免费文献传递   相关文献

Allometric Relationships between Morphological and Reproductive Traits of Chenopodium glaucum

灰绿藜形态性状与繁殖性状的异速关系



全 文 :!23" !5#
 Vol.23  No.5
! " # $
ACTA AGRESTIA SINICA
   2015$  9%
  Sep.  2015
犱狅犻:10.11733/j.issn.10070435.2015.05.002
Ž,-3pY‘’3p0r“6‚
56
1,
789
2,
:;<
1,
=>?
1
(1.+¬°+0¬4ñX8():˜™],„£ u­,130102;2.*7®Ê+0FŽ8´†+0,¯° *7,116600)
45

LJKWX±}›¨

áâ=²@““^X‘š³´µB€«¬=Sˆ«¬Bjk

T˜™I‹H³´
µ€gh=Sˆgh’“Bo¶@A†Òo¶:uKFŽn
lmPJ

³´µ€gh8Sˆgh
’“”•—rBo¶:u@A

d–³´µe\*wBñ*

œe·B*wñ¶Ÿ¸

ɦŸ‹B´†z¹Å
³´µBSˆ:u

w³´µBoºG¨8e\*w’“Œ—rB»¼@A

³´µ)w

oºG¨)ì

±
}^X½ê89BSˆgh@:Hn<

w5Ð÷n<¾D5땱}§¨šBe\*wWX\áB

Sˆyz

o¶:u

¾@:¿n

ˆá↲@““^XK³´µB€gh8Sˆgh“Bo¶@Aú:H67

á
ân
ˆ²@““sŒ—rB67

À²@B³´µ¦Ÿ‹B´†Ál
ÅSˆ:u

678

o¶:u

³´µ
;`
·\Â

·u¨
9:;<=
:Q944    >?@AB:A     >CD=:10070435(2015)05090509
犃犾狅犿犲狋狉犻犮犚犲犾犪狋犻狅狀狊犺犻狆狊犫犲狋狑犲犲狀犕狅狉狆犺狅犾狅犵犻犮犪犾犪狀犱犚犲狆狉狅犱狌犮狋犻狏犲
犜狉犪犻狋狊狅犳犆犺犲狀狅狆狅犱犻狌犿犵犾犪狌犮狌犿
HUANGYingxin1,SONGYantao2,FANGaohua1,ZHOUDaowei1
(1.NortheastInstituteofGeographyandAgroecology,ChineseAcademyofSciences,Changchun,JilinProvince130102,China;
2.ColegeofEnvironmentandResource,DalianNationalitiesUniversity,Dalian,LiaoningProvince116600,China)
犃犫狊狋狉犪犮狋:Thealometricrelationshipbetweenmorphologicalandreproductivetraitsandtheirresponseto
environmentalvariationswereanalyzedbymeasuringthemorphologicalandreproductivetraitsof犆犺犲狀狅狆
狅犱犻狌犿犵犾犪狌犮狌犿underdifferentlight,nutrientandgerminationtimingconditions.Theresultsshowedthat
therewerealometricrelationshipsbetweenmorphologicalandreproductivetraits.Thebranchofbigsize
hadfastergrowthratethantheplantofsmalsize,meanwhile,犆.犵犾犪狌犮狌犿alocatedmoreresourcetore
productivegrowth.However,thereweretradeoffbetweeninflorescencedensityandplantsize.Thesmal
lerplantsizeof犆.犵犾犪狌犮狌犿hadthehigherinflorescencedensity.Thetreatmentoflightintensitycaused
thevaryingreproductivetraitsof犆.犵犾犪狌犮狌犿,whilethesechangesresultedfromthevaryingplantsizeun
derdifferentlightgradients.Thereproductivestrategy(alometry)didkeepinconstant.Nutrientand
germinationtimingtreatmentsaffectedthealometricrelationships.Therewereinconstantalometricrela
tionshipsbetweenmorphologicalandreproductivetraitsinnutrienttreatments.However,thetreatmentof
germinationtimehadsignificanteffectonthealometry,theplantsoflatergerminationalocatedmorere
sourcetoreproductivegrowth.
犓犲狔狑狅狉犱狊:Alometry;犆犺犲狀狅狆狅犱犻狌犿犵犾犪狌犮狌犿;Totalbranchvolume;Totalbranchlength
EFGH
:20140714;IJGH:20141212
KLMN

°•‡Ãg.ÅIJ
(2014FY210300);®¯°+‡±(31000216)´ µ
OPQR

nÅZ
(1980),¸ ,„£u­»,ƽ,ǘ™È,¾D¿À89:+˜™,Email:huangyx@iga.ac.cn;ÇÈÅÆ Author
forcorrespondence,Email:zhoudaowei@iga.ac.cn
  É89:uFŽ@:n<“,Ò:X、:
ghÍ*@:ížgB¿n

