Crops ›› 2016, Vol. 32 ›› Issue (3): 73-78.doi: 10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2016.03.014

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Influence of New Type Fertilizer Haishengyuan on Cold Resistance of Sugarcane

Hu Haiyang1,Fu Qingqing1,2,He Lilian1,Li Fusheng1   

  1. 1College of Agronomy and Biotechnology,Yunnan Agricultural University,Kunming 650201,Yunnan,China
    2Gengma County,Yunnan Province,Local Industry Development Office,Gengma 677500,Yunnan,China
  • Received:2016-01-28 Revised:2016-04-27 Online:2016-06-15 Published:2018-08-26
  • Contact: Fusheng Li

RichHTML

2

PDF (PC)

125

Abstract:

To study the effect of different fertilizer treatments on cold tolerance of sugarcane, two cultivated sugarcanes (Roc 22, yunnan sugarcane 01-58) were used as experimental materials, with six fertilizer treatments (D1, D2, H1, H2, DH1, DH2), and low temperature (3℃) stress in seedling stage. Finally, physiological and biochemical indicators of cold tolerance were measured at the same time. The results showed: (1) the weight coefficient of electrical conductivity, soluble sugar content, soluble protein content, MDA content and SOD activity by pole ranking method was 0.190, 0.203, 0.096, 0.341, 0.170, respectively. And the content of soluble sugar and MDA content were larger than the others. Therefore, this two indicators had great influence on the cold resistance of sugarcane.(2) The effect of different fertilizer treatments on cold resistance of sugar can eranked as: DH1>DH2>H2>D2>H1>D1. This indicated that different fertilizer levels had difference effects on cold tolerance of sugarcane, but the over all trend was consistent, as the use of new fertilizer "Haishengyuan" with common compound fertilizers could improve the cold tolerance of sugarcane significantly.

Key words: New type fertilizer, Haishengyuan, Sugarcane, Cold resistance

Table 1

Test processing combination"

处理Treatments 施肥量
Fertilizer amount		 新台糖22
Roc 22		 滇蔗01-58
Yunnan sugarcane 01-58
普通复合肥（D）Common compound fertilizer 37.6g/盆 D1
 D2
海生源（H）Haishengyuan(H) 0.056mL/盆 H1 H2
普通复合肥+海生源（DH）Common compound fertilizer+Haishengyuan(DH) 37.6g+0.056mL/盆 DH1 DH2

Table 2

Effects of different fertilizer treatment for sugarcane leaf on conductivity,soluble sugar content and soluble protein content"

处理Treatments 电导率Conductivity(μs/cm) 可溶性糖含量Contents of soluble sugar(μg/mL) 可溶性蛋白含量Soluble protein content(mg/g)
25℃ 3℃ 相对值(%)
Relative
value		 25℃ 3℃ 相对值(%)
Relative
value		 25℃ 3℃ 相对值(%)
Relative
value
D1 0.21±0.08bcB 0.31±0.06aA 145.9 4.69±0.73cB 6.16±0.37eE 131.3 112.61±2.54bB 120.27±1.22cC 106.8
D2 0.20±0.02cB 0.26±0.02bAB 126.9 6.69±0.30bAB 10.06±0.40dD 150.3 122.64±2.07aA 125.48±4.19bcBC 102.3
H1 0.16±0.01dC 0.23±0.01bB 142.7 8.06±0.14abA 11.68±0.53cC 145.0 113.44±4.11bB 121.51±4.31cC 107.1
H2 0.22±0.01bB 0.27±0.04abAB 124.6 8.75±0.91aA 12.59±0.50bB 143.9 92.41±4.08dD 98.50±4.26dD 106.6
DH1 0.22±0.04bB 0.25±0.01bAB 112.5 7.36±0.64abA 13.56±0.12aA 184.2 107.21±2.45cC 130.25±4.50abAB 121.5
DH2 0.24±0.02aA 0.26±0.05bAB 108.8 7.35±0.68abA 12.64±12bB 172.1 122.44±2.04aA 134.14±4.09aA 109.6

Table 3

Effects of different fertilizer treatment for sugarcane leaf on MDA content and SOD activity"

处理Treatments MDA含量MDA content(nmol/g) SOD活性SOD activity(U/g)
25℃ 3℃ 相对值Relative value(%) 25℃ 3℃ 相对值Relative value (%)
D1 1.05±0.02bB 1.87±0.03eC 178.2 82.96±2.72bBC 80.16±8.32bB 96.6
D2 2.17±0.03aA 2.59±0.08bA 119.4 89.96±3.80aA 77.76±1.25eE 86.4
H1 2.08±0.02aA 2.76±0.07aA 132.8 78.00±3.80dD 79.88±4.30cC 102.4
H2 2.02±0.06aA 2.30±0.13cB 114.2 80.71±3.80cCD 77.91±3.84eE 96.5
DH1 2.37±0.03aA 2.54±0.06bA 107.6 66.62±2.12eE 79.16±4.80dD 118.8
DH2 2.02±0.02aA 2.15±0.09dB 106.3 83.75±3.78bB 82.00±1.75aA 97.9

