天山北坡前山带区域中国沙棘造林技术

doi:10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2023.02.014

新疆农业科学 ›› 2023, Vol. 60 ›› Issue (2): 368-377.DOI: 10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2023.02.014

• 园艺特产·植物保护·微生物·土壤肥料·节水灌溉 • 上一篇下一篇

天山北坡前山带区域中国沙棘造林技术

王凯¹(), 程平¹(), 玛纳甫·赛依提², 张森², 安玉光², 李宏³

1.新疆农业大学林学与风景园林学院,乌鲁木齐 830052
2.新疆维吾尔自治区天山东部国有林管理局玛纳斯南山分局, 新疆玛纳斯 832200
3.新疆林业科学院,乌鲁木齐 830092

收稿日期:2022-08-16 出版日期:2023-02-20 发布日期:2023-03-31
通信作者: 程平(1985-),男,安徽怀宁人,副研究员,硕士生导师,研究方向为森林培育,(E-mail)84966324@qq.com
作者简介:王凯(1996-),男,新疆呼图壁人,硕士研究生,研究方向为森林培育,(E-mail)1294837021@qq.com
基金资助:
天然林保护工程财政资金专项“新疆天山北坡前山带植被恢复技术研究与示范”(XJTB2020-03)

Research on Hippophae rhamnoides L. Afforestation Techniques in the Piedmont Zone on the Northern Slope of Tianshan Mountains

WANG Kai¹(), CHENG Ping¹(), Manafu Saiyiti², ZHANG Sen², AN Yuguang², LI Hong³

1. College of Forestry and Landscape Architecture, Xinjiang Agricultural University, Urumqi 830052, China
2. Manas Nanshan Branch of State-owned Forestry Administration Bureau of Tianshan Mountain, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, Manas Xinjiang 832200, China
3. Xinjiang Academy of Forestry, Urumqi 830092, China

Received:2022-08-16 Online:2023-02-20 Published:2023-03-31
Correspondence author: CHENG Ping (1985 -), male, native place: Huaining, Anhui. Associate researcher, Master tutor, research field: Forest cultivation, (E-mail)84966324@qq.com
Supported by:
Special Financial Fund For Natural Forest Protection Project"Research and Demonstration of Vegetation Restoration Technology in the Front Mountain Belt of the North Slope of Tianshan Mountain, Xinjiang"(XJTB2020-03)

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

【目的】 研究影响中国沙棘生长的关键光合指标、生理指标及土壤含水量,并对中国沙棘苗木生长状况进行综合评价,筛选出最优的整地方式和保水措施。【方法】 以天山北坡前山带不同整地方式和保水措施下种植的中国沙棘为研究对象,设置水平沟整地、穴状整地与覆膜、膨润土的不同组合处理,分析不同造林技术对中国沙棘生长指标、光合特性、生理指标的影响。【结果】 (1)水平沟整地的土壤含水量、造林成活率、新梢生长量显著高于穴状整地(P<0.05),覆膜、膨润土的土壤含水量、造林成活率、新梢生长量显著高于对照(P<0.05);(2)影响中国沙棘生长的关键生理指标为可溶性蛋白、超氧化物歧化酶,光合指标为蒸腾速率、气孔导度,土壤含水量指标5月土壤含水量、8月土壤含水量;(3)水平沟整地-覆膜-膨润土处理的评分最高,水平沟-覆膜处理次之;其造林成活率分别为80.63%、72.26%。【结论】 中国沙棘在天山北坡前山带造林的综合配套技术为水平沟整地-覆膜-膨润土综合技术、水平沟整地-覆膜综合技术。

关键词: 中国沙棘; 整地方式; 保水措施; 配套模式

Abstract:

