leads to most of these wetlands being in the desert or semi-desert state and can not used. Quercus sp. is an excellent landscape tree species in urban and rural greening, and the current study of the oak tree has become a hot spot, but few studies on waterlogging tolerance, particularly in recent years,adaptive research on the foreign oak in China was deficient. Therefore, it’s of great significances to research the waterlogging tolerance of Oak and to introduce the adaptive foreign Oak to our country, considering the specific south climate, and select fine Waterlogging oak provenances and clones to enrich plantation tree species and mitigate floods in our country. In this paper, we have studied the change of the external morphology, physiological and biochemical indexes in artificial waterlogging stress of the 6 Quercus species i.e. Q. virgin iana, Q. nigra, Q. shumardii, Q. nuttalli, Q. acutissima and Q. glauca, Q. acutissima and 6 provenances of Q. acutissima. Rongjiang Guizhou, Nanzhao Henan, Jiande Zhejiang, Chizhou Anhui, Lechang Guangzhou, Shangrao Jiangxi. The results showed that:
1. Except for Q. glauca, to certain extent, the waterlogging stress improved the biomass accumulation of all the other oaks, and on the stem base there appeared enticel expansion. And to some degree, the leaf damage index can reflect the waterlogging tolerance of tree species.
2. To a certain extent, under the waterlogging stress, in order to adapt to hypoxic environment in soil, plant organs changed the allocation of structural biomass, and the ratio of root to shoot, the ratio of leaf mass decreased significantly, while the ratio of stem mass significantly increased. To the perfect Waterlogged species, there was little change in root, but the stem quality were significantly increased, mainly because of the formation of well-developed aerenchyma.
3. Proline content and soluble sugar content of leaves were closely related with the waterlogging resistance of Quercus sp. for those two indexes of Quercus sp. with perfect waterlogging resistance were not remarkable comparing with the control test, and in the late stage of the waterlogging they were almost equal to the value of the control test. However, for Quercus sp. which can not withstand waterlogging , the Proline and soluble sugar content of leaves increased as time went on.
4. Under the waterlogged stress, the highest value of MDA content in different oak leaves occurred at different times compared to the control test. And the occurring time of Q. virginiana, Q. nigra, Q. shumardii were respectively 7th day, 14th day and 28th day after being treated with waterlogging , and in the late growth period the rate of the increase reduced. Q. acutissima, Q. glauca appeared in the late period and this fact could be used to judge the ability of waterlogging tolerance of tree species.
5. Through the principal component analysis of Quercus sp. with 16 indicators, and the results showed that the growth and comprehensive morphologic factors such as biomass and the leaf damage index and physiological regulators such as soluble protein, soluble sugar, proline could be combined to establish an evaluation system for waterlogging tolerance. The descending order of Waterlogged tolerance of 6 tree species was: Q. nuttallii > Q. virginiana > Q. nigra > Q. shumardii > Q. acutissima> Q. glauca.
6. According to the growth, physiological and biochemical changes of Q. acutissima provenances under waterlogging stress, the Q.acutissima in Shangrao and Jiande were initially proved to have a certain high waterlogging tolerance.
1.除青冈栎外,淹水胁迫在一定程度上促进了其他栎类生物量的积累,并出现茎基部皮孔膨胀现象。叶片受害指数能够在一定程度上反映树种耐涝性。
2.淹水胁迫下,植物通过改变各器官构件生物量分配来适应土壤缺氧环境,根冠比、叶质比明显下降,茎质比明显上升。耐涝能力强的树种,根质比变化不大,茎质比较对照明显上升,原因与茎部形成发达通气组织有关。
3.叶片脯氨酸含量和可溶糖含量的变化与栎类树种的耐涝性密切相关,耐涝性强的栎类在淹水过程中Pro含量和可溶性糖含量的变化较对照不明显,特别是在淹水的后期会与对照趋于一致。而不耐涝栎类叶片中Pro含量和可溶性糖含量会随淹水时间的延长不断增加。
4.淹水胁迫下,不同栎类叶片MDA含量较对照最大增幅出现的时间不同,弗栎、水栎、苏玛栎分别在淹水第7d、14d、28d出现,在后期增幅减小;麻栎、青冈栎则在淹水后期才出现,可以利用该数据判断树种的耐涝能力。
5.通过对6个栎类树种的16个指标进行主成分分析,结果表明,以生物量、叶片受害指数所反映的生长、形态综合指标因子和以可溶性蛋白、可溶性糖、丙二醛、脯氨酸指标为主的生理调节因子可以初步构建一个耐涝评价体系。6个树种的耐涝能力由大到小为:纳塔栎>弗栎>水栎>苏玛栎>麻栎>青冈栎。
6.根据淹水胁迫下不同麻栎种源生长及生理生化变化初步得出上饶、建德2个种源具有一定的耐涝能力。
The deteriorating ecological environment in Yangtze River and Yellow River, and frequent waterlogging , had caused enormous economic losses. Currently, the lack of planting material of Waterlogging tolerance species leads to most of these wetlands being in the desert or semi-desert state and can not used. Quercus sp. is an excellent landscape tree species in urban and rural greening, and the current study of the oak tree has become a hot spot, but few studies on waterlogging tolerance, particularly in recent years,adaptive research on the foreign oak in China was deficient. Therefore, it’s of great significances to research the waterlogging tolerance of Oak and to introduce the adaptive foreign Oak to our country, considering the specific south climate, and select fine Waterlogging oak provenances and clones to enrich plantation tree species and mitigate floods in our country. In this paper, we have studied the change of the external morphology, physiological and biochemical indexes in artificial waterlogging stress of the 6 Quercus species i.e. Q. virgin iana, Q. nigra, Q. shumardii, Q. nuttalli, Q. acutissima and Q. glauca, Q. acutissima and 6 provenances of Q. acutissima. Rongjiang Guizhou, Nanzhao Henan, Jiande Zhejiang, Chizhou Anhui, Lechang Guangzhou, Shangrao Jiangxi. The results showed that:
1. Except for Q. glauca, to certain extent, the waterlogging stress improved the biomass accumulation of all the other oaks, and on the stem base there appeared enticel expansion. And to some degree, the leaf damage index can reflect the waterlogging tolerance of tree species.
2. To a certain extent, under the waterlogging stress, in order to adapt to hypoxic environment in soil, plant organs changed the allocation of structural biomass, and the ratio of root to shoot, the ratio of leaf mass decreased significantly, while the ratio of stem mass significantly increased. To the perfect Waterlogged species, there was little change in root, but the stem quality were significantly increased, mainly because of the formation of well-developed aerenchyma.
