Please wait a minute...
img

官方微信

高级检索
中国沙漠  2020, Vol. 40 Issue (6): 127-138    DOI: 10.7522/j.issn.1000-694X.2020.00043
    
海岸防风固沙树种耐风吹阈值比较
周瑞莲(),强生斌,逄金强,宋玉
鲁东大学 生命科学学院,山东 烟台 264025
Comparison of tolerance threshold of coastal tree species with windbreak and sand fixation to strong wind-drift blowing
Ruilian Zhou(),Shengbin Qiang,Jinqiang Pang,Yu Song
College of Life Sciences,Ludong University,Yantai 264025,Shandong,China
 全文: PDF(1806 KB)   HTML
摘要:

利用便携式风洞,结合野外调查,对4个海岸防风树种(单叶蔓荆Vitex trifolia、柽柳Tamarix chinensis、紫穗槐Amorpha fruticosa和黑松Pinus thunbergii)幼株进行了短期(40 min)、间歇(风处理20 min,恢复24 h,重复3次)、持续(6 h)强净风(18 m·s-1)和风沙流吹袭(172.93 g·cm-1·min-1)处理,通过测定风吹袭中和风后秋冬季植株形态特征、茎杆弯曲和折损程度、叶片发黄和脱落比率及春季植株存活率确定了4个树种对强风沙流吹袭的耐受阈值。结果表明:(1)短期强净风和风沙流吹袭后,4个树种在春季均恢复生长,耐受力均很高。(2)间歇强净风和风沙流处理中,虽然4个树种部分叶片脱落、植株顶部受损、茎干弯曲,但均在第2年存活,对间歇强风沙流吹袭表现出较高耐受力。(3)持续强净风和风沙流吹袭下,4个树种的耐受力表现不同。风吹袭中57%~69%叶片脱落(紫穗槐和单叶蔓荆)、茎干倾斜、枝条折断严重、叶片穿损。在春季,柽柳100%恢复生长,黑松70%恢复生长,紫穗槐在强风沙流吹袭后死亡,单叶蔓荆在持续强净风和风沙流吹袭后死亡,耐受阈值柽柳>黑松>紫穗槐>单叶蔓荆。4个防风树种具有相似的根构型,即深根系、发达的侧根、具不定根(单叶蔓荆),具有的锚固作用可能是其抵抗强风吹袭的关键,而它们枝系构型差异可能是其耐受阈值不同的根源。

关键词: 抗风优势树种叶片特性植株形态特征适应对策风沙流吹袭    
Abstract:

The ratio of leaf deciduous , changes in leaf morphology, color, stem morphology in the Vitex trifolia, Tamarix chinensis, Amorpha fruticosa, Pinus thunbergii were investigated during and after expose to strong wind blowing and wind-drift blowing (at 18 m·s-1 with 172.93 g·cm-1·min-1) for short-term treatment (40 min) and interval treatment (20 min, reparing for 24 h, recycling 3 times), and long-term 6 h treatment by using methods of combination of outdoor portable wind tunnel with field investigation. The tolerance threshold of four tress species were evaluated by pant morphology trait, bend and breakage of stems or branches, leaf shedding ratio, plant survival rate by field investigation after treatment in the fall and winter, and spring next year. The results showed that: (1) Four tress all restored and had leafy in next spring, exhibited higher tolerance to strong wind blowing after short-term treatment with strong wind blowing and wind-drift blowing. (2) During interval strong wind blowing and wind-drift blowing, leaves of the four tree species partly fell off, the tops of the plants damaged, and the stems bent, but they all survived in the second year and exhibited higher tolerance to strong interval wind blowing. (3) Under long-term treatment with wind blowing and wind-drift blowing for 6 h, there were differences in capacity of tolerance to it among four tress. During wind blowing treatment, there were 57%-69% leaves off, the stem tilted, branches severely broken, lots of holes in the leaves. But after repairing in the fall and winter, T. chinensis could recover by 100% in spring, P. thunbergii by 70%, A. fruticosa was dead under wind-drift blowing, V. trifolia was dead under wind blowing and wind-drift blowing in next spring. The tolerance threshold was T. chinensis>P. thunbergii>A. fruticosa>V. trifolia. However, there were similar root system architecture (deep root system, developed lateral roots, and adventitious roots (V. trifolia) among four stress to play a role in anchorage, which could be a key for four tress to resistance to strong winds blowing. But, there were difference in branch system architecture among four tresses, which could be reason why they had their different tolerance thresholds.

