水分胁迫及复水过程4种牧草形态及其生理特征表达

干旱区研究 ›› 2020, Vol. 37 ›› Issue (1): 193-201.

水分胁迫及复水过程4种牧草形态及其生理特征表达

张静鸽¹，田福平²，苗海涛³，黄泽^1,2，武高林^1,3

1. 西北农林科技大学黄土高原土壤侵蚀与旱地农业国家重点实验室, 陕西杨凌 712100
2. 中国农业科学院兰州畜牧与兽药研究所农业部兰州黄土高原生态环境重点野外科学观测试验站, 甘肃兰州 730050
3. 中国科学院水利部水土保持研究所黄土高原土壤侵蚀与旱地农业国家重点实验室, 陕西杨凌 712100

收稿日期:2019-03-14 修回日期:2019-05-14 出版日期:2020-01-15 发布日期:2020-01-14
通讯作者: 武高林
作者简介:张静鸽（1992-），女，在读硕士，研究方向为植物生理生态. E-mail: zjingge@126.com
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金重大项目(41390463)资助

Expressions of Morphological and Physiological Features of 4 Forage Species under Water Stress and Re-watering Process

ZHANG Jing-ge¹, TIAN Fu-ping², MIAO Hai-tao³, HUANG Ze^{1, 2}, WU Gao-lin^{1, 3}

1. Key Laboratory of Soil Erosion and Dryland Agriculture in the Loess Plateau,Northwest A&F University, Yangling 712100,Shaanxi,China;
2. Lanzhou Institute of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Medicine,Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences/Lanzhou Loess Plateau Key Field Scientific Observation and Test Station of Ministry of Agriculture, Lanzhou 730050,Gansu,China;
3. Key Laboratory of Soil Erosion and Dryland Agriculture in the Loess Plateau,Institute of Soil and Water Conservation,Chinese Academy of Sciences & Ministry of Water Resources,Yangling 712100,Shaanxi,China

Received:2019-03-14 Revised:2019-05-14 Online:2020-01-15 Published:2020-01-14

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 草地作为半干旱区的主要植被类型之一，开展牧草对土壤水分变化响应机制的研究，对于该地区水资源的可持续利用和生态环境的建设均有重要意义。本文以选取半干旱区4种典型牧草作为研究对象，在对其进行干旱及旱后复水处理模拟自然降水过程的基础上，分析牧草的形态、水分生理、光合生理等特征对土壤水分变化的响应，结果表明：① 水分胁迫下牧草地上形态指标（单叶面积、地上干重）呈显著的下降趋势，而地下形态指标（地下干重、根冠比）则反之；复水结束后，牧草形态特征指标有明显的恢复，披碱草(Elymus nutans Griseb.)和黑麦草(Lolium multiflorum Lam.)出现了超补偿效应。 ② 水分胁迫下牧草水分生理特征表现为明显的下降趋势，复水后逐渐恢复，复水14~21 d后基本恢复对照组水平。干旱条件下，2种豆科牧草能维持较高的水势，属于高水势延迟脱水型；而禾本科牧草属于低水势忍耐脱水型。 ③ 水分胁迫下，牧草光合生理特征也表现为明显的下降趋势，轻微水分胁迫能够暂时提高豆科牧草光合能力；豆科和禾本科牧草叶片光合特性对干旱的响应机制存在一定的差异，面对干旱胁迫，豆科牧草通过及时关闭气孔来减少水分散失，而禾本科牧草通过延缓气孔关闭牺牲叶片水分的方式维持正常生长。

