doi:10.11983/CBB18182

Abstract

Abstract: We aimed to construct a convenient evaluation system of potato shade tolerance and explore shade-tolerant germplasm, chlorophyll content, photosynthetic capacity, chlorophyll fluorescence and other parameters of photosynthetic systems of plant leaves under shade at tuber bulking stage. We measured tuber yield per plant and starch content after harvest in 35 potato cultivars (lines). Multiple statistical analyses (e.g., principal component analysis, membership function method, cluster analysis, and regression analysis) were used to analyze the shade tolerance coefficients and evaluate the shade tolerance of the potato cultivars (lines). First, 13 individual photosynthetic parameters related to shade tolerance of potato were converted into six comprehensive indexes by principal component analysis, representing 87.51% of the total information. Then, to obtain the comprehensive evaluation value of shade tolerance (D), we calculated the membership function values for each germplasm and weighted the contribution rate of principal component. Thirty-five potato cultivars (lines) were classified into four shade-intolerance types according to the results of D-value clustering analysis; Eshu10 and Lishu6 were the strongest and weakest shade tolerance cultivars, respectively. Finally, a mathematical evaluation model for potato shade tolerance was established by stepwise regression analysis: D=0.060+0.106Gs+0.214qP+ 0.143NPQ. In addition, the decrease in yield and/or starch content of cultivars (lines) with strong shade tolerance identified by the evaluation system was lower than that of germplasm with weak shade tolerance, so the evaluation system can be used to rapidly evaluate and predict the shade tolerance of potato germplasm.

Key words: potato, shade tolerance, principal component analysis, membership function, comprehensive evaluation

Xun Liu,Jiao Zhang,Yuchen Shen,Debin Xie,Hongli Li,Chunming Li,Xiaoping Yi,Yong Zhao,Daobin Tang,Changwen Lü,Jichun Wang. [J]. Chinese Bulletin of Botany, 2019, 54(3): 360-370.

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://www.chinbullbotany.com/EN/10.11983/CBB18182

