Effects of Plastic Film Mulching on Growth and Physiological Indicators of Sweet Potato

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2025-0416

Abstract

Abstract:

To clarify the effects of film mulching on sweet potato growth under water stress during early establishment in the spring drought prone areas of northern China, and to elucidate the mechanisms underlying the differential responses to mulch color, a field experiment was conducted using cultivars ‘Taishu 15’ and ‘Taizishu 1’ as test materials. Three treatments were established: no mulching (CK), white film mulching (WM), and black film mulching (BM). Soil water content, growth parameters, osmotic adjustment substances, photosynthetic characteristics, chlorophyll fluorescence, and antioxidant enzyme activities were measured. The results showed that compared with CK, film mulching treatments significantly increased soil moisture content at 10-30 days after transplanting, with the BM treatment showing the best effect, achieving an increase of 28.1% to 77.9%. The BM treatment significantly promoted the growth of vine length, branch number, stem diameter, and leaf area. Regarding physiological indicators, the BM treatment significantly increased leaf proline and chlorophyll b content while significantly reducing malondialdehyde content. In terms of photosynthetic characteristics, stomatal conductance and transpiration rate were significantly increased under the BM treatment. The net photosynthetic rate and intercellular CO₂ concentration of both WM and BM treatments were significantly higher than those of CK, but there was no significant difference between the two film treatments. Chlorophyll fluorescence parameters indicated that film mulching treatments significantly increased the maximum photochemical efficiency of PSII, actual photochemical efficiency, and photochemical quenching coefficient, while decreasing the non-photochemical quenching coefficient, with the BM treatment showing more prominent improvement effects. Regarding antioxidant enzymes, the BM treatment also significantly increased the activities of superoxide dismutase and peroxidase. In conclusion, black plastic film mulching promotes sweet potato plant growth by increasing soil moisture content, enhancing leaf photosynthetic capacity, improving photosystem performance, and boosting antioxidant capacity, with its effects being superior to those of white plastic film. This study provides a theoretical basis and technical support for green and efficient sweet potato cultivation in the dry farming regions of northern China, and future research should integrate yield formation and long-term field validation to further optimize the mulching system.

Key words: sweet potato, plastic film mulching, soil water content, photosynthetic characteristics, antioxidant enzymes

CLC Number:

S531甘薯(红薯)

QIN Huawei, CHEN Lulu, TIAN Changgeng, LIU Shanggang, SUN Zhe. Effects of Plastic Film Mulching on Growth and Physiological Indicators of Sweet Potato[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2026, 42(15): 20-26.

Figures/Tables 7

References 27

[1]	王欣, 李强, 曹清河, 等. 中国甘薯产业和种业发展现状与未来展望[J]. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54(3):483-492. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2021.03.003
[2]	张海燕, 段文学, 解备涛, 等. 不同时期干旱胁迫对甘薯内源激素的影响及其与块根产量的关系[J]. 作物学报, 2018, 44(1):126-136.
[3]	吕敬军, 张贵国, 陈香艳, 等. 不同地膜覆盖栽培对花生经济性状及产量的影响与效益分析[J]. 花生学报, 2010, 39(4):38-41.
[4]	BRAUNACK M V, JOHNSTON D B, PRICE J, et al. Soil temperature and soil water potential under thin oxodegradable plastic film impact on cotton crop establishment and yield[J]. Field crops research, 2015, 184:91-103. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2015.09.009 URL
[5]	QIN S H, ZHANG J L, DAI H L, et al. Effect of ridge-furrow and plastic-mulching planting patterns on yield formation and water movement of potato in a semi-arid area[J]. Agricultural water management, 2014, 131:87-94. doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2013.09.015 URL
[6]	解备涛, 汪宝卿, 王庆美, 等. 甘薯地膜覆盖研究进展[J]. 中国农学通报, 2013, 29(36):28-32.
[7]	李云, 宋吉轩, 石乔龙. 覆膜对甘薯生长发育和产量的影响[J]. 南方农业学报, 2012, 43(8):1124-1128.
[8]	艾希珍, 张振贤, 米庆华, 等. 有色地膜覆盖对生姜生长及产量的影响[J]. 中国蔬菜, 2001(4):4-6.
[9]	孙哲, 范维娟, 刘桂玲, 等. 干旱胁迫下外源ABA对甘薯苗期叶片光合特性及相关生理指标的影响[J]. 植物生理学报, 2017, 53(5):873-880.
[10]	ZHAO H, WANG R Y, MA B L, et al. Ridge-furrow with full plastic film mulching improves water use efficiency and tuber yields of potato in a semiarid rain-fed ecosystem[J]. Field crops research, 2014, 161:137-148. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2014.02.013 URL
[11]	WANG Y P, LI X G, ZHU J, et al. Multi-site assessment of the effects of plastic-film mulch on dry land maize productivity in semiarid areas in China[J]. Agricultural and forest meteorology, 2016, 220:160-169. doi: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2016.01.142 URL
[12]	付文娥, 刘明慧, 王钊, 等. 覆膜栽培对甘薯生长动态及产量的影响[J]. 西北农业学报, 2013, 22(7):107-113.
[13]	黄小娟, 刘连军, 何洪良, 等. 地膜覆盖对鲜食型甘薯品种普薯32号农艺性状及产量的影响[J]. 现代农业科技, 2023(4):29-31.
[14]	吴佳瑞, 康建宏, 吴娜, 等. 覆膜对宁南山区马铃薯光合特性和产量的影响[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2019, 37(4):208-214.
[15]	禄兴丽, 段雅欣, 李闪闪, 等. 覆膜对半干旱地区马铃薯生长生理性状及作物产量的影响[J]. 植物生理学报, 2021, 57(7):1582-1594.
[16]	路海东, 薛吉全, 郭东伟, 等. 覆黑地膜对旱作玉米根区土壤温湿度和光合特性的影响[J]. 农业工程学报, 2017, 33(5):129-135.
[17]	于文颖, 纪瑞鹏, 冯锐, 等. 不同生育期玉米叶片光合特性及水分利用效率对水分胁迫的响应[J]. 生态学报, 2015, 35(9):2902-2909.
[18]	赵会杰, 邹琦, 于振文. 叶绿素荧光分析技术及其在植物光合机理研究中的应用[J]. 河南农业大学学报, 2000(3):248-251.
[19]	赵丽英, 邓西平, 山仑. 不同水分处理下冬小麦旗叶叶绿素荧光参数的变化研究[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2007(1):63-66.
[20]	张磊, 林祖军, 刘维正, 等. 黑色地膜对甘薯光合作用及叶绿素荧光特性的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2015, 31(18):80-86. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb14120044
[21]	李尚中, 樊廷录, 王勇, 等. 不同覆膜集雨种植方式对旱地玉米叶绿素荧光特性、产量和水分利用效率的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2014, 25(2):458-466.
[22]	张海燕, 解备涛, 汪宝卿, 等. 不同时期干旱胁迫对甘薯生长和抗氧化能力的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2020, 53(6):1126-1139. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2020.06.005
[23]	王一鸣, 汪湖, 龙胜举, 等. 干旱胁迫对蒲公英渗透调节物质、酶保护系统及质膜水孔蛋白PIP2-3基因表达的影响[J]. 华北农学报, 2017, 32(4):85-90. doi: 10.7668/hbnxb.2017.04.014
[24]	蔡昆争, 吴学祝, 骆世明. 不同生育期水分胁迫对水稻根叶渗透调节物质变化的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2008, 32(2):491-500.
[25]	李春香, 王玮, 李德全. 长期水分胁迫对小麦生育中后期根叶渗透调节能力、渗透调节物质的影响[J]. 西北植物学报, 2001, 21(5):924-930.
[26]	张海燕, 汪宝卿, 冯向阳, 等. 不同时期干旱胁迫对甘薯生长和渗透调节能力的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2020, 46(11):1760-1770. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2020.04079
[27]	DHINDSA R S, MATOWE W. Drought tolerance in two mosses: correlated with enzymatic defence against lipid peroxidation[J]. Journal of experimental botany, 1981, 32(1):79-91. doi: 10.1093/jxb/32.1.79 URL

处理	土壤含水量/%
处理	10 d	20 d	30 d
CK	47.22 ± 2.89 c	33.33 ± 1.41 b	24.53 ± 2.46 c
WM	55.38 ± 3.32 b	44.81 ± 2.77 a	38.10 ± 3.12 b
BM	60.47 ± 1.11 a	47.59 ± 2.19 a	43.64 ± 1.96 a

