浙江农业学报 ›› 2021, Vol. 33 ›› Issue (5): 840-845.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.2021.05.09
王克磊(
), 朱隆静, 苏世闻, 包玉花, 陈先知, 徐坚*(
)
收稿日期:2020-06-26
出版日期:2021-05-25
发布日期:2021-05-25
作者简介:*徐坚,E-mail:zwxuj@qq.com通讯作者:
徐坚
基金资助:
WANG Kelei(
), ZHU Longjing, SU Shiwen, BAO Yuhua, CHEN Xianzhi, XU Jian*(
)
Received:2020-06-26
Online:2021-05-25
Published:2021-05-25
Contact:
XU Jian
摘要:
以3种不同规格穴盘进行番茄育苗并研究不同苗龄下的番茄生长发育及其机械化移栽情况,通过测定番茄幼苗生长、生理及机械化移栽合格率等指标,以期为番茄穴盘育苗的机械化移栽提供参考。研究结果表明,3种不同规格穴盘的番茄幼苗株高、茎粗、地上部干重、地下部干重随着苗龄的增加而上升,番茄幼苗根系活力、净光合速率随着苗龄的增加先上升后下降。苗龄20 d和40 d时番茄苗由于生长的影响其机械化移栽合格率均低于90%,未达行业标准要求。综合来看,苗龄30 d时50孔穴盘的番茄幼苗生长最佳,根系活力和净光合速率最高,基质散坨率为5.6%,机械化移栽合格率为93.89%,最适合机械化移栽。
中图分类号:
王克磊, 朱隆静, 苏世闻, 包玉花, 陈先知, 徐坚. 不同规格穴盘对番茄幼苗生长及其机械化移栽的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2021, 33(5): 840-845.
WANG Kelei, ZHU Longjing, SU Shiwen, BAO Yuhua, CHEN Xianzhi, XU Jian. Effects of different specifications of hole tray on tomato growth and mechanized transplanting[J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2021, 33(5): 840-845.
| 苗龄 Seedling age/d | 穴盘规格 Specification of hole tray | 株高 Height/cm | 茎粗 Stem diameter/mm | 地上部干重 Shoot dry weight/g | 地下部干重 Root dry weight/g | 叶片开展度 Blade development/cm | 壮苗指数 Seedling index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20 | A1 | 11.69 de | 0.189 de | 0.327 e | 0.0605 cd | 11.36 bc | 0.078 cde |
| A2 | 9.97 ef | 0.174 e | 0.309 ef | 0.0473 cde | 9.98 bc | 0.061 de | |
| A3 | 9.06 f | 0.146 e | 0.246 g | 0.0407 e | 9.19 c | 0.052 e | |
| 30 | A1 | 16.07 c | 0.290 ab | 0.483 c | 0.0792 c | 16.97 a | 0.102 bc |
| A2 | 13.01 d | 0.249 bc | 0.428 d | 0.0627 d | 12.23 b | 0.081 cd | |
| A3 | 10.41 ef | 0.231 cd | 0.276 fg | 0.0451 de | 9.61 c | 0.060 de | |
| 40 | A1 | 25.48 a | 0.341 a | 0.677 a | 0.1342 a | 17.13 a | 0.172 a |
| A2 | 18.07 b | 0.290 ab | 0.551 b | 0.0858 b | 15.70 a | 0.109 b | |
| A3 | 16.41 bc | 0.269 bc | 0.481 c | 0.0616 c | 16.18 a | 0.078 cde |
表1 不同处理对番茄幼苗形态指标的影响
Table 1 Effect of different treatments on morphological index of tomato seedlings
| 苗龄 Seedling age/d | 穴盘规格 Specification of hole tray | 株高 Height/cm | 茎粗 Stem diameter/mm | 地上部干重 Shoot dry weight/g | 地下部干重 Root dry weight/g | 叶片开展度 Blade development/cm | 壮苗指数 Seedling index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20 | A1 | 11.69 de | 0.189 de | 0.327 e | 0.0605 cd | 11.36 bc | 0.078 cde |
| A2 | 9.97 ef | 0.174 e | 0.309 ef | 0.0473 cde | 9.98 bc | 0.061 de | |
| A3 | 9.06 f | 0.146 e | 0.246 g | 0.0407 e | 9.19 c | 0.052 e | |
| 30 | A1 | 16.07 c | 0.290 ab | 0.483 c | 0.0792 c | 16.97 a | 0.102 bc |
