Journal of Desert Research ›› 2024, Vol. 44 ›› Issue (1): 86-95.DOI: 10.7522/j.issn.1000-694X.2023.00056
Previous Articles Next Articles
Jin Wang1,3(), Zhao Liu2,3(
), Yujie Zhang3,4, Chao Pu1,3, Yao Wu1,3, Lifeng E1,3, Quangang Xie1,3
Received:
2022-11-04
Revised:
2023-04-27
Online:
2024-01-20
Published:
2023-12-26
Contact:
Zhao Liu
CLC Number:
Jin Wang, Zhao Liu, Yujie Zhang, Chao Pu, Yao Wu, Lifeng E, Quangang Xie. Phenotype differences and dormancy breaking of Nitraria sphaerocarpa seeds in Hexi Corridor[J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2024, 44(1): 86-95.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: http://www.desert.ac.cn/EN/10.7522/j.issn.1000-694X.2023.00056
编号 | 样地名称 | 地理坐标 | 海拔/m | 优良度/% | 初始发芽率/% | 土壤含水量/% |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
S1 | 河西学院试验地 | 38°57′11″N,100°26′18″E | 1 471 | 82.75 | 12 | 9.7 |
S2 | 高台县罗城乡沙地 | 39°41′13″N,99°35′46″E | 1 303 | 42.5 | 6 | 3.5 |
S3 | 肃州区银达镇荒漠 | 39°48′06″N,98°34′15″E | 1 424 | 84 | 23 | 9.8 |
S4 | 阿拉善右旗陈家新井沙地 | 39°22′13″N,101°10′34″E | 1 560 | 56 | 11.75 | 5.2 |
S5 | 甘州区林业局兔儿坝植被站 | 39°03′58″N,100°31′59″E | 1 468 | 68.75 | 8.25 | 6.0 |
S6 | 临泽县沙河林场 | 39°01′47″N,100°04′28″E | 1 626 | 68.5 | 7.25 | 5.8 |
S7 | 金塔县鼎新镇沙地 | 40°18′25″N,99°30′29″E | 1 267 | 70.5 | 18.5 | 6.6 |
S8 | 肃州区东洞乡荒滩 | 39°34′38″N,98°33′36″E | 1 560 | 83.25 | 30.25 | 10.1 |
S9 | 甘州区沙漠公园 | 38°47′48″N,100°29′04″E | 1 537 | 79.5 | 25.25 | 8.7 |
S10 | 肃南县明花乡沙荒地 | 39°23′25″N,99°26′55″E | 1 417 | 81 | 24.25 | 8.6 |
S11 | 敦煌市莫高镇沙地 | 40°10′14″N,94°48′21″E | 1 115 | 56.5 | 13.25 | 5.8 |
S12 | 临泽中国科学院试验站 | 39°21′01″N,100°07′53″E | 1 383 | 77.5 | 16 | 7.1 |
S13 | 永昌朱王堡镇荒地 | 38°12′51″N,102°36′47″E | 1 486 | 90.5 | 24.5 | 11.3 |
S14 | 民乐县六坝治 | 38°38′55″N,100°44′04″E | 1 822 | 79.59 | 23.75 | 8.3 |
S15 | 古浪县海子滩镇河床地 | 37°34′57″N,103°35′21″E | 1 721 | 91.25 | 13 | 13.8 |
S16 | 凉州区发放镇王家碱滩 | 37°56′55″N,102°43′47″E | 1 498 | 54.25 | 6.5 | 5.1 |
S17 | 民勤县红沙梁乡沙地 | 38°58′38″N,103°24′25″E | 1 322 | 48 | 7.75 | 4.4 |
S18 | 山丹县清泉镇红寺湖荒地 | 38°53′27″N,101°08′17″E | 2 002 | 60.75 | 11.5 | 5.4 |
S19 | 山丹县老君乡荒地 | 38°32′53″N,101°22′46″E | 2 141 | 64 | 12 | 5.8 |
S20 | 甘州区老寺庙农场荒地 | 38°54′14″N,100°39′26″E | 1 516 | 34.5 | 4.25 | 3.8 |
