胶东滨海8种树木叶片热值、建成成本及其适应能力

doi:10.11707/j.1001-7488.20150302

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

【目的】评估海岸多变环境条件下不同树种的生长发育潜能和适应能力,为海岸防护林建设的树种选择提供参考。【方法】以烟台海岸防护林带的主要树种柽柳、黑松、龙柏、白蜡、廊坊杨、红花槐、刺槐和紫穗槐为研究对象,以热值测定、元素分析和生物量建成成本计算为基本方法,对各树种的能量利用策略和生长、适应能力进行比较分析。【结果】本试验的8个树种中,叶片碳含量以黑松最高、柽柳最低,灰分含量则以黑松最低、柽柳最高,其他树种居两者之间,叶片氮含量和比叶面积以黑松和龙柏最低,其他树种较高,总体表现为阔叶树种高于鳞针叶树种; 去灰分热值大致分为3个层次:紫穗槐、刺槐、红花槐、黑松和龙柏较高,白蜡和廊坊杨较低,柽柳最低; 叶片单位面积建成成本表现为红花槐< 紫穗槐< 刺槐< 白蜡< 廊坊杨< 柽柳< 黑松< 龙柏; 相关性分析显示,去灰分热值与叶片碳含量极显著正相关、与灰分含量极显著负相关(P<0.01),叶片单位质量建成成本和单位面积建成成本均与去灰分热值和叶片碳含量显著正相关(P<0.05)、与灰分含量显著负相关(P<0.05),单位面积建成成本还与叶片氮含量和比叶面积极显著负相关(P<0.01); 单位生物量中含碳化合物比例越高的植物,其能量利用效率越低、构建生物体的成本就越高,而单位生物量中灰分含量越高的植物,其能量利用效率也越高、构建生物体的成本则越低; 叶片氮含量高有利于叶片的扩展,降低构建单位面积叶片的能量成本。【结论】本试验中8个树种的生长竞争力表现为红花槐 >紫穗槐 >刺槐 >白蜡 >廊坊杨 >柽柳 >黑松 >龙柏; 对海岸环境适应能力则以柽柳最强,黑松和龙柏次之,白蜡和廊坊杨第3,红花槐、紫穗槐和刺槐最低; 海岸防护林的树种配置应以柽柳作为前沿植物,龙柏和黑松在柽柳之后,廊坊杨和白蜡居第3层,刺槐、紫穗槐和红花槐则可以种植在防护林的后部。

关键词: 滨海地区, 木本植物, 热值, 建成成本, 适应能力

Abstract:

【Objective】Growth potential and adaptability of 8 tree species to the harsh coastal environment were assessed in order to provide a reference for species selection for the construction of coastal shelterbelt forest. 【Method】Based on calorimetric measurement, factorial analysis and biomass buildup costs calculation, a comparative analysis was carried out on the strategy of energy use, growth potential and adaptability of each of the 8 species: Tamarix chinensis, Pinus thunbergii, Juniperus chinensis var. kaizuka, Fraxinus chinensis, Populus langfanggensis, Robinia hispida, Robinia pseudoacacia and Amorpha fruticosa, all grown in the coastal areas of Yantai. 【Result】The results showed that carbon content of Pinus thunbergii was the highest among the 8 species, while Tamarix chinensis was the lowest one. In contrast, Tamarix chinensis displayed the highest ash content and Pinus thunbergii the lowest. Pinus thunbergii and Juniperus chinensis showed the lowest nitrogen content and specific leaf area (SLA). Overall, the broad-leaved species were higher than the conifer species (Juniperus chinensis, Pinus thunbergii and Juniperus chinensis) in term of nitrogen content and SLA. The 8 species were divided into 3 groups in terms of ash free calorific values, and the order from the highest to the lowest was: Amorpha fruticosa, Robinia pseudoacacia, Robinia hispida, Pinus thunbergii and Juniperus chinensis as group 1, followed by Fraxinus chinensis and Populus langfanggensis as group 2 and T. chinensis as group 3. The area-based leaf construction costs (CC_area) of the 8 species from high to low is: R. hispida, A. fruticosa, R. pseudoacacia, Fraxinus chinensis, Populus langfanggensis, Tamarix chinensis, Pinus thunbergii and Juniperus chinensis. Correlation analysis showed that the ash free caloric values were very significantly positively correlated with carbon content (P<0.01), but very significantly negatively with ash content (P<0.01). The mass-based and area-based leaf construction costs both displayed a significant positive correlation with ash free calorific value and carbon content of the leaves (P<0.05), and a significantly negatively correlation with ash content (P<0.05). Furthermore, the area-based leaf construction cost showed a very significant negative correlation with nitrogen content and SLA (P <0.01). The results implies that the higher the proportion of carbon-containing compound in per unit of biomass, the lower the energy utilization efficiency and the higher the construction cost of building up the organism; while the higher ash content of the per unit biomass, the higher its energy efficiency and the lower the construction cost of building up. Meanwhile, the high nitrogen content in leaf is useful for the extension of leaf blade, and reduction of energy cost of construction of per unit area of the leaf. 【Conclusion】The comprehensive analysis of the calorific values, construction costs, specific leaf area, leaf ash/carbon and nitrogen content showed that the order for the growth competitiveness of the 8 species from high to low was: Robinia hispida, Amorpha fruticosa, Robinia pseudoacacia, Fraxinus chinensis, Populus langfanggensis, Tamarix chinensis, Pinus thunbergii, and Juniperus chinensis. The order of adaptability was: Tamarix chinensis, Pinus thunbergii, Juniperus chinensis, Fraxinus chinensis, Populus langfanggensis, Robinia hispida, Amorpha fruticosa and Robinia pseudoacacia. Tamarix chinensis should be taken as the front line plant, followed by Juniperus chinensis and Pinus thunbergii as the second line and Populus langfanggensis and Fraxinus chinensis as the third line in building up the coastal shelterbelt forest in Yantai region. Robinia pseudoacacia, Amorpha fruticosa and Robinia hispida should be planted behind the shelterbelt forest.

