Temporal dynamics in photosynthetic electron transfer rate of Artemisia ordosica in growing season and its response to environmental factors in Mu Us Sandy Land of northwestern China
-
摘要:目的 探究干旱半干旱地区植被光合生理在生长季动态变化及其对各个影响因子的响应机制，对进一步了解该区植被对波动环境的适应性具有重要意义。方法 该研究于2019年5—9月，对典型沙生植被油蒿的光合电子传递速率（ETR）进行长期原位连续监测，同步观测光合有效辐射（PAR）、空气温度（Ta）、相对湿度（RH）和土壤含水量（SWC）等环境因子，同时测定叶绿素含量（SPAD）。分析ETR的动态变化规律及其对主要影响因子的响应。结果 ETR与PAR、Ta、SPAD显著相关（P < 0.05），ETR月均值7月份达到最大，9月份最小。ETR随光强的变化呈上升趋势，且在弱光条件下（PAR ≤ 800 μmol/（m2·s））对光照响应强度大于强光。ETR随Ta的变化呈先上升后下降的趋势，5月（展叶期）和9月（落叶期）的高低温胁迫阈值分别为5和20 ℃，6—8月（成熟期）为10和25 ℃。ETR与SPAD呈线性正相关关系。成熟期ETR的稳定性小于展叶期和落叶期。结论 通过以上研究发现PAR、Ta、SPAD是影响ETR的3个主要因子。在展叶期ETR主要受SPAD的影响，成熟期主要受温度和光强的影响，落叶期主要受植物生理的影响。油蒿在不同环境因子的交替作用下均体现出了良好的适应性。此外适当的升温能够促进光合电子的传递，增强植物光合能力。该研究结果可以为全球气候变暖下植物光合生理对环境响应的研究提供一定的理论指导，同时也为荒漠植被的恢复提供参考。Abstract:Objective Understanding the dynamics of electron transfer rate of typical sandy speices Artemisia ordosica and its response mechanism to environmental factors in desert area is very important to manage desert ecosystem to adapt to the fluctuating environment.Method This study conducted a long-term in situ continuous monitoring of photosynthetic electron transfer rate (ETR) in Artemisia ordosica in May−September of 2019 using chlorophyll fluorescence observation method. Photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), air temperature (Ta), chlorophyll content (SPAD) were simultaneously measured.Result ETR was significantly correlated with PAR, Ta and SPAD at a significant level of 0.05, with the monthly average reaching the maximum in July and the smallest in September. The change of ETR with light intensity showed an upward trend, and the response intensity to light under low light condition of PAR ≤ 800 μmol/(m2·s) was greater than that of strong light. The change of ETR with Ta showed a trend of first increasing and then decreasing. The thresholds of high and low temperature stress in May (leaf-leaning stage) and September (deciduous stage) were 5 ℃ and 20 ℃, respectively, and June−August (mature stage) was 10 ℃ and 25 ℃. The relationship between ETR and SPAD was linear and positive, and the stability of ETR in mature stage was less than that in leaf-expansion stage and leaf-falling stage.Conclusion Through the above research, it was found that PAR, Ta, and SPAD were the three main factors affecting ETR. ETR was mainly affected by SPAD during the leaf-expansion stage, temperature and light intensity during the mature stage, and plant physiology during the defoliation stage. We found that Artemisia ordosica ETR showed a good adaptability under the alternating effect of the main influencing factors. Besides proper temperature increase can promote the transfer of photosynthetic electrons, thus enhance the photosynthetic capacity of plants. The results can not only provide some theoretical guidance for the response of plants’ photosynthetic physiology to the environment under global warming, but also a reference for the restoration of desert vegetation.
-
-
![]()
图 1 2019年5—9月油蒿环境因子在生长季的动态变化
PAR. 光合有效辐射；Ta. 空气温度；RH. 相对湿度；P. 降雨量；SWC. 土壤含水量；SWC10. 10 cm 处土壤含水量；SWC30. 30 cm 处土壤含水量。下同。PAR, photosynthetically active radiation; Ta, air temperature; RH, relative humidity; P, precipitation; SWC, soil water content; SWC10, soil water content in 10 cm; SWC30, soil water content in 30 cm. Same as below.