S21 | 甘州区平山湖乡沙荒地 | 39°00′37″N,100°50′50″E | 2 245 | 79.25 | 15 | 8.4 |
S22 | 阿拉善右旗板滩井 | 39°26′57″N,104°05′34″E | 1 250 | 85.75 | 18 | 9.6 |
S23 | 嘉峪关市峪泉镇荒地 | 39°48′30″N,98°13′53″E | 1 684 | 81.25 | 17 | 9.1 |
S24 | 张掖市龙首电站荒地 | 38°55′07″N,100°59′39″E | 1 548 | 89.5 | 19.75 | 12.1 |
S25 | 凉州区长城乡沙地 | 37°53′52″N,102°54′27″E | 1 528 | 92 | 25.5 | 14.2 |
Table 1 Location and location information of seed collection
编号 | 样地名称 | 地理坐标 | 海拔/m | 优良度/% | 初始发芽率/% | 土壤含水量/% |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
S1 | 河西学院试验地 | 38°57′11″N,100°26′18″E | 1 471 | 82.75 | 12 | 9.7 |
S2 | 高台县罗城乡沙地 | 39°41′13″N,99°35′46″E | 1 303 | 42.5 | 6 | 3.5 |
S3 | 肃州区银达镇荒漠 | 39°48′06″N,98°34′15″E | 1 424 | 84 | 23 | 9.8 |
S4 | 阿拉善右旗陈家新井沙地 | 39°22′13″N,101°10′34″E | 1 560 | 56 | 11.75 | 5.2 |
S5 | 甘州区林业局兔儿坝植被站 | 39°03′58″N,100°31′59″E | 1 468 | 68.75 | 8.25 | 6.0 |
S6 | 临泽县沙河林场 | 39°01′47″N,100°04′28″E | 1 626 | 68.5 | 7.25 | 5.8 |
S7 | 金塔县鼎新镇沙地 | 40°18′25″N,99°30′29″E | 1 267 | 70.5 | 18.5 | 6.6 |
S8 | 肃州区东洞乡荒滩 | 39°34′38″N,98°33′36″E | 1 560 | 83.25 | 30.25 | 10.1 |
S9 | 甘州区沙漠公园 | 38°47′48″N,100°29′04″E | 1 537 | 79.5 | 25.25 | 8.7 |
S10 | 肃南县明花乡沙荒地 | 39°23′25″N,99°26′55″E | 1 417 | 81 | 24.25 | 8.6 |
S11 | 敦煌市莫高镇沙地 | 40°10′14″N,94°48′21″E | 1 115 | 56.5 | 13.25 | 5.8 |
S12 | 临泽中国科学院试验站 | 39°21′01″N,100°07′53″E | 1 383 | 77.5 | 16 | 7.1 |
S13 | 永昌朱王堡镇荒地 | 38°12′51″N,102°36′47″E | 1 486 | 90.5 | 24.5 | 11.3 |
S14 | 民乐县六坝治 | 38°38′55″N,100°44′04″E | 1 822 | 79.59 | 23.75 | 8.3 |
S15 | 古浪县海子滩镇河床地 | 37°34′57″N,103°35′21″E | 1 721 | 91.25 | 13 | 13.8 |
S16 | 凉州区发放镇王家碱滩 | 37°56′55″N,102°43′47″E | 1 498 | 54.25 | 6.5 | 5.1 |
S17 | 民勤县红沙梁乡沙地 | 38°58′38″N,103°24′25″E | 1 322 | 48 | 7.75 | 4.4 |
S18 | 山丹县清泉镇红寺湖荒地 | 38°53′27″N,101°08′17″E | 2 002 | 60.75 | 11.5 | 5.4 |
S19 | 山丹县老君乡荒地 | 38°32′53″N,101°22′46″E | 2 141 | 64 | 12 | 5.8 |
S20 | 甘州区老寺庙农场荒地 | 38°54′14″N,100°39′26″E | 1 516 | 34.5 | 4.25 | 3.8 |
S21 | 甘州区平山湖乡沙荒地 | 39°00′37″N,100°50′50″E | 2 245 | 79.25 | 15 | 8.4 |
S22 | 阿拉善右旗板滩井 | 39°26′57″N,104°05′34″E | 1 250 | 85.75 | 18 | 9.6 |
S23 | 嘉峪关市峪泉镇荒地 | 39°48′30″N,98°13′53″E | 1 684 | 81.25 | 17 | 9.1 |
S24 | 张掖市龙首电站荒地 | 38°55′07″N,100°59′39″E | 1 548 | 89.5 | 19.75 | 12.1 |
