Volume 36 Issue 5
Sep.  2019
Turn off MathJax
Article Contents
Abstract
References
Article Navigation >  Journal of Zhejiang A&F University  > 2019  >  36(5): 1044-1050

YANG Jianfei, NING Liping, YANG Liao, et al. Structural characteristics of Lindera megaphylla wood and its volatile organic compounds[J]. Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2018, 35(5): 927-934. DOI: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2018.05.018
Citation: ZHANG Dongbei, WANG Xiuhua, ZHOU Shengcai, et al. Response of masson pine container seedlings from different families to substrate proportion and control released fertilizer[J]. Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2019, 36(5): 1044-1050. DOI: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2019.05.026
shu

Response of masson pine container seedlings from different families to substrate proportion and control released fertilizer

DOI: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2019.05.026
  • 1.

    Qingyuan County Experimental Forest Farm, Qingyuan 323800, Zhejiang, China

  • 2.

    Zhejiang Provincial Key Laboratory of Tree Breeding, Research Institute of Subtropical Forestry, Chinese Academy of Forestry, Hangzhou 311400, Zhejiang, China

  • Received Date: 2018-09-27
  • Rev Recd Date: 2019-01-11
  • Publish Date: 2019-10-20
  • To determine the suitable substrate proportion (SP) and control released fertilizer (CRF)loading level for container seedlings from different families. SP and CRF, two key factors for container seedling cultivation, were tested. This research used mass on pine container seedlings from different families as objects. A two factor test for SP and CRF loading and for different levels of each factor was carried out with factorial test. SP was given four levels and CRF was three levels, so there were twelve treatments totally. And each treatment was replicated three times. The effects of SP and CRF loading levels and their interactions on growth, N and P absorption, and seedling use were analyzed with a single factor analysis and a correlation analysis. Then, suitable SP and CRF loadings for quality container seedlings were selected. Results showed no obvious effects from SP on three seedling families; whereas, CRF loading was significant according to the single factor analysis. The interaction of SP and CRF in the two factor analysis of different seedling families varied. Family 32 displayed a noticeable response with the best treatment group being a volume ratio of peat to chaff in the substrate of 5:5 and a CRF loading of 3.5 kg·m-3 with both growth as well as N and P use being better compared to other groups. Neither family 35 or 36 showed significant differences between treatment groups, but both gave an significant response to CRF loading with family 35 having a loading of 2.5 kg·m-3 and family 36 of 3.5 kg·m-3, individually. According to the two factor analysis of family and CRF loading and the correlation analysis between growth and nutrition use indexes, the effect of CRF on seedlings was more obvious than family. Therefore, for quality seedlings, attention should be placed on 1) not only growth traits, but also on ensuring a proper substrate nutrition level for seedling requirements, and 2) different cultivation measures to be used for seedlings of different genetic background because of their different growth traits.
  • [1] YIN Shiheng, ZHANG Shaoyong, LIU Sushuang, WU Choufei, WANG Junwei, LI Yang, ZHANG Liqin.  Effect of Bursaphelenchus xylophilus infection on the endophytic bacterial community structure in different parts of Pinus massoniana seedlings . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2021, 38(4): 846-853. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.20200562
    [2] LIU Yang, CHEN Pei, ZHOU Mingming, LI Na, FANG Shengzuo.  Effects of light quality on biomass and triterpenoid accumulation in leaves of Cyclocarya paliurus from different families . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2020, 37(6): 1097-1104. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.20200117
    [3] HU Tao, CAO Yu, ZHANG Gexiang.  Rooting of Chionanthus virginicus hardwood cuttings with media and plant growth regulators . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2019, 36(3): 622-628. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2019.03.025
    [4] HE Guiping, XU Jinliang, XU Yongqin, CHEN Yonghui, SHEN Fengqiang, XU Luyu.  Growth differences and selection of Chinese fir families in young plantations with different site conditions . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2018, 35(3): 453-458. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2018.03.008
    [5] LI Jun, WANG Xiuhua, CHU Xiuli, ZHANG Dongbei, ZHOU Zhichun.  Substrate proportion for growth and N/P absorption in two-year-old container seedlings of three precious tree species . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2017, 34(6): 1044-1050. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2017.06.011