【Objective】 To reveal the key photosynthetic indicators, physiological indicators and soil water content that affect the growth of H.rhamnoides, and comprehensively evaluate the growth status of its seedlings, and screen out the best land preparation methods and water conservation measures. 【Method】 Hippophae rhamnoides planted under different land preparation methods and water conservation measures on the northern slope of Tianshan Mountain were taken as the research object, through different combinations of horizontal ditch site preparation, pit-shaped site preparation, film mulching, and bentonite, the effects of different afforestation techniques on the growth indicators of H.rhamnoides were analyzed. 【Result】 (1) The soil water content, afforestation survival rate, and new growth rate of horizontal furrow site preparation were significantly higher than those of cave-shaped land preparation (P<0.05), and the soil water content, afforestation survival rate and new growth rate of mulch and bentonite were significantly higher compared with control (P<0.05); (2) The key physiological indicators that affected the growth of H.rhamnoides were soluble protein and superoxide dismutase, photosynthetic indicators were transpiration rate, stomatal conductance, and soil water content indicators were May soil water content and August soil water content; (3) The comprehensive evaluation results showed that the horizontal furrow soil preparation-film mulching-bentonite treatment had the highest score, followed by the horizontal furrow-film mulching treatment; their afforestation survival rates were 80.63% and 72.26%, respectively. 【Conclusion】 The comprehensive supporting technologies for H.rhamnoides afforestation in the front mountain belt of the northern slope of Tianshan Mountains are: Horizontal ditch site preparation - film mulching - bentonite, horizontal ditch site preparation - film mulching.

Key words: Hippophae rhamnoides L.; land preparation method; water conservation measures; matching mode

中图分类号:

王凯, 程平, 玛纳甫·赛依提, 张森, 安玉光, 李宏. 天山北坡前山带区域中国沙棘造林技术[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(2): 368-377.

WANG Kai, CHENG Ping, Manafu Saiyiti, ZHANG Sen, AN Yuguang, LI Hong. Research on Hippophae rhamnoides L. Afforestation Techniques in the Piedmont Zone on the Northern Slope of Tianshan Mountains[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 60(2): 368-377.

图/表 8

表1 不同保水处理的中国沙棘生长指标比较

Table 1 Comparison of growth indexes of H.rhamnoides with different water-retaining treatments

整地方式 Land preparation method	处理 Treatment	成活率 Survival rate (%)	新梢生长量 New slightly higher (cm)	新梢径粗 New slightly diameter (mm)	新梢鲜重 New slightly Fresh weight (g)	新梢干重 New slightly dry weight (g)
穴状整地 Pit-shaped site preparation	CK₁	34.73^f	19.58^f	3.4 $3 e f$	7.64^d	4.38^d
	覆膜	48.66^d	27.81^g	3.76^e	18.47^d	12.8 $4 c d$
	膨润土	40.33^e	38.34^e	4.12^d	16.23^d	11.7 $9 c d$
	覆膜-膨润土	56.42^c	53.54^c	5.8 $4 a b$	43.33^c	27.4 $4 b c$
水平沟整地 Horizontal ditch site preparation	CK₂	52.36^c	45.84^d	4.52^d	45.38^c	31.90^b
	覆膜	72.26^b	53.86^c	4.9 $6 c d$	61.13^b	39.52^b
	膨润土	58.66^c	70.72^a	5.5 $4 b c$	85.74^a	68.71^a
	覆膜-膨润土	80.63^a	63.22^b	6.58^a	97.96^a	80.92^a

表1 不同保水处理的中国沙棘生长指标比较

Table 1 Comparison of growth indexes of H.rhamnoides with different water-retaining treatments

整地方式 Land preparation method	处理 Treatment	成活率 Survival rate (%)	新梢生长量 New slightly higher (cm)	新梢径粗 New slightly diameter (mm)	新梢鲜重 New slightly Fresh weight (g)	新梢干重 New slightly dry weight (g)
穴状整地 Pit-shaped site preparation	CK₁	34.73^f	19.58^f	3.4 $3 e f$	7.64^d	4.38^d
	覆膜	48.66^d	27.81^g	3.76^e	18.47^d	12.8 $4 c d$
	膨润土	40.33^e	38.34^e	4.12^d	16.23^d	11.7 $9 c d$
	覆膜-膨润土	56.42^c	53.54^c	5.8 $4 a b$	43.33^c	27.4 $4 b c$
水平沟整地 Horizontal ditch site preparation	CK₂	52.36^c	45.84^d	4.52^d	45.38^c	31.90^b
	覆膜	72.26^b	53.86^c	4.9 $6 c d$	61.13^b	39.52^b
	膨润土	58.66^c	70.72^a	5.5 $4 b c$	85.74^a	68.71^a
	覆膜-膨润土	80.63^a	63.22^b	6.58^a	97.96^a	80.92^a

