欢迎访问《生态学杂志》官方网站,今天是 分享到:

生态学杂志 ›› 2010, Vol. 29 ›› Issue (11): 2139-2145.

• 研究报告 • 上一篇    下一篇

采笋对大熊猫主食竹八月竹竹笋生长的影响

刘香东1,黄荣澄1,冉江洪1**,李 波1,汤开成2   

  1. 1四川大学生命科学学院生物资源与生态环境教育部重点实验室,成都;2四川瓦屋山自然保护区管理处,四川 洪雅 620360
  • 出版日期:2010-11-08 发布日期:2010-11-08

Effects of bamboo shoot-collecting on the shoot growth of giant panda’s diet bamboo Chimonobambusa szechuanensis.

LIU Xiang-dong1, HUANG Rong-cheng1, RAN Jiang-hong1, LI Bo1, TANG Kai-cheng2   

  1. 1Key Laboratory of Bio-Resources and Eco-Environment of Ministry Education, College of Life Science, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610064, China|2Management Office of Wawushan Nature Reserve, Hongya 620360, Sichuan, China
  • Online:2010-11-08 Published:2010-11-08

摘要: 采笋是大熊猫栖息地内一种持续的人类干扰活动。为了评估采笋对大熊猫主食竹竹笋生长发育的影响,2009年7—11月,在四川省洪雅县瓦屋山镇设置实验样方,对比研究了早期采笋、中期采笋、晚期采笋、一直采笋和不采笋5种采笋方式对大熊猫主食竹八月竹竹笋生长和发育的影响。结果表明:1)早期采笋、中期采笋和一直采笋样方的发笋量显著高于不采笋样方(P<0.05),其发笋量分别是不采笋的1.53倍,1.57倍和1.62倍;晚期采笋样方发笋量与不采笋样方差异不显著(P>0.05)。2)早期采笋使八月竹在发笋早期和发笋中期的发笋量增加,中期采笋仅使八月竹在发笋中期的发笋量增加,而一直采笋使八月竹在整个发笋期的各个阶段的发笋量均显著增加(P<0.05)。3)一直采笋样方的幼竹数量、株高均显著低于其他采笋样方,其基径只显著低于不采笋样方(P<0.05);早期、中期、晚期采笋和不采笋样方相互间仅幼竹株高差异显著(P<0.05)。4)早期、中期和晚期采笋与不采笋样方的发笋总量、退笋总量和采笋总量相互之间均呈显著正相关(P<0.05)。建议仅在八月竹发笋中期采笋,同时政府应加大对大熊猫栖息地周边社区经济发展的引导和扶持。  

关键词: 沙地云杉, 生态型, 干旱胁迫, 生理生态响应

Abstract: Bamboo shoot-collecting is a lasting human disturbance activity in giant panda’s habitat. To estimate how the behavior of bamboo shoot-collecting affects the shoot growth of giant panda’s diet bamboo, a field experiment was conducted to study the shoot growth of Chimonobambusa szechuanensis affected by the shoot-collecting at different time from July to November, 2009 at Wawushan Town, Hongya County of Sichuan Province. Five different ways of shoot-collecting were set up during shooting period: A) early period (days 1-15) shoot-collecting, B) mid-period (days 16-30) shoot-collecting, C) late period (days 31-45) shoot-collecting, D) continual (days 1-45) shoot-collecting, and E) no shoot-collecting. The total amount of bamboo shoots in treatments A, B, and D was 1.53, 1.57, and 1.62 times of that in treatment E, respectively, but no significant difference was observed in the bamboo shoot amount between treatments C and E. Treatment A increased the amount of budding shoot in the early and mid-period. Treatment B only increased the amount of budding shoot in the mid-period, while treatment D increased this amount all the periods (P<0.05). There was significant difference in the stem height of young bamboo between treatments A, B, C, and E respectively (P<0.05). The amount and stem height of young bamboo in treatment D were significantly lower than those in other treatments, and the basal diameter of young bamboo in treatment D was only lower than that in treatment E (P<0.05). There were positive correlations between the amounts of shooting, withering, and collecting in all treatments except D (P<0.05). It was suggested that the mid-period of shooting was the optimal time for bamboo shoot-collecting, and the local government should pay more efforts to guide and support the economic development of the surrounding communities of giant panda’s habitats.

Key words: Picea mongolica, Ecotype, Drought stress, Eco-physiological response