施肥对薄壳山核桃容器苗生长及养分积累的影响

doi:10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202009051

国家林草科技领军期刊
中国精品科技期刊
中国高校百佳科技期刊
江苏省新闻出版政府奖期刊奖
RCCSE林学权威期刊（A+）
CSCD核心期刊
Scopus数据库收录期刊
中文核心期刊
SCD核心期刊

作者加群：102861116

微信公众号：南京林业大学学报

高级检索

南京林业大学学报（自然科学版） ›› 2021, Vol. 45 ›› Issue (6): 47-56.doi: 10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202009051

施肥对薄壳山核桃容器苗生长及养分积累的影响

季艳红¹^,²(), 汤文华², 窦全琴¹^,^*(), 谢寅峰²^,^*()

1. 江苏省林业科学研究院,江苏南京 210014
2. 南京林业大学,南方现代林业协同创新中心,南京林业大学生物与环境学院,江苏南京 210037

收稿日期:2020-09-22 接受日期:2021-06-15 出版日期:2021-11-30 发布日期:2021-12-02
通讯作者: 窦全琴,谢寅峰
基金资助:
江苏省科技(现代农业项目)(BE2019397);江苏省林业科技创新与推广项目(LYKJ[2019]28);江苏省农业科技自主创新资金项目(CX(18)2032)

Effects of fertilizer application on seedling growth and nutrient accumulation in Carya illinoinensis container seedlings

JI Yanhong¹^,²(), TANG Wenhua², DOU Quanqin¹^,^*(), XIE Yinfeng²^,^*()

1. Jiangsu Academy of Forestry, Nanjing 210014, China
2. Co-Innovation Center for the Sustainable Forestry in Southern China, College of Biology and the Environment, Nanjing Forestry University,Nanjing 210037, China

Received:2020-09-22 Accepted:2021-06-15 Online:2021-11-30 Published:2021-12-02
Contact: DOU Quanqin,XIE Yinfeng

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的为探讨施肥方式和施肥量对薄壳山核桃容器幼苗生长以及养分的影响,筛选适宜苗木生长的施肥方案。方法以薄壳山核桃‘绍兴’子代1年生容器苗为材料,设置指数施肥(A)、常规施肥(B)和平均施肥(C)3种施肥方式,每种施肥方式设定0.5、2.0、3.5、5.0 g/株(编号依次为1、2、3、4)等4种施肥量,不施肥(CK) 为对照,共13个处理,分别测定苗高、地茎、生物量、根系及营养积累等指标,分析不同施肥方式和施肥量对薄壳山核桃容器苗生长及养分积累的影响。结果指数施肥下,薄壳山核桃苗高、地径、生物量等指标随着施肥量的增加而逐渐增大,以施肥量5.0 g/株(处理A4)时苗木生长量最大;常规施肥和平均施肥下苗木生长指标随着施肥量的增加先升后降,均以3.5 g/株施肥量时(处理B3和C3)达到最大值,且处理C3优于B3和A4。苗木养分积累情况表明:指数施肥方式下,除P元素外,N、K元素的积累量均随着施肥量的增加而上升,表明指数施肥处理下苗木生长处于贫养;常规施肥和平均施肥方式中,随着施肥量的增加,各处理养分积累量均先上升后下降,以施肥3.5 g/株时达到最大值,其中以C3最优, B3次之。结论本试验以平均施肥方式、施肥量为3.5 g/株有利于薄壳山核桃幼苗生长,苗高、地径、根系、生物量及养分积累等指标表现较优,苗木质量优于其他处理。

关键词: 薄壳山核桃容器苗, 施肥方式, 施肥量, 幼苗生长

Abstract:

【Objective】 An experiment was conducted to explore the effects of fertilization methods and fertilization amounts on the growth and nutrient content of container seedlings of Carya illinoinensis and select suitable fertilization programs for the seedling growth. 【Method】 One-year-old container seedlings of C. illinoinensis ‘Shaoxing’ were used as the materials. The three fertilization methods included exponential fertilization(A), conventional fertilization(B), and average fertilization(C), and each fertilization method was set to 0.5, 2.0, 3.5, and 5.0 g per plant. The treatment without fertilization was used as the control (CK). There were 13 treatments in total, and the seedlings’ height, ground stem, biomass, root system indicators and nutrient accumulation indicators were measured to analyze the effects of different fertilization methods, fertilization amounts on the growth and nutrient accumulation of container seedlings of C. illinoinensis. 【Result】 Under exponential fertilization, the seedling height, ground diameter, biomass and other indicators gradually increased with the increase of the fertilization amount, and the suitable fertilization rate was 5.0 g per plant (treatment A4). Under conventional fertilization and average fertilization, the growth indices intially increased then decreased with the increase of fertilization amounts, which reached a maximum at 3.5 g per plant (treatments B3 and C3). It was obvious that the treatment C3 was better than the treatments B3 and A4. In the index of nutrient accumulation of seedlings, under exponential fertilization, the accumulation of N and K elements except P increased with an increase in the fertilization rate, which indicated that the growth of seedlings under the exponential fertilization treatment was poor. Under conventional fertilization and average fertilization, the nutrient accumulation of each treatment initially increased then decreased with an increase in the fertilization rate and reached a maximum at 3.5 g per plant. C3 was the best treatment, followed by B3. 【Conclusion】 In this experiment, the average fertilization method and fertilization rate of 3.5 g/plant were beneficial to the growth of one-year-old C. illinoinensis seedlings. The seedling height, ground diameter, root indices, biomass and nutrient accumulation were the best under this treatment condition, as was the seedling quality.

Key words: Carya illinoinensis container seedlings, fertilization method, fertilizer amount, seedling growth

中图分类号:

S664

季艳红,汤文华,窦全琴,等. 施肥对薄壳山核桃容器苗生长及养分积累的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2021, 45(6): 47-56.

JI Yanhong, TANG Wenhua, DOU Quanqin, XIE Yinfeng. Effects of fertilizer application on seedling growth and nutrient accumulation in Carya illinoinensis container seedlings[J].Journal of Nanjing Forestry University (Natural Science Edition), 2021, 45(6): 47-56.DOI: 10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202009051.

图/表 9

表1

表2

表3

图1

表4

不同施肥方式和施肥量对薄壳山核桃容器苗N、P、K元素含量及积累量的影响"

