-
雌雄异株植物受性别分株影响,维持种群稳定性的能力较弱[1],雌雄个体对生境胁迫的适应和抵抗能力,决定着个体存活、种群特征、物种延续及生态系统稳定性。诸多研究说明,雌雄个体对干旱、养分缺乏、重金属及盐胁迫等环境胁迫,表现出显著的抗性性别差异[2-5]。多数雌雄异株植物开花之前很难分辨性别,依株高、叶型、叶色等外部形态辨别的准确度不高,依易受环境因素及植物发育状况影响的生理指标鉴定的可靠性较差[6,7],依染色体组型和同工酶鉴定的局限性明显[8,9],依特异蛋白质和分子标记鉴定的可信度高,但鉴定程序复杂、成本高、耗时长,难以大范围推广,故目前关于雌雄异株植物抗性研究多是在成年植株上完成。幼苗是生活史中最敏感、最脆弱阶段,幼苗对生境胁迫的适应性及抗性性别差异,对种群密度、年龄结构、性比、出生率和死亡率及空间格局等种群特征影响深远。故开展幼苗抗性研究,对雌雄异株植物个体发育、种群形成研究及濒危度评价有指导价值,对该类植物保护、开发和利用有重要意义。
构树(Broussonetia papyrifera)为桑科(Moraceae)构树属(Broussonetia)雌雄异株植物,具有材用、饲用、药用、食用等开发价值。关于其形态特征、群落分布、化学成分、饲用及药用价值[10-13],及胁迫下的适应性和抗性已进行了大量研究[14-18],但诸多研究未区分雌雄株进行,未关注雌雄个体生长、生理、生殖及抗性等方面的性别差异。遗传特性、生理特化、环境因子及生殖成本共同作用,导致了雌雄个体适应性和抗逆性差异[3,5]。通过叶片特征[19]和同工酶[20]分析,初步表明雌雄构树形态结构和生理代谢有差异,关于其生长、生理、生殖及抗性基础的性别差异研究极少。光合作用是决定植物生产性能和抵御能力的物质与能量根本来源,干旱是植物幼苗期最易遭受的生境胁迫,幼苗光合作用对干旱胁迫的响应速度和应对策略,对植株存活与否、生长速度及抗性强弱起决定性作用。
干旱对光合作用的影响,体现在光合叶面积、光合色素、光合参数及同化效益等方面。本研究以构树雌雄扦插幼苗为材料,经60 d干旱处理后,通过测定叶片数、叶长、叶宽、叶厚、叶面积等叶性状,测定Chla、Chlb和 Caro等色素含量,及Pn、Gs、Tr、Ci等光合参数,分析干旱下雌雄株光合叶面积、光合色素组成及光合速率变化规律,研究干旱胁迫对构树幼苗光合能力影响的性别差异。以期为构树品种选育、栽培养护、开发利用及资源保护提供依据,为雌雄异株植物的开发、利用和保护提供借鉴。
-
干旱显著影响幼苗的叶数、叶长、叶宽、叶厚、单叶面积和总叶面积(P<0.05)(见表1)。与水分充足(CK)比较,轻度干旱显著降低叶长和总叶面积,中度干旱显著降低叶宽、单叶面积而增加叶厚,重度干旱则显著降低叶数(P<0.05),使重度干旱下叶数、叶长、叶宽、单叶面积与总叶面积显著低于其他处理(P<0.05),而叶厚最厚。4个水分下,雌株叶长与叶厚大于雄株,叶数和总叶面积小于雄株(P<0.05),而叶宽和单叶面积无性别差异。
表 1 干旱对叶性状影响的SNK检验
Table 1. SNK test of leaf traits under different drought degrees
干旱度
Drought degree性别
Sex叶总数
Leaf number/number叶长
Leaf length/cm叶宽
Leaf width/cm叶厚
Leaf thickness/mm单叶面积
Single leaf area/cm2总叶面积
Total leaf area/cm2重度Severe ♀ 5.00±1.00Bb 8.00±1.58Ad 5.17±1.34Ac 0.38±0.44Aa 30.91±9.73Ac 116.88±8.22Bc ♂ 6.00±2.00Ab 6.05±0.32Bd 5.03±0.66Ac 0.28±0.99Ba 27.27±5.77Ac 129.31±8.57Ac 中度Moderate ♀ 6.67±1.16Ba 9.77±0.29Ac 5.53±0.69Ab 0.30±0.04Ab 38.01±3.38Ab 244.19±7.57Bb ♂ 7.67±2.52Aa 7.40±1.11Bc 5.97±1.38Ab 0.25±0.03Bb 42.76±14.08Ab 264.86±6.11Ab 轻度Mild ♀ 5.33±1.53Ba 10.24±0.20Ab 6.44±0.20Aa 0.25±0.04Ac 45.95±1.81Aa 238.18±13.90Bb ♂ 7.33±0.56Aa 7.75±0.88Bb 6.73±0.46Aa 0.23±0.03Bc 45.32±5.20Aa 267.27±23.19Ab CK ♀ 6.33±1.53Ba 10.80±1.40Aa 6.58±1.35Aa 0.23±0.09Ac 50.25±18.15Aa 318.65±25.47Ba ♂ 7.67±1.53Aa 8.95±0.43Ba 6.50±0.76Aa 0.23±0.05Bc 46.22±7.86Aa 322.08±13.68Aa 注:♀:雌株;♂:雄株.同列不同大写字母表示性别间显著(P<0.05),同列不同小写字母表示干旱度间差异显著(P<0.05)。下同。