关键词: 牧草, 水分胁迫, 复水, 形态特征, 生理特征

Abstract: Grassland is one of the main vegetation types in semiarid area. Research on the response and mechanism of forage to soil moisture content is of great significance for the sustainable utilization of water resources and the construction of ecological environment in this area. In this study, four grass species, response of forage morphology, water physiology, photosynthetic and physiological characteristics to water stress and water recovery process in the Loess Plateau were analyzed. The results showed that: ① Under water stress, the aboveground morphological indexes (i.e., the single leaf area and shoot dry weight) of the grass species were in a decrease trend, but the underground ones (i.e., the root dry weight and root-shoot ratio) were in an increase trend. After re-watering, the forage morphological characteristics were obviously recovered, and an over compensation of Elymus nutans Griseb. and Lolium multiflorum Lam. occurred; ② Under water stress, the water physiological characteristics of forage were significantly decreased, but they were gradually recovered after re-watering and resumed to the level of the control group after 2~3 weeks. These 2 species of leguminous forage could maintain a high water potential and had a strong water conservation capability, which belonged to a delayed dehydration by increasing water potential, and these 2 species of forages belonged to an enduring dehydration by developing low water potential under water stress; ③ Under water stress, the photosynthetic physiological characteristics of forage were also in a significant decrease trend, and the short-term water stress could temporarily improve the photosynthetic capacity of forage; the photosynthetic characteristics of legumes and grasses were different in sensitivity and adaptation mechanism to drought. Leguminous forage closed the stomata in time to avoid drought so as to reduce water loss, while grasses sacrificed leaf water to keep stomata open to maintain normal plant growth.

Key words: forage; water stress, re-watering, morphological characteristic, physiological characteristic

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.

ZHANG Jing-ge, TIAN Fu-ping, MIAO Hai-tao, HUANG Ze, WU Gao-lin. Expressions of Morphological and Physiological Features of 4 Forage Species under Water Stress and Re-watering Process[J]. Arid Zone Research, 2020, 37(1): 193-201.