https://www.chinbullbotany.com/EN/Y2019/V54/I3/360

Figures/Tables 7

References 25

[1]	杜彦修, 季新, 张静, 李俊周, 孙红正, 赵全志 ( 2013). 弱光对水稻生长发育影响研究进展. 中国生态农业学报 21, 1307-1317. DOI URL
[2]	黄承建, 赵思毅, 王龙昌, 王季春, 赵勇, 蔡叶茂, 滕艳, 杨国才 ( 2013). 马铃薯/玉米套作对马铃薯品种光合特性及产量的影响. 作物学报 39, 330-342. DOI URL
[3]	李彩斌, 郭华春 ( 2015). 遮光处理对马铃薯生长的影响. 西南农业学报 28, 1932-1935. DOI URL
[4]	李彩斌, 郭华春 ( 2017). 马铃薯品种耐弱光性评价及其指标的筛选. 中国农业科学 50, 3461-3472. DOI URL
[5]	李春红, 姚兴东, 鞠宝韬, 朱明月, 王海英, 张惠君, 敖雪, 于翠梅, 谢甫绨, 宋书宏 ( 2014). 不同基因型大豆耐荫性分析及其鉴定指标的筛选. 中国农业科学 47, 2927-2939. DOI
[6]	李伟, 眭晓蕾, 王绍辉, 关秋竹, 胡丽萍, 周明, 孟凡珍, 张振贤 ( 2008). 黄瓜幼苗不同叶位叶片光合特性对弱光的响应. 中国农业科学 41, 3698-3707.
[7]	刘婷, 刘卫国, 任梦露, 杜勇利, 邓榆川, 邹俊林, 方萍, 杨文钰 ( 2016). 遮荫程度对不同耐荫性大豆品种光合及抗倒程度的影响. 中国农业科学 49, 1466-1475. DOI URL
[8]	刘钟, 薛英利, 杨圆满, 李建宾, 安瞳昕, 吴开贤, 字淑慧, 吴伯志 ( 2015). 人工遮荫条件下3个马铃薯品种耐荫性研究. 云南农业大学学报 30, 566-574. DOI URL
[9]	龙海涛, 李丽梅, 谢泽虹, 刘帅, 李晓云, 邓斌, 刘海燕, 李玲 ( 2015). 综合隶属函数法评价花生品种抗旱性与AhNCED1基因表达的关系. 植物学报 50, 706-712. DOI URL
[10]	牟会荣 ( 2009). 拔节至成熟期遮光对小麦产量和品质形成的影响及其生理机制. 博士论文. 南京: 南京农业大学. pp. 49-54. DOI URL
[11]	秦玉芝, 邢铮, 邹剑锋, 何长征, 李炎林, 熊兴耀 ( 2014). 持续弱光胁迫对马铃薯苗期生长和光合特性的影响. 中国农业科学 47, 537-545. DOI URL
[12]	任梦露, 刘卫国, 刘婷, 杜勇利, 邓榆川, 邹俊林, 袁晋, 杨文钰 ( 2016). 荫蔽胁迫下大豆茎秆形态建成的转录组分析. 作物学报 42, 1319-1331. DOI URL
[13]	孙祖东, 张志鹏, 蔡昭艳, 曾维英, 赖振光, 陈怀珠, 杨守臻, 唐向民, 苏燕竹, 盖钧镒 ( 2017). 大豆耐荫性评价体系的建立与中国南方大豆资源耐荫性变异. 中国农业科学 50, 792-801. DOI URL
[14]	王一, 张霞, 杨文钰, 孙歆, 苏本营, 崔亮 ( 2016). 不同生育时期遮荫对大豆叶片光合和叶绿素荧光特性的影响. 中国农业科学 49, 2072-2081. DOI URL
[15]	武晓玲, 梁海媛, 杨峰, 刘卫国, 佘跃辉, 杨文钰 ( 2015). 大豆苗期耐荫性综合评价及其鉴定指标的筛选. 中国农业科学 48, 2497-2507. DOI URL
[16]	萧翊华 ( 1958). 光照强度对马铃薯发育的影响. 植物生理学通讯 8, 15-25.
[17]	徐芬芬, 叶利民, 徐卫红, 郑静萍 ( 2010). 小白菜叶绿素含量的测定方法比较. 北方园艺 ( 23), 32-34. DOI URL
[18]	徐建飞, 金黎平 ( 2017). 马铃薯遗传育种研究: 现状与展望. 中国农业科学 50, 990-1015. DOI URL
[19]	杨焕春, 李勇, 吕文河, 杜英秋, 单宏, 孔保华 ( 2015). 马铃薯块茎直链淀粉含量检测方法的比较. 中国马铃薯 29, 341-345. DOI URL
[20]	张娇 ( 2018). 主食化马铃薯育种亲本的筛选及耐荫性评价体系的建立. 硕士论文. 重庆: 西南大学. pp. 35-47.
[21]	周卫霞, 王秀萍, 穆心愿, 李潮海 ( 2013). 弱光胁迫对不同基因型玉米雌雄花发育和授粉结实能力的影响. 作物学报 39, 2065-2073. DOI URL
[22]	周亚峰, 许彦宾, 王艳玲, 李琼, 胡建斌 ( 2017). 基于主成分-聚类分析构建甜瓜幼苗耐冷性综合评价体系. 植物学报 52, 520-529. DOI URL
[23]	Falster DS, Duursma RA, Fitzjohn RG ( 2018). How functional traits influence plant growth and shade tolerance across the life cycle. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 115, E6789-E6798. DOI URL
[24]	Jiang L, Hu B, Liu W, Qin W, Wu H, Zhang J, Yang C, Deng J, Shu K, Du J, Yang F, Yong T, Wang X, Yang W ( 2017). Metabolomic tool to identify soybean [Glycine max(L.) Merrill] germplasms with a high level of shade tolerance at the seedling stage. Sci Rep 7, 42478.
[25]	Li X, Xue S, Liu Y, Xue S, Li W ( 2013). Multivariate statistical analysis of low-light tolerance in tomato ( Solanum lycopersicum Mill.) cultivars and their ultrastructural observations. J Plant Growth Regul 32, 646-653.

