酸雨对马尾松针叶结构、生理和器官元素含量的影响
详细信息    本馆镜像全文|  推荐本文 |  |   获取CNKI官网全文
摘要
酸雨分布范围广,危害严重,已成为世界十大环境问题之一。本文以定点监测与对比研究相结合的方法,通过在酸雨重污染区(柳州长塘)和轻污染区(柳州三门江森林公园)马尾松林分设立对比研究样地,对试验区的降水化学特征、马尾松针叶显微结构、生理特性及不同器官化学元素含量等方面进行了研究,并就增施石灰的作用和效果进行了试验性探讨,研究结果表明:
     (1)因大量燃烧高硫煤,向大气中排放了大量的二氧化硫,柳州是一个盆地,逆温频率高,不利于二氧化硫的扩散,高温、高湿又有利于二氧化硫的转化,加上土质呈酸性,大气中碱性物质少,使该区成为强酸性降雨区。
     (2)在观察马尾松针叶显微结构中发现,由于受到酸雨的长期冲刷,试验区马尾松针叶的角质层厚度明显变薄,尤其以长塘酸雨重污染区更甚,长塘平均(G+B,下同)为1.43μm,三门江平均为1.73μm,长塘比三门江小20.98%,和正常的马尾松针叶的角质层厚度(2-2.5μm)相比,分别减少28.50%-42.80%和13.50%-38.80%。针叶横切面短轴长和长轴长,长塘的(短轴527.9μm和长轴807.8μm)比三门江的(短轴581.8μm和长轴900.1μm)分别短53.9μm和92.2μm,明显小于正常针叶(短轴800μm和长轴1200μm),酸雨使马尾松针叶变得细小。长塘和三门江马尾松针叶的气孔密度分别为123.5num/mm~2和143.1 num/mm~2,重污染区比轻污染区减少13.70%;两试验区针叶的气孔密度比清洁区正常马尾松针叶的气孔密度(180num/mm~2)都小。因此,酸雨会降低针叶的气孔密度。观测还表明,两个地点马尾松针叶的气孔开度存在明显的季节差异,表现为夏季>秋季>春季>冬季,这与降水的pH季节变化相一致,表明冬、春季的强酸性降雨抑制气孔开度。
     (3)酸雨对马尾松针叶的生理特性也有明显的影响。首先,酸雨使细胞膜透性增大,从试验区来看,重污染区长塘马尾松针叶细胞膜透性比轻污染区高25.3%-149.19%;在同一试验区,受害较重的针叶细胞膜透性也比受害轻的针叶高
    
    广西大学硕士学位论文
    摘要
    2.66十9.77%(长塘)和0.67十5.77%(三门江)。其次,酸雨降低针叶的叶绿素
    含量,重污染区比轻污染区的针叶叶绿素含量低50.70十64.62%,同一试验区,
    受害重的针叶比受害轻的针叶低7.67%一16.30%(长塘)和6.25%一9.35%(三门江):
    并改变叶绿素a和叶绿素b的结构比。第三,酸雨使细胞的总糖含量降低,过氧
    化物酶活性增大,多酚氧化酶活性减小。
     (4)酸雨对马尾松器官元素含量的影响,随不同器官和不同元素而不同。除个
    别器官或个别元素外,三门江马尾松器官的营养元素含量高于长塘,尤以N元素
    显著,其中三门江马尾松树皮中N含量高出长塘将近一半。除Ca,Mg以枝条含量
    最多,木材含量最少以外,其余元素一般呈现针叶>树皮、枝条>木材不同分布趋
    势。
     (5)施石灰对马尾松针叶的影响,在解剖结构方面,首先,施石灰可增加针叶
    的角质层厚度(平均增加0.07阳),
    长和长轴长分别增加
    与对照相比平均增加
    13.38阳和20.