| A2 | 13.01 d | 0.249 bc | 0.428 d | 0.0627 d | 12.23 b | 0.081 cd | |
| A3 | 10.41 ef | 0.231 cd | 0.276 fg | 0.0451 de | 9.61 c | 0.060 de | |
| 40 | A1 | 25.48 a | 0.341 a | 0.677 a | 0.1342 a | 17.13 a | 0.172 a |
| A2 | 18.07 b | 0.290 ab | 0.551 b | 0.0858 b | 15.70 a | 0.109 b | |
| A3 | 16.41 bc | 0.269 bc | 0.481 c | 0.0616 c | 16.18 a | 0.078 cde |
| 项目 Item | 株高 Height | 茎粗 Stem diameter | 地上部干重 Shoot dry weight | 地下部干重 Root dry weight | 叶片开展度 Blade development | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 均方 Mean square | F | P | 均方 Mean square | F | P | 均方 Mean square | F | P | 均方 Mean square | F | P | 均方 Mean square | F | P | |||||
| 苗龄 | 225.1 | 185.7 | 0.000 | 0.040 | 45.7 | 0.000 | 0.175 | 259.1 | 0.000 | 0.005 | 60.1 | 0.000 | 85.6 | 43.9 | 0.000 | ||||
| Seedling age | |||||||||||||||||||
| 穴盘规格 | 79.4 | 65.5 | 0.000 | 0.008 | 8.8 | 0.002 | 0.059 | 87.6 | 0.000 | 0.004 | 52.2 | 0.000 | 29.2 | 15.0 | 0.000 | ||||
| Specification of hole tray | |||||||||||||||||||
| 苗龄×穴盘规格 | 9.9 | 8.2 | 0.001 | 0.004 | 0.3 | 0.850 | 0.005 | 7.6 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 7.7 | 0.001 | 8.8 | 4.5 | 0.010 | ||||
| Seedling age× Specification of hole tray | |||||||||||||||||||
表2 不同处理对番茄幼苗形态指标影响方差分析
Table 2 Variance analysis of effect of different treatments on morphological index of tomato seedlings
| 项目 Item | 株高 Height | 茎粗 Stem diameter | 地上部干重 Shoot dry weight | 地下部干重 Root dry weight | 叶片开展度 Blade development | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 均方 Mean square | F | P | 均方 Mean square | F | P | 均方 Mean square | F | P | 均方 Mean square | F | P | 均方 Mean square | F | P | |||||
| 苗龄 | 225.1 | 185.7 | 0.000 | 0.040 | 45.7 | 0.000 | 0.175 | 259.1 | 0.000 | 0.005 | 60.1 | 0.000 | 85.6 | 43.9 | 0.000 | ||||
| Seedling age | |||||||||||||||||||
| 穴盘规格 | 79.4 | 65.5 | 0.000 | 0.008 | 8.8 | 0.002 | 0.059 | 87.6 | 0.000 | 0.004 | 52.2 | 0.000 | 29.2 | 15.0 | 0.000 | ||||
| Specification of hole tray | |||||||||||||||||||
| 苗龄×穴盘规格 | 9.9 | 8.2 | 0.001 | 0.004 | 0.3 | 0.850 | 0.005 | 7.6 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 7.7 | 0.001 | 8.8 | 4.5 | 0.010 | ||||
| Seedling age× Specification of hole tray | |||||||||||||||||||
| 苗龄 Seedling age/d | 穴盘规格 Specification of hole tray | 叶绿素含量 Chlorophyll content /(mg·g-1) | 根系活力 Root activity /(μg·g-1·h-1) | 净光合速率 Net photosynthetic rate /(μmol·m-2·s-1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20 | A1 | 16.48 e | 85.31 e | 12.01 de |
| A2 | 16.31 e | 94.24 de | 9.79 ef | |
| A3 | 15.42 e | 87.84 de | 8.12 f | |
| 30 | A1 | 32.43 a | 130.41 a | 21.79 a |
| A2 | 28.62 bc | 120.14 ab | 19.30 ab | |
