Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences ›› 2024, Vol. 65 ›› Issue (3): 587-591.DOI: 10.16178/j.issn.0528-9017.20230354
Previous Articles Next Articles
ZENG Yannan(), ZHAO Hanwei, JI Hongting, CHENG Rundong, WANG Shihong, WANG Yong, ZHAO Hejuan*(
)
Received:
2023-05-21
Online:
2024-03-11
Published:
2024-04-08
CLC Number:
ZENG Yannan, ZHAO Hanwei, JI Hongting, CHENG Rundong, WANG Shihong, WANG Yong, ZHAO Hejuan. Effects of uniconazole concentrations on the growth characteristics and yield of fresh sweet potato[J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 65(3): 587-591.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: http://www.zjnykx.cn/EN/10.16178/j.issn.0528-9017.20230354
处理 | 单株分枝数 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 d | 30 d | 60 d | 90 d | 平均 | |
CK | 9.73 a | 16.27 a | 17.60 a | 18.93 a | 15.63 a |
1 | 10.27 a | 16.67 a | 20.13 a | 20.13 a | 16.80 a |
2 | 10.40 a | 15.67 a | 19.00 a | 18.13 a | 15.80 a |
3 | 9.07 a | 15.53 a | 18.53 a | 17.53 a | 15.17 a |
4 | 9.20 a | 14.53 a | 16.67 a | 18.40 a | 14.70 a |
Table 1 Effect of uniconazole concentrations on the number of branches in sweet potato
处理 | 单株分枝数 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 d | 30 d | 60 d | 90 d | 平均 | |
CK | 9.73 a | 16.27 a | 17.60 a | 18.93 a | 15.63 a |
1 | 10.27 a | 16.67 a | 20.13 a | 20.13 a | 16.80 a |
2 | 10.40 a | 15.67 a | 19.00 a | 18.13 a | 15.80 a |
3 | 9.07 a | 15.53 a | 18.53 a | 17.53 a | 15.17 a |
4 | 9.20 a | 14.53 a | 16.67 a | 18.40 a | 14.70 a |
处理 | 主蔓长度/cm | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 d | 30 d | 60 d | 90 d | 平均 | |
CK | 105.83 a | 138.02 ab | 160.07 a | 149.27 a | 138.30 a |
1 | 94.19 a | 157.89 a | 162.77 a | 154.13 a | 142.25 a |
2 | 93.85 a | 124.15 b | 131.59 a | 135.47 a | 121.27 a |
3 | 108.33 a | 141.65 ab | 137.52 a | 146.67 a | 133.54 a |
4 | 102.39 a | 118.97 b | 146.18 a | 133.61 a | 125.29 a |
Table 2 Effects of uniconazole concentrations on the length of main vine of sweet potato
处理 | 主蔓长度/cm | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 d | 30 d | 60 d | 90 d | 平均 | |
CK | 105.83 a | 138.02 ab | 160.07 a | 149.27 a | 138.30 a |
1 | 94.19 a | 157.89 a | 162.77 a | 154.13 a | 142.25 a |
2 | 93.85 a | 124.15 b | 131.59 a | 135.47 a | 121.27 a |
3 | 108.33 a | 141.65 ab | 137.52 a | 146.67 a | 133.54 a |
4 | 102.39 a | 118.97 b | 146.18 a | 133.61 a | 125.29 a |
处理 | 主茎粗/mm | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 d | 30 d | 60 d | 90 d | 平均 | |
CK | 5.71 a | 5.89 a | 5.75 a | 5.58 a | 5.74 a |
1 | 6.05 a | 6.40 a | 5.76 a | 5.51 a | 5.93 a |
2 | 6.11 a | 6.12 a | 6.22 a | 5.48 a | 5.98 a |
3 | 6.28 a | 6.44 a | 5.93 a | 5.91 a | 6.14 a |
4 | 6.40 a | 6.16 a | 5.66 a | 5.75 a | 5.99 a |
Table 3 Effect of uniconazole concentrations on main stem diameter of sweet potato
处理 | 主茎粗/mm | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 d | 30 d | 60 d | 90 d | 平均 | |
CK | 5.71 a | 5.89 a | 5.75 a | 5.58 a | 5.74 a |
1 | 6.05 a | 6.40 a | 5.76 a | 5.51 a | 5.93 a |
2 | 6.11 a | 6.12 a | 6.22 a | 5.48 a | 5.98 a |
3 | 6.28 a | 6.44 a | 5.93 a | 5.91 a | 6.14 a |
4 | 6.40 a | 6.16 a | 5.66 a | 5.75 a | 5.99 a |