Figure 1. Dynamics in environmental factors in Artemisia ordosica from May to September in 2019
![]()
图 2 2019年5—9月油蒿叶绿素含量在生长季的动态变化
SPAD. 叶绿素相对含量。下同。SPAD, relative chlorophyll content. Same as below.
Figure 2. Dynamics of chlorophyll content (SPAD) in Artemisia ordosica from May to September in 2019
![]()
图 3 2019年5—9月油蒿光合电子传递速率在生长季的动态变化
ETR. 光合电子传递速率。下同。ETR, photosynthetic electron transfer rate. The same below.
Figure 3. Seasonal changes in ETR in Artemisia ordosica from May to September in 2019
![]()
图 4 2019年5—9月油蒿光合电子传递速率与光合有效辐射的关系
Figure 4. Relationship between ETR and PAR for Artemisia ordosica from May to September in 2019
![]()
图 5 2019年5—9月油蒿光合电子传递速率与空气温度的关系
Figure 5. Relationship between ETR and air temperature (Ta) for Artemisia ordosica from May to September in 2019
![]()
图 6 2019年5—9月油蒿光合电子传递速率与叶绿素含量的关系
Figure 6. Relationship between ETR and chlorophyll content for Artemisia ordosica from May to September in 2019
表 1 油蒿光合电子传递速率与影响因子相关性
Table 1 Correlations between ETR and influencing factors in Artemisia ordosica
相关指标 Relevant index ETR PAR Ta RH PPT SWC10 SWC30 SPAD ETR 1 PAR 0.646** 1 Ta 0.376** 0.422** 1 RH −0.321 −0.684** −0.310** 1 PPT 0.345 −0.486 0.179* 0.488** 1 SWC10 0.001 0.200* 0.183* −0.010 −0.046 1 SWC30 0.077 0.280** 0.310** −0.113 −0.086 0.588** 1 SPAD 0.818** 0.125* 0.417* 0.351 0.032 0.397 0.597** 1 注：**表示在0.01水平(双侧)上极显著相关；*表示在0.05水平(双侧)上显著相关。Notes: ** means a very significant correlation at 0.01 level (bilateral); * means a significant correlation at 0.05 level (bilateral). 
下载: 导出CSV
表 2 2019年5—9月油蒿光合电子传递速率与光合有效辐射回归模型
Table 2 Regression models between ETR and PAR for Artemisia ordosica from May to September in 2019
月份
Month回归拟合模型 Regression fitting model
(PAR ≤ 800 μmol/(m2·s))R1 2 回归拟合模型 Regression fitting model
(PAR > 800 μmol/(m2·s))R2 2 5 y = −0.678 + 0.200x 0.95 y = 118.474 + 0.061x 0.96 6 y = 4.209 + 0.209x 0.97 y = 138.194 + 0.052x 0.95 7 y = 1.500 + 0.218x 0.96 y = 136.220 + 0.051x 0.93 8 y = 2.563 + 0.215x 0.95 y = 135.831 + 0.049x 0.95 9 y = −0.065 + 0.197x 0.96 y = 115.271 + 0.053x 0.95
下载: 导出CSV
表 3 2019年5—9月油蒿光合电子传递速率与空气温度回归模型
Table 3 Regression models between ETR and Ta for Artemisia ordosica from May to September in 2019
月份
Month温度变化区间
Temperature changing interval回归拟合模型
