不同暖季型草坪草种耐淹性能评价

doi:10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2014.05.017

草地学报 ›› 2014, Vol. 22 ›› Issue (5): 1021-1030.DOI: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2014.05.017

不同暖季型草坪草种耐淹性能评价

高艳芝^1,2, 宗俊勤², 孟璠², 陈静波², 赵瑞霜¹, 刘建秀²

1. 南京农业大学园艺学院, 江苏南京 210095;
2. 江苏省中国科学院植物研究所(南京中山植物园), 江苏南京 210014

收稿日期:2013-12-13 修回日期:2014-02-26 出版日期:2014-10-15 发布日期:2014-09-30
通讯作者: 刘建秀
作者简介:高艳芝（1987-），女，山西吕梁人，硕士研究生，主要从事草坪草抗性生理方面的研究，E-mail：gaoyanzhijiao@163.com；
基金资助:
国家科技重大专项课题研究专题（2012ZX07101-005）；江苏省水利厅项目（2011076）资助

Evaluating Submergence Tolerance of Different Warm-season Turfgrass Cultivars

GAO Yan-zhi^1,2, ZONG Jun-qin², MENG Fan², CHEN Jing-bo², ZHAO Rui-shuang¹, LIU Jian-xiu²

1. College of Horticulture, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province 210095, China;
2. Institute of Botany, Jiangsu Province &Chinese Academy of Science, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province 210014, China

Received:2013-12-13 Revised:2014-02-26 Online:2014-10-15 Published:2014-09-30

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为明确我国南方河岸带广泛分布的几种植物在其原始生境季节性淹水胁迫下的生长情况，设置对照（不进行水淹，常规供水管理）、半淹（水位刚好淹没土面）和全淹（水位淹没并高于植株7 cm）3个处理，时间为30 d，利用相对修剪干重、相对恢复干重、相对地上部分干重和相对根系干重等指标，对几种暖季型草坪草的水淹胁迫下生长情况进行综合评价。结果表明：不同草坪草资源的耐淹性差异明显，在半淹处理30 d后，耐淹性由强到弱依次为伪针茅（Pseudoraphis spinescens）>双穗雀稗（Paspalum distichum）>杂交狗牙根（Cynodon dactylon×C. transvaalensis） >假俭草（Eremochloa ophiuroides）>海滨雀稗（Paspalum vaginatum）>狗牙根（Cynodon dactylon）；在全淹处理30 d后，伪针茅和双穗雀稗的耐淹性最好，其植株能够迅速长出水面，而其余草种一直淹没在水中生长受到严重抑制，几乎停滞，综合分析后得到全淹处理下耐淹性由强到弱为伪针茅>双穗雀稗>杂交狗牙根>狗牙根> 海滨雀稗>假俭草。同一种草坪草资源在半淹胁迫下其生长受到的伤害明显小于全淹胁迫，而不同生境的同种草坪草其耐水淹能力亦存在明显差异。表明伪针茅PX02、双穗雀稗P018、双穗雀稗P019、双穗雀稗P020、杂交狗牙根C751、杂交狗牙根C807及狗牙根C291具有较强的耐淹性，是理想的河岸带植被重建植物资源。

关键词: 草坪草, 种质资源, 河岸带, 耐淹性, 评价

Abstract:

To determine the growth of several warm-season turfgrass cultivars which are naturally distributed in riparian zone after seasonal submergence, Three growth conditions of plants including complete submergence for 30 d (all plants growing under water with 7 cm higher than plant height), partial submergence (water flooding soil surface) and a control (no submergence) are designed. Relative clipping dry weight (RCDW), relative recovery dry weight (RRDW), relative shoot dry weight (RSDW) and relative root dry weight (RDW) are investigated in order to evaluate the submergence tolerance of several warm-season turfgrasses. The results of comprehensive evaluation show that P. spinescens and P. distichum are submergence-tolerance species and able to grow quickly under water. The submergence tolerances of turfgrasses are significant difference among different species. The submergence tolerances of turfgrasses with partial submergence for 30 days are ordered as P. spinescens>P. distichum>C. transvaalensis×C. dactylon>E. ophiuroides>P. vaginatum>C. dactylon, whereas the submergence tolerance of these species with complete submergence are ordered as P. spinescens>P. distichum>C. transvaalensis×C. dactylon>C. dactylon>P. vaginatum>E. ophiuroides. The submergence tolerance of the same species differs from different habitats. The growth of turfgrass is harmed significantly in complete submergence more than in partial submergence situation. The final results show that PX02 (P. spinescens), P018 (P. distichum), P019 (P. distichum), C751 ‘Tifdwarf’, C807 ‘Tifway’ and C291 (C. dactylon) have strong resistance to submergence, and are the ideal materials of vegetation reconstruction in natural riparian zone.

