草业学报 ›› 2023, Vol. 32 ›› Issue (5): 50-60.DOI: 10.11686/cyxb2022203
丰吉1(), 刘志扩1, 李海燕1(), 杨允菲1, 郭健2
收稿日期:
2022-05-06
修回日期:
2022-06-08
出版日期:
2023-05-20
发布日期:
2023-03-20
通讯作者:
李海燕
作者简介:
E-mail: lihy697@nenu.edu.cn基金资助:
Ji FENG1(), Zhi-kuo LIU1, Hai-yan LI1(), Yun-fei YANG1, Jian GUO2
Received:
2022-05-06
Revised:
2022-06-08
Online:
2023-05-20
Published:
2023-03-20
Contact:
Hai-yan LI
摘要:
营养繁殖是无性系禾草维持种群更新的主要方式之一,产生的潜在种群在预测种群空间结构和动态中发挥着重要作用。围栏封育和长期刈割等利用方式可以直接或间接影响植物的生长发育和繁殖策略。本研究以松嫩草地常见优势种羊草和伴生种野古草为研究对象,对围栏封育和长期刈割下两种禾草的分蘖节与根茎产生潜在种群的组成、大小和营养繁殖力进行对比分析。结果表明:两种利用方式下两种禾草的潜在种群均由分蘖节与根茎产生的芽和苗组成。羊草和野古草潜在种群分别由3和2个龄级组成,均为1龄潜在种群所占比例最高。相比围栏封育,长期刈割显著促进两种禾草分蘖节和根茎上的芽输出成苗,并且对羊草的促进作用高于野古草,羊草的分蘖节与根茎产生的总苗数在两种利用方式下均显著高于野古草。长期刈割显著促进羊草潜在种群的形成,不利于野古草潜在种群的形成。长期刈割能促进两种禾草种群的分株和根茎营养繁殖力,但未达到显著水平。羊草在围栏封育中采取产生大量芽和部分苗以增加潜在种群、在长期刈割中采取产生大量苗以顺利越冬成株的营养繁殖对策;野古草在围栏封育中采取只产生芽、而在长期刈割中采取产生相近比例芽和苗的营养繁殖对策。总的来说,两种利用方式下羊草与野古草种群均采取年轻龄级分蘖节与根茎具有更旺盛营养繁殖力以及长期刈割促进苗形成的相同适应策略,同时两种禾草在形成潜在种群比例上又存在着营养繁殖对策的差异,这可能是其分别成为本研究区内优势种和伴生种的主要原因之一。
丰吉, 刘志扩, 李海燕, 杨允菲, 郭健. 围栏封育和长期刈割对松嫩草地羊草和野古草种群营养繁殖特征的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2023, 32(5): 50-60.
Ji FENG, Zhi-kuo LIU, Hai-yan LI, Yun-fei YANG, Jian GUO. Effects of enclosure and long-term mowing on vegetative reproduction characteristics of Leymus chinensis and Arundinella hirta populations in the Songnen Grassland, China[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2023, 32(5): 50-60.