表2 不同保水处理的中国沙棘生理指标比较

Table 2 Comparison of physiological indexes of H.rhamnoides with different water-retaining treatments

整地方式 Land preparation method	处理 Treatment	可溶性蛋白 Soluble protein (mg/g)	叶绿素含量 Chlorophyll content (mg/g)	丙二醛含量 Malondialdehyde (mg/g)	脯氨酸含量 Proline (mg/g)	超氧化物歧化酶含量 Superoxide dismutase (mg/g)
穴状整地 Pit-shaped site preparation	CK₁	17.87^a	1.12^d	7.01^a	371.36^a	1 022.31^a
	覆膜	12.2 $9 c d$	2.04^c	6.0 $9 b c$	167.0 $5 b c$	954.3 $8 a b$
	膨润土	13.06^c	1.83^c	6.63^b	205.21^b	987.3 $7 a b$
	覆膜-膨润土	9.58^e	3.24^a	5.70^c	159.3 $8 c d$	885.0 $2 b c$
水平沟整地 Horizontal ditch site preparation	CK₂	15.39^b	1.88^c	5.77^c	163.1 $1 b c$	978.3 $2 a b$
	覆膜	10.72^d	2.36^b	5.82^c	145.53^d	829.89^c
	膨润土	12.3 $1 c d$	1.91^c	6.0 $7 b c$	159.3 $8 c d$	956.1 $8 a b$
	覆膜-膨润土	8.4 $9 e f$	3.27^a	5.69^c	126.33^e	879.8 $0 b c$

表2 不同保水处理的中国沙棘生理指标比较

Table 2 Comparison of physiological indexes of H.rhamnoides with different water-retaining treatments

整地方式 Land preparation method	处理 Treatment	可溶性蛋白 Soluble protein (mg/g)	叶绿素含量 Chlorophyll content (mg/g)	丙二醛含量 Malondialdehyde (mg/g)	脯氨酸含量 Proline (mg/g)	超氧化物歧化酶含量 Superoxide dismutase (mg/g)
穴状整地 Pit-shaped site preparation	CK₁	17.87^a	1.12^d	7.01^a	371.36^a	1 022.31^a
	覆膜	12.2 $9 c d$	2.04^c	6.0 $9 b c$	167.0 $5 b c$	954.3 $8 a b$
	膨润土	13.06^c	1.83^c	6.63^b	205.21^b	987.3 $7 a b$
	覆膜-膨润土	9.58^e	3.24^a	5.70^c	159.3 $8 c d$	885.0 $2 b c$
水平沟整地 Horizontal ditch site preparation	CK₂	15.39^b	1.88^c	5.77^c	163.1 $1 b c$	978.3 $2 a b$
	覆膜	10.72^d	2.36^b	5.82^c	145.53^d	829.89^c
	膨润土	12.3 $1 c d$	1.91^c	6.0 $7 b c$	159.3 $8 c d$	956.1 $8 a b$
	覆膜-膨润土	8.4 $9 e f$	3.27^a	5.69^c	126.33^e	879.8 $0 b c$

表3 不同保水处理的中国沙棘光合指标比较

Table 3 Comparison of photosynthetic indexes of H.rhamnoides under different water-retaining treatments

整地方式 Land preparation method	处理 Treatment	净光合速率 Pn (μmol/(m²·s))	气孔导度 Gs (mol/(m²·s))	细胞间CO₂浓度 Ci (μmol/mol)	蒸腾速率 Tr (mmol/(m²·s))
穴状整地 Pit-shaped site preparation	CK₁	9.84^f	0.12^c	207.33^e	2.36^f
	覆膜	11.83^d	0.12^c	251.83^c	2.48^e
	膨润土	10.43^e	0.11^c	232.24^d	2.46^e
	覆膜-膨润土	12.78^c	0.13^c	233.43^d	3.54^c
水平沟整地 Horizontal ditch site preparation	CK₂	12.54^c	0.08^d	195.38^e	3.34^d
	覆膜	13.21^b	0.21^b	266.66^b	4.38^a
	膨润土	13.04^b	0.14^c	188.33^f	3.81^b
	覆膜-膨润土	14.21^a	0.41^a	286.72^a	4.45^a