    [6] JIN Houding, YU Weiwu, ZENG Yanru, XIANG Meiyun, DAI Wensheng, DANG Wanyu.  Cutting-based propagation in Torreya grandis 'Merrillii' . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2017, 34(1): 185-191. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2017.01.025
    [7] YIN Fangfang, LIN Xiazhen, NING Mengya, HU Lipeng.  Chemical reagents with Cyclobalanopsis glauca container seedlings . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2015, 32(2): 244-250. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2015.02.011
    [8] HE Pei-yun, DING Gui-jie, CHEN Hong-hui.  Comparison of soil microorganisms and biochemical roles for first and second generation Pinus massoniana plantations . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2012, 29(5): 703-709. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2012.05.011
    [9] DING Min, NI Rong-xin, MAO Xuan-ping.  Growth of Pinus massoniana and broad-leaved tree mixed forest . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2012, 29(3): 463-466. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2012.03.023
    [10] WANG Yi, DING Gui-jie.  Growth and microelement absorption for Pinus massoniana seedlings with ectomycorrhizae and water stress . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2012, 29(6): 822-828. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2012.06.004
    [11] YUAN Dong-ming, LIN Lei, YAN Chun-feng, ZHOU Zhi-chun.  Seedling container selection for important ecological and economic afforestation species in Zhejiang Province . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2011, 28(1): 95-102. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2011.01.015
    [12] LI Yong-jin, DING Gui-jie.  Separation，purification，and identification of endogenous inhibitory substances in Pinus massoniana cuttings . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2010, 27(4): 507-512. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2010.04.005
    [13] LIU Wei, ZHOU Shan-song, ZHANG Xian-xiang, FENG Jian-guo, WU Xue-mei.  Containerized versus bare-root seedlings of Schima superba for forest regeneration . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2009, 26(6): 829-834.
    [14] GAO Yong-qian, ZHOU Yue-hua, TIAN Kun, ZHENG Wan, NIE Yan-li, DUAN Hui, ZHANG Wen-dong.  Cultivating Pinus yunnanensis seedlings with bagasse substrates . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2009, 26(4): 598-602.
    [15] WEN Zuo-wu, LUO Zong-shi, MA Hong-xun, WU Dong-sheng, LI Zong-hui, HUANG Yi-qian.  Management techniques for a secondary Pinus massoniana forest in central Guizhou Province . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2008, 25(2): 221-227.
    [16] XUAN Gong-qiao.  Application of landscape ecology principle in urban green space system planning . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2007, 24(5): 599-603.
    [17] WANG Yue-sheng, ZHOU Zhi-chun, JIN Guo-qin, HONG Gui-mu, WANG Hui.  Growth of Taxus chinensis var .mairei for container seedlings in different media mixtures and for bare-root versus container seedlings in a young stand . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2007, 24(5): 643-646.
    [18] SHI Fu-qiang, ZHOU Feng-lin.  Container seedling classification of Ormosia yunnanensis . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2006, 23(6): 651-655.
    [19] WU Jia-sheng, YING Ye-qing, TONG Yong-bo, DING Ling, ZHOU Jian-guang.  Seedling growing on elite families of Chinese fir . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2000, 17(1): 9-13.
    [20] Fu Qiuhua, Lu Yuanyuan.  Container Nursery of Masson's Pine . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 1993, 10(2): 244-246.
  • [1]
    ZHOU Zhichun, XIE Yurong, JIN Guoqing, et al. Study on phosphorus efficiency of different provenances of Pinus massoniana[J]. Sci Silv Sin, 2005, 41(4):25-30.
    [2]
    LIU Qinghua, ZHOU Zhichun, ZHANG Kaiming, et al. Influence of phosphorus on growth and wood basic density of Pinus massoniana provenances[J]. J Zhejiang A & F Univ, 2012, 29(2):185-191.
    [3]
    CHU Xiuli, LIU Qinghua, FAN Huihua, et al. Growth and structure differentiation of Phoebe bournei plantation with different sites and modes of afforestation[J]. For Res, 2014, 27(4):445-453.
    [4]
    MA Xuehong, HU Genchang, FENG Jianguo, et al. Comparison on the substrate and container size of container nursery of Schima superba[J]. For Res, 2010, 23(4):505-509.
    [5]
    WANG Yi, WANG Xiuhua, WU Xiaolin, et al. Effects of slow-release fertilizer loading on growth and construction of nutrients reserves of Phoebe chekiangensis and Phoebe bournei container seedlings[J]. Sci Silv Sin, 2013, 49(12):57-63.
    [6]
    WU Xiaolin, ZHANG Dongbei, CHU Xiuli, et al. Effects of substrate ratio and slow-release fertilizer does on the growth of containerized Cyclobalanopsis gilva seedlings[J]. For Res, 2014, 27(6):794-800.