S25 | 凉州区长城乡沙地 | 37°53′52″N,102°54′27″E | 1 528 | 92 | 25.5 | 14.2 |
项目 | 长度/mm | 宽度/mm | 形态指数 | 千粒重/g | 比重/(g·cm-3) | 容重/(kg·L-1) | 优良度/% | 初始发芽率/% |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
最大值 | 9.29 | 2.63 | 11.18 | 19.33 | 1.16 | 448.33 | 92 | 30.25 |
最小值 | 7.01 | 1.90 | 5.41 | 8.28 | 1.02 | 282.17 | 34.5 | 4.25 |
平均值 | 8.11 | 2.30 | 7.80 | 14.12 | 1.07 | 365.19 | 72.05 | 15.77 |
标准差 | 0.65 | 0.53 | 1.63 | 2.90 | 0.03 | 44.62 | 15.79 | 7.14 |
变异系数/% | 8.01 | 23.04 | 20.90 | 20.53 | 2.80 | 12.22 | 21.93 | 45.27 |
F值 | 27.47 ** | 9.83 ** | 30.65** | 51.28** | 2.71 ** | 95.85 ** | 145.76** | 30.07** |
Table 2 Comparison of seed morphological indicators, weight, porosity, robustness and initial germination rate of 25 Nitraria sphaerocarpa in Hexi Corridor
项目 | 长度/mm | 宽度/mm | 形态指数 | 千粒重/g | 比重/(g·cm-3) | 容重/(kg·L-1) | 优良度/% | 初始发芽率/% |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
最大值 | 9.29 | 2.63 | 11.18 | 19.33 | 1.16 | 448.33 | 92 | 30.25 |
最小值 | 7.01 | 1.90 | 5.41 | 8.28 | 1.02 | 282.17 | 34.5 | 4.25 |
平均值 | 8.11 | 2.30 | 7.80 | 14.12 | 1.07 | 365.19 | 72.05 | 15.77 |
标准差 | 0.65 | 0.53 | 1.63 | 2.90 | 0.03 | 44.62 | 15.79 | 7.14 |
变异系数/% | 8.01 | 23.04 | 20.90 | 20.53 | 2.80 | 12.22 | 21.93 | 45.27 |
F值 | 27.47 ** | 9.83 ** | 30.65** | 51.28** | 2.71 ** | 95.85 ** | 145.76** | 30.07** |
因子 | 长度 | 宽度 | 形态指数 | 千粒重 | 比重 | 容重 | 优良度 | 初始发芽率 | 样地水分 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
长度 | 0.095 | 0.000 | 0.852 | 0.445 | 0.006 | 0.440 | 0.658 | 0.225 | |
宽度 | 0.341 | 0.247 | 0.748 | 0.526 | 0.900 | 0.927 | 0.704 | 0.581 | |
形状指数 | 0.981 ** | 0.241 | 0.715 | 0.655 | 0.011 | 0.355 | 0.552 | 0.013 | |
千粒重 | -0.039 | -0.068 | -0.077 | 0.612 | 0.680 | 0.423 | 0.308 | 0.346 | |
比重 | 0.160 | 0.133 | 0.094 | -0.107 | 0.542 | 0.002 | 0.062 | 0.189 | |
容重 | 0.531 ** | 0.027 | 0.499 * | 0.087 | -0.128 | 0.014 | 0.116 | 0.014 | |
优良度 | -0.162 | -0.019 | -0.193 | -0.168 | 0.598 ** | -0.487 * | 0.000 | 0.000 | |
初始发芽率 | -0.093 | 0.080 | -0.125 | -0.212 | 0.379 | -0.322 | 0.803 ** | 0.000 | |
样地水分 | -0.2518 | -0.116 | 0.4909 * | -0.1965 | -0.2718 | -0.4835 * | 0.907 ** | 0.8096 ** |
Table 3 Correlation analysis of seed morphological indicators, weight, robustness and initial germination rate of Nitraria sphaerocarpa
