江苏省8个沿海造林树种的耐盐性评价研究

郑旭; 赵文静; 刘兴满; 张康; 卞建; 闫红民; 王晓晓; 唐罗忠

doi:10.12153/j.issn.1674-991X.20230061

江苏省8个沿海造林树种的耐盐性评价研究

doi: 10.12153/j.issn.1674-991X.20230061

郑旭^1,,
赵文静¹,
刘兴满¹,
张康²,
卞建³,
闫红民⁴,
王晓晓¹,
唐罗忠^2, ,

1.
连云港市农业科学院
2.
南京林业大学林学院, 南方现代林业协同创新中心
3.
江苏裕丰旅游开发有限公司
4.
江苏方洋集团有限公司

基金项目: 江苏省林业科技创新与推广项目（LYKJ[2021]30）；中央财政林业科技推广示范资金（苏[2021]TG12）；江苏省苏北专项（SZ-LYG202142）；连云港市财政局专项资金（QNJJ2105）

详细信息

作者简介:
郑旭（1994—），男，助理研究员，硕士，主要从事耐盐树种栽培技术研究，190716747@qq.com

通讯作者:
唐罗忠（1967—），男，教授，博士，主要从事森林培育理论与技术研究，luozhongtang@njfu.edu.cn

中图分类号: X82
计量
- 文章访问数: 168
- HTML全文浏览量: 82
- PDF下载量: 26
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2023-01-30
- 录用日期: 2023-06-05
- 修回日期: 2023-05-26
- 网络出版日期: 2023-07-30

Evaluation of salt tolerance of eight coastal afforestation species in Jiangsu Province

1.
Lianyungang Academy of Agricultural Sciences
2.
Co-innovation Center for the Sustainable Forestry in Southern China, College of Forestry, Nanjing Forestry University
3.
Jiangsu Yufeng Tourism Development Co., Ltd.
4.
Jiangsu Fangyang Group Ltd.

摘要

摘要:
以江苏省盐城市大丰区沿海地区为研究区域，选择中山杉（Taxodium 'Zhongshanshan'）、白榆（Ulmus pumila）、落羽杉（Taxodium distichum）、榔榆（Ulmus parvifolia）、乌桕（Triadica sebifera）、青皮柳（Salix ohsidare）、构树（Broussonetia papyrifera）和苦楝（Melia azedarach）8个造林树种，研究不同树种造林地土壤含盐量及其与树木成活率、胸径和树高生长量的关系，并对8个树种的耐盐性进行隶属函数法综合评价，以进一步研究江苏沿海地区典型树种的耐盐性。结果表明，48个调查样地土壤含盐量为0.4~11.9 mg/g；不同样地之间的土壤含盐量差异较大；土壤含盐量较高的样地具有典型的盐分表聚现象；8个树种的成活率、胸径和树高年生长量与土壤含盐量均呈负相关。8个造林树种的耐盐性评价结果显示，其耐盐能力表现为白榆>苦楝>落羽杉>乌桕>榔榆>中山杉>青皮柳>构树。其中，白榆和苦楝可耐受6 mg/g的土壤含盐量；落羽杉、乌桕、榔榆和中山杉可耐受4 mg/g的土壤含盐量；青皮柳和构树只能耐受3 mg/g的土壤含盐量。白榆和苦楝可在含盐量较高的沿海地区造林，落羽杉、乌桕、榔榆和中山杉可在含盐量中等的沿海地区造林，青皮柳和构树只能在含盐量较低的沿海地区造林。
- 滨海地区 /
- 盐碱土 /
- 耐盐性综合评价 /
- 造林树种
Abstract:
In order to understand the salt tolerance of typical tree species in the coastal areas of Jiangsu Province, the coastal area of Dafeng District, Yancheng City was chosen as the research area, and eight afforestation tree species such as Taxodium 'Zhongshanshan', Ulmus pumila, Taxodium distichum, Ulmus parvifolia, Triadica sebifera, Salix ohsidare, Broussonetia papyrifera and Melia azedarach were chosen as the study objects. The soil salt content and its relationship with the survival rate, and the annual growth of diameter at breast height (DBH) and height of trees in different afforestation sites were studied. The comprehensive evaluation of the salt tolerance of each tree species was carried out by using the membership function analysis method. The results showed that the soil salt content of forty-eight sample plots ranged from 0.4 to 11.9 mg/g, and there were significant differences among different plots. At the sample plots with high soil salt content, the salt content of the upper soil was generally higher than that of the subsoil, which showed a typical salt accumulation in the topsoil. The survival rate, DBH and height of the eight tree species were negatively correlated with the soil salt content. According to the evaluation results of salt tolerance of eight tree species, the salt tolerance of eight tree species was as follows: Ulmus pumila > Melia azedarach > Taxodium distichum > Triadica sebifera > Ulmus parvifolia > Taxodium 'Zhongshanshan' > Salix ohsidare > Broussonetia papyrifera. Ulmus pumila and Melia azedarach could tolerate about 6 mg/g of the soil salt content; Taxodium distichum, Triadica sebifera, Ulmus parvifolia and Taxodium 'Zhongshanshan' could tolerate about 4 mg/g of the soil salt content; and Salix ohsidare and Broussonetia papyrifera could only tolerate about 3 mg/g of the soil salt content. Therefore, Ulmus pumila and Melia azedarach could be planted in coastal areas with high salt content, while Taxodium distichum, Triadica sebifera, Ulmus parvifolia and Taxodium 'Zhongshanshan' could be planted in coastal areas with medium salt content, and Salix ohsidare and Broussonetia papyrifera could only be planted in coastal areas with low salt content.
- coastal area /
- saline-alkali soil /
- comprehensive evaluation of salt tolerance /
- afforestation species

