Response of growth and physiological indicators of Lycopersicone sculentum to water stress relieved by rock wool
-
摘要:
目的 探索盆栽模式下，岩棉材料及其不同埋设方式对土壤水分保蓄能力和植物栽培的实用效果。 方法 以番茄Lycopersicone sculentum幼苗为研究对象，设置植根下部埋设块状岩棉(BR)、环根周埋设片状岩棉(FR)和埋设惰性不吸水材料(ck) 3个处理，模拟水分胁迫下的植株生长；监测土表下5 cm处土壤含水量、番茄生育期内生长和生理指标变化。 结果 等量灌水条件下，土壤容积含水量从大到小依次为BR、FR、ck，岩棉处理显著高于对照(P＜0.05)。同一生长期内岩棉处理(BR和FR)番茄株高、地茎、叶片数、最大叶面积、根长和干质量等指标均高于ck；不同岩棉埋设方式对同期植物的生长指标影响不显著，结果末期BR处理根长显著高于FR处理(P＜0.05)，同期番茄叶片叶绿素a质量分数、总叶绿素质量分数和相对含水量等从大到小依次为BR、FR、ck，而丙二醛质量摩尔浓度、脯氨酸质量分数和过氧化物酶活性从大到小依次为ck、FR、BR。 结论 岩棉材料可以有效提高盆栽土壤蓄水保水能力，缓解水分胁迫对盆栽植物生长及生理特性的不利影响，其中植根下部埋设块状岩棉(BR)对缓解水分胁迫、促进植物根系定植效果更佳。图3表1参31 Abstract:Objective The purpose of this study is to explore the effects of rock wool and its different burying methods on improving soil water retention capacity as well as plant growth under pot culture mode. Method Lycopersicone sculentum seedlings were selected as the experimental objects. Three treatments were set up to simulate the plant growth under water stress, including burying block rock wool (BR) under the root, sheet rock wool (FR) around the root and inert nonabsorbent material (ck). The dynamic changes of soil water content at 5 cm below the soil surface, the growth and physiological indicators of L. sculentum were monitored. Result Under the condition of equal irrigation, the order of soil volume moisture content from large to small was BR, FR and ck, and the soil volume moisture content of rock wool treatment was significantly higher than that of ck (P＜0.05), indicating that rock wool treatment could improve water retention and water storage capacity of potted soil. During the same growth period, the growth index such as plant height, base diameter, leaf number, maximum leaf area, root length and dry weight of L. sculentum treated with rock wool (BR and FR) were higher than those of ck, but there was no significant difference between two rock wool treatments, except that the root length of BR treatment was significantly higher than that of FR treatment (P＜0.05). The order of the chlorophyll a content, total chlorophyll content and relative water content of L. sculentum leaf from large to small in the same period were BR, FR, and ck, while the contents of malondialdehyde (MDA), proline (Pro) and peroxidase (POD) were in the opposite order, indicating that BR was more beneficial to plant root elongation and capable of alleviating plants damage caused by soil water stress. Conclusion Rock wool materials can effectively improve water retention and storage capacity of potted soil, and alleviate adverse effects of water stress on the growth and physiological characteristics of potted plants. Burying block rock wool (BR) under the root is more effective in alleviating water stress and promoting plant root colonization. [Ch, 3 fig. 1 tab. 31 ref.] -
图 1 模拟水分胁迫条件下埋设岩棉对土壤容积含水量的影响
不同字母表示同一生长期不同处理间差异显著(P＜0.05)
