Effects of Irrigation Amount and Planting Density on Biomass Allocation, Yield and Water Use Efficiency of Purple Cabbage in Arid-hot Valley

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2020-0591

Abstract

Abstract:

The study is to assess the effects of irrigation amount and planting density on biomass characteristics, yield, and water use efficiency of purple cabbage. The configuration effects of irrigation amount (I₁ 5800 m³/hm²、I₂ 4900 m³/hm²、I₃ 4600 m³/hm²) and planting density (D₁ 79200 plants/hm²、D₂ 52800 plants/hm²、D₃ 39600 plants/hm²) on biomass characteristics, yield and water use efficiency of purple cabbage were studied. The results showed that the fresh weight of leaf and stem, and the fraction of stem of purple cabbage were significantly affected by the irrigation amount. The allometric coefficients of outer leaf to above-ground biomass reduced with the decrease of irrigation water, so more biomass was distributed to the outer leaf of purple cabbage. The fresh and dry weight of leaf, stem and cabbage head, as well as the total biomass, increased significantly with the decrease of planting density. With decreased planting density, the fraction of outer leaf decreased significantly, but the fraction of cabbage head increased. There was no significant difference in the allometric growth of biomass in each treatment. Planting density was the main factor affecting the biomass characteristics of purple cabbage. There was a small effect of irrigation amount on the biomass of purple cabbage and the interaction between irrigation amount and planting density on biomass characteristics in purple cabbage was not significant. The principal component analysis (PCA) scores of biomass characteristics and the water utilization efficiency of I₂D₃ treatment were the highest, while its economic yield was good, so the I₂D₃ was the best among all the treatments. The study can provide a basis for high yield and high-efficiency production of purple cabbage in arid-hot Valley.

Key words: purple cabbage, biomass allocation, water use efficiency, irrigation amount, planting density, Arid-hot Valley

CLC Number:

Q945.79

Li Jiancha, Li Kun, Pan Zhixian, Sun Yi, Fang Haidong, Shi Liangtao, Zhang Lei, Yue Xuewen. Effects of Irrigation Amount and Planting Density on Biomass Allocation, Yield and Water Use Efficiency of Purple Cabbage in Arid-hot Valley[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2021, 37(26): 50-57.