3. Proline content and soluble sugar content of leaves were closely related with the waterlogging resistance of Quercus sp. for those two indexes of Quercus sp. with perfect waterlogging resistance were not remarkable comparing with the control test, and in the late stage of the waterlogging they were almost equal to the value of the control test. However, for Quercus sp. which can not withstand waterlogging , the Proline and soluble sugar content of leaves increased as time went on.
4. Under the waterlogged stress, the highest value of MDA content in different oak leaves occurred at different times compared to the control test. And the occurring time of Q. virginiana, Q. nigra, Q. shumardii were respectively 7th day, 14th day and 28th day after being treated with waterlogging , and in the late growth period the rate of the increase reduced. Q. acutissima, Q. glauca appeared in the late period and this fact could be used to judge the ability of waterlogging tolerance of tree species.
5. Through the principal component analysis of Quercus sp. with 16 indicators, and the results showed that the growth and comprehensive morphologic factors such as biomass and the leaf damage index and physiological regulators such as soluble protein, soluble sugar, proline could be combined to establish an evaluation system for waterlogging tolerance. The descending order of Waterlogged tolerance of 6 tree species was: Q. nuttallii > Q. virginiana > Q. nigra > Q. shumardii > Q. acutissima> Q. glauca.
6. According to the growth, physiological and biochemical changes of Q. acutissima provenances under waterlogging stress, the Q.acutissima in Shangrao and Jiande were initially proved to have a certain high waterlogging tolerance.
引文
[1] Anella L B, Whitlow T H. Photosynthetic response to flooding of Acer rubrum seedlings from wet and dry sites [J]. American Midland Naturalist, 2000, 143: 330-342.
[2] Casanova M T, Brock M A. How do depth, duration and frequency of flooding influence the establishment of wetland plant communities [J]. Plant Ecology, 2000, 147: 237-250.
[3] Delauney A J, VERMA D P S. Proline biosynthesis and osmoregulation in plants [J]. The Plant Journal , 1993, 4: 215 - 223.
[4] Drew M C. Oxygen deficiency and root metabolism: injury andacclimation under hypoxia and anoxia [J]. Annu Rev Plant Physiol Plant Molecular Biology, 1997, 48: 223-250.
[5] Gardiner E S, Hodges J D. Physiological, morphological and growth responses to Rhizosphere hypoxia by seedlings of north American bottomland oaks[J]. Ann Sci Forest, 1996, 53: 303 - 316.
[6] Goelz J C G. Survival and growth of individual trees in mixed-species plantations of bottomland hardwoods on 2 Mississippidelta soil types[J]. Native Plants Journal, 2002, 2 (1) : 98 - 104.
[7] Gravatt D. A Study on effect of flood duration on photosynthesis and starch allocation pattern of four Bottomland hardwoods [J]. Tree Physiol, 1998, 18 (6) : 411 - 417.
[8] Hook D D. Waterlogging tolerance to lowland tree species of the South[J]. South J Appl For, 1984, 8: 136 - 149.
[9] Jackson M B, Armstrong W. Formation of aerenchyma and the processes of plant ventilation in relation to soil flooding and submergence [J]. Plant Biology, 1999, 1: 274-287.
[10] Jackson M B. Ethylene and responses of plants to soil water logging and submergence [J]. Annual Review of Plant Physiology, 1985, 36:145-174.
[11] Kozlowski T T. Plant responses to flooding of soil [J]. BioScience, 1984, 34: 162-167.
[12] Ksontini M. A comparative study on effect of water deficiency on stomatal conductance, photosynthesis and growth of Quercus suber,Q. faginea and Q. coccifera seeding in Tunis[J]Ann Sci For,1998, 55 (4) : 477 - 495.
[13] LI Xiao-yan , Song Zhan-wu, Dong Zhi-xian. Plant physiological response to salt stress [J]. Journal of Northwest Normal University (Natural Science) 2004, 40 (3): 106-111.
[14] Mcleod KW. Photosynthesis and water relations of four oak species impact of flooding and salinily[J]. Trees2Structure and Function, 1999, 13 (4) : 178 - 187.
[15] Newsome R D,Kozlowskl T T,Tang Z C.Responses of Utmus amrricana seedling to flooding of soil[J].Canada Journal of Botany.1982,50: 1688-1695.
[16] Pezeshki S R, Andersona P H. The effects of intermittent flooding on seedlings of three forest species[J]. Photosynthetical, 1999, 37(4) : 543 - 552.
[17] Pezeshki S R, DeLaune R D, Andersona P H. Effect of flooding on elemental uptake and biomass allocation in seedlings of three bottomland tree species[J]. Journal of PlantNutrition, 1999, 22 (9) : 1481 - 1494.
[18] Sarkar R K, Das A. Changes in antioxidative enzymes and antioxidants in relation to flooding tolerance in rice[J].Journal of Plant Biology,2000,27(3):307-311.
[19] Sena Gomes A R,Kodowski T T .Effects of flooding on growth of Eucalyptus camaldulensis and E.globules seedlings[J]. Oecologia.1980.46:139-142
[20] Stanturf J A, ConnerW H, Gardiner E S. Recognizing and overcoming difficult site conditions for afforestation of bottomland hardwoods[J]. Ecological Restoration, 2004, 22 (3) : 183 - 193.
[21] Tang Z C , Kozlowski T T. Some physiological and mor-phological responses of Quercus macrocarpa seedlings to flooding [J]. CanadianJournal of Forest Research, 1982, 12: 196-202.
[22] Tang Z C, Kozlowski T T, Some physiological and growth responses of Betula papyrifera seedlings to flooding [J]. Physiologia Plantarum .1982.55:415-420
[23] Vartapetian B B, JACKSON M B. Plant adaptations to anaerobic stress [J]. Annals of Botany, 1997, 79(Supplement A): 3-20.
[24] Vassilev A, Perez-Sanza A, Semane B, et al. Cadmium accumulation and tolerance of two Salix Genotypes hydroponically grown in presence of Cadmium [J]. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 2005, 28: 2 159-2 177.
[25] Waters I, Morell S, Greenway H, et al. Effect of anoxia on wheat seedlings: Influence of O2 supp ly p rior to anoxia on tolerance to anoxia, alcoholic fermentation and sugar levels [J]. J Exp Bot, 1991, 42: 1437 - 1447.
[26] Yanfei G, Michael G T, Brian R L. Effects of flood duration and season on germination of black, cherrybark, northern red, and water oak acorns[J]. New Forests, 1998, 15: 69 - 76.
