Crops ›› 2020, Vol. 36 ›› Issue (6): 132-136.doi: 10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2020.06.019

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Effects of Root Promoting Agent on the Development and Yield in Single Bud of Sugarcane

Xu Lin(), Wu Kaichao, Pang Tian, Deng Zhinian, Zhang Ronghua, Huang Chengfeng, Huang Hairong, Li Yijie, Liu Xiaoyan, Qin Wenxian, Wang Weizan()   

  1. Sugarcane Research Institute, Guangxi Academy of Agricultural Sciences/Key Laboratory of Sugarcane Biotechnology and Genetic Improvement (Guangxi), Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Nanning 530007, Guangxi, China
  • Received:2020-03-20 Revised:2020-07-15 Online:2020-12-15 Published:2020-12-09
  • Contact: Wang Weizan E-mail:xulin1105@126.com;wwz003411@126.com

RichHTML

3

PDF (PC)

299

Abstract:

In order to innovate and to optimize the high-yield and high-efficiency cultivation technology of sugarcane, the effects of root promoting agents on agronomic characters, physiological and biochemical indexes, quality and yield of sugarcane were studied. The results showed that coating+50mg/L root promoting agent (T1), coating+100mg/L root promoting agent (T2) and coating (CK1) significantly increased the germination rate, tillering rate, plant height and number of millable stalks, by compared with not coating (CK2). The sugarcane yield of T1, T2 and CK1 were significant higher than CK2 by 27.5%, 9.2% and 8.2% respectively, and the sugar yield per hectare were higher than CK2 by 27.4%, 9.2% and 8.3%, respectively. At the same time, root promoting agents had certain effect on the growth rate of sugarcane. The content of soluble protein, soluble sugar and proline in sugarcane were improved, and there was no significant difference among the treatments. The results showed that the root promoting agents had positive effect on the growth of sugarcane, the yield and sugar yield of sugarcane with 100mg/L of the best concentration.

Key words: Sugarcane, Root promoting agent, Single bud of sugarcane, Agronomic characteristic, Yield

Table 1

The agronomic characteristics indexes of sugarcane growing under different treatments"

处理
Treatment		 出苗率(%)
Germination rate		 分蘖率(%)
Tillering rate		 株高(cm)
Plant height		 茎径(cm)
Stem diameter		 有效茎数（条/hm2）
Millable stalks (tiao/hm2)
T1 79.6±2.0abA 216.9±30.7aA 224.4±11.2abA 2.56±0.48aA 74 799±22.4aAB
T2 84.8±9.5aA 213.7±4.2aA 232.2±10.1aA 2.60±0.03aA 81 231±19.2aA
CK1 79.3±1.5abA 189.8±14.6aA 217.0±5.4bA 2.53±1.16aA 73 608±22.7aAB
CK2 77.7±9.0bA 129.9±22.6bB 215.6±4.2bA 2.53±0.15aA 64 317±22.7bB

Fig.1

The dynamic of plant height of sugarcane under different treatments"

Fig.2

The dynamic of stem diameter of sugarcane under different treatments"

Table 2

The physiological and biochemical indexes of different treatments at sugarcane elongating stage"

处理Treatment 可溶性蛋白质Soluble protein (mg/g) 可溶性糖Soluble sugar (%) MDA (mmol/g) 脯氨酸Pro (%)
T1 14.993±2.4aA 4.851±1.8aA 3.838±0.9aA 0.0074±0.001aA
T2 15.588±1.4aA 5.181±1.2aA 4.445±0.3aA 0.0104±0.007aA
CK1 14.451±0.5aA 4.562±1.0aA 4.037±1.0aA 0.0076±0.001aA
CK2 14.406±1.7aA 4.247±0.9aA 3.929±1.1aA 0.0073±0.065aA

Table 3

The performance of quality and yield of sugarcane under different treatments"