HTML全文

图 1 江苏省盐城市大丰区研究区域分布示意

Figure 1. Location of study sites in Dafeng District, Yancheng City, Jiangsu Province

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 2 不同树种不同样地不同土层的土壤含盐量

注：不同大写字母指同一样地不同土层之间的差异性达到显著水平（P<0.05）；不同小写字母指同一树种相同土层不同样地之间的差异性达到显著水平（P<0.05）。

Figure 2. Soil salt content in different soil layers of different tree species and different plots

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

表 1 不同样地各树种成活率和生长状况

Table 1. Survival rates and growth status of each tree species at different plots

树种	样地号	栽植密度 /（棵/hm²）	成活率 /%	平均胸径/cm	平均树高/cm	树龄/a	年平均生长量
树种	样地号	栽植密度 /（棵/hm²）	成活率 /%	平均胸径/cm	平均树高/cm	树龄/a	胸径/cm	树高/m
中山杉	1	1 111	98	3.12	3.30	3	1.04±0.09d	1.10±0.07b
	2	1 111	92	2.20	2.37	3	0.73±0.06f	0.79±0.06c
	3	1 111	92	2.58	2.00	3	0.86±0.04e	0.67±0.05d
	4	1 111	86	2.32	2.27	3	0.77±0.09f	0.76±0.03cd
	5	1 111	80	2.08	2.07	3	0.69±0.08f	0.69±0.06cd
	6	1 111	78	1.73	1.72	3	0.58±0.09g	0.57±0.04e
	7	1 111	51	2.05	2.17	3	0.68±0.10f	0.72±0.07cd
	8	1 111	11	1.82	1.63	3	0.61±0.06g	0.54±0.03e
	9	714	97	5.17	3.45	3	1.72±0.04b	1.15±0.03b
	10	714	60	3.88	2.40	3	1.29±0.0.02c	0.80±0.10c
	11	625	87	6.58	3.68	3	2.19±0.0.08a	1.23±0.12a
	12	714	0	0.00	0.00	3	0.00±0.00h	0.00±0.00f
白榆	1	1250	96	11.52	9.43	6	1.92±0.15b	1.57±0.09b
	2	833	100	9.60	6.72	3	3.20±0.16a	2.24±0.15a
	3	833	70	5.05	4.58	6	0.84±0.26e	0.76±0.13c
	4	714	90	8.57	8.00	5	1.71±0.25c	1.60±0.10b
	5	714	80	5.25	4.50	5	1.05±0.34d	0.90±0.06c
	6	625	34	4.82	3.85	5	0.96±0.22e	0.77±0.06c
落羽杉	1	625	76	7.17	5.00	2	3.58±0.15a	2.50±0.12a
	2	10 000	86	2.03	1.57	1	2.03±0.38b	1.57±0.30bc
	3	10 000	67	1.27	0.75	2	0.63±0.10c	0.38±0.10d
	4	10 000	68	3.97	2.70	2	1.99±0.16b	1.35±0.17c
	5	10 000	66	4.58	3.39	2	2.28±0.07b	1.70±0.07b
榔榆	1	10 000	96	1.12	1.75	3	0.37±0.08b	0.58±0.06a
	2	20 000	76	1.33	1.43	3	0.44±0.06b	0.48±0.07a
	3	20 000	65	1.48	1.03	3	0.49±0.07ab	0.34±0.05b
	4	20 000	45	1.07	0.92	3	0.36±0.10b	0.31±0.05b
	5	20 000	79	1.55	1.52	3	0.52±0.02a	0.51±0.01a
青皮柳	1	417	100	9.17	10.00	5	1.83±0.11a	2.00±0.05a
	2	417	69	7.00	6.13	5	1.40±0.36b	1.23±0.05c
