夏枯草药材和种植土壤中农药及重金属残留分析

采用气相色谱及ICP-AES法测定了安徽庐江和江苏洪泽2个种植基地的土壤和夏枯草(Prunella vulgaris L.)果穗及全草中有机氯农药及重金属含量,并根据污染指数和相关标准对土壤及药材的安全性进行了评价.测定结果表明:来源于2个基地的土壤及药材中有机氯农药及重金属含量有明显差异.庐江产果穗和全草中Pb、Cd、Cu、Cr、As及BHC含量分别为3.361和3.953、0.172和0.190、8.258和7.722、3.423和2.658、0.284和0.355、0.003和0.004 mg·kg-1,Hg和DDT未检出;洪泽产果穗和全草中Pb、Cd、Cu、Cr、Hg及BHC含量分别为2.399和1.558、0.155和0.111、7.682和6.756、4.259和3.801、0.077和0.102、0.003和0.006 mg·kg-1,As未检出,果穗中也未检出DDT.庐江基地土壤中Cd、Cu、Cr、As、Hg、BHC和DDT含量分别为0.001、12.943、47.417、1.008、0.003、0.003和0.002 mg·kg-1,Pb未检出;洪泽基地土壤中Pb、Cd、Cu、Cr、As、Hg和BHC含量分别为3.443、0.002、18.655、63.385、3.701、0.141和0.004 mg·kg-1,DDT未检出.比较结果表明:夏枯草果穗中重金属残留量均高于全草,但均低于国家限量标准;土壤中有机氯农药及重金属单项污染指数均小于1,且庐江和洪泽基地土壤的综合污染指数分别为0.286和0.399,因此,土壤污染等级属安全级且污染水平为清洁级.     

江西省茶园土壤肥力特征及其影响因子

为探明江西省典型茶园土壤养分状况和肥力特征,选取江西省21个地区372个典型茶园,分析茶园土壤养分的差异性、空间性、相关性及与地形、土壤类型、海拔和建园时间的关联性。结果表明: 江西省茶园土壤pH、有机质、碱解氮、速效磷、速效钾、全氮、全磷和全钾分别达到优质高效高产茶园土壤营养指标的53.9%、60.1%、56.1%、22.9%、38.5%、43.7%、11.1%和95.5%,其中速效磷为强变异;有效铜、锌、铁、锰和硼达到土壤微量元素含量分级一级标准的占比分别为76.3%、74.2%、96.8%、73.1%和0.0%。江西茶园土壤养分以赣中地区最高,其次是赣东北和赣西北地区,赣南地区最低。除全钾外,土壤pH与有机质、碱解氮、速效磷、速效钾、全氮和全磷均呈显著正相关。不同地形土壤养分以平地最高,高山次之,山地和丘陵最低;不同土壤类型土壤养分以水稻土、砂壤和山地黄棕壤较高,其次是黄壤、红黄壤和紫色土,红壤最低;土壤pH、有机质和全钾随海拔上升而递增,而速效磷随海拔上升而递减;土壤有机质、碱解氮、全氮、速效磷和全磷随建园时间的增加而递增,而土壤pH随建园时间的增加而递减。综上,江西省茶园土壤肥力总体水平良好,有机质、全钾、有效铜、锌、铁和锰均较丰富,但土壤偏酸,速效磷和全磷偏低,有效硼严重缺乏。赣中应提高土壤pH和钾肥,赣东北增加钾和氮肥,赣西北增加有机质和磷肥,赣南应增加氮磷钾肥并配施有机肥;高山茶园补充速效磷和钾肥,山地茶园提高氮和磷肥;红黄壤茶园提高土壤pH和全钾,红壤茶园应提高氮磷钾肥并配施有机肥,黄壤和山地黄棕壤茶园需要增施磷肥,紫色土茶园需提高土壤有机质;茶园需要逐年增加白云石粉、生理碱性肥料和有机肥等,防治茶园土壤酸化。     

