Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences ›› 2024, Vol. 61 ›› Issue (12): 3006-3013.DOI: 10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2024.12.015
• Soil Fertilizer · Storage and Preservation Processing · Horticultural Special Local Products • Previous Articles Next Articles
LI Chunyu1(), TAN Zhanming2,3, CHENG Yunxia2(
), GAO Yuan2, MA Quanhui2, LI Zhiguo4, MA Xing3
Received:
2024-05-11
Online:
2024-12-20
Published:
2025-01-16
Correspondence author:
CHENG Yunxia
Supported by:
李春雨1(), 谭占明2,3, 程云霞2(
), 高源2, 马全会2, 李志国4, 马兴3
通讯作者:
程云霞
作者简介:
李春雨(1992-),女,黑龙江齐齐哈尔人,讲师,硕士,研究方向为农业信息化,(E-mail)1871916786@qq.com
基金资助:
CLC Number:
LI Chunyu, TAN Zhanming, CHENG Yunxia, GAO Yuan, MA Quanhui, LI Zhiguo, MA Xing. Effects of water and fertilizer coupling on diurnal changes of chlorophyll content and photosynthetic characteristics of sand-cultivated tomato[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 61(12): 3006-3013.
李春雨, 谭占明, 程云霞, 高源, 马全会, 李志国, 马兴. 水肥耦合对沙培番茄叶绿素含量以及光合特性日变化的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2024, 61(12): 3006-3013.
项目 Items | 跨度 Span length | -1.681 8 | -1 | 0 | 1 | 1.681 8 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
灌水量 Irrigation water quantity(mm/hm2) | 292 | 310 | 369 | 456 | 543 | 602 |
施氮量 Nitrogen application rate(kg/hm2) | 959 | 90 | 285 | 570 | 855 | 1 049 |
施磷量 Phosphorus application rate(kg/hm2) | 736 | 70 | 219 | 438 | 657 | 806 |
施钾量 Potassium application rate(kg/hm2) | 1 242 | 117 | 369 | 738 | 1 107 | 1 359 |
Tab.1 Water and fertilizer application rates under different treatments
项目 Items | 跨度 Span length | -1.681 8 | -1 | 0 | 1 | 1.681 8 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
灌水量 Irrigation water quantity(mm/hm2) | 292 | 310 | 369 | 456 | 543 | 602 |
施氮量 Nitrogen application rate(kg/hm2) | 959 | 90 | 285 | 570 | 855 | 1 049 |
施磷量 Phosphorus application rate(kg/hm2) | 736 | 70 | 219 | 438 | 657 | 806 |
施钾量 Potassium application rate(kg/hm2) | 1 242 | 117 | 369 | 738 | 1 107 | 1 359 |
处理 Treat- ments | 码值方案Code value scheme | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
灌水量 Irrigation water quantity (mm/hm2) | 施氮量 Nitrogen application rate (kg/hm2) | 施磷量 Phosphorus application rate (kg/hm2) | 施钾量 Potassium application rate (kg/hm2) | |
g1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
g2 | 1 | 1 | -1 | -1 |
g3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | -1 |
g4 | 1 | -1 | -1 | 1 |
g5 | -1 | 1 | 1 | -1 |
g6 | -1 | 1 | -1 | 1 |
g7 | -1 | -1 | 1 | 1 |
g8 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 |
g9 | -1.681 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
g10 | 1.681 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
g11 | 0 | -1.681 8 | 0 | 0 |
g12 | 0 | 1.681 8 | 0 | 0 |
g13 | 0 | 0 | -1.681 8 | 0 |
