Effects of Nitrogen and pH Treatment on Seedling Growth of Eucalyptus urophylla×E.grandis-Dallergia odorifera Intercropping Systems

doi:10.13466/j.cnki.lczyyj.2024.01.015

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to provide a scientific basis for exploring sustainable management of Eucalyptus plantations with high-efficiency biological nitrogen fixation,this study explores the response of root nodules,seedling growth and physiology to different nitrogen application and pH environments under the intercropping system of legume species Dalbergia odorifera and Eucalyptus urophylla×E.grandis.Adopting controlled pot experiments to simulate the intercropping system of D.odorifera and E.urophylla×E.grandis.The experiment was carried out by using a two-factor complete randomized block design,nitrogen(N)and pH with four concentration gradients were set to control the experiment:N1,N2,N3,N4 and pH4.5,pH5.5,pH7.5 and pH9.5,respectively.The results indicate that:1)Under N2 and N3 treatments,the nodule formation ability of D.odorifera was significantly inhibited(P<0.05).However,there were no significant differences between the N1 level and the control group(CK)in root nodule formation ability,and the root nodulation ability was strongest at pH7.5.2)The biomass and photosynthetic indexes of E.urophylla×E.grandis increased with the rise of N application.Except for pH9.5 treatment,those of D.odorifera initially increased but then decreased with increasing N application.3)The content of superoxide dismutase(SOD),catalase(CAT),peroxidase(POD),and nitrate reductase(NR)of D.odorifera and E.urophylla×E.grandis.leaves were increased with N application,while the content of malondialdehyde(MDA)showed the opposite trend.4)Except for the N3 treatment,the biomass of E.urophylla×E.grandis and D.odorifera seedlings were significantly higher under pH5.5 treatments than that of pH4.5 and pH9.5 treatments.5)The results of redundancy analysis showed that the nodule ability of D.odorifera in the intercropping system was limited by the physiological condition of D.odorifera and biomass of E.urophylla×E.grandis.In conclusion,moderate nitrogen addition and soil pH regulation are beneficial for the mutual development of D.odorifera and E.grandis seedlings in this system.

Key words: Eucalyptus urophylla×E.grandis, Dalbergia odorifera, root nodule, growth and physiology, intercropping

CLC Number:

WU Hao, DENG Jiazhen, HE Yaqin, LIN Mingye, YE Shaoming. Effects of Nitrogen and pH Treatment on Seedling Growth of Eucalyptus urophylla×E.grandis-Dallergia odorifera Intercropping Systems[J]. Forest and Grassland Resources Research, 2024, (1): 111-124.

