植物研究 ›› 2022, Vol. 42 ›› Issue (4): 667-676.doi: 10.7525/j.issn.1673-5102.2022.04.016
收稿日期:
2021-04-29
出版日期:
2022-07-20
发布日期:
2022-07-15
通讯作者:
潘文
E-mail:Panwen@sinogaf.cn
作者简介:
杨会肖(1981—),女,高级工程师,博士,主要从事林木遗传育种的研究。
基金资助:
Huixiao YANG, Fang XU, Xiaohui YANG, Huanqin LIAO, Weihua ZHANG, Wen PAN()
Received:
2021-04-29
Online:
2022-07-20
Published:
2022-07-15
Contact:
Wen PAN
E-mail:Panwen@sinogaf.cn
About author:
YANG Huixiao(1981—),female,senior engineer,doctor,majoring in the research of forest genetics and breeding.
Supported by:
摘要:
为筛选适宜不同水肥条件的尾叶桉(Eucalyptus urophylla)优良无性系,以34个尾叶桉无性系为研究对象,采用2因素(水分、养分)3水平完全随机区组设计,对不同水肥处理下18个月的尾叶桉苗木生长和各器官生物量进行方差分析和遗传参数评估。结果表明:除少数性状外,尾叶桉生长(树高、地径)和生物量(主干、侧枝、根)在不同区组、水分、养分、水分×养分互作及无性系的差异间均达到显著或极显著水平,表明水分、养分和无性系会影响尾叶桉生长和各器官生物量大小。在水分和养分组合处理下,尾叶桉生长和各个器官生物量在组合33(高水高肥)和组合32(高水中肥)处理下表现较好。全株总鲜质量在组合32处理最大,与组合11处理相比增加了135.70%。主干、根、叶和总生物量的鲜质量与干质量相关系数最高,相关系数在0.90以上。无性系在树高、地径和生物量的方差分量为4.28~31 255.80,大部分性状的单株重复力在0.15以上,且都达到了显著水平。以15%无性系入选率,采用BLUP预测的尾叶桉无性系基因型值筛选出ZQUB39和ZQUC23尾叶桉在水分和养分梯度较低的土壤环境中生长较好,UD42、LDUC1和ZQUA3在水分和养分梯度较高的土壤环境中生长较好。这些优良无性系可能在多种立地进行推广种植。
中图分类号:
杨会肖, 徐放, 杨晓慧, 廖焕琴, 张卫华, 潘文. 不同水肥处理对尾叶桉苗木生长及生物量分配的影响[J]. 植物研究, 2022, 42(4): 667-676.
Huixiao YANG, Fang XU, Xiaohui YANG, Huanqin LIAO, Weihua ZHANG, Wen PAN. Effects of Different Water and Nutrient Treatments on Growth and Biomass Distribution of Eucalyptus urophylla Clones[J]. Bulletin of Botanical Research, 2022, 42(4): 667-676.
