浙江农业学报 ›› 2023, Vol. 35 ›› Issue (2): 338-345.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.2023.02.11
收稿日期:
2022-04-09
出版日期:
2023-02-25
发布日期:
2023-03-14
通讯作者:
朱祝军
作者简介:
*朱祝军,E-mail:zhuzj@zafu.edu.cn基金资助:
SUN Nan(), YAN Guochao, HE Yong, ZHU Zhujun(
)
Received:
2022-04-09
Online:
2023-02-25
Published:
2023-03-14
Contact:
ZHU Zhujun
摘要:
为优化葫芦科作物硅含量的测定方法,给园艺植物硅肥应用与硅营养研究提供技术支持,以‘津优1号’黄瓜、‘蜜本’南瓜和‘早佳8424’西瓜3种葫芦科作物为研究材料,分析硅提取与含量测定过程中不同的研磨温度、研磨时间、浸提时间、硅钼黄显色反应水浴时间、硅钼蓝还原反应时间、显色液吸光度测定波长等对作物叶片硅含量测定结果的影响。结果表明:在植物样品硅提取过程中,研磨仪低温(液氮,-196 ℃)研磨硅含量测定值高于室温研磨。在样品研磨时间与浸提时间方面,正交试验与全因子试验结果均显示,50 Hz低温研磨30 s、浸提10 min组合测定效果最佳。在硅显色测定方面,硅钼黄显色反应水浴3 min后测定值趋于稳定,硅钼蓝还原反应2 min后测定结果趋于稳定,硅钼蓝显色反应液在波长810 nm附近出现最大吸收峰。针对葫芦科作物叶片硅含量的最优测定流程为植物样品采用研磨仪50 Hz液氮研磨30 s,常温浸提10 min,50 ℃水浴3 min进行硅钼黄显色反应,硅钼蓝还原反应2 min,810 nm处测定吸光度,该方法回收率为93%~108%。
中图分类号:
孙楠, 闫国超, 何勇, 朱祝军. 葫芦科作物叶片硅含量测定方法的优化[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2023, 35(2): 338-345.
SUN Nan, YAN Guochao, HE Yong, ZHU Zhujun. Rapid determination of silicon content in Cucurbitaceae leaves by silicon molybdenum blue method[J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2023, 35(2): 338-345.
处理 Treatment | 水浴时间 Water bath time/min | 硅钼蓝还原反应时间 Reduction reaction time of silicon molybdenum blue/min |
---|---|---|
1 | 1 | 0 |
2 | 2 | 2 |
3 | 3 | 4 |
4 | 4 | 6 |
5 | 5 | 8 |
表1 硅钼蓝反应条件
Table 1 Conditions of silicon molybdenum blue
处理 Treatment | 水浴时间 Water bath time/min | 硅钼蓝还原反应时间 Reduction reaction time of silicon molybdenum blue/min |
---|---|---|
1 | 1 | 0 |
2 | 2 | 2 |
3 | 3 | 4 |
4 | 4 | 6 |
5 | 5 | 8 |
水平 Level | 因素Factors | ||
---|---|---|---|
S样品种类 Sample kinds | E浸提时间 Extraction time/min | G研磨时间 Grinding time/s | |
1 | 黄瓜Cucumber | 5 | 20 |
2 | 南瓜Pumpkin | 10 | 30 |
3 | 西瓜Watermelon | 15 | 40 |
表2 正交试验因素水平表
Table 2 Factors and levels in orthogonal experiment
水平 Level | 因素Factors | ||
---|---|---|---|
S样品种类 Sample kinds | E浸提时间 Extraction time/min | G研磨时间 Grinding time/s | |
1 | 黄瓜Cucumber | 5 | 20 |
2 | 南瓜Pumpkin | 10 | 30 |
3 | 西瓜Watermelon | 15 | 40 |
图2 研磨温度对测定结果的影响 无相同小写字母表示同一组内差异显著(P<0.05)。S1,黄瓜;S2,南瓜;S3,西瓜。下同。
Fig.2 Effects of grinding temperature on determined results Bars marked without the same lowercase letter indicated significant differences at P<0.05. S1, Cucumber; S2, Pumpkin; S3, Watermelon. The same as below.