Table 4

Physiological indexes score of two sugarcane varieties under different fertilizer treatment (evaluation matrix)"

处理
Treatments		 电导率
Conductivity		 可溶性糖含量
Soluble sugar contents		 可溶性蛋白含量
Soluble protein content		 MDA含量
MDA content		 SOD活性
SOD activity
D1 1.00 1.00 2.17 1.00 2.57
D2 1.56 2.79 1.00 3.09 1.00
H1 0.56 2.29 2.25 2.16 3.47
H2 1.88 2.19 2.12 3.45 2.56
DH1 3.50 6.00 6.00 3.91 6.00
DH2 4.00 4.85 2.89 4.00 2.77

Table 5

Comprehensive evaluation of different fertilizer treatment on cold tolerance of sugarcane"

处理
Treatments		 电导率
Conductivity		 可溶性糖含量
Soluble sugar contents		 可溶性蛋白含量
Soluble protein content		 MDA含量
MDA content		 SOD活性
SOD activity		 综合评价值
Comprehensive evaluation value		 排名
Rank
D1 0.190 0.203 0.208 0.341 0.438 1.380 6
D2 0.297 0.568 0.096 1.052 0.170 2.183 4
H1 0.106 0.466 0.215 0.735 0.590 2.112 5
H2 0.358 0.444 0.202 1.175 0.436 2.615 3
DH1 0.190 1.220 0.574 1.333 1.022 4.339 1
DH2 0.760 0.987 0.277 1.363 0.472 3.859 2
[1] 谭宗琨, 欧钊荣, 何燕 .广西蔗糖发展主要气象灾害分析及蔗糖产业优化布局的研究.甘蔗糖业,2006(1):17-21.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-9695.2006.01.004
[2] 曾昭座, 韦坚, 韦日辉 , 等.柳江县甘蔗低温冻害情况调查及分析.中国糖料,2009(2):41-42.
[3] 朱秋珍 . 甘蔗抗寒性鉴定方法研究.南方农业学报,1995(6):264-265.
[4] 杨荣仲 . 几个甘蔗品种自然受冻后品质变化浅析. 甘蔗, 1999,6(2):1-5.
[5] Huang Y Z, Xu J Y, Chen C J , et al. Comparative tests on drought resistance and frost resistance of several new sugarcane varieties. Journal of Agricultural and Biological Science, 2001,21(2):101-104.
[6] 陈少裕 . 甘蔗低温胁迫与膜脂过氧化. 福建农学院学报, 1992,21(1):22-26.
[7] 陈少裕 . 甘蔗叶片衰老与膜脂过氧化. 作物学报, 1992,18(2):111-115.
[8] 陈少裕 . 膜脂过氧化对植物细胞的伤害. 植物生理学通讯, 1991,27(2):84-90.
[9] 丁灿, 杨清辉, 李富生 , 等. 低温胁迫对割手密和斑茅游离脯氨酸含量的影响. 安徽农业科学, 2006,34(5):846-849.
[10] Kim S K, Rajapakse N . Enzymatic production and biological activities of chitosan oligosaccharides (COS):A review. Carbohydrate Polymers, 2005,62(4):357-368.
doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2005.08.012
[11] Kumar S G, Rahman M, Lee S H , et al. Plasma proteome analysis for anti-obesity and anti-diabetic potentials of chitosan oligosaccharides in ob/ob mice. Proteomics, 2009,9(8):2149-2162.
doi: 10.1002/pmic.v9:8
[12] 匡银近, 叶桂萍, 覃彩芹 , 等. 壳寡糖浸种对水稻幼苗抗冷性的影响. 湖北农业科学, 2009,1(7):1568-1571.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0439-8114.2009.07.011
[13] 李忠光, 龚明 .植物生理学综合性和设计实验教程.武汉:华中科技大学出版社, 2014: 52-144.
[14] 贾亚雄, 李向林, 袁庆华 , 等. 披碱草属野生种质资源苗期耐盐性评价及相关生理机制研究. 中国农业科学, 2008,41(10):2999-3007.
[15] 刘雪梅, 尚庆茂, 张志刚 . 辣椒不同品种种子萌芽期耐低温性及评价方法研究. 中国生态农业学报, 2005,18(3):521-527.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1011.2010.00521
[16] 毕黎明, 刘伟丽, 李杨瑞 . 甘蔗抗旱性研究进展与展望. 广西农业科学, 2006,37(5):522-527.
[17] 张恩平, 张淑红, 司龙亭 , 等. NaCl胁迫对黄瓜幼苗子叶膜脂过氧化的影响. 沈阳农业大学学报, 2001,32(6):446-448.
[18] 罗兵 . 壳聚糖对黄瓜品质、产量及蔗糖代谢的影响. 南京:南京农业大学, 2003: 36.
[19] 靳晓芸 . 壳聚糖对甘蔗抗性生理生化的影响. 南宁:广西民族大学, 2010: 31.
[20] 邵晨霞 . 壳聚糖和Ca(NO3)2引发对玉米种子低温胁迫下发芽及幼苗生理特性的影响. 杭州:浙江大学, 2006: 36.
[21] 刘术均, 张青, 惠成章 , 等.壳聚糖对茄子幼苗抗冷性的影响.辽宁农业科学,2012(2):14-18.
[22] 辛慧慧, 李志强, 李防洲 , 等. 外源调节物质对棉花幼苗耐寒生理特性的效应. 棉花学报, 2015,27(3):254-259.
[1] Pengjin Zhu,Xinhua Pang,Chun Liang,Qinliang Tan,Lin Yan,Quanguang Zhou,Kewei Ou. Effects of Cold Stress on Reactive Oxygen Metabolism and Antioxidant Enzyme Activities of Sugarcane Seedlings [J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 131-137.
[2] Haibin Luo, Shengli Jiang, Chengmei Huang, Huiqing Cao, Zhinian Deng, Kaichao Wu, Lin Xu, Zhen Lu, Yuanwen Wei. Cloning and Expression of ScHAK10 Gene in Sugarcane [J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 53-61.
