Effect of Rotation Irrigation of Brackish and Fresh Water on Greenhouse Tomato Yield and Quality in Coastal Saline-Alkali Land

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-1207

Abstract

Abstract:

In coastal saline-alkali land, the greenhouse tomato was taken as the research object, and four treatments of rotation irrigation of brackish and fresh water were set: 1:1 (T1), 2:1 (T2), 3:1 (T3) and 4:1 (T4), with fresh water irrigation as the control. The effects of different irrigation modes on tomato growth, yield and quality were investigated to provide data support for brackish water irrigation system of greenhouse tomato in saline-alkali land. The results showed that: under the brackish and fresh water rotation irrigation treatments, the biomass of tomato increased first and then decreased with the increase of the number of brackish water irrigation times. The biomass of tomato under T1 and T2 was significantly higher than that of the control. With the increase of brackish water irrigation times, the yield and single fruit weight of T1 and T2 did not change significantly compared with those of the control, but the yield and single fruit weight of other treatments decreased significantly; from the analysis of fruit quality, each treatment improved fruit quality to varying degrees. Comprehensive analysis showed that T1 and T2 could ensure the normal growth and stable yield of tomato to a certain extent and improve the fruit quality. Therefore, T1 and T2 are the reasonable and effective rotation irrigation modes of brackish and fresh water in coastal saline-alkali areas.

Key words: coastal saline-alkali land, rotation irrigation of brackish and fresh water, greenhouse tomato, yield, quality

CLC Number:

S641.2

DING Shoupeng, ZHANG Guoxin, YAO Yutao, SUN Yeshuo, YANG Yahua. Effect of Rotation Irrigation of Brackish and Fresh Water on Greenhouse Tomato Yield and Quality in Coastal Saline-Alkali Land[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(15): 40-44.

Figures/Tables 5

References 26

[1]	河北省地下水管理条例[J]. 河北水利, 2018(10):4-7.
[2]	黄明逸, 张展羽, 徐辉,等. 咸淡轮灌和生物炭对滨海盐渍土水盐运移特征的影响[J]. 农业机械学报, 2021, 52(1):238-247.
[3]	蔡达伟, 孔淑琼, 刘瑞琪. 微咸水农田安全灌溉研究进展[J]. 节水灌溉, 2020(10):91-95,100.
[4]	刘雨红, 李书雅. 微咸水灌溉改良盐碱地的可行性研究[J]. 农业工程, 2020, 10(4):64-68.
[5]	孔德杰, 郑国宝, 张源沛,等. 不同灌水量对设施番茄产量和耗水规律的影响[J]. 长江蔬菜, 2010(24):45-48.
[6]	SHAHEVET J E, YARON B. Effect of soil and water salinity on tomato growth[J]. Plant and soil, 1973, 39(2):285-292. doi: 10.1007/BF00014795 URL
[7]	PASCALE S D, MAGGIO A, ORSINI F, et al. Growth response and radiation use efficiency in tomato exposed to short-term and long-term salinized soils[J]. Scientia horticulturae, 2015,189:
[8]	WAL B, MEULEBROEK L V, STEPPE K. Application of drought and salt stress can improve tomato fruit quality without jeopardising production[J]. Acta horticulturae, 2017(1170).
[9]	杨培岭, 王瑜, 任树梅,等. 咸淡水交替灌溉下土壤水盐分布与玉米吸水规律研究[J]. 农业机械学报, 2020, 51(6):273-281.
[10]	MINHAS P S. Saline water management for irrigation in India[J]. Agricultural water management, 1996,30.
[11]	MOHAMED A, MEKHEMER H, ATYIA M. Using er to evaluate the salt-water invasion through the groundwater reservoir at the egyptian rafah, sinai peninsula, Egypt[J]. Egu general assembly, 2010, 12:2118.
[12]	YOUSSEF R, MARIATERESA C, PAOLO B, et al. Synergistic action of a microbial-based biostimulant and a plant derived-protein hydrolysate enhances lettuce tolerance to alkalinity and salinity[J]. Frontiers in plant science, 2017,08.
[13]	ROUPHAEL Y, KYRIACOU M C, PETROPOULOS S A, et al. Improving vegetable quality in controlled environments[J]. Scientia horticulturae, 2018, 234:275-289. doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2018.02.033 URL
[14]	COLLA G, ROUPHAEL Y, JAWAD R, et al. The effectiveness of grafting to improve NaCl and CaCl₂ tolerance in cucumber[J]. Scientia horticulturae, 2013, 164(15):380-391. doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2013.09.023 URL
[15]	朱瑾瑾, 孙军娜, 张振华,等. 咸淡水交替灌溉对滨海盐碱土水盐运移的影响[J]. 水土保持研究, 2019, 26(5):113-117,122
[16]	朱成立, 强超, 黄明逸,等. 咸淡水交替灌溉对滨海垦区夏玉米生理生长的影响[J]. 农业机械学报, 2018, 49(12):253-261.
[17]	朱成立, 舒慕晨, 张展羽,等. 咸淡水交替灌溉对土壤盐分分布及夏玉米生长的影响[J]. 农业机械学报, 2017, 48(10):220-228,201.
[18]	王卫光, 王修贵, 沈荣开,等. 微咸水灌溉研究进展[J]. 节水灌溉, 2003(2):9-11,46.
[19]	刘静, 高占义. 中国利用微咸水灌溉研究与实践进展[J]. 水利水电技术, 2012, 43(1):101-104.
[20]	翟亚明, 程秀华, 黄明逸,等. 咸淡水交替灌溉对冬小麦生长及产量的影响[J]. 灌溉排水学报, 2019, 38(11):1-7.
[21]	田萍, 李建设, 高艳明. 微咸水灌溉对日光温室番茄产量及果实各部位蔗糖代谢的影响[J]. 浙江大学学报:农业与生命科学版, 2018, 44(6):667-677.
[22]	黄金瓯, 靳孟贵, 栗现文. 咸淡水轮灌对棉花产量和土壤溶质迁移的影响[J]. 农业工程学报, 2015, 31(17):99-107.
[23]	马保国, 王慧勇, 刘永朝,等. 盐渍土区微咸水灌溉对冬小麦的影响[J]. 节水灌溉, 2006(05):26-28.
[24]	EL-MOGY M M, GARCHERY C, STEVENS R. Irrigation with salt water affects growth, yield, fruit quality, storability and marker-gene expression in cherry tomato[J]. Acta agriculturae scandinavica, section B-soil & plant science, 2018(4):1-11.
[25]	李娟, 田萍, 李建设,等. 微咸水灌溉对设施番茄果实糖积累及蔗糖代谢相关酶活性的影响[J]. 西北农林科技大学学报:自然科学版, 2018, 46(03):101-110.
[26]	黄翠华, 彭飞, 薛娴,等. 不同生长阶段咸水灌溉对樱桃番茄生长、产量及质量的影响[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2015, 43(16):32-35,52.