Key words: Turfgrass, Resources, Riparian zone, Submergence tolerance, Evaluation

中图分类号:

高艳芝, 宗俊勤, 孟璠, 陈静波, 赵瑞霜, 刘建秀. 不同暖季型草坪草种耐淹性能评价[J]. 草地学报, 2014, 22(5): 1021-1030.

GAO Yan-zhi, ZONG Jun-qin, MENG Fan, CHEN Jing-bo, ZHAO Rui-shuang, LIU Jian-xiu. Evaluating Submergence Tolerance of Different Warm-season Turfgrass Cultivars[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2014, 22(5): 1021-1030.

0
/ / 推荐

导出引用管理器 EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

链接本文: https://manu40.magtech.com.cn/Jweb_cdxb/CN/10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2014.05.017

https://manu40.magtech.com.cn/Jweb_cdxb/CN/Y2014/V22/I5/1021

参考文献

[1] Bagstad K J, Stromberg J C, Lite S J. Response of herbaceous riparian plants to rain and flooding on the San Pedro River, Arizona, USA [J]. Wetlands,2005,25(1):210-223
[2] Kinley T A, Newhouse N J. Relationship of riparian reserve zone width to bird density and diversity in southeastern British Columbia [J]. Northwest Science,1997,71(2):75-86
[3] 邓红兵,王青春,王庆礼. 河岸植被缓冲带与河岸带管理[J]. 应用生态学报,2001,12(6):951-954
[4] 胡化广,张振铭,沈晓华. 5种草坪草对水涝胁迫的反应及耐涝评价[J]. 草地学报,2011,19(2):253-256
[5] 姜爱军,周学东,周桂香,等. 长江下游异常雨涝及其对农业影响的评估[J]. 地理学报,2000,55(S):46-51
[6] Kotschy K, Rogers K. Reed clonal characteristics and response to disturbance in a semi-arid river [J]. Aquatic Botany, 2008,88(1):47-56
[7] 刘可心,李科云,杨知建. 耐淹性草种的研究进展[J]. 草业科学,2008,25(7):11-18
[8] Jones H E, Etherington J R. Comparative studies of plant growth and distribution in relation to waterlogging: I.The survival of Erica cinerea and E. tetralix and its apparent relationship to iron and manganese uptake in waterlogged soil [J]. Journal of Ecology,1970,58(2):487-496
[9] Cooper A. The effects of salinity and waterlogging on the growth and cation uptake of salt-marsh plants [J]. New Phytologist,1982,90(2)：263-275
[10] Fry J D. Submersion tolerance of warm-season turfgrasses [J]. HortScience,1991,26(7):927
[11] Baruch Z. Responses to drought and flooding in tropical forage grasses [J]. Plant and Soil,1994,164(1):87-96
[12] Liao J, Jiang M, Li L. Effects of simulated submergence on survival and recovery growth of three species in water fluctuation zone of the Three Gorges reservoir [J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica,2010,30(4):216-220
[13] 谭淑端,朱明勇,张克荣,等. 水淹对双穗雀稗抗氧化酶活性及碳水化合物含量的影响[J]. 草业学报,2013,22(1):217-224
[14] 谭淑端,张守君,张克荣,等. 长期深淹对三峡库区三种草本植物的恢复生长及光合特性的影响[J]. 武汉植物学研究,2009,27(4):391-396
[15] 谭淑端,朱明勇,党海山,等. 三峡库区狗牙根对深淹胁迫的生理响应[J]. 生态学报,2009,29(7):3685-3691
[16] Mommer L, Lenssen J P M, Huber H, et al. Ecophysiological determinants of plant performance under flooding: a comparative study of seven plant families [J]. Journal of Ecology,2006,94(6):1117-1129
[17] 时明芝,周保松. 植物涝害和耐涝机理研究进展[J]. 安徽农业科学,2006,34(2):209-210
[18] 李娅,曾波,叶小齐,等. 水淹对三峡库区岸生植物秋华柳 (Salix variegata Franch.) 存活和恢复生长的影响[J]. 生态学报,2008,28(5):1923-1930
[19] Schlichting C D. The evolution of phenotypic plasticity in plants [J]. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics,1986,17:667-693