Figures/Tables 11

References 30

[1]	陈东升, 孙晓梅, 金英博, 等. 林龄和竞争对日本落叶松各组分生物量异速关系的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2020, 40(3):843-853.
[2]	Weiner J. Allocation, Plasticity and Allometry in Plants[J]. Perspectives in Plant Ecology Evolution & Systematics, 2004, 6(4):207-215.
[3]	Coleman M C S. Biomass Allocation in Plants: Ontogeny or Optimality? A Test along Three Resource Gradients[J]. Ecology, 1999, 80(8):2581-2593. doi: 10.1890/0012-9658(1999)080[2581:BAIPOO]2.0.CO;2 URL
[4]	方精云, 韩文轩. 幂指数异速生长机制模型综述[J]. 植物生态学报, 2008, 32(4):951-960. doi: 10.3773/j.issn.1005-264x.2008.04.025
[5]	Peters R. The Ecological Implications of Body Size[J]. Journal of Applied Ecology, 1983, 22(1):291.
[6]	程栋梁, 钟全林, 林茂兹, 等. 植物代谢速率与个体生物量关系研究进展[J]. 生态学报, 2010, 31(8):2312-2320.
[7]	闫帮国, 樊博, 何光熊, 等. 干热河谷草本植物生物量分配及其对环境因子的响应[J]. 应用生态学报, 2016, 27(10):3173-3181.
[8]	Cyr H, Pace M L. Allometric Theory: Extrapolations from Individuals to Communities[J]. Ecology, 1993, 74(4):1234-1245. doi: 10.2307/1940493 URL
[9]	郭子武, 杨清平, 李迎春, 等. 密度对四季竹地上生物量分配格局及异速增长模式的制约性调节[J]. 生态学杂志, 2013, 23(3):3-9.
[10]	张桥英, 彭少麟. 增温对入侵植物马缨丹生物量分配和异速生长的影响[J]. 生态学报, 38(18):6670-6676.
[11]	Gargalione V, Peri P L, Rubio G. Allometric Relations for Biomass Partitioning of Nothofagus antarctica Trees of Different Crown Classes over a Site Quality Gradient[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 2010, 259(6):1118-1126. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2009.12.025 URL
[12]	孟婷婷. 植物功能性状与环境和生态系统功能[J]. 植物生态学报, 2007, 31(1):150-165. doi: 10.17521/cjpe.2007.0019
[13]	柳佳, 罗永忠, 陈国鹏. 土壤水分胁迫对新疆大叶苜蓿构件生物量分配的影响[J]. 干旱区研究, 2019, 36(3):639-644.
[14]	May F, Giladi I, Ristow M, et al. Plant Functional Traits and Community Assembly along Interacting Gradients of Productivity and Fragmentation[J]. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, 2013, 15(6):304-318. doi: 10.1016/j.ppees.2013.08.002 URL
[15]	李建查, 李坤, 方海东, 等. 不同滴灌模式对干热河谷甜玉米生物量分配、产量和水分利用效率的影响[J]. 生态与农村环境学报, 2019(7):947-952.
[16]	范高华, 张金伟, 黄迎新, 等. 种群密度对大果虫实形态特征与异速生长的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2018, 38(11):3931-3942.
[17]	黎磊, 周道玮, 盛连喜. 密度制约决定的植物生物量分配格局[J]. 生态学杂志, 2011, 30(8):1579-1589.
[18]	黄迎新, 赵学勇, 张洪轩, 等. 沙米表型可塑性对土壤养分、水分和种群密度变化的响应[J]. 应用生态学报, 19(12):2593-2598.
[19]	Warton D I, Duursma R A, Falster D S, et al. SMATR 3 - an R Package for Estimation and Inference about Allometric lines[J]. Methods in Ecology & Evolution, 2012, 2(2):257-259.
[20]	高春华, 朱金英, 张华文, 等. 38个粒用高粱品种芽期耐盐性的综合鉴定及评价[J]. 核农学报, 2019, 33(9) :1841-1855.
[21]	李玉龙, 杨烨, 陆国权. 基于均匀设计和主成分分析的甘薯薯片常压油炸工艺优化[J]. 核农学报, 2017, 31(1) :118-124.
[22]	肖国举, 张强, 王静. 全球气候变化对农业生态系统的影响研究进展[J]. 应用生态学报, 2007, 18(8):1877-1885.
[23]	李建查, 孙毅, 赵广, 等. 干热河谷不同土壤水分下甜玉米灌浆期光合作用光响应特征[J]. 热带作物学报, 2018, 39(11):2169-2175.
[24]	朱铁霞, 高阳, 高凯, 等. 干旱胁迫下菊芋各器官生物量及物质分配规律[J]. 生态学报, 2019, 39(21):8021-8026.
[25]	张恒嘉, 黄高宝, 杨斌. 灌水频率对河西走廊绿洲菊芋生活史对策及产量形成的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2011, 31(9):2401-2406.
[26]	高凯, 朱铁霞, 乌日娜, 等. 密度对菊芋株高及生物量贡献率的影响[C]. 天津:中国草学会2013学术年会论文集, 2013.
[27]	Deng J M, Wang G X, Morris E C, et al. Plant Mass: Density Relationship along a Moisture Gradient in North-West China[J]. Journal of Ecology, 2006, 94(5):953-958. doi: 10.1111/jec.2006.94.issue-5 URL
[28]	林志玲, 朱铁霞, 李天琦, 等. 种植密度对科尔沁沙地饲用燕麦产量和品质的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 27(3):760-765.
[29]	杨元武, 王根轩, 李希来, 等. 植物密度调控及其对环境变化响应的研究进展[J]. 生态学杂志, 2011, 30(8):1813-1821.
[30]	Callaway R M, Brooker R W, Choler P, et al. Positive Interactions among Alpine Plants Increase with Stress[J]. Nature, 2002, 417(6891):844-848. doi: 10.1038/nature00812 URL