Note: ♀:Female;♂:Male. Different capital letters indicate significant difference between genders at 0.05 level, different lower letters indicate significant difference among drought stress at 0.05 level. The same below.方差分析F值表明,干旱度间叶性状差异大于性别间 (见表2),干旱影响大小为叶长>总叶面积>单叶面积>叶宽>叶厚>叶数;性别影响大小为叶长>叶数>总叶面积>叶厚>叶宽>单叶面积。干旱胁迫使叶长和叶宽、单叶面积和总叶面积表现出极显著性别差异(P<0.01),使叶数和叶厚表现出显著性别差异(P<0.05)。雌株主要通过降低叶数、增加叶厚应对干旱,雄株主要通过降低叶长与单叶面积应对干旱,干旱度越严重雄株光合总叶面积越显著大于雌株。
表 2 叶性状差异的双因素方差分析
Table 2. Two-factor variance analysis about differences of leaf traits
变异来源
Source叶总数
Leaf number/number叶长
Leaf length/cm叶宽
Leaf width/cm叶厚
Leaf thickness/mm单叶面积
Single leaf area /cm2总叶面积
Total leaf area/cm2总处理
Corrected modelF 5.26 20.56 5.66 5.43 10.56 10.80 P 0.017 <0.001 <0.001 0.029 <0.001 <0.001 干旱间Drought F 4.38 24.16 5.30 4.56 11.20 12.78 P 0.028 <0.001 0.011 0.038 <0.001 <0.001 性别间sex F 4.67 6.12 3.10 4.58 0.96 4.64 P 0.025 <0.001 0.081 0.037 0.343 0.026 互作间Interaction F 1.25 23.76 3.20 0.91 1.45 12.29 P 0.718 <0.001 0.074 0.461 0.801 <0.001 注:F值表示F检验的显著性,F越大表示越显著,P值表示概率值。下同。
Note: F value indicates the significance of the F test, with greater F value means the more significant, and P value indicates the probability value. The same below. -
干旱对Chla、Chlb、Caro、Chla+b和Chla/b均有显著影响(P<0.05)(见表3)。3个干旱处理Chla、Chla+b和Chla/b显著大于水分充足(CK),轻度干旱下Chlb达最大值,中度干旱下Chla和Chla+b达最大值,重度干旱下Caro和Chla/b达最大值。Chla、Chlb、Chla+b随干旱度增大显著先增后降,Caro和和Chla/b随干旱度增大不断增加。轻、中度干旱间Chlb无显著差异,中重度干旱间Caro和Chla/b无显著差异(P>0.05)。4个水分下,雌株Chla和Chla+b大于雄株(P<0.05),而Chlb、Caro和Chla/b无性别差异(P>0.05)。
表 3 干旱对光合色素含量影响的SNK检验
Table 3. SNK test of photosynthetic pigment content under different drought degrees
干旱度
Drought degree性别
Sex叶绿素
a Chla/(mg·g–1)叶绿素
b Chlb/(mg·g–1)类胡萝卜素
Caro/(mg·g–1)总叶绿素
Chla+b/(mg·g–1)叶绿素
a/b Chla/Chlb重度Severe ♀ 1.75±0.42Ab 0.34±0.08 Ab 0.58±0.13 Aa 2.09±0.48b Ab 5.15±1.03 Aa ♂ 1.66±0.25Bb 0.33±0.09 Ab 0.67±0.14Aa 1.99±0.34b Bb 5.03±0.81Aa 中度Moderate ♀ 2.23±0.32Aa 0.45±0.11 Aa 0.57±0.09 Aa 2.68±0.42 Aa 4.96±1.22Aa ♂ 2.18±0. 18Ba 0.46±0.04 Aa 0.59±0.06 Aa 2.64±0.23 Ba 4.74±0.96 Aa 轻度Mild ♀ 1.56±0.26Ac 0.46±0.09 Aa 0.24±0.05 Ab 1.92±0.26Ac 3.39±0.72 Ac ♂ 1.42±0.09Bc 0.47±0.08Aa 0.24±0.08 Ab 1.89±0.17Bc 3.02±0.38 Ac CK ♀ 1.32±0.27Ad 0.34±0.11 Ab 0.27±0.06 Ab 1.66±0.31Ad 3.91±0.71 Ab ♂ 1.27±0.14Bd 0.31±0.04 Ab 0.21±0.06 Ab 1.58±0.17Bd 4.10±0.19 Ab 方差分析F值表明,干旱度间光合色素差异大于性别间 (见表4),干旱对色素影响大小为Caro>Chla+b>Chla>Chlb>Chla/b,性别对色素影响为Chla>Chla+b>Chlb>Chla/b>Caro。干旱胁迫极显著改变了Chla、Caro和Chla+b的性别差异(P<0.01),显著改变了Chlb和Chla/b的性别差异(P<0.05)。干旱度越重雄株Chla和Chla+b越大于雌株,而Caro越小于雌株。干旱是影响色素含量的主要因子,雌雄株均通过提高Caro和Chla/b应对干旱。
