植物学报 ›› 2024, Vol. 59 ›› Issue (4): 544-557.DOI: 10.11983/CBB23108 cstr: 32102.14.CBB23108
张锋, Richard Dormatey, 刘寅笃, 李成举, 王云姣, 张春利, 张莹, 范又方, 姚攀锋, 毕真真, 刘玉汇, 白江平*(), 孙超*()
收稿日期:
2023-08-09
接受日期:
2023-11-14
出版日期:
2024-07-10
发布日期:
2024-07-10
通讯作者:
白江平,孙超
基金资助:
Feng Zhang, Richard Dormatey, Yindu Liu, Chengju Li, Yunjiao Wang, Chunli Zhang, Ying Zhang, Youfang Fan, Panfeng Yao, Zhenzhen Bi, Yuhui Liu, Jiangping Bai*(), Chao Sun*()
Received:
2023-08-09
Accepted:
2023-11-14
Online:
2024-07-10
Published:
2024-07-10
Contact:
Jiangping Bai, Chao Sun
摘要: 磷是植物生长发育不可或缺的营养元素之一, 正磷酸盐(P)在土壤中含量丰富, 但由于土壤的固定作用, 其中能被植物吸收利用的有效磷含量并不高, 提高植物对土壤磷的吸收利用能力, 或优化磷肥施用, 已成为亟待解决的问题。土壤中亚磷酸盐(PH)的含量仅次于正磷酸盐, 其具有更高的溶解度, 可在植物木质部与韧皮部之间进行双向运输, 不易被土壤固定, 但亚磷酸盐作为磷肥替代正磷酸盐和选育耐亚磷酸盐作物品种的研究鲜有报道。基于此, 该研究选取5份引进的马铃薯(Solanum tuberosum)品种和1个商业品种青薯9号(QS9)为实验材料, 经驯化炼苗后直接栽入试验田, 设置正常磷肥处理和亚磷酸盐替代处理, 测定不同品种的表型、光合作用效率和干物质等指标, 以各单项耐亚磷酸盐系数(PTC)为衡量依据, 利用主成分分析等方法对不同马铃薯品种的PH耐性进行综合评价。结果表明, 6个马铃薯品种可分为高度耐亚磷酸盐型(C115和D13)、弱耐亚磷酸盐型(C20、C31和QS9)和亚磷酸盐敏感型(C80) 3类。该研究评价了不同马铃薯品种对亚磷酸盐的耐受性, 旨在为马铃薯耐亚磷酸盐品种选育和亚磷酸盐新型肥料开发提供科学依据。
张锋, Richard Dormatey, 刘寅笃, 李成举, 王云姣, 张春利, 张莹, 范又方, 姚攀锋, 毕真真, 刘玉汇, 白江平, 孙超. 耐亚磷酸盐马铃薯的筛选与评价. 植物学报, 2024, 59(4): 544-557.
Feng Zhang, Richard Dormatey, Yindu Liu, Chengju Li, Yunjiao Wang, Chunli Zhang, Ying Zhang, Youfang Fan, Panfeng Yao, Zhenzhen Bi, Yuhui Liu, Jiangping Bai, Chao Sun. Screening and Evaluation of Phosphite-tolerant Potatoes. Chinese Bulletin of Botany, 2024, 59(4): 544-557.
No. | Name | Origin |
---|---|---|
QS9 | Qingshu 9 | China |
C20 | CIP398180.253 | CIP |
C31 | CIP301029.18 | CIP |
C80 | CIP397036.7 | CIP |
C115 | CIP302476.108 | CIP |
D13 | CIP301045.74 | CIP |
表1 6份马铃薯种质名称及来源
Table 1 Names and origins of 6 potato germplasms
No. | Name | Origin |
---|---|---|
QS9 | Qingshu 9 | China |
C20 | CIP398180.253 | CIP |
C31 | CIP301029.18 | CIP |
C80 | CIP397036.7 | CIP |
C115 | CIP302476.108 | CIP |
D13 | CIP301045.74 | CIP |
Fertilization categories | Treatments | CH4N2O | KNO3 | (NH4)2HPO4 | KH2PO3 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Base fertilizer (kg∙hm-2) | CK | 78.0 | 244.5 | 244.5 | |
T | 222.0 | 81.0 | 198.0 | ||
Top dressing (kg∙hm-2) | CK | 8.6 | 66.0 | 23.3 | |
T | 25.5 | 46.5 | 23.0 |
表2 基肥与追肥的施用量
Table 2 Base fertilizer and top dressing application amount
Fertilization categories | Treatments | CH4N2O | KNO3 | (NH4)2HPO4 | KH2PO3 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Base fertilizer (kg∙hm-2) | CK | 78.0 | 244.5 | 244.5 | |
T | 222.0 | 81.0 | 198.0 | ||
Top dressing (kg∙hm-2) | CK | 8.6 | 66.0 | 23.3 | |
T | 25.5 | 46.5 | 23.0 |
图1 亚磷酸盐处理和正常施肥条件下马铃薯的产量性状 (A) 单株薯重; (B) 单株结薯数。* P<0.05; ** P<0.01 (Student’s t检验)。CK和T同表2。
Figure 1 Potato yield traits under phosphite treatment and normal application of phosphorus fertilizer (A) Weight of tubers per plant; (B) Number of tubers per plant. * P<0.05; **P<0.01 (Student’s t-test). CK and T are the same as shown in Table 2.