图3 水浴时间和硅钼蓝还原反应时间对测定结果的影响 A,水浴时间;B,硅钼蓝还原反应时间。W1,水浴1 min;W2,水浴2 min;W3,水浴3 min;W4,水浴4 min;W5,水浴5 min。R1,还原反应0 min;R2,还原反应2 min;R3,还原反应4 min;R4,还原反应6 min;R5,还原反应8 min。
Fig.3 Effects of water bathing time and silicon molybdenum blue reduction reaction time on determined results A, Water bathing time; B, Silicon molybdenum blue reduction reaction time. W1, Water bathing for 1 min; W2, Water bathing for 2 min; W3, Water bathing for 3 min; W4, Water bathing for 4 min; W5, Water bathing for 5 min. R1, Reduction reaction for 0 min; R2, Reduction reaction for 2 min; R3, Reduction reaction for 4 min; R4, Reduction reaction for 6 min; R5, Reduction reaction for 8 min.
样品种类 Sample kinds | 试验号 Test number | 浸提时间 Extraction time | 研磨时间 Grinding time |
---|---|---|---|
S1 | 1 | E1 | G1 |
2 | E1 | G2 | |
3 | E1 | G3 | |
4 | E2 | G1 | |
5 | E2 | G2 | |
6 | E2 | G3 | |
7 | E3 | G1 | |
8 | E3 | G2 | |
9 | E3 | G3 | |
S2 | 10 | E1 | G1 |
11 | E1 | G2 | |
12 | E1 | G3 | |
13 | E2 | G1 | |
14 | E2 | G2 | |
15 | E2 | G3 | |
16 | E3 | G1 | |
17 | E3 | G2 | |
18 | E3 | G3 | |
S3 | 19 | E1 | G1 |
20 | E1 | G2 | |
21 | E1 | G3 | |
22 | E2 | G1 | |
23 | E2 | G2 | |
24 | E2 | G3 | |
25 | E3 | G1 | |
26 | E3 | G2 | |
27 | E3 | G3 |
表3 全因子试验
Table 3 Full factorial design of experiments
样品种类 Sample kinds | 试验号 Test number | 浸提时间 Extraction time | 研磨时间 Grinding time |
---|---|---|---|
S1 | 1 | E1 | G1 |
2 | E1 | G2 | |
3 | E1 | G3 | |
4 | E2 | G1 | |
5 | E2 | G2 | |
6 | E2 | G3 | |
7 | E3 | G1 | |
8 | E3 | G2 | |
9 | E3 | G3 | |
S2 | 10 | E1 | G1 |
11 | E1 | G2 | |
12 | E1 | G3 | |
13 | E2 | G1 | |
14 | E2 | G2 | |
15 | E2 | G3 | |
16 | E3 | G1 | |
17 | E3 | G2 | |
18 | E3 | G3 | |
S3 | 19 | E1 | G1 |
20 | E1 | G2 | |
21 | E1 | G3 | |
22 | E2 | G1 | |
23 | E2 | G2 | |
24 | E2 | G3 | |
25 | E3 | G1 | |
26 | E3 | G2 | |
27 | E3 | G3 |
试验号 Test number | S样品种类 Sample kinds | E浸提时间 Extraction time | G研磨时间 Grinding time | 硅含量 Si content/(μg·g-1) |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 97.09±0.94 c |
2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 114.59±1.96 a |
3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 115.18±2.30 a |
4 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 98.07±0.89 c |
5 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 103.28±0.84 b |
6 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 94.68±3.59 c |
7 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 84.29±1.00 e |
8 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 83.18±1.55 e |
9 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 89.89±0.38 d |
表4 正交试验设计与结果
Table 4 Design and results of orthogonal test
试验号 Test number | S样品种类 Sample kinds | E浸提时间 Extraction time | G研磨时间 Grinding time | 硅含量 Si content/(μg·g-1) |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 97.09±0.94 c |
2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 114.59±1.96 a |