因素Factor | U | S | A | U×S | U×A | S×A | U×S×A |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
芽数Bud number | 6.89* | 14.44* | 61.90* | 0.89 | 3.89* | 24.00* | 0.77 |
苗数Juvenile tiller number | 94.54* | 74.16* | 60.61* | 37.81* | 44.68* | 11.22* | 6.87* |
表1 利用方式、物种和龄级对羊草和野古草分株潜在种群数量影响的三因素方差分析
Table 1 Three-way ANOVA for utilization types, species, age classes and their interaction on the sizes in potential population of tillers of L. chinensis and A. hirta (F value)
因素Factor | U | S | A | U×S | U×A | S×A | U×S×A |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
芽数Bud number | 6.89* | 14.44* | 61.90* | 0.89 | 3.89* | 24.00* | 0.77 |
苗数Juvenile tiller number | 94.54* | 74.16* | 60.61* | 37.81* | 44.68* | 11.22* | 6.87* |
数量 Number (ind·m-2) | 分株龄级 Tiller age class (a) | 围栏封育Enclosure | 长期刈割Long-term mowing | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
羊草L. chinensis | 野古草A. hirta | 羊草L. chinensis | 野古草A. hirta | ||
分蘖节芽Tiller buds | 1 | 218.6±31.9a,#,## | 578.6±89.0a | 64.0±13.7a | 416.0±105.0a,## |
2 | 149.3±16.3b,#,## | 40.0±10.7b | 45.3±19.5ab | 56.0±29.7b | |
3 | 32.0±5.8c,## | 0c | 16.0±10.1b | 0b | |
分蘖节苗Juvenile tillers | 1 | 58.6±20.9a,#,## | 0 | 517.3±51.3a | 208.0±52.7a,#,## |
2 | 40.0±11.5a,#,## | 0 | 264.0±38.9b | 34.6±25.6ab,## | |
3 | 16.0±5.8a,#,## | 0 | 98.6±19.5c | 0b,## |
表2 不同利用方式下羊草和野古草分株潜在种群的组成和数量
Table 2 Composition and size of the potential population of tillers of L. chinensis and A. hirta under different utilization types (mean±SE, n=6)
数量 Number (ind·m-2) | 分株龄级 Tiller age class (a) | 围栏封育Enclosure | 长期刈割Long-term mowing | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
羊草L. chinensis | 野古草A. hirta | 羊草L. chinensis | 野古草A. hirta | ||
分蘖节芽Tiller buds | 1 | 218.6±31.9a,#,## | 578.6±89.0a | 64.0±13.7a | 416.0±105.0a,## |
2 | 149.3±16.3b,#,## | 40.0±10.7b | 45.3±19.5ab | 56.0±29.7b | |
3 | 32.0±5.8c,## | 0c | 16.0±10.1b | 0b | |
分蘖节苗Juvenile tillers | 1 | 58.6±20.9a,#,## | 0 | 517.3±51.3a | 208.0±52.7a,#,## |
2 | 40.0±11.5a,#,## | 0 | 264.0±38.9b | 34.6±25.6ab,## | |
3 | 16.0±5.8a,#,## | 0 | 98.6±19.5c | 0b,## |
因素Factor | U | S | A | U×S | U×A | S×A | U×S×A |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
芽数Bud number | 22.93* | 7.76* | 91.08* | 64.76* | 45.80* | 90.65* | 28.97* |
苗数Juvenile tiller number | 50.26* | 11.89* | 49.88* | 6.96* | 39.80* | 4.19* | 2.55 |
表3 利用方式、物种和龄级对羊草和野古草根茎潜在种群数量影响的三因素方差分析
Table 3 Three-way ANOVA for utilization types, species, age classes and their interaction on the sizes in potential population of rhizome of L. chinensis and A. hirta (F value)
因素Factor | U | S | A | U×S | U×A | S×A | U×S×A |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
芽数Bud number | 22.93* | 7.76* | 91.08* | 64.76* | 45.80* | 90.65* | 28.97* |
苗数Juvenile tiller number | 50.26* | 11.89* | 49.88* | 6.96* | 39.80* | 4.19* | 2.55 |
根茎龄级 Rhizome age class (a) | 潜在种群 Potential population | 围栏封育Enclosure | 长期刈割Long-term mowing | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
羊草L. chinensis | 野古草A. hirta | 羊草L. chinensis | 野古草A. hirta | ||
1 | 顶端芽Top bud | 120.0±33.4a,## | 1160.0±112.5a | 50.6±17.2b | 282.6±42.8a,#,## |