	3	417	38	7.17	5.30	5	1.43±0.20b	1.06±0.07d
	4	417	85	8.10	8.10	5	1.62±0.02b	1.62±0.07b
	5	417	64	7.65	6.85	5	1.53±0.04b	1.37±0.11c
构树	1	13 333	90	1.77	1.15	1	1.77±0.49a	1.15±0.23a
	2	13 333	50	1.25	0.65	1	1.25±0.10b	0.65±0.12b
	3	13 333	0	0.00	0.00	1	0.00±0.00c	0.00±0.00c
	4	13 333	70	1.51	1.14	1	1.51±0.08a	1.14±0.15a
	5	13 333	62	1.32	1.08	1	1.32±0.15ab	1.08±0.08a
乌桕	1	5 000	98	1.10	1.05	2	0.55±0.12c	0.53±0.09c
	2	5 000	56	1.38	1.08	2	0.69±0.07bc	0.54±0.20c
	3	5 000	80	5.97	6.27	6	0.99±0.08a	1.04±0.14a
	4	2 500	75	5.20	3.18	6	0.87±0.11ab	0.53±0.05c
	5	2 500	83	4.84	4.30	6	0.81±0.03ab	0.72±0.05b
苦楝	1	833	92	3.80	2.33	1	3.80±0.29a	2.33±0.26a
	2	833	75	2.48	1.08	1	2.48±0.25b	1.08±0.12c
	3	3 333	90	8.13	8.53	5	1.63±0.22c	1.71±0.05b
	4	3 333	87	2.69	1.81	1	2.69±0.10b	1.81±0.19b
	5	3 333	82	12.40	7.30	5	2.50±0.11b	1.46±0.22bc
注：相同字母表示相同树种不同样地之间的差异不显著（P>0.05）；不同字母表示相同树种不同样地之间的差异显著（P<0.05）。

下载: 导出CSV

表 2 土壤含盐量与各树种成活率、胸径年生长量及树高年生长量的回归方程

Table 2. Regression equation between soil salt content and survival rate of tree species, annual growth of DBH, and annual growth of tree height

指标	树种	回归方程	R²	P
成活率	中山杉	y = −10.748x + 100.49	0.514	0.009
	白榆	y = −7.424x + 106.92	0.232	0.333
	落羽杉	y = −21.955x + 148.16	0.601	0.124
	榔榆	y = −11.631x + 124.87	0.617	0.115
	青皮柳	y = −25.423x + 136.65	0.802	0.040
	构树	y = −12.526x + 93.459	0.849	0.026
	乌桕	y = −14.031x + 133.52	0.909	0.012
	苦楝	y = −7.863x + 107.16	0.996	0.001
胸径年生长量	中山杉	y = −0.1308x + 1.3105	0.251	0.097
	白榆	y = −0.0267x + 1.7323	0.225	0.346
	落羽杉	y = −0.4204x + 3.4488	0.068	0.673
	榔榆	y = −0.0366x + 0.6385	0.799	0.128
	青皮柳	y = −0.1044x + 1.8328	0.245	0.691
	构树	y = −0.2679x + 2.0066	0.946	0.158
	乌桕	y = −0.0308x + 0.9054	0.100	0.626
	苦楝	y = −0.2670x + 3.3667	0.890	0.281
树高年生长量	中山杉	y = −0.1057x + 1.0579	0.515	0.009
	白榆	y = −0.0529x + 1.5421	0.443	0.169
	落羽杉	y = −0.4362x + 2.9087	0.139	0.537
	榔榆	y = −0.0574x + 0.6969	0.961	0.003
	青皮柳	y = −0.3075x + 2.2456	0.474	0.119
	构树	y = −0.2479x + 1.9234	0.508	0.176
	乌桕	y = −0.0548x + 0.8914	0.183	0.474
	苦楝	y = −0.5010x + 3.0778	0.887	0.017
注：x为土壤含盐量。