因子 | 长度 | 宽度 | 形态指数 | 千粒重 | 比重 | 容重 | 优良度 | 初始发芽率 | 样地水分 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
长度 | 0.095 | 0.000 | 0.852 | 0.445 | 0.006 | 0.440 | 0.658 | 0.225 | |
宽度 | 0.341 | 0.247 | 0.748 | 0.526 | 0.900 | 0.927 | 0.704 | 0.581 | |
形状指数 | 0.981 ** | 0.241 | 0.715 | 0.655 | 0.011 | 0.355 | 0.552 | 0.013 | |
千粒重 | -0.039 | -0.068 | -0.077 | 0.612 | 0.680 | 0.423 | 0.308 | 0.346 | |
比重 | 0.160 | 0.133 | 0.094 | -0.107 | 0.542 | 0.002 | 0.062 | 0.189 | |
容重 | 0.531 ** | 0.027 | 0.499 * | 0.087 | -0.128 | 0.014 | 0.116 | 0.014 | |
优良度 | -0.162 | -0.019 | -0.193 | -0.168 | 0.598 ** | -0.487 * | 0.000 | 0.000 | |
初始发芽率 | -0.093 | 0.080 | -0.125 | -0.212 | 0.379 | -0.322 | 0.803 ** | 0.000 | |
样地水分 | -0.2518 | -0.116 | 0.4909 * | -0.1965 | -0.2718 | -0.4835 * | 0.907 ** | 0.8096 ** |
处理 | 起始发芽日数/d | 发芽率/% | 平均发芽日数/d | 发芽指数 |
---|---|---|---|---|
开水烫种 | — | — | — | — |
温烫浸种 | 3 | 52.00±0.82Cc | 4.17±0.07Ce | 12.80±0.13Bb |
干燥处理 | 4 | 25.25±0.75FGg | 5.90±0.16Aa | 4.48±0.08Ee |
预先冷冻 | 3 | 29.00±1.29EFf | 4.74±0.16Bc | 6.67±0.26Dd |
去除发芽口障碍 | 4 | 33.00±1.29Ee | 5.58±0.19Aab | 6.29±0.11Dd |
GA3浸种处理 | 4 | 26.00±0.82FGfg | 5.56±0.06Ab | 4.89±0.15Ee |
H2O2处理 | 4 | 25.75±1.03FGfg | 5.67±0.17Aab | 4.73±0.17Ee |
KNO3处理 | 4 | 27.00±1.29FGfg | 5.67±0.08Aab | 5.03±0.20Ee |
KOH处理后水洗 | 3 | 86.50±1.19Aa | 4.33±0.05BCcd | 21.22±0.40Aa |
NaOH处理后水洗 | 3 | 87.00±1.29Aa | 4.27±0.02Cde | 21.58±0.36Aa |
低温层积 | 3 | 27.00±1.29FGfg | 4.37±0.10BCde | 6.58±0.28Dd |
NaOH处理后低温层积 | 3 | 57.00±1.29Bb | 4.55±0.03BCcd | 13.34±0.22Bb |
低温层积后NaOH处理 | 3 | 46.50±1.26Dd | 4.75±0.06Bc | 10.44±0.32Cc |
对照 | 4 | 24.00±0.82Gg | 5.57±0.06Ab | 4.49±0.20Ee |
Table 4 Effects of different processing on seed germination and dormancy breaking of Nitraria sphaerocarpa
处理 | 起始发芽日数/d | 发芽率/% | 平均发芽日数/d | 发芽指数 |
---|---|---|---|---|
开水烫种 | — | — | — | — |
温烫浸种 | 3 | 52.00±0.82Cc | 4.17±0.07Ce | 12.80±0.13Bb |
干燥处理 | 4 | 25.25±0.75FGg | 5.90±0.16Aa | 4.48±0.08Ee |
预先冷冻 | 3 | 29.00±1.29EFf | 4.74±0.16Bc | 6.67±0.26Dd |
去除发芽口障碍 | 4 | 33.00±1.29Ee | 5.58±0.19Aab | 6.29±0.11Dd |
GA3浸种处理 | 4 | 26.00±0.82FGfg | 5.56±0.06Ab | 4.89±0.15Ee |