-
干旱对Pn、Gs、Tr、Ci和PPn有均显著影响(P<0.05)(见表5)。轻度干旱Pn、Gs、Tr、Ci均大于CK(P<0.05),中度干旱Tr和Ci达最大值而Pn和Gs低于轻度干旱,重度干旱Pn、Gs、Tr、Ci均低于中度干旱(P<0.05)。轻中度干旱对PPn无影响,重度干旱下PPn下降(P<0.05)。4个水分下,雄株Pn、Gs、Tr、Ci均大于雌株,而PPn小于雌株。轻度干旱利于Pn和Gs,中度干旱利于Tr和Ci,重度干旱造成光合系统破坏使Pn和PPn最低。
表 4 光合色素含量差异的双因子方差分析
Table 4. Two-factor variance analysis about differences of photosynthetic pigment content
变异来源
Source叶绿素
aChla/(mg·g–1)叶绿素
bChlb/(mg·g–1)类胡萝卜素
Caro/(mg·g–1)总叶绿素
Chla+b/(mg·g–1)叶绿素
a/bChla/b总处Corrected model F 6.21 4.342 8.34 5751 4.62 P <0.001 0.037 <0.001 0.002 0.038 干旱Drought F 5.472 4.453 9.514 5.55 3.961 P 0.023 0.036 <0.001 0.019 0.042 性别Sex F 4.842 1.491 0.363 4.254 0.593 P 0.037 0.502 0.851 0.041 0.460 互作间Interaction F 3.222 0.263 0.232 1.774 0.394 P 0.086 0.811 0.802 0.231 0.475 表 5 干旱对光合参数影响的SNK检验
Table 5. SNK test of photosynthetic parameters under different drought degrees
干旱度
Drought degree性别
Sex光合速率
Pn/(µmol·m−2·s−1)气孔导度
Gs/(mmol·m−2·s−1)蒸腾速率
Tr/(mmol·m−2·s−1)胞间CO2浓度
Ci/(umol·mol−1)潜在光合速率
Potential Pn/(µmol·m−2·s−1)重度Severe ♀ 6.08±0.57Bd 8.52±1.31b Bd 10.28±1.75Bb 373.45±14.67Bc 17.26±2.30Ab ♂ 7.67±0.64Ad 9.06±1.46b Ad 11.52±3.22Ab 402.73±31.42Ac 15.65±1.37Bb 中度Moderate ♀ 13.54±1.41Bb 13.66±2.38 Bb 11.84±2.81Ba 428.17±23.43Ba 20.91±3.34Aa ♂ 15.56±0.91Ab 15.08±0.69 Ab 13.12±1.54Aa 461.90±16.28Aa 18.89±2.53Ba 轻度Mild ♀ 13.85±1.73Ba 14.17±0.76 Ba 8.53±1.25Bc 384.45±24.07Bb 19.29±3.31Aa ♂ 16.71±2.58Aa 15.32±1.38 Aa 9.52±1.20Ac 427.73±30.72Ab 17.68±2.24Ba ♀ 10.96±1.93Bc 12.26±0.46 Bc 3.84±0.82Bd 368.62±28.13Bc 19.90±3.31Aa CK ♂ 11.33±1.53Ac 12.62±0.87 Ac 3.92±0.57Ad 371.90±16.21Ac 17.43±1.87Ba 方差分析F值表明,干旱度间光合参数差异大于性别间 (见表6),干旱对色素参数影响大小为Tr >Pn>Gs>Ci> PPn,性别影响为Pn>Ci>PPn>Gs>Tr。干旱胁迫极显著增大或缩小了Pn、Gs、Tr、Ci的性别差异,显著缩小了PPn的性别差异。干旱与性别互作极显著影响Pn 和Tr,显著影响Ci。
表 6 光合参数差异的双因子方差分析
Table 6. Two-factor variance analysis about differences of photosynthetic parameters
变异来源
Source光合速率
Pn/(µmol·m−2·s−1)气孔导度
Gs/(mmol·m-2·s−1)蒸腾速率
Tr/(mmol·m-2·s−1)胞间CO2浓度
Ci/(umol·mol−1)潜在光合速率
Potential Pn/(µmol·m−2·s−1)总处理
