Chinese Bulletin of Botany ›› 2024, Vol. 59 ›› Issue (4): 544-557.DOI: 10.11983/CBB23108 cstr: 32102.14.CBB23108
• EXPERIMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS • Previous Articles Next Articles
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
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[J]. 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 |
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 |
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 |
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.
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.
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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] | Xiangzhang Wu, Fumin Lei, Yiyi Shan, Jing Yu. Distribution pattern of bryophyte diversity and environmental impact factors in urban parks of Shanghai [J]. Biodiv Sci, 2024, 32(2): 23364-. |
[2] | 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. Screening and Evaluation of Low-potassium Tolerance Potato Varieties [J]. Chinese Bulletin of Botany, 2024, 59(1): 75-88. |
[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] | 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. |
[5] | 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. |
[6] | ZHOU Kai-Ling, ZHAO Yu-Jin, BAI Yong-Fei. Study on forest plant diversity monitoring based on Sentinel-2A satellite data in northeast China [J]. Chin J Plant Ecol, 2022, 46(10): 1251-1267. |
[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] | Dan Liu, Zhongling Guo, Xiaoyang Cui, Chunnan Fan. Comparison of five associations of Taxus cuspidata and their species diversity [J]. Biodiv Sci, 2020, 28(3): 340-349. |
[12] | 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. |
[13] | Li Yiyuan, C. Molik David, E. Pfrender Michael. EPPS, a metabarcoding bioinformatics pipeline using Nextflow [J]. Biodiv Sci, 2019, 27(5): 567-575. |
[14] | 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. |
[15] | 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. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||