H2O2处理 | 4 | 25.75±1.03FGfg | 5.67±0.17Aab | 4.73±0.17Ee |
KNO3处理 | 4 | 27.00±1.29FGfg | 5.67±0.08Aab | 5.03±0.20Ee |
KOH处理后水洗 | 3 | 86.50±1.19Aa | 4.33±0.05BCcd | 21.22±0.40Aa |
NaOH处理后水洗 | 3 | 87.00±1.29Aa | 4.27±0.02Cde | 21.58±0.36Aa |
低温层积 | 3 | 27.00±1.29FGfg | 4.37±0.10BCde | 6.58±0.28Dd |
NaOH处理后低温层积 | 3 | 57.00±1.29Bb | 4.55±0.03BCcd | 13.34±0.22Bb |
低温层积后NaOH处理 | 3 | 46.50±1.26Dd | 4.75±0.06Bc | 10.44±0.32Cc |
对照 | 4 | 24.00±0.82Gg | 5.57±0.06Ab | 4.49±0.20Ee |
项目 | NaOH处理后水洗 | Ca(OH)2处理后水洗 | KOH处理后水洗 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
发芽率 /% | 平均发芽 日数/d | 发芽 指数 | 发芽率 /% | 平均发芽 日数/d | 发芽 指数 | 发芽率 /% | 平均发芽 日数/d | 发芽 指数 | |
最大值 | 89.0 | 2.95 | 32.15 | 90.0 | 2.79 | 34.07 | 90.0 | 2.84 | 32.67 |
最小值 | 13.0 | 1.93 | 4.03 | 15.0 | 1.92 | 4.73 | 14.0 | 1.88 | 4.33 |
平均值 | 57.3 | 2.37 | 19.94 | 58.6 | 2.28 | 19.85 | 58.5 | 2.31 | 19.98 |
标准差 | 0.22 | 0.22 | 8.33 | 0.22 | 0.16 | 8.19 | 0.22 | 0.22 | 8.47 |
变异系数/% | 0.39 | 0.09 | 0.42 | 0.37 | 0.07 | 0.41 | 0.38 | 0.10 | 0.42 |
F值 | 273.876 ** | 10.776 ** | 200.602 ** | 420.762 ** | 6.269 ** | 182.421 ** | 464.255 ** | 18.04 ** | 202.682 ** |
Table 5 The germination of 25 Nitraria sphaerocarpa pall seeds under cold stratification after NaOH and KOH disposal
项目 | NaOH处理后水洗 | Ca(OH)2处理后水洗 | KOH处理后水洗 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
发芽率 /% | 平均发芽 日数/d | 发芽 指数 | 发芽率 /% | 平均发芽 日数/d | 发芽 指数 | 发芽率 /% | 平均发芽 日数/d | 发芽 指数 | |
最大值 | 89.0 | 2.95 | 32.15 | 90.0 | 2.79 | 34.07 | 90.0 | 2.84 | 32.67 |
最小值 | 13.0 | 1.93 | 4.03 | 15.0 | 1.92 | 4.73 | 14.0 | 1.88 | 4.33 |
平均值 | 57.3 | 2.37 | 19.94 | 58.6 | 2.28 | 19.85 | 58.5 | 2.31 | 19.98 |
标准差 | 0.22 | 0.22 | 8.33 | 0.22 | 0.16 | 8.19 | 0.22 | 0.22 | 8.47 |
变异系数/% | 0.39 | 0.09 | 0.42 | 0.37 | 0.07 | 0.41 | 0.38 | 0.10 | 0.42 |
F值 | 273.876 ** | 10.776 ** | 200.602 ** | 420.762 ** | 6.269 ** | 182.421 ** | 464.255 ** | 18.04 ** | 202.682 ** |
处理 | 发芽率/% | 平均发芽日数/d | 发芽指数 |
---|---|---|---|
黑芥对照 | 97.5Aa | 1.0211Bb | 96.17Aa |
黑芥处理 | 4.5Bb | 2.0833Aa | 2.17Bb |
白芥对照 | 94.5Aa | 1.0264Bb | 93.25Aa |
白芥处理 | 58.5Bb | 2.0564Aa | 41.17Bb |
Table 6 Effects of NaOH extracts liquid from Nitraria sphaerocarpa seeds on seed germination of Brassica nigrra and Sinapsis alba