节间芽Internode bud | 56.0±14.1a,#,## | 0b | 389.3±82.1a | 0b, ## | |
2 | 节间芽Internode bud | 69.3±22.1a,## | 0b | 106.6±22.1b | 2.6±2.6b,## |
3 | 节间芽Internode bud | 37.3±9.8a,#,## | 0b | 5.3±5.3b | 0b |
4 | 节间芽Internode bud | 0a | 0b | 0b | 0b |
1 | 顶端苗Top juvenile tiller | 40.0±10.7a,#,## | 0 | 445.3±66.2a | 258.6±62.5a,# |
节间苗Internode juvenile tiller | 0b | 0 | 93.3±37.2b | 0b | |
2 | 节间苗Internode juvenile tiller | 0b | 0 | 2.6±2.6b | 2.6±2.6b |
3 | 节间苗Internode juvenile tiller | 0b | 0 | 0b | 0b |
4 | 节间苗Internode juvenile tiller | 0b | 0 | 0b | 0b |
表4 不同利用方式下羊草和野古草根茎潜在种群的组成和数量
Table 4 Composition and size of the potential population of rhizomes of L. chinensis and A. hirta under different utilization types (mean±SE, n=6, ind·m-2)
根茎龄级 Rhizome age class (a) | 潜在种群 Potential population | 围栏封育Enclosure | 长期刈割Long-term mowing | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
羊草L. chinensis | 野古草A. hirta | 羊草L. chinensis | 野古草A. hirta | ||
1 | 顶端芽Top bud | 120.0±33.4a,## | 1160.0±112.5a | 50.6±17.2b | 282.6±42.8a,#,## |
节间芽Internode bud | 56.0±14.1a,#,## | 0b | 389.3±82.1a | 0b, ## | |
2 | 节间芽Internode bud | 69.3±22.1a,## | 0b | 106.6±22.1b | 2.6±2.6b,## |
3 | 节间芽Internode bud | 37.3±9.8a,#,## | 0b | 5.3±5.3b | 0b |
4 | 节间芽Internode bud | 0a | 0b | 0b | 0b |
1 | 顶端苗Top juvenile tiller | 40.0±10.7a,#,## | 0 | 445.3±66.2a | 258.6±62.5a,# |
节间苗Internode juvenile tiller | 0b | 0 | 93.3±37.2b | 0b | |
2 | 节间苗Internode juvenile tiller | 0b | 0 | 2.6±2.6b | 2.6±2.6b |
3 | 节间苗Internode juvenile tiller | 0b | 0 | 0b | 0b |
4 | 节间苗Internode juvenile tiller | 0b | 0 | 0b | 0b |
因素Factor | U | S | A | U×S | U×A | S×A | U×S×A |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
分株营养繁殖力Tiller vegetative propagation capacity | 16.48* | 0.02 | 8.02* | 2.15 | 1.82 | 4.49* | 2.32 |
根茎营养繁殖力Rhizome vegetative propagation capacity | 10.26* | 28.19* | 89.70* | 0.07 | 5.85* | 29.45* | 0.01 |
表5 利用方式、物种和龄级对羊草和野古草营养繁殖力影响的三因素方差分析
Table 5 Three-way ANOVA for utilization types, species, age classes and their interaction on the vegetative propagation capacity of L. chinensis and A. hirta (F value)
因素Factor | U | S | A | U×S | U×A | S×A | U×S×A |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
分株营养繁殖力Tiller vegetative propagation capacity | 16.48* | 0.02 | 8.02* | 2.15 | 1.82 | 4.49* | 2.32 |
根茎营养繁殖力Rhizome vegetative propagation capacity | 10.26* | 28.19* | 89.70* | 0.07 | 5.85* | 29.45* | 0.01 |
图1 不同利用方式下羊草和野古草种群分株营养繁殖力和根茎营养繁殖力不同小写字母表示各龄级间差异显著(P<0.05),不同大写字母表示同一物种相同龄级在两种利用方式间差异显著(P<0.05)。Different lowercase letters indicated significant differences at 0.05 level among age classes. Different capital letters indicated that the same species and age classes had significant differences at 0.05 level between two utilization types. 由于长期刈割下野古草种群未发现3 a分株和4 a根茎,因此,图1B中3 a的分株营养繁殖力和图1D中4 a的根茎营养繁殖力不参与显著性比较。Because of the absence of 3rd age class tiller and 4rd age class rhizome in the A. hirta populations under long-term mowing, the vegetative propagation capacity of 3rd age class tiller in Figure 1B and 4rd age class rhizome in Figure 1D did not participate in significance comparison.
