四翅滨藜和多枝柽柳对土壤干旱的响应差异

doi:10.13866/j.azr.2023.12.13

干旱区研究 ›› 2023, Vol. 40 ›› Issue (12): 2007-2015.doi: 10.13866/j.azr.2023.12.13

四翅滨藜和多枝柽柳对土壤干旱的响应差异

胡焕琼^1,²(),李利³,于军^2,⁴,梁海连^1,²,吕瑞恒^2,⁴()

1.塔里木大学生命科学与技术学院，新疆阿拉尔 843300
2.新疆生产建设兵团塔里木盆地生物资源保护利用重点实验室，新疆阿拉尔 843300
3.中国科学院新疆生态与地理研究所，新疆乌鲁木齐 830011
4.塔里木大学园艺与林学学院，新疆阿拉尔 843300

收稿日期:2023-05-15 修回日期:2023-07-12 出版日期:2023-12-15 发布日期:2023-12-18
通讯作者: 吕瑞恒. E-mail: lvrh514723@126.com
作者简介:胡焕琼(1997-)，女，硕士研究生，主要从事荒漠生态系统结构与功能研究. E-mail: 530536195@qq.com
基金资助:
新疆生产建设兵团重大科技项目(2021AB022);艾西曼荒漠化治理植物选择及适应性研究项目(1123017)

Differences in the response to soil drought in Atriplex canescens and Tamarix ramosissima

HU Huanqiong^1,²(),LI Li³,YU Jun^2,⁴,LIANG Hailian^1,²,LYU Ruiheng^2,⁴()

1. College of Life Sciences and Technology, Tarim University, Aral 843300, Xinjiang, China
2. Key Laboratory of Conservation and Utilization of Biological Resources in Tarim Basin, Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps, Aral 843300, Xinjiang, China
3. Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Urumqi 830011, Xinjiang, China
4. College of Horticulture and Forestry, Tarim University, Arar 843300, Xinjiang, China

Received:2023-05-15 Revised:2023-07-12 Online:2023-12-15 Published:2023-12-18

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

在干旱区防护林建设中，选择抗逆性和适应力强的植物树种是关键。通过模拟不同干旱梯度的盆栽控水试验来比较塔里木盆地引种植物四翅滨藜和乡土植物多枝柽柳对干旱胁迫生态适应性差异。结果表明：（1）随着干旱程度增加，四翅滨藜和多枝柽柳叶片含水量均逐渐降低，保水力、脯氨酸含量、相对电导率逐渐增大。四翅滨藜和多枝柽柳的可溶性糖含量、丙二醛含量分别在轻度、重度干旱下达最大值，多枝柽柳的增幅更大。（2）四翅滨藜和多枝柽柳POD活性逐渐增大，重度干旱下，多枝柽柳较对照增加的百分比约为四翅滨藜的3倍；在中度干旱下SOD活性最大，多枝柽柳较对照增加的百分比约为四翅滨藜的5倍。多枝柽柳2种酶活性变化均大于四翅滨藜。（3）四翅滨藜和多枝柽柳叶绿素含量均为: 轻度干旱>对照>中度干旱>重度干旱，多枝柽柳的净光合速率、蒸腾速率、气孔导度和胞间二氧化碳浓度均逐渐降低，轻度干旱对四翅滨藜叶绿素和光合能力有略微促进作用。（4）相关性和主成分分析结果显示,干旱胁迫下多枝柽柳各性状间的联系更紧密，四翅滨藜不易改变性状和性状之间的联系，相对保守。四翅滨藜受到干旱胁迫的影响较小，其干旱适应性略强于多枝柽柳。

关键词: 四翅滨藜, 多枝柽柳, 生理特征, 干旱适应性

Abstract:

