有机多肽酶活性促进剂施用方式对鲜食型甘薯干物质积累分配、产量及品质的影响
|
摘要
为探究有机多肽酶活性促进剂对鲜食型甘薯产量和品质的调控效应,在大田条件下,以鲜食型甘薯品种龙薯9号和苏薯8号为供试材料,每个品种设置全生育期不喷施有机多肽酶活性促进剂(CK)、有机多肽酶活性促进剂栽插前蘸根+栽后40 d叶面喷施(P1)和有机多肽酶活性促进剂栽插时灌根+栽后40 d叶面喷施(P2) 3个处理,研究其对鲜食型品种干物质积累分配、产量及品质的影响。结果表明,2个品种的P1和P2处理生长中后期叶片的磷酸蔗糖合成酶(SPS)活性、蔗糖含量、收获期植株总干重和块根干重均显著高于CK。龙薯9号各处理收获期的侧枝茎和块根干物质分配比例均无显著差异,P1和P2处理的主茎下部叶、主茎下部茎干物质分配比例均显著低于CK;苏薯8号P2处理的主茎下部叶、主茎下部茎、侧枝茎和侧枝生长点干物质分配比例均显著低于CK和P1处理,块根干物质分配比例显著高于CK和P1,分别提高8. 98%和6. 23%。龙薯9号P2处理收获期块根可溶性糖含量与P1无显著差异,但显著低于CK,降低5. 22%,P2处理的块根淀粉含量显著高于CK和P1,分别提高18. 76%和9. 23%,干率与P1处理无显著差异,但均显著高于CK,分别提高4. 56%和5. 71%;苏薯8号块根的可溶性糖含量各处理无显著差异,且P2处理的块根淀粉含量和干率与P1均无显著差异,但显著高于CK,其中淀粉含量提高6. 13%,干率提高4. 51%。2个品种P2处理的块根产量均显著高于CK和P1,其中龙薯9号分别提高30. 46%和14. 42%,苏薯8号分别提高27. 72%和11. 69%。综上,施用有机多肽酶活性促进剂有利于提高鲜食型品种块根产量和淀粉含量,其中P2处理增产幅度最高,其对可溶性糖含量的调控存在品种间差异。本研究为鲜食型甘薯提质增效和生态种植技术提供了理论依据。
In order to investigate the regulating effect of polypeptidase activity promoter on the yield and quality of the raw-edible sweet potato,a field experiment was conducted by using the raw-edible sweet potato varieties Longshu 9 and Sushu 8. Each cultivar received one of the following treatments: CK-no application of the polypeptidase activity promoter throughout the entire growth period; P1-root dipping prior to planting and foliar spraying at 40 days after planting with the polypeptidase activity promoter; P2-root irrigation when planting and foliar spraying at 40 days after planting with the polypeptidase activity promoter. The effects of polypeptidase activity promoter on the dry matter accumulation and distribution,root yield,and quality were estimated. The results show that P1-and P2-treated plants exhibited considerably higher leaf SPS activity,sucrose content during mid-and late-growth stages,and plant and root dry weights at harvest than CK-treated plants. At harvest,distribution portion of dry matter in the lateral branches and roots of Longshu 9 plants were not significantly different under different treatments. Distribution portion of dry matter in nether leaves of main stem and nether stem of main stem in Longshu 9 P1-and P2-treated plants was significant lower than that in CK-treated plants. For cultivar Sushu 8,distribution portion of dry matter in nether leaves of main stem,nether stem of main stem,lateral branches and growth point of lateral branches in P2-treated plants was significant lower than that in CK-and P1-treated plants. Compared with CK-and P1-treated plants,the distribution portion of dry matter in tuberous roots of P2-treated plants was significantly increased by 8. 98% and 6. 23% for cultivar Sushu 8,respectively. At harvest,the soluble sugar content of P2-treated plants for Longshu 9 showed no significant difference with that in P1-treated plants and was significantly decreased by 5. 22% compared with CK-treated plants. The starch content of P2-treated plants for Longshu 9 was significantly increased by 18. 76% and 9. 23% compared with CK-and P1-treated plants. The dry matter contents of tuberous roots of P2-treated plants for Longshu 9 showed no significant difference with that in P1-treated plants. Compared with CK treated plants,the dry matter contents of tuberous roots of P1-and P2-treated plants for Longshu 9 significantly increased by 4. 56% and 5. 71%,respectively. The soluble sugar content of tuberous roots for Sushu 8 showed no significant difference among different treatments whereas the starch content and dry matter contents of tuberous roots in P2-treated plants showed no significant difference with that in P1-treated plants.Compared with CK-treated plants,the starch content and dry matter content of tuberous roots in P2-treated plants were significantly increased by 6. 13% and 4. 51%,respectively. Compared with CK-and P1-treated plants,the root yield of P2-treated plants were significantly increased by 30. 46% and 14. 42% for cultivar Longshu 9 and by 27. 72% and11. 69% for cultivar Sushu 8,respectively. In conclusion,application of polypeptidase activity promoter improved the root yield and starch content in tuberous roots of raw-edible cultivars. P2-treated plants exhibited the highest increase in root yield and the regulation effects of soluble sugar content in tuberous roots was different among cultivars. This study provides a theoretical basis for industrial development of raw-edible sweetpotato both in quality and in efficiency and for the technologies of ecological planting.