Regression fitting modelR2 5 5 ℃ < Ta ≤ 11 ℃ y = 0.273 + 1.833x 0.95 11 ℃ < Ta ≤ 21 ℃ y = 0.266 + 9.265x 0.96 22 ℃ < Ta < ≤ 25 ℃ y = 1.134 − 3.410x 0.95 6 10 ℃ < Ta ≤ 15 ℃ y = 0.121 + 1.835x 0.92 15 ℃ < Ta ≤ 24 ℃ y = 0.415 + 12.648x 0.95 24 ℃ < Ta ≤ 29 ℃ y = 0.701 − 5.620x 0.81 7 9 ℃ < Ta ≤ 16 ℃ y = 0.136 + 1.855x 0.94 16 ℃ < Ta ≤ 26 ℃ y = 0.579 + 12.250x 0.96 26 ℃ < Ta ≤ 29 ℃ y = −1.241 − 7.534x 0.92 8 9 ℃ < Ta ≤ 15 ℃ y = 0.135 + 1.832x 0.91 15 ℃ < Ta ≤ 5 ℃ y = 0.456 + 12.159x 0.93 25 ℃ < Ta ≤ 29 ℃ y = 1.135 − 6.523x 0.79 9 6 ℃ < Ta ≤ 10 ℃ y = 0.108 + 1.813x 0.94 10 ℃ < Ta ≤ 20 ℃ y = 0.410 + 9.639x 0.96 20 ℃ < Ta ≤ 25 ℃ y = 0.109 − 4.015x 0.94
下载: 导出CSV
-
[1] Iram S, Sajad H, Muhammad A R, et al. Crop photosynthetic response to light quality and light intensity[J]. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2021, 20(1): 4−23. doi: 10.1016/S2095-3119(20)63227-0.
[2] 叶子飘, 杨小龙, 冯关萍. 植物电子传递速率对光响应模型的比较研究[J]. 扬州大学学报, 2018, 39(1):97−104. Ye Z P, Yang X L, Feng G P. Comparative study on light-response models of electron transport rates of plants[J]. Journal of Yangzhou University, 2018, 39(1): 97−104.
[3] 赵则海. 遮光对三叶鬼针草光合作用和叶绿素含量的影响[J]. 生态学杂志, 2009, 28(1):19−22. Zhao Z H. Effects of shading on the photosynthesis and chlorophyll content of Bidens pilosa[J]. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2009, 28(1): 19−22.
[4] 周玉霞, 巨天珍, 王引弟, 等. 3种旱生植物的叶绿素荧光参数日变化研究[J]. 干旱区资源与环境, 2019, 33(5):164−170. Zhou Y X, Ju T Z, Wang Y D, et al. Diurnal variation of chlorophyll fluorescence parameters of three xerophytes[J]. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment, 2019, 33(5): 164−170.
[5] 吴敏, 邓平, 赵英, 等. 喀斯特干旱环境对青冈栎叶片生长及叶绿素荧光动力学参数的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2019, 30(12):4071−4081. Wu M, Deng P, Zhao Y, et al. Effect of drought on leaf growth and chlorophyll fluorescence kinetics parameters in Cyclobalanopsis glauca seedling of karst areas[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2019, 30(12): 4071−4081.
[6] 苏金, 方炎明, 张强, 等. 遮阴对紫珠光合特性的影响[J]. 东北林业大学学报, 2019, 47(11):47−51. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-5382.2019.11.010. Su J, Fang Y M, Zhang Q, et al. Effect of shading on photosynthetic characteristics of Callicarpa bodinieri[J]. Journal of Northeast Forestry University, 2019, 47(11): 47−51. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-5382.2019.11.010.
[7] Berdugo M, Delgado B M, Soliveres S, et al. Global ecosystem thresholds driven by aridity[J]. Science, 2020, 367: 787−790. doi: 10.1126/science.aay5958.
[8] Lin W, Gang H, Wen C, et al. Wet-to-dry shift over Southwest China in 1994 tied to the warming of tropical warm pool[J]. Climate Dynamics, 2018, 51: 3111−3123. doi: 10.1007/s00382-018-4068-8.