Fig.1 Vegetative propagation capacity of tillers and rhizomes in L. chinensis and A. hirta populations under different utilization types (mean±SE, n=6)
潜在种群 Potential population | 围栏封育Enclosure | 长期刈割Long-term mowing | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
羊草L. chinensis | 野古草A. hirta | 羊草L. chinensis | 野古草A. hirta | |
分蘖节芽数 Tiller buds number | 400.0±46.6# | 618.6±97.0 | 125.3±37.7 | 472.0±121.5## |
根茎芽数 Rhizome buds number | 282.6±57.0#,## | 1160.0±112.6 | 552.0±101.8 | 285.3±43.0#,## |
总计 Total | 682.7±70.1## | 1778.6±145.0 | 677.3±98.7 | 757.3±145.0# |
分蘖节苗数 Juvenile tillers number of tiller | 114.6±28.7#,## | 0 | 880.0±86.5 | 242.6±58.2#,## |
根茎苗数 Juvenile tillers number of rhizome | 40.0±10.7#,## | 0 | 541.3±85.6 | 261.3±62.5#,## |
总计 Total | 154.7±36.6#,## | 0 | 1421.3±153.7 | 504.0±36.6#,## |
分株潜在种群 Tiller potential population | 514.6±32.1# | 618.6±97.0 | 1005.3±98.8 | 714.6±174.4 |
根茎潜在种群 Rhizome potential population | 322.6±62.7#,## | 1160.0±112.6 | 1093.3±162.9 | 546.6±88.0#,## |
总计 Total | 837.3±68.7#,## | 1778.7±145.0 | 2098.7±195.9 | 1261.3±212.6## |
表6 不同利用方式下羊草和野古草潜在种群数量组成
Table 6 Potential population composition of L. chinensis and A. hirta under different utilization types (mean±SE, n=6, ind·m-2)
潜在种群 Potential population | 围栏封育Enclosure | 长期刈割Long-term mowing | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
羊草L. chinensis | 野古草A. hirta | 羊草L. chinensis | 野古草A. hirta | |
分蘖节芽数 Tiller buds number | 400.0±46.6# | 618.6±97.0 | 125.3±37.7 | 472.0±121.5## |
根茎芽数 Rhizome buds number | 282.6±57.0#,## | 1160.0±112.6 | 552.0±101.8 | 285.3±43.0#,## |
总计 Total | 682.7±70.1## | 1778.6±145.0 | 677.3±98.7 | 757.3±145.0# |
分蘖节苗数 Juvenile tillers number of tiller | 114.6±28.7#,## | 0 | 880.0±86.5 | 242.6±58.2#,## |
根茎苗数 Juvenile tillers number of rhizome | 40.0±10.7#,## | 0 | 541.3±85.6 | 261.3±62.5#,## |
总计 Total | 154.7±36.6#,## | 0 | 1421.3±153.7 | 504.0±36.6#,## |
分株潜在种群 Tiller potential population | 514.6±32.1# | 618.6±97.0 | 1005.3±98.8 | 714.6±174.4 |
根茎潜在种群 Rhizome potential population | 322.6±62.7#,## | 1160.0±112.6 | 1093.3±162.9 | 546.6±88.0#,## |
总计 Total | 837.3±68.7#,## | 1778.7±145.0 | 2098.7±195.9 | 1261.3±212.6## |
因素Factor | U | S | U×S |
---|---|---|---|
芽数Bud number | 18.60* | 24.40* | 18.21* |
苗数Juvenile tiller number | 99.74* | 36.56* | 18.50* |
潜在种群总数Total potential population | 5.06* | 0.10 | 28.90* |
表7 利用方式和物种对羊草和野古草潜在种群数量影响的二因素方差分析
Table 7 Two-way ANOVA for utilization types, species and their interaction on the sizes in potential population of L. chinensis and A. hirta (F value)
因素Factor | U | S | U×S |
---|---|---|---|
芽数Bud number | 18.60* | 24.40* | 18.21* |
苗数Juvenile tiller number | 99.74* | 36.56* | 18.50* |
潜在种群总数Total potential population | 5.06* | 0.10 | 28.90* |
图2 不同利用方式下羊草和野古草潜在种群数量占比T: 分株潜在种群 Tiller potential population; R: 根茎潜在种群 Rhizome potential population; Total: 总潜在种群 Total potential population.