图1 不同保水处理的中国沙棘月平均土壤含水量变化

Fig.1 Monthly average soil moisture content of H.rhamnoides under different water conservation treatments

图2 不同保水处理的中国沙棘土壤含水量变化

Fig.2 Soil moisture content of H.rhamnoides under different water conservation treatments

表4 影响中国沙棘生长量的多元逐步回归方程

Table 4 Linear regression equation of growth

项目 Item	回归方程 Regression equation	R²	P
生理指标 Physiological indicators	Y₁= -0.959X₁	0.959	0.000
生理指标 Physiological indicators	Y₂= -0.922X₅	0.922	0.001
光合指标 Photosynthetic index	Y₁=0.683X₉+0.358X₇	0.980	0.000
光合指标 Photosynthetic index	Y₂=0.899X₉	0.899	0.002
土壤含水量指标 Moisture content	Y₁=0.936X₁₀	0.936	0.001
土壤含水量指标 Moisture content	Y₂=0.904X₁₃	0.904	0.002

表5 主成分因子负荷系数和权重

Table 5 Principal component factor load coefficients and weights

主要影响因子 Main impact factor	成分 Ingredient	权重 Weights
成活率 Survival rate	0.979	0.130
新梢生长量 New slightly higher	0.936	0.124
可溶性蛋白 Soluole protein	-0.957	0.127
超氧化物歧化酶含量 Auperoxide dismutase	-0.978	0.129
气孔导度 Gs	0.855	0.113
蒸腾速率 Tr	0.952	0.126
5月平均土壤含水量 Average monthly soilmoistare in May	0.937	0.124
8月平均土壤含水量 Average monthly soilmoisture in Augest	0.965	0.128

表6 不同保水处理的中国沙棘综合评价值

Table 6 Comprehensive evaluation value of different water conservation Treatment H.rhamnoides

整地方式 Land preparation method	处理 Treatment	评价指标Evaluating indicator								D	排序 Ran- king
		S₁	S₂	S₃	S₄	S₅	S₆	S₇	S₈
		穴状整地 Pit-shaped site preparation	CK₁	0.000	0.020	0.033	0.023	0.014	0.006			0.037	0.000	0.133	8
覆膜	0.039		0.000	0.075	0.046	0.014	0.087	0.061	0.036	0.359	5
膨润土	0.016		0.064	0.065	0.000	0.010	0.007	0.049	0.026	0.237	6
覆膜-膨润土	0.061		0.082	0.127	0.092	0.017	0.071	0.093	0.072	0.616	3
水平沟整地 Horizontal ditch site preparation	CK₂	0.050	0.045	0.000	0.030	0.000	0.059	0.000	0.018	0.201	7
	覆膜	0.106	0.083	0.097	0.129	0.045	0.122	0.087	0.111	0.780	2
	膨润土	0.068	0.124	0.075	0.044	0.021	0.000	0.086	0.094	0.511	4
	覆膜-膨润土	0.130	0.106	0.112	0.096	0.113	0.126	0.124	0.128	0.934	1