Corrected modelF 14.322 6.126 22.273 5.251 4.876 P <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.002 0.033 干旱Drought F 12.322 6.089 19.305 5.341 3.961 P <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.001 0.042 性别Sex F 4.952 4.493 4.369 4.734 4.593 P 0.026 0.037 0.042 0.033 0.035 互作间Interaction F 6.318 0.273 9.322 4.722 2.394 P <0.001 0.791 <0.001 0.038 0.075
Gender Differences on Photosynthetic Capacity of Broussonetia papyrifera Seedlings in Response to Drought Stress
More Information-
摘要: 针对构树幼苗抗逆性的性别差异影响种群密度、种群性比等特征,而实生苗难以区分性别的问题。以盆栽构树(Broussonetia papyrifera) 雌雄扦插幼苗为材料,设轻、中、重度干旱处理60d后,测定叶片性状、光合色素组成、光合参数等等指标,分析干旱强度对幼苗光合作用影响的性别差异。结果表明:(1)干旱对构树幼苗光合叶面积影响有显著性别差异(P<0.05),雌株通过减少叶片数,雄株通过缩小单叶面积、增加叶片厚度应对干旱,雌株光合总叶面积显著低于雄株(P<0.05);(2)干旱显著影响幼苗光合色素组成与含量(P<0.05),干旱对色素含量影响顺序为Caro>Chla+b>Chla>Chlb>Chla/b,雌株Chla与Chla+b显著大于雄株(P<0.05),Chlb、Caro含量和Chla/b无性别差异(P>0.05);(3)干旱显著影响光合参数(P<0.05),轻度干旱利于Pn和Gs,中度干旱利于Tr与Ci,重度干旱抑制了光合作用,性别对光合参数有显著影响(P<0.05),影响顺序为Tr>Pn>Ci>Gs,雄株现实Pn大于雌株,而潜在Pn小于雌株。综上,雌雄幼苗采取不同的光合叶面积、光合色素、光合速率调整策略应对干旱,雄株光合能力强于雌株。Abstract: It is difficult to identify the gender of dioecious seedlings, and the population characteristics are easily affected by the gender differences of seedling stress resistance. The male and female cuttings of Broussonetia papyrifera were treated for 60 days at mild, moderate and severe drought respectively, and leaf characteristics, photosynthetic pigments and photosynthetic parameters were measured to analyze the gender differences of the effects of drought intensity on photosynthesis of seedlings. The results showed that: (1) There was a significant gender differences in drought stress on the photosynthetic leaf area of the seedlings (P<0.05). The female plants responded to drought by reducing leaves number and the male plants by reducing single leaf area and increasing leaf thickness, but total photosynthetic leaf area of female plants was significantly lower than that of male plants (P<0.05). (2) Drought stress significantly affected the composition and content of photosynthetic pigment in seedlings (P<0.05), and the order was Caro > Chla+b > Chla > Chlb > Chla/b. Chla and Chla+b content of female plants were significantly higher than those of male plants (P<0.05), but there were no gender differences in Chlb, Caro content and Chla+b (P>0.05); (3) Drought stress significantly affected photosynthetic