施肥方式 methods	施肥量 fertili- zation amounts	c(N)/%			c(P)/%			c(K)/%			积累量/mg accumulate
施肥方式 methods	施肥量 fertili- zation amounts	根 root	茎 stem	叶 leaf	根 root	茎 stem	叶 leaf	根 root	茎 stem	叶 leaf	N	P	K
CK	0	0.364± 0.014 g	0.387± 0.021 f	1.400± 0.175 f	0.111± 0.009 g	0.108± 0.007 f	0.175± 0.047 e	0.233± 0.014 f	0.084± 0.003 h	0.282± 0.006 f	23.80± 3.22 h	5.34± 1.36 f	9.17± 1.01 g
A	A1	0.401± 0.008 fg	0.406± 0.014 ef	1.531± 0.082 def	0.131± 0.003 g	0.109± 0.008 f	0.215± 0.021 d	0.230± 0.010 f	0.087± 0.003 h	0.296± 0.011 ef	39.22± 4.72 gh	9.19± 1.31 f	13.92± 1.45 fg
	A2	0.453± 0.017 ef	0.457± 0.021 cde	1.624± 0.070 cd	0.229± 0.002 cd	0.180± 0.006 c	0.345± 0.037 c	0.241± 0.009 ef	0.098± 0.001 g	0.353± 0.018 d	118.57± 21.97 f	35.08± 5.80 e	34.22± 3.48 e
	A3	0.560± 0.028 cd	0.471± 0.008 bcd	1.703± 0.072 abc	0.297± 0.014 b	0.211± 0.008 ab	0.394± 0.025 ab	0.274± 0.005 cd	0.116± 0.002 e	0.440± 0.040 c	182.42± 8.21 de	60.03± 0.71 cd	58.61± 2.05 cd
	A4	0.770± 0.028 b	0.518± 0.048 ab	1.792± 0.014 ab	0.229± 0.026 cd	0.208± 0.008 ab	0.363± 0.022 bc	0.293± 0.005 b	0.134± 0.002 c	0.474± 0.012 ab	227.33± 33.17 c	56.08± 4.70 d	69.03± 9.18 c
B	B1	0.476± 0.042 ef	0.425± 0.021 def	1.577± 0.021 cde	0.177± 0.007 f	0.141± 0.009 de	0.245± 0.008 d	0.250± 0.013 e	0.087± 0.002 h	0.297± 0.009 ef	76.71± 13.31 g	19.86± 2.76 f	25.07± 4.42 ef
	B2	0.513± 0.066 de	0.471± 0.035 bcd	1.596± 0.087 cde	0.214± 0.009 de	0.196± 0.013 bc	0.352± 0.007 c	0.265± 0.006 d	0.106± 0.004 f	0.377± 0.008 d	155.53± 6.70 ef	45.75± 2.18 de	49.18± 2.52 d
	B3	0.611± 0.029 c	0.502± 0.014 bc	1.797± 0.053 ab	0.322± 0.024 b	0.207± 0.007 ab	0.415± 0.012 a	0.282± 0.010 bc	0.114± 0.001 e	0.458± 0.029 bc	278.14± 37.25 b	99.97± 10.21 b	92.58± 14.89 b
	B4	0.719± 0.035 b	0.559± 0.028 a	1.661± 0.057 bcd	0.246± 0.023 cd	0.207± 0.005 ab	0.374± 0.013 bc	0.294± 0.008 b	0.126± 0.006 d	0.477± 0.009 ab	209.49± 25.35 cd	59.46± 10.95 cd	69.35± 9.57 c
C	C1	0.429± 0.045 fg	0.434± 0.042 def	1.456± 0.097 ef	0.186± 0.016 ef	0.132± 0.004 e	0.218± 0.009 d	0.249± 0.007 e	0.095± 0.005 g	0.317± 0.012 e	64.98± 5.81 g	19.10± 1.09 f	24.89± 0.86 ef
	C2	0.474± 0.028 ef	0.453± 0.032 cde	1.573± 0.063 cde	0.253± 0.009 c	0.157± 0.011 d	0.359± 0.019 bc	0.272± 0.003 cd	0.118± 0.006 e	0.377± 0.006 d	176.65±1 6.25 de	56.52± 8.15 d	58.13± 5.95 cd
	C3	0.630± 0.028 c	0.560± 0.028 a	1.837± 0.076 a	0.431± 0.033 a	0.222± 0.033 a	0.417± 0.008 a	0.289± 0.003 b	0.180± 0.011 b	0.478± 0.023 ab	344.28± 38.59 a	135.33± 20.03 a	114.04± 14.73 a
	C4	0.901 ±0.093 a	0.439± 0.021 def	1.787± 0.032 ab	0.252± 0.021 c	0.216± 0.005 ab	0.359± 0.014 bc	0.315 ±0.006 a	0.191± 0.002 a	0.496 ±0.009 a	286.43± 25.65 b	72.67± 8.20 c	91.32± 6.54 b

