[1]唐生森,唐鑫,吴东山,等.不同马尾松家系抗旱性评价[J].森林与环境学报,2018,38(02):222-228.[doi:10.13324/j.cnki.jfcf.2018.02.015]
 TANG Shengsen,TANG Xin,WU Dongshan,et al.Drought resistance comparison of different Pinus massoniana family[J].,2018,38(02):222-228.[doi:10.13324/j.cnki.jfcf.2018.02.015]
点击复制

不同马尾松家系抗旱性评价()
分享到:

《森林与环境学报》[ISSN:2096-0018/CN:35-1327/S]

卷:
38
期数:
2018年02期
页码:
222-228
栏目:
出版日期:
2018-04-11

文章信息/Info

Title:
Drought resistance comparison of different Pinus massoniana family
作者:
唐生森12 唐鑫3 吴东山14 杨章旗12
1. 广西壮族自治区林业科学研究院, 广西 南宁 530002;
2. 国家林业局马尾松工程技术研究中心, 广西 南宁 530002;
3. 广西国有雅长林场, 广西 百色 533209;
4. 广西马尾松工程技术研究中心, 广西 南宁 530002
Author(s):
TANG Shengsen12 TANG Xin3 WU Dongshan14 YANG Zhangqi12
1. Guangxi Institute of Forestry Science, Nanning, Guangxi 530002, China;
2. Masson Pine Engineering Technology Research Center of State Forestry Administration, Nanning, Guangxi 530002, China;
3. Guangxi State Yachang Forest Farm, Baise, Guangxi 533209, China;
4. Masson Pine Engineering Technology Research Center of Guangxi, Nanning, Guangxi 530002, China
关键词:
马尾松家系抗旱性干旱胁迫田间鉴定
Keywords:
Pinus massoniana familydrought resistancedrought stressfield identification
分类号:
S728.2
DOI:
10.13324/j.cnki.jfcf.2018.02.015
摘要:
以183个马尾松优良家系苗木为试验材料,结合干旱池反复干旱法和田间鉴定法筛选抗旱材料。结果表明:反复干旱胁迫下,50%苗木永久萎蔫时,各家系马尾松苗木萎蔫度分布区间为60.8%~100.0%,均值为(85.0±8.2)%;胁迫结束后,马尾松家系苗木存活率差异很大,在0.0%~100%之间,均值为(56.1±23.0)%;各马尾松家系萎蔫度与存活率极显著负相关,说明这两个指标评价结果一致。用于田间鉴定的20个马尾松家系中,耐旱性较好的10个家系树高生长量、保存率分别较耐旱性较差的10个家系高出18.3%、18.7%,均差异极显著;20个马尾松家系的苗木萎蔫度、存活率,造林保存率、树高生长量共4个评价指标均显著相关或极显著相关。以苗木存活率、造林保存率、林木树高生长量作为马尾松家系抗旱性评价指标,采用隶属函数法对初选的20个家系抗旱性进行综合评价。结果表明,苗木耐旱性强的马尾松家系较苗木耐旱性弱的家系抗旱,其抗旱性排名分别为P-8 > P-43 > P-39 > P-41 > P-26 > N-62 > P-16 > T-3 > P-18 > P-30 > T-15 > T-4 > T-17 > N-64 > N-67 > N-22 > Q-7 > T-6 > P-25 > T-14,以P-8家系抗旱性表现最佳、T-14抗旱性表现最差。
Abstract:
Drought-resistant of 183 Pinus massoniana families were screened by the combination of repeated drought and field identification methods. The results showed that, when 50% seedlings were permanent wilting under repeated drought stress, the wilting degree distribution of the seedlings was 60.8%-100.0% and the mean value was (85.0±8.2)%. After the treatment, the survival rate of the seedlings was varied among 0%-100% with mean value of (56.1±23.0)%, and the witheriness index of the P. massoniana family was significantly negatively correlated with survival rate which indicating that the evaluation results of 2 indexes were consistent. Among the 20 species of P. massoniana families, the tree height of 10 families with better drought resistance was 18.3% and 18.7% higher than the 10 families with poor drought resistance. The results showed that there were significant correlations or highly significant correlations among the four evaluation indexes, including the survival rate, survival rate of afforestation and tree height growth rate of the 20 families. The drought resistance of 20 families was evaluated by the membership function method, and the results suggests that the drought resistance of the seedlings could be ranked by the followings:P-8 > P-43 > P-39 > P-41 > P-26 > N-62 > P-16 > T-3 > P-18 > P-30 > T-15 > T-4 > T-17 > N-64 > N-67 > N-22 > Q-7 > T-6 > P-25 > T-14, P-8 perform best against drought resistance while T-14 perform weakest.