下载: 导出CSV

表 3 不同土壤含盐量下的树种成活率、胸径年生长量和树高年生长量拟合数据

Table 3. Fitting data of tree species survival rate, annual growth of DBH and annual growth of height under different soil salt contents

含盐量/(mg/g)	树种	成活率/%	胸径年生长量/cm	树高年生长量/m
2	中山杉	79.0	1.05	0.85
	白榆	92.1	1.68	1.44
	落羽杉	100.0	2.61	2.04
	榔榆	100.0	0.57	0.58
	青皮柳	85.8	1.62	1.63
	构树	68.4	1.47	1.43
	乌桕	100.0	0.84	0.78
	苦楝	91.5	2.83	2.08
4	中山杉	57.5	0.79	0.64
	白榆	77.2	1.63	1.33
	落羽杉	60.3	1.77	1.16
	榔榆	78.3	0.49	0.47
	青皮柳	35.0	1.42	1.02
	构树	43.4	0.94	0.93
	乌桕	77.4	0.78	0.67
	苦楝	75.7	2.30	1.07
6	中山杉	36.0	0.53	0.42
	白榆	62.4	1.57	1.22
	落羽杉	16.4	0.93	0.29
	榔榆	55.1	0.42	0.35
	青皮柳	0.0	0.00	0.00
	构树	18.3	0.40	0.44
	乌桕	49.3	0.72	0.56
	苦楝	60.0	1.76	0.07
10	中山杉	0.0	0.00	0.00
	白榆	32.7	1.47	1.01
	落羽杉	0.0	0.00	0.00
	榔榆	8.6	0.27	0.12
	青皮柳	0.0	0.00	0.00
	构树	0.0	0.00	0.00
	乌桕	0.0	0.00	0.00
	苦楝	28.5	0.70	0.00

下载: 导出CSV

表 4 不同含盐量下树种隶属函数值、综合评价值及排序

Table 4. Membership function values, comprehensive evaluation values and ranking of tree species under different soil salt contents

含盐量/ （mg/g）	树种	成活率	胸径年生长量	树高年生长量	综合评价值	排序
2	中山杉	0.286	0.213	0.177	0.240	8
	白榆	0.639	0.491	0.572	0.585	3
	落羽杉	0.967	0.901	0.974	0.952	1
	榔榆	0.896	0.000	0.000	0.448	6
	青皮柳	0.470	0.467	0.702	0.527	5
	构树	0.000	0.399	0.566	0.241	7
	乌桕	1.000	0.123	0.134	0.564	4
	苦楝	0.621	1.000	1.000	0.811	2
4	中山杉	0.519	0.164	0.194	0.349	6
	白榆	0.974	0.627	1.000	0.894	2
	落羽杉	0.585	0.706	0.807	0.671	3
	榔榆	1.000	0.000	0.000	0.500	5
	青皮柳	0.000	0.511	0.635	0.287	8
	构树	0.194	0.245	0.538	0.293	7
	乌桕	0.978	0.161	0.237	0.589	4
	苦楝	0.939	1.000	0.702	0.895	1
6	中山杉	0.577	0.093	0.305	0.388	5
	白榆	1.000	0.859	1.000	0.965	1
	落羽杉	0.263	0.386	0.191	0.276	6
	榔榆	0.883	0.014	0.244	0.506	4
	青皮柳	0.000	0.591	0285	0.219	8
	构树	0.293	0.000	0.316	0.226	7
	乌桕	0.791	0.236	0.426	0.561	3
	苦楝	0.962	1.000	0.000	0.731	2
10	中山杉	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	4
	白榆	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	1
	落羽杉	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	4
	榔榆	0.262	0.186	0.122	0.208	3
	青皮柳	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	4
	构树	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	4
	乌桕	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	4
	苦楝	0.873	0.475	0.000	0.555	2