    促进针叶生长,使马尾松针叶横切面的短轴
    07腼。其次,施石灰可提高针叶的气孔密度,
    2.3 num/mfn,。其次,大体上,施石灰针叶中N、P和Ca的含
    量增加,分别比对照增加1、6%,18.7%,9.15%(以春季为例,下同),施石灰针
    叶中S含量下降,比对照减小6.4%。在生理特性方面,大体上,施过石灰的马
    尾松针叶的膜透性、叶绿素含量、过氧化物酶含量要小于对照的,分别减小26.4%,
    5.03%,10.8%。经过施石灰处理的马尾松针叶多酚氧化酶含量明显大于对照
     (8 .9%)。
     (6)马尾松属于酸雨敏感型,受到酸雨危害后,常导致马尾松林衰亡,主要以
    其角质层薄,再生能力弱等生长特点所决定。但其气孔密度低、针叶细小以及旱
    生化趋势是对污染环境长期适应的结果。
Acid rain is widely distributed and seriously endangers land and aquatic ecosystem. Acid rain has become one of the top-ten environmental questions in the world. This paper combined the on-spot inspection and contrasted research to investigate the chemical characteristic of rainfall?anatomy and physiology of needle leaf?the content of chemical elements of different organs through the contrasted plots in seriously polluted area (Changtang) and lightly polluted area (Sanmenjiang) in Liuzhou . The effects of liming were also experimental researched. The results of study showed:
    (1)SO2 is ejected to the atmosphere because of burning a lot of coal with high sulphur content and Liouzhou is a basin with a high frequency of adverse thermal layer. All these prevent the diffusion of SO2. High temperature and moisture accelerate the transform of SO2. Soil acidification and low content of alkalescence substance in atmosphere make Liouzhou a high acidity rainfall area.
    (2)In the course of observing the anatomy of needle leaf, I found that the cuticle thickness obviously got thinner in the experimental area especially in Changtang. Compared with the cuticle thickness of normal needle leaf (2-2.5μm), the average cuticle thickness of Changtang (G+B) and Sanmenjiang were separately 1.43 μm and 1.73μm and they were lessened about 28.50%-42.80% and 13.50%-38.80% respectively. Changtang's (the stub axle 527.9μm and the major axis 807.8μm) were 53.9μm and 92.2μm shorter than Sanmenjiang's (the stub axle 581.8μm and the major axis 900.1μm). The stub axle and the major axis length of need leaf were obviously shorter than normal needle leaf (the stub axle 800μm and the major axis 1200μm) and needle
    
    
    leaf got shorter by acid rain. The stomatal density of Changtang and Sanmenjiang were 123.5 num/mm2 and 143.1 num/mm2. The stomatal density in seriously polluted area was lessened about 13.70% compared with that in the lightly polluted area. The stomatal density was shorter in two experimental areas than that in clear area (180 num/mm2). Hence, acid rain could reduce the stomatal density of needle leaf. The observation still showed that there was seasonal variation in stomatal apertura. It turned out to be that summer >autumn >spring> winter, which was consistent with the seasonal pH variation of acid rain. It showed that high acidity in winter and spring could restrain stomatal apertura.
    (3)Acid rain had obvious impact on the physiology of needle leaf. First, Cell membrane permeability was added by acid rain. The cell membrane permeability in Changtang was 25.3%-149.19% higher than that in Sanmenjiang. We could also see the cell membrane permeability of seriously damaged leaf were 2.66%-9.77% (Changtang) and 0.67%-5.77%(Sanmenjiang) higher than that of lightly damaged leaf. Second, the content of chlorophyll of needle leaf in seriously damaged area was 50.70%-64.62% lower than that of lightly damaged area. In the same experimental area, heavily damaged needle leaf were 7.67%-16.30%(Changtang) and 6.25%-9.35%(Sanmenjiang) lower than lightly damaged needle leaf. Acid rain still influenced the structural ratio of chlorophyll a and b. Third, acid rain made total sugar content reduced, the activity of peroxidase increased and the activity of PPO reduced.
    (4)The effect of acid rain on content of chemical elements of different organs was different with different organs and different elements. Except some exceptional organs and elements, the nutrient element content of different organs of Pinus massioniana in Sanmenjiang were higher than that in Changtang, especially for N, the content of N in over-bark pole in Sanmenjiang was almost twice as much as that in Changtang. Except Ca, Mg which had biggest content in branch least content in timber, other elements appeared the regularity: the needle leaf>over-bark pole, branch > the bark.
