-
珍贵木材是国家的战略资源,加强珍贵木材资源的培育是尽快缓解和解决中国珍贵用材缺口及主要依靠进口的唯一途径。浙江楠Phoebe chekiangensis,浙江樟Cinnamomum chekiangense和南方红豆杉Taxus wallichiana var. mairei等均为中国南方省区重点发展的珍贵树种,其中浙江楠和浙江樟材质优良、树干通直,树形美观,也适合做行道树及园林绿化树种。南方红豆杉被列为国家一级珍稀濒危保护植物,集聚药用、材用和观赏等多种价值。目前,国内外广泛采用容器苗造林[1],对1年生容器苗的培育技术已臻成熟[2-7]。然而,珍贵树种早期生长较慢,中国南方对珍贵树种1年生容器苗造林实践表明:珍贵树种在造林初期竞争不过杂草,造林效果较差,而且抚育成本较高,因此,生产上急需突破珍贵树种2年生容器大苗培育的关键技术,实现珍贵树种大规格容器苗造林。基质配比是容器苗培育的关键因素之一[2, 8]。本课题组对珍贵常绿阔叶树种容器苗基质配比的多次对比试验表明:V(泥炭):V(谷壳)为8:2或V(泥炭):V(树皮粉)为7︰3的基质配方较适宜于浙江楠和南方红豆杉当年生容器苗的生长[5, 9-10]。为降低生产成本,李贵雨等[2]就本地废料优选出适于北方白桦Betula platyphylla 1年生容器苗的轻型基质。而2年生容器苗生长习性不同于1年生苗木[11],尤其对于珍贵常绿阔叶树种,2年生苗木的苗体质量大,要求基质选配不仅能满足生产成本、苗木生长发育需求,还需保证容器苗的站立、防风倒等目的。基于此,本研究旨在解决浙江楠等3种珍贵常绿阔叶树种2年生容器苗较适宜的基质配比问题,为优质大规格容器苗育苗基质选配提供理论依据。
-
基质配比对3种珍贵树种2年生容器苗生长影响显著(图 1)。浙江楠在S1基质下生长较好,其高生长量为88.91 cm,显著优于S2基质(P<0.05),高出6.61 cm。浙江樟和南方红豆杉则在S2基质下长势较好,其高生长量分别为69.06和67.94 cm,均显著优于S1基质。浙江樟容器苗地径在S2基质下为9.08 mm,明显大于S1基质,高11.47%。S1基质(泥炭体积分数为45%)较S2基质(泥炭体积分数为35%)更有利于浙江楠容器苗生长,而浙江樟和南方红豆杉则在S2基质下生长较好。可见,不同树种对基质配比要求不同,为提高容器苗质量,应依据树种特性调整基质中泥炭等成分的比例。
图 1 基质配比对3种珍贵树种2年生容器苗苗高和地径的影响
Figure 1. Effect of substrate proportion on height and root collar diameter of two years old container seedlings for three precious tree species
由表 1知:2种基质配比下,3个树种容器苗生物量积累情况各异。S1和S2基质下浙江楠、浙江樟和南方红豆杉的茎生物量差异均显著(P<0.05)。浙江楠茎生物量在S1基质下为23.35 g,比它在S2基质下多3.39 g,差异显著;浙江樟和南方红豆杉则在S2基质下具有较大的茎生物量,分别为9.21 g和11.57 g,显著高于两者在S1基质下的生物量,分别高27.20%和30.26%。南方红豆杉其他部位及整株亦在S2基质下积累较多的生物量,其根、叶及整株生物量分别为8.47,9.66和29.70 g,均高出它在S1基质下相应指标值的27.00%以上。所选基质配比对3树种2年生容器苗根冠比的影响均不显著,表明这2种基质配比尚未影响3种容器苗地上和地下部分生物量分配。
表 1 基质配比对3种珍贵树种2年生容器苗生物量的影响
Table 1. Effect of substrate proportion on biomass of two years old container seedlings for three precious tree species
树种 基质 根生物量/g 茎生物量/g 叶生物量/g 全株生物量/g 根冠比 浙江楠 S1 14.16 ± 2.58 a 23.35 ± 4.37 a 17.43 ± 4.16 a 54.93 ± 6.60 a 0.35 ± 0.07 a S2 14.03 ± 2.93 a 19.96 ± 5.47 b 17.25 ± 4.40 a 51.24 ± 8.10 a 0.38 ± 0.07 a 浙江樟 S1 6.70 ± 2.01 a 7.24 ± 2.83 b 8.73 ± 2.14 a 22.67 ± 5.60 a 0.42 ± 0.09 a S2 7.09 ± 1=55 a 9.21 ± 3.52 a 8.88 ± 2.46 a 25.18 ± 5.54 a 0.39 ± 0.12 a 南方红豆杉 S1 6.49 ± 2.82 b 8.88 ± 4.05 b 7.59 ± 3.14 b 22.96 ± 8.29 b 0.39 ± 0.11 a S2 8.47 ± 2.66 a 11.57 ± 4.43 a 9.66 ± 3.30 a 29.70 ± 8.67 a 0.40 ± 0.13 a 说明:表中相同树种同列中不同字母表示差异显著(P<0.05)。 -
