Effects of Light on Biological Productivity and Photosynthetic Capacity of Phragmites australis

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-0655

Abstract

Abstract:

Phragmites australis is an excellent afforestation material in aquatic-terrestrial ecotone. In order to study its response to different light environments, taking P. australis populations distributed in different light habitats along the waterfront as the objects, the effects of light intensity on the growth, biomass accumulation and photosynthetic capacity of P. australis were determined. In this experiment, based on the method of in-situ observation in field to measure plant height, ground diameter, leaf SPAD value and chlorophyll fluorescence parameters of P. australis under full light and canopy shading respectively, the biomass of different organs was determined by indoor test using the measure of whole plant harvest. The results show that: (1) under canopy shading, the plant height, leaf biomass and stem biomass of P. australis are higher than those under full light environment by 30.95%, 56.08% and 84.37%, respectively, the plant height of P. australis has significantly positive correlations with the diameter at root collar and stem dry weight, and the coefficients are 0.692 and 0.875, respectively; (2) there is significant difference of the SPAD value of P. australis leaves between the two light conditions, compared with that of the full light environment, the SPAD value of leaves under canopy shading is 25.98% higher; (3) canopy shading could significantly promote the value of chlorophyll fluorescence parameter Fm and the maximum photochemical quantum yield Fv/ Fm of PSII by 34.14% and 10.73%, respectively.

Key words: Phragmites australis, biomass allocation, chlorophyll fluorescence parameters, light environment

CLC Number:

S564.2

LIAN Xiaoqian, TAO Changzhu, GUO Haolan, LI Nana, CAO Yue, WU Pengfei. Effects of Light on Biological Productivity and Photosynthetic Capacity of Phragmites australis[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(20): 47-52.

Figures/Tables 6

References 21

[1]	GIERTYCHM J, KAROLEWSKI P, OLEKSYN J, et al. Carbon allocation in seedlings of deciduous tree species depends on their shade tolerance[J]. Acta physiologiae plantarum, 2015, 37(10):215-239. doi: 10.1007/s11738-015-1967-8 URL
[2]	VALLADARES F, NIINEMETS Ü. Shade tolerance, a key plant feature of complex nature and consequences[J]. Annual review of ecology, evolution, and systematics, 2008, 39(1):237-257. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.39.110707.173506 URL
[3]	岑海燕, 姚洁妮, 翁海勇, 等. 叶绿素荧光技术在植物表型分析的研究进展[J]. 光谱学与光谱分析, 2018, 38(12):3773-3779.
[4]	王亚楠, 董丽娜, 丁彦芬, 等. 遮阴对4种紫堇属植物光合特性和叶绿素荧光参数的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2020, 31(3):769-777. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.202003.004
[5]	LI C, DING S, MA X, et al. O₂ distribution and dynamics in the rhizosphere of Phragmites australis, and implications for nutrient removal in sediments[J]. Environmental pollution, 2021, 287:117193. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2021.117193 URL
[6]	宁楚涵, 李文彬, 徐启凯, 等. 丛枝菌根真菌促进湿地植物对污染水体中镉的吸收[J]. 应用生态学报, 2019, 30(6):2063-2071.
[7]	赵峰, 张建旗, 程晓月, 等. 干旱胁迫对6种湿地植物生理特性的影响[J]. 草原与草坪, 2019, 39(5):96-101.
[8]	许振伟, 宋慧佳, 李明燕, 等. 不同生态型芦苇种群对盐胁迫的生长和光合特性[J]. 生态学报, 2019, 39(2):542-549.
[9]	MEEKINSJ F, MCCARTHYB C. Responses of the biennial forest herb Alliaria petiolata to variation in population density, nutrient addition and light availability[J]. Journal of ecology, 2000, 88(3):447-463. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2745.2000.00461.x URL
[10]	林元敏. 福州市绿地公园土壤肥力调查与评价[J]. 安徽农学通报, 2008(7):133-135,176.
[11]	HUANG Q Q, SHEN Y D, Li X X, et al. Performance of the invasive Eupatorium catarium and Ageratum conyzoides in comparison with a common native plant under varying levels of light and moisture[J]. Weed biology and management, 2017, 17(2):112-121. doi: 10.1111/wbm.12125 URL
[12]	FRESCHETG T, VIOLLEC, BOURGETM Y, et al. Allocation, morphology, physiology, architecture: the multiple facets of plant above- and below-ground responses to resource stress[J]. The new phytologist, 2018, 219(4):1338-1352. doi: 10.1111/nph.15225 URL
[13]	张常隆, 李扬苹, 冯玉龙, 等. 表型可塑性和局域适应在紫茎泽兰入侵不同海拔生境中的作用[J]. 生态学报, 2009, 29(4):1940-1946.
[14]	程汉亭, 范志伟, 黄乔乔, 等. 薇甘菊在不同光环境下的生理生态研究[J]. 热带作物学报, 2012, 33(3):523-528.
[15]	宋洋, 廖亮, 刘涛, 等. 同遮荫水平下香榧苗期光合作用及氮分配的响应机制[J]. 林业科学, 2016, 52(5):55-63.
[16]	CALLAHAND M, MUNDAYJ N, ATWATERH A. Solar cell light trapping beyond the ray optic limit[J]. Nano letters, 2012, 12(1):214-218. doi: 10.1021/nl203351k URL
[17]	王俊峰, 冯玉龙, 梁红柱. 紫茎泽兰光合特性对生长环境光强的适应[J]. 应用生态学报, 2004(8):1373-1377.
[18]	吴甘霖, 段仁燕, 王志高, 等. 干旱和复水对草莓叶片叶绿素荧光特性的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2010, 30(14):3941-3946.
[19]	刘从, 田甜, 李珊, 等. 中国木本植物幼苗生长对光照强度的响应[J]. 生态学报, 2018, 38(2):518-527.
[20]	陈乾, 邓智文, 黄丽婷, 等. 遮荫对福建柏幼苗生理特性和叶绿素荧光特性的影响[J]. 福建农林大学学报:自然科学版, 2021, 50(2):223-229.
[21]	康红梅, 宋卓琴, 曹冬梅, 等. 遮荫对两种灌木光合特性及叶绿素荧光参数的影响[J]. 北方园艺, 2021(6):59-65.