parameters of seedlings (P<0.05), and mild drought was beneficial for Pn and Gs, moderate drought was beneficial for Tr and Ci, severe drought inhibited photosynthesis. Gender had significant influence on photosynthetic parameters (P<0.05), the order of the influence was Tr > Pn > Ci > Gs. The actual Pn of male plants was higher than female plants, while the potential Pn was lower than that of female plants. In conclusion, male and female seedlings adopt different strategies of adjusting photosynthetic leaf area, pigment and photosynthetic rate to cope with drought and the photosynthetic capacity of male plants was stronger than that of female plants.
-
Key words:
- Broussonetia papyrifera;
- Dioecism;
- Drought;
- Photosynthesis;
- Cuttage
-
表 1 干旱对叶性状影响的SNK检验
Tab. 1 SNK test of leaf traits under different drought degrees
干旱度
Drought degree性别
Sex叶总数
Leaf number/number叶长
Leaf length/cm叶宽
Leaf width/cm叶厚
Leaf thickness/mm单叶面积
Single leaf area/cm2总叶面积
Total leaf area/cm2重度Severe ♀ 5.00±1.00Bb 8.00±1.58Ad 5.17±1.34Ac 0.38±0.44Aa 30.91±9.73Ac 116.88±8.22Bc ♂ 6.00±2.00Ab 6.05±0.32Bd 5.03±0.66Ac 0.28±0.99Ba 27.27±5.77Ac 129.31±8.57Ac 中度Moderate ♀ 6.67±1.16Ba 9.77±0.29Ac 5.53±0.69Ab 0.30±0.04Ab 38.01±3.38Ab 244.19±7.57Bb ♂ 7.67±2.52Aa 7.40±1.11Bc 5.97±1.38Ab 0.25±0.03Bb 42.76±14.08Ab 264.86±6.11Ab 轻度Mild ♀ 5.33±1.53Ba 10.24±0.20Ab 6.44±0.20Aa 0.25±0.04Ac 45.95±1.81Aa 238.18±13.90Bb ♂ 7.33±0.56Aa 7.75±0.88Bb 6.73±0.46Aa 0.23±0.03Bc 45.32±5.20Aa 267.27±23.19Ab CK ♀ 6.33±1.53Ba 10.80±1.40Aa 6.58±1.35Aa 0.23±0.09Ac 50.25±18.15Aa 318.65±25.47Ba ♂ 7.67±1.53Aa 8.95±0.43Ba 6.50±0.76Aa 0.23±0.05Bc 46.22±7.86Aa 322.08±13.68Aa 注:♀:雌株;♂:雄株.同列不同大写字母表示性别间显著(P<0.05),同列不同小写字母表示干旱度间差异显著(P<0.05)。下同。
Note: ♀:Female;♂:Male. Different capital letters indicate significant difference between genders at 0.05 level, different lower letters indicate significant difference among drought stress at 0.05 level. The same below.表 2 叶性状差异的双因素方差分析
Tab. 2 Two-factor variance analysis about differences of leaf traits
变异来源
Source叶总数
Leaf number/number叶长
Leaf length/cm叶宽
Leaf width/cm叶厚
Leaf thickness/mm单叶面积
Single leaf area /cm2总叶面积
Total leaf area/cm2总处理