#$…

:+­
K89B7žFŽBížyz;iH*ë˜
™
[12]。
ÊCËÌâz=KzW͓

89¦ñ
 ¼Bz¹

ÎìÒâz†KzBÏÐâç

ˆ
YfG¨ñ 

±}W͓

89¦ñì:u

¿
ˆñ Ò±BÑÒâç
[3]。
*똙lmPJ
ÂÀBz{NÓVÓOóÔ÷n<5ëFŽn
<½êB

Ô÷n<5ë¦e\*wn<½ê
B
[45]。
ˆo¶:uz{â^Õ$e\*wn<
! " # $ !23"
BEF

z{89WXgh’“B@A

Oó8
9gh7žFŽBn<ª«

¿ˆEÅH./B

[67]。
o¶:u
(alometry)5«89WX‰Š]W
Xgh’“WXÈÊB:u@A
[8]。
o¶:u
z{5ßlOó89:uyzBŠYiNÓ

â^AÀÖJFŽ

e\*w}†89gh’“
B‚•@A
[5,9]。
ë¦89BSˆgh5«ó8
9ížgBCD«¬

•o¶:u˜™+


z¹8e\:9ëB@AEÅH./@ò
[10]。
t¯˜™PJ89B€gh

ÊCì¨

×
Ø}†ÙÚ!€ghKSˆghŒ—rB
67

wë¦.ÅëBKL

@¦Sˆgh8€
gh

#Ò58B\Â}†z·`u¨!g
ho¶@AB˜™š5
[6]。
ˆÐ÷€ghK
89B:u8íž

RÆ589BSˆyzŒ
CDBVÛ
[1112]。
³´µ
(犆犺犲狀狅狆狅犱犻狌犿犵犾犪狌犮狌犿 L.)u#”•
¦RSÜû=‹nBFŽ+

:Úš.

Ò:
X:ghn[13]。
Ýë¦ÒŒš
ìBþÿg

»ÓKÒþÿ›X}†þÿ‡EÅ
H¤z˜™
[1416]。
릳´µâ^:u•áâ

±}!FŽoùgÛBñÝ

¿­cÅÞc–
â²@:u

:+­KÒSˆgh}†€g
h;iH˜™
[1718]。
T˜™}³´µG˜™K
_

}WXBËÌáâ

±}›¨=²@““^
XGßà

ž¥o¶:uz{NÓ

I‹HFŽ
E7K³´µB€gh

Sˆgh}†Ûƒ
“B@AB67

áââ^¿€ghBã¨z
{³´µBSˆyz

ÃGo¶:uXWΏj
DBäå

1 STYUV
1.1 ”•–—˜
UV&ñæ•+¬°+0¬4ñX8():
˜™]uçNñ(,:˜™è
(N44°33′,
E123°31′,150ma.s.l),Y¦éêNñ¤ñÝ,
3ÝGëÜý

ëìí_&*Ñgîïðñ

$L–
ð_G4.6~6.4℃,ò%L–_¨G23℃,Š%L
–_G-20℃,$ó@ëG1500~2000mm。$
L–ÊKëG410mm,‰60% ~80% §+•Þ
î

$L–ó@ëGÊKëB3[;ËÌyQGô
ÌË

1.2 ™š›œ
2010$•õ“K³´µ;iWX±}›¨、á
â=²@““^X

”e^X3eKL。±}›¨
^X•{Ì¥ö÷ø;iö±

ö÷øù¤10
cmúU,ûüöýþ‚ðnÇï),zÆ5ì±}
(HL,100%®¯±)、+¨±}(ML,60%®¯±)、
Ú±}
(LL,25%®¯±)。áâ^X•ÿY0! 
"#$

%´$
,N:14%,P:14%= K:14%),zÆ
5ìáâ
(HN,30g·m-2)、+áâ (MN,15
g·m-2)、Úáâ(LN,W!$、ðn(õË)。²@
““^X

zÆ5&­²@
(EG,5%‹),À­²@
(MG,6%‹),‹Þ²@(LG,6%)。T˜™B¥
ðö=VæÁ
(L9(34)CP1]ó),”e^XKL
3eCM,ƒ27ewÝ,wÝ/Â(2m×2m)。8
BižG15cm,•{Ì2u“{,µkžG
15cm,”ewÝ196。(e:uî‚,”3~4
u;iŠü».$N

•9%,]8–;lSˆ#,ɳ´µS
ˆghÇk

‰Y7¾)—0;ix&

G*U¡?