时期 | 地上部鲜重/g | 地上部干率/% | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CK | 处理1 | 处理2 | 处理3 | 处理4 | CK | 处理1 | 处理2 | 处理3 | 处理4 | |
0 d | 846.45 a | 850.81 a | 785.97 a | 825.88 a | 647.03 a | 10.62 a | 10.32 a | 10.98 a | 11.23 a | 11.31 a |
30 d | 976.98 a | 970.00 a | 921.73 a | 869.10 a | 802.95 a | 10.43 a | 10.82 a | 10.92 a | 11.21 a | 11.69 a |
60 d | 1 201.60 a | 1 509.63 a | 851.29 a | 1 117.09 a | 896.40 a | 11.71 a | 11.65 a | 11.69 a | 11.97 a | 12.25 a |
90 d | 717.59 a | 749.91 a | 744.67 a | 574.27 a | 582.94 a | 12.26 a | 10.93 b | 11.94 ab | 12.26 a | 12.70 a |
Table 4 Effects of uniconazole concentrations on the aboveground biomass of sweet potato
时期 | 地上部鲜重/g | 地上部干率/% | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CK | 处理1 | 处理2 | 处理3 | 处理4 | CK | 处理1 | 处理2 | 处理3 | 处理4 | |
0 d | 846.45 a | 850.81 a | 785.97 a | 825.88 a | 647.03 a | 10.62 a | 10.32 a | 10.98 a | 11.23 a | 11.31 a |
30 d | 976.98 a | 970.00 a | 921.73 a | 869.10 a | 802.95 a | 10.43 a | 10.82 a | 10.92 a | 11.21 a | 11.69 a |
60 d | 1 201.60 a | 1 509.63 a | 851.29 a | 1 117.09 a | 896.40 a | 11.71 a | 11.65 a | 11.69 a | 11.97 a | 12.25 a |
90 d | 717.59 a | 749.91 a | 744.67 a | 574.27 a | 582.94 a | 12.26 a | 10.93 b | 11.94 ab | 12.26 a | 12.70 a |
时期 | 单株鲜薯重/g | 地下部干率/% | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CK | 处理1 | 处理2 | 处理3 | 处理4 | CK | 处理1 | 处理2 | 处理3 | 处理4 | |
0 d | 88.56 a | 140.21 a | 105.73 a | 142.65 a | 152.03 a | 30.19 a | 29.27 a | 29.19 a | 29.65 a | 29.58 a |
30 d | 227.80 a | 407.03 a | 663.41 a | 513.83 a | 485.97 a | 28.87 a | 29.12 a | 28.96 a | 30.25 a | 28.85 a |
60 d | 639.64 b | 812.73 ab | 925.25 a | 853.53 ab | 905.05 ab | 29.86 a | 30.68 a | 30.83 a | 30.70 a | 31.31 a |
90 d | 980.06 a | 1 018.47 a | 1 196.21 a | 1 193.13 a | 1 031.21 a | 31.15 a | 31.54 a | 31.18 a | 31.51 a | 32.27 a |
Table 5 Effects of uniconazole concentrations on underground biomass of sweet potato
时期 | 单株鲜薯重/g | 地下部干率/% | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CK | 处理1 | 处理2 | 处理3 | 处理4 | CK | 处理1 | 处理2 | 处理3 | 处理4 | |
0 d | 88.56 a | 140.21 a | 105.73 a | 142.65 a | 152.03 a | 30.19 a | 29.27 a | 29.19 a | 29.65 a | 29.58 a |
30 d | 227.80 a | 407.03 a | 663.41 a | 513.83 a | 485.97 a | 28.87 a | 29.12 a | 28.96 a | 30.25 a | 28.85 a |
60 d | 639.64 b | 812.73 ab | 925.25 a | 853.53 ab | 905.05 ab | 29.86 a | 30.68 a | 30.83 a | 30.70 a | 31.31 a |
90 d | 980.06 a | 1 018.47 a | 1 196.21 a | 1 193.13 a | 1 031.21 a | 31.15 a | 31.54 a | 31.18 a | 31.51 a | 32.27 a |
处理 | 单株地上部与地下部鲜重比值 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
0 d | 30 d | 60 d | 90 d | |
CK | 9.56 | 4.29 | 1.88 | 0.74 |
1 | 6.07 | 2.38 | 1.86 | 0.73 |
2 | 7.43 | 1.39 | 0.92 | 0.62 |
3 | 5.79 | 1.69 | 1.31 | 0.48 |
4 | 4.26 | 1.65 | 0.99 | 0.57 |
Table 6 Effect of uniconazole concentrations on the ratio of fresh weight between aboveground and underground of sweet potato
处理 | 单株地上部与地下部鲜重比值 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
0 d | 30 d | 60 d | 90 d | |
CK | 9.56 | 4.29 | 1.88 | 0.74 |
1 | 6.07 | 2.38 | 1.86 | 0.73 |
2 | 7.43 | 1.39 | 0.92 | 0.62 |
3 | 5.79 | 1.69 | 1.31 | 0.48 |
4 | 4.26 | 1.65 | 0.99 | 0.57 |
处理 | 小区产量/ kg | 折合667 m2产量/ kg | 比对照±/ % |
---|---|---|---|
CK | 66.92 b | 2 230.67 | 0 |