    [7]
    ZHU Yan, MA Lüyi, LIU Yong, et al. Application on controlled-release fertilizer in the cultivation of Larix olensis seedling[J]. J Nanjing For Univ Nat Sci Ed, 2011, 35(1):24-28.
    [8]
    CHU Xiuli, SUN Xiaomei, ZHANG Shougong, et al. Effect of controlled release fertilizers on net container seedlings growth of Larix kaempferi[J]. For Res, 2012, 25(6):697-702.
    [9]
    ZHOU Zhichun, LIU Qinghua, HU Genchang, et al. Scheme optimization of light substrate for container seedlings of three precious timber tree species[J]. Sci Silv Sin, 2011, 47(10):172-178.
    [10]
    XIAO Yao, CHU Xiuli, WANG Xiuhua, et al. Effects of slow-release fertilizer loading on growth and N, P accumulation of container-growing seedlings for three precious tree species[J]. For Res, 2015, 28(6):781-787.
    [11]
    LIN Ruirong. Experimental study of Pinus massoniana container seedling growth course with light type of substrate[J]. J Fujian For Sci Tech, 2005, 32(3):86-89.
    [12]
    YIN Xiaoyang, ZHU Zhongrong, WEI Xiaoli, et al. The technological measures of improving quality of the container seedling of Pinus massoniana[J]. J Mount Agric Biol, 2006, 25(2):105-110.
    [13]
    WANG Qingren, LI Jiyun, LI Zhensheng. Studies on plant nutrition of efficient utility for soil phosphorus[J]. Acta Ecol Sin, 1999, 5(3):417-421.
    [14]
    LI Tianfang, JIANG Jing, WANG Lei, et al. Effects of prescription fertilization on the seedling growth of different families of Betula platyphylla[J]. Sci Silv Sin, 2009, 45(2):60-64.
    [15]
    MCKEAND S E, GRISSOM J E, RUBILAR R, et al. Responsiveness of diverse families of loblolly pine to fertilization: eight-year results from SETRES-2[C]//MCKINLEY C R. 27th Southern Forest Tree Improvement Conference. Stillwater: Oklahoma State University, 2003: 30-33.
    [16]
    JIN Guoqing, QIN Guofeng, CHU Deyu, et al. Genetic analysis of growth traits on tester strain progeny of Pinus massoniana[J]. Sci Silv Sin, 2008, 44(1):70-76.
    [17]
    WANG Yuesheng, ZHOU Zhichun, JIN Guoqing, et al. Growth of Taxus chinensis var. mairei for container seedlings in different media mixtures and for bare-root versus container seedlings in a young stand[J]. J Zhejiang For Coll, 2007, 24(5):643-646.
    [18]
    WEI Hongxu, REN Jun, ZHOU Jianghua. Effect of exponential fertilization on growth and nutritional status in Buddhist pine (Podocarpus macrophyllus[Thunb.] D. Don) seedlings cultured in natural and prolonged photoperiods[J]. Soil Sci Plant Nutr, 2013, 59:933-941.
    [19]
    HAWKINS B J. Family variation in nutritional and growth traits in Douglas-fir seedlings[J]. Tree Physiol, 2007, 27:911-919. doi:10.1093/treephys/27.6.911.
    [20]
    TIMMER V R, TENG Y. Pretransplant fertilization of containerized Picea mariana seedlings:calibration and bioassay growth response[J]. Can J For Res, 2004, 34(10):2089-2099.
    [21]
    JACKSON D P, KASTEN DUMROESE R K, BARNETT J P. Nursery response of container Pinus palustris seedlings to nitrogen supply and subsequent effects on outplanting performance[J]. For Ecol Manage, 2012, 265:1-12.
    [22]
    JONARD M, FÜRST A, VERSTRAETEN A, et al. Tree mineral nutrition is deteriorating in Europe[J]. Glob Change Biol, 2015, 21(1):418-430.
  • Created with Highcharts 5.0.7Amount of accessChart context menuAbstract Views, HTML Views, PDF Downloads StatisticsAbstract ViewsHTML ViewsPDF Downloads2024-052024-062024-072024-082024-092024-102024-112024-122025-012025-022025-032025-0400.511.522.5Highcharts.com
    Created with Highcharts 5.0.7Chart context menuAccess Class DistributionFULLTEXT: 23.8 %FULLTEXT: 23.8 %META: 74.8 %META: 74.8 %PDF: 1.4 %PDF: 1.4 %FULLTEXTMETAPDFHighcharts.com
    Created with Highcharts 5.0.7Chart context menuAccess Area Distribution其他: 2.7 %其他: 2.7 %其他: 0.1 %其他: 0.1 %China: 0.7 %China: 0.7 %Rochester: 0.4 %Rochester: 0.4 %Seattle: 0.1 %Seattle: 0.1 %United States: 0.1 %United States: 0.1 %[]: 0.3 %[]: 0.3 %三亚: 0.1 %三亚: 0.1 %上海: 0.9 %上海: 0.9 %东莞: 0.1 %东莞: 0.1 %六安: 0.1 %六安: 0.1 %兰辛: 0.1 %兰辛: 0.1 %加利福尼亚: 0.1 %加利福尼亚: 0.1 %北京: 23.9 %北京: 23.9 %南宁: 0.1 %南宁: 0.1 %南阳: 0.1 %南阳: 0.1 %厦门: 0.6 %厦门: 0.6 %厦门市同安区: 0.1 %厦门市同安区: 0.1 %台州: 0.1 %台州: 0.1 %大连: 0.1 %大连: 0.1 %宁波: 0.1 %宁波: 0.1 %延边: 0.1 %延边: 0.1 %张家口: 1.3 %张家口: 1.3 %成都: 0.1 %成都: 0.1 %抚州: 0.1 %抚州: 0.1 %斯托姆莱克: 0.1 %斯托姆莱克: 0.1 %杭州: 1.2 %杭州: 1.2 %洛杉矶: 0.1 %洛杉矶: 0.1 %深圳: 0.1 %深圳: 0.1 %温州: 0.1 %温州: 0.1 %潍坊: 0.1 %潍坊: 0.1 %瑟普赖斯: 0.1 %瑟普赖斯: 0.1 %石家庄: 0.5 %石家庄: 0.5 %福州: 0.3 %福州: 0.3 %福州市鼓楼区: 0.1 %福州市鼓楼区: 0.1 %纽约: 0.1 %纽约: 0.1 %芒廷维尤: 5.3 %芒廷维尤: 5.3 %芝加哥: 0.1 %芝加哥: 0.1 %苏州: 0.1 %苏州: 0.1 %茂名: 0.1 %茂名: 0.1 %衢州: 0.1 %衢州: 0.1 %西宁: 58.6 %西宁: 58.6 %西安: 0.1 %西安: 0.1 %诺沃克: 0.1 %诺沃克: 0.1 %郑州: 0.1 %郑州: 0.1 %重庆: 0.1 %重庆: 0.1 %长沙: 0.1 %长沙: 0.1 %阳泉: 0.5 %阳泉: 0.5 %马鞍山: 0.1 %马鞍山: 0.1 %其他其他ChinaRochesterSeattleUnited States[]三亚上海东莞六安兰辛加利福尼亚北京南宁南阳厦门厦门市同安区台州大连宁波延边张家口成都抚州斯托姆莱克杭州洛杉矶深圳温州潍坊瑟普赖斯石家庄福州福州市鼓楼区纽约芒廷维尤芝加哥苏州茂名衢州西宁西安诺沃克郑州重庆长沙阳泉马鞍山Highcharts.com