由表 2可知:不同基质配比对3个树种根系生长的影响程度不同。浙江楠和浙江樟在S1和S2基质下根系参数值差异不显著,南方红豆杉各根系发育指标受基质配比影响较明显,S2基质下南方红豆杉总根长、根表面积、根体积及根平均直径分别达3 127.90 cm,1 142.11 cm2,33.48 cm3和5.21 mm,显著大于它在S1基质下各对应值(P<0.05)。可见,基质配比中泥炭等比例的多少对浙江楠和浙江樟2年生容器苗根系生长的影响不显著,却显著影响南方红豆杉2年生容器苗的根系。
表 2 基质配比对3种珍贵树种2年生容器苗根系的影响
Table 2. Effect of substrate proportion on root growth of two years old container seedlings for three precious tree species
树种 基质 总长/cm 总表面积/cm2 平均直径/mm 总体积/cm3 浙江楠 S1 2 744.84 ± 583.13 a 791.92 ± 181.49 a 3.69 ± 0.87 a 19.16 ± 4.59 a S2 2 619.16 ± 499.33 a 752.28 ± 143.40 a 3.56 ± 0.87 a 17.86 ± 3.78 a 浙江樟 S1 2 613.62 ± 1 077.98 a 834.65 ± 313.74 a 3.46 ± 0.99 a 21.60 ± 7.77 a S2 2 663.23 ± 892.17 a 809.03 ± 272.62 a 3.14 ± 1.08 a 19.82 ± 7.01 a 南方红豆杉 S1 2 324.08 ± 1 111.07 b 814.28 ± 367.66 b 3.67 ± 1.45 b 22.99 ± 9.92 b S2 3 127.90 ± 950.51 a 1 142.11 ± 328.73 a 5.21 ± 1.43 a 33.48 ± 9.35 a 说明:表中相同树种同列中不同字母表示差异显著(P<0.05)。 -
从图 2可以看出:除浙江楠茎氮质量分数在2种基质间差异显著外,3树种各部位及整株氮质量分数在基质间差异不显著;浙江楠容器苗氮质量差异并不显著,浙江樟茎和整株氮质量在S2基质时显著高于S1基质;南方红豆杉根、茎、叶及整株氮质量在S2基质时均显著高于S1基质,分别较S1基质下对应值大21.0%,17.7%,31.8%和26.2%。因此,基质配比对3个树种氮积累存在一定影响,对浙江楠氮吸收影响不明显,显著影响浙江樟和南方红豆杉氮的吸收,均表现为S2基质下氮吸收量高。
-
比较结果(图 3)显示:与氮类似,除浙江樟叶片磷质量分数在S2基质下显著大于其S1基质对应值外,3树种各部位及整株基质间磷质量分数差异不显著;浙江楠根系磷质量在S1基质下为26.79 mg,显著高于S2基质,高13.66%;而S2基质下浙江樟叶片和整株磷质量分别为12.41和26.86 mg,明显高于S1基质,分别较S1基质对应指标高出20.8%和18.5%;南方红豆杉根、叶和整株磷质量也在S2基质下出现较高值,分别达16.98,19.72和42.81 mg,显著高出S1基质各值,分别较其提高5.54 mg,5.07 mg和10.83 mg。可见,育苗基质配比显著影响珍贵树种容器苗磷的吸收,S1基质能较好促进浙江楠根系对磷的吸收,而浙江樟和南方红豆杉则在S2基质下积累更多的磷。
Substrate proportion for growth and N/P absorption in two-year-old container seedlings of three precious tree species
-
摘要: 以浙江楠Phoebe chekiangensis,浙江樟Cinnamomum chekiangense和南方红豆杉Taxus wallichiana var.mairei 2年生容器苗为材料,研究轻基质配比对其生长、根系发育及氮、磷吸收的影响,共设置2种体积分数基质配比,分别为45%泥炭+40%谷壳+15%黄心土(S1)和35%泥炭+40%谷壳+25%黄心土(S2)。结果表明:浙江楠在S1基质下,其苗高和茎生物量分别达88.91 cm和23.35 g,明显优于S2基质,分别较其高6.61 cm和3.39 g。浙江樟和南方红豆杉高生长则均表现为S2基质显著优于S1基质,浙江樟地径、茎生物量和南方红豆杉单株生物量在S2基质下分别为9.08 mm,9.21 g和29.70 g,分别较S1基质下大11.5%,27.2%和22.7%。南方红豆杉根系发育受基质配比影响显著,S2基质下其根长、根表面积、根体积及根直径均比S1基质下大34.5%以上;浙江楠和浙江樟在2种基质间根系发育差异不显著。基质配比显著影响浙江樟和南方红豆杉氮和磷吸收,S2基质下,2个树种氮和磷分别为489.66,26.86 mg和559.13,42.81 mg,均显著高于S1基质;浙江楠氮和磷吸收在2种基质间差异不显著。结合生长和养分吸收状况,浙江楠较适宜于泥炭比例相对较高(体积分数为45%),黄心土比例较低(15%)的S1基质,浙江樟和南方红豆杉则在泥炭比例较低(35%),黄心土比例较高(25%)的S2基质下生长较好。