Figures/Tables 11

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Fig.4

Tab.1

Root indexs of E.urophylla×E.grandis-D.odorifera treated with different N and pH

不同pH处理	树种	氮素水平	总根长/cm	总根表面积/cm²	总根体积/cm³	平均根直径/mm
pH4.5	降香黄檀 D.odorifera	CK	154.28±18.33Cc	214.81±42.81Bb	5.02±0.14Bb	0.95±0.12Cb
		N1	270.58±21.89Bb	440.87±18.73Aab	12.95±0.18Aab	2.35±0.08Aab
		N2	398.16±35.64Aa	452.19±32.72Ab	10.71±0.27Ab	2.02±0.44ABc
		N3	343.91±20.61ABab	286.25±87.40ABb	9.66±2.09Aa	1.67±0.23Bab
	尾巨桉 E.urophylla× E.grandis	CK	234.40±47.07Bb	251.22±43.45Bb	6.61±0.88Bb	0.87±0.09Ca
		N1	290.22±33.02ABb	381.34±66.48ABb	8.71±0.48Bb	1.03±0.31BCa
		N2	342.38±75.75Ab	378.38±56.26Ab	8.02±1.25Bc	1.79±0.24ABa
		N3	556.59±38.10ABc	445.17±26.24ABc	14.89±0.89Abc	2.12±0.33Aa
pH5.5	降香黄檀 D.odorifera	CK	309.01±27.12Ba	403.81±42.81Ba	10.52±1.13Aa	1.91±0.22Aa
		N1	308.93±4.04Bab	429.34±76.21Bab	13.83±2.66Aab	2.49±0.57Aab
		N2	520.50±49.45Aa	557.48±24.68ABb	14.99±0.43Aab	2.90±0.03Ab
		N3	386.02±48.61Ba	716.21±122.22Aa	13.87±1.81Aa	2.30±0.19Aa
	尾巨桉 E.urophylla× E.grandis	CK	353.43±13.42Ba	402.17±18.65Aa	9.00±0.39Aa	1.02±0.11Aa
		N1	369.21±39.06ABb	404.36±14.47Ab	9.62±0.53Ab	1.18±0.38Aa
		N2	500.77±41.15Aab	417.82±72.48Ab	14.04±0.18Aa	1.95±0.21Aa
		N3	679.98±41.90ABb	635.63±23.12Ab	17.07±0.61Aab	1.68±0.20Aa
pH7.5	降香黄檀 D.odorifera	CK	270.03±7.95Bab	240.04±1.99Db	7.08±0.23Cb	1.10±0.27Bb
		N1	417.57±58.00ABa	589.33±13.23Ba	16.29±1.74Ba	2.90±0.03Aa
		N2	541.57±66.43Aa	741.51±47.26Aa	21.05±1.77Aa	3.33±0.19Aa
		N3	304.66±31.45Bab	380.69±48.41Cb	9.90±1.36Ca	1.52±0.27Bab
	尾巨桉 E.urophylla× E.grandis	CK	307.56±43.82Aab	293.27±57.00Bab	7.59±0.50Bab	1.25±0.31Aa
		N1	488.81±25.08Aa	611.04±62.63Aa	13.65±1.12Ba	1.24±0.05Aa
		N2	548.91±39.15Aa	689.13±83.67Ba	14.68±0.67Aa	1.69±0.20Aa
		N3	832.45±33.25Aa	743.65±43.40Ba	17.98±0.53Aa	1.78±0.50Aa
pH9.5	降香黄檀 D.odorifera	CK	219.66±16.20Bb	243.14±39.01Bb	6.80±0.47Bab	1.47±0.22Aab
		N1	269.90±26.88Bb	333.77±93.33ABb	9.72±1.24Bb	1.66±0.32Ab
		N2	389.90±29.50Aa	508.11±75.56Ab	16.15±3.37Aab	2.18±0.14Ac
		N3	260.77±21.05Bb	393.18±48.42ABb	8.59±0.88Ba	1.44±0.28Ab
	尾巨桉 E.urophylla× E.grandis	CK	227.59±2.98Ab	336.68±13.82Aab	7.59±0.08Cab	1.51±0.30Ba
		N1	323.56±34.24Ab	361.67±34.07Ab	8.62±0.32Cb	0.96±0.10Ba
		N2	389.93±4.76Aab	445.17±26.24Ab	11.22±0.44Ab	2.12±0.33Aa
		N3	422.74±18.96Ad	457.19±13.16Ac	13.40±1.03Bc	1.75±0.13Aa

Tab.1

Fig.5

Fig.6

Tab.2

Seeding leaves physiological enzyme activity of E.urophylla×E.grandis-D.odorifera treated with different N and pH U/g