Key words: dominant tree species with resistance to wind blowing    leaf characteristics    plant orphological characteristics    adaptation strategies    wind blowing and wind-drift blowing
收稿日期: 2020-03-30 出版日期: 2020-09-01
ZTFLH:  Q945.79  
基金资助: 国家自然科学基金项目(31770762)
作者简介: 周瑞莲(1958—),女,河南济源人,教授,主要从事植物生理研究。E-mail: zhourl726@163.com
服务  
把本文推荐给朋友
加入引用管理器
E-mail Alert
RSS
作者相关文章  
周瑞莲
强生斌
逄金强
宋玉

引用本文:

周瑞莲,强生斌,逄金强,宋玉. 海岸防风固沙树种耐风吹阈值比较[J]. 中国沙漠, 2020, 40(6): 127-138.

Ruilian Zhou,Shengbin Qiang,Jinqiang Pang,Yu Song. Comparison of tolerance threshold of coastal tree species with windbreak and sand fixation to strong wind-drift blowing. Journal of Desert Research, 2020, 40(6): 127-138.

链接本文:

http://www.desert.ac.cn/CN/10.7522/j.issn.1000-694X.2020.00043        http://www.desert.ac.cn/CN/Y2020/V40/I6/127

名称(拉丁名)科属生长特性适应特性叶形状根特性
黑松(Pinus thunbergii)松科,松属常绿乔木,高达30 m耐干旱、瘠薄、海雾,抗海风、抗病,是道路行道绿化首选树种条状披针形根系发达
柽柳(Tamarix chinensis)柽柳科,柽柳属落叶小乔木或灌木,高3~6 m耐干旱、高温、严寒,抗风耐干旱,是防风固沙、改造盐碱地、绿化环境的优良树种圆状披针形或长卵形深根系,主侧根都极发达
紫穗槐(Amorpha fruticosa)豆科,紫穗槐属落叶灌木,高1~4 m耐干旱、耐瘠,耐寒性强,采用插条繁殖,是护坡绿化的优良树种小叶卵形或椭圆形深根性直根
单叶蔓荆(Vitex trifolia)马鞭草科,牡荆属落叶灌木,茎匍匐耐干旱,耐瘠薄、耐寒,是海滨防沙造林树种倒卵形或近圆形根系非常庞大、发达,主根深
表1  4个海岸抗风树种生物学特性的比较
图1  间歇强净风和风沙流吹袭对柽柳、单叶蔓荆、黑松、紫穗槐叶片相对含水量影响不同小写字母表示不同风吹袭次数和恢复期间叶片相对含水量差异显著(P <0.05)
植物风吹类型风吹时间/h
0~22~44~6
鲜重比/%干重比/%鲜重比/%干重比/%鲜重比/%干重比/%
黑松(Pinus thunbergii)净风吹袭0.0±0.0c0.0±0.0c0.0±0.0c0.0±0.0c0.0±0.0c0.0±0.0c
柽柳(Tamarix chinensis)64.8±8.8ab59.0±4.3ab19.6±2.1a21.2±1.6a8.6±1.8b10.4±1.0b
紫穗槐(Amorpha fruticosa)77.9±2.6a80.2±5.2a10.3±1.6b9.9±1.1b11.8±1.2b9.9±0.8b
单叶蔓荆(Vitex trifolia)50.8±2.8b47.6±3.2b12.2±1.1b13.3±1.9b22.9±2.4a21.9±1.5a
黑松(Pinus thunbergii)风沙流吹袭31.2±1.6c30.2±1.7c45.1±3.8b46.1±2.6b23.7±2.1b23.6±2.1b
柽柳(Tamarix chinensis)28.6±2.1c23.6±2.5c52.2±3.9a53.7±3.1a19.2±1.2b22.8±1.8b
紫穗槐(Amorpha fruticosa)69.0±4.6a64.1±4.9a11.2±1.6c13.1±1.3c19.9±2.3b22.8±2.3b
单叶蔓荆(Vitex trifolia)57.5±3.1b54.2±4.7b10.1±1.2c11.2±1.1c32.4±2.8a34.6±2.8a
表2  不同时间强风沙流和净风吹袭下黑松、柽柳、紫穗槐和单叶蔓荆叶片落叶率比较
树 种风况风吹处理时植株表现风处理后植株表现
秋季冬季春季
植株状况脱叶率/%植株状况脱叶率/%植株状况脱叶率/%植株状况恢复率/%
黑 松6 m·s-1,20 min净风植株小幅摆动0正常生长,茎干直立0正常生长0正常生长,新叶较多100
风沙流植株小幅摆动0正常生长,茎干直立0正常生长0正常生长,茎干有新叶100
9 m·s-1,20 min净风植株小幅摆动0正常生长,茎干直立0迎风面无新叶0正常生长,背风面有新叶100
风沙流植株小幅摆动0正常生长,茎干直立0有新叶但小0正常生长,分枝新叶增多100
12 m·s-1,20 min净风植株摆动大,且微倾斜0正常生长,底部老叶脱落10茎干上嫩芽少,多见于分支0正常生长,新叶长势好100
风沙流植株摆动大,茎干倾斜0正常生长,底部老叶及顶部有脱叶10新嫩芽数量少,生长正常0正常生长,侧枝有新叶
15 m·s-1,20 min净风植株摆动大,茎干倾斜0正常生长,茎干略倾斜,老叶及嫩叶有脱落15分枝上嫩芽少,正常生长0正常生长,顶部有新叶100
风沙流植株摆动大,茎干倾斜0正常生长,茎干倾斜,脱叶增多20分枝上嫩芽少,生长正常0正常生长,顶部有新叶90
18 m·s-1,40 min净风植株大幅动,茎干倾斜101/3叶尖枯黄,茎干干枯,顶中部松枝脱落201/3叶尖枯黄0