g14 | 0 | 0 | 1.681 8 | 0 |
g15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1.681 8 |
g16 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.681 8 |
g17 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
g18 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
g19 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
g20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Tab.2 Coding of levels for each treatment factor
处理 Treat- ments | 码值方案Code value scheme | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
灌水量 Irrigation water quantity (mm/hm2) | 施氮量 Nitrogen application rate (kg/hm2) | 施磷量 Phosphorus application rate (kg/hm2) | 施钾量 Potassium application rate (kg/hm2) | |
g1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
g2 | 1 | 1 | -1 | -1 |
g3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | -1 |
g4 | 1 | -1 | -1 | 1 |
g5 | -1 | 1 | 1 | -1 |
g6 | -1 | 1 | -1 | 1 |
g7 | -1 | -1 | 1 | 1 |
g8 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 |
g9 | -1.681 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
g10 | 1.681 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
g11 | 0 | -1.681 8 | 0 | 0 |
g12 | 0 | 1.681 8 | 0 | 0 |
g13 | 0 | 0 | -1.681 8 | 0 |
g14 | 0 | 0 | 1.681 8 | 0 |
g15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1.681 8 |
g16 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.681 8 |
g17 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
g18 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
g19 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
g20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
处理 Treat- ments | 叶绿素a Chlorophyll a | 叶绿素b Chlorophyll b | 叶绿素总含量 Total Chlorophyll content(a+b) |
---|---|---|---|
g1 | 1.49±0.10ab | 1.08±0.18abcd | 2.59±0.26abc |
g2 | 1.98±0.60a | 1.33±0.23a | 3.34±0.28a |
g3 | 1.68±0.17ab | 1.10±0.24abc | 2.80±0.39ab |
g4 | 1.45±0.15bc | 1.08±0.29abcd | 2.54±0.39abc |
g5 | 1.55±0.29ab | 1.07±0.33abcd | 2.60±0.62abc |
g6 | 1.41±0.43bc | 0.99±0.38abcd | 2.42±0.81abc |
g7 | 1.59±0.19ab | 1.02±0.31abcd | 2.63±0.49abc |
g8 | 1.65±0.48ab | 1.26±0.61ab | 2.93±1.09ab |
g9 | 1.54±0.19ab | 1.05±0.18abcd | 2.61±0.26abc |
g10 | 1.58±0.19ab | 0.84±0.58abcde | 2.45±0.76abc |
g11 | 1.32±0.19bc | 0.78±0.19abcde | 2.12±0.34bcd |
g12 | 1.33±0.14bc | 0.49±0.14cde | 1.85±0.16bcd |
g13 | 0.99±0.21c | 0.31±0.17e | 1.32±0.37d |
g14 | 1.42±0.11bc | 0.58±0.32cde | 2.02±0.43bcd |
g15 | 1.40±0.27bc | 0.68±0.38bcde | 2.10±0.65bcd |
g16 | 1.45±0.31bc | 0.43±0.38de | 1.91±0.58bcd |
g17 | 1.42±0.29bc | 0.43±0.38de | 1.88±0.68bcd |
g18 | 1.72±0.47ab | 0.62±0.42bcde | 2.37±0.87abcd |
g20 | 1.27±0.21bc | 0.56±0.25cde | 1.85±0.39bcd |
Tab.3 Changes is chlorophyll content of sand cultivated tomatoes under water fertilizer coupling
