Subtropical Plant Science >

2024 , Vol. 53 >Issue 5: 451 - 458

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1009-7791.2024.05.008

Research articles

Root Structure Characteristics of Phyllostachys edulis Forests and P. praecox Forests

  • 吕惠飞，王灵玲，赵紫晴，孙晗靖，郑 慧
Expand
  • (1. Jiande Forestry General Farm, Jiande 311604, Zhejiang China; 2. Forestry and Water Conservancy Bureau of Fuyang District in Hangzhou, Hangzhou 311400, Zhejiang China; 3. Research Institute of Subtropical Forestry, Chinese Academy of Forestry, Hangzhou 311400, Zhejiang China; 4. Hangzhou Fuyang District Agricultural Technology Promotion Center, Hangzhou 311400, Zhejiang China)

Received date: 2024-07-17

  Accepted date: 2024-08-15

  Online published: 2025-01-25

Fold

Abstract

The study of differences in root structure characteristics between Phyllostachys edulis and P. praecox forests through measurements of length, volume, surface area, and dry weight of the root was carried out, which provided a basis for bamboo resource cultivation, soil management and enhancing the economic benefits of bamboo forests. The soil distribution characteristics of bamboo forest roots were investigated by using the methods of root digging scanning. P. edulis roots mainly distributed in the soil layer of 0-40 cm, and the root surface area, volume, length and dry mass accounted for more than 80% of the total root system. The proportions of root length and volume of different diameter classes in P. edulis and P. praecox forests showed the decreasing trend with the deepening of the soil layer. In the different diameter classes of P. edulis roots, roots with diameters＜1 mm had the highest proportion of length (70.45%), whereas those with diameters＞2 mm had the highest proportion of volume (78.73%). In P. praecox forest, the roots were distributed only in the soil layer of 0-40 cm, and the root volume, surface area, and dry weight accounted for more than 60% in the surface soil layer (0-20 cm). The root length accounted for 59.39% of the total length, and roots with diameters＜1 mm had the highest proportion of length (80.46%) among different diameter classes, though they had the smallest proportion of volume (16.63%). In the soil layer of 0-40 cm, the proportion of root length in three diameter classes showed that P. praecox forest was greater than P. edulis forest. The proportion of roots with diameters≤2 mm showed that P. edulis forest was less than P. praecox forest. The proportion of roots with diameters＞2 mm in P. edulis forest was greater than P. praecox forest. The soil layer of 0-40 cm is the main active layer for the growth of bamboo forest roots, and it is also the important level for soil management in bamboo forests. P. edulis and P. praecox differ significantly in root content and structure. P. edulis has the larger root structure compared to P. praecox. Therefore, it is necessary to propose measures that are more suitable for bamboo management by combining different root structure characteristics.

Key words： Phyllostachys edulis; Phyllostachys praecox; root; root structure

Cite this article

吕惠飞，王灵玲，赵紫晴，孙晗靖，郑 慧 . Root Structure Characteristics of Phyllostachys edulis Forests and P. praecox Forests[J]. Subtropical Plant Science, 2024 , 53(5) : 451 -458 . DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-7791.2024.05.008

References

[1] 陈双林, 杨清平, 陈长远, 王维辉. 绿竹笋用林林分结构与经济性状关系研究[J]. 四川农业大学学报, 2005, 23(1): 75–79. 

[2] 童冉, 陈庆标, 周本智, 唐永强, 安艳飞, 葛晓改, 曹永慧, 杨振亚. 毛竹和雷竹地下系统结构及生物力学性质[J]. 生态学报, 2020, 40(7): 2242–2251. 

[3] 李建华, 林晓越, 岳晋军, 袁金玲. 毛竹竹鞭侧芽生长特征研究[J]. 竹子学报, 2023, 42(2): 56–62. 

[4] 国家林业和草原局. 2021中国林草生态综合监测评价报告[M]. 北京: 中国林业出版社, 2023. 

[5] 谢云胜. 毛竹生物学特性及造林技术[J]. 现代农业科技, 2018(10): 168–169. 

[6] 申景昕, 范少辉, 徐晴, 刘广路. 竹类植物生长影响因素研究进展[J]. 世界竹藤通讯, 2024, 22(1): 96–102. 

[7] 丁榆芳, 胡千惠, 宋述望, 冉欢, 王琳, 杨清培, 刘骏, 宋庆妮. 不同类型雷竹林种植土壤的理化性质比较分析[J]. 生物灾害科学, 2023, 46(1): 66–71. 

[8] 林新春, 袁晓亮, 林绕, 时燕, 方伟. 雷竹开花生物学特性研究[J]. 福建林学院学报, 2010(4): 333–337. 

[9] 蔺恩杰, 江洪, 陈云飞. 太湖源雷竹林水汽通量变化及其对净辐射的响应[J]. 浙江农林大学学报, 2013, 30(3): 313–318. 

[10] 杨王庭, 邵香君, 周菊敏, 桂仁意. 不同溶解氧质量浓度对雷竹水培苗生长和生理生化的影响[J]. 浙江农林大学学报, 2021, 38(2): 280–288. 

[11] 朱令, 邓世鑫, 雷璐嘉, 桂仁意. 竖管通气对覆盖栽培雷竹生长的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2023, 39(5): 55–62. 