华南阔叶树种幼苗叶片的养分特征

研究了阔叶树种幼苗山杜英、红锥、海南红豆、火力楠、红花油茶、枫香、黎蒴、米老排和樟树的N、P、K浓度和单位叶面积含量。结果表明,海南红豆、黎蒴和樟树的N、P、K浓度较高,而红花油茶、黎蒴和樟树的单位叶面积N、P、K含量较高,9种树种的上部和下部叶片的平均养分浓度分别为N16．67和17．09g·kg^-1,P1．29和0．84g·kg^-1,K11．77和6．65g·kg^-1,平均养分含量分别为N0．871和1．069g·m^-2,P0．065和0．052g·m^-2,K0．608和0．426g·m^-2,各树种上部叶片的P和K浓度和含量大于下部叶片,从养分含量的角度考虑,红花油茶与其他8种树种混交,红锥或米老排与山杜英、枫香、海南红豆、黎蒴、樟树混交,火力楠与黎蒴、樟树混交是合理的。     

沙漠化对科尔沁沙质草地生态系统碳氮储量的影响

通过野外调查,研究了沙漠化对科尔沁沙质草地生态系统碳、氮储量的影响.结果表明:沙漠化对草地碳、氮含量和储量具有显著影响,随着草地沙漠化的进程,草地碳、氮含量和储量明显下降.与非沙漠化草地相比,轻度、中度、重度和严重沙漠化草地0～100cm深土壤有机碳和全氮含量分别下降了56.06%和48.72%、78.43%和74.36%、88.95%和84.62%、91.64%和84.62%,植物组分中的碳、氮含量分别下降了8.61%和6.43%、0.05%和25.71%、2.58%和27.14%、8.61%和27.86%;轻度、中度、重度和严重沙漠化草地地上植物组分中的碳、氮储量分别下降了25.08%和27.62%、30.90%和46.55%、73.84%和80.62%、90.89%和87.31%,0～100cm深地下植物组分中碳和全氮储量分别下降了50.95%和43.38%、75.19%和71.04%、86.76%和81.48%、91.17%和83.17%.2000年科尔沁沙地沙漠化草地总面积为30152.7km2,因沙漠化损失的碳、氮总储量高达107.53和9.97Mt.草地碳、氮含量的下降主要源于风蚀过程中土壤细颗粒的损失.土壤的粗化和贫瘠化最终导致了植物和凋落物中碳、氮储量的明显下降.     

科尔沁沙地沙漠化过程中土壤有机碳和全氮含量变化

通过地面调查,研究了沙漠化对科尔沁沙地农田和草地土壤有机碳和全氮含量的影响.结果表明,随着沙漠化的发展,科尔沁沙地土壤碳、氮含量明显下降.和非沙漠化农田相比,轻度、中度、重度和严重沙漠化农田土壤有机碳和全氮含量分别下降12.3%和15.3%、22.2%和24.7%、39.5%和44.7%、64.4%和63.5%;和非沙漠化草地相比,轻度、中度、重度和严重沙漠化草地土壤有机碳和全氮含量分别下降了56.3%和48.7%、78.4%和74.4%、88.9%和84.6%、91.6%和84.6%.截至2000年,科尔沁沙漠化总面积已经达到50197.5 km2,由于沙漠化而导致的土壤有机碳和全氮损失总量分别为36.39 Mt和7.89 Mt,其中草地分别占91.12%和86.06%,农田分别占8.88%和13.94%.相关分析结果表明,土壤有机碳和全氮的损失主要源于风蚀所引起的土壤粘粉粒的减少.因此,在科尔沁沙地,防治土壤风蚀对于减少农田和草地土壤碳、氮损失极为重要.     