[27]白青华,郭晓冬,王萍,等.低温对辣椒幼苗叶片氮及叶绿素含量的影响[J].甘肃农业大学学报,2009,44(6):48-51.
[28]蔡永萍,陶汉之,张玉琼.土壤渍水对小麦开花后叶片几种生理特性的影响[J].植物生理学讯,2000,36(2):110-114.
[29]陈大清,董登峰,李亚南等.小麦抗涝的基因型差异对逆境胁迫的比较生理学效应[J].湖北农学院学报,1998,18(4):295-298.
[30]陈伽,朱美君.玉米根微粒体ABA与结合蛋白的性质与逆境胁迫的影响[J].植物生理学报,1996,22(1):63-68.
[31]陈杰忠,徐春香,梁立峰.低温对香蕉叶片中蛋白质及脯氨酸的影响[J].华南农业大学学报,1999,20(3):54-58.
[32]陈军,戴厚英.干旱对不同耐性玉米品种光合作用及产量的影响[J].作物学报,1996,22(6):757-762.
[33]陈龙,李季平,杨光宇,吴诗光.灌浆期涝渍胁迫对小麦生理生化特性的影响[J].河南农业科学,2002,6:8-9.
[34]陈少裕.膜脂过氧化对植物细胞的伤害[J].植物生理学通讯,1991,27(2):84-90.
[35]程淑婉,唐罗忠,肖研汀,等.涝渍条件下黑杨派无性系基茎韧皮部的活力和有机物含量[J].南京林业大学学报,1997,21(l):51-55.
[36]崔建国,崔文山,邓丽琴.辽西地区3种落叶栎树抗旱性的初步研究[J].辽宁林业科技, 2005 (1) : 10 - 11, 42.
[37]董合忠,郭庆正,唐薇.水分胁迫对棉苗的致死机理及抗性研究[J].棉花学报,1997(6):287-291
[38]董建国,余叔文.细胞分裂素对渍水小麦衰老的影响[J].植物生理学报,1984,10:55-62.
[39]房江育,张仁陟.无机营养和水分胁迫对春小麦叶绿素、丙二醛含量等的影响及其相关性[J].甘肃农业大学学报,2001,36(1):89-94.
[40]高健,侯成林,吴泽民.淹水胁迫对I-69/55杨蒸腾作用的影响[J].应用生态学报,2000,11(4):518-522.
[41]高鹏,王国英.植物的涝害胁迫及其适应机制研究进展[J].农业生物技术学报,2001,9(3):55-61.
[42]宫长荣,李艳梅,杨立均.水分胁迫下离体烟叶中脂氧合酶活性、水杨酸与茉莉酸积累的关系[J].中国农业科学,2003,36(3):269-272.
[43]郝玉兰,潘金豹,张秋芝,等.不同生育时期水淹胁迫对玉米生长发育的影响[J].农艺科学,2003,19(6):58-63.
[44]何篙涛,刘国琴,樊伟国.银杏对水涝胁迫的生理反应[J].山地农业生物学报,2000,19(4):272-275.
[45]侯嫦英.水分胁迫对青檀等树种生长及生理特性的影响[D].南京林业大学,2003.
[46]黄利斌,李晓储,朱惜晨,等.北美栎树引种试验研究[J].林业科技开发,2005 19(1):30-34.
[47]姜华武,张祖新.玉米厌氧代谢与耐涝性[J].湖北农学院学报,1999,19(1):79-84.
[48]教忠意,罗祺,张纪林,等.10个树种耐水淹能力的比较[J].江苏林业科技,2007,34 (1) : 15-18.
[49]靖元孝,程惠青,彭建宗,等.水翁幼苗对淹水的反应初报[J].生态学报,2001,21(5):810-813.
[50]李明,王根轩.干旱胁迫对甘草幼苗保护酶活性及脂质过氧化作用的影响[J].生态学报, 2002, 22(4): 503-507.
[51]李德华,贺立源,刘武定.玉米根系活力与耐铝性的关系[J].中国农学通报,2004,20(1):161-164.
[52]李合生.植物生理生化实验原理与技术[M].北京:高等教育出版社, 2000.
[53]李建设,耿广东,程智慧.低温胁迫对茄子幼苗抗寒性生理生化指标的影响[J].西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版),2003,31(1):90-93.
[54]李金才,董琦,余叔文.不同生育期根际土壤淹水对小麦品种光合作用产量的影响[J].作物学报,2001,2(4):434-442.
[55]李金才,余松烈.孕穗期渍水对冬小麦根系衰老的影响[J].应用生态学报,2000,11(5):723-726.
[56]李景厚,李扬汉,李昆章,等.芝麻(Sesamum indicum L.)根系的解剖结构与耐涝程度的相关性研究[J].南京师范大学学报,1996,24(1):58-60.
[57]李莉,任金平,曲柏宏.水分胁迫对苹果梨叶片可溶性糖、脯氨酸含量的影响[J].吉林农业科学,2007,32(1):51-54.
[58]李淑琴,张璐,张纪林.三种冬青属树种的耐涝性和耐旱性评价[J].生态学杂志,2007,26(2):204-208.
[59]李阳生,李绍清.淹涝胁迫对水稻生育后期的生理特性和产量性状的影响[J].武汉植物学研究,2000,18(2):117-122.
[60]梁健生,张建华.根系逆境信号ABA的产生和运输及其生理作用[J].植物生理学通讯,1998,34(5):329-338.
[61]刘华山,韩锦峰,孟凡庭,等.土壤渍涝下芝麻叶片中几个与抗逆能力有关的生理指标的变化(简报)[J].植物生理学通讯,2001,37(2):106-108.
[62]刘可心,张哲,何玲玲.不同程度淹水对10种草种的MDA(丙二醛)含量的影响[J].牧草与饲料,2009,3(3):44-46.
[63]刘盛垒.季节性淹水对长江滩地69杨木材材性及其变异的影[J].安徽农业大学学报,1999 26(1):9-15.
[64]刘晓忠,李建坤,王志霞,等.涝渍逆境下玉米叶片超氧物歧化酶和过氧化氢酶活性与抗涝性的关系[J].华北农学报,1995,10(3):29-32.
[65]刘新华.因子分析中数据正向化处理的必要性及其软件实现[J].重庆工学院学报(自然科学), 2009,23(9):252-255
[66]刘志龙,虞木奎,唐罗忠,等.麻栎资源研究进展及开发利用对策[J].中国林副特产,2009,6:93-96.
[67]罗祺,张纪林,郝日明,等.水淹胁迫下10个树种某些生理指标的变化及其耐水淹能力的比较[J].植物资源与环境学报,2007,16 (1) : 69 - 73.