  • Cited by

    Periodical cited type(5)

    1. 李素欣，姜清彬，张晖，李永泉，郭微，王涛，郭朗. 醉香含笑不同树高处心边材挥发性成分的差异. 东北林业大学学报. 2024(01): 128-136 .
    2. 刘柯珍，何诚. 微观视角下防火树种特征研究动态. 西南林业大学学报(自然科学). 2024(03): 212-220 .
    3. 詹施施，王世彤，周本庚，杨腾，周刚，江明喜. 湖北竹溪黑壳楠的种群结构与群落特征. 长江流域资源与环境. 2023(01): 113-122 .
    4. 逯久幸，刘燕，许朵朵，陈鹏，李永华，刘红利. 黑壳楠染色体核型分析及基因组Survey预测. 河南农业大学学报. 2023(06): 967-974 .
    5. 董姬秀，朱舒翼，赵辉，王晶. 黑壳楠研究进展. 河南林业科技. 2021(04): 12-15 .

    Other cited types(6)

通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Figures(1)  / Tables(4)

Get Citation
PDF
XML

Article views(2305) PDF downloads(21) Cited by(11)

Related
Proportional views

Response of masson pine container seedlings from different families to substrate proportion and control released fertilizer

doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2019.05.026
  • 1. Qingyuan County Experimental Forest Farm, Qingyuan 323800, Zhejiang, China
  • 2. Zhejiang Provincial Key Laboratory of Tree Breeding, Research Institute of Subtropical Forestry, Chinese Academy of Forestry, Hangzhou 311400, Zhejiang, China
  • Received Date: 2018-09-27
  • Rev Recd Date: 2019-01-11
  • Publish Date: 2019-10-20

Abstract: To determine the suitable substrate proportion (SP) and control released fertilizer (CRF)loading level for container seedlings from different families. SP and CRF, two key factors for container seedling cultivation, were tested. This research used mass on pine container seedlings from different families as objects. A two factor test for SP and CRF loading and for different levels of each factor was carried out with factorial test. SP was given four levels and CRF was three levels, so there were twelve treatments totally. And each treatment was replicated three times. The effects of SP and CRF loading levels and their interactions on growth, N and P absorption, and seedling use were analyzed with a single factor analysis and a correlation analysis. Then, suitable SP and CRF loadings for quality container seedlings were selected. Results showed no obvious effects from SP on three seedling families; whereas, CRF loading was significant according to the single factor analysis. The interaction of SP and CRF in the two factor analysis of different seedling families varied. Family 32 displayed a noticeable response with the best treatment group being a volume ratio of peat to chaff in the substrate of 5:5 and a CRF loading of 3.5 kg·m-3 with both growth as well as N and P use being better compared to other groups. Neither family 35 or 36 showed significant differences between treatment groups, but both gave an significant response to CRF loading with family 35 having a loading of 2.5 kg·m-3 and family 36 of 3.5 kg·m-3, individually. According to the two factor analysis of family and CRF loading and the correlation analysis between growth and nutrition use indexes, the effect of CRF on seedlings was more obvious than family. Therefore, for quality seedlings, attention should be placed on 1) not only growth traits, but also on ensuring a proper substrate nutrition level for seedling requirements, and 2) different cultivation measures to be used for seedlings of different genetic background because of their different growth traits.