| A3 | 21.86 d | 112.36 b | 16.81 bc | |
| 40 | A1 | 29.95 ab | 127.41 a | 18.51 ab |
| A2 | 26.66 c | 108.12 b | 16.27 bc | |
| A3 | 20.92 d | 99.17 cd | 14.69 cd |
表3 不同处理对番茄幼苗生理指标的影响
Table 3 Effect of different treatments on physiological index of tomato seedlings
| 苗龄 Seedling age/d | 穴盘规格 Specification of hole tray | 叶绿素含量 Chlorophyll content /(mg·g-1) | 根系活力 Root activity /(μg·g-1·h-1) | 净光合速率 Net photosynthetic rate /(μmol·m-2·s-1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20 | A1 | 16.48 e | 85.31 e | 12.01 de |
| A2 | 16.31 e | 94.24 de | 9.79 ef | |
| A3 | 15.42 e | 87.84 de | 8.12 f | |
| 30 | A1 | 32.43 a | 130.41 a | 21.79 a |
| A2 | 28.62 bc | 120.14 ab | 19.30 ab | |
| A3 | 21.86 d | 112.36 b | 16.81 bc | |
| 40 | A1 | 29.95 ab | 127.41 a | 18.51 ab |
| A2 | 26.66 c | 108.12 b | 16.27 bc | |
| A3 | 20.92 d | 99.17 cd | 14.69 cd |
| 项目 Item | 叶绿素含量Chlorophyll content | 根系活力Root activity | 光合速率Net photosynthetic rate | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 均方 Mean square | F | P | 均方 Mean square | F | P | 均方 Mean square | F | P | |||
| 苗龄Seedling age | 348.7 | 107.4 | 0.000 | 2408.4 | 51.7 | 0.000 | 206.0 | 26.7 | 0.000 | ||
| 穴盘规格 | 109.8 | 33.8 | 0.000 | 479.2 | 10.3 | 0.001 | 40.3 | 11.1 | 0.001 | ||
| Specification of hole tray | |||||||||||
| 苗龄×穴盘规格 | 19.9 | 6.1 | 0.003 | 227.5 | 4.8 | 0.008 | 0.3 | 0.096 | 0.982 | ||
| Seedling age× Specification of hole tray | |||||||||||
表4 不同处理对番茄幼苗生理指标的影响方差分析
Table 4 Variance analysis of effect of different treatments on physiological index of tomato seedlings
| 项目 Item | 叶绿素含量Chlorophyll content | 根系活力Root activity | 光合速率Net photosynthetic rate | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 均方 Mean square | F | P | 均方 Mean square | F | P | 均方 Mean square | F | P | |||
| 苗龄Seedling age | 348.7 | 107.4 | 0.000 | 2408.4 | 51.7 | 0.000 | 206.0 | 26.7 | 0.000 | ||
| 穴盘规格 | 109.8 | 33.8 | 0.000 | 479.2 | 10.3 | 0.001 | 40.3 | 11.1 | 0.001 | ||
| Specification of hole tray | |||||||||||
| 苗龄×穴盘规格 | 19.9 | 6.1 | 0.003 | 227.5 | 4.8 | 0.008 | 0.3 | 0.096 | 0.982 | ||
| Seedling age× Specification of hole tray | |||||||||||
| 苗龄 Seedling age/d | 穴盘规格 Specification of hole tray | 散坨质量≤10%的株数 Seedling number with mass of scattered lump less than 10% | 散坨质量10%~20%的株数 Seedling number with mass of scattered lump between 10% and 20% | 散坨质量≥20%的株数 Seedling number with mass of scattered lump more than 20% | 散坨率 Scattered lump rate/% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20 | A1 | 21.9 c | 12.5 b | 15.6 b | 31.2 c |
| A2 | 18.5 cd | 14.3 ab | 17.2 ab | 34.4 ab | |
| A3 | 16.0 d | 15.6 a | 18.4 a | 36.8 a | |