处理 Treat- ments | 叶绿素a Chlorophyll a | 叶绿素b Chlorophyll b | 叶绿素总含量 Total Chlorophyll content(a+b) |
---|---|---|---|
g1 | 1.49±0.10ab | 1.08±0.18abcd | 2.59±0.26abc |
g2 | 1.98±0.60a | 1.33±0.23a | 3.34±0.28a |
g3 | 1.68±0.17ab | 1.10±0.24abc | 2.80±0.39ab |
g4 | 1.45±0.15bc | 1.08±0.29abcd | 2.54±0.39abc |
g5 | 1.55±0.29ab | 1.07±0.33abcd | 2.60±0.62abc |
g6 | 1.41±0.43bc | 0.99±0.38abcd | 2.42±0.81abc |
g7 | 1.59±0.19ab | 1.02±0.31abcd | 2.63±0.49abc |
g8 | 1.65±0.48ab | 1.26±0.61ab | 2.93±1.09ab |
g9 | 1.54±0.19ab | 1.05±0.18abcd | 2.61±0.26abc |
g10 | 1.58±0.19ab | 0.84±0.58abcde | 2.45±0.76abc |
g11 | 1.32±0.19bc | 0.78±0.19abcde | 2.12±0.34bcd |
g12 | 1.33±0.14bc | 0.49±0.14cde | 1.85±0.16bcd |
g13 | 0.99±0.21c | 0.31±0.17e | 1.32±0.37d |
g14 | 1.42±0.11bc | 0.58±0.32cde | 2.02±0.43bcd |
g15 | 1.40±0.27bc | 0.68±0.38bcde | 2.10±0.65bcd |
g16 | 1.45±0.31bc | 0.43±0.38de | 1.91±0.58bcd |
g17 | 1.42±0.29bc | 0.43±0.38de | 1.88±0.68bcd |
g18 | 1.72±0.47ab | 0.62±0.42bcde | 2.37±0.87abcd |
g20 | 1.27±0.21bc | 0.56±0.25cde | 1.85±0.39bcd |
序号 Serial number | 总计 Total | 方差百分比 Variance | 累积 Accumulate(%) | 总计 Total | 方差百分比 Variance | 累积 Accumulate(%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 3.425 | 42.809 | 42.809 | 3.425 | 42.809 | 42.809 |
2 | 1.764 | 22.055 | 64.864 | 1.764 | 22.055 | 64.864 |
3 | 1.221 | 15.257 | 80.12 | 1.221 | 15.257 | 80.12 |
4 | 0.758 | 9.477 | 89.597 | |||
5 | 0.618 | 7.723 | 97.32 | |||
6 | 0.17 | 2.128 | 99.449 | |||
7 | 0.044 | 0.551 | 99.999 | |||
8 | 4.72E-05 | 0.001 | 100 |
Tab.4 Characteristic values and contribution rates of each prncipal component under different water fertilizer couplings
序号 Serial number | 总计 Total | 方差百分比 Variance | 累积 Accumulate(%) | 总计 Total | 方差百分比 Variance | 累积 Accumulate(%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 3.425 | 42.809 | 42.809 | 3.425 | 42.809 | 42.809 |
2 | 1.764 | 22.055 | 64.864 | 1.764 | 22.055 | 64.864 |
3 | 1.221 | 15.257 | 80.12 | 1.221 | 15.257 | 80.12 |
4 | 0.758 | 9.477 | 89.597 | |||
5 | 0.618 | 7.723 | 97.32 | |||
6 | 0.17 | 2.128 | 99.449 | |||
7 | 0.044 | 0.551 | 99.999 | |||
8 | 4.72E-05 | 0.001 | 100 |
主成分1 Principal component 1 | 主成分2 Principal component 2 | 主成分3 Principal component 3 | |
---|---|---|---|
X1 | 0.817 | -0.061 | 0.194 |
X2 | 0.973 | -0.079 | -0.053 |
X3 | 0.98 | -0.078 | 0.044 |
X4 | 0.301 | 0.358 | 0.722 |
X5 | 0.289 | 0.739 | -0.069 |
X6 | 0.175 | 0.596 | -0.731 |
X7 | -0.013 | 0.805 | 0.209 |
Tab.5 Component matrix
主成分1 Principal component 1 | 主成分2 Principal component 2 | 主成分3 Principal component 3 | |
---|---|---|---|
X1 | 0.817 | -0.061 | 0.194 |
X2 | 0.973 | -0.079 | -0.053 |
X3 | 0.98 | -0.078 | 0.044 |
X4 | 0.301 | 0.358 | 0.722 |
X5 | 0.289 | 0.739 | -0.069 |
X6 | 0.175 | 0.596 | -0.731 |
X7 | -0.013 | 0.805 | 0.209 |
