关键词:甘薯; 覆膜栽培; 块根分化建成; 产量 Effects of Plastic Film Mulching Cultivation on Young Roots Growth Development, Tuber Formation and Tuber Yield of Sweet Potato WANG Cui-Juan1, SHI Chun-Yu1,*, WANG Zhen-Zhen1, CHAI Sha-Sha1, LIU Hong-Juan1, SHI Yan-Xi2 1College of Agriculture, Shandong Agricultural University / State Key Laboratory of Crop Biology, Tai’an 271018, China
2 Resources and Environment College, Qingdao Agricultural University, Qingdao 266109, China
Fund: AbstractA two-year trial and a one-year pot experiment were performed to investigate growth and development and absorbing ability of young roots, endogenous hormones content of differentiated roots at early growing stage using variety Jixu 23 with two types of plastic film mulching cultivation, and no plastic as control (CK). The tuberous root fresh weight per plant at 50 days after planting was determined, and its relationship with tuberous root yield at harvest time was analyzed. The results showed that, at 10 and 20 days after planting, the number, total length, fresh weight, and volume of young roots significantly increased compared with control, and the differences in activity, total absorption area and active absorption area of young roots between two plastic film mulching treatments were significant (P<0.05), showing the black plastic film mulching (BF) superior to the transparent film mulching (TF). Besides, zeatin riboside (ZR) content of differentiated roots (at 10 and 20 days after planting) was significant improved, which was in favor of procambium activity and tuberous roots formation. On the other hand, at early expansion period of tuberous roots, plastic film mulching cultivation increased abscisic acid (ABA) content and decreased gibberellin (GA) content in differentiated roots, as well as improved the secondary cambium activity, starch accumulation and differentiated root expansion. Meanwhile, abscisic acid (ABA) content and gibberellin (GA) content under the black film mulching significantly changed. Film mulching cultivation increased the number and fresh weight of tuberous roots per plant at 50 days after planting, which contributed to higher fresh yield of tuberous root at harvest time. In the two year experiment, two treatments significantly enhanced the valid tuber number and fresh tuber yield compared with CK. The average increments were 10.71% and 5.76% in 2011, and 12.99% and 7.45% in 2012, respectively.
Keyword:Sweet potato; Film mulching cultivation; Tuberous root formation; Tuberous root yield Show Figures Show Figures
表1 覆膜栽培对甘薯幼根数量和长度的影响(2012) Table 1 Effects of plastic-mulching on young root number and length of sweet potato (2012)
处理 Treatment
栽植后10 d 10 days after planting
栽植后20 d 20 days after planting
单株根尖数 RTN
单株根条数 RNP
总根长 TRL (cm)
最长根长 MRL (cm)
单株根尖数 RTN
单株根条数 RNP
总根长 TRL (cm)
最长根长 MRL (cm)
不覆膜CK
181 c
46.00 c
248.2 c
9.08 a
930 c
45.50 c
868.7 b
24.77 b
覆透明膜TF
228 b
54.00 b
298.4 b
9.09 a
1729 b
52.36 b
1259.1 a
30.42 a
覆黑色膜BF
403 a
66.67 a
417.6 a
9.20 a
2000 a
65.00 a
1264.6 a
33.36 a
Values in each column followed by different letters are significantly different at 0.05 probability level. CK: no plastic as control; TF: transparent film mulching; BF: transparent film mulching. RTN: root tip number; RN: root number per plant; TRL: total root length; MRL: maximum root length. 同一列中不同小写字母表示数值在0.05的水平上差异显著。
表1 覆膜栽培对甘薯幼根数量和长度的影响(2012) Table 1 Effects of plastic-mulching on young root number and length of sweet potato (2012)
表2 覆膜栽培对甘薯幼根鲜重、体积和表面积的影响(2012) Table 2 Effects of plastic-mulching on young root fresh weight, volume and surface area of sweet potato (2012)
处理 Treatment
栽植后10 d 10 days after planting
栽植后20 d 20 days after planting
根鲜重 FWP (g)
根体积 VP (mL)