处理
Treatment		 蔗汁重力纯度
Purity of sugarcane
juice (%)		 蔗汁锤度
Sugarcane juice
brix (°Bx)		 蔗汁蔗糖分
Sugarcane juice
sucrose content (%)		 甘蔗糖分
Sugar
content (%)		 产量
Yield
(t/hm2)		 产糖量
Sugar yield
(t/hm2)
T1 90.83±1.08abA 21.64±0.49aA 21.05±0.12aA 16.91±0.16aA 78.2±1.71abA 13.22±0.28abA
T2 91.28±0.16aA 22.93±0.25aA 21.06±0.40aA 16.95±0.24aA 91.3±13.24aA 15.43±0.24aA
CK1 89.67±0.52bB 22.31±0.21aA 21.04±0.55aA 16.89±0.12aA 77.5±5.88abA 13.11±0.99abA
CK2 90.46±0.75abA 22.19±0.64aA 21.05±0.55aA 16.89±0.14aA 71.6±8.446bA 12.11±1.43bA
[1] 李杨瑞, 杨丽涛. 20世纪90年代以来我国甘蔗产业和科技的新发展. 西南农业学报, 2009,22(5):1469-1476.
[2] Li Y R, Yang L T. Sugarcane agriculture and sugar industry in China. Sugar Tech, 2015,17(1):1-8.
doi: 10.1007/s12355-014-0342-1
[3] Li Y R, Song X P, Wu J M, et al. Sugar industry and improved sugarcane farming technologies in China. Sugar Tech, 2016,18(6):603-611.
doi: 10.1007/s12355-016-0480-8
[4] 李伟伟, 赵四东, 黄璐. 广西甘蔗糖业发展态势分析及其升级转型对策研究. 热带农业科学, 2017,37(11):122-128.
[5] 王春华. 广西甘蔗糖业发展态势与升级转型对策. 广西糖业, 2018(3):45-48.
[6] 詹鹏举. 全球背景下的广西糖业发展现状及对策. 南宁:广西大学, 2013.
[7] 李明, 田洪春, 黄智刚. 我国甘蔗产业发展现状研究. 中国糖料, 2017,39(1):67-70.
[8] Ricardo B. Sustainability of sugarcane production in Brazil. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 2018,38(2):13.
doi: 10.1007/s13593-018-0490-x
[9] Lizz K M, Marcelo S A, Paulo A S, et al. Breeding of Sugarcane. Industrial Crops, 2015,9:29-42.
[10] 区颖刚. 我国甘蔗生产全程机械化现状与对策. 现代农业设备, 2019,40(2):3-7,42.
[11] Dias H B, Bamber G, Bermejo R, et al. New APSIM-Sugar features and parameters required to account for high sugarcane yields in tropical environments. Field Crops Research, 2019,235:38-53.
doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2019.02.002
[12] 李炳杨. 广西甘蔗种植现状、问题及对策. 热带农业科学, 2018,38(4):119-127.
[13] 李杨瑞, 杨丽涛, 谭宏伟, 等. 广西甘蔗栽培技术的发展进步. 南方农业学报, 2014,45(10):1770-1775.
[14] 李剑钊, 伍荣冬, 李廷化, 等. 种茎包衣对甘蔗生长及产量的影响. 农业研究与应用, 2017(2):27-29.
[15] Liang Y J, Zhang X Q, Yang L, et al. Impact of seed coating agents on single-bud seedcane germination and plant growth in commercial sugarcane cultivation. Sugar Tech, 2019,21(3):383-387.
doi: 10.1007/s12355-018-0645-8
[16] 杨柳, 廖芬, 梁永检, 等. 甘蔗“健康种子”发芽率及生长影响因素分析. 南方农业学报, 2015,46(1):31-35.
[17] 罗亚伟, 覃振强, 梁阗, 等. 不同药剂包衣单芽茎对甘蔗萌芽和分蘖的影响. 农业研究与应用, 2015(1):23-25,29.
[18] Shi W S, Liu H M, Peng Z, et al. Effect of dynamic change of activities of enzymatic in sugarcane field with different coating material. Advanced Materials Research, 2014, 955-959:96-101.
doi: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.955-959
[19] 范业庚, 陈荣发, 周慧雯, 等. 不同植物生长调节剂浸种对甘蔗分蘖及产量性状的影响. 中国糖料, 2019,41(2):23-27.
[20] 丁川, 宋柏权. 植物生长调节剂在糖料作物上的应用及展望. 中国农学通报, 2017,33(9):27-30.