表4

表5

表6

表7

参考文献 25

[1]	袁紫倩. 薄壳山核桃‘马汉’品种营养元素周年动态变化规律研究[D]. 杭州:浙江农林大学, 2014.
	YUAN Z Q. Study on the dynamic changes of pecan ‘Mahan’ nutrients[D]. Hangzhou:Zhejiang A & F University, 2014.
[2]	张日清, 吕芳德, 陈建华. 我国引种美国山核桃的问题与发展建议[J]. 落叶果树, 2001, 33(4):30. DOI: 10.13855/j.cnki.lygs.2001.04.024. doi: 10.13855/j.cnki.lygs.2001.04.024
[3]	侯冬培, 习学良, 石卓功. 我国薄壳山核桃研究概况[J]. 山东林业科技, 2007, 37(4):53-55.
	HOU D P, XI X L, SHI Z G. The survey research of Carya illinoensis in China[J]. J Shandong For Sci Technol, 2007, 37(4):53-55.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-2724.2007.04.025. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-2724.2007.04.025
[4]	ZHANGR, PENG F R, LI Y R. Pecan production in China[J]. Sci Hortic, 2015, 197:719-727.DOI: 10.1016/j.scienta.2015.10.035. doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2015.10.035
[5]	REID W, HUNTK L. Pecan production in the northern United States[J]. Hort Techn, 2000, 10(2):298-301. DOI: 10.21273/HORTTECH.10.2.298. doi: 10.21273/HORTTECH.10.2.298
[6]	朱海军. 薄壳山核桃容器苗培育关键技术研究[D]. 南京:南京林业大学, 2016.
	ZHU H J. Study on the key technique of Carya illinoensis containerized seedling[D]. Nanjing:Nanjing Forestry University, 2016.
[7]	乌丽雅斯, 刘勇, 李瑞生, 等. 容器育苗质量调控技术研究评述[J]. 世界林业研究, 2004, 17(2):9-13.
	WU L Y S, LIU Y, LI R S, et al. Reviewing on quality modification and control techniques of containerized seedling[J]. World For Res, 2004, 17(2):9-13. DOI: 10.13348/j.cnki.sjlyyj.2004.02.003. doi: 10.13348/j.cnki.sjlyyj.2004.02.003
[8]	秦国峰, 吴天林, 金国庆, 等. 马尾松舒根型容器苗培育技术研究[J]. 浙江林业科技, 2000(1):68-73.
	QIN G F, WU T L, JIN G Q, et al. Studies on techniques for breeding seedlings of Pinus massoniana with root-thinning container[J]. J Zhejiang For Sci Technol, 2000(1):68-73.
[9]	李典云, 秦紫棋, 谭翔, 等. 不同施肥处理对尾巨桉生长量及经济效益的影响[J]. 热带农业科学, 2017, 37(3):20-24.
	LI D Y, QIN Z Q, TAN X, et al. Effects of different fertilizer treatments on the growth rate and economic benefit of Eucalyptus urophyra × E. grandis[J]. Chin J Trop Agric, 2017, 37(3):20-24.DOI: 10.12008/j.issn.1009-2196.2017.03.005. doi: 10.12008/j.issn.1009-2196.2017.03.005
[10]	梁智, 张计峰, 井然, 等. 滴灌施肥方式与施肥水平对枣树产量、品质及养分利用的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2016, 53(8):1444-1452.
	LIANG Z, ZHANG J F, JING R, et al. Influence of fertilization modes and fertilization levels under drip irrigation on fruit yield,quality and nutrient use of Chinese jujube[J]. Xinjiang Agric Sci, 2016, 53(8):1444-1452.DOI: 10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2016.08.011. doi: 10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2016.08.011
[11]	潘平平, 窦全琴, 汤文华, 等. 缓释肥用量对薄壳山核桃容器苗生长及养分含量的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2019, 43(5):163-168.
	PAN P P, DOU Q Q, TANG W H, et al. Effects of slow release fertilizer dosage on growth and nutrient contents of Carya illinoensis container seedlings[J]. J Nanjing For Univ (Nat Sci Ed), 2019, 43(5):163-168.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2006.201811040. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2006.201811040
[12]	王益明, 李瑞瑞, 张慧, 等. 指数施肥对美国山核桃幼苗生物量及氮积累的影响[J]. 生态学杂志, 2018, 37(10):2920-2926.
	WANG Y M, LI R R, ZHANG H, et al. Effects of exponential fertilization on biomass and nitrogen accumulation of Carya illinoensis seedlings[J]. Chin J Ecol, 2018, 37(10):2920-2926.DOI: 10.13292/j.1000-4890.201810.028. doi: 10.13292/j.1000-4890.201810.028
[13]	李玲莉, 李吉跃, 张方秋, 等. 容器苗指数施肥研究综述[J]. 世界林业研究, 2010, 23(2):22-27.
	LI L L, LI J Y, ZHANG F Q, et al. A review of exponential fertilization of container seedling[J]. World For Res, 2010, 23(2):22-27.DOI: 10.13348/j.cnki.sjlyyj.2010.02.007. doi: 10.13348/j.cnki.sjlyyj.2010.02.007
[14]	南京农业大学. 土壤农化分析[M]. 2版.北京: 农业出版社, 1988.
[15]	罗诚, 周熙, 王希, 等. 微波消解-电感耦合等离子体质谱法测定葛仙米干品中16种微量元素的研究[J]. 食品与药品, 2019, 21(1):20-24.
	LUO C, ZHOU X, WANG X, et al. Determination of 16 trace elements in dry products of Nostoc sphaeroids Kutz by ICP-MS after microwave digestion[J]. Food Drug, 2019, 21(1):20-24.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-979X.2019.01.005. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-979X.2019.01.005
[16]	谢季坚, 刘承平. 模糊数学方法及其应用[M]. 4版.武汉: 华中科技大学出版社, 2013.
[17]	杨阳, 施皓然, 及利, 等. 指数施肥对紫椴实生苗生长和根系形态的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2020, 44(2):91-97.
	YANG Y, SHI H R, JI L, et al. Effects of exponential fertilization on growth and root morphology of Tilia amurensis seedlings[J]. J Nanjing For Univ (Nat Sci Ed), 2020, 44(2):91-97.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2006.201811061. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2006.201811061
[18]	窦全琴, 汤文华, 潘平平. 容器类型和规格对薄壳山核桃幼苗生长的影响[J]. 东北林业大学学报, 2020, 48(3):1-7.
	DOU Q Q, TANG W H, PAN P P. Effect of container types and sizes on seedling growth of Carya illinoensis[J]. J Northeast For Univ, 2020, 48(3):1-7.DOI: 10.13759/j.cnki.dlxb.2020.03.001. doi: 10.13759/j.cnki.dlxb.2020.03.001
[19]	王月海, 许景伟, 韩友吉, 等. 黄河三角洲五个耐盐树种苗木生物量比较[J]. 林业科技开发, 2013, 27(4):52-55.
	WANG Y H, XU J W, HAN Y J, et al. A study on seedling biomass of five salt-tolerant tree species in Yellow River Delta area[J]. China For Sci Technol, 2013, 27(4):52-55.
[20]	VILLORDON A Q, GINZBERG I, FIRON N. Root architecture and root and tuber crop productivity[J]. Trends Plant Sci, 2014, 19(7):419-425.DOI: 10.1016/j.tplants.2014.02.002. doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2014.02.002
[21]	杨永洁, 张青青, 李莲芳, 等. 基质及缓释肥和激素处理对云南松苗木生物量的影响[J]. 西南林业大学学报(自然科学), 2020, 40(3):37-45.
	YANG Y J, ZHANG Q Q, LI L F, et al. Effects of substrate and slow release fertilizer involved hormone treatment on the biomass of Pinus yunnanensis seedlings[J]. J Southwest For Univ (Nat Sci), 2020, 40(3):37-45.
[22]	刘克林. 三倍体毛白杨林木营养动态及施肥试验研究[D]. 北京:北京林业大学, 2009.
	LIU K L. Nutrient dynamics and fertilization experiment of triploid Populus tomentosa[D]. Beijing:Beijing Forestry University, 2009.
[23]	杨湘, 郁松林, 孙慧敏, 等. 施氮量对葡萄幼苗叶片蔗糖和淀粉代谢的影响[J]. 北方园艺, 2019(14):53-59.
	YANG X, YU S L, SUN H M, et al. Effects of N fertilizer application on sucrose and starch metabolism in Vitis vinifera L. seedlings[J]. North Hortic, 2019(14):53-59.DOI: 10.11937/bfyy.20184685. doi: 10.11937/bfyy.20184685
[24]	周磊. 红皮云杉人工林C、N、P元素生态化学计量特征[D]. 哈尔滨:东北林业大学, 2019.
	ZHOU L. Ecological stoichiometric characteristics of C,N and P elements in Picea koraiensis plantations[D]. Harbin:Northeast Forestry University, 2019.
[25]	HAWKINS B J, BURGESS D, MITCHELL A K. Growth and nutrient dynamics of western hemlock with conventional or exponential greenhouse fertilization and planting in different fertility conditions[J]. Can J For Res, 2005, 35(4):1002-1016.DOI: 10.1139/x05-026. doi: 10.1139/x05-026