根表面积 SAP (mm2)
根平均直径 AD (mm)
根鲜重 FWP (g)
根体积 VP (mL)
根表面积 SAP (mm2)
根平均直径 AD (mm)
不覆膜CK
1.45 b
0.80 b
1928 c
0.89 a
6.67 c
5.67 b
6693 b
0.89 a
覆透明膜TF
2.98 a
0.97 a
2363 b
0.83 b
12.77 b
8.67 a
8178 a
0.79 b
覆黑色膜BF
3.06 a
1.03 a
2808 a
0.73 c
19.32 a
10.00 a
7623 a
0.72 c
CK: no plastic as control; TF: transparent film mulching; BF: transparent film mulching. FWP: fresh weight per plant; VP: volume per plant; SAP: surface area per plant; AD: average diameter; Values in each column followed by different letters are significantly different at 0.05 probability level. 同一列中不同小写字母表示数值在0.05的水平上差异显著。
表2 覆膜栽培对甘薯幼根鲜重、体积和表面积的影响(2012) Table 2 Effects of plastic-mulching on young root fresh weight, volume and surface area of sweet potato (2012)
表3 覆膜栽培对秧苗栽植后10 d幼根根系活力的影响(2012) Table 3 Effects of plastic-mulching on young root activity at 10 days after planting (2012) (TTC μg g-1 FW h-1)
处理 Treatment
根系活力 Root vigor
根系总活力 Total root vigor
不覆膜CK
80.78 ± 2.21 c
117.13 ± 18.33 c
覆透明膜TF
92.68 ± 7.47 b
276.19 ± 32.86 b
覆黑色膜BF
106.13 ± 8.48 a
324.76 ± 28.24 a
Values in each column followed by different letters are significantly different at 0.05 probability level. CK: no plastic as control; TF: transparent film mulching; BF: transparent film mulching. 同一列中不同小写字母表示数值在0.05的水平上差异显著。
表3 覆膜栽培对秧苗栽植后10 d幼根根系活力的影响(2012) Table 3 Effects of plastic-mulching on young root activity at 10 days after planting (2012) (TTC μg g-1 FW h-1)
表4 覆膜栽培对幼根根系总吸收面积和活跃吸收面积的影响(2012) Table 4 Effects of plastic-mulching on total root absorbing area and root actively area (2012)
时间 Time
处理 Treatment
单株总吸收面积 RTAAP (cm2)
单株活跃吸收面积 RAAAP (cm2)
活跃吸收面积占总吸收面积百分率 RTAAP/RAAAP (%)
栽植后10 d 10 days after planting
不覆膜CK
587 c
240 c
40.89
覆透明膜TF
685 b
279 b
40.73
覆黑色膜BF
807 a
348 a
43.12
栽植后20 d 20 days after planting
不覆膜CK
2930 c
1197 c
40.85
覆透明膜TF
4323 b
1620 b
37.47
覆黑色膜BF
8959 a
2557 a
28.54
Values in each column followed by different letters are significantly different at 0.05 probability level. CK: no plastic as control; TF: transparent film mulching; BF: transparent film mulching. RTAAP: root total absorption area; RAAAP: root active absorption area; RTAAP/RAAAP: percentage of RTAAP in RAAAP. 同一列中不同小写字母表示数值在0.05的水平上差异显著。
表4 覆膜栽培对幼根根系总吸收面积和活跃吸收面积的影响(2012) Table 4 Effects of plastic-mulching on total root absorbing area and root actively area (2012)
表5 秧苗栽植后20 d分化根内部结构部分量化指标(2012) Table 5 Quantitative indices of tuberous root internal structure in different treatments at 20 days after planting (2012)
处理 Treatment
横截面直径 CSD (μm)
横截面面积 CSA (×106μm2)
皮层厚度 CT (μm)
中柱直径 SD (μm)
中柱面积占横截 面积的比例 RSCS (%)
原生木质 部束数 PSN
次生木质部导 管数目 SXCN
不覆膜CK
938.07 b
0.84 b
248.02 c
442.03 b
18.27
5.68 b
4.40 b
覆透明膜TF
1300.69 a
1.46 a
276.46 b
747.76 a
30.08
6.80 a
7.67 a
覆黑色膜BF
1340.81 a
1.56 a
302.81 a
735.18 a
27.21
6.50 a
7.33 a
同一列中不同小写字母表示数值在0.05的水平上差异显著。 CK: no plastic as control; TF: transparent film mulching; BF: transparent film mulching. CSD: cross-section diameter; CSA: cross-section area; CT: cortex thickness; SD: stele diameter; RSCS: ratio of stele to cross-section; PSN: protoxylem strand number; SXCN: secondary xylem catheter number. Values in each column followed by different letters are significantly different at 0.05 probability level.
表5 秧苗栽植后20 d分化根内部结构部分量化指标(2012) Table 5 Quantitative indices of tuberous root internal structure in different treatments at 20 days after planting (2012)
图2 薯苗栽秧30 d各处理分化根在10×10倍镜下横切面(2012)CK: 不覆膜; TF: 覆透明膜; BF: 覆黑色膜。SC: 次生形成层; SG: 淀粉粒。Fig. 2 Tuberous root cross section of different treatments in 10×10 magnification view at 30 days after planting (2012)CK: no plastic as control; TF: transparent film mulching; BF: transparent film mulching. SC: secondary cambium; SG: starch grain.
