穿透雨减少对辽西北沙地樟子松树干液流的影响

doi:10.13466/j.cnki.lczyyj.2023.06.017

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为探究减少穿透雨情况下樟子松树干液流速率的变化及其与环境因子的关系,采用热扩散式液流探针,对辽西北樟子松人工林的树干液流速率以及林内多个环境因子进行同步连续监测,分减少穿透雨样地(人工截留穿透雨30%)和正常降水样地(对照),测定2018年生长季(4—10月)樟子松树干液流速率,对不同天气情况下樟子松树干液流速率的日变化、夜间变化以及月变化进行分析讨论。结果表明:1)经过长期穿透雨减少处理后樟子松树干液流速率显著高于对照组,不同天气情况下白天和夜间的差异幅度均为:晴天>雨天>阴天。2)经过降水后,减雨处理的樟子松树干液流启动时间早于对照组,而对照组樟子松日树干液流平均速率经过降水后增长幅度高于减雨组。3)樟子松树干液流速率在生长季内先升高后降低,夏季高于春季和秋季。4)减雨样地与对照样地樟子松的树干液流速率均受气象因子的影响较大,与空气温度和光合有效辐射呈显著的正相关,与空气湿度呈负相关关系。降水减少增加了沙地樟子松的树干液流速率,这对未来人工林的管理提供了参考。

关键词: 辽西北, 沙地樟子松, 树干液流, 穿透雨减少, 环境因子

Abstract:

In order to investigate the effect of reduced throughfall on the stem sap flow rate of Pinus sylvestris var.mongolica and its relationship with environmental factors,we uesed the thermal diffusion sap flow probe (TDP)to continuously monitor the stem sap flow rate of Pinus sylvestris var.mongolica plantation in northwest Liaoning,along with various environmental factors.The study site was divided into plots with reduced throughfall (30% artificial interception)and plots with normal rainfall.This paper analyzes and discusses the daily,nightly,and monthly variations in stem sap flow rate of Pinus sylvestris var.mongolica under different weather conditions,utilizing the data of stem sap flow from April to October (growing season)of 2018.The findings of this study are as follows:1)The sap flow rate of Pinus sylvestris var.mongolica was significantly higher in the throughfall reduction plots compared to the control group.The difference in sap flow rate between daytime and nighttime varied with different weather conditions,with the highest difference observed under sunny conditions,followed by rainy and cloudy conditions.2)Following rainfall,the onset of stem sap flow in the throughfall reduction plots was earlier than in the control group,however,the average daily growth rate of stem sap flow in the control group was higher than in the throughfall reduction group.3)The sap flow rate of Pinus sylvestris var.mongolica increased first and then decreased during the growing season,and it was higher in summer than in spring and autumn.4)The sap flow rate of Pinus sylvestris var.mongolica was positively correlated with photosynthetically active radiation and air temperature,but negatively correlated with air relative humidity.Hence,the sap flow rate of Pinus sylvestris var.mongolica increased under the scenario of throughfall reduction,and it provides a scientific reference for the plantation management in the future.

Key words: northwestern Liaoning, Pinus sylvestris var.mongolicain in sandy area, sap flow, throughfall reduction, environmental factor

中图分类号:

S718

史哲瑜, 李自豪. 穿透雨减少对辽西北沙地樟子松树干液流的影响[J]. 林草资源研究, 2023,(6): 137-145.

SHI Zheyu, LI Zihao. Effect of Throughfall Reduction on Sap Flow of Pinus sylvestris var.mongolica in Sandy Land of Northwest Liaoning[J]. Forest and Grassland Resources Research, 2023,(6): 137-145.