西北半干旱区深旋松耕作对马铃薯水分利用和产量的影响

探明深旋松耕作技术(VRT)对西北黄土高原半干旱区马铃薯阶段性耗水、个体和群体生长状况、产量、水分利用效率和经济收益的影响,可为寻求抗旱增产、资源高效利用的耕作方法提供依据.本研究采用随机区组设计,于2016和2017年设置旋耕15 cm (TT)、深松40 cm (DLT)、深旋松耕40 cm (VRT) 3种耕作方式,测定马铃薯不同生育时期0～200 cm土层土壤贮水量、叶片SPAD值、叶面积指数、植株干物质量和产量等指标,计算阶段耗水量、水分利用效率(WUE)、商品率、商品产量、纯收益和新增收益等指标,探究深旋松耕作对马铃薯生产效率和经济效益的影响.结果表明: 与TT和DLT相比,VRT能显著促进马铃薯在盛花期和块茎膨大期的耗水,2016和2017年分别较DLT、TT增加了46.7、35.7和27.2、47.3 mm.由于VRT促进马铃薯耗水,叶片SPAD值、干物质量和叶面积指数均显著提高,证明它能促进马铃薯个体和群体发育.基于较高的个体和群体生长量,VRT的马铃薯块茎产量显著提高,分别在2016和2017年较DLT和TT增加了156.8%、47.8%和24.8%、41.0%,WUE相应地提高了92.3%、19.2%和18.9%、26.6%.深旋松耕作使马铃薯商品薯产量显著增加,纯收益和新增纯收益显著提高,在2016和2017年分别达到 12631.9、11019.1和29498.3、18245.5元·hm^-2.深旋松耕作促进马铃薯花期和块茎膨大期耗水,使马铃薯叶片SPAD值、干物质量和叶面积指数显著提高,导致块茎产量和水分利用效率明显升高,并提高了商品薯产量和纯收益,是适宜于西北黄土高原半干旱区马铃薯种植的耕作技术.     

南昌市不同植物类群叶片氮磷浓度及其化学计量比

对南昌大学前湖校区89种主要植物叶片的N、P浓度及其化学计量比进行了研究,结果表明:乔灌、常绿、针叶、种子、裸子和单子叶植物类群的N浓度分别低于相对应的草本、落叶、阔叶、蕨类、被子和双子叶植物类群,而C3和C4植物差异不显著;乔灌、常绿和裸子植物类群的P浓度含量分别低于相对应的草本、落叶和被子植物类群,而针叶和阔叶、蕨类和种子、单子叶和双子叶、C3和C4植物类群间差异不显著;乔木、阔叶、被子和双子叶植物类群叶片N/P分别高于相对应的灌草、针叶、裸子和单子叶植物类群,而常绿和落叶、蕨类和种子、C3和C4植物类群之间差异不显著.可见,不同类型植物对N和P的吸收利用存在差异,且对不同养分供应采取不同的适应对策.结合研究区土壤养分现状,建议优先选择常绿、针叶、裸子和单子叶植物类群作为城市园林植物.     

大鼠再生肝8种细胞的丝氨酸族氨基酸代谢相关基因的转录谱

为了解大鼠肝再生中8种肝脏细胞的丝氨酸族氨基酸代谢相关基因转录谱, 文章用Percoll密度梯度离心结合免疫磁珠分选分离大鼠的8种再生肝细胞, 用Rat Genome 230 2.0芯片等检测它们中丝氨酸族氨基酸代谢相关基因的表达变化, 用Cluster和Treeview等软件分析上述基因在肝再生中表达模式, 用生物信息学和系统生物学等方法分析上述细胞中丝氨酸族氨基酸代谢活动。结果表明, 在27个发生有意义表达变化的基因中, 肝细胞、胆管上皮细胞、卵圆细胞、肝星形细胞、窦内皮细胞、库普弗细胞、陷窝细胞、树突状细胞的基因数分别为13、16、11、14、13、11、12、14, 相应细胞的上调、下调和上/下调的基因数分别为7、6和0, 2、10和4, 2、8和1, 8、3和3, 6、5和2, 4、6和1, 2、10和0, 6、6和2。总的来看, 肝再生中各细胞的表达下调基因占优势, 但在肝再生启动阶段, 肝星形细胞和窦内皮细胞的表达上调基因占优势。上述丝氨酸族氨基酸代谢相关基因转录谱预示丝氨酸族氨基酸的合成主要在肝再生启动阶段的肝细胞、肝星形细胞、窦内皮细胞和库普弗细胞中增强, 它们的降解主要在肝再生进展阶段的肝细胞、胆管上皮细胞、陷窝细胞和树突状细胞中进行。     