表1
尾叶桉无性系各性状三因素方差分析结果
性状 Trait | 区组 Block | 水分 Water | 养分 Nutrient | 无性系 Clone | 水分×养分 Water×Nutrient | 水分×无性系 Water×Clone | 养分×无性系 Nutrient×Clone |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
树高 Height | 5.95** | 218.76** | 184.21** | 5.34** | 2.74* | 1.08 | 1.43* |
地径 Diameter | 3.52* | 7.47** | 118.31** | 6.74** | 2.26 | 0.86 | 2.42** |
主干鲜质量 Fresh mass of trunk | 0.10 | 129.23*** | 289.86*** | 4.67*** | 4.39** | 0.79 | 2.01*** |
主干干质量 Dry mass of trunk | 0.89 | 113.93*** | 204.18*** | 5.77*** | 5.13*** | 1.03 | 2.03*** |
侧枝鲜质量 Fresh mass of branches | 1.09 | 106.82*** | 775.58*** | 6.33*** | 15.08*** | 1.52** | 1.79*** |
侧枝干质量 Dry mass of branches | 15.93*** | 50.98*** | 156.64*** | 2.12*** | 8.43*** | 0.78 | 0.74 |
根鲜质量 Fresh mass of root | 5.45*** | 231.93*** | 29.05*** | 6.07*** | 15.86*** | 1.26 | 1.27 |
根干质量 Dry mass of root | 5.68** | 202.89*** | 14.30*** | 5.53*** | 13.35*** | 1.13 | 1.48* |
叶鲜质量 Fresh mass of leaves | 6.06** | 1.21 | 42.95*** | 1.06 | 8.62*** | 0.88 | 0.96 |
叶干质量 Dry mass of leaves | 5.07** | 0.19 | 18.41*** | 1.11 | 7.62*** | 0.95 | 0.98 |
总鲜质量 Total fresh mass | 3.53* | 86.86*** | 133.12*** | 1.99** | 3.48* | 1.32 | 1.25 |
总干质量 Total dry mass | 2.66 | 96.50*** | 83.82*** | 1.52* | 4.76*** | 1.37* | 1.10 |
表2
尾叶桉无性系不同处理间生长和通直度多重比较分析结果
组合 Combination | 水分 Water | 养分 Nutrient | 树高 Height /cm | 地径 Diameter /mm | 枝下高 Under branch height /cm | 通直度 Straightness |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
11 | 1 | 1 | 162.06±31.56d | 29.27±3.75e | 54.63±26.58ab | 3.01±0.81b |
12 | 1 | 2 | 205.28±42.89b | 33.31±4.33d | 48.28±23.88bc | 2.55±0.80c |
13 | 1 | 3 | 217.81±46.83ab | 35.21±4.54c | 47.87±26.51bc | 1.98±0.88e |
21 | 2 | 1 | 177.89±31.20c | 33.21±3.70d | 55.21±30.37ab | 3.39±0.88a |
22 | 2 | 2 | 207.27±41.27b | 39.29±5.07b | 44.19±21.02c | 2.02±0.90e |
23 | 2 | 3 | 227.86±50.14a | 41.91±6.01a | 49.38±25.90bc | 2.07±0.87de |
31 | 3 | 1 | 184.13±31.64c | 36.31±4.01c | 60.77±25.85a | 3.15±1.09ab |
32 | 3 | 2 | 216.08±35.32ab | 42.69±5.08a | 54.83±29.32ab | 2.33±0.95cd |
33 | 3 | 3 | 221.34±51.90a | 43.22±6.62a | 51.64±27.06abc | 1.69±0.72f |
表3
尾叶桉无性系不同处理间各生物量多重比较分析结果
水分 Water | 养分 Nutrient | 主干 Trunk | 侧枝 Branches | 根 Root | 叶 Leaves | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
鲜质量 Fresh mass /g | 干质量 Dry mass /g | 鲜质量 Fresh mass /g | 干质量 Dry mass /g | 鲜质量 Fresh mass /g | 干质量 Dry mass /g | 鲜质量 Fresh mass /g | 干质量 Dry mass /g | ||
1 | 1 | 454.53±147.31f | 201.55±71.71e | 177.16±132.81d | 101.82±69.55d | 767.66±290.04e | 395.32±150.35d | 247.62±73.69e | 133.39±45.67c |
