西藏东达山3种嵩草属植物叶片解剖结构的比较
|
摘要
为研究3种嵩草属植物叶片形态解剖特征,采用石蜡切片法,分析叶片表皮、叶肉、叶脉等解剖结构的差异,并比较分析叶片不同部位的解剖结构特征。结果表明:3种嵩属草植物叶表皮近、远轴面均由1层表皮细胞组成,线叶嵩草表皮细胞最大,其次为高山嵩草,大花嵩草最小。大花嵩草近轴面主脉凹陷处存在泡状细胞,高山嵩草和线叶嵩草近轴面无泡状细胞。3种嵩草叶表皮均具有较厚的角质层,近轴面角质层均厚于远轴面,线叶嵩草角质层最厚,其次是高山嵩草,大花嵩草最薄。叶肉没有栅栏组织与海绵组织的分化,但有发达的气腔。机械组织和维管束占叶片横切面面积的比例均较小,线叶嵩草最大,高山嵩草次之,大花嵩草最小。线叶嵩草维管束鞘总面积最大,高山嵩草次之,大花嵩草最小。3种嵩草属植物叶片不同部位解剖结构均存在差异,其中高山嵩草在叶片不同部位中存在极显著差异的结构最多,线叶嵩草次之,大花嵩草最少。可见,3种嵩草植物叶片解剖结构差异显著,可以作为分类学的重要依据;均具有典型的旱生植物特点,线叶嵩草和高山嵩草有较厚的角质层,而大花嵩草通过较小的表皮细胞和泡状细胞响应生境干旱化。
In order to study the morphological and anatomical features of the leaves of 3 species of Kobresia,paraffin sectioning was used to analyze the differences in anatomical structures such as leaf epidermis, mesophyll and veins, and to analyze the anatomical features of different parts of the leaves. The results show that the near and far axis of the leaf epidermis of 3 species of Kobresia are composed of 1 layer of epidermal cells. The epidermal cells of K. capillifolia are the largest, followed by K. pygmaea, and the smallest of K. macrantha. There are vesicular cells in the main vein depression of K. macrantha, and the sacral cells of the subalpine surface of K.pygmaea. Three species of Kobresia leaves have thicker stratum corneum, the paraxial stratum corneum is thicker than the abaxial surface, and the K. capillifolia is the thickest, followed by K. pygmaea and the thinnest of K.macrantha. The mesophyll has no differentiation of palisade tissue and sponge tissue, but has a developed air cavity. The ratio of mechanical tissue and vascular bundles to the cross-sectional area of the leaves is small, and K.capillifolia is the largest, the K. pygmaea is the second, and K. macrantha is the smallest. The total area of vascular bundles of K. capillifolia is the largest, followed by K. pygmaea, and the smallest of K. macrantha. There are differences in the anatomical structures of different parts of the leaves of 3 species of Kobresia. Among them, K.pygmaea has the most significant difference in the different parts of the leaves, followed by K. capillifolia, and the least is K. macrantha. It can be seen that the anatomical structures of the leaves of the three species of Kobresia are significantly different and can be used as an important basis for taxonomy. They all have typical characteristics of xerophytes. K. capillifolia and K. pygmaea have thicker stratum corneum, while K. macrantha responds to habitat aridification through smaller epidermal cells and vesicular cells.
In order to study the morphological and anatomical features of the leaves of 3 species of Kobresia,paraffin sectioning was used to analyze the differences in anatomical structures such as leaf epidermis, mesophyll and veins, and to analyze the anatomical features of different parts of the leaves. The results show that the near and far axis of the leaf epidermis of 3 species of Kobresia are composed of 1 layer of epidermal cells. The epidermal cells of K. capillifolia are the largest, followed by K. pygmaea, and the smallest of K. macrantha. There are vesicular cells in the main vein depression of K. macrantha, and the sacral cells of the subalpine surface of K.pygmaea. Three species of Kobresia leaves have thicker stratum corneum, the paraxial stratum corneum is thicker than the abaxial surface, and the K. capillifolia is the thickest, followed by K. pygmaea and the thinnest of K.macrantha. The mesophyll has no differentiation of palisade tissue and sponge tissue, but has a developed air cavity. The ratio of mechanical tissue and vascular bundles to the cross-sectional area of the leaves is small, and K.capillifolia is the largest, the K. pygmaea is the second, and K. macrantha is the smallest. The total area of vascular bundles of K. capillifolia is the largest, followed by K. pygmaea, and the smallest of K. macrantha. There are differences in the anatomical structures of different parts of the leaves of 3 species of Kobresia. Among them, K.pygmaea has the most significant difference in the different parts of the leaves, followed by K. capillifolia, and the least is K. macrantha. It can be seen that the anatomical structures of the leaves of the three species of Kobresia are significantly different and can be used as an important basis for taxonomy. They all have typical characteristics of xerophytes. K. capillifolia and K. pygmaea have thicker stratum corneum, while K. macrantha responds to habitat aridification through smaller epidermal cells and vesicular cells.