[68]马焕成,王沙生,蒋湘宁.盐胁迫下胡杨的光合和生长响应[J].西南林学院学报,1998,18 (1):33-4l.
[69]马兰涛,陈双林.瓜多竹(Guadua amplexifolia)对NaCI胁迫的生理响应[J].生态学杂志,2008,27(9):1487-149.
[70]马宗仁.植物在水分胁迫下脯氨酸积累的研究[J].草业科学,1994,11(1):15-18.
[71]倪君蒂,李振国.淹水对大豆生长的影响[J].大豆科学,2000,19(1):42-48.
[72]潘向艳.杂交鹅掌楸不同无性系对淹水胁迫的反应[D].南京林业大学, 2006.
[73]彭秀,肖千文,罗韧.淹水胁迫对中华蚊母生理生化特性的影响[J].四川林业科技,2006(4):18-20.
[74]裘丽珍,黄有军,黄坚钦,等.不同耐盐植物在盐胁迫下的生长与生理特性比较研究[J].浙江大学学报,2006,32(4):420-42.
[75]曲桂敏,李兴国,赵飞.水分胁迫对苹果叶片和新根显微结构的影响[J].园艺学报,1999,26(3):147-151.
[76]任雪萍,吴诗光,牛明功.湿涝害对灌浆期冬小麦叶片脯氨酸含量的影响[J].周口师专学报,1998,1(5):72-74.
[77]阮成江,谢庆良.土壤水分对沙棘成活率及抗逆生理特性的影响[J].应用与环境生物学报,2002,8(4):341-345.
[78]石岩,于振文,位东斌,等.土壤水分胁迫对小麦衰老中脱落酸和细胞分裂素含量的影响[J].植物生理学通讯,1998,34(l):32-34.
[79]时明芝,周保松.植物涝害和耐涝机理研究进展[J].安徽农业科学,2006,34(2):209-210.
[80]宋全辉,刘胜,周诚东.东方杉在宁波沿海不同立地种植特征表现的调查[J].江西林业科技,2008,4:37-38.
[81]宋志荣,刘明月,马艳青,等.水渍对辣椒幼苗脂质过氧化作用及保护酶活性的影响[J].湖南农业大学学报(自然科学版),2001,27(2):110-113.
[82]孙清鹏,许煌灿,张方秋等.低温胁迫对大叶相思和马占相思某些生理特性的影响[J].林业科学研究,2002,15(1):34-40.
[83]汤玉喜,刘友全,吴敏,等.淹水胁迫下美洲黑杨无性系生理生化指标的变化[J].中国农学通报,2008,24(8):156-161.
[84]汤章城.逆境下脯氨酸的累积及其可能意义[J].植物生理学通讯,1984(1):15-21.
[85]唐罗忠,程淑婉,徐锡增等.涝渍胁迫对杨树苗期叶片生长及其生理性状的影响[J].植物资源与环境,1999,8(1):15-21.
[86]童富淡,胡家恕,邵爱萍,等.涝渍逆境下大麦叶片保护酶活性和膜脂过氧化作用的变化[J].浙江农业大学学报,1998,24(4):239-343.
[87]万清林,刘鸣远.芸香抗寒生理的初步研究[J].植物研究,1997,17(2):190-194.
[88]汪贵斌,曹福亮.土壤盐分及水分含量对落羽衫光合特性的影响[J].南京林业大学学报,2004,28(3):14-17.
[89]汪贵斌,曹福亮.盐胁迫对落羽生产生理及生长的影响[J].南京林业大学学报,2003,27(3):l1-l4.
[90]汪宗立,刘晓忠,李建坤等.玉米的涝渍伤害与膜脂过氧化作用和保护酶活性的关系[J].江苏农业学报,1988,4(3):1-8.
[91]汪宗立,刘晓忠,王志霞.夏玉米不同株龄对土壤涝渍的敏感度[J].江苏农业学报,1987,3(4):14-20.
[92]王波,宋凤斌.燕麦对盐碱胁迫的反应和适应性[J].生态环境, 2006, 15 (3) : 625- 629.
[93]王波,宋凤斌,任长忠,等.盐碱胁迫对燕麦叶绿体超微结构及一些生理指标的影响[J].吉林农业大学学报,2005,27(5):473-477
[94]王海珍,梁宗锁,韩蕊莲,等.辽东栎(Quercus liaotungensis)幼苗对土壤干旱的生理生态适应性研究[J].植物研究, 2005, 25(3) : 311 - 316.
[95]王华田,孙明高.水涝对银杏生长及生理的影响[J].经济林研究,1997,15(2):14-18.
[96]王嘉燕.涝害对樱桃砧木生理生化特性的影响[D].山东农业大学, 2006.
[97]王娟,李得全.逆境条件下植物体内渗透调节物质的积累与活性氧代谢[J].植物学通讯,2001,18(4):459-465.
[98]王生.淹水胁迫对杨树无性系苗期生长及生理的影响[J].云南林业科技,1998(2):28-33.
[99]王素平,郭世荣,胡晓辉,等.盐胁迫对黄瓜幼苗叶片光合色素含量的影响[J].江西农业大学学报,2006,28(1):32-38.
[100]王文泉,郑永战,梅鸿献,等.不同耐渍基因型芝麻在厌氧胁迫下根系的生理与结构变化[J].植物遗传资源学报,2003,4 (3):214-219.
[101]王霞,侯平,尹林克.水分胁迫对柽柳植物可溶性物质的影响[J].干旱区研究,1999,16(2):6-11.
[102]王晓玲.水分胁迫对芝麻花期脯氨酸含量的影响[J].安徽农学通报,2007,13(20):66-67.
[103]王义强,谷文众,姚水攀.淹水胁迫下银杏主要生化指标的变化[J].中南林学院学报,2005(8):78-80.
[104]魏凤珍,李金才,董琦.孕穗期至抽穗期湿害对耐湿性不同品种冬小麦光合特性的影响[J].植物生理学通讯,2000:3(2):199-200.
[105]魏和平,利容千,王建波.淹水对玉米叶片细胞超微结构的影响[J].植物学报,2000,42(8):811-817.
[106]魏和平,利容千.淹水对玉米不定根形态结构和ATP酶活性的影响[J].植物生态学报,2000,24(3):293-297.
[107]吴林,黄玉龙,李亚东,等.越桔对淹水的耐受性及形态生理反应[J].吉林农业大学学报,2002,24(4):64-69.