1 | 2 | 835.85±284.65cd | 344.31±120.50c | 586.67±247.46c | 283.05±162.15c | 711.54±246.92e | 330.60±119.94e | 516.98±313.06a | 251.27±287.48a |
1 | 3 | 925.71±406.78c | 366.88±183.04c | 663.04±238.03c | 314.37±133.37c | 710.09±315.45e | 321.39±153.90e | 470.63±227.44ab | 232.17±117.58ab |
2 | 1 | 650.47±184.73e | 272.19±73.87d | 203.47±97.21d | 175.34±160.62d | 1063.92±428.07d | 554.60±199.16c | 331.82±89.26d | 178.64±55.20c |
2 | 2 | 1146.55±369.40b | 465.35±171.10b | 832.73±214.44b | 631.99±426.38a | 1334.63±427.86bc | 625.94±180.47b | 444.61±193.89bc | 231.88±103.69ab |
2 | 3 | 1364.43±448.12a | 558.18±203.44a | 894.07±294.84b | 499.81±294.37b | 1172.03±484.37d | 541.80±224.93c | 515.83±228.25a | 263.64±136.19a |
3 | 1 | 759.31±242.47d | 315.15±91.82cd | 247.70±101.62d | 134.40±57.35d | 1200.94±384.86cd | 585.69±188.47bc | 374.66±136.91d | 221.02±165.01bc |
3 | 2 | 1350.14±348.71a | 566.02±179.50a | 981.13±316.69a | 500.14±270.07b | 1802.54±636.37a | 800.59±272.20a | 391.12±197.86cd | 211.85±104.77bc |
3 | 3 | 1442.74±477.12a | 579.63±211.22a | 1035.44±363.85a | 526.8±265.74b | 1469.31±511.07b | 632.48±233.67b | 441.54±269.09bc | 233.97±126.91ab |
表4
尾叶桉不同性状间的相关系数
性状 Traits | 地径 Diameter | 树高 Height | 主干鲜质量 Fresh mass of trunk | 主干干质量 Dry mass of trunk | 侧枝鲜质量 Fresh mass of branches | 侧枝干质量 Dry mass of branches | 根鲜质量 Fresh mass of root | 根干质量 Dry mass of root | 叶鲜质量 Fresh mass of leaves | 叶干质量 Dry mass of leaves | 总鲜质量 Total fresh mass |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
树高 Height | 0.383 | 0.724 | 0.705 | 0.390 | 0.259 | 0.170 | 0.106 | 0.154 | 0.125 | 0.515 | 0.438 |
地径 Diameter | 0.682 | 0.664 | 0.630 | 0.443 | 0.514 | 0.441 | 0.259 | 0.261 | 0.750 | 0.678 | |
主干鲜质量 Fresh mass of trunk | <0.01 | 0.969 | 0.630 | 0.484 | 0.470 | 0.397 | 0.261 | 0.254 | 0.856 | 0.784 | |
主干干质量 Dry mass of trunk | <0.01 | <0.01 | 0.600 | 0.455 | 0.447 | 0.396 | 0.258 | 0.253 | 0.822 | 0.780 | |
侧枝鲜质量 Fresh mass of branches | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | 0.700 | 0.340 | 0.250 | 0.316 | 0.286 | 0.782 | 0.708 | |
侧枝干质量 Dry mass of branches | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | 0.286 | 0.219 | 0.125 | 0.116 | 0.569 | 0.766 | |
根鲜质量 Fresh mass of root | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | 0.933 | 0.057 | 0.095 | 0.760 | 0.702 | |
根干质量 Dry mass of root | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | 0.082 | 0.131 | 0.675 | 0.686 | |
