暖季型与冷季型草坪草差异响应干旱及旱后复水的生理生态机制

doi:10.11686/cyxb2016162

草业学报 ›› 2016, Vol. 25 ›› Issue (11): 86-93.DOI: 10.11686/cyxb2016162

暖季型与冷季型草坪草差异响应干旱及旱后复水的生理生态机制

于景金, 李冉, 刘梦娴, 杨志民^*

南京农业大学草业学院,江苏南京210095

收稿日期:2016-04-19 出版日期:2016-11-20 发布日期:2016-11-20
通讯作者: *通信作者Corresponding author. E-mail: wangxiaolizhenyuan@126.com
作者简介:于景金(1983-),女,内蒙古赤峰人,副教授,博士。E-mail: jingjin_yu@126.com
基金资助:
农业部“948”项目(2014-Z25)资助

Ecophysiological mechanisms associated with drought tolerance and post-drought recovery in warm- and cool-season turfgrasses

YU Jing-Jin, LI Ran, LIU Meng-Xian, YANG Zhi-Min^*

College of Agro-grassland Science, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, China

Received:2016-04-19 Online:2016-11-20 Published:2016-11-20
About author:英文作者简介
Supported by:
英文基金

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 暖季型草坪草与冷季型草坪草抗旱及旱后复水恢复能力不同,解析这种差异的生理生态机制有助于抗旱草坪草育种。本试验以暖季型草坪草海滨雀稗和冷季型草坪草草地早熟禾为试验材料,探讨了干旱和旱后复水处理对两种草坪草叶片相对含水量(RWC)、净光合速率(P_n)、气孔导度(G_s)、蒸腾速率(T_r)、比叶面积(SLA)、渗透调节能力(OA)、水分利用效率(WUE)以及根系总长度等生理生态指标的影响。结果表明,海滨雀稗比草地早熟禾具有较强的抗旱能力,表现为具有较高的RWC、P_n、T_r、G_s和WUE,最高时分别比草地早熟禾高出11%,33%,52%,119%,27%;另外,干旱条件下草地早熟禾0~20 cm土层中的根系总长度出现显著下降也是其抗旱性低于海滨雀稗的一个重要因素;复水后,较高的RWC (9%)、T_r (43%)、G_s (154%)、WUE (34%)和较低的SLA (8%)是海滨雀稗旱后恢复能力优于草地早熟禾的原因。

Abstract: Warm-season grasses had superior drought tolerance and post-drought recovery, compared to cool-season turfgrasses. In this study, seashore paspalum (Paspalum vaginatum cv. ‘2000’) and Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis cv. ‘Excursion II’) were chosen as research material. Leaf relative water content (RWC), water use efficiency (WUE), net photosynthetic rate (P_n), stomatal conductance (G_s), transpiration rate (T_r), specific leaf area (SLA), osmotic adjustment (OA) and root length were measured to clarify the mechanisms of their differential drought tolerance. Seashore paspalum had superior drought tolerance as shown by higher RWC (11%), P_n (33%), T_r (52%), G_s (119%) and WUE (27%). Total root length in the 0-20 cm soil layer under Kentucky bluegrass was reduced significantly more after 20 d drought stress than under seashore paspalum, suggesting the former was less drought-tolerant. During post-drought recovery, seashore paspalum had higher RWC (9%), T_r (43%), G_s (154%) and WUE (34%), as well as lower SLA (8%) than Kentucky bluegrass. Further, total root length in the 0-20 cm soil layer showed the same changes as that during drought stress. The results indicated that lower water loss, higher water use efficiency and the fact that root growth in 0-20 cm soil layer was less reduced under drought, were the main reasons for the superior drought tolerance and post-drought recovery ability of seashore paspalum, compared to Kentucky bluegrass.

于景金, 李冉, 刘梦娴, 杨志民. 暖季型与冷季型草坪草差异响应干旱及旱后复水的生理生态机制[J]. 草业学报, 2016, 25(11): 86-93.

