• 中国中文核心期刊
  • 中国科学引文数据库(CSCD)核心库来源期刊
  • 中国科技论文统计源期刊(CJCR)
  • 第二届国家期刊奖提名奖

Citation:

Study on Effects of Pruning to Promote Trunk Extension onPhotosynthetic Characteristics of Paulownia

  • Received Date: 2006-03-03
  • Using L i-6400 portable photosynthesis system, the photosynthetic rate o f various crowns and direct ions ofpau lown ia o f tw o treatm ents, responding to d ifferent photosynthetic photon flux density, w eremeasured. Fitting andregression ana lysis w ith the equation Pn = Pmax ( 1- C 0 e- aPPFD / Pmax ) , the parameters w ere calcu lated and stud ied.The result show ed: ( 1) Techn ique o f pruning to promo te trunk extension could improve photosynthe tic capacity andadaptive ab ilities of paulow nia to dealw ith light surround ings. Themax photosynthe tic rate ( Pmax ) , light saturationpo int ( LSP) , light compensate po in t ( LCP) and photosynthet ic range ( PR ) of pruned paulow niaw ere 23. 93 μmol·m-2·s-1, 1 966. 58 μmol·m-2·s-1, 53. 88 μmol·m-2·s-1, 1 911. 71μmol·m-2·s-1. Comparisonsw ith the contro,l the value o f the above parame ters w as 11. 85% , 15. 61% , 29. 06%, 15. 21% higher. ( 2)Techn ique o f pruning to promote trunk extension had greater effect on low er crow n than upper and made the difference betw een the tw o crowns shortened. Pmax, LSP, LCP and PR of low er crow n o f pruned pau lown ia w ere27. 70% , 36. 74% , 34. 22% and 36. 80% higher than that of the contro.l But there w as no sign ificant differencebetw een tw o treatments in the upper crow n. ( 3) E ffects o f pruning to promo te trunk ex tension on photosyntheticcharacter istics of various d irections among the crow ns w ere differen.t The parameters of Pmax, LSP, LCP and PR ofpruned shade leaves and sun leaves of upper crow n w ere h igher than that o f the contro.l But all of them w ere not sig-n if icant differen.t In the low er crow n o f paulown ia, Pmax , LSP, LCP and PR o f the treated sun leaves w ere21. 80% , 39. 02% , 28. 72% and 39. 26% h igher than that of the contro,l and tha t of the treated shade leavesw ere 42. 18%, 39. 35% , 48. 70% and 39. 13% h igher than that of the contro.l Except LCP, the differences o f a llthe parameters be tw een the two treatm ents w ere significan.t
  • 加载中
  • [1] 沈允钢, 施教耐, 许大全. 动态光合作用[M] . 北京: 科学出版社, 1998

    [2] 沈允钢. 光合作用在世纪之交的研究动向[J] . 生物学通报,1999, 34( 6) : 1 ~ 3

    [3] 潘瑞炽, 董愚得. 植物生理学[M] . 北京: 高等教育出版社, 1995

    [4] K ram er P T. 木本植物生理学[M]. 王振儒译. 北京: 中国林业出版社, 1991

    [5] C oom bs J, H all D O, Long S P, et. a l. 生物生产力和光合作用测定技术[M] . 邱国雄等译. 北京: 科学出版社, 1986

    [6] 王孟本, 李洪建, 柴宝峰, 等. 树种蒸腾作用、光合作用和蒸腾效率的比较研究[J] . 植物生态学报, 1999, 23( 5) : 401~ 410

    [7] 武禄光, 程绍荣. 泡桐生长发育机制研究: , 泡桐苗木CO2交换与部分内外因子的关系[J] . 河南农业大学学报, 1988, 22 ( 2) :174~ 180

