武汉和天津园林植物叶片热值比较研究

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 对天津和武汉两地一些园林植物叶片的春季干重热值、灰分含量和去灰分热值进行了比较,结果发现,无论在武汉还是天津,所测园林植物的干重热值均表现为乔木>灌木>草本的递减趋势,灰分含量则呈现相反的趋势即草本>灌木>乔木,去灰分热值在武汉与干重热值的趋势一致,但在天津却是乔木>草本>灌木。同一类型的植物干重热值都是低纬度的武汉高于高纬度的天津,灰分含量相反:天津高于武汉;乔木和灌木的去灰分热值也是武汉高于天津,草本植物例外。两地共有的7种植物平均值相比,干重热值和去灰分热值都是武汉>天津,同一植物种相比,7种植物中,有5种植物的干重热值和去灰分热值的地区差异与平均值一致,即武汉>天津,只有刺槐和白三叶例外。

关键词: 植物生长调节剂, 前体, 玉米, 生长, 养分吸收

Abstract: Gross caloric values (GCV),ash contents and ash free caloric values (AFCV) of some garden plants in Spring were measured in Wuhan and Tianjin.Adecrease in average GCVwas observed from the trees to the herbs in Wuhan and Tianjin; values were 20334 J穏^-1 (trees),18226 J穏^-1 (shrubs) and 16656 J穏^-1 (herbs) in Wuhan,and 19531 J穏^-1 (trees),17777 J穏^-1 (shrubs),and 17457 J穏^-1 (herbs) in Tianjin,respectively.On the contrary,ash contents shawed an increace from the trees to the herbs in both cities.Average AFCVshowed the same trend with GCVin Wuhan (the trees>the shrubs>the herbs),but difference in Tianjin, as follow:the trees >the herbs >the shrubs.When caloric values and ash contents were compared between plants in Wuhan and Tianjin,results shnoed that,GCVand AFCVof the plants in Tianjin were lower than results showed that those in Wuhan except for the herbs.Among 7 common plant species in the two cities,GCVand AFCVof five species in Tianjin were lower than those in Wuhan.

Key words: Plant growth regulator, Precursor, Zea mays, Growth, Nutrient uptake

中图分类号:

Q947.5

徐永荣, 冯宗炜, 朱敬恩. 武汉和天津园林植物叶片热值比较研究[J]. 生态学杂志, 2004, (6): 11-14.

XU Yongrong, FENG Zongwei, ZHU Jingen. Comparison of foliage caloric values of garden plants in Wuhan and Tianjin,China[J]. cje, 2004, (6): 11-14.

参考文献

[1]王文卿,叶庆华,王笑梅,等.2001.盐胁迫对木榄幼苗各器官热值、能量积累及分配的影响[J].应用生态学报,12(1):8～12.
[2]孙国夫,王兆赛.1993.水稻热值的动态变化研究[J].生态学杂志,12(1):1～4
[3]毕玉芬,车伟光.2002.几种苜蓿属植物植株热值研究[J].草地学报,10(4):265～269.
[4]任海,彭少麟,刘鸿先,等.1999.鼎湖山植物群落及其主要植物的热值研究[J].植物生态学报,23(2):148～154.
[5]张鸿芳,陈佐忠.1993.大针茅典型草原几种主要植物热值的季节变化[J].植物学通报,10(1):51～53.
[6]杨京平,博尼莫斯,姜宁,等.2002.稻田施氮水平对两种水稻热值变化特征影响[J].生态学报,22(2):240～246.
[7]杨昌盛,李云波,林鹏.2003.冷胁迫下红树植物白骨壤和桐花树叶片热值的变化[J].台湾海峡,22(1):46～52.
[8]林光辉,林鹏.1991.红树植物秋茄热值及其变化的研究[J].生态学报,11(1):44～48.
[9]林益明,李和阳,林鹏,等.2000.福建南靖虎伯寮亚热带雨林竹类植物热值的研究[J].竹子研究汇刊,19(1):57～62.
[10]林益明,黎中宝,陈弈源,等.2001.福建华安竹园一些竹类植物叶的热值研究[J].植物学通报,18(3):356～362.
[11]林益明,林鹏,王通,2000.几种红树植物木材热值和灰分含量研究,[J].应用生态学报,11(2):181～184.
[12]林益明,柯莉娜,王湛昌,等.2002.深圳福田红树林区7种红树叶热值的季节变化[J].海洋学报,24(3):112～118.
[13]林益明,郑茂钟,林鹏,等.2000.园林竹类植物叶的热值和灰分含量研究[J].厦门大学学报(自然科学版),39(1):136～140.
[14]林承超.1999.福州鼓山季风常绿阔叶林及其林缘几种植物叶热值和营养成分,[J].生态学报,19(6):832～836.
[15]林鹏,王文卿.1999.盐胁迫下红树植物秋茄热值变化的研究[J].植物生态学报,23(5):466～470.
[16]林鹏,邵成,郑文教.1996.福建和溪亚热带雨林优势植物叶的热值研究[J].植物生态学报,20(4):303～309.
[17]林鹏,林光辉.1991.几种红树植物的热值和灰分含量研究[J].植物生态学与地植物学学报,15(2):114～120.
[18]胡自治,孙吉雄,张映生,等.1990.天祝高寒珠芽蓼草甸群落的热值和营养成分的初步研究[J].植物生态学与地植物生态学学报,14(2):185～190.
[19]徐永荣,张万钧,冯宗炜,等.2003.天津滨海盐渍土上几种植物的热值和元素含量及其相关性[J].生态学报,23(3):450～455.
[20]候庸,王伯荪,张宏达,等.1998.广东黑石顶自然保护区南亚热带常绿阔叶林5种优势植物的热值研究[J].生态学报,18(3):263～268.
[21]郭继勋,王若丹,王娓,等.2001.松嫩平原拂子茅草种群热值、生物量和能量动态的研究[J].植物学报,43(8):852～856.
[22]郭继勋,王若丹,包国章.2001.东北羊草草原主要植物热值[J].植物生态学报,25(6):746～750.
[23]Bliss LC. 1962. Caloric and lipid content in alpine turdra plants [J]. Ecology, 43 (4): 753 ～ 757.
[24]Golley FB. 1961. Energy values of ecological materials[J ]. Ecology, 42(3) :581～ 584.
[25]Golley FB. 1969 . Caloric value of wet tropical forest vegetation [J].Ecology,50(3):517～519.
[26]Hadlley NF, Tinkle DW. 1975. Lizard reproductive effect: Calorie estimates and comments on its evolution[J]. Ecology, 56(3):427～443.
[27]Keith MHW, Hocker, JR. 1981. caloric values of eight New Hampshire forest tree species[J]. Can. J. For. Res., 11:409～412.
[28]Long FL. 1934. Application of Calorimetric methods to ecological research[J]. Plant Physiol. ,9(2) :323～327.
[29]Madgwick HAI. 1970. Caloric values of Pinus virginiana as affected by time of sampling, tree age and position in stand[J]. Ecology, 15(6): 1094～ 1097.
[30]Papp LB. 1975. Caloric values of the dominant species in an oak forest near sikfokut, north Hungry [ J ]. Acta Bot. Acad. Sci.Hungricae, Tomus, 21 (3 ～ 4): 347～ 352.