欢迎访问作物学报，今天是
作物学报

作物学报 ›› 2025, Vol. 51 ›› Issue (9): 2485-2500.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2025.54021

• 耕作栽培·生理生化 • 上一篇    下一篇

滴灌条件下不同水溶肥种类和配比对鲜食甘薯产量和品质的影响

张海燕1(), 解备涛1, 董顺旭1, 张立明2, 段文学1,*()   

  1. 1山东省农业科学院作物研究所 / 特色作物山东省工程实验室, 山东济南 250100
    2山东省农业科学院, 山东济南 250100
  • 收稿日期:2025-02-11 接受日期:2025-06-01 出版日期:2025-09-12 网络出版日期:2025-06-12
  • 通讯作者: *段文学, E-mail: duanwenxue2010@163.com
  • 作者简介:E-mail: zhang_haiyan02@163.com
  • 基金资助:
    本研究由国家重点研发计划项目(2024YFD2301000);财政部和农业农村部国家现代农业产业技术体系建设专项(CARS-10-GW09);山东省重点研发计划项目(2023TZXD001)

Effects of different types and ratios of water-soluble fertilizers on the yield and quality of table-use sweet potato [Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam.] under drip irrigation

ZHANG Hai-Yan1(), XIE Bei-Tao1, DONG Shun-Xu1, ZHANG Li-Ming2, DUAN Wen-Xue1,*()   

  1. 1Crop Research Institute of Shandong Academy of Agricultural Sciences / Shandong Engineering Laboratory of Featured Crops, Jinan 250100, Shandong, China
    2Shandong Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Jinan 250100, Shandong, China
  • Received:2025-02-11 Accepted:2025-06-01 Published:2025-09-12 Published online:2025-06-12
  • Contact: *E-mail: duanwenxue2010@163.com
  • Supported by:
    National Key Research and Development Program of China(2024YFD2301000);China Agriculture Research System of MOF and MARA(CARS-10-GW09);Shandong Provincial Key Research and Development Program(2023TZXD001)

RichHTML

1

PDF

18

摘要： 为探讨滴灌条件下氮磷钾不同配比对鲜食甘薯产量和品质的影响, 在山东省平阴县和泗水县, 以鲜食型甘薯品种济薯26和烟薯25为试验材料, 设置4个处理: (1) 基施复合肥(N∶P2O5∶K2O = 15∶15∶15) 450 kg hm-2 (CK); (2) 栽后20 d、50 d和80 d各滴施水溶肥(N∶P2O5∶K2O = 16∶6∶36) 150 kg hm-2 (F1); (3) 栽后20 d、50 d和80 d各滴施水溶肥 (N∶P2O5∶K2O = 8∶12∶35) 150 kg hm-2 (F2); (4) 栽后20 d滴施水溶肥(N∶P2O5∶K2O = 16∶6∶36) 150 kg hm-2 + 栽后50 d和80 d各滴施水溶肥(N∶P2O5∶K2O = 8∶12∶35) 150 kg hm-2 (F3), 研究了滴灌条件下不同水溶肥处理对鲜食甘薯植株干重、块根产量、块根淀粉和可溶性糖含量的影响。结果表明, 水溶肥处理的产量和商品薯率均显著高于对照, 不同水溶肥处理的产量和商品薯率均为F2 > F3 > F1。济薯26在平阴试验点F1、F2和F3处理的产量分别比对照增产10.04%、28.60%和19.23%, 在泗水试验点分别比对照增产10.88%、29.55%和21.29%; 烟薯25在平阴试验点F1、F2和F3处理的产量分别比对照增产7.62%、27.79%和20.12%, 在泗水试验点分别比对照增产8.52%、29.17%和19.90%。甘薯生长中后期, F2处理的蔓长、叶片数、地上部干重均显著低于其他处理, 块根干重均显著高于其他处理。F2处理的淀粉含量显著低于其他处理, 可溶性糖含量显著高于其他处理。因此, 在本试验条件下(土壤速效氮含量≤80 mg kg-1), 栽后20 d、50 d和80 d各滴施水溶肥(N︰P2O5︰K2O = 8︰12︰35, 腐植酸≥3%) 150 kg hm-2 (F2处理)为最优施肥处理。

关键词: 甘薯, 滴灌, 水溶肥, 产量, 品质

Abstract:

To investigate the effects of different nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium (NPK) ratios on the yield and quality of table-use sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam.) under drip irrigation, field experiments were conducted using two cultivars, Jishu 26 and Yanshu 25, at two sites: Pingyin and Sishui. The study examined the impact of water-soluble fertilizers on storage root yield, starch content, and soluble sugar content. Four treatments were applied: (1) a control (CK) with a basal application of compound fertilizer (N:P2O5:K2O = 15:15:15) at 450 kg hm-2; (2) F1, a drip-applied water-soluble fertilizer (N:P2O5:K2O = 16:6:36) at 150 kg hm-2 applied at 20, 50, and 80 days after transplanting; (3) F2, a drip-applied water-soluble fertilizer (N:P2O5:K2O = 8:12:35) at 150 kg hm-2 applied at the same intervals; and (4) F3, a combination of 150 kg hm-2 of N:P2O5:K2O = 16:6:36 at 20 days after transplanting and 150 kg hm-2 of N:P2O5:K2O = 8:12:35 at 50 and 80 days. The results showed that all water-soluble fertilizer treatments significantly improved yield and marketable root rate compared to the control, with performance ranked as F2 > F3 > F1. For Jishu 26, yields increased by 10.04%, 28.60%, and 19.23% under F1, F2, and F3 at Pingyin, and by 10.88%, 29.55%, and 21.29% at Sishui, respectively. For Yanshu 25, yields increased by 7.62%, 27.79%, and 20.12% at Pingyin, and by 8.52%, 29.17%, and 19.90% at Sishui under the same treatments. In the middle and late stages of growth, F2 significantly reduced vine length, leaf number, and aboveground biomass, while significantly increasing the dry weight of storage roots. Additionally, F2 resulted in significantly lower starch content and significantly higher soluble sugar content compared to the other treatments. Therefore, under the given experimental conditions (soil available nitrogen content ≤ 80 mg kg-1) the F2 treatment—applying 150 kg hm-2 of water-soluble fertilizer (N:P2O5:K2O = 8:12:35, humic acid content ≥ 3%) at 20, 50, and 80 days after transplanting—is recommended as the optimal fertilization strategy for table-use sweet potato production under drip irrigation.