图/表 12

表1

表2

图1

图2

表3

图3

表4

图4

图5

表5

图6

表6

参考文献 36

[1]	Wullschleger S D, Hanson P J. Sensitivity of canopy transpiration to altered precipitation in an upland oak forest:Evidence from a long-term field manipulation study[J]. Global Change Biology, 2006, 12:97-109. doi: 10.1111/gcb.2006.12.issue-1
[2]	Knapp A K, Briggs J M, Collins S L, et al. Shrub encroachment in North American grasslands:Shifts in growth form dominance rapidly alters control of ecosystem carbon inputs[J]. Global Change Biology, 2008, 14:615-623. doi: 10.1111/gcb.2008.14.issue-3
[3]	Gang Huang, Li Yan, Su Yangui. Effects of increasing precipitation on soil microbial composition and soil respiration in a temperate desert,northwestern China[J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2015, 83:52-56. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2015.01.007
[4]	赵平, 饶兴权, 马玲, 等. 马占相思(Acacia mangium)树干液流密度和整树蒸腾的个体差异[J]. 生态学报, 2006, 12:4050-4058.
[5]	温淑红, 韩新生, 蔡进军, 等. 宁南黄土丘陵区山桃树干液流速率及其与气象因子的关系[J]. 西南农业学报, 2020, 33(6):1301-1308.
[6]	吴茜, 丁佳, 闫慧, 等. 模拟降水变化和土壤施氮对浙江古田山5个树种幼苗生长和生物量的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2011, 35(3):256-267.
[7]	孙谷畴, 赵平, 曾小平, 等. 亚热带森林演替树种叶片气孔导度对环境水分的水力响应[J]. 生态学报, 2009, 29(2):698-705.
[8]	Ziv A, Domec J C, Oren R, et al. Growth and physiological responses of isohydric and anisohydric poplars to drought[J]. Journal of Experimental Botany, 2015, 66(14):4373-4381. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erv195 pmid: 25954045
[9]	吴旭, 陈云明, 唐亚坤. 黄土丘陵区刺槐和侧柏人工林树干液流特征及其对降水的响应[J]. 植物生态学报, 2015, 39(12):1176-1187. doi: 10.17521/cjpe.2015.0114
[10]	Jian Shengqi, Wu Zening, Hu Caihong, et al. Sap flow in response to rainfall pulses for two shrub species in the semiarid Chinese Loess Plateau[J]. Journal of Hydrology and Hydromechanics, 2016, 64(2):121-132. doi: 10.1515/johh-2016-0023
[11]	Yan Chunhua, Wang Bei, Zhang Yang, et al. Responses of sap flow of deciduous and conifer trees to soil drying in a subalpine forest[J]. Forests, 2018, 9(1):32. doi: 10.3390/f9010032
[12]	张慧玲, 丁亚丽, 陈洪松, 等. 出露基岩生境典型植物树干液流对自然降水和连续干旱的响应特征[J]. 应用生态学报, 2018, 29(4):1117-1124.
[13]	Fisher R A, Williams M., Costa A L, et al. The response of an Eastern Amazonian rain forest to drought stress:results and modelling analyses from a throughfall exclusion experiment[J]. Global Change Biology, 2007, 13(11):2361-2378. doi: 10.1111/gcb.2007.13.issue-11
[14]	Besson C K L, Raquel L R, Maria A, et al. Cork oak physiological responses to manipulated water availability in a Mediterranean woodland[J]. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 2014, 184:230-242. doi: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2013.10.004
[15]	Worrall J J, Egeland L, Eager T, et al. Rapid mortality of Populustremuloides in southwestern Colorado,USA[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 2007, 255(3-4):686-696. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2007.09.071
[16]	Fensham R J, Fairfax R J. Drought-related tree death of savanna eucalypts:Species susceptibility,soil conditions and root architecture[J]. Journal of Vegetation Science, 2007, 18(1):71-80. doi: 10.1111/jvs.2007.18.issue-1