To construct shelter forests in arid areas, selecting plant species with strong stress tolerance and adaptability is key. By simulating a pot water control experiment with different drought gradients, the ecological adaptability of the introduced plant Atriplex canescens and the native plant Tamarix ramosissima willow to drought stress were compared. The results showed that (1) With an increase in drought degree, the water content in the A. canescens and T. ramosissima leaves reduced gradually, and the water retention capacity, proline content, and relative conductivity gradually increased. The soluble sugar and malondialdehyde contents of A. canescens and T. ramosissima were the maximum in mild and severe drought, respectively, and the increase rate was greater in T. ramosissima. (2) The POD activity of A. canescens and T. ramosissima increased gradually, and under severe drought, the percentage increase of T. ramosissima compared with the control was approximatelythree times that of A. canescens; SOD activity was greatest under moderate drought, and the percentage increase in T. ramosissima compared with the control was approximatelyfive times that of A. canescens. The changes in the activity of both enzymes of T. ramosissima were greater than those of A. canescens. (3) The chlorophyll content of A. canescens and T. ramosissima were mildly dry > control > moderate drought > severe drought, the net photosynthetic rate, transpiration rate, stomatal conductance, and intercellular carbon dioxide concentration of T. ramosissima gradually decreased, and mild drought slightly promoted chlorophyll and photosynthetic capacity of A. canescens. (4) The correlation and principal component analysis results indicated that the relationship between the T. ramosissima traits was closer under drought stress, and the relationship between traits and traits was difficult to change in A. canescens, which was relatively conservative. Conclusion: A. canescens is less affected by drought stress, and its drought adaptability is slightly stronger than that of T. ramosissima.

Key words: Atriplex canescens, Tamarix ramosissima, physiological characteristics, drought adaptability

胡焕琼, 李利, 于军, 梁海连, 吕瑞恒. 四翅滨藜和多枝柽柳对土壤干旱的响应差异[J]. 干旱区研究, 2023, 40(12): 2007-2015.

HU Huanqiong, LI Li, YU Jun, LIANG Hailian, LYU Ruiheng. Differences in the response to soil drought in Atriplex canescens and Tamarix ramosissima[J]. Arid Zone Research, 2023, 40(12): 2007-2015.