处理 | 发芽率/% | 平均发芽日数/d | 发芽指数 |
---|---|---|---|
黑芥对照 | 97.5Aa | 1.0211Bb | 96.17Aa |
黑芥处理 | 4.5Bb | 2.0833Aa | 2.17Bb |
白芥对照 | 94.5Aa | 1.0264Bb | 93.25Aa |
白芥处理 | 58.5Bb | 2.0564Aa | 41.17Bb |
物种 | 含水量/% | 物质转化率/% |
---|---|---|
泡果白刺 | 7.15±0.06 | 67.09±1.21 |
Table 7 Measurement results of material efficiency in the Germination of Nitraria sphaerocarpa seed
物种 | 含水量/% | 物质转化率/% |
---|---|---|
泡果白刺 | 7.15±0.06 | 67.09±1.21 |
1 | 春亮,那日苏,赵山志,等.白刺属植物资源及其利用[J].中国野生植物资源,2016,35(3):58-60. |
2 | 张振荣.基于聚类分析的3种白刺耐盐碱性研究[J].天津农业科学,2016,22(12):31-33. |
3 | 左凤月,郝秀芬,陈占峰,等.小果白刺和泡果白刺的耐盐性[J].天津农学院学报,2013,20(2):11-14. |
4 | 罗光宏,王进,颜霞,等.不同寄主锁阳种子质量差异及相互寄生关系研究[J].中国中药杂志,2013,38(20):3432-3437. |
5 | 张景波,郝玉光,苏智,等.唐古特白刺嫩枝扦插繁殖技术研究[J].内蒙古农业大学学报(自然科学版),2009,30(4):80-86. |
6 | 韩喜田,李月季,常国辉,等.白刺的综合开发利用[J].科技信息,2012(36):724. |
7 | 皮宝柱.白刺在滨海盐碱地区绿化中的应用[J].河北林业科技,2013(1):67-72. |
8 | 潘晓云,魏小平,尉秋实,等.多倍化:白刺属的系统分类、进化特征及应用前景[J].植物学通报,2003(5):632-638. |
9 | 王方琳,柴成武,赵鹏,等.3种荒漠植物光合及叶绿素荧光对干旱胁迫的响应及抗旱性评价[J].西北植物学报,2021,41(10):1755-1765. |
10 | 王桔红,陈文,张勇,等.贮藏条件对河西走廊四种旱生灌木种子萌发的影响[J].生态学杂志,2011,30(3):477-482. |
11 | 曹当当.南疆几种荒漠植物固沙及种群更新能力研究[D].新疆:喀什大学,2020. |
12 | 马静,单立山,王洋,等.保水剂对4种典型荒漠植物种子萌发的影响[J].水土保持通报,2019,39(2):38-42. |
13 | 李星辰,单立山.典型荒漠植物种子萌发最适赤霉素浓度研究[J].防护林科技,2018,181(10):3-5. |
14 | 张春庆,王建华.种子检验学[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2006:35-36 |
15 | 尹燕枰,董学会.种子学实验技术[M].北京:中国农业出版社,2008:209-210. |
16 | 周奕含,孙扬,何章,等.胚乳裂纹对玉米种子萌发过程中贮藏物质效率的影响[J].天津农业科学,2015,21(9):19-21. |
17 | 张南平,康帅,连超杰,等.我国药用种子鉴定与分类研究进展[J].中国药事,2020,34(1):71-76. |
18 | 黄建中,李扬汉,姚东瑞,等.检疫性寄生杂草种子的鉴定方法与菟丝子属常见种的识别特征[J].植物检疫,1992(4):247-251. |
19 | 苌伟,吴建国,刘艳红.荒漠木本植物种子萌发研究进展[J].应用生态学报,2007,18(2):436-444. |
20 | 刘贵峰,臧润国,刘华,等.天山云杉种子形态性状的地理变异[J].应用生态学报,2012,23(6):1455-1461. |
21 | 钟军弟,徐意媚,曾富华,等.不同生境下假臭草生长特征分析[J].广西植物,2014,34(1):68-73. |
22 | 李伟,林富荣,郑勇奇,等.皂荚天然群体间种实表型特性及种子萌发的差异分析[J].植物资源与环境学报,2013,22(4):70-75. |
23 | Danica E, Goggin R J, Neil E,et al.Steadman. Initial characterisation of low and high seed dormancy populations of Lolium rigidum produced by repeated selection[J].Journal of Plant Physiology,2010,167(15):1282-1288. |
24 | 张萍,张雯,王亚清.水稻种子休眠调控与破除技术的发展[J].现代农业研究,2022,28(5):110-112. |
25 | 阿依帕夏·居麦,赵晓英,王姣.泡果沙拐枣种子在原生境休眠状态的变化[J].生态学杂志,2018,37(7):1952-1958. |