叶鲜质量 Fresh mass of leaves | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.05 | ns | <0.05 | 0.944 | 0.389 | 0.346 | |
叶干质量 Dry mass of leaves | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.05 | <0.05 | <0.011 | <0.01 | 0.385 | 0.370 | |
总鲜质量 Total fresh mass | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | 0.915 | |
总干质量 Total dry mass | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
表5
尾叶桉无性系遗传参数估算
性状Traits | 区组 Block | 无性系 Clone | 养分×无性系 Nutrient×Clone | 水分×无性系 Water×Clone | 环境方差 Environment | 重复力±标准误 Repeatability±SE |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
地径Diameter | 0.200 | 4.280** | 1.050* | 0.260 | 18.98*** | 0.15±0.04 |
树高 Height | 26.470 | 259.540** | 235.450*** | — | 1 174.09*** | 0.15±0.05 |
主干鲜质量Fresh mass of trunk | 0.010 | 12 607.300** | 12 212.500** | 0.010 | 89 548.30*** | 0.15±0.04 |
主干干质量Dry mass of trunk | 0.001 | 3 874.440** | 2 628.200** | 0.001 | 16 792.50*** | 0.17±0.05 |
侧枝鲜质量Fresh mass of branches | 66.500 | 7 732.140** | 4 270.660** | 2 650.450* | 42 291.60*** | 0.15±0.04 |
侧枝干质量Dry mass of branches | 2 995.340 | 2 817.860** | 0.001 | 0.010 | 50 151.30*** | 0.05±0.02 |
根鲜质量Fresh mass of root | 2 877.620 | 31 255.800** | 5 276.480 | 4 885.650 | 139 462.00*** | 0.17±0.05 |
根干质量Dry mass of root | 587.320 | 6 261.050** | 1 760.410* | 634.870 | 29 756.10*** | 0.16±0.04 |
叶鲜质量Fresh mass of leaves | 755.810 | 120.200 | 0.003 | 0.004 | 41 470.90*** | — |
叶干质量Dry mass of leaves | 62.780 | 32.560 | 201.760 | 0.003 | 20 617.20*** | — |
总鲜质量Total fresh mass | 12 421.700 | 24 897.500 | 22 119.200 | 36 701.700 | 1 030 170.00*** | — |
总干质量Total dry mass | 2 155.100 | 1 466.790 | 2 431.570 | 11 029.400 | 261 375.00 | — |
表6
尾叶桉不同处理下优良无性系评选
编号 No. | 无性系 Clone | 基因型值Gv | 水分 Water | 养分 Nutrient | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
基因型值1 Gv 1 | 基因型值2 Gv 2 | 基因型值3 Gv 3 | 基因型值1 Gv 1 | 基因型值2 Gv 2 | 基因型值3 Gv 3 | |||
13 | ZQUA3 | 25.97 | -3.98 | 123.10 | 80.05 | 3.87 | 13.90 | 22.80 |
20 | ZQUA88 | 20.93 | 12.41 | 120.10 | 27.93 | 9.53 | 4.76 | 18.41 |
1 | UD42 | 14.18 | -15.39 | 39.87 | 84.25 | -3.08 | 3.44 | 21.80 |
8 | LDUC1 | 11.81 | 3.46 | 31.49 | 55.60 | 16.76 | 1.32 | 0.38 |
6 | 3229 | 10.43 | -9.01 | 54.30 | 34.71 | 6.45 | -3.92 | 13.78 |
30 | ZQUD14 | 9.58 | -20.79 | 93.87 | 0.41 | 1.66 | 21.47 | -8.16 |
27 | ZQUA27 | 8.66 | 18.24 | -63.46 | 111.70 | -2.97 | -3.11 | 19.62 |
16 | LDUD5 | 6.63 | 7.76 | 67.96 | -24.91 | 1.45 | 5.76 | 3.14 |
3 | LDUD17 | 6.04 | 11.30 | -6.33 | 41.33 | -4.92 | 9.42 | 4.94 |
23 | ZQUC86 | 6.03 | 36.33 | -27.49 | 37.38 | -13.29 | 32.32 | -9.62 |