Key words: sweet potato, drip irrigation, water-soluble fertilizers, yield, quality

表1

甘薯不同生育期的气象资料数据(2020-2021)"

气象因子
Weather factor		 济南Jinan 济宁Jining
5月
May		 6月
Jun.		 7月
Jul.		 8月
Aug.		 9月
Sep.		 10月
Oct.		 5月
May		 6月
Jun.		 7月
Jul.		 8月
Aug.		 9月
Sep.		 10月
Oct.
平均日温
DAT (℃)		 2020 22.2 26.3 25.1 26.4 22.4 14.9 22.6 26.7 26.1 28.1 23.9 14.9
2021 21.2 27.3 27.5 25.8 22.6 14.8 21.4 27.4 28.1 26.3 23.2 15.6
降雨量
Precipitation (mm)		 2020 42.9 80.7 75.7 248.5 35.5 10.5 47.2 88.6 163.7 198.7 9.3 16.4
2021 20.6 64.5 391.2 149.0 190.1 49.5 29.4 114.5 259.8 332.2 218.5 42.2
日照时数
SH (h)		 2020 343.0 324.4 318.8 263.6 226.9 166.7 319.1 303.4 300.2 283.6 282.4 199.7
2021 273.5 224.8 167.6 192.9 160.7 149.4 224.0 201.4 158.4 158.1 143.1 124.8

表2

滴灌条件下不同水溶肥种类和配比对鲜食甘薯产量的影响"

试验点
Test point		 处理
Treatment		 济薯26 Jishu 26 烟薯25 Yanshu 25
产量
Yield
(kg hm-2)		 比CK
Compared control
± (%)		 商品薯率
Commodity rate
(%)		 产量
Yield
(kg hm-2)		 比CK
Compared control
± (%)		 商品薯率
Commodity rate
(%)
平阴
Pingyin		 CK 36,916.00±1140.21 d — 73.94±1.96 d 35,503.35±886.02 d — 70.61±1.39 d
F1 40,624.05±1073.02 c 10.04 83.42±0.19 c 38,208.70±573.31 c 7.62 82.42±0.91 c
F2 47,474.75±1622.22 a 28.60 90.94±0.44 a 45,369.45±1588.43 a 27.79 88.24±0.73 a
F3 44,014.05±323.41 b 19.23 86.19±0.44 b 42,646.00±449.23 b 20.12 84.85±0.25 b
F-value
年份Year 46.76* 14.28* 46.52* 14.21*
处理Treatment 84.60** 363.67** 118.43** 656.48**
年份×处理
Year× Treatment		 1.91NS 0.42NS 2.75NS 0.74NS
泗水
Sishui		 CK 39,781.75±1476.08 d — 76.33±0.93 d 37,506.40±668.23d — 72.52±1.10 d
F1 44,108.30±740.01 c 10.88 84.59±1.27 c 40,701.00±1111.31 c 8.52 83.79±0.80 c
F2 51,538.65±1128.23 a 29.55 92.45±0.85 a 48,446.55±686.41 a 29.17 89.62±0.56 a
F3 48,249.80±1041.12 b 21.29 87.73±0.95 b 44,968.65±1282.43 b 19.90 86.15±0.26 b
F-value
年份Year 42.15* 14.05* 43.33* 14.35*
处理Treatment 123.32** 244.90** 154.93* 552.48**
年份×处理
Year× Treatment		 2.69NS 0.26NS 3.74* 0.60NS

表3

滴灌条件下不同水溶肥种类和配比对鲜食甘薯蔓长的影响"

试验点
Test point		 处理
Treatment		 济薯26栽插后天数 Days after planting of Jishu 26
40 d 70 d 100 d 130 d
平阴Pingyin CK 78.91±6.83 a 154.72±4.28 a 185.31±6.56 a 243.39±18.00 a
F1 85.12±12.83 a 152.95±12.19 a 182.65±7.79 a 242.50±13.12 a
F2 70.05±9.98 a 126.79±6.69 b 154.28±11.97 b 171.57±13.50 b
F3 80.24±6.00 a 141.87±9.34 ab 169.80±11.62 ab 219.45±29.00 ab
泗水Sishui CK 59.33±5.13 a 116.33±3.21 a 139.33±4.93 a 183.00±13.53 a
F1 64.00±9.64 a 115.00±9.17 a 137.33±5.86 a 182.33±9.87 a
F2 52.67±7.51 a 95.33±5.03 b 116.00±9.00 b 129.00±10.15 b
F3 60.33±4.51 a 106.67±7.02 ab 127.67±8.74 ab 165.00±21.8 ab
试验点
Test point		 处理
Treatment		 烟薯25栽插后天数 Days after planting of Yanshu 25
40 d 70 d 100 d 130 d
平阴Pingyin CK 90.00±7.56 a 174.67±4.28 a 209.70±7.33 a 275.31±20.6 a
F1 96.20±14.83 a 172.90±13.50 a 206.59±9.05 a 273.98±15.11 a
F2 73.15±11.82 a 143.64±7.41 b 174.23±13.30 b 194.18±15.68 b
F3 90.67±6.78 a 160.49±10.67 ab 191.52±13.10 ab 247.38±32.5 ab
泗水Sishui CK 67.67±5.69 a 131.33±3.21 a 157.67±5.51 a 207.00±15.52 a
F1 72.33±11.15 a 130.00±10.15 a 155.33±6.81 a 206.00±11.36 a
F2 55.00±8.89 a 108.00±5.57 b 131.00±10.00 b 146.00±11.79 b
F3 68.18±5.10 a 120.67±8.02 ab 144.00±9.85 ab 186.00±24.4 ab

表4

滴灌条件下不同水溶肥种类和配比对鲜食甘薯叶片数的影响"

试验点
Test point		 处理
Treatment		 栽插后天数 Days after planting
济薯26 Jishu 26 烟薯25 Yanshu 25
40 d 70 d 100 d 130 d 40 d 70 d 100 d 130 d
平阴
Pingyin		 CK 154±13 a 217±25 a 312±13 a 283±26 a 176±15 a 248±29 a 357±15 a 323±30 a
F1 153±14 a 222±18 a 310±12 a 300±27 a 174±16 a 253±21 a 354±14 a 343±31 a
F2 113±13 a 152±9 b 199±18 c 183±7 b 129±15 a 174±11 b 227±21 c 209±8 b
F3 148±28 a 191±11 ab 243±20 b 220±19 b 169±32 a 218±13 ab 277±23 b 252±22 b
泗水
Sishui		 CK 116±10 a 163±19 a 235±10 a 213±20 a 132±11 a 186±22 a 268±11 a 242±22 a
F1 115±11 a 167±14 a 233±9 a 226±21 a 131±12 a 190±16 a 266±10 a 257±23 a
F2 85±10 a 114±7 b 149±14 b 137±5 b 97±11 a 130±8 b 170±15 c 157±6 b
F3 111±21 a 143±9 ab 182±15 c 166±14 b 127±24 a 163±10 ab 208±17 b 189±16 b

表5

滴灌条件下不同水溶肥种类和配比对鲜食甘薯地上部干重的影响"