下载: 导出CSV

表 5 8个树种耐盐性隶属函数值及综合评价值

Table 5. Membership function values and comprehensive evaluation on salt tolerance of eight trees species

树种	成活率	胸径年生长量	树高年生长量	综合评价值	排序
中山杉	0.360	0.105	0.109	0.234	6
白榆	1.000	0.786	1.000	0.946	1
落羽杉	0.420	0.608	0.565	0.503	3
榔榆	0.855	0.000	0.000	0.428	5
青皮柳	0.000	0.427	0.437	0.216	7
构树	0.065	0.181	0.365	0.169	8
乌桕	0.776	0.102	0.141	0.449	4
苦楝	0.939	1.000	0.487	0.841	2

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(38)

[1]	FAHAD S, HUSSAIN S, MATLOOB A, et al. Phytohormones and plant responses to salinity stress: a review[J]. Plant Growth Regulation,2015,75(2):391-404. doi: 10.1007/s10725-014-0013-y
[2]	王佳丽, 黄贤金, 钟太洋, 等.盐碱地可持续利用研究综述[J]. 地理学报,2011,66(5):673-684. WANG J L, HUANG X J, ZHONG T Y, et al. Review on sustainable of salt-affected land[J]. Acta Geographica Sinica,2011,66(5):673-684.
[3]	俞仁培, 陈德明.我国盐渍土资源及其开发利用[J]. 土壤通报,1999,30(4):158-159. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0564-3945.1999.04.005 YU R P, CHEN D M. Saline soil resources and its development and utilization in China[J]. Chinese Journal of Soil Science,1999,30(4):158-159. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0564-3945.1999.04.005
[4]	梅红, 赵放中, 梁磊.改土排盐工程措施成功应用: 盘锦船舶工业基地四号绿化[J]. 中国城市林业,2011,9(1):14-16. MEI H, ZHAO F Z, LIANG L. Greening of saline-alkali land: a case study of No. 4 Road in Panjin Shipbuilding Industry Base[J]. Journal of Chinese Urban Forestry,2011,9(1):14-16.
[5]	季洪亮, 路艳.滨海盐碱地生态修复效果评价[J]. 西北林学院学报,2017,32(2):301-307. JI H L, LU Y. Evaluation of the eco-restoration effect on coastal saline-alkali soil[J]. Journal of Northwest Forestry University,2017,32(2):301-307.
[6]	FLOWERS T J, YEO A R. Breeding for salinity resistance in crop plants: where next[J]. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology,1995,22(6):875-884.
[7]	KASUGA M, LIU Q, MIURA S, et al. Improving plant drought, salt, and freezing tolerance by gene transfer of a single stress-inducible transcription factor[J]. Nature Biotechnology,1999,17(3):287-291. doi: 10.1038/7036
[8]	GARG B K, KATHJU S, VYAS S P, et al. Sensitivity of cluster bean to salt stress at various growth stages[J]. Indian Journal of Plant Physiology,1997,2(1):49-53.
[9]	KURSAKOVA V S. The effect of perennial herbs on the physical properties of saline soils[J]. Eurasian Soil Science,2006,39(7):748-752. doi: 10.1134/S1064229306070088
[10]	朱立祺, 陈菲然, 陶梦娜, 等.人工纳米材料增强植物耐盐性的机理研究[J]. 环境科学研究,2022,35(8):1759-1768. ZHU L Q, CHEN F R, TAO M N, et al. Mechanisms of plant salt tolerance promoted by nanomaterials[J]. Research of Environmental Sciences,2022,35(8):1759-1768.
[11]	赵茜宇, 于会彬, 杨芳, 等.半干旱区湖泊湿地土壤养分与盐碱化特征研究: 以岱海为例[J]. 环境工程技术学报,2023,13(1):188-196. ZHAO Q Y, YU H B, YANG F, et al. Study on the characteristics of soil nutrients and salinization of lake wetlands in semi-arid region: taking Daihai Lake as an example[J]. Journal of Environmental Engineering Technology,2023,13(1):188-196.