| 30 | A1 | 41.5 ab | 5.7 c | 2.8 e | 5.6 e |
| A2 | 39.8 b | 5.9 c | 4.3 cde | 8.6 cd | |
| A3 | 40.7 ab | 4.1 cd | 5.2 c | 10.4 c | |
| 40 | A1 | 44.8 a | 2.2 d | 3.0 de | 6.0 de |
| A2 | 41.2 ab | 4.3 cd | 4.5 cd | 9.0 cd | |
| A3 | 41.0 ab | 4.0 cd | 5.0 c | 10.0 c |
表5 不同处理对基质散坨率的影响
Table 5 Effect of different treatments on scattered lump rate
| 苗龄 Seedling age/d | 穴盘规格 Specification of hole tray | 散坨质量≤10%的株数 Seedling number with mass of scattered lump less than 10% | 散坨质量10%~20%的株数 Seedling number with mass of scattered lump between 10% and 20% | 散坨质量≥20%的株数 Seedling number with mass of scattered lump more than 20% | 散坨率 Scattered lump rate/% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20 | A1 | 21.9 c | 12.5 b | 15.6 b | 31.2 c |
| A2 | 18.5 cd | 14.3 ab | 17.2 ab | 34.4 ab | |
| A3 | 16.0 d | 15.6 a | 18.4 a | 36.8 a | |
| 30 | A1 | 41.5 ab | 5.7 c | 2.8 e | 5.6 e |
| A2 | 39.8 b | 5.9 c | 4.3 cde | 8.6 cd | |
| A3 | 40.7 ab | 4.1 cd | 5.2 c | 10.4 c | |
| 40 | A1 | 44.8 a | 2.2 d | 3.0 de | 6.0 de |
| A2 | 41.2 ab | 4.3 cd | 4.5 cd | 9.0 cd | |
| A3 | 41.0 ab | 4.0 cd | 5.0 c | 10.0 c |
| 项目 Item | 散坨质量≤10%的株数 Seedling number with mass of scattered lump less than 10% | 散坨质量10%~20%的 株数Seedling number with mass of scattered lump between 10% and 20% | 散坨质量≥20%的株数 Seedling number with mass of scattered lump more than 20% | 散坨率 Scattered lump rate/% | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 均方 Mean square | F | P | 均方 Mean square | F | P | 均方 Mean square | F | P | 均方 Mean square | F | P | |
| 苗龄Seedling age | 1531.7 | 344.6 | 0.000 | 305.4 | 222.8 | 0.000 | 472.9 | 91.8 | 0.000 | 0.189 | 91.8 | 0.000 |
| 穴盘规格 | 30.0 | 6.7 | 0.006 | 5.4 | 3.9 | 0.037 | 11.2 | 2.2 | 0.141 | 0.005 | 2.1 | 0.141 |
| Specification of hole tray | ||||||||||||
| 苗龄×穴盘规格 | 5.1 | 1.1 | 0.367 | 3.5 | 2.5 | 0.071 | 0.4 | 0.083 | 0.987 | 0.000 | 0.083 | 0.987 |
| Seedling age× Specification of hole tray | ||||||||||||
表6 不同处理对基质散坨率的影响方差分析
Table 6 Variance analysis of effect of different treatments on scattered lump rate
| 项目 Item | 散坨质量≤10%的株数 Seedling number with mass of scattered lump less than 10% | 散坨质量10%~20%的 株数Seedling number with mass of scattered lump between 10% and 20% | 散坨质量≥20%的株数 Seedling number with mass of scattered lump more than 20% | 散坨率 Scattered lump rate/% | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 均方 Mean square | F | P | 均方 Mean square | F | P | 均方 Mean square | F | P | 均方 Mean square | F | P | |
| 苗龄Seedling age | 1531.7 | 344.6 | 0.000 | 305.4 | 222.8 | 0.000 | 472.9 | 91.8 | 0.000 | 0.189 | 91.8 | 0.000 |