Key words: coastal areas, woody plants, calorific value, construction cost, adaptability

中图分类号:

董周焱, 柏新富, 侯玉平, 卜庆梅. 胶东滨海8种树木叶片热值、建成成本及其适应能力[J]. 林业科学, 2015, 51(3): 8-15.

Dong Zhouyan, Bai Xinfu, Hou Yuping, Bu Qingmei. Leaf Calorific Value of 8 Tree Species in the Coastal Areas of Jiaodong and Cost of Construction of Leaf Biomass and Its Adaptability[J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2015, 51(3): 8-15.

参考文献

高凯, 谢中兵, 徐苏铁, 等. 2012. 内蒙古锡林河流域羊草草原 15 种植物热值特征. 生态学报, 32(2): 588-594.
(Gao K, Xie Z B, Xu S T, et al. 2012. Characterization of caloric value in fifteen plant species in Leymus chinensis steppe in Xilin River Basin, Inner Mongolia. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 32(2): 588-594.[in Chinese])
郭水良, 黄华, 晁柯, 等. 2005. 金华市郊 10 种杂草的热值和灰分含量及其适应意义. 植物研究, 25(4): 460-464.
(Guo S L, Huang H, Chao K, et al. 2005. On caloric values and ash contents of ten weed species in Jinhua suburb and its adaptive significances. Bulletin of Botanical Research, 25(4): 460-464.[in Chinese])
韩蕊莲, 李丽霞, 梁宗锁. 2003. 干旱胁迫下沙棘叶片细胞膜透性与渗透调节物质研究. 西北植物学报, 23(1): 23-27.
(Han R L, Li L X, Liang Z S. 2003. Seabuckthorn relative membrane conductivity and osmotic adjustment under drought stress. Acta Botanica Boreali-Occidentalia Sinica, 23(1): 23-27.[in Chinese])
李宏, 程平, 郑朝晖, 等. 2013. 克拉玛依地区主要树种干部热值与碳含量特征分析. 林业科学, 49(9): 29-37.
(Li H, Cheng P, Zheng Z H, et al. 2013. Characteristic analysis on caloric values and carbon contents of dominant trees in Karamay region. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 49(9): 29-37.[in Chinese])
林光辉, 林鹏. 1991. 红树植物秋茄热值及其变化的研究. 生态学报, 11(1): 44-48.
(Lin G H, Lin P. 1991. The change of caloric values of a mangrove species, Kandelia candel in China. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 11(1): 44-48.[in Chinese])
刘爱荣, 赵可夫. 2005. 盐胁迫下盐芥渗透调节物质的积累及其渗透调节作用. 植物生理与分子生物学学报, 31(4): 389-395.
(Liu A R, Zhao K F. 2005. Osmotica accumulation and its role in osmotic adjustment in Thellungiella halophila under salt stress. Journal of Plant Physiology and Molecular Biology, 31(4): 389-395.[in Chinese])
刘灿, 李宏. 2010. 四种杨属植物的热值及灰分含量的比较. 中南林业科技大学学报: 自然科学版, 30(10): 24-28.
(Liu C, Li H. Comparison of caloric values and ash contents in the four Populus L. species. Journal of Central South University of Forestry & Technology:Natural Science, 30(10): 24-28.[in Chinese])
宋莉英, 彭长连, 彭少麟. 2009. 华南地区 3 种入侵植物与本地植物叶片建成成本的比较. 生物多样性, 17(4): 378-384.
(Song L Y, Peng C L, Peng S L. 2009. Comparison of leaf construction costs between three invasive species and three native species in South China. Biodiversity Science, 17(4): 378-384.[in Chinese])
孙国夫, 郑志明, 王兆骞. 1993. 水稻热值的动态变化研究. 生态学杂志, 12(1): 1-4.
(Sun G F, Zheng Z M, Wang Z Q. 1993. Dynamics of calorific values of rice. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 12(1): 1-4.[in Chinese])
唐炎林, 曹敏, 唐建维, 等. 2010. 西双版纳热带季节雨林优势植物热值. 生态学杂志, 29(3): 427-433.
(Tang Y L, Cao M, Tang J W, et al. 2010. Caloric values of dominant plant species in Xishuangbanna tropical seasonal rainforest. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 29(3): 427-433.[in Chinese])
王立海, 孙墨珑. 2009. 小兴安岭主要树种热值与碳含量. 生态学报, 29(2): 953-959.
(Wang L H, Sun M L. 2009. Caloric values and carbon contents of dom inant trees in Xiaoxing'anling forest region. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 29(2): 953-959.[in Chinese])
肖强, 叶文景, 朱珠, 等. 2005. 利用数码相机和 Photoshop 软件非破坏性测定叶面积的简便方法. 生态学杂志, 24(6): 711-714.
(Xiao Q, Ye W J, Zhu Z, et al. 2005. A simple non-destructive method to measure leaf area using digital camera and Photoshop software. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 24(6): 711-714.[in Chinese])
许景伟, 王卫东, 王月海, 等. 2003. 沿海黑松防护林低产、低质、低效成因的调查报告. 东北林业大学学报, 31(5): 96-98.
(Xu J W, Wang W D, Wang Y H, et al. 2003. Investigation report on the reasons of low-yield, poor-quality, inferior-function of coastal protective forest of Pinus thunbergii Parl. Journal of Northeast Forestry University, 31(5): 96-98.[in Chinese])
张志东, 毛培利, 刘玉虹, 等. 2009. 林分结构对烟台黑松海岸防护林天然更新的影响. 生态学报, 30(8): 2205-2211.