In order to investigate the regulating effect of polypeptidase activity promoter on the yield and quality of the raw-edible sweet potato,a field experiment was conducted by using the raw-edible sweet potato varieties Longshu 9 and Sushu 8. Each cultivar received one of the following treatments: CK-no application of the polypeptidase activity promoter throughout the entire growth period; P1-root dipping prior to planting and foliar spraying at 40 days after planting with the polypeptidase activity promoter; P2-root irrigation when planting and foliar spraying at 40 days after planting with the polypeptidase activity promoter. The effects of polypeptidase activity promoter on the dry matter accumulation and distribution,root yield,and quality were estimated. The results show that P1-and P2-treated plants exhibited considerably higher leaf SPS activity,sucrose content during mid-and late-growth stages,and plant and root dry weights at harvest than CK-treated plants. At harvest,distribution portion of dry matter in the lateral branches and roots of Longshu 9 plants were not significantly different under different treatments. Distribution portion of dry matter in nether leaves of main stem and nether stem of main stem in Longshu 9 P1-and P2-treated plants was significant lower than that in CK-treated plants. For cultivar Sushu 8,distribution portion of dry matter in nether leaves of main stem,nether stem of main stem,lateral branches and growth point of lateral branches in P2-treated plants was significant lower than that in CK-and P1-treated plants. Compared with CK-and P1-treated plants,the distribution portion of dry matter in tuberous roots of P2-treated plants was significantly increased by 8. 98% and 6. 23% for cultivar Sushu 8,respectively. At harvest,the soluble sugar content of P2-treated plants for Longshu 9 showed no significant difference with that in P1-treated plants and was significantly decreased by 5. 22% compared with CK-treated plants. The starch content of P2-treated plants for Longshu 9 was significantly increased by 18. 76% and 9. 23% compared with CK-and P1-treated plants. The dry matter contents of tuberous roots of P2-treated plants for Longshu 9 showed no significant difference with that in P1-treated plants. Compared with CK treated plants,the dry matter contents of tuberous roots of P1-and P2-treated plants for Longshu 9 significantly increased by 4. 56% and 5. 71%,respectively. The soluble sugar content of tuberous roots for Sushu 8 showed no significant difference among different treatments whereas the starch content and dry matter contents of tuberous roots in P2-treated plants showed no significant difference with that in P1-treated plants.Compared with CK-treated plants,the starch content and dry matter content of tuberous roots in P2-treated plants were significantly increased by 6. 13% and 4. 51%,respectively. Compared with CK-and P1-treated plants,the root yield of P2-treated plants were significantly increased by 30. 46% and 14. 42% for cultivar Longshu 9 and by 27. 72% and11. 69% for cultivar Sushu 8,respectively. In conclusion,application of polypeptidase activity promoter improved the root yield and starch content in tuberous roots of raw-edible cultivars. P2-treated plants exhibited the highest increase in root yield and the regulation effects of soluble sugar content in tuberous roots was different among cultivars. This study provides a theoretical basis for industrial development of raw-edible sweetpotato both in quality and in efficiency and for the technologies of ecological planting.