3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 115.18±2.30 a |
4 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 98.07±0.89 c |
5 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 103.28±0.84 b |
6 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 94.68±3.59 c |
7 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 84.29±1.00 e |
8 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 83.18±1.55 e |
9 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 89.89±0.38 d |
变异来源 Sources of variation | 自由度 Degree of freedom | 均方 Mean square | F值 F value | P值 P value |
---|---|---|---|---|
S样品种类Sample kinds | 8 | 303.247 | 127.384 | 0.008 |
E浸提时间Extraction time | 8 | 36.665 | 15.402 | 0.061 |
G研磨时间Grinding time | 8 | 63.932 | 26.856 | 0.036 |
误差Error | 8 | 2.381 | 0.028 | |
总计Sum | 26 | 124.992 |
表5 各因素方差分析结果
Table 5 Analysis of variance of factors
变异来源 Sources of variation | 自由度 Degree of freedom | 均方 Mean square | F值 F value | P值 P value |
---|---|---|---|---|
S样品种类Sample kinds | 8 | 303.247 | 127.384 | 0.008 |
E浸提时间Extraction time | 8 | 36.665 | 15.402 | 0.061 |
G研磨时间Grinding time | 8 | 63.932 | 26.856 | 0.036 |
误差Error | 8 | 2.381 | 0.028 | |
总计Sum | 26 | 124.992 |
因素 Factor | 硅含量Si content | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
k1/(μg·g-1) | k2/(μg·g-1) | k3/(μg·g-1) | R/(μg·g-1) | 最优水平Optimal level | |
S样品种类Sample kinds | 108.95 | 98.68 | 85.79 | 23.16 | 1 |
E浸提时间Extraction time | 93.15 | 100.35 | 99.92 | 7.2 | 2 |
G研磨时间Grinding time | 91.65 | 100.85 | 100.92 | 9.27 | 3 |
表6 正交试验极差分析结果
Table 6 Rang analysis of orthogonal test
因素 Factor | 硅含量Si content | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
k1/(μg·g-1) | k2/(μg·g-1) | k3/(μg·g-1) | R/(μg·g-1) | 最优水平Optimal level | |
S样品种类Sample kinds | 108.95 | 98.68 | 85.79 | 23.16 | 1 |
E浸提时间Extraction time | 93.15 | 100.35 | 99.92 | 7.2 | 2 |
G研磨时间Grinding time | 91.65 | 100.85 | 100.92 | 9.27 | 3 |
样品 Sample | 编号 No. | 50 μg·g-1加标量 50 μg·g-1 scalar addition | 100 μg·g-1加标量 100 μg·g-1 scalar addition | 150 μg·g-1加标量 150 μg·g-1 scalar addition | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
样品硅含量 Si content/ (μg·g-1) | 测定值 Measured value/ (μg·g-1) | 回收率 Rate of recovery/ % | 样品硅含量 Si content/ (μg·g-1) | 测定值 Measured value/ (μg·g-1) | 回收率 Rate of recovery/ % | 样品硅含量 Si content/ (μg·g-1) | 测定值 Measured value/ (μg·g-1) | 回收率 Rate of recovery/ % | ||
黄瓜 | 1 | 116 | 169 | 102 | 116 | 211 | 98 | 116 | 264 | 99 |
Cucumber | 2 | 116 | 163 | 99 | 116 | 207 | 96 | 116 | 260 | 98 |
3 | 116 | 159 | 96 | 116 | 207 | 96 | 116 | 255 | 96 | |
4 | 116 | 154 | 93 | 116 | 214 | 99 | 116 | 272 | 102 | |
5 | 116 | 171 | 103 | 116 | 221 | 103 | 116 | 274 | 103 | |
6 | 116 | 158 | 95 | 116 | 210 | 97 | 116 | 260 | 98 | |
7 | 116 | 160 | 97 | 116 | 210 | 97 | 116 | 269 | 101 | |
8 | 116 | 168 | 101 | 116 | 214 | 99 | 116 | 270 | 102 | |