试验点
Test point		 取样器官
Organs		 处理
Treatment		 栽插后天数 Days after planting
济薯26 Jishu 26 烟薯25 Yanshu 25
40 d 70 d 100 d 130 d 40 d 70 d 100 d 130 d
平阴
Pingyin		 叶片干重
Dry weight of leaf		 CK 25.38±0.62 a 32.67±0.69 a 37.64±1.54 a 34.11±3.15 a 27.42±0.54 a 37.33±0.79 a 43.02±1.76 a 38.98±3.60 a
F1 24.57±2.01 a 32.36±0.96 a 35.14±1.38 a 34.04±3.09 a 27.02±2.02 a 36.99±1.10 a 40.16±1.58 a 38.90±3.53 a
F2 14.80±3.38 b 16.73±1.03 c 19.66±1.78 c 18.08±0.68 c 16.39±2.30 b 19.12±1.17 c 22.47±2.03 c 20.67±0.77 c
F3 23.52±0.90 a 27.21±0.85 b 27.24±1.29 b 25.81±1.24 b 26.58±1.01 a 31.10±0.97 b 31.14±1.47 b 29.49±1.42 b
叶柄干重
Dry weight of petiole		 CK 9.24±0.23 a 10.06±0.21 a 12.88±0.53 a 11.67±1.08 a 10.56±0.26 a 11.50±0.24 a 14.72±0.60 a 13.34±1.23 a
F1 8.94±0.73 a 9.97±0.30 a 12.03±0.47 a 11.65±1.06 a 10.22±0.84 a 11.39±0.34 a 13.74±0.54 a 13.31±1.21 a
F2 5.39±1.23 b 5.15±0.32 c 6.73±0.61 c 6.19±0.23 c 6.16±1.41 b 5.89±0.36 c 7.69±0.70 c 7.07±0.26 c
F3 8.56±0.33 a 8.38±0.26 b 9.32±0.44 b 8.83±0.42 b 9.79±0.37 a 9.58±0.30 b 10.66±0.50 b 10.09±0.49 b
茎干重
Dry weight of stem		 CK 13.80±1.25 a 36.61±1.93 a 44.02±3.28 a 40.65±1.75 a 16.62±0.78 a 41.84±2.20 a 50.31±3.75 a 46.45±2.00 a
F1 12.89±0.30 a 36.08±1.68 a 44.36±3.40 a 39.73±1.43 ab 15.87±1.87 a 41.23±1.92 a 50.70±3.88 a 45.40±1.63 ab
F2 7.79±1.38 b 24.54±2.35 b 30.95±2.33 b 26.48±1.25 c 9.66±2.73 b 28.04±2.69 b 35.37±2.67 b 30.26±1.43 c
F3 13.62±2.31 a 30.22±3.67 ab 36.61±1.65 b 33.72±3.93 b 15.57±2.64 a 34.54±4.20 ab 41.83±1.89 b 38.53±4.49 b
地上部干重
Dry weight of aboveground parts		 CK 48.42±2.07 a 79.34±2.30 a 94.54±4.61 a 86.43±5.85 a 54.6±0.26 a 90.67±2.63 a 108.05±5.27 a 98.77±6.69 a
F1 46.4±2.87 a 78.41±2.15 a 91.53±4.33 a 85.42±3.70 a 53.11±1.09 a 89.61±2.46 a 104.60±4.95 a 97.61±4.23 a
F2 27.98±5.50 b 46.42±3.10 c 57.34±1.64 c 50.75±1.27 c 32.21±5.25 b 53.05±3.54 c 65.53±1.87 c 58.00±1.46 c
F3 45.70±3.47 a 65.81±4.79 b 73.17±2.69 b 68.36±5.11 b 51.94±3.95 a 75.22±5.47 b 83.63±3.07 b 78.11±5.84 b
泗水
Sishui		 叶片干重
Dry weight of leaf		 CK 19.08±0.47 a 24.56±0.52 a 28.30±1.16 a 25.65±2.37 a 21.76±0.53 a 28.00±0.59 a 30.11±4.14 a 29.24±2.70 a
F1 18.47±1.51 a 24.33±0.72 a 26.42±1.04 a 25.59±2.32 a 21.06±1.72 a 27.74±0.82 a 28.21±3.71 a 29.17±2.65 a
F2 11.13±2.54 b 12.58±0.77 c 14.78±1.34 c 13.60±0.51 c 12.69±2.90 b 14.34±0.88 c 15.05±1.94 b 15.50±0.58 c
F3 17.69±0.67 a 20.46±0.64 b 20.48±0.97 b 19.40±0.93 b 20.16±0.77 a 23.32±0.73 b 22.99±1.65 ab 22.12±1.06 b
叶柄干重
Dry weight of petiole		 CK 6.95±0.17 a 7.56±0.16 a 9.69±0.40 a 8.78±0.81 a 7.92±0.19 a 8.62±0.18 a 11.04±0.45 a 10.01±0.93 a
F1 6.72±0.55 a 7.49±0.22 a 9.04±0.36 a 8.76±0.80 a 7.67±0.63 a 8.54±0.25 a 10.31±0.41 a 9.98±0.91 a
F2 4.05±0.92 b 3.87±0.24 c 5.06±0.46 c 4.65±0.17 c 4.62±1.05 b 4.42±0.27 c 5.77±0.52 c 5.30±0.20 c
F3 6.44±0.25 a 6.30±0.20 b 7.01±0.33 b 6.64±0.32 b 7.34±0.28 a 7.18±0.23 b 7.99±0.38 b 7.57±0.36 b
茎干重
Dry weight of stem		 CK 10.62±0.61 a 27.53±1.45 a 33.10±2.47 a 30.56±1.32 a 12.63±0.73 a 31.38±1.65 a 37.73±2.81 a 34.84±1.50 a
F1 10.44±1.23 a 27.12±1.27 a 33.36±2.55 a 29.87±1.07 ab 11.90±1.40 a 30.92±1.44 a 38.03±2.91 a 34.05±1.22 ab
F2 6.36±1.80 b 18.45±1.77 b 23.27±1.76 b 19.91±0.94 c 7.25±2.05 b 21.03±2.02 b 26.53±2.00 b 22.69±1.07 c
F3 10.24±1.74 a 22.72±2.76 ab 27.52±1.24 b 25.35±2.95 b 11.67±1.98 a 25.90±3.15 ab 31.38±1.42 b 28.90±3.36 b
地上部干重
Dry weight of aboveground parts		 CK 36.65±1.18 a 59.65±1.73 a 71.09±3.47 a 64.99±4.40 a 42.31±0.78 a 68.00±1.97 a 78.88±3.82 a 74.09±5.01 a
F1 35.63±0.87 a 58.94±1.62 a 68.82±3.25 a 64.22±2.78 a 40.63±0.99 a 67.20±1.84 a 76.55±3.11 a 73.20±3.17 a
F2 21.54±4.32 b 34.90±2.33 c 43.11±1.23 c 38.16±0.96 c 24.56±4.93 b 39.79±2.66 c 47.35±2.22 c 43.49±1.09 c
F3 34.37±2.61 a 49.48±3.60 b 55.01±2.02 b 51.39±3.84 b 39.17±2.97 a 56.40±4.10 b 62.36±2.93 b 58.59±4.38 b

表6

滴灌条件下不同水溶肥种类和配比对鲜食甘薯地下部干重的影响"