U(Y1) | U(Y2) | U(Y3) | D值 D value | 排名 Ranking | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
g1 | 0.792 112 198 | 0.407 293 848 | 0.407 293 848 | 0.612 911 621 | 9 |
g2 | 1 | 0.506 303 775 | 0.506 303 775 | 0.770 097 435 | 6 |
g3 | 0.757 525 985 | 0.898 691 16 | 0.898 691 16 | 0.823 276 266 | 2 |
g4 | 0.710 267 194 | 0.338 799 217 | 0.338 799 217 | 0.537 282 884 | 12 |
g5 | 0.680 835 179 | 0.885 700 007 | 0.885 700 007 | 0.776 249 524 | 5 |
g6 | 0.628 364 123 | 0.522 760 856 | 0.522 760 856 | 0.579 192 372 | 10 |
g7 | 0.663 431 468 | 1 | 1 | 0.820 180 201 | 3 |
g8 | 0.360 896 122 | 0 | 0 | 0.192 830 78 | 20 |
g9 | 0.917 579 85 | 0.849 228 068 | 0.849 228 068 | 0.885 759 779 | 1 |
g10 | 0.519 194 131 | 0.344 966 57 | 0.344 966 57 | 0.438 062 584 | 15 |
g11 | 0.674 511 333 | 0.896 270 683 | 0.896 270 683 | 0.777 793 402 | 4 |
g12 | 0.407 023 976 | 0.852 334 707 | 0.852 334 707 | 0.614 410 908 | 8 |
g13 | 0 | 0.808 077 261 | 0.808 077 261 | 0.376 322 75 | 18 |
g14 | 0.373 117 985 | 0.691 635 037 | 0.691 635 037 | 0.521 456 495 | 13 |
g15 | 0.270 208 242 | 0.318 676 302 | 0.318 676 302 | 0.292 783 26 | 19 |
g16 | 0.297 201 415 | 0.844 700 48 | 0.844 700 48 | 0.552 176 231 | 11 |
g17 | 0.159 644 626 | 0.631 355 44 | 0.631 355 44 | 0.379 323 028 | 17 |
g18 | 0.477 374 346 | 0.917 774 026 | 0.917 774 026 | 0.682 475 073 | 7 |
g19 | 0.138 308 903 | 0.688 701 29 | 0.688 701 29 | 0.394 629 161 | 16 |
g20 | 0.198 978 562 | 0.880 931 992 | 0.880 931 992 | 0.516 567 745 | 14 |
权重Weight | 0.534 311 033 | 0.275 274 588 | 0.190 426 86 |
Tab.6 Score and comprehensive evaluation of each principal component
U(Y1) | U(Y2) | U(Y3) | D值 D value | 排名 Ranking | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
g1 | 0.792 112 198 | 0.407 293 848 | 0.407 293 848 | 0.612 911 621 | 9 |
g2 | 1 | 0.506 303 775 | 0.506 303 775 | 0.770 097 435 | 6 |
g3 | 0.757 525 985 | 0.898 691 16 | 0.898 691 16 | 0.823 276 266 | 2 |
g4 | 0.710 267 194 | 0.338 799 217 | 0.338 799 217 | 0.537 282 884 | 12 |
g5 | 0.680 835 179 | 0.885 700 007 | 0.885 700 007 | 0.776 249 524 | 5 |
g6 | 0.628 364 123 | 0.522 760 856 | 0.522 760 856 | 0.579 192 372 | 10 |
g7 | 0.663 431 468 | 1 | 1 | 0.820 180 201 | 3 |
g8 | 0.360 896 122 | 0 | 0 | 0.192 830 78 | 20 |
g9 | 0.917 579 85 | 0.849 228 068 | 0.849 228 068 | 0.885 759 779 | 1 |
g10 | 0.519 194 131 | 0.344 966 57 | 0.344 966 57 | 0.438 062 584 | 15 |
g11 | 0.674 511 333 | 0.896 270 683 | 0.896 270 683 | 0.777 793 402 | 4 |
g12 | 0.407 023 976 | 0.852 334 707 | 0.852 334 707 | 0.614 410 908 | 8 |
g13 | 0 | 0.808 077 261 | 0.808 077 261 | 0.376 322 75 | 18 |
g14 | 0.373 117 985 | 0.691 635 037 | 0.691 635 037 | 0.521 456 495 | 13 |
g15 | 0.270 208 242 | 0.318 676 302 | 0.318 676 302 | 0.292 783 26 | 19 |
g16 | 0.297 201 415 | 0.844 700 48 | 0.844 700 48 | 0.552 176 231 | 11 |
