Knowledge Resource Center for Ecological Environment in Arid Area
| 四种一年生藜科植物表型可塑性研究 | |
| 其他题名 | Study on the Phenotypic Plasticity of Four Annual Plants of Chenopodiaceae |
| 黄迎新 | |
| 出版年 | 2009 |
| 学位类型 | 博士 |
| 导师 | 赵学勇 |
| 学位授予单位 | 中国科学院寒区旱区环境与工程研究所 |
| 中文摘要 | 本文主要通过对不同土壤营养、水分和密度条件下，不同演替阶段的四种一年生藜科植物（沙米、大果虫实、尖头叶藜和猪毛菜）结构特性以及生物量分配特性表型可塑性的异速分析，得出以下结论：\n（1）从整体上看，四种植物的株高、一级分枝数、二级分枝数和三级分枝数都与土壤营养和土壤水分呈正相关，与种群密度呈负相关；演替后期的植物株高较高，一级分枝数较少，但二级分枝数较多。一级分枝数－茎生物量、二级分枝数¬－茎生物量、三级分枝数－茎生物量以及株高¬－总生物量具有显著的异速关系。在不同的演替阶段，除三级分枝数－茎生物量异速关系无显著变化外，其它三组异速关系发生显著变化，是“真正可塑性”。随土壤营养的变化，所有四组异速关系发生显著变化。随土壤水分的变化，所有四组异速关系发生显著变化。随种群密度变化，除一级分枝数¬－茎生物量异速关系无显著变化外，其它三组异速关系发生显著变化。\n（2）随着演替的变化，根、茎、叶和繁殖生物量分配的可塑性是“真正可塑性”；去除个体大小的因素，演替后期植物倾向于根和繁殖生长，茎和叶生物量分配无明显增加或减少规律。\n（3）随着土壤营养的变化，四种植物可塑性变化的总体规律是：茎、叶和繁殖生物量分配的可塑性是“真正可塑性”，根生物量分配的可塑性是“表观可塑性”。去除个体大小的因素，低土壤营养条件下的植物倾向于繁殖生长，而减少对茎和叶的资源投入。沙米根、叶和繁殖生物量分配的可塑性是“真正可塑性”，茎生物量分配不具有可塑性。去除个体大小的因素，低土壤营养条件下的沙米倾向于根和繁殖生长，而减少对叶的资源投入。大果虫实根、叶和繁殖生物量分配的可塑性是“真正可塑性”，茎生物量分配的可塑性是“表观可塑性”。去除个体大小的因素，低土壤营养条件下的大果虫实倾向于繁殖生长，而减少对根和叶的资源投入。尖头叶藜茎、叶和繁殖生物量分配的可塑性是“真正可塑性”，根生物量分配不具有可塑性。去除个体大小的因素，低土壤营养条件下的尖头叶藜倾向于繁殖生长，而减少对茎和叶的资源投入。猪毛菜茎、叶和繁殖生物量分配的可塑性是“真正可塑性”，根生物量分配的可塑性是“表观可塑性”。去除个体大小的因素，低土壤营养条件下的猪毛菜倾向于繁殖生长，而减少对根和叶的资源投入。\n（4）随着土壤水分的变化，四种植物可塑性变化的总体规律是：根、茎、叶和繁殖生物量分配的可塑性都是“真正可塑性”。去除个体大小的因素，低土壤水分条件下的植物倾向于根的生长，而减少对茎和繁殖的资源投入。沙米茎、叶和繁殖生物量分配的可塑性是“真正可塑性”，根生物量分配不具有可塑性。去除个体大小的因素，低土壤水分条件下的沙米倾向于叶的生长，而减少对的茎和繁殖器官的资源投入。大果虫实根和繁殖生物量分配的可塑性是“真正可塑性”，叶生物量分配的可塑性是“表观可塑性”，茎生物量分配不具有可塑性。去除个体大小的因素，低土壤水分条件下的大果虫实，倾向于根生长而减少对繁殖器官的资源投入。尖头叶藜根、叶和繁殖生物量分配的可塑性是“真正可塑性”，茎生物量分配不具有可塑性。去除个体大小的因素，低土壤水分条件下的尖头叶藜倾向于根的生长，而减少对繁殖器官的资源投入。猪毛菜根和繁殖生物量分配的可塑性是“真正可塑性”，茎和叶生物量分配不具有可塑性。去除个体大小的因素，低土壤水分条件下的猪毛菜倾向于根的生长，而减少对繁殖器官的资源投入。\n（5）随着密度的变化，四种植物可塑性变化的总体规律是：叶生物量分配的可塑性是“真正可塑性”，根、茎和繁殖生物量分配不具有可塑性。在高密度时，植物竞争激烈，植物叶生物量分配较低，减少对光合器官资源的投入。沙米根、茎、叶和繁殖生物量分配不具有可塑性。大果虫实叶生物量分配的可塑性是“真正可塑性”，根生物量分配的可塑性是“表观可塑性”，茎和繁殖生物量分配不具有可塑性。在高密度时，大果虫实叶生物量分配较低。尖头叶藜根生物量分配的可塑性是“表观可塑性”，茎、叶和繁殖生物量分配不具有可塑性。猪毛菜叶生物量分配的可塑性是“真正可塑性”，根生物量分配的可塑性是“表观可塑性”，茎和繁殖生物量分配不具有可塑性。去除个体大小的因素，在高密度时，猪毛菜减少对叶的资源投入。\n（6）从总体上看，四种植物根生物量分配的主要决定因子是株高与总生物量的比值，茎、叶和繁殖生物量分配的主要决定因子是株高。沙米根生物量分配的主要决定因子是株高与总生物量的比值，茎和叶生物量分配的主要决定因子是株高，繁殖分配的主要决定因子是一级分枝数与株高的比值。大果虫实根生物量分配的主要决定因子是株高与总生物量的比值，茎生物量分配的主要决定因子是二级分枝数与茎生物量的比值，叶生物量分配的主要决定因子是株高，繁殖分配的主要决定因子是二级分枝数。尖头叶藜根生物量分配的主要决定因子是二级分枝数与茎生物量的比值，茎、叶和繁殖生物量分配的主要决定因子是株高。猪毛菜根、茎和叶生物量分配的主要决定因子是株高，繁殖分配的主要决定因子是一级分枝数。并且，所有这些主要决定因子与对应的生物量分配特性具有显著的异速生长关系。\n（7） 综上所述，在环境因子中，土壤养分是植物表型可塑性的最大变异源，土壤养分也是决定不同演替阶段植物的生物量分配策略差异的主要因素。所以，直接或间接改良土壤的营养是沙漠化土地治理的一项重要措施。 |
| 英文摘要 | In order to compare the phenotypic plasticity of four annual Chenopodiaceae species occupying different positions in a successional sequence, all species (Agriophyllum squarrosum, Corispermum macrocarpum, Chenopodium acuminatum and Salsola collina) had been treated with soil nutrients, water and population density in Horqin Sandy Land. As follow:\n(1) The plant height, the primary branch number and the secondary branch number increased with the increase in nutrients and water contents, and also increased with the decrease in population density. However the plant occupying late successional status had greater height, less primary branches and more secondary branches. According to the results of all species, there were significant allometric relationships between primary branch number and stem biomass, between secondary branch number and stem biomass, between tertiary branch number and stem biomass, and between plant height and total biomass. With the exception of the allometric relationships between tertiary branch number and stem biomass, successional status had significant effects on all allometric relationships, and the phenotypic plasticity was “real plasticity”. The availability of nutrient and water had significant effect on all these four allometric relationships. With the exception of allometric relationship between primary branch number and stem biomass, the population density had a significant effect on all these four allometric relationships.