Growth adaptability of one-year Ceriops tagal seedlings to seawater submergence time

doi:10.13466/j.cnki.lczyyj.2025.01.010

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to improve the survival rate of Ceriops tagal(Perr.)C.B.Rob.seedlings and explore the effects of different seawater submergence time on one-year-old C.tagal seedlings,one-year C.tagal seedlings were treated with seawater submergence time control experiments.C.tagal seedlings were submerged in seawater for 0.00,4.00,6.00,8.00,10.00,12.00,14.00,16.00,18.00,20.00,22.00 h/d.The morphological and physiological indexes of the seedlings were measured,and principal component analysis was used to analyze the suitable seawater submergence time for the growth of 1-year C.tagal seedlings.The results show that:1)The plantheight growth(ΔH),basal diameter growth(ΔD),and biomass dry weight growth(ΔW)of the seedlings increased first and then decreased with the prolongation of seawater submergence time,and the maximum values were measured at 8.00 h/d treatment.2)The Chl(a+b),Chl(a),and Chl(b)contents increased first and then decreased with the prolongation of seawater submergence time,and the maximum value was measured at 8.00 h/d treatment.3)The contents of malondialdehyde and proline decreased first and then increased with the prolongation of seawater submergence time,and the values measured at 8.00 h/d were the smallest.4)Superoxide dismutase activity increased with the extension of seawater submergence time.5)Principal component analysis showed that the comprehensive score of 8.00 h/d treatment was the highest,which was 3.361.It can be seen that long-term or no seawater submergence treatment has a significant inhibitory effect on the growth of 1-year C.tagal seedlings.Therefore,the suitable seawater submergence time for the growth of 1-year C.tagal seedlings was 8.00 h/d.The results revealed the suitable seawater submergence time for the growth of C.tagal seedlings,and had certain guiding significance for the afforestation of C.tagal seedlings.

Key words: Ceriops tagal, seawater submergence time, morphological indicators, physiological indicators, principal component analysis

CLC Number:

Q945.3

ZHANG Fanglan, LI Zhaojia, WU Shaozhong. Growth adaptability of one-year Ceriops tagal seedlings to seawater submergence time[J]. Forest and Grassland Resources Research, 2025, (1): 84-94.

