農作物對二氧化硫之忍受性
Other Title
Tolerance of Some Field Crops to Sulfur dioxide
Journal
臺灣地區空氣污染與農業氣象對作物生產影響研討會專輯
Pages
163-192
ISBN
957-97038-4-1
Date Issued
1993-04
Date
1993-04
Author(s)
蕭榮福
謝式坢鈺
呂明長
高碩廷
蕭淑芬
John-Fu Shiau
Shih-Pan-Yu Hsieh
Ming-Chang Leu
Shih-Ting Kao
Shu-Fen Shiau
Abstract
本文敘述水稻、大豆和玉米對二氧化硫的忍受性，這三種作物處理以二氧化硫所表現病徵和傷害程度，受作物本身條件如品種和生長期、生長條件、處理時之環境因子、二氧化硫處理濃度與時間之影響。水稻葉片有褐色斑、白化斑、褐色及白色之混合斑和萎凋等病徵，褐色斑通常先在葉緣及葉尖出現，然後隨薰蒸時間而延葉脈向下擴大癒合成大病斑，這是水稻受二氧化硫傷害最常見之病徵。大豆處理高濃度二氧化硫（800 ppb以上），會造成葉片漂白或水浸狀，部分品種（高雄選10）會出現紅色斑駁，處理低於800 ppb病徵類似但程度較輕，處理時間增加均會加重受害程度，病斑擴大癒合，葉片捲曲、壞疽，葉脈仍呈綠色而提早落葉或黃化。玉米處理800 ppb二氧化硫，新葉較早出現水，狀及白色條斑病徵，先由葉尖並沿葉緣或葉脈間隙向下蔓延，處理時間增長則中下位葉亦會出現相同病徵而新葉則逐漸乾萎，玉米種植六週後處理二氧化硫會出現黃色斑點病徵，亦隨處理時間增長而逐漸擴大癒合，提早黃化。
測試151水稻品種對二氧化硫（400、800或1600 ppb）之敏感性，發現品種間對二氧化硫之反應差異很大，有些敏感性品種在高濃度薰蒸後一天即出現褐色斑，而另一些品種則在400 ppb下薰蒸三週後尚無明顯的外觀病徵，一般秈稻比梗稻敏感。初次測試在400 ppb無病微之品種共48種，重新測試仍有新竹56號、新竹60號、高雄10號、臺中178號、毫中187號、臺農16號、臺農67號、臺北139號、臺北306號及臺東27號等十種無病微。
測試大豆116品種和王米1721品系，結果如同水稻不同品種〈系〉對二氧化硫呈現不同敏感性，一般玉米較具耐性，大豆則較敏感。溫度越高大部分供試水稻品種受二氧化硫傷害也越大，但溫度對數種敏感的秈稻並不影響。大豆於高溫(35℃)下較敏感，低溫(25℃)下則具耐性，但溫度對玉米之影響不大。水稻在遮去86.6％光照下薰蒸，傷害顯著降低，在秈稻品種上較明顯。遮光並不影響大豆和玉米對二氧化硫之反應，僅敏感性品種（大豆Palmetto、玉米臺南5號）稍受影響。水稻耐性品種台中糯70號在較高風速下被二氧化硫傷害較嚴重，敏感性品種台中糯70號則不受風速影響。大豆與水稻相反僅敏感性品種Hybrid 2217在較高風速下被二氧化硫傷害較嚴重，而耐性品種在兩風速下並沒有顯著差異。台中糯70號在相對濕度（RH）發70％下比RH低者受二氧化硫傷害有明顯增加，高雄秈2號在不同RH下受二氧化硫傷害則無明顯差異。大豆不管是耐性或敏感品種在高RH下，受傷害皆很嚴重，在低RH下幾乎無病徵。
不同生育期處理二氧化硫三種作物表現類似生育期愈短愈敏感，二氧化碳濃度影響三種作物對二氧化硫之敏感性，在高二氧化碳濃度800 ppm下，明顯減少被害度，不同量氮肥改變水稻敏感性，施用高氮肥可降低被害度。大豆缺氮及磷肥之易受傷害。土壤含水分少時，大豆受害較輕微，土壤水份潛勢低於-0.85 MPa
時幾乎沒有病徵。
This paper described the effect of sulfur dioxide on plants of soybean, corn and rice. The symptoms on leaves of soybean caused by high concentrations (more than I ppm) of sulfur dioxide generally induced bleaching or watersoaking. Various shapes of red mottlings might develop on varieties like Kaoshiung sel. 10, etc. At concentrations below 800 ppb soybean showed similar but relatively mild symptoms which became more serious after the extension of duration of treatment . As lesions enlarge, necrotic blotches appeared and leaves curl. However, the color of leaf veins usually remained unchanged. Eventually, these leaves turned yellow and fell prematurely.