可见,不同珍贵树种容器苗对基质配比要求不同,为提高容器苗质量应依据树种特性调整基质成分的比例。Abstract: To analyze the effect of different substrates (S) on growth as well as nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) status in the three kinds of trees, two-year-old container seedlings of Phoebe chekiangensis, Cinnamomum chekiangense, and Taxus wallichiana var.mairei were used as the objective material. The seedlings were cultured in substrates S1 (45% peat, 40% rice husk and 15% mud) and S2 (35% peat, 40% rice husk and 25% mud) with single factor randomized block design. Three replications for them were carried for each treatments. And their growth data for the two treatments were tested by T test analysis in SPSS 18.0. Results showed that P. chekiangensis cultivated with S1 grew better than S2 with height of 88.91 cm (6.61 cm larger than S2) (P=0.034) and stem biomass of 23.35 g (3.39 g larger than S2) (P=0.020). Compared to S1, growth of C. chekiangense and T. wallichiana var. mairei cultivated with S2 was better with diameter at ground 1.3 m of 9.08 mm (larger by 11.5%) (P=0.020) and stem biomass of 9.21 g (larger by 27.2%) (P=0.040) for C. chekiangense; whereas, for T. wallichiana var. mairei, biomass was 29.70 g (larger by 22.7%) (P=0.010). The effect of S2 on root length (P=0.010), root surface area(P=0.002), root diameter(P=0.001), and root volume(P < 0.01) for T. wallichiana var. mairei was larger than S1 by more than 34.5% for each factor. With S2 the N (489.66 mg) (P=0.001) and P (26.86 mg) (P=0.001) content of C. chekiangense, and the N (559.13 mg) (P < 0.001) and P (42.81 mg) (P < 0.001) of T. wallichiana var. mairei were higher than that of S1. However, nutrition absorption of P. chekiangensis did not display differences between the substrates. So, for large container seedlings of these three precious trees, according to both growth and nutrition absorption results, P. chekiangensis would grow better cultivated with S1 which contains more peat and less mud; whereas, C. chekiangense and T. wallichiana var. mairei should be planted with S2 which contains less peat and more mud thereby taking into account the special characteristics of each tree.