Fig.2 The proportion of the potential population of L. chinensis and A. hirta under different utilization types (mean±SE, n=6)
1 | Li H Y. Quantitative characters and mutual dynamics of several plant populations during restoration succession in degraded meadow in Northeastern China. Changchun: Northeast Normal University, 2008. |
李海燕. 东北退化草原恢复演替过程中几种植物种群的数量特征及其协同消长规律. 长春: 东北师范大学, 2008. | |
2 | Abernethy V J, Willby N J. Changes along a disturbance gradient in the density and composition of propagule banks in floodplain aquatic habitats. Plant Ecology, 1999, 140: 177-190. |
3 | Chen Y Q. Population dynamics of both Leymus chinensis and Carex duriuscula in the series of restoration succession in Northeast degradation grassland. Changchun: Northeast Normal University, 2012. |
陈永强. 东北退化草原恢复演替系列羊草和寸草苔种群动态. 长春: 东北师范大学, 2012. | |
4 | Pausas J G, Lamont B B, Paula S, et al. Unearthing belowground bud banks in fire-prone ecosystems. New Phytologist, 2018, 217: 1435-1448. |
5 | Qian J Q, Wang Z W, Klimesova J, et al. Belowground bud bank and its relationship with aboveground vegetation under watering and nitrogen addition in temperate semiarid steppe. Ecological Indicators, 2021, 125: 107520. |
6 | Te N W, Guo Z Y, Liu D, et al. Responses of belowground bud bank to simulated extreme drought in the meadow steppe of Inner Mongolia. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2021, 40(3): 759-765. |
特尼乌, 郭子月, 刘丹, 等. 内蒙古草甸草原地下芽库对极端干旱的响应. 生态学杂志, 2021, 40(3): 759-765. | |
7 | Ott J P, Klimesova J, Hartnett D C. The ecology and significance of below-ground bud banks in plants. Annals of Botany, 2019, 123: 1099-1118. |
8 | Qian J Q, Wang Z W, Klimesova J, et al. Differences in below-ground bud bank density and composition along a climatic gradient in the temperate steppe of northern China. Annals of Botany, 2017, 120: 755-764. |
9 | Ma Q, Qian J Q, Tian L, et al. Responses of belowground bud bank to disturbance and stress in the sand dune ecosystem. Ecological Indicators, 2019, 106: 105521. |
10 | Yang L L, Gong J R, Wang Y H, et al. Effects of grazing intensity and grazing exclusion on litter decomposition in the temperate steppe of Nei Mongol, China. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 2016, 40(8): 748-759. |
杨丽丽, 龚吉蕊, 王忆慧, 等. 内蒙古温带草原不同放牧强度和围栏封育对凋落物分解的影响. 植物生态学报, 2016, 40(8): 748-759. | |
11 | Zuo W Q, Wang Y H, Wang F Y, et al. Effects of enclosure on the community characteristics of Leymus chinensis in degenerated steppe. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2009, 18(3): 12-19. |
左万庆, 王玉辉, 王风玉, 等. 围栏封育措施对退化羊草草原植物群落特征影响研究. 草业学报, 2009, 18(3): 12-19. | |
12 | Pan S Y, Kong B B, Yao T H, et al. Effects of clipping and fertilizing on the relationship between functional diversity and aboveground net primary productivity in an alpine meadow. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 2015, 39(9): 867-877. |