| 穴盘规格 | 30.0 | 6.7 | 0.006 | 5.4 | 3.9 | 0.037 | 11.2 | 2.2 | 0.141 | 0.005 | 2.1 | 0.141 |
| Specification of hole tray | ||||||||||||
| 苗龄×穴盘规格 | 5.1 | 1.1 | 0.367 | 3.5 | 2.5 | 0.071 | 0.4 | 0.083 | 0.987 | 0.000 | 0.083 | 0.987 |
| Seedling age× Specification of hole tray | ||||||||||||
| 苗龄 Seedling age/d | 穴盘规格 Specification of hole tray | 漏栽数/株 Number of missed hill | 漏栽率 Missed hill rate/% | 倒伏数/株 Number of laid seedlings | 倒伏率 Laid seedling rate/% | 露苗数/株 Number of exposed seedlings | 露苗率 Exposed seedlings rate/% | 伤苗数/株 Number of wounded seedlings | 伤苗率 Wounded seedlings rate/% | 埋苗数/株 Number of covered seedlings | 埋苗率 Covered seedlings rate/% | 合格率 Qualified rate/% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20 | A1 | 11 | 6.11 | 11 | 6.11 | 10 | 5.56 | 9 | 5.00 | 3 | 1.67 | 75.56 |
| A2 | 15 | 8.33 | 15 | 8.33 | 15 | 8.33 | 7 | 3.89 | 5 | 2.78 | 68.33 | |
| A3 | 19 | 10.56 | 13 | 7.22 | 17 | 9.44 | 8 | 4.44 | 9 | 5.00 | 63.33 | |
| 30 | A1 | 3 | 1.67 | 2 | 1.11 | 3 | 1.67 | 1 | 0.56 | 2 | 1.11 | 93.89 |
| A2 | 4 | 2.22 | 3 | 1.67 | 5 | 2.78 | 3 | 1.67 | 3 | 1.67 | 90.00 | |
| A3 | 8 | 4.44 | 10 | 5.56 | 5 | 2.78 | 6 | 3.33 | 3 | 1.67 | 82.22 | |
| 40 | A1 | 12 | 6.67 | 15 | 8.33 | 6 | 3.33 | 22 | 12.22 | 2 | 1.11 | 68.33 |
| A2 | 4 | 2.22 | 3 | 1.67 | 7 | 3.89 | 3 | 1.67 | 5 | 2.78 | 87.78 | |
| A3 | 7 | 3.89 | 5 | 2.78 | 9 | 5.00 | 12 | 6.67 | 2 | 1.11 | 80.56 |
表7 不同处理机械化移栽分析
Table 7 Effect of different treatments on mechanized transplanting
| 苗龄 Seedling age/d | 穴盘规格 Specification of hole tray | 漏栽数/株 Number of missed hill | 漏栽率 Missed hill rate/% | 倒伏数/株 Number of laid seedlings | 倒伏率 Laid seedling rate/% | 露苗数/株 Number of exposed seedlings | 露苗率 Exposed seedlings rate/% | 伤苗数/株 Number of wounded seedlings | 伤苗率 Wounded seedlings rate/% | 埋苗数/株 Number of covered seedlings | 埋苗率 Covered seedlings rate/% | 合格率 Qualified rate/% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20 | A1 | 11 | 6.11 | 11 | 6.11 | 10 | 5.56 | 9 | 5.00 | 3 | 1.67 | 75.56 |
| A2 | 15 | 8.33 | 15 | 8.33 | 15 | 8.33 | 7 | 3.89 | 5 | 2.78 | 68.33 | |
| A3 | 19 | 10.56 | 13 | 7.22 | 17 | 9.44 | 8 | 4.44 | 9 | 5.00 | 63.33 | |
| 30 | A1 | 3 | 1.67 | 2 | 1.11 | 3 | 1.67 | 1 | 0.56 | 2 | 1.11 | 93.89 |
| A2 | 4 | 2.22 | 3 | 1.67 | 5 | 2.78 | 3 | 1.67 | 3 | 1.67 | 90.00 | |
| A3 | 8 | 4.44 | 10 | 5.56 | 5 | 2.78 | 6 | 3.33 | 3 | 1.67 | 82.22 | |
| 40 | A1 | 12 | 6.67 | 15 | 8.33 | 6 | 3.33 | 22 | 12.22 | 2 | 1.11 | 68.33 |
| A2 | 4 | 2.22 | 3 | 1.67 | 7 | 3.89 | 3 | 1.67 | 5 | 2.78 | 87.78 | |
| A3 | 7 | 3.89 | 5 | 2.78 | 9 | 5.00 | 12 | 6.67 | 2 | 1.11 | 80.56 |
| [1] | 于亚波, 伍萍辉, 冯青春, 等. 我国蔬菜育苗装备研究应用现状及发展对策[J]. 农机化研究, 2017,39(6):1-6. |