[17]	程徐冰, 吴军, 韩士杰, 等. 减少降水对长白山蒙古栎叶片生理生态特性的影响[J]. 生态学杂志, 2011, 30(9):1908-1914.
[18]	李自豪, 卢志朋, 马澜桐, 等. 辽西北半干旱区沙地樟子松树干液流变化特征及影响因素[J]. 沈阳农业大学学报, 2020, 51(3):271-278.
[19]	凌海燕, 刘世荣, 栾军伟, 等. 模拟穿透雨减少对锐齿栎(Quercusaliena var. acuteserrata)树干液流密度的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2020, 40(8):2726-2734.
[20]	Gao Jianguo, Zhao Ping, Shen Weijun, et al. Physiological homeostasis and morphological plasticity of two tree species subjected to precipitation seasonal distribution changes[J]. Perspectives in Plant Ecology,Evolution and Systematics, 2017, 25:1-19. doi: 10.1016/j.ppees.2017.01.002
[21]	Hertel D, Strecker T, Müller-Haubold H, et al. Fine root biomass and dynamics in beech forests across a precipitation gradient-is optimal resource partitioning theory applicable to water-limited mature trees?[J]. Journal of Ecology, 2013, 101:1183-1200. doi: 10.1111/jec.2013.101.issue-5
[22]	Zang U, Goisser M, Häberle K H, et al. Effects of drought stress on photosynthesis,rhizosphere respiration,and fine-root characteristics of beech saplings:A rhizotron field study[J]. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 2014, 177(2):168-177. doi: 10.1002/jpln.v177.2
[23]	Brunner I, Herzog C, Dawes M A, et al. How tree roots respond to drought[J]. Frontiers in Plant Science, 2015, 6:547. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2015.00547 pmid: 26284083
[24]	王晓钰, 陈丹萍, 徐光照, 等. 不同生态环境下水曲柳的解剖结构差异分析[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2017, 45(21):1-3.
[25]	徐飞, 郭卫华, 徐伟红, 等. 刺槐幼苗形态、生物量分配和光合特性对水分胁迫的响应[J]. 北京林业大学学报, 2010, 32(1):24-30.
[26]	Pataki D E, Oren R. Species differences in stomatal control of water loss at the canopy scale in a mature bottomland deciduous forest[J]. Advances in Water Resources, 2003, 26(12):1267-1278. doi: 10.1016/j.advwatres.2003.08.001
[27]	Otieno D O, Schmidt M W T, Kinyamario J I, et al. Responses of Acacia tortilis and acacia xanthophloea to seasonal changes in soil water availability in the savanna region of Kenya[J]. Journal of Arid Environments, 2005, 62(3):377-400. doi: 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2005.01.001
[28]	夏江宝, 张淑勇, 朱丽平, 等. 贝壳堤岛酸枣树干液流及光合参数对土壤水分的响应特征[J]. 林业科学, 2014, 50(10):24-32.
[29]	徐先英, 孙保平, 丁国栋, 等. 干旱荒漠区典型固沙灌木液流动态变化及其对环境因子的响应[J]. 生态学报, 2008, 28(3):895-905.
[30]	王文栋, 张毓涛, 芦建江, 等. 新疆乌拉泊库区3种灌木树干液流对比研究[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2012, 49(11):2035-2041.
[31]	Zeppel M, Tissue D, Taylor D, et al. Rates of nocturnal transpiration in two evergreen temperate woodland species with differing water-use strategies[J]. Tree Physiology, 2010, 30(8):988-1000. doi: 10.1093/treephys/tpq053 pmid: 20566582
[32]	Dawson T E, Burgess S S O, Tu K P, et al. Nighttime transpiration in woody plants from contrasting ecosystems[J]. Tree Physiology, 2007, 27(4):561-575. pmid: 17241998
[33]	卢森堡. 黄土丘陵区油松和沙棘水分来源及其对降水的响应[D]. 西安: 西北农林科技大学, 2018.
[34]	王艳兵, 德永军, 熊伟, 等. 华北落叶松夜间树干液流特征及生长季补水格局[J]. 生态学报, 2013, 33(5):1375-1385.
[35]	卢志朋, 魏亚伟, 李志远, 等. 辽西北沙地樟子松树干液流的变化特征及其影响因素[J]. 生态学杂志, 2017, 36(11):3182-3189.
[36]	黄雅茹, 辛智鸣, 李永华, 等. 乌兰布和沙漠人工梭梭茎干液流季节变化及其与气象因子的关系[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2020, 44(6):131-139.