引文
[1]联合国粮农组织(FAO).粮食和农业数据-生产量-作物[DB/OL].(2017-05-28)[2017-09-18]. http://www. fao. org/statistics/en/
[2]戴起伟,钮福祥,孙健,曹静.我国甘薯生产与消费结构的变化分析[J].中国农业科技导报,2016,18(3):201-209
[3]解备涛,王庆美,张海燕,李爱贤,侯夫云,汪宝卿,董顺旭,张立明.植物生长调节剂对甘薯产量和激素含量的影响[J].华北农学报,2016,31(1):155-161
[4]马征,王学君,孙泽强,董晓霞,张立明,汪宝卿,张柏松.甘薯喷施烯效唑的适宜氮水平研究[J].植物营养与肥料学报,2016,22(5):1433-1440
[5]魏猛,李洪民,唐忠厚,陈晓光,张爱君,史新敏.植物生长调节剂对食用型甘薯产量、品质性状及淀粉RVA特性的影响[J].西南农业学报,2013,26(6):2261-2264
[6]陈晓光,李洪民,张爱君,史新敏,唐忠厚,魏猛,史春余.不同氮水平下多效唑对食用型甘薯光合和淀粉积累的影响[J].作物学报,2012,38(9):1728-1733
[7]苏明明,杨春光,李一尘,曹际娟.植物生长调节剂对粮食作物、瓜果的影响及其残毒研究综述[J].食品安全质量检测学报,2014,5(8):2575-2579
[8]王亚农.有机多肽酶活促进剂在农药制剂产品中的应用一种功能强大的新材料[C]//中国高科技产业化研究会第二届全国功能性肥料研究开发暨新产品、新工艺、新设备交流研讨会论文集.杭州:中国高科技产业化研究会,2014:18-20
[9]任樱.有机多肽酶活性促进剂在棉花上的肥效试验[J].农村科技,2017(10):22-23
[10]曾雄,王爱莲.亚康力诺有机水溶肥在红枣上的应用效果[J].农村科技,2017(1):28-29
[11]柳洪鹃,史春余,柴沙沙.不同产量水平甘薯品种光合产物分配差异及其原因[J].作物学报,2015,41(3):440-447
[12] Liu H J,Chai S S,Shi C Y,Wang C J,Ren G B,Jiang Y,Si C C.Differences in transport of photosynthates between high-and low-yielding Ipomoea batatas L. varieties[J]. Photosynthetica,2015,53(3):378-388
[13]何照范.粮油籽粒品质及其分析技术[M].北京:农业出版社,1985
[14]顾俊荣,董明辉,赵步洪,陈培峰,季红娟,韩立宇.不同水氮管理对水稻干物质积累和茎鞘物质运转及产量的影响[J].核农学报,2016,30(2):347-354
[15] Doehlert D C,Kuo T M,Felker F C. Enzymes of sucrose and hexosemetabolism in developing kernels of two inbreds of maize[J]. PlantPhysiology,1988,86(4):1013-1019
[16] Ou-Lee T M,Setter T L. Enzymes of increased temperature in apicalregions of maize ears on starch-synthesis enzymes and accumulationof sugars and starch[J]. Plant Physiology,1985,79(3):852-855
[17]於建新.植物生理学实验手册[M].上海:科学技术出版社,1985
[18] WardlawⅠF, Willenbrink J. Carbonhydrate stronge andmobilization by the culm of wheat between heading and grainmaturity:the relation to sucrose synthase and sucrose-phosphatesynthase[J]. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology,1994,21(3):251-271
[19] Partick J W,Botha F C,Birch R G. Metabolic engineering of sugarsand simple sugar derivatives in plants[J]. Plant BiotechnologyJournal,2013,11(2):142-156