施肥方式 methods	施肥量 fertilization amounts	第1周 1st week	第2周 2nd week	第3周 3rd week	第4周 4th week	第5周 5th week	第6周 6th week	第7周 7th week	第8周 8th week	第9周 9th week	第10周 10th week	第11周 11th week	第12周 12th week
CK	0
A	A1	0.024	0.027	0.030	0.032	0.035	0.038	0.042	0.046	0.050	0.055	0.060	0.066
	A2	0.051	0.062	0.073	0.088	0.106	0.126	0.151	0.180	0.219	0.260	0.312	0.374
	A3	0.065	0.081	0.101	0.126	0.158	0.197	0.246	0.308	0.385	0.481	0.602	0.752
	A4	0.074	0.095	0.121	0.157	0.202	0.259	0.333	0.428	0.550	0.707	0.909	1.159
B	B1	0.167				0.167				0.167
	B2	0.667				0.667				0.667
	B3	1.167				1.167				1.167
	B4	1.667				1.667				1.667
C	C1	0.042	0.042	0.042	0.042	0.042	0.042	0.042	0.042	0.042	0.042	0.042	0.042
	C2	0.167	0.167	0.167	0.167	0.167	0.167	0.167	0.167	0.167	0.167	0.167	0.167
	C3	0.292	0.292	0.292	0.292	0.292	0.292	0.292	0.292	0.292	0.292	0.292	0.292
	C4	0.417	0.417	0.417	0.417	0.417	0.417	0.417	0.417	0.417	0.417	0.417	0.417

施肥方式 methods	施肥量 fertilization amount	苗高/cm height of seedling	地径/mm ground diameter	根干质量/g root dry mass	茎干质量/g stem dry mass	叶干质量/g leaf dry mass	总干质量/g total dry mass	根系总长度/cm total root length	根系总表面积/cm² total root surface area	根系总体积/cm³ total root volume
CK	0	19.83±2.56 d	4.87±0.58 e	2.75±0.48 g	0.91±0.19 f	0.72±0.13 f	4.37±0.66 g	1 337.91±179.77 f	210.97±33.27 e	2.94±0.41 g
A	A1	23.92±3.12 cd	5.20±0.42 e	4.07±0.37 g	1.24±0.26 ef	1.18±0.31 ef	6.49±0.68 g	1 977.83±313.26 e	398.77±21.88 d	4.90±0.80 f
	A2	30.42±3.14 ab	6.56±0.50 c	6.05±0.16 f	2.04±0.32 def	5.01±0.98 d	13.10±1.41 f	2 347.31±309.57 de	432.35±43.32 cd	6.40±0.48 ef
	A3	30.92±3.36 ab	6.75±0.62 bc	9.05±0.23 d	2.59±0.56 cde	7.02±0.91 bc	18.66±1.27 e	2 930.32±277.87 c	579.75±68.91 b	8.19±0.74 cde
	A4	31.17±3.94 ab	6.81±0.92 bc	10.23±1.27 cd	2.89±0.83 cd	7.43±1.29 bc	20.56±2.51 de	2 964.49±362.65 c	547.71±24.57 b	9.25±0.83 cd