•”ewÝ+5YZx&10~11,”e^
XƒÁ32~33,}GœY,j딝³´µ]
z·

˒¾+

šX

B‡Ø=u¨

|,-\Á
.3z·B\Â

Á.(e³´µB\Â=z·`


ÃÀÁ”³´µBz·p=oºp

æ]
oºòl60℃/Ü×¼C,j딝³´µBS
ˆC

î`oºC
),
ÃÁ.oºC

îœeoºC

SˆC
·
oºp
-1)
=oºG¨

oºp
·

-1)。
1.3 hi;n
CP1]ó,¦FŽE7ÅG0knë,¦6ê
ÄÅGd›në

ž¥SPSS17.0;iNDz{[19]。
o¶:uz{B¥(1Bo¶N/
:犢=β犡α,犢
=犡 589Bgh,α5o¶«p(alometricexpo
nent),îlog10p½23ÌB45。β5o¶np
(alometriccoefficient),îlog10p½23ÌB犢
6(ž

B¥¬»¾678
(SMA:Standardmajor
axisregression,q9ïw¾6):@(Kp23Ì
Bp½

µko¶«pαSMA=αOLS·狉-1,Ò+αOLS5
vwÛ;Ó
(ordinaryleastsquaresregression)ÕÅ
B78Ap
,狉5ƒ@Ap。Ð<¥SMA785G
H=$në>DK78ApB67
[20]。
¥R¿‘
BSMATRË,¦p½log1023Ì,;i¬»¾6
78

zÆz{±}

á↲@““Ko¶@AB
609
!5# nÅZ!:³´µ€gh8SˆghBo¶@A
67

¾D˒o¶«p

45
)、
o¶np



}
†e\*w
(犡õn<),ÃȚo¶«p81]-1
BDo
[21]。
2 lmY;n
2.1 cžŸ%Ž,-3pY‘’3p0 ¡
±}›¨=²@““B67ƒX

Ð2eFŽ
E7K³´µ]B€gh=SˆghŒ—r
67
(犘<0.05),d–±}›¨BÊÚ]²@““
B?Ì

³´µB·`\Â

·`u¨

·p

SˆC

oºp†œeoºC–fÊÚgä

oºG
¨sf‚egä

áâK·`\Â

·`u¨

SˆC†oºpŒ—r67
(犘 <0.05),Ãd–
áâBÊڈfšÊgä

ˆK·p

œeoºC
†oºG¨V—r67
(犘zÆ50.156,0.489=
0.084)(P1)。
2.2 ,-3p€0r“6‚
CP2=×1]ó,³´µB·`u¨、`
\Â=·p’“Œ—rBo¶:u@A
(犘
<0.001)。o¶«pzÆ50.440,0.335=0.
761,–—rw¦1。CP2]ó,±}K·B
`u¨=`\ÂBo¶«pŒ—r67


p8`\ÂBo¶«p=np–V67

ˆK
*wú:H67

K·p8`u¨Bo¶«p
=e\*w–V—r67

ˆKo¶npú:H
67

áâKÐ3eo¶«p–ú:H—r6
7

²@““K`u¨8`\Â=·p8`
\ÂBo¶«pú:H—r67

K·p8`
u¨Bo¶«pV67

ˆKo¶np=e\*
wú:H67

:1 ,-3p€0r“6‚
Fig.1 Thealometricrelationshipsbetweenmorphologicaltraits
2.3 ,-3pY‘’3p€0r“6‚
CP2=×2]ó,]€gh8Sˆgh
’“Œ—rBo¶:u@A

SˆC8]€
gh’“Bo¶«p–*¦1(]犘 <0.05)。o
ºp8`\ÂBo¶«pw¦1,ˆoºp8`u
¨†·pBo¶«p—r*¦1。oºC8`ÂBo¶«pw¦1,ˆoºC8`u¨†·p
Bo¶«p—r*¦1。oºG¨8€gh’“
Bo¶«pGíp

Ã=-1Œ—rÝÆ。$H
SˆC8`\Â

oºp8`\Â

oºp8`u¨
=oºC8`u¨Bo¶@AWEáâ—r67
s

Ò~o¶@A–E±}

áâ=²@““B—r
67

3 ~
3.1 ‡ˆ3p€0r“b¢
89B€gh’“Bo¶@AŠÓ589:
+@ܘ™BC:‚A

w5ë¦.ÅëBKL

@¦89B·`\†`u¨B˜™ƒKš
5
[6]。
ˆ89B€gh’“ƒJ67

ƒJL,

͋89€gh’“Œ—rBo¶:u@A

T˜™+
,`
u¨8`\Â=·p8`\ÂBo
¶«pw¦1,ÐPJ,2eghWáðÈÊn<。
d–³´µ·\ÂBñ 
,`
u¨=·pBñ
u¶¨nw

ˆ³´µ·BÓØñ ¶¨sn¸

·p8`u¨Bo¶«pw¦1,PJd–`u
709
! " # $ !23"
¨Bñ 

³´µ·p³ñ n"