[20] Reidel E J,Rennie E A,AmiardⅤ,Cheng L,Turgeon R.Phloemloading strategies in three plant species that transport sugaralcohols[J]. Plant Physiology,2009,149(3):1601-1608
[21] Eom J S,Choi S B,Ward J M,Jeon J S. The mechanism of phloemloading in rice(Oryza sativa)[J]. Molecules and Cells,2012,33(5):431-438
[22]李永庚,于振文,姜东,余松烈.冬小麦旗叶蔗糖和籽粒淀粉合成动态及与其有关的酶活性的研究[J].作物学报,2001,27(5):658-664
[23]姜东,于振文,李永庚,余松烈.施氮水平对高产小麦蔗糖含量和光合产物分配及籽粒淀粉积累的影响[J].中国农业科学,2002,35(2):157-162
[24]王旭东,于振文,王东.钾对小麦旗叶蔗糖和籽粒淀粉积累的影响[J].植物生态学报,2003,27(2):196-201
[25] Ding J,Zi Y, Li C, Peng Y, Zhu X, Guo W. Dry matteraccumulation, partitioning, and remobilization in high-yieldingwheat under rice-wheat rotation in China[J]. Agronomy Journal,2016,108(2):604-614
[26] Figueiredo P G,Bicudo S J,Chen S,Fernandes A M,Tanamati FY. Effects of tillage options on soil physical properties and cassava-dry-matter partitioning[J]. Field Crops Research,2017,204:191-198
[27]宁运旺,曹炳阁,马洪波,汪吉东,张辉,许仙菊,张永春.氮肥用量对滨海滩涂区甘薯干物质积累、氮素效率和钾钠吸收的影响[J].中国生态农业学报,2012,20(8):982-987
[28]钱晨晨,王淑彬,杨滨娟,黄国勤.紫云英与氮肥配施对早稻干物质生产及氮素吸收利用的影响[J].中国生态农业学报,2017,25(4):563-571
[29]贾赵东,边小峰,马佩勇,郭小丁,谢一芝.不同土壤肥力对甘薯干物质积累与分配的影响[J].西南农业学报,2015,28(3):1175-1181
[30]杨艳敏,臧士国,张建平,刘小京.甘薯生长发育模拟模型的初步研究Ⅰ.光合作用和干物质生产与分配[J].河北农业大学学报,2004,24(1):8-12
[31]宁运旺,马洪波,张辉,汪吉东,许仙菊,张永春.甘薯源库关系建立、发展和平衡对氮肥用量的响应[J].作物学报,2015,41(3):432-439
[32]柴沙沙,史春余,雷剑,王连军,苏文瑾,杨先强,杨新笋.不同品种甘薯地上部生长特性及干物质积累分配特性研究[J].湖北农业科学,2015,54(4):6166-6169
[33]孙美迪,段文学,张海燕,解备涛,汪宝卿,王庆美,张立明.施氮对不同耐氮性甘薯品种干物质积累与分配及产量的影响[J].山东农业科学,2017,49(3):78-82,88
[34]史春余,王振林,余松烈.土壤通气性对甘薯产量的影响及其生理机制[J].中国农业科学,2001,34(2):173-178
[35]林汝湘,谢春生,冯祖虾,黄宏城.我国南方甘薯品种资源部分营养成分分析研究[J].中国农业科学,1995,28(4):39-45
[36]唐忠厚,魏猛,陈晓光,史新敏,张爱君,李洪民,丁艳锋.不同肉色甘薯块根主要营养品质特征与综合评价[J].中国农业科学,2014,47(9):1705-1714
[37]史春余,王汝娟,梁太波,王振林.食用型甘薯块根碳水化合物代谢特性及与品质的关系[J].中国农业科学,2008,41(11):3878-3885
[38]唐忠厚,李洪民,张爱君,史新敏,孙健,朱红,徐飞.长期施用磷肥对甘薯主要品质性状与淀粉RVA特性的影响[J].植物营养与肥料学报,2011,17(2):391-396
[39]荆彦平,李栋梁,刘大同,余徐润,胡慕兰,顾蕴洁,王忠.甘薯块根生长及其淀粉体发育过程的解剖结构特征[J].西北植物学报,2013,33(2):2415-2422
[40]张彬彬.土壤紧实度调控甘薯光合产物运转分配的生理机制[D].泰安:山东农业大学,2016:26-28