-
表 1 基质配比对3种珍贵树种2年生容器苗生物量的影响
Table 1. Effect of substrate proportion on biomass of two years old container seedlings for three precious tree species
树种 基质 根生物量/g 茎生物量/g 叶生物量/g 全株生物量/g 根冠比 浙江楠 S1 14.16 ± 2.58 a 23.35 ± 4.37 a 17.43 ± 4.16 a 54.93 ± 6.60 a 0.35 ± 0.07 a S2 14.03 ± 2.93 a 19.96 ± 5.47 b 17.25 ± 4.40 a 51.24 ± 8.10 a 0.38 ± 0.07 a 浙江樟 S1 6.70 ± 2.01 a 7.24 ± 2.83 b 8.73 ± 2.14 a 22.67 ± 5.60 a 0.42 ± 0.09 a S2 7.09 ± 1=55 a 9.21 ± 3.52 a 8.88 ± 2.46 a 25.18 ± 5.54 a 0.39 ± 0.12 a 南方红豆杉 S1 6.49 ± 2.82 b 8.88 ± 4.05 b 7.59 ± 3.14 b 22.96 ± 8.29 b 0.39 ± 0.11 a S2 8.47 ± 2.66 a 11.57 ± 4.43 a 9.66 ± 3.30 a 29.70 ± 8.67 a 0.40 ± 0.13 a 说明:表中相同树种同列中不同字母表示差异显著(P<0.05)。 表 2 基质配比对3种珍贵树种2年生容器苗根系的影响
Table 2. Effect of substrate proportion on root growth of two years old container seedlings for three precious tree species
树种 基质 总长/cm 总表面积/cm2 平均直径/mm 总体积/cm3 浙江楠 S1 2 744.84 ± 583.13 a 791.92 ± 181.49 a 3.69 ± 0.87 a 19.16 ± 4.59 a S2 2 619.16 ± 499.33 a 752.28 ± 143.40 a 3.56 ± 0.87 a 17.86 ± 3.78 a 浙江樟 S1 2 613.62 ± 1 077.98 a 834.65 ± 313.74 a 3.46 ± 0.99 a 21.60 ± 7.77 a S2 2 663.23 ± 892.17 a 809.03 ± 272.62 a 3.14 ± 1.08 a 19.82 ± 7.01 a 南方红豆杉 S1 2 324.08 ± 1 111.07 b 814.28 ± 367.66 b 3.67 ± 1.45 b 22.99 ± 9.92 b S2 3 127.90 ± 950.51 a 1 142.11 ± 328.73 a 5.21 ± 1.43 a 33.48 ± 9.35 a 说明:表中相同树种同列中不同字母表示差异显著(P<0.05)。 -
[1] 马常耕.世界容器苗研究、生产现状和我国发展对策[J].世界林业研究, 1994, 7(5):33-39. MA Changgen. The current research and production of container seedlings in the world and the development strategy in China[J]. World For Res, 1994, 7(5):33-39. [2] 李贵雨, 卫星, 汤园园, 等.白桦不同轻基质容器苗生长及养分分析[J].林业科学, 2016, 52(7):30-37. LI Guiyu, WEI Xing, TANG Yuanyuan, et al. Growth and nutrient content of Betula platyphylla container seedling in different light media[J]. Sci Silv Sin, 2016, 52(7):30-37. [3] TIMMER V R, MILER B D. Effects of contrasting fertilization and moisture regimes on biomass nutrients and water relations of container grown red pine seedlings[J]. New For, 1991, 5(4):335-348. [4] 马雪红, 胡根长, 冯建国, 等.基质配比、缓释肥量和容器规格对木荷容器苗质量的影响[J].林业科学研究, 2010, 23(4):505-509. MA Xuehong, HU Genchang, FENG Jianguo, et al. Comparison on the substrate and container size of container nursery of Schima superba[J]. For Res, 2010, 23(4):505-509. [5] 周志春, 刘青华, 胡根长, 等. 3种珍贵用材树种轻基质网袋容器育苗方案优选[J].林业科学, 2011, 47(10):172-178. ZHOU Zhichun, LIU Qinghua, HU Genchang, et al. Scheme optimization of light substrate for container seedlings of three precious timber tree species[J]. Sci Silv Sin, 2011, 47(10):172-178. [6] 刘方春, 马海林, 马丙尧, 等.