正常生长,顶部有新叶,

老叶枯黄

80
风沙流植株大幅摆动,茎干倾斜,有打痕151/3叶尖枯黄,分枝条弯曲,枝条有脱落251/3叶尖枯黄0枯黄处无新叶,顶部有新叶,老叶枯黄80
18 m·s-1,20 min净风植株大幅摆动,茎干倾斜101/3叶尖枯黄,直立正常101/3叶尖枯黄0植株老叶仍枯黄,顶部有新叶80
风沙流植株大幅摆动,茎干有打痕101/3叶尖枯黄,直立正常101/3叶尖枯黄0植株老叶仍枯黄,顶部有新叶80
3次,18 m·s-1,6 h净风植株大幅摆动,茎干倾斜10叶尖受损严重,茎干倾斜大301/2 叶尖枯黄20植株总体枯黄,黄叶绿叶参半70
风沙流植株大幅摆动,茎干有打痕15植株暗灰色,茎干倾斜大301/2 叶尖枯黄20植株总体枯黄,黄叶绿叶参半70
紫 穗 槐6 m·s-1,20 min净风枝叶微动,无受损0正常生长0整株叶枯黄100有嫩芽,底部多,枝繁叶茂100
风沙流枝叶微动,无受损0有新叶长出,正常生长0整株叶枯黄100有嫩芽,底部多,枝繁叶茂100
9 m·s-1,20 min净风枝叶小幅摆动,无受损0有新叶长出,正常生长0整株叶枯黄100有嫩芽,枝条伸展,枝繁叶茂100
风沙流枝叶小幅摆动,无受损0有新叶长出,正常生长10整株叶枯黄100有嫩芽,枝条伸展,枝繁叶茂100
12 m·s-1,20 min净风枝叶摆动增大,茎干倾斜,叶片边缘受损10枝繁叶茂,茎干恢复直立10整株叶枯黄100有嫩芽,枝条伸展,枝繁叶茂100
风沙流枝叶摆动增大,茎干倾斜,叶片边缘受损,叶有孔洞15较多碎叶,茎干恢复直立10整株叶枯黄100有嫩芽,枝条伸展,枝繁叶茂100
15 m·s-1,20 min净风茎干倾斜,叶大量掉落30迎风处碎叶多,茎干恢复直立30整株叶枯黄100有嫩芽,枝条伸展,枝繁叶茂90
风沙流茎干倾斜,有打痕,表皮粗糙,叶片萎缩30叶片有孔洞,枝繁叶茂,茎干矮于其他30整株叶枯黄100有嫩芽,枝条伸展,枝繁叶茂90
18 m·s-1,40 min净风叶片大量掉落,偶成枝叶落,碎叶35叶片有损伤,有碎叶,枝繁叶茂,茎干恢复直立40整株叶枯黄100有嫩芽,枝条伸展,枝繁叶茂90
风沙流树皮有区域打痕,碎叶断枝,叶有孔40叶有洞,枝繁叶茂,茎干矮于其他45整株叶枯黄100有嫩芽,枝条伸展,枝繁叶茂80
18 m·s-1,20 min净风枝叶大幅摆动,叶破损多35植株暗黄,茎干倾斜40整株叶枯黄100有新叶,枝繁叶茂80
风沙流枝叶大幅摆动,叶有孔洞,叶片破损严重35叶片暗黄且萎缩,茎干倾斜45整株叶枯黄100有新叶,枝繁叶茂80
3次,18 m·s-1,6 h净风枝叶大幅摆动,叶破损多,断枝50叶破碎干枯,茎干倾斜45整株叶枯黄100有新叶,枝繁叶茂60
风沙流枝叶大幅摆动,叶破损多,断枝55半叶,叶片有孔洞,茎干倾斜50整株叶枯黄100枝秆枯死0
单 叶 蔓 荆18 m·s-1,40 min净风枝叶大幅摆动,叶破损多30叶尖变黄,叶脉稍绿,茎干直立20季节枯黄100植株绿色,叶片茂盛70
风沙流枝叶大幅摆动,叶破损多,叶有孔洞30叶尖黄有半叶,有干叶,叶片有孔洞,茎干直立25季节枯黄100植株绿色,叶片茂盛70
18 m·s-1,20 min净风枝叶大幅摆动,叶破损多25叶尖微黄,叶脉稍绿,茎干直立25季节枯黄100植株绿色,叶片较茂盛50
风沙流枝叶大幅摆动,叶破损多,老叶脱落30有半叶,叶有洞,茎干直立,叶边缘破碎30季节枯黄100植株绿色,叶片较茂盛50
3次,18 m·s-1,6 h净风枝叶大幅摆动,叶破损多47叶片失水皱缩,茎干直立30季节枯黄100枯死, 无萌生0
风沙流枝叶大幅摆动,老叶脱落,叶有孔洞,磨损严重65半叶,碎叶,叶有洞,茎干直立,且有打击痕35季节枯黄100枯死, 无萌生0
柽 柳18 m·s-1,40 min净风枝叶大幅摆动,叶絮受损重251/2叶片枯黄,茎干倾斜15季节枯黄100枝条嫩绿,枝繁叶茂100
风沙流枝叶大幅摆动,叶絮受损重251/2叶片枯黄,茎干倾斜15季节枯黄100枝条嫩绿,枝繁叶茂100