图2 亚磷酸盐处理对不同品种马铃薯形态指标、叶绿素含量及叶面积指数的影响 (A) 株高; (B) 茎粗; (C) 根长; (D) 相对叶绿素含量; (E) 叶面积指数。* P<0.05; ** P<0.01 (Student’s t检验)。CK和T同表2。
Figure 2 Effect of phosphite treatment on morphological parameters, chlorophyll content and leaf area index of different potato genotypes (A) Plant height; (B) Stem diameter; (C) Root length; (D) Relative chlorophyll content; (E) Leaf area index. * P<0.05; **P<0.01 (Student’s t-test). CK and T are the same as shown in Table 2.
图3 亚磷酸盐处理对马铃薯光合参数的影响 (A) 净光合速率; (B) 胞间CO2浓度; (C) 蒸腾速率; (D) 气孔导度。* P<0.05; ** P<0.01 (Student’s t检验)。CK和T同表2。
Figure 3 Effect of phosphite treatment on photosynthetic parameters of potato (A) Net photosynthetic rate; (B) Intercellular CO2 concentration; (C) Transpiration rate; (D) Stomatal conductance. * P<0.05; ** P<0.01 (Student’s t-test). CK and T are the same as shown in Table 2.
Indexes | Treatments | C20 | C31 | C80 | C115 | D13 | QS9 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RD (g) | CK | 5.97±0.98 a | 11.55±1.76 a | 5.31±0.43 a | 4.03±0.74 a | 2.42±0.70 a | 7.64±0.35 a |
T | 5.56±0.83 a | 11.15±1.83 a | 4.12±0.40 a | 9.32±1.97 b | 6.65±1.01 b | 8.12±1.37 a | |
PSI | 0.07 | 0.04 | 0.22 | -1.31 | -1.74 | -0.06 | |
SD (g) | CK | 59.72±1.45 a | 96.99±1.69 a | 76.42±2.05 a | 52.45±2.34 a | 43.77±2.23 a | 105.91±2.93 a |
T | 72.94±1.81 b | 119.61±0.78 b | 52.99±2.40 b | 54.78±1.11 a | 63.88±2.19 b | 117.87±2.61 b | |
PSI | -0.221 | -0.233 | 0.307 | -0.044 | -0.459 | -0.113 | |
LD (g) | CK | 43.30±2.54 a | 74.90±1.93 a | 38.38±2.26 a | 47.52±2.80 a | 41.09±2.86 a | 51.36±2.06 a |
T | 49.23±1.64 a | 90.08±1.18 b | 31.63±2.49 a | 60.22±2.67 b | 50.99±3.44 a | 54.67±1.45 a | |
PSI | -0.14 | -0.20 | 0.18 | -0.27 | -0.24 | -0.06 | |
TD (g) | CK | 165.51±5.35 a | 175.19±3.45 a | 311.63±7.48 a | 228.54±2.85 a | 192.10±2.79 a | 264.21±3.27 a |
T | 122.89±2.45 b | 176.88±7.17 a | 218.88±4.45 b | 307.70±2.11 b | 204.84±4.21 b | 263.15±4.66 a | |
PSI | 0.257 | -0.010 | 0.298 | -0.346 | -0.066 | 0.004 | |
DP (g) | CK | 274.50±8.14 a | 358.62±3.14 a | 431.74±5.54 a | 332.55±4.39 a | 279.38±6.89 a | 429.11±6.11 a |
T | 250.63±4.06 b | 397.72±6.93 b | 307.62±6.77 b | 432.02±4.94 b | 326.37±8.43 b | 443.81±6.46 a | |
PSI | 0.09 | -0.11 | 0.29 | -0.30 | -0.17 | -0.03 |
表3 亚磷酸盐处理下马铃薯各部位干物质积累
Table 3 Dry matter accumulation in various parts of potato under phosphite treatment
Indexes | Treatments | C20 | C31 | C80 | C115 | D13 | QS9 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RD (g) | CK | 5.97±0.98 a | 11.55±1.76 a | 5.31±0.43 a | 4.03±0.74 a | 2.42±0.70 a | 7.64±0.35 a |
T | 5.56±0.83 a | 11.15±1.83 a | 4.12±0.40 a | 9.32±1.97 b | 6.65±1.01 b | 8.12±1.37 a | |
PSI | 0.07 | 0.04 | 0.22 | -1.31 | -1.74 | -0.06 | |
SD (g) | CK | 59.72±1.45 a | 96.99±1.69 a | 76.42±2.05 a | 52.45±2.34 a | 43.77±2.23 a | 105.91±2.93 a |
T | 72.94±1.81 b | 119.61±0.78 b | 52.99±2.40 b | 54.78±1.11 a | 63.88±2.19 b | 117.87±2.61 b | |
PSI | -0.221 | -0.233 | 0.307 | -0.044 | -0.459 | -0.113 | |
LD (g) | CK | 43.30±2.54 a | 74.90±1.93 a | 38.38±2.26 a | 47.52±2.80 a | 41.09±2.86 a | 51.36±2.06 a |
T | 49.23±1.64 a | 90.08±1.18 b | 31.63±2.49 a | 60.22±2.67 b | 50.99±3.44 a | 54.67±1.45 a | |