[108]吴林,李亚东,张志东,等.三种类型越桔在淹水逆境下生理及形态反应的比较[J].园艺学报,1997,24(3):287-288.66
[109]吴水波,薛建辉.盐胁迫对3种白蜡幼苗生长与光合作用的影响[J].南京林业大学学报,2002,26(3):19-22.
[110]吴祖映,储家淼,唐明荣,等.土壤水分状况对池杉形态结构及生长状况的影响[J].浙江林学院学报,1996,13(3):364-366.
[111]肖华,吴昌庭.石楠防火林带营造技术[J].林业科技开发,2001(15):88.
[112]肖强,郑海雷.水淹对互花米草生长及生理的影响[J].生态学杂志,2005,24(9):1025-1028.
[113]肖雯,贾恢先,蒲陆梅.几种盐生植物抗盐生理指标的研究[J].西北植物学报,2000,20(5):818-825.
[114]谢振宇,杨光穗.牧草耐盐性研究进展[J] .草业科学,2003,20 (8) :11-17.
[115]刑少辰.环境胁迫与植物体内脯氨酸的关系[J].生态农业研究,1998(2):30-33.
[116]徐锡增,唐罗忠,程淑婉.涝渍胁迫下杨树内源激素及其它生理反应[J].南京林业大学学报,1999,23(1):1-5.
[117]晏斌,戴秋杰,刘晓忠等.玉米叶片涝渍伤害过程中超氧自由基的积累[J].植物学报,1995,3(9):738-744.
[118]杨燕,刘庆,林波,等.不同施水量对云杉幼苗生长和生理生态特征的影响[J].生态学报, 2005, 25(9): 2152-2158.
[119]杨遏,陈晓燕,杨运英.涝渍逆境对菜心的菜蔓的形成与细胞保护系统的影响[J].中国蔬菜,2000,19(2):7-10.
[120]杨静.几种城市森林优良景观生态树的抗涝性研究[D].南京林业大学,2006.
[121]叶勇,卢昌义,谭风仪.木榄和秋茄对水渍的生长与生理反应的比较研究[J].生态学报,2001,21(10):1654-1661.
[122]张川红,王豁然,李晓储,等.北美栎属树种引种试验研究[M].北京:中国林业出版社, 2005.
[123]张大鹏,罗国光.不同时期水分胁迫对葡萄果实生长发育的影响[J].园艺学报,1992,19(4):296-300.
[124]张文辉,段宝利,周建云,等.不同种源栓皮栎幼苗叶片水分关系和保护酶活性对干旱胁迫的响应[J].植物生态学报, 2004,28 (4) : 483 - 490.
[125]张晓平,方炎明,陈永江.淹涝胁迫对鹅掌揪属植物叶片部分生理指标的影响[J],植物资源与环境学报,2006,15(1):41-44.
[126]张永清,苗果园.高粱生育后期根系对渍水胁迫的生物学响应[J].山西农业大学学报,2005(3):193-195.
[127]张玉琼,张鹤英.淹水逆境下玉米若干生理生化特性的变化[J].安徽农业大学学报,1998,25(4):378-381.
[128]赵可夫.植物对水涝胁迫的适应[J].生物学通报,2003,38(12):11-14.
[129]赵世杰,许长城,邹琦,等.植物组织中丙二醛测定方法的改进[J].植物生理学通讯, 1994, 30 (3) : 207 - 210.
[130]赵小亮,周国娜,高宝嘉,等.主成分分析法在承德县森林生态系统健康评价中的应用[J]生态农业科学,2008,24(6):400-403.
[131]钟雪花,杨万年,吕应堂.淹水胁迫下对烟草、油菜某些生理指标的比较研究[J].武汉植物学研究,2002,2(5):395-398.
[132]周琳,古红梅,陈龙,等.小麦品种间灌浆期耐湿性的生理效应差异[J].信阳师范学院学报,2001,14(4):56-59.
[133]周浙昆.壳斗科的地质历史及其系统学和植物地理学意义[J].植物分类学报, 1999, 37 (4) : 369- 385.
[134]朱为民,朱龙英.光合特性作为番茄设施专用品种选育指标的效应[J].上海农业学报,2001,17(4):45-48.
[135]卓仁英,陈益泰.木本植物抗涝性研究进展[J].林业科学研究,2001,14(2):215-222.
[2] Casanova M T, Brock M A. How do depth, duration and frequency of flooding influence the establishment of wetland plant communities [J]. Plant Ecology, 2000, 147: 237-250.
[3] Delauney A J, VERMA D P S. Proline biosynthesis and osmoregulation in plants [J]. The Plant Journal , 1993, 4: 215 - 223.
[4] Drew M C. Oxygen deficiency and root metabolism: injury andacclimation under hypoxia and anoxia [J]. Annu Rev Plant Physiol Plant Molecular Biology, 1997, 48: 223-250.
[5] Gardiner E S, Hodges J D. Physiological, morphological and growth responses to Rhizosphere hypoxia by seedlings of north American bottomland oaks[J]. Ann Sci Forest, 1996, 53: 303 - 316.
[6] Goelz J C G. Survival and growth of individual trees in mixed-species plantations of bottomland hardwoods on 2 Mississippidelta soil types[J]. Native Plants Journal, 2002, 2 (1) : 98 - 104.
[7] Gravatt D. A Study on effect of flood duration on photosynthesis and starch allocation pattern of four Bottomland hardwoods [J]. Tree Physiol, 1998, 18 (6) : 411 - 417.
[8] Hook D D. Waterlogging tolerance to lowland tree species of the South[J]. South J Appl For, 1984, 8: 136 - 149.
[9] Jackson M B, Armstrong W. Formation of aerenchyma and the processes of plant ventilation in relation to soil flooding and submergence [J]. Plant Biology, 1999, 1: 274-287.
[10] Jackson M B. Ethylene and responses of plants to soil water logging and submergence [J]. Annual Review of Plant Physiology, 1985, 36:145-174.
[11] Kozlowski T T. Plant responses to flooding of soil [J]. BioScience, 1984, 34: 162-167.
[12] Ksontini M. A comparative study on effect of water deficiency on stomatal conductance, photosynthesis and growth of Quercus suber,Q. faginea and Q. coccifera seeding in Tunis[J]Ann Sci For,1998, 55 (4) : 477 - 495.
[13] LI Xiao-yan , Song Zhan-wu, Dong Zhi-xian. Plant physiological response to salt stress [J]. Journal of Northwest Normal University (Natural Science) 2004, 40 (3): 106-111.
[14] Mcleod KW. Photosynthesis and water relations of four oak species impact of flooding and salinily[J]. Trees2Structure and Function, 1999, 13 (4) : 178 - 187.