Figures/Tables 12

Fig.1

Tab.1

Tab.2

Fig.2

Fig.3

Fig.4

Fig.5

Fig.6

Fig.7

Tab.3

Tab.4

Tab.5

References 30

[1]	钟军弟, 成夏岚, 周贤熙, 等. 不同潮位下角果木的种群发展趋势分析[J]. 中南林业科技大学学报, 2015, 35(10):74-78.
[2]	陈燕, 刘锴栋, 陈粤超, 等. 角果木的育苗与造林技术[J]. 广东林业科技, 2013, 29(4):94-97.
[3]	江鎞倩, 李瑞利, 沈小雪, 等. 红树植物耐盐-耐淹性的荟萃分析及其应用对策[J]. 北京大学学报(自然科学版), 2022, 58(4):687-699.
[4]	陈鹭真, 王文卿, 林鹏. 潮汐淹水时间对秋茄幼苗生长的影响[J]. 海洋学报(中文版), 2005(2):141-147.
[5]	李伟, 郭莲磊, 陈红, 等. 长江口典型盐沼植物对持续淹水胁迫的响应[J]. 鲁东大学学报(自然科学版), 2019, 35(1):23-29.
[6]	GE Zhenming, CAO Haobin, CUI Lifang, et al. Future vegetation patterns and primary productionin the coastal wetlands of East China under sea level rise,sediment reduction and saltwater intrusion[J]. Journal of Geophysical Research Biogeosciences, 2015, 120(10):1923-1940.
[7]	XUE Lian, LI Xiuzhen, YAN Zhongzheng, et al. Native and non-native halophytes resiliency against sea-level rise and saltwater intrusion[J]. Hydrobiologia, 2018, 806(1):47-65.
[8]	陈鹭真, 林鹏, 王文卿. 红树植物淹水胁迫响应研究进展[J]. 生态学报, 2006, 26(2):586-593.
[9]	XIE Danghan, SCHWARZ C, BRUCKNER M Z M, et al. Mangrove diversity loss under sea-level rise triggered by biomorphodynamic feedbacks and anthropogenic pressures[J]. Environmental Research Letters, 2020, 15(11):114033.
[10]	邱凤英. 几种半红树植物生物学特性、耐盐、耐水淹及造林试验研究[D]. 长沙: 中南林业科技大学, 2009.
[11]	吴悦宏, 林文欢, 朱晓武, 等. 粤东沿海深水区红树林造林试验[J]. 林业调查规划, 2022, 47(3):152-155.
[12]	吕晓波, 李东海, 杨小波, 等. 红树林群落通过淹水时间及海水盐度的生态位分化实现物种共存[J]. 生物多样性, 2024, 32(3):28-36.
[13]	廖宝文, 邱凤英, 张留恩, 等. 红树植物白骨壤小苗对模拟潮汐淹浸时间的生长适应性[J]. 环境科学, 2010, 31(5):1345-1351.
[14]	黄丽, 谭芳林, 林捷, 等. 木榄幼苗对淹水-盐胁迫的生理响应[J]. 防护林科技, 2018(12):1-4.
[15]	伍朝运. 红海榄对污水-淹水双重胁迫的响应研究[D]. 三亚: 海南热带海洋学院, 2022.
[16]	罗美娟, 张守攻, 崔丽娟, 等. 桐花树幼苗生长与生物量分配对淹水胁迫的响应[J]. 浙江林业科技, 2012, 32(4):15-19.
[17]	罗美娟, 崔丽娟, 张守攻, 等. 淹水胁迫对桐花树幼苗水分和矿质元素的影响[J]. 福建林学院学报, 2012, 32(4):336-340.
[18]	张育霞, 吕晓波, 杨小波, 等. 海南东寨港不同潮间带角果木种群结构及分布格局[J]. 热带生物学报, 2015, 6(4):388-396.
[19]	廖宝文. 三种红树植物对潮水淹浸与水体盐度适应能力的研究[D]. 北京: 中国林业科学研究院, 2010.
[20]	JANOUSEK C N, DUGGER B D, DRUKER B M, et al. Salinity and inundation effects on productivity of brackish tidal marsh plants in the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary[J]. Hydrobiologia, 2020, 847(20):4311-4323.
[21]	JANOUSEK C N, MAYO C. Plant responses to increased inundation and salt exposure:Interactive effects on tidal marsh productivity[J]. Plant Ecology, 2013, 214(7):917-928.
[22]	姜仲茂, 管伟, 丁功桃, 等. 不同光照和淹浸程度对木榄幼苗生长的综合效应[J]. 生态环境学报, 2018, 27(10):1883-1889. doi: 10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2018.10.013
[23]	代捷, 程皓, 由文辉, 等. 秋茄幼苗生长生理及形态对不同潮汐处理的响应[J]. 生态科学, 2020, 39(6):38-44.
[24]	YE Y, GU Y T, GAO H Y, et al. Combined effects of simulated tidal sea-level rise and salinity on seedlings of a mangrove species,Kandelia candel(L.) Druce[J]. Hydrobiologia, 2010, 641(1):287-300.
[25]	陈倩. 基于电生理特征的红树植物盐适应能力的评估[D]. 镇江: 江苏大学, 2020.
[26]	陈燕, 谢正生, 刘锴栋, 等. 角果木和红海榄对低温胁迫的生理响应差异研究[J]. 西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版), 2013, 41(3):69-74.
[27]	方发之, 黎肇家, 张孟文, 等. 不同光照强度对1 a生木榄苗木生理特征的影响[J]. 林业资源管理, 2023(4):43-52.
[28]	吕晓波. 海南岛六种红树植物幼苗对光照、盐度和淹水时间的生理适应性研究[D]. 海口: 海南大学, 2019.
[29]	耿婉璐, 张秋丰, 于硕, 等. 红树林宜林滩涂土壤理化性质及造林修复适宜性分析:以北海市红树林为例[J]. 湿地科学, 2023, 21(6):907-917.
[30]	吴伟志, 赵志霞, 杨升, 等. 浙江省红树林分布和造林成效分析[J]. 热带海洋学报, 2022, 41(6):67-74. doi: 10.11978/2021158