[20] Poorter H, Niklas K J, Reich P B, et al. Biomass allocation to leaves, stems and roots: meta-analyses of interspecific variation and environmental control [J]. New Phytologist,2012,193(1):30-50
[21] 金茜,王瑞,周向睿,等. 水淹胁迫对紫穗槐生长及营养元素积累的影响[J]. 草业科学,2013,30(6):904-909
[22] Striker G G. Time is on our side: The importance of considering a recovery period when assessing flooding tolerance in plants [J]. Ecological Research,2012,27(5):983-987
[23] Voesenek L, Rijnders J, Peeters A J M, et al. Plant hormones regulate fast shoot elongation under water: From genes to communities [J]. Ecology,2004,85(1):16-27
[24] Chen X, Huber H, de Kroon H, et al. Intraspecific variation in the magnitude and pattern of flooding-induced shoot elongation in Rumex palustris [J] .Annals of botany,2009,104(6):1057-1067
[25] Bailey-Serres J, Voesenek L. Flooding stress: Acclimations and genetic diversity [J]. Annual Review of Plant Biology,2008,59:313-339
[26] Bailey-Serres J, Voesenek L. Life in the balance: A signaling network controlling survival of flooding [J]. Current Opinion in Plant Biology,2010,13(5):489-494
[27] Malik A I, Colmer T D, Lambers H, et al. Short-term waterlogging has long-term effects on the growth and physiology of wheat [J]. New Phytologist,2002,153(2):225-236
[28] Real D, Warden J, Sandral G A, et al. Waterlogging tolerance and recovery of 10 Lotus species [J]. Animal Production Science,2008,48(4):480-487
[29] Armstrong W, Brndle R, Jackson M B. Mechanisms of flood tolerance in plants [J]. Acta Botanica Neerlandica, 1994,43(4):307-358
[30] 董登峰,骆炳山. 小麦苗期和孕穗期涝渍的某些生理特性比较研究[J]. 广西农业大学学报,1998,17(4):351-355
[31] Vashisht D, Hesselink A, Pierik R, et al. Natural variation of submergence tolerance among Arabidopsis thaliana accessions [J]. New Phytologist,2011,190(2):299-310
[32] Voesenek L, Colmer T D, Pierik R, et al. How plants cope with complete submergence [J]. New Phytologist,2006,170(2):213-226
[33] 刘友良. 植物水分逆境生理[M]. 北京:农业出版社,1992
[34] Jackson M B, Ram P C. Physiological and molecular basis of susceptibility and tolerance of rice plants to complete submergence [J]. Annals of Botany,2003,91(2):227-241
[35] 李玉昌,李阳生,李绍清. 淹涝胁迫对水稻生长发育危害与耐淹性机理研究的进展[J]. 中国水稻科学,1998,12(S1):70-76
[36] Okamoto G, Ueki K, Imai T, et al. A comparative study of drought and excess-water tolerance in Vitis coignetiae and several table grapes grown in Japan [J]. Scientific Reports of the Faculty of Agriculture,2004,93(1):39-43
[37] 汤聪,郭微,蔡桂芬,等. 高温高湿环境佛甲草栽培基质的研制[J]. 草业科学,2013,30(3):334-340
[38] Imaz J A, Giménez D O, Grimoldi A A, et al. The effects of submergence on anatomical, morphological and biomass allocation responses of tropical grasses Chloris gayana and Panicum coloratum at seedling stage [J]. Crop and Pasture Science,2013,63(12):1145-1155
[39] Mollard F P O, Striker G G, Ploschuk E L, et al. Subtle topographical differences along a floodplain promote different plant strategies among Paspalum dilatatum subspecies and populations [J]. Austral Ecology,2010,35(2):189-196