[15] Newsome R D,Kozlowskl T T,Tang Z C.Responses of Utmus amrricana seedling to flooding of soil[J].Canada Journal of Botany.1982,50: 1688-1695.
[16] Pezeshki S R, Andersona P H. The effects of intermittent flooding on seedlings of three forest species[J]. Photosynthetical, 1999, 37(4) : 543 - 552.
[17] Pezeshki S R, DeLaune R D, Andersona P H. Effect of flooding on elemental uptake and biomass allocation in seedlings of three bottomland tree species[J]. Journal of PlantNutrition, 1999, 22 (9) : 1481 - 1494.
[18] Sarkar R K, Das A. Changes in antioxidative enzymes and antioxidants in relation to flooding tolerance in rice[J].Journal of Plant Biology,2000,27(3):307-311.
[19] Sena Gomes A R,Kodowski T T .Effects of flooding on growth of Eucalyptus camaldulensis and E.globules seedlings[J]. Oecologia.1980.46:139-142
[20] Stanturf J A, ConnerW H, Gardiner E S. Recognizing and overcoming difficult site conditions for afforestation of bottomland hardwoods[J]. Ecological Restoration, 2004, 22 (3) : 183 - 193.
[21] Tang Z C , Kozlowski T T. Some physiological and mor-phological responses of Quercus macrocarpa seedlings to flooding [J]. CanadianJournal of Forest Research, 1982, 12: 196-202.
[22] Tang Z C, Kozlowski T T, Some physiological and growth responses of Betula papyrifera seedlings to flooding [J]. Physiologia Plantarum .1982.55:415-420
[23] Vartapetian B B, JACKSON M B. Plant adaptations to anaerobic stress [J]. Annals of Botany, 1997, 79(Supplement A): 3-20.
[24] Vassilev A, Perez-Sanza A, Semane B, et al. Cadmium accumulation and tolerance of two Salix Genotypes hydroponically grown in presence of Cadmium [J]. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 2005, 28: 2 159-2 177.
[25] Waters I, Morell S, Greenway H, et al. Effect of anoxia on wheat seedlings: Influence of O2 supp ly p rior to anoxia on tolerance to anoxia, alcoholic fermentation and sugar levels [J]. J Exp Bot, 1991, 42: 1437 - 1447.
[26] Yanfei G, Michael G T, Brian R L. Effects of flood duration and season on germination of black, cherrybark, northern red, and water oak acorns[J]. New Forests, 1998, 15: 69 - 76.
[27]白青华,郭晓冬,王萍,等.低温对辣椒幼苗叶片氮及叶绿素含量的影响[J].甘肃农业大学学报,2009,44(6):48-51.
[28]蔡永萍,陶汉之,张玉琼.土壤渍水对小麦开花后叶片几种生理特性的影响[J].植物生理学讯,2000,36(2):110-114.
[29]陈大清,董登峰,李亚南等.小麦抗涝的基因型差异对逆境胁迫的比较生理学效应[J].湖北农学院学报,1998,18(4):295-298.
[30]陈伽,朱美君.玉米根微粒体ABA与结合蛋白的性质与逆境胁迫的影响[J].植物生理学报,1996,22(1):63-68.
[31]陈杰忠,徐春香,梁立峰.低温对香蕉叶片中蛋白质及脯氨酸的影响[J].华南农业大学学报,1999,20(3):54-58.
[32]陈军,戴厚英.干旱对不同耐性玉米品种光合作用及产量的影响[J].作物学报,1996,22(6):757-762.
[33]陈龙,李季平,杨光宇,吴诗光.灌浆期涝渍胁迫对小麦生理生化特性的影响[J].河南农业科学,2002,6:8-9.
[34]陈少裕.膜脂过氧化对植物细胞的伤害[J].植物生理学通讯,1991,27(2):84-90.
[35]程淑婉,唐罗忠,肖研汀,等.涝渍条件下黑杨派无性系基茎韧皮部的活力和有机物含量[J].南京林业大学学报,1997,21(l):51-55.
[36]崔建国,崔文山,邓丽琴.辽西地区3种落叶栎树抗旱性的初步研究[J].辽宁林业科技, 2005 (1) : 10 - 11, 42.
[37]董合忠,郭庆正,唐薇.水分胁迫对棉苗的致死机理及抗性研究[J].棉花学报,1997(6):287-291
[38]董建国,余叔文.细胞分裂素对渍水小麦衰老的影响[J].植物生理学报,1984,10:55-62.
[39]房江育,张仁陟.无机营养和水分胁迫对春小麦叶绿素、丙二醛含量等的影响及其相关性[J].甘肃农业大学学报,2001,36(1):89-94.
[40]高健,侯成林,吴泽民.淹水胁迫对I-69/55杨蒸腾作用的影响[J].应用生态学报,2000,11(4):518-522.
[41]高鹏,王国英.植物的涝害胁迫及其适应机制研究进展[J].农业生物技术学报,2001,9(3):55-61.
[42]宫长荣,李艳梅,杨立均.水分胁迫下离体烟叶中脂氧合酶活性、水杨酸与茉莉酸积累的关系[J].中国农业科学,2003,36(3):269-272.
[43]郝玉兰,潘金豹,张秋芝,等.不同生育时期水淹胁迫对玉米生长发育的影响[J].农艺科学,2003,19(6):58-63.
[44]何篙涛,刘国琴,樊伟国.银杏对水涝胁迫的生理反应[J].山地农业生物学报,2000,19(4):272-275.
[45]侯嫦英.水分胁迫对青檀等树种生长及生理特性的影响[D].南京林业大学,2003.
[46]黄利斌,李晓储,朱惜晨,等.北美栎树引种试验研究[J].林业科技开发,2005 19(1):30-34.
[47]姜华武,张祖新.玉米厌氧代谢与耐涝性[J].湖北农学院学报,1999,19(1):79-84.
[48]教忠意,罗祺,张纪林,等.10个树种耐水淹能力的比较[J].江苏林业科技,2007,34 (1) : 15-18.
[49]靖元孝,程惠青,彭建宗,等.水翁幼苗对淹水的反应初报[J].生态学报,2001,21(5):810-813.
[50]李明,王根轩.干旱胁迫对甘草幼苗保护酶活性及脂质过氧化作用的影响[J].生态学报, 2002, 22(4): 503-507.
[51]李德华,贺立源,刘武定.玉米根系活力与耐铝性的关系[J].中国农学通报,2004,20(1):161-164.
[52]李合生.植物生理生化实验原理与技术[M].北京:高等教育出版社, 2000.
[53]李建设,耿广东,程智慧.低温胁迫对茄子幼苗抗寒性生理生化指标的影响[J].西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版),2003,31(1):90-93.