玫瑰种群生物学研究进展

玫瑰(Rosa rugosa Thunb.)原产于我国东部沿海、日本、朝鲜半岛和俄罗斯远东地区,18世纪作为园艺种引入欧洲后逃逸并入侵至北海和波罗的海周边多个国家以及北美沙质海岸,而中国野生种群却在过去30年间持续萎缩,成为珍稀濒危物种。从玫瑰种群生物学角度,通过文献比较和综合,在阐明玫瑰生态学特性和野生分布变化的基础上,全面论述了玫瑰种群在我国的生境退化、种群动态、种子繁殖、遗传多样性、濒危机理、保育方面的成果和悬疑问题;并结合欧洲入侵种群分布范围和敏感生境、对本地群落和物种的影响、种子繁殖、遗传变异、种群扩张和模拟预测、管理和控制方面的研究进展,分析了濒危种群和入侵种群数量动态、群落组成、幼苗更新、遗传变异、管理策略方面的差异及其影响因素;进而提出未来的玫瑰研究可从濒危种群和入侵种群的比较研究、种群和灌丛的动态监测、适合度相关性状的变异及其遗传基础、基于种群生物学的保育或控制4个方面为切入点,集中探索玫瑰种群濒危和入侵动态的规律、遗传基础和主要驱动力,为玫瑰保育和管理提供理论依据,为相似物种的适应和进化机制研究提供例证。     

三种昆虫的营养成分测定

黄粉虫、蝇蛆和大麦虫是市场上最常见的饲用昆虫.本试验采用或借鉴饲料营养成分测定的国家标准方法,测定了3种昆虫的常规营养成分、矿物元素、氨基酸和中长链脂肪酸的含量.结果表明,黄粉虫、蝇蛆和大麦虫的粗蛋白含量(％)依次为50.20、45.62和45.08,粗脂肪含量(％)依次为28.96、30.10和41.71,总能含量(KJ/g)依次为26.16、25.95和28.66;蝇蛆中钙、磷、铁和锰的含量(mg/100 g)最高,依次为500.0、885.7、1.17和3.06,黄粉虫中铜和锌的含量(mg/100 g)最高,分别为1.49和10.51;黄粉虫中支链氨基酸、直链氨基酸、必需氨基酸和总氨基酸的含量(％)均最高,依次为8.51、5.71、16.76和39.88,蝇蛆中苯丙氨酸、谷氨酸和赖氨酸的含量(％)较高,依次为2.71、6.29和3.19;黄粉虫中C14∶0和顺C18∶2的相对含量较高,分别为6.15％和33.17％,蝇蛆中C16∶0和C16∶1的相对含量较高,分别为39.62％和4.08％,大麦虫中C18∶0和顺C18∶1的相对含量较高,依次为23.33％和43.54％.上述结果表明,三种昆虫均具有较高的营养价值,可用于养殖业中蛋白质饲料原料的开发.     

On the origin of the Hirudinea and the demise of the Oligochaeta

The phylogenetic relationships of the Clitellata were investigated with a data set of published and new complete 18S rRNA gene sequences of 51 species representing 41 families. Sequences were aligned on the basis of a secondary structure model and analysed with maximum parsimony and maximum likelihood. In contrast to the latter method, parsimony did not recover the monophyly of Clitellata. However, a close scrutiny of the data suggested a spurious attraction between some polychaetes and clitellates. As a rule, molecular trees are closely aligned with morphology-based phylogenies. Acanthobdellida and Euhirudinea were reconciled in their traditional Hirudinea clade and were included in the Oligochaeta with the Branchiobdellida via the Lumbriculidae as a possible link between the two assemblages. While the 18S gene yielded a meaningful historical signal for determining relationships within clitellates, the exact position of Hirudinea and Branchiobdellida within oligochaetes remained unresolved. The lack of phylogenetic signal is interpreted as evidence for a rapid radiation of these taxa. The placement of Clitellata within the Polychaeta remained unresolved. The biological reality of polytomies within annelids is suggested and supports the hypothesis of an extremely ancient radiation of polychaetes and emergence of clitellates.     