    (5)The effects of liming on needle leaf were as follows: First was on the anatomy of needle leaf. Liming could increase the cuticle thickness (average increase was 0.07um) and accelerated the growth of needle
引文
[1]郭玉文等.酸性沉降与日本森林衰退.世界林业研究,1997,1:52-56
    [2]孙崇基.酸雨.北京:中国环境出版社,2001
    [3]齐文启.酸雨研究的现状和发展趋势.中国环境监测,2002,18(1):6—11
    [4]樊后保.世界酸雨研究概况.福建林学院学报,2002,22(4):371—375
    [5]Kreutzer et al. Atmospheric deposition and soil acidification in five coniferous forest ecosystems: A comparison of the control plots of the exman Sites.Forest Ecology and Management, 1998, 101:125~142
    [6]De Vries et al. Effects of acid deposition on Dutch forest ecosystems. Water,Air and Soil Pollution, 1995, 85:1063~1068
    [7]Ulrich B, Mayer R, Khanna P K. Chemical changes due to precipitation in a Loess—derived soil in central Europe. Soil Science, 1980, 130(4): 193—199
    [8]许梅德.酸雨对陆生植物影响的探讨.农业环境保护,1995,14(4):185-186,189
    [9]Cowling E B. Acid precipitation in historical perspective. Environ. Sci. Tec., 1982, 16(2): 110-123
    [10]Beamish R J, Harvey H H. Acidification of the La Cloche Mountain Lakes, Ontario, and resulting fish mortalities. J. Fish Res. Board Can., 1972, 29:1131-1143
    [11]Cogbill C V, Likens G E. Acid precipitation in the northeastern United States. Water Resour. Res., 1974, 10(6): 1133-1137
    [12]毛文永,文剑平.全球环境问题与对策.中国出版社,1993,108-142
    [13]Abrahamsen, G, R: Impacts of acid precipitation on coniferous forest ecosystems. Water, Air, Soil Pollution, 1973, 8, 57-73
    [14]蓝崇钰.几种植物对SO_2的反应及其叶片组织结构的变化.生态科学,1985,1:56—59
    [15]王家训.裸子植物叶保护结构与抗SO_2、Cl_2的相关性.湖北林业科技,1982:45—49
    [16]王家训.叶片结构与植物对SO_2、Cl_2抗性的初步研究.湖北林业科技,1982,(1):45—49
    [17]郑美珠.树木对SO_2的抗性机理.浙江林学院学报,1987,4(2):29—37
    [18]蔡如,黄建昌,肖艳.模拟酸雨对6种园林植物生长和生理反应的影响.仲恺农业技术学院学报,2002,15(3):28~32
    [19]曹洪法.植物对SO_2的反应.环境科学,1985,6(6):59—66
    [20]曹洪法.模拟酸雨对农作物生长和产量影响的初步研究.植物生态学与地植物学报,1989,12(1):58—64
    [21]余叔文等.植物对二氧化硫的反应和抗性机理的研究一质膜透性的变化和二氧化硫伤害.植物生理学报,1979,6(4),402—410
