红花玉蕊对淡水全淹胁迫的生长及生理响应
|
摘要
为揭示红花玉蕊对淹水胁迫的生理响应机制,获得红花玉蕊适生的淹水时长范围,模拟半日潮,在温室分别以不同淹水时长对红花玉蕊幼苗进行完全淹没胁迫处理,测定了植株的生长指标及生理指标。结果表明:淡水全淹处理28 d后,红花玉蕊幼苗全部是绿叶株,存活率为100%。不同淹水时长对红花玉蕊幼苗株高、地径、叶片的总增长量和增长速率的影响差异不显著,不同淹水天数对幼苗株高地径、叶片的增长速率影响差异极显著。随着淹水时长的增加,幼苗叶片在淹水时长为0～6 h/d时超氧化物歧化酶活性呈平稳趋势,过氧化物酶活性和丙二醛含量先升高后下降,较CK差异均不显著,但脯氨酸含量则显著下降,在淹水4、6 h/d时较CK呈显著差异;淹水时长增加至8～12 h/d时,超氧化物歧化酶活性显著上升,在淹水10 h/d达到最大值且较CK呈极显著差异,脯氨酸含量在淹水10、12 h/d时较CK呈显著差异。可见,淡水全淹0～12 h/d并未影响红花玉蕊植株的生长发育进程,红花玉蕊幼苗在淡水全淹环境下淹水胁迫环境的临界时间为8 h/d,最小适生淹水时长为0～12 h/d。
In order to reveal the physiological response mechanism of Barringtonia acutangula to flooding stress, the range of flooding duration of B. acutangula was obtained. Half-day tide was simulated. B. acutangula seedlings were completely submerged under different flooding time in the greenhouse, and the growth index and physiological indexes of the plants were determined. The results show that after 28 days of fresh water flooding treatment, the seedlings of B. acutangula were all green-leaved plants, and the survival rate is 100%. The effects of different flooding duration on plant height, ground diameter, total leaf growth and growth rate are not significant. The effects of different flooding days on plant height, ground diameter and leaf growth rate are extremely significant. With the increase of flooding time, the SOD activity of seedling leaves show a steady trend when the flooding time is 0-6 h/d. POD activity and MDA content increase at first and then decrease. The difference of POD activity and MDA content is not significant compared with CK, but proline content decreased significantly.The SOD activity increases significantly when the flooding time is increased to 8-12 h/d, and reaches the maximum at 10 h/d. The content of proline is significantly different from CK at 10 h/d and 12 h/d of flooding. It can be seen that fresh water flooding for 0-12 h/d do not affect the growth and development of B. acutangula stamen plants. The critical time of drowning stress for B. acutangulaseedlings is 8 h/d under full-flooded fresh water environment, and the minimum suitable time for drowning is 0-12 h/d.
In order to reveal the physiological response mechanism of Barringtonia acutangula to flooding stress, the range of flooding duration of B. acutangula was obtained. Half-day tide was simulated. B. acutangula seedlings were completely submerged under different flooding time in the greenhouse, and the growth index and physiological indexes of the plants were determined. The results show that after 28 days of fresh water flooding treatment, the seedlings of B. acutangula were all green-leaved plants, and the survival rate is 100%. The effects of different flooding duration on plant height, ground diameter, total leaf growth and growth rate are not significant. The effects of different flooding days on plant height, ground diameter and leaf growth rate are extremely significant. With the increase of flooding time, the SOD activity of seedling leaves show a steady trend when the flooding time is 0-6 h/d. POD activity and MDA content increase at first and then decrease. The difference of POD activity and MDA content is not significant compared with CK, but proline content decreased significantly.The SOD activity increases significantly when the flooding time is increased to 8-12 h/d, and reaches the maximum at 10 h/d. The content of proline is significantly different from CK at 10 h/d and 12 h/d of flooding. It can be seen that fresh water flooding for 0-12 h/d do not affect the growth and development of B. acutangula stamen plants. The critical time of drowning stress for B. acutangulaseedlings is 8 h/d under full-flooded fresh water environment, and the minimum suitable time for drowning is 0-12 h/d.
引文
[1]宋莉英,黎昌汉.珍奇的庭园树木:4种外来红花玉蕊科植物[J].广东园林,2009,31(3):51-53.
[2]Gupta A.Water availability,poverty and socio-economic crisis in the floodplains of Barak Valley,Assam,North East India[D].Assam:Assam University.2006.
[3]吴麟,张伟伟,葛晓敏,等.植物对淹水胁迫的响应机制研究进展[J].世界林业研究,2012,25(6):27-33.
[4]刘逸泠,覃盈盈,郑海雷.红树植物耐水淹和高盐适应性研究进展[J].厦门大学学报(自然科学版),2017,56(3):315-322.
[5]利容千,王建波.植物逆境细胞及生理学[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2002.