No.	Accession	Origin	No.	Accession	Origin
1	378711.7	International Potato Center	19	Eshu 3	Hubei
2	Zhongshu 19	Beijing	20	Eshu 5	Hubei
3	Zhongshu 21	Beijing	21	Eshu 7	Hubei
4	0435-4	Chongqing	22	Eshu 10	Hubei
5	049565	Chongqing	23	Qingshu 2	Qinghai
6	09307-830	Chongqing	24	Liangshu 6	Sichuan
7	3903-7	Chongqing	25	S03-2744	Yunnan
8	B0562-5	Chongqing	26	S04-4036	Yunnan
9	B20-2	Chongqing	27	S04-6099	Yunnan
10	B20-7	Chongqing	28	S05-1669	Yunnan
11	K103	Chongqing	29	S05-197	Yunnan
12	OP-2-5	Chongqing	30	YS03-268	Yunnan
13	S14A53-13	Chongqing	31	Deshu 3	Yunnan
14	S14A53-18	Chongqing	32	Fenshenyangyu	Yunnan
15	S21	Chongqing	33	Lishu 6	Yunnan
16	Huayu 5	Chongqing	34	Xuanshu 4	Yunnan
17	Zhengshu 5	Henan	35	Yunshu 201	Yunnan
18	04HE19-84	Hubei

No.	Accession	Origin	No.	Accession	Origin
1	378711.7	International Potato Center	19	Eshu 3	Hubei
2	Zhongshu 19	Beijing	20	Eshu 5	Hubei
3	Zhongshu 21	Beijing	21	Eshu 7	Hubei
4	0435-4	Chongqing	22	Eshu 10	Hubei
5	049565	Chongqing	23	Qingshu 2	Qinghai
6	09307-830	Chongqing	24	Liangshu 6	Sichuan
7	3903-7	Chongqing	25	S03-2744	Yunnan
8	B0562-5	Chongqing	26	S04-4036	Yunnan
9	B20-2	Chongqing	27	S04-6099	Yunnan
10	B20-7	Chongqing	28	S05-1669	Yunnan
11	K103	Chongqing	29	S05-197	Yunnan
12	OP-2-5	Chongqing	30	YS03-268	Yunnan
13	S14A53-13	Chongqing	31	Deshu 3	Yunnan
14	S14A53-18	Chongqing	32	Fenshenyangyu	Yunnan
15	S21	Chongqing	33	Lishu 6	Yunnan
16	Huayu 5	Chongqing	34	Xuanshu 4	Yunnan
17	Zhengshu 5	Henan	35	Yunshu 201	Yunnan
18	04HE19-84	Hubei

