画眉草亚科和芦苇短鞍型植硅体形态对比  

Morphological comparison of short saddle phytoliths of Eragrostoideae and Phragmites australis

作　　者：林映君 左昕昕 裴瑶瑶 任琳 谢辉 LIN Yingjun;ZUO Xinxin;PEI Yaoyao;REN Lin;XIE Hui(Fujian Provincial Key Laboratory for Subtropical Resources and Environment,Fujian Normal University,Fuzhou 350117,Fujian,China;School of Geographical Sciences,School of Carbon Neutrality Future Technology,Fujian Normal University,Fuzhou 350117,Fujian,China;Center for Environmental Archaeology in Southeast China,Fujian Normal University,Fuzhou 350117,Fujian,China)

机构地区：[1]福建省亚热带资源与环境重点实验室福建师范大学,福建福州350117 [2]福建师范大学地理科学学院、碳中和未来技术学院,福建福州350117 [3]福建师范大学东南环境考古中心,福建福州350117

出　　处：《草业科学》2023年第2期427-435,共9页Pratacultural Science

基　　金：国家自然科学基金项目(41771241、42077407)。

摘　　要：植硅体是一种新兴的植被、环境和气候代用指标,被广泛应用于古生态学和考古学中,其作为古植被和古气候指标的准确性很大程度上依赖于现代植物植硅体形态研究。例如,画眉草亚科(Eragrostoideae)植物和芦苇(Phragmites australis)均能发育成形态和大小相近的短鞍型植硅体,迄今为止有关其详尽的形态对比研究比较少。本研究描述了5种画眉草亚科植物和芦苇的茎叶和花穗产生的短鞍型植硅体的形态,并测量了植物不同部位产生的短鞍型植硅体的长度和宽度。结果表明:除小画眉草(Eragrostis minor)花穗短鞍型植硅体无凹边外,大部分短鞍型植硅体形态相似;进一步引入形态参数区分,画眉草亚科植物茎叶短鞍型植硅体的底长平均为(11.9±2.3)μm,鞍长平均为(8.1±1.9)μm,宽度平均为(12.2±2.7)μm,芦苇茎叶短鞍型植硅体底长平均为(11.9±2.2)μm,鞍长平均为(7.9±1.1)μm,宽度平均为(11.2±1.6)μm,表明画眉草亚科植物和芦苇茎叶的短鞍型植硅体形态测量数据重合,且两者之间不存在显著差异。然而,小画眉草花穗短鞍型植硅体底长平均为(8.3±1.0)μm,鞍长平均为(5.3±1.0)μm,宽度平均为(6.3±1.0)μm,远小于芦苇,因此可以将具有这种形态特征和参数的短鞍型植硅体划分为画眉草亚科。本研究旨在探索两种亚科植物短鞍型植硅体的区别,完善其在地层或沉积物中的鉴定,这对提高植硅体的古植被和古环境重建精度具有一定参考意义。Phytoliths are an emerging vegetation,environment,and climate proxy used in paleoecology and archaeology.The accuracy of phytoliths as paleo-vegetation and paleo-climate indicators relies heavily on the detailed research on phytoliths extracted from modern plants.For example,Eragrostoideae and Phragmites australis can produce short saddle phytoliths that are similar in shape and size,however,few detailed morphological comparative studies have been conducted on phytoliths.In this study,we described the morphology of short saddle phytoliths produced by stems,leaves,and flower spikes of five species of Eragrostoideae and P.australis.We then measured the lengths and widths of these shorth saddle phytoliths from different parts of the plant.The results showed that most of the short saddle phytoliths were similar in morphology,except for those from the flower spikes of Eragrostis minor,without concave edges.Further detailed differentiation of morphological parameters showed that the average length of the bottom(A)of short saddle phytoliths in the stems and leaves of Eragrostoideae was(11.9±2.3)μm,the average length of saddle(B)was(8.1±1.9)μm,and body width(C)was(12.2±2.7)μm.The average length of the bottom(A)of short saddle phytoliths in the stems and leaves of P.australis was(11.9±2.2)μm,the average length of saddle(B)was(7.9±1.1)μm,and body width(C)was(11.2±1.6)μm.Morphometric data of short saddle phytoliths of the stems and leaves of Eragrostoideae and P.australis overlapped,and no statistically significant difference existed between them.However,the average length of the bottom(A)of short saddle phytoliths in the flower spikes of E.minor was(8.3±1.0)μm,the average length of saddle(B)was(5.3±1.0)μm,and the average body width(C)was(6.3±1.0)μm,which was much smaller than that of P.australis.Species with these types of short saddle phytoliths were classified into Eragrostoideae.The aim of this study was to explore the differences in short saddle phytoliths from the two subfamilies and to improve their

关 键 词：画眉草亚科 小画眉草 芦苇 短鞍型植硅体 形态特征 形态参数 古环境重建 

分 类 号：Q914[天文地球—古生物学与地层学]