\n(2) In response to successional status, the phenotypic plasticity of root, stem, leaf and reproductive allocation was “real plasticity”. Without consideration of the effect of plant size, plants tended to ‘allocated more growth’ in root and reproductive organs at the late succession, while there was no apparent trend of increase or decrease in stem and leaf growth. \n(3) In response to soil nutrients, the phenotypic plasticity of stem, leaf and reproductive allocation of all species was “real plasticity”, while the phenotypic plasticity of root of all species was “apparent plasticity”. Without consideration of the effect of plant size, the allocation of plants tended to reproductive organs rather than stem and leaf in low soil nutrients contents. To A. squarrosum, the phenotypic plasticity of root, leaf and reproductive allocation was “real plasticity”, while no plasticity of stem allocation occurred in response to soil nutrients contents. Without consideration of the effect of plant size, the allocation of A. squarrosum tended to root and reproductive organs rather than leaf in low soil nutrients contents. To C. macrocarpum, the phenotypic plasticity of root, leaf and reproductive allocation was “real plasticity”, while the phenotypic plasticity of stem was “apparent plasticity”. Without consideration of the effect of plant size, the allocation of C. macrocarpum tended to reproductive organs rather than root and leaf in low soil nutrients contents. To C. acuminatum, the phenotypic plasticity of stem, leaf and reproductive allocation was “real plasticity”, while no plasticity of root allocation occurred in response to soil nutrients contents. Without consideration of the effect of plant size, the allocation of C. acuminatum tended to reproductive organs rather than stem and leaf in low soil nutrients contents. To S. collina, the phenotypic plasticity of stem, leaf and reproductive allocation was “real plasticity”, while the phenotypic plasticity of root was “apparent plasticity”. Without consideration of the effect of plant size, the allocation of S. collina tended to reproductive organs rather than root and leaf in low soil nutrients contents.\n(4) In response to water contents, the phenotypic plasticity of root, stem, leaf and reproductive allocation of all species was “real plasticity”. Without consideration of the effect of plant size, the allocation of plants tended to root rather than stem and reproductive organs in low soil water contents. To A. squarrosum, the phenotypic plasticity of stem, leaf and reproductive allocation was “real plasticity”, while no plasticity of root allocation occurred in response to soil water contents. Without consideration of the effect of plant size, the allocation of A. squarrosum tended to leaf rather than stem and reproductive organs in low soil water contents. To C. macrocarpum, the phenotypic plasticity of root and reproductive allocation was “real plasticity”, while the phenotypic plasticity of leaf was “apparent plasticity”, and no plasticity of stem allocation occurred in response to soil water contents. Without consideration of the effect of plant size, the allocation of C. macrocarpum tended to root rather than reproductive organs in low soil water contents. To C. acuminatum, the phenotypic plasticity of root, leaf and reproductive allocation was “real plasticity”, while no plasticity of stem allocation occurred in response to soil water contents. Without consideration of the effect of plant size, the allocation of C. acuminatum tended to root rather than reproductive organs in low soil water contents. To S. collina, the phenotypic plasticity of root and reproductive allocation was “real plasticity”, while no plasticity of stem and leaf occurred in response to soil water contents. Without consideration of the effect of plant size, the allocation of S. collina tended to root rather than reproductive organs in low soil water contents.