参考文献/References:

[1] 罗应华,孙冬婧,林建勇,等.马尾松人工林近自然化改造对植物自然更新及物种多样性的影响[J].生态学报,2013,33(19):6154-6162.
[2] 李耀先,陈翠敏,林墨.广西区域干旱的分析研究[J].热带气象学报,2009,25(S1):125-131.
[3] XU Z Z,ZHOU G S,SHIMIZU H.Plant responses to drought and rewatering[J].Plant Signaling & Behavior,2010,5(6):649-654.
[4] AROCA A.Plant responses to drought stress:from morphological to molecular features[M].Berlin:Springer,2012.
[5] LIPIEC J,DOUSSAN C,NOSALEWICZ A,et al.Effect of drought and heat stresses on plant growth and yield:a review[J].International Agrophysics,2013,27(4):463-477.
[6] 喻方圆,刘建兵,胡晓健.马尾松苗木中松醇的分布及其对干旱胁迫的响应[J].南京林业大学学报(自然科学版),2009,33(2):13-16.
[7] 韩文萍,丁贵杰,鲍斌.不同种源马尾松对干旱胁迫的生理生态响应[J].中南林业科技大学学报,2012,32(5):25-29.
[8] YU F Y,GUY R D.Variable chlorophyll fluorescence in response to water plus heat stress treatments in three coniferous tree seedlings[J].Journal of Forestry Research,2004,15(1):24-28.
[9] 施积炎,丁贵杰,袁小凤.不同家系马尾松苗木水分参数的研究[J].林业科学,2004,40(3):51-55.
[10] 王艺,丁贵杰.干旱胁迫下外生菌根真菌对马尾松幼苗生长和微量元素吸收的影响[J].浙江农林大学学报,2012,29(6):822-828.
[11] 徐超,吴小芹.根部细胞质外体微环境调节对菌根化马尾松抗旱能力的影响[J].林业科技开发,2013,27(2):33-36.
[12] 宋微,吴小芹.13种菌根真菌对松苗生长及耐旱性的影响[J].林业实用技术,2009(4):6-8.
[13] 徐超,吴小芹,张红岩.D-精氨酸对菌根化马尾松植株内源多胺和抗旱能力的影响[J].南京林业大学学报(自然科学版),2009,33(4):19-23.
[14] 黎裕.作物抗旱鉴定方法与指标[J].干旱地区农业研究,1993,11(1):91-99.
[15] 季孔庶,孙志勇,方彦.林木抗旱性研究进展[J].南京林业大学学报(自然科学版),2006,30(6):123-128.
[16] 翟春梅,王赞,邓波,等.紫花苜蓿苗期抗旱性鉴定指标筛选及综合评价[J].干旱地区农业研究,2008,26(6):167-172.
[17] 孙宪芝,郑成淑,王秀峰.木本植物抗旱机理研究进展[J].西北植物学报,2007,27(3):629-634.
[18] 徐婷婷,毕江涛,马飞.毛乌素沙地2种锦鸡儿属植物的光合生理特性[J].森林与环境学报,2016,36(1):48-53.

相似文献/References:

[1]胡肖肖,金荷仙,庄晓林,等.4个杜鹃品种的抗旱性比较及生理响应[J].森林与环境学报,2017,37(04):405.[doi:10.13324/j.cnki.jfcf.2017.04.004]
 HU Xiaoxiao,JIN Hexian,ZHUANG Xiaolin,et al.Drought resistance difference and physiological response of 4 Rhododendron cultivars[J].,2017,37(02):405.[doi:10.13324/j.cnki.jfcf.2017.04.004]

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:
收稿日期:2017-09-05;改回日期:2017-11-01。
基金项目:广西林业科技项目(桂林科字[2016]第1号);八桂学者专项(2011A015);广西科技项目(桂科AD16380010);中央财政林业科技推广示范资金项目([2016]TG09号)。
作者简介:唐生森(1986-),男,助理工程师,从事森林培育研究。Email:18154552916@163.com。
通讯作者:杨章旗(1964-),男,教授级高级工程师,从事林木遗传育种学研究。Email:yangzhangqi@163.com
更新日期/Last Update: 1900-01-01