26 | 侯冬花,萨拉木·艾尼瓦尔,海利力·库尔班.种子休眠与休眠解除的研究进展[J].新疆农业科学,2007(3):349-354. |
27 | 刘刚,雷激,张庆坤,等.果胶碱法脱酯工艺影响因素的研究[J].食品科技,2008(6):61-64. |
28 | 吴玉,周亚晶,胡惠,等.种子休眠与解除的分子机制研究进展[J].种子,2021,40(5):63-70. |
29 | Abbas A M, Figueroa M E, Castillo J M.Burial effects on seed germination and seedling establishment of Prosopis juliflora (SW.) DC[J].Arid Land Research and Management,2019,33(1):55-69. |
30 | 王进,吕彪,肖占文,等.苦豆子和披针叶黄华种子特性及硬实破除研究[J].农业工程学报,2010,26():406-410. |
31 | 严子柱,李天永,姚泽.甘肃干旱荒漠区植物资源的开发利用[J].甘肃科技,2020,36(8):33-40. |
[1] | Wangyizhuang Lv, Wenzhi Zhao. The structure and pattern of farmland shelterbelts in Jiuquan Oasis of Hexi Corridor [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2023, 43(6): 237-245. |
[2] | Xinyang Li, Peiji Shi, Junfeng Yin, Yali Li, Wenshun Cai. Research on structural characteristics and optimization of tourism flow network in Hexi Corridor [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2023, 43(4): 135-145. |
[3] | Lingfei Zhong, Lihua Zhang. Changes in temperature and precipitation in the plain area of Hexi Corridor in 2000-2020 [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2023, 43(2): 264-270. |
[4] | Xuening Li, Xianying Xu, Xuemei Yang, Guiheng Zheng, Hujun Liu, Guiquan Fu, Fang Chen, Xiaoyun Bian. Health assessment of farmland shelter belt in Hexi Corridor based on DPSIR model [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2023, 43(1): 234-243. |
[5] | Xiaoyun Cheng, Qin Zhang, Fangfang Lan, Yuan Li, Yaxuan Han, Limin Zhang, Yanke Yang, Xinyuan Wang. Dynamic characteristics and driving factors of grassland desertification in Hexi Corridor [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2022, 42(6): 134-141. |
[6] | Mei Shao, Lipeng Ma, Xinyuan Wang, Xuehua Che, Fang Wang, Junfeng Lu, Wanyin Luo. The valuation of ecosystem service value of desertification grassland from 2004 to 2014 in Hexi Corridor, China [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2022, 42(3): 63-73. |
[7] | Lingge Wang, Rui Zhu, Zexia Chen, Zhenliang Yin, Rui Lu, Chunshuang Fang. Coupling effect of water-soil resources in Hexi Area of Gansu,China in 2000-2019 [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2022, 42(2): 44-53. |