不同pH处理	树种	氮素水平	SOD	CAT	POD	NR
pH4.5	降香黄檀 D.odorifera	CK	1 180.33±57.57Aa	295.10±43.16Bb	1.31±0.06Ca	0.47±0.02Ab
		N1	1 251.00±31.88Ab	374.83±3.49Bb	1.71±0.07Ba	0.71±0.09Aab
		N2	1 421.33±6.06Bb	401.47±77.62Bb	1.78±0.05ABb	0.72±0.13Aa
		N3	1 638.33±33.49Ab	535.53±38.00Ab	1.93±0.05Ab	0.66±0.11Aa
	尾巨桉 E.urophylla× E.grandis	CK	1 145.00±22.00Cd	262.57±8.03Bb	1.25±0.02Ba	0.50±0.00Ba
		N1	1 479.67±28.53Bab	505.10±35.81Aab	1.39±0.04Bc	0.54±0.00Bab
		N2	1 615.33±51.82Aa	541.50±58.65Aab	1.61±0.10Ab	0.72±0.06Aab
		N3	1 565.33±25.96ABb	538.13±28.37Ab	1.75±0.02Ab	0.81±0.18Aa
pH5.5	降香黄檀 D.odorifera	CK	1 164.67±61.74Da	382.30±43.17Cab	1.47±0.10Ba	0.65±0.06Ba
		N1	1 452.33±21.28Ca	465.97±39.15BCa	1.82±0.08Ba	0.70±0.01Aa
		N2	1 704.33±36.50Ba	512.77±5.46Ba	2.03±0.10Bab	0.87±0.06Aa
		N3	1 886.00±74.84Aa	664.27±31.01Aa	3.14±0.46Aa	0.96±0.03Aa
	尾巨桉 E.urophylla× E.grandis	CK	1 316.33±72.17Cb	416.13±49.37Ca	1.34±0.06Ca	0.55±0.01Ba
		N1	1 520.67±6.33Bab	561.77±26.68Ba	1.57±0.01BCb	0.81±0.05Ba
		N2	1 775.67±16.17Aa	659.23±28.29ABa	1.86±0.04Bab	0.87±0.06Aa
		N3	1 768.00±28.10Aa	700.10±51.26Aa	2.54±0.18Aa	0.85±0.04Aa
pH7.5	降香黄檀 D.odorifera	CK	1 260.67±26.35Da	450.70±12.95Ca	1.54±0.07Ca	0.60±0.02Ba
		N1	1 503.67±27.42Ca	519.57±25.27BCa	1.84±0.06BCa	0.83±0.02Aa
		N2	1 717.67±42.15Ba	582.37±36.43Ba	2.26±0.17Ba	0.91±0.13Aa
		N3	1 911.33±20.54Aa	682.50±9.41Aa	3.51±0.26Aa	0.92±0.03Aa
	尾巨桉 E.urophylla× E.grandis	CK	1 430.00±1.00Ca	465.83±8.47Ca	1.23±0.06Ca	0.60±0.06Ba
		N1	1 580.00±64.6BCa	565.97±18.23Ba	1.75±0.08Ba	0.66±0.03ABa
		N2	1 803.00±42.67Aa	651.63±14.64ABb	2.13±0.14ABa	0.72±0.05ABab
		N3	1 722.67±65.28ABa	693.80±53.67Aa	2.55±0.21Aa	0.80±0.03Aa
pH9.5	降香黄檀 D.odorifera	CK	993.33±40.60Cb	333.03±45.54Cab	1.32±0.02Ca	0.46±0.03Bb
		N1	1 290.33±30.51Bb	379.47±16.90BCb	1.66±0.02Ba	0.56±0.03Bb
		N2	1 454.33±53.20Ab	491.73±13.05ABab	1.75±0.04Bb	0.63±0.06Ba
		N3	1 539.33±65.67Ab	565.57±55.72Aab	2.26±0.06Ab	0.83±0.10Aa
	尾巨桉 E.urophylla× E.grandis	CK	1 225.00±7.00Bc	318.27±28.89Cb	1.25±0.01Ba	0.49±0.05Ba
		N1	1 401.67±40.83Ab	444.43±23.55Bb	1.36±0.04Bc	0.53±0.04Bb
		N2	1 371.67±87.25ABb	497.67±31.48ABb	1.69±0.01Ab	0.62±0.05Bb
		N3	1 542.00±29.21Ab	553.10±23.59Ab	1.71±0.06Ab	0.87±0.07Aa