[12]	张晓晓, 殷小琳, 李红丽, 等.NaCl胁迫对不同白榆品系生物量及光合作用的影响[J]. 生态学报,2017,37(21):7258-7265. ZHANG X X, YIN X L, LI H L, et al. Effectof salt stress on the biomass and photosynthetic characteristics of Ulmus pumila L. strains[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica,2017,37(21):7258-7265.
[13]	刘介坤, 史锋厚, 管军, 等.NaCl胁迫对小叶栎生长和生理特性的影响[J]. 中南林业科技大学学报,2023,43(2):46-56. doi: 10.14067/j.cnki.1673-923x.2023.02.006 LIU J K, SHI F H, GUAN J, et al. Effects of NaCl stress on the growth and physiological characteristics of Quercus chenii Nakai[J]. Journal of Central South University of Forestry & Technology,2023,43(2):46-56. doi: 10.14067/j.cnki.1673-923x.2023.02.006
[14]	周武先, 吴海棠, 张雅娟, 等.NaCl胁迫对白术幼苗生长及生理特性的影响[J]. 山东农业科学,2022,54(6):66-72. ZHOU W X, WU H T, ZHANG Y J, et al. Effects of NaCl stress on growth and physiological characteristics of Atractylodes macrocephala seedlings[J]. Shandong Agricultural Sciences,2022,54(6):66-72.
[15]	王涛, 蒙仲举, 张佳鹏, 等.NaCl胁迫对紫穗槐幼苗生长及生理特性的影响[J]. 西北林学院学报,2021,36(1):25-30. WANG T, MENG Z J, ZHANG J P, et al. Effect of NaCl stress on growth and physiological characteristics of Amorpha seedlings[J]. Journal of Northwest Forestry University,2021,36(1):25-30.
[16]	於朝广, 李颖, 谢寅峰, 等.NaCl胁迫对中山杉幼苗生长及离子吸收、运输和分配的影响[J]. 植物生理学报,2016,52(9):1379-1388. YU C G, LI Y, XIE Y F, et al. Effects of NaCl stress on growth and absorption, transportation and distribution of ions in Zhongshanshan seedlings[J]. Plant Physiology Journal,2016,52(9):1379-1388.
[17]	隋德宗, 许中秋, 王俊毅. 4个乌桕新品种对NaCl胁迫的生理响应及耐盐性评价[J]. 安徽农业大学学报, 2021, 48(6): 889-894. SUI D Z, XU Z Q, WANG J Y, Physiological response and salt tolerance evaluation of four new Triadica sebifera varieties to salt stress[J]. Journal of Anhui Agricultural University, 2021, 48(6): 889-894.
[18]	吴孝红, 胡鑫, 汪贵斌, 等.两种盐胁迫对苦楝幼苗光合特性的影响[J]. 北方园艺,2019,443(20):75-81. WU X H, HU X, WANG G B, et al. Effects of two kinds of salt stress on photosynthetic characteristics of Melia azedaeach L. seedlings[J]. Northern Horticulture,2019,443(20):75-81.
[19]	张薇. 滨海盐碱土改良后水盐动态及理化性质的研究[D]. 北京: 北京林业大学, 2014.
[20]	王丽琴. 滨海盐碱地不同造林模式对土壤理化性质及水盐运动的影响[D]. 泰安: 山东农业大学, 2014.
[21]	王遵亲. 中国盐碱土[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 1993.
[22]	王丽琴, 李红丽, 董智, 等.黄河三角洲盐碱地造林对土壤水分特性的影响[J]. 中国水土保持科学,2014,12(1):38-45. WANG L Q, LI H L, DONG Z, et al. Effect of afforestation on soil moisture characteristics of saline-alkali soil in the Yellow River Delta[J]. Science of Soil and Water Conservation,2014,12(1):38-45.
[23]	贾林, 张金龙, 刘璐瑶, 等.天津滨海地区不同年限吹填土植被恢复与土壤理化性质变异特征[J]. 环境工程,2021,39(6):179-186. JIA L, ZHANG J L, LIU L Y, et al. Variation characteristics of vegetation restoration and soil physical and chemical properties of different reclamation years in Tianjin coastal area[J]. Environmental Engineering,2021,39(6):179-186.
[24]	孙佳, 夏江宝, 苏丽, 等.黄河三角洲盐碱地不同植被模式的土壤改良效应[J]. 应用生态学报,2020,31(4):1323-1332. SUN J, XIA J B, SU L, et al. Soil amelioration of different vegetation types in saline-alkali land of the Yellow River Delta, China[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology,2020,31(4):1323-1332.