[6]Ellison A M,Farnsworth E J.Simulated sea level change alters anatomy,physiology,growth,and reproduction of red mangrove(Rhizophora mangle L.)[J].Oecologia,1997,112(4):435-446.
[7]Chen L Z,Wang W Q,Lin P.Influence of water logging time on the growth of Kandelia candel seedlings[J].Acta Ocean ologica Sinica,2004,3(1):149-158.
[8]刁俊明,陈桂珠.不同淡水水位对桐花树幼苗生理生态的影响[J].中国农学通报,2013,29(28):1-8.
[9]何斌源,赖廷和,陈剑锋,等.2种红树植物白骨壤(Avicennia marina)和桐花树(Aegiceras corniculatum)的耐淹性[J].生态学报,2007,27(3):1130-1138.
[10]邱凤英.几种半红树植物生物学特性、耐盐、耐水淹及造林试验研究[D].长沙:中南林业科技大学,2009.
[11]Mukhlesur R,David P,Jodie M,et al.Antimicrobial activities of Barringtonia acutangula[J].Phytotherapy Research,2005,19(6):543-545.
[12]Mills C,Anthony R,Ronald J,et al.Monodesmosidic saponins from the bark of Barringtonia acutangula[J].Journal of Natural Products,2005,68(3):311-318.
[13]吴竹妍,蔡静如,钱瑭璜,等.盐胁迫下5种华南乡土植物的反应特性及耐盐性评价[J].江西农业学报,2015,27(12):19-24.
[14]覃海宁,杨永,董仕勇,等.中国高等植物受威胁物种名录[J].生物多样性,2017,25(7):696-744.
[15]李玲.植物生理学模块实验指导[M].北京:科学出版社,2009.
[16]Yin D M,Chen S M,Chen F D,et al.Morpho-anatomical and physiological responses of two Denranthema species to waterlogging[J].Environmental and Experimental Botany,2010,68(2):122-130.
[17]Gibbs J,Greenway H.Review:Mechanisms of anoxia tolerance in plants.I.Growth,survival and anaerobic catabolism[J].Functional Plant and Biology,2003,30(3):1-47.
[18]Voesenek L A,Colmer T D,Pierik R,et al.How plants cope with complete submergence[J].The New Phytologist,2006,170(2):213-226.
[19]李彦强,高柱,孙小艳,等.淹水胁迫下北美鹅掌楸幼苗形态和生长的响应[J].西南林业大学学报,2015,35(3):8-13.
[20]熊贤荣,欧静,龙海燕,等.干旱胁迫对桃叶杜鹃菌根苗生长的影响[J].西南林业大学学报(自然科学),2018,38(1):34-40.
[21]凌子然.不同程度水淹对中山杉及亲本生长与光合生理恢复的影响[D].南京:南京大学,2016.
[22]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.
[23]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应[J].林业科学,2004,40(1):47-51.
[24]廖宝文,邱凤英,谭凤仪,等.红树植物秋茄幼苗对模拟潮汐淹浸时间的适应性研究[J].华南农业大学学报,2009,30(3):49-54.
[25]白林利,韩文娇,李昌晓.模拟水淹对水杉苗木生长与生理生化特性的影响[J].浙江大学学报(农业与生命科学版),2015,41(5):505-515.
[26]马晓华,郑坚,张旭乐,等.干旱胁迫对大花紫薇与毛萼紫薇生理生化特征的影响[J].西南林业大学学报(自然科学),2018,38(5):205-209.
[27]刘莹,徐关印.盐碱胁迫下黄瓜丙二醛含量及有机硅的缓解效应[J].北方园艺,2017(22):1-5.
[28]李晶,阎秀峰,祖元刚.低温胁迫下红松幼苗活性氧的产生及保护酶的变化[J].植物学报,2000,42(2):148-152.
[29]杨鹏,胥晓.淹水胁迫对青杨雌雄幼苗生理特性和生长的影响[J].植物生态学报,2012,36(1):81-87.
[30]潘澜,薛立.植物淹水胁迫的生理学机制研究进展[J].生态学杂志,2012,31(10):2662-2672.
[31]廖宝文.3种红树植物对潮水淹浸与水体盐度适应能力的研究[D].北京:中国林业科学研究院,2010.
[32]史军辉,王新英,刘茂秀,等.Na Cl胁迫对胡杨幼苗叶主要渗透调节物质的影响[J].西北林学院学报,2014,29(6):6-11.
[33]李昳乐,孔维鹤,尚忠海,等.水淹胁迫对青竹复叶槭叶片部分生理指标的影响[J].河南农业大学学报,2008,42(1):32-34.
[2]Gupta A.Water availability,poverty and socio-economic crisis in the floodplains of Barak Valley,Assam,North East India[D].Assam:Assam University.2006.
[3]吴麟,张伟伟,葛晓敏,等.植物对淹水胁迫的响应机制研究进展[J].世界林业研究,2012,25(6):27-33.