[3] Xiaoming Wang,Yiming Qin,Dacheng Li,Junfeng Lan,Hongjin Huang,Liangman Zhang,Xi Wei. Present Situation and Development Countermeasure for Production Technology of Green Double High Sugarcane in Laibin City, Guangxi Province [J]. Crops, 2017, 33(5): 14-20.
[4] Zhequn Cao,Furong Xiao,Shuying Chen,Lilian He,Fusheng Li. Identification of Cold Tolerance in Seven Wild Sugarcane and Three Offsprings at Seedling Stage [J]. Crops, 2017, 33(5): 43-48.
[5] Jingyu Shi,Lilian He,Xianhong Wang,Fusheng Li. Optimization of the Total Flavonoids Extraction Technology in Sugarcane Leaves [J]. Crops, 2016, 32(5): 19-24.
[6] Dongling Qin,Zhao Li,Juping Yu,Wenyi Yang,Bing Bai,Yulong Liu,Qian Zhang,Deguang Yang. Progress on Cold Resistance and Chemical Control Mechanism of Crops [J]. Crops, 2016, 32(4): 26-35.
[7] Xinhua Pang,Pengjin Zhu,Quanguang Zhou,Qinliang Tan,Chun Liang,Kewei Ou,Qiang Huang,Jingli Ou. Comparative Study of Introduced Sugarcane Varieties (Lines) in Guangxi [J]. Crops, 2016, 32(2): 73-78.
[8] . [J]. Crops, 2013, 29(3): 42-45.
[9] . [J]. Crops, 2013, 29(3): 145-147.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] Guangcai Zhao,Xuhong Chang,Demei Wang,Zhiqiang Tao,Yanjie Wang,Yushuang Yang,Yingjie Zhu. General Situation and Development of Wheat Production[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 1 -7 .
[2] Baoquan Quan,Dongmei Bai,Yuexia Tian,Yunyun Xue. Effects of Different Leaf-Peg Ratio on Photosynthesis and Yield of Peanut[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 102 -105 .
[3] Xuefang Huang,Mingjing Huang,Huatao Liu,Cong Zhao,Juanling Wang. Effects of Annual Precipitation and Population Density on Tiller-Earing and Yield of Zhangzagu 5 under Film Mulching and Hole Sowing[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 106 -113 .
[4] Wenhui Huang, Hui Wang, Desheng Mei. Research Progress on Lodging Resistance of Crops[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 13 -19 .
[5] Yun Zhao,Cailong Xu,Xu Yang,Suzhen Li,Jing Zhou,Jicun Li,Tianfu Han,Cunxiang Wu. Effects of Sowing Methods on Seedling Stand and Production Profit of Summer Soybean under Wheat-Soybean System[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 114 -120 .
[6] Mei Lu,Min Sun,Aixia Ren,Miaomiao Lei,Lingzhu Xue,Zhiqiang Gao. Effects of Spraying Foliar Fertilizers on Dryland Wheat Growth and the Correlation with Yield Formation[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 121 -125 .
[7] Xiaofei Wang,Haijun Xu,Mengqiao Guo,Yu Xiao,Xinyu Cheng,Shuxia Liu,Xiangjun Guan,Yaokun Wu,Weihua Zhao,Guojiang Wei. Effects of Sowing Date, Density and Fertilizer Utilization Rate on the Yield of Oilseed Perilla frutescens in Cold Area[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 126 -130 .
[8] Pengjin Zhu,Xinhua Pang,Chun Liang,Qinliang Tan,Lin Yan,Quanguang Zhou,Kewei Ou. Effects of Cold Stress on Reactive Oxygen Metabolism and Antioxidant Enzyme Activities of Sugarcane Seedlings[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 131 -137 .
[9] Jie Gao,Qingfeng Li,Qiu Peng,Xiaoyan Jiao,Jinsong Wang. Effects of Different Nutrient Combinations on Plant Production and Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium Utilization Characteristics in Waxy Sorghum[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 138 -142 .
[10] Na Shang,Zhongxu Yang,Qiuzhi Li,Huihui Yin,Shihong Wang,Haitao Li,Tong Li,Han Zhang. Response of Cotton with Vegetative Branches to Plant Density in the Western of Shandong Province[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 143 -148 .