No.	Chla	Chlb	Chla/b	P_n	T_r	C_i	G_s	F_o	F_m	F_v/F_m	qP	NPQ	Y(II)
1	0.90	0.93	0.95	0.51	1.19	1.52	1.00	1.18	1.23	1.01	0.79	1.21	0.75
2	0.98	1.06	0.92	0.90	1.33	1.39	1.59	0.78	1.24	1.22	0.43	0.83	0.65
3	1.33	1.41	0.94	0.85	0.64	1.08	0.81	1.20	1.32	1.03	0.44	1.18	0.44
4	1.37	1.45	0.94	1.11	1.17	1.17	1.50	1.24	1.30	1.01	0.67	1.16	0.64
5	1.35	1.33	0.93	0.98	2.26	1.34	1.25	0.98	1.54	1.20	0.49	1.36	0.63
6	1.23	1.35	0.91	0.82	0.78	1.01	0.85	0.72	1.57	1.44	0.35	1.22	0.62
7	1.49	1.61	0.93	0.93	0.70	0.75	0.77	1.00	1.25	1.09	0.72	0.85	0.90
8	2.19	2.06	1.06	0.47	0.41	0.83	0.25	1.35	1.30	0.97	0.34	1.33	0.33
9	1.03	1.09	0.93	0.65	0.41	0.76	0.33	1.06	1.15	1.03	0.62	1.53	0.59
10	1.37	1.48	0.91	0.73	2.38	2.02	2.83	1.17	1.31	1.03	0.44	1.00	0.43
11	1.31	1.27	1.03	1.15	1.10	1.11	1.07	1.20	1.33	1.03	0.46	1.29	0.46
12	1.16	1.23	0.94	0.94	1.85	1.49	1.78	0.89	1.31	1.40	0.60	0.90	1.13
13	1.24	1.18	0.93	0.58	1.55	1.76	2.27	0.83	1.49	1.15	0.29	1.14	0.41
14	0.74	0.80	0.94	0.67	0.52	0.59	0.60	0.82	1.44	1.18	0.41	1.18	0.52
15	1.30	1.35	0.97	0.79	1.03	1.03	0.90	1.12	1.25	1.04	0.50	0.90	0.56
16	1.32	1.43	0.92	0.80	0.72	0.71	0.69	1.15	1.23	1.03	0.77	1.10	0.77
17	0.69	0.65	1.01	0.99	1.18	1.04	1.32	0.88	1.01	1.04	0.39	0.61	0.50
18	1.09	1.17	0.93	0.62	1.58	1.36	1.86	0.94	1.56	1.21	0.36	0.92	0.56
19	1.36	1.30	1.04	1.29	1.64	1.27	2.18	1.04	1.16	1.03	0.81	1.06	0.81
20	0.96	1.02	0.94	0.44	0.98	1.16	0.50	1.05	0.97	0.97	0.92	0.82	0.89
21	1.09	1.13	0.98	0.57	1.14	1.21	1.10	0.93	1.22	1.12	0.52	1.01	0.68
22	2.36	2.38	1.01	0.67	2.91	2.27	3.67	1.34	1.32	1.00	0.92	1.08	0.86
23	1.42	1.53	0.93	1.05	1.34	1.10	1.23	0.85	1.70	1.20	0.42	1.53	0.57
24	0.73	0.78	0.93	0.83	0.75	2.51	0.92	0.72	1.32	1.18	0.40	1.26	0.52
25	1.10	1.18	0.91	0.54	0.74	1.02	0.42	0.93	1.24	1.10	0.55	0.97	0.65
26	1.12	1.14	0.98	0.71	0.62	0.25	0.68	1.17	1.76	1.10	0.33	1.27	0.37
27	2.29	2.56	0.88	1.01	1.25	1.16	1.30	0.58	1.29	1.78	0.31	0.70	0.94
28	1.21	1.09	1.01	0.95	1.19	1.18	1.03	0.91	1.16	1.07	0.85	0.92	1.00
29	1.16	1.29	0.91	0.72	0.74	1.04	0.63	1.14	1.28	1.03	0.48	0.98	0.50
30	1.35	1.41	0.94	0.90	1.18	1.12	1.04	1.18	1.29	1.03	0.75	1.06	0.79
31	0.83	0.98	0.93	0.88	1.38	1.18	1.07	1.18	1.47	1.05	0.42	1.16	0.43
32	0.94	1.02	0.92	0.67	1.20	1.14	1.59	1.17	1.10	0.99	0.72	1.01	0.73
33	0.66	0.70	0.94	0.46	0.25	0.79	0.23	1.43	1.30	0.97	0.27	0.43	0.31
34	1.18	1.17	0.93	0.82	0.70	0.72	0.67	1.16	1.22	1.04	0.69	0.98	0.75
35	1.09	1.11	0.97	1.22	1.21	4.43	1.50	0.98	1.34	1.14	0.59	1.08	0.75