PSI | -0.14 | -0.20 | 0.18 | -0.27 | -0.24 | -0.06 | |
TD (g) | CK | 165.51±5.35 a | 175.19±3.45 a | 311.63±7.48 a | 228.54±2.85 a | 192.10±2.79 a | 264.21±3.27 a |
T | 122.89±2.45 b | 176.88±7.17 a | 218.88±4.45 b | 307.70±2.11 b | 204.84±4.21 b | 263.15±4.66 a | |
PSI | 0.257 | -0.010 | 0.298 | -0.346 | -0.066 | 0.004 | |
DP (g) | CK | 274.50±8.14 a | 358.62±3.14 a | 431.74±5.54 a | 332.55±4.39 a | 279.38±6.89 a | 429.11±6.11 a |
T | 250.63±4.06 b | 397.72±6.93 b | 307.62±6.77 b | 432.02±4.94 b | 326.37±8.43 b | 443.81±6.46 a | |
PSI | 0.09 | -0.11 | 0.29 | -0.30 | -0.17 | -0.03 |
Indexes | Treatments | C20 | C31 | C80 | C115 | D13 | QS9 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PR (mg) | CK | 9.88±0.02 a | 18.1±0.07 a | 10.72±0.04 a | 6.81±0.02 a | 3.97±0.03 a | 12.83±0.02 a |
T | 11.95±0.03 b | 20.92±0.10 b | 5.87±0.04 b | 15.62±0.20 b | 12.12±0.03 b | 15.27±0.08 b | |
PSI | -0.21 | -0.16 | 0.45 | -1.29 | -2.05 | -0.19 | |
PS (mg) | CK | 66.55±0.38 a | 113.53±1.57 a | 74.15±0.63 a | 44.55±0.17 a | 49.90±0.17 a | 73.09±0.47 a |
T | 80.7±1.03 b | 193.88±0.57 b | 51.58±0.60 b | 72.05±0.70 b | 61.07±0.71 b | 113.61±1.38 b | |
PSI | -0.21 | -0.71 | 0.30 | -0.62 | -0.22 | -0.55 | |
PL (mg) | CK | 91.54±0.99 a | 130.20±1.36 a | 75.73±0.36 a | 77.71±0.41 a | 75.95±0.37 a | 82.53±0.70 a |
T | 106.58±1.51 b | 183.15±0.97 b | 60.85±0.37 b | 112.06±1.21 b | 88.3±0.40 b | 104.38±0.36 b | |
PSI | -0.16 | -0.41 | 0.20 | -0.44 | -0.16 | -0.26 | |
PT (mg) | CK | 322.66±1.09 a | 265.50±0.85 a | 665.54±1.63 a | 497.46±2.16 a | 430.84±1.44 a | 433.26±1.01 a |
T | 287.15±1.54 b | 338.44±1.78 b | 404.94±1.84 b | 649.72±1.49 b | 398.13±1.76 b | 436.25±0.96 b | |
PSI | 0.11 | -0.27 | 0.39 | -0.31 | 0.08 | -0.01 | |
PP (mg) | CK | 490.62±0.81 a | 527.32±1.62 a | 826.13±1.14 a | 626.53±2.42 a | 560.66±1.16 a | 601.71±0.25 a |
T | 486.37±1.46 b | 736.38±1.71 b | 523.25±2.38 b | 849.45±2.21 b | 559.61±2.20 b | 669.51±2.41 b | |
PSI | 0.009 | -0.396 | 0.367 | -0.356 | 0.002 | -0.113 | |
PUT (%) | CK | 0.51±0.002 a | 0.66±0.002 a | 0.47±0.001 a | 0.46±0.002 a | 0.45±0.001 a | 0.61±0.001 a |
T | 0.43±0.002 b | 0.52±0.003 b | 0.54±0.002 b | 0.47±0.001 b | 0.51±0.002 b | 0.60±0.001 b | |
PSI | 0.17 | 0.21 | -0.15 | -0.03 | -0.15 | 0.01 | |
PUP (%) | CK | 0.56±0.0009 a | 0.68±0.0021 a | 0.52±0.0007 a | 0.53±0.0021 a | 0.50±0.0010 a | 0.71±0.0003 a |
T | 0.52±0.0016 b | 0.54±0.0013 b | 0.59±0.0027 b | 0.51±0.0013 b | 0.58±0.0023 b | 0.66±0.0024 b | |
PSI | 0.07 | 0.21 | -0.13 | 0.04 | -0.16 | 0.07 |
表4 亚磷酸盐处理下马铃薯各部位的磷素积累
Table 4 Phosphorus accumulation in various parts of potatoes under phosphite treatment
Indexes | Treatments | C20 | C31 | C80 | C115 | D13 | QS9 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PR (mg) | CK | 9.88±0.02 a | 18.1±0.07 a | 10.72±0.04 a | 6.81±0.02 a | 3.97±0.03 a | 12.83±0.02 a |
T | 11.95±0.03 b | 20.92±0.10 b | 5.87±0.04 b | 15.62±0.20 b | 12.12±0.03 b | 15.27±0.08 b | |
PSI | -0.21 | -0.16 | 0.45 | -1.29 | -2.05 | -0.19 | |
PS (mg) | CK | 66.55±0.38 a | 113.53±1.57 a | 74.15±0.63 a | 44.55±0.17 a | 49.90±0.17 a | 73.09±0.47 a |
T | 80.7±1.03 b | 193.88±0.57 b | 51.58±0.60 b | 72.05±0.70 b | 61.07±0.71 b | 113.61±1.38 b | |