[2]戴起伟,钮福祥,孙健,曹静.我国甘薯生产与消费结构的变化分析[J].中国农业科技导报,2016,18(3):201-209
[3]解备涛,王庆美,张海燕,李爱贤,侯夫云,汪宝卿,董顺旭,张立明.植物生长调节剂对甘薯产量和激素含量的影响[J].华北农学报,2016,31(1):155-161
[4]马征,王学君,孙泽强,董晓霞,张立明,汪宝卿,张柏松.甘薯喷施烯效唑的适宜氮水平研究[J].植物营养与肥料学报,2016,22(5):1433-1440
[5]魏猛,李洪民,唐忠厚,陈晓光,张爱君,史新敏.植物生长调节剂对食用型甘薯产量、品质性状及淀粉RVA特性的影响[J].西南农业学报,2013,26(6):2261-2264
[6]陈晓光,李洪民,张爱君,史新敏,唐忠厚,魏猛,史春余.不同氮水平下多效唑对食用型甘薯光合和淀粉积累的影响[J].作物学报,2012,38(9):1728-1733
[7]苏明明,杨春光,李一尘,曹际娟.植物生长调节剂对粮食作物、瓜果的影响及其残毒研究综述[J].食品安全质量检测学报,2014,5(8):2575-2579
[8]王亚农.有机多肽酶活促进剂在农药制剂产品中的应用一种功能强大的新材料[C]//中国高科技产业化研究会第二届全国功能性肥料研究开发暨新产品、新工艺、新设备交流研讨会论文集.杭州:中国高科技产业化研究会,2014:18-20
[9]任樱.有机多肽酶活性促进剂在棉花上的肥效试验[J].农村科技,2017(10):22-23
[10]曾雄,王爱莲.亚康力诺有机水溶肥在红枣上的应用效果[J].农村科技,2017(1):28-29
[11]柳洪鹃,史春余,柴沙沙.不同产量水平甘薯品种光合产物分配差异及其原因[J].作物学报,2015,41(3):440-447
[12] Liu H J,Chai S S,Shi C Y,Wang C J,Ren G B,Jiang Y,Si C C.Differences in transport of photosynthates between high-and low-yielding Ipomoea batatas L. varieties[J]. Photosynthetica,2015,53(3):378-388
[13]何照范.粮油籽粒品质及其分析技术[M].北京:农业出版社,1985
[14]顾俊荣,董明辉,赵步洪,陈培峰,季红娟,韩立宇.不同水氮管理对水稻干物质积累和茎鞘物质运转及产量的影响[J].核农学报,2016,30(2):347-354
[15] Doehlert D C,Kuo T M,Felker F C. Enzymes of sucrose and hexosemetabolism in developing kernels of two inbreds of maize[J]. PlantPhysiology,1988,86(4):1013-1019
[16] Ou-Lee T M,Setter T L. Enzymes of increased temperature in apicalregions of maize ears on starch-synthesis enzymes and accumulationof sugars and starch[J]. Plant Physiology,1985,79(3):852-855
[17]於建新.植物生理学实验手册[M].上海:科学技术出版社,1985
[18] WardlawⅠF, Willenbrink J. Carbonhydrate stronge andmobilization by the culm of wheat between heading and grainmaturity:the relation to sucrose synthase and sucrose-phosphatesynthase[J]. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology,1994,21(3):251-271
[19] Partick J W,Botha F C,Birch R G. Metabolic engineering of sugarsand simple sugar derivatives in plants[J]. Plant BiotechnologyJournal,2013,11(2):142-156
