长汀县崩岗区8种禾本科植物根系构型特征

doi:10.11686/cyxb2017490

草业学报 ›› 2018, Vol. 27 ›› Issue (10): 215-222.DOI: 10.11686/cyxb2017490

• 论文 • 上一篇

长汀县崩岗区8种禾本科植物根系构型特征

李思诗^1,2, 司晓静², 蒋芳市², 林金石², 蔡学智², 吴俣², 黄炎和^2,*

1.福建农林大学林学院,福建福州 350002;
2.福建农林大学资源与环境学院,福建福州 350002

收稿日期:2017-11-22 修回日期:2018-03-15 出版日期:2018-10-20 发布日期:2018-10-20
通讯作者: E-mail: yanhehuang@163.com
作者简介:李思诗(1992-),男,湖北襄阳人,在读硕士。E-mail: leesishi0813@163.com
基金资助:
国家科技支撑计划项目(2014BAD15B0303),国家自然科学基金项目(41571272)和福建省自然科学基金项目(2015J01156)资助

Root architecture of eight Gramineae plant species in the Benggang area of Changting County

LI Si-shi^1,2, SI Xiao-jing², JIANG Fang-shi², LIN Jin-shi², CAI Xue-zhi², WU Yu², HUANG Yan-he^2,*

1.College of Forestry, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou 350002, China;
2.College of Resources and Environment, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou 350002, China

Received:2017-11-22 Revised:2018-03-15 Online:2018-10-20 Published:2018-10-20

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 为探究崩岗区草本植物根系构型特征,以8种禾本科植物:白茅、金茅、五节芒、鹧鸪草、狗牙根、宽叶雀稗、巨菌草和香根草为研究对象,运用主成分分析法对其6个根系构型参数进行分析和综合评分。结果表明:试验草本根系平均直径为0.36~0.63 mm;金茅、五节芒、鹧鸪草、宽叶雀稗和香根草总根长无显著差异;总根表面积、总根体积、根尖数和交叉数均不同,巨菌草的总根表面积最大,白茅的最小,巨菌草的根尖数和交叉数均最大。根系构型的主要影响因子是平均直径、总根表面积和总根体积。8种植物根系综合得分依次为:巨菌草>宽叶雀稗>金茅>五节芒>香根草>鹧鸪草>狗牙根>白茅。研究成果可为崩岗治理中草本植物的筛选、配置和推广提供科学依据。

关键词: 崩岗区, 禾本科, 草本植物, 根系构型, 主成分分析

Abstract: In order to explore the root architecture of herbaceous plants in the Benggang area, eight Gramineae species were studied (Imperata cylindrica, Eulalia speciosa, Miscanthus floridulus, Eriachne pallescens, Cynodon dactylon, Paspalum wettsteinii, Pennisetum sp. and Vetiveria zizanioides). Six root architecture parameters were analyzed and comprehensively evaluated using principal component analysis. The results showed that the average diameter of the tested herbaceous roots was between 0.36 and 0.63 mm. There were no significant differences in the total root length of E. speciosa, M. floridulus, E. pallescens, P. wettsteinii and V. zizanioides. The total root surface area, total root volume, root tip numbers and crossing numbers varied by plant species. The total root surface area of Pennisetum sp. was the largest and that of I. cylindrica the smallest. The root tips and crossing numbers of Pennisetum sp. were also the largest. Average diameter, total root surface area and total root volume were the main factors influencing root architecture. The composite score order of the eight species’ roots was Pennisetum sp.>P. wettsteinii>E. speciosa>M. floridulus>V. zizanioides>E. pallescens>C. dactylon>I. cylindrica. These results help to provide a scientific basis for the screening, allocating and popularizing of herbaceous plants for the control of erosion.

Key words: Benggang, Gramineae, herb plant, root architecture, principal component analysis

李思诗, 司晓静, 蒋芳市, 林金石, 蔡学智, 吴俣, 黄炎和. 长汀县崩岗区8种禾本科植物根系构型特征[J]. 草业学报, 2018, 27(10): 215-222.

LI Si-shi, SI Xiao-jing, JIANG Fang-shi, LIN Jin-shi, CAI Xue-zhi, WU Yu, HUANG Yan-he. Root architecture of eight Gramineae plant species in the Benggang area of Changting County[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2018, 27(10): 215-222.