PSI | -0.21 | -0.71 | 0.30 | -0.62 | -0.22 | -0.55 | |
PL (mg) | CK | 91.54±0.99 a | 130.20±1.36 a | 75.73±0.36 a | 77.71±0.41 a | 75.95±0.37 a | 82.53±0.70 a |
T | 106.58±1.51 b | 183.15±0.97 b | 60.85±0.37 b | 112.06±1.21 b | 88.3±0.40 b | 104.38±0.36 b | |
PSI | -0.16 | -0.41 | 0.20 | -0.44 | -0.16 | -0.26 | |
PT (mg) | CK | 322.66±1.09 a | 265.50±0.85 a | 665.54±1.63 a | 497.46±2.16 a | 430.84±1.44 a | 433.26±1.01 a |
T | 287.15±1.54 b | 338.44±1.78 b | 404.94±1.84 b | 649.72±1.49 b | 398.13±1.76 b | 436.25±0.96 b | |
PSI | 0.11 | -0.27 | 0.39 | -0.31 | 0.08 | -0.01 | |
PP (mg) | CK | 490.62±0.81 a | 527.32±1.62 a | 826.13±1.14 a | 626.53±2.42 a | 560.66±1.16 a | 601.71±0.25 a |
T | 486.37±1.46 b | 736.38±1.71 b | 523.25±2.38 b | 849.45±2.21 b | 559.61±2.20 b | 669.51±2.41 b | |
PSI | 0.009 | -0.396 | 0.367 | -0.356 | 0.002 | -0.113 | |
PUT (%) | CK | 0.51±0.002 a | 0.66±0.002 a | 0.47±0.001 a | 0.46±0.002 a | 0.45±0.001 a | 0.61±0.001 a |
T | 0.43±0.002 b | 0.52±0.003 b | 0.54±0.002 b | 0.47±0.001 b | 0.51±0.002 b | 0.60±0.001 b | |
PSI | 0.17 | 0.21 | -0.15 | -0.03 | -0.15 | 0.01 | |
PUP (%) | CK | 0.56±0.0009 a | 0.68±0.0021 a | 0.52±0.0007 a | 0.53±0.0021 a | 0.50±0.0010 a | 0.71±0.0003 a |
T | 0.52±0.0016 b | 0.54±0.0013 b | 0.59±0.0027 b | 0.51±0.0013 b | 0.58±0.0023 b | 0.66±0.0024 b | |
PSI | 0.07 | 0.21 | -0.13 | 0.04 | -0.16 | 0.07 |
PTC | LI | EM | GSW | RD | SD | TD | DP | PR | PS | PL | PT | PP | PUT | NP | WP |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Average | 1.06 | 0.90 | 0.74 | 1.46 | 1.13 | 0.98 | 1.04 | 1.58 | 1.34 | 1.21 | 1.00 | 1.08 | 0.99 | 1.05 | 1.09 |
Maximum | 1.41 | 1.09 | 0.87 | 2.74 | 1.46 | 1.35 | 1.30 | 3.05 | 1.71 | 1.44 | 1.31 | 1.40 | 1.15 | 1.35 | 1.58 |
Minimum | 0.85 | 0.63 | 0.46 | 0.78 | 0.69 | 0.70 | 0.71 | 0.55 | 0.70 | 0.80 | 0.61 | 0.63 | 0.79 | 0.83 | 0.78 |
Range | 0.56 | 0.46 | 0.42 | 1.97 | 0.77 | 0.64 | 0.59 | 2.51 | 1.01 | 0.64 | 0.70 | 0.76 | 0.36 | 0.52 | 0.81 |
Coefficient of variation (%) | 18.97 | 19.27 | 21.76 | 57.29 | 22.64 | 24.05 | 19.80 | 58.29 | 28.08 | 19.07 | 26.05 | 25.87 | 15.54 | 18.88 | 29.09 |
表5 马铃薯各指标耐亚磷酸盐系数(PTC)变异
Table 5 Variation of phosphite tolerant coefficient (PTC) of potato indexes
PTC | LI | EM | GSW | RD | SD | TD | DP | PR | PS | PL | PT | PP | PUT | NP | WP |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Average | 1.06 | 0.90 | 0.74 | 1.46 | 1.13 | 0.98 | 1.04 | 1.58 | 1.34 | 1.21 | 1.00 | 1.08 | 0.99 | 1.05 | 1.09 |
Maximum | 1.41 | 1.09 | 0.87 | 2.74 | 1.46 | 1.35 | 1.30 | 3.05 | 1.71 | 1.44 | 1.31 | 1.40 | 1.15 | 1.35 | 1.58 |
Minimum | 0.85 | 0.63 | 0.46 | 0.78 | 0.69 | 0.70 | 0.71 | 0.55 | 0.70 | 0.80 | 0.61 | 0.63 | 0.79 | 0.83 | 0.78 |
Range | 0.56 | 0.46 | 0.42 | 1.97 | 0.77 | 0.64 | 0.59 | 2.51 | 1.01 | 0.64 | 0.70 | 0.76 | 0.36 | 0.52 | 0.81 |
Coefficient of variation (%) | 18.97 | 19.27 | 21.76 | 57.29 | 22.64 | 24.05 | 19.80 | 58.29 | 28.08 | 19.07 | 26.05 | 25.87 | 15.54 | 18.88 | 29.09 |
Genotypes | LI | EM | GSW | RD | SD | TD | DP | PR | PS | PL | PT | PP | PUT | NP | WP |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C20 | 0.97 | 0.99 | 0.85 | 0.93 | 1.22 | 0.74 | 0.91 | 1.21 | 1.21 | 1.16 | 0.89 | 0.99 | 0.83 | 0.97 | 0.83 |