试验点
Test point		 取样器官
Organs		 处理
Treatment		 栽插后天数 Days after planting
济薯26 Jishu 26 烟薯25 Yanshu 25
40 d 70 d 100 d 130 d 40 d 70 d 100 d 130 d
平阴
Pingyin		 纤维根干重
Dry weight of fibrous roots		 CK 2.15±0.05 b 4.29±0.93 b 5.93±0.70 c 8.73±0.72 b 1.88±0.04 b 3.75±0.81 b 5.19±0.61 c 7.64±0.63 b
F1 2.19±0.14 b 4.75±0.73 b 7.04±0.58 bc 10.05±4.93 ab 1.92±0.13 b 4.16±0.64 b 6.16±0.50 bc 8.79±4.31 ab
F2 2.87±0.35 a 9.21±0.99 a 12.73±0.30 a 15.53±0.52 a 2.51±0.31 a 8.06±0.87 a 11.14±0.26 a 13.59±0.46 a
F3 2.21±0.17 b 5.55±0.43 b 8.63±1.01 b 12.03±0.70 ab 1.93±0.15 b 4.86±0.38 b 7.55±0.88 b 10.52±0.61 ab
块根干重
Dry weight of storage roots		 CK 6.43±1.33 b 53.07±6.06 c 75.28±5.71 c 193.96±15.92 b 5.63±1.16 b 46.43±5.30 c 65.87±4.99 c 169.71±13.93 b
F1 7.27±0.47 ab 63.75±10.78 bc 85.37±7.21 c 221.57±33.61 b 6.36±0.41 ab 55.78±9.43 bc 74.70±6.31 c 193.87±29.41 b
F2 9.72±1.47 a 88.65±7.91 a 128.51±3.60 a 415.37±31.12 a 8.50±1.29 a 77.57±6.92 a 112.45±3.15 a 363.45±27.20 a
F3 7.50±0.58 ab 74.33±4.16 ab 105.23±5.26 b 273.49±38.41 b 6.56±0.50 ab 65.04±3.64 ab 92.08±4.61 b 239.30±33.63 b
地下部干重
Dry weight of underground parts		 CK 8.58±1.29 b 57.35±5.66 c 81.21±6.34 c 202.69±15.93 c 7.50±1.13 b 50.19±4.95 c 71.06±5.55 c 177.35±13.94 c
F1 9.47±0.38 b 68.50±11.22 bc 92.41±7.64 c 231.62±28.70 bc 8.28±0.34 b 59.93±9.83 bc 80.86±6.69 c 202.67±25.10 bc
F2 12.59±1.82 a 97.86±8.89 a 141.24±3.90 a 430.89±31.60 a 11.01±1.59 a 85.63±7.78 a 123.59±3.41 a 377.03±27.60 a
F3 9.71±0.47 ab 79.88±4.49 ab 113.86±5.85 b 285.51±37.80 b 8.50±0.41 ab 69.89±3.93 ab 99.63±5.12 b 249.82±33.10 b
泗水
Sishui		 纤维根干重
Dry weight of fibrous roots		 CK 1.41±0.03 b 2.82±0.61 b 3.90±0.46 c 5.74±0.48 b 1.61±0.03 b 3.22±0.69 b 4.45±0.53 c 6.55±0.54 b
F1 1.44±0.09 b 3.13±0.48 b 4.63±0.38 bc 6.61±3.24 ab 1.65±0.11 b 3.56±0.55 b 5.28±0.43 bc 7.54±0.37 ab
F2 1.89±0.23 a 6.06±0.65 a 8.37±0.19 a 10.22±0.34 a 2.15±0.26 a 6.91±0.74 a 9.55±0.22 a 11.65±0.39 a
F3 1.45±0.11 b 3.65±0.29 b 5.68±0.66 b 7.91±0.46 ab 1.66±0.13 b 4.16±0.33 b 6.47±0.76 b 9.02±0.53 ab
块根干重
Dry weight of storage roots		 CK 4.23±0.88 b 34.91±3.99 c 49.52±3.75 c 127.60±10.48 b 4.82±0.99 b 39.80±4.55 c 56.46±4.28 c 145.47±11.94 b
F1 4.79±0.31 ab 41.94±7.09 bc 56.17±4.74 c 145.77±22.13 b 5.45±0.35 ab 47.81±8.09 bc 64.03±5.41 c 166.18±25.20 b
F2 6.39±0.97 a 58.32±5.20 a 84.55±2.37 a 273.27±20.43 a 7.29±1.11 a 66.48±5.93 a 96.38±2.70 a 311.53±23.31 a
F3 4.94±0.38 ab 48.90±2.74 ab 69.23±3.46 b 179.93±25.20 b 5.63±0.43 ab 55.75±3.12 ab 78.93±3.95 b 205.11±28.84 b
地下部干重
Dry weight of underground parts		 CK 5.64±0.85 b 37.73±3.73 c 53.43±4.17 c 133.35±10.48 c 6.43±0.97 b 43.02±4.25 c 60.91±4.76 c 152.01±11.94 c
F1 6.23±0.25 b 45.06±7.38 bc 60.80±5.03 c 152.38±18.90 bc 7.10±0.29 b 51.37±8.42 bc 69.31±5.73 c 173.71±21.50 bc
F2 8.28±1.20 a 64.38±5.85 a 92.92±2.56 a 283.48±20.80 a 9.44±1.34 a 73.39±6.67 a 105.93±2.92 a 323.17±23.70 a
F3 6.39±0.31 ab 52.55±2.95 ab 74.91±3.85 b 187.84±24.90 b 7.28±0.35 ab 59.91±3.37 ab 85.39±4.39 b 214.14±28.40 b

表7

地上部干重、块根干重、地下部干重与产量的相关系数"

相关系数
Correlation coefficient		 产量
Yield		 地上部干重
Dry weight of aboveground parts		 块根干重
Dry weight of storage roots		 地下部干重
Dry weight of underground parts
40 DAP 70 DAP 100 DAP 130 DAP 40 DAP 70 DAP 100 DAP 130 DAP 40 DAP 70 DAP 100 DAP 130 DAP
产量 Yield 1.00
地上部干重
Dry weight of aboveground parts		 40 DAP −0.83** 1.00
70 DAP −0.90** 0.97** 1.00
100 DAP −0.91** 0.93** 0.95** 1.00
130 DAP −0.92** 0.95** 0.98** 0.98** 1.00
块根干重
Dry weight of storage roots		 40 DAP 0.35 −0.22 −0.20 −0.16 −0.19 1.00
70 DAP 0.47 −0.24 −0.27 −0.26 −0.29 0.97** 1.00
100 DAP 0.50* −0.29 −0.33 −0.31 −0.34 0.96** 0.99** 1.00
130 DAP 0.59* −0.48 −0.48 −0.44 −0.48 0.94** 0.95** 0.97** 1.00
地下部干重
Dry weight of underground parts		 40 DAP 0.32 −0.20 −0.18 −0.13 −0.17 0.98** 0.96** 0.96** 0.93** 1.00
70 DAP 0.49* −0.27 −0.3 −0.28 −0.31 0.97** 0.97** 0.98** 0.96** 0.97** 1.00
100 DAP 0.51* −0.31 −0.34 −0.32 −0.35 0.97** 0.98** 0.99** 0.97** 0.96** 0.98** 1.00
130 DAP 0.59* −0.47 −0.48 −0.44 −0.47 0.94** 0.95** 0.97** 0.99** 0.94** 0.96** 0.97** 1.00