ˆœe·B
u¨ñ ¶¨n¸

}‚BlmPJd–e\*w
Bn<

89B€l%@:Hn<

îWXBgh
}WXBn<¶¨7že\*wBn<
[6,9]。
\1 £¤™š›œ\(34)¥cžŸ%,-3p¥‘’3p0 ¡
Table1 Theorthogonalexperimenttable(34)andtheeffectsofenvironmental
factorsonthemorphologicalandreproductivetraits
^X
Treatment
±}
Light
áâ
Nutrient
²@““
Generation
date

Blank
`\Â
Total
volume
/cm3
`u¨
Total
length/cm
·p
Branch
number
SˆC
Reproductive
biomass/g
oºp
Inflorescence
number
oºC
Inflorescence
mass/g
oºG¨
Inflorescence
density
/g·cm-3
1 1(HL) 1(HN) 1(EG) 1 36.12a 669.0a 25.4a 32.30a 323.3a 0.1032a 10.7c
2 1(HL) 2(MN) 2(MG) 2 22.52bc545.5bc 22.5abc 26.42ab 251.1b 0.0953a 15.4c
3 1(HL) 3(LN) 3(LG) 3 8.26ef354.6ef 20.5bcd 4.93d 99.4e 0.0490b 19.6c
4 2(ML)2(MN) 3(LG) 1 29.33ab643.8ab 24.8ab 16.61bc 255.6b 0.0552b 11.9c
5 2(ML) 3(LN) 1(EG) 2 6.52ef295.2fg 15.5ef 2.58d 97.3e 0.0246b 34.1b
6 2(ML) 1(HN) 2(MG) 3 20.21cd541.4bcd 26.4a 9.45cd 191.2c 0.0519b 14.8c
7 3(LL) 3(LN) 2(MG) 1 2.07f 230.8g 11.6f 1.26d 63.8e 0.0190b 47.1a
8 3(LL) 1(HN) 3(LG) 2 12.39de454.5cde 19.0cde 3.93d 110.9de 0.03004b 11.2c
9 3(LL) 2(MN) 1(EG) 3 11.99de431.9de 17.4de 6.62cd 157.8cd 0.0391b 17.7c
`\Â
Total
volume
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001
`u¨
Total
length
<0.001 0.007 <0.001
·p
Branch
number
<0.001 0.156 <0.001
SˆC
Reproductive
biomass
<0.001 0.004 <0.001
oºp
Inflorescence
number
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001
oºC
Inflorescence
mass
<0.001 0.489 <0.004
oºG¨
Inflorescence
density
<0.001 0.084 <0.001
  ò:ù¤53eFŽE7K³´µgh67BNDz{。6~13Äp½+,L–õŒƒXBC“PJLSD•犘>0.05KLDoW—r
Note:ANOVA(threeway)analysisinthebottomofthetable.Thesamelettersindicatenosignificantdifferencewithinthecolumnsfrom
thesixthtothethirteenthcolumnusingLeastSignificantDifference(LSD)
809
!5# nÅZ!:³´µ€gh8SˆghBo¶@A
\2 ‡ˆ3p0r“;n
Table2 Thealometricanalysesofdifferenttraits
o¶@A
Alometricrelationships
FŽEF
Environmentalfactors
Y X
k
Ap
狉2
犘1
45
Slope
95%ZÈݓ
95%Confidence
interval

