科尔沁沙地4种植物抗旱性的比较研究

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 对科尔沁沙地小叶锦鸡儿、紫穗槐、差巴嘎蒿和胡枝子4种植物的若干水分生理生态指标进行了测定.结果表明,小叶锦鸡儿具有低水势、高持水力和束缚水/自由水比及水分利用效率,抗旱性强;紫穗槐的各项指标与小叶锦鸡儿相反,抗旱性最差;差巴嘎蒿虽然水势较高,但它的持水力高,束缚水/自由水比和水分利用效率都较高,抗旱性也较强,但次于小叶锦鸡儿;胡枝子的水势和持水力较低,束缚水/自由水比及水分利用效率一般,它的抗旱性强于紫穗槐,但比差巴嘎蒿差.

关键词: 科尔沁沙地, 小叶锦鸡儿, 紫穗槐, 差巴嘎蒿, 胡枝子, 抗旱性

Abstract: The water physio ecological index and photosynthetic rate of four plant species, Caragana microphylla, Amorpha fruticosa, Artemish halodendron, and Lespedeza bicolor,in kerqin sandy land were determined. The results showed that C.microphylla has the lowest leaf water potential and the highest water maintainance, bound water/free water ratio, and water utilization efficiency.Its drought resistance is the strongest. Amorpha fruticosa was contrary to Caragana microphylla,and its drought resistance was the weakest. Artemish halodendrona had a high leaf water potential, but its water maintainance,bound water/free water ratio,and water utilization efficiency were very high.Its drought resistance was stronger. Lespedeza bicolor had a lower leaf water potential and water maintainance, and a usual bound water/free water ratio,and water utilization efficiency.Its drought resistance was stronger than Amorpha fruticosa 's,but weaker than Artemish halodendron' s.

中图分类号:

Q948.112

李雪华, 蒋德明, 阿拉木萨, 范士香, 骆永明. 科尔沁沙地4种植物抗旱性的比较研究[J]. 应用生态学报, 2002, (11): 1385-1388.

LI Xuehua, JIANG Deming, ALAMUSA, FAN Shixiang, LUO Yongming. [J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2002, (11): 1385-1388.

参考文献

[1] Bu J(卜军),Nan Y-H(南寅镐).1990.Dynamic study on communist biomass of Caragana microphylla:A review.In:Tsao X-S(曹新孙) ed.Studies on the Integrated Control of Wind, Sand Drifting and Drought in Eastern Inner Mongolia,Vol.2.Beijing:Science Press.118～125(in Chinese)
[2] Bierhuizen JF,et al.1965.Effect of atmospheric concentration of water vapour and CO₂ in determing transpiration-photosynthesis relationships of cotton leaves.Agric Meteor,2:259～270
[3] Dickman DI,et al.1992.Photosynthesis, water relation and growth of two hybrid Populus genoytpes during a severe drought.Can J For Res,22(8):1094～1106
[4] Krammer PJ.1983.Water Relations of Plants. New York and London:Academic Press. 489
[5] Li J(李进).1991.Distribution and position in natural vegetation succession of Artemish halodendron.J Desert Res(中国沙漠),11(2):55～60(in Chinese)
[6] Nan Y-H(南寅镐),Wei J(魏均).1990.Seasonal dynamic study on the biomass and nutrient component of Cavagana microphyla:In review.In:Tsao X-S(曹新孙) ed.Studies on the Integrated Control of Wind,Sand Drifting and Drought in Eastern Inner Mongolia,Vol.2.Beijing:Science Press.74～82(in Chinese)
[7] Richard H.1981.Plant and Their Atomspheric Environment.New York and London:Academic Press.263～272
[8] Seiler JR,et al.1988.Physiological morphological responses of three half-sib families of loblolly pine to water-stress conditioning.For Sci,34(2):487～495
[9] Smit J,et al.1992.Root growth and water use efficiency of Douglarfir (Pseudotsuga menziesi(Mirb) Franco) and Lodgepole Pine (Pinus contorta Dougl) seedlings.Tree Physil,11(4):401～410
[10] Turner NR.1981.Techniques and experimental approaches for the measurement of plant water status.Plant Soil,58(1):339～362
[11] Zhou H-Y(周海燕).1999.Responses and variations of Artemisia frigida and Artemisia halodendron to water stress in Keerqin Sandyland.Grassland Chin(中国草地),6:13～17 (in Chinese)
[12] Zheng X-W(郑希伟),Zhao R-H(赵荣慧),Song X-J(宋秀杰).1990.Study on the drought-resistance of main silvicultural species in the western region of Liaoning Province.Sci Silvae Sin(林业科学),26(4):353～358(in Chinese)
[13] Zhou H-Y (周海燕).2000.Physioecological characteristics of four dominant plant species in Kerqin sandy land.Chin J Appl Ecol(应用生态学报),11(4):587～590(in Chinese)