YANG Jianfei, NING Liping, YANG Liao, et al. Structural characteristics of Lindera megaphylla wood and its volatile organic compounds[J]. Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2018, 35(5): 927-934. DOI: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2018.05.018
Citation: ZHANG Dongbei, WANG Xiuhua, ZHOU Shengcai, et al. Response of masson pine container seedlings from different families to substrate proportion and control released fertilizer[J]. Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2019, 36(5): 1044-1050. DOI: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2019.05.026
shu

    HTML

  • 马尾松Pinus massoniana是中国亚热带地区特有的乡土树种，自然分布广，适应性强，生长迅速，广泛用于制浆造纸、建筑和松香制造等[1-2]。不仅是营建针阔混交林的首选树种，因其树体高大、冠层稀疏，其林分还是早期喜阴珍贵树种的天堂[3]。马尾松为传统造林树种，过去采用裸根苗造林，造林后易成林。随着生产力的发展，容器苗逐步代替裸根苗。浙江等南方省份逐渐将来源广的谷壳和具有保水透气质量轻等优点的泥炭引入容器育苗基质[4-6]，控释肥的兴起更是推进了其在容器育苗中的应用[7-8]。然而，相关应用研究多集中于珍贵阔叶树种[9-10]，对马尾松容器苗育苗基质配比[11-12]及控释肥加载量的确定多凭生产经验。马尾松为针叶树种，对水分和养分的需求可能并不如珍贵阔叶树种大，基质中较多泥炭和控释肥的添加造成育苗成本偏高及资源浪费，因此，需明确基质中泥炭比例及控释肥加载量。已有研究表明，不同基因苗木对施肥的生长反应差异较大[13-15]。本研究以马尾松不同家系容器苗为对象，研究其在不同基质配比、控释肥加载量及其互作下生长及养分吸收利用差异，以期为不同来源马尾松优质容器苗培育提供实践指导和科学理论依据。

1.   材料与方法

    1.1.   试验地概况

  • 试验在浙江省庆元县实验林场育苗基地开展，27°37′20″N，119°03′26″E，平均海拔为450 m，属亚热带季风气候，年均气温为17.6 ℃，7月平均气温为26.9 ℃，极端最高气温为41.1 ℃，年均降水量为1 721.3 mm，无霜期约255 d。整个试验在苗圃具有喷雾遮阳设施的钢构大棚下进行，棚高2.2 m，棚顶覆盖1层50%透光率的遮阳网。

    • 1.2.   试验材料

  • 供试马尾松3个家系种子产自浙江兰溪市苗圃马尾松种子园，3个家系均为双亲控制授粉后代[16]，分别为32号[1145（广西）×1139（广西）]、35号[6627（江西）×5907（浙江）]和36号[6627（江西）×1003（广东）]家系。育苗轻基质为东北泥炭和当地主要农作物废弃物稻谷谷壳，泥炭纤维质量分数为200 g·kg-1，粗灰分158.0 g·kg-1，有机质720.9 g·kg-1，总腐植酸381.8 g·kg-1，pH 6.0，全氮14.2 g·kg-1，全磷0.7 g·kg-1，全钾2.7 g·kg-1，干密度0.3 kg·m-3。控释肥为美国辛普劳公司生产的爱贝施（Apex），其全氮质量分数为180 g·kg-1，有效磷为80 g·kg-1，全钾为80 g·kg-1，肥效9个月。育苗容器为4.5 cm × 10 cm规格的无纺布网袋。

    • 1.3.   试验设计

  • 设置了基质配比和控释肥加载量2因素析因设计试验，其中基质配的泥炭和谷壳按体积比设置4个处理（S1：4:6；S2：5:5；S3：6:4和S4：7:3）[4, 9, 17]，控释肥加载量设置3个水平（F1：1.5 kg·m-3；F2：2.5 kg·m-3；F3：3.5 kg·m-3）[4, 9]，共12个处理。基质和控释肥经人工数次混合后再用2D150型搅拌机充分搅拌均匀，过孔径1 cm筛，最终加工成网袋肠容器。将网袋肠整捆放入水池4~6 h浸湿消毒后，按规格（4.5 cm × 10.0 cm）人工切割网袋容器，再将其放入育苗盘中，每育苗盘放置81个网袋容器，每处理2个育苗盘，即每处理162袋。马尾松种子经水选，大小均一、无病虫害，再用清水浸泡24 h后捞出阴干，于2017年3月下旬进行点播育苗。育苗期间及时喷水及控水，保持基质潮湿，每周调换各处理苗盘位置，以消除边缘效应。其他管理措施同常规容器育苗。

    • 1.4.   测定分析方法

  • 2017年10月底，各处理随机选择30株生长正常的容器苗，测苗高和地径，并随机取10株容器苗进行生物量及养分含量测定。植株分成根、茎、叶3部分，分别置于105 ℃烘箱中杀青30 min，再在68 ℃下烘至恒量，测定各器官干质量并计算总生物量等指标。称取各部位干样，采用H2SO4-H2O2法消煮，分别采用凯氏定氮法和ICP-OES（Vista-Mpx, Varian®, 美国）测定氮和磷[18]。苗木氮和磷计算参照参考文献[5]。高径比为苗高（cm）与地径（cm）的比值，根冠比则为地上部分干质量（g）与根系干质量（g）的比值；养分利用指数（INU）采用每单元叶片养分所占苗木生物量来衡量[19]。

    • 1.5.   数据处理

  • 采用Excel 2007进行数据的处理及相关图形制作，利用SPSS 20.0程序进行方差分析，Duncan’s检验（α=0.05）和一般线性模型多因素分析。当基质配比与控释肥加载量间交互效应显著时，进行两因素处理组合方差分析，反之，进行单因素方差分析。