Intercept
犘2
±}
Light
áâ
Nutrient
²@““
Germination
timing
`u¨
Totallength
`\Â
Totalvolume
0.753 <0.001 0.440 0.416-0.466 2.181 <0.001   
·p
Branchnumber
`\Â
Totalvolume
0.552 <0.001 0.335 0.310-0.362 0.946 <0.001 §  
·p
Branchnumber
`u¨
Totallength
0.715 <0.001 0.761 0.716-0.809 -0.714 <0.001   
SˆC
Reproductivebiomass
`\Â
Totalvolume
0.479 <0.001 1.115 1.026-1.211 -0.423 0.010  ns 
SˆC
Reproductivebiomass
`u¨
Totallength
0.435 <0.001 2.533 2.323-2.761 -5.946 <0.001   
SˆC
Reproductivebiomass
·p
Branchnumber
0.313 <0.001 3.328 3.026-3.660 -3.570 <0.001   
oºp
Inflorescencenumber
`\Â
Totalvolume
0.578 <0.001 0.607 0.563-0.654 1.538 <0.001  ns 
oºp
Inflorescencenumber
`u¨
Totallength
0.605 <0.001 1.378 1.282-1.482 -1.468 <0.001  ns 
oºp
Inflorescencenumber
·p
Branchnumber
0.411 <0.001 1.811 1.659-1.978 -0.175 <0.001 §  
oºC
Inflorescencemass
`\Â
Totalvolume
0.196 <0.001 0.701 0.633-0.777 -2.148 <0.001   
oºC
Inflorescencemass
`u¨
Totallength
0.141 <0.001 1.593 1.432-1.772 -5.622 <0.001  ns 
oºC
Inflorescencemass
·p
Branchnumber
0.112 <0.001 2.093 1.879-2.332 -4.128 <0.001   
oºG¨
Inflorescencedensity
`\Â
Totalvolume
0.651 <0.001 -0.668-0.715- -0.624 1.804 <0.001   
oºG¨
Inflorescencedensity
`u¨
Totallength
0.351 <0.001 -1.517-1.664- -1.383 5.112 <0.001  + 
oºG¨
Inflorescencedensity
·p
Branchnumber
0.281 <0.001 -1.993-2.197- -1.808 3.689 <0.001   
  ò:]p½–;ilog1023。犘1o¶N/B—rgIV;犘2545(o¶«p)81(]-1,DKoºG¨8€gh)BDo—rg
IV
;,o¶«pWX;+,o¶«pƒX,o¶np((ž)WX,e\*w(X)ƒX;o¶«pƒX,o¶np=e\*wWX;§o¶«p
=o¶npƒX

e\*wWX
;ns,o¶«p、o¶np=e\*w[ƒX
Note:Aldataaretransformedintolog10.犘1isthe犘valueoftheSMAregression.犘2istheSMAtestbetweentheslopeand1(or-1
forinflorescence:morphologicaltraits).:thedifferenceofslope.+:thecommonslopeandXsize,andshiftinintercept.:thecommon
slope,andshiftininterceptandXsize.§:thecommonslopeandintercept,andshiftinXsize.ns:thecommonslope,interceptandXsize
909
! " # $ !23"
:2 ,-3pY‘’3p€0r“6‚
Fig.2 Thealometricrelationshipsbetweenmorphologicalandreproductivetraits
  89B€ghK89:u8ÑҌ—r6
7
[2223]。
͋˜™PJ

