研究论文

涝渍胁迫对矾根生长和生理特性的影响

  • 兰梦云
展开
  • (贵州大学林学院,贵州 贵阳 550025)

收稿日期: 2025-04-16

  录用日期: 2025-06-17

  网络出版日期: 2025-10-13

基金资助

贵州大学研究生重点课程建设项目“山地城市绿地系统规划”(ZDKC[2017001])

Effects of Waterlogging Stress on the Growth and Physiological Characteristics of Heuchera micrantha

  • LAN Meng-yun
Expand
  • (School of Forestry, Guizhou University, Guiyang 550025, Guizhou China)

Received date: 2025-04-16

  Accepted date: 2025-06-17

  Online published: 2025-10-13

摘要

通过人工模拟涝渍试验,探究矾根Heuchera micrantha生长和生理特性对水分胁迫的响应。结果表明,涝渍胁迫下,矾根株高和叶片的生长速度均小于对照;在胁迫5~10 d,矾根鲜重和干重均显著大于对照;胁迫15~25 d,鲜重和干重均显著小于对照。叶片内超氧化物歧化酶(SOD)和过氧化物酶(POD)活性、可溶性糖和可溶性蛋白含量以及根系活力随着涝渍胁迫时间增加呈先上升后下降趋势,过氧化氢酶(CAT)活性在胁迫过程中变化趋势较平稳且维持较高水平。随着涝渍胁迫时间增加,矾根叶片光合色素含量表现为叶绿素a含量呈先上升后下降趋势,叶绿素b含量和总叶绿素含量呈波动变化,类胡萝卜素含量呈逐渐上升趋势。生理指标之间达显著(P<0.05)或极显著(P<0.01)相关性的数量在对照组中分别占指标总数的12.12%和9.09%,在渍水组中分别占9.09%和7.58%;淹水组中分别占18.18%和4.55%。不同淹水深度下,矾根株高和叶片生长受到不同程度抑制,淹水越深抑制作用越明显;短期的涝渍胁迫对矾根鲜重和干重有促进作用,而随着胁迫时间增加,鲜重和干重会显著减少且表现为淹水组<渍水组<CK;而各生理指标对不同淹水深度的响应规律具有差异性。

关键词: 矾根; 涝渍胁迫; 形态; 生理

本文引用格式

兰梦云 . 涝渍胁迫对矾根生长和生理特性的影响[J]. 亚热带植物科学, 2025 , 54(4) : 408 -419 . DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-7791.2025.04.005

Abstract

This study conducted artificial simulated waterlogging stress experiments to explore the growth and physiological responses of Heuchera micrantha to waterlogging stress, aiming to provide a theoretical basis for its application and management in garden greening. The results showed that the growth rates of plant height and leaves in H. micrantha were lower under waterlogging stress than those in the control group. During the 5–10 days of stress, the fresh weight and dry weight of H. micrantha were significantly higher than those of the control group; however, from day 15 to day 25 of stress, both fresh weight and dry weight were significantly lower than those of the control group. The activities of superoxide dismutase (SOD) and peroxidase (POD), and contents of soluble sugar, soluble protein in leaves, and root activity exhibited a trend of first increasing and then decreasing with the prolongation of waterlogging stress. Catalase (CAT) maintained a relatively high activity level with a stable trend throughout the stress period. For photosynthetic pigment contents, chlorophyll a showed a pattern of initial increase followed by decrease, chlorophyll b and total chlorophyll fluctuated, and carotenoid content gradually increased as waterlogging stress duration extended. Correlation analysis indicated that the proportions of significantly (P<0.05) and extremely significantly (P<0.01) correlated physiological indices were 12.12% and 9.09% in the control group, 9.09% and 7.58% in the waterlogging group, and 18.18% and 4.55% in the flooding group, respectively. Above all, plant height and leaf growth of H. micrantha were inhibited to varying degrees under different waterlogging depths, with more pronounced inhibition observed at greater depths. Short-term waterlogging stress promoted fresh weight and dry weight, but prolonged stress led to significant reductions, following the order: flooding group < waterlogging group < control group. Physiological indices displayed diverse response patterns to different waterlogging depths, providing a scientific theoretical foundation for the application and management of H. micrantha in urban garden greening.