No.	Chla	Chlb	Chla/b	P_n	T_r	C_i	G_s	F_o	F_m	F_v/F_m	qP	NPQ	Y(II)
1	0.90	0.93	0.95	0.51	1.19	1.52	1.00	1.18	1.23	1.01	0.79	1.21	0.75
2	0.98	1.06	0.92	0.90	1.33	1.39	1.59	0.78	1.24	1.22	0.43	0.83	0.65
3	1.33	1.41	0.94	0.85	0.64	1.08	0.81	1.20	1.32	1.03	0.44	1.18	0.44
4	1.37	1.45	0.94	1.11	1.17	1.17	1.50	1.24	1.30	1.01	0.67	1.16	0.64
5	1.35	1.33	0.93	0.98	2.26	1.34	1.25	0.98	1.54	1.20	0.49	1.36	0.63
6	1.23	1.35	0.91	0.82	0.78	1.01	0.85	0.72	1.57	1.44	0.35	1.22	0.62
7	1.49	1.61	0.93	0.93	0.70	0.75	0.77	1.00	1.25	1.09	0.72	0.85	0.90
8	2.19	2.06	1.06	0.47	0.41	0.83	0.25	1.35	1.30	0.97	0.34	1.33	0.33
9	1.03	1.09	0.93	0.65	0.41	0.76	0.33	1.06	1.15	1.03	0.62	1.53	0.59
10	1.37	1.48	0.91	0.73	2.38	2.02	2.83	1.17	1.31	1.03	0.44	1.00	0.43
11	1.31	1.27	1.03	1.15	1.10	1.11	1.07	1.20	1.33	1.03	0.46	1.29	0.46
12	1.16	1.23	0.94	0.94	1.85	1.49	1.78	0.89	1.31	1.40	0.60	0.90	1.13
13	1.24	1.18	0.93	0.58	1.55	1.76	2.27	0.83	1.49	1.15	0.29	1.14	0.41
14	0.74	0.80	0.94	0.67	0.52	0.59	0.60	0.82	1.44	1.18	0.41	1.18	0.52
15	1.30	1.35	0.97	0.79	1.03	1.03	0.90	1.12	1.25	1.04	0.50	0.90	0.56
16	1.32	1.43	0.92	0.80	0.72	0.71	0.69	1.15	1.23	1.03	0.77	1.10	0.77
17	0.69	0.65	1.01	0.99	1.18	1.04	1.32	0.88	1.01	1.04	0.39	0.61	0.50
18	1.09	1.17	0.93	0.62	1.58	1.36	1.86	0.94	1.56	1.21	0.36	0.92	0.56
19	1.36	1.30	1.04	1.29	1.64	1.27	2.18	1.04	1.16	1.03	0.81	1.06	0.81
20	0.96	1.02	0.94	0.44	0.98	1.16	0.50	1.05	0.97	0.97	0.92	0.82	0.89
21	1.09	1.13	0.98	0.57	1.14	1.21	1.10	0.93	1.22	1.12	0.52	1.01	0.68
22	2.36	2.38	1.01	0.67	2.91	2.27	3.67	1.34	1.32	1.00	0.92	1.08	0.86
23	1.42	1.53	0.93	1.05	1.34	1.10	1.23	0.85	1.70	1.20	0.42	1.53	0.57
24	0.73	0.78	0.93	0.83	0.75	2.51	0.92	0.72	1.32	1.18	0.40	1.26	0.52
25	1.10	1.18	0.91	0.54	0.74	1.02	0.42	0.93	1.24	1.10	0.55	0.97	0.65
26	1.12	1.14	0.98	0.71	0.62	0.25	0.68	1.17	1.76	1.10	0.33	1.27	0.37
27	2.29	2.56	0.88	1.01	1.25	1.16	1.30	0.58	1.29	1.78	0.31	0.70	0.94
28	1.21	1.09	1.01	0.95	1.19	1.18	1.03	0.91	1.16	1.07	0.85	0.92	1.00
29	1.16	1.29	0.91	0.72	0.74	1.04	0.63	1.14	1.28	1.03	0.48	0.98	0.50
30	1.35	1.41	0.94	0.90	1.18	1.12	1.04	1.18	1.29	1.03	0.75	1.06	0.79
31	0.83	0.98	0.93	0.88	1.38	1.18	1.07	1.18	1.47	1.05	0.42	1.16	0.43
32	0.94	1.02	0.92	0.67	1.20	1.14	1.59	1.17	1.10	0.99	0.72	1.01	0.73
33	0.66	0.70	0.94	0.46	0.25	0.79	0.23	1.43	1.30	0.97	0.27	0.43	0.31
34	1.18	1.17	0.93	0.82	0.70	0.72	0.67	1.16	1.22	1.04	0.69	0.98	0.75
35	1.09	1.11	0.97	1.22	1.21	4.43	1.50	0.98	1.34	1.14	0.59	1.08	0.75