89B€Rg6789
B´†z¹

89Sˆgh—rE€gh]67

ÊC

Sˆz¹88B쌍šìBƒ@g
[2426]。
o¶:uz{lmPJ

³´µ€gh8Sˆg
h’“Œ—rBƒ@g

SˆC88B·`

、`
u¨=·pŒ—rBo¶@A

Ãd–
8e\*wBñu

ñu¶¨n¸

8’0B˜
™lmƒX
[27],
oºp†œeoºC8e\*w’
“Œ—rBo¶@A

d–e\*wBñ*

³´
µoºBpë8CëqE¶ñ 

œY8\ÂS
ˆC8e\*wV—rƒ@g

w5oºG¨

îœ
Y8\ÂBoºp

88B*wBo¶«p5
íõ

ÐPJ

oºG¨8e\*wŒ—rB»
¼@A

8©®†Y7*w=pëB»¼@AŠ
&
[28],
ÐY»¼@A5³´µBŠYížyz

š
wB8

ŒŸìBoºG¨

ÐÍñ 89BS
ˆ›*

}µûYfB?8

ÎìSˆi5

ˆš*
B8

FD¦ŠkB´†z¹Å›GàHB:u

IüÒl%BÇkg

LJñ ³´µáâ:u

ñ
 e\B*w

;ˆÎìœeoºBùë

ñ eBSˆ›*

019
!5# nÅZ!:³´µ€gh8SˆghBo¶@A
3.2 cžŸ%Žr“b¢0 ¡
89:u]^BFŽE756789:u
Bs¤EF

ÐYs¤EF(nK89B‚•:
uª«

o¶:u

Œ—rB67
[22]。
±}=
áâBigK89Yf:u8힌CD
BVÛ
[1,2930]。
±}›¨Bn<

ÓA67H8
9JxâëBn<

;ˆ6789B:u8S
ˆ
[31]。
ɱ}›¨Êړ

³´µœee\Jx
B`âëÊÚ

Ҁ@:H—rn<

³´µ
BKL:u

·`u¨

†ML:u

·p

–ïã

ÒSˆâç

oºBpë8SˆC


Ú

wÒoºG¨

îœY\ÂBoºp

—rñ
 

Н;HÚ±}šB³´µÎìHÒSˆi
5

¦Ÿ‹Bâëz¹ÅHSˆ:u

±}n<
ÓANXHo¶np]e\*w@:—rBn
<

O5pÔeo¶:u+Bo¶«p@:¿
n

•Ú±‘š

³´µ¦Ÿ‹B´†z¹P
Hì:u

ÑÒ±´†

ˆÒSˆgh8€g
hBo¶«pþEÅ67

ÐPJ³´µBS
ˆghBn<¾D5ëe\*wn<½êB

ˆ
DK±}›¨Bn<

89ÃQ;iSˆyz
BR(
[32]。
t¯áâK89Sˆ:u67Ț
MN
[3334],
w5áâBnhBo¶@Aú:67
[35]。
T˜™+

$H5p
Ôeo¶:u@A¾@:n
Ò~Bo¶:
u«p–@:H—rn<

w5áâKSˆC8
`\†SˆC8`u¨@AB67WS|ƒ
X

¾â@AáâK89Sˆgh8€gh
Bo¶@AŒŠXB67

•ËÌ+

”•*ëBY7

ÉFŽí@
“

89Í*²@:u
[36]。
89•WX““²
@

Ò:u@TBFŽ‘@:—rBn<

À
²@B89t¯8šw

wÒSˆi5šì

¦Ÿ‹Bâëz¹Å89BSˆ:u

;ˆûP
YfBSU

˜™PJ²@““@:n<“

89Bo¶:uq@:—rBn<
[3738]。
Ð8
T˜™BlWƒX

7ž²@““B¿n

$H
·p8`u¨}†oºG¨8`\ÂBo¶
np=e\*w@:H¿n

Ò~Bo¶«p–
@:H—rn<

Н;H³´µ:uyzB
n<

À²@B³´µe\šw

¦Ÿ‹B´†
ÁlÅSˆ:u+

8&#²@Be\ƒÈ

Œ
ƒKš‹Boº

4 l
³´µ€gh8Sˆgh’“”•—r
Bo¶:u@A

d–³´µ·\ÂBñ*

³´µ`·u¨:u¶¨ÊÚ

³´µ·B
ÓØ:u¶¨n¸

ɳ´µVL¦z¹Ÿ‹
B´†ÅSˆ:uÉ+

w5³´µoºpë†
œeoºCëñu¶¨w¦³´µ\ÂñuB
¶¨

d–·`u¨Bñ 

œe·Bu¨
:u¶¨n¸

³´µoºpë

oº*w=`
Sˆ:9ëñ ¶¨n¸

oºBG¨8³´
µe\*w”•—rB»¼@A

wB8Œ
oºBƒKp뚋

±}¾D67³´µB
o¶np=e\*w

ˆáâ

#Ò5²@““
Bn<

*—r67³´µo¶«pBn<

;
ˆNX³´µo¶@A@:¿n

7žáâB
n<

³´µSˆyzd·\†`u¨n<
WŠX

ˆÀ²@B³´µ¦Ÿ‹´†ÁlÅS
ˆ:u…SáYfB?8

u>?
[1] TilmanD.Plantstrategiesandthedynamicsandstructureof
plantcommunities[M].Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,
1988
[2] ReyerCPO,LeuzingerS,RammigA,犲狋犪犾.Aplant′sper
spectiveofextremes:terrestrialplantresponsestochanging
climaticvariability[J].GlobalChangeBiology,2013,19(1):
7589
[3] MonyC,KoschnickTJ,HalerWT,犲狋犪犾.Competitionbe
tweentwoinvasiveHydrocharitaceae(犎狔犱狉犻犾犾犪狏犲狉狋犻犮犻犾犾犪狋犪
(L.f.)(Royle)and犈犵犲狉犻犪犱犲狀狊犪 (Planch))asinfluencedby
sedimentfertilityandseason[J].AquaticBotany,2007,86
(3):236242
[4] HuangY X,ZhaoX Y,ZhouD W,犲狋犪犾.Alometryof
犆狅狉犻狊狆犲狉犿狌犿犿犪犮狉狅犮犪狉狆狌犿inresponsetosoilnutrient,wa
ter,andpopulationdensity[J].BotanyBotanique,2010,88
(1):1319
[5] WeinerJ.Alocation,plasticityandalometryinplants[J].
Perspectivesin PlantEcology,Evolutionand Systematics,
2004,6(4):207215
119
! " # $ !23"
[6] WangTH,ZhouDW,WangP,犲狋犪犾.Sizedependentrepro
ductiveeffortin Amaranthusretroflexus:theinfluenceof
plantingdensityandsowingdate[J].CanadianJournalofBot
any,2006,84(3):485492
[7] AlenAP,Poc犽犿an W T,RestrepoC,犲狋犪犾.Alometry,
growthandpopulationregulationofthedesertshrub犔犪狉狉犲犪
狋狉犻犱犲狀狋犪狋犪[J].FunctionalEcology,2008,22(2):197204
[8] NiklasKJ.Plantalometry.Thescalingofformandprocess
[M].Chicago,IL,USA:ChicagoUniversityPress,1994
[9] HuangYX,ZhaoXY,ZhangHX,犲狋犪犾.Alometriceffects
of犃犵狉犻狅狆犺狔犾犾狌犿狊狇狌犪狉狉狅狊狌犿inresponsetosoilnutrients,wa
ter,andpopulationdensityintheHorqinsandylandofChina
[J].JournalofPlantBiology,2009,52(3):210219
[10]nÅZ,’+W,HXY,!.ôÕPQ|œgKËÌâz、K
z=YfG¨n[J].ž¥:+w,2008,19(12):
25932598
[11]CheplickGP.Sizeandarchitecturaltraitsasontogeneticde
terminantsoffitnessinaphenotypicalyplasticannualweed
(犃犿犪狉犪狀狋犺狌狊犪犾犫狌狊)[J].PlantSpeciesBiology,2002,17(1):
7184