图3 甘薯生长前期分化根内源激素含量变化(2012)CK: 不覆膜; TF: 覆透明膜; BF: 覆黑色膜。图柱上标以不同小写字母表示激素含量在0.05水平上差异显著。Fig. 3 Changes of endogenous hormone of tuberous root at early growing stage (2012)CK: no plastic as control; TF: transparent film mulching; BF: transparent film mulching. Bars superscripted by different letters are significantly different at 0.05 probability level among hormone contents.
表6 秧苗栽植后50 d块根的数量和重量 Table 6 Fresh weight and tuberous root number per plant at 50 days after planting
年份 Year
处理 Treatment
单株块根鲜重 TRFWP
单株有效薯块数 VTRP
平均单薯鲜重 AFWP (g)
鲜重 Fresh weight (g)
增幅 Increase rate (%)
块数 Number
增幅 Increase rate (%)
鲜重 Fresh weight (g)
增幅 Increase rate (%)
2011
不覆膜CK
43.54 b
—
3.25 c
—
13.40 c
—
覆透明膜TF
119.42 a
174.28
3.67 b
12.92
32.54 a
142.84
覆黑色膜BF
123.20 a
182.96
4.33 a
33.23
28.45 b
112.31
2012
不覆膜CK
50.72 b
—
2.80 c
—
18.12 c
—
覆透明膜TF
125.63 a
147.69
3.67 b
31.07
34.23 a
88.91
覆黑色膜BF
122.35 a
141.23
4.00 a
42.86
30.59 b
68.82
Values in each column followed by different letters are significantly different at 0.05 probability level. CK: no plastic as control; TF: transparent film mulching; BF: transparent film mulching. TRFWP: tuberous root fresh weight per plant; VTRP: valid tuberous roots per plant; AFWP: average fresh weight per tube. 同一列中不同小写字母表示数值在0.05的水平上差异显著。
表6 秧苗栽植后50 d块根的数量和重量 Table 6 Fresh weight and tuberous root number per plant at 50 days after planting
表7 收获期块根产量 Table 7 Fresh yield of tuberous root at harvest time
年份 Year
处理 Treatment
块根产量 Fresh tuber yield (kg hm-2)
增幅 Increase extent (%)
2011
不覆膜CK
40241.13 b
覆透明膜TF
42559.18 ab
5.76
覆黑色膜BF
44552.43 a
10.71
2012
不覆膜CK
34251.36 c
覆透明膜TF
36801.70 b
7.45
覆黑色膜BF
38701.74 a
12.99
Values in each column followed by different letters are significantly different at 0.05 probability level. CK: no plastic as control; TF: transparent film mulching; BF: transparent film mulching. 同一列数据后的不同小写字母表示差异达0.05显著水平。
表7 收获期块根产量 Table 7 Fresh yield of tuberous root at harvest time
4 结论覆膜栽培促进幼根的发生、生长发育和分化根初生形成层的活动, 利于块根早分化形成; 促进块根膨大初期次生形成层的活动和薄壁细胞中淀粉的积累, 利于块根迅速膨大; 显著提高封垄期前后单株有效薯块数和单株鲜薯重, 利于协调甘薯生长中后期茎叶生长与块根膨大的关系, 显著提高块根产量。其中, 覆黑色膜处理效果最好、块根产量最高。 The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. 作者已声明无竞争性利益关系。The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
于振文. 作物栽培学各论. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2003. p128YuZ W. Crop Cultivation. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 2003. p128 (in Chinese)[本文引用:3]
[2]
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. 中国农业科学, 2001, 34: 173-178ShiC Y, WangZ Z, YuS L. Effect of soil aeration on sweet potato yield and its physiological mechanism. Sci Agric Sin, 2001, 34: 173-178 (in Chinese with English abstract)[本文引用:1][CJCR: 1.889]
[3]
史春余, 王振林, 赵秉强, 郭风法, 余松烈. 钾营养对甘薯某些生理特性和产量形成的影响. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2002, 8: 81-85ShiC Y, WangZ Z, ZhaoB Q, GuoF F, YuS L. Effect of potassium nutrition on some physiological characteristics and yield formation of sweet potato. Plant Nutr Fert Sci, 2002, 8: 81-85 (in Chinese with English abstract)[本文引用:1][CJCR: 1.883]
[4]