C31 | 0.91 | 1.09 | 0.87 | 0.97 | 1.23 | 1.01 | 1.11 | 1.16 | 1.71 | 1.41 | 1.27 | 1.40 | 0.79 | 1.02 | 1.04 |
C80 | 0.85 | 0.63 | 0.46 | 0.78 | 0.69 | 0.70 | 0.71 | 0.55 | 0.70 | 0.80 | 0.61 | 0.63 | 1.15 | 0.83 | 0.78 |
C115 | 1.11 | 0.79 | 0.66 | 2.31 | 1.04 | 1.35 | 1.30 | 2.29 | 1.62 | 1.44 | 1.31 | 1.36 | 1.03 | 1.35 | 1.58 |
D13 | 1.41 | 1.03 | 0.85 | 2.74 | 1.46 | 1.07 | 1.17 | 3.05 | 1.22 | 1.16 | 0.92 | 1.00 | 1.15 | 1.21 | 1.36 |
QS9 | 1.10 | 0.86 | 0.75 | 1.06 | 1.11 | 1.00 | 1.03 | 1.19 | 1.55 | 1.26 | 1.01 | 1.11 | 0.99 | 0.90 | 0.94 |
表6 不同品种马铃薯的耐亚磷酸盐系数(PTC)
Table 6 Phosphite tolerant coefficient (PTC) of different potato genotypes
Genotypes | LI | EM | GSW | RD | SD | TD | DP | PR | PS | PL | PT | PP | PUT | NP | WP |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C20 | 0.97 | 0.99 | 0.85 | 0.93 | 1.22 | 0.74 | 0.91 | 1.21 | 1.21 | 1.16 | 0.89 | 0.99 | 0.83 | 0.97 | 0.83 |
C31 | 0.91 | 1.09 | 0.87 | 0.97 | 1.23 | 1.01 | 1.11 | 1.16 | 1.71 | 1.41 | 1.27 | 1.40 | 0.79 | 1.02 | 1.04 |
C80 | 0.85 | 0.63 | 0.46 | 0.78 | 0.69 | 0.70 | 0.71 | 0.55 | 0.70 | 0.80 | 0.61 | 0.63 | 1.15 | 0.83 | 0.78 |
C115 | 1.11 | 0.79 | 0.66 | 2.31 | 1.04 | 1.35 | 1.30 | 2.29 | 1.62 | 1.44 | 1.31 | 1.36 | 1.03 | 1.35 | 1.58 |
D13 | 1.41 | 1.03 | 0.85 | 2.74 | 1.46 | 1.07 | 1.17 | 3.05 | 1.22 | 1.16 | 0.92 | 1.00 | 1.15 | 1.21 | 1.36 |
QS9 | 1.10 | 0.86 | 0.75 | 1.06 | 1.11 | 1.00 | 1.03 | 1.19 | 1.55 | 1.26 | 1.01 | 1.11 | 0.99 | 0.90 | 0.94 |
图4 亚磷酸盐处理下马铃薯各指标相关系数矩阵 PR、PS、PL、PT、PP和PUT同表4。LI、EM、GSW、RD、SD、TD、DP、NP和WP同表5。
Figure 4 Correlation coefficient matrix of potato indicators under phosphite treatment PR, PS, PL, PT, PP and PUT are the same as shown in Table 4. LI, EM, GSW, RD, SD, TD, DP, NP and WP are the same as shown in Table 5.
Indexes | PC1 | PC2 | PC3 |
---|---|---|---|
LI | 0.214 | 0.294 | 0.315 |
EM | 0.200 | -0.261 | 0.416 |
GSW | 0.211 | -0.260 | 0.410 |
RD | 0.241 | 0.355 | 0.093 |
SD | 0.245 | -0.073 | 0.460 |
TD | 0.292 | 0.127 | -0.284 |
DP | 0.330 | 0.049 | -0.106 |
PR | 0.263 | 0.287 | 0.196 |
PS | 0.272 | -0.251 | -0.165 |
PL | 0.296 | -0.204 | -0.170 |
PT | 0.285 | -0.187 | -0.263 |
PP | 0.282 | -0.230 | -0.211 |
PUT | -0.069 | 0.499 | -0.007 |
NP | 0.286 | 0.208 | -0.105 |
WP | 0.282 | 0.245 | -0.166 |
Eigen values | 8.893 | 3.638 | 2.110 |
Contribution rate (%) | 59.287 | 24.255 | 14.064 |
Cumulative contribution rate (%) | 59.287 | 83.542 | 97.606 |
表7 各综合指标的系数及贡献率
Table 7 Coefficients and contribution rates of each comprehensive indicator
Indexes | PC1 | PC2 | PC3 |
---|---|---|---|
LI | 0.214 | 0.294 | 0.315 |
EM | 0.200 | -0.261 | 0.416 |
GSW | 0.211 | -0.260 | 0.410 |
RD | 0.241 | 0.355 | 0.093 |
SD | 0.245 | -0.073 | 0.460 |
TD | 0.292 | 0.127 | -0.284 |
DP | 0.330 | 0.049 | -0.106 |
PR | 0.263 | 0.287 | 0.196 |
PS | 0.272 | -0.251 | -0.165 |
PL | 0.296 | -0.204 | -0.170 |
PT | 0.285 | -0.187 | -0.263 |
PP | 0.282 | -0.230 | -0.211 |
PUT | -0.069 | 0.499 | -0.007 |
NP | 0.286 | 0.208 | -0.105 |
WP | 0.282 | 0.245 | -0.166 |
Eigen values | 8.893 | 3.638 | 2.110 |
Contribution rate (%) | 59.287 | 24.255 | 14.064 |
Cumulative contribution rate (%) | 59.287 | 83.542 | 97.606 |