[12]JaradatA A.Reproductivealocationandnutrientrelation
shipsincuphea:Asemidomesticatedoilseedcrop[J].Journal
ofPlantNutrition,2012,35(10):15791599
[13]+¬°+0+¬89Z˜[\È*.+¬89Z[M].4¥:
°+¡¢
,1996
[14]¶]],^ _7,QŽ˜,!.ÿ:89³´µKNaCl=NaH
CO3`aB:X7ž[J].Zb()°+,2010,47(5):882
887
[15]cd‚k·Ðe,fgg,hij.o@ÿM`aK³´µ
(犆犺犲狀狅狆狅犱犻狌犿犵犾犪狌犮狌犿 L.)Y7²@B67[J].:+N
Z
,2014,33(1):7682
[16]kl,;m,H%­.³´µnopqrst‡E(犆犵犞犘1)
‡PÄÎì:uBþÿg
[J].89:X+Çv,2009,45
(5):449454
[17]¶]],^ _7,QŽ˜,!.ZbwxñÝÿ:89³´µY
7B²@Rg†ÒK:ŽBížg
[J].89:X+Çv,
2010,46(1):7579
[18]yz›,hij,H%­.³´µiêoºBàH{â†8
|:
[J].}~89+˜™,2007,25(4):413416
[19]Han W,CaoL,YimitH,犲狋犪犾.Optimizationofthesaline
groundwaterirrigationsystemalongtheTarimDesertHigh
wayEcologicalShelterbeltProjectinChina[J].EcologicalEn
gineering,2012,40:108112
[20]NiklasKJ.Comparisonsamongbiomassalocationandspatial
distributionpatternsofsomevine,pteridophyte,andgymno
spermshoots[J].AmericanJournalofBotany,1994,81(11):
14161421
[21]FalsterDS,WartonDI,WrightIJ.SMATR:Standardised
majoraxistestsandroutines,Version2.0[EB/OL].http://
www.bio.mq.edu.au/ecology/SMATR/,2006
[22]WalerD M.Plantmorphologyandreproduction.In:JL
Doust,LLDoust(eds)Plantreproductiveecology:patterns
andstrategies[M].Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1988:
203227
[23]GeberMA.Interplayofmorphologyanddevelopmentonsize
inequality:A polygonum greenhousestudy[J].Ecological
Monographs,1989,59(3):267288
[24]ArchibaldS,BondWJ.Growingtalvsgrowingwide:tree
architectureandalometryofAcaciakarrooinforest,savanna,
andaridenvironments[J].Oikos,2003,102(1):314
[25]DigglePK.Theexpressionofandromonoecyin狊狅犾犪狀狌犿犺犻狉
狋狌犿 (solanaceae):Phenotypicplasticityandontogeneticcon
tingency[J].AmericanJournalofBotany,1994,81(10):1354
1365
[26]DigglePK.Ontogeneticcontingencyandfloralmorphology:
Theeffectsofarchitectureandresourcelimitation[J].Interna
tionalJournalofPlantSciences,1997,158(6):S99S107
[27]WeinerJ.Theinfluenceofcompetitiononplantreproduction.
In:JLDoust,LLDoust(eds)Plantreproductiveecology:
patternsandstrategies[M].Oxford:Oxford University
Press,1988:228245
[28]KleimanD,AarssenLW.Theleafsize/numbertradeoffin
trees[J].JournalofEcology,2007,95:376382
[29]BonserSP,AarssenLW.Meristemalocation:Anewclassi
ficationtheoryforadaptivestrategiesinherbaceousplants[J].
Oikos,1996,77(2):347352
[30]BonserSP,AarssenLW.Alometryanddevelopmentinher
baceousplants:Functionalresponsesofmeristemalocationto
lightandnutrientavailability[J].AmericanJournalofBotany,
2003,90(3):404412
[31]Semchenko M,Lepik M,GtzenbergerL,犲狋犪犾.Positive
effectofshadeonplantgrowth:ameliorationofstressoractive
regulationofgrowthrate?[J].JournalofEcology,2012,100
(2):459466
[32]SchmittJ,WulffRD.Lightspectralquality,phytochrome
andplantcompetition[J].TrendsinEcology & Evolution,
1993,8(2):4751
[33]DoustJL.Plantreproductivestrategiesandresourcealoca
tion[J].TrendsinEcologyandEvolution,1989,4(8):230234
[34]ObesoJR.Thecostsofreproductioninplants[J].NewPhy
tologist,2002,155(3):321348
[35]SugiyamaS,BazzazFA.Sizedependenceofreproductivealo
cation:theinfluenceofresourceavailability,competitionand
geneticidentity[J].FunctionalEcology,1998,12(2):280288
[36]GrimeJP,HodgsonJG,HuntR.Comparativeplanecology:
afunctionalapproachtocommonBritishspecies[M].London:
UnwinHyman,1988
[37]ZhouDW,WangTH,ValentineI.Phenotypicplasticityof
219
!5# nÅZ!:³´µ€gh8SˆghBo¶@A
lifehistorycharactersinresponsetodifferentgerminationtim
ingintwoannualweeds[J].CanadianJournalofBotany,
2005,83(1):2836
[38]WeinigC.Differingselectioninalternativecompetitiveenvi
ronments:Shadeavoidanceresponsesandgerminationtiming
[J].Evolution,2000,54(1):124136