g17 | 0.159 644 626 | 0.631 355 44 | 0.631 355 44 | 0.379 323 028 | 17 |
g18 | 0.477 374 346 | 0.917 774 026 | 0.917 774 026 | 0.682 475 073 | 7 |
g19 | 0.138 308 903 | 0.688 701 29 | 0.688 701 29 | 0.394 629 161 | 16 |
g20 | 0.198 978 562 | 0.880 931 992 | 0.880 931 992 | 0.516 567 745 | 14 |
权重Weight | 0.534 311 033 | 0.275 274 588 | 0.190 426 86 |
[1] | 赵云霞, 裴红霞, 高晶霞, 等. 日光温室蔬菜沙培技术研究进展[J]. 北方园艺, 2013, (24): 203-206. |
ZHAO Yunxia, PEI Hongxia, GAO Jingxia, et al. Research progress on vegetable sand culture technology in solar greenhouse[J]. Northern Horticulture, 2013, (24): 203-206. | |
[2] | 王平, 赵振勇, 曾凡江, 等. 客土造畦对沙土栽培黄瓜生长与产量的影响[J]. 新疆农垦科技, 2021, 44(5): 11-14. |
WANG Ping, ZHAO Zhenyong, ZENG Fanjiang, et al. Effects of foreign soil bed making on the growth and yield of cucumber cultivated in sandy soil[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Reclamation Technology, 2021, 44 (5): 11-14 | |
[3] | 燕佳惠, 张虎, 许晓燕. 番茄大棚物联网数据采集系统的设计[J]. 现代农业装备, 2022, 43(3): 52-56. |
YAN Jiahui, ZHANG Hu, XU Xiaoyan. Design of Internet of Things data acquisition system for tomato greenhouse[J]. Modern Agricultural Equipment, 2022, 43(3): 52-56. | |
[4] | 卢宝安, 韩师洪, 张炜, 等. 不同施肥量与不同施肥次数对麻山药产量的影响[J]. 天津农林科技, 2016, (3): 17-19. |
LU Baoan, HAN Shihong, ZHANG Wei, et al. Effects of Different Fertilization Rates and Times on the Yield of Ma Yam[J]. Tianjin Agriculture and Forestry Science and Technology, 2016, (3): 17-19 | |
[5] | 孙振源, 焦炳忠, 李兴强. 渗灌水肥耦合对同心圆枣生长发育的影响[J]. 北京林业大学学报, 2022, 44(2): 22-29. |
SUN Zhenyuan, JIAO Bingzhong, LI Xingqiang. Effects of water and nitrogen coulping on growth and development of Zizphus jujuba ‘Tongxinyuanzao' under infiltration irrigation[J]. Journal of Beijing Forestry University, 2022, 44(2): 22-29. | |
[6] | 周敏, 曾蓓, 赵玉华, 等. 钾对刺葡萄光合作用的影响[J]. 湖南农业大学学报(自然科学版), 2017, 43(2): 156-160. |
ZHOU Min, ZENG Bei, ZHAO Yuhua, et al. Effects of potassium on the photosynthesis of Vitis davidii Foёx[J]. Journal of Hunan Agricultural University (Natural Sciences), 2017, 43(2): 156-160. | |
[7] | 朱和, 田军仓, 杨凡, 等. 水肥气热耦合对枸杞光合作用和产量的影响[J]. 排灌机械工程学报, 2022, 40(5): 511-518. |
ZHU He, TIAN Juncang, YANG Fan, et al. Effects of water-fertilizer-air-heat coupling on yield and photosynthesis of wolfberry[J]. Journal of Drainage and Irrigation Machinery Engineering, 2022, 40(5): 511-518. | |
[8] | 刘迁杰, 贾凯, 陈健, 等. 不同施氮量对复合沙培番茄叶绿素含量及光合特性日变化的影响[J]. 北方园艺, 2020,(5): 8-14. |
LIU Qianjie, JIA Kai, CHEN Jian, et al. Effects of different nitrogen application rates on chlorophyll content and diurnal change of photosynthetic characteristics of compound sand culture tomato[J]. Northern Horticulture, 2020,(5): 8-14. | |
[9] |
马新超, 周宇, 刘青, 等. 水肥耦合对黄沙炉渣复合基质栽培黄瓜光合荧光特性、产量及品质的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(3): 597-608.
