Comprehensive Evaluation of Seedling Quality of Carya illinoensis in Different Matrix Formula Containers

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2020-0398

Abstract

Abstract:

To select the best matrix formula for cultivating high quality container seedlings of Carya illinoensis, 6 matrix formulas were prepared from peat, perlite, yellow core and compound fertilizer in proportion, the height, diameter, fresh weight, fresh weight, dry weight, root-crown ratio, root-to-crown ratio, root-to-diameter ratio, moisture content, total biomass, seedling mass index, root length, root surface area, root volume and root diameter of the container seedlings were measured. The quality of seedlings was evaluated by variance analysis, multiple comparison method, principal component analysis and membership function method. The results showed that: the comprehensive characters of container seedlings cultivated in formula 6 (peat: perlite: yellow core=3:3:2) and formula 1 (peat: perlite: yellow core=1:1:1) were relatively good according to the comprehensive indexes. 16 individual indexes were transformed into 3 independent synthetic variables by principal component analysis, and the comprehensive index values and corresponding membership function values of each formula were computed by corresponding formulas. The comprehensive seedling quality evaluation values of the 6 matrix formulas were obtained by comprehensive weighting as: formula 6> formula 1> formula 4 (peat: perlite: yellow core+ slow-release fertilizer=3:1:3+5 g)> formula 2 (peat: perlite: yellow core: slow-release fertilizer= 2:1:2+10 g)> formula 3 (peat: perlite: yellow core=3:2:3)> formula 5 (peat: perlite: yellow core+ slow-release fertilizer =3:2:1+10 g). The optimal regression equation which could predict accurately the comprehensive seedling quality evaluation values by the upground dry weight is established by the stepwise regression.

Key words: Carya illinoensis, matrix formula, container seedlings, seedling quality, comprehensive evaluation

CLC Number:

S723.1

Du Yangwen, Cheng Junyong, Deng Xianzhen. Comprehensive Evaluation of Seedling Quality of Carya illinoensis in Different Matrix Formula Containers[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2021, 37(16): 26-32.

Figures/Tables 8

References 25

[1]	董凤祥, 王贵禧. 美国薄壳山核桃引种及栽培技术[M]. 北京: 金盾出版社, 2003: 8.
[2]	刘广勤, 王秀云, 生静雅, 等. 薄壳山核桃育种研究进展[J]. 林业科技开发, 2011,25(4):1-5.
[3]	侯冬培, 习学良, 石卓功. 我国薄壳山核桃研究概况[J]. 山东林业科技, 2007(4):53-55.
[4]	施娟娟. 薄壳山核桃种质资源收集与无性繁殖技术研究[D]. 杭州:浙江农林大学, 2013.
[5]	朱海军, 徐奎源, 刘广勤, 等. 美国薄壳山核桃设施育苗技术[J]. 浙江林业科技, 2010,30(3):75-78.
[6]	朱海军. 薄壳山核桃容器育苗关键技术[D]. 南京:南京林业大学, 2016.
[7]	张斌, 王晓丽, 陈婷, 等. 薄壳山核桃砧木不同处理对嫁接苗生长的影响[J]. 江苏林业科技, 2016,43(3):25-28.
[8]	翟敏. 薄壳山核桃容器育苗及嫁接技术研究[D]. 南京:南京农业大学, 2011.
[9]	周跃华, 聂艳丽, 赵永红, 等. 国内外固体基质研究概况[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2005,13(4):40-43.
[10]	朱海军, 生静雅, 刘广勤, 等. 影响林木容器苗根系生长的基质特性研究[J]. 浙江林业科技, 2014,34(6):93-97.
[11]	张中峰, 尤业明, 黄玉清, 等. 模拟喀斯特生境条件下干旱胁迫对青冈栎苗木的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2012,32(20):6318-6325.
[12]	何维明. 水分因素对沙地柏实生苗水分和生长特征的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2001,25(1):11-16.
[13]	刘伟, 陈正金, 李因刚, 等. 3个阔叶树种容器育苗轻型基质配方探讨[J]. 浙江林学院学报, 2010,27(5):803-808.
[14]	秦红艳, 许培磊, 艾军, 等. 软枣猕猴桃种质资源果实品质、表型性状多样性及主成分分析[J]. 中国农学通报, 2015,31(1):160-165.
[15]	曲雪艳, 郎彬彬, 钟敏, 等. 野生毛花猕猴桃果实品质主成分分析及综合评价[J]. 中国农学通报, 2016,32(1):92-96.
[16]	秦永宏, 杨晓华, 李静江, 等. 不同杏品种果实营养成分分析及综合评价[J]. 中国农学通报, 2018,34(23):65-71.
[17]	王来平, 聂佩显, 卢洁, 等. 山东主栽矮化中间砧苹果抗旱性主成分及隶属函数分析[J]. 中国农学通报, 2015,31(10):107-111.
[18]	隋德宗, 王保松, 施士争, 等. 灌木柳无性系苗期耐盐性指标的筛选和综合评价[J]. 西北林学院学报, 2011,26(1):61-64.
[19]	罗耀, 席嘉宾, 谭筱弘, 等. 9种暖季型草坪草耐阴性综合评价及其指标的筛选[J]. 草业学报, 2013,22(5):239-247.
[20]	程琳, 张峰, 黄开勇, 等. 1年生杉木苗生长性状及相关性分析[J]. 林业科技, 2018,43(4):4-8.
[21]	柏小娟, 芦建国, 李小茹, 等. 容器规格与基质配比对美国蜡梅容器苗生长的影响[J]. 安徽农业大学学报, 2018,45(3):462-467.
[22]	Duryea M L. Evaluating seedling quality importance to reforestation[A]. Duryea M L. Proceedings evaluating seedling quality principles procedures and predictive of major tests[C]. Corvallis Forest Reasearch Laboratory Oregon State University, 1985: 1-6.
[23]	赵建华, 叶力勤, 安巍, 等. 宁夏枸杞苗木分级及不同质量苗木定植初期生长特征[J]. 浙江农林大学学报, 2011,28(3):450-454.
[24]	李国雷, 刘勇, 祝燕, 等. 国外苗木质量研究进展[J]. 世界林业研究, 2011,24(2):27-35.
[25]	周文才, 幸伟年, 黄文印, 等. 红花油茶嫁接苗木质量评价[J]. 经济林研究, 2012,30(3):96-99.

配方	泥炭土	珍珠岩	黄心土	缓释肥
1	1	1	1	0
2	2	1	2	10 g/株
3	2	2	3	0
4	3	1	3	5 g/株
5	3	2	1	10 g/株
6	3	3	2	0

配方	泥炭土	珍珠岩	黄心土	缓释肥
1	1	1	1	0
2	2	1	2	10 g/株
3	2	2	3	0
4	3	1	3	5 g/株
5	3	2	1	10 g/株
6	3	3	2	0

配方	X₁/cm	X₂/mm	X₈
1	18.10±1.48ABab	4.53±0.32ABab	39.92±0.50
2	13.71±1.06Bb	3.70±0.20Bb	36.95±0.88
3	15.31±2.31ABb	4.46±0.46ABab	36.03±8.07
4	17.14±2.43ABab	4.13±0.19ABb	41.16±4.22
5	13.26±0.82Bb	3.63±0.14Bb	36.54±1.80
6	21.21±1.22Aa	5.35±0.33Aa	39.68±1.40

配方	X₁/cm	X₂/mm	X₈
1	18.10±1.48ABab	4.53±0.32ABab	39.92±0.50
2	13.71±1.06Bb	3.70±0.20Bb	36.95±0.88
3	15.31±2.31ABb	4.46±0.46ABab	36.03±8.07
4	17.14±2.43ABab	4.13±0.19ABb	41.16±4.22
5	13.26±0.82Bb	3.63±0.14Bb	36.54±1.80
6	21.21±1.22Aa	5.35±0.33Aa	39.68±1.40

配方	X₃/g	X₄/g	X₅/g	X₆/g	X₁₁/g	X₇	X₉	X₁₀/%	X₁₂
1	1.66±0.42ABb	16.79±2.83ABab	1.35±0.28ABab	9.54±1.68ABab	10.89±1.96ABab	8.35±1.05ABab	0.88±0.01ABa	41.11±0.80Aab	0.27±0.04Aab
2	0.96±0.18Bb	7.93±1.19Cc	0.81±0.19BCbc	4.21±0.63Ccd	5.01±0.81Ccd	5.63±0.72BCc	0.84±0.01ABab	43.80±0.90Aa	0.14±0.02BCc
3	1.26±0.15Bb	11.79±2.89BCbc	0.78±0.12BCbc	7.71±1.83ABCbc	8.49±1.93ABCbc	9.75±1.26Aa	0.90±0.01Aa	34.80±0.40Bb	0.25±0.04ABb
4	1.45±0.34ABb	8.96±0.92BCc	1.14±0.26ABCb	4.82±0.49BCcd	5.96±0.64BCcd	4.55±0.95Cc	0.81±0.03Bb	42.74±1.30Aa	0.14±0.01BCc
5	1.01±0.14Bb	5.92±0.70Cc	0.46±0.07Cc	3.28±0.52Cd	3.74±0.59Cd	6.91±0.31ABCbc	0.88±0.00ABa	46.40±2.87Aa	0.10±0.01Cc
6	2.57±0.25Aa	21.65±2.36Aa	1.76±0.17Aa	12.17±1.24Aa	13.94±1.40Aa	6.60±0.04ABCbc	0.87±0.01ABa	42.11±4.10Aa	0.35±0.03Aa