施肥方式 methods	施肥量 fertilization amount	苗高/cm height of seedling	地径/mm ground diameter	根干质量/g root dry mass	茎干质量/g stem dry mass	叶干质量/g leaf dry mass	总干质量/g total dry mass	根系总长度/cm total root length	根系总表面积/cm² total root surface area	根系总体积/cm³ total root volume
B	B1	23.67±1.98 cd	5.54±0.42 de	6.58±1.31 f	1.66±0.23 def	2.42±0.30 e	10.65±1.54 f	1 999.23±265.56 e	392.06±53.37 d	6.33±0.36 ef
	B2	32.62±2.86 a	6.90±0.72 bc	8.71±0.79 de	2.80±0.08 cd	6.13±0.20 cd	17.64±0.68 e	2 663.05±241.70 cd	508.16±65.04 bc	7.74±0.86 de
	B3	33.92±3.32 a	7.14±0.54 bc	17.51±1.75 a	4.57±0.36 ab	8.25±1.51 b	30.32±3.61 b	3 671.05±250.67 b	844.85±47.68 a	15.66±1.66 a
	B4	33.58±3.14 a	6.95±0.86 bc	11.52±1.51 c	2.80±0.54 cd	6.70±0.78 bc	21.01±2.81 de	3 108.83±323.02 c	571.74±49.45 b	9.77±1.66 c
C	C1	26.83±2.10 bc	6.28±0.36 cd	6.88±0.78 ef	1.60±0.21 def	1.96±0.41 ef	10.44±0.37 f	2 184.89±157.59 de	430.37±28.98 cd	7.49±1.00 de
	C2	31.67±3.32 ab	7.03±0.42 bc	9.71±1.45 cd	3.59±0.41 bc	7.30±0.84 bc	20.59±1.95 de	2 894.27±90.67 c	567.90±22.04 b	8.92±0.62 cd
	C3	34.58±4.12 a	8.23±0.62 a	18.01±1.50 a	5.22±0.78 a	10.98±1.60 a	34.21±3.57 a	4 825.01±472.97 a	870.30±48.13 a	16.01±1.45 a
	C4	32.57±3.24 a	7.68±0.52 ab	14.28±1.31 b	3.88±0.61 abc	7.86±0.43 b	26.02±2.16 c	4 394.33±337.92 a	813.77±51.41 a	13.60±1.71 b

变异来源 source of variation	统计量 statistic	苗高 height	地径 ground diameter	根干质量 root dry mass	茎干质量 stem dry mass	叶干质量 leaf dry mass	总干质量 total dry mass	根系总长度 total root length	根系总表面积 total root surface area	根系总体积 total root volume
施肥方式 fertilization method	F	25.95	23.23	11.88	10.27	10.89	12.14	12.59	14.9	12.19
施肥方式 fertilization method	P	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01
施肥量 fertilization amount	F	7.31	7.05	5.86	5.19	7.13	6.52	5.22	5.25	4.92
施肥量 fertilization amount	P	<0.01	<0.05	<0.05	<0.05	<0.01	<0.05	<0.05	<0.05	<0.05
交互作用 interaction effect	F	1.95	2.04	17.22	8.22	14.42	18.51	11.07	16.83	14.12
交互作用 interaction effect	P	<0.05	<0.05	<0.05	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01