图/表 8

表1

表2

图1

表3

图2

表4

图3

表5

参考文献 29

[1]	Saleem M H, Ali S, Rehman M, et al. Jute: A potential candidate for phytoremediation of metals-A review[J]. Plants, 2020, 9(2): 258. doi: 10.3390/plants9020258
[2]	席艳丽, 蔡进军, 刘统高, 等. 华北驼绒藜和四翅滨藜对干旱胁迫的生理反应[J]. 西北农业学报, 2017, 26(5): 790-796.
	[Xi Yanli, Cai Jinjun, Liu Tonggao, et al. Physiological resonses of Ceratoides arborescens and Atriplex canescens to drought stress[J]. Acta Agriculturae Boreali-Occidentalis Sinica, 2017, 26(5): 790-796. ]
[3]	徐梦琦, 高艳菊, 张志浩, 等. 干旱胁迫对疏叶骆驼刺幼苗生长和生理的影响[J]. 干旱区研究, 2023, 40(2): 257-267.
	[Xu Mengqi, Gao Yanju, Zhang Zhihao, et al. Effects of drought stress on growth and physiology of Alhagi sparsifolia seedlings[J]. Arid Zone Research, 2023, 40(2): 257-267. ]
[4]	李嘉珞, 郭米山, 高广磊, 等. 沙地樟子松菌根化幼苗对干旱胁迫的生理响应[J]. 干旱区研究, 2021, 38(6): 1704-1712.
	[Li Jialuo, Guo Mishan, Gao Guanglei, et al. Physiological responses of mycorrhizal seedlings of Pinus sylvestris var. mongolica to drought stress[J]. Arid Zone Research, 2021, 38(6): 1704-1712. ]
[5]	Kaur K, Kaur N, Gupta A K, et al. Exploration of the antioxi-dative defense system to characterize chickpea genotypes showing differential response towards water deficit conditions[J]. Plant Growth Regul, 2013, 70(1): 49-60. doi: 10.1007/s10725-012-9777-0
[6]	Hussain H A, Hussain S, Khallq A, et al. Chilling and drought stresses in crop plants: Implications, cross talk, and potential management opportunities[J]. Frontiers in Plant Science, 2018, 9: 393. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2018.00393 pmid: 29692787
[7]	Xu J Q, Jin J J, Zhao H, et al. Drought stress tolerance analysis of Populus ussuriensis clones with different ploidies[J]. Journal of Forestry Research, 2019, 30(4): 1267-1275. doi: 10.1007/s11676-018-0729-z
[8]	胡杨, 李钢铁, 李星, 等. 干旱胁迫对细穗柽柳幼苗生长和生理生化指标的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2021, 23(6): 43-50.
	[Hu Yang, Li Gangtie, Li Xing, et al. Growth and physiological index of Tamarix Ieptostachys Bunge seedlings under soil drought stress[J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2021, 23(6): 43-50. ]
[9]	Benzarti M, Rejeb K B, Debez A. et al. Environmental and economical opportunities for the valorisation of the genus Atriplex: New insights[J]. Plant Physiol and Biochemestry, 2013, 42: 833-840.
[10]	Zhang Z K, Liu H, Liu X, et al. Organic fertilizer enhances rice growth in severe saline-alkali soil by increasing soil bacterial diversity[J]. Soil Use Management, 2021, 38(1): 964-977. doi: 10.1111/sum.v38.1
[11]	Guerrero-Cervantes M, Ramirez R G, Gonzalez-Rodriguez H. et al. Mineral content in range forages from North Mexico[J]. Journal of Applied Animal Research, 2012, 40(2): 102-107. doi: 10.1080/09712119.2011.607907
[12]	尹林克. 中亚荒漠生态系统中的关键种──柽柳(Tamarix spp.)[J]. 干旱区研究, 1995, 12(3): 43-47.
	[Yin Linke. Tamarix spp. ──The keyston spiecies of desert ecosystem[J]. Arid Zone Research, 1995, 12(3): 43-47. ]
[13]	刘雨桐, 贡璐, 刘曾媛. 塔里木盆地南缘典型绿洲不同土壤类型土壤有机碳含量及矿化特征[J]. 干旱区资源与环境, 2017, 31(2): 162-166.
	[Liu Yutong, Gong Lu, Liu Zengyuan. Organic carbon and carbon mineralization characteristics under different soil types in the southern edge of Tarim Basin[J]. Journal of Arid land Resources and Environment, 2017, 31(2): 162-166. ]
[14]	代云豪, 管瑶, 刘孟琴, 等. 1990—2020年阿拉尔垦区生态环境质量动态监测与评价[J]. 水土保持通报, 2022, 42(2): 122-128.
	[Dai Yunhao, Guan Yao, Liu Mengqin, et al. Dynamic monitoring and evaluation of ecological environment quality in Alar Reclamation Area from 1990 to 2020[J]. Bulletin of Soil and Water Conservation, 2022, 42(2): 122-128. ]
[15]	李合生, 孙群. 植物生理生化实验原理和技术[M]. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2000.
	[Li Hesheng, Sun Qun. Principles and Techniques of Plant Physiological and Biochemical Experiments[M]. Beijing: Higher Education Press, 2000. ]