2.   结果与分析

    2.1.   不同基质配比与控释肥加载量下马尾松容器苗生长差异

  • 不同基质配比对马尾松3个家系容器苗的生长，包括苗木高径比和根冠比均无显著影响，而控释肥加载量对3个家系容器苗苗高、地径和单株及叶生物量积累均有明显影响。基质配比和控释肥加载量对32号家系苗高、单株生物量的互作效应显著（表 1）。基于此，对32号家系可进行处理组合间比较，而对35和36号家系则只需进行控释肥处理分析。

    因子 指标 F 指标 F
    32号 35号 36号 32号 35号 36号
    基质配比 苗高 2.571 1.611 2.620 地径 0.404 0.740 0.417
    加载量 苗高 33.454** 23.444** 21.202** 地径 16.308** 28.582** 12.236**
    基质配比×加载量 苗高 2.653* 1.153 0.254 地径 1.246 0.319 0.869
    基质配比 生物量 0.432 0.329 0.158 叶干质量 0.220 0.416 0.101
    加载量 生物量 32.586** 17.990** 15.400** 叶干质量 15.137** 14.287** 9.467**
    基质配比×加载量 生物量 3.340* 1.365 0.450 叶干质量 1.769 1.560 0.438
    基质配比 高径比 1.013 1.444 1.319 根冠比 0.253 0.272 0.739
    加载量 高径比 0.398 0.169 1.000 根冠比 0.052 0.139 0.928
    基质配比×加载量 高径比 1.772 0.661 0.935 根冠比 0.596 1.939 1.489
    说明：**表示因子对相应指标在置信度0.01水平显著；*表示因子对相应指标在置信度0.05水平显著

    Table 1.  Two factors analysis of substrate proportion and control released fertilizer loading on container seedling growth of the 3 families

    从图 1可以看出：同一基质配比下32号家系容器苗长势随控释肥加载量的增加而加强，较优的处理为S2F3或S3F3，施用3.5 kg·m-3控释肥能够较好地促进该家系容器苗生长。35和36号家系容器苗生长均随基质中控释肥加载量的增加而提高，均在添加控释肥3.5 kg·m-3时长势较好，两者苗高分别为23.25和23.08 cm，地径分别为3.51和3.52 mm，单株生物量则分别为2.44和2.50 g。此外，35号家系单株生物量在控释肥加载量2.5和3.5 kg·m-3间差异不显著。

    Figure 1.  Effect of control released fertilizer loading on growth of the 3 families

    因子 指标 F 指标 F
    32号 35号 36号 32号 35号 36号
    基质配比 氮质量分数 1.081 1.021 2.692 磷质量分数 0.593 1.466 1.200
    加载量 氮质量分数 6.086** 2.619 1.097 磷质量分数 1.741 0.121 6.353**
    基质配比×加载量 氮质量分数 0.808 0.267 0.592 磷质量分数 0.690 0.370 0.830
    基质配比 氮质量 0.283 0.277 0.271 磷质量 0.414 0.323 0.019
    加载量 氮质量 11.747** 4.881* 6.264** 磷质量 14.478** 10.748** 14.195**
    基质配比×加载量 氮质量 1.197 0.585 0.646 磷质量 1.262 0.832 0.351
    基质配比 氮利用指数 1.096 1.131 1.470 磷利用指数 0.050 1.424 1.595
    加载量 氮利用指数 30.688** 12.090** 14.583** 磷利用指数 34.779** 8.466** 5.764**
    基质配比×加载量 氮利用指数 3.613* 0.754 0.367 磷利用指数 5.353** 0.869 0.905
    说明：**表示因子对相应指标在置信度0.01水平显著；*表示因子对相应指标在置信度0.05水平显著

    Table 2.  Two factors analysis of Substrate proportion and control released fertilizer loading on container seedling N and P absorption and use of the 3 families

    • 2.2.   不同基质配比与控释肥加载量下马尾松容器苗氮和磷吸收利用差异

  • 双因素比较分析发现：与生长情况相似，育苗基质配比对家系容器苗的氮和磷吸收无显著影响，同时，亦无显著的基质配比和控释肥加载量的互作效应，仅控释肥加载量显著影响家系容器苗氮和磷的吸收，家系间存在显著差异。具体表现为：控释肥加载量仅对32号家系氮吸收及36号家系的磷吸收有显著影响；控释肥加载量对3个家系氮和磷质量均有显著影响；对3个家系容器苗氮和磷利用指数影响方面，基质配比无显著影响，加载量影响显著，而基质配比和控释肥仅对32号家系表现出显著的效应。