处理	茎叶鲜重	茎叶干重	根鲜重	根干重
CK	229.04±15.40c	52.93±1.88b	12.79±2.29b	1.31±0.07b
T1	286.98±13.77a	55.57±3.45b	13.31±2.26b	1.79±0.12a
T2	278.44±11.60ab	72.93±3.66a	17.46±1.90a	1.65±0.07a
T3	256.41±15.26bc	52.20±1.99b	12.91±2.10b	1.43±0.04b
T4	230.52±16.86c	51.57±0.45b	12.95±1.28b	1.38±0.24b

处理	茎叶鲜重	茎叶干重	根鲜重	根干重
CK	229.04±15.40c	52.93±1.88b	12.79±2.29b	1.31±0.07b
T1	286.98±13.77a	55.57±3.45b	13.31±2.26b	1.79±0.12a
T2	278.44±11.60ab	72.93±3.66a	17.46±1.90a	1.65±0.07a
T3	256.41±15.26bc	52.20±1.99b	12.91±2.10b	1.43±0.04b
T4	230.52±16.86c	51.57±0.45b	12.95±1.28b	1.38±0.24b

处理	小区产量/kg	单果重/g
CK	4.92±0.87a	71.35±14.03ab
T1	5.04±0.59a	73.31±14.89a
T2	4.79±0.69a	74.38±7.45a
T3	2.97±0.47b	53.29±7.22bc
T4	3.28±0.25b	51.31±4.00c

处理	小区产量/kg	单果重/g
CK	4.92±0.87a	71.35±14.03ab
T1	5.04±0.59a	73.31±14.89a
T2	4.79±0.69a	74.38±7.45a
T3	2.97±0.47b	53.29±7.22bc
T4	3.28±0.25b	51.31±4.00c

处理	可溶性固形物/%	维生素C/(mg/100 g)	可溶性糖/%	可滴定酸/%
CK	8.97±0.15b	11.40±0.53ab	3.56±0.06b	0.128±0.02a
T1	9.43±0.57ab	12.80±0.94a	3.58±0.29b	0.115±0.02a
T2	9.40±0.36ab	12.26±0.31ab	3.82±0.20ab	0.132±0.03a
T3	10.15±0.07a	11.12±0.90b	4.43±0.45a	0.141±0.01a
T4	9.57±0.42ab	12.13±1.05ab	4.10±0.34ab	0.126±0.03a