| YU Y B, WU P H, FENG Q C, et al. Situation and strategy of automatic seedling machine in China[J]. Journal of Agricultural Mechanization Research, 2017,39(6):1-6.(in Chinese with English abstract) | |
| [2] | 陈清, 云建, 陈永生, 等. 国内外蔬菜移栽机械发展现状[J]. 蔬菜, 2016(8):76-79. |
| CHEN Q, YUN J, CHEN Y S, et al. Current situation of vegetable transplanter at home and abroad[J]. Vegetables, 2016(8):76-79.(in Chinese) | |
| [3] | 肖体琼, 崔思远, 陈永生, 等. 我国蔬菜生产机械化现状及发展对策[J]. 中国农机化学报, 2017,38(8):107-111. |
| XIAO T Q, CUI S Y, CHEN Y S, et al. Development status of vegetable production and its mechanization in China[J]. Journal of Chinese Agricultural Mechanization, 2017,38(8):107-111. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
| [4] | 罗锡文, 廖娟, 胡炼, 等. 提高农业机械化水平促进农业可持续发展[J]. 农业工程学报, 2016,32(1):1-11. |
| LUO X W, LIAO J, HU L, et al. Improving agricultural mechanization level to promote agricultural sustainable development[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2016,32(1):1-11.(in Chinese with English abstract) | |
| [5] | 林辉, 沈年桥. 苍南县设施番茄规模化生产效益与技术改进[J]. 中国蔬菜, 2018(5):95-97. |
| LIN H, SHEN N Q. Large scale production benefit and technical improvement of protected tomato in cangnan county[J]. China Vegetables, 2018(5):95-97.(in Chinese) | |
| [6] | 梁晶晶, 王向阳. 气调和1-MCP对青菜保鲜贮藏的影响[J]. 食品研究与开发, 2006,27(9):126-129. |
| LIANG J J, WANG X Y. Effect of modified atmosphere and 1-mcp on keeping pak choy fresh during storage[J]. Food Research and Development, 2006,27(9):126-129.(in Chinese with English abstract) | |
| [7] | 冯锡鸿, 赵金华. 育苗基质中腐熟牛粪用量对番茄、甜瓜幼苗生长的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2009,25(8):230-232. |
| FENG X H, ZHAO J H. Effects of the amount of cow manure compost on the seedling growth of tomato and melon[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2009,25(8):230-232.(in Chinese with English abstract) | |
| [8] | 唐玉新, 曲萍, 陆岱鹏, 等. 适合机械化移栽的番茄穴盘育苗基质配方筛选[J]. 江苏农业学报, 2017,33(6):1342-1348. |
| TANG Y X, QU P, LU D P, et al. Screening of tomato plug seedling substrates proportion suitable for mechanized transplanting[J]. Jiangsu Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2017,33(6):1342-1348.(in Chinese with English abstract) | |
| [9] | 中华人民共和国工业和信息化部. 中华人民共和国机械行业推荐性行业标准: 旱地栽植机械 JB/T 10291—2013[S]. 北京: 机械工业出版社, 2013. |
| [10] | 张海利, 孙娟, 庞子千. 不同穴盘规格对番茄幼苗生长发育的影响[J]. 长江蔬菜, 2012(8):42-43. |
| ZHANG H L, SUN J, PANG Z Q. Effects of different specifications of tray on growth and development of tomato seedlings[J]. Journal of Changjiang Vegetables, 2012(8):42-43.(in Chinese with English abstract) | |