处理	胸径/cm	树高/m	边材长度/cm	边材面积/cm²	冠幅/m²
对照(CK)	31.4	18.5	12.4	263.729	6.5×5.7
减雨(TR)	29.2	17.5	10.2	231.073	7.0×7.0

环境因子	晴天		阴天		雨天
环境因子	对照	减雨	对照	减雨	对照	减雨
空气温度	0.919^**	0.913^**	0.766^**	0.844^**	0.877^**	0.857^**
空气湿度	-0.812^**	-0.821^**	-0.727^**	-0.778^**	-0.499^**	-0.592^**
饱和水汽压差	0.855^**	0.858^**	0.779^**	0.830^**	0.681^**	0.752^**
光和有效辐射值	0.773^**	0.812^**	0.638^**	0.740^**	0.695^**	0.769^**
5 cm土壤温度	0.435^**	0.393^**	0.672^**	0.606^**	0.416^**	0.309^*
10 cm土壤温度	0.179	0.136	0.380^**	0.28	0.248	0.136
20 cm土壤温度	-0.421^**	-0.458^**	-0.431^**	-0.547^**	0.340^*	-0.44^**
5 cm土壤含水量	-0.495^**	-0.495^**	0.061	0.073	-0.134	-0.027
10 cm土壤含水量	-0.261	-0.246	0.171	0.161	0.352^*	0.268
20 cm土壤含水量	—	—	-0.029	-0.014	—	—

环境因子	晴天		阴天		雨天
环境因子	对照	减雨	对照	减雨	对照	减雨
空气温度	0.926^**	0.945^**	0.628^**	0.614^**	0.372	0.253
空气湿度	-0.624^**	-0.617^**	-0.510^*	-0.490^*	-0.526^*	-0.485^*
饱和水汽压差	0.821^**	0.818^**	0.546^*	0.528^*	0.567^*	0.529^*
5 cm土壤温度	0.789^**	0.855^**	0.730^**	0.714^**	0.278	0.082
10 cm土壤温度	0.739^**	0.814^**	0.711^**	0.696^**	0.187	-0.013
20 cm土壤温度	-0.348	-0.460	-0.585^**	-0.568^**	-0.716^**	-0.831^**
5 cm土壤含水量	-0.854^**	-0.797^**	—	—	0.475^*	0.421
10 cm土壤含水量	—	—	-0.523^**	-0.493^*	—	—
20cm土壤含水量	—	—	0.243	0.233	—	—

环境因子	对照	减雨
空气温度	0.699^**	0.757^**
空气湿度	-0.831^**	-0.900^**
饱和水汽压差	0.835^**	0.901^**
光合有效辐射值	0.656^**	0.806^**
5cm土壤温度	0.223^**	0.191^**
10cm土壤温度	0.097^*	0.057
20cm土壤温度	-0.154^**	-0.183^**
5cm土壤含水量	-0.268^**	-0.245^**
10cm土壤含水量	-0.109^**	-0.117^**
20cm土壤含水量	-0.049	-0.068

环境因子	对照	减雨
空气温度	0.380^**	0.542^**
空气湿度	-0.356^**	-0.488^**
饱和水汽压差	0.507^**	0.67^**
光和有效辐射值	0.608^**	0.78^**
5 cm土壤温度	0.119^**	0.136^**
10 cm土壤温度	0.096^**	0.103^**
20 cm土壤温度	0.073^**	0.066^**
5 cm土壤含水量	-0.063^**	-0.091^**
10 cm土壤含水量	-0.075^**	-0.112^**
20 cm土壤含水量	-0.063^*	-0.108^**