潘石玉, 孔彬彬, 姚天华, 等. 刈割和施肥对高寒草甸功能多样性与地上净初级生产力关系的影响. 植物生态学报, 2015, 39(9): 867-877. | |
13 | Wang Z R, Yang S, Ma R A, et al. Responses of soil physicochemical properties and microbial characteristics to mowing and nitrogen addition in a meadow steppe in Inner Mongolia, China. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2019, 30(9): 3010-3018. |
王志瑞, 杨山, 马锐骜, 等. 内蒙古草甸草原土壤理化性质和微生物学特性对刈割与氮添加的响应. 应用生态学报, 2019, 30(9): 3010-3018. | |
14 | Bai T X, Liu A N, Hao B T, et al. Dynamic change mechanism of aboveground biomass of Leymus chinensis grassland under cutting and no-cutting system. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2017, 39(6): 65-71. |
白天晓, 刘安娜, 郝匕台, 等. 刈割制度下羊草草原地上生物量的动态变化机制. 中国草地学报, 2017, 39(6): 65-71. | |
15 | Liao W B, Nan Z B, Zhang M L. Effects of cutting on grass growth. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2008(5): 96-105. |
廖伟彪, 南志标, 张美玲. 刈割对禾草生长的影响. 中国草地学报, 2008(5): 96-105. | |
16 | Yan R R, Zhang Y, Xin X P, et al. Effects of mowing disturbance on grassland plant functional groups and diversity in Leymus chinensis meadow steppe. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2020, 53(13): 2573-2583. |
闫瑞瑞, 张宇, 辛晓平, 等. 刈割干扰对羊草草甸草原植物功能群及多样性的影响. 中国农业科学, 2020, 53(13): 2573-2583. | |
17 | Sheng J, Zhu Y, Li H Y, et al. Comparison of module structures of Hierochloe glabra populations in heterogeneous habitats in Songnen Plain of China. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2018, 40(5): 36-42. |
盛军, 朱瑶, 李海燕, 等. 松嫩平原异质生境光稃茅香种群构件结构的比较. 中国草地学报, 2018, 40(5): 36-42. | |
18 | Li C C. Structure and interactivity on two populations both Arundinella hirta and Leymus chinensis in mixed communities in the Songnen Meadow. Changchun: Northeast Normal University, 2014. |
李程程. 松嫩草原混生群落野古草和羊草种群的结构与动态. 长春: 东北师范大学, 2014. | |
19 | Li H. Studies on the reproductive characteristics and convergent adaptation theory of rhizome grass population in Songnen Plain. Changchun: Northeast Normal University, 2002. |
李红. 松嫩平原根茎型禾草种群的繁殖特性及趋同适应机理研究. 长春: 东北师范大学, 2002. | |
20 | Sheng J, Zhu Y, Li H Y, et al. Effects of long-term mowing and enclosure on module traits of Spodiopogon sibiricus population. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2018, 26(3): 545-550. |
盛军, 朱瑶, 李海燕, 等. 长期刈割及围栏封育方式对大油芒种群构件特征的影响. 草地学报, 2018, 26(3): 545-550. | |
21 | Bai W Y, Hou X Y, Wu Z N, et al. Phenotypic variations among Leymus chinensis populations from different geographical areas and effects of variations on clonal propagation of the rhizome. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2020, 29(12): 86-94. |
白乌云, 侯向阳, 武自念, 等. 羊草不同地理种群表型变异及其对根茎克隆繁殖的影响. 草业学报, 2020, 29(12): 86-94. | |
22 | Chu L S, Li H Y, Yang Y F. Vegetative reproduction characteristics of Leymus chinensis in heterogeneous habitats in Songnen Plain, China. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2020, 31(1): 83-88. |
初丽爽, 李海燕, 杨允菲. 松嫩平原异质生境羊草种群营养繁殖特征. 应用生态学报, 2020, 31(1): 83-88. | |