容器基质育苗中保水剂对白蜡生长及养分和干物质积累的影响[J].林业科学, 2011, 47(9):62-68. LIU Fangchun, MA Hailin, MA Bingyao, et al. Effect of super absorbent polymer on container seedling growth of Fraxinus chinensis and the nutrient and dry matter accumulation[J]. Sci Silv Sin, 2011, 47(9):62-68. [7] 楚秀丽, 张守攻, 孙晓梅, 等.日本落叶松容器苗不同控释肥营养元素效应分析[J].北京林业大学学报, 2012, 34(6):47-54. CHU Xiuli, ZHANG Shougong, SUN Xiaomei, et al. Mineral nutrition efficiency of controlled release fertilizers in net container seedlings of Larix kampferi Sarg.[J]. J Beijing For Univ, 2012, 34(6):47-54. [8] 邓华平, 杨桂娟, 王正超, 等.容器大苗培育技术研究现状[J].世界林业研究, 2011, 24(2):36-41. DENG Huaping, YANG Guijuan, WANG Zhengchao, et al. Research status on cultivating techniques of big container seedlings[J]. World For Res, 2011, 24(2):36-41. [9] 王艺, 王秀花, 张丽珍, 等.不同栽培基质对浙江楠和闽楠容器苗生长和根系发育的影响[J].植物资源与环境学报, 2013, 22(3):81-87. WANG Yi, WANG Xiuhua, ZHANG Lizhen, et al. Effects of different cultivation substrates on growth and root system development of container seedlings of Phoebe chekiangensis and P. bournei[J]. J Plant Resour Environ, 2013, 22(3):81-87. [10] 王艺, 王秀花, 吴小林, 等.缓释肥加载对浙江楠和闽楠容器苗生长和养分库构建的影响[J].林业科学, 2013, 49(12):57-63. WANG Yi, WANG Xiuhua, WU Xiaolin, et al. Effects of slow-release fertilizer loading on growth and construction of nutrients reserves of Phoebe chekiangensis and Phoebe bournei container seedlings[J]. Sci Silv Sin, 2013, 49(12):57-63. [11] 肖遥, 楚秀丽, 王秀花, 等.缓释肥加载对3种珍贵树种大规格容器苗生长和N、P库构建的影响[J].林业科学研究, 2015, 28(6):781-787. XIAO Yao, CHU Xiuli, WANG Xiuhua, et al. Effect of slow release fertilizer loading on growth and N, P accumulation of container-growing seedlings for three precious trees species[J]. For Res, 2015, 28(6):781-787. [12] 姜跃丽, 师进霖, 李竹英.不同的基质配比对洋桔梗育苗的影响[J].中国农学通报, 2010, 26(15):286-290. JIANG Yueli, SHI Jinlin, LI Zhuying. Effect of different substrate compositions on the seedlings of Eustoma grandiflorum[J]. Chin Agric Sci Bull, 2010, 26(15):286-290. [13] 王月生, 周志春, 金国庆, 等.基质配比对南方红豆杉容器苗及其移栽生长的影响[J].浙江林学院学报, 2007, 24(5):643-646. WANG Yuesheng, ZHOU Zhichun, JIN Guoqing, et al. Growth of Taxus chinensis var. mairei for container seedlings in different media mixtures and for bare-root versus container seedlings in a young stand[J]. J Zhejiang For Coll, 2007, 24(5):643-646. [14] RIKALA R, HEISKANEN J, LAHTI M. Autumn fertilization in the nursery affects growth of Picea abies container seedlings after transplanting[J]. Scand J For Res, 2004, 19(5):409-414. [15] HEISKANEN J, LAHTI M, LUORANEN J, et al. Nutrient loading has a transitory effect on the nitrogen status and growth of outplanted Norway spruce seedlings[J]. Silv Fenn, 2009, 43(2):249-260. [16] 陈琳, 曾杰, 徐大平, 等.