表8

滴灌条件下不同水溶肥种类和配比对鲜食甘薯块根淀粉含量的影响"

试验点
Test point		 处理
Treatment		 济薯26栽插后天数Days after planting of Jishu 26
40 d 70 d 100 d 130 d
平阴Pingyin CK 470.45±3.66 a 602.57±4.52 b 699.47±7.70 a 797.17±5.40 a
F1 469.23±2.72 a 631.33±5.72 a 707.94±9.00 a 791.66±5.23 a
F2 417.32±5.42 b 488.06±5.85 d 551.17±7.82 c 603.41±6.92 c
F3 471.31±6.98 a 551.42±10.26 c 614.27±8.53 b 660.71±14.28 b
泗水Sishui CK 409.08±3.19 a 523.98±3.93 b 608.23±6.70 a 693.19±4.70 a
F1 408.02±2.37 a 548.98±4.97 a 615.60±7.83 a 688.40±4.55 a
F2 362.89±4.71 b 424.40±5.09 d 479.28±6.80 c 524.71±6.02 c
F3 409.83±6.07 a 479.49±8.92 c 534.15±7.42 b 574.53±12.41 b
试验点
Test point		 处理
Treatment		 烟薯25栽插后天数Days after planting of Yanshu 25
40 d 70 d 100 d 130 d
平阴Pingyin CK 399.88±3.12 a 512.19±3.84 b 594.55±6.55 a 677.59±4.59 a
F1 398.84±2.31 a 536.63±4.86 a 601.75±7.65 a 672.91±4.44 a
F2 354.72±4.60 b 414.85±4.97 d 468.50±6.64 c 512.90±5.88 c
F3 400.61±5.93 a 468.70±8.72 c 522.13±7.25 b 561.60±12.14 b
泗水Sishui CK 339.54±2.65 a 434.90±3.26 b 504.83±5.56 a 575.35±3.90 a
F1 338.66±1.96 a 455.66±4.13 a 510.95±6.50 a 571.37±3.77 a
F2 301.20±3.91 b 352.25±4.22 d 397.80±5.64 c 435.51±4.99 c
F3 340.16±5.03 a 397.98±7.41 c 443.34±6.16 b 476.86±10.30 b

表9

滴灌条件下不同水溶肥种类和配比对鲜食甘薯块根可溶性糖含量的影响"