[16]	蔡庆生. 植物生理学实验[M]. 北京: 中国农业大学出版社, 2013.
	[Cai Qingsheng. Plant Physiology Experiments[M]. Beijing: China Agricultural University Press, 2013. ]
[17]	许志文, 张小全, 胡育玮, 等. 烤烟不同生长发育时期叶片保水力变化特征[J]. 中国烟草科学, 2018, 39(2): 17-24.
	[Xu Zhiwen, Zhang Xiaoquan, Hu Yuwei, et al. Characteristics of leaf water retention capacity in flue-cured tobacco at different growth stages[J]. Chinese Tobacco Science, 2018, 39(2): 17-24. ]
[18]	Bian F Y, Wang Y K, Duan B. et al. Drought stress introduces growth, physiological traits and ecological stoichiometry changes in two contrasting Cunninghamia lanceolata cultivars planted in continuous-plantation soils[J]. BMC Plant Biology, 2021, 21(1): 379. doi: 10.1186/s12870-021-03159-3
[19]	马梦茹, 王占林, 贺康宁, 等. 不同土壤含水量与光照对山杏和四翅滨藜光合作用的影响[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2017, 45(22): 126-129.
	[Ma Mengru, Wang Zhanlin, He Kangning, et al. Effects of different soil water content and light on photosynthesis of Prunus armeniaca and Atriplex canescen[J]. Jiangsu Agricultural Sciences, 2017, 45(22): 126-129. ]
[20]	Pyankov V I, Kondratchuk A V, Shipley B. Leaf structure and specific leaf mass: The alpine desert plants of the Eastern Pamirs, Tadjikistan[J]. New Phytologist, 1999, 143(1): 131-142. doi: 10.1046/j.1469-8137.1999.00435.x
[21]	汤章城. 逆境条件下植物脯氨酸的累积及其可能的意义[J]. 植物生理学通讯, 1984(1): 15-21.
	[Tang Zhangcheng. Accumulation of plant proline under adversity and its possible significance[J]. Plant Physiology Journal, 1984(1): 15-21. ]
[22]	Ashraf M, Foolad M R. Roles of glycine betaine and proline in improving plant abiotic stress resistance[J]. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 2007, 59: 206-216. doi: 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2005.12.006
[23]	Farooq M, Wahid A, Kobayashi N, et al. Plant drought stress: effects, mechanisms and management[J]. Agronmy for Sustainable Development, 2009, 29(1): 185-212.
[24]	汤东, 程平, 杨建军, 等. 天山北坡山前植物对干旱胁迫的生理响应[J]. 干旱区研究, 2021, 38(6): 1683-1694.
	[Tang Dong, Cheng Ping, Yang Jianjun, et al. Physiological responses of plants to drought stress in the Northern Piedmont, Tianshan Mountains[J]. Arid Zone Research, 2021, 38(6): 1683-1694. ]
[25]	刘慧, 张崇洋, 刘世亮, 等. 干旱胁迫对屋顶绿化植物小叶黄杨叶片抗氧化特性的影响[J]. 林业与环境科学, 2022, 38(3): 86-93.
	[Liu Hui, Zhang Chongyang, Liu Shiliang, et al. Effects of drought stress on antioxidant properties of roof greening plant Buxu microphylla leaves[J]. Forestry and Environmental Science, 2022, 38(3): 86-93. ]
[26]	苏志豪, 周晓兵, 姜小龙, 等. 不同土壤水分条件下沙生柽柳(Tamarix taklamakanensis)的生理生化特征及适应性[J]. 干旱区研究, 2021, 38(1): 198-206.
	[Su Zhihao, Zhou Xiaobing, Jiang Xiaolong, et al. Physiological and biochemical characteristics and adaptability of Tamarix taklamakanensis in different ecological habitats in the Tarim Basin[J]. Arid Zone Research, 2021, 38(1): 198-206. ]
[27]	张玉玉, 王进鑫, 马戌, 等. 干旱后复水对侧柏幼苗叶绿素含量的影响[J]. 西南林业大学学报(自然科学), 2021, 41(5): 10-17.
	[Zhang Yuyu, Wang Jinxin, Ma Xu, et al. Effect of rewatering on chlorophyll content of Platycladus orientalis seedlings after drought[J]. Journal of Southwest Forestry University(Natural Sciences), 2021, 41(5): 10-17. ]
[28]	何芸雨, 郭水良, 王喆. 植物功能性状权衡关系的研究进展[J]. 植物生态学报, 2019, 43(12): 1021-1035. doi: 10.17521/cjpe.2019.0122
	[He Yunyu, Guo Shuiliang, Wang Zhe. Research progress of trade-off relationships of plant functional traits[J]. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 2019, 43(12): 1021-1035. ] doi: 10.17521/cjpe.2019.0122
[29]	周洁, 杨晓东, 王雅芸, 等. 梭梭和骆驼刺对干旱的适应策略差异[J]. 植物生态学报, 2022, 46(9): 1064-1076. doi: 10.17521/cjpe.2021.0338
	[Zhou Jie, Yang Xiaodong, Wang Yayun, et al. Difference in adaptation strategy between Haloxylon ammodendron and Alhagi sparsifolia to drought[J]. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 2022, 46(9): 1064-1076. ] doi: 10.17521/cjpe.2021.0338