    基于上述分析，对32号家系容器苗的氮和磷吸收利用进行基质配比和控释肥处理组合间的比较，对35和36号家系进行控释肥加载量间的比对。32号家系，除氮和磷质量分数外，不同处理组合间氮和磷利用指数差异显著（表 3），均表现在处理组合S3F3达最大值，即基质配比泥炭和谷壳的体积比为6:4，控释肥加载量为3.5 kg·m-3。35号和36号家系在不同控释肥加载量间表现各异。35号家系容器苗氮和磷质量分数在不同加载量间差异不显著，而其氮和磷质量及利用指数差异显著，且F2（2.5 kg·m-3）和F3（3.5 kg·m-3）间差异不显著，表明加载量2.5 kg·m-3已能满足其氮和磷的吸收利用。36号家系容器苗氮质量分数在不同处理间差异不显著，其他指标在不同处理间差异均显著，均在加载量F3（3.5 kg·m-3）时达最大值。除磷质量分数外，此时氮和磷吸收利用指标均显著大于加载量F1（1.5 kg·m-3）和F2（2.5 kg·m-3），表明加载量3.5 kg·m-3更适于36号家系氮和磷吸收利用。

    家系 处理 w氮/（mg·g-1） w磷/（mg·g-1） m氮/（mg·株-1） m磷/（mg·株-1） 氮利用指数/g 磷利用指数/g
    32号 S1F1 9.67 ± 1.26 ab 2.20 ± 0.29 16.83 ± 2.10 c 3.87 ± 0.87 d 1.47 ± 0.30 def 7.56 ± 1.03 ef
    S1F2 8.42 ± 0.80 b 2.07 ± 0.11 18.93 ± 0.32 abc 4.68 ± 0.44 bcd 2.15 ± 0.46 bcd 10.05 ± 1.69 bcd
    S1F3 9.08 ± 1.13 ab 2.32 ± 0.25 26.77 ± 8.14 a 6.85 ± 2.10 ab 2.49 ± 0.40 bc 11.09 ± 1.54 ab
    S2F1 10.49 ± 0.23 a 2.44 ± 0.18 15.89 ± 1.17 c 3.72 ± 0.53 d 1.15 ± 0.16 f 5.81 ± 0.27 f
    S2F2 8.59 ± 0.88 b 2.07 ± 0.30 19.57 ± 2.77 abc 4.73 ± 0.88 bcd 2.11 ± 0.17 bcd 10.10 ± 0.77 bcd
    S2F3 8.41 ± 0.43 b 2.25 ± 0.19 24.86 ± 2.98 ab 6.66 ± 1.03 abc 2.68 ± 0.21 ab 12.38 ± 0.58 a
    S3F1 9.20 ± 1.13 ab 2.09 ± 0.05 14.37 ± 1.10 c 3.28 ± 0.21 d 1.38 ± 0.21 ef 7.70 ± 0.64 ef
    S3F2 8.34 ± 0.14 b 2.24 ± 0.17 18.42 ± 2.99 bc 4.96 ± 1.08 bcd 2.09 ± 0.41 bcd 8.88 ± 0.94 cde
    S3F3 7.96 ± 1.36 b 2.34 ± 0.17 26.30 ± 5.76 a 7.72 ± 0.99 a 3.26 ± 0.46 a 12.32 ± 1.74 a
    S4F1 8.98 ± 0.86 ab 2.18 ± 0.18 17.89 ± 3.37 bc 4.38 ± 1.03 cd 1.82 ± 0.44 cde 8.64 ± 1.40 de
    S4F2 8.50 ± 0.39 b 1.97 ± 0.18 20.25 ± 2.26 abc 4.70 ± 0.58 bcd 2.16 ± 0.17 bcd 10.98 ± 1.24 abc
    S4F3 8.75 ± 0.78 b 2.17 ± 0.55 19.19 ± 7.30 abc 4.95 ± 2.83 bcd 2.00 ± 0.59 cde 9.01 ± 0.55 bcde
    F 1.842 0.855 2.866* 3.434** 7.849** 9.257**
    35号 F1 10.05 ± 1.97 a 2.20 ± 0.22 17.22 ± 1.43 b 3.82 ± 0.35 b 1.52 ± 0.46 b 7.81 ± 1.97 b
    F2 9.23 ± 1.43 ab 2.26 ± 0.33 21.74 ± 4.49 a 5.30 ± 0.98 a 2.11 ± 0.36 a 10.04 ± 1.58 a
    F3 8.54 ± 0.98 b 2.24 ± 0.22 20.72 ± 3.66 a 5.49 ± 1.21 a 2.38 ± 0.47 a 10.30 ± 1.31 a
    F 3.015 0.13 5.684** 11.837** 12.499** 8.342**
    36号 F1 9.13 ± 1.04 2.00 ± 0.16 b 15.97 ± 3.10 b 3.50 ± 0.58 c 1.60 ± 0.33 c 8.58 ± 1.43 b
    F2 8.85 ± 0.89 2.20 ± 0.22 a 18.51 ± 3.73 b 4.62 ± 1.02 b 1.91 ± 0.28 b 8.90 ± 1.00 b
    F3 8.61 ± 0.74 2.23 ± 0.12 a 21.61 ± 4.01 a 5.59 ± 0.91 a 2.354248 10.15 ± 1.19 a
    F 1.016 6.435** 7.204** 17.903** 15.722** 5.559**
    说明：**表示因子对相应指标在置信度0.01水平显著；*表示因子对相应指标在置信度0.05水平显著