试验点
Test point		 处理
Treatment		 济薯26栽插后天数Days after planting of Jishu 26
40 d 70 d 100 d 130 d
平阴Pingyin CK 42.49±1.60 b 47.77±1.17 c 39.08±1.56 b 57.85±2.33 c
F1 43.18±0.69 b 52.18±0.96 b 41.69±0.97 b 61.54±1.80 bc
F2 48.48±1.60 a 58.12±0.80 a 47.80±1.06 a 70.71±1.33 a
F3 43.08±0.88 b 52.28±1.36 b 42.00±1.09 b 62.39±1.11 b
泗水Sishui CK 36.94±1.39 b 41.54±1.02 c 33.98±1.35 b 50.30±2.03 c
F1 37.55±0.60 b 45.35±0.84 b 36.25±0.84 b 53.51±1.57 bc
F2 42.15±1.39 a 50.54±0.69 a 41.57±0.92 a 61.49±1.16 a
F3 37.46±0.76 b 45.46±1.18 b 36.52±0.96 b 54.25±0.96 b
试验点
Test point		 处理
Treatment		 烟薯25栽插后天数Days after planting of Yanshu 25
40 d 70 d 100 d 130 d
平阴Pingyin CK 55.24±2.07 b 62.10±1.53 c 50.81±2.02 b 75.20±3.03 c
F1 56.14±0.89 b 67.79±1.25 b 54.19±1.26 b 80.00±2.34 bc
F2 63.02±2.08 a 75.56±1.04 a 62.14±1.37 a 91.92±1.73 a
F3 56.01±1.14 b 67.96±1.76 b 54.60±1.43 b 81.10±1.44 b
泗水Sishui CK 48.03±1.80 b 54.00±1.33 c 44.18±1.76 b 65.39±2.64 c
F1 48.82±0.78 b 58.95±1.09 b 47.13±1.09 b 69.57±2.04 bc
F2 54.80±1.81 a 65.71±0.90 a 54.04±1.19 a 79.93±1.50 a
F3 48.70±0.99 b 59.09±1.53 b 47.48±1.24 b 70.53±1.25 b
[1] 王欣, 李强, 曹清河, 马代夫. 中国甘薯产业和种业发展现状与未来展望. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54: 483-492.
doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2021.03.003
Wang X, Li Q, Cao Q H, Ma D F. Current status and future prospective of sweetpotato production and seed industry in China. Sci Agric Sin, 2021, 54: 483-492 (in Chinese with English abstract).
doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2021.03.003
[2] 陈晓光, 丁艳锋, 唐忠厚, 魏猛, 史新敏, 张爱君, 李洪民. 氮肥施用量对甘薯产量和品质性状的影响. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2015, 21: 979-986.
Chen X G, Ding Y F, Tang Z H, Wei M, Shi X M, Zhang A J, Li H M. Suitable nitrogen rate for storage root yield and quality of sweet potato. J Plant Nutr Fert, 2015, 21: 979-986 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[3] 汪顺义, 李欢, 刘庆, 史衍玺. 施钾对甘薯根系生长和产量的影响及其生理机制. 作物学报, 2017, 43: 1057-1066.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2017.01057
Wang S Y, Li H, Liu Q, Shi Y X. Effect of potassium application on root grow and yield of sweet potato and its physiological mechanism. Acta Agron Sin, 2017, 43: 1057-1066 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[4] 宁运旺, 马洪波, 张辉, 汪吉东, 许仙菊, 张永春. 甘薯源库关系建立、发展和平衡对氮肥用量的响应. 作物学报, 2015, 41: 432-439.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2015.00432
Ning Y W, Ma H B, Zhang H, Wang J D, Xu X J, Zhang Y C. Response of sweetpotato in source-sink relationship establishment, expanding, and balance to nitrogen application rates. Acta Agron Sin, 2015, 41: 432-439 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[5] 姜仲禹, 唐丽雪, 柳洪鹃, 史春余. 不同施钾量条件下甘薯块根形成的内源激素变化及其与块根数量的关系. 作物学报, 2020, 46: 1750-1759.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2020.04097
Jiang Z Y, Tang L X, Liu H J, Shi C Y. Changes of endogenous hormones on storage root formation and its relationship with storage root number under different potassium application rates of sweet potato. Acta Agron Sin, 2020, 46: 1750-1759 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[6] 李剑平, 汪兆辉, 唐永齐, 吴静鹏, 薄君鑫, 葛越, 尧梓莹, 谷华, 张友良. 不同灌水量和施氮量对膜下滴灌甘薯生长的影响. 节水灌溉, 2024, (8): 1-10.
doi: 10.12396/jsgg.2024046
Li J P, Wang Z H, Tang Y Q, Wu J P, Bao J X, Ge Y, Yao Z Y, Gu H, Zhang Y L. Effects of different irrigation amount and nitrogen application rate on sweet potato growth under drip irrigation with film mulching. Water Saving Irrig, 2024, (8): 1-10 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[7] 林建富, 黄艳霞. 滴灌施肥对甘薯产量和品质的影响. 安徽农学通报, 2024, 30(12): 1-4.
Lin J F, Huang Y X. Effects of drip irrigation fertilization on sweet potato yield and quality. Anhui Agric Sci Bull, 2024, 30(12): 1-4 (in Chinese).
[8] 酒歌, 王栋, 马娇. 膜下滴灌水氮调控对甘薯品质、产量及土壤水氮分布的影响. 灌溉排水学报, 2023, 42(12): 63-72.
Jiu G, Wang D, Ma J. Effect of water and nitrogen transport on sweet potato quality, yield and soil water and nitrogen distribution under drip irrigation with plastic mulch. J Irrig Drain, 2023, 42(12): 63-72 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[9] 张友良, 汪兆辉, 冯绍元, 王凤新. 覆膜滴灌条件下滴灌湿润比和施氮量对甘薯生长的影响. 农业机械学报, 2021, 52(7): 261-270.
Zhang Y L, Wang Z H, Feng S Y, Wang F X. Effects of soil wetted percentages and nitrogen fertilizations on sweet potato growth under drip irrigation with film mulching. Trans CSAM, 2021, 52(7): 261-270 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[10] Hartemink A E, Johnston M, O’Sullivan J N, Poloma S. Nitrogen use efficiency of taro and sweet potato in the humid lowlands of Papua New Guinea. Agric Ecosyst Environ, 2000, 79: 271-280.
[11] 张海燕, 董顺旭, 解备涛, 汪宝卿, 张立明, 段文学. 钾肥用量对瘠薄地甘薯产量和钾肥利用率的影响. 核农学报, 2020, 34: 2299-2306.
doi: 10.11869/j.issn.100-8551.2020.10.2299
Zhang H Y, Dong S X, Xie B T, Wang B Q, Zhang L M, Duan W X. Effects of amount of potassium fertilizer on yield and potassium utilization efficiency of sweetpotato in barren land. J Nucl Agric Sci, 2020, 34: 2299-2306 (in Chinese with English abstract).
doi: 10.11869/j.issn.100-8551.2020.10.2299
[12] 杨春菊, 唐道彬, 张凯, 杜康, 黄红, 乔欢欢, 王季春, 吕长文. 氮钾减量配施对甘薯产量和品质的影响. 作物学报, 2024, 50: 1341-1350.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2024.34147
Yang C J, Tang D B, Zhang K, Du K, Huang H, Qiao H H, Wang J C, Lyu C W. Effect of reducing nitrogen and potassium application on yield and quality in sweet potato. Acta Agron Sin, 2024, 50: 1341-1350 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[13] 张海燕, 董顺旭, 董晓霞, 解备涛, 王庆美, 李爱贤, 侯夫云, 张立明. 氮磷钾不同配比对甘薯产量和品质的影响. 山东农业科学, 2013, 45(3): 76-79.
Zhang H Y, Dong S X, Dong X X, Xie B T, Wang Q M, Li A X, Hou F Y, Zhang L M. Effects of different proportions of nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium on yield and quality of sweet potato [Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam]. Shandong Agric Sci, 2013, 45(3): 76-79 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[14] 李慧峰, 陈天渊, 黄咏梅, 滑金锋, 吴翠荣, 李彦青. 甘薯‘桂粉3号’氮磷钾肥料效应研究. 热带农业科学, 2016, 36(7): 13-16.
