欢迎访问林草资源研究

Forest and Grassland Resources Research >

2025 , Vol. 0 >Issue 6: 100 - 110

DOI: https://doi.org/10.13466/j.cnki.lczyyj.2025.06.010

Physiological response and drought resistance evaluation of nine ground cover plant species under drought stress

  • DUAN Lianfeng ,
  • LI Ying ,
  • DONG Yan ,
  • WANG Zelong ,
  • AI Xinyao ,
  • PAN Xin ,
  • YU Shouchao ,
  • LI Jun
Expand
  • 1 Beijing Academy of Forestry and Landscape Architecture, Beijing Key Laboratory of Greening Plants Breeding, Beijing 100102, China
    2 Agriculture Science and Engineering School, Liaocheng University, Liaocheng 252059,Shandong, China
    3 Shandong Yingcai University, Jinan 250000, China
    4 China Flower Association, Beijing 100102, China
    5 Tourism and Urban-Rural Planning College, Chengdu University of Technology, Chengdu 610059, China

Received date: 2025-05-11

  Revised date: 2025-11-11

  Online published: 2026-04-17

Fold

Abstract

In order to screen the ground cover plants with strong drought resistance suitable for planting in Beijing,eight drought-resistance indices such as catalase(CAT),peroxidase(POD),superoxide dismutase(SOD)activity,malondialdehyde(MDA)molality,proline(Pro),soluble protein(SP),starch and soluble sugar(SS)mass fractions were determined by observing the overall growth and leaf damage of plants.The drought resistance of 9 ground cover plants,including Clematis heracleifolia,Potentilla chinensis,Nepeta cataria,Chrysanthemum lavandulifolium,Oplismenus undulatifolius,Chrysanthemum indicum,Viola philippica,Taraxacum mongolicum,Carex giraldiana,were comprehensively evaluated by subordinate function analysis,principal component analysis and cluster analysis.The results showed 1)During the period of drought stress treatment,POD activity,MDA content,soluble sugar,starch and Pro content increased,soluble protein content and SOD activity decreased initially before increasing,and CAT activity showed an initial increase followed by a subsequent decline.2)Combined with the overall growth of the plant and the damage of the leaves and the comprehensive evaluation results,among the nine species,Potentilla chinensis,Nepeta cataria and Taraxacum mongolicum had stronger drought resistance,and Clematis heracleifolia and Oplismenus undulatifolius had weaker drought resistance.Therefore,dandelion,Potentilla chinensis and Schizonepeta tenuifolia are suitable for promotion and application in Beijing,while water management t is essential for the cultivation of Clematis heracleifolia and Oplismenus undulatifolius are applied.

Key words： ground cover plants; drought stress; physiological response; membership function analysis; principal component analysis

Cite this article

DUAN Lianfeng , LI Ying , DONG Yan , WANG Zelong , AI Xinyao , PAN Xin , YU Shouchao , LI Jun . Physiological response and drought resistance evaluation of nine ground cover plant species under drought stress[J]. Forest and Grassland Resources Research, 2025 , 0(6) : 100 -110 . DOI: 10.13466/j.cnki.lczyyj.2025.06.010

References

[1] 王坤悦, 李旭红, 余新晓, 等. 北京山区典型植被土壤水分对次降雨的响应[J]. 生态学报, 2024, 44(6):2561-2571.
[2] 朱莹, 温韦华, 陈进勇, 等. 七种地被植物的耐阴性研究[J]. 中国园林, 2015, 31(6):90-94.
[3] 余利, 蔡伊, 申卫丹, 等. 基于文献计量分析的国内地被植物研究进展[J]. 贵州师范大学学报(自然科学版), 2025, 43(1):97-104.
[4] 李英男, 杨秀珍, 任利超, 等. 北京奥林匹克森林公园地被植物的应用[J]. 北京林业大学学报, 2010, 32(增刊1):189-193.
[5] 张超, 徐希, 李雪珂, 等. 北京奥林匹克森林公园乡土草本地被植物调查及分析[J]. 草业科学, 2012, 29(8):1193-1198.
[6] 张皖清, 郝培尧, 滕依辰, 等. 北京郊野地区园林地被植物综合评价与分级[J]. 西北林学院学报, 2015, 30(5):252-257.
[7] 刘升学, 马爱芳, 秦峰, 等. 植物抗旱性研究进展[J]. 科学通报, 2025, 70(25):4297-4314.
[8] 代金玲, 张胜利, 白玉娥. 锦鸡儿属植物抗旱性研究进展[J]. 世界林业研究, 2022, 35(1):32-36.
[9] 赵雪瑶, 赵丹丹, 张鸽香. 3种毛茛科地被植物对遮阴的生理响应及耐阴性评价[J]. 草业科学, 2024, 41(12):2880-2890.
[10] 李合生. 植物生理生化实验原理和技术[M]. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2000.
[11] 张以顺. 植物生理学实验教程[M]. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2009.
[12] 钱瑭璜, 雷江丽, 庄雪影. 华南地区8种常见园林地被植物抗旱性比较研究[J]. 西北植物学报, 2012, 32(4):759-766.
[13] 李春情, 刘翔宇, 闫鹏, 等. 不同玉米品种抗旱性的生理鉴定与综合评价[J]. 作物杂志, 2024(4):253-262.
[14] CASTRO B, CITTERICO M, KIMURA S, et al. Stress-induced reactive oxygen species compartmentalization,perception and signalling[J]. Nature Plants, 2021, 7(4):403-412.
[15] 薄伟, 王松, 康红梅, 等. 太原市五种园林地被植物抗旱性评价及抗旱指标筛选[J]. 北方园艺, 2021(15):65-72.
[16] 季元祖, 张德, 赵军营, 等. 花椒抗旱性研究进展[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2023, 41(5):302-310.
[17] 刘文兰, 师尚礼, 马晖玲, 等. 兰州市4种常见园林观花地被植物抗旱性比较研究[J]. 草地学报, 2015, 23(4):780-784.
[18] GUGLIUZZA G, TALLUTO G, MARTINELLI F, et al. Water deficit affects the growth and leaf metabolite composition of young loquat plants[J]. Plants, 2020, 9(2):274.
[19] 赵小娜, 高志昊, 王斌, 等. 15份饲用型燕麦种质材料苗期抗旱性比较与评价[J]. 草地学报, 2023, 31(12):3734-3743.
[20] 赵纪东, 傅华, 吴彩霞. 水分胁迫对白刺幼苗生物量和渗透调节物质积累的影响[J]. 西北植物学报, 2006, 26(9):1788-1793.
[21] 卢少云, 陈斯平, 陈斯曼, 等. 三种暖季型草坪草在干旱条件下脯氨酸含量和抗氧化酶活性的变化[J]. 园艺学报, 2003, 30(3):303-306.
[22] 王纪辉, 侯娜, 梁美. 水分胁迫下竹叶花椒的生理响应[J]. 江苏农业学报, 2019, 35(3):676-681.
[23] 张俊环, 张美玲, 杨丽, 等. 基于叶片显微结构综合评价杏不同品种(系)的抗旱性[J]. 果树学报, 2023, 40(11):2381-2390.
Options
Outlines

/

〈 〉