参考文献

[1] Liang Y, Ning D H, Pan X Z, et al. Characteristic and management of dilapidated granite erosion of red soil region in south. Soil and Water Conservation in China, 2009, 30(1): 31-34.
梁音, 宁堆虎, 潘贤章, 等. 南方红壤区崩岗侵蚀的特点与治理. 中国水土保持, 2009, 30(1): 31-34.
[2] Jiang F S, Huang Y H, Wang M K, et al. Effects of rainfall intensity and slope gradient on steep colluvial deposit erosion in Southeast China. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 2014, 78(5): 1741-1752.
[3] Lin J S, Huang Y H, Wang M K, et al. Assessing the sources of sediment transported in gully systems using a fingerprinting approach: An example from South-east China. Catena, 2015, 129(2): 9-17.
[4] Chen Z M, Xu Y M, Li C L.Mode of management for dilapidated granite and effect of implementation of Anxi County. Soil and Water Conservation in China, 2007, (3): 15-17.
陈志明, 许永明, 李翠玲. 安溪县崩岗治理模式及实施效果. 中国水土保持, 2007, (3): 15-17.
[5] Yue H, Zeng H S, Chen Z B.Research on bio-governing of collapsing hill in the erosion area of Hetian township. Subtropical Soil and Water Conservation, 2005, 17(1): 13-14, 28.
岳辉, 曾河水, 陈志彪. 河田侵蚀区崩岗的生物治理研究. 亚热带水土保持, 2005, 17(1): 13-14, 28.
[6] Pregitzer K S, Deforest J L, Burton A J, et al. Fine root architecture of nine north American trees. Ecological Monographs, 2002, 72(2): 293-309.
[7] Mao Q Z, Yang X T, Miao L.The ecological roles and influencing factors of plant root architecture. Henan Science, 2008, 26(2): 172-176.
毛齐正, 杨喜田, 苗蕾. 植物根系构型的生态功能及其影响因素. 河南科学, 2008, 26(2): 172-176.
[8] Zhang T.Advances in the latest research methods of ecological root architecture. Resources Economization and Environmental Protection, 2016, (4): 172-173.
张通. 生态根系构型最新研究方法进展. 资源节约与环保, 2016, (4): 172-173.
[9] Zhou Y S, Wang L Q, Zhang P, et al. Responses of the root architecture of Stipa grandis to grassland degradation. Pratacultural Science, 2011, 28(11): 1962-1966.
周艳松, 王立群, 张鹏, 等. 大针茅根系构型对草地退化的响应. 草业科学, 2011, 28(11): 1962-1966.
[10] Du J H, Liu A L, Dong Y X, et al. Architectural characteristics of roots in typical coastal psammophytes of South China. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 2014, 38(8): 888-895.
杜建会, 刘安隆, 董玉祥, 等. 华南海岸典型沙生植物根系构型特征. 植物生态学报, 2014, 38(8): 888-895.
[11] Shan L S, Li Y, Ren W, et al. Root architecture of two desert plants in central Hexi Corridor of Northwest China. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2013, 24(1): 25-31.
单立山, 李毅, 任伟, 等. 河西走廊中部两种荒漠植物根系构型特征. 应用生态学报, 2013, 24(1): 25-31.
[12] Wang X F, Wang Z Y, Liang J H, et al. Study on the root architecture of cespitose plants in the grassland of Inner Mongolia. Journal of Inner Mongolia Agricultural University (Natural Science Edition), 2013, 34(3): 77-82.
王旭峰, 王占义, 梁金华, 等. 内蒙古草地丛生型植物根系构型的研究. 内蒙古农业大学学报(自然科学版), 2013, 34(3): 77-82.
[13] Yao S G, Taketa S, Ichii M.A novel short-root gene that affects specifically early root development in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Plant Science, 2002, 163(2): 207-215.
[14] Cui H, Li L Y, Xie X L, et al. Differences in root architecture of several Stylosanthes genotypes and their phosphorus efficiency. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2013, 22(5): 265-271.
崔航, 李立颖, 谢小林, 等. 不同基因型柱花草的根系构型差异及其磷效率. 草业学报, 2013, 22(5): 265-271.
[15] Chen Z B, Zhu H J, Liu Q, et al. Slump gully characteristic of small watershed of Genxi River and its control measures. Journal of Natural Disasters, 2006, 15(5): 83-88.
陈志彪, 朱鹤健, 刘强, 等. 根溪河小流域的崩岗特征及其治理措施. 自然灾害学报, 2006, 15(5): 83-88.
[16] He K W, Huang Y H, Jiang F S, et al. Effects of two types of herb plants’ roots on soil moisture in the alluvial soil in Changting County. Science of Soil and Water Conservation, 2017, 15(4): 25-34.
何恺文, 黄炎和, 蒋芳市, 等. 2种草本植物根系对长汀县崩岗洪积扇土壤水分状况的影响. 中国水土保持科学, 2017, 15(4): 25-34.
[17] Liang J H, Wang L Q, Qi Z X, et al. Study on the root architecture of common axis-rooted type plants in the grassland of Inner Mongolia. Journal of Inner Mongolia Agricultural University (Natural Science Edition), 2012, 33(3): 62-66.
梁金华, 王立群, 齐智鑫, 等. 内蒙古草地常见轴根型植物根系构型参数的研究. 内蒙古农业大学学报(自然科学版), 2012, 33(3): 62-66.
[18] Bohm W.Methods of studying root systems. Beijing: Science Press, 1985: 153-156.
伯姆W. 根系研究法. 北京: 科学出版社, 1985: 153-156.
[19] Xiong Y M, Xia H P, Li Z A, et al. Effects and mechanisms of plant roots on slope reinforcement and soil erosion resistance: A research review. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2007, 18(4): 895-904.
熊燕梅, 夏汉平, 李志安, 等. 植物根系固坡抗蚀的效应与机理研究进展. 应用生态学报, 2007, 18(4): 895-904.
[20] Chen S K.Statistical analysis of SPSS from beginner to mastery (3 Edition). Beijing: Tsinghua University Press, 2015: 344-359.
陈胜可. SPSS统计分析从入门到精通(第三版). 北京: 清华大学出版社, 2015: 344-359.
[21] Ge R L, Liu Y Q, Zuo Z Y, et al. Principal component analysis about the main mechanical factors of soil-reinforcement by roots. Journal of Inner Mongolia Agricultural University (Natural Science Edition), 2015, 36(6): 39-47.
格日乐, 刘艳琦, 左志严, 等. 根系固土主要力学因子的主成分分析. 内蒙古农业大学学报(自然科学版), 2015, 36(6): 39-47.
[22] Zhang G F, Jiang X H, Cui Y B.The research and application progress of Vetiveria zizanioioles. Pratacultural Science, 2005, 22(1): 73-78.
张国发, 姜旭红, 崔玉波. 香根草研究与应用进展. 草业科学, 2005, 22(1): 73-78.
[23] Xia H P, Liu S Z.Study on screening for excellent ecotypes of Vetiveria zizanioides. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2003, 12(2): 97-105.
夏汉平, 刘世忠. 香根草优良生态型筛选研究. 草业学报, 2003, 12(2): 97-105.