南瓜 | 1 | 105 | 161 | 104 | 105 | 206 | 100 | 105 | 259 | 102 |
Pumpkin | 2 | 105 | 151 | 98 | 105 | 199 | 97 | 105 | 260 | 102 |
3 | 105 | 148 | 95 | 105 | 210 | 103 | 105 | 263 | 103 | |
4 | 105 | 164 | 106 | 105 | 212 | 103 | 105 | 243 | 95 | |
5 | 105 | 159 | 102 | 105 | 191 | 93 | 105 | 249 | 98 | |
6 | 105 | 161 | 104 | 105 | 206 | 101 | 105 | 255 | 100 | |
7 | 105 | 154 | 100 | 105 | 213 | 104 | 105 | 252 | 99 | |
8 | 105 | 150 | 97 | 105 | 200 | 98 | 105 | 261 | 102 | |
西瓜 | 1 | 89 | 148 | 106 | 89 | 202 | 107 | 89 | 235 | 98 |
Watermelon | 2 | 89 | 150 | 108 | 89 | 203 | 107 | 89 | 240 | 100 |
3 | 89 | 143 | 102 | 89 | 196 | 103 | 89 | 229 | 96 | |
4 | 89 | 144 | 103 | 89 | 201 | 106 | 89 | 235 | 98 | |
5 | 89 | 136 | 98 | 89 | 184 | 97 | 89 | 241 | 101 | |
6 | 89 | 137 | 98 | 89 | 183 | 97 | 89 | 247 | 103 | |
7 | 89 | 140 | 101 | 89 | 199 | 105 | 89 | 230 | 96 | |
8 | 89 | 140 | 101 | 89 | 180 | 95 | 89 | 232 | 97 |
表7 回收率实验结果
Table 7 Experimental results of recovery rate
样品 Sample | 编号 No. | 50 μg·g-1加标量 50 μg·g-1 scalar addition | 100 μg·g-1加标量 100 μg·g-1 scalar addition | 150 μg·g-1加标量 150 μg·g-1 scalar addition | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
样品硅含量 Si content/ (μg·g-1) | 测定值 Measured value/ (μg·g-1) | 回收率 Rate of recovery/ % | 样品硅含量 Si content/ (μg·g-1) | 测定值 Measured value/ (μg·g-1) | 回收率 Rate of recovery/ % | 样品硅含量 Si content/ (μg·g-1) | 测定值 Measured value/ (μg·g-1) | 回收率 Rate of recovery/ % | ||
黄瓜 | 1 | 116 | 169 | 102 | 116 | 211 | 98 | 116 | 264 | 99 |
Cucumber | 2 | 116 | 163 | 99 | 116 | 207 | 96 | 116 | 260 | 98 |
3 | 116 | 159 | 96 | 116 | 207 | 96 | 116 | 255 | 96 | |
4 | 116 | 154 | 93 | 116 | 214 | 99 | 116 | 272 | 102 | |
5 | 116 | 171 | 103 | 116 | 221 | 103 | 116 | 274 | 103 | |
6 | 116 | 158 | 95 | 116 | 210 | 97 | 116 | 260 | 98 | |
7 | 116 | 160 | 97 | 116 | 210 | 97 | 116 | 269 | 101 | |
8 | 116 | 168 | 101 | 116 | 214 | 99 | 116 | 270 | 102 | |
南瓜 | 1 | 105 | 161 | 104 | 105 | 206 | 100 | 105 | 259 | 102 |
Pumpkin | 2 | 105 | 151 | 98 | 105 | 199 | 97 | 105 | 260 | 102 |
3 | 105 | 148 | 95 | 105 | 210 | 103 | 105 | 263 | 103 | |
4 | 105 | 164 | 106 | 105 | 212 | 103 | 105 | 243 | 95 | |
5 | 105 | 159 | 102 | 105 | 191 | 93 | 105 | 249 | 98 | |
6 | 105 | 161 | 104 | 105 | 206 | 101 | 105 | 255 | 100 | |
7 | 105 | 154 | 100 | 105 | 213 | 104 | 105 | 252 | 99 | |
8 | 105 | 150 | 97 | 105 | 200 | 98 | 105 | 261 | 102 | |
西瓜 | 1 | 89 | 148 | 106 | 89 | 202 | 107 | 89 | 235 | 98 |
Watermelon | 2 | 89 | 150 | 108 | 89 | 203 | 107 | 89 | 240 | 100 |
3 | 89 | 143 | 102 | 89 | 196 | 103 | 89 | 229 | 96 | |
4 | 89 | 144 | 103 | 89 | 201 | 106 | 89 | 235 | 98 | |
5 | 89 | 136 | 98 | 89 | 184 | 97 | 89 | 241 | 101 | |
6 | 89 | 137 | 98 | 89 | 183 | 97 | 89 | 247 | 103 | |
7 | 89 | 140 | 101 | 89 | 199 | 105 | 89 | 230 | 96 | |