[25]	姜世成. 松嫩盐碱化草地水盐分布格局及盐碱裸地植被快速恢复技术研究[D]. 长春: 东北师范大学, 2010.
[26]	韩建均. 滨海盐渍土地区土壤水盐调控和改良措施的研究[D]. 南京: 南京农业大学, 2012.
[27]	支晓蓉, 杨秀艳, 任坚毅, 等.我国园林植物耐盐性评价及鉴定研究进展[J]. 世界林业研究,2018,31(5):51-57. ZHI X R, YANG X Y, REN J Y, et al. Research progress in salt tolerance evaluation and identification of garden plants in China[J]. World Forestry Research,2018,31(5):51-57.
[28]	赵宝泉, 邢锦城, 温祝桂, 等.林木盐胁迫响应机制研究进展[J]. 现代农业科技,2020(21):159-165. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-5739.2020.21.063 ZHAO B Q, XING J C, WEN Z G, et al. Research progress on salt stress response mechanism of forest tress[J]. Modern Agricultural Science and Technology,2020(21):159-165. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-5739.2020.21.063
[29]	朱金方, 刘京涛, 陆兆华, 等.盐胁迫对中国柽柳幼苗生理特性的影响[J]. 生态学报,2015,35(15):5140-5146. ZHU J F, LIU J T, LU Z H, et al. Effect of salt stress in physiological characteristics of Tamarix chinensis Lour. seedling[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica,2015,35(15):5140-5146.
[30]	王家源. 苦楝种苗耐盐胁迫的生理响应机制研究[D]. 南京: 南京林业大学, 2013.
[31]	董兴红, 岳国忠. 盐胁迫对刚毛柽柳生长的影响[J]. 华北农学报, 2010, 25(增刊2): 154-155. DONG X H, YUE G Z. Effect on growth of Tamarix hispida Willd. under salt stress[J]. Acta Agriculturae Boreali-Sinica, 2010, 25(Suppl 2): 154-155.
[32]	张华新, 刘正祥, 刘秋芳.盐胁迫下树种幼苗生长及其耐盐性[J]. 生态学报,2009,29(5):2263-2271. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-0933.2009.05.010 ZHANG H X, LIU Z X, LIU Q F. Seedling growth and salt tolerance of tree species under NaCl stress[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica,2009,29(5):2263-2271. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-0933.2009.05.010
[33]	SALTER J, MORRIS K, BAILEY P C E, et al. Interactive effects of salinity and water depth on the growth of Melaleuca ericifolia Sm. (swamp paperbark) seedlings[J]. Aquatic Botany,2007,86(3):213-222. doi: 10.1016/j.aquabot.2006.10.002
[34]	蔡亚南. 6种园林植物的耐盐性研究[D]. 北京: 北京林业大学, 2020.
[35]	潘香逾, 李瑜婷, 刘立军, 等.盐胁迫下14种绿肥植物种子萌发特性及耐盐性评价[J]. 草原与草坪,2019,39(3):98-105. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-5500.2019.03.014 PAN X Y, LI Y T, LIU L J, et al. Germination characteristics and evaluation of 14 green manure plants under salt stress[J]. Grassland and Turf,2019,39(3):98-105. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-5500.2019.03.014
[36]	杨振华. 膜下滴灌条件下盐分对棉花根系生长和分布的影响[D]. 石河子: 石河子大学, 2008.
[37]	王秀萍, 张国新, 鲁雪林, 等.河北沿海区耕地土壤质量综合评价[J]. 中国农学通报,2013,29(30):142-148. WANG X P, ZHANG G X, LU X L, et al. Comprehensive evaluation of soil quality in coastal region of Hebei Province[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin,2013,29(30):142-148.
[38]	杨劲松, 姚荣江.苏北海涂围垦区土壤质量综合评价研究[J]. 中国生态农业学报,2009,17(3):10-15. YANG J S, YAO R J. Evaluation of soil quality in reclaimed coastal regions on North Jiangsu Province[J]. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture,2009,17(3):10-15. ⊕