[9] 吴雅娟, 查天山, 贾昕, 等. 油蒿(Artemisia ordosica)光化学量子效率和非光化学淬灭的动态及其影响因子[J]. 生态学杂志, 2015, 34(2):319−325. Wu Y J, Zha T S, Jia X, et al. Temporal variation and controlling factors of photochemical efficiency and non-photochemical quenching in Artemisia ordosica[J]. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2015, 34(2): 319−325.
[10] 韩旖旎. 两种沙生灌木适应波动环境的非光化学淬灭调节[D]. 北京: 北京林业大学, 2016. Han Y N. Regulation of non-photochemical quenching in photosynthetica acclimation of two xerophytic shrubs to fluctuating environment[D]. Beijing: Beijing Forestry University, 2016.
[11] 张明艳. 两种沙生灌木昼夜光化学效率光响应的季节敏感性[D]. 北京: 北京林业大学, 2016. Zhang M Y. Seasonal sensitivity in light response of diurnal photochemical efficiency for two desert shrub species[D]. Beijing: Beijing Forestry University, 2016.
[12] 张景波, 张金鑫, 卢琦, 等. 乌兰布和沙漠油蒿叶片PSⅡ叶绿素荧光动力学参数及其光响应曲线动态[J]. 草业科学, 2019, 36(3):713−719. Zhang J B, Zhang J X, Lu Q, et al. Dynamic changes of leaf parameters of PS II fluorescence kinetics and fast photosynthetic response curves in Artemisia ordosica[J]. Pratacultural Science, 2019, 36(3): 713−719.
[13] Genty B, Briantais J M, Baker N R, et al. The relationship between the quantum yield of photosynthetic electron transport and quenching of chlorophyll fluorescence[J]. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA): General Subjects, 1989, 990(1): 87−92.
[14] 刘晓晴, 常宗强, 马亚丽, 等. 胡杨(Populus euphratica)异形叶叶绿素荧光动力学[J]. 中国沙漠, 2014, 34(3):704−711. doi: 10.7522/j.issn.1000-694X.2014.00007. Liu X Q, Chang Z Q, Ma Y L, et al. Characteristics of the fast chlorophyll flourescence induction kinetics of heteromorphic leaves in Populus euphratica[J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2014, 34(3): 704−711. doi: 10.7522/j.issn.1000-694X.2014.00007.
[15] 徐祥增, 张金燕, 张广辉, 等. 光强对三七光合能力及能量分配的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2018, 29(1):193−204. Xu X Z, Zhang J Y, Zhang G H, et al. Effects of light intensity on photosynthetic capacity and light energy allocation in Panax notoginseng[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2018, 29(1): 193−204.
[16] 蔡建国, 韦孟琪, 章毅, 等. 遮阴对绣球光合特性和叶绿素荧光参数的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2017, 41(5): 570−576. Cai J G, Wei M Q, Zhang Y, et al. Effects of shading on photosynthetic characteristics and chlorophyll fluorescence parameters in leaves of Hydrangea macrophylla[J]. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 2017, 41(5): 570−576.
[17] 崔波, 周一冉, 王喜蒙, 等. 不同光照强度下白及光合生理特性的影响[J]. 河南农业大学学报, 2020, 54(2):276−284. Cui B, Zhou Y R, Wang X M, et al. Effects of different light intensities on photosynthetic and physiological characteristics of Bletilla striata[J]. Journal of Henan University, 2020, 54(2): 276−284.
[18] 冯志立, 冯玉龙, 曹坤芳. 光强对砂仁叶片光合作用光抑制及热耗散的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2002, 26(1):77−82. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1005-264X.2002.01.013 Feng Z L, Feng Y L, Cao K F. Effects of light intensity on photoinhibition of photosynthesis and thermal dissipation in Amomum villosum Lour.[J]. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 2002, 26(1): 77−82. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1005-264X.2002.01.013
[19] Renata S, Ireneusz S, Aleksandra O, et al. Physiological and biochemical responses to high light and temperature stress in plants[J]. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 2017, 139: 165−177. doi: 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2017.05.002.