8 | 89 | 140 | 101 | 89 | 180 | 95 | 89 | 232 | 97 |
[1] | MA J F. Role of silicon in enhancing the resistance of plants to biotic and abiotic stresses[J]. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 2004, 50(1): 11-18. |
[2] | 韩科峰, 陈余平, 胡铁军, 等. 硅钙钾镁肥对浙江省酸性水稻土壤的改良效果[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2018, 30(1): 117-122. |
HAN K F, CHEN Y P, HU T J, et al. Effects of silicon, calcium, potassium and magnesium fertilizer on acid paddy soil improvement in Zhejiang Province[J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2018, 30(1): 117-122. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[3] | 扈晓杰, 朱祝军. 硅对黄瓜白粉病抗性及叶片质外体抗氧化酶活性的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2008, 20(1): 67-71. |
HU X J, ZHU Z J. Effects of silicon on resistance of powdery mildew and the activities of antioxidative enzymes in leaf apoplast of cucumber[J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2008, 20(1): 67-71. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[4] | 焦云, 舒巧云, 赵秀花. 稀土与硅叶面肥对桃果实品质的影响[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2019, 60(6): 997-999. |
JIAO Y, SHU Q Y, ZHAO X H. Effect of rare earth-silane foliar fertilizers on quality of peach fruit[J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 60(6): 997-999. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[5] | 侯双霞, 侯宏涛. 二氧化硅常见测定方法的探讨[J]. 科技视界, 2015(18): 137. |
HOU S X, HOU H T. Discussion on common determination methods of silicon dioxide[J]. Science & Technology Vision, 2015(18): 137. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[6] | 胡军, 向成钢, 王长林, 等. 嫁接对不同黄瓜接穗硅和果面蜡粉含量的影响[J]. 北方园艺, 2016(2): 16-19. |
HU J, XIANG C G, WANG C L, et al. Effect of rootstock on silicon and fruit surface wax powder content in grafted cucumber[J]. Northern Horticulture, 2016(2): 16-19. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[7] | 王华, 熊升伟, 盛强. 硅钼蓝分光光度法测定进口玉米中的二氧化硅[J]. 粮食储藏, 2012, 41(5): 42-44. |
WANG H, XIONG S W, SHENG Q. Determination of silica in import corn by silicon molybdenum blue spectrophotometric[J]. Grain Storage, 2012, 41(5): 42-44. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[8] | 华海霞, 于慧国, 刘德君. 硅钼蓝比色法测定植株中的硅[J]. 现代农业科技, 2013(24): 173-174. |
HUA H X, YU H G, LIU D J. Determination of silicon concentration in the plants by colorimetric molybdenum blue method[J]. Modern Agricultural Science and Technology, 2013(24): 173-174. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[9] | 李换丽. 硅对番茄幼苗抗盐性的影响及机理初探[D]. 杨凌: 西北农林科技大学, 2015. |
LI H L. The effect and mechanism of exogenous silicon on salt resistance of tomato seedlings[D]. Yangling: Northwest A & F University, 2015. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[10] | 梁永超, 陈兴华, 王大平. 水稻植株体内TCA-Si(三氯乙酸溶性硅)含量变化及其分布[J]. 江苏农业学报, 1991, 7(4): 41-43. |