[20] Reidel E J,Rennie E A,AmiardⅤ,Cheng L,Turgeon R.Phloemloading strategies in three plant species that transport sugaralcohols[J]. Plant Physiology,2009,149(3):1601-1608
[21] Eom J S,Choi S B,Ward J M,Jeon J S. The mechanism of phloemloading in rice(Oryza sativa)[J]. Molecules and Cells,2012,33(5):431-438
[22]李永庚,于振文,姜东,余松烈.冬小麦旗叶蔗糖和籽粒淀粉合成动态及与其有关的酶活性的研究[J].作物学报,2001,27(5):658-664
[23]姜东,于振文,李永庚,余松烈.施氮水平对高产小麦蔗糖含量和光合产物分配及籽粒淀粉积累的影响[J].中国农业科学,2002,35(2):157-162
[24]王旭东,于振文,王东.钾对小麦旗叶蔗糖和籽粒淀粉积累的影响[J].植物生态学报,2003,27(2):196-201
[25] Ding J,Zi Y, Li C, Peng Y, Zhu X, Guo W. Dry matteraccumulation, partitioning, and remobilization in high-yieldingwheat under rice-wheat rotation in China[J]. Agronomy Journal,2016,108(2):604-614
[26] Figueiredo P G,Bicudo S J,Chen S,Fernandes A M,Tanamati FY. Effects of tillage options on soil physical properties and cassava-dry-matter partitioning[J]. Field Crops Research,2017,204:191-198
[27]宁运旺,曹炳阁,马洪波,汪吉东,张辉,许仙菊,张永春.氮肥用量对滨海滩涂区甘薯干物质积累、氮素效率和钾钠吸收的影响[J].中国生态农业学报,2012,20(8):982-987
[28]钱晨晨,王淑彬,杨滨娟,黄国勤.紫云英与氮肥配施对早稻干物质生产及氮素吸收利用的影响[J].中国生态农业学报,2017,25(4):563-571
[29]贾赵东,边小峰,马佩勇,郭小丁,谢一芝.不同土壤肥力对甘薯干物质积累与分配的影响[J].西南农业学报,2015,28(3):1175-1181
[30]杨艳敏,臧士国,张建平,刘小京.甘薯生长发育模拟模型的初步研究Ⅰ.光合作用和干物质生产与分配[J].河北农业大学学报,2004,24(1):8-12
[31]宁运旺,马洪波,张辉,汪吉东,许仙菊,张永春.甘薯源库关系建立、发展和平衡对氮肥用量的响应[J].作物学报,2015,41(3):432-439
[32]柴沙沙,史春余,雷剑,王连军,苏文瑾,杨先强,杨新笋.不同品种甘薯地上部生长特性及干物质积累分配特性研究[J].湖北农业科学,2015,54(4):6166-6169
[33]孙美迪,段文学,张海燕,解备涛,汪宝卿,王庆美,张立明.施氮对不同耐氮性甘薯品种干物质积累与分配及产量的影响[J].山东农业科学,2017,49(3):78-82,88
[34]史春余,王振林,余松烈.土壤通气性对甘薯产量的影响及其生理机制[J].中国农业科学,2001,34(2):173-178
[35]林汝湘,谢春生,冯祖虾,黄宏城.我国南方甘薯品种资源部分营养成分分析研究[J].中国农业科学,1995,28(4):39-45
[36]唐忠厚,魏猛,陈晓光,史新敏,张爱君,李洪民,丁艳锋.不同肉色甘薯块根主要营养品质特征与综合评价[J].中国农业科学,2014,47(9):1705-1714
[37]史春余,王汝娟,梁太波,王振林.食用型甘薯块根碳水化合物代谢特性及与品质的关系[J].中国农业科学,2008,41(11):3878-3885
[38]唐忠厚,李洪民,张爱君,史新敏,孙健,朱红,徐飞.长期施用磷肥对甘薯主要品质性状与淀粉RVA特性的影响[J].植物营养与肥料学报,2011,17(2):391-396
[39]荆彦平,李栋梁,刘大同,余徐润,胡慕兰,顾蕴洁,王忠.甘薯块根生长及其淀粉体发育过程的解剖结构特征[J].西北植物学报,2013,33(2):2415-2422
[40]张彬彬.土壤紧实度调控甘薯光合产物运转分配的生理机制[D].泰安:山东农业大学,2016:26-28
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |