Effects of Topdressing Types on Photosynthetic Characteristics and Yield of Purple Sweet Potato Inside and Outside the Greenhouse

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-0296

Abstract

Abstract:

This study explored the effects of different planting and topdressing methods on the growth of purple sweet potato, aiming to provide a theoretical basis and practical experience for topdressing and planting of purple sweet potato. ‘Jihei No.2’ purple sweet potato was used as the experimental material to study the effects of ten treatments, including topdressing of inorganic fertilizer, organic fertilizer, algal fertilizer and their combinations, on the photosynthetic characteristics and yield of purple sweet potato under greenhouse and open field cultivation. The results showed that under the greenhouse cultivation, the net photosynthetic rate of purple sweet potato was the highest under the topdressing treatment of inorganic fertilizer 33 kg/hm ² + organic fertilizer 20 kg/hm² + algae fertilizer 60 mL/hm², increased by 14.98% compared with that of the control group; the fresh potato yield of each topdressing treatment group was lower than that of the control group. Under the open field cultivation, the net photosynthetic rate of purple sweet potato was the highest when the topdressing algae fertilizer was 90 mL/hm², which was increased by 7.51% compared with that of the control; the transpiration rate and stomatal conductance were the highest under the topdressing treatment of inorganic fertilizer 33 kg/hm² + organic fertilizer 20 kg/hm² + algae fertilizer 60 mL/hm², increased by 31.74% and 55.62% respectively compared with those of the control; by topdressing algae fertilizer of 60 mL/hm², the fresh potato yield was the highest. In summary, topdressing inorganic fertilizer 33 kg/hm² + organic fertilizer 20 kg/hm² + algae fertilizer 60 mL/hm² is more beneficial to photosynthesis of purple sweet potato inside and outside the greenhouse than other topdressing types, and the yield of purple sweet potato planted in greenhouse is generally lower than that in the open field.

Key words: purple sweet potato, facility cultivation, topdressing type, photosynthetic characteristics, yield

CLC Number:

S531

HU Yixuan, TIAN Shengni, FANG Chao, HU Weiming, XI Xiaoyu, LV Mengran. Effects of Topdressing Types on Photosynthetic Characteristics and Yield of Purple Sweet Potato Inside and Outside the Greenhouse[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(6): 31-36.

Figures/Tables 6

References 29

[1]	ZHANG L, ZHAO L L, BIAN X F, et al. Characterization and comparative study of starches from seven purple sweet potatoes[J]. Food hydrocolloids, 2018, 80:168-176. doi: 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2018.02.006 URL
[2]	TUBA E, MIRIAM R, ANKE S, et al. Fractionation, enzyme inhibitory and cellular antioxidant activityof bioactives from purple sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas)[J]. Food chemistry, 2017, 221:447-456. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2016.10.077 URL
[3]	余凡, 葛亚龙, 杨恒拓, 等. 紫薯的营养保健功能及其应用前景[J]. 杭州化工, 2013, 43(3):15-18.
[4]	孟文俊, 王增池, 王焕香, 等. 紫薯保健功能分析及其应用前景[J]. 现代农村科技, 2019(12):106-107.
[5]	冯晓群紫薯的保健功能及应用前景[J]. 甘肃科技, 2011, 27(9):88,160-161.
[6]	张风刚, 刘延刚, 张谦, 等. 紫心甘薯的营养价值及无公害丰产栽培技术[J]. 农业科技通讯, 2013,5):181-182.
[7]	张婷, 陈小伟, 张琪, 等. 紫薯功能性与其食品开发研究进展[J]. 食品工业科技, 2018, 39(13):315-319,324.
[8]	丁利庆. 紫薯中化学成分及其抗氧化活性的研究[D]. 杭州:浙江工商大学, 2011.
[9]	陈国权, 李文婧, 赵兵, 等. 紫薯养生保健价值分析[J]. 宁夏农业科技, 2012, 53(7):74-75,80.
[10]	CURAYAG Q, DIZON E I, HURTADA W. Antioxidant activity, chemical and nutritional properties of raw and processed purple-fleshed sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas Lam.)[J]. Cogent food & agriculture, 2019, 5(1):1662930.
[11]	SUN H J, ZHANG P P, ZHU Y S, et al. Antioxidant and prebiotic activity of five peonidin-based anthocyanins extracted from purple sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam.)[J]. Scientific reports, 2018, 8:5018. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-23397-0 URL
[12]	TANG C, SUN J, LIU J, et al. Immune-enhancing effects of polysaccharides from purple sweet potato[J]. International journal of biological macromolecules, 2019, 123:923-930. doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2018.11.187 URL
[13]	CHEN Y P, XU Y S, CAO Y Q, et al. Combined effect of microwave and steam cooking on phytochemical compounds and antioxidant activity of purple sweet potatoes[J]. Food Science and technology research, 2017, 23(2):193-201. doi: 10.3136/fstr.23.193 URL
[14]	YAN H, LI Q, ZHANG Y G, et al. Effects of soil and environment on quality traitsof purple-fleshed sweet potato[J]. Agricultural science & technology, 2017, 18(3):516-520, 523.
[15]	马文玲, 张蕊. 紫薯的特征特性及高产栽培技术[J]. 现代农业科技, 2011,12):127-128.
[16]	吴春红, 孔凡美, 刘庆, 等. 氮肥对不同品种紫甘薯块根营养品质的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2015, 29(2):188-192.
[17]	尚浩浩. 氮肥追施期对不同共生期套作甘薯产量及养分吸收的影响[D]. 重庆:西南大学, 2019.
[18]	魏猛, 张爱君, 李洪民, 等. 不同施肥方式对甘薯光合特性及产量的影响[J]. 江西农业学报, 2017, 29(1):47-50.
[19]	许育彬, 程雯蔚, 陈越, 等. 不同施肥条件下干旱对甘薯生长发育和光合作用的影响[J]. 西北农业学报, 2007, 16(2):59-64.
[20]	董月, 王会方, 汪吉东, 等. 氮肥运筹对甘薯干物质累积及氮素吸收的影响[J]. 江苏师范大学学报:自然科学版, 2017, 35(2):23-26.
[21]	陈功楷, 李红, 孙娟, 等. 增施氮素对甘薯叶片光合作用和CO₂的响应[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2014, 26(5):1164-1170.
[22]	地福来藻类活性细胞生物肥技术[J]. 休闲农业与美丽乡村, 2014(7):70-77.
[23]	王德安, 胡业功地福来藻类活性细胞生物肥在红薯上的使用效果研究[J]. 现代农业科技, 2016(9):10,13.
[24]	郗焕芳, 谢文娟, 陈际才. “地福来”藻类活性细胞生物肥在冬马铃薯上的同田对比试验[J]. 农业科技通讯, 2018(11):146-148.
[25]	吕长文. 不同类型甘薯生理特性与淀粉代谢及产量调控研究[D]. 重庆:西南大学, 2011.
[26]	宁松瑞, 赵雪, 姬美玥, 等. 脱硫石膏和磁化水对盐碱胁迫荞麦光合特性的影响[J]. 农业机械学报, 2020, 51(10):310-317.
[27]	周莉, 周广胜, 贾庆宇, 等. 盘锦湿地芦苇叶片气孔导度的模拟[J]. 气象与环境学报, 2006(4):42-46.
[28]	郭建平, 高素华. CO₂浓度和辐射强度变化对沙柳光合作用速率影响的模拟研究[J]. 生态学报, 2004(2):181-185.
[29]	王晓红, 纪明山. 入侵植物小飞蓬光合日变化及与环境因子相关性分析[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2015, 43(8):121-124.

栽培环境	处理	叶绿素a	叶绿素b	叶绿素a+b
大棚	CK	1.590±0.01e	0.667±0.01d	2.226±0.02f
	T1	1.307±0.01g	0.555±0.01f	1.861±0.03h
	T2	1.833±0.01c	0.759±0.02c	2.591±0.04d
	T3	1.676±0.01d	0.718±0.02cd	2.394±0.03e
	T4	2.212±0.01a	1.006±0.04a	3.219±0.05a
	T5	2.184±0.01a	0.925±0.02b	3.109±0.03bc
	T6	1.369±0.01f	0.620±0.02e	1.989±0.03g
	T7	1.684±0.02d	0.721±0.02cd	2.404±0.03e
	T8	2.117±0.02b	1.046±0.04a	3.163±0.05ab
	T9	2.129±0.02b	0.914±0.02b	3.043±0.04c
露地	CK	1.725±0.01ef	0.631±0.02ef	2.356±0.03f
	T1	1.743±0.01e	0.780±0.01bc	2.523±0.01de
	T2	2.332±0.02a	0.885±0.02a	3.218±0.04a
	T3	1.990±0.01b	0.768±0.01c	2.758±0.03b
	T4	1.892±0.02c	0.800±0.02b	2.693±0.03c
	T5	1.830±0.01d	0.657±0.01e	2.487±0.01e
	T6	1.072±0.01f	0.451±0.02h	1.523±0.02h
	T7	1.877±0.02c	0.700±0.01d	2.577±0.03d
	T8	1.710±0.02b	0.627±0.03fg	2.337±0.05f
	T9	1.420±0.00g	0.598±0.00g	2.017±0.00g

栽培环境	处理	叶绿素a	叶绿素b	叶绿素a+b
大棚	CK	1.590±0.01e	0.667±0.01d	2.226±0.02f
	T1	1.307±0.01g	0.555±0.01f	1.861±0.03h
	T2	1.833±0.01c	0.759±0.02c	2.591±0.04d
	T3	1.676±0.01d	0.718±0.02cd	2.394±0.03e
	T4	2.212±0.01a	1.006±0.04a	3.219±0.05a
	T5	2.184±0.01a	0.925±0.02b	3.109±0.03bc
	T6	1.369±0.01f	0.620±0.02e	1.989±0.03g
	T7	1.684±0.02d	0.721±0.02cd	2.404±0.03e
	T8	2.117±0.02b	1.046±0.04a	3.163±0.05ab
	T9	2.129±0.02b	0.914±0.02b	3.043±0.04c
露地	CK	1.725±0.01ef	0.631±0.02ef	2.356±0.03f
	T1	1.743±0.01e	0.780±0.01bc	2.523±0.01de
	T2	2.332±0.02a	0.885±0.02a	3.218±0.04a
	T3	1.990±0.01b	0.768±0.01c	2.758±0.03b
	T4	1.892±0.02c	0.800±0.02b	2.693±0.03c
	T5	1.830±0.01d	0.657±0.01e	2.487±0.01e
	T6	1.072±0.01f	0.451±0.02h	1.523±0.02h
	T7	1.877±0.02c	0.700±0.01d	2.577±0.03d
	T8	1.710±0.02b	0.627±0.03fg	2.337±0.05f
	T9	1.420±0.00g	0.598±0.00g	2.017±0.00g

种植方式	处理	单株鲜薯重/g	折合产量/(kg/hm²)	鲜薯增产率/%
大棚	CK	361.85a	160.98	—
	T1	243.84bc	108.48	-32.61
	T2	273.66b	121.75	-24.37
	T3	212.41c	94.50	-41.30
	T4	221.27c	98.44	-38.85
	T5	150.02d	66.74	-58.54
	T6	100.00e	44.49	-72.36
	T7	149.15d	66.36	-58.78
	T8	84.10e	37.42	-76.76
	T9	100.31e	44.63	-72.28
露地	CK	334.89d	148.99	—
	T1	470.19c	209.18	40.40
	T2	326.91d	145.44	-2.38
	T3	282.29e	125.59	-15.71
	T4	341.40d	151.89	1.94
	T5	505.66b	224.96	50.99
	T6	289.20e	128.66	-13.64
	T7	545.51a	242.69	62.89
	T8	535.43a	238.21	59.88
	T9	278.65e	123.97	-16.79

种植方式	处理	单株鲜薯重/g	折合产量/(kg/hm²)	鲜薯增产率/%
大棚	CK	361.85a	160.98	—
	T1	243.84bc	108.48	-32.61
	T2	273.66b	121.75	-24.37
	T3	212.41c	94.50	-41.30
	T4	221.27c	98.44	-38.85
	T5	150.02d	66.74	-58.54
	T6	100.00e	44.49	-72.36
	T7	149.15d	66.36	-58.78
	T8	84.10e	37.42	-76.76
	T9	100.31e	44.63	-72.28
露地	CK	334.89d	148.99	—
	T1	470.19c	209.18	40.40
	T2	326.91d	145.44	-2.38
	T3	282.29e	125.59	-15.71
	T4	341.40d	151.89	1.94
	T5	505.66b	224.96	50.99
	T6	289.20e	128.66	-13.64
	T7	545.51a	242.69	62.89
	T8	535.43a	238.21	59.88
	T9	278.65e	123.97	-16.79