[21] 唐明霞, 李进, 孙正国, 等. 生根粉在西兰花工厂化育苗中的应用. 蔬菜, 2019(9):66-69.
[22] 李昀倩, 刘林, 李宝深. 不同生根剂对香蕉幼苗生长的影响. 农业研究与应用, 2018,31(4):13-16.
[23] 邓忠, 白丹, 翟国亮, 等. 不同植物生长调节剂对新疆棉花干物质积累、产量和品质的影响. 干旱地区农业研究, 2011,29(3):122-127.
[24] 雷小琴, 王萌, 郑涵, 等. 促根剂及水分胁迫对Cd污染异质土壤中小麦吸收、转运Cd的影响. 地学前缘, 2019,26(6):95-106.
[25] 朱振国. 六种植物生长调节剂对烟草幼苗生长发育的影响. 泰安:山东农业大学, 2019.
[26] Ghulam M, Muhammad S K. Differential role of indolebutyric acid in sugarcane root development. Sugar Tech, 2016,18(1):55-60.
doi: 10.1007/s12355-014-0362-x
[27] Tesfa M, Admassu B, Bantte K. Effect of NAA on ex vitro rooting of in vitro derived microshoots of elite sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.). Advances in Life Science and Technology, 2016,41:59-64.
[28] 王维赞, 邓智年, 李毅杰, 等. 一种高效可控的精准气动甘蔗种茎切种机:CN108714920A. 2018-10-30.
[29] 高俊凤. 植物生理学实验指导. 西安: 世界图书出版社, 2006: 142-143.
[30] 丁雪梅, 张晓君, 赵云, 等. 蒽酮比色法测定可溶性糖含量的试验方法改进. 黑龙江畜牧兽医, 2014(23):230-233.
[31] 张志良, 瞿伟菁, 李小方. 植物生理学实验指导. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2009: 212-213.
[32] 职明星, 李秀菊. 脯氨酸测定方法的改进. 河南科技学院学报(自然科学版), 2005,33(4):10-12.
[33] 陆章流. 单位面积甘蔗产量与有效茎数的关系初探. 广西蔗糖, 2006(3):19-21.
[34] 张晓娇. 促根剂对烤烟生长发育及产量品质的影响. 郑州:河南农业大学, 2013.
[35] 张国, 贾志红, 朱仁德, 等. 促根剂对烤烟产质量的影响研究初报. 安徽农学通报, 2015,21(20):46-47,49.
[36] 孙婷, 陈养平, 杨晓军, 等. 腐植酸类生长调节剂对植物发芽和生长发育的影响. 腐殖酸, 2012(4):19-27.
[37] Gandonou C B, Bada F, Abrini J, et al. Free proline,soluble sugars and soluble proteins concentration as affected by salt stress in two sugarcane (Saccharum sp.) cultivars differing in their salt tolerance. International Journal of Biological and Chemical Sciences, 2012,5(6):2441-2453.
[38] 檀小辉, 梁芳, 李湘琪. GGR6号生根粉对瓜叶菊幼苗生长及生理特性的影响. 安徽农业科学, 2015,43(17):61-62,65.
[39] 黄毅, 刘杰, 李衍素, 等. 萘乙酸钠根施对日光温室春茬黄瓜生长、产量及品质的影响. 中国蔬菜, 2017(1):36-40.
[40] 韦剑锋, 韦冬萍, 韦巧云, 等. 氮磷钾施用量对甘蔗农艺性状、产量及品质的影响. 安徽农业学, 2019,47(15):161-162,171.
[41] 杨晓云, 李文军, 颜晓元. 促根剂对太湖地区水稻生长、产量及氮素利用的影响. 土壤, 2012,44(2):208-212.
[42] 吕伟, 刘文萍, 任果香, 等. 不同浓度生根粉对芝麻生长及产量的影响. 作物杂志, 2017(5):100-105.
[1] Wang Chuanqi, Wang Hongmei, Wei Xiaoxing, Ma Xiang, Zhou Qingping. Research Progress of Elymus sibiricus [J]. Crops, 2020, 36(6): 1-7.
[2] Wang Huiwen, Li Lei, Yu Shaobo, Wang Qiang, Feng Yu, Ren Aixia, Lin Wen, Sun Min, Gao Zhiqiang. Contribution of Deep Ploughing and Furrow Sowing to Yield and Its Formation of Dryland Wheat [J]. Crops, 2020, 36(6): 116-122.
[3] Qian Aiping, Cao Xiuxia, Zhang Wei, Yan Kuanjiang, Lu Junwu. Effects of Different Slow-Release Fertilizer Mix Proportions on the Growth and Yield of Dryland Flax [J]. Crops, 2020, 36(6): 128-131.