YU Jing-Jin, LI Ran, LIU Meng-Xian, YANG Zhi-Min. Ecophysiological mechanisms associated with drought tolerance and post-drought recovery in warm- and cool-season turfgrasses[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2016, 25(11): 86-93.

参考文献

[1] Sun Y, Yang Q C, Zhang Y H. Studies on drought tolerance of eight turfgrass cultivars at seedling stage. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2001, 9(1): 16-20.
[2] Zhou X Y, Cao F L, Chen G Q. Four warm seasonal turfgrasses physiological indices in relation to its drought resistance. Grassland and Turf, 2003, (4): 29-32.
[3] Ge J G, Cai Q S, Zhou X Y, et al . Effect of soil drought stress on photosynthetic characteristics and water use efficiency in two turfgrasses. Pratacultural Science, 2005, 22(4): 103-107.
[4] Peng L M, Cao L, Han L, et al . Drought resistance analysis of regenerated plants from calli of Lolium perenne carried by the Shenzhou No. 7 spaceship. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2015, 24(1): 64-71.
[5] Xu L X, Yu J J, Han L B, et al . Photosynthetic enzyme activities and gene expression associated with drought tolerance and post-drought recovery in kentucky bluegrass. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 2013, 89: 28-35.
[6] Xu L, Han L, Huang B. Membrane fatty acid composition and saturation levels associated with leaf dehydration tolerance and post-drought rehydration in kentucky bluegrass. Crop Science, 2011, 51(1): 273-281.
[7] Xu L, Han L, Huang B. Antioxidant enzyme activities and gene expression patterns in leaves of Kentucky bluegrass in response to drought and post-drought recovery. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science, 2011, 136(4): 247-255.
[8] Huang B, Fry J D. Root anatomical, physiological, and morphological responses to drought stress for tall fescue cultivars. Crop Science, 1998, 38(4): 1017-1022.
[9] Chai Q, Jin F, Merewitz E, et al . Growth and physiological traits associated with drought survival and post-drought recovery in perennial turfgrass species. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science, 2010, 135(2): 125-133.
[10] Wang Y R, Zhao L Q, Shao Y H. Comparative analysis of the drought-resistances for turfgrass and main weeds in the temperate semi-arid region. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2005, 24(1): 1-5.
[11] Du J X, Hou X Y, Liu J R. A study on physiological response to drought and re-watering treatments in kentucky bluegrass. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2010, 19(2): 31-38.
[12] Wang J H, Duo D. Effect of paclobutrazol on drought resistance of six turfgrass cultivars during the seeding stage. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2014, 23(6): 253-258.
[13] Qian Y, Fry J. Water relations and drought tolerance of four turfgrasses. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science, 1997, 122: 129-133.
[14] Li X W, Li H M, Dong L, et al . Study on evapotranspiration characteristics of five kinds of turfgrass. Horticulture of North China, 2014, (2): 71-75.
[15] Zheng Q Y, Liu Z X. Study on leaf stomatal morphology and quantity of six turfgrass. Journal of Gansu Agricultural University, 2003, 38(2): 158-162.
[16] Liu Z X, Zheng Q Y, Wang X. The form and conductance of leaves stoma for six turfgrasses. Pratacultural Science, 2005, 22(8): 71-75.
