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

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1006.2025.54021

Abstract

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

ZHANG Hai-Yan, XIE Bei-Tao, DONG Shun-Xu, ZHANG Li-Ming, DUAN Wen-Xue. 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[J].Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2025, 51(9): 2485-2500.

Figures/Tables 9

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Effects of different types and ratios of water-soluble fertilizers on dry weight of aboveground parts of table-use sweet potato under drip irrigation (g plant?1)"

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

Table 5

Table 6

Effects of different types and ratios of water-soluble fertilizers on dry weight of underground parts of table-use sweet potato under drip irrigation (g plant?1)"

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

Table 6

Table 7

Table 8

Table 9

References 44

[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).

Metrics

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed

Comments

Recommended 10

[1]	Li Shaoqing, Li Yangsheng, Wu Fushun, Liao Jianglin, Li Damo. Optimum Fertilization and Its Corresponding Mechanism under Complete Submergence at Booting Stage in Rice[J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2002, 28(01): 115 -120 .
[2]	Wang Lanzhen;Mi Guohua;Chen Fanjun;Zhang Fusuo. Response to Phosphorus Deficiency of Two Winter Wheat Cultivars with Different Yield Components[J]. Acta Agron Sin, 2003, 29(06): 867 -870 .
[3]	WANG Yan;QIU Li-Ming;XIE Wen-Juan;HUANG Wei;YE Feng;ZHANG Fu-Chun;MA Ji. Cold Tolerance of Transgenic Tobacco Carrying Gene Encoding Insect Antifreeze Protein[J]. Acta Agron Sin, 2008, 34(03): 397 -402 .
[4]	ZHENG Xi;WU Jian-Guo;LOU Xiang-Yang;XU Hai-Ming;SHI Chun-Hai. Mapping and Analysis of QTLs on Maternal and Endosperm Genomes for Histidine and Arginine in Rice (Oryza sativa L.) across Environments[J]. Acta Agron Sin, 2008, 34(03): 369 -375 .
[5]	XING Guang-Nan, ZHOU Bin, ZHAO Tuan-Jie, YU De-Yue, XING Han, HEN Shou-Yi, GAI Jun-Yi. Mapping QTLs of Resistance to Megacota cribraria (Fabricius) in Soybean[J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2008, 34(03): 361 -368 .
[6]	ZHENG Yong-Mei;DING Yan-Feng;WANG Qiang-Sheng;LI Gang-Hua;WANG Hui-Zhi;WANG Shao-Hua. Effect of Nitrogen Applied before Transplanting on Tillering and Nitrogen Utilization in Rice[J]. Acta Agron Sin, 2008, 34(03): 513 -519 .
[7]	QIN En-Hua;YANG Lan-Fang;. Selenium Content in Seedling and Selenium Forms in Rhizospheric Soil of Nicotiana tabacum L.[J]. Acta Agron Sin, 2008, 34(03): 506 -512 .
[8]	LÜ Li-Hua;TAO Hong-Bin;XIA Lai-Kun; HANG Ya-Jie;ZHAO Ming;ZHAO Jiu-Ran;WANG Pu;. Canopy Structure and Photosynthesis Traits of Summer Maize under Different Planting Densities[J]. Acta Agron Sin, 2008, 34(03): 447 -455 .
[9]	Zhang Shubiao;Yang Rencui. Some Biological Character of eui-hybrid Rice[J]. Acta Agron Sin, 2003, 29(06): 919 -924 .
[10]	SHAO Rui-Xin;SHANG-GUAN Zhou-Ping. Effects of Exogenous Nitric Oxide Donor Sodium Nitroprusside on Photosynthetic Pigment Content and Light Use Capability of PS II in Wheat under Water Stress[J]. Acta Agron Sin, 2008, 34(05): 818 -822 .

气象因子 Weather factor		济南Jinan						济宁Jining
气象因子 Weather factor		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
平均日温 DAT (℃)	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
降雨量 Precipitation (mm)	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
日照时数 SH (h)	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

试验点 Test point	处理 Treatment	济薯26 Jishu 26			烟薯25 Yanshu 25
试验点 Test point	处理 Treatment	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	1.91^NS		0.42^NS	2.75^NS		0.74^NS
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	2.69^NS		0.26^NS	3.74^*		0.60^NS

试验点 Test point	处理 Treatment	济薯26栽插后天数 Days after planting of Jishu 26
试验点 Test point	处理 Treatment	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
试验点 Test point	处理 Treatment	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

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

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
相关系数 Correlation coefficient		产量 Yield	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