Li H F, Chen T Y, Huang Y M, Hua J F, Wu C R, Li Y Q. Effect of N, P and K fertilizer on sweet potato cultivar ‘Guifen No.3’. Chin J Trop Agric, 2016, 36(7): 13-16 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[15] 陈建勋, 王晓峰. 植物生理学实验指导(第2版). 广州: 华南理工大学出版社, 2006.
Chen J X, Wang X F. Experimental Instruction of Plant Physiology, 2nd edn. Guangzhou: South China University of Technology Press, 2006 (in Chinese).
[16] 胡英杰, 张友良, 冯绍元, 王凤新. 不同颜色地膜和滴灌土壤湿润比对土壤水热及甘薯生长的影响. 灌溉排水学报, 2021, 40(10): 33-42.
Hu Y J, Zhang Y L, Feng S Y, Wang F X. The colour of mulching plastic film and drip irrigation amount combine to affect water and thermal condition in soil and sweet potato growth. J Irrig Drain, 2021, 40(10): 33-42 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[17] 段文学, 张海燕, 解备涛, 汪宝卿, 张立明. 甘薯氮素营养研究进展. 西北农业学报, 2015, 24(12): 14-23.
Duan W X, Zhang H Y, Xie B T, Wang B Q, Zhang L M. Research advances of nitrogen nutrition in sweet potato. Acta Agric Boreali-Occident Sin, 2015, 24(12): 14-23 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[18] 孙哲, 田昌庚, 陈路路, 王红霞, 郑建利, 赵丰玲. 氮钾配施对甘薯茎叶生长、产量形成及干物质分配的影响. 中国土壤与肥料, 2021, (4): 186-191.
Sun Z, Tian C G, Chen L L, Wang H X, Zheng J L, Zhao F L. Interactive effects of nitrogen and potassium on the stem and leaves growth, yield formation and dry matter distribution of sweet potato. Soil Fert Sci China, 2021, (4): 186-191 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[19] 安建刚, 敬夫, 丁祎, 肖怡, 尚浩浩, 李宏利, 杨晓璐, 唐道彬, 王季春. 氮肥分期运筹对套作甘薯产量、品质及氮素效率的影响. 作物学报, 2018, 44: 1858-1866.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2018.01858
An J G, Jing F, Ding Y, Xiao Y, Shang H H, Li H L, Yang X L, Tang D B, Wang J C. Effects of split application of nitrogen fertilizer on yield, quality and nitrogen use efficiency of sweet potato. Acta Agron Sin, 2018, 44: 1858-1866 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[20] Duan W X, Zhang H Y, Xie B T, Wang B Q, Hou F Y, Li A X, Dong S X, Qin Z, Wang Q M, Zhang L M. Nitrogen utilization characteristics and early storage root development in nitrogen-tolerant and nitrogen-susceptible sweet potato. Physiol Plant, 2021, 173: 1090-1104.
doi: 10.1111/ppl.13504 pmid: 34287931
[21] Duan W X, Wang S S, Zhang H Y, Xie B T, Zhang L M. Plant growth and nitrate absorption and assimilation of two sweet potato cultivars with different N tolerances in response to nitrate supply. Sci Rep, 2024, 14: 21286.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-72422-y pmid: 39266741
[22] 陈晓光, 李洪民, 张爱君, 史新敏, 唐忠厚, 魏猛, 史春余. 不同氮水平下多效唑对食用型甘薯光合和淀粉积累的影响. 作物学报, 2012, 38: 1728-1733.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2012.01728
Chen X G, Li H M, Zhang A J, Shi X M, Tang Z H, Wei M, Shi C Y. Effect of paclobutrazol under different N-application rates on photosynthesis and starch accumulation in edible sweetpotato. Acta Agron Sin, 2012, 38: 1728-1733 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[23] 宁运旺, 曹炳阁, 马洪波, 汪吉东, 张辉, 许仙菊, 张永春. 氮肥用量对滨海滩涂区甘薯干物质积累、氮素效率和钾钠吸收的影响. 中国生态农业学报, 2012, 20: 982-987.
Ning Y W, Cao B G, Ma H B, Wang J D, Zhang H, Xu X J, Zhang Y C. Effects of nitrogen application rate on dry matter accumulation, nitrogen efficiency, and potassium and sodium uptake of sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas) in coastal North Jiangsu province. Chin J Eco-Agric, 2012, 20: 982-987 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[24] Ashley M K, Grant M, Grabov A. Plant responses to potassium deficiencies: a role for potassium transport proteins. J Exp Bot, 2006, 57: 425-436.
pmid: 16364949
[25] 王锋, 王汝娟, 陈晓光, 史春余. 不同类型钾肥对甘薯钾素积累和利用率的影响. 山东农业科学, 2009, 41(10): 77-80.
Wang F, Wang R J, Chen X G, Shi C Y. Effects of different kinds of potassium fertilizers on potassium accumulation and use efficiency in sweet potato. Shandong Agric Sci, 2009, 41(10): 77-80 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[26] 吕长文, 赵勇, 唐道彬, 王季春, 何凤发, 张凯. 不同类型甘薯品种氮、钾积累分配及其与产量性状的关系. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2012, 18: 475-482.
Lyu C W, Zhao Y, Tang D B, Wang J C, He F F, Zhang K. Accumulation and translocation of nitrogen and potassium and their relationships with yielding traits for different type cultivars of sweet potato. Plant Nutr Fert Sci, 2012, 18: 475-482 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[27] 宁运旺, 曹炳阁, 朱绿丹, 张永春, 汪吉东, 许仙菊, 张辉, 马洪波. 施钾水平对甘薯干物质积累与分配和钾效率的影响. 江苏农业学报, 2012, 28: 320-325.
Ning Y W, Cao B G, Zhu L D, Zhang Y C, Wang J D, Xu X J, Zhang H, Ma H B. Effects of potassium application rates on dry matter accumulation, dry matter distribution, and potassium efficiency of sweet potato. Jiangsu J Agric Sci, 2012, 28: 320-325 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[28] 任国博, 史春余, 姚海兰, 柳洪鹃, 孙哲. 施钾时期对甘薯产量及钾肥利用率的影响. 中国土壤与肥料, 2015, (5): 33-36.
Ren G B, Shi C Y, Yao H L, Liu H J, Sun Z. Effects of potassium application period on the yield and potassium utilization efficiency of sweet potato. Soil Fert Sci China, 2015, (5): 33-36 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[29] 汪顺义, 刘庆, 史衍玺, 李欢. 滴灌施肥条件下甘薯钾肥分期施用的研究. 华北农学报, 2016, 31(5): 210-215.
doi: 10.7668/hbnxb.2016.05.032
Wang S Y, Liu Q, Shi Y X, Li H. The research of potassium application on sweet potato in integration of water and fertilizer conditions. Acta Agric Boreali-Sin, 2016, 31(5): 210-215 (in Chinese with English abstract).
doi: 10.7668/hbnxb.2016.05.032
[30] 董晓霞, 孙泽强, 张立明, 王学君, 王庆美, 解备涛, 郑东峰. 山东省主要土壤类型甘薯肥料利用率研究. 山东农业科学, 2010, 42(11): 51-54
Dong X X, Sun Z Q, Zhang L M, Wang X J, Wang Q M, Xie B T, Zheng D F. Fertilizer utilization efficiency of sweet potato in main types of soil in Shandong province. Shandong Agric Sci, 2010, 42(11): 51-54 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[31] 秦舒浩, 代海林, 张俊莲, 王蒂, 左琼. 揭膜处理对全膜覆盖马铃薯产量品质及水分运移的影响. 干旱地区农业研究, 2015, 33(2): 1-4.
Qin S H, Dai H L, Zhang J L, Wang D, Zuo Q. Effect of removing film on Tuber yield, quality and water movement of whole film mulched potato. Agric Res Arid Areas, 2015, 33(2): 1-4 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[32] 张万恒, 张恒嘉, 李福强, 王泽义, 高佳, 巴玉春. 不同生育期调亏滴灌对绿洲马铃薯产量、品质及水分利用效率的影响. 华北农学报, 2019, 34(5): 145-152.