LIANG Y C, CHEN X H, WANG D P. Changes and distribution of TCA-Si (trichloroacetic acid soluble silicon) content in rice plants[J]. Jiangsu Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 1991, 7(4): 41-43. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[11] | 陈秋娟, 谢微, 韦师. 硅钼蓝-紫外可见分光光度法测定里松温泉水中硅的含量[J]. 现代化工, 2017, 37(12): 210-214. |
CHEN Q J, XIE W, WEI S. Determination of silicon content in Lisong hot spring water by silicon molybdenum blue UV-visible spectrophotometry[J]. Modern Chemical Industry, 2017, 37(12): 210-214. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[12] | 杨帆, 李璇, 司升云. 高效液相色谱-串联质谱法测定黄瓜中啶虫脒残留[J]. 长江蔬菜, 2019(24): 70-73. |
YANG F, LI X, SI S Y. Determination of acetamiprid residues in cucumber by high performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry[J]. Journal of Changjiang Vegetables, 2019(24): 70-73. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[1] | 朱世松, 马婉丽, 赵理山, 郑艳梅, 郑先波, 芦碧波. 基于改进的LinkNet的苹果叶片图像分割算法[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2023, 35(1): 202-214. |
[2] | 李含芬, 李鼎立, 王然, 马春晖. 不同矮化中间砧对黄金梨树体生长的影响及嫁接亲和性相关性分析[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2022, 34(6): 1175-1182. |
[3] | 唐卫东, 刘振文, 刘冬生, 胡雪华. 低温弱光胁迫对设施黄瓜叶片面积与干物质量的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2022, 34(3): 517-524. |
[4] | 张梓婷, 韩金玉, 张东辉, 李晗, 李铭源, 邓志平, 孙晓勇. 基于颜色矩的土豆、玉米、苹果叶片病害异常检测[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2022, 34(10): 2230-2239. |
[5] | 郭阳, 郭俊先, 史勇, 李雪莲, 黄华. 基于BiPLS-CARS-PLS的哈密瓜冠层叶片SPAD值反演建模[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2022, 34(10): 2286-2295. |
[6] | 张红涛, 李艺嘉, 谭联, 许帅涛. 基于CS-SVM的谷子叶片病害图像识别[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2020, 32(2): 274-282. |
[7] | 杨红云, 罗建军, 孙爱珍, 万颖, 易文龙. 基于图像特征的水稻叶片全氮含量估测模型研究[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2020, 32(12): 2232-2243. |
[8] | 钟伟镇, 刘鑫磊, 杨坤龙, 李丰果. 基于Mask-RCNN的复杂背景下多目标叶片的分割和识别[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2020, 32(11): 2059-2066. |
[9] | 路艳, 杨红云, 周琼, 孙玉婷, 殷华. 基于B样条曲线的水稻叶片几何参数测量系统[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2019, 31(6): 996-1004. |
[10] | 韩国民, 刘茜, 唐美玲, 代玲敏. 外源褪黑素对NaCl胁迫下5BB葡萄叶片生理特性的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2019, 31(4): 556-564. |
[11] | 李颀, 赵洁, 杨柳, 王俊, 高一星. 基于GA-BP神经网络和特征向量优化组合的黄瓜叶片病斑识别[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2019, 31(3): 487-495. |
[12] | 商佳胤, 李凯, 王超霞, 集贤, 孙建军, 王丹, 苏宏, 田淑芬. 叶果比对巨峰葡萄修剪效率及叶片生理特性的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2019, 31(11): 1855-1862. |
[13] | 杨红云, 周琼, 杨珺, 孙玉婷, 路艳, 殷华. 基于高光谱的水稻叶片氮素营养诊断研究[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2019, 31(10): 1575-1582. |
[14] | 郑俊波. 无损检测10种植物叶片含水量的通用模型[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2019, 31(10): 1717-1723. |
[15] | 步正延, 李臻峰, 宋飞虎, 李斌, 李静. 基于太赫兹成像技术的大豆叶片水分含量测定[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2018, 30(8): 1420-1426. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||