Physiological responses of seedlings of Elaeocarpus sylvestris and Castanopsis fissa to PEG stress
CHEN Wei-guang1, XUE Li2, REN Xiang-rong2,3, FENG Hui-fang2, SHI Xiao-ling2
1. Yunyong Forest Farm of Foshan City Gaoming 528518, China; 2. College of Forestry South China Agricultural University, Guangzfiou 510642, China; 3. Synthetic Proving Ground of Xinjiung Academy of Agricultural Sciences Urumqi 830000. China
A study on the physiological changes of Elaeocarpus sylvestris and Castanopsis fissa seedlings was conducted under drought stress using treatments of different PEG6000 concentration(mild stress, moderate stress, severe stress) and different stress duration(12 hours, 24 hours, 36 hours), and 1/2 Hoagland nutrient solution without PEG6000 was used as control.Resistance of the seedlings to drought stress was evaluated by testing relative water content, relative conductivity, free proline content, chlorophyll content, super oxide dismutase(SOD) activity, malondidehyde(MDA) content and soluble sugar content.The results showed that with increasing stress intensity and prolonging duration, relative water content of the two seedlings decreased, and that of the C.fissa decreased greater than E.sylvestris;their relative conductivities showed a fluctuant increase.Compared to the control, relative conductivity of C.fissa increased more significantly than E.sylvestris;the contents of free proline of two seedlings increased significantly; contents of chlorophyll fluctuated slightly;the activities of SOD increased at the beginning of drought treatment, but decreased later;contents of soluble sugar increased with increasing stress intensity and prolonging duration.The MDA content of E.sylvestris increased slowly, whereas that of C.fissa increased rapidly.The present study indicates that E.sylvestris is more resistant to drought stress than C.fissa, and that relative water content, relative conductivity and MDA content can be as indicators for drought resistance evaluation for the two seedlings.
[1] Gower S T, Vogt K A, Grier C C.1992.Carbon dynamics of Roeky Mountain Douglas-fir:influence of water and nutrient availability[J].Ecological Monographs.62:43-65.
[2] Becket M, Nieminen T M, Geremia F.1994.Short-term variation and long-term changes in, oak productivity in northeastern France.The role of climate and atmospheric CO_2[J].Annales des Sciences Forestieres.51:477-492.
[3] 李燕, 薛立, 吴敏.2007.树木抗旱机理研究进展[J].生态学杂志, 26(6):1857-1866.
[4] 季孔庶, 孙志勇, 方彦.2006.林木抗旱性研究进展[J].南京林业大学学报, 30(6):123-128.
[5] Arndt S K, Clifford S C, Wanek W, et al.2001.Physiological and morphological adaptation of the fruit tree Ziziphus rotundifolia in response to progressive drought stress[J].Tree Physiology.21:705-715.
[6] 韦小丽, 徐锡增, 朱守谦.2005.水分胁迫下榆科3种幼苗生理生化指标的变化[J].南京林业大学学报, 29(2):47-50.
[7] 高琼, 陈晓阳, 杜金友, 等.2005.不同种和种源胡枝子的耐旱性差异研究[J].北华大学学报, 6(3):257-260.
[8] Souza R P, Machado E C, Silva J A B, et al.2004.Photosynthetic gas exchange, chlorophyll fluorescence and some associated metabolic changes in cowpea(Vigna unguiculata)during water stress and recovery[J].Environmental and Experimental Botany, 51:45-56.
[9] Sofo A, Dichio B, Xiloyannis C.et al.2004.Effects of different irradiance levels on some antioxidant enzymes and on malondialdehyde content during rewatering in olive tree[J].Piant Science, 166:293-302.
[10] Garg A K, Kim j k, Owens T G, et al.2002.Trehalose accumulation in rice plants confers high tolerance levels to different abiotie stresses[J].PNAS, 99(25):15898-15903.
[11] Taji t, Ohsumi C, Iuchi S, et al.2002.Important roles of drought-and cold-inducible genes for galactinol synthase in stress tolerance in Arabidopsis thaliana[J].Plant Journal, 29(4):417-426.
[12] 蒲光兰, 袁大刚, 胡学华, 等.2005.杏树抗旱性研究[M].西北林学院学报, 20(3):40-43.
[13] 李合生.2000.植物生理生化实验原理和技术[M].北京:高等教育出版社.
[14] 陈建勋, 王晓峰.2002.植物生理学实验指导[M].广州:华南理工大学出版社.
[15] Marshall J G, Rutledge R G, Blumwald E, et al.2000, Reduction in turgid water volume in jack pine, white spruce and black spruce in response to drought and paclobutrazol[J].Tree Physiology, 20:701-707.
[16] 赵琳, 郎南军, 温绍龙, 等.2006.云南干热河谷4种植物抗旱机理的研究[J].西部林业科学, 35(2):9-16.
[17] Hasegawa P M, Bressan R A, Handa S, et al.1984.Cellular mechanism tolerance of waters tress[J].Hortscience, 19:371-377.
[18] Clifford S C, Arndt S K, Corlett J E, et al.1998.The role of solute accumulation, osmotic adjustment and changes in cell wall elasticity in drought tolerance in Ziziphus mauritiana(Lamk)[J].Journal of Experimental Botany, 49(323):967-977.
[19] Heuer R, Nadler A.1998.Physiological Response of potato plants to soil salinity and water deficits[J].Plant Science, 137:43-51.
[20] 刘世鹏, 贾培军, 陈宗礼, 等.2007.水分胁迫对枣树组培苗渗透调节物质的影响[J].延安大学学报, 26(1):55-58.
[21] Saladin G, Clement C, Magne C.2003.Stress effects of flumioxazin herbicide on grapevine(Vitis vinifera L.)grown in vitro[J].Plant CellReports, 21(12):1221-1227.
[22] 严美玲, 李向东, 林英杰, 等.2007.苗期干旱胁迫对不同抗旱花生品种牛理特性、产量和品质的影响[J].作物学报, 33(1):113-119.
[23] 何开跃, 李晓储, 黄利斌, 等.2004.干旱胁迫对木兰科5树种生理生化指标的影响[J].植物资源与环境学报, 13(4):20-23.