[20] Zha T S, Wu Y J, Jia X, et al. Diurnal response of effective quantum yield of PSII photochemistry to irradiance as an indicator of photosynthetic acclimation to stressed environments revealed in a xerophytic species[J]. Ecological Indicators, 2017, 74: 191−197. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.11.027.
[21] Seyyedeh-Sanam K S, Reza M A. Global insights of protein responses to cold stress in plants: signaling, defence, and degradation[J]. Journal of Plant Physiology, 2018, 226: 123−135. doi: 10.1016/j.jplph.2018.03.022
[22] 郝向春, 周帅, 翟瑜, 等. 温度变化对南极假山毛榉光合系统的影响[J]. 中南林业科技大学学报, 2019, 39(9):1−7. Hao X C, Zhou S, Qu Y, et al. Influence of temperature stress on photosystem of Nothofagus antarctica[J]. Journal of Central South University of Forestry & Technology, 2019, 39(9): 1−7.
[23] Phillip O W, Justin L S, Anthony S D. Evaluation of chlorophyll fluorescence as an indicator of dehydration stress in American chestnut seedlings[J]. Native Plants Journal, 2010, 11(1): 27−31. doi: 10.2979/NPJ.2010.11.1.27.
[24] 杨威, 朱建强, 吴启侠, 等. 花铃期短期渍水和高温对棉花叶片光合特性、膜脂过氧化代谢及产量的影响[J]. 棉花学报, 2016, 28(5):504−512. doi: 10.11963/issn.1002-7807.201605010. Yang W, Zhu J Q, Wu Q X, et al. The effect of short-term waterlogging and high temperature on photosynthesis, membrane lid peroxidation metabolism, and yield during cotton flowering and boll-forming[J]. Cotton Science, 2016, 28(5): 504−512. doi: 10.11963/issn.1002-7807.201605010.
[25] 衡丽, 王俊, 花明明, 等. 高温胁迫对Bt棉铃壳Bt蛋白含量及氮代谢影响[J]. 棉花学报, 2016, 28(1):27−33. doi: 10.11963/issn.1002-7807.201601004. Heng L, Wang J, Hua M M, et al. The Effect of high-temperature stress on Bt protein content and nitrogen metabolism in the boll shell of Bt cotton[J]. Cotton Science, 2016, 28(1): 27−33. doi: 10.11963/issn.1002-7807.201601004.
[26] 武宝玕, 韩志国, 藏汝波. 热胁对海洋红藻及绿藻叶绿素荧光的影响[J]. 暨南大学学报(自然科学与医学版), 2002, 23(1):108−112. Wu B G, Han Z G, Zang R B. Effects of heat stress in marine red and green algae by chlorophyll fluorescence method[J]. Journal of Jinan University, 2002, 23(1): 108−112.
[27] Neil R B. Chlorophyll fluorescence: a probe of photosynthesis in vivo[J]. Annual Review of Plant Biology, 2008, 59: 89−113. doi: 10.1146/annurev.arplant.59.032607.092759.
[28] 俞华先, 田春艳, 经艳芬, 等. 水分胁迫对4份含大茎野生种57NG208血缘F2代甘蔗材料叶绿素荧光动力参数的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2019, 35(28):17−24. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb18070058. Yu H X, Tian C Y, Jing Y F, et al. Chlorophyll fluorescence kinetic parameters of saccharum robustum 57NG208 F2 hybrids under water stress[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2019, 35(28): 17−24. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb18070058.
[29] Zhang D Y, Zhu F, Yuan M, et al. Light intensity affects chlorophyll synthesis during greening process by metabolite signal from mitochondrial alternative oxidase in Arabidopsis[J]. Plant, Cell & Environment, 2016, 39(1): 12−25.
-
期刊类型引用(0)
其他类型引用(1)
计量
- 文章访问数: 1405
- HTML全文浏览量: 409
- PDF下载量: 53
- 被引次数: 1