    Table 3.  Analysis of Substrate proportion and control released fertilizer loading on container seedling nutrition use of the three families

    • 2.3.   家系与控释肥加载量对容器苗生长及氮和磷吸收利用的影响

  • 不同基质配比对马尾松家系苗生长及氮和磷的吸收利用差异甚微，分析家系和控释肥两因素对容器苗的影响。结果显示（表 4）：家系效应仅体现在苗高和地径，而控释肥效应不仅体现在苗高、地径，还涉及生物量积累及氮和磷的吸收利用。家系和控释肥两因素的交互效应亦极其微弱，仅磷利用指数表现出显著的两因素交互效应。

    因子 苗高 地径 生物量 氮含量 磷含量 氮质量分数 磷质量分数 氮利用指数 磷利用指数
    家系 43.343** 4.812* 2.088 1.285 1.941 1.558 1.332 0.619 0.472
    控释肥 62.766** 55.353** 57.813** 21.557** 40.077** 7.846** 1.796 47.169** 29.817**
    家系×控释肥 1.555 1.254 2.347 2.273 1.872 0.914 2.051 1.101 2.843*
    说明：**表示因子对相应指标在置信度0.01水平显著；*表示因子对相应指标在置信度0.05水平显著

    Table 4.  Two factors analysis of family and control released fertilizer loading on container seedling growth and nutrition use

3.   结论与讨论

  • 本研究结果显示：所设置基质配比对马尾松3个家系生长及氮和磷吸收利用的影响均不显著。本研究是基于已有研究及生产实践，以较佳基质成分体积配比[V（泥炭）:V（谷壳）=6:4][6, 11]为参考设置基质配比，结果显示：基质配比间容器苗生长差异较小，表明此配比范围内基质保水透气等特性均较适宜。生产上配备马尾松容器苗培育基质时，可在一定适宜范围内，结合育苗成本等生产实际进行调配。

    控释肥是容器苗生长的主要养分来源，其加载水平将影响容器苗养分吸收，进而影响其生长及生物量积累[20-22]。本研究3个家系表型生长及养分吸收均显著受控释肥加载量的影响，随加载量的增加容器苗生长均得以显著改进。加载量为3.5 kg·m-3时，各家系容器苗氮和磷质量及利用指数亦达最大值，36号家系的氮和磷质量及利用指数显著大于其他加载量，但32和35号家系在加载量3.5和2.5 kg·m-3处理下差异不显著。所以，施肥量须控制在一定范围内，过量加载则易引起肥害[4-5]。此外，各家系容器苗养分吸收随加载量的变化表明，不同遗传背景引起了容器苗对加载量的不同响应[1]。

    基质配比和控释肥加载量对容器苗品质的影响并不孤立，其交互作用亦显著影响容器苗品质[4, 6, 9]。本研究中，不同家系容器苗的基质配比和缓释肥加载量互作效应存在差异，32号家系容器苗的苗高、地径和生物量以及氮和磷质量分数、单株氮磷含量和氮磷利用指数均表现出明显的双因素交互效应，而母本均来自江西的35和36号家系容器苗则相反，该现象也表明了母本基因效应的显著性。基于此，培育32号家系容器苗需同时考虑基质配比和控释肥加载量。通过综合比对，基质配比以泥炭:谷壳体积比为5:5，控释肥加载量为3.5 kg·m-3和基质配比泥炭:谷壳体积比为6:4，控释肥加载量3.5 kg·m-3组合表现较优；在本试验基质配比范围内，35和36号家系只需合适控释肥的加载量，分别为2.5和3.5 kg·m-3。家系和控释肥交互作用下，各家系容器苗仅磷利用指数存在显著差异，此结果可能与其长期生长的土壤环境即中国南方土壤有效磷含量较低有关[1]。通常情况下，植物生长的遗传效应大于施肥等环境效应[1]，然而，本研究结果显示：3个家系容器苗的控释肥效应大于家系效应。造成该现象的原因可能为马尾松容器苗早期生长更受制于环境养分等情况，遗传效应则在后期的生长中有更明显的优势。该现象亦表明苗期基质养分供应水平对优质容器苗培育至关重要。

Reference (22)

Catalog

  • HTML

  • 1.   材料与方法

  • 1.1.   试验地概况

  • 1.2.   试验材料

  • 1.3.   试验设计

  • 1.4.   测定分析方法

  • 1.5.   数据处理

  • 2.   结果与分析

  • 2.1.   不同基质配比与控释肥加载量下马尾松容器苗生长差异

  • 2.2.   不同基质配比与控释肥加载量下马尾松容器苗氮和磷吸收利用差异

  • 2.3.   家系与控释肥加载量对容器苗生长及氮和磷吸收利用的影响

  • 3.   结论与讨论

浙ICP备11046845号

Copyright by 2019 Editorial Department of Journal of Zhejiang A&F University

Address: No. 666, Wu Su street, Ling'an District, Hangzhou, ZhejiangPost Code: 311300Tel: 0571-63732749

E-Mail: :zlxb@zafu.edu.cn

Supported by: Beijing Renhe Information Technology Co. Ltd  support: info@rhhz.net

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return