32 | UA120 | 4.37 | 2.26 | 31.28 | 0.00 | 0.46 | 0.00 | 6.37 |
28 | ZQUC23 | 3.85 | 49.04 | -28.73 | 9.20 | -10.00 | -9.37 | 25.38 |
5 | ZQUB93 | 3.45 | -45.37 | 28.55 | 43.29 | -3.36 | -11.33 | 20.08 |
2 | ZQUC14 | 3.07 | 105.40 | -22.05 | -59.81 | 8.83 | 10.82 | -14.86 |
21 | ZQUB39 | 0.55 | 31.78 | 10.92 | -38.50 | 2.80 | 6.02 | -7.96 |
10 | ZQUB55 | -0.27 | -30.60 | 71.02 | -42.48 | 5.38 | -11.65 | 5.86 |
24 | LDUB94 | -0.96 | -18.81 | 21.07 | -9.62 | -1.87 | 7.65 | -7.28 |
34 | LDUC93 | -1.52 | 0.00 | 0.00 | -11.64 | 0.00 | 0.00 | -2.37 |
12 | LDUB41 | -2.14 | -20.79 | -18.31 | 22.71 | -2.47 | 7.17 | -8.03 |
33 | ZQUC17 | -2.37 | 13.43 | -31.63 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | -3.71 |
29 | ZQUC97 | -2.49 | -29.28 | 40.47 | -30.30 | 7.60 | -12.78 | 1.29 |
7 | ZQUC29 | -2.69 | -38.74 | 14.44 | 3.67 | 7.71 | -3.17 | -8.74 |
4 | ZQUB58 | -2.69 | 9.71 | -11.06 | -19.30 | -3.71 | -5.49 | 4.99 |
9 | ZQUA13 | -3.04 | -21.27 | -76.85 | 74.77 | -8.09 | -1.71 | 5.04 |
19 | 广林9 | -3.56 | -1.50 | -34.16 | 8.36 | 3.10 | 5.10 | -13.77 |
26 | ZQUA29 | -7.82 | 6.30 | 34.49 | -100.80 | 14.93 | -17.09 | -10.06 |
14 | ZQUB16 | -7.89 | -37.86 | -10.50 | -12.18 | -2.77 | -2.76 | -6.81 |
22 | ZQUB78 | -8.55 | -47.44 | -60.27 | 42.13 | -7.54 | -5.83 | 0.00 |
17 | ZQUB28 | -9.17 | 16.89 | -20.67 | -66.51 | -2.02 | 0.81 | -13.12 |
31 | ZQUC44 | -9.49 | 17.96 | -83.57 | -7.18 | 5.23 | 0.30 | -20.36 |
11 | ZQUA22 | -11.23 | 34.01 | -36.47 | -83.64 | 0.13 | 3.80 | -21.47 |
18 | LDUD26 | -16.11 | -12.56 | -119.30 | 8.31 | -1.00 | -17.61 | -6.56 |
25 | LDUD17 | -17.67 | -3.45 | -100.60 | -31.48 | -27.67 | -9.11 | 9.17 |
15 | ZQUA28 | -25.88 | -19.48 | -31.55 | -147.50 | -1.13 | -19.12 | -20.18 |
附录1 水分和养分梯度试验设计
水分处理 Water treatment | 土壤相对含水量(t) Soil relative water content /% | 养分处理 Nutrient treatment | 基肥 /盆 Basal fertilizer /pot | 追肥 /盆 Top dressing /pot | 追肥时间 Time of addition fertilize |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 20<t≤40 | 1 | 钙镁磷肥250 g Calcium magnesium phosphate fertilizer 250 g | — | — |
2 | 40<t≤60 | 2 | 钙镁磷肥250 g Calcium magnesium phosphate fertilizer 250 g | 复合肥150 g Compound fertilizer 150 g | 第二年2月 Feb. of the second year |
3 | 60<t≤80 | 3 | 钙镁磷肥250 g+复合肥150 g Calcium magnesium phosphate fertilizer 250 g + compound fertilizer 150 g | 尿素100 g+复合肥150 g Urea 100 g+compound fertilizer 150 g | 当年8月及第二年2月 Aug. of the current year and Feb. of the next year |
1 | GOWER S T, VOGT K A, GRIER C C.Carbon dynamics of Rocky Mountain Douglas-fir:influence of water and nutrient availability[J].Ecological Monographs,1992,62(1):43-65. |