氮素营养对西南桦幼苗生长及叶片养分状况的影响[J].林业科学, 2010, 46(5):35-40. CHEN Lin, ZENG Jie, XU Daping, et al. Effects of exponential nitrogen loading on growth and foliar nutrient status of Betula alnoides seedlings[J]. Sci Silv Sin, 2010, 46(5):35-40. [17] 于钦民, 徐福利, 王渭玲.氮、磷肥对杉木幼苗生物量及养分分配的影响[J].植物营养与肥料学报, 2014, 20(1):118-128. YU Qinmin, XU Fuli, WANG Weiling. Effect of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilization on biomass and nutrient distribution of Cunninghamia lanceolata seedlings[J]. J Plant Nutr Fert, 2014, 20(1):118-128. [18] GÜWELL S. N:P ratios in terrestrial plants:variation and functional significance[J]. New Phytol, 2004, 164(2):243-266. [19] NIKLAS K J. Plant allometry, leaf nitrogen and phosphorus stoichiometry, and interspecific trends in annual growth rates[J]. Ann Bot, 2006, 97(2):155-163. [20] 严正兵, 金南瑛, 韩廷申, 等.氮磷施肥对拟南芥叶片碳氮磷化学计量特征的影响[J].植物生态学报, 2013, 37(6):551-557. YAN Zhengbing, KIM Namyoung, HAN Tingshen, et al. Effects of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilization on leaf carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus stoichiometry of Arabidopsis thaliana[J]. Chin J Plant Ecol, 2013, 37(6):551-557. [21] 王佳茜, 李国雷, 孙龙, 等.木本植物氮素内循环研究综述[J].世界林业研究, 2014, 27(4):24-29. WANG Jiaxi, LI Guolei, SUN Long, et al. Rewiew on internal cycling of nitrogen in woody plants[J]. World For Res, 2014, 27(4):24-29. [22] ELLIOTT K J, WHITE A S. Effects of light, nitrogen, and phosphorus on red pine seedling growth and nutrient use efficiency[J]. For Sci, 1994, 40(1):47-58. [23] RUFAT J, DEJONG T M. Changes in fine root production and longevity in relation to water and nutrient availability in a Norway spruce stand in Northern Sweden[J]. Tree Physiol, 2001, 21(14):1057-1061. [24] JONSDOTTIR R J, SIGURDSSON B D, LINDSTRÖM A. Effects of nutrient loading and fertilization at planting on growth and nutrient status of Lutz spruce (Picea×lutzii) seedlings during the first growing season in Iceland[J]. Scand J For Res, 2013, 28(7):631-641. -
链接本文:
https://zlxb.zafu.edu.cn/article/doi/10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2017.06.011