参考文献 34

[1]	程维明, 周成虎, 汤奇成, 等. 天山北麓前山带对平原区水文过程的影响[J]. 地理研究, 2001, 20(4):439-445.
	CHENG Weiming, ZHOU Chenghu, TANG Qicheng, et al. Effect of foothill belt on hydro-process of plain area in the northern slope of Tianshan Mountains[J]. Geographical Research, 2001, 20(4):439-445. DOI
[2]	李艳菊, 丁建丽, 张钧泳, 等. 2001—2015年天山北坡植被覆盖对干旱的响应—基于土地利用/土地覆盖分析[J]. 生态学报, 2019, 39(17):6206-6217.
	LI Yanju, DING Jianli, ZHANG Junyong, et al. Response of vegetation cover to drought in the northern slope of Tianshan Mountains during 2001-2015 based on the land-use and land-cover change[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2019, 39(17):6206-6217.
[3]	陈曦, 罗格平, 夏军, 等. 新疆天山北坡气候变化的生态响应研究[J]. 中国科学(D辑:地球科学), 2004, 34(12):1166-1175.
	CHEN Xi, LUO Geping, XIA Jun, et al. Ecological response to the climate change on the northern slope of Tianshan Mountains in Xinjiang[J]. Science in China (Series D), 2004, 34(12): 1166-1175.
[4]	谢嗣荣, 吴帅, 蔡金峰, 等. 内蒙古不同种群沙棘种子性状变异及其稳定性分析[J]. 林业科技开发, 2015, 29(6):55-58.
	XIE Sirong, WU Shuai, CAI Jinfeng, et al. The variation and stability of seed characters among different places of origin of the Hippophae rhamnoides in Inner Mongolia[J]. China Forestry Science and Technology, 2015, 29(6):55-58.
[5]	徐玉霞, 李红, 高海娟, 等. 沙棘的价值与开发利用[J]. 现代园艺, 2014,(13):14-15.
	XUYuxia, LI Hong, GAO Haijuan, et al. The value and development of Hippophae rhamnoides L.[J]. Xiandai Horticulture, 2014(13):14-15.
[6]	Staffan C, Andersson, et al. Carotenoids in seabuckthorn (Hippophae rhamnoides L.) berries during ripening and use of pheophytinaas a maturity marker[J]. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 2009, 57(1):250-258.. DOI PMID
[7]	王月海. 山东干旱瘠薄山地造林新技术试验[J]. 中国水土保持科学, 2007, 5(2):60-64,80.
	WANG Yuehai. New techniques of afforestation on the dry and barren land in the mountainous region of Shandong Province[J]. Science of Soil and Water Conservation, 2007, 5(2):60-64,80.
[8]	胡兴宜, 刘学全, 蔡晟, 等. 覆膜处理对林地土壤特性及刺槐生长的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2004, 28(6):76-78.
	HU Xingyi, LIU Xuequan, CAI Sheng, et al. Effects of plastic mulching on soil characteristics and growth of Robinia pseuduacacia[J]. Journal of Nanjing Forestry University (Natural Science Ed.), 2004, 28(6):76-78.
[9]	贾殿坤. 辽西地区杨树抗旱造林技术[J]. 防护林科技, 2019,(10):92-93.
	JIA Diankun. Drought-resistant afforestation techniques of Populus L.in Western Liaoning Province, China[J]. Protection Forest Science and Technology, 2019,(10):92-93.
[10]	陈海玲, 徐军, 刘芳, 等. 不同品种沙棘光合生理特性研究[J]. 沈阳农业大学学报, 2015, 46(1):110-113.
	CHEN Hailing, XU Jun, LIU Fang, et al. Photosynthetic and physiological characteristics of sea buckthorn cultivars[J]. Journal of Shenyang Agricultural University (Social Science Ed.), 2015, 46(1):110-113.
[11]	陈海玲, 刘芳, 罗红梅, 等. 乌兰布和沙区不同沙棘品种叶片及果实特性研究[J]. 林业资源管理, 2014,(3):122-125.
	CHENG Hailing, LIU Fang, LUO Hongmei, et al. Study on characteristics of leaf and berry of different cultivars of sea buckthorn in Ulan Buh Desert[J]. Forest Resources Management, 2014,(3):122-125.
[12]	GB/T 15776-2016. 造林技术规程[S].
	GB/T 15776-2016. Afforestation technical regulations[S].
[13]	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, 2001:134-170.