[8] | Yanjun Guo, Linjuan Yang, Hong Chai, Yu Chen. Analysis of tourism competitiveness of five cities in Hexi Corridor based on factor analysis [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2021, 41(5): 238-241. |
[9] | Jiliang Liu, Wenzhi Zhao, Fengrui Li, Yibin Ba. Community dynamics of ground arachnid arthropods in a gravel gobi desert of the middle of the Hexi Corridor, China [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2021, 41(3): 155-164. |
[10] | Chuanhua Li, Huanhuan Yin, Tongbin Zhu, Min Zhou, Yutao Wang, Hao Sun, Hongjuan Cao, Haiyan Han. Impact of drought on net primary productivity of vegetation in arid and semi-arid areas: a case study of Hexi Corridor [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2021, 41(1): 145-155. |
[11] | Zhou Lifeng, Yang Rong, Zhao Wenzhi. Temporal evolution of soil water repellency in stabilized sand dunes in artificial sand fixation vegetation area on fringe of a desert [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2020, 40(3): 185-192. |
[12] | Li Yanying, Zhang Aiping, Li Hongying, Wang Fucun, Chen Ying, Zeng Ting. Relationship between Boundary Layer Height and Wind-sand Intensities over Hexi Corridor, China [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2019, 39(5): 11-20. |
[13] | Wang Xinyuan, Liu Shizeng, Chen Xiangshun, Wang Xiaojun, Wang Bin, Wan Xiang. Dynamic Changes and Driving Factors of Oasis in Hexi Corridor [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2019, 39(4): 212-219. |
[14] | Pan Kaijia, Zhang Zhengcai, Dong Zhibao, Zhang Caixia, Li Xingcai. Physicochemical Characteristics of Surface Sediments of Crescent-shaped Sand Dunes in the Hexi Corridor, Gansu, China [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2019, 39(1): 44-51. |
[15] | Zhang Jian, Chen Jia, Huang Xin, Wang Ziqiao. Spatio-temporal Evolution of Urban Economic Vulnerability and Influence Factors in the Hexi Corridor Region: Restriction of Water Resources [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2019, 39(1): 203-211. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||
©2018Journal of Desert Research
Tel:0931-8267545
Email:caiedit@lzb.ac.cn;desert@lzb.ac.cn
Support:Magtech