DOI |
MA Xinchao, ZHOU Yu, LIU Qing, et al. Effects of water and fertilizer coupling on photosynthetic fluorescence characteristics, yield and quality of cucumber cultivated with yellow sand and slag composite substrate[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 59(3): 597-608.
DOI |
|
[10] | Richards R A. Physiological traits used in the breeding of new cultivars for water-scarce environments[J]. Agricultural Water Management, 2006, 80(1/2/3): 197-211. |
[11] | 周振翔. 水稻叶片叶绿素含量对光合生理及产量的影响[D]. 扬州: 扬州大学, 2016. |
ZHOU Zhenxiang. The effect of chlorophyll content in rice leaves on photosynthetic physiology and yield[D]. Yangzhou: Yangzhou University, 2016. | |
[12] |
袁昌洪, 韩冬, 杨菲, 等. 氮肥对茶树春季光合、抗衰老特性及内源激素含量的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2016, 40(5): 67-73.
DOI |
YUAN Changhong, HAN Dong, YANG Fei, et al. Effects of nitrogen fertilization level in soil on physiological characteristics and quality of tea leaves[J]. Journal of Nanjing Forestry University (Natural Sciences Edition), 2016, 40(5): 67-73. | |
[13] | 刘凯, 张吉旺, 郭艳青, 等. 施磷量对高产夏玉米产量和磷素利用的影响[J]. 山东农业科学, 2016, 48(4): 61-65. |
LIU Kai, ZHANG Jiwang, GUO Yanqing, et al. Effects of phosphorus fertilization on yield and phosphorus use efficiency of high-yielding summer maize[J]. Shandong Agricultural Sciences, 2016, 48(4): 61-65. | |
[14] | 孟繁霞, 张蜀秋, 娄成后. 气孔功能的结构基础[J]. 植物学通报, 2000, 35(1): 27-33. |
MENG Fanxia, ZHANG Shuqiu, LOU Chenghou. The structural foundation of stomatal function[J]. Chinese Bulletin of Botany, 2000, 35(1): 27-33. | |
[15] | 李春杰, 许艳丽, 王喜斌, 等. 追肥方式对连作大豆生长发育和产量的影响[J]. 大豆科学, 2008, 27(6): 1003-1006. |
LI Chunjie, XU Yanli, WANG Xibin, et al. Effect of top dressing fertilizer patterns on growth and yield of continuous cropping soybean[J]. Soybean Science, 2008, 27(6): 1003-1006. | |
[16] | 卢华雨, 李延玲, 罗峰, 等. 粒用高粱4个主要光合性状数量遗传分析[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2018, 46(17): 68-72. |
LU Huayu, LI Yanling, LUO Feng, et al. Genetic analysis of four main photosynthetic characters of grain Sorghum[J]. Jiangsu Agricultural Sciences, 2018, 46(17): 68-72. | |
[17] | 肖怡然, 李岩, 佟海林, 等. 亚硒酸钠对不同类型生菜生长和硒累积的影响[J]. 北京农学院学报, 2022, 37(2): 60-65. |
XIAO Yiran, LI Yan, TONG Hailin, et al. Effect of selenium on the growth, photosynthetic and selenium accumulation of different types of lettuce[J]. Journal of Beijing University of Agriculture, 2022, 37(2): 60-65. | |
[18] |
何振嘉, 史仝乐, 傅渝亮, 等. 灌水器间距对涌泉根灌双点源交汇入渗水氮运移特性影响研究[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2022, 24(5): 157-169.
DOI |
HE Zhenjia, SHI Tongle, FU Yuliang, et al. Effect of emitter spacing on nitrogen transport characteristics of intersecting two point sources in bubbled-root irrigation[J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2022, 24(5): 157-169.
