欢迎访问《应用生态学报》官方网站,今天是 分享到:

应用生态学报 ›› 2017, Vol. 28 ›› Issue (11): 3643-3652.doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.201711.015

• • 上一篇    下一篇

关键发育期干旱及复水过程对春玉米主要生理参数的影响

蔡福1,2, 米娜1, 纪瑞鹏1, 赵先丽1, 史奎桥2, 杨扬2, 张慧2, 张玉书1*   

  1. 1 中国气象局沈阳大气环境研究所, 沈阳 110166
    2 锦州市生态与农业气象中心, 辽宁锦州 121000
  • 出版日期:2017-11-18 发布日期:2017-11-18
  • 通讯作者: *mail:yushuzhang@126.com
  • 作者简介:蔡福, 男, 1980年生, 博士, 副研究员.主要从事农业气象、作物模型、陆面过程及模型模拟研究.E-mail:caifu_80@163.com
  • 基金资助:
    本文由辽宁省农业领域青年科技创新人才培养计划项目(2015060, 2014060)、国家自然科学基金青年科学基金项目(41305058)、辽宁省气象局博士启动项目(D201504)、辽宁省农业攻关及成果产业化项目(2014210003)和中央级公益性科研院所基本科研业务费项目(2016SYIAEZD1)资助

Effects of drought stress and subsequent rewatering on major physiological parameters of spring maize during the key growth periods

CAI Fu1,2, MI Na1, JI Rui-peng1, ZHAO Xian-li1, SHI Kui-qiao2, YANG Yang2, ZHANG Hui2, ZHANG Yu-shu1*   

  1. 1 Institute of Atmospheric Environment, China Meteorological Administration, Shenyang 110166, China
    2 Jinzhou Ecological and Agricultural Meteorology Center, Jinzhou 121000, Liaoning, China
  • Online:2017-11-18 Published:2017-11-18
  • Contact: *mail:yushuzhang@126.com
  • Supported by:
    This work was supported by the Cultivation Plan for Youth Agricultural Science and Technology Innovative Talents of Liaoning Province (2015060, 2014060), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (41305058), the Research Fund for Doctoral Program of Liaoning Meteorological Bureau (D201504), the Agricultural Tackle Key Problem and Achievements Industrialization Project of Science and Technology Department of Liaoning Province (2014210003) and the Special Scientific Research Fund of the Public Welfare Institutes at the Central Level (2016SYIAEZD1)

摘要: 为深入了解玉米在关键发育期干旱条件下的耗水特征及致灾机理,对春玉米‘丹玉39’分别从拔节(T1)和抽雄(T2)期开始采用持续无补水方式进行干旱及复水试验,基于对叶和根水势、主要光合变量(净光合速率Pn、蒸腾速率Tr、气孔导度gs、胞间CO2浓度Ci)以及茎流速率(SF)的动态观测,研究各生理参数对干旱及复水过程的响应特征.结果表明: 叶、根水势均与土壤湿度呈对数关系,不同时期干旱使二者都减小,对根水势的影响比叶水势提前,与拔节期相比,抽雄期叶水势的干旱响应偏早,根水势偏晚;叶水势在T1处理复水后能得到恢复,但不能恢复到正常水平,T2处理不能恢复;T1处理的根水势对复水的响应比叶水势更快,且更接近于正常水平.PnTr对T2处理的响应快于T1处理;复水后二者对T1处理的恢复速度快于T2处理,T1和T2处理Pn分别超过和达到正常水平,而Tr分别能和不能达到正常水平;Tr对T1处理的响应早于Pn,二者对T2处理的响应一致;各处理gs对干旱的响应与Pn一致;T1处理的CiPn趋势一致,T2处理相反.各干旱处理SF比对照减小,在晴天比阴天响应明显,SF对T2处理的响应比T1处理敏感,在一定干旱水平后响应敏感性减弱;复水后SF比对照明显增大,T2处理的增幅小于T1处理.

Abstract: For deeply understanding water consumption characteristics and disaster-causing mechanism of spring maize under drought stress, continuous no-water complementing for 40 days and subsequent rewatering treatments were conducted in jointing (T1) and tasseling (T2) stages of spring maize ‘Danyu 39’. In the meantime, leaf and root water potential, main variables associated with photosynthesis including net photosynthetic rate (Pn), transpiration rate (Tr), stomatal conduc-tance (gs), intercellular CO2 concentration(Ci) and stem flow rate (SF) were dynamically observed and the characteristics of their responses to drought and subsequent rehydration were investigated. The results indicated that leaf and root water potential, both presenting logarithm relationships with soil water content, decreased due to suffering from drought stress in different growth stages and the response of the former lagged behind that of the latter. At the same time, the response of leaf (root) water potential to drought stress in tasseling stage was earlier (later) than in jointing stage. For the response of rewatering, leaf water potential for the treatment T1(T2) was (not) able to recover to a certain extent, and could not reach the normal condition, while water potential of root was more responsive and closer to the normal level than that of leaf for the treatment T1. Furthermore, Pn and Tr responded more quickly to the treatment T2 than to the treatment T1. For subsequent rewatering after the treatment T1(T2), both Pn and Tr restored rapidly (slowly) with the former exceeding (returning) and the later being (not) able to reach normal level. Meanwhile, the response of Tr was faster than that of Pn to the treatment T1 and they responded simultaneously to the treatment T2. The response of gs agreed with Pn to drought stress. Change trend of Ci for the treatment T1(T2) was consistent (opposite) with that of Pn. In addition, SFs for various drought treatments and their daily maximums decreased and appeared ahead of time to different extents, respectively. At the same time, the response of SF to drought stress was more sensitive for the treatment T2 than for T1 and on a clear day than on a cloudy day, but the sensibility of SF declined after drought reached a certain level. Besides, SFs for both the treatment T1 and T2 increased as a result of rewatering after drought and the increase for the treatment T1 was larger than that for the treatment T2.