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. 作物学报, 2012, 38: 1728-1733ChenX G, LiH M, ZhangA J, ShiX M, TangZ H, WeiM, ShiC Y. Effect of paclobutrazol under different N-application rates on photosynthesis and starch accumulation in edible sweet potato. Acta Agron Sin, 2012, 38: 1728-1733 (in Chinese with English abstract)[本文引用:1][CJCR: 1.667]
[5]
马代夫, 朱崇文. 甘薯壮苗增产的生理基础. 中国甘薯, 1987, 91: 114-118MaD F, ZhuC W. Physiological basis of sweet potato strong seedling on high tuberous root yield. Chin Sweet Potato, 1987, 91: 114-118 (in Chinese)[本文引用:1]
[6]
王有宁, 王荣堂, 董秀荣. 地膜覆盖作物农田光温效应研究. 中国生态农业学报, 2004, 12(3): 139-141WangY N, WangR T, DongX R. Light temperature effect of farm land coving with film. Chin J Eco-Agric, 2004, 12(3): 139-141 (in Chinese with English abstract)[本文引用:1][CJCR: 0.795]
[7]
王喜庆, 李生秀, 高亚军. 地膜覆盖对旱地春玉米生理生态和产量的影响. 作物学报, 1998, 24: 348-353WangX Q, LiS X, GaoY J. Effect of plastic film mulching on ecophysiology and yield of the spring maize on the arid land . Acta Agron Sin, 1998, 24: 348-353 (in Chinese with English abstract)[本文引用:1][CJCR: 1.667]
[8]
马志民, 刘兰服, 姚海兰, 张松树. 不同覆膜方式对甘薯生长发育的影响. 西北农业学报, 2012, 21(5): 103-107MaZ M, LiuL F, YaoH L, ZhangS S. Effect of different film mulching methods on growth and development of sweet potato. Acta Agric Boreali-Occident Sin, 2012, 21: 103-107 (in Chinese with English abstract)[本文引用:1]
[9]
王庆美. 紫甘薯产量和品质形成生理机制及对弱光、地膜覆盖响应研究. 山东农业大学博士学位论文, 山东泰安, 2007. p117WangQ M. Mechanism of Root Yield and Quality Formation of Sweet Potato and Response to Shading and Plastic Mulch. PhD Dissertation of Shand ong Agricultural University, Tai’an, China, 2007. p117 (in Chinese with English abstract)[本文引用:3]
[10]
李雪英, 朱海波, 刘刚, 侯丽娟, 丛晓飞. 地膜覆盖对甘薯垄内温度和产量的影响. 作物杂志, 2012, (1): 121-123LiX Y, ZhuH B, LiuG, HouL J, CongX F. Effects of plastic film mulching of sweet potato on in-row temperature and yield. Crops, 2012, (1): 121-123 (in Chinese with English abstract)[本文引用:2][CJCR: 0.6276]
[11]
李云, 宋吉轩, 石乔龙. 覆膜对甘薯生长发育和产量的影响. 南方农业学报, 2012, 43: 1124-1128LiY, SongJ X, ShiQ L. Effects of film mulching on growth, development, and yield of sweet potato. J South Agric, 2012, 43: 1124-1128 (in Chinese with English abstract)[本文引用:2]
[12]
NovakB, ŽutićI, TothN. Sweet potato yield influenced by seedlings and mulching. Agric Conspectus Sci, 2007, 72: 357-359[本文引用:2]
[13]
Kuranouchi, Nakamura, Takada, Tamiya, Nakatani, Kumagai. Effects of mulching with polyethylene film and weather on agronomic characters of sweet potato varieties for steamed and cured slices processing. Jpn J Crop Sci, 2010, 79: 491-498[本文引用:2]
[14]
赵世杰, 刘华山, 董新纯. 植物生理学实验指导. 北京: 中国农业科学技术出版社, 1998. pp68-72ZhaoS J, LiuH S, DongX C. Guidance of Plant Physiological Experiment. Beijing: China Agriculture Scientech Press, 1998. pp68-72(in Chinese)[本文引用:1]
[15]
杨铁钊, 杨志晓, 聂红资. 富钾基因型烤烟的钾积累及根系生理特性. 作物学报, 2009, 35: 159-164YangT Z, YangZ X, NiuH Z. Potassium accumulation and root physiological characteristics of potassium-enriched flue-cured tobacco genotypes. Acta Agron Sin, 2009, 35: 159-164 (in Chinese with English abstract)[本文引用:1][CJCR: 1.667]
[16]
叶宝兴, 毕建杰, 孙印石. 植物细胞与组织研究方法. 北京: 化学工业出版社, 2011. pp49-57YeB X, BiJ J, SunY S. Research Methods of Plant Cells and Tissues. Beijing: Chemical Industry Press, 2011. pp49-57(in Chinese)[本文引用:1]
[17]
何钟佩. 农作物化学控制实验指导. 北京: 中国农业大学出版社, 1993. pp60-68HeZ P. Experimental of Plant Physiology. Beijing: China Agricultural University Press, 1993. pp60-68(in Chinese)[本文引用:1]