Tab.2

Fig.7

Fig.8

Fig.9

References 43

[1]	Liu Shu, Qin Fangcuo, Yu Shixiao. Eucalyptus urophylla root-associated fungi can counteract the negative influence of phenolic acid allelochemicals[J]. Applied Soil Ecology, 2018, 127:1-7. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2018.02.028
[2]	吕惠玲, 桉树人工林现状及可持续发展对策[J]. 农技服务, 2020, 37(11):115-116.
[3]	Liu Zhanfeng, Wu Jianping, Zhou Lixia, et al. Effect of understory fern(Dicranopteris dichotoma)removal on substrate utilization patterns of culturable soil bacterial communities in subtropical Eucalyptus plantations[J]. Pedobiologia, 2012, 55(1):7-13. doi: 10.1016/j.pedobi.2011.07.014
[4]	张煜星, 王雪军. 1973—2018年我国桉树人工林生产力及碳汇能力[J]. 林业科学, 2023, 59(3):54-64.
[5]	邓海燕, 胡绍平, 莫晓勇, 等. 桉树人工混交林营造技术研究综述[J]. 桉树科技, 2017, 34(4):53-58.
[6]	Zhang Chenlu, Li Xiaowei, Chen Yuanqi, et al. Effects of Eucalyptus litter and roots on the establishment of native tree species in Eucalyptus plantations in South China[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 2016, 375:76-83. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2016.05.013
[7]	Qin Fangcuo, Yu Shixiao. Compatible mycorrhizal types contribute to a better design for mixed Eucalyptus plantations[J]. Frontiers in Plant Science, 2021,12.
[8]	邓海燕, 莫晓勇, 梅嘉仪, 等. 桉树人工混交林林分生长与土壤养分研究[J]. 西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版), 2020, 48(1):95-102.
[9]	Yao Xianyu, Zhang Qianchun, Zhou Haiju, et al. Introduction of Dalbergia odorifera enhances nitrogen absorption on Eucalyptus through stimulating microbially mediated soil nitrogen-cycling[J]. Forest Ecosystems, 2021, 8(4):789-800.
[10]	廖良宁, 汤文艳, 潘婷, 等. 施氮及根系分隔处理对间作尾巨桉和降香黄檀幼苗光合生理特性的影响[J]. 西南林业大学学报(自然科学), 2019, 39(2):60-69.
[11]	迟静娴, 徐方继, 刘译阳, 等. 豆科植物结瘤固氮及其分子调控机制的研究进展[J]. 山东农业科学, 2022, 54(3):155-164.
[12]	张小红, 马绍英, 李胜, 等. 接种根瘤菌对重茬豌豆土壤养分及酶活性的影响[J]. 土壤通报, 2022, 53(6):1360-1367.
[13]	柯丹霞, 徐勤朕, 杨娜, 等. 高氮抑制豆科植物结瘤固氮机制研究进展[J]. 生物技术通报, 2019, 35(10):40-45. doi: 10.13560/j.cnki.biotech.bull.1985.2019-0657
[14]	袁浩亮, 龙泽东, 孙梅, 等. 国际土壤酸化研究知识图谱分析[J]. 土壤通报, 2022, 53(4):989-997.
[15]	玉峙强, 小梅, 杨振德, 等. 不同栽培基质对降香黄檀幼苗生长的影响[J]. 湖北农业科学, 2023, 62(4):98-102.
[16]	叶小玲, 蒙宇平, 梁天合, 等. 基于CiteSpace的桉树混交林发展现状分析[J]. 桉树科技, 2023, 40(3):78-85.
[17]	陈刚, 李胜. 植物生理学实验[M], 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2016.
[18]	杜梦柯, 连文婷, 张晓, 等, 氮处理对大豆根瘤固氮能力及GmLbs基因表达的影响[J]. 植物学报, 2021, 56(4):391-403.
[19]	Li Yuhe, Pei Yue, Shen Yitong, et al, Progress in the self-regulation system in legume nodule development-AON(Autoregulation of Nodulation)[J]. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 2022, 23(12):6676. doi: 10.3390/ijms23126676
[20]	Lin Jieshun, Roswanjaya Y P, Kohlen W, et al, Nitrate restricts nodule organogenesis through inhibition of cytokinin biosynthesis in Lotus japonicus[J]. Nature Communications, 2021, 12(1):6544. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-26820-9 pmid: 34764268
[21]	Jeudy C, Ruffel S, Freixes S, et al, Adaptation of Medicago truncatula to nitrogen limitation is modulated via local and systemic nodule developmental responses[J]. The New phytologist, 2010, 185(3):817-828. doi: 10.1111/nph.2010.185.issue-3
[22]	柯丹霞, 徐勤朕, 杨娜, 等. 高氮抑制豆科植物结瘤固氮机制研究进展[J]. 生物技术通报, 2019, 35(10),40-45. doi: 10.13560/j.cnki.biotech.bull.1985.2019-0657
[23]	Raquel P C, Bueno F J, Edson J Z, et al. Soil characteristics determine the rhizobia in association with different species of Mimosa in central Brazil[J]. Plant and Soil, 2018, 423(1/2):411-428. doi: 10.1007/s11104-017-3521-5