Corrected modelF 5.26 20.56 5.66 5.43 10.56 10.80 P 0.017 <0.001 <0.001 0.029 <0.001 <0.001 干旱间Drought F 4.38 24.16 5.30 4.56 11.20 12.78 P 0.028 <0.001 0.011 0.038 <0.001 <0.001 性别间sex F 4.67 6.12 3.10 4.58 0.96 4.64 P 0.025 <0.001 0.081 0.037 0.343 0.026 互作间Interaction F 1.25 23.76 3.20 0.91 1.45 12.29 P 0.718 <0.001 0.074 0.461 0.801 <0.001 注:F值表示F检验的显著性,F越大表示越显著,P值表示概率值。下同。
Note: F value indicates the significance of the F test, with greater F value means the more significant, and P value indicates the probability value. The same below.表 3 干旱对光合色素含量影响的SNK检验
Tab. 3 SNK test of photosynthetic pigment content under different drought degrees
干旱度
Drought degree性别
Sex叶绿素
a Chla/(mg·g–1)叶绿素
b Chlb/(mg·g–1)类胡萝卜素
Caro/(mg·g–1)总叶绿素
Chla+b/(mg·g–1)叶绿素
a/b Chla/Chlb重度Severe ♀ 1.75±0.42Ab 0.34±0.08 Ab 0.58±0.13 Aa 2.09±0.48b Ab 5.15±1.03 Aa ♂ 1.66±0.25Bb 0.33±0.09 Ab 0.67±0.14Aa 1.99±0.34b Bb 5.03±0.81Aa 中度Moderate ♀ 2.23±0.32Aa 0.45±0.11 Aa 0.57±0.09 Aa 2.68±0.42 Aa 4.96±1.22Aa ♂ 2.18±0. 18Ba 0.46±0.04 Aa 0.59±0.06 Aa 2.64±0.23 Ba 4.74±0.96 Aa 轻度Mild ♀ 1.56±0.26Ac 0.46±0.09 Aa 0.24±0.05 Ab 1.92±0.26Ac 3.39±0.72 Ac ♂ 1.42±0.09Bc 0.47±0.08Aa 0.24±0.08 Ab 1.89±0.17Bc 3.02±0.38 Ac CK ♀ 1.32±0.27Ad 0.34±0.11 Ab 0.27±0.06 Ab 1.66±0.31Ad 3.91±0.71 Ab ♂ 1.27±0.14Bd 0.31±0.04 Ab 0.21±0.06 Ab 1.58±0.17Bd 4.10±0.19 Ab 表 4 光合色素含量差异的双因子方差分析
Tab. 4 Two-factor variance analysis about differences of photosynthetic pigment content
变异来源
Source叶绿素
aChla/(mg·g–1)叶绿素
bChlb/(mg·g–1)类胡萝卜素
Caro/(mg·g–1)总叶绿素
Chla+b/(mg·g–1)叶绿素
a/bChla/b总处Corrected model F 6.21 4.342 8.34 5751 4.62 P <0.001 0.037 <0.001 0.002 0.038 干旱Drought F 5.472 4.453 9.514 5.55 3.961 P 0.023 0.036 <0.001 0.019 0.042 性别Sex F 4.842 1.491 0.363 4.254 0.593 P 0.037 0.502 0.851 0.041 0.460 互作间Interaction F 3.222 0.263 0.232 1.774 0.394 P 0.086 0.811 0.802 0.231 0.475 表 5 干旱对光合参数影响的SNK检验
Tab. 5 SNK test of photosynthetic parameters under different drought degrees
干旱度
Drought degree性别
Sex光合速率
Pn/(µmol·m−2·s−1)气孔导度
Gs/(mmol·m−2·s−1)蒸腾速率
Tr/(mmol·m−2·s−1)胞间CO2浓度
Ci/(umol·mol−1)潜在光合速率
Potential Pn/(µmol·m−2·s−1)重度Severe ♀ 6.08±0.57Bd 8.52±1.31b Bd 10.28±1.75Bb 373.45±14.67Bc 17.26±2.30Ab ♂ 7.67±0.64Ad 9.06±1.46b Ad 11.52±3.22Ab 402.73±31.42Ac 15.65±1.37Bb 中度Moderate ♀ 13.54±1.41Bb 13.66±2.38 Bb 11.84±2.81Ba 428.17±23.43Ba 20.91±3.34Aa ♂ 15.56±0.91Ab 15.08±0.69 Ab 13.12±1.54Aa 461.90±16.28Aa 18.89±2.53Ba 轻度Mild ♀ 13.85±1.73Ba 14.17±0.76 Ba 8.53±1.25Bc 384.45±24.07Bb 19.29±3.31Aa ♂ 16.71±2.58Aa 15.32±1.38 Aa 9.52±1.20Ac 427.73±30.72Ab 17.68±2.24Ba ♀ 10.96±1.93Bc 12.26±0.46 Bc 3.84±0.82Bd 368.62±28.13Bc 19.90±3.31Aa CK ♂ 11.33±1.53Ac 12.62±0.87 Ac 3.92±0.57Ad 371.90±16.21Ac 17.43±1.87Ba 表 6 光合参数差异的双因子方差分析