Genotypes | F(X1) | F(X2) | F(X3) | U(X1) | U(X2) | U(X3) | D value | Total ranking |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C20 | 3.61 | 0.42 | 0.56 | 0.49 | 0.24 | 0.80 | 0.48 | 5 |
C31 | 4.27 | 0.11 | 0.14 | 0.80 | 0.00 | 0.46 | 0.55 | 3 |
C80 | 2.50 | 0.81 | 0.17 | 0.00 | 0.81 | 0.34 | 0.25 | 6 |
C115 | 5.16 | 1.51 | 0.02 | 1.00 | 0.79 | 0.00 | 0.80 | 2 |
D13 | 5.08 | 2.08 | 1.10 | 0.90 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.94 | 1 |
QS9 | 3.89 | 0.54 | 0.23 | 0.60 | 0.40 | 0.46 | 0.53 | 4 |
Wj | 0.607 | 0.249 | 0.144 |
表8 各品种马铃薯的综合指标值F(Xj)、权重(Wj)、隶属函数值U(Xj)、D值及综合评价
Table 8 Comprehensive index values F(Xj), index weight (Wj), membership function values U(Xj), D values and comprehensive evaluation of each potato genotype
Genotypes | F(X1) | F(X2) | F(X3) | U(X1) | U(X2) | U(X3) | D value | Total ranking |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C20 | 3.61 | 0.42 | 0.56 | 0.49 | 0.24 | 0.80 | 0.48 | 5 |
C31 | 4.27 | 0.11 | 0.14 | 0.80 | 0.00 | 0.46 | 0.55 | 3 |
C80 | 2.50 | 0.81 | 0.17 | 0.00 | 0.81 | 0.34 | 0.25 | 6 |
C115 | 5.16 | 1.51 | 0.02 | 1.00 | 0.79 | 0.00 | 0.80 | 2 |
D13 | 5.08 | 2.08 | 1.10 | 0.90 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.94 | 1 |
QS9 | 3.89 | 0.54 | 0.23 | 0.60 | 0.40 | 0.46 | 0.53 | 4 |
Wj | 0.607 | 0.249 | 0.144 |
图6 不同马铃薯品种在亚磷酸盐处理和正常处理下的产量表现与生长状况 (A)-(F) C20、C31、C80、C115、D13和QS9收获时的产量表现(bars=24.5 cm); (G)-(L) C20、C31、C80、C115、D13和QS9栽后90天的生长状况(bars=31.3 cm)。CK和T同表2。
Figure 6 Yield and growth of different potato genotypes under phosphite treatment and normal treatment (A)-(F) The yield performance of C20, C31, C80, C115, D13 and QS9 at harvest (bars=24.5 cm); (G)-(L) The growth status of C20, C31, C80, C115, D13 and QS9 90 days after planting (bars=31.3 cm). CK and T are the same as shown in Table 2.
Categories | The average value of the phosphite tolerant coefficient of each determination index | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LI | EM | GSW | RD | SD | TD | DP | PR | PS | PL | PT | PP | PUT | NP | WP | |
First | 0.85 | 0.63 | 0.46 | 0.78 | 0.69 | 0.70 | 0.71 | 0.55 | 0.70 | 0.80 | 0.61 | 0.63 | 1.15 | 0.83 | 0.78 |
Second | 0.99 | 0.98 | 0.83 | 0.99 | 1.19 | 0.92 | 1.02 | 1.19 | 1.49 | 1.28 | 1.06 | 1.17 | 0.87 | 0.96 | 0.94 |
Third | 1.26 | 0.91 | 0.75 | 2.53 | 1.25 | 1.21 | 1.23 | 2.67 | 1.42 | 1.30 | 1.12 | 1.18 | 1.09 | 1.28 | 1.47 |
表9 聚类结果中耐亚磷酸盐各类别的表现特征
Table 9 Performance characteristics of each phosphite-tolerant category in clustering results
Categories | The average value of the phosphite tolerant coefficient of each determination index | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LI | EM | GSW | RD | SD | TD | DP | PR | PS | PL | PT | PP | PUT | NP | WP | |
First | 0.85 | 0.63 | 0.46 | 0.78 | 0.69 | 0.70 | 0.71 | 0.55 | 0.70 | 0.80 | 0.61 | 0.63 | 1.15 | 0.83 | 0.78 |
Second | 0.99 | 0.98 | 0.83 | 0.99 | 1.19 | 0.92 | 1.02 | 1.19 | 1.49 | 1.28 | 1.06 | 1.17 | 0.87 | 0.96 | 0.94 |
Third | 1.26 | 0.91 | 0.75 | 2.53 | 1.25 | 1.21 | 1.23 | 2.67 | 1.42 | 1.30 | 1.12 | 1.18 | 1.09 | 1.28 | 1.47 |
[1] | 陈磊, 王盛锋, 刘荣乐, 汪洪 (2012). 不同磷供应水平下小麦根系形态及根际过程的变化特征. 植物营养与肥料学报 18, 324-331. |
[2] |
戴海芳, 武辉, 阿曼古丽·买买提阿力, 王立红, 麦麦提·阿皮孜, 张巨松 (2014). 不同基因型棉花苗期耐盐性分析及其鉴定指标筛选. 中国农业科学 47, 1290-1300.