[54]李金才,董琦,余叔文.不同生育期根际土壤淹水对小麦品种光合作用产量的影响[J].作物学报,2001,2(4):434-442.
[55]李金才,余松烈.孕穗期渍水对冬小麦根系衰老的影响[J].应用生态学报,2000,11(5):723-726.
[56]李景厚,李扬汉,李昆章,等.芝麻(Sesamum indicum L.)根系的解剖结构与耐涝程度的相关性研究[J].南京师范大学学报,1996,24(1):58-60.
[57]李莉,任金平,曲柏宏.水分胁迫对苹果梨叶片可溶性糖、脯氨酸含量的影响[J].吉林农业科学,2007,32(1):51-54.
[58]李淑琴,张璐,张纪林.三种冬青属树种的耐涝性和耐旱性评价[J].生态学杂志,2007,26(2):204-208.
[59]李阳生,李绍清.淹涝胁迫对水稻生育后期的生理特性和产量性状的影响[J].武汉植物学研究,2000,18(2):117-122.
[60]梁健生,张建华.根系逆境信号ABA的产生和运输及其生理作用[J].植物生理学通讯,1998,34(5):329-338.
[61]刘华山,韩锦峰,孟凡庭,等.土壤渍涝下芝麻叶片中几个与抗逆能力有关的生理指标的变化(简报)[J].植物生理学通讯,2001,37(2):106-108.
[62]刘可心,张哲,何玲玲.不同程度淹水对10种草种的MDA(丙二醛)含量的影响[J].牧草与饲料,2009,3(3):44-46.
[63]刘盛垒.季节性淹水对长江滩地69杨木材材性及其变异的影[J].安徽农业大学学报,1999 26(1):9-15.
[64]刘晓忠,李建坤,王志霞,等.涝渍逆境下玉米叶片超氧物歧化酶和过氧化氢酶活性与抗涝性的关系[J].华北农学报,1995,10(3):29-32.
[65]刘新华.因子分析中数据正向化处理的必要性及其软件实现[J].重庆工学院学报(自然科学), 2009,23(9):252-255
[66]刘志龙,虞木奎,唐罗忠,等.麻栎资源研究进展及开发利用对策[J].中国林副特产,2009,6:93-96.
[67]罗祺,张纪林,郝日明,等.水淹胁迫下10个树种某些生理指标的变化及其耐水淹能力的比较[J].植物资源与环境学报,2007,16 (1) : 69 - 73.
[68]马焕成,王沙生,蒋湘宁.盐胁迫下胡杨的光合和生长响应[J].西南林学院学报,1998,18 (1):33-4l.
[69]马兰涛,陈双林.瓜多竹(Guadua amplexifolia)对NaCI胁迫的生理响应[J].生态学杂志,2008,27(9):1487-149.
[70]马宗仁.植物在水分胁迫下脯氨酸积累的研究[J].草业科学,1994,11(1):15-18.
[71]倪君蒂,李振国.淹水对大豆生长的影响[J].大豆科学,2000,19(1):42-48.
[72]潘向艳.杂交鹅掌楸不同无性系对淹水胁迫的反应[D].南京林业大学, 2006.
[73]彭秀,肖千文,罗韧.淹水胁迫对中华蚊母生理生化特性的影响[J].四川林业科技,2006(4):18-20.
[74]裘丽珍,黄有军,黄坚钦,等.不同耐盐植物在盐胁迫下的生长与生理特性比较研究[J].浙江大学学报,2006,32(4):420-42.
[75]曲桂敏,李兴国,赵飞.水分胁迫对苹果叶片和新根显微结构的影响[J].园艺学报,1999,26(3):147-151.
[76]任雪萍,吴诗光,牛明功.湿涝害对灌浆期冬小麦叶片脯氨酸含量的影响[J].周口师专学报,1998,1(5):72-74.
[77]阮成江,谢庆良.土壤水分对沙棘成活率及抗逆生理特性的影响[J].应用与环境生物学报,2002,8(4):341-345.
[78]石岩,于振文,位东斌,等.土壤水分胁迫对小麦衰老中脱落酸和细胞分裂素含量的影响[J].植物生理学通讯,1998,34(l):32-34.
[79]时明芝,周保松.植物涝害和耐涝机理研究进展[J].安徽农业科学,2006,34(2):209-210.
[80]宋全辉,刘胜,周诚东.东方杉在宁波沿海不同立地种植特征表现的调查[J].江西林业科技,2008,4:37-38.
[81]宋志荣,刘明月,马艳青,等.水渍对辣椒幼苗脂质过氧化作用及保护酶活性的影响[J].湖南农业大学学报(自然科学版),2001,27(2):110-113.
[82]孙清鹏,许煌灿,张方秋等.低温胁迫对大叶相思和马占相思某些生理特性的影响[J].林业科学研究,2002,15(1):34-40.
[83]汤玉喜,刘友全,吴敏,等.淹水胁迫下美洲黑杨无性系生理生化指标的变化[J].中国农学通报,2008,24(8):156-161.
[84]汤章城.逆境下脯氨酸的累积及其可能意义[J].植物生理学通讯,1984(1):15-21.
[85]唐罗忠,程淑婉,徐锡增等.涝渍胁迫对杨树苗期叶片生长及其生理性状的影响[J].植物资源与环境,1999,8(1):15-21.
[86]童富淡,胡家恕,邵爱萍,等.涝渍逆境下大麦叶片保护酶活性和膜脂过氧化作用的变化[J].浙江农业大学学报,1998,24(4):239-343.
[87]万清林,刘鸣远.芸香抗寒生理的初步研究[J].植物研究,1997,17(2):190-194.
[88]汪贵斌,曹福亮.土壤盐分及水分含量对落羽衫光合特性的影响[J].南京林业大学学报,2004,28(3):14-17.
[89]汪贵斌,曹福亮.盐胁迫对落羽生产生理及生长的影响[J].南京林业大学学报,2003,27(3):l1-l4.
[90]汪宗立,刘晓忠,李建坤等.玉米的涝渍伤害与膜脂过氧化作用和保护酶活性的关系[J].江苏农业学报,1988,4(3):1-8.
[91]汪宗立,刘晓忠,王志霞.夏玉米不同株龄对土壤涝渍的敏感度[J].江苏农业学报,1987,3(4):14-20.
[92]王波,宋凤斌.燕麦对盐碱胁迫的反应和适应性[J].生态环境, 2006, 15 (3) : 625- 629.