18 m·s-1,20 min净风枝叶大幅摆动,叶絮受损重30叶絮绿,茎干倾斜15季节枯黄100枝条嫩绿,枝繁叶茂100
风沙流枝叶大幅摆动,叶絮受损重,部分叶絮脱落301/2叶片枯黄,茎干倾斜15季节枯黄100枝条嫩绿,枝繁叶茂100
3次,18 m·s-1,6 h净风枝叶大幅摆动,叶絮受损重351/2叶絮枯黄,茎干倾斜明显25季节枯黄100枝条嫩绿,枝繁叶茂100
风沙流枝叶大幅摆动,部分叶絮脱落401/2叶絮枯黄,茎干倾斜明显25季节枯黄100枝条嫩绿,枝繁叶茂100
表3  不同风速和不同类型强风净风和风沙流吹袭对4个树种幼树持续生长的影响
树种处理
净风风沙流
短时吹袭间歇吹袭持续吹袭短时吹袭间歇吹袭持续吹袭
黑松(Pinus thunbergii)
柽柳(Tamarix chinensis)
紫穗槐(Amorpha fruticosa)
单叶蔓荆(Vitex trifolia)
表4  4个树种对18 m·s-1强净风和风沙流吹袭的耐受阈值评估
1 赵哈林.沙漠化防治学[M].北京:现代教育出版社,2016.
2 张振克,杨运恒.胶东半岛北部沿海现代风沙灾害特点、成因及减灾对策[J].中国沙漠,1992,12(2):34-40.
3 赵艳云,陆兆华,刘京涛,等.海岸沙丘植物群落分布、适应性和演替研究进展[J].湿地科学,2014,12(3):401-408.
4 Murren C J,Pigliucci M.Morphological responses to simulated wind in the genus Brassica (Brassicaceae):allopolyploids and their parental species[J].American Journal of Botany,2005,92(5):810-818.
5 冯淼彦,董治宝,黄日辉,等.广东省东海岛海岸老鼠艻(Spinifex littoreus)草丛沙堆形态及沉积特征[J].中国沙漠,2019,39(6):167-176.
6 张鹏,孙阳,虞木奎,等.海岸梯度上黑松针叶形态与解剖结构性状的变化规律[J].植物研究,2018,38(3):343-348.
7 李德禄,满多清,刘有军,等.不同年限退耕地植被与风沙流的关系研究[J].西北林学院学报,2018(1):56-61.
8 Anten N P R,Alcalá-Herrera R,Schieving F,et al.Wind andmechanical stimuli differentially affect leaf traits in Plantago major[J].New Phytologist,2010,188(2):554-564.
9 南江,赵晓英,余保峰.模拟长期大风对木本猪毛菜表观特征的影响[J].生态学报,2012,32(20):6354-6360.
10 Wu T G,Zhang P,Zhang L,et al.Morphological response of eight Quercus species to simulated wind load[J]. PLoS One,2016,11(9):163.
11 古力米热·热孜,赵晓英,原慧,等.模拟长期大风胁迫对霸王叶解剖结构特征的影响[J].西北植物学报,2012,32(10):2047-2052.
12 李建刚,王继和,蒋志荣,等.民勤县主要治沙造林树种空间结构及其防风作用[J].水土保持研究,2008,15(3):121-124.
13 Vogel S.Leaves in the lowest and highest winds:temperature,force and shape[J].New Phytologist,2009,183(1):13-26.