(Zhang Z D, Mao P L, Liu Y H, et al. 2009. Effects of forest structure on natural regeneration of Pinus thunbergii coastal shelter forest in Yantai region. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 30(8): 2205-2211.[in Chinese])
郑朝晖, 马春霞, 马江林, 等. 2011. 俄罗斯杨热值与含碳率特征分析. 河南农业科学, 40(6): 128-131.
(Zheng Z H, Ma C X, Ma J L, et al. 2011. Characteristics analysis of caloric value and carbon contents in Populus russkii. Journal of Henan Agricultural Sciences, 40(6): 128-131.[in Chinese])
Baruch Z, Goldstein G. 1999. Leaf construction cost, nutrient concentration, and net CO₂ assimilation of native and invasive species in Hawaii. Oecologia, 121(2): 183-192.
Daehler C C. 2003. Performance comparisons of co-occurring native and alien invasive plants: implications for conservation and restoration. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, 34: 183-211.
De Vries F, Brunsting A, Van Laar H. 1974. Products, requirements and efficiency of biosynthesis a quantitative approach. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 45(2): 339-377.
Feng Y L, Fu G L, Zheng Y L. 2008. Specific leaf area relates to the differences in leaf construction cost, photosynthesis, nitrogen allocation, and use efficiencies between invasive and noninvasive alien congeners. Planta, 228(3): 383-390.
Fortunel C, Fine P V, Baraloto C. 2012. Leaf, stem and root tissue strategies across 758 Neotropical tree species. Functional ecology, 26(5): 1153-1161.
Funk J L, Vitousek P M. 2007. Resource-use efficiency and plant invasion in low-resource systems. Nature, 446(7139): 1079-1081.
Garnier E, Salager J L, Laurent G, et al. 1999. Relationships between photosynthesis, nitrogen and leaf structure in 14 grass species and their dependence on the basis of expression. New Phytologist, 143(1): 119-129.
Golley F B. 1961. Energy values of ecological materials. Ecology, 42(3): 581-584.
Golley F B. 1969.Caloric value of wet tropical forest vegetation. Ecology, 50(3): 517-519.
Lin H, Cao M. 2008. Plant energy storage strategy and caloric value. Ecological Modelling, 217(1/2): 132-138.
Matías L, Quero J L, Zamora R, et al. 2012. Evidence for plant traits driving specific drought resistance. A community field experiment. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 81: 55-61.
Mediavilla S, Escudero A, Heilmeier H. 2001. Internal leaf anatomy and photosynthetic resource-use efficiency: interspecific and intraspecific comparisons. Tree physiology, 21(4): 251-259.
Nagel J M, Griffin K L. 2004. Can gas-exchange characteristics help explain the invasive success of Lythrum salicaria? Biological Invasions, 6(1): 101-111.
Nielsen S L, Enriquez S, Duarte C, et al. 1996. Scaling maximum growth rates across photosynthetic organisms. Functional ecology, 10(2): 167-175.
Osunkoya O O, Bayliss D, Panetta F D, et al. 2010. Leaf trait co-ordination in relation to construction cost, carbon gain and resource-use efficiency in exotic invasive and native woody vine species. Annals of botany, 106(2): 371-380.
Ovington J D, Heitkamp D. 1960.The accumulation of energy in forest plantations in Britain. Journal of Ecology, 48(3): 639-46.
Pysek P, Richardson D M. 2007. Traits associated with invasiveness in alien plants: where do we stand? Biological Invasions, 193(3): 97-125.
Shen X Y, Peng S L, Chen B M, et al. 2011. Do higher resource capture ability and utilization efficiency facilitate the successful invasion of native plants? Biological Invasions, 13(4): 869-881.
Song L Y, Ni G Y, Chen B M, et al. 2007. Energetic cost of leaf construction in the invasive weed Mikania micrantha H.B.K. and its co-occurring species: implications for invasiveness. Botanical Studies, 48(3): 331-338.
Van Kleunen M, Weber E, Fischer M. 2010. A meta-analysis of trait differences between invasive and non-invasive plant species. Ecology Letters, 13(2): 235-245.
Villar R, Merino J. 2001. Comparison of leaf construction costs in woody species with differing leaf life-spans in contrasting ecosystems. New Phytologist, 151(1): 213-226.
Williams K, Percival F, Merino J, et al. 1987. Estimation of tissue construction cost from heat of combustion and organic nitrogen content. Plant, Cell & Environment, 10(9): 725-734.