参考文献

[1] 刘玲, 沙奕卓, 白月明. 中国主要农业气象灾害区域分布与减灾对策[J]. 自然灾害学报, 2003, 12(2): 92–97.
[2] Chao W. Study on strategy planning of sponge city construction in Guizhou Province from the view of resilient city [J]. IOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science, 2020, 495(1): 012040.
[3] Halecki W, Stachura T, Fudaa W, Stec A, Kuboń S. Assessment and planning of green spaces in urban parks: A review [J]. Sustainable Cities and Society, 2022, 88(1): 104280.
[4] 赵楚, 张岳, 辛建攀, 田如男. 水分胁迫对棱角山矾生长和生理的影响[J]. 东北林业大学学报, 2021, 49(5): 12–18.
[5] Ashraf M A. Waterlogging stress in plants: A review [J]. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 2012, 7(13): 1976–1981.
[6] Yin D, Chen S, Chen F, Guan Z, Fang W. Morpho-anatomical and physiological responses of two Dendranthema species to waterlogging [J]. Environmental & Experimental Botany, 2010, 68(2): 122–130.
[7] 周鑫, 胡红玲, 胡庭兴, 杨珊珊, 陈玉凤. 涝渍胁迫对桢楠幼树生长及光合生理的影响[J]. 西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版), 2018, 46(9): 67–74,80.
[8] 周琴, 董艳, 卞雅姣, 韩亮亮, 田一丹. 不同渍水时间对苗期和花期大豆生长及碳氮代谢的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2012, 23(6): 1577–1584.
[9] 杨华庚, 黎彬, 李娜, 杨毅敏, 吴有根. 胡椒扦插苗对涝渍胁迫的生理响应[J]. 生物技术进展, 2023, 13(4): 565–574.
[10] 夏斌, 刘莹, 胡尚春, 赵景伟, 岳桦. 水淹胁迫对虎尾草生理指标的影响[J]. 东北林业大学学报, 2019, 47(7): 31–36.
[11] 张晓燕. 涝渍胁迫对白蜡、枫杨和黄连木生长与生理的影响[J]. 西北林学院学报, 2017, 32(6): 96–100.
[12] 张往祥, 张晓燕, 曹福亮, 汪贵斌, 岳具玺. 涝渍胁迫下3个树种幼苗生理特性的响应[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2011, 35(5): 11–15.
[13] 郑佳秋, 顾闽峰, 郭军, 祖艳侠, 吴永成. 涝渍胁迫下辣椒的生理特性[J]. 江苏农业学报, 2012, 28(3): 617–621.
[14] Parent C, Michèle C, Capelli N, Dat J F. Contrasting growth and adaptive responses of two oak species to flooding stress: role of non-symbiotic hemoglobin [J]. Plant Cell & Environment, 2011, 34(7): 1113–1126.
[15] 仲磊, 张焕朝, 范俊俊, 张丹丹, 江皓. 夏季淹水胁迫对北美枫香苗木叶色及光合荧光特性的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2021, 45(2): 69–76.
[16] Soltis D E, Kuzoff R K. Discordance Between Nuclear and Chloroplast Phylogenies in the Group (Saxifragaceae) [J]. Evolution,1995, 49(4): 727–742.
[17] 殷丽青, 谢苗, 孙翊, 蔡友铭, 张永春, 李青竹. 彩叶植物矾根的研究进展[J]. 上海农业学报, 2018, 34(1): 138–143.
[18] 郑素兰, 林莹, 黄宇, 刘磊. 高温胁迫对2个矾根盆栽品种生理特性的影响[J]. 闽南师范大学学报(自然科学版), 2021, 34(1): 114–118.
[19] 马村艺, 郝春磊, 张黎. 聚乙二醇模拟干旱胁迫对矾根组培苗生理特性的影响[J]. 分子植物育种, 2023, 21(22): 7524–7530.
[20] 王建强, 邓永成. 低温胁迫对银叶菊和矾根抗寒生理指标的比较研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2014, 30(7): 224–227.
[21] 庄舒尧, 许恒博, 胡骁彧, 戴上, 张彦妮. 盐碱胁迫对彩叶矾根‘银扇’幼苗生长和生理特性的影响[J]. 植物研究, 2023, 43(4): 520–530.
[22] 朱志国. 锌胁迫对矾根生理生化响应及富集作用的影响[J]. 芜湖职业技术学院学报, 2020, 22(4): 11–14.
[23] 杜克兵, 彭婵, 赵天宇, 黄国伟, 马林江, 张新叶. 滇楸优良无性系对水淹胁迫的生理响应及综合评价[J]. 中南林业科技大学学报, 2021, 41(6): 1–10.