[1]	阿芸, 刘文辉, 张金青, 朱永明, 黄丹妮, 刘慧祥. 干旱胁迫对3种早熟禾属牧草表型特征和生理特性的影响 [J]. 应用生态学报, 2026, 37(4): 1075-1082.
[2]	高雯珊, 徐创军, 谷旭阳, 聂楚妍, 张雨童, 王志刚, 刘建凤. 三北地区杨树杂交后代‘沙新杨’系列苗期抗旱性综合评价 [J]. 应用生态学报, 2026, 37(1): 24-32.
[3]	文艺瑶, 朱江, 王欢, 张梦迪, 鲁顺保, 郑淑霞. 内蒙古灌丛化草原小叶锦鸡儿的种群特征及其土壤影响因子 [J]. 应用生态学报, 2024, 35(6): 1525-1533.
[4]	宋艳艳, 徐培月, 何功秀, 胡孔飞, 及利, 杨丽丽, 孙洪刚, 张勰. 外源多效唑对干旱胁迫下闽楠幼苗抗旱性的影响 [J]. 应用生态学报, 2024, 35(10): 2667-2676.
[5]	张铜会, 丛安琪, 连杰, 徐远志, 王宁. 从科尔沁草原到科尔沁沙地的思考 [J]. 应用生态学报, 2024, 35(1): 25-30.
[6]	曹雯婕, 李玉强, 陈银萍, 陈云, 王旭洋, 龚相文. 科尔沁沙地不同土地利用类型土壤化学计量特征 [J]. 应用生态学报, 2022, 33(12): 3312-3320.
[7]	刘志民, 余海滨, 汪海洋. 科尔沁沙地“山水林田湖草沙”一体化治理原理及实施重点 [J]. 应用生态学报, 2022, 33(12): 3441-3447.
[8]	李媛媛, 徐婷婷, 艾喆, 马飞. 半干旱区锦鸡儿属植物根际土壤真菌群落多样性及驱动因素 [J]. 应用生态学报, 2021, 32(12): 4289-4297.
[9]	王秀青, 王进鑫, 马戌, 张玉玉, 王怀彪, 王玉宝, 狄龙. 紫穗槐叶片浸提液对长柄扁桃种子萌发和幼苗生长的影响 [J]. 应用生态学报, 2021, 32(1): 57-65.
[10]	林力涛, 韩潇潇, 于占源, 孙学凯, 黄月, 曾德慧. 施氮处理下植物光合对沙质草地土壤呼吸的调控作用 [J]. 应用生态学报, 2019, 30(9): 3019-3027.
[11]	曹琪琪, 王若水, 肖辉杰, 杨本漫, 刘涛. 宁夏引黄灌区次生盐碱地紫穗槐茎干液流分析 [J]. 应用生态学报, 2018, 29(7): 2347-2354.
[12]	王旭洋, 李玉强, 罗永清, 连杰, 牛亚毅, 龚相文, 杨欢. 科尔沁沙地不同生境植被凋落物年际及年内动态 [J]. 应用生态学报, 2018, 29(5): 1494-1502.
[13]	闫敏, 左合君, 董智, 刘宝河, 王嫣娇, 魏翔鸿, 李钢铁. 锡林浩特草原小叶锦鸡儿灌丛的阻雪能力及其对积雪形态的影响 [J]. 应用生态学报, 2018, 29(2): 483-491.
[14]	王凯, 沈潮, 曹鹏, 宋立宁, 于国庆. 沙地樟子松幼苗干旱致死过程中非结构性碳水化合物的变化 [J]. 应用生态学报, 2018, 29(11): 3513-3520.
[15]	黎锦涛, 孙学凯, 胡亚林, 赵珊宇, 曾德慧. 干湿交替对科尔沁沙地人工林叶凋落物分解和养分释放的影响 [J]. 应用生态学报, 2017, 28(6): 1743-1752.