Potted Conservation Substrates of Sweet Potato Germplasms: Screening and Evaluation

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-0850

Abstract

Abstract:

To screen and optimize soil substrate for potted conservation of sweet potato germplasm resources in the National Germplasm Guangzhou Sweet Potato Nursery, field soil, sand and peat substrate were selected as materials for seven different soil substrates preparation in this study. The soil substrates were evaluated and screened by measuring the growth indexes of different sweet potato varieties. The growth indexes, including fresh weight of the aboveground parts, the yield of sweet potato tubers and so on, were analyzed by subordinate function, variation coefficient and principal component analysis methods. The results showed that under substrate 5 (composed of 50% field soil, 20% sand and 30% peat soil), the subordinate function value of variation coefficient and the principal component comprehensive evaluation value of the growth indexes of different sweet potato resources were the highest, which were 8.1639 and 0.8725 respectively. It indicated that substrate 5 could keep the vitality and reflect the characteristics of different sweet potato germplasm resources most. Taken together, substrate 5 is recommended to be an appropriate soil substrate for potted conservation of sweet potato germplasm resources.

Key words: sweetpotato, germplasm, potted conservation, substrate composition, subordinate function analysis, variation coefficient analysis, principal component analysis.

CLC Number:

S325.1+

YAO Xiaojian, ZHANG Xiongjian, YAO Zhufang, LUO Zhongxia, WANG Zhangying, HUANG Lifei, FANG Boping, YANG Yiling. Potted Conservation Substrates of Sweet Potato Germplasms: Screening and Evaluation[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(24): 28-37.