处理	H₀/cm	H₁/cm	ΔH/cm	D₀/mm	D₁/mm	ΔD/mm
CK	11.68±0.87a	34.73±1.13a	23.05±0.67abc	4.23±0.19a	6.26±0.32ab	2.03±0.31ab
T₄	12.62±0.52a	35.95±0.68a	23.33±0.64abc	4.12±0.09a	6.19±0.34ab	2.07±0.40ab
T₆	10.28±1.48a	34.96±2.71a	24.68±2.42ab	4.05±0.08a	6.75±0.23a	2.69±0.21a
T₈	8.85±1.48a	36.45±2.47a	27.60±2.43a	4.29±0.37a	7.07±0.34a	2.77±0.20a
T₁₀	9.53±1.41a	31.87±0.37ab	22.34±0.77bc	4.52±0.08a	7.05±0.36a	2.52±0.36a
T₁₂	8.09±1.08a	29.07±1.03b	20.98±0.40bc	4.08±0.08a	6.14±0.09ab	2.06±0.14ab
T₁₄	8.45±0.97a	28.76±1.72b	20.31±2.15bc	4.34±0.31a	6.49±0.16a	2.15±0.20ab
T₁₆	7.68±0.38a	27.48±0.32b	19.80±0.36bc	4.33±0.39a	6.47±0.17a	2.14±0.07ab
T₁₈	8.60±1.34a	29.42±1.62b	20.82±1.56bc	4.00±0.06a	6.15±0.28ab	2.15±0.25ab
T₂₀	7.75±0.31a	27.74±1.51b	19.99±1.46bc	3.94±0.18a	5.48±0.34b	1.53±0.23b
T₂₂	8.60±1.34a	27.41±0.71b	18.81±0.59c	3.89±0.04a	5.46±0.22b	1.57±0.21b

处理	W₀	W₁	ΔW
CK	11.162±0.741a	33.183±1.896bc	22.021±1.179bc
T₄	11.308±1.352a	32.203±3.713bc	20.895±2.418c
T₆	12.775±1.179a	43.166±0.597a	30.391±1.008ab
T₈	11.019±0.290a	44.530±4.349a	33.510±4.505a
T₁₀	12.638±0.769a	39.050±5.455ab	26.411±5.011abc
T₁₂	11.531±0.422a	30.553±4.123b	19.021±4.495c
T₁₄	10.883±0.503a	27.796±1.319bc	16.912±1.282cd
T₁₆	11.124±0.403a	27.960±1.735bc	16.835±1.415cd
T₁₈	10.736±0.466a	28.020±2.920bc	17.283±3.210cd
T₂₀	10.830±0.758a	19.516±2.076c	8.686±1.317d
T₂₂	10.739±0.294a	19.590±1.346c	8.850±1.269d

主成分	初始特征值 (C)	方差贡献率 (L)/%	累积方差贡献率(R)%
PC1	6.671	74.12	74.12
PC2	1.425	15.83	89.95

指标	PC1		PC2
指标	载荷 (A)	标准化变量系数(Y)	载荷 (A)	标准化变量系数(Y)
ΔH(X₁)	0.839	0.325	-0.260	-0.218
ΔD(X₂)	0.942	0.365	-0.021	-0.018
ΔW(X₃)	0.947	0.367	-0.213	-0.178
MDA含量(X₄)	-0.858	-0.332	0.214	0.179
SOD活性(X₅)	-0.663	-0.257	0.684	0.573
PRO含量(X₆)	-0.930	-0.360	0.032	0.027
Chl(a+b)含量(X₇)	0.896	0.347	0.426	0.357
Chl(a)含量(X₈)	0.654	0.253	0.743	0.622
Chl(b)含量(X₉)	0.955	0.370	0.250	0.209

处理	PC1得分(Z₁)	PC2得分(Z₂)	综合得分(B)
CK	-1.143	-3.453	-1.550
T₄	1.150	-0.415	0.875
T₆	3.070	0.379	2.597
T₈	4.026	0.250	3.361
T₁₀	2.163	0.098	1.799
T₁₂	0.663	0.536	0.640
T₁₄	-0.109	0.616	0.019
T₁₆	-0.884	0.326	-0.671
T₁₈	-1.115	0.186	-0.886
T₂₀	-3.319	0.849	-2.586
T₂₂	-4.503	0.628	-3.600