%&( )*+
欍欍欍欍欍欍欍欍欍欍欍欍欍欍欍欍欍欍欍欍欍欍欍欍欍欍欍欍欍欍欍欍欍欍欍欍欍欍欍欍欍欍欍欍欍欍欍欍欍

¦§¨©2016ª《9«(¬­®》

+¬Nñ+w

5ë+¬()°+0Nޘ™]=+¬N+*ƒX¾B¬­€N++–#

҂
ƒ5

„Í|¬

/L_…

ÂÆÂ=w‡+¬N+˜™@ÜBZXW8CDám

ˆZ;k8@kQ


‚A}N+‡ÃXW˜™=ž¥XW˜™G¾

‰ŠìZ•–˜™=ÓAú::i‹

()i‹BU
@g˜™

¾D˒NÞ+

,N+

Nñ+=NŒ+!+°@܂@Nñ8,N´†

Nñ(áX8¿
ö*¥

,NÁÂTY8½YŽ{

,N:X:<

Nñðæ8:û

Nñ:ú8óN‘ .RL


´ñ

N)()8|ü8@kz!

‘³¾D"Ēw“"、"˜™w“"、"és8ÄW"、"˜™”w"!。
•ÆK_G¿ÀN)°˜

–+

:ú=XBÄ­



0—˜:

@N†)‚+쀰•»È

qí@(
+

O,+

£+

FŽ°+

ñX°+!ƒ@@ÜB°•»È™•š>

TG+¬N)@ܛv&B°•#

®1979$›}…Ë̃J‚œcã‰#]㉰•#
3ü,J|¬ã‰()#3ü,J+¬()°+0㉰•#=S4ñÝã‰#11ü,
J
《CAJ-CDªq》ži㉝1ü。AG+¬N+…67š*B#’Š,5|¬+˜Ÿ5#、+¬°
•Ÿ5#

+¬()Ÿ5#
、RCCSE+¬Ÿ5+–#、+¬°+½˜p½…†#=|¬ã‰()


à

+¬Ÿ5#

¡Œ


》、《
¢Np½-pB<#f》、《+˜³7#´‘£¤》、《+¬
°•W˜8½˜p½
》、《
+¬+–#é@¥ôp½
》、《
+¬#|˜p½
》、《
+¬+–#

±¦
¡
)》、《
+¬#ø
》、《
+¬ìø
》、《
+¬:9+˜§p½

=

+¬:9+˜¨

!‹Yp½†Ûü˜§
в
。2008$67E7©Ä1.000}‚,•2011$ªÎB1998Y+¬°•Ÿ5#+é@Õ«G370
Y

Ò+67E7Õ!94Y;2013$•+¬°•#CSCD67E7300«ÕiP+Y6!100Y。ô%


*16UA4¡T,120¬,¬‚sªU@i,”­kô15.00®,|$ƒ90.00®。¬‚ÀŠ™CN15-
1344/S,¬‚¯@?™16-32,|¬1ñ¯°(])–|±™,²‡±#|ÓALT˜[¤ä±。
ñ³
:´
=µR¶· ?ά¸120™;¯˜:010010;
³¹
:0471-4928361(ªº),0471-4926880(` ˜º)
³7È»
:zgcdxb@126.com
319