23 | Wang Y. Effects of mowing disturbance and saline-alkali stress on spatial expansion of Leymus chinensis clones with different densities. Changchun: Northeast Normal University, 2017. |
王营. 刈割干扰与盐碱胁迫对不同密度羊草无性系空间拓展的影响. 长春: 东北师范大学, 2017. | |
24 | Li Z M, Wu J F, Han Q, et al. Nitrogen and litter addition decreased sexual reproduction and increased clonal propagation in grasslands. Oecologia, 2021, 195: 131-144. |
25 | Liu L, Zuo S N, Ma M Y, et al. Appropriate nitrogen addition regulates reproductive strategies of Leymus chinensis. Global Ecology and Conservation, 2021, 27: e01599. |
26 | Li C C, Li H Y, Yang Y F. Dynamics of module structures on Arundinella hirta populations in Songnen Plains of China. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2015, 35(8): 2609-2615. |
李程程, 李海燕, 杨允菲. 松嫩平原野古草种群构件结构动态. 生态学报, 2015, 35(8): 2609-2615. | |
27 | Yang Y F, Zhang H J, Zhang B T. Propagation of Arundinella hirta clonal population in Songnen Plain of China. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 1998(1): 3-5. |
杨允菲, 张洪军, 张宝田. 松嫩平原野古草无性系种群的营养繁殖特征. 草业学报, 1998(1): 3-5. | |
28 | Zhang J H, Wang R Y, Li H Y, et al. Age structure of Leymus chinensis population modules in different habitats of Songnen Plain. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2020, 42(4): 73-78. |
张嘉恒, 王柔懿, 李海燕, 等. 松嫩平原不同生境羊草种群构件的年龄结构. 中国草地学报, 2020, 42(4): 73-78. | |
29 | Yang Y F, Zheng H Y, Li J D. Methods of study on age structures of clonal populations in rhizome type grass. Journal of Northeast Normal University (Natural Science), 1998(1): 54-58. |
杨允菲, 郑慧莹, 李建东. 根茎禾草无性系种群年龄结构的研究方法. 东北师大学报(自然科学版), 1998(1): 54-58. | |
30 | Jin X M, Lan X, Guan Q X, et al. The strategy of asexual reproduction for population of Leymus chinensis under different densities. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2017, 25(4): 845-850. |
金晓明, 兰雪, 官庆新, 等. 不同密度下羊草种群的无性繁殖对策. 草地学报, 2017, 25(4): 845-850. | |
31 | Zhang J T, Xu A K, Mu C S, et al. Occurrence and output of all types of belowground buds of Leymus chinensis and the dynamics of formation and maintenance of aboveground shoots. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2009, 18(4): 54-60. |
张继涛, 徐安凯, 穆春生, 等. 羊草种群各类地下芽的发生、输出与地上植株的形成、维持动态. 草业学报, 2009, 18(4): 54-60. | |
32 | Jin X M, Liu J D, Lu X S, et al. Relationship between vegetative potential populations and actual populations of Agropyron michnoi. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2012, 21(6): 228-234. |
金晓明, 刘及东, 卢欣石, 等. 米氏冰草营养繁殖潜在种群与现实种群的关系. 草业学报, 2012, 21(6): 228-234. | |
33 | Yang Y F, Zhu L. Analysis of winter dormancy characters of vegetative forms in fifteen perennial grass species populations in Songnen Plain of China. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 1994(2): 26-31. |
杨允菲, 祝玲. 松嫩平原十五种多年生禾草种群营养繁殖体冬眠特性的分析. 草业学报, 1994(2): 26-31. | |