\n(5) In response to population density, the phenotypic plasticity of leaf allocation of all species was “real plasticity”, while no plasticity of root, stem, and reproductive allocation of all species occurred in response to population density. Without consideration of the effect of plant size, the allocation of plants tended to leaf in low population density. To A. squarrosum, no plasticity of root, stem, leaf and reproductive allocation occurred in response to population density. To C. macrocarpum, the phenotypic plasticity of leaf allocation was “real plasticity”. However the phenotypic plasticity of root was “apparent plasticity”. No plasticity stem and reproductive allocation occurred in response to population density. Without consideration of the effect of plant size, the allocation of C. macrocarpum tended to leaf in low population density. To C. acuminatum, the phenotypic plasticity of root allocation was “apparent plasticity”, while no plasticity of stem, leaf and reproductive allocation occurred in response to population density. To S. collina, the phenotypic plasticity of leaf allocation was “real plasticity”, while the phenotypic plasticity of root was “apparent plasticity”, and no plasticity stem and reproductive allocation occurred in response to population density. Without consideration of the effect of plant size, the allocation of S. collina tended to leaf in low population density.\n(6) According to the results analyzing on all species, the ratio of plant height to total biomass was determinants of root allocation. Plant height was determinants of stem, leaf and reproductive allocation. To A. squarrosum, the ratio of plant height to total biomass was determinants of root allocation. Plant height was determinants of stem and leaf allocation. The ratio of primary branch number and height was determinants of reproductive allocation. To C. macrocarpum, the ratio of plant height to total biomass was determinants of root allocation. The ratio of secondary branch number and stem biomass was determinants of stem allocation. Plant height was determinants of leaf allocation. The secondary branch number was determinants of reproductive allocation. To C. acuminatum, the ratio of secondary branch number and stem biomass was determinants of root allocation. Plant height was determinants of stem, leaf and reproductive allocation. To S. collina, plant height was determinants of root, stem and leaf allocation. The primary branch number was determinants of reproductive allocation. There were significant allometric relationships between any biomass allocation trait and it’s primary determinants. \n(7) In conclusion, soi nutrient was the largest resource of phenotypic plasticity variation, and it is also the main factor leading to different strategies in biomass allocation of plants occupying different successional status. So, direct or indirect improving the soil nutrient content is one approach of the restoration of desertified land. |
| 中文关键词 | 表型可塑性 ; 异速生长 ; 表观可塑性 ; 真正可塑性 ; 演替 ; 生物量分配 |
| 英文关键词 | phenotypic plasticity allometry apparent plasticity real plasticity succession biomass allocation |
| 语种 | 中文 |
| 国家 | 中国 |
| 来源学科分类 | 生态学 |
| 来源机构 | 中国科学院西北生态环境资源研究院 |
| 资源类型 | 学位论文 |
| 条目标识符 | http://119.78.100.177/qdio/handle/2XILL650/286766 |
| 推荐引用方式 GB/T 7714 | 黄迎新. 四种一年生藜科植物表型可塑性研究[D]. 中国科学院寒区旱区环境与工程研究所,2009. |
| 条目包含的文件 | 条目无相关文件。 | |||||
| 个性服务 |
| 推荐该条目 |
| 保存到收藏夹 |
| 导出为Endnote文件 |
| 谷歌学术 |
| 谷歌学术中相似的文章 |
| [黄迎新]的文章 |
| 百度学术 |
| 百度学术中相似的文章 |
| [黄迎新]的文章 |
| 必应学术 |
| 必应学术中相似的文章 |
| [黄迎新]的文章 |
| 相关权益政策 |
| 暂无数据 |
| 收藏/分享 |
除非特别说明，本系统中所有内容都受版权保护，并保留所有权利。