处理	土壤含水量/%
处理	10 d	20 d	30 d
CK	47.22 ± 2.89 c	33.33 ± 1.41 b	24.53 ± 2.46 c
WM	55.38 ± 3.32 b	44.81 ± 2.77 a	38.10 ± 3.12 b
BM	60.47 ± 1.11 a	47.59 ± 2.19 a	43.64 ± 1.96 a

测定指标	品种	处理
测定指标	品种	CK	WM	BM
蔓长/cm	泰薯15	38.2 ± 4.3 c	42.8 ± 6.7 b	44.2 ± 3.3 a
蔓长/cm	泰紫薯1号	40.3 ± 5.3 b	45.7 ± 6.3 a	47.3 ± 6.7 a
分枝数/个	泰薯15	5.0 ± 0.6 c	5.3 ± 0.5 b	5.9 ± 0.6 a
分枝数/个	泰紫薯1号	6.1 ± 0.4 b	6.7 ± 1.1 a	7.0 ± 0.8 a
茎粗/cm	泰薯15	0.47 ± 0.06 b	0.51 ± 0.06 a	0.53 ± 0.05 a
茎粗/cm	泰紫薯1号	0.53 ± 0.03 b	0.57 ± 0.08 a	0.59 ± 0.04 a
叶面积/m²	泰薯15	0.23 ±0.01 c	0.39 ± 0.01 b	0.42 ± 0.02 a
叶面积/m²	泰紫薯1号	0.27 ±0.03 c	0.43 ± 0.01 b	0.46 ± 0.01 a

测定指标	品种	处理
测定指标	品种	CK	WM	BM
蔓长/cm	泰薯15	38.2 ± 4.3 c	42.8 ± 6.7 b	44.2 ± 3.3 a
蔓长/cm	泰紫薯1号	40.3 ± 5.3 b	45.7 ± 6.3 a	47.3 ± 6.7 a
分枝数/个	泰薯15	5.0 ± 0.6 c	5.3 ± 0.5 b	5.9 ± 0.6 a
分枝数/个	泰紫薯1号	6.1 ± 0.4 b	6.7 ± 1.1 a	7.0 ± 0.8 a
茎粗/cm	泰薯15	0.47 ± 0.06 b	0.51 ± 0.06 a	0.53 ± 0.05 a
茎粗/cm	泰紫薯1号	0.53 ± 0.03 b	0.57 ± 0.08 a	0.59 ± 0.04 a
叶面积/m²	泰薯15	0.23 ±0.01 c	0.39 ± 0.01 b	0.42 ± 0.02 a
叶面积/m²	泰紫薯1号	0.27 ±0.03 c	0.43 ± 0.01 b	0.46 ± 0.01 a

测定指标	品种	处理
测定指标	品种	CK	WM	BM
净光合速率/[μmol/(m²·s)]	泰薯15	13.22 ± 0.41 b	17.38 ± 0.72 a	18.79 ± 1.13 a
净光合速率/[μmol/(m²·s)]	泰紫薯1号	14.56 ± 0.68 b	19.26 ± 1.04 a	20.87 ± 1.38 a
胞间CO₂浓度/(μmol/mol)	泰薯15	175.07 ± 10.60 b	215.33 ± 16.25 a	228.9 ± 19.12 a
胞间CO₂浓度/(μmol/mol)	泰紫薯1号	186.13 ± 14.42 b	226.70 ± 21.17 a	240.09 ± 22.18 a
气孔导度/[mmol/(m²·s)]	泰薯15	0.33 ± 0.018 b	0.36 ± 0.021 b	0.44 ± 0.026 a
气孔导度/[mmol/(m²·s)]	泰紫薯1号	0.39 ± 0.021 b	0.41 ± 0.023 b	0.53 ± 0.026 a
蒸腾速率/[mmol/(m²·s)]	泰薯15	2.53 ± 0.22 b	2.61 ± 0.19 b	3.25 ± 0.22 a
蒸腾速率/[mmol/(m²·s)]	泰紫薯1号	2.83 ± 0.25 b	3.02 ± 0.23 b	4.02 ±0.34 a
水分利用效率/(mmol/mol)	泰薯15	4.78 ± 0.37 b	5.96 ± 0.44 ab	6.24 ± 0.53 a
水分利用效率/(mmol/mol)	泰紫薯1号	5.25 ± 0.21 b	6.11 ± 0.29 a	6.23 ± 0.26 a