[18]
VillordonA Q, La Bonte D R, FironN, KfirY, PressmanE, SchwartzA. Characterization of adventitious root development in sweet potato. Hort Sci, 2009, 44: 651-655[本文引用:1]
[19]
宋海星, 李生秀. 水、氮供应和土壤空间所引起的根系生理特性变化. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2004, 10: 6-11SongH X, LiS X. Changes of root physiological characteristics resulting from supply of water, nitrogen and root-growing space in soil. Plant Nutr Fert Sci, 2004, 10: 6-11 (in Chinese with English abstract)[本文引用:1][CJCR: 1.883]
[20]
NakataniM. In vitro formation of tuberous roots in sweet potato. Jpn J Crop Sci, 1994, 63: 158-159[本文引用:2]
[21]
NakataniM, MatsudaT. Immunohisto chemical localization of zeatin riboside in tuberous root of sweet potato. Jpn J Crop Sci, 1992, 61: 685-686[本文引用:1]
[22]
MatsuoT, YonedaT. Identification of free cytokinins and the changes in endogenous levels during tuber development of sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas Lam). Plant Cell Physiol, 1983, 24: 1305-1312[本文引用:1][JCR: 4.134]
[23]
NakataniM, KomeichiM. Changes in the endogenous level of zeatin riboside, abscisic acid and indole acetic acid during formation and thickening of tuberous roots in sweet potato. Jpn J Crop Sci, 1991, 60: 91-100[本文引用:2]
[24]
王庆美, 张立明, 王振林. 甘薯内源激素变化与块根形成膨大的关系. 中国农业科学, 2005, 38: 2414-2420WangQ M, ZhangL M, WangZ L. Formation and thickening of tuberous roots in relation to the endogenous hormone concen-trations in sweet potato. Sci Agric Sin, 2005, 38: 2414-2420 (in Chinese with English abstract)[本文引用:3][CJCR: 1.889]
[25]
JimenezJ I, GarnerJ O. Effect of growth regulators on the initiation and development of storage roots in rooted leaves of sweet potato. Phyton Argentina, 1983, 43: 117-124[本文引用:1]
[26]
NakataniM, KomeichiM. Changes in endogenous indole acetic acid level during development of roots in sweet potato. Jpn J Crop Sci, 1992, 61: 683-684[本文引用:1]
NohS A, LeeH S, HuhE J, HuhG H, PaekK H, ShinJ S, Bae, J. M. SRD1 is involved in the auxin-mediated initial thickening growth of storage root by enhancing proliferation of metaxylem and cambium cells in sweet potato. J Exp Bot, 2010, 61: 1337-1349[本文引用:1][JCR: 5.242]
[29]
NakataniM, TanakaM, YoshinagaM. Physiological and anatomical characterization of a late storage root forming mutant of sweet potato. J Am Soc Hort Sci, 2002, 127: 178-183[本文引用:1]
[30]
史春余, 王振林, 郭风法, 余松烈. 甘薯块根膨大过程中ATP酶活性, ATP和ABA含量的变化. 西北植物学报, 2002, 22: 107-112ShiC Y, WangZ L, GuoF F, YuS L. Changes of ATPase activity, ATP and ABA content in storage roots during storage root thickening of sweet potato. Acta Bot Boreali-Occident Sin, 2002, 22: 315-320 (in Chinese with English abstract)[本文引用:1][CJCR: 1.321]
[31]
SasakiT, KainumaK. Control of starch and exocellular polysaccharides biosynthesis by gibberellic acid with cells of sweet potato cultured in vitro. Plant Cell Rep, 1984, 3: 23-26[本文引用:1][JCR: 2.509]
[32]
WilsonL A, LoweS B. The anatomy of the root system in West Indian sweet potato cultivars. Ann Bot, 1973, 37: 633-643[本文引用:1][JCR: 0.657]
[33]
BelehuT, HammesP S, RobbertseP J. The origin and structure of adventitious roots in sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas). Aust J Bot, 2004, 52: 551-558[本文引用:1][JCR: 1.204]