[93]王波,宋凤斌,任长忠,等.盐碱胁迫对燕麦叶绿体超微结构及一些生理指标的影响[J].吉林农业大学学报,2005,27(5):473-477
[94]王海珍,梁宗锁,韩蕊莲,等.辽东栎(Quercus liaotungensis)幼苗对土壤干旱的生理生态适应性研究[J].植物研究, 2005, 25(3) : 311 - 316.
[95]王华田,孙明高.水涝对银杏生长及生理的影响[J].经济林研究,1997,15(2):14-18.
[96]王嘉燕.涝害对樱桃砧木生理生化特性的影响[D].山东农业大学, 2006.
[97]王娟,李得全.逆境条件下植物体内渗透调节物质的积累与活性氧代谢[J].植物学通讯,2001,18(4):459-465.
[98]王生.淹水胁迫对杨树无性系苗期生长及生理的影响[J].云南林业科技,1998(2):28-33.
[99]王素平,郭世荣,胡晓辉,等.盐胁迫对黄瓜幼苗叶片光合色素含量的影响[J].江西农业大学学报,2006,28(1):32-38.
[100]王文泉,郑永战,梅鸿献,等.不同耐渍基因型芝麻在厌氧胁迫下根系的生理与结构变化[J].植物遗传资源学报,2003,4 (3):214-219.
[101]王霞,侯平,尹林克.水分胁迫对柽柳植物可溶性物质的影响[J].干旱区研究,1999,16(2):6-11.
[102]王晓玲.水分胁迫对芝麻花期脯氨酸含量的影响[J].安徽农学通报,2007,13(20):66-67.
[103]王义强,谷文众,姚水攀.淹水胁迫下银杏主要生化指标的变化[J].中南林学院学报,2005(8):78-80.
[104]魏凤珍,李金才,董琦.孕穗期至抽穗期湿害对耐湿性不同品种冬小麦光合特性的影响[J].植物生理学通讯,2000:3(2):199-200.
[105]魏和平,利容千,王建波.淹水对玉米叶片细胞超微结构的影响[J].植物学报,2000,42(8):811-817.
[106]魏和平,利容千.淹水对玉米不定根形态结构和ATP酶活性的影响[J].植物生态学报,2000,24(3):293-297.
[107]吴林,黄玉龙,李亚东,等.越桔对淹水的耐受性及形态生理反应[J].吉林农业大学学报,2002,24(4):64-69.
[108]吴林,李亚东,张志东,等.三种类型越桔在淹水逆境下生理及形态反应的比较[J].园艺学报,1997,24(3):287-288.66
[109]吴水波,薛建辉.盐胁迫对3种白蜡幼苗生长与光合作用的影响[J].南京林业大学学报,2002,26(3):19-22.
[110]吴祖映,储家淼,唐明荣,等.土壤水分状况对池杉形态结构及生长状况的影响[J].浙江林学院学报,1996,13(3):364-366.
[111]肖华,吴昌庭.石楠防火林带营造技术[J].林业科技开发,2001(15):88.
[112]肖强,郑海雷.水淹对互花米草生长及生理的影响[J].生态学杂志,2005,24(9):1025-1028.
[113]肖雯,贾恢先,蒲陆梅.几种盐生植物抗盐生理指标的研究[J].西北植物学报,2000,20(5):818-825.
[114]谢振宇,杨光穗.牧草耐盐性研究进展[J] .草业科学,2003,20 (8) :11-17.
[115]刑少辰.环境胁迫与植物体内脯氨酸的关系[J].生态农业研究,1998(2):30-33.
[116]徐锡增,唐罗忠,程淑婉.涝渍胁迫下杨树内源激素及其它生理反应[J].南京林业大学学报,1999,23(1):1-5.
[117]晏斌,戴秋杰,刘晓忠等.玉米叶片涝渍伤害过程中超氧自由基的积累[J].植物学报,1995,3(9):738-744.
[118]杨燕,刘庆,林波,等.不同施水量对云杉幼苗生长和生理生态特征的影响[J].生态学报, 2005, 25(9): 2152-2158.
[119]杨遏,陈晓燕,杨运英.涝渍逆境对菜心的菜蔓的形成与细胞保护系统的影响[J].中国蔬菜,2000,19(2):7-10.
[120]杨静.几种城市森林优良景观生态树的抗涝性研究[D].南京林业大学,2006.
[121]叶勇,卢昌义,谭风仪.木榄和秋茄对水渍的生长与生理反应的比较研究[J].生态学报,2001,21(10):1654-1661.
[122]张川红,王豁然,李晓储,等.北美栎属树种引种试验研究[M].北京:中国林业出版社, 2005.
[123]张大鹏,罗国光.不同时期水分胁迫对葡萄果实生长发育的影响[J].园艺学报,1992,19(4):296-300.
[124]张文辉,段宝利,周建云,等.不同种源栓皮栎幼苗叶片水分关系和保护酶活性对干旱胁迫的响应[J].植物生态学报, 2004,28 (4) : 483 - 490.
[125]张晓平,方炎明,陈永江.淹涝胁迫对鹅掌揪属植物叶片部分生理指标的影响[J],植物资源与环境学报,2006,15(1):41-44.
[126]张永清,苗果园.高粱生育后期根系对渍水胁迫的生物学响应[J].山西农业大学学报,2005(3):193-195.
[127]张玉琼,张鹤英.淹水逆境下玉米若干生理生化特性的变化[J].安徽农业大学学报,1998,25(4):378-381.
[128]赵可夫.植物对水涝胁迫的适应[J].生物学通报,2003,38(12):11-14.
[129]赵世杰,许长城,邹琦,等.植物组织中丙二醛测定方法的改进[J].植物生理学通讯, 1994, 30 (3) : 207 - 210.
[130]赵小亮,周国娜,高宝嘉,等.主成分分析法在承德县森林生态系统健康评价中的应用[J]生态农业科学,2008,24(6):400-403.
[131]钟雪花,杨万年,吕应堂.淹水胁迫下对烟草、油菜某些生理指标的比较研究[J].武汉植物学研究,2002,2(5):395-398.
[132]周琳,古红梅,陈龙,等.小麦品种间灌浆期耐湿性的生理效应差异[J].信阳师范学院学报,2001,14(4):56-59.
[133]周浙昆.壳斗科的地质历史及其系统学和植物地理学意义[J].植物分类学报, 1999, 37 (4) : 369- 385.
[134]朱为民,朱龙英.光合特性作为番茄设施专用品种选育指标的效应[J].上海农业学报,2001,17(4):45-48.
[135]卓仁英,陈益泰.木本植物抗涝性研究进展[J].林业科学研究,2001,14(2):215-222.