器官	鲜重/（g/株）			干重/（g/株）			含水率/%
器官	遮荫	全光照	p值	遮荫	全光照	p值	遮荫	全光照	p值
叶	8.99±1.04**	3.66±0.44	0	3.98±0.37**	2.55±0.42	0.015	52.52±2.13*	34.69±4.61	0.002
茎	43.32±5.92**	21.24±3.14	0.002	19.23±2.29**	10.43±1.50	0.003	54.38±1.04*	49.97±1.56	0.025
花序	7.43±1.09**	3.11±0.53	0.001	4.29±0.65**	2.06±0.36	0.005	42.05±0.71*	33.27±1.53	0
合计	59.74±8.05	28.01±4.11		27.5±3.31	15.04±2.28		148.95±3.88	117.93±7.7

器官	鲜重/（g/株）			干重/（g/株）			含水率/%
器官	遮荫	全光照	p值	遮荫	全光照	p值	遮荫	全光照	p值
叶	8.99±1.04**	3.66±0.44	0	3.98±0.37**	2.55±0.42	0.015	52.52±2.13*	34.69±4.61	0.002
茎	43.32±5.92**	21.24±3.14	0.002	19.23±2.29**	10.43±1.50	0.003	54.38±1.04*	49.97±1.56	0.025
花序	7.43±1.09**	3.11±0.53	0.001	4.29±0.65**	2.06±0.36	0.005	42.05±0.71*	33.27±1.53	0
合计	59.74±8.05	28.01±4.11		27.5±3.31	15.04±2.28		148.95±3.88	117.93±7.7