1 | 69.96 ab | 2 332.23 | 4.55 |
2 | 74.61 ab | 2 487.12 | 11.50 |
3 | 75.85 a | 2 528.46 | 13.35 |
4 | 73.97 ab | 2 465.90 | 10.55 |
Table 7 Effects of different concentrations of uniconazole on sweet potato yield
处理 | 小区产量/ kg | 折合667 m2产量/ kg | 比对照±/ % |
---|---|---|---|
CK | 66.92 b | 2 230.67 | 0 |
1 | 69.96 ab | 2 332.23 | 4.55 |
2 | 74.61 ab | 2 487.12 | 11.50 |
3 | 75.85 a | 2 528.46 | 13.35 |
4 | 73.97 ab | 2 465.90 | 10.55 |
处理 | 薯数 | 大薯数 | 中薯数 | 小薯数 | 薯重/g | 大薯重/g | 中薯重/g | 小薯重/g | 商品薯率/% |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CK | 5.20 | 1.87 | 1.53 | 1.80 | 1 098.33 | 725.08 | 265.17 | 108.09 | 90.16 |
1 | 5.87 | 1.47 | 2.53 | 1.87 | 1 112.33 | 637.36 | 402.71 | 72.26 | 93.50 |
2 | 6.80 | 2.00 | 2.60 | 2.20 | 1 232.44 | 720.48 | 407.97 | 103.99 | 91.56 |
3 | 7.33 | 2.00 | 2.47 | 2.87 | 1 380.53 | 890.04 | 358.43 | 132.06 | 90.43 |
4 | 5.53 | 2.07 | 1.60 | 1.87 | 1 219.82 | 825.44 | 285.63 | 108.75 | 91.08 |
Table 8 Effect of uniconazole concentration on yield traits of sweet potato
处理 | 薯数 | 大薯数 | 中薯数 | 小薯数 | 薯重/g | 大薯重/g | 中薯重/g | 小薯重/g | 商品薯率/% |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CK | 5.20 | 1.87 | 1.53 | 1.80 | 1 098.33 | 725.08 | 265.17 | 108.09 | 90.16 |
1 | 5.87 | 1.47 | 2.53 | 1.87 | 1 112.33 | 637.36 | 402.71 | 72.26 | 93.50 |
2 | 6.80 | 2.00 | 2.60 | 2.20 | 1 232.44 | 720.48 | 407.97 | 103.99 | 91.56 |
3 | 7.33 | 2.00 | 2.47 | 2.87 | 1 380.53 | 890.04 | 358.43 | 132.06 | 90.43 |
4 | 5.53 | 2.07 | 1.60 | 1.87 | 1 219.82 | 825.44 | 285.63 | 108.75 | 91.08 |
[1] | 马代夫, 李强, 曹清河, 等. 中国甘薯产业及产业技术的发展与展望[J]. 江苏农业学报, 2012, 28(5): 969-973. |
[2] | 王欣, 李强, 曹清河, 等. 中国甘薯产业和种业发展现状与未来展望[J]. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54(3): 483-492. |
[3] | 谢一芝, 郭小丁, 贾赵东, 等. 中国食用甘薯育种现状及展望[J]. 江苏农业学报, 2018, 34(6): 1419-1424. |
[4] | 孟羽莎, 赖齐贤. 观赏甘薯的应用及展望[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2019, 60(12): 2181-2184, 2244. |
[5] | 项超, 沈升法, 季志仙, 等. 浙薯系列鲜食及食品加工型甘薯品种系谱和品质性状分析[J]. 核农学报, 2020, 34(1): 36-44. |
[6] | 王庆南, 戎新祥, 赵荷娟, 等. 菜用甘薯研究进展及开发利用前景[J]. 南京农专学报, 2003, 19(1): 20-23. |
[7] | 姜龙, 曲金玲, 孙国宏, 等. 矮壮素、烯效唑和多效唑对水稻倒伏及产量的影响[J]. 中国林副特产, 2018(2): 10-13, 18. |
[8] | 孙宏琳. 不同浓度的烯效唑对小麦种子成苗的差异探讨[J]. 粮食科技与经济, 2019, 44(4): 57-59. |
[9] | 陈文杰, 汤复跃, 韦清源, 等. 不同浓度烯效唑拌种对套作夏大豆农艺性状及产量的影响[J]. 南方农业学报, 2019, 50(9): 1960-1966. |
[10] | 姜瑶, 汪宝卿, 解备涛, 等. 烯效唑对不同耐旱性甘薯品种苗期根系抗氧化酶同工酶的影响[J]. 山东农业科学, 2016, 48(6): 23-27. |
[11] | 何荣鹤, 孟水苗, 叶天峰, 等. 甘薯块根肥大初期喷施烯效唑试验初报[J]. 浙江农村技术师专学报, 1996, 9(S1): 96-97. |
[12] | 胡启国, 刘亚军, 王文静, 等. 烯效唑对甘薯产量和生长发育的影响[J]. 山西农业科学, 2018, 46(8): 1299-1301, 1395. |
[13] | 李艳霞, 范建芝, 张敬敏, 等. 烯效唑不同喷施时期对烟薯25生长及产量的影响[J]. 山东农业科学, 2013, 45(11): 39-41. |
[14] | 李云, 李晓慧, 杨航, 等. 烯效唑对甘薯植株生长及产量的影响[J]. 农技服务, 2022, 39(5): 16-17. |
[15] | 韩金酉. 喷施烯效唑对鲜食甘薯烟薯25生长及产量的影响[J]. 江西农业, 2018(8): 29. |
[1] | ZHENG Ting, WEI Lingzhu, QIAN Jichang, CHENG Jianhui, XIANG Jiang, WU Jiang. Fig quality and safety production technology [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 65(3): 627-632. |
[2] | FU Sheng, REN Jie, YANG Fengli. Effect of 9 herbicides on weed control effect and yield in single-cropping late rice direct seeding field [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 65(3): 657-660. |