[24] 梁芳, 黄秋伟, 於艳萍, 梁惠, 黄秋艳, 刘细妹, 陈秋佑, 檀小辉. 濒危半红树植物玉蕊对盐胁迫的生理响应及其相关性分析[J]. 中南林业科技大学学报, 2019, 39(10): 12–18.
[25] Crane J, Davies F S. Flooding responses of Vaccinium species [J]. HortScience,1989(24): 203–210.
[26] 刘泽彬, 程瑞梅, 肖文发, 郭泉水, 王晓荣, 封晓辉. 淹水对三峡库区消落带香附子生长及光合特性的影响[J]. 生态学杂志, 2013, 32(8): 2015–2022.
[27] 赵宏光, 寻路路, 梁宗锁, 韦美膛, 刘峰华, 韩蕊莲. 土壤水分含量对三七叶片生长、抗氧化酶活性及渗透调节物质含量的影响[J].西北农业学报, 2013, 22(12): 159–163.
[28] 庞世龙, 欧芷阳, 申文辉, 郝海坤, 彭玉华. 干旱胁迫对蚬木幼苗表型可塑性的影响[J]. 中南林业科技大学学报, 2017, 37(5): 21–25.
[29] Damanik R I, Maziah M, Ismail M R, Ahmad S, Zain A M. Responses of the antioxidative enzymes in Malaysian rice (Oryza sativa L.) cultivars under submergence condition [J]. Acta Physiologiae Plantarum, 2010, 32(4): 739–747.
[30] 汪贵斌, 曹福亮, 王媛. 涝渍对3个树种生长、组织孔隙度和渗漏氧的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2012, 36(9): 982–991.
[31] 赵东晓, 董亚茹, 孙景诗, 杜建勋, 陈传杰, 娄齐平, 梁明芝, 王照红. 淹水胁迫对桑树幼苗生长和生理特性的影响[J]. 山东农业科学, 2018, 50(11): 55–57,65.
[32] 李文静, 朱进, 彭玉全, 黄兴学, 周国林. 淹水胁迫对油麦菜生长、生理和解剖结构的影响[J]. 植物生理学报, 2020, 56(10): 2233–2240.
[33] 王华. 淹水胁迫对不结球白菜形态特征及生理生化特性的影响[D]. 南京: 南京农业大学硕士学位论文, 2013.
[34] 杨杰, 杜雅雯, 李懿鑫, 戴远浩, 刘国元, 陈艳红, 张健. 淹水对13种乔木柳插条表型和生理指标的影响[J]. 西北林学院学报, 2022, 37(3): 95–104.
[35] 周鑫. 涝渍胁迫对桢楠幼苗生长及生理特性的影响[D]. 雅安: 四川农业大学硕士学位论文, 2019.
[36] Tanveer M , Shahzad B , Sharma A , Khan E A. 24-Epibrassinolide application in plants: An implication for improving drought stress tolerance in plants [J]. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, 2019(135): 295–303.
[37] 史典义, 刘忠香, 金危危. 植物叶绿素合成、分解代谢及信号调控[J]. 遗传, 2009, 31(7): 698–704.
[38] 张晓平, 王沁峰, 方炎明, 张敏. 淹水胁迫对浙江种源鹅掌楸光合特征的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2007(3): 136–138.
[39] Willekens H, Van Camp W, Van Montagu M, Inzé D, Langebartels C, Sandermann Jr H. Ozone, sulfur dioxide, and ultraviolet B have similar effects on mRNA accumulation of antioxidant genes in Nicotiana plumbaginifolia L [J]. Plant Physiology, 1994, 106(3): 1007–1014.
[40] Morales M, Munne-Bosch S. Malondialdehyde: facts and artifacts [J]. Plant Physiology, 2019(3): 180.
[41] 金艺, 李旭, 傅松玲, 苏文会, 范少辉, 景雄, 储昊煜, 倪惠菁. 水淹胁迫下的水竹根系生理响应与适应特征[J]. 安徽农业大学学报, 2021, 48(1): 1–8.
[42] 许令明. 水分条件对花叶芦竹生长及生理的影响[D]. 南昌: 江西师范大学硕士学位论文, 2020.
[43] 陈菲, 曲彦婷, 李黎, 熊燕, 张天姝, 韩辉. 淹水胁迫对溪荪生长及生理指标的影响[J]. 北方园艺, 2021(13): 73–77.
[44] 王新英, 史军辉, 刘茂秀, 白丽丽, 艾吉尔?阿不拉. 洪水漫溢对塔里木河中游天然胡杨林叶渗透调节物质及抗氧化酶活性的影响[J]. 干旱区研究, 2020, 37(6): 1544–1551.
[45] 徐嘉宝, 宋珂, 倪岳, 史锋厚, 韩彪, 鲁仪增, 沈永宝. 淹水胁迫对墨西哥落羽杉苗木生理生化特性的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2023, 39(5): 49–54.
[46] 张乖乖, 简敏菲, 熊小英, 余厚平, 倪才英. 模拟水淹条件下乐安河河岸带优势植物丁香蓼生理生化指标的响应[J]. 应用与环境生物学报, 2019, 25(5): 1084–1090.
文章导航

/

〈 〉