长汀县崩岗区8种禾本科植物根系构型特征

Root architecture of eight Gramineae plant species in the Benggang area of Changting County

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 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

[1]	郭剑波, 赵国强, 贾书刚, 董俊夫, 陈龙, 王淑平. 施肥对高寒草原草地质量指数及土壤性质影响的综合评价[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(9): 85-93.
[2]	王苗苗, 周向睿, 梁国玲, 赵桂琴, 焦润安, 柴继宽, 高雪梅, 李娟宁. 5份燕麦材料苗期耐盐性综合评价[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(8): 143-154.
[3]	雷雄, 游明鸿, 白史且, 陈丽丽, 邓培华, 熊毅, 熊艳丽, 余青青, 马啸, 杨建, 张昌兵. 川西北高原50份燕麦种质农艺性状遗传多样性分析及综合评价[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(7): 131-142.
[4]	刘江, 吕涛, 张立欣, 叶丽娜, 刘向阳, 代香荣, 王伟伟, 丁茹. 基于主成分分析的不同种植年限甘草地土壤质量评价[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(6): 162-171.
[5]	谢开云, 曹凯, 万江春, 王玉祥, 赵云, 朱进忠. 新疆半干旱区不同豆科/禾本科牧草混播草地生产力的变化研究[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(4): 29-40.
[6]	陈有军, 董全民, 周青平. 不同水分和土壤处理对糙毛以礼草苗期根系构型和根鞘形成的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(3): 60-69.
[7]	谢开云, 王玉祥, 万江春, 张树振, 隋晓青, 赵云, 张博. 混播草地中豆科/禾本科牧草氮转移机理及其影响因素[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(3): 157-170.
[8]	柳书俊, 姚新转, 赵德刚, 吕立堂. 湄潭茶园土壤养分特征及肥力质量评价[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(11): 33-45.
[9]	许爱云, 曹兵, 谢云. 干旱风沙区煤炭基地12种草本植物对干旱胁迫的生理生态响应及抗旱性评价[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(10): 22-34.
[10]	朱亚琼, 于辉, 郑伟, 黎松松, 娜尔克孜, 刘岳含, 郝帅, 艾丽菲热. 燕麦+箭筈豌豆混播草地混播优势的测度与影响因素分析[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(1): 74-85.
[11]	胡娜, 李葆春, 姚立蓉, 汪军成, 边秀秀, 侯静静, 司二静, 杨轲, 孟亚雄, 马小乐, 王化俊. 不同重金属胁迫对盐生草种子萌发特性的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(6): 66-81.
[12]	王建丽, 马利超, 申忠宝, 刘杰淋, 朱瑞芬, 韩微波, 钟鹏, 邸桂俐, 韩贵清, 郭长虹. 基于遗传多样性评估燕麦品种的农艺性状[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(2): 133-141.
[13]	李宝栋, 邓宇, 孙海洲, 赵瑞霞, 萨其仍贵, 李晓燕, 红敏, 桑丹, 张春华, 任晓萍. 巴林右旗干草原主要牧草的营养成分季节动态与饱和链烷烃组成结构的研究[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(12): 159-168.
[14]	刘玉祯, 曹文侠, 王金兰, 李文, 辛雨琼, 王世林, 王小军. 祁连山东段不同类型灌丛斑块土壤特征对围封的响应[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(11): 32-45.
[15]	夏璎凡, 介冬梅, 李德晖, 周沛芳, 宋丽娜, 蒙萌, 蒋雪纯. 东北森林区与草原区草本植物群落植硅体组合特征的对比研究[J]. 草业学报, 2018, 27(3): 44-56.