项目	株高	地茎	叶鲜重	茎鲜重	花序鲜重	叶干重	茎干重	花序干重	叶含水率	茎含水率	花序含水率	Fo	Fm	Fv/Fm	SPAD
株高	1	0.692**	0.334	0.829**	0.556*	0.329	0.875**	0.530*	0.111	0.222	0.399	-0.388	-0.293	0.062	-0.203
地茎		1	0.101	0.846**	0.427	0.038	0.840**	0.404	0.127	0.348	0.398	-0.536*	-0.483*	-0.114	0.153
叶鲜重			1	0.251	-0.178	0.951**	0.269	-0.199	0.690**	0.068	0.226	0.088	0.075	0.145	0.096
茎鲜重				1	0.402	0.191	0.980**	0.375	0.258	0.452*	0.359	-0.652**	-0.543*	0.007	0.151
花序鲜重					1	-0.111	0.533*	0.998**	-0.352	-0.240	0.072	-0.191	-0.217	-0.222	-0.346
叶干重						1	0.228	-0.125	0.468*	-0.106	0.105	0.118	0.082	0.121	0.016
茎干重							1	0.509*	0.208	0.299	0.325	-0.598**	-0.513*	-0.034	0.056
花序干重								1	-0.369	-0.270	0.023	-0.156	-0.193	-0.236	-0.359
叶含水率									1	0.464*	0.275	0.051	0.077	0.133	0.293
茎含水率										1	0.547*	-0.441	-0.325	0.080	0.306
花序含水率											1	-0.477*	-0.411	-0.046	0.270
Fo												1	0.880**	0.048	-0.332
Fm													1	0.495*	-0.332
Fv/Fm														1	-0.078
SPAD															1

项目	株高	地茎	叶鲜重	茎鲜重	花序鲜重	叶干重	茎干重	花序干重	叶含水率	茎含水率	花序含水率	Fo	Fm	Fv/Fm	SPAD
株高	1	0.692**	0.334	0.829**	0.556*	0.329	0.875**	0.530*	0.111	0.222	0.399	-0.388	-0.293	0.062	-0.203
地茎		1	0.101	0.846**	0.427	0.038	0.840**	0.404	0.127	0.348	0.398	-0.536*	-0.483*	-0.114	0.153
叶鲜重			1	0.251	-0.178	0.951**	0.269	-0.199	0.690**	0.068	0.226	0.088	0.075	0.145	0.096
茎鲜重				1	0.402	0.191	0.980**	0.375	0.258	0.452*	0.359	-0.652**	-0.543*	0.007	0.151
花序鲜重					1	-0.111	0.533*	0.998**	-0.352	-0.240	0.072	-0.191	-0.217	-0.222	-0.346
叶干重						1	0.228	-0.125	0.468*	-0.106	0.105	0.118	0.082	0.121	0.016
茎干重							1	0.509*	0.208	0.299	0.325	-0.598**	-0.513*	-0.034	0.056
花序干重								1	-0.369	-0.270	0.023	-0.156	-0.193	-0.236	-0.359
叶含水率									1	0.464*	0.275	0.051	0.077	0.133	0.293
茎含水率										1	0.547*	-0.441	-0.325	0.080	0.306
花序含水率											1	-0.477*	-0.411	-0.046	0.270
Fo												1	0.880**	0.048	-0.332
Fm													1	0.495*	-0.332
Fv/Fm														1	-0.078
SPAD															1

项目	株高	地茎	叶鲜重	茎鲜重	花序鲜重	叶干重	茎干重	花序干重	叶含水率	茎含水率	花序含水率	Fo	Fm	Fv/Fm	SPAD
株高	1	0.914**	0.447*	0.825**	0.708**	0.593**	0.828**	0.752**	-0.541*	0.084	-0.277	0.07	-0.027	-0.110	0.160
地茎		1	0.454*	0.885**	0.656**	0.574**	0.891**	0.686**	-0.507*	0.126	-0.242	0.143	-0.018	-0.217	0.092
叶鲜重			1	0.605**	0.543*	0.9943*	0.629**	0.573**	-0.402	-0.088	-0.323	0.109	0.119	0.149	0.167
茎鲜重				1	0.754**	0.652**	0.981**	0.779**	-0.320	0.209	-0.167	0.204	0.107	-0.065	0.136
花序鲜重					1	0.612**	0.706**	0.993**	-0.424	0.255	0.124	0.213	0.222	0.209	-0.047
叶干重						1	0.693**	0.659**	-0.662**	-0.158	-0.455*	0.088	0.019	0.008	0.162
茎干重							1	0.745**	-0.397	0.029	-0.292	0.178	0.043	-0.144	0.227
花序干重								1	-0.478*	0.196	0.018	0.197	0.183	0.163	-0.028
叶含水率									1	0.330	0.529*	0.005	0.238	0.336	-0.057
茎含水率										1	0.523*	0.056	0.271	0.360	-0.377
花序含水率											1	0.180	0.371	0.439	-0.254
Fo												1	0.848**	0.335	-0.281
Fm													1	0.768**	-0.191
Fv/Fm														1	-0.043
SPAD															1