[12] 王玲, 赵丽娅. 竹类植物的生态功能[J]. 资源开发与市场, 2011, 27(4): 342–343, 362. 

[13] 张磊, 童龙, 谢锦忠, 李俞佳, 张玮. 不同灌水时间下毛竹伐桩根系化学计量及生理特性变化[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2021, 45(5): 25–30. 

[14] 蔡星, 吴君, 李秉钧, 李士坤, 荣俊冬, 陈礼光, 何天友, 郑郁善. 长周期母竹留养模式下笋用毛竹的立竹密度对竹鞭特征及根系活力的影响[J]. 福建农林大学学报(自然科学版), 2023, 52(4): 500–504. 

[15] 刘思泽, 张小国, 陈露蔓, 高卿容, 陈嵚崟, 范川, 李贤伟. 覆盖对雷竹细根碳氮磷化学计量特征的影响[J]. 西北植物学报, 2019, 39(12): 2253–2262. 

[16] 萧江华. 材用毛竹林的地下系统结构[J]. 竹类研究, 1983, 2(1): l14–119. 

[17] 汪奎宏, 何奇江, 翁甫金, 吴蓉, 张培新, 吴智勇. 毛竹笋用丰产林地下鞭根系统调查分析[J]. 竹子研究汇刊, 2000, 19(1): 38–43. 

[18] 廖世水. 毛竹低产林地下结构特点调查与改造技术探讨[J]. 福建林业科技, 1996, 23(3): 49–53. 

[19] 修珍珍, 王斌, 杨校生, 余超, 张龙, 格日乐图. 庙山坞自然保护区森林生态系统服务功能评估[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2015, 39(4): 81–87. 

[20] 周本智, 傅懋毅. 粗放经营毛竹林鞭系和根系结构研究[J]. 林业科学研究, 2008, 21(2): 217–221. 

[21] Mao Z, Wang Y, McCormack M L, Rowe N, Deng X B, Yang X D, Xia S W, Nespoulous J, Sidle R C, Guo D L, Stokes A. Mechanical traits of fine roots as a function of topology and anatomy [J]. Annals of Botany, 2018, 122(7): 1103–1116. 

[22] 李金波, 伍红燕, 赵斌, 陈济丁, 宋桂龙. 模拟边坡条件下常见护坡植物苗期根系构型特征[J]. 生态学报, 2023, 43(24): 10131–10141.

[23] 刘敏, 李龙, 李海波, 王祖华. 梵净山典型植被类型的根系真菌群落结构及功能类群特征研究[J]. 林业科学研究, 2023, 36(1): 47–58. 

[24] 王波, 何奇江, 郑连喜. 四季竹地下鞭根系统生长规律研究[J]. 世界竹藤通讯, 2008, 6(5): 16–18. 

[25] 刘国华, 王福升, 丁雨龙. 4种地被竹根系分布特征及其力学性质[J]. 林业科技开发, 2011, 25(6): 20–23. 

[26] 王永吉, 赵学春, 来利明, 朱林海, 王健健, 周继华, 姜联合, 马远见, 赵春强, 郑元润. 三工河流域梭梭群落细根生长动态及周转[J]. 生态与农村环境学报, 2013, 29(5): 666–670. 

[27] John B, Pandey H N, Tripathi R S. Vertical distribution and seasonal changes of fine and coarse root mass in Pinus kesiya Royle Ex.Gordon forest of three different ages [J]. Acta Oecologica, 2001, 22(5): 293–300. 

[28] Baddeley J A, Watson C A. Influences of root diameter, tree age, soil depth and season on fine root survivorship in Prunus avium [J]. Plant and Soil, 2005, 276(1–2): 15–22. 

[29] Brassard B W, Chen H Y, Bergeron Y, Paré D. Coarse root biomass allometric equations for Abeies balsamea, Picea mariana, Pinus banhsiana and Populus tremuloides in the boreal forest of Ontario, Canada [J]. Biomass and Bioenergy, 2011, 35(10): 4189–4196. 

[30] Rewald B, Ephrath J E, Rachmilevitch S. A root is a root is a root? Water uptake rates of Citrus root orders [J]. Plant Cell Environment, 2011, 34(1): 33–42. 

[31] 陈浩, 余毅敏, 唐旭栋, 周之静, 赵雅青. 浦阳江下游江岸草本植物根系对土壤抗冲性的影响[J]. 水土保持研究, 2017, 24(2): 60–63, 69. 

[32] Genet M, Stokes A, Salin F, Mickovski S B, Fourcaud T, Dumail J F, Beek R. The influence of cellulose content on tensile strength in tree roots [J]. Plant and Soil, 2005, 278(1–2): 1–9. 

[33] Gyssels G, Poesen J, Bochet E, Li Y. Impact of plant roots on the resistance of soils to crosion by water: a review [J]. Progress in Physical Geography, 2005, 29(2): 189–217. 

[34] 陈钰馨, 郑博福, 傅赫, 罗诚康, 江旖慧, 朱锦奇. 不同植被类型根系对土壤水分分布的影响[J]. 中国水土保持科学, 2023, 21(1): 37–46.

Options
Outlines

/

〈 〉

Copyright © Editorial office of Subtropical Plant Science
Tel: 0592-5654157　E-mail: yrdzwkx@126.com
Supported by Beijing Magtech Co., Ltd.