doi: 10.7668/hbnxb.201751588
Zhang W H, Zhang H J, Li F Q, Wang Z Y, Gao J, Ba Y C. Effects of regulated drip irrigation at different growth stages on yield, quality and water use efficiency of potato in oasis region. Acta Agric Boreali-Sin, 2019, 34(5): 145-152 (in Chinese with English abstract).
doi: 10.7668/hbnxb.201751588
[33] 解黎明, 姜仲禹, 柳洪鹃, 韩俊杰, 刘本奎, 王晓陆, 史春余. 甘薯发根分枝期适宜土壤水分促进块根糖供应和块根形成的研究. 作物学报, 2022, 48: 2080-2087.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2022.14134
Xie L M, Jiang Z Y, Liu H J, Han J J, Liu B K, Wang X L, Shi C Y. Suitable soil moisture promotes sugar supply and tuberization in sweet potato at root branching stage. Acta Agron Sin, 2022, 48: 2080-2087 (in Chinese with English abstract).
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2022.14134
[34] Du F R, Liu H J, Yin X B, Zhao Q X, Shi C Y. Potassium- mediated regulation of sucrose metabolism and storage root formation in sweet potato. Arch Agron Soil Sci, 2021, 67: 703-713.
[35] Si C C, Shi C Y, Liu H J, Zhan X D, Liu Y C. Effects of nitrogen forms on carbohydrate metabolism and storage-root formation of sweet potato. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci, 2018, 181: 419-428.
[36] 赵庆鑫, 江燕, 史春余, 司成成, 史文卿, 王新建, 柳洪鹃, 史衍玺. 氮钾互作对甘薯氮钾元素吸收、分配和利用的影响及与块根产量的关系. 植物生理学报, 2017, 53: 889-895.
Zhao Q X, Jiang Y, Shi C Y, Si C C, Shi W Q, Wang X J, Liu H J, Shi Y X. Effect of nitrogen-potassium interaction on absorption and translocation of nitrogen and potassium in sweetpotato and the root yield. Plant Physiol J, 2017, 53: 889-895 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[37] 史春余, 王振林, 赵秉强, 郭风法, 余松烈. 钾营养对甘薯某些生理特性和产量形成的影响. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2002, 8: 81-85.
Shi C Y, Wang Z L, Zhao B Q, Guo F F, Yu S L. Effect of potassium nutrition on some physiological characteristics and yield formation of sweet potato. Plant Nutr Fert Sci, 2002, 8: 81-85 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[38] Pettigrew W T. Potassium influences on yield and quality production for maize, wheat, soybean and cotton. Physiol Plant, 2008, 133: 670-681.
doi: 10.1111/j.1399-3054.2008.01073.x pmid: 18331406
[39] El-Baky A, Ahmed A A, El-Nemr M A, Zaki M F. Effect of potassium fertilizer and foliar zinc application on yield and quality of sweet potato. Res J Agric Biol Sci, 2010, 6: 386-394.
[40] Aboyeji C M, Adekiya A O, Dunsin O, Adebiyi O T V, Aremu C O, Olofintoye T A J, Ajiboye B O, Owolabi I O. Response of soil chemical properties, performance and quality of sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas L.) to different levels of K fertilizer on a tropical alfisol. Open Agric J, 2019, 13: 58-66.
[41] Quaggiotti S, Ruperti B, Pizzeghello D, Francioso O, Tugnoli V, Nardi S. Effect of low molecular size humic substances on nitrate uptake and expression of genes involved in nitrate transport in maize (Zea mays L.). J Exp Bot, 2004, 55: 803-813.
pmid: 15020644
[42] 陈玉玲. 腐植酸对植物生理活动的影响. 植物学通报, 2000, 17(1): 64-72.
Chen Y L. Influence of humic acids on physiological activities of plants. Chin Bull Bot, 2000, 17(1): 64-72 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[43] 柳洪鹃, 李作梅, 史春余, 张立明. 腐植酸提高食用型甘薯块根可溶性糖含量的生理基础. 作物学报, 2011, 37: 711-716.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2011.00711
Liu H J, Li Z M, Shi C Y, Zhang L M. Physiological basis of improving soluble sugar content in sweetpotato for table use by humic acid application. Acta Agron Sin, 2011, 37: 711-716 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[44] 朱福军, 孟庆羽, 郭新送, 洪丕征, 刘晓辰, 耿立中, 马学文. 含控释钾腐植酸复合肥对甘薯产量及品质的影响. 腐植酸, 2023, (3): 36-45.
Zhu F J, Meng Q Y, Guo X S, Hong P Z, Liu X C, Geng L Z, Ma X W. Effects of humic acid compound fertilizer containing controlled release potassium on the yield and quality of sweet potato. Humic Acid, 2023, (3): 36-45 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[1] 付江鹏, 柳发财, 闫宝琴, 王永栋, 李利利, 魏玮, 周英霞. 控释肥替代普通尿素对旱作高粱干物质积累分配、产量和品质的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(9): 2501-2513.
[2] 杨姝, 白伟, 蔡倩, 杜桂娟. 玉米‖紫花苜蓿间作群体光分布特征及对植物性状和产量的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(9): 2514-2526.
[3] 郭保卫, 王旺, 王开, 王岩, 曾鑫, 景秀, 王晶, 倪新华, 许轲, 张洪程. 长江中下游两类型糯稻高产群体动态特征及超高产形成规律[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(9): 2433-2453.
[4] 杨婷婷, 陈娟, ABDUL Rehman, 李婧, 闫素辉, 汪建来, 李文阳. 花后弱光对软质小麦干物质积累转运、籽粒产量和淀粉品质的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(8): 2204-2219.
[5] 尤根基, 谢昊, 梁毓文, 李龙, 王玉茹, 蒋晨炀, 郭剑, 李广浩, 陆大雷. 氮肥减施措施对江淮春玉米产量和氮素吸收利用的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(8): 2152-2163.
[6] 王曜阔, 王文政, 张敏, 刘希伟, 杨敏, 李昊昱, 张灵鑫, 闫彦菲, 蔡瑞国. 水氮运筹对冬小麦籽粒GMP合成和面粉加工品质的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(8): 2176-2189.
[7] 李宜谦, 徐守振, 刘萍, 马麒, 谢斌, 陈红. 基于40K SNP芯片的陆地棉产量构成因素全基因组关联分析及单铃重位点挖掘[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(8): 2128-2138.
[8] 樊友众, 王先领, 王宗铠, 王春云, 王天尧, 谢捷, 蒯婕, 汪波, 王晶, 徐正华, 赵杰, 周广生. 秸秆还田耦合氮肥运筹对稻茬油菜光合性能及产量的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(8): 2139-2151.
[9] 武斌, 曹永刚, 胡发龙, 殷文, 樊志龙, 范虹, 柴强. 免耕轮作对减氮小麦产量下降的补偿效果[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(7): 1959-1968.
[10] 吴柳格, 陈坚, 张鑫, 邓艾兴, 宋振伟, 郑成岩, 张卫建. 近二十年国审冬小麦品种的产量与品质性状变化趋势研究[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(7): 1814-1826.
[11] 李秋云, 李世贵, 范军亮, 刘昊天, 赵晓斌, 吕硕, 王艳浩, 岳云, 张宁, 司怀军. 离子锌和纳米锌对马铃薯生理特性、产量及品质的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(7): 1838-1849.
[12] 赵佳雯, 李子洪, 欧星雨, 王伊朗, 丁小飞, 梁乐瑶, 丁文金, 张海鹏, 马尚宇, 樊永惠, 黄正来, 张文静. 氮肥与钾肥运筹对弱筋小麦籽粒产量、品质的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(7): 1914-1933.
[13] 尹雨萌, 王雁楠, 康志河, 乔守晨, 卞倩倩, 李亚蔚, 曹郭郑, 赵国瑞, 徐丹丹, 杨育峰. 甘薯谷胱甘肽S-转移酶基因IbGSTU7的克隆及功能分析[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(7): 1736-1746.
[14] 王天译, 杨绣娟, 赵佳佳, 郝宇琼, 郑兴卫, 武棒棒, 李晓华, 郝水源, 郑军. 山西小麦醇溶蛋白多样性及其对面粉品质效应研究[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(7): 1784-1800.
[15] 李炳霖, 叶晓磊, 肖红, 肖国滨, 吕伟生, 刘君权, 任涛, 陆志峰, 鲁剑巍. 镁肥用量对油菜产量和镁吸收量及因冻害减产程度的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(7): 1850-1860.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!
京ICP备15008789号-2