Individual index	Chla	Chlb	Chla/b	P_n	T_r	C_i	G_s	F_o	F_m	F_v/F_m	qP	NPQ	Y(II)
Chla	1.00
Chlb	0.98**	1.00
Chla/b	0.20	0.03	1.00
P_n	0.16	0.17	0.09	1.00
T_r	0.33*	0.29	0.14	0.16	1.00
C_i	0.04	0.02	0.07	0.22	0.45**	1.00
G_s	0.35*	0.31	0.17	0.19	0.90**	0.50**	1.00
F_o	0.15	0.10	0.34*	-0.12	0.01	-0.12	0.02	1.00
F_m	0.10	0.13	-0.18	0.07	0.03	-0.03	0.01	-0.13	1.00
F_v/F_m	0.20	0.29	-0.43**	0.17	0.03	0.04	0.00	-0.77**	0.36*	1.00
qP	0.14	0.10	0.18	0.14	0.27	0.09	0.23	0.31	-0.57**	-0.44**	1.00
NPQ	0.14	0.11	0.10	0.09	0.00	0.03	-0.06	0.03	0.47**	-0.09	-0.03	1.00
Y(II)	0.24	0.25	-0.07	0.29	0.28	0.13	0.22	-0.25	-0.42**	0.26	0.72**	-0.24	1.00

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Knowledge

Cited

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 7

References 25

Related Articles 15

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments

		Principle factors
		CI1	CI2	CI3	CI4	CI5	CI6
Eigenvalue		3.28	2.52	2.01	1.58	1.11	0.88
Contribution rate (%)		25.25	19.36	15.43	12.13	8.54	6.80
Accumulate contribution rate (%)		25.25	44.61	60.03	72.16	80.70	87.51
Eigenvector	Chla	0.38	0.00	0.31	-0.43	-0.04	-0.11
	Chlb	0.38	-0.05	0.26	-0.46	-0.08	-0.04
	Chla/b	0.04	0.32	0.28	0.09	0.28	-0.57
	P_n	0.25	-0.08	-0.08	0.19	0.58	-0.38
	T_r	0.44	0.06	0.07	0.31	-0.25	0.14
	C_i	0.26	0.02	-0.07	0.49	-0.02	-0.02
	G_s	0.43	0.07	0.09	0.34	-0.31	0.02
	F_o	-0.12	0.43	0.38	-0.05	-0.17	0.04
	F_m	0.02	-0.43	0.38	0.14	0.07	0.20
	F_v/F_m	0.22	-0.50	-0.22	-0.18	0.00	-0.10
	qP	0.18	0.48	-0.20	-0.10	0.24	0.39
	NPQ	0.01	-0.10	0.41	0.10	0.54	0.51
	Y(II)	0.32	0.15	-0.43	-0.22	0.21	0.19