On the ontogeny of the haptor and the evolution of the Monogenea

Data on the ontogeny of the posterior haptor of monogeneans were obtained from more than 150 publications and summarised. These data were plotted into diagrams showing evolutionary capacity levels based on the theory of a progressive evolution of marginal hooks, anchors and other attachment components of the posterior haptor in the Monogenea (Malmberg, 1986). 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks are assumed to be the most primitive monogenean haptoral condition. Thus the diagrams were founded on a 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hook evolutionary capacity level, and the evolutionary capacity levels of anchors and other haptoral attachement components were arranged according to haptoral ontogenetical sequences. In the final plotting diagram data on hosts, type of spermatozoa, oncomiracidial ciliation, sensilla pattern and protonephridial systems were also included. In this way a number of correlations were revealed. Thus, for example, the number of 5 + 5 marginal hooks correlates with the most primitive monogenean type of spermatozoon and with few sensillae, many ciliated cells and a simple protonephridial system in the oncomiracidium. On the basis of the reviewed data it is concluded that the ancient monogeneans with 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks were divided into two main lines, one retaining unhinged marginal hooks and the other evolving hinged marginal hooks. Both main lines have recent representatives at different marginal hook evolutionary capacity levels, i.e. monogeneans retaining a haptor with only marginal hooks. For the main line with hinged marginal hooks the name Articulon-choinea n. subclass is proposed. Members with 8 + 8 hinged marginal hooks only are here called Proanchorea n. superord. Monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks only are here called Ananchorea n. superord. and three new families are erected for its recent members: Anonchohapteridae n. fam., Acolpentronidae n. fam. and Anacanthoridae n. fam. (with 7 + 7, 8 + 8 and 9 + 9 unhinged marginal hooks, respectively). Except for the families of Articulonchoinea (e.g. Acanthocotylidae, Gyrodactylidae, Tetraonchoididae) Bychowsky's (1957) division of the Monogenea into the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea fits the proposed scheme, i.e. monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks form one old group, the Oligonchoinea, which have 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks, and the other group form the Polyonchoinea, which (with the exception of the Hexabothriidae) has a greater number (7 + 7, 8 + 8 or 9 + 9) of unhinged marginal hooks. It is proposed that both these names, Oligonchoinea (sensu mihi) and Polyonchoinea (sensu mihi), will be retained on one side and Articulonchoinea placed on the other side, which reflects the early monogenean evolution. Except for the members of Ananchorea [Polyonchoinea], all members of the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea have anchors, which imply that they are further evolved, i.e. have passed the 5 + 5 marginal hook evolutionary capacity level (Malmberg, 1986). There are two main types of anchors in the Monogenea: haptoral anchors, with anlages appearing in the haptor, and peduncular anchors, with anlages in the peduncle. There are two types of haptoral anchors: peripheral haptoral anchors, ontogenetically the oldest, and central haptoral anchors. Peduncular anchors, in turn, are ontogenetically younger than peripheral haptoral anchors. There may be two pairs of peduncular anchors: medial peduncular anchors, ontogentically the oldest, and lateral peduncular anchors. Only peduncular (not haptoral) anchors have anchor bars. Monogeneans with haptoral anchors are here called Mediohaptanchorea n. superord. and Laterohaptanchorea n. superord. or haptanchoreans. All oligonchoineans and the oldest polyonchoineans are haptanchoreans. Certain members of Calceostomatidae [Polyonchoinea] are the only monogeneans with both (peripheral) haptoral and peduncular anchors (one pair). These monogeneans are here called Mixanchorea n. superord. Polyonchoineans with peduncular anchors and unhinged marginal hooks are here called the Pedunculanchorea n. superord. The most primitive pedunculanchoreans have only one pair of peduncular anchors with an anchor bar, while the most advanced have both medial and lateral peduncular anchors; each pair having an anchor bar. Certain families of the Articulonchoinea, the Anchorea n. superord., also have peduncular anchors (parallel evolution): only one family, the Sundanonchidae n. fam., has both medial and lateral peduncular anchors, each anchor pair with an anchor bar. Evolutionary lines from different monogenean evolutionary capacity levels are discussed and a new system of classification for the Monogenea is proposed.In agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. EditorIn agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. Editor