变异来源 source of variation	统计量 statistic	N			P			K			元素积累量accumulation
变异来源 source of variation	统计量 statistic	根 root	茎 stem	叶 leaf	根 root	茎 stem	叶 leaf	根 root	茎 stem	叶 leaf	N	P	K
施肥方式 fertilization method	F	5.76	4.97	9.80	9.94	10.28	16.91	9.53	6.72	8.76	9.29	7.05	9.74
施肥方式 fertilization method	P	<0.05	<0.05	<0.01	<0.05	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.05	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01
施肥量 fertilization amount	F	6.96	2.44	4.82	6.31	6.01	8.69	7.75	4.34	8.83	6.58	5.91	6.77
施肥量 fertilization amount	P	<0.05	>0.05	<0.05	<0.05	<0.05	<0.05	<0.01	<0.05	<0.05	<0.05	<0.05	<0.05
交互作用 interaction effect	F	17.40	6.70	1.93	23.34	12.91	5.90	5.99	69.04	19.93	22.79	25.81	19.59
交互作用 interaction effect	P	<0.01	<0.01	>0.05	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01

施肥对薄壳山核桃容器苗生长及养分积累的影响

Effects of fertilizer application on seedling growth and nutrient accumulation in Carya illinoinensis container seedlings

RichHTML

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 9

参考文献 25

相关文章 11

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

作者

读者

审稿

施肥方式 methods	施肥量 fertilization amount	第1主成分分值 PC1 score	排序 rank
CK	0	-1.649 92	13
A	A1	-1.196 87	12
	A2	-0.445 90	9
	A3	0.111 37	7
	A4	0.242 97	5
B	B1	-0.950 39	11
	B2	-0.042 17	8
	B3	1.200 05	2
	B4	0.357 34	4
C	C1	-0.730 20	10
	C2	0.178 16	6
	C3	1.821 81	1
	C4	1.103 76	3

[1]	万雅雯, 傅华君, 时培建, 林树燕. 变温对毛竹种子萌发及幼苗生长的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2021, 45(4): 97-106.
[2]	王宁, 袁美丽. 入侵植物节节麦种子萌发及幼苗生长对盐碱胁迫的响应[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2020, 44(5): 167-173.
[3]	陈黎, 朱超, 朱庆祥, 王翠鸣, 鲍佳书, 莫辰, 施婷婷, 万志兵. NaN₃处理对乌桕种子萌发及幼苗生长的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2020, 44(4): 47-54.
[4]	张银荣, 兰再平, 秘洪雷, 彭晶晶, 马鑫, 秦杏宇. 滴灌施肥条件下氮磷钾对‘龙脑香樟’幼苗生长及光合特性的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2019, 43(6): 39-45.
[5]	宋协海,郭欢欢,刘勇,贺国鑫,薛敦孟,李成. 黄连木容器苗生长对缓释肥的响应[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2018, 61(03): 117-122.
[6]	刘小金,徐大平,杨曾奖,张宁南. 脱落酸对檀香幼苗生长、光合及叶片抗氧化酶活性的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2016, 59(03): 57-62.
[7]	周昕,汪贵斌,刘琳,曹福亮,祖元刚. 光强对喜树幼苗生长及喜树碱含量的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2016, 59(03): 9-14.
[8]	陈立新,李少博,乔璐,步凡,段文标. 凋落物叶和土壤浸提液对红松种子萌发及幼苗生长的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2016, 59(02): 81-87.
[9]	贾瑞丰，尹光天*，杨锦昌，李荣生，邹文涛. 不同缺素处理对红厚壳幼苗生长的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2012, 55(06): 33-36.
[10]	姚健1，王丁1，张显松2，薛建辉1*. 不同地表覆盖方式对土壤水分、温度及幼苗生长的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2009, 52(05): 7-.
[11]	吴国南;黄宝龙. 湿地松容器苗的营养效应及其诊断初探[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 1990, 33(02): 16-21.

成分 PC	特征值 eigenvalue	方差贡献率/% variance contribution rate	累计贡献百分率/% cumulative percentage contribution
1	8.444	93.82	93.820
2	0.305	3.39	97.212
3	0.094	1.05	98.262