DOI |
[3] | 雷菲, 潘孝忠, 吴宇佳, 曾新宇, 曾建华, 张冬明 (2021). 基施亚磷酸钾对“琼辣3号”线椒养分吸收和土壤环境的影响. 分子植物育种 19, 8279-8286. |
[4] | 李宝玉, 高明杰, 高春雨, 余婧婧 (2017). 亚磷酸盐在农业上的应用及机制研究进展. 南京农业大学学报 40, 949-956. |
[5] | 李宝玉, 刘富强, 郭燕枝 (2021). 亚磷酸钾在马铃薯上的增产及抗病效果. 中国蔬菜 (9), 63-68. |
[6] |
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 |
[7] |
刘明, 范文静, 赵鹏, 靳容, 张强强, 朱晓亚, 王静, 李强 (2023). 甘薯耐低钾基因型苗期筛选及综合评价. 作物学报 49, 926-937.
DOI |
[8] | 屈冬玉, 谢开云, 金黎平, 庞万福, 卞春松, 段绍光 (2005). 中国马铃薯产业发展与食物安全. 中国农业科学 38, 358- 362. |
[9] | 任士伟, 王亮亮, 张萍萍, 王娜 (2019). 喷施亚磷酸钾对番茄生长发育的影响. 黑龙江农业科学 (6), 50-53. |
[10] | 石瑶 (2002). 利用亚磷酸防治作物疫病. 中国农村科技 (5), 18. |
[11] |
孙璐, 周宇飞, 汪澈, 肖木辑, 陶冶, 许文娟, 黄瑞冬 (2012). 高粱品种萌发期耐盐性筛选与鉴定. 中国农业科学 45, 1714- 1722.
DOI |
[12] |
王吉祥, 宫焕宇, 屠祥建, 郭侲洐, 赵嘉楠, 沈健, 栗振义, 孙娟 (2021). 耐亚磷酸盐紫花苜蓿品种筛选及评价指标的鉴定. 草业学报 30(5), 186-199.
DOI |
[13] | 王宁, 焦晓燕, 武爱莲, 王劲松, 董二伟, 郭珺, 丁玉川, 王立革 (2016). 生物炭对土壤磷、钾养分影响研究进展. 山西农业科学 44, 1402-1405, 1420. |
[14] |
杨春婷, 张永清, 马星星, 陈伟, 董璐, 张楚, 路之娟 (2018). 苦荞耐低磷基因型筛选及评价指标的鉴定. 应用生态学报 29, 2997-3007.
DOI |
[15] |
张邦喜, 李渝, 秦松, 李国学, 蒋太明 (2016). 长期施肥下黄壤无机磷组分空间分布特征. 华北农学报 31(3), 212-217.
DOI |
[16] | 张汝, 李晓荣, 张美俊, 乔治军, 陈凌 (2017). 苗期耐亚磷酸盐糜子品种的筛选. 山西农业科学 45, 1310-1314. |
[17] | 张韫 (2011). 土壤·水·植物理化分析教程. 北京: 中国林业出版社. pp. 229-232. |
[18] |
Achary VMM, Ram B, Manna M, Datta D, Bhatt A, Reddy MK, Agrawal PK (2017). Phosphite: a novel P fertilizer for weed management and pathogen control. Plant Biotechnol J 15, 1493-1508.
DOI PMID |
[19] |
Baker A, Ceasar SA, Palmer AJ, Paterson JB, Qi WJ, Muench SP, Baldwin SA (2015). Replace, reuse, recycle: improving the sustainable use of phosphorus by plants. J Exp Bot 66, 3523-3540.
DOI PMID |
[20] | Broschat TK (2006). Effects of phosphorous and phosphoric acids on growth and phosphorus concentrations in container-grown tropical ornamental plants. HortTechnology 16, 105-108. |
[21] | Cordell D, White S (2011). Peak phosphorus: clarifying the key issues of a vigorous debate about long-term phosphorus security. Sustainability 3, 2027-2049. |
[22] | Dawson CJ, Hilton J (2011). Fertiliser availability in a resource-limited world: production and recycling of nitrogen and phosphorus. Food Policy 36, S14-S22. |
[23] | Dormatey R, Sun C, Ali K, Qin TY, Xu DR, Bi ZZ, Bai JP (2021). Influence of phosphite supply in the MS medium on root morphological characteristics, fresh biomass and enzymatic behavior in five genotypes of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.). Horticulturae 7, 265. |
[24] | Fang ZY, Shao C, Meng YJ, Wu P, Chen M (2009). Phosphate signaling in Arabidopsis and Oryza sativa. Plant Sci 176, 170-180. |
[25] | Glinicki R, Sas-Paszt L, Jadczuk-Tobjasz E (2010). The effect of plant stimulant/fertilizer “Resistim” on growth and development of strawberry plants. J Fruit Ornam Plant Res 18, 111-124. |
[26] | Grant CA, Flaten DN, Tomasiewicz DJ, Sheppard SC (2001). The importance of early season phosphorus nutrition. Can J Plant Sci 81, 211-224. |
[27] | King M, Reeve W, Van der Hoek MB, Williams N, McComb J, O’Brien PA, Hardy GESJ (2010). Defining the phosphite-regulated transcriptome of the plant pathogen Phytophthora cinnamomi. Mol Genet Genom 284, 425-435. |
[28] | Lobato MC, Olivieri FP, Altamiranda EAG, Wolski EA, Daleo GR, Caldiz DO, Andreu AB (2008). Phosphite compounds reduce disease severity in potato seed tubers and foliage. Eur J Plant Pathol 122, 349-358. |
[29] |
López-Arredondo DL, Leyva-González MA, González- Morales SI, López-Bucio J, Herrera-Estrella L (2014). Phosphate nutrition: improving low-phosphate tolerance in crops. Annu Rev Plant Biol 65, 95-123.