2 | BECKER M, NIEMINEN T M, GÉRÉMIA F.Short-term variations and long-term changes in oak productivity in northeastern France.The role of climate and atmospheric CO2 [J].Annales Des Sciences Forestieres,1994,51(5):477-492. |
3 | 王海艺,韩烈保,杨永利,等.水肥对洋白蜡生物量的耦合效应研究[J].北京林业大学学报,2006,28(S1):64-68. |
WANG H Y, HAN L B, YANG Y L,et al.Coupling effects of water and fertilizer on the biomass of Fraxinus pennsylvanica [J].Journal of Beijing Forestry University,2006,28(S1):64-68. | |
4 | 华元刚,陈秋波,林钊沐,等.水肥耦合对橡胶树产胶量的影响[J].应用生态学报,2008,19(6):1211-1216. |
HUA Y G, CHEN Q B, LIN Z M,et al.Coupling effects of water and chemical fertilizers on Hevea brasiliensis latex yield[J].Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology,2008,19(6):1211-1216. | |
5 | 王楠,王宏信,李向林,等.施肥对降香黄檀幼苗生长和光合的影响[J].东北林业大学学报,2017,45(1):25-29. |
WANG N, WANG H X, LI X L,et al.Effect of fertilization on growth and photosynthesis of Dalbergia odorifera seedlings[J].Journal of Northeast Forestry University,2017,45(1):25-29. | |
6 | 黄毅.不同生境对木荷幼苗生长及幼树生物量分配的影响[J].林业勘察设计,2018,38(1):30-32. |
HUANG Y.The influence on seedling growth and young trees biomass allocation of Schima superb in different habitats[J].Forestry Prospect and Design,2018,38(1):30-32. | |
7 | 邹松言,李豆豆,汪金松,等.毛白杨幼林细根对梯度土壤水分的响应[J].林业科学,2019,55(10):124-137. |
ZOU S Y, LI D D, WANG J S,et al.Response of fine roots to soil moisture of different gradients in young Populus tomentosa plantation[J].Scientia Silvae Sinicae,2019,55(10):124-137. | |
8 | LI J S, LIU Y C.Water and nitrate distributions as affected by layered-textural soil and buried dripline depth under subsurface drip fertigation[J].Irrigation Science,2011,29(6):469-478. |
9 | 刘峰,席本野,戴腾飞,等.水肥耦合对毛白杨林分土壤氮、细根分布及生物量的影响[J].北京林业大学学报,2020,42(1):75-83. |
LIU F, XI B Y, DAI T F,et al.Effects of water and fertilizer coupling on soil nitrogen,fine root distribution and biomass of Populus tomentosa[J].Journal of Beijing Forestry University,2020,42(1):75-83. | |
10 | 杨会肖,曹彦斌,廖焕琴,等.水肥胁迫对尾叶桉无性系生长及叶片变异的影响研究[J].热带亚热带植物学报,2017,25(3):218-224. |
YANG H X, CAO Y B, LIAO H Q,et al.Effects of water and nutrient stresses on growth and leaf variation of Eucalyptus urophylla clones[J].Journal of Tropical and Subtropical Botany,2017,25(3):218-224. | |
11 | 廖焕琴,张卫华,张方秋,等.红锥1.5代改良种子园无性系生长和形质性状变异分析[J].林业与环境科学,2016,32(4):23-27. |
LIAO H Q, ZHANG W H, ZHANG F Q,et al.Analysis on variation of clonal growth and form traits for 1.5 generation improved seed orchard of Castanopsis hystrix [J].Forestry and Environmental Science,2016,32(4):23-27. | |