	LI Hesheng. Principles and techniques of plant physiological and biochemical experiments[M]. Beijing: Higher Education Press, 2001: 134-170.
[14]	郝再彬, 苍晶, 徐仲. 植物生理实验[M]. 哈尔滨: 哈尔滨出版社, 2004.
	HAO Zaibin, CANG Jing, XU Zhong. Plant Physiology Experiment[M]. Harbin: Harbin Press, 2004.
[15]	赵世杰, 史国安, 董新纯. 植物生理实验指导[M]. 北京: 中国农业科学技术出版社, 2002.
	ZHAO Shijie, SHI Guoan, DONG Xinchun. Experimental Guidance of Plant Physiology[M]. Beijing: China Agricultural Science and Technology Press, 2002.
[16]	桃联安, 杨李和, 经艳芬, 等. 云南割手密血缘F₂代抗旱性隶属函数法综合评价[J]. 西南农业学报, 2011, 24(5):1676-1680.
	TAO Lianan, YANG Lihe, JING Yanfen, et al. Comprehensive evaluation of drought resistance for descendant F₂ of Saccharumspotaneum in Yunnan by subjection function[J]. Southwest China Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2011, 24(5):1676-1680.
[17]	陶爽. 羊草-丛枝菌根共生体对盐、旱逆境交叉胁迫的生理响应[D]. 哈尔滨: 东北林业大学硕士学位论文, 2018.
	TAO Shuang. Physiological Responses of Leymuschinensisarbuscularmycorrhizalsymbionts to salt and drought cross stress[D]. Harbin: Northeast Forestry University, 2018.
[18]	李虹辰, 赵西宁, 高晓东, 等. 鱼鳞坑与覆盖组合措施对陕北旱作枣园土壤水分的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2014, 25(8):2297-2303. PMID
	LI Hongchen, ZHAO Xining, GAO Xiaodong, et al. Effects of scale-like pit and mulching measures on soil moisture of dryland jujube orchard in North Shaanxi Province, China[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2014, 25(8):2297-2303. PMID
[19]	苏凤梅, 贾志峰, 王智. 地布-地膜覆盖对渭北旱塬区土壤水分的影响[J]. 水土保持通报, 2018, 38(5):97-102.
	SU Fengmei, JIA Zhifeng, WANG Zhi. Effects of geotextile plus plastic film mulching on soil moisture in Weibei dryland[J]. Bulletin of Soil and Water Conservation, 2018, 38(5):97-102.
[20]	苟斌. 渭北黄土高原抗旱造林技术研究[D]. 杨凌: 西北农林科技大学硕士学位论文, 2008.
	GOU Bin. Research on drought resistant afforestation techniques on Weibeiloess plateau[D]. Yangling: Northwest A&F University, 2008.
[21]	程积民, 万惠娥, 雍绍萍, 等. 黄土丘陵区沙棘灌木林地土壤水分动态研究[J]. 西北植物学报, 2003, 23(8):1352-1356.
	CHENG Jimin, WAN Huie, YONG Shaoping, et al. Soil water dynamic of Hippophae rhamnoides in loess hilly region[J]. Acta Botanica Boreali-Occidentalia Sinica, 2003, 23(8):1352-1356.
[22]	韩志伟. 西宁地区旱地造林节水措施对土壤含水量及苗木生长的影响[D]. 西宁: 青海大学硕士学位论文, 2020.
	HAN Zhiwei. Effects of afforestation and water-saving measures on soil moisture content and seedling growth in Xining area[D]. Xining: Qinghai University, 2020.
[23]	张秋芳, 吕春平, 贝昭贤, 等. 野外模拟增温对亚热带杉木叶片膜脂过氧化及保护酶活性的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2016, 40(12):1230-1237. DOI
	ZHANG Qiufang, L Chunping, BEI Zhaoxian, et al. Effects of simulated warming outdoor on lipid peroxidation and protective enzyme activities in the subtropical species Cunninghamia lanceolate[J]. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 2016, 40(12):1230-1237. DOI
[24]	Wang K, Zhang X, Ervin E. Antioxidative responses in roots and shoots of creeping bent grass under high temperature: Effects of Nitrogen and Cytokinin[J]. Journal of Plant Physiology, 2012, 169(5):492-500. DOI URL
[25]	齐容镰, 莎仁图雅, 李钢铁, 等. 干旱胁迫对小胡杨2号幼苗光合及生理特征的影响[J]. 干旱区研究, 2020, 37(6):1552-1561.