[17] Wang L L, Li Q H, Xu J, et al . Morphology and physiology characteristic responses of different provenances of Artemisia ordosica to drought stress. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2015, 51(2): 37-43.
[18] Liu Y, Zhang X, Hong T, et al . Assessment of drought tolerance of 49 switchgrass ( Panicum virgatum ) genotypes using physiological and morphological parameters. Biotechnology for Biofuels, 2015, 8(1): 1-18.
[19] Liu M X, Lu S Y, Guo Z F. Selection and physiological identification of somaclonal variants for increased drought resistance of centipedegrass. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2012, 21(1): 126-132.
[20] Huang B. Mechanisms and strategies for improving drought resistance in turfgrass. Acta Horticulturae, 2008, 783: 221.
[21] Barker D J, Sullivan C Y, Moser L E. Water deficit effects on osmotic potential, cell wall elasticity, and proline in five forage grasses. Agronomy Journal, 1993, 85: 270-275.
[22] Wang Y G, Abulaiti, Qi M. Differing response to drought stress of two Cynodon dactylon varieties. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2006, 15(4): 58-64.
[23] Sun T J, Su R G G, Ma W L, et al . Drought resistance of ten seedling grasses. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2008, 17(4): 42-49.
[24] Liu N, Shen Y, Huang B. Osmoregulants involved in osmotic adjustment for differential drought tolerance in different bentgrass genotypes. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science, 2015, 140(6): 605-613.
[25] Xu D Q. Non-uniform stomatal closure and non-stomatal limitation of photosynthesis. Plant Physiology Communications, 1995, 31(4): 246-252.
[26] Xu D Q. Some problems in stomatal limitation analysis of photosynthesis. Plant Physiology Communications, 1997, 33(4): 241-244.
[27] Henry A, Gowda V R P, Torres R O, et al . Variation in root system architecture and drought response in rice ( Oryza sativa ): Phenotyping of the Oryza SNP panel in rainfed lowland fields. Fuel and Energy Abstracts, 2011, 120(2): 205-214.
[1] 孙彦, 杨青川, 张英华. 不同草坪草种及品种苗期抗旱性比较. 草地学报, 2001, 9(1): 16-20.
[2] 周兴元, 曹福亮, 陈国庆. 四种暖季型草坪草几种生理指标与抗旱性的关系研究. 草原与草坪, 2003, (4): 29-32.
[3] 葛晋纲, 蔡庆生, 周兴元, 等. 土壤干旱胁迫对2种不同光合类型草坪草的光合特性和水分利用率的影响. 草业科学, 2005, 22(4): 103-107.
[4] 彭丽梅, 曹丽, 韩蕾, 等. 多年生黑麦草愈伤组织航天搭载后再生株系的抗旱性研究. 草业学报, 2015, 24(1): 64-71.
[10] 王艳荣, 赵利清, 邵元虎. 温带半干旱地区草坪草与主要杂草抗旱性的比较研究. 生态学杂志, 2005, 24(1): 1-5.
[11] 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. 草业学报, 2010, 19(2): 31-38.
[12] 王竞红, 多多. 多效唑对6种草坪草苗期抗旱性影响的研究. 草业学报, 2014, 23(6): 253-258.
[14] 李晓文, 李海梅, 董琳, 等. 五种草坪草蒸散特性研究. 北方园艺, 2014, (2): 71-75.
[15] 郑群英, 刘自学. 六种草坪草的叶片气孔形态和数量特征比较研究. 甘肃农业大学学报, 2003, 38(2): 158-162.
[16] 刘自学, 郑群英, 汪玺. 6种草坪草叶片的气孔特征与气孔传导力. 草业科学, 2005, 22(8): 71-75.
[17] 王林龙, 李清河, 徐军, 等. 不同种源油蒿形态与生理特征对干旱胁迫的响应. 林业科学, 2015, 51(2): 37-43.
[19] 刘明稀, 卢少云, 郭振飞. 假俭草抗旱变异体的筛选及其生理鉴定. 草业学报, 2012, 21(1): 126-132.
[22] 王玉刚, 阿不来提, 齐曼. 两狗牙根品种对干旱胁迫反应的差异. 草业学报, 2006, 15(4): 58-64.
[23] 孙铁军, 苏日古嘎, 马万里, 等. 10种禾草苗期抗旱性的比较研究. 草业学报, 2008, 17(4): 42-49.
[25] 许大全. 气孔的不均匀关闭与光合作用的非气孔限制. 植物生理学通讯, 1995, 31(4): 246-252.
[26] 许大全. 光合作用气孔限制分析中的一些问题. 植物生理学通讯, 1997, 33(4): 241-244.

暖季型与冷季型草坪草差异响应干旱及旱后复水的生理生态机制

Ecophysiological mechanisms associated with drought tolerance and post-drought recovery in warm- and cool-season turfgrasses

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 0

编辑推荐

Metrics