[3] | ZHANG Fuqiang, ZHANG Hongjie, ZHANG Guo, YU Julong, WANG Junwen, QI Junsheng. Comparison of the application effects of two kinds of immune inducers and conventional agents in wheat [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 65(3): 672-675. |
[4] | ZHAI Wenxi, LI Xiangling, YANG Qing, WANG Jian, YANG Min, LIU Xueru, HAN Jinling. Dry matter accumulation characteristics of sweet potato cultivated with film mulching [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 65(3): 489-496. |
[5] | XIN Haibin, YANG Xuqing, XU Ruiheng, WANG Ying, ZHANG Yan, FAN Xiaokai. Effects of different fertilization patterns of three slow-releasefertilizers on wheat yield and economic benefits [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 65(3): 505-512. |
[6] | ZHANG Huaijie, HU Tiejun, XU Rongrong. Effect of stable nitrogen fertilizer on economic characters and fertilizer utilization efficiency of Yongyou 15 [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 65(3): 531-535. |
[7] | HUANG Yechang, ZENG Wei, DENG Lizhang, KANG Yuliu, PAN Binrong. Experimental study on field fertilizer efficiency of fresh corn soil testing and formula fertilization in Wenzhou [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 65(3): 536-540. |
[8] | XIE Xiaocong, ZHENG Xiaokang, XU Xinxin, LI Xiaoli, SHI Liyun, BAO Rizai. Effect of partial substitution of chemical fertilizer with organic fertilizer on yield and nitrogen use efficiency of maize [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 65(3): 541-544. |
[9] | ZHANG Wenjun, ZHANG Qingfu, YANG Liu, SONG Jiajun, HE Jiguang, YANG Zaijun, XIONG Chengliang. Effects of different types of potassium fertilizer and application period on upper leaf quality of tobacco in Changsha [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 65(3): 549-554. |
[10] | ZHONG Yangmin, LIU Tingfu, LI Hanmei, LIU Chengwei, MA Ruifang, RUAN Meiying, WANG Linlin. Effects of different base fertilizer treatments on the growth and yield of vegetable broad beans [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 65(3): 567-570. |
[11] | LI Huoliang, HAN Kefeng. Effect of comprehensive nutrient management model on yield and soil nutrient content of Vitis vinifera L. [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 65(3): 608-613. |
[12] | Bo LI. Effect of exogenous substances on yield and quality of upper tobacco leaves [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 65(2): 301-306. |
[13] | Wenjun ZHANG, Chengliang XIONG, Qingfu ZHANG, Weiyuan YAO, Tao XIA, Song GUO, Liu YANG. Effect of fertilizer synergist on growth and development of flue-cured tobacco and yield and quality of upper tobacco leaves [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 65(2): 314-319. |
[14] | Zhe WANG, Yuhang WANG, Xiaoqing WANG, Huaifu FAN. Effect of LED light quality control on celery growth and yield in plant factory [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 65(2): 340-344. |
[15] | Ruchao FENG, Zhe LIU, Shaogui GUO, Lina ZHANG, Jie ZHANG, Feng SHEN, Jiaqiu ZHENG, Yi MEI. Study on the application effect of Ruikangdun microbial agent on autumn continuous cropping watermelon [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 65(2): 345-349. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||