引文
[1]李林,王振宇,徐维新,等.青藏高原典型高寒草甸生态系统对气候冻土环境变化的响应[J].青海气象,2010(1):15-22.
[2]李巧峡,赵庆芳,马世荣,等.嵩草属植物研究进展[J].西北师范大学学报(自然科学版),2006,42(6):78-82.
[3]王勋陵,马骥.从旱生植物叶结构探讨其生态适应的多样性[J].生态学报,1999,19(6):787-792.
[4]张国云,裴国亮,姬燕.利用扫描电镜研究嵩草属牧草种子形态和解剖学特征[J].分析仪器,2011(1):69-73.
[5]张国云,何晓华,郭付振.扫描电镜在嵩草种子结构及发芽研究中的应用[J].安徽农业科学,2014,42(28):9670-9673.
[6]李巧峡.青藏高原东部嵩草属五种植物的遗传多样性研究[D].兰州:西北师范大学,2005
[7]赵庆芳.青藏高原东部嵩草属植物遗传多样性研究[D].兰州:兰州大学,2006
[8]卢慧,丛静,刘晓,等.三江源区高寒草甸植物多样性的海拔分布格局[J].草业学报,2015,24(7):197-204.
[9]张大才,李双智,张锐.高寒草甸湿润与干旱化生境中植物多样性的海拔分布格局[J].草业科学,2018,35(5):1013-1021.
[10]卓玉璞.不同利用方式对山地草甸线叶嵩草型草地植物群落特征的影响[J].中国草食动物,2011,31(6):44-47.
[11]李英年,赵亮,徐世晓,等.祁连山海北高寒湿地植物群落结构及生态特征[J].冰川冻土,2006,28(1):76-84.
[12]李芳兰,包维楷.植物叶片形态解剖结构对环境变化的响应与适应[J].植物学通报,2005,40(S1):118-127.
[13]李全发,王宝娟,安丽华,等.青藏高原草地植物叶解剖特征[J].生态学报,2013,33(7):2062-2070.
[14]张婧雯.2种园林植物树冠不同部位叶片结构的变化[J].黑龙江科学,2017,8(2):82-83.
[15]朱玉怀,张大才,李双智.西藏东达山3种嵩草属植物气孔特征沿海拔的变化[J].西北植物学报,2017,37(4):728-736.
[16]张大才,朱玉怀,李双智.东达山高寒草甸8种植物气孔特征沿土壤水分梯度的变化[J].草业学报,2018,27(7):36-46.
[17]沈渭寿,刘波,颜长珍,等.青藏高原典型区生态状况时空变化及气候变化响应研究[M].北京:中国环境出版社,2013.
[18]何艳艳.石蜡制片的方法、技巧与注意事项[J].农业研究与应用,2014(4):54-57.
[19]曲波,朱明星,陈旭辉,等.22种禾本科植物叶片泡状细胞形态特征的初步研究[J].西北植物学报,2010,30(8):1595-1601.
[20]崔艳.青藏高原东部嵩草属植物的生态解剖学研究[D].兰州:西北师范大学,2006
[21]山宝琴,贺学礼.毛乌素沙地12种蒿属植物叶的解剖特征[J].西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版),2007,35(6):211-217.
[22]蒲文彩,许云蕾,余志祥,等.元江干热河谷典型耐旱植物叶片解剖结构特征及抗旱性分析[J].西南林业大学学报(自然科学),2019,39(1):58-68.
[23]韩刚,李少雄,徐鹏,等.6种灌木叶片解剖结构的抗旱性分析[J].西北林学院学报,2006,21(4):43-46.
[24]赵祥,董宽虎,张垚,等.不同居群达乌里胡枝子茎解剖结构与其抗旱性的关系[J].草地学报,2010,18(5):615-621.
[25]薛智德,韩蕊莲,侯庆春,等.延安地区5种灌木叶旱性结构的解剖研究[J].西北植物学报,2004,24(7):1200-1206.
[26]刘红茹,冯永忠,王得祥,等.延安城区10种阔叶园林植物叶片结构及其抗旱性评价[J].西北植物学报,2012,32(10):2053-2060.