No.	U(x1)	U(x2)	U(x3)	U(x4)	U(x5)	U(x6)	D	VP	Evaluation accuracy (%)	Comprehensive classification
1	0.30	0.73	0.26	0.52	0.70	0.99	0.51	0.51	100.0	III
2	0.40	0.40	0.16	0.57	0.58	0.41	0.40	0.43	92.5	III
3	0.26	0.45	0.55	0.32	0.79	0.46	0.43	0.41	96.3	III
4	0.42	0.63	0.53	0.43	0.73	0.57	0.53	0.53	100.0	II
5	0.50	0.36	0.58	0.56	0.66	0.88	0.54	0.51	94.4	II
6	0.30	0.04	0.38	0.33	0.83	0.54	0.33	0.36	91.0	IV
7	0.33	0.55	0.29	0.17	0.81	0.42	0.41	0.42	97.6	III
8	0.27	0.45	0.99	0.00	0.77	0.40	0.46	0.45	97.8	III
9	0.14	0.50	0.37	0.26	1.00	0.83	0.41	0.44	92.7	III
10	0.66	0.65	0.67	0.80	0.16	0.73	0.64	0.60	93.7	II
11	0.34	0.49	0.58	0.44	0.83	0.44	0.49	0.46	90.9	III
12	0.54	0.48	0.13	0.57	0.56	0.65	0.47	0.50	93.6	III
13	0.49	0.32	0.54	0.69	0.38	0.69	0.49	0.53	93.9	III
14	0.12	0.24	0.23	0.36	0.88	0.63	0.31	0.33	93.5	IV
15	0.31	0.54	0.41	0.35	0.67	0.40	0.42	0.39	92.9	III
16	0.27	0.62	0.37	0.22	0.84	0.66	0.44	0.46	95.5	III
17	0.26	0.57	0.01	0.59	0.60	0.13	0.35	0.37	94.3	IV
18	0.43	0.34	0.43	0.60	0.42	0.64	0.45	0.47	95.6	III
19	0.55	0.76	0.38	0.58	0.65	0.53	0.58	0.61	94.8	II
20	0.24	0.83	0.00	0.34	0.71	0.77	0.43	0.43	100.0	III
21	0.32	0.51	0.27	0.44	0.63	0.63	0.42	0.43	97.6	III
22	1.00	1.00	1.00	0.67	0.00	1.00	0.86	0.80	93.0	I
23	0.43	0.16	0.68	0.43	0.84	0.77	0.48	0.50	95.8	III
24	0.29	0.27	0.11	0.71	0.85	0.58	0.39	0.42	92.3	III
25	0.21	0.45	0.22	0.30	0.76	0.60	0.36	0.36	100.0	IV
26	0.16	0.22	0.67	0.27	0.83	0.62	0.38	0.38	100.0	III
27	0.63	0.00	0.45	0.09	0.57	0.00	0.33	0.35	93.9	IV
28	0.37	0.70	0.10	0.41	0.80	0.59	0.46	0.48	95.6	III
29	0.23	0.49	0.39	0.32	0.74	0.48	0.40	0.37	92.5	III
30	0.38	0.66	0.40	0.36	0.74	0.66	0.50	0.48	96.0	III
31	0.29	0.44	0.44	0.56	0.69	0.67	0.46	0.43	93.5	III
32	0.35	0.77	0.25	0.51	0.58	0.76	0.50	0.53	94.0	III
33	0.00	0.54	0.18	0.33	0.61	0.13	0.27	0.20	92.6	IV
34	0.24	0.61	0.27	0.27	0.82	0.56	0.41	0.42	97.6	IV
35	0.58	0.53	0.13	1.00	0.76	0.43	0.55	0.51	92.7	II
W	0.29	0.22	0.18	0.14	0.10	0.08

Classification	Treatment	Average yield (kg)	Average starch content (%)	Reduction of average yield (%)	Reduction of average starch content (%)
I	CK	1.04	15.19	-21.25±1.05 a	-18.30±1.02 a
	T	0.82	12.41
II	CK	1.11	15.86	-37.84±3.45 b	-21.04±2.14 a
	T	0.69	12.53
III	CK	1.13	15.92	-35.97±3.26 b	-43.64±3.45 b
	T	0.73	8.97
IV	CK	1.09	15.30	-49.00±2.32 c	-43.88±2.47 b
	T	0.55	8.59