12 | 杨会肖,廖焕琴,杨晓慧,等.阳江地区尾叶桉早期生长性状遗传参数估算[J].华南农业大学学报,2021,42(1):109-115. |
YANG H X, LIAO H Q, YANG X H,et al.Estimation for genetic parameters of early growth traits of Eucalyptus urophylla in Yangjiang[J].Journal of South China Agricultural University,2021,42(1):109-115. | |
13 | GILMOUR A R,GOGEL R,CULLIS B R, et al.ASReml user guide release 3.0[Z].Hemel Hempstead:VSN International Ltd,2009. |
14 | SANTIAGO L S, WRIGHT S J, HARMS K E,et al.Tropical tree seedling growth responses to nitrogen,phosphorus and potassium addition[J].Journal of Ecology,2012,100(2):309-316. |
15 | WRIGHT S J, YAVITT J B, WURZBURGER N,et al.Potassium,phosphorus,or nitrogen limit root allocation,tree growth,or litter production in a lowland tropical forest[J].Ecology,2011,92(8):1616-1625. |
16 | 李典云,秦紫棋,谭翔,等.不同施肥处理对尾巨桉生长量及经济效益的影响[J].热带农业科学,2017,37(3):20-24. |
LI D Y, QIN Z Q, TAN X,et al.Effects of different fertilizer treatments on the growth rate and economic benefit of Eucalyptus urophyra × E.grandis [J].Chinese Journal of Tropical Agriculture,2017,37(3):20-24. | |
17 | 韦昌鹏.桉树人工林经营措施对生态环境的影响及对策[J].现代农业科技,2020(13):130,132. |
WEI C P.Effects of Eucalyptus plantation management measures on ecological environment and Countermeasures[J].Modern Agricultural Science and Technology,2020(13):130,132. | |
18 | 席本野,王烨,贾黎明.滴灌施肥下施氮量和施氮频率对毛白杨生物量及氮吸收的影响[J].林业科学,2017,53(5):63-73. |
XI B Y, WANG Y, JIA L M.Effects of nitrogen application rate and frequency on biomass accumulation and nitrogen uptake of Populus tomentosa under drip fertigation[J].Scientia Silvae Sinicae,2017,53(5):63-73. | |
19 | 李国升.不同林分密度对日本落叶松生物量的影响[J].安徽农业科学,2017,45(15):162-163,170. |
LI G S.Effects of different stand density on biomass of Larix kaempferi [J].Journal of Anhui Agricultural Sciences,2017,45(15):162-163,170. | |
20 | 卢万鸿,齐杰,李鹏,等.桉树无性系生长性状的基因型与环境互作初步研究[J].桉树科技,2018,35(2):7-13. |
LU W H, QI J, LI P,et al.Preliminary study of genotype by environment interactions in the growth traits of eucalypt clones[J].Eucalypt Science & Techonology,2018,35(2):7-13. | |
21 | 张明月,黄相玲,朱栗琼,等.不同施肥配比对罗汉松幼苗生长的影响[J].广西林业科学,2018,47(3):285-289. |
ZHANG M Y, HUANG X L, ZHU L Q,et al.Effects of different fertilization proportions on growth of Podocarpus macrophyllus seedlings[J].Guangxi Forestry Science,2018,47(3):285-289. | |
22 | 王力,邵明安,侯庆春,等.不同水肥条件对杨树生物量的影响[J].西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版),2004(3):53-58. |