14 Telewski F W.Is windswept tree growth negative thigmotropism?[J].Plant Science,2012,184: 20-28.
15 赵哈林,李瑾,周瑞莲,等.风沙流持续吹袭对樟子松幼树光合蒸腾作用的影响[J].生态学报,2015,35(20):6678-6685.
16 管阳,纪永福,张莹花,等.风沙流对梭梭幼苗光合作用的影响[J].甘肃农业大学学报,2018,53(2):108-112.
17 马会雷,张婷凤,周瑞莲,等.海岸不同坡向滨麦光合特性与风速异质环境的关系[J].生态学报,2018,38(10):3504-3513.
18 Schymanski S J,Or D.Wind increases leaf water use efficiency[J].Plant,Cell & Environment,2016,39(7):1448-1459.
19 杨显基,杜建会,秦晶,等.海岸沙生植物老鼠艻(Spinifex littoreus)叶水势对风蚀、沙埋和风沙流磨蚀的响应[J].生态学杂志,2017(5):1215-1221.
20 李道明,纪永福,张莹花,等.风沙流胁迫对霸王幼苗生理特征的影响[J].西北农林科技大学学报,2019(3):103-110.
21 赵哈林,李瑾,周瑞莲,等.强风沙流吹袭对樟子松幼苗生长特性及其逆境生理特征的影响[J].生态学杂志,2015(4):901-906.
22 于云江,辛越勇,刘家琼,等.风和风沙流对不同固沙植物生理状态的影响[J].植物学报,1998,40(10):962-968.
23 赵哈林,李瑾,周瑞莲,等.风沙流频繁吹袭对樟子松幼苗光合水分代谢的影响[J].草业学报,2015(10):149-156.
24 王铸豪.植物与环境[M].北京:科学出版社,1986.
25 李传荣,许景伟,刘立川,等.沙质海岸黑松分枝格局特征及其抗风折能力分析[J].植物生态学报,2011,35(9):926-936.
26 Ryan M G,Yoder B J.Hydraulic limits to tree height and tree growth[J].Bioscience,1997,47:235-242.
27 Sellier D,Fourcaud T.Crown structure and wood properties: influence on tree sway and response to high winds[J].American Journal of Botany,2009,96(5):885-896.
28 Harper J L.Population Biology of Plant.[M].London,UK:Academic Press,1977.
29 屈志强,刘连友,吕艳丽.沙生植物构型及其与抗风蚀能力关系研究综述[J].生态学杂志,2011,30(2):357-362.
30 Lynch J.Root architecture and plant productivity[J].Plant Physiology,1995,109:7-13.
[1] 赵哈林, 李瑾, 周瑞莲, 云建英, 冯静, 苏娜. 风沙流短暂吹袭对樟子松(Pinus sylvestris var. mongolica)幼苗光合蒸腾特性的影响[J]. 中国沙漠, 2017, 37(2): 254-260.
[2] 孙希科;周立华*;陈 勇. 疏勒河流域气候变化情景下的适应对策[J]. 中国沙漠, 2011, 31(5): 1316-1322.
[3] 张景光, 王新平, 李新荣, 张志山, 王刚, 王桑, 马风云. 荒漠植物生活史对策研究进展与展望[J]. 中国沙漠, 2005, 25(3): 306-314.
[4] 刘爽, 高玉葆, 陈世苹, 任安芝, 梁宇, 刘宁. 科尔沁沙地白草、赖草无性系生长及适应对策的初步研究[J]. 中国沙漠, 1999, 19(s1): 75-78.