DOI |
|
[19] | 阳彬, 郭碧芝, 郭荣发. 水肥耦合调控对水稻光合特性的影响[J]. 热带作物学报, 2018, 39(7): 1311-1317. |
YANG Bin, GUO Bizhi, GUO Rongfa. Effect of water and fertilizer coupling on photosynthetic characteristic in rice[J]. Chinese Journal of Tropical Crops, 2018, 39(7): 1311-1317. |
[1] | XU Maomao, GAO Jie, LI Junming, LI Xin, LIU Lei, PAN Feng. Population diversity analysis of 20 commercial tomato cultivars [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 61(9): 2191-2196. |
[2] | TIAN Haiyan, ZHANG Zhanqin, XIE Jianhui, WANG Jianjiang, YANG Xiangkun. Study on the relationship between Lycopene and main quality characters of processing tomato [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 61(9): 2197-2202. |
[3] | TIAN Chao, LI Yushan, MA Yue, SONG Yu. Effects of different concentrations of sophora alopecuroides extract on the growth and soil fertility of continuous cropping tomatoes [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 61(9): 2203-2210. |
[4] | CHEN Fang, LI Zihui, SUNXiaogui , ZHANG Tingjun. Different dosage of microbial agents on the yield and quality of processed tomatoes [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 61(9): 2285-2289. |
[5] | XI Rui, CHEN Yijia, LI Ning, YU Qinghui, WANG Qiang, QIN Yong. Effects of exogenous 2, 4-epibrassinolide on seed germination of different salt-sensitive tomatoes under salt stress [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 61(8): 1983-1992. |
[6] | ZHANG Caihong, WANG Guoqiang, JIANG Luyan, LIU Tao, DE Xianming. Variation of environmental factors and analysis of tomato traits in low-energy assembly-type deep-winter production solar greenhouse [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 61(8): 2043-2053. |
[7] | ZHANG Fulin, LI Ning, LIU Yuxiang, CHEN Yijia, YU Qinghui, YAN Huizhuan. Effects of exogenous 2,4-Epibrassinolide and melatonin on fruit quality and peel morphology of cherry tomato [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 61(7): 1738-1747. |
[8] | GAO Mutian, XIAO Yanmei, LIAO Zhijie, HUANG Cheng. Comprehensive evaluation of kernel and quality traits in maize-teosinte introgression line population [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 61(4): 885-891. |
[9] | RUAN Xiangyang, PU Min, XIAO Lele, LUO Linyi, CHEN Ruijie, LI Ran, CHEN Guoyong, YE Jun. Effect of magnesium sulfate fertilizer application strategy on the yield and quality of processed tomato [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 61(4): 916-925. |
[10] | LI Yali, Halihashi , TANG Yali, DUAN jingjing, LI Qingjun. Effect of NP reduction and K synergism on yield and nutrient absorption of processing tomato [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 61(12): 3014-3019. |
[11] | XU Bin, WANG Zheng, SONG Zhanteng, Merhaba Paerhati, ZHU Jingrong, CHE Fengbin, LI Yonghai, WU Fengyan, MIAO Fuhong. Analysis and comprehensive evaluation of the fruit quality of 11 wild seabuckthorn germplasm resources [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 61(12): 3020-3031. |
[12] | LIU Huifang, WANG Qiang, HAN Hongwei, ZHUANG Hongmei, WANG Hao, CHANG Yanan. Effects of salt, alkali and complex salt alkali stress on the photosynthetic characteristics and antioxidant enzyme activity of tomato seedlings [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 61(11): 2658-2666. |
[13] | ZHAO Wenxuan, CHENG Yunxia, TAN Zhanming, LI Chunyu, SHU Sheng, Ayimaimu Shawuti, YANG Liyu, MIAO Xianjun. Comparison of chlorophyll fluorescence and photosynthetic characteristics of different processed tomato varieties based on principal component analysis [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 61(11): 2667-2675. |
[14] | LI Chunyu, TAN Zhanming, CHENG Yunxia, SHU Sheng, MA Quanhui, HE Miao, DUAN Yifan, WU Hui. Comparative analysis of agronomic traits of different processing tomato varieties [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 61(11): 2676-2683. |
[15] | TANG Li, TIAN Kechuan, ZHANG Xinning, LIU Li, Abulikemu Adili, YANG Zhi, YANG Cunming, ZHANG Xiaoxue, HUANG Xixia, TIAN Yuezhen. Clustering and principal component analysis of Hotan sheep body weight indexes in different growth stages [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 61(11): 2853-2860. |
Viewed | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Full text 16
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Abstract 73
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||