[4]刘逸泠,覃盈盈,郑海雷.红树植物耐水淹和高盐适应性研究进展[J].厦门大学学报(自然科学版),2017,56(3):315-322.
[5]利容千,王建波.植物逆境细胞及生理学[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2002.
[6]Ellison A M,Farnsworth E J.Simulated sea level change alters anatomy,physiology,growth,and reproduction of red mangrove(Rhizophora mangle L.)[J].Oecologia,1997,112(4):435-446.
[7]Chen L Z,Wang W Q,Lin P.Influence of water logging time on the growth of Kandelia candel seedlings[J].Acta Ocean ologica Sinica,2004,3(1):149-158.
[8]刁俊明,陈桂珠.不同淡水水位对桐花树幼苗生理生态的影响[J].中国农学通报,2013,29(28):1-8.
[9]何斌源,赖廷和,陈剑锋,等.2种红树植物白骨壤(Avicennia marina)和桐花树(Aegiceras corniculatum)的耐淹性[J].生态学报,2007,27(3):1130-1138.
[10]邱凤英.几种半红树植物生物学特性、耐盐、耐水淹及造林试验研究[D].长沙:中南林业科技大学,2009.
[11]Mukhlesur R,David P,Jodie M,et al.Antimicrobial activities of Barringtonia acutangula[J].Phytotherapy Research,2005,19(6):543-545.
[12]Mills C,Anthony R,Ronald J,et al.Monodesmosidic saponins from the bark of Barringtonia acutangula[J].Journal of Natural Products,2005,68(3):311-318.
[13]吴竹妍,蔡静如,钱瑭璜,等.盐胁迫下5种华南乡土植物的反应特性及耐盐性评价[J].江西农业学报,2015,27(12):19-24.
[14]覃海宁,杨永,董仕勇,等.中国高等植物受威胁物种名录[J].生物多样性,2017,25(7):696-744.
[15]李玲.植物生理学模块实验指导[M].北京:科学出版社,2009.
[16]Yin D M,Chen S M,Chen F D,et al.Morpho-anatomical and physiological responses of two Denranthema species to waterlogging[J].Environmental and Experimental Botany,2010,68(2):122-130.
[17]Gibbs J,Greenway H.Review:Mechanisms of anoxia tolerance in plants.I.Growth,survival and anaerobic catabolism[J].Functional Plant and Biology,2003,30(3):1-47.
[18]Voesenek L A,Colmer T D,Pierik R,et al.How plants cope with complete submergence[J].The New Phytologist,2006,170(2):213-226.
[19]李彦强,高柱,孙小艳,等.淹水胁迫下北美鹅掌楸幼苗形态和生长的响应[J].西南林业大学学报,2015,35(3):8-13.
[20]熊贤荣,欧静,龙海燕,等.干旱胁迫对桃叶杜鹃菌根苗生长的影响[J].西南林业大学学报(自然科学),2018,38(1):34-40.
[21]凌子然.不同程度水淹对中山杉及亲本生长与光合生理恢复的影响[D].南京:南京大学,2016.
[22]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.
[23]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应[J].林业科学,2004,40(1):47-51.
[24]廖宝文,邱凤英,谭凤仪,等.红树植物秋茄幼苗对模拟潮汐淹浸时间的适应性研究[J].华南农业大学学报,2009,30(3):49-54.
[25]白林利,韩文娇,李昌晓.模拟水淹对水杉苗木生长与生理生化特性的影响[J].浙江大学学报(农业与生命科学版),2015,41(5):505-515.
[26]马晓华,郑坚,张旭乐,等.干旱胁迫对大花紫薇与毛萼紫薇生理生化特征的影响[J].西南林业大学学报(自然科学),2018,38(5):205-209.
[27]刘莹,徐关印.盐碱胁迫下黄瓜丙二醛含量及有机硅的缓解效应[J].北方园艺,2017(22):1-5.
[28]李晶,阎秀峰,祖元刚.低温胁迫下红松幼苗活性氧的产生及保护酶的变化[J].植物学报,2000,42(2):148-152.
[29]杨鹏,胥晓.淹水胁迫对青杨雌雄幼苗生理特性和生长的影响[J].植物生态学报,2012,36(1):81-87.
[30]潘澜,薛立.植物淹水胁迫的生理学机制研究进展[J].生态学杂志,2012,31(10):2662-2672.
[31]廖宝文.3种红树植物对潮水淹浸与水体盐度适应能力的研究[D].北京:中国林业科学研究院,2010.
[32]史军辉,王新英,刘茂秀,等.Na Cl胁迫对胡杨幼苗叶主要渗透调节物质的影响[J].西北林学院学报,2014,29(6):6-11.
[33]李昳乐,孔维鹤,尚忠海,等.水淹胁迫对青竹复叶槭叶片部分生理指标的影响[J].河南农业大学学报,2008,42(1):32-34.
© 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 |