    [22]谢田等.三种室内观叶植物光合特性与抗SO_2能力研究.园艺学报,1998,25(3):287~291
    [23]吴丽英,王晓霞等.二氧化硫对作物光合强度和呼吸强度影响的研究.农业环境保护,1989,8(2):9—12
    [24]舒俭民,刘连贵,高映新等.低浓度SO_2对小麦生长的影响.农业环境保护,1988,7(3):16—18
    [25]汪雅各.模拟酸雨对若干蔬菜影响的研究.中国环境科学,1987,7(6):1-5
    [26]张耀民.酸雨对农作物的叶片伤害及生理特性的影响.农业环境保护,1996,15(5):197-208
    [27]邱栋梁.酸雨对园艺植物危害的研究进展.福建农业大学报,1999,28(1):28-32
    
    
    [28]唐鸿寿.模拟酸雨对油菜生长的影响.农业环境保护,1996,15(6):161-163
    [29]周秉明.耐阴植物清除室内SO_2的研究.贵州工学院学报,1995,24(2):46~50
    [30]樊后保.模拟酸雨对5种阔叶树幼苗生长的影响.福建林学院报,1996,16(5):290
    [31]顾明华.模拟酸雨和酸雾对水稻生理和生长的影响.广西农业大学学报,1994,13(3):217—222
    [32]杨志敏.模拟酸雨对若干种蔬菜生长和生理特性影响的研究.农业环境保护,1994,13(5):213—216
    [33]杨振德.几种园林树种对酸雨抗性的研究.广西大学学报,1999,3(2):29
    [34]刘荣坤.二氧化硫对植物伤害及其机理的研究.中国环境科学,1982(6):75-78
    [35]黄益江.二氧化硫污染对马尾松生长影响的相关研究.福建林学院学报,1999(4):53—57
    [36]李振国等.植物对SO_2的反应和抗性的研究——SO_2熏气对小麦叶片过氧化物酶的影响.植物生理学报,1981,7(4) 363——371
    [37]李犁,余叔文.超氧物歧化酶活性与小麦对HSO_3、NO_2抗性之间的关系.植物生理学报,1989,15(1):57~61
    [38]粟德永.大气污染对植物叶片硫、氯、氟含量的影响.环境科学,1982,3(5):50—54
    [39]黄会一等.木本植物对大气气态污染物吸收净化作用的研究.生态学报,1981,1(4):335—343
    [40]蒋美珍.杭州西湖绿化树木对SO_2的净化效应.环境科学,1981,3(2):31—33
    [41]曹洪法,王玮,高映新.林冠对酸雨的反应以及相应的影响.中国环境科学,1989,9(2):81—85
    [42]邓仕坚,陈楚莹,张家武.林冠容量及淋溶物缓冲模拟酸雨的基础研究.环境科学,1992,13(3):10—17
    [43]孔繁翔,桑伟莲,蒋新等.铝毒害和植物耐力.生态学报,2000,20(5):855—862
    [44]高吉喜.铝处理马尾松对高温、低温、干旱和SO_2的抗性研究.环境科学,1991,12(1):37-40
    [45]Pinkerton, J. E.: Acidic deposition and relationship to forest prouduc-tivity. Tappl journal. 1984, 67(7)
    [46]张耀民,付克文等.二氧化硫对小麦性细胞分化及受精过程影响的细胞学研究.农业环境保护,1982(1):13-15
    [47]郑淑颖.SO_2污染对植物影响的研究进展.生态科学,2000,19(1):60—64
    [48]吴善才.林木对酸沉降的敏感性和抗性.广西林业科学,2002,31,(4):186—190
    [49]潘洁,刘一鸥,陈卫华等.1996—2000年柳州市酸雨监测报告.广西预防医学,2002,8(3):147-148
    [50]郑雄.柳州市大气污染总量控制与对策研究.柳州市环保科研所,11-16
    [51]白志中.柳州市大气环境监测点位优化研究.柳州市环保监测站,6-9
    [52]尹星衡.柳州市发展燃气治理酸雨.城市公用事业,2000,14(3):28—29
    [53]尹星衡.治理酸而 净化空气 保护环境 造福子孙.输配与应用,2000,1:25-27
    [54]王敬华等.华南酸雨对土壤敏感性研究.土壤学报,1994,31(4):348-355
    [55]孟范平,李桂.酸雨对土壤化学元素的影响.中南林学院学报,1998,18(1):27—34.