[1]	陈伟, 杨飞, 王卷乐, 程淑兰. 冰雪冻灾干扰下的亚热带森林生态系统恢复力综合定量评价——以湖南省道县为例[J]. 林业科学, 2018, 54(6): 1-8.
[2]	卜庆梅, 侯玉平, 房洪坤, 张治梁, 柏新富. 外来树种火炬树入侵的生理生态特性——与同属本地种盐肤木的比较[J]. 林业科学, 2017, 53(5): 1-7.
[3]	滕江南, 黄张婷, 项婷婷, 姜培坤, 孟赐福. 中国重要丛生竹热值及能量现存量[J]. 林业科学, 2016, 52(8): 122-130.
[4]	赵凤君, 王秋华, 舒立福, 杨丽君, 刘柯珍. 大兴安岭针叶可燃物的热值和燃点与其超临界萃取物含量的相关性[J]. 林业科学, 2016, 52(4): 68-74.
[5]	张靖梓, 柏新富, 侯玉平, 董周焱, 卜庆梅. 山东半岛沿海防护林入侵植物美洲商陆及其伴生种生长竞争力的比较[J]. 林业科学, 2016, 52(3): 23-29.
[6]	乌凤章, 王贺新, 徐国辉, 张自川. 木本植物低温胁迫生理及分子机制研究进展[J]. 林业科学, 2015, 51(7): 116-128.
[7]	翟飞飞, 孙振元. 木本植物雌雄株生物学差异研究进展[J]. 林业科学, 2015, 51(10): 110-116.
[8]	张贵, 康文星, 何介南, 王东, 姚利辉. 杉木林不同生长阶段能量生产特征[J]. 林业科学, 2014, 50(12): 14-23.
[9]	李宏, 程平, 郑朝晖, 李丕军, 孙守文, 王宝庆. 克拉玛依地区主要树种干部热值与碳含量特征分析[J]. 林业科学, 2013, 49(9): 29-37.
[10]	赵静;彭祚登;江丽媛;孙龙;谭晓红. 豫刺8号主要木材化学成分与热值的关系[J]. , 2013, 49(5): 182-187.
[11]	张江涛;马永涛;晏增;李忠喜;朱延林. 5年生刺槐4个无性系的枝干生物量及热值对比分析[J]. 林业科学, 2012, 48(8): 75-80.
[12]	容丽;;王世杰;俞国松;邓晓琪;冉景丞. 荔波喀斯特森林4种木本植物水分来源的稳定同位素分析[J]. 林业科学, 2012, 48(7): 14-22.
[13]	柏新富;朱建军;王仲礼;谭永芹;刘林德. 干旱区木本植物盐分积累与其耐旱性的关系[J]. 林业科学, 2012, 48(7): 45-49.
[14]	张启昌;张英楠;其其格. 长白山阔叶红松林的红松种群热值[J]. 林业科学, 2010, 46(8): 15-21.
[15]	邓湘雯唐林琴田大伦周雄刘豪健向志勇. 湘西南石漠化地区4种植被恢复模式早期林分燃烧性[J]. 林业科学, 2010, 46(11): 89-94.