[1]	Yindu Liu, Junkang Tuo, Chengju Li, Feng Zhang, Chunli Zhang, Ying Zhang, Yunjiao Wang, Youfang Fan, Panfeng Yao, Chao Sun, Yuhui Liu, Zhen Liu, Zhenzhen Bi, Jiangping Bai. Low Potassium Tolerance Potato Varieties Screening and Evaluative Indexes Identification [J]. Chinese Bulletin of Botany, 2024, 59(1): 0-0.
[2]	ZHAI Jiang-Wei, LIN Xin-Hui, WU Rui-Zhe, XU Yi-Xin, JIN Hao-Hao, JIN Guang-Ze, LIU Zhi-Li. Trade-offs between petiole and lamina of different functional plants in Xiao Hinggan Mountains, China [J]. Chin J Plant Ecol, 2022, 46(6): 700-711.
[3]	CHENG Si-Qi, JIANG Feng, JIN Guang-Ze. Leaf economics spectrum of broadleaved seedlings and its relationship with defense traits in a temperate forest [J]. Chin J Plant Ecol, 2022, 46(6): 678-686.
[4]	PENG Xin, JIN Guang-Ze. Effects of plant characteristics and environmental factors on the dark diversity in a broadleaved Korean pine forest [J]. Chin J Plant Ecol, 2022, 46(6): 656-666.
[5]	Guo Shuya, Ai Jinxiang, Chen Hongyu, Shao Yeyao, Wang Yan, Wang Qian, Ye Yitong, Zhang Yating, Ding Zhexiao, Wu Haochen, Wu Yuhuan, Zhang Jianxin, Rao Mide, Liu Peng. Establishment of a Comprehensive Evaluation System for Aluminum Tolerance in Tomato Seedlings Based on Principal Component Analysis-Clustering Analysis-Stepwise Regression Analysis [J]. Chinese Bulletin of Botany, 2022, 57(4): 479-489.
[6]	Yulong He, Jiage Wang, Shanshan Zhao, Jin Gao, Yingying Chang, Xiting Zhao, Bihua Nie, Qingxiang Yang, Jiangli Zhang, Mingjun Li. Establishment and Application of RPA-CRISPR/Cas12a Detection System for Potato Virus Y [J]. Chinese Bulletin of Botany, 2022, 57(3): 308-319.
[7]	SUN Wen-Tai, MA Ming. Response of soil physical degradation and fine root growth on long-term film mulching in apple orchards on Loess Plateau [J]. Chin J Plant Ecol, 2021, 45(9): 972-986.
[8]	Cao Xu. Conquering the Summit: A New Era Towards Hybrid Seed Potato Breeding [J]. Chinese Bulletin of Botany, 2021, 56(5): 516-519.
[9]	DONG Lin-Lin, PU Xiao-Yan, ZHANG Lu-Lu, SONG Liang, LU Zhi-Yun, LI Su. Pressure-volume curve analysis of epiphytic lichens and its applicability in subtropical forests [J]. Chin J Plant Ecol, 2021, 45(3): 274-285.
[10]	Junwei Ye, Bin Tian. Genetic structure and its causes of an important woody oil plant in Southwest China, Prinsepia utilis (Rosaceae) [J]. Biodiv Sci, 2021, 29(12): 1629-1637.
[11]	Xianjun Lai,Yizheng Zhang,Yinghong Gu,Lang Yan. Transformation of Insect Derived Antifreeze Gene into Sweet Potato (Ipomoea batatas) and Enhanced Its Freeze-tolerance [J]. Chinese Bulletin of Botany, 2020, 55(1): 9-20.
[12]	Li Yiyuan, C. Molik David, E. Pfrender Michael. EPPS, a metabarcoding bioinformatics pipeline using Nextflow [J]. Biodiv Sci, 2019, 27(5): 567-575.
[13]	Zhangjian Shan,Lina Zhao,Yuchang Yang,Dan Xie,Haining Qin. An overview on assessment systems for threatened plants in China [J]. Biodiv Sci, 2019, 27(12): 1352-1363.
[14]	DONG Zheng-Wu, ZHAO Ying, LEI Jia-Qiang, XI Yin-Qiao. Distribution pattern and influencing factors of soil salinity at Tamarix cones in the Taklimakan Desert [J]. Chin J Plant Ecol, 2018, 42(8): 873-884.
[15]	Qinhong Ma, Yanpeng Li, Juyu Lian, Wanhui Ye. Difference in survival response of tree species to neighborhood crowding in a lower subtropical evergreen broad-leaved forest of Dinghushan [J]. Biodiv Sci, 2018, 26(6): 535-544.