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

RichHTML441

PDF

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 9

References 44

Related Articles 15

Metrics

Comments

Recommended 10

[1]	FU Jiang-Peng, LIU Fa-Cai, YAN Bao-Qin, WANG Yong-Dong, LI Li-Li, WEI Wei, ZHOU Ying-Xia. Effect of replacing common urea with controlled-release fertilizer on dry matter accumulation, partitioning, yield, and quality of sorghum in dryland farming [J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2025, 51(9): 2501-2513.
[2]	YANG Shu, BAI Wei, CAI Qian, DU Gui-Juan. Characteristics of light distribution in maize‖alfalfa intercropping systems and their effects on plant traits and yield [J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2025, 51(9): 2514-2526.
[3]	GUO Bao-Wei, WANG Wang, WANG Kai, WANG Yan, ZENG Xin, JING Xiu, WANG Jing, NI Xin-Hua, XU Ke, ZHANG Hong-Cheng. Population dynamic characteristics and formation mechanisms of super high-yielding of two types of glutinous rice in the middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze Rive [J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2025, 51(9): 2433-2453.
[4]	YANG Ting-Ting, CHEN Juan, ABDUL Rehman, LI Jing, YAN Su-Hui, WANG Jian-Lai, LI Wen-Yang. Effects of weak light post-anthesis on dry matter accumulation and translocation, grain yield, and starch quality in soft wheat [J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2025, 51(8): 2204-2219.
[5]	YOU Gen-Ji, XIE Hao, LIANG Yu-Wen, LI Long, WANG Yu-Ru, JIANG Chen-Yang, GUO Jian, LI Guang-Hao, LU Da-Lei. Effects of nitrogen fertilizer reduction measures on yield and nitrogen use efficiency of spring maize in Jianghuai region [J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2025, 51(8): 2152-2163.
[6]	WANG Yao-Kuo, WANG Wen-Zheng, ZHANG Min, LIU Xi-Wei, YANG Min, LI Hao-Yu, ZHANG Ling-Xin, YAN Yan-Fei, CAI Rui-Guo. Effects of water and nitrogen treatments on GMP synthesis and flour processing quality of winter wheat grain [J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2025, 51(8): 2176-2189.
[7]	LI Yi-Qian, XU Shou-Zhen, LIU Ping, MA Qi, XIE Bin, CHEN Hong. Genome-wide association study of yield components using a 40K SNP array and identification of a stable locus for boll weight in upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) [J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2025, 51(8): 2128-2138.
[8]	FAN You-Zhong, WANG Xian-Ling, WANG Zong-Kai, WANG Chun-Yun, WANG Tian-Yao, XIE Jie, KUAI Jie, WANG Bo, WANG Jing, XU Zheng-Hua, ZHAO Jie, ZHOU Guang-Sheng. Effects of straw incorporation combined with nitrogen management on photosynthetic efficiency and yield of rapeseed following rice [J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2025, 51(8): 2139-2151.
[9]	WU Bin, CAO Yong-Gang, HU Fa-Long, YIN Wen, FAN Zhi-Long, FAN Hong, CHAI Qiang. Compensation effect of no-tillage rotation on yield reduction of nitrogen- reduced wheat [J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2025, 51(7): 1959-1968.
[10]	WU Liu-Ge, CHEN Jian, ZHANG Xin, DENG Ai-Xing, SONG Zhen-Wei, ZHENG Cheng-Yan, ZHANG Wei-Jian. Changes in yield and quality traits of nationally approved winter wheat varieties in China over last twenty years [J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2025, 51(7): 1814-1826.
[11]	LI Qiu-Yun, LI Shi-Gui, FAN Jun-Liang, LIU Hao-Tian, ZHAO Xiao-Bin, LYU Shuo, WANG Yan-Hao, YUE Yun, ZHANG Ning, SI Huai-Jun. Effects of ionic zinc and nano-zinc on physiological characteristics, yield, and quality of potato [J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2025, 51(7): 1838-1849.
[12]	ZHAO Jia-Wen, LI Zi-Hong, OU Xing-Yu, WANG Yi-Lang, DING Xiao-Fei, LIANG Yue-Yao, DING Wen-Jin, ZHANG Hai-Peng, MA Shang-Yu, FAN Yong-Hui, HUANG Zheng-Lai, ZHANG Wen-Jing. Effects of nitrogen and potassium fertilizer management on grain yield and quality of weak-gluten wheat [J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2025, 51(7): 1914-1933.
[13]	WANG Tian-Yi, YANG Xiu-Juan, ZHAO Jia-Jia, HAO Yu-Qiong, ZHENG Xing-Wei, WU Bang-Bang, LI Xiao-Hua, HAO Shui-Yuan, ZHENG Jun. Gliadin diversity and its effects on flour quality in wheat from Shanxi province, China [J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2025, 51(7): 1784-1800.
[14]	WAN Shu-Bo, ZHANG Jia-Lei, GAO Hua-Xin, WANG Cai-Bin. Advances and prospects of high-yield peanut cultivation in China [J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2025, 51(7): 1703-1711.
[15]	LI Bing-Lin, YE Xiao-Lei, XIAO Hong, XIAO Guo-Bin, LYU Wei-Sheng, LIU Jun-Quan, REN Tao, LU Zhi-Feng, LU Jian-Wei. Effects of magnesium fertilization rates on rapeseed yield, magnesium uptake, and yield loss caused by frost damage [J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2025, 51(7): 1850-1860.

试验点 Test point	处理 Treatment	济薯26栽插后天数Days after planting of Jishu 26
试验点 Test point	处理 Treatment	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
试验点 Test point	处理 Treatment	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

试验点 Test point	处理 Treatment	济薯26栽插后天数Days after planting of Jishu 26
试验点 Test point	处理 Treatment	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
试验点 Test point	处理 Treatment	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