Figures/Tables 9

References 27

[1]	DRAPAL M, ROSSEL G, HEIDER B, et al. Metabolic diversity in sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas Lam.) leaves and storage roots[J]. Hortic res, 2019, 6:2. doi: 10.1038/s41438-018-0075-5 URL
[2]	FUKUOKA N, MIYATA M, HAMADA T, et al. Histochemical observations and gene expression changes related to internal browning in tuberous roots of sweet potato (Ipomea batatas)[J]. Plant sci, 2018, 274:476-484. doi: 10.1016/j.plantsci.2018.07.004 URL
[3]	ZHANG L, YU Y, SHI T, et al. Genome-wide analysis of expression quantitative trait loci (eQTLs) reveals the regulatory architecture of gene expression variation in the storage roots of sweet potato[J]. Hortic res, 2020, 7:90. doi: 10.1038/s41438-020-0314-4 URL
[4]	HOU F, MU T, MA M, et al. Optimization of processing technology using response surface methodology and physicochemical properties of roasted sweet potato[J]. Food chem, 2019, 278:136-143. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2018.11.034 URL
[5]	王晓鸣, 邱丽娟, 景蕊莲, 等. 作物种质资源表型性状鉴定评价:现状与趋势[J]. 植物遗传资源学报, 2021:1-11.
[6]	姚祝芳, 吴柔贤, 张雄坚, 等. 广东甘薯种质资源系统收集与鉴定评价[J]. 植物遗传资源学报, 2021:1-14.
[7]	ANGLIN N L, ROBLES R, ROSSEL G, et al. Genetic identity, diversity, and population structure of CIP's sweetpotato (I. batatas) germplasm collection[J]. Front plant sci, 2021, 12:660012. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2021.660012 URL
[8]	杨义伶, 张雄坚, 姚祝芳, 等. 甘薯杂交不亲和性研究进展[J]. 广东农业科学, 2018, 45(8):16-24.
[9]	张辉, 张永春, 宁运旺, 等. 土壤与肥料对甘薯生长调控的研究进展[J]. 土壤通报, 2012, 43(4):995-1000.
[10]	张宇航, 刘峰, 张海, 等. 吉林省不同土壤类型对甘薯产量的影响[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2015, 43(22):71-72.
[11]	ANIKWE M A N, UBOCHI J N. Short-term changes in soil properties under tillage systems and their effect on sweet potato (Ipomea batatas L.) growth and yield in an Ultisol in south- eastern Nigeria[J]. Australian journal of soil research, 2007(45):351-358.
[12]	刘永晨, 司成成, 柳洪鹃, 等. 土壤紧实度对甘薯群体结构及产量的影响[J]. 山东农业科学, 2019, 51(10):99-103.
[13]	段文学, 张海燕, 解备涛, 等. 化肥和生物有机肥配施对鲜食型甘薯块根产量、品质及土壤肥力的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2021, 27(11):1971-1980.
[14]	王静, 王磊, 刘耀斌, 等. 长期施用不同有机肥对甘薯产量和土壤生物性状的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2021, 35(2):184-192.
[15]	禹阳, 谢一芝, 郭小丁, 等. 不同施肥方式对中低产田甘薯产量和土壤肥力的影响[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2020, 48(22):77-81.
[16]	杨小英, 许莹莹, 赵美爱, 等. 模拟干旱条件下玉米品种萌发期抗旱性评价[J]. 玉米科学, 2019, 27(6):25-30.
[17]	谢婉, 杨喜珍, 杨利, 等. 利用隶属函数法评价马铃薯组培苗的抗旱性[J]. 中国马铃薯, 2019, 33(2):65-76.
[18]	李守强, 田世龙, 李梅, 等. 主成分分析和隶属函数法综合评价15种(系)马铃薯的营养品质[J]. 食品工业科技, 2020, 41(6):272-276.
[19]	张国新, 王秀萍, 姚玉涛, 等. 主成分分析及隶属函数法对菊芋苗期耐盐性评价[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2018, 46(30):77-79.
[20]	刘明, 张爱君, 陈晓光, 等. 秸秆还田配施化肥对土壤肥力及鲜食甘薯产量和品质的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2020, 31(10):3445-3452. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.202010.022
[21]	刘金玉, 林声威, 潘景玉, 等. 不同土壤改良基质对金莲花幼苗生长及生理指标的影响[J]. 植物研究, 2021:1-10.
[22]	夏康生, 郭晶晶, 沈雅君, 等. 基质配比对向日葵容器苗根系生长的影响[J]. 上海师范大学学报:自然科学版, 2020, 49(6):671-676.
[23]	赵鹏, 刘明, 靳容, 等. 长期施用有机肥对潮土区甘薯碳氮积累与分配的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54(10):2142-2153.
[24]	田鑫, 钟程, 李性苑. 基质配比对白及生长发育的影响[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2018, 46(33):21-24.
[25]	邢强, 黄卫昌, 胡永红. 不同基质配比对土壤理化性质及草坪草生长的影响[J]. 中国草地学报, 2016, 38(5):38-45.
[26]	WANJALA B W, SRINIVASULU R, MAKOKHA P, et al. Improving rapid multiplication of sweetpotato (Ipomoea batatas L. (Lam) pre-basic seed using sandponics technology in East Africa[J]. Experimental agriculture, 2020, 56(3):347-354. doi: 10.1017/S0014479719000413 URL
[27]	MAKOKHA P, SSALI R T, RAJENDRAN S, et al. Comparative analysis for producing sweetpotato pre-basic seed using sandponics and conventional systems[J]. Journal of crop improvement, 2020, 34(1):84-102. doi: 10.1080/15427528.2019.1674758 URL

基质	pH	有机质/%	水解性氮/(mg/kg)		有效磷/(mg/kg)		速效钾/(mg/kg)		容重
基质1	5.49	1.18	74.20		143.90		141.70		1.40
基质2	5.85	0.84	42.50		206.30		98.90		1.42
基质3	6.45	0.70	38.60		149.40		95.50		1.38
基质4	6.11	2.30	49.80		130.70		109.30		1.18
基质	pH	有机质/%		水解性氮/(mg/kg)		有效磷/(mg/kg)		速效钾/(mg/kg)	容重
基质5	5.98	3.47		64.10		280.40		140.70	1.07
基质6	6.03	8.97		127.10		169.00		244.70	0.86
基质7	5.96	39.93		494.50		350.70		451.90	0.28

基质	pH	有机质/%	水解性氮/(mg/kg)		有效磷/(mg/kg)		速效钾/(mg/kg)		容重
基质1	5.49	1.18	74.20		143.90		141.70		1.40
基质2	5.85	0.84	42.50		206.30		98.90		1.42
基质3	6.45	0.70	38.60		149.40		95.50		1.38
基质4	6.11	2.30	49.80		130.70		109.30		1.18
基质	pH	有机质/%		水解性氮/(mg/kg)		有效磷/(mg/kg)		速效钾/(mg/kg)	容重
基质5	5.98	3.47		64.10		280.40		140.70	1.07
基质6	6.03	8.97		127.10		169.00		244.70	0.86
基质7	5.96	39.93		494.50		350.70		451.90	0.28

处理	甘薯资源品种
处理	1070	130	A237	1445	1454	A476
基质1	2.9960	3.6642	5.0059	5.6909	4.5963	3.5665
基质2	3.4654	4.2702	4.7383	4.4220	5.0076	5.6600
基质3	5.5013	5.0549	3.8620	4.5865	5.0221	6.1019
基质4	4.1059	4.6822	4.7434	4.5896	4.3754	5.0263
基质5	5.3440	4.3527	4.1157	7.5418	6.7790	6.6541
基质6	5.3117	6.9675	6.2289	5.2486	3.4462	5.8934
基质7	7.5756	6.6344	6.5334	5.1270	4.4179	5.9532

处理	甘薯资源品种
处理	1070	130	A237	1445	1454	A476
基质1	2.9960	3.6642	5.0059	5.6909	4.5963	3.5665
基质2	3.4654	4.2702	4.7383	4.4220	5.0076	5.6600
基质3	5.5013	5.0549	3.8620	4.5865	5.0221	6.1019
基质4	4.1059	4.6822	4.7434	4.5896	4.3754	5.0263
基质5	5.3440	4.3527	4.1157	7.5418	6.7790	6.6541
基质6	5.3117	6.9675	6.2289	5.2486	3.4462	5.8934
基质7	7.5756	6.6344	6.5334	5.1270	4.4179	5.9532

生长指标	1070	130	A237	1445	1454	A476	U(1070)	U(130)	U(A237)	U(1445)	U(1454)	U(A476)
叶柄长	0.0733	0.0883	0.1009	0.1713	0.1010	0.1274	0.0000	0.1533	0.2812	1.0000	0.2826	0.5517
叶柄直径	0.0996	0.0951	0.0774	0.0636	0.0908	0.0663	1.0000	0.8749	0.3831	0.0000	0.7566	0.0747
茎直径	0.0492	0.1051	0.0593	0.0584	0.1066	0.0634	0.0000	0.9732	0.1769	0.1614	1.0000	0.2476
节间长	0.1260	0.1733	0.1429	0.3451	0.2110	0.1111	0.0637	0.2657	0.1359	1.0000	0.4271	0.0000
茎基部直径	0.1282	0.1051	0.1015	0.1389	0.1524	0.0879	0.6245	0.2665	0.2118	0.7902	1.0000	0.0000
基部分枝数	0.1335	0.0727	0.1118	0.1156	0.2333	0.1742	0.3785	0.0000	0.2436	0.2670	1.0000	0.6320
最长蔓长	0.1062	0.0959	0.1162	0.1900	0.0772	0.1107	0.2569	0.1652	0.3452	1.0000	0.0000	0.2970
生长指标	1070	130	A237	1445	1454	A476	U(1070)	U(130)	U(A237)	U(1445)	U(1454)	U(A476)
光合速率	0.0863	0.0415	0.0867	0.1236	0.0691	0.1311	0.5001	0.0000	0.5048	0.9159	0.3084	1.0000
薯块产量	0.1472	0.1665	0.1944	0.1828	0.2126	0.2488	0.0000	0.1902	0.4646	0.3504	0.6434	1.0000
地上部鲜重	0.1667	0.1446	0.2058	0.0943	0.1146	0.1938	0.6497	0.4517	1.0000	0.0000	0.1821	0.8929
地上部干重	0.1608	0.1055	0.1945	0.1023	0.0936	0.2649	0.3921	0.0691	0.5891	0.0508	0.0000	1.0000
隶属函数综合评价值							3.8655	3.4097	4.3362	5.5358	5.6002	5.6960