Tab. 6 Two-factor variance analysis about differences of photosynthetic parameters
变异来源
Source光合速率
Pn/(µmol·m−2·s−1)气孔导度
Gs/(mmol·m-2·s−1)蒸腾速率
Tr/(mmol·m-2·s−1)胞间CO2浓度
Ci/(umol·mol−1)潜在光合速率
Potential Pn/(µmol·m−2·s−1)总处理
Corrected modelF 14.322 6.126 22.273 5.251 4.876 P <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.002 0.033 干旱Drought F 12.322 6.089 19.305 5.341 3.961 P <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.001 0.042 性别Sex F 4.952 4.493 4.369 4.734 4.593 P 0.026 0.037 0.042 0.033 0.035 互作间Interaction F 6.318 0.273 9.322 4.722 2.394 P <0.001 0.791 <0.001 0.038 0.075 -
[1] 胥晓,杨帆,尹春英,等. 雌雄异株植物对环境胁迫响应的性别差异研究进展[J]. 应用生态学报,2007,18(11):2626−2631. [2] 马少薇,刘果厚,王蕾,等. 干旱胁迫对黄柳雌雄扦插苗生长和生理特性的影响[J]. 西北植物学报,2019,9(7):1250−1258. [3] 陈娟,李春阳. 环境胁迫下雌雄异株植物的性别影响差异及竞争关系[J]. 应用与环境生物学报.,2014,20(4):743−750. [4] 刘航江,宗人旭,刘金平,等. 草地群落类型对乳白香青种群特征和雌雄株形态及抗性的影响[J]. 草业学报,2018,27(10):113−124. doi: 10.11686/cyxb2017485 [5] 何梅,孟明,施大伟,等. 雌雄异株植物对干旱胁迫响应的性别差异[J]. 植物资源与环境学报,2015,24(1):99−106. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-7895.2015.01.14 [6] 蔡汝,陶俊,陈鹏. 银杏雌雄株叶片光合特性、蒸腾速率及产量的比较研究[J]. 落叶果树,2000,32(1):1416. [7] 李国粱,林伯年,沈德绪. 杨梅雌雄株同工酶和酚类物质的鉴别[J]. 浙江农业大学报,1995,21(1):22−26. [8] 李瑞丽,卢龙斗,高武军,等. 雌雄异株植物性别鉴定的研究进展[J]. 广西植物,2006,26(4):387−391. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-3142.2006.04.011 [9] 应振土,李曙轩. 瓠瓜与黄瓜的性别表达和内源乙烯与氧化酶活性的关系[J]. 园艺学报,1990,17(1):51−57. [10] 杨小贱,王金锡,胡庭兴. 中国构树资源的综合利用[J]. 四川林业科技,2007,01:39−43. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-5508.2007.03.008 [11] 谢春平. 城市近郊构树群落组成与结构分析[J]. 四川农业大学学报,2015,12:357−363. [12] 张秋玉,李远发,梁芳. 构树资源研究利用现状及其展望[J]. 广西农业科学,2009,40(2):217−220. [13] 彭慧揭. 构树资源的开发应用前景及技术措施研究[J]. 种子科技,2017,35(05):87−88. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-2690.2017.05.062 [14] 张婉,赵运林,唐永成. 构树对干旱、盐碱和重金属胁迫的适应机制研究进展[J]. 植物学研究,2017,6(5):325−332. [15] 叶波,吴永波,邵维,等. 高温干旱复合胁迫及复水对构树(Broussonetia papyrifera)幼苗光合特性和叶绿素荧光参数的影响[J]. 生态学杂志,2014,33(9):2343−2349. [16] 杨帆,丁菲,杜天真. 盐胁迫下构树幼苗各器官中K+、Ca2+、Na+和 Cl-含量分布及吸收特征[J]. 