[24]	吴月, 隋新华, 戴良香, 等, 慢生根瘤菌及其与花生共生机制研究进展[J]. 中国农业科学, 2022, 55(8):1518-1528. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2022.08.004
[25]	赵建涛, 杨开鑫, 马春晖, 等, 苜蓿叶片光合生理参数及抗氧化能力对施氮的响应[J]. 中国草地学报, 2023, 45(2):46-55.
[26]	李勇. 氮素营养对水稻光合作用与光合氮素利用率的影响机制研究[D], 南京: 南京农业大学, 2011.
[27]	李大勇, 徐克章, 董雅致, 等. 氮水平对不同大豆品种生理特性及产量的影响[J]. 大豆科学, 2013, 32(3):365-370.
[28]	Qiang Binbin, Zhou Weixin, Zhong Xingjie, et al. Effect of nitrogen application levels on photosynthetic nitrogen distribution and use efficiency in soybean seedling leaves[J]. Journal of Plant Physiology, 2023, 287:154051. doi: 10.1016/j.jplph.2023.154051
[29]	王倩倩, 刘志强, 陈康, 等. 不同土壤施磷和接种根瘤菌对大豆\|\|玉米间作系统氮磷吸收的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报(中英文), 2022, 30(12):1913-1924.
[30]	Wang Qianqian, Sheng Jiandong, Wang Youjuan, et al. The relative contribution of indigenous and introduced arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and rhizobia to plant nutrient acquisition in soybean/maize intercropping in unsterilized soils[J]. Applied Soil Ecology, 2021, 168:104124. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2021.104124
[31]	李强, 黄迎新, 周道玮, 等. 土壤氮磷添加下豆科草本植物生物固氮与磷获取策略的权衡机制[J]. 植物生态学报, 2021, 45(3):286-297.
[32]	魏婧, 徐畅, 李可欣, 等. 超氧化物歧化酶的研究进展与植物抗逆性[J]. 植物生理学报, 2020, 56(12):2571-2584.
[33]	赵龙飞, 徐亚军, 邵璇, 等. 两株内生芽孢杆菌对盐胁迫下大豆幼苗超氧化物歧化酶和过氧化物酶活性影响[J]. 微生物学通报, 2022, 49(5):1664-1677.
[34]	何建杨, 吴鑫雨, 周懂, 等. 间作调控小麦抗氧化酶活性及丙二醛含量降低小麦白粉病发生率[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2023, 51(11):113-119.
[35]	王新磊, 吕新芳. 氮代谢参与植物逆境抵抗的作用机理研究进展[J]. 广西植物, 2020, 40(4):583-591.
[36]	Averina N G, Beyzaei Z, Shcherbakov R A, et al. Role of nitrogen metabolism in the development of salt tolerance in barley plants[J]. Russian journal of plant physiology, 2014, 61(1):97-104. doi: 10.1134/S1021443713060022
[37]	Bauduin S, Latini M, Belleggia I, et al. Interplay between Proline Metabolism and ROS in the Fine Tuning of Root-Meristem Size in Arabidopsis[J]. Plants, 2022, 11(11):1512. doi: 10.3390/plants11111512
[38]	Abramovitch R B, Anderson J C, Martin G B. Bacterial elicitation and evasion of plant innate immunity[J]. Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology, 2006, 7(8):601-611. pmid: 16936700
[39]	Jones K M, Kobayashi H, Davies B W, et al. How rhizobial symbionts invade plants:the Sinorhizobium-Medicago model[J]. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 2007, 5(8):619-633. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro1705
[40]	Portales-Reyes C, Van Doornik T, Schultheis E H, et al. A novel impact of a novel weapon:allelochemicals in Alliaria petiolata disrupt the legume-rhizobia mutualism[J]. Biological Invasions, 2015, 17(9):2779-2791. doi: 10.1007/s10530-015-0913-4
[41]	Batish D R, Lavanya K, Singh H P, et al. Phenolic allelochemicals released by Chenopodium murale affect the growth,nodulation and macromolecule content in chickpea and pea[J]. Plant Growth Regulation, 2007, 51(2):119-128. doi: 10.1007/s10725-006-9153-z
[42]	Zhang Chenlu, Li Xiaowei, Chen Yuanqi, et al. Effects of Eucalyptus litter and roots on the establishment of native tree species in Eucalyptus plantations in South China[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 2016, 375:76-83. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2016.05.013
[43]	Liu Shu, Qin Fangcuo, Zheng Yi, et al. Allelopathic effects of Eucalyptus urophylla on Legume-Rhizobium symbiosis[J]. Allelopathy Journal, 2019, 46(1):97-108. doi: 10.26651/allelo.j/2019-46-1-1201