参考文献 21

[1]	Cranston L M,Kenyon P R,Morris S T,et al.Morphological and physiological responses of plantain (Plantagolanceolata) and chicory (Cichoriumintybus) to water stress and defoliation frequency[J].Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science,2016,202(1):13-24.
[2]	Mwendia S W,Yunusa I,Whalley R,et al.Use of plant water relations to assess forage quality and growth for two cultivars of Napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum) subjected to different levels of soil water supply and temperature regimes[J].Crop and Pasture Science,2014,64(10):1 008-1 019.
[3]	靳军英,张卫华,袁玲.三种牧草对干旱胁迫的生理响应及抗旱性评价[J].草业学报,2015,24(10):157-165.[Jin Junying,Zhang Weihua,Yuan Ling.Physiological responses of three forages to drought stress and evaluation of their drought resistance[J].Pratacultural Science,2015,24(10):157-165.]
[4]	Luo H H,Zhang Y L,Zhang W F.Effects of water stress and re-watering on photosynthesis,root activity,and yield of cotton with drip irrigation under mulch[J].Photosynthetica,2016,54(1):65-73.
[5]	Devnarain N,Crampton B G,Chikwamba R,et al.Physiological responses of selected African sorghum landraces to progressive water stress and re-watering[J].South African Journal of Botany,2016,103:doi:10.1016/j.sajb.2015.09.008.
[6]	Weiner J.Allocation,plasticity and allometry in plants[J].Perspectives in Plant Ecology,Evolution and Systematics,2004,6(4):207-215.
[7]	陈斐,王润元,王鹤龄,等.干旱胁迫下春小麦干物质积累和分配及其模拟[J].干旱区研究,2017,34(6):1 418-1 425.[Chen Fei,Wang Runyuan,Wang Heling,et al.Dry matter accumulation and distribution of spring wheat under drought stress[J].Arid Zone Research,2017,34(6):1 418-1 425.]
[8]	Dasgupta P,Das B S,Sen S K.Soil water potential and recoverable water stress in drought tolerant and susceptible rice varieties[J].Agricultural Water Management,2015,152:doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2014.12.013.
[9]	Hartemink N,Jongejans E,De K H.Flexible life history responses to flower and rosette bud removal in three perennial herbs[J].Oikos,2004,105(1):159-167.
[10]	Luttschwager D,Ewald D,Alia L A.Consequences of moderate drought stress on the net photosynthesis,water-use efficiency and biomass production of three poplar clones[J].Acta Physiologiae Plantarum,2016,38(1):27.
[11]	郝树荣,郭相平,张展羽.水分胁迫及复水对水稻冠层结构的补偿效应[J].农业机械学报,2010,41(3):52-55.[Hao Shurong,Guo Xiangping,Zhang Zhanyu.Compensation effects of water stress and rewatering on the structure of rice canopy[J].Transactions of the Chinese Society for Agricultural Machinery,2010,41(3):52-55.]
[12]	李芳兰,包维楷,吴宁.白刺花幼苗对不同强度干旱胁迫的形态与生理响应[J].生态学报,2009,29(10):5 406-5 416.[Li Fanglan,Bao Weikai,Wu Ning.Morphological and physiological responses of current Sophora davidii seedlings to drought stress[J].Acta Ecologica Sinica,2009,29(10)：5 406-5 416.]
[13]	Bingham I J.Soil-root-canopy interactions[J].Annals of Applied Biology,2001,138(2):243-251.
[14]	Jackson R B,Sperry J S,Dawson T E.Root water uptake and transport:Using physiological processes in global predictions[J].Trends in Plant Science,2000,5(11):482-488.
[15]	Liu J,Xie X,Du J,et al.Effects of simultaneous drought and heat stress on Kentucky blue grass[J].Scientia Horticulturae,2008,115(2):190-195.
[16]	杜建雄,侯向阳,刘金荣.草地早熟禾对干旱及旱后复水的生理响应研究[J].草业学报,2010,19(2):31-38.[Du Jianxiong,Hou Xiangyang,Liu Jinrong.A study on physiological response to drought and re-watering treatments in Kentucky blue grass[J].Acta Prataculturae Sinica,2010,19(2):31-38.]
[17]	曹铁森,许明宪,王维友.水分胁迫对梨幼树叶水势的影响[J].西北农林科技大学学报：自然科学版,1992,20(1)：91-94.[Cao Tiesen,Xu Mingxian,Wang Weiyou.Effects of water stress on leaf water potential in young pear trees[J].Journal of Northwest A & F University (Natural Science Edition),1992,20(1):91-94.]
[18]	万里强,李向林,石永红,等.PEG胁迫下4个黑麦草品种生理生化指标响应与比较研究[J].草业学报,2010,19(1):83-88.[Wan Liqiang,Li Xianglin,Shi Yonghong,et al.A study on the response and on the comparison of physiological and biochemical indexes of four Lolium perenne varieties under PEG stress[J].Acta Prataculturae Sinica,2010,19(1)：83-88.]
[19]	徐炳成,山仑,李凤民.半干旱黄土丘陵区五种植物的生理生态特征比较[J].应用生态学报,2007,18(5):990-996.[Xu Bingcheng,Shan Lun,Li Fengmin.Comparison of ecophysiological characteristics of seven plant species in semiarid loess hilly-gully region[J].Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology,2007,18(5):990-996.]
[20]	可静,李进,吕海英,等.不同条件下黑果枸杞叶片气孔开度和超微结构的变化[J].干旱区研究,2017,34(6):1 362-1 370.[Ke Jing,Li Jin,Lü Haiying,et al.Change of stomatal aperture and ultrasturcture on Lycium ruthenicum Murr.leaves under different conditions[J].Arid Zone Research,2017,34(6):1 362-1 370.]
[21]	杨司睿,范井伟,孙永强,等.罗布泊腹地人工植被梭梭的光学特性及其对干旱胁迫的响应[J].干旱区研究,2018,35(2):379-386.[Yang Sirui,Fan Jingwei,Sun Yongqiang,et al.Photosynthetic characteristics and response of Haloxylon ammodendron to drought stress in hinterland of the Lop Nur[J].Arid Zone Research,2018,35(2):379-386.]