    [56]中华人民共和国国家标准.雨水化学分析方法.北京:标准出版社,1988.111—156
    [57]李正理.植物组织制片学.北京科技出版社,1978
    [58]单运峰.酸雨、大气污染与植物.中国环境科学出版社,1994
    [59]广西大学林学院.植物生理学实验指导书.2001,1
    
    
    [60]上海植物生理研究所.现代植物生理学实验指南.北京:科学出版社,1999
    [61]中华人民共和国国家标准.林业标准汇编(三),1988:273-284
    [62]周武旋,秦莉萍.柳州市环境空气质量变化及原因浅析.柳州环保监测站,1996,21-25
    [63]刘嘉麒等.全球内陆降水背景值研究.北京:中国环境科学出版社,1995
    [64]郝兴国.我国酸雨区已占国土面积40%.中国环境报,1997-03-18(1)
    [65]徐康富,郝吉明.我国酸雨现状特点及对策诌议.环境科学,1990,11(1):61-65
    [66]中国环境科学学会.酸雨文集.中国环境科学出版社,1989
    [67]梁宏温,温远光.柳州市酸雨化学特征与成因分析.广西农业生物科学,2002
    [68]彭少麟,鼎湖山森林群落不同演替阶段优势种叶生态解剖特征研究,热带亚热带植物学报,2002,10(1):1—8
    [69]迟健等.3种松树形态、解剖及叶绿素含量的研究.浙江林业科技,1994,14(3):25-28
    [70]AJI库尔萨诺夫.植物体内同化物的运输.韩锦峰译.北京:农业出版社,1986
    [71]杨小波.不同演替阶段森林群落优势种叶形态解剖结构比较研究.海南大学学报自然科学版,1997,15(3):212-217
    [72]徐柏森,张如华.马尾松家系的叶绿素含量和气孔形态的研究.林产化学与工业,2002,22(3):59-61
    [73]朱栗琼,黎向东等.南宁市工业污染对八种植物危害的研究.广西农业生物科学,2003,22(4):284——288
    [74]邓立杰.几种氧化酶活性与植物对SO_2抗性的研究.广西植物,1996,(2) 115
    [75]郑元英.马尾松针叶中营养元素的分析和幼林施肥效应.福建林业科技,1989(2):20—26
    [76]Schweingruber F H.Tree Rings and Environment: Dendroecology. Swiss Fedral Institute for Forest,Snow and Landscape Research.Birmensdorf.Paul Haupt Verlag, Berne, 1996
    [77]刘厚田等.重庆南山大气SO_2污染与马尾松衰亡的关系.生态学报,1990,10(4):306-310
    [78]高吉喜,曹洪法,舒俭民.土壤中铝对马尾松影响主试验研究.林业科学,1991,27(6):649~651
    [79]周国逸,闫俊华.区域降雨的特点以及对鼎湖山森林生态系统营养元素的影响.生态学报,2000,22(9):1552—1559
    [80]刘菊秀,温达志,周国逸.广东鹤山酸雨区针叶林及阔叶林降水化学特征.中国环境科学,2000,20(3):198~202
    [81]Trudgill S T.Soil and Vegetation Systems.Oxford:ClarendonPress,1977
    [82]WoodTandBormannFH.Short-term effects of a simulated acid rain upon the growth and nutrient relations ofPinusstrobusL.Water,Air,SoilPollution,1977,7:479~488
    [83]LiZA. Studies on the Nutrient Ecology of Artificial Forests in Subtropical China. Doctorate Dissertation,Zhong-shan University,1999
    [84]孙翠玲等.酸雨地区火炬松人工幼林施肥试验研究.土壤通报,1998,29(1):44
    [85]陈小勇,宋永昌.蚕豆监测大气SO2污染的指标筛选的研究.中国环境科学,1995(3):208-214
    [86]Lindqvist et al. (1991), Mercury in the Swedish environment—recent research on cause, consequence and corrective methods. Water, Air and Soil Pollution, 55: 1—251
    [87]杨金宽.马尾松酸雨危害与次期性害虫之间关系的研究.环境科学,1991,12(1):33—36
    
    
    [88]Kreutzer et al. Atmospheric deposition and soil acidification in five coniferous forest ecosystems: A comparison of the control plots of the exman Sites.Forest Ecology and Management, 1998, 101: 125~142
    [89]KURCZYNSKA E U, et al.The influence of air pollutants on needles and stems of scots pine trees. Environmental Pollution, 1997, 98(3):325—334
    [90]田砚亭,孟庆英,王华方.几种苗木对SO_2的吸收和运转.环境科学,1984,(6):35~38

© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号

地址:北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编:100083

电话:办公室:(+86 10)66554848;文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新:66554700