[27]朱栗琼,徐艳霞,招礼军,等.喀斯特地区莎叶兰的解剖构造及其环境适应性[J].广西植物,2016,36(10):1179-1185.
[28]许云蕾,蒲文彩,余志祥,等.金沙江干热河谷同一群落不同生活型植物叶片解剖结构差异分析[J].西南林业大学学报(自然科学),2018,38(6):74-82.
[29]朱栗琼,李吉跃,招礼军.六种阔叶树叶片解剖结构特征及其耐旱性比较[J].广西植物,2007,27(3):431-434.
[30]徐扬,陈小红,赵安玖.川西高原4种苹果属植物叶片解剖结构与其抗旱性分析[J].西北植物学报,2015,35(11):2227-2234.
[31]王耀芝,王勋陵,李蔚.荒漠化草原常见植物叶内部结构的观察[J].兰州大学学报,1983,19(3):87-96.
[32]孟庆杰,王光全,董绍锋,等.桃叶片组织结构与其抗旱性关系的研究[J].西北林学院学报,2005,20(1):65-67.
[33]康萨如拉,牛建明,张庆,等.短花针茅叶片解剖结构及与气候因子的关系[J].草业学报,2013,22(1):77-86.
[34]郭改改,封斌,麻保林,等.不同区域长柄扁桃叶片解剖结构及其抗旱性分析[J].西北植物学报,2013,33(4):720-728.
[35]潘昕,邱权,李吉跃,等.基于叶片解剖结构对青藏高原25种灌木的抗旱性评价[J].华南农业大学学报,2015,36(2):61-68.
[36]郭敏.3种莎草科植物叶片形态解剖学及发育过程中细胞程序性死亡现象[D].兰州:甘肃农业大学,2006
[37]肖冰雪,杨满业,陈琴,等.川西北高寒草地5种牧草叶片解剖结构与抗旱性关系研究[J].草业与畜牧,2013(4):1-5.
[38]强科斌,郭敏,张晓庆,等.圆囊苔草叶片的形态解剖学研究[J].草业学报,2007,16(2):76-83.
[39]Poole I,Weyers J D B,Lawson T,et al.Variations in stomatal density and index:implications for palaeoclimatic reconstructions[J].Plant,Cell and Environment,1996,19(6):705-712.
[40]Salisbury E J.On the causes and ecological significance of stomatal frequency,with special reference to the wood land flora[J].Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London,1927,21(6):1-65.
[41]潘泠,樊瑞萍,周琴,等.高羊茅越冬期叶片不同部位生理生化特性研究[J].草业科学,2010,27(7):5-9.
[2]李巧峡,赵庆芳,马世荣,等.嵩草属植物研究进展[J].西北师范大学学报(自然科学版),2006,42(6):78-82.
[3]王勋陵,马骥.从旱生植物叶结构探讨其生态适应的多样性[J].生态学报,1999,19(6):787-792.
[4]张国云,裴国亮,姬燕.利用扫描电镜研究嵩草属牧草种子形态和解剖学特征[J].分析仪器,2011(1):69-73.
[5]张国云,何晓华,郭付振.扫描电镜在嵩草种子结构及发芽研究中的应用[J].安徽农业科学,2014,42(28):9670-9673.
[6]李巧峡.青藏高原东部嵩草属五种植物的遗传多样性研究[D].兰州:西北师范大学,2005
[7]赵庆芳.青藏高原东部嵩草属植物遗传多样性研究[D].兰州:兰州大学,2006
[8]卢慧,丛静,刘晓,等.三江源区高寒草甸植物多样性的海拔分布格局[J].草业学报,2015,24(7):197-204.
[9]张大才,李双智,张锐.高寒草甸湿润与干旱化生境中植物多样性的海拔分布格局[J].草业科学,2018,35(5):1013-1021.
[10]卓玉璞.不同利用方式对山地草甸线叶嵩草型草地植物群落特征的影响[J].中国草食动物,2011,31(6):44-47.
[11]李英年,赵亮,徐世晓,等.祁连山海北高寒湿地植物群落结构及生态特征[J].冰川冻土,2006,28(1):76-84.
[12]李芳兰,包维楷.植物叶片形态解剖结构对环境变化的响应与适应[J].植物学通报,2005,40(S1):118-127.
[13]李全发,王宝娟,安丽华,等.青藏高原草地植物叶解剖特征[J].生态学报,2013,33(7):2062-2070.
[14]张婧雯.2种园林植物树冠不同部位叶片结构的变化[J].黑龙江科学,2017,8(2):82-83.