Figure 1 Effect of embedded rock wool on soil volume water content under simulated water stress condition
图 2 模拟水分胁迫条件下岩棉对叶片叶绿素的影响
不同字母表示同一生长期不同处理间差异显著(P＜0.05)
Figure 2 Effects of embedded rock wool on total Chl, Chl a and Chl b contents and Chl a/ b in leaves under simulated water stress condition
图 3 模拟水分胁迫条件下岩棉对叶片相对含水量、脯氨酸、丙二醛和过氧化物酶的影响
不同字母表示同一生长期不同处理间有显著性差异(P＜0.05)
Figure 3 Effects of embedded rock wool on RWC, Pro, MDA and POD contents in leaves under simulated water stress condition
表 1 模拟水分胁迫条件下埋设岩棉对番茄植株生长的影响(n＝9)
Table 1. Effects of embedded rock wool on tomato growth index under simulated water stress conditions (n＝9)
生长期 处理 株高/cm 地茎/mm 叶片数/片 最大叶面积/cm2 根长/cm 干质量/g 初苗期 ck 35.17±1.49 b 5.99±0.18 a 75.00±3.21 b 14.05±1.10 b BR 38.67±0.35 a 6.03±0.21 a 84.55±2.76 a 18.47±0.68 a FR 38.72±0.39 a 6.16±0.24 a 83.2±0.39 ab 20.26±1.27 a 开花期 ck 51.95±1.04 b 7.18±0.13 a 132.89±8.73 b 18.77±0.63 b BR 57.83±1.93 a 7.30±0.24 a 153.67±1.35 a 21.48±1.64 a FR 57.22±1.47 a 7.77±0.31 a 180.89±11.95 ab 24.58±0.20 ab 结果初期 ck 63.44±0.69 b 8.03±0.09 a 206.78±13.13 b 19.37±1.44 a BR 70.67±0.58 a 8.01±0.21 a 233.22±8.55 a 23.05±1.42 a FR 69.61±0.94 a 8.42±0.36 a 256.44±5.67 ab 23.69±0.60 a 结果末期 ck 74.50±1.25 b 8.13±0.10 a 234.00±12.86 b 17.21±1.22 b 17.47±0.81 b 12.37±0.46 b BR 81.78±1.24 a 8.42±0.21 a 275.00±2.14 a 23.00±1.41 a 21.50±0.79 a 14.01±0.22 a FR 80.28±0.20 a 8.52±0.30 a 260.56±7.87 ab 23.31±1.05 a 18.61±0.39 b 12.95±0.39 ab 说明：同列不同字母表示同一生长期不同处理间差异显著(P＜0.05) 
下载: 导出CSV
-
[1] 王天, 张舒涵, 闫士朋, 等. 干旱胁迫和磷肥用量对马铃薯根系形态及生理特征的影响[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2020, 38(1): 117 − 124. doi: 10.7606/j.issn.1000-7601.2020.01.16 WANG Tian, ZHANG Shuhan, YAN Shipeng, et al. Effects of drought stress and application amount of phosphorus fertilizer on morphological and physiological characteristics of potato roots [J]. Agric Res Arid Areas, 2020, 38(1): 117 − 124. doi: 10.7606/j.issn.1000-7601.2020.01.16 [2] 刘文瑜, 杨发荣, 黄杰, 等. 干旱胁迫对藜麦幼苗生长和叶绿素荧光特性的影响[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2019, 37(4): 171 − 177. doi: 10.7606/j.issn.1000-7601.2019.04.23 LIU Wenyu, YANG Farong, HUANG Jie, et al. Effects of drought stresson chlorophyll fluorescence properties and seedling growth of quinoa seedlings [J]. Agric Res Arid Areas, 2019, 37(4): 171 − 177. doi: 10.7606/j.issn.1000-7601.2019.04.23 [3] 周欢欢, 傅卢成, 马玲, 等. 干旱胁迫及复水对‘波叶金桂’生理特性的影响[J]. 浙江农林大学学报, 2019, 36(4): 687 − 696. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2019.04.008 ZHOU Huanhuan, FU Lucheng, MA Ling, et al. Physiological characteristics of Osmanthus fragrans ‘Boyejingui’ with drought stress and rewatering [J]. J Zhejiang A&F Univ, 2019, 36(4): 687 − 696. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2019.04.008 [4] 崔婷茹, 于慧敏, 李会彬, 等. 干旱胁迫及复水对狼尾草幼苗生理特性的影响[J]. 