WANG L, SHAO M A, HOU Q C,et al.Effect of different water,N and P content on the bio-mass of poplar[J].Journal of Northwest Sci-Tech University of Agriculture and Forestry(Natural Science Edition),2004(3):53-58. | |
23 | 董雯怡.毛白杨苗期水肥耦合效应研究[D].北京:北京林业大学,2011. |
DONG W Y.Study on coupling effects of water and fertilizer on Populus tomentosa seedlings[D].Beijing:Beijing Forestry University,2011. | |
24 | 董雷鸣,张守攻,孙晓梅.日本落叶松全双列交配生长性状的遗传分析[J].林业科学研究,2019,32(4):11-18. |
DONG L M, ZHANG S G, SUN X M.Genetic analysis of Larix kaempferi growth traits in full-diallel crosses[J].Forest Research,2019,32(4):11-18. | |
25 | 欧阳芳群,祁生秀,蔡启山,等.青海云杉自由授粉家系遗传评价与选择[J].林业科学研究,2018,31(6):26-32. |
OUYANG F Q, QI S X, CAI Q S,et al.Genetic evaluation and selection on open-pollinated families of Picea crassifolia Kom.[J].Forest Research,2018,31(6):26-32. | |
26 | 舒伟林.亚美马褂木速生无性系选择与生长规律研究[D].南京:南京林业大学,2018. |
SHU W L.Fast-growing clone selection and growth rhythm of Liriodendrom sino-americanum [D].Nanjing:Nanjing Forestry University,2018. | |
27 | KROON J, ERICSSON T, JANSSON G,et al.Patterns of genetic parameters for height in field genetic tests of Picea abies and Pinus sylvestris in Sweden[J].Tree Genetics & Genomes,2011,7(6):1099-1111. |
[1] | 陈家兴, 王姝, 陈林丽, 侯夏丽, 杨庆祝, 尹任娅. 干旱条件对鬼针草和醉鱼草种间相互作用及生长的影响[J]. 植物研究, 2023, 43(5): 720-728. |
[2] | 许吉康, 何炎红, 刘婷岩, 郝龙飞, 张盛晰, 李赵毅. 砒砂岩区不同生态修复植被根际土壤微生态环境特征[J]. 植物研究, 2023, 43(4): 531-539. |
[3] | 郑晟, 高海霞, 苏敏, 卢尚欢, 张腾国, 武国凡. 外源蔗糖影响AtKEA1和AtKEA2调节拟南芥幼苗根的生长[J]. 植物研究, 2023, 43(4): 562-571. |
[4] | 曹俐, 杨蕴力, 李天芳, 姜静. 转BpGLK裂叶桦叶色及生长变异分析[J]. 植物研究, 2023, 43(3): 351-360. |
[5] | 唐莹莹, 郭传超, 石荡, 蒋南林, 许正, 刘立强. 果肉和埋土深度对新疆野杏种子萌发与幼苗生长的影响[J]. 植物研究, 2023, 43(2): 251-260. |
[6] | 令狐克念, 王姝. 不同生长阶段苘麻生物量分配对种群密度和土壤水分的响应[J]. 植物研究, 2023, 43(2): 272-280. |
[7] | 孙军, 李贵生. 粗梗水蕨营养期和生殖期微RNA的测定与分析[J]. 植物研究, 2022, 42(6): 1014-1022. |
[8] | 刘英, 吴嘉仪, 金玲, 季倩如, 付玉杰, 李德文. 遮光胁迫下外源NO对盆栽长春花土壤养分含量及幼苗生长特征的影响[J]. 植物研究, 2022, 42(6): 1088-1095. |
[9] | 曹小路, 赵巧竹, 幸华, 栗孟飞. 桃儿七种子解剖结构及其萌发生长期形态特征[J]. 植物研究, 2022, 42(5): 746-752. |
[10] | 王欢, 徐云飞, 刘一伯, 刘沁松, 徐文娟, 龙芸, 胥晓. 珙桐—灯台树枝和叶的水提物对白菜种子萌发和幼苗生长的化感效应[J]. 植物研究, 2022, 42(5): 866-875. |
[11] | 庄伟伟, 王明明. 荒漠地区8种草本植物营养元素含量的比较分析[J]. 植物研究, 2022, 42(5): 896-909. |
[12] | 龚莉, 翟伟, 吕丹, 张世航, 戈玉莹, 洪志, 陶冶. 不同生境入侵植物北美车前繁殖器官性状变异与权衡特征[J]. 植物研究, 2022, 42(4): 544-555. |
[13] | 白舒冰, 邢小艺, 关雯雨, 董丽. 首云铁矿废弃土壤对2种景天属植物生长的影响[J]. 植物研究, 2022, 42(4): 677-687. |
[14] | 张青青, 周再知, 黄桂华, 赵威威, 王西洋, 杨光, 刘高峰. 施肥对柚木幼林生长及林下植被的影响[J]. 植物研究, 2022, 42(4): 694-703. |
[15] | 周雪燕, 王璧莹, 郝雪峰, 胡兴国, 吴江涛, 郎凯, 胡钦波, 赵曦阳. 长白落叶松半同胞家系生长和木材性状遗传变异与联合选择[J]. 植物研究, 2022, 42(3): 383-393. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||