The bleaching streaks and watersoaking symptoms of corn caused by sulfur dioxide appeared mostly at tips of unexpanded leaves and then extended downward to the margin and the intercostal areas. Similar symptoms appeared on expanded leaves on subsequent days of treatments. Finally, the unexpanded leaves became flaccid and desiccate. The tiny yellow spots might appear on old leaves of some corn varieties. These spots gradually coalesced and the leaves then turned yellow.
Various sizes of brownish spots, white blotches, mixed spots and wilting were ordinarily found on treated rice plants. Brownish spots usually began from leaf tips and leaf margins, spread downward between the leaf veins and coalesced into a large blotches after a long fumigation period. Brownish spots were the most frequently observed symptoms on rice plants. Under high sulfur dioxide concentration, brownish spots appeared a day after fumigation on some sensitive varieties. Under concentration of 400 ppb, some varieties showed no visible symptoms even after three weeks of fumigation. Generally, indica varieties were more sensitive than japonica varieties.
Of the one hundred and fifty one rice varieties tested for their reactions to sulfur dioxide at 400, 800 or 1600 ppb in concentration, forty-eight varieties were tolerant and showed no visible symptoms after fumigation with 400 ppb sulfur dioxide at first trial. These varieties were retested during summer; and of these only 10 namely Hsinchu 56, Hsinchu 60, Kaohsiung 10, Taichung 178 , Taichung 187, Tainung 16, Tainung 67, Taipei 139, Taipei 306 and Taitung 27 showed no visible symptoms. One hundred and sixteen soybean varieties and 1721 corn lines were screened for tolerance to sulfur dioxide. There were a great deal of differences among varieties or lines.
Temperature affected the expression of symptoms, the higher the temperature, the more severe were the symptoms. However, in sensitive indica varieties the temperature effect was not evident. High temperature enhnaced sulfur dioxide damage to soybean. However, severity of corn by sulfur dioxide was not effected by temperature.
By shading 86.6% sunlight, the damages of sulfur dioxide on rice plants were reduced significantly. However, light densities did not affect the sensitivities of corn and soybean to sulfur dioxide significantly. At higher wind speed of 2.6 m/s, SO2 induced significant high injury to some rice and corn varieties. Soybean injury caused by SO2 was very severe at high relative humidity (RH) and almost no symptoms at low RH.
The growth stages of corn, soybean and rice plants were affected by their sensitivity to sulfur dioxide. In general, the young plants were more sensitive than mature plants.
Carbon dioxide affected the sensitivity of rice plants and soybean to sulfur dioxide, the degree of injury being reduced significantly when carbon dioxide levels were raised to 800 ppm. However, there were no significant differences in the extent of damage on corn when concentration of carbon dioxide in fumigation chamber was increased.
Nitrogen levels affected the severity in rice plants caused by sulfur dioxide. Damage was reduced significantly at high nitrogen level. Soil4fertilization also affected the sensitivities of soybean to SO2. Under nitrogen and phosphorus deficiency, soybean expressed high sensitivity to SO2 damage. But when the amount of these fertilizers were increased, the degree of damage decreased proportionally. Soybean injury induced by SO2 generally was greater at high soil water content than at low soil water content. Nearly no symptoms caused by SO2 when soybean was grown in soil with water potential lower than -0.85 MPa.
Event(s)
臺灣地區空氣污染與農業氣象對作物生產影響研討會
Proceedings of The Workshop on Effects of Air Pollution and Agrometeorology on Crop Production in Taiwan
Subjects
二氧化硫
Publisher
行政院環境保護署、行政院農業委員會、臺灣省政府農林廳
Type
conference paper
File(s)![Thumbnail Image]()
Loading...
Name
臺灣地區空氣污染與農業氣象對作物生產影響163-192.pdf
Size
1.42 MB
Format
Adobe PDF
Checksum
(MD5):31d86bf1f867916ad452fa02b33cb8db