草业科学, 2017, 34(4): 788 − 793. doi: 10.11829/j.issn.1001-0629.2016-0535 CUI Tingru, YU Huimin, LI Huibin, et al. Effect of drought stress and rewatering on physiological characteristics of Pennisetum alopecuroides seedlings [J]. Pratacultural Sci, 2017, 34(4): 788 − 793. doi: 10.11829/j.issn.1001-0629.2016-0535 [5] 许馨露, 李丹丹, 马元丹, 等. 四季桂抗氧化防御系统对干旱、高温及协同胁迫的响应[J]. 植物学报, 2018, 53(1): 72 − 81. doi: 10.11983/CBB17004 XU Xinlu, LI Dandan, MA Yuandan, et al. Responses of the antioxidant defense system of Osmanthus fragrans cv. ‘Tian Xiang TaiGe’ to drought, heat and the synergistic stress [J]. Chin Bull Bot, 2018, 53(1): 72 − 81. doi: 10.11983/CBB17004 [6] 吴永波, 叶波. 高温干旱复合胁迫对构树幼苗抗氧化酶活性和活性氧代谢的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2016, 36(2): 403 − 410. WU Yongbo, YE Bo. Effects of combined elevated temperature and drought stress on anti-oxidative enzyme activities and reactive oxygen species metabolism of Broussonetia papyrifera seedlings [J]. Acta Ecol Sin, 2016, 36(2): 403 − 410. [7] 李涛龙, 胡笑涛, 王文娥, 等. 水分胁迫对玉米叶片脯氨酸和丙二醛含量的影响[J]. 节水灌溉, 2017(6): 34 − 37. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-4929.2017.06.008 LI Taolong, HU Xiaotao, WANG Wene, et al. Effects of water stress on proline and malonadialdehyde content in leaves of spring maize [J]. Water Saving Irrig, 2017(6): 34 − 37. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-4929.2017.06.008 [8] 丁玉梅, 马龙海, 周晓罡, 等. 干旱胁迫下马铃薯叶片脯氨酸、丙二醛含量变化及与耐旱性的相关性分析[J]. 西南农业 学报, 2013, 26(1): 106 − 110. DING Yumei, MA Longhai, ZHOU Xiaogang, et al. Effects of drought stress on free proline and malonaldedyde contents in potato leaves and correlation analysis of drought-tolerant level among different varieties [J]. Southwest China J Agric Sci, 2013, 26(1): 106 − 110. [9] 任少勇, 丁丽. 不同无土栽培基质对番茄产量和品质的影响[J]. 长江蔬菜, 2018(4): 62 − 64. REN Shaoyong, DING Li. Effects of different soilless culture substrates on yield and quality of tomato [J]. J Changjiang Veg, 2018(4): 62 − 64. [10] 李永胜, 苟春林, 杜建军, 等. 保水剂与磷肥的相互影响及节水保肥效果[J]. 水土保持研究, 2014, 21(6): 67 − 71. LI Yongsheng, GOU Chunlin, DU Jianjun, et al. Interaction between water retaining agent and phosphorus fertilizers and the effect of water and fertilizer conservation [J]. Res Soil Water Conserv, 2014, 21(6): 67 − 71. [11] 丁红, 张智猛, 戴良香, 等. 干旱胁迫对花生生育中后期根系生长特征的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2013, 21(12): 1477 − 1483. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1011.2013.30447 DING Hong, ZHANG Zhimeng, DAI Liangxiang, et al. Effects of drought stress on root growth characteristics of peanut during mid-to-late growth stages [J]. Chin J Eco-Agric, 2013, 21(12): 1477 − 1483. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1011.2013.30447 [12] 高俊凤. 植物生理学实验指导[M]. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2006. [13] ZHAO Junbin, HARTMANN H, TRUMBORE S, et al. High temperature causes negative whole-plant carbon balance under mild drought [J]. New Phytol, 2013, 200(2): 330 − 339. doi: 10.1111/nph.12400 [14] Mc DOWELL N G. Mechanisms linking drought, hydraulics, carbon metabolism, and vegetation mortality [J]. Plant Physiol, 2011, 155(3): 1051 − 1059. doi: 10.1104/pp.110.170704 [15] 张凯, 王润元, 王鹤龄, 等. 