水分处理	田间持水量/%	土壤含水量/%
CK(对照)	70~80	17~19
W₁(轻度干旱)	50~60	12~14
W₂(中度干旱)	30~40	7~10
W₃(重度干旱)	10~20	4~5

物种	土壤水分梯度	相对含水量/%	保水力/%
四翅滨藜	CK	88.19±1.19a	39.59±2.63c
	W₁	82.77±0.98b	47.96±3.10b
	W₂	81.49±1.10b	60.10±2.65a
	W₃	75.48±0.26c	60.55±0.58a
多枝柽柳	CK	80.74±0.0.38a	21.04±1.74a
	W₁	78.65±1.00b	27.92±0.80b
	W₂	76.33±1.07c	30.65±1.47b
	W₃	72.93±1.58d	35.36±1.96a

物种	土壤水分梯度	相对电导率/%	丙二醛含量/(nmol·g^-1 FW)	SOD活性/(U·g^-1 FW)	POD活性/(U·g^-1 FW)
四翅滨藜	CK	28.77±2.32b	10.65±1.06b	453.89±25.07b	2778.88±394.59b
	W₁	35.63±3.95a	12.41±1.36a	506.67±26.01b	2852.65±252.10b
	W₂	37.26±3.74a	12.39±0.07a	586.30±21.97a	3816.76±790.90ab
	W₃	39.24±3.41a	10.08±0.09ab	383.14±41.63c	4219.25±551.46a
多枝柽柳	CK	26.75±0.49c	5.56±0.01c	321.74±20.69b	8.90±1.93c
	W₁	32.32±3.38b	7.53±0.05b	783.42±98.13a	15.73±1.88b
	W₂	35.09±2.60b	7.31±0.56b	847.98±36.66a	17.68±2.22ab
	W₃	37.80±1.42a	14.18±1.33a	309.45±45.72b	23.00±4.84a

树种	土壤水分梯度	净光合速率/(μmol·m^-2·s^-1)	气孔导度/(mol·m^-2·s^-1)	蒸腾速率/(mmol·m^-2·s^-1)	水分利用效率/(μmol CO₂ ·mmol^-1H₂O)
四翅滨藜	CK	17.37±0.93b	0.10±0.01b	2.61±0.12b	6.66±0.42a
	W₁	18.80±0.43a	0.13±0.01a	2.77±0.02a	6.79±0.17a
	W₂	13.96±0.12c	0.07±0.02c	2.36±0.04c	5.91±0.14b
	W₃	9.43±0.23d	0.05±0.01c	1.43±0.04d	6.56±0.12a
多枝柽柳	CK	22.03±0.31a	0.16±0.01a	3.25±0.15a	6.80±0.36a
	W₁	15.77±0.64b	0.12±0.00b	2.40±0. 03b	6.57±0.20a
	W₂	9.88±0.33c	0.10±0.00c	2.02±0.03c	4.89±0.23b
	W₃	7.66±0.17d	0.10±0.00c	1.86±0.06d	4.12±0.23c

主成分指标	四翅滨藜			多枝柽柳
主成分指标	PC1	PC2	PC3	PC1	PC2
RWC	0.734	-0.66	0.092	0.955	0.062
WRC	-0.72	0.522	0.396	-0.943	0.096
RC	-0.52	0.692	0.103	-0.882	0.227
MDA	0.369	0.419	0.676	-0.830	-0.379
Chla	0.826	0.54	-0.039	0.938	0.241
Chlb	0.863	0.488	-0.046	0.916	0.320
Car	0.692	0.695	0.017	0.935	0.239
TC	0.837	0.528	-0.036	0.937	0.254
SOD	0.352	-0.026	0.838	-0.007	0.980
POD	-0.798	0.29	0.12	-0.863	0.052
PRO	-0.798	0.51	-0.091	-0.907	-0.057
SS	0.241	0.824	-0.242	-0.651	0.527
Pn	0.966	-0.175	0.048	0.979	-0.174
Gs	0.94	0.051	-0.089	0.883	-0.425
Tr	0.918	-0.235	0.287	0.926	-0.316
WUE	0.383	0.16	-0.855	0.964	0.121
特征值	8.333	3.791	2.245	12.259	2.059
贡献率/%	52.080	23.694	14.033	76.619	12.869
累积贡献率/%	52.080	75.774	89.807	76.619	89.488
权重	0.580	0.264	0.156	0.856	0.144

四翅滨藜和多枝柽柳对土壤干旱的响应差异

Differences in the response to soil drought in Atriplex canescens and Tamarix ramosissima

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

赞

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 8

参考文献 29

相关文章 4

Metrics

本文评价

推荐阅读 0

[1]	李泽厚,李蕊希,张舒斌,王崇斌,郑明明,董叶卿,吴雪. 多枝柽柳叶片结构和化学性状对土壤水分变化的响应[J]. 干旱区研究, 2022, 39(5): 1486-1495.
[2]	桑钰,高文礼,再努尔·吐尔逊,范雪,马晓东. 干旱胁迫下AMF对多枝柽柳幼苗和疏叶骆驼刺根系生长和氮素吸收分配的影响[J]. 干旱区研究, 2021, 38(1): 247-256.
[3]	张静鸽, 田福平, 苗海涛, 黄泽, 武高林. 水分胁迫及复水过程4种牧草形态及其生理特征表达[J]. 干旱区研究, 2020, 37(1): 193-201.
[4]	王新英, 史军辉, 刘茂秀, 陈启民. 四翅滨藜主要渗透调节物质对NaCl胁迫累积的响应[J]. 干旱区研究, 2012, 29(4): 621-627.