	QI Ronglian, Sharentuya, LI Gangtie, et al. Effects of drought stress on photosynthesis and physiological characteristics of Populussimonii×P.euphratica Xiaohuyang 2[J]. Arid Zone Research, 2020, 37(6):1552-1561.
[26]	张维, 贺亚玲, 吴泽昂, 等. 模拟增温对梭梭光合生理生态特征的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2017, 25(2):296-302. DOI
	ZHANG Wei, HE Yaling, WU Zeang, et al. Effect of simulated temperature enhancement on photosynthetic physiological and ecological characteristics of Haloxylon ammodendron[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2017, 25(2):296-302.
[27]	吴永波, 叶波. 高温干旱复合胁迫对构树幼苗抗氧化酶活性和活性氧代谢的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2016, 36(2):403-410.
	WU Yongbo, YE Bo. Effects of combined elevated temperature and drought stress on anti-oxidative enzyme activities and reactive oxygen species metabolism of Broussonetia papyrifera seedlings[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2016, 36(2):403-410.
[28]	郭盈添, 范琨, 白果, 等. 金露梅幼苗对高温胁迫的生理生化响应[J]. 西北植物学报, 2014, 34(9):1815-1820.
	GUO Yingtian, FAN Kun, BAI Guo, et al. Physiological-biochemical response of Potentill afruticosa to high temperature stress[J]. Acta Botanica Boreali-Occidentalia Sinica, 2014, 34(9):1815-1820.
[29]	左继林, 龚春, 黄建建, 等. 夏旱期不同管理措施下高产油茶的光合特性[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2013, 37(2):33-38.
	ZUO Jilin, GONG Chun, HUANG Jianjian, et al. Photosynthetic characteristics of high yield Camellia oleifera during summer drought period under different treatment[J]. Journal of Nanjing Forestry University (Natural Science Ed.), 2014, 37(2):1815-1820.
[30]	高国日, 刘娟娟, 陈道国, 等. 土壤干旱对2个沙棘品种叶片水势和光合特性的影响[J]. 浙江农林大学学报, 2017, 34(6):999-1007.
	GAO Guori, LIU Juanjuan, CHEN Daoguo, et al. Leaf water potential and photosynthetic characteristics of two Hippophae rhamnoides cultivars with soil drought[J]. Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2017, 34(6):999-1007.
[31]	苏嫄, 焦菊英, 马祥华. 黄土丘陵沟壑区主要群落地上生物量季节变化及其与土壤水分的关系[J]. 水土保持研究, 2012, 19(6):7-12.
	SU Yuan, JIAO Juying, MA Xianghua. Seasonal variation of aboveground biomass of main plant communities and its relationship with soil moisture in the hill-gully loess plateau[J]. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 2012, 19(6):7-12.
[32]	王韡烨. 黑龙江省西部低山丘陵区集水抗旱造林技术研究[D]. 哈尔滨: 东北林业大学博士学位论文, 2014.
	WANG Weiye. Research on drought-resistant forestation technology in West Heilongjiang Province hilly catchment area[D]. Harbin: Northeast Forestry University, 2014.
[33]	袁信昌, 张晓勉, 贺位忠, 等. 3个树种在海岛困难立地造林试验[J]. 浙江林业科技, 2015, 35(1):68-71.
	YUAN Xinchang, ZHANG Xiaomian, HE Weizhong, et al. Experiment on afforestation of three tree species on islands of Zhoushan[J]. Journal of Zhejiang Forestry Science and Technology, 2015, 35(1):68-71.
[34]	李丽锋, 刘明国. 基于灰色关联分析的辽西地区集水整地方式评价[J]. 福建林业科技, 2006, 33(2):67-69,83.
	LI Lifeng, LIU Mingguo. Estimation on means of site preparation for accumulating water based on gray relative comprehensive evaluation model[J]. Journal of Fujian Forestry Science and Technology, 2006, 33(2):67-69,83.

天山北坡前山带区域中国沙棘造林技术

Research on Hippophae rhamnoides L. Afforestation Techniques in the Piedmont Zone on the Northern Slope of Tianshan Mountains

在线阅读

PDF下载

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 8

参考文献 34

相关文章 1

编辑推荐

Metrics