温度升高和降水减少对半干旱区春小麦生长发育及产量的协同影响[J]. 中国生态农业学 报, 2019, 27(3): 413 − 421. ZHANG Kai, WANG Runyuan, WANG Heling, et al. Influence of climate warming and rainfall reduction on semi-arid wheat production [J]. Chin J Eco-Agric, 2019, 27(3): 413 − 421. [16] RODIYATI A, ARISOESILANINGSIH E, ISAGI Y, et al. Responses of Cyperus brevifolius (Rottb.) Hassk. and Cyperus kyllingia Endl. to varying soil water availability [J]. Environ Exp Bot, 2005, 53(3): 259 − 269. doi: 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2004.03.018 [17] SINGH B, SINGH G. Biomass partitioning and gas exchange in Dalbergia sissoo seedlings under water stress [J]. Photosynthetica, 2003, 41(3): 407 − 414. doi: 10.1023/B:PHOT.0000015465.86985.53 [18] 任毛飞, 王吉庆, 周燕, 等. 岩棉育苗块持水量对番茄幼苗生长的影响[J]. 北方园艺, 2016(9): 47 − 49. REN Maofei, WANG Jiqing, ZHOU Yan, et al. Effect of water capacity of rock wool block on the growth of tomato seedlings [J]. Northern Hortic, 2016(9): 47 − 49. [19] 孙小玲, 许岳飞, 马鲁沂, 等. 植株叶片的光合色素构成对遮阴的响应[J]. 植物生态学报, 2010, 34(8): 989 − 999. doi: 10.3773/j.issn.1005-264x.2010.08.012 SUN Xiaoling, XU Yunfei, MA Luyi, et al. A review of acclimation of photosynthetic pigment composition in plant leaves to shade environment [J]. Chin J Plant Ecol, 2010, 34(8): 989 − 999. doi: 10.3773/j.issn.1005-264x.2010.08.012 [20] 朱雨晴, 薛晓萍. 遮阴及复光对花果期番茄叶片光合特性的影响[J]. 中国农业气象, 2019, 40(2): 126 − 134. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-6362.2019.02.007 ZHU Yuqing, XUE Xiaoping. Effects of shading and light restoration on photosynthetic characteristics of tomato leaves during flowering and fruit period [J]. Chin J Agrometeorol, 2019, 40(2): 126 − 134. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-6362.2019.02.007 [21] 邵惠芳, 陈征, 许嘉阳, 等. 2种烟草幼苗叶片对不同强度干旱胁迫的生理响应比较[J]. 植物生理学报, 2016, 52(12): 1861 − 1871. SHAO Huifang, CHEN Zheng, XU Jiayang, et al. Physiological responses of two tobacco cultivar leaves to different drought stresses during seedling stage [J]. Plant Physiol J, 2016, 52(12): 1861 − 1871. [22] MA Xingli, XIN Zeyu, WANG Zhiqiang, et al. Identification and comparative analysis of differentially expressed miRNAs in leaves of two wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) genotypes during dehydration stress [J]. BMC Plant Biol, 2015, 15(1): 21. doi: 10.1186/s12870-015-0413-9 [23] 胡振兴, 刘灵, 陈丽萍, 等. 干旱胁迫下丛枝菌根对大豆抗氧化代谢及根围微生物的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2018, 26(4): 526 − 537. HU Zhenxing, LIU Ling, CHEN Liping, et al. Effects of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on antioxidant metabolism and rhizospheric micro-organism of soybean (Glycine max) under drought stress [J]. Chin J Eco-Agric, 2018, 26(4): 526 − 537. [24] 储凤丽, 刘亚军, 王文静, 等. 