4.2 Article

Growth and physiological responses of saplings of two mangrove species to intertidal elevation

期刊

MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES
卷 482, 期 -, 页码 107-118

出版社

INTER-RESEARCH
DOI: 10.3354/meps10274

关键词

Mangrove; Avicennia marina; Kandelia obovata; Sapling; Elevation; Growth; Physiology

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41076049, 41276077]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Differences in growth and physiological characteristics of saplings of Avicennia marina and Kandelia obovata were compared among 3 intertidal elevations. Growth performance of A. marina generally followed the order of the middle > lower > upper elevation. At the middle elevation, A. marina had maximum values of tree height, branch number, crown length and diameter, shoot biomass and shoot to root biomass ratio (S:R). Differently, K. obovata exhibited best growth at the upper elevation, followed by the middle and lower elevation. Except for shoot biomass and S: R, all growth parameters of K. obovata showed a tendency to decline continuously with decreasing elevation. These different responses between the 2 species indicated that A. marina is more tolerant to low elevation than K. obovata. Decreasing elevation did not compromise gas exchange of A. marina leaves, while net photosynthetic rate, transpiration rate, stomatal conductance and intercellular CO2 concentration of K. obovata leaves declined sharply as the elevation decreased. Leaf chlorophyll (chl) a:b ratio and contents of chl a, total chl and total carotenoid showed no significant differences among elevations for both species. With decreasing elevation, activities of superoxide dismutase and peroxidase increased significantly for both species, while significant increase in malonaldehyde contents was only recorded for K. obovata. With decreasing elevation, proline accumulation in leaves was accelerated for A. marina but not for K. obovata. These physiological responses also confirmed that A. marina is more tolerant to low intertidal elevation than K. obovata.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据