| [11] | 周洪, 朱鹏飞, 徐佳. 不同规格穴盘育苗对茄苗及其栽培效益的影响[J]. 蔬菜, 2017(10):11-13. |
| ZHOU H, ZHU P F, XU J. Effect of different plug size on eggplant seedlings and their cultivation benefits[J]. Vegetables, 2017(10):11-13.(in Chinese with English abstract) | |
| [12] | 蒋丽媛, 赵伟, 唐磊, 等. 不同规格穴盘育苗对越冬茬番茄生长及产量的影响[J]. 黑龙江农业科学, 2019(9):78-80. |
| JIANG L Y, ZHAO W, TANG L, et al. Effects of different specifications of hole tray on growth and yield of overwintering tomato[J]. Heilongjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2019(9):78-80.(in Chinese with English abstract) |
| [1] | 项缨, 丛建民, 潘丹红, 陶永刚. 春大棚有机种植不同品种番茄的生育进程分析和综合评价研究[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2025, 37(6): 1252-1261. |
| [2] | 刘朋飞, 张舒涵, 洪凯, 邵越, 楼兵干. 浙江省番茄溃疡病病原菌分离与鉴定[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2025, 37(6): 1293-1300. |
| [3] | 狄延翠, 嵇泽琳, 王媛媛, 娄世浩, 张涛, 国志信, 申顺善, 朴凤植, 杜南山, 董晓星, 董韩. 番茄SlMYB52基因鉴定、亚细胞定位及表达分析[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2025, 37(4): 808-819. |
| [4] | 李腾飞, 杨桂玲, 阮美颖, 褚田芬, 秦华, 邓美华. 不同肥药管理对设施番茄生产系统土壤健康与番茄性状的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2025, 37(1): 145-158. |
| [5] | 谷瑞, 宋翠玲, 钱春花. 融合沙漏结构与改进坐标注意力的轻量级番茄叶片病害识别模型[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2025, 37(1): 217-230. |
| [6] | 郭娜纳, 李伟, 黄立娟, 张涛, 魏兵强. 辣椒抗番茄斑萎病毒研究进展[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2024, 36(10): 2416-2425. |
| [7] | 李必元, 岳智臣, 赵彦婷, 雷娟利, 胡齐赞, 陶鹏. 大白菜番茄红素β-环化酶基因BrLCYB的鉴定与功能分析[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2023, 35(9): 2090-2096. |
| [8] | 孙丽娟, 李世民, 郭焕仙, 金友帆, 李树萍, 董琼. 树番茄幼苗生长与氮磷钾化学计量特征对光照、肥料的响应[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2023, 35(8): 1793-1804. |
| [9] | 娄茜棋, 梁燕. 五类不同果色番茄种质资源品质分析[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2023, 35(3): 582-589. |
| [10] | 郑福顺, 王晓敏, 李国花, 李洪磊, 刘珮君, 胡新华, 付金军. 宁夏地区番茄种质资源核心种质构建策略[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2022, 34(9): 1877-1888. |
| [11] | 金宝霞, 王伟杰, 朱晓林, 王贤, 魏小红. 不同激素组合对番茄离体再生和相关基因表达的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2022, 34(9): 1889-1900. |
| [12] | 闫梅, 姚彦东, 牟开萍, 淡媛媛, 李伟泰, 廖伟彪. 脱落酸通过提高抗氧化酶活性与基因表达参与富氢水增强番茄幼苗抗旱性[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2022, 34(9): 1901-1910. |
| [13] | 李旺雄, 张洋, 唐中祺, 郁继华. 平衡施肥对设施基质栽培番茄生长、品质、矿质元素含量与产量的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2022, 34(8): 1648-1660. |
| [14] | 王慧茹, 李建设, 闫思华, 高艳明. 整枝方式对樱桃番茄冠层截获和荧光特性的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2022, 34(3): 525-533. |
| [15] | 裴芸, 徐秀红, 陆锦彪, 陈阿敏, 张万萍. 151份贵州地方樱桃番茄资源的遗传多样性分析[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2022, 34(2): 310-316. |
| 阅读次数 | ||||||
|
全文 |
|
|||||
|
摘要 |
|
|||||