[4] Liu Zhenxing, Zhou Guimei, Ya Xiuxiu, Chen Jian, Meng Qingxiang, He Guoqing. Effects of Different Sowing Densities on the Morphological Traits and Yields of Three Adzuki Bean Varieties [J]. Crops, 2020, 36(6): 137-142.
[5] Lü Weisheng, Xiao Xiaojun, Huang Tianbao, Xiao Guobin, Li Yazhen, Xiao Fuliang, Han Depeng, Zheng Wei. Application Effect of Slow-Released Formulated Fertilizer on Oilseed Rape (Brassica napus L.) under Late Sowing Rice [J]. Crops, 2020, 36(6): 143-150.
[6] Han Yunfei, Gao Riping, Ren Yongfeng, Zhao Peiyi, Liu Xiaoyue, Gao Yu, Zhang Peng, Liang Guangrong, Gao Jinlong. Effects of Sowing Dates on Growth and Yield of Hairy Vetch [J]. Crops, 2020, 36(6): 151-157.
[7] Guo Dandan, Liu Zhewen, Chang Xuhong, Wang Demei, Tao Zhiqiang, Wang Yanjie, Yang Yushuang, Zhao Guangcai, Shi Shubing. Effects of Nitrogen Application on Yield and Quality of Wheat with Different Gluten Types [J]. Crops, 2020, 36(6): 158-162.
[8] Yang Wanjun, Pan Xiangyu, Wang Xiuhua, Wang Lu, Zhao Yan. Genetic Diversity Analysis of Yield and Agronomic Traits of 119 Alfalfa Varieties (Lines) [J]. Crops, 2020, 36(6): 17-22.
[9] Zhu Tongquan, Song Quanhao, Meng Xiangfeng. Influences of Various Growth Factors on Yield and Grain Quality in Wheat——Taking Zhumadian’s Wheat Production in the Past Ten Years as Example [J]. Crops, 2020, 36(6): 80-88.
[10] Zhang Gang, Zhang Shijie, Wang Dejian, Yu Yuanchun. Analysis of Yield and Economic Benefit of Straw Incorporation under Rice-Wheat Double Cropping System [J]. Crops, 2020, 36(6): 97-103.
[11] Cao Xiaochuang, Li Yefeng, Wu Longlong, Zhu Chunquan, Zhu Lianfeng, Zhang Junhua, Jin Qianyu. Effects of Organic Soluble Fertilizer on the Accumulation and Translocation of Dry Matter and Nitrogen of Rice [J]. Crops, 2020, 36(5): 110-118.
[12] Sun Qi, Geng Yanqiu, Jin Feng, Liu Lixin, Zheng Huantong, Guo Liying, Shao Xiwen. Effects of Sowing Dates on Yield, Dry Matter and Nitrogen Accumulation and Translocationin Organs after Anthesis of Direct Seeding Rice [J]. Crops, 2020, 36(5): 119-126.
[13] Hao Xiyu, Xiao Huanyu, Liang Jie, Wang Yingjie, Guo Wenyun. Effects and Optimum Rates of Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium Fertilizer for Mung Bean [J]. Crops, 2020, 36(5): 127-132.
[14] Luo Yuqiong, Yan Bo, Wu Ke, Xie Huimin, Liang He, Jiang Ligeng. Effects of No-Tillage and Straw Returning on Soil Fertility and Rice Yield in Farmland [J]. Crops, 2020, 36(5): 133-139.
[15] Ding Kaixin, Shan Ying, Feng Naijie, Zheng Dianfeng, Liang Xilong, Wu Qiong, Huang Wenting. Effects of DTA-6 on Physiological Metabolism and Yield of Two Edible Legumes [J]. Crops, 2020, 36(5): 148-153.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!