不同暖季型草坪草种耐淹性能评价

Evaluating Submergence Tolerance of Different Warm-season Turfgrass Cultivars

PDF

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

本文评价

[1]	杜建雄, 任尉香, 袁涓文, 黄慧琼, 刘杰, 肖玉. 汞胁迫对4个草坪草、牧草品种幼苗生长和生理的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(8): 1712-1718.
[2]	孙伟, 刘玉玲, 王德平, 赵敏, 杨合龙, 宋倩, 肖红, 王开丽, 曹婧, 戎郁萍. 补播羊草和黄花苜蓿对退化草甸植物群落特征的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(8): 1809-1817.
[3]	陈志祥, 罗小燕, 李拴林, 吴如月, 王文强, 丁西朋. 基于SSR标记的木豆种质资源遗传多样性与群体结构分析[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(5): 904-911.
[4]	李满有, 马忠仁, 王斌, 杨雨琦, 沈笑天, 曹立娟, 李小云, 兰剑. 宁夏引黄灌区2个苜蓿品种不同行比混播模式研究[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(4): 798-804.
[5]	尹玉林, 马文馨, 李亚娟, 田新会, 杜文华. 甘肃省中部地区猫尾草新品系的抗寒性研究[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(3): 625-630.
[6]	安明珠, 韩博, 姜华, 段新慧, 文亦芾, 周凯. 鸭茅物种起源与系统发育分析研究进展[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(12): 2637-2644.
[7]	谢楠, 刘振宇, 冯伟, 智健飞, 李梦, 杜姿璇, 刘忠宽. 饲用谷子在环渤海盐碱旱地的生产性能及饲用品质评价[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(1): 60-71.
[8]	南铭, 景芳, 边芳, 任生兰, 刘彦明. 6个裸燕麦品种在甘肃中部引洮灌区的生产性能及饲用价值比较[J]. 草地学报, 2020, 28(6): 1635-1642.
[9]	李钰莹, 刘娜, 荆则尧, 温伟, 曹磊, 夏方山, 朱慧森. 黄花蒿浸提液对4种草坪草种子萌发及幼苗生长的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2020, 28(5): 1285-1293.
[10]	李佳欢, 刘希强, 吕进英, 任成, 王开丽, 黄顶, 邓波, 王堃. 基于植株各器官生理响应对12种苜蓿抗旱性的综合评价[J]. 草地学报, 2020, 28(5): 1319-1328.
[11]	贾祥, 多吉格桑, 赵爱民, 张文才, 曲尼加措, 拉巴卓玛, 普布次仁, 苗彦军. 4种禾本科牧草苗期抗寒性综合评价[J]. 草地学报, 2020, 28(5): 1372-1378.
[12]	武瑞鑫, 李源, 游永亮, 刘贵波, 赵海明. 紫花苜蓿全生育期抗旱性鉴定评价方法探讨[J]. 草地学报, 2020, 28(5): 1444-1453.
[13]	崔会婷, 孙熙喏, 马承泽, 胡倩楠, 孙彦. 代谢组学在牧草与草坪草抗逆性中的研究进展[J]. 草地学报, 2020, 28(4): 873-880.
[14]	邓素芳, 黄水珍, 郑向丽, 应朝阳. 满江红属植物的有机肥品质评价[J]. 草地学报, 2020, 28(4): 932-939.
[15]	刘小慧, 王重丽, 王梦茹, 郇恒福, 刘一明, 刘国道. 圭亚那柱花草苗期抗旱性评价及抗旱种质鉴定[J]. 草地学报, 2020, 28(4): 956-967.