DOI PMID |
[30] | Lovatt CJ, Mikkelsen RL (2006). Phosphite fertilizers: what are they? Can you use them? What can they do? Better Crops 90, 11-13. |
[31] | McDonald AE, Grant BR, Plaxton WC (2001). Phosphite (phosphorous acid): its relevance in the environment and agriculture and influence on plant phosphate starvation response. J Plant Nutr 24, 1505-1519. |
[32] | Rickard DA (2000). Review of phosphorus acid and its salts as fertilizer materials. J Plant Nutr 23, 161-180. |
[33] |
Schachtman DP, Reid RJ, Ayling SM (1998). Phosphorus uptake by plants: from soil to cell. Plant Physiol 116, 447- 453.
DOI PMID |
[34] | Schroetter S, Angeles-Wedler D, Kreuzig R, Schnug E (2006). Effects of phosphite on phosphorus supply and growth of corn (Zea mays). Landbauforschung Volkenrode 56, 87-99. |
[35] | Singh VK, Wood SM, Knowles VL, Plaxton WC (2003). Phosphite accelerates programmed cell death in phosphate-starved oilseed rape (Brassica napus) suspension cell culture. Planta 218, 233-239. |
[36] | Thao HTB, Yamakawa T (2009). Phosphite (phosphorous acid): fungicide, fertilizer or bio-stimulator? Soil Sci Plant Nutr 55, 228-234. |
[37] |
Ticconi CA, Delatorre CA, Abel S (2001). Attenuation of phosphate starvation responses by phosphite in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol 127, 963-972.
PMID |
[38] |
Varadarajan DK, Karthikeyan AS, Matilda PD, Raghothama KG (2002). Phosphite, an analog of phosphate, suppresses the coordinated expression of genes under phosphate starvation. Plant Physiol 129, 1232-1240.
DOI PMID |
[1] | 吴相獐, 雷富民, 单壹壹, 于晶. 上海城市公园苔藓植物多样性分布格局及其环境影响因子[J]. 生物多样性, 2024, 32(2): 23364-. |
[2] | 刘寅笃, 脱军康, 李成举, 张锋, 张春利, 张莹, 王云姣, 范又方, 姚攀锋, 孙超, 刘玉汇, 刘震, 毕真真, 白江平. 耐低钾马铃薯品种的筛选与评价[J]. 植物学报, 2024, 59(1): 75-88. |
[3] | 程思祺, 姜峰, 金光泽. 温带森林阔叶植物幼苗叶经济谱及其与防御性状的关系[J]. 植物生态学报, 2022, 46(6): 678-686. |
[4] | 郭书亚, 艾金祥, 陈虹宇, 邵烨瑶, 汪妍, 王倩, 叶怡彤, 张雅婷, 丁哲晓, 吴昊辰, 吴玉环, 张建新, 饶米德, 刘鹏. 基于主成分-聚类-逐步回归分析构建番茄苗期耐铝性综合评价体系[J]. 植物学报, 2022, 57(4): 479-489. |
[5] | 何雨龙, 王佳歌, 赵珊珊, 高锦, 常英英, 赵喜亭, 聂碧华, 杨清香, 张江利, 李明军. 马铃薯Y病毒RPA-CRISPR/Cas12a检测技术体系的建立与应用[J]. 植物学报, 2022, 57(3): 308-319. |
[6] | 翟琼, 陈容钦, 梁晓华, 曾楚淳, 胡博, 李玲, 李晓云. 一种花生快速遗传转化方法的建立与应用[J]. 植物学报, 2022, 57(3): 327-339. |
[7] | 周楷玲, 赵玉金, 白永飞. 基于Sentinel-2A数据的东北森林植物多样性监测方法研究[J]. 植物生态学报, 2022, 46(10): 1251-1267. |
[8] | 孙文泰, 马明. 黄土高原长期覆膜苹果园土壤物理退化与细根生长响应[J]. 植物生态学报, 2021, 45(9): 972-986. |
[9] | 许操. 而今迈步从头越: 马铃薯育种跨入“有种”时代[J]. 植物学报, 2021, 56(5): 516-519. |
[10] | 孙廷哲, 岂泽华, 梁可欣, 李沁, 饶玉春, 穆丹. 蚜害茶树挥发物组分变化的聚类分析[J]. 植物学报, 2021, 56(4): 422-432. |
[11] | 董琳琳, 普晓妍, 张璐璐, 宋亮, 鲁志云, 李苏. 亚热带森林附生地衣压力-体积曲线分析及其适用性[J]. 植物生态学报, 2021, 45(3): 274-285. |
[12] | 叶俊伟, 田斌. 中国西南地区重要木本油料植物扁核木的遗传结构及成因[J]. 生物多样性, 2021, 29(12): 1629-1637. |
[13] | 刘丽平, 宋瑞凤, 张馥, 张秀香, 彭桂香, 谭志远. 高秆野生稻内生固氮细菌多样性[J]. 生物多样性, 2020, 28(8): 1018-1025. |
[14] | 刘丹, 郭忠玲, 崔晓阳, 范春楠. 5种东北红豆杉植物群丛及其物种多样性的比较[J]. 生物多样性, 2020, 28(3): 340-349. |
[15] | 何杰丽,石甜甜,陈凌,王海岗,高志军,杨美红,王瑞云,乔治军. 糜子EST-SSR分子标记的开发及种质资源遗传多样性分析[J]. 植物学报, 2019, 54(6): 723-732. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||