34 | Bai W Y, Hou X Y, Wu Z N, et al. Advances in studies on morphological plasticity of Leymus chinensis rhizome. Pratacultural Science, 2019, 36(3): 821-834. |
白乌云, 侯向阳, 武自念, 等. 羊草根茎克隆形态可塑性研究进展. 草业科学, 2019, 36(3): 821-834. | |
35 | Jiao D Z, Wang Y S, Yang Y F. Seasonal dynamics of rhizome modules in different age classes of Phragmites australis populations in the Zhalong Wetland. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2019, 39(15): 5616-5626. |
焦德志, 王昱深, 杨允菲. 扎龙湿地芦苇种群不同龄级根茎构件的季节动态. 生态学报, 2019, 39(15): 5616-5626. | |
36 | Yang Y F, Wei C Y, Zhang B T, et al. Dynamics of bud flow and bud bank of Phragmites communis population in dry land habitat of alkalinized meadow in the Songnen Plains of China. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2005(5): 854-858. |
杨允菲, 魏春雁, 张宝田, 等. 松嫩平原碱化草甸旱地生境芦苇种群的芽流和芽库动态. 应用生态学报, 2005(5): 854-858. | |
37 | Yan H, Zhao W, Yin S J, et al. Different physiological responses of Aneurolepidium chinense to NaCl and Na2CO3. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2006(6): 49-55. |
颜宏, 赵伟, 尹尚军, 等. 羊草对不同盐碱胁迫的生理响应. 草业学报, 2006(6): 49-55. |
[1] | 周泽东, 马晖玲, 韩煦, 李元恒, 李西良, 李坤娜. 温性典型草原羊草光合特性对模拟放牧因素分解的响应[J]. 草业学报, 2022, 31(8): 81-89. |
[2] | 赵成振, 李强, 钟荣珍. 不同物候期刈割对羊草再生和根形态及产量的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2022, 31(3): 92-100. |
[3] | 郭丰辉, 丁勇, 马文静, 李贤松, 李西良, 侯向阳. 母体放牧经历对羊草克隆后代干旱敏感性的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(8): 119-126. |
[4] | 张丽星, 海春兴, 常耀文, 高晓媚, 高文邦, 解云虎. 羊草及芨芨草草原和西北针茅草原土壤质量评价[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(4): 68-79. |
[5] | 张超, 闫瑞瑞, 梁庆伟, 娜日苏, 李彤, 杨秀芳, 包玉海, 辛晓平. 不同利用方式下草地土壤理化性质及碳、氮固持研究[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(4): 90-98. |
[6] | 李倩, 李晓霞, 程丽琴, 陈双燕, 齐冬梅, 杨伟光, 高利军, 新巴音, 刘公社. 羊草LcCBF6基因的表达特性和功能研究[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(10): 105-115. |
[7] | 漫静, 唐波, 邓波, 李佳欢, 何玉娟, 张佳良. 羊草根际促生菌的分离筛选及促生作用研究[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(1): 59-71. |
[8] | 马涛, 吕文强, 李泽霞, 陈爱华, 董彦丽. 黄土高原丘陵沟壑区轮作休耕模式下5种土地利用方式土壤剖面水分分布特征[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(7): 30-39. |
[9] | 李茹霞, 耿元波. 应用13C同位素标记法区分羊草草原生态系统呼吸[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(6): 56-70. |
[10] | 伏兵哲, 周燕飞, 李雪, 倪彪, 高雪芹. 宁夏引黄灌区羊草水肥耦合效应研究[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(5): 98-108. |
[11] | 周鹏鹏, 舒英格, 陈忠柳, 陈青松. 喀斯特山区不同土地利用方式下石灰土化学风化特性[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(12): 38-49. |
[12] | 白乌云, 侯向阳, 武自念, 田春育, 丁勇. 羊草不同地理种群表型变异及其对根茎克隆繁殖的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(12): 86-94. |
[13] | 王英逵, 杨玉荣, 王德利. 盐碱胁迫下AMF对羊草的离子吸收和分配作用[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(12): 95-104. |
[14] | 宋月媛, 杨允菲. 松嫩平原林缘草地羽茅无性系构件结构与生长分析[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(7): 168-174. |
[15] | 任伟忠, 高艳霞, 李秋凤, 曹玉凤, 李建国. 全株玉米青贮、谷草和羊草组合全混合日粮饲喂干奶前期奶牛对其围产期生产性能和血液生化及免疫指标的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(12): 124-136. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||