灌水日期	灌水量/(m³/hm²)
灌水日期	I₁	I₂	I₃
2019-09-17	949.27	951.81	950.33
2019-09-23	606.77	596.11	557.52
2019-09-28	364.18	271.33	210.75
2019-10-04	367.77	262.47	264.77
2019-10-09	872.81	652.41	670.96
2019-10-14	370.80	262.05	218.38
2019-10-19	352.67	269.05	217.45
2019-10-23	371.20	266.61	210.84
2019-10-30	458.93	594.37	620.08
2019-11-06	373.47	270.11	218.10
2019-11-12	358.57	263.97	214.78
2019-11-21	366.22	265.37	216.21

灌水日期	灌水量/(m³/hm²)
灌水日期	I₁	I₂	I₃
2019-09-17	949.27	951.81	950.33
2019-09-23	606.77	596.11	557.52
2019-09-28	364.18	271.33	210.75
2019-10-04	367.77	262.47	264.77
2019-10-09	872.81	652.41	670.96
2019-10-14	370.80	262.05	218.38
2019-10-19	352.67	269.05	217.45
2019-10-23	371.20	266.61	210.84
2019-10-30	458.93	594.37	620.08
2019-11-06	373.47	270.11	218.10
2019-11-12	358.57	263.97	214.78
2019-11-21	366.22	265.37	216.21

项目	密度	灌水量	密度×灌水量
外叶鲜重	29.91^**	5.02^**	1.56
叶球鲜重	28.13^**	1.52	2.16
茎鲜重	14.58^**	3.98^*	1.13
外叶生物量	36.26^**	1.30	1.29
叶球生物量	26.85^**	1.42	2.00
茎生物量	13.22^**	2.03	0.27
总生物量	38.89^**	1.34	1.57
茎比例	0.59	5.46^**	1.11
外叶比例	3.89^*	1.00	2.35
叶球比例	3.41^*	1.82	2.35

项目	密度	灌水量	密度×灌水量
外叶鲜重	29.91^**	5.02^**	1.56
叶球鲜重	28.13^**	1.52	2.16
茎鲜重	14.58^**	3.98^*	1.13
外叶生物量	36.26^**	1.30	1.29
叶球生物量	26.85^**	1.42	2.00
茎生物量	13.22^**	2.03	0.27
总生物量	38.89^**	1.34	1.57
茎比例	0.59	5.46^**	1.11
外叶比例	3.89^*	1.00	2.35
叶球比例	3.41^*	1.82	2.35

灌水量	外叶鲜重/g	叶球鲜重/g	茎鲜重/g	外叶生物量/g	叶球生物量/g
I₁	465.05±12.34 a	786.34±27.87a	46.99±1.90b	45.18±1.17a	58.68±1.97a
I₂	476.12±12.34a	752.68±27.87a	54.31±1.90a	45.86±1.17a	56.21±1.97a
I₃	424.16±12.49b	718.23±28.20a	48.94±1.93b	43.35±1.18a	54.01±1.99a
灌水量	茎生物量/g	总生物量/g	茎比例/%	外叶比例 /%	叶球比例/%
I₁	5.25±0.22b	109.11±2.87a	4.81±1.17b	41.73±0.65a	53.45±0.75a
I₂	5.89±0.22a	107.96±2.87a	5.55±1.17a	43.02±0.65a	51.43±0.75a
I₃	5.58±0.23ab	102.94±2.90a	5.45±1.17a	42.24±0.66a	52.31±0.76a