应用生态学报,2009,20(4):767−772. [17] 蒋泽平,肖小君,何开跃. NaCl 胁迫对构树、光叶楮生理及细胞结构的影响[J]. 自然科学版,2010,34(3):77−82. [18] Li CY, Ren J, Luo JX, et al. Sex-specific physiological and growth responses to water stress in Hippophae rhamnoides L. populations[J]. Acta Physiol Plant, 2004, 26: 123−129. doi: 10.1007/s11738-004-0001-3 [19] 任媛媛,翟晓巧,刘艳萍. 6个构树无性系叶片解剖结构与抗旱性的关系[J]. 陕西农业科学,2015,61(12):17−21. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0488-5368.2015.12.006 [20] 赵云云,田汝岭,刘捷平,等. 雌雄构树过氧化物同工酶的比较研究[J]. 自然科学版,1996,17(2):84−87. [21] 王学奎. 植物生理生化试验原理和技术[M]. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2006. [22] 王齐,孙吉雄,安渊. 水分胁迫对结缕草种群特征和生理特性的影响[J]. 草业学报,2009,18(2):33−38. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1004-5759.2009.02.006 [23] 金不换. 干旱胁迫对不同品种早熟禾形态和生理特性影响的研究[D]. 东北农业大学, 2009. [24] 刘金平,游明鸿,段婧,等. 水分胁迫下雌雄异株植物葎草繁殖策略的可塑性调节[J]. 草业学报,2015,24(3):226−232. doi: 10.11686/cyxb20150324 [25] 李娜,郭学民,黎明,等. 构树雌雄株叶片解剖结构特征的比较研究[J]. 植物科学学报,2017,35(2):164−170. [26] 段婧,刘金平. 营养生长期葎草对干旱胁迫应对机理的性别差异分析[J]. 湖北农业科学,2014,52(13):3078−3082. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0439-8114.2014.13.027 [27] 刘义华, 冷蓉, 张召荣, 等. 茎瘤芥(榨菜)叶性状的遗传效应研究[C]. 中国园艺学会十字花科分会第七届学术研讨会论文集, 2009. [28] 谢瑞娟,张小晶,刘金平,等. 遮阴和干旱对荩草光合特性影响的协同作用[J]. 草业学报,2017,26(10):64−76. doi: 10.11686/cyxb2016506 [29] 沈艳,谢应忠. 干旱对紫花苜蓿叶绿素含量与水分饱和亏缺的影响[J]. 宁夏农学院学报,2004,25(2):25−28. [30] 张金政,张起源,孙国峰,等. 干旱胁迫及复水对玉簪生长和光合作用的影响[J]. 草业学报,2014,23(1):167−176. doi: 10.11686/cyxb20140120 [31] 赵瑾,白金,潘青华,等. 干旱胁迫下圆柏不同品种(系)叶绿素含量变化规律[J]. 中国农学通报,2007,23(3):236−239. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-6850.2007.03.052 [32] 陈暮初. 朱砂根种子萌发生理及苗木对干旱和光照胁迫的生理响应[D]. 雅安: 四川农业大学, 2009. [33] Dai Y J, Shen Z G, Liu Y, et al. Effects of shade treatments on the photosynthetic capacity, chlorophyll fluorescence, and chlorophyll content of Tetrastigma hemsleyanum Diels et Gilg[J]. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 2009, 65(3): 177−182. [34] Blum A. Crop response to drought and the interpretation of adaptation[J]. Plant Growth Regulation, 1996, 20(2): 135−148. doi: 10.1007/BF00024010 [35] Zhang H H, Zhang X L, Xu N, et al. Effects of exogenous CaCl2 on the functions of flue-cured tobacco seedlings leaf photosystem Ⅱ under drought stress[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2011, 22(5): 1195−1200.