    [8] 李树人. 泡桐苗期物质积累消耗和光能利用的研究[J]. 河南农学院学报, 1980, 14( 3 ): 10~ 17

    [9] 张清, 王振宇, 徐永荣, 等. 萌芽异常推迟对毛泡桐叶片光合特性影响的研究[J] . 湖北农业科学, 2005 ( 6) : 90~ 93

    [10] 蒋建平. 泡桐栽培学[M] . 北京: 中国林业出版社, 1999

    [11] 侯元凯. 翟明普. 泡桐干形培育研究进展[J] . 林业科学, 1999,35 ( 3) : 76 ~ 83

    [12] 王保平, 李宗然, 文瑞钧, 等. 泡桐修枝促接干技术及其效应的研究[J]. 林业科学研究, 2003, 16( 2) : 183~ 188

    [13] 王保平, 李吉跃, 文瑞钧, 等. 修枝接干对泡桐年生长节律影响的研究[J]. 北京林业大学学报, 2003, 25( 4) : 11~ 15

    [14] 王保平, 李吉跃, 乔杰, 等. 修枝促接干对泡桐叶片生长影响的研究[J]. 北京林业大学学报, 2005, 27( 5) : 70~ 74

    [15] 王保平, 李吉跃, 孙志强, 等. 修枝促接干对泡桐枝生长动态影响的研究[J]. 林业科学研究, 2005, 18( 5) : 609~ 14

    [16]

    Bassm an J B, Zw ier J C. Gas exchange character ist ics ofP opu lu strichocarpa, Popu lus de ltoid es and P opu lu s trichocarpa ) P . del??toid es clon e[J] . T ree Phys io,l 1991, 8: 145~ 149
    [17] 胡新生, 刘建伟, 王世绩. 四个杨树无性系在不同温度和相对湿度条件下净光合速率的比较研究[J] . 林业科学研究, 1997, 33( 2 ): 107~ 116

  • 加载中
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Article views(3082) PDF downloads(1163) Cited by()

Proportional views

Study on Effects of Pruning to Promote Trunk Extension onPhotosynthetic Characteristics of Paulownia

  • 1. Research and Developmen t Cen ter ofPau lown ia, State Forestry Adm in istrat ion, Zh engzhou- 450003, He# nan, China
  • 2.  College of Forestry Resource and Environmen, t Beijing Forestry Un ivers ity, Beijing- 100083, China
  • 3. College of Forestry Resource and Environmen, t Beijing Forestry Un ivers ity, Beijing?? 100083, China
  • 4. Research and Developmen t Cen ter ofPau lown ia, State Forestry Adm in istrat ion, Zh engzhou?? 450003, He# nan, China

Abstract: Using L i-6400 portable photosynthesis system, the photosynthetic rate o f various crowns and direct ions ofpau lown ia o f tw o treatm ents, responding to d ifferent photosynthetic photon flux density, w eremeasured. Fitting andregression ana lysis w ith the equation Pn = Pmax ( 1- C 0 e- aPPFD / Pmax ) , the parameters w ere calcu lated and stud ied.The result show ed: ( 1) Techn ique o f pruning to promo te trunk extension could improve photosynthe tic capacity andadaptive ab ilities of paulow nia to dealw ith light surround ings. Themax photosynthe tic rate ( Pmax ) , light saturationpo int ( LSP) , light compensate po in t ( LCP) and photosynthet ic range ( PR ) of pruned paulow niaw ere 23. 93 μmol·m-2·s-1, 1 966. 58 μmol·m-2·s-1, 53. 88 μmol·m-2·s-1, 1 911. 71μmol·m-2·s-1. Comparisonsw ith the contro,l the value o f the above parame ters w as 11. 85% , 15. 61% , 29. 06%, 15. 21% higher. ( 2)Techn ique o f pruning to promote trunk extension had greater effect on low er crow n than upper and made the difference betw een the tw o crowns shortened. Pmax, LSP, LCP and PR of low er crow n o f pruned pau lown ia w ere27. 70% , 36. 74% , 34. 22% and 36. 80% higher than that of the contro.l But there w as no sign ificant differencebetw een tw o treatments in the upper crow n. ( 3) E ffects o f pruning to promo te trunk ex tension on photosyntheticcharacter istics of various d irections among the crow ns w ere differen.t The parameters of Pmax, LSP, LCP and PR ofpruned shade leaves and sun leaves of upper crow n w ere h igher than that o f the contro.l But all of them w ere not sig-n if icant differen.t In the low er crow n o f paulown ia, Pmax , LSP, LCP and PR o f the treated sun leaves w ere21. 80% , 39. 02% , 28. 72% and 39. 26% h igher than that of the contro,l and tha t of the treated shade leavesw ere 42. 18%, 39. 35% , 48. 70% and 39. 13% h igher than that of the contro.l Except LCP, the differences o f a llthe parameters be tw een the two treatm ents w ere significan.t

Reference (17)

Catalog

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return