[15]朱玉怀,张大才,李双智.西藏东达山3种嵩草属植物气孔特征沿海拔的变化[J].西北植物学报,2017,37(4):728-736.
[16]张大才,朱玉怀,李双智.东达山高寒草甸8种植物气孔特征沿土壤水分梯度的变化[J].草业学报,2018,27(7):36-46.
[17]沈渭寿,刘波,颜长珍,等.青藏高原典型区生态状况时空变化及气候变化响应研究[M].北京:中国环境出版社,2013.
[18]何艳艳.石蜡制片的方法、技巧与注意事项[J].农业研究与应用,2014(4):54-57.
[19]曲波,朱明星,陈旭辉,等.22种禾本科植物叶片泡状细胞形态特征的初步研究[J].西北植物学报,2010,30(8):1595-1601.
[20]崔艳.青藏高原东部嵩草属植物的生态解剖学研究[D].兰州:西北师范大学,2006
[21]山宝琴,贺学礼.毛乌素沙地12种蒿属植物叶的解剖特征[J].西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版),2007,35(6):211-217.
[22]蒲文彩,许云蕾,余志祥,等.元江干热河谷典型耐旱植物叶片解剖结构特征及抗旱性分析[J].西南林业大学学报(自然科学),2019,39(1):58-68.
[23]韩刚,李少雄,徐鹏,等.6种灌木叶片解剖结构的抗旱性分析[J].西北林学院学报,2006,21(4):43-46.
[24]赵祥,董宽虎,张垚,等.不同居群达乌里胡枝子茎解剖结构与其抗旱性的关系[J].草地学报,2010,18(5):615-621.
[25]薛智德,韩蕊莲,侯庆春,等.延安地区5种灌木叶旱性结构的解剖研究[J].西北植物学报,2004,24(7):1200-1206.
[26]刘红茹,冯永忠,王得祥,等.延安城区10种阔叶园林植物叶片结构及其抗旱性评价[J].西北植物学报,2012,32(10):2053-2060.
[27]朱栗琼,徐艳霞,招礼军,等.喀斯特地区莎叶兰的解剖构造及其环境适应性[J].广西植物,2016,36(10):1179-1185.
[28]许云蕾,蒲文彩,余志祥,等.金沙江干热河谷同一群落不同生活型植物叶片解剖结构差异分析[J].西南林业大学学报(自然科学),2018,38(6):74-82.
[29]朱栗琼,李吉跃,招礼军.六种阔叶树叶片解剖结构特征及其耐旱性比较[J].广西植物,2007,27(3):431-434.
[30]徐扬,陈小红,赵安玖.川西高原4种苹果属植物叶片解剖结构与其抗旱性分析[J].西北植物学报,2015,35(11):2227-2234.
[31]王耀芝,王勋陵,李蔚.荒漠化草原常见植物叶内部结构的观察[J].兰州大学学报,1983,19(3):87-96.
[32]孟庆杰,王光全,董绍锋,等.桃叶片组织结构与其抗旱性关系的研究[J].西北林学院学报,2005,20(1):65-67.
[33]康萨如拉,牛建明,张庆,等.短花针茅叶片解剖结构及与气候因子的关系[J].草业学报,2013,22(1):77-86.
[34]郭改改,封斌,麻保林,等.不同区域长柄扁桃叶片解剖结构及其抗旱性分析[J].西北植物学报,2013,33(4):720-728.
[35]潘昕,邱权,李吉跃,等.基于叶片解剖结构对青藏高原25种灌木的抗旱性评价[J].华南农业大学学报,2015,36(2):61-68.
[36]郭敏.3种莎草科植物叶片形态解剖学及发育过程中细胞程序性死亡现象[D].兰州:甘肃农业大学,2006
[37]肖冰雪,杨满业,陈琴,等.川西北高寒草地5种牧草叶片解剖结构与抗旱性关系研究[J].草业与畜牧,2013(4):1-5.
[38]强科斌,郭敏,张晓庆,等.圆囊苔草叶片的形态解剖学研究[J].草业学报,2007,16(2):76-83.
[39]Poole I,Weyers J D B,Lawson T,et al.Variations in stomatal density and index:implications for palaeoclimatic reconstructions[J].Plant,Cell and Environment,1996,19(6):705-712.
[40]Salisbury E J.On the causes and ecological significance of stomatal frequency,with special reference to the wood land flora[J].Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London,1927,21(6):1-65.
[41]潘泠,樊瑞萍,周琴,等.高羊茅越冬期叶片不同部位生理生化特性研究[J].草业科学,2010,27(7):5-9.