干旱胁迫对甘薯活性氧代谢、渗透调节物质、SPAD及叶绿素荧光特性的影响[J]. 中 国农学通报, 2019, 35(26): 29 − 34. CHU Fengli, LIU Yajun, WANG Wenjing, et al. Effects of drought stress on active oxygen metabolism, osmotic regulators, SPAD and chlorophyll fluorescence characteristics of sweet potato [J]. Chin Agric Sci Bull, 2019, 35(26): 29 − 34. [25] 顾建勤, 闫志利, 牛俊义, 等. 干旱胁迫及复水对豌豆苗期保护酶活性及膜脂过氧化的影响[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2012, 30(3): 159 − 164. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-7601.2012.03.028 GU Jianqin, YAN Zhili, NIU Junyi, et al. Effect of drought stress and rewater on protective enzyme activity and membrane lipid peroxidation in pea leaves during seedling stage [J]. Agric Res Arid Areas, 2012, 30(3): 159 − 164. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-7601.2012.03.028 [26] 范苏鲁, 苑兆和, 冯立娟, 等. 干旱胁迫对大丽花生理生化指标的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2011, 22(3): 651 − 657. FAN Sulu, YUAN Zhaohe, FENG Lijuan, et al. Effects of drought stress on physiological and biochemical parameters of Dahlia pinnata [J]. Chin J Appl Ecol, 2011, 22(3): 651 − 657. [27] 赵丽英, 邓西平, 山仑. 活性氧清除系统对干旱胁迫的响应机制[J]. 西北植物学报, 2005, 25(2): 413 − 418. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-4025.2005.02.034 ZHAO Liying, DENG Xiping, SHAN Lun. The response mechanism of active oxygen species removing system to drought stress [J]. Acta Bot Boreali-Occident Sin, 2005, 25(2): 413 − 418. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-4025.2005.02.034 [28] 闫成仕. 水分胁迫下植物叶片抗氧化系统的响应研究进展[J]. 烟台师范学院学报(自然科学版), 2002, 18(3): 220 − 225. YAN Chengshi. Antioxidant responses to water stress in plant leaves [J]. Yantai Norm Univ J Nat Sci, 2002, 18(3): 220 − 225. [29] 尹永强, 胡建斌, 邓明军. 植物叶片抗氧化系统及其对逆境胁迫的响应研究进展[J]. 中国农学通报, 2007, 23(1): 105 − 110. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-6850.2007.01.025 YIN Yongqiang, HU Jianbin, DENG Mingjun. Latest development of antioxidant system and responses to stress in plant leaves [J]. Chin Agric Sci Bull, 2007, 23(1): 105 − 110. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-6850.2007.01.025 [30] ZHANG Jingxian, KIRKHAM M B. Drought-stress-induced changes in activities of superoxide dismutase, catalase, and peroxidase in wheat species [J]. Plant Cell Physiol, 1994, 35(5): 785 − 791. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.pcp.a078658 [31] 顾佳悦, 方伟, 高竞, 等. 应用岩棉材料提高丘陵区经济林土壤水分保蓄能力[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2020, 38(3): 10 − 18. doi: 10.7606/j.issn.1000-7601.2020.03.02 GU Jiayue, FANG Wei, GAO Jing, et al. Improving soil water retention capacity of economic forest using rock wool in hilly area [J]. Agric Res Arid Areas, 2020, 38(3): 10 − 18. doi: 10.7606/j.issn.1000-7601.2020.03.02 -
-
链接本文:
http://zlxb.zafu.edu.cn/article/doi/10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.20200221
点击查看大图
计量
- 文章访问数: 19
- 被引次数: 0
